HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 01-17-01
Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
January 17, 2001
9:00 a.m.
Members present:
Laurence Lillig – Carmel DOCS John South – Ham. Co. Soil & Water
Scott Brewer – Carmel Urban Forester Chuck Shupperd – Indiana Gas
John Lester – Carmel Parks & Rec. Steve Cash – Ham. Co. Surveyor
Dick Hill – Carmel Eng. Gary Hoyt – Carmel Fire Dept.
Steve Broermann – Ham. Co. Highway Bill Akers – Carmel Communications
Jeff Kendall – Carmel Permit Services Chris Burt – Ham. Co. Highway
Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 5 – Hazel Dell Office Building (6-01 SP; 7-01 ADLS; SU-3-
01; V-4-01)
The site is located at 13250 Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned B-3/business. Filed
by Michael B. Jett of American Consulting Engineers for Hazel Dell Office
Development, LLC.
Attorney Jim Nelson presented the case and introduced it’s developer Bob Whitacre,
Cornerstone Companies, and Gary Duncan, American Consulting Engineers. The
petitioner has filed an application for a special use and ADLS under prior commitments
of a rezone. A 15,300 square foot professional office building will be constructed on Lot
st
5 at the northwest corner of 131 and Street Hazel Dell Parkway. Gary Duncan has
provided the plans for the development.
Mr. Duncan gave a brief overview. A key aspect of the project is that it is located just
north and adjacent to the Mitchner Ditch. The plans indicate that the project will
encroach on the legal drain. That has been kept within the maximum encroachment
allowed by the County Surveyor’s office. It will be in the 100-year flood fringe zone and
has compensatory storage. City water is on eastside of Hazel Dell Parkway. They will
extend the water on the east portion of the property to the south property line. The
sanitary sewer is on the west side of the property and will be installed by the developers
of lot 6. They will provide a stub for the petitioner’s building. The proposed slope of the
sanitary sewer will give adequate service. Storm water will drain to the proposed lake
number 2 which is part of the overall Hazel Dell Corner development. Lake 1 will
service the lots south of the Mitchner Ditch and lake 2 will serve the north lots 5 and 6.
The developers of lot 6 will construct this facility. Adequate detention for this site is
provided in the pond that outlets to the Mitchner Ditch. There is significant fall from the
north property line to the ditch. There will be some fill on the property, some exposed
foundation wall, and a retaining wall on the ditch side to make the grading work.
Another key feature is the lack of a direct street cut off Hazel Dell Parkway. The project
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
1
will utilize a shared access, from lot 6, that intersects with Ivy Hill Drive. Fifty-one
parking spaces are provided. A prior commitment for 15% interior green space within
the parking lot is provided.
Dick Hill has not finished his review. A meeting is scheduled this afternoon with
Schneider Engineering and Corbey Thompson. It is essential to determine where
responsibilities lie and who is going to do what. There are a lot of improvements on the
parkway. After the meeting, Mr. Hill will write a comment letter. His department does
not recommend a sewer permit be issue until the entire infrastructure is installed. Each
secondary plat will be approved individually.
Chuck Shupperd stated there is some choice for the location of the gas line. There is a
two-inch stub at Ivy Hill Drive and an extension at the westside. The developer hopes to
break ground in April. A master meter would be dependent on the layout. Mr. Shupperd
suggested a meeting with Mr. Duncan.
Jeff Kendall had no comments.
John South also is concerned with who does what and when on this project. Lake 2 is an
integral part of the erosion control plan. It needs to go in first. Tile drainage is
recommended on the fill side of the wall. The diversion swale should be installed at the
start of construction. A silt fence is not enough.
Scott Brewer suggested staying away from the fence row as much as possible to avoid
damage to the existing trees. New trees should not be planted under existing trees.
Evergreens, especially, will die from the lack of sunlight. The placement has not
considered utility line location. Gary Duncan will work with the lot 6 owner to resolve
this. The sign for the day care center seems to be in that green way. The office building
sign is 30 feet back. Gary Duncan will review the placement of the sign. It can be five
feet from the right of way. The street trees installed on Hazel Dell Parkway need to be on
the plan along with tree protection details. For diversity, Mr. Brewer suggests reducing
the 22 ash trees to a total of 15 trees. The other seven trees could be a different kind.
The Planting Schedule switches the Latin with the English names for the Serbian and
Colorado spruce.
Bill Akers suggests using suite numbers A, B, C, etc. if the use is multi tenant. The
address will be 13250 Hazel Dell Parkway.
Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Mike Jett. A two-inch water line is planned for the building. It
will not be sprinkled. A Knox box is requested by the Fire Department. There is a
hydrant south of the entrance of lots 5 and 6 that should remain. Mr. Duncan wants to
only remove the cap and thrust box; the fire hydrant will stay. It will have just a short
stub and cap. The general contractor should contact Gary Duncan after approval is
obtained.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
2
Laurence Lillig commented that the drive from lot 6 takes a jog due to the difference in
the size of parking spaces. It is acceptable to reduce the spaces to 10 by 18 feet. Gary
Duncan will adjust the size for the east and north area to permit more green space in the
parking lot for landscape material. The sign for lot 6 may be a little too close to the right
of way. The minimum distance is five feet.
Steve Cash was not present. However, Gary Duncan received his letter and expects Mr.
Cash will allow a 30-foot encroachment. Discussion followed regarding the exact
distance. The petition will stay within the limits Mr. Cash has set. This affects their
building. It has been clipped at the corner to stay within limits.
Regarding the plat, Laurence Lillig asked to have the half right of way for Hazel Dell
st
Parkway indicated. East 131 Street should be labeled on the south side. Monument
dimensions need to be indicated. It should be specified that these are poured-in-place
concrete. This is explained in the subdivision regulations. The phone number of the
owners should be included. The cover sheet should contain a key map showing where lot
5 is located within the Hazel Dell plat. Sheet two needs the phone number of the owner.
The commission certificate needs to be replaced with the new administrative certificate.
The primary and secondary plat docket numbers should be included in a note for this
project.
Mr. Lillig advised the petitioner that the Plan Commission asked for modifications to the
ADLS elevations for the dormers on Children’s World. They may ask for some other
treatment on this project also. The dormers serve as vents for the attic. Mr. Lillig
believes the building meets the Commission’s intent regarding design.
Gary Duncan discussed a lighting change. They have proposed wall packs on the
building for accent as well as extra lighting for pedestrian walkways. These are square
wall packs. The Plan Commission is not in favor of this. Gary Duncan will provide a
soffit lighting option prior to Plan Commission. Or, they may do away with the lights all
together as this is a day-time use. Cut sheets were included in the applications and will
be included in the packets for Plan Commission. Jim Nelson suggested a letter to
Laurence Lillig indicating the lights will be deleted. The light requirement is 0.1 at Hazel
Dell Parkway. It appears to be 0.2 in a couple of places. It needs to be 0.3 on the north
line and 0.1 on the west.
North Haven (PP, SW, SU, DSV)
Attorney Charlie Frankenberger represented J.C. Hart and C. P. Morgan. He introduced
John Hart, J.C. Hart, and Greg Snelling, CSO. This project is in connection to the
petitioners’ request to annex and rezone the 40 acres shown on the aerial photo. The
th
parcel is located at 96 Street and Gray Road. The petitioners have now filed a request
for development plan and primary plat approval at the Plan Commission on February 20,
2001. Primary plat approval is being sought for the entire real estate and final
development plan approval for a part of it. The plat, which corresponds to the outline in
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
3
white, divides the real estate into multi family at the north and office use at the south. The
northern portion further divides into lot 1 for the apartments and block B that is part of
the lake that corresponds to the apartment real estate. The southern part of the real estate
is divided into block C, lot 2, and block D. C. P. Morgan will construct its office
building on lot 2. Block C is that part of the lake that corresponds to the office use.
Block D will later be subdivided and sold along with the buildings that will be
constructed there. This is a conditional secondary plat. It will be recorded once it is
approved. When, block D is further subdivided into its individual lots, a final secondary
plat will be recorded. Approval will be sought in the future for the subdivision of block
D. At this time, final development plan approval is requested for the entire northern
portion. The entire southern portion is requested with the exception of block D. The
road in the middle of block A will be a private street.
Dick Hill had no comments at this point.
Chuck Shupperd stated it was determined last month that only the community building
will be serviced with gas.
Jeff Kendall had no comments.
John South asked to have a swale shown on the erosion control plan. The silt fence along
the lake is probably worthless. He suggests putting it in at the top of the bank.
Charlie Frankenberger asked Greg Snelling to give an open space plan to Scott Brewer.
Most of the issues have been resolved. The landscape plan will not go before the Plan
Commission for secondary plat approval. Scott Brewer wants a detailed plan for tree
protection. Greg Snelling will send it to Mr. Brewer.
Mr. Frankenberger clarified that final development plans for Block D will be sought later.
Bill Akers request a separate meeting with Gary Snelling to name the streets. The main
entrance will be a private street. An agreement will be created for its care and
maintenance. The residential streets will be private also. Consequently, Mr. Akers has
no addressing issues but wants to avoid confusion for citizen protection. John Hart will
submit a list of names to avert duplication. The street names should be on file with the
Fire Department. These will be sprinkled buildings with an alarm system. The system
will be able to identify which of the buildings is calling for service. John Hart requested
a meeting with Bill Akers and Gary Hoyt.
Gary Hoyt stated the hydrants look good and requested exterior entrances for the riser
rooms. He would like an exterior door to provide access to the water shut-off valve. One
of the storage closets will be dedicated for the Fire Department. Mr. Hoyt requested a
Knox box for the clubhouse and an additional box on the C. P. Morgan building. Each of
the future individual buildings in Block D will have their own Knox box. Gary Hoyt
stated the importance of direct access to a Knox box.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
4
Laurence Lillig commented that the Board of Zoning Appeals has made a standard
request that swimming pools be of certain dimensions. It may be 25 yards in length; he is
not certain. Some of these members are also on the Plan Commission. They may make a
similar request. Mr. Lillig would like a note on Block D’s primary plat that sets a
maximum number of lots into which the initial lot can be divided. The buildings on these
five lots will still be subject to R5 zoning. The private streets and the width of the private
streets will require waivers. Charlie Frankenberger has a memo that outlines their
discussion on waivers. He will send a copy to Mr. Lillig. Docket numbers are needed.
The sidewalk system is fairly broken and seems to primarily serve the parking lot. Mr.
Lillig encouraged an effort to connect the sidewalks to develop a walking system for
people. A 10-foot path is required on both sides of the private streets. The petitioner
may ask for a sidewalk waiver. Laurence Lillig stated this is a matter of safety and
pedestrian travel.
Dick Hill inquired about City multifamily sidewalk requirements. Mr. Lillig responded
there is no City requirement for a sidewalk system to be integrated in any way. His is
just a request. Charlie Frankenberger and Laurence Lillig will discuss docket numbers
for these cases.
Gary Hoyt spoke of the Providence project. The boulevard entrance width is 53 feet.
The ingress width was increased to 18 feet. Mr. Hoyt requested the width for this new
proposal be made wider. They need more swing area to accommodate the large fire
fighting equipment. The petitioner has taken into consideration school buses and semi
trucks.
Woodland Shoppes Telecommunications Facility (SU-1-01)
th
The site is located northeast of East 116 Street and South Range Line Road. The site is
zoned B-8/ business. Filed by Matt Mugavero of CIS Communications for Nextel West
Corporation.
The petitioner did not appear.
Carmel United Methodist Church (SU-2-01)
The site is located at 621 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-3/business and R-
2/residence. Filed by Fanning/Howey Associates for Carmel United Methodist.
Jeff Bolinger and Chuck Tyler, Fanning/Howey Associates, presented the case. Mr.
Tyler gave an overview of the project. The expansion of Carmel United Methodist
Church will be to the east of the existing facility. The project includes a new fellowship
hall, a handicap entrance, addition of five new classrooms, a small kitchen for fellowship
hall, storage, restrooms, and some supporting spaces. The corridor system will be
extended and linked to the existing building. The corridor extensions are ramped to
address the different site elevations. There is a minor amount of renovation within the
existing building. A new elevator, that serves the two stories of new construction and
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
5
connects to the basement level, will be added. The existing atrium space, an assembly
space for coffees and small groups, will be raised to match the first floor. They plan to
insert some storage under it. This change will improve accessibility. Jeff Bolliger stated
new parking areas will be added to the east and southeast. The entrance drive will be
relocated. All traffic will come in at the existing curb cuts. The bulk of parking
expansion will be into the vacant lot. Detention will be in the front lawn where there is a
natural slope. It will be a dry pond. There will be a handicap accessible entrance on the
south side of the building and a ramp at the north entrance. Mr. Tyler said the church
wants to minimize any impact to the Range Line Road elevation with this change. They
also want to save good specimen, large trees. Screening will be provided for the eastside
parking area. Chuck Tyler anticipates demolition of the eastern-most small house. The
described exteriors will be consistent with the existing church. There will be full brick
exteriors and sloping roofs. A height variance may be sought. This is not a large
imposing addition. The petitioners believe it will be consistent with the components of
the existing church.
Dick Hill has not reviewed this project. He asked for drainage calculations. Jeff
Bolinger will provide a copy. There will be new storm sewers. Mr. Hill asked him to
label the drawings “existing” versus “proposed”. Drainage from the eastside goes to the
front or the west. Jeff Bolinger stated all new parking areas would have curbs. The
existing lot is not curbed.
Chuck Shupperd inquired about relocation of the utilities. They will be moved to the new
mechanical room and service yard area along the west edge. A new pad will be set. Mr.
Shupperd gave the business card of their commercial rep to the petitioners.
Jeff Kendall stated a demolition permit will be needed. The petitioner must speak with
Morris Hensley, Carmel Utility Department, to clear well sites. It is necessary to have a
sign-off document from Mr. Hensley before a demolition permit can be obtained.
Chuck Tyler said demolition of the house might be a little later.
Jeff Kendall requested specific detail on rated walls, corridors, firewalls, and specific
methods of fire stopping on the plan.
John South distributed his letter. He suggested separating the 30-inch discharge pipe
farther from the 10-inch outlet pipe to enhance water quality. At the north property line,
there is a gas sub station and zero lot line condos. Mr. South wants to figure out drainage
improvements going west through the church property. The drains are plugged with dirt
and the culverts are smashed. He suggested being a good neighbor and refurbish along
the north line. An erosion control plan is need. Mr. South’s letter lists items and a
sequence that might work.
Scott Brewer distributed his business card and will write a letter. The Austrian pines are
not recommended; spruces are healthier. Pin oaks are on the schedule, but not on the
plan. They are acid lovers and not recommended. A detailed tree preservation plan is
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
6
needed. Mr. Brewer said the Carmel community will comment if a lot of big trees are
moved. The petitioner should attempt preservation.
Chuck Tyler responded that a contingent at the church wants to keep trees. However,
they need to solve parking issues on the site. Scott Brewer asked for reforestation with
planting “start” trees to offset negative public relations. The buffer next to the Bowles’
property to the east must be five feet in size. Their plant choice for the area could be a
healthier species. Scott Brewer can make recommendations. The note about an
“elementary school” needs to be removed from the plan. The parking lot should have
th
buffering or trees along 126 Street. The plan shows just junipers on the south side. Mr.
Brewer would like to see street trees.
Bill Akers had no comments.
Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Jeff Boliger. The new addition will be fully sprinkled and
completely tied into the existing system. It needs to be more accessible to the Fire
Department. Mr. Hoyt requested of an exterior entrance near their riser room. Room A
114 will be storage room. An exterior entrance could be added to that location. A Knox
box will be relocated at the new door.
Chuck Tyler will request one variance from the State of Indiana as it relates to the atrium.
By raising the room, egress will be improved. There will also be some head-height
storage underneath. They will add square footage; this was the issue with the State per
Section 508 of the Building Code.
Laurence Lillig commented that the survey looks like the church is working on seven
parcels of ground. This could cause problems. Their plan does not show property lines
in relation to the buildings. The petitioner might need a variance. Business zoning does
not match property lines. Mr. Lillig suggested combining the property on a single deed.
Chuck Bolinger will convey this idea to the church. Laurence Lillig also suggested the
petitioners speak with Dick Hill regarding right of way dimensions. A site plan with
buildings shown is needed. The Community Service and Building Departments consider
th
individual parcels not the entire land owned by the church. Range Line Road and 126
Street have been dedicated. The petitioners will file for a height variance. Their
preschool program will be consolidated on the first level. Mr. Lillig suggested a meeting
with the petitioners.
Guilford Park Subdivision (2-01)
th
The site is located at the southeast corner of East 116Street and South Guilford Road.
The site is zoned R-1/residence. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Kosene
and Kosene.
Roger Ward and Eric Gleissner, Roger Ward Engineering, spoke about this subdivision.
The project first came to TAC for primary plat consideration. This is the secondary plat
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
7
and construction plan phase. Mr. Ward received no written comments from TAC
members.
Eric Gleissner will take care of Highway Department plans regarding the alignment and
improvement of Guilford Road. He has not spoken to Kate Weese. But, he has spoken
with a consultant for the City on this project. He gave them the latest alignment. It may
be appropriate at this time to talk about construction sequencing. The plans should
reflect what the City wants at the intersection.
Dick Hill had no comments. He encouraged the petitioners to speak with Kate Weese.
Chuck Shupperd had no comments. The petitioner is now working on the interior layout.
John Lester cannot guarantee that park facilities will be at the southeast entrance. Also,
the name of the park might not be Central Park. He will not know the name until the
master plan is completed.
Steve Cash inquired whether the land would be annexed? Roger Ward does not think
they have to be annexed. Laurence Lillig said statute calls for a prospective parcel to be
1/8 contiguous with the City. The petitioner needs to work with Steve Cash because of
the legal drain even if it is annexed. He gave Mr. Ward a check-off list of various
requirements with regard to the County regulated drain. This is to be used in conjunction
with design of the construction plans. Mr. Cash has concern about easement width. State
statute requires a 30-foot total. Fifteen feet are indicated. Roger Ward commented that
wherever a storm sewer goes between lots, 15 feet may be indicated on one side.
However, the total is 30 feet. Steve Cash will do a review this week.
John South sent copy of his letter to petitioner. There is grading shown in the non disturb
areas on lots 1 and 2. The grading does not appear to be consistent with the easement.
Eric Gleissner stated fill was needed. The petitioner did agree to a 20-foot non disturb
area to protect the tree line. However, language in the agreement allows for a little
cutting and filing if drainage requires. Scott Brewer quoted the covenants, “Earth
moving, grading, or filing is prohibited in non disturb areas.” Roger Ward believes
providing adequate drainage is everyone’s concern. He will check this with Paul Reis.
Mr. Brewer stated the developer reserves the right to install erosion control structures or
devices. Usually, this provision is approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District.
Mr. South asked to have the 100-year elevation for the detention pond shown. The detail
for the off-site storm sewer is needed. The main issue is how some of the lots will be
drained. Mr. South recommends, on several lots, that the drainage be from front to back.
There are numerous lots that drain from back to front. To do a proper drainage plan, he
suggested taking the back of the rear pad and dropping six inches for decent fall away
from the house to the back rear lot. Then, there would be positive fall from that point for
the side yard swale. Some lots do not have positive drainage from the back. Roger Ward
responded that the only lots that drain from the back to front are the perimeter lots that
might affect the tree line. The petitioner made an effort to lower streets to allow draining
from back to front. The grade at the pad at the side yard is more than 6 inches lower.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
8
Mr. South responded this was not his point. From the rear pad grade, the down slope is
six inches. The total slope is going from back to front. The pad will have to go against
that to get drainage away from the house. Mr. Ward stated they provided a diversion
swale that might be closer to the pad in cases where they needed to preserve trees. John
South thinks minimum slope is at least one half percent. He does not think they will
drain very well. In the case of side yard slope, if a continuous slope is kept from the front
to back, it does not work either. Mr. South requested more detail on lot grading. A
minimum would be showing grades at mid point of the lot and then showing diversion
swale. He also suggests with lots this narrow, 10 feet between houses will be hard to
grade a swale. John South suggested a rear yard inlet to avoid draining from back to
front. Roger Ward is trying to save trees and will provide more detail to ensure the
contractor will build as the plans indicate. John South wants to keep the 20-foot buffer
also. However, this is the petitioner’s plan and it is their responsibility to make it work.
Mr. South made erosion control comments for the perimeter defenses. They need to
improve the perimeter defenses on the southeast by showing the road cut in the early part
of construction. They will essentially be digging a large water trap. The silt fence is not
adequate. The pond in the other corner will be the sediment trap; it needs to be
delineated in that fashion. He further recommends erosion control blankets on the
swales. The street inlets do not show detail. These need silt sacks or gravel bags to
protect street inlets. Small lots with a lot of construction activity benefit from silt sacks.
These fit down into the inlet to catch over flow. Roger Ward will look into these.
Scott Brewer inquired about a landscape plan. Roger Ward thought they had provided a
detail landscape plan at the primary plat stage. He will get a copy. Scott Brewer needs a
planting schedule with planting details. The pond must be planted with native plants. A
tree preservation plan is needed for the non disturb areas. Scott Brewer offered to
provide details on language that could be used.
Bill Akers said the name of Central Park Drive would need to be changed. Home Place
has already used that name. There is a future road off Woodview Drive. The road is in
the northwest corner. The alignment will be fixed; the road will become a “T”
intersection. Another name is needed for Central Park Drive. The cut off for it, where it
will be east/west, will be Lots 10 and 24. Lots 93 and 88 will be off that street. Once a
new name is provided, addresses can be assigned.
Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Roger Ward. The hydrants are good.
Laurence Lillig stated sheet one of the secondary plat should include primary and
secondary plat docket numbers. The name should be extended to Guilford Park
Subdivision. In the legend, the monuments and markers need information on size and
materials. On sheet one, the label over the “non disturb area construction limits” needs to
be brought over to both sheets. Block E is the normal pool of the detention pond. The
100-year flood elevation, the normal pool elevation, and the bottom of pond should be
labeled. East 116 Street shows a 75-foot half right of way. The thoroughfare plan calls
for 70 feet. Roger Ward believes the confusion lies in the fact that originally the County
required 75 feet and the City 70 feet. This needs to be addressed. There are several lines
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
9
marking drain easements that need to be labeled. The dash line showing the 60-foot half
right of way, along with the note, should be deleted. The boundaries on block 1A are not
clear. Roger Ward responded when figuring ratios for open space, they were only
allowed to count 50 or 75 percent of the pond area since it is under three acres. They
needed to separate out the two areas. A clearer label might be block E1 or block F. The
center line and curve monumentation is missing. These need to be identified.
Benchmark Surveying has the plat now. There are dimensions where the blocks meet the
street that have not been labeled. Overlapping text needs to be fixed. “North” needs to
be spelled out in Woodview North Drive. “South” and “Road” need to be added to
Guilford. The name Central Park Drive must change. New 2001 dates must be indicated.
The land description needs to be the true boundary description. Roger Ward said the
open space calcs are correct. Mr. Lillig said the parcel is not annexed at this time.
“Board of Public Works” needs to be removed and “County” added. Carmel’s Ordinance
calls for a 20-foot curve radius where the South Guilford Road right of way meets the
th
East 116 Street right of way. The triangular cut might not meet City or County
standards. The eastside of Guilford’s sidewalk needs to be extended south. On page two
the access between Lots 9 and 10 is labeled as right of way. Roger Ward stated this was
originally just a linkage to the open space. The County Highway Department has asked
for a dedicated right of way for access to the southern property. The plat needs center
line monumentation and a 20 foot curve radius. This request is also in Steve
Boerrmann’s letter. This makes lots 9 and 10 corner lots which is not a difficulty for lot
10 with the 15 foot building line. But, lot 9 then has a front yard setback requirement of
35 feet that affects the placement of the pad. The plat will need to show a 35 front yard.
The petition may apply a variance of front yard setback at a later date.
Dick Hill asked if the subdivision would be served by Carmel water. Roger Ward
anticipates using IWC as they have a water line at the northwest corner. Carmel Water
has a line at the northeast corner. Both systems could work. John Lester stated the five-
foot easement is to carry Carmel water to the park.
Bonbar Place Subdivision (13-01-PP)
The site is located at the northwest corner of I-465 and the Carmel/Clay Monon
Greenway. The site is zoned R-1/residence. Filed by Paul Reis of The Reis Law Firm
for Kosene & Kosene.
The case was presented by Paul Reis, attorney for the developers. The general location is
st
101 Street and the Monon Trail. It contains 35.77 acres with an existing 11.8 acre pond.
The revised plan reduces the number of lots from 115 down to 75 lots. Mr. Reis has
contacted everyone on TAC.
Steve Broermann had construction plan issues, but everything pertaining to the primary
plat has been addressed.
Chuck Shupperd said the revision does not impact their layout.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
10
John Lester sent a letter. The petitioners addressed all his questions previously. Mr.
Lester needs a copy of the easement and he will provide a copy of the trail connection for
the petitioners.
Steve Cash stated, as the parcel is not annexed, it would be a County regulated drain. His
letter stated design of construction plans for the regulated drain must meet their standards
and requirements. At the construction plan phase, the off site area from the north must be
reviewed. Some watershed comes down there. The area north of the cul de sac it is
called out as undisturbed tree preservation land. An inlet is shown being extended to the
north side of Hobart Court. Depending on site conditions, it might need to be extended
out. It may be necessary to get into the undisturbed tree area and deal with any erosion
control issues that may occur in the tree preservation area. Sometimes storm sewer sizing
requires a site visit. Their easements concerns have been addressed.
John South said, regarding the wetlands issue, this plan is much preferred over previous
ones. Lots 39-75 drain back to front. There is more of a watershed on lots along the west
side. The effectiveness of the side yard swales is questioned. Mr. South suggested a rear
yard inlet using yard inlets for drainage. This may provide better drainage without
destroying everything. It may be possible to have inlet and piping on each individual lot.
John South thinks the best scenario is to put one pipe on the lot line to serve two lots.
However, he realizes this may not be possible with their layout.
Scott Brewer talked to Michael Hunt from Gary Weaver’s office. They discussed
screening lot 1 from the highway. They agreed to Mr. Brewer’s other suggestions.
Bill Akers spoke with Mark Monroe last week. Everything looks good.
Gary Hoyt met with Mark Monroe and Eric Gleissner regarding a few questions. Lots 1,
2, 3 need space to allow fire department equipment to turn around. The petitioners have
agreed to add a turn around area at the end. Mr. Hoyt suggested stripping to prevent
parking in the area. He realizes this is a private street but wants to ask the owner to
cooperate. Mr. Hoyt is looking for a couple of areas that would support the weight of a
pick up truck with a boat on it so the department can reach the borrow pit in case of
emergency. A short gravel base is needed along the edge of the lake. Access along the
trail is available for their small vehicle.
Laurence Lillig commented that South Bend Court is still in excess of 600 feet. This
distance is measured along the center line. Roger Ward will look into this. His
measurement is 598.69 feet. Mr. Ward will take the distance to the center line. More
labeling is needed. Sharon Clark inquired about new traffic counts. Paul Reis said the
report is not ready but will provide it.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
11
Village of WestClay, Section AG01 (3-00SP)
st
The site is located southeast of West 131 Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned
PUD/planned unit development. Filed by Keith Lash of The Schneider Corporation for
Brenwick TND Communities.
The petitioner did not appear.
Village of WestClay, Section AG02 (4-00 SP)
st
The site is located southeast of West 131 Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned
PUD/planned unit development. Filed by Keith Lash of The Schneider Corporation for
Brenwick TND Communities.
The petitioner did not appear.
Village of WestClay, Section 6502 (5-00SP)
st
The site is located southeast of West 131 Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned
PUD/planned unit development. Filed by Keith Lash of The Schneider Corporation for
Brenwick TND Communities.
The petitioner did not appear.
Two-Story Medical Office Building (DP/ADLS)
The site is located southeast of West Smokey Row Road and Oak Ridge Road. The site
is zoned B-/business within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Adam DeHart of Keeler-
Webb Associates for F.C.C. Development.
Adam DeHart introduced Frank Cosmos, FCC Development, and explained the request.
The petitioner wants to build a two-story professional office building. The majority of
tenants will be medically oriented. The parcel was originally referred to as the Beeson
Surgery Center in the time frame of 1996 - 1998. Some infrastructure is in place. There
was sanitary tie-in, a lift station, a county highway entrance, and access for both sites.
th
The 136 Street and US 31 intersection is congested. The centerline of Oak Ridge Road
is 60 feet from the northwest corner of the property. The parking lot has a few spaces
over the required minimum. Regarding floodway concerns of Little Cool Creek, the
building will be above the 100-year flood elevation by several feet. Carmel water is
available. Dick Hill thought the area is serviced by Hamilton Western Utilities. Mr.
DeHart will check this. There are some minor revisions and issues with ownership which
are now settled. The petitioner hopes to begin construction in spring.
Steve Broermann needs a meeting with Adam DeHart.
Chuck Shupperd has a gas main nearby on the south side of the property. Adam DeHart
needs evidence of the Shell pipeline. Mr. Shupperd will try to provide that.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
12
John Lester thinks the project might require a 10-foot wide path. The Alternative
th
Transportation Plan uses Oak Ridge Road to get to 146 Street. Mr. Lester will check if
it should be installed on the south side. Laurence Lillig will check if a multi-use path is
required on both sides. The petitioner is responsible for the south side. The proposed
right of way should be used. John Lester will discuss this further with Adam DeHart.
Steve Cash asked if the parcel is annexed. Adam DeHart believes it is; Dick Hill does
not. The availability fee was paid but the parcel is not annexed. Steve Cash is looking
for the plans for this project. He does not believe the creek on this site is a County
regulated drain. Consequently, the floodplain ordinance regarding fill would not apply.
There was a previously submitted drainage plan. Adam DeHart said the pond was sized
to accommodate this new site. No permits are required from Steve Cash’s office.
However, he will want to review it.
John South sent a letter but Adam DeHart needs a copy of it. Mr. South recommends a
reinforced silt fence for the detention pond outlet. He suggests grass with turf
reinforcement instead of the concrete spillway. The amount of riparian habitat to be
disturbed is needed. Adam DeHart will add layers to John’s South sheet. A Notice of
Intent must be filed. John thinks this site is tied in with the Beeson site. They have a
shared detention basin.
Scott Brewer distributed 31 Overlay requirements for landscaping. Extra requirements
have been highlighted in the plan. There are tree preservation, greenway planting,
parking lots, planting strips, and buffer yard requirements. Mr. Brewer needs a revised
set of plans. The detention pond is not on the plans. For tree preservation, the limit of
construction lines is needed. A separate meeting was suggested by Scott Brewer. Spruce
trees are recommended in place of Austrian pines. The planting schedule indicates two
sizes. One says “size (vacant)” and the other says “size (all others)”. This needs to be
clarified. There is a minimum size side yard planting strip requirement along the east
th
side. There are buffer yard requirement plantings on 136 Street because the north side
is residential. Adam DeHart will review their landscape plan.
Jeff Kendall noticed that the buildings are similar to the others. There is no basement
because of the flood fringe. It is the same basic size and design with attention to the
design requirements to US 31. Laurence Lillig does not believe the design meets the 31
Overlay requirements. It will be a two-story building.
Dick Hill stated their only involvement is sanitary sewer. There was a private, forced
main lift station in this development. There was a stub line. Dick Hill asked if the
project was impacted by the Illinois Street extension.
st
Laurence Lillig stated plans call for a traffic circle at 131 Street and Oak Ridge Road.
The Illinois Street right of way calls for a 120-foot right of way or a 60 half. If a square
intersection is constructed, it would bring the right of way up to the line.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
13
Bill Akers referred to his letter in which he assigned an address. The building needs a
name. Adam DeHart is not certain the building will have a name.
Gary Hoyt understands the building will be sprinkled. He would like an exterior door at
the riser room. He also suggests a Knox box with master key close to the door. A fire
hydrant, off the Hamilton Western Utilities water main, needs to be installed along with a
FDC fire department connection. Mr. Hoyt recommended the grassy area at the corner of
the building and requested a separate meeting.
The petitioner requested a Meridian Street address. There is a shared entrance. Beeson
has a north Meridian address.
Laurence Lillig needs a legal description. Adam DeHart will check if this property was
split off from Beeson. Mr. Lillig asked when that occurred. This is required to determine
if the land will have to be platted. On the south side of the parcel the set back is marked
as a 90-foot rear. It needs to be corrected to a 90-foot build to line. Architectural
elevations are requested. A zoning waiver will be needed if the building is too close to
the detention pond. Details of the dumpster enclosure are needed. It needs to be
completely enclosed including a roof. This is part of the 31 Overlay requirements. The
petitioner may submit a waiver for the roof on the dumpster. More detail is needed for
the easements shared by the two properties. The 31 Overlay Ordinance calls for a
broader range of plans. The architectural design might be a big issue. The design must
be more “corporate” than the Beeson building. No docket number will be assigned until
there is a full filing.
Adam asked about the Carmel Thoroughfare Plan and the Hamilton County
Thoroughfare Plan in regard to the traffic circles. Carmel Engineering and the Highway
Department need to talk. Adam DeHart understands that he should satisfy the County
regarding right of way. Mr. Lillig suggested anticipating the installation of a circle at the
intersection. He recommends shifting some of the spaces as their parking area would be
affected. Laurence Lillig said this is a question of annexation. The actual line for the
road is not settled.
Windsor Grove Subdivision (10-01 PP)
th
The site is located on the southwest corner of West 106 Street and Towne Road. The
site is zoned S-1/residence. Filed by Edward E. Fleming of Stoeppelwerth & Associates
for Windsor Grove LLC.
Charlie Frankenberger introduced the developers, Steve Wilson, Jim Caito, and Richard
Carriger. Ed Fleming, Stoeppelwerth & Associates, was also in attendance for the
th
presentation of the 37-acre parcel project at the southwest corner of 106 Street and
Towne Road. The plat of the 35 lots has been distributed. Mr. Frankenberger invited
questions and comments.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
14
Chris Burt commented that a cul de sac must be less than 600 feet from the center line to
the end of the cul de sac. Mr. Frankenberger believes the City’s measurement
requirements will cause the petitioner to seek a variance.
There is concern that the gatehouse will be in the right of way. The road is designated as
a public right of way in a manner similar to Windemere Subdivision. It will be privately
maintained. On the primary plat, it is marked as common area. Charlie Frankenberger
does not know if the Highway Department objects to a common area with a gatehouse.
The plat may need modification. Steve Wilson sold 70 feet to the County. Chris Burt
thinks the thoroughfare had adjustments. The County is asking for 80 feet at the
intersection. It is a typical 500 foot. Richard Carriger asked why the County might be
asking for more. Laurence Lillig responded this is the geometry the Highway
Department wants to widen the right of way within the intersection.
Regarding comment # 8 in the Highway Department’s letter, the eyebrow is not usually
part of the public right of way. Mr. Frankenberger said then there would not be frontage
on the public right of way.
th
Chuck Shupperd stated there is a gas line on 106 Street and Towne Road. Service can
be brought to the subdivision on either road. Mr. Caito would prefer using Towne Road.
He wants to avoid the main entrance so they can install landscaping. Windemere and
Camden Walk Subdivisions are examples.
John Lester understands construction will begin as soon as possible. He stated paths
must be 10 feet wide. The exterior path must be asphalt. The new thoroughfare path
must be 10 feet wide with stone underneath. Mr. Lester requested any extra dirt from this
project. The Parks Department is building a sledding hill.
Laurence Lillig stated the standard for construction of the path is like those on Hazel Dell
Parkway. The petitioner may contact the Engineering Department for specification.
Steve Cash said this project’s petition for the regulated drain falls under his jurisdiction.
He needs all the traditional things and requested more detail on their plan to tie into the
Towne Lakes drainage system. A drainage summary, which addresses what was
basically designed in Towne Lakes, must be provided. The watershed map shows a 10-
foot easement along perimeter. If there will be swales in the rear yards, such as lots 9,
10, and 11, a conflict may result when trying to protect trees. The petitioner must
incorporate enough room for the swales. Mr. Cash will write a letter on this project.
Jeff Kendall inquired about the size of homes. The house size and value will be between
Kings Mill and Windemere Subdivision. The price range begins at $500,000.
Bill Akers received a faxed listing for street name choices. The County disapproved all
except Elizabeth Court. He asked if Wexford Drive was a stub street. The petitioners do
not own the adjoining property; but, they would like to purchase it. The street is just a
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
15
stub. There is a list of names that have been used throughout the county. It is available
from Hamilton County Transfer and Mapping.
Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Ed Fleming. He questioned the cul de sacs over 600 feet in
length. Mr. Hoyt suggested connecting to Towne Road. The County is not in favor of
th
another road in close proximity to 106 Street. The petitioner does not want another
entrance off Towne Road. The gatehouse will not be manned. Mr. Hoyt requested
another emergency entrance on a lot line. This would not be for public use but should
accommodate emergency vehicles. A brick paver off Spring Mill Road should be
considered. The subdivision will have a brick wall for privacy. A road is needed that
allows ingress and egress to lots a distance from the entrance. Mr. Frankenberger asked
if a horseshoe drive on Lot 22 would suffice. Mr. Wilson added that all are large lots and
horseshoe driveways would permit passage by emergency vehicles. Bob Hendricks,
Hamilton County Emergency Management, is very concerned about the safety aspect of
this situation.
Laurence Lillig likes the idea of a paver access off the cul de sac to Towne Road. Gary
Hoyt inquired about a gate within the brick wall. It could be locked with a Knox box
key. Gary Hoyt will discuss the matter with Ed Fleming.
Steve Wilson and Richard Carriger proposed a written statement in their covenants to not
sue the Fire Department for driving through lots in the case of an emergency. Horseshoe
driveways might be commitments for lots 16 and 22. The intersection at Elizabeth Court
could be by passed completely.
th
Laurence Lillig stated the right of way for 106 Street is 50 feet, not 40 feet. The
th
petitioner must provide 50 feet between right of way and the lots on 106 Street and
Towne Road. The street stub is good. Steve Cash has requested the eyebrow to the south
be a common area and completely out of the right of way. This causes a frontage
problem for those lots. Mr. Frankenberger suggested treating it as a public right of way
that would be privately maintained. Regarding the design and length of the stub, Carmel
treats it differently but the affect is the same. It remains a problem until the stub links to
another subdivision. DOCS shares the Fire Department’s concerns. As a matter of
policy, the department has never treated a stub the same as a cul de sac. Mr. Lillig
suggested the petitioners work with the Fire Department to find a way to serve the area.
Fence details and subdivision signage is required for Plan Commission approval. Scott
Brewer has requested a copy of the landscape plan. The petitioner must prepare an area
map for the existing land and uses in the immediate area. The Plan Commission is very
concerned when projects are being presented and they need to know what is around the
parcel.
Charlie Frankenberger inquired about filing waivers. Laurence Lillig suggested fixing
the matters just reviewed. A waiver is needed for the cul de sac. Lots 5, 6, and 7 may
have a frontage problem. Docket numbers are needed. At the time of primary plat, a
wavier could be sought. A variance could be requested from the Board of Zoning for
lack of frontage.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
16
Woodhaven, Section 1, Lot 28 (Primary Plat Amendment)
The site is located on the northeast corner of Woodhaven Drive and North Michigan
Road. The site is zoned S-1/residence. Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineering
for CDC Corporation.
Stan Neal, Weihe Engineering, presented the case and introduced Bob Edwards, agent for
the owner. They are replatting block A in Section 1 of Woodhaven Subdivision along
with some metes and bounds that are adjacent. Woodhaven Subdivision has been in
existence for 15 to 18 years. The development is unique because the entrance is in both
Hamilton and Boone Counties. The street exists; some ground in Block A will be
changed along with land contiguous to it.
Chris Burt referred to Steve Boermann’s letter. Stan Neal wants to speak with Mr.
Broermann as the largest area is not in Hamilton County.
John Lester had no comments.
Steve Cash wrote a letter. Lot 27 was replatted a year ago. The storm sewer will be
rerouted to provide more buildable lot area. Fifteen feet are needed on each side. Mr.
Cash stated it would be necessary to submit a Petition for Reconstruction and Relocation
of the existing Woodhaven Drain. Construction plans and procedural items are needed.
There are no major problems. Steve Cash needs construction plans.
Jeff Kendall understands this is a residential replat of block A and platting of some metes
and bounds tracts that the client owns. One house will be built on one lot.
Bill Akers and Gary Hoyt had no comments.
Steve Cash stated a crossing permit is required if they cross the drain.
Laurence Lillig asked if the petitioner spoke with Boone County. Mr. Neal said no.
They intend to record in Carmel and then record in Boone County. There is a letter in the
file for the original Woodhaven Subdivision from the Boone County Director of
Planning. That letter relinquished the rights of Boone County. None of this parcel has
been annexed into Zionsville. Mr. Lillig requested a copy of that letter for this file. His
only concern is that this new property might not be a part of the original Woodhaven
Subdivision. Boone County might wish to reconsider. They might think Carmel is
inching into Boone’s jurisdiction. From a technical aspect, a 20-foot curve radius must
be shown where US 421 and Woodhaven Drive meet. Mr. Neal said the County wants a
taper. Laurence Lillig suggests contacting a planner in Boone County.
Scott Brewer requested a landscape plan.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
17
Parkwood Crossing West, Buildings A, B & C (ADLS)
th
The site is located on the northeast corner of East 96 Street and Spring Mill Road. The
site is zoned S-2/residence and B-5/business within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay
Zone. Filed by John Smeltzer of Bose McKinney & Evans for Duke-Weeks Realty.
This case was not heard.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
s:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Jan
18