HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft PC-09-21010 Econ Dev Plan Draft) Economic Develo Development Plan p
Supplement to .126 th. Street ED Plan
The Integrated ED Plan:
116th Street Centre
Projet t Area
Presented in draft form to the
Carmel Redevelopment Commission
September 17, 2010
(Revised to designate one parcel
for development as apartments with
$2.0M in TIF commitments from the CRC,
But not more than 50% of TIF revenue)
(2)
Presented by:
Wabash Scientific, inc.
Michael R. Shaver, President
3799 Steeplechase Drive
Carmel, I N 46032
317.872.9529
wabsci @aol.com
1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
11 '7'
1 s1 1 1 REST CENTRE C ARMEL N INDIANA 6032 GUIL h FORD RDON 116TH STRE
1 ti+ {OFFIC MEDICAL T
'a. ........r -n >r r r'•: BUILDING.` r SQUARE FOOTAGE
v r f r u smE t (tartan Health
r c 1 A F a i Clarian NOrth ital 700.000
u-- F Meridian Mark II 202,356 4 NERIDIMr US 31 :,.0
1 w '7-; c. ,�^t'k a-` i0 +.t" s 11^r Ir Meridian Mark 1 182,387 7
t 4 a ,f C.' '�c ..€�,c v 'd Three Penn Mark 33.174
a r �:k t.
Two Penn Mark 94.505
�•.r one Penn Mark 145.041
f,.M v' 11 4`1%^
{V E '-f-,,, u,, /f+� i.:`hr Meridian Crossing 157,000 1'"
S E: A i �3 `ter ttk °i— sa 11550 N. Meridian 93,355
w 7 k 1 2 "a _af t 3 l' o
I',,,.. 1 0.1,7, 4r.- 4 r q rr as Fidelity Plaza II 72,106
r
�,M F"rG y s a 'A .."4A,,,,. Two Meridian Plaza 115000
at X ''"°ya" tl� i' y f 1 794 924 SF L.'
max. i rlw' l 9t$
..„,-,„5..-,.....„ MER OIAN US 31 x 4 2 M ILLION SF OFFICE f R
gym ,i.. 4# r
t a e E` WITHIN 144 MILE RADIUS OF SIT 2 1 r j# I
r b x,raDS ,B,P� ,'�.x y. §.n5.. „,,.:0- ai ?,a X( ':l F” i*
'1“'.1,...., .j t.. a r G f e;. 77 y 7 s tau:
�a� r e f w p fi r� i fie'.- ..g f rT r r g I -`---,,„.......-.2" a
J�i. at c� .L r t '''''...*....A.,'-'' x' �s
a e 4u 01. -11.3.f, 7''t +A "4,---'-'-i ryi�1 iitrl p
nnz sue.= s s 1 4 1 j q o, 4 7 n4 I it c7
.91 Rio �i e
r 116TH STREET r ts_
-44 SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS ^S s 11 STREET i `i' ,r" o- e h 5 c'"? z «g"
116TH ST &MERIDIAN ST 5 ,1' W,„ 1 ,..7-,, e F A 's' S� "..5%-`4"44f-' r p :,r 1 pt,� l
4'1 6TH s r ST OF CENTRE .h J L .l; y;4-1._...-,,,,..:-
'+4; 741, 671 V im
4 f e yE,, Gt r 1 0 ,1 r r a r ro.. k� e ,3.. y„ it!;r�
f r` t-- '4° fl 5,.. 4 0. d c 's ..t, s.. s 1 T Je
Map #1: Map of Proposed Hart/Equicor Project (per Developer): (note: 116 Street Centre LLC does NOT own all parcels in
the area noted in the graphic, above, and does NOT propose to designate the entirety of the designated area as an ED Area)
Supplement to the 126th Street Integrated ED Plan:
This document is expressly offered as a supplement to the 12 6th Street ED Plan Integrated ED
Plan, which was previously approved by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission (CRC). The
original 126th Street ED Plan, as well as the Integrated ED Plan were developed for the purpose
of anticipating the development of the 126 Street ED Area and setting basic parameters of
public policy for the long -term investment of TIF revenues into select projects where the design
and development standards for the project afforded an extremely high quality project.
The CRC identified the 126 Street ED Area as a critical economic development area in 1997.
The ED Areawas projected by the CRC to require both economic development and
redevelopment -type activities, due to the proximity of the 126 Street ED Area to the 3 T a Avenue
SW industrial corridor of Old Carmel, as well as the proximity to the city government complex.
These adjacent areas would ultimately be connected to Carmel's primary thoroughfare (US31)
by development in the 126 Street ED Area, thus amplifyirig the need for high quality
development. The CRC suggested that properly stimulated market forces, over time, would
create new commercial development centered on the development of Class A office space,
employing professionals engaged in enterprises requiring high levels of intellectual capital. The
2 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
CRC sought to amplify and underscore the standards promoted by the Plan Commission for this
overall area. After approximately 13 years of pursuing these fundamental economic
development policies, the CRC has seen incredible success in the developments so stimulated.
As such, this "Supplement" document seeks to achieve optimal transparency in continuing the
assertion of the fundamental policies set forth in 1997 by specifically addressing the parameters
of Hart/Equicor's proposed project at 116 Guilford. For purposes of transparency and
clarity, this ED Plan reproduces and offers relevant portions of the original "Request for Tax
Increment Financing" as presented publicly by the developer for reference purposes.
116 Street Centre ED Plan: Introduction
The 116 Street Centre ED Plan is developed for the purpose of enabling the CRC and the
Carmel City Council to assess and determine the propriety of extending TIF incentives to the
apartment portion of the revised 116 Street Centre development which has been proposed by JC
Hart/Equicor. It is noted that the Plan Commission has already approved the overall project,
which is consistent with the past practices of the CRC with respect to the Plan Commission. By
having in hand the prior approval of the Plan Commission before considering TIF incentives, the
CRC seeks to assure that any TIF proposal conforms to the `overall plan of development' of the
area by virtue of officially documented public action.
This ED Plan notes that the development plan for the 116 Street Centre has been changed from
its original proposal in several ways. Originally, the 116 Street Centre included townhomes in
addition to commercial development, utilizing a phased development approach. When the
market shifted away from townhomes, the developer adjusted the development plan to both re-
configure the parcels of the site and to substitute apartments instead of townhomes, in order for
the development to proceed. The net result of these adjustments to the development proposal has
reduced the amount of commercial development at the 116 Street Centre and has increased the
portion of the development dedicated to apartment housing. This ED Plan is presented using the
most recent apartment development proposal as the basis for CRC consideration, and proposes
to designate the apartment parcel, only for TIF incentives.
The 126 Street ED Area Was Designated in 1997 Has Been Amended
The 116 Street Centre project area (the "Project Area is contained within the amended
boundaries of the 126 Street ED Area, which was originally designated in 1997. Amendments
to the original 126 Street ED area have been undertaken over time in conjunction with
development and annexation by the City of Carmel. In 1997, the 126 Street ED Area was
foreseen as a connector between the more historic areas of Carmel along Rangeline Road and
Carmel's primary thoroughfare, US31 /Meridian Street. As acknowledged by the Carmel Plan
Commission in its approval of the 116 Street Centre project, the proposed development of the
3 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
3
116 Street Centre is consistent with nearby development in affording transitional land uses
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN (CURRENT) c.--...e
116TH STREET CENTRE
'r
i Fu ure Right of way
I t 7 R 4. o` 4 .4... „_:541
,u I 7 111 0 I 4
fc t ,,,,i, c. 4 0
i con
'o' .e, fie. 1 _0,
i r (ti G c
IL/\ Future Development
1 Existing
1 I Commercial i
j ,1/4„,....\ i
East 116` Street
r
Map #2: 116 Street Centre's Phases Showing Current Proposal (per Developer): See Appendix A for Original Proposal
116th Street Centre Proposal Is Generally Consistent With Previous Planning
As shown in the graphic above, the 116 Street Centre project has been adjusted in response to
economic shifts in the residential development marketplace and the adjustments have been
approved by the Carmel Plan Commission. The above graphic portrays the current proposal to
develop the area with apartments. The 116th Street Centre development proposals have both
been determined to conform to the previous ED Plan for the area, as well as other previous
planning for the area. This determination is affirmed by the independent public actions of the
Plan Commission to approve both the original 116 Street Centre proposal, as well as its
amendments to include apartments. The 116 Street Centre development /redevelopment
4 9 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
proposal (both phases) contains a blend of commercial development and higher- density
residential development (apartments), which is consistent with nearby development, as well as
being consistent with previous planning for the area. Only the apartments are proposed for TIF.
116th Street Centre TIF Request is Generally Consistent with Previous CRC Policies
In order to assure optimum public transparency, it is noted that the 116th Street Centre TIF
request is also consistent with the previous policies of the CRC with regard to TIF revenues. The
"Economic Comparison" (below), provided to the CRC by the developer, clearly reflects the
projection that the amended proposal to develop the 116 Street Centre using apartments
generates over $300,000 /year in property tax revenues, compared to generating slightly more
than $168,000 /year if the Centre were developed with townhomes. .In addition, the shift from
townhomes to apartments generates substantially more TIF revenue, due to the nature of the
development as rental housing, rather than owner- occupied housing. This increase in property
tax revenues results from a higher assumed assessed value for apartments, as well as a higher
property tax cap for rental property. Obviously, these projections are based on an assumption
regarding the assessed value of the proposed development, which must be taken into
consideration with regard to any TIF revenue projection.
ECONOMIC BENEFIT e
116TH STREET CENTRE -t 1 0SO
ECONOMIC COMPARISON
PROPOSED
Commercial Townhomes Apartments
(Area A) (Area B) (Area A and B Combined)
Assessed Value (est. net) $1,982,565 $10,683,225 $17,500,000
Total Assessed Value $12,665;790 $17,500,000
Annual Property Taxes $34,336 $134,192 $303,083
Total Annual Property Taxes $168,528. $303,083
Capturable Tax Increment $34,336 $0 $303,083
Total Capturable Tax Increment $34,336 $303,083
The terms of the TIF request were also spelled out by the developer in public documents, as
portrayed below. The TIF request amounts to $2.4 million, including two years of capitalized
interest (shown as "CAP -I and $2 million in TIF principle for use in the apartment project.
This $2.4 million TIF request equates to an estimated annual TIF bond payment of $221,600./yr
over 20 years at 6% interest. This statement reflects the developer's proposal, only, and should
not be interpreted as a commitment or recommendation for TIF funding.
In addition, it is noted that the TIF request represents only a portion of the total property tax
revenues projected to be generated by the 116th Street Centre development proposal. This factor
should be examined and affirmed by the CRC in greater detail as the projections for the TIF
5 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
bond terms can be finalized. In the event that TIF investment is deemed; appropriate by the CRC
and /or City Council, any Financial Analysis performed should provide additional specific detail
with regard to the proposed sharing of TIF revenue generated by the project, and the
commitment of those revenues toward specific purposes by the CRC.
TAX INCREMENT SUMMARY
r
116TH STREET CENTRE y ry
DEVELOPMENT COST ySUMMARY (I) xTs
Estimated Total Development Cost 19,500,000
Development Funding
Developer Contribution 17,500,000
Proposed TIF Funds 2.000.000
Total Development Funding 19,500,000
Proposed TIF Terms
TIF Amount Requested by Developer 2,000,000
Estimated CAP -I (2 yrs) and COI 400.000
Gross Bond Proceeds Requested 2,400,000
Annual Debt Service (20 years 6 221,600
Projected Total Tax Increment
Pledged to Development Bond 221,600
Available to City 81.483 (2)
Total Project Tax Increment: 303,083
(1) All numbers are approximations and subject to updating and change.
(2) Under the existing zoning, only an estimated $34,336 would be capturable by the TIF
District and available to the City.
Brief: Description of the Proposed 116th Street Centre Project
The 116th Street Centre project has been undertaken in,at least three phases: (1) development of
the commercial frontage along 116 Street at the northwest corner of 116 "Guilford; (2)
development of the apartment /residential area, generally located north of. the 116 Street
frontage. (See graphic entitled "Conceptual Site Plan (Current)" (above), and (3) final
development of the remaining 116 Street frontage as commercial (shown in developer'''s
documentation as "Area C (See "Executive Summary" graphic, as well as item #5 of "Benefits
of Proposed Project," as well as notes regarding zoning /acreage of "Area C As noted in Map
#1, Hart /Equicorp do not own a portion of the area designated as the 116 Street Centre and
those parcels are excluded from any consideration herein.
The total acreage of the 116 Street Centre is 12.1 acres, as shown on the developer's
documentation, with a detailed breakdown of land uses as follows:
6 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan(Draft,September 17, 2010)
"Original Area A" containing 1.77 acres was originally zoned for commercial development;
"Original Area B" containing 4.98 acres was originally zoned for townhomes;
These two areas "A" "B were re- zoned with the approval of the City Council for 195 units of
apartments, totaling 6.75 acres, with the following apartment mix:
o 89 one bedroom units (46% of total) 671 sf with an estimated monthly rent of $744;
o 94 two- bedroom units (48% of total) 974 sf with, an estimated monthly rent of $973;
o 12 three bedroom units .(6% of total) 1,236 sf with an estimated monthly rent of
$1,228.
o The market target for the is singles, couples and families, generally with pre
schoolchildren.
o The complex will have 4 building types, with a type -4 building (see below)
fronting on.College Avenue. (see Appendix A for all building types and floor plans)
o The apartment complex will also have a clubhouse (see Appendix A for graphic).
In August/September, 2010, the developer requested that the county re- number parcels for
purposes of TIF. designation, and as a result:
o Parcel #17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.001 was modified to contain 7.27 acres, and this parcel will
contain the entirety of the proposed apartment complex, as well as being the entirety of
the ED Area'designation.
Prior to re-numbering, this revised 7.27 -acre parcel was designated in the
developer's materials as Area A (townhomes) and Area B (commercial).
o Parcel #17- 09- 36- 00- 00- 060.002 and parcel #17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.102 now comprise the
entirety of the commercial development as proposed,in the 116 Street Centre PUD.
Prior to re- numbering, this area was shown on developer materials as "Area C."
"Area C" (aka parcel# 17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.102 and remainder of parcel #17-09-36-00-00
060.002) are NOT included,in.the TIF /ED Area request. As revised, Area C now contains 4.85
acres, and continues to be zoned for commercial development, as originally proposed, according
to the developer's documentation.
o The developer has proposed that Area C be developed as approximately 4 outlots, to be
constructed in accordance with the buyers' specifications.
Parcels (3) not owned by Equicor /Hart are not included in this TIF/ED Area request.
Parcels (4) containing existing development are not included in this TIF /ED Area request.
The Development Plan for the 116th Street Centre PUD; as amended (to provide for
apartments), has been approved by both the Plan Commission and the City Council. The
proposed 3 -story elevation for the, apartments which would be visible from Guilford Avenue
is shown below (from,developer's information). There will be an assortment of building
types contained within the apartment development, as well as a clubhouse, as shown in the
developer's information.
7 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
fi ss
w® s u e {�r q t er r e t}f 1 r terra' iKma rr a mat
1d 1 i 11 a 01 °A; {g ►i i i 19p I i a i
L n 1 t �I Z1 1 1$91r t h a
0
i-----....111r001114,111iii p ra ea in In� is 11 fi tiV wIM i
E 4 i t t i wen m
1a �m D i mm
al
t!It! rt5 ,$t i, 1 l rr SQr .:41 t =t 1 :::',1,11:'
rr tom' [1;.-t i 311,:i i fl.{1
e�F r i xr t It 11 ,<i n �{t.ttiI t Wig i in
ili 4 1 AC kt 11 11 it 11, 11 A Is .I ris
g� �II YGi LL —w t r" box•-, j ■i.- ■i o r f
4 k` .'I i lily i I ?k 8.t`w ids 1l� t
p' to Top of Parapet Front Elevation Building Type 4
weaver Sherman design 116th _.n.��. ART
weaver and land planners nV Street Centre
JC H
Legal Description of the 116th Street Centre Project Area:
The following legal description is developed b a s ed upon the Hamilton County Auditor's electronic
GIS information as depicted at http: /gis.hamiltoncounty.in.gov /FlexViewer /Index.html.
Beginning at the point of intersection of the'eastern right of way line of Guilford Avenue (north of
116 Street) and the northern boundary of parcel 17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.001, as re- numbered by
the Hamilton County Auditor in September; 2010,
Then turning irregularly eastward; along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries.of parcels
17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.001 to the point of intersection with the eastern with of way line of Guilford
Avenue,
Then turning northward along the eastern right of way line of Guilford Avenue to the, point of
beginning.
The legal description presented above is intended to capture only one parcels as portrayed at the
same county website: 17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.001.
The CRC respectfully requests that any discovered discrepancy between the list of parcels and
the legal description (above) be brought to the immediate attention of the CRC in order that
proper clarification can be effected.
Other Parcels Owned by 116 Street Centre LLC
In the interest of full disclosure, the 116 Street Centre LLC owns additional parcels in the
immediate area (outside of the one parcel proposed for designation as the 116th Street. Centre
Project Area), and the 116 Street Centre LLC does NOT own 3 parcels (which are graphically
captured in Map #1 (per developer, but are owned-by Schneider Management, according to web
GIS information)). This ED Plan does NOT propose to capture, divert, or otherwise influence the
current flow of TIF revenues from any parcels other than the one designated parcel.
8 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Brief Summary of the Request for TIF Incentives
The CRC seeks to emphasize that the ED Plan IS NOT the governing document for controlling
the approval or distribution of TIF incentives. The CRC must develop a separate and legally
binding development agreement to be signed by the developer and the CRC. This development
agreement seeks to assure that the developer and the CRC are in complete agreement with regard
to the finite details of the project, the approval and distribution of TIF proceeds, the terms and
conditions of the TIF financing, and the future expectations and actions of both the developer
and the CRC (with regard to such things as future appeals of assessed value (which would impact
TIF revenues), future shifts in the taxable status of improvements, and other future business
decisions of the current or future property owner which might affect or imperil the interests of
Carmel taxpayers. Therefore, this ED Plan seeks to clearly state that the provisions specified
below are intended to represent the maximum participation of the CRC in terms of TIF
incentives.
The developer has requested that the .CRC consider the investment of TIF incentives in the
estimated maximum amount of $2.4 million to support the 116th Street Centre project, briefly
summarized as follows:
Cost item Preliminary cost estimate
Capitalized Interest Cost of Issuance 400,000
Site Work 543,204
Sanitary Sewer 135,627
Storm Sewer 311,792
Water Main 165,998
Site Streets Walks 675,905
Engineering 167,474
Total TIF Request 2,400,000
Developer- estimated annual TIF revenue $303,083/year when proposed apartments are
developed.
Developer originally estimated annual debt payment of $221,600 (approximately 73% of
estimated revenue from the proposed project), however, the CRC has noted that the developer
agreement will stipulate that the developer will receive no more than 50% of any TIF revenues
generated by the apartments, and that the developer will be at risk for any shortfall that might
affect debt repayment.
o In addition, the developer agreement is to contain terms and conditions which place the
risk of future changes in assessed value, or other changes that might affect TIF revenue
squarely upon the developer, and not the: CRC, City or,Carmel taxpayers.
No projections of TIF revenue from undeveloped commercial area outlots (4.85 acres) were
included in the developer's information.
9 6 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
o Further, the developer agreement will require the developer t� currently be and remain
current on all property-tax payments.
o Further, the developer agreement will constrain or prohibit the developer from any appeal
of property assessed value.
o Further, the developer agreement will place the, developer at risk in the event of non
performance, non- payment or other failures by the developer.
No diversion, reallocation or alteration of the,existing property tax revenue stream from existing
commercial development is proposed by the developers.
Existing Development Is Already Generating TIF Revenues to the CRC
The ED Plan notes that, according to publicly accessible property tax records, four parcels which
are part of the 116 Street Centre (owned by 116 Street Centre LLC, and shown on the
developer's graphic, Map #1), but located outside of the proposed 116th Street Centre Project
Area are already developed and are paying property taxes (apparently captured by as
TIF revenue). Those parcels are as follows (with 2010 property tax record information taken from
web -GIS as well as telephone confirmation with Auditor's TIF staff, August 16, 2010):
Parcel Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Paid 2010
invoice invoice
0*
17-09-36-00-00- 17,093.66 15,533.70 "(developer to
060.102 correct this through
payment of taxes
and penalties)
17-09-36-03-01- 11,241:76 11,235.76 11,241.76
011.000
17-09-36-03-01- 24,771.47 24,765.47 24,771.47
012.000
17-09-36-03-01- 2,411.82 2,405.82 2,405.82
010.000
Total (4 parcels) 55,518.71 53,940.75 38,419.05
The parcels owned by 116 Street Centre LLC (depicted in the table, above) are already
developed and taxed as commercial property, as well as being located within the 126 Street ED
Area, as amended. The above information is offered in the interest of full public disclosure to
demonstrate that TIF revenues are already being generated by the 116 Street Centre.
Based on the web -GIS information, theoretical total property tax.revenue generated by the four
parcels outside of the proposed ED Area, yet owned by the 116 Street Centre LLC is currently
estimated at $109,459.46, however, the developer has appealed the 'assessed values of the
parcels, as shown, which could have an impact on potential TIF revenue. The scope of this ED
Plan, however, does not include confirmation of current property tax or TIF revenue streams.
The proposed 116t Street ED Plan /Area does NOT propose to capture, divert or otherwise
influence any of the existing TIF revenue from existing development. Rather, the proposed 116th
Street Centre Project Area proposes to designate ONLY the two parcels which are to be
developed as apartments by JC Hart (as noted in the ED Area legal description, above).
10 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Again, as part of the developer agreement, the CRC seeks to protect the interests of the
taxpayers by specifically requiring diligent performance by the developers on the above parcels,
which are not part of the ED Area/TIF- designation, but are integrally involved in the development
of the 116 Street Centre. In pursuing this issue, the CRC seeks to protect the interests of
Carmel taxpayers beyond the strict boundaries of this specific ED Area designation by using the
developer agreements to limit the future actions of existing /future owners with regard to revenue
generated by the entire development.
TIF Decisions Are Governed by Developer Agreements
The CRC is sensitive to issues of transparency, and as such, this ED Plan notes that the
final, controlling document for a CRC decision is memorialized in a developer
agreement. A developer agreement is currently being negotiated for the Meridian
Main project, which is anticipated to specifically govern the details of the commitments
of the developer and the CRC. The developer agreement is intended to be binding upon
the current develop, as well as future landowners.
The developer agreement has become integral to CRC TIF policy and is extremely
detailed. Matters generally covered by the developer agreements are generally intended
to reduce /eliminate risk on the part of the City, CRC and Carmel taxpayers, while clearly
placing the risks and burdens on the developer for failures to perform in accordance with
the understandings expressed in this ED Plan. As such, it is not uncommon for a
developer agreement to place constraints on the developer with regard to such things as
changes in TIF revenue streams, changes in underlying assessed value of property,
changes to project schedules (which might secondarily affect revenue streams), and
limitations of the obligations of the CRC. With this understanding, the developer
agreement is generally considered a more legally binding document than the ED Plan.
Conformity with Previous Planning
This ED Plan seeks to root itself firmly in the long -term planning of the community at large. In
pursuit of this planning goal, the ED Plan notes four separate and distinct determinations of
conformity with the previous planning for the area and the community, as follows:
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Carmel as evidenced by the approval of
the 116th Street Centre development proposal by the (the "City' or "Carmel Plan Commission
(including the Plan Commission's approval of the PUD re- zoning to include apartments).
o It has been the longstanding policy.of the CRC to allow.the Plan Commission to make its
determinations and decisions freely and without confusion from or by the CRC.
o In support of this CRC policy, the CRC did not consider any TIF related entity or action
until after the Plan Commission had approved the 116th Street Centre project (as well as
the PUD re- zoning).
o It has also been the longstanding and consistent policy of the CRC to assume that any
approval of any project by the Plan Commission is tantamount to a statement of the
conformity of the approved project with the Comprehensive Plan for the affected area.
Conformity with the 126 Street ED Plan, as approved in 1997 and as amended thereafter to
support the growth of Carmel's Science Technology Park, by the CRC.
o The 1997 ED PIan, designated a large area as being the 126 Street ED Area.
o The 1997 ED PIan and the 126 Street ED Area were amended to include multiple
expansions both less than and greater than 20% of the original ED Area, as provided by
the statutes in effect at those times.
11 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development PIan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
o Later, the additional designations of ED Areas along Pennsylvania Street, as well as Old
Meridian, Old Town (Carmel), City Center and other ED Plans /Areas were integrated into
a single, functional planning document with integration of policies and projects by the
CRC.
This act of 'integration' served to bring all of the CRC's individual economic
development and redevelopment activities under a single set of TIF policies
which would eliminate minor differences in TIF policy by the CRC, from one ED
Area to another.
This act of 'integration' also served to address TIF issues which arose as a result
of multiple annexations undertaken by the City which increased the need for a
single, integrated set of TIF policies for the community at large.
The CRC hereby expresses its respect for the actions and autonomy of the Carmel Plan
Commission (and predecessors) with regard to developmental review and approval. The actions
proposed in this ED Plan, as well as the stated evidentiary basis for those CRC actions are based
on the CRC's respect for the Plan Commission as well as the CRC's interest in promoting the
developmental policies of the Plan Commission by assisting in the development of the highest
possible quality of infrastructure and development standards to support long -term economic
growth and development.
Conformity with the 1997 ED Plan: Proposed Projects
The original 126 Street ED Plan was approved by the CRC in 1997, with subsequent
amendments in 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2004. In each of the ED Plans supporting the
proposed amendments, the ED Plan made a clear finding of fact that the CRC's intent in
creating /amending /expanding the ED Areas was based upon the intent to create a larger
property tax base, improved assessed values, and increased the number of jobs in these
ED Areas. Each iteration of the ED Plan cited the expansion of the local economy and
the continuing development of Carmel's Science Technology Park as an employment
center. In the interest of transparency, all of the individual ED Plans (27 total) are
accessible from the Clerk Treasurer's portion of the city's lazerfiche web -link, under
"Redevelopment Commission."
The first ED Plan `amendment' to specifically place the 116 Street Centre territory
under the ED Plan/Area umbrella was in 2000. At that time, the CRC fundamentally
explained that the entire area between Meridian/US31 and Rangeline and between 131
Street and 116 represented the city's primary employment center. This
amendment was nearly perfectly `aligned in fact and principle with the CRC's original
intent of developing an employment center which stretched from the US31 Corridor to
Old Town. The proposed 116 Centre represents a logical iteration of the
sequence begun in 1997.
All of the approved ED Plans itemized a series of projects and categorically linked the
City Center improvement projects to the long -term development of the Integrated ED
Area. Beginning as early as 1998, those projects clearly included the rationale for using
TIF revenues to support development of a performing arts center, as well as an art
museum in the City Center area, as well as other projects related to the development of
the designated ED Areas as Carmel's employment. center.
12 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
The proposed 116 Street Centre project continues to support those larger goals, as stated
by the CRC since 1997. In this case, the development of a mixed -use commercial area,
with apartments in the immediate proximity of 4.2 million square feet of Class A office
space within 1.5 miles of the 116 Street Centre. The jobs captured in this employment
center are believed to provide a solid market for the proposed 195 units of apartments,
enabling employees to commute less than 2 miles to their jobs.
Previous iterations of this Integrated ED Plan indicate that the 116th Street Centre
proposal for projects using TIF funds conforms to the original 1998 ED Plan expectations
(12 years prior to the 116th Street Centre proposal). This consistency of outcome
validates and affirms the original interests of the CRC with regard to promotion of the
highest possible quality of development in the area of the Science Technology Park,
and the plan to developmentally link Old Town with the US31 corridor. The 116 Street
Centre development proposal affords the CRC a logical mix of land uses that provide
"neighborhood- serving" retail support for residents and businesses in the Science
Technology Park area, as well as providing high quality housing for young professionals
who might seek a residence very close to their jobs (with over 4 million sf of commercial
development nearby). These are the results of high quality planning by the CRC.
As noted in a 2002 iteration of the integrated ED Plan, the 116 Street Centre proposal
conforms to the expectations and policies on multiple topics and levels. For purposes of
brevity, the excerpts below are drawn from the 2002 ED Plan as examples of the
conformity between the 2002 ED Plan and the proposals contained in the 116 Street
Centre ED Plan. These excerpts are offered in order to provide the reader with a
transparent basis for determining whether the 116th Street Centre proposal conforms to
the intentions and policies of the CRC, as set forth below.
`Purpose of the ED Plan' (2002 ED Plan, pp. 5 -6):
o "At the point where a development project is proposed, it becomes the job of the
Economic Development Plan to objectively review the body of previous
development policy and determine the extent to which the current project
complies with those policies."
o "...the community must assure itself that any development proposed will place
the community in a better position to implement its long term developmental
goals."
o "This Economic Development Plan attempts to identify the infrastructure
improvements required to support growth in the proposed Economic
Development Area...."
o "The Economic Development Plan provides the rational analytical process by
which the community can measure whether a proposed project is consistent with
the consensus built through the comprehensive planning process."
o "An Economic Development Plan, therefore, is an examination of previous
economic development policy in light of new proposals."
`Purpose of the ED Area' (pp. 6 -8)
o "...the role of the Carmel Redevelopment Commission (CRC) in this project is to
create appropriate Economic Development Areas (ED Areas) for the purposes of
supplementing the capacity of the City to implement the development
proposals...."
13 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
o "...any funding decisions to be made, as a result of the creation of any proposed
ED Area must be reached through the process defined by those agencies and
the elected officials responsible for governing those activities."
`Recommendation for a Phased ED Area'.(pp. 8 -10)
o "...any funding decisions to be made as a result of the creation of any proposed
ED Area must be reached through the process defined by those agencies and
the elected officials responsible for governing those activities."
In addition to the excerpts from the 2002 ED Plan offered above, this ED Plan includes by
reference all relevant excerpts related to the statutory findings of fact in the appropriate sections
of this ED Plan, as well.as all other sections of subsequent iterations of ED Plans developed by
the CRC since 1997. Finally, the above testimony is suggested to afford satisfaction of the
statutory requirement that "the plan for the economic development area conforms to other
development and redevelopment plans for the unit."
Approved Zoning for 116th Street Centre
The graphic below is taken from'the developer's submittal to the CRC and is intended to depict
the existing, approved zoning for 116th Street Centre for the area identified as Areas A, B, and
C. Note that Areas A, B C of the proposed development cover only two separately identified
parcels in the County Auditor 's records, per county web -GIS:
14 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
ti EXECUTIVE SUMMARY o
r 116TH STREET CENTRE
.461 v
1 e SI TE D FTAII S k V, BACKGROUND
P1?:;1 f.1 acre site n t
Equicor's `116th Street Centre' development runs along the north
1 1 71 side of 116th Street between College Avenue and Guilford Avenue.
j) i Equicor's redevelopment project (Tease see the photos at Tab 7 to
I 1 see the property's prior condition and uses) has been coordinated
,--ci
with the City from the be Equicor has worked closely with
A 1 t City to develop the property consistent with the City 's vision (e.g_,
i; F retail buildings pulled up to the street and enhanced architecture
r ant! massing To date, Equicor has constructed retail buildings
along 116th and along Guilford Avenue. Of the remaining land to be
i developed, Areas A and eoriginallywere planned for eomnnercialand
xi townhoraae uses, respectively Currently, little market interest exists
O
INAZ N for a new townhome development: Faced with this market reality
Area A (1.77 acres) the desire to jump start" the project; the development team, in
commerciaf c with JC Hart, began working with the City to propose a
q y 4 revised plan that would permit apartments to be built within Areas
Area B (4 98 acres) and B. In order to bring this new plan to, market, two (2) things
t units) needed to happen_ (i) the existing PUD Ordinance needed to be
4 R.x amended t o pem)it apartments; and (u) a tax increment financing
F A C (5 macres) °TIE°) plan needed to be put in place: On February 1, 2010, the
comercial a i City Council unanimously approved the PUD Ordinance amendment.
_1 Now, the TIF proposal is being presented.
I C URRENT-ZONINGf:; i t.
Are A B: 67 5 acres) PROJECT PROPOSAL
ap units)
V::,' In its discussions with the City, the development team has proposed
t' A r 35 acre a TIF structure that will dedicate a portion of the tax increment mercia i i i generated with Areas A and B to the project and another portion to
the City for its use (resulting not only in jump starting' the project,
but also in more projected tax increment for the City than was A projected under the original plan).
6 ,f B ktf: L
fr BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROIFCT (Areas A and 13 combined):
-C 1 Creates'a 2010 market-ready project instead of an 'empty" townhome site.
i 2. Increases net assessed value: $17.5 million v. $12.6 million.
3. Creates `capturable' tax increment now. 'C_. 4. Increases City's capturable tax increment: $81,000 v. $34,000 (the difference is
attributed to: (1) the increased assessed value; and (ii) the apartment's ability to generate
ix capturable tax increment, while townhomes generate no capturable tax increment).
5. Helps jump start development of remaining commercial Area C (which, in turn, will create
z, even more tax increment for the City).
te e r !1: i
Map #3: Original Executive Summary: 116 Street Centre (per Developer)
15 1 116th Street Centre' Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
The Statute Governing Creation of an ED Area
The ED Plan is undertaken to support the proposed development of the Project Area generally
described as being located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Guilford Avenue and
116 Street, comprising the entire north side of the 116 Street corridor between College and
Guilford. The CRC has already undertaken consideration of the 116th Street Centre
development proposal using the approval. of the Plan Commission as the good -faith basis for
considering the proposed 116th Street Centre project. As such, the CRC accepts the' PUD re-
zoning and the development plan approvals of the Plan Commission as an unambiguous'
statement of the Plan Commission's finding that the proposed development conforms to the
overall plan of development of the proposed: ED Area This determination is critical to the
CRC's statutory consideration of the commitment of TIF to support the 116th Street Centre
project.
The creation of an Economic Development Area and the contents of an Economic Development
Plan are governed by IC 36- 7- 14 -41, which, for purposes of clarity and transparency, is
presented in its entirety below:
IC 36 -7- 14-41: Economic developm area; determination; enlargement
(a) The commission may, by following the procedures set forth in sections 15 through 17
of this chapter, approve a plan for and determine that a geographic area in the
redevelopment district is an economic development area. Designation: of an
economic development area is subject to judicial review in the manner prescribed in
section 18 of this chapter:
(b) The commission may determine that a geographic area is an economic development
area if it finds that:
(1) the plan for the economic development area:
(A) promotes significant opportunities for the gainful employment of its citizens;
(B) attracts a major new business enterprise to the unit;
(C) retains or expands a significant business enterprise existing in the boundaries
of the unit; or
(D) meets other purposes of this section and sections 2.5 and 43 of this chapter;
(2) the plan for the economic_development area cannot be achieved by regulatory
processes or by the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to the
powers allowed under this section and sections 2.5 and 43 of this chapter because
of:
(A) lack of local public improvement;
(B) existence of improvements or conditions that lower the value of the land
below that of nearby land;
(C) multiple ownership of land; or
(D) other similar conditions;
(3) the public health and welfare will be benefited by accomplishment of the plan for
the economic development area;
(4) the accomplishment of the plan for the economic development area will be a
public utility and benefit as. measured by:
(A) the attraction or retention of permanent jobs;
(B) an increase in the property tax base;
16 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan' (Draft, September 17, 2010)
(C) improved diversity of the economic base; or
(D) other similar public benefits; and
(5) the plan for the economic development area conforms to other development and
redevelopment plans for the unit.
The determination that a geographic area is an economic development area must be
approved by,the unit's legislative body. The approval may be given either before or after
judicial review is requested. The requirement that the unit's legislative body approve
economic development areas does not prevent the commission from amending the plan
for the economic development area. However, the enlargement of any boundary in the
economic development area must be approved by the unit's legislative body, and a
boundary may be enlarged unless:
(1) the existing area does not generate sufficient revenue to meet the financial
obligations of the original project; or
(2) the Indiana economic development corporation has, in the manner provided by
section 15(f) of this chapter, made a finding approving the enlargement of the boundary.
As added by P.L.380- 1987(ss),. SEC.16 and P.L.393- 1987(ss), SEC.5. Amended by
P. L.114 -1989, SEC.11; P. L.146 -2008, SEC. 739.
This ED Plan conforms to the above recited statute in all respects, and the CRC will use the ED
Plan to clearly set forth the premises upon which the CRC considered the investment of TIF
revenues to support the 116 Street Centre. The documentation for the project will rely upon the
developer's documentation presented to the Plan Commission for the 116th Street Centre
planning/zoning approval, thereby affording the CRC a structurally identical basis for the CRC's
consideration of its statutory responsibilities in this regard. By basing the CRC's TIF decision
on the same information that was provided to the Plan Commission, the public policies of both
regulatory, bodies should conform to one another and present the public with a transparent and
consistent public policy result.
Findings of Fact
The ED Plan contains the statutory Findings of Fact, drawing information as needed from the
developer's proposal, as well as previous and current iterations of the ED Plans which publicly
state the CRC's policies with respect to economic development and TIF investment. While the
CRC recognizes the potential for redundancy in addressing each specific statutory finding of
fact, this ED Plan will attempt to minimize such redundancy while reserving the right to amend
and amplify any of its findings in response to public testimony, comments and suggestions, per
statutory intent.
These Findings of Fact hereby incorporate by reference any and all previous ED Plans approved
by the CRC to the extent that ED Plans' support and extend the considerations relevant to
the creation of the ED Area. It should be clear to even the most cynical observer that
development of the US31 corridor, 116 Street, 126 Street, College Avenue, Guilford Avenue
and other corridors integral to the Science Technology Park are critical to the long term
economic viability of the City of Carmel on multiple, simultaneous levels. Further, the separate
and independent scrutiny and review of development proposals by the City's DOCS, Plan
Commission, City Council and CRC are all intended to serve as protection of the community's
17 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
standards and public policies in service to the community at large. It is the CRC's intent to
remain consistently respectful of these parallel, independent and inter dependent roles.
FINDING OF FACT #IA: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA: (A)
PROMOTES SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT OF ITS CITIZENS
The ED Plan specifically proposes to promote significant opportunities for gainful
employment of Carmel citizens, as well as providing, relevant and well located residential
opportunities in close proximity to over 4 million square feet (and growing) of
professional office space. The apartment portion of the proposal is directly targeted at
young professionals seeking residential locations close to their work. This direct target
occurs in two forms: in the form of a location proximate to Carmel's primary
employment center, and; in the form of an apartment size mix which is designed to meet
the market preferences of young professionals. By reducing the number of 2+ bedroom
apartments, the developer seeks to attract professional singles and couples, rather than
families with children, as an introductory location to the City of Carmel. Furthermore,
the immediately proximate provision of retail restaurant and commercial space further
enhances the "living efficiency" of the 116 Street Centre development.
Direct employment is afforded through the mixed -use development of office space, as
well as retail space within the 116 Street Centre, itself, as well as enhancing the overall
employment of the Science and Technology Park which is Carmel's primary employment
center. Future development of "Area C" as ,additional office and retail space is projected
to further amplify the capacity of the 116 Street Centre to meet this statutory finding.
Using accepted parameters for estimation of employment in office developments, it is
preliminarily estimated that the existing office space in the Science Technology Park
area (4.2 million sf), there are approximately 14,000 jobs located in less than a 2 -mile
radius of the 116 Street Centre. More job development has already been approved and
is either under construction, or preparing to commence. The recent addition of retail
space along the US31 corridor, as well as "neighborhood- serving" retail scattered in other
areas, represent a healthy mix of land uses for this primary employment area.
The 116th Street Centre proposal clearly is intended to promote the gainful employment
of the citizens of Carmel and surrounding communities, thus meeting the statutory
requirements of this finding of fact.
FINDING OF FACT #1B: ...ATTRACTS A MAJOR NEW BUSINESS ENTERPRISE TO THE UNIT....
The 116th Street Centre proposal has already brought several new business enterprises to
Carmel, located in the commercial development at the corner of 116 Guilford. The
future development of Area C as `neighborhood- serving' retail proposes to further add
new business enterprise in the traditional sense of the word.
The creation of `neighborhood serving' retail space is an extremely important
consideration for the overall area. By providing `neighborhood serving' commercial
development, the City begins to trim the amount of vehicle traffic generated within the
ED Area, and promotes the use of alternative transportation, such as walking or biking.
18 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
This concept is further enhanced' by the proximity of the 116 Street Centre to the Monon
corridor, which offers further amenity for the proposed development.
In addition, the shift to develop apartments in the northern portion of the development
(rather than townhomes) produces another new business, enterprise as well as additional
sources of disposable incomes to support new retail development in the overall ED Area.
The apartments, `themselves, are technically qualified as a business enterprise.
The proposed development represents an interesting "fit" into the framework of
development that already exists within the 126 Street ED Area, addressing existing
developmental needs providing amenities that further enhance the area.
The ED Plan clearly contemplates the attraction of major new business enterprise to
Carmel and to the ED Area; thus meeting the statutory requirements of this finding of
fact.
FINDING OF FACT #1 G ...THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA... RETAINS
OR EXPANDS A SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS ENTERPRISE EXISTING IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
UNIT.
The ED Plan notes that the mixed use proposal for the 116 Street ED Area offers both
`neighborhood- serving' commercial, as well as apartment/residential development.
These sorts of developments tend to identify and meet certain kinds of niche businesses
that develop in support of the 4.2 million square feet of office development within 2
miles. For areas such as this, these niche and neighborhood serving businesses tend to
enhance the capacity of the area to recover from economic problems. In effect, the
`neighborhood- serving commercial development, also includes a `neighborhood serving'
apartment complex, .which affords employees seeking to live in a "neighborhood" that
contains 4 million square feet of high- quality office jobs.
In "recent years, communities have become far more sensitive to the types of
developments which do not place additional stress on transportation and other
infrastructure. As such, the opportunity to live within 2 miles of employment, as well as
the other health and recreational amenities that Carmel has developed, serve to assist
local businesses of all sizes in retaining employees.
For these reasons, it is suggested that the 116th Street Centre Project Area will assist the
City of Carmel in extending and enhancing the viable economic life of the 4.2 million
square feet of commercial development that already exists. The capacity of the proposed
development to meet the needs of neighborhood residents, as well as neighboring office
development, is projected to serve the area by making developments more livable as well
as more economically viable, thus helping to retain significant business enterprises which
currently exist in the ED Area.
FINDING OF FACT #1D: ...THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA... MEETS
OTHER PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER..
The 116th Street Centre project meets several `other purposes' for the economic
development of Carmel, and the surrounding area. To achieve brevity of purpose, this
19 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
section will simply summarize some of the concepts which can be expanded, if
necessary, to further support and enhance the 'compliance with the statutory findings of
fact. Such additions can be made as the ED Plan/project approval process moves
forward.
First, the CRC emphasizes the cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship which the
116 Street Centre will have on the surrounding neighborhood. Existing residents of the
area will find that the neighborhood serving commercial development will reduce their
need for routine vehicular travel by meeting certain neighborhood needs. The existing
commercial development at this location already affords evidence of this benefit.
Second, the opportunity for young professionals to find affordable apartments within a
few miles of their jobs facilitates a new trend in employment. The attraction and capture
of new, young intellectual capital is beneficial to the demographic health of the
community at large, as well as affording a self stimulated market for housing as their
careers mature. The proposed apartments are specifically size targeted to this
demographic.
Third, the proposed development offers, an appropriate transitional mix of land uses that
are sufficiently niche researched to balance commercial, retail and residential
development that has already occurred. nearby.
For these and other reasons, it is suggested that the economic development benefits of the
ED Plan meets these "other purposes ":of the statute. In addition, this ED Plan is also
prepared to draw from and reiterate similar findings related to the 1997 and subsequent
ED Plan iterations for further support of this statutory compliance.
FINDING #2A: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE ACHIEVED
BY REGULATORY PROCESSES OR BY THE ORDINARY OPERATION OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
WITHOUT RESORT TO THE POWERS ALLOWED UNDER THIS SECTION... BECAUSE OF: (A)
LACK OF LOCAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT....
The original rural residential development that occupied the property where the 116
Street Centre is proposed has already been eliminated, but it is noteworthy that the rural
residential development which was once located along 116 Street was originally'
developed without the support of municipal infrastructure.
The subsequent development of municipal sewer, water, road and other infrastructure left
this rural residential property severely under-utilized. As new development surrounded
the 116 Street ED Area, the infrastructure became notably less capable of handling the
demands of the new ,development.
Note that the lack of infrastructure was one of the primary themes of the 1997 ED Plan,
and also note that more than 50% of the 4+ million square feet of development in the
Science Technology Park is estimated to have occurred, since 1997. The lack of local
public improvements which once,retarded the development of this area was eventually
20` 1 116th Street Centre Economic DevelopmentPlan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
a
overcome, and the additional infrastructure capacity has led to the 116 Street Centre
proposal.
It is anticipated that the proposed TIF investment to support the 116 Street Centre will
be directed toward infrastructure improvements to the site. Carmel has traditionally set
very high development standards and the CRC has traditionally supported the capacity of
developers to develop the highest quality of infrastructure.
1 A central theme of the Integration of the ED Plans /Areas was the CRC's interest in
developing the highest quality infrastructure to support development, especially in the
area linking Old Town to US31. These efforts have paid off. The 116th Street Centre
Project Area is an example of this thinking in that the creation of the ED Area is intended
to afford access to TIF re for the purpose of improving the quality of public
infrastructure. The infrastructure systems of Carmel are among the best in all of Indiana.
The efforts of the City as a municipality were also enhanced by several development
policies which have advanced the city's efforts even further. As hew development was
proposed along the US31 corridor, the City required additional setbacks of buildings, thus
facilitating future expansions of US31.
In addition, the City developed and improved service road corridors on Pennsylvania and
Illinois which ultimately would make itpossible for US31 to be converted to a limited
access facility. The State of Indiana is currently implementing this limited- access
corridor redevelopment. Few communities can demonstrate that level of bold
forethought.
If is clear that the CRC, in all of its iterations of the ED Plan governing the area between
Old Town and US31, has intended to provide a planning platform for enhanced public
improvements which were intended to generate high quality development. Therefore,
this ED Plan is judged to conform to this statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #2B: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED BECAUSE OF... (B) EXISTENCE OF IMPROVEMENTS OR CONDITIONS THAT
LOWER THE VALUE OF THE LAND BELOW THAT OF NEARBY LAND....
116 Street is one of the most important east /west thoroughfares connecting US31 to
Rangeline Road which bisects downtown Carmel, especially after the 131 St /Main Street
connector was disconnected from the west side of US31. The 116 Street corridor
connects the office development of the Science Technology Park with Carmel's older
commercial /office /retail areas between Rangeline Keystone.
The development that has occurred along the 116' Street corridor has created traffic
congestion and escalating consumer demands, and those demands have resulted in
widening projects for 116 Street that have often been opposed by owners of older-
developed parcels. As a result, improvements to the 116 Street corridor have been
tended to be incremental, despite having planning firmly in place to call for widening to
handle additional traffic. This was one of the original premises of the creation of the
21 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
126 Street ED Area, as well as the CRC's interest in using'the Science Technology
Park as a link between Old Town and the US31 corridor.
In this case,,the "conditions that lower the value of land" were that the historic
development patterns were not transitioning,easily to meet more modern standards. The
proposal to develop the 116 Street Centre alleviated a portion of this problem by
assembling the previous rural residential parcels and converting them to serve a more
modern purpose, as proposed. Similar activity has taken place elsewhere along the
Guilford corridor.
It is clear that the site of 116th Street Centre is one of the highest visibility sites along the
116 Street Corridor. It is equally clear that this site is one of the last to develop in the
area, and one of the first to implement the `street frontage' type of development where
parking is behind the commercial buildings, rather than in front. This new style of
architecture makes the 116 Street Centre visually noteworthy, even before the
development is completed. At the same time, the lack completion of the 116 Street
Centre with high profile sites remaining underdeveloped is something of a problem
affecting land values for the overall area.
In addition, the general economic recession has also succeeded in depressing local real
estate values. The overall economic conditions are such that land values have generally
declined, thus making new development even more critical to economic recovery.
Finally, the overall economic conditions have had an impact on credit markets which
have forced the amount of cash invested in development projects to higher levels. In
many cases, competent developers cannot get financing necessary to implement their
projects, at all. In other cases, developers can get financing, but only if they invest far
higher amounts of cash into the development, thereby reducing their leverage, and
depressing the value of land in the development equation.
In such situations, the CRC recognizes the potential benefit of stimulating new
development through the use of TIF incentives. When the new development occurs,
additional property tax revenues are generated, and in this ,case, those new property tax
revenues are not entirely consumed with developer commitments. This is a positive
reason to consider the investment of TIF in order to achieve high quality projects within
an ED Area.
It is clear that multiple factors are contributing to lower land values in the area, and that
the116th Street Centre is a project that has earned approvals by the Plan Commission and
the CRC as a high quality project. This ED Plan simply seeks to explain how the ED
Plans from 1997 through 2004 for this area are conceptually connected to and compliant
with the 116th Street Centre development proposal, and in so doing, this ED Plan
complies with this statutory requirement.
22 I 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
FINDING OF FACT #2C: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED BECAUSE OF ...MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP OF LAND....
The land parcels assembled by JC Hart and Equicor was previously owned multiply. The
developer has advanced the project in part as a redevelopment project because of the
conditions on those multiple parcels. Those historic improvements have since been
removed and the first phase of the 116 Street Centre has been constructed, fronting the
corner of 116 Guilford with new commercial space. That commercial space is
partially occupied with neighborhood serving entities, as proposed and approved.
The original proposal to build townhomes on the northern section of the development
would have resulted in a return to multiple ownership, however, that proposal has been
abandoned, and the-newly approved proposal is to develop the northern sections of the
116 Street Centre as "a single apartment complex. Obviously, the apartments would be
singular in ownership.
The final phase of developing Area C of the 116 Street Centre will provide additional
commercial /retail /office space along the 116 Street corridor. The sum of the three
phases of development for the .116 Street Centre is that problems associated with
multiple ownership of land will have been alleviated.
For these reasons, it is suggested that this ED Plan conforms to this statutory finding of
fact.
FINDING OF FACT #2D: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED... BECAUSE OF... OTHER SIMILAR CONDITIONS....
The 116 Street Centre proposal has been carefully considered and approved by the
Carmel Plan Commission in two iterative forms: the original iteration which included
townhomes; and the current iteration which includes apartments. In both cases the
development proposal sought to capitalize on the visibility of the 116 Street
thoroughfare frontage as neighborhood- serving' commercial development, with a
residential element that would provide housing in close proximity to Carmel's primary
employment center. As demonstrated by the approvals of the Plan Commission, the
commercial /resid'ential mix of land uses at this location makes sense, as well as providing
benefit to nearby residential development that will enjoy convenient access to the
`neighborhood serving' commercial enterprises.
The mix of land uses proposed indicate that the developer has designed the 116 Street
Centre to optimize the advantages of the site, including the access to recreational assets,
such as the Monon Trail, as well as proximate access to employment. These
development design advantages could be argued to extend to the proposed mix of the 195
apartments to emphasize the types of units that are preferred by single people and couples
without children. By providing apartments designed with this demographic, the
developer minimizes allegations of impact on local schools by the apartments.
In addition, the current state of the economy makes development difficult on several
levels, and the CRC is open to the suggestion that new development is helpful to the local
23 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
economy in terms of jobs /salaries, as well as being a long -term benefit to local
government budgets, which are being strained as a result of recessionary influences. As
such, the CRC could consider TIF investments for the purpose of stimulating; local
development in a recessionary economy, especially when the CRC considers that lenders'
equity requirements for financing, have required larger amounts of cash.
Finally, the CRC recognizes that the intended developmental `link,' which the Science
Technology Park was originally developed to serve, is becoming more fully developed,
with only a few development sites remaining (despite the severe reduction of space
consumed by Conseco as a result of its financial difficulties). The CRC could reasonably
argue that the market selected the best sites first, and that, as sites are consumed, the sites
remaining are those facing the greatest market obstacle. TIF. funding is considered
appropriate to reconcile market obstacles for the purpose of encouraging development in
a specifically- designated location (the ED Area). This argument further supports the
investment of TIF proceeds into the 116 Street Centre.
As the process of consideration of this proposed ED Plan moves forward, the CRC may
choose to add other arguments to this ED Plan as a result of the public testimony, but for
immediate purposes, these provisions are considered sufficient to address this statutory
finding of fact.
FINDING OF FACT #3: THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WILL BE BENEFITED BY
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA....
There are several arguments in favor of the 116 Street Centre related to public health
and welfare.
First, the location of the 116 Street Centre is on the fringe of the ED Area w hich has
formed the effective employment core of Carmel's economic development.' This location
places the 116 Street Centre along one of Carmel's major east /west corridors, while
placing it in close proximity to existing residential development. By affording the
existing residential development access to `neighborhood serving' residential, the
existing neighborhoods are benefited, thus serving their public welfare.
Further, this neighborhood serving commercial reduces the number of vehicular trips
from surrounding residences. This reduction in vehicular traffic carries with it a
commensurate reduction in traffic congestion, which is a benefit to public welfare, as
well as representing a reduction in smog/air pollution resulting from vehicle operations,
which results in a benefit to public health.
The benefit to public health is further underscored when/if the neighborhood serving
commercial development might attract health related enterprises such as medical and /or
dental offices which are directly committed to benefiting the public health. By making
such medical services more directly accessible to neighborhoods, the public health is
directly benefited.
The development of rental housing in close proximity to Carmel's primary employment
center also affords the opportunity to reduce vehicle commuting trips. The reduction of
24 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
the number and duration of commuting trips resulting from providing housing in close
proximity to employment carries the same benefit to public health and welfare as the
reduction in vehicle trips resulting from neighborhood- serving commercial development.
Finally, the location of the proposed residential development in close proximity to
Carmel's Old Town area, as well as recreational assets, such as the Monon Trail, is also a
direct benefit to public health and welfare. There is a certain human irony to the fact that
urban trails are generally designed with parking facilities which enable patrons to drive
their cars to a place where they intend to walk for exercise. As a result of the 116 Street
Centre, some of the patron's of the Monon Trail will be able to walk to the place that they
intend to walk, thus removing some of that human irony.
Beyond the arguments, offered here, the CRC reserves the right to add to or revise these
sections of the ED Plan in response 'to public testimony, as-the process moves forward.
For purposes here, these suggestions are deemed to serve as compliance with the
statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #4A: THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL' BE PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AS MEASURED BY (A) THE
ATTRACTION OR RETENTION OF PERMANENT JOBS;
This statutory finding of fact is similar in character to that of Finding #1A (`opportunities
for gainful employment'), and as such the pertinent /relevant issues raised in Finding #1A
and Finding #4A are somewhat interchangeable. It is clear that the development of new
business property, including the proposed apartments, as well as the neighborhood-
serving busines "space, is intended to attract and retain permanent jobs to the ED Area.
The fundamental premise of alfeconomic development policy is to expand the local
economy. This can be done by extending the outreach of existing community businesses,
by attracting businesses from other communities, and /or by affording greater access to
business services through neighborhood serving locations. As such, this ED Plan
suggests that the proposed mix of land uses for the 116 Street Centre will assist the
businesses located in the Science Technology Park in attracting and retaining
permanent jobs.
Furthermore, the development mix of the 116 Street Centre assists the community at
large in making the local economy more efficient. By providing neighborhood serving
commercial development as well as rental housing, the 116 Street Centre begins to
relieve the operational inefficiencies that generally accompany suburban sprawl
development patterns. The local economy is made more efficient when commercial
products and services are made more proximate to neighborhoods, and when housing is
made more proximate to employment. The 11 6 Street Centre assists in both of these
outcomes. When the local economy is made more efficient through careful and
conscious development decisions, permanent jobs are attracted and retained.
It is clear that the fundamental intent of the 116th Street Centre proposal is to provide
both business and residential development opportunities to the ED Area. By making
25 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
housing available in close proximity to the city's employment center, jobs are made more
accessible and the cost of living is constrained. These conditions give, more people
access to existing jobs, as well as making it easier for employers to control personnel
costs. These factors clearly benefit the attraction and /or retention of permanent jobs.
The goal is for 116th Street Centre to capture a share of a growing local economy, and
therefore, the achievement of that goal would be reasonably expected to satisfy this
statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #4B: THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL BE A PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AS MEASURED BY: (B) AN
INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAX BASE....
This Finding is largely redundant with other findings of fact related to the attraction of
business enterprise, the removal of constraints on land value, diversity in the.economic
base of the community, and other similar findings. To a large extent these findings and
the'arguments that support them are interchangeable. The narrative above has clearly set
forth that the 116th Street Centre proposal seeks to add neighborhood- serving business
space to the ED Area, while also adding 195 apartment units. Both of these will clearly
add to the property tax base of Carmel. The estimated assessed value of that projected
development amounts to more than $300,000 in property taxes annually. These revenues
far exceed the estimate of approximately $34,000 per year that is estimated to be
currently being generated.
In addition, recent changes to the property tax policies of the state if Indiana have created
additional emphasis on the need for business -type assessed value.. The residential
property tax cap id 1 while the property tax cap for rental property (such as
apartments) is 2 and the property tax cap for business development (such a
neighborhood serving commercial) is 3 As such, rental housing and business
development potentially generate more property tax revenue than traditional residential
development, thereby diversifying the property tax base. The shift in property tax
revenue toward business and rental property has caused municipalities to emphasize the
need for rental and business development in order to finance municipal budgets. This is
an increasingly important benefit to the local property tax base, which is assisted as.a
result of the 116 Street Centre proposal.
Beyond the boundaries of the 116th Street Centre project, however, it is also expected
that the improvement of the US31 corridor to an expressway -type limited access corridor
will shift local traffic onto Pennsylvania Street, and will add_ traffic volume to 1-
Street. These shifts in traffic patterns, expected to create long -term upward pressure
on property values (i.e., tax base) in the Integrated ED Area. These findings, as well as
related arguments, suggest that this ED Plan meets this statutoryrequirement.
FINDING OF FACT #4C: THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL BE PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AS MEASURED BY: (C)
IMPROVED DIVERSITY OF THE ECONOMIC BASE....
This Finding of Fact extends the argument from a simple assessment of the impact of a
proposal on the property tax base to an argument regarding revenue diversity related to
26 'I 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
the economic base of the community. The creation of business property tax revenues
generally also adds an assortment of other tax revenues to state and local coffers, beyond
property taxes. Personal and corporate income taxes, various excise taxes, and other tax
revenues generally accompany new business development and expansion, and those
additional revenues go beyond property taxes. All of these revenue sources are
reasonably projected to be further diversified as a result of the 116 Street Centre.
In addition to the above arguments, diversification of the economic base occurs in more
subtle forms as a result of developments such as the 116 Street Centre, which affords
neighborhood serving commercial development, as well as housing located proximate to
employment. In effect, the mixed uses proposed for the 116 Street Centre represent a
good buffer between the employment center and existing residential areas.
By definition, mixed use, development is a diversification "of,its own. It affords certain
benefits of employment in the commercial development, as well as certain benefits of
residential development proximate to an employment center. Extending that argument,
the size /scale of the neighborhood- serving commercial development is generally more
conducive to privately -owned business that to the development of national chains,
especially insofar as the neighborhood- serving commercial development might
successfully attract small medical, dental, accounting /financial, and /or personal services
offices. These types of small businesses are, by definition, economic diversity and fully
representative of the traditionally historic underpinnings of the American economy.
The sum of these and related arguments suggests that the 116th Street Centre
development proposal will help to promote diversification in the local and regional
economy, as provided in this statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #4D: THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL "BE' A PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AS MEASURED BY: (D)
OTHER SIMILAR PUBLIC BENEFITS....
As in other Findings, this specific statutory section is somewhat redundant in that
arguments made in addressing other statutory sections. also address this statutory
requirement. As such, the ED Plan notes this potential redundancy and reserves the right
to re -state those arguments if the process evidences a need for such re- statement. The
category of `other' is a clear Legislative intent to potentially incorporate legitimate
arguments and factors that the Legislature had not anticipated in drafting the legislation.
Let it be sufficient for this ED Plan to state that the 116th Street Centre development
proposal is consistent with the Integrated ED Plan in all of its iterations since 1997. As
such, those plans and their supporting documents are hereby incorporated by reference in
the event that sufficient justification is determined necessary.
In addition, it should not escape the notice of intelligent observers that the federal
government is currently engaged in a broad assortment of "economic stimuli" designed to
keep people employed by stimulating economic activity. We do not wish to engage the
federal debate on the propriety of such government expenditures. This ED Plan simply
points out that the 116 Street Centre proposal has been demonstrated herein to possess
the economic attributes identified in statute to be worthy of the local investment of TIF
27 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
revenues. As such, there is legitimate argument that the investment of TIF revenues to
stimulate beneficial local development is at least as legitimate as similar federal stimuli.
In summary, however, it should be re- stated that the 116th Street Centre development
proposal arguably achieves the developmental goals which the CRC has advocated since
1991, including all of the iterations and integrations, and that the Plan Commission, CRC
and City Council have had at least two chances each to disapprove of the proposed
development.
Furthermore, the CRC should be able to take, some comfort in the consideration that, if
the 116th Street Centre development proposal was in any way defective, the Plan
Commission would not have taken the approval actions that it has publicly taken. The
fact that such a high proportion of the stated developmental goals of previous planning
efforts related to this ED Area are to be achieved should be satisfactory evidence that the
116th Street Centre ED Plan is consistent with these previous documents and policies.
In closing, these arguments are offered in the category of "other" reasons that the project
can be reasonably considered for the investment of TIF revenues, and that the proposed
development meets this statutory finding.
Conclusions of the 116 Street ED Plan
The sum of the effort invested in this ED Plan is that the 116th Street Centre development
proposal sufficiently addresses and conforms to the requirements of statute and should be
considered for designation as an ED Area, as well as to be reasonably considered for the
investment of TIF incentives. The ED Plan has generally determined that the TIF request
conforms to the parameters of TIF investment set forth in previous iterations of the
Integrated Economic Development Plan (as amended), and the mixed use development
proposed for the 116 Street Centre is beneficial to the community at large.
To further underscore these conformities, the Plan Commission has acted independently
to approve the PUD- development plan for the 116th Street Centre, indicating that the
Plan Commission is comfortable with the development proposal as conforming to all
development requirements of the community, as well as the Comprehensive Plan,
generally.
Given the narrative presented above, it is suggested that the CRC can be comfortable in
moving forward with the ED Area designation process in order to determine whether the
final designation is appropriate for approval. Final designation of TIF commitments,
however, remains at the sole discretion of elected and appointed officials of the CRC and
the City Council.
28 [116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Appendix A
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN (ORIGINAL) I
1
116TH STREET CENTRE i -6
s -a
+I>
1/4, t irim, '14 i r 1 iff■fl I
1 c 'ilria®OilivII Ig I N RC� a ti�O n WI1. s' i i
a t A i` a i n 'ONO �1 I s•t ii
G i
r r 6 iil gig 1 1 i
llil�� 11Ls 1
t i ate' i=- mu
aeRwmtiil
E®lil wir lI Vim t i
!1/4,____/...01r ii 1,'!, 1� tea
ii i i
oo.4wwme t a
h s alp a S x r,„ .r E
d I kkt, I V% I I i 1
°I ;14P, t Y p C [E]I ,t iIC G-c 1C l= l(t M AMA I
n t
1„ t 1 j
nn r
.x r ua i
e
II fllII R.,
PD.
Map #2: 116 Street Centre's Phases Showing original Proposal (per Developer)
29 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Appendix B: Proposed Apartment Configuration
..2
0;.
n
1-7-7-7718 ,d 0
.7
cilf Clubhouse i
7 O 1 41li Bid
a e 1 bi'V .410P_ Ai
02 Ft 1 '7
A 1 Typ Bkig1
1 --10 -41) 1 Bldg.
I
06 i 1 42, 1 4) I T l' 4 '''40 u
'''''""I'
co --:,44, -0-- i 0 0.....-• Cr=0 CE 0
ill J 1
e--==-e -Po p-' :I'- ez:=' ift'.z.zigi fA_41 ii
1:--;_-0 1
0
t I I 10):
11
'1:4 r i 1 n IP t t)--r t t H
1
0 -41 7. 1 4,0'. .(11 i IL; 40
i p ',,-,■L ri 0 I IP q5 i-
.."411 Or. i I 1 lb tb. 1
Pond 1
ni ft q
I SU P' 1 i
(0 1 1,ilb_ 4 i th 1 T,
a t■ i 1-1,--,.- i wag. ./t
r
L- 4) ----.7 I i 11)
c),;, w t
f 9
i r
i dlb" j
1 II SI I
1 ----1
J 1 I
am
11 4 e, 4
Street II'
Illustrative Site Plan Building Type Key
weaver sherman design ii6th Street Centre JC. AT
architects and land planners
I
Eii ilk.„: 11
Tn. .61.1 4 !Fitisin
—4 '71: 1 41 4kOttitiliggirignf-aft- katiL1405a ii I/
-4,-Yr4.
tcf igrg 41/
l• fii 1-# *Ail 1 40 1 a ii.P!! lil lriTit' totkifili 1----- T
'A" 1 c.4 1:6Z111 iMill 1 1 illitl.gitaki-(
4-o" to Top of Parapet Front Elevation Clubhouse
st..ft,,.....- ,...6.1........
weaver sherman design 116th Street Centre JC HART
architects and land plannOrs
30 0 116th Street Centre Economic DeveloPmerit Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Appendix B (continued)
J__.
1 •,....,e I .1...,f I wa4.1[ 1 1 a*P*, 1,1 I .,..0.11 i I 1,
I
rill 171 1
li /11 1.„,.
II_
'Cl. if i r- 1- 1;:-.. R
s: 4 1 :-"AtL C Cir 1 0: -7 1-- ;)1
-.7-1 i 0, Igggi
1
-.4-_-.
0.- w vo,,, ,,t__ i L
..1 i iF....• t5P 1 .fil PV 1_ )--.ti 76 vr 0 r) 4.....1._
1 t i
1 1., 'il e,.
1D
,1 4 L.,,,,-.• ,..:2, p,
.1 `'t? 11 j 1 4g 1
L______1_, ...,...1
11
1
Main Level Floor Plan- Building Type 1.
weaver sherman design
ii6th Street Centre JC HART
architects and land planners
os........ 7 ............,,,,.........,,..,....,........mi--
P
1
K
L2.1,1 *7. l
4-- ':7j;.:
E:ItiP 2 bttti 4 kittrIl 11-AtioUr- lurn'i.
11==-'1 'A 1.:,0 ID21,-;:: =,,,:221):2 .-.:1(23
h h ,a9 1
'19 !ITY: :EEL DI
7—tf1717,-.1.-- 1,/: ...1711:TT.F1P1 grri-- -.71:7 i r^77''' --l f 7: 4= .11
71 °.4,1"
L'CI
'7-7 '.--L 4 1r)" ,,,i., 0.
1 --A. 1 4 2 ',,j a ,=..b 7 c.o.
t
1 t•tft 1 t---------1
I'
Second Level Floor Plan- Building Type 1
weaver sherman design 116th Street Centre JC HART
architects and land planners
31 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Appendix B (continued)
1--:7
1 il I HI: '11 1 i I
3 ii b 3
11 1 1 'Ag...1.1 l
I I j
ti. 1.•44. --1 I I f.:' r.r i V n u,54 7Ti l
I '"I'-'" 'TA r •-1 Et i A•1 I I r-mli
..--L ;Urn •41M M• rild A l' i fs ,1.-t-----=-' —t
i 1 z .1 ....,.....s jei 7.
..tr_.._. .....7 .---e -`r
7-6.-_,,;_ -4/ ==L':,,::L_Eiraii
Li 41
1 i: 1 7-- f-.--, f.71701:11... .1171. i I
''-fd-17 1 ..,-.-0, 1
1 L -1 1 •ei `t- 7 IEFg* A -4
7 4Li7 1 /1. I I°. i' r rINir "'7Litil: fralk:i1
p_
CI List_ir rfai7C7 --1,,-' ,....-P 3: .1
------L--, •,....1 1 I 1 *11 r 1 II 1 •3•-r- ii 'El ,.t.t zm
l Ei t il iff 1 i ..t1 la 1 1 Lj
..7..,
t z; _a_ e IF-7 c,.: 17 l ....."'"IF
r V I -1.
Third Level Floor Plan- Building Type 1
Ye.
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre J.0 HART
architects and land planners
r.,,,-----,--fr.:--..,-,7-•-'...---,---
•-*-r. 7 'r,r
ate; a i-a-' '.rai
-1; ,s;":;-; ;..-ea ,,4 4 f',.. ,,A;
''r7 7''' *-7* X7.77.7 77, 7=T7r=, =47 '‘-;`,Aa;;;; 4;a4 „z_a"-- ''l
4 f,• kf P 5 2
l' ''j.- 'Arli 7 l',i In -•1=:,1 fi ,i k-,
:.:rz-;..
-1,T4::-t''F1-':''t'.''-''' t.-
V i=x,1:“S'i ".4 •=ii .'7'' C V,,,..7 ...,Z. -7- 7,1 .;;;iFi, -.1 i. ''A' li
'lb '-v r----.----- :*L,-. le
llo" .7 1.; In tyrliS Stroii.r.*-ttlit ristr :,2f..4-04-..**.,*.;,0*
ail ta..,p rolittiatiEly.Hrailtk el swilgists--LF4As ,1,44
r ,,,i,;?- 4 1 IR .Plit%-g-vttzz ,,,,,,,.„4-4,i
__......,..,...,.....,......,...:3, plige
44': 1 ,4 i104,6.1441 4 iliti tli f$q.. r n ry e „-,.:4,.... gra ,t. gent -1 ,g
***0* Alltim..**1***--- int I Alittfiglionom ...17,. ..*:;.4 tia_?:**4 0 61,-*S'ait*.p** al L;a 'i.- 4,- •;;;;;,i;
lti'
ai.„
IA lik" r; ,t; at-.-- ,--,--..=---i,---'...owoi.Arty,44,),„,...r.,--, ,ai
itv -a-- t
„,....t. Ii:....:,- ti 1 v..c 0 2, 4 4 py. i A i l 6 lit
ftwij giitiltrglipillti WM' i Vailid.r a PI filta-
1 t#-- hP c;,
46 to Roof Ridge, 40' -3" to Median of Ridge and Eave Frout ElevatioL-Building Type 1
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre JC HART
architects and land Planners
32 1 116th StreetCentre Economic Development Plan (Draft, Septem ber 17, 2010)
Appendix B (continued)
i II!
r
ill
N. l J F`T; 'e� P 'i ce Il t5,1
-T +�y y aw.. II_ 7" I t l
Main Level Floor Plan- Building Type z
weaver sherman design
architects and land planners 116 th Street Centre HART
j..�
i
r
}a4. 6
I �,a .,..m.w.y I l II
ir 1 s. �j
r r_13._!_q; i v. 1
n
.4 r f
��cy t Ts 3 p
r �4
lam"
Second Level Floor Plan- Building Type 2
weaver sherman design' 116th
architects and land planners Street Centre 1C HART
33 1 116th Street Ce Economic Development Pl (Draft, Septe 17, 2010)
Appendix B (continued)
i 2.........„ sc.,
i
1I
i
I'
L irl---- 1:ii Lii::: i l 7- 1 e. 7 l i I '11--4-11m-
1 1 r, N: 1 '---i
1
4- A .2.1
'1 1
.i' _Jul 11, 1 1;- H i l i
ini ....,..wa E' 1.1.4.-:: Tet v 1 r„ii 7-- i I
t.-1. Ara -`-----L-J-'----- 77:2- 1 1L-1 "7 1 1 :777
1-1 .,e 3:, -,-=''til
t ,1 1.- ;'--'-i'j 7`'ii-1 ,-77 r
;1';'-';L"'""j. fri9k C' ii;11,---i-- '---Th
11— j---4 4. s 1 4tiiiiill 7-7 0 .1 1—i -S-- 'T-- \-4– y- ,i..----.
;r
.J, A h
L2:,
M
1 1 '1
i 1
Third Level Floor Plan- Building Type z
"r'''''--
JC. HART
n.6th Street Centre
weaver sherman design
are-Meets and land planners
4 :74', V, i' '41,n '''P'
„.4:',, T :-.i'
ii __Z i '''F' t''';'" t ,-t, ,,V, i'
1
fr 41„ ,1„,,,,-_,:_„_--,*-
r i_Lf .5:...---'.:,
-:-t--=rT,,,.--.:,-,----cl.-t-:Fza•':...,„;•Ll,,•.-•cicl--Tt.:a.cl:..=:-cl.-.cicl-.,cl:- 54 liiiii II§ r,r,,i7,441;4,
iimmfre!..71P 7
rirfatii. tott im "Tfi.t All 14&!,*6-1-3,-.ff,,,,,v4,3gy;
Km. cscii u_2_,4111. lig SW it 1 ItI ti-.4.,t,„4;&.i•i•L;,_:z.li.,_--„.,
L.. ,r7, 1-...4--.. ---..-',.a5t424 *----iilzitt %rig v. 6 kw
f ;;-:n 1 ---,:L- -,1d, Pilniti n ikriiii dap an t-#41- _i -e---
_:4„. .1,:• All...4ipptEp pi-saro inu a iv ki _,A.,-,A4 =114;„-,cl,,„
c-icl'''''‘...t.,4.cl-'!;3•R---;!--40't d
-Yi -r-nal II2 3 AZ. up iii!
r. ..-Voo um* ft: 2 r 1 i: 14 gi :kfar.,:l
4,, Ati ni t 1], i 6. t o is i,„ I% „,„4:11-114,1z,11
14 ill 4 4 al i
jC HAR
45-4^t0 Roof Ridge, 39 -11 to Median of Ridge and !aye _1
n6 Street Centre
Fm -Building Ty
weaver sherman design
arthltects and land Planne
Economic
Centre
34 1 116th Street Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Appendix B (continued)
L r 1
_....„„,...,.,4.2.,..,,
11
ril
g 3 alp k ',l X. 4 i' w
Main Level Floor Plan Building Type 3
weaver sherman design 116th
architects and land planners 6 Street Centre HART
1 4
1; iii{ 1
I
i° z 1 t
i t 'Acts 1 a;w {l !S L r t 1 .1 v 11,1
S n 6' L j14 r r l
f�"a r J i 4FJ_ D 74 y
11
--N, e ..-h.-_Ly. 7., L ....0.-rytt2A.„....3„4.
Q1, ".:`,.F.
r ;i
Second Level Floor Plan- Building Type 3
weaver sherman design th
architects and lard planners 116 Street Centre
JC HART
35 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Appendix .B (continued)
i 17?
[1 ql• 1 [PI rEirt tli 1
h LLD
-7-. 1 3 7 ;Ail., 1 ,6-i
v i,Li ...,_,Tfloivicuti
iif-
r r ..,..k.
,,-„,-,;,01.,.. k ,,,,1,--_,,-- ----.4t -A zti[
[1" ■..T.,
Ol ,17.2_ L- :1;77..
I i
1 ,-2 4
^------1
I `7"
,......_............L.—
Third Level Floor Plan- Building Type 3
weaver sherman design ii6th Street Centre JC HART
artheeCts and land planners
[7.7
1
1!
i l': ...t -7 _ra- mi ,...1 .r
rtr ----7 7
gaga ,i, q O 7:1 PIM Wirt
lolds,
71 4. ,a- 4
i $1 u i hli a ,ta 4 .r1 „.5: :11 11: I
;:i ,:;,:..1.-,:,...,,,:-":,..e.,•.
4- 11 .r. tw1,:ti'im15
441" 3
7 ..-=..;7 1... -I.-77i tl: ,ari,f Li=17'."'7,-,a,ii
M..: m 111 Ort4 I. a. Ir.1 r‘ 77 Ka A-, i -..1- pelts :;t.„. ea pap ...r. 7, 1
;.-7.41-4,7:- :f., I
46'1' to Roof Ridge, ao' -3" to Median of Ridge and Eave Front Elevation -Building Type 3
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre
areniteats and tand planners JC HART
36 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Appendix B (continued)
11 4 4 rrri, .i
t ill Lu
14 i. V
Mi
r
ii 7"
i 7Ti- 1 -1 7 ---i 1,, I• :_i 7
1
t
If "iI A r
i it: 1 1,_ I i 11 1
-41
i• ,2 4
4 1
i .,,I, r ,i
H 1„
1 ..--,-,.d 4 6„,,, Q r ii i, 6 ...:.7.: ,7 ;11
'''':',j.#,,«...%;• :,V...niri; N r. VI-..R it
L'-,:___I i i 1 i i;',..: l',. IP' r:7 7.,..7H,
LI
.4),11"4i'.. ti
iF17 34 j W' P i 1 11 1 11 ",..P. =---2---. 7 I!
0 1 11 2,„ 4 ,j,`
Al ---,,I,F,‘ 11 P. i 1
1
1 f -,9,...„r 7 1 r 11_,: 4 44 0 II 1 I
r .2- i. ii il Pfili- -.I., I
1 r. li 1 12_,.?---11
TA ;1 e I li
ij I t 1,11‘ 1 1 `1 r I'M:Z
4I '1 J $1 !I i 1 4,_ .7
i I-, 4:4
:(•q 1 1 IPi 1 i:
k H 7
d 7 j It
0
Half of Main Level Floor Plan- Building Type 4
2
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre IC HART
architects and land planners
ii li il
I A. A
ft
P s
L -.t. 4
F I CEII 7,1'
!•10,14,
7 „,.0,D1,. ,,„„..,i
11 1 1 L -1%. i; 1-1\ Vil .:::::ij•-•-i:i-a;-, 1,
ill .4 i 1 i 1,0, 1 1 4 1 ''.1■ .0' 1 y ■.'1 ,:i' e 4. ..p
gi litOr ■,1 7 r Fr R.:.,n
1.
ii.,-4, fiv ,,,,,,,,r ..ii;;T7-_-_---..i ,A
1 r47 rhi," i R ',--ni- rii„ ii,,;:: E0Q,.. ,i l is 4, :s E
r .i$...., li:L-, .1.4.v.,z.' -1 f?..fLi-7„,,... J
1l
7 I r
i I+ 1,...; i 1-11",i •,'J,::! j 7,7a.,...., ir rin gt ,,,,!ro.,,
„,,,f„...,-7 ,..t.„.„,:i ...Lt,„,L Z-1,:ti 7 D firi:;ILlip l' :7-4;-:, :In,,1„,, r Lk:4,:- pi
1 i IT I A 11 0 ‘'.:11,4,' i.S i..' 4 b: .1 t Mb r 1" t
r 1 .7......1 1 4 147 1 ii i'.7 1 .,rr lit4 f,.. ...r Z1: i...,.. -7 77! I P V RI:t, Er
L ,1 r i !I 1 1 1 rr
r 4 1 1 1 l
it-_, 1 1 t, I If
li
i
s.. 1 j 1
Half of Upper Level Floor Plan- Building Type 4
weaver sherman design ii6th Street Centre JC HART
arChttects and land planners
37 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)
Appendix B (continued)
1 j-';', 1.,
r,, 7.7,.: 0 7...;,........mt -i--- ,I .„........H i ,r. i tr„ 11 t iL n i,
R. ..1"1.1 1 ;ixtitut 1 sit 1 no,.. h MI 1 Itlii 1 Ilaill 1.1111.141. 1 i p
i i i i .,„..:,,f, DR tic !IV
c 1
fl ''..2
ume4rigtx Ms
ir,........ KO IMI'lit la Iiiioittilior:tieu.110 nol'it pm§
var." Fig 1, r470.041 3. ip 4 l'■ j 1 mom :j '.,.-e 1 il di t ip Nilo um!! um, osuzutapirt11 1 pa!
01 1
mIll sti a,„ j Mal* tEni Mial 1F-1
fra .,.1,—,...,e,„-E-,4-izwi ir4-c-. 1
An i
ing A., :i 4 pj ,pluitp 71 *J,J," a s 1 4,rs MN' iss tvzs„.„ `s. z,
1
riwir.., j 'Y IT4[ 17 t
j :i 1 IIIII 4 A l
:i; igi ir j'..4 'RZ il
ilip I. ILIA Ir. Illtt :I; ,:il i II: 14, k i 1 i
r-g 4 1, i I:a& fi: till 1.31 TT; It 411 ii, illylll iligilit
1%AtEi MN!. 1pt:ill, tilli.,..0, a 1.4.--4m_Ti
r'F`aqilirffM.:::er'.V.-fgrittVMI IfillthiMit 01,4tz.Zeijimg.,.,..,. 1
Front Elevation -Building TyPe 4
4Y-6" to Top of Parapet
weaver sherman design
architects and land planners 116 Street Centre J.0 HART
o• J rs CE," 17,4,, 5..C...7-,,a t...
In
EL:- ....,3
II I 1
l 1 1115 1 1 16] i
H'5
Ci. Ve v .........V.,,, ^t k it,
Y Y -Y .11 11,, -1
J...
i t.' _,,,,r----
0 act...4 ,..o....7.c sa....,-, F',..:•,,s.r.r., A—
1' LI H i_,;
2
,R"e.Gv V .0
f
:1 _.1
1■M
l 1.63
R ,...-r-.0 vie- F. `,C.:`,E,,,2 i I i 47 „•i "..V.Zi-r1.,,,P.F--"-- -7-
k‘ a ''''''i' Jj. j rirrSr.4.:--- .._11.02.7:_,.„..r..r.„-11- —,•,,j,J
1:/ .."_,A.L. C."40., t1.1..,,CE ...t r.,;' 'Ll 1 1 7..- ...;I[ 1 I tr
.._:1
Iii
CO 9-t". V..,.. F.55C,
0 -1- 7.j2 7 V A-,T 1 71 LL --"s-
1
Exterior Materials ICey Building Type 4
weaver sherman design 116111 Street Centre K HART
architects and land planners
/crc 116 Street centre ed plan draft 100819
38 1 116th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, September 17, 2010)