Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence04/24/01 10:00 FAX April 24, 2001 • HAMILTON CO HWY. Carmel DOCD 2001 /001 HAMILTON COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Mr. David Lach, P.E. Woolpert LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46268-4192 RE: Parkwood West Site Construction Drawings N of 961h Street / E of Springmill Road Clay Township Dear Mr. Lach: 4 MOWED APR 24 2001 DOGS This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of a transmittal containing the plans for Parkwood West. After reviewing the plans, the Highway Department (HCHD) has the following comments: 1. I have included a Dedication of Right of Way form for your use with the dedication of the right of way along Springmill Road. Please fill out the form and return it to my attention. 2. 96th Street is under the jurisdiction of The City of Carmel, therefore, this Department feels that all questions and comments concerning 962' Street and any improvement to 96th Street should be referred to the City. 3. The HCHD requires that all utility work be performed outside the right of way. No new construction of utilities will be permitted in the new right of way. If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter or project, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Sincerely, yi(e.Zgae.4.-4,.,— Steven J. Broermann Staff Engineer cc: Carmel Dept. of Community Services City of Carmel Engineering Dept. G: IUSERS \S8\20OITac104- 24-01.ab.wpd 1700 South 10`" Street Noblesville, In. 46060 Office (317) 773 -7770 www.co.bamilton.in.us Fax (317) 776 -9814 Attorneys at Law LLP Mr. Norman Rundle, President Carmel City Council 1 Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 -2584 January 15, 2001 Re: Proposed PUD Ordinance Z -359 Dear Mr. Rundle: DANIEL J. DEEB Attorney at Law djd @beckmanlawson.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS In our presentation to you and the City Council last week regarding the above - referenced matter, we stated that we would provide you with a written copy of our presentation outline. Enclosed is a copy of the same. We ask that you please accept the presentation outline as part of your record regarding this matter. Please contact Jack Lawson or I if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, BECKMAN LAWSON, LLP .Daniel J.-Deeb DJD: sdm Enclosure cc: Diana L. Cordray, Carmel Clerk /Treasurer (w /enclosure; via facsimile) 200 East Main Street • P.O. Box 800 • Fort Wayne, IN 46801 -0800 • (219) 422.0800 • Fax (219) 420.1013 Syracuse Office: 200 West Main Street • Syracuse, IN 46567 • • Presentation Outline - Beckman Lawson, LLP Client: Heartland Coalition, Inc. Matter: Remonstrance Before Carmel City Council Concerning Z -359, PUD Ordinance Proposal for Parkwood. West by Duke -Weeks Date: January 8, 2001 I. Initial comments and introduction by Greg Silver, Esq. II. Jack Lawson Comments. As you know, my job at an attorney is to establish a complete record for your consideration and, if appropriate, for a court upon a judicial review. At the outset I must therefore place you on notice that we believe that this matter is not properly before you. Carmel Ordinance ZO 31.6.4(6) requires the Plan Commission to hold a public hearing on every PUD proposal in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Procedure as a pre- requisite to the Council's consideration of a proposed 13-JD ordinance. As will be explained, we believe that the Commission has not yet held a public hearing in accordance with its Rule's of Procedure and the Indiana Open Door Law for this matter. Accordingly, this matter is improperly before you tonight and cannot be legally considered. 1. Action by Commission at 12/19/00 Public Hearing violated Due Process and the Commission's Rules of Procedure. On said date the president of the Commission specifically and directly advised Greg Silver (in a telephone conversation initiated by Mr. Silver on another issue) that testimony regarding traffic was not to be allowed at the public hearing as such was discussed at the Special Study meeting. Since (a) not all Commission members were at the Special Study meeting, (b) the Special Study meeting was not a public hearing where all were allowed to speak, (c) new traffic evidence discovered in the 14 days since the Special Study meeting, and (d) remonstrators were not afforded an opportunity to advise any Commission member (either at the Special Study meeting or at any public hearing) of their response to new information submitted by the applicant at the 12/5/00 Special Study meeting, we believe that the forbiddance of traffic related testimony at the 12/19/00 public hearing violated the remonstrators' due process rights and the Commission's Rules of Procedure. We believe that Due Process and the Commission's Rules of Procedure requires the ability for one to present evidence directly to Commission, not to its consultant Petitioner and Commission cannot claim that Special Study meeting satisfied due process and the Commission's Rules of Procedure for the • 1 reasons above, and also due to the fact that said meeting was, we believe, illegally held. Commission's Rules of Procedure say that notices must state that "any person" can speak (section 10(h)) 2. Special Study Meeting. Department of Community Services Staff have confirmed for us that 8 Commission members (8 members, of course, constitute a quorum of the full Commission) attended the 12/5/00 Special Study meeting. Because a quorum of Commission attended the meeting concerning official business of the Commission and took official action regarding the same, the Commission was required to follow the Indiana Open Door law for the Special Study meeting. IC 5- 14 -1.5 -5 states that a governing body must give specific notice of any meeting. A "meeting" is defined to mean "a gathering of a majority of the governing body of a public agency for the purpose of taking official action upon public business." (IC 5- 14- 1.5- 2(c)). - Governing Body includes appointed committees (IC 5- 4- 1.5 -2(b)) - Official action includes "receive information, deliberate, make decisions, or make recommendations (IC 5- 14- 1.5- 2(d)). Public business means any function upon which the public agency is empowered to take official action. IC 5- 14 -1.5 -7 allows any person to sue an agency for violating this law to, among other things, void the decision that was based upon an improperly held meeting. No need to prove damages different from public at large. If a violation occurred, a court cannot find that the violation was cured through a subsequent final action at a meeting that was held in compliance with section. Also allows for award of attorney fees. For these reasons, we respectfully submit that this matter must be sent back to the Commission with the direction that they conduct a proper public hearing in accordance with the principles of due process and the Commission's Rules of Procedure. With the above stated, and while expressly reserving and not waiving our rights to contest said matters I will proceed with other aspects of our presentation. To begin the same, I will introduce to you a series of speakers. I will then conclude with my own remarks. At this time I also incorporate the testimony of remonstrators given before the Commission into your record for this hearing. 3. Speakers — Bud Wilson; Gerald Wagoner; Patty Harrigan; Brad Yarger; Neil Kenig. [Written statements or reports of witnesses submitted into legislative record.] 4. Appropriateness of Current Zoning. As you know, a rezoning is a legislative action. Indiana Court of Appeals has stated that "as long as [a legislative] decision is J: \User \DJD\heartl and3. doc 2 • • reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, the discretion (unless abused) of the Council will not be disturbed." Hills v. Vermillion County, 416 N.E.2d 456 (Ind.App. 1981). Therefore, although you may not act in arbitrary or capricious manner, you have considerable discretion in your decision. The same decision I just cited to you goes on to say that you may properly deny a rezoning petition "where no compelling need for the rezoning is shown and it is not clearly demonstrated that the existing zoning classification is no longer reasonable or appropriate. The burden [of proof for this demonstration] is on one who seeks a rezoning..." Id at 461. - Discuss how current zoning is sufficient - Show drawing of possible development under current zoning 5. Conflict with Overlay District. As you know, the City has previously spent a considerable amount of time, energy and money to enact a good Overlay Zoning Ordinance for the US 31 corridor which includes all of this property. One would think then the proposed PUD ordinance would incorporate the standards of the Overlay Ordinance. It does not. In fact, many provisions of the proposed PUD ordinance directly conflict with provisions of the Overlay Ordinance. In effect, the Petitioner is trying to do an end run around your overlay ordinance. It is trying to repeal the effect of the Overlay Ordinance for this property. It cannot be allowed to do so. I. mention this as being particularly important considering that the Petitioner has asked for the approval of a conceptual development plan in connection with this ordinance that follows the proposed PUD terms rather than those of the Overlay Ordinance. What is important to note that the Petitioner is before you tonight seeking to change the underlying zoning district for this property from B5 and S2 to a PUD. As written, your Overlay Ordinance works to superimpose its own standards over and above those of the underlying zoning district. At several points in your overlay ordinance, specific reference to the underlying zoning district is made. For example, at ZO 23B.3 regarding permitted uses, the Overlay Ordinance allows whatever uses are permitted by the underlying district but nonetheless including many uses. These provisions make it clear that the Overlay Ordinance is to trump the requirements of an underlying district. As currently written, the proposed PUD ordinance conflicts with the provisions of the Overlay Ordinance in many ways. In the interest of time I will not be able to describe all of the conflicts now but I will highlight three and then submit many of the rest of the conflicts to you via a written memoranda I ask that you accept into your record. [Submit written memorandum of Remonstrators]. Because of these conflicts, the effect of the proposed PUD Ordinance would be to repeal the Overlay Ordinance for this property. A. It is known that approximately 5 -6 acres of the property will need to be conveyed to the City of Carmel or right -of -way purposes. It has also been recently confirmed by INDOT that they will likely take an additional 7.5 acres for their own right -of -way. Thus, over 12 of the 35 acres of the real estate will be excluded from the parcel that will be developed. Were it not for the PUD proposed, your ordinance would allow the Petitioner a maximum lot J:1 User1DJD\heartland3. doc 3 • • coverage of 65% of the remaining 23 acres. That is, Petitioner would be allowed to cover 65% of the development parcel with buildings and parking lots. Rather than adhere to this limit, the Petitioner is seeking to develop a full 65% of the entire 35 -acre real estate, including the area it knows will be acquired for right -of -way. Further, Petitioner has rewritten the definition of maximum coverage to exclude parking lots. In other words, instead of allowing 65% of 23 acres to be covered by pavement and buildings, the proposed PUD would allow 65% of the 35 acres to be covered by buildings and with no limitation placed on the amount of the site that could be paved for surface parking lots. B. Also regarding parking, please note that Petitioner has carefully worded the PUD text to exclude the proposed parking plazas from the definition of building. As does every zoning ordinance we have ever had experience with, your ordinance defines "building" to include virtually every structure, including parking plazas. Accordingly, the area of parking plazas are typically considered as part of the maximum floor area ratio. As you know, the maximum floor area ratio ( "FAR ") is defined by your ordinance to encompass the total gross floor area of all buildings divided by the area of the development parcel. In an apparent (or transparent) effort to allow itself more office or retail space than would otherwise be allowed, Petitioner has proposed to manipulate the allowable FAR by (1) specifically wording the PUD definition of "building" to exclude the parking plazas (thus eliminating the parking plaza area from the FAR calculation); and (2) using the area of the full Real Estate (including known future right -of -way) instead of the development parcel area. It is worth noting that Petitioner seeks to exclude the parking plazas from the FAR and building definitions despite the fact that it wishes to have vehicle service facilities inside the parking plazas. C. The lighting height restriction proposed in the PUD ordinance is essentially28 feet and that the pole base cannot exceed 2 feet. In sum then, a pole- mounted light is proposed to be no greater than 30 high. The Overlay Ordinance, however, limits the same lighting to no greater than a total of 25 feet normally and 15 feet when the light would be within 90 feet of a residential use. 6. Other Proposal Defects. I believe the memorandum just submitted to you points out many other defects in the proposed PUD ordinance and with this proposal generally. I will thus not detail all of the same for you orally. I would, however, like to focus on a few. A. Regarding right -of -way, it should be noted that the Petitioner has proposed to be fully compensated for the same. That is, INDOT will need to pay fair market value for the 7.5 acres it takes from the site. Also, the Petitioner proposes to be fully paid for the necessary City right -of -way through the proposed TIF district. Simply stated, there would be no donation of right -of- J: \User \DJD\heartland3. doc 4 • 1 way under this proposal. We would like to caution you regarding the establishment of such a precedent B. Proposal includes a TIF for many items including landscaping (mounding) etc. Again, we submit to you that your acceptance of the same could set a dangerous precedent for future Carmel development and also work to give an unfair advantage to this developer over others. C. Perhaps the most important defect of this proposal is that of the traffic impact. Simply stated, this proposal does not come close to properly addressing the traffic problems of the area. I believe the statements of Mr. Yarger and Kenig well demonstrated this point, D. Our review of the Commission public hearing tapes indicated that the PUD ordinance considered and approved by the Commission on 12/19/00 was a draft with a revision date of 12/13/00. We understand, however, that the draft being discussed tonight is dated 12/19/00. E. The draft PUD ordinance commitments reference a traffic study of the Petitioner dated September of 2000. Although the Petitioner amended said study with a memorandum of 12/5/00, the commitments do not reference the amendment but only the older study. The reference must be altered to reflect the updated study. F. The PUD ordinance would allow multiple story parking garages with 25 -foot lights on top. Even if shoe -box lighting is used, the mere height of these lights will create a large visual intrusion for nearly residences. 7. Enabling Act. In addition to failing to meeting the requirement of ZO 31.6.4(6), this proposal has further fails other requirements of your ordinance and the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act and your ordinance require that the Commission and County Council must give "reasonable regard" to the following: (1) The Comp. Plan. • The relevant portion of plan states that a minimum 90 -foot wide landscape buffer must be provide along Spring Mill Road and that careful attention must be paid to the visual other impact of non - residential development to nearby residences. • The proposed ordinance would allow less than a 90 -foot buffer along Spring Mill. Moreover, this project will create negative and visual and other impacts on area homeowners. (2) Current conditions and character of structures and uses in each district • Current traffic, existing development, character and integrity of proximate residential areas (3) The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted J: \User \DJD\heartland3. doc 5 • must be compatible; presence of residential and traffic problems make this incompatible and undesirable • land well suited for current zoning (4) The conservation of property values in City and Township • Traffic congestion affects property values • Allowance of higher density commercial and intrusion of this project (noise, lights, etc.) will also diminish residential property values (5) Responsible Growth and Development • Read letters from Indianapolis Council President and discuss how responsible growth requires inter -local cooperation. • Responsible growth also requires transition zoning between intense commercial development and residential The Enabling Act, at 36- 7- 4- 601(c) requires that in enacting a zoning ordinance, you act for the purpose of "lessening or avoiding congestion in public ways." 8. Nuisance. Reference that the nature of the propose improvements will, in our opinion, be so obtrusive for area residents that they will rise to the level of a private, perhaps even public, nuisance. 9. Conclusion. J: \User \DJD\heartland3. doc 6 01/02/01 10 :28 FAX HAMILTON CO HWY. - -'-' Carmel DOCD 121001/001 a January 2, 2001 Mr. David Lach, P.E. Woolpert LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 RE: Parkwood West TAC Plan Submittal N of Nth Street / E of Springmill Road Clay Township Dear Mr. Lach: This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of a transmittal cont ining the plans for Parkwood West. After reviewing the plans, the Highway Department has the followin comments: 1. In accordance with the 96a` Street Corridor Study, the required right of way for Springmill Road Is a 75' half. 2. A 50' triangular right of way cut is required at the inte action of 96'" Street and Springmill Road. 3. Additional right of way may be required at the intersec 'on of 96"' Street and Springmill Road to accommodate the needed road improvements. Pleas contact the City of Carmel conceming those requirements. 4. 96°' Street is under the jurisdiction of The City of Carmel, therefore, this Department feels that alr questions and comments should be referred to the City. If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter or any time. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Sincerely, Steven J. Broermann Staff Engineer cc: Laurence Liilig, Jr. Steve Cash John South aAuseesuewrr801a2.01.te.pa project, please feel free to contact me at 1717 PLEASANT STREET NOBLESVILLE, INDA 46080 (917) 773 -7770 Dr. Beurt SerVaas President Vie Council - 4ttp of 3InbianapoLtS Carmel Clay Planning Commission One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 ,1arion County December 19, 2000 RE: Duke Weeks PUD Rezoning Proposal # 154 -00 -Z Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: 1000 Waterway Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 633 -2020 In the interest of regional planning and to meet mutual needs with traffic issues, we respectfully request that you delay a decision on the above - referenced case for at least sixty (60) days. Such delay is necessary to allow City of Indianapolis traffic engineers their first opportunity to evaluate the traffic projections associated with this development and to assess the effect on Marion county's transportation plan as it relates to infrastructure requirements. As good neighbors, we are sure you understand the urgent need for us to work together when considering a development of this magnitude, which will greatly impact both of our counties. Thank you for your consideration of this urgent request. Sincerely, 06-464-(Cloe'u- Dr. Beurt SerVaas President Indianapolis- Marion County Council APR- 12° °01 THU 12:40 PM /.P7..� .cur __ PB INDIANAPOLIS December 19, 2000 FAX:317 972 1708 PAGE 1 Mr. Steve Engelking, Director Carmel Department of Community One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Steve: Development Parsons Brinckerhoff 47 South Pennsylvania Street Suite 600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 -3678 317 - 972.1706 Fax:: 317 -972 -1708 Toll Free: 7-888 -722 -1706 The Carmel Department of' C =unity Services retained Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) t assist the staff in the review of traffic 'ssues related to the proposed development at the north t corner of 96th Street and Spine& d. In this role, we have worked with A&F Engineering, Inc. and Yarger Engineering, Inc., who developed traffic studies on behalf of the developer and neighborhood groups, respectively. Although agreement has not been reached on every issue, the process has been useful in identifying the critical issues and developing a set of roadway improvements appropriate for the anticipated conditions. During the ten -year planning horizon of traffic studies, the most critical area impacted by the proposed project is the h465/US 31 interchange. Improvements considered are relatively minor, consisting of additional turn lanes at ramp intersections and improved signing to better channelize traffic approaching the interchange. The objective of those improvements is to provide satisfactory operations prior to the complete reconstruction of the interchange by INDOT as part of the proposed upgrade of US 31. Although the timing and design of new interchange constructions is currently unknown, it is assumed that it will occur soon after the ten -year planning horizon and will serve long -term capacity needs effectively. The traffic studies differ within the interchange area based on assumptions related to vacant property development in the vicinity and underlying assumptions used in capacity and traffic flow analysis. These variations are within the realm of reasonableness given the ten -year time frame of the studies. The overall . conclusion is that the interchange will become increasingly congested until the interchange is reconstructed. Nevertheless, with proposed improvements, it will operate satisfactorily in the near term and during most (if not all) of the planning period. Opportunities to achieve greater capacity through the interchange (beyond proposed improvements) are limited by the width available through the bridge under 1-465. Some improvement could be gained by separating outside lanes with a median barrier. This treatment is feasible, but expensive. It is noted as a contingency in the event that interchange construction is significantly delayed or if traffic conditions turn out to be worse than currently anticipated. Over a Century of Engineering Excellence APR -12.01 THU 12:40 PM PB INDIANAPOLIS December 19, 2000 Mr. Steve Engelking Page 2. FAX:317 972 1708 PAGE 2 Other key locations include the 96th Street/US 31 intersection, the 96th Street/Spring Mill intersection and the segment of 96th Street between these two intersections. Improvements have been proposed at the 96th Street/US 31 intersection to provide a level of service of C or D for most movements, depending on variations in underlying assumptions and analysis procedures. These consist of added lanes and improved signing associated with the I- 465 interchange. Acceptable service is also indicated for the roundabout at the Spring Mill Road intersections and on the segment of 96th Street adjacent to the proposed development. Key issues or questions related to the proposed development include the following: 1. Is the anticipated congestion at the 1-465/US 31 interchange acceptable as a temporary condition prior to the reconstruction of the interchange? 2. Is the physical impact of proposed roadway improvements on surrounding properties acceptable? 3. Will the level of development of nearby vacant properties be limited to the extent currently anticipated (based on the expected magnitude of property taken by the new interchange)? 4. Will improvements be implemented in a timely fashion in order to serve the development at the time of full occupancy? Hopefully, the observations in this letter will prove helpful to the plan commission in its deliberations. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, PARS S BRINCKERHOFF QLJADE & DOUGLAS, INC. . . Myers, P. ., AICP tant Vice President Area Manager JWM.pkh • • Reasonable Residential Roadways Position -Sta Pool To: The Members of the Carmel Planning Commission: From: The Reasonable Residential Roadways Committee (RRRC); anssociation of unincorporated petitioners. We respectfully request that the Commission reject the petition of Duke/Weeks concerning the rezoning that is necessary to develop Parkwood West. We ask that you retain the current zoning which best accommodates: 1) the quality of life of the surrounding communities 2) the traffic congestion of the intersections at 96th and Meridian and the 1-465 and Meridian intersection 3) reasonable traffic distribution concerning the roads in the surrounding residential communities The traffic studies presented by Duke/Weeks are not consistent with the remonstrants' traffic studies and common sense would lead reasonable people to conclude that adding over 2000 more vehicles to a commercial property is like adding fuel to an already - out -of- control fire. The neighborhoods affected by this petition have substantial financial investments in their properties which can only be negatively effected by the Duke/Weeks petition. It is time to protect the Clay West countryside residential community and the beautiful Marion County /Spring Mill community to the south of Clay West. Carmel government needs to retain the current zoning standards for the southwest quadrant. The current zoning maintains the integrity and quality of life that the current Clay West community provides for the greater City of Carmel. The high cost of land drives the developer to high- density commercial property development. The high tax base makes it easy for governments to say yes. This results in the property owners of the beautiful Clay West community losing its valued quality of life. Smart growth and Smart government must maintain zoning standards to protect such valued communities against such high density commercial property development. Clay West is a crown jewel and high- tax - paying community. It doesn't make good sense to endanger the long term growth of Clay West in order to satisfy an aggressive developer. This certainly is a step backward for annexation. Please reject the Parkwood West development, as is now proposed, and maintain the current zoning which is appropriate for the surrounding communities. We request that this statement be a part of the minutes. Carlyle A. Wilson 11 for the Reasonable Residential Roadways Committee • • Statement of Gregory K. Silver, Counsel for The Heartland Coalition_Before Carmel /Clay Planning Commission. December 19, 2000 The Duke -Weeks Project in Case 154 -00 -Z is an oversized, oversold and overbearing project for the adjourning and adjacent neighborhoods and all of us, north in Carmel /Clay and south in Indianapolis,who use the intersections of 96t'' and Meridian and I -465 at Meridian. Its negative effects on Springmill Road, 96th Street, College Av.and as far north as 116th Street and as far south as 86th Street will be felt for the rest of our lives, our children's lives, our grandchildren's lives and as long as we exist here. You know that. But you want the money too much to see the reality that you create. The basis for the change from residential and less dense commercial to intense commercial is simply and completely 100% a grab for the false promise and hope of Shangrala and for the treasury of Carmel to increase. But the price paid for this project in traffic, noise, pollution and congestion far outweighs the profit for Duke -Weeks and for. Carmel's tax base. You see, we all will suffer from this. You, up there, will be caught in • • the traffic created by your own decision here as will your families and friends as well as us.Yes, in the not too distant future you too will be degraded by the consequences. Will we not learn from the lessons of Castleton and Clearwater as to congestion and especially so when this is today in residential areas similar to what you have sought to protect in your neighborhood or other such areas where residences must be protected. There is no protection given here to the residents. Why are the investments of the residents to be treated with such disdain by your decision. The decision to approve this as good land use is a farce. It is petitioner's own engineer that says all will be fine with the traffic, not the remonstrator's expert nor Carmel's hired engineer John Myers, who basically agrees that theFFF category will apply at I -465 and Meridian Street in the AM because of this project and level of service "D" at 96`h' and Meridian from it as well. You know your own resolution . requires level of service "C" or better for this project, don't you? You know that's your binding law. The quality of life that is cherished by the neighborhoods surrounding this site and the taxes they pay in both Hamilton and Marion Counties are 2 • • being damaged by you tonight if you approve this. Make no mistake about it, So many of us have strived to build quality living in this area. You are taking that away now by allowing this perverse density all for money. And what of the reliance of the nearby residents for residential use of part of this subject property as they developed long ago into fine homes. Are we to throw this all away or at least create driving nightmares for them? Why do this density to them, why do they deserve it? And what have you done here to stop this obvious piecemeal development with the north and east quadrants owned by the same person still being out there for development. Can't you see what these developers are doing to your orderly mandated growth? You would damage perfectly wonderful residential areas : Why? For Whom? For What? It can only be for money. Otherwise, this makes no sense at all. The question then is this:is there no limit? Is there no guilt when you depreciate your neighbor's investments with this overly dense project. What are you doing to yourselves and to us? 3 If you approve this, the action of this Planning Commission for the record ,based on facts you perceive so far , violates the state enabling act by increasing traffic congestion in the public way and creates private and public nuisances in the guise of legal zoning and in so doing it diminishes the residential values of the area so that your actions are "arbitrary and capricious" . Residential communities are not compatible with 5 story commercial buildings allowing their intense uses, expanded lanes, more and more traffic with its "train of cars" from I -465 to pour into this area. This attack upon the residential character of the area will have to stop now as it is an impediment to health, safety and welfare of all residences in the area on both sides of the county line by its density. For the above reasons, an approval made here tonight is illegal and we will not stand for it. 4 • • December 19, 2000 Carmel/Clay Plan Commission City Hall 1 Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Docket # 154 -00Z3i Parkwood Crossing West PUD Dear Members: My name is Gerald L. Wagner. My wife, Patricia P. Wagner and I reside at 211 West 96th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46260 -1423. Our telephone number is 848 -7242. Your approval of the proposed. Parkwood Crossing West PUD, a Duke -Weeks commercial development, is a retraction of earlier commitments by Carmel governmental officials to mainia the property zoned as residential. Rezoning to commercial will have an adverse impact on existing residential properties. Preliminary discussion with residential appraisers suggests that my property, as well as others in the affected area, will experience a significant devaluation. In addition, the area will experience a significant increase in traffic congestion and a subsequent decrease in the overall quality of life for residents in the area. Please be apprised that we, along with our neighbors, plan to hold any governmental entity, including its members, accountable if this proposal is approved. Gerald L. Wagner • City of Carmel David A. Lech, P.E. Woolpert, LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive Indianapolis, IN 46268 -4192 RE: Parkwood West Fire Department Headquarters 2 CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2600 LETTER OF APPROVAL The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plans for Parkwood West and has approved the plans subject to the following: 1. Are the buildings in this complex to be sprinklered buildings? If so we will need a meeting to discuss the location of the fire department connection. Is 4 REMED DEC 19 2000 DOCS 2. If these buildings are to be sprinklered, we are requesting an exterior access door that leads directly to the riser room. 3. We are requesting a set of plans detailing the height of the buildings and parking structures. 4. Are parking structures to be equipped with a dry standpipe for fire department use? 5. We are requesting a knox box, which will be located by the exterior riser room door for fire department emergency access. 6. Date: December 6. 2000 By: Gary Hoyt, Fire Marshal Carmel Fire Department Fire Prevention Saves Lives and Property Lillig, Laurence M From: Sent: To: Subject: Laurence: Lester, John M Tuesday, December 19, 2000 10:59 AM Lillig, Laurence M TAC meeting follow up • v REMOVED DEC 19 2000 DOCS I have received several drawings that I just want to follow up on: • 96th Street Office Campus, I received a set of drawing on Parkwood West on the third page C200, I see that a trail /path is located on the drawings off of 96th Street. There is also a trail /path on west side along Spring Mill Road, but the trail /path only goes north to the parking plaza and then goes to the road. Why does this trail /path not extend north for the entire length of the property? And then is the trail /path shown going to be part the Duk -Weeks project. • I received drawings from Weihe Engineers and Carson Design for the southwest corner of 116th Street and Keystone, but did not see them list on the TAC adgenda. What is this project's status? • I received a drawing one sheet from C.P. Morgan /CSO Architects on a project north of 116th Street for a 25,000 sq. ft. 2 -story building, but have not received any other information. Is this a project that has already been submitted or a future project? I do not have information on the project, can you help me. John M. Lester, CPRP, CPSI Manager of Support Services Carmel Clay Park and Recreation Department 1055 Third Avenue, SW Carmel, Indiana 46032 The Benefits of Parks and Recreation are Endless" BOSE McKINNEY &EVANSi ATTORNEYS AT LAW To Those on the Attached Distribution List December 15, 2000 Steven B. Granner, AICP Zoning Consultant North Office Direct Dial (317) 574 -3704 E -Mail: SGranner@boselaw.com RE: Parkwood Crossing West Planned Unit Development District Dear Commissioners: Attached hereto for your review is a new draft of the above - referenced Ordinance which incorporates comments from Commission members and staff members made at the Special Study Committee meeting on December 12, 2000. The redlined copy of the Ordinance, which now includes Exhibits A, B and C. highlights all of the changes made to the document since the December 12t1i Special Study Committee meeting. Please note that I made one slight change to what was discussed Tuesday night. Rather than change the definitions of "minor alteration" and "substantial alteration," I felt it would be more clear if I added the new sub - section "E" in Section 6.1 on page 18 of the redlined copy. The redlined copy of Exhibit B, the commitments, includes all changes made to the commitments since they were first filed on August 18, 2000. If you have any questions regarding these documents that you wish to discuss prior to the Commission meeting on December 19, please feel free to contact me at 574 -3704, or Bob Falk, of Duke -Weeks Realty Corporation, at 808 -6180. Enclosures Sincerely, Steven B. Granner, AICP cc: Philip A. Nicely Alan Tucker Staff (3) Steve Fehribach Greg Silver Ernie Reno Pam Lambert Chris Seger Bob Falk Downtown • 2700 First Indiana Plaza • 135 North Pennsylvania Street • Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 • (317) 684 -5000 • FAX (317) 684 -5173 North Office • 600 East 96th Street • Suite 500 • Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 • (317) 574 -3700 • FAX (317) 574 -3716 www.boselaw.com CARIVIEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS ,2000 ANDERSON, Marilyn, Vice President 3884 Shelborne Court Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: BankerO,NetDirect.Net Telephone: 873 -6022 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 BROACH, Kent M. 5023 St. Charles Place Carmel IN 46033 Telephone: 571 -8488 Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2001 MAILING ADDRESS: Wooden & McLaughlin 1600 Capital Center South 201 North Illinois Street Indianapolis IN 46204 CREMEANS, David A., President 9830 Greentree Drive Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: DavidCaWindowsAndSiding.Com Telephone: 875 -8030 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2001 MAILING ADDRESS: Windows & Siding of Indpls. 5041 West 96th Street Indianapolis IN 46268 DIERCKMAN, Leo 12310 Windsor Drive Carmel IN 46033 E -Mail: Ldierckmannaol.com Telephone: -/2,9 Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2002 s: 'PlanCommission\Miscinfo. pclpcmembers2000 14'11 ZGERALD, Madeline 4500 West 126th Street Zionsville IN 46077 E -Mail: mftzgerr ccs.kl2.in.us Telephone: 873 -0798 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2001 HANEY, Wayne 11620 Victoria Court Carmel IN 46033 E -Mail: WHanev13 93 faaol.com Telephone: 566 -1380 City Engineer Appointment 12 -31 -2003 HOUCK, Ron 315 West 107th Street Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: RFHouck(ivL illy. com Telephone: 844 -4515 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 KESTNER, E. Nicholas III (Nick) 2123 West 106th Street Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 846 -9142 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2001 KIRBY, Kevin 231 First Avenue NE Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: UCEAKJKO aol.com Telephone: 573 -9518 City Council Appointment Exp. 12-31-2000 MEIGHEN, Norma 11015 Lakeview Drive Carmel IN 46033 Telephone: 844 -1057 Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2002 MODISETT, Bob 13088 Brighton Avenue Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: RmodisetOR.EIRES.com Telephone: 843 -8315 Parks Board Appointmetn Exp. 12 -31 -2000 MAILING ADDRESS: REI Investments, Inc. 11711 N. Pennsylvania Street, #200 Carmel IN 46032 O'NEAL, James T., Sr. 11318 Lakeshore Drive East Carmel IN 46033 Telephone: 846 -0338 Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -00 MAILING ADDRESS: O'Neal & Associates 8900 Keystone Crossing, Suite 550 Indianapolis IN 46240 RICE, Pat 9659 Wild Cherry Lane Indianapolis IN 46280 E -Mail: pate taet Telephone: 846 -7770 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 SHARPE, John R., Sr. 5135 Oriole Drive Carmel IN 46033 E -Mail: John- Sharpe0Conseco.com Telephone: 575 -8637. Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2003 s:\PlanCommission\Miscinfo.pc\pcmembers2000 1 SPRANGER, Paul L. Six Shady Lane Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 846 -7741 Board of Public Works Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 HANCOCK, Ramona Administrative Assistant Plan Commission One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: rhancockOci.carmel.in.us Telephone: 571 -2412 FAX: 571-2426 Counsel, Plan Commission/BZA MOLITOR, John R. 11711 North Meridian Street Suite 200 Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 843 -5511 Mayoral Appointment - 4 yrs. Council Appointment - 1 year Township Appointment - 2 yrs. Parks Board - 1 year City Engineer Appointment - 4 yrs. December 14, 2000 Mr. David A. Lach, PE Woolpert LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive Indianapolis, IN 46268 -4192 RE: Parkwood West Dear Mr. Lach: have received and reviewed the plans of the above- mentioned project. At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law enforcement efforts. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us. Respectfully, Tim J. Green Acting Chief of Police TJG:vb cc: Dept. of Community Services (317) 571 -2500 A Nationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency Fax (317) 571 -2512 12/08/2000 11:13 FAX 317 291 5805 • WOOLPERT INDY Z 001 /002 11 Woolpert Fax WOOLPERT If you do not receive the number of pages listed below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 To: Steve Cash From: David A. Lach, PE Company: Hamilton County Surveyor's Department: Site /Civil Design Office Fax Number: 317.776.9628 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Pages Sent: 2 Date: December 8, 2000 (Including cover page) Copies to: File John South, Hamilton Co. SWCD 317,776.1101 Dick HiIVCraig Parks, Carmel Dept. of Engineering 317.5712439 Gary Hoyt, Carmel Fire Dept. 317.571.2615 Laurence Lillig, Dept. of Community Services 317.571.2426 Bill Akers, Carmel Communications 317.571,2585 Ron Farrand, Carmel/Clay Schools 317,844.9965 Michael Fogarty, Carmel Police Dept. 317,571.2512 Paul Pace, Carmel City Utilities 317.5712653 L. Joe Cook, Hamilton Co. Sheriff Dept. 317.776.9835 Steve Broermann, Hamilton Co. Highway/Engineering Dept. 317.776.9814 Jay Alley, Clay Twp. Regional Waste District 317.844.9203 Barry McNulty, Hamilton Co. Health Dept. 317.776.8506 John Lester, Carmel/Clay Parks Dept. 317.776,8506 Rick McClain, Cinergy 317.581.3031 Chuck Shupperd, Indiana Gas Co. 317.776,5553 Mary Shultz, Indiana Gas Co. 317.776.5553 Jeff Rice, Ameritech 317.252.5000 Pam Waggoner, Indianapolis Water Co. 317.263.6452 Kevin Walker, IPL 317,261.5201 Sharon Prater, Panhandle Eastem Pipeline Co. 317.733.3204 Robert Hendricks, Hamilton Co. Local Emergency PC 317.776.9835 Scott Brewer, Dept. of Community Services 317.571.2426 Jeff Kendall, Deputy Bldg. Commissioner 317.571.2439 Jeff Stone, Duke -Weeks Construction 808.6797 WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis. Indiana 46268 -4192 317299.7500 ■ Fax 317291.5805 • www.Woolpert.com 12/08/2000 11:13 FAX 317 291 5805 WOOLPERT INDY Page 2 Notes; 2002/002 As requested by my client, Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation, I am requesting a withdrawal of the Parkwood West office development plans for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee for the December meeting. I anticipate resubmitting the project in January 2001 with revisions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. David A. Lach, P_E_ Project Manager BOSE McK NNEY & EVANS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW To Those on the Attached Distribution List December 8, 2000 Steven B. Granner, AICP Zoning Consultant North Office Direct Dial (317) 574 -3704 E -Mail: SGranner @boselaw.com RE: Parkwood Crossing West Planned Unit Development District \ Dear Commissioners: RECENLio DEC 8 2000 DOCS Attached hereto for your review is a new draft of the above- referenced Ordinance which incorporates comments from Commission members and staff members made at the Special Study Committee meeting on December 5, 2000, as well as additional comments from a December 8, 2000 meeting between the staff members, me and Bob Falk of Duke - Weeks Realty Corporation. The redlined copy of the Ordinance highlights all of the changes made to the document since the December 5th Special Study Committee meeting. The clean copy includes Exhibits A, B and C. Exhibit B, the commitments, should also be reviewed because it includes important development controls in addition to those contained in the Ordinance. If you have any questions regarding these documents that you wish to discuss prior to the Special Study Committee meeting on December 12, please feel free to contact me at 574 -3704, or Bob Falk at 808 -6180. Steven B. Granner, AICP Enclosures cc: John Molitor Staff (4) Greg Silver Bob Falk Chris Seger Downtown • 2700 First Indiana Plaza • 135 North Pennsylvania Street • Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 • (317) 684 -5000 • FAX (317) 684 -5173 . North Office • 600 East 96th Street • Suite 500 • Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 • (317) 574 -3700 • FAX (317) 574 -3716 www.boselaw.com CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMM[SSION MEMBERS ,2000 ANDERSON, Marilyn, Vice President 3884 Shelborne Court Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: Bankerna,NetDirect.Net Telephone: 873 -6022 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 BROACH, Kent M. 5023 St. Charles Place Carmel IN 46033 Telephone: 571 -8488 Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2001 MAILING ADDRESS: Wooden & McLaughlin 1600 Capital Center South 201 North Illinois Street Indianapolis IN 46204 CREMEANS, David A., President 9830 Greentree Drive Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: DavidCaWindowsAndSiding.Com Telephone: 875 -8030 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2001 MAILING ADDRESS: Windows & Siding of Indpls. 5041 West 96th Street Indianapolis IN 46268 DIERCKMAN, Leo 12310 Windsor Drive Carmel IN 46033 E -Mail: Ldierckmannaol.com Telephone: /Z9' Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2002 s:\ P1anCommission \Miscinfo.pc \pcmembers2000 FITZGERALD, Madeline 4500 West 126th Street Zionsville IN 46077 E- Mail: mfitzgerna ccs.k12.in.us Telephone: 873 -0798 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2001 HANEY, Wayne 11620 Victoria Court Carmel IN 46033 E -Mail: WHanev1393@aol.com Telephone: 566-1380 City Engineer Appointment 12 -31 -2003 HOUCK, Ron 315 West 107th Street Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: RFHouck(Lillv.com Telephone: 844 -4515 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 KESTNER, E. Nicholas III (Nick) 2123 West 106th Street Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 846 -9142 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2001 KIRBY, Kevin 231 First Avenue NE Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: UCEAKJK!a aol.com Telephone: 573 -9518 City Council Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 MEIGHEN, Norma 11015 Lakeview Drive Carmel IN 46033 Telephone: 844 -1057 Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2002 MODISETT, Bob 13088 Brighton Avenue Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: RmodisettnaREIRES.com Telephone: 843 -8315 Parks Board Appointmenn Exp. 12 -31 -2000 MAILING ADDRESS: REI Investments, Inc. 11711 N. Pennsylvania Street, #200 Carmel IN 46032 O'NEAL, James T., Sr. 11318 Lakeshore Drive East Carmel IN 46033 Telephone: 846-0338 Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -00 MAILING ADDRESS: O'Neal & Associates 8900 Keystone Crossing, Suite 550 Indianapolis IN 46240 RICE, Pat 9659 Wild Cherry Lane Indianapolis IN 46280 E -Mail: path v7a.,het�c` Telephone: 846 -7770 Township Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 SHARPE, John R., Sr. 5135 Oriole Drive Carmel IN 46033 E -Mail: Jo hn-S harpee Conseco.c om Telephone: 575 -8637 Mayoral Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2003 -s: \P Ian C o mmission \Misc info. pc1pcmembers2000 SPRANGER, Paul L. Six Shady Lane Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 846 -7741 Board of Public Works Appointment Exp. 12 -31 -2000 HANCOCK. Ramona Administrative Assistant Plan Commission One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 E -Mail: rhancocke.ci.carmel.in.us Telephone: 571 -2412 FAX: 571 -2426 Office of the Department of Law HANEY, Douglas C:, City Attorney Bass, Elaine, Legal Assistant One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 571 -2472 Counsel. Plan CommissionBZA MOLITOR, John R. 11711 North Meridian Street Suite 200 Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 843 -5511 Mayoral Appointment - 4 yrs. Council Appointment - 1 year Township Appointment - 2 yrs. Parks Board - 1 year City Engineer Appointment - 4 yrs. • STATEMENT BEFORE SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE CARMEL -CLAY PLAN COMMISSION DEC. 5, 2000 I am Greg Silver, an attorney representing the Heartland Coalition, a remonstrance group of citizens and neighborhood organizations living and working in both Hamilton and Marion Counties. We would first have the record show that the formally recognized remonstrance parties in this case are not receiving copies of the Duke - Weeks filings of PUD revisions. This is a violation of fairness in procedures. We are supplying them, as you have requested, with data we utilize in our engineering studies. We believe they must provide us with copies of updated filings in a timely manner. A very detailed review of the PUD petition dated November 22, which we must assume is the latest draft, reveals fundamental deviations from the August 23 Project Prospectus. Previous public statements and presentations provided assurances that there would be no retail other than two restaurants on the outlot area. So- called accessory uses would be small operations within the office buildings with no exterior signage. These operations were to serve only the employees of the office buildings. We now find that, through deliberately vague language and cleverly concealed, definitions,there are loopholes big enough to drive a Staples trucks through. We perceive this misrepresentation to be devastating to the purpose of your own DP zoning ordinance. For example, our calculations, verified by outside commercial experts, show that the petition would allow for up to 92,565 square feet of accessory /retail use in separate buildings with no one knowing how many public signs could be installed. Carmel has time and again promised that there would be no public retail west of the 600 foot overlay line. But the opportunity for public retail is in here. Were this petition approved, we'd all have been mislead -- just like at 126th Street -- hence the reference to Staples trucks driving through loopholes. If this petition were approved with the current retail option in place, all current traffic projections are meaningless. Traffic projections have been predicated primarily upon office use, not 92 and one half thousand square feet of retail use. Members of the Commission should have serious concern that there are provisions in this draft which violate the DP and Overlay Ordinances in terms of process. This petition clearly preempts the authority of the Commission by providing the Director, not your Commission, with the discretion to give final approval to the DP and to approve changes and modifications to the DP. Another fundamental flaw in this petition is that careful calculations suggest the developer is double or triple counting the same square footage for set - backs, greenbelts, and road improvement takings. There is no provision for the often discussed landscaped median on 96th Street which was to enhance the much touted parklike setting. Most glaring is the missing required greenbelt on Meridian. It is our position that the PUD petition for rezoning before you tonight is deceptive, cleverly vague, and fundamentally flawed as it relates to Carmel's ordinances, goals, and promises. If approved, the resultant intensity of use, including unprecedented retail uses, would forever degrade the quality of life and safety and welfare of both Hamilton and Marion County citizens. It violates the Indiana Enabling Act which specifically states that when adopting a zoning ordinance, (and I quote) "the legislative body shall act for the purpose of lessening or avoiding congestion in public ways and promoting the public health, safety, comfort, morals, convenience, and general welfare.(end quote) ". The Heartland Coalition is not anti - development, but this fundamentally flawed petition as it stands must be denied. wfig Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Laurence Lillig Dept. of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 We are sending you Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ['Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal 1 12/05/00 24 Transmittal Letters to TAC Members Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. The Site Plan has been updated to reflect the actual open space and coverage percentages. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Blair Carmosino, Duke -Weeks Realty Corporation Signature: David A, Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert,com li wig Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 To: Sharon Prater Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. P.O. Box 38 Zionsville, IN 46077 We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ['Samples ❑ Other Re: Parkwood West REMOVED DEC 5 2000 DOCS Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: US Mail LI Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • wVi Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Brian Houghton Jones & Henry 2420 N. Coliseum Blvd., Suite 214 Fort Wayne, IN 46805 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: UPS 2nd Day We are sending you ['Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • 1NVi Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Kevin Walker Indianapolis Power & Light Co. 3600 N. Arlington Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46218 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: - WeetpaFt•Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications Ej Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • will Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 To: Pam Waggoner Indianapolis Water Company 1220 Waterway Blvd. Indianapolis, IN 46206 We are sending you ['Shop Drawings ❑ Other ❑ Samples Re: Parkwood West Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Wootprt-Courier RECu 2. ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • wig Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Scott Brewer Dept. of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 We are sending you ['Shop Drawings ❑ Other Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier ❑ Samples ['Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 To: Dick Hill /Craig Parks City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Parkwood West Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ['Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 1 Drainage Report 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 To: Jeff Kendall Deputy Building Commissioner One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Parkwood West Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • -"; Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Gary Hoyt Office of Fire Chief, Fire Station #1 City of Carmel Two Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • wig Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Michael Fogarty Office of Police Chief Three Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 We are sending you Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Other Plans ❑ Change Order Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • iffsg Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Rick McClain Cinergy 1441 South Guilford Carmel, IN 46032 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples n Specifications ® Plans ['Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • NNVi Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Jay Alley Clay Township Regional Waste District 10701 N. College Ave Indianapolis, IN 46240 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • • 'mg Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Jeff Rice Ameritech 5858 N. College Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46220 We are sending you Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com a "1g Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 To: Randy Auler CarmeVClay Parks Department 1055 Third Avenue SW Carmel, IN 46032 We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Other Re: Parkwood West Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • wV; Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Bill Akers Carmel Communications 31 First Avenue NW Carmel, IN 46032 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ['Shop Drawings ❑ Samples n Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies D Date N No. D Description 1 1 12/01/00 1 12 T TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • WoolpertTransmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Paul Arnone City of Carmel Water - Wastewater Utilities 130 1st Ave SW Carmel, IN 46032 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ['Change Order ['Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 Site Construction Drawings Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • mg Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Ron Farrand Carmel /Clay Schools 5201 East 131s1 Street Carmel, IN 46033 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications Plans ❑ Change Order ['Other Copies Date No. • Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com wig Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Chuck Shupperd Indiana Gas Company P.O. Box 1700 16000 Allisonviile Road Noblesville, IN 46061 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ®Plans ❑ Change Order ['Other Copies Date No., Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • 'mg Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Mary Shultz Indiana Gas Company P.O. Box 1700 16000 Allisonville Road Noblesville, IN 46061 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • INV; Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Steve Cash Hamilton Co. Surveryor Office One Hamilton Square, Suite 146 Hamilton Co. Judicial Center Noblesville, IN 46060 We are sending you Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Other Plans ❑ Change Order Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal 1 1 Drainage Report Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • wig; Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Barry McNulty Hamilton County Health Dept. Hamilton County Judicial Center, Suite 30 Noblesville, IN 46060 -2229 We are sending you Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • will; Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: L. Joe Cook Hamilton County Sheriff Dept. 18100 Cumberland Rd. Noblesville, IN 46060 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ['Shop Drawings ['Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com ` Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: Robert Hendricks Hamilton County Local Emergency Planning Committee 18100 Cumberland Rd. Noblesville, IN 46060 -1624 Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • • • 'mg Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 Re: Parkwood West To: John B. South Hamilton County Soil & Water. Conservation District 925 Division Street Noblesville, IN 46060 -2744 We are sending you Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ® Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To: File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com -Ng Woolpert Transmittal WOOLPERT If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Woolpert at 317.299.7500 Date: December 5, 2000 To: Steve Broermann Hamilton County Engineering/ Hamilton County Highway Dept. 1717 E. Pleasant Street Noblesville, IN 46060 Re: Parkwood West Order Number: 58661.01.083 Shipped Via: Woolpert Courier We are sending you ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ®Plans ❑ Change Order ❑ Other Copies Date No. Description 1 12/01/00 12 TAC Plan Submittal Remarks: Please find attached the plan submittal for the Parkwood West office development in Carmel, Indiana. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Copy To:. File Signature: David A. Lach, P.E. WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive • Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 -4192 317.299.7500 • Fax 317.291.5805 • www.woolpert.com • ,Duke weeks CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM TO: Carmel Plan Commission - Special Study Committee Membe s FROM: Bob Falk — Duke -Weeks Realty Corporation DATE: December 4, 2000 RE: Parkwood West Current Status of Re- zoning to PUD On behalf of the entire Duke -Weeks project team, thank you for your collective assistance and patience these past several weeks in reviewing the modified plan for Parkwood West. We trust the changes reflect the diligent effort that has been made to resolve the concerns of area residents, municipal planners and elected officials. Based upon public comment and feedback gained prior to and following the October 17 public hearing, we perceive that the current, lower - density proposal is generally acceptable. The PUD ordinance itself has undergone several revisions as a result of staff review and comments. We are hopeful that any lingering issues with the ordinance will be clarified at the meeting on Tuesday, December 5. It is our view that concerns relating to traffic appear to be the only impediment to advancing this case to a Commission vote on December 19. We ask that your discussion this upcoming Tuesday be guided, at least in, part, by the following points: • Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas ( "Parsons ") was engaged this summer, on the Plan Commission's behalf, to; (1) provide guidance for us as we prepared the numerous assumptions that are the foundation of any traffic study, and (2) review both our and the remonstrators' report to bring us to consensus, or at least help clarify the differences for the Commission. • Our report by A & F Engineering has been available, in final form since September, and has not changed. • At the point in time of the first Special Studies Committee meeting, five different sets of traffic count data existed, which is more than would usually be available. The base traffic counts, which A & F used for our report are comparable to three of the four other sets of available data. Our base numbers are in the mid range of those other sets. • The remonstration report, by Yarger Engineering, utilized the one set of data that is 25% higher than any of the other five sets. • Consensus between A & F and Yarger is unattainable as long as the remonstrators insist on using worst case assumptions, and a base data set that common sense dictates is an anomaly. f: \develser\vacantgr\parkwood west \pcmemo120400.doc pg. 1 of 2 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: 317.808.6000 Duke-weeks CONSTRUCTION • As a result of the traffic - centered special studies committee meeting last Thursday, we understand that Parsons has been charged with assessing the reasonableness of the A & F and the Yarger base assumptions. This will be in part aided by two "new" data sets; (1) the first being count data from the ongoing US 31 study (by Parsons Transportation Group), that INDOT has refused to release, and (2) additional counts by A & F collected earlier this past week. We hope, and believe that your committee should insist on closure to this uncertainty about base count data. If seven data sets are not enough, what is, keeping in mind that only one of those sets is grossly out of line with the others. If Parsons is not prepared, at Tuesday's meeting, to bring closure to this, we request that the committee decide this case based upon the data presented in the A & F study for the following reasons: • The base assumptions in the A & F study are in the mid range of, and fairly represent the available data. There is, and has been for some time, more than enough data to confirm this. • Parsons was told by INDOT's consultant that their recent counts are generally in line with the A & F counts for the various approaches, and in total are within 5 %. • The newest A & F counts completed last week are actually lower than the assumed base values in our report. • Most of the "problem" issues revolve around the US 31 & 1 -465 Interchange, an INDOT- controlled facility that is likely to be completely rebuilt either within, or shortly after the study timeframe of 2010. In conclusion, we restate our appreciation for the effort that all Commission members have given to date regarding our project. The sole purpose of this letter is to clarify issues so that a resolution of our petition may be reached as expeditiously as possible. Cc: Lawrence Lillig Carmel DOCS f: \develser\vacantgr\parkwood west \pcmemo120400.doc pg. 2 of 2 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: 317.808.6000 't X --,,,--, Traffic Impact Studies i Proposed Office Development r y MIRED \\--.=,,- 96th & Meridian Street DEC 1 2000 ®0cs Discussion Topics November 21, 2000 1. Things we can agree on ,�0 • Trip Generation (proposed use) • Vacant Property land use assumptions • Trip Distribution & Assignment (base) • Existing traffic (local roadway system, excluding interchange area) • Local intersection treatments (base assignment, excluding interchange area) rp oJti f v�r•� 2. Outstanding Issues • Base interchange traffic volumes • Existing + growth/vacant assignment • Existing + growth/vacant + proposed assignment • Degree & duration of congestion • Traffic Diversion • Traffic Management 3. Remaining Questions • Interchange treatment • 96th/Meridian treatment (practical limits ?) • Spring Mill access point (options, pros & cons) 4. Timing Issues • Background/Vacant traffic impacts • INDOT US 31 time frame • Short term/long term impacts — 96t11/Meridian & other • Acceptable LOS — short term/long term Parsons Brinckerhoff 11/21/00 Indianapolis YARGFR SING Speaahiangln TirtfcEngbw6fr?g 2000 silYED Cga sS! �eT 1 or 10:31 ... whatever you do, do it all for die glory of God Fax Trinsmittal To: John Myers, PB; Steve Fehribach, A &F, Mike Hollobaugh Telephone: 972 -1706, 202 -0864, 571 -2417 Fax: 972 - 1708, 202 -0908, 571 -2426 From: Bradley William Yarger, Yarger Engineering, Inc. Telephone: 475 -1100 Fax: 475 -0100 Sheets: 3 including this sheet 1 Day: Thursday, November 30, 2000 1 Tiine: 10:30 AM Notes: Per our discussion on Tuesday and my telephone discussion with John today, I revised my calculations last night to use A &F counts at 1 -465 with seasonal adjustment. The mainline Meridian Street volumes were taken from the north approach of Meridian and 96th and adjusted 14.7% up per the INDOT seasonal adjustment factors chart for an arterial in January 1999. The ramps were adjusted down 4.3% before calculating the missing movements. I have also changed the rest of Meridian Street to use the arterial factor instead of the freeway factor, which basically drops the Meridian Street volumes about 10 %. I still believe this is too low at the ramps, but it is better than going in with numbers that have been declared invalid. I had hoped to see the new counts before doing this, but have not received them yet. I will have more information to fax latter today. 1401 A imingo Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 -4058 Voice: 317 -475 -1100 Fax: M7-475-0100 TO 'd Z0 :TT 00, 02 AoN OOTO- SZV- 2.12:xe3 9NId33NI9N3 d39?1HJl .Duke -weeks CONSTRUCTION TO: Lawrence Lillig — Carmel DOCS FROM: Bob Falk DATE: November 28, 2000 RE: Parkwood West Traffic Analysis Proposed Development Square Footage • RECitherl m ( E l 4 1 / a z O DUM -� DUG$ S /\ � f The following should help clarify for all involved, the square footage numbers that A &F Engineering utilized in the September 2000 Traffic Impact Analysis. With the uncertainty of right - of -way taking by the Indiana Department of Transportation (InDOT) there was, and still is, a planned, and a possible maximum, building square footage. Our intent has been from the beginning to present the worst possible case scenario in creating the analysis. The draft PUD Ordinance provides for a maximum rentable area of office buildings to be 546,000 sf. This building area is based upon the premise that InDOT will take 8.5 acres of the site for future right -of -way. If InDOT takes no additional land, the maximum rentable area can grow by 56,100 sf (6,600 x 8.5) to 602,100 sf. The Trip Generation Manual calculates trips based upon gross building square footage. While the gross to rentable ration varies slightly from building to building, we applied a 5% factor which is extremely conservative. For purposes of the Traffic Impact Analysis, we used 632,205 sf of gross office area. (602,100 x 1.05) Cc: Steve Fehribach — A &F John Myers — Parsons Brinckerhoff Brad Yarger — Yarger Engineering f: \develser \vacantgr\parkwood west \Iilligmemo112800.doc 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: 317.808.6000 Duke-weeks CONSTRUCTION TO: Lawrence Lillig — Carp LpOCS FROM: Bob Falk DATE: November 28, 2000 RE: Proposed Parkwood West Development Proposed Structure Square Footage • MEMO R NOD. UM Per your request, the following are the areas of various structures as currently proposed; Parking Plaza A — 84,900 sf footprint Parking Plaza B — 80,100 sf footprint Building "Connectors" — 6,160 sf each Cc: f: \develser \vacantgr\parkwood west \lilligmemo.doc 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: 317.808.6000 • Duke-weeks CONSTRUCTION TO: Lawrence Lillig — Carmel DOCS FROM: Bob Falk DATE: November 28, 2000 RE: Parkwood West Traffic Analysis Proposed Development Square Footage coo MEMORNDUM \. 0 The following should help clarify for all involved, the square footage numbers that A &F Engineering utilized in the September 2000 Traffic Impact Analysis. With the uncertainty of right - of -way taking by the Indiana Department of Transportation (InDOT) there was, and still is, a planned, and a possible maximum, building square footage. Our intent has been from the beginning to present the worst possible case scenario in creating the analysis. The draft PUD Ordinance provides for a maximum rentable area of office buildings to be 546,000 sf. This building area is based upon the premise that InDOT will take 8.5 acres of the site for future right -of -way. If InDOT takes no additional land, the maximum rentable area can grow by 56,100 sf (6,600 x 8.5) to 602,100 sf. The Trip Generation Manual calculates trips based upon gross building square footage. While the gross to rentable ration varies slightly from building to building, we applied a 5% factor which is extremely conservative. For purposes of the Traffic Impact Analysis, we used 632,205 sf of gross office area. (602,100 x 1.05) Cc: Steve Fehribach — A &F John Myers — Parsons Brinckerhoff Brad Yarger — Yarger Engineering f: \develser\vacantgr \parkwood west \Iilligmemo112800.doc 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: 317.808.6000 • Dukeweeks CONSTRUCTION TO: Lawrence Lillig — Car • - •OCS FROM: Bob Falk DATE: November 28, 2000 RE: Proposed ParkwoodWest Development Proposed Structure Square Footage M E M 0 RPA D ll -M C NOV 28 2000 E) V. DOGS Per your request, the following are the areas of various structures as currently proposed; Parking Plaza A — 84,900 sf footprint Parking Plaza B — 80,100 sf footprint Building "Connectors" — 6,160 sf each Cc: f: \develser \vacantgr\parkwood west \lilligmemo.doc gal 600 East 96th Street Suite 100. Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: 317.808.6000 YARGERM • ZNGINEERING8' ialtiingln Tr is Enguieering Mr. Laurence M. Lillig, Jr. Mr: Mike Hollobaugh Department of Community Development City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 November 22, 2000 Re: Traffic Impact Study I -465 at US 31 Carmel; Indiana Dear Mr. Lillig and Mr. Hollobaugh, Please find enclosed corrections for our traffic study and appendices for the proposed developments at I- 465 and US 31. The corrections are for the Meridian and 96th Street intersection where we found that the seasonal adjustment factor was incorrectly applied resulting in a slightly lower forecast. We also spotted that Distribution 6 - Scenario 6 AM in the appendix was incorrect, but the report reflects the correct numbers. In yesterday's meeting, Mr. Falk clarified their development sizes. Because of this clarification, our scenario 6 is the proposed development with the freeway to freeway interchange improvement and scenario 7 represents the proposed development with no land taken for the interchange improvement. Scenario 6 site traffic is about 5% low since it uses the gross leasable area instead of the gross area. This represents about 30 vehicles in the AM and PM rush hours and once they are assigned to the street system they would be insignificant, considering that the maximum development is bracketed by scenario 7. As I mentioned in my telephone message yesterday, it appears the reason that some Special Studies Committee members did not receive their reports was that when I received the distribution list, I only received the second of two pages. While I realized it was not the entire Planning Commission distribution list, I thought it was the Special Studies Committee distribution list and that was all I needed to distribute since that was all I received. I have since received a full list of the Planning Commission and realized what had happened. We will be delivering the reports and revisions today and tomorrow. As you know, we are still waiting on the traffic count data from INDOT taken this fall. I therefore am holding off other changes to the study until we have the counts and can make all the modifications at one time. In our Monday meeting, I would like to have the following questions answered. What level of service should we consider acceptable? The guidelines clearly state level of service "C ", but the petitioner has used level of service "D ". Does it vary by location? What improvements are considered impractical? I believe it was stated that replacing the I -465 bridge was impractical. Is acquiring right -of -way from the Shell Gas Station and McDonalds impractical? How many lanes are considered impractical in Carmel? If we are considering the full development of the site with all 36 acres, then I believe that means scenario 7 is without the interchange. Should we therefore use all of the acreage in the northwest and southeast quadrants of the interchange for the non -site background traffic? Sincerely, Yarger Engineering, Inc. Bradley William Yarger, P.E. President • 1 Cor. 10:31 ... whatever you do, do it all for the gloryofGod. Enclosures: Traffic Study Report Revisions Traffic Study Appendices Revisions cc: Special Studies Committee Members (Report Only) John Myers, Parsons Brinkerhoff Bob Falk, Duke — Weeks Reality • Steve Fehribach, A &F Engineering, Inc. Gerry Wagner, Heartland Coalition (Report Only) Pam Lambert, Heartland Coalition (Report Only) 1401 Alimingo Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 -4058 Voice: 317 - 475 -1100 Fax: 317 - 475 -0100 • • Cedar Knolls Homeowners' Associations 9595 Copley Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 November 13, 2000 Mr.Paul Spranger, Chairman Carmel -Clay Plan Commission, Special Study Committee City Of Carmel Dept. of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Parkwood Crossing West PUD Petition — 154 -00 -Z, revised 10/17/00 Dear Mr. Spranger: The homeowners in our neighborhood association, which is located on the Southwest corner of 96th & Springmill, are very concerned about the impact of this high- density office and commercial development immediately adjacent to our low- density single - family homes. In recent months the Duke -weeks Realty organization has held open houses and met with various neighborhood organizations to explain the details of their revised plans for this project and to solicit input and suggestions to improve the development. We appreciate these efforts and their willingness to discuss the various issues. Although they have considered some of our minor and obvious suggestions, we have observed that their ordinance petition ignores many of our major quality of life issues. In addition, in some instances plans or commitments that have been represented in these meetings have not been followed or included. It has been represented that this revised plan has a 36% reduction in square feet from their previous plan. The previous plan that was rejected by the Plan Commission included 710,000 square feet of office space on 36.4 acres or about 19,500 per acre. This new plan has 546,000 square feet, not including the proposed restaurants, on approximately 28 acres (after reducing the acreage for the INDOT right of way) or the same 19,500 square feet per acre. Although at this time Duke has not included any development plans for the other two parcels, their future potential development and the related impacts have not been eliminated. We object strongly to the massive size and density of these proposed office and parking structures with inadequate details for the outlot development and unacceptable buffering and setbacks from low - density high value residential property. This extensive planned development will have irreparable impact on the quality of life including traffic congestion, pollution, noise, light and the values and character of the surrounding • • residential neighborhood. All factors and trends that in future years will determine the desirability, livability and vitality, not just of our neighborhood, but the entire metropolitan area. In addition to the issue of density we are requesting your consideration of the following unacceptable provisions and covenants of the proposed ordinance: • It was stated by Duke representatives in a meeting with neighborhood association members that the earthen berm along the perimeter would be 6 to 8 feet in height with 8 -10 foot tall conifers. The petition in Section 7.3 B. states the berm is only 5 to 6 feet in height, which is not acceptable considering the proposed height and proximity of the structures to our neighborhood. Attached is a view, previously prepared and presented by Duke, showing how the screening could look. Assuming average pedestrian height for dimensional reference, the berm and conifers appear in this rendering to be approximately the height represented to our neighbors, not what is in the petition. In addition it is important to not only screen the traffic as it passes on 96th street, but our residents who are 2 to 3 properties deep. We therefore request that 15 -18 foot tall deciduous tress, as shown in Duke's earlier landscape rendering, also be included. This would soften the buildings impact, help reduce light and noise and present a more naturally appealing greenbelt. • The traffic plan presented to the Plan commission and during the neighborhood open house does not adequately or accurately address the impact of pollution, noise and congestion in our residential neighborhood. If these other traffic issues could be corrected, the traffic roundabout concept, depending on its design and location, would be acceptable to our neighborhood. We do however request that Duke include in their PUD a detailed landscaping plan for the center of the roundabout and they commit to build and maintain it. In addition, traffic in this circle will be shining headlights into our neighborhood and causing increased noise and pollution. To help minimize this, we request that a brick wall, similar to our entry gate, be constructed at the southwest corner of the roundabout and extended 100' in each direction from corner. • Although not acceptable, it was originally represented to our residents by Duke that the parking garage near the corner of 96th & Springmill would be a maximum of 2 stories and the buildings would not exceed 5 stories. o Section 4 of the proposed ordinance now limits the parking garage to "grade plus two levels" a total of 3 stories. o Section 6.1 only limits the office building height to 5 stories within 460' of the centerline of 96t street and 100' in height on the remainder of the property. Since the legal description shows that the property is approximately 1,000' deep, the 5 stories limitation applies to less than 50% of the total property. o Section 6.3 apparently has a minimum set back for the parking garage of only 115 feet and 266.5 feet for the office buildings. • 1 These massive office structures, as proposed, are 100 feet closer to 96th Street than any building in Parkwood East. In addition, the proposed 3 story parking garage will only be 100 feet from 96th Street while parking structures in Parkwood East are behind the office buildings. It has been represented that Parkwood West is a similar development to East. We do not accept their assumed premise that Parkwood East is an acceptable development in the middle of low - density residential homes and the extent of the West development is less acceptable. We request that no structure be permitted above 4 stories and that parking garages be constructed underground with increased green space and landscaping above them. • Our neighborhood is also concerned with noise from a possible corporate tenant regularly utilizing a helicopter in the middle of a residential area. We have repeatedly requested that Duke agree to prohibit a heliport landing area in the development. They have indicated on several occasions that they would consider it but have again failed to recognize this as a residential neighborhood and include this restriction in their commitments. Unless these changes are incorporated into the PUD petition we must request that it be denied. Respectively submitted, John Grogan President, Cedar Knolls Homeowners Association Cc: Chris Seger Duke -weeks Realty Corp. • HEARTLAND COALITION UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN DUKE CASE: November 14, 2000 RECEIVED NOV 14 DOCS I. THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PREMA There is still great uncertainty regarding INDOT plans. •There will be extreme congestion at the Meridian Street /1465 interchange until INDOT completes construction of a new interchange which may not occur for many years . The added traffic from the proposed development would greatly exacerbate this problem. elf INDOT does not take the land currently reserved for interchange construction, the petitioner, in accordance with the terms of its request for rezone, will likely exercise its right to build an additional 56,100 square feet of office space. The additional development will alter the parking ratio, and the augmented traffic congestion will negatively impact the 1465 interchange in direct correlation to the increased square footage. II. THIS IS A PIECEMEAL APPROACH TO THE TOTAL UNDEVELOPED LAND USE ISSUE WITH THE ULTIMATE RESULT BEING UNWANTED URBAN SPRAWL. When studying traffic impacts, this Committee must also consider the yet to be developed two quadrants located at 1465 and Meridian Street and also to give regard to other potential developments along the 96th Street corridor which would further impact traffic congestion. At the least, any PUD Ordinance considered for the quadrant in question should incorporate commitments and /or stipulations, to run with the land, such stipulations to prohibit future zoning petitions or variances, other than "down zones ", from the existing zoning on the NW and SE quadrants where 1465 and US 31 intersect. III. THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE DRIVES THE TRAFFIC ISSUE. While the density may not approach what would be considered "high" in downtown Indianapolis, it is too high for the conditions of the area affected by the petition. Any development which results in inevitable traffic congestion contradicts the Indiana Enabling Act. IV. THERE IS NO CLARIFICATION /COMMITMENT THAT THE PETITIONER WILL GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE NO DEVIATION OR EXCEPTIONS FROM PROPOSED USES. As an example, heliports and cell towers are totally incompatible uses with the residential character of the surrounding property. 11/14/00 12:33 FAX 3172020908 A&F ENGINEERING t 02 A 8 ENGINEERING CO.ALC CONSULTING ENGINEERS boo. \t` ,� 0 cots William J. Fduibacb, PE. President Steven J. Fehnbadt, P.E. Vas President 8425 Keystone Crossing Siute-200 Indianapolis, In 46240 (317) 202 -0864 fax (317) 202.0908 www.af-eng.com MEMORANDUM DATE: November 14,2000 TO: Mr. Lawrence Wig City of Carmel FROM: Steven J. Pebribach, P.P. E. Matt Brown, T.I. BE: 961' Street Study The following are AAF Engineering's responses to the questions posed by Mr. Yarger in a letter dated 10/18/2000. Questions 2 -7: It is our opinion that these issues are resolved with the additional count data that was obtained from INDOT and from the two counts we did in October 2000_ Question 8: I have tried to find this error but cannot My calculations show an approximate growth of 2S% over 11 years. Question 9: There is no error is the count data provided in the A&F study. A recount was conducted on 11/6/00. This recount verified the data published in the study_ Question 10: The vacant parcels were assumed to contain the land uses and sizes that were used for the original Duke study (ie. the same as the 96" Street Corridor study). Question 11: The projected traffic from the Duke land uses assumed in the 961' Street study were first subtracted from the Year 2020 traffic. The marking volumes were then "straight- lined" back to year 2010 volumes. The new Duke land use traffic was they added to these year 2010 volumes. Question 12: The assignment and distribution was taken from the 96" Street study. Question 13: When we took the 2020 volumes from the 961' Street report and subtracted the original Duke land use volumes we obtained a right -tum volume less than the existing volume. Therefore, the existing volume was used. Obviously I would be more than happy to discuss this calculation with you in greater detail. However, it should be noted (as pointed out in Mr. Yargers letter) that the southbound right -turn will operate with very little delay. I would assume that any reasonable growth would not greatly increase the delay along this movement or at the intersection. Question 14: The old HCS LOS limits were published, however, the correct HCS version was used_ This error can easily be corrected by inserting the correct pages. Also, we would be more than happy to include a diem s on of the roundabout analysis if this issue is critical. 11/14/00 12:33 FAX 3172020908 A&F ENGINEERING Ij 03 • Question 15: As stated by the IIMC, this effective green can be expected to be greater than 2 seconds in congested areas. Therefore. it is not unlikely that the effective green could be longer than the default. Question 16: It is our opinion that the northbound approach could be greatly improved by using additional signage to direct I -465 traffic to the appropriate lanes at the intersection. We feel this signage would change the existing lane reliations. Question 17: The calculations could exclude RTOR. However, this would be done for all scenarios including the existing "baseline" conditions. ' nuts, a slight change in the results could oc aw for all scenarios. Question la: This lane is assumed to provide service to traffic criteria the proposed site- The soutbbonudlanes cotdd be signed so that traffic entering the site uses the outside right-turn lane and the westbound 96* Street traffic would use the inside rigbt.tum lane. Question 19: The signal dmings were optimized on a network basis The intersections could be optimized on an isolated basis: however, this does not best represent the conditions in the study area. Questions 20 & 21: The improvements analyzed at Spring Nall Road and College Avenue were based on the recommended improvements outlined in the 96°1 Street Corridor Study. The improvements assumed at Meridian Street were based on what would be committed to with the Packwood West development. Question 22: The 96`4 Street and Sprung Mill Road improvements were taken directly from the 96th Street Corridor Study. A two -lane roundabout is needed with two lane approadtes to tninimin the queue lengths along 96th Street and Spring Mill Road. Question 23: The Y +AR times could be increased. However, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the Been time extension would be greater than 2 seconds with an increased yellow period. Question 24: The geometries used for the analysis were taken from the 96th Street study (the 9616 Street study had the outside north and south lanes throughtright- turn). Also, the geometries and signal timings used in the analysis allow for the existing 5- section heads to be reused. Question 25: The site lies within the U.S. 31 overlay zone which would allow office land use. In fact, the allowable office use would actually be more dense than the proposed Duke offices. Question 26: A zip code study conducted by A&F Engineeting has shown that approximately 69% of the people traveling to a building located in the existing Parkwood West would most likely use I-465 given the location of their residences. Question 27: We feel that these issues are design related and should not impact zoning decisions. Question 2a: Syncbro software was used for the analysis. However, the results were input into HCS for the report otilikt- Question 29: k is in the guidelines that a lower level is acceptable when it is demonstrated that it is tut practical to achieve LOS C- Please feel free to contact us with any questions you might have regarding these responses. 11/14/00 12:33 FAX 3172020908 A&F ENGINEERING • FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL TO: Mr. Lawrence Lillig FROM: Steve Fehribach / Matt Brown DATE: November 14, 2000 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: COMMENTS: • X01 Please forward documents to addressee immediately upon receipt If these documents are illegible or incomplete, please contact us at (317) 202 -0864. Our fax number is (317) 202 -0908. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documents accompanying this telecopy transmission contain confidential information. The information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is not permissible. If you have received this telecopy in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the number above th arrange for return of the original documents. Thank you. RI A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8425 Keystone Crossing, Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 48220 (317) 202 -0854 Traffic Study Review Activis 96th /Meridian Office Development 8/30 Kickoff Meeting - DOCS office Mike Hollibaugh — Carmel John Myers, Kimberly Lutz — Parsons Brinckerhoff Bob Falk — Duke Weeks Steve Fehribach, Matt Brown — A &F Engineering 9/11 Traffic distribution information provided to A &F Engineering (from prior 96th Study prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff). 9/18 Coordination Meeting — DOCS office Mike Hollibaugh — Carmel John Myers — Parsons Brinckerhoff Blair Carmosino — Duke Weeks Steve Fehribach — A &F Engineering 9/26 Heartland Coalition meeting (John Myers attendance) 10/2 A &F Traffic Impact Study received on behalf of Duke Weeks Street 10/17 Comments on A &F Study received from Yarger Engineering on behalf of Heartland Coalition. 10/18 Coordination Meeting — Parsons Brinckerhoff office John Myers — Parsons Brinckerhoff Brad Yarger — Yarger Engineering 10/30 Revised traffic counts received from A &F. 10/31 Coordination Meeting — DOCS office Mike Hollibaugh, Laurence Lillig, Phyllis Morrissey — Carmel John Myers — Parsons Brinckerhoff Bob Falk — Duke Weeks Steve Fehribach, Bill Fehribach, Matt Brown — A &F Engineering 10/31 PTG (INDOT) traffic counts requested for US 31/1-465 11 /1 A &F traffic counts transmitted to Yarger Engineering 11/1 Yarger Engineering comments received re: revised traffic counts 11/7 Yarger Engineering Traffic Study received on behalf of Heartland Coalition 11/13 A &F comments received in response to Yarger Engineering Comments on Study. Parsons Brinckerhoff Indianapolis 11/14/00 NUV- 117-16% F 1% %ti 1-119 W1LKL11 -1- JLJL. 10 FAX TRANSMISSION WICKLIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 99 East 106th Street Indianapolis, IN 46280 -1318 (317) 844 -3300 Fax: (317) 844 -6363 1 I" 6 J O J DATE: November 9, 2000 TO: Mayor Brainard FROM: Barbara Layton s, PAGES: 1 J Have you been able to accomplish the following two items? 1. Arrange it so all traffic leaving the proposed Duke project at 96th and Meridian is directed east? We do not want Duke's traffic encroaching onto Spring Mill Road. 2. Arrange it so ALL vehicles to be parked on the west side of the project are parked underground with park like landscaping on the top. We do not want commercialism encroaching onto Spring Mill Road. Thanks for your help. 1 11/09/00 11:50 FAX 1 HAMILTON CO HWY. 444 Carmel DOCD 1 Q 002/002 15'�" November 9, 2000 Mr. Bob Falk Duke Weeks Realty 600 East 96th Street Carmel, Indiana 46240 RE: Parkwood West Right of-Way Requirements N of 96th Street / E of Springmill Road Clay Township Dear Mr. Falk: This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of _- transmittal containing the plans for Parkwood West. After reviewing the plans, the Highway Department has the following comments: 1. In accordance with the 96 a 75' half. 2. Additional right of way will accommodate the needed those requirements. 3. 96'^ Street is currently and feels that all questions an If you have any comments or que any time. Thank you for your atte Sincerely, Steven J. Broermann Staff Engineer cc: Laurence Lillig, Jr.- Carm Kate Weese - City of Ca Les Locke - Hamilton Cou o:IUSERSISBITAC111- 09-00.aa.wpd Street Corridor Study, the required right of way for Springmill Road is be required at the intersection. of 96th Street and Springmill Road to road improvements. Please contact the City of Carmel conceming =r the jurisdiction of The City of Cannel, therefore, this Department comments should be referred to the City. ions regarding this letter or project, please feel free to contact me at ion and cooperation. 1 Dept. of Community Services el Engineer ty Highway Engineer 1717 PLEASANT STREET NOBLESVILLE, INDIANA 46080 (317) 773 -7770 11/09/00 11:49 FAX HAMILTON CO HWY. Carmel DOCD 001/002 November 9, 2000 Ms. Kate Weese City of Carmel Engineer 1 Civic Square, First Floor Carmel, Indiana 46032 RE: Parkwood West - Valinet Property Right of Way Requirements N of 96th Street \ E of Springmill Road Clay Township Dear Ms. Weese: This letter serves to address issues conceming the for Parkwood West - Valinet Property project. After reviewing the plans, the Highway Department has the following comments:. 1. Based upon our meeting of October 3, 2000, the Highway Department evaluated the right of way requirements for the construction of a double lane roundabout at the above mentioned intersection. Attached is a diagram indicating the required corner cut on the Valinet Property. Please note that additional right of way is required on the south side of 9.6"' Street for the northbound approach lanes of the roundabout. Additional right of way is also required on the west side of the intersection on both 96th Street and Springmill. Road. 2. The right of way requirements are from preliminary design sketches, this Department feels the City of Carmel should require the Developer's Engineer to provide a more detailed drawing of the roundabout to determine specific right of way requirements. Because of the proposed development lies within the City's jurisdiction the Highway Department has suspended further design of the intersection by our consultant (ACE). 3. Although the Highway Department considers this to be a Carmel project, the Highway Department would like the opportunity to review the plans, as Springmill Road and the western approach are under County Highway jurisdiction. In addition, the City of Indianapolis should also be given a opportunity to comment on any design that would include any right of way acquisition or construction in Marion County. If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter or project, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Sincerely, Steven J. Broermann Staff Engineer cc: Laurence LiIlig, Jr. Les Locke aAussxs \Tnc \11.09.00.4.v04 runASANT STREET NOBLESVILLE, INDIANA 46080 (317) 773 -7770 Y%RGERP'71 ENGINEERING® Specializing In TraflicEngineeaing Mr. Laurence M. Lillig, Jr. Mr. Mike Hollobaugh Department of Community Development City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 November 7, 2000 Re: Traffic Impact Study 1 -465 at US 31 Carmel, Indiana Dear Mr. Lillig and Mr. Hollobaugh, Please find enclosed my traffic study and appendices for the proposed developments at I -465 and US 31. Originally this study was prepared for the development of three sites, but I have updated it for the new proposal of just the site in the southwest corner of the interchange with the new land use proposal. Because of the complex nature of diversion, I originally made five distributions in an attempt to find a reasonable distribution. With the new proposal and assumptions from this year, I have made two additional distributions. While the first five may be of some interest, only distributions 6 and 7 apply to the project currently under consideration of rezoning. There are also several scenarios in the study, but the ones to consider for this rezone petition are scenario 3, as currently zoned, and scenario 6, as currently proposed. Scenario 7 is the same land use for the site as what is in the A &F Engineering Co. study, but it is different than the petition. In this study, I have used the traditional approach as outlined in the Carmel Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. In distributions 6 and 7, I have used the base level of service of "C ", as prescribed in the guidelines. In the prior distribution, I used level of service "D" per our conversations last year, but that was for the previous project that has been withdrawn. The technical appendices are approximately 1,500 pages for distributions 6 and 7, so I have chosen to distribute them only to the engineers and planners. If anyone would like a copy, we can make more sets, but as you can see there are very technical and probably only understandable to traffic engineers and planners. As stated in the report, I plan to present a computer animation of the traffic operations at the meeting, but since it is an animation, I cannot submit it on paper prior to the meeting. It will demonstrate visually the impacts at the interchange in terms of queue lengths and stops that cannot be easily demonstrated in any other way. It also takes into direct consideration the progression between intersections. Please call me with your questions or comments at 317 -475 -1100. Sincerely, Yarger Engineering, Inc. W4.,, --- 1 Cor. 10:31 ... whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Bradley William Yarger, P.E. President BWY/bwy Enclosures: Traffic Study Report Traffic Study Appendices cc: Special Studies Committee Members (Report Only) John Myers, Parsons Brinkerhoff Bob Falk, Duke — Weeks Reality Steve Feribach, A &F Engineering, Inc. Gerry Wagner, Heartland Coalition (Report Only) Pam Lambert, Heartland Coalition (Report Only) 1401 Alimingo Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 -4058 Voice: 317 - 475 -1100 Fax: 317 - 475 -0100 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW October 25, 2000 Mr. Laurence M. Lillis. Jr. Planning Administrator Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: U.S. 31 and 96t' Street (Valinet Property) Dear Lawrence: Philip A. Nicely North Office Direct Dial (317) 574 -3701 E -Mail: PNicely @boselaw.com Enclosed herewith is the original letter from Cri.stine Klika relating to the property at 96t'' and Meridian. We had furnished you with a copy of this last week, but I thought you should have the original in your file. If you have any questions, please advise. Enclosure ::ODMA \MI- IODMA1N01;32957;2 Very trul yours, Philip • . N icely Downtown • 2700 First Indiana Plaza • 135 North Pennsylvania Street • Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 • (317) 684 -5000 • FAX (317) 684 -5173 North Office • 600 East 96th Street • Suite 500 • Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 • (317) 574 -3700 • FAX (317) 574 -3716 www.boselaw.com . • • 1 Cor. 10:31 ... whatever you do, do it all for the dory of Cod Specializing In 7heiicEngineving Mr. John Myers, P.E. Parsons Brinkerhoff 47 South Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 October 18, 2000 Re: Parkwood West Traffic Studies Spring Mill Road and 96th Street Carmel, Indiana Yarger Engineering Job Number: 20000801 Dear John, RECEIVED OCT 20 2000 Docs I have reviewed A &F Engineering's traffic study for Parkwood West and have several questions and comments on the contents, methods, and results. I am in the process of completing my own study, but need to discuss several issues with you about the scope, assumptions, and methods. I would like to set an appointment where we can discuss the following and my study. Given some of the questions I have about the validity of A &F Engineering's study, I feel I must use a more traditional method of forecasting and analyzing traffic instead of relying on their study. I have numbered my comments for our future discussions. 1. Where is the study scope memorandum of understanding as required by the Carmel guidelines page 6? It was not in the file the last time I checked. 2. Why is the office building larger than in the promotional literature (632,205 sft vs. 561,000 sft)? The Planned Unit Development ordinance also says 546,000 sft. of office and 15,000 sft. of restaurant. The 632,205 sft. does not include the restaurants. The ordinance allows for some increase if INDOT does not use all 8.5 acres set aside for them, but the result would not come to 632,205 sft. even if INDOT chooses to do nothing. 3. Interchange turning movement counts are not included except in the graphics on page 13. Were these actual counts or were they back calculated to match the previous counts? Were the counts taken during the US 31 reconstruction? Were only certain ramps counted with hose counters on August 13, 1999? 4. The interchange volumes are about 76 - 81% of INDOT counts from March 1999 for total intersection volumes, depending on location and time of day. I checked with Carolyn Coffin of the Greenfield District and she said the people who took the counts were experienced traffic counters and that she knew of no reason to doubt the accuracy of the counts. I have attached the count sheets for your use. Please note that the formatting of the car versus truck sheets is limited to three digits, but the total sheet does show all four digits. The counters and software also are capable of four digits. 5. A &F Engineering's hose counts taken on Friday, August 13, 1999 are only 61% of the volumes found by INDOT on Tuesday, March 23 and Friday, March 26th, 1999. Summer and Friday counts are typically higher than normal, yet in this case, their summer counts are much lower than INDOT's early spring counts. 6. A &F Engineering's counts taken in January 1999 are 25% lower on Meridian Street north of 96th Street and south of 103`d Street than INDOT counts taken in March 1999. (A &F Engineering's counts at Meridian and 103rd Streets were presented in their 1999 study.) 7. The 2010 base forecasts (without Parkwood West) at the interchange are lower than INDOT Greenfield District's 1999 turning movement counts except for the AM peak hour at the northern 1401 Alimingo Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 -4058 Voice: 317- 475 -1100 Fax: 317 - 475 -0100 • • Mr. Myers ion S /oo Page 2 of 4 intersection. The INDOT counts are on the hour counts so the peak hours could be even higher if they do not start on the hour. 8. The PM northbound through at the eastbound ramps is forecasted to increase by 50% in 11 years. This seams to be unusually high for background growth. 9. The Spring Mill Road at 96th Street AM existing northbound right turn volume is different than the 96th Street Corridor Study, but it appears that the 96th Street Corridor Study has an error and the data for it came from the previous Parkwood study in 1999 by A &F Engineering. 10. What do the background growth forecasts assume for the vacant parcels from the previous study for Parkwood West? Where is the documentation? The 96th Street Corridor Study had three scenarios. Which one if any was used? 11. What is the source of the 2010 forecasts since the 96th Street Corridor Study was for the year 2020? Was a 1% growth factor and build up method used? If so, where are the calculations? 12. What is the basis for the distribution and assignment? Was it the 96th Street Corridor Study? What was the basis for that and was it capacity restrained? Did it factor congestion at the interchange ramp intersections and on the ramps themselves? The corridor study was for the year 2020 so it would have been appropriate to assume that the ramps would be improved by INDOT before 2020. This probably would not be true before 2010, and if it were, it would dramatically change the impacts with the probability of 103`d Street not having an interchange. 13. The AM southbound right turn volume at Meridian and 96th Streets is the same volume in 1999 and 2010 without Parkwood West. It would be very unusual to have zero growth in 11 years. 14. The calculations use the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual, 3`d Ed. (as it should), but the text uses the 1st Edition Highway Capacity Manual. There is no discussion of the roundabout capacity analyses. HCS 3.2 has a bug in it but A &F Engineering has avoided the bug by putting in signal timings that have opposing left turn times different by more than the yellow plus all red times. HCS is also correct when the left turn greens are equal length. If the opposing left turns' greens were different by less than the yellow and all red, HCS 3 calculates the wrong effective g/C ratio and over estimates the capacity for that movement. I have developed a spreadsheet that correctly analyzes the situation and will use it if needed. 15. The analyses should submit the HCS long forms to see all of the inputs. Using the short forms allows for hidden changes that can only be seen on the long form or by recalculating the analyses, such as lane use factors, PHF, truck factors, parking factors, bus factors, pedestrians, lost times, extensions, upstream metering factors, etc. I can replicate most, but not all, of the study's HCS results up to the V/C Ratios and most delays for Meridian at 96th Street using the HCS defaults and the inputs given S -1 Existing, and using 5% trucks and a 3 second effective extension into a 3 second yellow! This means that vehicles continue at 100% saturation for their entire yellow time. This would be very unusual for Indiana given my field research at Purdue in the 1980s. It is also 50% higher than the HCM default values. The calculations include other factors influencing the southbound and a few other delays, but I cannot determine which factors. The progression factors and the I- values for lane groups with upstream signals appear to be partially involved. I am unable to back calculate any logical input that would give the results printed in the study appendix. 16. The analyses appear to have used the default values for the lane utilization factors although the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual says not to use them under certain circumstances, like northbound • • Mr. Myers 10/18/00 Page 3 of 4 Meridian Street at 96th Street and the nearby heavy right turns at the I -465 ramps. See HCM 3`d Edition, page 9 -18. When we checked in the summer of 1999, the AM factor was 1.40 (0.71 for HCS 3) and PM was 1.28 (0.78). (We previously used HCS 2 to avoid the signal timing problem. In the third edition, the factors are inverted and applied differently.) These are dramatically different than the default values and will have a major effect on the level of service calculations, but they are field verified, and therefore, more accurate than the defaults. If you have any questions, please drive northbound Meridian Street and look at the differing queue lengths by lane. 17. The study's right turn on red volumes seem very high for places with right turn arrows. These need justification for the assumed 25% for the shared lanes and 50% for the exclusive lanes, since most right turns on red at highly saturated movements occur during the time when the right turn arrow would run. With right turn arrows, I prefer to use zero additional turns on red. It is a bit conservative on non - critical movements, but assuming 50% turn under red is very generous given the saturated nature of some of the conflicting movements. 18. Meridian Street second southbound right turn lane is not needed at 96th in any scenario. It only benefits Parkwood West, and then, very little. It is a level of service of "A" with only one southbound right turn lane. In the meantime, this increases the all red clearance times, and if there were pedestrians, it would increase their clearance time as well. This intersection will be very large without adding unnecessary lanes. 19. All signal timings and phasing should be optimized to provide the best level of service with the traffic volumes and lane configuration. In most instances, this is not the case in their study. It provides a distorted view when comparing with and without Parkwood West. Some of the movements are over capacity in the analyses. V/C ratios should be under 100% if possible. See HCM 3rd Ed. Page 9 -30, under the heading "Interpretation of Results." 20. The scenario #2 geometry should just barely meet the minimum level of service criteria, if possible. No extra lanes beyond that ,should be included, as they have done. This makes it look like no additional lanes are needed for Parkwood West, when they have actually been assumed unnecessarily in the without Parkwood West scenario. 21. Scenario #3 should identify what improvements are necessary to maintain the minimum level of service criteria if possible or at least maintain the level of service from scenario #2, if possible. Costs and right -of -way should not be a factor until after determining the lanes or evaluating alternatives to provide the level of service. 22. Why have left turn arrows at Spring Mill and 96th Street? Why right turn lanes in all directions? Scenario #2 should have no right turn lanes or arrows. Scenario #3 should have northbound and westbound right turn lanes and no arrows. These provide better levels of service than having four left turn arrows and right turn lanes, plus it costs less and has less impact to the neighbors. Would a one - lane roundabout work in Scenario #2? (I do not have the software to check.) Would single lane entrances to a one or two lane roundabout work? Level of service "B" at this intersection is over designed unless it is the minimum design that will work. 23. Yellow and all red times are too short in most cases in A &F Engineering's analyses. They should use ITE methods for yellows and all reds. An alternative that will provide similar results for yellows is to divide the speed limit by ten. Of course, this only works on level terrain. 24. College Avenue and 96th Street only needs to be retimed to maintain level of service "C" plus omit the unneeded turn arrows in all scenarios. (This can be a controller input and the existing 5 section heads can remain.) Mr. Myers 10/18100 Page 4 of 4 25. The study does not show or compare against an as zoned scenario. Since the pertinent question is whether or not to rezone the site, a scenario with the site as zoned is appropriate to the scope. It was included in the 1999 study. 26. The study does not reassign traffic for congestion as required by the Carmel guidelines, page 13, Assignment Procedures. 27. The study should include queue length estimates and check for intersection spacing and needed turn lane lengths. 28. Progression can have a large impact on delay, and therefore, level of service. The study needs a progression analysis where signals are coordinated. I suggest using Transyt, Corsim, or Synchro. These programs provide information on progression, delay, and queue lengths. Corsim and Synchro have microscopic animations to show items missed in macroscopic analysis tools like Transyt -7F, Passer, and HCS. They also require more input data and a greater knowledge of traffic signal timing and operations. 29. It appears in the language of the report that the acceptable level of service has been demoted from "C" in the Carmel guidelines to "D" for this study. There is no mention of this change, but can it be seen in comparing the text to the level of service tables. When HNTB reviewed the 1999 study, they allowed for the lower acceptable level of service. As I said above, I am preparing an independent traffic impact study for this development. I cannot in good conscience use A &F Engineering's forecasts when I know they are lower than existing counts by INDOT at the most critical locations: the I -465 ramps. If the ramp intersections are failing, then I also must, per the Carmel guidelines, reassign traffic to avoid the congestion since there is no possibility of adding lanes under the bridge until the interchange is completely reconstructed. I assume that the interchange reconstruction is outside the scope of this study. If not, then A &F Engineering's study must account for the diverted traffic from Meridian and 103`d Street and the new configuration. While I also doubt the validity of the other intersection counts, I cannot collect more field data while US 31 is under reconstruction. The reconstruction would severely taint the results of any data collection in the area as people divert to Keystone Avenue, College Avenue, and Spring Mill Road to avoid the construction zone congestion. Please call me at 475 -1100 to set an appointment to discuss this further. Sincerely, Yarger Engineering, Inc. Bradley William Yarger, P.E. President cc: Gerry Wagner, Heartland Coalition Greg Silver, Attorney for Heartland Coalition Laurence Lillig, DOCS Steve Fehibach, A &F Engineering, Inc. Attachments: INDOT US 31 at I -465 turning movement counts yuL I -'1 (-em 13 f ht u F 1NUu I Mk LtLIHL 114 1 Hr 31 ft i i'4b1 IU:,51f 5f f iflb h'HLtit:002/bb5 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF T NSPORTATION 100 North Senate Avenue Boom N755 Indianapolis, Indiana 96204 -2249 (317) 232 -5533 FAX: (317) 232-0238 An Equal Opportunity Employer • http: / /www.state.in.us /dot FRANK O'BANNON, Governor CRISTINE M. KLIKA, Commissioner October 17, 2000 Carmel Plan Commission City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 4 RECEIVED DU if 2000 DOGS Writer's Direct Line (317) 232 -5526 To Whoxn It May Concern: This letter is to advise the Carmel Plan Commission that the Indiana Department of Transportation ( "INDOT ") has met with Duke -Weeks Realty Corporation relating to Duke's desire to rezone and develop property that is located between Spring Mill Road and Meridian Street, south of I -465 and north of 96th Street, in Hamilton County, Indiana (the `Development Property"). INDOT has determined that approximately 7' /z acres of property (the "Expansion Area ") within the Development Property will be needed for the programmed expansion of the interchange at U.S. 31 and. I -465. The attached drawing rnarked Exhibit A depicts the Expansion Area as it relates to the Development Property. Duke has advised INDOT that Duke's proposed development will be outside of the Expansion Area, thus leaving sufficient property for INDOT to complete the programmed interchange expansion. Therefore, INDOT does not believe that the rezoning of all of the Development Property (including the Expansion Area) will hinder INDOT's future plans in the area so long as the actual development occurs outside the Expansion Area. Very truly yours, • ti 1ika Cns n M Pi. redo, Attachment OCT 17 '00 13:31 3172331481 PAGE.02 OCT -17 -00 TUE 02:49 PM FE INDIANAPOLIS LAS October 17, 2000 • FAX:317 972 1708 PAGE 1 • .Parsons 47 South Pennsylvania Stroot S'rincteritufr Suite 600 1ndranapolis, Indiana 46204,3678 317- 972 -1706 Far; 317472 -1708 %11 Fide; 1 -888- 722 -1706 Mr. Mike Ho]ibaugh Carmel Department of Co �+ +�"lt'S ices One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Parknood West Traffic Impact A alysis Dear Mr. f1olibaugh• Post-it' Fax Note r attlElePt. Phone # rata 10-1-1 From k Fax a At-- Fax it As you know, we have agreed to advise the Carmel -Clay Plan Commission on traffic issues associated with the proposed Parkwood West development at 96th and Meridian Streets. Since 1 will be unable to attend the Plan Commission meeting tonight, this letter is offered as a brief status report of our activities, We rnet at your office with representatives of Duke Realty Investments, TIC and A&F Engineering Co,, LLC on September 18, 2000 to discuss assumptions to be used in preparing the Traffic Impact Analysis report. We received a copy of the report (dated September, 2000) about two weeks ago. We have begun our review of the report, but we are not prepared at this time to offer definitive comments. It appears to be in accordance with the Applicant's Guide, and the assumptions appear to be consistent with our discussions, As this project moves through the process, AT intend to coordinate as necessary with the developer, his traffic engineer, and others as necessary to gain a complete understanding of the information presented. Our objective will be to see that the Plant Commission and its sub- committees are provided with the best information available to support decision- malting. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Plan Commission in this important review, Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, PA ' NS RIUNCKERHOFF QUA= & DOUGLAS, INC. W. Myers, P. , AICP stant Vice President Area Manager JWM .pkh Over a century of engineering Eacellance Ci October 16, 2000 of c • rmel DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Blair Carmosino Development Services Duke -Weeks Construction 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Reforestation Guidelines Dear Blair: KIVE I 2000 DOCS As follow -up to our meeting today, the following guidelines should be used to plan reforestation projects. If more specific details are needed, please have your arborist or landscape professional contact me directly. You may contact John Lester (Carmel/Clay Parks Department) directly at (317) 848 -7275 to discuss possible off -site reforestation projects on Carmel Parks' property. Reforestation guidelines: when a large area of woods will be cleared for the commercial buildings, the removal of such trees shall be subject to a reforestation plan to be submitted for approval. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, such information as site assessment, plant material source, species (native species are required for reforestation), number and size of plants, and a planting management and maintenance plan. The plan shall also include the location and size of the reforestation project. The area to be planted shall roughly match the area to be cleared; though not all planting has to be limited to the same property as the woods to be cleared. The planting shall be 40% understory trees and 60% dominant canopy trees. Stock shall meet the following scale for planting density: 100 2" caliper trees per acre 200 1" caliper trees per acre 350 hardwood seedlings or whips per acre My address is Depai tment of Community Services, The City of Cannel, One Civic Square, Carmel, IN, 46032. I may be reached by phone at 317 -571 -2417. Sincerely Scott Brewer Urban Forester, Department of Community Services ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 vv Duke-weeks CONSTRUCTION TO: Carmel -Clay Plan Commission Members FROM: Bob Falk DATE: October 11, 2000 RE: Docket No. 154 -00 -Z Parkwood West — Informational Packet • MEMORAND UM In preparation for the October 17 Plan Commission Meeting, we had provided, and you should have received, an informational packet that contained a number of items related to our petition. Section 6 of the packet contained a copy of the draft PUD Ordinance. We have discovered that several pages were inadvertently left out during the reproduction process. Enclosed, for your review, is a complete copy of the draft ordinance, incorporating those missing pages. We are not resending copies of Exhibits A, B, and C, as they are complete and correct as presented. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Cc: Ramona Hancock — with one (1) copy Department of Community Services - with four (4) copies 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: 317.808.6000 f: \develser\rwfalk\memoform. doc • • ORDINANCE NO. Z- (154 -00 -Z) PARKWOOD CROSSING WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ::ODMANAHODMA \N01;35950;2 Draft: 8/18/2000 Revised: 9/18/2000 Ordinance No. Z- (154 -00 -Z) AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PARKWOOD CROSSING WEST Planned Unit Development District WHEREAS, Section 31.6.4 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance Z -289 (the "Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance ") provides for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development District in accordance with the requirements of IC §36 -7 -4 -1500 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the Carmel Plan Commission (the "Commission ") has given a favorable recommendation to the ordinance set forth herein (the "Ordinance ") which establishes the Parkwood Crossing West Planned Unit Development District (the "District "). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana (the "Council "), that, pursuant to IC §36 -7 -4 -1500 et seq., it adopts this Ordinance, as an amendment to the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance. Section 1. Applicability of Ordinance. Section 1.1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Carmel and Clay Township, a part of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance, is hereby changed to designate the land described in Exhibit A (the "Real Estate "), as a Planned Unit Development District to be known as Parkwood Crossing West. Section 1.2. Development in the Planned Unit Development District shall be governed entirely by (i) the provisions of this Ordinance, (ii) those provisions of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance specifically referenced in this Ordinance and in effect on August 18, 2000, and (iii) the "Commitments Concerning the Development and Use of Real Estate" attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Commitments "). In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance (including the Commitments) and the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance or the Sign Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance (including the Commitments) shall apply. Section 1.3. Any term not defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth in the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance in effect on August 18, 2000, unless the context otherwise requires. ::ODMA\MHODMA \NO1;35950;2 • Section 2. Permitted Primary Uses. A. Day Care Center B. Office Use, Any Type C. Restaurant (no Fast Food, Drive -In or Drive - Through Restaurant) Section 3. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Accessory uses and structures, subordinate, appropriate and incidental to the above- permitted primary uses, including supportive services directly related to and in the same building with the primary use and accessory retail and service commercial uses as permitted below: Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) Cafeteria /Deli /Coffee Shop Conference Center Fitness Center News Dealers and Newsstands Office Supplies Photocopying and Duplicating Services Accessory uses, or structures, if utilized, shall: A. have as their primary purpose serving the occupants or employees of the primary buildings; and, B. excluding the conference center and fitness center, have a total gross square footage for all accessory uses which does not exceed ten percent (10 %) of the total gross square footage of all primary buildings in Parkwood Crossing West. Section 4. Accessory Parking Plazas. Two parking plazas shall be permitted. Any parking plaza located on the Real Estate shall be limited to grade plus two levels. Section 5. Minimum Parcel Size. The Parkwood Crossing West PUD parcel shall have a minimum size of twenty (20) acres. This Section 5 does not, however, preclude the sale or other transfer of any parcel of land within Parkwood Crossing West after the approval of a DP for the parcel. However, the development of the parcel must still conform to the DP for Parkwood Crossing West as approved or amended by the Director, and all other applicable requirements contained in this Ordinance. Section 6. Height and Area Requirements. ::ODMA\M HODMA \N 01;35950;2 2 • • Section 6. Height and Area Requirements. Section 6.1. Maximum Building Heights. All uses, one hundred (100) feet; provided, however, no office building or other structure constructed within 460 feet of the existing (8/18/00) centerline of 96th Street shall exceed a height of five (5) stories. Section 6.2. Minimum Building Height. All uses, fourteen (14) feet, with a minimum of twelve (12) feet to the lowest eaves for a building with a gable, hip or gambrel roof. Section 6.3. Minimum Building and Parking Plaza Setbacks. The minimum building and parking plaza setbacks within the Office Building Area shall be as follows: (a) 114.31 feet from the existing (8/18/00) centerline of Spring Mill Road, (b) twenty (20) feet from the proposed INDOT right -of -way, and (c) 133.5 feet from the existing (8/18/00) centerline of 96th Street. However, no office building shall be constructed within 250 feet of the existing (8/18/00) right -of -way of 96th Street. (Not applicable to the Outlot Area.) The minimum building setback within the Outlot Area shall be as follows: (a) ten (10) feet from the proposed INDOT/U.S. 31 right -of -way, and (b) 83.5 feet from the existing (8/18/00) centerline of 96th Street. Section 6.4. Minimum Gross Floor Area. A. All office buildings within the Office Building Area shall have a minimum of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of gross floor area, excluding the floor area of any basement or any accessory building(s). B. The gross floor area of any building located in the Outlot Area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. C. Accessory buildings permitted need not meet the minimum floor area requirement. Section 6.5. Maximum Parcel Coverage and Density. A. Maximum Parcel Coverage shall be eighty -five percent (85 %). B. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) shall be 0.70, with the F.A.R. being calculated by dividing the total gross floor area of all buildings on the Real Estate by the area of the Real Estate. ::ODMAWIHODMAW 01;35950;2 3 • • C. Maximum Gross Leasable Area for all buildings in the Office Building Area shall be 546,000 square feet; provided, however, if INDOT takes less than 8.5 acres of the Real Estate for right -of -way purposes, the permitted Gross Leasable Area for the buildings in the Office Building Area may be increased at the rate of 6,600 square feet for each acre of Real Estate not taken by INDOT. Section 6.6. Architectural Design Requirements. A. Scale and proportion: All building facades, including doors, windows, column spacing, and signage shall be designed using the Golden Section, represented by the ratio 1:1.6 or 1.6:1, as a general guideline. B. Suitability of building materials: A minimum of three materials shall be used for building exteriors from the following list: stone, brick, architectural precast (panels or detailing), architectural metal panels, glass, ornamental metal. - C. Building design: All buildings shall be designed with a minimum of eight external corners, in order to eliminate monotonous box buildings, unless otherwise approved by the Commission. D. Roof design: Sloped roofs shall be a maximum of one hundred (100) feet without a change in roof plane, or gable or dormer. Sloped roofs shall be either standing seam metal or dimensional shingles. E. Building penthouses: Building penthouses must be incorporated into the building facade design, including exterior materials specifications. Section 7. Landscaping Requirements. Section 7.1. Landscape Plan. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Plan Commission for its approval at the same time other plans (i.e., architectural design, lighting, parking and signage) are submitted. The Landscape Plan (1) shall be drawn to scale, including dimensions and distances; (2) shall delineate all existing and proposed structures, parking areas, walks, ramps for handicapped, terraces, driveways, ground and monument signs, lighting standards, steps or other similar structures; and (3) shall delineate the location, size and description of all landscape material and the irrigation system for all planting areas. Landscape treatment for plazas, roads, paths, service and parking ::ODMAWIHODMA \NO1;35950;2 4 • areas shall be designed as an integral and coordinated part of the Landscape Plan for Parkwood Crossing West. Section 7.2. Areas to be Landscaped. A. Greenbelt: 1. A greenbelt shall be provided along 96th Street and Spring Mill Road in the Office Building Area and shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in width and landscaped per the requirements of Section 7.3. 2. The greenbelt areas shall be unoccupied except for plant material, steps, walks,, terraces, bike paths, driveways, lighting standards, signs and other similar structures (excluding parking). B. Planting Strip: 1. There shall be landscaped planting areas located adjacent to the INDOT /U.S. 31 and 96th Street rights -of -way in the Outlot Area which shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width and landscaped pursuant to Section 7.3 hereof. 2. These landscaped areas shall be unoccupied except for plant material, steps, walks, terraces, bike paths, driveways, lighting standards, signs, and other similar structures (excluding a private parking area). C. Planting Adjacent to Buildings: ::O DMA\M KO DMA \NO1;35950; 2 1. A planting area equal to an area measuring ten (10) feet in depth shall be installed on all sides of the building(s). 2. Outdoor terraces, sidewalks and driveways may be permitted in these areas. 3. If an outdoor terrace, sidewalk or driveway cuts into a planting area, the displaced area shall be an additional area added to the building perimeter planting. These additional adjacent planting areas need not be rectangular in shape as long as the required amount of space 5 • is landscaped. These additional adjacent planting areas may abut an outdoor terrace area. D. Total Landscaping Required: Inclusive of the greenbelts, the planting strips, the planting adjacent to the building(s) and the planting within surface parking lots, a minimum of fifteen percent (15 %) of Parkwood Crossing West shall be landscaped. Section 7.3. Landscaping Standards. A. 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: 8 feet wide Ornamental Trees: 7 feet wide Shrubs (only): 5 feet wide B. Greenbelt. The greenbelt areas, as designated in Section 7.2.A., shall include a five to six (5 -6) foot undulating earthen berm on which will be placed eight to ten (8 -10) foot tall conifers similar to those placed along 96th Street east of U.S. 31 and in front of the existing Parkwood Crossing. Such berm shall extend north along Spring Mill Road a distance of approximately five hundred (500) feet north of the existing (8/18/00) centerline of West 96th Street. A sidewalk shall be installed along the 96th Street frontage south of the berm. Construction of the berm shall commence contemporaneously with the initial site development for Parkwood Crossing West and will be finished - contemporaneously with or prior to completion of the first building. C. Planting Strip. The primary landscaping materials used in the 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 planting strip areas which includes: ::ODMAWHODMA1N01; 35950;2 Three (3) shade trees; or, Five (5) ornamental trees or five (5) conifer trees; and Fifteen (15) shrubs. 6 • • D. Materials. All plants proposed to be used in accordance with any landscaping plan shall meet the following specifications: 1. Shade Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of 3 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. 2. Ornamental Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of 2 inches at six (6) inches above the ground line, a minimum height of six (6) feet, and a branching height of not Tess than 1/3 nor more than % of tree height. 3. Evergreen Trees: A minimum height of eight (8) feet. 4. Deciduous Shrubs: A minimum height of twenty -four (24) inches, with no Tess than six (6) main branches upon planting. 5. Evergreen Shrubs: A minimum height and spread of twenty - four (24) inches. Section 7.4. Landscaping Installation and Maintenance. A. 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 ofthe required landscaping prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. B. 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 limited to, irrigation and mulching of planting areas, replacing dead, diseased or overgrown plantings with identical varieties or a suitable substitute, and keeping the area free of refuse, debris, rank vegetation and weeds. C. Changes After Approval. No landscaping which has been approved by the Commission may later be materially altered, eliminated or sacrificed, without first obtaining further Commission approval. ::ODMAWMODMA \NO1;35950;2 7 • • However, minor alterations in landscaping may be approved by the Director in order to conform to specific site conditions. D. 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 8. Parking Requirements. A. Efforts to break up large expanses of pavement are to be encouraged by the interspersing of appropriate planting areas. 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 shall be three and one -half (3 1/2) for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of Gross Leasable Area. D. There shall be an appropriate number of parking spaces, accessible to the building(s) and identified as reserved for use by handicapped individuals, and these spaces shall meet State requirements. E. Above - grade, structured parking facilities shall have on all sides architectural features that are compatible with the principal building(s) with which they are associated. Section 9. Lighting Requirements. A. A site lighting plan shall be submitted along with the information on architectural design, landscaping, parking, signage, and lighting ( "ADLS" approval petition). The site lighting plan shall include the layout, spread and intensity of all site lighting, including: 1. Parking lot and service /storage area lighting; 2. Architectural display lighting; 3. Security lighting; 4. Lighting of pedestrian ways; and 5. Landscape lighting. All site lighting shall be coordinated throughout the project and be of uniform design, color and materials. C. The maximum height of light standards shall not exceed thirty (30) feet high. ::ODMA\MHODMA \NO1; 35950 :2 8 D. All exterior and street area lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoebox" variety which directs light downward. Any illumination emanating from the Parkwood Crossing West development shall not exceed 0.1 foot candle at the south right -of -way line of West 96th Street. Section 10. Other Requirements. Section 10.1 Outside Storage of Refuse. No outside, unenclosed storage of refuse (whether or not in containers) shall be permitted. All refuse shall be contained completely within the principal or accessory building(s). Any accessory structure designed for refuse storage shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building. Section 10.2 Loading Berths. No loading or unloading berth or bay shall be visible from any adjacent residential area. Section 10.3 Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment visible from an adjoining street or highway shall be screened with suitable walls or fencing. Section 11. Signs. A. Office Building Area - Upper Level Signs. 1. Number & Type: The maximum number of Identification Signs permitted shall be two (2) walls signs for each building. 2. Maximum Sign Area: 90 square feet each. 3. Location: The signs may be located on either the west, north or east facades. 4. Design: All walls signs shall consist of individual letters. 5. Copy: As per ADLS approval. 6. Illumination: Internal. 7. Sign Permit: Required. 8. Fees: Required. :: O D MA\M H O D MA \N O 1 :359 5 0: 2 9 • • B. Office Building Area - Lower Level Signs. 1. Number & Type: The maximum number of Identification Signs permitted shall be two (2) walls signs for each building. 2. Maximum Sign Area: 60 square feet each. 3. Location: The signs may be located on either the west, south or east facades. The signs may only be located on the first floor facade. 4. Design: All walls signs shall consist of individual letters. 5. Copy: As per ADLS approval. 6. Illumination: Internal. 7. Sign Permit: Required. 8. Fees: Required. C. Outlot Area Signs. 1. Number & Type: One (1) ground Identification Sign per business. One (1) wall sign for each building facade. Maximum Sign Area: Ground Sign - 60 square feet Wall Sign - 5% of the facade 3. Location: As shown on the building elevations and site plan. 4. Design: All wall signs shall consist of individual letters. All ground signs shall be consistent with the Parkwood Crossing West Identification Signs. 5. Copy: As per ADLS approval. 6. Illumination: Internal or completely shielded. 7. Sign Permit: Required. 8. Fees: Required. ::ODMA\MHODMA \NO1;35950;2 10 D. Parkwood Crossing West Identification and Temporary Signs. 1. Number & Type: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Parkwood Crossing West. 2. Maximum Sign Area: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Parkwood Crossing West. 3. Maximum Height of Sign: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Parkwood Crossing West. 4. Location: As approved by an ADLS Sign Program for Parkwood Crossing West. 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. Copy: As per ADLS approval. 7. Illumination: Internal or completely shielded. 8. Landscaping: Sign must be accompanied by a landscaped area at least equal to the total sign area. 9. Sign Permit: Required. 10. Fees: Required. E. 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 /Clay Township Sign Ordinance Z -302, are also incorporated by reference. Section 12. Approval of ADLS. A. The Plan Commission shall consider an ADLS approval petition for any building within Parkwood Crossing West. B. The Plan Commission shall approve the ADLS without conditions or approve with conditions. ::ODMA\MHODMA \NO1;35950;2 11 • C. If there is a material alteration in the approved ADLS plans, review and approval of the amended plans by the Commission shall be made by the Commission, or a Committee thereof, pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure. D. 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 Parkwood Crossing West development. Section 13. Approval or Denial of the Development. Plan. A. The Plan Commission shall approve a conceptual Development Plan (the "DP ") simultaneously with the approval of this Ordinance. B. The Director shall approve without conditions, approve with conditions, or disapprove the final DP for any project within Parkwood Crossing West; provided, however, that the Director shall not unreasonably withhold or delay his /her approval of a final DP that is in substantial conformance to the conceptual DP and is in conformance with this Ordinance. If the Director disapproves the final DP for any project within Parkwood Crossing West, the Director shall set forth in writing the basis for the disapproval and schedule the request for approval of the final DP for hearing before the Plan Commission. C. An amendment to a final DP which does not alter the use of any land may be reviewed and approved by the Director. D. The final 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 Director showing proposed facilities and structures, parking, drainage, erosion control, utilities and building information. Section 14. Definitions. A. Gross Leasable Area: The total floor area which is designed for the Tenant's occupancy and exclusive use. B. Lower Level Sign: A sign located on a building facade below a height of twenty -six (26) feet, measured from grade level. C. Office Building Area: That part of the Real Estate located more than 620 feet west of the existing (8/18/00) end point of limited access right -of -way along U.S. 31. ::ODMA'MHODMA \NO1 ;35950;2 12 • D. Outlot Area: That part of the Real Estate located less than 620 feet west of the existing (8/18/00) end point of limited access right -of -way along U.S. 31. E. Restaurant: An establishment where food and drink is prepared, served and consumed primarily within the principal building to the general public. The establishment may have an outside seating component. The establishment may have a separate area, or lounge, where alcoholic beverages are served without full food service, provided the area is accessory to the primary use in (1) square feet or (2) sales. F. Restaurant, Drive -In or Drive - Through: Any restaurant designed to permit or facilitate the serving of food or beverages directly to, or permitted to be consumed by, patrons in or on motor vehicles parking or stopped on the premises. G. Restaurant, Fast Food: An establishment whose principal business is the sale of pre - prepared or rapidly prepared food directly to the customer in a ready -to- consume state for consumption either within the restaurant building, on- premise or off- premise. Upper Level Sign: A sign located on a building facade above a height of twenty -six (26) feet, measured from grade level. Section 15. Violations of Ordinance. All violations of this Ordinance shall be subject to Section 34.0 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance. :ODMAWIHODMA \NO1;35950,2 (Signature Page Follows) 13 • PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this day of , 2000, by a vote of ayes and nays. COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL Presiding Officer N.L. Rundle, President Kevin Kirby John R. Keven Robert Battreall Luci Snyder Ronald E. Carter ATTEST: Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk- Treasurer Wayne Wilson Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, on the day of , 2000. ::ODMA\MHODMA \NO1;35950;2 Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk- Treasurer 14 • Lillig, Laurence M From: Engelking, Steve. C Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 1:17 PM To: Brainard, James C Cc: Lillig, Laurence M; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Jones, Terry J Subject: Duke -Weeks PUD, Vic. 96th and Meridian 4 RE«EIVED OCT 2000 cs 1 did contact Chris Segar on the lack of a traffic study, and our advise that they delay until Navemb.er --2000 for a public hearing before the PC. He alluded to some possible high - profile tenant that has a time table which necessitates that they have the public hearing start in October 2000. I expressed concern that they certainly do not want to go to the public hearing without the completed traffic study in our and the PC hands. He told me he would get back to me. Just now I listened to a voicemail from Bob Faulk who has received direction from Chris Seger to get the completed traffic study to us this week. If it arrive, they can then be on the October agenda. • • Lillig, Laurence M From: Engelking, Steve C Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:24 PM To: Lillig, Laurence M Cc: Jones, Terry J Subject: Parkwood West �p `i ECEIIMIE® OCT T 3 2000 BOOS Laurence: Please see me Tuesday about what you told Steve Granner relative to the submission of-,t . e Traffic Study on this particular project. Bob Faulk called me today and is concerned that for some reason thelack_of a -Study will preclude the package from going to the full Commission in October. Apparently they are working in concert with the Parson and Brinkerhoss folks to coordinate their plan to the aspects of the 96th street study. That being the case, it seems to accomplish the same thing as having P & B review their study, etc. Bob Faulk asked specifically when they have to have packets ready for the Plan Commission, and I responded that the Agenda would be sent out on October 6, 2000. He did not state that he could have the plan today, or even this week, however he did comment that the holdup is the coordination effort with P & B. I would like to discuss what we feel about this issue with you. I promised a return phone call on Tuesday, so it is important that I have input from you on this. Thanks. 1 SEP 19 '00 04: 33PM R 1/1 • t ' -•-•••"-::97.7.-"i:ie. OR PS fli MI .- '.... - `,.:. . (":1 s,. 0` ., • , .... . •F`lUsi.');,',c`.-.911#0 :----- , ....---;..,k..--)"•Z2\--"k•(:)'7\ (/.2-atedua, VA Vnif.-'fon4A1P6611::-;...., A \'\ OM_ -•••••• r „4--.. . thy „......7_, (_,._- (:, 11, 67a)/ ./-"\--r - -- -•:\ --- - • -..., , ,: tark.. ees,.. '',•,',61.1 rt.,;,,,r.A. ' \ ,) ,,', „..... !,,7,,k,..,._,:i.,,,,, ,,,..,..._, ....,„_, 'i --:;•,,,....-'- '' - ' '4,4-L. - . .m, r-7el \ (0 i i./ •4!:- -----' ) .'. ..1 Y. -.?-- - ' ''' •. .0*4' - • e •se.; ;ItMeAglirk.)1. -7)■. ) latutkik, :Ken Oil C. 1..t! la Sii r (3 r7./ 770-x4.9.5 (117) Steven Granner Bose McKinney & Evans Si& One Namiltun Cow Ncibiesvitie, India,r Otio-2 19 200 Liffilry REcEilvED September 19, 2I DOCS Re: Parkwood West Rezone 1 have reviewed the preliminary plan smbrnittewl to this office. -nig office ha ri objection to the propoveri rewIrte. It is understood that constraction pia ta will follow at a Ilter ristp. If you have any questions, please, feol free to enntgattiiS office at 776Z45. Shimmy, (.7 tr". -e•■••••••• 1.,,n,ren, T. Paoli Plan Re-viCViai Cc: Carmel DOCS scs Co. Hwy less than 8.5 acres of the Real Estate for right -of -way purposes, the permitted Gross Leasable Area for the buildings in the Office Building Area may be increased at the rate of 6,600 square feet for each acre of Real Estate not taken by INDOT. Section 6.6. Architectural Design Requirements. A. Scale and proportion: All building facades, including doors, windows, column spacing, and signage shall be designed using the Golden Section, represented by the ratio 1:1.6 or 1.6:1, as a general guideline. B. Suitability of building materials: A minimum of three materials shall be used for building exteriors from the following list: stone, brick, architectural precast (panels or detailing), architectural metal panels, glass, ornamental metal. C. Building design: All buildings shall be designed with a minimum of eight external corners, in order to eliminate monotonous box buildings, unless otherwise approved by the Commission. D. Roof design: Sloped roofs shall be a maximum of one hundred (100) feet without a change in roof plane, or gable or dormer. Sloped roofs shall be either standing seam metal or dimensional shingles. E. Building penthouses: Building penthouses must be incorporated into the building facade design, including exterior materials specifications. Section 7. Landscaping Requirements. Section 7.1. Landscape Plan. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Plan Commission for its approval at the same time other plans (i.e., architectural design, lighting, parking and signage) are submitted. The Landscape Plan (1) shall be drawn to scale, including dimensions and distances; (2) shall delineate all existing and proposed structures, parking areas, walks, ramps for handicapped, terraces, driveways, ground and monument signs, lighting standards, steps or other similar structures; end(3) shall delineate the location, size and description of all proposed landscape material and the irrigation system for all planting areas; and, (4) shall delineate the location, size and description of all existing trees 9" DBH or larger which are located within any Greenbelt or Planting Strip required in Section 7.2. Landscape treatment for plazas, roads, paths, service and C: \TEMP\RESULT OF COMPARISON 35950 VER 3.WPD 4 parking areas shall be designed as an integral and coordinated part of the Landscape Plan for Parkwood Crossing West. Section 7.2. Areas to be Landscaped. A. Greenbelt: 1,1 E 4 c6 ;ck .[.-.. -, . A greenbelt shall be provided ag adjacent to the 96th Street and Spring Mill Road rights-of-way in the Office Building Area and shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in width and landscaped per the requirements of Section 7.3. The greenbelt areas shall be unoccupied except for plant material, steps, walks, terraces, bike paths, driveways, lighting standards, signs and other similar structures (excluding parking). B. Planting Strip: 1. There shall be landscaped planting areas located adjacent to the INDOTI9 ' -= •- - - - - rights -of -way and adjacent to the 96th Street right -of -way in the Outlot Area which shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width and landscaped pursuant to Section 7.3 hereof. 2. These landscaped areas shall be unoccupied except for plant material, steps, walks, terraces, bike paths, driveways, lighting standards, signs, and other similar structures (excluding a private parking area). C. Planting Adjacent to Buildings: 1. A planting area equal to an area measuring ten (10) feet in depth shall be installed on all sides of the building(s). 2. Outdoor terraces, sidewalks and driveways may be permitted in these areas. 3. If an outdoor terrace, sidewalk or driveway cuts into a planting area, the displaced area shall be an additional area added to the building perimeter planting. C: \TEMP\ RESULT OF COMPARISON 35950 VER 3.WPD 5 4. 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 area. D. Plantinq Within Parking Lots: A minimum of (a) one (1) shade tree and five (5) shrubs or (b) two (2) shade trees shall be planted within each parking lot island at a rate not less than eighteen (18) trees per acre of parking. (See Section 7.3.A for minimum planting area requirements.) E. Total Landscaping Required: Inclusive of the greenbelts, the planting strips, the planting adjacent to the building(s), outdoor terrace areas and the planting within surface parking lots, a minimum of fifteen percent (15 %) of Parkwood Crossing West shall be landscaped. Section 7.3. Landscaping Standards. A. 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: 8 9 feet wide Ornamental Trees: 7 feet wide Shrubs (only): 5 feet wide B. Greenbelt. The greenbelt areas, as designated in Section 7.2.A., shall include a five to six (-5-6) to eight (6 -8) foot undulating earthen berm on which will be placed eight to ten (8 -10) foot tall conifers similar to those placed along 96th Street east of U.S. 31 and in front of the existing Parkwood Crossing. The berm landscaping shall include deciduous trees, with a minimum trunk of 2 -3 inches at six (6) inches above ground line, interspersed among the conifer trees, as shown on Exhibit C. Such berm shall extend north along Spring Mill Road a distance of approximately five hundred (500) feet north of the existing (8/18/00) centerline of West 96th Street. A sidewalk shall be installed along the 96th Street frontage south of the berm. Construction of the berm shall commence contemporaneously with the initial site development for Parkwood Crossing West and will be finished contemporaneously with or prior to completion of the first building. C: \TEMP \RESULT OF COMPARISON 35950 VER 3.WPD 6 C. Planting Strip. The primary landscaping materials used in the 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 planting strip areas which includes: Three (3) shade trees; or, Five (5) ornamental trees or five (5) conifer trees; and Fifteen (15) shrubs. D. Materials. All plants proposed to be used in accordance with any landscaping plan shall meet the following specifications: 1. Shade Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of 3 2 inches at six (6) inches above the ground line, a minimum height of eight (8) feet, and a branching height of not Tess than 1/3 nor more than 1/2 of tree height. 2. Ornamental Trees: A minimum trunk diameter of 2 1.75 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. 3. Evergreen Trees: A minimum height of eight (8) feet. 4. Deciduous Shrubs: A minimum height of twenty -four (24) inches, with no Tess than six (6) main branches upon planting. 5. Evergreen Shrubs: A minimum height and spread of twenty -four (24) inches. Section 7.4. Landscaping Installation and Maintenance. A. 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 priorto the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. B. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility of the owners and their agents to insure proper maintenance of project landscaping and C: \TEMP \RESULT OF COMPARISON 35950 VER 3.VVPD 7 Ir August 1, 2000 Mr. Kevan McClure, Division of Land Acquisition Indiana Department of Transportation 100 North Senate Avenue, Suite N -955 Indianapolis, IN 46204 10EILL€R5M LEGAL Et BUSINESS ADVISORS WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236 -2319 direct fax: (317) 592 -4788 intemetweiss @icemiller.eom RE: NRC Corporation/Northwest, Southwest and Southeast Quadrants of the Intersection of I -465 and US 31, Carmel, Indiana Dear Mr. McClure: This shall serve to follow -up our meeting of May 3, 2000, among Steve Cecil, Fredric Lawrence, Gene Cinfel, Steve Valinet, Jodie Edminster and myself with respect to the above referenced properties (the "Properties "). After our meeting, we proceeded to obtain letters from Duke -Weeks Realty Corporation ( "Duke- Weeks ") and the Carmel Plan Commission (the "Plan Commission ") in respect to the factual background relating to the proposed acquisition and rezoning of the Properties. Thus, enclosed for_ review, please find copies of Duke- Weeks' letter dated June 15, 2000, and the Plan Commission's letter, July 11, 2000. As we discussed, Duke -Weeks had entered into a contract to purchase the Properties from NRC Corporation, subject to rezoning of the same. Duke -Weeks initiated such rezoning with the Plan Commission, and the same was proceeding on track until the issuance of a letter, on or about June 10, 1999, by the Indiana Department of Transportation ( "INDOT "), a copy of which letter is enclosed herewith for your ease of reference. Following receipt of that letter, the Plan Commission essentially suspended consideration of the Rezoning Petition pending resolution of the amount of land which would be needed by INDOT in connection with the proposed expansion of the intersection of I -465 and US 31. That issue remains an obstacle to completing any transaction with respect to the Properties. This is because the potential taking ofportions of the Properties will likely have a material adverse effect on any development thereof. Until the scope of any such takings are known, it is difficult to appropriately plan the use of each of the three quadrants which are owned by NRC. The purpose of this letter is to request a protective purchase by INDOT pursuant to 24 CFR §712.204(d). NRC believes the situation relating to the Properties indeed results in a hardship upon it. That is to say, but for the overt actions of INDOT, and the impact of those actions upon the Plan Commission and Duke- Weeks, it is likely that the transaction contemplated by the contract between NRC and Duke -Weeks would have closed in respect to all of the Properties. However, now that INDOT has made known to Duke -Weeks and the Plan Commission the likely taking of portions of One American Square 1 Box 82001 1 Indianapolis, IN 46282 -0002 P 317- 236 -2100 1 F 317- 236 -2219 1 www.icemiller.com Indianapolis 1 Chicago 1 Kansas City 1 South Bend August 1, 2000 Page 2 each of these three parcels, it is not practical to proceed forward until the scope of those potential takes are known. Duke -Weeks has expressed continuing interest in purchasing the Properties so long as the scope of the takes by INDOT can be defined. Identification of the areas to be taken for the expanded intersection will allow Duke -Weeks to proceed forward to rezone the property through the Plan Commission (with the ultimate decision being made by the Carmel City Council), and to attain a reasonable level of comfort that any proposed improvements will not be the subject of a take by INDOT following the construction thereof. NRC desires to proceed forward with the potential sale of the Properties, most likely to Duke- Weeks, but also understands the need of INDOT to protect the citizenry of the state of Indiana. We hope that both of these goals can be achieved by a prompt identification and taking of those portions of the Properties necessary for the interchange expansion. We hope that this can be accomplished prior to completion of the final environmental impact statement for the project area. Thus, we hereby request that a categorical exclusion be sought pursuant to 23 CFR § 771.117 in order to expedite the identification of those portions of the Properties which will be taken, as well as to compensate NRC for the fair market value of the land and other rights so obtained. We will be in touch with you shortly to further discuss this request. We very much appreciate your prompt attention and consideration of this request. Very truly yours, ICE MILLER —2 'A- c J Zeff A. Weiss ZAW /sd - 669048.1 Enclosures cc: Fredric Lawrence (w /enc.) Gene Cinfel (w /o enc.) Steve Cecil (w /o enc.) Phil Nicely (w /enc.) David Cremeans (w /o enc.) Frederick Biesecker (w /o enc.) Lane Ralph (w /enc.) 8Ep 19 2000 Memo- oocs To: Laurence Lillig From: Scott Brewer CC: Steven Granner, Bose, McKinney & Evans LLP Bob Falk, Duke Weeks Construction Date: 09/19/00 Re: Parkwood Crossing West (154 -00 Z) Department of Community Services These comments concern the landscape plan and the planned unit development ordinance for the above mentioned property: 1. Section 7.2 NB 1- There should be greenbelts of thirty (30) feet along INDOT, U.S. Highway 31, and 96Th Street rights -of -ways in all areas. 2. The proposed ordinance lacks any provision for landscaping or trees located within the parking lots. There needs to be at least 18 trees per acre of parking lot required (1 Shade tree, 15 Shrubs per 9 parking spaces). Some leeway can be allowed to substitute more shade trees in place of several shrubs. 3. The use of constructed soils should be considered for planting trees in areas adjacent to parking lots, walkways, patios, plazas, and buildings. Constructed soils are an engineered mixture of standard sized stone, top soil, and organic bonding agents that can be compacted to building specifications and yet retain enough pore space to allow for the healthy growth of tree roots. Therefore, large areas under sidewalks, plazas, etc., can be utilized to produce healthier, longer lived, and better looking trees. Extensive research has been done in this area by Nina Busuk of Cornell University and can be studied via the Internet. 4. The landscape plan submitted is too general. The review process requires specific, detailed plans including, but not limited to, species list (planting schedule), plant position, and installation specifications. 5. Required plantings within greenbelts should be stipulated as to number and species in agreement with other planting strips. In addition to evergreen species (spruce, fir, douglas fir, or larch), native tree species should be planted in the greenbelts and along berms (Oak, Hickory, Ash, Walnut, Black Tupelo, Sycamore, River Birch, Tulip Tree and American Beech). • Page 1 • 6. In greenbelts and along berms, native trees that are smaller in diameter than three (3) inches might be able to be used to allow for quicker transplant recovery time (possibly 1.75" to 2" diameter). 7. This property falls entirely within the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone. One of the requirements of the zone is tree preservation. A woodlands evaluation shall be submitted according to the requirements of the Overlay Zone. Also a tree preservation plan shall be submitted that allows for 70% of the trees over 9" DBH or that fall into greenbelts or planting strips be preserved. • Page 2 09/13/2000 04:00 317- 773 -8435 • H ALTO COUNTY 'id:, A Qatar. .September 11; 2000 HAMILTON CO FSA PAGE 02 1 317- 773 -2182 Fax: 327- 776 -1201 t1 1 !i Q G L 1.. n L U C' s :..... s .. l'AT 16.1 ,. • 1 1 )f 1dT i r n al•'IF ro n'••! e• x .r. • V L' ,3 •LP a ,7 a• c c a A g V k.1 +' A 1 1..0 ' A L'9 .. !•@ ff U (r 5) ` J 1: Y 'J ' Mr.. Steven. Charmer . ril , • .Bose MGKiriney &. EVan5 . S O ' DL4 `. ;.60.0. East 96th Sheet " 0 ie 2000 Suite 500 \5 DoCS 1 • Tndianarialia. TN 46240 • 71 __•.Ti•s__Y�.1 TT). _l._ T1T TY1.'_..Y .4 rr T3 ..0,-.Z ;' AJUICG- tv GG".1LS• r W U at • .1,-'•F[?? aim ivieriman Deaf Mr; {..i'rner i T have reviewed the plan for the PT_l'D district and liave the following comments: YY:.'It'P.7' quality ansi •1ir'P_.P_.n gnar.a hP rirlrrmvFV1 if prlrlitinnaal •tnripQ 1,,.rpt,0 . ar Fri . tr•t the ttnv-k.ir4 garage -aryl ntr rar • w11 x :1_1_1_ d_ YY11 fcavauwte.L.o wl7UU3s u1a t p 1 should you.[ ve any questions. • Si 1G ereip, n a'. ("John B. South P.E. Conservation F,n irf€;Rr ('c• T. T 11hR GT Tl_� _..___ _._._ 1JG11112:11111 .Cale {_ r.)N4FRVATYIN fpt,R.r t pMFr.n' .S R! G -r 7vvPNIIAIFNT ••■1! Fnr1Af r10(IRTI :mr-ry .MPr f v rr Date: Place: • CARMEL/CLAY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA September 20, 2000 Department of Community Services Conference Room - 3rd Floor Carmel City Hall Parkwood West Rezone (154 -00 Z) The site is located on the northeast corner of West 96th Street and Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned S -2 /residence. Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney & Evans for Duke -Weeks Realty. 9:30 a.m. Five -Ten Subdivision (155 -00 PP; 156 -00 SP) The site is located at 510 First Avenue Northwest. The site is zoned R -2 /residence. Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineers for Ruth Marie Bolt. 10:00 a.m. Little Farms Addition, Lots 14 & 15 (157 -00 PP Amend; 158 -00 SP) The site is located on the northeast corner of East 105th Street and Combs Street. The site is zoned R -3 /residence. Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineers for David Harbison. 10:30 a.m. Dixie Highway Addition, Lot 7 (159 -00 PP Amend; 160 -00 SP) The site is located at 10801 North College Avenue. The site is zoned R -3 /residence. Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineers for Daniel Cage. 11:00 a.m. 11 :30 a.m. 96th Street Office Campus (UV) The site is located on the northwest corner of East 96th Street and Day Drive. The site is zoned S -2 /residence. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Paragus Partners. Carmel Office Park, Phase IV (Site Plan) The site is located on the southwest corner of Gradle Drive and Third Avenue Southwest. The site is zoned I -1 /industrial. Filed by Mark Settlemyre of Cornerstone Surveys for William J. Sollenberger. 12:00 noon — 1:00 p.m. 1 -hour Lunch Break 1:00 p.m. Merchants' Pointe Subdivision (161 -00 PP) The site is located at the southwest corner of East 116th Street and North Keystone Avenue (SR 431). The site is zoned B -8 /business and is located within the SR 431 Overlay Zone. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for The Linder Group. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. has no company Facilities involved in this project Date toic 10(C_ olL C armell Carrrge September 7, 2000 Mr. Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant Bose McKinney & Evans 600 East 96th Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46240 41 eparimeni IlHa e a 46032 4 RECSVED SEP DOSS RE: Valinet Property Dear Mr. Granner: I have received and reviewed the information on the plat plans for the above - referenced project. - At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law enforcement efforts. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us. Respectfully, T.J. Green Acting Chief of Police TJG /tka cc: Dept. of Community Services (317) 571-2500 A Nationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency Fax (317) 571 -2512 • qty of Carmel Fire Department Headquarters 2 CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2600 Steven B. Granner Bose, McKinney & Evans, LLP 600 East 96th St. Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Parkwood West LETTER OF APPROVAL The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plans for Parkwood West and has approved the plans subject to the following: 1. Are any of the proposed buildings and /or parking garages to be sprinkler /standpipe buildings? If so, a meeting will need to be set up to discuss the location of the Fire Department Connections. 2. Our office is requesting a set of water distribution plans for review. 3. Are the proposed parking facilities levels designed to be above or below grade? 4. We are requesting that a Knox Box be installed on each building for fire department emergency access. 5. 6. Date: September 5. 2000 By: Gary Hoyt, Fire Marshal Carmel Fire Department Fire Prevention Saves Lives and Property RECENED 'MG 23 2000 NEIGHBORS! acs V pAs you m y be aware, a petition for a special use variance on the vacant ro p erty ohs ;northwest corner of 96th Street and Spring Mill Road has been submitted-too the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals. Heartland Coalition has taken a position of opposition to the proposed retirement community. The concept appears plausible at first look; however, the density of 234 - apartments is objectionable. The density would place the "highest use density" immediately adjacent to the lowest residential property use. There are many other technical issues that Heartland Coalition questions. There wilt be a Technical Advisory Committee meeting on August 16th, BUT it is NOT necessary that the public attend. We will not have the opportunity for public input at this meeting. Be assured we will have a representative at this meeting, solely to evaluate the activity of the committee and the petitioner. Please mark your calendar for August 28th 7PM, at the Carmel Government Center. This proposal will be on the agenda for the full Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Heartland feels that we should have a presence at this meeting. We do not know where this proposal will fall on the agenda. We will inform you of a more accurate time frame as the date approaches. Heartland Coalition is working hard to protect the interests of all residents who live on or near the intersection of 96th and Meridian Streets. We're sure you aptreciate the fact that property. development for vacant sites along 96th Street, near 96t and Meridian, may ignite far reaching and negative complications for all residential properties on the north side of Indianapolis and the southern edge of Hamilton County. PLEASE NOTE We understand that Duke Weeks will file a new petition for the vacant property on the northeast corner of 96th & Spring Mill Road, possibly as early as this Friday! We have been invited to review their proposal, and will keep you apprised. Heartland will continue to work with Nora/Northside Community and Clay West Information Councils to protect and preserve the residential neighborhoods in which we live. Don't hesitate to contact us if you have questions or concerns. Thank you. Heartland Board Members: Gerry Wagner Ruth Hayes Pam Lambert Mark Ratterman 848 -7242 253 -9191 844 -5511 581 -0557