HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence: Opposed letters r- eci'(i s -1-1
PETITION
(Regarding "The Bridges" Planned Unit Development)
The undersigned residents of Carmel, Indiana, who care deeply about our community and wish to have a voice
in its development, respectfully ask the Carmel Plan Commission and Carmel City Council to give careful and
thoughtful consideration to our concerns about the controversial proposed Planned Unit Development "PUD
known as "The Bridges for the property bounded by Spring Mill Road and 116 111 and Illinois Streets "site
We do not oppose responsible development of the site, but believe that the massive scope of the "blank check"
PUD being proposed is NOT in the best interest of our community and we urge the Plan Commission and City
Council, at the very least, to include the following limitations to preserve and protect the residential character of the
Spring Mill Road corridor:
Buffers along Spring Mill Road and 111 Street, consisting of 6 -7 ft. rolling mounds with year -round
landscape screening of 8 ft. coniferous trees.
No more than one road cut on Spring Mill Road.
No residential units that are not owner occupied.
No more than 125,000 sq. ft. of total retail space, with no single retail unit to exceed 60,000 sq. ft., typical
of a neighborhood shopping center as opposed to a regional draw.
RetaiUCommercial uses limited to restaurants (not drive- through restaurants), grocery, pharmacy,
miscellaneous retail, library and offices.
Building height limitation of no more than two stories (25 ft.) on buildings adjacent to Spring Mill Road and
111 Street, with appropriate transitioning to buildings no taller than six stories (75 ft.) at the furthest point from
residential development.
Date Name (Print and Signature) Address with Zip Code
1
To Carmel Plan Commission:
These 400 signatures were collected on petitions taken to neighbors and neighborhoods within 2 miles
of "The Bridges" Planned Unit Development. Only a few signatures are from people living more than 2
miles from the Bridges. The signatures were collected between May 7 -16, 2011. While collecting
signatures only 2 neighbors said they were in favor of the Bridges PUD as it is currently structured. At
least 3 people said they would not sign the petition as they favored no development. 61 8 91
Copies of the original petitions have been given to Angie Conn. c-
A list with the numbers of signatures from neighbors not living in neighborhoods and t 0s- Ii in..
neighborhoods is on the back of this sheet.
The signatures have been compiled by Jill H. Meisenheimer a
40 Carmel citizens signed to say they oppose The Bridges as It is currently structured d 8 V
10
Please return to: Jill Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 (317- 844 -3920) email: jmeisenheimer@indy.rr.com
1
Petition Neighborhoods 5 17 11
List of neighbors and neighborhoods who signed the petition. The majority of neighbors and
neighborhoods are within 2 miles of "The Bridges" Planned Unit Development. Neighbors volunteered
to collect the signatures between May 7 -16, 2011. They were compiled by Jill H. Meisenheimer
Signatures by neighbors living along roads
5 106 Street
1 116 Street
1 Harmony Road
2 Hoover Road
7 Hussey Lane
20 Spring Mill Road
6 Williams Creek Drive
42
Signatures by neighbors living in neighborhoods
18 Ashbury
1 Brook
1 Lakes at Hayden Run
31 Claridge Farm
6 Coppergate
6 Crooked Stick
9 Creekwood
1 Crossfields
3 Estancia Way
10 Laurelwood
2 Lakes at Hazeldell
10 Ponds West
1 Queen's Way
29 Reserve
22 Spring Lake Estates
62 Spring Mill Place
Springmill Ponds
3.4: r 'Spring Mill Ridge
4 Spr+ingwood Estates
2 Village Farms
7 Village of West Clay
31 West-Park at Spring Mill
C4 Williams Creek Farm
60 Williams Mill
32 E' ;Winterwood
4 <"°t'358 Si from neighborhoods
358 Signatures from neighborhoods
+42 Signatures from neighbors along streets
4001 Carmel citizens signed to say they oppose The Bridges as it is currently structured
From: Ron Houck
Re: Bridges PUD
Date: May 17, 2011
To: Carmel Plan Commission members
We are not opposed to the development of the proposed Bridges PUD parcel, however the
current development is overly intense. It will exacerbate traffic problems on an already overly
congested Spring Mill Road without a clear plan for the completion of Illinois Street. In just a
few days we have collected more than 300 signatures from nearby neighborhoods on a petition
opposing the current structure of the Bridges PUD development.
After attending the Special Studies Committee meetings the following issues remain
unresolved.
Compatibility with the C3 Comprehensive Plan language
Issues raised in the Department of Community Services report were never discussed.
Judy Hagan submitted a list of issues that did not receive adequate discussion.
President Dorman's letter raised substantive issues that did not receive adequate discussion.
The committee asked to see a visual showing what a 130,000 sq. ft. building would look like on
the concept plan, but it was never presented. Instead the maximum size was reduced to
120,000 sq. ft. which is a very minor adjustment that does not alleviate resident concerns about
a big box retailer occupying the site.
Additionally, the following issues have not been resolved.
1. This project will generate significant traffic that should be directed to Illinois Street,
which is designed to handle this volume by allowing only one road cut on Spring Mill
Road. There is still no definite commitment for the completion of Illinois Street, which is
mandatory to successfully move traffic generated by this development.
2, While presented as a novel development, this concept plan consumes the entire surface
area of the parcel with building footprints and asphalt parking hots Open space and
green space are inadequate for the types of mixed uses and image that this
development is supposed to portray.
3. At the Special Studies Committee Leo Dierckman suggested buffering like that provided at the
Parkwood developments east of Meridian Street, however the Developer only provided
mounding half that height. Buffering along Spring Mill Road and 111`" Street next to residential
subdivisions should be 6 -8 ft. mounds with enough coniferous trees to provide year -round visual
screening.
4. The residential portion should be composed of owner occupied rather than rental units.
5. This development is described as local serving retail and should therefore be limited to 125,000
sq. ft. in total with no single use occupying more than 60,000 sq. ft.
6. Retail commercial uses should be limited to restaurants (not drive through), grocery, pharmacy,
miscellaneous retail, library, and offices. There are still objectionable uses remaining in the
PUD.
7. To provide suitable transition to the existing residential neighborhoods, building heights along
Spring Mill Road and 111` Streets should be reduced to 25 ft. or two stories with appropriate
transition to building heights no taller than 75 feet at the furthest point from residential
developments.
We understand that the ultimate destination and decision makers will be the Carmel City
Council. However, with so many unresolved issues, we respectfully ask for your vote of a
negative recommendation as it proceeds to council.
Ron Houck
315 W 107 Street
Carmel, IN 46032
Spring Mill Place subdivision
e°
fzs
,I9 cSO
irst
Traffic is my main concern about the Bridges PUD,,
The following proposal would help in approving this PUD: x'
Phase I Retail and Commercial shall be limited to 120,000 sq ft until Illinois Street is continued
south to 106 st
Phase II Residential and Office shall not be started until Illinois Street is continued south to 106
st, and the intersections of 106 and US 31 and 116 and US31 are completed as now proposed
by INDOT.
Phase III Office shall not be started until Illinois Street is completed and US 31 is completed
including I 465 interchange
—rte^
TED L. GRAYSON, M.D. v.
10657 WINTERWOOD
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 riEcE ,D,
TELEPHONE (317) 575 -8983 9
0
222011 is
DOCS
April 20, 2011.
To Department of Community Services: w
Director: MikeHollibaugh:
I am a retired surgeon and a new resident in Caramel f due to annexation J. My wife and I live in
Winterwood on 106th Street just west of Springmill. Our main North and South access is
Springmill.
I have attended some of the planning commission meetings and have read some of the releases.
The high density and minimal setback Pittman project will markedly increase traffic and detract
from the pleasing appearance of Springmill. Springmill is already in traffic overload. It is one thing
to talk about traffic and another to see it. I hope that you will drive on Springmill, South in the
morning and North in the evening, during rush hour. Tom Crowley said at one of the planning
commission meetings that the City is pushing him to maintain a high density. I am well aware
that high density equals more tax revenue, but that need not be the prime consideration.
We Carmel residents in this area have plenty of close by fine shopping and do not need more,
which would increase traffic and take customers away from already existing Carmel merchants.
Over the years, I have been involved in land acquisition and commercial buildings development
and ownership. PUD zoning places most of the authority and restrictions on development in the
hands of the developer. This should be carefully considered before granting PUD zoning to the
Pittman project.
A concerned new Caramel resident:
Ted L Grayson M.D.
Conn, Angelina V
From: eseidensticker @gmail.com on behalf of Eric Seidensticker [eseidensticker @carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:10 PM
To: rlchreis
Cc: Sharp, Rick; Accetturo, John V; Griffiths, Joe; Snyder, Luci; Carter, Ronald E; Conn, Angelina
V; ccrzoning @yahoo.com
Subject: Re: The Bridges PUD
Lynn-
Thank you for the email. I have not had the time to evaluate the entire project as it is not in front of the Council
at the present time.
As this project remains in Planning Commission until sometime in May, I expect that modifications may be
offered and I will be taking a close look at the entire project upon its presentation to Council.
Respectfully,
Eric Seidensticker
Carmel City Council, President
Candidate for Re- Election
Carmel City Council Central District
Please Remember to Vote Tuesday May 3, 2011
Email: eric4council @gmail.com
Phone: 317- 414 -9015
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:16 PM, rlchreis rlchreis @aol.com> wrote:
Dear Plan Commission members and City Council members:
The purpose of this e -mail is to ask that you refuse to approve The Briidges PUD as it is constituted at this time. While
development of the property bordered by Illinois, Spring Mill, and 116th and 111th Streets is perhaps inevitable, the
planned construction is far too dense to be compatible with the residential areas surrounding it.
Please consider approving the following changes to the PUD:
A green belt buffer on the west and south sides of the property, and a setback of 150 feet from the street for all structures
No lighting within 200 feet of any single- family property
No drive through restaurants or garages
No buildings over 70,000 sq. feet
No apartment buildings
A maximum building height on the west and south sides of the property of two stories
No curb cuts on Spring Mill, which already experiences heavy traffic flow and backups during rush hours
Thank you for your interest in these concerns.
Sincerely,
Lynn Chreist
11171 Valeside Cresent
Carmel
2
Page 1 of 1
Hancock, Ramona B
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 9:47 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: FW: Letter to Plan Commission about Bridges PUD from Art Klein
Hi, Ramona please print out copies of this to hand out at the April 12 committee meeting.
Thanks,
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Art Klein [mailto:kleinaj @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 8:13 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Letter to Plan Commission about Bridges PUD from Art Klein
To the City of Carmel Planning and Zoning Commissioners,
We live in Williams Mill in the first house on the corner of Spring Mill Road and
Burlington Lane.
We are writing about the 63 acre land across the street from our home. The
developer Tom Crowley is asking to rezone property currently bordered by 116th
Street and 111th Street, Spring Mill Road and Illinois from a residential 52 to a
controversial PUD, a very dense mixed -use project called The Bridges.
We are very unhappy about the current traffic on Spring Mill and feel that The
Bridges PUD will only increase the traffic and difficulty of turning from Burlington
onto Spring Mill Road.
We feel that we do not need more shopping. We have adequate grocery stores,
restaurants and gas stations.
Coming out of our home we face Spring Mill Road. We have heard that the
developer for The Bridges has said he would like to show off the architecture of the
buildings proposed for The Bridges. We prefer to look at nature, trees, plants in a
green space surrounding the proposed development, or homes and lawns, rather
than tall and large buildings, no matter how beautiful they are.
It really irritates us that we have been labeled as wealthy protesters when it clear
that the developer and the landowner are trying to make themselves wealthier.
Please support our request for a 150 foot buffer zone with rolling mounds along
Spring Mill Road and 111 Street with year -round landscaping screening.
Ruth and Art Klein
410 Burlington Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
4/8/2011
Conn, Angelina V
From: Art Klein [kleinaj@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 8:13 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Letter to Plan Commission about Bridges PUD from Art Klein
To the City of Carmel Planning and Zoning Commissioners,
We live in Williams Mill in the first house on the corner of Spring Mill Road and Burlington
Lane.
We are writing about the 63 acre land across the street from our home. The developer Tom
Crowley is asking to rezone property currently bordered by 116th Street and 111th Street,
Spring Mill Road and Illinois from a residential S2 to a controversial PUD, a very dense mixed
use project called The Bridges.
We are very unhappy about the current traffic on Spring Mill and feel that The Bridges PUD will
only increase the traffic and difficulty of turning from Burlington onto Spr'ng M`_ Road.
We feel that we do not need more shopping. We have adequate grocery stores, restaurants
and gas stations.
Coming out of our home we face Spring Mill Road. We have heard that the developer for The
Bridges has said he would like to show off the architecture of the buildings proposed for The
Bridges. We prefer to look at nature, trees, plants in a green space surround,ng the proposed
development, or homes and lawns, rather than tall and large buildings no matter hou v beautiful
they are.
It really irritates us that we have been labeled as wealthy protesters when it clear that the
developer and the landowner are trying to make themselves wealthier.
Please support our request for a 150 foot buffer zone with rolling mounds along Spring Mill
Road and 111 Street with year -round landscaping screening.
Ruth and Art Klein
410 Burlington Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
Conn, Angelina V
From: Jill Meisenheimer Omeisenheimer @indy.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 6:43 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Re: Bridges PUD letter from Marian Hartman
Marian,
I appreciate your honesty and integrity indicat ng that th,s was a followup letter. Thanks for writing.
Jill H. Meisenheimer
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 10:08 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: FW: Bridges PUD letter from Marian Hartman
FYI
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Carmellmh jmailto:carmellmh @aol.coml
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:16 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Fwd: Bridges PUD
Original Message----
From: Carmellmh carmellmh@aol.com
To: aconn @carmel.gov
Sent: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 10:06 pm
Subject: Bridges PUD
To Angie Conn
This letter is being submitted as a followup to 2 prior letters forwarded to the city of Carmel stating that my husband, Lyle
and I do not agree to the Bridges PUD. We do not object to change in the city of Carmel but do want a voice in the
decision being made for the land bordering Springmill Road, Meridian Street, 111 th Street, and 116th Street. Please make
sure that our previous correspondence is forwarded to the appropriate Commission and Council members.
Marian S. Hartman
465 Burlington Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
846 -0168
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent- Friday, April 01. 2011 10:07 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: FW. Bridges PUD letter from Marian Hartman
Ramona please make paper copies of this email'etter to mail out w'th today's committee meeting agenda.
'hanks!
-Angie
Original Message
=om: Carmellmh carme'lmh@aol.com
To: aconn @carmel in.gov
Sent: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 10:06 pm
Subject: Bridges PUD
To Angie Conn. This letter is being submitted as a followup to 2 prior letters forwarded to the city of Carmel stating
that my husband, Lyle and do not agree to the Bridges PUD. We do not object to change in the city of Carmel but
do want a voice in the decision being made for the land bordering Springmill Road, Meridian Street, 111 th Street, and
116th Street. Please make sure that our previous correspondence is forwarded to the appropriate Commission and
Council members.
Marian S. Hartman
465 Burlington Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
846 -0168
Conn, Angelina V
From: rlchreis [rlchreis @aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday. March 30 2011 8:17 PM
To: Seidensticker, Eric; Sharp, Rick; Accetturo, John V; Griffiths, Joe; Snyder, Luci; Carter,
Ronald E; Conn Angelina V
Cc: ccrzoning @yahoo.com
Subject: The Bridges PUD letter from Lynn Chreist
Dear Plan Commission members and C*ty Council members:
The purpose of this e-mail s to ask that you refuse to approve The Bridges PUD as it is constituted at this Jme. W "''e
development of the property bordered by Illinois, Spring Mill. and 116th and 111 th Streets is perhaps inevitable, he
panned construction is far too dense to be compatib.e with the residential areas surround*ng 't.
Pease consider approving the following changes to the PUD:
A green best buffer on the west and south saes of the property, and a setback of 50 feet from t "e street for all structures
No lighting within 200 feet of any single family property
3 No drive through restaurants or garages
No buildings over 70,000 sq. feet
5 No apartment buildings
A maximum building height on the west and south sides of the property of two stories
7 No curb cuts on Spring Mill, which already experiences heavy traffic flow and backups dur,'ng ush hours
Thank you for your interest in these concerns.
Sincerely,
Lynn Chreist
11171 Valeside Cresent
Carmen
Page 1 of 2
Hancock, Ramona B
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:35 PM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: FW: Bridges PUD email from Williams Mill resident
Ramona please email and mail this to the PC members.
Thanks!
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Michael P Mattasits [mailto:mmattasits @indy.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 20114:21 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: ccrzoning @yahoo.com
Subject:
Angie,
Please distribute this email to members of the City of Carmel Planning and Zoning Commission.
I reside in the Williams Mill development.
I am opposed to the rezoning of the property bordered by: 116 street/ 111 street/ springmill rd/ meridian.
My reasons include:
1.The lack of Green space and buffer areas in the proposal
2.The "sea of asphalt" that would be created by this proposal
3.Lack of sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods
4.Traffic gridlock and the current lack of necessary infrastructure to accommodate the increased traffic
5.The overall square footage for Commercial Buildings and size and height of proposed office uses
6.The overall square footage and density of the Retail Section
7.The allowance for "big box" retailers
8.The inclusion of 350 Apartments are not in keeping with the character of the existing environs.
Sincerely,
Mike Mattasits
451 McLaren Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
317 697 -1931
3/25/2011
3 -24 -2011
MOL� U 4-V4wu 4 5>^� Hid 10401 111 51u
O yy ,*90c U14 PUD44 a-V� 4U-
Angie,
Please forward the concerns of CCRZ, Carmel Citizens for Responsible Zoning, about the
Bridges PUD to the Carmel Plan Commission for The Architectural Meeting for 3/29/2011
Jill H.Meisenheimer emeisenheimer @indy.rr.com
KEY
KEY: Our cotninents are in italics
n Black letce :i- `v`Pr'h strike -oiic means de ete
.ed means to add
P. 5 Section 2.2 Amenity Area: An area containing (Add indoor Recreation Facilities.
(vii) Indoor mllaux workout areas
(viii) Add definition of who the Director is.
`�GRGI Only owner occltpied residential
p.6 Blocks (Strike (Add The size of each and el'eli' block may be
reducc:i tip to
Concept Plan and Conceptual Character Imagery Our general comment:
Because the Concept Plan and Conceptual Character Imagery are written
to is "not intended to delineate what will be built and developed" and the
"the final site plans may vary in all respects" what purpose do these
topics serve? They should be considered irrelevant to the discussion at
hand.
p.12 Seetie~ B. Delete this section. Because it me,kns that all discltssiotns we are having
aboltt the structltre of the del'elopinent could be overturned by pet
evet� thing to move into other blocks.
p. 13 Section 5.6 Delete )dd
p. 15 Section 7.3 A. Perimeter landscaping along the property lines shall be provided in the
form of (1) a minimwr► (Add 150' greenbelt buffer (add with a 5-6' Bern
for portions of the real estate perimeter abutting l 11` Street and Spring
Mill Road.) This follows the example of the buffer zone provided by IU
Health North who has 13 acres out of 100 acres bu fering a residential
zone to the north. In the case of the Bridges PUD, 2 sides need
to be buf fared.
C. (Add year round visual screening provided by 8 foot coniferous trees
along 111 °i Street and Spring Mill Road.)
p. 18 Section 7.6 B. Delete Low walls fenees may be used in lieti of Pl anl; We
ri'ill want to promote LEED green certification.
p. 19 Section 8.2 F. Light fixtures in parking areas shall not exceed 2-5-
b
Add Fifteen (15) feet.) The hei of light i t" w 90 feet f
v'i
detached .:d,,. gal u s h a ll not e 14'. No lighting within 200 feat
of'singlefamily residential pr
G. How vvill you dim or reduce the lighting?
n.20 Section 9.1 Center Identification Ground Signs. One Center Identification Ground
,Sign shall be permitted at the (i) the SW corner of 1.16 St. and Illinois St.,
(ii) the e9 of 11 W ct and c.,.•:., ra; 1 Read and (iii) and both the eamer-
NE an d NsAl (add one sign at) l I I`�' Street and Illinois St.
affie
C. location: Minimum five (5) (Add 20)
feet from street right of way (add tied into buffer.)
Section 9.2 Strike e.,,.:.,,, Mill Rd
p. 21 Section 9.4 Horn many 40 ,000 s foot buildings will there be?
p. 22 Section 9.5 1. PFive -th u.A r'�T Drive thru restaurants crre not compatible
with residential character of this neighborhood.
p. 24 Seetion 1-2 Atifeniabile Sefyiee S t An automobile service station is not
compatible with the residential nature of this neighborhood and would
pose an environmental hazard.
p. 25 Section 10.1 1 Above grade, structured parking facilities are p erfflitted
(add encouraged to provide more green space and better pollution
control)...
p. 26 Section 12.1 Permitted Retail Intensity—strike 250.000 (add 90.000) square
feet... 90,000 is an appropriate size_for local retail amenities, am•thing
larger becomes a regional amenity.
S „n 2 Maximum Aaaelied Dwell Rg:� Apartment buildings
are too dense and are incompatible with owner occupied residences in the
surrounding neighborhoods.
p. 27 Section 13.8 Right of way widths. (ii) (add
Section 15.1 B. All secondary plats for any portion of the Bridges District shall Ne—
,d ndmjni!.i,•o6Ye!y by he PepaFtmeat shall n t require a public
hearing before the plan commission se lon
t,lnt ubstnnlinll, ea to the oFFespondiag ,d p r nl..t
We >iwuld like the Homeou ner'.s Associations in the surrounding
neighborhoods to be contacted prior to the public- hearings.
p. 28 Section 15.2 Please define the scope of "ininor alteration.” Who is the director?
Section 15.3 B. Modification of the Development Requirements may be approved by
the Plan commission of a h f in b a ffiee or committee designated by the
Plan commission, after a public hearing held in accordance with the Plan
Commi.5ion's Rules of Procedure: provided however, any modification
denied by n heaFi„g e xat n i nef o committee may be
It is important to the surrounding neighborhoods to have the Plan.
Commission hear z,nd appro.)e the inodifcation.s in a public hearing.
.Exhibit 4 -Page 1 of 4 Type of Use Corporate Office /Residential Commercial
Residential Uses
Single Family Dwe' ling (Add P)
Residential Kennel
Private Swimming Pool (Add indoo
Office Uses
Institution Uses
Hespital Impractical Use, hospital already within a block.
Past o f e
Public Service Facility What is th
Exhibit 4 -Page 2 of 4 Retail Service Uses
General Service- What is this
fiffo it S o viee- Inappropriate, problem with pollution and water
runoff
Ga Wash
Exhibit 4 -Page 3 of 4 Cultural /Entertainment Uses
Hotel— Alreadv hotels in area
How! Full iee Already hotels in area
r,,,l Thy,.,,,,,•
Restatifant with walk Lip/drive thr-Ei food �iales
Meetin
T.,,.,,..., ht e l ti b
Exhibit 4 -Page 4 of 4 Temporary Uses
Construction Facility Define
e
sa4e S eason al OH
Transportation Communication
An tenna
Wir -eless T. ,l.,.,.,,,,,,,.,,,:...,f;.,.,.. Ant.,.,,,.,
b I within a block.
Exhibit 5 -Page 1 of 1
Corporate Office Block Office Res Block Commercial Amenity Block
Minimum Build Setback
From Spring Mill and 111` Add
Add 150'
Add 150'
Maximum build height
When build. Not adjac,°nt Add 90' (6 story) 38' (3 Story)
To Spring Mill or 11 I
Maximum build height 3 of 3 flaaF 38 Of ROOF
When build. is adjacent Add 26' or 2 floors 26' or 2 floors
To Spring Mill or 111`
Maximum Building Gross Floor Area n/a n/a
60 y
38' (3 Story)
39' of 3 flear-
26' or 2 floors
1✓30,000
Add 40.000 s.f.
Exhibit 6 -Page 7 of 9 Part 10. Residentia This should be owner occupied and not apartments,
which would have an inappropriate density for the residential nature of
SlllTOUnding Nei ghborhoods.
Exhibit 6 -Page 8 elf 9 'a4 12.14ospitality. This entire section should be deleted as being
incompatible for the residential nature of surrounding neighborhoods.
Dist This entire section should be deleted as being
incompatible for the residential nature of surrounding neighborhoods.
l-xhibit 6-Page 9 of 9 11. Musie Sy4e Music systems outside should be eliminated.
18, Advertising Panels Please define.
21 Vending
From:
icard @comcast.net
Sent:
Sunday, March 20, 2011 7:22 AM
To:
Conn, Angelina V
Cc:
ccrzoning @yahoo.com
Subject:
Bridges PUD Mr Mrs Card letter
Dear Ms. Conn:
CCRZ is NOT opposed to reasonable development of this parcel. However, we are strongly opposed
to this proposed massive and dense "mixed -use" development. You may have heard that this will be
a local serving retail development. What the developer doesn't talk about are the five office buildings
panned with two of the bu>ldings along the east side of the proposed extension of Illinois St. 150 feet
tall (12 stories) and one bu]ding is less than 100 feet from the edge of 111th st. These buildings
would be taller than any current building along Meridian Street or in all Carmel. The other three
buildings panned for west of zliinois St. will be 60 feet tall (5 stories). Currently, suburban office
space in Carmel has a vacancy rate of 25% or higher. This project would add roughly 250,000
square feetr of retail uses, inc uding buildings of to 130,000 square feet, large enough for "big box"
retailers Home Depot, Target or K -mart. Th's project has "permitted uses" such as gas stations,
fast food restaurants with drive through, hotels, theaters, ce] towers, hel'copter pads, nightclubs, and
car washes and it would also contain 350 apartment un`ts. S,MPLY STATED, THIS INTENSITY iS
NOT SENSITIVE TO OR COMPATIBLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. If the argument is that
the ":west side' of Carmel "needs" these types of facilities, there are numerous, and most importanty.
already properly zoned locations to accomodate those needs. THIS PROJECT COULD SET A
PRECEDENT TO BEGIN DEVELOPMENT WEST OF SPRINGFIELD MILL ROAD.
ask you not to approve The Bridges PUD as it is current:y structured.
Please distribute this email to the membe -s of the C'ty of Carme` Planning and Zoning and Zoining
Commission.
Very truly yours,
Barbara and James Card
426 Burlington La.
Carmel, In. 46032
From: Richard Vitales [rivitalos @sbcglobal.net)
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:36 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: "The Bridges" Development Vitales letter
i)ear Angie,
Please pass oil (fur comments to the Plan Commission.
Thank you.
We, along with many of our neighbors, went to take this opportunity express our great concerns with the
planned development across Spring Mill Road from our neighborhood, Williams Mill. Some time ago, we were
solicited to provide input for the development of the U.S. 31 Corridor. The result of that study, as we
understand it, was to limit commercial development east of Illinois Street. The current plans for "The Bridges"
development brings commercial businesses not only west of Illinois Street, but within 20 feet of Spring Mill
Road! We do not object to the land being developed, however, we maintain that it be in concert with the U.S. 31
Corridor plan and transition to residential from West Illinois Street to Spring Mill Road.
Key concerns with 'The Bridges' development include:
Creation of traffic gridlock, in an area already plagued with traffic problems.
Huge, multi -story commercial buildings adjacent to residences.
Lack of green space and buffers from surrounding residences.
Noise and light pollution added to the neighborhood.
Erosion of property values in the immediate area.
We ur2e you to adjust the plan for this development to address these issues.
Sincerely,
Richard Janet Vitales
433 McLaren Lane
Carmel. IN 46032
580 -0910
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:29 AM
To: Hancock. Ramona B
Subject: FW: The Bridges Project remonstrance letter
Ramona: Here is that same letter but with single spacing.
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Wales, William (W) [mailto:wwwales @dow.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:16 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: The Bridges Project
Dear Angie Conn, my name is Bill Wares and I am the Treasurer of the Claridge Farm Subdivision Board of
Directors. I am writing you to express the unanimous opposition of all members of the Claridge Farms Board of
Directors to the proposed development of the parcel on the corner of Spring Mill and 116 street. Although we
have not polled all the residents of Claridge Farm I would expect that the overwhelming majority of the residents
share our view of the project.
The Claridge Farm Board o` Directors feel strongly that this project is too massive in scope and density and
inconsistent with the current and planned use of property west of Illinois Street. The planned commercial
businesses are neither needed by the residents in the near Meridian West side area nor are they welcome to the
neighborhood. The increase in traffic will be detrimental to the residential setting that we now enjoy and will
undoubtedly result in a reduction in the value of residential real estate in the near west area. Most importantly the
nature of this project will impact the quality of the residential setting that we have enjoyed and invested in for the
last 20+ years. You have a key responsibility in balancing the interests of maintaining the high quality of the west
Meridian residential area with the development of office and commercial spaces on parcels that have been
specifically set aside for such development. This is a delicate balance and we are of the view that this project will
tip the scales unnecessarily in favor of an unwanted commercial area that will eventually be the last gasol one and
service exit on the US 31 exit ramp before you enter Indianapolis. Is this the type of environment that you wish for
the residents of West Meridian. We do not want such an environment.
The traffic "fixes" discussed include "controlled round abouts" which 1 understand to be round abouts with
multiple lights to control access to the roundabouts. These are unacceptab'e in the current scheme and a e
indicative of the seriousness of the traffic issues that we will face with the scale of the planned project.
The following is a more detailed list of the concerns of the Claridge Farm Board of Directors regarding the Bridges
project:
1. There is already an abundance of vacant retail centers in adjacent areas of Carmel with occupancy
ranging between 40 -60 A prime example is the shopping center at 136 and Meridian where the former
O'Malia Food Market /Marsh failed despite direct frontage and visibility to traffic on US -31. There is also a small
shopping center constantly looking for tenants at Carmel Drive and Meridian where Bellacino's is located, and at
least three struggling strip shopping centers located directly on 116'' Street between Meridian and Rangeline. Note
also that the Merchant Square development south of 116 street is nearly all unoccupied with the recent
announcement
The developer and their supporters assert the residential areas of West Carmel needs more retail
services such as drug stores and supermarkets. Substantial commercial development on the Michigan Road
corridor to the west and 86 Street to the south a need for services. To the immediate north at Meridian and
Carmel Drive are two large shopping centers containing Meijer's, restaurants, a gas station and approximately 30
o°her stores. To be fair, another gas station can always be considered a convenience but not when you consider the
traffic associated with a gas station that will be situated at the last southbound exit on the revised US 31. Note that
the former Kroger's location at the busy 96t Street and Meridian intersection closed just a few years ago, and that
area has a higher population density. There already is a CVS located in the geographic heart of west Carmel, in the
Village at West Clay as well as several CVS and Walgreen locations within a 5 -10 drive from Claridge Farm.
3. The character of Springmill Road has always been residential. If you drive Springmill Road from the
southern terminus at Kessler Boulevard north, you will not encounter a single retail shopping center until you are
in the heart of Westfield. At issue specifically is that the proposal shows the commercial development right up to
Springmill, with only 20' setbacks from the roadway. Included in the plan are designs to add curb cuts onto
Springmill Road for direct access.
4. The traffic on 116th Street and Springmill Road has already increased significantly, on roads that are
not designed to handle this. Many of us have sat through multiple Iight cycles during off -peak hours to head east
on 116th Street at the US -31 intersection. With a recently constructed hospital, medical office building already
generating significantly more traffic. At the hearing, the City of Carmel was clearly aware of this issue and their
solution is to propose and build a controlled roundabout, which means a roundabout with traffic lights on all roads
leading into it. This would be a first in Carmel, nationally known for traffic circles. The reality is once a certain
number of vehicles per hour attempts to use a standard traffic uncontrolled roundabouts, they no longer work. No
plans were submitted or discussed to upgrade the intersection at 116th Street and Meridian, that is until later in the
decade when US -31 will be upgraded. (Note that the stretch between 116th Street and 111th Streets is the last
scheduled section to be reconstructed in 2017. http /us3lhamiltoncounty.in.gov
5. The Board understands that development of the farm will eventually happen. All we are looking for is
to have the City of Carmel uphold their long -term plan to leave parcels of property west of Illinois and along
Springmill Road residential, agricultural or an appropriate suitable use such as a place of worship. Even a new
large office building would be far less objectionable then a retail strip shopping center with bright lights, 24 hour
traffic, and 300 units of unneeded high density, cluster housing.
In summary, the project as configured in not needed and not welcome by the Board of Claridge Farms and we are
gravely concerned about the negative impact to this project will have to the high quality of residential life that we
currently enjoy in the area close to the proposed project. I will be pleased to provide you with more information or
details regarding our concerns at you convenience.
Thank you for your service to our community and your consideration on this most serious issue.
Regards,
Bill Wales
William W Wales
Vice President General Counsel
Dow AgroSciences
9330 Zionsville Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268
317 337 -4194 (phone)
317 337 -6954 (fax)
wwwales@ dow.com
2
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Wales, William (W) [wwwales @dow.com]
Sent:
Thursday, March 17, 2011 1:57 PM
To:
Conn, Angelina V
Cc:
Hancock, Ramona B
Subject:
RE: The Bridges Project
Angie, thank you. I noticed that my home address was not on my e-mail. It is as follows:
Bill Wales
1272 Helford Lane
Claridge Farm Subdivision
Carmel, IN 46032
Regards,
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:26 AM
To: Wales, William (W)
Cc: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: RE: The Bridges Project
Bill thank you for your email. We will forward this on to the Plan Commission members via email today and
mail out paper copies to them tomorrow.
(Ramona, please print off paper copies to mail out to the PC members.)
-Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
From: Wales, William (W) [mailto:wwwales @dow.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:16 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: The Bridges Project
Dear Angie Conn, my name is Bill Wales and I am the Treasurer of the Claridge Farm
Subdivision Board of Directors. I am writing you to express the unanimous opposition of all
members of the Claridge Farms Board of Directors to the proposed development of the parcel
on the corner of Spring Mill and 116th street. Although we have not polled all the residents of
Claridge Farm I would expect that the overwhelming majority of the residents share our view of
the project.
RECEIVED o
March 16, 2011 cm 17'
r
Carmel Plan Commission and Staff o D�CS
Staff: please assure a copy is forwarded to Plan Commission members.
RE: Bridges
Thank you for the opportunity to attend the meeting on March 1, 2011 regarding the Bridges project. The information was
informative and helpful in understanding this project.
Several observations regarding the meeting:
(1). The presentation by the consulting traffic engineer was helpful in understanding the proposed design and layout for the
project. The assignment of letter scores for intersection times was interesting. The use of certain second intervals from A
to F seemed to be of high importance to experts in the field. However, measuring traffic times from point to point would
seem to be more relevant to those who use these streets on a daily basis. For example, times to travel from the entrance to
the 96` and Springmill Road roundabout to the exiting of the roundabout at 116' and Spingmill Road is more important to
most of us than the time to enter and exit each of the roundabouts. Such measurements would produce data that would be
helpful in understanding traffic in the areas under discussion as well as the back up of traffic at peak hours that creates such
frustration for residents attempting to enter or exit their subdivisions.
The travel times from point to point should be compared for peak and non peak AM and PM times. My wife and I live in
Williams Mill and use Spring Mill more than once each day seven days a week. We have timed several points of travel on
Springmill Road including from the entrance to the roundabout at 96 Street to the exiting of the roundabout at 116"' Street.
The time differences between peak and non peak travel are from ten to fifteen minutes, not in seconds as the travel study
indicates.
The way the letter scores from A to F are being used produces levels of comfort that are very misleading. The assignment
of a score of A, for example, seems to result in a conclusion that everything is OK with the intersection and the traffic flow
in the immediate area. This is not true.
(2) There was a limited discussion about the current traffic congestion and some reference as to how we have arrived at the
current status. My wife and I are forty year residents of Carmel and have watched the development of Clay Township. The
traffic issues are certainly more pronounced in different areas of the township and have a much greater effect in certain
areas.
An open discussion about how the current situation has developed and the limitations of past traffic studies may have a
major benefit. It appears that past studies have substantially underestimated future traffic. Failure to openly deal with this
issue and to discuss the limitations and failures in the past has a high probability of negatively impacting the future.
Examples for discussion could include the design and construction of the fast roundabout at Springmill Road and Dorset.
The traffic on Springmill Road at peak times has reached a level that it now impacts the quality of life for residents in this area This
is not fair to those who live in the area. One possible option would be to require the developer of the Bridges project to participate in
the immediate construction of Illinois Street as a condition for project approval. This may meet some resistance from the developer
due to cash flow requirements but certainly has a number of advantages including the near term completion of Illinois Street, some
immediate impact and relief to traffic flows and some comfort regarding the financial stability of the project.
The financial stability of this project is of high importance to all of us. Failure of the project due to economic or financial issues may
cause critical problems including further delay of the construction of Illinois Street, issues regarding lengthy ongoing construction,
and reduced quality of construction similar to the current residential construction issues at West Clay.
Thank you.
Lyle D. Hartman, C.P.A. (Retired)
465 Burlington Lane
Carmel, IN 46032 Phone (317) 846 -0168
Alison Brown Siegmund Haider
600 W. 106th St.
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir.
Carmel, IN 46032
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Re: The Bridges PUD
Dear Ms Conn,
Please distribute this letter to the members of the City of Carmel Planning and Zoning
Commission.
When my family moved to Clay Township in 1964, we moved to the country. That was our
intention. We were leaving the city with its "amenities noise, and pollution of all kinds and
seeking the peace of woods and fields. During the past several decades the city has attempted
to overwhelm us, but the neighbors of this area have consistently fought to preserve the
agricultural and residential character of southwest Clay Township. They fought a valiant
battle for a one -on -one zoning ordinance, but were forced to accept an S2 zoning.
Nevertheless, it was agreed at the time that there should be a part of Carmel for those people
who did not want to live by a commercial development on four lane highways, and southwest
Clay would be it.
This agreement held when the Pittman family wished to place a multistory office building on
the property now being sug -fested for commercial and high density residential development,
the southeast corner of 110 and Spring Mill Road. The fact that the neighbors preferred a
pig farm to an office building, because it was at least in accord with the agreed upon zoning,
should speak volumes to the Commission. The request for a PUD rezone for the area in order
to build a shopping center and office park is a similar assault upon the integrity of this quiet
residential neighborhood.
I reiterate what was presented at the Commission meeting: the "amenities" offered by the
developers of the Bridges project are available to residents of this area in great quantity and
the vacancy rate in commercial and retail space shows that the market is already saturated. It
is not a great imposition upon current residents, or even residents in a suitable housing (single
family dwelling) development on the 9roperty in question to access the retail and office space
along the Meridian corridor, along 86 Street and along the Michigan Road corridor.
The traffic density as it now exists precludes safe walking or biking in the area without
designated lanes. The increase of traffic, inevitable with the addition of a large church and
the completion of the Clarian PUD residences along Spring Mill will not be sufficiently
ameliorated by a promised extension of Illinois to I I P Street, and a large transit- intensive
project like Bridges will cause total standstill.
I recall hearing that traffic flow projections from the traffic report for the Clarian PUD
assumed the extension of Illinois to 111th St. Now traffic flow is higher than projected and
there is no extension of Illinois on the horizon. At the very least, in the interest of regulated
traffic flow, it would be necessary to finally complete the extension of Illinois to 111th St. and
see if it, indeed, has the beneficial effect on traffic projected in the study for the Clarian PUD
before any decision can be made on the Bridges PUD that would increase traffic further. It
was taken "on faith" that the Illinois extension would be the magic bullet but we do not
know that. Without the real street, proving it can take and divert the increase already in
Alison Brown Siegmund Haider
600 W. 106th St.
Carmel, Indiana 46032
existence (which does not yet include the traffic expected from the Church and the residential
part of the Clarian PUD), all projections look more like mumbo -jumbo than a factual basis for
it rational decision.
The inability to drive anywhere would increase walking, but that is surely not what the
Commission has in mind when livability is discussed. The glorious promise of a walkable
Bridges infrastructure is it myth. This problem is compounded by the fact that the realization
of the ambitious plans is by no means insured. As we have seen in Clay West, the supposed
friendly commercial mix and upscale housing ambitions have been scaled back repeatedly in
the last decade. During the weeks I traveled the area as a census enumerator. I saw little
walking to the few commercial establislnnents or even between houses. Everyone drove their
cars, as is the "American Way The Planning Commission bought the story in the Village of
Clay West, is it going to buy another pig in the poke?
Considering the current commercial vacancy rate of 30 a rezone to facilitate the Bridges
prgject would lead merely to more commercial ruins in Carmel. That would not, however,
prevent increased noise and light pollution, the senseless sealing of current green space which
means the destnrction of a green lung near to large strips of already sealed land along
Meridian and Illinois streets. This would further heat the microclimate, leading to increased
energy usage in summer. All of the foregoing would destroy a neighborhood without
bringing any benefit or profit to the community although the developers would probably
make out. fairly well.
We have seen from the work the Pittman organization has done elsewhere that it is capable of
developing residential properties that are appropriate to the S2 area in question and the
neighbors could welcome that. A PUD with a strong commercial component is neither
prudent, nor will it enhance the area, despite the solicited opinions to the contrary from people
as far away as Fishers and Zionsville!
Please, reject the rezoning request for the property at 116`" and Spring Mill Rd. and encourage
the developers to use their talents and imagination to develop it in accord with the existing
zoning of S2.
Sincerely,
Alison Brown
Conn, Angelina V
From: Jill Meisenheimer bmeisenheimer @indy.rr.com)
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Re: Bridges PUD remonstrance letter
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Please forward this email to the members of the City of Carmel Planning
and Zoning Commission.
My name's Martin Meisenheimer. I live on 471 Burlington Lane in Williams Mill. Our mission is to maintain
the residential integrity of Spring Mill and 111 Street west of Illinois. A ban on commercial development
west of II' ;nois would ensure that this continues and is consistent with the US 31 corridor.
High Density: A commercial development of the size and density proposed would overwhelm the residential
setting and sour the quality of life. We will be forced to look at large commercial developments. There will be
new light, nose and automobile pollution far beyond which we currently have.
Yraffic: Traffic is currently a difficult problem on Spring Mill during rush hour. Traffic can back up to a mile
from 116 street to 106 street. I 'nois when :t is complete will connect to Spring Mill at 103 Street. Th s
completion wi.I necessarily increase the traffic on Sprang M`I' south of 103rd feed`ng into the 96` street traffic
circle. Of course the completion of "linois at this point is only a dream.
Finally there are two proposed curb cuts onto Spr ;ng Mill from the proposed PUD. These will only compound
the traffic prob,ems on Spr ;ng Mil' and should be condemned and eliminated.
No Development Plan: Th's 's a proposal for change in zoning, but there really is not a development plan. The
developer said that there was no one who had actually signed up yet to bul`.d, and this is a great cause for
concern. We don't know what wil; happen in this space. The buffering for Spring Mill Road is woefully
inadequate in the proposal only allowing 20'. We would propose 100 yards with dense planting of trees and
shrubs to screen the surrounding neighborhoods from the development. Towers and tall light fixtures should
be prohibited. Three story apartment buildings adjacent to Spring Mi;l are too tall to provide an adequate
transition to the surrounding neighborhoods.
W th commercial real estate �n decline. there is no current demand for this development in the center of a
residential area.
We are concerned that the PUD is ser`ousla flawed and should be rejected.
Martin Me'senheimer
471 Burlington Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
317 844 -3920
mmeisenheimer indy.rr.com
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:39 PM
To: Dorman, Jay; Forwarding E -mail, Dierckman, Leo; 'Steve Stromquist': 'Susan Westermeier';
Rider, Kevin D; 'Bradford S Grabow (brad.grabow +cpc @gmail.com)'; 'irizarryhm :illy.com';
Hagan, Judy; Kestner, Nick; 'ephraimwilfong @gmail.com'; 'Steve Lawson
(indylawson gmail. com)'
Cc: 'John Molitor'; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Hancock, Ramona B; 'jay @goweighless.com'
Subject: FW: Bridges PUD remonstrance letter
Plan Commission members,
As requested by this citizen, I am forwarding on her email, regarding the Bridges PUD. Paper copies will also be mailed
out to you tomorrow, with tomorrow's mailing.
Also, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns during this review process, and we will help address
those.
Thanks!
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
571 2281 direct Iine
From: Jill Meisenheimer [mailto:imeisenheimer{n indy.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11 :51 AM
To: Conn, Ange.ina V
Subject: Re: Bridges PUD remonstrance letter
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Please forward this email to the members of the City of Carmel Planning
and Zoning Commission.
My name is Martin Meisenheimer. I live on 471 Burlington Lane in Williams Mill. Our mission is to maintain
the residential integrity of Spring Mill and 111 Street west of Illinois. A ban on commercial development
west of Illinois would ensure that this continues and is consistent with the US 31 corridor.
H :gh Density: A commercial development of the s :ze and density proposed would overwhelm the residential
setting and sour the quality of IFfe. We wili be forced to look at large commercial developments. There will be
new 11*ght, no se and automobile p6lut on far beyond which we currently have.
affic: Traffic :s currently a difficult problem on Spring Mill during rush hour. Traffic can back up to a mile
from 116 street to 106� street. 'llinois when it is complete will connect to Spring Mill at 103 Street. This
completion will necessarily increase the traffic on Spring Mill south of 103rd feeding into the 96 street traffic
circle. Of course the completion of Illinois at this point is only a dream.
Finally there are two proposed curb cuts onto Spring Mill from the proposed PUD. These will only compound
the traffic problems on Spring M'll and should be condemned and eliminated.
No Development Plan: This is a proposal for change in zoning, but there really is not a development plan. The
developer said that there was no one who had actually signed up yet to build, and this is a great cause for
concern. We don't know what will happen in this space. The buffering for Spring Mil'. Road is woefully
inadequate in the proposal only allowing 20'. We would propose 100 yards with dense planting of trees and
shrubs to screen the surrounding ne ;ghborhoods from the development. Towers and tall ;fight fixtures should
be prohibited. Three story apartment buildings adjacent to Spring Mill are too tall to provide an adequate
transition to the surrounding neighborhoods.
With commercial real estate in decline, there is no current demand for this development in the center of a
residential area.
We are concerned that the PUD is seriously flawed and should be rejected.
Martin Meisenheimer
471 Burlington Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
317 844 -3920
nnmeisenheimer@indy.rr.com
2
Page 1 of 2
Hancock, Ramona B
From: Young, William [WYOUNG @REITMR.com]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:18 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Williams, Sharon; Buchanan, David
Subject: The Proposed Bridges PUD Rezoning Project
Angie, thank you for taking time out of your busy day to meet with me this past Friday regarding the pending
Bridges PUD rezoning request. As I stated during our meeting, Reit Management Research LLC represents the
owner of the six story 72,264 sf office building known as Fidelity Plaza Tower 11 located at 11350 N. Meridian
Street. As you can see from the attached aerial photo the Fidelity Plaza Tower II is adjacent to the proposed
Bridges site. Based on our review of The Bridges Planned Unit Development District Ordinance filed December,
2010 and the related A &F Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 2011 our concerns regarding the
project and related rezoning request are listed below.
Vacancy levels in existing office space in the north side suburban office submarkets Most office building
owners in the north side Indianapolis suburbs are struggling with inordinately high vacancy levels as a result of
the impact of the recession. Most experienced professionals in the office leasing industry in the Indianapolis
metro area believe that these vacancy levels of 20% or more won't decrease substantially for at least a couple of
years. Is potential additional office development an appropriate use of this site given the current economic
climate of the north side commercial office real estate industry?
Traffic Traffic at the 116 Street N. Meridian St. intersection (and at the circles at Spring Mill/ Illinois
Streets and 116 Street) is already heavy during rush hour each day. We highly recommend that the City of
Carmel does not allow the existing level of traffic flow to be diminished by the potential development within the
proposed Bridges PUD area. At a minimum, we are hopeful that the City will require the applicant to implement
the recommendations contained in the A &F Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis in the event the PUD ordinance
is approved by the City.
Project Development Density We believe that the density of future development on the subject site is not
fully described or capped in the PUD. We see no specific limitation on the number of square feet of office
building development in the PUD ordinance document.
Access to Illinois Street If the PUD request is approved by the City of Carmel we request that consideration
be given to providing our property with direct access to Illinois Street in the location highlighted in yellow on the
attached aerial. This direct access to Illinois Street would enable many of our building occupants to avoid the
delays that may develop at the north entrance into the Fidelity Plaza Office Park at 116 Street by allowing
vehicular traffic to exit or enter the property from 111th Street. This proposed point of access onto Illinois
Street would further augment the existing entrance onto Illinois Street that is farther north within the park.
I will be in attendance at the Plan Commission meeting on the evening of February 15, 2011. Thank you for your
consideration.
Will Young
Area Manager
Reit Management Research LLC
2/14/2011
Page 2 of 2
101 West Washington Street, Suite 1100 East
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Office: 317- 632 -2626
Fax: 317- 632 -2883
Email: wyoung @reitmr.com
Website: www.cwhreit.com 1 t' P' t it.{ I 1350 ti't-,r
0 William C. Young
C Area Manager
Property Management Leasing
Indianapolis Area Office
101 West Washington Street
0 o Suite 1100 East
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Reit Management main: (317) 632 -2626
Research LLC fax: (317) 632 -2883
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT email: wyoung(reitmr.com
DIVISION
2/14/2011
Go sic maps
To see all the details that are visible on the
screen, use the "Print" link next to the map.
http: /maps.google.com /maps ?hl =en &tab =wl 1/31/2011
Page 1 of 2
Hancock, Ramona B
From:
Hancock, Ramona B
Sent:
Friday, February 11, 2011 11:14 AM
To:
'DanRE811 @aol.com'
Cc:
Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject:
RE: Proposed Zoning Change Pittman farm
Dr. Elliott:
Thank you for your email regarding the Pittman property. Your communication will be forwarded to the Plan
Commission today.
I would encourage you to attend the meeting on February 15 and further express your comments.
Ramona Hancock
From: DanRE811 @aol.com [mailto:DanRE811 @aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 10:56 AM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Proposed Zoning Change Pittman farm
TO: Plan Commission Secretary
Comment: Please forward to Plan Commission Members prior to meeting Feb. 15th. Thank you.
Members of the Carmel Plan Commission:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed change in zoning of the Pittman farm on
Springmill Rd. between 111th and 116th streets from residential to commercial. As a resident of Williams Mill
development which is directly across Springmill from the proposed massive development, I feel that such a
commercial enterprise would be extremely detrimental to my quality of life and property value.
From Kessler Blvd. in Indianapolis to Westfield, IN, Springmill Rd. is strictly residential. This is how I thought it
would be when we purchased our lot from Pittman Partners and subsequently built our home there The
Pittmans gave me no cause to think otherwise.
Since the roundabouts were constructed on Springmill, the traffic has increased 10 fold. Many drivers now use
this route to avoid the congestion on Hwy 31. With a large commercial development, the traffic will be
overwhelming, especially when 31 becomes limited access. During morning and evening rush hours, it is very
difficult to even get out of our neighborhood. With the proposed development, it may be close to impossible.
Since there are already commercial enterprises on the East side of the new Illinois St. extension that was
constructed when Clarian Hospital was built, I would expect that there might be commercial structures of a
similar nature (office type buildings) on the West side of Illinois. But it should absolutely end there. Pittman's
farm should otherwise be developed residential as it is currently zoned and as it relates to Carmel's
comprehensive plan.
About a year ago I was sent a questionnaire by the city of Carmel asking if I was happy with the availability of
services in my area. (Grocery, Doctor, Hospital, Bank, Gas station, Restaurants, etc.) I responded that the
services which I use on a day to day basis are very near and accessible and that I was not in need of
development of these facilities anywhere near my neighborhood. This response may have fallen on deaf ears
I have talked to many who unequivocally state that they would boycott any commercial establishments built on
this property, and perhaps the developer should know this up front and, thus, might realize how unpopular such
2/18/2011
Page 2 of 2
a project would be.
I know that all of the other neighborhoods which would be impacted by such a calamitous decision are also
fighting this development, with just cause. I believe it unconscionable to consider allowing such a disastrous
proposal which would so adversely affect the surrounding homes and families, just for the financial gain of the
developer and the Pittman Partners. I am extremely disappointed in John and Steve Pittman for betraying the
people whose neighborhood they developed and sold to us.
The bottom line is that the developer is not already on site or a member of the community of neighborhoods.
We who have our homes, families and investment at stake are already in place, and have much to lose if the
zoning is changed. Please find in favor of the people of Carmel who live in these neighborhoods with their
hopes and plans for the future. Thank you for your strong consideration of our plea.
Sincerely, Daniel R. Elliott, M.D.
11168 Valeside Crescent
Carmel, IN 46032
2/18/2011
Page 1 of 1
Hancock, Ramona B
From: Calise Mossler [cpmossler @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:31 AM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Rezoning -116th and Springmill
We are writing to state our concern over the proposed commercial development at the 116th and
Springmill Road area. This is a development that brings amazing commercial density to an area with
numerous neighborhoods which would be negatively impacted. The increased traffic will overwhelm
two -lane Springmill Road and our newly developed round abouts. The value of our homes would fall
significantly if they were to be sitting in the shadows of these high -rises and suffocated by the increased
traffic.
The city of Carmel has gone to great expense to encourage development in our downtown for
commercial use, much of which is yet to be occupied. One need only to drive a few blocks east of the
proposed site on 116th Street to find newly built shops that are standing empty. The area already has
easy access to grocery stores and I am not sure that the citizens in this area would welcome a tavern to
the neighborhood.
If Mr. Pittman wants to develop his land, he should do so within the current zoning laws and develop
housing within an appropriate density for our neighborhoods, roads, and schools.
We ask that you represent the interests of the many citizens of Carmel who have homes in this area by
not rezoning this area to allow this vast commercial development.
Sincerely,
Jeff and Calise Mossler
2/15/2011