Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Conn, Angelina V From: John Molitor [jmolitor @prodigy.net] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:22 PM To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Fine, Lois A Subject: RE: Park Impact Fee Ordinance Attachments: 2009 Impact Fee Ordinance Version B.doc Lois Please find attached a finalized version of the ordinance, with the blanks filled in and the additional wording per Rick Sharp's amendment of December 7. The Plan Commission approved the amended ordinance at its meeting last Tuesday (December 15.) Let me know if there are any questions, or problems with the formatting. John Molitor Counsel to the Carmel Plan Commission (317) 843 -5511 Original Message From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K [mailto:awold @carmel.in.gov] Sent: December 18, 2009 2:16 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; John Molitor Subject: Park Impact Fee Ordinance Hi, I took the PC Certification for the Park Impact Fee Ordinance down to the Clerk Treasurer's office yesterday and Lois said that she needs a finalized copy of the ordinance. She also mentioned something about there were some blanks in the ordinance that needed to be filled in. Were one of you working on this? I didn't know if there was a timeline for this, or if Lois needed it soon or not so I thought I would ask. Thanks, Lex 1 b �i iJ A +r a ri li e a ,11 i: iii ii flf 4.40 e0 ois CITY O i AIZM JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR December 7, 2009 Mike Hollibaugh, Director Department of Community Services Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Mark Westermeier, Director Carmel -Clay Department of Parks and Recreation 1411 E. 116 Street Carmel, IN 46032 Re: ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2005 2010 Dear Mike and Mark: Thank you for consulting with me on the Carmel /Clay Zone Improvement Plan as provided in Indiana Code Section 36- 7- 4- 1318(d). This letter shall confirm that I am a qualified professional engineer licensed to provide engineering services in Indiana (PE10201118), and that you have consulted with me in regard to the Zone Improvement Plan in accordance with Indiana Code. With this letter, I hereby confirm that the information you have given to me for my review which has been used to create the Zone Improvement Plan 2005 -2010, including methods and data utilized in the determination of the impact fee recommendation, is consistent with the recommended fee. Please feel free to contact me should you need anything further from me. Sincerel a a T. ,i14,& Michael T. McBride, P.E. O v e Carmel City Engineer S*1 No. a PE1020111 8� cc: John Molitor C1: Debra Grisham STATE OF 4 to, skvoNAL e te`a DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE Civic SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 3 17 571.2441 FAx 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering©carmel.in.gov Conn, Angelina V From: John Molitor [jmolitor @prodigy.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Forward for Westermeier, Mark; Forwarding E -Mail, Grisham, Deb; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Fine, Lois A Subject: Re: ZIP, park impact fees items to city council? Angie My advice is for DOCS to continue to follow through on the process here, since both the ordinance amendment and the ZIP come with the full recommendation of the Plan Commission. Also, keep in mind that it's critical that they both be approved at the Council level by the first week of March 2010, in order to avoid any hiatus in the collection of the impact fees. Assuming that these proposals are now promptly certified to the Council, the Council should act on them no later than the middle of January (or within 90 days, as required by state law). Then, if the Council should happen to make any amendments in the impact fee ordinance, by state law the Plan Commission would have another 45 days to review and ratify the Council's amendments. This would mean that the Plan Commission would need to act before the first week of March, anyway. Let me know if there are any further questions. I will let Councilor Rider know that I will continue to be available to assist him on this matter. John From: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> To: jmolitor @prodigy.net Cc: mwestermeier @carmelclayparks.com; Debra Grisham <dgrisham @carmelclayparks.com "Donahue -Wold, Alexia K" <awold @carmel.in.gov "Fine, Lois A" <Ifine @carmel.in.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:07:49 AM Subject: ZIP, park impact fees items to city council? Hi, John since the ZIP and ordinance amendment made it out of plan commission last night, Just wondering if our dept. needs to carry this through to City Council process, with placing a public notice ad, making info packets for council members, finalizing the ordinance text, etc. (I think Alexia will be requesting the City Council Z ordinance number assignments today, as well as preparing the Plan Commission certification letters....) Here are the 2 plan commission items: 10. favorable recommendation to council, 8 -0: Docket No. 09090012 OA: ZO Ch 29: Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Amendment The applicant seeks to Amend Section 29.07: Parks and Recreation Impact Fees and Section 3.07: Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance in order to update existing impact fee provisions, as well as the definitions of two pertinent terms. The proposal would renew the impact fee that is currently imposed on new residential development to defray the cost of new parks and recreation infrastructure, for an additional five years (from 2010 to 2015). The impact fee is currently imposed at a level of $1,261 /unit. It would remain at $1,261 for an additional year, and then be increased to $1,387 effective September 2011, to $1,526 effective September 2012, to $1,679 effective September 2013, and finally to $1,847 effective September 2014. The fee would then 1 expire in September 2015. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services, on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. 11. favorable recommendation to council, 8 -0: Docket No. 09090013 CP Amend: 2010 -2015 Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) The applicant seeks to update the existing 2005 -2010 Zone Improvement Plan, upon which the parks and recreation impact fee is based, and to add the ZIP as an appendix item to the Carmel Clay Consolidated Plan (C3 Plan).The proposal contains a projected 10 -year development plan for parks and recreation infrastructure which includes an estimated $23.45 million in additions and improvements to the existing Carmel /Clay parks system. The proposal also recommends that the existing impact fee (currently imposed at a level of $1,261 /unit) remain at $1,261 for an additional year, and then be increased to $1,387 effective September 2011, to $1,526 effective September 2012, to $1,679 effective September 2013, and finally to $1,847 effective September 2014. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services, on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Planning Zoning Dept City of Carmel 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317-571-2417 F: 317 571 -2426 E: aconnl carmel.in.gov Website Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 2 October 20, 2009 To: Department of Community Services Plan Commission Members Ground Rules, Inc. Cc: Carmel City Council Members Cc: Mayor Jim Brainard Cc: Paul Reis, Attorney for Wild Cherry Lane Re: 96 Street/Westfield Special Study Subarea In general and in concept, this plan is a positive beginning to bring to completion the 96 St/Westfield Special Study. However, there are several significant and potential legal issues that need to be addressed. I have put together a summary condensed from a plethora of information and trust it will be helpful in addressing these issues. There seems to be some confusion between the proposed land use map, subarea map, and the contextual descriptions. The maps do not seem to support the context nor reflect land use of the Aramore project. The proposed land use map as shown cuts off the back 1/3 (one acre) of the 3 -acre properties fronting 96 Street and for all practical purposes, would appear to be a taking of land from the homeowners. The plan would reduce these three acre properties to approximately one and 3 4 acres after a buffer zone (shown on the middle acre) and ROW required from the front acreage. The proposed buffer zone would isolate three other properties, cutting off two from access to a public road. They would be isolated between Chesterton and any future redevelopment with no access to either. Wild Cherry Lane is a small private road and not a through street into Chesterton. (refer to WCC/WCL "History" second page.) The proposed plan would cause a hardship on six of the property owners, by not allowing them to either sell their entire acreage or be able to participate in potential redevelopment of Wild Cherry Corner. A developer would not be willing to purchase an acre of land that could not be developed and property owners could not sell a one acre land locked piece of property Wild Cherry Corner residents have been working with the City for almost five years to bring resolution. We have been asked to submit proposals and have done so on a number of occasions. Splitting up Wild Cherry Corner has never been part of any plan proposed either by WCC or the DOCS. WILD CHERRY CORNER and WILD CHERRY LANE HISTORY 1953 Wild Cherry Corner plotted by meets and bounds (not recorded as a platted subdivision) with Wild Cherry Lane as a private road ending in a small cul -de -sac. Owners of the properties facing Wild Cherry Lane own to the center of the road and are responsible for maintenance, including road improvements. 1954 First home built. 1956 -57 Chesterton Subdivision begins development and amends the platte to include Wild Cherry Lane as its secondary through street instead of extending 98 St. through Woodbriar. (ROW still exists.) All streets through the subdivision ended as stub streets to be extended as development should occur. However, permission was not given nor sought from all Wild Cherry Lane homeowners to use the private road. The home owner who lived at the end of WCL on the cul -de -sac was offered money to buy the end of WCL for construction vehicles and the road was broken through by the developers. (This reported exchange of money was never recorded as a sale of property nor did the owner have a legal right to do so.) The rest of WCL homeowners petitioned a Hamilton County judge to impose a cease and desist use of WCL by the developers. The judge informed the homeowners that because WCL was a private road, they had the right to enforce it themselves and were free to erect a barricade. The owner of the property at the end of WCL chose not to have the barricade on his property and asked the Chesterton developers to grant him access to 98 St. This accounts for the present location of the barricade. The developer never amended the platte to show that Chesterton should not include WCL as a through street so County maps continue to this date to depict WCL as a through street due to this failure. Identifying WCL as a through street on the map has been an ongoing traffic problem for WCL residents and costly in terms of personal liability insurance and property damage. 1992 A bogus petition with names and signatures which had been either forged or assumed to be correct was given to the Hamilton County Commissioners by a few residents of Chesterton Subdivision asking the County to remove the barricade on WCL to give them access to 96 Street. The County in turn sent a letter to the homeowners on whose property the barricade was installed informing them they had thirty days to remove it. This led to litigation with the County and was costly to the WCL homeowners. A second petition was submitted as part of the litigation showing the first to be faulty. A majority of the Chesterton homeowners did not want the barricade removed as it provided security for them and kept out cut through traffic. The litigation lasted for over two years. Ultimately the court ruled in favor of the WCL residents and issued summary judgment declaring WCL to indeed be a private road and the barricade legal. (Documentation available.) Wild Cherry Corner was the first to be developed in the area as a quiet residential "oasis" from the big city atmosphere. Smaller lot subdivisions subsequently built up surrounding WCC. We have worked for many years to retain the character of the area but the time has come to accept that Wild Cherry Corner is no longer that quiet, residential oasis. We believe Wild Cherry Corner should be seen as a whole and not fragmented. It is in transition and believe the proposed land use map and subarea map and context should reflect this reality. Perhaps it could include a designation for mixed use as a PUD that could include both commercial and urban residential. This would give the Plan Commission and City Council control over how it could be redeveloped in the future. It would also be in keeping with the Aramore project to the west of Chesterton and the proposed land use on Westfield and Kittrell. A well- designed plan could improve the whole community, increase surrounding home values, and be in keeping with the new Carmel /Clay Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully submitted, Pat Rice, representative for Wild Cherry Corner Page 1 of 4 Hancock, Ramona B From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:54 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: Comments: PROPOSED 96th Street Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan Importance: High Below is another 96 and Westfield comment letter. From: Sarah Horn [mailto :shorn @groundrulesinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:14 PM To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Keeling, Adrienne M; Littlejohn, David W; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: FW: Comments: PROPOSED 96th Street Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan Importance: High Alexia, Here is another set of comments, I have not yet incorporated them into the spreadsheet. Is it possible for this email, and Pat Rice's letter to be printed and distributed to the Plan Commission tonight for their review during the meeting? Sarah L. Horn, AICP Senior Planner Ground Rules, Inc. 1455 W. Oak Street, Suite C Zionsville, Indiana 46077 (317) 733 -3535 office (317) 733 -3550 fax Ground.;.. www.groundrulesinc.com From: Mike Dooley [mailto:mikedooley @indy.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:09 PM To: 'Sarah Horn' Cc: 'Mike Dooley' Subject: Comments: PROPOSED 96th Street Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan Importance: High Sarah, Here are my comments for the meeting: 1. At the last meeting, we discussed the possibility of having cul -de -sacs at the end of some of the streets. Maple, Lincoln and Kittrell. I know that this option was supported by many of the people on those streets. I would like to see it as part of the plan. I feel that if Maple is connected all the way through to 99 street, 10/20/2009 Page 2 of 4 this would be a negative to the neighborhood. During high traffic times, many people would use this street as a cut through to avoid the round about. We already have many car dealers using the street as a test drive area and this is dangerous to the children in the area. So, I propose cutting off access to the south to 96th street and making Maple Drive a cul -de -sac. If this option is not possible, then we would need "speed humps" in place to protect the residents. 2. Improve Surface Drainage I would like the plan's language to include a more "specific plan" as to resolving the drainage issues in Forest Glen. The language currently is vague and really means that this problem will linger on and not get resolved in my view. One idea is if the cul -de -sac option is put in place for some of the streets, part of the buffering area could include a landscaped drainage pond to help handle the overflow during rainy periods. 3. I would like the plan to commit to including sidewalks and street lighting in the Forest Glen area. The current plan language is very vague. 4. Buffering stable neighborhoods from redevelopment I would like the plan to include language that states that any decorative walls be only constructed of non -wood materials. i.e. Brick, Stone, composite material only. I feel wood fencing that has been used in past projects deteriorates too quickly and just become an "eye sore" for the community. I will try to make the meeting, but it's going to be tough? Let me know how it goes if I don't get there? Thanks. Mike Dooley 523 -6292 From: Sarah Horn [mailto :shorn @groundrulesinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:20 AM To 'Mike Dooley' Subject: RE: PROPOSED 96th Street Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan Mike, Great! If you could get me the comments by 3:00 PM this afternoon I can ensure that the Plan Commission will get a copy of your comments tonight at the meeting. Thank you! Sarah L. Horn, AICP Senior Planner Ground Rules, Inc. 1455 W. Oak Street, Suite C Zionsville, Indiana 46077 (317) 733 -3535 office (317) 733 -3550 fax www.groundrulesinc.com From: Mike Dooley [mailto:mikedooley @indy.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:08 AM To: 'Sarah Horn' Subject: RE: PROPOSED 96th Street Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan Thanks Sarah. I looked over the plan last night. I'll email you any comments this afternoon if I have any? I will 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 2 Hancock, Ramona B From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:56 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: MAPLE DR. Final comment letter...for now. Thanks. From: Sarah Horn [mailto :shorn @groundrulesinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:51 PM To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Subject: FW: MAPLE DR. Alexia, Here is that third email. Thank you! I will get these incorporated into the spreadsheet as soon as possible and get you a new draft early next week. See you tonight! Sarah L. Horn, AICP Senior Planner Ground Rules, Inc. 1455 W. Oak Street, Suite C Zionsville, Indiana 46077 (317) 733 -3535 office (317) 733 -3550 fax www.groundrulesinc.com From: pete sole [mailto:ps @gardensa.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:43 PM To: shorn @groundrulesinc.com Subject: MAPLE DR. SHORN, I LIVE AT 9629 MAPLE DR. PETE AND LAURIE SOLE. WE HAVE LIVED AT THIS ADDRESS FOR OVER 25 YEARS. IN CARMEL SINCE 1963. WE TRULY HAVE WATCHED CARMEL GROW AND DO APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE OUTCOME OF AN AREA. MOST OF THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SHARED WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WAS SHARED THREE YEARS AGO WHEN THIS HOLE PROCESS STARTED. ALTHOUGH FOR THE MOST PART WE UNDERSTAND THAT CHANGE IS INEVITABLE CHANGE THAT DOES NOT CONSIDER ITS RESIDENTS NEEDS SHOULD BE OPEN FOR MODIFICATIONS. I AND MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS CONCERNS ARE CENTERED AROUND THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN, THE PRESERVATION OF OUR WAY OF LIFE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE VALUE 10/20/2009 Page 2 of 2 OF OUR ASSETS AS IT PERTAINS TO OUR HOMES. WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE CHOOSE TO BE AND HAVE WORKED TO MAKE OUR STREET A PLACE THAT WE ARE PROUD OF. IF 96 ST. IS TO BE REDESIGNED TO INCLUDE MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WE DO NOT THINK THAT OPENING UP OUR STREET TO TRAFFIC FROM WESTFIELD AND OR 99 STREET SHOULD BE CONSIDERED UNLESS AND CONSIDERED AS PART OF THOSE CHANGES THAT MAPLE DR. BE CLOSED TO 96 ACTIVITY WITH ACCESS BEING REROUTED FROM EITHER 99ST, OR FROM AN ENTRANCE THAT WOULD OPEN PITMAN'S DEVELOPMENT TO WESTFIELD BLVD. OUR REASONS AND CONCERNS. 1. THE TRAFFIC THAT WOULD INCREASE BOTH FROM 96TH GOING SOUTH AND WEST, THE TRAFFIC FROM WESTFIELD GOING WEST AND THE TRAFFIC FROM 99TH ST. GOING SOUTH WOULD BE FUNNELED DOWN OUR STREET ANY TIME CARS WANTED TO AVOID BACK UPS OR DELAYS ON THESE STREETS. AT PRESENT WE ARE USED BY THE AUTO DEALERSHIPS AS TEST TRACKS FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS. WE ALSO GET TRAFFIC EVERY MORNING AND EVENING AS IT 1S FROM THESE PEAK TIMES, EVEN NOW WHEN OUR STREETS GO NO WHERE. TO SAY THAT THE OPENING OF THESE STREETS IN SOME WAY BENEFITS THE RESIDENTS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. 2. IT WAS STATED UNDER THE (CONNECT MAPLE STREET TO 99TH SECTION) THAT MAPLE DR. SHOULD BE OPEN TO 99TH AND OR 98TH STREETS FOR EMERGENCY NEEDS. THIS DOES HAVE SOME MERIT, BUT ONLY IF MAPLE WOULD BE CLOSED OFF TO 96 STREET. WITHOUT THAT CLOSER, OUR SAFETY AND SECURITY IS HARMED NOT STRENGTHENED BY THESE CHANGES. 3. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS. WE KNOW THAT CHANGE IS INEVITABLE. WE ALSO KNOW THE PRESSURES THAT ARE PRESENT TO MODIFY THE LAND USE ON 96 ST. HAVERSTICK IS ALREADY BEING GROOMED AS AN ACCESS ROAD FROM 99TH TO 96T COMPLETE WITH A ROUND ABOUT. IF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AND LAND USE CHANGES ARE PUT INTO PLACE, OPENING MAPLE DRIVE TO THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE CREATED WILL ONLY SERVE TO DESTROY OUR QUITE, TREE LINED FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND TURN IT INTO JUST ANOTHER TRAFFIC MOVING STREET. WE ASK IT TO BE MANDATED THAT GOING FORWARD AS PART OF THE PLANS, THAT MAPLE DR. BE CLOSED OFF TO 96TH ST. IF ANY ADDITIONAL CONNECTIONS TO EITHER 99TH ST OR WESTFIELD BLVD BE CONSIDERED AND APPROVED PETE SOLE 9629 MAPLE DR.. 10/20/2009 Hancock, Ramona B From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:50 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea Original Message From: Michelle Spahr [mailto:mspahr1224 @earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 6:26 PM To: Keeling, Adrienne M; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W; Sarah Horn Subject: 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea I would appreciate it if you could please pass on this email to the Secretary of the Plan Commission prior to the hearing on Tuesday, October 20, 2009. I do not know if Adrienne has had her baby. If so, please tell her congratulations. If not, hopefully, baby will be here soon! I live at 9892 Haverstick Road in the woods on the southwest corner of 99th and Haverstick. I have been fortunate to have sat on the neighborhood /City of Carmel committee several years ago which considered the future of our neighborhood. I have also participated in the neighborhood involvement with the Brooks Bend neighborhood which was developed by Estridge. I am pleased to see that the present plan is a thoughtful plan taking into account many of the concerns of the homeowners in our neighborhood. There are, however, several concerns which I would like to address. The first is the location of side paths for pedestrian traffic. This is certainly a valid strategy for a neighborhood that contains few walkways for pedestrians. The concern that I have is the side path that is proposed along the south side of 99th Street from Keystone to Westfield Boulevard. As you are aware, there are 13 acres of dense woods starting at the corner of Haverstick and 99th and heading west. Installing side paths or sidewalks would involve the destruction of at least 7 trees that are in excess of 18 inches in diameter as well as multiple smaller trees. The proposed plan states that a goal is preserving the tree canopy. In particular, the proposed plan states that "Carmel will utilize its zoning regulations and processes to reasonably protect existing tree canopy in the subarea." Destruction of the trees on the south side of 99th Street would not be consistent with this policy. Rather, it would be consistent with prior plans and negotiations for the sidewalk to be planned for the north side of 99th. There are already existing sidewalks on the north side of 99th at the Brooks Bend and Waldon Ponds neighborhoods. Thus, it would only entail construction of sidewalks on the north side of 99th Street between these 2 subdivisions. In particular, when the neighborhood worked with the City of Carmel and Estridge, the developer of Brooks Bend, the City indicated that eventually sidewalks would be extended west from Brooks Bend. It is my understanding that easements were retained in the remainder of the development to the immediate west of Brooks Bend for eventual sidewalks. In addition, the trees have already been cleared on the north side of 99th Street for the recent utilities that have been installed on the north side of 99th Street in the Hills and Dales neighborhood. Completing sidewalks on the north side of 99th Street would be less costly as well as preserving mature tree canopy. The second concern that I have is the width and height of the of the employment centers along 96th Street. Although we recognize that the north side of 96th Street will eventually become commercial, we would like to anticipate that the commercial development will be more professional and less invasive than suggested in the proposed plan. In particular, we would rather see the commercial developments at a width of 2 lots for the entire length of 96th Street not just that area located contiguous to Cherry Lane. In addition, the buildings should be 1 story with facades and roof designs that are consistent with the area. I would refer your attention to the commercial buildings east of Haverstick on the north side of 96th Street. In particular, the building on the northeast corner of Haverstick and 96th Street is a dentist office that is a renovated single family dwelling. To the east of the dental office are several recent commercial construction projects that are single story low light density and professional in design. I am referring to the medical building and the 1 jewelry store. The design and style of these buildings would be consistent with a more professional commercial setting that would enhance rather than detract from the remaining residential character of the neighborhood. Finally, while I support maintaining Westfield Boulevard as residential, I am concerned about high density condominiums and apartments. At a minimum, if multi- family dwellings are considered, they should be no greater than 2 stories in height and designed with no more than 4 units per building with substantial green space and trees. If you have any question or would like to discuss my concerns in more detail, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. Michelle Spahr 9892 Haverstick Road Indianapolis, IN 46280 844 -1957 [home] 694 -3236 [cell] 2 TALK TO TLICKEA MIKE JOHNSON 9277 N. Meridian Street talla'T"`°°` First Vice President, Residential Division Indianapolis, Indiana 46260 F. C. Tucker Company T (317) 590.3454 F (317) 205.9252 mike@mikejohnsonproperties.com www.mikejohnsonproperties.com October 16, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: As the agent representing most of the property owners that comprise Wild Cherry Corner, I would like to submit this letter for consideration with respect to the new classification of the area. All of the land on the south side of 96th Street bounded by Keystone Avenue on the east, Westfield Boulevard on the west and 1 -465 on the south has been identified in the Washington Township Land Use Plan for commercial development. The commercial development on the south side of 96th Street will influence and impact those properties on the north side of 96th Street. Some of the properties on the north side of 96th Street are already being used for commercial purposes. As such, I believe the properties that make up Wild Cherry Comer should receive a new classification, allowing them to be developed commercially for general office, medical office, neighborhood service commercial or simi- lar uses. Included, is a map of the area, showing all of the properties highlighted in yellow that are currently for sale under contract with the F. C. Tucker Company. The properties highlighted in blue have re- quested to be included in the overall land use change for this area in order to retain the ability to rede- velop their property along with any future redevelopment of Wild Cherry Corner. It is my opinion that all of these properties should receive the same classification allowing them to be developed in a similar manner. Restricting the northern most properties on Wild Cherry Lane from development will isolate those properties, adversely affecting the owners' ability to sell their properties and restricting the properties from being used in their highest and best manner. Regards, Mike Johnson (j; rA• e s arms �NDIAN P CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MEMORANDUM- Date: September 15, 2009 To: Plan Commission Members From: Angelina Conn, Department of Community Services Re: October 20 Plan Commission meeting Docket No.s 09090012 OA 09090013 CP Amend Enclosed is a draft ordinance proposal, along with the Zone Improvement Plan upon which the proposal is based. A public hearing will be held on these items at the October 20 Plan Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 571 -2417. Docket No. 09090012 OA: ZO Ch 29: Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Ordinance Amendment The applicant seeks to Amend Section 29.07: Parks and Recreation Impact Fees and Section 3.07: Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance in order to update existing impact fee provisions, as well as the definitions of two pertinent terms. The proposal would renew the impact fee that is currently imposed on new residential development to defray the cost of new parks and recreation infrastructure, for an additional five years (from 2010 to 2015). The impact fee is currently imposed at a level of $1,261 /unit. It would remain at $1,261 for an additional year, and then be increased to $1,387 effective September 2011, to $1,526 effective September 2012, to $1,679 effective September 2013, and finally to $1,847 effective September 2014. The fee would then expire in September 2015. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services, on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Docket No. 09090013 CP Amend: 2010 -2015 Zone Improvement Plan The applicant seeks to update the existing, 2005 -2010 Zone Improvement Plan upon which the parks and recreation impact fee is based. The proposal contains a projected 10 -year development plan for parks and recreation infrastructure which includes an estimated $23.45 million in additions and improvements to the existing Carmel /Clay parks system. The proposal also recommends that the existing impact fee (currently imposed at a level of $1,261 /unit) remain at $1,261 for an additional year, and then be increased to $1,387 effective September 2011, to $1,526 effective September 2012, to $1,679 effective September 2013, and finally to $1,847 effective September 2014. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services, on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Page 1 of 1 Hancock, Ramona B From Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:55 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: dept report items park impact fee /zone improvement plan Hi Ramona John Molitor or Deb Grisham will be dropping of the parks zone improvement plan tomorrow. 15 copies Today, I will be printing off the ordinance draft and a memo and arrange into 15 info packets. Please add the zone improvement plans to each of those info packets. Also, I will Email out the dept reports today, since I will be in Mississippi tomorrow and Friday for a smartcode workshop. Angie 9/10/2009 Conn, Angelina V From: Debra Grisham [dgrisham @carmelclayparks.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 5:30 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: jmolitor @prodigy.net; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Docket No. Assignment: (OA, CPA) Park Impact Fees Zone Improvement Plan now that you will need to address this email with Mike, but John and I discussed having this matter go to the Ok .ber /meeting of the Special Studies Committee (acting as the Impact Advisory Committee) so that the Committee can be in a position to make a recommendation to the Plan Commission after the Public Hearing if all stars are aligned. Thanks, D'b„ G ri sha m�_ From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 1:35 PM To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Blanchard, Jim E; Boone, Rachel M.; Brewer, Scott I; DeVore, Laura B; Duncan, Gary R; Hancock, Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Holmes, Christine B; John Molitor; Keeling, Adrienne M; Littlejohn, David W; Martin, Candy; Redden, Nick; Stewart, Lisa M; Tingley, Connie S; Weddington, Trudy A.; Martin, Candy Cc: Westermeier, Mark; Debra Grisham Subject: Docket No. Assignment: (OA, CPA) Park Impact Fees Zone Improvement Plan I have issued the necessary Docket Numbers for (OA, CPA) Park Impact Fees Zone Improvement Plan. They are the following: Docket No. 09090012 OA: ZO Ch 29: Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Ordinance Amendment The applicant seeks to Amend Section 29.07: Parks and Recreation Impact Fees and Section 3.07: Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance in order to update existing impact fee provisions, as well as the definitions of two pertinent terms. The proposal would renew the impact fee that is currently imposed on new residential development to defray the cost of new parks and recreation infrastructure, for an additional five years (from 2010 to 2015). The impact fee is currently imposed at a level of $1,261 /unit. It would remain at $1,261 for an additional year, and then be increased to $1,387 effective September 2011, to $1,526 effective September 2012, to $1,679 effective September 2013, and finally to $1,847 effective September 2014. The fee would then expire in September 2015. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services, on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Docket No. 09090013 CP Amend: 2010 -2015 Zone Improvement Plan The applicant seeks to update the existing, 2005 -2010 Zone Improvement Plan upon which the parks and recreation impact fee is based. The proposal contains a projected 10 -year development plan for parks and recreation infrastructure which includes an estimated $23.45 million in additions and improvements to the existing Carmel/Clay parks system. The proposal also recommends that the existing impact fee (currently imposed at a level of $1,261 /unit) remain at $1,261 for an additional year, and then be increased to $1,387 effective September 2011, to $1,526 effective September 2012, to $1,679 effective September 2013, and finally to $1,847 effective September 2014. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services, on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission.. Total Filing Fees: $0.00 (exempt) 1 1. This item will not be on an agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 2. Published Public Notice will occur by Friday, Sept. 25, in the Indianapolis Star. 3. Fifteen (15) Informational Packets will be delivered to Plan Commission Secretary Ramona Hancock no later than NOON, Friday, October 9, 2009. (Drafts of the document will be handed out at the Sept 15 Plan Commission meeting.) 4. The Item will appear on the October 20 agenda of the Plan Commission (under "Public Hearings 5. The Item may also appear on the Nov. 3 agenda of the Plan Commission Special Studies Committee. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Angie Conn Planning Administrator City of Carmel, DOCS One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 aconn @carmel.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 2