Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 921-1292Sponsor: Councilor Sharp 2 3 ORDINANCE Z- 512 -07 4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE 5 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA 6 7 An Ordinance limiting Cultural & Entertainment Uses in the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone 8 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Advisory Planning Law of the State of Indiana (contained in 10 IC 36 -7 -4), each unit of local government that wishes to adopt land use and zoning ordinances 11 must first approve by resolution a comprehensive plan for the geographic area over which it has 12 jurisdiction; and 13 WHEREAS, the 2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan ") Docket 14 No. 16 -96 CP was given a favorable recommendation by the Carmel /Clay Advisory Plan 15 C 'n August 20, 1996, and duly approved by Resolution No. CC- 09- 03 -96 -03 of the 16 Common Coun,;1 on September 24, 1996, and is therefore the official Comprehensive Plan of 17 the City of Carmel ant: 'Tlay Township; and 18 WHEREAS, the City ;.:ishes to niaintain an orderly, consistent and streamlined Zoning 19 Ordinance; and 20 WHEREAS, pursuant to Indiana Code 36- 7 -4 -60? the Common Cour,al i authorized to 21 amend the text of the zoning ordinance; and 22 WHEREAS, pursuant to Indiana Code 36 -7 -4 -610 and City of Carmel Ordinance No. D- 23 1600 -02, the Carmel Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinances are incorporated by reference 24 into the Carmel City Code; 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of 26 Carmel, Indiana, that, pursuant to IC 36 -7 -4 -600 et seq. and after Docket No. 07090002 OA 27 having received a favorable recommendation from the Carmel Advisory Plan Commission on 28 Tuesday, October 16, 2007, it hereby adopts this Ordinance to amend the Carmel Zoning 29 Ordinance (Ordinance No. Z -289, as amended), as amended, to read as follows: 30 Section I: 31 ZO CHAPTER 23B: U.S. HIGHWAY 31 CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE 32 a. Amend Section 23B.05 to read: 33 34 23B.05 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 23B.05.01 Excluded Uses: See Appendix A: Schedule of Uses. 11/09/2007 23B.05.02 Retail & Service Uses: Retail and service uses may be included in one or more buildings within a DP, subject to the following: A. Retail and service uses may comprise up to: (1) Fifteen percent (15 %) of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) of any building; or, Ordinance Z- 512 -07 CARMEL 0000921 2 3 4 5 (2) Up to thirty percent (30 %) of the GFA of one building may be retail and service uses, provided that: (a) Total square footage of retail and service uses designated in the development plan does not exceed fifteen percent (15 %) of the GFA of all buildings combined; or, 6 (b) Retail and service uses over fifteen percent (15 %n) of the GFA of any 7 one building he Located on the ground floor or below grade. 8 B. The Commission may grant a waiver to allow retail and service uses to be located on 9 floors other than ground or below - grade, pursuant to the criteria found in Section I 0 2313.02(G). 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 23B.05.03 Cultural & Entertainment Uses: 11/09/2007 Cultural and ntertainment uses may be included in one or more buildings within a DP. subject to the following: A. Cultural and Entertainment Uses may comprise up to: (1) Fifteen sercent 15% of the Gross Floor Area GFA of an building. or, (2) Up to thirty percent (30 %) of the GFA of one building may be Cultural and Entertainment Uses, provided that: (a) Total square footi4w. Qt Cultural and Entertainment Uses designated in the de%;:iopment plan does not exceed fifteen percent (15 %) of the f'A of all buildi gs combined; or, (. Cultural and entertainment Uses over fifteen iercent (15% of the GFA of any one building be located on the ground floor or below grade. B. The Commission may grant a waiver to allow cultural and entertainment uses to be located on floors other than ground or below - grade. pursuant to the criteria found in Section 23B.02(G). Ordinance Z- 512 -07 2 CARMEL 0000922 1 Section II: All prior Ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this 2 Ordinance are hereby repealed. 3 4 5 Section III: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and 6 signing by the Mayor. 7 8 Ordinance Z- 512 -07 PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this 9 day of , 2007, by a vote of ayes and nays. 10 11 COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL 12 13 14 15 Presiding Officer Kevin Kirby 16 17 18 19 Joseph C. Griffiths, President Pro Tempore Mark Rattermann 20 21 22 23 Ronald E. Carter W. Eric Seidensticker 24 25 26 27 Fredrick J. Glaser Richard L. Sharp 28 29 30 ATTEST: 31 32 33 34 Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk- Treasurer 11/09/2007 Ordinance Z- 512 -07 3 CARMEL 0000923 Ordinance Z- 512 -07 NOTICE TO TAXPAYERS CARMEL, INDIANA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE Z- 512 -07 Notice is hereby given to the taxpayers of the City of Carmel and Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, that the proper legal officers of the City of Carmel will meet at their regular meeting place, Council Chambers, Carmel City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032, at 6:00 p.m. on Monday the 19th day of November, 2007, to consider the following: Petition to Amend Chapter 23B: US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone of the Zoning Ordinance, in order to limit hotel and other cultural/entertainment land uses, pursuant to the application filed by the City of Carmel Department of Community Services and identified as Carmel Advisory Plan Commission Docket No. 07090002 OA. Taxpayers appearing at the meeting shall have the right to be heard. Diana L. Cordray, Clerk- Treasurer November 9, 2007 2007 -1109; Z- 512 -07; Council Notice CARMEL 0000927 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:29 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? The client agrees to table to the January 8, 2008 meeting. Thanks for your help. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:07 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Michael L. DeBoy; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Holmes, Christine B; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: holiday inn - possibly table this item? Hi, Dave — at the November 1 committee meeting, the Committee asked "that the petitioner not return to committee without Engineer and Urban Forester approval because the committee cannot proceed." The upcoming department report shows that these two departments still have minor and major issues. May I recommend that you table your item to the January 8, 2008 committee meeting? Otherwise, I am afraid that the committee will become very annoyed with the petitioner. Please let me know by Monday morning. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov 11/26/2007 CARMEL 0000928 City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007 Minutes The Special Studies Committee of the Carmel Plan Commission met at 6:00 PM November 1, 2007 in the Caucus Rooms at City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members Present: Wayne Haney, Kevin Heber, Steve Stromquist, Madeleine Torres, Susan Westermeier. DOCS Staff in attendance: Alexia Donahue -Wold, Rachel Boone. John Molitor, Legal Counsel was also present. Alexia Donahue -Wold announced that items 8 and 9, Docket No. 07070003 Z, (Rezone) 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) and Docket No. 07070004 PP, (Primary Plat) 146th St Office Complex were TABLED to November 29, 2007. Pro -Med Lane Holiday Inn, Docket 07030035 DP, and 07070009 ADLS, will be heard together. The Special Studies Committee considered the following items: 1. Docket No. 07090016 ADLS Amend: Vine and Table – Signage The applicant seeks approval for a new ground and wall sign. The site is located at 313 E Carmel Dr. It is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Mike Oswald of Sign Craft Industries. Mike Oswald, Sign Craft Industries, 8924 Corporation Drive, agent for Vine and Table appeared before the Committee. The petitioner is proposing a new ground sign and wall sign located at Kahn's Fine Wines, 313 East Carmel Drive, Carmel. Department Comments, Rachel Boone: The ground sign will be six feet tall, 32 square feet in area, internally illuminated. Mike Oswald further explained that the sign will be two sides, and the sign edge will be blue. The Vine and Table letters (changeable copy) will come through as red, the logo will also be color; the white will show through as black. Rachel Boone said that the wall sign will be 65 square feet in area, individual channel lit letters, and the canopy of the store will be light brown —one consistent color. Both the Wall and the Ground Sign fit within the requirements of the Ordinance. Committee: S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /Committees /SpecStudies /SS -2007 /nov01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE C RMIEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 1 CARMEL 0000940 new signs will be etched limestone and will say "Timber Creek Condominiums." The lighting will be up- graded — fluorescent lighting to light the sign itself, and mushroom -type lights around the landscaping. The signage basically replaces the previously existing. The sign would be set lower to improve visibility. Department Comments, Rachel Boone: The Subdivision is allowed to have a 54 square -foot sign, and this has been evenly split between two signs at the one entrance, one on either side of the masonry entrance limestone sign; the signs are etched with black letters "Timber Creek Condominiums." The Department has no concerns with the signs and recommends favorable consideration. Madeleine Torres made formal motion to approve Docket No. 07100031 ADLS Amend, Timber Creek Condominiums Signage as presented, seconded by Susan Westermeier, APPROVED 5 -0. 8. TABLED: Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S -1 /Residence to B- 1/Business for an office /retail development. The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 9. TABLED: Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 5 lots on 11.6 acres. The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S -I /Residence, pending a B -1/ Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC 10i 1 DocketIN -007030035iMero-IWane - Holiday fI rr y F � The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full- service-li6tel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. for Justus Home Builders, Inc. Docket 070700090 Holiday Inna l ' ro Me I1 n = 4 The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Note: Items 10 and 11 were heard together. Dave Coots, Coots, Henke & Wheeler appeared before the Committee on behalf of the petitioner. Also in attendance: Mike DeBoy, Engineer, and Sanjay Patel. Certain changes have been made to the site plan. Initially, the site was underparked — parking is now provided beneath the structure to meet the limitation on lot coverage; 153 spaces are required per the Ordinance and parking is provided for hotel convention and employees. Comments were received from Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, and the petitioner believes he has complied with the changes requested. There are still some changes to be made to the drawings and submitted to the Department. The biggest issue has been the tree preservation requirement for this site; 24% of the overall site is tree preservation area. Scott had additional questions regarding how utilities were being accommodated with the tree material being used and the tree preservation area as designated. Dave Coots said he believes all of those issues and questions have been addressed. S: /PianCommission /Minutes/ Committees /SpecStudies /SS- 2007/nov01 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDLANA 46032 317/571 -2417 6 CARMEL 0000941 The drawings will be revised and submitted for one final review by the Department and Scott Brewer. The Engineering Dept. has said that they will not support this application until there is a traffic study submitted. Meridian has been closed due to the construction traffic and Steve Fehribach has been unable to complete a traffic count. However, the Department has agreed that the 2005 Traffic Report can be utilized for this project with 3% augments per year. Gary Duncan, Engineering will have to give consent for the traffic count numbers to be used for this project. The concluded traffic study will be available by the middle of next week. The retaining wall runs along the south boundary to a point and then along the boundary adjacent to 136th Street. The reason for the retaining wall is to avoid having to slope away from the parking lot at a 3:1 side slope that would extend farther into the tree area. The retaining wall would be a more effective way to prevent encroaching into the tree preservation area . The Department recommended narrowing the traffic aisles to 23 feet —the petitioner has agreed to that and it will be incorporated in the drawing. Item #4 showing structure column locations of the underground parking area —the petitioner believes he has clear span and there will not be support structures in the parking area. The building materials on the building elevation were previously submitted to the Department with the drawings. EFIS is used at the lower level and crown, otherwise, the balance of the building will be brick material. The lower course material is a textured row and smooth with limestone breaks in between. The parapet does conceal the HVAC units. The building is 4- stories; the trash dumpster will be all brick; the petitioner will submit details prior to the next meeting. The mechanical equipment has been addressed. Sign Issue: The petitioner will re- locate the sign on the east wall to the north wall of the building facing Pro -Med Lane and 136th Street, thereby eliminating the need for a variance. The sign will be day /night plex. There is a trademark requirement by Holiday Inn —if permitted, will do it— proposed sign is Holiday Inn Green. Mike DeBoy explained the pervious pavers and said they would also act as a stormwater quality device; by Ordinance there must be two devices in series and since we drain into the central detention area on site. The vast majority of the parking areas will be pervious pavers —also a nice, architectural asset as well as a stormwater quality device. Regarding the parking, the parking now complies with the Ordinance and no variance is needed. In addressing whether or not this proposal is the highest and best use for this land —the land use has been established by the zone classification and the hotel is a permitted use within the zone classification. The petitioner complies with the elements of the Ordinance. The fact that someone might like to see something different on this parcel does not really weigh in on the issue of whether or not this building meets the criteria of the Ordinance. Once all of the drawings and plans have been submitted, that question will be moot. Sign sizes have been omitted from the architectural drawings and will be submitted. The Engineering comments will be submitted prior to the next meeting. S: /PlanCominission /Minutes /Committees /SpecStudies /SS- 2007 /novol ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 7 CARMEL 0000942 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:02 AM To: 'Dave Coots' Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? No, the last email will be just fine. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571. -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:02 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? Do I need to send anything more to you to table the item? From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 9:22 AM To: Dave Coots Cc: Hancock, Ramona B; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Woad, Alexia K; Boone, Rachel M.; Stewart, Lisa M; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? Thanks for letting me know. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:29 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: holiday inn - possibly table this item? The client agrees to table to the January 8, 2008 meeting. Thanks for your help. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:07 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Michael L. DeBoy; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Holmes, Christine B; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: holiday inn - possibly table this item? Hi, Dave — at the November 1 committee meeting, the Committee asked "that the petitioner not return to committee without Engineer and Urban Forester approval because the committee cannot proceed." The upcoming department report shows that these two departments still have minor and major issues. May I recommend that you table your item to the January 8, 2008 committee meeting? Otherwise, I am afraid that the committee will become very annoyed with the petitioner. 12/28/2007 CARMEL 0000949 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:20 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: 'Dave Coots'; 'Brent A. White'; Foley, Amanda J; Hill, Dick B; Littlejohn, David W; McBride, Mike T; Redden, Nick Subject: Holiday Inn Angie, I understand that the petitioner is likely anxious to move this project out of committee. I have not finished my review of the most recent plans submitted, however, the following items have initially been identified as being unaddressed. There may be more as I finish the review. 1. To date, to my knowledge, the Traffic Study has not been provided. 2. Compliance with Thoroughfare Plan /Commitments for improvements to 136th Street have not been formalized to my knowledge 3. Compliance with Thoroughfare Plan /Verification of additional r/w dedication for the current plan for US -31. I am not able to ascertain from the exhibit provided by the consultant as to the identified r/w needs. 4. No changes to the "bubble" at the southeast corner as previously requested have been indicated. 5. The Erosion and Sediment Control and SWPP were revised to indicate the current site plan but the format changes requested back in July were not addressed. Based on the revised drawings and additional information previously requested and now provided: 1. Proposed utility conflicts with the tree preservation area at the southeast corner 2. Disposition of water from the 24 -inch pipe at the northwest corner. Based on the information provided, the pipe apparently discharges into the site and is now being cut off 3. Cannot evaluate the proposed retaining walls due to lack of information. 4. Based on the information provided, drainage from the west and north will collect at the base of the proposed walls and may or may not have a defined drainage course or may have low areas that will pond. 5. More detail is required for the construction of the multi -use path along Smokey Row Road and the sidewalk along Pro -Med Lane. This construction cannot be left to the discretion of the contractors in the field. 6. Seems to b'e a fair amount of direct discharge areas that are not being treated by the • SWQ system. The Department does not provide a favorable recommendation to the subdivision committee to approve this project to go back to the Plan Commission. The Department suggests a meeting with the developer's consultant to review technical issues associated with making the current proposed land plan acceptable to this Department. The Department will support the current site plan provided that the technical issues may be worked out and addressed. Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov 1 CARMEL 0000950 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEEE DEPARTMENT REPORT NOVEMBER 29, 2007 1.ci I3, ocketao.:L030035dratEaVed I ane 1101iday Ynn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLSiis under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. for Justus Home Builders, Inc. The applican seeks arc tecture /desig approval for pd.Ln Docket No. 07070009 ADLS Holiday Inn at Pro e ' roposafulliservice hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. These items have been tabled to the January 8, 2008 Special Studies Committee meeting. CARMEL 0000951 Sponsor: Councilor Sharp ORDINANCE Z- 512 -07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 'CARMEL, INDIANA An Ordinance limiting Cultural & Entertainment Uses in the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone WHEREAS, pursuant to the Advisory Planning Law of the State ofIndiana (contained in IC 36 -7-4), each unit of local .government that wishes to adopt land use and zoning ordinances must first approve by resolution a comprehensive plan for the geographic area over which it has jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the .2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan (the 'Comprehensive Plan ") Docket No. 16 -96 CP was given a favorable recommendation by the Carmel /Clay Advisory Plan Commission. on August 20, 1996, and duly approved by Resolution No. CC- 09- 03- 96 -03:of the Common Council on September 24, 1996, and is therefore the official Comprehensive Plan of the City of Carmel and Clay Township; and WHEREAS, the City wishes.to maintain an orderly, consistent and 'streamlined Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Indiana Code 36 -7 -4 -602 the Common Council is authorized to ainend the text of the.zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS; pursuant to Indiana Code 36- 7- 4- 610.and City of Cannel Ordinance No. D: 1600 -02, the Carmel Zoning °and Subdivision Control Ordinances are .incorporated by reference into the Cannel City Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the. Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana, that, pursuant to IC 36 -7 -4 -600 et seq. and after Docket No. 07090002 OA having received a .favorable recommendation from the Carmel Advisory Plan Commission on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, it hereby adopts this Ordinance to amend the Carmel Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. Z -289, as amended), as amended, to-read as follows: Section I: ZO CHAPTER 23B: U.S. HIGHWAY -31 CORRIDOR-OVERLAY ZONE a. Amend Section 2311.05 to read: 23B.05 23B.05.01 1.1/09/2007 Excluded Uses: See Appending: Schedule of Uses. 23B.05.02 Retail & Service Uses: Retail and service uses may be included in one or more buildings within a DP, subject to the following: A. Retail and service uses may comprise up to: (1) Fifteen percent (15 %) of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) of any building; or, Ordinance Z- 512.07 CARMEL 0000952 11/09/2007 (2) Up to thirty percent (30 %) of the GFA of one building may be retail and service uses, provided that: (a) Total square footage of retail and service uses designated in the development plan does not exceed fifteen percent (15 %) of the GFA of all buildings combined; or, (b) Retail and service uses over fifteen percent (15%) of the GFA of any one building be located on the ground floor or below grade. B. The Commission may grant a waiver to allow retail and service uses to be located on floors other than ground or below- grade, pursuant to the criteria found in Section 238.02(G). 2313.05.03 Cultural & Entertainment Uses: Cultural and Entertainment uses'may be included in one or more buildings within a DP, subject to the following: A. Cultural and Entertainment Uses may comprise up to: (I) Fifteen percent (15 %) of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) of any building; or, (2) Up to thirty. percent (30 %) of the GFA of one building may be Cultural and Entertainment Uses, provided that: (a) Total square footage of Cultural and Entertainment Uses designated in the development plan does not .exceed fifteen percent (15 %) of the GFA of all buildings combined; or, (b) Cultural and entertainment Uses over fifteen percent (15 %) of the GFA. of any one building be located on the ground floor or below grade. 13. The Commission may grant a waiver to allow cultural and entertainment uses to be located on floors other than ground or below - grade, pursuant to the criteria found in Section 23B.02(G). Ordinance Z- 512 -07 2 CARMEL 0000953 Section II: All prior Ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its ,passage and signing by the Mayor. Ordinance Z-51.2 -07 PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this fit day of , 2007, by a voteof 20 ayes and nays. Siding Officer COMMON COUNCIL R'THE CITY OF CARMEL ent Pro Tempore Ronald E. Carte Fredr J. Glase ATTEST: Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk -Tre firer 11/09/2007 p-T p.E rr S ffPJ 7r" Kevin. Kirby Mark Ratters -iann W. Eric Seid Richard L Sharp Ordinance Z -512 -07 3 CARMEL 0000954 Ordinance Z- 512 -07 Presented by me'to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this 17day of jh-vi4e.,, 2007, at /: Du P.M. Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk -T urer Ordinance 21512 -07 Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel; Indiana, this 111/4 day of rnPAA , 2007, at -r.0CD P .M. ATTEST: Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk -Trey urer Prepared.by: John R. Molitor Carmel Plan Commission Attorney One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 11/09/2007 Ines Brainard, Mayor Ordinance Z- 512.07 4 CARMEL 0000955 CERTIFICATION OF THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO INDIANA CODE 36 -7 -4 -605 ORDINANCE Z-512-07 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 23B: US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone.of the Zoning Ordinance To: The Honorable Common Council Of the City of Carmel Hamilton County, Indiana Dear Members: The Carmel Advisory Plan Commission offers you the following report on the application to the Commission (Docket No. 07090002 OA) to Amend Chapter 23B: US Highway 31 Corridor Overlay Zone in order to limit hotel and other cultural /entertainment land uses. The Cannel Advisory Plan Commission's recommendation on thepetition •is_FAVORABLE. At its regular meeting on October 16, .2007 the Commission voted eight (8) in Favor, one (1) Opposed (Eric Seidensticker), zero (0) Abstaining, to forward to the Common Council the proposed Ordinance Z- 512 -07 with a Favorable Recommendation. Please be advised that by virtue of the Commission's Favorable Recommendation, pursuant to.IC 36-7-4 - 607(e)(3), the Council has ninety (90) days t� act on this petition before'it becomes effective as Certified by the Commission. Ninety days from the date of the original Certification (October 23, 2007) is Sunday, January 20, 2008. CARMEL PI-AN COMMISS _1 N BY R. ona Hancock, Secretary Carmel Advisory Plan Commission Dated: October 23, 2007 2007 - 1018;Z- 512 -07; US 31 Overlay Amend PC Certification 6 Leo Dierckman, President Recejped Carmel Clerk-Treasurer CARMEL 0000956 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:34 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: info packets due tomorrow (Holiday Inn) No, I don't have anything . I would ask that you table us one more time. Thanks Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:10 AM To: Dave Coots <DCoots @chwlaw.com> Subject: RE: info packets due tomorrow (Holiday Inn) Hi Dave: Any luck on getting that letter you were waiting on about traffic? The department reports go out this Wednesday, and I would like to know if you will be tabling the Holiday Inn item or not. Thank you, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317 - 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:55 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: info packets due tomorrow Angie, on Midwest Hospitality- Holiday Inn, I am waiting on a letter from Gary Duncan per his discussions with Steve Fehribach re traffic. Hopefully it comes today /tomorrow. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:08 PM To: Calderon, Joseph; Dave Coots; Stacey A. Fouts; Michael L. DeBoy; Jim Shinaver Cc: Kilmer, Roger A. Subject: info packets due tomorrow Seasons Greetings! Please be advised that the sub - committee info packets are due tomorrow at noon, for the January 8 plan commission committee meetings. Please disregard this email if you do not need to provide updated info packets. Also, 1 CARMEL 0000957 January 2, 2008 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy DeBoy Land Development Services 501 South 9e` Street, Suite 100 Noblesville, IN 46060 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR RE:yHoliday,- Inn,;Pro Med Drive (Lane) and 136th Street - Project Review #2 Dear Mr. DeBoy: The City has received your comment letter and drawings dated September 11, 2007 based upon the City review of June 12, 2007. The comments from the City review have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW COMMENTS 38. General Comments d. Please provide the requisite storm water /drainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. e. Please contact Amanda Foley to review storm water quality/treatment requirements. The submitted Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan were revised for the current site, but these plans are still in the format that was requested to be revised in a July 20, 2007 e-mail. Please revise to the format requested in the July 20, 2007 e-mail. f. For the plan submitted for Department of Engineering approval, please remove the landscape plan sheet and remove the title of that sheet from the Index on the Cover Sheet. Please remove the sheet titles from the cover sheet. k. Please confirm the current right -of -way needs for U.S. 31 from the INDOT environmental impact study. The Thoroughfare Plan requires compliance with these right -of -way needs. Thank you for providing the information. Based on the scaled INDOT drawings, is more right -of -way required? 1. Please verify that the detention was master planned. Please verify the downstream pipe capacity to receive the runoff from this development. Please verify that the proposed "c" value of this site is no greater than the "c" value anticipated at the time the drainage and detention system was master planned. Please indicate the 100 -yr flood route from the site to the ultimate receiving system. The response was not complete. m. The Department requests a traffic study be provided that identifies the need for a left turn for westbound traffic on Smokey Row Road, auxiliary lanes (or modifications to existing auxiliary lanes) at the Pro -Med Lane entrance and any modifications to the Old Meridian and Smokey Row Road intersection. Any such needed improvements shall be the sole responsibility of the developer. The Department is reviewing the findings of this study. 40. Sheet C1.0 a. Please confirm with the urban forester that the tree removal plans are acceptable. 41. Sheet C2.0 c. Entrance curbing within the right -of -way shall match the existing curbing of Pro -Med Lane. As the existing curb is a rolled curb; straight curb will be acceptable. The Department apologizes for the confusion. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAx 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering@carmel.in.gov CARMEL 0000958 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy January 2, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #1 Page 2 of 4 k. The Department requests that the existing "bulb" be removed and the intersection at the southeast comer be made into a "T' intersection. Please indicate demolition and construction work for the portion of the bulb across the developer's frontage. These improvements are in the right -of -way. The Department has requested the same improvements from Justus. 42. Sheet C3.0 e. Will grading along the property line kill the trees on the adjacent property? Justus is indicating removal; but what if that project is not realized? 43. Sheet C4.0 c. Please provide a typical swale detail to this sheet or sheet C3.0. Are there any proposed swales now? e. City standard backfill required for water main work in right -of -way. Please confirm with Utility Department who does tap; inspection requirements and bonding requirements. 45. Sheet C9.0 a. Please confirm with Urban Forester if tree removal and protection note 5 is acceptable. 46. Sheet C9.1 c. Storm sewer specifications note 6. 2.5 feet min. cover required for all storm sewers per Storm Water Technical Standards. This requirement is not otherwise indicated on the plans. Is this requirement satisfied in the design? 47. Sheet C10.0 f. Curb joint detail. Please indicate a 50' maximum spacing for transverse expansion joints, 10' maximum spacing for contraction joints, and 5' maximum spacing for contraction joints on radii. This is still incorrect in one of the two places where such a standard is specified. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED ON THIS REVIEW: 1. Approval of drainage still needs to be obtained from Crossroad Engineers. 2. Approval of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan still needs to be obtained from Amanda Foley. 3. The Department staff report, which indicates some of the same items in this letter, but may include items that are not identified in this letter, is attached for reference. 4. Sheet C2.0 of 18 a. Keynote R conflicts with path indicated on Sheet AT 1. The path on Sheet C2.0 scales to be 10 -feet and is correct. b. Please revise the configuration of the 5 -foot wide walk north out of the building. Please make the parking connection along the building and move the bike parking to the south. Please delete the walk stub between the 12 -inch and 10 -inch trees. c. To better protect and preserve large tree at the northwest corner, please see attached sketch of a suggested revision to the parking lot layout. Two to four parking spaces may be lost. d. Please move the low spot for Structure No.: 3 to the back comer of parking stall. Per Comment 5(i) of this letter, it may be possible to delete this structure. 5. Sheet C3.0 of 18 a. It appears that water will run down and into the retaining walls without a defined relief. The Department assumes that water will run along retaining walls, but this is difficult to confirm without TW/BW elevations. If the existing grade is to be utilized as the BW elevations, there is a low area being created on the northernmost wall. However, per Comment 5(i) of this letter, it may be possible to delete the retaining walls. b. The Department cannot assess from the information provided, but it appears that some portion of the area at the outlet of the existing 24 -inch pipe under Smokey Row Road will need to be re- graded for the proposed path. The Department would expect that the existing wall would need to be removed. CARMEL 0000959 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy January 2, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #1 Page 3 of 4 c. The note to grade the path with the existing grade of the road is not acceptable from the standpoint of this Department's approval. This path needs to be designed such that water may flow across the path and to ensure no low spots are created. A swale in the right -of- way may be required. A culvert is needed under the path to accommodate the discharge from the 24 -inch pipe under Smokey Row Road as well as a roadside swale if one is necessary. A maximum cross slope of the path shall be indicated. d. Will grading in the vicinity of the trees in the southeast comer kill the trees? e. Please outline how the pervious pavers and storm inlet system in the interior parking areas is intended to function. In approving the system, the Department needs to understand how the system is intended to function. f. Per the original development plan, the 24 -inch pipe under Smokey Row Road was intended to drain Parcel 3 on the north side of Smokey Row Road. Parcel 3 was open space for the original Pro -Med Lane Development. The discharge from this pipe cannot be blocked and must be accommodated through the site as off -site runoff. Per the contours indicated on the Holiday Inn plans, this runoff enters the site 35 -feet north of the south limit of the west retaining wall. g. The note related to the grading of the 5 -foot sidewalk is unacceptable (See Comment 5(c) of this letter). The Department would expect, based on a one or two percent cross slope from the back of curb, that spot shots could be established and indicated on the drawings to ensure positive drainage. The area east of the building and east of the entrance and south of the parking lot is not being treated. i. In order to accommodate the runoff from the Parcel 3 open space area, any roadside drainage, and to better facilitate storm water quality, the Department suggests the installation of an infiltration trench on the southwest side of the property between the parking lot and the proposed sidewalk. (i) Such an installation would likely negate the need for several storm structures, curbing on the perimeter of the parking lot adjacent to the infiltration trench (although a ribbon curb or some type of edge support would be needed), and the retaining wall. (ii) The pervious paver underdrain system could outlet to this infiltration trench depending on grade. (iii) The existing catch basin (Outfall 1) could be left in place and the infiltration trench could be outletted to a second structure (Please refer to the attached sketch). (iv) The Aqua Swirl may be able to be eliminated. (v) A culvert will be needed under entrance drive. (vi) A similar infiltration trench should be considered for installation between the parking lot and the Alternative Transportation Plan path provided that the trees being preserved at the northwest corner of the site are not compromised by such an installation. 6. Sheet C4.0 of 18 a. The viewport of this sheet is not at the scale noted on the plans. b. The existing trees in the southeast corner of the site are not representative of the existing on -site conditions. c. The utilities represented on this sheet, if installed per the plan, will likely result in the loss of the trees attempting to be preserved. The utilities must be indicated such that a contractor, doing the installation per the plan, will not compromise the trees. d. Will storm water in the parking lot piping system discharge out of the inlets on either side of the entrance? 7. Sheet C1.0 of 18 a. The tree preservation area along Pro -Med Lane does not contain many trees (if any at all). CARMEL 0000960 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy January 2, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #1 Page 4 of 4 8. Sheet C9.1 a. Update backfill notes & move to Sheet C10.1. 9. Sheet 10.0 a. Please verify that permeable paver section is per Advanced Pavement Systems. b. Please ensure the curb joint details indicate a maximum 50 -foot expansion joint spacing. 10. Sheet 10.1 a. The RCP detail in the bottom left hand corner of this sheet is a duplicate of Detail 10 -28. Please delete this detail and ensure that Detail 10 -28 remains in the plan set. 11. Sheet AT 1 a. An 8 -foot multi -use path is indicated in the legend. Please revise to indicate a 10 -foot multi -use path. 12. The soils map is illegible. 13. Please indicate preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control measures that are to be installed prior to the start of on -site earth disturbing activity. 14. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan needs to be specific for this project. Details, notes, etc. that are not specific to the project shall be deleted. If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2441. Sincerely, Gary ' . Dun Assistant Ci Engine Department of Engineering cc: Angelina, Conn; Department of Community Services John Duffy, Carmel Utilities Paul Pace, Carmel Utilities Paul Arnone, Carmel Utilities Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Greg Ilko, Crossroad Engineers, PC Sanjay Patel, Midwest Hospitality Group Department Review/File Copy \\Apps2 \user data\eng\ shared\ DHill\ PROJREVO7 \HOLIDAYINNPROMEDLN#2.doc CARMEL 0000961 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:38 PM To: Dierckman, Leo; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Ok. I was thinking of asking the Commission to put them on notice, with a resolution, perhaps, stating that next month would be the dismissal if they don't' have their shit together...too easy? From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:40 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! I think at the next meeting we vote to remove this item. None of the membership will take issue with that. You read my mind.. I was going to talk to you about this From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [ mailto :MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:34 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Dierckman, Leo Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Would like to talk over options for moving this along, do you have a little time tues morning? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:25 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! It might be more than that! Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmelin.gov From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Angie — is this three months? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:47 AM To: Stewart, Lisa M; Hancock, Ramona B; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Regarding these two Holiday Inn items, they have been tabled to the Feb. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting: 1. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000962 Page 2 of 2 The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136t' Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 2. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Thanks, Angie For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers, directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements which are the only official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this communication has been received in error, please delete or destroy immediately. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000963 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Dierckman, Leo [Leo.Dierckman@opco.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:49 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! That's good, we can go that route From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:38 PM To: Dierckman, Leo; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Ok. I was thinking of asking the Commission to put them on notice, with a resolution, perhaps, stating that next month would be the dismissal if they don't' have their shit together...too easy? From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:40 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! think at the next meeting we vote to remove this item. None of the membership will take issue with that. You read my mind.. I was going to talk to you about this From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:34 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Dierckman, Leo Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Would like to talk over options for moving this along, do you have a little time tues morning? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:25 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! It might be more than that! Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Angie — is this three months? 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000963.01 Page 2 of 2 From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:47 AM To: Stewart, Lisa M; Hancock, Ramona B; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Regarding these two Holiday Inn items, they have been tabled to the Feb. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting: 1. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 2. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Thanks, Angie For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers, directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements which are the only official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this communication has been received in error, please delete or destroy immediately. For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers, directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements which are the only official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this communication has been received in error, please delete or destroy immediately. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000963.02 Page 1 of 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:20 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Article IX. Final Disposition of Cases, Section 2. Plan Commission Rules of Procedure provide for Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution when a petitioner has failed to appear at two consecutive meeting. I do not find anything in the Rules that refer to the number of times a petitioner is allowed to table an item. Perhaps we should look into incorporating that provision in the Rules. Ramona From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:19 AM To: Holmes, Christine B Cc: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: Holiday Inn tabled, again! FYI. Please read email stream below. - Angie From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:49 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! That's good, we can go that route From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:38 PM To: Dierckman, Leo; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Ok. I was thinking of asking the Commission to put them on notice, with a resolution, perhaps, stating that next month would be the dismissal if they don't' have their shit together...too easy? From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:40 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! I think at the next meeting we vote to remove this item. None of the membership will take issue with that. You read my mind.. I was going to talk to you about this From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [ mailto :MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000964 Page 2 of 3 Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:34 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Dierckman, Leo - Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Would like to talk over options for moving this along, do you have a little time tues morning? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:25 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! It might be more than that! Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Angie — is this three months? From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:47 AM To: Stewart, Lisa M; Hancock, Ramona B; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Holiday Inn tabled, again! Regarding these two Holiday Inn items, they have been tabled to the Feb. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting: 1. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 2. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Thanks, Angie For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers, directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements . which are the only official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this communication has been received in error, please delete or destroy immediately. For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at http: / /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should be construed as a solicitation, 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000965 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:49 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: pro med lane holiday inn project - possible dismissal The reason we can't get back to committee is that I cannot get a letter written by Gary Duncan following his meetings with Steve Fehribach. I am told that since our use is less dense than the use originally proposed for this site that Gary Duncan accepts the design of our site, etc. Without him saying so in a letter will not get us by the committee. Steve Fehribach assures me that he will have a writing from Duncan soon, but it won't be today. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:40 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Michael L. DeBoy Subject: pro med lane holiday inn project - possible dismissal Good afternoon, Dave- I must let you know that there is preliminary discussion about possibly dismissing the pro med land holiday inn project for lack of prosecution. 1 highly recommend you have ALL outstanding issues resolved by the February 5 special studies committee meeting. (Mike Hollibaugh or I will keep you up -to -date on this issue.) Sincerely, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmelin.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0000966 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEEE DEPARTMENT REPORT JANUARY 8, 200 E Docket •No '07030035°DP `Pro -Med Lane - Holiday. Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. `ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. . Docket Ao. 07070009 ADLS: ` 'Holiday Inn at "Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full- service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. These items have been tabled to the Feb. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting. CARMEL 0000967 A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC William J. Fehribach, P.E. 8365 Keystone Crossing, Suite 201 PRESIDENT Indianapolis, In 46240 Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. (317) 202 -0864 fax (317) 202 -0908 VICE PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: 01 -24 -08 TO: Mr. David Coots FROM: Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. Joseph T. Rengel, P.E. RE: Traffic Operations Analysis Proposed Business Hotel Pro Med Drive & 136th Street Carmel, Indiana This Traffic Operations Analysis, prepared at the request of the Coots, Henke & Wheeler, on behalf of Midwest Hospitality Group, is for a proposed hotel that will be constructed on the northeast corner of Pro Med Drive and 136th Street in Carmel, Indiana The proposed development will include a business hotel that will have direct access to Pro Med Drive. The business hotel will contain 108 rooms. The subject site is currently zoned B -6 by the City of Carmel. Under this zoning, a medical office land use would be permitted. When analyzing this development, the estimation of the existing traffic volumes was considered. A &F Engineering obtained peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts at the following study intersections: • 136th Street & Old Meridian Street • 136`h Street & Pro Med Drive • Pro Med Drive & Behavior Corp. Access Drive 1 CARMEL 0000968 The number of new trips generated by the proposed development were estimated and assigned to the driveways and onto the public roadway system. A capacity and level of service analysis was made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study intersections for the "existing" scenario and the "existing plus generated" scenario. As earlier stated, a medical office would be permitted under current zoning. It is estimated that approximately 37,500 square feet of medical office could be constructed on this site under the current zoning plan. A trip generation comparison has been conducted in order to illustrate the trip generation difference between the proposed business hotel and the medical office building that could be constructed on this site. The recommendations in this study apply to the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed the remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours. The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have been prepared at the study intersections and the field review conducted at the site: 1.) Based on ITE trip generation data, generated traffic for the medical office would be approximately 75% higher over a typical weekday and peak hour generated trips would be approximately 75% and 100% greater during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that the trips generated by a medical office on this site would have a substantially greater negative impact on the public roadway system than the generated traffic associated with the proposed business hotel. 2.) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes the westbound approach along 136t Street at the intersection of 136th 2 CARMEL 0000969 Street and Old Meridian Street will continue to experience delays during the AM peak hour due to the existing amount of through traffic along Old Meridian Street and the resulting lack of available gaps in the traffic stream. On the other hand, all approaches will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. 3.) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches at the intersection of 136th Street and Pro Med Drive will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the existing intersection geometrics and control. 4.) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches at the intersection of Pro Med Drive and Access Drive will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the addition of an access drive to serve the proposed business hotel. This new drive should align with the existing Behavior Corp. drive and should be constructed to include one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This intersection should remain stop controlled with the access drives stopping for Pro Med Drive. 5.) The City of Carmel Engineering Department has recommended the extension of a right - turn lane from Old Meridian Street to Pro Med Drive. 3 CARMEL 0000970 o Z.—Q C r� N L V) o W* W v .c —c c Zo cri W u d � t- TRLJFFIC OPEmrIoNs AJv,It vsIs PROPOSED BUS /NESS HOTEL PRO MED DRIVE & 136" STREET CARMEL, /ND /ANA PREPARED FOR COOTS, HENKE di WHEELER, P.C. NOVEMBER 2007 CARMEL 0000971 *A&F ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services c..rao.r Sew IN COPYRIGHT 4flmfzST HosPUTA[m GROUP PROPOSED &SL%ESS 1107EL - Pao MED DRIVE This Analysis and the ideas, designs, concepts and data contained herein are the exclusive intellectual property of A &F Engineering Co., LLC. and are not to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent of A &F Engineering Co., LLC. ©2007, A &F Engineering Co., LLC. Z :\2007 \07103- Coots- Holitiny Inn \TOA.doc CARMEL 0000972 AaF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services �..`.a... 9nce aH TABLE OF CONTENTS MIDWEST HosPITAIRY GROUP PROPOSED BUSINESS HOTEL - PRO MED DRIVE LIST OF FIGURES 11 CERTIFICATION 111 INTRODUCTION I PURPOSE I SCOPE OF WORK I DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2 STUDY AREA 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM 2 TRAFFIC DMA 3 PEAK HOUR 3 GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 TABLE 1 GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT •- ••••••••••••- •••••6 INTERNAL TRIPS 6 PASS -BY TRIPS 6 ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM 7 CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7 DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE 10 CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS 10 TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 136T" STREET & OLD MERIDIAN ROAD 13 TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 136T" STREET & PRO MED DRIVE 13 TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: PRO MED DRIVE & ACCESS DRIVE 14 EXISTING SUBJECT SITE ZONING ........................ 14 TABLE 5 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 14 CONCLUSIONS 15 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: AREA MAP 4 FIGURE 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS 5 FIGURE 3: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED NON PASS -BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 8 FIGURE 4: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 9 FIGURE 5: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES I I FIGURE 6: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I2 11 CARMEL 0000973 fitA&F ENGINEERING Tr.nsportation Engineering Services .a .VI. CERTIFICATION MONIST HOSP!ITALI7Y GROUP PROPOSED BUSINESS Mora -Rw MED DRIVE 1 certify that this TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the Feld of traffic and transportation engineering. A&F ENGINEERING CO., INC. R. Matt Brown, P.E. Indiana Registration 10200056 111 CARMEL 0000974 tfAsF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services c Wax 9.x. net MIDWEST HasPfr,unv GROUP PROPOSED 8WM LESS HOIE[ - PRO MEn Diuw INTRODUCTION This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of the Coots, Henke & Wheeler, on behalf of Midwest Hospitality Group, is for a proposed hotel that will be constructed on the northeast corner of Pro Med Drive and 136`x' Street in Carmel, Indiana PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site is developed. Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes or will determine the modifications that will be required to the system if it is determined there will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes. Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis. These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements which will accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and egress, to and from the proposed development, with minimal interference to traffic on the public street system. SCOPE OF WORN The scope of work for this analysis is: First, to obtain peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts at the following intersections: • 136th Street & Old Meridian Street • 1366 Street & Pro Med Drive • Pro Med Drive & Behavior Corp. Access Drive Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed development. Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and /or roadways that will provide access to the proposed development. Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development onto the public roadway system and intersections identified in the study area. 1 CARMEL 0000975 firA&F ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services MIDWEST HosPfAu n' GROUP PNopasED Bi wss Nora - PROMED IMn Fifth, to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in the study area considering each of the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic volumes. Scenario 2 - Existing + Proposed Development - New traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development added to the existing traffic volumes. Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC. OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses, conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through the study area. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development will include a business hotel that will have direct access to Pro Med Drive. Figure 1 is an area map showing the proposed site. STUDYARE4 The study area defined for this analysis will include the following intersections: • 136t Street & Old Meridian Street • 136th Street & Pro Med Drive • Pro Med Drive & Access Drive Figure 1 shows the site layout and the location of each study intersection. DESCRIPTION OF THE /UNITING STREET SYSTEM The proposed development will be served by the public roadway system that includes 136th Street, Old Meridian Street and Pro Med Drive. 136TH STREET — is an east/west two -lane roadway that runs through Carmel connecting Old Meridian Street and Keystone Avenue. OLD MERIDIAN STREET — runs diagonally in a northeasterly direction from a southern point along US 31 to a northern point along US 31. PRO MED DRIVE — is a dead end roadway that serves as a connection to 136th Street for several office buildings. 2 CARMEL 0000976 A&F ENGINEERING MIDWESrHosPYra[m'GROUP Transportation Engineering Services Order PROPOSED BUSINESSNomEL- OMEDDRIVE ... 136" Street & Old Meridian Street — This "T" intersection is stop controlled with 136th Street stopping for Old Meridian Street. Figure 2 illustrates the existing geometries at this intersection. 136" Street & Pro Med Drive — This "T" intersection is stop controlled with Pro Med Drive stopping for 136th Street. Figure 2 illustrates the existing geometries at this intersection. TRAFFIC DATA Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made by A &F Engineering Co., I,LC at each of the existing study intersections. The counts include an hourly total of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersection. All counts involving Pro Med Drive were conducted in November 2007, while the count collected at 136`" Street and Old Meridian Street was conducted in 2005. To project these volumes forward to year 2007 equivalents, a 3% per year growth rate was applied. The peak hour intersection traffic volume counts are summarized on Figure 5 for the peak hours. Computer printouts of all data collected for the counts are included in the Appendix. PEAK HOUR Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak hours vary between the intersections. Therefore, the actual peak hour at each intersection will be used for this analysis to represent the maximum traffic volumes at each intersection. 3 CARMEL 0000977 *Transpormtion A &F ENGINEERING ring Services G.m,dde, sn.. add MInwEer 1IoBP/rAU7Y GROUP PROPOSED BUSINESS INOuul - Pito MEn DRIVE GENERATED TRAFFIC (VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the development size and of the character of the land use. Trip Generation' report was used to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout the United States in order to establish the average number of trips generated by various land uses. Table 1 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development. TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERATED TRIPS ITE AM AM PM PM LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Business Hotel 312 108 Rooms 37 26 40 27 INTERNAL TRIPS An internal trip results when a trip is made between two or more land uses without traversing the external public roadway system. The proposed development will be a single land use only. Therefore, internal trip reductions are not applicable. PASS -Br TRIPS Pass -by trips are trips already on the roadway system that are captured by a land use. Depending on the location and type, hotels do typically generate a variable percentage of pass -by trips. However, for the purposes of this analysis, pass -by trips have been assumed negligible in order to maximize the number of trips analyzed in this study. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes from the proposed development that will be added to the street system is defined as follows: 1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the proposed development must be assigned to the various access points and to the public street system. Using the traffic volume data collected for this analysis, traffic to and from the development has been assigned to the proposed driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site. I Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003. 6 CARMEL 0000980 A&F ENGINEERING M/vwESrHasmtwaGROUP Tianspofcatlon Engineer in Services PROPOSED Bu sintssNOMEL- PROMEDDRIVE e,..,.�oro..sr lase _ 2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their intersection with the driveways. For the proposed development, the distribution was based on the location of the development with respect to the surrounding public roadway system the existing traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic. The assignment and distribution of generated traffic volumes for the proposed development is shown on Figure 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared at each of the study area intersections. The peak hour generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are shown on Figure 4. These volumes are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assigmment of generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic. CAPACITY ANALYSIS The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level -of- Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis ". Input data into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program Synchro2. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and optimized using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the Highway Capacity ivlantual (1ICM)3. 2 Synchro 7.0, Trafficware, 2006. 3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000. 7 CARMEL 0000981 *Ai& ENGINEERING 7rarisporcation Engineering Services deft aa. *Ks Ma MIDWEST HasPA54u,Y GROUP PROPOSED fIDSIWESS Nom - Poo MED DRIVE DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for stop sign controlled intersections. Level of Service A B C D E F Control Delay (seconds /vehicle) Less than or equal to 10 Between 10.1 and 15 Between 15.1 and 25 Between 25.1 and 35 Between 35.1 and 50 greater than 50 CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the traffic volumes from each of the various parts must be added together to form a series of scenarios that can be analyzed. The analysis of these scenarios determines the adequacy of the existing roadway system. From the analysis, recommendations can be made to improve the public street system so it will accommodate the increased traffic volumes. An analysis has been made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study intersections for each of the following scenarios: SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the existing traffic volumes that were collected at the study intersections. Figure 5 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes - Figure 6 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of service results are included in the Appendix. The tables that are included in this report are a summary of the results of the level of service analyses and are identified as follows: Table 2 — 136t Street & Old Meridian Street Table 3 — 136'i' Street & Pro Med Drive Table 4 — Pro Med Drive & Access Drive 10 CARMEL 0000984 rA&F ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services Jew'_ MIDWEST HOSPffAUTY CROUP PROPIOISED BU4AVESS HOTEL -PRO MED DRIVE TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: l36" STREET & OLD MERIDIAN ROAD AM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 Old Meridian Street Southbound Left -Turn A A 136th Street Westbound Approach E F PM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 Old Meridian Street Southbound Left -Turn A A 136"' Street Westbound Approach C C DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS: SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes for Proposed Development with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 136Th STREET & PRO MED DRIVE AM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 136 "' Street Westbound Left -Turn A A Pro Med Drive Northbound Approach C C PM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 136th Street Westbound Left -Turn A A Pro Med Drive Northbound Approach B B DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS: SCENARIO 1: SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes for Proposed Development with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control 13 CARMEL 0000987 A&F ENGINEERING Transpor cation Engineering Services 0,01 066 MIDWEST NosP1IDIL. iYGIPOUP PROPOSED BUSINESS HOTEL -PRO MED DRIVE TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: PRO MED DRIVE & ACCESS DRIVE AM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 Pro Med Drive Northbound Left-Turn A A Southbound Left -Turn n/a A Access Drive Eastbound Approach A A Westbound Approach n/a A PM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 Pro Med Drive Northbound Left -Turn A A Southbound Left-Turn n/a A Access Drive Eastbound Approach A A Westbound Approach _ n/a A DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS: SCENARIO I : Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes for Proposed Development with Proposed Intersection Geometries* * The proposed intersection geometries include the addition of an access drive to serve the proposed business hotel. This new drive should align with the existing Behavior Corp. drive and should be constructed to include one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This intersection should remain stop controlled with the access drives stopping for Pro Med Drive. EXISTING SUBJECT SITE ZONING The subject site is currently zoned B -6 by the City of Carmel. Under this zoning, a medical office land use would be permitted. It is estimated that approximately 37,500 square feet of medical office could be constructed on this site under the current zoning plan. A trip generation comparison has been conducted in order to illustrate the trip generation difference between the proposed business hotel and the medical office building that could be constructed on this site. Table 5 outlines the trip differential between the two land uses. TABLE 5 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION LAND USE Business Hotel Medical Office ITE CODE 312 720 SIZE 108 Rooms 37,500 SF TRIP DIFFERENCE: % DIFFERENCE _ WEEKDAY GENERATED TRIPS 24-HOUR ENTER +EXIT 785 1355 570 72.6% AM PEAK HR ENTER + EXIT 63 94 31 49.?% PM PEAK HR ENTER +EXIT 67 140 73 109.0% 14 CARMEL 0000988 JA&F ENGINEERING Transporcacion Engineering Services Om."ON. Sou Mt MIDWEST HOSPITALITY GIIO P BUSINESS HbTE[ - Pao MED DRIVE CONCLL/SIONS The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have been prepared at the study intersections and the field review conducted at the site. These conclusions apply only to the AM peak hour and PM peak hour that were addressed in this analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed that the remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are equal to or better than the peak hour, since the existing street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON It has been determined that a 37,500 square foot medial office building could be constructed on the subject site under the current 13-6 zoning. A trip generation comparison outlined in this report between the proposed business hotel and a medical office shows that there is a substation daily and peak hour trip differential between the traffic volumes that would be generated by these two land uses. Based on ITF, trip generation data, generated traffic for the medical office would be approximately 75% higher over a typical weekday and peak hour generated trips would be approximately 75% and 100% greater during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that the trips generated by a medical office on this site would have a substantially greater negative impact on the public roadway system than the generated traffic associated with the proposed business hotel. CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1. 136111 STREET & OLD MERIDIAN STREET Existing (Scenario 1) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that the westbound approach along 136'x' Street experiences delays during the AM peak hour due to the amount of through traffic along Old Meridian Street and the resulting lack of available gaps in the traffic stream. In contrast, all approaches at this intersection operate at acceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. 15 CARMEL 0000989 *Ai& ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services 0..04. ice nw PROPOSE MIDWEST Nosp/TiumGROUP Maws //Dm -PRO MED DRIVE Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes the westbound approach along 136`i' Street will continue to experience delays during the AM peak hour due to the amount of through traffic along Old Meridian Street and the resulting lack of available gaps in the traffic stream. On the other hand, all approaches will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. 2. 136"' STREET & PRO IVIED DRIVE Existing (Scenario 1) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all approaches at this intersection operate at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches at this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the existing intersection geometries and control. 3. PRO MED DRIVE & ACCESS DRIVE Existing (Scenario 1) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all approaches at this intersection operate at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches at this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the intersection conditions outlined in the Recommendations portion of this report. 16 CARMEL 0000990 A&F ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services o.w.a.. Mww ssrHOSPrTa1/lrGROUP PROPOSED BUSIWESS 1101E1- PRO MED DM E RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis and the resulting conclusions, the following recommendations are made to ensure that thc roadway system will accommodate the increased traffic volumes due to the proposed development. 136r" STREET & OLD MERIDIAN STREET This intersection currently experiences delays during the AM peak hour along the westbound approach. These delays are a result of the amount of through traffic along Old Meridian Street and the lack of available gaps in the through traffic stream. These delays will continue as traffic is added to this approach by the development of vacant land along 136th Street. Analysis has shown that additional lane improvements at this intersection will not significantly affect the AM peak hour operations at this location. Therefore, intersection improvements at this location are not recommended. 1361" STREET & PRO MED DRIVE This intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with thc projected traffic volumes and the existing intersection geometries. Therefore, no improvements are recommended at this location. PRO MED DRIVE & ACCESS DRIVE The proposed recommended intersection geometries include the addition of an access drive to serve the proposed business hotel. This new drive should align with the existing Behavior Corp. drive and should be constructed to include one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This intersection should remain stop controlled with the access drives stopping for Pro Med Drive. 17 CARMEL 0000991 fiAsf ENGINEERING Transportacion Engineering Services Cad, Orb. Su. 18 M/1 WEST H(1ISP/TAU7YGNOUP PROPOSED BesrAfss Ho mm - Pao MED DRIVE CARMEL 0000992 TRAFHC OPER4 11OA'S AN41 VSIS APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS ADDITIONAL FIGURES 1 MAIN STREET & WEST MAIN STREET 8 WEST MAIN STREET & SAM RALSTON ROAD 15 YAA&F ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services Creating Order Since 1966 8365 k"e i s tone Crossing Sou /e ard, Suite 201 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: (317) 202 -0864 Far: (317) 202 -0908 CARMEL 0000993 frA&F ENGINEERING frinsporcacion Engineering Services Craft . nee MIDWEST H d t s P l Ti ![ m' GROUP PROPOSED BUSINESS HOTEL - Pao MED Dam 136" STREET & OLD MERIDIAN STREET INTERSECTION DATA TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS CAPACITY ANALYSIS CARMEL 0000994 Midwest Hospitality Group Docket Number 07070009 ADLS Supplemental Packets For the Plan Commission Filed By: E. Davis Coots Coots Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. 1 c uP t--"( SCANNED CARMEL 0001015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Revised Site Plan 2. Revised Architectural Drawings and Sign 3. Landscape Plan 4. Traffic Narrative 5. Revisions to 136th Street and Smokey Row Road CARMEL 0001016 A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC William J. Fehribach, P.E. 8365 Keystone Crossing, Suite 201 PRESIDENT Indianapolis, In 46240 Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. (317) 202 -0864 fax (317) 202 -0908 VICE PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: 01 -24 -08 TO: Mr. David Coots FROM: Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. Joseph T. Rengel, P.E. RE: Traffic Operations Analysis Proposed Business Hotel Pro Med Drive & 136th Street Carmel, Indiana This Traffic Operations Analysis, prepared at the request of the Coots, Henke & Wheeler, on behalf of Midwest Hospitality Group, is for a proposed hotel that will be constructed on the northeast corner of Pro Med Drive and 136th Street in Carmel, Indiana The proposed development will include a business hotel that will have direct access to Pro Med Drive. The business hotel will contain 108 rooms. The subject site is currently zoned B -6 by the City of Carmel. Under this zoning, a medical office land use would be permitted. When analyzing this development, the estimation of the existing traffic volumes was considered. A &F Engineering obtained peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts at the following study intersections: • 136th Street & Old Meridian Street • 136th Street & Pro Med Drive • Pro Med Drive & Behavior Corp. Access Drive 1 CARMEL 0001025 The number of new trips generated by the proposed development were estimated and assigned to the driveways and onto the public roadway system. A capacity and level of service analysis was made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study intersections for the "existing" scenario and the "existing plus generated" scenario. As earlier stated, a medical office would be permitted under current zoning. It is estimated that approximately 37,500 square feet of medical office could be constructed on this site under the current zoning plan. A trip generation comparison has been conducted in order to illustrate the trip generation difference between the proposed business hotel and the medical office building that could be constructed on this site. The recommendations in this study apply to the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed the remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours. The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have been prepared at the study intersections and the field review conducted at the site: 1.) Based on ITE trip generation data, generated traffic for the medical office would be approximately 75% higher over a typical weekday and peak hour generated trips would be approximately 75% and 100% greater during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour C--- respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that the trips generated by a medical office on this site would have a substantially greater negative impact on the public roadway system than the generated traffic associated with the proposed business hotel. 2.) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes the westbound approach along 136th Street at the intersection of 136th 2 CARMEL 0001026 Street and Old Meridian Street will continue to experience delays during the AM peak hour due to the existing amount of through traffic along Old Meridian Street and the resulting lack of available gaps in the traffic stream. On the other hand, all approaches will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. 3.) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches at the intersection of 136th Street and Pro Med Drive will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the existing intersection geometrics and control. 4.) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches at the intersection of Pro Med Drive and Access Drive will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the addition of an access drive to serve the proposed business hotel. This new drive should align with the existing Behavior Corp. drive and should be constructed to include one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This intersection should remain stop controlled with the access drives stopping for Pro Med Drive. 5.) The City of Carmel Engineering Department has recommended the extension of a right- , — turn lane from Old Meridian Street to Pro Med Drive. 3 CARMEL 0001027 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:48 PM To: 'Brandon Schreeg' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B Subject: RE: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Drive Sure Brandon: Page 1 of 1 How different it would be from the last Deboy site plan? I'II be glad to site down and meet with you on it. Gary Duncan and Amanda Foley in Engineering, as well as Angie and Christine in our office, have spent some time discussing it, as well as the Justice site next door. Friday is out (I'm booked morning and afternoon), but tomorrow and Thursday are fairly open. Monday afternoon is probably out, Tuesday is ok. Let me know when you want to come in, and I'll be ready. The site is in the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay and almost entirely covered with heavy woods. There are tree preservation requirements on the site (in the right of way and set backs). DeBoy had been working on the site with tree preservation and porous pavers. Our office is now also a US Green Building Council member, and have several planners studying for a LEEDs exam, so any examples of GREEN technology or LEEDs certification, we will promote. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 From: Brandon Schreeg [mailto :brandon ©remenschneider.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:48 PM To: Brewer, Scott I Subject: Holiday Inn - Pro Med Drive Scott, Greetings! We have been hired to prepare a landscape plan for the proposed Holiday Inn project on Pro Med Drive. Do you have time this week to meet at your office and review the new site plan before we start? Our goal would be to identify any major complications by gaining your input before we put a plan together. I look forward to discussing this project with you — and thank you for your time. Respectfully, brandon 5ckrccg, A5LA Project Manager Izemenschneider Associates 2 1 2 W. I oth Street, Suite 5+35 Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 (517) 955 -9560 (517) 955 -996 I fax www.re mens ch n eid e r. co m 1/30/2008 CARMEL 0001030 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:48 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: McBride, Mike T; 'Steve Fehribach'; 'Dave Coots' Subject: RE: holiday inn, pro med lane, traffic study Members of the Commission and Sub - Committee: The Department of Engineering has met with A &F Engineering and reviewed the findings of the traffic study. There were two main findings of the study that the Department feel are important for the Plan Commission and Special Studies Committee to consider. (1) That the hotel use will generate less traffic than would have otherwise been generated if the use was consistent with that originally approved or allowed (office) and (2) the study recommends the construction of a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. As the Commission is likely aware, the majority of the traffic issues in the immediate area of the proposed hotel are attributable to the congestion at the Old Meridian Street/US -31 intersection. Improving the capacity of the US -31 intersection will have a large effect on the congestion being experienced on the local streets. As this intersection will be improved with the overall US -31 corridor project, the Department is of the opinion that any improvements made presently will be removed by the US -31 project in the very near future. The Department understands that a question has been raised related to southbound traffic on Old Meridian Street attempting to turn left onto Smokey Row Road. While this will certainly be an issue if the northbound queue is stacked past the intersection, the Department would expect this situation to be limited to the morning peak. The Department is of the opinion that the short term solutions to this situation that are attributable to the traffic generated by the proposed hotel are limited and should wait to be addressed with the improvements to US -31. As stated, one of the recommendations of the study is to construct a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. This would allow the predominant right turning traffic at Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road to make a right turn if a vehicle is attempting to turn left when traffic is queued past the intersection. Traffic is currently using the paved shoulder as well as tracking off of the paved shoulder to make this same maneuver. Such an improvement would benefit the traffic from the hotel in that it would be expected to reduce the westbound Smokey Row Road queue and allow traffic exiting Pro -Med Lane to turn left and enter the queue. Due to the fact that the traffic generated from the hotel is expected to be less than the original approved use and considering the short -term nature of any improvements due to the upcoming US -31 project, the Department suggests the following: 1. The developer constructs a short right turn lane at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian Street. The Department will work with A &F to establish an appropriate length based on the traffic study. The construction of this lane may be credited against any commitments provided by the developer to comply with the City's 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan. 2. As the developer is indicating the construction of the multi -use path across the frontage, compliance with the thoroughfare plan would be limited to the construction of 24 -feet of mainline pavement and city standard chairback curb and gutter. Given the nature of the pending improvements to US -31, it would be more prudent to have the developer contribute the money equal to the value to toehrwise construct these improvements for deposit into the Non - Reverting Thoroughfare Plan Fund. Current City estimates for such work is $108 per linear foot. The total value of the commitment would be determined by multiplying this value by the total frontage on Smokey Row Road and subtracting the value of the cost to construct the right turn lane. Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001031 Page 2 of 2 One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:14 To: Duncan, Gary R Subject: holiday inn, pro med lane, traffic study Hi Gary - do you have any other comments about the traffic study that you want me to add to the staff report that will go out this morning? Angie 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001032 Page 1 of 2 Hancock, Ramona B From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:50 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: holiday inn, pro med lane, traffic study Hi Ramona — please print this out and send copies to all plan commission members, along with the department report. Thank you! Angie Conn, Planning Administrator From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:48 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: McBride, Mike T; 'Steve Fehribach'; 'Dave Coots' Subject: RE: holiday inn, pro med lane, traffic study Members of the Commission and Sub - Committee: The Department of Engineering has met with A &F Engineering and reviewed the findings of the traffic study. There were two main findings of the study that the Department feel are important for the Plan Commission and Special Studies Committee to consider. (1) That the hotel use will generate less traffic than would have otherwise been generated if the use was consistent with that originally approved or allowed (office) and (2) the study recommends the construction of a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. As the Commission is likely aware, the majority of the traffic issues in the immediate area of the proposed hotel are attributable to the congestion at the Old Meridian Street/US -31 intersection. Improving the capacity of the US- 31 intersection will have a large effect on the congestion being experienced on the local streets. As this intersection will be improved with the overall US -31 corridor project, the Department is of the opinion that any improvements made presently will be removed by the US -31 project in the very near future. The Department understands that a question has been raised related to southbound traffic on Old Meridian Street attempting to turn left onto Smokey Row Road. While this will certainly be an issue if the northbound queue is stacked past the intersection, the Department would expect this situation to be limited to the morning peak. The Department is of the opinion that the short term solutions to this situation that are attributable to the traffic generated by the proposed hotel are limited and should wait to be addressed with the improvements to US -31. As stated, one of the recommendations of the study is to construct a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Pro -Med Lane. This would allow the predominant right turning traffic at Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road to make a right turn if a vehicle is attempting to turn left when traffic is queued past the intersection. Traffic is currently using the paved shoulder as well as tracking off of the paved shoulder to make this same maneuver. Such an improvement would benefit the traffic from the hotel in that it would be expected to reduce the westbound Smokey Row Road queue and allow traffic exiting Pro -Med Lane to turn left and enter the queue. Due to the fact that the traffic generated from the hotel is expected to be less than the original approved use and considering the short-term nature of any improvements due to the upcoming US -31 project, the Department suggests the following: 1. The developer constructs a short right turn lane at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian Street. The Department will work with A &F to establish an appropriate length based on the traffic study. The construction of this lane may be credited against any commitments provided by the developer to comply with the City's 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan. 2. As the developer is indicating the construction of the multi -use path across the frontage, compliance with _ 1/31/2008 CARMEL 0001033 Page 2 of 2 the thoroughfare plan would be limited to the construction of 24 -feet of mainline pavement and city standard chairback curb and gutter. Given the nature of the pending improvements to US -31, it would be more prudent to have the developer contribute the money equal to the value to toehrwise construct these improvements for deposit into the Non- Reverting Thoroughfare Plan Fund. Current City estimates for such work is $108 per linear foot. The total value of the commitment would be determined by multiplying this value by the total frontage on Smokey Row Road and subtracting the value of the cost to construct the right turn lane. Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncangP,carmel. i n.gov 1/31/2008 CARMEL 0001034 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEEE DEPARTMENT REPORT FEBRUARY 5, 2007 6. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 7. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. The applicant seeks approval for the development plan of this site for a 4 -story full- service hotel with a restaurant and conference space, within. The applicant also seeks architecture /design approval. The building elevations and an ADLS application have been submitted for Plan Commission review /approval under a separate docket number. The site is 2.65 acres. The lot cover percentage is 65 %, with pavement and building footprint included; this meets the ordinance requirement. There will be some pervious pavement and brick pavers to help with water detention and infiltration. Underground parking is also proposed in order to meet the parking requirement for a hotel, conference meeting space, and restaurant. The petitioner will re- locate the sign on the east wall to the north wall of the building facing 136th Street, thereby eliminating the need for a variance. Regarding 40 -ft building setback (BSL): Under the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone Zoning Ordinance, building setback lines are established for certain streets within the zone. Smokey Row Road is not mentioned in the Ordinance. In 2005, when a developer was proposing a PUD for the development of the site, they discussed the development standards with DOCS Staff at the time, and it was agreed that a 40 foot building setback line was appropriate. This would allow the buildings to be brought closer to the street to improve visibility from U.S. 31. The development plan approved by the Plan Commission in 2005 and again in 2007 provided for a 40 foot BSL. Accordingly, the plat approved by the Plan Commission and the Board of Public Works shows this standard. Please see the petitioner's information packet for full details. August 21 Plan Commission meeting comments: 1. Request for site plan overlay on an aerial photo, also showing the Justus Office building site plan. 2. Issue of incomplete submittals — if they do not have everything for the deadline for the next meeting, the petitioner will table themselves. 3. Staff can possibly send out drafts of the committee agendas. 4. The petitioner states that there will be 4 -5 people per shift, or 7 people in the largest shift. 5. A commissioner rhetorically asked: is this the highest and best use of this land? No. 6. The attorney for the project stated that the sign will be white at night and green by day, and that the sign will move to the north facade. He also stated that the restaurant will only be for hotel guests; a voucher will be handed out. Neighbor concerns voiced at the August 21 Plan Commission meeting: a. Environmental impacts of the cumulative impacts. CARMEL 0001038 b. Sustainable development /LEED should be incorporated. c. The hotel land use vs. original medical land uses proposed with the initial rezone. d. Noise e. Drainage f. Sociological factors g. Access to site h. School traffic i. Number of parking spaces j. Lot cover percentage k. Tree preservation 1. Signage m. Smells Nov. 1 Committee meeting comments: 1. Concern was voiced about the underground parking garage and whether or not the height of the water table had been tested. This could be a major problem with this project. Petitioner should provide drainage data. 2. Concern was voiced about the traffic study date and time and whether it truly reflects the traffic count. 3. The Committee asked that the petitioner not return to committee without Engineer and Urban Forester approval because the committee cannot proceed. 4. Several comments were made that does not seem like the place for a hotel, and it does not seem like the place for additional traffic. The following are the Department's comments /concerns: 1. Department of Engineering comments: DOE still needs revised plans. Also, DOE has reviewed the traffic study and will issue a statement soon. 2. Urban Forestry Dept: Scott Brewer, City Forester, has reviewed the updated landscape and tree preservation plans; there are some minor changes needed. Scott still needs a response to his most recent review comments. 3. The creation of the proposed retaining wall location may negatively affect the existing tree roots. 4. DOCS still needs a to -scale revised site plan, showing the reduced the parking lot aisle widths to 23 -ft. 5. DOCS still needs the trash dumpster enclosure elevations /materials /colors. 6. DOCS still needs an exhibit that shows how the mechanical equipment is screened. 7. Petitioner must verify that signs show green during day and shine white at night (day /nite plex). For months and months, the Department has tried to get a complete submittal so that the committee can make an educated vote on these petitions and forward the items to the full Plan Commission for a final vote.... However, there are still some outstanding issues, as noted above. The Department of Community Services recommends the committee briefly discuss and then continue this item to the March 4 committee meeting to allow the petitioner time to address all issues /concerns. Note: if the Plan Commission votes to withdraw this item from the agenda, due to lack of prosecution, any new petition for this site must comply with the current standards of the US 31 overlay, which only permits 15% of the gross floor area building to be a hotel use. CARMEL 0001039 City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE February 05, 2008 Minutes The Special Studies Committee of the Carmel Plan Commission met at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Members in attendance: Wayne Haney, Rick Ripma, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Sue Westermeier, thereby establishing a quorum. Department of Community Services Staff Present: Rachel Boone and Christine Barton - Holmes. Rick Ripma was elected Chairperson by Unanimous Consent. The Special Studies Committee considered the following items: 1. Docket No. 08010008 ADLS Amend: Hubler Express Collision – Signage The applicant seeks approval for one new ground sign. The site is located at 503 E. Carmel Dr. It is zoned I -1. Filed by Rich Williams of Sign-A -Rama Indy South. Present for Petitioner: Rich Williams, owner of Sign-A -Rama Indy South, 8319 US 31 South, Indianapolis. Hubler Collision has leased space at 503 West Carmel Drive for an Auto Body Repair Shop. The physical location is off a service road behind the Ritron Building. Hubler Collision would like a sign at the Street for identification purposes and exposure for their clients and customers. The proposed ground monument sign material is high - density urethane; the sign artwork for the face was displayed — Express Collision with the address on both sides, as well as an arrow pointing to the building at the rear of the property. The sign is non - illuminated. The sign is 5 feet tall, 10 feet wide; the monument sign will be mounted in the ground with posts. Department Report, Rachel Boone: Hubler Express is located to the rear of the property— Ritron is to the front. This particular parcel does not come up to Carmel Drive and the proposed sign is considered off - premise. The petitioner has filed for a variance through the Board of Zoning Appeals — scheduled for hearing on February 25. The sign is 55 square feet and under the 60 square -foot size allowed by the Ordinance. Ritron will not be on the sign. The Department is in support of this petition, pending BZA approval. Committee Questions /Comments: Susan Westermeier: What is the Variance requested from BZA? How long has Hubler been at this location? Rachel Boone's response: The variance is for an off - premise sign; the petitioner states he is in the process of moving in. S: /P1anCommission /Minutes/ Committees /Speria1Study /2008/2008feb05 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 1 CARMEL 0001040 Paul Reis, attorney, Bose McKinney & Evans, 301 Pennsylvania Parkway, Suite 300, and Angie Miller, McKenna Realty. The location of the small multi - tenant building is 10485 North Michigan Road. To the east of the building is a private drive that services the Super Target center to the south as well as the Chase Bank to the north. The drive goes all the way north to 106th Street. Although the road is a private drive, it takes quite a bit of internal traffic between 106t1i Street and 421. This particular building does not have a curb cut on 421; therefore, all of the traffic uses this private drive for access. Of particular note is the one - way in/one way out. The intent is to put the ground sign at the entrance coming into the facility and identify the tenants — currently none on the east facade. The tenants are paying for the sign —they are not buying a custom -made sign, they are buying a ready -made sign from the sign contractor. A revised drawing of the signage, as suggested by Rachel Boone, DOCS was circulated to the committee. The new design eliminates the brick columns. The landscape plan was also circulated. Paul Reis stated that the petitioner has already received a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for the ground sign adjacent to the private drive and not on a public street. Depai tuient Report, Rachel Boone. The petitioner did receive a variance from BZA for the sign that faces a private drive. The sign as originally proposed with the larger columns has a sign area that is very small – only eight square feet. The site is allowed up to a 60 square –foot sign. It was suggested that perhaps without the columns the sign area could be larger. However, as seen this evening, it is only about one square -foot larger. The Depaituient supports the sign proposal. Committee Comments: Susan Westermeier asked whether or not the sign is two - sided. Susan also agreed that the sign should be larger. Paul Reis confirmed that the sign is two- sided. The reason the sign is not larger is because it fits between the two pillars and limited by the construction of the existing sign. Rick Ripma commented that he drives this route every day and the current sign is not noticeable at all. Rick Ripma, Susan Westermeier, and "Woody" Rider liked the pillars. Wayne Haney was also in favor of the sign with the pillars and said it drew your eyes to the sign. The colors of the sign match the red brick. In response to additional questions, Paul Reis said the sign matches the red brick, it is internally lit, and will be turned off when the tenants are not open for business. "Woody" Rider moved for approval of Docket No. 08010020 ADLS Amend, Medford Place Retail Center Signage with the pillars (original submission) seconded by Susan Westermeier, APPROVED 4 -0. 6 ocketNo 07030035,DP ro MdLane Holiday n s . .6711elaTiplicant ks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes / Committees /SpecialStudy /2008/2008feb05 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001041 Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. Dave Coots, attorney, Coots Henke & Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Mike DeBoy, DeBoy Land Development Services, and Sanjay Patel, Mid -West Hospitality. This docket was initially filed in August, 2007. At that time, there were a number of issues regarding parking, traffic study, landscaping, and tree preservation as well as the architectural appearance of the building. The Committee tabled this item. At the November Committee meeting, revised drawings were submitted to include an underground parking garage in order to alleviate congestion on the site. The lot coverage was reduced from 65% to 62% with the parking garage and narrowing of the traffic aisles. The issue of water table can be addressed by Mike DeBoy, DeBoy Engineers. The fall of the land and the southeast corner of the site provided adequate drainage to drain the perimeter of the basement garage without having to rely on pumps or anything of that nature. Regarding the Traffic Study —Steve Fehribach, A & F Engineering has submitted a report to the Department of Community Services. Steve Fehribach has also met with Gary Duncan, Carmel Engineering. Gary Duncan submitted an analysis of traffic at the site to DOCS. The report states that the development of this site as proposed versus the development of this site as presently approved as an office building /professional office building reduces the traffic count /volume /number of cars. The report concludes that with that reduction, and with the suggestion in the report to add a right turn lane from the intersection of Old Meridian Street and Smokey Row Road past the intersection of Smokey Row and Pro - Med Lane would assist in alleviating existing traffic congestion at this site. Steve Fehribach also points out in his report that the traffic was the subject of conversation at the November committee meeting; turning traffic south bound traffic is still an issue; this project, per Steve Fehribach's numbers, does not affect that movement. Gary Duncan's email stated that until the State re- designs 136`h Street, Old Meridian, and US 31, this area will continue to experience high traffic congestion as well as the local streets. Gary Duncan concluded his report saying that IF their Dept recommends approval of this proposal, it would be conditioned upon construction of a short right -turn lane at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian. The length of the right -turn lane would be worked out between Carmel Engineering Dept and A & F Engineering. The cost of construction of the lane would be credited against the amount the petitioner is responsible for to the City for purposes of the Thoroughfare Plan compliance. Additionally, by reason of the 541 feet of frontage on Smokey Row, the petitioner's contribution under the Thoroughfare Plan would amount to $58,530 and the developer is willing to Commit that money, minus the cost of the lane expansion to the improvement of the intersection of 136th Street, Old Meridian and US 31. Gary Duncan's email also noted that the construction of the multi -use path across the frontage in compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan would be limited to the construction of 24 feet. Since there are pending improvements to US 31, it would be prudent to have the developer contribute the money equal to the value to construct the improvements in a non - reverting Thoroughfare Plan Fund. The third item for discussion is the architectural design modifications made. Initially, a concern was expressed regarding the multitude of colors and materials being used. The petitioner has eliminated the white, boxy pillar look and substituted the same materials used predominantly throughout the building itself. The Department Report addresses a number of site plan issues and Mike DeBoy would explain. S: /PlanCommission /Minutes/ Committees /SpecialStudy /2008/ 2008feb05 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 6 CARMEL 0001042 Mike DeBoy addressed the site plan issues and revisions. There are six comments directed to issues relating to the site plan. The Engineering staff was waiting for the traffic study in order to complete their review. Once Engineering received the information, they had revisions as well which reduced the size of the parking lot by 20 feet and that affected grading and size of the building. Gary Duncan has not yet completed his review. As part of that, planning Staff wanted the lanes reduced to 23 feet. The plans were also forwarded to Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, and he had additional comments and modifications received last Friday. The modifications are not seen as major, but they do affect grading and utility connections as well as the dumpster location. In summary, we are waiting for the traffic study, Engineering comment letters were received on January 8`'' and revisions submitted. Other comments include retaining wall —may affect existing tree roots, although Scott Brewer agrees it is an acceptable practice in this case; otherwise the 3 to 1 slope would bury the trees. Revised site plan— comments by Engineering necessitated a lot of changes before submitting revisions. Mike DeBoy feels that there will be no issue wit the water table, although he has not done nor seen a geo-technieal report. Clay Township has a high water table —this site works very well for this issue and drains northwest to southeast. Mike DeBoy did not see any issue, providing they are prudent, however he could not guarantee that. Regarding the sign, Dave Coots says the sign is green during the day, white at night, and meets the size of the Sign Ordinance; no variances are required. Department Report, Christine Holmes. The petitioner is beginning to move forward. The revisions are under review by the Urban Forester. The Department requests information on the color of the dumpster, information on mechanical equipment screening. The Department recommends brief discussion and continuing to the March 04 Committee to allow revisions and additional discussion for items outstanding. Committee Comments: Susan Westermeier agreed with the Department's recommendation to continue until revisions can be made and reviewed. Susan Westermeier asked for clarity on the right turn lane that is to be added. Dave Coots said the right turn lane would be added to the north side of Smokey Row Road. Susan Westermeier said she had a huge concern with any development being added to this area that would add traffic —it is a nightmare for turns headed south onto Smokey Row off Old Meridian. When are improvements to be made to US 31? And how responsible are they for improvements on Smokey Row and Old Meridian? "Woody" Rider thought improvements would be made in 2011. "Woody" was not sure whether the improvement would be an interchange or overpass? John Molitor thought probably an interchange because of the hospital at this location Susan Westermeier said she would like more information at the next meeting and asked the petitioner for more details showing landscaping, building renderings, building materials, parking, etc. Rick Ripma asked for the traffic engineer to appear at Committee on March 04 with the petitioner. Wayne Haney asked if the traffic study was an on -site analysis or results from a previous study extrapolated for this project. S: /PlanCommission /Minutes/ Committees /SpecialStudy /2008/2008feb05 7 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001043 Dave Coots referred to a report submitted to the Department that speaks in terms of all counts involving Pro -Med Drive were conducted in November, 2007; counts collected on 136th Street and Old Meridian were conducted in 2005 and results projected to 2007 using a 3% per year growth rate. Susan Westermeier made formal motion to continue Docket No. 07030035 DP, Pro -Med Lane Holiday Inn and Docket No. 07070009 ADLS Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane to the March 04 committee meeting, seconded by "Woody" Rider, APPROVED 4 -0. 7. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full- service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Hke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. See Previous Docket Comments 8. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S -1 /Residence to B -1 /Business for an office /retail development. The site is located at the southeast comer of 146t'' St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. TABLED TO March 04, 2008 9. Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 5 lots on 11.6 acres. The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S -1 /Residence, pending a B -1/ Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. TABLED TO March 04, 2008 There was not further business to come before the Committee; the meeting adjourned at 7:15 PM. Rick Ripma, Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary S: /PlanCommission /Minutes/ Committees /SpecialStudy /2008/2008feb05 8 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001044 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Stacey A. Fouts [saf @deboyland.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:40 AM To: Bob Bleich; gilko @crossroadengineers.com; Foley, Amanda J; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Michael L. DeBoy; Colin R. Patterson; Brent A. White; spatel @midwesthospitality.com; Duncan, Gary R; Dave Coots Subject: FW: New alligator - holiday inn revised site plan Attachments: image001.jpg; 2006 -0162 - LANDSCAPE REVISIONS - 02- 05- 08.pdf All, Attached is a copy of the revised site plan that I spoke to you about this morning. The changes are minor but we wanted to make sure you had the latest copy. If you have any questions or need a hard copy of the drawing, please contact our office. Thank You, Stacey Fouts Client Relations / Permit Processing 501 S. 9th Street, Suite 100, Noblesville, IN 46060 Office: (317) 770 -1801 Toll Free: (888) 801 -8555 Fax: (317) 770 -1821 www.deboyland.com This e -mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipients) and may contain information that is confidential. Any unauthorized review. use. disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e -mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. From Michael L. DeBoy Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:46 AM To: 'Duncan, Gary R' Cc: Stacey A. Fouts; Colin R. Patterson Subject: RE: New alligator Gary, Thanks for the heads up. After we had completed these revisions, we were forwarded changes in the site plan from another party (Not us or our client) in which we were requested to move the dumpster towards the East (just Southeast of the garage entrance, closer to the Southeast corner). To avoid confusion and save on your effort, I would appreciate if we can submit / substitute the revised plans. We will forward a PDF to you to show a better picture of what we are talking about. Thanks in advance for you feedback. Yours in Service, Michael L. DeBoy, LS 501 S. 9th Street, Suite 100, Noblesville, IN 46060 Office: (317) 770 -1801 Toll Free: (888) 801 -8555 Fax: (317) 770 -1821 www.deboyland.com This e -mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential. Any unauthorized review. use. disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e -mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. From: Duncan, Gary R [mailto:gduncan @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:31 AM To: Michael L. DeBoy 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001045 Page 2 of 2 Cc: Stacey A. Fouts; Colin R. Patterson Subject: RE: New alligator This resubmittal is presently 5th on the resubmittal review list. We have TAC coming up and may need to shift efforts to issue those letters. Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of'Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Michael L. DeBoy [mailto :mld @deboyland.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 09:01 To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Stacey A. Fouts; Colin R. Patterson Subject: New alligator Gary, I apologize in advance, but I trying to find out the status of your Promed / Holiday Inn review. I assume that you, like I, have many alligator's snapping at our heels as we try to run through the swamp (and it seems like it keeps getting bigger and deeper). Thanks in advance for an feedback and for your assistance in the past. Yours in Service, Mike DeBoy 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001046 Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Matt Brown [m_brown @af- eng.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:40 AM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Traffic Study Attachments: TOA.pdf; Executive Summary.pdf Christine, I received your message regarding the Holiday Inn traffic study. I have attached the study (in pdf format) and a subsequent executive summary that was written for the project. If you need any additional information please feel free to contact me. Thanks R. Matt Brown PE /PTOE A &F Engineering 8365 Keystone Crossing, Suite 201 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317 - 202 -0864 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001048 LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Des urveyors 501 S. 9th Street, Suite 100 Noblesville IN 46060 Phone: 317.770.1801 Fax: 317.770 )1821 Toil Free: 1.888.801.8555 LeYik p/eas- rev TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: City of Carmel - DOCS Stacey Fouts ADDRESS: One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2008 ATTENTION: PROJECT NAME: Holiday Inn PROJECT ADDRESS: Pro Med Lane Ley] PROJECT NUMBER: 2006 -0162 ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES /COMMENTS: Angie, Enclosed are the following documents: 1 Response Letter to your comments. 1 — 24 x 36 Landscape Plan 1 —11 x17 Landscape Exhibit showing the mechanical unit screening 1 - 81/2 x 11 Landscape Exhibit showing the mechanical unit screening 1 — 24 x 36 Color Rendering the building 1 — 81/2 x 11 Color Rendering of the Trash Enclosure 1 — 24 x 36 Trash Enclosure Details 1 — 81/2 x 11 Trash Enclosure Details 1 — 23 x 36 site plan Thank you for all your help! Bringing Your World into Focus 501 SOUTH 91° STREET, SUITE 100, NOBLESVILLE, IN 46060 PHONE 317.770.1801 FAX 317.770.1821 1.888. 801 -8555 TOLL FREE CARMEL 0001049 OY LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC. • Designers Engineers Surveyors February 21, 2008 Ms. Angie Conn Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Holiday Inn ProMed Lane Dear Ms. Conn, RECEIVED FEB 2i DOCS This letter is in response to your comments on the Staff Report for the Special Studies Committee that were emailed to us on January 31, 2008. 1. Department of Engineering Comments: DOE still need revised plans. Also, DOE has reviewed the traffic study and will issue a statement soon. Response: Revised plans were furnished to DOE as well as their consultant (Crossroad Engineering) on January Si, 2008. Comment or approval letters have not been received from DOE. Their consultant supplied a comment letter that we received February 20, 2008. Comments were addressed and returned to the consultant on February 22, 2008. DOE off -site traffic study comments are being addressed by the client and their legal consul as well as their traffic consultant. 2. Urban Forestry Dept: Scott Brewer, City Forester, has reviewed the updated landscape and tree preservation plans; there are some minor changes needed. Scott still needs a response to his most recent review comments. Response: Mr. Brewer has been in contact with landscape architect / consultant and they are working towards an approved plan by the week of February 25, 2008. 3. The creation of the proposed retaining wall location may negatively affect the existing tree roots. Response: Retaining walls impact existing roots if said roots disturbed. The use of retaining walls was selected because if fill, on a sloped bed adjoining the parking lot and building, was used it would impact a greater area and therefore more trees. In Mr. Brewer's comments, he ok's with retaining wall extending into potential root zone. 4. DOCS still needs a to -scale revised site plan, showing the reduced the parking lot aisle widths to 23 ft. Response: Said plan has been revised and forwarded to staff on January 31, 2008. 814/0/0 Oat' 11/0//a/ %Kt0 locus 501 SOUTH 9TH STREET, SUITE 100, NOBLESVILLE, IN 46060 PHONE: 317.770.1801 FAX: 317.770.1821 1.888.801 -8555 TOLL FREE CARMEL 0001050 5. DOCS still needs the trash dumpster enclosure elevations /materials /colors. Response: A detail of the dumpster enclosure was provided to staff at the February Special Studies Meeting, but not in color, A colored rendering of said enclosure is attached with this response. 6. DOCS still needs on exhibit that shows how the mechanical equipment is screened. Response: A detail of screening is attached with this response. 7. Petitioner must verify that signs show green during the day and shine white at night (day /nite plex.) Response: Client and their legal counsel addressed this issue at the February Special Studies Committee Meeting. Please be advised that one (1) comment is that of the request for review of the entire Promed Detention system and its adequacy. This has not been done because of cost. It would take a month (or more) to complete this study. Sincerely, Michael L. DeBoy, LS CARMEL 0001051 Page 1 of 1 Donahue -Wold, Alexia K From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:54 AM To: 'Michael L. DeBoy'; 'Dave Coots' Cc: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn at ProMed Lane Dear Mr. DeBoy, Thank you for your comment letter and revised drawings dated February 21, 2008. The comments from the previous Staff Report for the Special Studies Committee meeting that were emailed to you on January 31, 2008 have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: - The perspective of the dumpster enclosure is inconsistent with the gate section for the dumpster enclosure. The gate section shows a wooden gate, while the perspective shows what appears to be a chain link gate with some sort of slats or fence weave. Please verify that the gate is a wooden gate as shown in the gate section you provided, and please submit an updated perspective of the dumpster enclosure. - Has the Department of Engineering provided you with comment or approval letters? If not, are you prepared to go to committee tonight? Will the traffic engineer be present? Thank you, Alexia Donahue Wold Planning Administrator City of Carmel, DOCS One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 awold(c�carmel.in.gov 3/6/2008 CARMEL 0001059 Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Michael L. DeBoy [mld ©deboyland.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:58 AM To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Dave Coots Cc: Holmes, Christine B Subject: RE: Holiday Inn at ProMed Lane Attachments: image001.jpg Alexia, Thanks for the e-mail. In response to you requests, I have informed our client and his architect about the discrepancies between the plans and asked that they clarify the situation as requested. In response to your second question, we have received comments from Mr. Gary Duncan at the City of Carmel Engineer's office that answered some our questions as to the off -site drainage and we have submitted a revised plan with response to Mr. Duncan and Crossroads for their review and, hopefully, approval. We believe we are very close to said approvals. We have contacted Ms. Amanda Foley to determine her response to our plans and response. Our submittal has been some time ago. We are working with our consultant, Remenschneider Associates, Inc. (RAI) along with Mr. Scott Brewer to finalize the landscape plan. REI has submitted a plan to Mr. Brewer for his review and, hopefully, approval. In addition, the traffic engineer will be present tonight. Please feel free to contact us with any other requests or comments. Thank you for the feedback. Yours in Service, Michael L. DeBoy, LS 501 S. 9t' Street, Suite 100, Noblesville, IN 46060 VEOOY LAND DEVELOPIWNT SErtvtas Office: (317) 770 -1801 Toll Free: (888) 801 -8555 Fax: (317) 770 -1821 glrors— Eng1rroors Survoyors www.deboyland.com This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K [mailto:awold @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:54 AM To: Michael L. DeBoy; Dave Coots Cc: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn at ProMed Lane Dear Mr. DeBoy, Thank you for your comment letter and revised drawings dated February 21, 2008. The comments from the previous Staff Report for the Special Studies Committee meeting that were emailed to you on January 31, 2008 have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: - The perspective of the dumpster enclosure is inconsistent with the gate section for the dumpster 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001060 Page 2 of 2 enclosure. The gate section shows a wooden gate, while the perspective shows what appears to be a chain link gate with some sort of slats or fence weave. Please verify that the gate is a wooden gate as shown in the gate section you provided, and please submit an updated perspective of the dumpster enclosure. - Has the Department of Engineering provided you with comment or approval letters? If not, are you prepared to go to committee tonight? Will the traffic engineer be present? Thank you, Alexia Donahue Wold Planning Administrator City of Carmel, DOCS One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 awold(a�carmel.in.gov 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001061 City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION - SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008 LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS CARMEL CITY HALL ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 TIME: 6:00 P.M. DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M. The Special Studies Committee will meet to consider the following items: 1. Docket No. 08020002 ADLS Amend: Weston Pointe - Outlot 3 -Pizza Hut Express The applicant seeks approval for building and site modifications for a restaurant pick -up window. The site is located at 11145 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned B-2/Business within the US 421 Overlay. Filed by David Gilman of Williams Realty Group. 2. Docket No. 08010013 ADLS Amend: Weston Pointe, Outlot 3 — Dumpster Enclosure The applicant seeks approval to amend the trash dumpster enclosure. The site is located at 11145 N Michigan Rd. and is zoned B -2 /Business within the US 421 Overlay. Filed by Dave Gilman of Williams Realty Group. 3. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a full - service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro - Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 4. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. 5. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S -1 /Residence to B -1 /Business for an office /retail development. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 6. Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 5 lots on 11.6 acres. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S- 1/Residence, pending a B -1/ Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 1 of 1 filename: SS- 2008- 0304.doc CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001062 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEEE DEPARTMENT REPORT MARCH 4, 20071' 3. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 4. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full - service hotel. The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. The applicant seeks approval for the development plan of this site for a 4 -story full- service hotel with a restaurant and conference space, within. The applicant also seeks architecture /design approval. The building elevations and an ADLS application have been submitted for Plan Commission review /approval under a separate docket number. The site is 2.65 acres. The lot cover percentage is 65 %, with pavement and building footprint included; this meets the ordinance requirement. There will be some pervious pavement and brick pavers to help with water detention and infiltration. Underground parking is also proposed in order to meet the parking requirement for a hotel, conference meeting space, and restaurant. The petitioner will re- locate the sign on the east wall to the north wall of the building facing 136th Street, thereby eliminating the need for a variance. Regarding 40 -ft building setback (BSL): Under the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone Zoning Ordinance, building setback lines are established for certain streets within the zone. Smokey Row Road is not mentioned in the Ordinance. In 2005, when a developer was proposing a PUD for the development of the site, they discussed the development standards with DOCS Staff at the time, and it was agreed that a 40 foot building setback line was appropriate. This would allow the buildings to be brought closer to the street to improve visibility from U.S. 31. The development plan approved by the Plan Commission in 2005 and again in 2007 provided for a 40 foot BSL. Accordingly, the plat approved by the Plan Commission and the Board of Public Works shows this standard. Please see the petitioner's information packet for full details. August 21 Plan Commission meeting comments: 1. Request for site plan overlay on an aerial photo, also showing the Justus Office building site plan. 2. Issue of incomplete submittals — if they do not have everything for the deadline for the next meeting, the petitioner will table themselves. 3. Staff can possibly send out drafts of the committee agendas. 4. The petitioner states that there will be 4 -5 people per shift or 7 people in the largest shift. 5. A commissioner rhetorically asked: is this the highest and best use of this land? No. 6. The attorney for the project stated that the sign will be white at night and green by day, and that the sign will move to the north facade. He also stated that the restaurant will only be for hotel guests; a voucher will be handed out. Neighbor concerns voiced at the August 21 Plan Commission meeting: a. Environmental impacts of the cumulative impacts. CARMEL 0001063 b. Sustainable development /LEED should be incorporated. c. The hotel land use vs. original medical land uses proposed with the initial rezone. d. Noise e. Drainage f. Sociological factors g. Access to site h. School traffic i. Number of parking spaces j. Lot cover percentage k. Tree preservation 1. Signage m. Smells Nov. 1 Committee meeting comments: 1. Concern was voiced about the underground parking garage and whether or not the height of the water table had been tested. This could be a major problem with this project. Petitioner should provide drainage data. 2. Concern was voiced about the traffic study date and time and whether it truly reflects the traffic count. 3. The Committee asked that the petitioner not return to committee without Engineer and Urban Forester approval because the committee cannot proceed. 4. Several comments were made that does not seem like the place for a hotel, and it does not seem like the place for additional traffic. Feb. 5 committee meeting — brief overview of comments: 1. New landscape firm to do planting plan 2. Scott wants the dumpster location changed. 3. Signs on north & west side of building will show green during the day & shine white at night 4. 3D versions requested to get overall feel for the site 5. The project is now down to 62% lot cover; the maximum allowed by the Overlay is 65 %. 6. Request for morning traffic counts; concern of school traffic, as well as overall traffic in the area. The following are the Department's comments /concerns: 1. Depai tment of Engineering comments: DOE has reviewed the traffic study and is still reviewing the most recent set of plans. DOE will have a recommendation prior to the committee meeting. 2. Urban Forestry Dept: Scott Brewer, City Forester, is reviewing the petitioner's response to his most recent review comments. He will have a recommendation prior to the committee meeting. 3. All DOCS technical & procedural concerns have been addressed. For months and months, the Department has tried to get a complete submittal so that the committee can make an educated vote on these petitions and forward the items to the full Plan Commission for a final vote.... However, there are still some outstanding issues, as noted above. The Department of Community Services recommends the committee briefly discuss and then continue this item to the April 1 committee meeting to allow the petitioner time to address all issues /concerns. Note: If the Plan Commission votes to withdraw this item from the agenda, due to lack of prosecution, any new petition for this site must comply with the current standards of the US 31 overlay, which only permits 15% of the gross floor area building to be a hotel use. CARMEL 0001064 City of Ca e CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION - SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008 Minutes The Special Studies Committee of the Carmel Plan Commission met on March 4, 2008 at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present: Wayne Haney, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Rick Ripma (late arrival) and Susan Westermeier, thereby establishing a quorum. Department of Community Services Staff in attendance: Christine Barton- Holmes and Rachel Boone. The Special Studies Committee considered the following items: 1. Docket No. 08020002 ADLS Amend: Weston Pointe - Outlot 3 -Pizza Hut Express The applicant seeks approval for building and site modifications for a restaurant pick -up window. The site is located at 11145 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned B-2/Business within the US 421 Overlay. Filed by David Gilman of Williams Realty Group. David Gilman, Williams Realty Group, appeared before the Committee representing the applicant as owner of the property. A lease is being negotiated with Pizza Hut Express —a smaller, restaurant -type pizzeria that has a pick -up window only and very limited indoor seating. The property is located at 106th Street within the 421 Michigan Road Overlay and is part of the Weston Pointe Development. The adjoining property to the north is Altum Gardens & Landscape Center, opposite the site is an undeveloped lot and remaining commercial development surrounds the outlot on the south and west. Weston Pointe is a small center, less than 8,000 square feet and the Pizza Hut Express would occupy about 2,400 square feet. The applicant is asking that the Committee allow them to do an ADLS Amendment and support their efforts in securing a variance to allow the pick -up window that would be visible from US 421. The site plan shows stacking space for six (6) vehicles plus an additional 5 spaces. At times, the stacking will block the 10th parking space and interfere with ingress /egress. This facility is a pick -up window only —the drive -thru service has a tendency to move along at a faster pace and the six stacking spaces are felt to be ample for their needs. S: /PlanCommission /Committees /Special Studies /2008mar04 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001065 menu board and moving ahead —the pick -up window facility would be "phone ahead" and pick- up only. Sue Westermeier asked where parking would occur in the event a pizza is not ready and people need to park for a time. Dave Gilman said that there are 20 spaces ear- marked for the pizza pick -up; cars can pull up and wait. Again, the petitioner is willing to enter into voluntary, self - imposed commitments and will with the Urban Forester to re- locate whatever landscaping needs to be re- located to accommodate the drive -thru facility. Eliminating a menu board and making a pick -up window only requires less stacking. Sue Westermeier made formal motion to approve Docket No. 08020002 ADLS Amend, Weston Pointe, Outlot 3 Pizza Hut Express, subject to approval of BZA Docket No. 08020030 V approval, no menu board, and the petitioner working with the Urban Forester regarding landscaping, seconded by "Woody" Rider and APPROVED 4 -0. 2. Docket No. 08010013 ADLS Amend: Weston Pointe, Outlot 3 — Dumpster Enclosure The applicant seeks approval to amend the trash dumpster enclosure. The site is located at 11145 N Michigan Rd. and is zoned B-2/Business within the US 421 Overlay. Filed by Dave Gilman of Williams Realty Group. OFFICIALLY WITHDRAWN D cket No X0;7. 30 SDPProMed Lane: Hohda I n'�` The applicant seeks site plan approval for a full - service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro - Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. ockettNo07070009 ADL Hoh"da Inn Pro Med' -I n The apphcaneseeks archi ecture /design approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Note: Items 3 and 4 were heard together. Dave Coots, attorney appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Mike DeBoy, DeBoy Land Services, and Matt Brown, traffic engineer with A &F Engineering (late arrival.) At previous Committee meetings, concern has been expressed regarding the traffic situation at this particular location. Dave Coots had traffic counts available that were utilized in the original traffic report and counts from February 27. The traffic counts are consistent with the extrapolated number used from the 2003 traffic studies that were done because of Old Meridian improvements. From the original report, questions were raised by Gary Duncan as to whether or not the right turn lane on the north side of 136th Street from Pro -Med Lane to Old Meridian would be a requirement and whether or not the cost of that would be contributed to the ultimate fix for this location when proposed by 1NDOT. S: /PlanCommission /Committees /Special Studies /2008mar04 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001066 Dave Coots distributed the most current drawing available from INDOT in terms of what is contemplated at the intersection. It is probably well -known that the City is in negotiation with INDOT or some level of discussion regarding what they will do at this intersection, whether a round- about, a north/south on/off ramp, it affects this intersection by turning it into a "T" intersection and taking away the conversion of traffic that exists there presently. There was also a request from the Committee regarding the elevation depicting the proposed building with mature landscaping, etc. Mike DeBoy will address this issue. Drawings have been submitted to the Department and are now being circulated —there is a correction regarding the dumpster shown with a chain -link gate when in fact it will be a wooden gate. The petitioner has received tentative approval from Scott Brewer regarding the landscape plan. Gary Duncan's comments have been addressed and copies of the email forwarded to Committee members. Mike DeBoy addressed the Committee and said that the petitioner has responded to staff comments from the last meeting and feels they have successfully addressed them. One of the reasons for the revised landscape plan was due to changing the location of the dumpster at the request of Scott Brewer, Urban Forester. As a part of that, Scott Brewer asked for additional landscaping in areas that were initially not going to be touched, but Scott wanted certain areas cleared out and additional landscaping provided. Additionally, the drive aisles are now at 24 feet to accommodate the garage and dumpster in that area. This development has 62% lot coverage, 65% is permitted. Dave Coots reported that Scott Brewer is satisfied with the landscape proposal and wants to see some of the existing site conditions and location of the trees that will be preserved. Matt Brown, A &F Engineering, addressed the Committee and explained the traffic count that was done previously in 2005— there are an additional 30 plus units in the AM peak hours and 162 in the PM peak hours. Basically the count was the 2005 count elevated by 3% per year. After the report was submitted, A &F was asked to go back and do an additional count. There are some movements that are higher, some that are lower. Previously, the round -about was under construction and the additional counts could not be done. Overall, none of the recommendations or conclusions in the study change dramatically, and the levels of service are adjusted only slightly due to delays. Volumes are slightly different in the AM and PM from the previous study. Rick Ripma: So, a 10% increase didn't change anything? Matt Brown: It can, but in this case, it does not. It is not due to road design, but because of the range where we are and what can physically be done to improve the intersection —it does not matter. Rick Ripma: In other words, you can't improve the intersection enough that it doesn't matter. Matt Brown: It improves the intersection, but where we are today with a 10% increase is not enough to improve it based on where we were before on the baseline. Sue Westermeier: Baseline being the January study? Matt Brown: Yes. Sue Westermeier asked how it is determined —if the numbers had come back 400 or more —at what point do you ask a number of questions relating to the traffic study —date, time, school traffic, peak hours? S: /PlanCommission /Committees /Special Studies /2008mar04 4 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001067 Matt Brown referred to the levels of service —right now there is an extreme delay on west -bound Pro - Med as you are trying to exit; basically exiting 136th Street and trying to turn left on Smokey Row and onto Old Meridian —that is the major delaying portion. While the count has increased, it is not to the position where we would say it warrants a traffic signal. Probably 4 or 5 hours of additional, heavy traffic and not just peak hour traffic would warrant a traffic signal. "Woody" Rider bluntly stated that the traffic configuration sucks -they ruined the round -about and turned it into a "T" at US 31. Sue Westermeier thought it was sort of useless. Rick Ripma: The numbers do not have projections for a hotel —where are the numbers that the hotel will generate? This is a blanket statement, but the Committee needs all up -dated material prior to the next meeting. —what the Committee has is old material. We need all new informational packets with the correct materials, all traffic data, and all new "stuff' as if you were initially submitting. Dave Coots responded that the new stuff is supplementary to the original traffic study and the report being looked at today has the left turn and right turn movements, etc. Those are the baseline accounts that were done February 27th. Rick Ripma: Nothing else has changed on the hotel site? The parking lot has not changed, nothing else has changed? Dave Coots: Yes, there have been up -dates to these drawings and they have been submitted to the Dept. for informational packets. Rick Ripma asked about the Holiday Inn signage. Dave Cots reported that the sign will appear on the north facade and will be white at night, green during the day. Department Report, Christine Barton - Holmes: The Depai tnient has received most of the information requested and the dumpster location has been clarified. The off -site drainage and flood plain issue is still under review. The Urban Forester has given tentative approval of the landscape plan. The Department is requesting accurate counts for the traffic study. The signage is day /night plex; the percentage of lot coverage is down. The Depai tinent is recommending this item be moved to the April first Committee meeting. Dave Coots commented that in terms of Engineering components, one issue was just resolved in an email from Gary Duncan last week. The overall Pro -Med drainage plan has been addressed; the system does permit additional drainage from this site and will not overload the system. The drainage plan has been submitted to Gary Duncan and the petitioner is awaiting final approval. Gary Duncan suggested putting $68,000 in a fund to be utilized later in view of the proposed improvements to UJS 31 intersection. The petitioner will either build a lane or pay into a fund until INDOT decides what they are going to do. Woody Rider was in favor of putting money in the fund. Christine Barton- Holmes stated that the Department is not yet comfortable with this proposal and would like to see traffic counts from the townhomes. The Department will work with Engineering for counts. S: /P1anCommission /Committees /Special Studies /2008mar04 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001068 • • Susan Westermeier said she would like to hear from Engineering and the Department that there will be no traffic problems. Pursuant to the Committee's request, Dave Coots agreed to submit a consolidation of the current submission to the Committee in advance of the April first meeting. Rick Ripma suggested that if the petitioner does not get the materials to the Depai anent in advance of the meeting for distribution, the petitioner will voluntarily continue rather than appearing at Committee; Dave Coots concurred. Docket No. 07030035 Pro -Med Lane – Holiday Inn, and Docket No. 07070009 ADLS, Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane were CONTINUED to the April 1, 2008 Special Studies Committee. 5. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S- 1/Residence to B- 1/Business for an office /retail development. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 6. Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 5 lots on 11.6 acres. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S- 1/Residence, pending a B -1/ Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. Joe Scimia, attorney, Baker & Daniels, appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Alsol in attendance: Kelli Lawrence and Jim Thomas on behalf of Hearthview Residential, LLC. Kelli Lawrence gave a brief history and synopsis of this Docket —a proposed office complex on 11.6 acres at 146th Street and Gray Road. Steve Stromquist, former chairperson of the Special Studies Committee joined the meeting in progress. As a previous member of the Special Studies Committee, Steve monitored several meetings with the petitioner and the neighborhood. Some changes have been made in the site plan to create more residentially scaled buildings. A masonry fence /screen wall has been added for the benefit of the neighbors to the south. The entrances are mandated by the County and Engineering. The Bank has been oriented off 146th Street. At the latest meeting with the neighborhood, creating a berm to the south and moving the buildings was suggested, thereby using the northwest portion of the site for the major portion of the development —this did not work efficiently. Actually, the buildings will serve as a better buffer than a berm. Joe Scimia said that the petitioner has tried to accommodate the neighbors, but some things cannot be done because of the difficult site. The Commitments regarding the rezone refer to the number of lots on the site -8— together with Block A-4 'h acres will remain undeveloped in addition to the drainage facility. The petitioner has also agreed to no more than 8,000 square feet of gross floor area. No individual building would have more than 15,000 square feet; all buildings will be one -story. B -1 allows neighborhood retail —the petitioner has agreed to eliminate all retail uses and will provide a list of excluded uses. S: /PlanCommission /Committees /Special Studies /2008mar04 6 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001069 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:39 AM To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane Gary: Thank you for these comments. The only current plans I have seen lately have been the landscape plans by "Remenschneider and Assoc." plus their tree preservation plan. I have called Mr. DeBoy and asked him to send me a copy of the construction plans you are reviewing so I can look at them myself and see your comments. He said they would be here this afternoon. Thanks again Gary! Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317 - 571 -2426 Urban Forestry is the center of sustainability for municipalities Original Message From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:44 AM To: Brewer, Scott 1 Subject: Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane Scott, I wanted to summarize some previous comments that I made for this project that DeBoy has indicated that they will resolve with you. 1. Sheet C3.0. Will grading along the property line kill the trees on the adjacent property? Justus is indicating removal; but what if that project is not realized? 2. Sheet C9.0. Please confirm with Urban Forester if tree removal and protection note 5 is acceptable 3. Sheet C3.0 of 18. Will grading in the vicinity of the trees in the southeast corner kill the trees? 4. Sheet C4.0 of 18. The existing trees in the southeast corner of the site are not representative of the existing on -site conditions. 5. Sheet C1.0 of 18. The tree preservation area along Pro -Med Lane does not contain many trees (if any at all). Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov 1 CARMEL 0001070 March 7, 2008 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy DeBoy Land Development Services 501 South 9th Street, Suite 100 Noblesville, IN 46060 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR RE(Iloliday Inn, Pro Med Drive Lane) and 136th Street - Project Review #3 Dear Mr. DeBoy: The City has received your comment letter and drawings dated January 31, 2008 based upon the City review of January 2, 2008. The comments from the City review have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Previous Comment 38(d): Please provide the requisite storm water /drainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. Thank you for adding the required information. The Department expects that this information will be updated when the downstream piping capacity is verified. Please add statements to the summary about the water from the northwest being routed through the site, the detention being off -site (being the reason that the allowable release rate is being exceeded), compare the runoff rates to the downstream pipe capacity and state any on -site detention provided if necessary not to exceed the downstream pipe capacity. 2. Previous Comment 38(e): Please contact Amanda Foley to review storm water quality/treatment requirements. Please continue to work with Ms. Foley on approval of the storm water quality/treatment system. 3. Previous Comment 38(1): Please verify that the detention was master planned. Please verify the downstream pipe capacity to receive the runoff from this development. Please verify that the proposed "c" value of this site is no greater than the "c" value anticipated at the time the drainage and detention system was master planned. Please indicate the 100 -yr flood route from the site to the ultimate receiving system. Thank you for the submittal in response to my email dated February 22, 2008 (attached). The Department received this submittal on March 4, 2008. We are reviewing the submitted information with Crossroads. 4. Previous Comment 38(m): The Department requests a traffic study be provided that identifies the need for a left turn for westbound traffic on Smokey Row Road, auxiliary lanes (or modifications to existing auxiliary lanes) at the Pro -Med Lane entrance and any modifications to the Old Meridian and Smokey Row Road intersection. Any such needed improvements shall be the sole responsibility of the developer. Per my email to the Plan Commission dated January 31, 2008 (attached), the Department made the recommendations below to the Plan Commission. The plans need to reflect the improvements to the 136th Street/Old Meridian intersection. The commitment for compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan needs to be formalized. a. The developer constructs a short right turn lane at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian Street. The Department will work with A &F to establish an appropriate length based on the traffic study. The construction of this lane may be credited against any commitments provided by the developer to comply with the City's 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAX 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering@carmel.in.gov CARMEL 0001071 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy March 7, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #3 Page 2 of 3 b. As the developer is indicating the construction of the multi -use path across the frontage, compliance with the thoroughfare plan would be limited to the construction of 24 -feet of mainline pavement and city standard chairback curb and gutter. Given the nature of the pending improvements to US -31, it would be more prudent to have the developer contribute the money equal to the value to otherwise construct these improvements for deposit into the Non - Reverting Thoroughfare Plan Fund. Current City estimates for such work is $108 per linear foot. The total value of the commitment would be determined by multiplying this value by the total frontage on Smokey Row Road and subtracting the value of the cost to construct the right turn lane. 5. Previous Comment 43(c): Please provide a typical swale detail to this sheet or sheet C3.0. Thank you for adding the County's detail. However, City standards require SSD regardless of the swale slope. Please strike the language related to the pipe requirements based on the swale slope. 6. Previous Comment 5(c): The note to grade the path with the existing grade of the road is not acceptable from the standpoint of this Department's approval. This path needs to be designed such that water may flow across the path and to ensure no low spots are created. A swale in the right -of -way may be required. A culvert is needed under the path to accommodate the discharge from the 24 -inch pipe under Smokey Row Road as well as a roadside swale if one is necessary. A maximum cross slope of the path shall be indicated. Thank you for adding the requested spot elevations. Appears the street side of the path is being raised above existing grade and a swale will be required in the right -of -way to the east and west of the high point. Please indicate. 7. Previous Comment 5(i). The intent of this comment was not to replace the other systems proposed but a suggestion that, if implemented, might realize some significant savings to the project while providing additional treatment (previously stated as "better facilitate storm water quality ") of the runoff through modifications to the swale now necessary to convey the off -site water from the northeast. 8. Previous Comment 6(b). The existing trees in the southeast corner of the site are not representative of the existing on -site conditions. The Department still does not believe that the tree locations indicated are accurate. This Department would be happy to meet on- site to review this matter. 9. Previous Comment 8(a): Update backfill notes & move to Sheet C10.1. The notes now on Sheet C11.1 have not been updated and are not the current notes. 10. Previous Comment 10(a): The RCP detail in the bottom left hand corner of this sheet is a duplicate of Detail 10 -28. Please delete this detail and ensure that Detail 10 -28 remains in the plan set. Thank you for moving the detail. However, Details 02 and 03 are still on Sheet C10.1. Which details are to be used? If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2441. Gary R. Dunc : , Jr., Assistant Ci ngineer Department o Engineering cc: j Angelina Conn, Department of Community Services John Duffy, Carmel Utilities Paul Pace, Carmel Utilities Paul Arnone, Carmel Utilities Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office CARMEL 0001072 Mr. Michael L. DeBoy March 7, 2008 RE: Holiday Inn- Project Review #3 Page 3 of 3 Greg Ilko, Crossroad Engineers, PC Sanjay Patel, Midwest Hospitality Group Department Review/File Copy \\Apps2 \user data \eng\ shared\ DHilI\ PROJREVO7 \HOLIDAYINNPROMEDLN #3.doc CARMEL 0001073 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Holmes, Christine B Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:52 AM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Boone, Rachel M.; Hancock, Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Duncan, Gary R Subject: Traffic Study for Holiday Inn Dave, At the most recent Special Studies Committee meeting, we discussed the traffic study that had been done for Holiday Inn, and for the adjacent townhouses. The Committee has also asked the Department to provide them with a letter stating that we have reviewed the traffic study and feel that it is adequate. In order to really be able to review the proposed development, we would like a copy of the traffic study done for the townhouses, along with any analysis the traffic engineers may have done regarding how the two developments may impact each other and the surrounding area. I realize packets are not due right away, but the sooner we could see those studies, the easier it will be for our staff to evaluate the information. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call or email. Thanks, Christine Christine Barton - Holmes Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax 3/13/2008 CARMEL 0001074 Midwest Hospitality Group Docket Number 07070009 ADLS For the Plan Commission Subcommittee Meeting, April 1, 2008 Fled By: E. Davis Coots Coots Henke & Whe .Ier for Midwest Hospitaiiiy Group, Inc. CARMEL 0001075 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ADLS Application 2. Aerial Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Colored Landscape Plan 5. Colored Building Elevations 6. Colored Dumpster Enclosure 7. Light Fixture Cut Sheets 8. Sign Exhibit Please see supplemental booklet for traffic report and recommendations. CARMEL 0001076 CARMEL 0001077 ADLS /ADLS AMENDMENT APPLICATION Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping and Signage ADLS Fees: $834.00 plus $111.00 per acre ADLS AMEND Fees: Sign only: $277.50, plus $55.50 /sign Building/Site: $556.00, plus $55.50 /acre DATE: June 22, 2007 DOCKET NO. XX ADLS Received Date Stamp: ADLS /Amend Checked By DP Attached Previous DP? Yes No Name of Project: Motels of Cannel, T,T,P Type of Project: Holiday Inn hotel Project . 136th Street West and Pro -Med Lane Address: 1 6 0 9 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Project Parcel lD #: Legal Description: (please use separate sheet and attach) See attached. Name of Applicant: Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Applicant Address: 1220 Brookville Way, Indianapolis, IN 46239 Contact Person: E. Davis Coots Telephone: (317) 844 -4693 Fax No. (317) 573 -5385 dcoots @chwlaw.com Email: Name of Justus Home Builders, Inc. (317) 353 -8311 Landowner: Telephone: Landowner Address: 1398 Shadeland Avenue North, Indianapolis, IN 46219 Plot Size: 2.65 acres Zoning Classification: B6 Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMEN.APP 2007.doc 1 CARMEL 0001078 Present Use of Property : Vacant wooded lot Proposed Use Construction of new four story full service Holiday Inn of Property: New Construction? Yes xX No New/Revised Sign? Yes xx No Remodeled Construction: Yes No XX New Parking? Yes XX No New Landscaping? Yes xx No Note that required fees are due after the application has received a docket number, and not at the time of application submittal. Do NOT bring application fees at the time of submittal Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMEN.APp 2007.doc 2 CARMEL 0001079 No. of Spaces Provided: 111 Type of Building: hotel 75,000 Square Footage: Height: P Design Information No. of Buildings: No. Spaces Required: 103 one £L)L L No. of Stories Exterior Materials: Brick, glass Colors: Beige -brown with red /rose accent of &ue5is Maximum No. off: 103 Type of Uses: hotel Water by: Carmel Sewer by: Carmel LIGHTING Type of Fixture: Height of Fixture: No. of Fixtures: Additional Lighting: * Plans to be submitted showing Fcot- candle spreads at property lines, per the ordinance. SIGNAGE No of Signs: Type of Signs: Location(s): Dimensions of each sign: Square Footage of each sign: Total Height of each sign: LANDSCAPING * Plans to be submitted showing plant types, sizes, and locations ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** I the undersigned, to the best of my knowledge and belief, submit the above information as true and correct. Signature of Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMEN.APP 2OO7.doc 3 CARMEL 0001080 Applicant: % V/ (' — c Y� ✓�- `j3Title: �i 1 (1� `' , C- r� Date: Le "2-2--0-1 (Print) j G. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * State of Indiana, SS: County of 4+ 1Lt b\) Before me the undersigned, a Notary Public for -41 Am L T i State of Indiana, personally appeared] -A(r1G(2Lir Sr execution of the foregoing instrument this 2_ day of, )Lc& Mme Commission Expires: ('Z.°( rOq CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES (DOCS) 1 Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032 (3rd floor) 571 -2417 , 20 I fl ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, LIGHTING SIGNAGE REVIEW (REVIEW /APPROVAL) Procedure for Plan Commission For Business Zones, U.S. 31 Meridian Street Corridor, U.S. 431 Keystone Avenue Corridor and the U.S.421 Michigan Road Corridor 1. Allow plenty of time for review and approval process (approximately .two (2) months). 2. Discuss proposed project with DOCS staff (please call for an appointment to discuss review procedure and appropriate dates) first week of the month, works the best to begin a project. 3. INFORMATION NEEDED for formal DOCS staff and Plan Commission review: a. Two copies of formal application with required information b. Two copies of legal description c. Two location maps showing location of subject site, zoning and existing land uses of all adjacent properties. d. Two copies of a detailed site development plan showing: 1) Detailed drainage plan with drainage calculations. If project is in Clay Township, take to Kent Ward, County Surveyor (776 -9626) and John South, U.S. Soil Conservation Service (773- 1406). If project is in City of Carmel, discuss with Kate Boyle, City Engineer at 571 - 2441.. 2) Lighting plan - footcandle limits Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMRN.APp 2007.doc CARMEL 0001081 - type of fixture - size or fixture 3) Landscaping plan - location of plantings - type and sizes of plantings - Planting legend - Planting details - Mounding locations and details 4) Signage plan and details - Size and location - Materials and colors 5) Parking plan: show handicapped spaces /total spaces needed per zone /spaces proposed 6) Site plan with: - side, rear and front yard setbacks - Perimeter drainage and utility easements - Sewer and water line locations - Special setbacks or greenbelts - Building square footage - Dimensions of building - Location of mechanical equipment and trash receptacle with screening and details - Pavement and curbing details - Proposed road improvements - Sidewalks - Loading and dock areas - Fire hydrant and siamese locations 7) Building Elevations: (all sides) - Dimensions - Materials and colors - Bring Samples of materials to the Plan Commission meeting - Signage location 8) Soils map and floodplain information 9) Technical Advisory Committee correspondence 10) If public hearing required, list of adjacent property owners two properties deep or 660 feet, whichever is less (obtain from Hamilton County Auditor's office, Noblesville, Indiana) 4. Once all information is presented to DOCS and a review completed for compliance, a Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \AOLSAMEN.APP 2007.doc 5 CARMEL 0001082 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 docket number will be released when the filing fee is submitted. 5. Petitioner or representative must appear at the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (public hearing) and give a presentation. The presentation should include information relative to the project and should be presented on a poster board so that it can be seen from 20 feet. In addition, reduced packets (8 -1/2" x 11 ") packets of the poster board project information should be handed out for each Plan Commission member. 6. Petitioner or representative must attend the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on Wednesday following the Plan Commission Meeting. 7. Petitioner or representative must attend the Industrial and Commercial Subcommittee to review all pertinent information. 8. Petitioner or representative must attend the second Plan Commission meeting for final vote (questions may need to be answered). 9. Once Plan Commission has voted on the project, it is up to the petitioner to work with the staff to obtain proper building permits. Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMEN.APP 2007.doc 6 CARMEL 0001083 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS PROPOSED BUS /NESS HOTEL PRO MED DRIVE & 136" STREET CARMEL, INDIANA PREPARED FOR COOTS, HENKE & WHEELER, P, C. MARCH 2008 RECEIYID 44h !42^ DOa CARMEL 0001115 4#04,,F ENGINEERING Ilkowe, ,,, Transportation Engineenng Services o�,e.rr Paamm0 ftwaB MmH - P1DAio LWm COPYRIGHT This Analysis and the ideas, designs, concepts and data contained herein are the exclusive intellectual property of A &F Engineering Co., LLC. and are not to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent of A &F Engineering Co., LLC. ©2008, A &F Engineering Co., LLC. 7..2007T07I03Coots- Hohdav Inn1Rc -Wnte 2 -5- O8\TOA rewritc.doc CARMEL 0001116 *AsF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services cr.o.r.��.. Moms, IAasrrurm' BROEI PROPOSED BUSINESS N4718 -PRO AD MOW TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES II CERTIFICATION III INTRODI ICTION PURPOSE SCOPE OF WORK DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM TRAFFIC DATA 3 PEAK HOUR 3 GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 INTERNAL TRIPS 6 PASS -BY TRIPS 6 ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT G ENE RATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM 7 DESCRIPTION OF NEAR -BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 7 TABLE 2 - NEAR -BY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION 7 CAPACITY ANALYSIS 10 DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE 10 CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS 1 1 TABLE: 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 136" STREET & OLD MERIDIAN ROAD 15 TABLE 4- LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 136" STREET & PRO MFD DRIVE 15 TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: PRO MED DRIVE & ACCESS DRIVE 16 EXISTING St IBJE:CT SITE ZONING 17 TABLE 6 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 17 CONCLUSIONS 17 RECOMMENDATIONS 20 UST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: AREA MAP 4 FIGURE. 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS 5 FIGURE 3: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED NON PASS -BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 8 FIGURE 4: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 9 FIGURE 5: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES I2 FIGURE: 6: SLIM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FROM "VILLAGE GREEN", "ARDEN & "THE TRADITIONS ON THE MONON" TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS 13 FIGURE 7: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES FROM "VILLAGE GREEN. "ARDEN & "THE TRADITIONS ON THE MONON" TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS & GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED HOTEL DEVELOPMENT 14 II CARMEL 0001117 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *A AP ENGINEERING Transportauon Engmecnng Service, MEMES711001741.17Y 6 aw PMar%wB(6Af Mom -Roo MD1 W CER17F /CAT /ON 1 certify that this TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering. A &F ENGINEERING CO.. INC. -/A/' R. Man Brown. P.E. Indiana Registration 10200056 ssstttl11..it tlgq , HEiv 8�,, � S T \ s ' 2 No.10200056'- sr4rt L • S�ONAi i u�e`G•�` 111 CARMEL 0001118 /Aar ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services o.i.e..rs Maws-, Iftsmaurratotp PIKIPOS o &.swims Ham -Pao MoD Awt /NTNODUCnON This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of the Coots, Henke & Wheeler, on behalf of Midwest Hospitality Group, is for a proposed hotel that will be constructed on the northeast corner of Pro Med Drive and 136t Street in Carmel, Indiana PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site is developed. Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes or will determine the modifications that will be required to the system if it is determined there will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes. Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis. These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements which will accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and egress, to and from the proposed development. with minimal interference to traffic on the public street system. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for this analysis is: First, to obtain peak hour tuming movement traffic volume counts at the following intersections: • 136th Street & Old Meridian Street • 136th Street & Pro Med Drive • Pro Med Drive & Behavior Corp. Access Drive Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed development. Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will provide access to the proposed development. Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development onto the public roadway system and intersections identified in the study area. 1 CARMEL 0001119 1 *Alf ENGINEERING MIDWEST 110SM:4UlY GROUP Transportation Engineering Services o■.n•■■• .. PIWPOSED MISAESS Nom -Pao MED Ikaw 1 Fifth. to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in the study area considering each of the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Trafc Volumes - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic volumes. Scenario 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes + Traffic Generated by Near -By Townhouse Developments - New traffic volumes that will be generated by the development and occupancy of near -by townhomes added to the existing traffic volumes. 1 Scenario 3 - Existing Trafc Volumes + Tragic Generated by Near -By Townhouse Developments + Proposed Hotel Development Trafic - New traffic volumes that will be 1 generated by the proposed hotel added to the existing traffic volumes and the traffic volumes generated by the future townhomes that are to be constructed and occupied near the study area. Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data. analyses. conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through the study area. 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development will include a business hotel that will have direct access to Pro Med 1 Drive. Figure 1 is an area map showing the proposed site. STUDY ARE4 1 The study area defined for this analysis will include the following intersections: • 136'" Street & Old Meridian Street • 136`s Street & Pro Med Drive • Pro Med Drive & Access Drive Figure 1 shows the site layout and the location of each study intersection. DESCRIPTION OF THE STREET SYSTEM ' The proposed development will be served by the public roadway system that includes 136th Street. Old Meridian Street and Pro Med Drive. 1 136"' STREET— is an east/west two-lane roadway that runs through Carmel connecting Old Meridian Street and Keystone Avenue. OLD MERIDIAN STREET — runs diagonally in a northeasterly direction from a southern point along US 31 to a northern point along US 31. 1 CARMEL 0001120 *ABE ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services Mown.,NasrmunrGROW PROPOSED BUSINESS /b)Fl - AID MLD AO►w PRO MED DRIVE — is a dead end roadway that serves as a connection to 136th Street for several office buildings. 136th Street & Old Meridian Street — This "T' intersection is stop controlled with 136th Street stopping for Old Meridian Street. This intersection is likely to be reconstructed and reconfigured as part of the Indiana Department of Transportation US 31 reconstruction project. This project will likely occur between 2010 and 2018; however. detailed time frames and geometric illustrations have yet to be determined for this location. Figure 2 illustrates the existing conditions at this intersection. 136th Street & Pro Med Drive — This "T' intersection is stop controlled with Pro Med Drive stopping for 136th Street. Figure 2 illustrates the existing geometrics at this intersection. TRAFFIC DATA Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made by A &F Engineering Co.. LLC at each of the existing study intersections in(ovember 2007 and February 2008:\ The counts include an hourly total of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersection. These counts are summarized on Figure 5 for the peak hours and computer printouts of all data collected for the counts are included in the Appendix. PEAK HOUR Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak hours vary between the intersections. Therefore, the actual peak hour at each intersection will be used for this analysis to represent the maximum traffic volumes at each intersection. 3 CARMEL 0001121 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *Ref ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services lemur Mosmnt rv6sow PitorasrD &wwS MOTEL -Pao Me Ow GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the development size and of the character of the land use. Trip Generation' report was used to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout the United States in order to establish the average number of trips generated by various land uses. Table 1 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development. TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERATED TRIPS ITE AM AM PM PM LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Business Hotel 312 108 Rooms 37 26 40 27 INTERNAL TRIPS An internal trip results when a trip is made between two or more land uses without traversing the external public roadway system. The proposed development will be a single land use only. Therefore, internal trip reductions are not applicable. PASS BY TRIPS Pass -by trips are trips already on the roadway system that are captured by a land use. Depending on the location and type, hotels do typically generate a variable percentage of pass -by trips. However, for the purposes of this analysis, pass -by trips have been assumed negligible in order to maximize the number of trips analyzed in this study. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes from the proposed development that will be added to the street system is defined as follows: 1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the proposed development must be assigned to the various access points and to the public street system. Using the traffic volume data collected for this analysis, traffic to and from the development has been assigned to the proposed driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003. 6 CARMEL 0001124 1 *aF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,Nmwasr HOSPITALITY Game Pog oSFD BLt6/NFSS NOYEZ - PW I*D DRIVE 2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their intersection with the driveways. For the proposed development. the distribution was based on the location of the development with respect to the surrounding public roadway system the existing traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic. The assignment and distribution of generated traffic volumes for the proposed development is shown on Figure 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared at each of the study area intersections. The peak hour generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are shown on Figure 4. These volumes are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic. DESCRLPTLON OF NEAR -BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Three separate townhome developments have been approved over the past three years within. or near the study area defined for this analysis. These developments will add future traffic to the study intersections considered within this study. As such. it is imperative that these future volumes be considered so that accurate traffic forecasts are analyzed. The following table summarizes development information pertaining to each of these projects. This information is based on past traffic studies conducted by A &F Engineering. information gathered from the developers of each project and a field review conducted in March 2008 at each location. TABLE 2 — NEAR -BY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT APPROX. FULL BUILD OUT SIZE APPROX. % OCCUPIED Village Green 48 Dwelling Units 0 % Arden 90 Dwelling Units 0 % Traditions on the Monon 135 Dwelling Untis 60 % Based on previous trip assignment, distribution and generation calculations performed by A &F Engineering in previously submitted traffic studies, the total impact of these developments has been calculated at each of the study intersections. Figure A located in the Appendix summarizes these peak hour traffic volumes at each of the study intersections. 7 CARMEL 0001125 fAaF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services u ya rbmr Mawrsr Ha1SVlraUgY GROUP PROPOSED BISSVESS HOru - PRO M D DINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level -of- Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis ". Input data into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes. intersection geometry. number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized intersections. traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program Synchro2. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and optimized using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)3. DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for stop sign controlled intersections. Level of Service Control Delay (seconds /vehicle) A Less than or equal to 10 B Between 10.1 and 15 C Between 15.1 and 25 D Between 25.1 and 35 E Between 35.1 and 50 F greater than 50 2 Synchro 7.0, Trafficware, 2006. 3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000. 10 CARMEL 0001128 1 i1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AaF ENGINEERING Transporcacion Engineering Services Abtossrllos%um 6io r PIOPOSFo &6nES6/bmFZ- PIOMED OR ME CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the traffic volumes from each of the various parts must be added together to form a series of scenarios that can be analyzed. The analysis of these scenarios determines the adequacy of the existing roadway system. From the analysis, recommendations can be made to improve the public street system so it will accommodate the increased traffic volumes. An analysis has been made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study intersections for each of the following scenarios: SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the existing traffic volumes that were collected at the study intersections. Figure 5 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. SCENARIO 2: Existing Tragic Volumes + Traffic Generated by Near -By Townhouse Developments - Figure 6 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. SCENARIO 3: Existing Traffic Volumes + Tragic Generated by .year -By Development + Proposed Hotel Development Traffic - Figure 7 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of service results are included in the Appendix. The tables that are included in this report are a summary of the results of the level of service analyses and are identified as follows: Table 3 — 136th Street & Old Meridian Street Table 4 — l36`I' Street & Pro Med Drive Table 5 — Pro Med Drive & Access Drive 11 CARMEL 0001129 1 *ALF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services r•••••■■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P11pgrED Brswirea l*m -# I AID Bow TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 136TH STREET & OLD MERIDIAN ROAD AM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 3 Old Meridian Street Southbound Left-Turn A A A 136th Street Westbound Approach F ' F F PM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 3 Old Meridian Street Southbound Left -Tum B (' C 136th Street Westbound Approach F 1 F F DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS: SCENARIO I : Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes from Near -By Townhome Developments with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes. Generated Traffic Volumes from Near -By Townhome Developments and Generated Traffic Volumes from Proposed Hotel Development with Proposed Intersection Conditions" * The proposed intersection conditions include the addition of an exclusive right -tum lane along the I36t6 Street approach in order to create separate left and right -turn lanes. TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 1 36TH STREET & PRO MED DRIVE AM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 3 136th Street Westbound Left -Turn A A A Pro Med Drive Northbound Approach B C C PM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 2 3 136th Street Westbound Left-Turn A A A Pro Med Drive Northbound Approach 13 B C DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS: SCENARIO I : Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes from Near -By Townhome Developments with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes, Generated Traffic Volumes from Near -By Townhome Developments and Generated Traffic Volumes from Proposed Hotel Development with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control 15 CARMEL 0001133 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'PA.F ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services o...to.rr MIMES! NOSPr1AUrr (roam PROPOSED Bcsstess Nom - PAD MED DRIVE TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: PRO MED DRIVE & ACCESS DRIVE AM PEAK HOUR RC)DWAY A MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 &2 3 Pro Med Drive Northbound Left -Turn A A Southbound Left-Turn n/a A Access Drive Eastbound Approach A B Westbound Approach nla A PM PEAK HOUR ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 & 2 3 Pro Med Drive Northbound Left -Turn A A Southbound Left-Turn n/a A access Drive Eastbound Approach A B Westbound Approach nla A DESCRIPT ON OF SCENARIOS: SCENARIO I : Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes from Near -By Townhome Developments with Existing Intersection Geometries and Control SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes. Generated Traffic Volumes from Near -By Townhome Developments and Generated Traffic Volumes from Proposed Hotel Development with Proposed Intersection Conditions* The proposed intersection geometries include the addition of an access drive to serve the proposed hotel. This new drive should align with the existing Behavior Corp. drive and should be constructed to include one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This intersection should remain stop controlled with the access drives stopping for Pro Med Drive. CARMEL 0001134 *As; ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services Ilamour Iloerruunr aro to ~pomp euawss Ilona - P!v IED Dam EXISTING SUBJECT SITE ZONING The subject site is currently zoned B-6 by the City of Carmel. Under this zoning. a medical office land use would be permitted. It is estimated that approximately 37,500 square feet of medical office could be constructed on this site under the current zoning plan. A trip generation comparison has been conducted in order to illustrate the trip generation difference between the proposed business hotel and the medical office building that could be constructed on this site. Table 5 outlines the trip differential between the two land uses. TABLE 6 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION LAND USE Business Hotel Medical Office ITE CODE 312 720 SIZE 108 Rooms 37,500 SF 1 RI!' 1)IFi.11ZI(ti'CI• UII F1 l I:' ('I( WEEKDAY GENERATED TRIPS 24 -HOUR ENTER +EXIT 785 1355 570 7�.6° AM PEAK HR ENTER + EXIT 63 94 ;1 J42 PM PEAK HR ENTER +EXIT 67 140 100u0,, CONCLUSIONS The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment and distribution of generated traffic. capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have been prepared at the study intersections and the field review conducted at the site. These conclusions apply only to the AM peak hour and PM peak hour that were addressed in this analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore. if the resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed that the remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are equal to or better than the peak hour. since the existing street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON It has been determined that a 37,500 square foot medial office building could be constructed on the subject site under the current B -6 zoning. A trip generation comparison outlined in this report between the proposed business hotel and a medical office shows that there is a substation daily and peak hour trip differential between the traffic volumes that would be generated by these two land uses. Based on ITE trip generation data, generated traffic for the medical office would be approximately 75% higher over a typical weekday and peak hour generated trips would be approximately 75% and 100% greater during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour respectively. 17 CARMEL 0001135 li/MAF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services IronFS, 1108/114117Y GMXP Pik Brsnncs Nvra - Pb AND Ow Thus. it can be concluded that the trips generated by a medical office on this site would have a substantially greater negative impact on the public roadway system than the generated traffic associated with the proposed hotel. CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1. 136"' STREET & OLD MERIDIAN STREET Existing (Scenario I) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that the westbound approach along 136th Street experiences delays and operates below an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours due to the amount of through traffic along Old Meridian Street, the resulting lack of available gaps in the traffic stream and the volume of left - turning traffic from I361h Street. All other approaches at this intersection operate at or above acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. Existing + Near -By Townhomes (Scenario 2) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and future traffic volumes generated by the complete development of three near-by townhome projects has shown that the westbound approach along 136th Street will continue to operate below acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. All other approaches at this location will continue to operate at or above acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. Existing + Near-By Townhomes + Proposed Hotel Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed hotel are added to the Scenario 1 traffic volumes, the westbound approach along 136'h Street will continue to operate below acceptable levels of service during the peak hours while all other approaches at this location will continue to operate at or above acceptable levels of service. The addition of a westbound right -tum lane along 136th Street at this location would partially mitigate the delays expected at this intersection due to the addition of future traffic volumes. 2. 1 36Th STREET & PRO MED DRIVE Existing (Scenario 1) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches. with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all I8 CARMEL 0001136 1 As? ENGINEERING ,IfowfsrllasrrTAurrGROW Transportation Engineering Services PROPOSED acs Ham -Pao MED Dow 1 approaches at this intersection operate at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. 1 Existing + Near -By Townhomes (Scenario 2) - A level of service review for each of the 1 intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and future traffic volumes 1 generated by the complete development of three near-by twnhome projects has shown that all approaches at this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels during the ' AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Existing - .Near -By Townhomes + Proposed Hotel Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic volumes from the proposed hotel are added to the Scenario 2 traffic volumes, all 1 approaches at this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the existing intersection geometries and control. 1 3. PRO MED DRIVE & ACCESS DRIVE ' Existing (Scenario I) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all ' approaches at this intersection operate at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. 1 Existing - :Near -By Townhomes (Scenario 2) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and future traffic volumes 1 generated by the complete development of three near-by Twnhome projects has shown that all approaches at this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. 1 Existing + Near -By Townhomes + Proposed Hotel Development (Scenario 3) - When the ' traffic volumes from the proposed hotel are added to the Scenario 2 traffic volumes, all approaches at this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service ' during the peak hours with the intersection conditions outlined in the Recommendations portion of this report. 1 1 19 CARMEL 0001137 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IML UP ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services MIMS r HOSPITA(AY GIN. PlOrtil4ED MISIVESIS Ham - Pao Jar Atari RECOMMENDA710Ns Based on the analysis and the resulting conclusions. the following recommendations are made to ensure that the roadway system will accommodate the increased traffic volumes due to the proposed development. 136T" STREET & OLD MERIDIAN STREET This intersection currently experiences delays during the peak hours along the westbound approach. These delays are a result of the amount of through traffic along Old Meridian Street, the lack of available gaps in the through traffic stream and the volumes of existing traffic turning left from 136t Street onto Old Meridian Street. These delays will continue as traffic is added to this approach by the development of vacant land along 136th Street. Analysis has shown that additional lane improvements at this intersection will not significantly affect the peak hour operations at this location but peak hour delays can be partially' mitigated through the addition of an exclusive right- turn lane along 136'" Street at this intersection. 136'' STREET & PRO MED DRIVE This intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the projected traffic volumes and the existing intersection geometries. Therefore, no improvements are recommended at this location. PRO MED DRI\ E & ACCESS DRIVE The proposed recommended intersection geometries include the addition of an access drive to serve the proposed business hotel. This new drive should align with the existing Behavior Corp. drive and should be constructed to include one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This intersection should remain stop controlled with the access drives stopping for Pro Med Drive. ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE The 136th Street approach at Old Meridian Street currently operates at level of service F during the peak hours when increased periods of delay are experienced. This delay is primarily due to the amount of through traffic along Old Meridian Street and the amount of left - turning traffic from 136th Street onto Old Meridian. As left- turning traffic increases at this intersection, peak hour delay will continue to increase. As recommended in this report, the creation of a separate left -turn lane and right -tum lane along the 136th Street approach will help mitigate this condition to some degree. However, intersection lane improvements beyond those recommended will not 20 CARMEL 0001138 1pAaF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services MWOESr/k1CNlAUry GIMP ~pomp &Wss NOM -Aso M D Pew improve the intersections performance. Furthermore. the addition of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended due to the proximity of the US 31 /O1d Meridian Street intersection. Given these unique circumstances, an access control alternative was examined. This alternative would limit the intersection of 136th Street/Old Meridian to right- in/right -out access only, thus eliminating the left-turn movements from Old Meridian and 136th Street. As identified earlier. the left-turn movements at this location are the prime reason this intersection operates with delay during the peak hours. The elimination of these movements would substantially enhance existing and future operations at this location. This alternative is particularly appealing due to the installation of the roundabout at Old Meridian and Guilford. The addition of this roundabout would allow the prohibited left turning traffic from Old Meridian to I36th Street to safely "U- tum" at the roundabout and become right -turn traffic onto I36'h Street. Thus, this traffic could still access 136th Street from Old Meridian Street without the need for an extreme route deviation. On the other hand. left- turning traffic from 136'h Street to Old Meridian would not be provided a secondary alternative and thus. this traffic would be significantly diverted to other critical public intersections. Capacity analyses results have shown that if the access restriction was implemented. the intersection of 136th Street and Old Meridian Street would operate at acceptable levels of service under all traffic scenarios analyzed in this study. However, because this option would create secondary traffic impacts on other near-by intersections, this alternative is not specifically recommended as part of the proposed hotel project but is illustrated as a potential mitigation measure that could be used quite effectively until INDOT reconstructs this intersection as part of the US 31 interstate project. 21 CARMEL 0001139 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 it 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TR4FFIC OPERATIONS ,4NAL PSIS APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS ADDITIONAL FIGURES 1 136" STREET & OLD MERIDIAN STREET 3 136' STREET & PRO MED DRIVE 12 PRO MED DRIVE & ACCESS DRIVE 21 YAA&F ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services Creating Order Since 1966 8365 Ae}slone (Tossing Boulevard. Suite 201 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: (317) 202 -0864 Far: (317) 202 -0908 CARMEL 0001140 •A&F ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services MIDWEST HOSPITALITY Gear PROPOSED BE SAESS HOTEL • PRO MW Den ADDITIONAL FIGURES CARMEL 0001141 1/6A,F ENGINEERING sportu■on Engineering Services cue... PROPOSES &SAW NOM -Pb SHANE 13e STREET & OLD MERIDIAN STREET INTERSECT /ON DAT,4 TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS CAPACITYANALYS /S CARMEL 0001143 ill*ABF ENGINEERING Transpornnon Engineering Services Main sE HOSPITAL/IV &tour PROPOSED BLSDE&6 Hom -PNo AAfw Omar 136" STREET & PRO MED DRIVE INTERSECTION DATA TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12 CARMEL 0001152 tAaF ENGINEERING Transportation Engineering Services MowfaTIAUV.rAu r&PIP PROPOSED &'.6IREN NOM -Pao NED Dam PRO 41ED DRIVE & ,4CCESS DRIVE INTERSECTION DATA TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS CAPACITY ANALYSIS CARMEL 0001161 Hancock, Ramona B Page 1 of 2 From: Fran Bowman [fran.bowman @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:32 AM To: Idierckman @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; Hancock, Ramona B; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place To: Carmel Plan Commision Members I am opposed to the Holiday Inn/Office Building Plan Proposal due to the close proximity to my home in Kensington Place, an active retirement luxury townhome community and also a Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood. Our townhomes include small backyards and screened porches where the residents can enjoy the many varied and frequent wildlife visitors. My concerns are noted as follows: Noise Level: Air conditioning required for commercial buildings will be noisy and disruptive to the residential backyard /porch activity and wildlife visiting areas. Adding a Holiday Inn so close to our backyards is unacceptable due to the overall noise level that will now expand through the entire 24 hours period. Guests with early and late arrivals can not be expected to "be quiet" as they unwind from their travels and prepare for their sleep period; i.e., shut doors, load /unload travel items, etc. The noise level and early /late movement of individuals and groups is accentuated by their use of a variety of transportation; including large hauling trucks, buses and motorcyles. Safety /Security/Lighting: It is very unsettling to live in close proximity to an unending assortment of one'time motel/hotel type visitors. The commercial advertising /security night lighting will be highly undesirable and excessive to the community lights already provided for our homes. I picture living next to a Holiday Inn will be similar to living next to a football field with a game in progress. Property Value: Our homes will diminish in value. Drainage Plans: What are the plans to provide drainage in and around Kensington Place? Privacy /Security /Sound/Lighting Barriers: What are the plans (i.e., walls, ground elevation, fence, dense landscaping) to separate commercial needs from the residential and wildlife needs? Wildlife Habitat Area: What are the builder's plans for this area? We, as Kensington residents, knew from the start that our neighbors in the Pro Med development would someday have other buildings such as the Justice Building. But we had no idea that something like a Holiday Inn would be so "up close and personal" in our backyards. I hope that the Plan Commission will demand a more compatible land use. Fran Bowman 13572 Kensington Place Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001170 Carmel, In 46032 317- 846 -7763 3/17/2008 Page 2 of 2 CARMEL 0001171 Conn, Angelina V From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:54 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place Page 1 of 2 Angie, I will print this email and put in the Holiday Inn File as well as a hard copy (reminder) to all Plan Commission Members. Ramona From: Fran Bowman [ mailto :fran.bowman ©sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:32 AM To: Idierckman ©carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; Hancock, Ramona B; jmolitor ©prodigy.net Subject: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place To: Carmel Plan Commision Members I am opposed to the Holiday Inn/Office Building Plan Proposal due to the close proximity to my home in Kensington Place, an active retirement luxury townhome community and also a Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood. Our townhomes include small backyards and screened porches where the residents can enjoy the many varied and frequent wildlife visitors. My concerns are noted as follows: Noise Level: Air conditioning required for commercial buildings will be noisy and disruptive to the residential backyard /porch activity and wildlife visiting areas. Adding a Holiday Inn so close to our backyards is unacceptable due to the overall noise level that will now expand through the entire 24 hours period. Guests with early and late arrivals can not be expected to "be quiet" as they unwind from their travels and prepare for their sleep period; i.e., shut doors, load/unload travel items, etc. The noise level and early /late movement of individuals and groups is accentuated by their use of a variety of transportation; including large hauling trucks, buses and motorcyles. Safety /Security /Lighting: It is very unsettling to live in close proximity to an unending assortment of one'time motel /hotel type visitors. The commercial advertising /security night lighting will be highly undesirable and excessive to the community lights already provided for our homes. I picture living next to a Holiday Inn will be similar to living next to a football field with a game in progress. Property Value: Our homes will diminish in value. Drainage Plans: What are the plans to provide drainage in and around Kensington Place? Privacy /Security /Sound /Lighting Barriers: What are the plans (i.e., walls, ground elevation, fence, dense landscaping) to separate commercial needs from the residential and wildlife needs? Wildlife Habitat Area: What are the builder's plans for this area? We, as Kensington residents, knew from the start that our neighbors in the Pro Med development would someday have other buildings such as the Justice Building. But we had no idea that something like a Holiday 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001172 Page 2 of 2 Inn would be so "up close and personal" in our backyards. I hope that the Plan Commission will demand a more compatible land use. Fran Bowman 13572 Kensington Place Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood Carmel, In 46032 317- 846 -7763 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001173 Holmes, Christine B From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:41 PM To: Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Subject: FW: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place FYI — a remonstrance e-mail regarding holiday inn... Page 1 of 2 From: Fran Bowman [ mailto :fran.bowman @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:32 AM To: Idierckman @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; Hancock, Ramona B; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: Holiday Inn /Office Building Development Plans Located West of Kensington Place To: Carmel Plan Commision Members I am opposed to the Holiday Inn/Office Building Plan Proposal due to the close proximity to my home in Kensington Place, an active retirement luxury townhome community and also a Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood. Our townhomes include small backyards and screened porches where the residents can enjoy the many varied and frequent wildlife visitors. My concerns are noted as follows: Noise Level: Air conditioning required for commercial buildings will be noisy and disruptive to the residential backyard /porch activity and wildlife visiting areas. Adding a Holiday Inn so close to our backyards is unacceptable due to the overall noise level that will now expand through the entire 24 hours period. Guests with early and late arrivals can not be expected to "be quiet" as they unwind from their travels and prepare for their sleep period; i.e., shut doors, load /unload travel items, etc. The noise level and early /late movement of individuals and groups is accentuated by their use of a variety of transportation; including large hauling trucks, buses and motorcyles. Safety /Security/Lighting: It is very unsettling to live in close proximity to an unending assortment of onetime motel/hotel type visitors. The commercial advertising /security night lighting will be highly undesirable and excessive to the community lights already provided for our homes. I picture living next to a Holiday Inn will be similar to living next to a football field with a game in progress. Property Value: Our homes will diminish in value. Drainage Plans: What are the plans to provide drainage in and around Kensington Place? Privacy /Security /Sound/Lighting Barriers: What are the plans (i.e., walls, ground elevation, fence, dense landscaping) to separate commercial needs from the residential and wildlife needs? Wildlife Habitat Area: What are the builder's plans for this area? We, as Kensington residents, knew from the start that our neighbors in the Pro Med development would 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001174 Page 2 of 2 someday have other buildings such as the Justice Building. But we had no idea that something like a Holiday Inn would be so "up close and personal" in our backyards. I hope that the Plan Commission will demand a more compatible land use. Fran Bowman 13572 Kensington Place Certified Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood Carmel, In 46032 317 - 846 -7763 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001175 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:17 PM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; 'Michael L. DeBoy'; 'ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave — I hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. I know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov 3/17/2008 CARMEL 0001176 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:16 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Angie, I was told that ALL of the concerns had been addressed. I delivered what was represented to be complete plans (24 x 36) and booklets with 11 x 17 drawings for each committee member on Friday. I spoke with Scott Brewer and Gary Duncan who tell me that their comments have been addressed. (Gary did say he had a revised letter with several comments that Mike DeBoy says have been addressed. Before we continue from the April 1st meeting, I would like to meet with you(and other staff you choose) Scott and Gary, if available, Mike and Remenschneider, Patel and whoever else you deem appropriate. I could meet this Wed. AM or Friday AM. Please let me know. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:17 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave — I hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. I know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317 - 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmelin.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001177 Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Sanjay Patel [spatel @Midwesthospitality.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:32 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Friday is fine with Original Message From: Holmes, Christine B [mailto:cholmes @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:27 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Dave Coots Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Friday morning is fine with me, as well. Christine Barton - Holmes Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:26 PM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Dave: Wednesday, there is a TAC meeting from 9 am to 10 or 10:30 AM. But anything after that is good for me. Mike H will be out from 8 -12 on Wednesday. Friday AM is also good for me. It looks like most people can make it Friday morning around 10 30 am or 11 am, I think. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317 -571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:16 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Angie, I was told that ALL of the concerns had been addressed. I delivered what was represented to be complete 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001178 Page 2 of 2 plans (24 x 36) and booklets with 11 x 17 drawings for each committee member on Friday. I spoke with Scott Brewer and Gary Duncan who tell me that their comments have been addressed. (Gary did say he had a revised letter with several comments that Mike DeBoy says have been addressed. Before we continue from the April 1st meeting, I would like to meet with you(and other staff you choose) Scott and Gary, if available, Mike and Remenschneider, Patel and whoever else you deem appropriate. I could meet this Wed. AM or Friday AM. Please let me know. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:17 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave — I hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. I know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001179 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:09 PM To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi, Dave — it was sort of a surprise to me as well; I knew there were a few small issues with the engineering and forestry departments, but now I am told there are other issues. That is why DOCS wants to hold this meeting, to get everyone on the same page and get this project through the process. Scott Brewer just let me know that mike deboy is meeting with Gary Duncan at the project site this Thursday. Hopefully, it will be a productive meeting. Scott also relayed to me that his largest concerns in the fact that the landscape plan from remenschneider conflicts with the constructions plans produced by mike deboy, and that these construction plans need to be more thorough are precise with details. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmelin.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:16 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B; spatel @midwesthospitality.com Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Angie, I was told that ALL of the concerns had been addressed. I delivered what was represented to be complete plans (24 x 36) and booklets with 11 x 17 drawings for each committee member on Friday. I spoke with Scott Brewer and Gary Duncan who tell me that their comments have been addressed. (Gary did say he had a revised letter with several comments that Mike DeBoy says have been addressed. Before we continue from the April 1st meeting, I would like to meet with you(and other staff you choose) Scott and Gary, if available, Mike and Remenschneider, Patel and whoever else you deem appropriate. I could meet this Wed. AM or Friday AM. Please let me know. From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:17 PM To: Dave Coots Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; Michael L. DeBoy; ken @remenschneider.com; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave — I hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001180 Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov Page 2 of 2 CARMEL 0001181 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:52 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Holiday Inn Angie, The Department can support this item moving out of committee. I am sending this email in lieu of my attending the meeting this morning. The suggestion to modify the striping of the existing intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian and install a gravel shoulder is acceptable to the Department. Final CD's will still need to be approved. Approval of the items below after Plan Commission approval is typical. Prior to final plan approval, the following items need to be completed: 1. BPW approvals need to be obtained 2. Any fees for water and sewer availability and /or connection fees need to be paid. 3. The SWQ plan needs to be approved by the Department of Engineering 4. Final Drainage approval needs to be obtained from Crossroad Engineers 5. Performance Guarantees for work in the right -of -way, construction erosion and sediment control and post construction BMP's need to be provided. 6. The commitment from the Special Studies Meeting needs to be formalized in writing. 7. The final CD's need to be revised to include the proposed modifications to the existing turn lane (striping and installation of a stone shoulder - redress of existing stone shoulder) . 8. The backfill and cover notes on Sheet C11.1 need to be updated to include the current language. The language on this sheet is still from the beginning of 2007 Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov 1 CARMEL 0001182 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 4:29 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Angie, this email really got some things moving! Thank you. Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 15:17 To: 'Dave Coots' Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Brewer, Scott I; Duncan, Gary R; 'Michael L. DeBoy'; 'ken @remenschneider.com'; McBride, Mike T; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Holiday Inn Pro Med Lane concern Hi Dave —1 hope you are doing well. The Department would like to see this project moved to the full plan commission to receive a final decision vote, since the original application was filed back on Feb. 16, 2007. However, it has come to the Department's attention that the quality of the plan revisions (specifically, plans subject to review by the Forestry and Engineering Departments) for the Holiday Inn project are not up to par, where plan revisions are incomplete, conflicting, or outstanding issues are never fully resolved. know you know that incomplete submittals only draw out the plan commission review process and frustrate the commissioners. With that, DOCS would like to convene a meeting with everyone involved, from the city and from holiday inn, to discuss all outstanding issues. Also, DOCS would also like you to hold off another month with the special studies committee until the plans are complete and address all outstanding issues. Please Reply ALL to this email to let everyone know when you and others involved with the project are able to meet this week or next week. Also, please let me know if you are willing to table your item to the May 8 committee meeting. Thanks, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001183 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 5:43 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J Subject: FW: Updated Holiday Inn landscape plans Attachments: 03.24.08 Holiday Inn Pro Med LP 103.pdf; 03.24.08 Holiday Inn Pro Med LP 101.pdf; 03.24.08 Holiday Inn Pro Med LP 102.pdf Thank you Brandon: I will look at these plans, and try to review them within the next day or two. Perhaps you can explain further how this could have happened after repeated attempts to make sure that everything with this site was correctly planned out? I am grateful that the additional trees have been found to be preserved. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 Urban Forestry is the center of sustainability for municipalities From: Brandon Schreeg [ mailto :brandon @remenschneider.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:48 PM To: Brewer, Scott I Cc: 'Michael L. DeBoy'; 'Colin R. Patterson'; 'Stacey A. Fouts'; 'Dave Coots' Subject: Updated Holiday Inn landscape plans Greetings Scott, Due to a surveying mishap the existing tree locations were incorrect on our previous landscape plans. However, this is positive news with regard to the quantity of existing shade trees to be saved. After receiving the new survey data we have determined 51 trees (9" caliper and above) will remain as opposed to the previous plan of 23! It is important to note we are gaining several more existing trees along the east property line and at the west corner of the property than previously thought. Therefore, our landscape plans have been revised and are attached for your review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about these revisions. Thank you, brandon Schreeg, ASLA Project Manager Rernenschneider Associates 21 2 W. 1 oth Street, Suite X435 Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 (5 17) 955 -9960 (5I7) 955 -9961 Fax www.remensch neider.com 3/25/2008 CARMEL 0001184 ABLF E SI '. EE IN Transportation Engineering Services Creating Order Since 1966 WILLIAM J. FEHRIBACH, P.E. PRESIDENT STEVEN J. FEHRIBACH, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT March 25, 2008 Mike Hollibaugh Director City of Carmel - Planning and Zoning One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Mr. Hollibaugh, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STUDIES • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES DESIGN • HIGHWAY DESIGN • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PARKING LOT DESIGN • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING • CONSTRUCTION OBSERVAT!ON REGISTRATION INDIANA ILLINOIS IOWA KENTUCKY MICHIGAN OHIO As you requested I have compared the trip generated by a business hotel to a standard hotel with conference room, restaurant, and cocktail lounges. The table below shows the difference in the trip generated. USE SIZE AM PEAK PM PEAK Hotel 108 RMS 72. 76 Business Hotel 108 RMS 63 67 As you can see the trips generated are very similar with hotel slightly higher. However, this would not cause the recommendations or conclusion to change in the report. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, A &F Engineering Co., LLC Steven J. Fehribach President 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201 — INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240 TELEPHONE (317) 202 -0864 — FACSIMILE (317) 202 -0908 CARMEL 0001185 BehaviorCorp traffic response to Holiday Inn project at Pro -Med Lane Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Baird, Craig [CBaird @behaviorcorp.org] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:23 AM To: Ripma, Rick; Rider, Kevin D; Haney, Wayne; Westermeier, Susan Cc: Holmes, Christine B; Boone, Rachel M. Subject: BehaviorCorp traffic response to Holiday Inn project at Pro -Med Lane Dear Special Studies Committee members, I am writing this email as a representative of BehaviorCorp, Inc. and have been attending the Special Studies Committee meetings regarding this project. BehaviorCorp is a not - for - profit community mental health center located across Pro -Med Lane from the Holiday Inn project site. BehaviorCorp was the initial owner of a building site in the Pro -Med complex. While I personally do not believe that the hotel project is the best use for the site in question I would like to specifically address the traffic issue. I just quickly glanced at the traffic study that was distributed at the last meeting. If I read the study correctly the peak times were noted as being prior to 9am and after 4pm. BehaviorCorp has three mini - buses, several vans and at least ten fleet vehicles on site. Monday through Friday the mini -buses and vans bring approximately 80 clients to our day programming at 9:30am and take them home at 2:30pm. These times are outside of the traditional peak time range. Our other fleet vehicles are entering and exiting the site throughout the day. We also have 50 staff on site during the day. In addition our outpatient office is open from 8:OOam to 8:OOpm Monday through Thursday and from 8:OOam to 5:OOpm on Friday. A significant number of outpatient clients are entering our site throughout the day. Our day programming ends at 2:30pm so that our vehicles can leave our site before the Carmel High School students get out of school and line up on Smokey Row Road at 3:15pm. When the students are lined up on Smokey Row Road at Old Meridian Street there is virtually no way a person can make a left turn out of Pro -Med Lane onto Smokey Row Road. This daily 3:15pm high school student lineup seems to be outside of the traditional "peak" time study. I realize that our traffic volume may not be enough to impact the committee members concern about traffic around the site. However I at least wanted the committee members to realize what BehavorCorp's professional mission was and what type of activities occurred at our site during the weekday. Sincerely, Craig Baird Craig Baird Director of Financial Management BehaviorCorp, Inc. 317 -587 -0505 cbaird @behaviorcorp.org The information in this e-mail and any attachment may contain protected health information as defined by H1PAA, state and federal confidentiality rules (42cfr Part 2) and IC 16 -39. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of this information unless otherwise permitted by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the original. 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001209 BehaviorCorp traffic response to Holiday Inn project at Pro -Med Lane Page 2 of 2 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001210 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:53 PM To: Duncan, Gary R; 'Brandon Schreeg'; Michael L. DeBoy Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Foley, Amanda J; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Thomas, John G Subject: RE: Updated Holiday Inn landscape plans Comments from Environmental Planner /City Forester Attachments: 03 24 08 Holiday Inn Pro Med LP 103.pdf Dear Brandon and Michael: I looking over these plans with a critical eye, and discussing this project with other members of the engineering staff, I see an apparent disconnect between the landscape and tree preservation plans and the critical engineering set of plans like the storm water plan, or the drainage plans. On the tree preservation plan (attached), it shows very large areas of typical TREE PROTECTION ZONE, but then the TREE PROTECTION FENCE placed in a much smaller configuration (sometime around individual trees). The drainage swale and structure is to be graded and installed beneath the preserved trees, and within the TREE PROTECTION FENCE. It does not seem likely that these trees will survive that construction impact. The Storm Water Plan shows silt fence cris- crossing throughout the TREE PROTECTION ZONE and FENCING, and the construction detail shows it being installed by trenching at least 8" deep. This will play havoc over existing root systems, causing much root death and environmental stress for these trees. No mention is being made of the construction equipment that will have to be within this area for the construction of the retaining wall, or the building of several stories of the hotel along the TREE PROTECTION ZONE on the east side of the property. At this point, a consulting arborist should be employed to oversee the planning of the construction sequence to insure that the health of the existing trees will remain viable through the building of the hotel, if no one on the project has that expertise available. This a completely wooded construction site, where is appears that considerable time and effort is going forward to provide for tree preservation, both for the City's and the Hotel's benefit. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317- 571 -2478 FAX: 317- 571 -2426 Urban Forestry is the center of sustainability for municipalities From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:45 AM To: Brewer, Scott I Subject: RE: Updated Holiday Inn landscape plans Scott, Please confirm that the trees indicated in the NW corner will indeed be able to be saved given the proposed pipe extension and swale grading. Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Cannel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 3/31/2008 CARMEL 0001211 Page 1 of 1 Hancock, Ramona B From: eambler [eambler @indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:47 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Idierckmin @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: proposed Holiday Inn Express Whenever we tell my friends in Carmel where we live — they say, oh, by the dangerous intersection. Since we have lived here — over 11 years — the intersection of Old Meridian & Smokey Row has been known as a dangerous intersection. Why would anyone allow a Holiday Inn, or any hotel to be built at such an intersection? Money can be the only answer — not the safety of the many Carmel High School students who traverse that route 10 months a year. Or, the many other Carmel citizens who traverse that route on a daily basis - either to work, or to our wonderful Carmel St Vincent's Hospital. Please consider this - when you vote to allow people who are strictly wanting to make money by ruining the great community we have established over the last 25+ years! Thank you for your time & consideration. Sincerely, Eric & Evie Ambler eambler@indy.rr.com 4/1/2008 CARMEL 0001213 Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:38 AM To: 'dcoots @chwlaw.com' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B Subject: FW: proposed Holiday Inn Express FYI Ramona From: eambler [mailto:eambler @ indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:47 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Idierckmin @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rider, Kevin D; Ripma, Rick; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: proposed Holiday Inn Express Whenever we tell my friends in Carmel where we live — they say, oh, by the dangerous intersection. Since we have lived here — over 11 years — the intersection of Old Meridian & Smokey Row has been known as a dangerous intersection. Why would anyone allow a Holiday Inn, or any hotel to be built at such an intersection? Money can be the only answer — not the safety of the many Carmel High School students who traverse that route 10 months a year. Or, the many other Carmel citizens who traverse that route on a daily basis - either to work, or to our wonderful Carmel St Vincent's Hospital. Please consider this - when you vote to allow people who are strictly wanting to make money by ruining the great community we have established over the last 25+ years! Thank you for your time & consideration. Sincerely, Eric & Evie Ambler eambler @indy.rr.com 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001214 HOLIDAY INN (PRO -MED DRIVE) HISTORY OF APPLICATION: An anniversary has passed without a decision. March, 2007 the public hearing was scheduled for the Holiday Inn application. Because of lack of follow through by the petitioner, two months in a row passed before the actual public hearing took place in May, 2007. That was the last time that the voices of those in opposition have been heard, unless those opposing have put their thoughts in writing. Each month since June, 2007 either the special committee meeting has been tabled or the applicant has brought some portion of the required information to the meeting. To date, not all information has been provided. Meanwhile, the members of the Plan Commission and City Council have changed, which has changed the members on the special committee and its chairman as well. QUESTION: Have all these delays on the part of the applicant been planned to await these changes and a loss of focus because of time and lack of continuity? The 2007 committee members stated more than once that this application is like fitting a square peg in a round hole. They also stated that the 2005 traffic report was considered to be invalid and therefore not reliable. Based on that opinion, the petitioner ordered a traffic study by A &F Engineering Co., LLC which reported a count and then referenced the 2005 study for 136th and Old Meridian. When the committee requested further review, the traffic study was revised by sending a truck out with personnel to do a count during what they considered peak time. Normal peak time does not reflect school traffic including young people driving, school buses, and regular business and hospital traffic. At the April, 2008 committee meeting the representative from A &F Engineering stated that the study was done to meet the client's needs. That was a blatant admission that the study was biased. Also, the representative stated that new construction and/or approved construction on Smokey Row Road was not taken into consideration in their report. Also, the question was not asked, nor was information given about taking into consideration regarding the approved Justus office building. FYI: In checking with the City of Carmel Engineering Department, it was indicated that when the City of Carmel does a traffic study, it is normally done with a counter over a period of time. As of March 31, 2008 I checked with the Department of Community Services to see if any information had been received regarding drainage (that was a requirement that had not been received at the March, 2008 committee meeting and needed prior to the April 1, 2008 meeting. May it be here suggested that if an applicant cannot get their ducks in a row in a timely manner, they should be automatically denied. The public has made the effort to attend every meeting (many of which have been tabled after arriving at city hall). CARMEL HISTORY INFLUENCING THE HOLIDAY INN APPLICATION: The writer served on the Plan Commission from 1976 -1982 and on the City Council from 1980 -1984. Perhaps the most significant element of that participation was a question CARMEL 0001215 asked at a Plan Commission meeting: "What are we going to do about US 31 (Meridian)? Is it going to look like Keystone and 52 °' ?" As a result of that question, the writer, a prominent Carmel developer and the City Planner met. The result was the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone approved when the writer was President of the Plan Commission in 1980 -1981. When approved, one criteria of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone was a minimum five acre parcel. Does this 2.65 acre subdivided parcel really meet the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Is a Holiday Inn on that 2.65 acre parcel going to violate the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Perhaps some of you remember the Cannel Motel that was located on US 31 (Meridian) approximately t mile from the proposed location of the proposed Holiday Inn location. After inappropriate activities which included discovery of the body of a murdered woman, the City of Carmel condemned the Carmel Motel and it was demolished. More recently in the news is the esteemed Mayflower in Washington, D.C. and inappropriate activities. A motel or hotel invites transient traffic whereas an office building invites professional business people offering a service during daytime and daylight hours. I do not recall if it has been discussed that the Holiday Inn will have a liquor license, but that also invites traffic hazards on what is already a very precarious curve in the road that is over congested without full development of the already approved projects. A REQUEST: In the interest of the "health, safety and welfare" of the immediate community in the area where the proposed Holiday Inn would have a major impact on the "health, safety, and welfare" of those residents in the area and those who travel the area, a request is made to have the City of Carmel commission a true and honest traffic study without bias and reflecting all approved projects to the east. Also the INDOT plan for the intersections where ProMed Drive, Smokey Row Road, Old Meridian, Guilford Road, and US 31 (Meridian) converge should be taken into consideration. Since it has been over a year since the Holiday Inn project was first introduced, perhaps the petitioner could wait a year to see the true picture of this important traffic pattern once INDOT and the City of Carmel have a plan in place. At present, the new round about moves the traffic such that there is increased difficulty for those coming from the east on Smokey Row Road. Also, at night for those wanting to go east on Smokey Row Road from US 31, visibility is poor. Since information regarding drainage from the project has yet to be in the hands of the Department of Community Services as of March 31St, there should be careful review and study of the impact on the residences of Kensington Place which is positioned well below the approved Justus Office building and the proposed Holiday Inn. There should not be a hasty decision to approve, and this is one project in the words of past and present Plan Commission committee members fitting a square peg in a round hole does not fit. Denial of this project would best serve the interests of all of Carmel. With respect and appreciation for the many hours you devote to serve our community, Virginia L. Kerr (317)714 -4637 4/1/08 CARMEL 0001216 Comments on the Holiday Inn Express proposed project You will note that I am sending these latest comments to those serving the Carmel public in regard to insuring that various types of developments requesting to build in Carmel are really meeting the objectives of doing what's best for Carmel. The Justus Office and the Holiday Inn Express projects are two "Good" examples of how "NOT" to apply for a project! How many times have they been told to go back and get better plans? They have "piece - mealed" the information just hoping that they won't be asked for certain details that they know will be an issue. In hurrying to submit something they try to sneak questionable data through and you tell them again to go back to the drawing boards. You are good public servants and you must try to please both sides of any type of project. You should start requiring a complete application before they can start moving ahead. Your time is valuable and because of this problem you waste too much of your time. Time that you should be discussing other more important issues. You must serve developers, but they must play by the rules, and if they do you can get them through the process and still meet the objectives that Carmel is still a good place to live and do business. Back to the Holiday Inn application, the Traffic Study is a joke. I sure hope you don't let this study set the standards for other projects in the future! You asked them for a good Traffic Study. They had to hurry, so they rushed and put together a very poorly designed survey. The area had been under construction for several months and they tried to use data that was very questionable because traffic use was affected by the "open and still under construction" status during their survey. They realized that their results were flawed so the only thing they could do was to use some OLD data collected during June of 05, thus during Cannel High School summer vacation. One would think that using this data might influence their results as the normal student traffic would not be included. So they added a 3% "fudge factor ", to make it right ( ?). In addition they didn't project the increased traffic that would result from the 3 new condo -town homes projects under construction on Smokey Row. About 600 new parking spaces have been approved by your body, but the applicant chose not to make any projections on this important factor. I think by now you see why many of us feel that your body must take the lead, get tough, be fair to everyone and require all applications to be complete, using good scientific methods. Your time to too valuable and so is ours. These proposals a not the best land use for this area. Gary Doxtater 13559 Kensington Place Carmel, IN 46032 April 1, 2008 CARMEL 0001217 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:02 PM To: Suewestermeier @aol.com Cc: McBride, Mike T Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Thank you Sue, I appreciate your feedback on this. Let me get with Mike McBride, and get back with an informed position on this. We are talking with InDOT engineers about the overall intersection, may not be completely relevant to this but want to have a well thought through response. Mike From: Suewestermeier @aol.com [mailto:Suewestermeier @ aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:52 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: McBride, Mike T Subject: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Hi, Mike. I have just been reviewing the A & F Engineering Traffic Analysis that was done for the proposed Holiday Inn on 136th st. Whereas I am certainly no traffic engineer I did like the "additional alternative" for the 136th and Old Meridian intersection that was proposed by Mr. Brown on pages 20 and 21. I do not know if Mike McBride sees these type of developer generated traffic stats but I think that the alternative recommended in this document warrants a look at. If you agree could you please get a copy of the document to him. Something must be done at that intersection before there is a serious accident. A large majority of the drivers turning left at this intersection are high school kids not paying a whole lot of attention.... Thanks for listening. Sue Westermeier Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001220 Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:10 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: FW: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Fyi for tonight Good luck Mike From: Suewestermeier @aol.com [mailto:Suewestermeier @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:52 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: McBride, Mike T Subject: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Hi, Mike. I have just been reviewing the A & F Engineering Traffic Analysis that was done for the proposed Holiday Inn on 136th st. Whereas I am certainly no traffic engineer I did like the "additional alternative" for the 136th and Old Meridian intersection that was proposed by Mr. Brown on pages 20 and 21. I do not know if Mike McBride sees these type of developer generated traffic stats but I think that the alternative recommended in this document warrants a look at. If you agree could you please get a copy of the document to him. Something must be done at that intersection before there is a serious accident. A large majority of the drivers turning left at this intersection are high school kids not paying a whole lot of attention.... Thanks for listening. Sue Westermeier Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001221 Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Holmes, Christine B Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:10 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Thanks! (for the email and the good luck). Christine Barton - Holmes Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax APlease consider the environment before printing From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:10 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: FW: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Fyi for tonight Good luck Mike From: Suewestermeier @aol.com [mailto:Suewestermeier @ aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:52 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: McBride, Mike T Subject: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Hi, Mike. I have just been reviewing the A & F Engineering Traffic Analysis that was done for the proposed Holiday Inn on 136th st. Whereas I am certainly no traffic engineer I did like the "additional alternative" for the 136th and Old Meridian intersection that was proposed by Mr. Brown on pages 20 and 21. I do not know if Mike McBride sees these type of developer generated traffic stats but I think that the alternative recommended in this document warrants a look at. If you agree could you please get a copy of the document to him. Something must be done at that intersection before there is a serious accident. A large majority of the drivers turning left at this intersection are high school kids not paying a whole lot of attention.... Thanks for listening. 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001222 Page 2 of 2 Sue Westermeier Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. 3/4/2009 CARMEL 0001223 City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008 LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS, 2nd FLR CARMEL CITY HALL ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 TIME: 6:00 P.M. (DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M.) The Special Studies Committee will meet to consider the following items: 1. Docket No. 08020004 ADLS Amend: Clarian Health/Velocity Sports — Signage The applicant seeks approval for 1 new ground sign. The site is located at 1402 Chase Ct. It is zoned M- 3/Manufacturing. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger. 2. Docket No. 08020005 ADLS Amend: Penn Medical Plaza (REI Medical Office Building) The applicant seeks approval for 8 new signs. The site is at 11900 N. Pennsylvania St. It is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31 Overlay. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger. 3. Docket No. 08030006 ADLS Amend: AT &T — Signage The applicant seeks approval for 1 new wall sign. The site is located at 210 3rd Ave. SW. It is zoned C -2 /Old Town District. Filed by Ron Moenter of Moenter Sign Co. 4. Docket No. 08030017 ADLS Amend: The Corner - Signage The applicant seeks approval for 2 new multi - tenant ground signs. The site is located at 11588 Westfield Blvd. It is zoned B-3/Business within the Carmel Dr. — Range line Rd Overlay. Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP for Corner Associates, LP. 5. Docket No 070300354DPPr"o} Med =Lane = Holiday Inn. The applicant seeks site plan approval for a full - service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro - Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 6. Docket No 07070009 ADLS: Holiday,Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 1 of 2 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001224 April 1, 2008 Carmel Plan Commission Special Studies Committee Agenda 7. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S- 1/Residence to B- 1/Business for an office /retail development. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 8. Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 5 lots on 11.6 acres. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S- 1/Residence, pending a B -1/ Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 9. Docket No. 08010011 DP /ADLS: Old Meridian Plaza (RA Franke Subdivision, lot #8A) The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 4 -story office /retail building. The site is located at 12863 Old Meridian St. and is zoned OM/MU- Old Meridian, Mixed Use. Filed by Ersal Ozdemir of Keystone Group, LLC. ONE CIVIC SQUARE File: SS- 2008- 0401.doc Page 2of2 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001225 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEEE DEPARTMENT REPORT - APRIL 1, 2008 5. Docket No.-417030035 DP:,fro- Med =Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full-service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is located at 136`h Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 6. Docket No. 07070009-ADLS: Holiday Inn at Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full- service hotel. The site is located at 136t Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. The applicant seeks approval for the development plan of this site for a 4 -story full - service hotel with a restaurant and conference space, within. The applicant also seeks architecture/design approval. The site is 2.65 acres. The lot cover percentage is 62% (under the required 65 %), with pavement and building footprint included. There will be some pervious pavement and brick pavers to help with water detention and infiltration. Underground parking is also proposed in order to meet the parking requirement for a hotel, conference meeting space, and restaurant. Wall signs are on the north and west building facades facing 136th Street & Old Meridian St. Please see the petitioner's information packet for full details. March 4 Committee meeting — brief overview of comments: 1. The petitioner will either build a lane right turn lane on the north side of 136t Street from Pro - Med Lane to Old Meridian or pay into a fund, until INDOT decides what they are going to do. 2. One of the reasons for the revised landscape plan was due to changing the dumpster location. 3. If the petitioner does not get the up -to -date materials/updated traffic data/new exhibits to the Department in advance of the meeting for distribution to Committee, the petitioner will table. 4. Off -site drainage and flood plain issue is still under review; the drainage plan has been submitted to DOE and the petitioner is awaiting final approval. 5. DOCS is requesting accurate counts for the traffic study and would also like to see traffic counts from the townhomes to the east. The Committee needs Engineering and DOCS confirmation that there will be no traffic problems. The following are various City Department's comments/concerns: 1. Department of Engineering (DOE) comments: DOE supports this item moving to the full Plan Commission. The suggestion to modify the striping of the existing intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian Street and install a gravel shoulder is acceptable to DOE, as well as other minor changes requested prior to issuance of DOE's approval of the final Construction Documents, via an email sent on 03/21/2008. 2. Urban Forestry Dept comments: The City Forester supports this item moving to the full Plan Commission. There are only a few requested changes to the tree preservation plan and the structural soils exhibit. 3. DOCS and DOE have reviewed the updated traffic report, met with the traffic engineer, and agree that the study's road improvements recommended will help with traffic congestion at the intersection of Smokey Row Rd & Old Meridian Street. The Department of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee vote on a positive or negative recommendation, and send this item back to the Full Plan Commission for a final vote at the April 15 meeting. (If a favorable recommendation, the committee should add the condition of DOE approval of the Construction Documents.) CARMEL 0001226 City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008 Minutes The Special Studies Committee of the Carmel Plan Commission met on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Members in attendance: Wayne Haney, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Rick Ripma, Susan Westermeier. DOCS Staff in attendance: Rachel Boone, Christine Barton - Holmes. John Molitor, Counsel was also in attendance. The Special Studies Committee considered the following items: 1. Docket No. 08020004 ADLS Amend: Clarian Health/Velocity Sports — Signage The applicant seeks approval for 1 new ground sign. The site is located at 1402 Chase Ct. It is zoned M- 3/Manufacturing. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger. Jim Shinaver, attorney, Nelson and Frankenberger appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Molly Paul, Velocity Sports was also in attendance. The informational brochures explained the relationship between Velocity Sports and Clarian Health and each tenant will be recognized on the ground sign located at 1402 Chase Court. The petitioner appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals for permission for the ground sign. The sign will not be internally illuminated —ground up- lighting only. Department Report, Rachel Boone: The sign is located adjacent to Chase Court and is 4 feet tall, 8 feet wide, 32 square feet sign area. There will be direct spotlighting on one side of the sign. The sign is situated 5 feet from the right -of -way and landscaped. The petitioner will appear before the Board of Public Works, either April 16 of the May meeting. The Department has no issues. In response to questions from Rick Ripma, Jim Shinaver said the back of the sign is a solid, gray - tone color that will be the same material as the front of the sign —no text. Currently there is signage on the building. Wayne Haney asked about the materials in the sign —Jim Shinaver said the sign finish will be a stucco, aggregated acrylic —a solid, durable material. S:/PlanCommission/ Minutes /SpecialStudies /2008aprO 1 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001227 The landscaping plan was submitted to Scott Brewer for review; it is Paul Reis' understanding that the plan has been approved. Paul Reis distributed computer - generated renditions of the signs as to what they would look like along Range Line Road and 116th Street. The general dimensions of the Signs are consistent with the Sign Ordinance for ground signs. However all of the tenants within the Center are not reflected on the sign. In order to maximize readability in the panels, 6 of the tenants are being focused on —this is one of the variances approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The height of the sign at street grade will be five feet, but when measured from the base moving toward the stores, it is over six feet; this was another variance. Department Report, Rachel Boone: All variances dealing with the number of signs and size (5 feet tall, 12 feet wide) were approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The actual sign area is 42 square feet. The old signs farther back in the Center will be removed and new landscaping beds designed. The brick base will be internally illuminated; creme, black, and white are the main colors. The signs are dual -face. The Department is in support of this petition and has no issues. Sue Westermeier commented that this Center has been hurting for years and the new signs are a great idea. There is no indication of the tenants located in the center, and this is a great addition. Rick Ripma asked about the parking spaces. Paul Reis said they may pick up as many as four, probably where the diagonal parking is located. There is more than adequate parking within the Center. Wayne Haney said the sign looked like an aluminum box mounted on the solid brick base —how thick —how deep? Paul Reis responded that it was probably just deep enough for the light box, perhaps one foot. Susan Westermeier made formal motion to approve Docket No. 08030017 ADLS Amend, The Corner Signage, seconded by "Woody" Rider, APPROVED 4 -0. 5. DockettNo" . 0703003.5..DP. : ro Med'Lantaoliclay The applicant seeks site plan approval for a full-service hotel. The 'sitee isat 136th Street and Pro - Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. Docket No_: ,Ot7d 00097A IN Holiday Inn at Prawn The'`applicarat seeks- arehitec erdesign approval for full-service hotel. ``The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. NOTE: Items 5 and 6 were heard together. S:/PlanCommission/Minutes/SpecialStudies/2008aprOl 5 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001228 Dave Coots, attorney, Coots, Henke, & Wheeler appeared before the Committee representing the applicant. Also in attendance: Mike DeBoy, DeBoy Land Development. As requested by the Committee last month, the petitioner re- submitted materials as if this were a new application. The petitioner met with the Department (Mike Hollibaugh and Christine Barton - Holmes) along with Mike DeBoy and Steve Fehribach to address engineering issues that remained open and unresolved at the last meeting. The result of that meeting, in essence, is that the Department was satisfied with Gary Duncan's response to the Engineering issues reflected in the large print. Scott Brewer requested changes in the tree preservation plan and structural soils exhibit; the multi - purpose path was moved closer to Smokey Row Road at David Littlejohn's suggestion. The Dept. of Engineering and the Dept of Community Services have reviewed the up -dated traffic report, met with the Traffic Engineer, and agree that the study's recommended roadway improvements will help with traffic congestion at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Old Meridian Streets. The traffic report recommended considering the addition of a right turn lane to the north side of Smokey Row Road. Steve Fehribach also looked at other alternatives such as "no left turn" signs at this intersection at certain hours of the day— enforcement was an issue. The other alternative for consideration was a no left turn function at this intersection by forming a median down Old Meridian to the roundabout so that west bound Smokey Row Road traffic would have to turn right; incoming traffic from US 31 onto Old Meridian would have to go down to the roundabout, and come back north on Meridian to turn right onto 136th Street. Per Dave Coots, Mike Hollibaugh specifically wanted more time to meet with Engineering and review the recommendations. Mike Hollibaugh had also suggested that the Committee act on this proposal, subject to the Dept of Community Services and the Dept of Engineering review and formulation of a design that would be deemed appropriate for this intersection. Midwest Hospitality would still be responsible for contributing its $68,000 amount to the roadway improvement fund; some of those funds may be used for improvements at this intersection, or at the time US 31 and Old Meridian is improved in 2011. Department Report, Christine Barton- Holmes: The Department has worked extensively with the petitioner in the last six weeks. The Dept of Engineering is in support of moving this item to the full Plan Commission, subject to their final approval of full construction documents as detailed in an email from Dept of Engineering dated March 21, 2008. The traffic counts were taken from a document previously approved by DOCS in 1997. There are a few requested changes to the tree preservation plan and the structural soils Exhibit. DOCS does agree that the roadway improvements will help with the traffic congestion. The traffic study does support the current proposal and a regular hotel at this location. There is a difference of 12 trips between a regular hotel and a business class hotel. The proposed use is permitted in this zone district and as currently deigned, no variances are needed —the proposal meets the Ordinance. The DOCS is recommending this item be brought to a vote by the Committee this evening and returned to the full Plan Commission for a vote at its next meeting. "Woody" Rider said it would be problematic to turn south off Smokey Row Road. S:/ P1anCommission/ Minutes /SpecialStudies /2008aprO 1 6 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001229 Sue Westermeier commented that unless substantial intersection improvements are made, this area is not safe for a hotel or anything else. Christine Barton - Holmes stated that a dedicated right turn lane would allow people to turn onto US 31. Sue Westermeier said there is an additional alternative on page 20 of the traffic report— Smokey Row would only be right in/right out. In the long run, all of those people on Old Meridian wanting to turn left onto Smokey Row would have to go down to the roundabout, turn around and travel north to make a right turn into Smokey Row. Turning out of where the Holiday Inn would be on Pro -Med Lane is not safe. The number of cars crossing, going to the high school, going to the hospital —it is not safe. Wayne Haney noted that there is no way to turn left onto Old Meridian. Woody Rider asked about the distance between the lot owned by Justus east of this building and Kensington Place— response: 230 to 250 feet. Carol Schleif asked if an agreement had ever been made on this property as to how it would be developed; an area resident had made the inquiry. John Molitor, Legal Counsel said there was never a commitment made on this property. Carol Schleif questioned the tree barrier —not deciduous and offers little screening —and if there were any requirements for tree preservation and buffering. Carol also did not like the "box" look of the building and thought it could be eliminated; perhaps a modulating roofline. How can it be "tweaked" to fit the Overlay better? Mike DeBoy said he would be happy to do a year -round buffer planting. The parking spaces and the drive aisles were discussed — parking is deemed adequate; the drive aisles are at 23 feet. The drainage plan has been approved by the Dept of Engineering. Christine Barton - Holmes said that the petitioner does not need a variance for the buffer and the petitioner is working with Scott to maximize the green space. The parking is right at the required number, and there is no concern regarding the building footprint. The major concern has been the intersection. Sue Westermeier made formal motion to forward Docket No. 07030035 DP; Pro -Med Lane, Holiday Inn and Docket No. 070780009 ADLS, Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane to the full Plan Commission with "No Recommendation," seconded by "Woody" Rider, Approved 4 -0. 7. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S -1 /Residence to B- 1/Business for an office /retail development. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes /SpecialStudies /2008aprO 1 7 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001230 Midwest Hospitality Group Docket Number 07070009 AD LS For the Plan Commission Subcommittee Meeting April 1, 2008 Filed By: E. Davis Coots Coots Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. CARMEL 0001231 TABLE OF CONTENTS F6Y- A pr \ 1 t Q0‘ 01010009 - COWlrvii14 w-it 1. ADLS Application 2. Aerial Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Colored Landscape Plan 5. Colored Building Elevations 6. Colored Dumpster Enclosure 7 Light Fixture Cut Sheets 8. Sign Exhibit Please see supplemental booklet for traffic report and recommendations. lect CARMEL 0001232 CARMEL 0001233 e. 1 1 1 1 t 11 11 11 1 ADLS /ADLS AMENDMENT APPLICATION Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping and Signage ADLS Fees: $834.00 plus $111.00 per acre ADLS AMEND Fees: Sign only: $277.50, plus $55.50 /sign Building/Site: $556.00, plus $55.50 /acre DATE: June 22, 2007 DOCKET NO. ADLS Received Date Stamp: ADLS /Amend Checked By DP Attached Previous DP? Yes No Name of Project: Motels of Carmel, LIP Type of Project: Holiday Inn hotel Project 136th Street West and Pro-Med Lane Address: 0 0 0 1 6 0 9 2 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Project Parcel ID #: 1 - - - _ _ • Legal Description: (please use separate sheet and attach) See attached. Name of Applicant: Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Applicant Address: 1220 Brookville Way, Indianapolis, IN 46239 Contact Person: E. Davis Coots Telephone: (317) 844 -4693 Fax No. (317) 573 -5385 dcoots @chwlaw.com Email: Name of Justus 317) 353 -8311 Landowner: Home Builders, Inc. Inc . Telephone: Landowner Address: 1398 Shadeland Avenue North, Indianapolis, IN 46219 Plot Size: 2.65 acres Zoning Classification: B6 Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC - Applications - current \2007 pc applications \AOLSAMEN.APP 2007.doc 1 CARMEL 0001234 Present Use of Property : Vacant wooded lot Proposed Use Construction of new four story full service Holiday Inn of Property: New Construction? Yes xx No New/Revised Sign? Yes xx No Remodeled Construction: Yes No xx New Parking? Yes XX No New Landscaping? Yes XX No Note that required fees are due after the application has received a docket number, and not at the time of application submittal. Do NOT bring application fees at the time of submittal Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMEN.APP 2007.doc 2 CARMEL 0001235 No. of Spaces Provided: 711 Type of Building: hotel P Design Information No. of Buildings: No. Spaces Required: 103 one 5, 0' ' 50 feet fVU.r Square Footage: Height: No. of Stories Exterior Materials: Brick, glass Colors: Beige -brown with red /rose accent of GUe5t5 Maximum No. off: 103 Type of Uses: hotel Water by: Carmel Sewer by: Carmel LIGHTING Type of Fixture: Height of Fixture: No. of Fixtures: Additional Lighting: * Plans to be submitted showing Fcot- candle spreads at property lines, per the ordinance. SIGNAGE Nc. of Signs: Type of Signs: Location(s): Dimensions of each sign: Square Footage of each sign: Total Height of each sign: LANDSCAPING * Plans to be submitted showing plant types, sizes, and locations ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** I the undersigned, to the best of my knowledge and belief, submit the above information as true and correct. Signature of Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current\2007 pc applications \AOLSAMEN.APP 2007.doc 3 CARMEL 0001236 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Applicant: V/ (`�'� ✓9— Title: (1� tvt_ C Date: L'2 -2--0-1 (Print) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * State of Indiana, County of 4P1MILT I*J SS: Before me the undersigned, a Notary Public for�v County, _ State of Indiana, personally appeared) -OCOL 0124_ 4 sr 53 ow v�ge,Y1 ie execution of the foregoing instrument this 2_ day of )t.L& . , 20 h-1 Mv Commission Expires: '-29( '-U9 No Public Jam( C)1v1 CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES (DOCS) 1 Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032 (3rd floor) 571 -2417 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, LIGHTING SIGNAGE REVIEW (REVIEW /APPROVAL) Procedure for Plan Commission For Business Zones, U.S. 31 Meridian Street Corridor, U.S. 431 Keystone Avenue Corridor and the U.S.421 Michigan Road Corridor 1. Allow plenty of time for review and approval process (approximately .two (2) months). 2. Discuss proposed project with DOCS staff (please call for an appointment to discuss review procedure and appropriate dates) first week of the month, works the best to begin a project. 3. INFORMATION NEEDED for formal DOCS staff and Plan Commission review: a. Two copies of formal application with required information b. Two copies of legal description c. Two location maps showing location of subject site, zoning and existing land uses of all adjacent properties. d. Two copies of a detailed site development plan showing: 1) Detailed drainage plan with drainage calculations. If project is in Clay Township, take to Kent Ward, County Surveyor (776 -9626) and John South, U.S. Soil Conservation Service (773 - 1406). If project is in City of Carmel, discuss with Kate Boyle, City Engineer at 571- 2441.. 2) Lighting plan - footcandle limits Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMEN.APp 2D07.doc 4 CARMEL 0001237 - type of fixture - size or fixture 3) Landscaping plan - location of plantings - type and sizes of plantings - Planting legend - Planting details - Mounding locations and details 4) Signage plan and details - Size and location - Materials and colors 5) Parking plan: show handicapped spaces /total spaces needed per zone /spaces proposed 6) Site plan with: - side, rear and front yard setbacks - Perimeter drainage and utility easements - Sewer and water line locations - Special setbacks or greenbelts - Building square footage - Dimensions of building - Location of mechanical equipment and trash receptacle with screening and details - Pavement and curbing details - Proposed road improvements - Sidewalks - Loading and dock areas - Fire hydrant and siamese locations 7) Building Elevations: (all sides) - Dimensions - Materials and colors - Bring Samples of materials to the Plan Commission meeting - Signage location 8) Soils map and floodplain information 9) Technical Advisory Committee correspondence 10) If public hearing required, list of adjacent property owners two properties deep or 660 feet, whichever is less (obtain from Hamilton County Auditor's office, Noblesville, Indiana) 4. Once all information is presented to DOCS and a review completed for compliance, a Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMEN.APP 2007.doc 5 CARMEL 0001238 docket number will be released when the filing fee is submitted. 5. Petitioner or representative must appear at the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (public hearing) and give a presentation. The presentation should include information relative to the project and should be presented on a poster board so that it can be seen from 20 feet. In addition, reduced packets (8 -1/2" x 11 ") packets of the poster board project information should be handed out for each Plan Commission member. 6. Petitioner or representative must attend the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on Wednesday following the Plan Commission Meeting. 7. Petitioner or representative must attend the Industrial and Commercial Subcommittee to review all pertinent information. 8. Petitioner or representative must attend the second Plan Commission meeting for final vote (questions may need to be answered). 9. Once Plan Commission has voted on the project, it is up to the petitioner to work with the staff to obtain proper building permits. Revised: 12/29/2006 S: \FORMS \PC Applications - current \2007 pc applications \ADLSAMEN.APP 2007.doc 6 CARMEL 0001239 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:27 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Holmes, Christine B Cc: spatel @ midwesthospitality.com; Michael L. DeBoy; Steve Fehribach Subject: Holiday Inn Mike, as you know, the Special Studies Committee will return the Holiday Inn application to the Plan Commission without a recommendation since the committee considers traffic at 136th and Old Meridian and now ProMed Lane and 136th street issues. I need your assistance well in advance of the April 15th PC meeting to resolve with DOE which of the alternatives we propose in our traffic study as acceptable to DOCS in order to get our petition approved. Would you please confer with Gary Duncan and inform me and members of the PC your preference to resolve the two intersections. Thank you. 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001264 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:57 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; McBride, Mike T Cc: Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian Thanks so much Mike. Gary Original Message From: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> To: "McBride, Mike T" <MMcBride @carmel.in.gov> Cc: "gduncan @carmel.in.gov aconn @carmel.in.gov" <gduncan @carmel.in.gov aconn @carmel.in.gov> Sent: 03- Apr -08 16:48 Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian I don't think our street network is flexible enough to eliminate turns at that intersection...I believe the school busses use Smoky, if we eliminate turns here, that forces traffic to travel further, puts more pressure on other segments and intersections, make turns at other locations...etc. I'm wondering if the turn movement can be better defined, with a median at smoky row, which essentially acts as a visual marker to better guide turning. The paved area is very broad with poor visibility, slope isses, etc... Whether that would help solve the problem, not sure. To go back to your question, I'm against eliminating left turns... Thanks for asking mike Original Message From: "McBride, Mike T" <MMcBride @carmel.in.gov> To: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> Cc: "Duncan, Gary R" <gduncan @carmel.in.gov> Sent: 4/3/08 1:57 PM Subject: RE: Traffic Operations Analysis for 136th and Old Meridian How do you feel about eliminating the left turns from Old Meridian to 136th St. From a traffic standpoint, fewer left turns is generally safer; however, for an access standpoint, I have some concerns. This is the primary access form the west to the northern edge of Old Town. I also think it could cause short term issues for our roundabout at Old Meridian and Guilford. However, MY SINGLE BIGGEST CONCERN is that if we cut off the left turning access this will affect INDOT's analysis of the intersection and I think we'll be hard pressed to get full access at this location when the State does there interchange. My suggestion would be to continue to allow the left turns based on all these factors and also the fact that this development adds a negligible amount of traffic in the peak hours at best. We'll formulate a response to Sue but wanted you to hear our concerns first. Michael T. McBride, P.E. City Engineer 1 CARMEL 0001265 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 8:42 AM To: 'DCoots @chwlaw.com' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; McBride, Mike T Subject: Holiday Inn Dave, Engineering is agreeable to the proposed plan to re- stripe the intersection of 136th Street and Old Meridian Street to create dedicated westbound left and right turns and installation of a gravel shoulder adjacent to the paved shoulder some distance back from the intersection. The Department has reservations with the installation of a median on Old Meridian Street to eliminate left turning movement at this intersection and do not recommend the implementation of this finding of the study. Our reservations are based on the impact this change to the traffic pattern will have on the street network in the area. It is apparent from the traffic study that the intersection of Pro -Med Lane and Smokey Row Road will operate at an acceptable level of service with the increase in traffic due to the hotel /conference center. The Department does not recommend any modifications to this intersection. Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov 1 CARMEL 0001266 Page 1 of 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:41 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hill, Dick B; McBride, Mike T; Redden, Nick Subject: RE: Updated: Discuss plan commission items 1. Staybridge and Legacy Towns and Flats. We have no issues with these going to committee; as I assume they will. We have commented on each of these and are awaiting responses -but had no significant issues. I was late getting the TAC comments out which is why they have not responded to date. 2. 146th and Gray Waiver. We have no issues with this going to committee or if the Plan Commission votes to approve the waiver. 3. 146th and Gray Re -Zone. Engineering Department has no issues. 4. 146th and Gray Primary Plat -We will have no issues with approval provided such approval is conditioned upon working out any unresolved issues with Engineering when the Secondary Plat or Construction Drawings are filed. There are three items: (1) Formalized commitments for Thoroughfare Plan improvements. The latest response letter indicates that the petitioner will provide the necessary commitments. We have not seen the documents, however; (2) The petitioner shall acknowledge at the meeting that the Minimum Lowest Adjacent Grade shall be considered in addition to the provided Minimum Flood Protection Grade in the final design and that the City will review the highest noted elevation of the adjacent flooding source (the Mitchener Ditch and the proposed detention facility and the overflow weir elevation); (3) the Secondary Plat shall comply with the easement requirements of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual and the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Perimeter easements per the SDCO are not provided. Even though the drainage is expected to be a private system, certain easements may be required over the storm piping if right -of -way drainage is conveyed through the piping system. 5. Holiday Inn -The Department has no issues with the approval of this project. There may still be some items to be resolved on the final construction plans; but as a whole, the Department no longer has any issues with the development plan. 6. Old Meridian Plaza -There are still issues related to access and the opposing curb cut modifications that need to be addressed before Engineering provides a favorable recommendation for approval. We may have these items worked out prior to the meeting and will notify you if we do. I am also uncertain if a shared access easement has been indicated to allow a shared access for future development to the south. Gary Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 13:53 To: Duncan, Gary R Subject: RE: Updated: Discuss plan commission items 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001267 Page 2 of 3 Thant is Fine with me, as long as I can get your email before 3pm Thursday. Thank you. O Angie From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:24 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Updated: Discuss plan commission items I will take you up on this. I am working on BPW letters. Staff report email late today or first thing tomorrow morning. G Gary R Duncan Jr., P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:16 To: Duncan, Gary R Subject: Updated: Discuss plan commission items HI, Gary: if you cannot meet with me today, please email me your comments on each plan commission item. Thanks! 2 -4H. Docket No. 08020021 DP Amend/ADLS Amend: Staybridge Suites The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 3 -story extended stay hotel. The applicant also seeks the following commitment amendment and zoning waiver approvals: Docket No. 08020022 CA amendment of parcel's previous commitments Docket No. 08020023 ZW Chapter 23E.09.E.1: building must face Pennsylvania St. The site is located at the 10800 block of Pennsylvania St. and is zoned B -6 /Business within the West Home Place Commercial Corridor — High Intensity area. Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson & Frankenberger for Hotel Development Services, LLC. 5H. Docket No. 08020028 DP /ADLS: The Legacy Towns & Flats The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a retail /residential development of 23 buildings with 288 residential units. The site is located southeast of the 7000 block of E. 146th St. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for J.C. Hart Company, Inc. 6H. Docket No. 08030003 SW: 146th and Gray Office Complex The applicant requests approval for a subdivision waiver, in addition to its primary plat approval for 8 lots on 11.6 acres: Docket No. 08030003 SW SCO 6.05.01 all lots shall abut a public right of way The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S -1 /Residence, pending a B -1 /Business rezone (with restrictions). Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. H. Old Business: 7I. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S- 1/Residence to B- 1Business (with restrictions) for an office /retail development. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 8I. Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 8 lots on 11.6 acres. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S- I/Residence, pending a B -1/ Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 3I. Docket No. 08010011 DP /ADLS: Old Meridian Plaza (RA Franke Subdivision, lot #8A) The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 4 -story office /retail building. The site is located at 12863 Old Meridian St. and is zoned OM/MU- Old Meridian, Mixed Use. Filed by Ersal Ozdemir of Keystone Group, LLC. 4I. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001268 Page 3 of 3 The applicant seeks site plan approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 1 36th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 5I. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov 3/5/2009 CARMEL 0001269 •=f-k.a.-0-Ja,c704..— #1. ,.- 46-,-, A44-'14-5 3), o T)vlt.uL.daL a�,.i � �...:.�. ��. � a... -_ ► `tea- ....�� CARMEL 0001270 ME NOBLE ELEDGEII Plea deal could put former operator of Hoosier Hotties in prison 5'/2. years By Katie Merlie Katie.Merlie@ TheNoblesvilleLedger.com NOBLESVILLE — The former operator of Hoosier Hotties escort service pleaded guilty Thursday to a prostitution charge and could face up to four years in prison. Chad D. McClellan, 37, In- dianapolis, pleaded guilty to felony charges of promoting prostitution and money laundering. The charges to- gether carry a maximum prison term of 11 years. According to the plea agreement, McClellan could . be sentenced up to four years for the prostitution charge, and 18 months for money laundering. McClel- lan will be sentenced for the Hamilton County charges July 10. In February 2006, investi- gators from the Hamilton. County Sheriff's Department:: arrested McClellan, who then lived in Cicero. Police believed he was operating an Internet business that in- volved prostitution out of JOE VITTI / 2007 Star file photo Former operator of Hoosier Hotties escort service Chad McClellan, . 37, Indianapolis, pleaded guilty Thursday to prostitution and money laundering charges. This photo was taken in April 2007 at the Ham- ilton County Jail. He was a Cicero resident when he was arrested in 2006. his home. " Undercover officers Kevin Jowitt, who was a say they made a reservation Sheriff's Department inves- through the Hoosier Hotties tigator in 2006, said then Web site to meet two. Indi- that it is only illegal to oper- anapolis women ate an escort service if 't Fishershotels Officers money is paid in exchange said McClellan made the for sex. reservation. McClellan's attorney, Dan Henke, said during Thursday's guilty plea hear- ing that his client's sentence will be determined by the court. However, he did ask that the sentences be served concurrently. Hamilton Superior Court 1 Judge Steve Nation said he will take into consideration a motion to dismiss the 10 remaining felony charges against McClellan, which in- elude federal tax evasion, theft and corrupt business influence. Hamilton County Deputy Prosecutor Bob Summerfield said McClellan is also charged in Marion County with three felony counts of tax evasion, theft and failure to remit sales tax. Summer- field said an agreement has been made that at the con- clusion of the Hamilton County case, the Marion County charges against McClellan will be dropped. * Call Noblesville Ledger reporter Katie Merlie at (317) 444 -5549. CARMEL 0001271 HOLIDAY INN (PRO -MED DRIVE) HISTORY OF APPLICATION: An anniversary has passed without a decision. In March, 2007 the public hearing was scheduled for the Holiday Inn application. Because of lack of follow through by the petitioner, two months in a row passed before the actual public hearing took place in May, 2007. That was the last time that the voices of those in opposition have been heard, unless those opposing have put their thoughts in writing. Each month since June, 2007 either the special committee meeting has been tabled or the applicant has brought some portion of the required information to the meeting. To date, not all information has been provided. Meanwhile, the members of the Plan Commission and City Council have changed, which has changed the members on the special committee and its chairman as well. QUESTION: Have all these delays on the part of the applicant been planned to await these changes and a loss of focus because of time and lack of continuity? The 2007 committee members stated more than once that this application is like fitting a square peg in a round hole. They also stated that the 2005 traffic report was considered to be invalid and therefore not reliable. Based on that opinion, the petitioner ordered a traffic study by A &F Engineering Co., LLC which reported a count and then referenced the 2005 study for 136th and Old Meridian. When the committee requested further review, the traffic study was revised by sending a truck out with personnel to do a count during what they considered peak time. Normal peak time does not reflect school traffic including young people driving, school buses, and regular business and hospital traffic. At the April, 2008 committee meeting the representative from A &F Engineering stated that the study was done to meet the client's needs. That was a blatant admission that the study was biased. Also, the representative stated that new construction and /or approved construction on Smokey Row Road was not taken into consideration in their report. Also, the question was not asked, nor was information given about taking into consideration regarding the approved Justus office building. FYI: In checking with the City of Carmel Engineering Department, it was indicated that when the City of Carmel does a traffic study, it is normally done with a counter over a period of time. As of March 31, 2008 I checked with the Department of Community Services to see if any information had been received regarding drainage (that was a requirement that had not been received at the March, 2008 committee meeting and needed prior to the April 1, 2008 meeting. May it be here suggested that if an applicant cannot get their ducks in a row in a timely manner, they should be automatically denied. The public has made the effort to attend every meeting (many of which have been tabled after arriving at city hall). CARMEL HISTORY INFLUENCING THE HOLIDAY INN APPLICATION: The writer served on the Plan Commission from 1976 -1982 and on the City Council from 1980 -1984. Perhaps the most significant element of that participation was a question CARMEL 0001272 asked at a Plan Commission meeting: "What are we going to do about US 31 (Meridian)? Is it going to look like Keystone and 52nd?" As a result of that question, the writer, a prominent Carmel developer and the City Planner met. The result was the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone approved when the writer was President of the Plan Commission in 1980 -1981. When approved, one criteria of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone was a minimum five acre parcel. Does this 2.65 acre subdivided parcel really meet the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Is a Holiday Inn on that 2.65 acre parcel going to violate the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Perhaps some of you remember the Carmel Motel that was located on US 31 (Meridian) approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed location of the proposed Holiday Inn location. After inappropriate activities which included discovery of the body of a murdered woman, the City of Carmel condemned the Carmel Motel and it was demolished. More recently in the news is the esteemed Mayflower in Washington, D.C. and inappropriate activities. A motel or hotel invites transient traffic whereas an office building invites professional business people offering a service during daytime and daylight hours. I do not recall if it has been discussed that the Holiday Inn will have a liquor license, but that also invites traffic hazards on what is already a very precarious curve in the road that is over congested without full development of the already approved projects. A REQUEST: In the interest of the "health, safety and welfare" of the immediate community in the area where the proposed Holiday Inn would have a major impact on the "health, safety, and welfare" of those residents in the area and those who travel the area, a request is made to have the City of Carmel commission a true and honest traffic study without bias and reflecting all approved projects to the east. Also the INDOT plan for the intersections where ProMed Drive, Smokey Row Road, Old Meridian, Guilford Road, and US 31 (Meridian) converge should be taken into consideration. Since it has been over a year since the Holiday Inn project was first introduced, perhaps the petitioner could wait a year to see the true picture of this important traffic pattern once INDOT and the City of Carmel have a plan in place. At present, the new round about moves the traffic such that there is increased difficulty for those coming from the east on Smokey Row Road. Also, at night for those wanting to go east on Smokey Row Road from US 31, visibility is poor. Since information regarding drainage from the project has yet to be in the hands of the Department of Community Services as of March 31st, there should be careful review and study of the impact on the residences of Kensington Place which is positioned well below the approved Justus Office building and the proposed Holiday Inn. There should not be a hasty decision to approve, and this is one project in the words of past and present Plan Commission committee members fitting a square peg in a round hole does not fit. Denial of this project would best serve the interests of all of Carmel. With respect and appreciation for the many hours you devote to serve our community, Virginia L. Kerr (317)714 -4637 4/1/08 CARMEL 0001273 HOLIDAY INN (PRO -MED DRIVE) HISTORY OF APPLICATION: An anniversary has passed without a decision. In March, 2007 the public hearing was scheduled for the Holiday Inn application. Because of lack of follow through by the petitioner, two months in a row passed before the actual public hearing took place in May, 2007. That was the last time that the voices of those in opposition have been heard, unless those opposing have put their thoughts in writing. Each month since June, 2007 either the special committee meeting has been tabled or the applicant has brought some portion of the required information to the meeting. To date, not all information has been provided. Meanwhile, the members of the Plan Commission and City Council have changed, which has changed the members on the special committee and its chairman as well. QUESTION: Have all these delays on the part of the applicant been planned to await these changes and a loss of focus because of time and lack of continuity? The 2007 committee members stated more than once that this application is like fitting a square peg in a round hole. They also stated that the 2005 traffic report was considered to be invalid and therefore not reliable. Based on that opinion, the petitioner ordered a traffic study by A &F Engineering Co., LLC which reported a count and then referenced the 2005 study for 136th and Old Meridian. When the committee requested further review, the traffic study was revised by sending a truck out with personnel to do a count during what they considered peak time. Normal peak time does not reflect school traffic including young people driving, school buses, and regular business and hospital traffic. At the April, 2008 committee meeting the representative from A &F Engineering stated that the study was done to meet the client's needs. That was a blatant admission that the study was biased. Also, the representative stated that new construction and /or approved construction on Smokey Row Road was not taken into consideration in their report. Also, the question was not asked, nor was information given about taking into consideration regarding the approved Justus office building. FYI: In checking with the City of Carmel Engineering Department, it was indicated that when the City of Carmel does a traffic study, it is normally done with a counter over a period of time. As of March 31, 2008 I checked with the Department of Community Services to see if any information had been received regarding drainage (that was a requirement that had not been received at the March, 2008 committee meeting and needed prior to the April 1, 2008 meeting. May it be here suggested that if an applicant cannot get their ducks in a row in a timely manner, they should be automatically denied. The public has made the effort to attend every meeting (many of which have been tabled after arriving at city hall). CARMEL HISTORY INFLUENCING THE HOLIDAY INN APPLICATION: The writer served on the Plan Commission from 1976 -1982 and on the City Council from 1980 -1984. Perhaps the most significant element of that participation was a question CARMEL 0001276 asked at a Plan Commission meeting: "What are we going to do about US 31 (Meridian)? Is it going to look like Keystone and 52°' ?" As a result of that question, the writer, a prominent Carmel developer and the City Planner met. The result was the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone approved when the writer was President of the Plan Commission in 1980 -1981. When approved, one criteria of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone was a minimum five acre parcel. Does this 2.65 acre subdivided parcel really meet the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Is a Holiday Inn on that 2.65 acre parcel going to violate the original intent of the Meridian Corridor Overlay Zone? Perhaps some of you remember the Carmel Motel that was located on US 31 (Meridian) approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed location of the proposed Holiday Inn location. After inappropriate activities which included discovery of the body of a murdered woman, the City of Carmel condemned the Carmel Motel and it was demolished. More recently in the news is the esteemed Mayflower in Washington, D.C. and inappropriate activities. A motel or hotel invites transient traffic whereas an office building invites professional business people offering a service during daytime and daylight hours. I do not recall if it has been discussed that the Holiday Inn will have a liquor license, but that also invites traffic hazards on what is already a very precarious curve in the road that is over congested without full development of the already approved projects. A REQUEST: In the interest of the "health, safety and welfare" of the immediate community in the area where the proposed Holiday Inn would have a major impact on the "health, safety, and welfare" of those residents in the area and those who travel the area, a request is made to have the City of Carmel commission a true and honest traffic study without bias and reflecting all approved projects to the east. Also the INDOT plan for the intersections where ProMed Drive, Smokey Row Road, Old Meridian, Guilford Road, and US 31 (Meridian) converge should be taken into consideration. Since it has been over a year since the Holiday Inn project was first introduced, perhaps the petitioner could wait a year to see the true picture of this important traffic pattern once INDOT and the City of Carmel have a plan in place. At present, the new round about moves the traffic such that there is increased difficulty for those coming from the east on Smokey Row Road. Also, at night for those wanting to go east on Smokey Row Road from US 31, visibility is poor. Since information regarding drainage from the project has yet to be in the hands of the Department of Community Services as of March 31st, there should be careful review and study of the impact on the residences of Kensington Place which is positioned well below the approved Justus Office building and the proposed Holiday Inn. There should not be a hasty decision to approve, and this is one project in the words of past and present Plan Commission committee members fitting a square peg in a round hole does not fit. Denial of this project would best serve the interests of all of Carmel. With respect and appreciation for the many hours you devote to serve our community, Virginia L. Kerr (317)714 -4637 4/1/08 CARMEL 0001277 HOLIDAY INN TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS As a resident of Kensington Place, I would like to provide you with my comments concerning the proposed Holiday Inn adjacent to our neighborhood. These comments are an analysis and comparison of the Applicant's "Traffic Operations Analysis" report with the DOCD Applicant Guide. I have reviewed the Applicant's Guide that Carmel Plan Commission has used since it was adopted in 2- 18 -92. This reference is "Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Development" and below I cite the specific section and then provide my comments after each concern. Section II, Complete Transportation Study, page 3 2 types of studies: DOCD determines type of study 1. Complete Transportation Study (has 3 levels) 2, Traffic Operation Analysis, page 4 This type of study was chosen COMMENT: DOCD should justify why a more detailed type study was used. Section V, Study Area, page 7 "Generally the study area must be large enough to encompass the critical intersections to be analyzed and the vacant land, which once developed, is believed to have a significant impact upon them." COMMENT: No reference in the A &F Study where this condition was addressed. There are many new residences which have been built and many more now under construction on 136 St. between the High School and Old Meridian. There are over 600 parking spaces that have been approved in 3 Developments. This means more traffic than what the limited study scope has shown! In addition there have been several residential Developments south on Old Meridian, that once completed, will add many more travelers. This type of inadequate data casts a shadow on all of the design work that the Applicant has submitted. Section VII, Development To Be Analyzed, page 9 Non -Site Within Study Area "All significant developments within the study area that have been approved or are likely to occur by the specific horizon years should be identified and incorporated into the study" COMMENT: This condition is similar to the above. The Study does not reference any data that was collected or analyzed in this study to meet this requirement. I would suggest the Plan Commission request the DOCD make a list of all such developments that are described in this Section and determine their impact. CARMEL 0001278 DATES OF TRAFFICE COUNTS: The construction of the roundabout at Old Meridian and Guilford resulted in the closing of traffic on these streets for several months. According to Engineering, the roundabout was opened on October 22, 2007, however construction continued on until sometime in December. The survey dates chosen were November 7 and 15, 2007. The roundabout was open, but not widely known; therefore traffic was not up to "normal" usage. Thus, traffic counts would have been much less. Generally, it is assumed that it takes time for the public to start using an area after it has been closed for a lengthy period. USE OF 2005 TRAFFIC STUDIES The consultants apparently felt that data collected in November, 2007 were inadequate, so additional information was needed to support their study. The Engineering Staff indicated that the consultants chose to "use these data collected on June 29, 2005 because Old Meridian was closed, or low traveled ". This certainly supports the assumption from above regarding use of areas after major construction. Furthermore, the use of data collected in June, 2005 (almost 3 years old) when the Carmel High School was in vacation mode, is certainly questionable. Engineering said that the consultant used a 3% extrapolation factor for each year. Question is where did the 3% figure come from? Does it compensate for lesser use during school vacation? Does it include the impact of the housing developments on 136th, (with a total of 600 parking spaces on the 3 townhouse developments now under construction), Old Meridian ( # ?), and Guilford( # ?)? These unknowns will all have an impact on the traffic data in the study area. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the "Traffic Operations Analysis" are questionable for the following reasons: 1. Using data from a recently opened roundabout 2. Using old data from 2005 for a 3% extrapolation purpose 3. Using old 2005 data from June, at vacation time when student traffic is minimal 4. Not considering the impacts of existing housing under construction in the area 5. Not considering projects in the area that have been recently approved 6. Not complying with the DOCD Guide 7. Poor planning and data presentation wasted much time for the Plan Commission and the Public. RECOMMENDATIONS: The "Traffic Operations Analysis" was not designed well and inadequate data were used to support a biased result. All of their recommendations have been based on "questionable" data. The Plan Commission should turn down this application and have the applicant start over using a land use that is more compatible with the physical and environmental restrictions of the site. Submitted by Gary Doxtater, 13599 Kensington Place, Carmel, IN 575 -8818 4 -15 -08 CARMEL 0001279 April 15, 2008 Carmel Plan Commission Agenda The site is located at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S- 1/Residence, pending a B- 1/Business rezone (with restrictions). Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. I. Old Business: H. Docket No. 07070003 Z: 146th & Gray Rezone (146th St Office Complex) The applicant seeks approval to rezone 11.6 acres from S- 1/Residence to B-1/Business (with restrictions) for an office /retail development. The site is at the southeast corner of 146`h St. and Gray Rd. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 2I. Docket No. 07070004 PP: 146th St Office Complex The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 8 lots on 11.6 acres. The site is at the southeast corner of 146th St. and Gray Rd. and is zoned S- 1/Residence, pending a B -1/ Business rezone. Filed by Kelli Lawrence of Hearthview Residential, LLC. 3I. Docket No. 08010011 DP /ADLS: Old Meridian Plaza (RA Franke Subdivision, lot #8A) The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a 4 -story office /retail building. The site is located at 12863 Old Meridian St. and is zoned OM/MU- Old Meridian, Mixed Use. Filed by Ersal Ozdemir of Keystone Group, LLC. 4I. Docket No. 08030002 CPA: Bicycle Routes & Loops Systems Plan The applicant seeks to amend the Thoroughfare Plan section of the Carmel /Clay Comprehensive Plan, in order to propose and identify a system of Bicycle Routes and Loops on existing facilities. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. 5I. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 6I. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. J. Adjournment ONE CIVIC SQUARE File: PC- 2008- 0415.doc Page 2of2 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001280 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT (AMENDED) April 15, 2008 5I. Docket No. 07030035 DP:;Pro- Med aLane - HolidayYlnn The applicant =seeks site plan approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 6I. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. The applicant seeks approval for the development plan of this site for a 4 -story full- service hotel with a restaurant and conference space, within. The applicant also seeks architecture /design approval. The site is 2.65 acres. The lot cover percentage is 62% (under the required 65 %), with pavement and building footprint included. There will be some pervious pavement and brick pavers to help with water detention and infiltration. Underground parking is also proposed in order to meet the parking requirement for a hotel, conference meeting space, and restaurant. Wall signs are on the north and west building facades facing 136t Street & Old Meridian St. There are no variance requests pending before the BZA for this project; the petitioner meets all of the ordinance requirements. Also, the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as a medium to low intensity regional- community employment area Please see the petitioner's information packet for full details. March 4 Committee meeting — brief overview of comments: 1. The petitioner will either build a lane right turn lane on the north side of 136`h Street from Pro -Med Lane to Old Meridian or pay into a fund, until INDOT decides what they are going to do. 2. One of the reasons for the revised landscape plan was due to changing the dumpster location. 3. If the petitioner does not get the up -to -date materials /updated traffic data/new exhibits to the Department in advance of the meeting for distribution to Committee, the petitioner will table. 4. Off -site drainage and flood plain issue is still under review; the drainage plan has been submitted to DOE and the petitioner is awaiting final approval. 5. DOCS requests accurate counts for the traffic study and would also like to see traffic counts from the townhomes to the east. The Committee needs Engineering and DOCS confirmation that there will be no traffic problems. April 1 Committee meeting — brief overview of comments: 1. Traffic safety is still a concern. 2. The east buffer needs more evergreens. 3. The committee voted 4 -0, to send this item to the full Plan Commission with No Recommendation. The following are various City Departments' comments /concerns: 1. Department of Engineering (DOE) comments: DOE no longer has any issues with the development plan and has no issues with the Commission approving the project. 2. The Dept of Engineering is agreeable to the proposed plan to re -stripe the intersection of 136th St. and Old Meridian St. to create dedicated westbound left and right turns and installation of a gravel shoulder adjacent to the paved shoulder. 3. The Department of Engineering has reservations with the installation of a median on Old Meridian Street to eliminate left turning movement at this intersection and does not recommend the CARMEL 0001281 implementation of this finding of the study. DOE's reservations are based on the impact this change to the traffic pattern will have on the street network in the area. 4. It is apparent from the traffic study that the intersection of Pro -Med Lane and Smokey Row Road will operate at an acceptable level of service, even with the increase in traffic due to the hotel/conference center. The Department of Engineering does not recommend any modifications to this intersection. 5. The Engineering Dept will try to get the SWPP (storm water pollution prevention) plans approved prior to the Plan Commission meeting on the 15th. If not, they can still hold approval of the CD's until any outstanding issues are addressed. 6. Urban Forestry Dept comments: The City Forester still finds discrepancies between the tree preservation plan and the construction documents. 7. DOCS and DOE have reviewed the updated traffic report, met with the traffic engineer, and agree that the implementation of the study's road improvement recommendations will indeed help with traffic congestion at the intersection of Smokey Row Rd & Old Meridian Street. 8. The petitioner should provide the Findings of Fact sheet to the Commission, found in the Development Plan application. When voting, the Commission must take into account all factors, including whether or not the project: i. Creates and maintains a desirable, efficient and economical use of land with high functional and aesthetic value, attractiveness and compatibility of land uses, within the District and with adjacent uses; ii: Provides sufficient and well- designed access, parking and loading areas; iii. Provides traffic control and street plan integration with existing and planned public streets and interior access roads; iv. Provides adequately for sanitation, drainage and public utilities; and v. Allocates adequate sites for all uses proposed, the design, character, grade, location and orientation thereof being appropriate for the uses proposed, logically related to existing and proposed topographical and other conditions, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Department of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Commission vote on a positive or negative motion this evening. CARMEL 0001282 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DocketNo.: 07030035 DP Name of Project: Pro Med Lane - Holiday Inn Petitioner: Midwest Hospitality Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner and upon the Department Report of the Department of Community Services, dated, we determine that the Development Plan complies with the Standards set forth in the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance. We hereby approve the Development Plan as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by the Petitioner. Condition 1. Condition 2. We hereby disapprove of the Development Plan as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS DAY OF , 2008. Commission Member CARMEL 0001283 IN THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSI IN RE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, EXTERIOR LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND SIGNAGE APPROVAL of MIDWEST HOSPITALITY GROUP, Applicant Docket Nos. 0 035 DP and (07070009 ADLS April 15, 2008 DECISION Upon application and after a public hearing pursuant to the Advisory Planning Law of the State of Indiana and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the Commission hereby denies, by a 9 -0 vote, the application for DP /ADLS approval filed by the Applicant. Members voting to deny: Leo Dierckman, Jay Dorman, Kevin Rider, Rick Ripma, Carol Schleif, Steve Stromquist, Sue Westermeier Member voting to approve: None. Members absent and not voting: Dan Dutcher, Wayne Haney, Kevin Heber, Madeleine Torres. FINDINGS In accordance with the Carmel Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance "), the Commission hereby determines that the Applicant's Development Plan and ADLS Proposal (the "Proposal ") should be disapproved pursuant to the following provisions of the Ordinance: — 'SC ann — CARMEL 0001284 §23B.02.A.2.a: The Proposal is not compatible with existing site features including topography and wooded areas, in that the Proposal necessitates excessive utilization of retaining walls and calls for the destruction of virtually all of a mature woodland. §23B.02.A.2.c: The Proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses, which uses have been developed without modifying the topography and woodlands so drastically. §23B.02.A.2.h: The Proposal does not provide for adequate vehicle and bicycle parking facilities and internal site circulation, in that the proposed bicycle path is only five feet wide, and the parking facilities would accommodate only 155 vehicles when the Ordinance requires 169 to be accommodated. §23B.02.A.2.n: The Proposal is not compatible with existing platted residential uses, in that the building setbacks with accompanying landscape plans are not sufficient to safeguard the privacy and quiet enjoyment of the neighboring residents. §23B.08: The Proposal does not orient the new building with its longest axis parallel to the adjoining street as required to create a sense of enclosure along the street, nor does the Proposal locate all parking to the rear or the side of the building as necessary to accomplish this purpose. §23B.09.B: The Proposal does not use only permitted materials for the building exteriors, in that an uncertain percentage of EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finishing System) is utilized as an exterior finish. §23B.09.E(2): The Applicant's presentation of the Proposal did not include all required architectural exhibits, in that no perspective color renderings showing the proposed building from locations along U.S. 31 were provided to the Commission, and the building elevations that 2 CARMEL 0001285 were provided did not show how the parking structure would be ventilated nor how openings to the parking structure would fit in with the rest of the building. §23B.10.02.C(1): The Proposal does not show a planting area equal to an area measuring 25 feet in depth by the width of the front of the building plus 20 feet out on both sides along the building facade that faces U.S. 31, nor does it include as an alternative an innovative and original design for the planting area as encouraged by §23B.10.C(5). §23B.10.04: The Proposal does not make a reasonable effort to protect and incorporate the existing stands of trees into the overall site design, in that fewer than 70% of all trees that are nine -inch DBH or larger and located within the perimeter buffering were preserved. §23B.16: The Proposal does not include a roof on the accessory structure for refuse storage. §24.02.B.3.a: The Applicant's presentation of the Proposal did not include a traffic study that provided a meaningful comparative analysis of present volumes on streets bordering the development, in that the traffic data that were provided were flawed due to the times of day studied (ignoring traffic generated by Carmel High School students at school start/close times) or dates of study (data having been compiled during Carmel High School vacation periods). Filed in the Office of the Carmel Plan Commission this 30th day of May, 2008. Leo Dierckman President ATT,FST: Ir2,0-d---- R4.mona Hancock Secretary 3 CARMEL 0001286 City of Ca CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 Minutes The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission met at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present: Leo Dierckman, Jay Dorman, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Rick Ripma, Carol Schleif, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier. The minutes of the March 15, 2008 meeting were approved as submitted. Department of Community Services Staff present: Michael Hollibaugh, Director, and Angie Conn. John Molitor, Legal Counsel was also present. Public Hearings: 1 . Docket No. 08030035 Z: West Park Annex, Rezone The applicant seeks to approval to rezone approximately 40 acres from the S- 1/Residence zoning classification to P- 1/Parks and Recreation. The site is located at 3030 W 116th St (just west of West Park) and lies within the West 116th Street Overlay. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission & Carmel/Clay Board of Parks & Recreation. Mark Westermeier, Director, Carmel Parks & Recreation, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant. The Parks Dept has been leasing the site for the past few years and has now purchased the property at the completion of its lease. There are NO specific plans for development at this time. The Parks Dept is in the process of completing a two -year study with MIG, a group based in Portland, Oregon. There will be public focus and group meetings. At the completion of the study, the Parks Dept will hire a firm to do a master plan and determine community needs/ wants to meet public demands and what will fit the neighborhood. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition or ask questions; the following appeared: Morris Silverman, Oak Tree Way, asked if approving the rezone would open the door to such things as pony rides and Ferris wheels —Mr. Silverman was not in favor of those types of things. S:/PlanCommission/Minutes/PC/2008/apr 1 5 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001287 Woody Rider commented that when this is reviewed at Council, he would be certain to make safety concerns known. Susan Westermeier made formal motion to forward Docket No. 08030002 CPA: Bicycle Routes & Loops Systems Plan to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, seconded by Woody Rider, Approved 7 -0. Adrienne Keeling announced the dates of the Bike Rodeo for kids at three Carmel schools on May 12, 13, and 14. Note: At this time, John Molitor recommended that the Commission send West Park Annex, Rezone, Docket No. 08030035 Z to the Executive Committee for forwarding to the City Council. There are not enough members present this evening to suspend the Rules of Procedure. The date for the Executive Committee would be determined and published with 48 hours notice. Jay Dorman made formal motion to forward Docket No. 08030035 Z, West Park Annex Rezone to the Executive Committee of the Plan Commission for review, seconded by Woody Rider, approved 7 -0. 5I. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn The applicant seeks site plan approval for a full - service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey Fouts of DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 6I. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a full- service hotel. The site is at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc. Dave Coots, attorney, Coots Henke & Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also present: Sanjay Patel representing Midwest Hospitality Group; Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineering; Mike DeBoy, DeBoy Land Services Engineering. Dave Coots commented that this site was a part of the Pro -Med Development Plan that was approved by the Plan Commission in 1990; this is lot number 2 of that Development Plan. Mr. Coots gave a brief history of the current petition —from filing in February, 2007 for the site development plan and Architectural Design within the Overlay Zone, to public hearing August 21, 2007 to Committee review and referral back to full Commission. The project was delayed at Committee, in part due to the request for a traffic study —Old Meridian was closed at the time of the initial traffic study due to the construction of a roundabout, and in part due to the ability to obtain current numbers on the basis of traffic utilizing the particular area. Therefore, the Committee asked that the traffic numbers be up- dated, and that was done by Mr. Fehribach and a traffic study compiled. The traffic study was reviewed by the Committee and has been made a part of the record and shared with the Dept of Engineering and the Dept of Community Services. If there are questions specific to the traffic study, Mr. Fehribach is in attendance this evening and can respond. The Traffic Study as well as the Department of Engineering recommended the addition of a right -turn lane to the north side of 136`x' Street. With that addition, in their judgment, the development is recommended for approval as modified. The Committee also considered the architectural design of the project. It was made S: /PlanCommission/Minutes /PC /2008 /apr15 11 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001288 known that there were perhaps a few too many colors and too many materials. As a consequence, the materials have been reduced to two different brick being used on the major component of the hotel —and a lower level masonry material being a terra cotta color, and a white color on the border; a total of 4 colors as opposed to the 6 colors initially proposed. The petitioner agreed with the Committee to limit signage to the north and west elevation of the building and not sign anything on the east elevation of the building. The Ordinance addressing the review of the site development plan starts in paragraph 24.01 Purpose and Intent: Development Plan and /or Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping & Signage applications shall generally be considered favorably by the Commission. That is especially so where the Committee has found and the Department supporting the Committee have found that the application conforms with all of the requirements of the Development Plan requirements, and those are located in Chapter 24.02 Development Plan: A. Development Requirements. Two of the requirements are mirrored out of the Indiana Code. Dave Coots represented to the Commission that there have not been any Depaitiuents, including the Dept of Urban Forestry, the Dept of Engineering, the Department of Community Services or others that have found in any way that this application does not meet the Development Requirements set forth in the Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan which is one of the criteria that the Ordinance sets forth that the Commission shall consider in approving a site development plan and ADLS application designates this area as a high, medium intensity regional employment area and the land use map within the Comprehensive Plan — although a suggestion and not an ordinance —it does give the Commission direction as to land uses within the community. As indicated, this is a regional employment area, high to median intensity. More importantly, the zoning on this site is B -6, and B -6 permits this use without any waivers, without any variances or modifications in the Development Plan or otherwise. Dave Coots said it was the petitioner's position that having met those criteria that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance already permit this property to be utilized for this type of development or purpose. The Committee report would indicate that with the modifications that were made, the underground parking garage which increases the parking to a total of 155 spaces, now meets the Ordinance requirements. It is believed that there will not be outside persons using the restaurant facility and this will be controlled by a voucher system for guests of the hotel. Other elements that were considered by the special Studies Committee revolved around the landscape component of the plan and the original tree preservation requirements on the site that were approved for the Pro -Med project. At the suggestion of Ms Schleif, the east elevation of the building will be augmented with evergreens as well as plantings proposed for the eastern portion of the site; this was approved by Scott Brewer and has been worked out with the landscape architect for the petitioner. From the comments made in the Staff Report, the conclusion can be that we have satisfied all of the requirements. There is an inconsistency between the construction drawings and the landscape plan. Again, that has been worked out with Scott Brewer and satisfies comment six (6) on the Staff Report. Dave Coots offered final comments: There has been considerable concern regarding the intersection of Old Meridian and the intersection with US 31. This was taken from the INDOT website as their Plan A as to how they propose to intersect Smokey Row Road (136th Street) down to the roundabout and the intersection with US 31. This is their conclusion as to how it will develop after the completion of the Keystone Avenue project. Scenario Two for the same intersection is the same treatment, except for the plan Carmel has for the roundabout at Smokey Row Road that has been submitted to the Regional Committee. This is still to be S: /PlanCommission/Minutes /PC /2008 /aprl5 12 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001289 decided, but Mr. Coots wanted to share this with the Commission as far as this intersection. A variety of different alternatives was discussed, and the Dept of Engineering and the Dept of Community Services concluded that they preferred the addition of a right -turn lane along the north side of 136th Street at its current intersection with US 31. Committee Report, Rick Ripma: The Committee went over everything —the design of the building, the materials, the colors, the landscaping, parking lot, traffic flow —it came out of Committee with a 4 -0 "No Recommendation" vote to the Plan Commission. Department Report, Angie Conn: All issues have been discussed, lighting, architecture —they have been discussed for over one year. The Department has met with the City Engineer and agreed that the addition of the right turn lane on Smokey Row Road would lessen the congestion at this intersection. The Depai tment recommends a final vote this evening. Commission Discussion: Jay Dorman: At what point in time is the traffic Level of Service below a reasonable service? Angie Conn: The traditional peak hour time, when the most traffic occurs — morning rush hour and evening —the traffic report recommends improvements that would help with peak hours as well as 24 hours a day. Jay Dorman: So, the worst Level of Service is "F ?" Angie Conn: Yes Kevin "Woody" Rider: A lot of residents surrounding this area contacted Woody Regarding the traffic and morning and evening rush hours —this location would have a third peak hour and that is after school in the middle of the afternoon. Was this addressed at all? Steve Fehribach, Traffic Engineer: The count was conducted between 4 and 7 PM. There is probably a period of time when school dismisses — between 3 and 4 PM —when traffic increases; it drops off, the picks up again at 5 and 5:45. There may be a third hour that is high, but the traffic report uses the highest hour for the Level of Service analysis. There probably is a third high traffic hour, but it is not as high as the pm peak hour. When you look at the entire intersection, the school would be an outbound movement from 136th Street. The traffic analysis takes into account all movements at the entire intersection. Carol Schleif asked about previous approvals on this property and whether or not a prior commitment had been made on this property for land use — medical office use only. Angie Conn: When the Pro -Med land was initially rezoned to B -6, there was a conceptual plan for medical office use. There was a traffic study produced with the initial rezone. With the new plan, it is no longer conceptual —a new traffic study was done, the entire public hearing process for approval was gone through At the rezone stage, those uses in the B -6 District were the guidelines. Dave Coots: When the rezone to B -6 was approved in June 1990, commitments were made and recorded. At that time, there was a list of uses excluded, beginning with auto parts and tire center, ending with veterinary hospital and kennel —it did not exclude the proposed use. S:/P1anCommission/Minutes /PC /2008 /apr 15 13 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001290 Jay Dorman said he served on the Plan Commission when this ground was rezoned to B -6 and was confident that at no time did the Commission intend for this property to be anything but a compatible, medical - office -type use and certainly not a hotel. Dave Coots commented that as shown by the traffic study, the proposed use generates less traffic that what was approved in 1990. An office building would generate 171% more traffic that the proposed use because of the spreading out of different hours. Carol Schleif: The B -6 rear yard requirement is 60 feet —the Overlay does not mention rear yard at all. Also, the Overlay talks about intent of the Overlay to orient new buildings with longest access to adjoining highway it pertains to, and having parking in the rear. Was there anything at the time of the rezone that granted permission to put the parking in the front? Angie Conn: The US 31 Overlay does have side and rear yard requirements. In this instance, because it is located adjacent to the Justus Office Project —it is a 15 foot setback within the 31 Overlay District. Carol Schleif: So, are they allowed to put parking in the front at any point in this approval? Angie Conn: I think it's always been permitted. Carol Schleif: Well, 23 B 08 says the intent is to orient the buildings in the Overlay toward the highway with the intent of putting parking in the rear. Carol said she would look it up. Dave Coots: The initial Pro -Med site development plan approval established the setbacks and the orientation of the buildings to run north/south as approved 4 -5 months ago with the Justus Building. The proposed development mirrors that orientation. Parking is to the west of the proposed building; to the east of the Justus building. Carol Schleif had further questions regarding set back and a prior Department Report in November 2007. Michael Hollibaugh addressed the Commission and said the situation had regressed to Committee work. If this Docket was not ready to come out of Committee, the Special Studies Committee should not have sent it on to the Commission. The Department has covered all of the zoning issues —it has been reviewed by Engineering, it has been reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee. There is no recommendation from the Department this evening, but Mike felt that the petitioner had worked hard to bring in a project that met all of the issues that go along with the Overlay Zone, they have designed a building that is largely brick, incorporated underground parking —they have addressed all of the issues. To answer Carol Schleif's question regarding proximity of building to parking, the Overlay Zone has evolved over time and has tried to push the parking behind the buildings. We could not just continue to ask and not get it, which is what was happening. The medical buildings at 106th and US 31 in the northeast corner —those are the last buildings that have parking to the front. We amended the Ordinance in 2000 to require parking to the rear, building to the front. Carol went back to a list of issues that she had prepared that have not yet been resolved, things that are not consistent with this project. Parking is still an issue, trees are an issue, EFIS material on the buildings Dave Coots said the EFIS was taken out and is no longer an issue. Carol Schleif: "I have not seen any drawings —will we see mechanicals from US 31? I spent a couple of S: /PlanCommission/Minutes /PC /2008 /apr15 14 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001291 1 days going over a year's worth of stuff; we did not get a packet —you are not going to win votes here. The garage area —in order to have mechanical ventilation, you've got to have 50% of the area open —where are the windows....I don't see any elevations that show what is going on there. These are issues that should have been resolved a year ago. I guess I know how I'm going to vote here —I'll pass for now. Leo Dierckman commented that this item had been at Committee long enough. The Commission needs to consider the issues and whether or not the proposal meets the criteria. Rick Ripma made formal motion to approve Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn and Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane. The motion died for lack of a second. Carol Schleif made formal motion to deny Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane - Holiday Inn and Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro -Med Lane, seconded by Jay Dorman, approved 7 -0. There was no further business to come before the Commission and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. Leo Dierckman, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:/PlanCommission/Minutes/PC/200 8/apr 1 5 15 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 CARMEL 0001292