HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceI .
f'f •
Conn, Angelina V
from: Conn, Angelina V
Sent:. `Friday, October 28, 2011 9:17 AM
To: 'Steve Granner'
Cc: ` Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-WoId,.Alexia K; 'Calderon, Joseph'; Boone, Rachel M.
Subject:, RE: Review comments for pocket No. 11070022 Z: CoGo Commons PUD
Attachments: Rachel's responses CoCo Oct. 27.docx
Hi, Steve-
Thanks for replying to our review eornments on Oct.4.We have looked over the responses and offer the following
responses back. Please replY before Nov.4 .Thank you.
Fre tminary anningfZoning Dept. Review Comments:
1. Prepare an estimated construction.cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan&Alternative Transportation
Plan; contact the Engineering Dept.for more details.
2. Staff would prefer°that you preserve the delineated wetland areas and incorporate them into your site plan. If
not,will there be any wetland mitigation?
3. Please consider incorporating LEED or`green'building practices into`the PUD requirements,such as a white
roof,solar panels, pervious pavers in all or part of the parking area,:bioswales,etc. Green List is.attached,for
refeeence.
4. Provide a bike and pedestrian plari to maximize the direct sidewalk/path connectivity within the site (it looks
like there are a lot of missed opportunities.).
5. The Development Plan lay.out needs some work.Our Department would like to schedule another meeting with
you and your clients,to further discuss this.
6. Please add a table of contents to the,PUD text. �.�p�Ld 1�-�-�-�' Q d � )
� Section 3.4- what is your proposed maximum lot coverage percentage? �-�� 1H,p.Prv�bUS �Q°`-�
8. Section 3.5 -when you write`where appro:priate" that gives too mucll leeway; it needs to be a standard.
9. Sections 4.4.B:1.a&4,4.B.a-please.make the gceenbelt along 146th street 20-30 feet wide. 15-ft is too narrow.
�� Section 4.4.B.2.b- Please add a 30-ft wi'de landscaped area along the southern property line.
1"1: Section 4.4.B:3.b-Sidewalks should be located around the.entire building; or at least where it makes sense.
12 Sections 5.4:B.1.a&6.4.B.1.a-please make the greenbelt along 146th street 20 -30 feet wide. l5-ft is too
narrow.
13. Sections 5.4:B.2.a&6.4.B:2.a- Please a_dd a 30-ft wide landscaped area along the southern property line.
��14. Section 7.2.C..add that the Director can,approve minor alterations only.Substantial alterations need plan
commission approval or from,a committee thereof.
O�� Section 4.4.B.1.a-type B bufferyard is not:referenced in 4.4.C,as stated, Please add wording to 4.4.C.2.
'Y� Signage.(and misc.) review comments from Sign Permits Officer are attached. ��, � 'G�- �2 e �Vl a'.1��
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:12 PM
To: 'Steve Granner'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; 'Calderon, )oseph'; Boone, Rachel M.
Subject: Review comments for pocket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUD
Hello, Steve:
Please reply to each of the preliminary review comments for the CoCo Commons PUD rezone application via einail or
letfer c�r.respondence on �r bef�re Sept.'2. Additional review comments rnight be voiceci at the �ugust: 17 TQC meeting.
Also, our Departinent.would like to schedule a meet.ing with you and your clients, to further discuss the concept plan
layc�ut.
,
�
�
�. .
�° ,
l. Signage (and misc.)review comments froin Sign Permits Ofticer:
l. Area A
� a. Wall sig�ns:
i. 6 signs on th�e west elevation seems like too much.These are what I imagine they
want signage for: �
• 1. grocery store name
2. pharinacy
3. bank
4. inaybe a Starbucks
5, possibly a cestaurant
We have reduced i.t from 6 t.o 5. I tliink this could be further reduced to
three sig�zs.
ii. 3 sibns on the north inight be ok—depending on what they are
We left 3 ���t. the n.ort.h OK, reduced the east from 3 to 1 I strll feel this
slaould be 0 and left.tli.e.routh at zero thank you.
iii. I am opposed to signs on the back of the building:Ground signage and north wall
signage shc�uld be adeyuate t�alert drivers�hat Chere is a grocery �tore there.
I3y "back"do yocc rrreaja the east facade or the south facade? I rnea�at
� east, but agree that no sigjzs should be on the sout)z too. We could
probably,further li�nrt the r��1e ar:t.he east to bei�rg li�nited t.o tfr,e nort./z
ilalf o,J`t.he east fa��ute. This would be gooc� it would be better if the
sign on the east. was elirninated. We prolcibit signs on. the. s��ut.la,fa�ade.
Good, tlaank you.
iv. I am opp�sed to the size allotments. I .do not believe t�hat percen�ages of the
fa�ade is a go.od way to determine square footage. (We should measure what
would be allowed per the Sign Ordinance, then see what they.want as "extra".)
We h.ave�lelefed t/re perceiztages a�i�i specif ed maxim.um.sizes. Thi;s is good, thank you. But I ca�a see
one sig�i o,z the west bei�ag I50 sq.ft., but feel it is too lurge for the north. I believe the Sign Ordinartce
size of 105 sq:ft: should 6e adequate for a main identification sign on the north elevation. I am still
agar.nst sigiaage on t.he east. I am n.ot.i�i..support of all the other sr.gn.s at 75 sq.fl. each.Do we faeed a 75
sq.ft. Pharmacy type sig�i?The signage should be scaled appropriately to its level of occupied space
within the buildi,zg.
v. There is no nlention of sign color or mounting method. It would be best to have
these in the PUD language for uni.fornuty.
Col.or will be aia ADLS decr;ci.ora a�ad establis/aed by th.e ferst AI1LS
approval. We tr.ave added addition.al �esigri cofastrai�r.ts. OK, thank
you.
b. There is no letter B,it goes straight t�C
Correctetl. OK
1973178v1.
1
�.
. *1
c. CoCo commons ID and Real Estate (Leasing Si�ns)
i. "As Approved by an ADLS Sign Program for CoCo Commons" is not.
appropriate language for a PUD. Please staCe what it is that: is desired, so it is
written in the PUll.not deternuned at a later date or time.
We izave arnefade�l to m.i.mic the Sig�i Ordina�ice. Thank you. I am ok
wit.h the size, height, setback, desigrt, illurninatiofa, landscaping, etc. I
ain just coracerfzed about the nufnber of ide�zti�cation signs tlaat will .
appear along the access road after the ��aal site plan is do►ze (a�ad
based off the �lifferefat areas). What else will this access road serve?
Will it really be riecessary to have �nore t.han oiae grouiad sig►a so close
together (based off the co►zcept pla�z)? I just doubt there will be need
for multiple grou�ad signs. It eould be simplified by saying one grou�zd
sig�a per street froratage is allowed, counting the access road as the
frontage for the west side. The outlots would count the actual roads.
ii. The site is 20 acres, therefore would alJow them up to 32 sq. ft. and 8' tall for a
real estate sign. -
We have n.ow ref"erenced the Si.ga Orclr.raarace. Tha�ak you.
iii. They would also be allowed construction signs up to 32 sq. ft_ and 8' tall.
Sarne a.r `c.ii'above. Ok.
iv. We're making i[(leasing signs) work through Che Sign Ordinance for"I'he Legacy
project, and they have much more land than this project. So I think the Sign
Ordinance regulations would work fine here.
We �zow use the Sign Ordinarzce regulrctiorrs. Thank you.
v. I don't think this section should be combined for both main identification signs
and leasing signs. It is noC clear what goes with what. For example, temporary
signs should noC be lighted and do not h�ve to be landscaped. It might be best just
to make a separate section For leasing signs.
We separated t.hena. Tharak you.
2. Area B
a. Wall signs
i. Not in favor of one sign on each fa�ade of each tenant space. The south proposed
building will not need signs on the south (back elevation oF tlie building). I can
possibly see supporting end cap tenant signage on the west or east elevat.ion of
the south building.
We added a rnc�ri.,num qf 2 per occupa�at a�id rzow prohibit sig�is on. the
sorcth,f'a�c�de. As it's writte�a, tlai-s works well for the soacth proposed
Guilding. Except for a possible si.ragle t.enant occupyirag t.he two center
1973178v1.
2
r
�
.
uiaits. If that happens, orae sign should be utilized across both facades,
si,zce tlaey faee the sa,ne geraeral directio,a. Tlie �nore 1 t/Ti�zk about it,
the less I like the idea of te�aa�it sig�iage facing west or east for e,ad cap
users of the soutla buildi�ag. This sigfzage wiZC be direetly see�a from the
residercces to the south. Illurni�aated signage is the last thing they will
wcu�t tr�see vr l�avi�zg g�ari,ag u�tv�)�ir]au,ncs at niglat.
ii. The north multi tenant building —�is it going to llave proper 4 sided arcllitecture
and entra�ices fi�om the front (west) and back (east)'? If not, I do not believe
signage �n the east is necessary or required. We typieally do not have signage on
the backs of buildings, especially i�f there is no��entrance on that fa�ade.
Yes, it. will /7ave 4-sided arclaitecture. �rrtra�r.ces are u�tknow�a at this
tirne - probably will depend oia th.e te�zafat(s). The �aorth building is
where tlie problem is for the two signs per terzarzt. I fi.rinly believe thdt
signage should ►�ot be utilized orz the back of a buildi�ag (irc this ease
the east elevation) unless t)zere is a�a entrance on that side and it is
desi.gize�l appropriately. With a loadirag doek arad large buffers, I do not
see entrances on the east side. Please limit sig►r.age to orze per tena�at,
and eiad caps cafz have two sigiis.
iii. Again, I am not.in support of using percentages of facaeles for sign areas.
Percentages are deleted, Sigrr. OrdirEajtce now refere�i.ced. Thank you
for cha�agiizg this.
iv. Location should be above the entrance to the store, or have more language stating
that the sign cann�t be located within one foot of the edge of their tenant space.
More details like this would be helpful.
Ne.w language added. I do not thi�ak that 50' is enough distance fro�n
the south property liiae to prohi.bit:signage frorn shining into the hornes
to t.he south. Please up this to I00'.
v. Design should also .include that logos are liinited to 25°�0 of t.he tot11 sign area. It
. would als�he go�d to see a color list, ceturrr and trim cap specification, mcaunting
(raceway or flush m�unted) st.yle,etc. More detail is needed.
I.ogo % added. All the rest will be established by the ,frrst ADl.S
approval. Tha�k you.
b. Again, no R is listed; it goes s�raight to C.
Cnrrectecl. Ok.
c. Again, this section should be split into two: one for the ground:ID signs desirecl and one
for the'real estate (leasing) signs. I would also like to see niore detail or re>feming to a
nlap showing possible locations of desireel ground signs.
1973178v1. '
� 3
:
, �
Sanr.e as Area "A" resporise. Still would like to see reasoning a�zd
locatioizs for so�na�ay ground:sig�as.
� d. This section is fine.
Tha�aks. �Vv pfe�b.
3. Area C
a. Wall Signs: Repeat everything I said above- not in favor of lhis tanguage
Repeat what. we respoitded above. I stron�lv disaQree that. a wall sig�t
for every fa�ade of every tefaant that nzay be on this outlot is rcecessary. Plus
two ground sig►zs if they have o�ie eratrarace off eaeh street—this is too much!
Please reduce to no �n�re than 3 sig�zs total for the site, i�zcluding grou�ad and
wall types. � .
b. 1'here is no B;it goes straight to C.
Correeted. Ok.
c. Repeat what I said above.
Repeat what we respurcded above. I arn ok with the sizes, etc. but still
coir.cer�aed about t.he �aumber of ground signs that will be orc this s�nall piece uf
property.
d. Ok with this section.
T{za.fiks, agai�r,.Ditto.
4. Defin.itions section
a. Street is an interesting interpretation that does not go along with our signage per one
pub'lic street.rule.
We don't u.nderst.atad wh.at you are st.atr.rag here.
5. Use Table
a. ATMs are allowed in all three areas — signage for ATMs is not mentione�! anywhere.
That makes me t:hinlc it. will go by� the regular Sign.Ordinance standards which would
only allow 3 sq. ft. of sibnage per fa�ade of the ATM,depending on how it is configured.
We agree. Will it be rnerztio�aed anywhere to refer to the Sigia
Ordi�aance? �
b. Interestsng they liave included Food Stands in alt three areas.
• 1973178v1.
4
�,
,.
r� �
We are tryi.�tg to rni.m�c The f�rirl�es PUD, a.r h.as Geen requeste�l by
Staff o�i so many vtlter poi�zts. Ok.
c. Tavern or Nightclub is allowed — I can see thar. heing an issue for the residents to the
south—especially if in the souChern building in Area B —that is very close to the homes.
Orace agai�i, we nzirrti.c The Brid�es NUD. I,j'it beco►nes a problein,for
the residefats qj'Saddle Creek,,f or tlte sotttfaern. buil.dings r.n Areas "13"
or"C'; we will�aegotiat.e a solution. Ok.
6. Misc.
a. What are they doing f�r drainage onsite'? Underground detention? I see no water features
planneel, which could help the site to not look like a sea of parking...
At this point—undeterrnr.ned. Ok.
b. I hope Chey plan to have lots of trees in the parking islands.
Of course we will. Ok.
c. I appreciate the plan t� have planters/end caps �n the parking rows — it really helps
people to slow down and create a definite "end" to the parking isle before che driveway.
Thaiaks: O
197317$vl.
5
._ . . . . .. _ .
n�;
, � • �
r
� Conn, Angelina V'
�� From: � Conn, Angelina V
Sent; Tuesday, Augusf 09,2011 12:12 PM
To: 'Steve Granner'
Cc: Hollibaugh,.Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; 'Calderon, Joseph; Boone, Rachel M.
Subject: Review comments for pocket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUD
, Atfachments: Carmef Green Building Checklist.doc
Hell�, S,teve: � ,
� Please reply to each of the preliini�iary rev�iew comnlents for the CoCg..Comiilons PUD r�ezone application via email or
. � letter corres,�oilelence��i or befo�'e Se�t:�2. Additional review comiilents inig�it'tie�vaict.d at tl�e August�1�7 TAC i��eetir�g.
�11so, our Department would like f� schedule a meeting with y�u and your clients, to furtherdiscuss the concept plan
layout..
�� Also, for reference on specific standards&lcvel of detail the de�artrnerit�wants you to have foc this PUD, �lease refer to
The Briciges PUD Z-550-11, whicit•is located at this webpage:
littp:%/cocdocs.ci.ca��mel.i n:us/weblink/U/doc/63'1.151/Electronic.aspx.
Thank you.
Preliminarv Plannin�Zoning Dent:Review Coniments:
� � 1. PTease�rovide digit�l�copies of[he plans�;ai�d�applicatioils.
2. Pl�ase do doublz-sided printing f�r the info packeCs.
� 3. Please�proviele copies�of'your corresponcleiice with t11e TAC members�aixd their correspondence with you.
� Relne�nber ro�include the Development Plan application's�Findings of Fact.sheeC i�1 your final info packets.
5. Provi�ie�the��illed�.out�an�i notarizedAf�i�iavit.of Notice of Public Hear.ing�page.of�the applica�ion.
6. Provi�ie the filleel out.N.�tice of.P,ublic I-learing page of the applieation:
7. Provide the filled�ut anc�n�tarized Publie Notice Sign Placeinent Affidavit;page qf:theapplication.
8. Pi-ovide a copy of'the Official List of�cljacent:Property C)wners froin:Han�l'ton County Auditor's Office.
�. Prepare an estir�iatecl.construetion ct�st tc�comp�y«ith the Thoro�zghfare Plan &�It:ernative Transportatic�n Plan;
�.c���i�c-�tt�e-�:��gi���e.rii�g ID����. fc������c�re.cletaiis.
14). �lt�ff e�c?�Ic� �ref�r ih�t yc�i� ���e:�er<�r�t�e.rJ�::lin�atec� 4�+�tlt���t ar��s�t�tr� i�cc,a��c��rtt�..���ern intcz�.�c���r site��irs�a. I�r�c�i,
will there t��anv wet3a.nt� mitigat.�vn`? , ..
I i. Ple��se c�nsi�er inc�rp�r���n�I.EEi3 c�r `�;rzen" b�iiitin�praciic�5 intt�the P�7U rec�uirernents, sueh�1s �l�vi7ire r�vf,
sotar panels, �ervi�us I�avers in all or p�irt.of the p�v�l:ing area,biosw��les:,.ete. Greev I,istis attached, far�reference.
12. Pr�vide a bike and pe�estrian ptan tt�maximize the direct sidewalklpath connecti�7ity ��-itt�in.the:site(ii Ic�oks like
there are a lc�t«f nuss�;d c��nc�rt.unifies.}.
l�. Ptease see ih�:lirid�es�'L�fr.�r text�sn h�w tn d{�the�arking�r�a,e��r�ir�:g ta Erl�nw fc�r sz�stainabie a�esign�nrj hrc�p's.
l 4'}c,��e ac1�� �t��ss€, agc��i,tecCur�tl t����ltl�j��� �ey�l�e�ne��t,� �irry�9� t« svhz��s;��n t�se t3nciges PL7D.
5
F4. `E'`��,�,rE;xs'.$�:.r�. i'��"1Y�t�s:€� �..�:�'sL:" 3`�.�c,�?:�.�.)�l$�:'A<r §?1,..���.�`. ''��:�?�>c�I�..tS..,:;i a<catst:F'•� E_�.�,'t:�F.s...�t.,i"t��,P.: Ca E;$$�..,�,ak�a o�1£�i�:,ck .s:t3
�+{311T 4��3�11�5::If}YE#�'��l�l'�.�3�[:fIS4�.�1�`'s'.
�?'r.. �'(�:�5;."Y3s�ii1 3 t:i�i5�#� ���.s�<3*'St�;�L�:�.C3;�:�#�.��F SI j t.�:�1..
17. Sects��n�22–wvill:i�t,�refer.to zoninb or�inance cl�apter 25, as well'? �
18. Section 3 2 please�add to��elefinieians: "ar¢hitectural enhancement appendages`'.
19. Section 3.4-what.is yout �roposed maximum lot coverage percentage? — °Z��
20. Section 3.5 –when y,ou write ` where appropriate"that gives t�o much leeway;it ne�cls to ve a standard:
21. Sectioi� 3.5:B -for EIFS,;please acicl that it can only be used above 8-ft from the ground ancUor used as trim t�be not
more than 1'��Io of a_facac�e. Siinilar to what is in the Bridges PUD.
22. Section 3.5:D–roof.ciesign. Please add text similar to what is in the Michigan Rd. Overlay text, chapter 23C.09.E.
�23. Section_3�.6:A–add�requirement.for roof for trash enclosur�, similar to the US 3�1�Overlay,-orclinance chapter
23'B.16:01. �
�2,4,.. Sectiori 3.6.B –list hov`v�these are.as�will be screened... with 6--ft rall wt�oclen-fences, 6-ft tall slirubs, etc.
25. Section 4.1-Flease make the building sett�ack from the south property line 30-fee�and from th�east property]r`ne 30-
� .gr..
26. Sections 4.4.B.I.a &4.4:B.a–please�nake the greenb�lt along 146`"street 20-30 feet wide. 15-ft is too narrow.
1
�"
�
27. Section 4.4.B.2�.b—Please add a 30-ft wide landsca�ed area along t�he southern property line.
28. Section 4.4.B.2. —add the word `a' so that �ections a. anc� b. read: lhere shccll be a lai2clsca��e�l....
29. Section 4.4.B3.b— Sidewalks should be located around the entire building, or at least wllere it makes sense.
3t). Secti�ns 4.S.A &S.S.A & 6S.A—please list how you will be doing this.
31. Sections 4.S.D �S.S.D &6�.S.D—please acld lhe bicycl��parking re�c�uirements to this secr.ion.�S�e chapter 27 of�he
Loning ordinance. �
32. Section�4.6.0—E�lease linu�t hei�ght of pole light to be 25-ft tall ancl 15=ft tall witlun 90-ft of a residential area, siini lar
t� what is.in the F3rid�es PUD.
33. Sections 4.6.D &5.6.D &6.6.D—Please add the requirenient for 9�-degree cut off anel/or flat lenses. �
� Sections 4.6.D &S.6.D �b.6.D—Foot canc�le riieasurements should be 0.0 af the east and south property lines.
3�5�. Sect.ion 5.1 -Please�i7�ake t11e building setback from the south property line 30-feet. °
6. SecCions 5.4�.B_l.a &6:4.B.1.a-please make the greenbelt a�long 146`�'street 24 -30 feet wide.. 15-ft is too narrow.
37. Sections 5.4.B.2.a �i 6.4.B.2.a-Please add a 3O-ft wicle landscaped area along the southern�rc�perty line.
���� Szction 7.2.C. add that the Director can approve tiunor alterations only. Substantial alterations need plan conuYUSSion
approval or from a cornlnitt-ce tllereof.
39. Exhibit 4—show both the Pcr.Yk> Pacbli�e and Moto�Bus or Ra�i�lroad Pc�sser�eer Stat�iorz uses as Perilaitted in�a11 areas.
40. Signage(and misc.)review comments from Sign Pernuts Officer:
1. Area A � •
a. Wall signs:
i. 6 signs on tl�e west elevation seems�like too n�iuch. These are what I imagine they want signage
� � for:
1. groce.ry store name
2. pharmacy
3. bank
4. maybe a Starbucks �
5. possibl.y a restaurar►t ' ,
ii. 3 signs on the north might be ok—depending on wha�they are
iii. I am opposed to signs on Che back c�f the building. Ground signage and north wall signage should
be adeyuat.e to alert.drivers s:hat there is a grocery store there.
iv. I am opposed to the size allotmenks.I do not believe that percentages of the faCade-is a good way
to determine.square foc�tage. (We sl�ould measure what would be allo�ved per fhe Sign (�rdinance,
t(�+en se�:.wi�at thiy want as"extra".)
v. 'I'he�-e.is�,c��z�c;nt�c�n c�t si�n cci(car nr€��c7�ant:in���e.t:hcac).It vtic��Ic���:hL.�t:.tt�.have the4�'in,the:�'iJt)
1a11guage for uniformiry.
b. `�'l�ere is no Ietter�3,it.�;oes straight to C
c. C�Co c�nunons II�.an�Real t;state(Ltasing Signs)
i. `'As A�prc�v�.ci by an AllLS Si�n Pro���am 1'or Cc�Co C�n�i�ans"is nc�t apprc��riate.language fc�r a
PUD. �?1�a�e titate�,�tiat i:t.is that is c�e,sired, �o.it is wriuen�n.the PUD,n�t de�te.rmined at a i_ater
date�r_tir�e.
ii. 'I'I�t 5it�is 2t)acr�..s;�thercfore wt�t�lrJ allt�w the��Y u�tcy 3?�s�. ft. anrJ 8' ta1�l fc�r a re.�il esi�te sign.
€ii. �`�iey�w�u�� a�s���a3���a��,•d�,vrsar€r�:��r��:�i�n� u� tu;��y: ft. ��t��' �n1�. � .
iz�. ''���'rE. ���r���r.(ic;�.�ii��`i�n�� ����r�.#1�r�at��.Ja ���e�i���C3��.a�t�t:�ic�r`�"#ye��:���;�� �rca�t:c:[,�tt�
�:�e}>ha�=e��u�l���i�r�:Ian�����an�1�:�;prt���c��.4z�����i������:�i�n t3r���r�c;e r.���lations����u3�
work fine h�re.
v. I don't think this stction should be combined for both main identification signs and.leasing signs.
It is not clear what goes with what.For exarnple, temporary signs should not be libhted and do
. not have to be landscaped. It rnight be.best just t�make a separate section for leasing signs.
2. Area B
a. Wall signs
i. Not in favor�f c�ne sign on each fa�ade of each tenant space.1 he south proposecl building will
nc�t need sigils-on the south(back elevation of the building). I ca�� possihly see supporting end cap
tenant signage c�n the west c�r east elevation of the south building.
ii. The north multi tenant building—is it going to have proper 4 side'd archit�clure and entrances .
from the front(west) and back(east)?If not, I do n�tbelieve signage�n the east is n�cessary or �
required.We t:ypically do not have signage on the backs of buildings, es�ecially if there is no
entrance �n that fa�ade.
2
� .
,�1� �
s^«+� ,
� ii:i. Again,I am n�t:in support of using percentages of facades for sign areas.
, i�. L�cation sh�uld be above the entrance'to the store,�r have m�re Ianguage stating that the sign
cannof be l�cated within one foot of the edge of their tenant s�ace. More details like this would
be helpful. ��
� � � v. �Design should�also inclu�e that logos are liinited to 25��%�of the�to�al sign area. It would also be
� good to�see�a�col"or list,,return and tri�i cap specifieaaon,�lnounting (raceway or flush mountcd) �
style,etc..IvTore detail is needed.
, b. �gain, no 13�is listcd;it o�es straight te�C.
c. Again, this secti;�n shc�uld be split into two: one for the ground ID signs desired and�ne for the real�state
(leasing) signs. I would also like to.sze more detail or referring to a cnap showing possible locations of
dtsired bround signs.
d. This section is tine.
3. Area C .
a. Wall Signs: Repeat r:.verything�:I said ab�ve- not in fav�r of this language
U. There is noB; itgoes,straight t.o C.
� c. Repeat what I said above. �
d. Ok with this section.
4. Definitions szction
� � �a. Street is an�inter�sting interpretation that does not go along,wit.h our signage p�r on�publ�ic street rule.
5. Use Table
a. ATMs are allowed in all three areas—signage for A'I'Ms is not.mentioned anyw,fiere.That makes me
tliink it will go by the regular Sign Ordinance standards which would anly allow 3 sc�. ft of signageper
fa�ade of the ATM, depending on_how it is confi�ured.
b. Interesting they have included Food Stands in all three areaS.
c. Tavern or'Nightclub i.s alloweci—I can see that being an issue for the residents to the south —especially if
in the southern building.�ip,Area l3 —that is very close to��the�honies.
6. Misc.
a. What arz they ci�in�for draina�e �msite?Underground detentiorr?I see no water features planned, which
could help the site t�� n.ot°tqqk:like a sea of parkinb...
b. I hope they plan to have lots of trees in the pa��ki'ng islancis. _
a I appre.ciat.e the plan tc�ha�e planters/end caps c3n t.he parking iows—it.really llelps pec�ple to slow eiown
a.�3c�create a definite"end"tc7 the parking isle t�efc�re the d��iueway:
. Thank ye�u,
Angie Conn,Pianning Administrator
Gity af`Carmel Planning&Zoning Division
Dept.of Cammunity Seruices
1 Giuic Square, 3rd EIr. .,
Garmel,iN 46032
C�: 317-57�-�4�7 � �: 3A�-57.�-�42� � E:_aconnCu�carmel:in.�av .
�`�:vrv�.�ar��'�n.����'se�fcas�.3���..�.1��S����:�*a�
T'lea�e.c't�nc.�c�nr:r1:�e.e��s=irc�nt�e�t:f�ea`c:,re..�:cu�rig��:t1�i,:c-nr�zi�
3
I
;� .
� -
Granner, Steven .
Frorri;, . Tim Bakec <Baker7386@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, J'anuary 18, 2012 1:34 PM
To: Granner,Steven
Subject: Fwd:In Favor of CoCo Commons...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rachei Oldham Dennis <rachel.b.oldham(a�qmail.com>
Date: January 16, 2012 7:1'6:19 PM EST � ^
To: Baker7386(a�att.net
Subject: In Favor of CoCo Commons...
Dear Tim,
My husband and I reside in Lincolnshire and in all honesty, when I first learned of your proposal for CoCo
Commons, I was less than thrilled. We too were told, when purchasing our home, that the land directly
North and Northeast.were strictly residential and no commercial de�elopment would be permitted. We
recently moved here from the Fishers area and have really enjoyed the peacefulness and lack of traffic. I feared
that opening a shopping area/commercial development may disturb the overall climate of the area. Despite all
t�he flurry of opinionated emails that had flooded my inbox regarding the issue, I decided to remain open-
minded and educate myself prior to making'a final decision. I sat in at"tendance for your open forum meeting
held in early December (late November'?j and must admit that I was pleasantly surprised. I feel you have put a
lot of time, effort and consideration info making the property as least intrusive to the surrounding
neighborhoods as possible. And as I've argued with several neighbors, "if yo.0 name something after your
Mother, you are bound to take pride in it...it is simply human nature." I think it's admirable that yau've taken
the sfeps you have to make this as painless for everyone as possible, i.e. extra trees, retention pond, special
deli'very hours, low lighting, pushing back the edge of the property, efc. I am optimistic that you will honor
your word throughout the development process.
Ideally I'd like to see CoCo Commons host a coffee shop, Kroger, frozen yogurt shop, bank, cleaners, sandwich
shop, hair salon, and a small merchant or two (Hallmark, gift shop, cake shop, etc). I think, that is done right,
these facilities could add'property vaTue as currently the nearest Kroger is at 161st and Spring Mill. 1 would
• love to walk the dogs to get a coffee/ice eream cone or ride my bike to the grocery for a few quick items. I've
seen this type of.'project done:in a veryclassy manner and if I understand correctly, I feel this is the type of
developmerit you-are envisioning as well.
I am strongly opposed to a theater or drive=thru fast food restaurant for traffic pattern reasons. I am against a
cell phone tower for siglit line reasops. I do not wish to see higher density residences such as apartments or
condos due to the highly tran_sient`clientele these will bring.
It is greatl.y appreciated tliat you are considering our input. I think it is important that we as a neighborhood
give and take witli regard to this project: I apologize for the few radical members of this neighborhood and
hope you are aware that they do not speak for all of us here in Lincolnshire. I feel if we are not careful,
sometfiing a whole lot worse may land on our back porch.
1
� �
' My hustiand arid I support the above rneritioned version of CoCo Commons (Kroger, cleaners, bank, ice cream,
etc) and look forward to it's development. We feel if done tastefully (and in consideration of the surrounding
, neighborhoods), GoCo Commons has.the potential to better our quality of life by decreasing our drive time to
these riecessary facilities, therefore increasing the amount of time we spend at.home. What a fantastic way to
honor your 1Vlother; a development`tl�at°prornotes quality family time by providing modern conveniences closer
to home.
Thank you for your time and we wish you;success with your endeavors!
, Sincerely,
Rachel Oldham Dennis
Li.ncolnshire Subdivision
317-777-2901
Timothy C. Baker �
317-443-4992
baker738�att.net
z
.
�
Granner, Steven
From: Tim Baker cbaker7386@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 1:37 PM
To: 'G'ranner, Ste�en
S.ubject: Fwd: Coco Commons
Begin forwarded message: ,
� From: Greg Buckhout <g'bwak18(a��qrnail.com>
Date; January 15, 2012 11:23:35 AM EST
To: Tim Baker <baker7386(a�att.net>
Subject: Re: Coco Commons
Tirn- I know a coupl'e of others that.have or will be sending you e-mails. Please send me the email's of the city �
folks hearing the proposed change and I wi11 reach out to them also. - Greg
Qn Sun, Jan 1.5, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Tim Baker <baker7386(a�att.net> wrote:
Thank you...much appreciated �
Tim Baker..:Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 14, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Greg Buckhout<�buekl 8(�a,gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Baker,
>
> My name is Greg Buckhout.and I l:ive in Lincolnshire. I am writing.you to express my support for the
proposed retail development at the Southeast corner of 146th and Towne. I believe this location will provide
considerable convenience for me and my family. Our current grocery options are either at 106th and Michigan
or 161 st and Spririgmill. Neither are ver.y convenient and are generally over crowded.
>
> My two primary concerns with the PUD document are the possible uses of an indoor theater and the cell
towers. My concern with the theater is:sporadic traffic patterns with loitering as parents drop kids off at
shows: .Cell towers are simply unattractive. Tassume both of these uses are nof on.top of your preference list
either as you strive for a long-term successful development. I will be in attendance on the 18th however l do
not plan on speaking unless anyone insinuates or indicates they are speaking for our entire neighborhood at
which point I will correct that. Thanks - Greg
Timothy C. Baker
317-443-4992 '
baker7386(a�att.net
�
..
Granner, Steven
� From: Tirn Baker <!baker7386@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday,lanuary 18, 2012 1:36 PM
To: Granner, Ste�en
Subject: FwcJ: Coco Commons Feedback from Lincolnshire
Begin forwarded message: �
From: "Aliza Hutchison (ahutchis')" <ahufchis(a�cisco.,eom>
Date: January 15, 2012 10:3'&:12 PM EST
To: <baker73'86 a(�.att.net> �
Cc: <john.hutchison(c�hp.com>
Subject: Coco Commons Feedback from Lincolnshire
Hi Tim,
I'm ceaching out to you as a resident of Lincolnshire(at 141 st and Towne) at fhe suggestion of Greg Buckhout to express
our support for pro:posed rezoning of the Southeast corner of 146th andTowne for a commercial development.
Our household is one the 75°/o surveyed in our neighborhood that were supported of Coco Commons. We moved here
recently from San Jose, CA and are used to much closer, easier access to gcoce.ry stores, coffee shops, gyms,
restaurants, gas and other conveniences (did;l mention coffee shops?). We,realized we're on a"new" side of town and
therefore currently have about a 15 min drive�(30 min round trip minimum) to any shopping,plazas. So we expected and
. welcome what we hope will an attraetive�center, in the style Carmel.is known for,; with popular, in-demand services. We
look forward fo our children working at the stores{close to home) and being able to walk to a cafe, meet for drinks and/or
coffee and taking 30 min off our frequent trips to the grocery store.
We very much appreciate your request for feedback—from both sides. We look forward to hearing the results of the
hearing.
Aliza and John Hutchison
� �y�� �� � r ��
'i � �� �f ��i
,F-'��"`� 4{ , �� � =� � ,;,� ���,���
q# X 3� gz aY C.�
�y�R� ?' i .Y��°+..,� sh I,t%.�2"`.;
j. . t Y,i 9� '� �; -� �7,�'m` ,�• 4 �,�0�•n ,
' - �&" .F�,� x
i ".
...�A£ � �� 3 �d
`X . { Lfr
�- , � � x ����.�-� - a� � s� � � _ �� �
£
��w� ���,�% ��a�,� �`����� �� €�����'� '°�,s�
� e �gy�r. �'�e;'�'`Gd .�s .:rz?�>'s-� �,,:� �s�=:. � �,v
�ka�r,r;.«�. ... .�a.e:.3:;1u. . .. . . . :.._.. . . .
filiza Hutchison Cisco 5ysf�ms, Inc.
Director,Account Manac�emsnt;-The Bureau 1%01.�1 Tasma!��rive
Globa!Marketing and" Garporate Gammunications SarF Jose,CA 951:34
ah�:?cllis,na,cisco.com Uni�ed States
' Phone:+1 A08 853 26T4 Gisco cc�n
14�ok>i!e,.+.1 408 355 3151.
1
Granner, Steven
From: Tim Baker <baker7386@att.net>
Sent: Wednesclay, January 18, 2012 1:35 PM
To: G'canner, Steven
Subject: Fwd: Coco Commons Feedback from Lincolnshire
Begin forwarded message:
From: Greg Buckhout <gbuek18�yahoo.com>
Date: January 16, 2012 3:57:40 PM�EST
To: "baker7386 _att.net" <baker7386 �_att.net>
Subject: Fw: Coco Commons Feed,back from Lincolnshire
Reply-To: Greg Buckhout <qbuck18@yahoo.com>
Tirn -you probably need a little.clarification on the,:survey Aliza references in he�e-mail. There was a very informal
survey done 45-60 days ago in the neighborhood that`75% of the people responded to. In reading her e-mail it appears
. :Z5%were in favor of the development which was not the case. There was a strong support assuming our ability to
provide utilized feedback, but not to that leyel. By all means use Aliza and John's e-mail to show their personal support
� but I'd shy away from discussing or presenting the survey based on what is nofed below. If you want to discuss it please
feel free to give me a call -450-3867. Thanks - Greg
p.s. how many e-mails have you received from Lincolnshire?
----- Forwa�ded Message-----
From: Aliza Hutchison (ahutchis) <ahutehis(a�cisco.com>
To: baker7.386(a)att:net
Cc: iohn;hutchison(a�hp.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:38 PM
Subject: Coco Commons Feedback from.Lincolnshire
. Hi Tim,
I'm reaching out to you as a resident of Lincolnshire (at 141 st and Towne) at`the suggestion of Greg Buckhout to express
our support for proposed rezoning of the Southeast corner of 146th�and Towne for a commercial development.
Our,household is one the 75% surveyed in our neighborhood that were supported of Coco Commons. We moved here
reeently frorn Sa"n Jose.; CA and are used to much:closer, easier access to;grocery stores, coffee shops, gyms,
restaurants, gas and othe_r con�eniences (did i mention coffee shops?), 1Ne realized,we're on a"new"side of town and
therefore currently have about:a 1'5 min drive (30 min �ound trip minimum) to any shopping plazas. So we expected and
welcome what we hope will'an attcactiye center, in the style Carmel is known foc, with popular, in-demand services. We
look forward to oue children�wo�king at the stores(close to home) and being able to walk to a eafe, meet for drinks and/or
coffee and taking 30 min off ou�:f�equent frips to the grocery store.
We very much appceciafe your reguest for feedback—from both sides. We look forward to hearing the results of the
hearing.
Aliza and John Hutchi'son
1
,,
Granner, Steven
From: Tim B�aker.z`Baker7386@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday; January 18, 2012 1:32 PM
To: Granner,.Steuen
Subject: Fwd:Co Co Commons
Begin forwarded message:
Fr:om: Robert`Blake <bblake2197(c�aol.com>
Date; January 16, 2012 6:46:4�1 PM E`ST
To: "Baker7386 �att.net" <B�aker7386(a�att.net>
Subject: Co Co Commons
Tim,
My wife and I live at Lot #1 in the:Lincolnshire subdivision southwest of your proposed development. We
support the development and through discussions with our neighbor Greg Buckhout we are confident that the
shopping center will meet and exceed all Of Carrnel's development requirements.
We realize that there are numerous.homeowners opposed to the devel'opment and I am sure this is common but
we also realize that this land will eventually be developed and a quality shopping center as proposed is an
excellent benefit to the area.
S'incerely,
Bob & Bonnie Blake
14160 Murphy Circle West
Garmel, Indiana
46074
Bblake2197 cr,aol.com
Timothy C. Baker �
317-443-4992
baker7386(a�att.net
1
Granner, Steven
From: Tim Baker<<Baker7386@att.net>
+ Sent: Wednesd"ay, J'anuary 18, 2012 1:33 PM
To: „Granner;-5teven �
Subject: Fwci: Feedback for CoCo Commons
Begin forwarded message:
From: ''racline(a�iuno.com'' <racline(c�iuno.com>
Date: January 16, 2012 7:38:�3 PM EST
To: Baker7386(a�att.net
Subject: Feedback for CoCo Commons
Tim,
I live in Lincolnshire and am writing to�express my opinion about the cornmercial development at the SE corner
of 146th & Towne.
I do not have a problem with your proposal of building a commercial�development on your property as long as
it is done with the nearby residents.quali'ty of life given as much consideration as the benefit you and your
family wi'll reeeive from it. Realizing�that it.is�going to be very prof tab'le for you, I hope that you can build
something that you truly would be satisfied'�living wi�th in your backyard.�
I actually look forward to the cori�enience of having a grocery (prefer Krogers) and some other services closer
to us and being a place I can walk to. However, I do hope that lightirig arid noise can be kept to a minimum. I
also hope that a buffer can be built that shi'elds the site of the buildings and li'ghts from the neighborhoods. The
things I really do not want there are a cell phone tower because they are ugly and have constantly blinking red
lights on them, taverns with Ioud music;regular gas stations because they have too much light and
noise...Kroger gas pumps are OK if they ha�%e simple lighting for the area. Delivery time for the grocery and
businesses is a concern but can be rnanaged if they don't use the back up beepers and have easy ways in and out
so not a lot of stress on their engines. I also think that trash removal mu"st be done during the daytime as there is
nothing quiet,about a trash truck. Not crazy about a fast food drive up window due to noise...think about how
loud some people turn up the bass on_their radios while they wait in line. There are many reasonable things that
' could go into that developrnent tl�at would be a benefit to us without causing problems that make us wish it
wasn't there at all.
I personally feel that a well done commercial development is preferable to many other things that might go on
that corner like apartments.and low end housing. I don't see housing similar to what is in the vicinity being
reasonable with the magnitude ofthe road system they are planning. However, I am sensitive to those in
Lincolnshire and Saddle Creek who are not in favor of anything commercial that close to us. None of us really
ever thought about what would.happen with that land when we moved here and with the zoning indicating it
would be residential, it has hit us offguard. We currently have the luxury of a very quiet country area without
light and noise pollution. For that reason, I hope you go the extra mile to make it fit in and not be a nuisance
whatsoever. If, in the future, you have a focus group to help with the plans, I would offer to be a part of it.
i
Thariks for your consideration.
Rebecca Cline
14275 Carlow Run
317-407-4997
53 Year Old' Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
consumerproducts.com
Timothy C. Baker
317-443-4992
baker7386(a�att.net
z
n.
�
Granner, Sfieven
Fr�m: Tirn B.aker <baker7386@att.net>
;Sent: Wednesday;January 18, 2012 1:36 PM
To: Granner; Sfeven
Subject: Fwd:toCo Commons
Begin forwarded message:
� From: Terry Wright <indywriqhts-terry(c�sbcqlobal.net>
Date: January 15, 2012 5:06:51 P`M EST
To: Tim Baker <baker7386(c�att.net>
Subject: Re: CoCo Commons
Tim,
Thank you for the note. I must decline the opportunity to speak in favor of the development. I feel my role is
more to try to keep options and minds open; on both sides for compromise. I respect your desire to build, but
understand and empathize with the concerns of all, especially the neighbors irnmediately adjacent to your
�, parcel. I believe thatthe'system will be fai�r�'in�i�ts evaluation of your,proposa�l. I wish you well, and do again
indicate that I,am currently abstaining from activity on either side of fhe issue.
Respectfully,
Terry Wright
Terry Wright
--- On Sat, 1/14/12, Tim Baker <baker7386(�,�ztt.rzet> wrote:
From: Tim Baker <baker7386 cr,att.net>
S�ubject: CoCo Commons
To: "Terry Wright" <indvwriahts=terrv zr,sbc�lobal.net>
Date: Saturday, January 14, 2012, 10:06 AM
Helio Terry.:.I hope you are well and enjoy.ing the new year...Thank you again fo"r your interest in this
project...there is a public hearing on Wed Jan 18th at the Carmel City Center at 6pm...if you support this project,
we would greatly appreciate you and others to either speak at the hearing or send me an email or letter
expressing your support that we can present to the council...I recently became aware that the HOA is organizing
remonstrations against us, so we could use some support...I know there are many folks on both sides of the
issue...it will be interesting to see how the hearing goes...thanks again...Tim
Tim Baker...Sent from my iPhone
1
_
;�
Granner, Steven
Fromc Tim Baker <baker7386@att.net>
Sent: Wednesclay, January 18, 2012 1:37 PM
, To: Granner, 5teven
Subj'ect: Fwd: My opinions on the commercial development of 146th and Towne
Begin forwarded message:
From: Donald Jennings <jenni`ndq@qmail.com>
Date: January 14, 2012 7:26:46 PM EST
To: baker7386(�a.a#t.net
Cc: gbuck18(a�pmail.com
Subject: My opinions on the commercial development of 146th and Towne
Hello Mr. Baker,
My neighbor in Lincolnshire, Greg Buckhout, let us know that you were open to hearing the opinions of local
residents in regard to the proposed CoCo development at 146th and Towne.road.
All things equal I would prefer no commercial.development on property surrounding our residential
development. The potential for noise,traffic and poor behavior of"visitors" all goes up with proximity of
buildings that attract large numbers of people. However, not all development is equal; and sometimes the
potential benefit to the surrounding neighborhoods outweigh the potential issues . So assuming you are intent
on commercial development -- its your land after-all -- and the proposed zoning changes go through then my
support depends on the type of business that locate in the proposed shopping centers.
Businesses that bring culture to the area ar.e good things. The definition of eulture depends on the individual
making the call of course. My definition of.culture-enhancing businesses are those that are distinctive and
provide new experiences to local shoppers. These businesses tend to be smaller in size and scale -- ones that do
not make their money in volume sales. For example: bakeries, coffee houses, butchers and delis, high-end pubs
and sit-down restaurants, ethnic and specialty food stores, gaming/comic book stores, cycling stores, art
galleries, craft stores. Even smaller high-end grocery stores such as Whole Foods fi"t the concept.
� Business that are not eulture-enriching in my opinion: larger grocery stores and pharmacies, home improvement
stores, Walmarts, carryout restaurants, furniture stores, Dance Clubs, generic taverns (e.g. "we serve both kinds
of beer: Miller and Bud lite"), barbers/styling salons, cleaners, oil change facilities, gas stations, convenience
stores.
Bottom line: I will be willing to support local commercial development more if that development brings
business that are respectful to the local residents and tend to increase the overall cultural experience.
This�vould tenel fo�favor s"maller businesses with unique andlor distinctive product and service offerings.
Hope this helps.
i
;
Cheers,
Donald Jennings. 14184 Murphy Circle West
"Trying;is thefirst step ori the:road to failure" -- Homer Simpson
Timofihy C. Baker
' 317-443-4992
baker7386(a�att.net
z
�
Granner, Ste�en
; From: Tim.Baker <baker7386@att.net>
. Sent: Wednesday,January 18, 2Q12 1:38 FM
To: Gra`nner; Steven
� Subject: Fwd:Coco Commons- I support
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dan Huff <dhuff forensiesq.com>
Date: January 14, 2012 5:37;53 PM EST
To: baker7386(�a,att.net
Subject: Coco Commons- 1 s'upport
IVIr. Baker,just wanted to let you know that;I am homeowner in the Lincolnshire Subdivision. I am in support
, of the Coco commons area being zoned:as cornrnercial. I think it would be nice to have a market close to the
house. I think that that other busine"sses would be beneficial as well. I think a commercial area similar to 161 st
and Springmill would help with home value, not degrade it like others ha�e said. It is a several mile one way
trip to get to a super market or food establishment now.
- I think a point that a lot of the homeowners`do not see is that there will be an inerease of traffic on 146th street
and your area being zoned commercial would aiso help with sound dampening their neighborhood.
Anything else I can do to give you support please let me know. I am going to send an email to the Carmel
commission this week:detailing my support..
Thanks,
Dan ,
Daniel Huff
d h uff(c�forensicsg.com
www.forensicsg.com
Timothy C. Baker
317-443-4992
baker7386�att.net
�
i .
j':
Granner, Steven
Fcom: Tim Bake� <'baker7386@att.net>
' Sent: Wednesctay;January 18, 2012 1:38 PM
- � To: Granner; Steven
Subject: Fwd: CoCo Commons
�
Begin forwarded message:
E �
From: Harold Reed <hreedjr01.[r�.qmail.com>
� Date: January 13, 2012 8:31 :Q3 PM EST
To: Tim Baker <baker7386(a�att.;net>
Subject: Re: CoCo Commons
�
Tim,
Dang,just realized that meeting is Wednesday evening. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to make it.
I did want to ask you. Are there businesses that have indicated they would riiove into the Center when it is
finished? You don't have to list out anynames; but I wanted to be see if there was business interest. �
r As for any friends in the neighborhood... They are either on the fence or sadly against it (with no reason given).
I w,ish you the best of luck on Wednesday everiing.
Thanks, Harold
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Tirri Baker<baker7386 n,att.net> wrote:
Hello Harold...I wanted to reach out:and thank you for the email that you sent to Ramona Haneock in support of
CoCo Cornmons...we truly appreciate your support and promise you that our plans call for a development that
the community will help us.create and be proud to have...Ramona has iricluded your comments in the packets
for the hearing on Wed Jan 1.8th at the Carmel City Hall...however, If�at a11 possible, we would also appreciate
your comments and comments from oth'ers in support of CoCo Commons at the hearing...if you are aware of
others that I could reach out to who are willing to either write a lefter or appear at the hearing, that too would be
greatly appreciated... feel free to contact me if you have any questions, cornments or suggestions about the
, property at any time.,.please let me know how I can be of service to the community...thank you...Tim
Timothy C. Baker
3]7-443-4992
baker7386 cr,att.net
Timothy C. Baker
317-443-49�92
, i
1234 �
Carmel City Hall ei� � . 6�
Qne CivicSquare .�- �
Carmel,IN 46032 � �'"�� �.- 9
� ���� O
Attn:.Pla.n.Commission ;�' =�• �
�_ �
� �;� .UM 18�t112 �
January 15,2012 � Q � ��� ,� •
� �_ �� �
Re:�CoCo Development Proposal � �
�956 £ Z `�
Dear Plan Commission Members, . .
The::purpose of#his lette�is taencourage�you to vote a�ainst the"proposed,CoCo Development at the 146`h Street
and Towne Avenue�intersection.
My'wife and I retu�ned��to-the state of Indiana.in.2009,and desired to inove into a,ru�al suburbanrcommunity in
order'to avoid noise pollution;light pollution,and the other associated!'.ills:of.a.high density neighborhood.
We`visited:several communities�and wece attracted`to Carmel,especially.after we"read;fhe Carmel Clay '
Comprehensive<Plan of'Z009.The�Plan approved that CarmellNest;should be.zoned low=density residential and
thaf the:area along 146`hstreet should not'be classified as a Special;Sfudy Area.We wer.e particula,rly gratified to
read on_page nine of the plen fhat:
"West Carmel remains unique as:an area:with many curat characteristics even„after the:development of many
suburban residential subdivisions.`Historically,.lNest Carmel was dominantly horse farms,estate,homes,
... - .
agrtcultural'land,and"open space.The distnct;is still:distinguished from=�the East Carmel District:!6y.significantly
lower density-residential and substantial estate homes which act'to maintain open space character".
This was a�deciding.factor'in ourselection°to 6uy property in Lincolnshire`which.is southwest of the 146`h Street
' and Towne Avenue intersection.Jn fact we�chose an interior cul-de-sac lof to�maxim9ze ous privacy and'{imit traffic
immediafelyradjacent to our property:
� You can.imagine'•our dismay when we learned,of"the GoCo Development Proposal`for the property on the
southeast corner of tfie 146`h Street and Towne Avenue intersection.:lf approved,;we will be abte to stand on our
front porch and see commercial:busi,nesses�and'all of the attendant noise,ilight,traffic;etc.
- We believe tliat;the Plan�ommission hasan obligation to support the approv_ed'Carmel CIay.Gomprehensive Plan
of 2009:
1Ne�do not wanf'this development and we want'you'to Vote against it.
Sincerel
�� '
_ Scot Potteraek
..
2565 Tullamore,-Court•.` � , .
� Ca�mel, IN 46074 �_ � ,
• . � . � • ��:
a
_ •x�
"� b _
� '"�� ' ..,�- � .
..>�!r
' ' " ��3,. � ' .. . " , .
, ����� . . • .� _ � t
. ' .t � . � r _ �
�
+ . .
, s � . . � . . . . � � . " ' ">, , . _ . ..� • . . i
. ,..,i . _ . . _ . . .. . -
� ' � � .. � . ' . � i�s .. �. � � . - � ,. _ . , . . ,� ,� . ,. . - . .
�. � ,. . �. ..�o� ' . '. ._ � . ' ' 'i r �z. � . �).�. . ..
. � �. • . . '. i'� .., � lf.� . . . � - . . .. '.i . . i< . �. i .
.. ' .. , � � • . _ . , , . . , . . r, .
• . .. .. � ��i. , . n . . • . � . . .. � .. � ' � . ' � . • ., ..
• . . . � . , . + . �
- o . '. i�'•• � - " � ' .. . . - . . � • _. - . . - � . .
.. . - . . • � . • • ., , .•,.�! .. . . .�_ i. ��._ . . ` �. . �a. .
_ L: � • . . . . : , �i♦'a . ' . . .. ' _ , t . ' . � . ' ' .
, ' . , .. . � , '� • . . .. .._. �' ' � . • . . ' . � , �� . � ;+. '
. � ' . _ ,+ . � ... ..
z: . . . ' .. , i , . � . . . ' � . ,
. .. .! , f .. . •li: � '
- . . l . .. . • . � . _ti� . ', _ . .� _ . �. . '{` . , '
. � i �. , ' �. � .� „ti• . , - . � , ' . . .� . .
� � . , t'� . . . -. ... ' , � j , , � . .
. � ':..Z. . . . ' t . , . � � ��4. .
,� .,�i . . •.
. • r. ..1. � .�'�.,�..1
� f •
Hancock, Ramona B
From: Barb Richard [jbcn94@yahoo.com]
Sent: � Wednesday, January 18, 2012 2:06 PM
To: Hancock,:Ramona B-
Subject; Sfop Commer.cial growth west of Spring Mill Road �
Dear Carmel Plan Commissioners,
Plea"se Fionor'the new'Carmel ComprehensiVe'Plan-no new.comrriercial areas west of Spring Milf Roaci. Approving the
PUD would only adversely impact a location in Carmel that would best,be suited for single-family homes. Carmel is
alreadyfull o.f unused commercial property and.6uildings that stand vacant and make our city look bad. As a resident in
Sad'dfe Creek neigh6orhood for over ten years I believe that fu�ther commercial growth will only inerease crime, pollution,
traffic and noise in an area in which people move to in order to get area from those very things. Please honor your words-
NO NEV1I GOMMERCIAL AREAS WEST OF SPRING MILL ROAD. Sincerely,John and Barb Richard 14315 Autumn
Woods Dr., Carmel, IN 46074
� . . . . , , . . , ..�:,,,.
_ . • � . .:.. .,. -_
• - � � , � • - :�; .
� .. . ..rr_
' . . � . ..•, . ..
1
H'ancock, Ramona,B ._ ,
From': CVVIC2:[cwic2@yahoo.com] •
Sent: , 1N'ednesd'ay, January 18, 2012 8:40 AM
To: Hancock; R.amona B
Suliject: Coco Commons
Cominissioners; - �
We wailf to address a problem wifh a st'atement in the Dept's report for CoCo Commons that was also in the
Dept's report for tlie Silvara;PUD. Page.3 of the report reads in bold font that the Land Classification
Map "should not`.6e construed as representing the precise location of`1a'nd classifications...." We are not
arguing that the lines are precise to the nearest foot,but why is this sentence so important that it is in bold font?
How is this sentence.relevant to the proposed.CoCo Commons parcel, where there is a Tine as clear-cut as a
xoad`? How does that sentence apply when the zoning and classification on the property and on all sides of the
pr.operty under Carrilel's jurisdicfion are`all Low Intensity Suburban Residential? Surely there is no serious- �
suggestion that undefined possible plans in Westfield, across a large road and outside of Carnlel's jurisdiction,
giue�credence to cl�airriiilg a lack ofspecificity as to what the Carmel lancl�classification for CoCo Commons is!
W.e fail to see any possible lack of clarity for this'property's S-1, Low Intensity Suburban zoning/residential
class'ification. '
We ask that you consider the fiill implications of this sentence before using it to guide your decision-making. If
tNe map's land classification on this property i5 not "precise", then we don't have any meaningful map at all.
C WIC'2 �
i
Hancock, R_amona B
From: Gui, Cory(C) [ccui@dow.com]
•Senf: 'Wednesday, Janaacy 1.8, 2012 10:07 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Docket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUD
Dear Carmel Plan Commission members:
I am writing to oppose the proposal of commercial development at,146th St. & Towne Rd
(Docket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUD). I am a res`ident of Saddle Creek of West Carmel. I
encourage the Carmel Plan Commission committee Honor the new Comp Plan-no new commercial
� areas west of Spring Mill Road and keep fhe zoning requirement of only single-family homes. If this
PUD was approved, it would open the door for lots of additional commercial development along 146tn
St.and other areas of 1Nest CarmeL There are already choices for shopping and this would compete
with the Villa`ge of West Clay's as yet-to-be fully finished commercial area, perhaps jeopardizing its
success. In.addition, this new commerciaf area would increase noise significantly as,well,aas„light;�r �.,:,.w
pollution and increased traffic too.
S'incerely,
�
Cory Cui �
Resident of Saddle Creak
� � ' ... � . . � - � � . _. _ . ' .., rt�Y:._._�„�:r�
. ^ . . . . � . . � . . ...±., >1. ..-.,i�:iC�. si
. . ; ' . � . " ••�' �:...i':� , _�;1( ,:.e'_!�i..�„1 .
.. . � . - " � : .. '1 7, � r. ., ii;.
1 ♦ . . � � R n�^. �.
_ • ' �' . , � . �
, .. . . . - (•.
. . •�'�
r � . . . . � :. . ...i�i.F"... �
. . . ' ' �. -.ti J� ,r.�. �
. . .. `r^. •. / . f
� f � . • ' . . ' .• .�'�C�!�. ��A�;
� . . �. . . ':•4 •...
�
H'ancock, Ramona,B
From` Afaq�Kheiri [amkheiri@yahoo.com] �
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:24 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
� To Whom.It Nlay Concern; �
: I, Afaq Kheiri am fully against the re-zoning of the current residential zoned land on
146th and East of Towne Rd. I live in direct sight line and am not happy about what a
comrnercial development will bring to my baekyard. I have t�vo very young boys and
another baby on the way. We look forward to being outdoors and enjoy the safe and
quiet faini�ly oriented neigliborhood but, the new coininercial area will bring a lot of
traffic, light anci n�ois�e pollution, crime, and an increased transient population into our
"backyard". �Tliere are many shopping options in this area, the development on
Towne and 131 st has not fully�been developed and is already zoned a commercial site. � � �
Why not finisli that development before starting another?
Please stiek with honoring'th'e-current Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan of no new
commercial areas west of spring Mill Rd.
Please keep the zoning requirement of only low density°residenfial land.
Please, reject the commercial development/ new PUD rezoning of Towne and 146th.
' Sincerely, �
Afaq Kheiri �
Sent from my iPllone -
1 �
Han`cock; Ramona B �
From: ° mhencycpa@indy.rr..com
, Sent: , FricJay, January 13, 201'2 2:38 PM
Tos Hancock, Rarnona B �
Subject: Coco Commons,
� Hello,
� We live in West Carmel and would 'l�z�ke: to ,see that this pr-opo_sed commercial development no,t be
� approved°as requested. We want to keep tfie zoning as S1 r.esidential We don't want another
' RUD in tfie a"rea: Look what has happened to the Village of West Clay-it has yet to be fully
fi-nished. We don't want the .commereial area of noise, light pollution, or traffic in West
� Carme`1. We can easily go a few mi`les east or south to meet our commercial needs. We in West
Carmel want_ things to remain as i:s., �
� Please u�phold the Comp Plan in this area. Thanks for uph"old'ing it on the Silvara property.
Sincerely,
' � Mareia & 7im Henry
13850 Sheltiorne Rd.
Ca"rmel, IN
. 1
P � . . . � . . . „
� , Han;cocrk; Ramona B: �
From;: .. rnhen"rycpa@indy:rr:com °
Sent: Friday January 13',;2012 2;38 PM •
To: Hancock,,Ramona B
Subject: Coco Commons � �
He1:Io;
, 'W.e, 1-ive in West Carmel and would li:ke to see that thi�s proposed commercial developmenf, not be
,appro�ed as requested. We want to keep �the zoning as ST r,esidential We .don't: want anofher
PUp in the area�. took what tias hap;pened to the Vi`llage of West Clay-:it has yet to be fully
finished.: 'We don't want the comme.rcial area of nois;e, lrght polTution, or traffic in Wesf
'Carmel,. We can ea"si1,y 'go a few miles east or south to�meet our commercia`l needs. We in West
Garmel want fhings to remain as is.
. � ,
� Please uphold 'fhe Comp Plan in t'his area. Thanks for upholding it on the 'Silvara property.
;Sineerely;
� Marc`ia '& Jim Henry
�13850 Shelborn,e Rd„ -
� G'a`rmel; :IN '
1 �
rti ,-
Hancock, Ramona B �
From: Hancock, Ramona B
Sent; Fr.iday, January 1'3, 2012 3:14 PM
To: 'Scoft Pofifecack' �
-Subject: RE: Vote Against ffie Proposed CoCo Development at 146th St and Towne Ave.
Scott: � �
True; your email`will b�e included 'in the public record file.
. Ramana . �
From: Scoft Fotterack [mailto:spotterack@hotmail.com]
_,
� Sent: Friday,.January 1'3� 2012 1:59 PM
To: Hancoek,.Rambna 6
.� - .
Sulijecf:.FW:.Vote Against the Proposed.CoCo De�elopment at 146th St and Towne Ave. � � � ,�:� • �..
Hello Romona;
I have sent the aftached email to all of the Plan Commission Members.
In the�meantime, I was told that if such emails are addressed to you, you will.have them included in the public record for
fhe the�upcoming CoCo Devefopment;Hearing.
Could you please ad�ise if this is true?_
Thank you,
Scott Potterack •
2565 Tullarnor.e Ct , �- �`
Carmel;�IN 46074
�
F'rom: spottecaeK@hotmail.com ' � �
'To. iadams@carmel.in.gov; idorroan@carmel.in.gov-; ihagan@carmel.in.qov• nkestnerCa�carmel.in.qov;.
,.....� ._. .
�_slawsonCa)carmel:in.gov; apotasnik@carmel..in:qov; krider@carmel.in.gov;sstromquistCa�carmel:in:gov; �� '
swestermeier.@carmel.in.go�; ewilfongCa�carmel.in.gov
Subject: Vote Against the:Proposed CoCo;Development at 146th Sf and Towne Ave.
Date:�.V1/ed,:Tl Jan 2012 12:42:49 -0500
'Dear Plan Commissio"ner,
M,y name is Scott Potterack and T live at 2565`Tullamore Court which is in the Lineolnshire development located southwest
of.the 14'6th'St. and Towne Ave. intersection.
The owner of the land immediately soufheast of aforementioned intersection wants to rezone the area to build a
cornmercial center on ths land,
I want you to vote against this attempf at rezoning for several reasons:
�
. . . � .
1:�Ttie C�rmel Clay Comprehensive'Plan calls for Carmel West be low density residential, i.e. 1 building per acre.
. 2. The��developmenf at'Lincolnshire is only partially built out and a rezoning to corrimercial wouid hurt completion of the
development. The community is in precarious state as it is because the builder has asked to delay the number of lots that
must be taken down per the contraet with the developer. ° . �
� 3. Safficient commercial zoning exists at Michigan Road, Meridian and 136th,.and Springmill and 161st St.
4. There are un-leased commercial areas in flie Villages of West Clay on both sides of Towne Avenue. It makes no sense -
to create additional competition for a development that is supposed to be a premier location in Carmel.
5. Approval of•fhis plan would open the doo"r�fo additional commercial along the full 146th corridor and would destroy the
r.ural�suburban�flavor of Garmel West.
, 6. This development would increase light pollution, noise pollution, and truck trafFic.
7. TFiis development would undermine the security of.the area and increase the incidence of transient non local per"sons.
A�gain, you should vote against the proposed CoCo Development. .
, Sincerely, ' '
Scott Potterack �
, '
z
, ,
.
�. . .:. , . _ . . . . . .
. ,;
Hancock,;Ramona B,
Fro`m:. Maidy Santosa [maidy:santosa@gmail:com]
. Sent: Friday, January 1.3;2012 10:27 AM
To:. Hancock, Ramona B y
�Subject: L'etter to PI'an Commissioners re: Coco Commons Development on 146th and Towne Road
�
To Whom It 1VIay Concern
Dear'Sirs or Madams�of Plan Commissioners:
` , My laame is 1Vlarliiie Maidy Sant'osa and I am a resident of Saddle Creek_in West CarmeL Pm writing to express
my disappointirient and disagreerrieiit to the proposed development of Coco Commons, which will be located on
1'46th Sfreet and Towne�Road. As a resident who cares for the neighborfiood;and as a mother of a young child, I
ask tliat you honor the Comp Plan.to keep this area as single-family homes only and that no commercial areas
sliould be build:
Mybiggest concern with this new development is the increase oftraffic and noise to this family-friendly
� residenfial area.`Tlie increase traffic also lead to safety concerns fo our young children in our neighborhood. Just
� 2 blocks down tfie street; we alread'y have West Clay where we have CVS as a convenient store and there are
still eriipty lots to acconlmodate more busines"ses. This is also a concern that Coco Commons is planning to `
create a new commercial development wliile fhis one is still empty.
, Thank you so much for your consideration!
Siricerely, . �
Marline Sailtosa
,
� '
i
Hancock', Ramona.B �
From` � Lopez, Javier (JR) [JRLopez@dow.com]
Sent:, Friday; January 13, 2012 10:53 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject�: Goco Gornmons
Dear Rlan Commissioners: '
V1/e.�have bought'a house in Lincolnshire neigh`borhood and lived there with our two sons since December 2009. Our
address is 14375 Murphy Circle East. Our property is located at the far North East corner of the development. Our
� backyard ends where a corn field starts;et the southwest corner of 146`h Stce,et and Towne Road.
When we bought the�house, we were told by°the builder and realtor companies that the area located right 6ehind our
' property;as well as:the land at 1�46th Sfreet and Towne Road is zoned'as.residential: Our personal research confirmed
that the:areas mentioned are zoned as low density residential as stated by the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan- �
V1]e decided to build our ho"me in Lincolnshire•also for very different reasons, but basically due to a peaceful and quiet
environment,very well located subdivision,close to existing retailing,and sho.pping areas like Village of West Clay,
Spring Mill and 161St Street; Clay Terrace Mall a_n.d Michigan Ave. stores.
We are respectfully writing to the Commissioners to express our strong opposition to the Coco Commons development!
Coco Commons proposal will requice to rezone the land; which is in opposition to the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan.
Building a commercial development will affect negatively our family and neighbors with increasing and unnecessary light
pollution;traffic and noise when the_re other commercial developments located just 1 mile south of here which areyet �
un-leased (Villages.of West Clay)!.
As expr.essed above we expect the area to be kept zoned as S-1, so the land,continue to be developed as it was originally �
designed: single-fiamily, residentiaL We do thi'nk fhat additional commercial developments are not required or desired
when th�e existing ones are so close! �
Please do.vote against the propose Coco De.velop.ment at Towne Road and 146`h Street and honor the neighborswho
chose fo live here.
Thanks and Regards;
Javier'Lop:ez& Cristina Tuero
14375 IVlurphjr Circle East
317=669=8247
, 1
Hancock, Ramon�a B -
•From° . Anwar Qureshi [amqm4u@gmail.com]
Sent: Frida;y, January 13,2012 11:32 AM
To:: - Hancock, Ramona B �
�Cc: Adams, John; Do�man, Jay; Grabow, B�adford S; Hagan, Judy; Kestner; Nick; Lawson, Steve;
Potasnik, Alan; Rider, Kevin D; Stromquist'; Steven R;Westermeier, Susan; Wilfong, Ephraim
Subject: CoCo PUD=Opposition for Commercial Plan
,I,o' . .
Gannel Planning Commissioners; �
I would like to raise iny'concern for tlle proposed CoCo Developrrient due to following reason; We hope you
will consider this inpuf during tfie first meeting on January 18, 2012. I will bepresent there to attend the hearing
°set for�January 18, 2012.
o Horior tlie new Comp Plan—no new commercial areas west of Spring Mill Road.
. • Keep the zoning requirement of only single-family homes. Commercial is not suitable far this residential
area.
o Approving this PLID would open the door for lots of additional commercial development along 146th St
and other areas of West.Cannel. We-would like to keep west Carmel area as residential. . .
e Tllere are already choices for shopping and this would compete witfi the Village of West Clay's as yet-
to-be�fully finished commercial area; perhaps jeopardizing it's success.
• �Requi"re tlie development to be a good neighbor so it doesn't adversely impact neighbors or yef-to-be-
developed land: Give specific examples of why you oppose the commercial area, such as noise and light
pollufion, truck traffic, increased traffic, etc.
If I would have:known that this will'be re-zoned as commercial I would have not built a home in this west
Carmel neighbourhood. We really would like to keep this as residential as planned. Thanks.
Anwar Qureslii .
Resident of Liilcolrish�ie
1.442,7 Mur.pliy Circle East
Cannel, IN 46074.
i
;.,� .;, .
Han°cock,.Ram`ona�B. _ , ,
'� From"s: Jan Schira_ck.�jtsehi�a_c,k@gmail.com] `
Se_nt: Tuesday-, Janua.ry 17, 2012'8:01 PM .
To: Hancock, Ramona,6 �
� Subject': Coco De�elopment Opposition
�.V1%e woul�d Iike to exp,ress opposition to the pro�posed development by Tim
Ba;ker a`nd 'family.
W�e bought our prop:erty i`n Linco;'Inshire in 2007. At th�a;t time there were no
�� pl�a.ns for commercial developm:ent which is verified by th,e Carmel Clay
Co;mprehens'ive Pla°n.. The pro,perty is zoned low dens:it"y resi'dential. V1/e
bought with that.und�e�rstandin�g. V1/e would never have purcha'sed our
prop,e'rty if we had known there were plans to rezone. the surrounding
prop'erti;es fo'r commerciaJ us:e.
VUe �are concerned about the bu.rden of added traffic, the noise and light �
�pollution, �and the� lack of' p°riv�acy. At the December rri,eeti:ng with Mr. Baker,
he was_asked if he would I,ike' to have this develo�pment in his backyard,. Hi's
resp�onse was "that's an unfai'r �,question." He did no.t an_swer with a positive
statement which is not encouraging to us.
Thank you for allowing our concern�s to be expressed, .
Ti�m and J'an Schirack
_ _ _ _
25'3'4 Murphy Cir N
�
H'ancock';.Ramona B �
From; Sadaf[sadaf khei"ri@yahoo:comj - �
Sent: W.ednesd'ay, January 1:8;2012 9:24 AM �
, To: Hancock•, Ramona B •
Suliject: Letfer�in opposifion of the 146th street and'East of'Towne rd'rezoning.
�
To Whom It May ConCern,
I, Sa`daf Kheiri am fully against the. re-zoning of the current r.esi_dential zoned land on 146'th
and E'ast of Towne Rd. I live -in d_i'neet sight line and am not happy about what a commercial
develo:pment will bring to my b'acky%ard. I have fwo very� young boys and another baby on the
� wa"y: We look forward to being outdoor-s and enjoy the safe and qui-et family oriented
neighborh;ood. but, the new commercial area will bring a lot of' tr,affic, ligfit and noise
� pollufion., crime, and an irrcreased transient population into, our "backyard" . There are many
shopping opfions in this area,, the ':development on Towne 'and 1'31st has not' full,y been �
dev"eloped' an"d is already zoned a .commercial site. Why not fini,s:h that development before
sfa'rting anoth'er?
Please sti'ck with honoring fhe c"u`rrent Carmel Clay Comprehens'ive Plan of no new commercial
, areas west of spring Mill Rd.
Pl:ea'se keep fhe zoning requirement of only low density residential land.
Please-, reject fhe commercial development/ new PUD rezoning of Towne and 146th.
SincVerely,
S'ad�af Kheiri �
Sent. from my iF'ad
. 1
Han`cock; Ramon'a B
, From":' Kimberly;Johnson [krnb-erly}ohnson@sbcglobaj':net] _
�Sent: Tuesday, January 1.'7„2012 6:34 PM
To:, Haneock; Ramo,na,B
Subjecf; ` Docket N'o.�11'070022 Z:GoCo Commons �
Ja:nuary '(8, 201'2 Kimiberiy Johnson
;:.�.��9� �'�ar�������is��r €��., ��rr���:?; [�
� � �=�rrnel �(a� ��r��riissi����°�.
�e: ���::��� '��. ���;��C��%' �;���� C;�rr�r���� ,
����„ � ��c���;��:� C���;�r�i�E '���f�i�'���°��rit ,
� Carriiel Pfan Commissioners:
I arn writing thiS le'ffer as a concerned mernber of �the Carmel communify and I ask that you reject fhe
' commercial d"evelgpment being proposed'for the southeast corner of 146th�Sf. and Towne Rd. for the following
reasons:
m Compromises the safety and securityof sucr,ounding residential communities
o Significantly inereases'both light/per:sonal,and heavy/business fraffic .
o P.Jaces an unjust and unreasonable arnount.of noise and light po-'llution on existing residents
m� Lowers individuaf property values�and reduces desirability of sur,rounding neighborhoods
a D;estroys what I eonsider a natur,al wetland area in the southeast�corner ofthe properfy '
• 'There are nurrierous commer.ciaf.business"es within approximately 4 miles of the proposed development.
L ask for your support in helping the people: of. Garmel mainfain a safe and desirable cornmunity with strong
property values. The first step is to-reject all commercial developments pcoposed in areas outside of those
cu"rrently zoned commercial.
Thank�you, �
.._. _.__._ .. .___. ..__.. �.__ ____.__.__---._ _.__-.--._ ._ ---- _ . .._� __...____._.____,.�.____._._.__ .___
__
�����riy Jc�h�son
1
.Hancock, Ramo.na,B -
, From: Matf Johnson [mjkj1 @sbcglobal.net]
� ;Sent: Monda.y,,;January 1`:6;�2012 12:37 PM
' '� To: Hancock; Ramona B �
- Su6jest: Re:. pocket.No.11070022 Z:CoCo Commons
' Jantaary 14, 2Q12 Matfhew Johnson
1���;� �:h�ri�t��l;�;i���;r �iE�., �ti:�r�t��l: 1�
� Car�n�l PEas� �c��rv�issi€�r��rs
��: ���°��t ��c�. 1��70�.�`?� <>:C��� G�r'���i���s .
, '€�� ' c�C ;��twC�� �:.���1�i'��:��Ci�E €a��'�:!<vi���t�'t
_ _
---------------------------------------------------------------___----------------------------
Carmel Pfan Commissioners: �
I am writing this lefter as a seriously concerned member of the Garmel community and I ask that you reject the
cgmmercial development being proposed for the southeast corner of 146th St: and Towne Rd. This proposal is
� a clear departure from the current Garrnel .Comp Plan and poses a serious threat to the residential appeal that.
the:Carmel comrnunity currently enjoys.: V:Vithout the development and:zoning r.ules currently�in place, Carmel
becomes ju,st another Indianapolis suburb. _
Allowing this developinent to happen opens the door for many others to follow and it will without question lead
, to many families, including mine,: leaving Carmel for more reasonable ;living arrangements. There is a cost
premium to residing in Carmel and�it•is one that many of us are�more than willing to pay provided,we continue
to see the benefits; one of which is 'the comfort we take in not, being surrounded by gas stations and
commercial developments. I ask for your support in helping the people of Carmel maintain a safe and
desirable community wifh sfrong property yalues. The first step .is to reject all commercial developments
proposed in areas outside ofi those currenfly zoned commercial.
For the reasons listed below, I find any'rezoning from S-1 to be completely unacceptable:
• Gompromises the safefy and security of surrounding residential communities
e Significantly increases both ligiit%personal and heavy/business tr.affie
• Places an unjusf and unreasonable amount of noise and lighf pollufion on existing residents �
• Lowers indi'uidual property Vafues�and teduces desirability of surrounding neighborhoods�
e Destroys what.we consider a nafural wetland area in the southeast cor.ner of the pr.operty
_
• There are numerou"s corrimercial businesses within approximafely 4�miles of fhe proposed developmeht.
There is no ne'ed or desire fr.orn the surrounding community to add more.
1 would like� to close by �asking ',that as commission members you consider tliose of us that purchased
properties 'in good faith under'th'e a`ssumption that Carmel would uphold its resid"ential zoning on all property in
' this�ar.ea. We are not' oppose`d 'to �progress, but simply want to maintain� our standard of living while at the
same time maintaining the desirability of Carmel as a unique community fhat. values its residents and
businesses equally. :Rer.socially I feel:that the best use of the property is a small community park similar to
West Rark'on 116t"whereby the natural wetland area can be maintained. If anything we need more open park
areas, not more cornmercial developments.
° Thank you,
1
' Han.co:ck, Ramo.na B � ' �
, Fro;m,: Tasheer Syed [tasheec@hotmail.com]
S'ent: Monday, January 1,6,;2012 1:47 PM
T,o:" Hancock, Ramona B
Subjec't:. No commercial developrrient (COCO Cornmons;)in a Residential neigbor.hood.
. Greetirigs, �
� It tias come to my attention about a proposed.commercial development (COCO Commons) on 146th and l"owne road. As
' a resident,of west carmel I already have plenty of options for shopping. We have a Kroger groeery, gas,station, and
resfaurants on i56fh street. Additionally; appro�ing the COCO.commons�Commercial development will directly compete
' with the Village of West Clay's as yet to be full,y, furnished commercial area,
- -
I like fhe City of Carmel and its planning fo"r progeessive growfh. Open aceas/lots�assigned for single family residential
housing,and ofher open/areas assigned_for Commercial development. I would:request the cityto honor the carrnel
Comprehensive Plan for no new commerical areas west of Spring mill road.
• �My kids enjoy bicycling along Towne road and the surr.ounding neigbourhoods. The traffic is low and there are no semi-
t"rucks or other large vehicles. VVith the new commerical development tliere will'6e an increase irr.vehicular traffic, road
accidents, noise pollufion and possibly other cr.iininal activities. All of these wilf make it unsafe for kids in the
neigbourhood.
;Please consider my request, NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT(COCO Commons) and continue maintaining it for single
family residentail housing pec the Carmel Gomprehensive Plan.
�regards, �
=Tasheer�Syed:
,(2122 Musfang Chase Drive, Carmel) �
1
Hancock, Ramona B � .
From: Thomas]& Karen Glark [ktclark7@earthlink.net]
Sen°t: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:28 PM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
. Subject: Goco
� To:.Garmel Flan C:ommission � , �
_ From: Thomas B. Cla�k and Kar.en A: Clark
Address: 14579 Autumn Wood Drive Carmel, IN
I;am communicating for myself and my sPouse..
. . ,.. .
, 1Ne°would like to go.on cecord.as oppos..ing the'proposed rezoning of the propertyat th�e southeast corner of Towne Road
and 146th Street from the current zoning of S=1.
In 2005, affer searcfi_ing for an'attractive building lot; we acq,uired the properfy at,the.a6ove.addcess in Autumn Wood�
,_ _ -
Farm's_:,In 200'6 we built our custorn home at fiis location at a total cosf of appr,oximately$1.2 million .,Prior,.to;acquiringxi,;a��.
the land I verifietl thaYthe zoning of fhe.adjacent area was S-1. We acted,in reliance on this zoning in`making our decision
to acguire the property and construct�our home. Ifeommercial property had'exisfed at the subject location or was
proposed we would not have proceeded wifh our project.
.
The•propo"sed `coriirriercial developrpent would,significa,ntly increase vehicle°traffic;in the area. The expanSion of 146th
Street?calls for tfie:use of the current roadway as a frontage road. This will'sign'ificantly amplify the vehiele traffic in front of
� � , Autwmn 1Nood Farrris a"s the°developer intends to use the frontage road as one of two access routes; the other being
Towne Road.
As:you are aware, 14'6th�Street�forms the'north boUndah.y of Garmel ih this area.'Tfie;area north of 146th Sfreef is in
. . -
Westfield. The proposed commercial deyelopment will increase the likelih"ootl that more.commercial development will be
under.faken on,the Westfield side of 14;6th Street'and red"uce the likelihood of�tesidential development. Residents of our
area are in jeopardy of corrimercial development in Westfield over which we will have minimal influence..Amplifying this
risk is not�in out inferest.
. __ -, . ; . . . ���. .
� We hope you will take these facts into conside"r.ation as you deliberate this criticaJ.decision.
Very trulyyours,
. �� ' . � , � . � . .. . . ,_ � . - . . . ,+�t
Tiiomas B.Cla�k � � � ' '
• . . .. •. r�� ,
. , ,-_, . . r;�_.
. ' . � . . ' • �I�.. . � ' ' ikf .
. . . . � .r , ...� .
' �f I
� 1 .
., , .. . .
• : . __.,. ,. _i., �. ..�_ .
Hancock',, Ramona_B � .
From: Brady Cunningham [baccqc@gmail.com]
Sent:; 1Nednesday;,January 18, 2012 12:19 AM
To:, Harncock„Ramona B.
Cc:' Brady C,unningliam .
Subj'ecfs . Coco Commons P"ropertyOpposition
To�: Garme�l Plarr Commi"ssion
From:: Brady and Catherine; Cunningham
Address: 14537 Autumn Wood Drive C'a'rmel, IN
My wife and �I would like,to expres�s our opposition regard'ing the proposed rezoning of the
` prope'rty at the southeast cor-ner of Towne Road and 146th S`treet from the currenf zoning of 5-
1. ,
Tfie l�and 'in quest"ion is zoned for s-ingle family homes and we feel the Carmel Comprehensive
F1an must b:e honored. Thi:s comprehensive plan was a stron.g driver for why we purchased an
acre of "property in Autumri Wood F"arms and then builf a home. valued at approximately $750,000."'
We .invested in ttis-s property and bui_lt our home seven years ago be:cause of the comprehensive
plan - to� be s;urrounded 6y s�ingle famiTq homes.
" If tfie EarmeI Plan Commissioners� choose not to honor the comprehensive plan which stipulate's
no new commerc-ial development a:re_as west' of Spring Mill Road, we are highly eonce'rned that
the city of Westfield will alsor.develop commercial properties: �on the north side of 146th
street. As a res'ult, this peaceful: residential area will become ye:f another comme"rcial
. corridor.
Comme'rcial de�elopment would. also, bring, significant vehicle traffic; noise and light
�poll.ution to this area.: Agai`n - 'we paid, a premium price fo'r our` property and inve"sted in
tfiis Ca.rmel subdivision to� avoid areas with commercial de�elopment as seen further east on .
146th street.
To reiterate our position, we i�nvested, .in, our property and .home, to be surrounded by fhe same
' - as conveyed in fhe comprehens'i�e �plan. We are op.posed to the proposed rezon.in.g of the
property at the soatheast corner of 'Towne Road and 146th Street from the current zoning of S=
- 1.
Th'ank you' for your time and conside:rat'ion, Brady and Cathy' Cunningham
1
Hancock;.Ramona__B �
From: ny2indy@aol'.com
Sent: Tuesday,n January 1,7, 201•2 10:16 PM
To: ' . Hancock, Ramona,B
Subject: p'roposed CoCo Development
� Proposed Developeinent : COCO (14.6th�Street & Towne Road.
' To Whom_It Nlay Goncern at the.Cit,y of Carniel Plan Commission.
We"nzoved to Cannel frorii N;ew York June of 1996. We bouglit a preexisting liorrie on Gottonwood Ct., a one
� ,- .
' blo�ck street'off of Carey Road, in-between..l46th St and 136th St. At the time; 146th Street was a gravel road.
� O,ur kids werit:through the Carmel S_choo_Tisystem: We have witnessed the explosion/expansion of Carmel over
' the past 16 or,so years: We have watched'a"s Carinel has grown into a b'eautiful city'with wonderful assests for
' a11 to:eiijoy. Wl�eii we decided to.build a liome, there was no question it would�be in Carmel. As there was much
coininercial development taking place not�far from our home on the'east�side, we opted for an Estridge built
h�ome on�the west side, a smaller development�
at 141 st an'd Towne, known as L'incolnshire. We moved into our new home August of 2010.
' As tliere were sniall coinrriercial malTs�in the surrounding areas, (131 st & Towne and !61 st & Springmill), we
� though't this area to be'zoned'residential only. It,i:s our understanding°now 'that the,Carmel Clay Comprehensive
Planhas zoned th'is area as "low densityresideritial". We would like to ask thaf the Plan Commission keep the
zoriiiig as "l�ow=clensity residential".Also, that there retnain no new commercial areas west of Spring Mill Rd. If
tliis area needs an,ytlii_ng at.all, it wo.uld be an exte_nsion of the Parks peparfinent:Monon Center.,Tfiere are many
youiig fanlilies l�ere;�aiid many children. Increased traffic from fast"food re"stauraiits, superinarkets, strip mall
fare will not serve>them as well as an acti�ities center, for children and parents alike. A satelite of the Monon
Ceiiter would be perfeet!. ' .
Tharik You for your'time; �
Jeanne and.$'rian�Slain
, 143201VIu_rphy Gircle West
Caniie1-460'74 �
i
Hancock},;�Ramon'a B . •
From"': � . Caleb Ho [calebFio@sbcglobal.net] .
Sen`t�: Tuesday, January 1..7, 20T2 8`36 PM
To:. , Hancock, Ramona B
� Cc: Melissa.Ho �
_. � --
Subject: opposition to proposed CoCo Commons Development- 146th and Towne
C'arrriel Plai1 Gomrilissioners.
We are very concerned about tlie pr.oposed comrriercial development for fhe southeast come"r:of 146`h Street and
Towile Road. Our understandi:ng is that this land has been zoned only for single-family homes and we strongly
urge you to uphold this zoriing. We see no need for commercial developrnent at this site especially given that
' - the commercially-zoned areas within West:Clay are not finished, and the aburidanee of retail in surrounding
, areas•—.16IS` and Spring Mill, the sliopping areas at Clay Terrace arid Greyhound Pass. Why add more
comrilercial'units?
As.residents of"the Sad'dle Creek neighborhood;we oppose the commercial development due to the adverse
effects on the neighborhood of ha�ing it"in our backyard". Our primary.�concern is safety. This neighborhood
Ilouses,�zai�y young fai�ilies. We are concerned t_hatthe increase in traffic;would decrease the safety to our
children. We°regularly walk with our young children on the path that would.be directly beliind this new
de�elopm'ent and would hate to have this wonderful, healthy amenity in our neighborhood cornpromised by the
d�evelopment:We are furtlier concerned with the increase in noise, air:and light pollution that may result.
We:ask you to�honor t11e Carrriel Comprehensive Plan with no new commercial developments west of Spring
'Mill Road.
Sincerely, .
Ca'leb &1VIe1'issa H�o
22"501VIustang Chase Dr
'Carmel; .IN 46074
. �
' i
Hanco`ck,.Ramon�a B
� From:. Joel.'& Madison Powell �joelandmadison@gmail:com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:22 PM .
� To: Hancock�,;Ramona B
Su6ject: opposition fo:Co-Co Commons
,
To wliom it may conceril,
Reeently, a proposal to.build a shopping�center`in Carmel on the SE corner of 146th and Towne Road called
Co-Go-Gommons was brought to our attention: Surprisingly, this loc;ation is directly in my neighbors'
backyards! It would be extremely disappointing ifthis PUD is approved;as the land located there is zoned S1.
Currently, tliere 'is a eorn field in that corner'and the only future developinent we expect to see is that of single
family;homes because of the zoning;requirement placed on the land.
Approving this Plarined Uriit Developmenf opens th`e door for addi"tional coinmercial development along 146th
arid other areas'of West Garniel. Tliis goes against the new Carmel Comprehensive Plan thafi calls for no new
commerc'ial areas west of Spring Mi�ll.Road, .
One of the reasons why we decided,as a family, to live in Carmel (even though we teach in Avon) is because
one never sees huge, 1.6S,OO,O sq. ft. shoppirig eenters being built adjacent�to.existing, sirigle family homes (such
as the ones in Saddle Creek). This�wouPd be�extremely uncharacteristic of�?Vest CarmeL Again, we chose to
live and pay taxes in Carmel, not Avon.
If the PLTD for Co=Co Commons is;approved;'it would not only violate the zoning and the new Carniel
Cbrripreliensiue Plan already set in place for th`e area, but the developrnent would be a"poor neighbar". It would
creaYe lighY and noise pollution as�well as 'increased traffic though and around our neighborhood. No one would
want a neiglibor like that li�ing next.to them, especially in an established,.family oriented.neighborhood.
Al"so; we do riot fe:el tlie.need rriore shopping areas close to our home. There are plerity to choose from that are
easily accessible�iri Carmel. Addi'tionally, Co-Co Commons would compete with the shopp'ing/commercial area
in the Village of West Clay which,is yet to be completed, possibly making it harder for the bus,inesses in the
`Village,of West Ciay to become successful. With all the above reasons in rnind, we wou'ld like to see the land in
question to honor the S:l,zonirig and new Carmel Comprehensive Plan requirements. Thank you for your time
and corisideratioii.
Thank I'ou, .
1
1..�_ '.�. .
Hancock; Ramona B
From.:; jc.potts@sbcglobal:net •
Sent: Sunday, J,anuary 15, 2012 9:11 PM
To: Hancock,Ramona B
Cc: jc.potts@s6cglobal.net
,S.ubject: Qarmel Planning Commissioners
'_Importance: High . �
To Whom It May Concern: `
Please would you be good enough to forward this email to the Planning Commissioners of
Carmel.
.Many fhan'Izs
Chris & Janet Potts
' Chris & Janet Potfs
14330 Ch'ariots Whisper Dr
Garmel, Indiana
46074 USA
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to lodge t'he strong"esf of possible objections. to the planned development called
Coco Commons which i5 to be 6ailt on the north boundary of' Saddle Creek, and south of 146st
next. to Towne Road.
. I am a resident in Saddle Creek and have lived here for o�er 7years. My wife and I searched
for a home for months maKing sure. the biggest investment _we were going to make was the right
one, especially as we wanted to. start a family. Saddle Creek was perfect as it was situated
in an area�deyeloped for low density single family homes with open spaces for families to
play and within an easy 10 minute drive �of all the shopping we could wish for. We felt even
- better about our decision when we fo].lowed the passage of "Ca.rmel Comprehensive Plan" which
enforced no commercial areas west of Spring Mill Road.
We are now hoping the commi5sioners will move ,forward with their vision and proposed plan of
low density single family homes nezt to Saddle Creek and not support this huge commercial.
deveTopment. This unprecedented 165,000sqft �development next to a low density single family
home neighborhood will only bring noise, traffic and light pollution to an otherwise quite
residential area, as well as compromising the safety and security of the neighborhood.
One part of t_he deVelopment. that my wife and i find completely unfathomable is the plan for
the developer to extend the Saddle Creek pond immediately south of fh'e development and .
enla"rge it into th`e commercial development because it is needed. for drainage purposes. This
would force S'addle Creek to lose their physical boundary to the development and make the
residenfs completely reliant on the developer for all landscapi'ng: Enlarging the pond, with
the proposed noise making fountains, would also inerease the length of time standing water is
present between the ponds in the run-off areas which already exude strong smells in the
summer and litters the surrounding areas with trash carried by the waters passage.
1
_
�. ._�
V
', I hope the commi-ssi�oners wiT1 agree that granting the righf for fhe developer to turn this 19
ac,re field into a c:ommercial monsf rosity, and not the Tow den5ity 'residential area it is
, planned to be., would negate the whole purpose of having a comprehen:sive plan for the futu"re
development of Carmel.. _ �
If you have any furtfier questio.ns please don't hesitate to contact me,
Rega'rds �
Chris Potts
,
2
.
'
Hancock�.Ramona B
,
From; Parkerboysmom@aol.com
Senf: Sunday, January 15, 2012 6:04 PM
To�: ' Hancock, R'amona B
S'ubject: Coco Commons Proposal for Jan 18 mtg
I am writing to oppose the developmentrof the Coco Commons commercial project on the comer of 446th St and Towne
Blvd. in Wes.Y Carmel. I just moved h'ere 6 months ago and could barely find a home in the 300K-360K range since they
were selling befbre I could even see th,em. -Garmel has a good reputation and I imagine more familieswill#ollow and love
to live in the homes in the western part of the city. This area is zoned for residential family homes in the Comprensive plan
that Carmel spent a lot of time and effort on fwo years ago. There have not been any disasters to commercial properties
in this time to warrant brand new commercial building out in the this'area and no substantial changes in economic�
conditions since the Gomprehensiye plan was passed. It is my understanding that the Village of West Clay already has
some com"mercial areas approved that have not been built yet and so another commercial development so close by could
really kill that area and it already fias a little development and is approved. The West Carmel area should stay as
residential or all the work on the,Comprehensive plan seems like a waste of all that effort the town put into it. I believe �
t[affic is forecast to increase:alread.y in tfiis area due fo the upcoming building ofthe 146th St by-pass. I moved to this
area 6ecause I wanted peace and quiet and safe neighborhoods and feel a large commercial development will
substantially alter the landscape ofthis area which is an asset to Hamilton Cou_nty. Please keep the property on the
southeast corner of Towne Blud and 146th as residential and do not support the Coco Commons project at this location.
Thank you.
Cheryf Parker
317-816-1220
1
, �
Hancock,Ramona B � �
From: Mary';Rossetti [maryrossetti@ymail.com]
Sent: Su"nday, January 15, 2012 10:51 AM �
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: REZONING'146TH AND TOWNE ROAD '
Docket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUD.
I am writting in opposition to tfie reszoning of 146th and Towne Rd to allow
commercial development.
My main objection is due to what I beleive is a lack of need and imappropriate
rezoning of an area without proper main corridor outlet.
.
Commerical needs can be well met at Clay Terrace and the.Village of West Clay. Why
would the. planning board diminish the profitability of those two areas by allowing -
development of another location. in such close proximity?
The `lillage of West Clay has building standing empty. There are two banks and a C�IS.
in close proximity. Gasoline and food shopping are already close by.
The area is correctly zoned residential and must remain that way: We need to attract
reasons for family to build and live her in Carmel liy nlaintaining green space, �
- keeping traffic,_noise an`d lighting,attractive for families and senior citizens. Council
should keep in rriind the amount of traffic commercial 'zoning would bring to an area
without direct access to a main corridor; what a bottleneck that would bring.
I chose fhis area to live in this,area because of its zoning and I petition the council to
kee;p it as such. .
Sincerely
Mr. and Mrs. David Rossett�i
141.72 Murphy Circle W Lot 2
Carmel Indiana 46074
, i
.
.. ,.
.Hancock, Ramona B: .
Fcom: Denise Burdefte.[denkevb@ymail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 15,,2012 9:50 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: NO VOTE to CoCo Commons
To all aomission mem'bers,
. I live in Lincolnshire off of 141 st and Towne Road and am very concerned about the
prospect of a shopping area going in off of 146th Street behind Saddle Creek
community: I would hope that the �committee would honor the Carmel Comprehensive
Plan to not allow new commercial areas west of Spring Mill Road.
A big concern for me is the inereased traffic in that area and potential for increased
acci`dents also. The speed timit_is 50 on 146th Street and you will have people � �
stop'pin�g fo turn left and increasing a backup and potenfial for accide�nts of peopfe not
paying attention to someone drivng fhat fast and turning all of a sudden. 'It would also
increase tfie traffic at the round about on.141 st Street and down to Towne which could
cause an increase of accidents. There would also be an increase in truck traffic:in thi's
area which will bring more noise to the area and could also bring an increase in
�aecidents. � �
' � � . . . � ... . F i . � f''
People from many different areas use 146th street and fhere will be many�_people that
do not Iive in Car.mel frequenting this shopping area which could increase,-the crime;:.,;:;
rate also. Village of West Clay is slated to be building more commercial sites and th�is
is in Garmel deeper to eliminate bringing people from many different areas into our
residenfial area. ° � �
. Once you okay this development, ,it would set a standard and more commercial �
bu�ilding in VVesf Carmel which is not wanted. Many people move to this area to live in
a quiet commeraial free area: This woufd make the area less desireable:. My house . -.
does not back up �fo a corn field but I wouldn't want it right in my backyard, would you?.
Please continue to keep the zoning requirement of only single-family homes.
Please remember to hohor fhe new Carmel Comprehensive Plan- no new co.mmercial
areas west of Spr.ing Mill Road. � � � �
Please keep in mind the small town feel of Carmel and whaf makes it so special and�
don't give in to commerical inferests. I have lived in many other states and have seen
. what can happen when commercial interests take over and are integrated too close to
a residential area.
1
.. . , .
Please keep in mind that your decision will have a tre.mendous impac# on shaping �
West Carmel if you approve the rezoning to allow CoCo Commons.
Please
Sincerely,
Denise Burdette
z
� . - -
�r
Hancoc_k, Ramona B
From: Cindy Johnson [cindyj1;23@hotmail.com] �
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:10 PM
To: � Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Letterto Pla"n Commission Members
Attachments: Plan.commission Itr 1-15-12.docx
Ramona:.
�� Please forward�fhe following letter to all Carmel Plan Commission Members. I have embedded it in the e-mail and �
aftached it as a document. Thank you for your assistance. �
Cindy Johnson
lanu'ary 15, 2012
, - . _. .......,.:
Dear Carmel�Plan Commission Members:
IVIy narne is CindyJohnson and I live in Saddle Creek, just south of the inter,secfion of 146th St. and Towne Rd. I
am.writing in reference to the CoCo Commons Rlanned Unit Deyelopment proposal (Docket#11070022). My
fio'me�is located at 14408 Chariots Whisper Drive; therefore, my family would be looking at CoCo Commons
from t'he front portion of our home.
Nly husband and I built our house in Saddle Creek seven years ago. We chose this locatio.n because it still
reta'ins a rural feel, although w,e are'in a neighborhood. Saddle Creek is'quiet, safe,�and a great place.to raise
� our two children: We fiaJe access to various retail amenities within a ten rninute drive, yet are removed from
. "fhe hustle and bustle of commercial deyelopment. Prior to purchasing our lot, I specificall,y asked several
times'about the zoning on the southeast cocner of 146th &Towne and read all neighborhood documentation
for any in'dicatio"n of potential.commercia'I development on the southeast corner of 146th St. and Towne Rd. I
was assured that this land was zoned S-1 and the documentation did�not eontain any information to indicate
otherwise.
The 2009 Carrnel Comprehensive Plan retained the S-1 classification for this land, further reinforcing that this
particular piece of land would rem:ain residential. The Comp. Plan also states�that no new commercial �
development will be built west of Spring Mill Rd. If the GoCo Commons PUD is approved, this will'signal'�to .
developers'th'at rimajor deviafions from the Comp Plan will be permifted; thus, encouraging them to propose
commercial and retail areas fhat are incompatible with the west side of Car.mel. In essence, this will place the
, . Plan Commission and Council in a position to determine zoning on a case-by-case basis, completely negating
the Comp Plan: �
. .. � � , .� .,. �
Additionally, CoGo Commons would seriously inhibit opportunities for the Village of West Clay to build out"'� '
their designated commerci`al areas. Creating commercial competition within such close proximity in this
economy almost assures that one of these areas will not survive.
. On a personaf note,the proposed development would create an inordinate amount of traffic, noise, and light
pollution. Potential 24-hour businesses do not belong along the perimeter of a neighborhood, particularly
when buildings are iocated within 100ft. of the property line. Delivery trucks, includ'ing semis, would be� �� �
1 �
i :/11 - _ . . ' ' � ..
regularly ma.king;deliveries�at odd hours, along with refuse trucks to piek up frash. Finally; with the amount,of
customers coming and going, factors are greatly increased for potential crime in Saddle Creek.
I urge you to vote no to CoCo Commons. This type of development is not`wanted nor needed in west Carmel.
Sincerely,
� Cindy Johnson
2
Hancock, Ramona B
From: Norris Groves, CPA,CMA, CFM [ng@gaapma.com]
Sent: � Friday; Jarivary 1`3,2012 8:20 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Coco Commons (Docket#11070022 Z) �
Dear Commissioners,
It is oar unde�standing there is discussion to rezone the 19 acres at the corner of 146th Street &Towne Rd. to PUD
commercial development. 1Ne respeetfully request the application to do so 6e denied.
W.e are recent additions to the Laurel Lakes neighborhood.A primary reason for our decision tq moVe to the area was fhe
Corrip Plan cu�rently in.effect wfiich tloes not allow for any new commercial a�eas west of Spring Mill Road and zoned
for single-family homes only. A secondary reason, there is more than sufficient shopping and services within a convenient
radius without the congestion associated with more developed areas of Carmel. Please allow us to maintain the trust we
have in the councils comm�itment to maintain the quality of life our family so greatly appreciates.
Thank You;
Norris�Groves � � �
24�29 Burnfiam Walk
.Carmel, IN 4'6032
1
I
Hancock, Ramona B
From: Michelle Qureshi [michellequreshi@gmail.com] �
Sent: Thursday, Ja'nuary°1'2, 2012 8:14 PM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Docket.No. 110.70022 Z: CoCo Commons P•UD
Attachments: OpposedRezone.docx
Dear Plan Cotnmissioners:
I have been a C�armel 1lomeownei in the Lincolnshire neighborhood since November 2008. I live at
14427 Muipl�y Giicle Last with rny husband and daughtei.
Our lot sits at the nortl�ein most end of our development, against a cornfield at the southwest
coriier of 146`�' and Towne. We cl7ose to build in this neighboiliood given the location, with a
�eaceful, almost rural feel yet veiy conveniently located near shopping, offices and other retail
'spaces to our east (Clay Terrace), to the south (Village of West Clay), to the west (the Michigari
corrid�r), and even to tlie notth (Spiingmill aild 161ti�.
We�:also understood from oui homebuilder, oui realtor, and via our own research of the public
records, t11at the area duecdy behind our l�ome, as well as the land at the southeast corner of
Towne and 146`i; is zoned resideiitial. Furthermore, the Carmel Clay Com�rehensive Plan calls for
Carmel West to be lo�.v densiry residc:ntial
I am wriring to ��ou to show tliat I strongl�� oppose the Coco Commons proposal to first of all
rezone this land in clefianee of tlae Comprehensive Plan, 'and secondly to attem�t to do so by
l�uilding an unnecessary and unwarranted commercial development that will adversely effect me
, and my nei�hbors wit11 inereased noise; truek traffic, ligl�t pollution and over-crowding.
Simply put, it is unnecessary due not. only to the existing commercial areas in close pro�mity to
11ere, but also because there are currendy un-leased commercial areas in the Villages of West Clay
on l��th sides of Towne!
It is unwarranted because tl�is lancl is t� be cleveloped as sirigle-family housing, �and it is zoried
residential! ,
Please honoi tlie families �.vho chose to live here and keep this area zoned S-1 so this land may be
developed .in a"like rrianner tc� tlze e�;isting neighborhoods already hete. t1s a homeowner I neither
want nor neec� CoCo Cc�mmons! Pleasc do vote ag�unst tlle pio�osed CoCo Commons
I�evel�j�nzent at 146t11 St anc� l��vne.
'Thanlz you, .
; 1��Lichelle Quresl-u
1
Hancoc,k, Ra"mona B �
F�om: Lai, D.ongbing [dlai@iapui'.edu]
' Sent:= � Ttiursday; Januar,y 12,2012 2:17 PM .
To:; Hancock, Ramona B .
Subjecf:; NO MOR�E'GONIMERICIAL AREA IN 1NEST GARMEL
;Dea`r` Ramona:
1Ne live in'14359 ChariotsWhisper Dr:Carmel;And.we think yo'u know:thi`s,yes,:we live nexf fothe newiy proposed
CoCo Commons commercial area. lNe wer,e;shocked.and feel cheated wlien we hear.d that there will be a NON-
RfSIDENTIAL ar.ea nexf to us,..Since we b:egan our hou"se hunting in this ar.ea in 2004 and moved in in 2005,until now,we,
were.told all`tfie time fhat area will.be RESIDENTAIL only. V1/e don't understand why City of Carmel doesn't honor the
new Comp Fla,n and will'c'hange this re"sidentiai area to commercial area.
V1/hen we wer,e b`uy;ing a house;everyonesuggested Carmel. After we mo.ved'i,n, we re.commend Carmel to eve"ryone we
know; We have a lot=to say, great'schools, quiet•:neighborhood, beautiful and convenienf'roundabout, efc. Now,
redistrieting every 3 years "really makes people fhink about schools again and again:,Witli tfie new commercial area, our
ne:igliborhood won't be quiet anymor,e. Camel has changed from "the" best place:to "maybe"th"e best place. I work for
IUP'UI and my°wife works for EIy Lilly; for those recently hired (yes,there are still Some hiring),`we know many choose
otlier pla"ces for ttiese reasons!
Last year`'s redistr..icting afready makes,;many people m_oved out of Sadd.le cr,eek{our sub-division; we know 4 friends leff.
for this reason an"d saw incr,eased number of'"For Sale" sign during last summer):,If'this commercial plan is approved, we
_. _._
will DEFINITELY'mo,ve out before:we lose more money o,n our property: All neighbors we have:talked to think'the sarne
way�and we don't think y,ou wa;nf to-see an empty sub=division in Carmel. . �
CoCo Commons' propos.al said t'his m;ay`be a,sho,pping center: We don't understand why there�is a need for another one
very;closeto Village`of V1/est Clay. We,don't`think�peo,pJe Iive east of Ditch road want to shop here, fhey are close to Glay
terrace and Meijer. So.fhis is really a fiead to liead`compete with Village ofW,est Clay and one of fhem, if not bofh will
fiail.Again we don't think yo,u wanf to see an'abandoned area in Carmel.
We are already disappo,inted with City of°Carmel:in fhe processing of school redi,stricting because we never saw a long
term plan. For thi's area, City of Carmel,has a plan but wants to change it. We don't�know how mucfi Gity bf Carmel will
gain from this, but we already know people are staying away from Carmel and fhere may be abandoned areas in Carmel!
Best regards,
Dongbing lai
Yingm"ei'Gu
1
��
Hancock; Ramona B
From: SR Shelby[shelbysr.01 @gmail:com] •
Sent: 1Nednesday;; January 11,,:2012 1-:17 AM
To> Hancock,.Ramona B
_ . _ .
Sybject": Fwd: 146th and Town Rd- CoCo Developmenf Opposition
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: SR.Shelby <shelbvsrQl(rr��mail.coni>
Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:16 AlVI.
Subject: 146th and To,wn,Rd- CoCo Development Opposition
To: rhancock@carinel.in.gove
Hello�Pl�an Gommissioners;
Please keep the zoriing in for 146th and Towne road area for. single:family homes only. Honor the
plan and do not allow for commercial�zoning. There are already numerous areas in Carmel for
commerical sites such as they are proposing and just minutes to the:south and east of us are
struggling business right in the Vil�lages of VUest Clay, Clay Terrance, and many other locations
witllbut tenarits or undeveloped land areas. Those areas could accommodate this CoCo
development plans without changing.zoning cl°assification.
We relocated from Cliicago, IL. We were told countless times tliat Carmel had,great
neigliborhoods for raising children and�commuriities- areas that are not Tittered with strip malls and
businesses stuck in�every area and yes good resale value. We chose this area to escape just that
nightmare of noise;high traffi'c,crirrie and pollution.
We where also'told by our realtor a life'long Carmel resident thattliis area would be valuable to
. .;:_. - .:.
Carinel because of the tr.ees and even with the planned road expansion this is an ideal spot because
of the,Zoning reguirements that Carmel.has in place and the overall plan- not allowing for what.is
being proposed today. She said that if our builder did not put single family homes on the southwest
corner of 146th & Towne- now a:corn'field -it would be valuable to some other build"er - not some
strip mall developer that would put the woods in danger. : �
wo s ap � g _ p . �me and transients. Tliat small patch of
This ro osed ch_an e would�leave us ex osed to crl
od ea is also a rnarsh and home to wildlife . Busmesses are mostly eoricrete jungles. .
The current.noise and traff c alr.eady present on 146th and Town`e is bad enough. Single family �, �
homes would buffer us from the noise and traffic liglits that shine through the trees during the
winter was our liope. We see and'hear 146th & Towne traffic all the tim'e. E�en when in my
backyard I see light from cars coming from Westfield heading south on Towne toward 146th. If
you did a sound study and traffic study to adding to this area congestion;from a cornmercial
property wou�ld be.drastic: The trucics, trash trucics; to con"struction,vehicles, to the school buses,�to �
the speeding.cars and tlie many semis that cut accross 146th street th_is would impact us and this
,
i
!�
whole area. Just with the already made improvements to Towne- more cars from Westfield are
traveling on it to get south.and north. The expansion done to From Michigan andl46th has
impacted Carmel negatiyely already speeds have incr.eased and a stop sign had to�be installed at
146th and Shelboine. They made improvements but not nearly enough to accommodate the�
traffic. I lceep thinking that whatever is planning for road construction on our end might force us to
move anyway because of the noise and fear for my kids and home safety.
I was told by another developer that Carmel is disparate to have tax revenue to support tlie:music
center and that we'have basically lost already. I know you understand that Business do not,pay
taxes and they do not attend concerts. It consumers and homeowners that pay taxes.They even said-
many of us in this area supports this- wrong. 'Those of us impact by it_are more tlian a little against
this change request- do we not count. Can you please answer why the change in your
meeting calendar to address this matter? I do not think the developer would want such a project
right at there back door.
1Vlost business do not adhere to rules once they are in. If Carmel changes this based on
promises. The builders.and developers are;using market conditions to dd this all over the place.
WYiat is Carrnel without homeowners and people feeling a sense of communi,ty.. We are the ones
that say Carmel is the best place to live. You might.loose on a home- but why should Carmel a
great city lose a neighborho.od to a commericial developer. I am jaded.by developers with lofty. �. -
ideas. They just can't do what others are having difficulty doing just,look around.our city:: Qur
developer is alrea�dy:having tough time selling homes in our community.. This plapned re-zoning
will cause a complete slow down for us. We have one of the sma�ler communities in Garmel.
This planned.development would take away from Clay Terrace as well. Just look at the turnover:of
the stores and our ability to support them. It has forced them to some to;move or close. One �� '
restaurant manager told me months after we moved here that people in this area.do not support the
restaurants that after a certain hour eo le are not out eatin and sho in . All the mone s erit to
P p � g PA�� g Y�� p
develop main street and the monon to draw traffic and things like this do the opposite to those
plans. Just think the new music center has restaurants and sliopping and the CoCo Commons.
developer wants you to think it wont irnpact it. To turn this into a Michigan Road or Keystone r.oad
is just plan not right.
As it stands the Northwest side of Carmel still has hope of recovery for single family homes at
good price. , � .
When a buiTding/ strip mall they build for a eertain tentants and that business leaves itbecomes an
e esore and a ma � �
y gnate for undesirable business. But they, will say it is because of the economy we
have to do tYiis or we have to do that. Keep it green and.zoned single farnily. But to allow this at
this point is bad. The road expansion he mentions is no reason to do this. To me it is even more =
important to keep this part of Carmel looking residential in this area. Today they saying all the•
right things. But what will happen 3-5 years down the road. Look at the numb.er of large and
small retailers that have left areas and look,how slow developers are to make eontinuirig � �
improvements to property.
They will never be able to make business not stick out. The proposed expansion r.oad.would have to
have side roads to even support it- at a cost to the tax payer. The business will want'to be seen so
they will have signs but or big monument style signs, parking will be an issue; bright liglits, neon
z
+
,s�„
,'
signs, the srrie141 tliat,would come:fr.om trash;banner.s, flags and promotional' e�ents to draw
consumer to this:area and stop commuter traff c. During the 'impro�ements to Town road we had
many cars; trucks�and service vehicles cutting tYirough or neiglibor to get to 146 or to get to 141 st it
was mess:, �
The trash that blows frorn Towne/146th the stuff that.is discarded by cars is horrible. Cigarettes to
beer. bottles�to some other stuff people throw out at that intersect'ion What about the environment
and the wild life in this area. I hear an ow:l every evening and see hawks soring in the sky. The
p1,ailne.dproposal would not only d`rown out those sounds but_more than likely kill them or they will '
Teave the area.
Please help and vote against this change:in zoning. I work from.home which has me sensitive to
` the amount of noise and.traffic that is out here already. Many folks are not at home like me so I
have a unique perspective on this proposed ehanged.
This forced proposed change will�impact this area forever. It is irnportant for families that this area
remain single family. I was made aware of the road expansion but only t�o be told that not to worry-
north of ine would be residential because it was zoned that way. If changed it wil�l never go back to
wliat it was pl_anned to be. You have a choice to help the voters and tax payers and stop this before
it is too late. Any continued exploratiori of t_his lets me know that my.family has to make a � �
decision now. I am sure you understand how personally this effects rnany of us. I only hope that'
you�consider this one family and our reasons for not wanting rezoning to take,place. Do not give up
on this area and destine it for increased�traffic; crime, vacant reta:il space,pollution and noise. ��
I pray you will come to our aid: .
�Sincerely,
SRS
Carmel, IN 46075
3
� :< �
� � Hancock�,�Ram�ona'B' �
From: SR.Shelby[shelbysr01 @gmail.com]
S,ent:: Wednesday, January 11,:2012 1:17 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona:B
Subject: Fwd'. 1:46th and Town Rd-CoCo Development Opposition
---_--=--= Forwarded message ----------
•From: SR Slielb:y <shelli-�s�_��mail.conl>
Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:16 AlVI
Subject: 146th and Town Rd- CoCo Deuelopment Opposition
To: rhancock cr carmel.i:n.gove
He1lo�Pl'an�Commissioners,
;.�..::.,._:_r-.�.�.�.. .. . . _ . . . . _ ... - ..-.'•q.»m.[1:.ra�acc-s��vac.a
Pl`ease keep the zoning in for 146'th and Towrie road area for single family homes only. Honor the
:-�b -
plan'and do no.t allow for commercial zoning. There are already numerous areas in Carmel for
corimmerical sites such as they are proposing and just minutes to tlie south and east of us are
struggling business right in the'Villages of West Clay, Clay'Terrance; and many otlier locations
without tenants or undeveloped land areas. Those areas could accommodate this CoCo
development plans with'out clianging zoning classification.
We relocated"from Cliicago,�IL. We were told countless times that Carmel had great
nei'ghb'orhoo'ds for raising children and communities- areas that are not littered with strip malls and
businesses stuck 'in every area and yes good resale value. We chose th'is area to escape just that
niglitmare of noise, high traffic,crime and pollution.
We wher.e also told by our realtor a life long,Carmel resident that this area would be valuable to
. - :. . ...•. -�-..:
Caimel because of the trees and even with the planned road expansion this is an ideal spot because
of the Zoning requiremerits that Carmel has in place and the overall plan- not�allowing for what:is_
being�proposed today. Slie sai'd that if our builder did not put single family homes on the�southwest
corner of 146tYi & Towne- now a corn field -it would be valuable'to some other builder�- not some
str'ip�:mall developer that wou'ld put the woods in danger. : � � ��.�����:
This proposed change,would leave us exposed to crime and transients. That small patch of .
woods area is also a marsh and'home to wildlife . Businesses are mostly concrete jungles.
The current noise and traff c already present on 146th and Towne is bad enough. Single family .:-� ?
homes would buffer us from the noise and traffic lights that shine through the trees during the
winter was our hope: We see and hear 146th & Towne traffic all the time. Even when in my
backyard I see light froin cars coming from Westfield heading south on Towne toward 146th. If
you did a sound study and traffic study to adding to this area congestion from a commercial� � :
property would be drastic. The trucks, trash trucks, to construction vehicles, to the school buses;�to �
the speeding cars and the many semis that cut accross146th street this would impact us and this• '
i � "
; �. �
whol�e area. Just with the already made improvements to Towne-.more cars:from Westfield are
traveling ori it to.get south and north. 'The expansion done tb Fr.om 1Vlichigan and146th has
impacted Carmel negatively already speeds have increased and a'stop sign had to be insta'lled�at �
146th and Shelborne:. Tliey made improvements but not nearly enougli to accommodate the
traffic: I keep thinking that whatever is planning for road construction on our end might force us to
move anyway because of'th�e noise and fear for my kids and fiome safety.
.. .
I was told by another developer that Carmel is disparate to have tax reveriue to support the music
center and that we have basically lost already. I know you understand that Business do not p.ay
taxes and they do not attend concerts: It consumers and homeowners that pay taxes.They even said-
many of us'in this area supports this-wrong. Those of us iinpact by it are rnore than a little agairist
this cliange request
. n �
signs, the sme11 tliat would come:from trash, banners, flags and promotional events to draw
I consumer to this ar.ea.and stop commuter traffic. During the improvements to Town road we had
many cars, trueks,and service vehicles cutting through or neighbor to get to 146 or to get to 141 st it
' was mess.
__
Th�e trash that blows from Towne/146th the stuff that is discarded by cars is horrible. Cigarettes to
beer bottl�es to some other stuff people throw out at that intersection What about the environment :
and tlie wild life in this area. I hear an owl every evening and see'hawks soring in the sky. The
p_lanned proposal would not only drown out those sounds but more than likely kill them or they will
leave the area. - �
Please help and vote against this change in zoning. I work from home which has me sensitive ta
the amount of noise and traffi'c that.is out here already. Mariy folks are not at home like me so I
have a unique perspective on this proposed changed.
This forced proposed change will impact this area forever. It is important for families that this area
. remain singie family. I was made aware of'tlie road expansion but only to be told that not to wor.ry=
north of ine would b'e residential because it'was zoned that way. If changed it will riever go back to
what it was planned to,be. You have a choice to help the voters and tax payers and stop this before
it is too late. Any-continued exploration of th'is lets me know that my family has�to make a • ,
decision now. I am sure you understand how personally this effects many of us. I.only hope�that`
you consider this one family and our reasons for not wanting rezoning to take place. Do not give up
on�this area and destine it for increased traff c, crime, vacant retail space,pollution and noise: �� :��� �'�
I pray you will come to our aid: >
S'incerely, � ��
S'RS
Carmel, IN 46075
. ,,.
. ,
3
Hancock, Ramona B
From: Ha�old,.E Reed, Jr.[hreedj;r01 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday;,January 09;2012 6:56.PM
To:, ' Hancock,,Ramona B
Subject:= CoCq�Commons.=Carmel Plan Commission Meeting-January 18th
f li�e in the Saddle Creek,swbdivision that;is�beside the pro.posed comm;ercial development�known as
CoCo Commons... and I am for this new shopping center complex. The area would b�enefit from a gas
station, Cafe (like Sfar.bucks)� local bookstor.e, and/or other retail options fo that this center could
offer: lt would provicie a 'gr.eat place fo'walk'fo from the nearby neighborhood and make the area feel
„ more complete. �
The email belo,w seems to be crafted to .make you feel negafi�ely�abouf this new de�elopment that
will bring more gptions to an area that will be one of the gateways to the parks area that will be
coming just up the road in 1Nestfield.
The message below mentions.having :commercial area nearby in the ''Village of 1Nest Glay".. It is nice
and-all once you get to if. But it;is difficult to,get into and not°a:real, inviting place;to go. From the
- couple of times I was there it felt like "get,your food and please go tq where you came from". There
are:no cafe's or other places to hang out. It doesn't seem like it was intended to be a�place where you
� can wonder into.
The.comprehensive plan mentioned seems,to be about keeping people going,toward US 31... which
is a major congestive mess and will not be a good place to be when;they start fo turn it into an
expr,essway in the near future. .
The CoCo Commons will provide a much needed place for nearb.y residents to walk to.
` °�---_.._
Thank you.for your firne:and please consider the proposed CoCo plan.
Harold Reed M�"�'`��-`..,_�r
F:orwarded conyersation
- --.:..�„
Subjecf: Carmel PI"an~Commission Meeting Rescheduled #or JANUARY 18TH
From: Saddle Creek<noreplvna,saddlecreekhoa.com>
Date: lVlon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM
i
To: nore ly(a�saddlecreekhoa.com
Dear Saddle Creek Resident: �
Please note that the Carmel Plan Commission Meefing regarding the proposed commercial development at
146th St: & Towne Rd. has been rescheduledto Wednesday; January 18. Here is information about the
meefing:
Carmel Plan.Commission Meetin�
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18 - 6:OOpm
Carmel City Hall - 2nd Floor Council Chamber
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
You have a chance to impact the future of Saddle Creek by attending the Commission Meeting and writing
Commission members. Saddle Creek has partnered with the Carmel West Information Council 2 (CWIC2)to
fight this development. CWIC2, a local resident volunteer organization,has a 100% success rate with the
Carmel City Council in defeating or significantly modifying proposed incompatible developments in residential
areas on the west side of Carmel.
Action Stens
1. Write Garmel Plan Commission members opposing the proposal. Please read the Action Needed Now
section in the CWIC2 newsletter listed below for information on where to send your e-mail and potential points
to feature in your letter.
2. Attend the Jan. 18 Plan Commission Meeting. .
3. Talk with your neighbors and friends about joining you in writing commissioners and.attending the meeting.
YOUR PARTICIPATION WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
CWIC2 NEWSLETTER -January 8,2012
President's Messa�e:
Happy New Year and I hope your holidays were good. We have good news and troublesome news:
1. For good news, read t�e Silv_ara Planned Unit Development(PUD).[*See note at bottom] Update
at the end of this newsletter, especially important information if you are one of our new readers who
believes Coco Commons will inevitably be approved pretty much as proposec�
2. The not-good news is Coco Commons, a PUD proposal to rezone S=i residential land to 165,000 sq.
ft. of commerciaUretail uses on 19 acres! Located on the SE corner of Towne Rd and 146t" St.
In 2009,with your help, CWIC2 won Council support to keep the Comprehensive Plan [*See note at
bottom] and zoning unchanged for Carmel West,with no new.commercial areas. Coco Commons
significantly viola"tes this and approval will send a message to landowners and developers that commercial
areas might be approved anywhere in Carmel West. There are multiple reasons to be quite hopeful that
enough Councilors will'hold to their'Comp Plan decision to defeat Coco Commons if it continues to so
drastically differ from the new Comp Plan.
'I'hings vou should.know about Coco Commons (DockeY#11070022 Z on the Citv's website):
- The hearing will be held on a Wednesday, the 18` , instead of their regular Tuesday Nme!
z
i - ,
��=Whil�e the_land is zoned:S-1 (1°unit/acre single-familyhomes), Coco Commons jumps past all other
_
residential Comp'Plan clas5i�cations to the 3ra most intense commerciaUretail'classification. Huge
differencel
- -The Comp Plan sent�for considerafion to Council bythe Plan Commission included the;possibility for
7,50;0 sq;ft:commercial nodes anywhere: Councilors.removed these from Wesf Carmel. The propased
165,OOO�sg.:ft. of commercial,uses�would be 22 times as infense and equivalent to the zoning area for
Micliigan Road or 1VIerchant's Squ_are (Keysfone)!
- -Plan Commissioners sent the.Comp Plan to Gouncil with the area al'ong 146th St. idenfified as a
� .SpecialStudy Area. Council rejected that and left the area S-1 (l u/a single-family homes).
- -In the new Corrip Pla"n, Council rejected:any new commeYCial'areas anywhere in West Carmel.
Councilors held fo tliat recently, making'it clear that they would vofe down the Silvara PUD as long as it
iricluded an._area of commercial uses.
� - -The landowner cites the 4-lane road's,as a reason for the drastic rezone. gIowever, the road
improvements'for both 146t" St and Towne Rd have been planned�for years and were known at the time
Council removed the Special Study designation on the Comp Plan..
Action Needed Now:
1. Email the Plan Commissioners asap to the Clerk, rhancock@carmel.in.�ov, who�will forward, and
include_it '►n the offieial record_. Ilse your own words and tell why these points matter�to you.
a. Honor the new C.omp.Plan—no'new commercial areas west of Spring Mill Road.
b. Keep the zoning requi"rement of only single-family homes.
c. Approving�this PUD'would open the door for lots of additional commerciat development
along 146` St and other areas of West Carmel.
d. There are already choices for: shopping and this wo_uld compete with the Village of'West
, Clay's as yet-to-be fuIly.fiiiished commercial area, perhaps.jeopardizing it's success.
e. Require the development,to be a:good neighbor so:it doesn't adversely impact`neighbors or
yet-to-be-developed.land. Give,speeific examples of why'you oppose the commercial area,
such as noise and_lighf pollution, truck traffic,increased traffic,etc:
� 2. Attend the Plan Commission hearing on the 18th so they know it•is important this land remain
single-family residential wifh no commercial uses.
3. Share this with your neiglibors and encourage others to email;and attend the hearing also.
� Numbers count�herel
PTan Commission A�enda-Wednesdav`-�Januarv 18th, City Hall, 6:00 p:m.
2. I)ocket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUI).
_
The applicant seeks approval fo rezone;19 _acres frorn S-1/Residence�to: PUI)/Planned Unit Development,
for a neighborhood-scale commercial deyelopment, The site is located at fhe soutl�east corner of 146`h St.
and Towne Rd. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose iVIcT{inney &Evans LLP for Timothy Saker, owner.
_
Update on Silvara.(281' acr.es on'the NW corner of 116th St& Spring Mill Rd:
•-- -
Thanks to all of'you who emailed:and attended various meetings.We did well! Here's a brief'summary:
Because of,good support from Councilors, we gained:
' - `Due to some S-2 zoning°on the prop'erty, existing base density was 1.25 units/acre; Final density is 1,5
, u/a instead of the 3.14 u!a proposed, reducing the 950 proposed dwelling units to-422.
- The r.equested 35% waiver fo'r change was reduced to 0%!!! We believe fhis is a first=a waiver of up
to 10% is typical.
- The Estates area (1�00 acr,es),fully,eomplies with S-1 zoning. Originally, no area:complied.
- Perimeter lots greatly increased`in size and are now compatible with all bordering subdivisions and the
, abutting,undeveloped land,,
- Buffering and setbacks,and:arc_hitecturaT quality, are better than required under S-1 zoning.
- Huge improvements in mulfifamily buildings:
3
'
o:=Restri�ted to just 16% of the total acreage, closest to the corner of 116t" St& Spring Mill Rd and across
from'Clarian's/IU'1VIed's permitfed 8-9 u/a townhouses. Density here dropped from 8 u/a to 3.25 u/a.
o Can have only 6 units per building; not the 40 initially proposed.
. o Can only be 6uilt�if'built as Senior Housing (with speci�ed Universal Design/age-in-place/handicapped
.accessible features). This effectively eliminates,��regular" apartments.
- Greatly reduced the possible`num6er of very small lots/homes—easf of the creek, only dwellings builf
to meet Senior Housing requirements mayhave a minimum lot width less than 100'.
- No commercial uses were approved (although we know this i"ssue will come back).
The Silvara team gained:
-A 0.25 increase in density on 281 aeres only by offer.-ing frue Senior Housing and higher architectural
standards than the minimum r.equired under zoning.
- Very limited multi-family kiuildings possible as described above.
- Some flexibility in minimum lot sizes in 3 of the 4 Planning Areas.
Definitions, Refer.enced In Newsletter
• Planned Unit Development (PUD)–These developments ask to write their own rules,which differ
from the zoning and apply only to that particular property, PUD proposals are supposed to offer
something special beyond what could be done under the existing zoning, thereby warranHng the
rezone.
• Comprehensive Plan/Comp Plan–State'law requires eacli City or County to establish a zoning
plan for their respective areas. The resulting Comp Plan serves as a guide for residents and
developers, setting expectations as fo what developments will be built on the undeveloped or
redeveloped land.
Marilyn Anderson, President MaryEllen Bormett,Vice-Presidenf Dee Fox, Secretary
4
`r - •
i� -
���1�
' '. `. � DELIVERY REQUEST FORM
� 1�cI _ �� _ � .
= Print and Delive,r 2 copies
, &.,��� �.,j,P to fhe 27t" Floor Cour.ier Coordinator's Desk
,.: � -
ATTORNEYS �AT:LAW
DATE: 1/6/1�2 REQUESTOR: Granner
� EXT: 5304 USER NO: 327
�CLIENT/MATTER NAME: Tim"Baker/CoCo Commons
CLIENT/MATTER' NO.: 23003-0001
❑ File � Deliver � Pickup
TIME�SUBMITTED: RUN IMES
fV.O./Car Runs: 9:00 ❑ 1:30
Downtown ❑ 10:30 ❑ 3:30
Runs: ❑ 1:30
Must be delivered no later than:
BUSI ,NESS NAME
& CONTACT: City of Carmel, Dept. of Community Services
Address: One Civic Square, 3�d Floor, Carmel, fN 46D32
° Phone:
WHAT: Please deliver 15 booklefs attached NO LATER THAPV NOON FRIDAY, Jan. 6th
Case%Cause #:
OTHER IiVSTRUCTIONS:
. MUST BE DEUVERED DIRECTLY TO:
SI:GNATURE OF RECIPIENT:
DATE: TIME:
U.RGEIVT, NEED BAC4�C ININIEDIATELY �3 a � � 7 $���
'RETURN DELI.VERY TO:
(instead of Gopy Center) /�/ � '�,� ��
/e1 : �i � r�
� ��� �
� ��: �,� �
�- ��,
� �-: °�� `���; ��°
' �`o��"�����;� - _: ,�a
...:.:•:»� -�
� `g8L9 �.,� �
Conn, Angelina V
From: Boone, Rachel M.
Sent: Tuesday,, January 03, 2012 2:40 PM
To; Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE; CoCo Commons PUD- latest v.ersion - docket no: 11070022 Z
Follo�w��Up Flag: Eoliow�up
Due By: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:00 AM
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Angie,
I don't think I ever got back to you on this one...sorry. Here are my comments;though they're not much different than
before. '
�
Area A: Stili against the number of signs allowed for the anchor building. At minimum, would like to see the sign on the
east fa�ade removed.Would appreciate the number going down for the west and north as well.
Area B No.rth; Not in favor of allowing wall sign"s where there is no entrance to thespace. Would be ok with corner �'
tenants having two signs, but not the interior tenants.
Area B South: Very concerned about corner tenants in the south area having lighted signs stili shining into the neighbors
homes.'I think it should be amended to say it.is not allowed on those elevations (west and east) at ail.Also concerned
about a possible middle (corner)tenant having two signs on the different facades. I think it would be excessive.
Area C: Not in favor of one sign on every fa�ade of'the possible building. Please limit to three (two wall and one ground).
Also, what about a ground sign for the outlot tenant? Usually that is one of fheir primary requests. What happened to
signage for outlot 2?Is that no longer an outlot?
Do you think you can talk him down on some of these signs? I have been unsuccessful thus far...
Rachel
Za:cheL 3aa�.e�
Sign Permit Specialist
City of Carmel
Department of Community Serviees
317-571-2417
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Wed_nesday, December 14, 20113:28 PM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M; Donahue-Wold,.Alexia K; Boone, Rachel M.; Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren; Hollibaugh,
Mike F
Cc: Tingley, Connie S; 'Schuessler, Justin
Subject: CoCo Commons FUD - latest version - docket no. 11070022 Z
All— Rttached are t'he latest versions of.the CoCo Commons PUD. Please look over,and'let me know of any changes the
petitioner should make: ,
(Connie—pfease add these to LaserFiche. thanks!)
Thanks!.
�
. �. '
11070022 Z - CoCo CONINIONS PUD
RESP4NSE TO THE D.O.G.S.STAF�
Preliminarv Planning/Zonin�Dept.Review Comments:
p'�'�! Please provide di�ital copies of the plans and applications.
Emailed to Augie aratl R�tmorta.on b'/lLll.
� Please do double-sided pi-iuting for the info packets.
� Will do. � �
� Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their conespondence with
you. �
At.taclee�l h.ereto are copies of all the correspo►tdence that we `iave laa�1. wr.f/1. the TAC rnernbers.
However, we're sure thatA/en Fetalla�ic/zas laa�l arldr.tiorcal TAC correspofrdence thut we liave
�aot been copie�l ofi.
� Reineinber to include the Development Plan application's Findings of Fact sheet in your final info
packets.
Yoai lta,ve siuce z.�adicatecl tliat we slrotcl�l not do tyzat.
� Provide the filled out and notarized flffidavit of Notice of Public Hearing page of tl�e applicati�n.
� Filecl witla Ratnotia ort 9/20/ll.
�! Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page ofthe application.
�
File�l with Rarrzotca ora 9/20/ll.
� Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement Affidavit page of the application.
Filed wrt,/a R�t�iona.oft 9/2(1/ll. �
� Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hanulton County Auditor's
Office.
File�t with R�ltno��a ori 8/5/ll.
9O. Prepare an estimated COI1StI'UCt1011 cost to comply with the Thoroughfare P1an & Alternative
Tr�nsportatio_n Plan; contact the Engineering Dept. for more details.
As of llais wriliiag, we are still uw��itirzg the resralts oJ'tlae �lisc;ressions betweera Coreelty Ili.ghwcry
� � � • a�icl tfee.Cunnel ve�ar•tment of F�agificerircg. .
1973178v1. •
1
10. Staff would prefer that you preserve the delineated wetland areas and incorporate thein into your site
plan. If not, will there be any wetland mitigation?
At t�iis point ira t.ifne, it is afcticr.p�lterl tlaat hotlz wellrt�icl �ireas will. Ge rnitigaterl off-sife (Sec.. �
3.G.E).
11 Please consider incorporating LEED or `green' building practices into the PUD requirements, such
' as a white roof, solar panels, pervious pavers in all or part of the parking area, bioswales, etc. Green
List is attached,for reference..
It wi�l,l he consiclered(Sec. 3.6.G).
O�
1_. Provide a bike �u�d edestri�� lan to m�imize the direct sidewalk/ ath connectivit wit '
p p p y lun the site
(it looks like there are a lot of missed opportunities.).
We anticipate lr.avi�tg a bike a,rad ped�estr�iart nlarr co�rtpleted irt t7=rne for•i�aclusrort r.rt tl7.e�ackets.
� Please see The Bridges PUD for text on how to do the parking area curbing to allow for sustainable
.
design and bmp's.
The Brid,Qes PL1D text has heera adclerl(Sec. 3.G.D).
� � Please add some architectural building requirements,similar to what is in The Bridges PUD. `
Additio�t�cl requir•er�zerats h�ive been a�tdetl by adding Seclions 3..S.I; G,FI, 1 aract J.
15. The Development Plan layout needs some work. Our Department would like to schedule a meeting
with you and your clients, to further discuss this.
�
The �neetrizg with your Departtnerct was hel�l ojt 8/17/11. Revisio�as to t{te Concertual
' Develop�lentPlciya are ir�a process.
16. Please add a table of contents to the PUD text.
� A table of coictents wi�ll be a�l�led i�a tinae for the packets.
l� Section 2.2—will it refer to zoiring ordinance chapter 25,as well?
�
T)ie refererace Icas been ad�lec�. .
� Section 3.2—please add to definitions: "architectural enhancement appendages".
We rzo lnrager use the term "�crc)tite.ctrcral eraliartceineret appeitrlages." We r�o�v use "vertical
arcJrite.ctur�il ap��urte�zaiac.es."Sect�on l.3 slcr.tes th�u ara.y terz�a not�lefr.ned yaereira shrill have fi�.e
mea�iin� cr,r set forlla iie tlr.e rarmel "Lo�ai�ig Dr•ctinane.e. The t.erm "appurtena�tces"r.r rtsecl in
tlze CZO, so we tlefer to the CZD.
19. Section 3.4- what is your proposed maximum lot coverage percentage?
�s��. — rna� '��c�,� ��-� o,�ce... . �e 2
v. ��, .3
d.Q �-
1973178v1.
�
.-
�
� , .a
20. Section 3.5 — when you write "where appropriate'' that gives too much leeway; it nee�s t� be a �
standard.
I Tice "wltere. uppropru�te"l�iraguclge h�rs bee�t deleterl. �' �•� � � �
��. Section 3.S.B -for EIFS, please a�ld that it can only be used above 8-ft from the �-ound andlor used
as trim to be not more than 10% of a facade. Similar to what is in The Bridges PUD.
We adtle�l "lirnitecl to n.reas $' above gracle." We cazelclra't fi�acl r�ny IU% lirnit ira 77te Brirlees
PUD. So, we tlli�ik we are�aow corisistent witlz��The BridQes PIID, as you requeste�l.
o��' � Section 3.S.D — roof �lesi�i. Please ad�t text siinilar to what is in the Miclugan Rd. Overlay text ,
� chapter 23C.09.E. ,
It Izas been�id�led.
��� Section 3.6.A—add requirement for roof for h•ash enclosure, similar to the US 31 Overlay, ordinance
chapter 23B.16.01. .
The Bri�l�es PUD does rtnl�Itave tlais starctlaw�l. We Izcave not irtclucle�l it. The US 31 Uverlay
ir�cludes it becciuse of t/ie�mu.lti-story builcli�igs tyaat occupy the cotri�lor. -No one���i,ll�be�ble to
look dowrc iiito our truslz eraclqsieres. ��e�lid, lu�weve�; «�ld sofne ccciclitior�al sturacl��rds.
(�—� Section 3.6.B —list how these areas will be screened... with 6-ft tall wooden fences, 6-ft tall shrubs,
etc.
We laave a�l�lecl a trr.iriinzurn 6 foot lzeiglat stu�a�lard. A lrei:clscape/screefri�z�concept p1u►a for tlte
planliizg strip along:the soutl�prvperty lirie is iez process.
�� ?�. Section 4.1-Please make the building setback froin the soutl�property line 30-feet a�id from the east
property line 30-ft.
We rco�w show a 30 foot�buil�ing set.back�li�ae rilorig hoC3a the eust a��d soutyi�raperty li�ties.
26. Sections 4.4.B.l.a &4.4.B.a:—please make the greenbelt along 146`t' street 20 -30 feet wide. 15-ft is
too nairow.
Consistertt witla tyie. I3-3 (14:OG), B-6 (17.Q6j, B-7 (1$.06) ar"icl B-8 (19.06) I�istricts, the�
minimunz 30 foot greenbelt'reqrcire�nerct is exclaide�l where n li►nite�! access laighwu,y a�ljoir:s
(�aew l46`�` Street). IS feel is corasi�te�at wilh Tuble for Bufferyar�l vetertnir�alion' (Sectiort
26.04.06 of tlr.e CZOj.
27, Section 4.4.B.2.b—Please add a 30-ft wide landscaped area along the southern property line.
• AS SLC1tL'[�lll LJ1L llI�SWG'Y CO#24; u la.rr�lsc.�pe/sr.reeizi�a� cortcept plan,for t,1ie plca�ati�ag shzp along
the svuth�rroperty lirr.e rs ii�pr�cess. We rcntlerstand tlr.e r.rnportrafcce �f properly landscapirig
an�l screeiaifr.g this portiora o f llee develo��nerct.
. . _ . , r . - . • , . . . _ . . ,
.. . , '. . . . � � ' • • • .
. ,
1973178v1.
3
� �
� � Section 4.4.B.2. —add the word `a' so that Sections a. and b. read: Tliere sl��ill be a landscapecl.... r
Done. . .
,�
29. Section 4.4.B.3.b — Sidewalks should be located around the entire builcling, or at least where it
makes sense.
(See res�orese#I2.)
' � Sections 4.S.A&S.S.A& 6.S.A—please list how you will be doing this.
'll�ese three parugraphs have hec�n rewri,ltert. ' �
.
� Sections 4.5.D & S.S.D & 6.S.D — please add the bicycle parking requirements to this section. See
Chapter 27 of the zoning ordinance.
I Addecl cts �15.E& S.S.E cYz h.S.E. .
�3;� Section 4.6.0 — please limit height of pole light to be 25-ft tall and 15-ft tall within 90-ft of a
residential area, sinular to what is in The Briclges PUD.
I.�orie.
� Sections 4.6.D & 5.6.D &. 6.6.D — Please add the requirement for 90-deb ee cut off ancUor flat �
lenses.
Dorae.
� Sections 4.6.D & 5.6.D & 6.6.D — Foot candle measurements sl�ould be 0.0 at tl�e east and south
properry lines.
We are lrying to mirrot• 7he Bri�l�es PUD ora tlaese issues, �ts you laa.ve freqr�erelly reyueste�l,
�lrt�l it laas 0.3 as a requ,irernent.
� Section 5.1 -Please make the building setback from the south property line 30-feet.
Sranae an.swer as#Z5, alo��g the south property liaie.
36. Sections 5.4.B.1.a & 6.4.B.1.a - please make the �-eenbelt aloug 146°i street 20 -30 feet wicle. 15-ft
1S t00 1111TOW.
S�i�ne afzswer�s#26. .
37. Sections 5.4.B.2.a&6.4.B?.a -Ple�se adei a 30-ft wide landscaped area along the southern property
line. .
Sarne r�iiswer as#27. �
y�.o� �re �� '" u '� •�a� S �°"�1_
_ � . �.'1 . a = �`'j'� � Wc�c�� -f� y.y C.z
� �- � Q�S add J
� 1973178v1.
4
,
, . �:
38.. Section 7.2.0 -add that the Director ca�i approve minor alterations oi�ly. Sulistanti�I alterations need
- plan commissi�n appro�lal or from a committee thereof.
7.2.0 licr�s Leeyx rewritlen �to lir�ait tlte Pi�t•ectot•'s npproval� �r.utliority to mintic tlae c�pproval
authorily gru►rterl under 7.2.B.
� Exhibit 4 — show both the Park, Picblic and Motor Bals or Railroa.d Passereger Station. uses as
Petmitted in all areas.
Dorte. � •
40. Signage (�uid nusc.)re��iew coirunents from Sign Pernuts Offieer:
�� 1. Area A ,
a. Wall signs:
�- � �tit.• i. 6 signs on the west elevation seems like too much: These are what I imagine they
� want signage for:
� 1. garocery store name
2. pharinacy
3. bank � .
4. inaybe a Starbucks �
5. possilily arestaurant
�e hcive re�lzccecl rt fi•orn 6 to,5.
ii. 3 sians on the.north nught be ok—ciepending on what they are � , -
��Ye left 3 orx tlze tiorth, r•e�lucecd t1�e. east fi•of��3 to 1 cuzd IefZ the south .n,t
zero.
iii. I am opposed to sib s on tl�e back of the building. Ground signage and north wall
signage should be adequate to alert clrivers that fhere is a grocery store there.
By `'back"�t�yoae rnean tl�e east fucade or t/�e south facurle? We evul�l
probably fitrtlter Zz»til tlae orie orc tlae easl lo bei►�g li�tnitecl,to the �aort.h
�� Itzalf of t,lae east fa�t�d.e. We prol�ibit sig�i�s ota the sorct�a fa�a�le.
iv. I am opposed fo the size allonneuts. I do not belie�e that percentages of the
fa�ade is a good way to determine sqtiare footage. (We shoulcl �neasure what
would be alla��ed per the Sign Ordinance,then see wliat they want as "extra".) � •
W'e lauve�Ielel,etl the perceiztages a�:�l specifzecl i�taximuna sizes.
v: There is no mention of sign color or mountin��method. It would be best to have
these in tlie PUD language for unifornuty.
Colar will be nn ADI S �lec.isiafz �ncl estRb�lisl�ed hy tlae first ADLS
tcpproval. We l�ave, ra�lde�l ud.rtiliorial desigra corastrair�ts.
p��There is no letter B,it goes strai�ht to C
Correct e�l.
1973178v1. •
5
c. CoCo commons ID and Real Estate(Leasing Signsj
i. "As Approved Uy an ADLS Sign Probram for CoCo Coirunons" is �iot
appropriate laziguage for a PUD. Please state what it is that is desired, so it is
written in the PUD,not deternuned at a later date or time.
We have a�ne��derl to rnimic l�ae Sigre Or�liyiaiece.
p�.� The site is 20 acres, therefore would allow them up to 32 sq. ft. and 8' tall for a
real estate sign. •
We huve►aow refee•eizced t{►e Sigu f9r�li.narice.
b�i� They would also be allowed construction signs up to 32 sq: ft. and 8' tall. • . �
�
Sarne as `c.ii'ubove. ' .
�� We're making it(leasing sib s) work through the Sign Ordinance far The Legacy
project, and they have much more land th�i tius project. So I thi�ik the Sign �
Ordina��ce regulations would work fine here.
We�tow ctse tlre Sigrz O�•ditiu.race regultttio�is.
b¢.� I don't think this section should be combined for both main identification signs
and leasing signs. It is not clear what goes with what. For example, temporary
signs should not be lightecl and do not have to be landscaped. It might 6e best just
to make a separate section for leasin� signs.
We sepm•�ltetl t17em.
2. Area B
� a. Wall si ns
g
i. Norin f.avor of�ne sign on each fa�ade of each tenant space. The south proposed
building will not need sigr►s on the s�uth (back elevation of the building). I can
' possibly see supporting end cap tenant signage on the west or east elevation of
the south building.
We nrl�le�!u na�imum. of 2 per occup�lirt an�]rrow prohihit signs on tlae
soutli f'a�r�de.
� ii. Tl�e nortl� multi tenant building — is it going to l�ave proper 4 sided arcllitecture
and entrances from the front (west) and bzck.(east)? If not, I do not believe
signabe on the east is necessary or required. We typically do not have signage on
the backs of buildin�s, especially if there is no entrance on that fa�acle.
Yes, it will liuve �1-sitle�l arclaitectt�re. Eratrances are urakr�owiz �il. this
tir�ae-probal�ly t��ill rlepen�l on t�{ze terza.rat('s). �
1973178v1.
6
r, fi �
- f .
. iii. Again,I ani.not in support of using percentages of facades for sign areas.
Percetztuges a►•e�Ieleterl, Sign Orditzartce now refereface�l:
�/�Iv. Location should be above the entrance to the store,or have more language statinb
v � thaY the si�n cairnot be located within one f�ot of the edge of their tenant space.
More details like this would be helpful.
_ Ne,w laraguage adrled.
v. Desibn should��lso uiclude fihat logos are liinited to 25°l0 of ttie total sign'ar'ea. It
would also be good to see a color list,return anci trim cap specification, mounting
(raceway or flush mounted) style, etc. More cietail is needed.
' Lo�o °�o adtlecl. All the rest tivill he estccfilished by t1Ze ,frst ADLS
��provtrl.
��� Agaiii,no B is listed;it goes straight to C.
� Correcterl.
• �1��z! Again, this sectiori should be split into two: one for the b ound ID sib s desired and one
� for the real estate (leasing) signs. I would also like to see mqre detail or refening to a
� map showing possible locations of desired b ound sigris.
Safne as Area "�"resY�orase.
�L�Tlus section is fine:
Tjianks. .
3. Area C '
a. Wall Sib s: Repeat ever}�thing I said above -not in favor�f this language
Repeat wlrnt we resno�rded above.
��5. There is no B;it goes straight to C.
f.orrecterl. �
c. Repeat�what I said above.
� R�peat wlactt we resporatl��l�tboi�e.
��� Ok�with tlus section. '
Thar�ks, a�airc.
1973178v1.
7
I
4. Definitions section
a. Street is an interestinb interpretation that does not go alonb with our signage per oiie
public st�eet rule.
ItiVe�lora't ur�rle�•stand whcct you are st�ating laere.
5. Use Table
��et. ATMs are allowed in all tluee areas — sib iage for ATMs is not mentioned anywhere.
That makes ine think it wi11 bo by the regular Sigu Ordin�uice stasidards which would
only allow 3 sq.ft. of sib age per fa�ade of the ATM, depending on how it is configured.
We agree.
b. Interesting they have inclucled Food Stands in all tluee areas.
We are trying to i�ar�nic Tlze �rid�e.s PUII, �s hns heeji ►•eqrcestetl by
Slaff on so ma�ay other point.s. �
c. Tavern or Nightclub is allowed — I can see that being an issue for the residents to the
south—especially if in the southern building in Area B—that is very close to the.homes.
Orzce agairi, we r�zimic .The Brul�res PUD. If it hecornes u p►•ohlern,for
the residerzts of Sucl�lle Creek,for the souther�i bicil�li�igs iia Areas "B"
or "C'; we will�zegotr'«te a s�olutrort. �
6. Misc. �
� What are they doing far drainage onsite? Underground detention? I see no water features
planned, which could l�elp the site to not look like a sea of parking... �
At lhis point—ura�leler�nine�%
� I hope tlley plan to have lots of trees in the parking islands.
Of course we will.
� I appreciate the plan to have planters/end caps on the parking rows — it really helps
people to slow down and create a definite "end"to tfie p�u•king isle before the ciriveway.
17ra�aks.
1973178v1.
g
I
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
��Sent: Thursday, O'ctober 20, 2011 2:01 PIVI
To; 'Granner, Steven'
Cc: Boone, Rachel M.
Subjec.t: RE: CoGo+Commons PUD
,
Thanks, Steve- V1le will send you an official email early next week, but-for now, below are the commentswe have that
still need to be addressed or need to be addressed more fully.Also, Rachel will get back to me with outstanding signage
eomments early next week, and I will email you a cornprehensive list of outstanding review comments in our official
response to your response to the planning/zoning dept's review comments. �
Thaoks,
Angie
Here is the draft emaiL• �
Thanks for replying to our review cominents on Oct. 4.We have looked over ttie responses and offer the following
resp�nses back. Please reply before Nov:4 . Thank you.
Preliminarv Plannin�/Zonin�Dept: Review Comments:
1. Prepare an estimated construction cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan &Alternative Transportation Plan;
contact the�ngineering Dept. for more details.
2. Staff would prefer ehat you preserve the delineated wztland areas and incorporate them int�your site plan. If not,
will lhere be any wetland mitigation?
3. Ylease consider incorporating LEF,D or `green' building practices into�the PUD rzquirements, such as a whife roof,
solar panels,pervious pavers in a11 or part of the parking area, hioswales, etc. Green List is attached,for reference.
4. Provide a bike and pedestrian plan to maximize the direct sidewalk/path c�nnectivity within the site(it looks like
there are a lot of missed opportunities.j,
5, The DeuelopmenC Plan layout needs sotne work. Our Departinent would like to schedule another meeting with you
and your clients, to further diseuss this.
6. Please add a table of contents to the PUD text.
7. Section 3.4- what is your proposed maYiirium lot coverage percentage?(maximun7:dot covernge includes parki.ng
nreas,pavemeret)
8. Section 3.S -when you write ` where appropriate" that gives too much_leeway;it.needs eo be a standard.
9. Sections 4.4.B.1.a &4.4.B.a-please;make tlie greenbelt along 146`�'street 20 30 feet wide. 15-ft is too narrow.
10. Secti�n 4.4.B.2.b-Please add a 30-ft wide landscaped area along the s�uthem pr�per.ry line.
11. Section 4.4.B.3.b- SidewaIks should be located around the entire building, or at least where it.makes sense.
12. Seetions 5.4.B.l.a&6.4.B1.a-please make the greenbelt along 146`h street 20-30 feet wide. 15-ft is too narrow.
13. Sections 5.4.B.2.a&6.4.�3.2.a- Please add a 3�-ft wide landscaped area along the s�ucllei�n property line.
14. Secdon 7.2.C. add lhat Che Director can approve ininor alterations only. Substantial alterations need plan commission
approval or from a committee thereof.
15. Section 4.4.B.l:a-type B bufferyard is not refcrenced in 4.4.C, as stated, Please add wor�ling to 4.4.C.2.
16. S.ignage (and misc.) review c�mrnents from Sign Permics Officer: (to be provicle�l soon..)
From: Granner, Steven [mailto:sgrannec@boselaw.coml
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:43 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Boone, Rachel M.
Subject: CoCo Commons PUD
Angie & Rachel, '��""- �
y_._� 1
l'�
I need to turn my attention to the CoCo Commons FUD Ordinance and continue with its update. I've received Daren
("Eagle Eye") Mindham's additional minor comment and I'll get that corrected. I am wondering if either of you two have
any additional comments that I should try to address; or, previous comments that you think I didn't adequately address
in the last draft 1 sent you?
It looks like the Outlot#2 area in Area C will become a detention area (for us and County Highway), so that area will
probably be moved to Area B. Also, i think the buffer width along the south is increasing on ttie conceptual development
plan, so I need to change some standards to reflect that, etc.
If you do more ordinance comments, I'd appreciate hearing them now.
Thanks,
Steve
Steven B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Bose McKinney& Evans LLP � www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Stacey R. Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
This message and any attachments may contain legatiy privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for
the individual or entity identified above as the addressee.
If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy,
or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments
(including ail copies} and notify the sender. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the
intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege.
All personal messages express views only of the individual sender, and may not be copied or distributed without this
statement.
2
I�
S n
� Conn, Angelina V
From: Granner, Steven [sgran.ner@boselaw:com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:08 FM
T;o: Conn, Angelina V �
Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; baker7386@att.net; mbaker@penskeautomotive.com;
Calderon,Joseph
Subject: Review Comments Response
Attachinents: TAC Responses.PDF;;Preliminary Planning_Zoning Re�iew Cocnments (2).DOCX; URBAN
. FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS (2).DOCX; TAC Submittai.PDF
Angie, Rachel&Daren,
The attached 'TAC'Submittal pdf' lists all the TAC members we sent electronic eopies to.Those with an asterisk.next to
their name also ggt paper copies.The attached `TAC Responses pdf' contains all the responses which we have received
from TAC.Also, please see the response to your question#3 in our review comments response.
Angie & Rachel - The attached `Pretiminary P.la_n,ning Zoning Review Comments pdf' is our response to your preliminary
review comments. Daren -The attached 'Urba.n Forestry Review Comments,pdf' is:our response to your preliminary
review comments. Please let us know if you have any continuing concerns with the PUD Ordinance.
� The revised Conceptual Development Plan is still'in process, which means the PUD Ordinance can't be comple.tely
updated until we have the revised plan:So,to aici y,our review of our response, l have attached a red-line copy,
comparing the PUD version we filetl to t:he current version as it stands as,of today. Our PUD Ordinance will likely change
some mor.e based on what the revised plan shows: It is not intended that this;version be formally filed in any way. It is
submitted to you simply as a review a_id`for your,'Daren's and Rachel's eyes only—as I just stated before, it is likely to
ehange once the Gonceptual DevelopmentPlan revision is done. FYI—Several paragraphs that are nearing completion
are not yet included, including one on noise mifigation and one on provisions#or reducing the amount of paving by
reserving 20%ofthe required_parking spaces as.landscaped green space..
I think it is likely that we will be tabling again. If so,Joe Calderon will inform you. I will be out of the office until Tuesday,
October 11`". If you need anything in the interim, please contact Joe.
Thanks, �
Steve
Steven B.6ranner,AICP � Zoning Consultant ,
Bose McKinney&Evans LLP � ww.w.boselaw:eom
111 Monument.Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Stacey R. Gleveland'.� SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
This message and any attachments may contain IegaNy privilsged or confidentiaf information, and are intended only for
the individual or entity idenfified abave as the addressee.
1
0
0
fV
� � � 1.+ � {r � ti i.� 1.+ 1-.. i.n � 1-� O
� � � � �`' � � � � c� �a � � ^
� '� � Q c. Q a A a. a a. a a q a �
'av�ia �
�O �O �O V7 h 6� oo v's Q� d' Q� N N V1
N N N oo O cn N N t�t GA d' *-+
d� �t rt v� o d� �p �n �!' oo d' �o v� �O
N N N N N N Q� `� N O� N N N N
� � � � � i � i � � i �
--� M �D O �O �-'
n '� t�. [� t� r� .1� C� 00 �t� t� t� l� l� t�
� .�1 'V'1 V5 I� V'1 F L� V'1 (� l/y �/"t V1 v'1
ti .� i-. .r� � � �--. � i^. .� � i-. � r.
�B � f� ^ - .(� � h� [`� t� l�� � !� C- L� l� l�
b v M M �M M C'�'1 f� •M ('r: � C�1 M l^. M
N �l � � � v �..� v v �. �..� .� U ...1
� V � oM0 _� 0�0 p~p d' �c� h d' � � � O O
.�.y � N N� N � CV N c0 •�1-+ N � N N N N
N°d N .� .�i� .� .y M er \O O •-�� M .� .--i .y .—�
� � r c- n r cm � r oo � c� ti r- r� t�
� �n v� v� v� t� v� c� t— va n �n �n �n �n
y r. ,-. �. .�, .. .. r. .� .-. .-. .� r.
C� t� 1� t� h t� t� l� �C� C� l� � l� C+
� p, o .� r; :. r, .� r, � ;.� .� ., ,�
3 m c±� �n m cn m m cn c*� rn c*� r� v c+�
� O � � ... ... ..i v ._. .� v �✓ � v � ...i
r} � � � ... . ..�.
F�M ,� ,� "�'' O C
� � � � b�p . � > � � > > U � >
H d � ° ° '`�a, '� c°g •� °° g Go g° � ° o°A'� ° ° °°
F., ao on C a' :S .$ n� nn °n 5
� � ``� . . � ^� .�a a� , '� °' � � � � a � ' ,
v1 � �•� '� � � �� •� � �� � •� V •�
� o � �.� � � � � � � o � � � � � � � �
U ��; � � � � o � � � � � � �' '� , G .� � c� o
'_' y > �a .ti � �
� � � � o ° '� '� '� � ,�°� aOAi p x° � � >' a�o � � � . '�
O � p W ro � b �o' 3 �o on � '�on `� � `a �v .� 3 � b � �
O � � ~ . Z N
5 � �' " � aO a � ~ z �
� .°� °' z �° � � � �
� �
� � � ° � � � � � � � � � o � �
Hoa °, M M. ",� � � A � z � � � �
� � c� c� � `N`' � `N'' ''�� `'N'' � ri � �N'' �`�' � ro � o � y� `�" a � �
V O � � � � � � � $ � � �$ oZ � Q,� O Q,� � r°n� m
a u � �n`�' rn� �n � � � �n �' .� ^; ' � �r v� v� Q � v
� i�' '� � � � .gZ o � � cv .° � o ^ rn � .� � � o v2 � N '> .�
'� � '� � > cn > ,� � > '-' ..�., ,� o `° �� � c`s Cj �
� � Q w y y � O � � � ,yp � � � U y rn � U os � N V cv
� � U � "Sy ❑ �' � 4 � q �� ,...i Z., � � G a!� `S+� O � a C t��. ,� � C � � Z � � 3 �b
(� Z � y Q'i � U O 'U OU Mr.e cgia' OU •-� `�G' MF7 OV .-� �' OU I� � e!' Fer
c--�
� Og o ;� � �
v� v � .� � .�° . Q •
� � � � � '� � � � � °Q' �3G � � w ji,
p ' v� U '� � �
�" t� Q � v, Q �D U .c
� O � C .� A � � N •C .� � C '� x � � V �
(� c� � a� ° r°° ' r� V o G � �° a �Ev �' c � '� � U
o � � o � �_2Q � E-• Q U � �g Q o W = o ;D a � .� �
� o. "', t� �V� °L' > A `� � � � U � � U �� q � a° w
� � N ,,,, p� w •� C� v� w � o o � p � v� � o o �
� � �, � �� � •�, � �. a� a� c� p c°�i � °� u " °� c°�i c�i �
U p � o � a � . � �? � � � � � o � � o � �� °' � �� � � ,£ �
w a. � G C� a D � v� A U v� � O V c> � A u,,v� U O . O �
� �
x
V z
� �' b � � � `�
�
r , � 0 � .^ � Vj � f.f y . � Li
�a .f.. � C�' .y� �" N � U. � ,�`,,. L+ !�/»J
r+� y �i�'.. � �-y '�
� �' � �G � � � q � a o ,L � � u'�.
� �. a � � � o �o
g . cJ y� .� � a� �r an °n �� ' � � .� � �
2 °A 'o `� � � � i� � w�
Z a�' L1 G1 A m A ° C7 C� C7 n: A rA A�1 +° H � U
. . C -� N �i d
� N M V � �G l� oo Q\�. '- .-� r+ .-. .-.
� � 'i• ..� � 1._ �p
O
y O �+ N
w, A 4. � rA � �
� �'. " a�. a,w �; °' ^
�
0 y CS p, ��',� `�a o '�
� .� �
> ,� A �
� � O � -y N � vM', O O o�0 d � e�+�
v� d� v� oo m r� O v� c�f d� c�1 N �
N N o0 O� v� �O N v� �A �O O� M M �
.� r. �O �D N �D �h �O � M � � M �
l� l`� t� i� M G1 {� C� �p l0 t� � M �
�!1 4'f C� 11 �D 00 M l� N N V� 00 l� 00
.-� r. i. .-� r. r� �. i� :�. r.
r t� r � � c� N � � � n r, r� �
., .-� .-� .. � .-c .� .-, -� '. .�
M M M M M M 00 M M Cr M M K: M
� � � �..i v � v � �..i v v v �..�
vi N
V1 Y7 p N t'� � tV [� 00 •--� o �M � O� l� 1G
�O t� O [� [� V1 M C� �D O +-� � 00 � N� 01
�n N �n a0 � [� cn v i � �t O� N N 'ct
N t� 00 �D N +n V'� �O O� O� Cn � N ' '
� � � i � i � � .-. � -� N u'�
� M N � l� � M 'd' d' M M�� �O `n � N
[� �[ C� [^� M � O� � ['� tiD m V � M �O � � '� �`1 Vl
h w C� t`• �O � 00 I'� N cV o0 0o C� � � '� i^. ,..�
� � � � � �� � .^� r. � rv � .--�. p� .�-i �
� l� l� l� l� P� N t� l� C� � t� l� .-i [�
.-i .-� .-r ...� .--i i-H .--� .-� .--� �--� .� M M
M M S'� Cr1 M (*1 Op M C!) M. G'�7 M M °� M � `-'
v v v w.� w.� � v v � �� �.,/ �,./ U(� v O U
o '�a' ° o .°c �
°A � � ;eb � 3 y o o°,n
� � � � � a� � � � 'o � 'd Q �
V .0 � s � 'C v c�v > cV � V 7
� � � � � Ud � � � � .14 � O � � .
y � ,v, N Yr' bA vi �y U
�
'� � � � > '��o^ o°n � � o � o > � ',.�� � � ' � .3 `°
a; o°n y G ':� 'n " � u U > 3 b � U 3 �
� � � o •� o �' o o � �° � .°H° � z' °5' � � a '' � a°°,
� VJ N � wp � a� L��.' o� � "+ � cd o et
,� � � c° a .fl o .� °�, y a�i on n�i _ � �o �v �ti `� 'l.' b v° �
z � b z a � w
� � �
� z �n ° � :: o � � .� � N
� � .ti � g :' t� o - v� -
� � ,Z �� 00 N'� � � N �� °� � � � 'N
� V A " .v � » q � p � av� z � `�° � � E,y ¢ � �ci � � � �
� � � °.�'� � cq Q `� ,a � � x z'n. � � � aa � . � � a d� . ¢ �
v°�i � ro ' vc+ �^,,-`! �y � p, QZ � � � �};, '� � ��t �n � �t °' L77 q ��
•�.V, � � .1J L' �, rJj ..`n�. i V ^' (L y�,�� O .y � y ,��. U �.. '� � � � �.
> .� � O � � O O O d' G � �U].^ q.., p � .p +� 'O . .}�... �, p �� .V.. � G,,
� kj o Z V � ,�C° '� � o U 'D � � "p � 3 �' {� �❑ W � �❑' t� � a.°i Z �
y N N . M O � v'� � O �U p O � . O ed +n M O y �� � N�+1 �
� Mp ""� Q � Q O ,p � � d � N ��� �'� O O ch :b �N ��. 00 O {� :�. L`..:a� V7 .O .V�7 'Ly
Y� et �D o0 � O �� t0 �h .O �: V7 t+ N �'N t� O M l� �O o0
F � � �7 �-, Z t�'� .G-� —� � N.:V rw+ d d� --� -+ S� --� r-�"i tr1 d- --� �.C. Q� S N � v"� �
C y
q G, O `�
N , A � � � ,� O y
a � .`�' o ;� � .�y �
� A � � y a � U � o � a � �
� � x �n o � � � o �� � �•`� �
� y 3 �, 8 a
� �, o o z �. >; °° P: � � �. � � O � �
� a � � � � � Z � �
°' m U U °� 2n °�'° a � � � a� o y E-'
V Q '� o o ° �q � � � � a V o Y .d � CL �o �
w � «• ,� y � W � . a� `d � H c� � a y ^yy�
� y� �t � b c�„d � � �, �J N :: C
� T ' � � w 'C '� '7 "� a� •v O 'C C° � � A' � ,� id
Um U 5G xO ca O 4.Q >� ,� U � Uc4 a � Uv� U
�
� .� �
� � � �e � �
� � ��+ -� F C � .Y+ Q. ',C1 'C❑J � yN U � �vp' .
: y �F"i' �.'�i `�U i� .V � y t�4
� 3 � � � s, � � A � w x }. � � �
�, x � � a .°� � a � o � � >
E-� � = m� � � t7 � �1 �1 � c+:�' F rs°. A v,
vi �C � 00 Oy N N N tmV N N N N N N
� � � � �
,
11070022 Z - CoCo COMMDNS PUD
.RESPONSE TO THE D.�.C.S: UR,BAN FORESTER
URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS:
1) Sect. 4.4.B.2.a: Our normal t�ufferyard requirement is for 5 shade trees, 5 ornamental
trees and 27 shiubs per 1001iiiear feet. Referencing the PUD greenbelt standard is not
adequate.
We liave revised tlae �'UD Ordisaarzce to iracarporate the hufferyard st�tfadards of'
Sec. 26.04:06 of the CZO. Tlae prim�cry r�,re of tlze property to the east is
iritejaded to be a drai�iage facility used by the Cou�zty arzd/or the C`ity. Type "B"
� or "C"reqr�irernerrts shorcld be suffzcie�it for tlzis yard.
2) Sect. 4.4.B.2.b: Our n�rmal bufferyard requireinent is for 5 shade trees,.5 ornamental
trees and 27 shiubs per 100 linear feet. Referencing the PUD greenbelt st�Idard is not
adequate.
We r�ow show tlae reqzcested Type "�"reqccirenzerZts.
3) Sect. 4.4.B.2: The� west bufferyard (15') is not noteci aloilg T�wne Rd. Oui �ioi:mal •
bufferyard requirement is for 5 shade.trees, 5 ornainenCal tre�s and 27 shrubs per 100
linear feet.
T)zis is Area "A': Please refer to the first paragrczph of Clzapter 4.0, which
ref'ers you to Exliibit 2. Area "A"does r2ot frorit ora Towjae Road.
4) Sect. 4.4.B.3: It should n�te that a continuous pla,nting shall occur on all`four sides of
the building. �
We have i�acorparateil tlze sta�adard tlaat was approved i�z The I3rid,�es PUD.
5) Sect. 4.4.B.4: There should be standard plantings to screen exterior parking from a11
adjacent uses. This normally ends up being a row of evergreen shrubs or the like to
screen cars aiid headlights including a standard 6 foot plailtiiig sttip.
The o�zly parkiizg area that nee�ls to be screened is tyae corn��zofa boufidary witla
Saddle Creek Subdiviszort. We recognize the �teed to screen afzd buffer tlais
soicth property li�ze a�ad our laradscape arclartest is workirag c�n u�lan for t/iis
area.
6) Sect. 4.4.B.5: I am not sure what Area `A' is. ,
See the respo�ase ira "3)"above. .
i9riso�i
7) Sect. 4.4.C.1: Dimensions should have a width (shown) along with a length (NOT
shown)
The `lengths' catz't be an_v slaorter tharz the `width.r', so, the�ni.tzimums us stated
ccre 9x9, 7a 7 and SxS.
8) Sect. 4.4.C.3.a: Our normal standard is 2.5" for shade trees
We�iow stttte 2.5 iftches.
9) Sect. 4.4.C.3.b: Oui•normal standai•ci is 2.0" for ornamental trees
We now state 2.0 inclaes.
10) Sect. 4.4.C: I would like to eithei• note or show the species diversity clla,rt (attached)
in the landseaping standards area. Along with wording that tree species will be used
according to the Street Tree List or approved by Urban Forester. .
This has been added to Sec. �.4,A, �.4.A and 6.�A.
� 11) Sect. 4:4.D.1: I would like wording tllat says something like, `that cuirent City of
Carmel planting details are to be used for tree and shrub installation.' I ha�e attached
these documents.
Tlirs Jiczs beeri added to Sec. 4.4.D.1, �.4.I).1 and 6.4.D.1.
12) There should also be some wordin� that all trash enclosures, transformer boxes etc
sha11 be screened from view.
We fzow reference C'liapter 25.O.L02 of the CZO ira Sectiorz 2.2 of tlae PUU
Ordinan.ce.
igriao<<i .
Y �.
Draft: 6/22/2011
�c�rise�:
, Revised: 9/2/2011
10/4/11
Sponsor:
OR'DJNANCE NO. Z- -11
, (Docket No. 11070022 Z)
COCO COM'MONS
PLANN;ED� UNIT DEVELOPMENT
� DISTRICT
This Instrument Prepared.by:.
�-AJoseph D. �.Calderon, Esq.
Bose McKinney & Euans LLP ,
111 Monument Circle
Suite'2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-684-5000
1942417v25
,
Ordinance IVo. Z- -11
° (Docket No. 11070022 Z) �
AN ORDIfVANCE ESTABLISNI(VG THE
COCO CONIMONS
Planned Unit Development District
`WHEREAS, Section 3:1.6.4 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance Z-289 (the "Car,mel Zoning
Ordinance") provides for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development District in
accordance with the requirements of IC §36-7-4-1500 etseq�; and
� WHERE'AS, the Carrnel `Plan Commission {the "Commission") has given a favorable
, recomrnendation to the ordinance set forth herein (the "Ordinan,ce"� which establishes the CoCo
Commons Planned Unit Development District (the "CoCo Cornmons District") with respect to the
real estate legally described in Exhibit 1.("the "Real Esfate"):
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAtNED by the Comrnon C.ouncil of the City of Caemel,
Indiana (the "Council`'), thaf, �pursuanf to IC §36-7-4-1500 et se_q:, it adopts this Ordinance, as
an amendment to the Carmel Zoning Ordinance and to the Zone Map.
GHAPTER 1.0 �4PPLICABILITI( OF ORDINANCE.
Secfion 1.1 The Official Zoning Map of the Gity ofi Garmel,. a part of the Carmel. Zoning
Ordinance; is her.eby-changed to designate fhe: Real Estate as a Pfanned Unit
Development Distcict to be known as GoCo Commons.
�
Section 1.2 Developrnent in the CoCo Commons District shall be governed entirely by(i) the
prov,isions of this Qrdinance and (ii) those prouisions of the Carmel Zoning
Ordinance spe'cifically referenced in this Ordinance. In the event of a confliet or
inconsistency�between thi's Ordinance and the Carmel Zoning Ordinance or the
Sign Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinatiee shall apply.
Section 1.3 Any term not defined 'herein shall 'have the rneaning as set forth in the Carmel
� Zoning Ordinance, unless the context otherwise cequires.
CHAPTER 2.0 PERNIITTED USES:
Seefion 2.1 Perrnitted Primarv'Uses.
A. Reri�nitted uses within this �Ordinance are specified in Exhibit 4. (Sehedule of
Uses).
B. Additional use limitations are included in Chapters 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 of this
Ordinance. '
7942417v�25
Section 2.2 Permitted Aceessorv'lJses and Structures. All accessary uses.and str.uctures, beinq
subordinate, appropriate and incidental.to the perrimitted primary uses listed in Exhibif 4; shall he
permitted per Chapter 25.01.02 of the Carrnel Zoninq Ordinance, including trash enclosures,
Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), and utilities. Accessory uses and accessory structures, if
utilized, shall:
A. have as their primary purpose serving the occupants, customers or employees of
the buildings; and,
B. if detached, have on all sides the sarne architectucal features and construction.
materials,, and be architecturally compatible with the principle buildi'ng(s) with
which it is associated: An exception to this requirement would �be the material
used for a fuel island canopy. A metal canopy would be permitted with the
supporting columns faced with a masonry material compatible with the principle
building.
Section 2.3 Communication Equipment. Communications equipment, as required by the building
occupants, shall be permitted and shall be screened with suitable walls or fencing and in
general be architecturally compatible with the building(s) with which it is assoeiated.
CHAPTER 3.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Section 3.1 Minimum Parcel Size. The CoCo.Commons District pareel shall have a minimum
size of nineteen (19) acres, including rights-of-way: This Section 3;1 does not; however, .
preclude the sale or other transfer of any lot within the Real Estate after the approval of a
Development Plan for the parceL However„ the d'evelopment of the parcel must still.conform Co
the Development Plan for the Real Estate as approved or amended by the Direc_tor or fhe Plan
Commission, and all other appficabie requirements contained in this Ordinance. �
Section 3.2 Maximum Buildinq Heiqht. All uses, thirty-five (35) feet, except for vertical .
architectural appurfenances that may be a maxirnum of'forty-five (45)
feet in height; proVided, however, no building shall exceed a heighf of two (2) :stories and no
roof structure for the housinq of elevators, stairways. HVAG
apparatus: ventilatinq fans, skv liahts, or similar eauipment to operate and maintain the buildinq
or structuce shall exceed a height of twen,ty-one (21) feet above the building parapet.
Section 3.3 Minimum Building Height. All .uses, fourteen (14). feet, with a minimum of twelve
(12) feetto the lowest eaves for a building with a gable, hip or gambrel roof.
Section 3:4 Maximum Floor Area Ratio. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F:A.R.) of the Real Estate
shall be 0.25 (the maximum lot covecaqe shall be 25%1, with the F.A.R. being calculated by
dividing the total gross floor area of all buildings on the Real Estate by the (net)area of the Real
Estate.
1942417v�5
2
, . , .
Section 3:5 Architectural Desiqn:Reqairements.
A. Structure Features: Buildings shall ineorporate transparent glass/permeable
store fronts; and contexf sensitive materiafs , ` ,
� " - ' onsistent with a comrnunify vitality node.
� B. Suitabilitv of Buildinq Materials: A minimum o.f three matecials shall be used for
building exteriors��from ttie following list: stone, brick, architectural metal panels,
' glass, exterior 'insulated finish system_ Qimited .to areas 8' above qrade),
� ornamental mefal. The rear farade of' buildings nof #acing an adjacent public
_ street�may incorporate ornamental masonry block�into the exterior of that faCade.
C: 6uildinq Desiqn: �All'buildings shall be tlesigned with,a.minimum of eight external
, corners; in order to eliminate monotonous box buildings, unless otherwise
approved b.y the Comrnission.
� D. Roof Desiqn:. '�Je{�ed Roofs shall be a _ ^��m�,^^ ^f ^n° "�.r,�ro,� i1nn� foo+
- , - .'.
. .simplv and' svmmetricallv pitched
and only in:the,confiquration of qables and hips, .with.pitches ranginq from.4:12 to
14:12. Shed .r..00fs are perrnitted only when the r.idqe. is attached to an exterior
wall of a buildinq°, and shall conform.to pitch befween 1_4:12;and 4:12. Flat r.00fs
_ _. _..
are permitted �if etlged bv a railing or parapef, anci if rooftop mechanical
equipment.is�either camouflaqed on all sides or visual4v inteqrated irito the overall
desiqn of the buildinq. In .no case shall rooftop mechanical eauipment be visible
from adioininq.streets,.r.esitlential zones or uses.
� Mbdulation of:tfie�"roof'andLoc r.00fi_line will be; required'.in or.der.to eiiminate box-
• shaped buildinqs. Parapets musfi be fully inteqrated into'the architectural desiqn
of :the buildinq� and qr.ovide seamless desiq❑ fransitions, includinq exterior
materials, between the main buildina mass�, mechanicaf penthouses and other
roof:str.uctures. Should' thev be_used; partial :qarapets. shalE ha�e a retum that
extends inward to at leasf the first structural bay; or twenty-five (25) feet,
whichever°is qreater.
PitcherJ roofs�shall be clad in wood shinqles, slate, composition asphalt shingle
or stanciinq=seam cnetal panels. Asphalt shingles •shall be colored to cesernble
qrav slates staridinq-seam �pariels may be e"sther qray, `b{ack, dark blue, dark
qreen or-bacn red.
Dormers shall ;be: desiqned with the corcect details; .proportion and stvle
consistent with the ovecall buildinq composition, and roofed with svmmetrieal
aable,_hip or ;barrel coofs. Belvederes, cupolas, and perqolas: are permitted if
appropriafe to the style, well proportioned, and fully;detailed.
All' vents, attic ventilators, turbines, flues and others� roof.penetrations must be
painted to match fhe color of fhe roof or flat black, except those;made of inetal
1942417v�S
3
, f
which mav be left natural. Gutters and downspouts sha�i be appeopriate to or
_
visuallV inteqrated wifh the architectural stvle of the structure.
E. Building Penthouses: Building penthouses must be incorporated into fhe building
facade design, including exterior materials specifications.
F. Primar�v Facades: All primarv facades of a Buildinq, which for pur.poses of this
Section 3.5 is the Building fa�ade of which.the primarv Building entrance exists,
shall be: desiqned with consistent stvle, detail and trim features. No Buildinq
fa�ade shall extend for a distance qreater than two (2) times its averaqe heiqht
without a vertical ,offset, material chanqe or color and. texture chanqe, No
Buildinq fa�ade shall extend for a distanee qreater than five 15) times its heiqht
without an offset in the fa�ade's floor plan face. Articulation mav also be
achieved bv a varietu of coof planes and/or slopes: Primarv facades shall
incorporate Buildina elements such as liahfinq fixtures and chanqes in wall
surfaces such as awnings, canopies, arcades, colonnades. .alcoves, aeeents.
windows, a varietv of entrV configucations, cornices, pilasters, colurnns.or other
Buifdinq:elements that contribute to the human scale ofithe Buildinq'.
G. Secondary Faeades: Side and ;rear facades shall be finished in colors similar to ,
the colors of the primary.facades. Secondarv facades immediate(v adiacent to a
primarv farade shall wrap around the Building by incorporatinq Buildinq rnaterials
and detailinq of the primarv fa�ade for ;a minimum of 30 percent of the overall
walP lenqth, measured from the prirnarv fa�ade. No Buildina fa�ade shall extend
� for a distance qreater than three (3) times ifs averaqe heiaht uvithout a vertieal
offset, material chanqe, color ehanae or texture chanqe. Secondarv facades
shall incorporate Buildinq elements such as pilasters, wainscots, accent bandinq
or other Buildinq elements thaf contribute to the appropriate scale ofithe Buildinq.
H. Rooftop Equipment: All rooftop NVAG eauipment will be screened from view.
I. Fixed Awninas: Fixed awninas of fabric are encouraqed, as thev add
. -
complementary eolor and human scale to the buildinq(s).
J. Colors: The overal! eolor r�alette�shaU Qenerallv tend toward a warrn, vet modern
palette. Golors shall qenerallV tend towards #ones, 'in 'beiae/taupe, brown and
stone — with accenfs in grey; blaek,or iewel tones. Generallv masonry products
will be beiqe/taupe,: terra eotta, dark burqundy, or amber. In specific situations,
. . _
color variations may depart from the main color palette. This allows fbr individual�
expression of usecs and/or to cr.eate aesthetic diversitu Malor color departur.es
shoultl be limited to elements such as awninqs, siqnaqe, banners and
architectural details.
Section 3.6 Ofher Requirements.
A. Oufside Storaqe of Refuse. . No outside, unenclosed storage of refuse (whether
or not in containers) shall be permitted. All refuse; includina recuclable materials
1942417v�5
4
� and, if applicable, �qr.ease or other cookinq refuse containers;. shafi be contained
_
completely within the building(s) oc in separafe accessory structure(s); which
'� shall be fullv enclosed on all four sides except�for doors or Qat"es, which shall be
kepf. cl"osed anless loadinq or unloadinq. Any separate aecessory structure
-
� designed' 'for ref.use sfocage shall be architecturally cornpafible with the
building(s)-,and;inteqrated'into the overall site lavout. The minimum height of an
enclosure shall�be,�the qreater of (i) six_.(6) feet or (ii)�the heiqht:of the dumpster
� and/or`eontainer plus two (2�feet.
B. Loadinq Ber,ths. Loading or unloading berths or bays visib'le from any adjacent
residential area�shall b'e screened to a minimum hei�ht of six (6) feet with
landscaping, fences, walls and/or earfhen berms.
C. Mechanical ;E�ipment: Any meehanical eguipment uisible from an adjoining
street or adjacent residential area shall be screened with suitable walls or fencing
and in general :be arehitecturally compatible with'the building(s) witYi whieh it is
associated. All 'HVAC equipment in Area "A" shall be loeated on the roof of the
buildin'g(s) and the required screening shall include noise abatement features.
D. Parkina Area Ourbinq. Parkina areas mav be constr.ucted withouf required curb
in aceas necessary fo accomrr►adate approVed siorm water riaanaqement
practices: The elimination of curbing. shall be subject;to review:and approval by
Carmel Enqineerinq to, ensure that •eliminafion of curb.inq .is_necessary for the
proper function of"the proposed storm water treatment svstern. Parkinq bumpers
will be provided'in:insfances where curb is deleted.
E. Wetland :Mitiqation. Two delineated wetland• areas are shown on the
ALTAGAC.SM Land Title Sur�ey of the Real Estate. prepared bv American
Sfructurepoint; Ine: dated Julv 13, ;201�1. These two wetland areas will be
mitiqated as`need'ed to.allow the,proposed de�elopment.
F. Drainaqe Plans. Upon deuelopment of fi'nal dra'inaqe plans and calculations, the
develope"r of CoG'o Commons reserves fhe riqht .to seek_a Stocm Water
. Manaqement Permit that utilizes underpround detention, on-site surface
detention/retention off-site surtaee detention/retention . or an combination of
these methods. '
-G: GarmeL Green Buildinq. When the final development plans for eacli Area .are
desiqned and enqineered, the incorporation. of' LEED or "qre�en" buildinq
.practices, such:.as a white roofi; solar panels, pervious'pavers in all or_part of fhe
parkinq_,area, bioswales,etc., will be considered.
CHAPTER 4.0 :AREA "A" - SPECIFIC PROVISIONS. This A'r.ea, as shown 'in Exhibit 2, is
� located on approximafely;the eastern half of the Real Estate and is infendetl to be the location
of the anchor occupant(s) for CoCo Comrnons. The proposed anchor may eonsist of (i) a single
occupant in a single.�large building; (ii) two occupartits in a sing4e 4ar.ge building; (iii) three
5 �
1942417v�5
occupants,in a single large building; or (iv) two or fhree occupants in two�mediurn size buildings.
Any:other#ype of development of this anchor area sh'all require Development P-lan Approval by
the Commission.
Section 4.1 Minimum Building Setbacks. The minimum building setbacks shall be as follows:
(a) 15 feet frorn the south right-of-way line of 146ih Street�Access Road); (b)�,�30 feet from the
east property line, and (c) �530 feet from the south property line.
Section 4.2 Minimum Gross Floor Area.
A. All buildings shall have a minimum of fifteen thousand (�1�5,000) square feet of
gross floor area, excluding the floor area of any accessory sfructure(s).
B. Accessory structures permitted need not meet the miniCnum floor area
- requirement. .
Section 4.3 Maximum Densitv. Maximum gross floor area for all buildings in Area "A" shall be
90,Ob0 square feet.
Section 4.4 Landscapinq Requirements. �
A. Landscape Plan. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Gommission for its
approval at the same time other plans (i:e�., arehiteetural design, 'lighting, packing
and signage) are submitted. The Candscape Plan (i) shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and distances; (ii) shall delineate all existing and proposed
buildings, structures, parking areas, pedestrian walk-ways; ramps for
handicapped,_ bicycle facilities, terraces, patios, driveways, ground and
rnonument stgns, lighting standards, :steps: or other similar structures; and,
(iii) shall delineate the location, size and description of all proposed landscape
material and the irrigation system for all planting areas. Landseape`treatment for
plazas, roads, paths, ser�ice and parking areas shall be designed as an integral
and coordinated part of the Landscape Plan for the Real Estate,. The Landscape
P,lan shall be puided bv the Species Recomrnendafions of the City. of Carmel and �
�the Species DiversifV Chart of the Giiv:of Carmel.
B. Areas Co be Landscaped.
1. Greenbelt: -
a. A green6elt shall be provided adjacent to the 146th Street Access
Road right-of-way and shall be a minimum of fiffeen (15) feet in
width and landscaped per the Tvpe "B" requirements of Section
4.4.C.
b. The greenbelt areas shall be unoccupied except for plant�material,
steps, pedestrian walk-ways; terraces, . ;bike paths; utilities,
6
1942417v�5
i
. dri�eways; lighting standards; signs and other si'milar structures
� °(excluding parking).
" 2. Plantinq Sfr.ip:
a. There shaif be a landscaped planting area loeated adjaeent to the
east properfy line of the Real Estate wliich shall be a minimum of
fifteen (15:) feet in width and landscapecl ��ta�-�eper"the Tvpe
"C"�requir.ements of Section 4_4.C�ee#:
b. There shall be a landscaped planting area located adjacent to the
south property lipe of the Real:Estate which shall be a minimum of
� �;� twenty-five (25) feet in. widtli and landscaped p���t--ts ep r the
Type "D" reauirernents of Section 4:4.C-k►e�ee#.
c. These landscaped areas� shall b�e uno�cupied except for plant
material; pedestrian walk-ways, terraces, bike paths, utilities, and
other �similar structures (excludin'g driveways, lighting standards,
" sigps and parking).
3. Flanti�nq Adjacent to Buildinqs-: Landscapinq shall be pro�ided:adiacent
to the base of a1l:buildinclelevations that do not direetiy abut_hardscape_s, -
ineludinq rear service areas, to enhanee the architectural Jines of
buildin�s, frame �the primarv views to the buildinqs, and blend
architectural desiqns witii the landseape. Plantinqs adiacent to buildinqs
shall be desiqned to appropriatelv cornplement a buildind's use, sefback,
heiAhf, and architectural features.
a,- A planting acea equal to an� area, measuring #�five (�-95) feet in
depth sh'alf be inst'alletl er�--a�l�4alonq the f�ont and sides of the
builcling�(s). �
b. Tfie primarv landscape materials used shall be shrubs, ground
� cover, and ornamental qr.asses:
be. Outdoor ferraces• and/or plazas; patios, Sidewalks, loading areas
and. tlriveways may be permitted in these 'lap ntinq_areas,
sd. If a �e±i�a�,:loading area or driveway cwts into a planting, area,
t_he displaced area "shall be an additional area, added to the
building perimeter planting or parking lot landscaping.
e. Oufdoor dininq, drive-thru iane and service areas shall be
d'educted from`the overall length of the 'buildinq per.imeter prior to
- cal'culatin the_re uired lanfin area.
� 7 �
1942417v�5
�f. These additional adjacent planting areas need not be. rectangular
in shape as long as the required amount of space is landscaped.
These additional adjacent planting areas may abut an outdoor
terrace iaza or patio area.
4. Pfantinq Within Parkinq Lots: For each eiqhteen (18) parkinq spaces, a
minimum of (i) one (1) shade free and five (5) sheubs or (;ii) two (2) shade
trees shall be planted within each parking lot island ^t ^ r^+„ .,,,+ �„�� }hnn
� oinLitnnr� �,.Q� +r���;n�r�,,,.o �f n.,rU;n,,. �See Section 4.4.C.1 for minimum
planting area requirements.)
5. Total Landscapinq Reqwired: Inelusive of the greenbelts, the planting
strips, the planting adjacent to the building(s),,,outdoor tecrace%plaza and
pa#io areas, and the planting areas within surface parking lots, a
minimum of ten percent (i0%) of Area"A", shall be lartdscaped.
C. Landscapinq Standards.
1. Interior Areas. The dimensions, specifications and design of any planting
area or planting rnedian shall be sufficient to profeet the landscaping
materials planted therein and to.provide for proper growth. The;following
minimum widths for inter.ior planting areas shall be used:
Canopy Trees: 9 feet wide
- Or,namental Trees: 7 feet wide
Shrubs (only): 5 feet;wide
2. Greenbelts and' Plantinq Strips. The primary landscaping materialS used
in the greenbelts and planting strip areas, and adjacent to buildings, shall
be shade trees; ornamental' trees, shrubs, ground cover, grasses and
flowers. A base planting unit of .one hundred (100) linear feet will be
designated for the greenbelts and planting stcip areas which,ineludes:
Th�Tvpe "C''—3},shade trees;e�, 4 ornarnenfal frees, and.21 shrubs.
Tvpe "D"—5 shade trees. 5 ornamental trees, and 27 shrubs:
Gi1in!F1 nrn�mon}�� trooc nr fitla /�\ nnr�ifnr�raac• •+n'�
�...� ....�.....�� . . •••� ��v..........�—r-r-v v�v�-vvrnluTCrc�.��rrcr
3. Materials. All plants proposed to be used in accordance �with any
landscaping plan shall meet the following specifications:
a. Shade Trees A minimum trunk diameter of �2.5 inches at six (6)
inches� above the ground line, a minimum height of eight (8) feet,
and a branching height of not less than 1/3 nor more than 1/2 of .
tree height, -
8
1942417v�5
b. Qrnamental Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of�2.0 inches at
six (6) incfies above the ground line,, a minimum height of six (6)
feet, and a branching height of not less than 1%3 nor more.than 1/2
ofitree heiglit. �
� c. Ever,green Trees: A minimum height of six (6)feet.
d. Deciduous Shrubs: A rninimurn height. of twenty-four (24) inches,
with no less than six (6) main branches upon planting.
e. � 'Evergreen Shrubs: A minimum height and spread of twenty-four
(24) inehes:
D, Landscapinq Installation and Maintenance.
1. Installation. All required landscaping for each ,phase .of the development
shall be installed prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy
by the Department., If it is not possible to install the reqaired landscaping
because of weather conditions, the properfy o'wner shall post a bond for
an amount equal to the total cost of the required landscaping prior to the
issuanee ofi the final Certificate of Occupancy. Current Citv of Carmel
�lantinq details are to be used for tree and shrub installation unless
otherwise approved bv an ADLS appro�al..
2. Maintenance. lt shall be the responsibifity of•the :awners and their agents
to 'insure proper maintenance of prqject land"scaping and retention ponds
app.roved'in accor.dance with the development requirements specified for
tfiis Ordinanee. This is to include; b:uf is not limited to, irrigation and
mulching of planting areas, replacing �dead, diseased or overgrown
plantings.with;identical varieties or.a suitab;le substitute, and keeping the
area free of refuse, debris, rank vegetation and weeds.
3. Ghanges After ApprovaL No landscaping whieh has been approved by
the Commission° may later be substantially altered, eliminated or
sacrificed; without ficst obtaining further Commission approval. However,
minor and mate�ial alterations in landscaping may be approved by the
Director in order`to conform to specific site conditions.
4. Inspection. The Director shall have the authority to visit the Real Estate to
in"spect°the'landscaping and check it against the approved plan on file.
9
1942417v�5
Section 4.5 Parkinq Requirements.
A. €#^�=te -�rea'-,�—�;�Large expanses� of pavement a�—�eshall be
a�ase�a�e�broken up by the interspersing of appropriate pianting areas, per the
rec�uirements of Section 4.4.B.4.
B. Direct, articulated pedestrian access shall be provided from the street to the
primary entrance of the building(s).
C. The minimum number of parking spaces required for all permitted uses shall be
five (5) spaces for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area.
(See Section 3.6.D for the Reserved Parkinq Area(s} allowance.l
D. There shall be an appropriate number of parking spaces accessible to the
building(s) which are identified as reserved for use by handicapped individuals.
These spaces shall meet State requirements. �
E. Bicvcle parkinq shall be provided in compliance with Section 27.06 of the Gacmel
Zoninq Ordinance.
Section 4.6 Liqhtinq Requirements.
A. A Site Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Commission for its approval at the
same time other plans (i.e., architectural design, landscaping:; parking and
signage) are submitted. The Site Lighting Plan shall include the laybut, spread
and intensity of all site lighting, ineluding:
1. Parking lot and seruice/storage area lighting;
2. Architectural display lighting;
3. Security lighting;
4. Lighting of pedestrian ways; and
5. Landscape (ighting. �
B. All site lighting shall be coordinated throughout the project and be of uniform
design, color and mate�ials.
C. The height of light standar.ds shall not exceed �twentv-five (�25) feet from
the top of the fixture to the top of the pole base. 1Nithin ninety (90) feet af the �
perimeter of Saddlebrook Subdivision, the height shall' not exceed fifteen (15)
feet from the top of the fixture to the top of the base. The base of the pole shall
not exceed two (2) feet in height.
D. A!! parking lot area lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoebox" variety which directs
light downward by means of a 90-degree cutt off and/or filat.lenses, Any parking '
lot lighting or building lighting illuminafion emanating from the Reaf Estate shall
not exceed 0.3 footcandle at the east and south praperty lines of the Real Estate.
10
1942417v�5
Section 4.7 Siqns.
A. Wall Siqns:
1. Number & Type: The maximum number of wall identification signs
permitted sh�all be.�five (�5} wa11 signs on the west farade, three (3) waff
signs on =the north farade and #�eeone (�1) wail s+�ssiqn on the east
fa�ade.
2. Maximum Sign Area: ° , °, .
° ..One wall siqn on the west, north and east
facades ma� be a maximum of 150 sauare feet each. The remaininq wall
siqns on th�e north and west farades rnav be a maximurn of 75 square
feet each.
3. Locafion: The �ssi n s may be locafed on either the west,. north or
east facades.
4. Design: All wall signs shall consist of individual Ietters-L 'be of similar
desiqn antl identical in liqhtinq and style of: construction. 'Loqos shall be
limited to 25°l0 of, the siqn area. The .edqe �:of' the wall sign shall, not be
iocated within one (1) foot of the.edqe of the.occupant space.
• 5. Iliumination: InternaL
� 6. Sign Permit: Required.
7. Fees::!Required. '
�B. CoCo Cornmons ldentification �.^�' Q°�' �n+°+^:''_°^��^��Si nc�s.
1. Nurnber & Type:
Ser�e�+sOne Identification Siqn shall be permitted at..the entrance from
146`"'Street`(Access Road).
2. Maximurn Sign Acea:
F�e+�e�sThe,rnaxirnum siqn area shall be seventy-five (-75) square feet.
. 3. Maximurri ;Height of Sign: . ` �
The maxirnum siqn heiqfit shall be six (6) feet.
4. Loeation:
��sMinimum five (5) feet from the street riqhf=of-wav.
�
11
' 1942417v25.
5. Design: Signs must,comply with the approved architectural scheme af the
complex, and must be ot a similar design, Gghting and style of
construction.
6. Illumination: interna! or completely shielded.
7. Landscaping: Sign must be accompanied by a landscaped area at least
equal to the tota! sign area:
8. Sign Permit: Required.
9. Fees: Required.
C. CoCo Commons Real Estate (Leasing) and Constcuction Siqns. All real estate
(leasinq) and construction siqns shall complv with Section 25;OZ of the Carmel
Zoninq Ocdinance.
D. Other Provisions. Section 25.7.01 - "General Provisions" and 25.7.06-25.7.09 -
"Legal Non-Conforming Signs, Sign Permits, Variance, and Administration and
Enforcement" of the Carmel Sign Ordinance Z-302, are also :incorporated by
reference.
CHAPTER 5.0 ,4REA "B" - SPECIFIC REGULATIONS. This Area, as.shown in Exhibit 2, is
located on appr.oximately the east half:of the western half of the Reai Esfate antl is intended to
be the location of the B-shops for CoCo Comrnons. The B-shops intended to be located in the
single building in the southern half of Area "B"; will function in tandem with either the (i)
additional B-shops or (ii) outlot(s) which are intended to be lacated in the northem half of'Area
"B". The B=shops buildings proposed for Area "B" will have multiple tenants: The northecn, half
of Area "B" rnay alternatively be developed with one or two outlofs. Any other fype of
development of Area "B"shaN require Developmenf Plan Approval by the Commission.
Section 5.1 Minimum Buildinq Setbacks., The rniniinum bui)ding setbacks shall be as follows:
(a) i 5 feet from the south land east,Lright-of=way line of 146th Street (Access Road}, and
(b) �30 feet from the south property line. . �
Section 5.2 Minimum Gross Floor Area.
A. All buildings in the southern half of Area "B" shall have a minimum of twenty
thousand (20,000) square feet of gross floor atea, excluding the floor area of any
accessory structure(s).
B. Accessory structures permitted need not meet the minimum floor area
requirement. �
12
1942417v�5
' Section 5:3 Maximum Densitv. Maximum gross floor area for all buildings in Area "B" shall be
45,000 square feet, with,a maximum of 1�5;000 square feet in the northern half'of'Area "B" and a
maximum of 30,000 square feet in the southern half of Area-"B".
Section 5.4 Landseapinq Requirements.
� A. Landscape Plan. A_Landscape Plan shall be submitted.fo the Cbmmission for its
approval at the same time other plans (i.e., architectural design, lighting, parking
and signage) are submitted: The Landscape Plan (i) shall be drawn to scale,
� including dimensions and distances; (ii) shall delineafe all existing and proposed
buildings, struct'ures; parking areas, pedest,rian walk-ways, ramps for
handicapped„ 6icycle facilities; tecraces; patios; driveways, ground and
monument signs; .lighting standards, steps or other similar structures; and,
(iiij shall delineate the location, size and� description of all proposed landscape
material and the irrigation system for all planting areas. Landscape treatment for
plazas, roads; paths,,service and parking:ar.eas:.shall be designed as an integral
and coortlin_ated part of the Landscape Plan for the: Real Estate. The Landscape
P(an shall be quitled`bv the Species Recornmendations of the Citv of°Carmel and
bv the Species Diversitv Chart of the Citv of Carmel.
B. Areas to be Landscaped.
1. Greenbelt`
a. A greenbelt shall be provided adjaeent to the 146t" Streef Access.
Road right-of-way and ,shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in
widfh and landscaped per the Type "B" requirernents of Section '
5.4.C; except, however; that,portion of 146t" Street (Access Road)
located befween Area "B" and Ar`ea "C" shall be landscaped per
the Tvpe "B" requirements.of Section 5.4.C.
b. The gree.nbelt areas shall be unoccupied except for plant material,
steps, pedestrian .walk-ways, terraces, bike paths, ufilities,
driveway,s, lighting standards, signs and other similar struetures
(excluding parking).
2. Planting Strip:
a. There shall be a.landscaped planting area ioeafed adjacent to the
south properfy line of the Real Estate which shall be a.minimum of
twenty-five (25) feet in width and landscaped'��e ep r the
Type°`'.D"'requirements of Section 5.4_C-�a�'ee#. �
b. This landscaped area shaN be unoccupied' except for plant
- material, pedestrian walk-ways, terraces, bike paths, utilities, and
13
" 194241.7v�5
other similar structures (excluding driveways, lighting standards,
signs and parking).
3. Planting Adiacent fo Buildinqs=. Landscaping shall be provided adlacent
to the base of all buildinq eleuations that do not dir.ectly abuf hardscapes,
includinq rear service areas, to enhance the architectural lines of
buildinas, frame fhe prirnarv' views to the builtlinqs, and blend
arehitectural desians wifh the landscape. Plantings adiacent'to buildinqs
shall be desiqned to appropriatelv complement a buildinq's use, setback,
height, and architectural features.
a. A planting area equal to an area measuring #�fiue (�A5) feet in
depth shall be installed er�-a�l�alonq the ftont and sides of the
building�.
b. The primarv landsca�e materials used shall be shrubs, around
cover, and ornamental qrasses.
�c. Outdoor terraces and/or plazas, patios, sidewalks, loading areas
and driveways may be permitted in these lap ntinq areas.
sd. lf a ���'^��,:'�loading area or driveway cuts into a planting area,
the displaced acea shall be an additional area added to the
building perimeter planting or parking lot landscaping.
; e. Outdoar dininq,. drive-thru lane and service areas shall be
deducted from the overall lenqth of the buildinq perimeter prior to
calculafina the ceauired plantinq area. �
�f. These additional adjacent planting areas need nof be rectangular
in shape as long as the required amount of space is landscaped.
These addifional adjacent planting areas may abut an outdoor
terrace, plaza or patio area. �
4. Plantina Within Par.kinq Lots: For each .eiqhteem {18) parkinq spaces, a
minimum of (i) one (1) shade tree and five (5) shrubs or (ii) two (2) shade -
trees shaN be planted within each parking lot island��-���-„m�s��;�„
. (See Section 5.4.C_1 #or minimum
planting area requirements.)
5. Total Landscapinq Requiced:, Inclusive of the greenbelts, the planting
strips, the planting adjace:nt to:the b:uilding(s), outdoor terrace and patio
areas and the planting within surtace parking lots; a minimum of ten ,
percent (10%) of Area "B", shall be landscaped.
C. Landscapinq Standards.
14
1942417v�5
1. Inter.ior:Areas. The dimensions, specifications and design of any pianting
� area or planting �median shall be sufficient 'to protect the landscaping
materials planted therein and fo provide for�proper growth. The following
minimum widths for interior planfing ar.eas sha44 be used:
Canopy Tr.ees: 9 feet wide
Ornamentaf Tre,es> 7 feet wide
Shrubs (only): 5 feet wide
2. Greenbelts and `Plantinq Strips. Tfie primary landscaping matecials used
in the,gre�enbeits and planting strip areas, and atljacent to buildings, shall
be shade frees, ornamental trees; sheubs; ground covec, grasses and
flowers. A base planting unit of one hundred (100) linear feet will be
designated'for the greenbe4ts and planting sfrip areas which ine{udes
TF'�Tvpe "B"'=3} shade trees;e�, 3 ornamental trees, and 15 shrubs.
Tvpe"`D"—5 shade trees, 5.ornamental trees, and 27 shrubs.
. - �io���/ti1 ncn�monfol�tronc� nr fivo /G\.nrinifor 4roac� �nrl
�..� ..., ......�....� ......., ...� ..... �....�. . . . � . ,. r.e . .....
Ciftonr��Li�G•1 �h�ri iho � -
3. Materials. All plants proposed to be� used in accordance with any
landscaping plan shall meet the following specifieations:
a., Shade�Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of �2:5 inches at six (6)
inches above the ground line,, a minimum height of eight,(8) feet,
and a•branching height of'not less-than 1/3 nor more than 1 2 of
tree`height.
b. Ornamental Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of�2_0 inches at
six (6) inches above fhe ground line, a minimum height of six (6)
feet, and a branching heighf of�not'less than 1/3 nor more fhan 1/2
of tree height.
c. Evergreen Trees: A minimum height of six{6) feet.
d: Deciduous Shrubs: A minimum height of twenty-four (24) inches;
with no less than six {6) main branches upon planting.
e. Evergreen Shrubs A minimum heighf and spreatl of twenty-four
. {�24) inches.
D. Landscapinq Installation and Maintenance.
15
19424.1�7v�5
1. Installation. All required landscaping for each phase of the development
shall be installed pr.ior to the issuance of a final Gertificate of Occupancy
by the Department. If it is not possible to instaH the. required landscaping
because of weather conditions, the properfy owner shall post a bond for
an amount equal to the totat eost of the required landscaping prior to the
issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. Current Citv of Carmel
plantinq details are to be used for tree and shrub `installation unless
otherwise approved bv an ADLS approval.
2. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility af the owners and their agents
to insure proper maintenance of project landscaping and retention ponds
approved in accordance with the development requi'rements specified for
this Ordinarree. This is to include, but is not lirnited to� irrigation and
mulching of planting areas, replacing dead„ diseased or overgrown
plantings with ide:ntical vacieties or a suitable substitute, and keeping the
area free of refuse, debris, rank vegetation and weeds.
3. Chanqes After Approval. No landscaping which has been approved by
the Commission may �ater be substantially alfered, eliminated or
sacrificed, without first obtaining further Commission approval. However,
minor and mater.ial alterations in landscaping may be approved by the.
Director in order to conform to specific site conditions.
4. Inspection. The Director shall have the authority to visit the Real Estate to
inspect the landscaping and check it against the approved plan on file.
Section 5:5 Rarkinq Requirements.
A. €#�s �e—�;eal4 ��---Large expanses of pavement -a�e--�sshall be
e�sei-�a�broken up by the interspersing of appropriate planting areas' per the
reauirements of Section 5.4.B.4.
B. Direet, articulated pe.destrian access shall be provided from the street to the
primary entrance of the building(s).
C, The minimum number of parking spaces required for all permifted uses shall be
five (5) spaces for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area:
jSee Section 3.6.D for the R'eserv.ed Parkinq Area(s) allowance.l
D. There shall be an appr,opriate nurnber of parking spaces, accessible to the
6uilding which are itlentified as reserved for use by handicapped individuals.
These spaces shall meet State requicements.
E. Bicycle parkinq shali be provided in complianee with Sectioh 27.06 of the Carmel
Zoninq Ordinance,
16
1942417v�5
Section 5.6 Liqhtinq Requirements.
A. A Site Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Commission for its approval at the
same time other plans (i.e., architectural design, landscaping, parking and
` signage) are submitted. The Site Lighting Plan shall include the layout, spread
and intensity'of all site lighting, including: �
1. Parking lot and service/storage area lighti:ng;
2. Architectural display lighting;
3. Seeurity lighting;
4. Lighting of pedestrian ways; and �
- 5. Landscape lighting.
B. All site I.ighting shall be coordinated throughout the project and be of uniform
design, color and materials.
C. The ,height of light standards shall not excee.d �wentv-five (�25) feet from
the top of the fixture to the top of the pole base. 1Nithin ninetv (90) feet of the
perimeter of Saddlebrook Subdiuision, the heiqht shall not exceed fifteen (15)
feet from the top afi the fixtare to the top of the base. The base of the"pole sfiall
not exceed two (2) feet in height.
D. All parking lot area lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoebox" variety which directs
light downward bv means of a 90-deQree cutt off and/or flat lenses. Any parking
lot lighting or building lighting illumination emanating from the Real Estate shall
not exceed 0:3 footeandle at the south property line of the Real Estate.
Section 5.7 Siqns. �
A. Wall Siqns.
1. Num6er & Type: The maximum number of wall identification signs
permitted shall be one (1) wall sign on each farade of each
�e�a�occupant space, with a maximum of tviro (2) wall siqns per
occuqant.
2. Maximum Sign Area: ° °
sThe per.mitted�area for eaeh wall sign shall comply with
the limifations of Sign Chart A of the Carrriel Zoninq Ordi'nance.
3. Location: The �ssi n s may be located on a�4either the west, north or
.east facades. Provided, however, no illuminated wall identification sign
shall be permitted within fifty (50) feet of the south property line.
4. Design: All walls signs shall consist of individual letters:, be of similar
desiqn and identical in liqhtinq and stvle of construction. Loqos shall be
17
1942417v�5
. ,
lirnited.to 25% of the total siqn area. The edae of the wall siqn shall not
be located within one t1) foot of the edqe of the occupant space.
5. Illumination: Internal.
6. Sign Permit: Required.
7. Fees: Required.
GB. CoCo Commons Identification Siqns.
1. Number & Type:
�s�e�sOne Identificafion Sian shall be permitted at each entrance
from i 46`h Street (Access Road�.
2. Maximum Sign Area:
�sThe maximum sian area shall be seventv-fi�e (75) square feet.
3. Maximum Height of Sign:
The maximum sign heipht shall be six (6) feet.
4. Location:
�e�e+�sMinirnum five (5) feet from the street riqht-of-wav.
� 5. Design: Signs must comply with the approved architectural scheme of the
complex, and must be of a similar design; lighting and style of
construction.
6. Illumination: Internal or completely shielded.
7. Landscaping: Sign must be accompanied by a landscaped area at least
equal to the total sign area.
8. Sign Permit: Required.
9. Fees: Required.
� C. Coco Commons Real Estate (Leasinq) and Construction Siqns. All r.eal estate
(ieasinq) and construction signs shall comply wifh Section 25A7 of the Carmel
Zoninq Ordinance.
D. Other Provisions. Section 25.7.01 - "General Provisions" and 25.7.06-25.7.09 -
"Legal Non-Conforming Signs, Sign Permits, Variance, and Administration and
Enforcement" of the Carmel Sign Ordinance Z-302, are also incorporated by
reference.
18
1942417v�5 �
CHAPTER 6A AREA."C'' = SPECIFIC REGULATIONS. This Area, as shown in Exhibit 2, is
located on approximately the west half of the western half of the Real Estate and is intended to
be: the location of either (i) outlots or (ii) additional B-shops for CoCo Comrnons, or a
com6ination of both. If Area "C" is developed with outlots for CoCo Commons, a maximum of
three (3) outlots wilL b.e deueloped, a maximurrm of two (2) outlots on the north half and a
maximum of one (1) outlot on,the south` half. Each outlot developed in Area "C" may have a
single occupant or multiple occupants per building. Any other type of development of this Area
"C' shall require Development Plan Approval 6y the Commission.
Section 6.1 Minimum Building Set6acks. The minimum buildinq setbacks shall be as follows:
(a) Fifteen (15) feet from the riqht-of=waV lines of 146'" Street (Access Road); (b) Fifteen (15)
feet from the south riqht-of-way line of 146th Street; tc) Fifteen (]5) feet from the east riqht-of-
wav'line of Towne Road; and, (d) fhirtv (30)feet from the south propertv line.
Seetion 6.2 Minimum Gross Floor Area.
A. All buildings'shall have a minimum of two thousand (2;000) square feet of gross
floor area, excluding the floor area of any accessory structure(s).
B. Accessory structures permitted need not meet the minimum floor area
requirement. �
Section 6.3 Maximum Density. Maximum gross floor area for all buildings on Area "C" shall be
30,000 square feet.
� Section 6.4 Landscapinq Requirements.
A. Landscape Plan. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Commission for its
appro�al at the saroe time other plans (i.e., architectural design, lighting, parking
and signage) are submitted. The Landscape. Plan (i) shall be drawn to scale,
. including dimensions and distances; (ii) shall delineate all existing and proposed
buildings, structures, packing areas, pedestrian walk-ways, ramps for
handicapped, bicycle facilities, tecraces, patios, driveways, ground and
monument signs, :ligfiting stantlards, steps or other similar structures; and,
(iii) shall delineate the iocation, size and description of all proposed landscape
material and the ir.rigation.systern for alt planting areas. Landscape treatment for
plazas, roads, paths, service and parking areas shall be designed as an integral
and coordinated part of the Landscape Plan for the Real Estate. The Landscape
Plan shall be quided by the Species Recomrnendations of#he City of Carmel'and .
by the Species Diversity Chart of the City of Carmel.
B. Areas to be Landscaped.
1. Greenbelt:
. 19
1942417v�5
a. A greenbelt_shall be provided adjacent to the 146`h Street (Access
Road 146th Street and Towne Road rights-of-way and shall be a
minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width and landscaped per the Tvpe
"B" requirements of Section 6.4.C; except, however, thaf portion of
146t" Street (Access Road) located between Area "B" and Area
"C" shall be landscaped per the Type "B'' requiremenfs of Section
6.4.C.
b. The greenbelt areas shall be unoccupied except for plant material,
steps, pedestrian walk-ways, terraces, bike paths, utilities,
driveways, lighting standards, signs and other similar structures
(excluding parking).
2. Plantinq Strip:
a. There shall be a landscaped p'lanting area located adjacent to the
south property line of the Real Estate which shall be a minimum of
twenty-five (25) f'eet in width and landscaped �-#a er the
TYpe "D" requirements of Section 6.4.G�er-ee#.
b. This landscaped area shall be unoccupied except for plant
material, pedestrian walk-ways, terraces; bike paths, utilifies, and
other similar structures (excluding driveways; lighting standards,
signs and parking).
3. Plantinq Adiacent to Buildinas=. Landscapinq shall be provided adiacent '
to the base of all buildinq elevations that do not directiv abut hardscapes
includina rear service areas, to enhance the arcfiitectural lines of
buildinels, frame the primary views to the buildinqs, and blend
architectural desiqns with the landscaqe. Plantinas adiacent.fo buildinas
shall be desiqned to appropriatelv comqlement a building's use setback
heiqht; and,architectural features.
a. A planting area equal to an area measuring #�five (�-85) feet in
depth shall be installed e+�—a�alonq the front and si'des of the
building(s). .
b. The primarv landscape materials used shall be .sh�ubs, around
cover, and ornamental qrasses.
�c. Outdoor terraces and/or plazas, patios, sidewalks, loading areas
and driveways may be permitted in these lantin areas.
sd. If a s+�sv�IJ�loading area or driveway cuts into a planting area,
the displaced area shall be an additional area added to the
building perimeter planting or parking lot landscaping,
20
1942417v�5
e. Outdoor dinina, drive-thru lane and service areas shaii be
deducted from the overall length of the buildinq perimeter prior to
calculatinq the required plantinq area.
� �f. These additional adjacent planting areas need not be rectangular
in shape as long as the required amount of space is landscaped.
These additional adjacent planfing areas may abut an outdoor
terrace, plaza or patio area.
4. Plantinq 1Nithin Parkinq Lots: For each eiahteen (18) parkinq spaces, a
minimum of (i) one (1) shade tree and five (5) shrubs or (ii) two (2) shade
trees shall 6e planted within each packing lot island�}��«,-,��ss�
a;�h+„oh �,Q� +r��� .,or �,,.o „f n,r�,,,ry. �See Section 6.4.C.1 for minimum
planting area requirements.)
5. Total Landscapina Required: Inclusive of the greenbelts, the planting
strips, the planting adjacent to the building(s), outdoor terrace and, patio
areas �and the planting within surface parking lots, a minimum of ten
percent (10%) of Area "C", shall be landscaped.
C. Landscaping Standards.
1. �- Interior Areas. The dimensions, specifications and design of any
planting area or planting median shall be sufficient to protect the
landscaping materials planted therein and to provide for proper growth.
The following minimum widths for interior planting areas shall be used:
Canopy Trees: 9 feet wide
Or.namental Trees: 7 feet wide
Shrubs (only): 5 feet wide
2. Greenbelts and Planting Strips. The primary landscaping materials used
in the greenbelts antl planting strip areas, and"adjacent to buildings, shall
be shade trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, ground cover, grasses and
. flowers. A 6ase, planting unit of one �hundred (100) linear feet will be
designated for the greenbelts and planting strip areas which includes:
Th�Tvpe"B"-3}shade trees;�, 3 ornamental trees, and 15 shrubs.
Type "D"-5 shade trees, 5 ornamental trees, and 27 shrubs.
� ' Ci�io /F�1 r.rnnrv�on}�I #rnnn r.r fivc� /G.\ nnnifar_frnnn•� nnrl
, , �, ...., .... �.... �..� .....�...... ....."..� ..,..
• Cif400n /i Gl �hrr�hc
3s Materials. All plants proposed to be used in accordance with any
• landscaping plan shall�meet the following specifications:
21
1942417v�5
a. Shade Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of �2.5 inches at six (6)
inches above the ground line, a minimum height of eight (8) feet,
and a branching height of not less than 1/3 nor more than 1/2 of
tree height.
b. Ornamental Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of�2.0 inches at
six (6) inches above the ground line, a minimum height of six (6)
feet, and a branching height of not less than 1/3 nor more than 1/2
of tree height.
c. Evergreen Trees: A minimum height of six (6) feet.
d. Deciduous Shrubs: A minimum height of twenty-four (24) inches,
with no less than six (6) main branches upon planting.
e. Evergreen Shrubs: A minimum height and spread of twenty-four
(24) inches.
D. Landscapina Installation and Maintenance.
1. Installation. All required landscaping for each phase of the development
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 prior to the
issuance of the final Gertificate of Occupancy. Current Citv of Carmel
plantinq details are to be used for tree and shrub installation unless
otherwise approved bv an ADLS approval.
2. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility of the owners and their agents
to insure proper maintenance of project landscaping and retention ponds
approved in accordance with the development requirements specified for
this Ordinance. This is to include, but is not lirnited 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.
� 3. Chanqes After Approval. No landscaping which has been approved by
the Commission may later be substantially altered, eliminated or
sacrificed, without first obtaining further Commission approval. However,
minor and material alterations in landscaping may be approved by the
Director in order to conform to specific site conditions.
4. Inspection. The Director. shall have the authority to visit the Real Estate to
inspect the landscaping and check it against fhe approved plan on file. ,
22
1942417v25
Section 6:5 Parkinq Requirements.
� A. Large expanses of pavement ��^ +^ h° °^^^„r°^°,� "„
#�aeshalL be broken up by interspersing of appropriate planting areas, per the .
requirements of Section 6.4.8.4.
B. . Direct, articulated pedestrian access shall be provided from the street to the
primary entrance of the building(s).
C. The minimum number of parking spaces required for all permitted uses shall be
five (5) spaces for each one thousand (1,00,0) sguare feet of gross floor area.
�See Section 3.6.D for the Reserved Parkinq Area(s) allowance.�
D. There shall be an appropriate number of parking spaces accessible to the
building(s} which are identified as reserved for' use by handicapped individuals.
Th'ese spaces shall meet State requirements.
E. ' Bicycle parkinq shall be provided in compliance with Section 27:06 of the Carmel
Zoninq Ordinance..
Section 6.6 Lightinq Requirements. ,
A. A Site Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Commission for its approval at the
. same time other plans (i.e., architectural design, landscaping, parking and
signage) are submitfed. The Site Lighting Plan shall include the layout, spread
� and intensity of all site lighting, including:
1. Parking Jot and service/storage area lighting;
2. Architecfural display lighting;
3. Seeurity lighting;
. . 4. Lighting of pedestrian ways; and �
5. Landscape lighting.
B. All site lighting shall be coordinated throughout the �project and be of uniform
design; color antl materials.
C. The height of light standards shall not exeeed �twent -five (�525) feet from
� the top of the fixture to the top of the pole base. 1Nithin ninetv (90) feet of the
perimeter of Saddlebrook Subdivision, the heiqht shall not exceed fifteen (15)
feet from the top of'the fixture to the top of the base. The base of the pole shall
not exceed two'(2) feet in height.
D. All parking lot ar.ea lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoebox" variety which directs
light downward.- bv means of a 90-deqree cutt off and/or flat lenses. Anv parkinq
23
1942417v�5
lot liqhtinq or buildinq liqhtinq illumination emanatinq from the Real Estate shall
not exceed 0.3 footcandle at the south propertv line of the Real Estate.
Section 6.7 Siqns.
A. Wall Siqns.
1. Number & Type: The maximum number of wall identification signs
permitted shall be one (1) wall sign on each fa�ade of each occupant
space within Ouflot #1 and one (1) wall siqn on the west, north and east
facades of each occupant space within Outlot #2.
2. Maximum Sign Area: ° The permitted area for each
wall_siqn shall comply with the limitations of Sign Chart A of the Carmel
Zoninq Ordinanee.
3. Location: The�ssi n s may be located on all facades within Outlot #1
and on the west, north and east facades within Outlot #2. Provided,
however, no illuminated wall identification sign siiall be permitted within
fifty (50) feet of the south property line within Outlot#2.
4. Design: All walls signs shall consist of individual letters-, be of similar
desiqn and identical in liqhtinq and style of construction. Loqos shall be
limited to 25% of the total sian area. The edae.of the wall sian shall not
be located within one (1) foot of'the edqe of the occupant space. .
5. Illumination: Internal.
6. Sign Permit: Required.
7. Fees: Required.
GB. CoCo Commons Identification Siqns.
1. Number & Type:
Sat�e�sOne identification Sipn shall be permitted at each entrance
from Towne Road and 146th Street (Access Road).
2. Maximum Sign Area:
�e���sThe maxirnum sign area shall be seventv-five (75) square feet.
3. Maximum Height of Sign: �
The maximum siqn heiaht shall be six (6) feet.
4. Location:
�'s�e+�sMinimum five (5) feet from the street right-of-way.
24
1942417v�5
5. Design: Signs must comply with the approVed architectural scheme of the
complex, and must be of a similar design, lighting and style of
construction.
6. Illumination: Internal or completely shielded:
7. Landscaping: Sign must be accompanied by a landscaped area at least
equal to=the total sign area.
8. Sign Perrnit: Required.
9. Fees: Required.
C. Coco Cornmons Real Estate (Leasina) and Construction Sians. All real estate
(leasinq) and construction siqns shall complv with Section 25.07 of fhe Carmel
Zoninq Ordinance
D. Other Provisions. Seetion 25.7.01 - "General Provisions" and 25:7.06-25.7.09 -
"Legal Non-Conforming Signs, Sign Permits, Variance, and Administration and.
Enforcement" of the Carmel Sign Ordinance Z-302, are also incorporated by
reference.
CHAPTER 7.O APPROVAL PRO.CESS. .
Section 7.1 Approval of ADLS.
A. The Cornmission shall consider an ADLS approval petition for any building within
CoCo Commons.
B. The ADLS approval request shall be a specific plan consisting of the architectural
design of any buildings, landscaping, lighting, and signage for a site within the
CoCo Commons development.
C. The Commission shall approve the ADLS without conditions or approve with
conditions.
D. If�there is a substantial alteration in the approved ADLS plans, review and
approval of the amended plans shall be made by the Commission, or a
Comrnittee thereof, pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure.°'Minor and
material alterations may be approved by the Director.
E. In no evenf, however, may the Commission or the Director approve any alteration
that exceeds a maximum limitation imposed by this Ordinance or approve any
alteration that is less than a rninimum limitation imposed by this Ordinance.
25
1942417v�5
Section 7.2 Approval or Denial of the Development Plan.
A. The Commission shall approVe a Conceptual Development Plan (the "�CDP"�
simultaneously with the approval of this Ordinance, as shown on Exhibit 3.
B. The Director shall approve without conditions, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the Final Development Plan (the "DP'1 for any project within CoCo
Commons; provided, however, that the Director shall not unreasonably withhold
or delay his/her approval of a #i�a�-DP that is in substantial conformance to the
CDP and is in conformance with the development requirements of
this Ordinance. If the Director disapproves the #+qa-I-DP for any project within
CoCo Commons, the Director shall set forth in writing the basis for the
. disapproval and schedule the request for approval of the #+��DP for hearing
before the Commission.
C. An amendment to a #+�a�-DP which does not alter the use of any land and which
is in substantial conformance to the approved CDP may be reviewed and
approved by the Director.
D. The #�a�DP shall be a specific plan for the development of all or a portion of the
Real Estate that is submitted for approval by the Direetor showing proposed
facilities and structures, parking, drainage, erosion control, utilities and building
information.
Section 7.3 Approval or Denial of Plats.
A. With respect to any portion of the CoCo Commons District, the platting into
smaller sections shall be permitted, but shall not be required in order to diVide the
Real Estate into smaller aceas for purposes of conveying title to a parcel or
creating separate tax parcels. Plafting or otherwise dividing the Real Estate into
smaller parcels for the purpose of conveying title or creating separate tax parcels
shall not create property lines to whieh setback or any other standards of this
Ordinance shall be applied, provided that development of the parcels conforms to
an approved Development Plan.
B. All secondary plats for any portion of the CoCo Commons District shall be
approved administratively by the Department, and shall not require a public
hearing before the Plan Commission, so long as the proposed secondary plat
substantially conforms to the corresponding approved primary plat.
Section 7.4 Modification of Development Reauirements (Zoninq Waiverl. The Plan
Commission may, after a public hearing, grant an applieant a waiver of any of the dimensional
and quantitative standards of this Ordinance, but not by greater that thirty-five percent (35%) of
the specified standard. However, any approval of such waiver is subject to all of the following
criteria:
26
1942417v�5
I
' A. The proposal must be in tiarmony with the purposes and the land-use standards
contained in this Ordinance.
B. The proposal must enhance the overall de.velopment plan, the adjoining
� ' streetscapes, and the overall CoCo Commons District.
� C. The proposal must nof produce a site plan or streeUcirculation system that would
be impractical or de,tract from the appearance of the development plan or the
CoCo Commons District, and must not adversely affect emergency access or
. deprive adjoining noncommercial properties of adequate light and air.
D. In granting a waiver, fhe Commission may impose such conditions that will, in its
judgment, secure the purposes of this Ordinance. _
E. This Section does not affect the right of an applicant to petition the Board for a
variance from deve:lopment standards.
Section 7.5 Variance of Development Reauirements. The Board may authorize Variances from
• the terrns of the Ordinance, subjeet to the procedure prescribed in Chapter 30 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
• CHAPTER 8.0 DEFINITIONS,AND VIOLATIONS.
Section 8.1 General Rules of Construction; Definitions.
A. General Rules of Construction: The following general rules of construction and
definitions shall applyto the regulations of this Ordinance:
1. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular,
unless the contex#clearly indicates the contrary.
� 2. Words used' in the present tense include the past and future tenses, and
the future the present.
3. The word "shall" is a mandatory requirement. The word "may" is a
permissive requirement. The word "should'' is a preferred requirement.
B. Definitions:
1. Accessory Structure: A structure subordinate to a building or use located
on#he Fteal Estate which is not used for permanent human occupancy.
2. Accessorv Use: A use subordinate to the rnain use, located on the Real
Estate or in the same building as the main use, and incidental to the main
use.
27
1942417v�5
3. Alteration, Material: Any change to an approved plan ofi any type that
involves the substitution of one material, species, element, etc. for
another.
4. Alteration, Minor: Any change to an approved plan of any type that
involves the revision of less than ten percent (10%} of the plan's total
area or approved materials.
5. Alteration. Substantial: Any change to an approved plan of any type that �
involves the revision of ten percent (10%) or more of the plan's total area
or approved materials.
6. Antenna: A structure or device that is used for the purpose of collecting
or transmitting signals, images, sounds, or information of any nature by
wire, radio, visual, or electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to
directional or omni-directional antenna; panels, and microwave or satellite
dishes. The term does not include an amateur radio station antenna.
7. Area "A": That part of the Real Estate located on the approximate east
half of the Real Estate, as shown on Exhibit 2.
8. Area "B": That part of the Real Estate located on the approxirnate east
half of the approximate west half of the Real Estate, as shown on Exhibit
2.
9. Area "C": That part of the Real Estate located on the approximate west
half of the approxiinate west half of the Real Estate, as shown on Exhibit
2.
10. Automated Teller Machine (ATM): A mechanized apparatus which
performs limited banking functions for customers such as deposits,
withdrawals and transfers of funds upon insertion of a customer
identification card, password or similar device.
11. Board: The Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals.
12. Buildina: A structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, for the
shelter, support, enclosure or protection of persons or property, and
intended for human occupancy. - .
13. Buildinq or Structure. Front Line of: The line of the face of the building or
structure nearest a public stceet right-of-way line, not counting patios,
terraces, etc.
- 28
1942417v�5
14. Buildinq Heiqht: The vertical distance from the grade at the main
entrance to the top of the parapet that .comprises the majority of the
perime�ter of the building. �
15. Cectifieate of Oceupancv: A certificate signed by the Director stating that �
the occupancy and use of land or a building or structure referred to
therein complies with the provisions of this Ordinanee.
16. Commission: The Carmel Plan Commission.
17. Dav Care: An o.rganized group program for the care of children away
fcom their own residence for any part of a twenty-four (24) hour day, for
� compensation or otherwise.
18. Development Plan: A specific plan for the development of real property
that is _subrnitted for Commission approval showing proposed .facilities,
buildings and structures. This plan review includes general Iandscaping,
parking; drainage, erosion control,, signage; lighting, screening and
. buildings information for a site.
19. Development Requirements: Development standards and any
requiremenfs specified in this Ordinance �which must be satisfied in
connection with the approval of a development plan.
20. Director: Director, or Administrator, of the D.epartment of Community
Services for the City of Carmel, Indiana. "Director" and "Administrator"
shall include his/her authorized representatives.
21. Dish: That part of the earth station shaped like a saucer or dish.
22. Dish-Tvpe Receiving Antenna (Earth Station or Ground Station): A signal
receiving device, the purpose of wliieh is to receive radio
communications, television, data transmission or other signals from a
satellite or satellites in earth orbit.
23. Financial lnstitution: Any building wherein the primary occupation is
concerned with such Federal or State regulated businesses as banking,
savings and loans, loan companies and investment companies.
24. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): The gross floor area of a)I stories of all
buildings w'ithin the Real Estate divided by the total horizontal area within
the�Real Estate boundaries.
25. Footcandle: A unit of illumination. It is equivalent to the illumination at all
points which are one (1).foot distant from a uniform source of one (1)
candlepower.
29
1942417v�5
26. Front Yard: The side of the Real Estate which is adjacent to the 146`n
Street right-of-way or to the Towne Road right-of-way.
27. Greenbeit: That portion of the front yard of the Real Estate which is
immediately adjacent and parallel�to the 146th Street right-of-way or to the
Towne Road right-of-way.
28. Gross Floor Area: The floor area, excluding any penthouse areas, as
measured by the face of the exterior building materi'al.
29. HVAC: Heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
30. Landscapinq: The improvement of the Real Estate with grass, shrubs,
trees, other vegetation and/or or,namental objects. Landscaping may
include pedestrian walks, flower beds, terraces, patios, retention ponds,
ornamental objects sueh as fountains, statues and other similar natural or
artificial objects desigried and arranged to produce an aesfhetically
pleasing effect. �
31. Lot: A portion of the Real Estate intended as a unit for transfer of
ownership or development.
32. Lot Coveraqe, Maximum: The qreatest percentaqe of the area of the
Real Estate that can be covered bv buildinq area.
�33. Office: A•building or portion of a�building wherein services are performed
involving predominantly administrative, professional or clerical operations,
including but not limited to professional offices, business or personal
serVice offices, financial institution offices, sales offices, real estate
offices, and governmental offices.
3�34. Parkinq Space: An area having a rectangular area of not less than one
hundred eighty (180) square feet and a minimum widtli of nine (9) feet
exclusive of driveways, permanently reserved for the temporary storage
of one automobile.
�435. Plantinq Stri� A section of land not less than ten� (10) feet in width
- intended to contain plant materials and for.the purpose of creating a
visual separation between uses or activities.
�36. Pond: A body of water either occurring naturally or arfificially created and
not fed by any watercourse.
30
1942417v�5
3637: Professional Office: An office of a member of a recognized profession
such as an architect, attorney, dentist, engineer; physician or surgeon.
�38. Restaurant: An establishment where food and drink is prepared for,
served #o and consumed by the genecaF public. The establishment may
have an outside seating eomponent._ The establishment may have a
separate area, or Jounge, where alcoholic beverages are served without
full food service, provided the area is accessory to the primary use in
(i) square feet or (ii) sales.
3�39. Resfaur.ant, Dri�e-Throuqh: Any restaurant designed to permit or
facilitate the serving of food or beverages directly to patrons in or on
motor Vehieles�stopped on the premises.
3�40. Riqht-of-Wau: An area of land permanently dedicated to the public to
provide light, air and access.
4841. Setback: The least measured distance between a building or structure
and °the adjacent publie street r.ight-of-way line, the side property line of
the Real Estate or the rear property line of the Real Estate.
4-�42. Sign: Any type of sign as further defined and regulated by this Ordinance
and the Sign Ordinance for Carmel, Ordinance Z-196, as amended.
4�43. StON: That part of any building comprised between the level of one
� finished.floor and the level of the next higher floor or, if there is no higher
finished floor, that part of the building comprised between the level of the
highest finished floor and the top of the roof beams.
4�44. Street: A right-of.-way, other than an alle,y, dedicated and accepted, or
otherwise legally established for public use, usually affording the principal
means of access to abutting property.
4445. Trash Enclosure: An enclosed accessory structure that is designed to
screen and protect waste receptacles from view and to prevent waste
debris from dispersing outside the enelosure.
- 4�46. Use` The employment or occupation of a buildin,g, structure or land for a
person's service, benefit or enjoyment.
4647. Wall Siqn: A sign located on a building facade.
Section 8.2 Violations of Ordinance. All violations and enforcement of this Ordinance shall be
subject to Chapfer 34.0 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance.
31
1942417v2�5
f
PASSED by the Common Gouncil of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this day of
, 2011, by a vote of ayes and nays.
COMMON COUNCI'L FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL
Presiding Officer Joseph C. Griffiths
W. Eric Seidensticker Kevin D. Rider
John V. Accetturo Richard L. Sharp
Ronald E. Carter Luci Snyder
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
Presented by me to the Mayor of, the City of Carmel, Indiana, this day of
� , 2011, at o'clock .M.
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this day of , 2011, at.
o'clock .M.
James Brainard, Mayor �
ATTEST:
Diana L Cordray, IAMC, Clerk Treasurer
� This instrument prepared by: Philip A. Nicely, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, 111 Monument
Circle, Suite 2700, Indianapolis, IN 46204
32
1942417v�5
Exhibit 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Instrument Number 8616009
The VVest Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section Twenty-one (21), Township Eighteen (18) North,
Range Three (3) East in Hamilton County, Indiana.
EXCEPT
Instrurnent Number 2011024920
A part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2•1, Township 18 North, Range 3 East,
Hamilton County, Indiana,and 6eing that part of the grantor's land lying within the right of way lines
depicfed on the attached Right of Way Parcel Plat, marked EXHIBIT "B", described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said section designated as point "218" on said parcel plat:
thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 16 seconds East 60.00 feet along the noctti line of said section;
thence South 0 degrees 42 minutes 09 seconds East 644.51 feet to the nocth line of Saddle Creek,
Section Twelve, Secondary Plat fo the City of Carmel, the plat of which is recorded in Plat Cabinet 3,
, Slide 308, in the Office of fhe Recorcler of aforementioned county designated as point "132" on said
parcel plat; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 16 seconds West 60.00 feet along said south line
to the west line of said section;thence North 0 degrees 42 minutes 09 seconds West 644.61 feet
(644.49 feet per Instrument No. 200000022764) along said west line to the point of beginning and
containing 0.888 acres, more or less, inclusive of the presently existing right of way which contains
0261 acres, more or less,with a net additional taking of 0.627 acres, more or less.
ALSO EXCEPT
Instrument Number 2000-22764 �
� Part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section Twenty-one (21), Township Eighteen (18)
North, Range Thcee (3) East of'the Second Principal Meridian in Hamilton County; Indiana more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Half Quarter Section and running South 00°00'00"
West_(the bearings of this description are based on an assumed system in wtiich the West line of
said Half Qua�ter Section runs,South 00°00'00" West) on and along the West line of said Half
Quarter Section 644.49 feet to'the Point of Beginning of this description; thence South 89°57'35"
East parallel with the North line of said Half Quarter Section 1350.76 feet to the East line thereof;
thence South 00°10'42"West on and along said East line of said Half Quarter Seetion1986.02 feet to
the Southeast corner thereof; thence South 89°58'23" West on and along the South line of said Half
Quarter Section 1344.58 feet to the Southwest corner thereof; thence North 00°00'00" East on and
along the West line of said Half Quarter Section 1987.59 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing
61.468 acres, more or less, subject to easements, rights-of-way, and restrictions.
33
1942417v�5
Exhibit 2
� ' �
, i� � 1 � ��
-` I�,����,�„r�� s�„ano slce aa+e
� '� � '---- .+ypo..�e.azi Ac.oa F+e�y-?yq�xox.ve3 xc ss.s.31:wea rh pomd _--
i� TOTAL.�DB AFEA
�, i� 4- ��, ,�.�.��„ ,..p�.
i�_ ; �'�
�,�'�� �� —��. � ---__---� - ----_�----— —= ..,�xme.n,� ,�,.a�. -— ---
�� � 1 ��``�-____. ._�-..� _ __ �:�'.°+�°m �$S�
—�-�_r� - �� i,.5_,,...� _�— "-^-,...—. �:_�.._.._= e _ �.;�.m.�`..mo,�. � 9a
�; �'� -- —_-_._�� Il��4-_I�a��aa�z£t I+�..� _---- °����e��.,�� _ �
����°—..,, o�� �
--- ' � � --
:
l. `'�
� � - �
\�''� :� / _ ,_ -- -- ---- - __ _ "_ �
, , , —_ _ - _..�
__� � � / , � _ --
-�--..�`� x : )/. ,� _T� - .-. —r�an �v_ � � ,.
— J,.._. ! -r i � � �^� -
..._ �\ ��i`il�. -' .��,�,�,�,�ar,�� +� .':�' ��P� ��-��*-�,C."G"3"��..��� r,�—_..r__-, � �
� � 2.a �������� S y��Y � w.� ��-n� ,,,�?�,,y�`4�� 5' ° � I i ��fJ ���.
� �� � f�.�«�,F �`�.I
1 � {` �''�;��� Y �. �����, ��2��,�-'��`�u��� �^���"�' �� �� 1 f t
r �����`�'� �� g�� ry �����,��w�.� ������ �y � � �
� ��� �� ���� �''�.��p����`7�F� {�� �,��,����.�����`u��}15�5��,�� _ t ..A, `` a�y ��.
�LI� ?� uS,� y� � t ��i R"�F,T�Y-��'� Y�� 5 q3 ..s .,s.,� �' g `.�`{
f �� MY�a' ia'Y��". ��a� �"R�'S '��`�f:�ivr��'�c'''�`'�ti� ' �' . '.e �`� 1 ii
I b ��(���z��ll � p��p`�(� �, ��E�.;�k,���sa�l�'�.1 `°�C°°���t}. �PC�� ���" �A '� �.i� �''�'
�: � �i F� .s.L�I�� 1. if /6 C F3 KSl -�.� ,Ii, ` •
j I! k �� S ��{f- f�� } .�`��y.�4�3''y�. .' ., r. ' .�iy �(` M4�tllmy
�II ' (.4�M1 ����,'�� ;�"��s�a���i:?}`��`����� _�-" � - s �4 {���-�. 1�1a � _
i � '�' t � b -¥'- -� �'�� ��� Cnsr fi � `�u!
�, r�� , I j kA a � 7�'��h�z a��� iK�� �Y�.��+. S'fi'`��;��
� f t i�� r� �,,°a°+%3' ,rsk�' �."��.! �- ��f tt� �''^a4 �
s ��pz��.«�; aN' 'Y '°�.`'� �' �3 a�� �'��3i���F�.�y w`Fv �� � �,yry ;��
�,�` � . i �i'�.1:.4.� Tt £� '4"�fT.��,�,� �E'���,��'t �"Y'�^G� � �:��1"a; y D.� J-- ��t
. ,,.. O'$At!C"� '' �=s�t E V 5. �"�. :,�
\ �-_ �• �, .�":. . " / �uw_..�;s n 'r,,,�, r-'���` 'k� .;y.'x�
!/ r'V' �, i '��-yr(a �,�rz,'�`,� v�„�`���,� �� , <�
� ���.� i � � � J �"+"�`,�s $1�"��c��:+',�'-��,v���r'�r���i'��'����3,`v � a.. �:� �
�'' ��v .7 y�+. �'i� k'�c,�ti'i .I'"�.� E.� .n�i " c ' q ��
� I f���f �^'�j'SKN`���.'�w.�' � a �,�a�t;?'�a.'��'w��,tt*"�..,�-w- Y '�S",�:t�o`t � �:t �
��' �f�i���"�-,�°�r6.��� �� �`r-�' �' �n,�k`�`�X���,,;.,�'��y.�'x'-t�;s�� l � c,-�,' � ��
� �t + ���.��t���(aY �*��>ct '%'°a � �'�"�� ` � �O �
� � �I ���z�2'C�'�1 ��'��r r�� � .M.� '���"�''"��y¢��,„,�f� ���.�y m����5�'
4 S� f" i �1.Y'Y� 4`��}.'{"r �Y'"il ,2i�' .�
�) � � ��$� � ,g�r�•34s S. �,,. vK,� ti.r trcs'x� � '���- ._ ' •�'', O
�t �t��p�+�'-sy�.Y" x���s��.., e f i,ad`.��I���S�.+t�3 ti��Ys�3-•.'� � �.r ��t.� .�'!•��, � ����p
� , �i�.� 't�ts�.�z-1����'�" �%w�!����.��".�;aS")1 ��n-�;n.,.a�r ����"����:'»4i �::����,���..������:` . V V
� ���--- --- �--.-- --�� _�-- i
,
1 � � �
� � p
. I � �,�ep Mq I ���� ;
, � Gan I bevel rh Plon
wiar.m+a
34
1942417v�5
Exhibit 3
� (,� � � . � —
. � 11� � � �� i�s�l Psxmd
� nppax aama ac.e9(c�o-� i6alsmalle=8lto ttats -
f '�.� nPpraM.ie.als wes Pre��-nppro..a2e,t rr,fe�.��53�:,�re�,�ropvsm� .
Tora�e�o art�
;� �\ �1—� _ -_"�'---- - - ---._ - __...__- ;minaco+wi� �ieao�r���� � '
�x
4�� ��, — �PAiSmiO�ACF9 _,�
� ��/r '- ` \, `- -_ °_'�"--- -- - �—� ...=_._... .— . - F .- a ° -
L
I. � .ion�oron's�°iem'3 ,,:ar°r.,�e
' ��f-,t-j�4' �=�3-"'" �J�..�.3r"'w� .� � �r"-.� .. ,�cx----^-- .._ _ ���^ . ..��r '
�- ��i-��` c�g��yL.h�."z`�'�' �r�"r ��f".i'�"���'��'i'Y�II@1�l�ssi., 8�"�`�-'r� '���".."��,f+�..�`"�?� �.`.,�� t�:'•
"�.. � �''',� .�""'_"'_"'T""�,' -� . : `��-'.'� � � ." s,+..:t���.et'.�. 1' - � , i �_�.
--''� /'p � ,�'.._"",�, . � �'.� a -��� �a .��,,�.'�' �, r@'��e.r��'�.+- ..ES' �5 -.�^ "•? m 'S .
�
� � ���.' .s-P3���Yf��"'"„`e. ; _{-� ..`��1'� -..�-�."r'} i��iw-;2�-. .E`��� �'+Fy-�.�-"��1�"� '�.ix-�� � � tF;.
"���. �� t'7"� tr- �- F...^'z""_'-y-.�:-�'�—�- p �i�,_�"4!,.�. � �r� �t,... .r � ` � P ���
f ��-`�." �� "� r� � $� /�r�� ��..�, - .. _;_ .as'Sr''� + .
� z �v�ai.e.��T,r��� X�,�r7�-��� � I �.,-,�� �,. I , •'s :. � , �.'���r'�
��r.�"� {�.3 ���`xr.r fi .ili °`� ,��i r���`��`?`.�z�'��.y.r lE��.:�..L�"=t�'°s�'x--s�,�".,:-"'��-�e�"�:+s a��s�'�`'���-�4 0'�"� �.
���.,� �a ;��r����,��,���t��3t J� ������.-� ���,��� ' �:�I � �� � � i'��� ^
t
"�'j.�,� fW � � � � � ,�,'aa�,. x� � � s�
� ; x� �. 1/ �t.. F_ � ��-v �>-a. ��-`�`� -�. � �l�
S k:� �� � ��,� ����F��� i �, �� r�-� � ��� �',y,�,� �s��Y�. . � �� s.-�-�ix- ��� '"� J`ti��* �.
Zi �a� r��.F-c { 2�l .a E �:.�- �a .s ��6. � '� ;;I :S� � �� �:� � t
� FS'�.z=� �' ��� `T'����48J�.� ��€�`�-'� �'��,�,K. . °w :°t�rr"-�$ 14.: �E' �,�. �+F �,� �..� e � 3 i:z
� �� �, � �,�y +wa�rm:,lt�`���8 � b �g ��4r� "s + x +�., m��"3�� � � ��u� a
y �I�_.� Jjjj} ,. �S � �r�`�. � ��,. �, .°"��� ;� �� '„3�� �r t�
��, �� 'y,�_r��°�°a.'���r�0ip »a S�I I, IIIIU� �'� �# (��11'lllll I `�IIIIIIIIII =�� �'��� *�'� �Tu .��� �*v1 "
�_�, !i��e,,:��`� I�'�cf� :I � I �.3 � t „€: s��"b° ,�t- `� cbk a �,,v��ee� � ,�� ��:
��7` �� z � � :���n�b � . �`�'�`��S � '� ���' i�'.��4����rA �r�-'� �ia}'�l�`,�-�k�,y,. �� �d§� ��$��';€
��: S-�4 �
�.� �� � �� _ �� ��-,�5�� � a . � 3:�' ,��1�iI.IIIIdII`ilfil(IIIIIIiI(�; �.�,��s-� ��� a�5������. ."�'_"
� �},����.�� -�I �� �� .��. �b � � ��,��� �� i
�,F i ,y � s�. 3. '� � � �• ,--s .�'-�.'S'it_ r� . M�� '�c� '3 �.1&� "• ,°'� "� ,
Z aS s `` 1'�Y�6 " � � ,. ,y ., � �4 �h.9-p ;o [�
, ���� � � r� ��,��,,���� F'�- �� ,�,.� rrn ii-m���� ; ";� ; {� -�.�,�q����� � l�
� �`� ` �,,,�. � cfs�sf'� / � �,.�,: 'A�',�"d�`ry'`ui�i�*n` ' -,.3�T`�'�v''�e-��{�u1L� � '°:"�'6� ( ���� �� x.�.'�.�i �4��� _
�� � `� � -°-�� � �' ` ; � .� �I�I i I�I I R-�C���I I f I i fl I I I Ill�f�Ti1�U l�l I�I I� ' ��"-`��'�°��' °�
�• ��f�� �;�w �� � ./` ::�' sp�� I � �� a g�=�J I � ��s ���4�*�'zs� ,r��� �v
:�
� � ��'. � f';+`� ,C;�� s�' �3,1�� `�-,y'k�.�.-����" ?��- �'� '� I�a�`�i���-fir�re.=a.l� .. r � � �<'�. � �� • .�;�
\ \� � � ��; a 1-s=�1',"r.;�t.a'"�- .�. �.ss-z, �" b�•hny f ��+^���� '.I � � �_.�'�`��� -'"�. '`,�y-.) . �_ '..
.' � i. r '� \��� Y�,+-� .:\ -� ��..1s4'�PSY.��t �j Y 'I��'� LI' . � �' '�'g��' av ,-,4�`,`y �� , q ��-
�"" ��. � �:�S -..�.' \`� � x�� �.r �,x.y��+'' fz ' �<� � x �.�I`3� r���`�a� �', i�I�� O � '.
� 1 .�: ��,-� . a.� .�����. ,��- '��.�z'3���n � y .�a<,,��� t„� __ �a f�,'�`��., �
'�'" �.i� "`� ,�� ����«�F! r "i3` '��3 . ,$-`r,��t � � s� ` n :�� �` c, �a r` q �, ;� .
�. ' � �f ��, -sqr�� �;�3` ° r ��� �, m C� s�. ��s� ��a���-�c�`�''�C?�'*¢�"° �u��i� 0 �
� t � �}�� ��`�t7 v��` `sf�� ° YC :.� � "r t �y`���,t � � Of
. � , i �.�w•- K �" -�'?' �, � :.� ;�/��"� -�`�j ���11111��<J PII I Il�i IQ I II I II�EI � .� ���� G �. �
is�: � 1 � -a',.= . *w$"P.� � 's �� ��)'�,�'��.�t��+-t.a a y�
€���3��- �'s..,�l� `e�-af���`����+�_ �-`��J' �`�-��t-�=��n��t,��cw��-��x ��:LL��.����II I I(�I:I s x� O
�
t�`'',��h!� � �'��� :�.,-4�;�"s��.a;�d"�t„���,_.r'�� ,;k �-.� ��-7s'�� �-��'t�'�'=�an�`#:FS�,���i5���,- U �' 8
�-'�`4 s �.i v� 7, _�-'�t+,h ,--.r� o-.�.a���3�."��%�.,�+ ,�r73-"`.�g3��`�3..'k'��,a �s�� � ,��'� "�� M`�����,59'��`�' '4'� '`' i . -
�'a�a� i�3 r�'����-s�'"��. f ,�'+�'���,,�^,,oz°'�,..'���r� -r��,�'�' ^'� "'�y� � ,�� � ¢}a.� � �
�
�� ���t�l���� � 3,Z���i�P'��'�` �3+ �����'�, ., xj ''k �� 71 � � ,a.v� � `2�' �� �
. �r :y��'`'�E� '��-'��' � -� z �: � �'§�� �`{� �" �� Sa� z�- �- �,`�' � . 5��^�
�� } ���i�'�F' ,6v� �,.�' £ �x. � ��.nx��y-,:��'s-�S--��'.'",A. �n,.•�, �`K .� `�„F' rf.":£'� ""�}'{ �" 1."€ ��W
�'� r�v, A.& R ,s} " ¢ �--sz ��t � :,a)Devel .mrt Pla^�``°� '��w y t«�,+°'y� �. �' +,��,.�,
�.. R #..��.�-'e' i«��� r,�'�� J^'4a`��i"'*.�c�'��e � ,o+o kPi�.�s'kc�`�� P '�:' "s 'Y ��4�' r�. ����
� �u_��,��� ..����, �:_.�_�-.,��.��"�.�,��...s��a _� �"r�r���.�- a--�-� -- —'�,'� �—
35
1942497v�5
Exhibit 4
Schedule of Uses
USE AREAS
AREA "A" AREA `B" AREA "C"
Type of Use Anchor Area B-Shop Area Out-Lot Areas
Residential Uses
Sin le Famil Dwellin
Two Famil Dwellin
Multi le Famil Dweilin A artment
Mobile Home.Court
Attached Dwellin
Home Occu ation �
Residential Kennel
Bed & Breakfastinn
Model Home
Guest House
Bona Fide Servants Quarters
Boardin or Lod in House
Nursing/Reti_r.emenUConvalescent Facilit
Private Swimmin Pool, etc.
Office Uses '
Clinic or Medical Health Center P P P
Research Laboratory/Facility
General Offices P P P
Professional Office P P P
Hos ice
Training Facility
Institution Uses
Church/Tempie/Place of Worship P P P
Hos ital
Librar
Penal or Correctional Institution -
Post Office
Power Generatin Piant
Public Service Facility P P P
Commercial Sewa e or Garba e Dis osal Plant
Water Management& Use Facility
36
1942417v�5
P=Permitted
A=Accessory
"Blank"=Prohibited
Exhibit 4
Schedule of Uses
USE AREAS
AREA"A" AREA "B" AREA "C"
Ty e of Use Anchor Area_ 6-Shop Area� Out-Lot Areas
Eclucational Uses
School, Trade or Business P P P
Colle e or Universit - •
Da Nurser /Da Car.e P P
Kinder ar,ten/Preschool P P
School of Gen Elementar or Secondar Ed.
Retail & Service Uses �
General Retail Sales P P P
LurnberlBuildin Matecials Sales enclosed
General Service P P P
Automobile Service Station P
Automobile/Boat Sales
Automobile/Tcuck Re air indoor
Manufactuced Housing Sales
Car V11ash P
Commercial Kennel
Dr Cleanin Establishment with on-site lant
Dry Cleanin Esta6lishment(w/o.on-site lant P P
E ui ment Sales/Re air indoor
Financial Institution P P P
Automated Teller Machine ATM P P P
Food Stand P P P
Funeral Home/Mortuar /Cremator
Recreational Vehicle/Mobile Home Sales
Roadside Sales Stand
Self Service Laundry
Sexuall Oriented Business
Veterinar Hospital with commercial kennel
Veterinar Hos ital without commercial kennel P P
Wholesale Sales
37
1942417v25
P=Permitted
A=Accessory
"Blank"=Prohibited
Exhibit 4
Schedule of Uses
USE AREAS
AREA "A" AREA "B" AREA "C"
Type of Use � Anchor Area B-Shop Area Out-Lot Areas
Cultural/Entertainment Uses
Art Galler P P
Art& Music Center � P P
Carnivals, Fairs, Circuses, etc.
Hotel
Hotel Full Service
Indoor Theater P
Outdoor Theater
Caterin Establishment P P P
Restaurant, without drive-thru food sales P P P
Restaurant,with.walk-up/drive-thru food sales � P P
Meeting or Party Hall
Museum
Stadium or Coliseum
Tavern/Night Club P P
Industrial Uses
Printin Publishing Establishment P P
Agricultural Uses �
Commercial Greenhouse
Raisin /Breeding of Non-Farm or Exotic Animals
Feed Store
Plant Nursery
Grain Elevator
General A riculture Farm P P P
Horse Farm
Recreational
Commercial Recreational Facilit , Indoor P P P
Commercia(Recreational Facility, Outdoor
Community Center
Countr Club
Golf Course
Health/Fitness Facilit P P P
38
1942417v�5
P=Permitted
A=Accessory
"Blank"=Prohibited
� '
Exhibit 4
�
Schedule of Uses
. USE AREAS
� AREA "A" AREA "B" AREA "C"
Type of Use Anchor Area B-Shop Area Out-Lot Areas
. Recreational Cont. � �
� Private Club or Lod e
Private Recreationai Facilit P P P
Fiiding Stable
Park, Public P P P
Shooting Galler
Miscellaneous � �
Artificial Lake or Pond non- latted
Cemeter
Historic Site
Temporary Uses �
Construction Facilit P P P
Dis la , Outdoor P P F
Model Home �
Sales, Outdoor P P P
Sales, Seasonal Outdoor P P P
Special Event, Outdoor P P P
Transportation &Communication Uses. �
Antenna P P P
Collocated.Antenna P P P
Radio and/or Television Studio
Radio/Television Transmission Antenna �
Radio/Television Transmission Tower
Tower
Wireless Telecommunications Antenna P P P
Wireless Telecommunications Service Tower P P P
Motor Bus or Railroad Passen er Station P P P
Private Air lane Land/Service Facilit
Private Helico ter Landing/Service Facilit
Commercial Parkin Lot
Private Parkin Area A A A
Truck Stop
39
1942417v�5
P=Permitted
A=Accessory
"Blank"=Prohibited
Summary Report:
Litera Change-Pro ML WIX.6.5.0.346 Document Comparison done on
lU/4/2011 3:37:30 PM
Style Name: Default Sty,le ,
Ori inal Filename:
Original DMS:iw://c�t-hoxofraii�/DT1/1942417/2
IVlodified Filename:
Modi�ied DMS: iw://clt-boxofraii�DT1/1942417/5
-Chan es: '
A�id 257 �
�� 154
"���.,.,,��,��,� 3
Move To 3
Table Insert 0
rr„�.�o-r�„i,.*„ p
Embedded Gra hics (Visio, ChemDraw, Ima es etc.) 0
Embeddeci Excel 0
Total Changes: 417
� Conn;.Angelina V
° From_: Mindham,:Daren
Sent: Thursday; December 1:5, 2011 9:28 AM
To: . Conn, Angelina V '
Subject: RE: CoC"o Commons:PUD - latest version- docket no. 11070022 Z
As,l mentioned,the landscaping portion sh:ould,be a go. '
Daren Mindham � �
Urban Eorester
City ofGarmel
Depantment of�Corrmmunity Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Office:'317-571-2283 .
, From: Conn, Angelina V �
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:28 PM
, To: Keeling, Adrienne M;.Donahue-1Nold, Alexia K; Boone, Raehel M.; Liftlejohn; DaVid W; Mindham, Daren; Hollibaugh,
Mike P
Ccc'Tingley, Connie S; Schuessler, Justin
Sutiject: CoCo Commons PUD - latest version - docket:no. 11070022 Z'
R11— Attached are the lafest versions of the CoCo Commons PUD. Please look over, and let me know of any changes the
petitioner should,make.
(Gonnie—please add these to LaserFiche.fhanks!�
Thanks!
Angie
. f
1
Conn, Angelina V�
From: Granner, Steven (sgranner@boselaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29,2011 11:09 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Hancock, Ramona B; Caideron, Joseph; baker7386@att.net;
mbaker@penskeautomotive.com; april@leechhensleyarchitects.com;
afetahagic@strueturepoint:com; bstumpf@structurepoint.com
Subject: Doc. # 11070022 Z- CoCo Commons
Angie,
We are currently scheduled for hearing on Decernber ZO`h before the Plan Commission. We hereby requestthat we be
tabled on the 20`h and re-scheduled for hearing on (Wednesday)January 18`h before the Plan Commission. We had an
initial meeting with neighbors who receiVed mailed notice back on November 2"d. We have a larger meeting scheduled
for December 15`with the entire Saddle Creek neighborhood (466 invitations were mailed). We have assured the
representatives of the neighborhood that, because of the holidays,we will not go forward on the 20`h and that we will
table our request until at least January 18`n
Thanks,
Steve
Steven B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Bose McKinney&Evans LLP � www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Stacey R.Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for
the individual or entity identified above as the addressee.
(f you are not the.addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy,
or distribute this message and any attactiments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments
(including all copies} and notify the sender. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the
intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege.
All personal messages express views only of the individual sender, and may not be copied or distributed without this
statement.
i
Conn, Angelina V
Fromc Granner, Steven [sgranner@boselaw.com]
, Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:23 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Gc: Hancock, Ramona B; Calderon, Joseph; baker7386@att.net;
mbaker @ penskeautomotive.com
Subject: CoCo Commons, 11070022 Z
Angie,
Per my voice-mail message this morning, we wish to table Docket No. 11070022 Z for another month to the December
20`h meeting date.We have a meeting scheduled this Wednesday with the Saddle Creek residents who received mailed
notice of our petition. However, the Saddle:Creek HOA President informed usthis weekend that there was a►so a desire
for an additional larger meeting that would be.open to all Saddle Creek residents. We are agreeable to that and, since
there is not sufficient time to accomplish that before the packet submittal deadline this Friday, we must request this
additional tabling.
Thanks,
Steve
Steven B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Bose McKinney& Evans LLP � www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis, Imdiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Stacey R. Cleveland � SCIeVeland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for
the individual or entity identified above as the addressee.
If you are not the addressee, or if this message has_been addressed to you in error,you are not authorized to read, copy,
or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments
(including all copies) and notify the sender. Deli�ery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the
intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege.
All personal messages express views only of the individual sender, and may not be copied or distributed without this
sCatement.
1
Conn, Angel_�na V
Fram: Conn,.Angelina V
'Senf:; Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:28 PM
To: Keeling, Adcienne'M; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Boone, Rachel M.; Littlejohn, David W;
. Mindham, Daren;'Hollibaugh, Mike P
Cc: Tingiey, Connie S; Sehuessier, JUstin
Subject: CoCo Commons PUD -latest version - docket no,. 11070022 Z
Attachments: Redline- Coco Commons PUD 12-14-2011.pdf;:Clean copy- CoCo Commons PUD
12-14-201 1.pdf
All— Attached are the latest versions of the CoGo Commons PUD. Please look over, and let me know of any changes the
petifionershould make.
(Connie—please add these to LaserFiche, thanks!) �
Thanks!
Angie
� 1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Mindham, Daren
Sent: Thucsday, October 06, 2011 3:32 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: CoCo Commons
Angie, since I have one minor comment for now after this last revised PUD, can you add it to your future list,
so that the comments are all together,ratherthan one small one from me at a random time? Or is it just best
that I send it:by itself.
IJRBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS
1) 4.4.6.1.a—Type B is not referenced in 4.4.0 as stated. Please add wording'to 4.4.C.2
Daren Mindham
Urban Forester
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services -
One Civic Square
� Carmel, Indiana 46032
Office: 317-571-2283
From: Granner,.Steven jmailto:sgranner@bo5elaw.coml
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:23 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: 'Mindham, Daren; Boone, Rachel M.; 6aker7386C�att.net; mbakerC�a penskeautomotive.com; Calderon, Joseph
Subject: FW: .Review Comments:Response
Sorry, I was so concerned about sending the PUD red-line, I forgot to attaeh it: Now it is.
Steven B.Granner;_AICP � Zoning Qonsultant
Bose McKinney& Evans LLP � www.boselaw.com
1T1 Monument Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis,:lndiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F..319-223-03Q4
Assistant Contact � Stacey R.Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684=5197 � F 317-223-0197
From: Granner, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, October 04; 2011 5:08 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V'(Aconn(�a carmel:in.gov)
Cc: dmindhamCa�carmel,in.gov; Boone, Rachef M. (rboone(a�carmel.in.gov); baker7386@att.net; Baker,Mike Baker
(mbakerC�a penskeautomotive:com); Caldecon, Joseph ,
Subject: Review Comments Response
� Angie, Rachel &Daren,
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Mindham, Daren
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:29 AM
T.o: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K
Subject: RE: Review Comments Response- CoCq Commons
Looks like the setbacks will be 30' so essentially it should be a 30' green area. But the perimeter landscaping
requirements will be 15' with another 5' around the building for foundation plantings for a total of 20'.This leaves 10'
open to walk around, they tend to plant trees in the whote open area anyways.
Daren fVlindham
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, October 05, 2011 4:50 PM
To: Mindham, Daren
Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K �
Subject: RE: Review Comments Response - CoCo Commons
I think it was more Lex and me looking at what the overlay zones require, and we asked for that,with this rezone....
But, if you are okay with it,then I guess I'am;okay with it. O
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Mindham, Daren
Sent: UVednesday, October 05, 2011 3:06 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Bubject: FW: Review Comments Response
I noticed your comments about the bufferyard widths. Their numbers are consistent with the bufferyard standards in
width, but they have shortened the landscaping amounts from D to a B and C. I am thinking that because of it being a
commercial area and on 146`h St that 6-7 trees plus shrubs per 100 linear feet is sufficient.
What are your thoughts, are people asking for 30'...more landscaping?
1. Sections 4.4.B.l.a 8i 4..4.B.a—please make the �-eenbelt alon� 146`� street 20-30 feet wide. 15-ft is too narrow.
Consistefit with lhe B-3 (14.Od), B-6 (I7.06), B-7 (18.�f) a�ad B-8 (1�.06) Distrzcts, tl�e r�iinitnuna 30 foot
greeril�elt requrre��aerit is exclr,cdect w{tere a lirttiled cacces� daiglamay acljairts (new 146"' Street,). .I� feet is
consistef�t witlz Table for_Buffervu�rf I�etennirerrtio�a (Section 2b.04.(I6 of CJie �;'ZO).
2. Section 4.4.B.2.b—Please add a 30-ft wide landscaped area along the southern properCy line.
Daren IViindham
Urban Forester
- 1
/
Conn, Angelina V
From: Calderon, Joseph [jcalderon@boselaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday;October 05, 2011 9:47 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE:�Review Comments Response �
Angie, we do wish to table this item to#he November 15th meeting.Thanks,Joe.
Joseph D.Calderon
Bose McKinney&Evans LLP � www.boselaw.com
111 Monurnent Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
JCaltleron@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5331 � F 317-223-0331 � C 317-294-0857
Assistant Contact � Stacey R.Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@carmel.in.gov] ,
Sent: Wednesday, Ocfober 05, 2011 9:21 AM
. To: Granner, Steven; Calderon, Joseph
Cc: baker7386@att.nef; mbaker@penskeautomotive.com
Subject: RE: Review Comments Response
Joe—Please let us know soon, in wr.iting, if you would like to table this item to the Nov. 15 PC meeting. (The
agenda will be finalized by Noon,this Friday
Steve—Thanks for all the info.
Tha n ks,
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Granner, Steven [mailto:sgrannerCa�boselaw.coml
' Sent: Tuesday; Qctober 04, 2011 5:23 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Mindham, Daren; Boone,_Rachel M.; baker7386Co�att.net; mbakerCa�penskeautomotive.com; Calderon, )oseph
Subject: FW: Review Comments Response
Sorry, I was so concerned��about sending the PUD red-line, I forgot to attaeh it. Now it is..
Steven B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Bose McKinne.y&Evans LL`P � www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304 �
Assistant Contact � �Stacey R.Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
From: Granner, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, Oetober 04, 2011 5:08 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V (Aeonn@carmel.in.QOV)
Cc: dmindham@carmel.in.gou; Boone, Rachel M. (rbooneCa�carmel.in.AOV); baker7386@aht.net; Baker,Mike Baker
1
�.
Granner, Steven
From: Duncan, Gary R �gduncan@carmel:in.gov>
Sent: Friday,August 26, 2011 325 PM
To: Granner, Steven
Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Barnes, David R; david Lucas;Greg R. Hoyes;
gilko@crossroadengineers.com
Subject: CoCo Commons Review Letter
Good aRernoon Mr.Granner,
-Please find additional comments from the Department of Engineering below:
The submittal does not satisfy the requirements of Section 102.07 of the City's Storm 1Nater Technical Standards.
� Please indicate.how off-site water isbeing•acepmmodated.
`�. A 70-foot half. right-of-way is required along the frontage of Towne Road.
The plan needs to indicate the recent impravements to Towne Road as well as the County's future plans for 14fi`"Street.
`We wil)need to discuss how the developer wiil•comply with the requirements of Section 2.09 of the Zoning Ordinance.
'. All storm water runoffieaving the site shall be treated by a minimum of two best management practices in series.
City standard curbing is required for all parking.areas.
Please indicate the tocation of bicycle,parking.
Has the County approved the proposed aecess'points to the frontage road?Two of the proposed entrances are only 300-
feet apart.
Has a traffic study been conducted to identify is auxiliary lanes are needed on the frontage road at the proposed
entrances?
All on=site best management practices shall be-eontained in easements perthe Storm Water Technical Standards.
Will the bui(dings be slab on grade or will they have basements?
Please indicate the drainage system outfall on the plan. Has the downstream capacity been verified?
Does the undergrourid detention system provide detention for the fully developed full width right-of-way of the
perimeter roadways?
Are any tree preservation oc(andscaping easements proposed?
Please indicate the drive aisle widfhs as well as the widths of the proposed access points and return radii of the
entrances. �
The Department'will need to understand how detention'will be provided for Outlot#1. ,
As access relies on the Count�s construetion of the frontage road,construction will not be allowed to commence until
the schedule for the County pro}ect is established.
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) 571-244I
1
� w
VEOLIA WAT�,R C�. ��MM[ENTS:
CAI�IVIEL TECI�TIC.AL ADVISORY COMIVIITTEE
AUG. 17 IulEETING
Date: Wednesday, August 17,2011
Place: Dept. of Coinniunity Services Cota�ference Roorn,3`d Floor,Caiinel City�Iall.
Time: 9:00 a.�n.
9:00 a.m. (Z}Docket Nu. 11.070022 Z: CoCo Conimons.PUD�a SEC of:146thlTowne:
The applicant seeks approval to zezone I9 acres,from S-11Residence-to PUD7Plaruted Unit
Developrzient, for a neighborhodd-scale cozx�inercial develc�pznent. The site is located at the
southeast'corner of 146th'St. and Towne Rd. Filed:by'Steve Granner of Bose McKinney&
Evans LLP far Tzmothy Baker,owner.
VE�l9i4 'UIOATER CO. COIVaMfNTS: . Veolia'uVater Inclianapolis(vWi)is the�contract
operator for the lndianapolis Water(JW) utility,and as:such has reviewed'the request7for:the above
stated.comme�cidl devefopment af the S E. cornerof W. 146+�`Streefi&Towne'Road iW�has no
, obiecfion to:th€s r�quest. Please aiso flote IW does not serve the addressed site, i�is inside the
, _ .
: Carmel lJtilities Service Territoay.
r
, Page 1 of i �
V�JW W.CARMEL.IN.G�V ONE CIV IC SQ. GARMEL,IN 46032 (317)571-2417
Granner; 5teven
Frcm: Granner, Steven
Sent: Monday, August Ol, 2011 2:45 PNI
To: Conn,Angelina V(Aconn@carmel.in.gov.);awold@carmel.in.gov;
dmindham@caririei.i�.gov; Littlejohn, David W(dlittlejohn@carmel.in.gov);
wakers@carmel:in.gov;dhuffman@carmel.in.gov;jthomas@carmel.in.gov;
greg.hoyes@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;gilko@ccossroadengineers.com;
gduncan@ca'rmel.in_gov; nredden@carmel.in.gov;david.lucas@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
wholt@carmel.in.gov;jblanchard@tarmel.in;gov;jduffy@carmel.in.gov;
fgreen@carmel.in.gov; cellison@carmel.in.gov;tkrUeskamp@carmel.in.gov;
mwestermeier@carmelclatparks.com;jason.lemaster@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
� brooke.gajownik@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;jason.kirkman@mybrighthouse.com;
shirley:hunter@duke-energy.com;gary.mcnamee@duke-energy.com; �
jlclark@vectren.com;dan.davenport@aes.com; duane.whiting@veoliawaterna.com;
rfarrand@ccs.kl2.in.us; ryan.hartman@ctrwd.org;troy.yackle@sug.com;
doland.w_wise@usps.gov;sk4986@att.com
Cc: Nicely, Philip;Calderon,Joseph; baker7386@att:net; lharch2@cs.com;
afetahagic@structurepoint.com; msmith@structurepoint.com; rhancock@carmel.in.gov
Subject: Carmel TAC Committee
Attachments: CoCoCornmons_Elevation-2.ZIP;4900ak-13b 071911,ZIP;TAC Applieation.pdf; Rezoning
Application:PDF; 201100268.SV.2011-d7-13.ALTA.PRO FORMA.146TH-TOWNE.pdf'
ZONING MAP.PDF; PUD ORDINANCE.PDF
J
� Dear Carmel TAC Committee Members:
Attached please find copies of the filings made in connection with the proposed rezoning of the SEC of 146`h Street and
Towne Road.Most pertinent to you wi11 be "9900ak-13b 071911.ZIP",which,contains the Conceptual pe�eEopment Plan,
and "201100268.SV.2011-07-13.ALTA,PRO FORMA.146T"-TOWNE.pdf',which is the survey of the property. Paper copies
� of these two(2) documents will a{so be mailed to those of you who have listed"paper" as your plan submittal
' preference.
This project wil(be on the Wednesday,August 17'h meeting agenda of the TechnicaF Advisory Committee.
Thank you.
Steven B.6ranner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Bose McKinney&EvansLLP � www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis,Indiana 462�4
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Stacey R.Cleveland �SCleveland@boselaw.com ( P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
1
Granner, Steven
from: Postmaster@sug.cr�m
Sent: Monday,August Ol, 20112'.46 PM
To: Granner, Steven
Subjett: Attachment Violation
Attachments: Carmel TAC Committee
7he attached message contains content which violates our email polic.y.The message was not delivered.
1
Granner, Sfeven �
From: Ellison,Ctiristopher M <CEliison@carmel.in.gov> .
Sent: Tuesday,August 02, 2011 8:53 AM
To: Granner, Steven
- Subjed: RE Carmel TAC Committee
Be advised the Carmel Fire Dept. requires hard copy too scale drawings to be submitted on all projects.
Respectfully,
Capt. Chris Ellison
Depufy Fire Marshal
Carmel Fire Dept.
2 Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317-571-2621 �
From: Granner, Steyen [mailEo:sgranner@boselaw.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 2:45-PM
: To: Conn, Angelina V; Donahue-UVold, Alexia K; Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David W; Akers, William P; HufFinan,David;
Thomas, John G; greg.hoyes@hamiltoncounty.in.gov; gilko@crossroadengineers.com; Duncan, Gary R; Redden, Nick;
david.iucas@hamiltoncounty.in:gov; wholt@carmel.in.gov; Blanchard,.Jim E; Duffy,Jahn M; Green,Timothy J; Ellison,
Christopher M; Krueskamp,Theresa A; mi+vesterineier@carmelciatparks.com;jason:lemaster@hamiltancounty.in.gov;
brooke.gajownik@hamiltoncounty.in:gov;jason.kickman@mybrighthouse.com; shirley.hunter@duke-energy.com;
gary.mcnamee@duke-energy.com;jlclark@vectren:com; dan.davenport@aes.com; duane.whiting@veoliawaterna.cam;
rfarrand@ccs.ki2.in.us; ryan.hartman@ctrwd.org; troy.yackle@sug.com; doland.w.wise@usps;gov;,sk498b@att.com
Ce: Nicely, Philip; Calderon,Joseph; baker7386@att.net; tharch2@cs:com; afetahagic@structurepoint.com;
msmith@structurepoint.com; Hancock, Ramona B '
Subject: Carmel TAC Committee
Dear Carmel TAC Committee Mem6ers:
Attached.please find copies of the filings made in connection with the proposed rezoning of the SEG of 146m-5treet and
Towne Road. Most pertinenf to you will be"9900ak-13b 071911.ZIP",whieh contains the Conceptual De�elopment Plan,
and"201100268.SV.2011-07-13.ACTA.PRO FORMA.146T"-T01NNE.pdY',which is the-survey of the property.'Paper copies
of these two(2)documents will also be mailed to those of you who have listed "paper"as your plan'submittal
preference.
This project will be on the 1Nednesda.y,August 17th meeting agenda of the Technical Advisory`Committee.
Thank you. �
Steven B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Bose McKihney&Evans LLP � www:boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 270Q � Indianapolis,Indiana 4620A
SGranner@boselaw.com ( P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304 '
Assistant Contact � Staeey R.Cleveland J SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317=223-0197
. 1
Granner, Steven �
From: Greg Iiko <giiko@crossroadengineers.com> �
Sent: Tuesday,August 02, 2011 8:57 AM
To: Granner, Steven
Cc: � aconn@carmel.in.gov; Gary Dunean;Greg Hoyes
Subject: RE:Carmel 7AC Committee
Steven,
I received the hard copy information in the mail this morning—thank you. At this time, ! have no comments with
regards to the rezoning petition. At such time when detailed construdion plans and drainage calculations are available;
I wili require one full size hard copy of both delivered to my attention for review. Please note that these submiftals
should be prepared in conformance with The City of Carmel's Stormwater Technical Standards Manual.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Ilko, P.E. �
CrossRoad Engineers, PC
3417 Sherman Drive
Beech Grove, IN 46107
Office: 317-780-1555 ext. 112
Mo bi le: 317-408-3609
Fax: 317-780-6525.
� From: Granner,Steven [mailto:sgranner@boselaw.com]
Sent: Monday, August Ol, 2011 2:45 PM �
To: Aconn@carmel.in.gov; awold@carmel.in.gov; dmindham@carmel.in.gov; dlittle}ohn@carmel.in.gov;
wakers@carmel:in.gov; dhufFinan@carmel.in.gov;jthomas@carmel.in.gov; greg.hoyes@hamiltoncounty:in.gov;
gilko@crossroadengineers.com; gduncan@carmel.in.gov; nredden@carmel.in.gov; david:lucas@hamilfoncounty.in.gov;
wholt@carmel.in.gov;jblanchard@carmel,in.gov;jduffy@carmel.in.gov; tgreen@carmel.in.gov; cellison@�rmel.in.gov;
tkrueskamp@cacinet:in.gov; mwestermeier@carmelclatparks:oom;jason.lemaster@hamiltoncounty.in.g�v,
brooke.gajownik@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;jason.kirkman@mybrighthouse.com; shirley.hunter@duke-energy:com,
gary.mcnamee@duke-energy.com;jlclark@yectren.com; dan.davenport@aes.com; duane.whiting@veoliawaterna.com;
rfarrand@ccs.kl2.in:us; ryan.hartman@ctrwd.org; troy.yackle@sug.com; doland.w.wise@usps.gov; sk4986@att.com
Cc: Nicely, Philip; Calderon, Joseph; baker7386@att.net; Iharch2@cs.com� afetahagic@structurepoint.com;
msmith@structurepoint.com; rhancock@carmel.in.gov
Subject: Carmel TAC Committee �
Dear CarmelTAC Committee Mem6ers: �
Attached please find copies of the filings made in connection with the proposed rezoning of the SECof 146t''Street and
Towne Road. Most pertinent to you will be "9900ak-13b 071911.ZIR",which contains the Conceptual Development P1an,
and "20T100268.SV.2011-07-13.ALTA.PRO FORMA.146T"-TOWNE:pdY';which is the survey of the property.. Raper copies
of these two (2)documents will also be mailed to those of you who have listed "paper" as your plan subrriittal ,
preference.
This project will be on the Wednesday,August 17`"meeting agenda of the Technica{Advisory Committee.
� i.
�r
Granner, Steven
From: Redden, Nick <nredclen@carmel.in.gov>
Sent: Tuesday,August 02, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Granner, Steven
' Subject: REs C.armel TAC Committee
Steve,
Piease send me paper copies.
Sincerely,
Nicic Redden
From:^Granner, Steven [mailto:sgranner@boselaw.com]
Sent: Monday,August 01, 2011 2:45-PM
To: Conn,Angelina V; Donahue-Wold,Alexia K; Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David 1N; Akers, William P; Huffman, David;
Thomas,John G; greg.hoyes@hamiltancounty.in.gov; gilko@crossroadenglneers.com; puncan, Gary R; Redden, Nick;
david:lucas@hamiltoncounty.in.gov; wholt@.carmel.in.gov; Blanchard,Jim.E; Duffy, John M; Green,Timathy J; Ellison,
Christopher M; Krueskamp,Theresa A; mwesfermeier@carmelclatparks.com;jason.lemaster@hamiltoncounty:in.gov;
brooke.gajownik@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;jason.kirkman@mybrighthouse.com; shirley.hunter@duke-energy.com;
gary.mcnamee@duke-energy.com;j{clark@vectren.com; dan.davenport@aes.com; duane.whiting@veoliawaterna.com;
rfarrand@ccs:kl2.in.us; ryan.hartman@ctrwd.org; troy.yackle@sug.com; dolarid.w.wise@usps.gov; sk4986@atf.com
Ce: Nicely, Philip; Calderon,Joseph; baker7386@att.net; Iharcliz@cs.com; afefaF►agic@structurepoint.com;
msmith@structurepoint.com; Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Carmel TAC Committee
Dear Carme)TAC Committee Memberss
Attached please find copies of the filings made in connection with the proposed rezoning of the SECof`146"'Streetand
Towne Road.Most pertinent to you will be"99QOak-13b d71911.ZIP",which containsthe Coneeptual Development Plan,
and "201100258.SV.2011-07-13.ALTA.PRO FORMA.146"'-TOWNE.pdY',which is the survey of the property. Paper copies
of these two (2)documents will also be mailed to those of you who have listed"paper" as your plan submittal
preference.
This project will be on the Wednesday, August 17`h meeting agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee.
Thank you.
Steven B.Granner,AICP 1 Zoning Consultant
Bose McKinney&Evans LLP ( www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 27Q0 ( Indianapolis, lndiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com ( P 317-684-5304 ( F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Stacey R.Gleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317223-0197
i
Granner; Steven
From: Granner, Steven
Sent: Tuesday,AugusC 02, 2011 11:30 Aivl
To: Ellison, Christopher M
Subject: RE:Carmel TAC Committee
The items(isfied below,which I have highlighted in red,were rnaiied ta you yesterday. Do you need something other
than those two pians mailed?
Ste�en B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Base McKinney&Evans LLP � www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle �Suite 2700 ( Indianapolis,Indiana 462Q4
SGranner@bosetaw.com ( P 317-684-5304 { F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact f Stacey R.Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 ! F 317-223-0197
From: Ellison, Ghcistopher M [mailto:CEllisan@carmel.in.gov] "
Sent: Tuesday,August 02, 2011 8:53 AM
To: Granner, Steven
Subject: RE: Carmef TAC Committee � �
Be advised the Carmel Fire Dept. requires hard copy too scale drawings to be submitted on all projects.
RespectFully,
Capt. Chris Ellison
Deputy Fire Marshal
Carmei Fite Dept.
2 Civic.Square
Carmei, IN 46032
317-571-2621
Fram: Granner, Steven [mailto:sgranner@bose[aw:com]
Sen#: Monday,August 01, 2:011 Z:45 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Danahue-W.old, Alexia K; Mindharr2, Daren; Littlejohn, David'W; Akers, William P;.Muffman, David;
Thomas, John G; greg:hoyes@hamiltoncounty:in.gov; gilkoC�a crossroadengineers.com; Duncan, Gary R; Redden,Niek;
david.lucas@hamiitoncounty.in,gov; wholt@carmef:in:gov; Blanchard,]im E; Duf€y,John M; Greert,Timothy J; Ellison,
Christopher M; Krueskamp, Theresa A; mwestermeiec@carmelclatparks.eom; jason.lemaster@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;.
brooke.gajownik@hamiltoncounty.in,gov;jason.kirkman@mybrighthouse.com; shirley.huntec@duke-energy.mm;
gary.mcnamee@duke-energy.cqrn;jlclark@vectren.cam; dan.davenport@aes.com; duane.whiting@veo(iawaterna.com;
rfarrand@ccs.kl2.in:us; ryan.hartman@ctrwd.org; troy.yackle@sug.com; doland.w.wise@usps.gov;.sk4986@att.com
Cc: Niceiy, Philip; Calderon,Joseph; 6aker7386@att.net; Iharch2@cs.com; afetahagic@structurepoint.com;
msmith@structucepoint.com; Hancock, Ramona B
Subje�t; Carmel TAC Committee .
Dear Garmel TAC Committee Members:
1
�,
Granner, Steven
From: Ellison,Christopher M <CEflison@carmel.in.gov> .
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 11:35 AM
70: Granner, Steven
, Subject: RE:Carmel TAC Committee
I will review what has been mailed once I receive it and let you know if I need any additional info.
Respectfully,
Capt. Chris EI(ison
Deputy Fire Marshal
Carmel Fire Dept.
2 Civic Square .
Carmel, IN 46Q32
317-571-2621
. From: Granner, Steven jmailto:sgrannec@boselaw.com]
Sent:Tuesday, August 02, 2011 11:30 AM '
To: Eilison, Christopher M
Subject: RE: Carmel TAC Committee
The items listed below, which I have highlighted in red,were mailed to you yesterday. Do you need something other
than those two plans mailed?
Steven B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Bose McKinney&Evans LLP ( www.boselaw.com
1'il Monument Circle { Suite 2700 � Indianapolis;Indiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Stacey R.Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com { P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
From: Ellison, Christopfier M [mailto:CEflison@carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:53 AM
To: Granner, Steven
Subject: RE: Carrnel TAC Committee
Be advised the Carmel Fire Dept. requires hard copy too scale drawings to be submitted on all projecfs.
Respectfully,
Capt. Chris Ellison
Deputy Fire Marshal
Carmel Fire Dept.
2 Civic Square
Carmel, !N 46Q32
. 1
Granner, Steven
From: tittlejohn, David W <dlittlejohn@carmeLin:gov>
Sent: Friday,August 12,2011 10:27 AM
To: Granner, Steven
Cc: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Alt Trans TAC comments -CoCo Commons
Attachments: CoCo Commons PUD.doc;CoCoCommons jpg
Steve,
Attached isa comment letter concerning the alternative transportation review for the CoCo Commons project. I also
attached an illustration of where sidewalk and path facilities are recommended on the site. Please feel free to contact
me with any questions or concerns you may have,
Sincerely,
David Littlejohn, AICP
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Sq �
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571-2306
�j Nteacf consider the e.nvironzncnt before princin�thi�e-mail
1 •
i;
����
J °F Cq9
O� �<�a 0
v
. � � � s4� 1
y p"
�.',y `�
.��oN �o.
�"/.�i'
August 9, 2011 .
Mr. Steve Granner
Bose McKinney&Evans LLP
' 111 Monument Circle ste 2700
Indianapolis,Indiana 46204 �
RE: CoCo Commons PUD(a?,.SEC_of 146`h St and Towne Rd
Dear Mr. Granner; �
The following_letter represents;comments for this project specificall'y adciressing the area of
alternative transportation. I have reviewed the drawings submitted for the August 17,2011
Techn.ical Advisory Cominittee meeting,and commerits from the Alternative Transportation and '
. offer the following com�nents:.
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPQRTATION REVIEW COMMENTS
l) . The Cityof Carmel Parking Qrdinance�requires that all commercial and retail venues
include bicycle parking. Bicycle parking spaces are required at a rate of five (5)
bicycle parkirig spaces per one hundred(i 40j autoinobile parking spaces and must be
within fifty(50)feet of the main entrance of each building. Please see the Cit�r of
Carmel's Parking Ordinance in order to determine appropriate locations, specifications
and construcrion details for the above.
2) The City of Carmel's Subdivision Control Ordinance requires a 5' sidewalk along both
sides of a11 interior streefs. Piease revise the plans to reflect tl�is.
3) Please connect all inteinal sidewalks to each other and adjacent properties and pravide �
direct pedestrian access to each building. Please see the attached iilustration for
recommended locations and revise the plans to reflect these changes.
4) Please indicate,ADA compliant handicap ramps at all crossings.
We request that all responses tp our comments be provided in�vriting. Failure to provide written
responses may result in delay of the review process.
It is critical thatthis�office be made aware of all modification made on the plans being re-
submitted, particularly if any such changes are considered"new"or fall outsi'de.of our previous
.reviews. Please provide revised plans indicating all revisions. Please notify us of any changes
Page I
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARI�TEL,INDIt1NA 46032 317/571-2417
and specifically state any changes, including changes resulting fi•om Plan Commission, Special
Studies or other committee meetings.
The Department of Community Services reserves the right to provide additional cotnments based
on subsequent reviews.
If you have questions, piease contact me at 571-2417.
Sincerely,
David Littlejohn
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
cc: Angie Conn, Department of Community Services
Engineering Department Review
Project File
Page 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CAR1e1EL,TNDI?,NA 46032 317/571-2417
f:r
- I ; j ° ;�� � � �� ' '�i €s guor�moa o,�o,� ;
� J� �� d ' � �� � �•��
;
.
:
� r x�'n � � ;} �4 P I , . l
�_______��_I , ' `
:--. � .._._...._......... -�-•-:- - . . .
�- � - �` � . . . . . . .
i �ti � g +
�'..�� t.� +e � o d?�� ' : � _ !P'���b'i�h9 .. � , .
� �.�� s k �- {y �j'„ .s-e����a-�e-s�am�.sa�aF'wM7��qp��mklsmlasr�m�nomma•�s ,
. ����i.l� � � I ��@�� S S•�C � �t •� � �Z � �J 3�'
! � . � � i . _.. :._ _ � � ,y�t s�
���'� � � � ���< � <
I(� � � � � �� , q �'� .t;�' i :�"� l. ', � `
�`��i I r����� � �� � .__` �------. 4 � .��'_`__ o
s��l, � � k��s�� ; _� :� i �� _... �_._ _� � #
; � , � .,
��w{+ � �� ' ����� ' I g ;� � t � f.
Z ;t ���'�� a V ` � ` — o s
,� e a j
f I '1 � � � �� ��� � o� � E .�=coo'gt � = g ,.
� � �
���i� � � � �� � a� :, � ; ; ' `.a„ -, --� I . �`.
iI � ►- � � �� � "�;Z =�#. f n.;a�o�� . � �� _;
d p t � �F � 'i 8
;�:e� : 0 =; • :� � - ,
'.
f�..._..«.._..._�.�._.......___._.v._._� .... ._. �... q . �. _
� , t. �
� ` � ' _—_ _ — � �
. 1 , _._, � ! .
. � • f : _. ._-=i. ' ., = . I �� _. ` t . .
; � ' Q f �
� ;{ i � q �'
' - � 4 . � �� ;:r ,y
�F
, <I � C—� C=_� C`� �1 C-� !^� C� , �
� � 7 :'_:_ �-, � - __, , - _ ;
� . �� - -- =�-_- _- � -- -- —_ -_ ' o f �.
}.. :� ._ � � .
� � . _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ � _
� ��r� Q - __ : _ .. : 4 �
� .� � _ _ , _ _ _ � �
r'• � iT �� ,-�-; _ - ` r--� ' � —. . ` c �
� .� e �._� C- � C.� � .... � - _ - - - �I .�
ui b -�- ' C :� '� €�_:� ° �� �
�� �,; : ,� � - � -- -- - _ � � ---`-� I � � .
�� �� # :. . -- - _:,.-_, , _ � ,� . : u ..,
�� � ;� l o -- � =+— - � :�;..__' . �
�4� , _ '
. � � a� „' t
�i�`N . �� ' �� �..._....J l:�J � �/ - ( r� � I �m �a
��� O � . �� � y � t �, ; � � �
.�:m �/ /� . 6 p
Q � ---�
�'c�v Q t '� � l. 1: �f--r_..,�. C.____.._.� - � 4, ! `�.,� i :.� 6 ,�, '
�I i i -�� � �
� � t ,�. i i „_� .j�^-..�"R �.'?�. � Ci .q
x --- - , •
� ..' '
O m ::, ( �: r� E .;:� � d�.:� . , : m �-f
� t i_ `. _., � tr � ,E � c x
> i�';:': E-� , � � r i
� ;�� � �35 OG�LI F i � e , � S �.
�- � 6 ' � i,, ' ` � ` �#�. /��
N _.r�ay.� fo. . � L .�.�.y:�._P._ . , ` ' . . .p . \r ,t (�y�. �
� ��?{ � . � �y fi�: �'�i,� 1
l. S f.3�F . �:� � j - _.-t.....�. --r• . ' . .::. ' .f ``, � � 1W }:4
� _ -^-� " \L/
�� :SC-,-r' : , �. � _ _�?�e. � l.i _`'s,�i�_..J . s\' .i-, `�' -t S :�' � ':
� CV } .0 , i j'�'ti +.� i� , �.
� ' _ , �� �7 ��� � '':\� .. �` � �.
�— — : '� e :d
� l : _ � �._W . ,:� F v .; ;; , ;
� ::: ,
=�- �_� � , ` I
� = � �-- � ' _��
F` ? � � , �_�..J' l� ,/ .� _____ ; :
e t. -------°— ' ��
f�'f �
- e i.I f�.J -�-' � �i�., i� r--�— -'-'- -- '� , i
� - - :�,1�
. � _ ._ � : _
; � .
.. i
� � �.. �+ .� . , �
� ` -`- ��'�:��=�. -. _ ,: � .,�.
' � . ... �� • - • �' � ���'
, �- �a;
• � ��<� .i:
F ; .j ' ... .� ' . ... ... � � ° y '' � ' {�� .
A �
� 1 Y i � '' -��.�.�
� . ,. ,
' � .K • i s � .
: : { � ,.a� ��� t�, � �- .
i �- �
� � x}
. � .... -. t� ■ � �� � . ... ':s.�'�;?� .
., . , .. �
,
. i, ,
� ' ��=�, � �`� " E� �:�.�1�
. . : ' �•- �•«_.....__....__.._.-.--.,.,.... - "u:tf+6i�s+3-L•Pr�Sri� o ss��.s�Y1.
_ '•:'h
�
� .. � ..
. " ' :. . ass� -'�P�Y '"� � ..
: . . . . . . .. .
. . .. �. . ' .. . . .
, . �
� . . . . ' . .. ... ..
� - . .... . _ . .. .. , _
��'' _ '
.:':'.- .. . . .
. • . - — _. . . .
.....e. . ,. '. . ... . .. .�. ... .. . . . . . � \ �j�� �p .
»_T.,�.
. ,�.. . . . . .. _ .__ .:: . . . . �1��1� _1.*�3.• 1��ill�� V7a�—v��"•�•"'
� a ��
�
j ',: ;:.
i
, �� j
� ��'1 c^�.�i'lr��.��
1 �
s ��;
g-
r`Y� :t`�" i _ '
V`Z+HS � �.K A .
��� ����� �, �� . ��
August }6,201 I '
�t1iYlES �RA[N9RU, MAY(OIt
Mr.Steven B.Granne�-
Bose,McKinney,&.Evans,LLP
l 11 Manument Circle,Suite 2700
]ndianapolis,TtJ 46204
RE: Coco Commons-Project Reriew#1
UeaT Mr.Granner:
The Cit}received your preliminary devclopment-plan on At�gusr 2,201 i. The praject is scheduled.for
revie�v at the August l7,2011 Technical Advisory Committee meecing. We.offer khe following comments:
GENERAL IIVRORMATION
1. These comments represent the Department of Engineering's first revie�+-of the preliminary
developmenc p}an far this project.
2. We re9uest that ail responsas to our comrnents be pro<<ided in���iting ar,d be accpmpanied by �
a dra��ing reflecting the requested revisions. �'ailure ta provide written responses ntay result
in the de)ay of fhe review pmcess.
3. It is critical thac this affice be made aware of a11 modifications made on ttie plans being re•
submitted,particularly if any such changes are coi�sidered"nev�"or fail autside of our
previous revie�is. Alease provide revised plans including all revisions. Alease natify us of
any changes and specifieally state any ctianges;including changes resuiring from Ptan
Co�mnission,BZA or other committee tneetings.
4. We have engaged Crossroad.Engineers,PC to review all drainage plai�s and drainage
caicu4ations submitted to'this office for review. If you have iiot ah•eady done so,please
provide a set of drainage pians and calculations to their affice for review. We wi(I share
Crossroad's corn�nenis as they are received.
5. Final drawings wi11 not 6e approved for construction until:
� a. All Engineering Deparhnent and Utility Departrnent and I-iamilton Count}�Surveyor
issues have been resoived.
b. Ali bonds and perfonnance guarantees are posted.
c. All Board of Pubiic Woi•ks and Safety approvals and any other governing agency
approvals{if required)are obtained.
d. Ali off-site easements necessary to install atilities to serve the develupment are secured.
e. S WPPP is approved.
f. f111 fees are paid.
6. The Deparhttent reserves the right to provide additiQna)comtnents based ugon subsequent
reviews.
7. An approved Storm Water Management Permit is required prior to commencing any earth
disturbing activity. Please contact Mr.John Thomas regardin�storm waterquality
requirements.
8. An approveci right-of-�vay pennif is required prior to commencing any work in the public
ri�hr-of-way. •
9, If it will be necessary to relocate existin�utilities,che costs far such relocation sha)i be bome
solely by tfte developer. Any utility poles requir;ng reloc.ation sltall be relacated to�vieliin
one-foot of the outside ecige of the proposed right-of-way.
10. The Deparcment requires that the construction dra��ings be developed in accordance with the
City of Carmel digital sub�nissio�i standards and d�at TII required submitfa{s for primary piat,
UEYART?v7f.��'ON �NGf7�'L•�ftIi�TG
O�e Crvic Sai�a�te, t;,axntc[., IN �[6032 C}FE'I(:'ti .�J��I.S%1.?��F�. ;�AX.��l.S�1.Z439
F:�iAIL enbiaeNring�?+c;trincl.in;qo��
��
Mr.S�even B.Gi�nner
Au�ust 16,2011
RE: Coco Commons-Aroject Review�r(
� Page 2 of 4 '
second"ary,plac,and coiurr►icaion cii�awings be made. The digital �les must be submitted to
ihe Dzparlment of E��gineering prior to the approval ot'the construction plans. Please contact
the Cit}�G1S Departnient�for the requirements.
1 L °.iurisdictions:
a: '1'he pruject site is lncated within currenr.City af Garmel Corpot-ate�.imits.
b. Pcrinieter Sirect�ntl,Rigtit-of-Way—Citv of.�armel{Towne'Road),Hazi�ilton Caunt.y
� (i 46`b Street).
c. Water—CiNofCarmel Utilities .
d. Sanitar��5e�vers=-Clay To4vnship Regianal Waste Uisu-iet
e. Storm SewersJDrainage—City of Carmel.
. f. l.egal Draiiis-Hamilton Gounty S�irveyor's Office.
� 12. Drawings subinitted for approval:
a: The desi�n enaineer must certify a1I drawings submitted#o�•�nal app��oval.
b. This�ffice will require 9 sets of drawings for approval.after a}l.issues.:h�ave been �
resolved. Tlae drawings�vill be stamped as approved and signed by the Citjr Engineer
andby Gartriel Utilities. The Ovsmer wilf receive 3 sets;one of which mi�s�t he maintained
on the construction site at sll times, If this projecf is subjecf to rcview�and approval by .
tl�e Hamilton Cou»ty 5wveyor's(3ff'ice,a#otal of l 1 sets will be required for final
approval.
I;. Canne(Utilities wilt provide.separate reviews of this<project for water issues. Please assure
that copies of a!1 cira�vinga are sent to;
Paul Pace Paut Arnone
Carmcl Ltilities Distribution Carmet Utilities Golleetiom
3450 West l3Ys`Street 901 North Range Lir►e Road
Westfield,IN 46074 Carmel,TN 46Q3Z
14. Cr�ime) UtiliYies subsc�ibes ro"Holey Moley"who should be contacted directly for al.l�vater
inain locations:
15. The follo�ving ifeins wil!be sent electronically upon request regarding this correspondence
�nd project:
T. Project Apj�roval Checklisi
b: Perfcirma�icelMa.intenance Guararstees
c. 1)tility Jurisdictians/Right of Way Permits
d. Avaitabilif,�(acreage)Fees
BOARI)OF PUBLI�WORKS AND SAFETY
16. A schedule for E3aarci of PuGlic Vdorks and Safety tneetin�;dates and ag;enda deadlines will be
seni electronically far your use upon requesi. Please use the Engineerin�Departmeni
deadl'mes#'ar`submissions to'the Board.
17. Auy subasission to the 8c�ard requires priar flpproval by the Carme!Clay Ptan
Gomutission and/or t6e Roard of Zoning AE�peals(if appficable)and completioa of
�eyiew b}�the Technical Advi.gory Commrttee. All h-ritten requests to be ptaced on the
. Board's agenda must include the appropria2e Docket Numher and the date(or dates}of
approva!'by the Plan Commission andJor the Board of Zonii►g Appeals(if applicable):
18. Water Availabitity and Sanitary Sewer approval fi•nm the Board wiN be reyuired'. This is an
EDU 1p�imval based upon the proposed usc of tl�e site. Reference atems#33 to#33 below
for adtlitioi�al detaifs/e�plaiiations. Please nofe th�t if an entry�t�ay or other irrigation
s)�stem is planned for�fl�is development.,additianal Water Av.ailabitity Ap�roval from
tl►e Board�r�ill I�e required anc�ndditioual Water Connecfio►e Fees wil!ue assessed b�sed
apon the size�nd usage of the system as determined b�"the Director of Carmel Utilifies.
19. Commercia!Curb Cut A�proval. P.lease pravide 8'/x 1 l exhibits tivith#he 3•equest i'or
approval, Prov.i�e all peitine3it information including lane widd�s,overaIl'wi�ith,radii,lane
markii�gs,location otopp�sing drives or st��eets,relationship to the location of previous curb
cut,etc.
Mr.Steven B.Gras�ner
Au�ust 16,2011
RE: l.oco Comfnans-Praject Review�+l
Patre 3 of 4
20. Temporary Construction Entrance Appmval. A construction entrance isn't cun•ently shown
on the development plan;one���ill.be required on the consb•uction plans.
2 L The i�ista(lat+o�t of any pern�aneait,pcivate.ly o�med and.'ar maintained improvement(sib�s,
decoraCsve street signs;�valls,sYreetlights,etc.}wiihin dedicated right�f�vay or dedicatecl
easenients requires the eaecution c�f a�onsent to F..ncroach Aaree�nenf beh�reen the Uwner
and the City oi'Cannei.Such agreements are executed by the Board.of Publie Works and
Safery. 1'he Ci�y EngiTieer may approve irri�ation system agc•eeme�Sts. .
22. Secondaiy Plat approvai if applicable. All perfot7nance guarantees miist be}�osted pi'ior to
submissio;�of secondary plats for Buard of Pubtic Works atid Safcty approval.
23. Dedicacion of right-of-way if not platc�d. This is based upan the City of Cani�el 20-Year
Thorou�hfare Plan requirements. DedicaGion.dacument,are available upan request. Piease
be advised that all Right-of-VJay Dedications musi be accompanied by a Sales Disclosure,
Asreement compleced by the o�vner for the properry being dedieated to the City. The
dedication dociiment caiinot be recorded.vithout a completed Sales Diselosure. "Ci�e form is
available upon request.
2�t. Any c�pen pavement cuts of Tow�ne Roac�,other than tl�ose rec�uired for the curb and�nedian
• ctits; will require Boa►-d:a}�proval.
BON.DiNG RBOUIREMENTS
25. Piease contact Mr.Dave Barnes tA rev�eH>perforn�ance guaraz�tee requirements. Pfease
coiitact Mr..iohn D�ffy Ca revie4v�vater and sanitary se�ver bonding require�uents.
26. The ainount of thc Perfoi�mance Civarantee is based upon a ceriified Engineer's Estiinate f'or
100%ofihe cost of7abor anei�naterials to constructthe individual improvemenis,,co be
provided by t:i�e design engineer. Please provicle detailed fin�ineer's Estimates for each
. im}�ro�ement including c�uantities,uni�costs,pipe sizes,und materials,eYc.
27. Upon completion and release of individual Performance Guarantees,a threeyear
Maintenance Guarantee will be reyuired(see Sh�eet Si��comments above}. The
Maintenance Guaraittee aTnount is based upon 15%of the Perfonnance amount for Streets
�nd Cl�rbs and 10%of tl�e Perforn�aneQ amotutt for all oUier i�nprovemei�ts.
28. Perfonnance Guarantees may be Perfonnance or SuUdivision Bonds ar 3rrevocable Letters of '
Credit.
29. Please reference the availabfe enclosures for more detailed explanation.of aur procedw•es.
Et1GHT OF WAY PEI2MIT AIVD B��DING
30. Any work in the dedicated richt-of-tivay��ill require an approved Right-of-Way Pennit and a
I.icense&Penr�it Boi�d.
31. The bond vnount is determined by our Right-of-Way Manager. Ho�vever,iEtlte�vork is
included in dle scope of work nf a required and posted f'ertonna�lce Civarantee,the
Perfonnance Guarantee�nay be used to satisfy the boaid requirements of tfie Right-of Way
Fes�rnit.
�2, Ylease contact otir Right-of-VJay ivlanager,I'red Glaser,to arrange i•i�f�t-of-way permittil�g
' and lionding.
AVAILABILITY AND C01�'1�ECTION FEES
33. We defer to Carmel Utilities l�egardina this issue.
34. tf an et►try�vay or overall site irrigation systeni is ptanned for tf�is development,
additional Water ConnecfiamFees wiU be xssessed t�ased upon the sir,e and usage of fhe
system and,upon the recommendations oCtite Birecfor of Carmel tJtilifies.
• 35. These fees are required xo be paid pria�•to final approva[of construction plans by
Gn�ineerin�and prior to issuance oFbuifdingJ�zi7nits by F3uildiny Codes Services. Please
co��tirm these fees a�ul calculations i�ith Carmel Utilities.
��:
Mr. Ste��eri B.Gra�uier
August 1 G;:2411
R�: C.oco Commons-f'i•oject Revie�v�I
Page 4 of 4 •
CONSTRUCT[ON DRAWING REVIEVV COMMENTS
ab. Geiieral Camments
., a. This project is s�iliject to the Ciry's Starm Water iVlanasement and Stonn Water Qualiry
Urd inances.
b. Fiease add the follo�ving note to the dra�vings: "IF]T WILL BF,N�CESSA.RY TO
ftELOCATE EXISTING UTIL1TiES;`THE EXAENSE QF SUCH REI.(.)C'ATI(?N
SHA1.I,BE THF RESPONSl$IL1Tl'OF TNE DEVELOPER.:ALL UTIt.ITY POLES
SHALI,BE LOCATED WTTHIN ON�FUOT OF THE AROPOSED R1GHT-OP-
WAY."
37. Please add note stating"]�O EAR'T'H Di5'TURBING ACTIVITY MAY COMMENCE
W1THC)U�'AN APYROVED 5TURM WATER MANA�GMEN7'(��KM1"l"ta construction
set.
38. All swales on site_must have sub-surface pipe instalted. Pipe fo confoi�n ro requirements of
Storm��ater Teci�i�ical Standards Manual and shall be dou6le wail;Ht-Q F�ipe.
If you l�ave questions,please contaci me at�71-244 i.
Sincerely, '
f �j �� �,�
.._..--"'%�,.frr,c��r�.C'-'-`-L�°�-'�^• '-�",/'�/�.l��'-✓ "_.C.�y`..'+ .
L .P.
E
Nicholas l.Redden,P:6. ,
Plan Revie�v Coordinator
Departrnent of Engineering
ec: Anaeliria.Cnnn.Depai-tmenc of Conununity Services
�
� lolui Uuffy,Carn�el Utilities
Patil ['ace,Carinel Uti)ities
Paui Arnone,Carmel EJtilities '
Greg Hoyes,}-lamitt�n County Suiveyor's O�ce
Greg llko;Crossroad Engineers, RC
issvfappsluser deta`•z:`,hued\Df I II.L�PHO.�ltEV 1��CUCOCO�IN�ON5KEYi�1
Granner,Steven
From: Greg R. Hoyes <Greg.Hoyes@hamiltoncounty:in.gov>
Sent: Wednesday,August 17, 2011 8:04 AM
To: Granner, Steven
Cc: Angie Conn; Dave Barnes; David E. Lucas;Gary Duncan;Greg IIko;lohn Thomas
Subject: CoCo Commons Review Letter
Attachments: Granner 8-17-11 PUD review letter.pdf �
Mr. Granner
Attached is my review letter for the CoCo Commons PUD. If you have any questions, please let me know.
C� ����1�.�, CLC, �,'��'1�, C'.�1't;SC',
Plan Reviewer
Hamilton Gounty Surveyor's Office ,
One Hamifton County Square .
Suite 188
Noblesville, IN. 46060
Phone: (317)776-8495
Fax: (317) 776-9628
Greg.Hoyes _hamiltoncounty.in.qov
Website:www.hamiltoncountv.in.gov
� 1 .
If
,,. U��JEYOR'S p�F
.�• 'y ::�. :�� ?�"� '���, � � �'--< !C� - {' C`�
. �.-: � - ti; :.-, � ..
��� t �`- �\ �-�.t ��'.i�
� �� ,� �; ��� E�'C .�1 -��- �� r��� �'��)j., -.�.�t��
� u _
��.� � - �. . - _ _ - _ - .- �
_ `��t' `� " _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - � _ _ , _ _ _ :(�a �.,.ti<
� f ' � zi�� i�` " � t, `.J
i°� ; ,`� � � . ,_--; �. ' <��' �� _� � <<, ��,�
, , , <�--�'t-- ` �`_��._ � � � :�;�.v
�r� '� ,,� ,, ��;�� ._....�_-.-�� t�`�,=.� � '. i - ,`�. _�_ �� c.�,
� : , .
��,� � - ,�- -� � ��'�� c��
�c �,r. :� . .
'� � � ,7Centan C. `lvard, C'F:7vt
����.
- Suite r88
Surveyor a f,7-farnilton County One.Namilfon County Sc�uare
, 'i'tione(3t7)776-3gqs .T`oblesvi��e, Irtdiana �6o6o-2z3o
rFaz 13i7�776-9628
August 17, 2011
� Bose McKinney&Evans, LLP
ATIN: Steve Granner
171 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204 �
VIA E-MAIL: SGranner@boselaw.com
RE: CoCo Commons PUD � .
Dear Mr. Granner
We have reviewed the PUD submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Of�ce on August 1,
ZOl l, for this project and have the following comments:
1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the City of
� Carmel.
2. The proposed project DOES NOT fall in a City of Carmel Wellhead Protection Zone.
3. The proposed project falls in the Williams Creek Regulated Drain Watershed,via the
O.F. Henley Regulated Drain.
4. The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no comments regarding the PUD.
5. Please submit complete construction plans and drainage calculations to this office
when they become available.
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317-776-$495.
Sincerely, �
� .�
�
Greg Hoyes, AC,CFM,CPESC
Plan Reviewer
CC: Angie Corin—Carmel D4CS,John Thomas—Cai�nel Engineering,Dave Lucas-HCHD
Dave Barnes=Carmel Engitteering,Greg Ilko—Crossroad Engineers
Conn, Angelina V - �
Frqm:, Granner, Sfeuen.[sgranner@boselaw.com]
Sent: Friday, September°02, 2011 1:46 PM
T.o: Conn, Angefina V
, Cc: Hansock, Ramona B; baker7386@att.net; mbaker@penskeauto.motive:com; Nicely, Philip;
Calderon, Joseph;;afetahagic@strucfurepoint.com; april@leechhensleyarchitects.com
Subject: Docket No. 11070022 Z
Angela,
We wish to table Docket No. 11070022 Z,w.tiich is scheduled for hearing on September 20`h. Among other things, we stil)
' have unresolved issues with County H.ighway,that will not be resolved in ticne to meet the September 9t'' deadline for
packet submission.At this point, we fully antici;pate going forward at the Ocfober Plan Gommission meeting. � �
Thus,,i will not be submitting responses today regardi"ng the Staff's prelimin_ary comrnents. Given the tabling, would you
please giue me a new deadline forour r,esponses? '
Thanks,
Steve
� :Steven B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant.
. Bose McKinney&Evans LLP � www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 27Q0 � Indianapo�lis,'lndiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Sfiacey R. Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-51'97 � F`317-223-0197
This me�saye ar�cl any atfachmeri�s�cnay contafi�fega!!y privil�ged rsr eonficiential�iriforrnafion, and are�in#entied orly fc�r
t�e indiviilual or entity idenii#ieci above as the adciressee.
:!f you ace nof the addresss�, or ifi#his messa;�e has been addr�ssed to you in etror, ytau are not author.ized ta read; capy,
or clistribu#E�h)s►�e�saeae anc:any�a�ae�iments, and we ask i3�ai you please d�le�e t�iis°message and�a�tac�men�s
�'snclu�Iin��l�ea�iies) �r�� notifiy�#h��s��cies_ £3-�Iir��ry�iq�F�is rr��ssa,z and:a�y.a�a�;�me�sts to-��ay�rs�n c►�},er tff�n fhe
. €�?:�',�a"�.':k�;5�:.�',�.b,r.:3�t�����a'�L'+�>i�''��'��t4�,:��'s'�'�`s`s�.�f;�53�a��3':��:: ��1?3:�'-'�?3'r�±a�����,r-g,:i�.°.,,,."�',§���..
Alf Rersonat rnessages.express:uiews.onCy of.the_individual.sender,_and may not be.copied.or.distributed 4vithout this
statement_
z
Conn, Angelina V
From: Duncan, Gary R
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3;25 PM �
To: 'sgranner@ boselaw.com'
Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Barnes, David R; David Lucas; Greg R. Hoyes;
'gilko@crossroadengineers.com'
Subject: CoCo Commons Review Letter (Engineering Dept. Gomments}
Good afternoon Mr. Granner,
Please find additional comments from the Department of Engineering below:
1. The submittal does not satisfy the requirements of Section 102.07 of the City's Storm Water Technical
Standards.
2. Please indicate how off-site water is being accommodated.
3. A 70-foot half right-of-way is requiretl alongthe frontage of Towne Road..
4. The plan needs to indicate the recent improvements to Towne Road as well as the County's future plans for
146`h Street.
` 5. We will need to discuss how the developer will comply with the requirements of Section 2.09 of the Zoning
Ordinance. .
6. All storm water runoff leaving the site shall be treated by a minimum of'two best management practices in
series.
7. City standard curbing is required forali'parking areas.
8. Please indicate the location of bicycle parking.
9. Has the County approved the proposed access points to the frontage road?Two of the proposed entrances are
only 300-feet apart.
10. Has a traffic study been conducted to identify is auxiliary lanes are neecled on the frontage road at the proposed
entrances?
11. All on-site best management practices shall be contained in easements per the Storm Water Technical
Stanctards. •
i2. �fii!t�e bui3c�ings�e siat�on grade or�n+i1t the�r f�ave�asernents:� .
P€�as�i��i�cat�€���t#r�i�a�e s�s���rs�s�€��a�t€srs tn��S��r�.�Sas��5�r��s�vra�trearn c��sac€��2��,v�ri,i��?
2�. Qoes the undergr��.�nd detent_ion systern pr�vicle detentio�for the f�.�lly c�e�Plt��ec!f��t +:nridth ri�ht-of-u��ay of the
perimeter roadways?
1�. Are at�sy tree preservatiot�or land�ca�ing eas�rrients p�c►�osed?
15. Please indicate the drive aisle widths as well as the widths of the proposed access points and return radii of the
entrances.
��h. �l�''t-�E.�e3i�'6Ti3�'fi�St�1��ilC'^�.�'C3�t3 L9'E6C�a�;"5�r'aiTC��3C3tijk'�2�t:i.'n'¢i�'+i��.Az'k�'&i3F�ai'vk,�ii'�i_�Fi�e QIk��CY�i t��..
�i. As actesl reiies�n€�-S�i:�€�nt�yo's eans€r�€etioa�e�i t'�e�rc�ntage ro�c�,c€�ns€r��cts�z��iil ,�€�t �e a`si��ed�o
E:!�s-i�s"i�4s�5'Sti'.'. .����tSi z.4.�: �..§f�'���k'ti�i'.:'s'� �bt����..:94§.'p�g"57.3�?.i.i§_ :_:,'�».�4�:r�:�..
Piease let me-know if you have any questions.
Thanks so much,
Gary R. Duncan,Jr., PE
Assistant City Engineer �
Cify of Carmel
Department of Engineering
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032 - �
(317) 571-2441 �
(317) 571-2439 (fax)
�duncan@carmel.in.�ov
� Ptease consider the environment before printing this e-mail
1
VEOLIA WATEI� CO. COMMENTS:
CARMEL TECHNICAL ADV�ISORY COMMITTEE �
AUG. 1�7 MEETING
Date: Weclnesday; Au�ust 17, 2011
Place: Dept. c�f Community Services Ccanference Roc�m, 3rc1 F1oor; Carmel City Hall.
Time: 9:OQ a.m.
9:00 a.m. (7) Docket No. 11070Q22 Z: CoCo Commons PUD @ SEC of 146`h/Towne.
The applicant Seeks approv�il to rezone 19 acres from S-1/Residence to PUD/Planiied Unit
Developmeirt, for a nei�hb��i•hou�i-scale commercial developmenl. The s.ite is located at the
southeast corner of 14.6`" St. and Towne Rd. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose MeKinney &
Evans LLP for Timothy Bakei•, owner. `
VEOLI�► WA►TER CO. COMMENTS: Veolia Water lndianapolis(Vwl) is�the contract�
operator forthe Indianaqolis Water (11M utili ,and assuch has reviewed the reauesf for the above
stated commercial development at the S.E.comer of W. 146m Street&Towne Road. IW has no
obiection#o this reQUest. Please also note IW does not serve the addressed site, it is inside the
, Carmel U6lities Service Territorv.
_ Pagelofl
WWW.CAIZ1vIEL:IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQ. CARMEL,IN 46032 (317)571-2417
\ . SURVEYOR,S pF�,jC
` - � �
�, -� `'�` '. � .
' �!�, �� 1� ,�' ` �' � _ - _ �� c)
' �� (`_1 - / �' �i�
� - s�`� ,�J G�,l. � 11� � ( �)./,�`�f��\�-���.. - -�;.��;`
� /y �;1 ���.i ,•. - _ _ _ _ _. �•z , ( _ \
' ' '�� ' - = _ ' � f� - - l �'�^
±� �.a, :�;��
� � F�� �\i Jl �t�},� - ' ,�!. — 3 � ��� `�`
< < I
���` 'ei� i'�r `��! � ' - -. ` `r�'' �J - . +� `\ ��' / (>�
�1� � . � - �i@m� \�� c.� � _ _ ���_ ��'..� /. \ .����� ,
i�� ��� , � �,. � � La .,.r�-. .- ,S -� ' ��� �..�
,"l , �� :��,? ��--� l cj�_ , �').J_ ��i��'"` _ e �
�: �,'�' , _ ��. ,
u
_: r��r�
�- -��� .� - .7Centon C. `]P1a..r,d, G�F.�Vf � -sut�e �b�
i �SuruPyoT o f.7-�Qmti�ton Coun(Y One.7-fdmiltvn County Square
�P�o�ie,(`3ri�i7�=-�495 �7�blesinfle, Iri�ivna ¢6o6o-zz3o
rfax (317�776-.g6z8
� August 17, 201 l
Bose IvlcKiiuley&Evans,I.LP
ATTN.: Steve Granner
l ll Monument Circle, Suite.2700
� Iildianapolis, IN 46204 ,
VI�E-MAIL: SGramier@boselaw.com
RE: CoCo Commons PUD
Dear 1VIr. Gran�ier
We have reuiewed the PUD st�bn�ifiteel to the Hainilton Cot2nty Stirveyoi's Office on August 1,
. 2Ql I,for this pt-nject and:have th'e followiilg comments:
I. �'he ��tc���.��eci prczject��I�s iia tl�e i��cc�r�c�ra�eci�re�.��p�c11vIS%�_jurisctictic���c�f the Cit}�c�f'
Carmei.
2. The p�•oposed project DCIES NOT fall in a Cify of Carirrel Wel4head Protectivn.Zone.
3. Tl�e�propc�sed project fa'lls in the��i'llia�ns Ci'eek Regulatecl Dr�aiil W�tershed, via the
O.F. Henle_y Reau'lated Drain,
4. The I�anailtor� C:c�tit�ty �u�veyc�t-'s�ffic.e}3as�1� coj7�T��e13ts rega�-clin�;tJ}e:PCTD.
5. Ple��e s{t������c�n�����ke cc�nst�•f�cti�r� ����as a��cJ �Ia-�s.r���Te::c�lc;���:�€f��.r�s tQ ���r���°fic:�
z ,
'OR��S��1' �is�-�"�t��,E7€���:.1Evt�t��3�'�a't:.
_J:�"f.�i1Lr.�!i�':L}.�i �e$'�,��e$31'�°.����z��i±a:3, i�:e$$i �3.'.-:'��L,r3�,�'v:f�,`e€��;��°�7�i-v=�t4�.�.
S iiicel'ely,
�
Greg H�yes� f1C, CFM;;CPESC.
Plan Revie��er
CC: At�gie Comi— Carmel DQCS, John Thomas—Carmel Ei�gineeri�lg, Dave Lucas - HCHD .
Dave Barnes—Carmel Engineering, Greg Ilko—Crossroad Eiigineers
Conn, Angelina:V
From: � Mindham, Daren
Sent: Tuesday;August 16, 2011 3:47 PM
Toc 'sgranner@ boselaw:com' �
Cc: Nicely, Philip; Calderon,Joseph; baker7386@att:net; Iharch2@cs.com;
afetahagic@structurepoint,com; msmith@structurepoint.com;�Conn,,Angelina V
Subject: FW: Carmel TAC Committee �
Atfachments:, PUD ORDINANCE.PDF; Treedefail-Carmel.pdf; Shrubdetail-Car.mel.pdf; Species Diversity for
� � Developments.pdf; Street Tree List.pdf; Evergreendefail-Carmel.pdf
Steven, - ,
The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I
have reviewed the PUD ordinance and offer the following comments:
URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS
1) Sect. 4.4:B.2.a: 0ur norrnal bufferyard requirement is for 5 shade trees, 5 ornamental trees and 27 shrubs
per 100 linear feet. Referencing the PUD greenbelt standard is not adequate.
2) Sect. 4.4.6.2.b: Our normal bufferyard requirement is for 5 shade frees, 5 ornamental trees and 27 shrubs
per 100 linear feet. Referencing-the PUDgreenbelt standard is not adequate.
3) Sect.4.4.6.2: The west bufferyard (15') is not noted along Towne Rd. Our normal bufferyard requirement is
for 5 shade trees, 5 ornamental trees and 27 shrubs per 100 linear feet.
4) Sect.4.4.B.3: it should note that a:continuous planting shall occur on allfour sides of the building.
S) Sect. 4.4:B,4: There should be standard plantings to screen exterior,parking from ail adjacent uses. This
narmal#y�nds of beirtg a raw o€evergreen s�rubs or��Se#ike�a screen cars and�Seaci4ights incl�ding a
sta�dard��o�t pla�ting s�c's�.
6} Sect.4.4.B.5: { am not sure wha�Area`A' is.
7) Sect. 4.4.C.1: Dimensions should have a width (shown) along with a length (NOT shown)
8} Seci.4.4.C.3.a: Our normal siax►darc!is 2.5"f�r shade trees
9) �ect.4.4.C.3.b: Q�r narmalstandard'is 2.0" fc�r ornamenta(trees
l�} Sect: 4.4.G: f woul�Iike io eii'�e.r nate or s�aw the s,�ec�es c�iv��siiv c:hart��zt�che�'�an t'he iarat�sc�r�ir�.�
s�as�as-�s aa-�a.�,#����ai�����ss��a���#���ts-��s��:.a�s�sa��k���:se€#��L�ru���.t������reet�"�e���s��F
ap�roved'by t1°rban�Fc�res�er.
11) Sect.4.4.D.1: I would like wording that says something like, 'that current,City of Carmel planting details are
to 6e used fortree and sheub instalfation.' I have attached these documents.
12) There should also be some wording that all trash enclosures, tr.ansformer boxes ect shall be
screened from view. � �
Please illustr.ate how these:comrnents`will be addressed by letter or revised plan. If you:have any questions, feel free to
contact me. Thanks. .
Sincerely,
i
.��:� �
,� � ,
�
�
�� °5��,,.
� .y��`r°"�" ;% J 3/
. . arf�i..���`f�'y.'3'-'_
— ¢
. '� i
k f
_. � R M1a�: S 1 t d�'-�x` .
• - ��.S v � ' iq 'fi1r�
� ��
��IT'Y��-_��� �;.RMEL.
' August�16,2011 Jp;�,�S.$RAINt1RD; M,4�`OR .
IVIr. Steven'B.Granner
Bose,:McKinney,.& Evans,LLP
l].1�Monument:Gircle,-Sui{e 2700
lndianapo]is;IN 46204 ,
REi Coco Common"s=Project Review#i
Dear Mr: Granner:
_ . ;: _
The Gi,ry;recei'_ved your preliniinary devefopment plari on August 2 20 f]� The:pro�ect•is,scheduled for
review..atthe August 17,20T1 Technical;Advisory Commitiee meeting: We oi�erthe following comments:
GENERAL.YNFOR]G1ATlON .
l. These comments represent the Department of Engineering's first;revie�v�;of the.preliminary
, developinent;plan for this;project:, �
. .
2: We request tliat al}responses fo.our:comments.be,provided in vvriting and be aceompanied by
a drawing reflecting.ttie reguested re.visions. Failure to;provide writtan_respanses may result,
in the delay of the review.process;
: . � ., .
3. lt is critica]that:th�s off ce be made aware of all.►podificafions�made on the plans being re-
submitted;particularly'if any`such changes are�considered'new"�or fall outside;of our �
previous:reviea�vs...Please:provide 'revised;plans:including:all,reytsions. Please:notify us of
any clianges and specifcally state::any changes,including ehanges resutting from Plan
Commission,BZA,or otfier committee�neetings.
4. We have.engaged�Crossroad,Engineers;PG to re��ie«��all drainage:plans`and drainage
. -.
� calc�alations subriaitted to this offic�fQr revieEir, If;you,�i�venota#`readg�'rlo�ie so;pl�ase
.. .,_ _ . .
provide a set of:diaina��pla�s,and r.alca�lahocis:to their office fo�-�eviei�c:We will share
Grossr�iad's com�nents as;theyare:received:
5. Final draivm�s>yill not;(ie:approved'for consfriaciio�i.until: '
a, All Engirieering L}epartci�ent a.nd:Utitity Depa�ttnent and 1-Ia�iiiltornCounty Surveyor
issues JiaveTbeen res'ol;ved.
b. A!l bunds�and ger�'orniance guarantees,are posied.
c. AII:Board of Publ�c:.Works,and,Safety atipro"vals and any other;governing agency
approvals(ifrrequired):are o6tained.
d. All off=site easements necessary to install utilifies to serue the dev.elopment are secuzed. .
�.. 5�,�4!�'�'����.:§�;ar��m�:
� z���f�e��aP��`�.:ir�.
�.; ��£3e��et�t�.sse;�-�i��t.t�.}�;a�-��:4�;��ti��ai��arnt�t3:���1;?��rr,r.�u���y�a�nt
. ;t'etiie�vs:
Z. An approved Starm Water`]vlanagement Permit is!required priar to commencing any earth
distur6ing activity. Please contact Mr:Jol�n 7'homas regarding;starm water qualiry,
requiremenfs. •
$. � An appr,oxed i.iglit-of-way permit is required priar fo commencingany:work in the=:publie
right'of=way: ..
9,. If it will::6e necessary to reiocate existing utilities;the costs for s�ich reiocation shall,be borne
-. • ,. . _ .
.: . �
' solely by the d,eveloper, ,Any utiiiry.poles>requiring relocation,shaU be'rel`ocated to witfiin
one-foot:of the outside edge of the,proposed:right-of-way.
. _
_ 1:0: The Depamnent"requ�res that the construction drawings,be:developed;in accordance with the
City of.Carme]:digital submission standards and that all required�subn�ittals for.primarypiat,
' DEPAR'I7v1EhT nr ENG(N-EERING
O�e'-G►vic SQuax�, Cn�.hlet, IN 46032` OFtic� 317.571.244;1 ;F�,�c.3•1T:�71.2439'
Etv1AIL engineerisig�?c•:rmcl.in:gc�v .
,- ��
.-�_
Mr. Steven B.Gr�nner �
August 16,?Ol I
RE; Coco C.omiiions-Praject Review#'l
Page 2 of 4
secondaiy plat,and construction::drawings be ma�e. The digitai:files,must be subinitted�to '
,.. .. .
the;Department of Engineer�ng pr:io� to the�ppcov�l of the construction plans: Piease contact
tl�e-City'G1S;Departinent foi�tli'eerequire9nents.
11. 7iCrisdictions` �
a. Tlie�•project.site is located witiiiil c,un•ent Cify ot`Carn�ef�orporate;;Liinits.
b. Periineter Street and Ri'�ht-of-Way—City of Car►iiel(To�v,ne RUacl),;Han�i�lton Ggunty
(,146`h Street).. - "
c. Water—Ciry of Carmel U,tilities
� d. Sanitary Sewers—Clay Townsliip Regional VJaste District
e. Sform�Sewers/Drainage—City.of Lar�ttel.
t: Legal acai�is—Hamilton C6unty Suryeyor's Office.
1'2. Draw�ings submitted fo.r approval:
a. Tlie.design engineer must.certify:all drawiii�s subniitted foi•'fnal ap�roval.
b, `Tliis oftice will reguire 9 sets<ofdrawings:for'apprdua.l after_all �ssues;have b,een.
resolv"ed. The drawings will be stamped as appr`ove.d and,sisned�by�the City Engineer
and;hy.Carmel Utilities,. T1i�e Owner"w�ll receive 3 sets,one:of which:inusf be m�intained
on t}�e construction'site at all tirries. lf this pxojeet;is subject to'review and approval liy
the Hamilton CountySurveyor's�Office,atotal of l l sets will be�required far,final �
aPProval.
l3. Carinel " ..
°. . . Utilities will provide'�separate reviews of.this project for water issues. Please;assure
that.copies of ali dra�vin`gs are`serit!o:
Paul Pace, Raul Arnone
Carmel UtiGties;Distributian. Cnrrriel Ut►lities';Collecfion
3450 West 1315f Street. 901 Narth Range Line Roail.
Wes�eld,IN 46Q74 Carmel,IN 46033
�.. , . .
14. Carmel Utilities"subscrilies.to"Holey'Moley"��vlio should be eontacted;directiv:fo"r all'wafer
main locations. '
15. The follnwing';items will be sent elect"ranically=upon req"uest re�arding this coiresporidenee �
and project:
a. Prc�ject A�.ipravafi`�iiecklist
b� Per#'oni��e�celMa��tt�faa�ce.l�uaraiiEePs
�: Utilify.lt+risdi�tio��slRiUht of Wa}�Aerti�its
�
d: Avaiiabilii}r t�crea�e)'Fees
� BOARD(�F'RUBLIC yVORKS AND:SA'FETY
1;6, =A scheciule.for Boarii of:Aublic Vi!orks and Safety;�ineetii�g dates:a.nd=agencl'a deacilmes:ti��.ill�;be
�n!eleetrt�n€c��!y f�r y�i:r-'rase;a�pt�a?'r�c�ia�.t. 'Fl�ase.i�s�:the �n�ir�:�-in�L?epai�rraen�
i�eadlines fo€•sudi�ri€ssions ic�ti�e Bii�ict,
!7. An�+s�b�as,�iou tc,�.t�es�i�ard rec�r�ires priar�p��srav�f'E�}°#he��arrrae��i��i'f�n
•�'�r��a�a°�rrrt t��a�;rsr�'t�a�;'�.s�cd af��raf-�srg:l�p����s�a�;s�s��icu�i`��:}�m�:cn���➢�Eit��a€�f
r���e�a'4�w f��'����iie�t�.i��=���:���i���: �Si���+ra�er�s��.�+€�fia:f�e;��c€�€����n aine
��r��'��.���€i��€�s�.a����s��:t���gapr+�.��a�ic::��C�t 1����er.�aad#�e e��ie:��a�€�a�es���'
approvai by the Pian Comn��ssion an'tl'lor the B4arc1 of Zoniug<Appeals(�f appl�catile).
18. Water Availai�ility and Sanitary Sewer a�?provzl Crorn ttie Baarii w�ll.tie required. This:is,an
EDU appi�oval tiased up"oi�'tl�e�proposed use�of the site.':Reference.lteiiis#33 to#35 below
for,aclditi�nal,details/explanations. P.fease'�note thaf�it.;an entry�vay or ottier irrigation
system is plannec3�for tfiis dev�lopment,,addifi'onal W,ater Avail'aliility Ap}�roval from
the Board rvill be'required and'additional Water.Connection Fees wi1l��ie assessed'based
upon�the size and''usage of ttie;system.as determinetl by the Director of CarmeT'UEiiities.
1.9. �o►nmer�ial Curb Cut;;Approvai. Please�rovide�8'/.r l',T:exi�ibits"with the�request for
� appr�oval; `Provide a�I�ertiilent iriforinatiQn inclutling I�ne+��ii�ths;overall�y+idfl�;radii, lane '
markings;location of opposm�!drives or streefs;relationsl�ip to the location of`previous>cu'rb
cut,etc.
� �
� �. -
:,.�
, Mr:Steveii }3:Graiirier
August;16,;2011
. RE: Coco Coinmoiis=Project Rea�iew#:1
Page'•�-of�t
20. 1'empoi�ary Consttuctioii,Entrance ApprovaL a construcfibn entirance isn't currently shown
on the.developnient plai�;one will be required on the constr�iction plaris:
' 2:t,; The installatioi�;of any perrnanent;pri:'vately owned and%�r mainfained itiiprovemenr{signs>
ciecorafive sheet;signs;walls;.`st,r,eetlights;etc.)within clee3icated.r'ight of�way`o��dedicated
easements requir"es the eaecution'of a Lonsent to•�ncr.oach Agreeinenf'bet�veen t(ie(3w�ier
and the Cityof'Carmel.,Such agi•eements'are executed 6y th"e'Board of Publie Warks�and
Safe[y_, Tlie City�Eng-ineer may_approve`irri'gati�i�system.agre:emeiits.
32. Secondar:y Plat4a�proval_;if appliea(ile. All peiifoi'mance guarantees musi be posted prior to
submission of secondary plats fo.r.Board�of Publ,ie Worl:s arid Safety approvaL
23: De.dication of rig}it-of=way if not•,plarted. This is based upon the;City'of C'armel ZO=Year
Tho"rougHfa�•e Plan'requii•ements. Dedication docunients"a�_e ayai.lable upon request.'Pl"ease
be advi'sed that all Rigtit=of-Way Dedications:must be acc_ompanied'by a'Sales Di`sclosure
Agreement conipleted by°the owner foYkhe property`being dedicated`to-tNe�City: The
_ . .,
�edtcation docutnent carinot be recorded without�a;=coitipleted'Sales-Discicisure. 7"he'form`is
available upon re:guest.;
24. Any open,pavement'cuts of Towne R'oad,other than tho5e.required for"f}ie c,urb:�nd inecli�n
° cuts,will requi're 8oard a}�prov5l.
BONDING REOUIREI�7ENT5'
�2'S. Please contact`Mi•. Dave''Barnes to`re�ie�v perforinanee guarantee:iequirements_ Rlease
, . :..
contact Mr.John puffy°to review�vater=and sanitary seis�er bo�iding=requiieme'.nts:
26. The amount of'k}ie Performance Guarantee is 6ased upon�a cei-tified Engineer's Estimate for
. , - - , ..
'100,°to of the cost�of laboT and':m,aterialsto'construct the indivi.dual.improvemenfs,to:6e.
provided:by the design engineer� Please provide detailed.Eng'►nee'r`s E'stiinates for each
i�nprovement`including•gu�ntities,unit costs,pipe sizes,anci mater�als,efc.
?7. Upon completion=and�cele�ise�ofindividual Perforinance`Guarantees,a three-year
� [vlainten�nce�Guaraniee'will be reguired�(see Street Sign comm�ents above), The.
, Maintenance Guarantee�amount is based upon 15°l0 of the Performance a►nount for Streets
and Gurbs and I:U%of tlie Perfoi�nance amount#ar all•otliei imj�roVeinents,
. ,.
2R, �?erforn�aiice.{�udrantees,rna}f�e Per��rmance�r'Sufi�ivisic�ri Bonds csrl�r��fc��bte l�efters af
Credit: -
-._, , ..
29. Please reference the availatile enclosures'far rriore detailed ezpianaticin of our procetiui-es.
R'IGNT QF V!'AY'PERMIT:AND Bt7NDING �
30. Any Gaork m;tlie.deilicated i-i�ht-of wa '�+ili re u'►re'an..a g
� y � q _ pprbved,Ri'ht-of-'Wav Perniit anci a
License:�,::P,erm it Bond.
�:l. '�he€SUnd�rno�r�*.Is:deter�nirted�:b��a�zs'ilis-'�t-ts€=�i�}�11!danag�i�. �.1���v.zr,if th�«ark is
included iit.the scape of�qr�of a rec�ui►rd`a�id postec�'Perfa�ittai�ce'Guarantee,th.e
Fzrfon��ance€ivar�+.�itee;n�ay be;.used'to satisfy ttie bond i-��uire�s��fits ofthe Ri��t-iif-W�y
'F�YTiTCt.
�;?. r1�5e.c���f.t��gr Ri�;�r�-�r�-t�z�)°�v"`s�tr��s°�i:r,i•�i�;��.�r,�rs��'�a�s���r��7�t-��ti�i�y p�:n�iiliiiY�
;:nti i��dlrs�. .
A•VAILABIL�.ITY Ai�'tl CQNN�:CTI(D1�I FEES
33:, We defer'to Carinel;U`,tilities regarding,this issue.
3�1, If an�enthyway:or`overal!site i"rrigation system is ptanned for<this,clevelopmei�#,
n�3ditional W.ater Connection Fees will be assessed'based apon:the,size anti usage of the
system,and upon�the recomrr�endations of the Director.of Carmel Utilities:.
�5'. These fees.�are�requi►•ed ko�be paid prior to final approval of construction,;plans,bv;
Engineering;and':prior to issuance ofbuilding permits by Building CodesSeruices. Please
confrin'�tliese fees and calculaiions�vith Cari�el Utilities.
�
~ ;{3
,?�
Mr. Steven B.Granner f •
August 1.6,2011
K£: Coco Commons-Project Revie�v#i
Page 4 of 4
. .
CONSTRUCTION,DRA1?V1NG REVIEW GOMMENTS
36: G:eneral.Comments
a. T.his project is subject fo the`City's;Storm Water Ivlanagement anc� Stonn VJater Quality
Ordinances.
b. Please adil the followingalote to flie dra�vingst• "IF 1T WILL BE�NECESSARY'TO
RELOCATE EXISTING.UI'ILIT'IES,THE E�XF6NSE OF SUCH RELOCAT]ON
SHi�LL BE THE:RESPONSIBILITY OF THE.DEVELOPER. AL>L UTIL17`Y POLES
S�IALL BG LOCATED W�ITHIN ONE FOOT OF'THE PROPOSED RTGHT=OF-
WAY,:" _ .
�7. Please add note stating``NO EARTN.DISTURBING ACTIVITY NIAY CON11v1ENGE'
WITHOUT AN APPROUED ST,OR'M WATER MANAGENIENT-PERMIT"'.to:constcuction
set.
38. Alt swales on site:must:l�ave sub-surface;pipe installed; Pipe to coiiforii�to requireinents�f'
Storm Water TecJlnicat Standariis Ntaiival and sliall be doulile wall,.�ll-Q pipe.
lf you'have questions,please contacCme:at 57�1�24�1 l.
Sincerely,:
�����.�-�s__.� �_—i����?--t.�t�-�r-�---
� �
Nicholas.J�Redden,P,E. �
Plan-R'eview Cooi�dinator.
Llepartnient of,Engineer•uie
c¢: Angelina�Conn,Depattme��t-of�Conu7iunity Services
John vuffy,_Laemel iltilities
p�:il;P�awe,C�rin€��Itiii2ss:s ,
Paul-Ari�ora�. t'�ririel t3tilitaes
Es�gl1-[o�es.#�Iaa;siltan;E::ounty Sur.veyor's Offt,ee
�s���°t��,�.r�e.-i�s-�az��n�is���rs. F'C '
issvrapps�useri[ataV.:l�haredlC]f{il;i_'if'ttfJli�EV I71C(:K'UG'(7Mi�tC7IYtitZL`Vti I. �
� - ;
�I(l�////o F���q��� .
�;1`Ii`G��lo������ �
� �� ���)3 �
�� p � �� �
\ tLL JL. ,�_ f �.
�'�-9�.....-e'" aOn��1�`\ .
� ��
i�Q G�'���I!
.'����//iI///l//���.
August 9, 2011 •
Mr. Steve Granner
Bose McKimiey &E�•�ans LLP
111 Monument Circle ste 2700
I�idianapolis,I.udia,na�C204
RE: CoCo Commons PUI� @ SEC of 146t�' St and Towne Rd
Dear Mr. Gra►uier:
The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of
alternative transpoi-tation. I have revieweci the clrawings sub.initted for the August,l7, ?Ol1
Techiucal Advisory Committee meeting, and comments from th.e Alternative Transportation ancl
� offer tl�e followin� coinm�nt�s: � �
ALTEKNATIVE TRANSPURTATIC)N REVIEI�V COMMENTS
l) �':he C'i1-y c3f t:arme� �'��rki.n�: C)rciina��ee�•ec�tiire.s th�it al.l cc��rvnerc:��i) anci ret.ail venE�es
i��c.t��cf�€�ic.y�.�e ����kii��. ��ic:yc:ie};�-��i���sp�tc�5 ��•e.�et�€�i�ec€ �ct a �•at��i f�v�.(�j
bic.yel_e parh���,�.s�ac,es per c���e l��anclrec� (lfJ�} aL�tc��n�bile.:�ar�in.� spaces a��cl inusl be
withi�zl fift5� (SQ).feet of�t�he inai�,entrance of eacl�:biii�Idiiig�, .Please�see tl�e Ciry of �
Carine7's Parkilag Orciinai�ce in order to determine ap}�x�pz7ate locations, specificat.ions
and canstructio�i details for the above.
2) 'I'lle �ity o��:a��nLl's St��c�i?,tsio�i �'c���irc�1 C�t-cti:t�ailc� �•ec}�tires a 5' sicPewwra�. aI<��7� Eicstl�
�S�iY�¢...')'i..�'S L<'le LE':t�:S��'W'�J�G'�'t�.'tw.4.. f���."'-C���''t...�._7�'StJ�€�i:�ii�it,�J��.�'.T'l..�3��'�.� E:2��E.�:�.
:�1 �`i�:�.5�;t;S312I��Li'�i� ii�E��"ll�:;�s���,�2���i:4?t�'�t;`._I,lti"��s'.'s��#:�.�i�ti�!?� �3i"1?�C�1.T�5��tt1�L�.s'�?`t?'�=l��
��Fk,'L'':�)tI��C;+�'i�ilc�si:ai?:..fY�..'oS>�:C�a,.��:�3:�)t1l�.n'<I��'. i}�ws.taA;'4�y s�la,,.r3�.�._3�I'�:.� Ii���i'�S�'�'z�C)�S �':C1I'
recommended locatians and revise the plai�s to reflect these changes.
4) Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps at all crossings.
We rec�iiest:that all resp�nses t�� our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide writtei�
responses inay resu�lt in delay of the review process.
It is critical that fhis office be made aware of all modification made on the plans�being re-
subtnitfeci, particularly if any such chan�es are consiclered "new" or fall outside of our pr�vious
reviews. Please pr�vide revised plaiis indicatiilg all revisions. Please notify us of aiiy chauges ,
Page, 1
ON�CIVIC SQU��RE C1�'��IEL,INDI:INA 4G032 317/57 i-2417 '
*� �
and specifically state asiy changes, including changes resulting from Pl�l Commission, Special
Studies or other committee meetings.
The Department of Community Services.reserves the right to provide additiorial comments based
on subsequent reviews.
If you have questions, please contact ine at 571.-2417. .
Sincerely,
David Littlejohn � �
Alternative Ti•ansportation Coordinator
Department of Commuiuty Services
cc: Angie Co�in, Departme�it of Cominunity Seivices
Engineering Department Review
Project File
Page 2
ONE CNIC SQUi1RE Ct1R'�IEL,INDIAN.°1 46032 397%571-241 l
_ �(�� - f�' � ; : i� � '+3 �
� '"" i � � � i:� i
, f r' : t � ,�"� n� �,.� �
�'i. a'`. � y 4 � �, , �
� � �i
,4 � 1� � y' �x �� �'s
'�'�- �- -"�i�'�'-'& S£�.-.^s �,1z:+-'"4�'v '' -'�'>�t`-.�,. x�� t .-� �8 a �' �' .-
��'��Y&���'""�'""`��. ��.��..i'`� ��� '��� x �f�.,..��. ��e�. � ��x�'�e.k �.��,s"�, �-"��.�..��� � ',� y t.��.
tia''.� n �^��� �✓� � s������-"„,,� + �*�- ��.'�'� �'��r-�°'.�. �'�;? ��'. �.
. �. A y- -r� � a�-�^"ry�''��kv �`�'a ��s G'�d x�v� -,�,�.�ss� c b � -s� ��'' .,.g � .
c'� ?�-r'r" y ."'atrsErs. .�,. wt. w �6�i,�...G.]r.�.�s�e.a.� �(,y�-�...'�- aq-�, _ `�'�°-r"�,-r-� 95 -. Y � �_. .. ..
� g �'LL._.�-��` a'�"`"a��''�,.�.'�'�.�.w- �,�.�-�,.-��: z"'� '-.��,"a-� x-i. w�-�,�,S�F �a t?�,�'?e��,� '�:�9 �
.N,�c3.-�"i'•`^',.a,�. .�S p� ,�,w"'s,� d '� "'3�c+� t,�& ""s� �'"' �aY- �+� € f� F -����� �r��' � `�
""N',y.� tT�s'��jVt�sw'�a�`i�rv-`L�,.'.���+'A�'��.�.�x�.�,F�����`����� �_ `°����k�r�x N� x ��i 4�t :`Yj �-�.. � : .. .
�� �'� : a .v ax--y,...��T"°'°" ,�.a. 1� �-�'� n r� �.�"� :. � ...
� ' 1� ��r" � �l'�v e����#SY�,w�kl3ATY �_ �7'�+ r . ,�.,,_.,,,�,,. ,�,e�-�` ��", r -�-s3,a x � � �...
�' ,ya �n' ,�.�`,.a�'#',,,,,rYV,n � .l-,,,�� +',nr"md_„�ix4���,.,m_K+_,ar3etfi ��7-�:r+.�.�� "�°'F�„i.�,,, �r 'ak' �,�. .�.sa--j'�. � >,r:arx'�..._t_.�:..
.�4 `��. � ,.�,.w� . .�'�F- �'����.`�jj�`' '.na�+.au,7"c.."�y-"�v.�„�.a've,<v �`����� "���.'����`. '��.�e .
_�"��'��.�°y�- za��£�^�^'�rr° Z �c-�..it,r� �� ��h l7��.�'m� .... _ '�t^ ,���",;��,�r r Ao.��..—�� .�'r-i-.:�� _.... ._
�i;..s. �i��l'����'�'�`� .a����i'r+ r- �'x^° ..,a' Ad.._ .. ... � ��4������'� ' �� t f
(�«,c'a� ��g��,,,e�xe �.. �.-s '3 a .,,xkvtuefi�we�r9+�f.1.�.,,._ -�. i�` �' � �ug�i- � �' "�` �j .
`s r�eS �.'�'�,�5,1'h`'� �� r er+r.� ; 4�^�£ rr`�� r 'i,v -'" .r#' a � �� ��`a � #'�� ``�a2�i� �`. ..
,';� '�`� � �� ��c 4���: �( � ! �i �-�����v��� � �:� �€ �`s�=`�r. §m ,��'Yy��r� �'x A
� ���� '� �. � 7-.7 3 �_ ��sG �,�r � � ��- a � s;„}A c� k L �s�. �
������.t"�f ��'�Vl <.�.�, c�, i... f �- f����,+ ���r-rz� .j�sY � ..�§ �<.3s-*." it�7�i �'S'.`�Y'��};,,}a"'t'�`�p5' � '.�
_{� t-z �t �,.1,��txC � T' ,�4�� ��s. F �. � -- -- � "� ��z.�- `x, k�-„`9,2�"f g��.,"''�'4���.E�.�-�
� 4 x S�-�,F ��.� S.I:. r �g � _� 'S- ',. .
-:!Y�'�����"a� ��'���t �'"z:i ! a- y� �� �"���''�`���� -.� ����''�'��s�'`�,� a a��'a���` ��A�f'���4`n�s�'` ��.
�r' � � �� r ��� �y �. ; � •�-A -�1.� 1 � r 1 F ir.�^ �
..;,4 � N�`- i F x �1� u. � L �,,, ;�y"���� sry Gsa`�. kt� #��•ri �u� �'�,'krtr � t���� .�`� i - ���. � .
.•�" � �F `'a� .�'L ��s . � ; �-a_�, �'�. 'P `ti'�!�''�.+ � 7t . � rYYt�C
�� � � "� � �, � 1 I* ��
��'*�+�Y :� ���� }� s�.�� -° .°` ���'�Y 7,+�5-�"�i�t��� (C'�.��,���:��rM '�� ����!-.r a C 6 � f �,
;�:�l�.�' 't?- $fF.�a�" S �-�� �.•�_ � ° ,? k'�.�(- ��� �'-�;t �,#.���. '��. ? � i
�s e���`Z� �'�r.�z �c� � tfi ,� :f��'��-�!� x � '�,'��,- �.-.�� �x`,S�_ ,F s-:��z F°k n.: � �� .� ���_ 4
n:,�3 ,� ,�.�{ � �5��. �"'- `�.�� �M � �.�,��`�������};..Yc .
'.�� u�:.. �''�' �i x°t �{�;�" � �4' `���„�-,�-+r�o.°��`%���' �` ,�,�nr'� �t,�'--�-��{' ��-k�.ti.�-�dh� }r�.����. 1
�-�'�� g�� ° �.. tp�$r�+e�"���.'✓� �,4��.��� ���4�^`��.,.�ws�, '�.�r���j���'�� �.�. .�-"` �.��� '�_
se.,�' r e�r�.���s��.' �,hc� � � '-'"�,.c-�� nr�d��&.mzs��`�� 7 �e �k €i � �� � 3 ` �
�,,�-r� ��r c 'g,��� ,�'' -�x e � ' ,.�„ 'p.�-� �-'��'�i �� � �,t
;�.,� 2 -y #�r r ��tw�.-u'd" ��._�� .++'F�r?'*; _.' -c^3.a�xx ".R ,:�,'��.�� � �.ry �, ,,�'�'-7 i x
�"� y ��' �i �"`A�G� ayy':���.-i y`'ti� ay-yry ^k��'s��� ��,{ � :.-.-e i � : { .
� �� � �� �
k�R��U.N � �-.S Y���Z �-X �� �.frlJ'� �`�k. �s�'�.it°'4"����-��.�! .<.M-,�' �4�'V}�"""��� �.,�K"��� �f� 3�. !f
��,�i'�j�'�`ti.,-.�++�u°"�¢�.1�T.�: ,�� `��z"�'�C-va�� �' t �� �a -.k e .s-��,r� � y t '
rx'`� ���s'f`t� �1 t.:._ �� �...`a.�.S-'� .�.s�ys-�f'Ir,.. �,�.s f � G.. '�f"� �c'�` 3� 1 C 7{.
� � � � .r�.� E+-.�'t �fi. .�x r�- A:� �f.. n^z : �r �� -z �t�� �t 3�f?� ��� ..; �� �} �t fr� �� �� t
��� �`�#' ��t���+�,v.�a. -h s 1 ,_ p� rM 3+- � r� .,.��"� r"�^��-�.1�' ` c{d�' �°r�s� ��: }� 2
' qf:
��`f,r�.d{`�"�.,,rs�� ��`!��t�T����'y '�.'��-�°5� ��`�i.'�'r�'��t�T -l' ��' �����.,,��-��€„r s�� �.._�. ''�+������tt'�£'�.� �t i �
�,:#',,�-�x'�'""+ F�i`��.��, 3'� r r �f ��"'`Sy��, �� *z ��w�rj---r—.� �? � � !i� ��, '�( � � .
�� 1 '�- d�1�"p x� 3"``�#. �"aFk^ ��p �",��.,�, .. ��� y ,,���r".�, � � ����"�i�,, a��r �i !, t 7
.�n,s z,��` �8.�''y � -�.s �.. ,�,� . r u �� ��� �- ,t 'o
l kmyp�b���t-.x �,,, 2� �1' 'n -� d�', 3'' .3 sf� 3�„- ,� 3 E p��,
�"� ��E�..�.-` �y'�4 S����'",�����'i �+��u�3S��.t�y. "�5q�i � '�-''�e'"`°�._-� ���� >�€.-a L�,1,. � � ,�;4 a � :�.
{i r�- x 4 1 4_ �z.e a. .� � xt
z�a xi '�t o � �s+—t , ��.G t�.,� r�° , G'+� � €,• 4 i
`:���,'�``�`�'r��"�',�'� ° � � �<�� i�,��+ � ,.-}� �_ ` � �.3 �a:�����' � ,' ��'y.��'�t ; q a;
� ��'�:���-� E.� T�, '�r"„f„�v a k x*�, K.��s ��� ...��,.f.:�.�, �' ,�3��� �- �{ . j �a'
n;=. �.� � a,- a � �°' � ��� x ,�a''� '�r''� , �-�� �, + t � 4 t. � ::
7�"• '�°�, � {���� 6�w+ I� 7 }�� � y K ��-' !+ �� i i � .,u�m�&� �i i
� `x ,�A, � ���� I� ��� p� .� ✓� *'�.� ..� � R'�4 "v�'t 4i�,� �i a �> . Mn- aN P ,Y , t ��
' � ���tr��g��� b'���jy ���� ������� , p �y�z"�".�c'�+'��i":�' � -c� t ��� �i��� . .y.4� I i �:
� y �3 �'' � , .�.� ��� . '�
�,{� � n, 'k��`B t a��. ',�� y+3�� �, s,�k , � k yz���g,���!'��L^ :�'.fF`-�{ �`�i � f y�`'�•• ���e"JtS�� �ggg � tl
�A r�v�� �� ��S � .� �f � � .ac's��Y� `�t,x�a�Il2Q��5f'K�j�s �� t�' ,: 4. t� � � : � _ �'
� t � -4 s ?�-'*�c -� � � r� la�.
� U s Nlf( k� �i �' j e., c�{,E � '� r� r a
Fi n�.,�'y�"'��.��4��1e� / '�` .�C'�' . 'r z` �}a�i, s5,+�.��� ��.�.�.e�r-�.y ,�� � �� �a L��j , �.� � � �
W'4'- � ��'�-r,d. �"r : t�-t .^`�,+ . x e 5,,, .� P � � �. -.. �� � �.
�° � � ������ � ¢y��� "� z,y,� - � �'F-^;�_.,.,."'�` �, , � �• ��, � �f� f �;�(�`.
�� . � & �,� �,, s ��� � i��t � �� �
.�� O�"". 7 ^����` s'��,._�� f�^�.�,.�� `�' '�'�'S�'�� � b�' I�il����. �� �' ��,'�� �- ��'� �'q �'��. � q -�-�-.
, �� C3 �,., � 1�.,�- ��;�',��,: t��, *�f*r.���t, � L ¢u.f�� � n���"����.�� � ��t� �����'� .i' si��f , .u.'tv,``�_
'�X� 0 � i �Y'n;� �'x ro+�,r+,u,��^ .+v. �c . J.Y�j�x r? w�i � �-.
��� 'C .2� y`E����A{k f/ '�,,,�i`'€�'„6�f � ��., i.0 p r.'{.� �'ai�� ��?t.��'Y, �'��� 6 .� �� ,. g�-���,� 'i t � St.i.,�
' �� �� qc s'�6g� �k�]t���f"`��'�-��4xf'�,p��� -c; ; 4 g���"�-'fiu�'�`�jx��.a+�,���"���`�,°,s�'� t � '���.�',•t���� ?t: , , �q{�
�� �'� t �1�13'� �`" f}x� �.L' $3 {"__�¢ �„��., � g3�+p'L.S: �,. �N'Si ��� :�^F �;� I �'- �
i� �? - �S�#�.v i;�qj�} 2�vti.�ys 3-'`� ��r='�,.yV t P: .�[cs�� cr�r'@_�.w-��x.� "„ "x`�?'.�d iN{ y?v -� � :a;m.�..?�
� �€ � ��°�`� `�1��� .�y,`",'�-��.�?'�` ..�' ��,��i�.�..•�a.a-+�rw.��:,q"� � ���d���j��, � ; � .-s.o
.'r.iCa3 r..� � a'a s���i F �ss :� �.ti•-�--#-. �.�--r..� � � n- ,f�' � � �, �.���'�-
:.� 1v �'� � k.��"�,d�a +� f�r�t�__""`�f.-, �" 3�3�-'�`4'� -r�+��`�-� c � yf '� s��' � . i ��
, �: p�'� �.�'P7�t���`' �g"�'�`�"4��� �'=��'�� '�q& , � s �:,L',..,���`�'s ,-, �� -...�� �����������N'��� �z� �
..F 'K ����!�.pyi* 5�..;�, i�wj�'a'�{tr�_:�,.`'�� � ..�. � �t ,�S"��,t����-'�-���' ���j GyyGf.,y��f�4� � t. �ii
. � s�-"RS 4�1 .' � _,�� �.. �-� . > .������' ��.� '3;�,�� �,5�T-,��.�f ��� �,,�,,{��� '4 �
��� x'�n�� x� �Sx �r'���� �`t ��Z- y � > ar S � -.t.�}�.�, #� .,�,5� ��.��° �v�Y�4(�,�,���f t� . ' µ
� a�7 4 s{r�..., a s � �-c � a�rr"` 3� tz;u <
�� s ,�, ��;� a.�' r t �`$f'P � �..'p.�. K'�, ,r s �-� ��e ��� � �:�����'4 � �''� � . t
}�'� w.��74:�ti-y4�` ��� ��Fs <£,�"'�"""�. � F �j "fk� , �j �-`�'i��r� f� � ���r"�+a.�- t ! ��
K t a, t��e g � z .��t .-o. ....,� �` # 3 y�^rc , '`�'�-�'..��� �r,�" s-� c$��uy� �. ' r �.
�'4���� .�3 ���-4:€sritt�.�, 'L"' 'a"�.::�t��r-'�.�{J��W�. �is�N st".^��a��j"Y :.4�.��r�.�''" p"��(�'�,r��f���'Y�. �, i � :�U �
g{b�n j �
{£���� ��t' ��f�}`�¢t-�=-�-s�����'��� � � � �����a �`�}j „��'�'��--� r� ��a�Y i�"`�3 S��P"'§� � : i
�*'�� � a¢ rf�^'"7'ir�"�'' ���o � "�a -�-" F a�� �y )� s f� i
���'� z���Y�'�'� �"���� w....a..1���J. ���� ���¥�b '���w .J��' � a�' ;,}*z �T.�S��`�� ,�t L � . �:
�L+ P �� 5. �. ''k` � �tr"�y`� �`_ t� i � �r �� e��ix �7r�. �d
�j,� '9 S �" '� 'f� �( � `�,4+ �' '�?'S� t y ��' '�.'�a T .� r k �� �� � t��d t.
�t.�, '�'-""4e- i�� 'fi--�f''..�i�"���"�Yr �� '� �+�.'3".�z '�` �?� g ^ ?t� �' rt�� v ��{r �i1 -� L �.
S!` i Fg -�.t �;��.� ����� .� .r � r-� t. Y.�� '����' ���r� ��� � .�
'� :� `a#�'�� t' 2�,{c�,�-'���'F�'���� .. � ...M1,� t'a "'�+ r.ss.`a�".i�+,} �y6y �.
i„�;���l & r �d�' �� °'^a s�Y � ..-...���s%�'y3'���a.bnaavwa�wu.+w.�`�' wm�s+ase. a`yfrt'8� t �,`� �aa � �� � ;k F
1.� + p. t r r 3 i �s F � �� €a� � �C sr, �' a�'� � � ��,� :
�• ��
��, t J r � ��_a�� ��. �' i��tb�-�'r �-a }f� y +�' tr;x-�� � � �T� , � �i{v TT�yV,"���� .� 3_e
��f'ryi ,����,�''��a.Y�' _�.�, .,f'' c; �� r-d � L2��. ' }�"�'���"�j� s5 `� `Fis. �;`� � - ---ir:�;^
`a� �� 'a fi ?� "`.� �� '��.��-� �� ����L �,�� � `�`� �F �� �� r ft� .� `
,.�� �`�:��f - �� �� �t�.;.��r"��v^*��rsl��r�,��+� �-�ls��la���� ��4 i��� �$M��� � � '�� �• ��y�� �'� ��' '�
,�����Y��� �J �'�����.� t�,�r-�rG'Ti'7G?,rC,.Z f s �y�J.�..�� a7���+ £�+� ` ��� �9�� ,.4 ��5� �; ��.
�, n. _� i S �' � � $^n����"j.*�. �evs„y" �,z�c��++" . r kx.� -{� � � ,s.1 r�c
F �� 2'�Es 'K% 't$�'�° ik`' �T �-x.� �c�� `x y?� f '�67F�".. ve��' i
�a .�� b�tSPr-��3��-3�,�.� �tr� y "w5.s _._,t4�'�-S s"�q:s�.��i -�, `a�` .���� �� Y ,. � .�� A. � � ��.
� F :'F� r �� -�' u rr�:•�
u Y �:,�- �. ���" �, �-,. �'�.'z$'t��^r ?�.� p � �) � F" ee���z�
'� .r�� .,d�r'k. � a'S,.,��- ^s.c's�� �.. r�..�s�a :� at�� t� i . _ y
{ {„ �e '�.� "_i���t � �"`�'r' ��"`" �c" - � ?:�d c�° '" �'�' � '�y� {�:.
� � �r' �,�-€�sE�t,# ''�,.k,t,� ��,��ho-,�f �"_� ��„ "'°�T?'�s„�,�, ��5� .r .�7'�.a ���,�.�. �,;. �k � r�F' `D � `pl.
ur� � .��� ���i,r � �°j ix�,� i� t ��-���.`.�� � � t � �'� �� A �Q y jg�
�. '� �+`�"�! °�` ^� 5}��� i.:I�'G - �� ��',� ,��'� �a3S�"`l��cr,��� �'��^"p ...^� �'���r .�-x� ��b���'.�� !t?�
- `�. ��� �'. 2. �Y'�a'� Y�T�r �,. � . �.�: �+� fia� K �� ��w ,n��.. �f"" .
,��,,�t .�i ���h F�`�'f � �w����.�.r� �,v.r -r � ,,,�� -�� S � �s-r yp� � .�:� -
.�, � s e, �. � 'K -..3' � ��`'� t� t^.: �.�" i/1.
��F z , `T�'�'� � s. ^Lg 4�.�� € P �,�S �"�.�- �`lr,,,t„ ' k �
"�` y P L '-J�^�-:- ��-�:y.�'rxr .+�H s..�'s.. r��� `�� a D. �'.�it
-�� ����� � �� �'� � ,; � F �-�f � .� -�< --�,�, �. �I � 4 $ .
,, ���`� �� �'� � j�.� �t, ��,�. .� 4 -� ��y.� -� ���a - m.
y�e���� x�z�`��9"��k�.+� 4----��- �;����, ������Z f�...��t�j ��������^�'��-- '�o�- ' .;,,��p i��' ' .
� e R�5e��,�-� a. �.r �,� t� �'���"��C��t-� ���� �,s ' td i rA��' �`°�� . .0�.
��� � x ���:�' �.. � �y''�+�4'��''�fx�"�cM`-rd k� '`�` �4�'.,�'a-'��-.�+-�f-� �i���F" at' �v C . �� P °' . .�;
c uy� �' . s.,� a:t.��. � ��°k �v�.°a-� h� z� , 3 i fi � �i
� �r ��,���;%s,�t *ti°, �, s � �t n��������c rss'+eua �sr �� rart�".r,��.r �� � ���a � '��� -s �"� y �A' �: :GD1: _._
�y, .p'� p..� q .n.�+ �s .�la w rwr �r�e�e�� sm�s w ar./,wi n � w� ��,+�. 7 {(�`p��.
!t$�jy'oa�'.�j�..i �C� ' t �'..� ; r+" "-7.d. ���`.�'�.`�'�`4`'�'�R4tF'�ax��€ *�a"'�„ W �i'' .r� �a�� , Wad�df�� �,�n,
��� . ��"$'�'f„"�� �'a�,.'��`�'� � ��� -��u � ��" � + _ -
�-�''�' ��._ ��� ���',�'`� �� �..�a��"�'� ,�'?��i . � ���'��r�ry�j����+��`�`�'�� � �-' - -- --'
wr�«,..:.J-� A,.��'F..�S.� ....,�- ":,,.aa, ,:�,,,.,A•=4'°�"�" �;�t � .i.� t��t i C� _,t.�i� �. "y
. . . . .-'�. . . .�.�+.�...
� -_ , . ,.�. .
;t
_;' �.:�. " �— '.. ...— -.. . _ r .
____.�l �. t�xtt?;3� �''i � _�� � �. ]
� COVC'D, COrrlat011� �� , � ��� x
�`3� �I _ � ���; �,�[�' � E� �:s �f ;�Faar.wrxer�s �' ���—�—..
� �� �� tnne�..� ' : i� 41 � ; � � ` :�
�.� i 4�'� ' �r��� � ,. , � . �
desdbpmca!pto�+cd b,r f ;, �:`.a�'�aa�e.'�ahn. �
�� .�^� :C��iTo�a�e�'4osrl:�6C � ��t� u�,:� �' �.� �I�i `�"�i� �..:; a:
_ ���:1 �. � ���� ,��,,. ������ - -- �� �. _
. __ _. _ . . � . . . ,
Glay'�ownshi�Re,�ional V1Waste'Disti-uct Comments:
8=11-20011
CARMEL TECHNIGAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1VIEETI:N'G AGENDA
. � Date:_ Wednesd'ay,Aergust 17, 2011
Place: Dept. of Gommuility Services Conference Room, 3r�F1oor, Ca�7ne1 City Hall. �
� Tiine: 9:00 a.�m. �
9:00 a.m. (L) Docket No: 1107u022 Z: GoC;o Commons PUD @ SEC of 146`h/Towne.
The applicant seeks a�prc�val t��rez�ne 19 acres from S-l/Resicience to PUD/Planned Unit
Deve�lopment, for a�iieigh�b�rhood-scale coirllnercial�development. The site is located at tlie
�southeast corne�r of�14h`�'S�t,�aiid Towi�e Rd. Filed by Steve Granner of�Bose 1VIcKin�i�ey &
Evans LLP for`Timothy Baker, �wner.
Clav 1'ownship Re;gional Waste District Cotatments: -No current'assue with;the rezone request
but asks that a full set of plans be submitted for review once they get that far into the process.
Page 1 oE 1
WWW.CARMEL.TN:GOV ONE CIVIC SQ. CARMEL.IN 4G032 (317 j 571-2417
Conn,Angelina V
From: Greg Ilko [gilkoCa�crossroadengineers.com]
- Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:57 AM
To: 'Granner, Steven'.
Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Greg•Hoyes
� Subject: RE: Carmel TAC Committee
Steven,
I received the hard copy information in the maii this morning—thank you, At this time, f have no comments with
regards to the rezoning petition. At such time when detailed construction plans and drainage calculations are available,
I will require one full size hard copy of both delivered to my attention for review. Please note that these submittals
should be prepared in conformance with The City of Carmel's Stormwater Technical Standards Manual.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Ilko, P.E.
CrossRoad Engineers, PC
3417 Sherman Drive
Beech Grove, IN 46107
nffice: 317-780-1555 ext. 112
Mobile: 317-408-3609
Fax: 317-780-6525
From: Granner, Steven jmailto:sqranner@boselaw.eoml
Sent: Monday; Rugust 01, 2011 2:45 RM
Ta: Aco�?n@carrnel.in.qov; awo�d@c�r-me#:in.qov; cirni�sdE�asn@carrnel.:tra.gov; dDi�ejohr�@r�ar�el.�n.gov;
wakersC�carmei.in.gov, dhuffman(a�earmei.in.�ov� jichomasC�carmei:in.nov; grect.havest�hamiitoncounty.in,gov;
QilkoCa�cro�roadengineers.com; gduaican@cacmel.in.�o�; nreddenC�carmel.in.c�c�v, david:lucas a hamiltor�county.in.c�ov;
whalt@carmel:in.gov; .iblanchard@carmel.in:aou; iduffvtc?cacmel:in.aou; tqr.een@carmel.in.aov; eellison@carmel.in.gov;
tkrueskam�C�carmel.in.gov; mwestermeier@carmelclatparks.com; jason.lemasterCc�hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
brooke.gajownik@hami(toncountv.in:gov;.iason.kirkmanCcilmvbriahthoase.com; shirley:hunterC�duke-energy.com,.
g�rv:r?��na.:�e@ci�ka-ertert�y.coEE;,.jlclar{c�v��=en.c:c�:�, d�*�:�a�•e.r;�t�arttc��es:ccrr:; c':���e:t�fh�*i�etC�v�Qdia.w�tern�:�asn,
rfarrand�ccs.k3.�:in.�as; rya�n:hartrY��r�C�ctr�if.or�; t€�a�y!act��C�suq.cam; daiand.w�r.w�se��s�s.�c�v; s��986�a�t.c�m
Cc� �licely, Phi(iP; Calderan, Jaseph;'bak�r.7,�86�att.n�k, Iharch2C�?cs:c�m; afetaihagic�skrucctuu.revo.i.nt.com;
m�miti�C�struc�carer�oant.com` rh�rec�aekt�earm��.in.g��
.:�e�����;:C;a��el'I'��'Cr�rr,�xa�e
Dear Carmel TAC Committee Members:
Attached please find copies of the filings made in connection with the proposed rezoning ofithe SEC of 146`h Street and
Towne Road. Most pertinent to yo.0 will be°9900ak-13b 071911.ZIP", which contains the Conceptual Development Plan,
and "201100268.SV.2011-07-13.ALTA.PRO FORMA.146T"-TOWNE.pdf', which is the survey of the property. Paper copies
of these two (2) docurnents will also be mailed to those of you who have listed'`paper" as your plan submittal
preference.
This projeet will be on.the`Wednesday, August 17ih meeting agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee.
Thank you.
�
Conn, Angelina V �
From: Granner, Steven [sgranner@boselaw.com]
Sent: Monday, August.01, 2011 2:45 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Donahue-Woid, Alexia K; Mindham, Daren; Liitlejohn, David W;Akers, �
William P; Huffrrian, David; Thomas, John G; greg:hoyes@hamiltoncounty:in.gov;
gilko@crossroadengineers.com; Duncan, Gary R; Redden, Nick;
david.lucas@hamiltoncounty.in.gov; wholt@cacmel.in.gov;$lanchard, Jim.E; Duffy, John M;
Green, Timothy J; Elli'son, Christopher M; Krueskamp, Theresa A;
mwestermeier@earmelclatparks.com;jason.lemaster{c�hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
brooke.gajownikQhamiltoncounty.in.gov;jason�kirkman@mybrighthouse.com;
Shiriey.hunter�duke-energy.com; gary.mcnamee@;duke-energy.corn;jlclark@vectren.com;
dan.davenport@aes,com; duane.whiting�veoliawaterna.com; rfarrandC�ccs.kl2.in.us;
ryan.hartman@etrwd.org; troy.yackle@sug.com; doland.w:wise@usps.gov; sk4986@att.com
Cc: Nicely, Philip; Calderon, Joseph; baker7386@att.net; Iharch2@cs.com;
afetahagicC�3stru.cturepoint.com;msmithC�structurepoint.com; Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Carmel TAC Commiftee
- Attachments: CoCoCommons_Elevation-2.ZIP; 9900ak-13b_071911.ZIP; TAC Application.pdf; Rezoning
Applieation.PDF; 2011'00268.SV.2011-07-13.ALTA.PRO FORMA.146TH-TOWNE.pdf;
ZONING MAP.PDF; PUD ORDINANCE.PDF �
Dear Carmel TAC Committee Members:
Attached please find copies of the filings made in connection with the proposed.rezoning of the SEC of 146`h Street and
Towne Road. Most pertinent to you will be"9900ak-13b 071911.ZIP",which.confains the Conceptual Development Plan,
and "201100268.SV.2011-07-13.ALTA.PRO FORMA.146T"-TOWNE.pdf", which is the survey of the property. Paper copies
of these two (2)documents will also be mailed to fhose of you who have listed "paper" as your plan submittal
preference.
This project will be on the Wednesday; August 17`h meeting agenda of the Technical Adv.isory Committee.
Thank you.
Steven B.�Granner,ABCP � Zoning Consultant ,
'Bose McKinney&Evans LLP ( www:boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis; Indiana 46204
SGranner@bose#avtr.com � P 317-684-5304 y f 317-223-03{34
Assist�nt Contact � St�cey R. Gi�velanr� � SGlevel�ra�!@bosel�v+r_ca�na � P 317-��84-5197 ���3]7-223-�J197
This message and any attacpments may contain IegaHy privileged or confidential information, and are intended oniy for
the individual or entity identified above as the addressee.
If you are nat the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized ta read, copy,
or distribute this message and any attachmenis, and we ask tha#you please delete this message and attachments
(including all copies) anc� notify the sender. Qelivery of this message and any attachmenis to any person other than the
� intended recipient(s) is not intended in any w�ay io waiv�confidentiality or a privif�ge.
° All persanal messages express views only of the individual sender, and may not be copied or distributed without ihis
statement. �
�
1
S ' ., � ,
Conn, Angelina V
From: Boone, Raehel M.
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 201 1 12:28 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K �
� Subject: CoCo Commons PUD comments
Hi Angie, -
Here are my comments about;fhe PUD. Enjoy! O
1. Area A
a. Wall signs: .
i. 6 signs on the west elevation seems a bit much to me. These are what L imagine they want
signage for:
1. grocery store name
2. pharmacy
3. bank
4. maybe a Starbucks
S. possibly a restaurant
� ii. 3 signs on the north might be ok—depending on what fhey'are
iii. I am opposed to signs.on the back of the building. Ground signage-and north wall signage should
be adequate to alert drivecs that there is a grocery store there.
iv. I am opposed to fhe size allotments. I do not believe that percentages of the fa�ade is a good
way to determirie square footage. I think we should measure what would be allowed, then see
what they�might want as"extra".
v. There is no mention of sign eolor or mounting method: It would be best to have these in the
PUD language for uniformity.
b. There is no letter B;it goes straight,to C
c. CoCc�ornrr�ons ID ar�d R�a! Estate �Le�sir�g Signs� -
i. "ks kpproved by an ADLS Sign Program for CoCo Cammons" is noi appropriate Ianguage for a
PE.�B.Pl�ase�tat��vh�t it is t�t�t is desir��€,sc�it is�ritten ii�tl���L�L�, �gt d�ter�in�d at a laf�r
date or time.
ii. The site is 20 aci-es; therefore would allow them up to 3Z sq:ft. and 8' tal!for a real estate sign.
iii. They wouEd also be allovved cQnstruction signs �p to 32 sq,ft, and 8' tal{.
iv. We're rnaking it �leasing si�ns) work thraugh the Sign O�dinance#or The te�acy�roject, and
tP�ey i���e rr�ueh iliare iar�c�thai�this �raject. 5� 6 t&�ink t�e Sign E3rdinarsce r�eg�sPatioi�ws wouid
Er�c���k tir�e h�re.
v. 1 c��n't tl�in�:t��i�sec��c�n s�c����t�e r:;.�rr��ir�ec�f�r:�r�t�rn�-�tn�c§er�ti�c�ti�sn si�r��:�r�c�I�tz�in�a's��z�.
�:t:�s ��r�:L���r un+:h t:a.�bs v�3�h�r��L.. ��r e�a�:���1;�,:f;�.�:�a��ar}f�:ta:n:s shr�:::�<�t�r��,t��i'tah�_d�:�.��:�
not have to be landscaped.
vi. It might be best just to make a separate section for leasing signs.
2. Area B -
a. CNalt signs
i. Not in favor,of one sign on each fa�ade of each tenant space. The sout_h proposed building will
not need signs•on the south (back elevation of the building). I can possibly see supporting
endcap tenant;signage on the west or east elevation of the south building.
ii. The north mulfi tenant buiiding— is it going to have proper 4 sided architecture and entrances
from the front(westj and back (east)? If not, I do not believe signage on the east.is necessary or
required. We typically do not have signage on the backs of buildings, especially if there is no
entrance on that fa�ade.
iii. Again, I am nat in support of using percentages of facades for sign areas.
1
d
iv. Location shouid be above the entrance to the store, or have more language stating that the sign
cannot be located within one foot of the edge of their tenant space. More details like this would
be helpful. .
v. Design should also include that logos are limited to 25% of the totaf sign area. It would also be
good to see a color list, return and trim cap specification, mounting(raceway or flush mounted)
style, etc. More detail please!
b. Again, no B is listed
c. Again, this section should be split into two: one for the ground ID signs desired and one for the real
estate (leasing) signs. I would also like to see more detail or referring to a map showing possibie
locations of desired ground signs. '
d. This section is fine.
3. Area C
a. Wall Signs: Repeat everything I said above - not in favor of this language
b. There is no B
c. Repeat what f said above �
d. Ok with this section
4. Chapter 7: Approval process
a. Letter E, I like this section! That means no variance possibilities!
5. Definitions section
a. Street is an interesting inte,rpretation that does not go along with our signage per one public street rule.
(Not that I'm surprised though...)
6. Use Table
a. ATMs are allowed in all three areas—signage for ATMs is not mentioned anywhere. That makes me
think it will go by the regular Sign Ordinance standards which would only allow 3 sq..ft.of signage per
fa�ade of the ATM,.depending on how it is configured.
b. Interesting"they have included Food Stands in all three areas...
c. Taver.n or Nightclub is allowed—I can see that being an issue for the residents to the south—especially if
in the southern building in Area B—that is very close to the homes. Perhaps too close.
d. What is the private parking area under Transportation and communication use?
7. Misc.
a. l�lhat are th���foing for cirair�a�e�.�sit�?t s��no water features�lar�neci,v.�hi�:�r coutc#F�eip th�site to
nat look like a sea of parking... �
b. i hope they pian to have iots of trees in the parking is(ands.
c. i appr.eciate the plan to have planters/end caps on the parking rows—it really helps peop'le to slow
down and create a definite"end"#o the parking isfe before the driveway.
Thar�ks,
Rache! '
��:.��'�c�
Sign Permit Specia(ist �
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
3rd Floor
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032 .
317.571.2417
317.571.2426 fax
http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/serviees/communitvservice.html
2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Granner, Steven [sgranner@boselaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:55 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Calderon, Joseph; Boone, Rachel M.; Donahue-Wo(d, Alexia K; Hollibaugh, Mike P;
baker7386@att.net
Subject: RE: Signage review comments for CoCo Commons PUD (12/14/11 version}
Angie,
We agree to make the following changes (highlighted in red below) to the PUD Ordinance prior to printing copies for the
packets: "--
Thanks,
Steve
Steven B.Granner,AICP � Zoning Consultant
Bose McKinney&Evans LLP � www.boselaw.com
111 Monument Circle � Suite 2700 � Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
SGranner@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5304 � F 317-223-0304
Assistant Contact � Stacey R.Cleveland � SCleveland@boselaw.com � P 317-684-5197 � F 317-223-0197
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:AButler@carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Granner, Steven
Cc: Calderon, Joseph; Boone, Rachel M.; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: Signage review comments for CoCo Commons PUD (12/14/11 version)
Good morning, Steve—Staff offers the following additional review comments, as it relates signage standards within the
12/14/2011 version of the CoCo Commons PUD. Please address/respond to the following review comments on or before
lanuary 9:
1. Area A:The Department still does not support the number of signs allowed for the anchor building. At a
minimum, Staff would like to see the sign on the east fa�ade removed. Staff would appreciate the number being
reduced for the west and north, as well. We will prohibit any sign on the east fa�ade.
2. Area B North: Staff is not in favor of allowing wall signs where there is no entrance to the space. Staff would be
ok with corner tenants having two signs, but not the interior tenants. We will limit all interior tenants to 1 sign,
on the front fa4ade only, and limit the end tenants to 2 signs, one on the front fa�ade and one on the side
fa�ade (not rear).
3. Area B South: Staff is concerned about corner tenants in the south area having lighted signs still shining into the
neighbors' homes. Perhaps,you can amend the PUD text to state that signage lighting it is not allowed on those
elevations (west and east) at all.Also, Staff is concerned about a possible middle (corner)tenant having two
signs on the different facades, as Staff thinks this would be excessive. We think the 100 minimum setback and all
the fencing and landscaping will screen any end cap illuminated wall signs. We wi prohibit the"interior" end
cap signs. A mi e corner enant will be permitted only one sign, front fa�ade only.
4. Area C: Staff is not in favor of one sign on every fa�ade of the possible building. Please limit to three (two wall
and one ground).Also, what about a ground sign for the outlot tenant? Usually that is one of an outlot tenant's
�
primary requests. We will reduce it to no more than 3 identification signs total for each building, including
ground and wall signs. What happened to signage for outlot 2? Is that no longer an outlot?The former Outlot 2
is now a part of Area °B", as a retention pon�. Area "C" is the "outlot" now, which may contain a max. of two
buildings.There is no "Outlot 1" or "Outlot 2" any more—those lingering references in the ordinance to "Outlot
1" or"Outlot 2" need to be removed.
(Please note that I witl be out of the office from Jan. 6-20; please correspond with Rachel and Alexia during that time.)
Angie Conn, Pianning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning &Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
i Civic Square, 3rd Flr.
Carmel, IN 46032
O: 317-571-2417 � F: 317-571-2426 � E: aconnCa)carmel.in.,ocLv
Check out our new website: www.carmeldocs.com •
Please consider the environmeni before priniing this e-mail
This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for
the individual or entity identified above as the addressee.
If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy,
or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this rnessage arid attachmer�ts
(including all copies) and notify the sender. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the
intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege.
All personal messages express views only of the individual sender, and may not be copied or distributed without this
statement.
2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:19 AM
To: 'Granner, Steven'
Cc: 'Calderon, Joseph'; Boone, Rachel M.; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: Signage review comments for CoCo Commons PUD (12/14/11 version)
Good morning, Steve—Staff offers the following additional review comments, as it relates signage standards within the
12/14/2011 version of the CoCo Commons PUD. Please address/respond to the following review comments on or before
January 9:
1. Area A:The Department still does not support the number of signs allowed for the anchor building.At a
minimum, Staff would like to see the sign on the east fa�ade removed. Staff would appreciate the number being
reduced for the west and north, as well.
2. Area B North: Staff is not in favor of ailowing wall signs where there is no entrance to the space. Staff would be
ok with corner tenants having two signs, but not the interior tenants.
3. Area B South: Staff is concerned about corner tenants in the south area having lighted signs still shining into the
neighbors' homes. Perhaps,you can amend the PUD text to state that signage lighting it is not allowed on those
elevations(west and east) at all.Also, Staff is concerned about a possible middle (corner)tenant having two
signs on the different facades, as Staff thinks this would be excessive.
4. Area C: Staff is not in favor of one sign on every fa�ade of the possible building. Please limit to three (two wall
and one ground).Also,what about a ground sign for the outlot tenant? Usually that is one of an outlot tenant's
primary requests. What happened to signage for outlot 2? Is that no longer an outlot?
(Please note that I wili be out of the office from Jan. 6-20; please correspond with Rachel and Alexia during that time.)
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carme4 Pianning &Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr.
Carmel, IN 46032
0: 317-571-2417 � F: 317-571-2426 � E: aconn@carmel.in.gov
Check out our new website: www.carmeldocs.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
1
I
I
Conn, Angelina V
From: Hancock, Ramona B
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:51 AM
To: 'SR Shelby'
Cc: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: 146th and Town Rd- CoCo Development Opposition
SR Shelby:
The meeting date for January Plan Commission meeting was changed due to MLKing Day. City Council meets
the third Monday of each month, and with Government affice closed that day, their meeting shifted to
Tuesday,Jan 17, which then conflicted with Plan Commission on the third Tuesday. Hence, the Plan
Commission meeting was shifted to Wednesday,January 18. In shart, all meetings were shifted one day to
accommodate MLKing Day.
I would encourage you to attend the meeting on Wednesday, January 18. This is a Public Hearing and you can
state your position publicly. In the interim, your email comments will be distributed to all Plan Commission
Members prior to the Jan 18 meeting.
Ramona
From: SR Shelby [mailto:shelbysr0l@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:17 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Fwd: 146th and Town Rd- CoCo Development Opposition
---------- F�orwarded message ----------
From: SR Shelby <shelbvsr0l @�maiLcom>
Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:16 AM
Subject: 146th and Town Rd- CoCo Development Opposition
Tc>: rhancock@carmel.in.��ove
Hello Plan Commissioners,
Please keep the zoning in for 146th and Towne road area for single family homes only. Honor the
plan and do not allow for commercial zoning. There are. already nume.rous areas in Carmel for
commerical sites such as they are proposing and just minutes to the south and east of us �e
struggling business right in the Villages of West Clay, Clay Terrance, and many other locations
without tenants or undeveloped land areas. Those areas could accommodate this CoCo
development plans without changing zoning classification.
We relocated from Chicago, IL. We were told countless times that Carmel had great
neighborhoods for raising children and commtmities- areas that are not littered with strip malls and
businesses stuck in every �rea and yes good resale value. We chose this area to escape just that
nightmare of noise, high traffic,crime and pollution.
i
We where aiso told by oLir realtor a life long Carmel resident that this area wolild be valuable to
Carmel because of the trees and even with the planned road expansion this is an ideal spot because
of the Zoning requirements that Carmel has in place a�ld the overall p1an- not allowing for what is
being proposed today. She said that if our builder did not put single family homes on the southwest
corner of 146th & Towne- now a corn field -it would be valuable to some other builder - not some
strip mall developer that would put the woods in danger.
This proposed change would leave us exposed to crime and transients. That small patch of
woods area is also a marsh and home to wildlife . Businesses are mostly concrete jungles.
The current noise and traffic already present on 146th and Towne is bad enough. Single family
homes would buffer us from the noise and traffic lights that shine through the trees during the
winter was our hope. We see and hear 146th & Towne traffic all the time. Even when in my
backyard I see light from cars coming from Westfield heading south on Towne toward 146th. If
you did a sound study and traffic study to adding to this area congestion from a commercial
property would be drastic. The trucks, trash trucks, to constniction vehicles, to the school buses, to
the speeding cars and the many semis that cut accross146th street this would impact us and this
whole area. Just with the already made improvements to Towne- more cars from Westfield are
traveling on it to get south and north. The expansion done to From Michigan and 146th has
impacted Carmel negatively already speeds have increased and a stop sign had to be installed at
146th and Shelborne. They made improvements but not nearly enoi�gh to accommodate the
traffic. I keep thinking that whatever is planning for road constrtiction on oLir end might force us to
move anyway because of the noise and fear for my kids and home safety.
I was told by another developer that Carmel is disparate to have taY revenue to support the music
center and that we have basically lost already. I know you understand that Business do not pay
ta�ces and they do not attend concerts. It consumers and homeowners that pay t�es.They even said-
many of us in this area supports this- wrong. Those of us impact by it are more than a little against
this change request- do we not count. Can you please answer why the change in your
meeting calendar to address this matter? I do not think the developer would want such a project
right at there back door.
Most business do not adhere to riiles once they are in. If Carmel changes this based on
pramises. The builders and developers are using market conditions to do this all over the place.
What is Carmel without homeowners and people feeling a sense of community. We are the ones
that say Carmel is the best place to live. You might loose on a home- but why should Carmel a
great city lose a neighborhood to a commericial developer. I am jaded by developers with lofty
ideas. They just can't do what others are having difficulty doing -just look around our city. Our
developer is already having tough time sellii7g homes in our community. This planned re-zoning
will cause a complete slow down for us. We have one of the smaller communities in Carmel.
This planned development would take away fi-om Clay Terrace as well. Just look at the turnover of
the stores and oLlr ability to support them. It has forced them to some to move or close. One
restaurant manager told me months after we moved here that people in this area do not support the
restaurants that after a certain hour people are not out eating and shopping. All the money spent to
develop main street and the monon to draw traffic and things like this do the opposite to those
z
plans. Jlist think the new music center has restaura�lts and shopping a�ld the CoCo Convnons
developer wants you to think it wont impact it. To tui-n this into a 1Vlichigan Road or Keystone road
is just plan not right.
As it stands the Northwest side of Carmel still has hope of recovery for single family homes at
good price.
V�,-'hen a building( strip mall they build for a certain tentants and that business leaves it becomes an
eyesore and a magnate for undesirable business. But the.y will say it is because of the econoTny we
have to do this or we have to do that. Keep it green and zoned single family. But to allow this at.
this point is bad. The road expansion he mentions is no reason to do this. To me it is even more
important to keep this part of Carme.l looking re.sidential in this area. Today they saying all the
right things. But what will happen 3-5 years down the road. Look at the number of la�-ge and
small retailers that have left a��eas and look how slow developers are to make continuing
improvements to property.
They will never be able to make business not stick oLit. The proposed expansion road would have to
have side r�ads to even support it- at a cost to the t� payer. The business wiil want to be seen so
they will have signs but or big monument style signs, p�-king will be an issue, bright lights, neon
signs, the smell that would come fram trash, banners, flags and promoti��nal events to draw
consumer to this area and stop commuter traffic. During the improvements to Town road we had
�nany cars, trucks,and service vehicles ciitting through or neighbo�• to get to 146 or to get t�o 141 st it.
was mess.
The trash th�t blows from Towne/146th the stuff that is discarded by cars is horrible. Cigarettes to
be�er bottles to some oth�r shiff people throw out at that intersection What abotit the environment
and the wild life in this area. I hear an owl e.very evening and see hawks soring in the sky. The
planned proposal would not only drown out those sounds but more than likely kill them or they will
leave the area.
Please help and vote against tllis change i�i zoning. I work from home which has me sensitive �o
the amount of noise and traffic that is out here already. Many folks are not at home Iike me so I
have a unique perspective on this proposed changed.
This forced proposed chan�e will impact this area forever. It is important for families that this area
remain single family. I was made aware of the road expansion but oniy to be told that not to worry-
north of ine would be reside�ntial because it was zoned that way. If changed it wi11 never go back to
what it was planned to be. You have a choice to help the voters and tax payers and stop this before
it is too late. Any continued exploration of this lets me know that� my family has to inake a
decision now. I am sure you understand how personally this effects many of us. I only hope that
you consider this one family and our reas�ns for not wanting rezoning to take place. Do not give up
on this area and destine it for increased traffic, crime, vacant i-etail space,pollution and noise.
I pray you will come to our aid. .
Sincerely,
SRS
Carmel, IN 46075
3
4
Conn, Angelina V
From: Duncan, Gary R
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:56 AM
To: Donahue-Woid, Alexia K
Cc: Barnes, David R; Conn, Angelina V; Redden, Nick; Thomas, John G
Subject: RE: Jan. 18 Plan Commission Meeting - Department Reports
Alexia.
Here are my comments far the meeting. Please issue to the Commission me,mbers.
Docket No. 11070022 Z: CoCo Commons PUD
The petitioner has not responded to the initial TAC comments.
Docket No. 11 ll0009 D�'/ADLS: Fifth Third Bank
We just received a response to the TAC comments. Engineering has been actively working with the petitioner
on this project and has no issues with this moving to committee.
D�cket No. 11120004 PV: Taylor Trace Plat Vaeation, Lot 12.
Engineering has no issues with this request.
Docket No. 11 ll0015 DP/ADLS: The Bridges PUD, Office & Residential Use Block, Berm
Engineering has no comments on the proposed landscaping plan. Engineering is still reviewing the Mass
Earthwork packa�e through which the berms will be constructed. I am checking if proper variance was obtained
for the landscapin�to be located within the sanitaiy easement and right-of-way. If this variance has not been
obtained,then application shall be inade to the BPW.
Thanks so much!
Gary
From: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:18 PM
Subject: ]an. 18 Plan Commission Meeting - Department Reports
Good afternoon, Plan Commissioners:
■ Attached are the department reports for the Wednesday, Jan. 18 Plan Commission meeting. Paper
copies of this and any supplemental info will be mailed to you today.
■ The info packets can be viewed online at:
http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/weblink/0/fol/101408/Rowl.aspx;just refer to the agenda to find the
docket no. for each petition.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Alexia Donahue Wold
�
1
�
i
I
I
I
Conn, Angelina V � � ` � Z
From: Hancock, Ramona B
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:53 AM
To: Qonahue-Wold, Alexia K
Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: FW: Coco Commons
Lex:
Please see email beiow. This may be brought up at public hearing by a CW�C2 representative.
Ramona
From: CWIC2 [mailto:cwic2@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 8:40 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Coco Commons
Cominissioners,
We want to address a problem with a statement in the DepYs report for CoCo Commons that was also in the
Dept's report for the Silvara PUD. Page 3 of tl�e report reads in bold fonC that the Land Classification
Map "should not be construed as representing the precise location of land classifications...." We are not
arguing that the lines are precise to the nearest foot, but why is this sentence so important that it is in bold font?
How is this sentence relevant to the proposed CoCo Commons parcel, where there is a line as clear-cut as a
road? How does that sentence apply v��hen the zoning an�i classification on the property and on all sides of the
property under Carmel's jurisdiction are all Low Intensity Suburban Residential? Surely there is no sei•ious
suggestion that undefined possible plans in Westfield, across a large road and outside of Carmel's jurisdiction,
give credence to claiming a lack of specificity as to what the Carmel land classification for CoCo Commons is!
We fail to see any p�ssible lack of clarity for this property's S-1, Low Intensity Suburban zoiung/residential
classification.
We ask that you consider the full implications of this sentence before using it to guide your decision-making. If
the map's land classification on this property is not "precise", then we don't have any meaningful inap at all.
cwlc2
�
�
. , _ _
. .. ' � 'i7. i�'������. F` . �7 - . �. . '�� . . - ' -
�•. -. , � � • . '��`': �.�. ..
� - . � . � ' Y,. .• J x� ' �.:
� �� � y��� ��
� � ,.� . ,.- . . ,.' 1 1
��r.�+ �-':�w,+F<� ��f+�rat+�.q�?;�lA.• Y,a�,�_... � .. � ` ,x, rY����.w, +�'e: �°
-� , . . . � . _ : 'r• �����.
�� ' � • ' �,, � �KY. h'f y h� r 4�- �•` '�`�
� �r's.• y .'. ..o-Y y ¢� �� fT�d�i M1 � �� � �-�+� _ ��'�� ,.' �� � ,�s
y y � �
��r � `'. . * �� .� ar �. =i �`i` r � ^¢��'•�r , �s��`< .�s, ;.y � ��'y,'��� r��, -�� ti_ ,. ��� rN ,.�
!- � - � � � . Z ' ' '•� �•�'. - {;�'�q. � �Y�i �`��0•� -.�wy� ri�. !
FA. ,. .�+ r�r . ' 4 � � ,L� f,�-� d��, }:.� ...�'f��� , . �: � T�+rt�`�j 1 ��.+�. ���.G�'v�:' 1. .t.' ; ar � •Y � ' l _
1 ' � .?+ � ri,� �%� - „ ���,]� ` ai. II�*�' '�r�:R. 1� �� ,` .fy�l,Cr;t. . - �� , . ��.FF . _� r
. � � � � v ' �R i �r
�[' ��, � . e, ,�,r . �r+r.� .r �y y ,� �• � s� ;�r.�f^' -h�,,,�'g�'�.. , �"" ���,.:K,,fi? .:�.
: lp i 7�, � `µ' .-�. , ",�� S�','C, - �Su �� � ��2�,r� �"{ '� ,-� .
�.- ' � '� ��` : i� �� �<�4'��y�, -L �� r � P� . ��`����i� �r� � y � �► ,5.�':
i-- r tA y. _ .
�� 1 . . .... _ G^r,l� � I i. 1 .p� � � . � ,�4-tYc� �. r4i'
Y` .� ' b�,I.'`s`K��_`�}, �5�:7 k r � �=�� d�F ����r :�'1 / - t ` �� `� -��i A�,��� 2� ���'��
ei
y� y. �. � � l _e
,.Pj�' � � + � � � ' . �fi� � � � '" { -
� 5,�, r7_�,� �.� L,�„^ r. '�� sr �rv}� •�� .,� y�: "�r� .,� .7,�.x.. .
�� � � �,y;y',, �_ '�' ; .-N� i! 4' I -ij�.k 1 `' eY? a s � �.
" i ?� r z -r -�► � �3 � . . - �� •�„ '�� � v� „�.
y c.i,-_ �'T I�_� "��-�Y a� �.y� � � �,5_;t�.". 'r•i[i . `^T��'� �� ,yl�{x_ •�--
`� 4 r.�,a, u � i �;;�. y;4.. � y � � ��. .. �' � . �r^::1r- . °. 7� r',•��
� .: 1 �_`,� F� . r� � �3' '��� � r+.o} n', �` r.p'�� k �..`•'"";�'
4F' f � L_�'•�J`4 t�r��r�t'� ' . •''r ��,t�iG�F rir��'�� �''1'4�T�� 'y � '" �Cu '•=1k �,''',f�"'�
���� �� 3� `� � � � r 1�'
� ��� ��� ,� � Y � �_ _r,. � � �4�-3„?i, � ���. ; '�C_y y � 3 •{, �r�y+, �
y � � i. �1 � F r s. ��. ��, R����S .�. ^ '� � .��� � g� .`,�� �..Y.'" tiL
1 a � �t r � �� �,�
� � _ . l�tn�� ht-. ?,Ai a s- f n . ^L Z ����� ����R+ � 5 -.T' r..a y" r �E�, �� !�a i��.}, . r J �:.J'
r2 � �r�� ��' ;y 4 . �, ' ' � J!\i, �2 p� � . _ �k ���� .� ��r ''L.� r � . �
��t' r��� � ', � , !� i j,f c�- ��.t � ,T� I Y r y F- �i,� . ,..r _
1 _ ..1�,� a���#. _Y 1� .r �''jP's'�'-4�.� ��-e`'r'�. — ��� ��� ��?.�r�'�'��; �� J•'��
I� {�.`.r�s �L �� r:n�+'� ¢.. �i r'� -i�� .,- '- `�aN'r_ti J�r{ r �.' .�r+� 1 b. � ,1 �� .:.�
Y: ry� � r � -.s' v� ' �� , ;"� }��st �-. rr .� r,J'-�
"�p ik `,rr £ -y�� �'L ;`�c.''�. j . _�]���qyr x�. .� L m s�4 y ' ��„��,, �c ��..
;v ''t �°'��� �.tr��'�'72afi�y la �^"'��� � e.'`��'� {�yn� a�`'"'�s� ���t�!- _ T �� �y��� ' ry
`�{ � �1��t6- I tf . "T 1a 1{,, ��,p �� ��4 � y !} �. �X � �.�' �,r� •F �.� . �-c 4
1. . ,�� 4 . o . ..,^z - x`'' `C ,y r i f 'Y -1� a �, I R + _' .
i � .� i '�T `�1G . '� ��� $ � � � �S'�. i.i3'�.�. _
4'� ,.$.�. {.-�`' s '„t-� ��h t�z �; �--(.'.r :re�, �, �f�.f �� � � t � 'e°'f.�1 ,�.'~��' +�1 ', ` �• J�'1
a � � :; Y ����. ,�ri}�� �, - -�t� f.:` ���'y'''��- ��:;r _;�', ,��y`���� _��,`'`` - � ��r. -
yM 7 � �' �� M ��• � �' . . � f
� � r. �}�'"t" � ` �ly��l��:�"• . `}1! ;r� ,-4- y„ .�`p..: , - �� � ��t- _ �Y.-y�n -��'����� �,.
•is�`r , - iglr :v . �„ .rt1�_ � itif �,
� ' �,�?� �s! � iy_ ��4 � � � : ti�r:`• �.: K, r° .,� �-. ' � s{
��;r� � :��r `�`� :Y � .�. 1����{, ,� . a�b�,i�4�sia: . _, �' ��-� '�,.���, .�� ���� ��+���r�� �`��t _{'-
�y�i .�G� .� T!�',0 „� -� . . i .,+� `' ' , l� .i.��'e?1�t �L� �"1"�3�.+� . . , 5�' - . +1r��..��- . ar�� , � -
s� � d � �
,r' �'!�',i .Y+ .�.5{.Ir& h � � ��r� �:�ir� �.rFt• -1 'i .p_ - + A�`��'I' r .
� :r j 1 a�� � ` h 4 � .._y, ���� -.;y�-± �7�� M1�.� ' � J����� . ;� ,� �_� p�v.,r� ri �
{� l���
t �xi �� l4. � � " F�✓ . ' 7 �f y �• . . 'S" �}]�'�6 n .
r� +�.� � a1 y�' • � • "l- � . _ �. 3 ♦. �.f{
r� ;,�. il . ,�' ���:� ,� R�ix' V'- - MSL7 f� �g. �' �� •".Fi ,r � �. � i" . � _� Y -r.
� 'i• �S'. yy �,h��P �r;� �t�:E� ���� '.F't. � �4`r� .� 3'. ��.;:?�1' ��� 1!a � `�s
s _ �' � �`
k r��..�,��.� T�V��4�.�� ±'� Z'`R': �. 'T} �._,% `r "°�c +�.� .f,tc'�� �_r�.'-
. , �L '
?�"�`� r� ' i� �!_ ���"�`�'� ��" r 3� .,�,dy'�,r �,�;� rS+Ss�rj r 4{ ` ¢ ,..n,' .
y� - 'h {' . L � 'y / S .S � ` ' '. ,..7f
a:'�. �����r7�f�`' ��� � . . .. IM�yl3�+� `������ '� L ,.i,��� ,r.
r �•. „� � ,r. a x t� �� �� - r , 1 �� � . �� _
i � �< ; �� � e •�� � i - .. �'�°�e '1 f ""^ '1 �'Pl�' �`�'ae . �� ' �
'-; i ��', '�py' . t�� � � _ ���� 1.� .��:� "H+"s�'� S.�%iR �;
;��.�e�Ly,�� f r;,� . i 1�. }��y,�j1'P , ' � :s� . � .�. '''..uf ` I '
,F r JI� s�Ji 'r� �.�t: ,�st�+�: `fIT{�w i���Yc�' ra �� ��4����}d���L? �9� j ;�
i r'`t.�'���` �x�•a`d�i �`,�r k��_ i. � a � } 1 ti �,, • � ,�' t�1
'��•��' ��<'!r4 � .',`J",r�y �S�l'r�+I'� `�`��3 K,`�i�� fi�,��l� '�3.'�3�j��.� .��, ••�" i�
'� x � R��� r �i , .. ,;
v.'-`s� r 3I �_ ..i'}+c�� . . �i ,�t �yr ��L�� �� t'� -�'�l, y ts.i �1:.� .2.y I _. 'I I
.�•. � -e t > e� � �Z -�r .���" �fie. � *�' 'J'a,'- �
^'�~ a I,�t.:f"`� .. .. , ,�,.w. .+�i �� i � �' _ . �J
r 1� �� ,M r �"�3:'uR�.� . . �' � �. 'o.ICN '..-s� Sii`��i ��{ •��. a=�� �?��
j� - ''.�!`<< . . ��. - I.j
.F : l�}. � ri �: ��k� as�.. ,_,�,� +F . �.�_. . , .. e . :r� _ ��^Tb IVl'. �i
i '= i S � -0.�,. F � ���'� ; �"���4����� .� - i i -l�'.�? i +� ��_..� .0
, �
,�•FJ � . '��w/ '� y ' ' F� �_ ,d� h '� � -' '�,., �yy�i y . �,,."l.�
>'4 5�.� � � } � R}�. �, :. - - n� �'f :"'•�,' � �' �4 � {, d;. ?z� i 5�'-.�'"•t ',� .
`y ��� ���' � �'rSc j}: a ..-, f ;� 17 .. �.. � r1s- . � 1= .-s., _
i� �..} z. �r ;1�� :,�� a �,.,. r '�4v �'�.-�, - _y�=� .�p➢
� :.� �� �; `_ .s �3 `rt ��+ � ,, f• 4 "` ;F � .. _.�, �
� �.t � . s -ar � -
- a,r.� : f• � � -z _
- �� ryrtf'_ . ,r s �t ..?ri �.j���i � ��' . .4� �n{�i. ,- ti� �,�;��.a��: - •�
Lr �� � Y ~ �.���2�� �, , �"a � ,�,�i���, �° � �3? +t�'��s .� r;:�;,_� .
�� ,i� " 1 '� .F. � ` a s G _ g�y�� �'�� i'� •:��
� � r � ��': 4�� �`f �}� -d �„ ry , `��� � $�%3a 1� 4 �'_'>`w)L �" f'�i9���� ' t'
��4�, �, � � � �� `'��� '�i?� - 5r ' �-
`:���Nl�i ]'y'-`" �'�i��; r � . s'$f �,�k� � � � --"i i+4 � t�4
��' r `S[ � � � �t� � 1 � { • t -r:.��� .n, rR ti. � �h ..ti. -�
� i i - r ��� �'�Tl c� ` L �;��y _ �n ��;h`a -
� iy r z
� ' 1 r ''�° r- _ '_ ��'�3�.. � � .. i� ,,�[ ' R ..(` r' r..
r`Jti°� � ,��F ' �r�. � '.s,r 'rc'�_�.-` ,i �� i'x ; �[ - �jf�R .r§ ��.
a'w-�.a +���1�" 'F'•� :�� - ��� ' C� �.�t 'c+p�{T 'r���.. T� .,��. ,I �2 .�.d�.�. ` ,..
� �. z7P►,. .1 � "�? �°� a + � � ,,;tIR�S.
t
L ��,�y� .�rr f7v�� y°4 ,r r.?� k� Y����: .T�-,w i � ���4 i :�' a� ��'y. 7d �'E; •, 4ya �,...
I Y^ '�7 �:�Y� ��'.
7 i � . t � fl. _ 1 . _ �
� v� �g : � i �1�. T�i�.�r �'� � ''�, J i�s�} ` ' � � �i '� ,�'.' � naYr��� .. Y y�^ �
i�� ��^� T�,C .: . i`��.,� a'�•` . . �{4 v�^�:y�� . .� �' ,yr �-'N,C} � '`` �.. j
,,y' � Y+* §�` :. ; ' ,z� s�,' ..�ti ,_ r ti � r�yr�t�� ��ts fij
¢ �s,�� i���• +� '� p* �.�y� +" ��'i * l� ,.��r v�,��j . ,,� r .sf. Vr a` �{.�y_�
� �' r ,A � : ,�e_. � , .q �,; � c s+ s�3.� ��G}t� � ,
� � s ) � . i � 1.� . � p F{py�r l� , Ic a .��� _ �- 1�Y Y l�
f-+' ��' tif . `�� b`- ` _ =�X"_ . �r��r-�' .. rl'1 rb ��+5 - �-_
''1_:��_��• ��n�� ��}� 1:1 '�;1,- � ._ � -I 1�� J�jt`,� .. .>s}. . � !� - + � .
� 'f�S.=�r � +S .�i: _ `a _K`�n �-' .r ,� .d..�t "'{ � �.. t�a� �,� 3�,.• .. �;� •r .
.�� �
{y� a' � �' , yL,� 1' �i� �i"vl� I' ! ^l'�1'�
7��J,.�St�� �R';•��ti i�� � . ;T "r' ' ' ._1��5.�i°�... � �tikl + :�i'��, S �..'�w, .�� 2 i h F ,a�_ E�f$, -
�rR arl.�, :� 1� ,�r�• T s. "` t y� �i �s ��-4 r'--��rd"`, '{� ,�, 3�"RW° �y��l'f �,�r.; . � • �� -
.� i - �d L�' �' r � il.y � � f �r;y.fi�!� ��� ^M 'a♦ ��'J��7�_{ ��7 r''� �.1?�a J _��rd!' - � ����a- � ,a f
��"'l��^' , � '[r,;�t�'`+}�`+ � y.. �.'.�'�i� � .,` ti: � -,•,, �r �� F,��4 .�J _
�.,, �'` �'x : � •q��4 ?:; '°' � � E
rf ,S.I.• '���t. yk �J � � . 4: � nl" 'C lly,x, 4 1.�L,,��< <s � : � . a��..�t p� . } n
it 4J �} � t ,� ?. s ��+ , ' . + _ ��'. '_
'.� .;r�r� R , yc..�YydF { '•i.w' ��� '~I.'17.� - �� �� -y:�i� .r-�'�.SJ,�y c�� ."� - ��'�iF�'�!��r,�,_ 'r.
}.A� q•.�x �r_ . � ' r� � � �f ,.�1'c.�
� { �.� �.
4� � � � f �.� •� t� . - ' �l y Fr� n'�`J `�:. �, ., . � '�l :' �"� ���" c �
r! ,� �'_�1F'r � . . r �.- �� ,y r - ��r ,Y� -e�. �6�� �'r -��i�a�4 � , Px
� ir S`r i - - �. �� � .. Y • r .
�'�� .,�,-Ft �5.�.�' y '�`,��L �S �s' ' �� ',ti�� R� . . �r '�� � ,�y 8- . ��-
, t / � ��'„ c ly f.� i. pY �� "} r}try,"R'ir� ' �� �`4 �. , �p•. rr-i�✓�r^$�� x ^,.
..' � � k�'A� .:Yi`��,u,t � � .�? rt ,a , , E�. ''�r L��d ��'tir� � - .1� . �� � .f.
��� �' .��� � � "� . ��S "�e�r�l o ,��, . I.. ' �,�e�'iS�r, .�i . .• +�d i:�� � .
_, f.._'2� ..,���..,7���... . . �5�.1.��.� � ��R, . � .n-�.` .i� -YrT�.�.•�t - �e� ..i:�rs�. . .. i'. - a'%'='r�� 1-;:_�.?�.^l� � . '�-:��