HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence12/22/2884 88'58 3177769628 HAMILTON CO SURVEYJ~R PAGE
, .
.,'Kenton C. '7.g,~ard, $,n~eyor
'Pho.c t'jZT.) 776'8495
"Fax (3~7) 776-.06'-8
December 17, 2004
Woolpm LLP
ATTN: Gte§ Shelling
7140 Waldemar Driw
Indianapolis, IN a6268
VIA FACSIMILE: 291-5505
OR'S
01102
Re: West Cat,nd Marketplace
De~r Mr. Shelling:
We have reviewed the revised construction plans submitted to thc Hamilton County
Surveyor's Office on December 9, 2004 for this project and have tho followin$ comments:
Upon reviewing the .provided Base Flood Elevations for Crooked Creek and
utilizin~ thc cxistin~ contour lines and spot shots provided in the construction
plans, it appears fill is being placed in the floodplain of the regulated drain.
Hamilton County Ordinancc 4-26-99~C(6) prohibits the filling of the floodplain of
a regulated drain. Any variance from the above mentioned ordinance will require
the al~roval of'the Hamilton County Drainage Board. Also, please show the 100
year flood event line on the construction plans.
.
V~'nile it is understood that the only way to utilize detention basin (A), across thc
creek, is the underwater equalizcr pil~, This pipe is not to thc HCSO Design
Standard and will also need tho blessing of thc Drainage Board. This pipe will
most likely NOT b~ome part ofthc rcgulatcd drain system and any furore
maint~ance of this pipe will bc thc ~sibility of the property owner.
Thc pipe bew,,ecn poods B and C will most likely become part of thc regulated
drsin because ofthe potential to drain public ROW and caxry Off-site water, This
pipe will need to be set at the normal pool elevation and not be a submm'~d
outlet. It is understood a cover issue exist with the "channel" over the pipe, but
this chanuel should be EoinE awsy in the future. Please call to discuss.
1
Is any detention capacity provided in thc ponds for the Commewe Drive
extensiou?
12/22/2884 88'58 31777S9S~.8 HAMILTON CO SURVEY. DR PAGE
02/02
Pond B appem~ to have a new 100 year flood elevation that is higher thml thc top of
bank shown by contours on the gradins plan. Ponds C and D appear to only have
about 1.5 feet of free board and not the 2' as required by HCSO Standard Details.
No emergency spillways and flood routin~ is shown for the ponds.
s
Please provide P & P views for the following pipe sections: 41-45, 45-44, 74=73, 77-
89, 89-86, 86-78, 75-87, 1t7-76, 79-90, 90-80, 81-82, 82-83, ~md 95 to ~xi~ing pipe.
7~
Should the invert to the SW on stmoture 2~ be an 878.94, instead of the shown
879.94?
m
With the grading of 99t~ Street and thc location of thc storm stru~ it ap~ that
water will get trapped in the underdrain$ at the driveway tumout locations, please
look at these places and make sure all underd~n has n positive slope bnck to a storm
structure.
The TC on stmctm'e #I needs raised because of the cover less then 2' as required for
a regulated drain and the TC is below the 100 year zlevation of Pond B, which could
cause water to suro~~ iron the manhole lid.
10. Pleas~ provide a graphic representation of the HGL for th~ Mayflower Park Arm (the
36" to 54" pipe nm).
11. All maru~olcs that arc part of thc rcl~ulatcd drain system nccd to bc sized pcr thc
HCSO Stand~ Details D-18, D-20, and D-21,
12. Please include one ofthe approved HCSO Standard Details for the detention basins
(D-6 to D-8) and make sure they are designed to that standard.
1.3. The roquire~ bond is insufficient to cover the co~t of the recon~cfi~ and the work
in the ROW. The pipe prices seem much lower then we normally see and none of
th~ catch basins, storm pipe, or SSD in 99~h Street is included. Please revise the
estimate and correct the submitted bond.
14. Please note the additional comments may be warranted at a later date.
Should you have any qu~tions, I can b~ re, ach~ at 317-776-8495.
Sincerely,
Greg Hoyes
Plan Reviewer
CC: Jon Dobosiewicz- Carmel DOCD
John South - HCSWCD
Dick Hill - Carmel Engineering
Steve Broennzun- HCHD
Tom McLaughlin - Duke
NOV-89-8004 14:53 FROM:HAMILTOF!~O HWY DEP 31TTTG9814 TO:-rZ"T ST1 8486 P.0011008.~
HAMILTON COUNTY
HIG A Y DEPAt?T/ ENT
November 29, 2004
Mr, Grog Shelling
Woolpert LLP
7140 Waldemar Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46268-4'~ 92
RE:
West Carmel Marketplace
Revised Site Plans
S of Retail Parkway t E of US 421
Clay Township
Dear Mr. Snelling:
This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of a transmittal received 10/'1f04 containing the
plans for the above-mentioned project, After reviewing the plans the Highway
Department has the following comments (I have maintained the numbering from my July
14, 2004,September 9, 2004and October 12, 2004 letters):
I. Items I - 14 have.been properh/addressed.
15. OK.
16. Items 16 -40 have been properly addressed.
41. Please note that further comments may be necessary at a later date.
Additional Items
42. OK.
43. OK.
44. OK,
45. Will the fight of way for 99m Street be dedicated through a meets and bounds
description or a secondary plat. The plat must be prepared prior to approval of the
plans or the'right of way dedicated, The necessary right of way south of 99m
Street has not been finalized. Plans will be forwarded when coml~lated.
46. The location and installation of all storm sewer south of 99th Street will not be
determined until the Commerce Drive extension design is completed.
47. OK.
48. Please note that no construction may begin on site until the following occur, all
comments from this office, the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office and Hamilton
County Soil and Water District have been addressed and the plans stamped
approved. A Testing and Inspection Agreement is executed for the construction of
99~h Street and the revisions to Corm'narco Ddve and Retail Parkway, and a pre-
construction meeting held on-site.
49. It appears that most comments have been properly addressed; however, the
Highway Department will not issue final approval until the location of Commerce
Drive is determined. The Highway Department is currently awa._iting notice from Duke
Realty about the final location of Commerce Drive, north of 99~' Street,
1700 South !0m Street
Noblesville, In. 460§0
ww w. ¢0. h am. t_l.t,p.n~i n., u .~
Office 017) 773.7770
Fax O! 7), 776.9814
NOV-89-8004 14:53 FROM:HAMILT~CO HWY DEP ~177769814 TO-'-~7 S71 8486
P. 008 ~008
50. The Highway Department has no objection to the start of construction In areas
outside of the right of way, provided that the necessary permits are obtained from the
City of Carmel and a pre-construction meeting is held on-site,
If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please feel free to contact
me at anytime.
Sincerely,
,Staff Engineer
Jon Doboslewicz
Greg Hoyes
G:\USERS~St~\04Leo~I 1-2~04,wastca~mel marketplace,doc
September 14, 2004
Ms. Mary Solada
Bingham McHale LLP
2700 Market Tower
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900
JAMES BR)aNARD, }VIAYOR
RE' West Carmel Market Primary Plat
West Carmel Center, Block F Lot 1
Dear Ms. Solada:
This project, scheduled for the September 22, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee'~tmee m~g, is located
outside of the current City of Carmel limits and therefore, outside of the Department of Engineering
jurisdiction.
Dick Hill, Assistant Director
Department of Engineering
cc:
Jon Dobosiewicz, Department of Community Services
Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office (fax)
John South, Hamilton County Soil & Water (fax)
Steve Broermann, Hamilton County Highway Department (fax)
Project File
Engineering Department Review
S :LP ROJ REV04\WESTcARM E LMA RKET
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CAIL\IEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 F3X 317.571.2439
E:x.t~n. engineering~ci.carmel.in.us
~~"p~~~LUTION
ITION
SPONSOR(s)' Councilors Rattermann, Mayo, Sharp
RESOLUTION NO. CC-09-20-04-01
REQUESTING THE PLAN COMMISSION NOT APPROVE ANY
AL AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON US 421 (MICHIGAN ROAD)
BETWEEN 96TM STREET AND 106TM STREET FOR THREE YEARS (36 months).
WHEREAS, this Plan Commission of the City of Carmel is currently considering a proposed
commercial development adjacent to and east of US 421 at or near 99th Street which includes a
new automatic traffic signal on US 421 at 99th Street.; and
WHEREAS, there is already an automatic traffic signal approximately 800' north of the
proposed automatic traffic signal at 99th Street; and automatic signals at the 96th and 106th Street
intersections at US 421 (Michigan Road).
WHEREAS, the road running west from the proposed signal is not a publicly maintained right
of way,
WHEREAS, the free flow of traffic along this major thoroughfare is a major consideration for
the City of Carmel, Hamilton County and State of Indiana.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana
as follows'
le
That this Council requests the Plan commission not approve any development plans that
include addition of any new automatic traffic signals on US 421 (Michigan Road) for a
period of 36 months (three years). This would allow further study of the need for such
traffic light after more of the area has been developed.
.
That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage,
execution by the Mayor, and such publication as is required by law for 36 months
following approval.
PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this ~0~day of--~~
2004, by a vote of ~ ayes and i~ nays.
Preparation date 9/16/2004
Revised: 9/16/2004 Page 1 of 2
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL
Presidin Officer Kevin
.ffiths
resident Pro Tempore
D. Mayo
Mark
Richard
Sharp
ATTEST'
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, reasurer
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this
2004, at ~.M.
~day of
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this~
2004, at ~.M.
day of
ATTEST'
James Brainard, Mayor
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
Prepared by:
Mark Rattermann
Preparation date
Revised'
9/16/2004
9/16/2004
Page 2 of 2
To:
Cc'
Subject'
Babbitt, Pamela A
Dobosiewicz, Jon C
UPDATED Docket No. Assignment: (DP/ADLS) West Carmel Marketplace (formerWalnut
Creek) (#04050028 DP/ADLS)
Pam'
Please forward the petitioner this revised fee sheet. A fee for 2 additional Traffic Study Review has been added ($3000).
As of today, the petitiner owes a fee of $3000; the rest of the fees have already been paid, regarding this docket item.
Please contact Ms. Sol. ada at 635-8900 (Fax: 236-9907) with this intbrmation
Thank you.
..... Original Nessage ......
From: Butler, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, Nay 18, 2004 12:5:[ plVl
To: Babbitt, Pamela A
Cc: Morrissey, Phyllis G; Pattyn, Dawn E; Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Nike P; Keeling, Adrienne M; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I;
Hancock, Ramona B; Dobosiewicz, .]on C; Stahl, Gayle H; Pohlman, .]esse M; Brennan, Kevin S
Subject: Docket No. Assignment: (DP/ADLS) Walnut Creek Narketplace (#04050028 DP/ADLS)
Pam,
Please print and fax this e-mail to the petitioner identified below and update the file. I have issued the necessary Docket
Number for (DP/ADLS) Walnut Creek Marketplace. It will be the following:
Docket No. 04050028 DP/ADLS
Traffic Study Review Fee
$750 + $750 + $100'42 acres =$5,700
$1500.00 * 3 = 4,500
Total Fee' $10,200.00
Docket No. 04050028 DP/ADLS West Carmel Marketplace (formerWalnut Creek)
Development Plan and ADLS
The applicant proposes a retail center.
The site is located northeast of 99th Street and Michigan Rd/US 421.
The site is zoned B-3/Business and B-2/Business within the US Highway 421 Overlay.
Filed by Mary_ Solada of Bingham McHale for Duke Realty.
Petitioner, please note the following:
1. This Item has was placed on the June 16 agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee.
2. Mailed and Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Friday, June 25. Published notice is required
within the Indianapolis Star.
3. Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than Noon, Friday, July 16. Failure to
submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the petition.
4. The Filing Fee and Fifteen (15) Informational Packets must be delivered to Plan Commission Secretary Ramona
Hancock no later than NOON, Friday, July 9. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the
tabling of the petition to the Tuesday, August 17, agenda of the Plan Commission.
5. The Item appeared on the July 20, 2004 agenda of the Plan Commission under (Public Hearings).
6. The Item aDppeared on the Tuesday, August, 3 agenda of the Plan Commission Special Studies Committee.
PETITIONER: refer to your instruction sheet for more detail.
Please contact Ms. Solada at 635-8900 (Fax: 236-9907) with this information. Once the file is updated please return it
to Jon's office.
Thank you,
Angie
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317-571-2417
Fax: 317-571-2426
FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER
DATE'
TO:
September 21,2004
Mary Solada/Bingham McHale
Cindy Schembre/Duke Realty
FAX: 236-9907
808-6787
FROM'
Attached hereto are pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile
transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages,
please call 317/571/2417.
NOTES:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private
and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is
privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(les) named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the
taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to
arrange for return of the forwarded documents to us.
Carmel Plan Commission
One Civic Square
Carmel. IN 46032
PAR Enterprises
3277 Smokey Ridge Circle
Carmel, IN 46033
317-753-4555
September 15, 2004
Dear Members:
Due to the change of the meeting date of the Carmel Plan Subdivision Committee
(that I had no knowledge of), I was unable to attend.
My major concern is that there will be 12 residences that could have 24 cars (2
each) whose headlights would shine into my two bedrooms (one in each residence) each
night as they exit from the new street. My property is 10423-25 Ethel St., Indianapolis.
My simple plea is to formally request that Madison Court (the street proposed in
the replat of lots 31-33) be rotated. 90 degrees clockwise. This would mean that Madison
Court would join 104th Street instead of Ethel Street and the problem would be resolved.
The advantages of this change are:
I The 12 homes (6 doubles) would not have their vehicle lights flashing
into two bedrooms as in the original plan.
m The developer would have an extra 2000 square feet for use.
m There would be 2000 square feet less road area expense and less water
to drain into sewers and waterways.
m It would reduce the traffic on Ethel Street with no increase on 104th St.
I We would have fewer people walking through our property to get to
the Monon Trail.
I The developer would be showing good faith in their commitment to
work with concerned neighbors of the current proposal.
The pictures attached are the view of my property as seen from the center of
where the new road will be if this plan is approved as submitted.
I respectively request that this ~roposal be sent back to the subcommittee for
further evaluation.
Sin~cg~ely,..4 ,
Pat Robinson - Owner
20' BUFFEEYAED z~ R[AR YARO ~ETBACK
..rq-:,,~-- - -, .... ~---n
Little Forms ~., 10,260 s:f.
Addition to the ,~ ,.
Town of'Home ~t /
~1 ¢' +
· ~Fs~ ~2 ....
' et 33 -
PHIC SCALE /
TC-822.~T
-- ST ST ~,~
10~g2'
20' BUFFEEYARB TYPE'i 'C'"
-- 7
LOT 8~k t I
8,553 s.fj I
~.88'
Bingham ·
a t t o r n eys a t Ia w
VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
Jon C. Dobosiewicz
Planning Administrator
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Dear Jon:
September 3, 2004
Mary E. Solada
Parmer
msolada~binghammchale.com
I have filed in your offices on Sept 3, 2004, the latest amendments concerning the West
Carmel Marketplace DP, ADLS, and variances.
As noted in your verbal comments of August 31 (Special Studies meeting), and in recent
communications between Greg Ewing of my office and Angie Butler of yours, the amended
petitions and attachments provide details concerning the latest overall building square footage,
parking spaces, light poles/fixtures, signage type/size, and the specific variances requested.
The amendments represent the latest available details of the West Carmel Marketplace
concerning the variances as was requested by Angie. Other agreed upon details such as proposed
commitments will be forthcoming soon.
·
Should you have comments or questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
MES/clh
Cc' Angie Butler
Cindy Schembre ,- ~C~ .- gi 7~-"
898069 ~.¢ ~, .... ~,,..]a~.,]
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street ° Indianapolis Indiana 46204°4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 ° Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
In di an ap o lis Jasper N ob 1 e svil 1 e
~affic Growth Trends
Route:
Year:
ADT:
~f 1-465 (6 Lane Arty)
1972 ] 976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
8,200 10,350 17,240 22,020 26,020 32,480 32,55~ 44,460
US 421 north of 1-465
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
t5,000
10,000
5,000
0
1972
~.~......¢.~.~'~ ve Daily Traffic
976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Route:
Year;
ADT:
US 421 north of SR 334 (4 Lane Arty)
1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
4,400 6,025 6,925 7,510 10,280 9,840 13,470 15,130
8/3/2004
HNTB
US 421 north of SR 334
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1972
Capaci~
(LOS E)
1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
DRAFT
Not for Distribution
September 1, 2004
Dear John:
I have enclosed a list of items that define Georgian Architecture. The attorney
representing Duke stated that their development represented Georgian Architecture.
There design does not meet any of the characteristics. They have experts for traffic,
drainage, landscaping, planning, legal, but NO expert for architecture. I am also
surprised that CSO would try to get Carmel to accept this design. Duke may need t° take
a field trip to New England to study original American Georgian.
The Target store is a big box that at least works on the Georgian elements listed. Duke's
project is below standard and would not add to the Michigan Road Overlay. It should be
rejected until they present a plan that meets the Overlay Zone.
It is my desire that Duke is allowed to build their project, but it should meet the Michigan
Road Overlay Ordinance.
S~
Brian Shapiro
Principal author of the Michigan Overlay Zone
Characteristics of Georgian Architecture
1. Chimneys' always large and of outstanding height. Central
chimney's on each end.
2. Roof: side-gabled, gambrel, or hipped, steep slope in the English
tradition for snow removal purposes.
3. Dormers: Georgian Architecture used both gable and hip shaped
roofs on dormers. Sides are nearly always covered with beaded
siding running along the slope of the main roof.
4. Cornice: always heavy, usually with modillions only. Usually
emphasized by decorative moldings, most commonly with tooth-
like dentils.
5. Brickwork: nearly always laid in Flemish Bond, usually with glazed
headers. At corners and around window and exterior door
openings, rubbed salmon closures. It always features rubbed
salmon brick jack arches over windows and doors.
6. WindoWs. multi-paned with heavy muntins. Both straight and
segmental head form. Prominent wood surrounds. Usually molded
heavy wood sills. Usually double-hung sash. Symmetrical placement.
Pedimented dormers often used in attic. Upper story windows often
flush against the frieze. Windows aligned horizontally and vertically
in symmetrical rows, never in adjacent pairs, usually five-ranked on
front facade, less commonly three- or seven-ranked.
7. Brick Belt: At the second floor system (approximately), string course
befween floors, three or four courses of brick project from the
exterior wall plane by 1 inch for a shadow line.
8. Water Table' Near the top of the first floor line, the wall thickens 4
inches to form foundation wall. Offset uses molded brick to force
rain drainage away from the building. Most often the brickwork
below the water table is English Bond (all headers).
9. Formal Arrangement
10. Symmetrical
11. Facade with colossal columns
12. Paladian or Venetian windows
13. Exterior with wide, white trim
14. Balustrades, and Quoins
15. Elaborate Entrance Pan,tied front door, usually centered and
capped by an elaborate decorative crown entablature supported
by decorative pilasters. The main door is the principal ornamental
feature of the Georgian facade.
16. Two stories
17. Flattened columns.
18. New England Georgian style is adapted to its immediate
surroundings and climate as well as the puritan influence, which
resulted in less ornamentation and a smaller scale than Georgian
style in other colonies. Exterior finish' would have been unpainted
shingles, or clapboards. Later painted white or yellow or red. Roof
was wood shingle..Cornice at the roof was usually decorated with
dental molding (tooth like cuts). The windows almost touched the
cornice or roof. Very little overhang of roof. Double hung windows
with 12 over 12 panes or 9 over 9. Comers could be decorated with
quoins. (Quoins are usually found in masonry work but Northern
Georgian wood structures simulated them in wood). Front door had
a triangular pediment or a flat pediment and pilasters. Sometimes
there was an extended pediment supported by columns to form a
front entrance.
19. Our South Shore towns have a great many Georgian style homes
remaining from the paneled front door, usually centered and
capped by an elaborate decorative crown, supported by
decorative pilasters a row of small rectangular panes of glass
beneath the crown, either within the door or in a transon lust above
cornice, usually emphasized by decorate moldings, most
commonly with dentils windows with double-hung sashes having
many small panes windows aligned horizontally and vertically in
symmetrical rows, usually ranked in five across the front, although
smaller homes might only have three windows across.
20. Generally, features which identify a house as being Georgian style
are' · a gambrel, gable roof or a hip roof with a ridgeline parallel to
the road, · blockier feel to the mass as the front and back interior
rooms were usually equal in size, · the central chimney moving
toward the ends of the building usually seen as two chimneys, · a
Iow basement, · eaves close over the 2nd story windows but now
eaves decorated with fuller molding, · clapboards now cut in
narrower boards, · small-paned window sash (12/12), · most houses
are 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 stories high with a 5 ranked facade, · a more
elaborate central entrance than "colonial", · a paneled rather
than plank door, · often a transom window over the door and a
rectangular or 1/2 round entablature above it, often with molded
surrounds. · no side lights (beside the door) or elliptical fanlights
over the door.
21. Looking at the facade, o.r front, of this house we immediately see a
comparison from the Meeting House across the street. Both the
Meeting House and the Georgian house are clapboard with a 5-
ranked facade (five openings lined up like soldiers' ranks on each
floor) and a ridgeline of the roof parallel to the street on which the
facade faces. But the period and style of the Georgian house is
seen in its more substantial, heavier trim (corner boards) vertically
on the corners of the building, a dentilled (teeth shaped) cornice
under the roof line, a doorway with pilasters (flat pillar like
decoration), a pediment (triangle above the doorway) and definite
raised panels on the doors.
22. The door on a Georgian House looks quite different from a Colonial
Period. It often has a transom window over the door and this
entablature or pediment. Windows now have trim and the
small-paned window sash has sometimes changed in its
configuration from 12/12 to 12/8, or 9/6, 919. On Georgian houses
the molding surrounds and protects the top of the windows which
are often 12/12 on the first floor and 8/12 on the second with thick
muntins and imported glass. The American manufacture of glass
came later and enabled larger panes of glass. Movable sash
allowed the opening of upstairs windows even though they are not
the same size top and bottom sash. The door has a beautiful
surround.
23.The roof on the Georgian house is a hip (that is, the ridgeline or top
of the roof tapers before it reaches the end of the same horizontal
line of the bottom of the roof) in contrast to the early South facade
of the Colonial Style Meeting House which has a gable roof like a
child's drawing with a straight ridgeline across the top and a steeper
pitch until it is modified by the addition facing Monument Square.
Note that neither of these hOuses has Iouvered blinds or shutters.
Blue or salmon colors might have been used in this period, not
necessarily the white that it is currently painted, likely a later
change.
0B/31/213134 133' 37 31733413313,._.. ORANE PAGE
Mr. Leo Dierc~
President, Carmel Plau Commission
Thkd Floor
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
August 31, 2004
Dear Mr. Dierc~an:
.
At the Plan Commission's public hearing of July 20, 2004, Duke Realty
Corporation was directed to contact representatives of homeowners adjacent to Duke's
West Carmel Marketplace development on Michigan Road (U.S. 421). Representatives of
thc North Augusta subdivision met with Duke Senior Vice President Cindy Schembre,
Duke Vice President Bridget Fatten, and Duke legal counsel Mary Solada on Sunday,
August 29, 2004, to discuss our concerns. We appreciated Duke discussing its plans with
us, and listening to om: concerns.
·
At the'meeting, Ms. $ch~ra~ stated that Duke did not plan to install a six-foot-
high earth berm along thc south boundary linc, which abuts the North Augusta
subdi~sion. Homeowners ia North Augusta, particularly those whose properties are
adjaccm to the West Carmel Marketplace development, have requested installation of the
ear~ berm to screen both noise and light pollution generated by the dev¢lopmcr~t. We
renew our request that thc Plan Commission require Duke to install a six-foot-high
earth berm.
W~ also requcst that ~e Plan Commlssior~ require Duke to plant on ~e earth berm
screening vegetation. At the August 29t mecQng Ms. SchembI¢ told the North Augusta
represtmta~ves that it intends to plant such screening vegetation along the south boundary
line. Ms. Schcmbre indicated that th¢~¢ would be both deciduous trees arid oth, r
"vegetation." We request that PI~ Commission require ~hat the deciduous trees alud
additional ,~egetation" be planted o~ the berm. We slso request that the
Commission require that the vm'i~es of sdditional vegetation be limited to White
Spruce, Norwegian Spruce~ White Fire~ and Eastern Red Cedsr.
We also request that the Plari Commission require Duke to erect security fcncing
arotmd the five (5) ponds it intends to excavat~ along the perimeter of its development.
These ponds will be placcd at points closes~ to the North Augusta and Ashbrooke .
residential subdivisions, creating attractive nuisances for children.
The Carmel City Code § %8(7) has adopted by rcferertc¢ the Building l~ul~s of
the Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission. Among those rules is
89131/2884 83: 37 3173348313 CRANE PAGE
Article 20, the Indiana Swimming Pool Code, codified at 675 lAC § 20-2-26. It states, in
p~inellt par~ that"All Class A, Class B, and Class C pools shall be enclosed by a fence,
wall, building, or other cn~losures that are not less than six (6) feet high, to aid in the
control o£the movement of bathers and to discourage the entrance of unwamedpersons."
675 IAC § 20-2-26(f) (emphasis added). There is ~o appreciable difference between a
swimmi~ pool on a resideafia~ lot and Duke's plan to excavate five ponds in close
proximity to homes where small ehil~en reside. The Plan Commission should require
Duke to do wlaa~ homeowners are req~ to do: I~tall a "~eaee ... or other
enclosures not ie~s than si~ (6) feet lail~h ... to discourage the entrance of unwan~
Finely, North Augusta homeowners axe concerned what effect ~e West Carmel
Marketplace development and pond ex~vaflon may have on thc well-water systems on
which we depend. While rare, such projeeta have been known to adversely affect nearby
wells. In the event ~hat the West Carmel Marke~laee development adversely affects any
well in the North Augusta sub,vision, we ask the Plan Commission to require Duke
for fr~e (~ years from the date eomtmetion hegira to either remediate any a~eeted
well or to "hook up~ the affected residence to a municipal wa~er supply, a~ Duke
may determine,
Ia summary, we request that ~e Plan Coam~ission:
1. Require Duke m install a six-foo,-high earth berm along the south
bounda~ line;
2. Requiee that Duke plant new ~egetaflon on the aforementioned berm
along the South l~edgerow;
3. Require that in addition to deciduous trees that Dul~ intends ~o plant,
that additional vegetation to be plan~ed be limited to White Spruce,
Norwegian Sprnce, White Fire, and Eaatera Red Cedar;
4. Require Duke to install a fence not less than six (6) feet high around
each pond it ¢~eavates.
Thank you for the opportunity to b~g our coneem~ before the Commission.
Sincerely,
Amber Carson-Crane
3722 W, 98~ St.
Carmel, IN 46032
371 $ W. 95* St.
Carmel, IN 46032
August 11, 2004
Mr. John Blackketter, RLA
The Schneider Corporation
8901 Otis Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46216-1037
CI EL
JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR
RE: 96th Street Office Park
Dear Mr. Blackketter:
This project, scheduled for the August 18, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee meeting, is located outside
of the current corporate limits of the City of Carmel and therefore, outside of the jurisdiction of the
Department of Engineering at the present time. Although the City has annexed this area, the annexation
will not become effective until December of 2005.
S in
·
Assistant 7y Engineer
cc: Jon Dobosiewicz, Department of Community Services
Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyors Office
John South, Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation District
Steve Broermann, Hamilton County Highway Department
File Copy
Engineering Department Review
S:\PROJREV04\96THSTREETOFFICEPARK
DEP~MRTMENT OF ENGINEERING
ONE C~c SQUARE, CAP~X~EL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAX 317.571.2439
E~mL engineering@ci.carmel.in.us
August I 0, 2004
Kenton C, Ward, Surveyor
q¥~o~1¢ (3r?) 776'-$4~$
q:ax (~z7) 77~.9~ag
YOR'$
Suite x 88
One Hamilton Connty Square
.~oblesville, Indiana ~$o$o-,~c~..~o
The Schneider Corporation
ATI~: John Blackke~ter
8901 Otis Avenue
Indi~uapolis, IN 46216-103 7
VIA FACSIMILE: 826-7200
Re: 96t~ Street Office Park
Dear Mr. Blackketter:
W, hav~ reviewed th~ construction plans ~ubmitted to the Hamilton County Surve¥or'~ Offi¢~ on
^ugu~t 5, 2004 for thi~ project and hav~ th~ following comments:
1, Tkis project falls within the jurisdiction of thc City of Carmel.
2. This proposed project DOES NOT fall in a Carmel Watershed Prot=ction Area.
This project does not fall in a regulated drain watershed and this office will have no jurisdiction
on this projcct.
4. Please direct all future storm sewcr questions to thc City of Carmel Engineering Department.
5. Please note the additional comments may be warranted at a later date.
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317-776-8495.
Sincerely,
Greg'Hoyes
Plan Reviewer
Cc: Son Dobosiewicz - Cannel DOCD
John South- HCSWCD
Dick Hill - Carmel t~ngineering
¥0R'$
~une 10, 2004
Kenton C. 'Ward, Surveyor
q-'ax (.~z7) 776.9628
One .7-[ami[ton County Square
~obl~ville., Indiana ~o~o-aa3o
Paul I. Cripe, Inc.
ATTN: DJ O'Toole
7172 Graham Road
Indianapolis, IN 46250
VIA FACSIMILE'. 841-4798
Re.' Alexandria of Carmel
Dear Mr. O'Toole:
We have reviewed the development plan submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office
on July 6, 2004 for this project and have the following comments:
1. This project falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Carmel.
2. This proposed project DOES NOT fall in a Carmel Watershed Protection Area,
3, The storm sewer design shown in the construction plans will bring the entire site
into the W,R, Fertig Regulated Drain,
4. Please submit an outlet permit, for the indirect discharge into the W.R. Fertig
Regulated Drain, to this office. The application is available on our websi~e at
http://www, eo.hamilton.'.m..us, go to Departments, Surveyor, and Forms.
,
Please direct all on-site storm sewer questions to the City of Carmel Engineering
Department. Any questions regarding the site release rate should be directed to
HCSO,
6. Please submit revised drainag~ calculations for the entire Alexandria of Carmel
site.
7. Please note the additional comments may be warranted at a later date.
I::IUG 'l 0 "04 07; 46PM
.~_
P, 2/2
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317-776-8495.
Sincerely,
Plan R.~viewer
Cc: Jori Dobosiewicz- Carmel DOCD
Dick Hill - Carmel En~ncering
John South- HCSWCD
St~v~ Hormann - Edward Rose Dcvclopmcnt (297.7142)
.
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317-571-2417
Fax: 317-571-2426
DATE'
FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER
August 3, 2004
TO' Mary Solada
FAX: 236-9907
FROM'
Attached hereto are 12 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile
transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages,
please call 317/571/2417.
NOTES: From Jon Dobosiewicz per Special Studies this evening, West
Carmel Market.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private
and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is
privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the
taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to
arrange for return of the forwarded documents to us.
00/03/2004 00:20 3173340313~_ CRANE PAGE
Mr. Leo Dierckman
President, Carmel Plan Commission
Third ]Floor
One Civ/~ Square
Cannel, IN. 46032
From: North Augusta Homeowners
Carmel, IN 4~32
Dear Mt'. Dierckman,
Per the ~luly 20t Planning Commission's public hearing, the North Augusta Homeowners are
· h~el:~ dommonfi~ to the Carmel Plan Commission our con~s a..~odatod with Duke R~al~'s
~mm~' ercial dev~lopm~ West Carmel Marketplace.
North Augusta homeowners in general have no objections to this development. North
Augusta residents recognize the value of having good neighborly relations with impeding
commercial dovelopmems that are encroaching on our neighborhood. We look forward to
positive.commercial proje~s that.~ a continued, financial value for our property assets.
North Augusta is a tranquil, quiet, neighborhood. It has called Carmel home since 1953, we
have 12 original homeowners (many who were part of the 1 ~ Vol. Firemen of Carmel) whom still
live hem today~ Our community is not a transk neighbo~ with fanghes mov'mgin and' out, we'
are a close committed aetwork offiimds and fsmj.'l!e-s. In 2000 the ~:lands thai .we.depend on
so nmch for: wind belts, drainage, ill. on for our wells, b~uty, and wildlife was bulldozed
dow~ Leaving North Aul~sta vulnerable to flooding, noise and light pollutants, and lots of
displaced w'ddlife.
D~ke's proposed d~velopment has left our residents tr~g to understand how this ~ impact
homeowners on thc property line of this project.. UnloVely, ~mmunication between North
Augusta and a Duke representative have yet to initiate. There are many issues we are trying to
better undetxtand and wish to stress that we want to work with Duke in rcacbJn~ a way to de. al
North Augusta I~ be~n in elos, oomm~nicatio~ with our n, ishbors ofth, Spdng Arbor
Hom~wn~ As~odation. W~ haw mviowod thoir ~ation'~ conc,r~ and $olatiom~ proposal
and f,~l that lh~ ¢o~s ar, a nfirror ima~eo£ our own. No~ Angora at~e~, with
soh~ions proposed by. the. Spfi~ Arbor residents, and thai thcsc ,esolutions be included to the
North Aus~a prop~¢s ~rd~'i~g thc adjac~ Duk~ dm~Jopm~.
CRANE PAGE
It is our sincere hope that North Aususta and Duke Realty will be able to eff~ively deal
with our conc~ and n~otistc acr~ptabl¢ solutions. We look forward to continued discussions
with the Carmel Planning Commissio~ Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
North Augusta Homeowners
Contact info:
Larry Sinclair, homeowner
Home phone: 875-8970
email:
Amber Carson, homeowner
Home phone:g76-7039
email: hoosicrwoman¢~.sbe~tobal.net
Fax Cover Sheet
Nme.'
Organization:
P. hane:
From:
DaXe:
Subject:
'.. DiJL~C)
Mr, Leo Dierckman c/o Jon DobOsiewicz
City of Carmel Plan Commission
3.17-5.7t-2426
North Augusta Homeowners
08-03-2004
Duke Realty Corporation, W~st Carmel Ma~place
3.
LReply ASAP
I '1 Please Comment
'[~ For Your Records
Comment~; North Augusta will be attending the Cam~el Plan Commission's Special Studies Committee
meettag.en
Thank You
North Augusta Homeowners
From. the desk of,.,
North Auausta ~ Assoo.
From~
Mr. Leo Dierckman
President, Carmel Plan Commission
Thi. rd Floor
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Members of Spring Arbor Homeowners Association, Inc.
Carmel, IN 46032
August 2, 2004
Dear Mr. Dierckman:
As requested during the July 20th Carmel Plan Commission public hearing, the residents of the Spring
Arbor neighborhood (west of Shelbourne Road, between 96th and 106th Streets) are hereby documenting
to the members of the Carmel Plan Commission our concerns associated with the planned Duke Realty
Corporation commercial development along Michigan Road known as West Carmel Marketplace, as well
as their "Furore Development" planned just to the southeast within this same property.
Right up front, we'd like to state that, in general at this time, we have no strong objection to this planned
development going forward. We recognize and look forward to the positive aspects that commercial devel-
opment of this kind can bring to our communities. Furthermore, we know the value of establishing good
community relations from the beginning between commercial and residential entities, as we, current and
furore homeowners, and the developer will be neighbors for many years to come ~ as that relationship is
what we desire.
With this in mind, it is clear that both parties have only this one opportunity to get this fight ~ here at the
beginning ~ to getting off on the fight foot, to insure good relations and continued strong financial value
for all of our property assets. We must do this for our own continued comfort in this neighborhood and our
furore'property values, as well as for those homeowners in this neighborhood of the future.
We have enjoyed strong appreciation of our homes since their construction and have seen home 'sales mm
over very quickly. We have a peaceful, quiet, desirable neighborhood with many young children playing
about that make this a great place to call home and a definite asset to the Carmel community at large, espe-
cially in light of the upcoming annexation, that all ~ government officials, developers, and residents ~
should surely want to see continue as such, equally as strongly as we all like to see the commercial growth
of the community.
Unfortunately, the proposed development is now a complex matter for the homeowners of Spring Arbor ~
acknowledgeably made more so by actions and circumstances of other parties that have taken place. When
the first homeowners bought their homes in this neighborhood in 1992-94, they did so in part do to the
wooded, peaceful surrounding that bordered, and were left integrated into the neighborhood along the
creek ~ providing beauty and serenity. So when that forest, that previously existed on the now develop-
ment plot at issue, was bulldozed down in early 2001, leaving nothing but ground level vegetation and only
a thin line of trees and brush at the property line ~ not to mention displacing the wildlife that now roams
our yards since their habitat was removed ~ the residents of Spring Arbor, as well as probably Ashbrooke,
surely felt victimized and helpless by the radical change that disrupted the atmosphere of their neighbor-
hood. This loss left the west side of our neighborhood without the natural buffer that existed between it and
1
activities along Michigan Road, as well as against the weather that blows in from the west. (Shingle dam-
age in now common when the winds are fierce.)
Thus, there are now many issues (detailed in the attached) that we as a group are trying to~ better under-
stand as to how this development will impact individual homeowners along the property line demarcating
the land owned by Duke Realty Corporation and that of Spring Arbor Homeowners Association, as well as
our neighborhood as a whole ~ all in very compressed period of time to investigate ~ to make sure that
a bad situation does not now turn even worse. We probably would not be facing some of these issues if that
forest had not been removed ~ a significant buffer would have still existed, against the new development.
It is important to recognize that while there are roughly only 6-8 Ashbrooke neighborhood residents direct-
ly impacted by this proposed development, there are 12 Spring Arbor homeowners along this property line
that will be directly impacted by this, as well as other concerned homeowners throughout the neighbor-
hood. Given the increased number of parties involved, we are working as diligently as possible, given work
schedules and busy daily lives, to get an understanding of these issues and get feedback from all of the
homeowners ~ and this takes some time.
To their credit, Duke representatives did initiate a dialog with Spring Arbor homeowners ~ which we
greatly appreciate ~ after its communications with the Ashbrooke HOA and seeing that we face some of
the same issues. Our meeting with them on July 14th was a good start. They answered many of our ques-
tions, but could not answer others. The discussion raised more questions in our minds than were answered.
Duke proposed an initial offer of a solution to some of these issues, that now after much consideration, we
find unacceptable (detailed in the attached). Duke is receiving a copy the attached at the same time you are,
and hearing formally for the first time our concerns on these issues and a formal response to its initial offer.
Finally, we wish to stress that we want to work with Duke Realty Corporation in reaching a fair and rea-
sonable way forward that can effectively deal with our concerns. It is our sincere hope that Duke and Spring
Arbor will be able to negotiate acceptable solutions to our concerns, and we look forward to continued
discussions with the Carmel Plan Commission as well. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Members of.Spring Arbors Homeowners Association, Inc.
Contacts'
Frank Macri, homeowner & Treasurer of the Spring Arbor Homeowner Association
Home phone: 317-334-1456 Cell phone: 31%345-8454
home email: fgmacri~msn.com
Anita Mellor, homeowner
Home phone: 317-872-5528
Office phone: 317-575-6900 x113
Office email: acm~hkwinc.com
Charlie Bunes, homeowner
Home/office phone: 317-824-0901
Cell phone: 317-590-0254
email: bmdi~mac.com
Spring Arbor Homeowne. r Association Concerns
Based on Duke's proposed plan, including the five retention/detention ponds in the southeast area of the
development, the expected extension of Commerce Drive southward, and anticipating a large retailer will
develop in the area they call "Future Development" as Duke has indicated is the intent (i.e.: Meijer's, Home
Depot. movie theater), in general, our issues currently include, but may not be limited to:
1) Impact on property values due to the close proximity to the developmem and of its
associated retention ponds and the expected extension of Commerce Drive southward.
2) New increased noise levels due to automobile and semi-truck traffic associated with
this new road, as well as delivery activity to the development.
3) New pedestrian traffic attracted by the expected sidewalks along the road traveling to
and from commerce in the area with potential trespassing on Spring Arbor properties.
4) Aesthetic view value impacts on our property values.
5) Reduced privacy on the west side of our homes
6) Safety for neighborhood children and other pedestrian traffic regarding the close
proximity of our properties to the retention ponds.
7) Noise associated with new construction in the "Future Development" section.
8) The finished look of the east elevation of this phase.
9) The look, litter, and odor problems associated with trash dumpster areas in this phase.
10) Lighting and signage associated with this phase, especially on the east elevation and
the parking lots.
11) Drainage and water flow impacts due to the new ponds and its proposed flow
management system to the creek bisecting our neighborhood in regards to flooding.
12) Impact on area waste and storm sewage systems ~ sufficient capacity.
13) Environmental and nuisance impacts of mosquito breeding (West Nile vires) and
Canadian geese attraction due to the ponds and stagnant surface water.
14) Accumulating and blowing litter associated with the new vehicular and pedestrian
traffic along the new road. .
Proposed Solutions
The Spring Arbor residents see that concerns #1-10 can be resolved by addressing two strips of the
development in combination:
A) Along the shared property line between Spring Arbor and the Duke properties.
B) Along the land on the east side of the expected road between the southern property
line of Spring Arbor and the southern property line of Ashbrooke.
We would ask that concerns #11-14 be addressed by information provided by the appropriate oversight
official from the City, County, or State. (see the last section of this document)
A) Along the shared property line between Spring Arbor and the Duke properties
Duke's Proposed Solution
In response to comments made by some Spring Arbor residents to Duke representatives at the May 18th
.public showing of the proposed development plans and concerns expressed by residents of Ashbrooke
regarding safety associated with the proposed retention ponds at the southeast section of the development,
Duke has offered to construct (at their cost) a six foot high, shadowbox cedar fence, running the length of
the common property line on the Spring Arbor side of the line, and on the east side of the current Greenbelt
area, budgeted at $16/linear foot. And, that ongoing maintenance for said fence would be the individual
homeowners' responsibility henceforth.
Their stated rationale for this solution is that this fence would inhibit access to the ponds, and most impor-
tantly, that they would need an eight foot wide strip of land on their side of the property line to construct
the fence, and that the supposed Cease and Desist Order associated with the wetlands of that area prohibit
such actions. Thus, they insist that the fence can only be on our side.
The Spring Arbor Response to this Proposed Solution
Although we completely understand the need and purpose for the retention ponds and their positioning,
many residents along this property line do consider the ponds to be a potentially serious safety hazard, thus
the ponds constitute an "Attractive Nuisance" to the residents, and, if left unresolved, could negatively
impact the property values within Spring Arbor. Therefore, we contend that it is Duke's responsibility to
resolve this condition.
So, while we greatly appreciate Duke's offer to accept this responsibility to resolve this condition by con-
stmcting a fence for us at their cost, the proposal to place a fence of that particular style, on our property,
and leave us with the continued maintenance responsibility, makes this an unacceptable solution for the fol-
lowing reasons'
1) Installing a fence on individual homeowner's properties would require the approval of
every homeowner all along this property line to be an effective safety barrier. If any
one homeowner declines the fence as proposed ~ which is likely ~ then there would
be a gap in the fence that would render it totally ineffective as a barrier to children
wanting to play near, swim in, or play on, if frozen, the ponds.
2) Placement of a fence to the east of the Greenbelt would position it 20-50 feet within
the west edge of our property lines. This would leave us with no access to that section
of our deeded property, resulting in a de facto annexation of that property by Duke,
while we continue to pay the property taxes for that land.
3) Since the responsibility to resolve the "Attractive Nuisance" issue belongs to Duke,
the homeowners 'should not have to shoulder the continued maintenance of the fence.
4) The visual aesthetics of the view from one's property contribute to the value of that
property. The Greenbelt and the open spaces to the west of it are part of that aesthetic
value. Thus, a shadowbox style cedar fence, on either side of the Greenbelt, would
wall off that view and negatively impact the property's value.
The Spring Arbor Proposal for Resolution to these Issues
1) A 6 foot, "wrought iron,', continuous fence placed on the Duke side of this shared property line (west
of our Greenbelt) running from the farthest north end of the Spring Arbor to the southern most end
(with the possible except of a gap at the creek where it enters our property, necessary) for the following
reason:
a) Independent assessment of the site plans indicate that the official demarcation of the
wetlands offer no impediment to placing a fence near the Duke side of the property line.
b) Positioned on the Duke side of the property line commits the maintenance of the
fence solely to Duke Reality ~ not each individual homeowner.
c) "Wrought iron" fencing will be an impenetrable barrier to the retention ponds for our
children, and for the neighborhood against potential trespassers ~ can't pass through
it or under it, and nearly impossible to climb with its lack of mid-level horizontal sup-
port and the spike-like style of each rod's top. Additionally, it cannot be easily cut or
manipulated in other ways for passing through as a chain link or wooden fence can ~
as we have evidence about from other neighborhoods in the area.
d) This type of fencing ~ with the proper coatings ~ experiences far fewer maintenance
issues for Duke and will be less expensive to maintain in the long run than wood.
And, if maintenance is required, the damaged area will be more easily spotted at a
glance because of its large, one piece sections, than that of a single plate of a wooden
fence, or a cut in chain link fencing.
e) This fencing is relatively unnoticed by the eye as one looks out over the area ~ main-
taining a more aesthetic view of the green space from the properties ~ as apposed to
the solid, view-stopping nature of a solid wooden fence.
2) Placement of the entire fence on top of a 2-4 foot earthen berm for the following reasons:
a) This raises the virtual height of the fence for even more difficult traversing.
b) Provides additional visual impediment of sight of the ponds to children from their
backyards.
c) Contributes as a sound buffer against the traffic and activities associated with the road
and the development.
3) Placement of several mature spruce trees of various heights, and possibly other vegetation, of significant
density near and all along the west side of the fence line for the following reasons:
a) Contributes as a sound buffer against the traffic and activities associated with the road
and the development.
b) Provides additional visual impediment of sight of the ponds to children from their
backyards.
c) Contributes to the aesthetic view of the area from our properties.
4) Furthermore, we would like to see a rendering showing what the surface areas around the ponds and
down their slopes are proposed to look like when finished.
B) Along the land on the east side of the expected road between the southern property line of
Spring Arbor and the southern property line of Ashbrooke.
The Spring Arbor Proposal for Resolution to these Issues
1) Placement of a 4-6 foot earthen berms near and along the east sides of the new Commerce Drive exten-
sion from a point at the southern property line of Ashbrooke southward to at least the point where the
road tangents the southern property line of Spring Arbor (except where the placement of the ponds
juxtapose to the road does not permit) for the following reasons:
a) Contributes as a sound buffer against the traffic and activities associated with the road
and the development.
b) Provides for a raised base for the trees noted immediately below.
2) Placement of a 6-8 foot continuous, shadowbox style, cedar fence on top of, and running the entire
length of the afore mentioned strip of land for the following reasons:
a) Contributes as a sound buffer against the traffic and activities associated with the road
and the development.
b) Contributes as a visual buffer from our properties against the activities and lighting
associated with the development.
c) Provides a visual impediment to our homes from the road and development for a
continued privacy as we enjoy now.
d) Contributes as barrier to litter blowing along the road or tossed by passers-by.
e) Provides visual and physical impediment of the ponds to pedestrian traffic.
3) Placement of several mature spruce trees of various heights, and possibly other vegetation, of significant
density on and all along the berms, on the east side of the afore mentioned fence for the following reasons:
a) Contributes as a sound buffer against the traffic and activities associated with the' road
and the development.
b) Contributes as a visual buffer against the activities and lighting associated with
the development.
c) Contributes to the aesthetic view of the area from our properties by blocking the fence
from sight.
And, additionally ~ if permitted by the Army Corp. of Engineers, which has direct jurisdiction over all
activities associated with wetlands ~ we would encourage a joint effort by the City of Carmel and Duke
Reality to repopulate this pond and wetland area with trees and other vegetation to an almost park-like
setting for the following reasons:
a) Create a more beautiful green space to the views from the neighborhoods.
b) Assist in managing the water in the area through absorption.
c) Add to the buffer of sound and light between the development and the neighborhoods.
Requests regarding concerns #11-14 to be addressed by information provided by,the appropriate
oversight official from the City_, County, or State.
1) A detailed report or presentation by the Hamilton County's Surveyors Office regarding all aspects of the
functionally of the retention ponds mechanics:
a) How this will control the flow of water into the creek that bisects our neighborhood.
b) HOW this will prevent flooding along the creek ~ precluding Flood Insurance.
c) What safety measure will be in place to check the system periodically and prevent the
build of natural damming that can occur in the nature are in the middle of Spring Arbor.
2) A detailed report or presentation by the appropriate party regarding all aspects of the storm and waste
sewage systems that will be put in place:
a) Will they connect or impact in any way to the systems in our neighbor?
b) Will they have sufficient capacity to handle the added volume resulting from the
new development?
c) What impact will trash/litter accumulation at the sewer grates cause on the system?
3) A detailed report or presentation by the Hamilton County Health Department and/or the Indiana
Department of Natural Resource (or any other appropriate agency) regarding all aspects of the ponds in
attracting and/or breeding Canadian geese, other water fowl, and mosquitoes ~ as well as, will any fish
be introduced to the system:
a) Do the ponds have the potential to attract Canadian geese and other water fowl?
b) What impacts would that have on the surface area and water flow system?
c) Is there a potential for feces, etc. to leach into the water system and cause any
negative impact on human health or the system itself?.
d) Are their any remedies for preventing them from congregating there?
e) Should "Don't Feed the Geese/Ducks!" and "No Fishing" signs be posted?
e) Is there sufficient water surface movement to prevent the nesting and breeding of
mosquitoes and their potential to carry West Nile virus?
f) If not, what solution could and should be put in place to prevent this? (ie.: fountains,
environmentally-sound chemicals, fogging?)
4) A detailed report or presentation by the City of Carmel and/or Hamilton County Departments of Waste
Disposal regarding the policing of litter along the road:
a) How often and by whom will this be done?
Armstrong Developments, Inc.
July 2t,~ ~
'Mr..Jon Dobosiewicz
Plarmi~ Administrator
~t of Commmty 'Servia.
..Carmel, IN 46032'
.Re:
West. Cmnnel'Marketplace
Doc~ NO. "040.5002g. DW
-As. an. aD ,~ng :neighbor.off subjectdevelopn~m, .[ ,~-m~' ~ lend my supra-~r ~ ci~-'$
· ap~ov~-O~~ ~iL~S-impormm development-on. ~ ~cannel's west.-side.. Duke Realb,
professiom~ 'have. done~a commute job in. ~.anning.. aml'bave a 'long histo~,.., of
excellence in execution of.~heir plam~
As ~ owner of~e ab .~-.ing 2 acres al. the n~east corner ff W. 9gm~. and-
Michigan Ro~, I 'have briefly di~ussed m~_* des[r~ to ~hel~ ~rovide. for.the exte~ion of
their frontage road to 98~ Street, In addition,, because of po/ten~ drainage problems
thrum lhe North.' Augusta neighbo~mod~ I am ptanmng to exp~ mm~ty
beneficial cooperation wi~' Duke to ease ~ probtems~
I am hopefu/that the City. w~ll see the immense benefit to the citizens of West Carmel by
approving this tine development to be ~mplished ~, such a weR respected company as
Duke Realty..-.
Sincerely,
GUARAN~ PROPER~S,
Jam Armstrong
General Partner
Copy: Cindy Sc.~bm, Duke Reai~
10654 Sunset Point Lane, Fishers, IN 46038
Phone {317} 579-9746 Fax {317} 579-9950
July 20, 2004
AR(;H~ t i:C ~ ,~ LNGINEERS PLANNERS
Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
Carmel City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re'
Traffic Impact Analysis
Walnut Creek Marketplace
Dear Mr. Dobosiewicz'
Per your request, we have reviewed the following traffic studies for compliance with access requirements
associated with the Michigan Road Overlay Corridor and the Traffic Impact Study Guidelines of the
Carmel-Clay Plan Commission:
1. Traffic Impact Analysis, Walnut Creek Marketplace, Michigan Road, May 2004.
2. Memorandum, Redistribution/Removal of Proposed Accesses, June 15, 2004.
3. Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Executive Summary, June, 2004.
Our review indicates that, taken as a whole, these documents have been prepared in accordance with your
requirements. The approach is sound and the underlying assumptions appear to be reasonable.
Although trip generation, distribution and assignment elements have been fully documented, additional
information is necessary to determine more precisely the impact of the proposal on overall traffic flow on
Michigan Road. In this regard, we have requested the files and analysis related to the coordination of
traffic signals between 96th Street and 106th Street. This information will also be needed by INDOT for
their review.
We understand that the traffic signal system analysis has already been accomplished by the developer's
traffic engineer and expect to receive the additional information soon. This should put us in position to
report to the Plan Commission and its committees in a timely fashion regarding all pertinent traffic issues
related to this development.
As always, feel free to call with questions. Thank-you for this opportunity to be of service to the Carmel-
Clay Plan Commission.
Very truly yours,
ORPORATION
/ ~hp. W:~Cp
roject Manager
JWM:rjr
July 20, 2004
Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
Carmel City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re~
Traffic Impact Analysis
Walnut Creek Marketplace
Dear Mr. Dobosiewicz:
Per your request, we have reviewed the following traffic studies for compliance with access
requirements associated with the Michigan Road Overlay Corridor and the Traffic Impact Study
Guidelines of the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission:
1. Traffic Impact Analysis, Walnut Creek Marketplace, Michigan Road, May 2004.
2. Memorandum, Redistribution/Removal of Proposed Accesses, June 15, 2004.
3. Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Executive Summary, June, 2004.
Our review indicates that, taken as a whole, these documents have been prepared in accordance
with your requirements. The approach is sound and the underlying assumptions appear to be
reasonable.
Although trip generation, distribution and assignment elements have been fully documented,
additional information is necessary to determine more precisely the impact of the proposal on
overall traffic flow on Michigan Road. In this regard, we have requested the files and analysis
related to the coordination of traffic signals between 96th Street and 106th Street. This information
will also be needed by INDOT for their review.
We understand that the traffic signal system analysis has already been accomplished by the
developer's traffic engineer and expect to receive the additional information soon. This should
put us in position to report to the Plan Commission and its committees in a timely fashion
regarding all pertinent traffic issues related to this development.
As always, feel free to call with questions. Thank-you for this opportunity to be of service to the
Carmel-Clay Plan Commission.
Very truly yours,
HNTB CORPORATION
John W. Myers, PE, AICP
Project Manager
Leo Dierckman
President, Cannel-Clay Plan Commission
Third floor
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Dave Small
Ashbrooke HOA
3755 Penjerrack Court
Carmel, IN 46032
July 19, 2004
Mr. Dierckman,
Ashbrooke residents are concerned about several specific aspects of the Walnut Creek
development. The HOA does not oppose the development, but we've requested that
reasonable buffers be installed between the development and the Ashbrooke properties
that will be directly affected. In addition, we've requested several changes to the east
elevation, which we believe would lessen the development's impact on adjacent
homeowners.
Our concerns are detailed in the attached letter of July 14, a copy of which we gave Duke
on July 15. We discussed the contents of the letter with Duke the morning of July 15,
during which Duke appeared to actively listen to our concerns and take them seriously.
Duke has promised to evaluate our requests and respond shortly after July 20.
On Duke's behalf I'd like to say that Duke thus far has been responsive to meeting
requests and scheduling, has been forthcoming with requested plans and detailed
information, and has appeared to act in good faith during discussions in person and on the
phone. We hope that Duke and Ashbrooke can negotiate acceptable solutions to our
concerns, and we look forward to continued discussions over these issues with Duke and
with the plan commission. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dave Small
President, Ashbrooke HOA
Dave Small
Ashbrooke HOA
3755 Penjerrack Court
Carmel, IN 46032
Cindy Schembre
Duke Realty
600 E 96th St Ste 100
Indianapolis, IN 46240
July 14, 2004
Ms. Schembre,
On behalf of Ashbrooke HOA, I'd like to thank you again for your hospitality of June 30,
for providing us a set of plans the following week, and for your willingness to host a
follow-up discussion so early on the morning of June 15. The initial meeting and the
plans you provided were extremely helpful in allowing us to evaluate the impact of your
commercial development on our neighborhood.
Neighbors who will be directly affected by the commercial development between
Michigan Road and Commerce Drive south of Target reviewed these plans last week, and
this group of homeowners met earlier this week to discuss their concerns about the
development's impact on Ashbrooke. Below is a list of requests resulting from that
meeting, which we believe will partially mitigate the impact of the commercial
development on our neighborhood.
1. We'd like a fence to be installed between the properties on the south side of Penzance
and the land directly behind those properties. Your development plans call for the
installation of 5 retention ponds on that land, which several neighbors living along that
row consider a potentially serious safety hazard.
Duke and Ashbrooke discussed this issue briefly at our meeting of June 30, during which
you proposed this fence as a response to comments you'd received from neighbors
directly. We appreciated then~and still appreciate---your willingness to address this
concern as forthrightly as you did. At that meeting you proposed installing a 6 foot cedar
shadowbox fence on individual homeowners' properties, after which responsibility for
maintaining the fence would pass to those individual homeowners.
The size, style, and material of the fence you proposed is acceptable to the homeowners
affected, but we see several practical problems with your proposed placement.
Therefore, we propose that the fence be installed on Duke property and that Duke (or the
subsequent owner of the adjoining property) maintain the fence. The specific problems
are as follows:
The rear property line along Penzance is currently populated with trees, and we
don't know where the property line stands in relation to those trees. Unless the
Ashbrooke HOA Page 1 of 4 15-Jun-04
property lines on these lots lie fully to the south of the trees, installing the fence
on property owners' lots would require you to either remove trees to create a path
for the fence or to install the fence to the north of the trees. Neither of these
options is desirable; the former option removes trees from an area that was
already illegally deforested 2 or 3 years ago, and the other puts the fence on the
housing side of the trees, which neighbors would consider unsightly and which
would cut off homeowners' access to the rear part of their property.
Installing the fence on the south side of the trees, between the trees and the
retention ponds, would preserve the remaining trees, would allow homeowners
the full use of their property, and would minimize the aesthetic disadvantage of
the fence by placing it further from the houses and allowing the trees to shield the
fence's visibility from the houses.
Installing the fence on individual homeowners' properties would require the
approval of every homeowner along Penzance's south side in order to be
effective. If any one homeowner declined the fence~which is likely if the fence
will be to the north of the trees--then there'd be a gap in the fence that would
lessen the fence's effectiveness as a barrier to kids wanting to play near the
retention ponds. Installing the fence on the commercial property would remove
this hurdle and would therefore ensure a continuous barrier.
We can't speak for residents of Spring Arbor, whose west-side Bosloe residents face the
same quandary that our south-side Penzance residents face, but we believe that they'd
also welcome the installation of a fence between their properties and the retention ponds.
2. We'd like an effective barrier to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, noise, and sight lines
to be installed between Commerce Drive and the lake at the end of Penzance.
Specifically, we're requesting the installation of an 8 foot cedar shadowbox fence,
accompanied by the planting of appropriate trees inside the fence line. We can discuss
the exact placement of the fence and trees, but we generally envision the fence running
from the creek at the south end of the lake to a point partially around the lake, and the
trees running from the south end of the lake to a point that effectively blocks the view of
the commercial development from the houses closest to the end of Penzance.
The land east of Commerce Drive has for some time been zoned for commercial
development. However, the extension of Commerce Drive a year ago and the intended
use of Commerce as a "feeder" into the commercial properties adds a new dimension to
the impact of the development on Ashbrooke. The Commerce Drive extension~which
to our knowledge was not in any public plan until very recently~will eventually carry
considerable traffic a very short distance from the houses on the west end of Penzance.
The increased traffic will create a safety risk and will become a considerable nuisance to
the homeowners close to Commerce. It will increase the noise level, "litter level," and
the likelihood for trespassing on Ashbrooke property. We already have occasional
problems with illegal fishing in the lakes by nonresidents, and the increased traffic and
heightened visibility of the lake will exacerbate this problem. In addition, if anyone
Ashbrooke HOA Page 2 of 4 15-Jun-04
trespassing on Ashbrooke property becomes injured or drowns while on our property,
Ashbrooke could be held liable.
An 8 foot cedar shadowbox fence would immediately mitigate some of these problems
and would to our knowledge be the least expensive way to do so. The trees would
eventually add to the benefit provided by the fence by more effectively blocking noise
and sight lines to the east elevations, but it would be a number of years before these trees
grew tall enough to do much good in this regard. Therefore, the combination of an 8 foot
fence now, accompanied by immature trees that would be ineffective now but would
eventually grow tall, in our opinion provides the best and most economical short-term
and long-term solutions to the impact of the commercial development.
We'd also like to see the land under this fence raised by several feet in order to increase
the overall height, of the fence relative to the houses. This will help block noise from
Commerce Drive traffic and will help block sight lines to Commerce Drive and to the
commercial buildings. Since you'll be removing topsoil and will need an economical
way to dispose of it, we would propose that you dump it along the proposed fence line.
3. Please increase the density of the landscaping on the east side of the development, and
please consider installing a berm in order to get more initial height from the trees to be
planted. Your plans currently call for 8 foot trees to be planted 10 feet apart, which will
initially block very little of the east elevation's visibility from Ashbrooke. It'll take years
for these trees to grow in height and diameter to the point that they provide significant
coverage of the east elevation, but increasing the density and planting the trees on berms
will give them a head start that will allow them to achieve that objective earlier.
4. We're concerned about 3 aspects of the lighting on the south, east, and north
elevations.
a. We request the building lighting on these elevations to be wall mounted, shoe box
style fixtures with a flush lens as was described at the June 30 meeting~not wall
packs as shown on the plans.
b. Instead of the high pressure sodium fixtures proposed, we would prefer metal
halide. We think the sodium lighting looks dingy and prefer the cleaner look of
white light. Target also has white lighting, so white lighting on new commercial
developments will be consistent with the existing development.
c. The site lighting footcandles are too high on the south, east, and north elevations.
5. The proposed 42" high loading dock "screen walls" are completely inadequate for the
purpose of hiding the loading docks and tracks. The intent of the walls is to screen both
the loading dock and the truck, and therefore the screen walls need to be both high
enough and long enough to fully screep, both the loading dock and the parked trucks at all
loading docks. Our experience with Target is that walls smaller than this are inadequate.
6. The locations of trash enclosures need to be identified on the drawings.
Ashbrooke HOA Page 3 of 4 15-Jun-04
7. What does the actual east elevation look like? Is it sawtooth or straight? We would
like to understand the final loading dock layout and resulting impact.
8. The hours of permitted loading and unloading need to be limited to reasonable daytime
and early evening hours. This requirement should "mn with the land" (I don't know the
legal term for this, but all future tenants should have to adhere to these hours).
9. The storm sewer pipe and existing creek elevations do not appear to work properly.
One homeowner with experience in this field thinks that the inflow pipe into Pond A will
be higher than the creek, which would impede water flow into the retention pond. Please
review and advise.
We appreciate your consideration of these requests and look forward to discussing them
with you on July 15. Thank you.
Sincerely, ~.....-~.
Dave Small
President, Ashbrooke HOA
Ashbrooke HOA Page 4 of 4 15-Jun-04
HAMILTON COUNTY
HIGHWAY DEPAR T/ ENT
July 14, 2004
Mr. Greg Snelling
Woolpert LLP
7140 Waldemar Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46268-4192
RE:
Walnut Creek Marketplace
Site Plans
$ of Retail Parkway / E of US 421
Clay Township
Dear Mr. Snelling:
This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of a transmittal received 7/8/04 containing the
plans for the above-mentioned project. After reviewing the plans the Highway
Department has the following comments:
1, An Application for Project Review needs to be completed and the appropriate
review fees for a Construction Plan paid, before any approvals will be granted from
this office. I have enclosed a blank form for your use.
2, The demolition plan must include the areas of curb on Commerce Drive to be
removed for the proposed entrance and the right turn lane at 99~h Street,
3. The curb removal on Retail Parkway must be done in the area opposite the north
side entrances to allow the driveways to align with each other.
4, Show the existing pavement and curb at the south end of Commerce Drive being
saw cut.
5, A right turn lane is needed at the Intersection of 99~ Street and Commerce Drive,
The lane must consist of a 100' taper, 1§0' lane and be 12' wide.
6. The curb installed within the right of way of Retail Parkway and Commerce Drive at
the new entrances must be combined curb and gutter to match the existing curb.
7, The proposed entrance/exit west of Commerce Drive on 99~ Street does not meet
the minimum offset distance, The entrance must be relocated or removed.
8. Remove tl~e cul-de-sac at the south end of Commerce Drive. The intersection must
be completely constructed to accommodate Commerce Drive to the south.
9. Commerce Drive must be constructed to the southproperly line of the project. The
three-lane section north of the intersection with 99~ Street must be continued south,
10. The proposed entrances on Retail Parkway must align with the existing entrances on
the north side of the road.
11. A 50' curb return radius is needed at the entrance on Commerce. Drive, south of
Retail Parkway. Please verify that the entrance and radius can accommodate the
largest type of truck that will be makir3g deliveries.
12, 99'" Street must be 44' wide from back of curb to back of curb, T. he lane widths and
striping must match Retail Parkway (1;2' travel lanes, 16' center lane with 4' striped
median). .
1700 South 10~ Street
Noblesvllle, In. 46060
.www, co,ha mil.to, nj.n.~u~
Office (.~17) 77~7770
]Fax 1'317) 776-981.4
13. The intersection at Commerce Drive and 99~h Street must match the lntersectic~nat
Retail Parkway. On 99~ Street, dght and left turn lanes must be marked. On
Commerce Ddve, a thru lane and right turn lane must be installed.
14. A stop sign is needed at the intersection of 99~h Street and Commerce Ddve~
15, 8' asphalt paths are needed along all of the streets, Including the north side of
Commerce Drive. All ADA ramps must be concrete and Installed per INDOT
standards (E 604-SWCR-01 thru 04) for ADA ramps.
16. A crosswalk is needed at the intersection of 99"' Street and Walnut Creek Drive. All
necessary crosswalk signage must be included as well as the ADA ramps.
17, Remove the 4-way stop at the intersection of 99~ ,Street and Walnut Creek Ddve.
18. Inc.,Jude the SSD under the curb on ali necessary plan sheets and in the street
section, The SSD must also be installed under the curb of Walnut Creek Ddve.
19. Adjust Section A-A to show the additional pavement width and SSD under the curb.
20. Include all of the necessary HCHD Standard Drawings, C-4, C-5, P-1 S-1
S-4. U-3 and U-4. ' '
21. The pavement markings on Retail Parkway must be milled off and replaced to
included left turn lanes at the new entrances. The existing markings must be
removed. Painting over them will not be permitted.
22. is a signal proposed at the intersection of 99*~ Street and US 421 ? All work within the
right of way of US 421 must be permitted through INDOT.
23. Commerce Drive must be constructed to the south property llne of the project.
24. The centerline mdlus of the Commerce Drive extension must meet the 200' minimum
for commercial drives,
25. The tangent between reverse curves on Commerce Drive and Walnut Creek Ddve
must also meet the 200' minimum.
26. The centerline radius of Walnut Creek Drive does not meets the minimum centerline
radius of 200'. Please correct the centerline, radius,
27. The centefline radius of g9~ Street near US, 421 does not appear to meet the
minimum radius of 200'. Please correct the centerline radius.
28, Plan and profile sheets are needed for the streets.
2~. The second turn lane at the Intersection of US 42:1 arid Retail Parkway must be
completed, The grass median must be removed and pavement Installed and the
existing pavement markings must be removed and replaced to match the new
configuration.
30. A Maintenance of Traffic Plan is needed,
31. All pavement markings separating travel direction and the painted medians must be
yellow.
32. Please note that decorative signs, sprinkler systems, trees, landscaping mounds,
fences, light poles or other such amenities are not permitted In the right of way.
Remove the landscaping areas from the dght of way.
33, Plan and profile sheets are needed for the storm and sanitary sewer.
34. The connection to the water main on Commerce Drive in the area of the existing
pavement must be done with a push/bore. Open road cuts will not be permitted,
35. All written specifications for the construction must be Included in the plan sheets.
36. Please include the design speed of 30 MPH on the cover sheet,
37. A 15' drainage and utility easement must be provided behind the fight of wayl
38. Speed Limit signs must be indicated on the plan sheets,
39.50' triangular right of way cuts must be shown at all street intersections.
40. Will the property be platted?
41. Please note that further comments may be necessary at a later date.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please feel free to contact
me at anytime.
Sinc~ely,
~./_. _,/~,z/~~Steven j.B roermann - ' '
Staff Engineer
CC:
Jon Dobosiewicz
Greg Hoyes
G:\USER~$B~,04tac~0?-14.04walnutcre~k.doc
C ty fc
I 0 arme
VIA FAX: 236-9907
Original by mail
July 7, 2004
Mary E. Solada
Bingham McHale LLP
2700 Market Tower
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900
CO y
West Carmel Marketplace- (#04050029-30 V, 04050033-36 V, 04070008-10 V, &
04050028 DP/ADLS)' Development Standards Variances & Development
Plan/ADLS
Dear Ms. Solada:
This letter is in response to the Development Standards Variance and DP/ADLS applications for
the West Carmel Marketplace. Please resolve the following issues'
Prima~ 1. Please provide revised color elevations.
2. Please use consistent color of framing system for window mullions.
3. What will be the color of the rooftop units?
4. Please provide wall signage detail.
5. White or bronze wall signs will be supported, but the Department will not support their
size.
6. There will be no support for relief for maximum wall sign size. Moving the building
forward would produce greater visibility.
7. Please screen the A/C units, similar to the 'B' Shop building.
B Shons 8. Please paint service doors to match color of area on building.
9. Add sign size details. .
10. Please vary color of offset brick; change color when the wall plane is recessed vs.
protruding.
11. Please use single color background and single color copy to compliment the sign design.
12. The Department will not support the ground sign height and size. The Department is not
in a position to support this variance.
13. Please provide ground sign 'B' elevations.
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
~ite 14. Show new striping of Retail Parkway, added left.
15. Remove stop bar from entering eastbound traffic lane.
16. No right in-fight outs on US 421/Michigan Rd (only at the light signal).
17. Please show access to Block F (no cut allowed onto US 421).
18. Please show furore access to Speedway, etc.
19. No access to Speedway without reconstruction of their entrance into one curb cut.
20. No access to Block F other than access from opposite cut on Walnut Creek Drive.
21. Plans do not reflect double left in traffic study.
22. Stripe 99th Street to provide full 'T' at Commerce Drive.
23. Please show access to Block H.
24. Provide copy of proposed cross-access easement and exhibit.
25. Access to Block G shall be opposed to outlet locations.
26. Please show only one access to Commerce Drive for Block G.
Please call to set up a meeting with Jon and me so that we may meet and discuss these items in
person. If you have any questions, please call Jon Dobosiewicz at 571-2417.
Sincerely,
Angelina Butler
Planning Administrator
W estCarmelMarketp lace-V,DP ,AD LS
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 2
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
Via Fax: 808-6787
Original by Mail
July 7, 2004
Ms. Cindy Schembre
Senior Vice President, Retail Operations
Duke Real~ Corporation
600 East 9t~ Street, Suite 100
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Re'
COpy
West Carmel Marketplace Development Proposal (04050028 DP/ADLS)
Dear Cindy:
I understand that the revised development plan being submitted for the July 20th Carmel/Clay
Plan Commission hearing for West Carmel Marketplace will indicate that the Porter Paint land
will not be a part of the center. In addition, as we discussed at our last meeting on June 29th, I
also understand that there is a possibility that the Speedway property may be removed from the
development plan as well.
Duke may submit a revised development proposal that excludes all, or part of, the Speedway
station and would not be denied approval on the basis of that exclusion. While inclusion of part,
or all of, the Speedway station makes the overall development proposal better, the Duke
development cannot be denied on that basis. Of course, if you are indeed unable to secure your
agreement with Speedway, you will need to further revise the site plan before Planning
Commission approval can be obtained.
Revisions shall include no cross access or easements providing access to the Speedway site from
the proposed development if the property is not included. It appears that Speedway has much to
gain by participating in the development of the center. It would be unfortunate for them if they
elect not to be included and also result in a less efficient design of the center.
Please let me know if you have any fiarfher questions regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
on C. Dobosiewicz
Planning Administrator
Department of Community Services
Z:\j dobosiewiczkLettersk2004\duke 7-7-04b.rtf
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 1
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
Bingham · McHale....,
attorneys at [aw
John C. Dobosiewicz
Planning Administrator
City of Carmel
Department of Community. Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
JUly'l.~ 2004
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
Re'
Our File:
West Carmel Marketplace
Petitioner: Duke Construction, Limited Partnership
14647-56366
Dear Jon,
Please note the amended site plans and elevations, as filed today, concerning the
West Carmel Marketplace development proposal (04050028 DP/ADLS). We have also
filed an amended variance petition, consistent with the comments we have received from
both you and Angie Butler of your office.
Although discussions continue with respect to access from Michigan Road, the
aligmnent of the extension of Commerce Drive, and the issues of regional drainage, these
plans and elevations incorporate the following adjustments to address issues raised by
your comment letter of May 18, 2004, and the TAC meeting of June 16, 2004:
Please note that one, relatively small and non-critical property, which was
previously proposed to be included along the Michigan Road frontage, has been removed
from the overall site plan. Although Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, previously
received verbal commitments, and obtained consent for zoning action, from the owner of
this property, Porter Shank II, the acquisition process has failed to materialize, to date.
That said,
o
o
o
o
The elevations now illustrate the sides and rear of the raised entry areas of the
primary building. '
The elevations now illustrate the storefront areas behind the entry features of the
primary building.
The view of the raised entry areas has been added to the east elevation of the
primary building.
The materials have been labeled on the eastern portion of the north elevation, and
the eastern portion of the south elevation, of the primary building.
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
John C. Dobosiewicz
July 1, 2004
Page 2
Se
,
e
ge
,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Multiple pilasters have been added to both the north and south elevations of the
primary building.
Architectural elements have been added to most of the exterior comers of the
primary building, including the east side.
The window style elevation is now consistent for all tenants along the front fagade
of the primary building. Front faCade adjustments have been made to reduce
some of the building material changes of the primary building. However, the
petitioner maintains the opinion that modest material changes, given the context
of a large building as this, can provide an appropriate visual diversity, particularly
when compared to the monotonous west fagade of the adjacent "SuperTarget".
The proposed fagade vertical changes have been incorporated in the amended
variance petition.
The amended variance petition includes a requested deviation from the off§et
requirements, for the primary building.
The elevations now illustrate the storefront areas behind the entry features of the
"B" Shops buildings.
Multiple pilasters have been added to the north and south elevations of the "B"
Shops buildings.
The amended elevations of the "B" Shops buildings propose architectural features
atop of each of the pilasters, providing a "pillar-cap" visual feature, each of which
functions much as a decorative wall sconce.
Architectural features have been added to the eastern comers of the "B" Shops
buildings.
Multiple pilasters have been added to the east elevation of the "B" Shops
buildings.
The amended variance petition includes a requested deviation from the 8-foot
building projection requirements. The amended plans include a 4-foot front
projection for the center of the "B" Shops buildings.
The utility screen wall along the east side of the "B" Shops buildings is intended
to conceal utility meters, etc.
The amended elevations illustrate roof elevations and rooftop mounted HVAC
locations.
All storm water will be handled internally. There will be no exterior downspouts,
scuppers, etc.
Material samples will be provided prior to the Plan Commission, including brick,
aluminum, stone, EIFS, glass, and paint.
Golden Section and regulating line analysis of the elevations are included with the
amended elevations for all buildings, showing the appropriate proportionality of
each elevation.
The additional architectural features of the amended elevations, particularly the
multiple pilasters, provide a detail similarity between the front and side elevations
of all buildings.
882414
John C. Dobosiewicz
July 1, 2004
Page 3
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
The amended elevations of all the buildings include a generally unified design for
the multiple storefronts. However, the petitioner maintains the opinion that
modest design changes, particularly regarding a building as large as the primary
building, can provide appropriate visual diversity and still be consistent with the
ordinance. The front faqade of the primary building's raised entry area height,
raised entry area perimeter shape, building materials, and front entry spacing are
generally consistent.
The original ADLS petition submittal omitted a physical count of the wall signs
for the second "B" Shops building, thus, omitting nine wall signs. There are a
maximum of 23 wall signs proposed. However, the actual number of tenants, and
related signs, will be likely less.
The petitioner will agree to limit the number of colors for the wall signs for the
"B" Shops buildings to a bronze/white combination. The petitioner maintains the
opinion that the primary building's wall signs are significantly removed from
Michigan Road, with each tenant entry physically separated from one another,
thus preventing sign clutter or any negative wall signage impact.
The wall signs will consist of individual face lit channel letters. There will be no
raceways.
The amended elevations illustrate wall signs for the "B" Shops buildings as 35
square feet. The initially filed variance request for "B" Shops wall signage of 40
square feet is hereby withdrawn.
The amended elevations for the wall signs for the primary building are for
illustration purposes only. This illustration is exemplary of the ineffective size
the standard would provide, given the significant separation of the building from
Michigan Road, the significant separation of the individual tenant spaces, the
existing frontage development effectively hindering visibility from Michigan
Road, and the lack of additional wall signage on the east, north and south
elevations of the building. Therefore, the initially filed wall sign size, only for the
primary building, is still requested.
Wall signs are not proposed on the sides of the buildings.
The petitioner understands that wall signs of a greater size than permitted would
result in DOCS proposing a prohibition on window signage, a further focus upon
uniformity of design and a prohibition of wall signs facing Commerce Drive.
The Center name "West Carmel Marketplace" has been incorporated into the
design of Ground Sign "A".
Although omitted in this first amended site plan submittal, the development has
been renamed "West Carmel Marketplace".
The elevations of Ground sign "A" now propose a 12-foot tall sign on a 2'6" tall
base. The pre-cast base would have "West Carmel Marketplace" identified with
mounted black letters on all four sides.
The sign panels of Ground Sign "A" will be opaque, with illumination of the copy
only. ~
882414
John C. Dobosiewicz
July 1, 2004
Page 4
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
The sign copy colors for Ground Sign "A" will depend on the tenants, which is
not known as of this writing.
The design of Ground Sign "B" has greater similarity to the amended Ground
Sign "A" elevations, as opposed to the originally filed Ground Sign "A"
elevations.
The amended variance petition includes a request to allow fewer than all tenants
on the ground signs.
The sign panels of Ground Sign "B" will be opaque, with illumination of the copy
only.
The sign copy colors for Ground sign "B" has not been determined, as of this
writing.
The parking light fixtures are proposed to be a maximum of 24 feet tall, including
base.
Flat lens fixtures will be provided for all parking and security lights, although
consistency with the existing curved lens fixtures at the adjacent "SuperTarget"
facility was intended with the original filing.
Shields will be provided on light fixtures adjacent to Commerce Drive and the
south property line.
Cut sheet will be provided for all building mounted lighting fixtures.
Brant Kercheval, a Landscape Architect with Duke, has been in discussions with
Scott Brewer of DOCS, and will be revising the landscaping plan accordingly.
Foundation plantings variance has been requested. Further justification for this
variance is provided with the variance application.
Although omitted from this first amended site plan submittal, the parking setback
from the common area drives adjacent to.the "B" Shops buildings will be reduced,
and the foundation planting strip increased accordingly.
The parking setback along Retail Parkway has been adjusted to a minimum 15
feet.
The parking setback along proposed 99th Street has been adjusted to provide for a
minimum 6 feet.
See # 42 above.
The amended variance petition no longer requests a minimum front yard setback
variance.
The amended variance petition no longer requests a minimum side yard setback
variance.
The petitioner would prefer to leave future landscaping of the overall south
property line to the developer ~f that parcel in the future, and to the
recommendations of the DOCS in coordination with adjacent property owners at
that future date.
Landscaping within designated wetlands near the eastern perimeter of the site is a
problematic issue. However, the petitioner is engaged in discussions with
adjoining neighbors to provide an adequate buffer acceptable to all parties.
882414
John C. Dobosiewicz
July 1, 2004
Page 5
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
The site plan has been carefully developed to address the existing development
pattem'of the corridor, the overall architectural and design intentions of the
overlay ordinance, and the commercial viability/economic sustainability of a site
which is properly zoned and recommended for such development by the
Comprehensive Plan.
A sidewalk is provided along the south side of Retail Parkway, both sides of 99th
Street, and along Commerce Drive behind the primary building.
Pedestrian connections between the sidewalks adjacent to commercial buildings
and the buildings are provided on the revised site plan.
Although omitted in this first amended site plan submittal, future amendments
will indicate a site plan with five noted storefronts for the primary building.
The amended variance includes a request to provide for the additional access via
the proposed 99th Street. The petitioner maintains the opinion that such an access
is justified, given the findings of the traffic study, the proposed alignment of 99th
Street with Mayflower Parkway Drive (Thoroughfare Plan), and the relocation or
removal of other established access points. Additionally, the petitioner has
initiated discussions with INDOT and the Hamilton County Highway Department
to address site access as related to traffic issues throughout the vicinity, including
the extension of Commerce Drive to 96th Street.
See # 56 above.
When the developer of the future development area files specific development
plans for the future development area, the exact locations of access points will be
determined through the coordination of that developer, the DOCS and the Plan
Commission. One access is identified to the future development area, via 99th
Street.
Access points to future outlots is indicated on the revised site plan. .
The removal of the relatively small Michigan Road frontage parcel owned by
"Porter Shank II" may hinder the proposed closing of curb cuts serving 'that
parcel.
The amended site plan proposes right-in/fight-out access points at some existing
points of access.
Subsequent to the preparation of the initial draft Traffic Study, A & F Engineering
has further studied the traffic issues in the vicinity, particularly with the eventual
extension of Commerce Drive to 96th Street. Such an extension provides further
justification for the proposed 99th Street traffic signal. As of this writing, the
petitioner is engaged in further, discussions with INDOT and the Hamilton County
Highway Department in an effort to coordinate roadway related efforts of all
agencies, so as to enhance the potential for a 99th Street traffic signal
acceptability.
See # 62 above.
See # 62 above.
See # 62 above.
882414
John C. Dobosiewicz
July 1, 2004
Page 6
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
The petitioner, and A & F Engineering, is aware of the DOCS consultant
evaluation of the Traffic Study.
The petitioner is preparing to file a plat vacation of Block "F" of West Carmel
Center.
The petitioner is preparing to file a plat petition to provide for the creation of
outlots.
The petitioner would prefer not to file to rezone that portion of the site currently
zoned B-2 to the B-3 classification, given the additional time and representation
expense of such a perfunctory (petitioner's perspective) action. However, given
that such a rezone would not impact the use proposed or the proposed
development plan, the petitioner would consent to such a rezone if initiated by the
DOCS, at no cost to the petitioner.
The amended variance petition has been rewritten to provide less elaboration of
each point for which a variance is requested.
Thank you for your comments. We hope we have addressed your concerns thus
far, and look forward to working closely with you in our efforts to g~in Plan Commission
and Board of Zoning Appeals approvals for the West Carmel Marketplace development.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
Cc.'
Angie Butler, DOCS
Cindy Schembre, Duke
Blair Carmosino, Duke
Greg Snelling, Woolpert
Brent Davis, CSO
882414
May 18, 2004
Mary E. Solada
Bingham McHale LLP
10 West Market Street
2700 Market Tower
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Via Fax: 236-9907
Original by Mail
Re: Walnut Creek Marketplace
Dear Ms. Solada:
The following are preliminary comments on the Walnut Creek Marketplace DP/ADLS
application based on the information filed with the Department of Community Services on May
14, 2004. A separate review letter will be sent regarding the variance applications filed on the
same day.
ADI,S
Primary Building Elevations:
1. Provide section drawings illustrating sides and rear of raised entry areas.
2. Provide section drawings illustrating storefront area behind entry feature.
3. Add view of raised entry areas (west side of building) to east elevation. They have
been omitted.
4. Label materials on north and south elevations where faded out on submitted
elevations.
5. Provide additional architectural relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or
vision windows, columns, etc.)
6. Provide architectural elements at all (east side included) exterior comers of the
building similar to the type of element on the northwest and southwest comers of the
'B' Shops building.
7. It is not the intent of the Overlay'ordinance to allow for the "Franchise Architecture"
of tenants in multi-tenant buildings to be set next to on another and skinned with a
consistent color and material pattern to comply.
a. Select one consistent window style (color, shape, etc.) The 'B' shops building
provides a good example.
b. Maintain consistent architectural design details. Synm~etry and regulating lines
should be followed in the design.
c. Most of the proposed storefronts have to many changes in building materials
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
o
along vertical lines. Material changes are permitted to change only along
horizontal lines. While the Plan Commission has permitted some variation from
this role the proposed elevations do not comply and are not consistent with other
multi-tenant buildings subject to the Overlay standards.
d. Changes in material color cannot be used exclusively for one tenant area as is seen
in the "Barns & Noble" appearing fagade.
Provide vertical relief along east elevation. It is anticipated that a variance will be
filed for offset requirements. This may be supported based on the response to
requested modifications.
'B' Shops Building Elevations' 9. Provide section drawings illustrating storefront area behind entry feature.
10. Provide additional architectural relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or
vision windows, columns, etc.)
11. Add exterior wall sconces to building elevations. Use same as specked on primary
building.
12. Add architectural element at eastern comers of building. Something not identical but
complimentary to the west comers.
13. Add vertical relief to east side of building (same as west elevation with less detail).
14. Building projections of 8' are required. While a variance application is anticipated
please provide greater relief. This could be accomplished by bumping out the three-
center tenant bays 4'+/-.
15. What is the purpose of the screening panels along the east side of the buildings?
All Buildings'
16. Illustrate roof elevation and rooftop mounted HVAC locations and heights with
dashed lines.
17. Verify that all storm water will be handled internally. Are there any exterior
scuppers, downspouts, etc.?
18. Provide material samples.
19. Provide Golden Section and regulating line analysis of elevations.
20. The Ordinance requires that the front and sides of buildings on comer lots be
similarly detailed. While DOCS will support less detailing on the side and rear
(north, south, and east) of the buildings more attention needs to be paid to these sides
in general and per comments above.
21. The Ordinance requires that buildings with multiple storefronts be of a unified design,
through the use of among other things common architectural details, signage and
lighting consistent with the overall building style.
Wall Signs'
22. The application calls out 14 wall signs while the elevations show 23. Please clarify
and correct submitted materials.
23. The Department will request the Plan Commission restrict the number of colors used
for the signs and the type of illumination. The Department has received negative
comments regarding the unrestricted variety of colors across other multi-tenant
building in the US 421 Corridor. The comments center on the idea that the signs
Page 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
detract form the architectural design of the buildings. Please visit the buildings at the
comer of 131 st Street and Hazel Dell Parkway for an example of the preferred method
of signage for multi-tenant buildings.
Please provide signage details (cut sheet illustrating mounting style, letter type,
lighting style, etc.) Individual face lit channel letters mounted directly to the building
is acceptable. Painting the brick behind the sign on the south end of the primary
building "Pier One" blue is not preferred.
Wall sign size for the "B" Shops building is permitted at 35 square feet. Please
revise application and elevations accordingly.
Wall sign size for the primary building is permitted at 115 square feet if frontage is
provided to US 421 and each tenant has between 151-300 feet of frontage. Please
provide elevations for comparison purposes that illustrate signage of this size.
Variance approval will be required for larger signs. DOCS will look for uniformity in
design when considering support for relief to allow larger sings on the primary
building. The 245 square feet proposed is more than twice what is permitted and
approximately 100 square feet larger than the largest size sign permitted under the
ordinance. On the record, DOCS will not support signage of this size for a multi-
tenant building.
Wall signs are permitted on the sides of buildings that face public streets. Please
show these on the building elevations if contemplated. Not preferred by DOCS on
east elevation of primary building.
Assuming that Duke will desire to seek variance approval for signage the Department
will ask the BZA to consider the following general conditions be added to any signage
variance approval:
a. Prohibit window signage.
b. The Plan Commission will address uniformity of design.
c. Prohibit wall signs facing Commerce Drive where public entry is not from that
frontage.
Ground Sign 'A"
29. Incorporate the Center name into the sign. Black painted letters cut into the cast stone
frieze along the top of the sign would be an attractive option.
30. The Department would like to see greater identification to the City of Carmel with
development is this area. If Duke is not stuck on the name"Wa'~nur' Creek
Marketplace" I would suggest "West Carmel Marketplace" as opposed to something
like "Walnut Creek Marketplace of Carmel".
31. The Department is not opposed to three ground signs along this significant length of
frontage. However, three signs of this type (area and height) will not be supported.
Please provide an illustration with same materials and the following specifications for
discussion:
a. Two-foot wide +/- columns on either side.
b. One row of sign panels, each two-foot tall and 4' wide, four panels tall.
c. Same cornice and frieze design. Incorporate center name.
d. Overall dimensions 8' wide, not to exceed 12' tall.
e. Realistically, there are not 12 tenants that require identification of US 421
(including future area) and DOCS would strongly prefer not to see duplication.
Page 3
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
32.
33.
The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored) with illumination of copy only.
The Department has a strong preference that the sign copy colors be limited to a
maximum of two.
Ground Sign 'B':
34. This style of sign would be supported along the interior drive, Retail Parkway, and
Commerce Drive at the entrances to the primary retail building as well as the 'B'
Shops buildings.
35. A variance will be needed to allow fewer than all tenants to be identified on these
signs. DOCS will support this request.
36. The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored) with illumination of copy only.
37. The Department has a strong preference that the sign copy colors be limited to a
maximum of two.
Lighting'
38.
39.
40.
41.
The maximum height of parking lot fixtures is 24'. This is including any base
structure. Please revise application information. The Department will not support a
request for relief.
Use flat lens fixtures only. Curved shown on application.
Provide shields on fixtures adjacent to Commerce Drive and south property line.
Provide cut sheets for all building mounted lighting fixtures (architectural and
security).
Landscaping'
42. Please meet with Scott Brewer of DOCS to discuss compliance with Ordinance and
acceptability of proposed plan.
43. It is recognized that you will request relief for the 5' building base landscaping
requirement along the east side of the primary building. This will be supported due to
the additional evergreen plantings along the Commerce Drive frontage.
44. The parking setback from the common area drives could be reduced down to 6'. With
this done adjacent to the 'B' shops buildings the east building base planting strip
could be widened to meet the 5' minimum. This is recommended.
45. The parking setback form Retail Parkway is 15'. Please revise plans.
46. The parking setback along your proposed 99th Street can be reduced down to 6'. This
may allow for an adjustment of setback of parking from Retail Parkway.
47. Red Baron Crabapples and Royal Star Magnolias are not shade trees. Shade trees are
required within interior parking lot islands. Please revise plans. Variance relief will
not be supported.
48. No variance approval is necessary from the requirements of Section 14.04.02
regarding landscaping.
49. No variance approval is needed from section 14.04.03 regarding minimum side yards.
50. DOCS recommends addressing landscaping along south property line of development
with this application as opposed to leaving discussion for future development phase.
51. Landscape Buffer plantings need to be addressed between your proposed storm water
Page 4
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
detention areas and adjacent properties.
Develonment Plan
Site layout:
52. The Department would prefer a site layout that placed the buildings closer to the
primary road fights-of-way and provided parking in the rear or to the side of the
buildings.
53. Provide sidewalk (5' concrete) along both sides of public streets.
54. Provide pedestrian connections between the walks and buildings.
55. Modify primary building layout to match building represented in elevations (i.e. five
storefronts, variation on rear building footprint, etc.).
Access-
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
The Ordinance allows access via Commerce Drive and Retail Parkway. As we
discussed DOCS will not support access to the site (via US 421) as proposed on the
submitted drawings or as depicted within the traffic study as submitted. See
additional comments on traffic study below in next section.
The construction of Commerce Drive and its extension south to 96th Street is a critical
component of the Thoroughfare Plan. Construction on this site appears to be a
catalyst that warrants its construction. I say this based on the numbers in the traffic
study.
Identify location of access points to future development area. These shall align with
proposed access points along proposed Walnut Creek Drive
Identify location of access point to future outlots. Alignment is the issue.
With access being provided too the Speedway site and a primary/secondary plat
required we will request the closing of one of the cuts to this site along with the
modification of the other to a right-in/fight-out. Access is further controlled by the
center median extending south form the signal at Retail Parkway and US 421.
The Department may support access to the subject property via right-in/right-out
access onto US 421. These need to be designed with medians to encourage proper
use. We do have concern that extending a median may not be practical due to access
on the west side of US 421 but would ensure proper use of the right/in--right-out
access.
Traffic Study'
62. The following is stated to be clear that we are all on the same page. The traffic study
is not intended, nor will DOCS allow it to be used, to suggest that there is an
engineering need for the proposffd traffic signal. The traffic study only concludes that
if access were permitted to the site at the proposed location it would warrant a signal
and that the signal installation would not diminish the level of service of the adjacent
signalized intersections. Policy neutral to be certain.
63. As required by ordinance access to this property is allowed from Retail Parkway and
Commerce Drive. Therefore, is incumbent on the applicant to illustrate how access
from these locations is insufficient to serve the site. The traffic study draws no such
conclusions. This should be explored.
Page 5
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDLA_NA 46032 317/571-2417
64.
65.
66.
The traffic study does not account for any traffic that would use the Commerce Drive
Extension other than traffic generated by the proposed development (25%). The
study should be revised to account for background use and trips generated by the
development to the north (Super Target and others).
Once we come to some conclusions regarding the suitability of access to the property
in relation to the Ordinance we will need to set a meeting with the State Highway
Department to obtain their input.
The Department will be requesting assistance in reviewing the technical merits of the
traffic Study from an outside consultant. Future comments will be delivered to the
applicant upon further review.
General Comments:
67. A plat vacation should be filed for Block "F" of West Carmel Center.
68. A Primary Plat application must be filed for the creation of the outlots including
Speedway property. Access will be a review criterion. See comments under access.
69. DOCS request that Duke agree to rezone the B-2 zoned property to a B-3 designation.
This will avoid any complication of a split-zoned property. This is not a requirement
but rather something that makes sense if the existing B-2 tract is no longer going to be
developed as a freestanding parcel.
70. The Variance application(s) needs to be less wordy and more to the point when
stating the requested relief. We do not need the "why" or "how" in this section we
need the "what". Call out specific sections of the code, state what is permitted and
state requested measure (setback, height, area, etc.). Keep it simple in this section.
You can add the "why" in another section.
Overall the proposed development lacks innovative site design. This is the same unimaginative
power center Duke stamps out in other communities that do not have ordinances in place to
promote the steady flow of traffic and create a sPecial sense of place through the use of a
common architectural and site design theme. With that said DOCS looks forward to working
with Duke in refining this proposal to meet the letter of the ordinance and intent where variances
are requested.
Sincerely,
tor
Department of Community Services
Z:\jdobosiewiczkLettersk2004\duke 5-17-04.rtf
Page 6
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
P. 1/3
JUN 1~ ~ 0~ 0~: ~BR~ --~
''
Kenton C, Ward, Surveyor
"Phone (j2'7)
'Fax (~7)
$,it'e ~ 8'8
O.e ~[amilton Country Sq,are
.'Nob[esvil[e, lndia,a 4~ob'a-2.L~o
June 14, 2004
Woolpert LLP
ATTN: Oreg 8nelling
7140 Waldemar Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46268
VIA FACSIMILE: 291-5805
Re: Walnut Creek Marketplace
Dear Mr. Shelling:
We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office
on June 1,2004 for this project and have thc following comments:
1. This project falls within thc jurisdiction of unincorporated Hamilton County.
2. This proposed project DOES NOT fall in a Carmel Watershed Protection Area.
3. The proposed site has the Crooked Creek Regulated Drain, the Mayflower Park
Arm of thc Crooked Creek Regulated Drain, and the Commerce Drive Extension
Arm of the Crooked Cre~k Regulated Drain.
4. The proposed site falls in the Crooked Creek Regulated Drain Watershed that has an
allowable release rate set at 0.2~ cfa per acre.
5. In accordance with Hamilton County Ordinance 4-26-99-C(4), Crooked Creek
Regulated Drain will need to be improved across the site.
6. The Mayflower Park Arm of Crooked Creek Regulated Drain will need to be
reconstructed across the parcei. The pipe must be size to carry the off-site area and
any on-site discharges into the pipe.
7. This proposed project will become a regulated drain subdivision. All storm pipes
that serve off-site area, public ROW, or individual lots in the overall developrncnt
will become part of the Mayflower Park Arm of Crooked Creek Regulated Drain.
JUM 14 ~04 0~:43~M ~-
Please submit Petitions for Relocation and Reconstruction (Mayflower Park Arm of
the Crooked Creek Regulated Drain and the Commerce Drive Extcmion of thc
Crooked Creek Regulated Drain) and Non-~ore,m,nt of Drainage Ea_~ement in
Subdivi,ion (Crooked Creek and Mayflower Park Arm of Crooked Creek). The
application i~ ~vailabl, on our w~bsite at http://~.eo.hmilto~.,_in,_m, go to
Dcpartrn,nts, Surveyor, and Drainage ?ormits. Outlet Pennit~ and C~o~ing Permits
will b, d~t~rmined at a later, date when the plans am finalized. Bond~ and Engineers
Estimates will also be required before the plans will be approwd.
9. Please show and label all regulated drains on thc existing conditions pages (C 100
and CI01).
10. Thc Hamilton County Surveyor's Office does not like the 5 pond layout with
equalizer pipes for the detention of this site. This office would like to propose an
off-line regional detention pond with an area for water quality treatment. Our office
believes this could be benefit to thc residents of the watershed, the Hamilton County
Surveyor's Office/Drainage Board, and Duke Realty Corporation. Please contact
me to schedule a meeting so further discussion oan take place on this matter.
1 I. The construction plans and drainage calculations do not seem to properly address
the approximate 500 acres of upstream watershed and thc weir outlet structure from
the regional detention ponds in Ashbrook¢.
12, Hamilton County Ordinance 4-26-99~C(2)f does not allow underwater discharges as
shown between ponds A- B and B- C.
13. The erosion control plans are inadequate and must meet the standards of the
Hamilton County Surveyor's Office and the requirement of John South for
Hamilton County Soil and Water conservation district.
14. Please add the following note to the erosion control plan, "Additional erosion
control measures may be required in thc field by the Hamilton County Surveyor's
Office or Hamilton County Soil and Water Inspector."
15. All casting should be labeled "Dump No Waste- Drains to Waterway," which are
readily available now .from loeaI casting distributors. Please add a note to the plans
that will make the contractor aware of this requirement.
16. After the above mentioned discussion, revised plans must be submitted with all
proposed regulated drain meeting the requirement and standards of the Hamilton
County Surveyor's Office.
17. The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office requests the plans on a 24" by 36" format.
18. Please note the additional comments may be warranted at a later date.
JUN 14 ' 84 85;: 44PM ~ P. 3/3
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317-776-8495.
Sincerely,
C-rcg I-Ioyes
Plan Reviewer
Cc: Jon Dobosiewicz- Carmel DOCD
John South- HCSWCD
Dick Hill - Carmel Engineering
Steve Broermann- HCHD
June 13, 2004
J.~ms BR2UN_~aD, ,MAYOR
Mary E. Solada
Bingham and McHale
2700 Market Tower
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900
RE: 9901 Michigan Road Landscape plan review comments
Dear Mary:
My comments on the landscape plan for the development located at 9901 Michigan Road
are as follows, and may be forwarded to whomever it may concern:
1. The development falls under the US Highway 421-Michigan Road Corridor
Overlay Zone Requirements found in Section 23C. 10 and the Bufferyard
Requirements in Section 26.4. The proposed landscaping plan submitted does not
meet all those requirements.
2. An over-all site plan needs to be submitted showing the all required landscaping
for bufferyards in Section 26.4 of the Canuel/Clay Land Use Ordinance. Included
on this plan should be a table that shows the amount of plant material required in
the bufferyards and the amount of plant material proposed by the plan. This plan
needs to include undeveloped portions of the.site, common areas, and storm water
ponds.
3. There are various Overlay Zone requirements including greenbelt, perimeter
buffering, foundation planting (on all sides of every building), interior parking lot,
and perimeter parking lot (including a 6' planting strip in the front and sides of
parking along US 421). These areas must be labeled and the plant materials
within them must be marked and labeled. The required 6' planting strip is in
addition to the required greenbelt.
4. All plant material is required to meet American Standards for Nursery Stock-
1996 Edition and the Overlay Zone Ordinance, including the following: shade
trees - 2.5" caliper, ornamental trees - 1.5" caliper, evergreen trees - 8' in height,
and shrubs - 18" in height. Proposed shade trees and evergreens do not meet this
standard.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
ONE C~v~c SQU^RF~, C^RMEL, IN 46032 P~O,N~. ~17.571.2417, Fax 317.571.2426
MICHAEL P. HOLLIBAUGH, DIRECTOR
Page 2, 9901 Michigan Road
5. For reasons of community plant health, species diversity is important. Of the 4
large maturing shade trees that are proposed, all four species are maples. No
more than 25% of any single genus can be proposed. Therefore, please choose 3
additional species (from 3 genus that recommended) of shade trees for this site.
You may find a recommended list on the Carmel website
(http ://www.ci.carrnel.in.us/services/DOCS/DOCSUFCarmelTreeSuggestions.ht
m), or you may contact me to discuss recommended shade tree species.
6. Only ornamental species have been proposed in the "islands" within the parking
lots. Large or medium growing shade trees need to be planned within parking
lots. Some innovative planning is required for successful parking lot tree growth.
Consideration should be given to adding irrigation, planting medium such
constructed or structural soils, and increased soil volumes for planting areas.
Perhaps planting island areas in the parking lot might be combined to produce
larger planting areas with more plant materials. This is encouraged within the
Michigan Road corridor.
Please reply to these comments in writing and by amended plans. You may contact me
by return email or at (317) 571-2478.
Sincerely, ~ ,ff
Scott Brewer, Environmental Planner
Department of Community Services
CC'
Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS
Angie Butler, DOCS
Woolpert LLP, Duke Realty
Writer's direct dial
(612) 761-1548
(612) 761-3735 fax
matt.wise~target.com
June 3, 2004
TARGET CORPORATIUN
City of Cannel Plan Commission
Department of Community Services
Attn: Angie Butler
One Civic Square, Third floor
Carmel, IN 46032
Proposed development of Walnut Creek Marketplace, Carmel, Indiana
Dear Angie'
I wanted to take the chance to follow up to our recem telephone conversation. As I stated to you, Target has
questions regarding the drive separating our site from the proposed Walnut Creek Marketplace development
to the southeast of our Target store off of US-421. We were recently contacted by Duke Realty Corporation,
about the development and some concerns have arisen.
Specifically, our concern is not with what is being proposed in terms of use or aesthetics, but the potential
effect on the ingress and egress to US-421, especially the lack of an additional left turn on to US-421. As you
can see from the attached pictures, it appears that two left turn lanes have been planned, but one has not been
finished by the County, which controls/owns the road. If the site plan for Walnut Creek Marketplace is
indeed approved, dual left hand turn lanes would seem to be a necessity due to the increased traffic flow this
would create.
I have discussed the proposed project/development with Duke Realty in detail and will maintain a dialogue
with them to address any additional concerns that may be of mutual interest for both parties. We want to stay
involved in the review process, especially plans concerning the road.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me.
Respectful~~ ~
Matt Wj~ /: k /
cc: e only
Target · Marshall Field's · Mervyn's · target.direct
Target Financial Services · Target Brands · AMC · DCl
Property Development, 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403
Z
o
__LO
0g¥03
TARGET CORPORATIO, _
Real Estate Department
1000 Nicollet Mall, TPN-12
Minneapolis, MN 55403
6127613735 P. 01
Fax Cover Sheet
Attached, please find 4 pages, including transmittal.
Date: June 3, 2004
To: Jon Dobosiewi~
(317)_5_71-2426
(Name)
(Company)
.(Dept.)
(Fax Number)
.(Phone Number)
From:
Project;
Subject:
Copy:
M_a~ Wi~e
._Property D_evelopment
(6~2) 761-3735
(612) 761-154t}
W alout Creek Marketpla~
ingress and egress concerns
(Name)
(Dept.)
...,(Fax Number)
_(Phone Number)
Original Document to Follow:
r-I Regular Mail ~ Overnight Delivery
~ No Original
Comment:
JUN-03-2004 05' 45 PROPERTY RDM I N I STRRT I ON 6127613735 P. 02
TARGET CORPORATioN
®
Writer's dirmt dial
(612) 761-1548
(612) 761-3735 fax
matt.wisc,~target, com
June 3, 2004
Via Certified U.S. Mail
City of Carmel Plan Commission
Depamnent of Community Services
Attn.' Angie Butler
One Civic Square, Third floor
Carmel, IN 46032
Proposed development of Walnut Creek Marketplace, Carmel, Indiana
Dear Angie:
I wanted to take the chance to follow up to our recent telephone conversation. As I stated tn you, Target has
questions regarding the drive sq~arating our site from the proposed Walnut Cree~ Marketplace development
to the southeast of our Target store off of US-421. We were receatly contacted by Duke R.alty Corporation,
about the d~velopmeat and some concerns have arisen.
Spe~itically, our concern is not with what is being proposed in tenm of use or aesthetics, but the pot(mtial
effect on the ingress and egress to US-421, e~ecially the lack of an additional lef~ mm on to US-421. As you
can see from the attached pictures, it appea~ that two left turn lanes have been planned, but one has not b~
f'mished by the County, which controls/owns the road. If the site plan for Walnut Creek Marketplace is
indeed approved, dual left hand mm lanes would seem to be a necessity due to the increased traffic flow this
would create.
I have discussed the proposed project/development with Duke Realty in detail and will maintain a dialogue
with them to address any additional concerns that may be of mutual interest for both parties. We want to stay
involved in the review process, especially plans concerning the road.
If you have any questions or comm~ats regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me.
Matt
Pro opment
cc: Dobosiewicz - via only
Target. Marshall Field's . Mervyn's · target.direr
Terget Rnancial Secvices - Terser B¢ends · AMC - OCl
Pco~rty Develo~em, 3.000 Nicolle[ Mall, Minneaoolis. Min~sota 55403
JUN-03-2004 05:45 PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION 6127613735 P.03
//
JWN-03-2004 05: 46 PROPSRTY ~qDM 15~ I STRRT I ON 6127613735 P. 04
TOTRL P. 04
JUN-01-8004 11:81 FROM:HA~Z.LTON CO HWY DEP 3177769814 ._~ TO:31? 571 8486 P.001/001
HAMILTON COUNTY
HIGHWA Y DEPAt? TPlENT
June 1, 2004
Mr, Dave Barnes
W eihe Engineers, Inc.
1050,5 North College Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46260
VIA FACSIMILE
RE:
Glen Oaks Subdivision
Primary Plat
N of 131~t Street/E of West Road
Clay Township
Dear Mr. Barnes:
This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of a transmittal containing the plans for the above-
mentioned subdivision. After reviewing the plans, the Highway Department has the following
comments:
It appears that this project lies entirely within the limits of the City of Carmel. Therefore,
all future comments should be directed toward the City. If you have any information
contrary to this statement, please contact me immediately.
If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter or project, please feel free to contact
me at any time. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Since,rely,
Ett¢¥~n J. Broerrnann
Staff Engineer
Jon Dobosiewicz
Greg Hoyes
G:\USE RS~SB~04~-01-04glenoeks,do~
1700 South 10m Street
NoblesYllle, In. 46060
www.co.hamilton.in.us
omce (317), 773-7'770
Fax (317) T'/6-98I 4
June 1, 2004
Dave Barnes
Weihe Engineers, INC.
10505 N. college Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46280
RE:
Glen Oaks Subdivision
Dear Mr. Barnes:
! have received and reviewed the information for the above-mentioned
project.
At the present time, ! 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. Fogarty
Chief of Police
MDF:vb
cc: ¢1:)ept. of Community Service.~
(317) $71-2500
A Nationally Accredit~;!i~!! ~i~forcement
Agency
F.~: ~ 517) 5 71-2512
.,
'~ ' ~PI~Y-19-2004 NED 08:56 ~t'l O~Rt'IE"-"OPI~UNITY SVO$ F~X NO, 317 57~"-'~426 P, O1
C ty of Carn el
May 18, 2004
Via Fax: 236-9907
Original by Mail.
Mary E, Solada
Bingham Morale LLP
10 West Market Street
2700 Market Tower
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Walnut Creek Marketplace
Dear Ms. So lada:
The following are preliminary comments on the Walnut Creek Marketplace DP/ADLS
application based on the information filed with the Dcparmaent of Commu~ty Services on May
14, 2004. A separate review letter will be sent regarding the variance applications filed, on thc
same day.
Primary Building Elevations:
1. Provide section drawings illustrating sides and rear of raised entry areas.
2. Provide section drawings illustrating storefront area behind entry feature.
3. Add view of raised entry areas (west side of building) to east elevation. They have
been omitted.
4. Label materials on north and south elevations where faded out on submitted
elevations.
5. Provide additional architectural relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or
vision windows, columns, etc.)
6. Provide architectural elements at all (east side included) exterior comers of the
building similar to the type of element on the northwest and ~outhwest comers of the
'B' Shops building.
7. It is not the intent of the Overlay ordinance to allow for the "Franchise Architecture"
of tenant~ in multi-tenam buildings to be set next to on another and skinned with a
consistent color and material pattern to comply.
a. Select one consistent window style (color, shape, etc.) The 'B' shops building
provides a good example.
b. Maintain ¢onsi~tem architectural design details. Symmetry and regulating lines
should be followed in the design.
c. Most of the proposed storefronts have to many changes in building materials
Page I
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CAiq2vfRL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
' I'IR'~-19-2004 NED 08:57 RI"I ORR~EI-""OI'II'IUNITY $V05 FR× NO, 317 571--.~426 P, 02
along vertical lines. MaSerial changes are permitted to change only along
horizontal lines. While the Plan Commission has permitted some variation from
this vale thc proposed elevations do not comply and are no~ consistent with other
multi-tenant buildings subject to the Ovcrlay standards.
d. Changes in material color cannot be used exclusively .for one tenant area as is seen
in thc "Barns & Noble" appearing facade.
Provide vertical relief along east elevation. It is anticipated that a variance will be
filed for offset requirements. This may be supported based on thc response to
requested modifications.
'B' Shops Building Elevations: 9. Provide section drawings illtmtrating storefront area behind entry feature.
10, Provide additional architectural relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or
vision windows, columns, etc.)
11. Add exterior wall sconces to building elevations. Use same as specked on primary
building.
12. Add architectural element at eastern comers of building. Something not identical but
complimentary to the west comers.
13, Add vertiCal relief to east side of building (same as west elevation with less detail).
14. Building projections of 8' are required. While a variance application is anticipated
please provide greater relief. This could be accomplished by bumping out the three-
center tenant bays 4'+/-.
15. What is the pm-pose of the screening panels along the east side of the buildings?
All Buildings:
16. Illustrate roof elevation and rooftop mounted HVAC locations and heights with
dashed lin~s.
17. Verify that all storm water will be handled internally. Are there any exterior
scuppers, downspouts, etc.?
1.8. Provide material samples.
19. Provide Golden Section and regulating line analysis of elevations,
20. The Ordinance requires that the front and sides of buildings on comer lots be
similarly detailed. While DOCS will support less detailing on the side and mar
(north, south., and east) of the buildings more attention ne.~s to be paid to these sides
in general and per comments above.
21. The Ordinance requires that buildings with multiple storefroats be of a unifiexl design,
through the use of among other things common architectural details, signag¢ and
lighting consistent with the overall building style.
Wall Signs:
22.
23.
The application calls out 14 wall signs while the clevations show 23. Please clarify
and corr~t submitted material~.
The Department will request the Plan Commission restrict the number of oolors used
for th~ signs and the type of illumination. The D,partment has received negative
comments regarding the unrestricte, zl variety of colors across other multi-tenam
building in the US 421 Corridor. The corem,uts center on the idea that the signs
Page 2
ON~ CIVIC SQIJAI~E CAR.M~.I.., INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
·
]I~Y- ] 9-2004 NED 08: 57 f~ll C~I~IIEI ~""'9~]IUNITV SVCS F'~X NO, 317 571~426 P, 03
24.
25.
26,
27.
28.
detract form the architectural design of the buildings. Please visit the buildings at the
comer of 13 l't Street and Hazel Dell Parkway for an example of the preferred metlaod
of signage for multi-tenant buildings.
Please provide signage details (cut sheet illustrating mounting style, letter type,
lighting style, etc.) Individual face lit channel letters moun~ed directly to the building
is acceptable. Painting the brick behind the sign on the south end of the primary
building "Pier One" blue is not preferred.
Wall sign size for the "B" Shops buiIding is permitted at 35 square feet. Please
revise application and elevations aceord~gly.
Wall sign size for the primary building is permitted at 115 square feet if frontage is
provided to US 421 and each tenant has between 151-300 feet of fron, age. Please
provide elevations for comparison purposes that illustrate signage of this size.
Variance approval will be required for larger signs. DOCS will look for uniforraity in
design when considering support for relief to allow larger sings on the primary
building. The 245 square feet proposed is more than twice what is permit'ted and
approximately 100 square fee~ larger than the largest size sign permitted under the
ordinance. On the record, DOCS will not support signage of this size for a multi-
tenant building.
Wall signs are permitted on the sides of buildings that face public streets. Please
show these on the building elevations if conternplated. Not preferred by DOCS on
east elevation of primary building. ·
Assuming that Duke will desire to seek variance approval for signage the Department
will ask the BZA to consider the following general conditions be added to any signage
variance approval:
a. Prohibit window signage.
b. The Plan Commission will address uniformity of design.
c. Prohibit wall signs facing Commerce Drive where public entry is not from that
frontage.
Ground Sign 'A':
29. Incorporate the Center name into the sign. Black painted letters cut into the cast stone
frieze along the top of the sign would be an attractive option.
30. The Department would like to see greater identification to the City of Cannel with
development is this area. IfDul~ is not stuck on the name "Wnlnnt
Marketplace" I would suggest "We~t Carmel Marketplace" as opposed to something
like "Walnut Creek Marketplace of Carmel".
31. The Department ia not opposed to three ground signs along this significant length of
frontage. However, three signs of this type (area and height) will not be supported.
Please provide an illustration with. same materials and the following specifications for
discussion:
a. Two-foot wide +/- columns on either side.
b. One row of sign panels, each two-foot tall and 4' wide, four panels tall.
e. Same cornice and frieze design. Incorporate center name.
d. Overall dimensions 8' wide, not to exceed 12' tall.
e. Realistically, there are not 12 tenants that require identification of US 421
(including future area) and DOCS would strongly prefer not to see duplication.
Page 3
ONE C~IC SQUAK~ CARMEL, INDLaaNA 46032 517/571-2417
'~,~Y-19-2004 NED 08:57 RR ORRt'IE'--'Ot4RUNITY SVOS FR× NO, 317 57~°426 P, 04
32.
33.
The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored) with illumination of copy only.
The Depanmeut has a strong pref~ence that thc sign copy colors be limited to a
maximum of two.
Ground Sign ~B):
34. This style of sign would be supported along the interior drive, Retail Parkway, and
Commerce Drive at the entrances to the primary retail building as well as the 'B'
Shops buildings.
35. A variance will be needed to allow fewer than all tenants to be identified on these
signs. DOCS will support this request.
36, The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored) with illumination of copy only,
37. The Deparmaent has a strong preference that the sign copy colors be limited to a
maximum of two.
Lighting:
38.
39.
40.
41.
The maximum height of parking lot fixtures is 24'. This is including any base
structure. Please revise application information. The Department will not support a
request for relief.
Use flat lens fixtures only. Curved shown on application.
Provide shields on fixtures adjacent to Commerce Drive and south property line.
Provide cut sheets for all building mounted lighting fixtures (architectural and
security).
Landscaping:
42. Please meet with Scott Brewer of DOCS to discuss compliance with Ordinance and
acceptability of proposed plan.
43. It is recognized that you will request relief for the 5' building base landscaping
requirement along the east side of the primary building. This will be supported due to
the additional evergreen plantings along the Commerce Drive frontage.
44. The parking setback from the common area drives could be reduced down to 6'. With
this done adjacent to the 'B' shops buildings the east building base planting strip
could be widened to meet tho 5' minimum. This is recommended.
45. The parking setback form Retail Parkway is 15'. Please revise plans.
46. The parking setback along your proposed 99m Street can be reduced down to 6', This
may allow for an adjustment of setback of parking fi:om Retail Parkway.
47. Red Baron Crabapples and Royal Star Magnolias are not shade trees. Shade trees are
required within interior parking lot. islands. Please revise plans. Variance relief will
not be supported.
48. No variance approval is necessary from the requirements of Section 14,04.02
regarding landscaping.
49. No variance approval is needed from section 14.04.03 regarding minimum side yards.
50. DOCS recommends addressing landscaping along south property line of development
with this application as opposed to leaving discussion for future development phase.
51. Landscape Buffer plantings need to be addressed between your proposed storm water
Page 4
ONE crvIc SQUARE CA~, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417
' 'H~'~-19-2004 NED 08:58 ~1'I O~RHEI~"O~UNITY SVOS F~X NO, 317 571~426 P, 05
detention areas and adjacent properties.
Develnn.ment Plan
Site layout: 52. The Department would prefer a site layout that placed the buildings closer to the
primary mad fights-of-way and providext parking in thc rear or to the side of thc
buildings.
53. Provide sidewalk (5' concrete) along both sides of public streets.
54. Provide pexlcsffi~ connections between the walks and buildings.
55. Modify primary building layout to match building represented in elevations (i.e. five
storcfronts, variation on rear building footprint, etc.).
Access:
:56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
The Ordinance allows access via Commerce Drive and Retail Parkway. As we
discussed DOCS will not support access to thc site (via US 421) as proposed on the
submitted drawings or as depicted within the traffic study as submitted. See
additional comments on traffic study below in next section,
The construction of Commerce Drive and its extension south to 96th Street is a critical
component of tho Thoroughfare Plan. Construction on this site appears to be a
catalyst that warrants its consmmfion. I say this based on the numbers in the traffic
study.
Identify location of access points to future developmcm area. These shall align with
proposed access points along proposed Walnut Creek Drive
Identify location of access point to future outlets. Alignment is the issue.
With access being provided too thc Speedway site and a primary/secondary plat
required we will request thc closing of one of thc cut~ to this site along with thc
modification of thc other to a right-in/right-out. Access i~ further controlled by the
center me, dian extending south form the signal at Retail Parkway and US 421.
The Department may support access to the subject property via right-in/right-out
access onto US 421. These need to be designed with medians to encourage proper.
use. We do have concern that extending a median may not be practical duc to access
on the west side of US 421 but would ensure proper usc of the right/in--right-out
Traffic Study:
62. The following is stated to be clear that we arc all on the same page. The traffic study
is not intendex[ nor will DOCS allow it to be used, to suggest that there is an
engineering need for the proposed 7affic signal. The traffic study only concludes that
if access were permitted to thc site at the proposexl location it would warrant a signal
and that the signal installation would not diminish the level of service of the adjacent
signalized intersections. Policy neutral to be certain.
63. As required by ordinance access to this property is allowed from Retail Parkway and
Commerce Drive. Therefore, is incumbent on the applicant to illustrate how access
from these locations is insufficient to serve thc site. Thc traffic study draws no such
conclusions. This should be explored.
Page 5
ONE crv~c SQUARE
CA~L, INDIANA 46032
317/571.2417
~' ' ~(tY-19-2004 NED 08~58 ~1'I O~I~?IE['""~I'II~UNITY SVOS F~X NO, 317 571~426 P, 06
64,
65.
66.
Thc traffic study docs not account for any traffic that would use the Commerce Drive
Extension other fl~an traffic gonerate~ by thc proposed development (25%), The
study should b~ revised to account for background use and trips generated by the
development to thc north (Super Target and others).
Once w~ come to some conclusions regarding thc suitability of access to th~ property
in relation to the Ordinance we will need to set a meeting with the State Highway
Department to obtain their input.
The Department will be requesting assistants in reviewing the technical merits of the
traffic Study from an outside consultant, Furore comments will be delivered to the
applicant upon further review.
C, enera..! _C.,.o_~men~;
67. A plat vacation should be filed for Block "F" of West Carmel Center,
68. A Primaxy Plat application must be filed for thc creation of the outlots including
Speedway property. Access will be a review criterion. See comments under access.
69. DOCS request that Duke agree to rezone the B-2 zoned property to a B-3 designation,
This will avoid any complication of a split-zoned property. This is not a requirement
but rather something that makes sense if the existing B-2 tract is no longer going to bc
developed as a freestanding parcel.
70. The Variance application(s) needs to be less wordy and moro to the point when
stating the requested relief. We do not need thc "why" or "how" in tlfis section we
need tiao "what". Call out specific sections of tho code, state what is pennitte~ and
state requested measure (setback, height, ama, etc.). Keep it simple in tl~s section.
You can add thc "why" in another section.
Overall the proposed development lacks innovative site design. This is the same tmimaginative
power center Duke stamps out in other communities that do not have ordinances in place to
promote the steady flow of traffic and create a special sense of place through the use of a
common architectural and site design theme. With that said DOCS looks forward to working
with Duke in refining this proposal to meet the letter of the ordinance and intent where variances
are requested.
Sincerely,
or
Department of Community Services
Z:\jdobosiewlcz\Lcttors~2004~luk~ 5-17-04,rtl
Page 6
ONE CMC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIA 46032 317/571-2417
a t t o r n eys a t Ia w
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
John South
Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation
1108 South 9th Street
Noblesville, IN 46060
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 ° binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham ·
McHale LLP
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
Dick Hill/Mike McBride
Dept. of Engineering
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
May 14, 2004
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
attorneys at taw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Gary Hoyt
Office of Fire Chief, Fire Station # 1
Two Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear C~trmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204°4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale, ,,
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Carmel Dept. of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the deVelopment and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham ·
McHale LLP
attorneys at taw
Mary E. Solada
Parmer
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Bill Akers
Carmel Clay Communications
31 First Avenue NW
Carmel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale,,,,
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Parmer
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Jim Blanchard
Assist Building Commissioner
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale LLP
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Dean Groves
Cinergy
14441 South Gilford Road
Carmel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
Mary E. Solada
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham ·
McHale LLP
attorneys at taw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Chuck Shupperd
Vectren Energy P.O. Box 1700
Noblesville, IN 46060
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File' 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale
a t t o r n eys a t Ia w
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Ron Booher
Cinergy PSI
Customer Project Coordinator
1441 South Guilford
Cannel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204°4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indi an ap o lis Jasper N ob 1 esvil I e
Bingham,
McHale LLP
attorneys at taw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Postmaster
C/o Karen Pitts
Carmel Post Office
U.S.P.S., 275 Medical Dr
Carmel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
Please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham ·
McHale LLP
a t t o r n eys a t Ia w
Mary E. Solada
Parmer
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Ron Farrand
Carmel/Clay Schools
5201 East 131~t Street
Carmel, IN 46033
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Cannel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204,4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indi an apo lis Jasper N ob les vill e
Bingham ·
McHale
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Michael Fogarty
Office of Police Chief
Three Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204,4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale LLP
a tt o r n eys a t Ia w
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
John Duffy
Carmel City Utilities
130 First Avenue SW
Cannel, IN 46032
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204°4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale,,,,
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Brian Houghton
Jones & Henry
2420 N. Coliseum Blvd., Suite 214
Ft. Wayne, IN 46805
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File' 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and ArchitectUral, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indi an ap o lis Jasper N ob lesvil le
Bingham ·
McHale
a t t o r n eys a t Ia w
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Greg Hoyes
Hamilton County Surveyor's Office
One Hamilton Square, Suite 188
Hamilton County Judicial Center
Noblesville, IN 46060
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204,4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale LLP
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Steve Broermann
Hamilton County Highway
1700 South 10th Street
Noblesville, IN 46060
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File' 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for' development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204,4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
I nd i an ap o lis Jasper N ob lesville
Bingham McHale,,,,
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Jay Alley
Clay Twp. Regional Waste District
10701 N. College Ave., Suite A
Indianapolis, IN 46280
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File' 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and ArchiteCtural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Conununity Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204°4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale,,,,
attorneys at taw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Jason Lemaster
Hamilton County Health Dept.
Hamilton County Judicial Ctr., Suite 30
Noblesville, IN 46060
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and ArchitectUral, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale LLP
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Parmer
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Pam Waggoner
Indianapolis Water Company
P.O. Box 1220
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member'
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and ArchitectUral, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh.
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204,4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham · McHale. .
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Ron Morris
Indianapolis Power & Light Company
3600 N. Arlington Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46218
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for DevelOpment Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham McHaleL .
attorneys at taw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Teresa Magee/Mark Wood
Panhandle Easter Pipeline Co.
P.O. Box 38
Zionsville, IN 46077
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File' 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Cannel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design planS we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHale
attorneys at taw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Robert Hendricks
Hamilton Cty. Local Emergency Planning
Pleasant Street, Suite 100
Noblesville, IN 46060
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204,4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham McHaleL,,.
a t t o r n eys at Ia w
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Scott Brewer
Dept. of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville
Bingham
McHa e LLP
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Parmer
msolada@binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Mark Westmeir
Carmel Clay Parks Dept.
1055 Third Avenue SW
Carmel, IN 46032
Re'
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member'
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indi an apo lis Jasper N ob lesville
Bingham
McHa e LLP
attorneys at [aw
Mary E. Solada
Partner
msolada~binghammchale.com
May 14, 2004
Jeff Farmer
Brighthouse Networks
516 East Carmel Dr
Carmel, 1N 46032
Re:
9901 Michigan Road
Our File: 14647-56366
Dear Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Member:
I represent Duke Construction, Limited Partnership, regarding land use actions to provide
for development of a multi-tenant retail commercial complex for property generally addressed as
9901 Michigan Road. To further identify the location, the real estate is immediately south of the
existing SuperTarget facility at 10401 Michigan Road.
We are filing for Development Plan approval and Architectural, Design, Lighting, and
Signage approval, and development standard variances, with the Carmel/Clay Department of
Community Services. You will be informed of future TAC meetings, as they are scheduled.
Please note herein the development and design plans we are filing in the Carmel/Clay
Department of Community Services' offices. Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary E. Solada
MES/clh
Enclosures
871007
2700 Market Tower · 10 West Market Street · Indianapolis Indiana 46204.4900
Telephone 317.635.8900 · Facsimile 317.236.9907 · binghammchale.com
Indianapolis Jasper Noblesville