Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 03-21-01 Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Minutes March 21, 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 Steve Cash – Ham. Co. Surveyor Kelli Hahn – Carmel DOCS Dick Hill – Carmel Eng. Gary Hoyt – Carmel Fire Dept. Steve Broermann – Ham. Co. Highway Bill Akers – Carmel Communications Jeff Kendall – Carmel Permit Services Rick McClain – Cinergy Jon Dobosiewicz – Carmel DOCS Pam Waggoner – Indianapolis Water Sharon Prater – Panhandle Eastern Pipeline John Lester – Carmel Parks Rose Walk on Main Construction Plans (SU-94-99; SU-95-99) st The site is located southwest of 131 Street and Guilford Road. The site is zoned OM-MF/Old Meridian Multi-Family (project approved under B-3/business). Filed by Mark Boyce of Pittman Partners. Gary Murray presented the case and introduced Mark Velicevic. They are both with Paul I. Cripe. This is a seniors’ apartment project on West Main Street in Carmel. Dick Hill will need the net acreage and a summary of the number of units. The two offices are flex space; at this time there are only foot prints. The acreage is 4.69. There are two parcels. A legal description that describes the perimeter is needed. Also, an IDEM sewer permit will be required along with forms from John Duffy. They have talked about water and sewer. The petitioner has tried to keep the drive centered. Because this is a seniors’ living facility, there will be not be many traffic trips. Kate Weese is concerned about the left turn issue. Dick Hill and Mark Velicevic have spoken about the accel/decel lanes and the passing blister. The petitioners were encouraged to make an appointment to discuss these with Ms. Weese. It is acceptable to substitute stone for concrete cradles. The one entry issue has not come back as an issue from the Fire Department. The stamped concrete area is a ten-foot wide sidewalk. The attempt is being made to make the apartments an extension of the downtown project with buildings close to the road. Steve Pittman arrived. S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 1 John Lester has not talked about sidewalks yet. Regarding the alignment, Kate Weese has suggested the east side be angled like the west side and the walkway be tapered into the sidewalk. A new walk will be installed at the back side of the right of way and there will be an asphalt angle connection to the existing sidewalk. Then, it can be torn out more easily in the future when the match up work is done. Steve Pittman clarified that he will continue straight through and run the temporary asphalt. Dick Hill stated the sidewalk on the east side of the building goes to the proposed right of way line. On the west, it appears the sidewalk goes over the right of way to the property line. There is no distinction between private property and the right of way. The question of maintenance arose. Once the land is dedicated, the City will maintain the sidewalks. Steve Pittman will investigate some means for delineation. Dick Hill stated that was acceptable. st Chuck Shupperd stated there is gas at 131 Street. He will wait until the plans are more finalized and will plan the layout later. He will need to know how many meters will be required per building. Jeff Kendall understands the project consists of five connected buildings. A total of five different permits will be issued as the apartments are being developed in stages. There will be enclosed connectors between buildings and a total of 92 residential units. The two front buildings will be for office use. Therefore, there are seven buildings in the project. It is not mixed use occupancy; there will be separate buildings. During the first phase, the front building will be constructed. One or both wings will be built at a time. The density is 19 units to an acre. Mr. Pittman stated the project is geared for people 55 years and older. Most units are one bedroom. They are flexible on the number of office units. A shell permit will be issued, then tenant space permits. But if a unit is preleased, a permit will be sought for the shell and inside space. Dick Hill stated the entire connection fee (sewer and water) must be paid up front. Pam Waggoner had no comments. Scott Brewer spoke with and met Mark Boyce on site. The plans only show perimeter buffering and nothing else. The City will allow street tree plantings in the right of way. The gridded area around the building will be concrete. Steve Pittman said there will be some landscaping in that area also. These plans are very preliminary. Scott Brewer will provide comments. Two areas of woods will be cleared. Mr. Brewer recommends preserving vegetation in the buffer area. Mr. Pittman will try to protect the trees with snow fencing. If the vegetation dies, they will replace it. Scott Brewer stated it is best to preserve trees that are in place. He can suggest construction techniques. The Hawthornes next to the parking lot should be changed or moved. Steve Pittman will try to move any trees Scott Brewers thinks can be saved. John South wrote a comment letter. Gary Murray did not receive it. Mr. South’s biggest concern is off site discharge going through the existing swale. It is critical how this is addressed. Mr. South suggests installing pipe first and then doing site work. The petitioner needs to put a spot elevation on the swale in the northwest corner. At the swale in the east detention pond, John South suggests a drop pipe be used to discharge water S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 2 into the pond. Bank treatment is needed to avoid erosion as water enters the detention pond. It is possible to use two end sections. Gary Murray recalled the comment letter. Bill Akers stated the project would be addressed off West Main Street. He wants to assign five different addresses. A marker or sign showing direction of addressing is needed at the project for public safety providers. The rooms will be numbered within the units and offices will have individual addresses. There could be individual tenants within. Bill Akers will assign the addresses ahead of time. Gary Hoyt believes Building One will be sprinkled. The grassy island would be a good place for the free standing Siamese connection. He wants an extra fire hydrant in the center island. The Fire Code requires a three-foot access around it. There is a connected hallway at the lower floor. The front building has three floors and the wings have two floors. A one hour separation door will be required on both sides. If provided, it will not be necessary to sprinkle the entire project. The detention pond and the dumpster are at the southeast corner of the property. The dumpster will have a concrete pad. Mr. Hoyt needs room for equipment to get through. This will not be a gated community. There will be security access points. Gary Hoyt wants a master key for the entire building. Lawrence Lillig stated the cupola is fifty-three feet tall at the top. The variance was granted for 62 feet. He requested dumpster, car ports, and retail buildings detail. The Department takes no position on carports versus enclosed garages. Mr. Lillig will ask the other planners their opinions. The number of spaces may be reduced with a change to the parking plan. The variance was for 1.2 spaces per unit. An enclosed garage is not counted as a parking space. The petitioner needs to be conscious of the parking variance. Mark Velicevic stated the dumpster detail is on C206. The fence is the shadowbox type. Laurence Lillig listed the variances granted in 1999: SU-94-99 (B3 office/retail), SU-95- 99 (B3 Multi-family), V-96-99 (Z.O.14.4.1 – 62’ height), V-97-99 (Z.O. 14.4.2 – 0’ front yard), V-98-99 (Z.O. 14.4.5 – 10’ rear yard), V-99-99 (Z.O. 14.4.7 – 2000 square footage/ D.U.), V-100-99 (Z.O. 14.4.8 – 500 square foot F.A./D.U.), and V-101-99 (Z.O. 14.5 – 1.2 Parking Spaces/D.U.). This approval was granted under B3 zoning. The parcel was rezoned under the Old Meridian District. Mr. Lillig stated besides that, this is consistent with special use approval and is in good shape. The Park Impact fee is effective July 1, 2001. Mark Velicevic provided Dick Hill with the drainage report. 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 K. Smeltzer of Bose McKinney & Evans for Duke- Weeks Realty. Steve Granner, Zoning Consultant for Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, presented the case. Also in attendance were Blair Carmosino and Jeff Stone, Duke-Weeks, Brett Davis, CSO Architects, and David Lach, Woolpert. This project was before TAC previously. Today the ADLS and construction drawings are being reviewed. The early presentation was S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 3 made under the assumption that the State of Indiana will take 8.5 acres for road improvement. Changes became necessary to the preliminary plans. Brent Davis explained the outlots are not part of the ADLS. The detention pond shown at the northeast area is a dual drainage system. There are pipes for underground detention and the surface pond. Initially INDOT will have jurisdiction. The petitioner met with Clay Township Regional Waste regarding preliminary layouts of sanitary sewers and lift station design. The lift station will be located at the northwest corner of the property. Blair Carmosino said sequencing of development will be dependent upon infrastructure th on 96 Street. Duke-Weeks realizes approval is required before construction commences. Building C and Parking Plaza B, will be constructed first along with the center feature. Buildings A and B will be under separate permits. The main entrance drive will be built in its entirety. Also, any infrastructure that affects sequencing will be built in its entirety. Brent Davis stated a perimeter run was added so there is access all the way around the project. David Lach received comments from the majority of TAC members. Chuck Shupperd understands gas will be used. The closest main is on the north side of I- 465 and Spring Mill Road. He is not certain how the Gas Company will do the gas main on site. The use of multi meters or one meter will be discussed later. They need to start designing. He will try to determine costs of construction. The gas service will be used for heating and hot water. The petitioner may submit representative usage numbers. Parkwood Six is an example for historical loads to prorate on square footage. Jeff Kendall had no comments. Pam Waggoner now has a contract to serve the four houses and plans to have a service line going back to the buildings. The petitioner needs to contact Mark Shockley. There might be a subsequent connector fee for the water. Ms. Waggoner has no issues with the plan presented. Scott Brewer did not receive a set of plans. Laurence Lillig has a set for his review. th Steve Broermann will be working with Kate Weese regarding the 96 Street improvement as Carmel has jurisdiction. Spring Mill Road is a Hamilton County road and INDOT has the I-465 right of way. More information is needed for dedication of the right of way. Mr. Broermann wants to stay informed because of Spring Mill Road; those requirements are based on the Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan. Steve Cash’s only requirement is to incorporate calculations for the two year stage rate for the outlets. It might not affect the outlet, but he needs to verify it. It was determined that the area has been annexed by Carmel. No Hamilton County permits are required; this does not affect a County regulated drain. Since the area is annexed, Mr. Cash said to disregard his previous comments. John Lester asked why the paths were not extended to the property line. David Lash responded that Spring Mill goes over I-465. The area of the outlots are not part of this S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 4 submittal package. Mr. Lach agreed to increase the asphalt paths to 10 feet wide. The paths for the other two outlots will be handled later. Laurence Lillig stated the Thoroughfare Plan calls for 10-foot wide paths; the type of sidewalk is not specified. John South inquired how much actual site work will be done in the first phase. Blair Carmosino responded the underground detention must be done. They want to obtain the grading permit to allow earth work to balance the site. Pad earth work will be done that is focused on Building C. But, if dirt is needed under Parking Plaza A, the entire site may be disturbed. The petitioner might need to go back to stabilize soil on the west side, perhaps with winter wheat. Underground detention may have to be installed at that time. The details might not need to be figured out with the first permit. This should be included in the erosion control plan. David Lach said the plans show future grading, match grading, and proposed grading for the entire site. Mr. South stressed the importance of indicating how the ground will be stabilized. Mr. Carmosino is treating the potential ground for I-465 as if it were not their property. If work is done in that area, the ground should be seeded. Even if nothing is done by the State for perhaps 10 years, the land will look like Duke property. INDOT has authority of the storm water outlet. John South does not think the grass swale is sufficient for prolonged flow. The silt fence on the perimeter needs to be better addressed. Sediment basins are needed. John South will give David Lach a copy of his letter. Because all pavement is curbed and drained into site, the petitioner does not believe there should be much sediment transport. However, Mr. Lach will evaluate that. John South wants to see the change, or block of the flow, shown on the plan. th Bill Akers stated each building will be assigned a 96 Street address. Gary Hoyt sent a letter requesting a Knox box and FDS caps on each building. It was established that there is a fire hydrant on the west side near Parking Plaza A. There are three hydrants proposed for the site. The parking garages will be dry stand piped. The locations are good at the entrance. If there is a lower section, the Fire Department will have to carry hose line because their trucks are too tall to enter. Laurence Lillig commented that there is no way to get across the main entrance drive. th There should be some connection out to the curb along 96 Street. It is not labeled, th however he believes there is a 70-foot half on 96 Street. David Lach answered there is a 90-foot overall right of way. There was not any take on the south side. The half on the north side is just over 70 feet. Mr. Lillig stated the Thoroughfare Plan calls for a 60-foot half right of way on Spring Mill Road. It will be adjusted to meet this standard. Mr. Lillig inquired about the landscaping previously proposed to the north. Jeff Stone stated it shifts landscaping a little to the south. Mr. Lillig asked Scott Brewer to review the landscaping. The illumination plan is excessive on the west and south. It is 0.5 on the south property line; it should be 0.1. On the west property line it should also be 0.1; the plan shows 0.2. The petitioner will evaluate those numbers. Carmel measures illumination at the petitioner’s property line. Architectural elevations are missing. A full sized set will be provided. Also, the signage plan was not received. The owner will S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 5 submit signage plans in the future. Laurence Lillig will speak with Attorney John Molitor about assigning a docket number. Bauer Commercial Park – DPI Office/Warehouse (Special Use) The site is located at 9800 Association Court. The site is zoned B-3/business. Filed by John R. Price of John R. Price & Associates for Designplan, Inc. The case was presented by Attorney John Price. He introduced Tom Strayer and Lenzy Hendrix of Designplan. The company designs interior layouts. The Indianapolis Airport food court is an example of their work. They are designing projects across the central part of the state. Due to their growth, Designplan wants their own building. The B3 site th is located north of 96 Street off Bauer Drive. Mid America Rental was the previous occupant. A rendering of the existing building was displayed. Phase I and II are warehouse/display area. Total office space will be approximately 7,000 square feet and total warehouse space will be approximately 8,000 square feet. Additional parking spaces will be required. The 30-foot barrier will be preserved. The exterior of the building will be improved to be compatible with the neighborhood and aesthetically pleasing. Chuck Shupperd believes there is existing gas service. The petitioner needs to contact the commercial representative if there will be increased load requirements. Service is at the back of building; a new location is needed. Jeff Kendall confirmed that 8,117 square feet will be added. This is a one tenant business. Pam Waggoner understands the business has well water. There is a water line on the south side of Bauer Drive and the east side of Association Court. There is no tap fee. However, if a 1.5-inch or greater line is needed, the petitioner must apply to their customer service department for plan approval. Dick Hill did not receive plans, but has spoken with Kate Weese. They are determining drainage jurisdiction. After that, the parking plan will be finalized. Mr. Hill will withhold comments. Scott Brewer did not receive plans; they will be supplied. Discussion has taken place regarding the buffer and preserving trees along the back. New trees will also be added. Mr. Brewer suggested keeping the native vegetation. The petitioner agreed. The area is heavy with more deciduous trees; conifers will be added. Mr. Hendrix likes the natural look. John South has taken a primarily look at the erosion control plan. He suggests a silt fence along the north boundary line to keep storm water from going into the detention basin during construction. He gave the petitioner his card. S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 6 Steve Cash stated that, as this is not a county regulated drain, no permit is required. A question has been directed to his office about the easement along the north side of the property. Drainage easements are 75 feet per half. Mr. Cash could not determine where the County has a drain in the area. For many years this was not considered a county drain. Consequently, Mr. Cash is not certain why there is an easement. The title work did not clarify jurisdiction. Carmel does not need that large an easement. Tom Strayer agrees an easement of this width is no longer needed. John Lester may require a five-foot wide sidewalk. He will check with Kelli Hahn about the type of street. Bill Akers would like a set of plans. Gary Hoyt also needs a set of plans. The current building is not sprinkled; there are no plans to sprinkle the additions. There is no separation between the new and old buildings. Mr. Hoyt requested a Knox box with a building master key. Kelli Hahn asked the petitioners to provide a site plan, color elevations, and pictures of materials to be used. They also need to file signage plans. John Price requested a docket number; Ms. Hahn will provide it today. Carrabba's Grill (33-01 ADLS; V-30-01) The site is located northeast of Keystone Way and Keystone Way East. The site is zoned B-8/business. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Phil Warrenburg, Weihe Engineers, and Jamie Butler, Outback Steakhouse, were in attendance. The site is located east of Old Navy, south of the Tucker Building, north of MCL, and borders Keystone Blvd. Mr. Warrenburg has attempted to address the comments that he has received. He asked for questions. Chuck Shupperd needs plans. He believes there is an eight-inch main in the area. It is normal operating and not high pressure. Jeff Kendall no comments. The petitioner must also attend BZA because the site is in the overlay zone. There is no date for breaking ground. Mr. Kendall requested the petitioner contact him when they are closer to the permitting stage. Pam Wagonner had no comments. Dick Hill stated the petitioner may provide comparable water bills for one year. Jamie Butler has no problem with the City’s numbers. Mr. Hill requested a perimeter sidewalk. Phil Warrenburg takes exception with the crosswalks. He will discuss this with Kate Weese. Modifications have been made to the sewer easement. The curb cuts are S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 7 existing; they need permission to access. Dick Hill stated it looks like landscaping and irrigation are going off the site. Phil Warrenburg said they are not Scott Brewer has not written a letter. He would like to see complete plans. He has questions about roof top garden and the drainage off of it. Jamie Butler said the roof garden has been done with 50 other restaurants. He will get those plans to Scott Brewer. The manufacturer’s information was also requested. The Overlay Zone requires buffering and planting. There are also utilities in their parcel. At the time of ADLS review, the petitioner will be more specific. Mr. Scott needs a tree preservation plan. Some trees will be relocated. Mr. Brewer needs those technical specifics. John South wrote a letter. His comment states the erosion control practice should be in place before they begin stripping. The roof top garden is not accessible to patrons. Steve Cash had no comments. John Lester wants sidewalks installed because they will eventually connect. He needs a copy of site drawings for his files. Bill Akers will assign an address off Keystone Way. Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Jim Nelson. He requested exterior access to the sprinkler room. Phil Warrenburg stated it has been included. Also a Knox box is needed at the front entrance. A new fire hydrant will be added. Mr. Hoyt suggested FDC caps to protect the sprinkler connection. This is on the Siamese connection. Kelli Hahn has not received a response to her letter asking for a site plan with details. The letter was sent to Jim Nelson; Phil Warrenburg has not seen it. The site plan did not label yard set backs, building square footage or dimensions, mechanicals, trash receptacles, or sidewalks. Screening and buffering were not shown. Jamie Butler stated all equipment is on the roof. The dumpster screening is the same as the building. A total of seven signs were shown in the plans. Clarification is needed on each location. The petitioner would like a ground sign. Kelli Hahn will consider signage possibilities and inform the petitioner. The requested details will be provided. Dan Young Chevrolet Body Shop (Special Use) th The site is located on the northeast corner of East 96 Street and Lakeshore Drive East. The site is zoned B-3/business. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Dan Young Chevrolet. Attorney Charlie Frankenberger represented the United Auto Group in connection with their request to enlarge an existing building for a body shop facility. Also in attendance were Chuck Kotterman, Optima Architects, and Al Young, United Auto Group. The area is zoned B-3. A special use variance was previously obtained to permit auto sales. The S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 8 th site is located at the north east corner of 96 Street and Lakeshore. Mr. Frankenberger invited questions. Chuck Shupperd said there is gas service to the building. The gas meter will not be relocated. The petitioner needs to contact the Gas Company if additional load is required. Pam Waggoner was told there would probably be no changes in water service. Dick Hill stated approval for additional water and sewer availability may be necessary. There is a small restroom in the existing building. Now there will be even less use. Scott Brewer sent a letter to Mr. Frankenberger. Some changes to the plan were made. The same scheme will be followed. Mr. Brewer suggested the plantings go all the way to the north drive. There will be no damaged cars in that area. This area is an extension of the show room lot. Mr. Frankenberger stated it is important that cars being offered for sale be visible. Landscaping would inhibit sales. No wrecked cars will be parked in front. Norway and Colorado spruce trees exist and will continue to be used. John South stated any existing storm inlets should be protected during the construction process. Steve Cash said the project is not within the watershed of a Regulated Drain. Jurisdiction falls under the City of Carmel. John Lester inquired if there is a sidewalk on the property. One is not indicated on the plans. Mr. Frankenberger will investigate this. Mr. Young placed a phone call. He reported there is a sidewalk on the property. Bill Akers had no comments. Gary Hoyt received a call from Mr. Kotterman. There is a fire hydrant along the side of Lakeshore Drive West. Mr. Hoyt suggested a meeting. He requested a Knox box and a FDC plug into the Siamese connection. Kelli Hahn had no additional comments. She asked that the revised plans show the sidewalk. North Haven Subdivision (Secondary Plat) th The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned R- 5/residence. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for C&J Company and CPM Family Trust. Charlie Frankenberger presented the case representing CP Morgan and JC Hart in connection to their request for secondary plat approval. Clay Gick and Mark Boyce, C.P. Morgan, David Huffman, CSO, and John Hart, J.C. Hart Co., were in attendance. This S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 9 matter has been through the rezone stage, primary and secondary plat approval, and different waivers. Mr. Frankenberger thought it would be a good idea to come back for TAC comments on the secondary plat before the Board of Public Works meeting. Chuck Shupperd understands they will service the clubhouse. th Pam Waggoner stated there is a 24-inch main on Gray Road and a 12-inch on 96 Street. Dick Hill sent comments to Greg Snelling. He responded that those concerns were corrected. Steve Broermann has not reviewed the plans. He will get comments to Greg Snelling. A signature block for commissioners is needed. Scott Brewer has not had an opportunity to look closely at these plans. As no changes have been made, all required comments were made before. John South understands modification is being made in accordance to his comment on the swale along the south edge. Steve Cash stated most comments are unchanged from the original. This property is within Carmel’s jurisdiction. John Lester’s plans do not show the 10-foot asphalt path on Gray Road. It is reflected on construction plans. Mr. Lester requested a copy of that particular sheet for his files. It will be supplied. Bill Akers requested a meeting about naming the streets. The petitioner agreed. Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Greg Snelling; he had no comments. Laurence Lillig commented that the plat is missing the monuments and markers from the lot line and right of way lines. There is no legend on the plat. A “north” arrow is required. A 20-foot radius curve is needed at the right of way line where the private street meets Gray Road. He referenced Section 8.2 of the Subdivision Regulations on monuments and markers. County Commissioners, not the Board of Public Works members, will sign the plat. The Deed of Dedication is needed for the right of way on Gray Road. The statement of two blocks, one and two, does not jibe with what is on sheet 1. The commentary lists blocks A, B, C, and D. The Carmel Plan Commission primary and secondary plat and development plan docket numbers should be included on the plat. Also all developmental standard variances and subdivision waiver numbers should be listed. Mr. Frankenberger will use the Meadowlark format to draft this note for Laurence Lillig’s review. The scale of 1-100 is acceptable. The R5 district requires recording of this development plan. A mylar will need to be produced for the development plan and the secondary plat showing changes. The signature block will be written by Laurence Lillig and reviewed by Attorney John Molitor. Laurence Lillig S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 10 noted there are four buildings on block D. A note should specify that the block will not be subdivided into more than four lots. Charlie Frankenberger suggested a final secondary plat be prepared for everything but block E. Then, a final secondary plat will be provided when they subdivide. Laurence Lillig wants the entire block to be the secondary plat. The building lines on the north and south are 50 feet. A total of 75 feet are shown. The setbacks should be consistent with R5 requirements. The variances cover encroachments. Mr. Lillig needs an updated copy of the plans. Charlie Frankenberger plans to attend the Board of Public Works on April th 18. Laurence Lillig said the department could not approve the secondary plat for 30 days. The petitioner needs to wait until May 2. It will be annexed. Therefore, it does not need to go to DPW. It will need sanitary sewer approval. Consequently, the project could go to Board of Public Works in April. Greg Snelling will prepare a summary letter 10 days before the meeting. Laurence Lillig requested the lake bottom, normal pool, and 100-year elevations be shown on the development plan or the final plat. Pahud Residential Subdivision (Primary Plat) st The site is located southeast of West 131 Street and Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned S-2/residence. Filed by Brian C. Pahud of Landmark Properties. Brian Pahud presented the case and introduced Jonathan Moen, Mid-States Engineering, LLC. A development plan application has been submitted for a five-acre parcel. It is half of the ten-acre parcel where Mr. Pahud resides. The zoning classification is S2. The lot sizes conform to the Ordinance. It was filed January 24, 2001 and some comments have been received from various parties. Chuck Shupperd has a gas line along Spring Mill Road. He did not receive a set of plans. The street will be private and will be maintained privately. A utility easement will be required on both sides of the right of way to provide access. The 15 to 20 foot easement can be shared by the Gas Company. However, water/sewer may want an exclusive easement. Pam Waggoner has not received plans. The Indianapolis Water Company has a 20-inch st main on Spring Mill Road as well as 131 Street. A 15 to 30 foot easement will be required. Dick Hill sent a letter; Carmel does not have jurisdiction. Steve Broermann sent a letter to Brian Pahud. Jonathan Moen had no questions about his comments. Steve Cash stated Williams Creek is located on the site. There is an easement attached to it. Mr. Cash will need a drainage plan that complies with the Ordinance. The plan S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 11 should show easements and detention for the project. The storm sewers west of U.S. 31 are typically Hamilton County drains. Some flood plain issues must be addressed. John Lester stated this project is in the Township Thoroughfare plan. A 10-foot asphalt walkway will be required along Spring Mill Road. Scott Brewer received only a sketch plan. He needs site and landscape plans. Mr. Brewer will have tree preservation issues and comments on clearing the creek. Laurence Lillig will help determine if this is a ROSO issue. The street trees cannot be in the right of way. Scott Brewer will meet the petitioner on site. John South wrote a letter. He has no major issues at this time and will comment further when a primary plat is filed. The flood plain information needs to be included on the plans. Bill Akers asked that a subdivision and street name be requested. Gary Hoyt sent a letter. He has no comments now and will review when there is a more substantial plan. He noted the cul de sac is 1,200 feet. More discussion will follow. Laurence Lillig stated the sketch is appreciated but it is not necessary at this stage. Carmel has a two-tier system of primary plat and secondary plat. The petitioner should request a predesign meeting with Community Services to discuss issues that relate to the project. As a seven-lot subdivision on approximately seven acres, this project qualifies as an exempt subdivision under ROSO III. Chapters 5, 6, and 8 of the Subdivision Ordinance will provide direction for this subdivision. Spring Mill Road has been designated as a residential parkway that requires a 50 foot half right of way. A 10-foot asphalt path needs to be shown. This project is just south of Westpark at Springmill. The eastern half is south of the condo project. Sidewalks need to extend into the subdivision. The Subdivision Control Ordinance does not allow private streets. Dedication will be required. Standards call for a 50-foot right of way. The radius for the cul de sac needs to be 50 feet. The lots are fine in terms of area. They meet S-2 requirements. Mr. Lillig is concerned about the two existing buildings. The first is a detached garage and the second a barn. They are both accessory buildings. With the dedication of the right of way for the cul de sac, the existing buildings become a non conforming use. The accessory buildings are required to be set back 75 feet out of the right of way. Mid States will do the engineering work. East 96th Street Office Campus (UV-176-00) th The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and Day Drive. The site is zoned S- 2/residence. Filed by James O. Rinehart, IV, of Stoeppelwerth & Associates for Paragus Partners 1, LLC. S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 12 Jim Rinehart presented the case and introduced Mike Manus and Gary Ritz, Paragus, Inc. th The four-acre site is located on 96 Street just west of Day Drive. There will be four buildings used for commercial purposes. The pond is located in the back. A few comment letters have been received. Mr. Pahud has not addressed the issues. Chuck Shupperd stated the utility easement should be placed at the side of the drive to service the back two buildings. It can be on the east side or west side and should be 15 to 25 feet wide. th Pam Waggoner has a 16-inch main on the south side of 96 Street. She does not think a main is necessary for this project and will speak with Mark Shockley. This project will be all private. Dick Hill stated the site is outside of City jurisdiction. Steve Broermann sent a letter to Jim Rinehart. He has no other questions. Steve Cash said the latest plans addressed his earlier comments. John Lester sent a letter and has no questions. A 10-foot path is required. He requested for his files the single sheet of the plans showing the path. John South sent a letter. His concern involves the management of the construction process. Mr. South asked how they would route water during construction. The pond cannot be relocated. Mr. Rinehart will take care of erosion control. The plans do not address how the project will be constructed or how sediment laden storm water will be transported back to the pond. It tends to travel east. The site is too big for a silt fence. The petitioner must develop a way to get storm water back to the pond or they can build a separate pond. Scott Brewer received Gary Ritz’s letter requesting an on-site meeting. The petitioner may stake the buffers to assist visual understanding. A landscape plan received February 16, 2001 indicated the pond size would change. This is not reflected on plans. Mr. Ritz responded that the building shifted and the pond was pulled a little farther down. It does not encroach any farther into the woods. There is a storm sewer that runs from dry detention to the southeast. However, on the tree preservation plans, it extends down to parking lot. There is no tree conflict, but these changes should be all shown on one plan. Jim Rinehart stated the dry detention is gone; it is just piped along the side. The pipe is extended and misses the tree preservation area. Scott Brewer needs an updated set of plans. He will assist with their reforestation plan. th Bill Akers commented that all four buildings would have 96 Street addresses. He wants addresses on a monument to assist public safety protection. The actual addresses will be assigned at a later date. S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 13 Gary Hoyt wrote a letter asking if buildings will be sprinkled. They will not be sprinkled, nor is there a fire hydrant close to the building. There will not be a main to the building. Mr. Hoyt suggested a private fire hydrant in the island and a Knox box. Addresses are needed for each of the buildings. Laurence Lillig has mislaid his plans. His only comment involved the doors. He wants something more in character with the rest of the building. Mike Manus stated they are residential fire doors. The actual doors will be different. They will stub out to the vacant property and provide an easement through there. The half right of way will be 75 feet. It will be dedicated. Mr. Lillig will review the plans for additional comments. The parcel is over four acres but only a ten-foot sign is permitted. The petition may want to pursue a variance for the sign size. Woods of Williams Creek Subdivision (32-01 PP) th The site is located on the northwest corner of West 136 Street and Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned S-1/residence. Filed by David Barnes of Weihe Engineers, Inc. for Williams Creek Woods LLC. Dave Barnes explained there are 73 lots on 74 acres in the Woods at Williams Creek Subdivision. Williams Creek flows through the center of the parcel and there is an existing sewer. Two lakes will outlet into Williams Creek. There is a pipeline at the south end of the project that will not be affected. Zoning is S-1. Also in attendance were Ralph Aharne, Williams Creek Wood, LLC, David Morton, David Morton Designer Builder, and Jerry Huston, Williams Creek Woods LLC. Sharon Prater requested an adjustment of the streets so none of the right of way encroaches upon their pipeline easements. There was potential conflict along Spring Mill Road. Dave Barnes has spoken on the phone with his clients on this matter. They will move the road out of the easement and will work with Panhandle Eastern regarding improvements along Spring Mill Road. Chuck Shupperd has gas on Spring Mill Road. His only concern is also the improvements along that road. Jeff Kendall has no comments. th Pam Waggoner has not seen the plans. There is a main on the south side of 136 Street. Dick Hill stated this is outside of the City’s jurisdiction. Part of the property is contiguous. Dave Barnes has informed the petition; they are considering this. Steve Broermann’s letter was received. Regarding the annexation question, there is an agreement that allows the City to have control of what they are planning to annex. Dave S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 14 Barnes will also discuss this issue with his client. Until he hears otherwise, Mr. Broermann will consider this a County project. Steve Cash met previously with Mr. Barnes and most of the main issues were discussed at that meeting. The storm sewer system is a County regulated drain. The project must comply with the Ordinance and its standards. Mr. Cash needs an overall drainage summary report. Dave Barnes will provide that. The flood plain issues and compensation should be dealt with on the construction plans. Around the lakes, there is a requirement of 15 feet of easement from the top of the bank. This must be added or the pond adjusted. A couple of crossing permits are also required. John Lester wrote a letter. Everything has been done. Scott Brewer wrote a letter and has met with Jud Scott regarding the tree preservation plan. Mr. Brewer is still concerned about disturbances to the lots in the flood plain and how the flood plain fringe will be developed. Building on lots in the flood plain will require filling and excavation that could disturb 80% to 100% of those lots. This would doom most of the trees on those lots. Scott Brewer is waiting to hear from petitioner on how they would address these issues. Dave Barnes has a set of covenants. He agreed to work with Scott Brewer and Kelli Hahn. The location of excavation will affect tree preservation. Mr. Brewer offered to meet on site. John South also has concerns about the development of the flood plain and fringe. He recommends it not be developed or the flood way could be placed in the common area. The riparian corridor should be protected. Covenants may be restrictive enough to accomplish this. He still believes the common area is the better way. Lots 47, 48, 49 are tight for building room between flood way and the building line. It appears the area is 60 feet. Mr. South sees issues in the future for homeowners. Hardships may result due to restrictions. Mr. Barnes had commented earlier that nothing was shown on the wetlands delineation map. Mr. South stated this is not a definitive map. The petitioner’s topo shows wooded and depression areas. These indicate there is some potential for wetlands and it would be prudent to investigate. Dave Barnes stated high-end custom homes are planned for the subdivision and he will investigate if there is a wetland. Bill Akers spoke to Dave Barnes about the street issue and renaming the subdivision. He is waiting to hear street names from Mr. Barnes. Dave Barnes will do so. Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Dave Barnes. He has no additional comments. The layout of fire hydrants is good. The eyebrow that is attached to Lots 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8 are just for those five lots. It will not be separately named. Kelli Hahn has concerns about development in the flood plain. She requested the plat be updated with the name and the covenants be provided. Dave Barnes will do so. Ms. Hahn received an e-mail from Jay Alley. The petitioner must contact him about sanitary sewer service. S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 15 East Main Street Office Building (Developmental Standards Variance) The site is located at 300 East Main Street. The site is zoned B-5/business. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker & Daniels for Chatan Ahluwalia. Laurence Lillig explained this is a site plan for a building expansion on a non conforming parcel. Attorney Joe Scimia represented Chatan Ahluwalia, the current property owner. Mr. Scimia stated the lot is 90 feet and needs to be 100 feet. There is a professional office building on the site now. The petitioner proposes to construct a 2,200 square foot addition on the north end. It will have the same setback as the existing structure. The lot is 90 feet by 270 feet; it is a nonconforming lot. The addition will be used for professional office space as is the existing building. It will not be connected but will be a free standing building. There will be 25 parking spaces after the addition is added. The Ordinance requires 18. Two variances are requested to allow construction on a 90-foot lot and to construct without a loading berth. With this amount of square footage in B–5 zoning, one loading berth is required. However, the professional offices will not have use for a berth. It will be just another facility at the north end of the lot. Chuck Shupperd asked if the new building would have gas service. Joe Scimia will find out. Mr. Shupperd gave him the business card of their commercial contact. The Gas Company can size meter sets, loads, etc. Jeff Kendall asked if the buildings are 5 feet from the property line. That is correct. The existing building is also five feet from the line. The new building will be aligned the same distance. Dick Hill had no comments on the variances. He would like an opportunity to talk about development issues. Mr. Lillig stated these issues could be addressed at the building permit time. TAC is only reviewing the project because of the variances. Scott Brewer has not seen plans on this project. Laurence Lillig stated an ADLS plan is not required. The landscape plan is on the plans. Joe Scimia stated this is a technicality. There are only buffer line guidelines. Laurence Lillig inquired about First Avenue. Their drive comes to a few feet of that right of way. If the City wants to prevent people from cutting through the lot, some landscaping may prevent access. There is no curb. Steve Cash had no comments. John Lester thinks there is an existing sidewalk and has no further issues. John South and Bill Akers had no issues. S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 16 Gary Hoyt understands this is a 2,200 square foot single-story building. It will have no sprinkler system. Mr. Hoyt requested a Knox box. It is a brick structure. Laurence Lillig met earlier with the owner about this project. Mr. Lillig suggested a meeting with Engineering to discuss the question of First Street. If City desires that access to the property be prevented, another meeting with Scott Brewer regarding landscaping would be appropriate. Mr. Lillig suggested they might want to discuss getting a curb cut. The docket number will be assigned this afternoon. Brookstone Park of Carmel, Section 2 (Secondary Plat) th The site is located on the southeast corner of West 146 Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S-1/residence. Filed by Jim Drouin of Mid-States Engineering for SCM Development. Bruce Fagan, SCM Development, and Jonathan Moen, Mid States Engineering, LLC. presented the secondary plat for Section 2 of the project. The construction plans are ready for review. The petitioner wishes to proceed with construction later this year. Steve Broermann wrote a letter and his concerns have been addressed. He can approve plans whenever the petitioner desires. John Lester stated the plans show an eight-foot asphalt path. The new Ordinance calls for ten feet. However, this is only a request. Compliance would be appreciated. After they thth make the dog ear at 146 Street, Bruce Fagan asked if they could transition along 146 Street to make the change. The Ditch Road pathway is installed. Mr. Lester agreed and asked that this be shown on a drawing. Steve Cash will prepare a letter; this County Regulated Drain. Scott Brewer asked if there would be any additional plantings beyond what is in place. Only street trees will be installed as homes are constructed. Laurence Lillig stated the landscape plan that was approved as part of the primary plat was later revised due to certain requirements of the Surveyor’s office. There is a revised plan for Scott Brewer to review. The street trees will not be in the rights of way. John South believes this submission is nearly the same as previous one. He is satisfied with that. Bill Akers stated addressing is completed. Laurence Lillig asked that a note be placed on the secondary plat that lists the primary and secondary plat document numbers. A key map should be on the plat showing where Section 2 is located in the subdivision. West 146 Street should be labeled. The Plan Commission certificate should be changed to the Administrative certificate. Brookstone Lane is actually Baldwin Lane. Brookstone Drive is now Lemond Drive. Addresses S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 17 appear on sheet 4 but not on sheets 1 and 2. They are not required. The Department discourages this inclusion as it is difficult to change if necessary in the future. The petitioners may decide. They will be removed. On sheet 7 the dates need to be changed to 2001 where appropriate. John Opal is no longer the auditor. Beyond these recommendations, it is a good plat. The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. S:\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\Minutes\tac2001Mar 18