2011-Revised Integrated ED Plan/116th Centre Project Area (Draft) Economic Development Plan
Supplement to 126 Street ED Plan
The Integrated ED Plan:
116 th Street Centre
FILED
FEB 28 2011
Project Area
�.or, Ccuc.
AUO(TOR RAMILTON COUNTY
Presented in draft form to the
Carmel Redevelopment Commission
February 9, 2011
Revised November 3, 2010 (per developer agreement)
Revised February 8, 2011 (per developer agreement)
(Revised to designate one parcel
for development as apartments with
$2.4M in total TIF commitments from the CRC)
Presented by:
Wabash Scientific, inc.
Michael R. Shaver, President
3799 Steeplechase Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
317.872.9529
wabsci @aol.com
1 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
II 202 35
11 fiTH STRE ET C ENTRE aBETWEEN COLLEGE AVE s GUILFORD RD ON 176TH STR z
,o K CARMEL, INDIANA 460
9 K
ti ?t n ,t,, s y 2 r a kF aa t$ Y 1 c r d
a x r �h At v 2 N r S C Y'- s. f s
t sa r^ OFFICE /MEDICA 2r
i��J1'', 1, BUILDING'`
o-r? r I 1
i met r '14 r a..•v „d r i,i i- I 1 CE N Orth 4 s P �ta1 70
8^ 1 .«w.4& i •3 f Meridian Mark. f
F r r yr e 7 �r k' fir 1 ('4 14 182
E�`'�"`4" s a^ x� P s 'f ,Ke c....... 1 e,T Meridian Mark I lA_.3A7 *s-
,,..n ..,ar t: s.,,„e r ;;n„a Three Penn Mary, 33,1; r'
94.500 .'f.
4 r4,T 7 ;,.yea.
ffi
a�' w io On? Pe ma 145.041
s r -rt g hs
W 6 F, r#. 3r t
8 Meridia Crossing 157.0
fr r,,, '4 41 "r terfa,A4? s m. 44412.•' `ems+^ r 4 it P s =`.r., 11550 N. Meridian 93.355
i ms' s a 1ta l m Fidelttr Pla a 14 72.106 l
r x e 5 ao. ,r.. r x s r ot' 1 Two ti endian Pia a llo Q00
�7 .p �,w 4� Y£ $1 �"C ,'A N A A.; F s1' x t b t 9R i'.
r kr t 1fi" ;;W 4� c 5 f ;.„4:41 K Y E� 17 D q
n r e `s, t i �rs ,y am
e a I As tom- 4 2 MILLION SF r s
xtm W ITHIN 115 MILERADIUSOF3 *o t ai,» s
v .v r« '^`S'i f. .,t, ,r 'F 7 n y S� C r c '4. r
H s t� i 9e asr r. t g Q r "1"
sr ma xi ba fi 3 ^a.
1 ^.aP." d,` r i`�y -tzi� 3� i.'S's"`,d` f ,3
az fia Iii t'i"� ks
y E t a. p i j 4 116T,HI r S TRIE
0 y ..r -•r. 'N x ys, 1 F r t P 41 ,�'.a+.
'ffi A a t fr rt i. 70 L. 1 A s t');.1.. T A"
SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS '€i <a' n tr 3
11 &MERIDIANST. t'= r G i .'a y6 s' x e ';:"r4
o, i ii
�i4 MILEWESTOFCENTREr a t "usi
x S l a r s* y 1 tt- I ii t t i �ssc' 4
,w. i Ss I� x 1r1, b ]r :��3A mss. I��'_.,� 1...'4 ^:1.'3v�a''S
Map #1: Map of Proposed Hart /Equicor Project (per Developer): (note: 116` Street Centre U C does NOT own all parcels in
the area noted in the graphic, above, and does NOT propose to designate the entirety of the designated area as an ED Area)
Supplement to the 126 Street Integrated ED Plan:
This document is expressly offered as a supplement to the 126th Street ED Plan Integrated ED
Plan, which was previously approved by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission (CRC). The
original 126th Street ED Plan, as well as the Integrated ED Plan were developed for the purpose
of anticipating the development of the 126 Street ED Area and setting basic parameters of
public policy for the long -term investment of TIF revenues into select projects where the design
and development standards for the project afforded an extremely high quality project.
The CRC identified the 126 Street ED Area as a critical economic development area in 1997.
The ED Area was projected by the CRC to require both economic development and
redevelopment -type activities, due to the proximity of the 126 Street ED Area to the 3 Avenue
SW industrial corridor of Old Carmel, as well as the proximity to the city government complex.
These adjacent areas would ultimately be connected to Carmel's primary N/S thoroughfare
(US31) by development in the 126 Street ED Area, thus amplifying the need for high quality
development. The CRC suggested that properly stimulated market forces, over time, would
create new commercial development centered on the development of Class A office space,
employing professionals engaged in enterprises requiring high levels of intellectual capital. The
116th Street Centre Economic Development raft _ru
Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
CRC sought to amplify and underscore the high standards promoted by the Plan Commission for
this overall area. After approximately 13 years of pursuing these fundamental economic
development policies, the CRC has seen incredible success in the developments so stimulated.
As such, this ED Plan "Supplement" document seeks to achieve optimal transparency in
continuing the assertion of the fundamental policies set forth in 1997 by specifically addressing
the parameters of Hart/Equicor's proposed project at 116 Guilford. For purposes of
transparency and clarity, this ED Plan reproduces and offers relevant portions of the developer's
requests for Tax Increment Financing. These requests and responses have been incorporated into
a "Project Agreement" which presents the negotiated and agreed terms and conditions for TIF
participation in this project.
116 Street Centre ED Plan: Introduction
The 116 Street Centre ED Plan is developed for the purpose of enabling the CRC and the
Carmel City Council to assess and determine the propriety of extending TIF incentives to the
apartment portion of the revised 116 Street Centre development which has been proposed by JC
Hart/Equicor. It is noted that the Plan Commission has already approved the overall project,
which is consistent with the past practices of the CRC with respect to the Plan Commission. By
having in hand the prior approval of the Plan Commission before considering TIF incentives, the
CRC seeks to assure that any TIF proposal conforms to the `overall plan of development' of the
area by virtue of officially documented public action.
This ED Plan "Supplement" notes that the development plan for the 116 Street Centre has been
changed from its original proposal in several ways. Originally, the 116 Street Centre included
townhomes in addition to commercial development, utilizing a phased development approach.
When the market shifted away from townhomes, the developer adjusted the development plan to
re- configure the parcels of the site and to substitute apartments instead of townhomes, in order
for the development to proceed. The net result of these adjustments to the development proposal
has reduced the amount of commercial development at the 116 Street Centre and has increased
the portion of the development dedicated to apartment housing. This ED Plan is presented using
the apartment development proposal as the basis for CRC consideration, and proposes to
designate the apartment parcel, only, for TIF incentives.
The 126 Street ED Area Was Designated in 1997 Has Been Amended
The 116 Street Centre project area (the "Project Area is contained within the amended
boundaries of the 126 Street ED Area, which was originally designated in 1997. Amendments
to the original 126 Street ED Area have been undertaken over time in conjunction with
development and annexation by the City of Carmel. In 1997, the 126 Street ED Area was
foreseen as a connector between the more historic areas of Carmel along Rangeline Road and
Carmel's primary thoroughfare, US31 /Meridian Street. As acknowledged by the Carmel Plan
Commission in its approval of the 116 Street Centre project, the proposed development of the
116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Dr F 8 201
116 Street Centre is consistent with nearby development in affording transitional land uses.
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN (CURRENT]
11E1 Ei STREET CENTRE
8Me
s e A 1.,„c., 0,,,,,,,z,Q tr,;'': k:F:. 1
1.1,:,, ,v, t z
p
4_ r r l'''''''''
t )0 ,1:;TC 3r 7 "4';,:,.47.7-,,,L-,,,73:", ..1,. ‘'.:15%? (1 1-7 7N ,41:1' rt, '-',/,?ttt t 4
(7,:,,,,,,,,J._. t ""n.'.^�,'}.: H am, 4� e. y F
wM ivkl
x^ -ate^' W3 r 'Y
I
Future- dle�. <el(T-�utor
6 a to F
x
Map 116 Street Centre's Phases Shoving Current Prot sal (per Developer): See Appendix A for Original Proposal
116th Street Centre Proposal Is Generally Consistent With Previous Planning
As shown in the grap above, the 116 Street Centre pro has been ad in response to
economic shifts in the residential development marketplace and those adjustments have been
approved by the Carmel Plan Commission. The above graphic portrays the proposal to develop
the area with apartments. The 116th Street Centre development proposals have been determined
to conform to the previous ED Plan for the area, as well as other previous planning for the area.
This determination is affirmed by the independent public actions o the Plan Commission to
approve both the original 116 Street Centre proposal, as well as its amendments to include
apartments. The 116' Street Centre development /redevelopment proposal (both phases) contains
T Street Centre Economic aft
Development Plan (Dr, ar
Februy 8, 2011)
a blend of commercial development and high- density residential development (apartments),
which is consistent with nearby development, as well as being consistent with planning for the
area. Only the apartments are proposed for TIF.
116th Street Centre TIF Request is Generally Consistent with Previous CRC Policies
The "Economic Comparison" (below), provided to the CRC by the developer, clearly reflects the
projection that the amended proposal to develop the 116 Street Centre using apartments
generates over $303,000 /year in property tax revenues, compared to generating slightly more
than $168,500 /year if the Centre were developed with townhomes (as originally proposed). In
addition, the shift from townhomes to apartments generates substantially more TIF revenue, due
to the nature of the development as rental housing, rather than owner- occupied housing. This
increase in property tax revenues results from a higher assumed assessed value for apartments, as
well as a higher property tax cap for rental property (over common residential property).
Obviously, these projections are based on an assumption regarding the assessed value of the
proposed development, which must be taken into consideration with regard to any TIF revenue
projection.
ECONOMIC BENEFIT VA
116TH STREET CENTRE
i41. ECONOMIC COMPARISON
ORIGINAL PROPOSED
Commercial Townhomes Apartments
(Area A) (Area B) (Area A and B Combined)
Assessed Value (est. net) $1,982,565 $10,683.225 $17.500,000
Total Assessed Value $12,665. $17500,000
Annual Property Taxes $34,336 $134.192 $303,083
Total Annual Property Taxes $168528 $303.083
Capturable Tax Increment $34,336 $0 $303.083
Total Capturable Tax Increment $34336 $303,083
The terms of the TIF request were also spelled out by the developer in public documents, as
portrayed below. The TIF request amounts to a bond face value of $2.4 million, including $0.4
million covering two years of capitalized interest (shown as "CAP -I and $2.0 million in TIF
principle for use in the apartment project. This $2.4 million TIF request equates to an estimated
annual TIF bond payment of $186,000 /yr over 20 years at 6% interest. The final terms and
conditions of TIF use are to be memorialized in a Project Agreement which is to be finalized in
conjunction with the CRC's project approval.
In addition, it is noted that the TIF request represents only about 61% of the total property tax
revenues projected to be generated by the 116th Street Centre development proposal, based on
the figures contained in the Project Agreement. The amount of $186,000 /year represents —61%
of the projected total TIF revenue of $303,083. This represents a reduction in the original TIF
116 Street Centre Economic Development P
nomic Develo p Ian (Draft, February 8, 2011)
request from $221,600 (73 as shown below. This factor should be examined and affirmed by
the CRC in greater detail as the projections for the TIF bond terms can be finalized. In the event
that TIF investment is deemed appropriate by the CRC and /or City Council, any Financial
Analysis performed should provide additional specific detail with regard to the proposed sharing
of TIF revenue generated by the project, and the commitment of those revenues toward specific
purposes by the CRC.
TAX INCREMENT SUMMARY
116TH STREET CENTRE
'✓gin r ,&SRw a DEVELOPMENT COST SUMMARY OL)
Estimated Total Development Cost 19,500,000
Development Funding
Developer Contribution 17,500.000
Proposed TIF Funds 2,000.000
Total Development Funding 19.500,000
Proposed TIF Terms
TIF Amount Requested by Developer 2.000.000
Estimated CAP -1 (2 yrs) and COI ADO„Q .QQ
Gross Bond Proceeds Requested 2.400.000
Annual Debt Service (20 years %5T 6 221,600
Projected Total Tax Increment
Pledged to Development Bond 221.600
Available to City 81 483 (2)
Total Project Tax Increment: 303,083
(1) All numbers are approxunations and subject to updating and change.
(2) Under the existing zoning. only an estimated $34,336 would be capturable lay the TIF
District and available to the City.
Project Agreement Between Developer CRC Protects CRC's Interests
The CRC and the developer(s) of the 116 Street Centre have executed a "Project
Agreement" (to be attached hereto as Appendix C for purposes of transparency) with the
express intent of clearly stating the public policy basis for the proposed project, as well as
assuring the public of the CRC's best efforts to protect the interests of the taxpayers. The
final, executed `Project Agreement' will contain the terms and conditions of the CRC's
extension of TIF incentives to the project, as well as the limitations placed on the
developer(s) by the CRC in the process of considering this TIF incentive. It is
appropriate to note that the CRC has placed significant constraints on the developers with
regard to the proposed project, including the following (offered as summary for public
information purposes):
A specific commitment for the start of construction in "spring 2011" with a completion of
construction prior to December 31, 2012, in order to assure the presence/
commencement of TIF revenues in a planned and managed fashion;
A commitment by the developer to a full assessment on March 1, 2012;
116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
A commitment by the developer that the developer's incremental share of any TIF
revenue shall NOT exceed $186,000 per year (reduced from the $221,600 previously
requested and shown above in developer documents). Total projected TIF increment for
the project is —$303,000/year -62% dedicated to repayment of developer debt);
A commitment by the developer to an assessed value of not less than $17,400,000, in
order to assure that TIF increment revenues are received as projected;
A PILOT "payment in lieu of taxes agreement for the purpose of assuring that the TIF
bond is paid in full be the developer;
A commitment by the developer to NOT appeal the assessed value of the project site to
be reduced below the amount required to pay the TIF bonds;
A commitment by the developer that no additional TIF incentives will be sought for the
remainder of the undeveloped adjacent parcels; and
A commitment by the developer to pay all existing property taxes for adjoining property
as of the date of issuance of the bond (not later than June 1, 2012).
This Project Agreement is noteworthy for the public as well as elected officials in that the
Project Agreement represents an effort to protect the public interests based on the sum of
the intellectual iterations of the CRC over time. The CRC has attempted to incorporate
lessons learned from previous TIF -based endeavors in a manner that provides for a public
policy that encourages economic growth while also protecting the public sector from
certain risks that can and should be borne by the private sector. It is the expectation of
the CRC that the Project Agreement will be fully executed before the ED Plan is
presented for CRC approval.
Brief Description of the Proposed 116th Street Centre Project
The 116th Street Centre project has been undertaken in at least three phases:
development of the commercial frontage along 116 Street at the northwest corner of
116`" Guilford;
(2) development of the apartment/residential area, generally located north of the 116
Street frontage. (See graphic entitled "Conceptual Site Plan (Current)" (above), and
(3) final development of the remaining 116 Street frontage as commercial (shown in
developer's documentation as "Area C (See "Executive Summary" graphic, as well as
item #5 of "Benefits of Proposed Project," as well as notes regarding zoning /acreage of
"Area C
As noted in Map #1, Hart/Equicorp do not own a portion of the area designated as the 116
Street Centre in the developer's public information materials and those parcels are excluded from
any consideration herein.
The total acreage of the 116 Street Centre is 12.1 acres, as shown on the developer's
documentation, with a detailed breakdown of land uses as follows:
"Original Area A" containing 1.77 acres was originally zoned for commercial development;
116 t Street
Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
"Original Area B" containing 4.98 acres was originally zoned for townhomes;
These two areas "A" "B were re -zoned with the approval of the City Council for 195 units of
apartments, totaling 6.75 acres, with the following apartment mix:
O 89 one bedroom units (46% of total) 671 sf with an estimated monthly rent of $744;
O 94 two- bedroom units (48% of total) 974 sf with an estimated monthly rent of $973;
O 12 three- bedroom units (6% of total) 1,236 sf with an estimated monthly rent of
$1,228.
o The market target for the apartments is singles, couples and families, generally with pre-
school children.
o The apartment complex will have 4 building types, with a type -4 building (see below)
fronting on College Avenue. (see Appendix A for all building types and floor plans)
o The apartment complex will also have a clubhouse (see Appendix A for graphic).
In August/September, 2010, the developer requested that the county re- number parcels for
purposes of TIF designation, and as a result:
o Parcel #17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.001 was modified to contain 7.27 acres, and this parcel will
contain the entirety of the proposed apartment complex, as well as being the entirety of
the ED Area designation.
Prior to re- numbering, this revised 7.27 -acre parcel was designated in the
developer's materials as Area A (townhomes) and Area B (commercial).
o Parcel #17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.002 and parcel #17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.102 now comprise the
entirety of the commercial development as proposed in the 116 Street Centre PUD.
Prior to re- numbering, this area was shown on developer materials as "Area C."
"Area C" (aka parcel #17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.102 and the remainder of parcel #17-09-36-00-00
060.002) are NOT included in the TIF /ED Area request. As revised, Area C now contains 4.85
acres, and continues to be zoned for commercial development, as originally proposed, according
to the developer's documentation.
o The developer has proposed that Area C be developed as approximately 4 outlots, to be
constructed in accordance with the buyers' specifications.
Parcels (3) not owned by Equicor /Hart are not included in this TIF /ED Area request.
Parcels (4) containing existing development are not included in this TIF /ED Area request.
The Development Plan for the 116th Street Centre PUD, as amended (to provide for
apartments), has been approved by both the Plan Commission and the City Council. The
proposed 3 -story elevation for the apartments which would be visible from Guilford Avenue
is shown below (from developer's information). There will be an assortment of building
types contained within the apartment development, as well as a clubhouse, as shown in the
developer's information (which is attached to this ED Plan Supplement as an Appendix).
`h
116Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
i {r_(4 ry i(
ii at #d I k 5'a� i ni 9 YCIR r 7 fl f i t "�Isq 1 3
S �f�% i Sf f4 "p i f �t CT
i YC i i
ms s
�fo- 1 E iltq Ei r ?i M ss P f j X T l E1�T� I i
3 M.Ea tatO f j ,g tjI 4 s' S h y^'} fit r 1:
404149ILIN II0 iii 'CO i i fl s s 0 _i. ini' �,,^,v� PI ar U,. ,5, li v3l.;t)(.i: a :f
+i di" to Top of Parapet Front Elevation Building Type 4
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre (t¢y( .t T
arch: e� +5 and land planners 1. 1(S t
Legal Description of the 116 Street Centre ED Area:
The following legal description is developed based upon the Hamilton County Auditor's electronic
GIS information as depicted at http: /gis.hamiltoncounty .in.gov /FlexViewer /Index.html.
Beginning at the point of intersection of the eastern right of way line of Guilford Avenue (north of
116 Street) and the northern boundary of parcel 17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.001, as re- numbered by
the Hamilton County Auditor in September, 2010,
Then turning irregularly eastward, along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of parcels
17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.001 to the point of intersection with the eastern with of way line of Guilford
Avenue,
Then turning northward along the eastern right of way line of Guilford Avenue to the point of
beginning.
The legal description presented above is intended to capture only one parcels as portrayed at the
same county website: 17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.001.
The CRC respectfully requests that any discovered discrepancy between the list of parcels and
the legal description (above) be brought to the immediate attention of the CRC in order that
proper clarification can be effected.
Other Parcels Owned by 116 Street Centre LLC
In the interest of full disclosure, the 116 Street Centre LLC owns additional parcels in the
immediate area (outside of the one parcel proposed for designation as the 116 Street Centre ED
Area), and the 116 Street Centre LLC does NOT own 3 parcels (which are graphically captured
in Map #1 (per developer, but are owned by Schneider Management, according to web -GIS
Centre Economic Street Ce
116 n Development n (Draft, February 8, 2011)
,co nomic Develo ment Plan Draft, Februar 8,
information)). This ED Plan does NOT propose to capture, divert, or otherwise influence the
current flow of TIF revenues from any parcels other than the one designated parcel.
Brief Summary of the Request for TIF Incentives
The developer has requested that the CRC consider the investment of TIF incentives in the
estimated amount of $2.4 million to support the 116th Street Centre project, briefly summarized
as follows:
Project Preliminary cost estimate
Capitalized Interest Cost of Issuance 400,000
Site Work 543,204
Sanitary Sewer 135,627
Storm Sewer 311,792
Water Main 165,998
Site Streets Walks 675,905
Engineering 167,474
Total TIF Request 2,400,000
Developer- estimated annual TIF revenue $303,083/year when proposed apartments are
developed.
Developer estimates annual debt payment of $186,000 (which represents approximately 61 of
estimated revenue from the proposed project).
Developer- estimated uncommitted annual TIF revenue generated by the proposed apartment
development, which would be available to the City estimated at approximately $117,083/year.
No projections of TIF revenue from undeveloped commercial area outlots (4.85 acres) were
included in the developer's information, however, the developer has committed that there will be
no additional TIF request for the undeveloped parcels.
No diversion, reallocation or alteration of the existing property tax revenue stream from existing
commercial development is proposed by the developers.
Existing Development Is Already Generating TIF Revenues to the CRC
The ED Plan notes that, according to publicly accessible property tax records, four parcels which
are part of the 116 Street Centre (owned by 116 Street Centre LLC, and shown on the
developer's graphic, Map #1), but located outside of the proposed 116 Street Centre ED Area
are already developed and are paying property taxes (apparently captured by the CRC as TIF
revenue). Those parcels are as follows:
116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011����
17- 09- 36- 00 -00- 060.102
17- 09- 36- 03 -01- 011.000
17- 09- 36- 03 -01- 012.000
17- 09- 36- 03 -01- 010.000
Total (4 parcels)
The scope of this ED Plan does not include confirmation of current property tax or TIF revenue
streams, but it is estimated that the current property tax revenue stream for the four additional
parcels is —$100,000/year, when all questions are settled.
The proposed 116 Street ED Plan /Area does NOT propose to capture, divert or otherwise
influence any of the existing TIF revenue from existing development. Rather, the proposed 116
Street Centre ED Area proposes to designate ONLY the parcel which is to be developed as
apartments by JC Hart (as noted in the ED Area legal description, above).
Conformity with Previous Planning
This ED Plan seeks to root itself firmly in the long -term planning of the community at large. In
pursuit of this planning goal, the ED Plan notes four separate and distinct determinations of
conformity with the previous planning for the area and the community, as follows:
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Carmel as evidenced by the approval of
the 116th Street Centre development proposal by the (the "City" or "Carmel Plan Commission
(including the Plan Commission's approval of the PUD re- zoning to include apartments).
o It has been the longstanding policy of the CRC to allow the Plan Commission to make its
determinations and decisions freely and without confusion from or by the CRC.
o In support of this CRC policy, the CRC did not consider any TIF related entity or action
until after the Plan Commission had approved the 116th Street Centre project (as well as
the PUD re- zoning).
o It has also been the longstanding and consistent policy of the CRC to assume that any
approval of any project by the Plan Commission is tantamount to a statement of the
conformity of the approved project with the Comprehensive Plan for the affected area.
Conformity with the 126 Street ED Plan, as approved in 1997 and as amended thereafter to
support the growth of Carmel's Science Technology Park, by the CRC.
o The 1997 ED Plan, designated a large area as being the 126 Street ED Area.
o The 1997 ED Plan and the 126 Street ED Area were amended to include multiple
expansions both less than and greater than 20% of the original ED Area, as provided by
the statutes in effect at those times.
o Later, the additional designations of ED Areas along Pennsylvania Street, as well as Old
Meridian, Old Town (Carmel), City Center and other ED Plans /Areas were integrated into
a single, functional planning document with integration of policies and projects by the
CRC.
This act of 'integration' served to bring all of the CRC's individual economic
development and redevelopment activities under a single set of TIF policies
which would eliminate minor differences in TIF policy by the CRC, from one ED
Area to another.
116 Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
This act of 'integration' also served to address TIF issues which arose as a result
of multiple annexations undertaken by the City which increased the need for a
single, integrated set of TIF policies for the community at large.
The CRC hereby expresses its respect for the actions and autonomy of the Carmel Plan
Commission (and predecessors) with regard to developmental review and approval. The actions
proposed in this ED Plan, as well as the stated evidentiary basis for those CRC actions are based
on the CRC's respect for the Plan Commission as well as the CRC's interest in promoting the
developmental policies of the Plan Commission by assisting in the development of the highest
possible quality of infrastructure and development standards to support long -term economic
growth and development.
Conformity with the 1997 ED Plan: Proposed Projects
The original 126 Street ED Plan was approved by the CRC in 1997, with subsequent
amendments in 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2004. In each of the ED Plans supporting the
proposed amendments, the ED Plan made a clear finding of fact that the CRC's intent in
creating /amending /expanding the ED Areas was based upon the intent to create a larger
property tax base, improved assessed values, and increased the number of jobs in these
ED Areas. Each iteration of the ED Plan cited the expansion of the local economy and
the continuing development of Carmel's Science Technology Park as an employment
center. In the interest of transparency, all of the individual ED Plans (27 total) are
accessible from the Clerk- Treasurer's portion of the city's lazerfiche web -link, under
"Redevelopment Commission."
The first ED Plan `amendment' to specifically place the 116 Street Centre territory
under the ED Plan/Area umbrella was in 2000. At that time, the CRC fundamentally
explained that the entire area between Meridian/US31 and Rangeline and between 131
Street and 116 Street represented the city's primary employment center. This
amendment was nearly perfectly aligned in fact and principle with the CRC's original
intent of developing an employment center which stretched from the US31 Corridor to
Old Town. The proposed 116 Street Centre represents a logical iteration of the
sequence begun in 1997.
All of the approved ED Plans itemized a series of projects and categorically linked the
City Center improvement projects to the long -term development of the Integrated ED
Area. Beginning as early as 1998, those projects clearly included the rationale for using
TIF revenues to support development of a performing arts center, as well as an art
museum in the City Center area, as well as other projects related to the development of
the designated ED Areas as Carmel's employment center.
The proposed 116 Street Centre project continues to support those larger goals, as stated
by the CRC since 1997. In this case, the development of a mixed -use commercial area,
with apartments in the immediate proximity of 4.2 million square feet of Class A office
space within 1.5 miles of the 116 Street Centre. The jobs captured in this employment
center are believed to provide a solid market for the proposed 195 units of apartments,
enabling employees to commute less than 2 miles to their jobs.
12 116 Street Centre Economic Development P�,,,.,
Ian (Draft, February 8, 2011)
Previous iterations of this Integrated ED Plan indicate that the 116th Street Centre
proposal for projects using TIF funds conforms to the original 1998 ED Plan expectations
(12 years prior to the 116th Street Centre proposal). This consistency of outcome
validates and affirms the original interests of the CRC with regard to promotion of the
highest possible quality of development in the area of the Science Technology Park,
and the plan to developmentally link Old Town with the US31 corridor. The 116 Street
Centre development proposal affords the CRC a logical mix of land uses that provide
"neighborhood- serving" retail support for residents and businesses in the Science
Technology Park area, as well as providing high quality housing for young professionals
who might seek a residence very close to their jobs (with over 4 million sf of commercial
development nearby). These are the results of high quality planning by the CRC.
As noted in a 2002 iteration of the integrated ED Plan, the 116 Street Centre proposal
conforms to the expectations and policies on multiple topics and levels. For purposes of
brevity, the excerpts below are drawn from the 2002 ED Plan as examples of the
conformity between the 2002 ED Plan and the proposals contained in the 116 Street
Centre ED Plan. These excerpts are offered in order to provide the reader with a
transparent basis for determining whether the 116th Street Centre proposal conforms to
the intentions and policies of the CRC, as set forth below.
`Purpose of the ED Plan' (2002 ED Plan, pp. 5 -6):
o "At the point where a development project is proposed, it becomes the job of the
Economic Development Plan to objectively review the body of previous
development policy and determine the extent to which the current project
complies with those policies."
o "...the community must assure itself that any development proposed will place
the community in a better position to implement its long term developmental
goals."
o "This Economic Development Plan attempts to identify the infrastructure
improvements required to support growth in the proposed Economic
Development Area...."
o "The Economic Development Plan provides the rational analytical process by
which the community can measure whether a proposed project is consistent with
the consensus built through the comprehensive planning process."
o "An Economic Development Plan, therefore, is an examination of previous
economic development policy in light of new proposals."
0
`Purpose of the ED Area' (pp. 6 -8)
o "...the role of the Carmel Redevelopment Commission (CRC) in this project is to
create appropriate Economic Development Areas (ED Areas) for the purposes of
supplementing the capacity of the City to implement the development
proposals...."
o "...any funding decisions to be made as a result of the creation of any proposed
ED Area must be reached through the process defined by those agencies and
the elected officials responsible for governing those activities."
`Recommendation for a Phased ED Area' (pp. 8 -10)
o ".,.any funding decisions to be made as a result of the creation of any proposed
ED Area must be reached through the process defined by those agencies and
the elected officials responsible for governing those activities."
f jr6 th St reet Centre Econo 1----
Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
In addition to the excerpts from the 2002 ED Plan offered above, this ED Plan includes by
reference all relevant excerpts related to the statutory findings of fact in the appropriate sections
of this ED Plan, as well as all other sections of subsequent iterations of ED Plans developed by
the CRC since 1997. Finally, the above testimony is suggested to afford satisfaction of the
statutory requirement that "the plan for the economic development area conforms to other
development and redevelopment plans for the unit."
Approved Zoning for 116th Street Centre
The graphic below is taken from the developer's submittal to the CRC and is intended to depict
the existing, approved zoning for 116th Street Centre for the area identified as Areas A, B, and
C. Note that Areas A, B C of the proposed development cover only two separately identified
parcels in the County Auditor's records, per county web -GIS.
14 i 116 Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
110Ti1 5TREE k' CENTRE
SITE OF S
r u BACKGROUND
12.1 acre site
Equicor's "116th Street Centre" development runs along the north
r t x, ai i side of 116th Street between College Avenue and Guilford Avenue.
4 4 Equicor's redevelopment project (please see the photos at Tab 7 to
'4' a� see the property's prior condition and uses) has been coordinated S l with the City from the beginning Equicor has worked closely with
i .L ai the City to develop the prapeI#y c.onistent with the City's vision (e.g.,
a 4 re bui pulled up to the street and enhanced architecture
y and massing). To elate, Equicor has constructed retail buildings
e a long 11 th a nd along Gu Avenue. Of the remaining land to be
7 developed, Areas Acancd B originally were planned for commercial and
,7-,- :''''.:H townhome uses. respectively. Currently, little market interest exists
ORiGINAI ZONING for a new townhome development. Faced with this market reality
Area A (17$7 acres)- and the desire to -jump start" the project, the development team, in
cornnier'cial conjunction with JC Hart, began working with the City to propose a
revised plan that would permit apartments to be built within Areas
Area B acres) A and B. in order to bring this new plan to market. two (2) things
townhomes (57 units) needed to happen: (1) the existing PUD Ordinance needed to be
amended to permit apartments: and (ii) a tax increment financing
Area C (5.35;acres) plan needed to be put in place. On February, 1, 2010. the
coMnierciad City Council unanimously approved the PUD Ordinance amendment,
Now. the TIF proposal is being presented.
•CURRENT
Area •A 8 (6 acres) PROJECT PROPO -:.L
aPaitinents (196 units)
In its discussions with the City. the development team has proposed
AreaC(535.acres) a TIF structure that will dedicate a portion of the tax increment
coi7ii» eicial generated with Areas A and 8 to the project and another portion to
the City for its use (resulting not only in "jump starting' the project,
but also in more projected tax increment for the City than was
projected under the original plan).
RFNFFITS OF PROPOSFD PROJFCT(Areas A and 6 combined):.
1. Creates a 2010 '`market ready" project instead of an empty townhome site.
2. Increases net assessed value: $17.5 million v. $12.6 million.
:3. Creates `capturable` tax increment now.
4. Increasers City's capturable tax increment: 581.000 v. x;34.000 (the difference is
attributed to: (d) the increased assessed value: and (ii) the apartment's ability to generate
capturable tax increment. while townhc rues generate no capturable tax increment).
5. Helps jump start development of remaining commercial .Area C (which. in turn. will create
even more tax increment for the City).
Map #3: Original Executive Summary 116 Street Centre (per Developer)
116 cn Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
The Statute Governing Creation of an ED Area
The ED Plan is undertaken to support the proposed development of the Project Area generally
described as being located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Guilford Avenue and
116 Street, comprising the entire north side of the 116 Street corridor between College and
Guilford. The CRC has already undertaken consideration of the 116th Street Centre
development proposal using the approval of the Plan Commission as the good -faith basis for
considering the proposed 116th Street Centre project. As such, the CRC accepts the PUD re-
zoning and the development plan approvals of the Plan Commission as an unambiguous
statement of the Plan Commission's finding that the proposed development conforms to the
overall plan of development of the proposed ED Area. This determination is critical to the
CRC's statutory consideration of the commitment of TIF to support the 116th Street Centre
project.
The creation of an Economic Development Area and the contents of an Economic Development
Plan are governed by IC 36- 7- 14 -41, which, for purposes of clarity and transparency, is
presented in its entirety below:
IC 36- 7- 14-41: Economic development area; determination; enlargement
(a) The commission may, by following the procedures set forth in sections 15 through 17
of this chapter, approve a plan for and determine that a geographic area in the
redevelopment district is an economic development area. Designation of an
economic development area is subject to judicial review in the manner prescribed in
section 18 of this chapter.
(b) The commission may determine that a geographic area is an economic development
area if it finds that:
(1) the plan for the economic development area:
(A) promotes significant opportunities for the gainful employment of its citizens;
(B) attracts a major new business enterprise to the unit;
(C) retains or expands a significant business enterprise existing in the boundaries
of the unit; or
(D) meets other purposes of this section and sections 2.5 and 43 of this chapter;
(2) the plan for the economic development area cannot be achieved by regulatory
processes or by the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to the
powers allowed under this section and sections 2.5 and 43 of this chapter because
of:
(A) lack of local public improvement;
(B) existence of improvements or conditions that lower the value of the land
below that of nearby land;
(C) multiple ownership of land; or
(D) other similar conditions;
(3) the public health and welfare will be benefited by accomplishment of the plan for
the economic development area;
(4) the accomplishment of the plan for the economic development area will be a
public utility and benefit as measured by:
(A) the attraction or retention of permanent jobs;
(B) an increase in the property tax base;
16 �116` Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
(C) improved diversity of the economic base; or
(D) other similar public benefits; and
(5) the plan for the economic development area conforms to other development and
redevelopment plans for the unit.
The determination that a geographic area is an economic development area must be
approved by the unit's legislative body. The approval may be given either before or after
judicial review is requested. The requirement that the unit's legislative body approve
economic development areas does not prevent the commission from amending the plan
for the economic development area. However, the enlargement of any boundary in the
economic development area must be approved by the unit's legislative body, and a
boundary may not be enlarged unless:
(1) the existing area does not generate sufficient revenue to meet the financial
obligations of the original project; or
(2) the Indiana economic development corporation has, in the manner provided by
section 15(f) of this chapter, made a finding approving the enlargement of the boundary.
As added by P.L.380- 1987(ss), SEC.16 and P.L.393- 1987(ss), SEC.5. Amended by
P.L.114 -1989, SEC.11; P.L.146 -2008, SEC.739.
This ED Plan conforms to the above recited statute in all respects, and the CRC will use the ED
Plan to clearly set forth the premises upon which the CRC considered the investment of TIF
revenues to support the 116` Street Centre. The documentation for the project will rely upon the
developer's documentation presented to the Plan Commission for the 116th Street Centre
planning /zoning approval, thereby affording the CRC a structurally identical basis for the CRC's
consideration of its statutory responsibilities in this regard. By basing the CRC's TIF decision
on the same information that was provided to the Plan Commission, the public policies of both
regulatory bodies should conform to one another and present the public with a transparent and
consistent public policy result.
Findings of Fact
The ED Plan contains the statutory Findings of Fact, drawing information as needed from the
developer's proposal, as well as previous and current iterations of the ED Plans which publicly
state the CRC's policies with respect to economic development and TIF investment. While the
CRC recognizes the potential for redundancy in addressing each specific statutory finding of
fact, this ED Plan will attempt to minimize such redundancy while reserving the right to amend
and amplify any of its findings in response to public testimony, comments and suggestions, per
statutory intent.
These Findings of Fact hereby incorporate by reference any and all previous ED Plans approved
by the CRC to the extent that those ED Plans support and extend the considerations relevant to
the creation of the ED Area. It should be clear to even the most cynical observer that
development of the US31 corridor, 116 Street, 126 Street, College Avenue, Guilford Avenue
and other corridors integral to the Science Technology Park are critical to the long term
economic viability of the City of Carmel on multiple, simultaneous levels. Further, the separate
and independent scrutiny and review of development proposals by the City's DOCS, Plan
Commission, City Council and CRC are all intended to serve as protection of the community's
17 1 Street Centre Economic Development _...__...�_.._m�_.__.M..�.��
16 ...._.,N._..._.�.
tn re conom
t Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
standards and public policies in service to the community at large. It is the CRC's intent to
remain consistently respectful of these parallel, independent and inter dependent roles.
FINDING OF FACT #1A: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA: (A)
PROMOTES SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT OF ITS CITIZENS
The ED Plan specifically proposes to promote significant opportunities for gainful
employment of Carmel citizens, as well as providing relevant and well located residential
opportunities in close proximity to over 4 million square feet (and growing) of
professional office space. The apartment portion of the proposal is directly targeted at
young professionals seeking residential locations close to their work. This direct target
occurs in two forms: in the form of a location proximate to Carmel's primary
employment center, and; in the form of an apartment size mix which is designed to meet
the market preferences of young professionals. By reducing the number of 2+ bedroom
apartments, the developer seeks to attract professional singles and couples, rather than
families with children, as an introductory location to the City of Carmel. Furthermore,
the immediately proximate provision of retail restaurant and commercial space further
enhances the "living efficiency" of the 116`" Street Centre development.
Direct employment is afforded through the mixed -use development of office space, as
well as retail space within the 116 Street Centre, itself, as well as enhancing the overall
employment of the Science and Technology Park which is Carmel's primary employment
center. Future development of "Area C" as additional office and retail space is projected
to further amplify the capacity of the 116 Street Centre to meet this statutory finding.
Using accepted parameters for estimation of employment in office developments, it is
preliminarily estimated that the existing office space in the Science Technology Park
area (4.2 million sf), there are approximately 14,000 jobs located in less than a 2 -mile
radius of the 116 Street Centre. More job development has already been approved and
is either under construction, or preparing to commence. The recent addition of retail
space along the US31 corridor, as well as "neighborhood- serving" retail scattered in other
areas, represent a healthy mix of land uses for this primary employment area.
The 116th Street Centre proposal clearly is intended to promote the gainful employment
of the citizens of Carmel and surrounding communities, thus meeting the statutory
requirements of this finding of fact.
FINDING OF FACT #1B: ...ATTRACTS A MAJOR NEW BUSINESS ENTERPRISE TO THE UNIT....
The 116th Street Centre proposal has already brought several new business enterprises to
Carmel, located in the commercial development at the corner of 116 Guilford. The
future development of Area C as `neighborhood- serving' retail proposes to further add
new business enterprise in the traditional sense of the word.
The creation of `neighborhood- serving' retail space is an extremely important
consideration for the overall area. By providing `neighborhood- serving' commercial
development, the City begins to trim the amount of vehicle traffic generated within the
ED Area, and promotes the use of alternative transportation, such as walking or biking.
T l6t h Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
This concept is further enhanced by the proximity of the 116`" Street Centre to the Monon
corridor, which offers further amenity for the proposed development.
In addition, the shift to develop apartments in the northern portion of the development
(rather than townhomes) produces another new business enterprise as well as additional
sources of disposable incomes to support new retail development in the overall ED Area.
The apartments, themselves, are technically qualified as a business enterprise.
The proposed development represents an interesting "fit" into the framework of
development that already exists within the 126 Street ED Area, addressing existing
developmental needs and providing amenities that further enhance the area.
The ED Plan clearly contemplates the attraction of major new business enterprise to
Carmel and to the ED Area, thus meeting the statutory requirements of this finding of
fact.
FINDING OF FACT #1C: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA... RETAINS
OR EXPANDS A SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS ENTERPRISE EXISTING IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
UNIT.
The ED Plan notes that the mixed use proposal for the 116 Street ED Area offers both
`neighborhood serving' commercial, as well as apartment/residential development.
These sorts of developments tend to identify and meet certain kinds of niche businesses
that develop in support of the 4.2 million square feet of office development within 2
miles. For areas such as this, these niche and neighborhood- serving businesses tend to
enhance the capacity of the area to recover from economic problems. In effect, the
`neighborhood- serving commercial development, also includes a `neighborhood- serving'
apartment complex, which affords employees seeking to live in a "neighborhood" that
contains 4 million square feet of high quality office jobs.
In recent years, communities have become far more sensitive to the types of
developments which do not place additional stress on transportation and other
infrastructure. As such, the opportunity to live within 2 miles of employment, as well as
the other health and recreational amenities that Carmel has developed, serve to assist
local businesses of all sizes in retaining employees.
For these reasons, it is suggested that the 116`" Street Centre ED Area will assist the City
of Carmel in extending and enhancing the viable economic life of the 4.2 million square
feet of commercial development that already exists. The capacity of the proposed
development to meet the needs of neighborhood residents, as well as neighboring office
development, is projected to serve the area by making developments more livable as well
as more economically viable, thus helping to retain significant business enterprises which
currently exist in the ED Area.
FINDING OF FACT #ID:... THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA... MEETS
OTHER PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER....
The 116th Street Centre project meets several `other purposes' for the economic
development of Carmel, and the surrounding area. To achieve brevity of purpose, this
1 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan 8,
c Str (Draft, February 8, 2011)
section will simply summarize some of the concepts which can be expanded, if
necessary, to further support and enhance the compliance with the statutory findings of
fact. Such additions can be made as the ED Plan/project approval process moves
forward.
First, the CRC emphasizes the cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship which the
116 Street Centre will have on the surrounding neighborhood. Existing residents of the
area will find that the neighborhood serving commercial development will reduce their
need for routine vehicular travel by meeting certain neighborhood needs. The existing
commercial development at this location already affords evidence of this benefit.
Second, the opportunity for young professionals to find affordable apartments within a
few miles of their jobs facilitates a new trend in employment. The attraction and capture
of new, young intellectual capital is beneficial to the demographic health of the
community at large, as well as affording a self stimulated market for housing as their
careers mature. The proposed apartments are specifically size targeted to this
demographic.
Third, the proposed development offers an appropriate transitional mix of land uses that
are sufficiently niche researched to balance commercial, retail and residential
development that has already occurred nearby.
For these and other reasons, it is suggested that the economic development benefits of the
ED Plan meets these "other purposes" of the statute. In addition, this ED Plan is also
prepared to draw from and reiterate similar findings related to the 1997 and subsequent
ED Plan iterations for further support of this statutory compliance.
FINDING #2A: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE ACHIEVED
BY REGULATORY PROCESSES OR BY THE ORDINARY OPERATION OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
WITHOUT RESORT TO THE POWERS ALLOWED UNDER THIS SECTION... BECAUSE OF: (A)
LACK OF LOCAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT....
The original rural residential development that occupied the property where the 116
Street Centre is proposed has already been eliminated, but it is noteworthy that the rural
residential development which was once located along 116 Street was originally
developed without the support of municipal infrastructure.
The subsequent development of municipal sewer, water, road and other infrastructure left
this rural residential property severely under utilized. As new development surrounded
the 116 Street ED Area, the infrastructure became notably less capable of handling the
demands of the new development.
Note that the lack of infrastructure was one of the primary themes of the 1997 ED Plan,
and also note that more than 50% of the 4+ million square feet of development in the
Science Technology Park is estimated to have occurred since 1997. The lack of local
public improvements which once retarded the development of this area was eventually
20 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
overcome, and the additional infrastructure capacity has led to the 116 Street Centre
proposal.
It is anticipated that the proposed TIF investment to support the 116 Street Centre will
be directed toward infrastructure improvements to the site. Carmel has traditionally set
very high development standards and the CRC has traditionally supported the capacity of
developers to develop the highest quality of infrastructure.
A central theme of the Integration of the ED Plans /Areas was the CRC's interest in
developing the highest quality infrastructure to support development, especially in the
area linking Old Town to US31. These efforts have paid off. The 116th Street Centre
ED Area is an example of this thinking in that the creation of the ED Area is intended to
afford access to TIF revenues for the purpose of improving the quality of public
infrastructure. The infrastructure systems of Carmel are among the best in all of Indiana.
The efforts of the City as a municipality were also enhanced by several development
policies which have advanced the city's efforts even further. As new development was
proposed along the US31 corridor, the City required additional setbacks of buildings, thus
facilitating future expansions of US31.
In addition, the City developed and improved service road corridors on Pennsylvania and
Illinois which ultimately would make it possible for US31 to be converted to a limited
access facility. The State of Indiana is currently implementing this limited access
corridor redevelopment. Few communities can demonstrate that level of bold
forethought.
It is clear that the CRC, in all of its iterations of the ED Plan governing the area between
Old Town and US31, has intended to provide a planning platform for enhanced public
improvements which were intended to generate high quality development. Therefore,
this ED Plan is judged to conform to this statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #2B: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED BECAUSE OF... (B) EXISTENCE OF IMPROVEMENTS OR CONDITIONS THAT
LOWER THE VALUE OF THE LAND BELOW THAT OF NEARBY LAND....
116 Street is one of the most important east/west thoroughfares connecting US31 to
Rangeline Road which bisects downtown Carmel, especially after the 131 st /Main Street
connector was disconnected from the west side of US31. The 116 Street corridor
connects the office development of the Science Technology Park with Carmel's older
commercial /office /retail areas between Rangeline Keystone.
The development that has occurred along the 116 Street corridor has created traffic
congestion and escalating consumer demands, and those demands have resulted in
widening projects for 116 Street that have often been opposed by owners of older
developed parcels. As a result, improvements to the 116 Street corridor have been
tended to be incremental, despite having planning firmly in place to call for widening to
handle additional traffic. This was one of the original premises of the creation of the
116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
126 Street ED Area, as well as the CRC's interest in using the Science Technology
Park as a link between Old Town and the US31 corridor.
In this case, the "conditions that lower the value of land" were that the historic
development patterns were not transitioning easily to meet more modern standards. The
proposal to develop the 116 Street Centre alleviated a portion of this problem by
assembling the previous rural residential parcels and converting them to serve a more
modern purpose, as proposed. Similar activity has taken place elsewhere along the
Guilford corridor.
It is clear that the site of 116th Street Centre is one of the highest visibility sites along the
116 Street Corridor. It is equally clear that this site is one of the last to develop in the
area, and one of the first to implement the `street frontage' type of development where
parking is behind the commercial buildings, rather than in front. This new style of
architecture makes the 116 Street Centre visually noteworthy, even before the
development is completed. At the same time, the lack of completion of the 116 Street
Centre with high profile sites remaining underdeveloped is something of a problem
affecting land values for the overall area.
In addition, the general economic recession has also succeeded in depressing local real
estate values. The overall economic conditions are such that land values have generally
declined, thus making new development even more critical to economic recovery.
Finally, the overall economic conditions have had an impact on credit markets which
have forced the amount of cash invested in development projects to higher levels. In
many cases, competent developers cannot get financing necessary to implement their
projects, at all. In other cases, developers can get financing, but only if they invest far
higher amounts of cash into the development, thereby reducing their leverage, and
depressing the value of land in the development equation.
In such situations, the CRC recognizes the potential benefit of stimulating new
development through the use of TIF incentives. When the new development occurs,
additional property tax revenues are generated, and in this case, those new property tax
revenues are not entirely consumed with developer commitments. This is a positive
reason to consider the investment of TIF in order to achieve high quality projects within
an ED Area.
It is clear that multiple factors are contributing to lower land values in the area, and that
thel 16th Street Centre is a project that has earned approvals by the Plan Commission and
the CRC as a high quality project. This ED Plan simply seeks to explain how the ED
Plans from 1997 through 2004 for this area are conceptually connected to and compliant
with the 116th Street Centre development proposal, and in so doing, this ED Plan
complies with this statutory requirement.
22 116` Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
FINDING OF FACT #2C: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED BECAUSE OF ...MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP OF LAND....
The land parcels assembled by JC Hart and Equicor was previously owned multiply. The
developer has advanced the project in part as a redevelopment project because of the
conditions on those multiple parcels. Those historic improvements have since been
removed and the first phase of the 116 Street Centre has been constructed, fronting the
corner of 116 Guilford with new commercial space. That commercial space is
partially occupied with neighborhood- serving entities, as proposed and approved.
The original proposal to build townhomes on the northern section of the development
would have resulted in a return to multiple ownership, however, that proposal has been
abandoned, and the newly approved proposal is to develop the northern sections of the
116 Street Centre as a single apartment complex. Obviously, the apartments would be
singular in ownership.
The final phase of developing Area C of the 116 Street Centre will provide additional
commercial /retail /office space along the 116 Street corridor. The sum of the three
phases of development for the 116 Street Centre is that problems associated with
multiple ownership of land will have been alleviated.
For these reasons, it is suggested that this ED Plan conforms to this statutory finding of
fact.
FINDING OF FACT #2D: THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED... BECAUSE OF... OTHER SIMILAR CONDITIONS....
The 116 Street Centre proposal has been carefully considered and approved by the
Carmel Plan Commission in two iterative forms: the original iteration which included
townhomes; and the current iteration which includes apartments. In both cases the
development proposal sought to capitalize on the visibility of the 116 Street
thoroughfare frontage as `neighborhood- serving' commercial development, with a
residential element that would provide housing in close proximity to Carmel's primary
employment center. As demonstrated by the approvals of the Plan Commission, the
commercial /residential mix of land uses at this location makes sense, as well as providing
benefit to nearby residential development that will enjoy convenient access to the
`neighborhood- serving' commercial enterprises.
The mix of land uses proposed indicate that the developer has designed the 116 Street
Centre to optimize the advantages of the site, including the access to recreational assets,
such as the Monon Trail, as well as proximate access to employment. These
development design advantages could be argued to extend to the proposed mix of the 195
apartments to emphasize the types of units that are preferred by single people and couples
without children. By providing apartments designed with this demographic, the
developer minimizes allegations of impact on local schools by the apartments.
In addition, the current state of the economy makes development difficult on several
levels, and the CRC is open to the suggestion that new development is helpful to the local
116 Street Street Centre Economic Development
23 Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
economy in terms of jobs /salaries, as well as being a long -term benefit to local
government budgets, which are being strained as a result of recessionary influences. As
such, the CRC could consider TIF investments for the purpose of stimulating local
development in a recessionary economy, especially when the CRC considers that lenders'
equity requirements for financing have required larger amounts of cash.
Finally, the CRC recognizes that the intended developmental `link,' which the Science
Technology Park was originally developed to serve, is becoming more fully developed,
with only a few development sites remaining (despite the severe reduction of space
consumed by Conseco as a result of its financial difficulties). The CRC could reasonably
argue that the market selected the best sites first, and that, as sites are consumed, the sites
remaining are those facing the greatest market obstacle. TIF funding is considered
appropriate to reconcile market obstacles for the purpose of encouraging development in
a specifically- designated location (the ED Area). This argument further supports the
investment of TIF proceeds into the 116 Street Centre.
As the process of consideration of this proposed ED Plan moves forward, the CRC may
choose to add other arguments to this ED Plan as a result of the public testimony, but for
immediate purposes, these provisions are considered sufficient to address this statutory
finding of fact.
FINDING OF FACT #3: THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WILL BE BENEFITED BY
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA....
There are several arguments in favor of the 116 Street Centre related to public health
and welfare.
First, the location of the 116 Street Centre is on the fringe of the ED Area which has
formed the effective employment core of Carmel's economic development. This location
places the 116 Street Centre along one of Carmel's major east/west corridors, while
placing it in close proximity to existing residential development. By affording the
existing residential development access to `neighborhood- serving' residential, the
existing neighborhoods are benefited, thus serving their public welfare.
Further, this neighborhood- serving commercial reduces the number of vehicular trips
from surrounding residences. This reduction in vehicular traffic carries with it a
commensurate reduction in traffic congestion, which is a benefit to public welfare, as
well as representing a reduction in smog /air pollution resulting from vehicle operations,
which results in a benefit to public health.
The benefit to public health is further underscored when/if the neighborhood serving
commercial development might attract health related enterprises such as medical and /or
dental offices which are directly committed to benefiting the public health. By making
such medical services more directly accessible to neighborhoods, the public health is
directly benefited.
The development of rental housing in close proximity to Carmel's primary employment
center also affords the opportunity to reduce vehicle commuting trips. The reduction of
24 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
the number and duration of commuting trips resulting from providing housing in close
proximity to employment carries the same benefit to public health and welfare as the
reduction in vehicle trips resulting from neighborhood- serving commercial development.
Finally, the location of the proposed residential development in close proximity to
Carmel's Old Town area, as well as recreational assets, such as the Monon Trail, is also a
direct benefit to public health and welfare. There is a certain human irony to the fact that
urban trails are generally designed with parking facilities which enable patrons to drive
their cars to a place where they intend to walk for exercise. As a result of the 116 Street
Centre, some of the patrons of the Monon Trail will be able to walk to the place that they
intend to walk, thus removing some of that human irony.
Beyond the arguments offered here, the CRC reserves the right to add to or revise these
sections of the ED Plan in response to public testimony, as the process moves forward.
For purposes here, these suggestions are deemed to serve as compliance with the
statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #4A: THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL BE A PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AS MEASURED BY: (A) THE
ATTRACTION OR RETENTION OF PERMANENT JOBS;
This statutory finding of fact is similar in character to that of Finding #1A (`opportunities
for gainful employment'), and as such the pertinent /relevant issues raised in Finding #1A
and Finding #4A are somewhat interchangeable. It is clear that the development of new
business property, including the proposed apartments, as well as the neighborhood
serving business space, is intended to attract and retain permanent jobs to the ED Area.
The fundamental premise of all economic development policy is to expand the local
economy. This can be done by extending the outreach of existing community businesses,
by attracting businesses from other communities, and/or by affording greater access to
business services through neighborhood serving locations. As such, this ED Plan
suggests that the proposed mix of land uses for the 116 Street Centre will assist the
businesses located in the Science Technology Park in attracting and retaining
permanent jobs.
Furthermore, the development mix of the 116 Street Centre assists the community at
large in making the local economy more efficient. By providing neighborhood- serving
commercial development as well as rental housing, the 116 Street Centre begins to
relieve the operational inefficiencies that generally accompany suburban sprawl
development patterns. The local economy is made more efficient when commercial
products and services are made more proximate to neighborhoods, and when housing is
made more proximate to employment. The 116 Street Centre assists in both of these
outcomes. When the local economy is made more efficient through careful and
conscious development decisions, permanent jobs are attracted and retained.
It is clear that the fundamental intent of the 116th Street Centre proposal is to provide
both business and residential development opportunities to the ED Area. By making
1 16` Street Centre Economic w
25 mic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
housing available in close proximity to the city's employment center, jobs are made more
accessible and the cost of living is constrained. These conditions give more people
access to existing jobs, as well as making it easier for employers to control personnel
costs. These factors clearly benefit the attraction and /or retention of permanent jobs.
The goal is for 116th Street Centre to capture a share of a growing local economy, and
therefore, the achievement of that goal would be reasonably expected to satisfy this
statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #4B: THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL BE A PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AS MEASURED BY: (B) AN
INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAX BASE....
This Finding is largely redundant with other findings of fact related to the attraction of
business enterprise, the removal of constraints on land value, diversity in the economic
base of the community, and other similar findings. To a large extent these findings and
the arguments that support them are interchangeable. The narrative above has clearly set
forth that the 116th Street Centre proposal seeks to add neighborhood- serving business
space to the ED Area, while also adding 195 apartment units. Both of these will clearly
add to the property tax base of Carmel. The estimated assessed value of that projected
development amounts to more than $300,000 in property taxes annually. These revenues
far exceed the estimate of approximately $34,000 per year that is estimated to be
currently being generated.
In addition, recent changes to the property tax policies of the state if Indiana have created
additional emphasis on the need for business -type assessed value. The residential
property tax cap id 1 while the property tax cap for rental property (such as
apartments) is 2 and the property tax cap for business development (such a
neighborhood serving commercial) is 3 As such, rental housing and business
development potentially generate more property tax revenue than traditional residential
development, thereby diversifying the property tax base. The shift in property tax
revenue toward business and rental property has caused municipalities to emphasize the
need for rental and business development in order to finance municipal budgets. This is
an increasingly important benefit to the local property tax base, which is assisted as a
result of the 116 Street Centre proposal.
Beyond the boundaries of the 116th Street Centre project, however, it is also expected
that the improvement of the US31 corridor to an expressway -type limited- access corridor
will shift local traffic onto Pennsylvania Street, and will add traffic volume to 116
Street. These shifts in traffic patterns are expected to create long -term upward pressure
on property values (i.e., tax base) in the Integrated ED Area. These findings, as well as
related arguments, suggest that this ED Plan meets this statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #4C: THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL BE A PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AS MEASURED BY: (C)
IMPROVED DIVERSITY OF THE ECONOMIC BASE....
This Finding of Fact extends the argument from a simple assessment of the impact of a
proposal on the property tax base to an argument regarding revenue diversity related to
6 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
1
the economic base of the community. The creation of business property tax revenues
generally also adds an assortment of other tax revenues to state and local coffers, beyond
property taxes. Personal and corporate income taxes, various excise taxes, and other tax
revenues generally accompany new business development and expansion, and those
additional revenues go beyond property taxes. All of these revenue sources are
reasonably projected to be further diversified as a result of the 116 Street Centre.
In addition to the above arguments, diversification of the economic base occurs in more
subtle forms as a result of developments such as the 116 Street Centre, which affords
neighborhood- serving commercial development, as well as housing located proximate to
employment. In effect, the mixed uses proposed for the 116 Street Centre represent a
good buffer between the employment center and existing residential areas.
By definition, mixed use development is a diversification of its own. It affords certain
benefits of employment in the commercial development, as well as certain benefits of
residential development proximate to an employment center. Extending that argument,
the size /scale of the neighborhood- serving commercial development is generally more
conducive to privately -owned business that to the development of national chains,
especially insofar as the neighborhood- serving commercial development might
successfully attract small medical, dental, accounting /financial, and /or personal services
offices. These types of small businesses are, by definition, economic diversity and fully
representative of the traditionally historic underpinnings of the American economy.
The sum of these and related arguments suggests that the 116th Street Centre
development proposal will help to promote diversification in the local and regional
economy, as provided in this statutory requirement.
FINDING OF FACT #4D: THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL BE A PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AS MEASURED BY: (D)
OTHER SIMILAR PUBLIC BENEFITS....
As in other Findings, this specific statutory section is somewhat redundant in that
arguments made in addressing other statutory sections also address this statutory
requirement. As such, the ED Plan notes this potential redundancy and reserves the right
to re -state those arguments if the process evidences a need for such re- statement. The
category of `other' is a clear Legislative intent to potentially incorporate legitimate
arguments and factors that the Legislature had not anticipated in drafting the legislation.
Let it be sufficient for this ED Plan to state that the 116th Street Centre development
proposal is consistent with the Integrated ED Plan in all of its iterations since 1997. As
such, those plans and their supporting documents are hereby incorporated by reference in
the event that sufficient justification is determined necessary.
In addition, it should not escape the notice of intelligent observers that the federal
government is currently engaged in a broad assortment of "economic stimuli" designed to
keep people employed by stimulating economic activity. We do not wish to engage the
federal debate on the propriety of such government expenditures. This ED Plan simply
points out that the 116 Street Centre proposal has been demonstrated herein to possess
the economic attributes identified in statute to be worthy of the local investment of TIF
27 116 th Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
revenues. As such, there is legitimate argument that the investment of TIF revenues to
stimulate beneficial local development is at least as legitimate as similar federal stimuli.
In summary, however, it should be re- stated that the 116th Street Centre development
proposal arguably achieves the developmental goals which the CRC has advocated since
1997, including all of the iterations and integrations, and that the Plan Commission, CRC
and City Council have had at least two chances each to disapprove of the proposed
development.
Furthermore, the CRC should be able to take some comfort in the consideration that, if
the 116th Street Centre development proposal was in any way defective, the Plan
Commission would not have taken the approval actions that it has publicly taken. The
fact that such a high proportion of the stated developmental goals of previous planning
efforts related to this ED Area are to be achieved should be satisfactory evidence that the
116th Street Centre ED Plan is consistent with these previous documents and policies.
In closing, these arguments are offered in the category of "other" reasons that the project
can be reasonably considered for the investment of TIF revenues, and that the proposed
development meets this statutory finding.
Conclusions of the 116 Street Centre ED Plan Supplement
The sum of the effort invested in this ED Plan is that the 116th Street Centre development
proposal sufficiently addresses and conforms to the requirements of statute and should be
considered for designation as an ED Area, as well as to be reasonably considered for the
investment of TIF incentives. The ED Plan has generally determined that the TIF request
conforms to the basic parameters of TIF investment set forth in previous iterations of the
Integrated Economic Development Plan (as amended), and the mixed use development
proposed for the 116 Street Centre is beneficial to the community at large.
To further underscore these conformities, the Plan Commission has acted independently
to approve the PUD- development plan for the 116th Street Centre, indicating that the
Plan Commission is comfortable with the development proposal as conforming to all
development requirements of the community, as well as the Comprehensive Plan,
generally.
Given the narrative presented above, it is suggested that the CRC can be comfortable in
moving forward with the ED Area designation process in order to determine whether the
final designation is appropriate for approval. Final designation of TIF commitments,
however, remains at the sole discretion of elected and appointed officials of the CRC and
the City Council.
116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
Appendix A
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN (ORIGINAL) �n
1I.151H STREET CE.N1 RE.
N$ Y za cr: c_t L ""r
it
r P 4 aA L.
t 1 a IL a a G PA S E t '""""1 I,
t I
c I.� 3i
1 4 1.R J 1 y 1 0...1 1
a
1 h 1
0 f i 1Y f 9 1 k
i
I A
li' S
1
f
I i i 9 v -1 0. -4 /'11 1 1 ,,,.2 IT "i' 1 "111- i 1 a s IM,Lm3 i,
ri i #r I i f 3 €fb es r 0 6 a 1 ,J 1 k x rc
1 i Ys ia,' €I11 1 llt r.-z x. 4f�'(
1=r 1
l I
s 1
17
7 ,4as[v.. 40e
-Trsx� mr ivIIl*4.4 a 14,..4$.222.---•%.,n. R °'�""1
a
Y
�."'.-�...'..m +�.a ..mw'+»". e: +nv<,
1
Map 1i2: 116` Street Centre's Phases Si-lowing or €glna( Propo,,al (per Developer)
116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8,
Appendix B: Proposed Apartment Configuration
00,
oubh—
C
11 1) ,i ■r i 7 15. i, 7 Bldg, .1 Ki!
e ri-pe 1
r I 0 i! d).... i t.
l 0;
,n' t -1 1 Bkle. rie40\
.-0\
Oa Q:. -.it) ‘,'-'...i
a t-D 00 a 0
I
.:,.:;;;E:
C) Q., ‘,./i ::„:71'. CI r 1
'';--9 6 (7 y• 0 .V. 1:,, 1 .L.)
'','''r <7.-:, (-77.1.
i'''
.E-! .Q :,0
r) !2-7. Bldo i,..
(L.) i
l 1) i Bid,. 'i- E gl'Pe
Typ, '.,f', 2,[1` 0--......':-
1 0 ft.-t.
,1
0 (]9.: .:11) 0. ..rD ,c i 71...
.c.; A., -1.1 ,..lii ttj r.: 7 7:-
(7-1 4 -;-,--------J g J4;.:.!) ,4-i CV' ---ii 1- 17'11 '11:11:1'1:111171A..1(17)1111Q...1.111101 1 0: 1 1 0 ka
\a, 1/ -,,C-s-e) 4)-(7) G0 v1:':''''-;'' '''T
Site. V
Illustrative Site Plan Building Type Key
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre I( 11 A R1
architects and lard plamsrs
::...iilliF044-VgititilfAl,:,#.1..i....',.:1
Front Elevation Clubhouse
15'-o" to Top of Parapet
weaver sherman design 116' Street Centre r r g.'
L, 1A1‘.i.
artNtects and lard planners
6rii:;i;i;;T 2011)
0 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan
Appendix (continued)
Main Level Floor Plan- Building �pe`
m
weaver
o�nna 116 Street Centre B
and lard �zz^
Second Level Floor Plan- Building Type
weaver m`e^manmsign zzb Street Centre l�
,t.z,
31 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
Appendix B (continued)
Third Level Floor Plan- Building Type
weaver sherman design 116th Street Centre A RI
arceiterds and lar:d planners
'17.1 11 1 f.la l i= 4-I L 'I' i .0 1: 1 1 ftittlr,IFOR.E9TrigN. 1 7 1r.1
7- tFP; '-r- 1- 1.-i:P?ift :111 P 2 ..1 5 'j l: i 11 1 1 1 ---1 -iil
to Roof Ridge, 40 -3" to Median of Ridge and Eave Front Elevation -Building Type
weaver sherman design ii6th Street Centre
arshiterds and !and planrers
.J747.4 7 .7 77.73. .777:71,7
3 2 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
Appendix B (continued)
t.......tt_t_t_tt....:
t _.....t.....______
t
t
I.. tt_titt...: -7.• ii
t la' :'•i i II.! L....., I' L......41 I. I
f 1 i 7 1
r 1-
I •'••••••!....1.24:1.1. i'-' ]i -,.•,1 1 '.....Z2 ,7 1 i 1. r:
I L..•.•. 1 1 1 •;.:-„V;(..„.:L...".i..;-: 1 4... •::1 1:',.,';''''.7 ,...0
1:1.1 r: i.‘...::::A il•••::
.t N
Main Level Floor Plan- Building Type z
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre
HAFZI
arstvter.ts and lard pladrers r
in
i-'y'-'• J...•....fl.1.2.1
.':g- L-L•----•
'm i: i 7•;:=.7
Lt. ,•u 1 1
1.°•'.1 il
I 'l ,1: :',:ii r•'''' .1 7. 1.1 77 1; 2 A .:.1:.:::'''':::• i•''''' 1.. L -14. 1.;:
I •(.24.t '-'7' -.'.:„!::.,4-,v4: 1 7 •::fj...'s F 4.-- 's•FT: 177;' .--1
2 1 r: .1 '71 P, „i„ -,,i..;.: r.::::: i! 1 ::::........n -r
0.,...,: :.:::i: -7_ 1,„:„,,,,,; 2:-.:„.•,:: 1
F. 1 11 111; z. i: I r: i...... i 1;7 1
A.. ii
F.:...T.:. -.•,,•,•..".i..
Second Level Floor Plair- Building Type z
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre
1( 1 IZ
33 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
Appendix B (continued)
F t
i
E
t_ 1 I
I I I E
1 1,
t 1
i[.:. I::
Third Level Floor Plan- Building Type
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre iS
arch -'ecs and land planners i
x
i
1 J
,.�x,- y v +raw ++m», E
4 1 rlii 0�11 Ff �n q i s r t f: ,l I i j t f
1 ir II t t
4" E S 1 P 1 1 E .w. ri nr E E S 3 fr y 1 I f 3 j #a E :3 t k q,.N.
l a l i N d' l hli i r� 1 '1 E" i a
pp 77 q d
ft 1� r 1�� t t �1 i t 3Vr i �3'. i s a
g4
45' 4" to Roof Ridge. 39 -n" to Median of Ridge and Eave Front Elevation Building Type x
eater sherman design 116' Street Centre 1
arch .ei•.s and lard planners t.'
li6thS treetcentre Economic Dever raf
34 I
Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
Appendix B (continued)
2
itlain Level Floor Plan- Building Type 3
weaver sherman design 116 l Street Centre
ad„11:tiads and land planrers
IC HART
A
r,••••••••••••:•••;.:
r, 1[,•••
+.••1
P r
Second Level Floor Plan- Building Type
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre IC 1-1,ART
arch:tects and brd planrers
35 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
Appendix B (continued)
Third Level Floor Plan- Building T 3
weaver sherman design th street b
amtrth: s and lard planners II C eI1tTe s r 1I T,I
3
l t9 r e s
rrrrZZZZ''''
t
j 1r"i$ I J i Mir' t a -..-x t r ._�ia
r A ¢['t. l l 1 C' 1 -it sx r
4 6' to Roof Ridge, q o' -,'to Median of Ri dg e and Lave Front Elevation Building Type 3
weaver Sherman design 116" Street Centre zg--i�
arGh'ec's an lard planners i ti+
116 Street Ce Economic Develo ment Plan (Dra February
F
p ft, 8, 2011
Appendix B (continued)
LJ
I
Half of Main Level Floor Plan- Building Type 4
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre 1 IA1 1
arch:tez,ts and lard planners
111
1,11 1, 1
1 -1117 117,1 11111 111 -11, L•.:,11
r
1•1: 1 :111:1 1 1. 1 1 1 -11 1 1 1 1 11 1. 1 11
1 111 111 11 ';'1' 11 1. 1 1 11' 1: :11 11' 1.,•,11 1 111 1 1 •1••'• 1111 ;1.,.:
4 11,141'114 V` "1'11 111 1 7 11 :1 1
"77:11 1-,77,1,
U.
s .4 Li.,
...11";" is !ss:' r
ss-
„.1
Half of Lipper Level Floor Plan- Building TyPe 4
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre
I( HARI
arctrteP,Is and lard planners
jj6 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)
3
Appendix B (continued)
:71.110': '11LL'ar!
rl:•4 4 ft
ging i r 1 4 i4J111
ij 11 i11 j;u
4 to Top of Parapet Front Elevation Type 4
weaver sherman design 116th Street Centre
arch:tects and lard planrers
C,1
iv. A
Exterior Materials Key Building Type
weaver sherman design 116 Street Centre
ART'
arc,Nte,:ts and lard planners
38 i 116 Street Centre Economic Development Plan (Draft, February 8, 2011)