Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Conn, Angelina V From: John Molitor Umolitor @prodigy.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2.40 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Re Aramore PUD Amend coming back to Plan Commission? Angie -- It's a mystery to me why Nick (or anyone else, for that matter) would suppose that we could ignore the requirements of state law just because they view a change made by the Council as "minimal". In any event, I believe that it would be unethical for me not to advise the Plan Commission members (my clients) that they still have a legal right to review the Council's amendment,regardless of how minor or insignificant it might be. Following is the applicable subsection of the state statute, IC 36-7-4-607(e), which establishes the process that must be followed after the Plan Commission favorably recommends to the Council an amendment to a zoning ordinance (this includes PUD ordinances). (e) This subsection applies if the proposal receives a favorable recommendation from the plan commission: (1) At the first regular meeting of the legislative body after the proposal is certified under section 605 of this chapter(or at any subsequent meeting within the ninety (90) day period),the legislative body may adopt,reject,or amend the proposal. The legislative body shall give notice under IC 5-14-1.5-5 of its intention to consider the proposal at that meeting. (2) If the legislative body adopts(as certified) the proposal,it takes effect as other ordinances of the legislative body. (3) If the legislative body fails to act on the proposal within ninety(90) days after certification,it takes effect as if it had been adopted (as certified) ninety (90) days after certification. (4) If the legislative body rejects or amends the proposal,it shall be returned to the plan commission for its consideration,with a written statement of the reasons for the rejection or amendment. The commission has forty- five(45) days in which to consider the rejection or amendment and report to the legislative body as follows: (A) If the commission approves the amendment or fails to act within the forty-five(45) day period,the ordinance stands as passed by the legislative body as of the date of the filing of the commission's report of approval with the legislative body or the end of the forty-five(45) day period. (B) If the commission disapproves the rejection or amendment,the action of the legislative body on the original rejection or amendment stands only if'confirmed by another vote of the legislative body within forty-five (45)days after the commission certifies its disapproval. If the legislative body fails to confirm its action under this clause,the ordinance takes effect in the manner provided in subdivision (3). In this instance, the Council (Carmel's legislative body) amended a proposal that,had been favorably recommended by the Plan Commission.Under subdivision (4) above, the Council is supposed to return the proposal to the Plan Commission, along with a written statement setting forth its reasons for making the amendment.Then, the Plan Commission has 45 days to review the amendment. It is within the Plan Commission's discretion just to do nothing,in which case the ordinance amendment will take effect at the end of the 45-day period However, if the Plan Commission disagrees with the amendment,then it has the right to send it back to the Council, along with its reasons for disagreeing. In the end, the Council makes the final decision on how the ordinance will read. (This "ping pong" scenario is what happened recently with the Patch Ordinance, where the Plan Commission proposed modifications of some amendments that the Council had made, and the Council then ultimately accepted the "compromise" changes that were sent back by the Commission the second time around.) The Council's insistence that the Plan Commission be barred from granting Zoning Waivers within the Aramore PUD district to a maximum of 10% (rather than the typical 35% maximum that we see in most of our overlay zone ordinances) may or may not sit well with the Plan Commission. In my opinion, there are no sound reasons for a 10% limit; such will only result in more variances having to be heard by the BZA. So, I don't agree that a 10%limit on waivers is a "minimal" change --but the Commission members may simply choose not to make an issue of it at this point. 1 Bottom line: My advice in this case is that we should present and explain the Council's amendment to the Commission members during the Legal Counsel Report at the December 18 Commission meeting. Then the Commission members can decide how to proceed from there. Finally, there is no requirement for the Aramore developers to appear again before the Commission on December 18,unless they want to be available to answer questions that may be posed by Commission members. Neither state law nor our rules call for any additional public hearings at this stage of the amendment process. John 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: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> To: 'John Molitor' <jmolitor @prodigy.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:16 PM Subject: FW: Aramore PUD Amend coming back to Plan Commission? Hi John—does this very minor change made at Council need to come back to the PC for a vote? Angie Conn,Planning Administrator 571-2281 From: Nick Churchill [mai lto:nick @pittmanpartners.com] Sent: Wednesday,December 05,2012 1244 PM To: Conn,Angelina V; Nick Churchill Cc: Steve Pittman Subject: Re. Aramore PUD Amend coming back to Plan Commission? Angie, Thank you for the email. The changes that were requested to the ordinance are included as an attachment to this email. Text was added to the end of section 14.1(A) that reads, "However,in temis of modifying any 272 quantitative or dimensional requirement, such modification may not be 273 greater than ten percent(10%)in aggregate Cumulatively, quantitative or 274 dimensional modifications greater than ten percent (10%)must be 275 approved by the Council." From comments that were made at both the committee and the full Council level it appeared that this has become a standard request from the Council.My hope would be that an addition this minimal would not require us to appear before the Commission again. In addition, we were asked to memorialize the road improvements that would be made as part of this project as conditions to the enactment of the ordinance.These were included as Exhibit M to ordinance which is also attached to this email. Please let me know your thoughts on the additions to the text of the ordinance and specifically if you think that they necessitate our appearance before the Commission again. We are happy to do whatever is required. Have a great week and I look forward to hearing from you. Nick Nick Churchill, LEED AP 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10.12 AM To: 'Steve @pittmanpartners corn' Cc: 'Nick Churchill'; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Aramore PUD - some changes requested Hi, Steve - I am sending this email on behalf of Mike Hollibaugh. Please read through this and give him a call when you get a chance, at 571-2417. Thanks, Angie. Steve, Brad forwarded your email earlier, and we spoke about it just a little while ago. We agreed that tying the definition to the exhibits and the site plan (development plan)would be the best way to address the concerns brought by the committee. Below is the attempt at addressing that issue, let me know if this sounds reasonable. 1. A Townhome is any building of Single Family units that are attached side by side, with each unit having more than one story, and located in Area B on the site plan (PUD Exhibit E) 2. A Courthome is any building of attached Single Family units, placed on top of one another and/or side-by-side, and located in Area Con the site plan (PUD Exhibit E). 3. A Manor Building is an multiple family dwelling owned by a single person or entity in which each unit is rented or leased, and located in Area A on the site plan (PUD Exhibit E). Give me a call when you have a chance, Mike H. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Littlejohn, David W Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3 44 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE Aramore path crossing at Westfield Blvd Mike, I spoke with Gary about this after I talked to you. He recalled a conversation he had with McBride about the 98th St crossing and confirmed with McBride that they would be open to a crossing at 98th St. Mike M said that if they do implement a crossing there that they would only want a crosswalk painted and the standard ped crossing signs (no flashing lights or anything extra). This would allow people to cross there, but hopefully they realize that it is on their own risk. I also spoke with Nick Churchill about this. After they saw our email they started throwing around ideas on how to install a path on the east side of Westfield from their site down to 96th St. They are interested in using money from the park impact fees that they would have to pay to be used toward a path and then contributing the remaining money to the impact fees. A very rough and conservative estimate for the cost of the path would be around (hopefully no more than) $100,000. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks, David Littlejohn, AICP Alternative Transportation Coordinator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Sq Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2306 t>7 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:07 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Littlejohn, David W; Duncan, Gary R 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:34 PM To: 'Steve @ pittmanpartners.com' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'Nick Churchill' Subject: FW Aramore path crossing at Westfield Blvd Hi,Steve— I thought I would consult with some Staff members after what was discussed at the committee meeting last night, regarding the path crossing.And, after hearing what Gary Duncan and David Littlejohn have to say, I am not sure the proposed path crossing at that location is ideal and would probably not be supported by the City. Per David: the proposed location would not be ideal for a pedestrian crosswalk. Even though the crosswalk would be located at 98th Street this would still be considered a mid-block crossing since Westfield's traffic doesn't stop or slow down at or near that location. This would not provide the best situation for pedestrians to cross the street and would be something the City typically doesn't recommend. In this instance we think the best situation would involve a path that travels south along the east side of Westfield to the 96th St RAB and crosses to the Monon connection at the 96th and Westfield intersection. We think this would be a more direct and much safer option I realize that this option would utilize right-of-way that is not in front of the Aramore parcel, so it probably wouldn't get implemented with their project. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning &Zoning Division Dept. of Community Services 1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr. Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317-571-2417 I F: 317-571-2426 I E: aconnacarmel.in.gov W: www.carmeldocs.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2 19 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Barnes, David R; Foley, Amanda J; McBride, Mike T Subject: Aramore PUD, Maple Drive Connection Angie, I cannot find any old emails regarding Engineering support of the connection of Maple Drive through Aramore and through Inglenook up to 99th Street. As we did when Aramore was first proposed, Engineering supports the connection to Maple Drive from Aramore. With the platting of Inglenook, we have started the north-south street that will become the extension of Maple Drive when Aramore is completed. Please let me know if there are 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 1 � � TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STUDIES • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES ,'� STREET DESIGN • HIGHWAY DESIGN • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING tltltl 33 , ���!!! CCC111333 PARKING LOT DESIGN •TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION • SITE ENGINEERING& Site Engineering REGISTRATION INDIANA Creating Order Since 1966 ILLINOIS WILLIAM J.FEHRIBACH.P.E. IOWA KENTUCKY OF COUNCIL MICHIGAN STEVEN J.FEHRIBACH,P.E. OHIO PRESIDENT MISSOURI JOSEPH T RENGEL,P.E. FLORIDA VICE PRESIDENT R.MATTHEW BROWN,P E. VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD J KELLY,P E. VICE PRESIDENT MEMORANDUM DATE: 9/26/12 TO: Steve Pittman Pittman Partners FROM: R. Matt Brown,PE,PTOE A&F Engineering Co., LLC RE: Aramore Project—Westfield Blvd, Carmel A&F Engineering has conducted a cursory site plan review and analysis for the proposed Aramore project as it relates to future traffic impacts within the near-by area. This review included the collection of existing traffic data along Westfield Boulevard, estimates of traffic that will be generated by the proposed Aramore project and the impacts of this traffic on Westfield Boulevard and Maple Lane. The following summarizes the results of the review and analysis: • Based on existing daily commuter patterns and the characteristics of the proposed land use, it is anticipated that approximately 15% to 20% of all traffic generated by the proposed development will utilize Maple Drive. • Current traffic count data and analysis shows that Westfield Boulevard operates with a volume to capacity(v/c)ratio of 0.44 during the weekday peak hour. A v/c of 1.0 represents a roadway that is at capacity and theoretically would not be able to accommodate additional traffic. The current conditions (0.44) indicate that the roadway is at 44% capacity. Traffic projections show that when the traffic from the proposed Aramore project is added the v/c will only slightly increase to 0.50(50%capacity) during the peak hour. 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201 — INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240 TELEPHONE (317)2020864 — FACISMILE (317) 2020908 • The proposed access dnve design along Westfield Boulevard and the proposed addition of a southbound left-turn lane along Westfield Boulevard at the proposed access drive will provide for safe and efficient movements to/from the site. As summarized above, based on the existing traffic data and the traffic projections for the proposed development, the Aramore project will not have a significant traffic impact on the local area roadway network. If you have any questions regarding the information in this memorandum please feel free to contact rue. 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Michael Johnson [mikejohnson02@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5 04 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: (Email of Support for Aramore PUD Amend) Dear Angie, Please accept this email as my support of Steve Pittman's proposed luxury apartment development at Aramore. I believe it is needed and would be an asset to the surrounding community. Mike Johnson F. C. Tucker Company (317) 599-3454 Sent from my iPhone Conn, Angelina V From: DeLynn Huff [delynnhuff @gmail.com] on behalf of DeLynn Huff [dhuff @vasc-alert.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3.06 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Amendment to Aramore PUD Ordinance (Email of Support) Hello! We are unable to attend the hearing this evening, but I did want to let you know that my husband, Dennis Huff, and I are in support of the suggested amendments to the Aramore PUD Ordinance. Our property is adjacent to the proposed development. Sincerely, Dennis and DeLynn Huff 9768 Kittrell Drive Indianapolis, IN 46280 Best regards, DeLynn Huff, BS, RN, CNN Clinical Coordinator Vasc-Alert, LLC 3000 Kent Avenue West Lafayette, IN 47906 Phone 317-716-6764 Fax 317-642-0576 dhuffOvasc-alert.corn www.vasc-alert.corn 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, September 12,2012 1230 PM To: 'Nick Churchill' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'Steve Pittman' Subject: RE rezoning a portion of Aramore PUD back to S2 Hi, Nick— I double checked the legal description dimensions, and it looks like the parcels sold to the Pullins and to the Hunters are not included. Thanks for your time, Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:01 PM To: 'Nick Churchill' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Steve Pittman Subject: RE: rezoning a portion of Aramore PUD back to S2 Nick, I am referring to land adjacent to Mr. Grant Pullins' land. Not Inglenook. Please double check. Thanks so much! Angie Conn Planning Administrator From: Nick Churchill [mailto:Nick(apittmanpartners.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:50 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Steve Pittman Subject: RE: rezoning a portion of Aramore PUD back to S2 Angie, I will ask our engineers to double check, but I believe we have already removed those parcels along with the previously developed ground that is now Inglenook from our legal description for our PUD amendment. Thank you for the heads up on this and please let me know if there is anything else you or the petitioner needs from us to help with this process moving forward Nick Nick Churchill, LEEDAP Pmaniiners _ 317 573 6692 direct 317.524.6001 fax 317 777.1811 mobile nick@pittmanpartners.com Mail: PO Box 554 Carmel,IN 46082-0554 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1239 PM To: 'Nick Churchill' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'Steve @pittmanpartners.com' Subject: rezoning a portion of Aramore PUD back to S2 Attachments: legal descrip of land to rezone back to S-2 pdf Good afternoon, Nick- Today, a rezone petition was filed,to rezone a part of the land that is zoned aramore pud back to s-2. These are 3 parcels of land sold to a few of the neighbors by Steve. In order to be proactive, I am asking that you add a slight additional amendment to your PUD Amendment petition,to modify the legal description of the land that is considered to be within the Aramore PUD boundary. That way, all bases are covered, so to speak. Attached is the info about the parcels to be rezoned back to S-2. Please let me know if this is do-able. 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. aconn @carmel.in.gov W www.carmeldocs.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 1 t /-t LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7,Township 17 North,Range 4 East,in Hamilton County,Indiana,described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said quarter section;thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West assumed bearing)along the West line of said quarter section a distance of 425.85 feet to the Northwest corner of a tract of land described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 2005-26315 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana;thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East along the North line of said tract a distance of 75.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said tract,being a point on the South line of a tract of land described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 89-25227;thence continuing South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East along said South tine a distance of 305.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof;thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East along the East line of said tract a distance of 119.00 feet to the Northeast corner thereof being a point on the North line of a tract of land described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 2005-26316(the following two courses are along the Northerly and Easterly lines of said tract of land)1)thence South 69 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 124.20 feet to a point on the West line of Pullin tract(Instrument No.93-6989 per records of Hamilton County);2)thence along said West line,South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 173.36 feet to the Point of beginning(herein after referred to a point"A")of the following two(2)described tracts;thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds West 124.20 feet to a rebar with orange cap stamped"JD HALL LS20500017";thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East 173.22 feet;thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East 124.20 feet to a rebar with Schneider Corp.cap; thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West 173.36 feet to the Point of Beginning(Point"A"),containing 0.494 acres(21,522.33 square feet)more or less. PARCEL II Beginning at a Point A,thence along the South line of said Pullin tract,South 89 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds East 78.06 feet to a rebar with orange cap stamped"JD HALL LS20500017";thence leaving said line,parallel with the West line of Hunter Tract(Instrument No.88-14656),South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West 222.27 feet to a rebar with orange cap stamped"JD HALL LS20500017"thence North 89 degrees 31 minutes 1 seconds West 78.06 feet to a rebar with orange cap stamped"JD HALL LS20500017'thence parallel to said West line of Hunter,North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East 221.91 feet to the Point of Beginning,containing 0.398(17,336.78 square feet)more or less. Grantor hereby expressly reserves a fifteen(15)foot Easement for Drainage,Utilities and Landscape Maintenance along the West and South portions of the above described Parcels i and iI. OVERALL DESCRIPTION Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 17 North, Range 4 East, in Hamilton County, Indiana, being the Pullins property described in Instrument No. 93-6989 and a 0.494 acre tract and 0.398 acre tract transferred from Pittman Partners to Pullins in Instrument No. ow -co is as per survey by JD Hall Land Surveying, Job No. 09-096, dated November 29, 2009, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Pullins tract (Instrument No. 93-6989) which bears South 88 degrees 58 minutes 07 seconds East, 504.20 feet from the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence parallel to the west line of said quarter and along the west line of said Pullins tract, South 00°08'25" West, 299.11 feet to an iron rod with Schneider cap (hereinafter referred to as"Schneider Cap"); thence along the North, West and South lines of Tract 1 of said Survey Job No. 09-096, the following 3 courses: 1) North 89° 50' 54" West 124.20 feet, 2) parallel to the west line of said Quarter, South 00°09'06" West, 173.22 feet to a 5/8" iron of with orange cap stamped "JD HALL LS20500017", 3) South 89°47'07" East, 124.20 feet to the Southwest corner of said Instrument No. 93-6989; the following the West, South and East lines of Tract 2 of said Survey Job No. 09-096, the following 3 courses: 1) parallel to the west line of said Quarter, South 00° 09' 06" West 221.91 feet to a 5/8" iron of with orange cap stamped "JD HALL LS20500017", 2) South 89°31'11" East 78.06 feet to a 5/8" iron of with orange cap stamped "JD HALL LS20500017", 3) parallel to the West line of said Quarter, North 00°09'06" East 222.27 feet to a 5/8" iron of with orange cap stamped "JD HALL LS20500017" on the South line of said Instrument No. 93-6989; thence along said south line, South 89°47'07" East, 92.86 feet to the Southeast corner of Instrument No. 93-6989; thence along the east line of said tract, parallel with the West line of said Quarter, North 00°09'06" East, 470.03 feet to the Northeast corner of said tract on the North line of said Quarter; thence along said north line, North 88°58'07" West, 171.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 2.74 acres more or less. Subject to a 15 foot easement reserved for Drainage, Utilities & Landscape Maintenance along the West and South portions of Tract 1 and Tract 2 as shown on Survey Job No. 09-096. Also subject to all easements and rights of way of record. This description was prepared by me, at the request of Grant Pullins for the purposes of combining parcels. No additional field work was conducted for this description. ``\``��11{1V4lIIIlll1111//f,, , ES D HALL, LS 20500017 ,-. F0001 - Date: 17 FEB 2010 Rev: 23 FEB 2010 STATE OF INU I ANP - ///fiffillilllll� C? t3 L.` 1 r LEGAL DESCRIPTION Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 17 North Range 4 East, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said quarter section, thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West(assumed bearing) along the West line of said quarter section a distance of 425.85 feet to the Northwest comer of a tract of land described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 2005-26315 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East along the North line of said tract a distance of 75.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said tract, being a point on the South line of a tract of land described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 89-25227, thence continuing South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East along said South line a distance of 305.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East along the East line of said tract a distance of 119.00 feet to the Northeast corner thereof being a point on the North line of a tract of land described in a deed recorded in instrument number 2005-26316 (the following two courses are along the Northerly and Easterly lines of said tract of land), 1)thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 124.20 feet to a point on the West line of Pullin tract( Instrument No. 93-6989 per records of Hamilton County); 2) thence along said West line, South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 173 36 feet; 3) thence along the South line of Pullin tract, South 89 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 78.06 feet to a 5/8"rebar with orange cap stamped "JD HALL LS20500017" marking the Point of Beginning; thence continue South 89 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds East 77.94 feet to a Schneider capped rebar at the Northwesterly corner of Hunter Tract( Instrument No.88-. 14656); thence along the West line of said Hunter tract, South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West 222.63 feet to a Schneider capped rebar at the Southwest corner thereof;thence North 89 degrees 31 minutes 11 seconds West 77.94 feet to a rebar with orange cap stamped"JD HALL LS20500017"thence parallel to said West line of Hunter, North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East 222.27 feet to the Point of Beginning , containing 0.398 acres (17,336.78 square feet) more or less Grantor expressly reserves a fifteen(15) foot easement for Drainage, Utilities& Landscape Maintenance - along the South portion of the above described tract, as shown in the survey attached hereto as"Exhibit B." A '1. • mgt._ .-n.:-t••��a ..—-;W;;:,, -�ca.....x—.�__-•-x -,. .-,�m....,,, .-.:.,.n_, �,,..,G...v ,.„- ,-..-�... ...a . ���^^^ �,,,✓4 �', Y, j Y PARENT DESCRIPTION (from lost#2007-36491) s Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7,Township 17 � ; North, Range 4 East, in Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: ' 4�F ;,drr Commencing at the northwest corner of said quarter section;thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West(assumed bearing)along the west line of said quarter section a distance of 425.85 feet to the northwest corner of a tract of land described in a deed recorded as Instrument Number 2005-26315 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana;thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East along the north line of said tract a distance of 75.00 feet to the northeast corner of said tract and the Point of Beginning, being a point on the south line of a tract of land described in a deed recorded as instrument Number 89-25227; thence continuing South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East along said south line a distance of 305.00 feet to the southeast corner thereof;thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East along the east line of said tract a distance of 119.00 feet to the northeast corner thereof being a point on the north line of a tract of land described in a deed recorded as instrument Number 2005-26316(the following four courses are along the northerly and easterly lines of said tract of land); 1)thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 124.20 feet; 2)thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 173.36 feet; 3)thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 156.00 feet; 4)thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 222.63 feet to the north line of a tract of land described in a deed recorded in Deed Book 314, page 403;thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 11 seconds East along said north line a distance of 307.73 feet to southwest corner of a tract of land described In a deed recorded in Deed Book 349,page 522; 1)thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 59 seconds East along the west line of said tract a distance of 689.87 feet to the 1, north line of said quarter-quarter section;2)thence South 88 degrees 58 minutes 07 second East along said north line a distance of 379.80 feet to the northeast corner of said quarter-quarter section and the northeast corner of a tract of land described In a deed recorded In Deed Book 349, page 523(the following two courses are l� along the easterly and southerly lines of said tract); 1)thence South 00 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds West along the east line of said quarter-quarter section a ,�W distance of 445.00 fast, 2)thence North 88 degrees 58 minutes 07 seconds West a ..Y ,... r we distance of 19022 feet to the east line of the aforesaid tract of land described in Deed Book 349, page 522;thence South 00 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds West , along said east line a distance of 243.05 feet to the north line of the aforesaid tract of land described in a deed recorded in Deed Book 314, page 403;thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 11 seconds East along said north line a distance of 190.21 feet 4 to the east line of said quarter-quarter section;thence South 00 degrees 20 minutes '` ° 55 seconds West along said east line a distance of 646.66 feet to the southeast fi corner said quarter-quarter section;thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 24 seconds West along the south line of said quarter-quarter section a distance of 48. 1275.51 feet to the east right-of-way line per road plans for Carmel Project Number 04-11 for Westfield Boulevard(the following two courses are along said east right-of-way line); 1)thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 323.07 feet 2)thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 11 seconds East a < .mb distance of 5.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds East a C,■1, distance of 597.10 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 27.70 acres, more or less. • s'' coitNERsi,I m2;la . City o f C arras N ai�_,i DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES August 8.2012 Mr.Nick Churchill Pittman Partners 12400 N Meridian St ste 190 Carmel, IN 46032 RE:Aramore PUD Ordinance Amendment Dear Mr.Churchill: The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of alternative transportation. 1 have reviewed the project submitted for review for the August 15, 2012 Technical Advisory Committee meeting, and the comments from the Alternative Transportation review have been satisfactorily addressed. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written responses may result in delay of the review process. It is critical that this office be made aware of all modification made on the plans being re-submitted,particularly if any such changes are considered"new"or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please provide revised plans indicating all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any changes,including changes resulting from Plan Commission,Special Studies or other committee meetings. The Department of Community Services reserves the right to provide additional comments based on subsequent reviews. If you have questions.please contact me at 571-2417 Sincerely, David Littlejohn Alternative Transportation Coordinator Department of Community Services cc Angie Conn,Department of Community Services Engineering Department Review Project File Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Conn, Angelina V From: Greg R. Noyes [Greg Hoyes @hamiltoncounty in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11.40 AM To: nick @pittmanpartners.com Cc: Conn, Angelina V, Foley, Amanda J; Duncan, Gary R, Thomas, John G; Redden, Nick, 'Greg Ilko' Subject: RE: Aramore PUD Ordinance Z-527-09 Nick I am not sure we got the text amendment to the existing PUD, but don't really need it since we have no involvement with the development. We have no comment with regards to the petition. If you have any questions, please let me know. 0149# ye4, ae, e vii, e se Plan Reviewer Hamilton County Surveyor's Office From: Greg Ilko [mailto:gilkoOcrossroadengineers.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:15 AM To: nick0oittmanoartners.com Cc: aconn(acarmel.in.gov; afoley©©carmel.in.gov; Gary Duncan;jthomas @carmel.in.gov; Greg R. Hoyes; Redden, Nick Subject: Aramore PUD Ordinance Z-527-09 Nick, I received your packet of information for the above referenced text amendment to the existing PUD. I will have no comments with regards to this petition. Should modifications to any previously approved drainage calculations and/or construction plans be warranted, we should be copied one full size set of each for conformation of compliance to the City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Standards Manual. Thanks, Gregory J. Ilko, P.E. CrossRoad Engineers, PC 3417 Sherman Drive Beech Grove, IN 46107 Office: 317-780-1555 ext. 112 Mobile: 317-408-3609 Fax: 317-780-6525 Conn, An•elina V From: Greg Ilko [gilko @crossroadengineers corn] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9.15 AM To: nick@pittmanpartners.com Cc: Conn,Angelina V, Foley, Amanda J; Duncan, Gary R, Thomas, John G; Greg Hoyes, Redden, Nick Subject: Aramore PUD Ordinance Z-527-09 Nick, I received your packet of information for the above referenced text amendment to the existing PUD. I will have no comments with regards to this petition. Should modifications to any previously approved drainage calculations and/or construction plans be warranted, we should be copied one full size set of each for conformation of compliance to the City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Standards Manual. Thanks, Gregory J. Ilko, P.E. CrossRoad Engineers, PC 3417 Sherman Drive Beech Grove, IN 46107 Office: 317-780-1555 ext. 112 Mobile: 317-408-3609 Fax: 317-780-6525 i