HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
~
o
BRENWICK
October 18, 2001
RE: The Village of WestClay
Docket No. 99-01 OA
'3 '!Q;)."
~ ~
RECEIVED ~
per 18 2001
DOCS
Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Dear Jon:
Following up on our conversation this morning, enclosed please find the following items:
};>- A copy of the "MODIFICATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED
UNDER THE WESTCLA Y VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE", as
amended by us to reflect the adjustment in commercial space discussed with the
Subdivision Committee. We would consider the attached document the text approved by
the Plan Commission.
};>- A copy of ORDINANCE Z-330, depicting the revisions made through the incorporation of
the above document. The purpose of this document is to facilitate the practical application
of the development requirements modified by the Plan Commission's action.
Enclosed please also find electronic copies of both documents, as well as of the "pre-
amendment" ordinance Z-330. We trust that you will advise Permit Services of the amendments.
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest
convemence.
Sincerely,
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
c:
Enclosures
cc: Tom C. Huston
George P. Sweet
12821 E. New Market St. Suite 200 · Carmel, Indiana 46032 · 317.574.3400 · 317.574.3919 Fax
brenwick@brenwick.com h Up:/ /www.brenwick.com
OJ
o
CITY OF CARMEL
Department of Community Seevices
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 40032
(317) 571-2417
Fax: (317) 571-2426
Fax
C~~~ ~IJ EUi"2-
.
S7Lj-~~\9
Fax:
From: A, 'l...L~ ~ IN..- 1
Pages: ~
To:
Phone:
Datef
\a-\6:)".-O\
Ref 00:\. ?~ ~~~ ~~1>t)A."t CC:
o Urgent 0 For" Review 0 P.Jease Comment a Please Reply
o Please Recycle
\..._J
l.D u J ole; / " ,
, I
w~..,.. ~"t I
I ~ .>v IE"'"' .
l .
. .
, '
-' ~"C>Hp MY~ .
. . .
~€..\I\ 'E-w o1=- ItJ~~Q 'FPt.. -Dt>.....tlll ~
. ' ~~ Ht>\)c:...( . '&~O~ , ~.
. .
~"11~5 ~_oPfo~(is) ~
,
I
,
"
t. ~,~A . ~JlbP ~ ~16Hr~o.:}Ft-
~i) "-'- .
t:i~ ~/S, 6~ 1A::lC\C..l3b_M'::
~ 07>t~~$_~~hYS It ~~~-
J.! . ~ 11C>~ M~'L. ~'J" ~~ r==o~~ e~Jt._".
111 tr:r IS.s~I:1~ 6~ ~~~,~
- - -
f 6P\AN 48-'l>~ . H~f!~""""'~ ~ ,J~~ 1H>~Jg~L___.__________
. -. ~ i-. .
w /7>1 1J/I'IlbI t:> .~_~~ ~~~bla~71~N.$--
-
- .$V&. S..J>ft,,~ h,l,..L- ~nl..0'\S
~, c..c. t)-.) .-
- 5..t!fJ..ftf!!f,__I3~-e-_~~7icPt ~'c_f:&~___._____.__
----- 1---
.. ' I-------,---=- ~_tl-nQ~ Q.~ ~~S . -~ -_'_--"--~-
_._------- ~_._. _--.........-.--~-_....._._. ._~---,---._.'-
8 . _~_t) O~~t:l.6'-L~>-~---'Fe.~-I.tS-~~-~~----
1;
I ::bH ~
- >"-?J- ...
,
~E- -----
- -.--------
I
----
I
[.
.:iittO-
U)
o
'00
YEARS@
Parsons 47 South Pennsylvania Street
Brinckerhott Suite 600
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
317-972-1706
Fax: 317-972-1708
Toll Free: 1-888-722-1706
-
October 9,2001
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh, Director
Carmel Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Re: Review of Modified Traffic Analysis
Village of West Clay
Dear Mr. Holibaugh:
Per your request, we have reviewed the Modified Traffic Analysis submitted by Brenwick
Development Company, Inc. in support of a requested change in allowable commercial
development within the Village of West Clay. The results are summarized in outline form below:
A. Summary of Modified Traffic Analysis
1. Scenarios Considered.
a) 1997 Traffic Impact Study (TIS), including study amendments.
b) 2001 Permitted Uses (lower intensity; not subjected to full TIS).
c) 2001 Requested Amendment (increase in office & retail over permitted).
2. Current Conditions.
Traffic counts taken September 27,2001 are lower than predicted for existing land use
based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates used in
the original Traffic Impact Study.
3. Adjustments to original Traffic Impact Study.
a) Retail description refined with new trip generation coding for retail.
b) Internal trip estimates refined per current ITE Guidelines.
c) Only trip generation estimates are adjusted (full assignment not developed).
4. Conclusion of the Modified Traffic Analysis.
Traffic generated from the site will be less than identified in the original Traffic
Impact Study if the increases in commercial use are approved. Roadway impacts will
be less due to refinements in retail use categories and a higher proportion of internal
trips. Compared to currently permitted uses, the proposed change will generate an
increase of about 174 trips during the evening peak hour (about 8%).
B. Review Process
1. Review assumptions (land use types and codes; internal and pass-by trip estimating
procedures).
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
'"
."
....
--
-
'00
YEARS@
Q
o
October 9,2001
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
Page 2.
2. Check procedures, equations, inputs and mathematics.
3. Compare trip estimation for existing development with existing count data.
4. Conduct a literature review regarding traffic studies for new urbanist developments.
5. Review overall conclusions.
C. Review of Modified Traffic Analysis
1. Assumptions
The ITE Trip Generation Report provides relatively few options for mixed use retail
areas. The shopping center category used in the original TIS assumes. a mix of shops
and services. Besides retail, it includes "non-residential" uses such as theaters, skating
rinks and post offices. Shopping centers surveyed by ITE also include out-parcel
developments such as drive-in banks, fast food restaurants and auto service centers.
Shopping centers provide on-site parking to service their own needs. They tend to be
stand-alone destination facilities and/or are located adjacent to other commercial areas
in order to benefit from combined non-residential trips.
The shopping center description in the ITE Trip Generation Report is not consistent
with retail areas of new urbanist developments such as Village of West Clay. The
developer's traffic engineer provides examples of retail uses in other new urbanist
developments and suggests that retail uses within the Village of West Clay be
evaluated as "specialty retail" (ITE Land Use Code 814) rather than shopping center
(ITE Land Use Code 820).
Clearly, shopping centers (as defined by ITE) are inconsistent with the fundamental
tenets of new urbanism. Development to date, experience with similar developments
elsewhere, and existing retail uses in the Village of West Clay all support this change
from the original "worst-case" assumption of shopping center to one of specialty
retail.
2. Traffic Count Review.
lTE trip generation rates and ordinary TIS procedures provide the best information for
analysis of build-out conditions. Some comfort may be gained by the fact that
existing traffic is lower than that predicted by applying ITE trip generation rates to
existing development in place, but the information is generally inconclusive at this
stage due to the small sample size.
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
,;:
"p'
o
o
'00
YEARS@\
October 9,2001
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
Page 3.
3. Checking of Procedures, Inputs and Mathematics.
All calculations supporting this request were checked in detail. A minor error was
found in the last step (pass-by trip reduction for retail) and this was shared with the
developer's traffic engineer. In addition to being minor (involving 50 vehicles), the
error had the effect of overstating rather than understating the effect of the proposed
change. In other words, the impact of the proposed amendment is actually slightly
less than indicated by the Modified Traffic Analysis.
4. Literature Review.
A brief literature review focusing on ITE documents and presentations did not yield
specialized procedures for estimating traffic from new urbanist developments. It is
reasonable in this case to apply standard procedures consistent with the Carmel-Clay
Applicant's Guide to Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development and
ITE recommended practices for traffic impact studies.
5. Overall Conclusions.
· The underlying assumptions and calculations of the revised traffic impact review
are valid and accurate.
· The requested increase in commercial use within the Village of West Clay will
not result in a greater number oftrips than those identified in the original Traffic
Impact Study.
· There will be an increase over currently permitted uses, but even that will be
relatively small. Ofthe total increase (approximately 120 trips) the "worst-case"
directional impact on any road would be less than 30 vehicles during the evening
peak hour.
· It is unlikely that the proposed change would affect level of service at any
network intersection.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance to the Department of Community Services. If
you have any questions regarding our review, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
S BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
Job w. MY~P
istant Vice President
Indiana Registered Engineer No. 17809
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
OCT-09-01 TUE 01 :48 PM PE I~)NAPOLIS
~II~
---
;;;;;gj
=--==
FAX:317 972 170~
PAGE 1
'IV
FAX
100
Y8"ARS e
Parsons 4., South Pennsylvania Street
."nokerllolf Suite 600
Indianapoll$, IN 4(J204
(377) 972-' 706
FAX (317)972-1708
fax no.
5., - ~4 Ql (0
-J~", ~J
~a,.: (0/0,(0/
JOb no
no. of ptlgss A
(InclUding this page). I
.. Jof\ ~S\(4,)~Q. ~
telephone nO.
......... T f"",;:.~ 0- Cop i * ~ ..k,
d~^~~ f{cy ~ p\ct? (~~ \'~"
~~),
P(~M~~~7r~
~VC-~'
\~ ~ ~~:s: ~-{":J ~
~ Co~= f'rri ~ '":
Over.. COIItruy "t
E",,'nllllrlllfl ~cel"'noe
~
CD
o
'-
J.~.ff ill
BRENWICK
October 5,2001
Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
Carmel, Indiana 46032
RE: The Village of WestClay
Modifications of Development Requirements - Docket No. 99-01 OA
Dear Jon:
This letter serves to follow-up on Tuesday's Subdivision Committee discussions on the above
noted item. In response to the issues raised by the Committee regarding the additional commercial
space sought, we propose amending our request as follows: .
3. Commercial Units.
Without the approval of the Commission, the aggregate square footage of commercial space
in the District shall not exceed 200 square feet of commercial floor area for each Permitted
Dwelling, retail uses in the District shall not exceed i9& 90 square feet for each Permitted
Dwelling and office and service uses in the District shall not exceed 156 125 square feet for
each Permitted Dwelling (8.2, 8.3, 8.4).
This amendment results in the following calculations:
Use
Maximum Retail
Maximum Office
Current Space Permitted
102,150 sq.ft
170.250 sa.ft.
ProDosed SDace Permitted
122,580 sq.ft.
170.250 sq.ft
Maximum Aggregate Commercial 204,300 sq.ft
272,400 sq.ft.
The purpose of limiting the amount of new retail is to permit the construction of a 20,000 sq. ft.
grocery or three or four restaurants, which are uses that will be built at ground level, while still
allowing the concentration of the majority of the commercial on two and three story buildings. We
are proposing leaving the amount of office space unchanged from the current limit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
ident of Operations
12821 E. New Market St. Suite 200 . Carmel. Indiana 46032 · 317.574.3400 · 317.574.3919 Fax
brenwick@brenwick.com http://www.brenwick.com
./
1
I
.
Q)
o
~_~'~' :0;.
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
October 16,2001
6i. Docket No. 99-01 OA; Village of West Clay Text Amendments I Modifications of
Development Requirements
The petitioner seeks approval to amend several provisions of their existing PUD
Ordinance. The site is generally located at the southeast comer of West 131 st Street and
Towne Road. The site is zoned PUDlPlanned Unit Development.
Filed by Jose Kreutz of Brenwick TND Communities, LLC.
The applicant is proposing modifications to the Development Requirements for the existing
WestClay Village Planned Unit Development District. Please refer to the informational folder
provided by the applicant prior to last months meeting. Section one ofthe folder outlines the
proposed new language for specific sections of the ordinance, section two provides the rational
for the change, and section three contains the existing Ordinance (Z-330).
As previously stated, most of the requested changes to the ordinance are housekeeping issues and
modifications that the Department views as tweaking the language to clarify meaning and
establish definitive standards. There are two areas, however, which dis not fit into the above
mentioned categories. One was a modification to the "Commercial Units" and the other was
related to lot width. The Subdivision Committee met twice to address these issues.
The applicant provided the Department and Subdivision Committee with a traffic report as
requested by the Plan Commission. The traffic report addresses the changes requested by the
petitioner and how they relate to the original traffic study used to determine the impact of the
overall development. John Myers, P.E. of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, reviewed this report and found
its conclusions accurate in that the proposed changes would not generate additional traffic
impact.
The only amendment to the information provided to the Plan Commission is a reduction in the
overall permitted square footage for retail uses as requested by the Subdivision Committee. The
request for retail was reduced from 100 square feet to 90 square feet for each Permitted Dwelling
(please see attached letter from petitioner addressing this issue).
The Subdivision Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the proposed modifications as amended.
The Department recommends that the Plan Commission approve the modifications as
amended.
.
CD
~
u
, ~'::,...,-
THE VILLAGE OF WESTCLA Y . SUMMARY OF PERMITTED UNITS
~ RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS:
DENSITY:
OVERALL PERMITTED DENSITY: 2.0 DWELLING UNITS! ACRE
SECONDARY/ESTATEAREA: 1.3 DWELLINGUNITS!ACRE
DESIGN ELEMENTS:
NUMBER OF DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY REsIDENCES: 958
NUMBER OF ATTACHED TOWNHOMES: 113
NUMBER OF ATTACHED TwO-FAMILY VILLAS: 28
NUMBER OF APARTMENTS IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS: 225
ADDmONAL TOWNHOMES PERMITTED NOT SHOWN ON PLAT: 38
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PERMITTED DWELLING UNITS: 1362
~ CURRENT COMMERCIAL SPACE:
TOTAL OFFICE AND RETAil..
204.300 SQ. Fr.
102,150 sq. ft.
170,250 SQ. Fr.
MAxIMuM RETAil..
MAxIMuM OFFICE AND SERVICES
~ AMENDED COMMERCIAL SPACE SOUGHT:
TOTAL OFFICE AND RETAil..
272.400 SO. Fr.
MAxIMuM RETAil..
MAxIMuM OFFICE AND SERVICES
122,580 sQ. Fr.
170,250 SQ. Fr.
OCTOBER 5, 2001
."
v
Q
Dobbsiewicz, Jon C
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Myers, John [MyersJ@pbworld.com]
Wednesday, October 03,2001 8:09 AM
'Hollibaugh, Mike P'
Jon Dobosiewicz (E-mail)
RE: Traffic at the Village
From a contract/cost standpoint, there is plenty of money left in the
existing contract for these services. I will do a more detailed review
today, but I think we have expended most or all of the dollars set for the
task force report, but that still leaves almost half the contract
authorization in place.
You have about a $5K invoice coming--mostly for work at the end of August.
There has been little activity since the draft was complete. (Monday night
is "free" since you got me out in less than an hour and all I did was
smile...I found that meeting enjoyable.)
Anyhow, our past practice in Carmel has been to get the contract approved to
a specific "not to exceed" dollar amount by the BPW, then individual tasks
within that dollar amount have been identified by memorandum from the DOCS
Director. That works for us and it's a lot simpler for everyone. If city
policies now require approval of individual tasks we can do that too.
I haven't checked PKG details, but I understand their approach. On the
surface, this looks like it should require little effort. There will be a
lot more to review on the A&F study at 146th/US31. I suggest including both
in the same authorization as "traffic study reviews". My guess is that
together these will be in the ballpark of what was struck from the contract
for 106th/College.
I will send a more detailed cost review and a memo with scope for the
traffic reviews this week. I will also contact Jon for the latest scoop.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh@ci.carmel.in.us]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:49 AM
To: Myers, John
Cc: Dobosiewicz, Jon Cj Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: RE: Traffic at the Village
John:
the commission last night was inclined to move the entire brenwick amendment
back to the Commission, and voted so, subject to your review of traffic and
some additional, more specific language clarifying the mix of office to
retail.
the committee has scheduled a special meeting for next Tuesday, Oct 9 at
6:00 pm to review language related to Illinois Street issues, and would like
to have your review comments to them that same night.
I know this is way premature given we don't have a contract addendum in
place for this issue...if you do have a letter of scope/fee to us by Oct.
10, it will be placed on the next BPW agenda, Oct. 17. Can't do any better
than that.
i will be out of the office until Monday Oct. 8, and while I will be
checking my messages while out, would ask that you try to work out details
with Jon.
I appreciate your ongoing help on this and all you do for us. Jon would
1
also h1ve some background on~e Committee
Street. This is not boring work.
do II' ,
regar lng I lnOlS
discussion
thanks
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myers, John [SMTP:MyersJ@pbworld.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:25 PM
> To: 'Hollibaugh, Mike P'
> Subject: RE: Traffic at the Village
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I've had the chance between other meetings to read the letter. Regarding
the "offsetting" assumptions leading to a reduction in trips, how
convenient. Guess that makes the independent technical review
particularly
important.
Better to get this, digest it, review it, discuss it with PKG if
necessary,
then report to committee/subcommittee rather than reacting on the spot at
tonight's presentation. Based on how they handled themselves in the
previous work, PKG should be easy to work with on this. No travel cost,
either.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh@ci.carmel.in.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 10:12 AM
To: Myers, John
Subject: FW: Traffic at the Village
John:
hot off the press
-----Original Message-----
From: Jose Kreutz [SMTP:josek@brenwick.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:44 AM
To: 'Hollibaugh, Mike P'; Jon Dobosiewicz
Subject: Traffic at the Village
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jon and Mike.
>
> Attached please find Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum's letter summarizing
> their
> conclusions on the update of the traffic study for WestClay. Jennifer
will
> bring originals of the signed letter to the meeting tonite; I also had
her
> run a copy of the letter to John Myers.
>
> As you can see, we will argue that the impact of adding two more
buildings
> like ours falls within the range of traffic volumes originally
> contemplated
> as the impact of the Village. I am not sure what more there is to
discuss,
> but will count on some of the members to bring up! !
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
(E-mail )
Let me know if we need to chat before the meeting, I'll be in the office
all
day.
2
(U
u
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Myers, John [MyersJ@pbworld.com]
Wednesday, October 03,2001 12:52 PM
Mike Hollibaugh (E-mail)
Jon Dobosiewicz (E-mail)
budget
Here's where our contract stands:
Total contract approved by BPW
$59,807
Original task estimates:
US 31 Report/Presentations:
SR 431 Report/Presentations
106th/College Reviews
$30,387
$12,857
$16,563
(task deleted by BPW)
Spent to date (per invoice sent today)
$31,856
The $1500 over the US 31 estimate is easily explained by "spillage" onto
other activities like Illinois Street meetings/discussions, preliminary
meeting with Steve Fehribach, and the fact that it was intended to be an
estimate for hourly work (not a lump sum with rigid scope) .
Overall, I think things are pretty well on target. The work we are talking
about now does not involve the staff and production time of the US 31
Report. I doubt whether we are talking about more than $5,000 or so unless
we get into unseen complications, which as you know, are always possible
with this work. I'll put together a memo and estimate.
Meanwhile, what else can we do? We are at your service.
John W. Myers, P.E., AICP
Director of Operations
Parsons Brinckerhoff
47 S. Pennsylvania, Suite 600
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 972-1706
(317) 972-1708 (Fax)
1
~
I
I
r-
~
l-
I
I
!
,I
u
w ~ c..~Y'
\).
B2.\~ B\6So~
- c,.....M4..r&o\ ~~..s:
... b. I ~""-I'&..<d~_MM
- N~TV~ \)~.sv~
C> fi~f) S a"7">>LI n Co_,.. ~~
II
II
:1
I)
~~lc....._J~ ~
.... ,..,~ OF- 1-'01 nf:_/ J::7l:. .
O~>(
- O~ Go&":) c:..
D~$fTY ~\...~':B JfIit:S J~.svi:.)
ji
. !
[I
I'
:1
I
! .
j)
'-
I.
.~.~.~~:.-:~~- -
'.,C<=-,'= 7,"~'" '"
_'.~'r"./~r;. Z_. '~:.~:: ~I'J
_:~::-.~"~_~ ~::=-_~..- ~. .;,!; Ii
....' ,~~ :::' :'11111 .
Jt ~{:..:,-~' '~:-';~~','; *"'~i! il:. ~
"'I..~ ::;::,: .'---..- :,;..~J!.~'i"Il~
~f;~.2;~-{~~~:'€;'=~:;; fJ
~~.'~~~~;.,;,,;:
!,+- WHl"r'r ~S_7JIh<,~"1Z>. /!'t1171~
[.
',.
u
JOf.-fo,
~
:~
w
o
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11 :49 PM
'Myers, John'
Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Hancock, Ramona B
RE: Traffic at the Village
John:
the commission last night was inclined to move the entire brenwick amendment back to the Commission, and voted so,
subject to your review of traffic and some additional, more specific language clarifying the mix of office to retail.
the committee has scheduled a special meeting for next Tuesday, Oct 9 at 6:00 pm to review language related to Illinois
Street issues, and would like to have your review comments to them that same night.
I know this is way premature given we don't have a contract addendum in place for this issue...if you do have a letter of
scope/fee to us by Oct. 10, it will be placed on the next BPW agenda, Oct. 17. Can't do any better than that.
i will be out of the office until Monday Oct. 8, and while I will be checking my messages while out, would ask that you try to
work out details with Jon.
I appreciate your ongoing help on this and all you do for us. Jon would also have some background on the Committee
discussion regarding Illinois Street. This is not boring work.
thanks
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Myers, John [SMTP:MyersJ@pbwortd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02,2001 12:25 PM
To: 'Hollibaugh, Mike P'
Subject: RE: Traffic at the Village
I've had the chance between other meetings to read the letter. Regarding
the "offsetting" assumptions leading to a reduction in trips, how
convenient. Guess that makes the independent technical review particularly
important.
Better to get this, digest it, review it, discuss it with PKG if necessary,
then report to committee/subcommittee rather than reacting on the spot at
tonight's presentation. Based on how they handled themselves in the
previous work, PKG should be easy to work with on this. No travel cost,
either.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh@cLcarmel.in.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02,2001 10:12 AM
To: Myers, John
Subject: FW: Traffic at the Village
John:
hot off the press
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose Kreutz [SMTP:josek@brenwick.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02,2001 7:44 AM
> To: 'Hollibaugh, Mike P'; Jon Dobosiewicz (E-mail)
1
OJ
> Subject: Traffic at the Village
>
> Hi Jon and Mike.
>
> Attached please find Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum's letter summarizing
> their
> conclusions on the update of the traffic study for WestClay. Jennifer will
> bring originals of the signed letter to the meeting tonite; I also had her
> run a copy of the letter to John Myers.
>
> As you can see, we will argue that the impact of adding two more buildings
> like ours falls within the range of traffic volumes originally
> contemplated
> as the impact of the Village. I am not sure what more there is to discuss,
> but will count on some of the members to bring up!!
>
> Let me know if we need to chat before the meeting, I'll be in the office
> all
> day.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jose
>
> <<PKG letter to DOCS 10_01_01.doc>>
~
2
Q
CD
o
m- pflum,
Klausmeier & Gehrum
Consultants, Inc.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
October 1, 2001
Mr. Mike Hollibaugh
1 Civic Square, Third Floor
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: Village of West Clay, Technical Amendment
Dear Mr. Hollibaugh:
As you know, Brenwick TND Communities will be requesting several amendments to the
development requirements for the Village of West Clay at the October 2nd Subdivision Committee
meeting. Our firm has been asked to review our Transportation Impact Study (TIS)! for this
development and provide our opinion as to how the proposed change in commercial square
footage will affect traffic in the vicinity.
Brenwick is proposing that the current ordinance be amended to allow a maximum of 272,400
square feet of commercial, up from the 204,300 square feet that is currently permitted. We have
studied the impact of this change by looking at four aspects of the TIS: land use assumptions,
internal capture rate, estimated trip generation, and current trip generation. We will present our
findings at the subcommittee meeting. Following is a summary of that work.
Work on the original TIS began in August 1997. At that time, the specific nature of retail
development on this site was unknown. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip
Generation manual provides multiple categories of retail land use for estimating trip generation,
from very general to the most specific. The land use titled Shopping Center was used to simulate
the Village's commercial trip generation potential because it covered centers of all sizes and
results in the highest volumes compared to other commercial categories. It therefore seemed
most appropriate for the study based on the information available.
As the Village of WestClay begins to develop, we have a better understanding of the type of
commercial businesses that will succeed there. With this new information, we find that the land
use category of Specialty Retail is more appropriate, as it is defined as a small shopping center
containing various retail shops of high quality. We have conducted some surveys of similar neo-
traditional neighborhood commercial areas and will present those comparisons at the committee
meeting. We believe that the commercial area of WestClay better fits this land use description
and that large scale shopping centers are unlikely to materialize. The effect is that trip estimates
for the commercial portion of the site will likely be significantly lower than what was estimated
in the original TIS.
Additionally, new information has become available that provides us with a tool to estimate the
internal capture rate at multi-use developments. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has
compiled data from studies of existing multi-use developments similar to WestClay and
developed a procedure for using that data to make estimates at new developments of this type.
This procedure was published in the October 1998 Trip Generation Handbook, after the
1 The Village of West Clav Transportation Impact Study, February 1998, Thomas E. Ford, P.E.
47 S. Pennsylvania St.
9th Floor
Indianapolis, Indiana
46204
Tel: 317.636.1552
Fax: 317.636.1345
Web: http://www.
pkgconsult.com
Engineering
Planning
Landscape Architecture
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Offices:
Cincinnati, OH
Indianapolis, IN
Hudson, OH
Glasgow, Scotland
Charleston, WV
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
.....
. . . . .
. . . .
w
u
'lI Pflum.
Klausmeier & Gehrum
Consultants, Inc.
completion of the original WestClay TIS. In the original TIS, an internal capture rate of 10% was
used based on assumptions regarding land use mix and density. Using the new ITE procedure,
we calculate an internal capture rate of 18% for the Village of WestClay. Therefore, based on
the best information available at this time, we find that more site-generated trips are expected to
remain internal to the Village of WestClay than were originally estimated. This in turn means
that fewer trips will travel along the surrounding roadway system and through adjacent
intersections.
The difference between the number of estimated trips generated by the permitted development
intensity versus the amended intensity, is 6% in the AM peak hour and 8% in the PM peak hour.
The volume of added trips is 91 vehicles in the AM hour and 174 vehicles in the PM hour.
These are distributed between inbound and outbound trips and among eighteen different site
drives.
However, the size and number of units for each land use type have changed since the original TIS
was started. Since that time, the project has undergone months of review by the Plan
Commission, subcommittees, and the public. The final ordinance permits fewer apartments,
fewer square feet of commercial, and fewer single-family homes than were assumed in the TIS.
The effect is that, with the additional commercial that is being requested at this time, and without
changing the internal capture rate or retail land use assumptions, the number of trips generated by
original TIS is higher than the number of trips generated by the Village as currently planned.
Village of WestClay Trip Generation Estimates
Scenario AM Peak PM Peak
In Out Total In Out Total
1997 Original TIS 792 905 1,697 1,206 1,175 2,381
2001 Permitted Uses 623 855 1,478 1,128 1,026 2,154
2001 Requested Uses 696 873 1,569 1,198 1,130 2,328
In addition to relying on ITE standard practices, traffic volumes were recorded at each of the
Village site drives between 4:00pm and 6:00pm on September 27, 2001. Based on existing
occupancy, trip generation estimates were made using methodology prescribed by the 6th Edition
Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1997). Comparison
ofthese numbers showed that existing site traffic as counted on September 27th is 39% less than
would be estimated for that level of development during the peak hour using ITE methodology.
The analyses of trip generation and land use assumptions presented herein lead us to find that the
original TIS conclusions likely overstate site generated traffic volumes. However, we find that
the recommendations developed for the TIS and additional analyses performed through the
course of Plan Commission Hearings are still valid. Of primary importance is that the total
volume of site generated trips under the proposed amendment is lower (2-8%) than the volumes
calculated in the original TIS with all other assumptions remaining the same.
CD
u
.. pflum,
Klausmeier & Gehrum
Consultants,lnc.
Beyond that, it is worth noting that many assumptions go into the development of a TIS of this
magnitude. In the past four years, since the TIS assumptions were originally developed, more
multi-use developments have been constructed and tested, and better tools have been created to
improve reliability of estimates for such unique locations. Although traffic volumes will be 6 to
8% higher during the peak periods under the proposed amendment versus the permitted density,
we believe that this difference will be compensated for by more trips remaining internal to the
site and fewer retail trips overall. These conclusions are further supported by the existing traffic
situation at the Village of West Clay.
We would be happy to go over this information in more detail with you or your staff. Please call
me directly with any questions or requests for supporting materials. I would be happy to meet
with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
PFLUM, KLAUSMEIER & GEHRUM CONSULTANTS, INC.
0-/P~
Jennifer A. Pyrz, P.E.
Cc: John Myers, Parsons Brinkerhoff
#3488
u
~o-'"
P laC7\.?J(" c..~ \ \ ~. CAt-
S&\ \?--~:L.
J:) t:Altt e ~ cAoJ ~ ~ J~ J. h".s-~~
C 0-..--.. ...-.- ~ ~ r-- ~ ~ \ '" ~ 0 ^
l~rJ.~ \..v~~ \,",.t~,...~k' ,,,
c:r'''\ - 0\ G f\
-rL\ 0'-1'
~"l "'~ C, \, S-. '"'
~\ \d--""3~
,
'l.)
Q
Carmel/Clay Plan Commission
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN.46033
October 1,2001
Dear Sir,
The purpose of this letter is to formally express the Claridge Farm Homeowners'
Association opposition to some of the modifications of the development requirements
under the WestClay village planned unit ordinance requested by the Brenwick
Development Company as presented in Docket No. 99-01 OA. We represent the interests
of218 homeowners whose properties border the Village of West Clay.
Specifically, we object to the following:
1. The expansion of commercial space, which although referred to by the petitioner
as a "slightly more" increase, in fact proposes a 10,000 square foot increase for
one business previously planned for 10,000 square feet, (double the size) and the
addition of three 5000 square foot destination restaurants. By anyone's definition
this hardly qualifies as a slight increase. The nature and type of other commercial
expansion in the area previously planned for townhomes is unknown, but it
appears it would also add to the 'slight' increase. This commercial expansion
proposal sounds like a shopping center which is not what we were originally told
would be in the Village of West Clay. Such a major expansion of the commercial
center of the project will bring increased non-neighborhood traffic to the area
(116th St., 131st St., Clay Center Rd.), contributing to an already growing problem
with no near-term solution in sight. Such an expansion will significantly increase
the volume of delivery and service trucks which bring the inherent noise of such
activity at all times of the day. Restaurants, no doubt, will have alcohol licenses
and accompanying bar traffic, which also adds a safety concern to our roads. As
well, restaurants contribute obnoxious food and cooking odors to the neighboring
atmosphere. Light pollution, which is already a problem to our residents, will also
be exacerbated.
2. The expansion of the number of three story buildings, which are probably in the
commercial category, may too affect the view of some of our homes, which
currently offers primarily a residential and/or greenery view.
In addition, we have reservations about the proposal for the parking ramp and the
reduction in some lot sizes without knowing more detailed information such as where
these proposed changes will be located in the development, number of increased lots and
home values.
#'
~
Q
j'
Although we originally opposed the development of the Village of West Clay for many
reasons, we have been good neighbors and have worked with Brenwick as they pursued
their development. However, we respectfully request the Commission to reject the
modifications presented in Docket No. 99-01 OA.
Bry n
President, Claridge Farm Homeowners Association
1248 Helford Ln
Carmel, IN 46032
u
Village of WestClay
Traffic Impacts of Changes
to Commercial Development
JIll......
;J;I=,~~
October 2,2001
1. Land Use Assumptions
What is the nature of commercial development
at the Village ofWestOay?
JIll......
;J:R=,~~
Celebration, Florida
JIll......
:J;R~=~~1wum
o
Traffic Impact of Brenwick's Request
We will consider:
1. Land Use Assumptions
2. Internal Capture Rate
3. Estimated Trip Generation
4. Current Trip Generation
JIll......
~=..~~
Gateway Plaza, Columbia, MD
';-vi%iEiP:~%t:::~; u~'
JIll......
:JJR=~~
Seaside, Florida (est. 1981)
.''''''di!&~~~-; :: FIIt;~:
17 Art and Furnishings Stoml in<:luding Fwion Arl Glass and Paint
rOUT Own Pottery Studio
JIll.......
:JJR=~~
1
u
Pennsylvania St. & 49th St.
HB :::......... Glhnam
~CoNt.IIanb.lnc.
Trip Estimation for Retail
;,:!>;lli'lr:t~"'_A:-~_'ili
I Based on current interest in the site, a more
fitting land use description would be "Specialty
Retail center," ITE Land Use Code 814--
resulting in fewer trips
BIl......
iJR=~~
2. Internal Capture Rate
What new procedures are available for
calculating the internal capture rate?
BIl......
~~~~~
o
Trip Estimation for Retail
""m<<",W_~$, ""
" i "..$
I In 1997 TIS, PKG assumed that retail would
develop as a "Shopping center," ITE Land Use
Code 820 - resulting in high traffic volumes
BIl......
~=.~
Trip Generation Comparison
~--
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
aiglnal71S:
910ppng Center (116,175 SF) 333 360 693
RequestEd Amendment:
SpecIalty Retail Center (136,200 SF) 152 201 353
Dlfferenc:e -181 -159 -340
_ =--... e.tlrum
""""""....In<
Internal Capture
I A new procedure for estimating internal
capture from ITE
I Internal Capture uSing new procedure= 18%
I Estimated in original study = 10%
BIl......
JJR=~~"'
2
u
Internal Capture
I With an internal capture rate of 18%...
PM Peak hour traffic volumes (requested)
are 11% less than those estimated and
analyzed in original study
-.......
~=~~
Trip Generation Comparisons
~,_'w .
I There were changes between the time the
TIS was started in August 1997 and the time
it was approved by Oty Council:
11 fewer single family homes
39 additional townhomes (only one shown on plat)
4 fewer 2-famlly villas
43 fewer apartments
105,500 fewer sq. It of oommerdal (office & retail)
-......
:J;R=~~
Trip Generation Comparisons
.""~
I Brenwick is requesting 68,100 sq. ft.
additional commercial
- ...~
:J;R ~ua:=. ~~
o
3. Estimated Trip Generation
"'_W"" r ~ ~ "
What impact does Brenwick's request have on
traffic volumes?
-.......
~=~~
Original Study ys. Permitted
";;;,41=",,,(;: 1$"
1997 PKG Traffic Study
lOTAL SITE GENERATED TRIPS
I AM Peak Trips:
792 Inbound
905 outbound
1,697 Total
I PM Peak Trips:
1,206 Inbound
1,175 outbound
2,381 Total
1IR~.GehNm
~ c-dtantl". lroc.
2001 Pennitted Uses
lOTAL SITE GENERATED TRIPS
I AM Peak Trips:
623 Inbound
855 outbound
1,478 Total
I PM Peak Trips:
1,128 Inbound
1,026 outbound
2,154 TOOII
Original Study ys. Requested
"~~~':W$:1.' "'", ~~- -'-L1~9:lM
1997 PKG Traffic Study
lOTAL SITE GENERATED lRIPS
I AM Peak Trips:
792 Inbound
905 outbound
1,697 Total
I PM Peak Trips:
1,206 Inbound
1,175 outbound
2,381 Total
-.......
~=~~
2001 Reauested Uses
lOTAL SITE GENERATED TRIPS
I AM Peak Trips:
696 Inbound
873 outbound
1,569 TOOII
I PM Peak Trips:
1,198 Inbound
1,130 outbound
2,328 TOOII
3
u
Permitted ys. Requested
~'
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Requested 696 873 1,569 1,198 1,130 2,328
Permitted 623 855 1,478 1,128 1,026 2,154
Increas:e in trips as 73 18 91 70 104 174
ReQuested Decrease in trips for Specialty Retail -181 -159 -340
Net change in trip genmllion -III -55 -166
m-
=~~
Current Trip Generation
. Occupied as of Sept. 27th:
I 48 single family homes I 1,800 SF commercial
I 23,200 SF office I 1 apartment
I 19,000 SF meeting house
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
rTE Estimates 86 150 236
SIll! 0rl\Ie Counts 59 84 143
DIfference 27 66 93
% redUCtiOn 31% 44% 39%
II =-----. Gehrum
ConIuMnb, In;.
Conclusion
additional trips generated by the requested
change will have a negligible impact on
intersection levels of service.
lIB ~. GehnIa>
-l'R ConwItanb, Inc.
u
Current Trip Generation
"4,#1;;$::;1$41 ',,)dt
How do existing site driveway volumes
compare to ITE estimates?
.m~.e.hrum
.;;;; CamutUlnb. Inc.
Summary
Based on new estimates, a greater percentage of the site trips
will likely be "captured" Internally
Based on new land use Information, the commercial portion of
the site will likely produce significantly fewer trips
Estimates of traffic from the requested change are 6-8% higher
than OJrrently pennltted, yet lower than the original TIS
Current driveway volumes are lower than would be antidpated
by that level of development
Bll.......
~=~~
Bll"''''''
~=~~""
4
o
Review of 1997 TIS
Scenarios Originally
Studied:
1. ExIsting
2. ExIsting + westaay +
Background Growth
3. ExIsting + Vacant Sltes +
Background Growth
4. ExIsting + westaay + Vacant
Sltes + Background Growth
5. ExIsting + As Za1ed + Vacant
Sited + Background Growth
m.......
;JJR=~~
Scenarios Studied at Plan
Commission Request :
(A) Scenario 2 with us 31 _
IrnprllIIEd (Western llIsbibution)
(B) Scenario 4 western llIsbibution
(q Scenario 4 western llIsbibution
and ExtensIon of 126th Street
(0) Scenario 5 western llIsbibutlon
(E) Scenario 5 Western llIsbibution
and ExtensiOn of 126th Street
o
Scheduled Improvements
'z,%~~_;t.- :0!~~~ ~
ll=.<,..;ml
I Shelborne Road and 116th Street
I Towne Road and I Springmill Road and
I 96th Street I 96th Street
I l06th Street I l06th Street
I 116th Street I 116th Street
I Ditch Road and I 131st Street
I 96th Street I 136th Street
I l06th Street I 146th Street
I 116th Street
lIB =--. Gefwurn
~ <onsu1tantJ. me.
5
v
u
J Oft/Ol
~-
V lL.l- .....6E
OF- w&cT" C. '- A"(
1. ~ J~t~ .6~~_~_~~_~,_-:#-S-_"_'_~_'___'_"~1
I
I
___~'. -~bm~_-4~.~.:"J."u:b~I'__~~.s.s_'1lf~_Q..~~~~-_~_~__1
~
-
\ ~1!>
"v -
- >~,P:l~-Gtff__.. ---.--
It. l~
4J~.------""".~-
M~,(~
6&~~..1'~~
. S" ~~~_kt>-~..s
-
~.. ~()K. ,41:>""~~ 5"f~
- ~~S~~~ 1"b ~ l..~
C"O~""~_
~~ -
p.o~ -rt> ~~ TelL- ~ use:
-~~~n' 1'b ~"'PbAA~ HI--nc.CfI 'Flit"""
- ~'SPIIFHE.
- Hb"'" ~1141":":'~' on=t~
- L~~ o~ "'~
*~~~ .,,~-
1
I
0/.4'ul>~ ,jr IHbJ__~-
~"T70P -
~tJPr
fi~ ~_~~_~_~.s_p:_~(v~
6-0
-~
,
v
Q C~-=~~-:D \-
,....",.,., ~
~-"'..
.....
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11 :25 AM
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
RE: Village of WestClay Traffic
would you call John Myers to get his feedback, and, perhaps retain his firm to review PKG's work.
ok?
~
John W. Myers
AICP, PE
--Original Message----
From: Dobosiewicz, Jon C
Sent: Wednesday, September 26,200110:45 AM
To: 'Jose Kreutz'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: Village of WestClay Traffic
Jose,
Your approach sounds adequate. Yes it is difficult to determine what Ron or others may want to see. However, I think
what they want to hear and what the facts are may be different. I would like to see the net impact as you suggest
(difference not between today and what you propose but the net difference between what is currently approved and the
proposed change).
Ideas: X being the total projected trips under today's ordinance at build out
Y being the projected trips under proposed ordinance at full build out
Z being the net impact and display that at key intersections
Reason: Are we talking about a couple of cars more an hour at key intersections, a car a minute, what is it.
I can only assume that the impact will be marginal. People don't go to destination restaurants when they work, what
will be offset by pass-by and internal trips, etc.
I will not be in the office on Thursday, Friday, or Monday, at least not officially. We are moving over the weekend into
our new house. However, if you need to sit down and discuss things prior to the committee meeting Tuesday give me
a call at home at 774-9638, installed Friday AM. I could try to make time Monday to meet with you, AM best.
Thanks,
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Jose Kreutz [mailto:josek@brenwick.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26,2001 8:56 AM
To: Jon Dobosiewicz (E-mail)
Subject: Village of WestClay Traffic
Hi Jon.
In preparation for next week's Subcommittee appearance Tom Ford (of Pflum,
Klausmeier and Gehrum) is working on a traffic review to address hopefully
some of the points to be raised. Specifically, we are thinking that taking a
look at the scenario that assumes (1) full build-out of the Village and (2)
full build-out of the vacant parcels in our 10 sq.mi. study area may be the
1
.. W;y to go. We would ignore the iQ.;lsections currently under design or Q
construction by the County, and we would gage the impact of the additional
commercial on the rest of the intersections. I know it's hard for you to
anticipate what Ron will want to discuss, but does the concept sound okay to
you? Would you object, or perhaps even facilitate a call to Ron and other
members of the committee to see what they are thinking on the traffic issue?
We are researching the issue of "captured" traffic as part of smart-growth
neighborhoods, and we intend to take traffic counts at some locations to
update the base numbers. Any thoughts you may have would be greatly
appreciated.
Jose
www.Brenwick.com
Jose Kreutz, VP of Operations
Brenwick Development Company, Inc.
12821 East New Market Street, Suite 200
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Tel. 317.574.3400
Fax. 317.574.3919
2
.p
Q.)
(j
;-
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
Full Name:
Last Name:
First Name:
Job Title:
Company:
Mr. John W. Myers AICP PE
Myers
John
Assistant Vice President
Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
Business Address:
47 South Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Business:
Home:
Mobile:
Business Fax:
(317) 972-1706
(317) 259-1705
(317) 407-1201
(317) 972-1708
E-mail:
E-mail 2:
myersj@pbworld.com
sreymj@aol.com
1
Q
./'
u
CITY OF CARMEL
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 4€032
(317) 571-2417
Fax: (317) 571.2426
Fax
~~
s~4~~9 \ ~
To:
From:
~~~
:3
~. ;L ". 0 '\
Fax:
Pages:
Phane:
Date:
Re: C~ "\ ~. c... Wllii~"" ~t po kf"' cc=
o Urgent 0 For Review 0 P,lease Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
~\...'b..A..~
~. Iii. :
~ l'-~ 0;
-----
~ '~~"~L..~~ \ ~~
~ ~~r::.'f'r..~~ "
~'l-a\
~P\
(J
YL.~ Go~--' s",o~
u
f1/.sJ 0,
r-
...
::bo.~.~C):.-~~-S~-'O\:- '.\J\l....\...AG:.. Or wr;str c'-PtY
i \. V\b~_~~6"~
1__
!
i
1 ?;'. S6~~ ~~~ n-s .o_.'"-\.
'-\ . \"7 \ ,.-r;;..,.s . ~ 5" """ . s n!'&l......~
"2... ~6L~ -~~~EA.Gt1lk- S_<K_._-E:L.-
Q) \....d'T 5J'l..rr.s___
5. 3 .s~'1: d."'L.."t)l~'=S_MO"~ fV\S:Q"\~\i: tiD"'~
~~$' 6b ~
I
!
f
. .
t .'
j' ~\)auC. _H..~l~ ~ nL ~ ~ o. /Rc)~i:.-"----'---
~~s.1:" ~ C)
[ I ~ t) ~rrrn.. -- ----
I _ ... _:STAg=l....~fH6- ~JJtJn;,tlLUL~~.i!~y;a.-~,i\--
L-. . d:;2""A-vL'" \~h\"'~UfWL- ~~_~U#I~ ~::~__~y\.....t.)b_~.~~_-
L._ _ J -z..~M:€u~E-F.'" .Q!_~CoI~ _~_~~ii_eMgS_______________
3 ._"'friO L~ - L4'r ~l~ ~_~~llIli."'- -----.-----
:~
~ S~'1_b"C.~_~~~_~&.-.--€L..
----~-------._---------~---
I
I_~.___~_.___. . i
--.--..-----------
_._-~-,~-------_._- ---------"'"~,_..~_._-~- ~_..._-
-- ----------------' :~----_..-----'------"'~--
_._____.____ _____$'\JS:b\\llSJ o~_~o~~.J._JJ_ e:.E_-
~---- ----_............._--._~---~.....-
------------~--~.._--
-------_._-'~~---_.--_.-
-------~--~--~---
~
u
CITY OF CARMEL
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 4aJ32
(317) 571-2417
Fax: (317) 571-2426
Fax
)D~ ~~ t..~, "2-
.:s74 - --:;/1 \ '1
To:
From:
du~ L,~.~
~
9 ~ '~-c)'
Fax:
Pages:
Phone:
Reo~~= ~__,- ~'-f'">"-T
Date:
CCI
o Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment [J Please Reply
o Please Recycle
'-~
V~~..~~
a,.... e;;- ,
~
, L L-~ c;:-
~..- D,-~CL~
\ ~'\
~"('r\~'i::::. .
Q (;)
BRENWICK
August 22, 2001
Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
RE: Modification of the WestClay Development Requirements
Dear Jon:
Pursuant our conversations on this matter, enclosed please find one copy each of the following
documents:
· Modification of the Development Requirements Established Under the WestClay Village
Planned Unit Development Ordinance
· Petitioner's Statement in Support of Modification of the Development Requirements
The enclosed documents reflect our final thoughts on what it is we will be presenting before the
Plan Commission at the September 18th meeting, and thus we would request that the enclosed be
considered part of our official filing. We will deliver to you, for distribution, packets that will
include the enclosed two documents, as well as other materials in support of our request.
Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Jr::~~
Vice President of Operations
Enclosure
12821 E. New Market St. Suite 200 · Carmel, Indiana 46032 . 317.574.3400 · 317.574.3919 Fax
brenwick@brenwick.com h Up:/ /www.brenwick.com
o
u
BRENWICK
August 3, 2001
Ms. Sue Ellen Johnson
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
RE: Docket No. 99-01-0A
Modifications of Development Requirements
The Village of WestClay
Dear Sue Ellen:
Thank you for forwarding the information regarding the above docket number. Attached kindly
find a check in the amount of $700.00 payable in connection with our application for the above
item. I will forward the proof of publication and packets for distribution under separate cover.
Again, thanks for all the help! Your smile and kindness is always appreciated!
Sincerely,
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
se Kreutz
Vice President of Operations
Enclosure (check #13144)
12821 E. New Market St. Suite 200 · Carmel, Indiana 46032 · 317.574.3400 · 317.574.3919 Fax
brenwick@brenwick.com http://www.brenwick.com
'"
"
W)
u
Johnson, Sue E
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
Friday, August 03, 2001 10:01 AM
Johnson, Sue E
Lillig, Laurence M; Hahn, Kelli A; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Docket Number Assignment - OA; Village of West Clay - Modifications of Development
Requirements
Sue Ellen,
Please issue the necessary Docket Number for Village of West Clay - Modifications of Development
Requirements Text Amendment application. It will be the following:
q~ .
## - 01 OA $700
Total Fee: $700.00
Village of West Clay - Modifications of Development Requirements
The petitioner seeks approval to amend several provisions of their existing PUD Ordinance. The site is generally
located at the southeast comer of West 131 st Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit
Development.
Filed by Jose Kreutz ofBrenwick TND Communities, LLC.
The petition will be placed on the September 18, 2001, Plan Commission agenda under Public Hearings. Notice
for the meeting needs to be made by August 24 in the newspaper only (no certified notice required). Packets for
the commission members need to be in our office by September 7th for mailing.
Once the docket is assigned please return the file to my office.
Please contact Jose Kreutz with this information.
~
\~ 'x~ D
Thanks,
Jon
~
e~~
n ~ 3~ ~ '(v'\...
"ro ~ ~\
.~ t, ~
1
", ~:' [) U
"
CITY OF CARMEL
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 4E032
(317) 571-2417
Fax: (317) 571-2426
Fax
To:
From: ~~ t "f:;...~
Fax:
Pages:
cQ..,
8 ~ 3--C) \
Phone:
Date:
Re:
~q -0 I c:DA
,
cc:
o Urgent
o For Review 0 P.lease Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
./
\ ~L.~ -St~~~
).
.-',n
-- .~,...
~
u
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jose Kreutz Uosek@brenwick.com]
Tuesday, July 31,2001 1 :20 PM
'Dobosiewicz, Jon C'
RE: WestClay Ordinance
Thanks so much, Jon. You have made my life so much easier. Sad day today,
isn't it?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dobosiewicz, Jon C [mailto:JDobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 1:02 PM
To: 'Jose Kreutz'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: WestClay Ordinance
Jose,
Sorry I could not meet with you last Thursday.
The process outlined below sounds fine. I will place this item (the
Modifications of the Development Requirements) on the Plan Commission agenda
for September 18.
Do you want the copies of information you supplied before distributed? Or
do you want to separate the issues and submit a separate narrative and
documentation for each?
Let me know.
The fee for the Modifications will be $700. The fee for the other will be
$700 + $35 per acre impacted.
Thanks,
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Jose Kreutz [mailto:josek@brenwick.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 10:51 AM
To: Jon Dobosiewicz (E-mail)
Subject: WestClay Ordinance
Jon,
I am sure you find yourself pretty covered up coming back from vacation
today, so I thought I'd try to drop a note rather than bug you with a more
intrusive call. This regards our petition to amend the ordinance for
WestClay, and the procedure that's outlined in the 31.6.2 you were kind
enough to fax over before you left.
The way we would like to handle this whole thing, if we could chose, would
be to do it in two steps. Of all the amendments we propose, only one such
change requires an amendment to the ordinance, with the rest falling under
the classification of "Modifications of the Development Requirements". The
one change that will need, eventually, to end up before the Council is the
request to change the approved land uses permitted in the Primary Area
(creating sub areas MU and SF). The proposed modifications of the
development requirements, in accordance with the procedure outlined in
Z-330, requires the Plan Commission to have a public hearing (no individual
notifications) before taking action, and all the items that I foresee being
1
fconti6versial could be addr~d there. We would attempt to ~ those
modifications done first, then corne back later and tackle the MU/SF deal,
which would be a zoning request and would require the typical certified
notifications and actions by both Plan Commission and Council.
If you concur with our plan, we would then like to be on the September Plan
Commission agenda listed under "Modifications of the Development
Requirements". I am not sure what application form and filing fee most
closely corresponds to that request, but am sure you'll figure it out! Let
me know what other information you need when thinking this over. Thanks for
all the help!
2
.P
o
BRENWICK
July 16,2001
Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
Carmel, Indiana 46032
RE: Amendment to Ordinance Z-330
Dear Jon:
Pursuant our conversations on the matter, and our letter of June 8, 2001, it is our intent to pursue
an amendment to the Village of WestClay's PUD ordinance. Enclosed, for your review and
distribution to the Plan Commission members, please find the following two documents:
1. Modification of the Development Requirements Established Under the WestClay
Village Planned Unit Development Ordinance
2. Petitioner's Statement in Support of Modification of the Development Requirements
We are hopeful to be heard at the September 18th, 2001, Plan Commission meeting. Please advise
us what additional information is required for issuance of the docket number.
Sincerely,
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
se Kreutz
Vice President of Operations
Enclosure
12821 E. New Market St. Suite 200 · Carmel, Indiana 46032 · 317.574.3400 · 317.574.3919 Fax
brenwick@brenwick.com http://www.brenwick.com
v
u
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jose Kreutz Uosek@brenwick.com]
Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:05 PM
Jon Dobosiewicz (E-mail)
WestClay
Hiya Jon,
Just following up on our meeting of last week. Two questions: did you and
Mike have a chance to talk about the procedure by which the ordinance
amendment will be discussed, and do you need anything else from me to begin
your evaluation of the traffic improvements issue?
You and I briefly chatted about Ryland doing 41 town homes, akin to what
they are doing in the City Center, on one of our village center blocks. That
looks like is going to happen, so I expect that you'll see something from
Keith in the next few days. Just a heads-up.
Thanks, buddy.
Jose
1
;..
I"
Q)
(,)
BRENWICK
June 8, 2001
Michael P. Hollibaugh
Director, Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Center
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Dear Mr. Hollibaugh:
I am taking the liberty of forwarding to you for your preliminary review and
approval a proposed form of Amended and Restated Ordinance for the WestClay
Village Planned Unit Development which incorporates a number of changes which
we believe, based on experience, will improve the quality of the development.
Many of the changes are technical: deleting references no longer relevant,
correcting definitions or making explicit what is implicit. The substantive changes
are as follows:
1. Primary Area Desionation. We propose to divide the Primary Area into
two subareas: Primary Area (MU) and Primary Area (SF). The uses presently
permitted in the Primary Area would continue to be permitted uses in Primary Area
(MU). Uses in Primary Area (SF) would be limited to single-family dwellings and
accessory uses as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
in its regulations implementing the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act
("I LSFDA"). Under existing ILSFDA regulations, lots in the Primary Area as
presently constituted do not qualify for the exemption from registration established
by U.S.C. Section 1403(b)(5) for single-family residences, which means that we may
not sell lots directly to consumers but must sell only to builders. This has frustrated
individuals who desire to purchase a lot, design a home and then select a builder, as
has been the practice in all our other subdivisions in Carmel. From a planning
perspective, this change would restrict the areas in which we may construct
commercial or multiuse structures.
12821 E. New Market St. Suite 200 . Carmel, Indiana 46032 . 317.574.3400 · 317.574.3919 Fax
brenwick@brenwick.com http://www.brenwick.com
Q)
u
2. Delineation of Primary and Secondary Areas. Enclosed is a copy of a
portion of the development area marked to indicate a proposed revision of the
delineation of the Primary and Secondary Areas reflected on the approved
Development Plan (we will, of course, prior to filing, prepare a modified Development
Plan consistent with the enclosure). The modified plan divides the Primary Area
between Primary Area (SF) in which only single-family homes may be constructed
and Primary Area (MU) in which commercial and multiuse structures may be
constructed. We also propose to extend the Primary Area west of Towne Road to
include the southerly portion of the land we own there. This change would permit us
to expand the area of the Village Homes within walking distance of the Village
Center, incorporate MacArthur Field into the heart of the Village component, and
satisfy the extraordinary demand we have found for Village Homes. This alteration
in the Primary Area would not affect density: we propose no chanae in the
residential density limitations established bv the Ordinance.
3. Home Based Offices. We propose to restrict the Home-Based Office Area
to the new Primary Area (MU).
4. Automobile Service Station. We propose to delete the restriction in
Section 5.1 (0)(6) that precludes automobile repair in connection with the operation
of the single automobile service station that is permitted by the Ordinance. We have
found that it is not economically feasible for an operator to function as a vendor of
gasoline only. The present restriction has the practical effect of precluding the
development of a service station at WestClay that would serve the residents living
between U.S. 31 and Michigan Road.
5. Accessory Dwellinas. All accessory dwellings constructed to date are
above the garage. Because of the predominance of 3-car garages, the second level
space available for an accessory dwelling tends to approximate 1,000 square feet.
Section 7.7 presently limits accessory dwellings to 850 square feet. We propose to
increase this to 1,000 square feet. We don't believe that this change would have
any adverse practical effect since it is the size of the garage structure and not the
build-out of the second level that impacts the streetscape.
6. Model Homes. We propose to add a new Section 7.11 that authorizes
staffed model homes in the project area, subject to compliance with the sign
regulations.
7. Commercial Space. We propose to modify Section 8 to permit slightly
more commercial space in the Primary Area (MU). This is motivated by several
BRENWICK
~
o
factors: first, the original Development Plan contemplated more two-story buildings
than we presently believe desirable to establish the sense of enclosure in the Village
Center that creates the environment we believe necessary and appropriate. The
existing limitation does not afford us sufficient square footage to build the number of
three-story buildings we believe desirable. Second, we originally contemplated
building townhomes on several of the Village Center Blocks. We have concluded
that while some such construction may be feasible, it is unlikely that the market will
support the number of units originally contemplated and, without the ability to
construct commercial buildings where the townhomes were originally proposed, we
will end up with gaps in the streetscape that we believe most people would find
objectionable and contrary to the original vision for the project. Third, the level of
commercial amenities desired by our residents and prospective residents is greater
than we anticipated. High on their priority list is a first-class, specialty grocer. To
provide a facility consistent with these expectations will require approximately a
20,000 square foot facility, which is larger than the more modest facility we originally
contemplated. Finally, we have been approached by a number of prospective
operators of destination, full-service restaurants who are interested in relocating to
the Village. They are interested in freestanding facilities up to 5,000 square feet;
again, larger than we anticipated. In sum, we seek the flexibility to respond to these
opportunities which, if realized, would greatly enhance the ambiance of the Village
Center.
8. Lot Size. We have found that there is an extraordinary demand in Carmel
for quality single-family homes on small lots. When we first proposed this project,
perhaps the greatest skepticism arose in connection with our contention that there
was a great void in the marketplace for custom homes on small lots which afford the
owner the opportunity to downsize without giving up the quality of life they have
previously experienced in larger, traditional homes. The market acceptance of
Village Homes has exceeded our expectation. Whether young or old, single or
married, with or without children, there are numerous people who like the idea of
alley-fed, custom homes on small, limited maintenance lots. In fact, many prefer
smaller homes (at less cost) than we are presently able to offer because of the
provision in Section 15.3 of the Ordinance which provides that detached single-
family homes can only be constructed on lots having a width of 45 feet or greater.
The key to the aesthetic appeal of homes on small lots is the proportion of the
width of the house to the width of the lot. If the proportion is less than 75% to 80%,
then the home stands naked on the lot and offends the eye. The rhythm of the
streetscape is established by this proportion, not by the width of the lot. In order to
get smaller, more affordable homes (1700 to 2200 square feet) appropriately on the
BRENWICK
/1'\
~
u
lot, we need to reduce the lot width, which is what we propose in the suggested
change to Section 15.3.
9. Structured Parking. A new Section 16.4 would permit structured parking
on the interior of Village Center Blocks to serve commercial structures located on
those blocks.
10. Sianaae. When I drafted the Ordinance, I was concerned about the
relationship of signage to the style, height and design of the contemplated
commercial structures, and I made some arbitrary decisions with respect to size of
signboards and lettering. In each instance, I imposed standards that were materially
more restrictive than what the Carmel Sign Ordinance requires. As we have
developed signage for the existing and proposed buildings, we have found that
those restrictions were too rigorous and have resulted in signage which does not
bear the desirable historical proportion to the buildings to which they are affixed. We
propose to correct that failure by minor changes to Section 18 of the Ordinance,
which would have the effect of establishing a visually pleasing proportion between
building area and signage area.
11. Fences and Walls. The Ordinance establishes different standards for
fences and walls between the Primary and Secondary Areas. This has worked
against our objective of having the entire project read as a single community with
compatible architectural styles. We propose to amend Section 22 to provide that the
present standards applicable in the Primary Area will also be applicable in the
Secondary Area. Additionally, we propose to delete the prohibition against front
yard fences less than three feet high since historically many homes had lower
fences to demarcate the private from the public space at the sidewalk.
While I believe the foregoing consists of all the material changes proposed,
what we regard as immaterial may, to others, be material. If so, I am happy to
provide an explanation for each of the other changes. In any event, all changes
from the existing Ordinance have been marked on the enclosure.
After you have had an opportunity to review the enclosure, I would appreciate
it if you would afford me the opportunity to meet with you to get your thoughts on our
BRENWICK
Q)
o
suggestions. We do not want to stir up a public fuss, but we do want to take every
reasonable measure to assure that The Village of WestClay will be the crown jewel
of Carmel that has always been our objective.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Charles Huston
Chairman
cc: George P. Sweet (w/o enc)
David R. Warshauer (w/enc)
Jose Kreutz (w/o enc)
TCH/mu
BRENWICK