Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Correspondence
ICE IbbER LEGAL ~ BUSINESS ADVtSORS WRrI'ER'B DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236-2319 direct fax: (317) $92-4788 Mr. Kevan McClure, Division of Land Acquisition Indiana Department of Transportation 100 North Senate Avenue, Suite N-955 Indianapolis, IN 46204 R.E: NRC Corporation/Northwest, Southwest and Southeast Quadrants of the Intersection of 1465 and US 31, Cannel, Indiana Dear Mr. McClure: This shall serve to follow-up our meeting of May 3, 2000, among Steve Cecil, Fredric Lawrence, Gene Cinfel, Steve Valinet, Jodie Edminster and myself with respect to the above referenced properties (the "Properties"). After our meeting, we proceeded to obtain letters l~om Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation ("Duke-Weeks") and the Cannel Plan Commission (the "Plan Commission") in respect to the factual background relating to the proposed acquisition and rezoning of the Properties. Thus, enclosed for your review, please find copies of Duke-Weeks' letter dated June 15, 2000, and the Plan Commission's letter dated July 11, 2000. As we discussed, Duke-Weeks had entered into a contract to purchase the Properties from NRC Corporation, subject to rezoning of the same. Duke-Weeks initiated such rezoning with the Plan Commission, and the same was proceeding on track until the issuance of a letter, on or about June 10, 1999, by the Indiana Department of Transportation ("INDOT"), a copy of which letter is enclosed herewith for your ease of reference. Following receipt of that letter, the Plan Commission essentially suspended consideration of the Rezoning Petition pending resolution of the amount of land which would be needed by INDOT in connection with the proposed expansion of the intersection ofi-465 and US 31. That issue remains an obstacle to completing any transaction with respect to the Properties. This is because the potential taking of portions of the Properties will likely have a material adverse effect on any development thereof. Until the scope of any such takings are known, it is difficult to appropriately plan the use of each of the three quadrants which are owned by NRC. The purpose of this letter is to request a protective purchase by INDOT pursuant to 24 CFR § 712.204(d). NRC believes the situation relating to the Properties indeed results in a hardship upon it. That is to say, but for the overt actions oflNDOT, and the impact of those actions upon the Plan Commission and Duke-Weeks, it is likely that the transaction contemplated by the contract between NRC and Duke-Weeks would have closed in respect to all of the Properties. However, now that INDOT has made known to Duke-Weeks and the Plan Commission the likely taking of portions of One American Square I Box 82001 I Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002 I P 317-236-2100 I F 317-236-2219 I wwwJcemiUer,corn In0ianapo~is I Chicago I Kansas City I South Bend August I, 2000 Page 2 each of these three parcels, it is not practical to proceed forward until the scope of those potential takes are known. Duke-Weeks has expressed continuing interest in purchasing the Properties so long as the scope of the takes by INDOT can be defined. Identification of the areas to be taken for the expanded intersection will allow Duke-Weeks to proceed forward to rezone the property through the Plan Commission (with the ultimate decision being made by the Cannel City Council), and to attain a reasonable level of comfort that any proposed improvements will not be the subject of a take by INDOT following the construction thereof. NRC desires to proceed forward with the potential sale of the Properties, most likely to Duke-Weeks, but also understands the need oflNDOT to protect the citizenry of the state of Indiana. We hope that both of these goals can be achieved by a prompt identification and taking of those portions of the Properties necessary for the interchange expansion. We hope that this can be accomplished prior to completion of the final environmental impact statement for the project area. Thus, we hereby request that a categorical exclusion be sought pursuant to 23 CFR § 771.117 in order to expedite the identification of those portions of the Properties which will be taken, as well as to compensate NRC for the fair market value of the land and other rights so obtained. We will be in touch with you shortly to further discuss this request. We very much appreciate your prompt attention and consideration of this request. Very truly yours, ICE MILLER ZeffA. Weiss ZAW/sd - 6s~8.~ Enclosures CC: Freddc Lawrence (w/enc.) Gene Cinfel (w/o enc.) Steve Cecil (w/o enc.) Phil Nicely (w/enc.) ~l~avid Cremeans (w/o eno.) ' Frederick Biesecker (w/o eno.) Lane Ralph (w/eric.) ~icely rth Office 57&3701 eJaw. com Mr. Steve Engelking City of Carmel Department of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: 14-99-Z Dear Steve: Please be advised that Duke-Weeks Realty Limited Partnership desires to continue the rezoning application under docket number 14-99-Z until the December, 1999 meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission. Thank you for your cooperation. CC: Gregory K. Silver, Esq. Mr. Robert Falk Very truly yours, ::ODMA~VlHODMA\N O1 ;30445;2 Downtown · 2700 First Indiana Plaza · U~5 North Pennsylvania Street · Indianapolis, indiana 46204 * (317) 684-5000 · FAX (317) 684-5173 North Office · 8888 Keystone Crossing · Suite 1500 · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 · 1317) 574-3700 · FAX (317) 574-3716 GREGORY K. SILVER TELEPHONE (317) 263-9417 (317) 263-9418 Philip A. Nicely, Esq. Bose McKinney & Evans 8888 Keystone Crossing indianapolis, iN 46240 ~gv~emberdy 1999~'~' Re: C.D~dc~/_W.&kssRealty:Proj eet~ 964 & Meridian Street and 1-465 Valiem Land Dear Mr. Nicely: I will need to have your revisions well before the scheduled November 16, 1999, hearing and undoubtedly, so will the Carmel Planning staff. We must have such by November 9,,1999, with additional copy to Mr. Gerry Wagner at his address below as Heartland Chair. We will also both need to see your revised commitments by said date. If you keep tabling, Mr. Wagner and I will need these documents, as will the staff, at least a week in advance of any scheduled hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, GKS:dsw cc: Mr. Gerry Wagner 211 W. 96~h Street Indianapolis, IN 46260 Gregory K. Silver /~_61. Steve Engelking, Director Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Honorable Mayor James Brainard City of Cannel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 G:\WPg0XDebm\Gr~$ Silver\Nicely. L-3 IBOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Philip A. Nicely North Office Mr. Steve Engelking City of Carmel Department of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Deer Steve: Please be advised that Duke-Weeks Realty Lim ired Partnership desires to continue the mzoning application under docket number 14-99-Z until the November, 1999 meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Gregory K. Silver, Esq. Mr. Robert Falk ** T~TRL PRE~.02 ** IBOSE MclglNNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW pl~illp A~ Nicely North Office I:)ire~l Dia~ (3~7) 574-3701 IE-~if: PN~c~sel~.c~ FAX COVER SHEET DATE: TO: FAX: TO: FAX: TO: FAX: OUR C/M #: FROM: October 14, 1999 Mx. Steve Engdklng, City of Carmel 571-2439 and S71-2426 Gregory K. Silver, Esq. 263-9411 Mr. Robert Falk, Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation 8086797 07205-0044 Philip A. Nicely, Esq. A thcsimite containing a total of ~ pages includimt thla cover sh~L is being transmitted. In the event you do not receive all of the pages, please contact Molly Stuckey at (317) 574-3709 immediately. THE DOCUMENTS ACCOb~ANYING THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION CONTAIN i ~I~ORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPt~TY OF THE SF_~DER AND WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, THE INFORMATION IS IL~r'~NDED ONLY FOR THE U~E OF THE NAMED [NDMDUALS OR ENTITI~S. iF YOU ARE NOT 'AN IN'I'ZND~ RilCIPIENT, YOU ~qE HEREBY NOTIFIIf, D THAT ~ DISCLOSURF.,, COPYING, D la~['RIBIYI'/ON, OR TAKLNG OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON THE CON'I~NTS OF THIS FACSIMILE THAN&MInION I~ STi~ICTLY PROHIB]TEIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED TIKS FACSIMILE IN ERROR PLEAgE NOTIFY US ~V~EDIATELY BY COLLECT TELEPHONE ($17)574-37~ SO THAT WE CAN ARRANGE THE RETURN OF THE TRANSMITTED BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Philip A. Nicely North Office Direct Dial (317) 574-3701 E-Maih PNicely@boselaw.com October 14, 1999 Mr. Steve Engelking City of Carmel Department of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: 14-99-Z Dear Steve: Please be advised that Duke-Weeks Realty Limited Partnership desires to continue the rezoning application under docket number 14-99-Z until the November, 1999 meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, CC: Gregory K. Silver, Esq. Mr. Robert Falk Downtown · 2700 First Indiana Plaza ° 1:55 North Pennsylvania Street · Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 · (317) 684-5000 · FAX (317) 684-5173 North Office · 8888 Keystone Crossing ° Suite 1500 · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 · (317) 574-3700 · FAX (1517) 574-3716 www.boselawx:om BOSE McK1NNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Gregory K. Silver, Esq. Attorney at Law 342 Massachusetts Avenue Suite 400, Marrott Center Indianapolis, IN 46204-2161 October 6, 1999 Philip A. Nicely North Office Direct Dial (317) 574-3701 Re: Duke-Weeks Realty Project, 96e & Meridian Streets Dear Greg: Please be advised that when and if Duke-Weeks Realty Limited Partnership reworks the plan for the development of the northwest, southwest and southeast quadrants of 1-465 and U.S. 31, I will provide you with a copy. To date, there have been no reworkings. In the meantime, we understand that the Heartland Coalition has caused to be prepared various traffic studies relating to the intersection of 96th Street and Meridian and the interstate interchange, and we would appreciate having copies of that information prior to the scheduled October 19, 1999 hearing. Thank you for your cooperation. I look forward to receiving the information. PAN/mas ::OO~MHODMA~NOI ;30254;1 Downtown · 2700 First Indiana Plaza · 135 North Pennsylvania Slreet · Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 - (317) 684-5000 · FAX (317) 684-5173 North Office · 8888 Keystone Crossing · Suite 1500 · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 · {317) 574-3700 · FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS GregoPJ K. Silver, Esq. October 6, 1999 Page 2 CC: Mr. Richard W. Horn Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1200 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Mr. Jerry Wagner 211 West 96th Street Indianapolis, IN 46260 Mr. Steve- E~gle~in-g~' ~D~t~ht 5f-Com rflunity Development City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, iN 46032 Honorable James Brainard Mayor, City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 GREGORY K. SILVER October 1, 1999 TELEPHONE (317) 263-9417 (317) 263-9418 Philip A. Nicely, Esq. Bose McKinney & Evans 8888 Keystone Crossing Indianapolis, IN 46240 Re: Duke/Weeks Realty Project 96a~ & Meridian Street and I465 Valient Land Dear Mr. Nicely: After your tabling last month, it has now come to my attention as counsel to the Heartland Coalition, that your client is also "reworking" the plan for the above project as to all three (3) parcels due to INDOT taking of parts of the land. I will need to have your revisions well before the scheduled October 19, 1999, hearing and undoubtedly, so will the Carmel Planning staff. We must have such by October 12, 1999, with additional copy to Mr. Gerry Wagner at his address below as Heartland Chair. We will also both need to see your revised commitments by said date. Thank you. Sincerely, Gregory K. Silver Mr. Gerry Wagner 211 W. 96~h Street Indianapolis, IN 46260 ~ printed on recycled paper 'Coif'Steve Engelking, Directo'rJ~;~ Department of Comanumty Serwces City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Honorable Mayor James Brainard City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 G:\WP80\Debra~Greg Silver\Nicely. L~2 BOSE McKINNEq( & EVANS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Philip A. Nicely North Office Direct Dial (317) 574-3701 f-Mail: PNicely@boselaw.corn Steve Engleking Department of Community Development City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: ~. _0a~1:4_:~ 9:~Z ]~~ Dear Steve: This is to advise you that Duke-Weeks Realty Limited Partnership desires to table the hearing on the above-referenced case for thirty (30) days or until the October meeting of the Plan Commission. Thank you for your help and cooperation. PAN/edh Very truly yours, Downtown · 2700 First Indiana Plaza · 135 North Pennsylvania Street · Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 · (317) 684.5000 ° FAX (317) 684.5173 North Office · 8888 Keystone Crossin§ · Suite 1500 · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 ° (317) 574.3708 · FAX (317) 574-3716 www. boselaw.com IBOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ~P AT'i'ORNEYB AT LAW Philip A. Nicely Stove Engleking Department of Community Development City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: (-Ca-s~l~-99;Z ~ Dear Steve: This is to advise you that Duke-Weeks Realty Um[i'ed Partnership desires tO table the hearing on the above-referenced case for thirty (30) days or until the October meeting of the Plan Commission. Thank you for your help and cooperation. PAN/edh Very truly youm. TOTAL PAGE. 01 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Philip A. Nicely North Office Direct Dial (317) 574-3701 E-Mail: PNicely@boselaw. com August12,1999 /llll] 13 DOCD Steve Engleking Department of Community Development City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Case 14-99-Z Dear Steve: This is to advise you that Duke-Weeks Realty Limited Partnership desires to table the hearing on the above-referenced case for thirty (30) days or until the September meeting of the Plan Commission. Thank you for your help and cooperation. PAN/sla Very truly yours, Downtown · 2700 First Indiana Plaza - 135 North Pennsylvania Street · Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 · (317) 684-5000 * FAX {317) 684-5173 Norlh Office · 8888 Keystone Crossing · Suite 15l)0 · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 · (317) 574-37(30 - FAX (3~7) $7zF~716 www.boselaw.corn August 12, 1999 Department of Community Development City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Case 14-gg-Z Dear Steve: This is to adv~e you that Duke-Weeks Realty Limited PaCnership desires to table the hearing on the above-referenced ease for thirty (30) days or until the September meeting of the Plan Commission. Thank you for your help and cooperation. PAN/sM Very truly yours, ** TOTRL PRGE.{~2 ~ & EVANS.p ATTORNEY~ Al' LAW FAX COVER SHEET DATE: TO: CLIENT/MATTER: FROM: August 12, 1999 Stave Engleking (571-2426) 1-10 Philip A. Nicely (317) 574-3701 Fax: (31~ 574-3716 Hard copy to fellow by first clsse mail. A facsimile containing a total of 2 pages includine Ihis cover sheet, is being transmitted. In the event you do not receive all of the pagsa, please contact Susan Atwell m (~1t7) S74-3718 immediately. OF THI~ FAC~ IMI~E 7RAN~Ii~ I $ STRICTLY PR~RIBi~O, IF YOU HAVE I~CEIVED 1HI~ FACSIMILE IN I~RROR July 28, 1999 ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS Mr. Dave Cremeans, President Cannel Clay Planmng Commission City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Traffic Impact Study Technical Review Duke Realty, 96t~ Street & Meridian Street Cannel, Indiana HNTB Project No. 31363-PL-001-001 Dear Mr. Cremeans: HNTB has completed our final review of the A&F Engineering Company's Traffic Impact Analysis Report and supplemental analyses for the proposed Duke development in the area of 96th and Meridian Street. Our initial review letter dated May 27, 1999 indicates that we agree with the analysis methods used by A&F in their report; however, we recommended that additional efforts be made in presenting their findings. As a result of the June 1, 1999 Planning Commission Committee Meeting, it was made a condition that A&F address the findings of our review. The requested additional analyses and figures have been received from A&F, and we are now able to offer final review comments. The supplemental memorandum generated by A&F, dated July 19, 1999, clearly establishes what improvements will be required for the surrounding traffic system in order to accommodate the anticipated 2009 Base Year conditions. Each site development scenario (Existing Zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and Proposed Duke Development Plan) was separately analyzed to determine what additional improvements would be required to handle the associated increased traffic volumes. For this study, it was agreed that, as a minimum, Level of Service D (LOS D) must be maintained. This study and comparison procedure is in direct accordance to what was requested in our initial review. The analysis results indicate the following: 96th Street will need to be widened to four lanes in order to adequately handle 2009 Base Year traffic volumes (existing traffic volumes + vacant land generated traffic volumes + year 2009 traffic volumes with lane configuration needed to achieve LOS D). Four lanes will continue to accommodate increased traffic volumes under all three development scenarios. · Improvements can be made to the existing road system to provide the minimum acceptable LOS D for all site development scenarios. These improvements include those required to Mr. Dave Cremeans Carmel Clay Planning Commission July 28, 1999 Page 2 meet the 2009 Base Year conditions and the additional intersection approach lanes required to accommodate site development traffic. In order to accommodate 2009 Base Year traffic volumes, the addition of an exclusive westbound fifight-tom lane is necessary at the intersection of 96t~ Street and Meridian Street. The addition of let~ turn Ianes on all approaches are required at the intersection of 96th Street and Spring Mill Road. The Duke development lane configuration details included in the A&F supplemental analyses letter meet the requirements of providing an acceptable LOS D for 96th Street, the intersection of 96th and Meridian Street and the intersection of 96th Street and Spring Mill Road. · The required Duke development roadway improvements can be accommodated with the right-of-way that Duke has established for their project. The Duke development scenario (existing traffic volumes + vacant land generated traffic volumes + year 2009 traffic volumes + proposed development generated traffic volumes with lane configuration proposed by A&F EngIneering to achieve LOS D) will require five (5) more approach lanes at the intersection of 96th and Meridian Street than the 2009 Base Year condition. The added approach lanes include a second and third eastbound leR-tom lane; a second southbound fight-mm lane; and second westbound exclusive left-mm and fight-mm lanes. The Duke development will impact the adjacent roadway system more than the Existing Zoning plan (existing traffic volumes + vacant land generated traffic volumes + year 2009 traffic volumes + Existing Zoning plan generated traffic volumes with lane configuration proposed by A&F Engineering to achieve LOS D) by requiring two (2) more additional approach lanes at the intersection of 96th and Meridian Street. The added approach lanes include a third eastbound left-mm lane, and a second westbound exclusive let~-tum lane. The Duke development will produce less of an impact to the adjacent roadway system than the Comprehensive plan (existing traffic volumes + vacant land generated traffic volumes + year 2009 traffic volumes + Comprehensive plan generated traffic volumes with lane configuration proposed by A&F Engineering to achieve LOS D) by requiting one (I) less southbound exclusive left-mm lane at the intersection of 96~h and Meridian Street, and one (1) fewer eastbound and westbound exclusive let's-turn lanes at the intersection of 96th Street and Springmill Road. As a separate issue, it is now understood that the proposed Duke development middle drive that did not meet the minimum Level of Service D requirements will be a stop controlled intersection and not controlled by a traffic signal as was interpreted in our initial review. The traffic signals at Springmill Road, the Duke west drive and at Meridian Street should provide enough gaps in Mr. Dave Cremeans Carmel Clay Planning Commission July 28, 1999 Page 3 the traffic stream to allow for adequate traffic movement out of this drive. The signalized west drive is spaced relative to the other intersections so that there should be good progression along 96e Street. HNTB agrees with the analysis methods used by A&F and concurs with their findings. The results of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report and supplemental analyses show that the proposed Duke development can be accommodated with logical improvements to the road system. Please feel fi:ce to contact either Steve Swango or myself to further discuss these issues. Sincerely, HNTB CORPORATION Paul B. Satterly, P.E. Project Manager PBS/SLS/sls Mr. ~Iohn E. Kupke, P.E., ffNTB Corporation Mr. Steven L. Swango, HNTB Corporation Patti Horri§an Vice-President, College Commons Neighborhood Association 9126 N. Delaware St. Indianapolis, IN 46240 July 25, 1999 Mr. David Cremeans, President Carmel-Clay Plan Commision One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Cremeans: This Letter is by way of clarification. At the end of the Carmel Planning Commission meeting on June 15th, attorney Philip Nicely misspoke. He stated that the neighbors had no objection to the P.R. Duke proposed development at 96~h and Meridian Streets, which was under discussion at this meeting. He was, in fact, referring to the May 18t~ Planning commission meeting at which Building #6 at Park-wood Crossing was under discussion. As Vice-President of the College Commons Neighborhood Association, I was asked to report that the neighbors had no objection to the construction of Building #6 but with a request for turning offthe lights in the existing buildings. The College Commons Neighborhood Association does object to the proposed 96a' and Meridian development. Had it not been for the lateness of the hour, I would have made this correction at the June 15a~ meeting. Thank you for >'our attention to this detail. Sincerely, Patti Horrigan Heartland Coalition To: Members of the carmel/clay Plan Commission July 21, 1999 Re: Duke Petition for rezoning, #14-99Z Members of the Heartland Coalition (see enclosed information) oppose the above-referenced development as presented. The proposal designates a density so intense as to create severe congestion in the streets and is visually incompatible with adjoining residential communities. We appreciate your willingness to take appropriate time to determine necessar,/facts in order to make a reasoned and responsible judgement in this case. It is our hope that your careful review will include: · Insistence that the A & F traffic study be redone, according to the HNTB suggestions, and more importantly in compliance with your own parameters and regimen. This study should include the 1465 interchange traffic impact and consider the development's effect on at least 24 related intersections. The revised study should also be coordinated with the special 96th Street study and conform to the R.O.W. needs of County Commissioners and Mayor Brainard's intent to have the Spring Mill/96th Street intersection be around-about. · Thorough analysis of the cost to all Indiana taxpayers should INDOT have to pay residual damages for land recently zoned for business to reconstruct the 1465/U.S. #31 interchange. It is urgent to know INDOT's plan for the interchange hefere artifi~'Jallyincre~sing the condemnation wnrth. This interchange is the linchpin for the entire U.S. ,~31 corridor to South Bend, and appropriate land must be reserved to assure a design engineered to work for many years into the future. · Complete disclosure of the real cost to taxpayers for implementation of a TIFto pay infrastrocture costs related to the proposed development. Property taxes diverted to the TIF are lost to taxpayers for what would normally be usec~ for other purposes, I.e. schools, fire district, and other infrastructure needs. How much is lost for general use? · Consideration of changing the petition to a PUD status (as was proposed at time of comprehensive plan change). The community should know what they ere actually going to receive before avote is taken. · Production of asite plan which shows actual footprints of the hotel/restaurant portion of the development. Such footprints (and even athree-dimensional model)would help you understand how a300 room hotel no taller than 8 stories can fit into the overall plan. It would also be helpful to review pictures of actual existing area structures which are six and eight stories tall. · Presentation of fully developed commitments in advance of hearings so that they can receive careful review by both the Commission and neighboring communities. · Review of past commitments accepted by zoning authorities as legally binding in regard to traffic access points on Spring Mill Road north of 1465 and at Parkwood Crossing (east of Meridian Street). · Assurance that the development would indeed be a"park-like setting" in order to protect the residential integrity of the neighboring communities. The proposed density would not allow such setting. We appreciate your dedication to knowing the facts before making a decision as momentous as that which is required in the Duke proposal, Please let us know how we can help in this process. Sir~erely, GerryWagher, HeaTrtland Coalition president copies: Mayor James Brainard Members, Carmel City Council Hamilton County Commissioners Col. Steve Engelking, Director of Development Services State Senator Murray Clark, State Representative Pat Bauer, Senator Richard Lugar Congressman Dan Burton, Congresswoman Julia Carson Mayor Steve Goldsmith Indianapolis City County Council Governor Frank O'Bannon INDOT Commissioner C. K]ika State Representative Craig Fry Senator Evan Bayh Fed. Highway Adm. Joyce Newland HEARTLAND COALITION 9247 North Meridian Street, #325 Indianapolis, IN 46260 The Heartland Coalition (HC) is a voluntary not-for-profit "umbrella" organization consisting of informal neighborhood groups, formal neighborhood associations, and individuals who have come together to promote the common good and general welfare of the community in the areas of land use, development and maintenance, traffic, drainage, landscape, etc. The geographic area of interest for the Coalition is situated in Washington Township, Marion County, and Clay Township, Hamilton County, State of Indiana, and is bounded on the north by 131st Street. on the east by Keystone Avenue, on the south by Kessler Boulevard, and on the west by the Washington Township/Pike Township boundary line in Marion County and by Towne Road in Hamilton County. Coalition officers and steering committee include representatives from many neighborhoods in both Hamilton and Marion Counties and has the support of two major umbrella civic groups: Clay West information Council, inc. and Nora-Northside Community Council, Inc. Current issue of greatest concern to the Coalition is Duke Reality's proposed office and retail commercial development on three of the four quadrants of the 1465 and Meridian Street interchange. The proposed density of this project is so great as to create severe congestion in the streets. It is visually incompatible with existing residential neighborhoods and even proposes to violate past commitments regarding retail traffic use of Parkwood Crossing drives. It has been shown, in fact, that the proposed development would be equal to relocating the four largest office buildings in Indiana to the sites in question. Heartland Coalition has retained counsel and the services of a professional traffic engineer to develop an independent traffic study of the area. In summary, Heartland Coalition is a group of citizens who care deeply about the future of their communities and seek to enlist the same concern from those whose votes on this zoning decision will determine that future. It is the Coalition's goal to encourage the zoning decision-makers to follow their duty to know all the facts and vote responsibly on the merits of those facts. The Coalition welcomes the financial and moral support of all who share these concerns. Summer, 1999 RESOLUTION OF HAMILTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS as presented to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission by Hamilton County Commission President Sharon Clark June 15, 1999 Hamilto,~ County, the oilies of Indv and Cannel, and thc state of Indiana have entered into a special study ortho 96'" Street corridor with results due in September. Hamilton County h~ und~'rtak~ large road prqjects to facilitate trattie flow. Projects that interact with the completion ofU.S. 31 to fi'eeway statu.s are 146'~ Street upgrade and Clay township intersection improvements. If this rezone is approved without sui'}lciellt traffic ilttbrmalion, data. analysis, which will enable all entities to continue ooop6ration and plaiming, ta.,,'pay~rs and ultimately th~ traveling public will b~ negatively impacted. Trait'lc flow counts and illustrations, d~die,,tion of rights/of/way fbr state and county improvements, projection of levels of s~rvice, ~o. ne,'d to b~ fully presetncd b,'for¢ such a rezone is approved. To delay' this decision three mouths to secure ti~is traffic in.fimnation is rcasoimble when so much is at stake. Tha~tk you. D~e Co~t~ctlo~ - Vdi~t Cbs ~'t..;y w~i~n b loe,t~l at ~ aort~e~t ¢om~ o~ 96 ~l~'t a~'l Sp~it~ Mill Ro~. 1717 PLEA3ANT $'I~£ET NOBL,I~VILLE, INDIANA 4~0 (317) 773.'/'/~ A&F ENGINEERING CO., |NC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS To.' From: Steve Fehribach, P.E. A&F Engineering Co., Inc. Date: July 19, 1999 Subject: Proposed Development at 96°~ Street and Meridian Street In response to a technical review of the original traffic study conducted by HNTB, A&F Engineering Co., Inc. has conducted supplemental analyses that examine the scenarios recommended in the technical review. The following summarizes the results and provides recommendations based on these additional analyses. 96a~ Street A needs assessment study was conducted by A&F Engineering Co., Inc. for the City of Carmel in April 1997. This study examined 1997 traffic volumes along several roadways and made roadway improvement recommendations based on this dat~ According to the recommendations made in the needs assessment, 96th Street would need to he reconstructed as a four-lane roadway between Spring Mill Road and Meridian Street in order to operate at acceptable levels of service with the 1997 traffic volumes. In addition, traffic data was collected by A3~F Engineering Co., Inc. along 96~h Street between Spring Mill Road and Meridian Street in May 1999. The following table summarizes the AM peak hour and PM peak hour capacity analysis results for this section of roadway under three different scenarios. CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 96TM ST. BETWEEN MERIDIAN ST. AND SPRINO MILL RD. 1999 Volumes 2009 Volumes 2009+Development Volumes Time Period 2-Lane 96~ Street &-Lane 96th Street &-Lane 964 Street AM Peak D A B PM Peak E A B Intersection Caoacitv Analyses 96t~ Street and Meridian Street To evaluate the effect of any development on the public street system, the traffic volumes from various scenarios mst be analyzed. From the analysis, recommendations can be made as to what improvements to the public street system are necessary to accommodate the added traffic volumes due to the following scenarios. SC~ARIO 1: Exi~#ng Tra~c Volumes with F~sting Intersection Lane Configuration- This lane configuration is illus~ated by the color green on Figure 1. SCI~qARIO 2: Existing Tra~c Volumes + Vacant Ixtnd Generated Tra~c Volumes + Year 2009 Tra~c Volumes with Lane Caro~guration Needed to Achieve LOS D - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color blue on Figure 1. SCEN.AX~O 3: Existing Traffc Volumes + Vacant Ixtnd Generated Trct~c Volumes + Year 2009 Traffc Volumes + Eodsting Zoning Plan Generated Tra~c Volumes with Lane Configuration Needed to Achieve LOS D - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color brown on Figure 1. SCEIqARIO 4: Existing Traffc Volumes + Vacant Land Generated Tra~c Volumes + Year 2009 Tra~c Volumes + Comprehensive Plan Generated Traffc Volumes with Lane Configuration Needed to Achieve LOS D - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color orange on Figure 1. SCENARIO E.x~ng Trctffc Volumes + Vacant Land Generated Tra~c Volumes + Year 2009 Tra~c Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Tro~c Volumes with Lane Con. figuration Proposed by d & F Engineering to Achieve LOS D - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color red on Figure 1. 96a Street and Spfin~ Mill Road The following scenarios were analyzed at the intersection of96t~ Street and Spring Mill Road. SCENARIO 1: ~xisting Trc~c Volumes with Eristing Intersection Lane Configuration - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color green on Figure 2. ScI~o2: Existing Traa~c Volumes + Vacant Land Generated Tra.~c Volumes + Year 2009 Tra~c Volumes with Lane Configuration Needed to Achieve LOS B - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color blue on Figure 2. SCENARIO 3: Existing Traffc Volumes + Vacant Ixmd Generated Tra~c Volumes + Year 2009 Traffic Volumes + F~sting Zoning Plan Generated Tra~c Volumes with Lane Configuration Needed to Achieve LOS B - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color brown on Figure 2. Existing Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes + Year 2009 Tra~c Volumes + Comprehensive Plan Generated Tra~c l~olumes with Lane Configuration Needed to Achieve LOS B - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color orange on Figure 2. ScI~,IO 5: Ex~sting Tra~c Volumes + Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes + Year 2009 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Tra~ffic Volumes with Lane Configuration Proposed by ~4 & F Engineering to Achieve LOS B - This lane configuration is illustrated by the color red on Figure 2. Conclusions Based on the 1997 needs assessment and the 1999 traffic study, it has been determined ~.at a four- lane roadway is required for the existing uaffi¢ volumes along 96a Street between Meridian Street and Spring Mill Road in order to operate at acceptable levels of service. Further analysis has shown thnt this four-lane roadway will operate at acceptable levels once the pwposed Duke project is fully occupied. A level of service analysis of 96sh Street and Meridian Street has determined that one additional lane is needed at this intersection in order to achieve level of service D or better in the baseline year. The baseline year volumes are defined as the sum of the 2009 traffic volumes and the vacant land traffic volumes. When the existing zoning volumes are added to the base year volumes, it has been determined that three additional lanes (when compared to the baseline geometties) will be needed at this intersection in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. When the comprehensive plan volumes are added to the base year volumes, it has been determined that six additional lanes (when compared to the baseline geometries) will be needed at this intersection in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. When developed as proposed by Duke, it has been determined that five additional lanes (when compared to the baseline geometrics) will be needed at this intersection in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. It should be noted that these geometrics are hypothetical and have been analyzed in order to fulfill requirements set forth by HNTB in the before mentioned technical review. However, ail additional lanes can be accommodated with the right-of-way as established by the Duke Corporation. In addition, this analysis has shown that the number of additional lanes needed for the Duke project is one less than the number of lanes needed for the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the impact on this intersection due to the Duke project will be less than the impact that would result if the land were developed under the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, an analysis of the intersection of96t~ Street and Spting Mill Road has shown that a traffic signal and the addition of a lef~-tum lane along all approaches are necessary to maintain level of service B for ail scenarios beyond existing conditions with the exception of the Comprehensive Plan scenario. For the Comprehensive Plan scenario an exclusive right-turn lane is needed along the eastbound and westbound approaches in addition to the improvements needed for the other scenarios to achieve level of service B. Therefore, it can be concluded that the improvements needed at this intersection to accommodate Compressive Plan traffic volumes are greater than the improvements needed to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed Duke project. ® ® ttt Existing Laae Contiguration (D/D) Year 2009 & Vacant Land Configuration (C/D) Year 2009 & Vacant Land &ExistingZoaingConfiguration (D/D) Year 2009 & Vacant Land & Comprehensive Plan Configuration (C/D) Duke Development Configuration (C/D) I Lvel Of 8¢~4e~ 96th STREET AHD MERWtlAN STREET DUKE REALTY FIGURE 1 Lane Configuration 96th Street & Meridian Street ©1999, A&F Engineering Co., Inc. 96th Street Year 2009 & Vacant Land Configuration (B/B) (AM Peak/PM Peak) , Year 2009 & Vacant Land & Existing Zoning Configuration (B/B) Year 2009 & Vacant Land & Comprehensive Plan Configuration (B/B) Duke Development Configuration (B/B) FIGURE 2 96th STR~T AND Lane Configuration MERIDIAN STREET 96th Street & Spring Mill Road DUKEREALTY 01999, A&F Engineering Co., lac. BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mike Holibaugh Steve Granner July 14, 1999 U.S. 31 & 1-465 EXISTING ZONING: SWQ/B5 = 7.66 acres times 1.0 FAR = 333,670 sq. ft. NWQ/B5 = 6.28 acres times 1.0 FAR = 273,557 sq. ft. SEQ/B5 = 10.44 acres times 1.0 FAR = 454,766 sq. ff. Existing B5 zoning could = 1,061,993 sq. ft. COMP. PLAN: SWQ/S2 = 28.713 acres times 1.0 FAR = NWQ/S2 = 13.16 acres times 1.0 FAR = Existing S2 zoning, per Comp. Plan, could = 1,250,738 sq. ft. 573,250 sq. ft. 1,823,988 sq. ft. Max. sq. ft. permitted by Existing Zoning & Comp. Plan (all 3 quads) could = 2,885,981 sq. ft. NOTE: 2020 Vision Plan states on page 4-8 that "U.S. 31 Corridor: This corridor is reserved for very high intensity office uses along the frontage of 31 (greater than five stories) and support retail or commercial behind the frontage parcels to support the office uses." Page 5-15 states that "High intensity office development shall be encouraged to locate in the U.S. 31 Corridor community/regional employment areas." Also, the "highest intensity of office development shall be encouraged where access to U.S. 31 is greatest. This includes those areas at the intersection of U.S. 31 and a Primary Arterial or Primary Parkway." The U.S. 31 Highway Corridor Special Area Study Amendment to the 2020 Vision Plan states that the NWQ should be developed with "a relatively low density office campus" but could include "a signature office building, with a maximum height of 180 feet." The SWQ should contain "a well-planned office park on the western part of the site." These two quadrants are two of the three areas recommended for potential overlay District Boundary Expansion. As such, the Overlay standard of 1.0 FAR as a possible maximum density should be applied to all traffic projections. 28980vl INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 100 North Senate Avenue Room N755 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2249 O17) 232-5533 FAX: O17) 232-0238 An Equal Opportunity Employer ® http ://www. state, in.us/dot FRANK O'BANNON, Governor CRIST1NE M. KLIKA, Commissioner July 12, 1999 Writer's Direct Line Mr. Mike Hollibaugh Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Cannel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Hollibaugh: After careful consideration, the Indiana-Department of Tt~ansportation (INDOT) is withdrawing its objection of the Plan Commissions continuation of the zoning petition initiated by Duke-Weeks Reality Limited partnership at the intersection of Interstate 465 and US 31. Consultation between parties has resulted in a better understanding of timefi.ames. INDOT has received the necessary assurances fi.om Duke that enable a compromise to be reached, giving INDOT sufficient time to complete engineering studies while Duke continues the formal zoning process. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (317) 232-5535 ifI can be of fiaLher assistance. Sincerely, Steve Cecil Deputy Commissioner Office of Plarming & Intermo, dal Transportation SDC:sh Cc: C. Klika City of Carmel DEPT. OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Stephen C. Engelking Director June 18, 1999 Cristine M. Klika, Commissioner Indiana Department of Transportation 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Re: U.S. 31 Major Investment Study Dear Ms. Klika: Thank you for your letter dated June 10, 1999 regarding the proposed zone map amendment by Duke Realty Investments in the area of U.S. 31 and 1-465 that is before the Carmel Clay Plan Cornnaission. At their meeting on June 16, 1999, the Carmel Clay Plan Commission voted to postpone action on the Duke proposal until their August 17th meeting. Their purpose for the postponement was twofold: 1. To allow II, I'DOT and your consultant, the Parsons Transportation Group, sufficient time to complete draf~ recommendations related to the planning analysis of the 1-465/US 31 Interchange up~ade, and 2. To allow the 96 Street Corridor Task Force sufficient time to complete dra_~ recommendations for future widening and intersection improvements to 96'" Street in the area of this project. The Plan Commission has requested that representatives from INDOT and Parsons be present at their meeting on August 18 to present the recommendations, as well as to field questions related to this issue. We respectfully request that regular communication with the Plan Commission occur so that progress can be monitored, and that our input is included in the analysis/design process for this interchange, to ensure that local interests are balanced with those of the re,on. Sincerely, Michael ~Iollibaugh Planning Administrator Copy: Dave Cremeans, Plan Commission President Steve Engelking, Director Community Services John Molitor, Plan Commission attorney ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redlinerl shows the differences between - originaldocument : C:\TEMP\NO1_27034.3 and revised document: C:\TEMP\NO1_27034.4 CompareRite found 11 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Strikethmugh text surrounded by {} Additions appear as Bold+Dbl Underline text C:~TEMP~RESU LT OF COMPARISON 27034 VER 3.WPD COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF REAL ESTATE In accordance with Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-615, NRC Corp. (hereafter the "Owner"), the owner of the following described Real Estate located in Hamilton County, Indiana (hereafter the "Real Estate") makes the following COMMITMENTS concerning the use and development of the Real Estate to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (hereafter "Commission"). 1. Description of Real Estate: See Exhibit A ("Real Estate") (Southeast Quadrant) 2. Docket No: 14-99Z Statement of Commitments: relating to the Real Estate: Owner makes the following commitments a. Billboards (a/Ida advertising signs for off-premises advertising) or freestanding elevated signs (a.k.a tall signs or interstate oriented signs) for business identification will not be permitted on the Real Estate. This does not exclude leasing signs. ~- ~"-',~ 3:.~. 5 ( ~ b. All exterior parking and street area lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoe-box" variety which directs the light downward and shall be ~9 limited to a maximum of 25 feet in height. Special attention will be ~z given to dire,c.~.t ~11 o[.~ove mentioned lighting fixtures away from ..... att adjacent rc~denfial_.__Er~erty. Any illumination emanating from the Real Estate sha'll-~-ot exceed 0.1 foot candle at the adjacent south right-of-way line of East 96th Street. Subject to the approval of the appropriate government agencies, all right-of-way needed for any widening of 96th Street to allow for the road improvements suggested in the report of A & F Engineering dated February, 1999 and submitted as part of the petition for rezoning of the Real Estate will be taken from the subject Real Estate and any improvements made to 96th Street (as suggested by the A & F Engineering report) shall be made within the existing paving area or north of the existing paving. (Note: Apparent existing riqht-of-wa¥ on this section of East 96th Street equals 73 feet. Additional riqht-of-way required off the north side of East 96th C:~TEMP~RESULT OF COMPARISON 27034 VER 3.WPD Street equals 12 feet. Total new riR~rof-wa¥ width on th~s section of East 9j~th Street will equal/8$/feet). This additional ri~lht-of-way need not be dedicated pr~o~ to the commencement ~ ~,' Owner will use its' best efforts to cause an opticom system to be installed with any traffic signals which are installed as a result of the development of the Real Estate. Access to the Real Estate will be limited to {(~, ) = -=~~' :- '-:~~' -'" --"' ~ the existing full access to Parkwood Crossing (Pennsylvania Street extended). The followin.q uses shall not be permitted on the Real Estate even thouqh such uses may be permitted in the applicable zonin.q: 2. Auto tire center; , Bowlinq alley; Car wash - self-serve or automatic; ~.. Commercial parkin;I lot; Dance hall; 10. Indoor Theatre; '11. Meetinq or party hall; '12. Motor bus or railroad passen.qer station; '13. Self-service laundry; '14. Shootin.q qallery; 15. Skating rink; '16. Fast food restaurants ~~b+~}; and, 17. Automobile service stations (a/k/a gas stations and filling stations) ,_L_,, L_ _ ~=~=,_., ........ F~tc~t~ } For the purr)oses of these commitments, a "fast food restaurant" shall mean an establishment whose principal business is the // sale of pre-prepared or rapidly prepared food directly to the ~ customer in a ready-to-consume state for consumption either /r within the restaurant buildin;h on-premise or off-premise. No / drive-thru windowshall be permitted foran¥ restaurant. A "deli", ~ a "pizza parlor", a "sub shop" and similar type of facilities shall not be construed to be a fast food restaurant.~ ~. C:\TEMP~RESULT OF COMPARISON 27034 VER 3.WPD Excluding the heiqht of the buildinqs on the frontage lots on 96th Street, the Developer will use as a guideline for submission of anv buildings for ADLS approval the architectural desiqn requirements contained in the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone Ordinance, Ordinance No. Z-326. Owner shall reserve for right-of-way purposes, and a.qrees to 4/' dedicate upon the request of the applicable governmental-'~j. a,~encv, additional riaht-of-wav alon(; U.S. 31 and 96th Street as / follows: / 25' by parallel lines east of the existina ric~ht-of-way for 'U.S. 31 for a distance of approximately 300' north of the section line in 96th Street as shown on Exhibit B. An area along 96th Street that w.o, uld provid~-.~ riqht.-of-..way.for 96th Street equal to 75 north of the / section I,ne In 96th Street. No buildings or paved areas shall be constructed within such areas. Any multi-tenant retail buildings constructed on the Real Estate will include a fire suppression system. Retail development of the Real Estate shall be limited to a maximum of 105,000 square feet of leaseable area. The process to construct the improvements to 96th Street and the improvements to the intersection of 96th Street and Meridian (collectively "Improvements") as suggested in the A&F Enqineerin,q report will be commenced contemporaneously with the start of the development of the Real Estate and will be diliqently pursued to comr)letion. I__. Owner commits that~the retail development of the Real Estate ~ shalJ-be ,~_~_-:--':"q,;~.-~ ~.='.c.:~ with ~he Concel)tual Si'_- , Developm~ff-l~d-~ attached as Exhibit C, subiect to such amendments and modifications thereto as are approved by the Commission or Carmel/Clay Board of Zonina Ar)oeals. C:~TEMP~RESULT OF COMPARISON 27034 VER 3.VVPD *"~a~ ~) ~ ~ ~.j~ ~ ~ f~l-- Owner shall reserve for and provide to the City of Carmel at no cost to the City of Carmel within the qreenbelt area alonq U.S. an area sufficient for the erection of a "Welcome To Carmel" si.qn. 4. Binding on Successors and Assiq ns: These Commitments are binding on the Owner of the Real Estate and each other person acquiring an interest in the the Real Estate, unless modified or terminated by the Commission. These Commitments may be modified or terminated only by a decision of the Commission made at a public hearing after notice as provided by the rules of the Commission or as otherwise provided by lC 36-7-4-615. 5. Effective Date: The Commitments'contained herein shall be effective upon the adoption of an ordinance by the Carmel City Council changing the zoning classification of the Real Estate described on Exhibit A from the {-S--2-Reeide~-~ ~ B-5 Business District to the B-6 Business District. 6. Recordinq: The undersigned hereby authorizes the Director of Community Development, or the Secretary of the {-Sarmel} CarmellCla¥ Plan Commission, to {}record these commitments in the office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana upon adoption of the ordinance referred to in paragraph 5 above. 7. Enforcement: These commitments may be enforced by the {C-am,~H--}CarmellClay Plan Commission. C:~TEMP\RESULT OF COMPARISON 27034 VER 3.WPD IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this instrument this __ ,1999. day of NRC CORP., an Indiana corporation By: Stephen L. Valinet, President STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF MARION ) The undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, acknowledged the execution of the foregoing commitments by Stephen L. Valinet, the President of NRC Corp. WITNESSETH this day of 1999. Notary Public Printed Signature My Commission Expires: County of Residence: This Instrument was prepared by Philip A. Nicely, Attorney at Law, Bose McKinney & Evans, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46240 C:\TEMP~RESULT OF COMPARISON 27034 VER 3,WPD Exhibit A STEEL ~_ - Z · Z o K 0 ::5 CUT "+" IN 119.62' CO. ,~.RE I L Exhibit B CORNER FOUND N 2.7' & W 2.9' W TREES PHALT TREES 96th STREET L S 89= 57 SOUTH LINE 1/4 SE. ~--, .... ,_ I ~- 6v - ~ -~- ---'~/ ~__ . - -.- - ~ - -' ~ ~ COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF REAL ESTATE In accordance with Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-615, NRC Corp. (hereafter the "Owner"), the owner of the following described Real Estate located in Hamilton County, Indiana (hereafter the "Real Estate") makes the following COMMITMENTS concerning the use and development of the Real Estate to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (hereafter "Commission"). 1. Description of Real Estate: See Exhibit A ("Real Estate") (Southeast Quadrant) 2. Docket No: 14-99Z Statement of Commitments: relating to the Real Estate: Owner makes the following commitments Billboards (a/k/a advertising signs for off-premises advertising) or freestanding elevated signs (a.k.a tall signs or interstate oriented signs) for business identification will not be permitted on the Real Estate. This does not exclude leasing signs. All exterior parking and street area lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoe-box" variety which directs the light downward and shall be limited to a maximum of 25 feet in height. Special attention will be given to direct all of the above mentioned lighting fixtures away from all adjacent residential property. Any illumination emanating from the Real Estate shall not exceed 0.1 foot candle at the adjacent south right-of-way line of East 96th Street. Co Subject to the approval of the appropriate government agencies, all right-of-way needed for any widening of 96th Street to allow for the road improvements suggested in the report of A & F Engineering dated February, 1999 and submitted as part of the petition for rezoning of the Real Estate will be taken from the subject Real Estate and any improvements made to 96"' Street (as suggested by the A & F Engineering report) shall be made within the existing paving area or north of the existing paving. (Note: Apparent existing right-of- way on this section of East 96th Street equals 73 feet. Additional right- of-way required off the north side of East 96th Street equals 12 feet. eo f= Total new right-of-way width on this section of East 96th Street will equal 85 feet). This additional right-of-way need not be dedicated prior to the commencement ofdevelopment. Owner will use its' best efforts to cause an opticom system to be installed with any traffic signals which are installed as a result of the development of the Real Estate. Access to the Real Estate will be limited to the existing full access to Parkwood Crossing (Pennsylvania Street extended). The following uses shall not be permitted on the Real Estate even though such uses may be permitted in the applicable zoning: 1. Auction room; 2. Auto tire center; 3. Billiard parlor; 4. Bowling alley; 5. Car wash - self-serve or automatic; 6. Cold storage locker; 7. Commercial parking lot; 8. Dance hall; 9. Gunsmith; 10. Indoor Theatre; 11. Meeting or party hall; 12. Motor bus or railroad passenger station; 13. Self-service laundry; 14. Shooting gallery; 15. Skating rink; 16. Fast food restaurants; and, 17. Automobile service stations (a/Ida gas stations and filling stations). For the purposes of these commitments, a "fast food restaurant" shall mean an establishment whose principal business is the sale of pre- prepared or rapidly prepared food directly to the customer in a ready- to-consume state for consumption either within the restaurant building, on-premise or off-premise. No drive-thru window shall be permitted for any restaurant. A "deli", a "pizza parlor", a "sub shop" and similar type of facilities shall not be construed to be a fast food restaurant. ::ODMA~MHODMA~IO 1; 27034;4 Excluding the height of the buildings on the frontage lots on 96th Street, the Developer will use as a guideline for submission of any buildings for ADLS approval the architectural design requirements contained in the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone Ordinance, Ordinance No. Z- 326. Owner shall reserve for right-of-way purposes, and agrees to dedicate upon the request of the applicable governmental agency, additional right-of-way along U.S. 31 and 96th Street as follows: 25' by parallel lines east of the existing right-of-way for U.S. 31 fora distance of approximately 300' north of the section line in 96~h Street as shown on Exhibit B. An area along 96th Street that would provide right-of- way for 96"' Street equal to 75' north of the section line in 96th Street. No buildings or paved areas shall be constructed within such areas. Any multi-tenant retail buildings constructed on the Real Estate will include a fire suppression system. Retail development of the Real Estate shall be limited to a maximum of 105,000 square feet of leaseable area. The process to construct the improvements to 96~ Street and the improvements to the intersection of 96th Street and Meridian (collectively "Improvements") as suggested in the ^&F Engineering report will be commenced contemporaneously with the start of the development of the Real Estate and will be diligently pursued to completion. Owner commits that the retail development of the Real Estate shall be substantially consistent with the Conceptual Site Development Plan attached as Exhibit C, subject to such amendments and modifications thereto as are approved by the Commission or Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals. Owner shall reserve for and provide to the City of Carmel at no cost to the City of Carmel within the greenbelt area along U.S. 31, an area sufficient for the erection of a "Welcome To Carmel" sign. 4. Bindin.q on Successors and Assigns: These Commitments are binding on the Owner of the Real Estate and each other person acquiring an interest in the the Real Estate, unless modified or terminated by the Commission. These Commitments may be modified or terminated only by a decision of the Commission made at a public hearing after notice as provided by the rules of the Commission or as otherwise provided by lC 36-7-4-615. 5. Effective Date: The Commitments contained herein shall be effective upon the adoption of an ordinance by the Carmel City Council changing the zoning classification of the Real Estate described on Exhibit A from the B-5 Business District to the B-6 Business District. 6. Recording: The undersigned hereby authorizes the Director of Community Development, or the Secretary of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission, to record these commitments in the office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana upon adoption of the ordinance referred to in paragraph 5 above. 7. Enforcement: These commitments may be enforced by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. ::ODMA~HODMA~NO1 ;27034;4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this instrument this__ day of ,1999. NRC CORP., an Indiana corporation By: Stephen L. Valinet, President STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF MARION ) The undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, acknowledged the execution of the foregoing commitments by Stephen L. Valinet, the President of NRC Corp. WlTNESSETH this day of ,1999. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Printed Signature County of Residence: This Instrument was prepared by Philip A. Nicely, Attorney at Law, Bose McKinney & Evans, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1600, Indianapolis, IN 46240 ::O DMA~M HODMA~IO 1 ;27034;4 Exhibit A Exhibit C ..... ' {:: :i ~5~I~ ~IT~ PLAN ,i (A~) PI~,OPOSEI~ 51TE PLAN Mr. Gregory K. Silver Attorney at Law 342 Massachusetts Avenue 400 Marott Center lad~napolis, hdiana 46204-2161 Carmel - Clay Township Pl~,,,dng Commission Cannel City Hal Cannel, Indiana 46032 Sune 15, 1999 Re: Duke Proposal 96t~ and M~ridian Streets Carmel, Indiana 46032 Yarger Engineering, inc. lob Number: 990602 Dear Mr. Silver and Ptannlng Commission Meml~ers, As a professional engineer, re.g/sler in the State of indiana with 16 yeats exper/ca,ce in traffic engineering and at Mr, Bud Wilson's request, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analya/s l~repar~ by A,~F Enginee~-~g. I have also read HNTB's and the City of Indiunapolis' zeviews of the A~F study. /n sho~ I agree wi~h HNTB's and tbe City's comments. I also have additional comment.s, which I have documented below. It wovJd appear the study scope by City of Carmel has left out the mos~ hnportant location: the 1~.-465 at US 31/Meridixn Street inter~ha~¢,e. If the interchange is over capacity, it will have dtamadc effects on traffic patterns for mt. les. The study area is one of the most important decisions to b~ made in determining a study scope. While the study azea appears to be ft~n Spring Mill Road to College Avenue and 96~ Street to 103ra Street, the t-~65 at US 31 interchange, located in the middle of the stud~ area, was omitted from the list of locations to bo analyzed. I find this disturbing to say the leas~. This study cannot be considered valid ff tha /merch.nge is not included. Indianapolis D~partm~at of Me, topoi/tan Developmem's (DMD) rev/ew found some items not mentioned in tho HNTB ~view. The biggest issues in my opinion are file growth rat~ and dh'ecfional distn'but/on assumptions. I must agree with the City of indianapolis' comments on the assumptions. A 3 % annual growth on Merid/an Street seems exlreme. ! would ~xpect a 1% g~0wt, h rate, s/milar to that use~ in the Village of West Clay study. On the north side of the cotmty line, 1 would have preferred to use traffic forecasts t~om the Village of West Clay Traffic Impact Stody. Oi~'en thc congest/on found in this study, I have to believe that R'affie would use alternate muzes and therefore would ha'ce a substantially diff~ent directional distribution and assignment than those presented in the A~F study. As mentioned in the HN~ reviaw~ A&F's s/~dy appears to have property addressed the ftr~t few st~.~os, but failed to finish the process in the analyses, Findings. recommendation.s, and conclusions sec6ons. They are relying on not mak~g the level o! service worse. This is not cousistarrt with thc Cam~el Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development Guidel/nes. A&F's study relies on thc lhnitation o£ curr~nt analysis procedures to hide a horrible situation that could arise from mc proposed developmeut. In cases where the non-proposed situation is Mr. Silver Sur~ 1 $~ ! 999 Page 2 over capacity like tiffs one,, the first step is to determine what is required to reach an accepu~ble level of service. A&F did not do this. They relied on comparin$ one level of service F to another and then saying they are not roalcing it ~orse. Carmel's guidelines call for identifying needed ~mpmvements to maintain a level of service C, not F. HNTB's comments roentlon level of service D. This is typical in roost situations, but is not the crite~a for Cannel pea' guldclLaes, which requires level of sex,Ace C. If A&F Engineering wants to l/mit ~fi~ir recommendations to reasonable improvements, then they should have the same georoetry in all scenarios where the level of service is less than C. They added lane~ to the propo$~-d scenario (#$) that am not included in scxnazios 1 - 4. If the lanes would be reasonable for scenario 5, then they would be reasonable in the other scenarios, provided they improve the level of service. We have reviewed A&F's level of service analysr~ and have found roany dis~t~i~ncies. There am several cases where improper signal timings have been used in the analyses. At the critical intersection of 96~ and Meridian, the lane utilization factors used by A&F ar~ the defaults, wkich are very inaccumle for th~ northbound apl~oach. We have counted the four lanes, 32% of the norflgaound ffnxm~ and right turn traffic uses the right roost lane. To det~,~in¢ more accurate factors for the Future scenarios, origin - des*i-atiun information would lac needed. The area involved would be east, west, and south approaches of 96~ and Meridian Sm:~s, tbe 1-465 at US 31 interchange, and the south approach of US 31 at 103~ Street Lane use factors would be needed for every multi-lane movement at 96t~ and Meridian Streets, and the I-4~5 tamps. This same information should be considered for southbound US 3l as welL did not c_emider lane use.factors, but the}' must be eo~idered to corr--_ analw~e the We have reanatyzed many of the scenarios to determine a mom accurate level of ser~dce, and roote importantly, ~m intersection degree of saturation. A&F should report intersection degrees of saturwdon where they excoM capacity. The degree of saturation is the ratio of traffic volume to capacity and should be between $0 - 9S% for efficiently designed and timed imerseetions. Lov~r levels duth:g peak traffic times indicam e/ther wasteful ~sign practic~ or poor signal timings. Higher degrees of saturation indicate capacity problems. When an interaction degree of saturation is over 100%, it ks by definition, over capacity. At tb/s point traffic queues (lines of cam waiting for the signal) will continue to grow until the deroand decreases below the capacity. '~Vnen su~ciant time has past where the intersect.on is under capacity, queues can dissipate and the/ntetsection can return to normal operation. Care should be Uflccn in analyzing inten¢ctions that w~re over cap~ity to d~termin~ the proper traffic demand. Forecasted traffic flows roust include residual traffic from a previous hour where capacity i~ an issue. In most eases, traffic will find altenmte routes rather than v,~ting on an over capacity sit~Oon. In this ca,sc, those alternates would be Spring Ivlfll K0ad, 96"' Street, College Avenue, ,~6t~ Street, 106u~ Street, and so on This is why l roentioned thc directional distribution assumptions above and concluded that the distributions used by A&F are very questionable. lvtr. Silver June 15, 1999 Page 3 The foliov~ng table shows the degrees of sa~ion with A~.F's snggested interse~lSon geometry and our suggested inters~ctiun 8uomett3' to achieve a level of service of C. Street at ~eridian Stree~ 2O09 Peak Hour Level of Service Average Delay (sec, I veh.) Saturation A&F Engineering G~om~y Scenario 3 Existing Zoning Scenario $ Proposed Yarger Ev~oi~c~'/n~ lne Development .q~-enario 3 ExLvling Zoning C 21.9 Scenario S Proposed Development C 23.9 167% 128% 800/$ 89% *Indicates the software was unable to calculate delay and level of service due to an ~xtremely over capacity situatimt In a study like this where there are closely spaced in~rsections with high traffic volumes, traffic signal progression should be rmd~wed. 11 was not done in A&F's study. Apparently, the City of Cra'reel did not ask for a detailed progression analysis using Traosyt-TF, COILSIM, or Synchto sof~ancre. The Carmel Trans~t~ation Impact Study guidelines call for ~Additional analyses may be needed d~g on the proposed development, its irapac-,s, and the Wans~on system within the sludy ~ These may include traffic consol, traffic signal warrant or prog~eslon studies, ..." Given the above information, I would recommend a larger study area that includes 86~ Sneer, 106a Slreet, Michigan Road, and Keystone Avenue. Given the likely diversion for capacity tea.sons, this study should sun1 with a travel demand model (presumably Indianapolis DIviD's) and develop approprime capacity restrained disuibufions and assignments. Becau.~ of the close{y spaced in~'sections and the importance of the interchange, an ama wide simulafion/anlvuatiou using CORS1M would be appropriate to model the interaction of the traffic signal coordination and the interchange ramps, including the merges on and off the 1-465 mainlines. The ar~lysis periods should be all times of day where there are over capacity intersections. When aa intersection is not over capacity, then it need not be analyzed. (Obviously, the first and the last hours of a period would need to be under capacity to prove that additional hours would not b~ needed.) At un~iguelized loca~on~, a tw~ivc-llour forecast is needed to predict the need for a traffic signal. While the Indiana Manual on Un~%rm Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) contains a daily volume warrant for new facilities, w-~rrant/~9, it does not apply to future traffic volumes, only "current design volumes." Additional should also include queue storage distances using over capacity methods where needed. Traffic at over capacity unsignalized intersections should be rerouted to under capacity intersections where there ar~ possibilities for doing so. All intersections should be analyzed to provide the lowest imersection delay possible for a given lane use configuration and should have an intersection level of sendce of C or Mgher. No av~oach should have a v/c ratio of more than I/PH~ (about 105%). I~ conclusion, the A&F study is incomplete and needs correction. It does not meet the standaxd presented in the Carmel Tmasportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development guidelines. The proposed development would have dramatic negative impacts on the ~rallsl~ot'tafiorl system for miles arouncl the site, given ~ roadway improvements shown in the A&F reporL The analys~ in the report show potential gridlock problems. This proposed development should have a traffic impact study that is complete and provides acceptable levels of service with practical roadway improvements. INDOT shoa~d be part of review process since they must approve any changes to their roadways. Please call me with your questions or comments at 317475-1100. Sincerely, Yarger Engineering, Inc. BWWbwy Bradley William Yarger, P.E. President Bud Wilson, Reasonable Residantial Roadways Committee para Lambert, Heartland Coalition Mayor Brainard, City of Carmel Mark Monroe, City of Carmel SeffHill, Hamilton Comaty Highway Depamuent Mayor OoMsmith, City of Indianapolis Steve Cunningham, hadiarmpoiis DMD Paul Satterly, HNTB .lohn Ivlyers, Parsons Brinkerhoff 1° = 100' ~ P~oposed . ~ Devetopmen~ Entering Lanes, 17 96th S%reet Mc~onokds Shel~ St~tlon ,met' :y Meridian Steer at 96th Street Hamilton ~nd Marion Counties Prepared by', Y~rger Engineering, Inc, Proposed DevelopMen~ En~cering Lanes: 18 96~h S~ree~ McDon~lds Sheit S~ion A&F Scenario 3 LOS F Meridicn S~ree~ ~nd 98th S~ree~ H~mil~on ~nd Morion Counties Prepared by: Y~r~er £n~ineerin~, 1° = IOD' Proposed Devetop~en~ 9Gth Street En~erlng L~nes: 26 McDon~lds Shetl Station Y~rger Engineering Scenario 3, L~nes Neridicn S~ree~ end 96~h S~ree~ H~mil~on ~nd Morion Counties Prepcred by: Y~rger Engineering, Inc, LOS C 1' = 100' c Proposed ~ Develop~en* ~ 96~h S~?eet En~epin9 L~nes: ~3 SheLl Station A&F Scenario 5 LOS F Meridion Street ~nd 96th Street H~MiLton ~nd N~rion Counties Prepared by: Y~rger Engineering, I' = 100' Proposed Development 96th Street Entering Lmnes, 31 Shell Station Ycrger Engineering Scencrio 5, Lcne$ Meridicn S~ree~ end 96~h H~mil~on and N~rion Counties Prepcred by: Yarger Engineering, Inc, LOS C PETITION TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON COUNTY AND THE PLAN COMMISSION OF CARMEL, INDIANA The undersigned are owners of residential real estate in western Clay Township in Hamilton County, Indiana. As owners and taxpayers we respectfully submit this petition for the purpose of: Soliciting your support for preserving the rural residential character of The Community of West Clay (herein sometimes referred to as "West Clay"). Encouraging you to establish criteria for West Clay roadways that: (a) makes reasonable provision for future traffic needs and (b) minimizes the taking of private property for roadways and intersections. Opposing the proposed re-zoning and development project of Duke Realty and its associated investors located at and surrounding the intersections at US 31, 96th Street and Interstate 465. We oppose the Duke development because it will "gridlock" traffic in an area of two to three miles surrounding the intersection. We ask that each of your respective bodies, acting within the scope of their jurisdiction, vote to reject the re-zoning request, in its present form. If the project is approved in any form, it should be so designed that traffic generated therefrom not overwhelm the reasonable residential roadways proposed for West Clay. Moreover, the proposed Duke development will have a devastating effect upon our neighbors, commercial and residential, in the northern Marion County area immediately and remotely adjacent to the 96> and Meridian intersection site. We ask you to support and vote for: a. Preserving the beautiful residential and estate properties and discouraging commercial/industrial encroachment through zoning classifications and related public improvements in West Clay. b. Roadways and intersections in West Clay that minimize the taking of private property and yet serve the reasonable future traffic needs of the area. We believe that: 1. The above objectives can be achieved by utilizing arterial rights of way that are no greater than 90 feet in width. We oppose dghts of way that are greater than 90 feet in width. Such sprawling vistas discourage residential retention and encourage commercial/industrial development. They are diametrically opposed to the preservation-of-land objective as set forth in the comprehensive plan for residential Western Clay Township. 2. A 90 foot arterial right of way provides space for four - 12 foot traffic lanes, a 16 foot median/left turn lane (5 lanes in all), curbs, 50 foot radius turns with tapers (WB-15 semi), 3 foot buffer strips, 6 foot Multi-Use Paths, 2 feet for other utilities services and enclosed surface water drainage. The Level of Service ("LOS") of this configuration is LOS "C" or better through the year 2020 in most, if not all, of the area. Collector roadways should provide for 70 foot rights of way. Parkways should be eliminated in West Clay. 3. Entry ways into The Community of West Clay that delineate and protect West Clay's rural residential areas are desirable objectives. Judicious use of decorative entry way markers, attractive intersection designs, special landscaping and other devices of similar effect should be considered. 4. Our proposed adequate, yet moderated, roadway design cdteria will assist significantly in preserving the upscale residential character and beauty of the area and discourages commercial, business and industrial activity. 5. Our request is consistent with the established comprehensive planning and zoning designs for the western Clay area as related to land use. 6. Intersections, as proposed, cost anywhere from $2,000,000.00 to $3,000,000.00 each. They are "Over Designed". Adoption of reasonable design criteria can save as much as 30% in land taking and 10% to 15% in construction costs. A savings of $200,000 to $300,000 per intersection. A savings of $2M to $3M over the ten or more intersections projected for improvement. We ask that the criteria set forth herein be adopted as the standard for the intersections in West Clay, and particularly at the Springmill and 116~ Street and Towne Road and 116~ Street intersections. Your support of this petition is earnestly solicited. NAME Please retain a copy for your files ADDRESS P:;Rea$ooableRR C~P ETITION 96 final.wpd FAX COVER SHEET FROM: Para Lambert 616 Copley Place Indianapolis, IN 46290-1051 Phone No. 844-5511 Fax No.. 844-8820 873-6725 639.6444 876-9138 581-1437 873-0798 276-5495 573-O802 '573-6O55 574-9284 g46-2~65 547-4001 243-3929 595-2930 .~"~'~"* "-'")"~' ~' 571 {Plea~ provid~ copies f~r Mt. Yad~ck and ~ M~ghen~ DATE: .... 6/15/99 PAGE 1 OF' 4 The accompanying fi~,,similc is for your review pdor m this evmaing's Planning CommiSsion meeting. ! will I~ happy to mtsw~r questions. Tl~k you for your time. Para T Pamela E. Lambert 616 Coptey Place Indinnapolis, IN 44290-1051 Phone: ~a. 5511 Fnx: Stme 15, 1'999 To: Carmel Clay Planning Commissioner's From: Para Lambert Re: Doake¢ No. 48-99 g.P. - Dui~ Realty Invgram~ms Dear Commissia~e, rs: A number of signitScaat concerns nad questions, regarding ~h¢ above rofcmaccd p~tion, have riot beon adequately ~eviewed or answered. Since the Special Studies CornmiRee has chos~a to refer the proposal back to the full Commission with a favorable r~.ommg~tdation, subject only to some mirror poiata, 1 nmi itaer~ssary ~ offer some observations. A passage of this petition for a regor~ without mm'e deflnitiw e~rnmitments and comam~ anmamrs, will subject the Coramtssion~r5 t~ ~trideat professional ~riti¢ism. 1. I would ask ~ach member of ibc Planning Commissioa to t~view the doonmc~mtiom that sappons Carmel's claira for increased tax base in light of potential Tax lneremeat F,mrl;ng and other infra, s~ture impmv~aents that inc~ea.scd traffic will remier. Where are the numbers and long range lar~eciions tl~ include ~axp~yer fringed improwmeats? 2. Aa anc411ary aspect to the &-nsity issue r~sts with ;h~ hcig~ of tim buildings for the proposed ~ devdopm~- O~iou~ly, Duke is att~,~dng to increase deasity levels by ~r~cfing..n~. ]pie ~glrlln~g of 5 aRd ? ~tori~s. Ag DIIJ~ ha~ illdi¢ltt~ the nor~w~st quadrant of 96a St. and US 31 Is a much smaller p~c~t than is Parkwood East Since cvcryonc agrees that the parcel is smaller, how can any Planning Commission possibly allow 5 and 7 story buildln~s~ on a site - WITH LESS s~"rBACK AND BUFFERINO - than thc very pmjeot the CRy of Carmel tbstcred we,~t of US 31 ? I'm sum that no one deliberaiely intended to mislead the public, but cvaluators might reoogniz~ this inconsis~cy ancl ask "Why?' FuRhennoeo, the public was und~ the impression that the a l°UD would bc implemented On this san~ Sit~. However, wi~a that development guid~lin~ fell by the wayside, thc surrounding 'neighbors assmncd amore compromising posture, and didn't take si_nni6cant issu~ with the matter,.. even tho%oh aisurances regarding implementation of a PUD had previously ~ made by Carmel mpresenlatives in an effort to appea~ r~dantial 0onccrns. · 3. If the Carmel City Council sccs fit to initiate a t~npamry ban on certain dcvelopmant west of Sptingmill Road beoausc of their concerns about Iraffic and Jafra.structure, how can the Planning Commission and Council support the above referenced rcame pcdtion when cfificaJ questions about ~1~ aurroumitng madwwfz have ~ to I~ answ~rd? 4. R¢.mon$~tors may be viewod as emotional h~meowae~ x~ao want tim st_a_,,s qtm and ar~ unwilling to compromise. Forgottan is the fact that most of theaz property owaers, colleotiwly, own more property ~ that being developed. We believe families who have ah-emiy invested their moray, time and e~ergy in a neighborhood should be Oven no less than equal consideration to that of developmcnt.intcrcsts? Sudiclous planners weigh proposals i~ this fa.~hion whon they attempt to balance the conceft~z of individual resident~ near a propozed development aud the overall needs of the general communityq 5, W~ have continually ggned ~ density of office devdopment on ~he ~ubjoct sites exceeds reasonable'standards for the surround, il-5 ~ D~l,sity is the most critical factor in this developmcat proposal. ~ the Special Studi~ Committee failed to r~pond lo l~rofessim~al, ~,,~,~rtation and plating mprcsen~ have e~n~nually offered e~Me~,'~ ~ the 'office foolp~i~ for the vacant lend west of US 31 and sauth of I~6~ I~CBEDS the "office foo~rint' 'for Keystone a~ ibc Regardless of the traffic ~mpac~ residmts in th~ r,u~ounding area were.repear~By assured that a developraent on this site would b~ liko Park-~xxl East... NOT GKEATER THAN PARKWOOD EAST AND CBRTAINLY NOT CREATER THAN I~YSTONB AT THE CROSSING. It appears tl~at Carmel city goveramcnt h~ failed to keep faith with Hamilton ~ Marion County homeown~s. 6. The amount of ROW Hamilton County may be forced to secure for necgssary kffras~ improvaUents sun~unding the subject siIes has not been adequately reviewed. /~ssur, Wti~ns by the Special StadieS Corem/tree az to what the County. may or may not actually take .as ROW for hners~cilon i~emeni of 964 St. and S~II Road are misg~ded, Tl~ conflgoration of that intarsectioa ~ not been determl.ed so ther~ ia ao engineering data to support the subcommltteo's o~sory conclusions. ~ suh;~maittee knew the County had begun an in depth study for sev~'al w~at~m Clay intersections, and that more than one configuration has been discussed, A consmsus of opinia~ titan both Carmel and the County should b~ "do;waented' with supporting data before the subcommittee repudiates input from the Hamilton County Highway Department. NASA does not wave ~)oc~ye to a space ~hcritle as.~uia/ag it hss enough fuel to retuni.., unless they have statislical Anon to 7, The amount of ROW needed by thc Sia~ is crucial to the success of 1-465 and the inmrscctioll of 96~ St. aad US 31. l'hc ~neering guidelines to support ~e requisito roadway imprown~nti · surrounding vhe proposed development must be in hand before any rezone,, ESPECIALLY OF THIS ~AGN1TUDE, should be grained. Cam~el authori~i~ and Pla.nne~ should not promote development proposals that may exac~rbato an exis~-g traffic problem, without first clear~g 1lie dacks of St_s._~. authorized ROW issu=s for 1.46~ trod tbe ~on of96~ St. and US 31. 8. In 1970, th~ Vatin~t family received subst-,~tla[ ~ompensafion for the ROW laken bY thc Stato of Indiana for the consm~eti°n of 1-465, and damagcs were awarded for th~ taking. When thc State of Indiana sought ROW 1br thc modified ctovcrlcaf at 1-465 & US 3I, N in 1990 and 1991, the acquisition was agaia pan of a sys~:.matic governmental process, Warramy Deeds for tho '90/'91 mmsaed~ reveal a significant taxpayer expenditure for app~oxlmamly 6.8 acres of land. Thc land that was purcha.~d for this ROW had a fair market value placed oi1 it, but ia addition to the fair m~ket value, eddifionel dampen were paid to the Vatinet family. The imeres~ing aapri for tvw/ew is negotiations fo~ ~hat acquisition ~ during a signifi;ant comme~clai r=al es'm~ feces/on. Land values w~rc not on th~ upsw~g. Rather, some property valtles had fallen by as much as 50% across country. Given that historical context and armed with the knowiedgc that Iadiara taxpayers raid appro,v, Jmarely $360,000.00 per acr~ for 1990/91 ROW from thc subj¢~ sites during tha~ dine period, 2 cae mit~ ask "Has ~h© Sta~e of lndim~ al~adv mid the Valin~, family COml~usato~v verceived loss otootcnfial commercial value on residual Recorded documents ~flect a series of' takings by thc t,,~;_~_~ Department of Tmas~rtafio~ They establish th~* thc owners ofthe land in querdon in the Duke petition, have been fully compensated, not only for ~ land mk~, but for the damage to the residue of said property, They show that the damages sought and received reflect the anticipated chanE¢ of use flora commercial to a much less ~ usc such as agriculture or reski~tial. The property owr~-rz had ~h~ benefit ofmoniea received through the years mad the oppommity to invest tho~ monies. Thc.passage of time from the receipt of such oorapensatory monies does not chal~e the ~ct Ibat ~he o~ts b~ve already been oomlm~at~d. The public ~hould not be asked to compeasa~ the owners again to utLLize this laud in an extraordina~ly intense m~"er ro the detdment of tl~ SUITOU~[i~g commit'y, NO hards~p exists beCal~e tlbe owilets have al:r~ad.y bee~ Your bod~ bas no obligalio~ to rezone the extraoniiaarily imease use proposed. In making yo~r deoi~ion ia this case, the mnor~raling citizeaa implo~ you to considor thc fac~ that t~ public has shmdypaid for tbg residual damage to th~ Valiaet property and should nc~ be a~ed to psy a~?~-.. Them is uo equity in any petitioner's request for developmont where ~ lev=Is ~ cxorbitm~ and addi6~onaI Uu~ayer expense, particularly if those seine taxpayers hav~ already succumbed to the properly owner's :equ~st for damages, l%-rlmps the la'Olm, ty owner fe~ls justified absorbing t~xpayer dollars for increasod profits for himaelf and d~vclopment in~msts, but fiduciary ~:sponsibilily by all intere~d parties demands ~m~ediate review and possible inlawe~tion m ~ taxpayer interests. There is a decided economic ha~lsbip involving the subject sims, but the hardship is t~* which Indi~,~ taxpayers may be famed to suffer. A ~ reduction ia de. nsity levels of the proposed development is the ~mly seozible conclusion ~o ~ 'lmfinate excessive taxpayer burdens for ROW, infrastructure improvements, and negative traffic impact on flic sun'ounding residential neighborhoods. An a~reemeut of this caUber would also be a gestur~ of good faith from Duke Realty Inveslm~s, especially when their own 1998 Annual Report proudly a~mmces their desire to... *Work ia parmership with the commuIlitieS in wtlich w0 o~cra~ ~o improve abe qualily of life." In the existing developmo~ proposal, Ih~re is a discordant note in the hn,mo~. Duk~ Realty haveiOnentz s~k~ to whaler ~/t~ Carmel aud h~dimmpolis comraunifies. Memo Mark Monroe, Department of Community Sen/ices Dick Hill M. Kate Boyle-Weese, Craig Pen~,s 06/15/99 June 15, 1999 Plan Commission We offer the following comments for projects, within our jurisdiction, that are on the June 15"~ Plan Commission agenda: PUBUC HEARING lb. 10801 NORTH MERIDIAN OFFICE BUILDING In our previously submitted review letter, of primary importance are the following issues. (1) We will need cooperation in weddng with the City on right-of-way needed and improvements planned for the Pennsylvania Street Project, which will be providing access for this proposed site. (2) All curb cuts and/or median cut(s) will require BPWS approval. The Engineering Department wilt need justification for the number of curb cuts requested. No curb cuts will be granted for 'futura' development without knowledge of the planned use. (3) In addition to the Hamilton County Sun/eyor's Office, the City of Carmel will raview/approve drainage for the site and will require copies of and verification of all permits and approval given by the County. 3h. BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES There is a small triangular portion at the southwestem comer of this development that has not been annexed into the City. Annexation is required. We have only offered general comments tedate. We reserve additional comments until such time that detailed construction plans and drainage calculations are submitted for review. John Duffy should be contacted to address any unresolved utility issues 4h. PLAT VACATION-BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES We have not received information ragarding this issue, so it would be inappropriate to comment. 7h. ASHSURY PARK Engineering has initiated~ discussions with the developer regarding modifications that would allow for a southern access off 131 '~ Street. The developer's engineer is currently evaluating this proposal. Them is some concem that if no other access than onto 1~6tn Street or through Spring Farms is provided, it may create additional 'cut-through' baltic through an established neighborhood. While it has always peen a planned connection, a separate access to the south would help divert traffic wanting to heed south more directly to 131'* StreeL This development has not been annexed. We mss~/e additional comments until detailed construction plans have been submitted. · Page I We reserve comments on this development until we have received constmotJon plans for review. This development is within the Corporate Emits of the City of Carmel. 96~ ~tmel is City of Cannel ju~diotion. Sl~ingmill Road is a centerline annexation and therefore is Hamilton County jurisdiction. 2i. HAZEL DELL SUMMIT I know of no issues we have regarding the approval of the Primary Plat. Regarding the variance to eliminate pe~eter sidewalks along Cher~ Tree, the City Engineer states that the variance should be conditioned to the vacation of the motorized use of Cher~y Tree being approved. Nso, along sections of Chem~ Tree that are not to be alleged by the vacation, the sidewalk should still be in. 5i. EMERALD CREST AT HAZEL DELL SUMMIT, SECTION 1 (DAVIS HOMES) Specific instructions regarding any construction along Hazel Dell Parkway, including entrances to subdivisiens will be provided by the Engineering Depa~lment. This will involve the certain phasing of the construction of the utilities, acceVdecel lanes and multi-use path relocation to limit the length of time which the path's use will be inten'ul~ad. Otherwise, the developer has addressed all Engineering issues brought forward in our renew letters. 6i. DELAWARE COMMONS AT HAZEL DELL SUMMIT (OAK VIEW ASSOCIATES) Specific instn~tions regarding any constru~on along Hazel Dell Parkway, including entrances to subdivisions will be provided by the Engineering Department. This will involve the certain phasing of the construction of the utilities, accel/decel lanes and multi-use path relocation to limit the length of time which the path's use will be intermptad. Otherwise, the developer has addressed all Engineering issues brought forward in our review letters. NEW BUSINESS lj. BLOCKBUSTER AWNING This office has no input regarding this issue. 2J. BAKER HILL We have not received information regarding this development. Therefore, we are not able to offer S'.ll~l EMOS~'~616ggPLAN · Page 2 F A X TRANSMITTAL re: Mik: Holiba~gh tax ~. 571-~26 r~: ~-465 ~ US31 a~t~: lun~ 14, 9ages: ~, ~cluding ~s covcr I have ~t~ch~t a letter signed by our Commissioner re. quoting fl~ plan commission to deter decision on thc proposer1 r~Onln~ ~lltil ffl~ completion of our engjne~ng nauties ~n Augus~ ca~ provide any addilional hfformatio~ please contact me. ~l~c~ls, ;N 46204-2219 INDIANA DEPARTI~NT OF TRANSPORTATION 100 North S~na~ Avenu~ Room ~755 lr,t;anapo~it Indiana 46204-2249 (317) 232.$$$$ FAX: (317) 232-0258 FRANK O'ItANNON, C-eve. mot CUA'T[$.4. W7[~, Commissioner ~unc I0, 1999 Writer's Direct Liae 317-232~5646 lvlr. Mike Hollibaugh BeperU~ent of Community City of Carmel One Civic Squa~ Carmel, IN 46032 Dcar Mr. Holh'baugh: Tbe Iladiana Department of Transportation (IN'DOT) is working on thc development of the 1-465 and US-31 interchange. Thc development process to upgusdc US-$1 to a tSccway/tad construct ~t~ US- 31 to I-~65 interchange was/~/fiated with the US 31 Har/lilto~l County Major la~esiment Study conducted for II'DOT by the consultanI firm of Bernard/n, Lochrnueller & Associates, Inc. Thc plan for th~ fieeway to freeway ini~xchange between 1-465 and US31 is discussed on page 4- I8 of the US ' 31 Hamilton County lVlajor InveMane~ Study w/th a draw~g of thc interlace concelvt plan prc~nlecl on page 4-19. We would applv~iate thc Cara~l Plan Commiss/on'a coos/demi/on of the U.~ 10v~l.y Zoning Ordinance Section 23B. 16.4 regardhg the he. fret/on of land for t~nding ~?_!¢ highway improvements/n y~ re-zoning decision. As noted in o~r earlier corres~ndenca, we have been no,fled entering into pu~has~ agrccmen~ on three tracts of ta,nd adjacent to the US31 and 1-465 131DOT bas met Iwico with Duke Realty, in ]~,~mber 1998 and Febnmry 1999, to discuss the potea6al land rcqu~remems for the US-31 and 1-465 interchangc. Also as s~cd in earlier be rese~ed for the interchange ~ Wc be~eve an acceg~able 'foot-p, liif' of land to be rc~:w:d for in.a:~-Iv~nEc consU'ucfion can be identified while providing sufficient land for doveloproenk The eonsuh~.,; ~rm of Parsuns Transportation Group ~ been selected for file env/ronmcntal and engineering studies on the US-31 freeway upgrade and the US31 and 1-465 i.,'~,changc. LNDOT has directed the Parsons Transposition C-~oup ~,'celeram the plraming analysis of thc plaoposexl interchange. The results of this analysis will provide a re0ned clcsi~ conch, pt ofth~ i~lerchange configuration as necessary to reservc right-of-way in Augus~ of th/s year. The ability to dcvclop a freeway to frt~vay int~:J~ange at the intcrsectioa of 1-465 and U$31 is a c~/l/cal cl~r~nt of the fr~way upgrad~ conccpt of US31 both in i-Iamilto~ County and in evenluat northern extension ~o South Bend. Tbe potc'~a] problems in amtuhing right.,of-way due to Printed on R¢c'~cled Paptr · An ~ OpponunL? Employer ~ hnp.I/an~w, indot, state, in. aa/a:~/dor, indexhtmi Si~ce~ly, C:isti~ M. ~ka, Co~:.ai~io~r lratia~ Departmmt of Tt-~a$1xn'mtion CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS MAYOR June 14e, 1~ Mr. David A, Crem~ans, Presiaent Ca~me[ Clay Plan Cornm)sslon Department of Commun~ Development I Civic Square Carrnei, In 46032 RE; ~6~ Sheet and Me~:lian Stree{ (US 31) - Duke Z~3~ing Case Dear Mr. Crerneans: The Cft~ of ]ndlanapolle, Department of Capital A~set Management (DCAM) has reviewe~ the Tratfic Impact Study (TIS) for the refe~ncod Iocat~n. As part of this proceas we developed a 'C~lcept Plan" t~at Klent~fle¢l pos.sible wi~ening mqulre~nent~ to achieve LOS "D'. Thi~ was an in~lependent analysis and as such does not necessaril~ nlandate a final con~usion Dr recommendation tot linal aeslgn. Rig~-~-v~/requimn~nts and trafrm operal~onsl considerations (lar~ control, signage and tra~m s~gnal phasing) are also important Issuas that will require a~tenSon in order ~o determine a final design. W~ ~e all aware that this inter..~ctJon is the responsibil~ of the Indiana De,~p~-n~ent of 'l'ransport~on 0NDOT). Han~l~n County an~d Carmel are responsible for 96 Slmet;, and DCAM Ts rasponefMe ~or Merk~an 8tneet south of 96= Stra)L Therefore, any improvementa to this In~-~sec1~o~ wilt require a eooperatlvo effort from all agenc~e~ In conclusion, DCAM has not pFesen')(KI I~)s analysis to INDOT, Hamlrton county or the City of Carmel Engineem as a recommended design. Furthermore, I hope DCAM's involvenmnt has not fn any way .ieopardlzed your al~lty to resolve ~hls Important land uas decision, $inoarely, Ronald R. Greiwe, Assistant Administrator Ti.[F~ Engineering Se~on Dennis M_ Neidigh Gene Lauselq Tom ~delt Steve Cunningham File poe~4~' F~ N0t~ 7671 D~PAR~ Ol; GAPi'TAL ASSET MANAGJg~J*vl' 004- NORTH $)-(I~RMAN OR~VE, INDIANAI~R),~, INDIANA ~ {317) ;)Lr/"~400 - FAX: (31T) ~,~7-8400 CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS STEPHEN GOLDSMITH MAYOR June 11, 1999 Mr. David A. Cremeans, President Carmel-Clay Plan Commission City of Carmel Dept. of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Mr. Cremeans: Thank you for allowing me another opportunity to address the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission concerning development along our boundaries. The City of Indianapolis always maintains great interest in the future development of real estate adjoining its boundaries, and this case in particular presents significant land use conflicts and traffic congestion impacts that spill over the boundary lines. Again, as before, I fully intend to respect the wishes of the Commission by relaying to you only new information. Of course I strongly encourage the Commissioners and staff to review the information presented previously to either the full Plan Commission or to the Special Study Committee. Therefore, with respect to the development proposal as presently outlined by Duke Realty, I offer the following comments and observations in the hope that the members of the Commission will contemplate these issues with the sincerest intent on achieving the greater good for the entire metropolitan community: The proposed development (especially that anticipated for the southwest quadrant) remains too dense. Presently, even after slight modifications in the general plans by Duke, the total square footage for this 35 acre parcel results in a development density (24,971 s.f./acre) that exceeds the densities of any other suburban office park in the metropolitan area, including Keystone at the Crossing (23,800 s.f./aere). Exhibit A compares the Duke project with several other suburban office complexes on the north side, including several in Cannel. It is painfully obvious that only a significant reduction in density will effectively solve the land use and traffic conflicts associated with this project. I have compared Spring Mill Rd. with College Avenue to illustrate several key distinctions between these roadways (see Exhibits B, C, and D). Exhibit B demonstrates that College Avenue serves as a primary north-south link between the primary job centers of Carmel and Indianapolis, with significant commercial nodes located at nearly every major intersection in between. By comparison, Springmill DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING 1841 CiTY COUNTY BUILDING · 200 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204 PHONE: (317) 327-5151 · FAX: (317) 327-5103 http://www.lndyGov.org Letter to Mr. David A. Cremeans 06/11/99, page 2 Road neither links major job centers for the two communities, nor does it have even one commercial enterprise (much less any commercial nodes) along its entire length. Springmill Road is clearly a residential collector roadway, and this is supported further by the Marion County Thoroughfare Plan (Exhibit C) which appropriately portrays both Meridian Street and College as arterial thorouglffares, but not Springmill Road. Finally, a traffic count comparison is offered in Exhibit D, which substantiates that Springmill is clearly a less traveled roadway (50% fewer dally trips) than College Avenue. Of course the key to keeping unnecessary Waffle offof Spring Mill Road remains making the 96~ StreeffUS 31 intersection work as efficiently as possible. Considered in concert with previously approved development for the northeast quadrant, Duke Realty's proposal will bring the four quadrants of the 1-465/Meridian Street interchange to a total of more than three million square feet of commercial space. As illustrated in Exhibit E, this will be equivalent to relocating the four tallest buildings in the State to this one location. The significance of this point is that unlike Downtown Indianapolis where such concentrated development is appropriately served by a mulitude of interstate interchanges, arterial roadways, bus routes, and sidewalks, the sites under consideration for zoning by the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission are not well served by necessary infrastructure (see Exhibit E). Because it is a collector roadway, Springmill Rd. will not to be widened by Indianapolis to accommodate commuter traffic. In fact, to improve public safety in the residential neighborhoods served by Springmill Rd., the City is exploring Ixaffic calming options which would slow vehicular traffic and improve pedestrian safety. Commercial developments approved by Cannel in the past for the same general area and which abut single-family residential properties were required under irrevocable commitments to dedicate far wider and better landscaped greenspace buffers than those being proposed by Duke. Furthermore, as mentioned above these other projects are not as dense as the subject proposal, and most are no greater in density than 15,000 s.f. per acre. Although I have written previously to Mr. Rick Sharp asking that traffic access for the proposed retail canter element of Parkwood East be re-worked to better relate to existing retail uses on adjoining properties, it appears that no attempts have been made by Duke to seriously examine this issue. I have had conversations over the past week or so with representatives of Indianapolis DCAM, Indiana DOT and the owners of the existing Kroger shopping center across the street, and all have indicated to me that no Duke representatives have approached them to discuss options for intersection realignment and shared signalization at this location. Please continue to encourage the developer to work with representatives from the above lis~l agencies and the Hamilton County Highway Department to work out an arrangement whereby a Letter to Mr. David A. Cremeans 06/11/99, page 3 realigned shared entrance drive might be developed by Duke across from a new Kroger Center access drive and using a single traffic signal. At the request of the Special Study Committee, engineers from HNTB conducted a review of the petitioner's traffic study. Recommendations made by HNTB called for more specific assessment by the petitioner's traffic consultant of the project's anticipated traffic contribution relative to the forecasted contribution of nearby development, but they were not followed by the Special Study Committee. This oversight should be corrected, and the traffic study should be appropriately amended as suggested by HNTB. A prior commitment made by Duke when rezoning and developing the original Parkwood East site suggests that no retail uses will be permitted other than what would be required to support the offices on site. The proposed 100,000 s.f. retail center at the southeast quadrant greatly exceeds any reasonable definition of"support retail". The Plan Commission should ask staff and/or counsel to advise as the applicability of the previous commitment, and then decide on the retail use accordingly. Regardless, the traffic should be realigned, as mentioned previously, so as to not adversely impact single-family residences across the street. Finally I just recently learned that the land owner in this case may have already been compensated in the past by the State of Indiana for damages (specifically the elimination of the real estate's commercial value) resulting from INDOT's most recent interstate interchange modifications at US 31. Consequently, it is possible that the land owner has already achieved the highest and best commercial use for the real estate through monetary compensation from the taxpayers of Indiana, and awarding the landowner commercial zoning may contribute to a double jeopardy situation whereby the taxpayers may eventually be forced to compensate the property owner a second time for the same injury. The Plan Commission should make sure it fully understands the truth surrounding this issue before it considers approving the request for commercial rezoning, even in a less intense form. Again, thank you for listening and demonstrating a community-wide interest in the long- term effects this proposed development would generate. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Yours truly, Thomas M. Bartlett, AICP Administrator, DIVlD Division of Planning Mayor Stephen Goldsmith Mr. Eugene Lausch, Director, Indianapolis DMD Letter to Mr. David A. Cremeans 06/11/99, page 4 Mr. Mike Graham, Washington Township Administrator, DMD Mr. Steve Cunningham, Senior Planner, DMD Division of Planning Mr. Steve Engleking, Director, Carmel Dept. of Community Development Ms. Ruth Hayes, Nora Northside Community Council Commercial Nodes College Avenue vs. Spring Mill Road 56TH ST Small/Other Commercia! Node Medium Commercial Node Large Commercial Node Extra Large Commercial Node June 10, 1999 / 621qD SI/ / Downtown Indianapolis 2 M*~es Data Soume: The City of lndi~r~polis Produced By: Comp~eheaslve Planning 'EXHIBIT C i HAMILTONCOUNTY 1t6TH ST ~TH 8T ?1ST ST EXHIBIT D Traffic Counts: Springmill Rd. VS. Meridian Street and College Av. Count 116th I · - No Data Avail.I -INoOataAvail. I -INoDataAvail. I - 106th NO DataAvail. I - INO DataAvail'l - INO DataAvail'l - 96th 10,090 31,756 10,026 91st ~ ~ ~ : :: 9,875 27,744 10,435 86th · 24,960 12,139 82nd 25,183 11,455 79th ~ :' ':' ' !~: 12,043 25,183 11,455 75th 12,540 24,204 13,190 73rd / 71st 65th 62nd NOTE: Adjusted average assumes a 3 percent annual increase in traffic. Indianapolis DMD, Division of Planning, 6/11/99 EXHIBIT E Comparison of Development at 1-465 and Meridian Street with Downtown indianapolis 3ank One Tower 1,000,000 SE Quadrant 1,100,000 AUL Tower 692,000 SW Quadrant 874,000 ~IBD Tower 653,000 NE Quadrant 675,000 Market Tower 495,000 NW Quadrant 475,000 TOTAL 2,840,000 TOTAL 3,124,000 Artedal Roadways 24 ~,rtedal Roadways 2 Interchanges 9 Interchanges 1 Bus Routes 32 Bus Routes 1 Indianapolis DMD, Division of Planning, 6/11/99 CITY OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TRANSMITTAL To: ~om: Mark T. Monroe, AICP Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 ph. 317 571 2417 fax 317 571 2426 J~The material you requested FI For your information F! For review and comment ~ For approval Quantity/Description Copies to: s:~forms\transmit June 1, 1999 Mr. Terry J. Jones, AICP B,zilding Commissioner City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Duke Construction - Valinet Property N. of 96~' StreeCE. of Spring M~ll Road Clay To~ship Dear Mt. Jones: I am w~tlng to follow up your recent telephone conversation on May 28, 1999 with Mr. Les Locke, Hamilton County Engineer, regarding the outstanding issues in relationship to the rezone request by Duke Construction of the Vahne~ property which is located at {he northeast corner of 96* Street and Spring Mill Road. intersection n~provement at the intersection of 96 St, eet and As you are hkely aware, our depertment has proposed an ..... *b Spzing Mill Road. The Duke development Ixoject will undoubtedly ~mpact this intersection, and to constvact an intersection that will provide adequate service levels with minima] impact on the existing home owners on the south side of 96~ Street, it is necessary to secure right of way for this intersection project that is in excess of the right of way that is called out in the Hamilton Count}, Thoroughfa~ Plan. I enclose for your review a sketch of the needed right of way along the east side of Spring Mill Road, and the north side of 96z Street to allow for a shift of the intersection and the addition of teavel and tun~ lanes. This del~-~rtment respectfi~ly requests that these right of way recpirements be inco~orated into the Duke plans prior to the approval of the rezone request. If you have any questions regarding this eontespondence or this project, please contact the undersigned at your eavhest Sincere~y~ Hamilton County Highway Department Jeffrey A. Hill Transp~tatlon Development Engineer JH:jh F:\USERS~JH\1999\Concespondenee\06-O1-99.aa Les Locke - Han~ton County Highway Department Ste,,e Bzoermann - Hamilton County Higl~way Department Steve Cash - Harad'con County Sttrveyor's Office John South - Hamilton County soll & Wate~ Conservation District 1717 PLEASANT STREET NOBLESVILLE, INDIANA 46060 (317) 773-7770 10 2O 35 40 45 PROJ[CT: COMPUTED BY: ~L~ II)ATE' ~ / I / -%2 PERMIT NUMBER: '-'"-' I ~' ':-,' ,.-'~.~c~,~,.~ LOCATION~ ;~ ? ~' ?~,~ ,~.,~ ~, ,,_~_ -~-~. SHEET I OF I COUNTY HIGHVAY DEPARlMENT I717 E. PLEASANT STREET NOBLESVILLE, IN 46060 PHONE 773-7770 FAX 776-9814 I HAMILTON -14-9 : INDIANA DEPART~ OF TRANSPORTATION I00 North Sena~ Aveaue Room lndi~, Indiana 462042249 (317) 23~.$553 FAX: (317) 252-0238 FRANK O'BANNON. Governor CURTL¢; A. WILEY, C. zmm~oner .~un~ 10, 1999 Wril~-' 8 Dire~ Line 317-23%5646 M~. Mfl[o Rotlibaugh Dq~Xment of CommunRy Services City of C_~¢I One Civic Square Cal'11oel, E~ 46032 De~r Ivac. Hollib~ugh: As noted in our eadier co~ace, we have beea aot/fi~l by ~ ~W I~ts of ~ ~ ~d ~i~ ~ ~o U~31 ~d I~5 ~ A~ u s~ in ~i~ The co~sullant 11,,~ of Pa~som Trauspo~tion Group has b~u zeh~ml for ~ho envi~o~m:~l and eogine~g studies on the US-.~I freev~y upSm~ m~dthe US31 ~11-465 ~. INDOT has di~ec~d the par~ns Tmmponaiion Oro~-p a~eleral~ ~he plarming ~lysis of the proposed iai. Tho results of ~ lmalysis will provid~ a refined d~d/p:~ c~m~pt of li~ into'change configuration as a~cessary to r"=,etv¢ fight-of-way in Augnst of ~s ye~. The ability to d~wlop a fieeway t~ fr~way inl~mie at ~h¢ ini~soction of 1-465 a~i ~ I is a c~ific~l ~l~n~t ofth~ fr~'w&y ~ oom:~pt of US31 both in I-L~0il~t County ~in the ~?l nonhero ~on ~ ~u~ B~d.'~ ~t~ti~ ~ ~ ~u~ ~f-way d~ ~ Ptisied on Rec-,/ded Pv4~r · An ~qual Ol~ort~ F.~vloyer ~ ~q~:l/~,m~,indotsra~.in.u.~ma~lo~inder. At~ development m lbo proposed iniel'oba~o area could endanger the f~ ofl~ ~ US31 ~av ~ ~j~t. ~ ~g of ~c ~d ~ ~fil ~ ~p~o~ of ~ V~s T~ ~'s ~y of ~c ~ Cristine M. Klika, Conunis$ioncr Ivdlaaa Depattm~t of Txanapormtion F A X TRAN $ H ITTA L to: Mik~ Holibaugh fax ~. ~71-9A~6 re: 1-465 and US31 d~t~: lune 14, 1999 pa~s: 3, including this cover Fax: 3t7o~32.~4~ June 9,1999 Carmel Clay Plan Commission One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Subject: Approval of the Rezoning Application for Office/Retail Project at U.S. 31 and 96t~ Street Ladies and Gentlemen of the Plan Commission: I am writing to express my extreme disappointment at your approval to recommend the rezoning application submitted by Duke Realty Investments. I cannot tell you how much it saddens me to see acres and acres of trees torn down only to be replaced by concrete. Our precious land and the life that it sustains will never be the same. This is what I regretfully contemplate each day on my 45-minute journey to work along U.S. 31. I will not waste your time trying to argue my reasons for a desire to spare the surrounding area any further land development projects. Instead, I am attaching an article that I hope will give you an insightful look into our future. You see, other areas of the country are already fighting to combat the sort of environment you are seeking to create. I realize that them am politics and money behind this decision that each of you feel bound to advance; however, I beg of you to take a different position. I do not want to live in or around the kind of city you are creating. Please think hard about what will happen when others come to the same conclusion. Listen to the members of your community, hear what they are saying, and remember that you have the power to change our small piece of the world forever. Sincerely, Jennifer K. Russell 880 Bridle Court Carmel, Indiana 46032 N A T I 0 N Before America turns into one giant paved- over subdivision, people are fighting back. Is there hope? By RICHARD LACAYO l hear the whistle of the locomotive in the woods... Whew! Whew! Whew! How is real estate here in the swamp and wilderness? -Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1842 Atlanta, 1999. Once a wil- derness, it's now a 13-county eruption, one that has been called the fastest-spreading human settlement in histo- ry. Already more than 110 miles across, up from just 65 in 1990, it consumes an additional 500 acres of field and farmland every week. What it leaves be- hind is U'aet houses, access roads, strip malls, off ramps, industrial parks and billboards advertising more h'act houses where the peach flees used to be. Car exhaust is such a problem that Washington is withholding new highway funding until the region com- plies xvith federal clean-air standards. On a bad ~raf~c day-basically any weekday with a morning and evening in it-you can review whole years of your life in the time it takes to get from Blockbuster to Fuddruckers. "We can't go on like this," says Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, a "smart growth" Democrat who was elected last year. Barnes has proposed a regional transporta- t/on authority that can block local plans for the new roads that encourage develop- ment. But dumb growth is not confined to Atlanta. Half a century after America loaded the car and tied to the suburbs, these boundless, slapdash places are mak- ing people want to flee once more. "All of a sudden, they're playing leapfrog with a bulldozer," says Al Gore, who wants to be the antisprawl candidate in 2000. For Gore, turning an assortment of suburban complaints into a vote-getting issue is no sure thing. But the fact that he's trying shows that suburban overgrowth has become a national headache. Instead of just fleeing the sprawl (and thus creating more of it), people are groping for ways to fight it. Last November there were no few- er than 240 antisprawl ballot initiatives around the country. Most of them passed. 45 Some stripped local authorities of the power to approve new subdivi- sions without voter assent. Others okayed tax money to buy open land before the developers get it. In the largest of those, New Jersey Gover- nor Chr/stine Todd Whitman sue- cessfully pushed a referendum to use sales-tax money to buy half the state's undeveloped land-a million acres. "Americans are finally real- /zing that once you lose land, you can't get it beok," she says. Twelve states have already en- acted growth-management laws. Tennessee just adopted one of the strictest, requiring many cities to impose growth boundaries around their perimeters. In Maryland, counties get state money for roads and schoo{s only ffthey agree to con- tlne growth to areas that the state has designated as suitable. But managed growth is not a win-~vin proposition. When laws make it harder to build in the countryside, new development is pressed into more expensive land closer to town. That can mean high- er home prices, so the sing]e mother who manages a doctor's office or the couple who make $38,000 a year must choose between a tiny apartment c]ose to work and a 90- min. commute to housing they can afford. Limiting growth also means dealing with a profound conflict between the good of the community and the rights of the indi- vidual. For a lot of people, the good }ifc stifi means a big house on a big yard. Who's to say they shouldn't get it? Yet smart growth en- visions a nation packaged into town houses and apartments, a country that rides trains and buses and leaves the car at home. Everybody hates the drive time, the scuffed and dented banality, of overextended sub- urbs. But are we ready for the eonfinement and compromise the solutions require? Maybe not, according to a recent TIMK/CNN po{]. It showed that most people like green- belts but don't trust government planning. AmeHosus do believe in property rights- including the right to profit by selling. So NATION Vermo.t farmer Mlskell, above left, helped save the selectmen Mack. I. California, Bennett, right, pushed initiatives that stripped politicians the farmers and ranchers who feel squeezed out when tract housing plunks down next to their pasture often think about cashing in. "You get people waving millions," says Ben Wurtsmith, 67, a rancher in Col- oredo's Eagle County, not far from the ex- ploding area around Vail. "Some days you just thi,,nk about taking the money and tak- ing off. One way to solve the problem, be- ing used in parts of Colorado, is "develop- ment rights," which let builders put up houses more densely near town in exchange I for payments to outlying farmers ~ and ranchers to keep land open. There's another option being explored in Ventora County, north- west of Los Angeles. At night, what used to be dark hillsides are strong with lights from new tract housing. Those twinkling lights worked on Steve Bennett, a soft-spoken high school history teacher, until he'd had enough. Three years ago he co- founded sos~ (Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources) to get antisprawl initiatives on the ballot. It took just nine weeks last year for Bennett and his allies to collect the 75,000 signatures they needed. In November, large majorities in four of Ventura's five largest cities adopted rules that forbid the coun- ty to rezone land for development without voter approval. A fifth city came on board in January. W,/e've protected more than 600,000 acres of land," says Ben- nett. "But more than 60,000 homes can be built in areas already zoned for development, soAn is an attempt to say some areas have to remain precious.' Opposition came mainly from a local larm- ers' organization. Why? An appraisal by the city of Ventora concluded that 87 acres would be v~rth $I.6 million as farmland but $13 million if zoned for development. "The people of this county have taken away my property rights," says Howard Atkinson, 51, who inherited part of a 57-acm ranch. If America's detonating meffo regions were the result of population growth alone, sprawl would be a problem without a solu- tion. But they are equally the result of polit- ical decisions and economic incentives that lure people ever farther from center cities. For decades, federal highway subsidies have paid for the roads to those far-flung malls and tract houses. Then there are local zoning rules that require large building lots, ensuring more sprawl Many localities fiercoly resist denser housing because it brings in more people but less property-tax revenue. Zoning rules commonly forbid any mix of homes and shops, which worsens traffic by guaranteeing that you burn a quart of gas to find a quart of milk. Even more important, localities routinely agree to extend roads, sewer lines and other utilities to new suburban developments built far from downtown, while existing schools and housing stock are left to decay. "Impact fees" on developers cover just a fraction of what services for newcomers aelually cost. These incentives to expand help create cities that widen much faster than their populations grow. Between 1990 and 1996, metro Kansas City spread 70%, xvhile its population, now 1.9 million, increased just 5%. In that period greater Portland, Ore., spread just 13%, the same growth rate as its population, now 1.7 million. For a long time Portland has been the laboratory city for smart growth. In 1979, as part of its complianco with a groundbreaking state- wide land-use law, Portland imposed a "gsowth boundary," a ring enclosing the city proper and ~ surrounding towns. oil, the only directly elected regional government in the U.S., controls all develop- ment. Inside, permits for ed readily, which helps account for the construction cranes all around a down- town that looked ready to die 20 years ago. Outside, where open land is strictly pro- tected, there's mostly just the uninterrnpt- ed flight of greenery we call nature. Un- spoiled stretches of the Willamette River Valley start 15 miles from city hall. Orderly growth comes at a price. Small- er towns within the ring are submerged by crowding they might otherwise zone out. And within the dwindling buildable space of the ring, average lot size has shrunk almost in half over the past 20 years, from 13,000 sq. ff. to 6,700. Yet the median price ora single- family home has more than doubled in just 10 years, fi.om $64,000 to $159,900. Once ranked by the National Association of Home Builders as among the most affordable U.S. cities for housing, Portland is now the third most expensive, just a bit cheaper than San Francisco. One reason is that the growth limits helped attract an influx of new resi- dents, who bid up costs. But another is that developers can't build on cheaper acreage farther from town. And though the growth boundary has been widened, local builders complain that the added acreage falls well short of what a growing population needs. TIME, MARCH 22, 1999 NATION TIME/CNN POLL · Do ye. favor or oppose the establishment of a zone or greenbelt around your community where new homos, businesses or stores could not be built on land that Is currently undeveloped? Favor,: ..... ~ .... ~ Oppose .......... ~ · Do you favor or oppose using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped lend to keep it frun from development? Oppose. ~ · Which Is more Important? The abilib' of individuals to do what they want with land that they I~ Tho abilii7 of govemmeat to regulate development For all that, the "great wall of Portland" is very popular with area voters. That's one reason Gore wants to make sprawl his issue in the next campaign. He knows that some of his signature environmental concerns, like glob- al warming, can seem remote from the here and now. He's counting on sprawl to be an environmentalism that people get, especially the suburban women who drive those crowd- ed roads and are important swing voters. "Let's build more ne~v homes,' Gore recent- ly told TZME, "but build them in placos that help make people's lives more enjoyable." His message may still need work, but his plan has some merit. In January, Gore introduced the Administration's "livability agenda," a cellection of new and recycled budget programs (see box). Republicans in Washington have no counterpart, partly beeanse conservatives think government should stay out of the way of private devel- opment. But o.o.P, pragmatists are wor- ried. In a recent issue of the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, Republican pollster Christine Matthews reported that Gore's "mainstreaming of his environmentalism" was "startlingly on track with voters." Even ffpresidential candidates manage to nationalize the issue, Washington doesn't have much to do with the local zoning fights and roadway approvals that determine where development goes. "The battle is go- lng to be won or lost at the state level,' says Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. And the remedies take many forms. In Illinois, there's Prairie Crossing, a 667-acre subdivi- sion 40 mflas north of Chicago, where more than half the land is preserved as green space. Utopia isn't cheap: the median price of homes there is $331,000, about $100,000 above that for the immediate area, which doesn't satisfy the need for the lower--cost housing that's driving suburban expansion. In Chicago's south western suburbs, res- idents have joined with environmentalists in alawsuit to bloeka lg.5-mile extension of In- terstate 355, one they fear will bring more traffic, more houses, more everything. Two months ago, Illinois transportation officials announced they would stop appealing a fed- eraljudge's decision that has st~ed the proj- ect since early 1997. The ruling held that state officials had failed to take into account the new road's projected impact on popula- tion growth. Opponents are hopeful that al- ternatives to building the toll road will re- ceive serious ceusideration. "Highways are billed as antidotes to congestion," says Mike Treppa, a policy specialist at the Envirnn- mental Law and Policy Center, which joined the suit. "But inevitably they create more." Since development tends to pop up any place it finds a foothold, the battle to eon- rain it never ends. In the rolling country of Shelburne, Vt., McCabe Brook meanders through the former Clark farm. A developer liked the place so much that he planned to build 26 houses on its 120 acres. But David Miskell, 50, a bushy-bearded organic-toma- to farmer, and dairy farmer Robert Mack, 44, both of whom had been working to pre- serve other open spaces in the area, helped organize public gatherings to discuss the fact that the development would require taxpayers to financo firehouses and class- rooms. "My tomatoes don't go to school," Miskell says. "I think that woke people up." When Sbelburne approved the develop- ment anyway, a neighboring town took Shel- burne to court, arguing that it would suffer costs from the project. To dramafze how construction would change the area, Miskell constructed scaffolds on the endangered land that approximated the proposed height and fcotprint ora few of the houses. In De- cember 1997, the embattled developer sold the property to the Preservation Trust of Vermont. "If you are not into controversy," says Miskell, "you are not doing anything." Keeping land open is just half the battle. The other half is keeping downtowns liv- able and affordable so people stay happily bunched there. That way new construction tends to cluster within developed zones and use existing roads, schools and utility lines. But for the centerless "edge eries" that col- leer around major highways, the problem is to create a downtown in the first place. So in Tysons Corner, Va., just outside Washing- ton, county officials have just approved an instant town center-an 18-acre collection of small office buildings that will also house shops and restaurants around a plaza. Albu- querque, N.M., is examining a proposal to refurbish a 12-block area, nearly one-fifth of the city's downtown, info an urban center with entertainment, retail and high-density housing. "It's a typical American problem, the abandoned center," says architect Ste- fanos Pelyzoides, who designed the scheme. "It doesn't have to be like this." Polyzoides is chairman of the Congress for the New Urbanism, a group of architects and city planners who believe sprawl can be remedied in part through better town de- sign-a return to sidewalks, narrower streets that don't encourage fast driving, a mix of homes and shops. Endlessly elastic suburbia "is not a way we're going to be building in the future," he predicts. The ~- viva] of downtowns in places like San Diego and Denver-and, for that matter, Atlanta- and the reaction against sprawl among the suburbanites who spawned it may also be signs, as he says, that the problem can be fixed. But sprawl is mostly indelible ink. Once the roads and houses and strip malls ;p~t them 9~u_t~.CT~ b~t~ is ~ it before it Dan~l S. Levy/Shelbum~, Todd Murphy/Pm~dand and Tim4thy Roche/A~an~ John H. Grogan 9595 Copley Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260-1422 June 2, 1999 Mr. Richard Sharp, Chairman Cannel-Clay Plan Commission, Special Study Committee City of Carmel Dept. Conmxunity Development One Civic Square Cannel, 1N 46032 Dear Mr. Sharp: Re: Duke rezo~ing 96t~ & Meridian Sts. As President of the Cedar Knolls Homeowners' Association and member of the joint 96* Street Corridor Task Force I have attended most meetings concerning this petition for zoning and I appreciate the manner in which the Special Study Committee has conducted the hearings. The meetings have been well run; gathering facts, raising pertinent issues and showing sensitivity to those who will be affected by these difficult issues as well as the developer. In addition to the adjacent property owners along 96t~, Springmill and Meridian Streets, the surrounding metropolitan community and the City of Carmel will be impacted long into the next century by these very important decisions. We are very concerned about the obvious density and its in-~pact on the traffic and the affect on the residential nature of our neighborhood. However as you requested, we do not intend to restate objections or raise issues previously brought to the coiiiiiiission's attention. We would like to make you aware of other facts and concerns, address some specific Duke commitments and request the City of Cannel and/or Hamilton County to formally acknowledge certain inferred or verbal commitments and responsibilities that would result fi:om the approval of these projects. RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD Most of the homes in Cedar Knolls addition, located on the southwest comer of 96t~ & Springmill, were built about 40 years ago and many are still occupied by the original owners. When I 465 was built, the state planners recognized this as an established residential neighborhood and as can be observed, as the right-a-way crosses from the west along the county line it was routed noah, beginning at Ditch Road, so as to by-pass our addition. Our neighborhood, for real estate tax assessment purposes, has a grade of "Excellent", the highest classification provided by the State Tax manual which results in a 10-15% tax la~minm over most other surrounding residential property. In recent years, when property has sold in our neighborhood new owners have made significant improvements and expansions which have resulted in increased assessments. However because of concerns for the adverse impact of the proposed extensive Duke projects, two owners have recently stopped or significantly scaled back plans for remodeling. Although we are not adverse to low density office development on this property, the long established quality residential nature of an established neighborhood and its tax base should not be destroyed so that another tax district may benefit fi.om dense commerc'ml and retail development. MOUNDING AND SCREENING Duke, in their recent commitments to your committee, has improved the proposed mounding and buffering for the southwest quodrant to a 5-6 foot undulating mound (same as Parkwood East) with 8'-10' evergreen trees. Considering the proposed density, the building heights with set backs that are less than Parkwood East, the hotel and restaurants and the mammoth parking garages, we still do not consider this to be adequate. Duke's computer drawings show the purported screening line of sight based on the assumption the street will be at the same elevation as the buildings. The ground rises in the center of the property and if buildings are located at this higher elevatinn the affect of the screening We request that the mounds be 10'-12' in height similar to those that currently screen the Carmel residential property in the Northeast quadrant behind Methodist Medical Center and the Wyndham Garden Hotel along Pennsylvania Parkway. The mounds should also be measured fi.om the ground level elevmion of the highest building not the street. The 8' to 10' evergreens should then be planted in staggered rows along the mound with a sprinkler system installed in the greenbelt area. If this increased height significantly changes the width of the base, we would accept the elimination of the sidewalk and allow surface parking up to the base of the mound without regard to any specified set back from the street. CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS In add'aion to Duke's commitment to construct the berm in the southwest quadrant comtemporaneously with the initial site development, the following commitments should be required: a. All earth movement and other construction should be of, xomplished in a manner that will minimize dust, noise and inconvenience to the surrounding neighborhood. b. 96th Sweet, Springmill and surrounding streets should be kept clean and free of construction materials, dirt and parked equipment or vehicles. c. Site plans should be designed to retain existing mature trees and natural landscaping similar to the area around Methodist Medical Center. d. Construction traffic should be restricted to entrances within the eastern 600' of the southwest quadrant. e. Construction trailers, equipment, portable toilets and stored materials should be screened fi.om the residential neighborhoods. MISCELLANEOUS COMMITMENTS At times a large noisy corporate helicopter currently flies low over our neighborhood, sometimes very early in the morning. The neighborhood had requested Duke to commit to proba30it similar helicopters from landing except in an emergency. Apparently t/ney have not agreed to this restriction and must be considering it as a marketing amenity for large corporate tenants The neighborhood is very concerned about the potential for noise and Duke's perceived lack of concern for the residential character of the neighborhood. We are concerned that the impact of the traffic from these projects on 96ta street and Springmill are underestimated and the affects minimized. The 96~ and Springmill intersection currently needs to be improved from its "country road" character but it does not require the addition of extensive multiple lanes. If extensive lane widening becomes necessary at any time in the future because of these commercial and retail developments, further destroying the residential neighborhoods, we request that an 8' brick wall be constructed around the Cedar Knolls additior~ GOVERNMENTAL COMMITMENTS During various Plan Commission meetings it has been stated or inferred by some members that this rezoning would not open a creeping co~cialization of the neighborhood and that 96~ Street west of Spfingmill would remain residential. We ask as part of any approval of this rezoning that the Carmel City Council formally acknowledge this commitment. We are located at the intersection of multiple governmental jurisdictions and it frequently appears we are shortchanged on tax supported road maintenance and other services. Being at the cross road of three different police jurisdictions, there is no apparent traffic enforcemem. We ask that the speed limit be reduced on 96th Street west of Meridian from 40 to 35 MPH and that weight limits be posted to keep large heavy trucks off 96a street. This will need to be enforced and some oftbe increased tax revenue ~om the development utilized for other services along 96~ & Springmill. Although these issues are not directly the responsibility of the Plan Commission Study Committee or Duke, they will become increasingly critical as this property is developed. We therefore request that these concerns be expressed in any zoning approval and directed to the appropriate governmental agency. If you have any questions concerning any of these matters phase contact me at 8464558. Sincerely, John H. Grogan~ CC: Phil Nicely, Attorney, Bose McKinney & Evans Tom Bartlett, Administrator, Department of Metropolitan Development June 1, 1999 Mr. Teny J. Jones, AICP Binlding Commissioner City of Camel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Duke Construction -- Vahnet Property N. of 96th Street/E. of Spring Mill Road Clay Township Dear Mr. Jones: I am w~iting to follow up your recent telephone conversation on May 28, 1999 with Mr. Les Locke, Hamdton Count~ Engineer, regarding the outstanding issues in relauonshi~, to the rezone request by Duke ConstmcUon of the Vdinet property which is located at the northeast comer of 96~ Street and Spring Mill Road. As you am llkely aware, our department has proposed an intersect/on improvement at the intersection of 96~ Street and Spring Mill Road. The Duke development proiect ~ undoubtedly impact this intersection, and to construct an intersection that will provide adequate service levels with minimal impact on the existing home ovmers on the south side of 96th Street, it is necessa~ to secure right of way for this intersection project that is in excess of the right of way that is called out in the Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan. I enclose for your review a sketch of the needed right of way dong the east side of Spring Mill Road, and the north side of 96~h Street to allow for a shift of the intersection and the addition of travel and turn Ianes. This department respectfully requests that these right of way requirements be inco~orated into the Duke plans prior to the approval of the rezone request. If yon have any questions regarding this correspondence or this project, please contact the undersigned at yom earliest Sincerely, Hamilton County Highway Department Jeffrey A. Hill Transportation Development Engineer JH:jh F:\U SERS~JH\1999\Cor~espondenee\O6-O1-99.aa Les Locke - Hamilton Comaty Highway Department Steve Broermann - Hamilton County Highway Department Mark Monroe - City of Camel Department of Community Serdces Steve Cash - Handton County Surveyor's office John South - Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation District 1717 PLEASANT STREET NOBLESVILLE, INDIANA 46060 (317) 773-7770 [~IBG-gZZ 3NOHa 0909~ NI 133~1S IN¥S~39d '3 Z[Z| IN3~I~Vd30 A¥~HglH XINfIO3 NOIgIHYH } XVJ OZLL-£LL ~ :~3BHflN ll~B3dl ~ ~ / I / T :31¥0{ ,~c :AB 031fldH03 :133?{3.4d -~ .~-~ Hollibaugh, Mike P To: Subject: Akilpone~}lndygov.org Duke ~ 96th Street Ann: Hero is the info you requested. Hope it is helpful. Please feel to call if you need clarification, or additional info. 1. The proposed office/hotel site (35 acres) shows two parking strectures, one for 870 spaces, another for 1140. 2. Parkwood Crossing total overall building square footage. "Owner commits t limit the size of the development to 950,000 square feet of leaseable area, plus a 300-room businessman's hotel, or, if an office building is constructed in place of the hotel, to limit the size of the development to 1, 050, 000 square feet of leaseable area." 3. In the Methodist Medical Plaza (formerly Meridian Corporete Plaza), there is 675,000 squre feet of office plus hotel appreved as part of the overall development. There are two office buildings built ~ 150,000 sq.ff., and 122,000 sq.ft., and, including the Wyndam Hotel (97,045 sf., 172 rooms). 4. The land directly/adjacent north of Pennsylvania Parkway in this office park (Methodist Medical) is zoned Business (B-7 with 2-story max, transitional commercial) however, the development plan, and amended development plan, retain this area as buffer and tree preservation area (per comreitment, to be maintained in perpetuity as landscape buffer). 5. Office developments along Pennsylvania, 103rd Street to 106th Street: Southwest comer. 103rd and Penn 1. The Green on Meridian - 2 buildings 60,056 square feet 2. Signature Inn - 81 rooms, 41,500 square feet Northwest comer, 103rd and Penn Meridian Plaza - three buildings, 292,000 total square feet 6. All buildings in the U.S. 31 Corddor are subject to our overlay ordinance, copy attached. BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Philip A. Nicely North Office Direcl Dial (3'17) 574-3701 E-Maih PNicely@boselaw.com May 28,1999 To the Committee Members: Enclosed for your benefit are Answers to the questions that were raised at the last Committee meeting. Please note the following: First, we have reduced the square footage on the Southwest Quadrant to 710,000 square feet. Second, there are a couple of items that we need to present to the Committee at the meeting: (1) for the proposed sketch for 96t~ Street and Meridian to provide a level of service D in the peak hours at some point in the future, and (2) an additional list of excluded uses. Unfortunately, we were unable to get reduced copies of the sketch for this packet. Also, several individuals who need to review the list for retail purposes were at the ICSC conference last week and therefore we were unable to complete that list. Third, we have also included for your benefit the Commitments that have been filed. These will need to be amended to include those Commitments which the Committee has requested and which are outlined in the memorandum. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE MAY 5th SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING RELATING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY AT 96t~ AND MERIDIAN DOCb The following is what we believe to be the questions that were raised at the last Special Study Committee meeting and what we believe are the appropriate answers. Where commitments have been requested, we have provided in this document the appropriate commitment. Such commitments are also in the Commitments we filed with the staff. With this information, we believe that all questions relating to the development have been answered and that the Committee has all the information that the Petitioner is able to provide. Please provide a Commitment regarding the site plan and that development will occur substantially in accordance with the site plan presented. We have provided a site plan and believe that the development will proceed substantially in accordance with that site plan. However, as the Commission knows and as occurred with Parkwood, changes do occur and are necessary. That is the reason we have provided for a preliminary development plan approval by the Commission and if that plan changes the Commission must approve any final development plan. The Commitments, however, with respect to the setback, height of buildings, berm, etc., would remain even though buildings within the development might move. For example, Parkwood Crossing East has evolved somewhat differently than the original preliminary plan for Parkwood East.-However, we eliminated any potential problem with that at Parkwood East by providing a Commitment in that rezoning as follows: "The development of the Real Estate shall be subject to review of the Carmel Plan Commission and approval of any final site Development Plan including architectural design, landscaping, signage and lighting." A similar but more comprehensive commitment exists as paragraph (o) of the Commitments for the Southwest and Northwest Quadrants. What will be the cost of the 9~h Street improvements and the other road improvements that will be made in connection with the development and how is it to be funded? ::ODMA~MHOOMA~NO1 ;28207;4 The cost of the improvements as designated in the traffic report of A & F Engineering and as otherwise required to complete the road improvements will be approximately $2,000,000.00. We hope to provide funding for improvements through tax increment financing bonds. What will be the timing of the intersection improvements and the 9~h Street improvements ? The improvements to 96th Street and the improvements to the intersection of 96th Street and Meridian (collectively "Improvements") will be commenced contemporaneously with the start of the development of the Real Estate and will be diligently pursued to completion. Is the right-in and right-out necessary for the retail and is it appropriate? Efforts will be made to align the western entrance to the retail with the entrance to the Kroger Center. If that cannot occur, the right-in/right-out western entrance will be eliminated unless alignment can occur or unless a median is installed on 96t~ Street. A question was raised relating to the reason for retail on the east side of the street and concern was expressed relating to the traffic that would be generated by the I/Vhole Foods Store. From a traffic standpoint, the retail development is beneficial because the traffic generated by the retail occurs at different times than the traffic generated by office uses. Additional office uses would generate traffic when delays in traffic might occur as opposed to generation of traffic at other times which is the situation with retail. The retail is essential to the development of the office park as described in the previous memorandum. It is also appropriate from a pure land planning viewpoint. Please provide a sketch for the level of Sen/ice D for the intersection of 96~ and Meridian Street. A sketch prepared by A & F Engineering based upon a concept developed by Ron Griewe of the City of Indianapolis will be presented to the Committee at the meeting. The plan defines a configuration for the intersection of 96~ and Meridian which would allow in the future level of Service D operation during the peak hours. Note that the construction of this type of intersection ::ODMA~IHODMA~NO1 ;28207;4 10. is necessary only for the peak periods. The rest of the time during the day, that type of intersection would be unnecessary. What about installing a sidewalk along Spfingmill Road? After examining Springmill Road and the immediate dropoff of Springmill Road as it goes up the hill to the bridge, it was determined that a sidewalk along Springmill Road from 96t~ Street to the bridge would not be appropriate. Has an amended traffic report been filed? A & F Engineering has filed an amended traffic report which changes a few numbers but does not change the recommendations. We do not deem any additional traffic studies necessary or appropriate. What is the setback of the buildings from the fight-of-way? As indicated in the previous Question and Answer Memorandum, the building setback is 220 feet from the now existing right-of-way of 96th Street. The question was asked what the setback would be from the new proposed right-of-way. If an additional 35' of right-of-way is dedicated, then the setback would be 185 feet from the new right-of-way line. We could, however provide less right-of-way and then the distance from the new right- of-way line would be more. More appropriate to mention is perhaps the distance of the buildings from the south right-of-way line of 96th Street. What was permitted in the covenants at Parkwood East is 313 feet from the south right-of-way line of 96th Street and what is proposed at Parkwood West is 253 feet from the south right-of-way line of 96~ Street or a difference of approximately 60 feet. The reason for this difference was discussed in the last memorandum. The overall distance is what is important and not where it begins and ends after right-of-way is dedicated. In addition, with the berm and the trees, the visual impact will not be significantly different than Parkwood East. Can Commitments be given relating to the height of buildings depending on the greater setback? This commitment is included in the Commitments that have been filed with the Department and is as follows: ::O[~MA~H ODMA'~IO 1 ;2820'/';4 3 (a) Any office building constructed within 460 feet of the now existing center-line of 96th Street shall be nc higher than five (5) stores. (Not applicable to the east 600 feet of the Real Estate). (b) No office building shall be constructed within 200 feet of the now existing center-line of 96th Street. (Not applicable to the east 600 feet of the Real Estate). We can also add the following: "No office building will exceed a height of 8 stories." 11. 12. 13. Can a Commitment be made regarding the architectural treatment of the parking deck on the south and west sides? The same Commitment can be made as was made at Parkwood East which would be as follows: "Owner commits to architecturally treat the south and west facades of any parking garage that have unrestricted sight lines to the neighborhood to the south or to the west, such that the appearance of the parking garage as viewed from the homes south of 96th Street and from the residential homes to be constructed west of Springmill Road will be aesthetically improved from that of the standard parking garage facade." Can a Commitment be made restricting the height of parking decks? The following Commitment can be made relating to the height of the parking deck: "No parking structure will exceed ground level plus three decks." A request was made for a Commitment regarding parking and the distance of parking from the #ght-of-way. ::O DMA~IHODMA',NO 1 ;28207;4 4 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, The Commitment made at Parkwood East is the same commitment we would make at Parkwood West and is as follows: "Owner commits that any parking area shall be a minimum of 60 feet from the now existing right-of-way of 96th Street. (Not applicable to the east 600 feet of the Real Estate). Define the size and scope of the hotel and restaurant. The following commitment can be made relating to the development west of Meridian and south of 1-465: "Owner commits that the size of the development west of Meridian and south of 96t~ Street shall be limited to 710,000 square feet of leaseable office area plus a full-service hotel consisting of approximately 300 rooms and two sit-down quality restaurants comprising a total of approximately 14,000 square feet. What height restrictions apply to the office buildings. The maximum height for any office building within the development west of Meridian Street shall be 8 stories provided, however, the height of any building constructed within 460 feet of the now existing centerline of 96th Street shall be no higher than five stories. (See item 10). Can there be an expansion of excluded uses?- Yes, we will provide such a list to the Committee at the meeting. Can the density of the development be reduced? As indicated in the last meeting, we have reduced the density of the development west of Meridian and indeed have reduced the overall density of the development. Further reduction is pushing the economic feasibility of the development, however, as indicated in paragraph 14, we have agreed to further reduce the density to 710,000 square feet on the southwest quadrant. What is the status of the hardship designation with the Indiana Department of Transportation? _ 19. Although we have sent a letter to the Indiana Department of Transportation in an effort to work with them in connection with the development of the property so that if in the future the State of Indiana desires to acquire property, it could be done without terrible hardship on either the owner of the property or the Indiana Department of Transportation, the provision contained in Section 23B.16.4 of the Overlay Ordinance may not be applicable to the property. The applicability of that section is to improvements that the State desires to make to U.S. Highway 31 as shown on plans developed for the Indiana Department of Transportation by the consulting firm Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates. Although the 1-465 and Meridian Street interchange is mentioned in the report, additional right-of- way that the State might want from the Real Estate is not included in any plans developed by Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates. Finally, the Committee has presumably received the letter from HNTB analyzing the traffic report of A & F Engineering. Based on our reading of the letter, it would appear that the only criticism relates to determining what improvements should be the responsibility of Duke. Since all improvements will be constructed in connection with the development, who is responsible for what is not material. ::ODMA~lHODMA~NO1;28207;4 6 ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS May27,1999 Carmel Clay Planning Corn_mission City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, 1N 46032 Attn. Mr. Michael P. Hollibaugh, R.L.A. Re; Traffic Impact Study Technical Review Duke Realty, 96th Street & Meridian Street Carmel, Indiana HNTB Project No. 22891-PL-000-000 Dear Planning Commission Members: HNTB has conducted a general review of the A&F Engineering Company's Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the proposed Duke developments in the area of 96th and Meridian Streets. The analysis methods used in this report to project traffic volumes and distribute them on the existing road system appear to be logical, accurate and consistent with the City of Carmel guidelines and industry accepted methodologies. The findings of the report indicate that, without geometric improvements, the existing system of streets and intersections will not be able to handle projected traffic volumes due to annual growth of the area and the development of near-by, vacant parcels of land. These findings indicate that future improvements are needed in the area regardless if the subject sites are developed. This is an accurate assessment; however, it should not be interpret[d to mean that the subject sites should not be developed. It is our opinion, that the sites can be developed without detrimental traffic impacts only if the road system is adequately improved as development occurs. These improvements will likely include the widening of 96t~ Street and the addition of traffic signals and approach lanes at various intersections. Under the three development scenarios (Existing Zoning Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the Proposed Duke Development Plan), the intersections of 96th Street/Meridian Street, 103rd Street/US 31, 96th Street/Springmill Road, 96th Street/College Avenue will potentially require major improvements in the horizon year if all parcels are fully developed. Because of the above stated findings, it is important to determine what improvements are needed to accommodate the future "base year" condition that considers area growth and non-site development, but no site development. This base year condition can then be used as a barometer to compare side-by-side the additional traffic impacts that will be created by the three separate development scenarios. After comparing the scenarios in this manner, it will be possible to accurately determine what improvements a developer should be responsible for to offset the specific impacts caused by their development. This study and comparison procedure would be in Carmel Clay Planning Commission City of Carmel May 27, 1999 Page 2 direct accordance with the Cannel Applicant Guide for Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development. The A&F report unfortunately does not present its findings exactly in the manner stipulated above. Therefore, it is difficult to determine exactly how the impacts of the proposed Duke development compare to the anticipated impacts of the Existing Zoning Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the report suggests logical geometric improvements to 96th Street and various intersections and uses these improvements in the analysis of all three development scenarios. The findings of the report indicate that even with proposed improvements to 96th Street and the surrounding intersections, some areas will still operate below an acceptable level of service for all furore development scenarios. The report then concludes that the proposed Duke development will not impact the road system to any greater extent than the land uses recommended by either the Existing Zoning Plan or the Comprehensive Plan. Although this conclusion may be tree, it can not be substantiated because of the way the findings were presented. We recommend that consideration be given to requesting that the A&F report be modified to present its findings as stipulated above and in accordance to the Applicant Guide for Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development. To that end, we have enclosed a separate document that outlines the tasks that are needed to conform to the above referenced study and comparison procedure. After it is determined what additional road system improvements are necessary to handle the additional traffic volumes generated by the proposed Duke development, the development access plan should be reevaluated. Currently, it is proposed that Site 2 (Parkwood West) will have three separate access drives between Springmill Road and Meridian Street. Site 3 (Parkwood East) is proposed to have two separate drives. In addition, it is proposed that four additional traffic signals be installed on 96th Street at Springmill Road, Parkwood West west drive, Parkwood West middle drive, and Parkwood East west drive. This relatively high number of commercial drives and traffic signals along a short segment of mad will likely pose traffic progression and vehicle queuing problems on 96th Street. In addition, the A&F report shows that the proposed middle drive at Site 2 (Parkwood Weso will not provide an acceptable level of service at its proposed signalized intersection with 96th Street. As a minimum, all proposed drive entrances should be designed to adequately accommodate expected traffic volumes. A large number of closely spaced commercial drives are more likely to impact the adjacent road system than fewer well spaced entrances. Reducing the number of access drives on 96th Street will benefit the area. Likewise, many drivers in the area use Springmill Road as an altemate route to avoid the congestion on Meridian Street. The report logically recommends that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of 96th Street/Springmill Road. Impacts to traffic movement on 96th Street could be reduced further if Site 2 were reconfigured so that one of the proposed 96th Street access drives is relocated to Springmill Road. In addition, the area can benefit from improvements to Springmill Road that include adding traffic signals and mm lanes at the intersections of 106th and 116th Streets. By improving traffic progression on Springmill Road, a larger percentage of development traffic would be attracted away from the congested areas of 96th and Meridian Streets. Cannel Clay Planning Commission City of Carmel May 27, 1999 Page 3 In conclusion, the A&F Engineering Company's Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the proposed Duke developments in the area of 96th and Mcr/dian Streets appropriately predicts and analyzes future traffic volumes for the study area. However, the manner in which the findings were presented does not provide a means of separating what necessary geometric improvements can be attributed directly to site development and which are merely necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth of the area. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately access what roadway improvements would be the responsibility of Duke Realty. Please feel free to contact either Steve Swango or myself to further discuss these issues. Sincerely, HNTB CORPORATION Paul B. Satterly, P.E. Project Manager PBS/SLS/sls Enclosure cc: Mr. John E. Kupke, P.E., HNTB Corporation Mr. Steven L. Swango, HNTB Corporation Study and Comparison Procedure to Analyze Proposed Developments Duke Realty, Proposed Retail and Office Development 96th Street and Meridian Street Determine what geometric improvements are necessary to accommodate future "Base Year" Conditions for all affected intersections. Develop a new scenario that looks at the Sum of Existing, Year 2009, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes, with Improved Geometric Conditions. This is the same as Scenario 2, except that geometric improvements are added to ensure that an acceptable level of service (LOS D) is reached for each intersection in the study area. The resulting improvements for the Base Year condition represent the improvements that will be required for the area due solely to future growth. These improvements will be necessary even if the subject sites are not developed; therefore, this condition will be used to compare the three development scenarios to determine what impacts and improvement responsibilities can be attributed to the site developer. Determine what additional improvements, if any, will be required to accommodate site development under the Existing Zoning Plan. · The traffic volume and distribution conditions of Scenario 3 remain unchanged. First analyze Scenario 3 with the same geometric improvements that are required for the Base Year. If an acceptable level of service (LOS D) is not met for each intersection, additional improvements are added until each intersection operates at LOS D or better. The additional improvements that are needed in addition to the Base Year improvements can be solely attributed to site development traffic and can be assessed to the developer that builds on the subject sites under the Existing Zoning Plan. Determine what additional improvements, if any, will be required to accommodate site development under the Comprehensive Plan. · The traffic volume and distribution conditions of Scenario 4 remain unchanged. First analyze Scenario 4 with the same geometric improvements that are required for the Base Year. If an acceptable level of service (LOS D) is not met for each intersection, additional improvements are added until each intersection operates at LOS D or better. Prepared by: HNTB CORPORATION May 27, 1999 The additional improvements that are needed in addition to the Base Year improvements can be solely attributed to site development tralTlc and can be assessed to the developer that builds on the subject sites under the Comprehensive Plan. Determine what additional improvements, if any, will be required to accommodate the Proposed Duke Development. · The traffic volume and distribution conditions of Scenario 5 remain unchanged. First analyze Scenario 5 with the same geometric improvements that are required for the Base Year. If an acceptable level of service (LOS D) is not met for each intersection, additional improvements are added until each intersection operates at LOS D or better. The additional improvements that are needed in addition to the Base Year improvements can be solely attributed to site development traffic and can be assessed to Duke if the subject sites are developed as proposed. Compare the required additional improvements that are needed for all three development scenarios (Existing Zoning Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Duke Development Plan). By comparing the additional improvements that would be required to accommodate the Duke Development to those that are required for the other two development conditions, it can be shown what impacts the Proposed Duke Development will have compared to the other development conditions. Prepared by: I-INTB CORPORATION May 27, 1999 Stephen C. Engelking Director City of Carmel DEPT. OF COMMUNITY SERVICES May 27, 1999 To: Carmel Clay Plan Commission From: Mike Hollibau~/'~ Copy: Phil Nicely, Bose McKinney & Evans Steve Fehribach, A & F Engineering Re: Duke Rezone - Traffic Impact Study Technical Review Attached, per your request, is a technical rev/ew report of the Traffic Impact Study, for the proposed rezone at US 31 and 1 465. The review was performed by the en~neering and design firm of HNTB. A representative fi.om HNTB will be present to answer questions about their report at the June 1 Special Study Committee meeting. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDkANA 46032 317/571-2417 May 27, I999 ARCI/_ITECTS ENGINEERS PL,MNNERS Cannel Clay Planning Commission City of Carmel One Civic Square Cmmel, ~ 46032 Aras. lVtr. Michael P. I-[ollibaugh, R.L.A. Traffic Impact Study Techrdcal Review Duke Realty, 96~ Street & Meridian Street Carmel, Indiana HNTB Project No. 2289l-PL-000-000 Dear Planning Comm/ssion Members: HNTB has conducted a general review of the A&F Engineering Company's Traffic Impact Amdysis Rq>ort for tt~ proposed. Dul~ developments in the area of 96{n arid McrJdiall Sm=ets. The analysis methods used m this report to project tra. f:fic volumes and distribute them on the existing mad system appear to be logical, accuxate and consisteat with tho City of Carmel guidelines and industry accepted methodologies. The findings of the report indicate that, without geometric improvements, thc existing system of streets and intersections will not be able to h~nale projected Iraffic volumes due to annual growth of tho ama and the development of n~ar-by, vacant parcel, of land. These fmdin~ indicate that future improvemea~ts are needed in ~he ~rca regardless if the subject sites am developed. This is an ac, curate assessment; howev~, it should not be inte2preted to mean that thc subject sites should not be developerL It is our opinion, that the sims can be d~veloped without detrim~ntsl treble impacts only if the road system is adequately improved as development occurs. These imp, ovemcnts will likely include the v, ddening of 96* Street and the addition of traffic signals and approach lanes at various intersections. Under the three development scem~ios (Existing Zoning Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the Proposed Duke Development Plan), the inmrsections of 96m Street/Meridian Street, 103ra Strut/US 31, 96~ Street/SlxiVg~II Road, 96m Stxec"t/College Avenue will potentially require major improvements in the horizon ye~ if all parcels a~ fully developed. Becan~e of the above stated findingsrit-is~im~f~t3~t to--~_d~o_~_h~_~_~)~_p- Qy_~'~O ft~~-t~-~' %~E'y~+": ~ ~t ~md~ ama ~wm ~d ~d~l~~ii~l~fi~ '~-¢~ year mn~fion c~ ~ be ~ ~ a b~ct~ to ~m~e sid~by-side ~ ~do~ traffic ~p~ts ~t wi~ be creat~ by thc thr~ ~at~ d~elo~mt seems. ~r compmng the sc~os in ~s ma~, it wi~ ~ p~ible ~o ~c~mely demmine what ~provmenzs a develop~ &o~d bo r~pomible for to offiet sp~ific ~pa~s cam~ by ~elr developm~t. Tl~s study and ~mn proc~e would Carmel Clay planmng Com~nissioa City of Carmel May 27, 1999 Pag~ 2 direct accordance with the Carmel Aptdicanl Guide for Trar~portation Impact Studies for Prell'ed De~dopment. The A&,F report unfortunately does not present its findings exactly ~n tho manner stipulated above. Therefore, it is difficult to determ/ne exactly how the impacts of the proposed Duke develolmaent compare to the anticipated ~p~t_s_~oL.the__~ExistSng~Zoning~pl_~an_ Comprebetmve Plan. Cmrenfly, Street and various intersections ~54t-~ '~l/~e improvements in the analysis of E1 three developm~mt scenarios. The findings of the .report indicate that even wP~h proposed h,,:,,ovements to 96t~ Street and the surrounding intersections, some areas will still operate below an ac, e~table level of sm'dee for all fulum d~vdopmeat sc,narios. Tho repoxt then concludes that the proposed Duke development will not impact the road system to any greater eatent than the land uses roeomm.~nded by either the Existing Zoning Plan or the Comprehomive Plan. Although this concJ~i__o_n~m.ay be tree, it _C~.uot he.mxbraantiatedbecause~_f__t__be___w~_.a~y the O~iags were presented./We~r-eco~'~-~'Pa~iderafion gofer --r~, i~'~;~ii~t°--'-i~t~r itsTm Guide for Zrattvzvortation Impact St~die~ for 'Pr~jSO~eit:~o_~2 To that end, we have '-&~l~l-~'~p~-~'~'-cI&~m~f-th-aTb~tlir-/~-th~'ta~k'~-tli~t~a~i~led to corfform to the above referanoed study and comparison procedure. After it is detca~,,ined what additional road system improvements are necessary to hamtlo the additional traffic volumes generated by the proposed Duke development, the dcvcIopment access plan should be reeval~p!¢d. Currently, it is proposed that Site 2 (Park'wood West) will have three separate access drives between Spdngmill Road and Meridian Street. Site 3 (Parkwood EesO is pwposed to have two sop?ate drives. In ~difion, it is proposed that four .s~."fional traffic signals be installed on ~' SU'eot at Spring~l ~o~:~_o~..~W:e~L_w~??(J~j~,_P~o~., _.W~ middl~ ~driv_e,.and Parkw0od_East _w_es_t~dr~y~o;~_Tliis {vel), higll'~umoor;o! eommerclm Yg~2,q~---~-g P~m~l~..Pn-96?-S~,! In addition, tae A&F r~rt shows that the proposed '~e ~'~e ~-§i~ ~arkwood West) will not provido an acceptable level of .service at its proposed slgnatfized intersection with 96~ Street. As a millimum, a!2 proposed drive entrances should be designed to adequately acco, muodot~- expected traffic volum,s. A large nmnber of closely spaced commercial drives are moro likely to impact the adjacent road system than fewer well spaced enlra~ees. Reducing the number of access drives on will benefit the area. Likewise, many drivers in the area use Springmill Road as an alternate mule to avoid the congestion on MaSdian Street. The repo~t lo~cally reco ~mmenda-that signal be insta[l..ed~ at the intersec[i, on 9~96'a $tre_et/Spr{%vn~goad./ ~mpacts to traffie~ ~o~0~in~ehT~¢,~~ S~(-~o-u~d'~¥~.~l further if Site 2 vmr~ r~e°_.m~_~gnr_ed~O-~3t ,~ prop?xt 96~ Strut ace~ ~ves ia relooated to. Springmj_ll~R_~ad In addition, me at the intersections of 106' and 116* Streets. By improving traffic progression on SprmL~nill Road, a la~r p~rc~ntage of d~velopment traffic would be attracted away fi~om the congested areas of 96 and Meridian Streets. -~ 05/2 / 9 TI~~ 10: 8 ~ o! - ~ ~04 Carmel Clay Pl~nnlng Commission City of Carmel May 27, 1999 Pag~ 3 In conclusion, thc A&F Engineering Co.m~..~any's Traffic ~act ~is R~ for ~e ~d ~e d~el~ ~ ~ ~a of ~ ~ M~ S~e~ ~fi~y p~c~ ~d ~ ~ ~c vol~ ~r ~e ~ ~. How~, &e m~r m wMch ~c fmd~ w~ p~s~ do~ ~t ~vide a means of s~ ~t n~ g~c ~vem~ c~ bo a~bu~ ~y m site d~o~ and w~ch ~ ~e~ ~ss~ to ~m~e · e ~c~ ~ of &e ~e~ ~fow, it is not ~ble W ~c~tely ~s what w~ay impmv~m~ wo~d be ~ ~i~W ofD~ ~. Please feel free to coniact either Steve Swango or myself to further discu~ these issues. HNTB CORPORATION Paul B. Satterly, P.~ Project Manager PBS/SLS/sls Enclosure cc: Mr. John E. Kupk~, P.E., I4AN~FB Corporalion Mr. St~ve~ L, Swango, HNTB Corporation $/27/99 T{[1U li{:55 F.,L~[ $17 638 0510 Study and Comparison Procedure to Analyze Proposed Developments Duke Realty, Proposcd Retail and Office Development 96t~ Street and Meridian Street Detem~e what geometric improvemnents are ueeessap~ to acco,,~,odate future '~Base Year" Conditions for ali affected/ntersectious. Develop a new scenario that looks at the Sum of Ex/sting, Year 2009, and Vacant Land Traffic Volum~ with Improved Creometric Cond/tions. Th/s is the same a~ Scenario 2, eXeel~ that geometric hupmvements are added to ensure that an acceptable level of service (LOS D) is reached for ~ intersection in the study ar~a. The resulting improvements for the Base Year condition re, present the impmvem~ts that will be required for the ar~a du~ solely to future growth. These improvements will be necessary even if the subject ~ites are not developad; therefore, this condition vail be ased to compa~ the three development scenarios to determine wlmt impacts and improvemeut responsibilities can be attributed to the site d~veloper. Dot ..... ;ne what additional improvements, if any, will be required to aecoi~,odate site development under the Existing Zoning Plan. The trai]ic volmne and disUlbufion couditious cf Sc~rio 3 remain unchanged. First analyze Scenario 3 with the same geometric improvements that are required for the Base Year. If an acceptable level of service (LOS D) is not met for each intersection, additional improvements are added until each intersection operates at LOS D or better. The additional impiovements that are needed in addition to the Ba~e Year improvements can be soL-ly attributed to site development traffic and can be ~ssessed to the developer ~ builds on the subject sites under the Existing Zoning Plan. Determine what additional improvements, if any, will be required to accommodate site development under the Comprehensive Plan. · The traffic volume and distribution conditions o£Seanario 4 remain unchanged. !~irst analyze Scenario 4 with the same geomeiric improvements that are required for the Base Year. If an acceplabte level of service (LOS D) is net met for each intersection, additional improvements are added until each intersection operates at LOS D or better. Prepared by: HNrl~ CORPORATION May 27, 1999 0,5127/99 TEd 10:.59 FAX {17 6;{3 0~i0 ~N'I'B TP~h'VSPORTAT[0N [~0u6 The ~,la~gonal improvements fi~at ~e needed ~n addition to the Base Year improvemen~ em be solely attributed m site development tra~c and c~n be assessed to the develope~ tl~ beHds on the subject sites under the Comprehensive Pl~r~ Determine what additional iraprovemc~ts, if any, will he required to accommodate the Proposed Duke Development. · The traffic volume and dis~bulioa co~d{tions of Seeuafio $ remain unchanged. First ~n~lyze Scenario 5 with thc same geometric/mprovements tha~ are reqtfired for thc Ba.se Year. If an acceptable ~-vel of service (LOS D) is not met for each inU~,sec~on, ~'{di~/onal /,,,p~ovementa m'e ~ded until each intersection operates at. LOS D or better. T~c additional ' .un~ovements tha~ ~rc neect~ in add/~on ~o the Base Yoar improvements can be solely attributed, to ske developmeut traffic and c~a be assessed to Duke if the subject sites are developed as proposed. Compare the required additional improvements ~hat aro uoeded for all three development scenmios (Existing Zoning Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Duke Development Plan). By comparing the mtdition~[ improvements that would be required to accommodate the Duke Developrae~t to tl~0se that are ~equLre~ for the otter two development conditions, it eau be shown what impacts ~e Proposed Duke Development wiH have compared to the other development conditions. Prepared by: FiN ~ ~ CORPORATION May' 27, 1999 . NOTI CE The Old Meridian Task ForCe has scheduled a design Workshop for tbe morning 0fFrklay, June 4, 1999, from 7:00 a.m. to 10 a.m. The Workshop willbe held in the second floor caucus rooms at Carmel City Hall; and facilitated by our urban design. consultant'Brenda' SCheer ofScheer & Scheer Inc. The'workshop formatwillbe small group and handS: On. Early diagrammatic ideas for land ti.se and urban design will be preSented and discussed. Preferences for land use, architecture and landscape will also be an importantpart, of the discUSsion. For additional informatioll, please call Mike Hollibaugh at 571 2424: City o£ Carmel DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES May 10, 1999 Mr. John Kupke, PE F/NTB 111 Monument Circle Indianapolis, IN 46204 VIA Emall - ~ kupke@hntb, com Re: Request for Professional Services - Traffic Impact Study Technical Review Dear Mr. Kupke: Thank yOU for speaking with me hst Friday about the interest your firm has in preparing a scope of services and cost estimate for a detailed review of the Traffic Impact Analysis report for the Duke Realty's proposed retail and office development currently being reviewed by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. We are requesting that a qualified professional from HNTB perform a technical review of the A & F Engineering Company's Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Duke proposal, as it relates to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission's Guidelines for Tram~rtation Impact Studies. The technical review report should be provided in letter form, with supporting maps, dhgram~ or technical background information, as determined by HNTB to support the review comments. The report should, as much as possible, be written in a non-technical from, giving consideration to the needs of the Plan Commi~ion and general public to understand this subject. Cost and timing of the review is important. We ask that the cost for the technical review be no greater than $3000.00. If this figure is not reasonable, please provide us with a breakdown of time and materials for employees who will be utilized, including their hourly rates. We also ask that your firm's review be completed, and the report finalized and received by us (Carmel Department of Community Services) no hter than the morning of Thursday, May 27, 1999. Please send ns your proposed cost and scope of services for review and approval. Thank you very much for your interest in this project. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, l eno. Cannel/Clay Plan Commission Transportation Impact Study Guidelines BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Philip A. Nicely North Office Direct Dial (317) 574-3701 E-Mail: PNicely@boselaw.com April30,1999 TO: Special Study Committee Members, President Cremeans and Staff Enclosed are our responses to all the questions which we believe were raised at the last Special Study Committee meeting concerning our rezoning petition at 1-465 and Meridian. We are providing this information to you prior to the meeting scheduled for next Wednesday so that you hopefully will have ample time to review and carefully consider our responses to the questions. If you feel that there are additional issues that we need to address at the meeting next Wednesday, please contact me at 574-3701 so that we may be prepared to respond to any additional issues that you deem appropriate to be considered. Very truly yours, Downtown · 2700 First Indiana Plaza · 135 North Pennsylvania Street · Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 · (317) 684-5000 · FAX (317) 684-5173 North Office · 8888 Keystone Crossin§ . Suite 1500 · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 · (317)574-3700 · FAX(317)574-3716 www. boselaw, com MAY-~3-1~ 12:10 FROM CA~L CLAY ~OCD TO g~217~ P. 0~ DOCKET NO. 14-99-Z !.465 & MERIDIAN SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS The following are what we believe to be all of the questions raised or asl<e~l' by mombers of the Committee and for which the Commiflee wanted an answer. In addition to discussing the answers to each question, we have =hosen to provide the Committee with a written respontm to each of these questions recognizing that many petilioners would not want to do that. However, our goal is to move fotwarcl with a development that we feel is appropriate anci that unquestionably will be a class development. We are not attempting to hide anything from the Committee, the Plan Commission or the neighbors. We have d~vided the questions into three cetegodes: (A) Procedure; (B) Development, and (C) Traffic. A. PROCEDURE: Why i~n't this ca~e flied as a PUD? We discussed filing this case as a PUD and while a PUD would be an appropriate method with whioh to proceed, we elected not to do that fora number of reasons. First, the PUD Ordinance in Carmel is in its infancy stages and the PUDs that have been filed to date have not met with overwhelming recapfion. ,Seoond, w~ believe that the development that Duke has done on the east side of U.S. 31, which was accomplished under the B~ zoning classification, has proven to be a first ciasa development and is subatentialiy like the plans that ware filed at the time of tl-~ rezoning of the propen'y and the approval of the preliminary development plan. Third, the adjacent neighborhood cen obtain the same level of certainty in this developrnentthat a PUD would pmvtde by proceeding in the same manner as DRLP did at Parkwood, i.e., through commitments and through the development plan approval process whereby the Commission approves the dovelopment plan; any amendments to the development plan, and also approves architoctuml, design, landscaping, lighting and signage before a building is constructed, ~Y-03-1~ 1~: 1 ! ~ CAIk~MEL CL~W IX~CD ~2~708 P. 0~ DEVELOPMENT: (1) Will there be a driveway located on Spdngmlll Road south of 1-4657 No, there will be no access from the development directly'to Springmill Road, (2) What is the total square footege that will exist on the property south of !.460 once the configure#on for the modified 1-465/U.$. 31 interchange is determined?. Them are no definite plans for a change in the 1-465AJ;$. 31 interohange. Letters from the Indiana State Highway Commission indicate [hat no proposed plan is in existence and the Ilighway Department is not interested at this time in acquiring any property. As a consequenco, we would assume that the square footage after any modir~atlon to the interchange occurs would be the same square footage as is approved wilfl this re,zoning. Our amended proposal is to construct no more than TSO,000 square feet of office on the south side of 1-468, plus a hotel and a couple of restaurants. On the southeast c~me~ our proposal is to construct approximately 105,000 square feet of retail. (3) What square tootage is proposed? When the traffic study was done, the traffic engineer based his study on the following square footages being developed: (A) 950,000 square feet of office on the southwest quadrant, plus a hotel and two free-standing restaurants. (B) 110,000 equate feet of retail on the ~outheast quadrant. (C) 375,000 square feet of office on the northwest quadrant. The square footage which was pmpceed before ~ Plan Commission in the inttial presentation was: (A) 850,000 square feet of office on the southwest quadrant, plus a hotel and two r~taulants. (B) 105,000 square f~et of retail on the southeast quadrant~ (C) 375,000 square feet of office on the northwest quadrant. MAY-03-1~c~9 12:11 FROM CARMEL CLAY DOCD 9~217~ P. 0~ (~) Our proposal now, and for which we would be willing t° execute a commitment, is as follows: (A) 7G0,000 square feet of office on the southwest quadrant, Plus a hotel and two restaurants. (B) 105,000 square feet of retail on the southeast quadranL (C) 425,000 square feet of office on the northwest quadrant. Whet i~ the hood for this emount of square footage and why is moving square footage to the northwest quadrant not reasonable? The primary mason for the square footage is economic. The value of the ground is such that this amount of square footage is necessary to make the developmentwork. However, in edditiontothe eoonomio aspects, it is also to be noted the amount ofthe square footage and the location of the square footage is dictated by a number of other reasons. First, till= ground sits at 1-405 and Meridian, whi=h is unquestionably the best property for office development in the metropolitan Indianapolis area. No more interchan.qe pro~erty for class A office buildings exists. This is it. All other sites are secondary sites. Second, the southwest quadrant is easily auue~sible from the interstate and, in our opinion, has much better access than the northwest quadrant, which has a single access point through the south end of the Meridian at 1-465 development Third, the soutrwvest quadrant is more rectangular In shape than the northeast quadrant and works well for development purposes. The site at the northwest quadrant is oddly ~onfigured and presents a challenge for development, especially for development with multiple buildings. Despite those factors, alter the last Committee meeting, we examined in detail the possibility of moving additional square footage from the southwest quadrant to the northwest quadrant as was suggested by same Committee members. WRh certain redesigns, we were able 1~ accomplish thatteskand as a ¢onsoquence have reduced the square footage in the southwest quadrant by 100,000 square feet and have, -3- M~¥-*~J-l~99 12:12 FROI~ C.~MEL CLAY DOCD 99~21~88 P. (~5 with a new design for the northwest quadrant, moved 50,000 square feet to the northwest quadrant. Compare #~e density of Parkwood Cast with fhe propOsod development. The following is a table which compares the density on a per acre basis of the existing Parkwood office development with the proposed development. PmteNOOd East {between College and Pennsylvania) Park'wood West parcel 'A' Pamel 'B' Parcel 'C' Total 1,06O,000 68 (a) Ol~ee - 425.000 (a) Omce- 76O.0OO (b) Hotel & Restaurants - 120.000 (~) To~. 670,000 (a) Reia~ - 105,000 Square Feet - 1,400,000 18,100 19.4 21,900 36.4 23,900 10.4 10,100 66.3 21,100 (6) Qua//ty of butTdings versus Palfevood East. The builcling$ to be COIlStructed at Park'wood West will be equivalent to or better than the Parkwood East buildings. I'~qY--(],_'~-l~ 12:12 fRO~l CA~I'IEL CLAY (7) Compare the berm and green area on Parkwood West to what exists at Parkwood East. The distance from the original oent~rline (section line) of I)6~ Street to the parking lot for Parkwood East is approximately 102 feet. in that area, we have constructed a sidewalk and a 5-6 feet undulating mound. As we have proposed the development at Parkwcod West, we have approximately 102 feet from the existing center line (section line) ur 9ffh 8tract to the parking lot (same as Park'wood East) within which we would propose to construct a sidewalk and a 5-6 foot undulating mound (same as Parkwood East) on which would be planted evergreen trees in the same manner as with Parkwood East, except that such trees would be 8' to 10' initially as opposed to 6' to (8) What will be the timing of the construction of the berm? (g) Construction of the berm wfl commence contemporaneously with the initial site (ievelopment for the southwest quadrant and will be flnistled contemporaneously with or prior to the completion of fha first building. Compare the building setback relating to the proposed devdopment to that of Parkwood (and why). We will commit that the buildings in the proposed development will be set back a minimum of 220 feet from the now existing right, of-way of 96"' Street. (Not applicable to the east 600 feet of the Real Estate). The Parkwood East commitments require that no office building may be constructed within 280 feet of the then (1989) existing right-of*way of g6m Street. Thus, the ofrme buildings in the proposed development ~ould potontiali¥ sit 60 feet farther south than the Parkwood East office buildings are permitted to be located. We believe this flexibility is nacassary for several masons. First. the proposed site has las~ depth than the Parkwood East site and has a different ;on~uration which neoemsitates e Iocetion of the buildings slightly closer to 96"' Street. Second, being cognizant that the Indiana Department of Transportation is studying a propor, ed interuhange improvement for the 1.465 intemhange (in approximately the year 2018) and that the INDOT staff engineers are optimistic that there is a solution that will allow both the interohange end our Iq~Y-O3-1E)99 12:13 FF~IFI CAF~EL CU:IY DOCD TO ~9721708 P. 07 proposed development to succeed, we feel it is prudent tO provide some additional flexibility by locating the buildings slightly further to the south. Third, we are able to commit that the tree height at the time of planting fur the trees to be located on the berm will be two (2) feet higher (8-10 feet) than the Parkwood East tree height (6-8 feet) commitment. (10) tMII the parking areas be landacaped like St. Vincent's Ho~oitai? Rather than say the parking lot will be landscaped like St. Vincant's Hospital (which we really don't know what that is other than to ddve by and look at it}, we would say' that the parking areas will be landscaped in a manner similar to Parkwood East. (11 ) Specify sidewalk locations end provision of curb and guEer. (12) Attached as Exhibit A is a drawing which shows where we would anticipate along 96e Street that the (i) fight-of-way would be; (1t) the curb and guffer would be: {ill) t,e landscaping would be; (Iv) the sidewalkwould be; and (v) the undulating 5-6 foot mound wouldbe. (Soo also Item C,3). Address the Signature Building issue relating to the northwest quadrant. We believe that the buildings to be ~n~tflJCtmd on the nodhwe~t quadrant will be signature buildings unless height is a person's only criteria for a signature building. If height is the only criteria for a signature building, these buildings may not qualify, however, In terms of design and other oriterla for signature buildings, the buildings will be ~ig.ature buildings. A couple of problems exist with construcling s building of greater height (from 10to 15 stories). First, such a building would bring too much speculative spa~e to the market (300,000 to 400.000 square feet) at one tin~. Hist~riGally, the north ~uburben market absorbs 400,000 square feet per year with approximately 100,000 to 125,000 sq.are feet of the absorption coming along the U.S. 31 corridor. Thus, it would lake 3-4 years to lease a 10 to 15 story building which would be in the neighborhood of 300,000 to 400,000 Scluare feet. The Interest carry on such a buildi.~l I.u acx;omplish that task literally kills MAY--03-1~g9 12: 1~ f~OM C~qRMEL CLAY IX)CD T'~~ 99721788 P. 08 the economics of such a building. Second, buildings which are greater in height than eight flonm cost more to construct proportionately due to structural and safety issues that must be acldressed. (1.3) Why have retail on the southeast quadrant? There are a number of reasons why retail is appropriate on the southeast quadrant. First, tirade is demand for high quality retail on the southeast comer, both by office tenants as well as by the general public. The Meridian business corridor from 86~ Street to 131't Street is amenity deprived relative to the current (approximately 3.5 million square feet) and proposed (approximately 2.0 million square feet) of office space. There Is nearly a 1Z,O00 person duy~ime workfome population along this corridor. This amount of daytime population requires retail shopping, servir, e, and restaurant amenities. The southeast quadrant isthe logical 'bull's-eye' location to pesitionthees types of amenities for the corridor and Duke's retail project ~11 eliminate the need to have several new amenity 'nodes" dlspereed along the Meridian corridor, which is a situation that the City of Carmel has determined to try to avoid per the Corridor Ove. rlay Ordinance. Second, high-quality 'Fortune 500" type office users seek locations which are driven by a mixed use equation. Duke's proposal satisfies this requirement by offering a retail, restaurant and hotel component. Duke's tenants will not be the only beneficiaries; competing office projects and surrounding residential neighborhoods will have convenient and easy access to this array of amenities. Third, from a zoning viewpoint, there is retail to the south, an interstate to the north, office development to the easL and a divided highway to the west. Thus, from a pure zoning or land use viewpoint, retail is a logical use of the southeast quadrant. Fourth, Duke is committed to positioning a number of unique and higher end retuil/rastaurant concepts in the proje~. The beat example ofthis isWhole Foods Market's oommib~ent to our site. Whole Foods is the nation's largest chain of natural and o;anio food supermarkets with 85 stores in t8 states. 1998 sales were above $1.1 billion. Whole Foods was ranked by Fortune Magazine as the 34"' best companyto work for in America last yeu~. Corporately, Whole Fonds -7- MAY-~-1999 12:14 FR~ CRRIq~L. CLAY DOCD 997217~]8 P. 09 (14) (15) paid over $36 million in taxes in 1997. In 1998, Whole Foods contributed to over 100 charitable organizations. Fifth, at only 105,000 ~quam feet, the proposed retail project is ~mall in scale and will likely only have from 12 to 18 tenants. The propo~M retail development will generate less traffic in the A.M. end P.M. peak hours than what would be generated by off=es that could be developed on the southeast quadrant under the current B-5 zoning. What i~ the height of a# proposed buildings? (Does the Comp Plan only allow 4 sro#es on the Southwest Quadrant?) The height of the buildings will be as follows: Building Type Top of Roof Top of Pallth°use 3-Stary 45 Feet 57 Feet 4-Story 57 Feet 69 Feel S-Story ?0 Feet 82 Feet 6-Stor~ 83 Feet 95 Feet 7-Story 96 Feet 108 Feet The 1997' Amendment to the 1996 Carmel/Clay Township Comprehensive Plan for the U.S. Highway 31 Corridor recommends that buildings on the west haft of the northwest quadrant be limited to heights of 2-4 stories to pmteot the views of the existing signature office building (MacMillan). There is no prohibition recommended in the 1997 Amendment as to the height of the buildings on the southwest quadrant. In fact, the 1997 Amendment recommends an Overlay District Boundary Expansion which would increase the permitted height from 100 feet to 120 feet. Delineate exactly where the power lines are located and contact Power & Light to determine rclocntion and budal poaeibilitiee. Electrical power lines are pole mounted along the current north right- of-way line of 96"' Street. We have talked to IPL at the engi~,c=,'ing level and have been told that IPL will not bury the lines. We do not, huwever, intend to take that answer as final and intend to pursue the matter further to see if we can cause the lines to be buried, If the lines are not budod, it will not be because of any reluctance on our part to do it. -8- MAY-O~-iSS~ 12:14 F~OM CARMEL CLAY DOCD S~21~0B P. 10 (16) Drainage - how does it go end where as to the Southwest Quadrant?. The ~urrent drainage for the southwest quadrant Is not well-defined. There are several ama,, withtn the site that do not drain at all. A podion of the southwest quadrant drains to the g6~ Street right, of- way. The majority of the northem portion of the southwest quadrant drains to the 1-465 fight-of-way. A major portion of the southwest part of the site drains southwest and across to the south side of g6~ Street Our proposal would be to take ail of the drainage on this site and pipe it to the retention pond pmpesed for a Iow ama of the site at the northwest comer of the site and then control the discharge to the 1- 465 fight-of-way Whi(~h is the best defined drainage way to W~lllarns Creek. This would tend tu redu~-e I~uudiHy problems on and along 96~ Street. Putting a retention pond at the southwest ama would not be prudent. First. site retentJoll needs to outlet to 1-465. not to Street. Second, a retention pond at the southwest comer of the southwest quadrant would offer no aesthati~ buffer because it would be hiaden from adjacent property to the sou~ ar~l west by the 6 foot mound and lands<aping buffer that will be installed. MAY-O~-lgg9 1~.' 1M ~RO~ CP~EL CLAY DOCD 997~17~8 P. 11 (2) (3) TRAFFIC What is the impact on the intersection of 96' Street and Springmill Road if I. he ttaft~ a~lgnment was modified to o=count for · greater dispersion of traffic and thus a greeter amount of ~rafflc at the intersection of 96~ and Spfingmill Road? To answer this question, A & F Engineering conducted additional traffic counts ut the eastern dflve ~f the existing Parkwood. Basc:d on those counts, approximately 16% of lhe existing Parkwood traffic goes to the g6a and College intemection. Traffic counts were also done for Springmill Road and College Avenue which show that the existing traffic volume on Springmill Road is about 60% of the existing traffic volume on College Arena. Based on those figures, it ;uuld be anflr.,Ipated that no more than t6%, but most likely less than 16%, of the traffic from the development would travel tolfle 96"' and Springmill intersection (probably no more than 10%). As a consequence, A & F has revised its report to allocate 10% of the site traffic from the development to travel to the 96~' and Sprlngmill intersection. This is an increase over the original alk~ation ur 0%. In addition, A & F has done a calculation of the level of service at g6~ and Springmill Road if 20% (a much higher amnLint than is anticipated) was assumed to travel to SpringmJll Road. These calculations show that the intersection of Springmill Road and 96~' Skeet will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service even if 20% of the traffic goes to the 9~ and Springmlll Intersection. What is the exis~ng and future traffic volume at eer. h .~te drfve in the proposed development and those in the existing Parkwood? A & F Engineering has prepared diagrams Which indicate the existing and future traffic volumes at the various intersections. Those diagrams are attached hereto as Figurea 1 and 2, Whet is the proposed design of 98~ Street through this area (including turn lanes, medians, traffic signals, e~c.) Attached as Exhibit A is a drawing which dotail~ the number of lanes on g6a Street as well as the geometrics of the intersections. . 1'1~Y--~3-19c9<3 1~': 15 F~]I'I CARf'I~L Cl,JqY DOCI) 99'7';~1"?~ P. 12 What would be required at the intersection of ge* Street end Meridian to allow that in,reaction to opera~ at level of sewice D during the P.M. peak hour after the proposed development plan and other development in the area occurs? Attached as Exhibit B is a table which summarizes the existing intersection geometrics, the geometrics required for the intersection to operate at level of servk:e D and the proposed geometrics outlined in Item (3) above. (5) How w~71 the proposed road improvements be funded? The road improvements will be funded through a partnership between the developer and the C~ of Carmel. (6) Will tfght, of. way be dedicated and how much? (7) Right-of-way will be dedicated by the developer to allow the construction of 96~' Street as outlined in Item (3) above. That dedication of right-of-way will be approximately ~Z feet from the centeMine of the w,xi~ting 96"' Gtreet. Thle is 20 feet more than was dedicated for Parkwood East Whet happens to the 30 foot wide berm if 96~ Street is expanded to greater than 4 lanes; what is the precise location of the mound? The berm begins at approximately 62 feet from the centerline of96~' Street, howcvcr, the proposed roadway is approximately 30 feet from the berm. In that area is a sidewalk and green area. In the unlikely event that the g6~ Street roadway would be expanded to more than four Janes, such expansion could occur without affecting the berm. What doe~ the ~ete say rolab'ng to the improvements regarding 1-465 and U.S. 31. Attached as Exhibit C is all the correspondence that we have had with the Indiana Depadment of Transportation regarding the intersection of U.S. 31 and Mmidian. (9) is there bus service to the site? Yes, Route 18-Nora serves the Iritemection of 96m end Meridian and RoUte 28-St. Vincent ~rves the interseotion of 9(~~ end 8pringmill. Duke will -11- ~q~cly-(~'j-l~cJ~ 1~': ).~ FROH CF~RHEL CL~Y DOCI) TO 99'7;)1'708 P. ).l] continue to work with the IndyGo Public Transportation System to maintain bus service to the development, as Duke has done with their Keystone at the Crossing and Park 100 developments. Check if 100,000 square feet of office equates to the existing traffic on 96e Street end compare the capacity of exis#ng 9E" Street to that of the proposed 96~ Street. An existing traffic count for 96m ~'treot shows that a total of {),650 vehicles travel 96~' Street from Springmill to Meddian over a 24-hour period on e typical weekday. Trip generation for a 100,000 square foot office building equates to 1,451 generated trips over a 24-hour period on a typical weekday. Thus, the generated traffic from 100,000 square feet of office would increase the uxiatirlg tramo by approximately 13%. The =urrent level of oerviae for 06u~ Street is 'E'. VVith the improvements to be made in cenjunction with the proposed development, the future level of service will be 'B'. Attached as Exhibit D is a chart prepared by A & F Engineering depicting the level of service for 96m Street. (11 ) Look at traffic under current zoning without any mad improvements. There are approximately 10 acres on the southeast quadrant, approximately 8 acres on the southwest quadrant and approximately 6 acres on the northwest quadrant that are currently zoned to BS, all of which are luoated within the overlay zone. Based on the floor area ratio that is permitted, it would be possible to oonstnlct 849,600 square feel ofolfice buildings on that area that is currently zoned. In addition, if the proposed amendments to the overlay zone are passed, the potential square footage for just those areas would be 1,000,000 square feet. If development occurrecl on the Sites without any road improvements to the intersection of Meridian and 98m Street, whioh presumably could o~.,ur, the tralf~: would be sub.etanttally less acceptable. Attached as Exhibit E is a table whioh A & F has prepared which indicates Ihs level of service under the existing zoning without the contemplated road improvements and the level of service with the eddittonal develdpment in existence and the proposed improvements. (12) Will 96~ and Meridian Street ever suffer 'gridlook". Never is a long period of time and therefore we think that the question should be limited to the foreseeable futura, i.e., 20 to 30 years. The answer to that question is 'NO". The reason for that answer is that tho recent , MAY-8~-IDD9 13:16 FRC~'I CARMEL CLAY DOCD TO g~217~8 P. 14 (13) (14) (15) improvements to the Meddian and 1-465 interchange have provided for a much better flow of traffic making "gridleck" highly unlikely. Can the retail ac=eee line up with ~he Kroger aeee~e end have e baffle signal? There is not a sufficient distance between the intersection of 96m and Mertdlan and the Kroger drive to allow a signal'to be installed. Ther~om, the a~ess to the retail portion should not be aligned with the Kroger drive. What is the V/C (VolumeoverCapacib/) of Sp#ngmillRoad (a)cuman~, (b) fully developed under existing zoning; and (c) fully developed under proposed zoning. Attached as Exhibit F is a table which summarizes the estimated VIC for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours for Springmill Road under each scenario. Whet is ~he possibSity of establishing a prngmm to reward cars with mult~e passengers? Although to our knowledge no such program has ever been instituted, we would agree to study the situation and determine if a program could be implemented that would be feas~le whereby tenants that have multiple passengers tn the car COUld be rewarded. We cannot advise the Commission that any such program would be established but we ~an assure the Commission that we would look into the establishment of such a program with an eye toward reducing the total volume of traffic. TOTAL P. 14 I I- A SITE I 96th STREET AND MERIDIAN STREET · DUKE REALTY B SITE E llXlrd ST. D FIGURE 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 01999, A~cF Eng;ne~ring CO.. ~rd ST. I A ~ITE I B SITE D I. LE(~END I (00) ~ P.M. ~ ~ g6th STREET AND MERIDIAN STREET DUKE REALTY FIQURE 2 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME~ ~1999, A~F £ng;neer;ng Ch...?.nC. ~ B CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS STEPHEN GOLDSMITH MAYOF~ Apdl 19, 1999 Mr. Richard Sharp, Chairman Carmel-Clay Plan Commission, Special Study Committee City of Carmel Dept. of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, ~ 46032 Dear Mr. Sharp: Thank you for allowing me the.opportunity to address the Special Study Committee of the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission last week. First, I wish to acknowledge the foffiuight-and professional manner in which Steve Engleking and his staff have addressed members of the community and City of Indianapolis staff.. We certainly appreciate it. Also, the Duke Realty representatives should be commended for their willingness to discuss the many issues openly. I am writing to follow-up on a few of the issues discussed at the Special Study Co~iittee meeting. A~fin, I fully intend to respect the wishes of the Commission by relaying to you only new information. Traffic remains our greatest concern - Spring iWll Road, 96~ Street, and US 31 will likely be overtaxed by future traffc. (A 38% to 41% increase in peak-hour traffic is predicted to occur, based on the Traffic Impact Study submitted by the petitioner) After buildout of Parlcwood East, Duke Realty's proposed new Parkwood West (the subject properties), and other vacant sites in the area, the overall vehicle countsforthe US 31 / 96* Street intersection will increase from a current volume of 58,000 vpd-to over 100,000 vpd. Consequently, the intersection will likely become the most heavily trafficked in the metropolitan area with a LOS of "F". The proposed development for the southwest quadrant remains, quite simply, too dense. In fact, as a member of the public attending the Committee meeting pointed out, the office park density has actually increased slightly (850,000 s.f. now inst_~a of 820,000 s.f.) compared with the site plans presented to the full Commission last 'month. The best means of reducing traffic volumes in the immediate area is to reduce the project density. DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING 1841 CITY COUNTY BUILDING · 200 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA 46204 PHONE: (317)327-5151 · FAX: (317)327-$103 h~tp://www.lndyGov.org Letter to Mr. Richa~RSharp 04/20/99, page 2 The developer is correct when suggesting that this project is "no Keystone at the Crossing". However, I agree with his statement only because the proposed project is actually more intense. The proposed office park at the southwest quadrant site will average 26,000 s.f. / acre (minimum) compared with an average of 23,600 s.f. / acre for the office park component oi'Keystone at the Crossing (excluding Raddison Hotel, Fashion Mall, and restaurants). It should also be noted tttat the Keystone aCthe Crossing office park benefits from superior roadway access compared with the proposed Parkwood West site. Also, the Keystone at the Crossing project was developed on a site which is entirely surrounded by non-residential land uses. By comparison, Duke Realty's southwest quadrant site borders residential property on both its westea*n and southern borders. Retail traffic access using the existing Parkwood Crossing entrance remains an issue because the entrance aligns with Pennsylvania Avenue, a local residential street. Please continue to encourage the developer to work with representatives from the Hamilton County Highway Dept., Indianapolis DCAM, Indiana DOT and the owners of the existh~g Kroger shopping center across the street to work out an arrangement whereby shared entrance drives might meet at a four-way intersection located~alrther away from the residential land uses, and us'mg a traffic signal. Other than the elimination of an entrance at Spring ~ Rd. north of96~ Street, the revised plan-~ from the developer still do not show any creative approaches to traffic management at the intersection of 96m Street and Spring ~ Road, which is clearly the most sensitive intersection affected by the project. What is to prevent "overflow" tral]fic from using Spring Mill Rd. instead of US 317 The key to keeping unnecessary traffic off of Spring Mill Road will be to make US 31 intersection work ~y (LOS of'~D'' or better). I was especially interested in the discussion that ensued between you and the developer's attorney regarding the proposed right-of-way and roadway con/ltsu/ation anticipated for the frontage of the southwest quadrant property. This issue had also been identified at a meeting between the neighborhood representatives and the developer several days earlier. It would be helpful if the developer could produce for the Study Committee a set of plans indicating dearly the extent of future roadway rights-of-way and greenspace buffering (mounding and landscaping) relative to the current rights-of-way along West 96a Street. The developer appears to have accommodated most of the setback, landscaping, mounding, and buffering needs; however, as currently proposed, the drainage retention pond location for the southwest quadrant site offers no buffering utility to the surrounding area. The developer argues that drainage retention can only be accomplished at the northwest comer of the 35 acre site because drainage ~m~rally /lows toward that location. Contour maps on file show that the site is relatively flat with gradual slope from east to west, and with the lowest areas along the site's southwestern perimeter (see attached). Consequently, drainage retention along West Letter to Mr. Richard Shaxp 04/20/99, page 3 96th Street is not only possible, but it should be feasible. I strongly encourage the developer to study the possibility of locating drainage retention facilities along 96~' Street and Spring Mill Road as additional buffer, similar to what was successfully accomplished at Parlcwood East. Another excellent example of how detention ponds can help provide buffering is the successful treatment offered adjoining single-family residences along East 116t~ Street, between College Av. And U.S. 31. Again, thank you for listening and demonstrating a community-wide interest in the long- term effects this proposed development would generate. Please feel flee to call me ifyou have any questions. Yours truly, Thomas M. Bartlett, AICP Administrator, DMD Division of Planning Gene Lausch, Director, Indianapolis DMD Mike Graham, Washington Township Administrator, DMD Steve Cunningham, Senior Planner, DMD Division of Planning Steve Engleking, Director, Cannel Dept. of Community Development FAX (317) 263-9411 LAW OFFICES GREGORY K. SILVER iNDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-2161 TELEPHONE (317) 263-9417 (317) 263-9418 April 22, 1999 Mr. R±chard Sharp Carmel-Clay Planning Commission Special Study Co~m.ittee City of Carmel Department of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, ~n 46032 Re: 96th & Meridian St. Duke Proposal Dear ~r. Sharp; On behalf of my undisclosed clients, I want to repeat the danger of relying on the Duke traffic engineer studies on the level of service and numbers on the above proposals. With all due respect, A & F Engineers are paid to tell you what Duke wants you to know and will continue to do so. On the other hand,the numbers and issues and report of Steve Cunningham and Tom Bartlett of the city of Ind- ~anapolis must be looked at as more reliable and more credibt~. This case ~s the most important case to the future of our counties you will ever see. The north entrance to Indianapolis and the south entrance to Carmel on the main highway is used by thousands of Hoosiers of both counties and visitors. There is ample retail uses on both sides of the county lines now and forever. When Parkwood E was done, and I represented the co-owners of that land, promises were made by Mr. Nicely that there would be no retail use of the Parkwood E. The area relied On his word. Parkwood E. is not built out yet. The traffic from it will only increase. No more retail is necessarv on that eastern side and its impact on the traffic ~s going to be increasing. Shell Oil is surely not going to allow any medians that block its entrance either. As to Parkwood W., the way we have looked at this level F intersection is backwards in my opinion based on 25 years of zoning. What you and we should be doing is allow 4 lanes from Springmill to Meridian St. and level D as judged in 2010. Then figure out what Duke can do with density under that requirement. Your zoning is a guideline for use but by saying too much density to Duke as now proposed, they wall be forced to renegotiate with Valinet, reduce the land price and thereby reduce the density. My clients are concerned that the Comp Plan on traffic be strenuously enfold in this case by your body and not create a public nuisance for the citizens of this community. ~ p~inted on recycled paper Page 2 Richard Sharp I hope you will use the power you have,to force a comDromise. On this Earth Day, I say to you that all will be lost in the quality of life you and I want and have UNLESS you do so. Sincerely, GKS:rem cc: Hon~ James Brainard, Mayor Hon, Stephen Goldsmith, Mayor Speaking for- .Trbffula By Theodor Seuss C,-eisel Theodor ~eu~s Geisel (~lac~, Dr. ,~uss) wrote and illustrated more than 50 childtt, n's books in his l~etirne (190(-1~91), including The Lotax, which wa~ published in 1971. In this destruction, tlu~ Lora~ (below) trie~ to save the 2},.~la forest and i~s inhabitants from the Once4er, a cantankeous eaploit~.. The Lorax said notl~ng. Just gave me a glance ... just gave me a very sad, sad bac~vmd glance ... as he lifted himself by the seat of his pants. And I'll never forget ~ grim look on his face when he heisted hirnsoff and took I~ of 1~ place through a hole in the smog, without leaving a trace. And all that the Lorax left here in this mess waa a small pile of rocta, with the one ~rd ... 'UNLESS: Whatever iWat meant, well, I lust couldn't guess. That was long, long ago. But each day since that day I've sat here and wonied &qd worried away. Through 1he years, while my buildings t~e,wotd of the Lorax seems perfecdy clear. UNLESS ~ tike you Memo From= Dick Hill CC= M. Kate Boyle-Weese, Craig Pad<s ~ 04/13/99 Re= April 13, 1999 Plan Commission We offer the following comments for projects, within our judsdiction, that are on the Ap~l 13t~ Plan Commission agenda: SUBDIVISION COMMil i~:E 1. Overture, Section 1 All outstanding issues have been resolved. The annexation of this parcel is in progress. 3. Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section t We have two outstanding issues with this project. a) This Department requested bollards (or some other type of protection) be installed where the lakes are adjacent to dedicated streets. The issue is one of safety and liability. We have mquasted this previously in other developments. Bmnwick Development agreed to install bellards for a similar s'Auetion in their Prairie View development and C.P. Morgan has installed trees as protection along 3rd Avenue S.W. for their Parkslde Village development. Zaring Homes has resisted due to aesthetics. They feel the lakes are the highlight of their development and the bollands would not be a positive step towards this objective. The City maintains we will require bellards, tmas, or some other protection between the curbs and the banks of the lakes. Or, as an altemate choice, the Developer can indemnify the City from all damages, injuries or claims resulting from vehicles veering offthe reads within the lake areas. b) There is an extended section of storm sewer pipe that was designed to remain under water. The issue is access to the pipe should reaintenance he required. In addition, submerged pipe is subject to additional streas and maintenance issues that normal pipe installations would not encounter. We are concemed the City will be subjected to higher than nomnal, long-term maintenance costs resulting from the submerged conditions. The City Engineer has discussed this situation with the Developer and Engineer and has been promised by the Developer that he would agree to longer than normal maintenance bonds. In addition,/f/t becomes er/dent that the storm sewers, having to flow under pressure conditions, are not funoffon/nu J~'oe~fv. the Developer will be msponslbie to (1) redly the submerged pipe has no blockage (this may require Iow~ering the water level of the detention pond); and (2) if there is no blockage, the Developer may have to m-dasign and reinstall the last submerged section of storm sewer. Certain lengths of pips are also designed at extremely fiat slopes. This ofitce has asked that the slopes he increased, but the Engineer has indicated this is not desirable. The Department of Engineering has notified the Engineer and · Page 1 Developer that we will require these segments to be laid at the design slopes, or heifer. We w accel~ as-bum plans with aitemd slopes, which may reduce the flow capacity of the pipes. 4. Fairgreen Trace This Department does not have major issue with this development. We have requested the on detention pond be lined to prevent fluctuations in water levels and to protect water tables. We ~ request sub surface and yard drains be installed on the West Side of the development the same indicated on the East Side. We request drainage calculations be submitted for this project. We reser further comments until detailed censtmction plans am submiltad. SPECIAL STUDY COMl~!l ! ,-E 4. Duke Realty Investments We reserve further comments on this project until detailed construction plans have been received. S:'~IEMOS99~413699PLAN · Page 2 Monroe, Mark T From: Sent: To: Subject: Steven Cash [stc~co.hamilton.in.us] Tuesday, Apd113, 1999 5:27 PM mmonroe~ci.carmel.in.us Carmel Plan Comm. Update Mark, Here is a status report for the projects that you noted for tonight's Plan Commission meeting. I hope that it is helpful. Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee 1. The Overture, Sec. 1 Status: The regulated drain through this site has been abandoned. Since annexation of this site becomes effectiv( 1/1/00 we have recommended that the storm sewers be approved by the Carmel Engineers office. I believe that our offices are in agreement about this, but the agreement needs to be finalized. I recommended in my letter that the petitioner should facilitate this. 2. Camden Walk, Sec. 1 Status: I faxed out a letter this afternoon. Many of the comments may have already been addressed. Although important and must be adhered to, the construction plan comments are not what I would consider "major." 3. Lakes at Hazel Dell, Sec. 1 Status: Per my previous letter, the regulated drain through this site was abandoned as a result of the construction of Hazeldell Blvd. We have no further requirements, 4. Fairgreen Trace (Primary Plat) Status: Dave Sexton has addressed my main concern for this primary plat. secondary plat stage. Further comments will be made at the Special Study Committee 4. Duke Rezone (96th & US31 and surrounding area) Status: The petitioners will have several important drainage issues to address as each area is designed. I believe that these issues can be adequately engineered and constructed. This office has no comment with respect to the rezone of these parcels at this time, Further comments will be made when construction plans are generated. HAMILTON COUNTY $17-775-140~ Far: $~7-776-11#1 ~.$ D~ision...S. treet· Suite 103 - NoblesviILe ,"-IN . 46060-'~744 Apr£1 13, 1999 To: Mark Morz~oe Fro~: John ~. South P.E. Re: Carmel/Clay Pla/% Com~lsston Subcommittee Meetings Overture Sec.1 - I am not satls~ied with the temporar~ erosion control for the south-west corner o~ the site. Other concerns have been matlsfied. camden Walk Sec.1 - T~ne slx commencB £rom my las~ letter, discussed at TAC, have not ~een resolved. Protecting the existing wettande a~l~cOvidin~ a.better erosion control plan are the two main issues. Lakes at Hazel Dell Bec. Z - T~e fifteen item on my last C(~maen~ letter have not .been addressed. Most of the comments should be easy to change on tbs construction plans. The m~intenanoe o£ the retaining wall needs to be incorporated into the covenants and included in the gCg~o~ area. FairgreenTrace Pr/mar~- Comments sd~reesed. Duke Rezone a~ U$31 an~ I465 - The drainage outlet is bontrolled By the State Highway De~arUment. williams Creek will he i~auted by the aZtered hydrolo~, but consistent with c~rent or~inence and design practlce~. ~ONSI~I~¥ATiC)f( ~ D].,VEL,OF'MIENT ~ SIFA,F..GOYE. RNM~NT IiNrDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 100 North Senate A ~enue Room N755 lndiana~lir, lact'aaa 46201-2249 ( ~171232-555 5 FAX: (317) 232-0258 FRANK O'BANNON, Governor CURTIS A. W1L~Y, ¢~nmi~sioner April I3, 1999 ,iI Writer's Direct 31%232-5646 Mr. Mike Holh'baugh Departmeut of Come-,miry Services cit ofC. anm Cann~l, IN 46032 Dear Mr. Holh~augh: The Indiana D~10arlmeat of Transportation ONDOT) is working on the clevelopmem of a int¢~ha~ge ~onoept pbaz to help coOralnate land development de~isiom at thc 1-463 and US-31 interchange area. The development process ',',ece. ssa~ to upiwade US-31 inle~hang¢ has r~,~ltly b~cn initiated with the la,ognmmfiug of acquisilion, and constmotlon aclivi~ies in the department's proch~tion schedula. Thc ¢onst~ltant firm of Parsons Transportation (}roup has b~*u selected for the envinanmental studi~s on US-31 and 1-465, with work antiaipatcd to b= ~omplet~ in 24 months. The completion of the euvlronmcntal st~lica preliminary cngixt¢~,*ring work ~a'll provide the detailed intmmhunge pla.~ necessary to move the project fonvard into.anginccring design. To help provide i~'ormation as quickly as possible for the planning of th!s ma, hNDOT has developed some preliminary sketoh pl,,~_ for the US-31 and 1-465 iuterchang¢. At the request of the Department of Community Services IlqDOT has met tvdce with Duke Realty, in D¢c~alber !998 and February 19~9, to disc,a~ gl¢ potential land requirements for tile U.q-3 ! and 1-465 intcr~ha~,gc. Thc~ pr~lilI~ sk~h plans l~.ovide an outline of the areas that would ncedcd for the interchange and a,sso~ia~ ramps. Ia addition to these prollmi~*,cy sketch plato, IHDOT has dirccuat thc Parsons Transportation Grouta to conduct ~¢ c~v/ronmontal studies a~d preliminary anginccting work to accelerate the planning analysis of the US-31 intm~hangc~ at I-~65 and SR431/146th St~cL The results of gtis ,oa:y$is will provide a refined d~'i.q~ conGclX of the interchange configura~ons or"i'oolprin~s" by early summer. W~ ,,,,6cipat¢ this information will allow the Department of Community Services, ~e Indianapolis M,~aopolitan Planning Organization, and tho laad development community to provid~ for d~'dopmeat of plans necessary fa efficient CO~nm,mity developracnt in this a.~a. $inc~ly, Crlstlnc Ir, lika, Deputy Cammissioner O~ o£Plaiming and [ut, ezm~la/Tmuapormion p~ ms l~e~ Paj~r m A~ ~ Opportunity Employer · hap-.//ww~.in~..n~tr, a~/aum/dot, inde~Mml Memo Tm Plan Commission members Fmc. Department of Community Se[vices- Steve Engelking, Director CC: Phil Nicely, Bose McKJnney and Evans Date: 04/02/99 Re~ Duke Rezone, 96~ Street and U.S. 31 Considering the magnitude of the project and the regional interest it has drawn from not only Hamilton County but Madon County residents, the Department of Community Services recommends the following issues be discussed and proposed commitments be rrecemmended to the petitioner at the Plan Commission's Special Study Corereittes teeing April 13, 1999. Traffic: Obviously, this reay be the #1 issue that needs to be resolved. Even without doing scientific traffic studies of the area, cemmon sense tells us there needs to be long-term solutions developed for the currently congested intersections and roadway segments. The traffic studies conducted by HNTB in 1997 and by A&F in 1999 outline soree of the solutions that are needed, Recommanda~on: The Plan Commission should request that Duke Realty Investments cooperate in their 'fair share" of land dedication and construction costs necessary to implement the needed readway segment and intersecEon improvements. In addition to the local improvements needed in the area, the Indiana Department of Transportation is planning improvements to U.S. 31 that also include an improved ramp system at the 1- 465 interchange. Recommendation: The Plan Commission should review how Duke's proposal might affect the design of the interchange (or vice versa) and see how the project needs to be altered to accommodate both interests. (As a part of the eventual development of the project, Duke will be required under the current U.S. 31 Overlay Zone requirements to request from the Plan Commission an Economic Hardship Exception to allow development where the state has proposed interchange improvements.) · Page 1 Project Intensity and Uses: This issue directly relates to the traffic issue. The critical questions are how much square footage of offica and retail space should be allowed on the properties and what uses should be allowed or even excluded? The current B-6, B-8, and U.S. 31 Oveday Zone requirements give a "laundry list" of allowed and excluded uses. Recommendation: The Plan Commission should request that the developer limit the square footage of the buildings on the properties and the types of office and retail uses allowed above and beyond what the current B-6, B-8, and U.S. 31 Oveday Zone dis~icts require. The limit on the square footage of buildings should directly relate to an acceptable level of se/vice of traffic in the area and the allowable uses should be compatible to the surrounding residential neighborhoods in Hamilton County and Marion County. {Please be mindful of the fact that if the City Council approves the proposed amendments to the U.S. 31 Oveday Zone, Duke will be required to request variances of the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow the square footage of retail as proposed.) Project Compatibility with existinq Land Uses: This project has the ability to negatively affect the existing surrounding residential neighborhoods. For that reason, access points, landscape buffering, and building placement, height and facade design should be reviewed to ensure neighborhood compatibility. Recommendation: The Department recommends the Plan Commission requke the developer to limit acces~ points to the properties .especially frore SplSngrnill Road in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Department recommends, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that at least a go foot buffer be provided along Spfingmill Road between the proposed right.of-way and the beginning of the pavement for the parking lot, (On the subject of building placement, height, and fa~ede design, the developer has offered commitm~ents previously which the Commission should review in detail - especially as they relate to the 96"' Street frontage.) Other Considerations: As mentioned previously, the developer has presented to the Commission two pages of zoning commitments. The Department believes these are an extensive list of commitments, but are not exhaustive. There may be other site cansiderations (other than the ones listed above) such as pedestrian access to the site and within the site or landscaping, lighting, or signage issues that the Commission may want to discuss at the rezone stage to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Also, attached is a packet of infon'nation you will find helpful in considering this rezone distributed by Parsons Bdnckerhoff as part of the 96~ Street Corddor Study. If Commission members have further questions regarding these comments or need additional information from the Department, please contact Mark Monroe, Planning Administrator, at 571-2417. · Page 2 CITY OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TRANSMITTAL From: Mark T. Monroe, AICP Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 ph. 317 571 2417 fax 317 571 2426 r~ The material you requested ,~For your information I"1 For review and comment ~ For approval Quantity/Descriptiot~ Copies to: sAforms\transmit CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS STEPHEN GOLDSMITH MAYOR March 18, 1999 David Cremeans, President Windows & Siding of Indianapolis 5041 West 96th Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 RE: Duke Rezoning Petition Meridian Street and 96~ Street Dear Mr. Cremeans: On behalf of the Indianapolis planning staff, thank you for the courtesy you extended to us at the March 16, 1999, Carmel/Clay Plan Commission meeting. Approval of the rezoning petitions filed by Duke Realty Investments for the undeveloped quadrants of Meridian Street and 96th Street would have a significant community impact. With your continued cooperation, we can work to mitigate the negative impacts and create a quality development for all area residents. Due to time constraints, we were not able to present to you all the background information and materials we have developed regarding this rezoning petition. Enclosed is a complete copy of my March 16, 1999, presentation paper. Also enclosed is a copy of Steve Cunningham's preliminary review of the traffic impact study prepared by A & F Engineering for the proposed Duke development, and a density of development comparison for the area prepared by staff in the Division of Planning. We are sharing a copies of these materials with your planning staff and with Phil Nicely, attorney for Duke Realty Investments. These materials should assist you in your deliberations. Sincerely, Thomas M. Bartlett Administrator Enclosures CC: Mayor Brainard, City of Carmel Mayor Goldsmith, City of Indianapolis Steve Engelking, Director, City of Carmel, Department of Community Services Phil Nicely, Attorney, Bose McKinney & Evans Gene Lausch, Director, City of Indianapolis, Department of Metropolitan Development June Dugan, Administrator, City of Indianapolis, Department of Metropolitan Development Barbara Rogers, Administrator, City of Indianapolis, Department of Metropolitan Development Mike Graham, Washington Township Administrator, City of Indianapolis, Department of Metropolitan Development Marion County Neighborhood Associations DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING 841 CITY COUNTY BUILDING · 200 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA 46204 PHONE: (317) 327-5151 · FAX: (317} 327-5103 ~,ttp://~vw.lndyGov org Comments to Carmel-Clay Plan Commission' re. Duke Realty Proposal for 96tb Street Properties March 16, 1999 First, thank you for granting the City of Indianapolis an opportunity to comment. We applaud the members of the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission, Mayor Brainard, and the Community Development Department staff for their openness and willingness to discuss with their neighbors in Marion County the development issues associated with this proposal. I also want to thank Duke Realty for being candid about their vision for this area, and for being open-minded toward the discussion of issues and possible solutions. I stand here before you as your neighbor and a community planning professional, ready and willing to collaborate with you on developing solutions to problems that will be mutually beneficial for both of our communities. Before going into specific issues related to the rezoning petition, I'd also like to congratulate Duke Realty and the Carmel Plan Commission on the successful design of the Park'wood development - that project sen/es as the model for what might be accomplished with the subject properties. The City of Indianapolis believes the following issues are salient, and worthy of continued dialogue between the developer, the Carmel- Clay Plan Commission, the city of Carmel, community representatives, INDOT, the City of Indianapolis, and the Hamilton County Highway Department. It is our sincerest hope that the Plan Commission will defer any final decision about the requested rezoninq until after the issues identified this evenin.q are fully contemplated and ultimately resolved by a Special Study Committee. 1) General impacts. We recognize up-front that the proposed land uses conform with Carmel's long range plans for the ~-rea, and we fully recognize the viability of the subject properties for commercial Thomas M. Bmxle~ AICP Indianapolis DMD Division or' P~anni.-.g 03/1'7/99 Page I office and supporting retail land uses. Nevertheless, the paramount question is: How will the proposed commercial uses interface with established residential neighborhoods across the street? The intensity of the proposed land uses, the amount of traffic accessing the sites, the lighting, and the setbacks, landscaping, etc. will all have a significant impact on the adjoining single-family homes and area roadways. It will be critical for the developer to design and build projects of appropriate intensity and having exceptionally sensitive site design so that negative impacts on neighboring residential land uses are minimized. 2) Intensity of use. It is relevant and worthwhile to consider the densities of surrounding development in an effort to appropriately contemplate the appropriateness of the proposed densities for the petitioner's sites. Developer's Sites: Site "A" (north of 1-465) is proposed for 375,000 s.f. of offices in 3 buildings with surface parking on 19.5 acres. Densityis 19,230 s.f. per acre. Site "B" (south of 1-465 and west of US 31/Meridian St.) is proposed for 820,000 s.f. offices, 60,000 s.f. hotel (assuming 150 rooms), and 14,000 s.f. retait on a 35.0 acre site. Total density is 26, 000 s.f. per acre. Site "C" (south of 1-465 and east of US 31/Meridian St.) is proposed for 103,315 s.f. of retail on 10.0 acres. Densityis 10,300 s.f. per acre. Thomas M. Bartleu, AICP indianapolis DMD Division oF Planning 03/17/99 Page 2 Comparisons: · Parkwood Crossing; 1,100,000 s.f. offices on 58 ac. (19,000 s.f. / acre) · Kroger Retail Center: 97,200 s.f. on 12 acres (8,100 s.f. / acre) · SF residential south of Parkwood: 300 units on 160 acres (1.88 units / acre) · MF residential southwest of intersection: 116 units on 10.0 acres (11.6 units/acre) SF residential between Springmill & Meridian, 96th and 91st Streets: 135 units possible on 80 acres (1.69 units/ acre) · SF residential southwest of 96th/Springmill: 95 units on 107 acres. (0.89 units/acre) Why is the developer proposincl densities for Site "B" which are 40% greater than those proiected for Park'wood Crossinq? Site "B" has poorer access and it is confronted with more dramatic land use conflicts. A lower intensity project than Parkwood would appear to be more appropriate under such circumstances. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the development proposed for Site "A" is very similar to the lower Parkwood Crossing densities, yet that site abuts existing office park uses. 3) Traffic on 96th and US 31. The amount of traffic generated by these developments will be significant. A preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed uses will generate between 60% and 78% more peak-hour trips than would be generated by development allowed under the existing zoning. How will the area roadways be impacted? A traffic impact study prepared by the developer Thomas M. Ba~iett, AICP Indianapolis DMD Division of Planning 03/17199 Page 3 suggests that the intersection of 96th and Meridian Street will operate at a level of service "F" (meaning it will fail) as the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is added to existing volumes and other new traffic forecasted for the area, even though the intersection would have been upgraded. By contrast, if these sites were developed under current zoning, and with improved intersection geometrics as identified by the DCAM, the intersection could operate at a level of service "D". It will be critical to specify and agree upon roadway and intersection improvements that wilt accommodate the increased traffic volume and complexity of traffic movements in this area. The City of Indianapolis encourages the developer, the City of Carmel, the Hamilton County Highway Department, Indianapolis DCAM, and INDOT to collaborate on addressing the traffic congestion issue, especially as it relates to US 31 and 96th Street. 4) Traffic on Springmill Rd. Will this proposal result in significant volumes of traffic on Spring Mill Rd.? Unlike Meridian Street, which is a state highway intended to carry high volumes of traffic, Spdng · Mill Road is a residential collector street intended to carry Iow volumes of local traffic. Can a solution of some kind be engineered to discourage commuter travel up and down Spring Mill Road? 5) !-465 Interchange. How will these developments impact Indiana DOT plans for improvements to the 96th Street intersection and the 1- 465 interchange? 6) Buffering & Landscaping. The landscaping and buffering plan that has been implemented for Parkwood has been heralded by neighbors and by leadership in Nora-Northside Community Council. I strongly recommend that equally generous setbacks, landscaping, and mounding be employed for the development proposed on Site "B". Furthermore, retention ponds should also be located on the southern rim of the site as accomplished in the Parkwood project. 7) Entrances to Retail Site. The developer, Carmel Planning staff, and Hamilton County highway Dept. are encouraged to work closely Thomas fyi. 13a~le~ AICP Indianapolis DtviD Division of Planning 03/17/99 Page 4 with INDOT, Indianapolis DCAM, and the owner of the existing Kroger retail center to develop a mutually beneficial site access / traffic solution for the two sites on either side of 96th Street. It seems to me that a single traffic light serving a reconfigured four-way intersection would allow efficient ingress and egress form both parcels. 8) Entrances to Office Park on 96th St. Compared to the residences located east of US 31, a greater percentage of the homes along this segment of 96th Street front directly onto 96th rather than neighborhood residential streets. Consequently, the entrances to the proposed office park must be very carefully located and designed. Also, improvements to 96th Street'should contemplate the need for these property owners to access their homes directly from 96th. 9) Storm drainage and sanitary sewers. Are the proposed developments adequately served by storm drainage and sanitary sewer facilities? Has sufficient land area been set aside for storm retention? I would encourage the developer to locate retention pond(s) to southern perimeter of Site "B", following the Parkwood Crossing model, in an effort to enhance buffering between the project and existing SF homes. 10) Adjoining Vacant Land. What happens to vacant land west of Springmill Road, north of 96th Street? That site is currently planned and zoned for residential use, and it abuts existing very Iow density single-family housing to the west and south. Does this parcel wind up being speculated for commercial use as well? How can that be prevented? 11) 96th Street Corridor Plan. A joint planning study has been under way for the past three months or so which is looking at how to optimally develop remaining parcels along 96th Street and how to best accommodate traffic while simultaneously maintaining sensitivity to existing land uses and development densities, participants in the study include: Carmel Dept. of Community Development, the Indianapolis MPO, State INDOT, Hamilton County Highway Dept., Thornaz M. Bartlett, A1CP Indianapolis DMD Division of Planning 03/17/99 Page 5 City of Indianapolis, and area neighborhood organizations from both sides of the street (both counties). The nationally renowned planning and engineering firm of Parsons-Brinkerhoff is leading the process. Why can't the 96th Street Corridor Planning process be used to help address some of the aforementioned issues prior to proceeding with the rezoning? It would be entirely appropriate for the participants in the 96th Street Corridor Planning effort to suspend work on other aspects of the study to focus exclusively during the next 30 to 45 days on resolving the issues associated with this pivotal land use decision. Again, thank you for granting me the opportunity to comment on this very important land use zoning petition. Thomas M. Bartlett, AICP Indianapolis DMD Division of Planning 03/17/99 Pag~ 6 TO: Tom Bartlett FROM: Steve Cunningharn,~ March 15, 1999 DATE: Prelimina~ review commems for TIS at 96~ & Meridian I have made a preliminary review of the traffic impact study (TIS) prepared by A & F Engineering for a proposed Duke development at the intersection of96~ and Meridian. I have focused primarily on the intersection of 96~ and Meridian and proposed development site northwest of the comer of 96t" and Meridian (site fo2 on attached map). I do not know if the study is consistent with the guidelines and scope of study set forth by the City · of Carmel and thus cannot comment on the acceptability of the study. I have however, reviewed the study's contents and assumptions and offer the following comments: Assumptions - The background growth rate used was 3% per year over the ten year study period. This growth rate seems high for two reasons I.) the study included all of the vacant land in the vicinity of this site and thus accounted for a significant portion of the growth in t~ic and 2.) the existing traffc volumes are so substantial that even a lower growth rate would result in a relatively large increase in traffic volumes. The study prepared for this site by HNTB for the City of Indianapolis dated April 1998 used an assumed growth rate of 1% annually. The distribution of traffic to and fi.om the subject site (site #2) was assumed to be 94% to/fi.om the east (through the 96a & Meridian intersection) and 6% to/fi.om the west (through the 96u~ & Springmill interse~on). These distribution percentages do not seem to take into account the affect severe capacity restraints at 96"' and Meridian will have on the distribution of trail!it to ~nd fi.om the site. Using these assumptions could overestimate the impact site tra~e would have on the ~tersection of96~ and Meridian and underestimate the impact on 96a and Springmill. For comparison purposes, the study of this site prepared for the City assumed 71% of the total site traffic to/fi.om the east and 29% to/fi.om the west. Analysis results- trip generation Sites per ex/st/aB zonin~ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ! 5?3 488 2 466 450 3 427 397 TOTAL NEW TRIPS 1466 I335 Sites per Fro?osed zonin~ AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour I 662 562 2 1590 1430 3 95 378 TOTAL NEW TRIPS 2347 (+881 or 60%) 2370 (+1035 or 78%) As shown in the above tables, the proposed zoning generates significantly more new trips than the existing zoning. New trips have been used as opposed to total trips to account for pass-by trips. Analysis results - 96a & Meridian The following table illustrates the levels of service for scenarios three and five in which the difference between ex~sting zoning and the proposed zoning is shown. The scenarios were analyzed with three different a~sumptions for the intersection geometrica (existing, as proposed in the A & F TIS and as analyzed by DCAM). Assumed Geometrics t Scenario #3 (e~c Zon/n~) LOS Scenario ~5 (pro. Zorfin~) LOS Existin~ I F F Proposed in TIS F F Analyzed b,v DCAM D F The above table illu~uates that modifications can be made to the/ntersection to allow it to operate at acceptable level ofserv/ce under existing zoning. However, even the additional improvements analyzed by DCAM would not allow the intersect/on to operate at acceptable levels of service under the proposed zoning. Springmill and 96* The TIS indicates that the intersection is currently operating at an acceptable level of service during both peak periods. The future year scenazios indicate that a traffic signal will be warranted at this intersection. Once a signal is installed, the levels of service for all future year scenarios are acceptable. As mentioned previously, orgy 6% of the total site generated tra~Hc was distributed to this intersection, which may undersxate the impact of site traffic on this intersection. Addi~onal comments - I. Right=of-way issues need to be addressed as a part of the zoning commitments. While technically the responsibility of Hamilton County, 96* Street is an important component of the Marion County Thoroughfare Plan. At a minimum, right-of-way as proposed by the Marion County Thoroughfare Plan should be preserved. To facilitate the improvements to US 31 north through Carmel, right-of-way for improvements to the 1-465/US 31 interchange should be preserved. Ifth~s right=of- way is not preserved it could either raise the cost substantially of this project or preclude k all together. INDOT should be consulted before final approval to insure this fight=of-way is preserved. If the improvements analyzed by DCAM are implemented, additional right=of-way will need to be preserved at the northeast comer of96~' and Meridian. The specifics of the required right=of-way should be coordinated with DCAM prior to final approval. Because 96~' Street is connected to and serves public streets and existing development that fail within the city limits of Indianapolis, all access locations and design should be closely coordinated with DCAM to insure safe and efficient operation and access. Conclusion - Based on the information contained in the A 8: F TIS and the additional analysis by DCAM it is dear that it will be difficult to make the intersection of 96" & Meridian operate at acceptable levels of service even under the existing zoning. To rezone to a much greater density of development will only exacerbate the situation. Attachment SC/spt I A W 96TH IFil-IFil "11 I1 tt II II IF-II-- 96th STREET AND MERIDIAN STREET DUKE REALTY FIGURE 1 AREA MAP ~1999, A&F Engineeri~,a. Co., ANALYSIS OF DEVEt. OPMENT DENSITIES IN THE 96th AND MERIDIAN STREET AREA 1 North of 96"` Street Unknown. 35 820,000 - office n/a 8 buildings, 26,000 Offices and support retail ( B ) West of Meddian Street Outside of 60,000 - hotel 2 parking structures sq ff.lacre East of Springmill Marion 14,000 - retail/ proposed South of 1-465 County restaurants 2 North of 96"` Street Unknown. 10 103,315 nit 6 buildings proposed 10,300 Proposed retail ( C ) East of Meridian Outside of sq.ft./acre West of Pennsylvania Marion i South of I--465 County 3 North ol' 1-465 Unknown. 19.5 375,000 n/a 3 buildings proposed 19,230 Office center ( A ) West of Meridian Outside of sq.ft.lacre Marion County 4 , North of 96"`Street P,-2 17 n/a 0 0 n/a Undeveloped property South of 1-465 East of Springmill 5 Between Springmill & Ditch, DS 107 nta 102 95 .89 Single-Family East of Williams Creek d.u.lacre Residential 6 South of 96"` Street ' D-2 80 nla 135 69 1.69 Approx. 48 parcels North of 91'~ Street d.u./acre undeveloped based on East of Springmill 1997 aerial photograph),. 7 South of 96"' Street D-7 10 n/a 2 16 buildings, 11.6 Belle Meade Manor West of Meridian 116 units d.u./acre Apartments East of Illinois Street 8 96~h and Meridian C-4 I 14,500 nla 1 9,300 Neighborhood retail 96~h Street C-31C-1 0.5 3,200 nla I sq.ff.lacre center Pennsylvania & 96"' Street C-1 0,5 4,000 nla 1 Pennsylvania C-3 10 90,000 nla 1 9 South of 96"' Street D-3 160 n/a 491 291 1.82 Some parcels remain East of Pennsylvania d.u./acre undeveloped based on West of College 1997 aerial photography North of 91'~ Street 10 North of 96"' Street Unknown. 58 1.1 million nla 4 19,000 Parkwood Crossing West of College Outside of sq.ff.lacre Office Park East of Pe,nnsylvania Marion South of 1-465 i County City of Indianapo/i$, Department of Metropolitan Development March 16, 1999 Pamela E. Lambert 616 Copley Place Indianapolis, IN 46290 Hamilton County Phone: 844-5511 Fax: 844-8820 Emall: ctlambert~iquest.net March 16, 1999 Carmel Clay Planning Commission Re: Duke Development Proposal for Northwest Quadrant of 96th SWeet and US 31 Docket No. 14-99Z (Per DOCS phone call) Commisioners: I would like to say, at the onset, it is not my intent to refute all development proposals that Duke Realty is requesting for the vacant land near 96th St., Spring Mill Road, and US 31, but rather to request an equitable compromise with respect to residential concerns: a compromise that would provide for open space and a reduction of density. I have serious reservations with regard to the proposed developments near 96* and Meridian Streets and particularly the development in the northwest quadrant of this intersection, both north and south of I 465. I realize that Carmel has approached potential development of vacant land near the 96th and Meridian Street intersection with a view to increased tax base; however, the negative ramifications of extensive development has always been foremost in the minds of both Hamilton and Marion homeowners who reside in the immediate area. Duke Realty has an excellent reputation for quality projects, and the Parkwood development to the east of Meridian Street reflects an aesthetically pleasing scenario. However, Parkwood, despite the pleasing aesthetics, cannot be held unaccountable from certain issues that have negatively impacted homeowners to the south of the development. It is precisely for this reason that I plead with the Planning Commission to weigh heavily the following residential concerns: o The Overlay Zone restrictions for the 96t~ St. and Spring Mill area keep the building height to 4 stories - not 5. The amended Comp Plan only makes allowances for 4 stories. By committing to 5 stories you would set an unfavorable precedent for higher density in a confined area. By committing to a 200' set back from the existing center line of 96t~ St. you would be ignoring the issue of any required road widening - which eats up part of the 200' - and ultimately puts any building that much closer to the street, and enables it to look right down and into Belle Meade. Cannel consistently talked about how nice Parkwood was and that they wanted the west development to look equally as attractive. However, the reason Parkwood worked was because building setback on that site is 300' from the "property line" not from a 96th St. center line, and certainly not from the center line of the "old" 96th St. There is also a 60' greenbelt around the perimeter, with 6' mounds. Trees surrounding Parkwood were to be 6-8' mature evergreens. The whole idea was to lessen the intrusiveness of commercialism in a residential setting. You could drive by Parkwood and not feel as though you were in the heart of Keystone at the Crossing. According to representatives from the consultant who prepared the original INDOT proposal for upgrading US 31, as much as 10 acres of vacant land on the northwest quadrant of 96th St. and US 31 might be needed for a freeway to freeway modification, if US 31 becomes a limited access highway. In that event consideration to limiting the scope of development for the entire parcel must be included in o 10. 11. 12. any preliminary evaluation. If full development is authorized on the subject site and proceeds accordingly, taxpayers will pay an exorbitant price for fight of way of commercially developed property, and we could end up with some less than desirable modification: an even worse prospect for adjacent residential property. I am exceptionally eager to' know what Duke's response is to any preliminary INDOT draits regarding interchange modification. The "shoe-box" lighting fixtures should provide downlighting, the effects of which will not extend beyond the property line, on poles that are equal in height to those used in Parkwood. That is not an unreasonable request, and is frequently required in development commitments. The building management should instruct tenants to see that interior lighting is kept off during evening hours as much as possible - excluding cleaning, etc. This was an issue that greatly affected the homeowners across from Parkwood. If this particular request is inappropriate, can the developer install blinds or building glass that would help reduce the negative effects of office lights that bum brightly during the night? It is absolutely critical that no ancillary retail businesses be allowed west of the 600' line on the subject site. Both area residents and various Carmel/Clay Planning Commission members objected to that kind of retail sprawl. The Overlay Plan did not allow for retail beyond the 600' line, and we hope you will actively seek to hold fast to that standard. This parcel was supposed to be part of a PUD with a sunset clause (one year was suggested in the August '97 Amendment to the 1996 Carmel/Clay Township Comprehensive Plan). The public AND the commission concluded the amendments to the Comp Plan, including a PUD for the subject site, was one possible way to forestall any attempt at repeated variances that might negatively affect residential homeowners. The commitments that are placed on the land MUST remain with the land in perpetuity. If the commission members change with the political climate, then Duke can arbitrarily go back and ask for a variance - ESPECIALLY IF THIS ISN'T A PUD. Isn't it much better for government and for area residents to agree on terms and conditions now, and avoid repeated public meetings, only to come back to the conclusions we could make at this stage? The cost for 96th St. improvements should be borne by Duke, not Marion or Hamilton County taxpayers. They should also .~ay a portion of any intersection improvement. I realize that there are 3 jurisdictions involved with 96u' & Spring Mill, but Duke is precipitating the lion's share for the immediacy of modification. Developers are frequently instructed to pay for these road and intersection improvements, and the request is not precedent sctt'mg. The amount of increased traffic that would be precipitated by the Duke proposals becomes staggering, particularly in light of the confined traffic flows and an existing F grade intersection at US 31 and 96 St. A resultant increase in trips generated by the development on the subject sites would create a hardship on homeowners along Spring Mill Road - both north and south of 96th St. One might also expect to see a rapid increase in the number of large delivery trucks, servicing the development. It might be prudent to consider a roundabout at this intersection, which may well serve as a transition into residential areas south, west and north of the 96t~ and Spring Mill intersection. As a final note on the entire traffic scenario, are you actually willing to allow another 96th St. and Keystone Ave. traffic nightmare, whereby comer retailers are forced to hire traffic controllers just to help admit their own customers? The aforementioned legitimate concerns could have severely negative impact on the surrounding homeowners. But the reality of the situation is that minimizing density of office space would help mitigate many of the negative traffic consequences. We want to be assured, as homeowners, that our residential neighborhoods will not be subjecWxt to the adverse effects of a heliport. We hope you will deny any such usage from the entire subject site. Power/telephone lines should be placed underground for aesthetic considerations alone. A proposed fight in/fight out near the Meridian t~ and 96 St. intersection may seem appropriate, but it actually lends support for increased on-site traffic and higher density and traffic congestion, and needs careful consideration. A proposed fight in/right out along Spring Mill Road also needs further study, as the amended Comp Plan does not allow for access to Spring Mill Road. Any right in/fight out access 2 13. 14. must have a built up median or traffic controlling concrete island, to avoid crossover traffic, with decel and accel lanes from the subject site land. The drawing submitted with the Duke proposal shows Belle Meade Ln. and Illinois - which do not have access further south beyond the property line for Belie Meade Apartments. There is only one access south of 96th St. between US 31 and Spring Mill Road, and that is through a residential neighborhood west of the apartments, and it only exits hack onto Spring Mill Road. An ability for increased traffic levels to enter the proposed development on the northwest quadrant of 96th St. and Meridian forces that same traffic to find a way back out of the project. If a median is put into place to presumably help traffic flow, it becomes an automatic detriment to the residents of Belle Meade apartments and 96th St. residents. Ifa median is installed, a curb cut in the median and a traffic light would have to be installed or the apartment residents would arbitrarily be forced east to Meridian St. Even installing a traffic light, for the benefit of the apamnent residents, would pose a problem as it would be too close the Meridian and 96th St. intersection, and only serve to stall flow and create severe stacking during rush hours. ?fit, without a light, there would be no way for the apartment residents to exit onto 96t~ St. and head e~ther east or west during rush hours. A median also forces 96th St. residents to the east as well. If Duke puts another light in at their main entrance - further west - and a light is installed at Spring Mill Road, we'd end up with 3 lights all within 3/8 of a mile from Meridian St. The lights may facilitate movement in and out of the development project, and assist apartment residents, but the congestion, stacking, and fomed directional traffic flow would be abysmal for area residents The traffic study presented to Carmel/Clay Planning Commission regarding Parkwood, was not as accurate as originally believed. It is crucial that the Planning Commission make every effort to make certain that any traffic study proffered on behalf of Duke Realty is as thorough and accurate, and visionary as possible. The current traffic situation for Parkwood has degenerated such that the neighborhood to the south was forced to install speed bumps due to a tremendous increase in traffic volume. With only little more than a week to evaluate the Duke proposal, it was difficult to study the entire concept and attempt to address each concern with you. I would ask that you hold the hearing open. A homeowner has the same right to safeguard his investment and quality of life against a commercial nuisance and intrusive development that landowners and developers enjoy while protecting their investments. A significant portion of the northwest quadrant at 96t~ St. and US 31 was designated as a buffer between commercial development and residential homes, and is currently zoned for residential. If the area homeowners yield to commercial development for the entire parcel, then prospective developers needs to show some restraint in the degree to which they attempt to impact the quality of life for the existing residents. Thanking you in advance for your attention to my concerns, I remain Respectfully yours, Pamela E. Lambert CITY OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TRANSMITTAL From: Mark T. Monroe, AICP Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 ph. 317 571 2417 fax 317 571 2426 ~ The material you requested [J For your information I~l For review and comment FI For approval Quantity/Description. l~marka: ~; Ydt Copies to: sAfonns~ransmit HAMILTON COUNTY $17-775-14~2 925 Division Street · Suite 103 * Noblesville - IN * 46060-2744 March 16, 1999 Mr. Clark Kahio · 454 N W.,ashington Blvd. India~pohs, IN 46205 Re: Duke Rezone of thc Valir~ Prope~ies This !¢tmr is a ~ _spm~ to your que~io~ con~xttng fl~e ~olopmem of ~ V~t ~ ~i~s Cr~. ~ly &e ~ ~ ~ ofU~l ~ located in ~ Will~s C~ The current r~quJ~meat~ ~or m~rm wat~ manage~ ~ ~t ~ ~ &~ga ~m * Small storm eYents cause larger mream flows because of the impervious m~ac~s, rc~ infiltration and improver drainap~ system~ C{)N!iERVATION ~ Dsv .~OPM~NT ~ ~LF-,OOVI~NMENT : - - ~ H~N ~0 !~i~L & N~TER P~C-i~ 02 * Smaller sl~nn mitts cause bankfull/lows. Because the~ are more frequent small storms, ~ flow ~ccurs more ottC~L . * The b~e flow ss reduced bec. ausc of less infiltrmion. * The sire. am transpom an increased volum~ of water, same reasons as Ihe first item. Over a pcr~ of tirnc these watershed changes have had rim following effects on the stream: ** ~T?e strum. I~l widet~s and deepens to accommodaie the chan~cd flow. Sm oan~ ~rogon oc~ws as the bed is widened. * The reduced base flow effects the riparian habitat. Fish, mammals, birds and ,re~eleS can be effected.. water flow has an increased tempe~_.!~_Lw, ate methods that can be used to lessen the. iml~ot of tragitlmml development on ~ban ~ Developme~ pl~ss ~ redu~ im .[~w .~ ? nad in~ infiltration are b~neli¢ial. ~-ff, nz ~.-~dths .~.d u~ .~sery p~)i~., · .,mu~!~' pcrvious p~v~ b~ts, l~ ~l .?!.~ an.a co. mpa.~io~ aoo R:r,a~ swid,~ i.~ Of gorm pip~ ~ MI pra~tl¢~ that increase mnnranon anti rc~u~c impcr~ious services. ~e be~. way to address ~his problcm is not by rcmonsira ' ' a single 'ect. Ch ' reqmr~, for all projec? would.hay? gr~a~ '~ will, however, revolve cotmty ~s and overinppm~ plannin~ j misdicu'o~. Should you have qucstiom regarding this repmt, please fecl frec to ~all. ""Jolm B. South P.E. bAR 1~ I _,. O2 Fax Cover Sheet DA'tO; :,l'a)-cn ;6, 1~99 TIME: 3:02 PM TO: G!~rke Katlio PHON~: 283-6283 FRO~: S'~,,( ...nmngham ~HONE: ~7-5403 P~nninO Division FAX: 327-5105 p~ei~mina~ reveiw comments provided to Tom C.,: ,o::le . n. ~om Bardett 5' ~1~¢ cOlahani, file Number of pages including cover sheet: 4 Message Clarke, Per your request of yes*.erday, I am f/txing you the pre2afina~y review co~mt¢ms I provided to Tom BarJett regarding the proposed Duke de~,elopment 'rr'ar~c Impact Study, Please keep in mhd that we have not had the tm,.e Io thoroughly eva[aate the study, nor has DC,~M or our consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff As such I would emphasize again that these are ~reltm.u'~ry review comments and should rot be considered the City's official poskion A ~horough review office study will be conducted as a part of the 96it Stree~ Corridor Study currently' being conducted by the Indianapohs ~PO in cooperation with Hanhlton County, the City o£indianapoiis, the C?.V of Carme! Indiana DOT and a number of citizens. i~EMOKANDUM TO: Tom Bartlett FROM: Steve Cunningham~ff~---~ DATE: March 15, 1999 PreliminaO, re^,iew comments for TIS at 96t~ & Meridian I have made a preliminary review of the traffic impact study (TIS) prepared by A & F Engineering for a proposed Duke development at the intersection of 96' and Meridian. ][ have tbcused primarily on the intersection of 96~ and Meridian and proposed development site nortt~west of the comer of96t~ and Meridian (site #2 on attached map) I do not know if the study is consistent with the guidelines and scope of study se~ ibrth by the City of Cannel and thus cannot comment on the acceptability office study, I have however, reviewed the study's cements and assumptions and offer the follow'rog comments: Assumptions -. The background growth rate used was 3% per year over the ten year study period. Tiffs growth rare seems high for two reasons 1.) the study included all of the vacant land in the ~.cinity of this site and thus accounted for a significant portion of the growth in traffic and 23 the existing traffic volumes are so substantial that even a lower growth rate would result in a relatively large increase in traffic volumes. The study prepared for this site by I-~rS[tl for the City of Indianapolis dated April i998 used an assumed growth rate of 1°4 annually. The distribution of traffic to and fiom the subject site (site #2) was assumed to be 94% to/from the east (through the 96~' & Meridian intersection) and 6% to/fiom the west (through the 96~' & Springmill intersection), These distribution percentages do not seem to take into account the affect severe capacity restraints at 96~ and Meridian will have on the distribution of traffic to and from the site. Using these assumptions could overestimate tM impact site traffic would have on the intersection of96'~ and Meridian and underestimate the impact on 96t~ and Springmili For comparison purposes, the stud>' oftNs site prepared for the City assumed 71% of the total site trafEe to/from the east and 29% to/from the west. Analysis results- trip generation Sites per ex/st/rig zoning . I _ AM Peak Hour . PM Peak Hour_. 1 T ' ' - 5'73 488 2 I 466 450 ,, 1 .......... _427,,, 397 TOTAL NEW TP,,~P S [ 1466 !335 ,, Sites per proposed zoni~lg AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I 662 562 2 1590 1430 3 95 378 TOTAL NEW '~R~-~ .... ~-~-'($'8~'~ or 60%), As ~hown in the above tables, the proposed zoning generates significamly more new trips than the existing zoning New trips have been used as opposed to total trips to account tbr pass-by trips, Analysis results - 96m & Meridian The fbllowing table illustrates the levels of service for scenarios three and five in which the difference between existing zoning and the proposed zoning is shown. The scenarios were analyzed with three different assumptions for the intersection geometries (existing, as proposed in the A & F TIS and as analyzed by DCAM), [ A. sumed Geom,e, tncs I S_ceamri 3 (ex. Zoning) LOS I Scenario ?.5. (pro. Zon3stg)'LOS [_,.Proposed i_~n TIS .... [ F F ]Analyzed by DCAM , D .... F The above table illustrates that modifications can be made to the intersection to allow it to operate at acceptable level of service under existing zoning. However, even the additional improvements analyzed by DCA/VI would not allow the intersection to operate at acceptable levels of service under the proposed zoning. Springmill and The TIS indicates that the intersection is currently operating at an acceptable level of service during both peak periods, The future year ~cenarios indicate that a traffic signal will be warranted at this intersection. Once a signal is installed, the levels of service for all future year scenarios are acceptable. ,M mentioned previously, oily 6% of the total site generated traff/c was distributed to this intersection, wl~ich may understate the impa~t of site traffic on this intersection. Add{timml comments - i. P,.ight-of-way issues need w be addressed as a part of the zotdng ~ommitments. W3-dle technically the responsibility ofHanfilton CounV, 96~ Street is an impo~ant component of the Marion County Thoroughfare Plan. At a minimum, right-of-way as proposed by the Marion County Thorouglffare Plan should be preserved. To facilitate the improvements to US 31 north through Carmel, right-of-way for improvements to the I-4.65/1.1S 31 interchange should be preserved. Ifth/s right-of- way is not preserved it could either raise the cost substantially ofth{s project or preclude it all together. INDOT should be consulted before final approval to insure this fight-of-way is preserved. If the improvements analyzed by' DCAM are implemented, additional figh~.of-way will need to be preserved at the northeast comer of96~' and Meridian The specifics of the required right-of-way should be coordinated ~dth DCAM prior to final approval. Because 96a Street is connected to and serves public streets and existing development that fall within the city limit~ of Indianapolis, all access locations and design should be closely coordinated with DCAM to insure safe and efficient operation and access. Conclusion - Based on the information contained in the A & F TIS and the additional analysis by DCAM it is clear that it will be difficult to make the intersection of96~ & Mefidian operate at acceptable levels of service even under the existing zoning. To rezone to a much greater density of development will only exacerbate the situation. Attachment SC/ape 96th STREET AND MERIDIAN STREET DUKE REALTY FIGURE 1 AREA MAP ©!g99, A&:F Engineering Co., lnc, Memo ~- M~a_rkMonree7 Depa~nent Of;com~-nil~ Se~i~s Dick Hill ~ M. Kate Boyle-Weese, Craig Pad(s 03/15/99 March 16, 1999 Plan Commission We offer the following comments for projects, within our jurisdiction, that are on the March 16~ Plan Commission agenda: Ih. Fairgreen Trace This Department requests the onsite detention pond be lined to prevent fluctuations in water levels and to proteot water tables. We also request sub sun<ace and yard drains be installed on the West Side of the development the came as indicated on the East Side. We request drainage calculations be submitted for this project. We reserve further comments until detailed construction plans are submitted. 2h. Va#net Property There is dual jurisdiction over 96th Street/Splingmill Road at the weatem site. We rese[ve further comment until construction plans are received and planned street/road improvements are presented. 2i. Old Meridian Medical Center The Engineer/Developer has addressed our T.A.C. issues. The reost currant drawing in our possession for this projeot indicates the Carmel Drive entrance to be aligned with the Shepherd/Med Check western entrance on the north side of Carmel D~ve. The drawing does not indicate the entrance will be shared with Lot ~3. Is this the most current plan? Will access to Lot ~ be as indicated on the plans submitted for Lot ~r27 We have not seen plans for Lot g3. Since the three Io*.s are being developed separately, it would be most helpful if the site plans for Lots 1, 2 and 3 were combined on one drawing in order to view and evaluate the overall entrance, project plans and traffic flows on Carmel Drive and Old Meddian Streets. 4i. I-lamillon Crossing East Hotel We do not have major issues with this development. We are still undear as to if this hotel development includes a restaurant or if a separate restaurant is to be developed elsewhere on the site. S:WIEMOS~0316g~P LAN · Page I Fd,r~n, t9, 199~ v,l~ l~p~,r N. ,,[96'~ S~/H. of S~i,~ Mill ~t at ~'~ ~ end S~ Mill ~, ~ ~, 1~ ~ H~on Coup, ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~n~ ~ our t~e~ ~t ~ a. ~q~n~ ~at ~;kt of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ of o~ ~ a~ ~ ~u~ ~ ~t in ~, ~ ~ P~, la e~i~a~ a ~t of w~y ~ cut in 1717 PLEASANT STBEET NOBLESVH .i.K: INDIAHA 4~60 (alT) 773-7770 Craig Fla~ - ~ Commtatton ~t~ve Cash - Hamilta~ Cc~n~ $~o~'s Ofliae City Carmel Fire Department Headquarters 2 CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571.2600 Bose MeKinney & Evans Attn. Steven B. Granner 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 RE: VALINET PROPERTY REZONE LETTER OF APPROVAL The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plans for Northwest, Southwest and Southeast corners ofi-465 & U.S. 31 and has approved the plans subject to the following: 1. After reviewing the conceptual development plans for all three quadrants, I see no glaring problems with the plans I have seen. However, I will reserve any comments until more detailed plans are submitted for my review. 2. Date:_February 16, 1999 By: Stanley PuckeR, Fire Marshal Carmel Fire Department Fire Prevention Saves Lives and ViA FACSIMILE Dear Madc Rega~din0 the agem:la iN=ms fo~ the February 17, 1999 'lAC meeting, i offer the fatiowing for your ~, Commenls are in~ndecl only f~r the projects which are Ior.~ed in lite DW0ict's sm'vice sma: Duke Rezone ConMqMu~l ~ h~tve been submitted to ff~e ~ and reviewed. Ssnitmy sewer plans, including plan and pmfiis ~eats, need to be reviewed by th~ Oistricl.'s oonsulti~g el~neer~ et ~)arnuat L Mourn & As~(~iates to ensure comIMian~e with Ihe Distdcl's ~ lees and issuance of the [:)iatdd's permit The plerts that hav~ been ouixnlited to the I:)lstttct are Inao~te and do m)t show how the ImOpefty is to be sewed by sardla~ sewem. ~Wparate c~rre~nce on this rt'~r hal~ bela~ set,,t tO ~ CAIfl,.~ofl. Bulldin0 ~ &hould ~0t be isstied without payment M Mi required Di~dct foe6 and Is~nnce aflbe D~ct'$ perm/t. Ouckltom Subdivision Pool & Bathhou~ Plans have been submllted to the Dist]lcl an~ reviswnd. The p~t~ject shoulcl use one of the e:x~tln0 laterals for sanitary sewer se~ce. El~fldlng pemstls ~ot~f not he iss~,cf Please rm(e that the ~ is a ITlemlx~ ~'the Indiana Underground Plant Pmteclkm Sewlce (IUPPS). All reCli~Sts for uli~ty locates for our fac41ities should now ~ directed to IUPPS at 1-800-382-5544. Please lel m~ know if you h;ave ~y questions or rleed adolUonal Infon,na~on. ~ Ron L~u~n, P-O. Box A0638 o Indianapolis, Indiana 46240-0638 · (317~ 844-9200 ,. Fax {3T7~ 844-9203 February 9, 1999 Mr. Steven B. Granner Bose McKianey & Evans Attorneys at Law 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Project Review, Valinet Property Dear Ma'. Granner: Tiffs office has reviewed the preliminary data submitted for this project. We offer the following comments: The tl~ee quadrants are within City of Cannel Corporate Limits. Jurisdictions - · Water- Indianapolis Water Company · Sanita~ Sewer - Clay Regional Waste District. · Storm Drainage - Hamilton County Surveyor, City of Carmel · Streets and Curb Cuts 9& Street - City of Carmel Springmill Road -Hamilton County Highway* 103'd Street - City of Cannel Superior Street - City of Cannel We reserve farther comments until receipt of detailed cons~uction drawings. *Springmill Road is Hamilton County jurisdiction. The Meridian Corridor Annexation Ordinance annexed to the centefline of Spriagmill Road, from the centeriine of 96z Street to the north boundary of the Meridian at the Interstate development. Hamilton County has jurisdiction over centerliae annexations. 96th Street is an exception to this policy. If you have questions, please call. Sinj~'ely, Dick Hill, Assislant Director Department of Engineering CC: M. Kate Boyle-Wcese, City Engineer Mark: Munree,~D epar tment: of Comn~ffrilt~ S6ff, ic~s ~¢* Craig Parks, Assistant City Engineer Craig Flandermeyer, Duke Construction $:\PROJREV99\VALINET ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, 1NDIANA 46032 317/571-2441 Carmel Police Depar men February 9, 1999 Mr. Steven B. Granner Bose, McKinney & Evans 8888 Keystone Crossing Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Valinet Property Dear Mr. Granner: I have received and reviewed the conceptual development plans of the above-mentioned project. At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law enforcement efforts. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us. Respectfully, Michael D. Fogart? -- Chief of Police MDF:vb cc: Mark Monroe, Dept. of Community Services A Nationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency ($17) 571-2500 F.,. (5iD 571-2512 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAVV OF COUNSEL February 5, 1999 Mr. John South Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservatory 925 Division Street Noblesville, Indiana 46060 Dear Mr. South: DOCO We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-500O FAX (317) 684~5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL February 5, 1999 Mr. Steve Cash Hamilton County Surveyor Office One Hamilton Square, Suite 146 Hamilton County Judicial Center Noblesville, Indiana 46060 Dear Mr. Cash: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsyrvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL RETIRED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP February 5, 1999 Ms. Sharon Prater Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. P.O. Box 38 Zionsville, Indiana 46077 Dear Ms. Prater: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Cornrnittee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Siocerely, Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossin$ Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (3'~7) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL February 5, 1999 Mr. Kevin Walker Indianapolis Power & Light Company 3600 North Arlington Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46218 Dear Mr. Walker: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the T^C meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Sir,~cerely, Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317} 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 5, 1999 Ms. Pam Waggoner Indianapolis Water Company P.O. Box 1220 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 Dear Ms. Waggoner: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Sincerely, Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNE'Y & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL February 5, 1999 Mr. Edc Mason Ameritech 5858 North College Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46220 Dear Mr. Mason: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First Indiana PJaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossin$ Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL RETIRED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP February 5, 1999 Mr. Jerry Robinson Indiana Gas Company P.O. Box 1700 Noblesville, Indiana 46060 Dear Mr. Robinson: We have filed a rezoning for the '¥alinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-8181. Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2,700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX {317) 684-5173 North 8888 Ke~tone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317} 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL RETIRED FROM TH£ PARTNERSHIP Februa~ 5,1999 Mr. Larry Castetter PSI 1441 South Guilford Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Castetter: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast comers of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Sincerely, Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe 2700 First indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574.3700 FAX (317) 574.3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL WA'~NE C. FOWADER Februa~ 5,1999 Mr. Jay W. AIley Clay Township Regional Wa~e Distri~ P.O. Box 40638 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 Dear Mr. Alley: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Sincerely, Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do _ Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, indiana 46;'04 (317) 684-50OO FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL February 5,1999 Mr. Mark McCulloch Hamilton County Engineering Hamilton County Highway 1717 East Pleasant Street Noblesville, Indiana 46060 Dear Mr. McCulloch: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX [317) 574,3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL February 5, 1999 Mr. Paul Arnone Carmel City Utilities 130 First Avenue S.W. Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Arnone: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Sincerely, Steven B. Oranner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 {317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574.3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL RETIRED FROM TH~ PARrN ERS HIP February 5,1999 Mr. Michael Fogarty Office of Police Chief Three Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Fogarty: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. SiDcerely, . Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX {317) 684~5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossin8 Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 5,1999 Ms. Kim Theademan Carmel Communicataions 31 First Avenue N.W. Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Ms. Theademan: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast comers of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684.5000 FAX (317) 684.5'~73 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574.3700 FAX (317) 574.3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 5, 1999 Mr. Stan Puckett Office of Fire Chief Fire Station #1 Two Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Puckett: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-6181. Sin~cerely, Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe Downtown 2700 First indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, indiana 46204 (317) 6845000 FAX (317) 684-5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-3700 FAX (317) 574-3716 BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL February 5, 1999 Ms. Kate BoYle City Engineer Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Ms. Boyle: We have filed a rezoning for the "Valinet Property" located on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of 1-465 and U.S. 31. We are scheduled to appear before the TAC Committee on February 17, 1999. Enclosed for your review prior to that meeting are conceptual development plans for all three quadrants. If you have any questions prior to the TAC meeting, please contact the undersigned at 574-3704 or Craig Flandermeyer at Duke Construction at 808-8181. Steven B. Granner Zoning Consultant SBG:do Enclosures cc: Mark Monroe 2700 First Indiana Plaza 135 North Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, indiana 46204 (317) 684-5000 FAX (317) 684~5173 North 8888 Keystone Crossing Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 574-370O FAX (317) 574-3716 CITY OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TRANSMITTAL To: Frolll~ Mark T. Monroe, AIC. P Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 ph. 317 571 2417 fax 317 571 2426 J~The m~erial you requested For your information For review and comment [~1 For approval Quantity/Description Copies to: sAforms\ttansmit TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR PROJECT REVIEW Hamilton County Surveyor Office One Hamilton Square, Suite 146 Hamilton County Sudieiel Center Noblesville IH 46060 Telephone: 776-8495 FX 776-9628 ~il & Water Conserv. 925 Division Street Noble,wille IN 46060 Telephone: 773-1406 FX 776-1101 ~0~ept. of Engmeenng One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 571-2441 IX: 57~-2439 Station #1 Two Civic Square Cannel IN 46032 Telephone: 571-2600 FX: 571-2615 ~RK MONROE Dept. of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel Hq 46032 Telephone: 571-2417 IX: 571-2426 ~$ 31 First Avenue NW Cannel IN 46032 Telephone: 571-2580 FX: 571-2585 SAM ROBINSON Carmel/Clay Schools 5201 East 131st Stree~ Carmel IH 46033 Tdephone: 8~,~. 9961 FX: 1H~,9965 Office of Police Chief Three Civic Square Cannel IN 46032 Telephone: 571-2500 FX: 571-2512 ~i ~l--'i't~-Utiliies 130 First Avenue SW Cannel IN 46032 Telephone: 571-2648 FX: 571-2653 ALSO: BRIAN HOUGIITON lone~ & Henry 2420 N. Coliseum Blvd., Suite 214 Ft. Wayne 1~ 46805 L. JOE COOK Hamilton County Sher~Dept. 18100 Cumberland Koad Noblesville IN 46060 Telephone: 773-1872 FX: 776-9835 ~:on ¢oun~ ~n~eering/ Hamilton County Highway 1717 East Pleasant Street Noblesvflle IN 46060 Telephone: 773-7770 FX: 776-9514 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITI'EE~ MEM~EI~ FOR PRO,IECT REVIEW PAG~ TWO. Waste Dimict P.O. Box 40638 Tfl,'Gs~f~OliS ~ 46240 Telephone: ~ ~200 FX: 844-9203 5858 No. College Avemie Telephone: 252-4274 F~ 252-5000 BARRY MCKULTY Hamilton County Health Dept. Hamilton County Judicial Center, Suite 30 Noblesvflle IN 46060-2229 Telephone: 7?6-8500 F'X: 7'76-8506 P.O. Box 1220 Indianapolis IN ~20~ Telephone: 263-6452 F'X: 263-6452 ~Light Company RANDY AULER Carmel/Clay Parks Depa~ uuent 1055 Third Avenue 5W c~3600 N...A~,gton Ave. Telel~hone: 848-7275 F'X; 571-2468J Telephone: 261-~265 FX: 261-5201 · r~ ' ~ P~Pipetine Co. P.O. Box 38 Ziomsville IN 4~0T? Telephone: 733-3213 FX: 733-3204 ROBERT m~NDRICKS l-t'..,..;:~on Couaty Local F. mergen~ ~..-..-;..~ Co.....~;~l.ee 18100 C-ml~-land Road Noiflesville IN 4~060-1624 1441 South Carmel IN 46032 Telephone: 581-3048 1UC 581-303I Paget ~$-4531 Corporate 2232 II~m~m~ Lias CO. P.O. Box 1700 Noble~/lle IN 4~0~0 Telephone: ~5533 ~ ~5553 J~T AIJTRY Indian,, Gas Company 550 West County Road, 125 South Lebanon IN 46052 Telephone: 7?6-5544 REVISED: 10-15-98 s:~im_,tes\tac\98members A&F ENGINEERING CO., INC. PROPOSAL FOR TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS DUKE REALTY DECEMBER 14, 19~8 PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is: To review the uaffic conditions as they exist at the study area intersections. This phase of the study will determine the operational conditions as they exist today. To review the traffic conditions at the aforementioned intersections with the added traffic from the proposed office/reta/l development. This phase of the study will determine the operational conditions of the road system based on the sum of existing traffic plus future traffic volumes. To make recommendations that will ensure safe ingress and egress from the proposed development and determine the required roadway cross section for 96th Street between U.S. 31 and Springmill Road. STUDY AREA The attached site plan contains the areas to be studied and are marked as A, B and C. The following intersections will be studied: 96th Street & U.S. 31 96th Street & Spfingmill Road 96th Street & College Avenue Access points along 96th Street e. Access points along SpringmiH Road f. 96th Street & West Drive of Parkwood Development SCOPE OF WORK The Rope of work for this project is: 1. Make peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts at each of the exis~ng study inter~ections. These counts will be made between the hour~ of 6:00 ~ to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. 2. Determine the existing c~pacity level for each intersection ~ on the existing geometrics and existing traffic volumes. F~xisting Conditions Plus Future Traffic Volumes 3. Estimate the number of trips that will be generated by each of the proposed developments. Assign and distribute the generated trips from each of the proposed developments to the existing roadway system and the future parkway system. 5. Summarize the generated trips from each of the proposed developments and the existing traffic volumes on the existing roadway system to determine the future total traffic volumes. 6. Determine the capacity level for the study intersections with the added tra_/fic volumes from each of the proposed developments. Prepare a Traffic Impact Operational Report documen~Y~ng all data, aaalyses, conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through and around this proposed site. Prepare 24" x 36" renderings and photographs of the proposed 96th Street recommendations and typical cross sections. Attend meetings to submit, review and explain the f~ndings of the report including attendance at any zoning related meetings. 2 CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS STEPHEN GOLDSMITH MAYOR August 21,1997 Mr. Mike Hollibaugh City of Carmel Once Civic Square Cannel, In 46032 Dear Mr. Hollibaugh, I received your scope for the 96~ and Meridian Street traffic study and appreciate the opportunity to review and comment. I reviewed the warrants for a Transportation Impact Study and found that the proposed development meets all warrants for a full TIS based upon our guidelines (see the enclosed TIS review form). As a result, I have prepared the enclosed scope of study for the subject site including typical requirements per our guidelines, as well as specific issues of concern to the adjacent property owners. The scope is more extensive than the A & F scope, due to the fact that the A. & F scope is for an operations analysis as opposed to a full traffic impact study. While I have tried to be comprehensive in the development of this scope, it is possible that changes would be needed once we have received and reviewed the detailed information forthcoming from the Mayor. I should note that 1 have highlighted in hatching both the site north and south of 1-465, even though our main concern is related to the site south ofi465. If you feel k is appropriate to modify your scope to a full transportation impact study, I will be happy to supply you with the necessary information (land use assumptions for vacant lands, background growth rate, etc...) required. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at 32%5403. Sincerely, Steven P. Cunningham Senior Planner Indianapolis MPO SC/spc enclosure CC: Nfike Peoni, Principal Planner, Indpls., MPO Lori Miser, Program Manager, Indpls., MPO DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING 1841 CITY COUNTY BUILDING · 200 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204 I~HONE: (3171 327-5151 · FAX: (317) 327-5103 SCOPE OF STUDY STUDY TYPE: Full Transportation Impact Study CASE: LOCATION: Northwest comer of 96a' at Meridian Street Study area- The study area should encompass the critical intersections to be analyzed and the vacant land, which once developed is believed to have a significant impact upon them (See attached map # 1). The critical intersections to be analyzed are 96a at Meridian Street, 96a at Spring lyf, all Road, 96~ at all access points and Meridian at both signalized ramps ofi-465. 2. Horizon years- Existing and 2007 3. Time period- AM and PM peak periods Development to be analyzed- The proposed development is to be analyzed within the context of non-site development in the study area that is approved or is likely to occur by the horizon year. See the areas on Map #1 marked A through F. Trip reductions- to be determined Background growth- to be determined Analysis scenarios- a. Existing traffic b. Existing traffic, anticipated non-site development generated traffic, and background traffic Existing traffic, anticipated non-site development generated traffic, background traffic, and proposed development generated traffic. Existing traffic, anticipated non-site development generated trail/e, background traffic and Comprehensive Plan/existing zoning traffic. Analysis of residential impacts- an analysis of the impacts this development would have on cut-through traffic in adjacent neighborhoods. Safety analysis- an analysis of existing safety data for the adjacent street system and critical intersections, proposed development impacts to safety and recommended safety improvements. C_%SE ~ ~-~G DA'E ,-':'~ CODE NA.%~%mT $3 YES ~, ~ : SUBJECT SITE C FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: FROM: DATE: NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: COMMENTS: Please f~'wat~l documents to addtemeee Immeclletely upon receipt. If these ~locuments are illegil~le or incomplete, please oontaat us at (317) 842.0864, Our fax nunYoer ts (317) 849- 6816, CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documen~ accompanying this telecopy transmission contain confldentie! information, The information is Intended only for the use of the individual(si or entity named above, if you ere not the intended reolpient, you are notified That any disclosure, copying, distribution or the tekinO of any action in reliance on the contents of this teie(=opled information Is not permisNbis. If you have received this teieaopy in error, please immediately notify us by Telephone at the number above to arrange for return of the original documents, Thank you. A&F" CONSULTING ENGINEERS A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Aagust 4, 19~7 Mr. Mi~ Hollibaugh Emtior Plnnnor C~y of Came~ 1 Ci'~ Square Clma~, IN 4~032 P. nctosgd please ~md our pmposat to Fepare a Traffic .Operetions Analysis for thc pmpo~d re~*i!!offlc~ perk to be ]ocaled in Cannel, Indiana akmg 96th Street betwe~a U,S, 31 and Spdngmill Road. The lump sum fee to ~ this analysis, based on the detailed scope of work, is outlined in the e~e~ed Fopos~. Thank you for the opportunity to mak~ this proposal. Sincerely, AW.F Enginee~g Co., lac. SWv~n J. Fel~bach, P,E. YiCe P~e~ident /mik EAST 6STH STREET -- iNO~NAPOU~ INAIANA ~ A&F ENGINEERING CO., INC. PROPOSAL ~OR TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS CITY OF CARI~.~. AUGt~r 4, 1997 PURPOSE developrnf~t. This piLUe of the study will ~e the operational conditions of the road sys~un based en Omc sum of To mafn~ reaxmnendations that will ensure safe ingress and egress from the STUDY AREA ~ area that v,4_ll be studicd, based on data from DOCS, w~ll bc thc following intersections: a. 96th Street & U.S. 31 b. 96th St~t & Sp~i~.o,n{q Road ~_ NON.-lrSd96515 R~z§ i:~,~7 12:11 No.O02 P.04 The scope of work for ~his project is: Mak~ peak ~ tm'pt%, movement tntfllc volume counts at each of the exis~ng study in~. ~ counts will be made between the hours of 6:00 AM Io 9:00 AM aad 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Exlstln~ Condh~ons P]o~ l~utute T~ Volumes l~lmate the number of trips ~hnt v,411 be ~enemted 5y each of the prolx~ deve~opnwt~. to the e~islin~ r(~tway ~ynt~ and ~ folure parkway Smnmmi,~ thc ~.rated tr~ from ead~ of the p~d devek~nenU and existing tntt~ volunu~ on ~e existin~ roadway syal~n Traff'JC [ .n1~ct Operational RepoTt docume~d~ atl dam, analyses, and recontm~tdations to provide for the safc and efl'zclent movement Ap. md mectfngs to ~bmit, ~ a~d explat~ the findings ofrl~ rc~ort/nclud/ng ~ at any ~o~ini ~ mec*,inp. I. The lump sum fcc to provide the 9epzices outiim~d in thc s~opc of work itcm,s 1 thn~ 8 is $8.7~0.00. 2 A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC~ ' uusz T N '-ITY Of: CARMEL J.8. 3J ~ OOTH STREET TASK: TRAFFIC OPEI~.TIONAL STUDY ESTIMATE.D, ,TIME IN HOURS Traffic Pmje~ Traf~ ~ Compu~' Date WORK CLASSIFICATION Pd~ F~ir~ ~ Te~h ~ specialist ~na~ 1 (ResloenOeO Tltp Generation t.00 1 Assignment ZOO Generat~ Volumes 2.00 3.00 Figures 1 .OO 8.00 TrSp Genmatio~ 1.OO 1.00 Assigrm~e~ 2,00 2.00 Generaled Vo4un~s 2.OO 2.OO F~e~ 1 .O0 8.OO ExLMJflg TreNk; Volumes ~ - U.8. 31 t.00 16.00 06th. 8t~tngmlil t .00 16.00 24 Hour Counle 3.00 15~00 Total Traflto Volumes 8oanario I 3.OO $.00 ~eMdo 2 3.00 3.00 Figures t .OO 4.00 ~ Traffio Volumes 1,00 3.00 E.~tlr, g + ~ 1.00 Existing + ~ 1.OO Existing + C,,,emmerdad + Addl. Oft~ 1.00 Rev~w 4,00 2.oo Mesfln~ls - 3 Earn ~ ,2 Hours ~.OO TOTAJ~ TOTAL HOURS g.lX) 42.lX) 41.OO 20.OO 5.00 47.00 164.(K HOURLY RATE 36.00 29.0C 17.00 12.15 11.7~ 10.00 TOTAL DIRECT ~ 324.0( 1218.00 697.00 25~.lX 5,8.75 47GOO 3022.70 SUB-TOTAL 7~8.64 FIXED FEE 11 ~6.1~ ~RECT CO~T ?$.00 rO, TA, L , ,, ,,, ~I~E LUMP SUM FEE DIRECT COST SUMMARY t~ILEAG~ TRIP~ ~ MILES ~ 0.28 PerMIle 0.00 .ODGIN~ NIGHT8 ~ 50.00 Pe~ Night 0.~3 ~ER DIEM DAYS ~ 21.00 Per Day 0,00 ;ISCELLANEOU6, PAPER & PRIt41'INQ ---. , 75.00__. $75.00 Additional S~vtccs - Po~ow,b~ thc ~ or' ~hc initial n:po~, ell addf~ion~l ~ ~ bc billed on tlm ~s of our HOURLY ~.ATH ~, · 1-,,,{,. sum o~ maximum f~ will be offea~d iF thc sco~ of work For CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS STEPHEN GOLDSMITH MAYOR May 12, 1998 Mr. Steve Engelking Department of Community Services City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Engelking: Enclosed is a copy of the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the City of Indianapolis by HNTB Corporation for the undeveloped parcel of land at the northwest comer of 96th and Meridian. This TIS was commissioned to address concerns raised by residents of Marion and Hamilton Counties as to the potential impacts of rezoning this parcel from primarily residential land uses to commercial land uses. A copy of this TIS is being provided to you for your infomaation and use in assessing impacts of potential land uses for this site. Based upon the findings of the TIS and our staff's review, the City of Indianapolis believes it would be prudent to include representatives of the City's Department of Capital Asset Management in determining necessary improvements to the adjacent roadway system and responsibility for their implementation. Joint negotiations have occurred in past cases where significant development is proposed on adjoining county lines. While the rezoning of this parcel would not be the sole cause of required transportation infrastructure improvements, it would necessitate additional improvements to the intersection of 96* and Meridian and would add significantly more traffic to an area that will be hard pressed to handle future traffic even without the development of this site. To rezone the subject site without commitments to provide the necessary transportation infrastructure improvements would cause the intersection of 96~ and Meridian to fail and would intensify an already unacceptable situation at the 96~ and Springmill Road intersection. If you have any questions regarding this TIS, please feel free to contact me at 327-3725. In the meantime, we will be obliged to provide copies to the general public upon request. Dennis M. Neidigh~ Director, Department of Capital Asset Management DN/spc enclosures cc: Mayor Goldsmith LoriMiser, DOP DEPARTMENT OF CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT SUITE 2360 CiTY COUNTY BUILDING 200 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-3357 (317) 327-4700 · FAX: (317) 32%4577 · TDD FOR HEARING IMPAIRED: (317) 327-5186 A&F ENGINEERING CO., INC. PROPOSAL FOR TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS CITY OF CARMEL AUGUST 4, 1997 Ao PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is: o To review the traffic conditions as they exist at the study area intersections. This phase of the study will determine the operational conditions as they exist today. To review the traffic conditions at the aforementioned intersections with the added traffic from the proposed office/retail development. This phase of the study will determine the operational conditions of the road system based on the sum of existing traffic plus future traffic volumes. To make recommendations that will ensure safe ingress and egress from the proposed development. STUDY AREA 1. The area that will be studied, based on data from DOCS, will be the following intersections: a. 96th Street & U.S. 31 b. 96th Street & Springmill Road Ce SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for this project is: Existing Conditions 1. Make peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts at each of the existing study intersections. These counts will be made between the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. 2. Determine the existing capacity level for each intersection based on the existing geometrics and existing traffic volumes. Existine Conditions Plus Future Traffic Volumes 3. Estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. 4. Assign and distribute the generated trips to the existing roadway system and the future parkway system. 5. Summarize the generated trips and the existing traffic volumes on the existing roadway system to determine the future total traffic volumes. 6. Determine the capacity level for the study intersections with the added traffic volumes from the proposed development. Report 7. Prepare a Traffic Impact Operational Report documenting all data, analyses, conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through and around this proposed site. Meetings 8. Attend meetings to submit, review and explain the findings of the report including attendance at any zoning related meetings. FEES 1. The lump sum fee to provide the services outlined in the scope of work items 1 through 8 is $8,790.00. 2 Additional Services - Following the acceptance of the initial report, all additional services will be billed on the basis of our HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE. However, a lump sum or maximum fee will be offered if the scope of work for any additional services can be defined. Hourly Rate Schedule: a. Principal/Chief Traffic Engineer $125.00 b. Project Manager 100.00 c. Transportation Engineer 60.00 d. Dmftsperson 45.00 e. Traffic Counters 30.00 3 INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF METROPOIJTAN DEVELOPMENT SOUTHWEST QUADRANT - 1-465 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 31 ~"TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY April 1998 Prepared By Paul B. Satterly, P.E. Steven L. Swango HNTB CORPORATION ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS 111 MONUMENT CIRCLE INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-5178 HNTB Job No.: 24839-PL-001-010 N SUBJECT SITE I FIGURE I AREA I~tAP NOT TO SCAIF, ~NDIANAI~S DEPARTMENT OF ~POUTAN O~LO~T ~ ~~ L. Area Conditions STUDY AREA The study area is defined az the area bounded by 1-465 on the north, 91~ Street on the south, Meridian Street on the east, and Spring ~ Road on the west. Existing land uses in the study area include residential development south of 96* Street, and a McDonalds restaurant located on the southwest comer of the 96~ Street/Meridian Street interse~on. The subject site, defined as above with 96* Street as a southern border, is currently zoned for approximately $0% Medium Inte~ity Residential and 20% General Office. Seven specific future non-site developments were identified by the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development (DiVID) as additional development sites that will impact the study area (see Figure 2). These antic/pared developments include: · Two separate residential areas locaed wes~ of Spring 1Wdl Road · A 13 acre area located along Meridian Street eas~ of the study area that will provide over 230,000 R2 of combined office and retail development Two separate areas totaling 35 acres can be expected to contribute over 755,000 ft2 to the Parkwood office development · Approximately 115,000 i~ of office space to be developed as part of the Me~odist Medical · Over 315,000 1~ of office space located in an office park north ofi-465. The existing road system that surrounds the study area includes Meridian Street which is a four to six lane divided road that widens at the intersection approaches and interstate ramps, and the undi~nded two lane roads, of Spring Mill Road, 96 Street and 91 Street. Planned improvements for Meridian Street include widening it to six lanes between 86~ Street and 96" Street to match the six lane section north of 96* Street; however, this does not impact the analysis of the study area. The south approach of 96* Street/Meridian Street has already been widened as pan of a previous improvement project. Because of commitments made by the Cannel City County Council and Planning Commission to limit additional access to Spring ~ Road, the subject site is limited to access only from 96* Street. Included in the study area are two unsig~n!i~ed intersections on Spring M'fll Road at 96* Street and at 91" Stree~ and the signalized intersection at 96* Street/Meridian Street. Existing intersection turning movement volumes are shown in Fixture 3. The ~ili'~l traffic hours for the subject site and traffic network are the weekday AM and PM peak hours, which fall within the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 and 4:00 to 6:00 respectively. Executive Summary Il Il The site development area under consideration is located in Hamilton County at the southwest quadrant of the 1465 end Meridian Street interchenge. It is bound by I465 to the north; 96" Street to the south; Meridien Street to the east; end Spring ~ Road to the west. The site is currently zoned approximately 80% $=2 ('Medium Intensity Residential) and 20% B-5 (General Office). The proposed development strategy is to rezone this entire area as B=5. Development in this area is exp~,ed to impact traffic operations most si~fificanfly at the 96'" Street/Meddien Street signalized intersection end at the 96* Street/Spring Mill Road end 91'~ $treetYSpring IWfll Road unsignalized intersections. For comparative purposes, three future development conditions have been enalyzed: no development, development under current zoning, and development under proposed zoning. In order to provide en acceptable level-of-service (LOS D), geometric end operational improvements are defined and included in the analyses of future conditions. The results of the tra/tic impact study (TIS) indicate that due to the expected growth in the area end the development of surrounding sites, the three intersections under consideration will require geometric and operational improvements in order to accommodate expected future traffic volumes even if the subject site is left undeveloped. These improvements include the construction of additional approach lanes at all three intersections. Since the minimum requirements necessals, to warrant the installation of a traffic signal are met under existing conditions at the inter~lion of 96* Street/Spnng Mill Road end are nearly met at the intersection of 91'* Street/Spring 1W_di Road, the installation of actuated traffic signals at these intersections are included in all horizon year analyses as well. When the subj~ site's existing zoning generated trifle is added to the improved traffic system, the construction of en additional travel lane is required for the intersection of 96." Street/Meridian Street to operate at en acceptable level of service. In comparison, the larger volume of traffic that is generated by the subject site a~suming proposed rezoning conditions requires the addition of four travel lenes to the intersection in order to operate below its capacity level during the evening peak hour. Operating under the control of actuated traffic signals, the two intersections on Spring Ivfill Road will operate adequately under all evaluated horizon year conditions. In fact, vehicular delays for the horizon year 2007 will be less or comparable to those currently experienced at the four-way stop controlled intersections under existing traffic volumes, Proposed improvements at 96* Street/Spring IVfill Road include en exclusive northbound right-turn lane that will beRer serve northbound right-turning vehicles and lessen the queue of cars that develops at the intersection. The addition of a traffic signal end exclusive right-turn lane will help reduce congestion at this intersection and lessen the vokune of cut-through traffic that passes through the adjacent residential area. Improvement Analysis As indicated in the LOS summaries (Tables 4 and 5) various improvements are required for each subject intersection in order to operate at an acceptable LOS at the base year and for each development scenario. 1997 Ba.~ Year Existing intersection geometries and operations were kept constant for the analysis of existing conditions. All three intersections operate adequately under existing conditions, with the exception of 91a Street/Spring IVfill Road operating below LOS D during the PM peak hour. The results of a Traffic Si,~gnel Warrant analysis at the unsignalized intersections indicate that the intersection of 96 Street/Spring Mill Road satisfies the minimum requirements for installation of a traffic signal as outlined in the 1988 Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Primary Warrants No. 1 and No. 2 are met, as well as Supplementary Warrant No. 11, and Guideline No. 13. The intersection at 91~ Street/Spring Mill Road comes close to meeting the Warrant requirements by satisfying ?rima~ Warrant lqo. 1 for 7 of the required 8 hours and meeting the requirements for Supplementary Warrant No. 11 and Guideline No. 13. A signal is not warranted under' existing conditions. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, if actuated tr~6ffc signals and opposing left turn lanes are added, the operation of the two unsignnli~ed intersections improves dramatically. 2007 Horizon Year without Site Develovment Assuming existing geometries, the operation of the three intersections falls below. LOS D under Horizon Year conditions. The following geometric and associated signal improvements are necessary to provide an acceptable LOS D (see Figures 22-24): 96~h Street/Meridian Street: · Addition of a fourth SB through lane. · Addition of a second NB, 1~ and WB exclusive left mm lane. * Addition of NB and EB exclusive right-turn lanes. · Addition of two WI5 right-turn lanes. 96ta Street/Spting lVfill Road · Addition of an ac~__,~t_ed traffic signal. · Addition of NB, SB, EB, and WB exclusive left-turn lanes. · Addition of a NB exclusive right-turn lane. 34 Street/Spring ~ Road · Addition of an actuated tmmc signal. · Addition of NB, SB, EB, and WB exclusive leR-tum lanes. 2007 Horizon Year with Existin~ Zonin~ In order to accommodate existing zoning development tra~c, no additional improvements are required for the intersections at 96~ StreeUSpring Ivfill Road and 91~ Street/Spring ~ goad other than the recommended improvements specified for the 2007 Horizon Year without Site Development scenario, as shown in Figures 23 and 24. In order to operate above capacity (LOS E) during the PM peak for the Existing Zoning development scenario at the intersection of 96* Street/Meridian Street, additional geometric improvements must be made. The following intersection improvement will provide for LOS D operation (See Figure 25): · Addition of a fi_~h NB through lane. 2007 Horizon Year with Prooosed Zonin~ The intersections at 96* Street/Spring Mill Road and 91'* Street/Spring Mill Road operate adequately under the Proposed Zoning development scenario with only the improvements required for the 2007 Horizon Year without Site Development scenario (Figures 23,24). During the PM peak hour, the 96* Street/Meridian Street inter~.-ction operates at capacity (LOS E) if no further intersection improvements are made. In order to operate at LOS D under proposed zoning conditions, the following improvements must be made in addition to the previously specified intersection improvements (See Figure 26): · Addition ofa fii'chNB through lane. · Addition of a third SB exclusive le~-tum lane · Addition of a second SB exclusive right-turn lane. · Addition of a second EB exclusive tight-turn lane. 35 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I00 North Senate Avenue Room N755 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2249 (317) 232-5533 FAX: (317) 232-0238 FRANK O'BANNON, Governor CURTIS A. WILEY, Commissioner October 25, 1998 writer's Direct Line Mr. Chris Seger Vice President & General Manager Indiana Office Group Duke Realty Investments 8888 Keystone Avenue, Suite 1200 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Dear Mr. Seger: Thank you for your letter advising the Indiana Department of Transportation of your purchase agreement for the three tracts of land adjacent to the U.S. 31 / 1-465 interchange on the north side of Indianepolis. We appreciate your efforts to advise us of this development. Mr. Craig Flandermeyer, of your staff, met with Cris Klika, INDOT Deputy Commissioner, to discuss your plans for the area. I offer the following comments for your consideration. The Major Investment Study has been completed that identified this highway upgrade, generally within its existing corridor, aa the preferred solution to the traffic congestion problems ia the area. The project is now entering the environmental impact document phase. This work will take approximately two years and will result ia a record of decision by the Federal Highway Administration that the project can continue into detailed design phases. The environmental impact statement will be written for the entire length of the project from 1-465 to SR 38; however, [NDOT will divide the length into manageable segments to design and construct. The Environmental Impact Statement should be completed in approximately two years. It is during this process that eoustmction schedules are adjusted and refined. We are tentatively scheduled to construct the middle segment of the project (approximately 131st Street to 16 l*t Street) over a time period of 2003 to 2011, with ramps and mainline likely being constructed in different years. In the area of the 1-465 interchange, we have set up our schedules to begin construction in approximately 2015. Please realize that these are tentative schedules and will be adjusted as issues relating to construction, traffic maintenance and funding availability are resolved in the environmental and design phases. As you surmised, Site B appears problematic for compatibility with a proposed intemhange improvement. While we do not know details beyond the information you already have, there are some anticipated constraints. Printed on Recycled Paper · An Equal Opportunity Employer · http://www, indot, state.bt.us/aunv'dot, index, html CHRIS SEGER October 25, 1998 Page 2 The ramp from 1-465 eastbound to US 31 northbound will hkely be directional ramps in order to maintain a moderately high-speed fi'eeway-to-fi:eeway connection. We do not anticipate using a loop ramp to make this connection. 2. The ramp shown on our concept drawings could quite possibly be pulled in toward mainline 1-465 to minimize impacts to Site B. However, the ramp will be placed on a high fill section due to a significant vertical constraint. 3. INDOT should have a much more definite idea of the configuration and the construction schedules for this area within the next year. We acknowledge that land developers work much faster than State Transportation Agencies, but we will work to accomplish this task in a timely manner. We appreciate your desire to prevent conflicts between your development and the proposed roadways. It would be unfortunate for you to make a large investment that conflicts with potential improvements. While we are committed to finding engineering solutions to site conditions, a development of the size depicted on your concept drawings could render our plans unconstmctable. This could have a detrimental effect on the transportation system of the area for many years to come and would ultimately have adverse effects on your developments as well. Within the year, INDOT will have a much better idea of the impacts to all three of your sites. Staff engineers are optimistic that there is a solution that. will allow both the intemhange and your development to succeed. I hope you will continue to communicate with us on this issue and will have the flexibility to work with INDOT to enhance the transportation system in this area. Sincerely, CC: Steve Valinet, NRC Corporation Mike Hollibaugh, City of Carmel Craig Flandermeyer, Duke Construction Steve Wuertz, Planning Division Jay Marks, Land Acquisition Division Steve Cecil, Pre-Engineering and Environment Division STATEMENT OF MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION OF COMMITMENTS COMMITMENTS MODIFYING OR TERMINATING EXISTING COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH REZONING OF PROPERTY In connection with I.C. 36-7-4-613, the owner of the real estate located in Hamilton County, Indiana, which is described below, makes the following modification(s) or termination(s) of commitments concerning the use and development of that parcel of real estate: Legal Description: (See attached Exhibit A) Statement of Modification or Termination of Commitments: 1. Commitment Number 3(k) made in connection with rezoning petition docket number 31-88Z and recorded as Instrument No. 8910299 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana, is hereby modified to read in its entirety as follows: Owner commits to limit the size of the development to 950,000 square feet of leaseable area, plus a 300-room businessman's hotel, or, if an office building is constructed in place of the hotel, to limit the size of the development to 1,050,000 square feet of leaseable area.~ These COMMITMENTS shall be binding on the owner, subsequent owners of the real estate or other persons acquiring an interest therein. These COMMITMENTS may be modified or terminated by a decision of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission made at a public hearing after proper notice has been given. The COMMITMENTS contained in this instrument shall be effective upon the adoption of modification or termination approved by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission in petition docket number These COMMITMENTS may be enforced by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. The undersigned hereby authorizes the Department of Community Services to record this Commitment in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana, upon final approval of modification and/or termination of Commitment(s) of petition number by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this instrument this 29th day of September, 1998. DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana limited partnership By: Duke Realty Investments, Inc., general partner PresidentDarell E. Zin~ Jr.~E~ Jtive Vice STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF MARION ) Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Darell E. Zink, Jr., owner(s) of the real estate who acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument and who, having been duly sworn, stated that any representations contained therein are true. WITNESS my hand and Notada~;eal this 29th day of September, 1998. ~jteven B. Granner, Notary Public My Commission Expires 10-14-2000 My County of Residence Madon This instrument prepared by Philip A. Nicely, Attorney at Law, Bose McKinney & Evans, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1500, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46240. ::OOMA~VlH ODMA~IO 1 ;21041 ;6 2 This modification and/or Termination Agreement was approved by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission on the day of ,1998. CERTIFICATION: Stephen C. Engelking, Director Department of Community Services VVITNESS: Ramona Hancock Secretary, Carmel/Clay Plan Commission ::ODMA~MHODMA~O1;21041;6 3 PARKYFOOD CROSSING UNDEVELOPED TRACT LEGAL DESCRIPTION August 20, 1993 A par~ of the Southeast r 't s County. I~die.ua. described as degrees 40 minutes thence Soul~ 90 de tees 00 minUteS 00 seconds West 4S.00 feet: thence North 00 and the ~rest boundary g .... l~ter~eotton of the north boundary of 06th Street seconds East 4~.00 feet to the descripi~ion: thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes of College Avenue and the point of beg~n~-ng of this said 0~th Street: thence North 00 de,Tees 00 minut seconds We~ 50.00 feet; thence No~h 90 g 00 degrees 40 ~u~e$ 57 ~c~nds Ea~ 85.05 fee~: t~enoe No~ 90 degrees 00 ~utes 00 seconds East 500.00 fee%; ~bence North O0 ~egrees uu ~utes O0 seconds East 357.40 fee~; thence Westerly 126.54 feet alon~ ~ ~c to tke left and ha~g a radiu~ of 222.50 feet and subtended by a long chord h~g · bea~g of No~h 7~ degrees 4Z ~utes 25 ~econds West ~d ~ lem~ of 124.84 feet; ~ence South 90 leek; ~hence Sout~ O0 de~rees O0 ~nutes O0 seconds ~est ~.~..~ O0 ~{-ukes O0 seconds Wes% 803-6~ ........ ~- East 40 08 feet; ~ence $outk O0 de~ree~ C~e~ 3 38 [ee%; [hence South 11 de~rees O0 teet; thence Sou~ O0 degrees 48 m~U~es ~. r~h 90 de-tees O~ ~u~es O0 seconds'East ~5.S7 feet; es 54 seconds Eas~ 0.66 fee~; ~ce .o .... ~. ~o ~..~ o the north bound~ o~ thence Sou~ uo aegre.o =- Street; thence Sou~ 90 degrees O0 ~nutes O0 secon~ West 398.58 fee~ alon~ said boldly line of s~d qu~er section; thence Nor~ O0 degrees 48 ~n,utes 07 seconds E~st 859.03 feet along s~d 49 minu~es 02 seconds East 151.92 feet ~ong wes~ line ko the so~%k boundary of Inkers~%e 455; ~ence No~h 69 degrees 05 ~ukes 14 seconds~as~ 285.69 fee~ ~on~ said bound~y; thence NoOk 80 de,tees said bo~Y; thence South 89 degrees 42 ~nu~e$ 40 seconds East ~,031.57 feek ~o~ s~d bound~; %hence South 89 dezrees 02 mi~u%e~ 17 seconds East 82.37 Jee% ~ong said bound~y; khe~ce Nor~ 90 s~ k,oundary; ~he~ce South 89 de.ess 16 minutt degrees 00 ~inu~es 00 seconds Eas~ 977.5~ fee% alon~ College Avenue; thence ~5 seconds East 141.42 fee~ ~ong s~d bo~dary to the ~est boundary of said to the po~t of beginnin~ South 00 de~rees 40 minutes 57 seconds ~est 977.22 feet ~on~ s~d bounda~ and con%~ni~ 44.951 acres, more or le~s. Subject to aH easements, restrictions, and ~g~ts-of-way of regal record. PARA~OOD CROSS]NG - BUILDING N0. IFf. AT. DI:SCR1FI~0N Amended Feb~ ~, 1995 A ~ of ~e Sourest ~er of ~on II, To~msMp 17 No~, ~nge of ~d queer secUon; thence No~ O0 ~ong ~e w~ ~e of ~d queer ~ecUo~ ~encc ~o~x 90 s~n~, ~l 80.6~ feet to ~e PO~ .OF BEG~G. of U~. descfipUon, vMch M on ~e e~ ~e of ~ access ~ement d~cfib~ ~ ~ent No. gi-18210: ~ence No~ 11 d~e~ O0 ~inutes ~ secon~ )e~ 0.88 feet ~o~ s~d e~ ~e; ~ence No~ O0 de~ee~ ~ m(~ut~ 07 s~on~ E~ ~8.28 feet ~o~ ~d ea~ ~e; ~e~ce No~h gO de~ OD minut~ O0 secon~ E~ ~0.06 fee~ thence ~on~ E~t 562.50 feet to ~e no~ ~bt-of-~7 ~e of ~ SMee~; ~ence No~ gO de.es O0 ~ute~ O0 ~econ~ ~ ~.26 f~t ~o~ ~fid ~ht-of-~I ~e; ~ence ~m~ ~ seconds ~e~ 50.97 fee,; mence 156.52 fee~ ~ence ~o~h 90 d~ees ~ m~nu~ 00 ~on~ ~es~ 2~.~ fee~ ~o ~e P0~ 0F BEG~G ~d con~-~g 5.6~7 acres, mo~ or le~. STATEMENT OF MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION OF COMMITMENTS COMMITMENTS MODIFYING OR TERMINATING EXISTING COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH REZONING OF PROPERTY In connection with I.C. 36-7-4-613, the owner of the real estate located in Hamilton County, Indiana, which is described below, makes the following modification(s) or termination(s) of commitments conceming the use and development of that parcel of real estate: Legal Description: (See attached) Statement of Modification or Termination of Commitments: 1. Commitment Number 3(I) made in connection with rezoning petition docket number 31-88Z and recorded as Instrument No. 89010299 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana, is hereby modified to read in its entirety as follows: "1. No parking structure shall exceed grade plus three levels in height." These COMMITMENTS shall be binding on the owner, subsequent owners of the real estate or other persons acquiring an interest therein. These COMMITMENTS may be modified or terminated by a decision of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission made at a public headng after proper notice has been given. The COMMITMENTS contained in this instrument shall be effective upon the adoption of modification or termination approved by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission in petition docket number These COMMITMENTS may be enforced by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. , The undersigned hereby authorizes the Department of Community Services to record this Commitment in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana, upon final approval of modification and/or termination of Commitment(s) of petition # by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this instrument this ~J~' day of January, 1998. DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana limited partnership By: Duke Rea~~ partner By: ....... " .... · Darell E. Zink'7'Jr., ~E~e~utive Vice President STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF MARION ) Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Darell E. Zink, Jr., owner(s) of the real estate who acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument and who, having been duly sworn, stated that any representations contained therein are true. WITNESS my hand and Notarial~li~ary,. __~ 1998. St~ven B. Granner, Notary Public My Commission Expires: 10-14-2000 My County of Residence: Marion This instrument prepared by Philip A. Nicely, Attorney at Law, Bose Mc, Kinney & Evans, 8888 Keystone Crossing. Suite 1500, Indianapolis, indiana. 46240. This modification and/or Termination Agreement. was approved by the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission on the day of ,1998. Secretary, Carmel/Clay Plan Commission MHODM~NO1;21041;Ilmas 2 2555d $910 99 COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF REAL ESTATE In accordance wi.th Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-613, Duke Associates No. 62 Limited Paltr, ership (hereafter the "Owner"), the owner of the following described Real Estate located in Hamilton County, Indiana (hereafter the "Real Estate"), makes the following COMMITMENTS cc,~cerning the use and development of the Real Estate to the Carmel Plan Commission (hereafter "Commission"). 1. Description of Real Estate: _- See Exhibit A ("Real Estate") 2. Docket No. - 31-88Z : 3 Statement of Co~itments: a. Owner co,its that the Real Es[at~s~ll~e developed with uses consistent with the Conceptual ~it~ Development Plan attached as Exhibit B, subject to such amendments and modifications thereto as are reco~ended by the Carmel Plan Co~ission or the Carmel City Council and accepted by the Owner. b. Owner commits that the 96th Street Landscape and Screening Plan attached hereto as Exhibit C, and such modifications thereto as are approved by the Carmel Plan Commission, shall be installed by the Owner on the Real Estate prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Carmel, Indiana ' for the first building to be constructed on the Real Estate. Such Landscape and Screening Plan shall include a six (6) foot earthen berm (measured from the roadway lying immediately south of the berm) which will be irrigated and landscaped with a double staggered row of confiers six to eight (6-8) feet tall at the time of planting, in addition to other landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs and flowers. c. Owner commits that any surface parking area shall be a minimum of 60 feet from the now existing right-of-way of 96th Street. d. Owner commits that no office or parking structure shall be constructed within 280 feet of the now existing right-of-way of 96th Street. and that any office building constructed within 280 to.460 feet.of the now existing right-of-way of 96th Street shall be no higher than five (5) stories. e. Owner commits to architecturally treat the south facade of any parking garage that has unrestricted sight lines to the neighborhood to the south (the second parking garage from the east on the Conceptual Master Plan) such that the appearance of the parking garage as viewed from the homes in the College Crest Addition on the south side of 96th Street will be aesthetically improved from that of the "standard" parking garage facade. f. Owner commits that all exterior parking and street area lighting fixtures shall be of the "shoe box" variety which directs the light downward and that they shall be limited to a maximum of 40 feet in height. g. Owner commits that the main interior street in Phase I which begins at Pennsylvania Street and proceeds along the perimeter of Phase I shall be of heavy duty construction to accommodate construction traffic. h. Owner commits those commonly accessory to shall be permitted. that no retail uses, except and located within the hotel, i. Owner commits to preserve sufficient land to provide for the development of a full cloverleaf interchange at Meridian Street and 1-465. j. Owner commits that the second 96th Street entrance shall be located between Washington Boulevard and Central Avenue and shall not align directly with Central Avenue. Owner shall design the parking and traffic flow within the development to de-emphasize or discourage traffic from exiting by this second 96th Street entrance. k. Owner commits to limit the size of the development to 750,000 square feet of leaseable area, plus the 300 room businessman's hotel, until such time as 'i'h~ Instru ,re. ant Re:ord-~d ~'~ ''~, ~ .1989 Sba[on K. C~er~y...':.:.= c<~ ~ d ~ r, Hamilton County, IN improvements are made to the 1-465 and Meridian Street intersection, after which time the development limit will increase to 950,000 square feet of leaseable area, plus the~300 room.businessman's hotel. For purposes of this paragraph k "imp£ovements" shall mean improvements to the intersection of 465 and Meridian Street so that there are two lanes of traffic flowing unobstructed on Meridian Street, both in a northerly direction and a southerly direction. 1. No parking structure shall exceed twenty-three (23) feet in height from ground level. 4. Binding on Successors and Assigns: These Commitments are binding on the Owner of the Real Estate, each subsequent owner of the Real Estate and each other person acquiring an interest in the Real Estate, unless modified or terminated by the Commission. These Commitments-may be modified or terminated only by a decision of the Commission made at a public hearing after notice as provided by the rules of the Commission. 5. Effective Date: The Commitments contained herein shall be effective upon the adoption of an ordinance by the Carmel City Council changing the zoning classification of the Real Estate described on Exhibit A from the S-2 Residence District to the B-6 Business District. 6. Recording: The undersigned hereby authorizes the Director of Community Development, or the Secretary of the Carmel Plan Commission, to record these commitments in the office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana upon adoption of the ordinance referred to in paragraph 5 above. 7. Enforcement: These commitments may be enforced by ' the Carmel Plan Commission. this IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this instrument ~ day of ~A~-~ , 1989. DUKE AS~IATES NO. 62 LIMITED O rel E./// Assistant Gen~l ~h~ger STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF MARION ) The undersigned, a Notary public in and for said County and State, acknowledged the execution of the foregoing commitments by Darell E. Zink, Jr., the Assistant General Manager of Duke Associates No. 62 Limited Partnership. WITNESSETH this ~ day of ~ , 1989. Notary Public ~ - "kPrinted signature) My Commission Expires: County of Residence: This Instrument was prepared by Philip A. Nicely, Attorney at Law, Bose McKinney & Evans, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1201, Indianapolis, IN 46240. October 1, 1998 Mr. Curtis A. Wiley, Conunissioner Indiana Deparlment of Transportation 100 No~h Sennte Avenue Room N753 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2249 RE: CARMEL NOTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT PIAN- U.5. 31 & 1-465 Dear Mr. Wiley: Duke Realty Limited Partnership has negotiated a purchase agreement with NRC Corporation for the purchase of property located at the intersection of U.S. 31 and 1-465. This letter is written on behalf of NRC Cotguration as owuer/seller and Duke Realty Limited Partnership as the purchaser/developer. The property comprises vacant ~ound in the NW, SW, and SE quadrants of this intersection and consists of approximately 64 acres. Duke envisions this g~ound being developed similar to the Parkwood Crossing Office Park which is located at 96~' Street and College Avenue. Duke is moving forward with plans to appropriately zone this property to allow development to proceed. Initial masu~r planning studies have been completed and are included for your information. It is our understanding that INDOT has plans to expand the interchange at this location. Pursuant to Carmel's U.S. 31 Overlay Zone requirements, 23B.16.4, "Reservation of Land for Pending State Highway Improvement", a copy of which is attached, the plans developed for INGOT by Bernarndin, Loohmueller and Associates were superimposed on the Duke master plan. The impact on the SW quadrant was most significant. A planned freeway ramp from eastbound 1-465 to northbound U.S. 31 bisected the 35 acre SW quadrant rendering the site unusable for the proposed Duke development. Duke intends to apply for an Economic Hardship Exception from the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission as allowed by 23B.16.4 b. of the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. Duke would like to initiate discussion with INDOT on how both development and uansportation interests in relation to this site may be served. Improving ~affic flow adjacent to this site and through the 31 co~dur is an issue that we would like to help facilitate. However, the initial plan by Bernardin, Lochmueller and Associates eliminates the development potential of 35 acres of prime real estate. A representative from Duke will call within the next week to establish a time to discuss this situation. Vice President & General Manager, Indiana Office Group Steve Valinet NRC Corporation Eric.: Master Plans - NW, SW, SE Quadrants Carmel U.S. 31 Overlay Zone, 23B.16.4 Mike Hollibangh, City of Carmel Phil Nicely, Bose, McKinuey & Evans Rich Horn, DRX Executive Vice President Office Group Craig Flandermeyer, DR/Development Services EXHIBIT C-3 DP must rescv~ for a:q~,~ 5!r cbc $.,.,- o~r.a~ dl land ~ the $-~- ~ m far l~*~a;-_~; .,"~a~ m U.S. ~.~ .i I, as sbow~ on plzas d~lope~ for d~ ' Of ~-fn~"n"' D~.~-e~ o f'i'mm'parc~ion of ~h~ proposed DP ~s de~-r~oed ~ove ~ Para, graph A. In. ~e~-~n;n;-.~ whether co gram an Economic Ha.-dship Exccpdoo, thc Co~,~;~ion m~7 coa.side~ the followl~ crk~ia: (I) the appLi..ca~¢s knowledge of the $~a~'s p~-~ ar ~ thne of acquisition; (2) the ca'rent levet of econotnic t/v.u'n on the property, including the dmc of purr. base, the purci~se price, income from thc property, an), r~main/ng mong'age debt,. ~ esme ta.x~, and recent .a~tai.sals of the prope~., (3) any t~cent offers for sale or purc.hase, hciuding offers to purchase which the S~t~ itsdfma¥ have made;. - '- (4) thc f~.sibility ofprO/irablc alternative ascs for the property; and (~ whethc~ the State c~ reasonably be exTecced ta provide ju~ compensx~on tn thc applicant for any ~-~ of the applicant's property wlrhi, one (I) year fi'om the date of thc Com-,;-.don's decision. Ce An applicant for an Economic Hardship Except/on must prove by cie. ar and con~nclng evidence both (l) tl~at the existing use {[~an¥) of the applicant's property is economically i~feadble; and (2) that, if the rerm~ o~ P~.~.graph A am applied m the property, ifie sale, rental, or rehabilkafion of the property will hoc be pos-~ibie, resulting in the proper~7 not being capable of earning any r~sonable economic r~mrm Thc Cornmi~ion's decision must be in writing and must contain the factual findings ',hal cons~ku~ the bash for irs decision, co,silent with the criceria in Para/n_ ph B. D. Tn. is Section 13B.16.4 exp. b~s December 3 I, 2002.