HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
Mr. Edward E. Fleming
September 23, 2004
Page 2 of5
. Comment on previous review: "Please provide a passing blister on the west side of Shelbome
Road across from this entrance. If appropriate right of \vay is not available or obtainable at
this time, this office requests a written and recorded letter of commitment that this blister will
be constructed when right of way is obtained." T~e passing blister is shown, but the
dimensions are incorrect. For a secondary arterial, the full width should be 160 feet long and
each taper should be 150 feet long.
. Comment on previous review: "Provide a Shelbome Road Pavement Marking plan for this
entrance. \Ve require thermoplastic markings/striping." There is a note about pavement
markings, but no actual plan that shows exactly the markings to be placed. Please indicate the
edge. striping and the auxiliary lane striping.
. Comment on previous review: "Provide a right of way pavement composition detail for this
entrance. It can be placed on this sheet or on Sheet C802, Street Details." The way the right-
of-way pavement has been detailed on the cross section is acceptable, however, more right-of-
way pavement is required to be placed outside that shown on the cross section. Please add a
right-of-way pavement detail similar to that provided on Sheet C802 for the local street
pavement section and add a note that this pavement section shall be installed for all new
pavement in the right-of-way.
25. Sheet C603 - Offsite Drainage Plan
. As we have discussed with the Owner, the City cannot allo\v the proposed connection to the
existing pond on the City's property. Thank you for providing the alternate storm sewer
outfall connection received by this office via fax and hand delivery on September 22, 2004.
The City will allow this revision provided that the piping installed is adequate to receive both
the flow from Stanford Park (will the entire development discharge through this outfall?) and
the existing watershed that drains to the existing end section. Also, please demonstrate that
the downstream system has the capacity to receive the flo\v from the existing Shelbome Park,
the existing Street Department Facility and whatever watershed is planned for Stanford Park
and not have a detrimental affect on the Shelbome Park development. This information is not
apparent in the drainage report. This Department could also not identify the outlet control
structure. Will the existing end section be replaced by a beehive inlet?
26. Sheet C802 - Street Details
. Comment on previous review: "We have revised our Pavement Compositions. The asphalt
surface designation remains at I-inch. Change the 3-inch Binder #9 to 5-inches 5D Base and
the 9-inches compacted stone sub-base #2 to 7-inches compacted stone sub-base #53. Add
the following statement to the Pavement Composition Detail: All Paving is to be Completed
in One Paving Season." Please show on the plans that the 5-inch course is 5 inches of#5D
base instead of #5D binder.
COMMENTS-SECTION 3 CONSTRUCTION PLANS
32. Sheet C802 - Street Details
. Comment on previous review: "We have revised our subdivision Pavement Composition.
The H.A.C. surface remains as specified. Change 3-inch R.A.C. Binder #9 to 5-inches
H.A.C. 5D Base. Change 9-inches Compacted Stone Base #2 to 7-inches Compacted Stone
Base #53. Add the following statement to the Pavement Composition Detail: All Paving to
be Completed in One Paving Season." Please show on the plans that the 5-inch course is 5
inches of #5D base instead of #5D binder.
Based on additional review, the City provides the additional comments:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS - SECTION 1
1. There is an additional Sheet C40I between Sheets C403 and C404. Please remove this sheet.
Mr. Edward E. Fleming
September 23, 2004
Page 3 of5
2. Please sho\v a temporary swale to provide positive drainage for the rear yard swale serving Lots
72-76 until the adjacent section is constructed.
3. Please label all swale slopes.
4. Please continue the sidewalk on Windy Knoll up to and past Cupertino Way.
5. There is walk on one side of Palo Alto. Has this been addressed during previous reviews and
meetings?
6. The grading indicated behind Lots 58-68 is very confusing.
7. Please develop a maintenance of traffic plan for each entrance off of Shelborne Road.
8. Please indicate milling and resurfacing of Shelbome Road across the entire property frontage at
each entrance and to the limits of the auxiliary lanes and tapers if they extend off of the frontage.
9. On the plats and construction plans, in the curve data "D" is not the normal nomenclature for a
deflection angle. Please correct this.
1 o. The pipe between Structures 105 and 106 is 21" on Sheets C200 and C600 and 18" on the pipe
sizing report submitted.
11. It is not clear where the piping between Structures 216, 143, 157, 161, 165 and 171 is included in
the Post Developed Conditions section of the Drainage Report.
12. Please show the entrance to Claybourne Section 3 [Dolan Way] on the plans. Please contact Cort
Crosby at Schneider.
13. On Sheets C500 - C503, Sheets C600 - C603, and Sheets C700 - C702, please specify the
material for granular backfill.
14. Please confirm with Gary Royt of the Carmel Fire Department that the 13-foot lanes at the interior
median islands are acceptable.
15. The City is of the opinion that additional dimensions are needed to construct the median islands.
16. Please indicate flow directions ( with arrows) and slopes for swales on all appropriate sheets.
17. Sheet C403 - North Entrance Plan
a. Please dimension entrance acceleration and deceleration lanes according to the 20 Year
Thoroughfare Plan on this sheet and any other appropriate sheets. The deceleration taper
is 150 feet, the deceleration full width is 100 feet, and the acceleration taper is 250 feet.
Also, the scale of this drawing is not what is indicated in the legend.
b. The City typically requests widening of the main line pavement to provide a 15-foot
travel lane. Please edit the plan and cross section on Sheet C403 and C404 to show
widening for a I5-foot travel lane, 12-foot auxiliary lane and a 3-foot, 6" #73 stone
shoulder. Please indicate this widening across the entire property frontage at this entrance
for the east side of the road.
c. Please identify the existing and proposed pavement in the plan view.
d. The right-of-way width noted on the Road Cross Section should be 45-feet.
e. The right-of-way pavement section indicated on the Road Cross Section is for the local
streets only. City (and formerly County) standards for the classification of roadway
require this pavement to be designed. Please contact the City regarding the pavement
section for the right-of-way. Any details and cross sections will need to be modified to
show the final pavement section.
18. Sheet C404 - South Entrance Plan
a. Please ensure that the street references are correct. There are also a number of
typographical errors on this Sheet.
b. The City of Carmel will allow certain amenities in the right of way with appropriate
approvals, permits, etc.
c. The passing blister is shown, but the dimensions are incorrect. For a secondary arterial,
the full width should be 160 feet long and each taper should be 150 feet long.
d. Please indicate the edge striping and the auxiliary lane striping.
e. The way the right-of-way pavement has been detailed on the cross section is acceptable,
however, more right-of-way pavement is required to be placed outside that shown on the
cross section. Please add a right-of-way pavement detail similar to that provided on Sheet
Mr. Edward E. Fleming
September 23, 2004
Page 4 of 5
C802 for the local street pavement section and add a note that this pavement section shall
be installed for all new pavement in the right-of-way.
f. Please dimension entrance acceleration and deceleration lanes according to the 20 Year
Thoroughfare Plan on this sheet and any other appropriate sheets. The deceleration taper
is 150 feet, the deceleration full width is 100 feet, and the acceleration taper is 250 feet.
Also, the scale of this drawing is not what is indicated in the legend.
g. The City typically requests widening of the main line pavement to provide a 15- foot
travel lane. Please edit the plan and cross section on Sheet C403 and C404 to show
widening for a I5-foot travel lane, I2-foot auxiliary lane and a 3-foot, 6" #73 stone
shoulder on the east side of the road. Please indicate this widening across the entire
property frontage at this entrance.
h. Please identify the existing and proposed pavement in the plan view.
1. The right-of-way width noted on the Road Cross Section should be 45-feet.
J. The right-of-way pavement section indicated on the Road Cross Section is for the local
streets only. City (and formerly County) standards for the classification of roadway
require this pavement to be designed. Please contact the City regarding the pavement
section for the right-of-way. Any details and cross sections will need to be modified to
show the final pavement section.
19. Please indicate where the ADA ramps are to be installed on the Plan Sheets. The ramps are
implied by the drawings but are not specifically required.
20. The chairback curb details are misleading. The topsoil to be installed behind the curb is labeled
correctly however the detail could be misinterpreted to leave 3-inches of the back face of the curb
exposed.
21. Please add a dimension to the "Typical Asphalt Pedestrian Path X-Section" that shows the path to
be located 1 ' -0" off of the right-of-way line.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS - SECTION 3
1. On plats and construction plans, in the curve data "D" is not the normal nomenclature for a
deflection angle. Please correct this.
2. Sheets C500 and C50I, Sheets C600 and C601, and Sheet C700, please specify material for
granular backfill.
3. Please add a dimension to the "Typical Asphalt Pedestrian Path X-Section" that shows the path to
be located 1'-0" off of the right-of-way line.
4. There are dimensions and bearings missing from some of the proposed easement lines.
5. Is there a line missing from the Plat which defines the southwestern boundary of Common Area
No.:9, south of Golden Gate Drive?
6. Why is all of the proposed storm piping and inlets shaded on the Site Developmel)t Plan?
7. The City typically requests widening of the main line pavement to provide a 15-foot travel lane.
Please edit the plan to show widening with a right-of-way paving section for a 15-foot travel lane
and a 3-foot, 6" #73 stone shoulder. Please indicate this widening across the entire property
frontage of this Section for the east side of the road.
8. Please indicate milling and resurfacing of Shelbome Road across the entire property frontage for
this Section.
9. Please show and label the slope of all swales.
10. Will the back of Block 3 and Block 4 drain to Structure 202?
11. The detail for the Pedestrian Path is labeled to be both 6-feet and 10-feet wide. Please remove the
6- foot width note.
12. There are two SFP 709 Sanitary manholes indicated on Sheet C500.
13. Please provide an RCP bedding detail for the storm sewers.
14. There are easements shown on the plat that are inside the future amenity area and are apparently
outside of the limits of the property being platted. Can these easements be dedicated by plat if
they fall outside of the parent tract?
3-~0-04j 1:49PMjPittman part1llJ
.09786
# 31 3
Stanford Park .
Shelbome Road Cost Estimate Comparrison
Option 'A': 3' widening, 3' stone shoulder, and Accel/Decel Janes
Item Length Location Unit Cost Unit ~
Widening 650 South $15.00 L.F. $9,750
Widening 240 North $15.00 L.F. $3,600
AID Lane 400 South $23.00 S.Y. $7,667
AID Lane 400 North $23.00 S.Y. $7,667
T ota[: $28,683
Option 1811: 1.121 wide lane'(1" surface, 4" binder, 12" #53 Stone)
Item Length location Unit Cost Unit Total
Widening 1088 South $ 50.00 L.F. $ 54,400
Widening 574 North $ 50.00 L.F. $ 28,700
T otal= $ 83,100
3-30-04; 1:49PMjPittman pa4ijers
" .
Stanford Park
Shelbome Road Cost Estimate Comparrison
Option 'A': 3' widening, 3' stone shoulder, and AccellDecel Janes
Item Length Location Unit Cost Unit Total
Widening 650 South $15.00 L.F. $9t750
Widening 240 North $15.00 L.F. $3,600
AID Lane 400 South $23.00 S.Y. $7,667
AID Lane 400 North $23.00 S.Y. $7,667
T ota[: $28,683
Option .B~: 1-121 wide lane '(1" surface, 4" binder, 12" #53 Stone)
!mm Length location Unit Cost Unit Total
Widening 1088 South $ 50.00 L.F. $ 54,400
Widening 574 North $ 50.00 L.F. $ 28,700
T otaJ: $ 83,100
;5809786
e
# 3/ 3
e
Michael A. Oaytor
Deborah L. Winchester
13881 Shelborne Road
Westfield, Indiana 46074
(317) 873-3860
March 16, 2004
Carmel Clay Plan Commission
OtyHall
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46033
RE: Primary Plat - Stanford Park Subdivision r t1 1ftJ I ;JCJ 2 2-
(~~'~J
~~
Dear Plan Commission Members:
We are adjoining property owners to the proposed Stanford Park subdivision that is up
for Primary Plat approval at the Plan Commission Meeting. We live on the ten-acre
parcel that runs along the entire northern border of the development.
In the meetings leading up to the rezoning of the property this past year, the developer
offered several concessions to adjoining property owners on border and landscaping
issues, but did not address what we believe to be the largest concern with this proposed
development. Our concern centers on the fact that this is the most dense development
ever undertaken in the Western portion of Oay Township. Just from a quick scan of the
Connectivity Exhibit, a layman can observe that the density of the development exceeds
that of the other neighborhoods being developed in the area by a huge multiple.
We understand that the border of the newly developed Carmel City Street Facility
necessitates an unusual treatment due to the changed character of the immediate area.
The developer's solution of football fields with a surrounding T ownhome development,
while not creating neighborhood-usable greenspace, does, in fact, offer an innovative
approach to developing this area. However, we do not agree that this is the best use of
the property. It does not appear that the development just to the East of the Street
Facility is having any trouble selling homes, which would seem to indicate that the
existence of the Street Facility does not require as radical an approach as that offered.
But assuming for the sake of argument that such an approach is necessary immediately
adjoining the Street Facility, we do not understand why this ultra-dense approach
should snake its way around the existing homes along Shelborne Road all the way up to
the northern boundary of the development. Once the Street Facility has been bordered,
why is an ultra-dense development necessary bordering existing homes on large lots
and other subdivision developments that are much less dense?
Transportation issue. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding traffic loads
and how the location of three football fields may impact those loads. With the
development of the new Junior High School, the relocated College Wood Elementary
School, and the existing and expanded soccer and sports fields at 126th Street and
Shelbome Road, we are concerned about the 50 mile-per-hour speed limit and the
number of vehicles of persons residing in the neighborhood and visiting the various
amenities involved. I am not aware of any other residential street within the limits of
any City, not just in Carmel, with a 50 mile-per-hour speed limit. We are also
e
e
Michael A. Claytor
Deborah L. Winchester
13881 Shelborne Road
Westfield, Indiana 46074
(317) 873-3860
March 16, 2004
Carmel Clay Plan Commission
City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46033
RE: Primary Plat - Stanford Park Subdivision ?" IJ~ /~CJ..2 2-
Dear Plan Commission Members:
We are adjoining property owners to the proposed Stanford Park subdivision that is up
for Primary Plat approval at the Plan Commission Meeting. We live on the ten-acre
parcel that runs along the entire northern border of the development.
In the meetings leading up to the rezoning of the property this past year, the developer
offered several concessions to adjoining property owners on border and landscaping
issues, but did not address what we believe to be the largest concern with this proposed
development. Our concern centers on the fact that this is the most dense development
ever undertaken in the Western portion of Oay Township. Just from a quick scan of the
Connectivity Exhibit, a layman can observe that the density of the development exceeds
that of the other neighborhoods being developed in the area by a huge multiple.
We understand that the border of the newly developed Carmel City Street Facility
necessitates an unusual treatment due to the changed character of the immediate area.
The developer's solution of football fields with a surrounding T ownhome development,
while not creating neighborhood-usable greenspace, does, in fact, offer an innovative
approach to developing this area. However, we do not agree that this is the best use of
the property. It does not appear that the development just to the East of the Street
Facility is having any trouble selling homes, which would seem to indicate that the
existence of the Street Facility does not require as radical an approach as that offered.
But assuming for the sake of argument that such an approach is necessary immediately
adjoining the Street Facility, we do not understand why this ultra-dense approach
should snake its way around the existing homes along Shelborne Road all the way up to
the northern boundary of the development. Once the Street Facility has been bordered,
why is an ultra-dense development necessary bordering existing homes on large lots
and other subdivision developments that are much less dense?
Transportation issue. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding traffic loads
and how the location of three football fields may impact those loads. With the
development of the new Junior High School, the relocated College Wood Elementary
School, and the existing and expanded soccer and sports fields at 126th Street and
Shelborne Road, we are concerned about the 50 mile-per-hour speed limit and the
number of vehicles of persons residing in the neighborhood and visiting the various
amenities involved. I am not aware of any other residential street within the limits of
any City, not just in Carmel, with a 50 mile-per-hour speed limit. We are also