Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceME NOBLE ELEDGEII Plea deal could put former operator of Hoosier Hotties in prison 5'/2. years By Katie Merlie Katie.Merlie@ TheNoblesvilleLedger.com NOBLESVILLE — The former operator of Hoosier Hotties escort service pleaded guilty Thursday to a prostitution charge and could face up to four years in prison. Chad D. McClellan, 37, In- dianapolis, pleaded guilty to felony charges of promoting prostitution and money laundering. The charges to- gether carry a maximum prison term of 11 years. According to the plea agreement, McClellan could . be sentenced up to four years for the prostitution charge, and 18 months for money laundering. McClel- lan will be sentenced for the Hamilton County charges July 10. In February 2006, investi- gators from the Hamilton. County Sheriff's Department:: arrested McClellan, who then lived in Cicero. Police believed he was operating an Internet business that in- volved prostitution out of JOE VITTI / 2007 Star file photo Former operator of Hoosier Hotties escort service Chad McClellan, . 37, Indianapolis, pleaded guilty Thursday to prostitution and money laundering charges. This photo was taken in April 2007 at the Ham- ilton County Jail. He was a Cicero resident when he was arrested in 2006. his home. " Undercover officers Kevin Jowitt, who was a say they made a reservation Sheriff's Department inves- through the Hoosier Hotties tigator in 2006, said then Web site to meet two. Indi- that it is only illegal to oper- anapolis women ate an escort service if 't Fishershotels Officers money is paid in exchange said McClellan made the for sex. reservation. McClellan's attorney, Dan Henke, said during Thursday's guilty plea hear- ing that his client's sentence will be determined by the court. However, he did ask that the sentences be served concurrently. Hamilton Superior Court 1 Judge Steve Nation said he will take into consideration a motion to dismiss the 10 remaining felony charges against McClellan, which in- elude federal tax evasion, theft and corrupt business influence. Hamilton County Deputy Prosecutor Bob Summerfield said McClellan is also charged in Marion County with three felony counts of tax evasion, theft and failure to remit sales tax. Summer- field said an agreement has been made that at the con- clusion of the Hamilton County case, the Marion County charges against McClellan will be dropped. * Call Noblesville Ledger reporter Katie Merlie at (317) 444 -5549. CARMEL 0001271 HOLIDAY INN (PRO -MED DRIVE) HISTORY OF APPLICATION: An anniversary has passed without a decision. In March, 2007 the public hearing was scheduled for the Holiday Inn application. Because of lack of follow through by the petitioner, two months in a row passed before the actual public hearing took place in May, 2007. That was the last time that the voices of those in opposition have been heard, unless those opposing have put their thoughts in writing. Each month since June, 2007 either the special committee meeting has been tabled or the applicant has brought some portion of the required information to the meeting. To date, not all information has been provided. Meanwhile, the members of the Plan Commission and City Council have changed, which has changed the members on the special committee and its chairman as well. QUESTION: Have all these delays on the part of the applicant been planned to await these changes and a loss of focus because of time and lack of continuity? The 2007 committee members stated more than once that this application is like fitting a square peg in a round hole. They also stated that the 2005 traffic report was considered to be invalid and therefore not reliable. Based on that opinion, the petitioner ordered a traffic study by A &F Engineering Co., LLC which reported a count and then referenced the 2005 study for 136th and Old Meridian. When the committee requested further review, the traffic study was revised by sending a truck out with personnel to do a count during what they considered peak time. Normal peak time does not reflect school traffic including young people driving, school buses, and regular business and hospital traffic. At the April, 2008 committee meeting the representative from A &F Engineering stated that the study was done to meet the client's needs. That was a blatant admission that the study was biased. Also, the representative stated that new construction and /or approved construction on Smokey Row Road was not taken into consideration in their report. Also, the question was not asked, nor was information given about taking into consideration regarding the approved Justus office building. FYI: In checking with the City of Carmel Engineering Department, it was indicated that when the City of Carmel does a traffic study, it is normally done with a counter over a period of time. As of March 31, 2008 I checked with the Department of Community Services to see if any information had been received regarding drainage (that was a requirement that had not been received at the March, 2008 committee meeting and needed prior to the April 1, 2008 meeting. May it be here suggested that if an applicant cannot get their ducks in a row in a timely manner, they should be automatically denied. The public has made the effort to attend every meeting (many of which have been tabled after arriving at city hall). CARMEL HISTORY INFLUENCING THE HOLIDAY INN APPLICATION: The writer served on the Plan Commission from 1976 -1982 and on the City Council from 1980 -1984. Perhaps the most significant element of that participation was a question CARMEL 0001272 asked at a Plan Commission meeting: "What are we going to do about US 31 (Meridian)? Is it going to look like Keystone and 52nd?" As a result of that question, the writer, a prominent Carmel developer and the City Planner met. The result was the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone approved when the writer was President of the Plan Commission in 1980 -1981. When approved, one criteria of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone was a minimum five acre parcel. Does this 2.65 acre subdivided parcel really meet the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Is a Holiday Inn on that 2.65 acre parcel going to violate the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Perhaps some of you remember the Carmel Motel that was located on US 31 (Meridian) approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed location of the proposed Holiday Inn location. After inappropriate activities which included discovery of the body of a murdered woman, the City of Carmel condemned the Carmel Motel and it was demolished. More recently in the news is the esteemed Mayflower in Washington, D.C. and inappropriate activities. A motel or hotel invites transient traffic whereas an office building invites professional business people offering a service during daytime and daylight hours. I do not recall if it has been discussed that the Holiday Inn will have a liquor license, but that also invites traffic hazards on what is already a very precarious curve in the road that is over congested without full development of the already approved projects. A REQUEST: In the interest of the "health, safety and welfare" of the immediate community in the area where the proposed Holiday Inn would have a major impact on the "health, safety, and welfare" of those residents in the area and those who travel the area, a request is made to have the City of Carmel commission a true and honest traffic study without bias and reflecting all approved projects to the east. Also the INDOT plan for the intersections where ProMed Drive, Smokey Row Road, Old Meridian, Guilford Road, and US 31 (Meridian) converge should be taken into consideration. Since it has been over a year since the Holiday Inn project was first introduced, perhaps the petitioner could wait a year to see the true picture of this important traffic pattern once INDOT and the City of Carmel have a plan in place. At present, the new round about moves the traffic such that there is increased difficulty for those coming from the east on Smokey Row Road. Also, at night for those wanting to go east on Smokey Row Road from US 31, visibility is poor. Since information regarding drainage from the project has yet to be in the hands of the Department of Community Services as of March 31st, there should be careful review and study of the impact on the residences of Kensington Place which is positioned well below the approved Justus Office building and the proposed Holiday Inn. There should not be a hasty decision to approve, and this is one project in the words of past and present Plan Commission committee members fitting a square peg in a round hole does not fit. Denial of this project would best serve the interests of all of Carmel. With respect and appreciation for the many hours you devote to serve our community, Virginia L. Kerr (317)714 -4637 4/1/08 CARMEL 0001273 YOUR COMMENTS AT= THENOBLES! Plea deal could put former operator of Hoosier Hotties in prison 51 /z. years By Katie Merlie Katie. Merl i e@ TheNoblesvilleLedger.com NOBLESVILLE — The former operator of Hoosier Hotties escort service pleaded guilty Thursday to a prostitution charge and could face up to four years in prison. Chad D. McClellan, 37, In- dianapolis, pleaded guilty to felony charges of promoting prostitution and money laundering. The charges to- gether carry a maximum prison term of 11 years: According to the plea agreement, McClellan could be sentenced up to four years for the prostitution charge, and 18 months for money laundering. McClel- lan will be sentenced for the Hamilton County charges July 10. In February 2006, investi- gators from the Hamilton. County Sheriff's Department arrested McClellan, who then lived in Cicero Police believed he was operating an Internet business that in- volved prostitution out of McClellan's attorney, Dan Henke, said during Thursday's guilty plea hear- ing that his client's sentence will be determined by the court. However, he did ask . that the sentences be served concurrently. Hamilton Superior Court 1 Judge Steve Nation said he will take into consideration a motion to dismiss the 10 remaining felony charges against McClellan, which in- clude federal tax evasion, theft and corrupt business influence. Hamilton County Deputy JOE VITTI / 2007 Star file photo Prosecutor Bob Summerfield Former operator of Hoosier Hotties escort service Chad McClellan, said McClellan is also 37, Indianapolis, pleaded guilty Thursday to prostitution and money laundering charges. This photo was taken in April 2007 at the Ham- ilton County Jail. He was a Cicero resident when he was arrested in 2006. his home. Kevin Jowitt, who was Sheriff's Department inves- tigator in 2006, said then that it is only illegal to oper- ate an escort service if money is paid in exchange for sex. Undercover officers a say they made a reservation through the Hoosier Hotties Web site to meet two. Indi- - anapoliswomen at wo Fishers�hotels ;Officers said"-MEClellaii'made the reservation. charged in Marion County with three felony counts of tax evasion, theft and failure to remit sales tax. Summer- field said an agreement has been made that at the con - clusion of the Hamilton County case, the Marion County charges against McClellan will be dropped. * Call Noblesville Ledger reporter Katie Merlie at (317) 444-5549. CARMEL 0001275 HOLIDAY INN (PRO -MED DRIVE) HISTORY OF APPLICATION: An anniversary has passed without a decision. In March, 2007 the public hearing was scheduled for the Holiday Inn application. Because of lack of follow through by the petitioner, two months in a row passed before the actual public hearing took place in May, 2007. That was the last time that the voices of those in opposition have been heard, unless those opposing have put their thoughts in writing. Each month since June, 2007 either the special committee meeting has been tabled or the applicant has brought some portion of the required information to the meeting. To date, not all information has been provided. Meanwhile, the members of the Plan Commission and City Council have changed, which has changed the members on the special committee and its chairman as well. QUESTION: Have all these delays on the part of the applicant been planned to await these changes and a loss of focus because of time and lack of continuity? The 2007 committee members stated more than once that this application is like fitting a square peg in a round hole. They also stated that the 2005 traffic report was considered to be invalid and therefore not reliable. Based on that opinion, the petitioner ordered a traffic study by A &F Engineering Co., LLC which reported a count and then referenced the 2005 study for 136th and Old Meridian. When the committee requested further review, the traffic study was revised by sending a truck out with personnel to do a count during what they considered peak time. Normal peak time does not reflect school traffic including young people driving, school buses, and regular business and hospital traffic. At the April, 2008 committee meeting the representative from A &F Engineering stated that the study was done to meet the client's needs. That was a blatant admission that the study was biased. Also, the representative stated that new construction and /or approved construction on Smokey Row Road was not taken into consideration in their report. Also, the question was not asked, nor was information given about taking into consideration regarding the approved Justus office building. FYI: In checking with the City of Carmel Engineering Department, it was indicated that when the City of Carmel does a traffic study, it is normally done with a counter over a period of time. As of March 31, 2008 I checked with the Department of Community Services to see if any information had been received regarding drainage (that was a requirement that had not been received at the March, 2008 committee meeting and needed prior to the April 1, 2008 meeting. May it be here suggested that if an applicant cannot get their ducks in a row in a timely manner, they should be automatically denied. The public has made the effort to attend every meeting (many of which have been tabled after arriving at city hall). CARMEL HISTORY INFLUENCING THE HOLIDAY INN APPLICATION: The writer served on the Plan Commission from 1976 -1982 and on the City Council from 1980 -1984. Perhaps the most significant element of that participation was a question CARMEL 0001276 asked at a Plan Commission meeting: "What are we going to do about US 31 (Meridian)? Is it going to look like Keystone and 52°' ?" As a result of that question, the writer, a prominent Carmel developer and the City Planner met. The result was the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone approved when the writer was President of the Plan Commission in 1980 -1981. When approved, one criteria of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone was a minimum five acre parcel. Does this 2.65 acre subdivided parcel really meet the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Is a Holiday Inn on that 2.65 acre parcel going to violate the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Perhaps some of you remember the Carmel Motel that was located on US 31 (Meridian) approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed location of the proposed Holiday Inn location. After inappropriate activities which included discovery of the body of a murdered woman, the City of Carmel condemned the Carmel Motel and it was demolished. More recently in the news is the esteemed Mayflower in Washington, D.C. and inappropriate activities. A motel or hotel invites transient traffic whereas an office building invites professional business people offering a service during daytime and daylight hours. I do not recall if it has been discussed that the Holiday Inn will have a liquor license, but that also invites traffic hazards on what is already a very precarious curve in the road that is over congested without full development of the already approved projects. A REQUEST: In the interest of the "health, safety and welfare" of the immediate community in the area where the proposed Holiday Inn would have a major impact on the "health, safety, and welfare" of those residents in the area and those who travel the area, a request is made to have the City of Carmel commission a true and honest traffic study without bias and reflecting all approved projects to the east. Also the INDOT plan for the intersections where ProMed Drive, Smokey Row Road, Old Meridian, Guilford Road, and US 31 (Meridian) converge should be taken into consideration. Since it has been over a year since the Holiday Inn project was first introduced, perhaps the petitioner could wait a year to see the true picture of this important traffic pattern once INDOT and the City of Carmel have a plan in place. At present, the new round about moves the traffic such that there is increased difficulty for those coming from the east on Smokey Row Road. Also, at night for those wanting to go east on Smokey Row Road from US 31, visibility is poor. Since information regarding drainage from the project has yet to be in the hands of the Department of Community Services as of March 31st, there should be careful review and study of the impact on the residences of Kensington Place which is positioned well below the approved Justus Office building and the proposed Holiday Inn. There should not be a hasty decision to approve, and this is one project in the words of past and present Plan Commission committee members fitting a square peg in a round hole does not fit. Denial of this project would best serve the interests of all of Carmel. With respect and appreciation for the many hours you devote to serve our community, Virginia L. Kerr (317)714 -4637 4/1/08 CARMEL 0001277 HOLIDAY INN TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS As a resident of Kensington Place, I would like to provide you with my comments concerning the proposed Holiday Inn adjacent to our neighborhood. These comments are an analysis and comparison of the Applicant's "Traffic Operations Analysis" report with the DOCD Applicant Guide. I have reviewed the Applicant's Guide that Carmel Plan Commission has used since it was adopted in 2- 18 -92. This reference is "Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development" and below I cite the specific section and then provide my comments after each concern. Section II, Complete Transportation Study, page 3 2 types of studies: DOCD determines type of study 1. Complete Transportation Study (has 3 levels) 2, Traffic Operation Analysis, page 4 This type of study was chosen COMMENT: DOCD should justify why a more detailed type study was used. Section V, Study Area, page 7 "Generally the study area must be large enough to encompass the critical intersections to be analyzed and the vacant land, which once developed, is believed to have a significant impact upon them." COMMENT: No reference in the A &F Study where this condition was addressed. There are many new residences which have been built and many more now under construction on 136 St. between the High School and Old Meridian. There are over 600 parking spaces that have been approved in 3 Developments. This means more traffic than what the limited study scope has shown! In addition there have been several residential Developments south on Old Meridian, that once completed, will add many more travelers. This type of inadequate data casts a shadow on all of the design work that the Applicant has submitted. Section VII, Development To Be Analyzed, page 9 Non -Site Within Study Area "All significant developments within the study area that have been approved or are likely to occur by the specific horizon years should be identified and incorporated into the study" COMMENT: This condition is similar to the above. The Study does not reference any data that was collected or analyzed in this study to meet this requirement. I would suggest the Plan Commission request the DOCD make a list of all such developments that are described in this Section and determine their impact. CARMEL 0001278 DATES OF TRAFFICE COUNTS: The construction of the roundabout at Old Meridian and Guilford resulted in the closing of traffic on these streets for several months. According to Engineering, the roundabout was opened on October 22, 2007, however construction continued on until sometime in December. The survey dates chosen were November 7 and 15, 2007. The roundabout was open, but not widely known; therefore traffic was not up to "normal" usage. Thus, traffic counts would have been much less. Generally, it is assumed that it takes time for the public to start using an area after it has been closed for a lengthy period. USE OF 2005 TRAFFIC STUDIES The consultants apparently felt that data collected in November, 2007 were inadequate, so additional information was needed to support their study. The Engineering Staff indicated that the consultants chose to "use these data collected on June 29, 2005 because Old Meridian was closed, or low traveled ". This certainly supports the assumption from above regarding use of areas after major construction. Furthermore, the use of data collected in June, 2005 (almost 3 years old) when the Carmel High School was in vacation mode, is certainly questionable. Engineering said that the consultant used a 3% extrapolation factor for each year. Question is where did the 3% figure come from? Does it compensate for lesser use during school vacation? Does it include the impact of the housing developments on 136th, (with a total of 600 parking spaces on the 3 townhouse developments now under construction), Old Meridian ( # ?), and Guilford( # ?)? These unknowns will all have an impact on the traffic data in the study area. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the "Traffic Operations Analysis" are questionable for the following reasons: 1. Using data from a recently opened roundabout 2. Using old data from 2005 for a 3% extrapolation purpose 3. Using old 2005 data from June, at vacation time when student traffic is minimal 4. Not considering the impacts of existing housing under construction in the area 5. Not considering projects in the area that have been recently approved 6. Not complying with the DOCD Guide 7. Poor planning and data presentation wasted much time for the Plan Commission and the Public. RECOMMENDATIONS: The "Traffic Operations Analysis" was not designed well and inadequate data were used to support a biased result. All of their recommendations have been based on "questionable" data. The Plan Commission should turn down this application and have the applicant start over using a land use that is more compatible with the physical and environmental restrictions of the site. Submitted by Gary Doxtater, 13599 Kensington Place, Carmel, IN 575 -8818 4 -15 -08 CARMEL 0001279 Page 1 of 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:41 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hill, Dick B; McBride, Mike T; Redden, Nick Subject: RE: Updated: Discuss plan commission items 1. Staybridge and Legacy Towns and Flats. We have no issues with these going to committee; as I assume they will. We have commented on each of these and are awaiting responses -but had no significant issues. I was late getting the TAC comments out which is why they have not responded to date. 2. 146th and Gray Waiver. We have no issues with this going to committee or if the Plan Commission votes to approve the waiver. 3. 146th and Gray Re -Zone. Engineering Department has no issues. 4. 146th and Gray Primary Plat -We will have no issues with approval provided such approval is conditioned upon working out any unresolved issues with Engineering when the Secondary Plat or Construction Drawings are filed. There are three items: (1) Formalized commitments for Thoroughfare Plan improvements. The latest response letter indicates that the petitioner will provide the necessary commitments. We have not seen the documents, however; (2) The petitioner shall acknowledge at the meeting that the Minimum Lowest Adjacent Grade shall be considered in addition to the provided Minimum Flood Protection Grade in the final design and that the City will review the highest noted elevation of the adjacent flooding source (the Mitchener Ditch and the proposed detention facility and the overflow weir elevation); (3) the Secondary Plat shall comply with the easement requirements of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual and the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Perimeter easements per the SDCO are not provided. Even though the drainage is expected to be a private system, certain easements may be required over the storm piping if right -of -way drainage is conveyed through the piping system. 5. Holiday Inn -The Department has no issues with the approval of this project. There may still be some items to be resolved on the final construction plans; but as a whole, the Department no longer has any issues with the development plan. 6. Old Meridian Plaza -There are still issues related to access and the opposing curb cut modifications that need to be addressed before Engineering provides a favorable recommendation for approval. We may have these items worked out prior to the meeting and will notify you if we do. I am also uncertain if a shared access easement has been indicated to allow a shared access for future development to the south. Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 13:53 To: Duncan, Gary R Subject: RE: Updated: Discuss plan commission items 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001267 Page 2 of 3 Thant is Fine with me, as long as I can get your email before 3pm Thursday. Thank you. O Angie From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:24 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Updated: Discuss plan commission items I will take you up on this. I am working on BPW letters. Staff report email late today or first thing tomorrow morning. G Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:16 To: Duncan, Gary R Subject: Updated: Discuss plan commission items HI, Gary: if you cannot meet with me today, please email me your comments on each plan commission item. Thanks! 2 -4H. Docket No. 08020021 DP Amend/ADLS Amend: Staybridge Suites The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 3 -story extended stay hotel. The applicant also seeks the following commitment amendment and zoning waiver approvals: Docket No. 08020022 CA amendment of parcel's previous commitments Docket No. 08020023 ZW Chapter 23E.09.E.1: building must face Pennsylvania St. The site is located at the 10800 block of Pennsylvania St. and is zoned B -6 /Business within the West Home Place Commercial Corridor — High Intensity area. Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson & Frankenberger for Hotel Development Services, LLC. 5H. Docket No. 08020028 DP /ADLS: The Legacy Towns & Flats The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a retail /residential development of 23 buildings with 288 residential units. The site is located southeast of the 7000 block of E. 146th St. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for J.C. Hart Company, Inc. 6H. Docket No. 08030003 SW: 146th and Gray Office Complex The applicant requests approval for a subdivision waiver, in addition to its primary plat approval for 8 lots on 11.6 acres: Docket No. 08030003 SW SCO 6.05.01 all lots shall abut a public right of way The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S -1 /Residence, pending a B -1 /Business rezone (with restrictions). Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. H. Old Business: 7I. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S- 1/Residence to B- 1Business (with restrictions) for an office /retail development. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 8I. Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 8 lots on 11.6 acres. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S- I/Residence, pending a B -1/ Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 3I. Docket No. 08010011 DP /ADLS: Old Meridian Plaza (RA Franke Subdivision, lot #8A) The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 4 -story office /retail building. The site is located at 12863 Old Meridian St. and is zoned OM/MU- Old Meridian, Mixed Use. Filed by Ersal Ozdemir of Keystone Group, LLC. 4I. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001268 Page 3 of 3 The applicant seeks site plan approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 1 36th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 5I. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001269 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 8:42 AM To: 'DCoots @chwlaw.com' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; McBride, Mike T Subject: Holiday Inn Dave, Engineering is agreeable to the proposed plan to re- stripe the intersection of 136th Street and Old Meridian Street to create dedicated westbound left and right turns and installation of a gravel shoulder adjacent to the paved shoulder some distance back from the intersection. The Department has reservations with the installation of a median on Old Meridian Street to eliminate left turning movement at this intersection and do not recommend the implementation of this finding of the study. Our reservations are based on the impact this change to the traffic pattern will have on the street network in the area. It is apparent from the traffic study that the intersection of Pro -Med Lane and Smokey Row Road will operate at an acceptable level of service with the increase in traffic due to the hotel /conference center. The Department does not recommend any modifications to this intersection. Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov 1 CARMEL 0001266 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:57 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; McBride, Mike T Cc: Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Thanks so much Mike. Gary Original Message From: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> To: "McBride, Mike T" <MMcBride @carmel.in.gov> Cc: "gduncan @carmel.in.gov aconn @carmel.in.gov" <gduncan @carmel.in.gov aconn @carmel.in.gov> Sent: 03- Apr -08 16:48 Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian I don't think our street network is flexible enough to eliminate turns at that intersection...I believe the school busses use Smoky, if we eliminate turns here, that forces traffic to travel further, puts more pressure on other segments and intersections, make turns at other locations...etc. I'm wondering if the turn movement can be better defined, with a median at smoky row, which essentially acts as a visual marker to better guide turning. The paved area is very broad with poor visibility, slope isses, etc... Whether that would help solve the problem, not sure. To go back to your question, I'm against eliminating left turns... Thanks for asking mike Original Message From: "McBride, Mike T" <MMcBride @carmel.in.gov> To: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> Cc: "Duncan, Gary R" <gduncan @carmel.in.gov> Sent: 4/3/08 1:57 PM Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian How do you feel about eliminating the left turns from Old Meridian to 136th St. From a traffic standpoint, fewer left turns is generally safer; however, for an access standpoint, I have some concerns. This is the primary access form the west to the northern edge of Old Town. I also think it could cause short term issues for our roundabout at Old Meridian and Guilford. However, MY SINGLE BIGGEST CONCERN is that if we cut off the left turning access this will affect INDOT's analysis of the intersection and I think we'll be hard pressed to get full access at this location when the State does there interchange. My suggestion would be to continue to allow the left turns based on all these factors and also the fact that this development adds a negligible amount of traffic in the peak hours at best. We'll formulate a response to Sue but wanted you to hear our concerns first. Michael T. McBride, P.E. City Engineer 1 CARMEL 0001265 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:27 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B Cc: spatel @ midwesthospitality.com; Michael L. DeBoy; Steve Fehribach Subject: Holiday Inn Mike, as you know, the Special Studies Committee will return the Holiday Inn application to the Plan Commission without a recommendation since the committee considers traffic at 136th and Old Meridian and now ProMed Lane and 136th street issues. I need your assistance well in advance of the April 15th PC meeting to resolve with DOE which of the alternatives we propose in our traffic study as acceptable to DOCS in order to get our petition approved. Would you please confer with Gary Duncan and inform me and members of the PC your preference to resolve the two intersections. Thank you. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001264 Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:38 AM To: 'dcoots @chwlaw.com' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B Subject: FW: proposed Holiday Inn Express FYI Ramona From: eambler [mailto:eambler @ indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:47 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Idierckmin @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: proposed Holiday Inn Express Whenever we tell my friends in Carmel where we live — they say, oh, by the dangerous intersection. Since we have lived here — over 11 years — the intersection of Old Meridian & Smokey Row has been known as a dangerous intersection. Why would anyone allow a Holiday Inn, or any hotel to be built at such an intersection? Money can be the only answer — not the safety of the many Carmel High School students who traverse that route 10 months a year. Or, the many other Carmel citizens who traverse that route on a daily basis - either to work, or to our wonderful Carmel St Vincent's Hospital. Please consider this - when you vote to allow people who are strictly wanting to make money by ruining the great community we have established over the last 25+ years! Thank you for your time & consideration. Sincerely, Eric & Evie Ambler eambler @indy.rr.com 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001214 Page 1 of 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: eambler [eambler @indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:47 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Idierckmin @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: proposed Holiday Inn Express Whenever we tell my friends in Carmel where we live — they say, oh, by the dangerous intersection. Since we have lived here — over 11 years — the intersection of Old Meridian & Smokey Row has been known as a dangerous intersection. Why would anyone allow a Holiday Inn, or any hotel to be built at such an intersection? Money can be the only answer — not the safety of the many Carmel High School students who traverse that route 10 months a year. Or, the many other Carmel citizens who traverse that route on a daily basis - either to work, or to our wonderful Carmel St Vincent's Hospital. Please consider this - when you vote to allow people who are strictly wanting to make money by ruining the great community we have established over the last 25+ years! Thank you for your time & consideration. Sincerely, Eric & Evie Ambler eambler@indy.rr.com 4/1/2008 CARMEL 0001213 HOLIDAY INN (PRO -MED DRIVE) HISTORY OF APPLICATION: An anniversary has passed without a decision. March, 2007 the public hearing was scheduled for the Holiday Inn application. Because of lack of follow through by the petitioner, two months in a row passed before the actual public hearing took place in May, 2007. That was the last time that the voices of those in opposition have been heard, unless those opposing have put their thoughts in writing. Each month since June, 2007 either the special committee meeting has been tabled or the applicant has brought some portion of the required information to the meeting. To date, not all information has been provided. Meanwhile, the members of the Plan Commission and City Council have changed, which has changed the members on the special committee and its chairman as well. QUESTION: Have all these delays on the part of the applicant been planned to await these changes and a loss of focus because of time and lack of continuity? The 2007 committee members stated more than once that this application is like fitting a square peg in a round hole. They also stated that the 2005 traffic report was considered to be invalid and therefore not reliable. Based on that opinion, the petitioner ordered a traffic study by A &F Engineering Co., LLC which reported a count and then referenced the 2005 study for 136th and Old Meridian. When the committee requested further review, the traffic study was revised by sending a truck out with personnel to do a count during what they considered peak time. Normal peak time does not reflect school traffic including young people driving, school buses, and regular business and hospital traffic. At the April, 2008 committee meeting the representative from A &F Engineering stated that the study was done to meet the client's needs. That was a blatant admission that the study was biased. Also, the representative stated that new construction and/or approved construction on Smokey Row Road was not taken into consideration in their report. Also, the question was not asked, nor was information given about taking into consideration regarding the approved Justus office building. FYI: In checking with the City of Carmel Engineering Department, it was indicated that when the City of Carmel does a traffic study, it is normally done with a counter over a period of time. As of March 31, 2008 I checked with the Department of Community Services to see if any information had been received regarding drainage (that was a requirement that had not been received at the March, 2008 committee meeting and needed prior to the April 1, 2008 meeting. May it be here suggested that if an applicant cannot get their ducks in a row in a timely manner, they should be automatically denied. The public has made the effort to attend every meeting (many of which have been tabled after arriving at city hall). CARMEL HISTORY INFLUENCING THE HOLIDAY INN APPLICATION: The writer served on the Plan Commission from 1976 -1982 and on the City Council from 1980 -1984. Perhaps the most significant element of that participation was a question CARMEL 0001215 asked at a Plan Commission meeting: "What are we going to do about US 31 (Meridian)? Is it going to look like Keystone and 52 °' ?" As a result of that question, the writer, a prominent Carmel developer and the City Planner met. The result was the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone approved when the writer was President of the Plan Commission in 1980 -1981. When approved, one criteria of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone was a minimum five acre parcel. Does this 2.65 acre subdivided parcel really meet the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Is a Holiday Inn on that 2.65 acre parcel going to violate the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Perhaps some of you remember the Cannel Motel that was located on US 31 (Meridian) approximately t mile from the proposed location of the proposed Holiday Inn location. After inappropriate activities which included discovery of the body of a murdered woman, the City of Carmel condemned the Carmel Motel and it was demolished. More recently in the news is the esteemed Mayflower in Washington, D.C. and inappropriate activities. A motel or hotel invites transient traffic whereas an office building invites professional business people offering a service during daytime and daylight hours. I do not recall if it has been discussed that the Holiday Inn will have a liquor license, but that also invites traffic hazards on what is already a very precarious curve in the road that is over congested without full development of the already approved projects. A REQUEST: In the interest of the "health, safety and welfare" of the immediate community in the area where the proposed Holiday Inn would have a major impact on the "health, safety, and welfare" of those residents in the area and those who travel the area, a request is made to have the City of Carmel commission a true and honest traffic study without bias and reflecting all approved projects to the east. Also the INDOT plan for the intersections where ProMed Drive, Smokey Row Road, Old Meridian, Guilford Road, and US 31 (Meridian) converge should be taken into consideration. Since it has been over a year since the Holiday Inn project was first introduced, perhaps the petitioner could wait a year to see the true picture of this important traffic pattern once INDOT and the City of Carmel have a plan in place. At present, the new round about moves the traffic such that there is increased difficulty for those coming from the east on Smokey Row Road. Also, at night for those wanting to go east on Smokey Row Road from US 31, visibility is poor. Since information regarding drainage from the project has yet to be in the hands of the Department of Community Services as of March 31St, there should be careful review and study of the impact on the residences of Kensington Place which is positioned well below the approved Justus Office building and the proposed Holiday Inn. There should not be a hasty decision to approve, and this is one project in the words of past and present Plan Commission committee members fitting a square peg in a round hole does not fit. Denial of this project would best serve the interests of all of Carmel. With respect and appreciation for the many hours you devote to serve our community, Virginia L. Kerr (317)714 -4637 4/1/08 CARMEL 0001216 Comments on the Holiday Inn Express proposed project You will note that I am sending these latest comments to those serving the Carmel public in regard to insuring that various types of developments requesting to build in Carmel are really meeting the objectives of doing what's best for Carmel. The Justus Office and the Holiday Inn Express projects are two "Good" examples of how "NOT" to apply for a project! How many times have they been told to go back and get better plans? They have "piece - mealed" the information just hoping that they won't be asked for certain details that they know will be an issue. In hurrying to submit something they try to sneak questionable data through and you tell them again to go back to the drawing boards. You are good public servants and you must try to please both sides of any type of project. You should start requiring a complete application before they can start moving ahead. Your time is valuable and because of this problem you waste too much of your time. Time that you should be discussing other more important issues. You must serve developers, but they must play by the rules, and if they do you can get them through the process and still meet the objectives that Carmel is still a good place to live and do business. Back to the Holiday Inn application, the Traffic Study is a joke. I sure hope you don't let this study set the standards for other projects in the future! You asked them for a good Traffic Study. They had to hurry, so they rushed and put together a very poorly designed survey. The area had been under construction for several months and they tried to use data that was very questionable because traffic use was affected by the "open and still under construction" status during their survey. They realized that their results were flawed so the only thing they could do was to use some OLD data collected during June of 05, thus during Cannel High School summer vacation. One would think that using this data might influence their results as the normal student traffic would not be included. So they added a 3% "fudge factor ", to make it right ( ?). In addition they didn't project the increased traffic that would result from the 3 new condo -town homes projects under construction on Smokey Row. About 600 new parking spaces have been approved by your body, but the applicant chose not to make any projections on this important factor. I think by now you see why many of us feel that your body must take the lead, get tough, be fair to everyone and require all applications to be complete, using good scientific methods. Your time to too valuable and so is ours. These proposals a not the best land use for this area. Gary Doxtater 13559 Kensington Place Carmel, IN 46032 April 1, 2008 CARMEL 0001217 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:02 PM To: Suewestermeier @aol.com Cc: McBride, Mike T Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Thank you Sue, I appreciate your feedback on this. Let me get with Mike McBride, and get back with an informed position on this. We are talking with InDOT engineers about the overall intersection, may not be completely relevant to this but want to have a well thought through response. Mike From: Suewestermeier @aol.com [mailto:Suewestermeier @ aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:52 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: McBride, Mike T Subject: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Hi, Mike. I have just been reviewing the A & F Engineering Traffic Analysis that was done for the proposed Holiday Inn on 136th st. Whereas I am certainly no traffic engineer I did like the "additional alternative" for the 136th and Old Meridian intersection that was proposed by Mr. Brown on pages 20 and 21. I do not know if Mike McBride sees these type of developer generated traffic stats but I think that the alternative recommended in this document warrants a look at. If you agree could you please get a copy of the document to him. Something must be done at that intersection before there is a serious accident. A large majority of the drivers turning left at this intersection are high school kids not paying a whole lot of attention.... Thanks for listening. Sue Westermeier Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001220 Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:10 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: FW: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Fyi for tonight Good luck Mike From: Suewestermeier @aol.com [mailto:Suewestermeier @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:52 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: McBride, Mike T Subject: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Hi, Mike. I have just been reviewing the A & F Engineering Traffic Analysis that was done for the proposed Holiday Inn on 136th st. Whereas I am certainly no traffic engineer I did like the "additional alternative" for the 136th and Old Meridian intersection that was proposed by Mr. Brown on pages 20 and 21. I do not know if Mike McBride sees these type of developer generated traffic stats but I think that the alternative recommended in this document warrants a look at. If you agree could you please get a copy of the document to him. Something must be done at that intersection before there is a serious accident. A large majority of the drivers turning left at this intersection are high school kids not paying a whole lot of attention.... Thanks for listening. Sue Westermeier Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001221 Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Holmes, Christine B Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:10 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Thanks! (for the email and the good luck). Christine Barton - Holmes Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax APlease consider the environment before printing From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:10 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: FW: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Fyi for tonight Good luck Mike From: Suewestermeier @aol.com [mailto:Suewestermeier @ aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:52 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: McBride, Mike T Subject: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Hi, Mike. I have just been reviewing the A & F Engineering Traffic Analysis that was done for the proposed Holiday Inn on 136th st. Whereas I am certainly no traffic engineer I did like the "additional alternative" for the 136th and Old Meridian intersection that was proposed by Mr. Brown on pages 20 and 21. I do not know if Mike McBride sees these type of developer generated traffic stats but I think that the alternative recommended in this document warrants a look at. If you agree could you please get a copy of the document to him. Something must be done at that intersection before there is a serious accident. A large majority of the drivers turning left at this intersection are high school kids not paying a whole lot of attention.... Thanks for listening. 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001222 Page 2 of 2 Sue Westermeier Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001223 BehaviorCorp traffic response to Holiday Inn project at Pro -Med Lane Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Baird, Craig [CBaird @behaviorcorp.org] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:23 AM To: Ripma, Rick; Rider, Kevin D; Haney, Wayne; Westermeier, Susan Cc: Holmes, Christine B; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: BehaviorCorp traffic response to Holiday Inn project at Pro -Med Lane Dear Special Studies Committee members, I am writing this email as a representative of BehaviorCorp, Inc. and have been attending the Special Studies Committee meetings regarding this project. BehaviorCorp is a not - for - profit community mental health center located across Pro -Med Lane from the Holiday Inn project site. BehaviorCorp was the initial owner of a building site in the Pro -Med complex. While I personally do not believe that the hotel project is the best use for the site in question I would like to specifically address the traffic issue. I just quickly glanced at the traffic study that was distributed at the last meeting. If I read the study correctly the peak times were noted as being prior to 9am and after 4pm. BehaviorCorp has three mini - buses, several vans and at least ten fleet vehicles on site. Monday through Friday the mini -buses and vans bring approximately 80 clients to our day programming at 9:30am and take them home at 2:30pm. These times are outside of the traditional peak time range. Our other fleet vehicles are entering and exiting the site throughout the day. We also have 50 staff on site during the day. In addition our outpatient office is open from 8:OOam to 8:OOpm Monday through Thursday and from 8:OOam to 5:OOpm on Friday. A significant number of outpatient clients are entering our site throughout the day. Our day programming ends at 2:30pm so that our vehicles can leave our site before the Carmel High School students get out of school and line up on Smokey Row Road at 3:15pm. When the students are lined up on Smokey Row Road at Old Meridian Street there is virtually no way a person can make a left turn out of Pro -Med Lane onto Smokey Row Road. This daily 3:15pm high school student lineup seems to be outside of the traditional "peak" time study. I realize that our traffic volume may not be enough to impact the committee members concern about traffic around the site. However I at least wanted the committee members to realize what BehavorCorp's professional mission was and what type of activities occurred at our site during the weekday. Sincerely, Craig Baird Craig Baird Director of Financial Management BehaviorCorp, Inc. 317 -587 -0505 cbaird @behaviorcorp.org The information in this e-mail and any attachment may contain protected health information as defined by H1PAA, state and federal confidentiality rules (42cfr Part 2) and IC 16 -39. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of this information unless otherwise permitted by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the original. 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001209 BehaviorCorp traffic response to Holiday Inn project at Pro -Med Lane Page 2 of 2 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001210 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:53 PM To: Duncan, Gary R; 'Brandon Schreeg'; Michael L. DeBoy Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Foley, Amanda J; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Thomas, John G Subject: RE: Updated Holiday Inn landscape plans Comments from Environmental Planner /City Forester Attachments: 03 24 08 Holiday Inn Pro Med LP 103.pdf Dear Brandon and Michael: I looking over these plans with a critical eye, and discussing this project with other members of the engineering staff, I see an apparent disconnect between the landscape and tree preservation plans and the critical engineering set of plans like the storm water plan, or the drainage plans. On the tree preservation plan (attached), it shows very large areas of typical TREE PROTECTION ZONE, but then the TREE PROTECTION FENCE placed in a much smaller configuration (sometime around individual trees). The drainage swale and structure is to be graded and installed beneath the preserved trees, and within the TREE PROTECTION FENCE. It does not seem likely that these trees will survive that construction impact. The Storm Water Plan shows silt fence cris- crossing throughout the TREE PROTECTION ZONE and FENCING, and the construction detail shows it being installed by trenching at least 8" deep. This will play havoc over existing root systems, causing much root death and environmental stress for these trees. No mention is being made of the construction equipment that will have to be within this area for the construction of the retaining wall, or the building of several stories of the hotel along the TREE PROTECTION ZONE on the east side of the property. At this point, a consulting arborist should be employed to oversee the planning of the construction sequence to insure that the health of the existing trees will remain viable through the building of the hotel, if no one on the project has that expertise available. This a completely wooded construction site, where is appears that considerable time and effort is going forward to provide for tree preservation, both for the City's and the Hotel's benefit. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 Urban Forestry is the center of sustainability for municipalities From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:45 AM To: Brewer, Scott I Subject: RE: Updated Holiday Inn landscape plans Scott, Please confirm that the trees indicated in the NW corner will indeed be able to be saved given the proposed pipe extension and swale grading. Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Cannel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 3/31/2008 CARMEL 0001211 A 'Popp.,{Yalu veppou Wlanes pennon' sup WwNoupsu uogi uo ouppuro W= pomp* gu gumm gep onampo3 'wopmuip pomp AAP .sea papuewv MP. in'ppW.We edeapuq awn uppquued ppypp Pp wswe ooq odewo uug'nand SueA4 wanes ww Rev! ablpev Paolo euop 'PI ppponaantoueauPpy to Alpdoid epR Due k papa on pp. pp(oq Imp uo an N Wpm epu. &pas pp M peony Papa Ir 31If11.7d.LIHDIIV 3dVDScINV'I I966'S56LI£ rs3 0966'556LI£ L00£'ZOZ96 guT!PuI `sgpxleue!Pul 'S£69 Xing 'INAS ' AS IPuay lsam Z1Z JNINNVidHLIS NOISHQNV61If1 �NI `S I LVI3OSSV 2IHQI1NHDSMIYAIMI ueId uo!loaload eaal eue!pui 'paule° awl po j ad peon mob Ae ows uul I(ep!IoH - AogaG 9 b .,W iU., WARNING SIGN DETAIL k ii il al ila 11 11 Pll ilk `; Li S 8 o iilai 0_ a) I— a) -o c a) co Lu 5 NOTE FOR TREE PROTECTION ONLY CARMEL 0001212 ABLF E SI '. EE IN Transportation Engineering Services Creating Order Since 1966 WILLIAM J. FEHRIBACH, P.E. PRESIDENT STEVEN J. FEHRIBACH, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT March 25, 2008 Mike Hollibaugh Director City of Carmel - Planning and Zoning One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Mr. Hollibaugh, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STUDIES • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES DESIGN • HIGHWAY DESIGN • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PARKING LOT DESIGN • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING • CONSTRUCTION OBSERVAT!ON REGISTRATION INDIANA ILLINOIS IOWA KENTUCKY MICHIGAN OHIO As you requested I have compared the trip generated by a business hotel to a standard hotel with conference room, restaurant, and cocktail lounges. The table below shows the difference in the trip generated. USE SIZE AM PEAK PM PEAK Hotel 108 RMS 72. 76 Business Hotel 108 RMS 63 67 As you can see the trips generated are very similar with hotel slightly higher. However, this would not cause the recommendations or conclusion to change in the report. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, A &F Engineering Co., LLC Steven J. Fehribach President 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201 — INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240 TELEPHONE (317) 202 -0864 — FACSIMILE (317) 202 -0908 CARMEL 0001185 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 5:43 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J Subject: FW: Updated Holiday Inn landscape plans Attachments: 03.24.08 Holiday Inn Pro Med LP 103.pdf; 03.24.08 Holiday Inn Pro Med LP 101.pdf; 03.24.08 Holiday Inn Pro Med LP 102.pdf Thank you Brandon: I will look at these plans, and try to review them within the next day or two. Perhaps you can explain further how this could have happened after repeated attempts to make sure that everything with this site was correctly planned out? I am grateful that the additional trees have been found to be preserved. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 Urban Forestry is the center of sustainability for municipalities From: Brandon Schreeg [ mailto :brandon @remenschneider.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:48 PM To: Brewer, Scott I Cc: 'Michael L. DeBoy'; 'Colin R. Patterson'; 'Stacey A. Fouts'; 'Dave Coots' Subject: Updated Holiday Inn landscape plans Greetings Scott, Due to a surveying mishap the existing tree locations were incorrect on our previous landscape plans. However, this is positive news with regard to the quantity of existing shade trees to be saved. After receiving the new survey data we have determined 51 trees (9" caliper and above) will remain as opposed to the previous plan of 23! It is important to note we are gaining several more existing trees along the east property line and at the west corner of the property than previously thought. Therefore, our landscape plans have been revised and are attached for your review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about these revisions. Thank you, brandon Schreeg, ASLA Project Manager Rernenschneider Associates 21 2 W. 1 oth Street, Suite X435 Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 (5 17) 955 -9960 (5I7) 955 -9961 Fax www.remensch neider.com 3/25/2008 CARMEL 0001184 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 4:29 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Angie, this email really got some things moving! Thank you. Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 15:17 To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; 'Michael L. DeBoy'; 'ken @remenschneider.com'; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave —1 hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001183 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:52 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Holiday Inn Angie, The Department can support this item moving out of committee. I am sending this email in lieu of my attending the meeting this morning. The suggestion to modify the striping of the existing intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian and install a gravel shoulder is acceptable to the Department. Final CD's will still need to be approved. Approval of the items below after Plan Commission approval is typical. Prior to final plan approval, the following items need to be completed: 1. BPW approvals need to be obtained 2. Any fees for water and sewer availability and /or connection fees need to be paid. 3. The SWQ plan needs to be approved by the Department of Engineering 4. Final Drainage approval needs to be obtained from Crossroad Engineers 5. Performance Guarantees for work in the right -of -way, construction erosion and sediment control and post construction BMP's need to be provided. 6. The commitment from the Special Studies Meeting needs to be formalized in writing. 7. The final CD's need to be revised to include the proposed modifications to the existing turn lane (striping and installation of a stone shoulder - redress of existing stone shoulder) . 8. The backfill and cover notes on Sheet C11.1 need to be updated to include the current language. The language on this sheet is still from the beginning of 2007 Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov 1 CARMEL 0001182 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:09 PM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi, Dave — it was sort of a surprise to me as well; I knew there were a few small issues with the engineering and forestry departments, but now I am told there are other issues. That is why DOCS wants to hold this meeting, to get everyone on the same page and get this project through the process. Scott Brewer just let me know that mike deboy is meeting with Gary Duncan at the project site this Thursday. Hopefully, it will be a productive meeting. Scott also relayed to me that his largest concerns in the fact that the landscape plan from remenschneider conflicts with the constructions plans produced by mike deboy, and that these construction plans need to be more thorough are precise with details. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmelin.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:16 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Angie, I was told that ALL of the concerns had been addressed. I delivered what was represented to be complete plans (24 x 36) and booklets with 11 x 17 drawings for each committee member on Friday. I spoke with Scott Brewer and Gary Duncan who tell me that their comments have been addressed. (Gary did say he had a revised letter with several comments that Mike DeBoy says have been addressed. Before we continue from the April 1st meeting, I would like to meet with you(and other staff you choose) Scott and Gary, if available, Mike and Remenschneider, Patel and whoever else you deem appropriate. I could meet this Wed. AM or Friday AM. Please let me know. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:17 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave — I hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001180 Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov Page 2 of 2 CARMEL 0001181 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:54 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place Page 1 of 2 Angie, I will print this email and put in the Holiday Inn File as well as a hard copy (reminder) to all Plan Commission Members. Ramona From: Fran Bowman [ mailto :fran.bowman ©sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:32 AM To: Idierckman ©carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; Hancock, Ramona B; jmolitor ©prodigy.net Subject: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place To: Carmel Plan Commision Members I am opposed to the Holiday Inn/Office Building Plan Proposal due to the close proximity to my home in Kensington Place, an active retirement luxury townhome community and also a Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood. Our townhomes include small backyards and screened porches where the residents can enjoy the many varied and frequent wildlife visitors. My concerns are noted as follows: Noise Level: Air conditioning required for commercial buildings will be noisy and disruptive to the residential backyard /porch activity and wildlife visiting areas. Adding a Holiday Inn so close to our backyards is unacceptable due to the overall noise level that will now expand through the entire 24 hours period. Guests with early and late arrivals can not be expected to "be quiet" as they unwind from their travels and prepare for their sleep period; i.e., shut doors, load/unload travel items, etc. The noise level and early /late movement of individuals and groups is accentuated by their use of a variety of transportation; including large hauling trucks, buses and motorcyles. Safety /Security /Lighting: It is very unsettling to live in close proximity to an unending assortment of one'time motel /hotel type visitors. The commercial advertising /security night lighting will be highly undesirable and excessive to the community lights already provided for our homes. I picture living next to a Holiday Inn will be similar to living next to a football field with a game in progress. Property Value: Our homes will diminish in value. Drainage Plans: What are the plans to provide drainage in and around Kensington Place? Privacy /Security /Sound /Lighting Barriers: What are the plans (i.e., walls, ground elevation, fence, dense landscaping) to separate commercial needs from the residential and wildlife needs? Wildlife Habitat Area: What are the builder's plans for this area? We, as Kensington residents, knew from the start that our neighbors in the Pro Med development would someday have other buildings such as the Justice Building. But we had no idea that something like a Holiday 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001172 Page 2 of 2 Inn would be so "up close and personal" in our backyards. I hope that the Plan Commission will demand a more compatible land use. Fran Bowman 13572 Kensington Place Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood Carmel, In 46032 317- 846 -7763 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001173 Holmes, Christine B From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:41 PM To: Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Subject: FW: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place FYI — a remonstrance e-mail regarding holiday inn... Page 1 of 2 From: Fran Bowman [ mailto :fran.bowman @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:32 AM To: Idierckman @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; Hancock, Ramona B; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place To: Carmel Plan Commision Members I am opposed to the Holiday Inn/Office Building Plan Proposal due to the close proximity to my home in Kensington Place, an active retirement luxury townhome community and also a Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood. Our townhomes include small backyards and screened porches where the residents can enjoy the many varied and frequent wildlife visitors. My concerns are noted as follows: Noise Level: Air conditioning required for commercial buildings will be noisy and disruptive to the residential backyard /porch activity and wildlife visiting areas. Adding a Holiday Inn so close to our backyards is unacceptable due to the overall noise level that will now expand through the entire 24 hours period. Guests with early and late arrivals can not be expected to "be quiet" as they unwind from their travels and prepare for their sleep period; i.e., shut doors, load /unload travel items, etc. The noise level and early /late movement of individuals and groups is accentuated by their use of a variety of transportation; including large hauling trucks, buses and motorcyles. Safety /Security/Lighting: It is very unsettling to live in close proximity to an unending assortment of onetime motel/hotel type visitors. The commercial advertising /security night lighting will be highly undesirable and excessive to the community lights already provided for our homes. I picture living next to a Holiday Inn will be similar to living next to a football field with a game in progress. Property Value: Our homes will diminish in value. Drainage Plans: What are the plans to provide drainage in and around Kensington Place? Privacy /Security /Sound/Lighting Barriers: What are the plans (i.e., walls, ground elevation, fence, dense landscaping) to separate commercial needs from the residential and wildlife needs? Wildlife Habitat Area: What are the builder's plans for this area? We, as Kensington residents, knew from the start that our neighbors in the Pro Med development would 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001174 Page 2 of 2 someday have other buildings such as the Justice Building. But we had no idea that something like a Holiday Inn would be so "up close and personal" in our backyards. I hope that the Plan Commission will demand a more compatible land use. Fran Bowman 13572 Kensington Place Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood Carmel, In 46032 317 - 846 -7763 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001175 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:17 PM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; 'Michael L. DeBoy'; 'ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave — I hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. I know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001176 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:16 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Angie, I was told that ALL of the concerns had been addressed. I delivered what was represented to be complete plans (24 x 36) and booklets with 11 x 17 drawings for each committee member on Friday. I spoke with Scott Brewer and Gary Duncan who tell me that their comments have been addressed. (Gary did say he had a revised letter with several comments that Mike DeBoy says have been addressed. Before we continue from the April 1st meeting, I would like to meet with you(and other staff you choose) Scott and Gary, if available, Mike and Remenschneider, Patel and whoever else you deem appropriate. I could meet this Wed. AM or Friday AM. Please let me know. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:17 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave — I hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. I know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmelin.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001177 Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Sanjay Patel [spatel @Midwesthospitality.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:32 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Friday is fine with Original Message From: Holmes, Christine B [mailto:cholmes @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:27 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Dave Coots Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Friday morning is fine with me, as well. Christine Barton - Holmes Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:26 PM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Dave: Wednesday, there is a TAC meeting from 9 am to 10 or 10:30 AM. But anything after that is good for me. Mike H will be out from 8 -12 on Wednesday. Friday AM is also good for me. It looks like most people can make it Friday morning around 10 30 am or 11 am, I think. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317 -571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:16 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Angie, I was told that ALL of the concerns had been addressed. I delivered what was represented to be complete 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001178 Page 2 of 2 plans (24 x 36) and booklets with 11 x 17 drawings for each committee member on Friday. I spoke with Scott Brewer and Gary Duncan who tell me that their comments have been addressed. (Gary did say he had a revised letter with several comments that Mike DeBoy says have been addressed. Before we continue from the April 1st meeting, I would like to meet with you(and other staff you choose) Scott and Gary, if available, Mike and Remenschneider, Patel and whoever else you deem appropriate. I could meet this Wed. AM or Friday AM. Please let me know. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:17 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave — I hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. I know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001179 Hancock, Ramona B Page 1 of 2 From: Fran Bowman [fran.bowman @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:32 AM To: Idierckman @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; Hancock, Ramona B; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place To: Carmel Plan Commision Members I am opposed to the Holiday Inn/Office Building Plan Proposal due to the close proximity to my home in Kensington Place, an active retirement luxury townhome community and also a Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood. Our townhomes include small backyards and screened porches where the residents can enjoy the many varied and frequent wildlife visitors. My concerns are noted as follows: Noise Level: Air conditioning required for commercial buildings will be noisy and disruptive to the residential backyard /porch activity and wildlife visiting areas. Adding a Holiday Inn so close to our backyards is unacceptable due to the overall noise level that will now expand through the entire 24 hours period. Guests with early and late arrivals can not be expected to "be quiet" as they unwind from their travels and prepare for their sleep period; i.e., shut doors, load /unload travel items, etc. The noise level and early /late movement of individuals and groups is accentuated by their use of a variety of transportation; including large hauling trucks, buses and motorcyles. Safety /Security/Lighting: It is very unsettling to live in close proximity to an unending assortment of one'time motel/hotel type visitors. The commercial advertising /security night lighting will be highly undesirable and excessive to the community lights already provided for our homes. I picture living next to a Holiday Inn will be similar to living next to a football field with a game in progress. Property Value: Our homes will diminish in value. Drainage Plans: What are the plans to provide drainage in and around Kensington Place? Privacy /Security /Sound/Lighting Barriers: What are the plans (i.e., walls, ground elevation, fence, dense landscaping) to separate commercial needs from the residential and wildlife needs? Wildlife Habitat Area: What are the builder's plans for this area? We, as Kensington residents, knew from the start that our neighbors in the Pro Med development would someday have other buildings such as the Justice Building. But we had no idea that something like a Holiday Inn would be so "up close and personal" in our backyards. I hope that the Plan Commission will demand a more compatible land use. Fran Bowman 13572 Kensington Place Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001170 Carmel, In 46032 317- 846 -7763 3/17/2008 Page 2 of 2 CARMEL 0001171 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Holmes, Christine B Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:52 AM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Boone, Rachel M.; Hancock, Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Duncan, Gary R Subject: Traffic Study for Holiday Inn Dave, At the most recent Special Studies Committee meeting, we discussed the traffic study that had been done for Holiday Inn, and for the adjacent townhouses. The Committee has also asked the Department to provide them with a letter stating that we have reviewed the traffic study and feel that it is adequate. In order to really be able to review the proposed development, we would like a copy of the traffic study done for the townhouses, along with any analysis the traffic engineers may have done regarding how the two developments may impact each other and the surrounding area. I realize packets are not due right away, but the sooner we could see those studies, the easier it will be for our staff to evaluate the information. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call or email. Thanks, Christine Christine Barton - Holmes Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax 3/13/2008 CARMEL 0001074 March 7, 2008 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy DeBoy Land Development Services 501 South 9th Street, Suite 100 Noblesville, IN 46060 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR RE(Iloliday Inn, Pro Med Drive Lane) and 136th Street - Project Review #3 Dear Mr. DeBoy: The City has received your comment letter and drawings dated January 31, 2008 based upon the City review of January 2, 2008. The comments from the City review have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Previous Comment 38(d): Please provide the requisite storm water /drainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. Thank you for adding the required information. The Department expects that this information will be updated when the downstream piping capacity is verified. Please add statements to the summary about the water from the northwest being routed through the site, the detention being off -site (being the reason that the allowable release rate is being exceeded), compare the runoff rates to the downstream pipe capacity and state any on -site detention provided if necessary not to exceed the downstream pipe capacity. 2. Previous Comment 38(e): Please contact Amanda Foley to review storm water quality/treatment requirements. Please continue to work with Ms. Foley on approval of the storm water quality/treatment system. 3. Previous Comment 38(1): Please verify that the detention was master planned. Please verify the downstream pipe capacity to receive the runoff from this development. Please verify that the proposed "c" value of this site is no greater than the "c" value anticipated at the time the drainage and detention system was master planned. Please indicate the 100 -yr flood route from the site to the ultimate receiving system. Thank you for the submittal in response to my email dated February 22, 2008 (attached). The Department received this submittal on March 4, 2008. We are reviewing the submitted information with Crossroads. 4. Previous Comment 38(m): The Department requests a traffic study be provided that identifies the need for a left turn for westbound traffic on Smokey Row Road, auxiliary lanes (or modifications to existing auxiliary lanes) at the Pro -Med Lane entrance and any modifications to the Old Meridian and Smokey Row Road intersection. Any such needed improvements shall be the sole responsibility of the developer. Per my email to the Plan Commission dated January 31, 2008 (attached), the Department made the recommendations below to the Plan Commission. The plans need to reflect the improvements to the 136th Street/Old Meridian intersection. The commitment for compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan needs to be formalized. a. The developer constructs a short right turn lane at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian Street. The Department will work with A &F to establish an appropriate length based on the traffic study. The construction of this lane may be credited against any commitments provided by the developer to comply with the City's 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAX 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering@carmel.in.gov CARMEL 0001071 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy March 7, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #3 Page 2 of 3 b. As the developer is indicating the construction of the multi -use path across the frontage, compliance with the thoroughfare plan would be limited to the construction of 24 -feet of mainline pavement and city standard chairback curb and gutter. Given the nature of the pending improvements to US -31, it would be more prudent to have the developer contribute the money equal to the value to otherwise construct these improvements for deposit into the Non - Reverting Thoroughfare Plan Fund. Current City estimates for such work is $108 per linear foot. The total value of the commitment would be determined by multiplying this value by the total frontage on Smokey Row Road and subtracting the value of the cost to construct the right turn lane. 5. Previous Comment 43(c): Please provide a typical swale detail to this sheet or sheet C3.0. Thank you for adding the County's detail. However, City standards require SSD regardless of the swale slope. Please strike the language related to the pipe requirements based on the swale slope. 6. Previous Comment 5(c): The note to grade the path with the existing grade of the road is not acceptable from the standpoint of this Department's approval. This path needs to be designed such that water may flow across the path and to ensure no low spots are created. A swale in the right -of -way may be required. A culvert is needed under the path to accommodate the discharge from the 24 -inch pipe under Smokey Row Road as well as a roadside swale if one is necessary. A maximum cross slope of the path shall be indicated. Thank you for adding the requested spot elevations. Appears the street side of the path is being raised above existing grade and a swale will be required in the right -of -way to the east and west of the high point. Please indicate. 7. Previous Comment 5(i). The intent of this comment was not to replace the other systems proposed but a suggestion that, if implemented, might realize some significant savings to the project while providing additional treatment (previously stated as "better facilitate storm water quality ") of the runoff through modifications to the swale now necessary to convey the off -site water from the northeast. 8. Previous Comment 6(b). The existing trees in the southeast corner of the site are not representative of the existing on -site conditions. The Department still does not believe that the tree locations indicated are accurate. This Department would be happy to meet on- site to review this matter. 9. Previous Comment 8(a): Update backfill notes & move to Sheet C10.1. The notes now on Sheet C11.1 have not been updated and are not the current notes. 10. Previous Comment 10(a): The RCP detail in the bottom left hand corner of this sheet is a duplicate of Detail 10 -28. Please delete this detail and ensure that Detail 10 -28 remains in the plan set. Thank you for moving the detail. However, Details 02 and 03 are still on Sheet C10.1. Which details are to be used? If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2441. Gary R. Dunc : , Jr., Assistant Ci ngineer Department o Engineering cc: j Angelina Conn, Department of Community Services John Duffy, Carmel Utilities Paul Pace, Carmel Utilities Paul Arnone, Carmel Utilities Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office CARMEL 0001072 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy March 7, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #3 Page 3 of 3 Greg Ilko, Crossroad Engineers, PC Sanjay Patel, Midwest Hospitality Group Department Review/File Copy \\Apps2 \user data \eng\ shared\ DHilI\ PROJREVO7 \HOLIDAYINNPROMEDLN #3.doc CARMEL 0001073 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:39 AM To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane Gary: Thank you for these comments. The only current plans I have seen lately have been the landscape plans by "Remenschneider and Assoc." plus their tree preservation plan. I have called Mr. DeBoy and asked him to send me a copy of the construction plans you are reviewing so I can look at them myself and see your comments. He said they would be here this afternoon. Thanks again Gary! Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317 - 571 -2426 Urban Forestry is the center of sustainability for municipalities Original Message From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:44 AM To: Brewer, Scott 1 Subject: Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane Scott, I wanted to summarize some previous comments that I made for this project that DeBoy has indicated that they will resolve with you. 1. Sheet C3.0. Will grading along the property line kill the trees on the adjacent property? Justus is indicating removal; but what if that project is not realized? 2. Sheet C9.0. Please confirm with Urban Forester if tree removal and protection note 5 is acceptable 3. Sheet C3.0 of 18. Will grading in the vicinity of the trees in the southeast corner kill the trees? 4. Sheet C4.0 of 18. The existing trees in the southeast corner of the site are not representative of the existing on -site conditions. 5. Sheet C1.0 of 18. The tree preservation area along Pro -Med Lane does not contain many trees (if any at all). Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov 1 CARMEL 0001070 LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Des urveyors 501 S. 9th Street, Suite 100 Noblesville IN 46060 Phone: 317.770.1801 Fax: 317.770 )1821 Toil Free: 1.888.801.8555 LeYik p/eas- rev TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: City of Carmel - DOCS Stacey Fouts ADDRESS: One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2008 ATTENTION: PROJECT NAME: Holiday Inn PROJECT ADDRESS: Pro Med Lane Ley] PROJECT NUMBER: 2006 -0162 ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES /COMMENTS: Angie, Enclosed are the following documents: 1 Response Letter to your comments. 1 — 24 x 36 Landscape Plan 1 —11 x17 Landscape Exhibit showing the mechanical unit screening 1 - 81/2 x 11 Landscape Exhibit showing the mechanical unit screening 1 — 24 x 36 Color Rendering the building 1 — 81/2 x 11 Color Rendering of the Trash Enclosure 1 — 24 x 36 Trash Enclosure Details 1 — 81/2 x 11 Trash Enclosure Details 1 — 23 x 36 site plan Thank you for all your help! Bringing Your World into Focus 501 SOUTH 91° STREET, SUITE 100, NOBLESVILLE, IN 46060 PHONE 317.770.1801 FAX 317.770.1821 1.888. 801 -8555 TOLL FREE CARMEL 0001049 OY LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC. • Designers Engineers Surveyors February 21, 2008 Ms. Angie Conn Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Holiday Inn ProMed Lane Dear Ms. Conn, RECEIVED FEB 2i DOCS This letter is in response to your comments on the Staff Report for the Special Studies Committee that were emailed to us on January 31, 2008. 1. Department of Engineering Comments: DOE still need revised plans. Also, DOE has reviewed the traffic study and will issue a statement soon. Response: Revised plans were furnished to DOE as well as their consultant (Crossroad Engineering) on January Si, 2008. Comment or approval letters have not been received from DOE. Their consultant supplied a comment letter that we received February 20, 2008. Comments were addressed and returned to the consultant on February 22, 2008. DOE off -site traffic study comments are being addressed by the client and their legal consul as well as their traffic consultant. 2. Urban Forestry Dept: Scott Brewer, City Forester, has reviewed the updated landscape and tree preservation plans; there are some minor changes needed. Scott still needs a response to his most recent review comments. Response: Mr. Brewer has been in contact with landscape architect / consultant and they are working towards an approved plan by the week of February 25, 2008. 3. The creation of the proposed retaining wall location may negatively affect the existing tree roots. Response: Retaining walls impact existing roots if said roots disturbed. The use of retaining walls was selected because if fill, on a sloped bed adjoining the parking lot and building, was used it would impact a greater area and therefore more trees. In Mr. Brewer's comments, he ok's with retaining wall extending into potential root zone. 4. DOCS still needs a to -scale revised site plan, showing the reduced the parking lot aisle widths to 23 ft. Response: Said plan has been revised and forwarded to staff on January 31, 2008. 814/0/0 Oat' 11/0//a/ %Kt0 locus 501 SOUTH 9TH STREET, SUITE 100, NOBLESVILLE, IN 46060 PHONE: 317.770.1801 FAX: 317.770.1821 1.888.801 -8555 TOLL FREE CARMEL 0001050 5. DOCS still needs the trash dumpster enclosure elevations /materials /colors. Response: A detail of the dumpster enclosure was provided to staff at the February Special Studies Meeting, but not in color, A colored rendering of said enclosure is attached with this response. 6. DOCS still needs on exhibit that shows how the mechanical equipment is screened. Response: A detail of screening is attached with this response. 7. Petitioner must verify that signs show green during the day and shine white at night (day /nite plex.) Response: Client and their legal counsel addressed this issue at the February Special Studies Committee Meeting. Please be advised that one (1) comment is that of the request for review of the entire Promed Detention system and its adequacy. This has not been done because of cost. It would take a month (or more) to complete this study. Sincerely, Michael L. DeBoy, LS CARMEL 0001051 Page 1 of 1 Donahue -Wold, Alexia K From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:54 AM To: 'Michael L. DeBoy'; 'Dave Coots' Cc: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn at ProMed Lane Dear Mr. DeBoy, Thank you for your comment letter and revised drawings dated February 21, 2008. The comments from the previous Staff Report for the Special Studies Committee meeting that were emailed to you on January 31, 2008 have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: - The perspective of the dumpster enclosure is inconsistent with the gate section for the dumpster enclosure. The gate section shows a wooden gate, while the perspective shows what appears to be a chain link gate with some sort of slats or fence weave. Please verify that the gate is a wooden gate as shown in the gate section you provided, and please submit an updated perspective of the dumpster enclosure. - Has the Department of Engineering provided you with comment or approval letters? If not, are you prepared to go to committee tonight? Will the traffic engineer be present? Thank you, Alexia Donahue Wold Planning Administrator City of Carmel, DOCS One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 awold(c�carmel.in.gov 3/6/2008 CARMEL 0001059 Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Michael L. DeBoy [mld ©deboyland.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:58 AM To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Dave Coots Cc: Holmes, Christine B Subject: RE: Holiday Inn at ProMed Lane Attachments: image001.jpg Alexia, Thanks for the e-mail. In response to you requests, I have informed our client and his architect about the discrepancies between the plans and asked that they clarify the situation as requested. In response to your second question, we have received comments from Mr. Gary Duncan at the City of Carmel Engineer's office that answered some our questions as to the off -site drainage and we have submitted a revised plan with response to Mr. Duncan and Crossroads for their review and, hopefully, approval. We believe we are very close to said approvals. We have contacted Ms. Amanda Foley to determine her response to our plans and response. Our submittal has been some time ago. We are working with our consultant, Remenschneider Associates, Inc. (RAI) along with Mr. Scott Brewer to finalize the landscape plan. REI has submitted a plan to Mr. Brewer for his review and, hopefully, approval. In addition, the traffic engineer will be present tonight. Please feel free to contact us with any other requests or comments. Thank you for the feedback. Yours in Service, Michael L. DeBoy, LS 501 S. 9t' Street, Suite 100, Noblesville, IN 46060 VEOOY LAND DEVELOPIWNT SErtvtas Office: (317) 770 -1801 Toll Free: (888) 801 -8555 Fax: (317) 770 -1821 glrors— Eng1rroors Survoyors www.deboyland.com This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K [mailto:awold @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:54 AM To: Michael L. DeBoy; Dave Coots Cc: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn at ProMed Lane Dear Mr. DeBoy, Thank you for your comment letter and revised drawings dated February 21, 2008. The comments from the previous Staff Report for the Special Studies Committee meeting that were emailed to you on January 31, 2008 have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: - The perspective of the dumpster enclosure is inconsistent with the gate section for the dumpster 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001060 Page 2 of 2 enclosure. The gate section shows a wooden gate, while the perspective shows what appears to be a chain link gate with some sort of slats or fence weave. Please verify that the gate is a wooden gate as shown in the gate section you provided, and please submit an updated perspective of the dumpster enclosure. - Has the Department of Engineering provided you with comment or approval letters? If not, are you prepared to go to committee tonight? Will the traffic engineer be present? Thank you, Alexia Donahue Wold Planning Administrator City of Carmel, DOCS One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 awold(a�carmel.in.gov 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001061 Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Matt Brown [m_brown @af- eng.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:40 AM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Traffic Study Attachments: TOA.pdf; Executive Summary.pdf Christine, I received your message regarding the Holiday Inn traffic study. I have attached the study (in pdf format) and a subsequent executive summary that was written for the project. If you need any additional information please feel free to contact me. Thanks R. Matt Brown PE /PTOE A &F Engineering 8365 Keystone Crossing, Suite 201 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317 - 202 -0864 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001048 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Stacey A. Fouts [saf @deboyland.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:40 AM To: Bob Bleich; gilko @crossroadengineers.com; Foley, Amanda J; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Michael L. DeBoy; Colin R. Patterson; Brent A. White; spatel @midwesthospitality.com; Duncan, Gary R; Dave Coots Subject: FW: New alligator - holiday inn revised site plan Attachments: image001.jpg; 2006 -0162 - LANDSCAPE REVISIONS - 02- 05- 08.pdf All, Attached is a copy of the revised site plan that I spoke to you about this morning. The changes are minor but we wanted to make sure you had the latest copy. If you have any questions or need a hard copy of the drawing, please contact our office. Thank You, Stacey Fouts Client Relations / Permit Processing 501 S. 9th Street, Suite 100, Noblesville, IN 46060 Office: (317) 770 -1801 Toll Free: (888) 801 -8555 Fax: (317) 770 -1821 www.deboyland.com This e -mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipients) and may contain information that is confidential. Any unauthorized review. use. disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e -mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. From Michael L. DeBoy Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:46 AM To: 'Duncan, Gary R' Cc: Stacey A. Fouts; Colin R. Patterson Subject: RE: New alligator Gary, Thanks for the heads up. After we had completed these revisions, we were forwarded changes in the site plan from another party (Not us or our client) in which we were requested to move the dumpster towards the East (just Southeast of the garage entrance, closer to the Southeast corner). To avoid confusion and save on your effort, I would appreciate if we can submit / substitute the revised plans. We will forward a PDF to you to show a better picture of what we are talking about. Thanks in advance for you feedback. Yours in Service, Michael L. DeBoy, LS 501 S. 9th Street, Suite 100, Noblesville, IN 46060 Office: (317) 770 -1801 Toll Free: (888) 801 -8555 Fax: (317) 770 -1821 www.deboyland.com This e -mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential. Any unauthorized review. use. disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e -mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. From: Duncan, Gary R [mailto:gduncan @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:31 AM To: Michael L. DeBoy 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001045 Page 2 of 2 Cc: Stacey A. Fouts; Colin R. Patterson Subject: RE: New alligator This resubmittal is presently 5th on the resubmittal review list. We have TAC coming up and may need to shift efforts to issue those letters. Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of'Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Michael L. DeBoy [mailto :mld @deboyland.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 09:01 To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Stacey A. Fouts; Colin R. Patterson Subject: New alligator Gary, I apologize in advance, but I trying to find out the status of your Promed / Holiday Inn review. I assume that you, like I, have many alligator's snapping at our heels as we try to run through the swamp (and it seems like it keeps getting bigger and deeper). Thanks in advance for an feedback and for your assistance in the past. Yours in Service, Mike DeBoy 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001046 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:48 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: McBride, Mike T; 'Steve Fehribach'; 'Dave Coots' Subject: RE: holiday inn, pro med lane, traffic study Members of the Commission and Sub - Committee: The Department of Engineering has met with A &F Engineering and reviewed the findings of the traffic study. There were two main findings of the study that the Department feel are important for the Plan Commission and Special Studies Committee to consider. (1) That the hotel use will generate less traffic than would have otherwise been generated if the use was consistent with that originally approved or allowed (office) and (2) the study recommends the construction of a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. As the Commission is likely aware, the majority of the traffic issues in the immediate area of the proposed hotel are attributable to the congestion at the Old Meridian Street/US -31 intersection. Improving the capacity of the US -31 intersection will have a large effect on the congestion being experienced on the local streets. As this intersection will be improved with the overall US -31 corridor project, the Department is of the opinion that any improvements made presently will be removed by the US -31 project in the very near future. The Department understands that a question has been raised related to southbound traffic on Old Meridian Street attempting to turn left onto Smokey Row Road. While this will certainly be an issue if the northbound queue is stacked past the intersection, the Department would expect this situation to be limited to the morning peak. The Department is of the opinion that the short term solutions to this situation that are attributable to the traffic generated by the proposed hotel are limited and should wait to be addressed with the improvements to US -31. As stated, one of the recommendations of the study is to construct a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. This would allow the predominant right turning traffic at Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road to make a right turn if a vehicle is attempting to turn left when traffic is queued past the intersection. Traffic is currently using the paved shoulder as well as tracking off of the paved shoulder to make this same maneuver. Such an improvement would benefit the traffic from the hotel in that it would be expected to reduce the westbound Smokey Row Road queue and allow traffic exiting Pro -Med Lane to turn left and enter the queue. Due to the fact that the traffic generated from the hotel is expected to be less than the original approved use and considering the short -term nature of any improvements due to the upcoming US -31 project, the Department suggests the following: 1. The developer constructs a short right turn lane at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian Street. The Department will work with A &F to establish an appropriate length based on the traffic study. The construction of this lane may be credited against any commitments provided by the developer to comply with the City's 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan. 2. As the developer is indicating the construction of the multi -use path across the frontage, compliance with the thoroughfare plan would be limited to the construction of 24 -feet of mainline pavement and city standard chairback curb and gutter. Given the nature of the pending improvements to US -31, it would be more prudent to have the developer contribute the money equal to the value to toehrwise construct these improvements for deposit into the Non - Reverting Thoroughfare Plan Fund. Current City estimates for such work is $108 per linear foot. The total value of the commitment would be determined by multiplying this value by the total frontage on Smokey Row Road and subtracting the value of the cost to construct the right turn lane. Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001031 Page 2 of 2 One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:14 To: Duncan, Gary R Subject: holiday inn, pro med lane, traffic study Hi Gary - do you have any other comments about the traffic study that you want me to add to the staff report that will go out this morning? Angie 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001032 Page 1 of 2 Hancock, Ramona B From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:50 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: holiday inn, pro med lane, traffic study Hi Ramona — please print this out and send copies to all plan commission members, along with the department report. Thank you! Angie Conn, Planning Administrator From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:48 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: McBride, Mike T; 'Steve Fehribach'; 'Dave Coots' Subject: RE: holiday inn, pro med lane, traffic study Members of the Commission and Sub - Committee: The Department of Engineering has met with A &F Engineering and reviewed the findings of the traffic study. There were two main findings of the study that the Department feel are important for the Plan Commission and Special Studies Committee to consider. (1) That the hotel use will generate less traffic than would have otherwise been generated if the use was consistent with that originally approved or allowed (office) and (2) the study recommends the construction of a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. As the Commission is likely aware, the majority of the traffic issues in the immediate area of the proposed hotel are attributable to the congestion at the Old Meridian Street/US -31 intersection. Improving the capacity of the US- 31 intersection will have a large effect on the congestion being experienced on the local streets. As this intersection will be improved with the overall US -31 corridor project, the Department is of the opinion that any improvements made presently will be removed by the US -31 project in the very near future. The Department understands that a question has been raised related to southbound traffic on Old Meridian Street attempting to turn left onto Smokey Row Road. While this will certainly be an issue if the northbound queue is stacked past the intersection, the Department would expect this situation to be limited to the morning peak. The Department is of the opinion that the short term solutions to this situation that are attributable to the traffic generated by the proposed hotel are limited and should wait to be addressed with the improvements to US -31. As stated, one of the recommendations of the study is to construct a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. This would allow the predominant right turning traffic at Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road to make a right turn if a vehicle is attempting to turn left when traffic is queued past the intersection. Traffic is currently using the paved shoulder as well as tracking off of the paved shoulder to make this same maneuver. Such an improvement would benefit the traffic from the hotel in that it would be expected to reduce the westbound Smokey Row Road queue and allow traffic exiting Pro -Med Lane to turn left and enter the queue. Due to the fact that the traffic generated from the hotel is expected to be less than the original approved use and considering the short-term nature of any improvements due to the upcoming US -31 project, the Department suggests the following: 1. The developer constructs a short right turn lane at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian Street. The Department will work with A &F to establish an appropriate length based on the traffic study. The construction of this lane may be credited against any commitments provided by the developer to comply with the City's 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan. 2. As the developer is indicating the construction of the multi -use path across the frontage, compliance with _ 1/31/2008 CARMEL 0001033 Page 2 of 2 the thoroughfare plan would be limited to the construction of 24 -feet of mainline pavement and city standard chairback curb and gutter. Given the nature of the pending improvements to US -31, it would be more prudent to have the developer contribute the money equal to the value to toehrwise construct these improvements for deposit into the Non- Reverting Thoroughfare Plan Fund. Current City estimates for such work is $108 per linear foot. The total value of the commitment would be determined by multiplying this value by the total frontage on Smokey Row Road and subtracting the value of the cost to construct the right turn lane. Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncangP,carmel. i n.gov 1/31/2008 CARMEL 0001034 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:48 PM To: 'Brandon Schreeg' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B Subject: RE: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Drive Sure Brandon: Page 1 of 1 How different it would be from the last Deboy site plan? I'II be glad to site down and meet with you on it. Gary Duncan and Amanda Foley in Engineering, as well as Angie and Christine in our office, have spent some time discussing it, as well as the Justice site next door. Friday is out (I'm booked morning and afternoon), but tomorrow and Thursday are fairly open. Monday afternoon is probably out, Tuesday is ok. Let me know when you want to come in, and I'll be ready. The site is in the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay and almost entirely covered with heavy woods. There are tree preservation requirements on the site (in the right of way and set backs). DeBoy had been working on the site with tree preservation and porous pavers. Our office is now also a US Green Building Council member, and have several planners studying for a LEEDs exam, so any examples of GREEN technology or LEEDs certification, we will promote. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 From: Brandon Schreeg [mailto :brandon ©remenschneider.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:48 PM To: Brewer, Scott I Subject: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Drive Scott, Greetings! We have been hired to prepare a landscape plan for the proposed Holiday Inn project on Pro Med Drive. Do you have time this week to meet at your office and review the new site plan before we start? Our goal would be to identify any major complications by gaining your input before we put a plan together. I look forward to discussing this project with you — and thank you for your time. Respectfully, brandon 5ckrccg, A5LA Project Manager Izemenschneider Associates 2 1 2 W. I oth Street, Suite 5+35 Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 (517) 955 -9560 (517) 955 -996 I fax www.re mens ch n eid e r. co m 1/30/2008 CARMEL 0001030 Page 1 of 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:20 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Article IX. Final Disposition of Cases, Section 2. Plan Commission Rules of Procedure provide for Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution when a petitioner has failed to appear at two consecutive meeting. I do not find anything in the Rules that refer to the number of times a petitioner is allowed to table an item. Perhaps we should look into incorporating that provision in the Rules. Ramona From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:19 AM To: Holmes, Christine B Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: Holiday Inn tabled, again! FYI. Please read email stream below. - Angie From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:49 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! That's good, we can go that route From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:38 PM To: Dierckman, Leo; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Ok. I was thinking of asking the Commission to put them on notice, with a resolution, perhaps, stating that next month would be the dismissal if they don't' have their shit together...too easy? From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:40 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! I think at the next meeting we vote to remove this item. None of the membership will take issue with that. You read my mind.. I was going to talk to you about this From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [ mailto :MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000964 Page 2 of 3 Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:34 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Dierckman, Leo - Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Would like to talk over options for moving this along, do you have a little time tues morning? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:25 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! It might be more than that! Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Angie — is this three months? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:47 AM To: Stewart, Lisa M; Hancock, Ramona B; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Regarding these two Holiday Inn items, they have been tabled to the Feb. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting: 1. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 2. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Thanks, Angie For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers, directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements . which are the only official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this communication has been received in error, please delete or destroy immediately. For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000965 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:49 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: pro med lane holiday inn project - possible dismissal The reason we can't get back to committee is that I cannot get a letter written by Gary Duncan following his meetings with Steve Fehribach. I am told that since our use is less dense than the use originally proposed for this site that Gary Duncan accepts the design of our site, etc. Without him saying so in a letter will not get us by the committee. Steve Fehribach assures me that he will have a writing from Duncan soon, but it won't be today. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:40 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Michael L. DeBoy Subject: pro med lane holiday inn project - possible dismissal Good afternoon, Dave- I must let you know that there is preliminary discussion about possibly dismissing the pro med land holiday inn project for lack of prosecution. 1 highly recommend you have ALL outstanding issues resolved by the February 5 special studies committee meeting. (Mike Hollibaugh or I will keep you up -to -date on this issue.) Sincerely, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmelin.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000966 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Dierckman, Leo [Leo.Dierckman@opco.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:49 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! That's good, we can go that route From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:38 PM To: Dierckman, Leo; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Ok. I was thinking of asking the Commission to put them on notice, with a resolution, perhaps, stating that next month would be the dismissal if they don't' have their shit together...too easy? From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:40 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! think at the next meeting we vote to remove this item. None of the membership will take issue with that. You read my mind.. I was going to talk to you about this From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:34 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Dierckman, Leo Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Would like to talk over options for moving this along, do you have a little time tues morning? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:25 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! It might be more than that! Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Angie — is this three months? 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000963.01 Page 2 of 2 The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136t' Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 2. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Thanks, Angie For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers, directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements which are the only official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this communication has been received in error, please delete or destroy immediately. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000963 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:38 PM To: Dierckman, Leo; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Ok. I was thinking of asking the Commission to put them on notice, with a resolution, perhaps, stating that next month would be the dismissal if they don't' have their shit together...too easy? From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:40 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! I think at the next meeting we vote to remove this item. None of the membership will take issue with that. You read my mind.. I was going to talk to you about this From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [ mailto :MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:34 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Dierckman, Leo Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Would like to talk over options for moving this along, do you have a little time tues morning? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:25 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! It might be more than that! Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmelin.gov From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Angie — is this three months? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:47 AM To: Stewart, Lisa M; Hancock, Ramona B; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Regarding these two Holiday Inn items, they have been tabled to the Feb. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting: 1. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000962 January 2, 2008 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy DeBoy Land Development Services 501 South 9e` Street, Suite 100 Noblesville, IN 46060 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR RE:yHoliday,- Inn,;Pro Med Drive (Lane) and 136th Street - Project Review #2 Dear Mr. DeBoy: The City has received your comment letter and drawings dated September 11, 2007 based upon the City review of June 12, 2007. The comments from the City review have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW COMMENTS 38. General Comments d. Please provide the requisite storm water /drainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. e. Please contact Amanda Foley to review storm water quality/treatment requirements. The submitted Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan were revised for the current site, but these plans are still in the format that was requested to be revised in a July 20, 2007 e-mail. Please revise to the format requested in the July 20, 2007 e-mail. f. For the plan submitted for Department of Engineering approval, please remove the landscape plan sheet and remove the title of that sheet from the Index on the Cover Sheet. Please remove the sheet titles from the cover sheet. k. Please confirm the current right -of -way needs for U.S. 31 from the INDOT environmental impact study. The Thoroughfare Plan requires compliance with these right -of -way needs. Thank you for providing the information. Based on the scaled INDOT drawings, is more right -of -way required? 1. Please verify that the detention was master planned. Please verify the downstream pipe capacity to receive the runoff from this development. Please verify that the proposed "c" value of this site is no greater than the "c" value anticipated at the time the drainage and detention system was master planned. Please indicate the 100 -yr flood route from the site to the ultimate receiving system. The response was not complete. m. The Department requests a traffic study be provided that identifies the need for a left turn for westbound traffic on Smokey Row Road, auxiliary lanes (or modifications to existing auxiliary lanes) at the Pro -Med Lane entrance and any modifications to the Old Meridian and Smokey Row Road intersection. Any such needed improvements shall be the sole responsibility of the developer. The Department is reviewing the findings of this study. 40. Sheet C1.0 a. Please confirm with the urban forester that the tree removal plans are acceptable. 41. Sheet C2.0 c. Entrance curbing within the right -of -way shall match the existing curbing of Pro -Med Lane. As the existing curb is a rolled curb; straight curb will be acceptable. The Department apologizes for the confusion. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAx 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering@carmel.in.gov CARMEL 0000958 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy January 2, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #1 Page 2 of 4 k. The Department requests that the existing "bulb" be removed and the intersection at the southeast comer be made into a "T' intersection. Please indicate demolition and construction work for the portion of the bulb across the developer's frontage. These improvements are in the right -of -way. The Department has requested the same improvements from Justus. 42. Sheet C3.0 e. Will grading along the property line kill the trees on the adjacent property? Justus is indicating removal; but what if that project is not realized? 43. Sheet C4.0 c. Please provide a typical swale detail to this sheet or sheet C3.0. Are there any proposed swales now? e. City standard backfill required for water main work in right -of -way. Please confirm with Utility Department who does tap; inspection requirements and bonding requirements. 45. Sheet C9.0 a. Please confirm with Urban Forester if tree removal and protection note 5 is acceptable. 46. Sheet C9.1 c. Storm sewer specifications note 6. 2.5 feet min. cover required for all storm sewers per Storm Water Technical Standards. This requirement is not otherwise indicated on the plans. Is this requirement satisfied in the design? 47. Sheet C10.0 f. Curb joint detail. Please indicate a 50' maximum spacing for transverse expansion joints, 10' maximum spacing for contraction joints, and 5' maximum spacing for contraction joints on radii. This is still incorrect in one of the two places where such a standard is specified. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED ON THIS REVIEW: 1. Approval of drainage still needs to be obtained from Crossroad Engineers. 2. Approval of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan still needs to be obtained from Amanda Foley. 3. The Department staff report, which indicates some of the same items in this letter, but may include items that are not identified in this letter, is attached for reference. 4. Sheet C2.0 of 18 a. Keynote R conflicts with path indicated on Sheet AT 1. The path on Sheet C2.0 scales to be 10 -feet and is correct. b. Please revise the configuration of the 5 -foot wide walk north out of the building. Please make the parking connection along the building and move the bike parking to the south. Please delete the walk stub between the 12 -inch and 10 -inch trees. c. To better protect and preserve large tree at the northwest corner, please see attached sketch of a suggested revision to the parking lot layout. Two to four parking spaces may be lost. d. Please move the low spot for Structure No.: 3 to the back comer of parking stall. Per Comment 5(i) of this letter, it may be possible to delete this structure. 5. Sheet C3.0 of 18 a. It appears that water will run down and into the retaining walls without a defined relief. The Department assumes that water will run along retaining walls, but this is difficult to confirm without TW/BW elevations. If the existing grade is to be utilized as the BW elevations, there is a low area being created on the northernmost wall. However, per Comment 5(i) of this letter, it may be possible to delete the retaining walls. b. The Department cannot assess from the information provided, but it appears that some portion of the area at the outlet of the existing 24 -inch pipe under Smokey Row Road will need to be re- graded for the proposed path. The Department would expect that the existing wall would need to be removed. CARMEL 0000959 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy January 2, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #1 Page 3 of 4 c. The note to grade the path with the existing grade of the road is not acceptable from the standpoint of this Department's approval. This path needs to be designed such that water may flow across the path and to ensure no low spots are created. A swale in the right -of- way may be required. A culvert is needed under the path to accommodate the discharge from the 24 -inch pipe under Smokey Row Road as well as a roadside swale if one is necessary. A maximum cross slope of the path shall be indicated. d. Will grading in the vicinity of the trees in the southeast comer kill the trees? e. Please outline how the pervious pavers and storm inlet system in the interior parking areas is intended to function. In approving the system, the Department needs to understand how the system is intended to function. f. Per the original development plan, the 24 -inch pipe under Smokey Row Road was intended to drain Parcel 3 on the north side of Smokey Row Road. Parcel 3 was open space for the original Pro -Med Lane Development. The discharge from this pipe cannot be blocked and must be accommodated through the site as off -site runoff. Per the contours indicated on the Holiday Inn plans, this runoff enters the site 35 -feet north of the south limit of the west retaining wall. g. The note related to the grading of the 5 -foot sidewalk is unacceptable (See Comment 5(c) of this letter). The Department would expect, based on a one or two percent cross slope from the back of curb, that spot shots could be established and indicated on the drawings to ensure positive drainage. The area east of the building and east of the entrance and south of the parking lot is not being treated. i. In order to accommodate the runoff from the Parcel 3 open space area, any roadside drainage, and to better facilitate storm water quality, the Department suggests the installation of an infiltration trench on the southwest side of the property between the parking lot and the proposed sidewalk. (i) Such an installation would likely negate the need for several storm structures, curbing on the perimeter of the parking lot adjacent to the infiltration trench (although a ribbon curb or some type of edge support would be needed), and the retaining wall. (ii) The pervious paver underdrain system could outlet to this infiltration trench depending on grade. (iii) The existing catch basin (Outfall 1) could be left in place and the infiltration trench could be outletted to a second structure (Please refer to the attached sketch). (iv) The Aqua Swirl may be able to be eliminated. (v) A culvert will be needed under entrance drive. (vi) A similar infiltration trench should be considered for installation between the parking lot and the Alternative Transportation Plan path provided that the trees being preserved at the northwest corner of the site are not compromised by such an installation. 6. Sheet C4.0 of 18 a. The viewport of this sheet is not at the scale noted on the plans. b. The existing trees in the southeast corner of the site are not representative of the existing on -site conditions. c. The utilities represented on this sheet, if installed per the plan, will likely result in the loss of the trees attempting to be preserved. The utilities must be indicated such that a contractor, doing the installation per the plan, will not compromise the trees. d. Will storm water in the parking lot piping system discharge out of the inlets on either side of the entrance? 7. Sheet C1.0 of 18 a. The tree preservation area along Pro -Med Lane does not contain many trees (if any at all). CARMEL 0000960 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy January 2, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #1 Page 4 of 4 8. Sheet C9.1 a. Update backfill notes & move to Sheet C10.1. 9. Sheet 10.0 a. Please verify that permeable paver section is per Advanced Pavement Systems. b. Please ensure the curb joint details indicate a maximum 50 -foot expansion joint spacing. 10. Sheet 10.1 a. The RCP detail in the bottom left hand corner of this sheet is a duplicate of Detail 10 -28. Please delete this detail and ensure that Detail 10 -28 remains in the plan set. 11. Sheet AT 1 a. An 8 -foot multi -use path is indicated in the legend. Please revise to indicate a 10 -foot multi -use path. 12. The soils map is illegible. 13. Please indicate preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control measures that are to be installed prior to the start of on -site earth disturbing activity. 14. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan needs to be specific for this project. Details, notes, etc. that are not specific to the project shall be deleted. If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2441. Sincerely, Gary ' . Dun Assistant Ci Engine Department of Engineering cc: Angelina, Conn; Department of Community Services John Duffy, Carmel Utilities Paul Pace, Carmel Utilities Paul Arnone, Carmel Utilities Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Greg Ilko, Crossroad Engineers, PC Sanjay Patel, Midwest Hospitality Group Department Review/File Copy \\Apps2 \user data\eng\ shared\ DHill\ PROJREVO7 \HOLIDAYINNPROMEDLN#2.doc CARMEL 0000961 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:34 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: info packets due tomorrow (Holiday Inn) No, I don't have anything . I would ask that you table us one more time. Thanks Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:10 AM To: Dave Coots <DCoots @chwlaw.com> Subject: RE: info packets due tomorrow (Holiday Inn) Hi Dave: Any luck on getting that letter you were waiting on about traffic? The department reports go out this Wednesday, and I would like to know if you will be tabling the Holiday Inn item or not. Thank you, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317 - 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:55 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: info packets due tomorrow Angie, on Midwest Hospitality- Holiday Inn, I am waiting on a letter from Gary Duncan per his discussions with Steve Fehribach re traffic. Hopefully it comes today /tomorrow. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:08 PM To: Calderon, Joseph; Dave Coots; Stacey A. Fouts; Michael L. DeBoy; Jim Shinaver Cc: Kilmer, Roger A. Subject: info packets due tomorrow Seasons Greetings! Please be advised that the sub - committee info packets are due tomorrow at noon, for the January 8 plan commission committee meetings. Please disregard this email if you do not need to provide updated info packets. Also, 1 CARMEL 0000957 Page 2 of 2 From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:47 AM To: Stewart, Lisa M; Hancock, Ramona B; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Regarding these two Holiday Inn items, they have been tabled to the Feb. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting: 1. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 2. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Thanks, Angie For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers, directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements which are the only official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this communication has been received in error, please delete or destroy immediately. For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers, directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements which are the only official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this communication has been received in error, please delete or destroy immediately. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000963.02 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:02 AM To: 'Dave Coots' Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? No, the last email will be just fine. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571. -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:02 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? Do I need to send anything more to you to table the item? From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 9:22 AM To: Dave Coots Cc: Hancock, Ramona B; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Woad, Alexia K; Boone, Rachel M.; Stewart, Lisa M; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? Thanks for letting me know. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:29 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? The client agrees to table to the January 8, 2008 meeting. Thanks for your help. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:07 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Michael L. DeBoy; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Holmes, Christine B; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: holiday inn - possibly table this item? Hi, Dave — at the November 1 committee meeting, the Committee asked "that the petitioner not return to committee without Engineer and Urban Forester approval because the committee cannot proceed." The upcoming department report shows that these two departments still have minor and major issues. May I recommend that you table your item to the January 8, 2008 committee meeting? Otherwise, I am afraid that the committee will become very annoyed with the petitioner. 12/28/2007 CARMEL 0000949 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:20 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: 'Dave Coots'; 'Brent A. White'; Foley, Amanda J; Hill, Dick B; Littlejohn, David W; McBride, Mike T; Redden, Nick Subject: Holiday Inn Angie, I understand that the petitioner is likely anxious to move this project out of committee. I have not finished my review of the most recent plans submitted, however, the following items have initially been identified as being unaddressed. There may be more as I finish the review. 1. To date, to my knowledge, the Traffic Study has not been provided. 2. Compliance with Thoroughfare Plan /Commitments for improvements to 136th Street have not been formalized to my knowledge 3. Compliance with Thoroughfare Plan /Verification of additional r/w dedication for the current plan for US -31. I am not able to ascertain from the exhibit provided by the consultant as to the identified r/w needs. 4. No changes to the "bubble" at the southeast corner as previously requested have been indicated. 5. The Erosion and Sediment Control and SWPP were revised to indicate the current site plan but the format changes requested back in July were not addressed. Based on the revised drawings and additional information previously requested and now provided: 1. Proposed utility conflicts with the tree preservation area at the southeast corner 2. Disposition of water from the 24 -inch pipe at the northwest corner. Based on the information provided, the pipe apparently discharges into the site and is now being cut off 3. Cannot evaluate the proposed retaining walls due to lack of information. 4. Based on the information provided, drainage from the west and north will collect at the base of the proposed walls and may or may not have a defined drainage course or may have low areas that will pond. 5. More detail is required for the construction of the multi -use path along Smokey Row Road and the sidewalk along Pro -Med Lane. This construction cannot be left to the discretion of the contractors in the field. 6. Seems to b'e a fair amount of direct discharge areas that are not being treated by the • SWQ system. The Department does not provide a favorable recommendation to the subdivision committee to approve this project to go back to the Plan Commission. The Department suggests a meeting with the developer's consultant to review technical issues associated with making the current proposed land plan acceptable to this Department. The Department will support the current site plan provided that the technical issues may be worked out and addressed. Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov 1 CARMEL 0000950 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:29 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? The client agrees to table to the January 8, 2008 meeting. Thanks for your help. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:07 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Michael. L. DeBoy; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Holmes, Christine B; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: holiday inn - possibly table this item? Hi, Dave — at the November 1 committee meeting, the Committee asked "that the petitioner not return to committee without Engineer and Urban Forester approval because the committee cannot proceed." The upcoming department report shows that these two departments still have minor and major issues. May I recommend that you table your item to the January 8, 2008 committee meeting? Otherwise, I am afraid that the committee will become very annoyed with the petitioner. Please let me know by Monday morning. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: Amanda.Dolph @indystar.com on behalf of publicnotices @TheNoblesvilleLedger.com Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 8:49 AM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: Re: Council Hearings: Z- 512 -07, Z513 -07 Both are now ordered to publish 1x on 11/09 in the Noblesville Ledger. Thank you, Amanda Dolph Legal Advertising Coordinator publicnotices @TheNoblesvilleLedger.com 317 - 444 -7163 Our offices will be closed on Thursday, November 22 for the Thanksgiving Holiday. NORMAL DEADLINES: 12 Noon three (3) business days prior to the date of publication. Exceptions: Large files that will need to be typeset or created by an artist should be sent at least a week and a half in advance to allow time for processing. 11/8/2007 Page 1 of 10 Donahue -Wold, Alexia K From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:46 PM To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Subject: FW: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Lane fyi From: Michael L. DeBoy [mailto:mld @deboyland.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:44 PM To: Brewer, Scott I Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J; Littlejohn, David W; Holmes, Christine B; Dave Coots; SPatel@MidwestHospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Lane Dear Scott: Thanks for the feedback. I would like to attempt to answer your questions in a point by point basis as you have prepared them. Please review the following at your convenience. Existing Conditions Demo Plan 1. The gray shaded area is listed as "TREE PRESERVATION" with a few scattered trees shown as existing In reality, the site is almost entirely wooded, with trees certainly in the tree preservation area that are not shown (such as along the east perimeter buffer). Noted. We are instructing the developer and contractor that this area is off limits to construction, staging and general disturbance. This is part of the 23% area that is to preserved and undisturbed. 2. The trees to be preserved are half toned (grayed) so that they are less apparent on the plan. They should be marked as to exactly where they are. Tree protection devices or fencing should be represented on this plan, so that not only what is coming down is on the plan, but what is being preserved and how is also on the plan. Many times, tree preservation is not accomplished because it is not on the Demo Plan, and no one bothered to tell the equipment driver with the Demo Plan that the trees where not supposed to come down or be injured. Noted.. We will mark on said plan the placement of a fence that delineates the tree preservation limits for the site. 3. There appear to be existing trees outside the limits of the construction on your Demo Plan on GIS aerial photographs (hence trees in the right -of -way). These trees are required by ordinance to be preserved. You were made aware of this during our meeting on site. Noted. We do not want to have any trees disturbed in the adjoining rights -of -way other than for utility connections to the site for the single access point proposed. We will work Site Utility Plan 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000904 Page 2 of 10* 4. It appears as if there is a storm sewer manhole structure with associated sewers lines that intersect underneath the supposedly preserved trees to the south east of the hotel. There are also several sanitary sewer lines, and a gas line that run under those preserved trees. That amount of utility disturbance does not bode well for the health of those trees. Noted. We will detail the trees in this area determine if an alternate route can be pursued that eliminates or minimizes the disturbed area trees / vegetation. 5. When we met on site, you had suggested that those structures might be moved to the street to avoid interfering with the root health of those trees. This could save money with the site development as well, because not as much soil would have to be relocated. Noted. We will review setting a new storm structure so our storm line from our BMP can outfall to the Southeast. 6. The same was true for the grease trap for the hotel kitchen as well. You had suggested they move it nearer the parking lot where it would be easier for contractors to empty. Noted. We will attempt to move the grease trap to West — Southwest adjoining the garage entrance. 7. There appears to be a 10" sanitary sewer line running through the area labeled as both a tree preservation area, and a 25' planting strip. While it is not impossible to have trees planted in this area, it is problematic to have a row of trees planted directly over the line. Because the landscape plan does not show utility lines as it is supposed to, it is hard to tell if the trees are directly over the line or not, but they appear to be. Not:;d. We will detail the tress to be saved in this area. Because of the relative shallow depth of said lateral we may be able to adjust the location accordingly. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 8. On this plan, there are several heavy black circle apparently placed around trees. These circles are not listed in the plan legend, what do they represent? Noted. The represents the approximate tree canopy. 9. On the east perimeter, an erosion control mat is shown in the tree preservation area outside the erosion control fencing. What is the purpose of this mat in this location? Noted. It was placed there mistakenly. It will be removed. 10. On the north perimeter, permanent seeding is shown on top of the 10' multi -use path. Noted. It was placed there mistakenly. It will be removed 11. On the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Schedule, TREE PROTECTION is listed on the matrix for installation and maintenance, but on the TREE PRESERVETION PLAN none is shown graphically or listed in a narrative form. am not sure as to your specific request. Can you provide additional information so that so we may comply with your request. Site Specifications 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000905 Page 3 of 10 12. The Tree Removal and Protection section is adequate for the tree removal part, but unacceptable from a tree protection standpoint. A tree preservation plan will be required from a Certified Arborist or like registered professional. This plan will list the trees to be preserved and the measures that will be taken to preserve them. To leave this responsibility to the land clearing contractor is not an acceptable practice. Points 2 through 5 basically would give the contractor and /or owner the right to remove any tree on the site that exists there now, even the ones that are supposed to be preserved. This section must be stricken and replaced with a tree protection plan. My suggestion would be to hire a certified arborist who has had experience in protecting trees from construction damage Noted. We have located trees 12" diameter or greater. Can you specify the minimum diameter of tree that you wish to have located. We will remove points 2 through 5 as requested. Please be advised that we agree to placement of a fence for the delineation of tree preservation areas. We will have an arborist or like professional specify methods for tree preservation in this area. Landscape Plan Landscape Counts 13. A note near the bottom of the plan says "TREE PRESERVATION AREA: 0.62 Acres/ 23% of the site ", this obviously refers to the gray shaded area. But that gray area can in no way represent the total area in which trees will be preserved because of the numerous conflicts that are occurring in those areas. For example, on the east perimeter, the entire area is shaded gray, but trees are being preserved only at the extreme north and south ends this strip. A more realistic determination must be made to qualify the amount of tree preservation. Perhaps preserved canopy area, preserved number of trees, or preserved number of trees and total caliper inches of DBH, could be used in some manner. Noted. Actually we have not shown the trees in this area, but have planned to preserve them and will do so in accordingly with comments as contained in item 12 above. Can you specify the minimum diameter of tree that you wish to have located. 14. On the required perimeter bufferyard plant counts, the counts were based off of measurements listed on the plan: 330' for the east, 230' for the Smokey Row side, and 200' for the Pro -Med Lanes side. I got substantially longer measurements when I measured the site using the Carmel GIS site, but it also appears that the east perimeter is the short side of the triangle that is this plat. The Smokey Row perimeter should also be a "D" buffer and not an "A" level buffer, so the counts should be adjusted for that as well. Noted. We will adjust per your comment. 15. There are no utility lines, or easements, or drainage structures shown on the landscape plan. These must be shown with the landscape material on an engineered site plan to avoid potential conflicts. There is also no explanation of the previous pavers, and any requirements that concern their installation on the plan. Noted. We will add utilities, easements and drainage structures to the landscape plan. We will provide information and details on said pavers. 16. There are no total species counts on the plant schedule. This is a requirement. Noted. We will provide the information accordingly. 17. PH and VJ are listed graphically on the plan, but are not shown on the plant schedule as to what they represent. Noted. PH is Pennisetum alopecuroidrs "Hameln" (Hameln Dwarf Fountain Grass and VJ Viburnum xjuddii (Judd's Viburnum). We will amend the plan accordingly. 1I/1/2007 CARMEL 0000906 Page 4-of 10 18. At least one shrub is shown by two different types of graphic representation. To avoid confusion to all who use the plan, contractors, landscapers, inspectors, etc., one species should be represented by one type of graphic representation. Noted. We will revise accordingly. 19. Species comments: Carmel's planting size standards are 2.5" in caliper for large maturing shade trees, 1.5" in caliper for ornamental trees, and 8' in height for evergreen and 24" in height for shrubs. While black gum trees are beautiful, they may be difficult to locate locally in the 2.5" size. You may want to order them as soon as you get the plan approved. You have 20 Shademaster honey locust on the plan, too many for superior species diversity. Please make the east perimeter row of trees an alternative species such as the black gum, or London plane tree, or a combination of both. Noted. Thanks for the suggestion. 20. There is no graphic representation of the retaining wall or it's construction on this plan (nor any plan). This will be required at secondary plat or construction phase. Noted. We are working with the owner / contractor and the architect to develop an integrated design and look for the overall project. We will provided details and design as soon it has approved by our client. Tree Preservation Plan 21. This plan shows some trees that could be preserved, but not all, certainly not all the areas Below is the GIS from 2006 that shows many trees in areas that could be preserved, and are required by the highway 31 overlay ordinance . The area is basically the same today, except for some utility work that has been done along Smokey Row Road. Noted. As previously stated, we will not disturb any trees within the rights -of -way for 136th Street or ProMed Drive except access to ProMed Drive and utility access. I would suggest that locate existing trees in these areas and coordinate with our tree preservation professional so that we minimize any disturbance. (Note: This will greatly increase the acreage being preserved on site or revegetated after construction (approximately 0.6 acre). This area should range from 40' to 60' (or greater in some spots) from edge of pavement / curb to the retaining wall . Please be advised the required walk or path will disturb a substantial portion of this area. 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000907 Page 5of10 22. On the Alternative Transportation Plan, the 5' sidewalk is curved in an arc to fall between two preserved trees connected a walk from the parking lot to a walk connecting the hotel to the multiuse path. Perhaps, as we discussed, the walk could go straight to the hotel from the parking lot, and from the hotel to the multiuse path, there by avoiding the trees all together instead of going between them. Then, these trees might avoid any construction damage by being fenced off completely during the construction. Noted. Agreed. We will adjust said connecting walkway. Scott, again, thank you for the feedback. I think we can incorporate must of your comments and with some additional feedback, we can provide a complete plan guide for your review and approval. Please feel free to contact us with any additional comments or concerns at your convenience. Yours in Service, Michael L. DeBoy, LS 501 S. 9th Street, Suite 100, Noblesville, IN 46060 X LANo oEvuomiENT TvCES Office: (317) 770 -1801 Toll Free: (888) 801 -8555 Fax: (317) 770 -1821 -S www.deboyland.com This e -mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000908 Page 6-of 10 From: Brewer, Scott I [mailto:SBrewer @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:50 PM To: Michael L. DeBoy Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J; Littlejohn, David W; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Lane Dear Michael; My review comments for the site construction plan set for the Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane are as follows: Existing Conditions Demo Plan 23. The gray shaded area is listed as "TREE PRESERVATION" with a few scattered trees shown as existing In reality, the site is almost entirely wooded, with trees certainly in the tree preservation area that are not shown (such as along the east perimeter buffer). 24. The trees to be preserved are half toned (grayed) so that they are less apparent on the plan. They should be marked as to exactly where they are. Tree protection devices or fencing should be represented on this plan, so that not only what is coming down is on the plan, but what is being preserved and how is also on the plan. Many times, tree preservation is not accomplished because it is not on the Demo Plan, and no one bothered to tell the equipment driver with the Demo Plan that the trees where not supposed to come down or be injured. 25. There appear to be existing trees outside the limits of the construction on your Demo Plan on GIS aerial photographs (hence trees in the right -of -way). These trees are required by ordinance to be preserved. You were made aware of this during our meeting on site. Site Utility Plan 26. It appears as if there is a storm sewer manhole structure with associated sewers lines that intersect underneath the supposedly preserved trees to the south east of the hotel. There are also several sanitary sewer lines, and a gas line that run under those preserved trees. That amount of utility disturbance does not bode well for the health of those trees. 27. When we met on site, you had suggested that those structures might be moved to the street to avoid interfering with the root health of those trees. This could save money with the site development as well, because not as much soil would have to be relocated. 28. The same was true for the grease trap for the hotel kitchen as well. You had suggested they move it nearer the parking lot where it would be easier for contractors to empty. 29. There appears to be a 10" sanitary sewer line running through the area labeled as both a tree preservation area, and a 25' planting strip. While it is not impossible to have trees planted in this area, it is problematic to have a row of trees planted directly over the line. Because the landscape plan does not show utility lines as it is supposed to, it is hard to tell if the trees are directly over the line or not, but they appear to be. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000909 • Page 7of10 30. On this plan, there are several heavy black circle apparently placed around trees. These circles are not listed in the plan legend, what do they represent? 31. On the east perimeter, an erosion control mat is shown in the tree preservation area outside the erosion control fencing. What is the purpose of this mat in this location? 32. On the north perimeter, permanent seeding is shown on top of the 10' multi -use path. 33. On the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Schedule, TREE PROTECTION is listed on the matrix for installation and maintenance, but on the TREE PRESERVETION PLAN none is shown graphically or listed in a narrative form. Site Specifications 34. The Tree Removal and Protection section is adequate for the tree removal part, but unacceptable from a tree protection standpoint. A tree preservation plan will be required from a Certified Arborist or like registered professional. This plan will list the trees to be preserved and the measures that will be taken to preserve them. To leave this responsibility to the land clearing contractor is not an acceptable practice. Points 2 through 5 basically would give the contractor and/or owner the right to remove any tree on the site that exists there now, even the ones that are supposed to be preserved. This section must be stricken and replaced with a tree protection plan. My suggestion would be to hire a certified arborist who has had experience in protecting trees from construction damage Landscape Plan Landscape Counts 35. A note near the bottom of the plan says "TREE PRESERVATION AREA: 0.62 Acres/ 23% of the site ", this obviously refers to the gray shaded area. But that gray area can in no way represent the total area in which trees will be preserved because of the numerous conflicts that are occurring in those areas. For example, on the east perimeter, the entire area is shaded gray, but trees are being preserved only at the extreme north and south ends this strip. A more realistic determination must be made to qualify the amount of tree preservation. Perhaps preserved canopy area, preserved number of trees, or preserved number of trees and total caliper inches of DBH, could be used in some manner. 36. On the required perimeter bufferyard plant counts, the counts were based off of measurements listed on the plan: 330' for the east, 230' for the Smokey Row side, and 200' for the Pro -Med Lanes side. I got substantially longer measurements when I measured the site using the Carmel GIS site, but it also appears that the east perimeter is the short side of the triangle that is this plat. The Smokey Row perimeter should also be a "D" buffer and not an "A" level buffer, so the counts should be adjusted for that as well. 37. There are no utility lines, or easements, or drainage structures shown on the landscape plan. These must be shown with the landscape material on an engineered site plan to avoid potential conflicts. There is also no explanation of the previous pavers, and any requirements that concern their installation on the plan. 38. There are no total species counts on the plant schedule. This is a requirement. 39. PH and VJ are listed graphically on the plan, but are not shown on the plant schedule as to what they represent. 40. At least one shrub is shown by two different types of graphic representation. To avoid confusion to all 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000910 Page b'of 10 " who use the plan, contractors, landscapers, inspectors, etc., one species should be represented by one type of graphic representation. 41. Species comments: Carmel's planting size standards are 2.5" in caliper for large maturing shade trees, 1.5" in caliper for ornamental trees, and 8' in height for evergreen and 24" in height for shrubs. While black gum trees are beautiful, they may be difficult to locate locally in the 2.5" size. You may want to order them as soon as you get the plan approved. You have 20 Shademaster honey locust on the plan, too many for superior species diversity. Please make the east perimeter row of trees an alternative species such as the black gum, or London plane tree, or a combination of both. 42. There is no graphic representation of the retaining wall or it's construction on this plan (nor any plan). This will be required at secondary plat or construction phase. Tree Preservation Plan 43. This plan shows some trees that could be preserved, but not all, certainly not all the areas Below is the GIS from 2006 that shows many trees in areas that could be preserved, and are required by the highway 31 overlay ordinance . The area is basically the same today, except for some utility work that has been done along Smokey Row Road. 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000911 Page 9 of 10 44. On the Alternative Transportation Plan, the 5' sidewalk is curved in an arc to fall between two preserved trees connected a walk from the parking lot to a walk connecting the hotel to the multiuse path. Perhaps, as we discussed, the walk could go straight to the hotel from the parking lot, and from the hotel to the multiuse path, there by avoiding the trees all together instead of going between them. Then, these trees might avoid any construction damage by being fenced off completely during the construction. Please reply to these comments in writing and by revised plans. You may contact me by voice or email if you need to at any time. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000912 Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 11/1/2007 4 Page 10 of 10 CARMEL 0000913 Page 1 of 9 Conn, Angelina V From: Michael L. DeBoy [mld @deboyland.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:44 PM To: Brewer, Scott I Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J; Littlejohn, David W; Holmes, Christine B; Dave Coots; SPatel @MidwestHospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Lane Attachments: image002.jpg Dear Scott: Thanks for the feedback. I would like to attempt to answer your questions in a point by point basis as you have prepared them. Please review the following at your convenience. Existing Conditions Demo Plan 1. The gray shaded area is listed as "TREE PRESERVATION" with a few scattered trees shown as existing In reality, the site is almost entirely wooded, with trees certainly in the tree preservation area that are not shown (such as along the east perimeter buffer). Noted. We are instructing the developer and contractor that this area is off milts to construction, staging and general disturbance. This is part of the 23% area that is to preserved and undisturbed. 2. The trees to be preserved are half toned (grayed) so that they are less apparent on the plan. They should be marked as to exactly where they are. Tree protection devices or fencing should be represented on this plan, so that not only what is coming down is on the plan, but what is being preserved and how is also on the plan. Many times, tree preservation is not accomplished because it is not on the Demo Plan, and no one bothered to tell the equipment driver with the Demo Plan that the trees where not supposed to come down or be injured. Noted.. We will mark on said plan the placement of a fence that delineates the tree preservation limits for the site. 3. There appear to be existing trees outside the limits of the construction on your Demo Plan on GIS aerial photographs (hence trees in the right -of -way). These trees are required by ordinance to be preserved. You were made aware of this during our meeting on site. Noted. We do not want to have any trees disturbed in the adjoining rights -of -way other than for utility connections to the site for the single access point proposed. We will work Site Utility Plan 4. It appears as if there is a storm sewer manhole structure with associated sewers lines that intersect underneath the supposedly preserved trees to the south east of the hotel. There are also several sanitary sewer lines, and a gas line that run under those preserved trees. That amount of utility disturbance does not bode well for the health of those trees. Noted. We will detail the trees in this area determine if an alternate route can be pursued that eliminates or minimizes the disturbed area trees / vegetation. 5. When we met on site, you had suggested that those structures might be moved to the street to avoid interfering 1 1 /1 /7 n(Y7 CARMEL 0000895 Page 2 of 9 with the root health of those trees. This could save money with the site development as well, because not as much soil would have to be relocated. Noted. We will review setting a new storm structure so our storm line from our BMP can outfall to the Southeast. 6. The same was true for the grease trap for the hotel kitchen as well. You had suggested they move it nearer the parking lot where it would be easier for contractors to empty. Noted. We will attempt to move the grease trap to West — Southwest adjoining the garage entrance. 7. There appears to be a 10" sanitary sewer line running through the area labeled as both a tree preservation area, and a 25' planting strip. While it is not impossible to have trees planted in this area, it is problematic to have a row of trees planted directly over the line. Because the landscape plan does not show utility lines as it is supposed to, it is hard to tell if the trees are directly over the line or not, but they appear to be. Noted. We will detail the tress to be saved in this area. Because of the relative shallow depth of said lateral we may be able to adjust the location accordingly. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 8. On this plan, there are several heavy black circle apparently placed around trees. These circles are not listed in the plan legend, what do they represent? Noted. The represents the approximate tree canopy. 9. On the east perimeter, an erosion control mat is shown in the tree preservation area outside the erosion control fencing. What is the purpose of this mat in this location? Noted. It was placed there mistakenly. It will be removed. 10. On the north perimeter, permanent seeding is shown on top of the 10' multi -use path. Noted. It was placed there mistakenly. It will be removed 11. On the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Schedule, TREE PROTECTION is listed on the matrix for installation and maintenance, but on the TREE PRESERVETION PLAN none is shown graphically or listed in a narrative form. I am not sure as to your specific request. Can you provide additional information so that so we may comply with your request. Site Specifications 12. The Tree Removal and Protection section is adequate for the tree removal part, but unacceptable from a tree protection standpoint. A tree preservation plan will be required from a Certified Arborist or like registered professional. This plan will list the trees to be preserved and the measures that will be taken to preserve them. To leave this responsibility to the land clearing contractor is not an acceptable practice. Points 2 through 5 basically would give the contractor and /or owner the right to remove any tree on the site that exists there now, even the ones that are supposed to be preserved. This section must be stricken and replaced with a tree protection plan. My suggestion would be to hire a certified arborist who has had experience in protecting trees from construction damage Noted. We have located trees 12" diameter or greater. Can you specify the minimum diameter of tree that you wish to have located. We will remove points 2 through 5 as requested. Please be advised that we agree to placement of a fence for the delineation of tree preservation areas. We will have an arborist or like professional specify methods for CARMEL 0000896 Page 3 of 9 tree preservation in this area. Landscape Plan Landscape Counts 13. A note near the bottom of the plan says "TREE PRESERVATION AREA: 0.62 Acres/ 23% of the site ", this obviously refers to the gray shaded area. But that gray area can in no way represent the total area in which trees will be preserved because of the numerous conflicts that are occurring in those areas. For example, on the east perimeter, the entire area is shaded gray, but trees are being preserved only at the extreme north and south ends this strip. A more realistic determination must be made to qualify the amount of tree preservation. Perhaps preserved canopy area, preserved number of trees, or preserved number of trees and total caliper inches of DBH, could be used in some manner. Noted. Actually we have not shown the trees in this area, but have planned to preserve them and will do so in accordingly with comments as contained in item 12 above. Can you specify the minimum diameter of tree that you wish to have located. 14. On the required perimeter bufferyard plant counts, the counts were based off of measurements listed on the plan: 330' for the east, 230' for the Smokey Row side, and 200' for the Pro -Med Lanes side. I got substantially longer measurements when I measured the site using the Carmel GIS site, but it also appears that the east perimeter is the short side of the triangle that is this plat. The Smokey Row perimeter should also be a "D" buffer and not an "A" level buffer, so the counts should be adjusted for that as well. Noted. We will adjust per your comment. 15. There are no utiiiiy iii-,cs, or easements, Or r±ra page structures shown on the landscape plan. These must be shown with the landscape material on an engineered site plan to avoid potential conflicts. There is also no explanation of the previous pavers, and any requirements that concern their installation on the plan. Noted. We will add utilities, easements and drainage structures to the landscape plan. We will provide information and details on said pavers. 16. There are no total species counts on the plant schedule. This is a requirement. Noted. We will provide the information accordingly. 17. PH and VJ are listed graphically on the plan, but are not shown on the plant schedule as to what they represent. Noted. PH is Pennisetum alopecuroidrs "Hameln" (Hameln Dwarf Fountain Grass and VJ Viburnum xjuddii (Judd's Viburnum). We will amend the plan accordingly. 18. At least one shrub is shown by two different types of graphic representation. To avoid confusion to all who use the plan, contractors, landscapers, inspectors, etc., one species should be represented by one type of graphic representation. Noted. We will revise accordingly. 19. Species comments: Carmel's planting size standards are 2.5" in caliper for large maturing shade trees, 1.5" in caliper for ornamental trees, and 8' in height for evergreen and 24" in height for shrubs. While black gum trees are beautiful, they may be difficult to locate locally in the 2.5" size. You may want to order them as soon as you get the plan approved. You have 20 Shademaster honey locust on the plan, too many for superior species diversity. Please make the east perimeter row of trees an alternative species such as the black gum, or London plane tree, or a combination of both. Noted. Thanks for the suggestion. 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000897 Page-4 of 9 20. There is no graphic representation of the retaining wall or it's construction on this plan (nor any plan). This will be required at secondary plat or construction phase. Noted. We are working with the owner / contractor and the architect to develop an integrated design and look for the overall project. We will provided details and design as soon it has approved by our client. Tree Preservation Plan 21. This plan shows some trees that could be preserved, but not all, certainly not all the areas Below is the GIS from 2006 that shows many trees in areas that could be preserved, and are required by the highway 31 overlay ordinance . The area is basically the same today, except for some utility work that has been done along Smokey Row Road. Noted. As previously stated, we will not disturb any trees within the rights -of -way for 136th Street or ProMed Drive except access to ProMed Drive and utility access. I would suggest that locate existing trees in these areas and coordinate with our tree preservation professional so that we minimize any disturbance. (Note: This will greatly increase the acreage being preserved on site or revegetated after construction (approximately 0.6 acre). This area should range from 40' to 60' (or greater in some spots) from edge of pavement / curb to the retaining wall . Please be advised the required walk or path will disturb a substantial portion of this area. 11/1/2.007 CARMEL 0000898 Page 5 of 9 1. On the Altemative Transportation Plan, the 5' sidewalk is curved in an arc to fall between two preserved trees connected a walk from the parking lot to a walk connecting the hotel to the multiuse path. Perhaps, as we discussed, the walk could go straight to the hotel from the parking lot, and from the hotel to the multiuse path. there by avoiding the trees all together instead of going between them. Then. these trees might avoid any construction damage by being fenced off completely during the construction. Noted. Agreed. We will adjust said connecting walkway. Scott, again, thank you for the feedback. I think we can incorporate must of your comments and with some additional feedback, we can provide a complete plan guide for your review and approval. Please feel free to contact us with any additional comments or concerns at your convenience. Yours in Service, IP Michael L. DeBoy, LS 501 S. 9°' Street. Suite 100, Noblesville, IN 46060 r uAVC[s Office: (317) 770.1801 1%91%e: (6881801 -6555 Fax: (317) 770 -1621 DesT/nsre &mi eos* S.w fers www.deboY corn 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000899 Page6 of 9' From: Brewer, Scott I [mailto:SBrewer @carrnel.in.gov] Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:50 PM To: Michael L. DeBoy Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J; Littlejohn, David W; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Lane Dear Michael; My review comments for the site construction plan set for the Holiday Inn at Pro-Med Lane are as follows: Existing Conditions Demo Plan 2. The gray shaded area is listed as "TREE PRESERVATION" with a few scattered trees shown as existing In reality, the site is almost entirely wooded, with trees certainly in the tree preservation area that are not shown (such as along the east perimeter buffer). 3. The trees to be preserved are half toned (grayed) so that they are less apparent on the plan. They should be marked as to exactly where they are. Tree protection devices or fencing should be represented on this plan, so that not only what is coming down is on the plan, but what is being preserved and how is also on the plan. Many times, tree preservation is not accomplished because it is not on the Demo Plan, and no one bothered to tell the equipment driver with the Demo Plan that the trees where not supposed to come down or be injured. 4. There appear to be existing trees outside the limits of the construction on your Demo Plan on GIS aerial photographs (hence trees in the right -of -way). These trees are required by ordinance to be preserved. You were made aware of this during our meeting on site. Site Utility Plan 5. It appears as if there is a storm sewer manhole structure with associated sewers lines that intersect undemeath the supposedly preserved trees to the south east of the hotel. There are also several sanitary sewer lines, and a gas line that run under those preserved trees. That amount of utility disturbance does not bode well for the health of those trees. 6. When we met on site, you had suggested that those structures might be moved to the street to avoid interfering with the root health of those trees. This could save money with the site development as well, because not as much soil would have to be relocated. 7. The same was true for the grease trap for the hotel kitchen as well. You had suggested they move it nearer the parking lot where it would be easier for contractors to empty. B. There appears to be a 10" sanitary sewer line running through the area labeled as both a tree preservation area, and a 25' planting strip. While it is not impossible to have trees planted in this area, it is problematic to have a row of trees planted directly over the line. Because the landscape plan does not show utility lines as it is supposed to, it is hard to tell if the trees are directly over the line or not, but they appear to be. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000900 Page 7 of 9 9. On this plan. there are several heavy black circle apparently placed around trees. These circles are not listed in the plan legend. what do they represent? 10. On the east perimeter, an erosion control mat is shown in the tree preservation area outside the erosion control fencing. What is the purpose of this mat in this location? 11. On the north perimeter, permanent seeding is shown on top of the 10' multi -use path. 12. On the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Schedule, TREE PROTECTION is listed on the matrix for installation and maintenance. but on the TREE PRESERVETION PLAN none is shown graphically or listed in a narrative form. Site Specifications 13. The Tree Removal and Protection section is adequate for the tree removal part, but unacceptable from a tree protection standpoint. A tree preservation plan will be required from a Certified Arborist or like registered professional. This plan will list the trees to be preserved and the measures that will be taken to preserve them. To leave this responsibility to the land clearing contractor is not an acceptable practice. Points 2 through 5 basically would give the contractor and /or owner the right to remove any tree on the site that exists there now, even the ones that are supposed to be preserved. This section must be stricken and replaced with a tree protection plan. My suggestion would be to hire a certified arborist who has had experience in protecting trees from construction damage Landscape Plan Landscape Counts 14. A note near the bottom of the plan says "TREE PRESERVATION AREA: 0.62 Acres/ 23% of the site ", this obviously refers to the gray shaded area. But that gray area can in no way represent the total area in which trees will be preserved because of the numerous conflicts that are occurring in those areas. For example, on the east perimeter, the entire area is shaded gray, but trees are being preserved only at the extreme north and south ends this strip. A more realistic determination must be made to qualify the amount of tree preservation. Perhaps preserved canopy area preserved number of trees, or preserved number of trees and total caliper inches of DBH, could be used in some manner. 15. On the required perimeter bufferyard plant counts, the counts were based off of measurements listed on the plan: 330' for the east, 230' for the Smokey Row side, and 200' for the Pro -Med Lanes side. I got substantially longer measurements when I measured the site using the Carmel GIS site, but it also appears that the east perimeter is the short side of the triangle that is this plat. The Smokey Row perimeter should also be a "D" buffer and not an "A" level buffer, so the counts should be adjusted for that as well. 16. There are no utility lines, or easements, or drainage structures shown on the landscape plan. These must be shown with the landscape material on an engineered site plan to avoid potential conflicts. There is also no explanation of the previous pavers, and any requirements that concem their installation on the plan. 17. There are no total species counts on the plant schedule. This is a requirement. 18. PH and VJ are listed graphically on the plan, but are not shown on the plant schedule as to what they represent. 19. At least one shrub is shown by two different types of graphic representation. To avoid confusion to all who use the plan, contractors, landscapers, inspectors, etc., one species should be represented by one type of graphic representation. I I/1/2007 CARMEL 0000901 Pagge3 of 9 20. Species comments: Carmel's planting size standards are 2.5" in caliper for large maturing shade trees, 1.5" in caliper for ornamental trees, and B' in height for evergreen and 24" in height for shrubs. While black gum trees are beautiful, they may be difficult to locate locally in the 2.5" size. You may want to order them as soon as you get the plan approved. You have 20 Shademaster honey locust on the plan, too many for superior species diversity. Please make the east perimeter row of trees an alternative species such as the black gum, or London plane tree, or a combination of both. 21. There is no graphic representation of the retaining wall or its construction on this plan (nor any plan). This will be required at secondary plat or construction phase. Tree Preservation Plan 22. This plan shows some trees that could be preserved, but not all, certainly not all the areas Below is the GIS from 2006 that shows many trees in areas that could be preserved, and are required by the highway 31 overlay ordinance . The area is basically the same today, except for some utility work that has been done along Smokey Row Road. I I /IJ2(Ni-' CARMEL 0000902 Page 9 of 9 23. On the Alternative Transportation Plan, the 5' sidewalk is curved in an arc to fall between two preserved trees connected a walk from the parking lot to a walk connecting the hotel to the multiuse path. Perhaps, as we discussed, the walk could go straight to the hotel from the parking lot. and from the hotel to the multiuse path, there by avoiding the trees all together instead of going between them. Then, these trees might avoid any construction damage by being fenced off completely during the construction. Please reply to these comments in writing and by revised plans. You may contact me by voice or email if you need to at any time. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel. One Civic Square Carmel. IN 46032 PH: 317 -571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 1 111 /007 CARMEL 0000903 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:30 PM To: Dorman, Jay; 'Kevin Heber'; Leo Dierckman; Madeleine Torres; 'Rick Ripma'; Sally Shapiro (SallyShapiro@ indy.rr.com); Seidensticker, Eric; 'Steve Stromquist'; 'Susan Westermeier'; Wayne Haney (Haneywh @aol.com) Cc: 'Carolyn Schleif': Boone, Rachel M.; Brewer, Scott I; Coy, Sue E; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Duncan, Gary R; Hancock, Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Holmes, Christine B; 'John Molitor'; Keeling, Adrienne M; Littlejohn, David W; Molitor, John R; Stewart, Lisa M; Tingley, Connie S Subject: FW: Pro Med Lane Holiday Inn project Good afternoon Plan Commission members! Please read Carol's comments (below) on the Holiday Inn project. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317 - 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov From: Ron & Carol Schleif [mailto:schleif @indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:19 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Holiday Inn Angie, Thank you for diligently following up on all our comments!!!!! Could you forward this to the commission? Everyone, I assume someone asked the petitioner to request my input on this project. When Dave Coots called, I mentioned to him that I felt that until the site issues (parking & trees) were resolved, that it was a waste of time to address the architectural issues in this project. He forwarded that to Mike DeBoy, who sent me a updated few plans, and here are my thoughts: In general, this project is too large for this site given its topography and existing trees. Here's why I feel this way: • All the listed concerns in the department report. Site Plan: • Question: What kind of permeable pavers are they using? • Request: Please show the slope of the driveway to the underground parking. There is a large drop here and will be tricky when icy. • Building Setback Concern: In order to get the necessary parking the building has been moved 20 feet to the east. As I read the report, they agreed to 40 feet from the property line. (This was probably done to get an additional row of parking) Solution: Move the building back to where it was approved CO 40'. • Location & Character of Parking. Concern: There is too much paving in this project. Solution: The parking area could be redesigned to be more efficient (eg. the west corner) Concern: Parking requirement is too much for this site resulting in a steep driveway, many retaining walls and clear- cutting of most of the existing trees. Solution: Parking should be designed around large existing trees. If not, the square footage of the building should be reduced to allow for more room and a more logical parking lot layout. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000893 Page 2 of 2 Concern: Underground parking drawings don't show structural columns (24" + diameter) that can decrease the parking count significantly. Solution: Finish this drawing so that we have an accurate parking count. Concern: Parking aisle could be less. Solution: We have used 20' parking aisles for decades (with 90 degree parking spaces). If we could save some trees, this might be worth a waver • Site Landscaping & Screening: Concern: Insufficient screening with neighbor to the east. The retaining wall is there because they are too close to the property line. Solution: Move the building back to 40 feet from the property line. Concern: The use of Honeylocust to screen the neighbor to the east is insufficient, and will be negligible in the winter time. Solution: Use evergreen trees, at least 1 story tall (12 -18 ft tall). Concern: Only have deciduous plantings on entire site that will be bare in the winter. Solution: Use a varied % of evergreen, deciduous and multi -stem or ornamental plantings. 30% evergreen, 30% deciduous with variety in the remainder works well, and would allow for winter greenery. Tree Preservation Plan: Concern: Scott Brewer mentioned that all the buffer area trees are required to be preserved. According to the latest drawings dated "2- 15 -07" (please correct date), only a few trees will remain on the site. Most of the ones shown on the tree preservation plan (drawing TP1) will die due to construction of retaining walls on top of their roots, or due to the installation of the sewer line in the SE corner of the lot. Only 1 medium sized tree on the west corner, and 6 small trees in the northeast corner of the site will live, IF they are protected with sufficient fencing during construction. Solution: I would like see more concern for the existing trees and site topography in this petition. The number of retaining walls speaks mountains! Architectural Issues: Concern: Without going into lots of detail, this building a "box with two projections on it ". This is why we spent so much time amending the US 31 and 421 overlays. Solution: 1 It needs to have variable square footages on upper floors so that the building mass will vary. 2. The roofline needs to vary regularly in a frequency that is proportionate to the length of the building. 3. The plan and elevations need changes in volumes that could be achieved through bump -outs or additional wings. Concern: Though already mentioned in the dept. report, this is a special concern. If the mechanicals are going onto the roof, they may show according to the elevations. Are they near the elevator shafts? Solution: If not, this is another reason to modulate the roofline & be Tess box -like. General concerns: This site is being clear cut for a use that was supposed/ approved to be a medical building (and requires Tess parking than this use). Bottom line: My sense is that there the petitioner may not be willing to what is needed for this project. Therefore, this project should probably be on a larger site. See you all tomorrow! Carol 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000894 Conn, Angelina V k '1:�Y1• , Page 1 of 2 From: Ron & Carol Schleif [schleif @indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:19 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Holidaydnn Angie, Thank you for diligently following up on all our comments um Could you forward this to the commission? Everyone, assume someone asked the petitioner to request my input on this project. When Dave Coots called, I mentioned to him that I felt that until the site issues (parking & trees) were resolved, that it was a waste of time to address the architectural issues in this project. He forwarded that to Mike DeBoy, who sent me a updated few plans, and here are my thoughts: In general, this project is too large for this site given its topography and existing trees. Here's why I feel this way: 11/1/2007 • All the listed concerns in the department report. Site Plan: • Question: What kind of permeable pavers are they using? • Request: Please show the slope of the driveway to the underground parking. There is a large drop here and will be tricky when icy. • Buildin, S =tback Con• -rn: In order to get th- ecessary p- 'ng the building has been mo ed 20 1-1-6 g SL _ 0 feet to the east. • s I read the report, - agreed to 40 feet fro' the v ,roperty line his was probably done to •= -n addition • of pa Solution: Move the building back to where it was approved @ 40'. • Location & Character of Parking. Concern: There is too much paving in this project. Solution: The parking area could be redesigned to be more efficient (eg. the west corner) Concern: Parking requirement is too much for this site resulting in a steep driveway, many retaining walls and clear- cutting of most of the existing trees. Solution: Parking should be designed around large existing trees. If not, the square footage of the building should be reduced to allow for more room and a more logical parking lot layout. Concern: Underground parking drawings don't show structural columns (24" + ,/ di meter) that can decreas parking cou •nificantly. %— So tion: Finish thi • awing so that we have a curate •ar.' count. Concern: Parkin.:' - could be less. o tion: We have used 20' degree parking -•i•htbewo ing aisles for decad (with 90 aces). If we could save some trees, this a waver • • Site Landscaping & Screen = . Concern: Insufficient screening with neighbor to the east. The retaining wall is there because they are too close to the property line. Solution: Move the building back to 40 feet from the property line. Concern: The use of Honeylocust to screen the neighbor to the east is insufficient, and will be negligible in the winter time. Solution: Use evergreen trees, at least 1 story tall (12 -18 ft tall). Concern: Only have deciduous plantings on entire site that will be bare in the winter. CARMEL 0000891 Page 2 of 2 Solution: Use a varied % of evergreen, deciduous and multi -stem or ornamental plantings. 30% evergreen, 30% deciduous with variety in the remainder works well, and would allow for winter greenery. Tree Preservation Plan: Concern: Scott Brewer mentioned that all the buffer area trees are required to be preserved. According to the latest drawings dated "2- 15 -07" (please correct date), only a few trees will remain on the site. Most of the ones shown on the tree preservation plan (drawing TP1) will die due to construction of retaining walls on top of their roots, or due to the installation of the sewer line in the SE corner of the lot. Only 1 medium sized tree on the west corner, and 6 small trees in the northeast corner of the site will live, IF they are protected with sufficient fencing during construction. Solution: I would like see more concern for the existing trees and site topography in this petition. The number of retaining walls speaks mountains! Architectural Issues: Concern: Without going into Tots of detail, this building a "box with two projections on it". This is why we spent so much time amending the US 31 and 421 overlays. Solution: 1. It needs to have variable square footages on upper floors so that the building mass will vary. 2. The roofline needs to vary regularly in a frequency that is proportionate to the length of the building. 3. The plan and elevations need changes in volumes that could be achieved through bump -outs or additional wings. Concern: Though already mentioned in the dept. report, this is a special concern. If the mechanicals are going onto the roof, they may show according to the elevations. Are they near the elevator shafts? Solution: If not, this is another reason to modulate the roofline & be less box -like. General concerns: This site is being clear cut for a use that was supposed/ approved to be a medical building (and requires less parking than this use). Bottom line: My sense is that there the petitioner may not be willing to what is needed for this project. Therefore, this project should probably be on a larger site. See you all tomorrow! Carol 11/1/2007 CARMEL 0000892 Page 1 of 4 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:50 PM To: Michael L. DeBoy Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J; Littlejohn, David W; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Lane Dear Michael; My review comments for the site construction plan set for the Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane are as follows: Existing Conditions Demo Plan 1. The gray shaded area is listed as "TREE PRESERVATION" with a few scattered trees shown as existing In reality, the site is almost entirely wooded, with trees certainly in the tree preservation area that are not shown (such as along the east perimeter buffer). 2. The trees to be preserved are half toned (grayed) so that they are less apparent on the plan. They should be marked as to exactly where they are. Tree protection devices or fencing should be represented on this plan, so that not only what is coming down is on the plan, but what is being preserved and how is also on the plan. Many times, tree preservation is not accomplished because it is not on the Demo Plan, and no one bothered to tell the equipment driver with the Demo Plan that the trees where not supposed to come down or be injured. 3. There appear to be existing trees outside the limits of the construction on your Demo Plan on GIS aerial photographs (hence trees in the right -of -way). These trees are required by ordinance to be preserved. You were made aware of this during our meeting on site. Site Utility Plan 4. It appears as if there is a storm sewer manhole structure with associated sewers lines that intersect underneath the supposedly preserved trees to the south east of the hotel. There are also several sanitary sewer lines, and a gas line that run under those preserved trees. That amount of utility disturbance does not bode well for the health of those trees. 5. When we met on site, you had suggested that those structures might be moved to the street to avoid interfering with the root health of those trees. This could save money with the site development as well, because not as much soil would have to be relocated. 6. The same was true for the grease trap for the hotel kitchen as well. You had suggested they move it nearer the parking lot where it would be easier for contractors to empty. 7. There appears to be a 10" sanitary sewer line running through the area labeled as both a tree preservation area, and a 25' planting strip. While it is not impossible to have trees planted in this area, it is problematic to have a row of trees planted directly over the line. Because the landscape plan does not show utility lines as it is supposed to, it is hard to tell if the trees are directly over the line or not, but they appear to be. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 8. On this plan, there are several heavy black circle apparently placed around trees. These circles are not listed in the plan legend, what do they represent? 9. On the east perimeter, an erosion control mat is shown in the tree preservation area outside the erosion control 10/29/2007 CARMEL 0000885 Page 2 of 4 fencing. What is the purpose of this mat in this location? 10. On the north perimeter, permanent seeding is shown on top of the 10' multi -use path. 11. On the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Schedule, TREE PROTECTION is listed on the matrix for installation and maintenance, but on the TREE PRESERVETION PLAN none is shown graphically or listed in a narrative form. Site Specifications 12. The Tree Removal and Protection section is adequate for the tree removal part, but unacceptable from a tree protection standpoint. A tree preservation plan will be required from a Certified Arborist or like registered professional. This plan will list the trees to be preserved and the measures that will be taken to preserve them. To leave this responsibility to the land clearing contractor is not an acceptable practice. Points 2 through 5 basically would give the contractor and /or owner the right to remove any tree on the site that exists there now, even the ones that are supposed to be preserved. This section must be stricken and replaced with a tree protection plan. My suggestion would be to hire a certified arborist who has had experience in protecting trees from construction damage Landscape Plan Landscape Counts 13. A note near the bottom of the plan says "TREE PRESERVATION AREA: 0.62 Acres/ 23% of the site ", this obviously refers to the gray shaded area. But that gray area can in no way represent the total area in which trees will be preserved because of the numerous conflicts that are occurring in those areas. For example, on the east perimeter, the entire area is shaded gray, but trees are being preserved only at the extreme north and south ends this strip. A more realistic determination must be made to qualify the amount of tree preservation. Perhaps preserved canopy area, preserved number of trees, or preserved number of trees and total caliper inches of DBH, could be used in some manner. 14. On the required perimeter bufferyard plant counts, the counts were based off of measurements listed on the plan: 330' for the east, 230' for the Smokey Row side, and 200' for the Pro -Med Lanes side. I got substantially longer measurements when I measured the site using the Carmel GIS site, but it also appears that the east perimeter is the short side of the triangle that is this plat. The Smokey Row perimeter should also be a "D" buffer and not an "A" level buffer, so the counts should be adjusted for that as well. 15. There are no utility lines, or easements, or drainage structures shown on the landscape plan. These must be shown with the landscape material on an engineered site plan to avoid potential conflicts. There is also no explanation of the previous pavers, and any requirements that concern their installation on the plan. 16. There are no total species counts on the plant schedule. This is a requirement. 17. PH and VJ are listed graphically on the plan, but are not shown on the plant schedule as to what they represent. 18. At least one shrub is shown by two different types of graphic representation. To avoid confusion to all who use the plan, contractors, landscapers, inspectors, etc., one species should be represented by one type of graphic representation. 19. Species comments: Carmel's planting size standards are 2.5" in caliper for large maturing shade trees, 1.5" in caliper for ornamental trees, and 8' in height for evergreen and 24" in height for shrubs. While black gum trees are beautiful, they may be difficult to locate locally in the 2.5" size. You may want to order them as soon as you get the plan approved. You have 20 Shademaster honey locust on the plan, too many for superior species diversity. Please make the east perimeter row of trees an alternative species such as the black gum, or London 10/29/2007 CARMEL 0000886 Page 3 of 4 plane tree, or a combination of both. 20. There is no graphic representation of the retaining wall or it's construction on this plan (nor any plan). This will be required at secondary plat or construction phase. Tree Preservation Plan 21. This plan shows some trees that could be preserved, but not all, certainly not all the areas Below is the GIS from 2006 that shows many trees in areas that could be preserved, and are required by the highway 31 overlay ordinance . The area is basically the same today, except for some utility work that has been done along Smokey Row Road. 22. On the Alternative Transportation Plan, the 5' sidewalk is curved in an arc to fall between two preserved trees connected a walk from the parking lot to a walk connecting the hotel to the multiuse path. Perhaps, as we discussed, the walk could go straight to the hotel from the parking lot, and from the hotel to the multiuse path, there 10/29/2007 CARMEL 0000887 Page 4 of 4 by avoiding the trees all together instead of going between them. Then, these trees might avoid any construction damage by being fenced off completely during the construction. Please reply to these comments in writing and by revised plans. You may contact me by voice or email if you need to at any time. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 10/29/2007 CARMEL 0000888 Conn, Angelina V From: Ron & Carol Schleif [schleif @indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:19 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Holiday Inn Angie, Thank you for diligently following up on all our comments ?I11l Could you forward this to the commission? Everyone, Page 1 of 2 I assume someone asked the petitioner to request my input on this project. When Dave Coots called, I mentioned to him that I felt that until the site issues (parking & trees) were resolved, that it was a waste of time to address the architectural issues in this project. He forwarded that to Mike DeBoy, who sent me a updated few plans, and here are my thoughts: In general, this project is too large for this site given its topography and existing trees. Here's why I feel this way: • All the listed concerns in the department report. Site Plan: • Question: What kind of permeable pavers are they using? • Request: Please show the slope of the driveway to the underground parking. There is a large drop here and will be tricky when icy. • Building Setback Concern: In order to get the necessary parking the building has been moved 20 feet to the east. As I read the report, they agreed to 40 feet from the property line. (This was probably done to get an additional row of parking) Solution: Move the building back to where it was approved @ 40'. • Location & Character of Parking. Concern: There is too much paving in this project. Solution: The parking area could be redesigned to be more efficient (eg. the west corner) Concern: Parking requirement is too much for this site resulting in a steep driveway, many retaining walls and clear- cutting of most of the existing trees. Solution: Parking should be designed around large existing trees. If not, the square footage of the building should be reduced to allow for more room and a more logical parking lot layout. Concern: Underground parking drawings don't show structural columns (24" + diameter) that can decrease the parking count significantly. Solution: Finish this drawing so that we have an accurate parking count. Concern: Parking aisle could be less. Solution: We have used 20' parking aisles for decades (with 90 degree parking spaces). If we could save some trees, this might be worth a waver..... • Site Landscaping & Screening: Concern: Insufficient screening with neighbor to the east. The retaining wall is there because they are too close to the property line. Solution: Move the building back to 40 feet from the property line. Concern: The use of Honeylocust to screen the neighbor to the east is insufficient, and will be negligible in the winter time. Solution: Use evergreen trees, at least 1 story tall (12 -18 ft tall). Concern: Only have deciduous plantings on entire site that will be bare in the winter. Solution: Use a varied % of evergreen, deciduous and multi -stem or ornamental plantings. 30% evergreen, 30% deciduous with variety 10/29/2007 CARMEL 0000889 Page 2 of 2 in the remainder works well, and would allow for winter greenery. Tree Preservation Plan: Concern: Scott Brewer mentioned that all the buffer area trees are required to be preserved. According to the latest drawings dated "2- 15 -07" (please correct date), only a few trees will remain on the site. Most of the ones shown on the tree preservation plan (drawing TP1) will die due to construction of retaining walls on top of their roots, or due to the installation of the sewer line in the SE corner of the lot. Only 1 medium sized tree on the west corner, and 6 small trees in the northeast corner of the site will live, IF they are protected with sufficient fencing during construction. Solution: I would like see more concern for the existing trees and site topography in this petition. The number of retaining walls speaks mountains! Architectural Issues: Concern: Without going into lots of detail, this building a "box with two projections on it". This is why we spent so much time amending the US 31 and 421 overlays. Solution: 1. It needs to have variable square footages on upper floors so that the building mass will vary. 2. The roofline needs to vary regularly in a frequency that is proportionate to the length of the building. 3. The plan and elevations need changes in volumes that could be achieved through bump -outs or additional wings. Concern: Though already mentioned in the dept. report, this is a special concern. If the mechanicals are going onto the roof, they may show according to the elevations. Are they near the elevator shafts? Solution: If not, this is another reason to modulate the roofline & be less box -like. General concerns: This site is being clear cut for a use that was supposed/ approved to be a medical building (and requires less parking than this use). Bottom line: My sense is that there the petitioner may not be willing to what is needed for this project. Therefore, this project should probably be on a larger site. See you all tomorrow! Carol 10/29/2007 CARMEL 0000890 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:38 AM To: 'Carolyn Schleif' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'John Molitor' Subject: pro med lane holiday inn & BSL Carol — to answer your question about the 40 -ft BSL, rather than the 60 -ft BSL for The Holiday Inn site: Paul Reis, the attorney who represented the Jackson Square rezone for this site, explained it best: This is to confirm our understanding concerning the building setback line along Smokey Row Road in the Justus Business Park. Under the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone Zoning Ordinance, building setback lines are established for certain streets within the zone. Smokey Row Road is not mentioned in the Ordinance. In 2005, when we were proposing a PUD for the development of the site, we discussed the development standards with Jon Dobosiewicz, City Planner at the time, and it was agreed that a 40 -foot building setback line was appropriate. This would allow the buildings to be brought closer to the street to improve visibility from U.S. 31. The development plan approved by the Plan Commission in 2005 and again in 2007 provided for a 40 -foot BSL. Accordingly, the (Justus Business Park) plat approved by the Plan Commission and the Board of Public Works shows this standard. Based upon our conversation, this is acceptable to the Department. Please feel free to call Mike Hollibaugh to discuss further, as Jon D no longer works with the Department. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000868 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Ron & Carol Schleif [schleif @indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 1:56 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'John Molitor' Subject: RE: pro med lane holiday inn & BSL Angie, I just called DeBoy and explained that lots had gone on this project before I was on the PC. I wish I had been told about this history before. I commented on this a full plan commission and would have loved to have gotten this then Oh well! I've been embarrassed before! I appreciate the time you spent on this Thanks again for the scoop. Carol Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:38 AM To: Carolyn Schleif Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; John Molitor Subject: pro med lane holiday inn & BSL Carol — to answer your question about the 40 -ft BSL, rather than the 60 -ft BSL for The Holiday Inn site: Paul Reis, the attorney who represented the Jackson Square rezone for this site, explained it best: This is to confirm our understanding concerning the building setback line along Smokey Row Road in the Justus Business Park. Under the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone Zoning Ordinance, building setback lines are established for certain streets within the zone. Smokey Row Road is not mentioned in the Ordinance. In 2005, when we were proposing a PUD for the development of the site, we discussed the development standards with Jon Dobosiewicz, City Planner at the time, and it was agreed that a 40 -foot building setback line was appropriate. This would allow the buildings to be brought closer to the street to improve visibility from U.S. 31. The development plan approved by the Plan Commission in 2005 and again in 2007 provided for a 40 -foot BSL. Accordingly, the (Justus Business Park) plat approved by the Plan Commission and the Board of Public Works shows this standard. Based upon our conversation, this is acceptable to the Department. Please feel free to call Mike Hollibaugh to discuss further, as Jon D no longer works with the Department. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000869 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:44 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: SPatel @MidwestHospitality.com Subject: Midwest Hospitality -- Holiday Inn Angie, I will not be back from our easter Europe trip until after the October 2, 2007 Special Studies Committee meeting. Therefore, I am asking that this item be moved to the November agenda, which I assume will be other than election day, Nov. 7th. Do you know when it will be held? 9/13/2007 CARMEL 0000856 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:44 PM To: 'Virginia Kerr' Cc: Duncan, Gary R Subject: RE: holiday inn at pro med lane Hi, Virginia - the engineering dept would be better able to answer your questions about the road construction and possible affects it has on traffic counts. I have copied Gary Duncan on this email. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN. 46032 p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317 - 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Virginia Kerr [mailto:vkerr @talktotucker.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:41 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: holiday inn at pro med lane Angie, Thanks for the information. We felt that the meeting last night was positive for the homeowners at Kensington Place. Meanwhile, Dave Coots said that a traffic study is underway. How can that be when there are no counters in place? Also, we would like to raise a question: Would a traffic study need to be done after the roundabout is finished at Guilford and Old Meridian, after Old Meridian is totally open from Carmel Drive to Smokey Row, and after the roundabout at Oak Ridge and 136th is finished? Obviously, with all the aforementioned construciton going on, traffic is being diverted, so without all normal roads operational, it would be difficult to have an accurate traffic study Please let us know if the petitioner tables the committee meeting on September 4th, if the petitioner provides all the required information that properly meets the required criteria for the committee meeting to take place on September 4th, or if the petitioner withdraws the application. Thank you for all your help in responding to our questions. Virginia Kerr Original Message From: "Conn, Angelina V" [Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Date: 08/21/2007 10:51 AM To: "Virginia Kerr" <vkerr @talktotucker.com> Subject: RE: holiday inn at pro med lane Hi, Virginia: - In re- checking the original development plan approval for the tri county center and pro med, the area where the holiday inn is proposed today was shown as "future development ". Only in the original traffic impact analysis, did it show the area as future development /medical offices. And that is why a new traffic study is being required today, for the hotel use. Thanks, 1 CARMEL 0000788 Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317 - 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Virginia Kerr [mailto:vkerr @talktotucker.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:14 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Re: holiday in at pro med lane Angie, Thanks for your e -mail. Questions for you: When the rezone took place and put in the buffer zone and specific limitations, do the records show that it was to be an office park? Can those records be pulled? If so, please call me so I can go over them. What about the rule for no more than 65% development of the specific parcel? What was the response from the applicant (Holilday Inn) for the specific information you had requested earlier and to which they had not previously replied, which nonreponse caused the tabling? Traffic is already a serious concern. Just like there is an interim census being taken, shouldn't there be a new traffic study before allowing such a use at such a potentially dangerous intersection? Original Message From: "Conn, Angelina V" [Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Date: 08/20/2007 09:42 AM To: "Virginia Kerr" vkerr @talktotucker.com> CC: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> Subject: Re: holiday in at pro med lane Hi, Virginia:As far as I know, the project will bepresented at the plan commission meeting tomorrow. Then, after all publiccomment is taken, it will be sent to the special studies committee for further review.That meeting will be on Sept. 4 at 6 pm. I strongly recommend you bring yourcomments and concerns to the meeting. Also, it would not hurt if you had manyof your neighbors attend. I just wanted to remind you that a fullservice hotel use is permitted within the us 31 overlay, as well as the b- 6business district. But, of course, concerns voiced will be traffic, parking,signage at night, etc. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning AdministratorDept. of Community Services- Planning & Zoningl Civic Square, 3rd FloorCity of Carmel, IN 46032p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317 - 571- 2426aconn @carmel.in.gov 2 CARMEL 0000789 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:01 PM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: ' miked@ deboyland .com';'staceyf @deboyland.com'; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Lane dp /adls Hi Dave - am inquiring about your readiness to present at the next committee meeting. Do you think you will be ready to address all the items brought up at the last plan commission meeting at the Sept. 4 committee meeting? Also, will these issues be addressed in the info packets which are due tomorrow at noon? Please let me know your intentions, as the committee agenda will be finalized tomorrow around 2 pm. Thank you. To name a few, some of the major outstanding issues were /are: The number of parking spaces, Lot cover percentage requirement of 65 %, Use of EIFS as a building material, Traffic study, Sustainable development, Tree preservation plan and landscape plan, And so on Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmelin.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000790 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 12:11 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Lane dp /adls Page 1 of 1 Some of the engineering information is completed(I'm told), others will take additional time. I would ask that we not go before the subcommittee at this time. Thanks for your help(' feel I kinds put you out on a limb in Carol Schleiss' opinion) and I don't expect to be back until our ducks are lined up. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:01 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: miked @deboyland.com; staceyf @deboyland.com; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Lane dp /adls Hi Dave - am inquiring about your readiness to present at the next committee meeting. Do you think you will be ready to address all the items brought up at the last plan commission meeting at the Sept. 4 committee meeting? Also, will these issues be addressed in the info packets which are due tomorrow at noon? Please let me know your intentions, as the committee agenda will be finalized tomorrow around 2 pm. Thank you. To name a few, some of the major outstanding issues were /are: The number of parking spaces, Lot cover percentage requirement of 65 %, Use of EIFS as a building material, Traffic study, Sustainable development, Tree preservation plan and landscape plan, And so on Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov 8/24/2007 CARMEL 0000791 OY LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Designers Engineers Surveyors 501 S. 9th Street, Suite 100 Noblesville IN 46060 Phone: 317.770.1801 Fax: 317.770.1821 Toll Free: 1.888.801.8555 TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: City of Carmel - DOCS FROM: Stacey Fouts ADDRESS: One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 DATE: AUGUST 28, 2007 ATTENTION: Angie Conn PROJECT NAME: Holiday Inn PROJECT ADDRESS: Pro Med Lane PROJECT NUMBER: 2006 -0162 ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES /COMMENTS: Angie, Attached are five (5) copies of the latest building elevations for the Holiday Inn, Pro -Med Lane. Please let us know your thoughts. We will be getting a full submittal over to your office on Thursday. Also, how many do you need on Thursday and do I need to submit to anyone else on TAC /Plan Commission? We will be, of course, responding to any agency from whom we have received comments i.e. engineering, alternate transportation, etc.., if there any plan commission /committee members we should send too? Thank you for all your help! Bringing Your World into Focus 501 SOUTH 9th STREET, SUITE 100, NOBLESVILLE, IN 46060 PHONE: 317.770.1801 FAX: 317.770.1821 1.888. 801 -8555 TOLL FREE CARMEL 0000792 August 30. 2007 David L. Sanders 13587 Kensington Place Carmel, Indiana 46032 Mr. Eric Seidensticker Cannel Plan Commission 560 3rd Avenue SW Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Seidensticker: I am writing you to express my opposition to the proposed Holiday Inn development at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane. I have attended all of the Planning Commission meetings concerning this and the Justus Office Building project. In order to be as brief as possible I am outlining my reasons below: PARKING - The project does not meet the parking requirements. The applicant, through its attorney, Dave Coots, acknowledges that they are over 40 short of the needed spaces. They are proposing to share parking with the already approved project of the Justus Office building so the requirements are satisfied. This is wrong. They either have the required parking or they do not. In my opinion, this is just a ploy by the applicant and Justus to try to get the project approved. Consider this scenario: I am a guest at the Holiday Inn and arrive to find that the regular parking lot is full and am told I can use the Justus Office parking. The only condition is that I must be out of the lot by 8:00 a.m. the next day so the employees of the Justus, Office building will have a place to park. This is not realistic. It is interesting that the Holiday Inn project was filed in May before the Justus Office Building project and then was tabled twice and presented after the Justus Building was approved. I also question the applicant's response to a question from a member of the commission regarding the number of employees who would need parking spaces. The representative of Midwest Hospitality said that there would only be 4 or 5 employees there at one time during the week and 7 or 8 employees on the weekend. If it is true that dining, cleaning, maintenance, and desk responsibilities are to be done by this number of employees, I would not recommend this hotel to relatives and friends. In his rebuttal to the opposition to the project, Attorney Coots also said that the residents of Kensington Place would not be affected because it was one property removed, yet he proposed parking of the overflow guests in the Justus lot adjacent to our neighborhood. All night parking and the related noise and lights obviously would directly affect our residents. In fact, it would practically be in some of our residents' very small backyards. When the Justus Office Building project was approved, our neighborhood association president spoke on our behalf and welcomed the project because we knew someday there would be development there and the project was one that appeared to be neighborhood friendly and have minimal disruption to our lives. It now appears that since the Office _ Building project was approved Justus, owner of the entire property site, is doing everything possible to assure that the 2.7 acres to be used for hotel brings the maximum profit from sale. CARMEL 0000794 2 TRAFFIC — The project would bring too much additional traffic to an already congested intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road (136t Street). Our association president addressed this issue in opposition comments at the last commission meeting. A traffic study was ordered that should confirm our contention. It should be noted, however, that traffic at this time at that location is less than normal because of the temporary closures of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Roads for major construction projects. On this subject, I also question Mr. Coots' response to the opposition. He stated that the full service restaurant would only be available to guests through vouchers and the conference facilities would not be available to anyone not staying at the hotel. Thus, there would be no additional traffic or disruption to the neighbors created by outside persons. I know of no other hotel with full service restaurant and conference rooms that are limited only to guests. 65% RULE - There is no way this project meets the requirement of this rule. From the minimal information presented, it appears that the hotel building and the parking lot will engulf almost the entire 2.7 acres. There would be little, if any, room left for landscaping and tree preservation. I question if this is the reason the landscaping, aerial views and other related plans have not been submitted to the commission. The project is simply too large for the site. I respectfully urge that your do not approve this project if it comes to a commission vote. It is the wrong project for this site. The residents of Kensington Place realize that this property i Zoned B6. We knew that when we purchased or built our home here. Most of us are retired find we were looking for a nice place with minimal maintenance. convenient location, and n,nimal disruption from surroundings. At the time, there were office and medical buildings to our South. We knew that the woods on the site would not always be there, but we believed and trusted that any business that would eventually locate there would be in keeping with the present buildings and would be proper for the site. As I previously stated, we accepted Justus Office building because it appears to be proper for the area and our neighborhood. The Holiday Inn project is not! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David L. Sanders CARMEL 0000795 To: Sub - Division Committee From: Eric Seidensticker Re: Agenda items 9/4/2007 Concerns over C2 Rezone on 3rd Ave SW (Old Town District) • Building Height concerns around Monon trail. • Current 22% commercial vacancy. Increasing pressure to those unfilled properties by building more competing buildings. • Negative impact on city center development and arts and design district as the major developer is struggling to complete projects near this area. • Removing light- industrial from the City of Carmel may have negative impact on the balance of the community in general. Concerns over Holiday Inn Express Project: • Parking is not nearly high enough, permitting "borrowing" of spaces from an adjacent property owner should not be allowed. Suppose the property is sold and doesn't want to lend those spaces to the HIE. • Increase in traffic to 136th Street is not necessary. This street has plenty of traffic from the High School and others. With the Justus property on -line, the traffic will increase morning and evening drive times to the already increased traffic flow from the High School. • Ground usage in excess of what is permitted. Majority of the land covered by asphalt or concrete creating significant water run -off issues? • The increase in traffic and volume of people is too close to adjacent residential areas. Please accept these concerns in your discussions this evening. As I am new to this process and have not had nearly enough time to prepare and educate myself as to the intents of the Planning Commission, I respectfully ask that these concerns be addressed. State Code requires us on Planning Commission to put the Health and Safety of our citizens first. To this end I appreciate your careful consideration. Respectfully Submitted. Eric Seidensticker Carmel Common Council District 3 CARMEL 0000796 CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA REVISED Date: July 18, 2007 Place: Department of Community Services Conference Room 3rd Floor - Carmel City Hall Time: 9:00 AM 9:00 a.m. TABLED: Docket No. 07050017 Z: 96th Street Crossing PUD northwest corner of 964' St. and Spring Mill Rd. Filed Charlie Frankcnbergcr-of Nelson& Frankenbergcr for Jennifer Burk of Duke Realty Limited Partnership. 9:15 a.m. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 1 1.6 acres from S -1 /Residence to B -1 /Business for an office development. The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. - Not within the District's sewer service area. Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 5 lots on 1 1.6 acres. The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S- 1 /Residence, pending a B -1 /Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. -Not within the District's sewer service area. 9:25 a.m. Docket No. 07070005 DP /ADLS: Old Meridian Professional Village The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 7 buildings on 6.25 acres. The site is located at 12346 Old Meridian St. and is zoned OM /O — Old Meridian District, Office. Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans for ALTA Business Communities, LLC. - Not within the District's sewer service area. 9:35 a.m. Docket No. 07070006 DP /ADLS: Weston Park, Block A (L A Fitness) The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 3 buildings on 10.14 acres. The site is located southwest of 106th St. and Michigan Rd. and is zoned I -1 /Industrial within the US 421 Overlay. Filed by John Turek of L A Fitness International, LLC. - Currently under review, please provide sewer application to finish review. Applications can be found at www.ctrwd.org. 9:45 a.m. Docket No. 07070007 DP Amend /ADLS: Weston Pointe - Outlot 3 The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a multi- tenant retail building. The site is located at 11145 N Michigan Rd. and is zoned B -2 /Business within the US 421 Overlay. Filed by Darci Pellom of Civil Designs, LLP. - Currently under review, please provide sewer application to finish review. Applications can be found at www.ctrwd.org. Page 1 of 2 9:55 a.m. Docket No. 07070010 PP: Trillium The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 57 residential lots on 32.447 acres. The site is located at 2555 W 1315` St. and is zoned S -2 /Residence. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth & Assoc, Inc. - Currently the District is working on the rerouting of LS #23. Until the reroute is finished and tested the District will not issue a will serve letter or be able to service this subdivision. 10:05 a.m. Docket No. 07070013 SP: Cobblestone Commons Plat The applicant seeks approval to plat 17 lots on 2.56 acres. The site is located at the southwest corner of Smokey Row Rd. and l5` Ave SW and is zoned PUD /Planned Unit Development. Filed by Justin Moffett of Uptown Partners, LLC. - Not within the District's sewer service area. 10:15 a.m. Docket No. 07070011 TAC: Wilson Office Plaza Building The applicant seeks TAC approval for a previously approved building at the northwest corner of the site. The site is located north at 937 Keystone Way and is zoned B- 8 /Business within the US 431 Overlay. Filed Steve Wilson of W & W Properties, LLC. - Not within the District's sewer service area. 10:25 a.m. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. - Not within the District's sewer service area. 10:35 a.m. Lubavitch of Indiana The applicant seeks the following special use approval: Docket No. 07070012 SU Chapter 5.02 Religious Uses in a Residential District The site is located at 2640 West 96th Street and is zoned S1/Residential. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler, PC for Lubavitch of Indiana - Have no issue with the special use approval but will require for review a Sewer Application and plans showing the sewer location with updated detail drawings and notes all of which can be found at www.ctrwd.org. 10:45 801 Congressional Boulevard — Midwest Academy The applicant seeks the following use variance: Docket No. 07070018 UV Appendix a — Use Table Secondary School uses in the M3 District The site is located at 801 Congressional Boulevard within the Carmel Science and Technology Park and is zoned M3 /Industrial and Office Park. Filed by Matt Skelton of Baker and Daniels, LLP for Technology Center Associates and Midwest Academy. - The District may request that per our current FOG Ordinance that a min. 1,000 gal exterior grease trap be installed to accommodate a kitchen facility that may be necessary for school lunches. CONTACT INFORMATION: Ryan C. Hartman District Engineer Clay Township Regional Waste District 10701 N. College Ave., Suite A Indianapolis, IN 46280 -1098 Direct: 317 - 844-9200 Fax: 317- 844 -9203 rvan.hartman @ctrwd.org Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Foley, Amanda J Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:15 AM To: Brewer, Scott I; Brent A. White (baw @deboyland.com) Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B; Duncan, Gary R; Redden, Nick Subject: RE: Holiday Inn - Pro -Med Lane Brent, In an attempt to conduct a review of the stormwater pollution prevention plan for this project, it was quickly evident that plans for this project will need to be resubmitted before I can conduct a thorough review. Some initial problems found were: • The vicinity map and location map are incorrect. • The contours cannot be depicted on C1.0 • The soils map does not identify any roads nor does it identify the project site location. • Parts of the SWPPP are not for this project or have not been adequately addressed. Part C is referencing a linear project for a legal drain relocation; and therefore, no post construction stormwater quality plan has been identified. In consideration of these preliminary findings, please resubmit a complete set of plans for this project. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks, Amanda Foley Storm Water Administrator City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571 -2314 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) afoley@carmel.in.gov From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:52 PM To: Michael L. DeBoy; 'Ken Remenschneider' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B; Littlejohn, David W; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda 3; Redden, Nick Subject: Holiday Inn - Pro -Med Lane Dear Mr. DeBoy: During my initial review of the site plans for this submittal, I noticed a few problems. 1. No where can I find on the existing conditions site plan, the landscape plan, or the site plan any visible indication of where the right -of -way lines are. They must be shown. 2. Even on the utility plan there is no indication of drainage or utility easements. These easements and the right -of -way must be included on the plans so that I can be made aware of potential conflicts. 3. In the US 31 overlay zone there are requirements for tree preservation. There are no indications of any 3/5/2009 Page 2 of 2 tree preservation at all. There are also many trees in the right -of -way, they must also be preserved. These need to be shown on the existing conditions plan. Grade changes need to be taken into consideration as well. 4. This site is covered by the US 31 overlay and Section 26.04 bufferyard requirements. A chart should be prepared and submitted on the landscape plans, which shows the amount of plant material that is required, and the amount that is proposed. 5. There is no landscape buffer on the east side of the building. Unless a buffer is proposed to be provided and committed to remain on the adjacent property, that does not meet the ordinance. will have further comments once receive this information. You may contact me by email if you have any questions or wish to set a meeting to discuss these issues. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 3/5/2009 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:52 PM To: Michael L..DeBoy; 'Ken Remenschneider' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B; Littlejohn, David W; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J; Redden, Nick Subject: Holiday Inn - Pro -Med Lane Dear Mr. DeBoy: During my initial review of the site plans for this submittal, I noticed a few problems. 1. No where can I find on the existing conditions site plan, the landscape plan, or the site plan any visible indication of where the right -of -way lines are. They must be shown. 2. Even on the utility plan there is no indication of drainage or utility easements. These easements and the right -of- way must be included on the plans so that I can be made aware of potential conflicts. 3. In the US 31 overlay zone there are requirements for tree preservation. There are no indications of any tree preservation at all. There are also many trees in the right -of -way, they must also be preserved. These need to be shown on the existing conditions plan. Grade changes need to be taken into consideration as well. 4. This site is covered by the US 31 overlay and Section 26.04 bufferyard requirements. A chart should be prepared and submitted on the landscape plans, which shows the amount of plant material that is required, and the amount that is proposed. 5. There is no landscape buffer on the east side of the building. Unless a buffer is proposed to be provided and committed to remain on the adjacent property, that does not meet the ordinance. I will have further comments once receive this information. You may contact me by email if you have any questions or wish to set a meeting to discuss these issues. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 3/5/2009 04/12/2007 08:03 3177769628 r,. e_;, HAMILTON CO SURVEYOR —�..� - (C,) .•r .- �� ' -' �_�J ..i � I /III I ;� =/. -• - --� _ PAGE 01/01 Apri1 12, 2007 •fin • tiff _Kenton C. `1Vard, CEM Surveyor of ,71amiltkn County 'None (317)77s-4515 Fax (517.1 776-,4628 DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. ATTN: Mike DeBoy 501 South 9`" Street, Suite 100 Noblesville, IN 46060 VIA FACSIMILE: 770 -1821 RE: Holiday Inn - Carmel Suite r3S Onc .Hamilton Caunhr Square ;Nahicstd(ic, Indiana 46r?GC' 2230 Dear Mr. DeBoy: We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office on April 2, 2007, for this project and have the following comments: 1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction, of the City of Carmel 2. The proposed project DOES NOT fall in. a Carmel Wellhead Protection Zone. 3. The proposed project does not fall in a Hamilton County Regulated Drain Watershed. 4. Please direct all storm drainage questions to the City of Cannel Engineering Department. 5. Please note that further comments may be necessary at a later date. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317 -776 -8495. Sincerely, 1'. Greg Hoes, AC,'CPM Plan Reviewer CC: Matt Griffin — Carmel DOCD Amanda Foley — Carmel Engineering Dick Hill — Carmel Engineering Greg Ilko — Crossroad Engineers Midwest Hospitality Group — 786 -8886 April 3, 2007 City of Carmel Mr. Michael DeBoy DeBoy Land Development Services 501 S 9`h' St, ste 100 Noblesville, IN 46060 RE: Holiday Inn Dear Mr. DeBoy: The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of alternative transportation. I have reviewed the drawings submitted for the April 19, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee meeting and offer the following comments: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW COMMENTS 1) The Alternative Transportation Plan requires the construction of a 10' asphalt path along Smokey Row Rd and a 5' sidewalk along Pro Med Dr. Please revise the plans to include and label this path. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written responses may result in delay of the review process. It is critical that this office be made aware of all modification made on the plans being re- submitted, particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please provide revised plans indicating all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, Special Studies or other committee meetings. The Depatttuent of Community Services reserves the right to provide additional comments based on subsequent reviews. If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2306. Sincerely, David Littlejohn Transportation Systems Coordinator Depatlnient of Community Services cc: Matt Griffin, Depaiti lent of Community Services Engineering Depatltuent Review Project File ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 1 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417