Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence~~~~ May 19, 2004 Mr. Edward D. Fleming Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc. 9940 Allisonville Road Fishers, IN 46038-2005 RE: ~fordfa~Amenlty-Area Dear Mr. Fleming: I have received and reviewed the information for the above-mentioned project. At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law enforcement efforts. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us. Respec// ~~f Timothy J. Green Acting Chief of Police TJG:vb cc: /Dept. of Community Services Q5fl7D 571-25d-® RECEIVED f?AY 20 LV~4 DOCS l° :° 4 a~,m "~', p A Nationally Accredited?Law~riforcement Agency fax Q3b7- 5711_2b12 January 14, 2004 To: The Carmel/Clay Plan Commission c/o John Dobosiewicz Carmel City Hall 1 Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 We, as concerned neighbors and residents of Carmel are opposirig the development proposed as #03120011 on the northwest corner of 131st Street and West Road by Pittman Partners. The primary reason for our concern with this development is that it is not in keeping with the goals and intent of the zoning for this area defined as S-1/Residence District (see attached Appendix 1). it is dear from the attached map (Appendix 2) that the goal of S-1, low density rural residential, defined as "Estate-type_housing on lots with atLLleast 1 acre-of land" is noYbeing achieved The Carmel-Clay Vision 2020 Planning Process calls for the following rural residential area policies (see page 5-3, Section 1.2 (1.2.1) -Appendix 3 and page 5-4, Section 1.3 (1.3.1) - Appendix 4). A specific example of this is the re-zoning of the northeast corner of 131st Street and Shelborne Road (Shelborne Rezone/Burlingame 12129/03). This tract of land has been re-zoned to R-2 and R-4, high density single, two and multi-family development. How is it possible to change this zoning from S-1, the least dense zoning to R-4, the most dense zoning allowable in all of Carmel? What good for the residents of Carmel is achieved by this? (Appendix 5) Concerning the proposed development at 13161 Street and West Road, it appears that it may be close to complying legally with the technical aspects of the zoning ordihance: We as concerned citizens do not feel it is in keeping with the goal of less dense development in Western Clay. The development apparently does not comply in two areas: 1 - Block Length 2 - Curve Radius We are also questioning the following provisions of the open space ordinance calculation: 7.3.4 - Does the open space act as a neighborhood focal point 7.6.3 - Minimum width 75 feet and have 2 access points 7.9.10 - Reduction of pond space due to being bordered by homes An alternative solution would be a development similar to Clay West on the northwest corner of 1316` Street and Ditch Road. A development that has one home per 1 to 2 acres is clearly more appropriate and consistant with Vision 2020 and the S-1 Residence District. The overwhelming understanding of the neighbors in our area is that we are in an area that is zoned S-1 -one home per acre. If we are going to preserve the Carmel that we have all helped to build we cannot continue in the direction that we are headed because of the negative impact on the infrastructure, the environment and the quality of our live, Mr. & Mrs. Michael Halley, 13232 West Road Mr. & Mrs. James A. Swearinger, 13145 West Road Mr. Ted L Pontius, 13141 West Road Mrs. Monique Cunningham, 13802 Shelborne Mr. Richard A. Gohlback, 4248 West 131x' Street Mr. Vincent Schneider, 4217 West 13151 Street Mr. John Lethen, 4228 West 131St Street Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Schonbak, 13280 West Road Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Miller, 4398 Brendon Orchard _ ._ .. _ Mr. & Mrs. Paul C. Henderson, 13545 West Road Mr. & Mrs. James Volpert, 13046 West Road Mr. & Mrs. James Henry, 13850 Shelborne Road Ms. Susan K. Mcllwain & Mr. Robert G. Presson, Jr., 12340 West Road Mr. & Mrs. Charles James, 13326 West Road Mr. Christian Browning, 12801 West Road Cc: Mr. James Brainard, Mayor Mr. Steve Glazier, Cohen, Garehck & Glazier, Esq. ~,~,oiX 1 CrrY OF CARAffi. k t2AY TOtYNSE~ ZONRJG ORDINANCE ~'CARMEL CITY CODE CHAPTER I0: ZONING & SUBDIVISIONS ARTICLE 1: ZONING CODE CARMEL/CLAY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 5: S-1/RESIDENCE DISTRICT 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 s.ao s-v S-1/Resideace District Permitted Uses. Special Uses & Special Exceptions. Accessorv Bnildiae and Uses. Heieht and Area Reouirements. Residence District:'.. 5.00.01 Purpose and Intent The purpose of this =district is to provide for the development . of innovative residential environments in keeping with the rural character of this district, by providing for a development process that allows a high degree of flexibility in the design of single-family subdivisions. Further, it is the purpose of this district to provide fez a development process that allows for more efficient use of the land through the introduction of open space and conservation lands within subdivisions. _- It is the intention',of this:district to:proteot remaining significanfnatural features within this dishict - - - by placing an emphasis on less intensive urban land uses. 5.01 Permitted Uses:r See Appendix A: Schedule of Uses. 5.01.01 Minimum Area Re ' ements: Use. Location M;r,;rrn,m Area Equivalent Density tMas;..,,,,,,) Acres Residential subdivision, located 0.77 acres, times number of lots in 1.3 lots, times number of acres in west of Spring Mill Road and north subdivision subdivision of 141" Street Residential subdivision, located I.00 acres, times number of lots in 1.0 lots, times number of acres in west of Spring Mill Road, north of subdivision subdivision 116"'8treet and south of 141# Street Residential subdivision, located 0.77 acres, times number of lots in 1.3 lots, times number of acres is west of Spring Mill Road and south subdivision subdivision of 116`h Street Residential subdivision, located east 0.35 acres, times number of lots in 2.8 lots, .times number of acres in ofS rip Mill Road -- subdivision subdivision ' Section 5.00 emended per Ordinance No. Z-3Z7. a Seaton 5.01 amended per Ordina,ce No. X320; Z-321; 2.317; Z-415-03, §a. Chapter 5: S-1/Residence District 5-1 as amended per Z-309; Z-320; Z-322; Z-327; Z-366-01; Z-369-02; Z-415-03 Auturrm 2003 vl Cli'P°'.~.z 3 1.1.4 1.2. Consistent with objectives identified in the 2020 visioning process; the platting process may require for dedication of useable properties for the expansion of the public open space system in ahe Carmel-Clay. area. i 1.1.5 ~ . The land development process shall provide for development of rriultiple modes of accessing certain areas of the community.. In addition to the auto, this, should include development! of the,. pedestrian and bicycle network system.as delineated on fihe!Alternative Transportation Thoroughfare.Plari Map.' i . ,~ 1.1.6 , ; The mapping of Rural Residential and Very Low,: Density areas in this i Comprehensive Plan is not irifiended to preclude consideration of innovative higher ,density residential enclaves occurring adjacent toy cultural, educational, or neighborhood service centers'within Rural Residential and Very .Low Density areas, provided such were designed so as to serve and enhance the greater community, complement.the general architectural theme of the immediate area, and do not generate significant traffic congestion: ,: RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREA POLICIES j ~I .1.2.1.' j cert ' areas of the township,'housing on'very large lots shall be encouraged.` The area for this very low density housing shall be west of Spring lvlill Road. ,` 6~ , ~` IJI~~1: .®d 5-3 ~j ~° ~~~ ~ 1.2.2 Rural residential type housing shall not be required to be served by central water or sewer. On site systems of water supply and wastewater. treatment must be able to be approved by the appropriate county health ~• organizations. •. 1.3.1 !~ forces. No changes will be made every low-intensity residential areas should be protected from destabilizing through zoning or other public action which are adverse to the character of such areas. ;. 1.3 VERY LOW INTENSITY IiHSIDENTIAL?~EA POLICIES 1.3.2 New residential developments of very lc .adjacent to Community/Regional Emplo; R. .~. 3a uttensity residential areas should be discouraged from being located ent Areas r~ { r «. ;'J a 5-4 ~~~~~ ~ ~ Zaniag Classifications = CatmeUClay Township - A Very Brief Description of Each S-1 single family residential, large Iots, Waal character S-2 Iow-density single family residential R-1 low to medium density single family zesidoadal R-2 Iow to medirmi density siagie famly residential on narrower lots R-3 medium density single andtwo-family development oa smaller lots R~4 high density single, two, and multiple family devel eat R-5 mixed residential stcuchnes supporting accessor9 bldgs & uses, andlimited com:neraal uses, varieddensities: - - B-1 light commercial & office uses B-2 heavy commercial & office uses B-3 wide variety of commercial & office uses in transitional locations .. . ,---:.B-4 =light:commercial &°officepses„tp be develooped as.a cart is a shoppmg,center type envxronm B-5 office bmldings &"general officesprotectedfromencroachment from heavier comet //etcial uses, often in close proxmuty to residentiat andlor intermixed with residential. B-6 light commercial & office uses adjacentto limited access highways B-7 wide variety of commercial uses near areas zoned or utilized for residential piuposes B-8 variety of commercial & office uses to be developed in shopping center type environment may include one or more unified shopping centers and(or one or more commercial ~ office bldgs. M-1 for manufacturing establishments whichmaybe chaxacterizedby objectionable factors, regiririag large sites buffered by sufficient land areas so as to be isolated from non compatible uses. M-2 for light manufactaing & other ]isteduses whose operations can be developed is a zoned district of 10 acres or less. M-3 Manufacturing Park District for unified preplauaed mannfactiaing & other companble Lmd uses within a park hlor setting. I-i wide variety of industrial, commercial & office uses. I-2 wide variety of fight indastxial operatons, in a planted & coordinated development, allowing for inclusion of limited amounts m'office & commercial uses. State Highway 431 Overlay Zone -120 ft oa either side of the right-of-way of State FTighway 43 US &ghway 31Overlay Zone - 600 ft. on either side of the right-0f--way of US Highway 31 US Highway 421 Overlay Zoae - approx 400 ft on either side of the 421 right-of-way and North Aue°usta subdivision extending to Shelboume Rd. S:Uistlzoaingclassif To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 41 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name , ~I~fvj ~~ 6,E J Yy~,P~/V/~F/?~<st/LE,r3~,/ ,5'tyEJq~///crfj Address f,3/y,S {g/ES'i ~ 6k1 D s ~E` D 3 ~~ ~ ~ /-/3 -a.~,~ To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 41 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name-~. L ~~/)_/~ / U S Address /~/ L.~L /~ ~~ S % ~D !~ _ /:r/ C 5T ~/ L L /~ T/`~/~ To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 41 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 41 Acre development identified as Docket No: 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name ~ /G/1sLrtl~ /J" • [~ ~ Address ~l ~~-~ To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 41 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address __ yZ/7 /,(~, f~/5~ to E'STGlF id1 /y . `/60 7 2} To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name ~f}y/y~~p ]~ ~~ ~~~ ~^ ~~'karlh?t Address _ ~ 3 el ~2~© ~1~~'QT f-~c~}D ~.~C l~ 10.Oy To: The Carmel Ptan Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address Z;OnsU,'IIP, r«1 To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address ~,3~ 7~ iz~~e~a.r ~, a~ - 1Z - v To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our gaal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre developmentrdentified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address l '~- 3 K U tx9-~:s-F 2~ ~-~v~~Sv~tC~~~~t~ ~6~'?? To: The Carmel Plan. Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address To: The Carmel Plan Commission I oppose the proposed 54 Acre development identified as Docket No. 195-03-PP (#03120011). Our goal is less dense development more consistent with the Carmel Plan 2020 Vision Planning Process Report. Land Owner's Name Address City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: December 11, 2003 TO: Steve Pittman FAX: 590-5074 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Department Report. Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking o/any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. I( you have received [his facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return o/the forwarded documents to us. City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: December 8, 2003 TO: Steve Pittman FAX: 580-9786 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: December 16, Plan Commission Agenda. Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and conrrdential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this felecopied information is strictly prohibited. if you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to anange for return of the forwarded documents to us. ..i t2- 2-03; toativm ...~.~ WABASFI MEDICAL -~~i/ RECEIVED December 1, 2003 RE: Dockets 126-03 Z and Docket 127-03 Z Carmel Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Review Committee City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Carmel Clay Plan Commission Subdivision Committee Members; i live at 3573 Larkspur Lane, Carmel, Indiana in Larkspur Subdivision located at the intersection of 116u' Street and Shelborne Road. In addi[ion, l recently made an additional investment in the area when I purchased a 3 acre estate lot at ] 1585 Shelborne Road. To say the least, I am very interested in any development that occurs on Shelborne Road. That being said, I would like to go on record of providing my full support of the proposed subdivision known as "Burlingame." When my wife and I decided to move to Carmc! and start our family, we chose Carmel because of its strong school system and the reputation of the other amenities of the city. We have been happy with our decision, However, my wife and I aze both business owners. Because of this we have been unable to participate in events that happen at Badger Field on the east side of Carmel. We tried one Little League season, but from our house to Badger Field in. rush hour was close to an hour. Ir just became way to stressful and taxing to try and get involved. That is why we were excited to heaz of the potential plans to provide additional fields for youth sports on the west side of town. Further, I understand that these fields will be provided at no cost to the taxpayer. It is my opinion that this community cannot afford to turn its back on a proposal that will provide such a sorely needed asset to a community that is already having problems delivering Chese services to the community. The location of such a facility would help reduce the cross-town travel that is necessary to participate in existing programs and it is my belief these programs would grow over current enrollments. Knowing that nothing is free, T ask, what is the true cost to the community to acquire this community asset? it is my understanding that the trade off is additional density than is 7750 Zionsville Road, Suite 850 Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 (800) 592-2274 ph (317) 704.3300 faz (3l7) 704.3303 1 2- G-U3 i l :3b YIVl ..~., ..~ .... .... Cdr ....,,,, I,.,.., ..I WABASIi MEDICAL ,~.~I J 1 1 1 ~/ ~ J J II V .v i.. v+ J~+ ~ L G can-ently allowed. What is the cost of additional density? 1 guess that it is additional traffic. I have lived in other cities and I can say that traffic in my area is not a problem now. I would not have made the financial and emotional commitment to the area if T had ever experienced unreasonable traffic delays in my excursions to daily activities. Due to Western Clay being developed after the eastern part of Meridian, I am confident that lessons have been learned with regazd to traffic flow. I am pretty sure with the impending annexation; Carmel's leaders will ensure that any potential traffic issues will be handled in a reasonable time frame. I ask that you support "Burlingame" and the additional value that it will create in making Carmel an excellent place to live, work, play and raise a family. Sincerely, /% i~ ~_ i' 70 oorin 7750 7.ionsvillc Road, Suite 850 Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 (800) 592.2274 ph (317) 704-3300 far (317) 704.3303 --f00 YERflS November 21. ~tlv? Mr. Jon C. Dobosiewicz Cannel Departmert'of Community SexZ~icss Oue Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Review of Traffic Impact Analysis Residential Development -Nest Clay Pithnan..l'artrers Parsons 47 South Pennsylvania Street BrinekerhoH Suite 600 Quade 6 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Douglas, Inc. 377-972-1706 ~~ ry a' ' Per your request we have reviewed the Traffic Operations Analysis for "Residential Developnt?nt West Clay." Pittman Partners, dated September, 2003. In terms of technical approach and repcri content, we found the study tc be in conformance with the Traffic Impact Study requirements of the Carmel-Clay Ylan Commission. In addition to reviewing the study'far reasonableness and compliance with Plan Comtission requiremetts, we'fbcused'ce s6irtespei:ific traffic-related topics that had prompted-gt!~estipns ~~r concerns by Pleii Commtsh~n niertibers. ~ "hnse issues art addressed below: ~ - 1. Trip Generation. Ttips were g:nerited using the Sixth edition of "Trip Generation" ae reytiired by Plati'Cominission guideiines. Three adjustments that might have been applied l bat were no[) are for internal ft7ps, pass-by trips, and trips assaciated.with athletic facilities,at the . school The~£rst two factors wouldreduce the traffic estimates; the third would. increase the trip estimates. These factors would offset each other to some de~'ee, but the result is likely~to be a conservative estimate of total traffic. I discussed the issue of football fields with representatives of A&F Engineering (preparers of the studyj. They estimated a maximum of around 50 vehicles during the peak hour. The estimate. is conservative since they assumed no ridesharing by any participants. If their assumptions regarding activities on the field are valid, this number should be more than offset by the mm~her of trips to the school and athletic facilities liom homes in the study area. The study assumed this to be zero. That is, they assumed all trips would be frrnn outside the study area, which is very conservative for aland-use mix of residential and elententaryitniddle school. 2. Assignment and Distribution. Overall, the distribution used in this study appears to be reasonable, The one location that appeared to be questionable is Shelboume/116°i, where a large percentage of the southbound traffic fumed right. With the intersection realigned, the straight movement southbound could be equally attractive in terms of ultimately accessing SR ~I21. On the other 1}and', a review of 1'evel of service indicated no aiiptificant.change in-delay;or level of service if this occurred.' `: ' . II should be noted that properly uish~inuling trips by direction is particularly challenging tvitlan a U~d like theone in Westeni Clsv 'i'n,vnsf~p since there ate so many optional paths for must. trips. Fortunately, as in the example cf Sl:elbuuree~l 16°i, love! of service tends to balance within Che system as motorists follov~ the ro!~res of lecst rcaistauce. Over a Century o/ Engineering Eseellenee ==too YEANS November 21, 2003 Mr. Jon i'. Dohosiewicz Pagel. 3. Development Densi .Your question on this Topic teas ,vhether le~ocl cf service estimates would change if thr. proposed development mere reduced from 307 units to 200-250 units: Generally the answer is no. The traffic effen;ts of this change would be small sir:ce *.he inerementai increase in traffic volume begins to disperse witl-zn the network z!rrost immediately. A difference of 100 units would increase traffic L-y less than 25 vehioies per itme at the wnrsi ease adjacen*-intersection, and it would net c}~en^e the l°v ti~.cf~:-erviae. _ ._ 4. Intersection Improvement Recommemlatioars. The findioas of the: study zre reasm3able based on the analysis presented, although it may be advisable to f~ai 136°YTowne in the same."blture signal" category as 131x`/Towne since forecasted volumes zre similar. Precedence shaald be placed on realigning the intersection at Shelbourne/1 ! 6`~, then traffc signals or roundabouts should be installed when warranted. (See next item. j 5. Insuring LOS C at Area Intersections. Given the v;,riabili!y in development rates, actual number of trips generated, and the many choices for ;rips through the roadway grid, the best approach for proviiiing LOS C would be to-make geometric, improvements as soon as feasible and traffic signal changes when warranted. Thr Eat step should be to realign Shelboume at 1 l6°i. The second step should be to provide (eft bnn lanes at Hre 6TOP con[roaed intersections as sour: as feasible. These are significant safety as well as LOS improvements. Traffic signals (or roundabouts) should be installed when applicable warrants are met, as dcmotstl~.ted by actual traffic volumes. 6. Last Straw Smdrome. You asked whether this would be the straw That broke the carnet's beck with respect to traffic. Specifically, no. T'he higher density cnx this single development would have little incremental impact on surrounding traffic operations. It would be noted, however, that changing density assumptions by a small amount over a large area could have a significant effect on traffic operations, suggesting that there may be broad-based ~.luity or precedent issues for consideration in approving this developmera. We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance ro [he Peparhaent of Community Services. i ~` you have any questions regarding our tevi_ew, please do no! hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, PAR NS BRINCKERHOFF QUAliI: ~ ~OUC:1_AS, 9NC. ohn W. ]Myers, ., A[CP ss'stant Vice President Tana Registered Engineer No. 174)v Over a Century of Engineering Ertellenee S' One Civic Square Cannel, IN 4W32 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (317) 571-2426 To: ~~f~[Cr~ ~~~~~~~ From: Fax ~ Qj U' -- 97~j ~ Pages: ~ Phone: date: ~~ ~ ~ (~ 03 Re: GC: ^ Urgent ^ For Review ^ Please Comment ^ Please Reply ^ Please Recycle (~ s , r~r c 11/21/2003 10:46 1 _= ~p~p ~-ii s. ~,~~,-U3 /a~-v3 November 21, 2003 Ivir. Jon C. Dobosiewicz Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic 3quarc Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Review of Traffic Impact Analysis Residential Drvclopmmt -West Clay Pittman Partners Dear ]1Ir. Dobosicwicz: P'ereavlt 47 South Fannsylvanla Street arurcrreraon sun. coo areas a 1neanepaia,llV 46204 DorrD/ur fao. 91772-1706 - R~~CF ~aV ~ D 1,l •7n~ p~CS C°J3 Per your request we have reviewed the Traffic Operations Analysis far "Residential Development West Clay," Pittman Partners, dated September, 2003_ In terau ofteebnical approach and report content, we found the study to be in conformance with the Traffic Impact Study mquirements of the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission 1A addition to reviewing the study for reasonableness and wmpliance with Plan Commission requirements, we focused rm some speciflctraffic-related topics that had prompted questions or eoncems by Plan Commission members. Those issues arc addressed below: 1. Trio Generation. Trips were generated using the Sixth edition of "Trip Generation" as required by Plan Commission guidelines. Three adjustments that might have been applied (but were not) are for internal trips, pass-by trips, and trips associated with athletic facilities at the school. The first two factors would reduce the traffic estimates; the third would increase the trip estimates. These factors would offset each other to some degree, but the result is likely to be a conservative estimate of total traffic. I discussed the issue of football fields with represematives of ABcF Engineering (preperors of the study). They estimated a maximum of around 50 vehicles during the peak hour. The estimate is conservative since Choy assumed no ridesharing by any participands. If their assumptions regarding activities on the field are valid this numbcx should be more than offset by the nuatber of trips to the school and athletic facilities from homes in the study area. Tha study assumed this to bri zero. That is, they assumed all trips would be from outside the study area, which is vary conservative for eland-use miz of residential and elementary/middle school. 2. ®ssigpment and Distdbution Overall, the distribution used in this study appears to be rcasonablo. The one location titer appeared to be questionable is Shclboume/116s', where a large percentage of the southbound traffic tamed right. With the Intersection realigned, the straight movement southbound could be equally attrao[ive in terms of ultimately accessing S.R 421. On the other hand, a review of level of service indicated no significant change in delay or level of service if this occurred. It should be noted that properly distributing trips by diroction is pastioularly challenging within a grid like the one in Western Clay Township since there are so many optional paths for most trips. Fortunately, as in the example of Sbclboume/116~", level of service trnds to balance within the system as motorists follow the routes of least resistance. 3179721708 • PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF • PAGE e2re3 avers CenWry o/ Errefieerfry Exedlerrc~ 11/21/2003 10:46 3179721700 PARSOtJS HRINCKERF~F'F PAGE 03/03 • • `~ a= =e ~~ _g` __ --f00 ....+A November 21, 2003 Mr. Ton C. Dobosiewicz Page 2. 3. Aevelonment Dcasity. Your question vn this topic was whether level of service estimates would change if the proposed development were reduced from 307 units to 200-250 units. Generally the answer is no. The traffic effects of this change would be small since the incremental increase is traffic volume begins to disperse within the network almost irtmtediatoly. A difference of l00 units would increase traffic by less than 25 vehicles per lane at the worst case aQjacent intersection and it would not change the level of service. 4. Intersection Iamrovement Recommendations. The findings of the study are ravsoaable based on the analysis presented, although it may be advisable to put 136'"II'ownc in the same "future signal" category as 131 nlTowne since foreca¢ted volumes am similar. Precedence should be placed on realigning the intersection at Shelboume/116°i, then traf5c signals or roundabouts should be installed when warranted. (See next item.) 5. Insuring LOS C at Alta Intersections. Given the variability in development rates, actual number of Mps generated, and the many choices .for trips through rho roadway grid, the best approach for providing LOS C would be to make geometric improvements as soon as feasible and traffic signal changes whoa warranted. The fast atop should be to realign Shelboume nt l l6"'. The second step should be to provide left ruin lanes at the STOP controlled intersections as soon as feasible. These are significant safety as well as LOS improvements. Trtffic signals (or . . roundabouts) should be installed when applicable wazrants are met, as demonstrated by actual traffic volumes. 6. Last Straw Syndrome. You asked whether this would be the straw that broke the camel's buk . with respect to traffic. Spxifieally, no. The higher density on this single development would have little incremental impact on surrounding traffic operations. It should be noted, however, that changing density assumptions by a small amount over a lazge area c r ~ have a significant effect on traffic operations, suggesting that there may bebroad-based equity or precedent issues for consideration in approving this development. We appreciate this oppoatunity to be of assistance to the Depamnent of Comtouoity Services. IF you have any questions regarding our review, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, P. NS BRAVCKERAOk'F QUADS & DOUGLAS, INC. ohn . MYas, ., AICP s' ant Vice Presidrnt 'ana Registered Engineer No. 17809 Wcr a Century or EnglnaaAng ExeerMn¢e ~. City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Steve Pittman FAX: 590-5074 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privilegetl and is intended only (or the use o/the individual(s) or entity(iesJ named above. I(you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking o/ any action in reliance on the contents o/this telecopietl information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immetliately noti/y us by telephone to arrange /or return of the forwarded documents to us. 10/00/OJ 14:52 FA% 3172020908 A&F ENGINEERING f~02 ~` ._ _. A E! F ENGINEERING CO LLC. ,..~.,Aa..,Ia,l [MMI WM:'l,LGC{•TWF11p IY/ uLV C y ., Ry n , u 4 ENGINEERS 8L PLANNERS ~a[A M'wlcla.l alai RYWM'1Mhc °vnit4M0 '° 1O' °tl1 ' 1"'""°°""°" °`A"""° ""°" w GOrarau Ta•I [lµ I®IIf10 • dnlmYG P Y6TOIV..T01+ .ic.rn..la.l WILLIAM J. G4NNIBACN, R6. WIOIC ,eu P9[BIO[M7 Rpy,pBq • a4aG.M , ST[V[N J. -ENRIRAGNI RE. °1O I ~ ~ y VICC ea CGIpGYf IpB IL , (~ aJ,~ 1<t~ Actober 30, 2003 ~' n' ~n ~ _~ ~ n , ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ' '~ Stevrn Pittman Mr ~ ` ~ `' . ~ i Pittman Partrlers } P.O. Box 554 . . _ ~ ..,'~ \ ` ~ , , , ; . Carmel, IN46082 ` Re: Traffic Generated by Football Fields Proposed Pittman Development Dear Mr.Pittman: a It was stated by the Carmel Dad's Club that the football fields would only 1 ;used for practice ,• '' during the week- Tt was also stated that only two of the three fields would 1 ;used each year. } There aze thirteen players on each team. Therefore, there will be a maxims n of fifty-two players ~ each night for practice. Since the coaches are the fathers of the players, th< c will not be r additional vehicles for coaches. Also, cheerleaders are not present. The result is that there should be a maximum of only fifty-two vehicles ent -ing and exiting the grounds during the p.m. street peak hotu during weekdays. lhl Saturdays during change over of games the greatest number of trips wil be generated. lfowever, there is not major street peak hour on a Saturday. Therefore, the ;should not be a major inconvenience to the neighborhood traffic. 1, ~; If any additional information is required or you have any questions or come .ents, please do not hesitate to call. I Sincerely, A&F Engineering Co., LLC sl !~ ~~ Stev J. Fchn'bach, P.E. '~ Vice President i 642b KEYSTONE CR0991N6, SUIT[ 200 ~ INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 28260 ~~ faLfi PHONE (a 17) 202.0884 i i PAC91MILr' (817) 202-0008 10/50/OJ 14:52 FA% J172020808 A&F ENGINEERING (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL T0: ~\Y\ ~,3 4 FROM: ~ • .Q,, ~ ~ DATE: QC~ ~~ `~i~,~.. NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: ~ ~ DOGS COMINENTS: Please forward documents to addressee immediatety upon receipt. If these documents are llegil a or incomplete, please i;ontacl us at (317) 202.0864. Our fax numbers (317) 202-0908. CONFIDENiIALRY NOTICE The doamenis accompanying Ihis lelecopy transmission wntain confidential information- Their xmation is intended only for the use of file individual(s) or entity named above. If yvu are not file intended rec~ient, I ti are nolfied Ihat any drsdosure, copying, dislnbution or the taking of any adios in reliance on the coolants o(tfus ~lecopied infomw8on is not pemrissible. If you have received this lelecopy m error, please immedatety notify us by leU Ihone at the number above to arrange for return of the original doaments. Thank you. A & F ENGINEERING CO., L L.C CONSULTING ENGINEERS 9425 Keystone Crossing. Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 46: 10 (377) 202-0864 Idol City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: September 26, 2003 TO: Steve Pittman FAX: 580-9786 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are ~ pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Subdivision Committee Agenda for October 7, 2003 Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for fhe use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. if you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorizetl disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents o/ this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately noti/y us by telephone to arrange for return o(the forwarded documents to us. r' y OF Cq,9~ 1 {C ~ue a .~tr C it o f C acme 1 .~ ~~ Y CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 2003 To: Plan Commission Members From: Jon C. Dobosiewicz Department of Community Services Re: October 7, 2003 Committee meetings -Agenda and information Packets Please find attached the agendas and information packets for the items contained on both the Special Studies Committee and Subdivision Committee Agendas for October 7`h If you have any questions please call me at 571-2417. Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIr1NA 46032 317/571-2417 City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: September 8, 2003 TO: Steve Pittman FAX: 580-9786 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are 4 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317!571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Plan Commission Agenda and Calendar. Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. The materials enclosed with this /acsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property o/ the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(iesJ named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the forvvarded documents to us. SvEt~_ S-~~C~ ~~ ,. ~ -:) 1,'~ ill ~~ ~~ G;~ rl'(mic (~r7) 77i-Sgq, Onc .Namiltan Cmmty Srluarr 'Far (3r7) 776-q G'8 .A'oG(esnillc, 7aclfmia gt;o~o-a~~o August 19, 2003 Pittman Partners Attn: Mr. Steve Pittman Re: Shelbum Family Limited Trust (Rezone) The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office did not receive any submittals to review this agenda item. The following comments were based on identifying the proposed tracts on the County's GIS map system. 1. The proposed tracts to be rezoned ]ie within the J. W. Brendle and Albert Shaw Regulated Drain Watersheds. The J. W. Brendle Drain Watershed has an allowable discharge rate of 0.24 efs per acre north of 116`h Street. 2. All future storm systems for this site will fall under the j urisdiction of the County and will be required to become regulated drain and comply with the standard requirements for regulated drains. 3. Storm water detention criteria will be based on the Hamilton County Surveyor's 2-10-100 standard. 4. Soil maps indicate Brookston and Crosby Soils are prevalent on the proposed tracts. These type of soils have poor potential for urban development because of wetness and are not conducive to dwellings with basements (per Hamilton County Soil Survey). 5. Further comments will be warranted in the future with the submittal of preliminary and secondary submittals. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317-776-8495. ,Sincerely, ~. (,,~. J I Liston ~~. on County Surveyor's Office JLL/]lm Cc: Jon Dobosiewicz Steve Broermann .7@nton C. `Gl~ard, Sun~e~~or Saite r~s One Civic Square Cannel, IN 49J32 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (317) 57t-2426 Fax To: 7'`"' _e ~~~~ GUI From: I ~if~V~ Fa:c Pages: Z- Phone: Date: ~ / Z Re: CC: d Urgent ^ Foc Review ^ Please Cammer~t d Please Reply ~~ ~~-~-~ ~l~t ~ ~ ~ o r v~L. ~Qz-,vr~._.. d Please Recycle Dobosiewicz, Jon C From: Babbitt, Pamela A Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 2:28 PM To: Brewer, Scott I; Butler, Angelina V; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Lillig, Laurence M; Pattyn, Dawn E Subject: new Stielbum Farnd Limited Trust, Rezone`S-1 to R-4, Carmel Dad`s Club,!Steve`Pittman 580-9693. S G.crs- . - 6 -'~ L ~~ - ~G -zo-ao-~-r~~8, Oc~3 .~ o~v~~~ 12-~ - o~ Z Dobosiewicz, Jon C From: Babbitt, Pamela A Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 2:26 PM To: Brewer, Scott I; Butler, Angelina V; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Lillig, Laurence M; Pattyn, Dawn E Subject: new '$tielburn family limited trust, RezdneS-1 fo R-2~, Carmel Dad's Club, Steve Pittman 580-9693. R ~6~T 'T'f'rc_ Cz of `- S P-~P'~ \ ~i 1~ C_ `~ bq 20 po by ~7 09 2q o0 oU 17 O~ z,9 D~ o~ OI'~ooo pOZ O°O p l y o 0 0 12~-°~ Z 036~~1Z i