Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 6-19-01 . .i.,' ';,.t' _ , June 19,2001 Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Agenda CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION June 19,2001- DEPARTMENT REPORT 4h. Docket N. 58-01 PP Amend (primary Plat Amendment) West Carmel Center - Block G The site is located southeast of West 106th Street and North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located within the US 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waivers: 58-01a SW SCO 6.3.7 >600' cul-de-sac 58-01b SW SCO 6.3.5 connection of stub street Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. The applicant is requesting to eliminate the connection between Carwinion Way and Commerce Drive. These two streets connect West Cannel Center and the Ashbrooke subdivision. These two subdivisions were originally the Shady Brooke development approved in 1990. The Department has attached to this report a great deal of information relating to the original zoning approval Shady Brooke and the events that have led to the filing of this petition. Please find attached the following information: 1. Original Traffic Impact Analysis dated June 1989. 2. Minutes of February 1990 Land Use Committee meeting (attached to #1 above). 3. Minutes of May 2000 Plan Commission meeting. 4. Minutes of July 2000 Plan Commission meeting. 5. Minutes from October and November Hamilton County Commissioners meetings. 6. Letter from American Consulting Engineers (ACE) dated June 8, 2001 7. Letter to ACE dated May 18, 200 I. All of this information has been provided by the Department to the Plan Commission members to enable you to make a well-informed decision. There are several issues that have surfaced as a result of Department research while compiling this report including the following: 1. Commitments made at the time of the original rezone (see attached minutes referered to in item #2 above) to make road improvements at 96th Street and Shelbome Road, Shelbome and 106th Street, and along 106th Street. 2. The analysis provided in the Original Traffic Impact Analysis (see highlighted sections) that addresses providing the connection between the commercial and residential areas. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that the connection reduces trips on the existing Arterial Streets (Shelbome, 96th and 106th Street) by 20 percent. The distribution analysis does not report that there will be traffic generated from outside the development accessing the commercial area by means of traveling through the residential section of the development. Page 4 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 , ~-r >~, June 19,2001 Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Agenda 3. The fact, as referenced by the current request for the two subdivision waivers (cul-de- sac length and connection of stub street) that the platting and construction of the Ashbrooke subdivision would not have been approved if it were not for the connection to Commerce Drive. Please note comment number three in the attached letter from ACE dated June 8th 2001 (attached at end of this report). The applicant indicates that a Traffic Impact Analysis will be provided as soon as they obtain all the necessary information. At the time this report was crafted the applicant has not delivered said Traffic Impact Analysis. The Department indicated to the applicant at TAC and in the attached letter dated May 18, 2001 that the Traffic Impact Analysis is necessary to display the distribution of traffic through the entire development with and without the cul-de-sac. This should not only be done to verify existing counts and address concerns raised by residents who built in the subdivision as approved. It should also be done to determine if additional improvements are necessary to existing Arterial Streets (Shelborne, 96th and 106th Street) if the connection is closed. If the connection is eliminated, the developer should assume not only the cost ofthe original improvements committed to but also the improvements necessary to accommodate the additional traffic created by eliminating the connection. It is with all of these issues in mind that the Department requests that this item be tabled. The Department assumes that a request to table will be received by the Plan Commission from the applicant by Tuesday evening. Tabling will allow the applicant the time necessary to complete the Traffic Impact Analysis. It will also provide the Department the opportunity to review and report to the Plan Commission the findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis. Additionally, the public should have the opportunity to view this information prior to a public hearing on the Primary Plat Amendment. Page 5 ONE CMC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 " .' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS u.S. 421 AND l06TH STREET ,..- PREPARED FOR SWEET AND COMPANY JUNE 1989 I I' I I PREPARED BY A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC. I- I- I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION This Traffio Impaot Analysis has been prepared at the request of Mr. George Sweet, a representative of Sweet Company. The study is an analysis of traffio both as it now exists and as it is an- tioipated to ohange with the oompletion of the development north of 96th Street and east of U.S. 421 in Hamilton County, Indiana. ,... PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effeot traffio .generated by the development will have on the existing street system. Reoommendations will then be made to provide for safe ingress and egress to and from the site with minimal interferenoe to the traffio on the public street system. SCOPE OF WORK The soope of work for this analysis is to first determine the existing traffic volumes at several interseotions in the vioinity of the proposed development. Seoond, to determine the total traffio that will be generated by the proposed development. Third, to distribute the generated traffio to the public street system. Finally, based on the existing traffio volumes plus generated traffic volumes make reoommendations to ensure safe ingress and egress to and from the site. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed development is to be looated in Hamilton County, 1 _. -. I I ~ I I I I I ~ I I I I. I I I I Indiana. The project is bounded on the north by 106th Street, on the east by U.S. 421, and on the west by Shelborne Road. 96th Street is located south of the site with small housing tracts between the south property line of the site and 96th Street. This development'~ as of the date of this report, is projected to ,. .~ include 300,000 square feet of retail space, 850,000 square feet of office space and 200 single family units. Access to this development will be from 106th Street, Shelborne Road, and U.S. 421. Figure 1 is a Conceptual Master Plan tor the proposed develop- ment. Shown are the existing streets and the approximate locations of the proposed driveways. STUDY AREA The study area for the proposed development will be the street system which abuts the site which includes, U.S. 421. 96th street, 106th Street, and Shelborne Road. The following inter- section will also be reviewed: 1 . 96th Street and u.s. 421 2. 96th Street and Shelbor'ne Road 3 96th Street and township Line Road 4. 106th Street and U.S. 421 5. 106th Street and Shelborne Road 6. 116th Street and Shelborne Road 2 I . J I . 116th STREET ~ 106th STREET -, OFFICE I RETAIL L. RESIDENTIAL c -< ~ w Z 0: o l:D ul :r III 96th STREET \\ FIGURE 1 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN ~L I~I III z ~ ~ EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS This development will be served by the public roadway system that includes U.S. 421, 106th Street, 96th Street, and Shelborne Road. U.S. 421 is a two lane highway which runs north and south .... serving' as a major arterial between Indianapolis and Hamilton County. 96th Street is a two lane east-west major collector street. 96th Street serves as a major collector for residents and businesses. 106th Street is a two lane east-west collector for residents abutting the street. Shelborne Road is a two lane collector which runs north and south beginning at 96th Street and running north to 116th Street. TRAFFIC CONTROLS Traffic controls in the area include: a traffic signal at the intersection of 96th Street and U.S. 421. This intersection is currently under design and construction for a new actuated automatic traffic signal and lane widening on U.S. 421. 4 a traffic signal at the intersection of 106th Street and U.S. 421 is currently under design and will be installed in the summer of 1989. stop controls - Shelborne Road stops for 96th Street, 106th Street, and 116th Street. ~~ a four way stop control at the intersection of 96th Street and Township Line Road. TRAFFIC DATA . There were peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts made at the following locations around the site. These traffic volumes data are included in Appendix A and are identified as the following Exhibits: I I I t r Exhibit 1 - 96th Street and Shelborne Road Exhibit 2 - 96th Street and Township Line Road Exhibit 3 - 106th Street and Shelborne Road Exhibit 4 - 116th Street and Shelborne Road Peak hour turning movement counts for the following intersections were provided to A & F Engineering Co., Inc by the Indiana Department of Highways. These traffic volume data are included in Appendix A and are identified as the following Exhibits: Exhibit 5 - 96th Street and U.S. 421 Exhibit 6 - 106th Street and U.s. 421 TRIP GENERATION DATA I , The estimate of traffic that will be generated by the proposed 5 L. ll' II ~. ,; ,: development is a function of the size and character of the land use. A & F Bngineering Co., Inc. has collected trip generation data for various land uses. Data collected at similar land use developments were used to estimate the hour by hour distributions of traffic entering and exiting the proposed development. Trip Generation1 was used to calculate the actual trip rates that were used for the individual land uses. Ii _,," ,", , ~-"',,""'m" .'""B', ""'''''''''''~'''<'''',''''';<''''I'''''R','%'';E''''':'''D ","~,' "W',\,",,','a "-'~'-,," , " '. ~'" ,i1::\""",A"I7~', ' JIfi,. ." ,,"(;li, ,R,,' "'l' "'I:"1f .. 'j '.' ,., ,', i:"J.~ '~" J~~t'r,.Q,Q:l'J ", ft:",: , ,<(...:: _.",", ,,- " S!-A :If\&;/, " ' .- _"M" All generated traffic must be assigned to a particular ingress- I I I I '( I I I I l t egress point. In reviewing the layout of the driveway system, with respect to the surrounding street system,' it has been assumed that the traffic from each of the individual land uses will ingress/egress as shown in Table 1 and on Figure 2. TABLB 1 ASSIGNMBNT OF TRAFFIC TO STRBBT SYSTBM Residential - 106th Street Driveway - Shelborne Road Driveways Office/Retail - U.S. 421 Driveways - 106th Street Driveway 50% 50% 75% 25% 1 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Bngineers, Fourth Bdition, 1987. 6 1t6fh ~ 106th STREET ~r .,.t ~~ '-'~FFlCE' \ RETAIL ~ .'A I L RESIDENTIAL 35%J 5i! ~ 0 50% a: 65%~ UI z I a: 0 r CD ui x Ul 96th STREET \\ ASSIGNMENT an ISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC STREET " 81 ~L 1:1 Ul z ~ ~ 'CACI' DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC ~ I I To analyze the effect on the abutting street system, of the traffic generated by the development, the generated traffic must be distributed to the street system. The distribution of the traffic to the street system is based on existing traffic patterns of similar land uses in the area, and the existing .-.. - I - traffic pattern of the abutting street system. The percentage distribution of the traffic exiting the site are shown in Table 2 and on Figure 2. DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC - 106th Street Driveway Eastbound Right 65% Eastbound Left 35% Northbound Right 6% Northbound Left 95% Westbound Right 36% Westbound Left 66% Northbound Right 10% Northbound Left 90% Residential - Shelborne Road Driveways - 106th Street Driveway Office Retail - U.S. 421 Driveways I II " . : !f!..~ lJ.iIIr~tr"'1I'l!''"'lm:n.''''',!n'Cl!' '. "'" , W~I " '" i~:D~1IW~{J.~'~D,~~~fm;;l;\IB~; " ,.. ",&'" ;, ' -- ,.,' , , "",'.~ A'~~'"'~~;'~'&;-'~:"""W,;_~;,r.ni;i'.'i,:i"~'i!"';:;' In multi-land use development there will be trips to the in- dividual land uses that are generated from within the develop- ment. These internal trips can be second or third stops, trips 8 I. I' between retail and office or trips originating from the single family units and their destination being "the retail or office in I the development. A & F Engineering Co., Inc has conducted a I study of multi-use facility where it was found that the internal t . t d !1'C~~dl~ffi~!~!ili'i~J%lIfi~ii'l~i\I~I'\~"'''i~!miil'M~"j.'~IIil,;'.'!,;r,~~ r1ps accoun e ~_~lm'~~~~Jiili!,~~~~~n'l!i,{i:~~~It~...;:.'i' This compares I favorable with the findings as reported in Trip Generation where it was reported that "...multi-use developments could reduce trip I generation of individual uses within the development by 25 I I I I I I [ [ r percent. PASS-BY/CAPTURED TRAFFIC The Transportation and Land Development2 projects that for a retail center that has a square-foot area of between 200,000 square feet and 399,999 square feet, 41% of the entering traffic will be from pass-by/captured traffic (traffic which is already on the street system). Therefore, the total new traffic that will be added to the public 'street system, because of the retail center, will be 60 percent of the generated traffic. However, the trips entering and exiting the site, at the driveways, will I. I. equal the total number of the generated trips. 2 Stove and Koepke, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1988. l 9 I 1:. . SITE GENERATBD TRAFFIC VOLUMES Using the trip generation data. the assignment of generated traffic and the distribution of generated traffic the generated traffic volumes have been calculated for each of the intersec- tions in the study area. These volumes are shown on Figure 3. ~~ TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES To evaluate the effect the site generated traffic volume will have on the public street system. the site generated traffic volumes bave been added to the existing traffic volumes at each of the intersections in the study area. volumes are shown on Figure 4. These total traffic 10 ~ STREET LEGEND: 00 - A M 100): p',..p pEAK HOUR .. EAK HOUR \\ GENE /FIGURE 3 RATED TRAFFIC . THE VOlUM FOR THIS io:~ TRAFFIC IS NEGLIGIBLE ENT STREET '.1. ......, ..... 'f e_ E3 I L RESIDENTIAL c 4( o a: w z a: o CD -' w :r III ~L 1;1 ~ ~ I- VOLUMES ~ - I ~ I I I OFFICE , RETAIL , I I; I I . . , r I I \\ LEGEND: 00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR STREET STREET I L RESIOENnAL c < f! UI z a: o III u:l :J: VI 96th STREET ~L IE 1:1 II) z ~ FIGURE 4 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES I . I . RECOMMENDATIONS I To insure that the traffic into and out of this development will operate in"a safe and efficient manner, at both the access point I and the surrounding intersections, the follow recommendations should be implemented. I ~.. I Proposed Driveways 1. The cross section for the proposed driveways should include I . two exit lanes, each 12 feet in width, and two entrance lanes, each 12 feet in width. I 2. At each access point, the public street should be designed I to include a right turn lane and left turn lane for traffic entering the site. These lanes should be 12 feet in width. Intersections 1 . 106th Street and u.s. 421 - the westbound approach (east leg) should be designed to include an additional 12-foot lane for left turning vehicles. This would permit through vehicles and right turning vehicle to continue uninter- rupted. 2. 96th Street and She1borne Road the southbound approach (north leg) should be designed to include an additional 12- foot lane. This would allow for a separate right turn lane and a separate left turn lane. The eastbound approach (west leg) should be designed to include a left turn lane. This 13 I . I . . would permit through traffic to continue uninterrupted. I I I I I I I I 3. 106th Street and Shelborne Street - the northbound approach (south leg) and the eastbound approach (west leg) should be designed to include an additional 12 foot lane, on each approach. . This would permit through traffic and right ..... turning traffic to continue freely. . 7t)!,ilx~~"r:. The additional traffic at the intersection of 116th Street and Shelborne Road and the intersec- tion of 96th Street and Township Line Road is minimal and will not cause any additional delay at those intersections. 14 . page 2 LU 2/6/90 . . ( \ 'i!,Oocket No. 75 - 89 Z, Shady Brook Development, a rezone application for 80.86 acres south of 106th Street, east of Michigan Road, and we.st of' Shelbourne Road. Current zoning:. S -1 Residential;: Request: 56.1 acres B":' 3 Transition Business, .26.67 acres B - 5 Professional Office, and 98.09 acres S - 2 Residential. Mr. Jim Nelson was present representing the applicant. He gave an explanation of the location, geographic and existing conditions.. Mr. Nelson then pointed out the areas to be zoned B-3,' B - 5, and S - 2 specifically, giving the rationale for choosing each .respective zone classification. . . Mr. Nelson highlighted a . list of volurttary commitments made by the applicant which are to be recorded. in favor of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission and 'the City of Carmel. They are. as follows: - any development within the B...; 3 or. B - 5 districts will be subject to review by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission for arch.itectural, design,. lighting, landscaping, and signa'ge .' - hei'ghts of buildings: B - 5 buildings shall not exceed the lesser of (1) story in height or 35'; with respect to the (2) story office the height would be increased to 45'. No building in the B-3 will exceed 55' in height. . - included "excluded uses" in the 421' Overlay Zone to the land that lies outside the' 421 Corridor '- submitted. covenants that excluded additional uses (copy attached) Mr. Nelson indicated thot the manner and timing for development of theB - 3 and . B - 5 ~reas is not known at. this time. Development of these areas will occur as the. need arises and is subject to. market conditions. . The S - 2 area, if approved, would be d~veloped by Mr. George Sweet 'and require primary and' secondary. plat approval which the applicant would seek vary quickly. The S - 2 ~rea would contain approximately 170 single family home sites and be developed pursuant to. the S - 2 district requirements. The lot sizes will exi~t .within a range of 1/3 acre to 2.43 acres with an average lot size of 1/2 acre. Average price per home will exist between $175,000 and $225,000. Mr. Nelson then explained the conceptual development plan for the S - 2 oaren. Mr. Nelson noted that the proposed zoning request provided. a tapering of the business . zones moving from the southern limits northward along the. eastern' limits of the commetdal areas to northern property lines at l06th Street and further north to a parcel rez~ned B-3 by Bob Altham. .' \ ~ r \ page 3 LU 2/6/90 ""ilYf.r. Nelson reviewed the. Technical Advisory Committee's (T AC) comments. After "inquiring with the Indiana Department of Transportation the applicant has discovered with exception of improvements that have currently been constructed there are no plans for widening, required granting of addit~onal right;" of - way, or additional signalization of Highway 421. . Mr. Nelson stated that the future development of the commercial area would be platted. as necessary pursuant to the Carmel/Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. Prior to the development of the commercial area the applicant would meet with the Dept. of Community Development to formulate a procedure for the platting of the commercial real 'estate. The procedure could resemble. that of Carmel Sci~nce and Technology Park, the primary plat would divide the area into blocks and the as individual parcels . are known, the secondary plat would then be filed for approval. :ftft.--1'a"'1!'fa;na'lf~t:tla$~<<fitl~~~~~~$$lM~Q)lJ~~ftl~'~lllalf~~&:~~.Jllf1t~fj{'. Mr. Houck ask the applicant to define the dimensions of commercial along the north and south property lines. Mr. Nelson indicate thnt it was approximately 775' along the north and 1200' along the . south. ' Mr. Houck questioned tlle need for the B - 5 zoning for purposes of IIstepping downll from B-3 zoning. Mr. Nelson explained that the B- Sas a "transition area with single story officell was brought about by the concerns of the property owners immediately surrounding the areas to be rezoned. ~1I1~~l:Iliit' ~.' ""'., Pi;,.,I'l:Wi. ...-v~.~;r;:~."""1~1.:...___,.~,...i~.Z'..'.'. '.l"- ~l~:ijt:l'e~te:, Mr. Nelson stated that with the. use of drainage retention facilities in and around the. Crooked Creek drainage ditch a natural buffer was created between the residential and commercial areas. To develop the areas west of Crooked Creek would be impractical from ~n engineering and cost point of view. ' ,,1~rJilil~oUi(jii~jnQt,;i:U~:e;.:i!~x~eJtQ,~4:iii~i2in:!.ei;;:..tb:~{11;Q.~,a$::~!)f:QQ~i:;iq.~Jn~: George Sweet added that open space or a natural buffer~ utilizing trees. and water areas, is more acceptable as far as place to live is concerned. " . page 4 . LU 2/6/90 r \ - 421 rontnge- (2) entrances, in accordance with the 421 'Overlay equirements which would be'installed to State Highway standards; - 421 and' l06th Street - dedicate right - of - way and provide a lelt turn lane pn the west bound lane to go south on 421; , - 106th Street Frontage - (1) entrance with accel/decel lane on the south side and a. passing lane on the north side nssuming right - of - way can be obtained; . - 106th Street and Shelborne Road - where right - of - way could be obtained lelt turn lanes both off of Shelborne Road on' south bound lane and also on the, west bound lane; , - Shelborne Road Frontage - (2) entrances on the west side into the residential area each would have acceljdecellanes and a passing lane on the east side assuming right - of - way can be obtained - Shelborne Road and 96th Street - where right - of - way could be obtained on the north side of 96th and work with Marion County DOT to provide a left turn lane north bound on Shelborne Road and then a right and left turn capability south bound on 5helborne Road. Mr. Sweet further went on to say that Dick Albright indicated these improvements would be prioritized as the areas were platted and developed. Mrs. ~cMunen ask whether the entranCes would be divided. Mr. Sweet stated that he anticipated all entrances would be divided. . , Mrs. McMullen indicated her continued concern for the location of, the entrance on l06th Street.: She ask whether it could be located closer to 421. . Mr. Fehribach stated that most usually the rule' is nO closer than 600' to a major ,intersection, however, in some cases this could be reduced to 500': separation. He would not advise any less than' 600' in this case. '''More is better." ' Mr. Nelson explained that the actual location of the entrance on "106th Street has not yet been determined, the applicant has only committed that it would not be any closer. than 600' .to the Hoffman property. . ' , Mr. Houc~ pointed out that- the streei to the south presented the conceptual basis for a collector road continuing to north. Mr. Nelson indicated that is what is encouraged by the 421 Overlay. I ~~ page 5 LU 2/6/90 ~. i \ Mr. Houck continued that the location of the entrance. extending north across 106th Street could quite easily defeat the "tapering effect alluded to earlier in the original presentation". . . Mr. Nelson responded that the .applicant is required to build an frontage road and one that is safe. According to the experts the frontage road should be a minimum of 600' to other street inter!:ections. If the land to the north is to be .used for conunercial purposes it would have to be rezoned because it is currently zoned S - 1. Mrs. McMullen thanked the applicant. for including Exhibii B. (additional excluded uses in the B ~.3area)but asked why it was not added it. in the beginning. . Mr. Nelson replied that it was never . considered nec~ssary.. The 421 Overlay encumbers excluded uses, which are being applied and the B-2 and B-3 parcels to the south of this project are totally unincumbered. . Mr. Jones gave an explanation of the Staff comments cautioning the Committee on a potential inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Text with respect to land use in the "general vicirutt. He also cautioned the Committee of precklentiaUy tapering" commercial uses to the north on property not involved . in this request. During the public hearing Mrs. Riddle, an adjoining property owner to the northeast . stated she was concerned for the number of individual lots from the residential area that would abut. her property. Mr. Jones suggeSted as a possible solution .the same formula or ratio that was. used to appease Mr. Hoffman could be utilized for the Riddle property. Mr. Riddle asked how the property would be used if the applicant did not receive approval. Mr. Sweet stated that due to financial commitments. both in engineering designartd a sewer bond issue of approximately $135,000 in cash and $145.000 in bond guarantees they would develop the 40 acres next to the Riddle property. under the requirements of the S -1 classification and get just about as many lots as in tlie being proposed by this. S - 2 rezone request. . \ ::. "". . .. .page 6 LU 2/6/90 , . (e " . . . 1) The sewer plan: privately. financed and will provide badly needed sewer service for the entire area. 2) Drainage: currently the square mile of area in question has 'deplorable drainage and because of the size of this proposed development 40 acres could not do as much for the overall drainage system as would the 180 acres working in concert with mixed uses. ' .... ., .t"'.,~ "':h" .. .o.e ,"".,' Oll!;."i.t ~... ..,1:""~,,,.,,', .:'i'.:" ..",,'~).:,i": ........!"f,.,. MotioJ1. failed (1) for (2) against. - .. - ----...-'.. a ..-... .M'-"'iii.lA:ti.~..:t,,;:".~~.:.:'.':,~~~~..~~:!::.::.. _.........:.._\..,::'..;1':.~~_...:.._~.:.:.~~.,.. ~,~..;..w.:._-J _ '( ...' J There was no unfavorable remonstrance. Mr. Kevin McKasson stated a promise was made to the neighbors concerning Carwinion Drive which connects with Commerce Drive. Commerce Drive is pro' ected to be a secondary arterial road someday going as far south as 96th Street. ' hey will allow for emergency traffic to enter if commercial traffic. Laurence Lillig stated this project will go before Board of Zoning Appeals on May 22, 2000 for public hearing on two special use petitions and twelve developmental standards variance petitions. The petitioner understands that the BZA must make its approvals before final action can be taken by the Commission. Therefore, the department recommends that these petitions be forwarded to the Special Study Committee for further reVIew. Chairman Cremeans closed the public hearing. Pat Rice commended Kevin McKasson for working with the community. She inquired what the backside of detailed peaks look like. Weston Shoppes was the first project and he did not know these peaks were visible from the rear. West Carmel Shoppes used the shingle material. On this project if the peaks are visible from the rear of the buildings they will have the same shingle treatment as the front of the building. Madeline Fitzgerald inquired about external dumpsters, cart corrals, seasonal outdoor plant sales, outdoor storage of salt, pools, and summer toys. Chairman Cremeans decided those questions would be resolved in subcommittee. Ron Houck stated signage must be addressed at subcommittee. He is also concerned about the shoe box light fixtures. He is unclear about illumination. This will be reviewed at subcommittee. Marilyn Anderson commented that Michigan Road is a major road. She urged the committee to look at curb cuts to reduce the number of cuts. Leo Dierckman will note the issues for special studies. Bob Modisett asks for a large overall aerial to see surrounding development. It would be helpful to have an enlarged, board-mounted aerial. Mr. Cremeans likes the project and believes it will be a good store for Target. He wants the committee to cover many items. His concerns are with curb cuts and seas of asphalt. Chairman Cremeans moved the project to the June 6th Special Study Committee. 6 1 the building. The Overlay Zone does not wants any large project to look like a big box. The variance required for this elevation is concerned with the entrance proportionality. April Hensley, Leach Hensley Architects told the Commission that the Target store wanted to create a Federal style building that met the desired spirit ofthe Federal style. Ms. Hensley cites the detail and described the extra effort. Brick detail is used to break up the face of the building and there are a lot of steps in and out of the front line of the building. There are less than 60 feet for all steps in the building. The requested variances are for height and peaks to make building more attractive. The other variance is for the entry because it is not to the proportion that would standardly be considered a federal style. Because of the numerous doors that are required to meet ingress and egress code, it is very difficult to make that work in Federal proportion. Brick will be used across the front of the building with a base of split face block. The side and rear exteriors will be either "Qwik-Brick", a 4-inch masonry product, or a split face to look like standard brick. Kevin McKasson believes the code allows 35 feet. The entrance is 38.5 feet at peak. The code allows for other masonry materials on the side and rear of the building. Brick will be used on the front. This is not a standard Target store. There is an upscale look to this building. Target has tried very hard to make the project meet Overlay Zone requirements. The project is the key to this corridor. Mr. McKasson displayed a conceptual plan for the outlot buildings. They are the same as the conceptual buildings of West Carmel Shoppes. The petitioner will return for further approval. The staff report stated the lighting plan exceeds maximum levels. Jamie Poczekay said the plan is now consistent with Michigan Road requirements. Mr. McKasson said they will adhere to regulations. The Overlay sign provisions require special use permits for all signage. The code allows 40 square feet of signage. They are asking for minimum size of signage allowed by Target corporate office. Mr. McKasson displayed the signage proposed. They will go to BZA for the sign variances. Kevin McKasson reviewed the variances, SU 34-00 through V 47-00, are to be presented at the May 22, 2000 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Chairman Cremeans called for favorable public comments. Michael Dugan, 3805 Carwinion Way, said his road connects to Commerce Drive. He provided detailed comments in writing. This represents six months of very diligent work by Glendale Partners working with community. Mr. Dugan represents Ashbrooke subdivision. The owners know there will be development and believe that final development of the subdivision will be better if a well done, "known" project is approved rather than "unknown" lying immediately to their west. They want to see construction move ahead in a timely fashion. They reached an agreement with Mr. McKasson to get some road work done. s:\PlanCommission\Minutes.pc\pc2000may 5 ___In _ ~~ ~ Ii. Docket No. 97-99 SP, Secondary Plat application for Glendale Partners. Petitioner seeks approval to plat one lot on 24.848 acres in order to construct three commercial buildings. The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road at West Carmel Center, Block D. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located within the US 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Note: This item is paired with Item 4i. (Docket No. 73-00 DP/ADLS) Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. 4i. evelopment Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage applications for Glendale Partners. The petitioner seeks approval to construct three buildings on 24.848 acres for a Target department store. The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road at West Carmel Center, Block D. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Note: This item is paired with Item Ii. (Docket No. 97-99 SP) Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners appeared before the Commission. The Target store will be veneered with a "Qwik-Brick" masonry product, a color similar to the brick veneer that will be installed on the front of the building. Also, there will be architectural detail on the sides of the building accenting the side walls as shown on the elevation submitted, as well as brick columns that wrap the front comers of the building. The Special Study Committee did review the design package submitted. The petitioner has agreed that landscaping will be installed and maintained according to the plans approved by the Carmel Department of Community Services. The petitioner has also agreed NOT to have cart corrals on the premises; however, IF cart corrals are present, they will be constructed of a brick material identical to the front of the building and will be high enough to conceal the carts from view. The petitioner also commits to NO Outside Storage; however, if there is outside storage, it will be completely screened from view and subject to further approval by the Plan Commission. In other words, the petitioner will return to the Commission if outside storage is desired. Sign Brightness: This shall be adjusted to conform to the adjacent signage in the 421 Overlay Zone as requested by the Department of Community Services. The sign brightness will be assessed from the 421 right-of-way. Paul Spranger reported that the Special Study Committee did approve these items. The petitioner has agreed to incorporate keys in the comers of simulated limestone, and continue the limestone design around the sides of the building. For clarification, the sign brightness issue was left at the Department's discretion and if found to be in excess, the Department would ask the petitioner to reduce the brightness appropriately. The cart corrals are accurately represented. s: \PlanCornmission \Minutes\pc2000jul 14 ..-: .} In response to questions from Marilyn Anderson, Kevin McKasson stated that the size of the sign was negotiated at the Board of Zoning Appeals by way of variance; the sizes of signs are accurately reflected in the information packets. Jim O'Neal was complimentary of the petitioner and his patience and perseverance in working with the Committee. Steve Engelking asked for clarification of the light intensity measurement. Kevin McKasson responded that the Department of Community Services will have the right to assess brightness of the sign lighting, and the petitioner will adjust accordingly. Kevin McKasson responded that his commitment to the community was in advance of the re-platting and ADLS request. The petitioner is aware of the situation. Ron Houck commented that in sensitivity to the Ashbrooke residents, the Plan Commission would not necessarily want to be in a position of shunting commercial traffic through a residential area. Also, in regard to the cart corrals, who determines if they are needed? Kevin McKasson responded that operationally, Target will determine if cart corrals are needed. Manpower will remove the carts from the parking lot; if they cannot remove the carts from the lot, Target will install brick cart corrals. Paul Spranger clarified the cart corral situation. discussed at Committee. The Special Study Committee recommended that the corrals be bricked with the same type of material as the facia of the building. The petitioner has agreed to comply with the Plan Commission's guidelines, and the solution to the cart corral is reasonable. Ron Houck suggested that some latitude be given to the Department regarding the cart corrals. s: \PlanCommission\Minutes\pc2000jul 15 -" ; "Il Dave Cremeans had a very simple solution: If the carts are left in the parking lots, there will be no place for the cars. If there is no place to park cars, there will be no customers. If there are no customers, there are no carts in the parking lots. It is a self-policing kind of situation. Norma Meighen thought that the cart situation should be policed and something should be in writing as to a solution. Madeline Fitzgerald felt that this type of policing would put an undue burden on the Department of Community Services. Steve Engelking stated that if the petitioner wanted to install cart corrals, they would have to return for DP/ADLS review amendment under the terms ofthe 421 Overlay. Jim O'Neal moved for the approval of Docket No. 97-99 SP, West Carmel Center, Block D. APPROVED 15 in favor, none opposed. Jim O'Neal moved for he approval of Docket No. 73-00 DP/ADLS, Target, West Carmel Center, Block D. APPROVED 15 in favor, none opposed. 5i. Docket No. 79-00 Z, Rezone petition for Essex Corporation. The petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from R-1 to B-6 on 5.00 acres in order to build a 72 room, 99,000 square foot retirement facility to be known as Carmel Oaks. The site is located at 1011 South Guilford Road. The site is zoned R- l/Residence. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for the Essex Corporation. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, ap~eared before the Commission representing the applicant. As a follow-up to the May 16t public hearing, the Essex Corporation rezone request was reviewed by the Special Study Committee in July. The committee confirmed the commitments that had been presented and secondly, reviewed the revised site and building plans that were modified at the request of Richard Johnson, neighbor to the north. The orientation of the building is to the north rather than the south. The Essex Cororation has confirmed with Mr. Richard Johnson the availability of water service to his parcel through the Essex parcel, and ultimately from the City of Carmel. The petitioner has also provided the management of Lenox Trace with an agreement that they will install additional landscaping on their site immediately opposite the entrance into Carmel Oaks. At this time, the petitioner is seeking a favorable recommendation for its request for a rezone. s: \PlanCommission \Minutes\pc2000jul 16 ___I is' ~ '06/0B/01 15:05 FAX ,,' I lWlILTON CO HWY. IgJO( .I l HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 23. 2000 the developer. On Friday, October 20, 2000 we sent a person to Cincinnati to co Ucct on lbat Letter of Credit because aU ofllic paperwork bad'to be filed at the banks' counter in CincUmati. We did collect $15,000 oul of the $69,700 Letter of Credit. Our intent is to see if the developer comes back to finish the project. If he does not we will finish the project and we expect the cost to be approximately $10,000. We win nol have a full maintenance bond if the developer does nol come back and we wll1 probably hold the remainder of the money through the lhrce year bonding period. Mr. Locke asked itlhcrc is any action from the Board of Commissioners to follow uP? Mr. Howard stated t~ State Board or Accounts will want to see this $1 5,000 depositc~ but it will need . to be in II fund where the Highway Department can make claims out of it without appropl;iation. Mr. Ogle stated a fund will need to be Q'Catcd. Mr. Locke asked at what point should we accept the streets and should we ask tbe Planning Department to not 1l11ow any additional construction untillhe developer completes the subdivision? Mr. Howard stated those lots could be owned by mnocenl persons without notice, we bave the ability to complete the wolk through the bond, we do not have the right to do anything else. Mr. Locke staled this is a violation of a county ordinance. ifbe does not complete the proj~t or give us a maintenance bond. Would it be tbe Commissionecs direction to file with the County Prosecutor the violation oI the ordinance? Mr. Howard stated as to the completion bo~ it is a civil action. If a maintcnancc, bond is not pos~ there may be a case. Mr. Locke stated we are going to tIy to recover our costs for-the processing from the money we kept out. Once we:finisb paving tho streets, we would put those slreets on' county invenloty. wbich woutd be Dextspring. DnUnger motioned to ratify the draw on the Letter afCredit. Clark seconded, Motion carrl' . dinancc for the . on. sta e represen e.,tl a e a Ilhc developers of the shopping center at ] 0601 Street and Michigan Road. Mr. McKasson staled when pranning this development they have met many timea with the neighborhood " and have gained their support for the development The intention of our efforts is to turD Carwinion Way into a cul-de-sac. Part of our requirements in the development is to extend lbecounty road called Commerce Drive south tluough ~ur entire development. We will complete Commerce Drive to the south line of Target's property I~. To the south of'farget we have a proposal from Home Depot . and if that is successful we will continue Commcn:c Drive to that point. COmnleteG Drive is scheduled to be a secondaly arterial drive, but that would rcquirC it to be completed from our property south to 96th StreeL That is in the plans. then: is no time table as to when it will happen. Carwinlon Way CUlTently 'Tsft into COffi!Derce Drive. ~ the project develops we will generate more traffic an ' addltional traffic signal will b~ placed at 10200 Street. which will be called Retail Way. We are requesting that Carwinion Way be a cul-de-sac. We will design the cul-de-sac so il will be accessible to emergency vehi~ and pedestrian traffic, but Dot to tIaffic from the commerc1a1 dcvelopm~ Any traffic generated by the commercial development would be inappropriate to go through this neighborhood. Carwinion Way can be tBken from Commerce Drive and get to Towne Road. Dr. Dug8D~ resident of the area, slated the plat just approved was for tbe Target development This represents 10 months of involvement of our neighborhood 8S$ociation and GlendaIe Partners in order to bring thIs to successful site preparation and construction yet this fall. It is also Important to taxpayers in Hamilton County. bealuse this development resides in the overlay district on Michigan Road. Taxes generated in that district go into B TIF tund which go back to directly support road improvements in West Clay. These funds will go spcclfically to 96th Street road imp[ovements~ which is relevant because lhe Thoroughfare Plan calls for Commerce Drive to connect to 96th Street and Shclbourne Road. This would solve the problem if there is a need to travel from Commerce Dnve to S~lbomc Road by the appropriate commercial route south of our development.tiot on a residentUd streeL Dr. Dugan stated to the south of our neighborhood is a development called Spring Arbor, which was not originally planned when our neighborhood was platted. There is secondary egress available to Shelborne Road through Spring Arbor. The only reasoJ;llhis back entrance existed was to provide access when there was a plan for 1his to be one subdivision. That changed when Bstridge purchased the land from Brenwick. The back ~ is no longer desired or required. For safety concerns on CUwinion Way. for the children who play in the neighborhood, for the excessIve speeds cUIl"ntly being seen and echoed in the Westin development to the north. we are asking to consider tbis request. Mr. McKasson stated they have worked extensively wilh the neIghborhood groups Ilnd they arc committed to pay for the cuI- dc-sac on Carwinion and to make sure it is designed for accessability to emergency vehicles. Mr. Locke slated the Highway Departmcot has expressed it's opposition to IhJs request from'the.first time they attended T AC. The Highway Department feels it is important to keep this opening to the subdivision. We would have not allowed the subdivision to go in if Carwinion Way was to be a cul~c-sac. It is not only because it is a second entrance, but it is sa far back to these houses. We bave not seen a position from 'the schoo1't:orporation Dr the flrC department. It is important to keep the Inner connectivity between the subdivisions and our collector, primary and secondary roads. Speed through the subdivisions is a concem. but we have found that it is not from people traveling Uuougb the subdivisions as nluch as it is residents oflhe subdivision who have to travel so,far to get out of the subdivision: Dr. Dugan stated we can not draw comparisons to people that are connecting between subdivisions in the middle of residenGal communities surrounding golf courses. Everyone would agree that traffic generated in those areas would be substantially different from the type of commercial we are 1alking about at the back side of Ashbrook. The peop!e that want Ibis most are the people who live on the western portion ofCarwinion Way, who are the most affected. They Will have the most wvel issues within the neighborhood. There are 120 lots in thesicighborhood and there is one individual in the neighborhood that feels this should not. happen. The neighbors arc concerned aboul safely and the traffic genemtcd byrarget and HOme Depot. Mr. I;ocke slated we often stub streets out" which are very hard to get those connected allot the facL This is one of those cases that- we had It stubbed out and connected through prIor to people purchasing homes in the subdivision. It has been zoned commercial for a long time and they were very aware of what it was connected to. E.veryone had substantial nDtice and if they Ibought it would be a problem they would have taken it into consideration when they purchased their properties. Ho'lt staled on prior instances when the Board ofCommissioncrs have considered cul-dO-SBcs. we have always had tho concurrence of IDe school district mrd lirc department. Have those concurrences been requested? Dr. Dugan .seated he was Dot aware that there was a school issue. He does not see fire as a. substantive issue because lhe new fillJ station will be: on the nmthwest comer of- I 06th Street and Shelbomc. He could not imagine a me truok going over to Commerce and coming'in the back side oftbe neighborhood rather than coming straight down Sbelborne. Holt stated the issue is whetllCl'the fU'e truck can get in and out of lhc cul- de-sac. If It can't- get in and out. then are the hoses long enougb to park at the end of the" street? Dr. Dugan stated Ihere is not enough real estate within Ashbl'Ooke to do th~cul-dc-ac. The actwd cul-de-sac wiU be beyond the Ashbrooke limit in the commercial area. Mr. MeKasson stated they bave agreed to work with the fire department IlDd aU other safety agencies to design "tbe cul~c.sac so it can be accessed by emergency vehicles. It will be paved and will have a cmsh gate. Holt asked if the fire department bas agreed to work 06/08/01 15:07 FAX HAM 1 L'1'ON CO HWY. ~o .., HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. OCTOBER 23, 2000 with you? Mr. McKasson stated tho fm: department was at the TAC meeting when it was discussed. we don't have their agreement, but we are planning on working with them and this would be contingent upon their approval Holt asked what about the schools? Mr. McKasson stated we have not met with Carmel/Clay Schools. If you would like us to do that we will. Dr. Dugan stated the school bus does not currently use the sfrcct now. DiJlinger asked how do you respond to Mr. Locko., point lbat the subdivision was approved this way and you knew it was there when you bought it? Dr. Dugan stated he can only speak to his own lot pwchascs, when be bought his two lots he looked carefOlly into the zoning. Th.erc is a di.ffi:rence in zoning east and wesl of Commerce and there has been confusion to homeowners about that. There was not a reality oflhis size of development to people until we saw Marsh being built on the northeast comer and Village Panlly and the first part of West Cannel Center being developed. The traftlc generated. by Blockbuster, Village Pantry and Marsh is what gol the neighbor's attention. We immediately entered into a productive dialogue with Mr. McKlsBon. Wc realize that there was a lot of real estate and it was going to be developed. It is being developed in a first rate way, but it does nol alleviate the safely com::e:ms. We have been pi'o-activo about this. We have been working with the developers to solve a neighborhood problem. Mr. McKasson stated there win be a traffic light at SR 421. Mr. McKasSon stated their (lonccm is that they do not want to create traffic through the neighborhood. People going east may use tho neighborhood as a sbortcU~ which we feel is inappropriate. HolL slated assuming you complete the road 10 the south you would gel to 96th Street with alight? Mr. McKassoa stated that is beyond theIr control. They are nol developing to that point. other developers will at some point. When it gels to ahat point, it is questionable when that can bappen. It will require the county to condemn existing houses. Mr. Loclce recommended that it would be best at this time to leave it connected and see what happens once it opens up with a. commitment Rom the devcloper to install the cw-de-sac ifil does not work out. RiJht nC!w we want to do. a repIat to make sure we have the right-of-way to install the cul~c-sac because it will not fit in the existing right=Of-way. No one knows for sure ifit will increase trafticor be a safely issue. He would not want to limit mobility, especially for the neighbors on the far inside oflhc cul-de-sao. Clark stated she fails to see the . maybe's. It is a dc:fwite, having just dealt witl1 Brighton and Dorset. That is another example where you are lying ~mmcrcial to residential and it is totall)' diD'crcnt scenario than tying residential to residential. Clark slated for her 10 actively support an opportunity for commercia11mffic to move through a residential &Ra is unthinkable. Mr. Locke stated it is diffexent, Srigbton and Dorset had the main arterial road coming directly into the entrance of the subdivision. lined up with it. There was no jog. Clark stated to her it is an analogist silUalion, Meridian Corridors Boulevard was Dot finished. it was to be finished when the commercial development came in. which is D. simIlar situation to what we ha.ve done here. Once the road is in then the commercial traffic has someplace to go. Mr. Steve Van"Soulen; stated he currently lives in the Westins. which is a mirror image ofthis situation to the north. The Westin's has a similar road to Aahbroob that runs from l06th S1reet to Shelbomc. There have been traftW. studies done of over 1,000 cars, using 1hit southern exit of the Westins. The Carmel Police DepllI1Iiient hBS clocked speeds at 45 mph and SS mph going through there. It is not an isSuo ofmaybc, it is an issue ofwhcn and bowmany. The Westins' Homeowners Association has worked with the county highway department to get <:ro5Iwalks IUld park sigal installed to slow peopl~down. Mr. Locke stated even in subdivisions tbat don.t have this kind of access. we still clock speeds at 45 mph to 50 mpb. To think putting in a cul-de-sac is goIng (0 reduce speeds docs not happen. Holt asked what does non action Loday do? Mr. McKasson stated we will c:onlinue to develop the Target store. which will open next summer. We will continue to lry and get approval for Home Depot. There is an additional six acIeS betwccn Target and our other development. where the actual cul-de-sac will hI). We don't want to come back to the commissioners and sa)' it is necessary beCause someone has been injured ftom someone cutting through a neighborhood. We Pre committed on following up on this issue. Holt stated it is inconceivable Ihat B school bus would pull all the way in and back all the way out or a fire truck would want to pun all the way in and back all the way out. It is critical that you get a sign.off from the sehool district and the flIe departmlml Mr. McKasson stated the design of the cul-de-sac will allow.for school buses to turn and emergency vehicles to access through the eras}( gale and we would maintain those faclUUes. Mr. Van Soulen stated one reason the real estate is tight is thai there are four or fIVe different pipeline easements that are cutting through here. The cut-dwac will be designed as big BS he can within the limits ofthl: pipeline agreements. Mr. Locke asked iftbc commissioners are considering this he would request they provide the county with a drawing ofwhallhcy are planning and the easements and what can be ~nstructed. We don't want to approve somelbing that can't be builL Mr. Loeke stated you"may want to ask for the people living in the back section to sign otf. Mr. McKasson stated they would meet with the school district and safety agenciClll as wen as a sign oil from the. neighbors. Mr. YanSoulen slated we have support~d all this development with this condition, the longer this decision gets put off, it wiD be too late once Home Depot is buill This is his one chance to get this done. Holt stated it would be helpful for the school system and the fire .department if you can show them the Cl:&l-dc-sac design. Mr. Locke stated typically there arc plans that show exactly what will go in and they normally send the highway department a lelter stating 1hat don1t object or Iheyagree wilh the plan as drawn sO everyone is aware of what it is. If all ofthosc things can be taken care or, it would be helpfuL It would also be helpful that each resident sign something stating that they are aware that this is being built and tho school colJlomtion will not send a bus back there and they undetstand the fire issues. Mr. Locke asked Mr. McKasson to get the design to the highway department first so we can review it. Clark moUoned to table so we em. g,et the signaluresfrom the residents as well as BpproVBl from the school board and fife department. Dillinger seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Holt called a break at 2:00 p.rn. Holt called the meeting back 10 order at 2:30 p.m. Agreements: crape 2, #821) Weat Carmel Centerl Block D Inspection Agreements: " Mr. Locke requested approval of Inspection and Testing Agn:em~ HCHD ilAOO-OO14, for West Carmel Center Block D between the Glendale Partners and Hamilton County and between Hamilton County and United Consulting Engineers in the amount of S5.700.OO. Dillinger motioned to approve. Clark seconded. Motion carried unanimously. . Canal Place Landscape Sprinkler System Agreement: Mr. Locke requested approval of an Bgreement between HlU11ilton COWlty and Canal Place Property Owners Association, HC~D #M-~o-0031, for a landscape sprinkler system in the right-of-way. Dillinger motioned to.approve. Clark seconded. Motion camed unanunously. Bridge #119 AVCClllent: Mr. Locke requCllltcd approval of an agn:ement between. Hamilton County and the State of Indiana.. HCHD tlM-Oo..o038. for Bridge #129 OD Prairie Baptist Road over William Lock Ditch. This is a federal aid projecL Total estimated project costs are . $91l~OOO. Hamilton County's share is $149.000. This covers construction and construction inspection. Dillinger motioned to approve. Clark seconded. Motloncarried unanimously. . 3 i' FAX HAMILTON CO BWY. IaJI HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NOVEMBER 14.2000 Rhu. The: agreement i~ with Floyd B. Burroughs ~ Associates. Inc. in an amount not to exceed $71,800. DllJinger motioned to appFO\'e. Hall seconded. Dillinger and Holt approve,. Clark opposed. Motion canic:d. Lamong Rond ExtelllioD Engineering Agreement: Mr. Lockc.requesled approval ofBnginecring Agreement HCHD 1#&-00-0019 for the Lamong Road Extension - SR 38 to 246th Slrect wilb USl Consultants. Inc. The not to exceed amount Is $155.080. This does not inc1uderigbl-of-way servIces ot conslrUclion inspection. The scope is set up to do two lanes with cur~ guttering and closed drainage wJth the ability to add two lanes on the inside. Clark asked ifit would be less expensive to put on open drain with two lanes in the center as we nonnaUy do? ~. Locke stated we went through that scenario. it is a little less expensive on the construction costs but as we tried,to work with the people. tbis Is the will of ahe people. It is probably 20% more to put in curb and gutter and dzainage. Mr. Locke slated Chis con1n!Ct will do the erJginecringJ design. survey. rigbt-of-way engineering and geotechnical work. It is noL fOf buying r1ght~f-way or construction inspection. Dillinger motioned to approve. Clark seconded. . Clark asked jf once the project is engineered how long can it sit on the shelf] Mr. Locke stated he can nol sayllhcre are constantly changing environmental standards. ~s changes. etc. 80%-90% of the engineering would be good for 3-10 years. Motion carried unanimously. Towne Road and 106th Street Engineering Agreement: Mr. Locke requested approval of tho engineering agreement fot Towne.Road and 106th Street Intersecdon reconstruction. HeRD #B-OO;OO16, with"Beam. Longest and Neff; LLC. Thcll0t to exceed amount is $155.13 7.19. Dillinger.motioned to approve. Clark seconded. Motion cmied unanimously. . .' Request to SetPublie HeAring rorVaCllt~~n onioover Road: (Tape 1, #521) Mr. Jose Kreutz, Brenwick Dcvelopme.n,\ 12821 B. "Now Market Street. Cannel. Mr. Kreutz stated on AprU 12. 19991he Hamilton County Board of Commissioners approved Ordinance 3-22-99-Bl where a portion of Hoover Raad was vacated, specifically from 13lsi Street to ~ mile south ofI3Ist Sf.rcct. Untll Meeting House Road was buUt. we could not vacate Hoover Road. Mr. Kreutz requesled to sel a public beoring (0 vacate an additional portion oCHooycr Road Utal has no purpose. Mr. Kreutz requested the public hearing be cd on December 11 000. DUlin er motioned. to approve. Clark seconded. .Molion carried unanimously. f 06/08/01 15:07 FAX HAMILTON CO BWY. ijJ OC .., HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. <X:TOBEJt23,2000 with you? Mr. McKasson stated the fll'C: department was al the TAC meeting when it was discussed, we don't have their agreement. but we me planning on working with them and this would be contingent upon their approval. Holt asked what about. the schools? Mr. McKasson slated we have Dol met with Carmel/Clay Schools. If you would like us to do that we will. Dr. Dugan stated the school bus does not currently use the street now. DiJlinger asked how do you respond to Mr. Locko's point that the subdivision was approved this way and you knew it was there Ymca you bought it? Dr. Dugan stated he can only speak to his own lot purcbases, when he bought his t.wo lots he looked. caref\iI1y into the zoning. There is a difference in zoning east and west of Commerce and there has been confusion to homeowners about that. There was not a reality oflhis size of development to people until we saw Marsh being built on the northeast comer and Village Pantry and tJ.te first part ofWcst Cannel Center being developed. The traffic generated by BIoc;kbuster, ViUage PantJy and Manih ill what got the neighbor"s attention. We immediately enlered into a productive dialogue with Mr. McKasson. We realize that there was a lot of real estate and it wu going to be developed. It is being developed in a first rate way. but it does nol alleviate the safety conc:ems. We have been pro-active aooullhis. We have been wo~ldng wIth the developers to solve a neighborhood problem.. Mr. McKassoD stated there will be a traffic light at SR 421. Mr. McKesson stated their concern is that they do not want to create tmflic through the neighborhood. People going east may use the neighborhood 83 a shortcut" which we feel is inappropriate. Holt stated assuming you complete dIe road to ahe south you would get to 96th Street wilh a light? Mr. McKasson staled that i3 beyond their control. They arc Dot developing to that point. other developers will at some point. When it gets to lhat point,. it is questionable when that can happen. It wU1 ~ire the county to condemn existing houses. Mr. Locke recommended that it would be best at tbis time to leave it cormected and see what happens once it opens up with a. commitment from the developer to histall the cw-dc-sac if it does not work ouL ro,ht n~w we want to do a replat to make sure we have the right-of-way to install the cul-do-sao because it will nolfit in the exisling rlght.:of-way. No one knows for sure ifil will increase traffic or be a safely issue. He would not wanl to limit mobility, especiany for Ihe neighbors on the far inside ofthe cul-de-sac. Clark staled she fails to see the . maybe~s. It is a definite, havingjust dealt with Brighton and Dorset. That is another example wberc you are lying commercial to residential and it is totally different scenario than tying residential to residential. Clark stated for her to actively support an opportunity for commercial traffic to move through a residentIal &tea is Wltbinkablc. Mr. Locke stated it is different. Brighton and Dorset had 1hc main artedal lOad coming directly into the entrance ufthe subdiyision,lined up with it. There was DO jog. Clark stated to her it is an analogist situation, Meridian Corridors Boulevard was not finished. it was to be finished when lhe commercial development came in. which is a simllu situation to what we have done here. Once the road is in then the commercial traffic has someplace to go. Mr. Steve Van'Soulcn; stated he currendy lives in aie Weslins, wbich is a mirror image of this situation to the north. The Westin.s has a similar road to Ashbxooke that runs from 1 06lh Street to Shelbome. There have been traffic studies done of over 1,000 cars, using 1h&t southern exit of the Westins. Thc Cannel Police Department has clocked speeds at 45 mph and S5 mph going through there. It is not an isSue of maybe. it is an issue of when and bow man)'. The Westins~ Homeowners Association bas worked with tbe counly highway department to get crosswalks and park signs installed to slow:people-down. Mr. Locke stated even in subdivisions that don't ha.vc this kind ofacccss, we .still clock speeds at 45 mph to SO mpb. To think puUing in a cul-de-sac is going (0 reduce speeds docs not happen. Holt asked what does Don action today do? Mr. McKasson stated we will continue to develop the Target slare; which win open next summer. We will continue to by and get approval for Home D~t. There is an additional six acres between Target and our other development, where the actual oul-de-sac will be. We don't wanl to come back to the commissioners and say it is necessary because someone has bean lqjured ftom someonc cutting tluough a neighborhood. We are committed on following up on this issue. Holt stated it is inconceivablo that a school bus would pull all the way in and back all the way out or a fire truck would want to pull all the way in and back all the way out. It is critical that you get a sIgn-off from the school district and lhc fire deparlment. Mr. McKasson slated the design of the cul-de-sac will aUovifor school buses to turn and emergency vehic:les to access 1brough the crash' gate and we would maintain those facilities. Mr. Van Soulen stated one reason the real estate is tigbt is thatlhere are four or fIVe different pipeline easements that lU'e cutting througb here. The cul-de-sac will be designed as big as he can within the limits oftbe pipelIne agreements. Mr. Locke asked if the commissioners are considering this be would request they provide the county with a drawing ofwhat they Me planning and lhecasements and what can be constructed. We don't want to approve something that can't be builL Mr. Locke stated you.may want to ask for the people living in the back section to sign off. Mr. McKasson stated they would meet with the school district and safety agencies as well as a sign off from the ucighbOrs. Mr. VanSoulcn stated we have supported all this development with this condition, the Jongcrthis decision gets put off. it win be too lide .once Home Depot is built. This is his one chance to get this done.. Holt stated it would be helpful for the school system and the fire .department if you can show them the ci:tJ-de-sac design. Mr. Locke stated typically thero are plans tbat show exactly what will go in and they nonnally send the highway department a letter stating that donlt object or lhey agree with the plan as drawn sO everyone is aware of what it is. If all or those things can be taken care Qr. it would be helpful. It would also be helpfullhat each residenlsign sDmething stating Ibat they are aware that this is being built and the schoo! corporation will not send a bus back there and they undetstand the fire issues. Mr_ Locke asked Mr. McKasson to get the design to the highwa.y dc:partmCDt first ~ we can review it. Clark motioned to table so we can &.ct the signatures from the residents as well as approval from the school board and fil'C department. DUlinger seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Holt called a break at 2:00 p.rn. Holt called the meeting back to order at 2:30 p.m. Agreement5: crape 2, ##821) WestCarme1 Center, BlockD Inspection Agreements: . Mr.1.ockc requested approval of Inspection and Testing Agreements. HCHD #AQO.OO14. Cor West Cannel Center Block 0 between the Glendale Partners and Hamilton County and between Hamilton County and United Consulting Bngineers in the amount of S5,700.OO. Dillinger motioned to approve. Clade seconded. Motion carried unanimously. . Canal Place Landscape Sprinlder System Agreement: Mr. Locke requested approval of an agreement between Hamilton County and Canal Place Property Ownezs AssDciation, HCHD #M-OO-0037. for a landscape sprinkler system in !he right-otway. Dillinger motioned to.approve. Clark seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Brldge 1#129 Agreemellt: . Mr. Locke requested approval of an agreement between H8Jl1ilton County and the State of Indiana. HCHO 1#M-O()"0038~ for Bridge ##129 on PmirieBaplist Road over William Lock Ditch. This is a federal aid projecL Total cstimatccf project costs are S971.000. Hamilton County's share is $149.000. This covers con.stmction and c:onstIUcUon inspection. Dillinger motioned to approve. Clark seconded. MoUon carried unanimously. .. .. .. 06/0B/01 15:2B FAX HAMILTON CO HWY. .- City of Carmel F~ Department Headquarters 2. CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032. 317/571-2.600 November 3. 2000 0 Kerry.Buckley, EI American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4165 Mlllersvllle Rd. Indianapolis, IN 46205-2998 Dear Ms. Buckley, ThIs letter is in response to the meeting we had on Friday November 31d regarding the placement of the cui. de-sac at the end on Carwinioh Way in the Ashbrook SubdivisIon. Although this will greatly increase the overall length of the cul-de-saC well beyond allowable standards, It has been agreed upon that it would be acceptable with the following provisions. The Installation of a surface or sub-surfaee weight bearing system capable of supporting fire fighting apparatus for emergency access connecting to Commerce Drive. We also would require that any means of barricading this emergency access from .Comme(C9 Drive to Carwlnion Way' be removable in nature. allOwing the.fire department access and that no permanent fence, wall.or other barricade be erected that would not allow for .emergency access. It;s also under:stood.that this access portion betwee~ Commerce Drive and Carwinlon Way must be maintai~ed as a paSsable emergency entrance poiflt at all times. With the above noted requirements met, It Is the opinion of our office. that the creation of a 'cul-de-sac at the end of Carwinlon Way would meet with our approval. Should you have any further questions or concern, please contact our office. . r; i/.Jt- ~~7L; . Fire Marshal . Carmel Fire Prevention Bureau Cc:' file (2) Fire Prevention SaVel Lives B1IcI Property .0 ~ ~. @OOB : ~ \ " ? : 06/0B/01 15:29 FAX HAMILTON CO BWY. ~009 I ~ Carmel Clay Schools - Continuing Excellence in Education November 14, 2000 Ms. Kerry E. Buckley, EI American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4165 Millersville Road Indianapolis, IN 46205-2998 RE: Ashbrook Subdl.vision Dear Ms. Buckley, Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed development referenced above. Per our discussion regarding the proposed cul-de-sac at the west end of Carwinion Way. our department recommends a minimum radius of 5011..0". This allows buses to make a turn around without doing any back up procedures and also not hit any curbside . improvements with the rear sweep of the bus. This number would need to be increased if parking is allowed at the curb. Sincerely. ~lL (.~t · Ron Farrand, Director Facilities and Transportation FacilitieJ &- Transportation Deparl17lent - 5185 Easr1319 SlJ'eel. CarmtJL 1N 460j3 . 317/844.8207 -.FtlX317/J71.9659 " {.':" " ," \~~E.f{IeAN (\C()NSULTING',\'I~€~;.".' .... ',"., . .- ',',' -.'.... , . , .' , ' \ '. . ',. ' ,', ',' , "i-', .' ' , " .,~. , ;.... - "'" , - .. ~ :A;~hitecis '. , '. .... (;o~sllJtants .... ;,' Engi,!,eers ....' , ',,',' " \ ','. ,,:... ' , Mr:jon:Dob~siewicZ' '..Planning Administrator. . ,'Cityof Cann,el, '.,.'. . : ,One Civic Square '. Carmel, IN 46032: , ,'Re:." ...West Ckrinel C~riter - Block '0 . Priin.ary and Secondary Plat , , :' - ~';" I JAMES A. WURSre~ ~PE. AlA.l.s : ' WlWS R. CONNER, PE '. MARK C. HARRIS, PE JAMES A. KOVACS, ES GREGORY l. HENNEKE, PE ' CHARlES P. UNTERREINER, PE, PS ' -'~. MAX P. NEWKIRK, LS : . .' . A. ROY SHUIUlfFF, PE MICHAEl H. WENNING, PE ClINlON L. SPARKS, PE GOROON L RJQ,lAROSON,LS: . '.' . DAVIDA. DAY, PE MICHAEl It HOOPINGARNER, AlA: MICHAEl M. JONES, AlA' CYNTHIA L FORT. PE IEfFREY A. ClAYfON, PE ., ROBERT E. HlTTtf, ES MARUN A. KNOWLES, JR., PE JAMES M. BRElTlNGER, PE " ' , . MICHAElJ.KOYAK, PE FRED M. FACKENllW:; AlA '. JAMES K. KEEFE. PE , MATTHEW D. RlN~ PE , '. DAVID M. GRIfFEE, PE JOSEPH J. GUIDROZ m, AlA . STEVEN R. BRUNS, PE , RONAlD G.JONES, PE ' ROBm E. CREVISTON, lit. AlA EDWARD J. SWEETlAND, LS CASH E. CANAELD, PE JENNIFER L. ROBERfS, PE DONALD G. CORSON, PE ALEN FETAHAGIC, PE , JAMIE t. POCZEKAY, PE MIa-tAa B. OJNE. PE ' M. SEAN PORTER, PE PAUL A. ENDRIS II, RA . WEBB BERNHARDT, PE MICHAEL S. HARKNESS, PE ' . GARY R. DUNCAN, PE WILLIAM J. BOUCHER, PE CHRISTOPHER F. MURPHY, PE KEVIN P. PARKER. PE DALE T. (SKIP) FRANOS, PE In'I'esp6ns~ to ;oUr,comm~iit letter dated May is, 2001, 'concemingyour review of the'Constructi9n Plans for the above-referenced project these comments have been reviewed and addressed as follows: " ,Comn1~nts on P~Plat, S~bdi~ion Waivers & ConstrudionPlans: ',L . _ ',' / The'Departme,nt would like to see the size of the cul-de-sac reduced to a right-of-way radius oj 50 feet and pavement diameter of 76 feet. I~elie~e this will also help to satisfy Panhandle Pipeline Company and their concern of the pavement being over their easement. . The'. Construction Plans have; been revised to show a right-of-way , " . .. "" " ,-, '. < , !' . '..' ,-, radius of 50 feet and pavement diameter of76 feet.' . Conunent 2: Show continuation of sidewalk, both sides of drive, The proposed' sidewalk on both sides of drive has been shown on sheet C2.t. . REGISTRATION INDIANA-OHIO KENTUCKY - MICHIGAN ILUNOIS - MISSOURI MARYLAND -ARKANSAS SOUTH DAKOTA-IOWA NEBRASKA - KANSAS TENNESSEE - WISCONSIN FLORIDA- WEST VIRGINIA GEORGIA- Mf55155/PP1 PENNSYLVANIA" IDAHO VIRGINIA - MINNESOTA COLORADO - CAUFORNIA ARIZONA - WASHINGlON ALABAMA - NEW YORK NEW JERSEY - LOUISIANA CONNECncur - MASSACHusms SOUTH CAROLlNA.'IDAS Conunent 3: Please provide a Traffic Impact Analysis to display the distribution of traffic through the subdivision, with and without the cal-de-sac. This . is necessary to verify or substantiate any claims regarding additional traffic in residential area. _........~..~. ........... .."..... . ..().n~ ., ..,- ',-"'" ," ',- '~'~J , .,....-_1r:~~::~ru;r~7.i'hT~;"rl'f>>n~~'~ tRxQYl '. ,~l~", ,''.,,' p,;'~~~~Jai Conunent 4: Identify both pipeline easements on the'plans. Both pipeline easements have been identified on the plans (see sheets C1.1 and C2.1). OFFICES. INDIANAPOLIS, IN COLUMBUS,OH . SOUTH BEND, IN q:lemp\af\O 1 0191-003.doc ARCHITECTURE STRUCTURAL CIVil ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SURVEYING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . .~ERicANCONS~rING~JNC. , ',,':": ,.:',', ,Mr;;Jon Dobosiewici .':,: Jurte'S,'2001: . 'Page2. ". ,", ," ..' Secondary 'PI~t: '_.. .' " _ '1' . "'_ '. : . " , Comment l'~,'Rev'se Legend'toaddle~gth: of mark~rs ()nlegend, as required under S~ction8.2 afthe . '. ., " SCQ.2~'...,",' ".'", i. . . . " , . . . The Legend has been revised to, add length of markers. . to ,.. - I" , . ,.... '; 'J Provide a' key Map on th~faceof t~eplat., .,' The ke)'.map has been provided on, the fac~ of the plat. ' . , Co~ment 3.: '. i',"; . .~ ';', . Provide Primary Plat,'Primary'PlatArnendment'Qnd Secondary 'Plat DocketNumbers ,'ontheplaC"', ..' ...... .,', '"., . ,..' ". , ". .," , , DoCke~' Numbers'forth~. PrimarY,' Plat' Amendment and Secondary' Plat have been .' providecfon the plat- ' . ..' .'" - . . Comment 4: '. Change' Narite' o/Director ?f CO'!'-"Junity ServiCes to MiChaelP. Hollibaugh. Name of Director of Community Services has been changed as required. . COInmerit 5: Place Commission Certificate on opening page.' The Commission'Certificate has' been placed on the 'opening page. Comment 6: Submit a copy of the covenants and restrictions. There are no covemmtsor restrictionS; Comment 7: Pro.vide Name, addres~ and phone nu~ber of Owner, subdivider and Surveyor. The name, address' and phone number of the owner, subdivider and surveyor have been provided on the plat. We are sending you the revised Primary and Secondary Plat for your review and approval. If you have any questions please feel free to contact our office. Very truly yours, ~anW)~r;C' Alen FetahagiC~ AF:ah Attachments q:\emp\at\O 1 0 191-003.doc -~.':'.~\ ' .,::~:/:>;~~~F,~I:~3~:;~:I:r.ng,~~EL C9~~UNI:IX,p~Yi~""~;" . ...'..~:},;-~.,' ';, .. " ." .' ""'"',, .; ,,' (Jityo;rc;al111e1... > ." ,', ' <, -, '..'. , j: : VIA FAX: 543-0270 , ',' ,Mi:Mich~lB;leti. ..' , . American OmsUtnng;Inc. . '. 416S~rsVi1Jt Road . Indialll\po1is~ IN4620S: ...- '.' .' ,nE: \ ,We;t CarRiel Center';:' Block G, pr:imUyPlatAmelldment . & Subdlvision Waivers" . .- - -. .' Dear,~.Jett: '::. '. ".' .,.' " ". ,'. ' ,:.. .... ':' ',' . '. ,,' .... '. ~ letter is iD. )'e~o~e tOYO~ ~_Plat ~~tW Subdivisio~Waiver flungs (or West ~1 Center- . Block G. :i have reyjewed the Primary Plat ..A.me:ndment and S~oncWY Pl~tappUcations. . The following CommentS need to be addreSsed ~ plans updated.a;ccOrdixigly:,'", "". ',.....',. "', . . ".,. ~ " . Comments on p~ Plat, Subdil'lsiol1 W~iverl '~, Construction,~lllns:' .1.' " The Department would lib to see the $i%eor~~ cul.:&-Sac reduced to aright.:o-f'-wayxadlu,lro(SO . '.', feet and pavement dianieterof76 feet. 'I beli~e this'will also help to 'satisfy ~al:lhai:1dle PipeliJie Company and theiI:concerD. of'the pavement being over. lheir e~ement. . ",' ' "., Show,continuation ofsidewalb . e of. . ,,'. . . .... .', 2. ,~ ,,~ oth pipeIineeas~~on the plans.'", ' 4. Secont;tary Plat: '.', .', . . '1. ' ,Revise ~s~~4.to add Iengthofmarms on legend,'u"r~qUired~.gection 8.2 of'the S~O.2:. '3. Provide a:,key Map' 'on the face oftbeplat. , ........... ,'. ....,...-::. ;.~..,. ". 4. Provide Primal)' Plat, Primary Plat Amendment and Secondary Plat Docket Numbers bn the plat. \ s~ Change Name of Director of CommUnity Services to Micha'eI P. HoIIi'bau~ . ',. , . . 6. 'Place:Commissionc;crtificate on 6pemng page;,' . . , . '..'.: .... . 7. '. . Submit a copy of the covenants and restrictions. . , . 8. . Provide Name, address and pho~ number of Owner, subdividor, and Surveyor " Please submit a revised Primary Plat, With the above-mentioned changes/additional infOtmation. Once these cbanges . have Doe.n made~ ~cMnnents addressed,'and additionaljnfo1'1l1Mlon pNvided'the.ErimaIy Plat will.b.~.placed 6n the '. next available Plan Commission Agenda. It hasbeententati~ely placed on the rune 19, 2001 agenda: IF you have any additional q~estions please do not hesitate to call. . . TIt. ~;: c. Oobosiewi~ Plannirig Ad.JninUttfitor West Cumcl Ccnlet-Blo,k O.PPl -=> ONE. CIVIC SQUARE Page 1 C~ INDIANA 46032 :H7/571-2417 1-