Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence i KPIEG1JEVAULT®1 TO: Angie Conn, Carmel Department of Community Services FROM: Paul G. Reis, Attorney for J.C. Hart Company RE: 'Revised Site and.Landscape Plans for Highpointe on Meridian DATE: April 27, 2012 Attached are revised site and landscape plans for Highpointe on Meridian for your review and comment. Please be advised that these plans are NOT being formally filed at this time, as we are planning on meeting with the neighbors to discuss them further. Consequently, additional changes are possible. We will also be submitting new architectural design and building elevations for your review and comment in the near future. Best regards, 12800 N. MERIDIAN STREET• SUITE 300 • CARMEL, IN 46032 TELEPHONE (317) 566-1110 • FAX (317) 636-1507 • E-MAIL krieg @kdlegal.com Sub J�� � � l. ,,T. ' A `70,,, A=LOCATION: H:\2011\W110381\Engineering\design\exhibits\PUDExhibit.dwg C ref ;♦ i e i • DATE/TIME: December 22, 2011 - 10:05am ���111 t0,I -`n �� PLOTTED BY fleminge 1 ( ? 1 P� y • i � � Ul/ ;jl RECORD LEGAL DESCRIPliON (recited from Exhibit A as referred to in Chicago Title Insurance Comp`any_Title Commitment . �; 1000444578, dated June 23, 2011, Schedule A, Item 13) ' A part:of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26 and a part of the Northwest quarter of Section 25, both(in 'Township-4• North, Range 3 East of the Second Principal Meridian, Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, more particuldrly described as follows: • Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 25; thence North 88 degrees 21 minutes 51 . seconds East (assumed bearing) along the North line of said Northwest Quarter 37.71 feet; thence South 08. degrees 35 minutes 58 seconds East 436.36 feet to a point on the limited access right-of-way line; 1) South 69 degrees 00 minutes 19' seconds West 38.72 feet-2)South 89 degrees 51 minutes 28 seconds West 64.02 feet to a point on the West line of said'Northwest Quarter; 3) south 89 degrees 51 minutes 27 seconds west 41.93 feet; 4)-South 68 degrees . 03 minutes 45 seconds West 800.77 feet; 5).South 70 degrees 34 minutes 03 seconds West 1172.10 feet to a tangent curve concave Southeasterly having.0 central angle of 12 degrees 43 minutes 09 seconds and a radius of 2,436.83 feet; 6) Southwesterly along said curve an arc distance of 540.97 feet (said arc being subtended by a chord having. a bearing of South 64 degreesl2 minutes 28 seconds West and a length of 539.86 feet); thence South 88 degrees 37.minutes 32 seconds West 281.17 feet to the Southwest corner of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of soid Section 26; thence North 00 degrees 18 minutes 34 seconds West along the West line of said Northeast Quarter 536.60 feet to'a point on a non-tangent curve concave Southeasterly having a central angle of 11 degrees 56 minutes 09 seconds and a radius of 3036.83 feet thence Northeasterly along said curve parallel with said limited access right-of-way line an arc distance of 632.63 feet (said arc being subtended by a chord having a bearing of North 64 degrees 35 minutes 59 seconds and a length of 631.48 feet); thence North 70 degrees 34 minutes 03 seconds East parallel with said limited access right-of-way line 534.23 feet; thence South 14 degrees 49 minutes 01 seconds East 81.22 feet; thence North 88 degrees 35 minutes 23 seconds East parallel with the North line of said Northeast Quarter 522.50 feet; thence.North 01 degrees 24 minutes 37 seconds West 430.00 feet to the North line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 35 minutes 23 seconds East along said North line 1050.89 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT (Parcel 1A): A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 18 North, Range 3 East, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter which is the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25 Township 18 North, Range 3 East; thence North 88 degrees 33 minutes 08 seconds East (bearing assumed) 37.71 feet along the North line of said Northwest Quarter to the Northeast corner of a tract of land conveyed by Warranty Deed recorded In Deed Book 350 page 582 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East 436.69 feet (436.52 feet deed) along the Eastern line of said tract of land to the Northwestern Boundary of U,.S. Highway 31 thence the following five (5) courses along said Northwestern Boundary; (1) South 69 degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West 38.68 feet; (2) thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds West 105.95 feet; (3) thence South 68 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds West 800.80 feet (800.77 feet deed); (4) thence South 70 degrees 42 minutes 31 seconds West 1171.78 feet (1172.10 feet deed) to the point of beginning of this description (5) thence Southwesterly 539.18 feet (540.69 feet deed) along an arc to the left having a radius of 2436.83 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 64 degrees 22 minutes 12 seconds West and a length of 538.09 feet (539.58 feet deed) to the South line of the North Half of said Northeast quarter; thence South 88 degrees 47 minutes 26 seconds West 282.51 feet (281.46 feet deed) along said south line to the west line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds West 84.88 feet along said West line; thence North 66 degrees 18 minutes 52 seconds East 19.67 feet; thence Northeasterly 283.83 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 555.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 80 degrees 57 minutes 54 seconds East and a length of 280.74 feet; thence Northeasterly 280.39 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 645.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 83 degrees 09 minutes 44 seconds east and a length of 278.18 feet; thence North 70 degrees 42 minutes 31 seconds East 208.05 feet to the point of beginning. THT 10605 N.College Avrnue LEGAL DESCRIPTION W EI 1E Indianapolis,Indiana 46280 weihe.net ENGINEERS 3171 846 66H Page 1 of 4 Date: December 16, 2011 ENGINEERS I 3171846,-6611 Page 4 of 4 Date: December 16, 2011 LOCATION:,H:\2011\W110381\Engineering\design\exhibits\PUDExhibit.dwg DATE/TIME: December 22. 2011 - 10:05am PLOTTED BY: Fleminge ALSO EXCEPT 1B): A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 18 North, Range 3 East, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as -follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter which is the.Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 18 North, Range 3 East; thence North 88 degrees 33 minutes 08 seconds East (bearing assumed) '37.71 feet along the North-line of said Northwest Quarter to the Northeast corner of a tract of land conveyed by a Warranty Deed recoded in Deed Book 350 page 582, in the'Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East ,138.46 feet along the Eastern line of said tract of land; thence South 55 degrees 54.minutes 38 seconds West 118.05 feet; thence North 77 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds West 11.86 feet to the point of beginning of this description; thence South 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds West 47.35 feet; thence Southwesterly 430.76 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 445.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 40 degrees 30 minutes 12 seconds West and a length of .414.14 feet to the Northwestern boundary of U.S. Highway 31 thence South 68 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds West 488.22 feet along said Northwestern boundary; thence South 70 degrees 42 minutes '31,seconds West 1171.78 feet.0172.10 feet deed) along said . Northwestern boundary; thence leaving said'Northwestern boundary and continuing South 70 degrees 42. minutes 31 . seconds. West '208:05 feet; thence Southwesterly 280.39 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 645.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a'bearing of South 83 degrees 09 minutes 44 seconds.West and a length of • 278.18 feet; thence Southwesterly 283.83 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 555.00 feet and subtended by a.long chord having a bearing of South 80 degrees 57 minutes 54 seconds West and a length of 280.74 feet; thence South 66 degrees 18 minutes 52 seconds West 19.67 feet to the West line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds West 54.52 feet along said West line; thence Northeasterly 307.31 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 605.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 81 degrees 03 minutes 50 seconds east and a length of 304.02 feet; thence Northeasterly 258.65 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 595.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 83 degrees 09 minutes 44 seconds East and a length of 256.62 feet; thence North 70 degrees 42 minutes 31 seconds East 1357.27 feet thence Northeasterly 42.97 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 995.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 69 degrees 28 minutes 17 seconds East and a length of 42.97 feet; thence North 68 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds East 465.66 feet; thence Northeasterly 382.36 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 395.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 40 degrees 30 minutes 12 seconds East and a length of 367.60 feet; thence North 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 47.37 feet; thence South 77 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds East 50.00 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT (Parcel 1C): A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 18 North, Range 3 East, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter which is the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 18 North, Range 3 East; thence North 88 degrees 33 minutes 08 seconds East (bearing assumed) 37.71 feet along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast corner of a tract of land conveyed by a Warranty Deed recorded in Deed book 350 page 582 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East 138.46 feet along the Eastern line of said tract of land; thence South 55 degrees 54 minutes 38 seconds West 118.05 feet; thence North 77 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds West 61.86 feet to the point of beginning of this description; thence south 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds West 47.37 feet; thence Southwesterly 382.36 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 395.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 40 degrees 30 minutes 12 seconds West and a length of 367.60 feet; thence South 68 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds West 465.66 feet; thence Southwesterly 42.97 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 995.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of south 69 degrees 28 minutes 17 seconds West and a length of 42.97 feet; thence South 70 degrees 42 minutes 31 seconds West 1357.27 feet; thence southwesterly 258.65 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 595.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 83 degrees 09 minutes 44 seconds West and a length of 256.62 feet; thence Southwesterly 307.31 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 605.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 81 degrees 03 minutes 50 seconds West and a length of 304.02 feet to the West line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds West 43.31 feet along said west line; thence Northeasterly 310.49 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 645.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 81 degrees 49 minutes 31 seconds East and a length of 307.50 feet; thence Northeasterly 241.26 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 555.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 83 degrees 09 minutes 44 seconds East and a length of 239.37; thence North 70 degrees 42 minutes 31 seconds East 1357.27 feet; thence Northeasterly 41.24 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 955.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 69 degrees 28 minutes 18 seconds East and a length of 41.24 feet; thence North 68 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds East 465.66 feet; thence Northeasterly 315.66 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 355.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 42 degrees 45 minutes 39 seconds East and a length of 305.37 feet; thence North 12 degrees 47 minutes 35 seconds East 75.33 feet; thence South 77 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds East 41.07 feet to the point of beginning. LEGAL DESCRIPTION W EIEIE 0505 N College Avenue Indianapolis,Indiana 46280 weihe.ne ENGINEERS 3171846 3I7846-66H Page 2 of 4 Date: December 16, 2011 • LOCATION: H:\2011\W110381\Engineering\design\exhibits\PUDExhibit.dwg. • • ' DATE/TIME:`December-22, 2011 - 10:05am • PLOTTED'BY: fleminge ALSO EXCEPT (Parcel 10): • • A part of the Northwest Quarter of Section-25 and a port of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, all in Township. 18 • 'North, Range 3 East, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: • • • Commencing at :the.Northwest comer of said Northwest.Quarter thence North 88.degrees 33 minutes 08 seconds East. (bearing assumed) 37.71 feet along the'North line of soid Northwest Quarter to the Northeast'corner of a tract of land conveyed by a Warranty Deed recorded in Deed Book .350 page 582 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana; thence 'south 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East 138.46 feet along the Eastern line of'said tract of land to the point, of beginning of this description; thence continuing South 8 degrees 24 minutes.41 seconds East 298.23 feet ' along said East line to the Northwestern boundary of U.S. Highway 31; thence South 69 degrees 11 minutes 51,seconds • • West 38.68 feet along said Northwestern boundary, thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds'West 105.95:feet' • along said"Northwestern boundary, thence South 68 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds West 312.57 feet along said , ' • b Northwestern'_oundary thence Northeasterly 430.76 feet along an arc to the left having'a radius'of 445.00 feet and • subtended by.a long chord having a bearing of North 40 degrees 30 minutes 12 seconds East and, a length of 414:14 feet;.`thence North 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East.47.35 feet thence South 77 degrees 12 minutes 25.seconds ' East 11:86-feet;` thence North 55 degrees 54 minutes 38 seconds East 118.05 feet to the'point of beginning. •ALSO EXCEPT (Parcel' 1E): • A•port. of the Northeast Quarter of Section' 26, Township 18 North, Range'3 East, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: • Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees,45 'minutes 26 seconds West (bearing assumed) 57.70 feet along the North line of said Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning of this description; thence South 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds West 191.99 feet; thence North 77 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds West 41.07 feet; thence North 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 181.72 feet to the North lien of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds East 42.33 feet along said North line to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT (Parcel 1F): A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 18 North, Range 3 East, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Northeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West (bearing assumed) 6.17 feet along the North line of said Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning of this description; thence South 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds West 204.48 feet; thence North 77 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds West 50.00 feet; thence North 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 191.99 feet to the North line of said Northeast • quarter; thence North 88 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds East 51.53 feet along said North line to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT (Parcel 1C): A part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25 and a part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, all in Township 18 North, Range 3 East; Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 33 minutes 08 seconds East (bearing assumed) 37.71 feet along the North line of said Northwest Quarter to the Northeast corner of a tract of land conveyed by a Warranty Deed recorded in Deed Book 350 page 582 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 8 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East 138.46 feet along the Eastern line of said tract of land; thence South 55 degrees 54 minutes 38 seconds West 118.05 feet; thence North 77 degrees 12 minutes 25 seconds West 11.86 feet; thence North 12 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 204.48 feet to the North line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds East 6.17 feet along said North line to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT: Part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 18 North, Range 3 East, in Hamilton County, Indiana, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast quarter; thence South 89 degrees 01 minutes 25 seconds West along North line of said Northeast Quarter Section a distance of 100.03 feet; thence South 13 degrees 02 minutes 19 seconds West a distance of 46.38 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 13 degrees 02 minutes 19 seconds West a distance of 86.04 feet; thence North 51 degrees 21 minutes 54 seconds West a distance of 130.93 feet; thence North 89 degrees 01 minutes 25 seconds East parallel to the North line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, a distance of 121.70 feet to the point of beginning. • 10505 N.College Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION WEIHE ndianapolis.I.diana 46280 weihe ne. • ENGINEERS 317 1 846-6611 Page 3 of 4 Date: December 16, 2011 LOCATION: H:\2011\W0381\Engineering\design\exhibits\PUDExhibiLdwg 11 . ' DATE/TINE: December 22, 2011 —10:05cm " PLOTTED BY: fleminge. • ' ALSO EXCEPT: • . Part of the.Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 18 North, Range 03 East.of the.Second Principal Meridian, -Clay Township.Hamilton County, Indiana,•being more particularly described as follows:- • . . Commencing.at the :Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township.18 North, Range 3.East.':thence on the North line of said Quarter Section, South 88 degrees.35 minutes 23 seconds West (assumed bearing) a distance . of 1005.89 feet to the point of beginning of the herein described real estate; thence south 01 degrees 24 minutes 37 seconds East 250.00 feet; thence parallel with .the.North line of said Quarter Section, North 88 degrees 35 minutes. 23 seconds East 85.00 feet; thence South 01 degrees. 24 minutes.37 seconds East 180.00 feet; thence parallel with the North line of said Quarter Section, South 88-degrees 35 minutes.23 seconds West 13a 00 feet-to the southeast comer of Bentley-Oaks, a.subdivision In Hamilton County, Indiana, 'the;plat:of.which is recorded..as Instrument Number 9115494; Plot Cabinet,1,1•Slide 170 in the Office•of the Recorder,of.said County, "thence on -the East line of said subdivision, North - 01 degree 24 minutes 37 seconds •West 430.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said:subdivision, said.corner being on the North line of said Northeast quarter'Section; thence on the north line.thereof, North 88 degrees 35 minutes 23 seconds . East 45.op feet to the point of beginning. :. • : ALSO EXCEPT:. . . Part of the Northeast.Quarter of Section 26,.Township 18 North, Range 03 East of the-Second Principal Meridian, Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 18 North, Range 03 East; thence on the North line thereof, North 88 degrees 35 minutes 23 seconds East (basis of bearing from Plot of Bentley Oaks), a distance of 1611.43 feet to the Northeast corner of Bentley Oaks, a subdivision in Hamilton County, Indiana, the Plat of which is recorded as Instrument Number 9115494 in the office of the Recorder of said County, said corner being the point of beginning of the herein described•real estate; thence continuing on the North line of said Quarter Section North 88 degrees 35 minutes 23 seconds East 947.98 feet to a point on the Westerly right—of—way line of a proposed roundabout at the intersection of Oakridge Road, said point being on a non—tangent curve concave Easterly, having a central angle of 27 degrees 47 minutes 51 seconds and a radius of 96.00 feet; thence Southerly and Southeasterly on and along said non—tangent curve an arc distance of 46.90 feet (said arc being subtended by a long chord bearing South 15 degrees 38 minutes 20 seconds East 46.42 feet) to a non—tangent line; thence on a line, which is parallel with and 45.00 feet by perpendicular measurement South of the North line of said Quarter Section, South 88 degrees 35 minutes 23 seconds West 959.39 feet to a point on the East line of aforesaid Bentley Oaks; thence on said East line, North 01 degrees 24 minutes 37 seconds West 45.00 feet to the point of beginning. • TuT 10505 N.College Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION WEI E Indianapolis,Indiana 46280 weihenet ENGINEERS 317846-6611 Page 4 of 4 Date: December 16, 2011 HIGHPOINTE ON MERIDIAN A Planned Unit Development ZONING SUMMARY This is a summary of the current zoning and proposed rezoning of the 27± acre parcel of the undeveloped land owned by Frank Regan, located south and west of the intersection of 136`h Street and Illinois Parkway, and to be developed as Highpointe on Meridian -A Planned Unit Development. 4 .4`1", ! IN . -, ------) i ,'_�..S 1 d:1 i - ' d+r REGAN PARCEL ° - st.\inrFnt r---- .. , .. C8fIt1F Current Zoning and Cannel Clay Comprehensive Plan The parcel is currently zoned as B-5, Business District, and is located in the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. This zoning district is intended to provide a location for office buildings and general offices. However, because this district, and in fact this parcel, is frequently found in close proximity to residential areas, the intent of this district under the zoning ordinance is to allow for a compatible mixture of the commercial and residential uses with reasonable regulations. The zoning ordinance specifically allows for both commercial and residential uses in the B-5 district. Residential uses include single family, two family and multi-family dwelling units and retirement communities, together with commercial uses ranging from hospitals, clinics and medical facilities to office buildings and financial institutions. The U.S. 31 Overlay Zone excludes all residential uses, but it is important to recognize that although the parcel is within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone, it is nearly 200 feet from the drive lanes of U.S. 31 and is separated from the highway by the state highway right-of- way and Illinois Parkway. As will be discussed below, the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses development adjacent to Illinois Parkway. The Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan) designates the parcel under the "Employment Node" land classification. The purpose of this classification is to allow for office buildings providing regional employment with the opportunity to integrate mixed uses, including multi-family residential use, into a development. The C3 Plan is also cognizant of the residential areas near Illinois Parkway and provides that building heights should be reduced adjacent to Illinois Parkway. Illinois Parkway is intended under the C3 Plan to establish the transition from the intense office use in the U.S. 31 Corridor to adjacent low density residential areas. lin KRIEG I JEVAULTLP Highpointe On Meridian Zoning Summary Page 2 Proposed Development and Rezoning of Parcel Due to the unique location of the parcel within the U.S. 31 Corridor, but west of Illinois Parkway, and adjacent to single family residential development, the proposed development has been designed to: integrate a mix of commercial and residential uses contemplated by the B-5 zoning district; recognize the commercial nature of the Corridor; and advance the objectives and recommendations of the C3 Plan. Mr. Regan and the prospective development entities believe that the adoption of a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Ordinance is the most appropriate way to achieve this design and define the development of the parcel. The PUD Ordinance will appropriately address the uses to be permitted as well as the standards for the development of these uses on the parcel. It is the intention of the parties to establish the PUD Ordinance first and then to return to the Plan Commission with specific development, design and construction plans for approval under the Development Plan/Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage application process. As stated above, the proposed development of the parcel involves the integration of commercial and residential uses. The PUD Ordinance will provide for the development of residential uses limited to multi-family dwelling units and a senior living community. The PUD Ordinance will allow for a range of lifestyle options to be developed from independent living to skilled nursing care within the senior living community and both owner occupied and leased multi- family units. General and professional office uses will be permitted to promote the intent of the U.S. 31 Corridor. Limited retail and service commercial uses, supportive of the commercial and residential uses,will also be permitted. Although specific plans will not be submitted for development of the parcel at this time, conceptual site plans and conceptual building renderings are being prepared to assist in the review of the PUD Ordinance and to illustrate how the development standards contained in the PUD Ordinance could be applied. The development standards contained in the PUD Ordinance will carefully consider and address the standards of the U.S. 31 Corridor but will also be drafted to recognize the adjacent residential areas and the guidelines set forth in the C3 Plan. Accordingly, the development standards to be established for building heights and building setback lines will be complimentary with the U.S. 31 Corridor and the Illinois Parkway streetscape but will be consistent with the direction and intent of the C3 Plan for development west of Illinois Parkway. 3671373_2.DOCX fin KRIEG JEVAULT,, I Sal' s .'. '. .,'�'l 'ltf %* Se, p R r� -4'�" r ,' 'm } r• td CD (i)+Z F° ` g.`r' wal '' , .4,... sue. ''F , . I__ a`•• rrl ‘. A., '‘'' •"'''-''''-: ' '' 44"1,,, ,A\tiny ,* �'�,�. .�'..'s, ) t+ `\' K !' II�ir # A .a. —o , f «- , � $ . ." g I . ,-Grp- p e . \\ ..• z\,/,/ . - ;.--:. - 1 '‘,. . \\,... . ,7" • 44 ---i \\ - ' g T Y. S m 9 '.1'''-'1"". ' ''. 7-O• (9 g \\^. 1 1!..'" . i•-••,,,. •* •••,, 5 s o' . \ j !?j CD 'eh.� a +� i"' Y 'tj I. matt o ? J 4" 'r t .` � .,... -.. ..-- . i - ,„------- , ,...., .,,..,..., i. , . , HI , ‘ '-',.\ i'' ! !.At IIMI J Ut 71 _} o ; -� } 3 `m r... \ Z ,. I la F \.'', FI\ ' \ C '‘ ' 1 ...- I .1 i • CD IA ii Trill , yw d of b .,.' ,.' ,,,,. _ ,1 '' '''„...1':,.' -....:''' „,. .., ,,. ..i . 0..._ _41,,, , „. 7' . •,,s.., „:„.4:_t ^ T -� B�o . ��O y' si) -.:,,....., ... . . i ,,, , , ,, ,,,,,. , ,. m I i,� !,. S s 411 1 ......---,---. — _,:-. t Iim J oatoM 2 alt ---", ''- 4...... #n O r d \ . T.. . T.,-, %,„ TT., ..... ii -ii : \ -i: \ -,,,,,..,„4,, , ,..., ,..'' --: a ::;,•',/,,I.,,t.',4"."11„:',..7,111.,:r.'.. , ,.,,,,e,;,1,,,,i.. . i * '''' '.,fr m a v a„. , ., .401,14. i, . , ,. , .4„., .,..,.,, ' . . ' „r_.' ,,.'„'''' ''''''''''''''''-T.'s—'''' -.W.' '''''}''''::1:-"I''';''''''''''''''''''''''.1-""444.. :” b.0 \ \\ n r n .,. c 4w`+c • 1T �L+ N „qp. ° .- :'—', , . it O } a 1 t (D--.. d1 k 4114)1C14t),"■ ) C "` �,6� }� ; ='mow 4 00 — ;y -� air �� „„ , .1, ' ' 1 eyJ I O H k CA 1-7 Ififfitfiffiffitt -,0 r d = ��. ,, . rri z r o IP 4 77 :=- 4 X .. : . .. di..•%ijiici 0 CD . ,,., . .. ,. ''''. - - ,,,,,,,i,,,:,,,.,.. ,, ,.,., 4 z \\\\,,,,, \\t\\: 4 • ...;.., . . .. ,..,„,) 1 1,.' , rii ..., : ... ,....„:.,.. 1 . I. i . , ,..., ,. ,... . ,.. '..., t:Oi \\\\\ • . r F . 4 voitc,,,,,iitio;.:,;\:44,....:7:,r,.., twash.ri_:' ., !'1:X -0" ,,.,., ,t,,..„,..•.,,,,,,,,,,,,\I .,..,,.; z \ Pd C 1Lv � { 4i ti 1 4. t • • r \\ \---, • , k, \ H Z \ 1 . t4 01 .ir as, , r Iii d ,Il i ,rii • LI n lillik z I .41 - . .;..,,,,..„ ., \ , to- \ \ lid . .. 4---- , \ \ \ , , , .,;:., ,.., -1 b \ r 1 \ ,_ ! 0P1 iel)) , \ \ 4 ..■.. ,.. ., . /., ..-, . �7 ° .. L , Y t . ,„,_,:,,,::::.,,,,,,:: :,,,:.....,,i,,,,...,,,....,,,:,....:„.".,...,,..,,:irri::::.:,......,..,. ,,, ,, , :,__......: •„: „.. ,, ,,,,/ , ll■N O - - - - - - - : 1 11J J I\ \ ,� U I�J�, ��,'\ \�\ s a 1 cb H ll� 13 o C .-� ''''' L—I ° ?1 DI$1 I 1 •1 4, I _Th_ _ rii ,__, v�� 5a _..--4.0 N.r. o G 4 X CD I ill 011 N m g 1,9 L J ,, via S S �. \\ �, y I LflIV - - _ 1-- :...-_- I \ D su > > 1 o 4 I \ \ $ CD �jr \\ t\ U Li ` o I F \ q \ � �° ,-.- � M \ O I '`',A \\ 12 . 'te 1 . .Q i\ \ a g CD I�La X 1 w* yam ,\, \ \\ �� aaA Ix N. 1 . 1... 04 \ \-- f ii,i?,.,... • ,' \‘'`;\\ v. i' i-d , \ • -• i -....... .,- * ‘,, , :\ \ (,— itz --( , 4. T,,, s, 1 %;N cA Z , \ "iv. \,41,10, i ,i,'::;;, -.10 ! cr),3,I I i'll \ \ V--\ -...e:4116 I ci L1J \ . \\ R _ H til t 4, -,--- i-.--1 „A\\ \ \\ \ (2..) § I t= t-4 , O \ `\E� ++ I Ia C \ 1I \ % ,A 1i 1 1 ITI i \\ \ \ . it i j //II ll�yJZ� I / i * ‘ -■1 \ \\- \ yy�,C Z 7. \ jii /Ilk I I i :m \\,,,_ ill:\. , \ , ,c, - :" , , ,, „ 1 \e. \ ,I 1 1 C!� i \') . 01 i + , * II ag � Iti:\\\/7tik. I11 \ b1 t I . I II \\ %4 C 11.*— --„,,,,I, ill. I I \,,,c c.... .-- 010 ri-_–__,„ ..."---0,--;;---- I 1 \ ., o Or I-4 1 I ---‹ I \\ \. . / i` i II,' ,' I !i X H 1 1 ------.: 0 1 1 Q.Q.930AA sly : Rui.Q ceizs ; ; .,ice /"e � -- s& � 2 :.(: •if # 5 c -s — -ar4 Ligt d014‘ OZ- „ Cuvtg =_-- 0-/i.2 2 / ..) .73o s-CT /14 ( u r Co I I • - i US Lvo 1rvt-Q-- __ aY' S— C UwwKc%— .. f �� �{, � 1 4. �.,`` w� fir" .y,� ' ✓,I >* fi ›,• !"' r 0 ,G 9, �" v"' da� ' t+i` ' v c71 ar 7 n .1\01 may, k I k a� ,, ,-I " a ,, f y ti "1 O \ ,\, I ,,.� n� 7 �, '0'.� � � _ n tt o rte; i�. �} ,ply_,.,‘' 'i N\ \ 4n 4 0,, ,,,. \,• , A ' _ 4 �a°, .' "$ zip G x (tl p' E < Qom ' .4 i s D == i4 i-o.) .N. ii, ..., . ,t I., - ,..., . ----.... -.,. ,1/4„...,-,.....,.. :,,,, „,1,t,,,,t4t., . ,v,,- , .�� y�x ^sa I ..p 4 5 1 �`h� -, ' kti �, �''"� �� ?C� � ` � fir'�� 1 eta N .�.�: v x 4 +kv _ 3 m i), I 1.ft e '� kry � j 1 rn .tf K...w....,., '''-'.'f.- .z.5d i� ia' "€ w R f{q t, F,. CO L m a PP t 59 .t ?I { _ t�l ` k i 1 *... ..,a k, , m' y =ti'' i� �� N 3 m x d n_ { i, �� i t5 t r a "; r: N ' ?; "a, ��' ;.e.. t �A bb c , dry; '. het y`A wt` .N�de0 1',.‘. E a �S aR V11°91113 t� r```� yy, F - U b o 1 1 'gal ".-+fie " '.,t; '4 ? 'a , , 4,..„4- „i�L..""`�! ,�v'''` `y1 ', �.1 1 .:1,,,,,..1,.446r,'..,.. �4' _ h ". _,,,A,V.4.... ‘'') `.;;;` 1 a,".','' ,T,,.' '- ,,s■ • ..,.,.;-', tt \.,i.:-, ...,;;,..., ''..,•,,.''',.??,,`,,.. '''',...:::::„ .4.7.' ''.-''.'.\ ‘.i 1 rtigi 11''' '''','''1:*:":"7;X. Iltki.l!'...,”' ./ ,.'% , N..t ' .:: i — . n'� N, rt. -- ------- , . . II \ t ,, V ....._ N , . , . r ''/,',.,, f : - 0 , ..„. \ _ .. , X 1 , *4' ,, „„, t, . ,„ .., . 4,.., v„,;... ,,,,..te, i„,,,...,,i, Hull '' 0 6 , .. ,, ...„,.... ':..,... \ ...„,..,:i •, ., ip040414 it-- ' *Poiliplii* ' 114tii 1:tl ' , 1 0 kl '44' 1 . i- , , l■ri \ . ' 4 4114„iii" 1 , \ , i,,4 i I * 0. \ „', s.„. \ 4 .. . i ,.,....,. ,t.. P4 ---i , i t Cf) I , 4111* t , IIIII..'' I .., - tr$ \v''''' \ , „4„,„, )--.—' ''' I H i , ■ 1 0 1 PI ? ! ' - k \ , „ , . ...., \ ;-T- ! ' 1„' \ 1 ii \\ U • 4 \ 0 (....) \ " . -.." ‘, \ I 414 \ 9; i \ i X H ;4 X ■ 1 . „ A Pi , ,■• 4 ). ; k.,\ . , \ I t A y, , ..T. 1 \''' , 1 .t I ' • , , . ' ' 4r., '\ i‘411 til iii' II) '.. ''' ' : ' ' ' 1 . '." \ 1--i ir;§,A. it 41111 i 11,,I. . ' „ . 8 4 .Pili. :-., ' . ,. 40 ....- \ . .‘ c: , 1 H li.:4 ` :-', '..,,,,' ''''' 9 .t .t,,,,,' ,,, ,-,: • . -. ,. „ ,, '\i'l ' , \ . t'-' c4 :.;;:,`,-; . , .. - - 1 ,...„. ..,,, - .-.- . .. ' ' ' \ \ ' , 1 r . , _. 4 , .,„. .., , .. , ., . \ . , 4, ,., 4,4 \ \' ',,,,. „4, . 1 \ ; ''\''',, P-11— - s ' .y - \ . - . ,. • • . . \ -„, , . . : ...., .. ..,,. , . , ,.. , !,,N, « 11 , ., ,. , , - , . , ., ...„, , \ , ,.. , / I sk , II , , 1, 1 , 1 ,, . z ,d 11 111111111101t7 0, a, ,,.... . .„; ...L 1.—,:41 . • 0 i , r i 4 ,..i.. . .i, , \, \ p-, . 1 z ';, .. ... ,.. .,, ,.. - \ . ti i p4 it\ -" ' ' '' ' . - ■ ' .' ' , i t "r; ; 0 ° ' ' ''0" . 'I ' C.) ,........" Ni, . - .. ...., . IMO te--■ ..„ r , . . _ t • a H .T4 y I -I $ , . .i „ . .., HI Z . , 't. . . ... . i - -. , Z7 11 c.T i C.5 W (ID ' A . ; Nififftfi'll ' '. H \ - 0 ' - 44 4 494 . , .. 0 C..) ... ._.... ,71- C■1 \-S e , 4T4 I-J-1 V') 0 ‘—i CI X Z Q.5 .. 0 X I—i )71 H p_i P-■ C.5 Z c-4 4 )- H 11 ( •T- H Z 0 )-■ 45 V) C\1 P-■ )-4 4 E—( \ \ llitip- Or441 4. P-I , . .. .... (..) Z ..,, \ C C...) - \ I A , . t *,1/4.1 . .„. ...... , , „„,., .., , .. . ,..;. ,,,,.. ...,,..,... .,. ,.... ,_ .,,, *.toi... ...(..„. .s...„ , P4-■ - 1. ', ti.,,,,,4'.,., ., \\ \ '... ■ , - .%.,-., ■., i 1 h_...( - \ .,...„.. ."''''' ' • '.,. \ ' ir 7:: it...„\_ , , ■ Vi ' \ ‘ ' . , ',.. , \ 44: , -- Z \I : ' A' ■ 4. . 4 ..,, . : \ .., ., , \ Pi ,.: ,, ‘.....",-'• ,,,,. ii.,:: \ i I i 1 - 1 . t I ' 1 , 1 .,,, * , ..t, ' I ' -\ '. \N. \ , , ,, .,, 4,:. ' ' ' `'•t 1 t t . \\ , \. , ,.. \ °- I 4 , \‘' 1•426., :-- - \' '''' '... It 1 I ' - , . . .:. . . , .,. ...,-,, .. z . , _. - — .. .‘,. , . . ,.. C,, . .. \ , - \ , 'II c.4 ,,. ., i-1,,,... ....„ ) z . .. . , I-1 , . . . , ..„ ,.. ,. 1pik. ,. .... . _ ... , ,...4 • .. t. ,c j, Cu - r--1 P.mi ) 1 '' . ' '''''''' '''' '' -'''' ' 4:"" ''4."'' ' '. .`1,::: '''...4 , , '1,1''--...._I:- I 1.-- (.., /.. i . L.) .., I . 1 .) 111 Mi.& ,1 4' • , M ''.1g ' g • t '.141A'4 "si Y ., • :r•1 r..4 t.44 is 4,4 15g4's .14"/1'4,4 , • ''' .1 . ., , 4''.501•1'; dli... 15•504'.4'4,.4? „„s, 4, * ,4 * 44, .4 11145, 5-4 - .`3.•" e '• ‘..'-r..'.*.",r1' 'PL%-#.1"), ,,...t.* ' J,.... - 1 ' ,. „„ , 4"; ,,•, ,.,;. .,, . • ,, ‘'''f,$, . . '414,4 45 l'e ICI .I .11;• 1 e .., it.f!, f '--,4 •',,.. "..; ,,,- .4. , ,4 " "• `4,i " '' 'I A,'• ':'„ttif •',"fo `..1.+' , 41,4 -,..,e i i-, ; ........„ .,.,,,.. ..-..e. .,.:.: .T'-', -- ' s r .iort. ., :' . 4"-'.11t,,‘_,I.. "I.eit."4.'41 f ,-."' ..-?',11:14,fi'-`-~,`,44,"74/, . -;;;;.4., it I A, ,,''' .c. II,'''',.- v.* 4.5 ... .5'• ^ 4 -..‘ , ;i 1 '5.Y•PiS'''.1:4;1ii.''':i''''41 • ' '''..'; \ 01' e' ow; 4.'Z14 4.5 ,.:_t* .•'JO , f ,I li§NO17.- •' I, 11.11, 11,,,1,,,,-,..,,,:y;xt„,k-;4:7,...-,,41, ' ' °hi -' ':' "i 4'7,'"' ft`4'' 'i 'r "Irr' ''' :-.1,•t. .t.T1■.'..•,:'•74'''',;■!'.. ts , , • ';' .. '. .„ , 4 ,..,y * . 4o• 4,, i ..-o, - •-, ' ... 'Or A ft ,,,,,,:',-,:,•-:.t,:::,,,-4',.:,;?),:i4.;1,i,,:,,.,,,:r7Itiag ,.,, .-: ,, , ,. 4,4 . . , „, .., , . . 1 f '',•"`;'5,44,:.•,,,*41.1,-'4,4.4 ; g 4 .' • ''. r c'i • , . .. •:;f4,1;;A:,,,..„-:,..,„4.f l,,?•t'' ,,, .1.0 "IC:. .f. ''k:4•' ' 1;:f,,,,,;.....', ' -''':',"'. , ‘''.4 \ 'r ,, :o ',..);Li-,tr-;-"* T. 1 1 -,."•-'.-',1' -e- ..„. '•44 ' '.... 44„. '4 4 \ ' ;,:'•';' •' ' tl.f 4 `•1111'f ,f,',..,. .;11,3", 'i':: ' -..,, ° ' 7rir ; ,..'„_..:-. it ,. . ,. ,.,---- , ; of ,-,,.4 t..1 , °- „..,,., -,2 \ •'' ; , .- ,...t,„ ,- ,: *. , ,...i..:''':'."'. ..,. ''.. 1! ,.,,.,...forp, ... ,,, . ,,,.-1 , • „ ,..,:i 2".'7,t14' 1;•-,,‘.'!.4.,•`.•-' - •a li , ,, -,?,.b., —- .' • # . . , ,I.,,, . .. 1 ; • "#'7'.... . ' ..I; ' ,...• • ; l . ;)1,,- ,,, ,,,, .+ -- - Y •• •''',1,. I, 1,444.45555,,44.4:5•r, ,..-__._.-„,,. „ - -„ 6 < ..• —,,2 f* '-, ••*,* 1;9 O''*•'• ' '*.e' A. , .„.- ,,,!, it • ‘ -, , • , , .„-; \ 4 i.:, , ,. A -'. 41, • .; • ', 4 '' *.'n- 1 • . '1 "■ , ''''• # '•• ,. :•49 .,.. • . . .,, . '. . i ,,441 .::,,,Y:'t or:.x, 01 '.i.:C - ., . .I -' \ .4. ' t-'4: ' - 1- A ,' "a• Of., I' •r. '''.:*-q•.` .r ' 414,...,4,,' ga-' ' .'- - ,,1 , ', 4F-...,, i.1 . I - tA, . ., -O• J J ' ELI ''''54* ;'' • , 4, . '''' • •4.."! ,4 11,s i4 -5,,, - . _ . .r• - 5 5V' '-'.--- lia4MI• 51.-..445.5' - , ,- , • 4, • 4. •- :. ..., ''..,',' if'•‘, 1 1'.: * '- „,,11'i,.,,, • ''.•4.*4 \ - A 7-7L'''.±.--7. 11=1014 V4A44, '0.,• .,4„ . , , fr •-.:2-, d —,..... ;.•4, •"•., 1 '1, A 1 t 1 .11%, t.,:1 1' •.."1.'' .; ' ''.‘1•1 IN IN L, I.: , ,,.,' - ..,-,-••..*.r f .,. f -7 • •ofq. ,- ... $...4 .....' • 4.., ,..-'3.'' • f', 1- .4, ' tA,E.$41,10141 . . i. ,..; s . -.. *kV ---11•••-4" 4:( =7-1.- •*1011---W. .21.;--.,--, , •i'f A ' Ir..- it , -."., 4, "... i• .1., -.., • .• , , , • i.,-..) „,,, r.,..,.,..,.,,....::,.- . - ,'':`, '''',,,-",',.'", ..,.., '1.?‘.•,(, 1• • 1..1-o r,: • , .-:. . !„ — . Y,4,„ '',„ :.••:. -- 7,7 • , .i_,,,-1”:,...r..4..,,i1,,,,,..• 7...N. . :‘,oor ,,, ic.', VINA'' •::,-INNAlk, t 4' : Tvr....• ''''' 1 . .. ■ 1 A :7:-.. ii=j,. ,, ' ft,,'• 2,,, ..■ ' } '• f : AL1 '4, 0 ;,•••,' ,, / f• ,, 0,1.-'•-•.„ i t1 •''•1 . , ' —,• • -c ' -21's 4=.- ---5 ,-.:,:,•4 .4.4...-__I-4 I th ,,./... , ... i riiiiiiii---, ,-...,.,., glamour;-... riu., .: \ ,1.)., ..4D,,, .:4c..4,1%,...in.,,,zdk,,,e,,..• \ : ' == . .‘ .., . .• .•,.. 'V.;Al• , ..:-....--..r,,;. _,.. , =__ , , 4...,.., 1 1 • . • 1,.",s -, - ' ef - 4., - ' - , ' "4' , ''',i • if 1 * of ..1?o' .,,i,•:m.,',.,,, . , of ,l i f' . ,,,- h , ,ol• g ' , 1 ,- 0 ,,,•••'.,' A "!'"! '77. `,,, ctf:t- ,, ' 1 1, F i'aNtlin- -- .. - tANN,,11. NtaiNti-‘,1.,,,,•:.NeaTtAtki . -1= :.i ''. - 1-...=-1--1 -\" -,\---1 1, 1 „,,, ,--- --\ ',..1 cr.....7\--■ F1:--r ',.:1X.I‘e.."'tthX.1-. ..,\N 1,$11W, •vg. ” .•, _ 41,L .....1,,.-','f-1-•• , 1•• 1 r.' ''':J.I,, I%1,1•.. ...1 •43 , , ',A stili.5.ta C4A k,,,44 I \ 'ill: ''•'1 1-;,14**AU ; J .1,t5,,.,‘-‘11 ,,-;*s'.‘ 7-... .' , ..55k •-14.1 1,45, ' '"1 ' 171. I: 1 ■----'—\''''''''''n •44 ' ,c.li',:,-,.,,-,,,,,tli 4-i*--‘, '-':10'.' -4 ',..;,.. '1 _ '10'1111'; 'Ot• --- 4 - • _, .1,-.reitartM■ t i ,qa, \ -,1k,- 1..1 ,;; , ,,'.\,, \...... ....._— ‘,....,, ,,.,1, ' f...trgiEncia It_ t......,.5u2rita.,:r...sk e 1144.h;,.h.'' 5'i,ilagattiK .1 t tittn INt MANkttfit , 1 !•fe",o;,,1 10 o, - c (II,.'c _ pcw. r-,1, WI __ . .,... 1., es, •".i, ''' 11 ' 1—I ,n,,.,it \\:'1 1 Ft----A r,Is s 5 \•7?-\ ----\ .1, "'1. ,. 1 ',1' • ' ',,,'•, ',' ,:tf$11.1•:1 )1,411'1 slum r:•15 '5.114.-141-4 'In .'\'''.!'\ 1141,111' Ma -1" 11$1, 41‘554,‘;•:" Vi, ii•fil71110111#'1; •IXI 1•41111 1 ILL 1 0 ' ''''. 1 its-1 ' ' ,;{;*;,1 1 1 ,..rli i",42'-•'1,;;I 1411,1'1 1.1 . . ,I, .• \ lb I III - 4',,h,■ p .',' 76. ,._. ' I • ill ,'' ,; .4 rf1 ''l'•:lel '''4 I 411 i , . `1.4 '. .'.; 14 ‘ . \ ■.., r'''' / V.- ,_ ,,T , . . ,, .,,,,,, N:,,, ... ......--... ' * 4 ,Ato :111141.01 L114:..r' *=1410111k211* ':::::t1,10, ' tl...1.0.4■Tar,vi '1, . , 4 EV_in •4 , 'lir':I-=11-17,ittisti,lt.i4 tw-i tt,i,:kFTA7\h'ilailteilLIVI,F*46,11k A V.. 7\ ‘110 '1 , Atitialiii A'A A,' t Oil vit 2 Mill 1 I '?', - is 11.,7 1 1 ,, t II i , 1 1 , , ,41 ',4 -. •., , , '`- '`.• N•14 •.s' - S."..-1'4',\'-`‘''-.•. 4.:„..'",,,,'f M—A' _.,. 4,,, f '. ---:P.:. • . - -.7.e. - - - - ef -1, , •, fi 14 ,r'. ;v..' .Y rn r r1 I I—I 7-1--1 F-1---I m fi ??..',,ii 1 111$ t • co, ti-- l'"e ' . .41-1,,"d ' A t�1" 1�Adt" E�Id �n:�A - 1- S} ft$t ., 11 A , Iii� 1 i , J Yyp"--7,.7,..">1- : d.Y 'iII4Ii1 _ ' �; ,t ;. }l IFI l i+l[) f 1 iY° ., C ff 4,r C M{y t•.- �} E}IGI'�l}1 . i1{� it {{� F _-. lam k�4 fT l�� H 01111'1, ", ''',• ''''' -- #i# ":%4', „ew I{;II ?�, T_: � ► y 1,10111'} 1' 7.1:11 J ,,;,,,,m',,,,„ . 4 s‘,,,n,.,.„1„,!..,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, Lit" fir 4+ ,, a -.v. /.( f Y jljjl�4f i i{} lli� iC��r11�YY► i � h�n _ „� ,�Yi..�1k;. ' i{.gg 'I I,w x E'I �} lit�1 II I 15 Pti 1 �'91^O 91 11 .rvr•,r,c. { �I1},1;}1 1,,, ,11{w A I}11}1 itl }'l?7dI �9 ,_ .,_ _ I' Ex},, ,1 t}I!rtl1 { ,o J 1J1 OP Y a., I' I ,I._. _a_� H-I &-! r -. 1 1tl 111'1 d., �, Ott IIi I I I I '' } R"4 � ��, aa� A ,h 6 { i•` '7" ••:•;',•}';'' .,' :'1 y„ ( " r 4,1K nui I,164... r i.,`> T7Sr I a N<►'!5 ,....,0,- /ii `�-1 e" Y,. L,µ .!� —.116•14:31"---•"".",-;4v17 - �, •� It rhl+ Yew'- �y� C?.• I-1—! I I P Wit'_�" • �. I S )�., x 10),%.,,,..0,,A,..1,-, :� { ,k A<1 Y�1 + tSirt� � �—I r� ..'` t .A4. 1, r ' `1.7,1,,x` '* if$• { 9t r �•, ; ' �' {fir ! - i J y bLa i .4► '.i� MrL i 11 t J 1 y .. `• d YT 11" v.. MM 43. 1s 5�d } MS S°1-1!,.'t f}a+ b� e tr' . s i r ri%7_,.,,,,1• I 1 \ k 1: ' t'' •$%-4,'..tr, Y 1E t ( e Z �' F Y s .. O ,,, w o 0 v) e , ,.,,,...... o0 00 W VD w < � W \.. N p-'� N , H w aw U `-4 N H . . O U Ch W Q-) O < < 0 Q H a = H z P ., k:. „ c v �} a V v • =rya, ., x q { , w�a 1,, 4 A Yt .n ill i . .....,...„..„ .. ,,7,-- .,,,,,,„...‘ ....,,,- ---) \ \ \ ,. .. ,, .... X q i x yy —11 +. tai nV Y , jjR` t\t �4(i yy •„i 1\ r^� ` 1 \ PI i \9 .� �i 1 s 1 °\ su, ., , . \\II, \ ',\ \ i {e y r.A `l `fVl� 11 . ...I:,': \ i 1.11110. 14S16. ,Lx il' a s H .. ,, ) I ..,11,,..,..;:...,:.; le' ...V. .. , . ,. .,:\,,,,,,, . r s- rtx 1111 I at Oo ) 'd: '.' . „,. U ,.,. .,„ , ',=:1.4. '.,,, -. . i.4:1,,moo,/ , . ;.., ,... ,., ... „ .. ':..,,,, i , . 11111.0001,6, ,. P—:.__i i !.1)_,,.., , t A”,: \l,,,,, ``� _. O y . a 1\ � p '' °,,t . ,-±,f,. R'P ''''S'' I -. X c.I4 V \, a r �ro , X 0 t ,.4 .-,4 ..'''' 14, ,.4■1, .,. i,1 s •,� ,1 T ..in..ir i�;. y ��r ° ; " : ,, „,, :,,,, ,, ,, :,, t: ii . � , 1 e s i s.:'. EMI ,t:11r - f" j 1 h ' ! f , '' ; : ' pa ax.� '' 4"4 4 4;4;"44,n44'4'1 ,7 "!4"; "...."4' .4'44,, .;.:' 4":4'4,:4111.7 44.4 4 s';';' '. 4.4411'I' ' ;4"4""" If . 1 s x �„ F F s 1 u_ r li II jj''''..;?444.,!:'41- - '''''', .'-''''''t''''.' -' ' ' 4 .4 _. . ,.! .... ... . ,..,, ,,,,,,,?:„...... . I .,,, ill °fig i^i9 _ _ � .. k ' ); -- .- w dR = _ t 8 '.3 * I� e.a.d °i= S t 1 " AR C k 2 Y 3 +t )" 'v444� »:ar.'4 r a ,r-,,,,,i . I' t, , ... ... , I I, is 0.3 po e 1 y p —. I I � r ` ` rrr y'"" • i , fl 1 a f• a L" I Y, t . n lir'- ,V-7.I :mot : 31:1 f �w*�.t I MOM Mb r��rrr���rrr��yy{{{ '0.f. 1 E' Ell 1-l'i- ., 1111M1111.111.111111111111111H1 ' ,.'' 'I-...'').'4'.'i''' , ,„,,,,,....4=1 m.wn agar°ar F •«r r �:} ���MMY • • vm' ,..,1100H, 1111 . ,t t k " ✓ "?. 5 4, A tiiry' .i 1' tea,. -.-,:,.%,1.1.:,:.,;,itt' ,„...„,,,;..4.40# , :. • ' ,' : -.... . r . - 5:4 '.y} '#� f 'fi t p� tl Y - aFw^,»Atrmm� « r. ;t m L, •4 ttQt ;� _ i4`^ . I'' .` yea A y S s ° V C p i� CJ • 4 ,„,r' .. . CIS PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN N EMPLOYMENT NODE vv . v Purpose • To establish areas for large office buildings providing regional employment with opportunity to integrate employment-serving mixed uses. Geographic Location • Predominantly in North and South Central Carmel. • Most appropriate near highways and major arterials with excellent accessibility. Land Uses • All Professional and business office. • Hospital and medical office. High quality architecture ensures that the City's position as • Office-supporting commercial(e.g.small scale an attractive locale for regional,national,and international restaurants,coffee houses,print shops,and office supply corporations is maintained. stores that directly support office uses). • Residential is allowed on 4th or higher floors. Intensity/Density • Commercial intensity is limited by the maximum building M envelope,maximum impervious surface,and on-site " pt M parking requirements. ,',P"A"r +"' • Residential density in developments should not exceed 14.0 units per acre. `4 Examples RIP i t • U.S.31 Corridor. '"" J wdg 144.4% wi4441-askew • Parkwood Crossing East. Appropriate Adjacent Classifications • Best Fit:Parks and Recreation,Neighborhood Service Node,Institutional Node,Community Vitality Node, Hospitals and medical facilities such as the Clarion North Hospital Employment Node,and Regional Vitality Node. are examples of developments that fit into Employment Nodes. • Conditional Fit: Suburban Residential,Urban Residential, • Attached Residential,Core Support,and Secondary Core. Structure Features • Maximum four stories. • Minimum four stories and maximum ten stories along U.S. ---__ 31 and I-465,but not adjacent to Illinois Street. Structure Orientation On Site .1111 , • • Centralized with significant setback from highway corridors OM� and single-family residential areas. ;�: :� ;NM Development Features j. • Parking should be located where it has the least impact on - aesthetics. • Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. • Protect pre-development environmental features. • Secure and sheltered bicycle parking, and shower and Medium-scale office serves regional employment needs while changing facilities for bicycle commuters. providing a context-sensitive transition to neighboring residential Regulation Implementation areas. • Utilize traditional zoning to regulate this land classification. CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 39 CI°o PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN N EPPROPRIETE ED3ECENT LEND LEND CLESSIFICETION MEP DESCRIPTION CLESSIFICETIONS TEBLE The Land Classification Map on the following page The below table provides a quick reference for determining designates the general distribution of land classifications land classification compatibility. The information in this that will help manage land use,community form,and table mirrors the content in each of the land classification connectivity;and improve quality of life. descriptions on the previous pages. `B"stands for Best Fit Specifically,the map depicts the community's land and"C"stands for Conditional Fit,meaning it is appropriate use and development form goals(land classifications) when the more intense development is installed with in a conceptual manner. It should not be construed as sensitivity to the adjacent land classification. representing the precise location of land classifications,but used as a foundation for support and influence with land use and development form decisions and zoning map changes. The Land Classification Map does not establish the right to a certain density or intensity. The C3 Plan is a broad- brush approach to future land planning. Each development proposal should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the C3 Plan in addition to site features,context, design standards,and development standards. c o 70 0 y C1 O C 'O 5 C O m C u Z 13 = O t O O O O 'n fC is O C3 Z 'C = ,..e _ O. i Z' CS Z y .p 4; m y 7 m a -Fi a 4O.. g y O O 2 5L`�' Z Y ,r:. j . N ,. = N a' t t C . . C 7 . > O "O C7 C = y O O O. A V = = = O -a >R C =V 6O O O O v, a , e • E O. 0C C) O R W J N Q Z Z H 3 W u H E Parks and Recreation B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Estate Residential B B B j C C Low Intensity Suburban Residential B B B 1 B C C Suburban Residential B c B B C C B C C C C Urban Residential B c B B B C C C C C C Attached Residential B C B B B B B B C C B 1 C C Neighborhood Support Center B c B B B B B 1 Neighborhood Service Node B c c B B B B B I C C Institutional Node B I C C 1 C C B B B B B B B B B B Community Vitality Node B ' C C B 1 B B B B B 1 B Employment Node B ; C C C B B B B B C C Regional Vitality Node B C C B B B B C Core Support B C B C B C C B B B Secondary Core B 1 C C B C B B B Primary Core B C B B B B B = Best Fit c = Conditional Fit 44 I CITY OF CARMEL,INDIANA Q OP U 6 Y /r w c> ATxypopin"-'. -- _ li: 4 v .. 5N l'' 4 ire C L- P ,. 77 : 11 / t J 1 I' rin 1 -e/ 1, i r 3 1 1 ! J — _ .; j A 00oy S� yf 49 1#11 fil it _ st, IL , 7,. . ., -,,.. ,, ,,,,, _ ►1• r � g z s = L e I I Q. W.. nz tn AI cn 1 111 0 C13) S PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE N CITY-WIDE POLICIES NND OBJECTIVES Policy 2:Be a Leading Edge City Introduction:The expression"Leading Edge City"is applied to communities that have broad name recognition,notable culture,a positive image,diversity in housing,broad range Policy 1:Manage Community Form of employment,business vitality,strong architectural pres- Introduction:The purpose of managing form is to achieve ence and character,sense of place,environmental awareness, a superior quality built and natural environment in which effective public transportation,and most importantly a people reside,work,and recreate. Managing community desirable quality of life. form is the combination of land use planning,transporta- tion planning,urban design,influencing transitions,and Objective 2.1:Commit to high architectural energy efficient place-making. and environmental design standards for all municipal build- ings and facilities. The intent is to set a precedent for quality The tools used to manage community form take shape as and to establish character goals for private sector develop- development guidelines,zoning ordinances,subdivision ment to emulate. Developers will take cues from municipal regulations,building codes,studies,small area plans, improvements and be more likely to follow the City's lead. negotiations,commitments,conditions,covenants, This commitment will also further the City's competitive redevelopment initiatives,policies,education and the like. advantage in the region,and increase community pride in the No single tool can effectively manage community form. built environment. Managing community form is a departure from purely Objective 2.2:Further enhance the amenities,development land use based regulations that encourage segregation and opportunities,office-supporting commerce and technology challenge the community's ability to establish essential infrastructure necessary to support current businesses and connectivity. This model is more permissive of mixed-use to attract additional businesses to Carmel. Concurrently,it nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between is important to continue investing to enhance community differing land classifications. quality of life to provide a superior place for people in all Objective 1.1:Merge form-based regulatory tools into the socioeconomic classes to live by encouraging high quality traditional zoning and subdivision control ordinances based public spaces,interesting parks,plazas,public gardens,tree- on Part 3:Land Classification Plan. lined streets and boulevards,and trails connecting people Objective 1.2:Recognize the uniqueness in each planning to places. There is significant evidence that high quality of district and establish regulations,subarea plans,and/or pat- life is a major attraction for businesses,thus making this a tern books to preserve these unique features. primary component of this objective. Objective 1.3:Utilize and follow the intent of the C3 Plan Objective 2.3:Encourage more diversity in housing types by applying the Plan's content to development proposals to to better meet the needs of older residents and appeal to leverage the desired outcomes and prevent deviations from younger and more diverse employees working in Cannel. the City's policies and objectives. As Cannel continues to attract regional and national head- quarters,the housing desired by people relocating from Objective 1.4:Be very sensitive to connectivity and transitions other parts of the country and world is not always consistent between adjacent areas. Discourage unplanned or harsh with Indiana's traditional residential form of single-family contrasts in height,building orientation,character,land use, detached homes. The City needs to commission a study on and density. If there exists contrast,utilize multiple design housing choices. principles to soften transitions. Objective 2.4:Support local intra-city and regional commuter Objective 1.5:Strongly promote mixed-use in areas suitable transit systems as described in Part 4:Transportation Plan. for commercial development,and protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development. Objective 2.5:Enhance a bicycle-and pedestrian-connected community through expanded installation of side paths, Objective 1.6:Continue to build the city park and trail system sidewalks,bike lanes,and off-street trails. It is well estab- through targeted acquisition of remaining undeveloped lished that many of the moderate-sized leading edge cities in parcels. our nation are bicycle and pedestrian friendly communities. Objective 1.7:Continue to manage commercial signage to Carmel believes that the further establishment of bicycle balance the visibility needs of business with the aesthetic and pedestrian facilities will result in increased mobility, quality which has made Cannel an attractive place to live. further enhance quality of life,and be greatly appreciated by citizens. Objective 2.6:Recognize the existing limitations of east/west vehicular,bike,and pedestrian access,and strive to enhance means for efficient cross-community travel. CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 117 N o° PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE Policy 3:Perpetuate Economic Vitality Objective 31: Continue to improve overall telecommunication Introduction:Vitality is defined in many ways,including in partnership with local providers to ensure that cable based job growth,quantity of jobs,quality of jobs,proliferation and wireless opportunities are maximized. The City should of commerce,entrepreneurship,investment in property, commission a telecommunications master plan to ensure the redevelopment,length of commitment,and degree of risk highest quality system network. being taken. Cannel has strong economic vitality today,and Objective 3.9: Promote Cannel City Center and the Regional furthering that trend is of great interest and importance. This Performing Arts Center by marketing them as community section addresses the objectives that Cannel will utilize to and regional destinations. Continue efforts to ensure that perpetuate economic vitality. properly scaled infrastructure is in place for vehicles, Objective 3.1:The City will strive to further the"Cannel" bicycles,and pedestrians to easily access the Cannel City brand as a great place to live,work and raise a family. The Center area from all directions,including from U.S.31 and City has already established a notable degree of branding; Keystone Parkway. branding being positive name recognition and impression. Objective 3.10: Continue to build upon the economic benefits Branding of a community is important when trying to attract of the U.S.31 Corridor by further maximizing its develop- quality employers and businesses. For instance,well- ment potential. Encourage new buildings to be constructed respected retail businesses want to be located in well-known of high quality materials at the maximum building heights communities. allowed and encourage parking areas to be structured for the Objective 3.2:Encourage mixed-use developments where most efficient use of land in the corridor. appropriate. Single-use developments tend to lack vitality during off-peak times. Mixed-use developments such as Providence at Old Meridian often combine commercial and residential uses into a single node. This type of develop- ment encourages daytime vitality from employment and commerce activity,and nighttime vitality when people come home from work. Also,this development pattern better utilizes land by allowing compact urban form. Objective 3.3: Encourage owners through zoning amendments to retrofit existing single-use centers into mixed-use centers. This encourages both daytime and nighttime vitality and creates a compact urban form. Objective 3.4: Utilize technology to efficiently communicate City projects and initiatives to the public. Expand existing lines of communication to reach more households and gain more public input. Modernize the City's website to accom- modate this objective. Objective 3.5: Clarify and streamline development proce- dures and processes. Simplify the development process without lessening standards,expectations,or results. Create incentives for development that exceeds expectations and standards. Objective 3.6: Plan for local and regional transit by encour- aging transit opportunities in new developments where it would benefit the community. The City should commission a study to determine the best transit corridors for local transit and how best to interface a regional system. Such a study should also analyze how the City would form and benefit from improved transit options. Objective 3.7: Promote the advancement of technology to support city-wide commerce,the workplace,and home enterprise. 18 CITY OF CARMEL,INDIANA N o PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE N Policy 4:Be a City of Neighborhoods Policy 5:Be an Adaptable City Introduction:Neighborhoods are an essential component of Introduction:Being an adaptable city is critical in the evolu- community which helps build and/or reinforce the fabric of tion of a community. Too many communities do not adapt a city. Traditionally,neighborhoods were not recognized to local,regional,and national influences and suffer from the by each individual development's name as they are now. lack of flexibility. Rather,neighborhoods were determined by major physical boundaries;included a mix of housing styles;and were Objective 5.1:Carmel will regularly reevaluate the local, within walking distance to neighborhood service centers, regional,and national influences that affect development schools,and parks which gave neighborhoods identity. This success and vitality. The City will also strive to predict the document encourages planning for neighborhoods,in the next evolutions in development to better recognize whether traditional sense,and also protects these neighborhoods. they would have a positive or negative effect on the City. Objective 4.1:Cannel is desirous of achieving the quality of Objective 5.2:Periodically review and revise the Land life benefits derived from the principles of traditional neigh- Classification Plan Map to adapt to changes in the built borhood design principals,in all neighborhoods including those within the context appropriate to and respectful of each environment,evolutions in community values,changes in location,whether estate,suburban,or urban. community policies,and to respond to critical corridor and subarea plans. Objective 4.2:The City believes it necessary to conduct planning in greater detail in critical subareas and corridors. Objective 5.3: Continue to recognize,plan,and update critical For this reason Part 5:Critical Corridors and Subareas corridors and subareas. was created to house those planning exercises within the Objective 5.4: Enhance the Monon Greenway to support and C3 Plan. These small area plans are important in communi- fiarther encourage its use as a non-motorized commuter route ties with redevelopment pressures and in rapidly growing areas. Oftentimes,critical corridor and subarea plans can by widening and separating bicyclists and pedestrians in the better address transitions,connectivity,and development most heavily used areas. Also,actively plan and implement form. They can also address character goals and emphasize to a system of feeder/branch trails and paths to allow more developers a more exact idea of what the resident wants,what convenient and safe connection to nearby residential and the market can yield,and what the City expects. employment areas. Objective 4.3:Establish neighborhood identity based on physi- Objective 5.5: Adapt the Monon Greenway and adjacent cal boundaries rather than by each development's name. development between City Center and the Arts and Design Neighborhoods are more than each development project. A District into an urban trail destination with its own character concerted effort should be established to determine neigh- and sense of place. borhood boundaries throughout the City,and then promote their identity and boundaries. Objective 5.6: Target for acquisition undeveloped parcels Objective 4.4:Build upon existing neighborhood facilities and adjacent to the Monon Greenway for future park sites. services,such as parks,schools,fire stations,and churches to help define and maintain neighborhood identity and vitality. Objective 4.5:Consider and encourage"third places"(infor- mal meeting places or the social surroundings which are separate from the two usual environments of home and workplace)and neighborhood support centers as building blocks for neighborhoods. Every trip to the store should not be a mandatory drive in a car. Residents should be able to access daily goods and services by walking or bicycling, thereby having the opportunity to conserve energy,improve health,and protect the environment. The City should embark on a"corner store"initiative to define the best loca- tions and distribution of neighborhood support centers. Objective 4.6:Disallow incompatible site and building designs and excessive quantity of neighborhood support centers. Assure that neighborhood support centers provide amenities and land uses that enhance quality of life and convenience, and respect nearby residences with quality architecture,land- scaping,and appropriate transitions. Also assure that they are not a destabilizing feature by adopting design regula- tions and through implementation of a"radius policy"that prohibits more than one center within proximity to another. CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 19 CS PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE Policy 6: Inspire Community Character Policy 7:Inspire Environmental Awareness Introduction:Community character is the quality(ies)and Introduction:Being environmentally aware includes under- feature(s)of a neighborhood,district,or the entire corn- standing the benefits of protecting natural areas,emphasizing munity that distinguish it from other areas. Community use of native plant material into the urban environment, character is desired and often helps build local pride,encour- reducing energy consumption,encouraging energy and ages investment,and improves quality of life. natural resource conservation,and utilizing "green"building Objective 6.1:Discourage homogeneous development and cor- materials to lessen our impact on the environment. porate brand prototypical architecture. In residential areas, Objective 7.1:Encourage the use of durable materials and architectural guidelines should be instituted to discourage monotonous development. Commercial and residential areas construction methods that prolong the life of buildings. A should be subjected to architectural standards that require paradigm shift is necessary to change the current 30-year life unique and appropriate designs fitting Cannel's character expectancy of commercial buildings and some production goals. homes to a more substantial life expectancy. Cannel has Objective 6.2:Promote a unique community with unique already had some success in encouraging 100-year build- neighborhoods and subareas. Already the City's infrastruc- ings. For instance,that standard is currently being applied to ture and planning investments are bearing fruit in the Old several buildings in the City Center and the Old Town Arts Town Arts and Design District. The community will identify and Design District. appropriate character goals,subareas,and neighborhood Objective 7.2:Continue the policy emphasizing that City boundaries for the East,North Central,South Central,and vehicles be energy efficient and low emission cars and West Cannel Districts. trucks. With the introduction of hybrid vehicles,the City Objective 6.3:Encourage high quality and well designed now has a viable and visible means for improving the envi- landscaping to help beautify the City and promote healthful ronment through energy conservation. Also,idling should environments. be discouraged when possible. Objective 6.4:Promote the planting and care of canopy trees throughout Carmel. Encourage their placement even in Objective 7.3:Develop a bicycle network to allow non- urban streetscapes,parking lots,and other enclosed areas by vehicular trips to be made by encouraging small-scale and promoting proper soil volumes and/or the use of constructed requiring large-scale employment nodes to install covered soil technologies. Canopy trees are desired because they add and secure bicycle parking,and shower and changing a great deal of character and comfort to the built environ- facilities for cycling commuters. Concurrently,ensure that ment. Additionally,they also provide relief from heat,soften adequate bicycling facilities exist to allow safe and efficient noise and light,help purify the air we breathe,reduce stress, bicycle commuting. and increase property values. This is a particularly impor- tant objective because so many mature trees are lost through Objective 7.4:The City should encourage use of water-saving development, devices,and request that citizens reduce water consump- Objeetive 6.5:Promote the use of public art in both public lion by proper("smart")lawn sprinkling and exploring spaces and within private developments. Also,encour- alternative landscapes which require less water. Encourage age designers to include public art in their buildings and rainwater(i.e.grey water)recycling to reduce potable water surroundings. consumption. Objective 6.6:Enable healthy choices through the use of Objective 1.5: Strongly encourage developers to build innovative design and planning. For instance,provide environmentally sensitive buildings,such as LEED(Leader- pedestrian access to parks,recreation,schools,the workplace ship in Energy and Environmental Design)guidelines or and amenity centers so that people do not have to use their similar programs.These"green"buildings conserve energy cars. Also,designing structures to capture natural light and resources,provide more healthful inside environments,last air enhances healthy lifestyles. longer,utilize products made from recycled material,and Objective 6.7:Encourage electrical utility lines to be buried use products that can be safely disposed of or recycled when throughout the community,especially in urbanizing areas. the building is eventually dismantled. Green buildings Care must be given to the location of underground trans- also strive to use local material to reduce the transportation former boxes so pedestrian infrastructure is not precluded by impact. For instance,importing marble from overseas has conflicts with power facilities. an enormous environmental impact compared to delivering Objective 6.8:Protect the character,safety,and function of the Indiana limestone from southern counties. Monon Greenway. Objective 7.6:Set the precedent for environmental protection Objective 6.9: Enhance the aesthetics of employment and or re-vegetation when developing municipal facilities like vitality districts by requiring parking lots to be located at parks,fire stations,and maintenance facilities. the rear and side of the property,or underground,thereby encouraging the architecture to be the dominant feature. 20 CITY OF CARMEL,INDIANA as°o PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE Objective 7.1:Continue to protect regional surface and Policy 8:Inspire Healthful Living ground water sources to ensure safe drinking water for Introduction:Inspiring healthful living is a response to the Carmel and adjacent municipalities. Institute regulations obesity rate in Indiana and the Midwest,and also recognizes that further protect the delineated wellhead protection areas increases in cancer rates,lung diseases,heart disease,and from contaminants and land uses that have a higher risk of stress related disorders. contaminating water resources. Objective 8.1:Strive to provide multiple types of facilities for Objective 7.8: Set the precedent for environmentally sensitive exercise,opportunities to immerse oneself into nature,sport buildings when developing municipal facilities by striving facilities and leagues,access to recreation programs,access for the highest feasible level of LEED certification. Also to health education programs,and encouragement to succeed encourage other public entities to achieve the same. in one's personal health goals. Objective 7.9: Develop and maintain an Environmental Action Objective 8.2: Work corroboratively with local hospitals to Plan to implement actions that reduce pollution,conserve offer outreach services,health and wellness clinics,screen- energy,and preserve the natural environment. ings,classes,smoking cessation programs,dietary support, Objective 7.10: Explore the use of alternate sources of energy mental health clinics,immunization programs,and the like. such as active solar,geothermal,and wind. Objective 8.3: Encourage mixed-use,compact development Objective 7.11: Reduce heat island effect by preservation of making it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles. Carmel's urban forest and by encouraging the use surfaces This will provide a healthy lifestyle by providing the option that retard the absorption of heat. for exercise in people's daily routines. Objective 7.12: Increase effectiveness of wastewater treatment Objective 8.4: Develop programs and improve infrastructure and discharge by combining master plans of both sanitary to encourage children to walk or ride their bicycles to sewer districts. school. This will increase their physical activity,improve their health,and will potentially reduce the automobile trips Objective 7.13: Reduce unnecessary removal of trees on lots, made to and from school. encourage preservation of mature trees,and require replace- ment of trees that have to be removed for development. Objective 8.5: Promptly work to obtain park land while undeveloped land is still available. Objective 7.14: Promote the movement toward sustainable development and architecture. Encourage land develop- ments and building designs that use or reuse land responsi- bly by discouraging patterns of sprawl,conserving potable water,reducing energy consumption,and utilizing reusable or recyclable materials. Encourage architects and designers to use green design standards,such as LEED(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design),to promote sustainable and healthful buildings and neighborhoods for people to shop,work,eat,recreate,and live. Objective 7.15: Due to increasing interest in redeveloping previously-developed areas,the City would like to conduct inventories,analyses,and cleanups of its brownfields. This will serve to facilitate redevelopment in several areas,as well as making the City healthier and more sustainable. The City will also be working with citizens and professionals to identify and prioritize brownfields. CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 21 r CIO PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE N NORTH CENTRFIL CHRMEL POLICIES FIND Objective 2.4:Promote the Arts and Design District and the OBJECTIVES Carmel Performing Arts Center. Objective 2.5:Plan for the integration of transit stops near City Center,Merchants Square,and the U.S.31 Corridor. Introduction Objective 2.6:Explore opportunities to introduce additional The following sections convey the policies and objectives higher education opportunities into North Central Carmel,if for the North Central Cannel District. It is important to note only a single building or satellite classes. that these sections share some of the same policy headings Objective 2.7:Promote and enhance the Monon Greenway as as the City Wide section,but the content is specific to North a non-motorized transportation corridor. Widen the trail in Central Cannel. high use areas to accommodate separated bicycle and pedes- Policy 1:Manage Community Form than lanes to create more trail capacity for both recreation Objective 1.1:Encourage compact urban form and mixed-use and transportation needs. development throughout North Central Carmel. Policy 3:Perpetuate Economic Vitality Objective 1.2:Allow the tallest structures in Carmel to be in (no additional objectives apply to North Central Carmel) the City Center and along U.S.31. Policy 4:Be a City of Neighborhoods Objective 1.3:Strongly encourage neighborhood and community- Objective 4.1:North Central Cannel should be planned as a serving commercial nodes in strategic locations to allow people collection of neighborhoods applying traditional neighbor- to walk or bike from their jobs and homes to those amenities. hood design principles to connectivity,transitions,loca- The objective is to ensure the entire North Central Cannel tion of neighborhood-serving commercial,bicycle-and District has neighborhood-serving or community-serving corn- pedestrian-friendly features,and the like. mercial development within a short walking or biking distance Objective 4.2:Endeavor to plan neighborhoods,gateways,bound- of all employment and residential development. aries,and service areas through more detailed subarea plans. Objective 1.4:Protect stable single-family residential neigh- Policy 5:Be an Adaptable City borhoods in North Central Cannel as much as possible (no additional objectives apply to North Central Cannel) through buffering,use of transitional design,strong code enforcement of property maintenance issues,targeted infra- Policy 6:Inspire Community Character structure investments(e.g.drainage,sidewalks,and street Objective 6.1:Where appropriate,reinforce urban character in lights),and landscaping beautification projects. North Central Cannel. Commission the study of the district to determine the ideal boundaries,urban patterns,and transitions. Objective 1.5:Strive for additional street connectivity in North Central Cannel. The City should strive to connect streets Objective 6.2:Encourage signature buildings on prominent when new development or redevelopment occurs,especially sites to enhance the district's character. Signature buildings those linkages shown on the Thoroughfare Plan Map. can be private or public buildings,but must have architec- tural flair and be built from durable materials. Objective 1.6:Encourage connectivity to and through North Central Cannel by establishing bicycle and pedestrian facili- Objective 6.3:Establish a Public Art Master Plan. Include ties across Meridian Street and Keystone Parkway. artists in the design process of public spaces. Policy 2:Be a Leading Edge City Policy 7:Inspire Environmental Awareness Objective 2.1:Establish a well-designed,pedestrian-friendly Objective 7.1:Where possible,locate new public parks on land (including bicycle-friendly)and vital downtown. To ensure adjacent to or within a short walk from the Monon Greenway. vitality,significant incorporation of residential and office Objective 7.2:Tree areas should be conserved and should be uses should be required in upper floors. All ground floors evaluated as part of an overall urban forest network,espe- should be designed for pedestrian comfort and interaction. cially in small parks and squares. Objective 2.2:Promote a high quality employment corridor Objective 1.3:Promote compact urban form with densities that and technology park along U.S.31 by discretely integrating support walkability and alternative transportation. employment-serving commercial uses in existing buildings or in small nodes to allow workers to walk to restaurants and Objective 7.4:Continue to enhance the City Recycling Facili other businesses suitable for such a subdistrict. Also allow ties at the Housing Hazardous Waste Center by increasing for a broader mix of uses,including additional residential recycling options and adjusting hours of operation to make it and service retail. more convenient for people to recycle. Objective 2.3:Encourage new buildings along Carmel Drive and Policy 8:Inspire Healthful Living City Center Drive to be a minimum of two stories in height. (no additional objectives apply to North Central Cannel) CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23 • 4 d1 °° PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE CN WEST CFiRMEL POLICIES FIND OBJECTIVES Objective 1.7:Continue expansion of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to connect neighborhoods with schools,parks, WestClay's Secondary Core,and other destinations. Introduction Policy 2:Be a Leading Edge City The following sections convey the policies and objectives Objective 2.1:Maintain and protect sub-areas in the City for West Cannel. It is important to note that these sections of Carmel for estate character housing. These areas are share some of the same policy headings as the City-wide essential to attracting high quality businesses,providing the section,but the content under each heading is specific to desired quality-of-life for senior employees. West Cannel and adds to other City-wide objectives. Objective 2.2:Encourage more custom home developments Policy 1 Manage Community Form to balance the housing inventory which has been slanting in Objective 1.1:Preserve the estate character of West Carmel recent years toward production homes. Custom home neigh by protecting large-lot residential areas and by requiring borhoods will also add character to West Cannel by reducing new subdivisions to have large setbacks from and quality monotony. Concurrently,allow carriage houses and other landscaping along perimeter roads. Further,require exten- compatible forms of accessory dwellings to provide flexibil sive re-vegetation along perimeter roads and within each ity and a range of housing options. new development. A larger open space requirement should Objective 2.3:Adopt residential architecture standards to also be considered. ensure compatibility,a high quality aesthetic,energy Objective 1.2:Conservation subdivisions and innovative efficiency,and durability. residential community designs that protect vegetation,slopes Policy 3:Perpetuate Economic Vitality and are non-monotonous in terms of architecture and material (no additional objectives apply to West Carmel) selection are preferred. Objective 1.3:Subdivision connectivity and transitions Policy 4:Be a City of Neighborhoods between proposed developments and existing subdivisions (no additional objectives apply to West Cannel) should be scrutinized to a greater degree in West Cannel. Policy 5:Be an Adaptable City Objective 1.4:West Carmel has many non-connecting subdivi- (no additional objectives apply to West Cannel) sions. The proliferation of this pattern of development is Policy 6:Inspire Community Character more tolerable in this district;however,critical connections Objective 6.1:Reinforce rural character including tree lines, shown on the Thoroughfare Plan will be absolutely required. fence rows,barns,pockets of open space,and preservation Although there is less emphasis on vehicular connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity will be strictly required. of wood lots. Residential intensity can exist,but generally For instance,where road connectivity between a proposed should not be obviously portrayed from perimeter roads. development and an existing development is not required, Objective 6.2:Protect single-family residential character along West bicycle and pedestrian connections will be required. 96th Street between Spring Mill Road and Shelboume Road. Objective 1.5:With the success of the Monon Greenway, Objective 6.3:Require commercial buildings along Michigan other off-street facilities are in demand. West Cannel has an Road to be constructed of durable materials and designed to opportunity to utilize portions of several pipeline corridors reflect"village"character. Continue to strengthen the exist- for such a trail. These corridors are shown as off-street trails ing zoning ordinance overlay to implement the requirements. in the 2020 Vision Plan and in the Alternative Transports- Objective 6.4: Require large setbacks and lot sizes,and only tion Plan initially adopted in 2001,and are supported in the residential,institutional,and park uses along 116th Street C3 Plan as well. Integrating this type of facility in some from Spring Mill Road west to the Boone County Line. areas will be relatively easy,but in already built environ- Utilize the existing zoning ordinance overlay to implement. ments may prove to be more difficult. Objective 1.6:Cannel should partner with neighboring Policy 7:Inspire Environmental Awareness Westfield and Zionsville to plan and implement a significant Objective 7.1:Strive to protect woodlots,wetlands,and other greenway along Little Eagle Creek. valuable natural features in West Cannel. These features contribute to the district's rural character,but they also provide habitat for plants,birds,and other animals. Policy 8:Inspire Healthful Living Objective 8.1: Promptly work to obtain park land in the north western portion of Clay Township while undeveloped land is still available. CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 25 m 0.°o PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS AND SUBAREAS I O.S. 31 CORRIDOR Maintain Strong East/West Connectivity:As a major arterial, U.S.31 acts as a barrier for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. When the highway is upgraded to freeway status,it may also reduce east/west connectivity for vehicles. The City will Description work with the State of Indiana to establish six interchanges The U.S.31 Corridor has been identified as a critical and three overpasses for adequate vehicular,bicycle,and corridor because it: pedestrian access. Two additional bicycle and pedestrian • Serves as major regional north/south arterial; grade-separated crossings are necessary. • Provides an abrupt transition between the urbanizing central part of Carmel and sensitive low density Require 6 to 10 Story Buildings:Require all buildings in the residential neighborhoods and estates; employment corridor to be 6 to 10 stories in height,and • Creates an undesirable barrier for east/west vehicular, 3 to 5 stories(not to exceed 60 feet)when between 106th bicycle,and pedestrian transit;and Street and 111th Street west of U.S.31(see illustration • Is a major employment corridor and economic engine. below). However,building heights should be reduced as U.S.31 is slated to be upgraded to freeway status,requiring they encroach on Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street;and interchanges as the only access points. This is a positive building heights should not exceed 3 stories when adjacent improvement to reduce traffic congestion,yet will result to existing residential neighborhoods(see illustration in numerous challenges as well. For instance,Carmel will below). This office and medical corridor provides essential likely lose some access points along the corridor. employment opportunity and portrays a positive community sufficient character. Parking areas should be de-emphasized and,when It will be important for Carmel to maintain su access to U.S.31 and to ensure the City's character is not appropriate structured to make room for additional buildings. compromised. Further,it will be important to provide Limited opportunity for business-serving and employee- serving commercial should be allowed(e.g.restaurants and numerous means for east/west access for vehicles,bicycles, print shops)in existing buildings or small nodes along the and pedestrians. corridor. Critical Area Boundaries The U.S.31 Corridor boundaries are depicted on the Design Guidelines Orientation Map on the following page. • Protect and enhance the green corridor aesthetic created by large lawns and consistent landscaping. Strategy • Ensure safe means for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Utilize Roundabout Interchanges:The City of Carmel will work U.S.31. • with the State of Indiana to ensure the use of roundabout- Transition the scale and mass of structures between U.S. style interchanges. These interchange designs are expected 31 and Illinois Street to minimize impact to residential to save cost,reduce acquisition of land,disturb less of the development high quality,the west. • Require high quality,urban office architecture and campus built environment,and best match the character goals of the design between Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street. City. Another expected advantage is efficiency of vehicular • Prohibit"branded"architecture. traffic,reducing emissions and fuel consumption. • Allow clearly visible signs for major tenants. Extend Illinois Street from 106th to 111th Street:As U.S.31 is • Encourage"green"architecture for all new buildings. • upgraded,Illinois Street will be necessary to provide north/ Sensitively integrate amenity nodes along Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street for convenience and enjoyment south access to the employment corridor on the west side of of corridor employees and nearby residents. U.S.31. Illinois Street also establishes the transition from • Prepare for a context sensitive mass transit line. intense office corridor to low density residential areas to the • Respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require west. appropriate buffering. • Integrate bicycle and pedestrian facilities along U.S.31 Corridor. 2 Story Home 3 Story Building 10 Story Building 8 Story Building Maximum tktighrWhenadfacent to Commercial 60'Maximize Between • 1060 Street and 111th Street M Jr,Intm,tie, cilia en+ri i Resiiiiinisii s r.-r_-. ,-One half distance between Spring Mill Road Illmas St. I r U.S.31 and Illinois St R.O Ws j U.S,31 R.O W(1 W) Half-distance between I '� R.O.W. R.O.W.(210) two street Raw, I (130} j One-quaver distance between ct Illinois St.and US.31 RQW.s ct _.___ ._ 2.05(Y -_. —.—.—__ SO 1 CITY OF CARMEL,INDIANA a41 g PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS AND SUBAREAS N U.S 31 Corridor Plan 146thSt- = VI i , o a T, l ; W � Sao no0o°,o0 1 � t T. - • I _ . .L _ t � ;--- r ` , �)_122ndSt— 49454 yt 4--°..00000 L � in H"111thSt- 1 J -. I,gu- •-411^"1!• l t- , il 11 I 1' _A G4. _ —W 96th St ;. ORIENTATION MAP MAP LEGEND wilim� $' Roundabout Interchange Preservation of Residential 1 1 Over ass EMI Transition Sensitive Residential �� �����f� t � New Roundabout (i• 6 to 10 Story Employment Corridor NEE' 1 `� 00,-- Separated Multi-Use Path 60 feet Maximum Height ` �1��=��. ` _;> Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing C Special Study Area m ♦N, •....••. Preserve/Install Tree Canopy —¢ Existing Street/Roundabout . r -- ___ � °� -- Proposed Street Map Prepared by Ground Rules,Inc. East Revised 05-20-2009 CARREL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 87 iI' ril _ ll ii, II a \,___ _,,. , \ .'.,,\. .\\ ____.: 0 ,..„\\ . . ,•,\•. •., 4_431A1 ' Ili ..,, ..),,_ ,.--- .o.c. \ ... I14 00100 \-‘ ,..,. \4 '\ \\ ■ \4 ' ' .frtrar \A \A` \\ \, \\\. ,‘ \ ,G 1 I t _ A O I �� lic I NpNpNp I : , , , s- ;e 1._ r \\, x ;\iiiv 1 e r,: ... •elatr ,i*,..\ ,,,Fir . , Aim , , , ,. . , 1_211.111.......,A \ t1 Ilk \1 '\ , b. _:: li- ;,0,,,,, \!.�� T1'._ a ,, -ttr = 1"t3K1iY3 33VWtl210 a ANUP.OZ } OM't \ '.. 11 ei vm� A lu ��� \ \\$ \ "-17J 1 ' !,, lit ar,Vii\ t ''. ', : .ti tr, , Vir __:,\ s',, .\'.. .\ ` .e \ •`\a \m li i1 °� \ r IP , ' '.. , ,1,0 . ''','?`r:t.1. rollsA 111%, ,- I :it 1 1 U- a �• s ` Y�I I -----` �ti y kj - o ------\ \a.7,_>,,., _1000"; °s -,t,,,;-',A', .,`, 41‘‘.' ' s i 1 ,2'.`e ,Alibt, sil‘ .3 S '',.44t§0.. L f I , It',, . , 93A s -i ti N. I 1 Lo w I o ,‘:;-R — ' - 1 : , 7 1 Cd ' , ns,� rt _v 1. \ Ca I 1 Igo al* '% ! l � Ill 1 H. \ \\ \ - \ \ P 1 ,I 7r 4 Zs9 3aflS 'L 'O'd sa I 1 56 / 0 / s 99LZ096# '1SNI fl!w6uudS }o s>pod aqJ" I , From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:32 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Foley, Amanda J; McBride, Mike T; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: Engineering Dept. statement about traffic & Highpointe PUD Angie, we have prepared the following for the meeting tonight. Neither Mike nor I can be at the meeting tonight. The Department has reviewed the Trip Generation report developed by A&F Engineering dated June 25, 2012. The information is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is the nationally recognized standard for developing traffic "trips"associated with proposed development and for use in traffic studies that assess improvements necessary to existing infrastructure to accommodate traffic generated from proposed development. Illinois Street was designed and the US-31 improvement are being designed to accommodate the traffic that would be generated from this parcel utilizing the current zoning. The Trip Generation report dated June 25, 2012 demonstrates that the proposed use will generate significantly less peak hour and daily traffic than the current zoning allows. It is important to note that any improvements to the Illinois Street intersections with Main Street and 136th Street to accommodate traffic from this development would not be expected to resolve the current issues at these intersections. The current issues will be resolved with the improvements to US-31. The buildout timeframe of this development will be concurrent with or be longer than the timeframe for the improvements to US-31. Considering that the proposed use will generate less traffic than the current zoning allows and will generate less traffic than was anticipated in the design of Illinois Street and the US-31 improvements, the Department of Engineering will not request any further traffic studies in association with the re-zone request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks so much, Gary R. Duncan,Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2441 (317)571-2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov • • From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:35 PM To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Foley, Amanda 3; McBride, Mike T; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wald, Alexia K Subject: Can you attend the June 27 Committee meeting? W/ IPO/N1r PGM . .co -zi—/ z T ® Respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require appropriate buffering. Wider and/or taller buffers separating the multi-family buildings from the single family homes. _ ® More densely.planted buffers, with perhaps berms or a masonry wall or privacy fence. • • ' ® Additional.landscaping in parking areas. •• * Planting'appropriate trees around the pond areas, such as bald cypress,making them amenity areas, as well. * Reducing the height, scale,and massing of the multifamily buildings that are closest to the single family residential areas, such as only having 2 story tall apartment buildin¢s-there. Transition the.mass and scale of structures to minimize impact.to residential development to the west and to the north. ® Add light shields on the perimeter parking lot pole lights to.further direct the light away from the neighbors. 0. Adding more green/space within the multifamily area,,so residents have areas to take their,dogs: • If the site is designed well,then it would make.the uses appropriate.for this area.'Please,also view the petitioner's past info packet for more detail. . Outstanding review comments from Staff: 1. The Urban Forestry Dept. has previously requested the following changes to the landscaping language in the PUD: almost every aspect of the landscaping standards (except for the west buffer) is written in at lesser levels than what the zoning ordinance requires. The Commission Can accept the PUD Landscape Requirements as-proposed or have the etitioner change the text to meet the requests of the Forestry Dept.. as listed below: a Page 9, Section 6.1:Please change the text to read: a landscaping plan *shall*be submitted. (6)‘-.Page 11, Section 6.2.G: please change the paragraph to read: for each 100 lineal foot increment: *eight* - ornamental trees(instead of 4)and 'fifteen*shrubs(instead of 10)will be required. And,further down, • please change the paragraph to read: The landscaped areas along Illinois Street will vary in width to accommodate appropriate planting space and to facilitate and promote creative planting and.site plans, but will be at least 'fifteen*(instead of 5) feet in width.. (This is per the Carmel Ordinance Buffer yard Regulations). 0 Page 11, Section 6.2.H: Please amend the text to read: for each 1b0 lineal foot increment: *eight*ornamental trees (instead of 4)and *fifteen's shrubs(instead of 10)will be required. . o1- \ Page 11,Section La. (OPTION 1 & OP.TION 2): .There should only be one option listed as the standard. Also, one option has 2 rows of Norway spruce, while the oth r option does not. (The Forestry Dept. opts for the denser buffer.) .C>Vv‘Ci\ W t\I de Ct d•e laJ �e4'N o s18., • . 0e.' Page 12, Section I.b.: to this paragraph,please add the requirement of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 26—Buffer Yard Requirements: a 10 ft wide landscape buffer area, to have at least 3 shade trees per.100 lineal foot increment, and to also have a total of 21 shrubs. 04'\ Page 12, Section J.a.i.: Please change this paragraph to read:A planting area equal to an.area measuring *25 feet*(instead of 15 ft) in depth by the width of the front of a standalone Principal Building... ��• � Page 13, Sections J.a. v. and J.B.ii(c): please remove the phrase *amenity area buildings*, to show that • amenity area buildings must have foundation plantings. ._ h. Page 13, Sections J.b.i(b): please change the planting area depth to be *.10 fi*in depth(instead o.f 5-ft),and also to be required on *all*sides of all buildings (regardless of pavement locations). b� \ Page. 14, Section K.b: please remove the first part of the sentence,and just leave the requirement of so many plantings per 9 parking spaces. \1/4,)t\`. 1 ol_ ..-2 *r ..s / ° spa c.c.s . `J 0 DOCS has requested some 17 or so changes to the proposed language in the PUD, and the petitioner has.stated that they will amend the PUD text,pursuant to a 2—hour meeting held with DOCS Staff on June 19. Staff is comfortable with the changes, but still wants to see the actual changes shown'in a revised redline'version of tl e PUD text. .4 eiKe Paridtt_5 10 cartcwnSI csarat'S-. (se c-ir ..-1 . C .. 5. 15 4 ' Recommendations ® )"7----• .(buvxd_cc,k~it+<. p x At 5 , .:�/0,z-is Y. �,.v(-► is e,s. ..-The Dept of Community Services(DOCS)recommends that the Committee votes oh this.item and•':sends it back to the full Plan Commission meeting on July 17, with a positive recommendation, and with the stipulation of submitting a revised redline version of the PUD text showing all of the changes. 1 ,Z ® 15 Set✓ . 8 • Q- -itio -1 o �' N olf 750 . Ci I4, 0_,,,,e- -c t 75R (,, Ca` l, v'1l 69 BE fWAI '.1-( 61i1-1\3 - .-e(' ortc-_s' 31- .5-11,-) ) ‘1 ---eic.,_,,i4-) - 1-) 17.3c),, , ---ola-c-\! 5 ig-i' P? a i'. 1.*TIES A•D.:\i)-(k-)S-c - 1-A-Ts , C2)0)17.\(-01)-607-s \c----■(:,--k- 5--r- trsue, 1-5 pt.c)T- . - L tl-MHefl■5 ;‹?; , isk-).7. ,7,pt,--51 f■-)L- . — Ll T - tu •' ?6D.?-iff ' '''''' - o ----------- ‘-‘,..,---w-- (e)in'n'\- --c-s 0.'•ir Cefroi\illge " --kAA01-- ?ci--k. --E u--1 i•-)c),3 t-) -- C-.) I' i.,..\-i 11• lik ----3-c)u --- -- j „,-------------- ,_)4;.-8. ci.<) • „pr,,Zo(137 ,...:i..0 4.ker_ N\-kiv --:, -141,C t 1 , ____.-------- ....> ,si.. 1-i- - -5 fi -----, - ;r'-j' -'-E\.)riii 1 7-6 7■) - T --E.)kfC1-11,V•3 l pttA0 _. -f_JO4v,)1.1 .5ei. /TI--ii /..71 Ki 6 (..3 7011)-1- vo kUL, )-ALS jyy-11,3 _, n ,,--- \‘kt-:' ‘/ ULu 111. -d10 ' 't- ' 4t-. --cFrh.C--77T i /ill'W-tAir-- 0‘).i-sTC-rri`l Or 6-1-7 -- 06-7 . , . - i)-Ji, bel3C-Cm1 zi.- ) )a sSM - ---- Donahue-Wold, Alexia K From: Littlejohn, David W Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:30 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Bicycle Parking - Highpointe PUD I am not sure why they don't want to include bike parking for the apartments specifically, but it still sounds like they are trying to work around requiring bike parking(bike racks)for the apartments. If they take the language out of the PUD it doesn't mean people won't be able to park their bikes in their gara es but it would help ensure residents without garages would have a safe way to store their bikes. I understand that they are trying to provide an out for us by allowinglthe director to have the final say, but if they drop the language now they can still address this when they come back for their DP. If they don't want to provide bike parking per the ordinance couldn't they work with us on an acceptable resolution or just ask for a variance when they apply for the DP? At that point they ma have mo - '• • u.tion on how many bike spaces are required, how many garages will be considered for bike spaces, how many bike racks will be provided, and any other potential creative ways they plan to accommodate bikes. If they leave it as is it would be like they already got their variance and won't have comply with the ordinance. There are bike parking issues in multiple apartment developments in;Carmel. I think it would be best to resolve any potential problems before they occur. Rather than just taking out the requirement now, I think they should strike the language from the PUD and readdress this we they and/or we have more information. Thanks, David Littlejohn, AICP Alternative Transportation Coordinator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Sq Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2306 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:46 PM To: Littlejohn, David W Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: FW: Bicycle Parking - Highpointe PUD David— What do you think? Angie From: Paul G. Reis[mailto:preisOkdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:17 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wald, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: Bicycle Parking Here is some alternative language for bicycle parking that we are proposing for your consideration. "Bicycle parking spaces in Private Garages located in a Multi-Family Housing Complex may be considered in satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required under the Carmel Zoning Ordinance, upon the review and approval of the Director." Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:AconnC ccarmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:35 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Hi, Paul— thanks.for adding th.e requirement for sidewalks.to..be along Private streets!. . _ I think that David just wants that text stricken from the PUD text, altogether, about private garages satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for multi family housing. Then, if/when the DP/ADLS petition comes through, there could be some flexibility on that, but there would also be compliance with the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance... And, remember, 2 bikes can be parked on 1 inverted U bike rack. Thanks, . Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis@ kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:50 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Attached is the revised PUD with the change for sidewalks that was inadvertently omitted. We respectfully agree to disagree on the requirement that garages cannot be used to satisfy bicycle parking. I am meeting with Daren in a few minutes and may have additional changes. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:AconnPcarmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday,June 26, 2012 2:14 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Good afternoon, Paul— Regarding this revised PUD text—there is nothing in this revised version about requiring sidewalks on both sides of Private streets. And, I think we discussed that at our last meeting at DOCS and you stated that you were going to add something to that effect. It would be hard for DOCS to require that JC Hart include sidewalks on both sides of their "private" streets during their DP/ADLS approval phase if it is not included in the PUD. If you want to submit a pedestrian plan showing where sidewalk and path connections will go,we may be able to accept that proposal without you specifically noting that sidewalks will be required on both sides of all of the private streets. (We have done this on other PUDs). Staff also noticed that you still have private garages satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for multi-family housing portion in their bicycle parking section of the PUD. This would not address the intent of the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. So,that phrase should be removed from the PUD text. (Feel free to contact David Littlejohn, Alternative Transportation Coordinator, on this. ) Please advise. 2 Thank you, Angie Conn Planning Administrator 571-2417 From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis( kdlebal.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:35 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Angie,Alexia and Mike: Attached is a draft of the revised PUD Ordinance for Highpointe on Meridian in redline form showing our proposed changes. I have a meeting with Daren tomorrow to further discuss Landscaping. My plan is to walk through these changes with the committee and present additional information concerning the effect of multi-family housing on residential property values. Below is a narrative concerning the shadow study which we can discuss further with the Committee. I am circulating this draft to the development team at this time so we may make additional modifications. Shadow study: We assume in our latitude a 20 degree sun angle at ten o'clock and two o'clock on December 22 which would be when the sun would be the lowest and cast the longest shadow. A 45' high; building will cast a 160' long shadow at that time of year. Our closest buildings are only two stories and will cast a shadow roughly half this length so we will be well within the boundaries of our site with building shadows. A 60' high building will cast a 170' long shadow at that time of year.The location of the office building and any three story structure is over 300'from the any residence. Best regards, Paul Paul G.Reis Partner Krieg DeVault LLP 1 12800 N Meridian Street I Suite 300 I Carmel,IN 46032 Phone:317-238-6293 I Cell:317-431-0063 I Fax:317-636-1507 iprersr)kdIegal:comd www kriegdevault com:;I V Card I Bto; • , ' rr Indiana I Illinois I Georgia I Florida I Minnesota CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT• This e-mail message is for the sole use of the recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient(s),please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.IRS Circular 230 Notice:Advice rendered in this communication,including attachments,on U.S.tax issues(I)is not intended or written to be used,and it cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS on taxpayers,and(ii)may not be used or referred to in promoting,marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity,investment plan or arrangement.This notice is intended to comply with Section 10.35 of IRS Circular 230,which is located at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf. 3 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION I SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE • JUNE 27, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT 6. Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD. The applicant seeks approval to rezone 27 acres to PUD/Planried Unit Development for commercial, office, and residential uses.The site is located at the southwest corner of 136"' St. &Illinois St. It is zoned B-5/Business within the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault for Frank Regan, owner. History of the Subject Site This site was rezoned from S-2/Residential to B-5/Business in 1991,under Plan Commission docket no. 32-91 Z and City Council Ordinance Z-262. Also, some litigation included the relocation of a gas pipeline,to be closer and parallel to the . road right of way of future lllinois Street that was acquired. Also land for the proposed pump station site was dedicated to the City, also as part of that litigation. Rezone covenants were adopted as part of that 1991 rezone approval. The first covenant was that the building heights were restricted to be a maximum of 3 stories in height,not to exceed 40 feet. The second covenant was that the height of buildings fronting on or adjacent to 136`'' Street were restricted to 2 stories,not to exceed 30 feet, and the architecture of such buildings shall maintain a residential appearance. Context of Subject Site Surrounding zoning land use classifications are S-2/Residence to the north and west, and B-6/Business to the east(within the US 31 Overlay Zone). To the north is the Village of Mount Carmel Subdivision(specifically Section 6) with a density is 1.37 units/acre. To the west is Bentley Oaks Subdivision(2.6 u/ac) and Park Meadows Parks at Springmill (2.5 u/ac). Most of these homes are 2 stories tall.To the east are 2 or 3-story tall medical offices, Illinois St &US 31,with St. Vincent Hospital just past that, which is about 3-4 stories tall. Although the subject parcel lies is within the US 31 Overlay Zone, it is nearly 200 feet from the drive lanes of US 31 and is separated from those drive lanes by the US 31 road right of way and by Illinois Parkway. Comprehensive Plan Guidance According to the Land Classification Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan(C3 Plan), • The existing residential developments to the north and west can be classified as"Suburban Residential". • This subject site is intended for an Employment Node, where there are large office buildings providing regional employment with opportunity to integrate employment-serving mixed uses. • An Employment Node is considered a Conditional Fit, next to Suburban Residential areas, meaning it is appropriate when it is installed with sensitivity next to the residential area. See the Appropriate Adjacent Land Classifications table. • A Neighborhood Support Center(that provides daily goods,.services &amenities to residential areas within walking distance) is a type of commercial development considered compatible to Suburban Residential uses, according to the Appropriate Adjacent Land Classifications table. The North Central Carmel Policies & Objectives section of the C3 Plan lists objectives that pertain to: • Encouraging compact urban form and mixed-use development • Promoting protection of single family neighborhoods through buffering, transitional design,infrastructure investment, and landscaping beautification. • Allowing the tallest structures to be along US 31 • Encouraging neighborhood and community serving commercial nodes in strategic locations • Integrating employment-serving commercial uses to allow workers to walk to restaurants and other businesses. Allow for a broader mix of uses, including additional residential and service retail. The West Carmel Policies &Objectives section of the C3 Plan lists objectives that pertain to: • Preserving the estate character of West Carmel • Protecting large-lot residential areas The City-wide Policies and Objectives section of the C3 Plan: 5 • Supports neighborhood support centers (not in excessive quantities) • Strongly promotes mixed-use developments (combining commercial and residential uses) • Encourages walkability and bikability so that every trip does not have to be in a vehicle • Promotes appropriate transitions • Favors protection of natural areas • Promotes parking lots in the rear or to the sides of properties The US 31 Corridor Plan of the C3 Plan: • Denotes the subject site as being an Employment Corridor,where building heights should not exceed 3 stories when adjacent to residential neighborhoods. • Also denotes the'preservation of residential areas. • Limited opportunity for business- serving and employee-serving commercial should be allowed in existing buildings, such as restaurants and print shops.- • Transition the mass and scale of structures between US 31 &Illinois St. to minimize impact to residential development to the west. • Respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require appropriate buffering. The entire Comprehensive Plan document can be viewed online at: http://www.carmelin.gov/index.aspx?page=202 . Analysis • Several factors should be taken into consideration when reviewing this proposed change in use: the prior rezone approval and its covenants;the Comprehensive Plan; current conditions/character of current structures and uses in each district;the highest, best and most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted;conserving property values throughout the City and Township;and lastly, responsible and smart development/growth. The current zoning of B5/Business and US 31/Meridian St. Overlay Zone permits mostly office uses,with a small percentage of some hotel, restaurant, and service/retail support uses. (The Zoning Ordinance can be viewed online at: http://www.carmel.in.gov/index.aspx?page=41&parent=198.) The Overlay Zone excludes all residential uses;however, a nursing/retirement/convalescent facility is permitted in the Overlay,but would only be permitted by Special Use approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals in the B-5 zone. The proposed PUD land uses are(A) residential uses,limited to multi-family dwelling units and a senior living community, (B) general and professional offices uses, and (C) limited retail and service commercial uses,supportive of the office and residential uses. The proposed rezone to a PUD classification would permit the multifamily land uses, which is currently not permitted in the Overlay Zone. The Department is comfortable with the change in use from office to a mix of land uses. Site design should play a role when considering a Planned Unit Development(PUD) rezone. The purpose of a PUD is to provide opportunities to create more desirable environments through the application of more flexible and diversified land development standards than the existing regulations. A PUD is intended to be used to encourage the.application of new techniques and new technology to community development that will result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values. This challenging site has many constraints, such as the gas pipeline easement and a drainage easement,which further constrain the development parameters of this narrow site. The Department likes that fact that the buildings.are pulled up to the streets to create a good streetscape with buildings and landscaping. Pulling the buildings up to Illinois Street also allows for the office buildings to be located furthest away from the residential areas to the east. The Dept. also likes the on street parking along the private streets. The preservation of the trees at the northeast corner of the site is also a good feature. The transition of 2-story buildings to 3-stooiy buildings does help with the transition of scale and use. The following were areas of concern to the Department: transition, transition of scale and massing, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, landscaping and buffering,building architecture, and signage, among other things. The Department believes the petitioner has now addressed these issues: 6 s'" '+���' k - • Fl IF •°`�' TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STUDIES • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES -.. _- i ' i w,cc � ,_ ,w STREET DESIGN • HIGHWAY DESIGN • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PARKING LOT DESIGN • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES Transportation & Site Engineering CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION • SITE ENGINEERING Creating.Order Since 1966 REGISTRATION WILLIAM J.FEHRIBACH,P.E. INDIANA ILLINOIS OF COUNCIL IOWA STEVEN J.FEHRIBACH,P.E. KENTUCKY PRESIDENT MICHIGAN JOSEPH T.RENGEL,P.E. OHIO VICE PRESIDENT MISSOURI FLORIDA R.MATTHEW BROWN,P.E. VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD J.KELLY,P.E. VICE PRESIDENT June 25, 2012 rN4 a�_ 9 10 Mr. Gary Duncan, P.E. City of Carmel Engineering Department `-r '�, One Civic Square � ' - �-��` Carmel, Indiana 46032 N,1\.-t Re: Trip Generation -Highpointe on Meridian 4r `) °Z��ra � Dear Mr.Duncan, At the request of the Department of Community Services, I have calculated the trips that can be anticipated by the Highpointe on Meridian development. Thi tables below show the comparison of trips that would be generated under the current zoning classification and the current proposal as provided by the Developer. It can be seen through the Trip Generation Analysis that development under the current zoning will have a much greater impact on the roadway system based on the number of vehicles it will generate. Land Use ITE Code Size 24-Hour AM Peak PM Peak Enter Exit Enter Exit General Office 710 180,000 SF 2,098 264 36 48 233 Medical Office 720 180,000 SF 6,503 328 86 167 455 Total Generated Trips 8,601 592 122 215 688 Land Use ITE Code Size 24-Hour AM Peak PM Peak Enter Exit Enter Exit General Office _ 710 72,000 SF 1,036 127 17 27 132 Multi-Family _ 220 242 units 1,590 24 98 98 _ 53 _ . Senior Living 251 150 units 764 19 _ 36 37 24 Total Generated Trips , 3,390 170 151 162 209 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A&F Engineering Co., Inc. Z /i c___574/_,/ /"...-----.-°</_..-//Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. President 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201 — INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240 TELEPHONE (317) 202-0864 — FACISMILE (317) 202-0908 • 1,t4 r\oc . 741g, SPECTRUM wmtmawa.,. .r+aa,uo 2012 April PROJECTED TRAFFIC PATTERNS FOR A 150 UNIT SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY(70 IL, 56 AL,24 MC) Resident Vehicles Typically only 25%-35%of Independent Living (IL) residents have cars. Fewer than 10% of Assisted Living (AL) residents have cars and AL residents usually do not drive on a regular basis. Memory Care (MC) residents do not have vehicles. Staff Vehicles-numbers are approximate Monday through Friday Saturday and Sunday 6am-2pm 15 staff .6am-2pm 17 staff 2pm-10pm 17 staff 2pm-10pm 18 staff 10pm-6am 5 staff 10pm-6am 5 staff 9am-5pm 8 department heads No deparment heads Staff traffic is highest between 1:55pm and 2:05pm. IMPORTANT NOTE:While this shift change involves 32-35 total staff (half arriving&half departing), some dietary staff change 1 hour before/shift changes, &some housekeeping staff change 1 hour after shift changes.Therefore the actual staff traffic is 25%-50%less than the total number of staff involved at shift changes. Guest Vehicles Typically only 10%of our residents have a regular weekly visitor,so for 150 units,we could expect 15 guests throughout the week(or just over 2 guests a day). There are more guests on weekends and on a few holidays throughout the year. Parking Needs Getting the correct parking ratio is important to the operation &marketing of our communities-too many spaces makes the community look empty, isolated, &inactive,while too few obviously can cause frustration. In operating our many communities nationwide,we have found that providing somewhere between 0.67—0.70 parking spaces per unit is the optimal parking ratio—not too many,not too few. For the proposed community in Carmel, we are using a ratio of 0.67 spaces per unit, which equates to 100 spaces,an appropriate ratio given the mix of unit types&levels of care provided at this community. Using the high side of the typical numbers of resident, staff, &guest cars outlined above,we could expect to have 25 IL resident cars, 6 AL resident cars, &around 40 staff cars at peak shift change (that reduces to 25 cars at all other times),for a maximum total of 71 cars for a short while around 2pm.At its busiest,the parking still provides 29 spaces (or roughly 10 times the spaces needed)to easily accommodate occasional visits by family&friends. Delivery Vehicles We typically have 2 semi trucks (large-size trucks) of kitchen supplies a week(usually on Monday and Friday), 2 medium- size trucks of produce and dairy a week(usually on Monday and Thursday), and 2 small-size trucks for laundry a week.We have regular mail delivery, and UPS and FedEx deliveries are similar to a typical neighborhood. Emergency Response Vehicles The number of emergency response vehicle visits to our community is comparable to, if not slightly lower than, any typical neighborhood. (We would see fewer law enforcement vehicles than a typical neighborhood would see.) The number of emergency response vehicle visits can be lower than the number of visits in a typical neighborhood because our staff are able to spot potential medical issues before they develop into emergencies. In such a situation, our staff can inform a resident's contact person of a potential medical issue, and that person will frequently choose to come &take the resident to receive any necessary care. If emergency response vehicles do visit our community,we ask that they turn off sirens as they approach,as allowed by local codes. Highpointe on Meridian Docket Number 11120027 Z Shadow Study We assume in our latitude a 20 degree sun angle at ten o'clock and two o'clock-on December 22 which would be when the sun would be the lowest and cast the longest shadow. A 45' high building will cast a 160' long shadow at that time of year. Our closest buildings are only two stories and will cast a shadow roughly half this length so we will be well within the boundaries of our site with building shadows. A 60' high building will cast a 170' long shadow at that time of year. The location of the office building and any three story structure is over 300' from the any residence. o- t- ., 7 KD43153331.DOCX ,fi,"' , r Highpointe on Meridian Docket Number 11120027 Z �' 0\272°2 Carmel School Aged Children ; J.C. Hart Apartment Communities June 25, 2012 North Haven Apartments of Carmel—96th Street & Gray Road There are 10 units with school aged children out of 261 occupied units,or 3% of total units with school aged children. Legacy Towns & Flats of Carmel—,146th Street & River Road There are 47 units with school aged children out of 227 occupied units, or 16.9% of total units with school aged children. One One Six College Apartments of Carmel— 116th Street &College Avenue Out of 95 units released at One One Six, 2 households will have school aged children, or 2.1% of total units with school aged children. KD 4315200 1.DOCX 2:(ca---1 . . , 1 ` Executive Summary The Effect of Multifamily Housing on Single Family Home Values Many studies have been conducted to study the effect of multifamily housing located near single family neighborhoods. These studies'have shown either no impact or even a slightly positive impact on single-family appreciation rates: o Single family homes in census tracts with a higher percentage of multifamily homes appreciated more quickly than single family homes located in areas predominately made up of other single family homes—conclusion from "America's Working Communities and the Impact of Multifamily Housing"; Harvard University, 2004 o Large multifamily developments that are well built,top-of-the-market rental communities do not negatively impact the sales price of nearby single-family homes—conclusion from "Effects of Mixed-Income, Multifamily Rental Housing Developments on Single-Family Housing Values", MIT Center for Real Estate, 2005 o Over the long run, well-placed market-rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the overall value of detached houses nearby- conclusion from "Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-Family Detached Residential Homes", Virginia Tech University, 2003 o A study of home values between 1997 and 1999 found that the value of single- family houses within 300 feet of an apartment community appreciated 2.9% versus 2.7%rate for single-family homes without apartment properties nearby — "Market Outlook:Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts", National Association of Home Builders,2001 • There are several reasons for the compelling evidence and conclusions that increased density does not negatively impact nearby property values: o New developments, including apartment communities, are an indicator that an area is a dynamic and thriving community with a strong/stable economy o Multifamily housing increases the pool of potential future homebuyers; if the apartment residents enjoy the location they are much more likely to buy a home within that area thus creating more possible buyers for existing homeowners when they decide to sell their houses o New housing, particularly in mixed-use developments, make an area more attractive to both residents and businesses which in turn helps create more living choices, retail options, and employment bases to help nurture an area's growth and vitality Highpointe on Meridian Docket Number 11120027 Z Carmel School Aged Children J.C. Hart Apartment Communities June 25, 2012. North Haven Apartments of Carmel—96th Street& Gray Road There are 10 units with school aged children out of 261 occupied units, or 3% of total units with school aged children. Legacy Towns & Flats of Carmel— 146th Street& River Road There are 47 units with school aged children out of 227 occupied units, or 16.9% of total units with school aged children. One One Six College Apartments of Carmel— 116th Street & College Avenue Out of 95 units preleased at One One Six, 2 households will have school aged children, or 2.1% of total units with school aged children. KD 4315200 1.DOCX Highpointe on Meridian Docket Number 11120027 Z Shadow Study We assume in our latitude a 20 degree sun angle at ten o'clock and two o'clock on December 22 which would be when the sun would be the lowest and cast the longest shadow. A 45' high building will cast a 160' long shadow at that time of year. Our closest buildings are only two stories and will cast a shadow roughly half this length so we will be well within the boundaries of our site with building shadows. A 60' high building will cast a 170' long shadow at that time of year. The location of the office building and any three story structure is over 300' from the any residence. KD 4315323 1.DOCX co—Z-1 — cZ dy¢� i ra - '"t0 4 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STUDIES • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES �`Ns. 6 STREET DESIGN • HIGHWAY DESIGN • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PARKING LOT DESIGN • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES Transportation & Site E n„i n ew r i n g CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION • SITE ENGINEERING Creating Order Since 1966 REGISTRATION WILLIAM J.FEHRIBACH,P.E. INDIANA OF COUNCIL ILLINOIS IOWA STEVEN J.FEHRIBACH,P.E. KENTUCKY PRESIDENT MICHIGAN JOSEPH T.RENGEL,P.E. OHIO VICE PRESIDENT' MISSOURI FLORIDA R.MATTHEW BROWN,P.E. VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD J.KELLY,P.E. VICE PRESIDENT June 25, 2012 Mr. Gary Duncan, P.E. City of Carmel Engineering Department One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Trip Generation - Highpointe on Meridian Dear Mr. Duncan, At the request of the Department of Community Services, I have calculated the trips that can be anticipated by the Highpointe on Meridian development. The tables below show the comparison of trips that would be generated under the current zoning classification and the current proposal as provided by the Developer. It can be seen through the Trip Generation Analysis that development under the current zoning will have a much greater impact on the roadway system based on the number of vehicles it will generate. AM Peak PM Peak Land Use ITE Code Size 24-Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit General Office 710 180,000 SF 2,098 264 36 48 233 Medical Office 720 180,000 SF 6,503 328 86 167 455 Total Generated Trips 8,601 592 122 215 688 AM Peak PM Peak Land Use ITE Code Size 24-Hour _ Enter Exit Enter Exit General Office 710 72,000 SF 1,036 127 17 27 132 Multi-Family 220 242 units 1,590 24 98 98 53 Senior Living 251 150 units 764 19 36 37 24 Total Generated Trips 3,390 170 151 162 209 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A&F Engineering Co., Inc. 57L, Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. President 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201 — INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240 TELEPHONE (317) 202-0864 — FACISMILE (317) 202.0908 4.1,t1 SPECTRUM we.rw[uxtn GbuuYiriir�.o,�4G 2012 April PROJECTED TRAFFIC PATTERNS FOR A 150 UNIT SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY(70 IL, 56 AL,24 MC) Resident Vehicles Typically only 25%-35%of Independent Living (IL) residents have cars. Fewer than 10%of Assisted Living (AL) residents have cars and AL residents usually do not drive on a regular basis. Memory Care (MC) residents do not have vehicles. Staff Vehicles-numbers are approximate Monday through Friday Saturday and Sunday 6am-2pm 15 staff 6am-2pm 17 staff 2pm-10pm 17 staff 2pm-10pm ' 18 staff 10pm-6am 5 staff lOpm-6am 5 staff 9am-5pm 8 department heads No deparment heads Staff traffic is highest between 1:55pm and 2:05pm. IMPORTANT NOTE;While this shift change involves 32-35 total staff (half arriving&half departing),some dietary staff change 1 hour before shift changes, &some housekeeping staff change 1 hour after shift changes.Therefore the actual staff traffic is 25%-50%less than the total number of staff involved at shift changes. Guest Vehicles Typically only 10%of our residents have a regular weekly visitor,so for'150 units,we could expect 15 guests throughout the week(or just over 2 guests a day). There are more guests on weekends and on a few holidays throughout the year. Parking Needs Getting the correct parking ratio is important to the operation&marketing of our communities-too many spaces makes the community look empty,isolated, &inactive,while too few obviously can cause frustration. In operating our many communities nationwide,we have found that providing somewhere between 0.67—0.70 parking spaces per unit is the optimal parking ratio—not too many,not too few.For the proposed community in Carmel,we are using a ratio of 0.67 spaces per unit,which equates to 100 spaces,an appropriate ratio given the mix of unit types&levels of care provided at this community. Using the high side of the typical numbers of resident,staff,&guest cars outlined above,we could expect to have 25 IL resident cars,6 AL resident cars,&around 40 staff cars at peak shift change (that reduces to 25 cars at all other times),for a maximum total of 71 cars for a short while around 2pm.At its busiest,the parking still provides 29 spaces(or roughly 10 times the spaces needed)to easily accommodate occasional visits by family&friends. Delivery Vehicles We typically have 2 semi trucks (large-size trucks)of kitchen supplies a week(usually on Monday and Friday), 2 medium- size trucks of produce and dairy a week(usually on Monday and Thursday), and 2 small-size trucks for laundry a week.We have regular mail delivery,and UPS and FedEx deliveries are similar to a typical neighborhood. Emergency Response Vehicles The number of emergency response vehicle visits to our community is comparable to,if not slightly lower than,any typical neighborhood. (We would see fewer law enforcement vehicles than a typical neighborhood would see.)The number of emergency response vehicle visits can be lower than the number of visits in a typical neighborhood because our staff are able to spot potential medical issues before they develop into emergencies. In such a situation,our staff can inform a resident's contact person of a potential medical issue,and that person*ill frequently choose to come&take the resident to receive any necessary care. If emergency response vehicles do visit our community,we ask that they turn off sirens as they approach, as allowed by local codes. -2.-7—t ? . HIGHPOINTE ON MERIDIAN DOCKET NUMBER: 11120027 Executive Summary The Effect of Multifamily Housing on Single Family Home Values • Many studies have been conducted to study the effect of multifamily housing located near single family neighborhoods. These studies have shown either no impact or even a slightly positive impact on single-family appreciation.rates: o Single family homes in census tracts with a higher percentage of multifamily homes appreciated more quickly than single family homes located in areas predominately made up of other single family homes—conclusion from "America's Working Communities and the Impact of Multifamily Housing"; Harvard University, 2004 o Large multifamily developments that are well built,top-of-the-market rental communities do not negatively impact the sales price of nearby single-family homes—conclusion from "Effects of Mixed-Income, Multifamily Rental Housing Developments on Single-Family Housing Values", MIT Center for Real Estate, 2005 o Over the long run, well-placed market-rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the overall value of detached houses nearby- conclusion from "Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-Family Detached Residential Homes", Virginia Tech University, 2003 o A study of home values between 1997 and 1999 found that the value of single- family houses within 300 feet of an apartment community appreciated 2.9% versus 2.7% rate for single-family homes without apartment properties nearby — "Market Outlook:Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts", National Association of Home Builders,2001 • There are several reasons for the compelling evidence and conclusions that increased density does not negatively impact nearby property values: o New developments, including apartment communities, are an indicator that an area is a dynamic and thriving community with a strong/stable economy o Multifamily housing increases the pool of potential future homebuyers; if the apartment residents enjoy the location they are much more likely to buy a home within that area thus creating more possible buyers for existing homeowners when they decide to sell their houses o New housing, particularly in mixed-use developments, make an area more attractive to both residents and businesses which in turn helps create more living choices, retail options, and employment bases to help nurture an area's growth and vitality • Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:36 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Attachments: PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian_v9 6-27-12.pdf; Trip Generation - Highpointe on Meridian.pdf; Spectrum Parking Analysis.pdf; Highpointe on Meridian - Shadow Study.pdf; Housing Values Exec Summary.pdf; Highpointe on Meridian - Carmel School Aged Children, June 2012.pdf Angie Attached are 1. A redline copy of the PUD Ordinance which incorporate the changes discussed with staff, proposed language to allow for flexibility on the bicycle parking, proposed language to require landscaping when necessary to prevent headlights from shining into the single family residential areas, and changes discussed with Daren this morning. 2. Traffic generation report from A& F Engineering to Gary Duncan. 3. Parking explanation of Spectrum Retirement in support of proposed parking ratio. 4. Shadow study summary. 5. Executive Summary of studies concerning property values adjacent to multi-family developments. 6. Data concerning impact on schools. We look forward to completing review with the Committee tonight and returning to the Plan Commission. Thanks to all for your assistance. Best regards, Paul Paul G.Reis Partner Krieg DeVault LLP 1 12800 N Meridian Street I Suite 300 I Carmel,IN 46032 Phone:317-238-6293 I Cell:317-431-0063 I Fax:317-636-1507 P refs @kdlegal co roll wv++w kriegdevau,itcorn ( V Card,V Bio 9 IEC1 1 KP DEVAULT, Indiana I Illinois I Georgia I Florida I Minnesota CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This e-mail message is for the sole use of the recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient(s),please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.IRS Circular 230 Notice:Advice rendered in this communication,including attachments,on U.S.tax issues(I)is not intended or written to be used,and it cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS on taxpayers,and(ii)may not be used or referred to in.promoting,marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity,investment plan or arrangement.This notice is intended to comply with Section 10.35 of IRS Circular 230,which is located at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230:pdf. 1 -z ► Z Executive Summary The Effect of Multifamily Housing on Single Family Home Values • Many studies have been conducted to study the;effect of multifamily housing located near single family neighborhoods. These studies have shown either no impact or even a slightly positive impact on single-family appreciation rates: o Single family homes in census tracts with a higher percentage of multifamily homes appreciated more quickly than single family homes located in areas predominately made up of other single family homes—conclusion from "America's Working Communities and the Impact of Multifamily Housing"; Harvard University, 2004 o Large multifamily developments that are well built, top-of-the-market rental communities do not negatively impact the sales price of nearby single-family homes—conclusion from "Effects of Mixed-Income, Multifamily Rental Housing Developments on Single-Family Housing Values", MIT Center for Real Estate, 2005 o Over the long run, well-placed market-rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the overall value of detached houses nearby- conclusion from "Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-Family Detached Residential Homes", Virginia Tech University, 2003 o A study of home values between 1997 and 1999 found that the value of single- family houses within 300 feet of an apartment community appreciated 2.9% versus 2.7% rate for single-family homes without apartment properties nearby — "Market Outlook:Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts'; National Association of Home Builders,2001 • There are several reasons for the compelling evidence and conclusions that increased density does not negatively impact nearby property values: o New developments, including apartment communities, are an indicator that an area is a dynamic and thriving community with a strong/stable economy o Multifamily housing increases the pool of potential future homebuyers; if the apartment residents enjoy the location they are much more likely to buy a home within that area thus creating more possible buyers for existing homeowners when they decide to sell their houses o New housing, particularly in mixed-use developments, make an area more attractive to both residents and businesses which in turn helps create more living choices, retail options, and employment bases to help nurture an area's growth and vitality 1 hborWorks® Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation America's Working Communities and the Impact of Multifamily Housing Alexander von Hoffman, Eric Belsky, James DeNormandie and Rachel Bratt JET Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University +ty A L. ° s +4 •151 r Fp. sj� r i . ar x• ., 41 '1• ' 1 , a MIT C E N T E R F O R _ � REAL ESTATE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY INITIATIVE EFFECTS OF MIXED-INCOME, MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ON SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING VALUES HENRY 0. POLLAKOWSKI DAVID RITCHAY ZOE WEINROBE APRIL 2005 CENTER FOR REAL ESTATE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 77 MASSACHUSETT S AVENUE BUILDING W31-310 MA 02139 CAMBRIDGE, /�� ® PA4RT�Ip� :� C® ,, ; R 1.NS1U'E,RPLAN S�SEN��E nil -ld.��> ,o � 3a �•�`�, ,i.' rh, '4 i7 '!'',,'•:' ,-,"^ 4*&i - e' 'Y. , '7',.''','',' ``�',.'.rs '� '� �� '"�'" ._� s d°' -}".wYaF CITY WORE P*LOC SOW ,'JECT V Policy 2:Be a Leading Edge City Introduction:The expression"Leading Edge City"is applied to communities that have broad name recognition,notable culture,a positive image,diversity in housing,broad range Policy 1:Manage Community Form of employment,business vitality,strong architectural pres- Introduction:The purpose of'managing form is to achieve ence and character,sense of place,environmental awareness, a superior quality built and natural environment in which effective public transportation,and most importantly a people reside,work,and recreate. Managing community desirable quality of life. form is the combination of land use planning,transporta- tion planning,urban design,influencing transitions,and Objective 2.1:Commit to high architectural energy efficient place-snaking. and environmental design standards for all municipal build- ings and facilities. The intent is to set a precedent for quality The tools used to manage community form take shape as and to establish character goals for private sector develop- development guidelines,zoning ordinances,subdivision meat to emulate. Developers will take cues from municipal regulations,building codes,studies,small area plans, improvements and be more likely to follow the City's lead. negotiations,commitments,conditions,covenants, This commitment will also further the City's competitive redevelopment initiatives,policies,education and the like. advantage in the region,and increase community pride in the No single tool can effectively manage community form_ built environment. Managing community form is a departure from purely Objective 2.2:Further enhance the amenities,development land use based regulations that encourage segregation and opportunities,office-supporting commerce and technology challenge the community's ability to establish essential infrastructure necessary to support current businesses and connectivity. This model is more permissive of mixed-use to attract additional businesses to Carmel. Concurrently,it nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between is important to continue investing to enhance community differing land classifications. quality of life to provide a superior place for people in all Objective 1.1:Merge form-based regulatory tools into the socioeconomic classes to live by encouraging high quality traditional zoning and subdivision control ordinances based public spaces,interesting parks,plazas,public gardens,tree- on Part 3:Land Classification Plan. lined streets and boulevards,and trails connecting people Objective 1.2:Recognize the uniqueness in each planning to places. There is significant evidence that high quality of district and establish regulations,subarea plans,and/or pat- life is a major attraction for businesses,thus making this a tern books to preserve these unique features. primary component of this objective. Objective 1.3:Utilize and follow the intent of the C3 Plan Objective 2.3:Encourage more diversity in housing types by applying the Plan's content to development proposals to to better meet the needs of older residents and appeal to leverage the desired outcomes and prevent deviations from younger and more diverse employees working in Carmel. the City's policies and objectives. As Cahnel continues to attract regional and national head- quarters,the housing desired by people relocating from Objective 1.4:Be very sensitive to connectivity and transitions other parts of the country and world is not always consistent between adjacent areas. Discourage unplanned or harsh with Indiana's traditional residential form of single-family contrasts in height,building orientation,character,land use, detached homes. The City needs to commission a study on and density. If there exists contrast,utilize multiple design housing choices. principles to soften transitions. Objective 2.4:Support local intra-city and regional commuter Objective 1.5: Strongly promote mixed-use in areas suitable transit systems as described in Part 4: Transportation Plan. for commercial development,and protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development. Objective 2.5:Enhance a bicycle-and pedestrian-connected community through expanded installation of side paths, Objective 1.6:Continue to build the city park and trail system sidewalks,bike lanes,and off-street trails. It is well estab- through targeted acquisition of remaining undeveloped lished that many of the moderate-sized leading edge cities in parcels. our nation are bicycle and pedestrian friendly communities. Objective 1.7: Continue to manage commercial signage to Carmel believes that the further establishment of bicycle balance the visibility needs of business with the aesthetic and pedestrian facilities will result in increased mobility, quality which has made Carmel an attractive place to live. further enhance quality of life,and be greatly appreciated by citizens. Objective 2.6:Recognize the existing limitations of east/west vehicular,bike,and pedestrian access,and strive to enhance means for efficient cross-community travel. • CARREL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN f 17 A0914V e; "4y,r h :_ ✓ } ;nU. pr, as 7 F^m �y"��',s "L.". y" -�'^� 5 }Pt.<`"A 3� ' ,� y,, ;." v,,;I6, 'PART, :29L MPRE ES V E AEiSN CE® N � • ° ;:‘,:-L142 Policy 3:Perpetuate Economic Vitality Objective 3.8: Continue to improve overall telecommunication Introduction:Vitality is defined in many ways,including in partnership with local providers to ensure that cable based job growth,quantity of jobs,quality of jobs,proliferation and wireless opportunities are maximized. The City should of commerce,entrepreneurship,investment in property, commission a telecommunications master plan to ensure the redevelopment,length of commitment,and degree of risk highest quality system network. being taken. Carmel has strong economic vitality today,and Objective 3.9: Promote Carmel City Center and the Regional furthering that trend is of great interest and importance. This Performing Arts Center by marketing them as community section addresses the objectives that Carmel will utilize to and regional destinations. Continue efforts to ensure that perpetuate economic vitality. properly scaled infrastructure is in place for vehicles, Objective 3.1:The City will strive to further the"Carmel" bicycles,and pedestrians to easily access the Carmel City brand as a great place to live,work and raise a family. The Center area from all directions,including from U.S.31 and City has already established a notable degree of branding; Keystone Parkway. branding being positive name recognition and impression. Objective 3.10: Continue to build upon the economic benefits Branding of a community is important when trying to attract of the U.S. 31 Corridor by further maximizing its develop- quality employers and businesses. For instance,well- meat potential. Encourage new buildings to be constructed respected retail businesses want to be located in well-known of high quality materials at the maximum building heights communities. allowed and encourage parking areas to be structured for the Objective 3.2:Encourage mixed-use developments where most efficient use of land in the corridor. appropriate. Single-use developments tend to lack vitality during off-peak times. Mixed-use developments such as Providence at Old Meridian often combine commercial and residential uses into a single node. This type of develop- ment encourages daytime vitality from employment and commerce activity,and nighttime vitality when people come home from work. Also,this development pattern better utilizes land by allowing compact urban form. Objective 3.3: Encourage owners through zoning amendments to retrofit existing single-use centers into mixed-use centers. This encourages both daytime and nighttime vitality and creates a compact urban form. Objective 3.4: Utilize technology to efficiently communicate City projects and initiatives to the public. Expand existing lines of communication to reach more households and gain more public input. Modernize the City's website to accom- modate this objective. Objective 3.5: Clarify and streamline development proce- dures and processes. Simplify the development process without lessening standards,expectations,or results. Create incentives for development that exceeds expectations and standards. Objective 3.6: Plan for local and regional transit by encour- aging transit opportunities in new developments where it would benefit the community. The City should commission a study to determine the best transit corridors for local transit and how best to interface a regional system. Such a study should also analyze how the City would form and benefit from improved transit options. Objective 3.7: Promote the advancement of technology to support city-wide commerce,the workplace,and home enterprise. 78 CITY OF CARSIEL,INDIANA • '',,,4.p� `k u` ,�„`" 9 j @r J +a .x y ,Fc �t T '"y�, . § 4` x �Y g _ VJ�a t,t 7 x o a�a ,�, � � 3`'R � -'+�,"° � ns =,�,y x�..�4 x�! 0. .,i" : C®.� PREHg "1"UE� PLAN.- v�'�SE t v ,3�^- r t dd�r r,7.. n !,a r �a., r.� N.=' ..F re �;,# ,� � d, ^.N„Wpe ca � r '�Mi:� ."nb' ,.L fiik ,:'r X,., va na"% Policy 4:Be a City of Neighborhoods Policy 5:Be an Adaptable City Introduction:Neighborhoods are an essential component of Introduction:Being an adaptable city is critical in the evolu- community which helps build and/or reinforce the fabric of non of a community. Too many communities do not adapt a city. Traditionally,neighborhoods were not recognized to local,regional,and national influences and suffer from the by each individual development's name as they are now. lack of flexibility. Rather,neighborhoods were determined by major physical boundaries;included a mix of housing styles;and were Objective 5.1:Carmel will regularly reevaluate the local, within walking distance to neighborhood service centers, regional,and national influences that affect development schools,and parks which gave neighborhoods identity. This success and vitality. The City will also strive to predict the document encourages planning for neighborhoods,in the next evolutions in development to better recognize whether traditional sense,and also protects these neighborhoods. they would have a positive or negative effect on the City. Objective 4.1:Carmel is desirous of achieving the quality of Objective 5.2:Periodically review and revise the Land life benefits derived from the principles of traditional neigh Classification Plan Map to adapt to changes in the built borhood design principals,in all neighborhoods including those within the context appropriate to and respectful of each environment,evolutions in community values,changes in location,whether estate,suburban,or urban. community policies,and to respond to critical corridor and subarea plans. Objective 4.2:The City believes it necessary to conduct planning in greater detail in critical subareas and corridors. Objective 5.3: Continue to recognize,plan,and update critical For this reason Part 5: Critical Corridors and Subareas corridors and subareas. was created to house those planning exercises within the Objective 5.4: Enhance the Monon Greenway to support and C3 Plan. These small area plans are important in communi- further encourage its use as a non-motorized commuter route ties with redevelopment pressures and in rapidly growing areas. Oftentimes,critical corridor and subarea plans can by widening and separating bicyclists and pedestrians in the better address transitions,connectivity,and development - most heavily used areas. Also,actively plan and implement form. They can also address character goals and emphasize to a system of feeder/branch trails and paths to allow more developers a more exact idea of what the resident wants,what convenient and safe connection to nearby residential and the market can yield,and what the City expects. employment areas. Objective 4.3:Establish neighborhood identity based on physi- Objective 5.5: Adapt the Monon Greenway and adjacent cal boundaries rather than by each development's name. development between City Center and the Arts and Design Neighborhoods are more than each development project. A District into an urban trail destination with its own character concerted effort should be established to determine neigh- and sense of place. borhood boundaries throughout the City,and then promote their identity and boundaries. Objective 5.6: Target for acquisition undeveloped parcels Objective 4.4:Build upon existing neighborhood facilities and adjacent to the Monon Greenway for future park sites. services,such as parks,schools,fire stations,and churches to help define and maintain neighborhood identity and vitality. Objective 4.5:Consider and encourage"third places"(infor- mal meeting places or the social surroundings which are separate from the two usual environments of home and workplace)and neighborhood support centers as building blocks for neighborhoods. Every trip to the store should not be a mandatory drive in a car. Residents should be able to access daily goods and services by walking or bicycling, thereby having the opportunity to conserve energy,improve health,and protect the environment. The City should embark on a"corner store"initiative to define the best loca- tions and distribution of neighborhood support centers. Objective 4.6:Disallow incompatible site and building designs and excessive quantity of neighborhood support centers. Assure that neighborhood support centers provide amenities and land uses that enhance quality of life and convenience, and respect nearby residences with quality architecture,land- scaping,and appropriate transitions. Also assure that they are not a destabilizing feature by adopting design regula- tions and through implementation of a"radius policy"that prohibits more than one center within proximity to another. CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 119 F '" PARS 4 •2: :c MP EHE S1V f - Policy 6:Inspire Community Character Policy 7:Inspire Environmental Awareness Introduction:Community character is the quality(ies)and Introduction:Being environmentally aware includes under- feature(s)of a neighborhood,district,or the entire coin- standing the benefits of protecting natural areas,emphasizing munity that distinguish it from other areas. Community use of native plant material into the urban environment, character is desired and often helps build local pride,encour- r educing energy consumption,encouraging energy and ages investment,and improves quality of life. natural resource conservation,and utilizing "green"building Objective 6.1:Discourage homogeneous development and cur- materials to lessen our impact on the environment. porate brand prototypical architecture. In residential areas, architectural guidelines should be instituted to discourage Objective 7.1:Encourage the use of durable materials and monotonous development. Commercial and residential areas construction methods that prolong the life of buildings. A should be subjected to architectural standards that require paradigm shift is necessary to change the current 30-year life unique and appropriate designs fitting Cannel's character expectancy of commercial buildings and some production goals. homes to a more substantial life expectancy. Carmel has Objective 6.2:Promote a unique community with unique already had some success in encouraging 100-year build- neighborhoods and subareas. Already the City's infi•astmuc_ ings. For instance,that standard is currently being applied to tore and planning investments are bearing fruit in the Old several buildings in the City Center and the Old Town Arts Town Arts and Design District. The community will identify and Design District. appropriate character goals,subareas,and neighborhood Objective 7.2:Continue the policy emphasizing that City boundaries for the East,North Central,South Central,and vehicles be energy efficient and low emission cars and West Carmel Districts. trucks. With the introduction of hybrid vehicles,the City Objective 6.3:Encourage high quality and well designed now has a viable and visible means for improving the envi- landscaping to help beautify the City and promote healthful moment through energy conservation. Also,idling should environments. be discouraged when possible. Objective 6.4:Promote the planting and care of canopy trees throughout Cannel. Encourage their placement even in Objective 1.3:Develop a bicycle network to allow non urban streetscapes,parking lots,and other enclosed areas by vehicular trips to be made by encouraging small-scale and promoting proper soil volumes and/or the use of constructed requiring large-scale employment nodes to install covered soil technologies. Canopy trees are desired because they add and secure bicycle parking,and shower and changing a great deal of character and comfort to the built environ- facilities for cycling commuters. Concurrently,ensure that mnent. Additionally,they also provide relief from heat,soften adequate bicycling facilities exist to allow safe and efficient noise and light,help purify the air we breathe,reduce stress, bicycle commuting. and increase property values. This is a particularly impor- tant objective because so many mature trees are lost through Objective 7.4:The City should encourage use of water saving development. devices,and request that citizens reduce water consump- tion by proper("smart")lawn sprinkling and exploring Objective 6.5:Promote the use of public art in both public alternative landscapes which require less water. Encourage spaces and within private developments. Also,encour- age designers to include public art in their buildings and rainwater(i.e. grey water)recycling to reduce potable water surroundings. consumption. Objective 6.6:Enable healthy choices through the use of Objective 7.5:Strongly encourage developers to build innovative design and planning. For instance,provide environmentally sensitive buildings,such as LEED(Leader- pedestrian access to parks,recreation,schools,the workplace ship in Energy and Environmental Design)guidelines or and amenity centers so that people do not have to use their similar programs.These"green"buildings conserve energy cars. Also,designing structures to capture natural light and resources,provide more healthful inside environments,last air enhances healthy lifestyles. longer,utilize products made from recycled material,and Objective 6.1:Encourage electrical utility lines to be buried use products that can be safely disposed of or recycled when throughout the community,especially in urbanizing areas. the building is eventually dismantled. Green buildings Care must be given to the location of underground trans- also strive to use local material to reduce the transportation former boxes so pedestrian infrastructure is not precluded by impact. For instance,importing marble from overseas has conflicts with power facilities. an enormous environmental impact compared to delivering Objective 6.8:Protect the character,safety,and function of the Indiana limestone from southern counties. Motion Greenway. Objective 7.6: Set the precedent for environmental protection Objective 6.9: Enhance the aesthetics of employment and or re-vegetation when developing municipal facilities like vitality districts by requiring parking lots to be located at parks,fire stations,and maintenance facilities. the rear and side of the property,or underground,thereby encouraging the architecture to be the dominant feature. 20 CITY OF CARMEL,INDIANA • a .'",-F? if T.4.7.7- 7i ® PART 2 C0 �RE�HENS1 E °LA ,E CE aP.= Qo� . _. ..�,��,... .; ,� ,..� .:7s`E'i 4'. �s . u. r � ..� . .. .. ..m,'` .�,.� M1..3_.�. Objective 7.1:Continue to protect regional surface and Policy 8:Inspire Healthful Living ground water sources to ensure safe drinking water for Introduction:Inspiring healthful living is a response to the Carmel and adjacent municipalities. Institute regulations obesity rate in Indiana and the Midwest,and also recognizes that further protect the delineated wellhead protection areas increases in cancer rates,lung diseases,heart disease,and from contaminants and land uses that have a higher risk of stress related disorders. contaminating water resources. Objective 8.1: Strive to provide multiple types of facilities for Objective 7.8: Set the precedent for environmentally sensitive exercise,opportunities to immerse oneself into nature,sport buildings when developing municipal facilities by striving facilities and leagues,access to recreation programs,access for the highest feasible level of LEED certification. Also to health education programs,and encouragement to succeed encourage other public entities to achieve the same. in one's personal health goals. Objective 7.9: Develop and maintain an Environmental Action Objective 8.2: Work corroboratively with local hospitals to Plan to implement actions that reduce pollution,conserve offer outreach services,health and wellness clinics,screen- energy,and preserve the natural environment. ings,classes,smoking cessation programs,dietary support, Objective 7.10: Explore the use of alternate sources of energy mental health clinics,immunization programs,and the like. such as active solar,geothermal,and wind. Objective 8.3: Encourage mixed-use,compact development Objective 7.11: Reduce heat island effect by preservation of making it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles. Caramel's urban forest and by encouraging the use surfaces This will provide a healthy lifestyle by providing the option that retard the absorption of heat. for exercise in people's daily routines. Objective 7.12: Increase effectiveness of wastewater treatment Objective 8.4: Develop programs and improve infrastructure and discharge by combining master plans of both sanitary encourage children to walk or ride their bicycles to sewer districts. school. This will increase their physical activity,improve their health,and will potentially reduce the automobile trips Objective 1.13: Reduce unnecessary removal of trees on lots, made to and from school. encourage preservation of mature trees,and require replace- ment of trees that have to be removed for development. Objective 8.5: Promptly work to obtain park land while undeveloped land is still available. Objective 7.14: Promote the movement toward sustainable development and architecture. Encourage land develop- ments and building designs that use or reuse land responsi- bly by discouraging patterns of sprawl,conserving potable water,reducing energy consumption,and utilizing reusable or recyclable materials. Encourage architects and designers to use green design standards,such as LEED(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design),to promote sustainable and healthful buildings and neighborhoods for people to shop,work,eat,recreate,and live. Objective 7.15: Due to increasing interest in redeveloping previously-developed areas,the City would like to conduct inventories,analyses,and cleanups of its brownfields. This will serve to facilitate redevelopment in several areas,as well as making the City healthier and more sustainable. The City will also be working with citizens and professionals to identify and prioritize brownfields. CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 21 ‘HJ , . ...� „ ,„ „ q 4 : 4 g .... � & v 4 P .g'I p,9 &rte P S w w g .«s STAR. C®MP®4EHENSV,E PLAN' ESSENC , 1*.A a O a �� o"' ''',.• .a .,,,!$0..,',.:- .e$ •R ., 'n r• F;' ..% . ,o` i ' w:Y.q :',,,1:, ,rAs . y ,'% KO TH CE T L CORMEL POLICIES RA® Objective 2.4:Promote the Arts and Design District and the OBJECTIVES Carmel Performing Arts Center. Objective 2.5:Plan for the integration of transit stops near City Center,Merchants Square,and the U.S.31 Corridor. Introduction Objective 2.6:Explore opportunities to introduce additional The following sections convey the policies and objectives higher education opportunities into North Central Carmel,if for the North Central Cannel District. It is important to note only a single building or satellite classes. that these sections share some of the same policy headings Objective 2.7:Promote and enhance the Monon Greenway as as the City-Wide section,but the content is specific to North anon motorized transportation corridor. Widen the trail in Central Carmel. high use areas to accommodate separated bicycle and pedes- Policy 1:Manage Community Form trian lanes to create more trail capacity for both recreation Objective 1.1:Encourage compact urban form and mixed-use and transportation needs. development throughout North Central Carmel. Policy 3:Perpetuate Economic Vitality Objective 1.2:Allow the tallest structures in Carmel to be in (no additional objectives apply to North Central Carmel) the City Center and along U.S.31. Policy 4:Be a City of Neighborhoods Objective 1.3:Strongly encourage neighborhood and community- Objective 4.1:North Central Carmel should be planned as a serving commercial nodes in strategic locations to allow people collection of neighborhoods applying traditional neighbor- to walk or bike from their jobs and homes to those amenities. hood design principles to connectivity,transitions,loca- The objective is to ensure the entire North Central Cannel tion of neighborhood-serving commercial,bicycle-and District has neighborhood-serving or community-serving corn- pedestrian-friendly features,and the like. mercial development within a short walking or biking distance Objective 4.2:Endeavor to plan neighborhoods,gateways,bound- of all employment and residential development. aries,and service areas through more detailed subarea plans. Objective 1.4:Protect stable single-family residential neigh- Policy 5:Be an Adaptable City borhoods in North Central Carmel as much as possible (no additional objectives apply to North Central Carmel) through buffering,use of transitional design,strong code enforcement of property maintenance issues,targeted infra- Policy 6:Inspire Community Character structure investments(e.g.drainage,sidewalks,and street Objective 6.1:Where appropriate,reinforce urban character in lights),and landscaping beautification projects. North Central Cannel. Commission the study of the district to determine the ideal boundaries,urban patterns,and transitions. Objective 1.5: Strive for additional street connectivity in North Central Cannel. The City should strive to connect streets Objective 6.2:Encourage signature buildings on prominent when new development or redevelopment occurs,especially sites to enhance the district's character. Signature buildings those linkages shown on the Thoroughfare Plan Map. can be private or public buildings,but must have architec- tural flair and be built from durable materials. Objective 1.6:Encourage connectivity to and through North Central Cannel by establishing bicycle and pedestrian facili- Objective 6.3:Establish a Public Art Master Plan. Include ties across Meridian Street and Keystone Parkway. artists in the design process of public spaces. Policy 2:Be a Leading Edge City Policy 7:Inspire Environmental Awareness Objective 2.1:Establish a well-designed,pedestrian-friendly Objective 1.1:Where possible,locate new public parks on land (including bicycle-friendly)and vital downtown. To ensure adjacent to or within a short walk from the Monon Greenway. vitality,significant incorporation of residential and office Objective 7.2:Tree areas should be conserved and should be uses should be required in upper floors. All ground floors evaluated as part of an overall urban forest network,espe- should be designed for pedestrian comfort and interaction. cially in small parks and squares. Objective 2.2:Promote a high quality employment corridor Objective 7.3:Promote compact urban form with densities that and technology park along U.S. 31 by discretely integrating support walkability and alternative transportation. employment-serving commercial uses in existing buildings or in small nodes to allow workers to walk to restaurants and Objective 1.4:Continue to enhance the City Recycling Facili other businesses suitable for such a subdistrict. Also allow ties at the Housing Hazardous Waste Center by increasing for a broader mix of uses, including additional residential recycling options and adjusting hours of operation to make it and service retail. more convenient for people to recycle. Objective 2.3:Encourage new buildings along Cannel Drive and Policy 8:Inspire Healthful Living City Center Drive to be a minimum of two stories in height. (no additional objectives apply to North Central Cannel) CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23 /`0) 1.r,ce a a d";- '4',.,-15: v* 'GK,S ,'+< 4' 7.'i-71,44f, f . 4;„ r, P' 7, X:M,r C �1 ?s .. E � t • �h �,. ��+. � �" �'a 3 4 5 S �. R!5Y d i C Y+,4„....„ ,s d. "®-PART; i COMP ° E ; E Sall-E PL A1: . "-;SE CE� � �MNI u. ,i.,:,-4:: :,'4'-','-,?, ,w. . i'. "' . .=:''=-',�� ..�7.ax',,a� '§:2, wr ,. .., a +..''-% ,0' '.,,r: c '� p _m c r=;f„t :,EST CRR ,,EL POL COES AND OBJECTOVES Objective 1.7:Continue expansion of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to connect neighborhoods with schools,parks, WestClay's Secondary Core,and other destinations. Introduction Policy 2:Be a Leading Edge City The following sections convey the policies and objectives Objective 2.1:Maintain and protect sub-areas in the City for West Carmel. It is important to note that these sections of Carmel for estate character housing. These areas are share some of the same policy headings as the City-wide essential to attracting high quality businesses,providing the section,but the content under each heading is specific to desired quality-of-life for senior employees. West Cannel and adds to other City-wide objectives. Objective 2.2:Encourage more custom home developments Policy 1:Manage Community Form to balance the housing inventory which has been slanting in Objective 1.1:Preserve the estate character of West Cannel recent years toward production homes. Custom home neigh borhoods will also add character to West Carmel by reducing by protecting large lot residential areas and by requiring new subdivisions to have large setbacks from and quality monotony. Concurrently,allow carriage houses and other landscaping along perimeter roads. Further,require exten compatible forms of accessory dwellings to provide flexibil- sive re-vegetation along perimeter roads and within each ity and a range of housing options. new development. A larger open space requirement should Objective 2.3:Adopt residential architecture standards to also be considered. ensure compatibility,a high quality aesthetic,energy Objective 1,.2:Conservation subdivisions and innovative efficiency,and durability. residential community designs that protect vegetation,slopes Policy 3:Perpetuate Economic Vitality and are non-monotonous in terms of architecture and material (no additional objectives apply to West Carmel) selection are preferred. Objective 1.3: Subdivision connectivity and transitions Policy 4:Be a City of Neighborhoods between proposed developments and existing subdivisions (no additional objectives apply to West Cannel) should be scrutinized to a greater degree in West Cannel. Policy 5:Be an Adaptable City Objective 1.4:West Cannel has many non-connecting subdivi- (no additional objectives apply to West Carmel) sions. The proliferation of this pattern of development is Policy 6:Inspire Community Character more tolerable in this district;however,critical connections Objective 6.1:Reinforce rural character including tree lines, shown on the Thoroughfare Plan will be absolutely required. fence rows,barns,pockets of open space,and preservation Although there is less emphasis on vehicular connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity will be strictly required. of wood lots. Residential intensity can exist,but generally For instance,where road connectivity between a proposed should not be obviously portrayed from perimeter roads. development and an existing development is not required, Objective 6.2:Protect single-family residential character along West bicycle and pedestrian connections will be required. 96th Street between Spring Mill Road and Shelboume Road. Objective 1.5:With the success of the Monon Greenway, Objective 6.3:Require commercial buildings along Michigan other off-street facilities are in demand. West Carmel has an Road to be constructed of durable materials and designed to opportunity to utilize portions of several pipeline corridors reflect"village"character. Continue to strengthen the exist- for such a trail. These corridors are shown as off-street trails ing zoning ordinance overlay to implement the requirements. in the 2020 Vision Plan and in the Alternative Transporta Objective 6.4: Require large setbacks and lot sizes,and only tion Plan initially adopted in 2001,and are supported in the C3 Plan as well. Integrating this type of facility in some residential,institutional,and park uses along 116th Street areas will be relatively easy,but in already built environ from Spring Mill Road west to the Boone County Line. fficult. Utilize the existing zoning ordinance overlay to implement. ments may prove to be more di Objective 1.6:Carmel should partner with neighboring Policy 7:Inspire Environmental Awareness Westfield and Zionsville to plan and implement a significant Objective 7.1:Strive to protect woodlots,wetlands,and other greenway along Little Eagle Creek. valuable natural features in West Carmel. These features contribute to the district's rural character,but they also provide habitat for plants,birds,and other animals. Policy 8:Inspire Healthful Living Objective 8.1: Promptly work to obtain park land in the north western portion of Clay Township while undeveloped land is still available. CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 125 • . I APPLICANT'S GUIDE Trans . ortaton Impact Studies For Pr .; posed • ent PREPARED FOR: CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA PLAN COMMISSION OFFICIALL Y ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 021892 2/18/92 NUMBER DATE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS • SECTION TOPIC PAGE. I. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose or Transportation Impact Studies 1 Benefits to the Community 1 Purpose of the Applicant's Guide 2 II. WHEN TO PROVIDE A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY 3 Study Warrants for a Complete Transportation Study 3 Study Warrants for a Traffic Operations Analysis 4 III. PREPARER/REVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS 5 Preparer Qualifications 5 Reviewer Qualifications 5 IV. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY REVIEW PROCESS 6 V. STUDY AREA 7 Minimum Study Area 7 Additional Study Area 7 VI. STUDY HORIZON YEARS AND TIME PERIODS TO BE ANALYZED 8 Study Horizon Years 8 Time Periods to be Analyzed 8 VII. DEVELOPMENT TO BE ANAL YZED 9 Site Development 9 Non-Site Within Study Area 9 VIII. NON-SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 10 Components to be Considered 10 Methodology 10 Non-Site Traffic Analysis and Necessary Improvements 11 IX. TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATION 12 Acceptable Data Sources 12 X. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 13 Acceptable Distribution Procedures 13 Assignment Procedures 13 Pass-By Trips 14 Internal Trips 14 Xi. CAPACITY AND OTHER ANALYSES 15 Capacity Analysis 15 Level of Service 15 Other Analysis 16 XII. RECOMMENDATIONS 17 Report 18 2 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this guide is to provide consistency and predictability in the request, preparation, and review of transportation impact studies (TIS). While much of the guide is stated in terms of requirements and procedures to be used, the guide also includes recommendations to assist preparers and reviewers to complete their work in the most efficient and timely manner possible. This guide has been officially adopted by the City of Carmel Plan Commission on the as a part of its Rules and Procedures. (date) PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDIES The Indianapolis Urbanized Area strives to provide a high level of mobility to support a desirable quality of life and encourage a vibrant economy. Limitations on financial resources and right-of-way availability are limiting the capability of the City and State to continue expanding roadway capacity. The City of Carmel has established a comprehensive planning process for the Carmel/Clay Township Area by which the ultimate land use and transportation plan are adopted and revised. This plan, as amended, has guided development for more than two decades. Because of ultimate roadway expansion limitations and the community's desire to maintain a high quality of mobility; proposals to intensify development and increase traffic flow are evaluated prior to approval to accomplish the following purposes: 1. To determine if proposed development can be accommodated within the existing or planned transportation system capacity along with other development reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, 2. To identify improvements beyond those already anticipated which are needed to satisfactorily accommodate the proposed development, and 3. To determine how developments of significant size, including those consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, should be provided access so as not to adversely affect traffic operations or safety near the site. BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY Transportation impact studies benefit the metropolitan area by: 9 1. Providing decision makers with a basis by which to assess transportation implications of approving proposed zoning changes and development applications 2. Aiding in keeping current its short and long range plans 3. Providing a basis for assessing existing or future localized transportation system deficiencies which should be improved 4. Addressing transportation-related issues associated with development proposals that may be of concern to neighboring residents, businesses, and property owners 5. Providing a basis for negotiations for improvements and funding participation in conjunction with a development or zoning application or petition. Transportation impact studies provide an objective assessment of both the anticipated impacts and needs of the proposed development. Requirements for transportation impact studies have been instituted in recent years by cities and counties throughout the United States. Most major cities experiencing significant growth have transportation impact study requirements. The trend has been toward increasing requirements as a basis for both assessing the extent of transportation impacts and negotiating funding for needed improvements. Some communities require transportation impact studies for nearly every development larger than a few single-family residences; others vary according to local policies and conditions. PURPOSE OF THE APPLICANT'S GUIDE The purpose of this guide is to: 1. Provide consistency in the request, preparation, and review of transportation impact studies and traffic operations analyses 2. Ensure that critical transportation and development issues are addressed 3. Provide staff with guidance and a checklist in the review process 4. Promote increased understanding of transportation impact issues among those involved in the development process. Topics addressed in this Applicant's Guide include: 1. When to provide a transportation impact study 2. TlS study area 3. Preparer/reviewer qualifications 4. Transportation impact study process 5. Time periods to be analyzed 6. Development to be analyzed 7. Analysis horizon years 8. Trip generation estimation 9. Background traffic estimates 10.Traff c distribution and assignment 11.Intersection capacity analysis methodology 2 II. WHEN TO PROVIDE A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY The need for a transportation impact study or traffic operations analysis may be identified by the Department of Community Development (DOCD) when rezoning, variance or plan approval petitions are filed. A traffic operations analysis may be requested as part of a complete transportation impact study or for petitions that do not meet the warrants for a complete impact study. Examples of traffic operations analyses include: 1. Study of proposed driveway locations, resulting sight distances, and adequacy of proposed queuing provisions. 2. Accident experience and safety analysis. 3. Traffic signal warrant and progression analysis. Although the DOCD currently has no procedures for systematically reviewing permit applications to identify the need for a transportation impact study, these guidelines recognize that on occasion the City may identify the need for a transportation impact study or traffic operations analysis in response to a permit application. STUDY WARRANTS FOR A COMPLETE TRANSPORTATION STUDY A complete transportation impact study (as described in subsequent chapters of this document) may be requested for any proposed development that meets criterion A, B or C. A. Significantly Sized Project A residential development will meet this criterion if it contains 150 or more dwelling .units. Non-residential developments will meet this criterion if 19Q or more peak hour trips in the peak direction will be generated. B. Nearby Congestion A development meets this criterion if the proposed development is expected to significantly impact surrounding roadways, intersections, or sets of intersections that are already operating at level-or-service "C" or worse during any hour that is selected by the DOCD for analysis. The level of service will be determined by an analysis prescribed in the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board) using data that reflects current traffic condition. C. Modifications to Roadways This criterion is met when the proposed development is expected by the DOCD to significantly impact a roadway segment identified in the City's Transportation Improvement Program for improvements. This criterion is also met when the proposed development includes modification to the roadway system, other than curb cuts or deceleration/acceleration lanes. 3 STUDY WARRANTS FOR A TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS: A traffic operations analysis may be requested for any of the following conditions: A. Requests for a driveway(s) on any frontage road, arterial, or collector street, B. Requests or probable need for a new traffic signal to control driveway(s) or street (s) serving a proposed or existing development, C. Existing sight distance limitations or high accident experience adjacent to a site. 4 • III. PREPARERIREVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS PREPARER QUALIFICATIONS Transportation impact studies shall be prepared by professionals with training and experience in traffic engineering and under the supervision of a registered professional engineer licensed in Indiana with training and experience in traffic engineering (operations and safety analysis experience). The Department of Community Development (DOCD) requires that the responsible registered professional engineer sign and seal the study report. REVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS A transportation impact study shall be reviewed by one or more members of the professional staffs of the DOCD who collectively have training and experience in traffic impact study methodology, land use planning, and traffic engineering, including traffic safety and operations. The DOCD will have the responsibility for the following: • Determine whether or not a proposed development requires a transportation impact study or traffic operations analysis in conjunction with a request for a development- related approval. ® Determine the type of study required. • Meet with study preparer to identify study issues, needs, assumptions, procedures, available sources of data, past and related studies, report requirements, and other topics relevant to study requirements. • Provide to the preparer available relevant data from agency files, including traffic counts, improvement plans and programs, accident records, traffic signal information, transportation and comprehensive plan information and reports, data on development planned or approved within the study area, relevant city ordinances, regulations and policies, and other information directly relevant to the required study. This information shall be provided at a cost not to exceed the cost of reproducing the necessary materials. • Review the capacity analysis. 5 IV. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY REVIEW PROCESS it is intended that the formalized study review process assist study preparers to develop their reports in the most efficient and responsive manner possible. It is specifically. not intended that the process be either cumbersome or induce unnecessary delay to the development review process. It is also intended to answer the following questions: 1. Is a TIS warranted? 2. Is there an agreement on study area, horizon year, scope, and report contents? (This is accomplished in an initial meeting between the preparer and the reviewers.) 3. Is there agreement on methods and technique far analysis?Are they adequate? 4. Are findings and recommendations reasonable and acceptable? 5. Should the staff recommend approval or denial based on professional guidelines, city policies, and regulations? There will be five required review steps involved in the study process: 1. Determination of whether or not a traffic study will be required. 2. Initial meeting between preparer and reviewers to discuss study issues, scope, assumptions, data and data sources, technical procedures, and desired report contents. 3. Preparation (by applicant) and approval (by reviewer) of a Memorandum of Understanding, which details the assumptions and methodologies to be used, 4. Formal transportation study review by Department of Community Development. 5. Approval or denial of the development petition or application. • 6 V. STUDY AREA MINIMUM STUDY AREA Any complete transportation study analyzing off-site access needs and impacts will include at least all site access points and major intersections (signalized and unsignalized) adjacent to the site. ADDITIONAL STUDY AREA Beyond this basic area, DOCD will determine any additional area to be included based on local or site-specific deficiencies, development size, traffic conditions, or local policy potentially affected by the proposed development. The study area will also encompass vacant parcels of land believed to impact the intersections being analyzed, so as to analyze the proposed project in the context of other previously approved or anticipated developments in the surrounding area. Generally the study area must be large enough to encompass the critical intersections to be analyzed and the vacant land, which once developed, is believed to have a significant impact upon them. The Department of Community Development shall identify and provide land use projections for vacant parcels within the study area. • 7 VI. STUDY HORIZON YEARS AND TIME PERIODS TO BE A' ,ALYZED STUDY HORIZON YEARS Transportation impact studies are to address conditions. in the current year plus the anticipated completion year of the proposed development assuming full build-out and occupancy. If the proposed development is to be implemented in phases, it may be appropriate to analyze each major phase (i.e., initial phase, one intermediate phase, and full project buildout). Additional horizon years, ranging from a minimum of 10 years after the study date to a maximum of full build-out of the defined study area, will be required. TIME PERIODS TO BE ANALYZED For each defined horizon year specific time periods are to be analyzed. In most cases only analyses of street peak hours will be required. However, land use classifications which experience their highest trip generation levels during periods other than street peak hours may require analyses for such periods to determine proper site access and turn lane storage requirements. Traffic signal warrant studies normally require determination of the highest eight hours of traffic volumes during a day; as a result, longer time periods are needed for these analyses. In some instances, analysis of a different time period may be appropriate to assess site access needs or traffic signal needs rather than traffic impacts on the adjacent street system. For proposed developments located in high traffic impact areas, analysis of a time period other than and in addition to weekday street peak hours may be appropriate. The analysis time period should be discussed and designated by the DOCD reviewers in the initial meeting. However, analysis of transportation impacts should always include weekday AM and PM street peak hours if the proposed developments generate significant activity during these periods, 8 VII DEVELOPMENT TO BE ANALYZED The total anticipated transportation infrastructure needs in the study horizon year(s) are needed so the City can accurately evaluate implications associated with the applicant's request for development approval. However, the impacts and infrastructure needs will be assessed separately for the baseline condition (horizon year development excluding site) and total development(site plus non-site development). SITE DEVELOPMENT Development proposed to be located on the site under study should be categorized by specific land use type consistent with classifications contained in the latest edition of Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers). The proposed number of development (building) units (e.g., gross square feet of building area, dwelling units, hotel rooms, etc.) should be provided. Land area is insufficient to provide a basis for analysis. If the proposed land-use or density is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation, comparison of the proposed land use and the Comprehensive Plan recommendation should be made using classifications contained in the Trip Generation report. NON-SITE WITHIN STUDY AREA The impacts of the anticipated non-site development should be assessed separately from those of the proposed development to aid both the City and applicant to determine sources of transportation infrastructure needs. All significant developments within the study area that have been approved or are likely to occur by the specific horizon years should be identified and incorporated into the study. The land-use type and magnitude of the probable future developments in the horizon years should be identified in conversations with the DOCD staff. 9 VIII. NON-SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic having neither an origin from nor destination to the subject site is considered "non- site traffic." For any horizon year, non-site traffic volumes are estimated to characterize the base conditions for the area of study -- that is, the traffic volume conditions of the study area in the horizon year, assuming the subject site is not developed or redeveloped. The purpose of the non-site traffic analyses is to determine: 1. What are existing conditions and what improvements will be needed to alleviate current deficiencies? 2. What will conditions be in the horizon year(s) without the site under study being developed, and what improvements are needed? 3. What additional improvements will be needed in the horizon year(s) to meet the additional needs generated by the proposed development of the study site? COMPONENTS TO BE CONSIDERED Two components need to be considered when estimating non-site traffic volumes. They are: Through traffic. This consists of trips which have neither an origin nor destination in the study area. These trips begin and end at points external to the study area; however, their paths are within the study area. Traffic generated by other developments within the study area. These trips have an origin, a destination, or both in the study area. METHODOLOGY Non-site traffic volumes should be developed using the "build-up" method. This method will typically provide accurate and easily traced results. The concept consists of forecasting peak-hour traffic to be generated by approved and anticipated developments in the study area, estimating growth in through traffic generated outside the study area, and adding both to existing traffic in the study area. If the subject site is being redeveloped, existing site traffic is subtracted from this total to provide the estimate of future non-site traffic. The general procedure to be followed in developing non-site traffic is as follows: 10 1. Assess impacts of transportation system changes on study area travel patterns 2. Identify study area developments to occur before horizon year 3. Estimate trip generation 4. Estimate directional trip distribution 5. Assign traffic 6. Estimate through traffic growth 7. Sum study area and through traffic 8. Review results for reasonableness NON-SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS Once the non-site traffic volumes have been estimated, an analysis of the future base conditions should begin. This will provide an assessment of the traffic operations and needed improvements in the horizon years without the subject development in place. With the base conditions established, the impact of the subject site can be measured. Analysis procedures should be consistent with those described in the Analyses section of this document. Improvements necessary to accommodate the non-site traffic in the horizon year at the design level of service (discussed in a later chapter) should be determined. It is very important to research and identify improvements that have already been committed by other developments. Additional improvements needed to alleviate existing high accident experience or solve other traffic-related problems or deficiencies should be identified. Documentation should clearly state that these improvements are needed to satisfy base conditions - without the development being proposed - and that the need for them is not generated by the proposed development of the site under study. Ii IX. TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATION Trip generation is the process of estimating the amount of traffic to be generated by a subject development. This is usually done through the use of rates or equations expressed in terms of units of development (i.e., per dwelling unit or per thousand feet of building floor area). ACCEPTABLE DATA SOURCES Several data sources and methods for estimating trips generated by a development are available: 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) Trip Generation report (latest edition) containing data from observations around the country for over 20 years. 2. Prior local studies which have been made for various reasons, but which are applicable for the purpose of estimating trip generation for site development. 3. Prior studies made outside the Carmel area for a similar land use. These studies should only be used if they are approved in advance by the DOCD reviewer. 4. Special studies conducted especially for the study at hand. Developments surveyed should be representative of the development for which the trip generation estimate is to be made. These should be local if similar developments exist and can be isolated for proper surveys. They may be made out of town if no adequate local examples can be surveyed. 5. A combination of the above, adding local data to the 1TE data, or combining local or special study data. 12 X. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT After the trip generation analysis for the proposed development has been completed, the traffic must be distributed and assigned to the roadway system for the impacts td be determined. The trip distribution process estimates the off-site origins and destinations or the generated trips. The assignment process produces estimates or the amount or site traffic that will use each route in the study area. ACCEPT ABLE DISTRIBUTION PROCEDURES The directions from which traffic will approach and depart the site can vary depending on several location-specific factors, including: ▪ Size or the proposed development ti Type or the proposed development is Surrounding and, in some cases, competing land uses, population, and employment distributions • Prevailing conditions on the existing street system To help in the distribution or traffic, an influence area (area within which most site trips are made) may be defined. The influence area should be large enough to include most of the trip ends attracted to the site. Ideally, an existing market study could be used to establish the influence area. However, if no market study exists, the influence area should be established and documented based on a reasonable estimate. ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES Traffic assignments should consider logical routings, available and projected roadway capacities, and travel times. Often.multiple path assignments should be made to account for spreading or traffic among different routes with similar travel times. Realistic estimates should be made or traffic diverting to avoid horizon year congestion if any is expected. Assignments should consider transportation improvements projected to be in place by the analysis year. Existing trip distribution data from actual sites within the immediate vicinity may be used for the purpose or making traffic assignments. It is important to remember that if the site is a redevelopment project, assigned traffic generated by the old or existing development should first be subtracted to avoid "double counting." 13 PASS-BY TRIPS Many land uses (e.g., retail and restaurant) not only generate new vehicle trips, but also attract trips that were already passing by in the traffic stream and are simply attracted to the subject site. These trips, commonly referred to as pass-by trips, are captured from a traffic stream that moves past the site. The procedures described in the ITE Trip Generation report should be used to account for these trips. Locally collected data as well as current research may also be used in determining these values. INTERN AL TRIPS Very little data has been collected locally or elsewhere to quantify the extent of internal trip making within a mixed use development. Common current practice is to consider internal trip reductions only where mixed use developments consisting of at least two major complementary uses exists. This includes such complementary use combinations as office-retail, office-hotel, office-residential, retail-residential, and office-restaurant. Other combinations may be considered. 14 Xl. CAPACITY AND OTHER ANALYSES Several analyses are applicable to derive the study findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Measurements of the capacity conditions at critical locations within the study area are the primary means of estimating traffic impacts. Site access, safety, traffic control, geometric, and parking should also be considered. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacity analyses should be performed at all proposed site access locations and all intersections adjacent to the subject site. Other critical or currently congested segments of the network within the study area may also be identified. Elements such as weaving sections, ramps, parking facility access points, and site access vehicular storage reservoirs are examples. For each horizon year, the capacity analyses should be conducted for conditions with and without the proposed development to determine the incremental impacts of the project and the improvements necessary to support each phase of the development. The latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, is to be used for performing all capacity analyses. However, the results of any capacity analysis do not replace the need for professional engineering judgment, but rather provides additional information from which to partially base such judgment. Careful review of the numbers and a field check of the location are very important. LEVEL OF SERVICE The standard criterion used to define quality of traffic now is "level of service" (LOS). This is a qualitative assessment of factors such as speed, volume, geometry, delays, and ease of maneuvering. LOS can be quantified in different ways depending on the focus of the analysis. For instance, LOS for signalized intersections is based on average stopped delay time per vehicle, while unsignalized intersection LOS is based on critical gaps and estimated reserve capacity, and freeway ramp LOS is based on the capacities of the ramp lane(s) and the freeway main lanes. All analysis techniques specify the quality of operations as a letter. The minimum acceptable LOS (design level) in the Carmel/Clay area is "C". Analyses should show an intersection LOS of C or better to be acceptable. Anything below C for an intersection is considered unacceptable, unless it can be demonstrated that it is not practical to achieve that level. If the analyses shows that conditions with only non-site traffic will result in a level of service below "C", the preparer should document this finding and ascertain the level of improvement needed to maintain at least the base level of service once site traffic is added. 15 X11. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations should be developed to address the conclusions resulting from the analyses of the proposed development's access needs and impacts on the transportation system. Recommendations should be grouped into .two categories: site-specific recommendations and non-site recommendations. Recommendations should address feasible transportation system improvements needed to satisfactorily accommodate site and non-site traffic, respectively (identify these separately). The recommendations should reflect improvements currently planned or programmed by any public or private agency. Recommendations may include improvement scheduling that could beneficially be changed. Transportation facility improvements can be classified as either major structural improvements, such as the widening of roadways, or operational improvements, such as installing a traffic signal or changing lane usage. It is important to view recommendations for improvements within appropriate time perspectives. Recommendations should be sensitive to the following issues: - Timing of short-range and long-range network improvements that are already committed and scheduled. - Anticipated time schedule of adjacent developments. - Size and timing of individual phases of the proposed development. - Right-of-way needs and availability of additional right-of-way within the appropriate time frames. - Local priorities for transportation improvements and funding. - Cost-effectiveness of implementing improvements at a given stage of development. - Necessary lead-time for additional design and construction. Since improvements can often be implemented in more than one order, the recommendation should address an implementation sequence that would provide maximum compatibility with the overall roadway system configuration needed for network effectiveness. 17 REPORT All transportation impact studies and traffic operations analyses will be documented in a report prepared by a registered Professional Engineer licensed by the State of Indiana. The report will describe: - proposed development - existing conditions - study procedures - data collected - findings of analyses - conclusions and recommendations Reports should be complete but concise. Letter or memorandum reports may be acceptable for studies of limited scope. All reports will be reviewed by DOCD; those requiring additional information or revision will be discussed with the preparer and returned for revisions. 18 CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE CARMEL CITY CODE CHAPTER 10:ZONING&SUBDIVISIONS ARTICLE 1: ZONING CODE CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 16:B-SBUSINESS DISTRICT 16.00 B-5/Business District. 16.01 Permitted Uses. 16.02 Special Uses&Special Exceptions. 16.03 Accessory Buildings and Uses. 16.04 Height and Area Requirements. 16.05 Parking and Loading Berth Requirements. 16.00 B-5/Business District.' 16.00.01 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this district is to provide a location for office buildings and general offices protected from encroachment from heavier commercial uses. Inasmuch as this district is frequently found in close proximity to residential areas and/or intermixed with residential areas, it is the intention of this district to allow for a compatible mixture of the two uses with reasonable regulations. 16.00.02Plan Commission Approval. A. Development Plan. The Commission shall review the Development Plan (DP) of any proposed use of any Lot or parcel of ground within the B-5 District prior to the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit by the Department. See Section 24.02:Development Plan. B. Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage. To insure the compatibility of the proposed use with adjoining areas, the Commission shall review the Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage (ADLS) application of any proposed use of any Lot or parcel of ground within the B-5 District prior to the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit by the Department. Once approved by the Commission the Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage (ADLS) shall not be materially or substantially changed or altered without the prior approval of the Commission. 16.00.99Application Procedure. A. Development Plan. See Section 24.99(4):Development Plan. B. Architectural Design,Exterior Lighting,Landscaping and Signage(ADLS). See Section 24.99(B):Architectural Design,Exterior Lighting,Landscaping and Signage(ADLS). 'Section 16.00 amended per Ordinance No.Z-369-02.§z:Z-453-04.dal-an,. Chapter 16:B-5/Business District 16-1 as amended per Z-320;Z-365-01;Z-369-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04 Summer 2004 vl • CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDNANCE 16.01 Permitted Uses:2 See Appendix A: Schedule of Uses. 16.01.01 Minimum Area Requirements:None 16.01.02 Other Requirements:None 16.02 Special Uses & Special Exceptions:3 A. See Appendix A:Schedule of Uses. B. See Chapter-21:Special Uses&Special Exceptions for additional regulations. 16.02.01 Minimum Area Requirements: Use Minimum Area (Acres) Kindergarten One(1) 16.02.02 Other Requirements: Same as B-4 District regulations of Section 15.02.02(except Carnivals,fairs,circuses,etc.) 16.03 Accessory Buildings and Uses.' See also Section 25.01. 16.03.01 16.03.02 Swimming Pool. See also Section 25.01.01(c.(8). 16.03.03 Tennis courts may be permitted as an accessory use but shall be located only within a side or rear yard. Open wire mesh fences surrounding tennis courts may be erected to a height of sixteen(16) feet if such fences only enclose a regulation court area and standard apron areas. Lighting of the court shall not create more than five (5) footcandles of light twenty-five (25) feet from the perimeter of the court. 16.03.04Quarters for bona fide servants employed by the occupants of the dwelling are permitted. 16.03.05One guest house with cooking facilities may be'permitted as an accessory building on lots containing not less than one(1)acre. 16.03.06Accessory lighting is permitted; however, no lighting shall cause illumination at or beyond any project side or rear lot line in excess of 0.1 footcandle of light. 16.03.07Private radio and television reception and transmitting towers and antennas are permitted subject to applicable local,state and federal regulations. No structure shall be located or permitted within ten(10)feet of a power transmission line. 16.03.08Accessory uses such as public utility installations,private walks,driveways,retaining walls, mail boxes, nameplates, lamp posts, birdbaths and structures of a like nature are permitted in any required front,side or rear yard. 16.03.09Accessary uses or buildings customarily and purely incidental to office uses are permitted. 2 Section 16.01 amended per Ordinance No.Z-320;Z-415-03,§aj. 3 Section 16.02 amended per Ordinance No.Z-365-01;Z-415-03,§ak;Z-453-04,§an. 'Section 16.03 amended per Ordinance No.Z-369-02,§aa;Z-453-04,jao. Chapter 16:B-SBusiness District 16-2 as amended per Z-320;Z-365-01;Z-369-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04 Summer 2004 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDNANCE 16.04 IIei2ht and Area Requirements. (see Chapter 26: Additional Height, Yard, & Lot Area Regulations for additional requirements.) 16.04.01 Maximum Height: A. All residential uses: Thirty-five(35)feet; B. All office uses:Forty-five(45)feet. 16.04.02 Minimum Front Yard: • A. All residential uses: Twenty(20)feet; B. All office uses:Fifteen(15)feet. 16.04.03 Minimum Side Yard: A. All uses:Five(5)feet. 16.04.04Minimum Aggregate of Side Yard: A. All uses:Fifteen(15)feet. 16.04.05Minimum Rear Yard: A. All residential uses:Twenty(20)feet; B. All office uses:Fifteen(15)feet. 16.04.06Minimum Lot Width: A. Single-family dwelling:Eighty(80)feet; B. All other uses:One hundred(100)feet. 16.04.07Minimum Lot Size: All lots shall contain a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet per single dwelling and for all office uses when serviced by a community water system and a community sanitary sewer system. A lot for a multiple-family dwelling shall contain a minimum of five thousand (5,000) square feet per dwelling unit when serviced by a community water system and a community sewer system. Twenty-five thousand(25,000)square feet shall be added to the minimum lot size if a community sanitary sewer system does not service the lot and eight thousand, five hundred sixty(8,560)square feet shall be added if a community water system does not service the lot. Five thousand(5,000)square feet may be deducted from the minimum lot size add-ons for private water and sewer systems if an adequate drainage system, such as through the use of perimeter tile drains, increased pad elevations and a storm sewer system with an adequate drainage outlet,is used to alleviate surface and ground water problems. 16.04.08Minimum Ground Floor Area: A. Single-family dwelling: One thousand(1,000)square feet; B. Two-and Multiple-family dwelling:Eight hundred(800)square feet per dwelling unit; C. All office uses:Nine hundred(900)square feet. 16.04.09 Maximum Lot Coverage: A. Single-and Two-family dwelling:Thirty-five percent(35%)of lot; B. Multiple-family dwelling:Forty percent(40%)of lot; C. All office uses: Seventy-five percent(75%)of lot. Chapter 16:B-5/Business District 16-3 • as amended per Z-320;Z-365-01;Z-369-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04 Sumner 2004 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE 16.05 Parking and Loadin' Berth Requirements. (see Chapter 27: Additional Parking & Loading Regulations for additional requirements.) 16.05.01 Office buildings: 1. 100,000 or less square feet gross floor area:One(1)berth. 2. 100,001 -300,000 square feet gross floor area: Two(2)berths. 3. Each 200,000 additional square feet:One(1)additional berth. • Chapter 16:B-5/Business District 16-4 as amended per Z-320;Z-365-01;Z-369-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04 Summer 2004 v1 CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 16: B-5/BUSINESS DISTRICT AMENDMENT LOG Ordinance No. Docket No. Council Approval Effective Date Sections Affected Z-3201 July 11, 1997 Z-365=01 76-01a OA November 5,2001 November 27,2001 16.02 Z-369-02 160-01 OA April 1,2002 April 1,2002 16.00.02; 16.03 Spring 2002 v2 Z-415-03 39-02 OA November 17,2003 November 18,2003 16.01; 16.02 Autumn 2003 vl Z-453-04 150-02 OA August 16,2004 August 16,2004 16.00; 16.02; 16.03 Summer 2004 vl • Chapter 16:B-5/Business District • 16-5 as amended per Z-320;Z-365-01;Z-369-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04 Summer 2004 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE CARMEL CITY CODE CHAPTER 10: ZONING&SUBDIVISIONS ARTICLE 1:ZONING CODE CARMEL/CLAY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 23B: U.S.HIGHWAY 31 CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE 23B.00 U.S.Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone. 23B.01 District Boundaries. 23B.02 Commission Review. 23B.03 Permitted Uses. 23B.04 Special Uses. 23B.05 UNTITLED. 23B.06 Accessory Buildings and Uses. 238.07 Minimum Tract Size. 23B.08 Height and Yard Requirements. 23B.09 Architectural Design Requirements. 23B.10 Landscaping Requirements. 23B.11 Public Art. 23B.12 Parking Requirements. • 23B.13 Lighting Requirements. 23B.14 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. 23B.15 Access to Individual Tracts. 23B.16 Additional Requirements. 23B.17 Reservation of Land for Pending State Highway Improvements. 238.00 U.S. Ili2hway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone.' 23B.00.01 Purpose.Intent and Authority. The purpose of the U.S.Highway 31 Overlay Zone is to promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare by providing for consistent and coordinated treatment of the properties bordering U.S.Highway 31 (also known as the Carmel Meridian Corridor)in Clay Township,Hamilton County, Indiana. The Commission and Council, in establishing this zone, are relying on IC 36-7-4-600 et seq. and IC 36-7-4-1400 et seq. This zoning district is, likewise, intended to serve as a tool for implementing the development policies and guidelines set for the Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan. U.S. Highway 31 is a limited access highway and an important business corridor to the City of Carmel and Clay Township. The U.S. Highway 31 Corridor is a premier office location and employment center whose viability,quality,and character are important to the community as a whole,adjacent residents, employees, business owners, and taxing districts. Therefore, it is the further purpose of the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone to preserve the aesthetic qualities of those bordering properties through: (1) the promotion of coordinated development in the U.S.Highway 31 Overlay Zone; (2) the establishment of high standards for buildings, landscaping,and other improvements constructed on the properties within the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone which permit innovative site designs and at the same time encourage efficient land usage;and (3) the establishment of development requirements which will encourage substantial capital investments for the development of those properties and promote the quality, scale, and character of development consistent with the Corridor's existing and planned uses. Section 23B100 amended per Ordinance No.Z-453-04,§cv-cw. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-1. as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 v1 CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE 23B.00.02 Plan Commission Approval. A. Development Plan. The Commission shall review the Development Plan(DP) of any proposed use of any Lot or parcel of ground within the U.S.Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone prior to the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit by the Department. See Section 24.02:Development Plan. B. Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage. To insure the compatibility of the proposed use with adjoining areas, the Commission shall review the Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage (ADLS) application of any proposed use of any Lot or parcel of ground within the U.S. Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone prior to the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit by the Department. See Section 24.03: Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage. 23B.00.99 Application Procedure. A. Development Plan. See Section 24.99(4):Development Plan. B. Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage (ADLS). See Section 24.99(B): Architectural Design,Exterior Lighting,Landscaping and Signage(ADLS). 23B.01 District Boundaries: The boundaries of the U.S.Highway 31 Overlay Zone are hereby established as follows: A. Beginning at north right-of-way line of 96tI' Street and extending to the north right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 465,the boundary shall follow the centerlines of Spring Mill Road on the west and College Avenue on the east. B. Beginning at north right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 465 and extending to the south right-of-way line of 1315t Street, the boundary shall follow the centerlines of the proposed or constructed parallel roads, namely Pennsylvania Street on the east,and Illinois Street(and Meridian Corners Boulevard)on the west. C. From the south right-of-way line of 13111 Street to the south right-of-way line of 146th Street, or the southern boundary of any TIF District that is contiguous to 146th Street, the boundary shall, (unless otherwise shown on the official Zoning Map) include all land that is within six hundred (600) feet of the right-of-way for U.S. Highway 31. 23B.02 Commission Review:2 A. Development Plan. The Commission must approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Development Plan(DP)for any tract of land in the U.S.Highway 31 Overlay Zone. 1. The Commission shall hold a public hearing before it decides whether to approve or disapprove a DP. However,no DP is required for additions to existing structures which: a. Are attached to the existing structure; b. Continue the architectural design of the existing structure, including exterior color and materials;doors and windows,other detailing; c. Meet with requirements of the underlying primary zoning district; d. Do not exceed twenty percent(20%) of the original gross floor area of the existing structure, applicable from the date of this ordinance,and, e. Have received a prior ADLS approval from the Commission. 2 Section 23B.02 amended per Ordinance No.Z-453-04,§cx-dh;Z-547-10. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-2 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vl • CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE 2. The Commission shall review a DP application to determine if the DP satisfies the development requirements specified in Sections 23B.03 through 23B.08. The Commission's review shall include, but not be limited to,the following items: a. Existing site features,including topography and wooded areas; b. Zoning on site; c. Surrounding zoning and existing land use; d. Streets,curbs and gutters,sidewalks,and bicycle paths; e. Access to public streets; f. Driveway and curb cut locations in relation to other sites; g. General vehicular and pedestrian traffic; h. Vehicle and bicycle parking facilities and internal site circulation; i. Special and general easements for public or private use; j. On-site and off-site surface and subsurface storm water drainage including drainage calculations; k. On-site and off-site utilities; 1. The means and impact of sanitary sewage disposal and water supply techniques; m. Dedication of streets and rights-of-way, or reservation of land to be sold to governmental authorities for future development of streets and rights-of-way; n. Proposed setbacks, site landscaping and screening, and compatibility with existing platted residential uses; o. Project signage; p. Protective restrictions and/or covenants; q. Compatibility of proposed project with existing development within the U.S. Highway 31 Corridor;and, r. Consistency with the policies for the Overlay Zone which are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan,including the Thoroughfare Plan. 3. Findings-of-Fact. The Commission shall make written findings concerning each decision to approve or disapprove a DP. The President of the Commission shall be responsible for signing the written findings of the Commission. B. Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage. Except as provided in Paragraph (A)(1) above, for all projects in the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone, the Commission shall review and approve the Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage (ADLS), access to the property, site layout,parking and site circulation,pursuant to Sections 23B.09 through 23B.15. 1. ADLS approval shall be necessary prior to: a. The establishment of any use of land; b. The issuance of any Improvement Location Permit; c. The erection,reconstruction or structural alteration of any building(s) in the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone;or d. Any changes in any site improvements. 2. An amendment to an ADLS may be reviewed and approved by a committee of the Commission according to the Rules of Procedure. However, any interested party may appeal the decision of the committee directly to the Commission. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-3 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 v1 CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE C. Zoning Waiver. The Commission may, after a public hearing, grant a Plan Commission Waiver of certain Development Requirements of this Chapter, so noted within. Any approval to permit such a waiver shall be subject to the following criteria: • (1) The proposal shall be in harmony with the purposes and the land-use standards contained in this Chapter. (2) The proposal shall enhance the overall Development Plan, the adjoining streetscapes and neighborhoods,and the overall U.S.31 Corridor. (3) The proposal shall not produce a Site Plan or street/circulation system that would be impractical or detract from the appearance of the Development Plan and the U.S. 31 Corridor,and shall not adversely affect emergency vehicle access or deprive adjoining properties of adequate light and air. (4) The proposal exhibits extraordinary site design characteristics, including, but not limited to: Increased landscape treatment, tree preservation,public art,provisions for bicycles and/or mass transit, reduced surface parking coupled with provisions for above or below ground parking facilities. In granting a waiver, the Commission may impose such conditions that will, in its judgment, secure the purposes of this Chapter. This Paragraph does not affect the right of an applicant under Indiana law to petition the Board for a variance from development standards, as provided in IC 36-7-4-918.5 and this Zoning Ordinance. D. Partial Boundaries & Conflicts; If a Parent Tract (Tract) is located both inside and outside of the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone, a DP and ADLS in compliance with the US Highway 31 Overlay Zone shall be submitted to the Commission for the entire tract. Wherever there exists a conflict between the requirements of the underlying zoning and those of the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone, the requirements for the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone shall prevail. 23B.03 Permitted Uses:3 All uses which are permitted in the underlying primary zoning district(s),except the uses expressly excluded by Appendix A:Schedule of Uses,are permitted in the U.S.31 Overlay Zone. 23B.04 Uses:4 There shall be no Special Uses permitted in the U.S.Highway 31 Overlay Zone. 23B.05 23B.05.01 Excluded Uses: See Appendix A:Schedule of Uses. 23B.05.02 Retail&Service Uses: Retail and service uses may be included in one or more buildings within a DP,subject to the following: A. Retail and Service Uses may comprise up to: (1) Fifteen percent(15%)of the Gross Floor Area(GFA)of any building;or, (2) Up to thirty percent (30%) of the GFA of one building may be retail and service uses, provided that: (a) Total square footage of retail and service uses designated in the development plan does not exceed fifteen percent(15%)of the GFA of all buildings combined;or, 3 Section 23B.03 amended per Ordinance No.Z-382-02,§b;Z-415-03,§bn. a Section 23B.04 amended per Ordinance No.Z-415-03,§bv. 5 Section 23B.05 amended per Ordinance No.Z-415-03, §bw-bx;Z-512-07;Z-530-09,§1. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-4 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter2011 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE (b) Retail and service uses over fifteen percent(15%)of the GFA of any one building be located on the ground floor or below grade. B. The Commission may grant a waiver to allow retail and service uses to be located on floors other than ground or below-grade,pursuant to the criteria found in Section 23B.02(C). 23B.05.03 Cultural R.Entertainment Uses: Cultural and Entertainment uses may be included in one or more buildings within a DP,subject to the following: A. Cultural and Entertainment Uses may comprise up to: (1) Fifteen percent(15%)of the Gross Floor Area(GFA)of any building;or, (2) Up to thirty percent (30%) of the GFA of one building may be Cultural and Entertainment Uses,provided that: (a) Total square footage of Cultural and Entertainment Uses designated in the development plan does not exceed fifteen percent(15%) of the GFA of all buildings combined;or, (b) Cultural and entertainment Uses over fifteen percent (15%) of the GFA of any one building be located on the ground floor or below grade. B. The Commission may grant a waiver to allow cultural and entertainment uses to be Iocated on floors other than ground or below-grade,pursuant to the criteria found in Section 23B.02(C). 23B.06 Accessory Buildings and Uses: All Accessory Buildings and uses which are permitted in the underlying primary zoning district(s) shall be permitted, except that any attached or detached Accessory Building in any DP/ADLS shall have on all sides the same building proportions, architectural features,construction materials, and in general be architecturally compatible with the Principal Building(s)with which it is associated. 23B.07 Minimum Tract Size:6 A. Except as provided in Paragraph C, below, the minimum area covered by a DP within the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone must be 217,800 square feet(5 acres). B. If a parcel of land or subdivision lot was recorded prior to April 21, 1980(the"Effective Date"),and said parcel or lot does not contain the minimum area required by this Paragraph,said parcel or lot("Undersized Lot") may be used for any use permitted in the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone provided that: (1) At the time of recordation of the Undersized Lot or on the Effective Date, the Undersized Lot met the requirements for minimum lot size then in effect for a lot in the underlying primary zoning district(s); (2) The owner of the Undersized Lot must include any adjoining vacant land (not separated by a street or public way)owned or owned by an affiliate on or before the Effective Date or at the time of application which, if combined with the Undersized Lot would create a parcel which conforms, or more closely conforms,to the requirements of this Paragraph;and, (3) All other requirements applicable to the U.S.31 Overlay Zone can be met. C. Section 23B.07 does not preclude the sale or other transfer of any parcel of land within a Parent Tract after the approval of a Development Plan (DP) for the entire tract. However, the development of the parcel must still conform to the DP for the Parent Tract as approved or amended by the Commission, and all other applicable requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 6 Section 23B.07 amended per Ordinance No.Z-547-10. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Cor=ridor Overlay Zone 23B-5 as adopted per Z-340:as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vi CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE 23B.08 Height and Yard Requirements.' The purpose of this Section is to provide site design requirements that align buildings along the edges of a parcel, towards the public right-of-way of the U.S. 31 Corridor, and, where applicable, the I-465, Pennsylvania Street, Pennsylvania Parkway, Meridian Corners Boulevard, and Illinois Street Corridors. It is the intent of these regulations to orient new buildings with their longest axis parallel to the adjoining highway or street to create a sense of enclosure along the streets,with parking located to the rear,and,if necessary,to the side of a building. 23B.08.01 Build-To Lines: A. Except as allowed in Paragraph B below, all Principal Buildings shall be located on the U.S. 31 Corridor Build-to Line,defined in Paragraph C below. B. For Development Plans on Through Lots with two or more Principal Buildings (buildings),up to one- half(%) of the buildings may be placed on the Pennsylvania Street, Pennsylvania Parkway, Meridian Corners Boulevard,and/Illinois Corridor Build-to-line instead of the U.S. 31 Build-to Line. C. Dimensional requirements for Build-to-lines shall be measured from the highway or street Right-of-way line: (1) U.S.31 Corridor and I-465:Ninety(90)feet /i (2) Pennsylvania Street, Pennsylvania Parkway, Meridian Corners Boulevard, and Illinois PQ Corridors:Twenty(20)feet. Principal Buildings that are also located adjacent to any arterial or parkway(e.g. 96th Street or 116`h Street)shall be sited consistent with the Building Setback Line of the underlying zoning. 23B.08.02 Minimum Side and Rear Yards: A. Adjacent to any residential use or zone:Forty-five(45)feet. B. Adjacent to business use or business zone:Fifteen(15)feet. 23B.08.03 Building Height: As specified in the underlying primary zoning district(s),except as follows: A. Minimum Building Heights: 1. All uses along U.S. 31 and 1-465: Thirty-eight(38)feet and three(3)occupiable floors. 2. All uses along Pennsylvania Street, Pennsylvania Parkway, Meridian Corners Boulevard, and Illinois Street Corridors, or adjoining arterial/parkway: Twenty-six (26) feet and two (2) occupiable floors. B. Maximum Building Heights: As specified in the underlying primary zoning district(s), except as follows: (1) B-5 District - Between I-465 and 131' Street: Eighty (80) feet, except that the maximum height may not exceed forty percent(40%)of the distance from any residential use or zone. (2) B-6 District -All uses, between 1-465 and 13151 Street: One hundred fifty (150) feet, except that the maximum height may not exceed forty percent (40%) of the distance from any residential use or zone. (3) Maximum height for all buildings along Pennsylvania Street,Pennsylvania Parkway,Meridian Corners Boulevard,and Illinois Street frontages.Fifty-five(55)feet. 'Section 23B.08 amended per Ordinance No.Z-382-02,§c-/ Z-453-04.§di-dj;Z-530-09,§i_ Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-6 as adopted per Z-340; as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-0.9;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE 23B.08.04 Minimum Parcel Width: For all uses, the parcel width shall equal or exceed that amount which is one-half('h)the depth of the parcel. However, if a parcel of land or subdivision lot was recorded prior to April 21, 1980 (the"Effective Date"), and said parcel or lot does not contain the minimum width required by this Paragraph, said parcel or lot ("Undersized Lot")may be used for any use permitted in the U.S.31 Overlay Zone provided that: A. At the time of recordation of the Undersized Lot or on the Effective Date,the Undersized Lot met the requirements for minimum lot width then in effect for a lot in the underlying primary zoning district(s); B. The owner of the Undersized Lot must include,up to the minimum parcel width, any adjoining vacant land (not separated by a street or public way) owned, or owned by an affiliate, on or before the Effective Date or at the time of application which,if combined with the Undersized Lot, would create a parcel which conforms, or more closely conforms, to the minimum parcel width requirements of this Paragraph,and C. All other Development Requirements applicable to the U.S.31 Overlay Zone can be met. 23B.08.05 Minimum Gross Floor Area: A. All buildings shall have a minimum of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of gross floor area, excluding the floor area of any basement or any accessory building(s). Accessory Buildings permitted need not meet this minimum floor area requirement. The intent of this minimum gross floor area requirement is to preclude small,freestanding buildings and uses not in character with the Corridor. B. Distribution of Gross Floor Area. 1. All uses along U.S.31 and I-465: a. Maximum First floor GFA: Forty percent(40%); b. Maximum Second floor GFA: Thirty-five percent(35%). 2. All uses along Pennsylvania Street, Pennsylvania Parkway, Meridian Corners Boulevard, and Illinois Street Corridors,or adjoining arterial/parkway: a. Maximum First floor GFA: Sixty percent(60%); 23B.08.06 Maximum Parcel Coverage and Density: A. Maximum Parcel Coverage shall be sixty-five percent(65%)of any parcel covered by a DP. B. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) shall be 0.70, with the F.A.R. being calculated by dividing the total gross floor area of a building or buildings on any parcel by the area of such parcel. 23B.08.07 Waivers: The applicant may request a Plan Commission Waiver to the dimensional and quantitative standards of this Section 23B.08,by not greater than thirty-five percent(35%), consistent with requirements set forth in Section 23B.02(c). 23B.09 Architectural Design Req uirements.' In reviewing the architectural design of building(s)proposed to be built in the U.S.Highway 31 Overlay Zone,factors to be considered by the Commission shall include but not be limited to the following: A. Context: All buildings shall be designed with respect to the general character of the U.S. 31 Corridor and, particularly,with due consideration to buildings located on lots that abut the project site. B. Materials: A minimum of three materials shall be used for building exteriors, from the following list: stone, brick, architectural pre-cast(panels or detailing),architectural metal panels, glass, and ornamental metal. Large expanses of glass are allowed, up to seventy percent (70%) of the facade area. The building may not be 8 Section 23k09 amended per Ordinance No.Z-511-07.2-530-09, `si. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Cotidor Overlay Zone 23B-7 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09; Z-547-J0 Winter 2011 vi CITY OF CARMEL ZONNG ORDINANCE constructed entirely of a metal and glass curtain wall. Stucco or EIFS may also be applied as trim details, but shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the overall non-window facade area. Concrete block is not allowed as an exterior finish material. C. Footprint: All buildings shall be designed with a minimum of eight external corners, in order to eliminate box buildings. D. Roof: Modulation of the roof and/or roof line will be required in order to eliminate box-shaped buildings. Parapets must be fully integrated into the architectural design of the building and provide seamless design transitions, including exterior materials, between the main building mass, mechanical penthouses and other roof structures. Should they be used, partial parapets shall have a return that extends inward to at least the first structural bay,or twenty-five(25)feet,whichever is greater. Sloped roofs shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet without a change in roof plane, or gable or dormer. Sloped roofs shall be either standing seam metal or dimensional shingles. E. Exhibits. The following architectural exhibits shall be provided to the Commission in addition to normal submission requirement of any DP or ADLS application,as required by Chapter 24: (1) A Site Plan showing the proposed building and neighboring buildings, including buildings across U.S. 31. (2) Perspective computer-enhanced color renderings showing the proposed building,signage,parking areas (shown loaded)and any displays within the context of the actual existing site conditions,including how it will look from any adjoining residential areas, as well from as three locations, whose distance is no less than three hundred (300) linear feet away nor more than one thousand (1000) linear feet away (from the property line),along U.S. 31: (a) U.S. 31 Southbound lane (b) Immediately across the highway,from approximately first floor level (c) U.S. 31 Northbound lane F. Waivers: The applicant may request a Plan Commission Waiver to the dimensional and quantitative standards of this Section 23B.09 by not greater than thirty-five percent(35%), consistent with requirements set forth in Section 23B.02(C). 23B.10 Landscaping Requirements.' 23B.10.01 Landscape Plan: A Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Plan Commission for its approval at the same time other plans(i.e. architectural design,lighting,parking and signage)are submitted. This plan shall: A. Be drawn to scale,including dimensions and distances; B. Delineate all existing and proposed buildings,private parking areas,walks,ramps for handicapped, terraces,drive-ways, signs,lighting standards,steps and other similar structures; C. Delineate the location, size and description of all plant material and the irrigation system for all planting areas. Landscape treatment for plazas,roads,paths, service and private parking areas shall be designed as an integral/coordinated part of the Landscape Plan for the entire lot. 23B.10.02 Landscape Area Requirements: A. Greenbelt: (1) The Greenbelt along U.S.Highway 31 shall be a minimum of thirty(30)feet in width and landscaped per the requirements of Section 23B.10.03(B). 9 Section 23B.10 amended per Ordinance No.Z-365-01;Z-530-09, Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-8 as adopted per Z-340; as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE (2) The Greenbelt shall be unoccupied except for plant material,steps,walks,terraces,bike paths, lighting standards, signs, and other similar structures (excluding a private parking area). Mounding and other innovative treatments are to be encouraged in this area. (3) A base-planting unit for each one hundred (100) linear foot increment of the Greenbelt has been designated,as follows: (a) Five(5)shade trees; (b) Three(3)ornamental trees; (c) Fifteen(15)shrubs or,three(3)evergreen trees; B. Planting Strip: (1) A planting strip, minimum width shall be ten (10) feet, shall be provided adjacent to any Collector or Arterial Street,or Parkway right-of-way within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. 0(2) Adjacent to an wry 'rive: human width ten(10)feet. (3) Adjacent to any parking area:Minimum width as follows: (a) five feet(5')wide when adjacent to business zoned property. (b) fifteen feet(15')wide when adjacent to residential use or zoned property. (4) The planting strip shall be unoccupied except for plant material,steps,terraces,driveway and pathway crossings,lighting standards,signs,benches,and other similar structures. (5) The base planting unit for planting strips shall be as follows: (a) Adjacent to Parallel Collector/Arterial Roadways: For each one hundred(100)linear foot increment: (i) Three(3)shade trees (ii) Two(2)ornamental trees (iii) Ten(10) shrubs (b) Adjacent to entry drives: Same planting unit standards as for Parallel Collector/Arterial Roadways, above. (c) Adjacent to parking areas: per Section 26.04:Perimeter Buffering. C. Planting Adjacent to Buildings: (1) A planting area equal to an area measuring twenty-five (25) feet in depth by the width of the front of the building plus twenty(20) feet(to extend ten(10) feet out on both sides) shall be installed along building facades that face U.S.31. (2) A planting area equal to an area ten(10)feet in depth by the remaining sides of the building shall be installed on all other sides of the building(s). (3) Sidewalks up to eight (8) feet in width may be permitted in these areas,but shall not occupy the entire planting area on any side of the building(s). (4) If an approach driveway or sidewalk cuts into a planting area, the area displaced by the driveway or sidewalk shall be added to the building perimeter planting. (5) These adjacent planting areas need not be rectangular in shape as long as the required amount of space is landscaped; innovative and original designs are encouraged. D. Planting Within Parking Lots: A minimum of one(1) shade tree and five(5)shrubs shall be planted within each parking lot for every nine (9) spaces provided, or not less than eighteen (18) trees per acre of parking.—See Section 23B.10.03(B)for minimum planting area requirements. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-9 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per 7-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDNANCE E. Side/Rear Yard Landscaping:Planting unit shall occur per Paragraph F below. F. Greenbelt Buffers shall be established within required side and rear yards pursuant to Section 26.04: Perimeter Buffering. G. Total Landscaping Required: Inclusive of the Greenbelt, the planting adjacent to the building(s), the Greenbelt Buffers, and the planting within parking lots, a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the project area shall be landscaped. 23B.10.03 Landscaping Installation and Maintenance. A. Materials: All plants proposed to be used in accordance with any landscaping plan shall meet the following specifications: (1) Shade trees: two and one-half inch (21/2") caliper, a minimum height of eight (8) feet, and a branching height of not less than one-third(1/3)nor more than one-half('/)of tree height. (2) Ornamental trees: one and one-half inch(11/2")caliper a minimum height of six(6)feet, and a branching height of not less than one-third(1/3)nor more than one-half(1/2)of tree height. (3) Evergreen trees:A minimum height of eight(8)feet. (4) Deciduous shrubs:A minimum height of twenty-four(24)inches,and no less than six(6)main branches upon planting. (5) Evergreen shrubs:A minimum height and spread of twenty-four(24)inches. B. The dimensions,specifications and design of any planting area or planting median shall be as follows: (1) Shade Trees: nine(9)feet wide (2) Ornamental Trees: seven(7)feet wide (3) Shrubs(only): five(5)feet wide C. Landscaping materials selected shall be appropriate to local growing and climate conditions. D. Installation: All required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy by the Department. If it is not possible to install the required landscaping because of weather conditions, the property owner shall post a bond for an amount equal to the total cost of the required landscaping not yet installed,prior to the issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy. E. Maintenance: It shall be the responsibility of the owners and their agents to insure maintenance of project landscaping approved in accordance with the Overlay Zone requirements. This is to include, but is not limited to, irrigation and mulching of planting areas, replacing dead, diseased, or overgrown plantings with identical varieties or a suitable substitute, and keeping the area free of refuse, debris, rank vegetation and weeds. F. Changes After Approval: No landscaping which has been approved by the Commission may later be materially altered, eliminated or sacrificed, without first obtaining further Commission approval. However, minor alterations in landscaping may be approved by the Director in order to conform to specific site conditions. G. Inspection: The Director shall have the authority to visit any tract within the U.S.Highway 31 Overlay Zone to inspect the landscaping and check it against the approved plan on file. 23B.10.04 Protection of Existing Trees: Sites with existing trees or stands of trees should make reasonable efforts to protect and incorporate them into the overall site design. The Landscape Plan must preserve not less than seventy percent(70%) of all trees that are: A. nine-inch(9")DBH or larger,and B. located within the Greenbelt,Planting Strips and perimeter buffering. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-10 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;2-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vi • CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE 23B.10.05 Waivers: The Plan Commission may grant a waiver to the dimensional and quantitative standards of this Section 23B.10, . by not greater than thirty-five percent(35%),consistent with requirements set forth in Section.23B.02(C). 23B.11 Public Art. Public art that is included as part of a Development Plan shall be displayed in a location that is visually accessible to the public and visible from either U.S. Highway 31, Pennsylvania Street, Range Line Road, or Illinois Street/Meridian Corners Boulevard. 23B.12 Parking Requirements.10 A. Except as provided in Paragraph B,there shall be no(0)parking between the U.S.31 right-of-way and the front build-to line of the building. (1) The required number of parking spaces is established in Chapter 27: Additional Parking &Loading Regulations,depending upon the zoning and intended land use. (2) There shall be an appropriate number of parking spaces reserved for use by handicapped individuals, per State and Federal requirements. (3) Direct, articulated pedestrian access shall be provided from the street to the building's primary entrance. (4) A bicycle parking area should be provided for each building. (5) Above grade, structured parking facilities shall have on all sides architectural features that are compatible with the principal building(s)with which they are associated. B. Waivers: The applicant may request a Plan Commission Waiver to the dimensional and quantitative standards of this Section 23B.12, by not greater than thirty-five percent(35%), consistent with requirements set forth in Section 23B.02(C). 23B.13 Lighting Requirements." A. A Site Lighting Plan shall be submitted along with any DP or ADLS plan. The Site Lighting Plan shall include the type,standards,layout,spread&intensity of all site lighting,including: (1) parking lot and service/storage area lighting; (2) architectural display lighting; (3) security lighting; (4) lighting of pedestrian and bicycle ways; (5) architectural and landscape lighting. B. All site lighting shall be coordinated throughout the project and be of uniform design,color and materials. C. The maximum height of light standards shall not exceed the building height proposed, or twenty-five(25) feet, whichever is less. However, when light standards abut or fall within ninety (90) feet of a residential use, they shall not exceed fifteen(15)feet. to Section 23B.12 amended per Ordinance Z-530-09,§L I N Section 23B.13 amended per Ordinance Z-530-09,§i. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-1 I as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vi CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE D. All exterior architectural,display,decorative and sign lighting shall be generated from concealed,low level light fixtures. E. The average illumination for site lighting shall be a maximum of three(3)footcandles. F. All site lighting shall be designed to not exceed 0.3 footcandle at the property line in business or manufacturing districts,and 0.1 footcandle at the property line of adjoining residential uses. G. Waivers: The applicant may request a Plan Commission Waiver to the dimensional and quantitative standards of this Section 23B.13, by not greater than thirty-five percent(35%), consistent with requirements set forth in Section 23B.02(C). 23B.14 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. The DP shall include specific provisions for incorporating pedestrian and bicycle access, circulation and amenities into the development. Such bicycle and pedestrian access considerations shall include linking pedestrian and bicycle facilities to adjacent development, the overall U.S. 31 Corridor, and, the Cannel community's overall system of bicycle and pedestrian trails and routes. 23B.15 Access to Individual Tracts. As U.S. Highway 31 is a limited access highway, and as access to individual tracts along this highway is either not in existence or not clearly defined in many cases, access roads will need to be built. In order to preserve the aesthetic benefits provided by the greenbelt, access roads shall be provided at the rear of all tracts, whenever possible. Access roads to contiguous tracts shall be coordinated so as to form one main access road serving adjoining developments. These roads should be designed so as to funnel traffic onto major arterial roads rather than into residential areas and roads that may adjoin or be near this Overlay Zone. Bicycle and pedestrian access shall likewise be coordinated with vehicular access,greenbelt design and parking. 23B.16 Other Requirements." 23B.16,01 Outside Storage of Refuse: Unenclosed storage of refuse(whether or not in containers)or display of merchandise shall not be permitted on any project. All refuse shall be contained completely within the Principal Building orAccessory Building. Any Accessory Building for refuse storage shall be: A. Designed to include a roof structure;and, B. Architecturally compatible with the Principal Building. 23B.16.02 Loading and Unloading Areas: Loading and Unloading Berths or Bays shall be designed as specified in the underlying primary zoning district(s), except that any Loading and Unloading Berth or Bay shall not be oriented to U.S. Highway 31. Loading and Unloading Berths or Bays oriented toward any other public right-of-way, shall be landscaped/screened using masonry wall(s), plant material, or a combination thereof, subject to Commission approval. 23B.16.03 Additions to Existing Residential: Uses and Detached Buildings accessory to single-family dwelling units are permitted provided that the use and/or structure meets the requirements of the underlying primary zoning district. Additionally, any detached structure: A. Must be of compatible architectural design with the Principal Building; 12 Section 23B.16 amended per Ordinance No.Z-365-01;Z-511-07;Z-530-09.i. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-12 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-0I;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04; Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDNANCE B. Must be set back a minimum of thirty(30) feet from the right-of-way line nearest to and running most parallel with U.S. Highway 31; and be accompanied by the minimum applicable perimeter buffer per Section 26.04:Perimeter Buffering. C. Waivers: The applicant may request a Plan Commission Waiver to the dimensional and quantitative standards of this Section 23B.16.03, by not greater than thirty-five percent(35%), consistent with requirements set forth in Section 23B.02(C). 23B.16.04 Perimeter Fences. Perimeter Fences shall be permitted for privacy, buffering and screening purposes and shall be identified on the DP. When used, perimeter fences shall be constructed of wood and masonry materials,be solid as viewed from any angle and shall be at least eight feet(8')in height. Primarily cedar fences are permitted;however, twenty-four inch (24") wide red brick or stone columns shall be incorporated into the fence design at least every twenty-six feet(26'). Alternatively,metal fencing with landscaping is permitted such that 100% landscaping screen is achieved within three (3) years. All fences shall be properly maintained and repaired,as necessary. 23B.17 Reservation of Land for Pending State Highway Improvements.13 A. In addition to the development requirements specified in Sections 23B.03 through 23B.08, a DP must reserve for acquisition by the State of Indiana all land that the State expects to need for pending improvements to U.S. Highway 31, as shown on plans developed for the Indiana Department of Transportation by the consulting firm Bernardin,Lochmueller and Associates for the Major Investment Study (1997), or, as shown on plans from the Parsons Transportation Group prepared for the Environmental Impact Study. An applicant must notify in writing the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) of any proposed DP that includes land within the projected right-of-way for those pending improvements. B. Whenever an applicant believes that the reservation of such land as required by Paragraph A would result in the loss of all reasonable and beneficial use of or return from the applicant's property,then the applicant may request an Economic Hardship Exception from the terms of Paragraph A, pursuant to the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure. C. Upon receipt of a request for an Economic Hardship Exception, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on such request. The hearing may not be held until at least ninety(90)days after the applicant has notified the Commissioner of INDOT of the proposed.DP as described above in Paragraph A. In determining whether to grant an Economic Hardship Exception, the Commission may consider the following criteria: (1) the applicant's knowledge of the State's plans at the time of acquisition; (2) the current level of economic return on the property, including the date of purchase, the purchase price, income from the property,any remaining mortgage debt,real estate taxes,and recent appraisals of the property; (3) any recent offers for sale or purchase, including offers to purchase which the State itself may have made; (4) the feasibility of profitable alternative uses for the property;and, (5) whether the State can reasonably be expected to provide just compensation to the applicant for any taking of the applicant's property within one (1) year from the date of the Commission's decision. D. An applicant for an Economic Hardship Exception must prove,by clear and convincing evidence,both: (1) that the existing use(if any)of the applicant's property is economically infeasible;and, 13 Section 23B.17 amended per Ordinance Aro.Z-953-04,Pk-dn. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-13 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vi CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE (2) that, if the terms of Paragraph A are applied to the property,the sale,rental, or rehabilitation of the property will not be possible, resulting in the property not being capable of earning any reasonable economic return. The Commission's decision must be in writing and must contain the factual findings that constitute the basis for its decision, consistent with the criteria in Paragraph C. Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-14 as adopied per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vl CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 23B:U.S.HIGHWAY 31 CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE AMENDMENT LOG Ordinance No. Docket No. Council Approval Effective Date Sections Affected Z-289 6 December 1993 Z-323 3 September 1997 Z-324 15 December 1997 Z-334 7 June 1999 Z-340 1 May 2000 Z-365-01 76-01a OA November 5,2001 November 27,2001 23B.10.2(B)(5); 23B.10.2(F);23B.16.3(B) Z-382-02 38-02 OA July 15,2002 July 15,2002 23B.3;23B.8;23B.8.1; 23B.8.2;23B.83 Summer 2002 vi Z-415-03 39-02 OA November 17,2003 November 18,2003 23B.03;23B.04;23B.05 Autumn 2003 vi Z-453-04 150-02 OA August 16,2004 August 16,2004 23B.00;23B.02;23B.08; 23B.17 Surmner 2004 vi Z-511-07 07020020 OA November 19,2007 November 20,2007 23B.09;23B.16 Autumn 2007 vl Z-512-07 07090002 OA December 17,2007 December 17,2007 23B.05 Autumn 2007 vi Z-530-09 09030015 OA July 20,2009 July 20,2009 23B.05.02(B); 23B.05.03(B);23B.08.07; 23B.09(B);23B.09(F); 23B.10.05; 23B.12(B); 23B.13(G);23B.16.03(C) Summer 2009 vl Z-547-10 10040014 OA December 20,2010 December 20,2010 23B.02;23B.07 Winter 2011 vl • Chapter 23B:US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 23B-15 as adopted per Z-340;as amended per Z-365-01;Z-382-02;Z-415-03;Z-453-04;Z-511-07;Z-512-07;Z-530-09;Z-547-10 Winter 2011 vl :r.1 - - our I a8us21-aQ lauuE� Cc . aEd aoI w Z o ` b _ U �O G umoy PO w ale O D w .o S "SNDlW/IZb Sfl m m m m Z 8 - ma... UEipuaW/l£Sfl w m m m u m O v ca x N u u O auols Ca}/I€l)1S w . W VV) VD �VD r 1 c WW/WO a FL 0. aaa d C) W/WO a. a a a a rs. a O °? OS/WO 1 0 ° :H ', F' > � v O/IAO aaaa U TSa o a o r l N fIII/WO °- °- adda a ao., aa a 8.2 .< 1 n/yNO ¢ da (a - as a. 11 .4 3W/NIO a ¢ d -o p VAS/WO ° a < < I-9V - ¢ a I-d z-D aaa a ad ¢ add d as 1 " 1 cn l-D aaaa ad ¢ a ¢ ¢ < as w co > a £-W a a a a d d °- a s Q • p T- W °_ ¢ • may W I-I •aaa a. d c D W 8-3 a : - - 9-El a °- ¢ d a ¢ aaaa Cc-El 4,-, 0-, ,,, ¢ ¢ i d aaaa Z I a Q d n a a a a a £-H a r ZQ cn a a a a a I-g tn a a °. a s S-13 °- °- d d a d n b-ll a, acn dr¢ °' ddc� rnd cn a £-2l - - < < . ¢ d ¢ n 1 1.-N °- dd add et m E z-S °- < < °. ¢ d ¢ p~. I-S °- dd ad ¢ d cn Tg .4 .4-;a V C O Z i 33 i o 2 4 A i Q 3 S X -- E v> a .a 8 u. 'o m ,� O w. k E =0- Z,. o " u m o o - ° '3 .7y 1IHi K .a t! 7. in F. ¢ 2 ¢_ a V' ¢1 W Z ¢, _O iJ w C7_a S F \ . «To m-69u y < - \ mew m u u _ \/ ; \ «4PIO _ _ _ 3 / & § 8 uu8 mlam = _ \ \ _ f® 9pm\m = m = \ \ - �'xa� - - - - . . • 6 ya \ a o 2 _ woo = _ a. wqo = _ - aa, _ P. P. 7GO = P. _ (\ § omo P. P. P. } ) ƒ N ago a, _ a. _ \ . _ _ _ 2 / « -a & � _ � � _ J < ) } o ° _. / Gwgo = !9v y & y _ !« y i _ !9 \ ww ` _ ® \ — § — I N & yy y § w 7 /ƒ § 8 \ \ \ _ \ 7 [ a. a o. _ _ _ } 91 \ _ _ O. _ _ & ^ \ & ° ° y & & \ D E 6 \ ma y V)V) = Z-8 y = y = = a, ay = = !m y = \ � = � \ y c y = / ] & ® / & » / i i / y y " } & &z k ,/ 7 y Ca y & \ u. z y 7 & & \ & ± y 7 ° & y \ & 4 \ c. _ » ,- \ \) { - « \ , - s : / 2 _ { } / ) / 8 ƒ \ \ \ - \ E 5 ' 5 \ ) { { ) o ( ( ; j / \ } ) } - or - 8 o = 5 - ID \ \ ƒ / 7523 t - « 2G3aQ \ U ,u J a8uwa--la lauusa - - - a a a . a Z d ❑ >-. aauld amoH a ry m m m m Z o `v v n. > G y th Oi ptO a a a O '1U !43!IVI Zb SIl w L] iw [t] w Z C a cv a rl v w n Z E c o uepualnl/I£S1- O � � 0 � auozs6a}l/i£b2IS au am m 'mmmm � r� � � N u II W GO LI] QfldmO a. IAIINMIO a a a a a- U Y1IMIO a, a a n, a s O v I1S/1A10 a. a E.., [ O/WO a a U T. o a o N IINI/L'IO - o- a a 4..a, a II g a ¢ i :o �O a a a aae.. n II m 3IN/hI0 a c Q _ b 0 VdS/LVO a I-DV ]i a vn I-d a Z-0 a a a < a a v, I-D a a ada a a aa o > cri £1,11 a a a p 0 a. • rn m .a I-I a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a. a aaaa a c 0 S-ff a a s a. a s adorn a a a S r, L-E1 a a a a Q a a. a 9ff v) a a, a. a- a, ¢ aa � a E S-ff a a aQ - t a a Z £-ff a a a a a a a a a a a a ¢ a a a a a a a a a Z a a. Z-g a a a a a a a a a a a a d a a a a a a a a a I-ff aaaaaa aaa � aa, daaaaa aaaPn y c-2I t d u C b2I C £-2I cc, e Z-21. 0 N I-2I I- E Z-S ` a I-S C o c o = v' 7 v' _ 2 >. 2 °N' 1' :3 3 $ F .9. S E a ¢ v E S ^: ❑ C v C-i 'h U 3 v N •F L 5 n ao s E ., - .N §A. ° ti c A m X o o o x ti .0 r t N �_ v y Z v ; v a . ' - y c " E. Ti. L - N v Y oA 0 7 y F- F > v -1 , ° o O -" .Y = .. v v v e a v S x m O - c o v ,°'- n 1 ti ' ^, c ';3. c. '^ a " c o 0 E E CJ J .� o Z r "g v o \ �ml�e-m a_» u = u = = = zz = = = uu 4 _ % me mm u uuu = u = _ ...5 \ƒ 6 - mGmg = � u 0 3 / & ] \ U +lam u = = z u \ \ \ m +Em \ _ = u u u = u = \ = u = uu t \ \ - ��xa7 \ \ \ _ _ \ o§ a § wwm/ a / wmo = _ a. _ _ a. ? J mmo a. E omo . ) } (} ) Imo = _ _ a. a, _ _ ) / ) : o = _ 0.. ® 0- a./ < e �+o\ 5 q9+0 !9v 1-d % z a !9 = _ . a _ \ ew _ _ _ \ © / o ,+ y \ � \ � y � y . y & ® � � 3 I _ _ _ _ = y = Q. may = = = = _ _ &} � I ) / / ( _ / _ _ \ ° _ / ° y ® [ L-8 _ am \ _ _ _ _ & _ . . = cn § . 7 \ 5 = = = /y6 � a _ = y o \ a ° z . a, a. a, = a = = % Q $ _ � _ \_ �cn# . !* = = � ii0- � � a- ® = 2 & 77 & n n s \ y \ y \ y y = C . = . \ . !s & & E Q y Z-S a. y \ o \ \ \ S ; \ \ / \ � \ } 7 \ : } Z7 \ ) _ _ 0 ` f7 § 2 } » \ S ) § * ^ dia Sr cv ` \ \ } \ ) / \ , \ ; \ } \ \ { \ \� \\ 3 — � f ) � ± ! zz ; ( § 7 ) / « 7 ) \& z § IS a , } C - � " . ` = --5 ] I5 . 7 / \ \ ) ) % § ( / ) � f °» # \ {ƒ t ) 7 \ ° _ c « a2J § 9 % ! ! l ' ; = Ej # \ \ ) � } ® 3g � ~ / 3 > ; 3 ) ) 7 ! ] %$ 2 / xw � \_ / : « ` _ ; ¢« » @ U •ui'I a8uwa-.iJ hump Z bo ❑ aoeld amoI{ m al o v o n a p 6 >, UPA0,I,PlO m a) 0 LI - c ue8tgoryAJIZbSR ca m ci m _° C usi ua � mmm a mm :nw � 7 '�? L P. IN/I£SR O ,`x-] 0> - auolsFax/I£b-as al al al N II u u m ORd/INO INTYV/INO a. Z7 1A1/1A10 a a a k. 0 v RS/INO - a a a. >. _ , . ■ o 2 O/INO a. o- C) F, � v n N fIIN/LVO a a. a'• r o A/WO a. a" a. a. d 0. a -o ' 0 VdS/INO a I-OV '0a 7 as D vo T-d a a O. a. 0 7 a I 1 Z-3 a. v) I-O a. aa. a CD > VD £-IN c o a m o 0 0 I-TN a a a VI a) ,- m OD II n ° a a a 7 0 8-S a' a"1N• env) a a 0 U L-H a a u I C 9-H a a a S8 a 0r 0 a 00 z (-Et a a O. a s a � as 77 Clo r Z-171 0, 0. 0, 0. acl) an O. a. V) VD • VD I-fi � D a aon .ate a. a v= = ice r g":21 a a a 7 VI c.0 VD cc e Z-U ° v0 � a v) v Q I'd °-' vi c p a. . � [ � a a / Z-S up ID , cn C/7 i E y - v V � ° w VD VDm ° m �IS F O X a W 9 G O Q T T E ' T c g o V� O .. ,-,F.y O L C C . C R 8 O h L V v T O • C U ? v O v v ki° p u ` d T v N C z i — i E o .A. a g r d 3 :z a v U T Q+ U U 3 U 8 ;L'' '87. a to � 3 ' W U ou17 a8ueg-aact lauus0 z ❑ .E aoe1d 3moB w m o y 6 e ? umol PIO T O D = :g Z' UR5PPINI/IZb Sf1 ,,J = = ,.,..1 ca uNIPI13y4/1£Sit w w w w w m w = 0 `i' v) x TS O v auols�Ca}Ii i£b-us a r — w w'tJ II W vi c v GSld/1NO a- a a. a. d a IAIIN/YAIO n, c a a a d o U IN/NIO a- d d a a a a ¢ ' � o o v IlS/INO a a a a d c V v >o e O/INO a a a a < ° ° V u o 0.ri ¢ 1 b A/INO a d < 0. 0- a < c ° v' F:5 d3S/NIO a a a a < tv I`Jd a a ° V) vii vi d I d a a a s < s >c.o cf) a Z-C) a a a Q c a a a < L v, I-D '- ✓ [N o a o a s d o" co > v) va va va .0 O o p i NI a d 6 a ° VI v D < o Ci ° N may II aQ Q1aa a � a ad a c C 8-0 a as a , n a ad _ c 3 N 'S w up up .o_u m o �.. U L-II a a. d - o o ° 4 9-g a a a ^ � a a a ¢ 12 § N X I y 0 . N O c-o °- d ¢ °' °- � � can °' cn vi Q J • - w £-Q a- d daa aa � a � a a < T c a C a a. Z-ff a- < daa aaNaD a aQ o N O C ' 1 H ad < 0- 0- a s cn cn a a d 1 la b o b a a a Da., m < “ c c cn Z S-2I (A . m E. -o N 'C b-1 a a a c a d o c £-?I a a a s d G y -8O s I-1I a a s e `,, .. L r m `CJ Z'S a' a, a .� a, = w C V ` M G , , vI v) up 5 C 7 r. L h a 1-S a a a v) ° co v) v R 3 c V t o a > z ? z "L can g a 0 3 9 :°- o c '� -�* - = o a as g A •o_ d d s O E aF S. a ¢ cu - .el a L) ' 'l v = rr 5 3 o c a y F m m 0. c 8 d3 2 c c c a _ r °] . <1 . w v 3 p O F F p -2 v 3 M • C. a m N N m 0 '' ,2 - 9. G 0.. 4!A O = C a n y L F F N _ ip Q = F h 6 v ` v9 ° C "pi o 4 o -, Y y . c,2 2 a . . y m ,.'..., = S' • . -_ in- .. 6 ,,5 A f-o 3_i a` c`. U a` t -L 8 E MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Carmel Plan. Commission FROM: John R. Molitor Counsel to the Carmel Plan Commission DATE: February 24, 2012 RE: Highpointe on Meridian PUD Proposal (Plan Commission Docket 11120027 Z) Questions were raised during the last Commission meeting (February 21, 2012) regarding the development standards that currently apply to the land included in the Highpointe proposal. As you know, the site (which comprises approximately 27 acres) is located at the southwest confer of 136th Street and Illinois Parkway and is owned by Mr. Frank Regan. Factual Background and History Initially, it should be noted that the Department Report on the Highpointe proposal began with the following two paragraphs under the heading,History of the Subject Site: This site was rezoned from S-2/Residential to B-5/Business in 1991, under Plan Commission docket no. 32-91 Z and City Council Ordinance Z-262. Part of the rezone approval included the relocation of a gas pipeline, to be closer and parallel to the road right of way of future Illinois Street.Also,most of the road right of way for the future Illinois Street was dedicated to the City, as part of this rezone proposal. Also land for the proposed pump station site was dedicated to the City, also as part of this rezone proposal. Rezone covenants were adopted as part of that 1991 rezone approval. The first covenant was that the building heights were restricted to be a maximum of 3 stories in height, not to exceed 40 feet.The second covenant was that the height of buildings fronting on or adjacent to 136`1' Street were restricted to 2 stories, not to exceed 30 feet,and the architecture of such buildings shall maintain a residential appearance. Further investigation has revealed that the relocation of the gas pipeline, along with the dedication of right-of-way for Illinois Parkway and sale of land for a City pump station, did not occur in connection with the approval of the B-5 rezoning in 1991. Rather these actions all resulted from the settlement of a lawsuit that was brought nine years later by Mr. Regan against the City. The lawsuit alleged that the City had inversely condemned Mr. Regan's property; ultimately, the City settled the lawsuit with Mr. Regan in 2003, with most of the settlement provisions then implemented in 2004. : rV Regarding the "rezone covenants" to which the Department Report refers, it is clear that both the Plan Commission and the City Council discussed a draft"Rezone Covenant" in 1991 when they considered Mr. Regan's proposal to rezone his property at that time from S-2 to B-5. The Plan Commission held a public hearing on the Regan proposal (Plan Commission Docket 32-91 Z) on September 17, 1991. Four days earlier, Mr. Regan's attorney at that time, Mr. Dave Coots, had transmitted to the Commission staff a draft that he had prepared for execution "by Frank K. Regan (hereinafter 'Land Owner')". The draft included a prefatory clause, "WHEREAS, Land Owner desires to assure the performance of certain commitments attendant to the rezone ... NOW, THEREFORE, Land Owner covenants as follows" and then set forth the following three paragraphs: 1. The Land Owner agrees to restrict the height of buildings to be developed on the property to be rezoned to a maximum of three stories in height not to exceed 40 feet. 2. The Land Owner agrees to restrict the height of buildings fronting on or adjacent to 136th Street to two stories not to exceed 30 feet and the architecture of such buildings shall maintain residential appearance. 3. The Land Owner commits to participate, in a fair and equitable manner with the property owners of other commercial and residential property to be developed whose property would benefit from any improvements to the intersection of U.S. 31 and 136th Street including, but not limited to, design and engineering, lane improvement, lighting and signalization at U.S. 31 and 136th Street intersection. The Plan Commission minutes of the September 17, 1991, meeting described Mr. Coots' public presentation on behalf of Mr. Regan thusly: Mr. Coots stated that the covenants that they have offered to the commission that will run with the land include: restricting the maximum height of the buildings to three stories not to exceed 40' over the entire project; that any buildings constructed that have their frontage on or are adjacent to 136th Street shall be limited to two stories in heights not to exceed 30' and that the architecture of such building shall maintain residential appearance; that they commit to participate as an adjacent property in a fair and equitable manner with the property owners of other commercial and residential property regarding improvements to be made to the intersection of 136th Street and U.S.31.The covenants that we recite are to run with the land, they encumber not only this property owner but any subsequent property owner. Despite a remonstrance from property owners who submitted 63 letters in opposition to the B-5 rezoning proposal, the Plan Commission unanimously gave a favorable recommendation to the proposal. The City Council then held a public hearing on the B-5 proposal on October 21, 1991. The Council's minutes of this meeting included the following description of Mr. Coots' presentation to that body on behalf of Mr. Regan: c �:._ 4 Coots asked that along with the rezone, the Council approve certain covenants affecting the development of the said property. 1) All buildings on the property are restricted to three stories or 40 feet in height,buildings fronting on 136th Street are restricted to two stories or 30 feet in height. 2) The property would be annexed to the City of Carmel and the property was already serviced by City sewer and water. 3) A traffic study and recommended solution for the intersection of 136th Street and U.S. 31 with a proportionate contributing cost by the property owner for any improvements necessary.... Potasnik asked if the remuneration for fair-share costs of street improvement was agreed to by the owner. Coots stated it was part of the real estate covenant that will be recorded at the time the rezone ordinance is recorded. Potasnik asked if the buildings would be low height. Coots stated maximum 40' height except 136th Street frontage buildings which would have a maximum 30' height. Potasnik asked if they were in the form of residential state covenants. Coots stated yes.... After further discussion, one of the Council members stated that the rezone was the "best offer the City had for the property by having an access road to 131th Street." The Council then unanimously approved Mr.-Regan's requested rezoning to B-5. The City has apparently retained in its files since 1991 a copy of the draft "Rezone Covenant" that was originally transmitted by Mr. Coots to the Plan Commission staff. However, no one has been able to find an executed copy of this document — and there is no indication that it or any other"real estate covenant" was recorded with the Hamilton County Recorder at the time that the rezone ordinance was recorded in 1991. Legal Analysis Since the 1980's, Indiana law has recognized that a plan commission or city council may accept certain types of promises or covenants from developers which are made to mitigate the negative impacts of rezoning proposals. Generally, these will include an agreement by the developer to "commit" that certain uses will not be allowed — or that certain development standards will not be exceeded — on the subject property until or unless the "commitment" is duly modified by the plan commission or the property is again rezoned. This gives local zoning officials the option to grant landowners less than all the property rights or privileges that they would have received if a rezoning were approved without any conditions. Frequently, by utilizing this power, a city council may then decide to approve a rezoning that it would otherwise have defeated— so long as the "commitments" made by the land owner ameliorate the community's concerns about a proposed development. The current Indiana statute governing this topic, I.C. §36-7-4-1015, allows — as a condition to the • approval of a rezoning proposal — the respective land owner to make a commitment to the plan commission concerning the future use or development of the subject real estate parcel. It must be noted that subsection (b) of this section then requires all commitments to be in writing and to be recorded in the office of the county recorder. Assuming that a commitment has been duly recorded, it is then "binding on a subsequent owner or any other person who acquires an interest in the parcel." Notwithstanding this rule, though, subsection (b) goes on to state: "However, a • • A' .-,.s commitment is binding on the owner who makes the commitment even if the commitment is unrecorded." [Emphasis added.] In considering the draft "Rezone Covenant" that was prepared by Mr. Coots, all of the parties seemed to share an understanding that Mr. Regan intended to sign it and that it was the equivalent of a "commitment" (irrespective of its labeling as a "covenant"), and further that it was going to be recorded. The difficulty now is with the lack of proof that he actually made the commitment; if he did, then it would be binding on him even though it is unrecorded. If he didn't, there is at least some uncertainty whether the approval of the rezoning proposal was valid. Subsection (g) of §36-7-4-1015 is also pertinent to this analysis. It brief, it exempts from subsection (b) any "condition that was imposed before July 1, 2011, on an approval relative to any development requirement". The exemption, however, applies only if"a copy of the condition has been filed and permanently maintained as a public record in the office of the plan commission or board of zoning appeals that imposed the condition". hi looking at the minutes of both the Plan Commission and City Council meetings from 1991, it seems clear that both the Commission and the Council intended their approvals of the B-5 rezoning to be contingent upon Mr. Regan's acceptance of the conditions outlined by Mr. Coots on his behalf. Indeed, the Commission and the Council members undoubtedly inferred from Mr. Coots' presentation that the conditions were part and parcel of Mr. Regan's B-5 rezoning proposal. Conclusions If the 1991 "Rezone Covenant" discussed above had been executed by Mr. Regan and recorded in the Hamilton County Recorder's Office, it would be fairly simple to reason that it should now be treated as a binding commitment — this despite the fact that it was labeled by Mr. Regan's attorney as a "Covenant" instead of a "Commitment" (the term now used by state law). However, the conclusion must be that there is no commitment that is now binding on Mr. Regan, because either i) he never signed the draft that was prepared for him by Mr. Coots, or ii) even if he did sign the draft, the City carrot prove that he did. Notwithstanding the absence of a binding commitment, though, the final answer is that the conditions that were outlined by Mr. Coots in his presentations to both the Plan Commission and City Council in 1991 should remain applicable to Mr. Regan's property so long as it is zoned B- 5. These conditions were i) plainly announced by Mr. Regan's representative in the midst of formal public hearings, ii) essentially accepted and imposed by both the Commission and Council, iii) actually spelled out in their official meeting minutes, and iv) filed and permanently maintained since 1991 in the office of the Plan Commission. Therefore, they are exempt from the requirements of subsection (b) of §36-7-4-1015 which apply only to commitments and not to conditions that were imposed before July 1, 2011. Accordingly, the development standards that currently apply to the land included in the Highpointe proposal should be read to include the following: Maximum Building Height 40 feet &3 floors; 30 feet and 2 floors for buildings with frontage on or adjacent to 136th Street Architectural Design Buildings with frontage on or adjacent to Requirements 136th Street—must maintain residential appearance cc: Mike Hollibaugh, Director Department of Community Services CITY OF CAMEL,ZONING ORDINANCE 31.06.05 Rules Governing Commitments. 1. Form. A Commitment must be in substantially the form set forth in the Commission's Rules of Procedure,and must identify any specially affected persons or class of specially affected persons who may enforce the Commitment. A Commitment must authorize its recording by the Director in the Office of the Hamilton County Recorder. 2. Recording; Copies. A Commitment shall be recorded in the office of the Hamilton County Recorder and takes effect upon the adoption of the proposal to which it relates. Following the recording of a Commitment, the Director shall return the original recorded Commitment to the owner and shall retain a.copy of the recorded Commitment in the Commission's file. 3. Persons Bound. Unless it is modified or terminated by the Commission in accordance with Subparagraph (4) below, a recorded Commitment is binding on the owner of the parcel,a subsequent owner of the parcel,and any other person who acquires an interest in the parcel. An unrecorded Commitment is binding on the owner of the parcel who makes the Commitment. An unrecorded Commitment is binding on a subsequent owner of the parcel or a person acquiring an interest in the parcel only if the subsequent owner or person acquiring the interest has actual notice of the Commitment. 4. Modification or Termination by Commission. Except for a Commitment modified under Section 31.06.03 (8) or 31.06.03 (9) above or automatically terminated under Subparagraph (5) below, a Commitment may be modified or terminated only by a decision of the Commission made at a public hearing after notice of the hearing has been given under the Commission's Rules of Procedure. 5. Rezone Proposals;Automatic Termination. A Commitment made under Section 31.06.03 above automatically terminates if after the adoption of the proposal to which it relates: a. the zone map applicable to the parcel is changed;or b. the parcel is designated as a Planned Unit Development District under this Zoning Ordinance. 31.06.06 Rules Governing Reconsideration. The Commission may adopt a rule to limit further consideration, for up to one (1) year after its defeat, of any proposal that is defeated under the Advisory Planning Law. The Commission may also adopt a rule to limit consideration, for up to six (6) months after the withdrawal or defeat of any proposal, of any other proposal involving the same property that was the subject of the withdrawn or defeated proposal. 31.07 Failure of Commission or Board to Establish a Vote. A vote establishing conclusive approval or denial on a matter before the Plan Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeals shall require a majority vote. A majority vote of the Plan Commission shall require concurrence of more than half of the members of the entire Commission. A majority vote of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall require concurrence of more than half of the members of the entire Board. In the event that a majority vote is not reached, and no conclusive approval or denial can be granted, the party seeking a decision by the Board or Commission can request placement on the agenda of the subsequent month's meeting. This request must be in written form and given to the appropriate authorities in the Director's office. 31.08 Copy on File. A certified copy of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Carmel,Indiana, as may be amended from time to time, shall be filed in the office of the Clerk-Treasurer and shall be available for public viewing during normal office hours. Chapter 31: General Provisions 31-6 as amended per Z-316;Z-335;Z-365-01;Z-369-02;Z-416-03;Z-460-04;Z-475-05 Winter 2005 v2 c,1 Highpointe on meridian. �l Planned Unit Development FEB - 9 2012 DO M • RESPONSES TO CARMEL DEPARTMENT COMMENTS TO PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE OF 12-22-11 -� Responses to Preliminary Planning/Zoning Dept. review comments In a spreadsheet, please compare the standards of what you are proposing to what the US 31 Corridor overlay regulations are, so it is easy for the plan commission to review.Also, please compare/contrast the permitted land uses you propose vs.what uses are permitted under Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance. • A spreadsheet comparing the permitted uses and'development standards will be included in the information booklets being prepared for the Plan Commission Also, please show how this proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan, especially the Employment o Node section,the Appropriate Adjacent Land Classifications Table, and the US 31 Corridor section of the Critical Corridors and Subareas (Part 5). • A review and analysis of the proposed PUD Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan will be included in the information booklets being prepared for the Plan Commission Perhaps this PUD should have more architectural building standards and/or conceptual 0 renderings; see The Bridges PUD Z-550-11 and Silvara PUD Z-553-11 as examples. • Unlike The Bridges and Silvara, Highpointe on Meridian is much smaller in size and scale;therefore the architectural guidelines of the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone have been modified in a context-sensitive manner reflective of the adjacent residential neighborhoods.These architectural guidelines have served our community well over the many years as reflected by the development in the U.S.31 Corridor. Conceptual renderings will be provided in the information booklets being prepared for the Plan Commission. Specific architectural design for all projects will be presented to the Plan Commission as a part of the ADLS application process. -/ Page 1—Section 1.2:The last sentence mentions Legacy, is this correct? k • This reference is in error and has been removed. A Page 4—section 3.1 Permitted Uses—Please clarify that a Nursing or Convalescent Facility could also include a CCRC, with memory care,assisted living,and independent living units. • A new definition "Senior Living Community" as been added to address these uses. 0-lli Page 5—3.2.B—please add a period after the word above. • A"." has been added. 0(y Page 5—section 3.3—would it make sense to also refer to the Carmel Zoning Ordinance section 25.01.02 in this paragraph? • A reference to that section has been added. 4/ Page 6—section 5.1—after 3 stories,add the maximum height of the 3 story building in feet, too. • Provision revised to state that the max. height of a three story building may not exceed 60 feet. Q\v/ Page 6—section 5.3—why not change it to a max. building setback of 20-ft from Illinois St.? 3-LIghpointo on Meridian A. T(annec['i.lnit DeveCopineut Responses to Carmel Department Comments zz/ Rge 2 It. i d' • For most of the parcel,there is a 50 foot gas pipeline easement adjacent to the right- '' of-way of Illinois Street. � , 's' o`VX Page 6—section 5.4.A—how about a 20 to 40-ft side/rear yard setback for a multifamily housing 0' -' complex(instead of 5-ft) since it will be next to single family? • Section 5.4 provides for a 30 foot setback when adjacent to a single family residential zone. The setback is 5 feet when adjacent to any other use. The multi-family housing complex is adjacent to single family in the area of the south side of the Bentley Oaks retention pond. The complex is adjacent to the City pumping station,zoned B-5,along the west property line. However,the screening provisions will actually require a greater setback adjacent to the City property. 'age 6—section 5.7—does the maximum parcel coverage take into account all impervious surfaces? ')C, IA-ccP Gail to `Zc = pc v ?-t'"`P^' t .. • Parcel coverage is defined as the percentage of the parcel that can be developed for Buildings(principal and accessory), parking structures and garages. e,(-- Page 7—section 5.9—can you add an exhibit at the end of the PUD to show conceptual character images? • Conceptual building renderings and images will be prepared and included in the information booklet being prepared for the Plan Commission. 0+"/ Page 8—section F—add a period after the word building. • A"." has been added. •Page 8—section G—will these offsets be 8-ft deep? Please specify. Would recommend continuous facades of more than 100 ft wide shall be designed with vertical offsets. • Section 5.9 G. has been revised to provide for eight feet offsets. 0,(-XPage 8—section H—Would like to discuss the minimum requirement for windows. Is 2 enough, even for the side of a building? What is the intent of this requirement? • This architectural requirement was developed,accepted approved by the Plan Commission and the City Council for the multi-family housing complex component of the 116th Street Centre PUD Ordinance,Z-538-10. Page 8—section I—please add text to state that recycling bins shall be required. Please clarify the minimum height for the dumpster where it says "or 2 feet." • Recycling bins will be required in the trash receptacle areas of the Multi-Family Housing Complex. Recycling will be handled internally in all other uses. The provision was corrected to state that the height of the screen will be equal to the height of the dumpster plus 2 feet. d '\ Page 8—section J—In the last sentence please add an "s"after method and change "which are" to "shall be." • Revisions made as requested. .� Page 10—section G—how wide will this be? IO • These landscaped areas along Illinois Street will vary in width to accommodate appropriate planting space and to facilitate and promote creative planting and site plans. a . Page 10—section H—how wide will this be? 3-fiflfipoin.te on Meridian .4 PCann.ed Unit Development Responses to Carmel Department Comments Page 3 • These landscaped areas along 136th Street will vary in width to accommodate appropriate planting space and to facilitate and promote creative planting and site plans. 20. Page 10-section I-how about a 20-ft wide buffer to match ZO chapter 26.04-Bufferyards. 0 • A 20 foot drainage easement is in place along the entire property line in the Bentley • Oaks subdivision. This easement combined with the 10 foot drainage easement on - the Regan Parcel provides a 30 foot buffer and when added to the 10 feet landscape buffer proposed in the PUD Ordinance will provide 40 feet of buffering. The development team met with the adjacent property owners in Bentley Oaks and they have strongly requested that an earthen berm and 6 foot wood privacy fence be installed in lieu of landscaping. This fence would also create a barrier between the retention ponds on the Regan parcel and the neighborhood. This was also a concern of the property owners. ©�`► �Page 10 - please add Perimeter Buffering Regulations. 40 • The development team feels that perimeter buffering between the parcels within the PUD district is unnecessary. The adjacent property owners have strongly requested a wood privacy fence on an earthen berm in lieu of •erimeter buffering. The fence will also prevent any headlight migration into the neighborhoods. 0X--/. Page 10-Please add street tree requirements. • The City of Carmel has designed and built Illinois Street to its own specifications including street trees. Immediately adjacent to the multi-use path on Illinois Street is the fifty foot gas pipeline easement which precludes most tree planting. The development team is working with the gas pipeline company to allow certain shallow depth plantings to provide streetscape landscape as described in the PUD Ordinance. 136`h Street was similarly designed and built by the City of Carmel. The PUD Ordinance requires a streetscape along 136th Street consistent with the existing overhead power lines. c3r-X Page 11-section J.d-Please add a maximum percentage that the interior courtyard landscaping can be used to satisfy the planting area requirements. \�%�'(g • Provision revised to provide that up to 50%of the landscaping in courtyards may be �' used to satisfy the foundation planting area requirements. CC v2J,- 24. Page 13-section 7.A.B- does this coincide with the C RC parking ratios in the Carmel Zoning !l �C.I-. -! ,C Ordinance? —�-_>0�- (�JLITl- a-f°_� //.e.w L -`6 Lett app/ S • Spectrum Retirement Communities,a member of the development team,,manages • 0. {-5 A.L. - p p g 4- and owns 21 communities and has 5 more in development at this time. Spectrum has proposed this parking requirement based upon their experience in owning and 1-f e v �1 ) _ operating senior living communities. 'Gam, 15'. Page 13-section 7-Perhaps mention that on street parking can be used to satisfy the required o t, number of parking spaces,and also add something that requires on street parking on the .- streets/private drives that you intend to have on street parking. • There will be no on-street parking. There will only parking on private drives. The Ordinance has been revised to state that parking on private drives can be used to satisfy parking requirements. 3-lighpointe on.9yleridia:n- A Pi-armed-Unit Development Responses to Carmel Department Comments Page 4 ) c 0 26. Page 13—Section 7.0—we need to check with David Littlejohn to make sure this bike parking ratio is okay. • The Ordinance specifically references Section 27.06 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance to establish required bicycle parking. 0\...- 7�. Page 13—Please provide a Pedestrian Connectivity Plan. Pedestrian Circulation Standards are needed. • The Ordinance has been revised to add a new Section 5.10 Section 5.10. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Connectivity. The Development Plan will include specific provisions for incorporating pedestrian and bicycle access, circulation and amenities into the development and provide for access and connectivity with the existing multi-use paths along Illinois Street and 136th Street. O\1- Consider making some mention of the Sign Ordinance in this PUD so that other incidental signage can be allowed, i.e.window, directional, directory, etc. • Section 9.2 has been revised to state that the signs within the PUD district will '-`. conform to standards set forth in Chapter 25,Section 7 of the Carmel Zoning Yv)\ if` Ordinance unless specified otherwise in the Ordinance. 29. ection 9.3 A: Could this be simplified to just state the colors of the signs shall not be restricted and logos will be respected in regards to color. However,we would still like to see the signs come through as part of the ADLS to specify what types of sig ns, lighting,and placement on the buildings. • Color is perhaps one of the most important components of any sign. To the extent that a company has the color protected under Federal trademark laws,then that color is not subject to restriction or modification. However, in all other cases,the Plan Commission will approve a palette of colors. Except for the specific provisions of paragraphs B through E of Section 9.3,the Plan Commission and ADLS process is not affected by the Ordinance regarding types of signs. lighting and placement on buildings. 30. Section 9.3 B: Signs should be allowed to face private streets or drives only if the store/business has access on that frontage. • This Ordinance will not allow for strip retail development. The wall Identification Signs for single and multi-tenant buildings are addressed in Paragraph B to be in concert with the compact site and to prevent any signs facing any single family residential zoning district. IDSection 9.3 B: We would prefer wall signs not be allowed to face any residential, including residential within the development. Or, specify that only non illuminated signs will be allowed to face residential areas within the development. • J.C. Hart Company,the likely developer of the multi-family housing complex and member of the development team, has no objection to wall signs facing the multi- family housing complex. leSection 9.3 C: Please reduce the height of Ground Signs to 8 feet tall,to stay in line with the current sign ordinance. • The development team will be happy to further discuss. 33. Section 9.3 D:Again, please reduce to 8'tall. Does this section refer to permanent signs or temporary signs? If temporary,we cannot support 50 sq.ft. It should be reduced to 32 sq.ft. If 3-fighpointe on._Meridian. A.PCanned Unit Development Responses to Carmel Department Comments Page 5 permanent,the size is ok, but if multiple tenants are to be listed on one sign, it would be nice if there was some kind of limit.That way the sign could still be legible and safe to read without being cluttered with too many names. It should also only have business/project names. No advertising should be allowed unless there is a changeable copy panel for messages. I am also concerned about the potential number of curb cuts and ground signs that would be installed. • Paragraph D has been revised to address the comments. The number of curb cuts will be limited so the number of ground signs will be likewise limited. "...These are permanent Identification Signs with copy limited as provided for in the definition of an Identification Sign plus permitted Changeable Copy. Except as provided for above,these signs will be in accordance with Chapter 25,Section 7 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance." 6V 4. Page 15—section 10—Would like to discuss the need for a Preliminary and Final Development Plan. What is the intent for having the two designations? The Preliminary Development Plan will be a preliminary plan for the development of real property that is submitted for approval by the Commission showing proposed facilities and structures and parking information for a site on the Real Estate in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of this Ordinance. • The Final Development Plan will be a specific plan for the development of real property that is submitted for approval by the Director showing proposed facilities and structures, parking, drainage, erosion control, utilities and building information for a site on the Real Estate in order to fulfill the requirements for a permit to improve the real property. The purpose of these designations is recognize that full engineering of the site may not occur at the time of approval of the Development Plan by the Plan Commission pursuant to the Ordinance. To the extent that the Preliminary Development Plan meets the requirements for review by the Plan Commission,the development team can proceed with full engineering upon approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and submit it to the Director rather than return to Plan Commission for review of items that outside the scope of review of the Plan Commission. Urban Forestry Comments 1. Markup of PLED Ordinance • Change made for"current" ANSI standards • Landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather for 120 days past Final Certificate of Occupancy • Minor alterations in approved landscape plan to be approved by Director'in,. consultation with the Urban Forester. • Director and Urban Forester may inspect. • Streetscape landscaping on Illinois and 136th Street revised. Landscaped areas will vary in width to accommodate appropriate planting space and to facilitate 3-Lighpointe on :Meridia n. A Planned- (nit Development Responses to Carmel Department Comments Page 6 and promote creative planting and site plans. No regimented planting in a row. Plant quantities along Illinois are consistent with a parallel roadway. Multi-family housing is along 136th Street so extensive screening is not required. The ordinance is written to promote a creative planting area that will be reviewed by the Plan Commission as a part of the ADLS approval. • New perimeter landscaping section drafted to address neighbor concerns and to accommodate county drainage easements. • Plant quantities for foundation planting are not established, which is consistent with the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. • Foundation planting for Multi-Family buildings revised as requested to be more direct and clear. • The Preservation/Conservation Area will be shown on the Development Plan to be approved. As many trees will be preserved as possible in the reconstruction of the legal drain. 2. Perimeter landscaping concerns • See comments above. 3. Quantity of planting material for foundation plantings-buildings other than Multi-Family Housing Complex • Not required which is consistent with the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. 4. Revise provisions concerning foundation plantings for Multi-Family Housing Complex buildings • Section completely re-written as suggested. 5. Questions re: Preservation/Conservation Area • See comments above. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS 1. Bicycle parking rates are set forth in Carmel Zoning Ordinance. How is this requirement being met? Please consider requiring long term public covered bicycling parking for multi-family housing complex. • PUD requires compliance with Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Specific parking details will be required as a part of the development plan and ADLS approvals. 2. Consider requiring shower and locker room facilities within commercial buildings. • This request can be answered more appropriately when a specific commercial building or buildings is being reviewed under the ADLS process. iv 0 Change 1,Y.2-for sidewalks on both sides of interior streets and allow for pedestrian mobility with the Bridges District. 1 • There is no Section 11.2 and this project is not in any proximity to the Bridges District. However, Section 5.10 specifically requires bicycle and pedestrian jj```` access and connectivity to be included in the Development Plan. r , 3l1glpoi:nte on :Meridian .4 TCann.ed'Un%t DeveCoyment Responses to Carmel Department Comments Page 7 4. Indicate ADA compliant ramps and crosswalks. • This matter will be addressed in connection with the review and approval of the Development Plan. 5: Attached markup of conceptual site plan. • These matters will be addressed in connection with the review and approval of the Development Plan. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS The comments of the City Engineer are being reviewed with the project engineer. Most if not all of the comments will be addressed in connection with the review and approval of the Development Plan. The PUD Ordinance does address the additional right-of-way requested for Illinois Street per the Comprehensive Plan. The City, Mr. Regan, the owner, and the gas pipeline company,the holder of the 50 foot easement, worked together in the design and construction of the road and the relocation of the gas line easement. Due to the location of the relocated easement immediately adjacent to the right-of-way of the new road, additional right- of-way cannot be granted without another relocation of the gas pipeline and easement at significant cost. Based upon the agreement of the parties with respect to the final design and construction of Illinois Street and the new right-of-way, the proposed Ordinance addresses and amends the obligation to provide additional right-of-way. Respectfully submitted, Paul G. Reis, Esq. Krieg DeVault LLP On behalf of: Frank K. Regan J.C. Hart Company Spectrum Retirement Communities Opus Group Conn, Angelina V From: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:00 PM To: 'Paul G. Reis' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: Review Comments for Docket No. 11120027 Z- Highpointe on Meridian PUD Hi Paul, Below are preliminary review comments for the Highpointe on Meridian PUD. Please reply to each of the comments via email or letter correspondence by February 3`d. Additional review comments may be voiced at the Jan. 18 TAC meeting or later. Preliminary Planning/Zoning Dept. review comments: 1. In a spreadsheet, please compare the standards of what you are proposing to what the US 31 Corridor overlay regulations are, so it is easy for the plan commission to review.Also, please compare/contrast the permitted land uses you propose vs.what uses are permitted under Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Also, please show how this proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan, especially the Employment Node section, the Appropriate Adjacent Land Classifications Table, and the US 31 Corridor section of the Critical Corridors and Subareas (Part 5). 3. Perhaps this PUD should have more architectural building standards and/or conceptual renderings; see The Bridges PUD Z-550-11 and Silvara PUD Z-553-11 as examples. 4. Page 1-Section 1.2:The last sentence mentions Legacy, is this correct? 5. Page 4-section 3.1 Permitted Uses-Please clarify that a Nursing or Convalescent Facility could also include a CCRC, with memory care, assisted living, and independent living units. 6. Page 5-3.2.B-please add a period after the word above. 7. Page 5-section 3.3-would it make sense to also refer to the Carmel Zoning Ordinance section 25.01.02 in this paragraph? 8. Page 6-section 5.1-after 3 stories, add the maximum eight of the 3 story building in feet,too. 9. Page 6-section 5.3-why not change it to a max. building setback of 20-ft from Illinois St.? 10. Page 6-section 5.4.A-how about a 20 to 40-ft side/rear yard setback for a multifamily housing complex (instead of 5-ft) since it will be next to single family? 11. Page 6-section 5.7-does the maximum parcel coverage take into account all impervious surfaces? 12. Page 7-section 5.9-can you add an exhibit at the end of the PUD to show conceptual character images? 13. Page 8-section F-add a period after the word building. 14. Page 8-section G-will these offsets be 8-ft deep? Please specify. Would recommend continuous facades of more than 100 ft wide shall be designed with vertical offsets. 15. Page 8-section H-Would like to discuss the minimum requirement for windows. Is 2 enough, even for the side of a building? What is the intent of this requirement? 16. Page 8-section I-please add text to state that recycling bins shall be required. Please clarify the minimum height for the dumpster where it says "or 2 feet." 17. Page 8-section J-In the last sentence please add an "s" after method and change "which are" to "shall be." 18. Page 10-section G-how wide will this be? 19. Page 10-section H-how wide will this be? 20. Page 10-section I-how about a 20-ft wide buffer to match ZO chapter 26.04-Bufferyards. 21. Page 10 - please add Perimeter Buffering Regulations. 22. Page 10-Please add street tree requirements. 23. Page 11-section 1.d-Please add a maximum percentage that the interior courtyard landscaping can be used to satisfy the planting area requirements. 24. Page 13-section 7.A.B- does this coincide with the CCRC parking ratios in the Carmel Zoning Ordinance? 1 25. Page 13—section 7—Perhaps mention that on street parking can be used to satisfy the required number of parking spaces, and also add something that requires on street parking on the streets/private drives that you intend to have on street parking. 26. Page 13—Section 7.0—we need to check with David Littlejohn to make sure this bike parking ratio is okay. 27. Page 13—Please provide a Pedestrian Connectivity Plan. Pedestrian Circulation Standards are needed. 28. Consider making some mention of the Sign Ordinance in this PUD so that other incidental signage can be allowed, i.e.window, directional, directory, etc. 29. Section 9.3 A: Could this be simplified to just state the colors of the signs shall not be restricted and logos will be respected in regards to color. However, we would still like to see the signs come through as part of the ADLS to specify what types of signs, lighting, and placement on the buildings. 30. Section 9.3 B: Signs should be allowed to face private streets or drives only if the store/business has access on that frontage. 31. Section 9.3 B: We would prefer wall signs not be allowed to face any residential, including residential within the development. Or, specify that only non illuminated signs will be allowed to face residential areas within the development. 32. Section 9.3 C: Please reduce the height of Ground Signs to 8 feet tall,to stay in line with the current sign ordinance. 33. Section 9.3 D: Again, please reduce to 8'tall. Does this section refer to permanent signs or temporary signs? If temporary, we cannot support 50 sq. ft. It should be reduced to 32 sq.ft. If permanent,the size is ok, but if multiple tenants are to be listed on one sign, it would be nice if there was some kind of limit. That way the sign could still be legible and safe to read without being cluttered with too many names. It should also only have business/project names. No advertising should be allowed unless there is a changeable copy panel for messages. I am also concerned about the potential number of curb cuts and ground signs that would be installed. 34. Page 15—section 10—Would like to discuss the need for a Preliminary and Final Development Plan. What is the intent for having the two designations? Thank you, Alexia Donahue Wold Planning Administrator City of Carmel, DOCS One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 awold@carmel.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:54 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W; Duncan, Gary R; Mindham, Daren Cc: Andrew Royster (aroyster @spectrumretirement.com); 'Frank Regan'; 'Gary Weaver'; 'Jim Shields'; 'John Cumming'; 'John Hart'; 'Johnny Hart'; 'Manish Gandhi'; 'Mike Longfellow'; 'Randy Sherman'; 'Todd May'; 'Tom Osborne' Subject: Highpointe on Meridian Planned Unit Development Attachments: Response to DOCS preliminary comments.pdf; Statement Concerning PUD Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.pdf; Comparison of Zoning Standards 31 Overlay Zone and Highpointe on Meridian PUD.pdf; PUD permitted use comparison table.pdf Angie,Alexia, David,Gary and Daren: I am attaching the following documents in connection with the upcoming Plan Commission meeting to consider the proposed planned unit development ordinance for Highpointe on Meridian: 1. Our response to the comments of DOCS, Urban Forestry,Alternative Transportation and Engineering Departments. 2. Review of Proposed Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan 3. Comparison of Zoning Standards between U.S. 31 Overlay Zone and PUD Ordinance 4. Comparison of Uses between U.S. 31 Overlay Zone and PUD Ordinance We will be filing Information booklets tomorrow. Please call or contact me with questions, comments or concerns. Thank you for assistance on this project. Best regards, Paul Paul G.Reis Partner Krieg DeVault LLP 1 12800 N Meridian Street I Suite 300 I Carmel, IN 46032 Phone:317-238-6293 I Cell:317-431-0063 I Fax:317-636-1507 } preis@kdlesal com I www kriegdevault cornT V Card'l`Bio j i KpgE IDE AuLt Indiana I Illinois I Georgia I Florida I Minnesota CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This e-mail message is for the sole use of the recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient(s),please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.IRS Circular 230 Notice:Advice rendered in this communication,including attachments,on U.S.tax issues(i)is not intended or written to be used,and it cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS on taxpayers,and(ii)may not be used or referred to in promoting,marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity,investment plan or arrangement.This notice is intended to comply with Section 10.35 of IRS Circular 230,which is located at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf. 1 �gfpointe on Y4eri&an -,�:r8it: A Planned-Unit Development FEB - g 2012 Comparison of Uses with U.S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone pcir,c3 Underlying Overlay Hi h ointe on Type of Use Zone: B-5 ; Zone: US 31 Meridian Type of Use Carmel Zoning Ordinance Proposed PUD Equivalent Residential Uses Residential Uses Multiple Family Dwelling SU E p Multi-Family Housing Complex 1 Nursing/Retirement/ Convalescent Facility SU _` P '.Senior Living Community Private Swimming Pool,ect. A -, p Amenity Area Office Uses Office Uses v _�' ;Clinic or Medical Health Center P P Clinic or Medical Health Center General Offices P P General Office •e•ica • ice, • ysica 'Thera py/Rehabilitation Facility, Professional Office P P Professional Office Educational Uses , ' Educational Uses School,Trade or Business SU ; P 'Trade or Business School 'College or University SU P College or University Day Nursery/Day Care -'-' p 'Day Care(Adult and Child) Kindergarten/Preschool SU ;- p Kindergarten/Pre-School/Private School Retail &Service Uses Retail&Service Uses o General Retail(limited)&Personal General Retail Sales � :■:‘1j\ 1 p Services I t General Retail(limited)&Personal ' P 1c09 P Services Financial Institution r P „dif-; P Financial Institution Automated Teller Machine(ATM) !; p Automated Teller Machine(ATM) Cultural/Entertainment Uses --. Cultural/Entertainment-Uses `estaurant,wit out .rive-t iru oo. is o 'estaurant wit wa -up win.ow 'Lit no sales 30'10 ���11 p drive-thru window) Recreational Uses Recreational Uses Health/Fitness Facility _—— p Health and Fitness Facility Miscellaneous Uses -,- Miscellaneous Uses Artificial Lake or Pond(non-platted) SU p 'Artificial Lake Or Pond Transportation &Communication Transportation &Communication Uses Uses Private Parking Area A ,- P ,Private Parking Area 3927793 9-lignpointe on ..Meridian c1 - 9 2ot2 FEB ✓4 Planned-Unit Development C Comparison of Zoning Standards with U.S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone Zoning Standard Overlay Zone Ordinance Highpointe on Meridian PUD Plan Commission Review Review of Development Plan Review of Development Plan 18 site plan design items 15 sign design plan items but excludes: •Protective restrictions and/or covenants •Compatibility of project with development with the U.S. 31 Corridor •Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Provisions for Overlay Zone Plan Commission Review Architectural Design, No Change Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage Zoning Waiver Approval Criteria Same except no requirement to enhance adjoining streetscapes and neighborhoods and the U.S. 31 Corridor Accessory Buildings and Uses As permitted in underlying As permitted in B-5 underlying district with design and material district with design and material requirements requirements Retail&Services Uses Development standards and No Change limitations Minimum Tract Size Five acres N/A Build-to Lines- Illinois Street 20 feet 30-80 feet setback due to existing site constraints which include a 50 foot gas pipeline easement and other utility easements Setback,front yard-136th 20 feet(B-5) 25-35 feet Street 9-lighipointe on _Meridian A Planned-Unit Develoyment Comparison of Zoning Standards with U.S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone Setback, side and rear yard 45 feet adjacent to residential use Multi-family housing complex- 5 feet; or zone; 15 feet adjacent to Senior Living Community&other uses- business use or zone 45 feet adjacent to residential zone & 15 feet adjacent to multi-family or business use or zone; Office-2.5 times building height adjacent to residential zone& 5 feet adjacent to office, multifamily or senior living community use or zone Minimum Building Height 26 feet &2 occupiable floors 26 feet&2 stories for principal building; 7) 1 story for accessory buildings Maximum Building Height 55 feet 3 3 stories or 60 feet for multi-family housing complex, senior living community and other uses; 72 feet for office buildings EXCEPT within 200 feet of a residential zone,then 3 stories or 60 feet Minimum Parcel Width One-half the parcel depth N/A Minimum Gross Floor Area 15,000 SF N/A Maximum Parcel Coverage& Coverage=65%; FAR=0.7 No change. Density Architectural Design Requirements-Materials Minimum of 3 materials required; Office uses-same requirements. Multi- large expanses of glass(up to family housing complex, senior living 70%); stucco or EIFS for trim, up community, other uses- no minimum to 10%; no concrete block number of materials; similar materials list (no concrete block or vinyl); same limitation on trim materials Architectural Design Requirements- Footprint Minimum of 8 external corners Anti-monotony design; 8 external corners for office only 2 9-ligdpointe on .Meridian A Planned'Unit Development Comparison of Zoning Standards with U.S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone Architectural Design Requirements-Roof Modulation of the roof line; Multi-family housing complex- no parapets fully integrated; partial unbroken lines greater than 100 feet; parapets with a return extending hip&gable elements constitute breaks. inward to at least the first Senior Living Community,other uses- structural bay or 25 feet. Sloped Sloped roofs, same requirements. roofs to not exceed 100 feet Parapets-same requirements. without change in plane; standing seam metal or dimensional shingles Architectural Design Requirements- Other features None Multi-family housing complex-Wall Planes, not greater than 60 feet; Porch/Entryways-covered,front and/or rear of building;Windows-compatible with architectural details, minimum of 2 per level,fully framed &trimmed. Minimum unit area= 550 SF Facades of more than 200 feet- designed with vertical offsets of not less than 8 feet, may be projecting, recessed or change in building material or detailing. Mechanical equipment to be screened. Landscape Plan Required. No change. Landscape Area-U.S. 31 Required. N/A not adjacent to U.S. 31 Greenbelt 3 9-lignpointe on .vleriaan A Planned Unit Development Comparison of Zoning Standards with U.S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone Landscape Area- Planting Strip Minimum 10 feet wide adjacent Due to site constraints: Illinois and to R/W and entry drive, 5-15 feet 136th Streets-streetscapes with 4 adjacent to parking area; 3 shade ornamental trees& 10 shrubs per 100 trees, 2 ornamental trees& 10 linear feet,variable width with non- shrubs per 100 linear feet regimented plant locations; Perimeter adjacent to single family residential areas: Except where 6-feet tall shadow box wood privacy fence is installed a 10 feet wide strip with 5 shade trees& 20 shrubs per 100 linear feet. Landscape Area-Adjacent to Front: 25 feet deep for the width Multi-family buildings:front-3 shade Buildings of the building plus 10 feet trees, 3 ornamental trees, 25 shrubs per extensions each end; 100 linear feet; sides= 5 feet excepting Remaining sides= 10 feet deep; for adjacent sidewalks and parking; sidewalks permitted but not in the landscaping interior courtyards is entire area with displaced area encouraged &can satisfy up to 50%of added to the rest of the building overall requirement. Some buildings perimeter; may be irregular in excepted due to location.All other shape, innovation in design buildings:front- 15 feet deep for the encouraged width of the building plus 10 feet extensions each end; remaining sides and other requirements same as Overlay; landscaping interior courtyards is encouraged &can satisfy up to 50%of overall requirement. Landscape Area-within parking Minimum of 1 shade tree &5 Multi-family Housing Complex: parking lots shrubs for every 9 spaces; not less visible from Illinois Street(excluding than 18 trees per acre of parking parking on private drives&streets- 1 shade tree& 5 shrubs for every 9 spaces. Office, Senior Living Community and other uses-same as Overlay without minimum number per acre; entry drives from Illinois Street to include 2 shade trees, 2 ornamental trees and 10 shrubs per 100 linear feet Total Landscaping Required 15%of the project area N/A. 4 9ligipointe on _Meridian .4 Planned'Unit Development Comparison of Zoning Standards with U.S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone Landscaping Installation& Addresses: materials; minimum Same except: material sizing-shade& Maintenance dimensions of planting areas; ornamental trees by caliper only, installation; maintenance; evergreens at 6' rather than 8',shrubs changes after approval; inspection at 18" rather than 24"; no minimum dimensions for planting areas; bond requirement replaced with commitment to plant within 120 days of Certificate of Occupancy. Protection of Existing Trees Preserve not less than 70%of Site-specific requirements for the trees 9" caliper DBH or larger designated Preservation/Conservation and/or located in other Area at the northeast end of the site, designated planting area subject to all rules/regulations governing drainage/legal drains. Public Art If included, must be visible from N/A. the thoroughfares. Parking Requirements Office= 1 per 250 SF; Senior Living Office=4 per 1,000 SF (same); Senior Community= not addressed; Living Community= 0.67 space per unit; Multi-family Housing Complex= 2 Multi-family Housing Complex = 1.5 per unit plus 1 per 7 units; bicycle spaces per unit; parking area for each building. Bicycle parking per Carmel ordinance, provided that,for Multi-family Housing Complex, may be provided in private garages. Lighting Requirements Requires: lighting plan; lighting Same requirements plus low level, 90° standards of uniform design, cut off luminaires. color, materials; maximum standard height of 25' except within 90' of a residential use, then 15'; no spill-over onto adjoining residential uses Bicycle& Pedestrian Access Requires incorporation of access No change. and circulation and amenities into the development. Access to Individual Tracts Addresses access roads relative to N/A. US 31. 5 9lighipointe on .vleridian .A Planned Zlnit Develoyment Comparison of Zoning Standards with U.S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone Other Requirements-Outside Open storage not permitted;All Receptacles fully screened on 4 sides, Storage of Refuse refuse contained completely minimum height of receptacle plus 2 within the principal or an feet, materials consistent with principal accessory building building, doors with automatic closure If an accessory building for refuse- mechanisms, Multi-family Housing must be designed with a roof and Complex to include recyclin bins. be architecturally compatible with the principal building. Other Requirements-Loading& 100,000 SF or less= 1 berth; Office buildings in excess of 100,000 SF Unloading Areas 100,001-300,000 SF= 2 berths; 1 = 1 berth additional berth for each additional 200,000 SF (B-5 requirements) Other Requirements-Additions Addresses architectural N/A. to Existing Residential compatibility and setback from US • 31. Other Requirements-Perimeter Wood & masonry materials, solid Addressed above in landscaping Fences as viewed from any angle, requirements. minimum 8' in height, brick or stone columns incorporated every 26'; Metal fencing with landscaping with 100%screening achieved within 3 years of planting. Reservation of Land for Pending For US 31. N/A. State Highway Improvements 6 • 9iiAvointe on Meridian A Planned-Unit Development Comparison of Zoning Standards with U.S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone Signage Carmel Zoning Ordinance Sign plan per ADLS requirements. Sign standards per Carmel Zoning Ordinance EXCEPT: colors not restricted but with palette approved with ADLS. Maximum sign area per freeway sign chart for single/multi-tenant buildings per Carmel zoning ordinance; wall signs of individual letters/logos, illuminated internally or externally; one wall sign per street or private drive frontage for commercial/office.2 district identification ground signs, maximum height 8.5 feet, maximum area of 100 SF at 2 Illinois Street locations.Temporary signs per Carmel zoning ordinance. Office, Senior Living and Multi-family identification ground signs maximum height of 8.5 feet, maximum area of 50 SF at primary entrances to developments from Illinois Street and 136th Street. 3939457 7 R 3f M ighyointe on .Meridian 1B5 IEa Planned Unit Development Fig _ g 2412 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND THE CARMEL CLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (C-3) 2009 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Highpointe on Meridian is a proposed planned unit development which will rezone the 27± acre parcel of undeveloped land owned by Frank Regan, located south and west of the intersection of 136`h Street and Illinois Parkway. _ M,� � I _ REGAN PARCEL s tarer,er Hospital r max. The Regan parcel is currently zoned under the B-5, Business District, zoning classification and is located in the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone, which excludes certain uses otherwise permitted under the B-5 zoning classification. The proposed Highpointe on Meridian Planned Unit Development District would permit a variety of potential land uses including: office, multi-family residential, medical, senior living and educational uses. The U.S. 31 Overlay Zone currently restricts land uses on the Regan parcel to promote large office development similar to the current office development along the U.S. 31 corridor and excludes all residential uses.Although the Regan parcel is within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone, it is important to recognize that it is not directly adjacent to U.S. 31. The Regan parcel is nearly 200 feet from the drive lanes of U.S. 31, separated from U.S. 31 by the state highway right-of-way and Illinois Street. l 4 3fig(pointe on 2vteridian ✓i Planned-Unit Deve(oppment Review of PUD Ordinance and C3 Plan Page 2 The Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan ("C3 Plan") designates the Regan parcel under the "Employment Node"land classification. e �• • • • • a..,."�• • • + • Vii. • • --s • r + "'"yM„ • • + • • • • • - e • • • • • • •. a • _ • • ♦ • • a a a a • + • • •' a.- • -- "*-, " • • • •. • • • • • (I, • :• • • V' • • • • • Vision 2020 Plan Low Intensity • • Q • " " • • • • • • • (1.3 to 3.0 dwelling unite!acre) • +• • ■ • , • • • a a • • • • • • • r '¢ • ••••• • • t • 10.'7` .. :• s 4 f L .Vision 2020 Plan Medium .�_ r, a .u_Intensity(3 to 5 dwelling • `* units 1 actel _ _ • 0.44g- `(•yb4 •.; h • Area for Special SS:udy W r la i • • ' • I Y • • • 24,4',;a10 � • • 11,1{I , 1,1 1.• Y'em Streit • 4 What distinguishes the Regan parcel from other real estate designated as an Employment Node is that it is immediately adjacent to a single family residential zoned district and does not abut or "front" the U.S. 31 right-of-way. The other Employment Node parcels west of U.S. 31 are separated from single family residentially zoned districts by Illinois Street or Spring Mill Road and abut U.S. 31 as shown below. Iota csu du:41%, The purpose of this classification under the C3 Plan is "to establish areas for large office buildings providing regional employment with the opportunity to integrate mixed uses." Uses include professional and business office, hospital and medical office, small scale restaurants, coffee houses, print shops, and office supply stores that directly support office uses. Residential uses are recommended on the fourth or higher floors. The C3 Plan states that the most "appropriate adjacent classifications" to Employment Node parcels are: 3-fig hpointe on Meridian .tl PGanned'Unit Development Review of PUD Ordinance and C3 Plan Page 3 • parks and recreation; • Neighborhood Service Node (retail/office buildings with residential above;live-work units; community centers; fitness centers and clubs; and ground floor restaurants with office, entertainment,commercial or institutional on all other floors); • Institutional Node (school; place of worship; library; hospital campus; government facility and emergency services); • Community Vitality Node (retail;service;office;entertainment;restaurant and institutional); • Regional Vitality Node (retail;service;hotel;office;entertainment;restaurant and residential when master planned into the development);and • Employment Node The C3 Plan offers the following types of development on Employment Node parcels. A X+lk q. traumas's ra:arta mm do Cgs pozmat as art arDrraw tarraitibert rorad mamma awdfleantelitelti JYasprra:mA ovatara,; w<+rm:szu i a:Tier Curran Qtr.)!.140.7140 corporatism is manuarr+rd arm rramp,ar o/de,fio'.trir:rkarfr rrro Enrp'ia,anc t.Yeeks The Regan Parcel is not adjacent to any of the appropriate adjacent classifications but rather to established single family residential developments on the north and west. However, the C3 Plan does recognize that Employment Node development along Illinois Street adjacent to neighboring residential areas should have a reduced maximum building height. An example of this lower scale office development is shown here. lNr, fi ... _.'SmT1, nrnais pse9111 rnee*1,mist saws a" ] -'rc'tt ghbAe^1zrt:aMl ra' 3fighpointe on Meridian 4 Planned'Unit Development Review of PUD Ordinance and C3 Plan Page 4 REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE Although the Regan Parcel is designated an Employment Node under the C3 Plan, its location adjacent to single family residential developments requires that any development serve as a transition from the large office intensity of the U.S. 31 office corridor to the existing residential developments. The permitted uses and development standards contained in the proposed Highpointe on Meridian Planned Unit Development Ordinance ("PUD Ordinance") have been drafted to provide for that transition while providing employment and residential opportunities consistent with the recommendations for Employment Node development. Additionally, the adoption of the PUD Ordinance will provide for a coordinated,complementary development of the Regan parcel versus unrelated, disconnected, separate commercial developments on various development parcels. The proposed PUD ordinance, while permitting a mix of commercial uses together with residential uses such as a senior living community and multi-family housing,limits retail and service uses consistent with the C3 Plan recommendations and the current U.S. 31 Overlay Zone limitations. The proposed permitted uses provide for lower intensity commercial uses that are consistent with the goals of the C3 Plan for Employment Node development and that are appropriate to a transitional area adjacent to a single family residential area. The proposed development standards support the C3 Plan to provide development and buildings in an Employment Node that are context-sensitive to neighboring residential areas. • Maximum building heights will not exceed three stories or sixty (60) feet for residential and commercial buildings other than office buildings. • Office buildings will not exceed seventy-two (72) feet in height;however if the office building is located within two hundred (200) feet of a residential zone, it cannot exceed three stories or sixty(60) feet. • As recommended by the C3 Plan, buildings will have significant setbacks from single-family residential areas. The proposed PUD Ordinance requires buildings to be "pulled up" to Illinois Street to increase the distance of the buildings to the single family neighborhoods and to create a "streetscape" along Illinois Street. • The development will be screened from the adjacent residential areas using either an earthen mound with a six (6) foot wood privacy fence or a ten (10) foot landscape buffer. • In furtherance of the C3 Plan recommendations,all development plans must include specific provisions for incorporating pedestrian and bicycle access, circulation and amenities into the development and connectivity with the existing multi-use paths along Illinois Street and 136th Street. 3ftgfiyointe on 51erutian �l Pfanned'Unit Devefoyment Review of PUD Ordinance and C3 Plan Page 5 • CONCLUSION Notwithstanding the designation of the Regan parcel as an Employment Node under the C3 Plan, the context-sensitive, transitional use and development standards to be established under the proposed Highpoint on Meridian Planned Unit Development Ordinance are consistent with and supported by the recommendations of the C3 Plan. The unique location of the Regan Parcel adjacent to neighboring residential areas, the lack of frontage on U.S. 31 and the separation of the parcel from U.S. 31, should override the large scale, intense office development recommended generally for Employment Node parcels in favor of medium scale mixed use development sensitive to the adjacent single family residential neighborhoods. The proposed permitted uses and development standards of the PUD Ordinance reduce the scale and the impact of the development on adjacent single family residential areas as recommended under the C3 Plan. Paul G. Reis,Esq. Krieg DeVault LLP On behalf of Frank K. Regan CaS -=--- ut tcd- lam vvvectaa.,i,- c)ot,J(., e st 5--Lo Lost Co_x-11 a..G •2� �� `5 / 2t . 2 ' j_cv 4) 0,4 c 00-fru_o_Pi r 4111146 7 qk 110 I ‘L-E), 5 iS- • NlokicG- IN ELL _-ALLeuu S -Ptt- ow i-v PL- ?-375 tc� ---Gib s r _f* -L (' i)3(,, I 've 2 a 7o L>v= t )Cal- I �v'c � ��.��-} t[� L�p �p 5 E-013 v-&> -to 1.:z- . S 00-b. — rn0 -S 11.�L,-) 3'ri TO P�1 c ry . .4e. � (8a RSt - -sc.; io� &O ;r c=) f2G, U " T..c oN . vP EV Lo os e=Zo1J 6 Ce m rn 1Tf.O )1 • 2-1t7 = `- ___ �_ � . ____th31412-clilk P U-D ' ' - ____'- '_-- - ___i___\i_\iA. -Q_ .Sb_7_r__c_4y__-€.kL,k..___c__u■pi)t—:-(0f2c/'r i-\, . Adakin- \e-Q16AA `P-' -'--.) - 17\--fi_Plai_47-____-_2_7. -.°1 . . 1 4,,(1-"4 .., — }L)/ukl d_ PO__-_____1(kg.)7_ _K 5 ? — 5')'-) ')/(731 ._b_tc.i_vt,o_ \Am, i;\ . , - — \-vcrux._ e0)-ic,.4---4- / wi -0 5t C414'1 I 1) vS, ' , - 2- P-6 ' CA-C 4 514 I 511,646V5 - F 0 P. --APP1 ------ b ,\J ? , • ' ,,A '2 ‘_ \-61,,ka :72---------- --c}A_, 511-e , — pipgiLtoc. - . . naAAVA/0 ( -0-1- , ' # I P) ___:_-____V_A_S20-(-Q,___ Qr.- lolt pc/J(221 • 7 5-/44,( u.k _k, = /, _/ 49/, .-_7.- ATTiRsidlmai Dk__. .- -- evf-s 14.-0 - / 4 ' 1 Y-6c/ct-cg, „._ h a-- ,_ — a,(14 7.--s -b-tii , /' ,,,, .,. , ,,, it _e_Nfi--5-q-p - ' , - .___Li=t4,4__ _, _______iti_k_wzeo__ — Ot 1 # ,c_t be4A-tv il- fz- &/ S--= C:&-c,,ei _ — U-L-pkA- roaf*i 1 i-v flro\-\_t_ ____44__- e_ _AA./y1,4(4 _ -�\ \� ' m� L3^�' - o�� = _��__ �_�_-___'--' ''-- - -', . ,-____-_^�- 2- i Co- t2_ 100/w\ PaLd eao/ 144i (Ail(wL"./ OAio r 7(21 /4/4 _ w-A-A\-Ak2)- ge.mx-e livtasu co i3O"id s 424 40 j1,0 Lt_ N)L3--0-06 too,t(j6,. ,L0.0 13a-c( crt&-, 4-d/2lt rovle hao.k n Lit4-( Cake_na,--23V 41, oAd. rk,Lui24froi-w4, a,4 cAz-vL4r(Ltvq% — pip#9 14)v, 1,i- al2f;A 7, 0 ;1, C‘"M -17 16121,1/1A,/j/grig_ Cr7 AANU./ ) (6, c96 buirr CeSIA-e_ WLCUV40.014-r-40 10 /UO4 joLz af ha ' , Likv• RA)- 1-s. C ( bei4ex_s ,b/u14 US&S VS. Fekte_e Gif2D. 'OCIA-QA( 13 of 1-0 adv izk 2,y . S. c)-vaik — \A,Ao\,,) ookes LAI 0\J -r- tW2Alig) QJL — Q,42 LJINu\r \l\\M (A. \( D S. --- On Sat, 7/7/12, Sally Bryan <sallybryan59(a)yaloo.com>wrote: From: Sally Bryan <sall br an59 @yahoo.com> Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High Density Development To: rsharp@carmcl.in.gov 01P fir; Cc: rhancock(Z cannel.in..ov • Date: Saturday, Jul 7, 2012, 3:09 PMs July 7, 2012 Dear Mr. Sharp, Below is a copy of my letter to the Carmel Plan Commission, date June 28, 2012. As I understand, in 1995 you worked hard to defeat the rezoning of what is known as the Regan Parcel. You and the residents of this area were successful ii stopping the rezoning at that time. Since you have now moved to a different area, I hope and pray that you will rememb the people you once fought for in their efforts to protect their homes from the possibility of apartments, etc. Please remember all of us and the investments we have in our single family residences surrounding this area. Please vote"no"to the suggested change in zoning for this parcel of land. Respectfully, Sarah Bryan 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Stewart, Lisa M Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 4:25 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Fwd: Vote NO to Highpointe High Density Development One more Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Sally Bryan<sal.lybryan59 @yahoo.corn> Date: July 16, 2012 3:01:40 PM EDT To: <lstewart@cannel.in.gov> Subject: Fw: Vote NO to Highpointe High Density Development . Dear Ms. Stewart: The information below was sent to Romona Hancock. I did not realize she would be away from the office unt January. Please add this the public record regarding the Highpointe High Density Development scheduled to 1 heard tomorrow evening (July 17, 20012). Respectfully, Sally and Bill Bryan Conn, An•elina V From: John Molitor[jmolitor @prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:55 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Re: Highpointe PUD , PC vote on changes made? Angie -- It takes 6 votes to approve OR reject amendments to a zoning ordinance which are made by the Council. We have an 11-member Commission, so it takes 6 votes, a majority of all the appointed members, to take formal action on a zoning ordinance. This is a requirement of state law, and cannot be varied by our rules of procedure. The 5-4 vote last month meant that Rider's motion to approve the amendments did not carry for the time being - - but the 4 negative votes were not enough to formally reject the amendments. Again, the Commission has 45 days to take formal action (which requires 6 votes) to either approve or reject those amendments. Therefore, in my opinion, the amendments should remain on the Commission's agenda for a maximum of 45 days, or until it passes an approving or rejecting motion with at least 6 votes. Bottom line: If the Commission is unable to muster more than 5 votes for either alternative within the 45-day time limit (that is, when we don't have all 11 members present), then the Council amendments will automatically take effect without further ado. John P.S. The minutes should reflect that Rider's Motion "Failed" (not "Denied"). From: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn@carmel.in.gov> To: "'jmolitor @prodigy.net"' <jmolitor @prodigy.net> Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2012 2:28 PM Subject: Highpointe PUD , PC vote on changes made? Hi, John— Uwe are a little confused about the PC vote on the I-Iighpointe PUD changes and whether or not it should be on the Oct. 16 plan commission meeting agenda, again, for another vote. Ramona thinks that the vote was denial of the motion or a no-vote ... here is an excerpt of the meeting minutes below: "Legal Counsel Comments, John Molitor: Council approved the rezone of the property to a PUD; Council has recommended various changes in the PUD Ordinance which are subject to review by the Plan Commission. Any objections or disagreements may be sent back to the Council and they would have 45 days to consider those. Motion: Woody Rider to agree with Council Amendments regarding Highpointe on Meridian PUD, Z-559-12, 5 in favor, 4 opposed(Adams, Potasnik, Stromquist, Kestner)Motion Denied Highpointe on Meridian PUD will retrain at Plan Commission for 45 days. If no action is taken within those 45 days, the City Council Amendments will automatically take effect. There were additional comments from Commission members about the process and not having time to review the amendments made by Council." Shall I place this PUD item on the Oct. 16 plan commission meeting agenda? 1 /1 /2_©©2-7 Stewart, Lisa M From: bettyand2 @gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:12 AM To: Adams, John; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Kestner, Nick;-Kirsh;-Joshua A; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Rider, Kevin D; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier,Susan; Wilfong, ,u�� Ephraim ,. . t q • Cc: Stewart, Lisa M 0-'1 Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development ,;' — s f it Dear Planning Commission Members, , ` As a Bentley Oaks homeowner, I feel it is imperative that I reach out .to=each of ,you prior to tonight's meeting in order to reiterate why this development project should not-Move forward. It has been stated before, and members of Special Study Committee have agreed, that the suggested development is far too congested and exceeds the density as set forth in Carmel's C3 plan. This is a small, odd shaped parcel of land which, unfortunately, abuts my picturesque backyard of trees, wildlife and tranquility. Inconsistencies have been stated in the Petitioner's presentations and homeowner's requests have been ignored. In particular, many of the homeowners' requests for barriers to provide privacy and safety have been ignored. And, what about increased traffic congestion in the area? It is essential that a reliable traffic study be conducted by the City of Carmel with school in session. I have lived in Bentley Oaks for 15 years and have watched 136th Street become more and more congested in the morning, as well as, in the evening. If there is an after school evening event, the traffic is unbelievable at 8:00 p.m. The Petitioner communicated at the last meeting that minimal traffic impact would occur with the development of this land. Really? In 1995, Carmel agreed to a covenant specifying building heights should this land ever be developed. This covenant needs to be adhered to and I sincerely hope that Carmel's city officials are not going to turn the other cheek for the gain of a few and ignore this stipulation as it relates to this plot of land. The structures proposed in this development violate this covenant and should not be allowed to go forward. I really do not know what else to say other than Carmel is a progressive city with much to offer but not every piece of green-space needs a cluster of buildings on it. My backyard which abuts this land is a source of enjoyment to me and to have it devoured by this proposed high density development is unforgivable. Eventually, a building will be erected on this land and if the Commission does their job correctly, it will comply with the 1995 covenant, the low density of this area, and a suitable developer. In closing, I would sincerely like to thank the Special Committee members who have continually expressed their opposition to the Highpointe development project The Petitioner's presentations were clearly seen by the Committee members as unbecoming for this parcel of land. Please continue to vote NO for the Highpointe on Meridian PUD. Thank you for reading my email and for your time. Please remember to vote "No". Respectfully, Betty D'Aquila 1323 Bentley Way Carmel, IN. 46032 1 Sent from my iPad Stewart, Lisa M From: Sally Bryan [sallybryan59 @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:20 AM To: Adams, John; Dorman, Jay; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan; Wilfong, Ephraim; Stewart, Lisa M Subject: Thank You July 18, 2012 Good Morning and thank you, We want you to know we appreciate all of your hard work and long hours devoted to the Highpointe on Meridian proposed project. Your negative vote was so appreciated. We are a bit disturbed regarding a "rumor" that the City Council has a history of not following your advice. I sincerely hope and pray this is an untrue rumor. When saying the Pledge of Allegiance last evening- "with liberty and justice for all" - I thought about this struggle. The wheels of justice do turn and the outcome is not always what we desire. Thank God for our country and the ability to stand up and plead for what one believes is right. With this in mind, can any of you give us suggestions of what we need to do to sway the City Council to follow your example? Recently, we took a drive out 146 Street to see the previously built J.C. Hart community. It was disappointing. There are two very large piles of overgrown dirt on each side of the front of this development. We assume this is left over dirt from excavating for the community they built. The streets, when we visited, were congested with parked cars; the "clubhouse/pool area" was very small; and landscaping was at a minimum. This type of development does not belong in a single family area. Repeating ourselves, any assistance you can offer to prevent this from occurring here in our subdivision will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Sally and Bill Bryan 13510 Versailles Drive Carmel, IN 46032 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Foley, Amanda J Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 3:27 PM To: Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: latest Highpointe on Meridian PUD redline version Here are our previous comments for the PUD: a. The Department requests the following be written into the PUD: "All first left turn movements off of entrance drives shall be a minimum of 150-feet from the northern pavement edge of Illinois Street." b. The Department requests the following be written into the PUD: " Prior to approval of each of the proposed entrances, auxiliary lane warrants per the INDOT standard shall be reviewed. If the warrants are satisfied, auxiliary lanes shall be provided." Original Message From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:28 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Boone, Rachel M.; Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren; Foley, Amanda J; Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: Re: latest Highpointe on Meridian PUD redline version Amanda, would you review this for me? I recall two things that we wanted added/changed. . .there may be more. I think we issued our comments in recent staff report emails for reference. Tyvm! G Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2012, at 10:27, "Conn, Angelina V" <AconnPcarmel.in.gov> wrote: > Good morning, > Here is the latest version of the Highpointe on Meridian PUD ordinance, dated July 11. The Plan Commission will vote on this rezone on July 17. Then, it will go before City Council. '> Angie > From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preisOakdlegal.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:15 AM > To: Conn, Angelina V > Cc: Tingley, Connie S > Subject: RE: Highpointe on Meridian PUD redline version > > Here you go. > Paul > Paul G. Reis 1 I'w �" ryr ( . r �"1.' j 3, v I . � F. M 4 aer p. '. "ci ..,iTM y , ■ I HE f : Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 4:33 PM To: 'John Adams (Home)'; 'jay @goweighless.com'; 'Brad Grabow'; 'Nick Kestner'; 'Joshua Kirsh'; 'indylawson @gmail.com'; 'The Point Betsie InterNetwork-Alan Potasnik'; Rider, Kevin D; 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'Suewestermeier @aol.com'; Wilfong, Ephraim Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Vote NO to Highpointe High Density Development Please read email below FYI Ramona From: Danielle Miller [mailto:1helpinghand Oatt.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:59 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High Density Development Plan Commissioners—I urge you to vote NO on the High Density development that is being considered at 136th and Oak Ridge. This development is too congested and does not contain bring any value to the surrounding area. The 20+ units per acre far exceeds that of surrounding neighborhoods and exceeds the density outlined in the City's comprehensive C3 development plan. This type of density will cause a strain on our already fiscally struggling schools. I am not opposed to development and progress in Carmel I am opposed to the rezoning that is being requested to essentially wipe out the building height requirements which were put in place with a contract with city and our neighborhood many years ago. Please VOTE NO!!! Thanks for your time and consideration. Danielle Miller 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:39 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Cc: 'John Hart'; 'Randy Sherman' Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie Here is a refined revised Section that clarifies the maximum heights of two and three story buildings. We have confirmed that no building greater than two stories or 45 feet will be located closer than 200 feet of a single family residential lot. Section 5.1. Maximum Building Heights. Three (3) stories but not greater than sixty (60) feet; provided however, that any building located within two hundred (200) feet of the property line of a single family residential lot will not exceed two stories in height, but not greater than forty-five (45) feet. Any other issues before I finalize?Thanks. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 3:48 PM To: Paul G. Reis Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? That seems okay,too. So,can a 3-story building ever be 60-ft tall?! Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis@ kdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 3:37 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie Slight tweak in the language. Please read below.We are verifying distances. Paul Section 5.1. Maximum Building Heights. Three (3) stories but not greater than sixty (60) feet; provided however, that any building located within two hundred (200) feet of the property line of a single family residential lot will not exceed two stories in height unless the immediately adjacent single family residential lot abuts a residential storm water retention/detention pond or a residential common area at least seventy-five (75) feet in width, in which case, any building within one hundred twenty (120) feet of such pond or common area will not exceed two (2) stories in height. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:AconnCacarmel.in.aov] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:26 PM To: Paul G. Reis Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:37 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie Slight tweak in the language. Please read below.We are verifying distances. Paul Section 5.1. Maximum Building Heights. Three (3) stories but not greater than sixty (60) feet; provided however, that any building located within two hundred (200) feet of the property line of a single family residential lot will not exceed two stories in height unless the immediately adjacent single family residential lot abuts a residential storm water retention/detention pond or a residential common area at least seventy-five (75) feet in width, in which case, any building within one hundred twenty(120) feet of such pond or common area will not exceed two (2) stories in height. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:26 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Yes, I think that text amendment will work,and goes along with the concept site plan exhibit. Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preisOkdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 2:20 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie, Mike and Alexia: I have not gotten approval from my client but wanted you to review the following revised text and attached modified conceptual site plan. Let me know what you think.Thanks. Paul Section 5.1. Maximum Building Heights. Three (3) stories but not greater than sixty (60) feet; provided however, that any building located within two hundred (200) feet of a single family residential area will not exceed two stories in height unless the immediately adjacent single family residential area has a residential storm water retention/detention pond or a residential common area at least seventy-five (75) feet in width, in which case, any building within one hundred twenty (120) feet of such pond or common area will not exceed two (2) stories in height. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn(acarmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 12:31 PM To: Paul G. Reis 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:20 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Attachments: Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit w Height Restrictions 7-10-2012.PDF Angie, Mike and Alexia: I have not gotten approval from my client but wanted you to review the following revised text and attached modified conceptual site plan. Let me know what you think.Thanks. Paul Section 5.1. Maximum Building Heights. Three (3) stories but not greater than sixty (60) feet; provided however, that any building located within two hundred (200) feet of a single family residential area will not exceed two stories in height unless the immediately adjacent single family residential area has a residential storm water retention/detention pond or a residential common area at least seventy-five (75) feet in width, in which case, any building within one hundred twenty (120) feet of such pond or common area will not exceed two (2) stories in height. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 12:31 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Thanks, Paul. Do the hatched buildings mean that they will be 2-stories tall, maximum? I do not see it written anywhere in the PUD text about limiting the building height to 2-stories for buildings that are closest to the neighbors. That needs to be added, somewhere.... If you look at the Packet for the June 5 committee meeting it has an exhibit that shows which buildings would be limited to 2 stories. Would you make that a part of the PUD as an exhibit? Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preisC@kdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 12:09 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie, Mike and Alexia: Attached is the Conceptual Site Plan that I propose to add to the PUD Ordinance. Please advise with any concerns. Best regards, Paul From: Paul G. Reis Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 11:11 AM To: 'Conn, Angelina V' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie, Alexia and Mike: As far as Daren is concerned, I would say that while we have changed some standards,we have greatly exceeded the bufferyard adjacent to the residents and we are not getting any recognition. We have reduced the some interior areas but if we could comply, we would not need a PUD. These areas are not as significant as what we are trying to do along Illinois Street and adjacent to the residential areas.Just my thoughts. With regard to the bike parking, we revised the text to read: A. Bicycle Parking: Bicycle Parking will be provided in compliance with Section 27.06 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Bicycle parking spaces in Private Garages located in a Multi-Family Housing Complex may be considered in satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required under the Carmel Zoning Ordinance, upon the review and approval of the Director. The first sentence clearly states that the Ordinance must be followed.Spaces in garages MAY(but not required) be considered upon the REVIEW and APPROVAL of the DIRECTOR. I believe this language is a very reasoned and balanced way to address the parking. If Mike decides to rule out the garages, he can do so. Your support is greatly appreciated and needed for this project to be successful. Please consider these remarks as you prepare the report. Unless you have something else, I will proceed to add the conceptual site plan to the PUD. I would like to distribute a clean and redline copy of the PUD and a copy of the original conceptual site plan and the revised conceptual site plan for the Plan Commission with your approval. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:46 AM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Paul— Even with the meeting you had with Daren to modify some of the PUD text,the City Forestry Dept.still has concerns and is not satisfied with the PUD text, as written today. The Forestry Dept. thinks that the petitioner is writing in 'less than' normal requirements at about every level. While not mentioning widths of some of the buffers,too. Also, the Alternative Transportation Coordinator(David) still wants you to amend Page 15, Section 7.0 of the PUD draft to just state that you will comply with Carmel Zoning Ordinance Chapter 27.06 for the bicycle parking requirements, and remove the statement about the private garages being considered. So, I am not sure how you can get around this, if you want a clean Dept. report.... might have to `agree to disagree' on these... Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis@ kdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:36 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie Thanks. I would like to have a clean Department Report with no open items so if you can advise me as soon as possible, I can make the changes. I will add the concept site plan to the Ordinance as an exhibit. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn©carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:34 AM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Hi, Paul—This is what I have so far, and there might be more to come for the Dept. Report. Thanks. 1. DOCS Staff would like the Concept Site Plan to be attached the PUD Ordinance, as an exhibit. Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis(a�kdlegal.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie Thanks very much. I can accommodate my schedule as necessary. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:AconnOcarmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:10 AM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? We are having a Staff meeting this morning and will be discussing this Highpointe PUD item,too. I will let you know after that if you need to do anything else. Thanks! Angie Conn Planning Administrator 2 likVS* �� *Q Conn, Angelina V Q From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:36 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie Thanks. I would like to have a clean Department Report with no open items so if you can advise me as soon as possible, I can make the changes. I will add the concept site plan to the Ordinance as an exhibit. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov]Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 10:34 AM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Hi, Paul—This is what I have so far, and there might be more to come for the Dept. Report.Thanks. 1. DOCS Staff would like the Concept Site Plan to be attached the PUD Ordinance, as an exhibit. Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis@kdlegal.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? Angie Thanks very much. I can accommodate my schedule as necessary. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:10 AM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: plan commission info packets ? We are having a Staff meeting this morning and will be discussing this Highpointe PUD item,too. I will let you know after that if you need to do anything else. Thanks! Angie Conn Planning Administrator 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 1:02 PM To: 'John Adams (Home)'; 'jay @goweighless.com'; 'Brad Grabow'; 'Nick Kestner'; 'Joshua Kirsh'; 'indylawson @gmail.com'; 'Alan Potasnik'; Rider, Kevin D; 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'Suewestermeier @aol.com'; Wilfong, Ephraim Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development Importance: High Hello Commission Members: Please read email below regarding proposed Highpointe on Meridian PUD Ramona From: Brian [_mailto:brian©brianwilliams.pro] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:22 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development Importance: High Please consider the people that purchased land assuming the following • 20+units per acre far exceeds that of surrounding neighborhoods and commercial properties, exceeds the density outlined in the City's comprehensive C3 development plan and will cause strain on traffic patterns and our schools The develgopers5and aTfew Clay officials a c 0`;3"17,7r -r&the building height covenant they yagtced to iN I99Sta id the is on ng request should not be us.d`xto Blase man__y yeais cif LaidLIII city,plannii g including.the buikhng height covenant that3shouldS remain with th i*land • This Development is too congested and contains too many different components, making it unsuitable for such a small parcel of land and unsuitable to abut Residential properties • This development does not contain any "Service" node or "Employment" node which is the recommended use for this land in accordance with the City's comprehensive C3 development plans nor does it bring any value to the surrounding area • The Petitioners plans do not include an adequate barrier, ie: berm with wall, adequate landscaping etc. which is found in several other developments that abut Residential land around Carmel Brian Williams Certified Microsoft Professional brianPbrianwilliams.pro www.brianwilliams.pro Mobile-317.910.6330 1 --- On Sat, 7/7/12, Sally Bryan <sallybryan59(dyahoo.com>wrote: -. From Sally Bryan<sallybryan59@ yahoo.corn> t„ ��.` Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High Density Development ' +l!, . To rshar (cr7,carmel.in.gov Cc: rhancock(a?,carinel.in.gov i ,��,w7r Date: Saturday, July 7, 2012, 3:09 PM x= ; ,• July 7, 2012 . • Dear Mr. Sharp, Below is a copy of my letter to the Carmel.Plan Commission, date June 28, 2012. As I understand, in 1995 you worked hard to defeat the rezoning of what is known as the Regan Parcel. You and the residents of this area were successful ii stopping the rezoning at that time. Since you have now moved to a different area, I hope and pray that you will rememb the people you once fought for in their efforts to protect their homes from the possibility of apartments, etc. Please remember all of us and the investments we have in our single family residences surrounding this area. Please vote"no"to the suggested change in zoning for this parcel of land. Respectfully, Sarah Bryan 1 • Please scroll down and read the copy already on public file. June 28, 2012 Dear Special Studies Committee: We attended last evening's session and want to say"thank you"to the four who have shown concern and respect for th existing residents issues regarding the proposed Highpointe Project. It should be obvious to all who attended this meeting that the issues of the covenants legally attached to this parcel wen totally ignored. The zoning has gone from residential to business and now there are members in the Carmel City Government who desire to "railroad"through a PUD for the sake of a few. The attorney for the petitioner made a plea regarding the "time, energy and funding"that has been poured into the proposed project by the potential buyers. The residents who reside around this parcel of land were ignored. We, too, have spent time, money and energy. We placec our faith/trust in the City of Carmel, purchased our homes based on this faith; some of us older residents will want to sel the property we have so carefully tended over the years in order to retire. We see our property values sinking with a PL in the future. It appears to us that the City of Carmel is in the process of breaking the current covenant in favor a few people and tax dollars. We were shocked that a member of the city staff took such a personal interest in this project and spoke in favor of the apartments. This was recorded and is on record. I would imagine that most of us in that room have, at one time or another, lived in an apartment. I know we have. The issue is apartments do NOT FIT in this area and the zoning now it place does not allow apartments. We purchased/built our homes based on the zoning covenant in place. (We are not referring to "size" but location.) The safety issues were ignored. We were stunned that one member of the panel made a "lame comment" regarding the elderly and children and how"fears"were not a reality. The traffic issues were ignored. The traffic situation was in place long before the US 31 construction started. We have t be VERY careful when backing out of our driveway due to "drive through"traffic; speeders and those who fail to yield foi the stop sign. A lady spoke up last night regarding a recent"could have been"fatal accident involving a speeder; police unable to get to the scene quickly, etc." • Should the final vote go in favor of this offensive project, the mayor and members of the council will NOT be subjected t( the ill effects of their broken promises. Many, many people will suffer emotionally and financially. Peaceful existence w disappear, security gone, safety gone, and years of hard work, mortgage payments wasted. For what? The gain of a fe' To quote a rebuttal already sent to you, "we challenge each of you to honor the contract made to us the last time this parcel was rezoned. We challenge you to NOT permit a PUD to wipe out this contract. The PUD should conform to the height covenants just as B5 developers would conform to them. There are other ways to develop this land in order to improve this part of Carmel. Please move in this direction to improve our neighborhood and bring tax revenues to the City." Respectfully submitted, Sally and Bill Bryan • 13510 Versailles Drive Carmel, IN 46032 2 Tingley, Connie S From: Verlin & Margaret Abbott<vmabbott @att.net> Sent: . Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:00 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: FW: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development From Verlin & Margaret Abbott fmailto:vmabbott@att.netl Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:56 AM ti To 'rhancock @carmel.in.gov' 4/1 Cc: 'info @currentincarmel.com' Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development / To The Plan Commission: The developers and a few City officials are ignoring the building height covenant they agreed to in 1995 and the rezoning request should not be used to erase many years of careful city planning including the building height covenant that should remain with this land. The location of the land is a small area which is proposing to locate too many disparate components for the small parcel of land leading it be congested and unsuitable to abut the Residential properties. This development does not contain any "Service" node or "Employment" node which is the recommended use for this land in accordance with the City's comprehensive C3 development plans nor does it bring any value to the surrounding area. The Petitioners plans do not include an adequate barrier, ie: berm with wall, adequate landscaping etc. which is found in several other developments that abut Residential land around Carmel. 20+units per acre far exceed that of surrounding neighborhoods and commercial properties. It exceeds the density outlined in the City's comprehensive C3 development plan and will cause strain on traffic patterns and our schools. Studies, bought and paid for by the petitioners, stating the contrary cannot be fully trusted. Given the same financial resources as the petitioner, we residents could produce an equal number of studies from equally prestigious sources showing a severe increase and strain on traffic and schools. Please consider these points as we residents personally considered them in our decision making processes. We trusted and put our faith in the standards set by Carmel in 1995 prior to purchasing our homes. The 1995 standards constitute a promise to us as long term citizens of Carmel Clay— knowing we were to be annexed to Carmel — and our future relationship with our community one 1 which we took to heart and consideration when we purchased our home in Thistlewood subdivision in 1996. Sincerely, Margaret and Verlin Abbott 317.818.1021 13702 Thistlewood Drive East Carmel Indiana 46032 2 r• 3 ✓(/ ( l'72011 Good Afternoon, \` ' 1�,• ,', My name is Steve Trautman and I have been attending the meetings pertaining to the Reagan Parcel and PUD proposal.This letter is sent on behalf of our Thistlewood Home Owners Association and speaks on behalf of all of our home owners. It is our wish that the Special Studies Committee and Zoning Commissioners will keep in mind the commitments made when this parcel was last rezoned. It does not appear to us that there has been active consideration for the covenants that are currently attached to this land. While we appreciate that this land may be developed in the future we expect deference to the existing covenants, improvement to the area, and provision of proper barriers to protect the surrounding subdivisions. Multiple areas of our concern to the rezoning proposal: • The proposed apartments,offices and assisted living community are too dense for this small land mass and would bring additional traffic strain to an already high traffic area. • Will there be adequate barriers to make these non-residential structures fit into a residential area? • Does this meet with the City's C3 development plan? • How will these new structures affect resale and property values of the surrounding neighborhoods? We are not opposed to development in Carmel; however we are opposed to the area being rezoned if it does not meet with the commitments made when last rezoned. We truly appreciate the Special Studies Committee and the efforts made to ensure that the agreed upon commitments made to this already rezoned parcel are kept. Best regards, Steve Trautman Thistlewood HOA Tingley, Connie S From: Stewart, Lisa M Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:48 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: FW: Vote No to Highpoint high density planning Attachments: Reagan Parcel (2).docx Another one Lisa M. Stewart Office Administrator City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-S71-2418 From: Steve Trautman f mailto:strautma @ iaustraliangold.comj Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:47 AM To: Stewart, Lisa M Subject: Vote No to Highpoint high density planning Good morning Lisa, It is my understanding that Ramona Hancock is out of the office and that correspondence should go through you. Would you please see that that all of the Planning Commission members receive a copy of this letter for tonight's meeting? Thank you, Steve Trautman Thistelwood HOA 1 Stewart, Lisa M From: bettyand2 @gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:12 AM To: Adams, John; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Kestner, NickKirsh;—Joshua A; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Rider, Kevin D; Stromquist,Steven R;WWestermeier Susan; Wilfong, Ephraim �v Cc: Stewart, Lisa M \ Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development V r 4 r ryx Dear Planning Commission Members, � ; "4749,. Z' � ;z ; E;; �' I As a Bentley Oaks homeowner, I feel it is imperative that I reach\out„toneach.of.,you prior to tonight's meeting in order to reiterate why this development projectzshou-ld not/move forward. It has been stated before, and members of Special Study Committee have agreed, that the suggested development is far too congested and exceeds the density as set forth in Carmel's C3 plan. This is a small, odd shaped parcel of land which, unfortunately, abuts my picturesque backyard of trees, wildlife and tranquility. Inconsistencies have been stated in the Petitioner's presentations and homeowner's requests have been ignored. In particular, many of the homeowners' requests for barriers to provide privacy and safety have been ignored. And, what about increased traffic congestion in the area? It is essential that a reliable traffic study be conducted by the City of Carmel with school in session. I have lived in Bentley Oaks for 15 years and have watched 136th Street become more and more congested in the morning, as well as, in the evening. If there is an after school evening event, the traffic is unbelievable at 8:00 p.m. The Petitioner communicated at the last meeting that minimal traffic impact would occur with the development of this land. Really? In 1995, Carmel agreed to a covenant specifying building heights should this land ever be developed. This covenant needs to be adhered to and I sincerely hope that Carmel's city officials are not going to turn the other cheek for the gain of a few and ignore this stipulation as it relates to this plot of land. The structures proposed in this development violate this covenant and should not be allowed to go forward. I really do not know what else to say other than Carmel is a progressive city with much to offer but not every piece of green-space needs a cluster of buildings on it. My backyard which abuts this land is a source of enjoyment to me and to have it devoured by this proposed high density development is unforgivable. Eventually, a building will be erected on this land and if the Commission does their job correctly, it will comply with the 1995 covenant, the low density of this area, and a suitable developer. In closing, I would sincerely like to thank the Special Committee members who have continually expressed their opposition to the Highpointe development project The. Petitioner's presentations were clearly seen by the Committee members as unbecoming for this parcel of land. Please continue to vote NO for the Highpointe on Meridian PUD. Thank you for reading my email and for your time. Please remember to vote "No". Respectfully, Betty D'Aquila 1323 Bentley Way Carmel, IN. 46032 1 Sent from my iPad Stewart, Lisa M From: Keyun Qing [kyging @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:25 PM To: Stewart, Lisa M Subject: Vote NO to highpoint highdensity planning Hi Lisa, I live in the community of Bentley Oaks. I vote NO to highpoint highdensity planning. Thanks. Keyun Qing 1266 Bentley Way Carmel, IN 46032 I tiri l • V 1 Stewart, Lisa M From: Hogan, Mary[MEHOGAN @stvincent.org] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 12:19 PM To: jadams @carmel.in.go; Potasnik, Alan; Dorman, Jay; kridger @carmel.in.gov; Grabow, Bradford S; Stromquist, Steven R; Kestner, Nick; Westermeier, Susan; Kirsh, Joshua A; Wilfong, Ephraim; Lawson, Steve; Hancock, Ramona B;jmolitor @prodigy.net; Stewart, Lisa M Cc: mehogan27 @gmail.com Subject: Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe PUD-JULY 17, 2012 MEETING Dear members of the Planning Commission; Thank you for a moment of your time- regarding the Old Business to be discussed at tomorrow's Carmel Plan Commission meeting. As you may know the homeowners of Bentley Oaks—the homeowners of Park Meadow—the homeowners of Thistlewood—and the homeowners of the Village of Mount Carmel have been adamantly opposed to the rezoning effort of the land located at 136th & Illinois. When purchasing our homes 15 years ago, it was noted that there was gas line running through the land in this area, it was a small parcel, and we were also told that the zoning for this land was designated as Business (B5) and that residential apartments/homes could never be built on this parcel of land. We were told that offices of some kind could possibly be built someday, and we felt comfortable with that information before deciding to build our home in Bentley Oaks. We never thought that we would have to fight this battle in order to preserve the monetary worth of our homes and along with that protect so many homeowners' investments. You see the future of so many homeowners in Carmel has been affected by these proposed plans—this has been a long ordeal for all of us, but we are still here. We trust that you will continue to hear our plea—the Special Plan Commission voted 4-1—"NO" in allowing this rezoning effort—we have attended the meetings, we listened and they have listened to us. We are grateful. I would ask that you please uphold their vote and also vote "NO" to this rezoning and development proposal. Sincerely, Mark and Mary Hogan P .�� 1243 Bentley Way, Carmel IN 46032 �� � � _0 2072 P;10 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any accompanying data or files is confidential and may contain privileged information intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that the dissemination,distribution, and or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s),please notify the sender at the email address above, delete this email from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. i Stewart, Lisa M From: uday barad [udaykamal24 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 12:01 PM To: Stewart, Lisa M Subject: Vote NO to Highpoint High density development Dear Lisa, My name is Uday Barad ( Bentley Oak homeowner) and can you please forward this email to Planning commissioner members. Dear Planning Commission members, My name is Uday Barad ( Bentley Oak homeowner) and we bought our house with faith in Carmel city planning . Regan parcle land owner plans to rezone the land which is already rezoned from residential to B5 commercial zone in 1991. I am not against city planning and development but to build high density appartments in small piece of land is too much. Here are my concerns: • 20+units per acre far exceeds that of surrounding neighborhoods and commercial properties, exceeds the density outlined in the City's comprehensive C3 development plan and will cause strain on traffic patterns and our schools. • The developers and a few City officials are ignoring the building height covenant they agreed to in 1995 and the rezoning request should not be used to erase many years of careful city planning including the building height covenant that should remain with this land. • This Development is too congested and contains too many different components, making it unsuitable for such a small parcel of land and unsuitable to abut Residential properties. • This development does not contain any "Service" node or "Employment" node which is the recommended use for this land in accordance with the City's comprehensive C3 development plans nor does it bring any value to the surrounding area. We are not opposed to progress and development in Carmel. However, we are opposed to rezoning this property for the purpose of wiping out many years of careful city planning and erasing the building height covenant placed on this property as a condition of the last rezoning. The building height covenant is a contract the City made with the long-time residents of Bentley Oaks and Park Meadow. Thanking you, Uday Barad / 7 ,, r' ilk x Z• Iti,: G 4 ,\ \1 JUG 1 a 2012 4� c' -,N.-\ Ilk ti Wp 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: ARTHUR ENLOW [artenlow @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 1:31 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: 136 street and Oakridge I am a transplant from the far south side of Indianapolis. The main reason that Carmel drew me was the zoning. Keep business in their own area and do not infringe in on the outskirts of resident. Apartments are another story,just look at Speedway, and Indianapolis the long term apartment is down hill unless they go condo's. Apartments are nice today and as the years go they will go down here; but own owner is still there. A promise was made and lest stick to it. Make a park or condos I do not care, not a business or multi family dwellings. Only home owner's home values will suffer for the gain of one investor. But lets say that someone comes in and wants to buy up homes next to this parcel and have it rezoned and it keeps going! • The traffic at the location in question is highly travels during rush hours. The project would only ad to it. Art Pc' //t . ,& � d �� am^ jS • • • 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: george wang [george_wang58 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 201"-- PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Vote No to Highpointe High-density Development Ramona, We are opposed to rezoning the land behind Bentley Oaks and Park Meadow for the purpose of wiping out many years of careful city planning and erasing the building height covenant placed on the property as a condition of the last rezoning. The building height covenant is a contract the City made with log-time residents of Bentley Oaks and Park Meadow. We moved to Carmel five years ago form D.0 area. We love Carmel as quiet and safety small town. We like see the progress and development in Carmel as a nice suburb town, not like as Indianapolis city in future. But some of your plan goes to wrong direction including the recent rezoning the land behind Bentley Oaks and Park Meadow. The 20+units per acre far exceeds that of surround neighborhoods and commercial properties, exceeds the density outline in the City' comprehensive C3 development plan and will cause strain on traffic patterns and our schools. Current we already feel the traffic when we turn left to Illinois Road form our Park Meadow to downtown every day. If you change the zone plus route 31 will become high way,more and more cars and trucks will go through Illinois Road. The traffic and environment situation will be much worse. If happened, there is no other chooses, we must move out from Cannel. This is what we don't like to see. So we strongly opposed to rezoning the land behind Bentley Oaks and Park Meadow. Park Meadow resident Zhongyi Wang and Buguang Song • - ' '4`4".•a j-.I ! 44, 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Mike Cronin <kronowerl @gmail.com> • Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:22 AM To: Stewart, Lisa M; Tingley, Connie S Subject: Fwd: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development Dear Ms. Lisa Stewart and Ms. Connie Tingley, I would like to urge the Plan Commission to send the rezoning request to the City Council with a NEGATIVE recommendation. The building height covenant agreed to in 1995 should still stand and the development is too congested making it unsuitable for such a small parcel of land. • Thank you for your time. x Mike and Monica Cronin • + ¢ .J(/ : ,y 370 Patoka Place t I 20/2 j.41 p Carmel, IN 46032 Forwarded message From: Hancock, Ramon a B <RHancock@carmel.in.gov> Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM Subject: Automatic reply: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development To: Mike Cronin<kronowerl.@gmail.com> I am currently out of the office and will return Monday, July 30th, 2012.. If you need immediate assistance, please contact Lisa Stewart or Connie Tingley, 571-2417. Thanks! Ramona Hancock Administrative Assistant Carmel Plan Commission One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 317.571.2412 FX: 571-2426 Dear Ms. Ramona Hancock, I would like to urge the Plan Commission to send the rezoning request to the City Council with a NEGATIVE recommendation. The building height covenant agreed to in 1995 should still stand and the development is too congested making it unsuitable for such a small parcel of land. - Thank you for your time. - Mike and Monica Cronin 370 Patoka Place Carmel, IN 46032 Mike Cronin (317) 490.1677 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:37 PM To: 'Paul G. Reis' Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Bicycle Parking Paul— I think I am okay with the statement you wrote in the latest version of the PUD, and I understand the intent and the flexibility: "Bicycle Parking: Bicycle Parking will be provided in compliance with Section 27.06 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Bicycle parking spaces in Private Garages located in a Multi-Family Housing Complex may be considered in satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required under the Carmel Zoning Ordinance, upon the review and approval of the Director." I think David put it best when he.wrote to me: If they take the language out of the PUD, it doesn't mean people won't be able to park their bikes in their garages, but it would help ensure residents without garages would have a safe way to store their bikes(outside). So, I guess the key is to help ensure residents without garages (and guests and employees) would have a safe way to store their bikes (not in a garage) and have the rack to store the bike on.We want to make sure that there are enough outside bike racks. I hope this helps clarify things a bit... Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis©kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:27 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Bicycle Parking Well. I thought there was to be flexibility. Since it uses the verb "may" i thought that would allow for flexibility. what is your position? From: Conn, Angelina V [Aconn©carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:15 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Bicycle Parking We might be at an impasse. David/Staff strongly feels that the PUD should state that it will comply with the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. Feel free to discuss this at the committee meeting tonight,to resolve it amongst the committee members. Thanks, Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preisCalkdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:17 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:35 PM To: 'Paul G. Reis' Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Hi, Paul— thanks for adding the requirement for sidewalks to be along Private streets! I think that David just wants that text stricken from the PUD text, altogether, about private garages satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for multi family housing. Then, if/when the DP/ADLS petition comes through,there could be some flexibility on that, but there would also be compliance with the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance...And, remember, 2 bikes can be parked on 1 inverted U bike rack. Thanks, Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis©kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:50 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Attached is the revised PUD with the change for sidewalks that was inadvertently omitted. We respectfully agree to disagree on the requirement that garages cannot be used to satisfy bicycle parking. I am meeting with Daren in a few minutes and may have additional changes. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:AconnOcarmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday,June 26, 2012 2:14 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Good afternoon, Paul— Regarding this revised PUD text—there is nothing in this revised version about requiring sidewalks on both sides of Private streets. And, I think we discussed that at our last meeting at DOCS and you stated that you were going to add something to that effect. It would be hard for DOCS to require that JC Hart include sidewalks on both sides of their "private"streets during their DP/ADLS approval phase if it is not included in the PUD. If you want to submit a pedestrian plan showing where sidewalk and path connections will go, we may be able to accept that proposal without you specifically noting that sidewalks will be required on both sides of all of the private streets. (We have done this on other PUDs). Staff also noticed that you still have private garages satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for multi-family housing portion in their bicycle parking section of the PUD. This would not address the intent of the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. So,that phrase should be removed from the PUD text. (Feel free to contact David Littlejohn, Alternative Transportation Coordinator, on this. ) 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:50 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Attachments: REDLINE.PDF Attached is the revised PUD with the change for sidewalks that was inadvertently omitted.We respectfully agree to disagree on the requirement that garages cannot be used to satisfy bicycle parking. I am meeting with Daren in a few minutes and may have additional changes. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:AconnCa carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday,June 26, 2012 2:14 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Good afternoon, Paul— Regarding this revised PUD text—there is nothing in this revised version about requiring sidewalks on both sides of Private streets. And, I think we discussed that at our last meeting at DOCS and you stated that you were going to add something to that effect. It would be hard for DOCS to require that JC Hart include sidewalks on both sides of their "private" streets during their DP/ADLS approval phase if it is not included in the PUD. If you want to submit a pedestrian plan showing where sidewalk and path connections will go,we may be able to accept that proposal without you specifically noting that sidewalks will be required on both sides of all of the private streets. (We have done this on other PUDs). Staff also noticed that you still have private garages satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for multi-family housing portion in their bicycle parking section of the PUD. This would not address the intent of the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. So,that phrase should be removed from the PUD text. (Feel free to contact David Littlejohn, Alternative Transportation Coordinator, on this. ) Please advise. Thank you, Angie Conn Planning Administrator 571-2417 From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis(akdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday,June 26, 2012 11:35 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Angie,Alexia and Mike: Attached is a draft of the revised PUD Ordinance for Highpointe on Meridian in redline form showing our proposed changes. I have a meeting with Daren tomorrow to further discuss landscaping. My plan is to walk through these changes with the committee and present additional information concerning the effect of multi-family housing on 1 • Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:14 PM To: 'Paul G. Reis' Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Good afternoon, Paul— Regarding this revised PUD text—there is nothing in this revised version about requiring sidewalks on both sides of Private streets. And, I think we discussed that at our last meeting at DOCS and you stated that you were going to add something to that effect. It would be hard for DOCS to require that JC Hart include sidewalks on both sides of their "private" streets during their DP/ADLS approval phase if it is not included in the PUD. If you want to submit a pedestrian plan showing where sidewalk and path connections will go, we may be able to accept that proposal without you specifically noting that sidewalks will be required on both sides of all of the private streets. (We have done this on other PUDs). Staff also noticed that you still have private garages satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for multi-family housing portion in their bicycle parking section of the PUD. This would not address the intent of the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. So,that phrase should be removed from the PUD text. (Feel free to contact David Littlejohn, Alternative Transportation Coordinator,on this. ) Please advise. Thank you, Angie Conn Planning Administrator 571-2417 From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preiskdlegal.com] � ~ Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:35 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Angie,Alexia and Mike: Attached is a draft of the revised PUD Ordinance for Highpointe on Meridian in redline form showing our proposed changes. I have a meeting with Daren tomorrow to further discuss landscaping. My plan is to walk through these changes with the committee and present additional information concerning the effect of multi-family housing on residential property values. Below is a narrative concerning the shadow study which we can discuss further with the Committee. I am circulating this draft to the development team at this time so we may make additional modifications. Shadow study: We assume in our latitude a 20 degree sun angle at ten o'clock and two o'clock on December 22 which would be when the sun would be the lowest and cast the longest shadow. A 45' high building will cast a 160' long shadow at that time of year. Our closest buildings are only two stories and will cast a shadow roughly half this length so we will be well within the boundaries of our site with building shadows. A 60' high building will cast a 170' long shadow at that time of year.The location of the office building and any three story structure is over 300'from the any residence. Best regards, Paul Paul G.Reis Partner 1. Conn, Angelina V From: Paul.G. Reis [preis@kdlegal.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:35 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Attachments: DVComparison_#3763972v8_Indy_- PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian_v8 5-25-# 3763972v9_Indy_- PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian_v8 5-25.pdf Angie,Alexia and Mike: Attached is a draft of the revised PUD Ordinance for Highpointe on Meridian in redline form showing our proposed changes. I have a meeting with Daren tomorrow to further discuss landscaping. My plan is to walk through these changes with the committee and present additional information concerning the effect of multi-family housing on residential property values. Below is a narrative concerning the shadow study which we can discuss further with the Committee. l.am circulating this draft to the development team at this time so we may make additional modifications. Shadow study: We.assume in our latitude a 20 degree sun angle at ten o'clock and two o'clock on December 22 which would be when the sun would be the lowest and cast the longest shadow. A 45' high building will cast a 160' long shadow at that time of year. Our closest buildings are only two stories and will cast a shadow roughly half this length so we will be well within the boundaries of our site with building shadows. A 60' high building will cast a 170' long shadow at that time of year.The location of the office building and any three story structure is over 300'from the any residence. Best regards, Paul Paul G.Reis Partner Krieg DeVault LLP 1 12800 N Meridian Street I Suite 300 I Carmel, IN 46032 Phone:317-238-6293 I Cell:317-431-0063 I Fax:317-6364507 pre Okdlegal omtl www.'kriegde ault.tom VrCard" Bio Indiana I Illinois I Georgia I Florida I Minnesota CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This e-mail message is for the sole use of the recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient(s),please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.IRS Circular 230 Notice:Advice rendered in this communication,including attachments,on U.S.tax issues(i)is not intended or written to be used,and it cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS on taxpayers,and(ii)may not be used or referred to in promoting,marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity,investment plan or arrangement.This notice is intended to comply with Section 10.35 of IRS Circular 230,which is located at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf. • 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Danielle Miller [1 helpinghand @att.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:59 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High Density Development Plan Commissioners—I urge you to vote NO on the High Density development that is being considered at 136th and Oak Ridge. This development is too congested and does not contain bring any value to the surrounding area. The 20+units per acre far exceeds that of surrounding neighborhoods and exceeds the density outlined in the City's comprehensive C3 development plan. This type of density will cause a strain on our already fiscally struggling schools. I am not opposed to development and progress in Carmel I am opposed to the rezoning that is being requested to essentially wipe out the • building height requirements which were put in place with a contract with city and our neighborhood many years ago. Please VOTE NO!!! Thanks for your time and consideration. Danielle Miller • • 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:37 AM To: 'John Adams (Home)'; 'jay @goweighless.com'; 'Brad Grabow'; 'Nick Kestner'; 'Joshua Kirsh'; 'indylawson @gmail.com'; 'The Point Betsie InterNetwork-Alan Potasnik'; Rider, Kevin D; 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'Suewestermeier @aol.com'; Wilfong, Ephraim Cc: Conn, Angelina V; 'John Molitor' Subject: FW: Please Vote No to the Highpoint Development FYI: Highpointe on Meridian PUD Ramona From: Stuart Anderson [mailto:coltsevie @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 8:22 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Please Vote No to the Highpoint Development Dear Plan Commissioners, My wife and I have lived in Bentley Oaks for 15 years and absolutely love living in Carmel. Our house was the largest investment we will ever make and it represents the vast majority of our monetary worth. When we built our home we did so understanding that the land now being considered for this rezoning would likely someday be developed. We checked the zoning and the limitations it provided and felt comfortable that we could live next to just about anything falling under those restrictions. We trusted the city to hold to these restrictions in order to protect our investment. Now a proposal has come before you to break that trust by permitting a high- . density development be built in our backyard. I would like to ask you to please uphold that trust and vote "NO" to this rezoning and development proposal. It is a poor fit for this parcel, would congest the area and is completely inconsistent with the C3 development plan as it has over 20 units per acre and contains no "service" or "employment" node. I look forward to seeing you at the July 17th hearing and hope you will stand by the long-time residents who will be most affected by this proposal. Thank you, Stuart Anderson 1235 Bentley Way 317-457-1099 Hancock, Ramona B From: Stuart Anderson [coltsevie©yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 8:22 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Please Vote No to the Highpoint Development Dear Plan Commissioners, My wife and I have lived in Bentley Oaks for 15 years and absolutely love living in Carmel. Our house was the largest investment we will ever make and it represents the vast majority of our monetary worth. When we built our home we did so understanding that the land now being considered for this rezoning would likely someday be developed. We checked the zoning and the limitations it provided and felt comfortable that we could live next to just about anything falling under those restrictions. We trusted the city to hold to these restrictions in order to protect our investment. Now a proposal has come before you to break that trust by permitting a high- density development be built in our backyard. I would like to ask you to please uphold that trust and vote "NO" to this rezoning and development proposal. It is a poor fit for this parcel, would congest the area and is completely inconsistent with the C3 development plan as it has over 20 units per acre and contains no "service" or "employment" node. I look forward to seeing you at the July 17th hearing and hope you will stand by the long-time residents who will be most affected by this proposal. Thank you, Stuart Anderson 1235 Bentley Way 317-457-1099 Hancock, Ramona B From: Sally Bryan [sallybryan59 @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 11:10 AM To: Sharp, Rick Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High Density Development July 7, 2012 Dear Mr. Sharp, Below is a copy of my letter to the Carmel Plan Commission, date June 28, 2012. As I understand, in 1995 you worked hard to defeat the rezoning of what is known as the Regan Parcel. You and the residents of this area were successful in stopping the rezoning at that time. Since you have now moved to a different area, I hope and pray that you will remember the people you once fought for in their efforts to protect their homes from the possibility of apartments, etc. Please remember all of us and the investments we have in our single family residences surrounding this area. Please vote "no"to the suggested change in zoning for this parcel of land. Respectfully, Sarah Bryan Please scroll down and read the copy already on public file. June 28, 2012 Dear Special Studies Committee: We attended last evening's session and want to say"thank you"to the four who have shown concern and respect for the existing residents issues regarding the proposed Highpointe Project. It should be obvious to all who attended this meeting that the issues of the covenants legally attached to this parcel were totally ignored. The zoning has gone from residential to business and now there are members in the Carmel City Government who desire to "railroad"through a PUD for the sake of a few. The attorney for the petitioner made a plea regarding the "time, energy and funding"that has been poured into the proposed project by the potential buyers. The residents who reside around this parcel of land were ignored. We, too, have spent time, money and energy. We placed our faith/trust in the City of Carmel, purchased our homes based on this faith; some of us older residents will want to sell the property we have so carefully tended over the years in order to retire. We see our property values sinking with a PUD in the future. It appears to us that the City of Carmel is in the process of breaking the current covenant in favor a few people and tax dollars. We were shocked that a member of the city staff took such a personal interest in this project and spoke in favor of the apartments. This was recorded and is on record. I would imagine that most of us in that room have, at one time or another, lived in an apartment. I know we have. The issue is apartments do NOT FIT in this area and the zoning now in place does not allow apartments. We purchased/built our homes based on the zoning covenant in place. (We are not referring to "size" but location.) The safety issues were ignored. We were stunned that one member of the panel made a"lame comment" regarding the elderly and children and how"fears"were not a reality. The traffic issues were ignored. The traffic situation was in place long before the US 31 construction started. We have to be VERY careful when backing out of our driveway due to "drive through"traffic; speeders and those who fail to yield for the stop sign. A lady spoke up last night regarding a recent"could have been"fatal accident involving a speeder; police unable to get to the scene quickly, etc." Should the final vote go in favor of this offensive project, the mayor and members of the council will NOT be subjected to 1 the ill effects of their broken promises. Many, many people will suffer emotionally and financially. Peaceful existence will disappear, security gone, safety gone, and years of hard work, mortgage payments wasted. For what? The gain of a few! To quote a rebuttal already sent to you, "we challenge each of you to honor the contract made to us the last time this parcel was rezoned. We challenge you to NOT permit a PUD to wipe out this contract. The PUD should conform to the height covenants just as B5 developers would conform to them. There are other ways to develop this land in order to improve this part of Carmel. Please move in this direction to improve our neighborhood and bring tax revenues to the City." Respectfully submitted, Sally and Bill Bryan 13510 Versailles Drive Carmel, IN 46032 2 Hancock, Ramona B From: Brian [brian @brianwilliams.pro] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:22 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Vote NO to Highpointe High-Density Development Importance: High Please consider the people that purchased land assuming the following • 20+units per acre far exceeds that of surrounding neighborhoods and commercial properties, exceeds the density outlined in the City's comprehensive C3 development plan and will cause strain on traffic patterns and our schools • The developers and a few City officials are ignoring the building height covenant they agreed to in 1995 and the rezoning request should not be used to erase many years of careful city planning including the building height covenant that should remain with this land • This Development is too congested and contains too many different components, making it unsuitable for such a small parcel of land and unsuitable to abut Residential properties • This development does not contain any"Service"node or"Employment"node which is the recommended use for this land in accordance with the City's comprehensive C3 development plans nor does it bring any value to the surrounding area • The Petitioners plans do not include an adequate barrier, ie: berm with wall, adequate landscaping etc. which is found in several other developments that abut Residential land around Carmel Brian Williams Certified Microsoft Professional brian@brianwilliams.pro www.brianwilliams.pro Mobile-317.910.6330 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Brad Cisco [bcisco @indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 4:48 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Re: July 17 hearing yes, thank you! Just wanted to make sure we are permitted to attend the July 17 meeting. Thank you, Brad Brad Cisco Rupp Safety Associates 221 Wyndotte Dr. Carmel, IN 46032 Cell 317.333.9713 Fax 317.566.9947 bradleycisco@gmail.com Original Message From Hancock;:Ramona B To: 'Brad Cisco' Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 4:41 PM Subject: RE: July 17 hearing Brad: I cannot stress to you enough that our meetings are ALL Open to the Public, unless they involve litigation. The July 17 preliminary Agenda lists Highpointe as OLD BUSINESS, not a hearing--the public hearing on Highpointe occurred a few months ago; after public comments were heard at that time,the public hearing was closed; then Committee review. Whether or not the public is invited to speak July 17 is up to the Plan Commission Chair and he would most likely take a vote to be able to hear additional public comments and/or re-open the public hearing--this is according to the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure. Truly, your next opportunity for public input is at the City Council level, and it is up to the petitioner to schedule that "reading" before the Council. I hope this answers your question. Ramona From: Brad Cisco [mailto:bcisco@indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 4:23 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: July 17 hearing Hi, Ramona-Just to clarify, is the July 17 hearing for Highpointe open to public attendance? 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Brad Cisco [bcisco @indy.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:49 PM To: Kirsh, Joshua A; Adams, John; Potasnik, Alan; Grabow, Bradford S; Wilfong, Ephraim; Dorman, Jay; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Westermeier, Susan Cc: Sally Bryan; RUTH STAHLY; Steve Trautman; Mary Hogan; Bill Bryan; Brad Cohen; Debbie Hennessey; Greg Hess; Jim Hennessey; Peter Ten Eyck; Rob White;Jill Meisenheimer; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe rebuttle Dear Special Studies Committee and Zoning Commissioners: Thank you very much for your attention to details of the Highpointe PUD proposal. It is customary for the petitioners and The Department to have rebuttle time at the meetings. This is just one part of this process slanted towards the developers so I'd like to take this opportunity to make a rebuttle for the many citizens I represent. We disagree with The Department Representative's statements that the revised plans have addressed the numerous issues/challenges that you have posed to them in previous hearings. In fact, it's difficult to think that the Department participated in the same meetings in which we have attended given their unwillingness to see how this PUD ignores the challenges we all have voiced in the public hearing and subsequent subcommittee meetings. The most glaring of the issues being ignored is the height covenants to which Mr Regan agreed in order to obtain his last rezoning approvals. We do agree with The Department's previous report as it relates to this site being a "conditional fit" option within the Employment Node and the best option for this parcel to be Neighborhood Support Center. • Why is The Department disregarding their previous recommendation for this land in favor of this PUD?? • Why is The Department so enamored with this proposal that is so counter to their previous recommendation?? • Why is the employment node facet of this location being ignored?? • Why the flip-flopping on the desired use for this land?? Please do not throw out the many years of thoughtful planning and the commitments that were made to us when this parcel was last rezoned. No matter how emotional the Department Representative or the Citizens become about apartments, no matter the Department Representative's personal opinions about apartments, the petitioners and The Department are ignoring the contract that the City made during the last rezoning petition with respect to the building height covenants. Once again, Highpointe has been repackaged without regard for: • the covenants legally attached to this land • improving the area with service node ideas • concrete plan for barriers. The sole purpose for presenting this PUD is to throw out the covenants, throw out many years of careful planning and build a high-density development on an unsuitable piece of land. We challenge each of you to honor the contract made to us the last time this parcel was rezoned. We challenge you to NOT permit a PUD to wipe out this contract. The PUD should conform to the height covenants just as B5 developers would conform to them. There are other ways to develop this land in order to improve this part of Carmel. Please move in this direction to improve our neighborhood and bring tax revenues to the City. Thank you, Brad Cisco The Parks at Springmill HOA 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: flis @iquest.net Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:30 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: webmaster @theparksatspringmill.com Subject: Highpointe PUD To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of The Parks at Springmill, and I do not believe the Highpointe PUD should be allowed. 1. The city made a contractual agreement not to put apartments or large buildings there many years ago. 2. There is already enough traffic in the area, and rush hour would be overwhelming. 3. Our schools are full. 4. The high density would detract from the adjacent neighborhoods. 5. That piece of land was not zoned residential. CITY OF CARMEL: PLEASE STOP CHANGING ZONING! ! ! Caroline Flis 13401 Kingsbury Drive, Carmel IN 46032 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 1 Hancock; Ramona B From: Mary Hogan [mehogan27 @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:44 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Cohen, Brad; Brad Cisco; RUTH STAHLY; ghess132 @sbcglobal.net; rwhite @indy.rr.com Subject: Public Record Response for tonight's meeting Attachments: Bentley_Oaks_Statement_June_27_2012[1].docx Good morning Ramona; Thank you for your recent communications and information regarding the agenda items for tonight's meeting at 6 PM. The Homeowner's Association of Bentley Oaks and it's residents would like to respectfully submit the attached response for review by the Special Studies Subcommittee, should the Petitioner's submit plans to the Committee that have not been reivewed by any of the Homeowner's Associations (Bentley Oaks, Park Meadow, Thistlewood, Village of Mount Carmel). We would like to have the opportunity to respond to the Committee by reading the attached statement. Can you please forward this information to the members of the Committee? As always, we appreciate all that you continue to do for us. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mary Hogan 1 HIGHPOINTE PROJECT: Meeting for the Special Studies Committee June 5, 2012 Good Evening Committee Members: My name is MARY HOGAN and I am a representative of the Bentley Oaks Homeowner's Association. I would like to start by reading a few very brief passages from Mayor Brainard's "State of the City Address" dated October 13, 2010 and titled "Building a Thriving City". The Mayor's speech focuses on two key and core beliefs: 1. WE ONLY HAVE ONE CHANCE TO BUILD OUR CITY THE RIGHT WAY 2. WE MUST CONTINUE BUILDING ON THE TRADITIONS OF THE PAST The Mayor says, "First, let me emphasize that we only have one chance to do this right. This once in a lifetime opportunity comes with the responsibility of building a city that future generations will inherit. Unlike cities where city leaders spend time correcting the errors of the past, we are fortunate in starting with essentially a blank canvas, leveraging the areas with existing infrastructure, building our downtown in City Center, developing the Arts & Design District and 1 HIGHPOINTE PROJECT: Meeting for the Special Studies Committee June 5, 2012 filling in the Meridian Street Corridor. Getting that right benefits our City well into the future. Doing it wrong would have an immediate detrimental effect on Carmel." Mayor Brainard then goes on to say "I mentioned earlier that Carmel's becoming a thriving city didn't happen by accident. It was the foresight of our former city leaders that set the tone for our commitment and dedication in continuing to create a high-quality of life in Carmel that has allowed the city to thrive. Well thought out choices allowed us to move forward, guided by our leaders initial decisions. It is our responsibility to honor that philosophy of very high quality development. End quote. What does this mean in relation to the Highpointe on Meridian proposed project? The proposal before us is a gross departure from the vision for Carmel as laid out by our Mayor. It consists of three separate and non- consistent build-outs ranging from a convalescence facility to a multi- unit apartment complex and standard commonplace office building; all crammed into a strange little wedge surrounded by many neighborhoods of family owned homes. 2 HIGHPOINTE PROJECT: Meeting for the Special Studies Committee June 5, 2012 In prior meetings, as well as in written communications, you have been presented with the many reasons why we are opposed to this rezone. They range from logistical, to technical, to legal, as well as the pragmatic concerns of those of us who will have to live with your decision. You are well aware of all those concerns, so I will not hammer away at them. However, I do want to focus on the apartment complex for a moment. Obviously, a high-density apartment complex is the worst-case scenario. We all know that an apartment complex is as good as it gets on the first day that it opens. Has a reliable traffic study been performed while school is in session? The traffic increase while school is in session is when a study must be performed. More children entering an already overcrowded school system should also be noted in this decision. Please consider for a moment the reality of having an apartment complex sandwiched up against your back yard. Not across the street, but abutting your back yard, where you go to sit quietly and read, or barbeque with your family and friends. Imagine sitting on your patio and knowing that multiple sets of eyes from upper floor apartments can see your every move. We realize that with the B-5 zoning we could have multi-story office buildings, but they are relatively quiet on evenings and weekends. Not ideal, but certainly the lesser of two evils. 3 HIGHPOINTE PROJECT: Meeting for the Special Studies Committee June 5, 2012 Many years ago I rented a home directly behind a 'luxury' apartment complex. There was a fence and some landscaping for separation, so I didn't think it would bother me. I was wrong. Car doors slamming - all night long. Snippets of loud music - all night long. Garbage trucks, car alarms at all hours, the occasional yell in the parking lot, police sirens. I had to give up sleeping with my windows open on beautiful cool evenings. That may not seem like much, but it is. We purchased our homes trusting that the B-S zoning would protect us from an apartment complex. Add to that the fact that the property in question is within the US 31 overlay, which does not allow apartments. Given those two things alone, how can we even entertain allowing this? To change both of those rules now would be a devastating betrayal of all of us who purchased in good faith and made Bentley Oaks our home. 4 Hancock, Ramona B From: Jim Sanchez[chez60606 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:30 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Sharp, Rick Subject: Highpointe PUD Attachments: Highpoint_Perimeter Fence_.pdf To: Ms. Ramona Hancock, Secretary, CC: Mr.Rick Sharp,City Council Representative RE: Highpointe on Meridian PUD After reviewing the meeting minutes from February 2012,and not seeing any progress with respect to Highpointe on Meridian perimeter fencing in June 2012,I respectfully request your assistance in distributing the attached to the Cannel Planning Commission members in addition to Mr.Reis. Thank you in advance for your assistance and please feel free to contact me with any questions. Jim and April Sanchez 1291 Bentley Way Cannel,IN 1 June 27,2012 Carmel Plan Commission c/o Ms. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Rezone Application: Highpointe on Meridian Docket No. 11120027 Z Dear Plan Commission Members: The following written statement is in response to the original Highpointe on Meridian plans and revised PUD plans prepared by Petitioner from February 21,2012 through May 25,2012. The Proposed Plan blatantly ignores documented Carmel Plan Commission requirements when addressing privacy,security and safety for the residents of Bentley Oaks and Park Meadow. As documented in the Carmel Plan Commission meeting minutes on February 21,2012,the Commission Members'Questions and Comments section references the following: • Plans should"...preserve the privacy,enjoyment,security and safety of those neighborhoods that are impacted...." • "Buffers for this type of proposal would have to be unique; a simple shadowbox fence is inadequate" • "Buffering and fencing needs to be up-graded substantially" Providing for the privacy, security and safety of impacted neighborhoods is not an option, is not a concession or means to claim after the planning process begins of"working with the neighbors". Providing for the privacy, security and safety is a requirement of any responsible builder and simply a cost of the overall project design. A concession would be prioritizing the building of a fence and landscaping at the onset of development. Building a fence also minimizes the risks associated with any development to both the builders and the impacted neighborhoods. Sporadically spaced trees and shrubs in non-summer months provide no privacy and do not provide any security and safety regardless of season. Attached with this document are pictures of other areas within the Carmel C3 zoning that have perimeter fences which responsible builders have built. All of these examples are within a few miles North or South of the planned development. Not only has Petitioner failed to provide adequate plans to date that ensures privacy,security and safety of Bentley Oaks and Park Meadow residents,they continue to ignore Cannel Plan Commission comments regarding these requirements. Thank you for your consideration. Please circulate a copy of this letter to each member of the Plan Commission. A copy of this letter is also being sent via email to our City Council Representative,Rick Sharp, and Mr. Regan's attorney,Paul Reis. Jim and April Sanchez Bentley Oaks 1291 Bentley Way Carmel, IN 46032 Cc: Rick Sharp, Paul Reis Iligbpoint-Perimeter Fence...._.doe.N Examples of other Carmel C3 Zone Fencing View from.Dicks Sporting Goods/Clay Terrace parking lot and adjacent Cedar Lake subdivision ' 111',., t �y . � . .'1,::',4!0.4`1,44.L 1"�'t # e0 fat. 1$ -.. �i t p ''',4'',0,' d F,,„,} , >P it b d IA v :'- Ea-a `d , add iii 4 t”.e i, t/ ,qg A $ 3 3 h `5 " 7 ,,,,, i °�'�; �•t s ' yr ' ` --.'' -� �? , ' t E� a 5 y -,', . ,° �5� p �z..;**; Si� a'.# Mgr ,,,,si e d f i f/ te ''''j-J- . n' g ; , ' :§ , , i F ' ' 1' : T I1 igtlpoint Perimeter Fence ,do ex 7 • View from Hunters Knoll subdivision adjacent to Meridian Village Plaza t,rr ti ' I;.f r0 a r S } ' el c.yaps., ��� �; f�c ',�; cj �--'' ...{. ... . _. -,::,: .:, , --1'1.,4 - .: , ,- • ' ,.. : ..,',' ,; . ,.,,,:r. - ... ..:,_„..5t,t- ;-:. ,.,,,,,,. . iT1" rr y.. '`' 1 tik 4µi. i.adA"'+'M`fy .i -!— HAJ y.,, mot' i� + ' T � ; ,' "� ii=,..— y` Lr i,. ., ',; r r..r. . S'''''0',, �„ . F r1 # t c � � h ,' f ' � -c i A y 7,- ' :'s If Nr 4.' ,.1 '' 1. 1e'r 'i ,,,.•,!i . ,4'V"',r," y';' r 1" }'"- - ' 94' C '-^ 'i r 'r rL r '�•'."}1 ' t.rcri"i. v .t.� – • °t' ''.'±' . ;Yi ,a .ti-.14�_.c L ... �r!' :,.a.'a::_ ,...4.14,..A,,.,.ft �Al IIighpoint Perirnekrr Fence _.docx 3 View from Illinois Street at The Ritz Charles adjacent to Spring Lake Estates subdivision. . , .0.110,Lt 1,- ' 4i, _•.,11,t--- ,-_,...t.. ,..t_._.::, -.,4„. .7-;ti.7.,, . -,-, ..-_,,.1,1,,, ,,._:,..,,. . __ ,. ...7_,,_ . , 1. , ,,, ,, _.-si,-**7,...... ,_„,.., ..t,_,-:._...„„...1,-,„;„ , ..,,,-L-- .:(--, ,,i-Ii-A.,,i„ c.:..",,, ,_ --_i_-,-.,,,, �,' p, Y .'t'1hi r� �- 'w'""`" -, ?,ti.—.....-.' ,I --y ,'", N. I '. . ` ,.- �y° .,�� ,�i�• q i R' fly r�� � 4 I 1�' IS ,'}�E¢ *, '; l • 1 1'»i L"4 r s. _ --1- ; ,J,: . '�ty -; y' �i i- ' L-I—.-.- ry ,;.tf_ k I� ,Y��,' t:',' I � L �4�'' r 'eY�' 'y y"I,� ; 0. a g 7 s"Y r'� ..� c T t, ,,I,' I• •,,,'1,},.�r ° !'£ �i kFt� _ R 1:;11'`‘,:". -er',,'A:? a t 1 ii A X 1 '��',� kti f�lL � d,�� t xR'�S�-f� ! v � £x,�J � � � .. ., 4$rr .y'�L, I., {}K aet 'e%n,qV,, -,i.,,, ii Y �*c• �i ,, s �+ �- l ' � ' �* a Bl�4 4' j'���.' C�!L '' 57* Si . �r a .�" r+t e a, '� it 41 s ''',f‘'',:t L'. J u'e F ,) t,•„ -.-"'.d•1 i ',F k SV' a��' Fits •• ' n Y✓ v•�S jrl ' a SM. ,. .�' ry �' ' 4.'I t• -.1 T,4gi ,, ,, 1 1;4:-r 4_Nt 't n44,,,' `f • .t . :)",;*<„,-,. 1,;.k.-, r,i"k 14.kwri*N3'./' • L.-= TA f,,,, .',,,:' , '�y t `j . 1' Higlhpoint PeritneL ;r E cnee .doex 4 Hancock, Ramona B From: Duncan, Krista [kduncan @aecindy.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:07 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Duncan Rusty Subject: Highpointe PUD on June 27th agenda Dear Members of the Plan Commission: I live in the Park Meadow neighborhood in Carmel, IN. My address is 13500 Dunes Drive. I am opposed to the high level of density and building heights proposed for the Highpointe PUD. This parcel is immediately adjacent to my neighborhood. The maximum height of buildings on this property should be kept at 2 stories. Two story buildings are the existing heights of the adjacent structures. Adding 3,4 or 5 story buildings to this land would be an inappropriate use of this property and would have a very detrimental effect on the surrounding residential homes. I am not opposed to this property being developed, however,a plan for this property that is better aligned with the residential homes surrounding this area (such as 2 level homes,town homes and/or condominiums); or, 2 story office buildings such as the medical offices immediately north of this land is acceptable. I also suggest that a traffic study be completed on the impact to the entrance of my neighborhood off of Illinois street be completed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Krista Duncan 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: rustyduncan @indy.rr.com Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:14 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe PUD Dear Members of the Plan Commission, I reside in the Park Meadow subdivision at 13500 Dunes Drive in Carmel. I am writing to express my opposition to high-density development and, in my opinion, excessive building heights that have been proposed for the Highpointe PUD, with respect to nearby residential and commercial properties. This property is adjacent to my subdivision, and the construction of three-story or higher residential or business units next to multiple neighborhoods with two-story homes will negatively impact quality of life and property values for many homeowners in the surrounding area. I am in favor of development on this property that is in harmony with its surrounding neighborhoods - i.e., commercial or residential properties that do not exceed two stories. I ask you to consider the commercial properties such as Generations in Dentistry and Security Home Inspections, which sit across from the Shakamac Drive entrance to Park Meadow on Illinois Street, as good examples of development that complements its residential neighbors, instead of towering over them. I would also ask that a traffic study be conducted at the intersection of Illinois Street and Shakamac Drive, to determine the impact of proposed development for Highpointe on existing residences and businesses. Thanks, Rusty Duncan Rusty Duncan Carmel, IN 1 Parks at Spring Mill, Village of Mt. Carmel, Bentley Oaks, and Thistlewood Subdivisions c/o Brad Cisco, Parks at Spring Mill HOA President 221 Wyndotte Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 June 4, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee c/o Ms. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Rezone Application: Highpointe on Meridian Docket No. 11120027 Z Dear Ms. Hancock: On behalf of the residents of the Parks at Springmill, Bentley Oaks, Village of Mt. Cannel and Thistlewood subdivisions, we submit the following written statement setting forth our response to the revised PUD plans prepared by Petitioner on May 25. This letter is intended only to supplement, not replace, our previous correspondence. Petitioner has failed to provide a revised traffic study, as directed by the Commission. At the February 21 Plan Commission meeting, Petitioner was directed to obtain a new traffic study contracted for by the City of Carmel and paid for by Petitioner. This has not been done, to our knowledge. The Proposed Plans call for more than two dozen apartment buildings, a tall commercial building up to 60 feet high, and a large senior living center. We believe rezoning the property will result in a dramatic increase in vehicular traffic and Petitioner has failed to provide any adequate evidence to the contrary. We believe that completion of the 31 upgrade at 136th and US 31 a few years after the proposed construction of Highpointe will not significantly aid in moving traffic in and out of this development because higher volumes of traffic will move north and south through the 131st& Illinois-Street roundabout, further preventing current Residents' access to Illinois Street at the south end of Park Meadow. Petitioner has failed to provide additional studies and exhibits as directed by the Commission. Petitioner has ignored suggestions from the Department to submit an exhibit showing building shadows, a shadow study, or any sightline exhibits from the proposed buildings to adjacent houses. Petitioner has broken his previous promise to restrict the height of buildings to be developed on the property to a maximum of three stories in height, not to exceed 40 feet. Rezone covenants were adopted as part of Petitioner's previous 1991 rezone approval for this parcel. The first covenant was that the building heights were restricted to be a maximum of 3 stories in height, not to exceed 40 feet. The second covenant was that the height of buildings fronting on or adjacent to 136th Street were restricted to 2 stories,not to exceed 30 feet, and the architecture of such buildings shall maintain a residential appearance. The building heights in Carmel Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee June 4, 2012 Page 2 the revised PUD ordinance ignore both Petitioner's earlier promises and the Commission's direction at the February 21 hearing, where the Commission indicated that the previous height limitations for the parcel should be enforced. The proposed PUD ordinance still allows for building heights nearly twice that of the homes in the area. The proposed plans allow for buildings up to 60 feet tall, which is nearly double the height of neighboring homes and over 50% higher than the height currently permitted by the Parcel's zoning. The proposed PUD runs counter to current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in this district. Petitioner has also failed to remove the 35% variance language from the PUD ordinance. Despite direction from the Commission that building height would be"locked in" without any possibility of a variance, Petitioner still proposes to allow for a 35%variance in building height from the ordinance's already-oversized buildings. The ability for the Plan Commission to grant a 35% waiver in dimension construction after the rezoning process from the PUD Ordinance is inappropriate. The Proposed Plans do not provide for significantly reduced lighting or noise in the evening. The proposed parking lots, apartments and senior living will subject the surrounding homeowners to significant noise and light pollution. The Department's suggestion to add lighting screens has also been ignored by Petitioner, to the detriment of the surrounding homeowners, as well as a recommendation to prohibit any drive-thru for any purpose. The Proposed Plans permit 24-hour commercial uses. Some uses outlined in the proposed plan suggest or even specify 24 hour operations. We feel the Permitted uses (Tab#4, Section 3) should be much more defined and also prohibit 24-hour commercial operation. We also feel that the uses should incorporate Service Node applications required adjacent to S-2 as outlined in the C3 Plan. The buffering between the proposed development and existing homes remains inadequate. We have requested that Petitioner build a 5 foot berm with densely planted, tall evergreens (20 feet on center is not densely planted) on the inside of the existing tree-line separating the residential properties from this development, which roughly corresponds to the beginning of the currently-tilled land on this site. Petitioner's plan to clear-cut all of the existing mature trees separating the property owners from this development and replace them with widely-spaced new plantings and a grassy, dry-retention area does not provide the sort of buffering envisioned by the C3 Plan. We also question whether a 50-foot swath of grass will adequately collect all the water run-off from the vast expanse of concrete to be poured over this parcel. More trees should also be planted within the proposed development than currently presented. The revised PUD Plan still fails to comply with IC §36-7-4-603. The Proposed Plans still contrast harshly with the surrounding neighborhoods with respect to building height and orientation, character, land use, and density(increased to 19.8 units/acre for multi-family and 22.3 units/acre for retirement portion)in violation of the C3 Plan. (City-Wide Policy and 2 Carmel Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee June 4, 2012 Page 3 Objective 1.4). Objective 4.6 is to "disallow incompatible site and building designs," and the sheer number and density of the buildings proposed on this site is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes. We fail to see how this PUD will encourage investment in new techniques and/or technologies that provide superior living and development arrangements compared to traditional land uses. It simply remains an attempt to rezone this land to allow for high-density, multi- family residential uses. This proposed ordinance does not act for the purposes of securing adequate light, air, convenience of access, lessening or avoiding congestion in public ways, promoting the public health, safety, comfort, and general welfare as is required under Indiana law. Not only has Petitioner failed to provide a plan that establishes its buildings will be compatible with surrounding land uses,but there is no indication that traffic will be managed in a manner that creates conditions favorable to the harmonious development of the community following the higher intensity uses proposed by this PUD. Thank you for your consideration. Please circulate a copy of this letter to each member of the Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee. A copy of this letter is also being sent to our City Council Representative,Rick Sharp, and Mr. Regan's attorney, Paul Reis. Very truly yours, Parks at Springmill HOA. By: PPT/BC Brad Cisco, President cc: Rick Sharp Paul Reis 3 Hancock, Ramona B From: E. Anderson [evie.anderson @gmx.com] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:07 AM To: Adams, John; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Hagan, Judy; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan; Wilfong, Ephraim Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD Dear Carmel Plan Commission Members, My name is Evie Anderson and I am a Bentley Oaks homeowner. We purchased our homes confident that we would never fear living behind an apartment complex based on not one,but two very solid reasons: 1. The current B-5 zoning does not allow apartments. 2. The Regan parcel is in the US 31 overlay; which does not allow apartments. Yet, what is looming on the horizon? Apartments! How can this be?? .Please do the right thing by those of us who trusted the rules on the books. With appreciation, Evie Anderson 1235 Bentley Way Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 815-5856 1 From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:32 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Foley, Amanda J; McBride, Mike T; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue.-Wold, Alexia K Subject: Engineering Dept. statement about traffic & Highpointe PUD Angie, we have prepared the following for the meeting tonight. Neither Mike nor I can be at the meeting tonight. The Department has reviewed the Trip Generation report developed by A&F Engineering dated June 25, 2012. The information is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is the nationally recognized standard for developing traffic "trips"associated with proposed development and for use in traffic studies that assess improvements necessary to existing infrastructure to accommodate traffic generated from proposed development. Illinois Street was designed and the US-31 improvement are being designed to accommodate the traffic that would be generated from this parcel utilizing the current zoning. The Trip Generation report dated June 25, 2012 demonstrates that the proposed use will generate significantly less peak hour and daily traffic than the current zoning allows. it is important to note that any improvements to the Illinois Street intersections with Main Street and 136th Street to accommodate traffic from this development would not be expected to resolve the current issues at these intersections. The current issues will be resolved with the improvements to US-31. The buildout timeframe of this development will be concurrent with or be longer than the timeframe for the improvements to US-31. Considering that the proposed use will generate less traffic than the current zoning allows and will generate less traffic than was anticipated in'the design of Illinois Street and the US-31 improvements, the Department of Engineering will not request any further traffic studies in association with the re-zone request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks so much, Gary R. Duncan,Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2441 (317)571-2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:35 PM To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Foley, Amanda J; McBride, Mike T; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: Can you attend the June 27 Committee meeting? • Con n, Ajelina V • From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 3:01 PM To: Jim Shields Cc: Barnes, David R; Conn, Angelina V; Redden, Nick; Thomas, John G Subject: Highpointe on Meridian Good afternoon Jim. Please find my comments below for the Highpointe on Meridian PUD Concept Plan.These comments are in addition to any that may have been issued by Nick Redden and/or John Thomas of this office. 1. Subsurface drain will be required under all curbing in the right-of-way. 2. The Department assumes that internal "streets" will not be to City standard. 3. A drainage summary per Section 102.02 (xi)(m)of the Storm Water Technical Standards shall be included on the plan. 4. The relocation of any utilities to accommodate this project shall be the sole responsibility of the petitioner. 5. All paving in the right-of-way shall be to City standard. 6. All curbing shall meet the City standard. 7. All first left turn movements off of entrance drives shall be a minimum of 150-feet from the northern pavement edge of Illinois Street. 8. The westernmost full access appears to have a very narrow median opening.Also, the sight distance from the travel lanes on Illinois Street to this proposed access points shall be verified. 9. The Department is still reviewing the need to widen the existing path to 10-feet.Work would include widening, milling the existing path surface course and placing a 1.5-inch course over the existing milled and newly widened surface. °Please confirm with the DOCS that the roadways at the front of the buildings and the proposed on-street parking in certain areas on these roadways is acceptable. 11. Are all existing easements indicated on the concept plan? 12. Are new easements proposed with this development? 13. The MLAG/MFPG elevations will need to consider, among other things,the highest water surface elevation of the following: a. Existing off-site and proposed on-site overflow weir elevations. b. Flood route across the property from the on-site and off-site detention ponds. c. On-site inlets in a plugged condition during the 100-year rain event. G Illinois Street is indicated as a Secondary Parkway on the Thoroughfare Plan and requires a 130-foot right-of- way. 1�5 136`h Street is indicated as a Residential Parkway with a 100-foot right-of-way. 16. Why is the drop off area of the Senior Living Facility proposed to be located at a right-in/right-out only access? Is this the peak traffic volume generator for this facility? 17. The Department would like to further review the grading along the property lines when more detailed plans are developed. 18. The City Standard commercial cub cut is 30-feet in width with 40-foot return radii. Please provide detail on all proposed entrances.The standard is also for these to be concrete aprons within the right-of-way at 8-inch minimum thickness with reinforcing and a City Standard depressed curb across the entrance. 19. Is the full width right-of-way being detained and stubs provided to the right-of-way for future connection? 1 20. The entrance to the apartment area seems extremely congested at a point very close to the main access from the public right-of-way. 21. The Department is requesting the existing median opening on 136th Street be closed by the petitioner. Such work shall include: a. Pavement and curbing and underlying aggregate removal. b. Installation of new curbing and lane edge striping. c. Soil backfill with 6-inch minimum topsoil (or as specified by the Street Department) in the new median area. d. Installation of landscaping consistent with the existing landscaping in the new median area. 22. The Department will require written confirmation from the pipeline that they are agreeable to the proposed improvements within their easement. 23. The 100-year elevation or pond top of bank shall be separated from road right-of-way by a minimum of 50-feet unless a barrier is provided. 24. If needed,the Department will provide the mainline pavement sections of Illinois Street and 136th Street. 25. Are any City Engineering Standards proposed to be modified by this PUD? 26. Please check all proposed entrances for auxiliary lane warrants per the INDOT standard. If the warrants are satisfied, auxiliary lanes shall be provided. 27. Please label the dimensions of the median auxiliary lanes. How were these distances established?The tapers look short for the speed limit and are the left turn lanes adequate to allow for proper stacking? 28. The drainage concept as discussed is acceptable. The Department reserves the right to provide further comments when more detailed information is submitted. 29. More definition of the proposed storm water quality system must be provided before the Department approves the concept plan. 30. City standards prohibit detention facilities on individual lots. Such facilities must be in common area. 31. Since the drainage system will be private and not maintained by the City, the Department will consider reduced width drainage easements for SWQ and Detention. However, as we discussed, maintenance is a concern and width for proper maintenance needs to be considered by the petitioner. 32. If this development is platted, perimeter easements per the Subdivision Control Ordinance will need to be provided. Thanks so much, Gary R. Duncan,Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2441 (317) 571-2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:14 AM To: 'John Adams (Home)'; 'jay @goweighless.com'; 'Brad Grabow'; 'Nick Kestner'; 'Joshua Kirsh'; 'indylawson @gmail.com'; The Point Betsie InterNetwork-Alan Potasnik'; Rider, Kevin D; 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'Suewestermeier @aol.com'; Wilfong, Ephraim Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Highpointe PUD Good Morning, Commission Members: Please see email below regarding Highpointe on Meridian PUD Ramona Original Message From: flisOiquest.net [mailto:flisPiquest.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:30 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: webmasterPatheparksatspringmill.com Subject: Highpointe PUD To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of The Parks at Springmill, and I do not believe the Highpointe PUD should be allowed. 1. The city made a contractual agreement not to put apartments or large buildings there many years ago. 2. There is already enough traffic in the area, and rush hour would be overwhelming. 3. Our schools are full. 4. The high density would detract from the adjacent neighborhoods. 5. That piece of land was not zoned residential. CITY OF CARMEL: PLEASE STOP CHANGING ZONING! ! ! Caroline Flis 13401 Kingsbury Drive, Carmel IN 46032 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:15 PM To: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V; Boone, Rachel M. Cc: 'Paul G. Reis'; 'John Molitor' Subject: • FW: Highpointe rebuttle FYI Ramona From: Brad Cisco [mailto:bciscoindy.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:49 PM To: Kirsh, Joshua A; Adams, John; Potasnik, Alan; Grabow, Bradford S; Wilfong, Ephraim; Dorman, Jay; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; Lawson,Steve; Westermeier, Susan Cc: Sally Bryan; RUTH STAHLY; Steve Trautman; Mary Hogan; Bill Bryan; Brad Cohen; Debbie Hennessey; Greg Hess; Jim Hennessey; Peter Ten Eyck; Rob White; Jill Meisenheimer; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe rebuttle Dear Special Studies Committee and Zoning Commissioners: Thank you very much for your attention to details of the Highpointe PUD proposal. It is customary for the petitioners and The Department to have rebuttle time at the meetings. This is just one part of this process slanted towards the developers so I'd like to take this opportunity to make a rebuttle for the many citizens I represent. We disagree with The Department Representative's statements that the revised plans have addressed the numerous issues/challenges that you have posed to them in previous hearings. In fact, it's difficult to think that the Department participated in the same meetings in which we have attended given their unwillingness to see how this PUD ignores the challenges we all have voiced in the public hearing and subsequent subcommittee meetings. The most glaring of the issues being ignored is the height covenants to which Mr Regan agreed in order to obtain his last rezoning approvals. We do agree with The Department's previous report as it relates to this site being a "conditional fit" option within the Employment Node and the best option for this parcel to be Neighborhood Support Center. • Why is The Department disregarding their previous recommendation for this land in favor of this PUD?? • Why is The Department so enamored with this proposal that is so counter to their previous recommendation?? • Why is the employment node facet of this location being ignored?? • Why the flip-flopping on the desired use for this land?? Please do not throw out the many years of thoughtful planning and the commitments that were made to us when this parcel was last rezoned. No matter how emotional the Department Representative or the Citizens become about apartments, no matter the Department Representative's personal opinions about apartments, the petitioners and The Department are ignoring the contract that the City made during the last rezoning petition with respect to the building height covenants. Once again, Highpointe has been repackaged without regard for. • the covenants legally attached to this land • improving the area with service node ideas • concrete plan for barriers. The sole purpose for presenting this PUD is to throw out the covenants, throw out many years of careful planning and build a high-density development on an unsuitable piece of land. 1 We challenge each of you to honor the contract made to us the last time this parcel was rezoned. We challenge you to NOT permit a PUD to wipe out this contract. The PUD should conform to the height covenants just as B5 developers would conform to them. There are other ways to develop this land in order to improve this part of Carmel. Please move in this direction to improve our neighborhood and bring tax revenues to the City. Thank you, Brad Cisco The Parks at Springmill HOA 221 Wyndotte Dr. Carmel, IN 46032 Cell 317.333.9713 • 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:22 PM To: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V; Boone, Rachel M. Cc: 'Paul G. Reis'; 'John Molitor' Subject: FW: Highpointe Project FYI Ramona From: Sally Bryan [mailto:sallybryan59@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:52 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Adams, John; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; Rider, Kevin D Subject: Highpointe Project • June 28, 2012 Dear Special Studies Committee: We attended last evening's session and want to say "thank you"to the four who have shown concern and respect for the existing residents issues regarding the proposed Highpointe Project. It should be obvious to all who attended this meeting that the issues of the covenants legally attached to this parcel were totally ignored. The zoning has gone from residential to business and now there are members in the Carmel City Government who desire to "railroad"through a PUD for the sake of a few. The attorney for the petitioner made a plea regarding the "time, energy and funding" that has been poured into the proposed project by the potential buyers. The residents who reside around this parcel of land were ignored. We, too, have spent time, money and energy. We placed our faith/trust in the City of Carmel, purchased our homes based on this faith; some of us older residents will want to sell the property we have so carefully tended over the years in order to retire. We see our property values sinking with a PUD in the future. It appears to us that the City of Carmel is in the process of breaking the current covenant in favor a few people and tax dollars. We were shocked that a member of the city staff took such a personal interest in this project and spoke in favor of the apartments. This was recorded and is on record. I would imagine that most of us in that room have, at one time or another, lived in an apartment. I know we have. The issue is apartments do NOT FIT in this area and the zoning now in place does not allow apartments. We purchased/built our homes based on the zoning covenant in place. (We are not referring to "size" but location.) The safety issues were ignored. We were stunned that one member of the panel made a"lame comment" regarding the elderly and children and how "fears" were not a reality. The traffic issues were ignored. The traffic situation was in place long before the US 31 construction started. We have to be VERY careful when backing out of our driveway due to "drive through"traffic; speeders and those who fail to yield for the stop sign. A lady spoke up last night regarding a recent"could have been" fatal accident involving a speeder; police unable to get to the scene quickly, etc." Should the final vote go in favor of this offensive project, the mayor and members of the council will NOT be subjected to the ill effects of their broken promises. Many, many people will suffer emotionally and financially. Peaceful existence will disappear, security gone, safety gone, and years of hard work, mortgage payments wasted. For what? The gain of a few! To quote a rebuttal already sent to you, "we challenge each of you to honor the contract made to us the last time this parcel was rezoned. We challenge you to NOT permit a PUD to wipe out this contract. The PUD should conform to the height covenants just as B5 developers would conform to them. There are other ways to develop this land in order to improve this part of Carmel. Please move in this direction to improve our neighborhood and bring tax revenues to the City." 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Littlejohn, David W Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:30 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Bicycle Parking - Highpointe PUD I am not sure why they don't want to include bike parking for the apartments specifically, but it still sounds like they are trying to work around requiring bike parking(bike racks)for the apartments. If they take the language out of the PUD it doesn't mean people won't be able to park their bikes in their garages, but it would help ensure residents without garages would have a safe way to store their bikes. I understand that they are trying to provide an out for us by allowing the director to have the final say, but if they drop the language now they can still address this when they come back for their DP. If they don't want to provide bike parking per the ordinance couldn't they work with us on an acceptable resolution or just ask for a variance when they apply for the DP? At that point they may have more information on how many bike spaces are required, how many garages will be considered for bike spaces, how many bike racks will be provided, and any other potential creative ways they plan to accommodate bikes. If they leave it as is it would be like they already got their variance and won't have to • comply with the ordinance. There are bike parking issues in multiple apartment developments in Carmel. I think it would be best to resolve any potential problems before they occur. Rather than just taking out the requirement now, I think they should strike the language from the PUD and readdress this we they and/or we have more information. • Thanks, David Littlejohn, AICP Alternative Transportation Coordinator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Sq Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2306 EA Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:46 PM To: Littlejohn, David W Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: FW: Bicycle Parking - Highpointe PUD David— What do you think? Angie From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preisthkdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:17 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: Bicycle Parking • Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis@kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:21 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Angie I will pass on your comments to the team. Please remember that this is a PUD and that as such it is a legislative act to be determined by the Council solely for this real estate. If the text is stricken.The DP/ADLS would be required to conform to the Bicycle Parking provisions absent a variance,waiver or amendment to PUD. The is no certainty on flexibility later. If there is or can be flexibility let's discuss this now. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:35 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Hi, Paul— thanks for adding the requirement for sidewalks to be along Private streets! I think that David just wants that text stricken from the PUD text, altogether, about private garages satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for multi family housing. Then, if/when the DP/ADLS petition comes through, there could be some flexibility on that, but there would also be compliance with the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance...And, remember, 2 bikes can be parked on 1 inverted U bike rack. Thanks, Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:50 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Attached is the revised PUD with the change for sidewalks that was inadvertently omitted. We respectfully agree to disagree on the requirement that garages cannot be used to satisfy bicycle parking. I am meeting with Daren in a few minutes and may have additional changes. Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn(&carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday,June 26, 2012 2:14 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.corn] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:17 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: Bicycle Parking Here is some alternative language for bicycle parking that we are proposing for your consideration. "Bicycle parking spaces in Private Garages located in a Multi-Family Housing Complex may be considered in satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required under the Carmel Zoning Ordinance, upon the review and approval of the Director." Best regards, Paul From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:35 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Hi, Paul— thanks for adding the requirement for sidewalks to be along Private streets! I think that David just wants that text stricken from the PUD text, altogether, about private garages satisfying the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for multi family housing. Then, if/when the DP/ADLS petition comes through, there could be some flexibility on that, but there would also be compliance with the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance...And, remember, 2 bikes can be parked on 1 inverted U bike rack. Thanks, Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Paul G. Reis [mailto:preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:50 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wald, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Attached is the revised PUD with the change for sidewalks that was inadvertently omitted. We respectfully agree to disagree on the requirement that garages cannot be used to satisfy bicycle parking. I am meeting with Daren in a few minutes and may have additional changes. Best regards, Paul From:,Conn, Angelina V [mailto:AconnClacarmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:14 PM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Revised PUD Ordinance - Highpointe on Meridian Good afternoon, Paul— Hancock, Ramona B From: Sally Bryan [sallybryan59 @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:52 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Adams, John; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; Rider, Kevin D Subject: Highpointe Project June 28, 2012 Dear Special Studies Committee: We attended last evening's session and want to say"thank you"to the four who have shown concern and respect for the existing residents issues regarding the proposed Highpointe Project. It should be obvious to all who attended this meeting that the issues of the covenants legally attached to this parcel were totally ignored. The zoning has gone from residential to business and now there are members in the Carmel City Government who desire to "railroad"through a PUD for the sake of a few. The attorney for the petitioner made a plea regarding the "time, energy and funding" that has been poured into the proposed project by the potential buyers. The . residents who reside around this parcel of land were ignored. We, too, have spent time, money and energy. We placed our faith/trust in the City of Carmel, purchased our homes based on this faith; some of us older residents will want to sell the property we have so carefully tended over the years in order to retire. We see our, property values sinking with a PUD in the future. It appears to us that the City of Carmel is in the process of breaking the current covenant in favor a few people and tax dollars. We were shocked that a member of the city staff took such a personal interest in this project and spoke in favor of the apartments. This was recorded and is on record. I would imagine that most of us in that room have, at one time or another, lived in an apartment. I know we have. The issue is apartments do NOT FIT in this area and the zoning now in place does not allow apartments. We purchased/built our homes based on the zoning covenant in place. (We are not referring to "size" but location.) The safety issues were ignored. We were stunned that one member of the panel made a "lame comment" regarding the elderly and children and how"fears"were not a reality. The traffic issues were ignored. The traffic situation was in place long before the US 31 construction started. We have to be VERY careful when backing out of our driveway due to "drive through"traffic; speeders and those who fail to yield for the stop sign. A lady spoke up last night regarding a recent"could have been"fatal accident involving a speeder; police unable to get to the scene quickly, etc." Should the final vote go in favor of this offensive project, the mayor and members of the council will NOT be subjected to the ill effects of their broken promises. Many, many people will suffer emotionally and financially. Peaceful existence will disappear, security gone, safety gone, and years of hard work, mortgage payments wasted. For what? The gain of a few! To quote a rebuttal already sent to you, "we challenge each of you to honor the contract made to us the last time this parcel was rezoned. We challenge you to NOT permit a PUD to wipe out this contract. The PUD should conform to the . height covenants just as B5 developers would conform to them. There are other ways to develop this land in order to improve this part of Carmel. Please move in this direction to improve our neighborhood and bring tax revenues to the City." Respectfully submitted, Bill and Sally Bryan 13510 Versailles Drive Carmel, IN 46032 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Brad Cisco [bcisco @indy.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:49 PM .To: Kirsh, Joshua A; Adams, John; Potasnik, Alan; Grabow, Bradford S; Wilfong, Ephraim; Dorman, Jay; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Westermeier, Susan Cc: Sally Bryan; RUTH STAHLY; Steve Trautman; Mary Hogan; Bill Bryan; Brad Cohen; Debbie Hennessey; Greg Hess; Jim Hennessey; Peter Ten Eyck; Rob White; Jill Meisenheimer; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe rebuttle Dear Special Studies Committee and Zoning Commissioners: Thank you very much for your attention to details of the Highpointe PUD proposal. It is customary for the petitioners and The Department to have rebuttle time at the meetings. This is just one part of this process slanted towards the developers so I'd like to take this opportunity to make a rebuttle for the many citizens I represent. We disagree with The Department Representative's statements that the revised plans have addressed the numerous ;issues/challenges that you have posed to them in previous hearings. In fact, it's difficult to think that the Department participated in the same meetings in which we have attended given their unwillingness to see how this PUD ignores the challenges we all have voiced in the public hearing and subsequent subcommittee meetings. The most glaring of the issues being ignored is the height covenants to which Mr Regan agreed in order to obtain his last rezoning approvals. We do agree with The Department's previous report as it relates to this site being a "conditional fit" option within the Employment Node and the best option for this parcel to be Neighborhood Support Center. • Why is The Department disregarding their previous recommendation for this land in favor of this PUD?? • Why is The Department so enamored with this proposal that is so counter to their previous recommendation?? • Why is the employment node facet of this location being ignored?? • Why the flip-flopping on the desired use for this land?? Please do not throw out the many years of thoughtful planning and the commitments that were made to us when this parcel was last rezoned. No matter how emotional the Department Representative or the Citizens become about apartments, no matter the Department Representative's personal opinions about apartments, the petitioners and The Department are ignoring the contract that the City made during the last rezoning petition with respect to the building height covenants. Once again, Highpointe has been repackaged without regard for. • the covenants legally attached to this land • improving the area with service node ideas • concrete plan for barriers. The sole purpose for presenting this PUD is to throw out the covenants, throw out many years of careful planning and build a high-density development on an unsuitable piece of land. We challenge each of you to honor the contract made to us the last time this parcel was rezoned. We challenge you to NOT permit a PUD to wipe out this contract. The PUD should conform to the height covenants just as B5 developers would'conform to them. There are other ways to develop this land in order to improve this part of Carmel. Please move in this direction to improve our neighborhood and bring tax revenues to the City. Thank you, Brad Cisco The Parks at Springmill HOA 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: flis @iquest.net Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:30 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: webmaster @theparksatspringmill.com Subject: Highpointe PUD To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of The Parks at Springmill, and I do not believe the Highpointe PUD should be allowed. 1. The city made a contractual agreement not to put apartments or large buildings there many years ago. 2. There is already enough traffic in the area, and rush hour would be overwhelming. 3. Our schools are full. 4. The high density would detract from the adjacent neighborhoods. 5. That piece of land was not zoned residential. CITY OF CARMEL: PLEASE STOP CHANGING ZONING! ! ! Caroline Flis 13401 Kingsbury Drive, Carmel IN 46032 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 1 AIWA Hancock, Ramona B From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:08 AM To: 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'indylawson @gmail.com'; 'Alan Potasnik'; Rider, Kevin D; 'John Adams (Home)' Subject: FW: Public Record Response for tonight's meeting Attachments: Bentley_Oaks_Statement_June_27_2012[1].docx Hello Committee Members: RE: This eve's meeting. . . . Please see email xand,,,,a,�ttachment -From Mary Hogan on behalf of Bentley Oaks regarding H g! p Inte �,on Mer ld!anx See You All This Eve! Ramona Original Message From: Mary Hogan [mailto:mehogan270gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:44 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Cohen, Brad; Brad Cisco; RUTH STAHLY; ghess1320sbcglobal.net; rwhite(aindy.rr.com Subject: Public Record Response for tonight's meeting Good morning Ramona; Thank you for your recent communications and information regarding the agenda items for tonight's meeting at 6 PM. The Homeowner's Association of Bentley Oaks and it's residents would like to respectfully submit the attached response for review by the Special Studies Subcommittee, should the Petitioner's submit plans to the Committee that have not been reivewed by any of the Homeowner's Associations (Bentley Oaks, Park Meadow, Thistlewood, Village of Mount Carmel) . We would like to have the opportunity to respond to the Committee by reading the attached statement. Can you please forward this information to the members of the Committee? As always, we appreciate all that you continue to do for us. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mary Hogan 1 Bentley Oaks Homeowner's Association P. O. Box 373 Carmel,Indiana 46082-0373 June 27, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee c/o Ms. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Rezone Application: Highpointe on Meridian - PUD/Planned Unit Development Docket No. 11120027 Z • Good evening, my name is Mary Hogan and I am a representative of the Bentley Oaks Homeowner's Association. On behalf of the residents of Bentley Oaks, we submit the following written statement setting forth our response to Petitioner's rezone application: First, let me say that we are confused and somewhat disappointed in the Petitioner's new and calculated strategy of bypassing homeowner association involvement in this process. Specifically in Bentley Oaks, we have 22 of our 49 properties directly adjoining the land parcel of the Petitioner's proposed build out. We feel that these 22 properties are of great importance and we wish to continue sharing ideas that will lead to the overall beautification and enhancement for ALL. With that being said,we do not want to continue belaboring points involving traffic, building heights, variances or city codes. Those important factors have already been discussed at great length in prior meetings. Tonight we are "cutting to the chase" and are expressing our deepest concern in the Petitioner's proposed use of land.....and that is its use for APARTMENTS. We have researched many apartment communities and builders and have come to a conclusion the JC Hart Company does seem to build quality and appealing apartment communities. When the properties are new,they attract individuals that are excited about being the first residents of a brand new community. It may give them the feeling of being in on the ground floor of something special, maybe similar to the feeling of building your own home. However, what happens over time for many apartment communities is a different story. Properties become outdated, they face maintenance issues, change in management and that "feeling of something special" is no longer there. When this occurs, there is a dramatic change in clientele as the risk for"undesirable individuals" inhabiting the apartment community increases and we all know that those differences in population exist, even in Carmel. We see this issue very clearly and hope that you will too. Bentley Oaks Homeowner's Association P. O. Box 373 Carmel,Indiana 46082-0373 To illustrate our point, our research included locating tenant comments in regards to living in specific JC Hart Company apartment communities that have now aged in the range of only 7-15 years. It is important that we share these ratings so that everyone may gain a better understanding of what the future "may" hold years from now for an aging apartment community. The source, apartmentratings.com, is a national forum for tenants to leave positive or negative feedback on the various apartment communities that they live and/or have lived in. The following are some excerpts in regards to the JC Hart Community—Linden Square Village Apartments, 1070 Cobblestone Drive, Indianapolis, IN: Very Scary From: eric70 Date posted: 12/18/2009 Years at this apartment: 2007-01-01 -2009-01-01 (two years) "I can't believe the rapid decline that has occurred at Linden Square. Over the past few months the complex has been overrun by teenagers who look like they are preparing for a gang war. The grounds are littered with dog excrement, although there are clean-up stations all over the complex. People are so inconsiderate here they actually let their dogs defecate on the sidewalk. Sleeping through the night is difficult because almost on a nightly basis, a car will cruise by with bass so loud you will feel like the windows are vibrating. I have no idea if the complex runs a criminal check on residents. My guess is a no because I don't think you can walk down the street in Linden Square without passing a felon. Residents aren't even the worst part, there is a fence that has been breached and you wouldn't believe the riffraff that walks through that gap." The Health Department From: -Anonymous- Date posted: 7/31/2010 Years at this apartment: 2008-01-01 -2010-01-01 (two years) • "The Hendricks County Health Department Shut Down The Pool!! So overdue, they should step in and shut down the entire complex. I guess the ultimate solution for this place isn't the health department. A wonderful felony sweep by the police department would be great. They would have to bring a fleet of paddy wagons. Such a scary place to live, the criminals are taking over, it is like prison for the decent." • Bentley Oaks Homeowner's Association P. O. Box 373 Cannel,Indiana 46082-0373 Some comments from tenants at JC Hart—Grassy Creek Apartments, 6764 Lambert St, Indianapolis, Indiana write: This place put me in therapy From: -Anonymous- Date posted: 1/11/2012 Years at this apartment: 2009-01-01 -2012-01-01 (three years) "There was a fire in the building next to me last year, a stabbing at the corner of MY building and a lot of generally shady looking characters wandering around the property. My husband's car was side-swiped and also had all the gas siphoned out of it. Then a few weeks later, his catalytic converter was cut off the vehicle- RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR UNIT! I've had to report drunken fights between my neighbors in front of the building on more than one occasion. I've seen drug deals taking place on the corner and I shouldn't have to be scared to death to get out of my car or double and triple check my locks when we get inside-but I do." Again, from a tenant at Grassy Creek: going downhill From: -Anonymous- Date posted: 1/18/2005 Years at this apartment: 1997-01-01 -2004-01-01 (seven years) "Grassy Creek was once not that bad. But now there are a lot of bad seeds that have moved in and its turning into a ghetto. The police are there all the time. There are always people out in the streets yelling and fighting at night, especially on the weekends. Two kids actually got hit by a car while I was there. I would not suggest moving in." Bentley Oaks Homeowner's Association P. O. Box 373 Carmel,Indiana 46082-0373 And finally, a comment that really hits home and shows what can happen to an apartment community over time. This JC Hart tenant at the BayShore Apartments,1534 Sandy Bay Drive,Greenwood, IN writes: Potential, but unfortunate disaster From: photowolf35 a yahoo.com Date posted: 3/25/2007 Years at this apartment: 2006-01-01 -2006-01-01 (one year) "I lived at BayShore with my girlfriend for almost a year before we were allowed out of our lease via the Johnson County Board of Health, but the complex didn't fight it either. During our stay we had several ceiling leaks, bug problems, mold, very bad dog waste problems, loud music, and two units below us had domestic violence about 3 times a week. Parking is an absolute nightmare... and this did seem to be in large caused by the complex allowing numerous residents to stay in single units... meaning one apartment could have 4 or 5 cars to it. Police were in the complex multiple times per day. I spoke with some officers when I would have to call and report the domestic violence below us, and they said the complex was in very bad shape and they had lots of calls there. I would suggest you check with the police department and request them to give you their information on this place before you move-in, especially if you have children." Obviously, all of these comments are terrifying and no one would desire to live some 50 yards from this type of environment. We could shrug it off or turn our head by saying "that could only happen on the Southside or Westside, but that would never happen here in Carmel". Why would be so blind as to think that an apartment community will not deteriorate or become outdated, whether it is 6, 10 or 15 years down the road. Are we above believing that "scrupulous" or"undesirable" individuals only inhabit apartment communities in areas deemed "high-risk crime" or"lower income" but certainly not in our backyards (literally) here in Carmel! We respectfully ask that the Carmel Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee consider not only the current rezoning issue at hand, but please consider the future impact of this critical decision. We thank you for allowing us to share in the process and we look forward to an outcome that enhances the Carmel community for years to come. From: Duncan, Gary R • Sent: . Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:32 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Foley, Amanda J; McBride, Mike T; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: Engineering Dept. statement about traffic & Highpointe PUD Angie, we have prepared the following for the meeting tonight. Neither Mike nor I can be at the meeting tonight. The Department has reviewed the Trip Generation report developed by A&F Engineering dated June 25, 2012. The information is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is the nationally recognized standard for developing traffic "trips"associated with proposed development and for use in traffic studies that assess improvements necessary to existing infrastructure to accommodate traffic generated from proposed development. Illinois Street was designed and the US-31 improvement are being designed to accommodate the traffic that would be generated from this parcel utilizing the current zoning. The Trip Generation report dated June 25, 2012 demonstrates that the proposed use will generate significantly less peak hour and daily traffic than the current zoning allows. It is important to note that any improvements to the Illinois Street intersections with Main Street and 136`x'Street to accommodate traffic from this development would not be expected to resolve the current issues at these intersections. The current issues will be resolved with the improvements to US-31. The buildout timeframe of this development will be concurrent with or be longer than the timeframe for the improvements to US-31. Considering that the proposed use will generate less traffic than the current zoning allows and will generate less traffic than was anticipated in the design of Illinois Street and the US-31 improvements, the Department of Engineering will not request any further traffic studies in association with the re-zone request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks so much, Gary R. Duncan,Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2441 (317) 571-2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:35 PM • To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Foley, Amanda J; McBride, Mike T; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: Can you attend the June 27 Committee meeting? Hancock, Ramona.B From: rustyduncan @indy.rr.com Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:14 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe PUD Dear Members of the Plan Commission, I reside in the Park Meadow subdivision at 13500 Dunes Drive in Carmel. I am writing to express my opposition to high-density development and, in my opinion, excessive building heights that have been proposed for the Highpointe PUD, with respect to nearby residential and commercial properties. This property is adjacent to my subdivision, and the construction of three-story or higher residential or business units next to multiple neighborhoods with two-story homes will negatively impact quality of life and property values for many homeowners in the surrounding area. I am in favor of development on this property that is in harmony with its surrounding neighborhoods - i.e., commercial or residential properties that do not exceed two stories. I ask you to consider the commercial properties such as Generations in Dentistry and Security Home Inspections, which sit across from the Shakamac Drive entrance to Park Meadow on Illinois Street, as good examples of development that complements its residential neighbors, instead of towering over them. I would also ask that a traffic study be conducted at the intersection of Illinois Street and Shakamac Drive, to determine the impact of proposed development for Highpointe on existing residences and businesses. Thanks, Rusty Duncan Rusty Duncan Carmel, IN 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Duncan, Krista [kduncan @aecindy.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:07 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Duncan Rusty Subject: Highpointe PUD on June 27th agenda Dear Members of the Plan Commission: I live in the Park Meadow neighborhood in Carmel, IN. My address is 13500 Dunes Drive. I am opposed to the high level of density and building heights proposed for the Highpointe PUD. This parcel is immediately adjacent to my neighborhood. The maximum height of buildings on this property should be kept at 2 stories. Two story buildings are the existing heights of the adjacent structures. Adding 3,4 or 5 story buildings to this land would be an inappropriate use of this property and would have a very detrimental effect on the surrounding residential homes. I am not opposed to this property being developed, however, a plan for this property that is better aligned with the residential homes surrounding this area (such as 2 level homes, town homes and/or condominiums); or, 2 story office buildings such as the medical offices immediately north of this land is acceptable. I also suggest that a traffic study be completed on the impact to the entrance of my neighborhood off of.Illinois street be completed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Krista Duncan • 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:07 AM To: 'John Adams (Home)'; 'jay @goweighless.com'; 'Brad Grabow'; 'Nick Kestner'; 'Joshua Kirsh'; 'indylawson @gmail.com'; 'Alan Potasnik'; Rider, Kevin D; 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'Suewestermeier @aol.com'; 'Ephraim Wilfong' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; 'Paul G. Reis' Subject: FW: Highpointe High-Density Development FYI From: Sally Bryan [mailto:sallybrvanS9Pyahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:28 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe High-Density Development Dear Ms. Hancock, Would you please distribute this communication to the Special Studies Committee. Regarding the June 5, 2012 committee meeting, my husband and I want to thank the two supportive PIanning Commissioners, Mr. Adams and Mr. Potasnik, for their careful review of the project proposed for the Regan Parcel. The traffic problem was addressed but only briefly. We are still waiting for an "official" traffic study. We already have problems backing out of our driveway located on Versailles Drive near the 136 Street entrance of Park Meadow. This is mostly caused by "drive through" drivers. I, personally, have observed the high speed of these vehicles entering our subdivision off of 136 Street; failure to yield for the stop sign and the count is high. The apartment complex, etc. would increase the flow of traffic and place children and adults at risk for injury or even death. We don't believe the issue of ambulance traffic for the senior facility has been addressed. There will be ambulances and at odd hours 24 X 7. The proposed retention ponds may be dangerous for the residents of the senior facility; could cause insect and rodent problems and be a danger for small children. The most offensive part of this project is the apartment complex. This is outrageous and would double the families already living in Park Meadow and Park Place. Guessing at two cars per family,this would be a nightmare. We have been told by a police officer that the apartments would, most likely, cause an increase in crime in this area. My husband and I hope and pray that the zoning will remain the same and that the City of Carmel will honor their promises made in 1991. Thank you, again, for your thoughtful and careful review of this proposal. Respectfully, Sally and Bill Bryan 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:48 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Foley, Amanda J; Hollibaugh, Mike P; McBride, Mike T; Paul G. Reis Subject: Staff Report Revisions - Highpointe on Meridian Good afternoon Angie, Below are the Department of Engineering comments for the meeting tonight. The Department would like to modify some of the comments. 1. Previous Comment No.1. "In order to fully support the proposed use,the Department needs more drainage and storm water quality information to ensure that the land plan is accommodating these facilities." The Department has met with the petitioner and discussed this comment. The petitioner acknowledged that the construction drawings will need to adhere to the City's standards for storm water management and treatment. 2. Previous Comment No.2. "Various easements will be required depending on how the land is developed. Such easements impact the land plan and affect the Departments support of the proposed use."The Department has met with the petitioner and discussed this comment.The petitioner acknowledged that the construction drawings will need to adhere to the City's standards for easements. 3. Previous Comment No.3. "The Department does not support the portion of the proposed PUD that limits the grant of right-of-way along Illinois Street. If needed,the Department would work with the pipeline if the roadway needed to be widened."The Department has met with the petitioner and discussed this comment.The petitioner is reviewing the pipeline easement language for any restrictions on the use of the easement as public right-of-way. 4. Previous Comment No.4. "The Department will require written confirmation from the pipeline that they are agreeable to the proposed improvements within their easement prior to recommending approval of the proposed use. I expect that the proposed use relies on making improvements within the easement and is not viable without such approvals." The Department will require such documentation prior to releasing construction drawings for the portions of the development that propose improvements within the easement. 5. Previous Comment No.5. "The Department has reviewed the proposed entrances from Illinois Street. (a)The Department requests the following be written into the PUD: "All first left turn movements off of entrance drives shall be a minimum of 150-feet from the northern pavement edge of Illinois Street." (b)The Department requests the following be written into the PUD: " Prior to approval of each of the proposed entrances, auxiliary lane warrants per the INDOT standard shall be reviewed. If the warrants are satisfied, auxiliary lanes shall be provided.""The Department still requests that these revisions be included in the final PUD. Additionally,the Department has considered the traffic that will be generated from this site when developed. The Department provides the following information for the committee to consider: 1. Illinois Street was designed to accommodate the traffic from development of this site as well as traffic across the larger City roadway network. 2. The US-31 improvements are being designed to accommodate future land use. 3. The proposed zoning of the site is expected to generate less traffic than the traffic that would be generated under the current zoning. 4. The Department relies on traffic studies to identify necessary modifications to the existing traffic controls(signal timing, striping, etc.) or roadway system (travel lanes auxiliary lanes, intersection configurations)to maintain adequate levels of service or to address safety issues expected by the Department to result from the development. It is important to note that any improvements to the Illinois Street intersections with Main Street and 136th Street to accommodate traffic from this development would not be expected to resolve the current issues at these intersections.The current issues will be resolved with the improvements to US-31.The buildout timeframe of this development will be concurrent with or be longer than the timeframe for the improvements to US-31. As such, it would be difficult to identify any short term improvements necessary due to the traffic from this development.Also,the intersections with US-31 are expected to be improved before the full buildout of this development. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks so much, Gary Gary R. Duncan,Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2441 (317) 571-2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:13 AM To: 'Stromquist, Steve'; 'Alan Potasnik'; Rider, Kevin D; 'indylawson @gmail.com'; 'John Adams (Home)' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Paul G. Reis Subject: FW: HIGHPOINTE REMARKS JUNE 5 A.docx Attachments: HIGHPOINTE REMARKS JUNE 5 A.docx Good Morning, All: Attached is the document referred to by Mary Hogan re Highpointe on Meridian. Ramona From: Hogan, Mary [mailto:MEHOGAN©stvincent.org] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:17 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Mark and Mary Hogan Subject: HIGHPOINTE REMARKS JUNE 5 A.docx Good morning Ramona: Attached is the final version of the document that I will be reading at tomorrow night's meeting. If there will be AV visual equipment available I do have a video that I would like to play as the background for my presentation. Can you please let me know if that is available? I have the video in electronic version as well as on a thumb drive. Let me know if either can be presented. Also, we do have people planning to attend from Bentley Oaks - I would like to confirm that they are allowed to attend in this type of session? Thank you for all of your time in helping us with this presentation, it is much appreciated. Regards, Mary CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any accompanying data or files is confidential and may contain privileged information intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that the dissemination, distribution, and or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s),please notify the sender at the email address above, delete this email from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:11 AM To: 'Mary Hogan' Cc: Stromquist, Steven R; Rider, Kevin D; Potasnik, Alan; Lawson, Steve; Adams, John; Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Paul G. Reis; 'John Molitor' Subject: FW: HIGHPOINTE REMARKS JUNE 5 A.docx Mary: Thank you for submitting the document regarding Highpointe on Meridian; the document will be distributed to the Committee members via email. The Plan Commission Committee Meetings are OPEN to the public, but are definitely working sessions--not a public hearing--all members of the public and interested parties are welcome to attend. You will most likely be allowed to speak, probably with time limits imposed, but that is at the discretion of the Committee Chair. There will be NO AV equipment available. You may distribute pictures and informational packets to the Committee. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting tomorrow evening. Ramona From: Hogan, Mary [mailto:MEHOGAN@stvincent.orq] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:17 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Mark and Mary Hogan Subject: HIGHPOINTE REMARKS JUNE 5 A.docx Good morning Ramona: Attached is the final version of the document that I will be reading at tomorrow night's meeting. If there will be AV visual equipment available I do have a video that I would like to play as the background for my presentation. Can you please let me know if that is available? I have the video in electronic version as well as on a thumb drive. Let me know if either can be presented. Also, we do have people planning to attend from Bentley Oaks - I would like to confirm that they are allowed to attend in this type of session? Thank you for all of your time in helping us with this presentation, it is much appreciated. Regards, Mary Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:37 AM To: 'Mary Hogan' Cc: 'John Hart' Subject: RE: Highpointe Project - IMPORTANT REVIEW Mary - On behalf of the development team, we appreciate your involvement in this project. The intent of the development team from the start has been to develop a project that is sensitive to the area, the site and the concerns of the neighboring property owners. As you know we met with Greg Hess and Rob White from your neighborhood on this project. We now understand that you are heading up the concerns of the Bentley Oaks neighborhood. With that in mind, we would like to meet with you late afternoon on Monday to hear your concerns, answer your questions, review the new site plan, and explain our plans to preserve the existing vegetation around the south side of the retention pond. Would you be able to meet at my office around 4 or 4:30 on Monday? I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Paul G. Reis Partner Krieg DeVault LLP 12800 N Meridian Street Suite 300 Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: 317-238-6293 1 Cell: 317-431-0063 1 Fax: 317-636-1507 preis @kdlegal.com www.kriegdevault.com Original Message From: Mary Hogan [mailto:mehogan27 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:07 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Potasnik, Alan; Adams, John; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; Paul G. Reis; Conn, Angelina V Subject: Re: Highpointe Project - IMPORTANT REVIEW Thank you and I appreciate your comments and clarification. Please confirm when would be best to have our presentation to you for Tuesday night's meeting. Regards, Mary Hogan On 5/31/12, Hancock, Ramona B <RHancock @carmel.in.gov> wrote: > Ms. Hogan: > Please know that unless a file is in litigation, all correspondence, including emails, are public record and a part of the file. In order for the petitioner to adequately respond to comments from surrounding neighbors and all interested parties, it is appropriate for the Plan Commission, the Committee members, the petitioner, legal counsel, and the Dept to be made aware and kept up-to-date of all correspondence concerning a viable Docket. Again, our files are ALWAYS open for public access and information > readily available during regular office hours. > Ramona Hancock 1 > From: Mary Hogan [mailto:mehogan27 @gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:23 PM > To: Potasnik, Alan; Adams, John; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; > Hancock, Ramona B > Cc: mhogan27 @gmail.com > Subject: Re: Highpointe Project - IMPORTANT REVIEW > I wanted to contact the members of the Commision after reviewing the revised planned unit development ordinance that you will see on Tuesday, June 5th. > I picked up the information today from Paul Reis' office. This plan does not save any of the wooded area that would separate the project from our neighborhood it is not the promised 150 ft - the plans show our tree line being completely destroyed directly behind our pond. I am working on a presentation to the committee for the meeting next > Tuesday. I would like 20 minutes of the agenda time to speak about many items. I will be the representative for Bentley Oaks. Please plan on my presentation and if we would like to submit photos on the screen when is the deadline for submitting? I would so welcome a visit from the members of the Commission - if you could see and hear from us in person I know it would help you better visualize what we NEED to show you. Please contact me if you have the time to visit. I was surprised that Ms. Hancock forwarded my original email from last week to Mr. Reis. I prefer that not take place with this or any future email submissions. Thank you. > Mary Hogan > On Thursday, May 24, 2012, Mary Hogan wrote: > Good Afternoon Gentleman: > It is my understanding that the plans for the Highpointe on Meridian > (PUD) development (136 & Illinois) have been redesigned and it is now > due to go to the Sub-committee for approval on June 5th. It had been > tabled at the May 1st meeting and I have not heard confirmation on if > it is ready to be submitted by Krieg Devault on June 5th but I thought > I would reach out to you to see if you have had any chance to see what > they have redesigned. I have a copy of the new plans and the > Retirement / Assisted Living Center is now proposed to be built on the > land by the Water Pumping Station - the Apartments will be built > approximately 150 ft back from the Bentley Oaks neighborhood in the > middle of the property (instead of 10 ft back) there STILL are no > fences planned to be built - they will no longer create the ponds - > that is good - and have proposed to leave some of the natural woods > between our properties. The office building has no changes as far as > I can see. > We strongly object to their plans for no fencing. They have proposed > some extra woodland space between where they plan to build their > apartment complex however -we would like to see them propose a plan > for fencing between the neighborhoods clearly defining the PUD by a > property line fence. We ask this mostly for security reasons in > Bentley Oaks. Bentley Oaks opens up with 2 entrances leading out to > 136th Street and we can forsee that becoming an invitation for people > to cut through our neighborhood on foot thru the woods and out to > 136th. To us, that is a real invitation for dangerous consequences. > It is truely a REAL concern that we want to make sure you are aware > of. > We continue to remain steadfast in opposition to the project and feel 2 > that it needs more work by the lawyers/ landowners. The Board members > of the Bentley Oaks Subdivision will be in attendance at the Special > Studies Plan Commision Meeting on June 5 and I have requested as many > of our homeowners to attend as well. > Please feel free to contact me in advance of the June 5th meeting if > you have any questions and we appreciate your time in reviewing this > project. Thank you. > Regards, > Mary Hogan > Secretary, Bentley Oaks Board Member > cc: file 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:19 AM To: 'Mary Hogan' Cc: Potasnik, Alan; Adams, John; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; Paul G. Reis; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Highpointe Project- IMPORTANT REVIEW It would be good to mail a hard copy of your presentation to the Committee members along with the Dept Report -- scheduled to be mailed today. If it is not possible to meet today's date for USPS mailing, please email to the Dept. at your earliest convenience and we will disseminate to all interested parties. Thank you, and have a great day! Ramona Original Message From: Mary Hogan [mailto:mehogan27 @ gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:07 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Potasnik, Alan; Adams, John; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; Paul G. Reis; Conn, Angelina V Subject: Re: Highpointe Project - IMPORTANT REVIEW Thank you and I appreciate your comments and clarification. Please confirm when would be best to have our presentation to you for Tuesday night's meeting. Regards, Mary Hogan On 5/31/12, Hancock, Ramona B <RHancock @carmel.in.gov> wrote: > Ms. Hogan: > Please know that unless a file is in litigation, all correspondence, > including emails,, are public record and a part of the file. In order > for the petitioner to adequately respond to comments from surrounding > neighbors and all interested parties, it is appropriate for the Plan > Commission, the Committee members, the petitioner, legal counsel, and > the Dept to be made aware and kept up-to-date of all correspondence concerning a viable Docket. > Again, our files are ALWAYS open for public access and information > readily available during regular office hours. > Ramona Hancock > From: Mary Hogan [mailto:mehogan27 @gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:23 PM > To: Potasnik, Alan; Adams, John; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; > Hancock, Ramona B > Cc: mhogan27 @gmail.com > Subject: Re: Highpointe Project - IMPORTANT REVIEW 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:19 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: revised info packet, Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD Attachments: Highpointe 5.31.12 redline for landscaping.pdf Hope this helps! Let me know if you need something else. But as far as my review, I am not satisfied at this point. Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317-571-2283 From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:29 PM To: Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Boone, Rachel M.; Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: Keeling, Adrienne M; Tingley, Connie S; Foley, Amanda J; Duncan, Gary R Subject: revised info packet, Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD All— here is the revised info packet, with modified site plan and with redline copy of the PUD text, as well as a clean copy. Please help me review these changes and maybe get some review comments in the dept. report which will go out tomorrow afternoon, around 1PM. Thanks! (Connie—please add this to laser fiche.Thanks.) Angie 1 '49 Hancock, Ramona B From: E. Anderson [evie.anderson©gmx.com] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:07 AM To: Adams, John; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Hagan, Judy; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan; Wilfong, Ephraim Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD Dear Cannel Plan Commission Members, My name is Evie Anderson and I am a Bentley Oaks homeowner. We purchased our homes confident that we would never fear living behind an apartment complex based on note ,_ one, but two very solid reasons: 1. The current B-5 zoning does not allow apartments. 2. The Regan parcel is in the US 31 overlay; which does not allow apartments. Yet, what is looming on the horizon? Apartments! How can this be?? Please do the right thing by those of us who trusted the rules on the books. With appreciation, Evie Anderson 1235 Bentley Way Cannel, IN 46032 (317) 815-5856 6—f) Parks at Spring Mill, Village of Mt. Carmel, Bentley Oaks, and Thistlewood Subdivisions c/o Brad Cisco, Parks at Spring Mill HOA President 221 Wyndotte Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 June 4, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee c/o Ms. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Rezone Application: Highpointe on Meridian Docket No. 11120027 Z Dear Ms. Hancock: On behalf of the residents of the Parks at Springmill, Bentley Oaks, Village of Mt. Carmel and Thistlewood subdivisions, we submit the following written statement setting forth our response to the revised PUD plans prepared by Petitioner on May 25. This letter is intended only to supplement, not replace, our previous correspondence. Petitioner has failed to provide a revised traffic study, as directed by the Commission. At the February 21 Plan Commission meeting, Petitioner was directed to obtain a new traffic study contracted for by the City of Carmel and paid for by Petitioner. This has not been done, to our knowledge. The Proposed Plans call for more than two dozen apartment buildings, a tall commercial building up to 60 feet high, and a large senior living center. We believe rezoning the property will result in a dramatic increase in vehicular traffic and Petitioner has failed to provide any adequate evidence to the contrary. We believe that completion of the 31 upgrade at 136th and US 31 a few years after the proposed construction of Highpointe will not significantly aid in moving traffic in and out of this development because higher volumes of traffic will move north and south through the 131St & Illinois Street roundabout, further preventing current Residents' access to Illinois Street at the south end of Park Meadow. Petitioner has failed to provide additional studies and exhibits as directed by the Commission. Petitioner has ignored suggestions from the Department to submit an exhibit showing building shadows, a shadow study, or any sightline exhibits from the proposed buildings to adjacent houses. Petitioner has broken his previous promise to restrict the height of buildings to be developed on the property to a maximum of three stories in height, not to exceed 40 feet. Rezone covenants were adopted as part of Petitioner's previous 1991 rezone approval for this parcel. The first covenant was that the building heights were restricted to be a maximum of 3 stories in height, not to exceed 40 feet. The second covenant was that the height of buildings fronting on or adjacent to 136th Street were restricted to 2 stories, not to exceed 30 feet, and the architecture of such.buildings shall maintain a residential appearance. The building heights in Carmel Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee June 4, 2012 Page 2 the revised PUD ordinance ignore both Petitioner's earlier promises and the Commission's direction at the February 21 hearing, where the Commission indicated that the previous height limitations for the parcel should be enforced. The proposed PUD ordinance still allows for building heights nearly twice that of the homes in the area. The proposed plans allow for buildings up to 60 feet tall, which is nearly double the height of neighboring homes and over 50% higher than the height currently permitted by the Parcel's zoning. The proposed PUD runs counter to current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in this district. Petitioner has also failed to remove the 35% variance language from the PUD ordinance. Despite direction from the Commission that building height would be"locked in" without any possibility of a variance, Petitioner still proposes to allow for a 35% variance in building height from the ordinance's already-oversized buildings. The ability for the Plan Commission to grant a 35%waiver in dimension construction after the rezoning process from the PUD Ordinance is inappropriate. The Proposed Plans do not provide for significantly reduced lighting or noise in the evening. The proposed parking lots, apartments and senior living will subject the surrounding homeowners to significant noise and light pollution. The Department's suggestion to add lighting screens has also been ignored by Petitioner, to the detriment of the surrounding homeowners, as well as a recommendation to prohibit any drive-thru for any purpose. The Proposed Plans permit 24-hour commercial uses. Some uses outlined in the proposed plan suggest or even specify 24 hour operations. We feel the Permitted uses (Tab #4, Section 3) should be much more defined and also prohibit 24-hour commercial operation. We also feel that the uses should incorporate Service Node applications required adjacent to S-2 as outlined in the C3 Plan. The buffering between the proposed development and existing homes remains inadequate. We have requested that Petitioner build a 5 foot berm with densely planted, tall evergreens (20 feet on center is not densely planted) on the inside of the existing tree-line separating the residential properties from this development, which roughly corresponds to the beginning of the currently-tilled land on this site. Petitioner's plan to clear-cut all of the existing mature trees separating the property owners from this development and replace them with widely-spaced new plantings and a grassy, dry-retention area does not provide the sort of buffering envisioned by the C3 Plan. We also question whether a 50-foot swath of grass will adequately collect all the water run-off from the vast expanse of concrete to be poured over this parcel. More trees should also be planted within the proposed development than currently presented. The revised PUD Plan still fails to comply with IC §36-7-4-603. The Proposed Plans still contrast harshly with the surrounding neighborhoods with respect to building height and orientation, character, land use, and density(increased to 19.8 units/acre for multi-family and 22.3 units/acre for retirement portion) in violation of the C3 Plan. (City-Wide Policy and 2 Carmel Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee June 4,2012 Page 3 Objective 1.4). Objective 4.6 is to "disallow incompatible site and building designs," and the sheer number and density of the buildings proposed on this site is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes. We fail to see how this PUD will encourage investment in new techniques and/or technologies that provide superior living and development arrangements compared to traditional land uses. It simply remains an attempt to rezone this land to allow for high-density, multi- family residential uses. This proposed ordinance does not act for the purposes of securing adequate light, air, convenience of access, lessening or avoiding congestion in public ways, promoting the public health, safety, comfort, and general welfare as is required under Indiana law. Not only has Petitioner failed to provide a plan that establishes its buildings will be compatible with surrounding land uses, but there is no indication that traffic will be managed in a manner that creates conditions favorable to the harmonious development of the community following the higher intensity uses proposed by this PUD. Thank you for your consideration. Please circulate a copy of this letter to each member of the Plan Commission and Special Studies Subcommittee. A copy of this letter is also being sent to our City Council Representative, Rick Sharp, and Mr. Regan's attorney, Paul Reis. Very truly yours, Parks at Springmill HOA By: PPT/BC Brad Cisco, President cc: Rick Sharp Paul Reis 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:47 PM To: 'John Hart'; Conn, Angelina V; Paul G. Reis Cc: Mike Longfellow; John Cumming; Johnny Hart; Todd May; Gary Weaver; Randy Sherman; Jim Shields; Manish Gandhi; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Rider, Kevin D; Sharp, Rick; Duncan, Gary R Subject: RE: Highpointe on Meridian John, Thank you for organizing the Highpointe site meeting on Wednesday. It was very helpful to walk the site to see how preserving the trees and existing mound really makes a great deal of sense. The new/updated proposal shows a remarkable redesign, especially given the short time frame. Staff believes the new plan takes seriously many of the concerns expressed by the neighbors, which is greatly appreciated. We also like how you've better integrated the uses, and staff looks forward to digging into the details. It would be nice to maintain a driveway cut onto Smoky Row, as we've learned over the years that one-way in and one- way out is not great transportation policy. Of course until the State fixes the intersection with US 31,that is probably not a reality most will appreciate. Thanks again for you and your teams effort-we look forward to continuing our work with you on Highpointe. Mike Hollibaugh From: John Hart [mailto:John @homeisjchart.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 5:23 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Paul G. Reis Cc: Mike Longfellow; John Cumming; Johnny Hart; Todd May; Gary Weaver; Randy Sherman; Jim Shields; Manish Gandhi Subject: RE: Highpointe on Meridian 10 am Wednesday would work better for me. John C. Hart,Jr. President J.C. Hart Company,Inc. 805 City Center Drive, #120 Carmel,IN 46032 ph 317.573.4800 fx 317.663.0083 www.F-IomeIsJCHart.com Cl .:: 4, ; .r. . ..........-,,,4.,....,,,..., _ _____________ From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh( carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 5:11 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; 'Paul G. Reis' Cc: John Hart; 'Mike Longfellow'; 'John Cumming'; Johnny Hart; Todd May; 'Gary Weaver'; 'Randy Sherman'; 'Jim Shields'; 'Manish Gandhi' Subject: RE: Highpointe on Meridian Hit and miss,for starters,would 10:00 on Wednesday 3/14 work for everyone? Or 1:30 on 3/15? 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Foley, Amanda J Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 12:32 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Duncan, Gary R; Barnes, David R; Redden, Nick; Thomas, John G Subject: RE: Highpointe on Meridian Thanks Angie! We have reviewed the necessary documents and are alright with the PUD for this project. Thanks! Amanda From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:30 PM To: Foley, Amanda 3 Subject: RE: Highpointe on Meridian Here you go, plus other useful info: -Angie From: Foley, Amanda 3 Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:18 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Highpointe on Meridian Angie, Do you have a copy of the Highpointe on Meridian PUD? Our office has not received a copy of this, and we would love the opportunity to review it for any engineering language! © Thanks, Amanda Foley Staff Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2441 (317) 571-2439 (fax) afoley@carmel.in.gov 1 Conn, Angelina V From: John Molitor Dmolitor @prodigy.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:54 AM To: Brad Cisco Cc: Rob White; Peter Ten Eyck; Greg Hess; Debbie Hennessey; Brad Cohen; Bill Bryan; Jim Hennessey Subject: Re: Regan parcel B5 covenants Mr. Cisco -- Yes, I certainly will contact you when we complete our investigation of this matter. If you or any member of your group has any first-hand knowledge or documentation regarding the 1991 rezoning, please let. me know. Thanks for your interest. John Molitor Counsel to the Carmel Plan Commission John R. Molitor Attorney At Law 9465 Counselors Row, Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 46240 ph: (317)843-5511 fax: (317)805-4723 e-mail: jmolitor @prodigy.net From: Brad Cisco <bcisco @indy.rr.com> To:jmolitor @prodigv.net Cc: Rob White <rwhite @indv.rr.com>; Peter Ten Eyck<ptenevck @hhclaw.com>; Greg Hess <ghess132@sbcqlobal.net>; Debbie Hennessey <dhennessey @indy.rr.com>; Brad Cohen <brad.cohen @brightpoint.com>; Bill Bryan <bbryan @jtwblaw.com>; Jim Hennessey<jennessey @adesa.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:49 AM Subject: Regan parcel B5 covenants Mr. Molitor - Thank you for participating in last night's hearing of the Highpointe PUD. I believe it was mentioned during the discussion regarding the height restriction covenants attached to the 1991 rezoning of the Regan parcel that we would be informed of the City's findings regarding this matter. Contacting me at this email address with further information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Brad Cisco The Parks at Springmill HOA 221 Wyndotte Dr. • Carmel, IN 46032 Cell 317.333.9713 Fax 317.566.9947 bcisco@indv.rr.com 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:33 PM To: 'Paul G. Reis' Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Highpointe PUD Attachments: Tree Preservation Sign-pre-const.doc; Tree Preservation Sign-postconst.doc; tree preservation.doc; Sample PUD Landscape Ordinance.pdf Paul, I have attached a PUD document that would be beneficial in showing suitable formatting for the Highpointe PUD landscape section as I referenced in the meeting. I have also attached a few of our tree preservation guidelines and signage documents for your use. Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square . Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317-571-2283 • • 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 10:35 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Rider, Kevin D; Sharp, Rick; 'mehogan27@gmail.com'; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Highpointe Project- IMPORTANT REVIEW Good Morning. I am submitting the revised and updated materials today on Highpointe on Meridian. We invited the leadership of Bentley Oaks (2 people)to a meeting of the neighborhood leaders but no one responded to the invitation or attended. Representatives from The Parks and the Village of Mt. Carmel attended. Copies of the filing will be made available to the designated neighborhood leaders. I will add Mary to that list. Best regards, Paul Paul G.Reis Partner Krieg DeVault LLP 1 12800 N Meridian Street I Suite 300 I Carmel, IN 46032 Phone:317-238-6293 I Cell:317-431-0063 I Fax:317-636-1507 vprers(Ikdlegal corn)www krregdevault com�InV Card�l Sra;. I• 'r KRIEC1JEVAULt Indiana I Illinois I Georgia I Florida I Minnesota CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This e-mail message is for the sole use of the recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient(s),please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.IRS Circular 230 Notice:Advice rendered in this communication,including attachments,on U.S.tax issues(i)is not intended or written to be used,and it cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS on taxpayers,and(ii)may not be used or referred to in promoting,marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity,investment plan or arrangement.This notice is intended to comply with Section 10.35 of IRS Circular 230,which is located at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf. From: Hancock, Ramona B [mailto:RHancock @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 10:15 AM To: Paul G. Reis Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Highpointe Project - IMPORTANT REVIEW Paul Reis: Please see email below regarding Highpointe on Meridian PUD Ramona From: Mary Hogan [mailto:mehogan27 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:09 PM To: Potasnik, Alan; Adams, John; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; rhandcock @carmel.in.gov Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Re: Highpointe Project - IMPORTANT REVIEW 1 Dear VOMC Residents, Here is a recap of the public hearing on the"Highpointe on Meridian PUD"which was held Tuesday, Feb 21 2012. It was a nearly full house with a great turnout of area homeowners in attendance. The "Highpointe on Meridian PUD" (which is actually on Illinois Street) presentation was conducted by Paul Reis, a lawyer with Krieg Devault on behalf of Frank Regan,the owner of the property. This was followed by presentations by the perspective companies who have shown in interest in developing the property if it is rezoned. The floor was then opened to those wished to speak in favor of the rezoning. No residents spoke in favor of the rezoning. This was followed by several presentations by representatives of the surrounding HOA's who spoke out against the rezoning and then by various residents who also were unanimously opposed to the rezoning. Several detrimental issues were presented as a by-product of this rezoning such as increased traffic congestion, lower property values, increased crime, increased strain on the local school system, residents exposed to 24 hour business operations, and insufficient barriers between the development and adjacent homeowners. At the end of the presentations,the Plan Commission appeared to be concerned with the wording of the PUD and made several suggestions for the developers. The PUD was sent to a special studies committee for further review and revision before it will be presented to the Plan Commission again in the near future. Thank you to all of the VOMC homeowners that attended and especially those who spoke at the podium! This is a long process and we will keep you informed to any developments. It is important to attend any public meetings that you can concerning this rezoning if we are to succeed. Please insure your concerns are heard by the Plan Commission by emailing Ramona Hancock(who is the Plan Commission's Administrative Assistant) rhancockPcarmel.in.gov and ask Ramona to distribute your email to the Plan Commission and place a copy in the file. Here is the link to the video of the hearing: http://carmel-in.granicus.com/MediaPlaver.php?view id=8&clip id=429 For a better understanding of the Carmel Plan Commission process take a look at this flowchart PDF. VOMC Civic Association Conn, Angelina V From: Paul G. Reis [preis @kdlegal.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:43 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Andrew Royster ; Frank Regan; Gary Weaver;Jim Shields;John Cumming; John Hart; Johnny Hart; Manish Gandhi; Mike Longfellow; Randy Sherman; Todd May; Tom Osborne Subject: RE: tabling highpointe PUD? Angie Please take this as our request to table the petition for the rezoning of Highpointe on Meridian for the March 6 Special Studies Committee Meeting. Best regards, Paul Paul G.Reis Partner Krieg DeVault LLP 1 12800 N Meridian Street I Suite 300 I Carmel,IN 46032 Phone:317-238-6293 I Cell:317-431-0063 I Fax:317-636-1507 •IpreisPkdlepal coin,,l WAww.>knegdevault com V Card B , +.i.k.0,g4_g+si'£t• m r� �it) KR 1E DEVAULT. Indiana I Illinois I Georgia I Florida I Minnesota CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This e-mail message is for the sole use of the recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient(s),please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.IRS Circular 230 Notice:Advice rendered in this communication,including attachments,on U.S.tax issues(i)is not intended or written to be used,and it cannot be used,for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS on taxpayers,and(ii)may not be used or referred to in promoting,marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity,investment plan or arrangement.This notice is intended to comply with Section 10.35 of IRS Circular 230,which is located at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@lcarmel.in.gov] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:33 AM To: Paul G. Reis Subject: tabling highpointe PUD? Hi Paul—if you are going to table Highpointe PUD to the march 29 committee meeting, please let me know by noon via email.thanks! • Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning &Zoning Division Dept. of Community Services 1 Civic Square, 3rd FIr. Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317-571-2417 I F: 317-571-2426 I E: aconntb carmel.in.gov Check out our new website: www.carmeldocs.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 1 • Hancock, Ramona B From: Doug Henderson [doug.henderson @usa.net] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:42 AM To: Potasnik, Alan; Grabow, Bradford S; Wilfong, Ephraim; Dorman, Jay;Adams, John; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; Hancock, Ramona B; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan Subject: Opposition to Regan Parcel Rezoning Request The high density of the potential development within the Regan Parcel is a very poor fit for the location. The lack of a sufficient residential buffers and the building of drainage ponds and parking lots adjacent to family homes is hard to justify. Anyone living adjacent to a pond should have a voice in how that pond is taken care of and kept safe. . .yet how will the adjacent property owners be given that voice? Another major concern is that once the US-31 highway construction project is underway, the amount of new traffic on Illinois and 136th Streets will. already increase dramatically. Adding another 500 or more vehicles per day from the Regan Parcel onto adjacent and feeder roads that are one-lane in each direction will create a frequent traffic snarl. The roundabouts at either end of Illinois Street are too small to adequately handle that amount of traffic influx from both the proposed development density and the multi-year US-31 construction project. Even just one of those new influxes will strain the feeder roads and roundabouts in that area. A final concern is the addition of even more half-empty office space in Carmel. The existing office space in a few-mile vicinity of the Regan Parcel and along the Meridian corridor is already at roughly 50-percent vacancy rate. Demand is simply not present to justify building even more professional space. . .especially when the new space will be in a location that is controversial to existing homeowners. This seems to be a project that represents development for the sake of development, and not because there is a pressing community or city need for more development in this specific area. Thank you for considering these viewpoints in your decision. -Doug Henderson 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Ali Richardson [aliandclintrichardson @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:24 PM To: Potasnik, Alan; Grabow, Bradford S; Wilfong, Ephraim; Dorman, Jay;Adams, John; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; Hancock, Ramona B; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan Subject: Opposition to Regan Rezoning Request We oppose this due to the following reasons: Drainage ponds abutting residential properties - This would not only be dangerous for children but they will also have the potential for stench if not properly maintained and it is nearly impossible to properly maintain ponds subjected to rainy and dry seasons. High-Density apartment and senior living buildings - These parts of the development will bring high-levels of traffic, 24 hour 7-day-week noise and light pollution. The residents and visitors of these buildings will be constantly entering and exiting the property through extra driveways causing constant hazards for all who use the walkways along 136th and Illinois Streets. Buffers from residential properties - the current plans have no berm, fence or trees to block site and buffer noise from the complex. In fact, drainage/holding ponds and parking lots will but up next to the backyards of ours and Bentley Oaks residents. ***** There are many apartment buildings left vacant in the Carmel area. Why add another location for vacant properties? We need to fill the need of all these apartments in the surrounding areas (around West Carmel Dr, springmill, and downtown Cannel)before even proposing to build new apartments and senior living communities. Thank you! - Ali and Clint Richardson • F Hancock Ramona B From: duncans @indy.rr.com Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: rustyduncan @indy.rr.com Subject: Highpointe on Meridian comments -against zoning change to PUD Please forward to the Planning Commissioners. I live in the Park Meadow subdivision, between 136th and Illinois streets in Carmel. I have seen the plans to develop the Regan property into Highpointe at Meridian. I do NOT support changing the current zoning to a planned use development-PUD. The high concentration of apartments and 3-4 story buildings on this property will impact my neighborhood in 2 ways. A 3-4 story office building planned at the south end of this site will hover over my neighborhood. No building on this property should exceed 2 stories, as is the case with the businesses immediately adjacent to my neighborhood off of Illinois street (near Oak ridge and also across from Shakamac). The density of the apartments will add to traffic issues and school crowding. This area is mainly single family homes, and should stay that way. Townhomes and/or 2 story condominiums, with adequate fencing and vegetative screening, would be preferable to apartments. I prefer the zoning to remain as business and there should be a cap on the height no taller than 2 stories high to better fit into the existing environment. High density apartments, 3 stories high, are not suitable for this area. Thanks for your consideration. Krista Duncan 13500 Dunes Drive Carmel, IN 46032 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: melissa.cyders [melissa.cyders©gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:54 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe PUD Dear Ms. Hancock, I am writing to express my opinion concerning the plans for the Highpointe PUD and I ask that you please forward this email to the Planning Commissioners in charge of deciding about this project. I have been trying to keep up on the status of this PUD and I do know that the project has been tabled until at least the end of this month, but I would still like to express my OPPOSITION to this project as it is currently planned for a few reasons.I have capitalized certain words in my email for emphasis (not to "yell" the words, FYI) . I am a resident of Park Meadows Subdivision, which abuts the new high-density rezoning PUD. I understand that businesses will be placed on this land, which is understandable. And I know that businesses on this land would offer important space and income for the city of Carmel. However, in many ways, the current proposal compromises this area of town more than it does benefit it. The city of Carmel, in my opinion, has done a beautiful job of planning the city; the look of the city, the landscaping, the housing subdivisions, the style of the buildings, etc., are all reasons that my family I and chose Carmel 2.5 years ago when we moved to the Indianapolis area, despite the fact that my husband and I both commute more than a half hour to work. We chose our current neighborhood for the quiet feel, the lack of condensed traffic in the immediate area, and the safe family-focused neighborhood/area. I love the walking trails and the ability for me and my family to safely walk or bike in the area. The new high-density apartment project is problematic for me. One, I think that the height of the buildings proposed will greatly detract from the beauty of this area of town for me, and the landscaping included in the latest plan was just not up to snuff as compared to other landscaping in this area. I would hate for this project to detract from the years of city planning that has made this area of town such a great place to live. Also, I understand that property owners in this area had an agreement that NO BUILDINGS of 2 stories (30' ) on 136th street and 3 stories (of 40' ) elsewhere would be built on this land. I ask the commissioners to honor this covenant as this agreement lead us to choose Carmel, and in particular this area of Carmel, when we purchased our house. I ask you to honor this agreement in your future decisions with this parcel. Additionally, in particular, the apartment building in this area will negatively affect this area and my quality of life in other ways. I do not feel that my family will be as safe with such a large number (250 at last I heard) on this land. Traffic is already a problem, especially on Illinois in the morning, where it can sometimes take 10 minutes to pull out of our neighborhood onto Illinois. 250 apartments will only multiply this problem and make it much more dangerous and difficult for our children and families to use our walking paths and travel in and about to school and work. These apartments will also highly complicate the school overcrowding issues that have plagued our neighborhood over the last ten years. In that time, we have been redistricted 3 times, and were up for redistricting again last year, but were luckily spared from such disruption to our children's lives. I am confident that if 250 apartments are added to this area, a certain percentage would contain children, in numbers large enough to cause undue overcrowding at Smoky Row Elementary, additional redistricting, and further disruption in our children's lives, as changing school repeatedly in elementary school can cause serious academic and emotional difficulties in children. Therefore, for these reasons, I urge you to say NO TO ANY APARTMENT 1 COMPLEX on this land. A senior living center would not be ideal, but would be preferable, in my eyes, to a standard apartment complex. In conclusion, I am in favor of honoring the commitments of the current zoning and responsible development that MANY YEARS of THOUGHTFUL PLANNING has intended for this property. I am not in favor of overcrowded development, which, in my opinion will cause many problems for current and future residents and will seriously detract from the attractiveness of this area of Carmel and our quality of life. Please do not reduce years of planning to one decision with such a great potential for harming the things we love most about Carmel and about our neighborhood. I do not want to move out of Carmel, but if these developments occur and seriously compromise my family's safety and well-being, I would be forced to consider it. In conclusion, I DO NOT support overcrowding of this adjoining property. Thank you very much for your kind attention in this matter and I ask that you forward this email to the Commissioners. Sincerely, -Melissa Melissa A. Cyders, Ph. D., HSPP Licensed Clinical Psychologist Health Service Provider in Psychology Assistant Professor Department of Psychology School of Science Indiana University Purdue University - Indianapolis 402 N. Blackford Street, LD 124 Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-3275 317.274.6752 • 2 Hancock, Ramona B From: Sally Bryan [sallybryan59 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:42 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Oppose PUD for Regan Parcel Dear Ms. Hancock: My husband and I were present for the first PUD presentation to the Bentley Oaks residents. We were present for the presentation on Tuesday evening, February 21, 2012 in City Hall. My opinion of this presentation has not changed. I implore you and the other officials to listen to the residents of the surrounding subdivisions near and adjacent to the Regan Parcel. We purchased our properties in good faith. The PUD proposal is AGAINST everything that we "thought" the city stood for regarding rights of property owners and faith in the City of Carmel. As we trustingly thought and believed, the owner of the disputed property (Regan Parcel) had agreed to building heights of 2 stories or 30' on 136th Street and 3 stories or 40' everywhere else. I can only hope and pray the the city officials will honor this covenant that was a condition of the last rezoning. Breaking a contract is breaking a promise. When a person can no longer "trust" elected officials to keep their promises, it brings back history lessons that were scary. No apartments and no senior living apartments! The areas surrounding the Regan Parcel are single family dwellings. This PUD proposal does not "match" the area. Apartments would also overtax the schools and have a negative impact on the traffic which is already a problem. We, the Bryans, have to be VERY careful backing out of our driveway due to incoming and "cut through" traffic off of 136 Street. The crime rate would increase, too. The proposal presented to us would deny present property owners enjoyment of their properties. All for the material gain of a few! This is WRONG and SHAMEFUL! Years of detailed planning and zoning is being ignored in order to push this propose PUD through. Are you going to be part of this outrageous plan or are you going to be a responsible, elected official and keep the promises made regarding this parcel of land? It is crucial to defeat this PUD rezoning request! ! We, the residents of the adjoining properties pleaded our cause at the February 21st hearing. We are not being unreasonable and we are in favor of honoring the commitments of the CURRENT zoning. The current zoning makes way for a responsible development. Many years of thoughtful planning has intended for this property to be used to blend with the residential area already in place. I ask you to please circulate my letter to the commissioners. Respectfully submitted, Sarah L. Bryan 13510 Versailles Drive Carmel, IN 46032 1 Hancock, Ramona B • From: Stacy Sanders [stacyannsanders @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 5:20 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: bcisco @indy.rr.com Subject: Highpointe Development Concerns Dear Ms. Hancock, I am a resident of Park Meadow (off of 136th). I would like to voice some concerns regarding the potential Highpointe PUD and ask that you share/pass them onto the Commissioners. It is my understanding that current zonings/covenants allow for only building heights of 2 stories or 30' on 136th Street and 3 stories or 40' everywhere else. I also understood there should be no apartments of any kind. I have heard possibilities of both an apartment complex and a senior living facility in the rather small area. I am concerned not only about the high density of this plan, but also the increased traffic already through our neighborhood to access Illinois. We do not want property so close to our home being over- developed. As stated at the hearing, we are in favor of honoring the commitments of the current zoning and responsible development that many years of thoughtful planning has intended for this property. Thank you in advance for both listening and your assistance. -Sincerely, • Stacy Sanders • i Hancock, Ramona B • From: Jennifer Goodspeed [Jennifer©teamendicott.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 6:33 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Brad Cisco Subject: Highpointe PUD I am a property owner at 13531 Kingsbury Drive, in the Park Place subdivision. Although I won't be directly affected by the view of these inappropriately placed PUD rezoning request if approved in my backyard, I will be indirectly affected on a daily basis. What is being proposed, does not appropriately fit in this area. This area can not tolerate the increase of traffic. The home values surrounding this area will negatively be affected should apartments be approved, I would not want to see any apartments of any kind built in this area. School overcrowding on the westside is already an issue so the addition of apartments would only make this situation worse. The property owner agreed to building heights of no more than 2 stories or 30' on 136th street and we would want to be sure this continues to be the rule as decided in the last rezoning. If this area must be built on, I am only in favor of honoring the commitments of the current zoning and responsible development that many years of thoughtful planning has intended for this property. I am not in favor of wreckless, overcrowded development of adjoining property currently being made mention. Jennifer Goodspeed Jennifer Swanson Goodspeed Team Endicott, REMAX Ability Plus 317-289-0093 cell 31.7-91.5-2039 office 317-805-2125 fax 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Jaclyn VanWoerkom [jaclynvan @att.net] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:16 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: bcisco @indy.rr.com Subject: Highpointe high-density PUD Ramona, I am sending you this email in regards to the Highpointe high-density PUD. I am highly opposed to this high-density apartment project. I do not want apartments of any kind on this property. This will result in more traffic problems as well as overcrowding in our schools, which could result in our neighborhood being redisticted yet again. I also have a great concern about the possible increase in crime due to the large increase in population from an apartment complex. I fear that there may be higher crime closer to apartment complexes due to the transient lifestyle of apartment renters. I ask that the commissioners honor the covenant that was a condition of the last rezoning. I bought my property here with the understanding that this was the agreement the City made for this property. Thank you, Jon and Jaclyn VanWoerkom 1 Hancock, Ramona B To: Elizabeth Grethen Subject: RE: apartment project proposed for 136th and Illinois From: Elizabeth Grethen [mailto:ergrethen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 8:04 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; bcisco@indy.rr.com Subject: apartment project proposed for 136th and Illinois Dear Ms. Hancock, Please distribute my concerns to the Commissioners. As a resident of the Park Meadow subdivision, I feel that I will be negatively affected by the proposed building project. Please do not approve the proposed 3 stories (or higher) apartment building for that space, and ensure that the zoning approved for this space is consistent with past decisions to protect the residential and lower-density commercial nature of our neighborhood. Increasing population density and traffic is not consistent with the factors which led us to establish a home and start a family in this area. Sincerely, Elizabeth&Dustin Grethen 13461 Winamac Ct, Carmel, IN 46032 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Brad Cisco [bcisco @indy.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:39 AM To: Westermeier, Susan; Stromquist, Steven R; Lawson, Steve; Hancock, Ramona B; Kestner, Nick; Rider, Kevin D; Adams, John; Dorman, Jay; Wilfong, Ephraim; Grabow, Bradford S; Potasnik, Alan; Kirsh, Joshua A; Sharp, Rick Cc: Rob White; Brad Cohen; Greg Hess; Peter Ten Eyck Subject: Highpointe PUD hearing Attachments: Park Meadow Remonstrance Feb 21 2012.docx Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of The Parks at Springmill HOA and the Bentley Oaks HOA I would like to thank you very much for your attention to our presentations last evening. We really appreciated being able to speak to you and hearing your comments after the presentations. A copy of my group remonstrance was sent to Ramona this morning with a request to be distributed to you. I have also attached a copy to this email for your easy access and review. Thank you, Brad Cisco The Parks at Springmill HOA 221 Wyndotte Dr. Carmel, IN 46032 Cell 317.333.9713 Fax 317.566.9947 • 1 Good Evening: My name is Brad Cisco. I have resided at 221 Wyndotte Drive in Park Meadow for approximately 10 years and currently serving my 2nd consecutive term as President of The Parks at Springmill HOA. Many of the residents that I serve have expressed to me that they do not want a high-density development on the Regan parcel. However, we are amenable to responsible development in accordance with current zoning statutes. We support the Department Report relative to development in accordance with Carmel's C3 Plan as it relates to this site being a "conditional fit" option within the Employment Node and the best option for this parcel to be Neighborhood Support Center. We support the West Carmel Policies and Objectives, the City-Wide Policies & Objectives as well as the US31 Corridor Plan and Objectives section of the C3 Plan as it pertains to preserving the estate character of West Carmel, protecting Large-lot residential areas, encouraging neighborhood support centers, encouraging walkability and bikability, promoting appropriate transitions, limiting building heights to 2 stories, the preservation of residential areas, limiting the mass and scale of developments and requiring appropriate buffers. But the plan before you is completely void of these issues. Thus, we do not support this rezoning request for high-density multi-family housing which IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be permitted in the US31 Overlay. We concur with Peter Ten Eyk that the Regan parcel is not suitable for this type of development and that most (if not all) of the specs in the vague plans before you are not only inappropriate according to current B-5, Employment Node and C3 master plans but also that they are inappropriate for the location of this parcel. What I mean by inappropriate for the location of this parcel is that the parties requesting the PUD rezoning would like you to think.... and act.... like this property directly abuts US31 and with no adjoining 52 zoning. However, the Regan parcel DOES NOT abut US 31. It's location on the opposite side of Illinois dictates much different design requirements not found in the plan before you. This plan is void of most, if not all of the major design considerations already specified by B5 and C3 specifications and recommendations. More specifically, building height requests of 60 and 72' are unreasonable even in the current B5 zoning and C3 requirements when abutting to S2. Not to mention the fact that the current zoning established for Mr. Regan in 1991 includes covenants for maximum building heights that are far below the 72' request before you. Buffers and Screening are virtually non-existent and well below requirements abutting to S2 and those standards established by other developments abutting S2 zoning in our.area. Comparable properties in the area have 5-6' berm with minimum 7' barrier constructed on top OR a very tall solid barrier. Some existing developments augment these barriers with trees and • other landscaping on the residential side of the barrier. The plans before you fall woefully short of offering a barrier that is equal to the existing standards in our area. The plan before you is void of provisions outlined in C3 for transitional and harmonious construction. Neighboring commercial buildings such as the complex containing General Dentistry and Security Home Inspections on the south or east side of Illinois at Shakamac.... or the office complex east of the roundabout at Illinois and 136th are examples of developments that have conformed to C3's transitional construction and blend well with the surrounding properties. Both of these complexes fall in the Employment node AND on the US31 side of Illinois but the plan before you dwarfs their specifications. The existing adjacent commercial developments employed transitional construction including pitched and shingled roofing on office buildings, all brick exteriors and building heights suitable for placement adjacent to S2 and compatible with the cityscape designs already established for mid-town and downtown Carmel. The plans before you are void of these requirements. The plans before you are requesting 72' office buildings in close proximity to residential homes/yards. We support the Department Report to the Commission which recommends shadow and line-of-site studies be performed for all structures proposed for the Regan parcel. Lastly, the residents of Park Meadow and Bentley Oaks who have communicated their opposition to me are strongly opposed to building a high-density apartment and retirement apartment community on this property. The use of this property for apartments will NOT be an appropriate application of transitional construction as outlined in current zoning requirements and is in direct conflict with uses outlined in the US31 Overlay Zone. We find the plans before you to be irresponsibly written and ill-conceived for the location and size of this property. We also find the plans before you to be void of numerous current zoning standards already in place for developing this parcel. We find it to be void of reasonable and practical components required for this parcel and already found in C3, Employment Node and US31 Overlay and we respectfully request that you reject this request in it's entirety with no further action recommended....for being ill-prepared and incomplete.... and inconsistent with so many zoning guidelines that apply to this parcel. Further, we find the construction of apartments and senior living apartments of any kind to fall under the "special uses" category of the US31 Overlay regulations and therefore to be in direct violation of Chapter 23B : U.S. Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone and disagree with the Department Report indicating depicting this as residential use. 238.04 There shall be no Special Uses permitted in the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone For all of these reasons we ask that you reject the plan before you in it's entirety. Lady and Gentlemen -The Regan parcel is NOT Highpointe ON Meridian. This property is Highpointe on the other side of Illinois Street and adjacent to residential S2 zoning. It directly abuts long-time residential residents and therefore subject to the many design requirements that are missing from these plans and we respectfully request that you reject it in it's entirety for being totally inappropriate for the location of this parcel and void of all of the expectations outlined in the Employment Node US31 Overlay and C3 Master Plan which thoroughly and thoughtfully outline responsible development required for this parcel. Portions of the following list have been most recently cited in a Department Report for reasons to reject the CoCo Commons PUD which sets precedent for responsible development and should be applied to the Highpointe rezoning request. Applying this list of criteria to the Highpointe plans should result in rejecting them in their entirety : • If the site is well-designed, a neighborhood support center or neighborhood service node might be appropriate in this area; however, the current site plan does not reflect the goals of the Comp Plan • This proposal has little, if any, benefit to the community • There is no apparent benefit to the neighborhood • This proposal has no attributes required for land abutting S2 in the Employment Node or the 31US Overlay • This proposal is not a creative use of this parcel • The proposal is inconsistent with the C-3 Plan and the US31 Overlay • This proposal seems out of place with surrounding residential and commercial and compared to the C-3 Plan —there is nothing to support it • PUD should be used with a degree of caution —they are sometimes a bridge to difficult development • No viable argument for viability of this proposal, given existing land-use classifications • Cannot discern that this is a PUD or that if fits anywhere near the definition of community development that would result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values • Proposed plan is sketchy and conceptual —too vague • This development is in conflict with the zoning for this parcel and does not fit in with neighborhood nodes • Need to find a better fit for the area • The proposal does not look like a PUD — no transition — and not commercial node serving residential as provided by the Comp Plan • This proposal is NOT a PUD and is out of place • The neighborhoods have every belief that what they bought and what we've planned is going to be what they have For all of the reasons I have cited tonight and for all of the reasons listed in a recent Department Report to reject CoCo Commons, we respectfully request that this property be developed in accordance with the C3 Plan and request you reject this rezoning request in it's entirety with no further recommended action for it's lack of respect and attention to Carmel's many well-established requirements already in place for developing this land. We request that you do the right thing and NOT disregard many years of regulations and thoughtful planning for this rezoning request. Thank you, Brad Cisco President, The Parks at Springmill HOA 221 Wyndotte Drive Carmel, IN 46032 Hancock, Ramona B From: Verlin & Margaret Abbott [vmabbott @att.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:20 PM To: Potasnik, Alan; Grabow, Bradford S; Wilfong, Ephraim; Dorman, Jay; Adams, John; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; Hancock, Ramona B; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan Subject: Opposition to Regan Parcel Rezoning Request To The Representatives of the Residents of Carmel, Please understand we, as a family, purchased our home in the Thistlewood Subdivision confident in the zoning of the undeveloped surrounding areas remaining in place. We assessed the values and potential advantages of the zoning development of complementary businesses to support the subdivisions in place prior to our purchase and know the value added of business taxes for our community. However, six stories and the carte blanche request (+ or— 35 feet) to alter the zoning would ultimately result in the devaluation of the surrounding and adjacent properties upon resale when the resulting development occurs. Of equal importance is the impact on the school system and its' teacher to student ratio. Every two years the schools have been under study for or actually redistricted to accommodate the increase in student population. The major impact has been the result of the location of apartment buildings and their proximity to area elementary schools. Smoky Row is already at maximum capacity. On behalf of this Citizen, please do not approve the petition as submitted. Keep the standards of the written and implied contract your citizenry has supported and forego the greed of additional revenue of a bigger business area and unnecessary development and potential increased traffic stress than intended by the City of Carmel. Sincerely, • Verlin and Margaret Abbott 13702 Thistlewood Drive East 317.818.1021 317.407.4938 317.407.4985 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Marcy Carmichael [mjcarmich @att.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:33 PM •To: Potasnik, Alan; Grabow, Bradford S; Wilfong, Ephraim; Dorman, Jay;Adams, John; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; Hancock, Ramona B; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; • Westermeier, Susan Cc: Sharp, Rick; Senator.Delph @iga.in.gov Subject: Opposition to Regan Parcel Rezoning Request To the Members of the Carmel Plan Commission, I am a homeowner in the Thistlewood Subdivision located on the north side 136th Street just west of Illinois. I am writing in opposition to the Regan Parcel Rezoning Request as submitted by Mr. Reis on behalf of Highpointe on Meridian. The current plan will not blend in with the properties surrounding this one. The property under consideration cannot support the density the developer proposes. I am opposed to this parcel for development of any continuing care unit, including assisted living apartments, nursing care, memory care or independent living apartments. The market has not demonstrated additional need for such high-density units for seniors as is evidenced by an occupancy average of only 60% (50% independent living, 80% assisted living & memory care) at The Stratford at West Clay on Towne.Rd. (this figure provided by Stratford's own staff) and the continually struggling pre-sale figures for The Barrington of Carmel at 116th & Guilford, which has been "pre-selling" for almost 4 years and has still not broken ground. I am opposed to commercial development and/or PUD on this parcel because of its proximity to the natural gas pipeline. I am opposed to this parcel for the development of any multi-family housing complex because its location would negatively impact the balance Carmel Clay Schools have tried to strike with the proportion of single family residences and multi-family housing complexes attending the existing 11 elementary and 2 middle schools. Central Carmel already has more multi-family housing complexes than school zones can support, resulting in a dizzying redistricting game of"musical chairs" in which up to 40% of elementary school children are shuffled every 2-4 years. A multi-family housing complex will only exacerbate this problem. I would strongly support additional wetlands and/or park space as this parcel is part of a natural pedestrian/bicycle route that winds through Park Meadow, Bentley Oaks and The Parks at Springhill along Illinois Street. Recent reports indicate Carmel has nearly 30% of its current office buildings sitting vacant. There is no demonstrated market need to develop this parcel at this time. Illinois Street will serve to relieve congestion from the Major Moves US 31 construction project, which is slated to continue on in to 2017 (according to the Hamilton County Major Moves website). To propose any development on this land before completion of the Major Moves project in 2017 is unfeasible. I understand the Commission has asked for specific objections to this proposed PUD rezoning. This parcel of land is adjacent to neighborhoods with 2-story residences. If the Commission doesn't want to hear just "not in my backyard" from the residents of the affected area, I would offer the following constructive criticism: • The current plans are not harmonious with the adjacent commercial or residential property. Instead, offer additional medical office buildings in the style and construction as those located at 13590 and 13590-B; that is, 2-story brick buildings that blend with surrounding residential areas with additional enhanced landscaping. 1 • • The current plans do not offer significant berm (10' is unacceptable), fencing (6' wooden fences are • hardly adequate), or tree planting to buffer noise and/or light pollution to the surrounding residential areas. Drainage and retention ponds and parking lots will be at the back doors of the homes in The Parks at SpringMill and Bentley Oaks neighborhoods. Again, I strongly support this parcel for additional green space (perhaps a frisbee golf or dog park?) to enhance the near westside's neighborhood appeal. Respectfully, Marcy Carmichael Thistlewood Homeowner &Resident since 1999 2 Hancock, Ramona B From: Jill Meisenheimer [jmeisenheimer @indy.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:48 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject:' Fw: To Plan Commissioners: Reject Highpointe on Meridian as currently proposed Ramona, Marilyn Bartlett asked me to forward her email to the Plan Commission. Thank you. Jill H. Meisenheimer -----) From: Bartlett, Marilyn S NS aX.Jebruary 21, 2012 1:00 PM To: Jill Meisenheimer Subject: RE: To Plan Commissioners: Reject Highpointe on Meridian as currently proposed Jim and I agree with the letter from Jill Meisenheimer and urge the Carmel Plan Commission to reject Highpointe on Meridian as it is currently proposed. Marilyn and Jim Bartlett 442 Burlington Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 From: Jill Meisenheimer . Sent:,Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:57 AM To: Ramona Hancock Subject: Plan Commissioners: Reject Highpointe on Meridian as currently proposed From: Jill H. Meisenheimer jmeisen.heimcr@indy.rr.com 317- 844-3920 To: Ramona Hancock rhancock@carmel.in.gov 317-571-2412 Ramona, Please distribute this email to members of the City of Carmel Planning and Zoning Commission. Jill H. Meisenheimer February 20, 2012 Carmel Plan Commissioners, My name is Jill H. Meisenheimer. I live at 471 Burlington Lane at Williams Mill just south of 116th and Spring Mill Road; where in the past year 3 proposed developments west of Illinois have been approved: The Mormon Temple site, The Bridges PUD, and the Silvara PUD. I would like to share my concerns about the proposed Highpointe on Meridian PUD. At this time Illinois still dead ends just south of 116th street inside The Bridges PUD and nothing has been done to ease the current traffic gridlock already taking place on 116th Street and Spring Mill Road. It is disturbing to see that yet another dense throw-whatever-you-can-into-it PUD is being proposed west of Illinois at 136th Street where the Project Overview says that "the majority of traffic will use the Illinois Street entrance, " and that will surely add to our current traffic problems. I am confused. The Regan parcel is NOT Highpointe ON Meridian. With this name the developer would like you to think that this property directly abuts US31 and has no adjoining S2 zoning. However, Highpointe is on 1 the west side of Illinois Street and is adjacent to residential S2 zoning. The developer is trying to rezone this odd piece of 27 acres at the southwest corner of 136th St. & Illinois St. to a PUD/Planned Unit Development for commercial, office, and residential uses. "The purpose of a PUD is to provide opportunities to create more desirable environments ...that will result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values" (Carmel Plan Commission Department Report 2/21/2012). This area designated as a US31 Overlay excludes all residential uses for good reasons. With the current dense traffic and truck braking and highway noise from nearby Meridian and 136 street the proposed high density multi-family housing will not result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values for the either residents from the proposed apartments or for the adjacent already built neighborhoods. The proposed PUD directly abuts long-time residential residents and therefore is subject to the C3 Plan as it pertains "to preserving the estate character of West Carmel,protecting Large-lot residential areas...promoting appropriate transitions, limiting building heights to 3 stories, the preservation of residential areas, limiting the mass and scale of developments and requiring appropriate buffers. " I urge you to 1. Deny this rezoning request for high-density multi-family housing,which at this time is not permitted in the US31 Overlay. Neighbors would prefer light intensity one and two story buildings in lieu of apartments. If you allow a senior center I urge you to require universal design similar to what was stipulated in the Silvara PUD for empty nester/active living units. 2. Neighbors deserve to be screened from this PUD with a 5-6'berm with wall or fence on top of the berm and trees and other landscaping along residential side of wall and along Regan's parcel. 3. The 1991 covenants for the Regan property should be respected. There should be a better transition and more set back from property line for office or other buildings on west end of property. I believe that the strength of Carmel lies in people who wish to live in its neighborhoods. Whereas development is inevitable, it should be done in a reasonable manner with respect for the already existing neighborhoods. Within the past year within a mile of our neighborhood The Bridges PUD has been approved to build HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, commercial buildings, and office buildings. The Silvara PUD north west of 116th and Spring Mill Road has been approved to build 422 dwellings with the smallest ones mandated to be handicapped accessible. And the Mormon Temple site has been approved. It was an exhausting frustrating year as neighbors attempted to understand and negotiate with these developments for reasonable uses and density that would conform to the current Carmel Comprehensive Plan. I am dramatically aware of the potential Ripple Effect from nearby developments to people who live and drive along 106th Street, 111th, 116th Street, Spring Mill Road and Illinois. And I know that I will feel the effects of whatever is approved at the Regan parcel. I feel like we are in the midst of Suburban vs. Developer Warfare as any empty land nearby is being gobbled up block by block by developers proposing and trying to justify massive throw-everything-in-it-that-you-can PUDs. This proposed PUD is too conceptual—too vague with unacceptable residential uses tacked on that will not be beneficial to proposed or current neighborhoods. I urge that Highpointe on Meridian PUD be rejected as it is currently proposed. Jill H. Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 jmeisenheirner @indy.rr.com 2 Hancock, Ramona B To: Alison Brown Subject: RE: Highpointe on Meridian PUD F • II A : ;Town m.. :. abepi @aol.com] Se- : -.nessay, February 22, 2012 6:58 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: jmeisenheimer @indy.rr.com Subject: Highpointe on Meridian PUD To: Ramona Hancock rhancock(Zicarmel.in.gov 317-571-2412 Ramona, Please distribute this email to members of the City of Carmel Planning and Zoning Commission. Alison Brown February 22, 2012 Carmel Plan Commissioners: I live at 600 W. 106th St. and I wish to associate myself with the well expressed objections of Jill Meisenheimer (repeated below) to the Highpointe on Meridian PUD. • Neighbors in Clay West are quite tired of developers coming in with PUDs whose only objective is to circumvent the regulations of the Comprehensive Plan and exisiting zoning to the detriment of current residents and benefits only to their bottom line. Any PUDs that do not provide extreme benefits to the area (which does not mean more taxes for the City) should be rejected and the developers required to plan again with respect for both Comp. Plan and the neighborhood. You have proved that this is possible with the rejection of Coco Commons. Please,do it again! Thank-you Alison Brown, 600 W. 106th St. Carmel, IN 46032 mabcpi@aol.com February 20, 2012 Carmel Plan Commissioners, My name is Jill H. Meisenheimer. I live at 471 Burlington Lane at Williams Mill just south of 116th and Spring Mill Road; where in the past year 3 proposed developments west of Illinois have been approved: The Mormon Temple site, The Bridges PUD, and the Silvara PUD. I would like to share my concerns about the proposed Highpointe on Meridian PUD. At this time Illinois still dead ends just south of 116th street inside The Bridges PUD and nothing has been done to ease the current traffic gridlock already taking place on 116th Street and Spring Mill Road. It is disturbing to see that yet another dense throw-whatever-you-can-into-it PUD is being proposed west of Illinois at 136th Street where the Project Overview says that "the majority of traffic will use the Illinois Street entrance, " and that will surely add to our current traffic problems. 1 I am confused. The Regan parcel is NOT Highpointe ON Meridian. With this name the developer would like you to think that this property directly abuts US31 and has no adjoining S2 zoning. However, Highpointe is on the west side of Illinois Street and is adjacent to residential S2 zoning. The developer is trying to rezone this odd piece of 27 acres at the southwest corner of 136th St. & Illinois St. to a PUD/Planned Unit Development for commercial, office, and residential uses. "The purpose of a PUD is to provide opportunities to create more desirable environments ...that will result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values" (Carmel Plan Commission Department Report 2/21/2012). This area designated as a US31 Overlay excludes all residential uses for good reasons. With the current dense traffic and truck braking and highway noise from nearby Meridian and 136 street the proposed high density multi-family housing will not result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values for the either residents from the proposed apartments or for the adjacent already built neighborhoods. The proposed PUD directly abuts long-time residential residents and therefore is subject to the C3 Plan as it pertains "to preserving the estate character of West Carmel,protecting Large-lot residential areas...promoting appropriate transitions, limiting building heights to 3 stories, the preservation of residential areas, limiting the mass and scale of developments and requiring appropriate buffers. " I urge you to 1. Deny this rezoning request for high-density multi-family housing,which at this time is not permitted in the US31 Overlay. Neighbors would prefer light intensity one and two story buildings in lieu of apartments. If you allow a senior center I urge you to require universal design similar to what was stipulated in the Silvara PUD for empty nester/active living units. 2. Neighbors deserve to'be screened from this PUD with a 5-6'berm with wall or fence on top of the berm and trees and other landscaping along residential side of wall and along Regan's parcel. 3. The 1991 covenants for the Regan property should be respected. There should be a better transition and more set back from property line for office or other buildings on west end of property. I believe that the strength of Carmel lies in people who wish to live in its neighborhoods. Whereas development is inevitable, it should be done in a reasonable manner with respect for the already existing neighborhoods. Within the past year within a mile of our neighborhood The Bridges PUD has been approved to build HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, commercial buildings, and office buildings. The Silvara PUD north west of 116t'' and Spring Mill Road has been approved to build 422 dwellings with the smallest ones mandated to be handicapped accessible. And the Mormon Temple site has been approved. It was an exhausting frustrating year as neighbors attempted to understand and negotiate with these developments for reasonable uses and density that would conform to the current Carmel Comprehensive Plan. I am dramatically aware of the potential Ripple Effect from nearby developments to people who live and drive along 106th Street, 111th, 116th Street, Spring Mill Road and Illinois. And I know that I will feel the effects of whatever is approved at the Regan parcel. I feel like we are in the midst of Suburban vs. Developer Warfare as any empty land nearby is being gobbled up block by block by developers proposing and trying to justify massive throw-everything-in-it-that-you-can PUDs. This proposed PUD is too conceptual—too vague with unacceptable residential uses tacked on that will not be beneficial to proposed or current neighborhoods. I urge that Highpointe on Meridian PUD be rejected as it is currently proposed. Jill H. Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Cannel, IN 46032 jmeisenheimer(alindy.rr.com 2 (9; Hancock, Ramona B From: Kathy Myers [kathy.northshore @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:14 PM To: Potasnik, Alan; Grabow, Bradford S; Wilfong, Ephraim; Dorman, Jay; Adams, John; Rider, Kevin D; Kestner, Nick; Hancock, Ramona B; Lawson, Steve; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan Subject: Opposition to Regan Parcel Rezoning Request This note is to express my opposition to the Regan Parcel Rezoning Request. As a resident of the Thistlewood subdivision, I believe that such a rezoning would be detrimental to ours and other nearby neighborhoods, especially because of the building heights, drainage ponds, and potential traffic that would result from high density apartments and senior living buildings that such a rezoning would bring into the area. Thank you for considering my concerns. Kathy Myers 13646 Thistlewood Dr. W. Carmel, IN 46032 • 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: Jill Meisenheimer pmeisenheimer @indy.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:58 AM • To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Plan Commissioners: Reject Highpointe on Meridian as currently proposed Attachments: jmeisenheimer @indy.rr.com.vcf Importance: High From: Jill H. Meisenheimer jmeisenheimer( indy.rr.com 317- 844-3920 To: Ramona Hancock rhancock@,carmel.in.gov 317-571-2412 Ramona, Please distribute this email to members of the City of Carmel Planning and Zoning Commission. Jill H. Meisenheimer February 20, 2012 Carmel Plan Commissioners, My name is Jill H. Meisenheimer. I live at 471 Burlington Lane at Williams Mill just south of 116th and Spring Mill Road; where in the past year 3 proposed developments west of Illinois have been approved: The Mormon Temple site, The Bridges PUD, and the Silvara PUD. I would like to share my concerns about the proposed Highpointe on Meridian PUD. At this time Illinois still dead ends just south of 116th street inside The Bridges PUD and nothing has been done to ease the current traffic gridlock already taking place on 116th Street and Spring Mill Road. It is disturbing to see that yet another dense throw-whatever-you-can-into-it PUD is being proposed west of Illinois at 136th Street where the Project Overview says that "the majority of traffic will use the Illinois Street entrance, " and that will surely add to our current traffic problems. I am confused. The Regan parcel is NOT Highpointe ON Meridian. With this name the developer would like you to think that this property directly abuts US31 and has no adjoining S2 zoning. However, Highpointe is on the west side of Illinois Street and is adjacent to residential S2 zoning. The developer is trying to rezone this odd piece of 27 acres at the southwest corner of 136th St. & Illinois St. to a PUD/Planned Unit Development for commercial, office, and residential uses. "The purpose of a PUD is to provide opportunities to create more desirable environments ...that will result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values" (Carmel Plan Commission Department Report 2/21/2012). This area designated as a US31 Overlay excludes all residential uses for good reasons. With the current dense traffic and truck braking and highway noise from nearby Meridian and 136 street the proposed high density multi-family housing will not result in superior living or development arrangements with lasting values for the either residents from the proposed apartments or for the adjacent already built neighborhoods. The proposed PUD directly abuts long-time residential residents and therefore is subject to the C3 Plan as it pertains "to preserving the estate character of West Carmel,protecting Large-lot residential areas...promoting appropriate transitions, limiting building heights to 3 stories, the preservation of residential areas, limiting the mass and scale of developments and requiring appropriate buffers. " I urge you to 1 1. Deny this rezoning request for high-density multi-family housing, which at this time is not permitted in the US31 Overlay. Neighbors would prefer light intensity one and two story buildings in lieu of apartments. If you allow a senior center I urge you to require universal design similar to what was stipulated in the Silvara PUD for empty nester/active living units. 2. Neighbors deserve to be screened from this PUD with a 5-6'berm with wall or fence on top of the berm and trees and other landscaping along residential side of wall and along Regan's parcel. 3. The 1991 covenants for the Regan property should be respected. There should be a better transition and more set back from property line for office or other buildings on west end of property. I believe that the strength of Carmel lies in people who wish to live in its neighborhoods. Whereas development is inevitable, it should be done in a reasonable manner with respect for the already existing neighborhoods. Within the past year within a mile of our neighborhood The Bridges PUD has been approved to build HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, commercial buildings, and office buildings. The Silvara PUD north west of 116th and Spring Mill Road has been approved to build 422 dwellings with the smallest ones mandated to be handicapped accessible. And the Mormon Temple site has been approved. It was an exhausting frustrating year as neighbors attempted to understand and negotiate with these developments for reasonable uses and density that would conform to .the current Cannel Comprehensive Plan. I am dramatically aware of the potential Ripple Effect from nearby developments to people who live and drive along 106th Street, 111th, 116th Street, Spring Mill Road and Illinois. And I know that I will feel the effects of whatever is approved at the Regan parcel. I feel like we are in the midst of Suburban vs. Developer Warfare as any empty land nearby is being gobbled up block by block by developers proposing and trying to justify massive throw-everything-in-it-that-you-can PUDs. This proposed PUD is too conceptual—too vague with unacceptable residential uses tacked on that will not be beneficial to proposed or current neighborhoods. I urge that Highpointe on Meridian PUD be rejected as it is currently proposed. Jill H. Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Cannel, IN 46032 jmeisenheimer @indy.rr.com • • 2 F Hancock, Ramona B From: Jon Stewart [jon @jonstewart.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:14 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Grabow, Bradford S; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan; Rider, Kevin D; Sharp, Rick; Seidensticker, Eric; Schleif, Carol; Finkam, Sue; Snyder, Luci; Carter, Ronald E Subject: I oppose the"Highpointe on Meridian PUD" Hello, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning associated with the "Highpointe on Meridian PUD". As a homeowner in "Villiage of Mount Carmel"we are on the north side of the propose rezoning area. It is my belief that the rezoning would be detrimental to the area given that it would introduce the ability to build an apartment complex on that land. In my opinion, the apartment complex would be unsightly and a nuisance to our residential neighborhood. When I moved to Carmel years ago, I came because of the great neighborhoods. If I were looking today, I. would avoid that area if an apartment complex were situated there. Especially one so close to the children's neighborhood playground. I feel that the land is currently zoned properly and I would encourage you to decline the request to rezone the property. There are existing sites within our great city that are appropriate for a project such as "Highpointe on Meridian", I just feel that there isn't enough benefit to change the zoning on this property. Respectfully, Jon Stewart 1 Ic Hancock, Ramona B From: Rebecca Hubbard [mamahubbard @att.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:56 PM To: Grabow, Bradford S; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan; Rider, Kevin D; Sharp, Rick; Seidensticker, Eric; Schleif, Carol; Finkam, Sue; Snyder, Luci; Carter, Ronald E Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe on Meridian PUD Thank you to all of you for your willingness to hear our concerns as affected citizens of Carmel. My husband and I attended the developers'meeting in January and heard many things which concerned us as homeowners on the north side of 136th Street from this proposed development. The apartments suggested by the proposal are very high density for this area. The proposed buildings are three stories tall and would be directly across the street from and adjacent to two story and split-level single family homes. This would overwhelm the neighboring homes and be out of proportion with the area. Also the traffic concerns would not be solved by a right turn only entrance/exit on 136th Street. Our home currently has a median which only allows us to travel west fi-om our driveway. If we wish to travel east on 136th Street, we have to go around the block (136th Street west to Village Drive north to Memory Lane east and then south back to 136th Street). A left turn from Memory Lane would be impossible with an apartment complex's dedicated right turn entrance/exit. The traffic is already extensive during typical rush hours and backs up from the roundabout at Oak Ridge past our homes to the west.Apartments are currently being built near Meijer east of 31. There are apartment complexes all over the city and they don't seem to be filled. Our neighborhoods are not and have never been against progress but we are against development which adversely affects our property values and quality of life. This is not a case of"not in my backyard" but rather a case of"let's be responsible and consider those around us". The suggested development of the assisted living facility would be a much better fit for the area on 136th Street than the apartment complex is. Since the traffic study indicated the traffic from the apartments would flow toward Illinois, it would make more sense to place them there and avoid the Memory Lane issue altogether. The assisted living facility would be closer to the hospital as well and its profile seemed to be a better fit with the residential area adjacent and across 136th Street. The assisted living facility would have a much smaller impact on the traffic flow as well. • • Again, I thank you very much for the opportunity to share our concerns and opinions. We appreciate being asked and hope that our thoughts, concerns and opinions are taken into consideration with this proposal. My husband and I have lived in our home since 1994 and do not want to see our property values and quality of life jeopardized by development inconsistent with the surrounding area. Rebecca Hubbard F4 Hancock, Ramona B From: J Westermeier[jestermeier @indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:00 PM To: Carter, Ronald E Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Highpointe on Meridian Dear Mr. Carter We are residents of the Village of Mount Carmel, and our property is across 136th Street where apartment buildings are being considered as part of the Highpointe on Meridian plan. We have read the letter that you should have received from Bentley Oaks residents and agree with all their concerns. However, we differ in some of their concerns because of our respective locations. The prospect of three-story buildings directly across the road from us and the high density population that 25 buildings bring are major concerns. (This is based on the assurance that was given by the developer that such a need for housing exists in Carmel.)The traffic in and out onto 136th Street will only add to the already congested traffic during rush hours. This is.not the appropriate use of this land. (PUDs are a problem all of themselves,) Sincerely, • John and Jane Westermeier 595 Memory Lane Carmel, IN 46032 317.417.6733 ! ., . • 1 • fr°99 Hancock, Ramona B From: scrane @indy.rr.com Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:33 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Grabow, Bradford S; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; swestermier @carmel.in.gov Cc: Rider, Kevin D Subject: Zoning change--Highpointe on Meridian PUD RE: Zoning change--Highpointe on Meridian PUD I live at 1198 W. 136th St., between Memory Lane and Village Drive, directly across from the proposed development. I am writing to you to voice my concerns about this development. This area of Carmel is completely single family homes from Oakridge westward. A large apartment complex would change the ambience of the area, and negatively affect our property values. As a long time resident of Carmel, I wonder about the wisdom of so.many apartment ... .` complexes. There is already one under construction near the Meijer on 126th St., another approved on Springmill, the Mohawk complex has already been approved for new apartments, and there is a surfeit of condos already constructed and vacant. It appears we'll soon be known as Castleton Light. There is also the traffic problems an influx of tenants and cars would cause. I don't know what kind of traffic studies have been done, but I can tell you as a morning walker, the traffic backs up at the Oakridge roundabout to Bently Oaks in the morning, and going southward on Oakridge, I've seen cars stopped in traffic far north of Adios Pass. My dog and I make better time than the cars do. Another few hundred cars in this area, whether trying to merge from 136th St. or Illinois St. would severely compound this problem. I am also concerned about safety, as I've seen firetrucks and fire rescue units trying to navigate this area during high traffic times. There is no place for cars to cede right of way near the ' roundabouts, and the firetrucks lose valuable time waiting for cars to move out of the area. Our nearest fire station is at 136th and Springmill. It would have to travel the congested areas and greatly decrease response time. With the planned reconstruction of the intersection of Highway 31, the traffic headaches will be incredible. Adding another large quantity of vehicles to the mix is unthinkable. I realize the owner of the land has the right to develop his property. It is an unusual tract of land, I doubt it lends itself to easy development, which makes it ideal as a green space. I doubt the city would be interested in adding green space, but that would'be my first choice as a near neighbor. Since anything built near 136th St. will directly impact me across the street, my preference would be for low office buildings. That is within the present zone and would not require any zoning change. I do object strenously to the apartment complex being considered. Three storied buildings directly on 136th St. changes the whole area for the worse. We don't need the population. density several hundred apartments would bring. Since the plans being presented are preliminary, if a zoning change is allowed, there is nothing to stop a developer from changing his plans and increase the number and size of apartments after it is too late to object. Lastly, I wonder about the increase in crime. Our area of Carmel is safe for children. I'm. never nervous about walking my dog after dark or leaving my door unlocked while I visit next • door. Most of our neighbors are long time residents. We know each other, by sight or by children or pets, if not by name. I know I would feel vastly less safe with a large number of unknown tenants across the street. I urge you to reject the zoning change requested and leave it as it is. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinions. Sherry Crane 1198 W. 136th St. 317-846-6659 2 F Hancock, Ramona B To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: Highpointe on Meridian PUD NOTE: Identical email sent to all Plan Commission Members on Monday, 2/20/2012 by Shari Stoll RH From: Shari Stoll [mailto:Shari©cfpcin.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 2:22 PM To: Westermeier, Susan Cc: Hancock, Ramona B; linda@ cfpcin.com Subject: Highpointe on Meridian PUD Good Afternoon Ms. Westermeier, I'm writing to you today to ask you to please reconsider the rezoning for the PUD Highpointe on Meridian located at 136th and Illinois Street. While we realize that eventually something will be built on this land, and we fully understand the city needs the tax revenue, we don't believe this project is the best fit for our area. The following is a very condensed version of the concerns my family has regarding the planned PUD for this tiny piece of land: 1. The concept(s) we were shown is not aesthetically pleasing. No matter how many trees they plant. There seems to be a lot of buildings crammed onto to a small space. The building design and color scheme is all wrong for this area. 2. The people living in the apartment complex will be living right on top of us, especially if no wall is built between the properties. People will be coming and going at all hours of the day and night. An increase in noise and possibly crime/vandalism. The lighting from their buildings and parking lots will shine directly in our windows all night long. 3. Senior Facility—They will also be living on top of us. What will keep them from wandering onto our property? What if they're hurt on our property? Who's responsible? Again, people will be coming and going at all hours of the day and night (visitors/staff). Increase in noise and possibly crime/vandalism. Not to mention, lighting from their building and parking lot shining in our windows all night, every night. 4. What if the retention ponds flood? At least two of these ponds will back up to our property. What about the mosquito population with all that standing water? We won't be able to enjoy our yard during the spring, summer or fall months without being eaten alive. 1 The project design team spent a lot of time talking about landscaping on Illinois Street and very little about the landscaping backing up to our property. Please keep in mind that we will be looking at whatever is built on this tiny piece of land for years to come. My family has many other concerns and questions regarding the rezoning of this property, I've only outlined several of our main concerns in this e-mail. We look forward to hearing what the commission, design team and the property owner have to say at the meeting to be held February 21, 2012. We thank you for your time. Sincerely, Linda and Dwight Owens Shari Stoll 1267 Bentley Way • 2 F Hancock, Ramona B From: E. Anderson [evie.anderson @gmx.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 12:55 PM To: Adams, John; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Hagan, Judy; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist,'Steven R; Westermeier, Susan; Wilfong, Ephraim Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Docket No. 11120027 Z Highpointe on Meridian February 20, 2012 Re: Docket No. 11120027 Z: Highpointe on Meridian PUD • Dear Carmel Plan Commission Members, My name is Evie Anderson and I am'a Bentley Oaks Homeowner. I start by freely acknowledging that all parties involved in this process have rights. Mr Regan has every right to sell' his land. The developer has every right to try and strike a deal. Homeowners also have rights that I hope will be considered. When making the decision whether to purchase our home, the question was never 'if' or even 'when' the adjoiriirig' parcel would be developed. The question was 'What?' We checked the zoning. B-5; we could live with that. Allowance for apartments would have been an instant deal-breaker. When this land is eventually developed, my hope is that it will be in a responsible way. The high-density proposal before us is not. Please keep the B-5 zoning in place. With appreciation, Evie Anderson 1235 Bentley Way Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 815-5856 • 1 F Hancock, Ramona B From: Bruce Bonney[brucebonney @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:16 AM To: Grabow, Bradford S; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Potasnik, Alan; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan; Hancock, Ramona B;jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: Vote NO to rezone Highpoint on Meridian PUD Attachments: SAM_0764.JPG; SAM_0760.JPG; SAM_0775.JPG; SAM_0809.JPG; SAM_0807.JPG; SAM_ 0808.JPG On Feb 21, 2012 the carmel planning commission will hear a rezone proposal for Frank Regan to rezone 27 acres along Illinois street. This property is directly behind my home on 1227 Bentley way in carmel. I will not be able to attend to voice my opposition to this rezoning request. I am emailing all of you in the hope you will vote against this. The PUD calls for approximately 240 unit 3 story apartment complex in very close proximity to a residentail neighborhood. There will be parking lots, street lamps, and car headlamps facing directly in my back windows. The 27 acres of woodland that is existing would be replaced by 1 shrub every 20 feet. There is no barrier to block light or landscaping plan to protect the integrity of our neighborhood. The entire PUD only consideration seems to be maximize unit profit in the space provided. According to the city's comprehensive plan our neighborhood is considered low intensity residentail backing up to an employment node. There are several structures along Illinois street that are single story doctors office or daycare that fit in the employment node. The high density apartment complex planned simply does not fit on the west side of US31. I have attached some photos that show the area under consideration for development and the effect on the neighborhood. One was taken from inside my living room to show exactly how close car headlights will be to my living room. Another gives perspective of a neighbors back yard. Just look for the pink surveyor flags and ask yourself would you want a high density much lower income development this close to your backyard and you will understand our opposition. Also are a couple of photos of our neighborhood. Please understand I am not against all development. I moved to this neighborhood 3 years ago because my previous home was purchased by a developer for the sole purpose of rezoning and building the type of structures that are proposed behind my new home. Myself and 95% of my old neighbors were able to work with a developer and come to a solution that was acceptable to all, I do not see that happening in this case. At the present time, there is no party'or parties that speak for all of the neighbors. If Kreig Devault or Mr Regan wish to purchase our entire neighborhood for a market premium and then rezone I would be willing to listen. Until that time I would be against the type of rezone that is proposed on this parcel. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Bruce Bonney 1227 Bentley Way Carmel, IN 46032 1