Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 10-17-01 Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Minutes October 17, 2001 9:00 a.m. Members present: Laurence Lillig - Carmel DOCS John South - Ham. Co. Soil & Water Chuck Shupperd – Vectren Energy Adrienne Keeling – Carmel Code Enforcer Steve Cash - Ham. Co. Surveyor John Lester - Carmel Parks Dick Hill - Carmel Eng. Gary Hoyt – Carmel Fire Dept. Steve Broermann - Ham. Co. Highway Bill Akers - Carmel Communications Jeff Kendall – Carmel Building Larry Castetter – Cinergy Jon Dobosiewicz - Carmel DOCS Mike McBride – Carmel Eng. Rick McClain – Cinergy Scott Brewer – Carmel Urban Forester Jim Neal – Ham. Co. Highway Steve Cash – Ham. Co. Surveyor CMC & CH Land Properties (Development Plan) st The sites are located northwest of West 131 Street and North Meridian Street. Both sites are zoned B-5 and the CMC property is within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler for CH Land LLC and CMC. The case was presented by John Zant, Schneider Corporation. He introduced, Matt Oman, Schneider Corporation, Greg Land, CMC Properties, and Bob Lunsford, CH- Land. The project will consist of three office buildings. The petitioner believes they have complied with Carmel standards. Mr. Zant invited comments and questions. Mike McBride gave a copy of his comments to John Zant. Engineering provided a letter th of their first review on September 18. A written reply has not been received. Mr. McBride suggested another meeting. Mr. Zant will provide a response letter today. Mike McBride inquired about the storm drainage for the dental office site. John Zant stated Schneider Engineering designed the subdivision across Meridian Corners Boulevard. It appears a stub was left deep enough to drain the triangle parcel. The newly designed basin will accommodate the small amount of direct discharge. Kate Weese indicated the City could not accept this method. Mike McBride does not have information on the existing storm storage. Carmel needs more data. Mike McBride requested another meeting. Chuck Shupperd missed last month’s meeting. A gas facility is close to this parcel. Mr. Shupperd will begin the design process when the petitioner returns the completed applications. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 1 Scott Brewer stated the planting notes for the dental property should indicate the stakes and wires will be removed after one year. They should have a watering plan. An irrigation system is also acceptable. The plants must be watered. The planting details require a note stating the root flare should be at or slightly above ground level. Often trees are planted too deep and the trees die. John Zant stated the dental office will install plantings along one side of the entrance road. He believes the other side, when developed, will have something complimentary. There is nothing planned at this time. Scott Brewer would like a plan; he will send a letter. John Zant was unsure how the code would be interpreted as this is a private drive not a street. Scott Brewer will make suggestions. This parcel falls within the US 31 Overlay guidelines. Foundation plantings are required. Scott needs this on the plan. There is a requirement for planting strips around the outside of the parking area. The same two notes on wires and root flares should be added. The junipers and currents are planted close together. There is a rust disease in this area; they will infect each other. There is no landscaping around the pond. It is a requirement within the 31 Overlay. John Zant will look into those points. John South sent a letter last week. The construction sequence must be improved. Mr. Zant is working on that. A sediment basin is needed due to the size of the site. He inquired if the drainage to the north is passing through the site and if it will be accommodated by this site. John Zant responded that most goes into a legal drain. Mr. South indicated there is a small tile drain that has not been made for storm water. Mr. Zant said they are accommodating the existing contours, but not the full north area. Greg Land stated that parcel will not be developed for six years. John South noted that a pipe stub or some drainage improvements was left so water could be picked up and passed through the site. John Zant inquired how far to the north. John South responded to the existing water shed. John Zant will verify this. Rick McClain does not see the required easements on the plan. Mr. Zant indicated a willingness to work with him. Cinergy will serve the three buildings and the undeveloped piece of land. Mr. McClain suggested another meeting. The start date will be in January or February of 2002. Three-phase service will probably be needed. Jeff Kendall heard this case in Plan Commission last night and knows it is going back to committee. He requested the final approved architectural, landscaping, and site plan be included with their permit request. All TAC, Plan Commission, and committee meeting dates should be indicated. The state plan release, sewer permit, and driveway permit are also required. Gary Hoyt requested a Knox box. Mr. Lunsford stated the basement would not be sprinkled. The size has been reduced to 1,200 square feet. Mr. Hoyt requested an additional meeting to determine location of the fire department riser along with an exterior door to the riser. A Knox box is requested there also. Jon Dobosiewicz stated the Plan Commission would want a consistent landscape theme from the entrance on Meridian Corners to the CMC site through the ingress/egress s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 2 easement. Access needs to be addressed in greater detail. The right of way issues along st 131 Street and Meridian Corners Boulevard and the recording of the restriction on the DePauw property have not yet occurred. This must be done. Those issues have not been resolved by their agent. This parcel is identified as B5; it is still zoned S2. The setback requirements are different. The Plan Commission cannot approve a plan that does not conform with standards. Dave Coots needs to work with the Engineering Department to go before the Board of Public Works to dedicate the right of way and have it recorded. The Ordinance requires that the CMC tract be platted because it derives access through an easement on Meridian Corners Boulevard. Friday is the filing deadline for the th December 18 public hearing. This does not affect CH Land property, but does CMC. Mr. Dobosiewicz expects the petitioners would want to plat both at the same time as one single parcel. The property of the church and day care is zoned S2 with a 45 foot building set back line as opposed to a 20 foot build to line. This does not affect building placement other than the 15 foot parking set back which may affect two or three parking spaces adjacent to the lot. Articulated pedestrian access is required. A connection from st this site to 131 Street as well as along the entry way out to Meridian Corners Boulevard is stipulated. Jon Dobosiewicz will check the needed dimension of the sidewalk. Part of st the rezone was dedication of additional right of way along 131 Street. The same process followed for the Hilton project needs to be transposed here to determine where the cut was for the right of way. John Myers provided that file. That is part of the dedication that needs to happen which makes the zoning effective. Claybourn Estates (Primary Plat) - 119-01 PP st The site is generally located at the northwest corner of Shelbourn Road and 131 Street st and on the south side of 131 Street ¼ mile west of Shelbourn Road. The site is zoned S- 1 (Residential). Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for Boomerang Development, LLC. Jim Nelson presented the case on behalf of his client, Boomerang Development, an affiliate of Thompson Companies. Mr. Nelson introduced Cort Crosby, Schneider Corporation, and Corby Thompson, Thompson Companies. This primary plat is a 198- acre parcel in Western Clay Township. The location of the site was described. It is zoned S1. Dick Hill said the City of Carmel has no jurisdiction. Chuck Shupperd stated there is a gas line at the Village of WestClay. An easement is needed. The developer plans to break ground next spring. Steve Broermann, asked Corby Thompson about offsite utilities and suggested a separate meeting. The Highway Department does not allow sprinklers, light poles, or trees in the right of way. There was discussion about options for trees. The petitioner should present specifics. Stub streets should be extended at or near Tolbert Place, Pontell Place, Rowlett Place, or Elseth Drive. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 3 Scott Brewer stated the landscape plan is very good. He asked about the possibility of trees in the boulevard. Additional comments will be provided. There is no tree preservation plan or notes for the large area. These are needed. John South wrote a letter asking for additional information about soils, wetlands, topography, and water shred boundaries. It appears this plan reduces the watershed that flows west. He asked about its impact on the existing pond. Mr. South warned against taking away too much of the water shed. That would create a problem. He thinks a large amount of area drains to the pond. Jon Dobosiewicz inquired if Lakes 5 and 3 drain there. Mr. Crosby responded they do not. They drain to the west. But, the water can be sent that way. Corby Thompson is concerned about the defined outlet. John Dobosiewicz suggested contacting the property owner to see what they desire. Jon Dobosiewicz stated this was an issue at Plan Commission. They are concerned for the person affected. John South might assist in scheduling a meeting with the property owner. They could consider providing an easement to cut a swale in order to protect their investment. Rick McClain called this primarily a good plan. He stated Shelborne Road has to be paid for by the individual. There is no lift station there. Jeff Kendall had no comments. Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Jim Nelson. The Fire Department wants a Knox box on the pool building. Mr. Nelson will include a Knox box when he applies for a special use from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Jon Dobosiewicz, Jim Nelson, and Corbey Thompson met yesterday. They addressed several issues including the thoroughfare plan and relocating the subdivision entrance on Shelbourne Road. A collector is needed from Shelbourne Road to the west property line. Earhart Drive should provide a stub to the west. Scott Brewer commented there is landscaping within the drainage easement. A separate drainage and utility easement is required in addition to a landscape easement. Laurence Lillig stated the Ordinance requires 15 feet. There can be no dead ends in easements. This occurs only in the estate section and the west side. It would be beneficial to identify easements along the corridor. Laurence Lillig stated there are signage conflicts in the easements. It would be better to take the signs out and put them into sign easements. The Ordinance allows signs at the entrances only. A variance is required to do both signs. Jon Dobosiewicz said another issue is in the calculation of the open space. If identified as natural, the minimum would be a 75 feet width. In providing compliance with the thoroughfare plan, there may be some offset. th Jim Nelson inquired about the division of cases to be heard at the November 20 Plan Commission meeting. A total of nine cases requiring public hearing are scheduled. A th determination was made to hear some of the cases on November 27. At the November s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 4 th 20 meeting an announcement of that change will be made at the beginning of the evening. A decision of which cases will be made next Friday. Fecitt Subdivision (Primary Plat) – 122-01 PP and 123-01 SP The site is located at 14415 Cherry Tree Road. The site is zoned S-1 (Residential). Filed by Adam DeHart of Keeler-Webb Associates for Robert Fecitt. George Green, Keeler-Webb Associates, and Robert Fecitt, the property owner, explained the request for primary and secondary plat approval. The parcel is over four acres in size with an existing residence. Mr. Fecitt desires to create a separate new lot. The submitted plat would accomplish that goal. Dick Hill stated this land is outside of City jurisdiction. If Carmel utilities serve the residence, they will have to annex. The property is contiguous with existing corporate boundaries. If this property is annexed, then Craig Kaiser’s property becomes continuous. He has signed a non-remonstrance agreement. The City of Carmel will ask Mr. Kaiser to annex. Dick Hill will write a letter regarding this main issue. If the land is annexed, there will be other comments. Mr. Hill said it appears the 40-foot right of way dedication is measured from the plat boundaries. The site plan does not correspond with the centerline of Cherry Tree. Jon Dobosiewicz wants the dedication of the right of way from the centerline of the existing roadway as opposed to dedication from the existing property line. Dick Hill stated the annexation would take the entire right of way of Cherry Tree Road. Steve Cash said there is an Ordinance that specifies a requirement for filling in the flood plain. The plan shows a good amount of flood plain on the site. In order to build, a report showing the extent of the flood plain and where they will provide compensated storage on the site is required. An outlet permit for discharge into the regulated drain is needed. The property is within the Vestal Regulated Drain. Mr. Cash explained when the ground is covered with hard surface, such as a rooftop and driveway, and the contours are altered, the drainage patterns will change. Excavation along the bank of the ditch may be helpful. The petitioner needs to show how many cubic yards of fill will be added in the 100-year elevation. The location of the excavation also needs to be shown. Mr. Cash needs to see where the flood plain is located. If this property is not within the floodway, there is no issue. However, if the property is within the floodway, the petitioner will need to excavate along the ditch and show where that will be done. Chuck Shupperd stated the Cherry Tree gas line will need to be extended to provide service. There may be a charge assessed to the homeowner depending on projected revenue. He explained the costs of extending the optional gas line. If Mr. Fecitt would like to have gas service, he should speak with Vectren Energy. Steve Broermann said annexation is the big issue with this project. If it is in the City, then he has no further comment on the project. A driveway cut would be required if the parcel is in the County. The right of way should be from the center of the road, not from s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 5 the property line. Jon Dobosiewicz stated the petitioner would have to submit a petition for voluntary annexation to receive water and sewer services. This process takes 30 to 60 days. Mr. Dobosiewicz suggested beginning that process today. Dick Hill will write a comment letter from his department. The County auditor can answer Mr. Fecitt’s questions about taxes. Scott Brewer had no comments. John South commented that the soils are suitable for this use. Due to the slope of the ground, he recommends a cut off drain on the upside of the house to keep the basement dry. The drop off, from centerline of the street to where the house will be, is eight to ten feet. The entrance from the street to the house will have to be built up. The house will be raised. There will be no problem diverting water. The field is like a bowl; it drains down to the creek. Mr. South repeated that his concern is ground water flow. A basement may be affected; the petitioner needs to look at the potential for flooding. Carmel will not prohibit construction, but the builder should make accommodation for these circumstances. There is no certain knowledge of underground flow until a hole is dug. Mr. South’s comment regarding the 100-year flood plain is the same as Steve Cash’s. Rick McClain had no comment. Jeff Kendall echoed the comments from the County. The flood plain must be identified clearly on the site plan before a building permit will be issued. Gary Hoyt had no comments. Jon Dobosiewicz stated most of his comments regarding identification of the 100-year flood plain have been addressed. It must be shown on the primary and secondary plat. The house can be placed there, but measures need to be taken that were covered by Steve Cash. The signature block will go to the County. The right of way needs to be measured from the centerline. The Plan Commission certification needs to be amended and the 100-year flood line identified. Jon Dobosiewicz will write comments for Adam DeHart. Mr. Dobosiewicz has additional interest in the fact that the identification of the 100-year flood way does not run concurrently with the elevations. He suggested further exploration is necessary. The new home cannot create additional burden on the regulated drain. The buyer should be made aware of that. Any work in the floodway requires a permit from DNR. This can take several months. A permit from IDEM is required for excavation in the creek. Steve Cash stated that, on a plan like this, the line does not necessarily follow an actual topo. But, they have followed up through the creek. The petitioner’s engineer needs to get this on the plan. Mr. Green requested a copy of the minutes. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 6 Papay Subdivision (Primary & Secondary Plats) – 120-01 PP and 121-01 SP th The site is located on the north side of 136 Street, ¼ mile east of Towne Road. The site is zoned S-1 (Residential). Filed by Dave Barns of Weihe Engineers, Inc. for Anthony and Alice Papay. Dave Barnes presented the petition for a one-lot subdivision on a 4.3 acre tract of land. The parcel is located off 136th Street and Towne Road. Platting is required by Ordinance. He introduced the owner, Tony Papay, and J. R. Freiberger, the builder. The land will be platted to allow construction of a single-family residence. The home will be serviced by well and septic. Steve Cash stated the lot is near the Stultz Almond drain. If an outlet is needed for septic system or sump pump, there may be other tiles they can tie into. Mike McBride had no comments. Chuck Shupperd believes a gas line is a few hundred feet away. If the owner is interested in service, Vectren Energy will determine the construction costs. There might be a fee to bring gas service to the home. Mr. Papay has contacted the company. Steve Broermann understands a driveway cut, well, and septic permits have been approved. John South stated a perimeter drain and health permits have been addressed. Rick McClain said an engineer has already been contacted. Jeff Kendall said the Building Department would issue a permit after platting is accomplished. Gary Hoyt had no comments. Jon Dobosiewicz asked Mr. Barnes to remove the sentence at the bottom left hand corner of the secondary plat. He should also add the document numbers. The primary plat th hearing will be held on November 20. Mr. Dobosiewicz will ask the Plan Commission to waive its Rules of Procedure and approve the primary plat that night. Then, within 30 days, administrative approval can be given for the secondary plat. December 20, 2001 will be the earliest the Department can approve the secondary plat. Laurence Lillig asked Mr. Barnes to label 136 Street as “West”. The Sanctuary (Primary Plat) – 124-01 PP th The site is generally located at the northeast corner of 106 Street and Crooked Stick Lane. The site is zoned S-1 (Residential). Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth & Associates for Glenn E. Christian. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 7 Dennis Olmstead and Glenn Christian presented the case. TAC members asked for th copies of the plans. The parcel is located on the northwest corner of 106 Street and Ditch Road. The land is contiguous to Crooked Stick Golf Course. A total of 23 lots will be platted on the 28 plus acres. Access on Crooked Stick Lane is proposed rather than either of the two existing roadways. The sanitary sewer will be extended from the interceptor that traverses on the south side of the creek. The drainage is split into two drainage basins. There is an exiting drainage way along the northerly portion of the property. The other will drain southerly into pond Number 1 and into the creek just west of Crooked Stick Lane. There is nothing unusual about site. This rolling site will be kept in its natural state. Mr. Olmstead anticipates large, custom type homes to be built on the development. Steve Cash has not reviewed the project, but will do so for the drainage. There are two different watersheds. To the north is the Thomas Hussey Drain. Dennis Olmstead believes a tile intercepts the open part. The tile goes out to Ditch Road. The swale has been intercepted through there and taken easterly to Ditch Road. He might outlet into the open part rather than tying into the tile. Steve Cash will consider this and will try to write a letter next week. His comments will be general; Mr. Cash does not see any major red flags. Dick Hill had no comments. th Chuck Shupperd has a gas line on 106 Street. He believes gas comes from the north on Crooked Stick. Gas is there for the subdivision. Steve Broermann stated this is the first time he has seen the plans. Dennis Olmstead will provide a copy. Upon receipt, Mr. Broermann will write comments. Additional right of th way will be needed at the intersections along Ditch Road and 106 Street. He will need to consider the radius on each cul de sac. He inquired if there was any thought to make Mineral Creek Drive through to Ditch Road. Jon Dobosiewicz will discuss this. Laurence Lillig quoted part of the Dedication referring to private drives for street purposes. However, nothing is noted on the plat as private drive. He sees nothing that dedicates Crooked Stick Lane as a private drive. Possibly, the road was never accepted. John South will write comments next week. Initially, he sees no major concerns. Rick McClain and Jeff Kendall had no comments. Gary Hoyt needs plans that show the number and location of fire hydrants. Dennis Olmstead stated the plan shows the route but not the exact location of hydrants. Gary Hoyt will write a letter on cul de sac length and turns. The Fire Department might need to respond with a ladder truck. He is concerned the structure in the cul de sac will prevent that access. The cul de sac will have a rolled curb Jon Dobosiewicz indicated The Sanctuary is a name already used for an approved primary plat. Crook Stick Lane is actually on Block A in Spring Run Estates. The s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 8 petitioner needs to apply for a replat, as well as primary plat amendment, of Spring Run Estates to provide for the connection of the drive onto Crooked Stick Lane. It may run concurrently with their request. Dennis Olmstead was misinformed regarding the block number. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated, regardless of the width of the common area, the Plan Commission would have to approve a primary plat amendment. Two points of th ingress/egress are needed. The petitioner can provide a connection to 106 Street, one to Ditch, or a stub. Laurence Lillig does not see any indication of the purpose for Block A in the Spring Run th Estates plat. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies 106 Street as a residential parkway. A 50-foot half right of way is required, not a 45 foot half. The intersection must flare. It th will go back 500 feet. The intersection will be 65 feet on 106 Street with a 50-foot right of way. Ditch Road would be 40 feet and 60 feet at the intersection. Jon Dobosiewicz said this is another Ordinance requirement for lots 15 through 20 that front on either th Ditch or 106 Street. They must access through frontage place and/or a rear alley. Mr. Lillig stated the lots could also derive access off that cul de sac. But, the houses on these th lots will have to face Ditch Road and 106 Street if within 50 feet of a the arterial. Access could still be from Lone Tree. Bill Akers has not received plans; he has no comments at this time. Mr. Akers was not present at this TAC meeting. Laurence Lillig believes he will ask for a single name for the stretch from Crooked Stick out to the cul de sac. Jon Dobosiewicz said the first issue is to secure a primary plat amendment for Spring Run Estates. Mr. Lillig added that all property owners within Section 1 of Spring Run Estates are required to receive notice. This is in addition to the standard two properties or the 660 feet. th 136 Street and Rohrer Road Planned Unit Development District / Hunters Creek Office Park, LLC (PUD Rezone) – 125-01 Z The site is located at the southwest corner of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger for Hunters Creek Office Park, LLC. Charlie Frankenberger represented Hunters Creek. He introduced Brad Hill and Jim Reed, Hunter’s Creek Office Park. The real estate that is the subject of this request is different because it has unusual locational and zoning characteristics. The five-acre parcel borders on the south with US 31 and the Meridian Village Shops. Mr. th Frankenberger identified 136 Street. The parcel is on the corner of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive. The vacant Carmel Brethren Church now occupies the land. The congregation needed a larger structure. The zoning characteristics are unusual. It is partly zoned B3 which permits, as special uses, a wide range of commercial uses under jurisdiction of the Board of Zoning Appeals. It is also partly zoned R1 but is within the US 31 Overlay District which prohibits and excludes residential as a permitted use. So while it is zoned residential, the land cannot be used as residential by operation of the s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 9 overlay zone. The Comprehensive Plan calls for office use and overlay zone encourages commercial use. The petitioner is requesting the zoning be changed to permit eight single-story residential appearing office buildings. The change would result in one zoning district. It would permit a uniform approval process. It would first go through City Council and then Plan Commission for approval. This PUD makes the zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Overlay Zone. It provides a soft commercial use--single story-residential appearing office buildings. Steve Cash believes this proposal is for rezone and annexation. Mr. Frankenberger has not filed for annexation at this time. He needs to discuss with the staff the manner in which the timing of the annexation will occur in light of the new consensual annexation statute that provides a faster schedule. Laurence Lillig requested a copy of that new law. Mr. Frankenberger said the primary problem to municipalities is the requirement of a public hearing within 30 days, notice 20 days before, and a summary of fiscal plan within 10 days of being filed. This creates a big burden for a department. Steve Cash had no comments in regard to the rezone. If the land is annexed, he will defer to the City of Carmel. Dick Hill and Mike McBride will write a review letter. Their main question is how this parcel can be annexed with no continuity. Norm Rundle stated this parcel is included in thst C210 annexation ordinance. It runs from 146 Street south to 131 Street from the western portion of Carmel to Rohrer Road. It is an involuntary annexation now in the 60- day remonstrance period. Dick Hill will not have comments until the parcel is annexed. Hamilton Western now provides sewer services; Carmel will purchase the utility. Chuck Shupperd has a gas line nearby. The outer buildings can be reached from the streets, but the inside buildings will need an easement for utilities. Steve Broermann thinks the annexation issue is the most important. He sent Charlie Frankenberger a letter. Additional right of way may be requested to permit the Highway Department to properly maintain the right turn lane. Scott Brewer stated because this is located within the US 31 Overlay, they need to meet those standards. He did not receive a copy of the PUD ordinance. The individual plants were not labeled and there were no planting details. Standards must be specified on the notes. There are no sidewalks on some places on the plans. One detail has been provided for a building. Mr. Brewer assumes it is standard for all buildings. However, nothing is planted in back. He has other minor specie notes. To the rear, there is a landscape strip that is also a utility easement. Jim Reed stated the landscaping in back is already in place. Scott Brewer asked him to label existing plants. Laurence Lillig stated the plan does not match the aerial photo. Mr. Brewer commented that the plantings on the southwesterly border look like they are outside of the easement. John South sent a letter to Charlie Frankenberger. The soils are suitable for this use. But, he questions whether the drainage facility is adequate. There is only a small area in the s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 10 corner for detention. Mr. Reed stated some storage might have to be underground. Jon Dobosiewicz said this matter would be before TAC again. Rick McClain understands the 10-foot electrical easement in back is existing. He will need easements along the front. His utility must be stay 25 feet from pavement. Mr. McClain suggested another meeting. Mr. Frankenberger agreed. Jeff Kendall said it was too early to talk about specifics. Construction will probably be phased. The buildings will be identical except for square footage. There is a slight difference in elevations. Tenant spaces might be built after the shells are completed. Mr. Kendall distributed a permitting information sheet. Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Mr. Frankenberger and received a response from Mr. Hill. Mr. Hoyt would like the water distribution plans to check fire hydrants. Jon Dobosiewicz stated the Department of Community Services would not recommend that the PUD be adopted. That action would eliminate Plan Commission approval. Landscaping plans for the development must conform to the US 31 Overlay standards. A 15-foot green belt is shown along Marana Drive. He would like a meeting to establish definitive standards on what landscaping is to be provided. Two or three trees might be installed in each island in the parking lot. Mr. Dobosiewicz would like the Plan Commission to see this in an ADLS petition. The setbacks seem to be adequate. The building sizes relate to the adjacent residential uses. This project provides a buffer between residential and higher density commercial uses. Charlie Frankenberger suggested a meeting for the following week. Mr. Dobosiewicz does not want the Plan Commission to lose sight of DP and ADLS review. He wants to review the details at length. If the property is rezoned, Jon Dobosiewicz would like to look at this as separate petitions. College Hills is an example where the Plan Commission approved a preliminary development plan. The final plan will be approved administratively. The Plan Commission will also approve the ADLS. The PUD Ordinance does not address signage Mr. Lillig assumed, as part of the PUD, the petitioner wants to lift the 31 Overlay Zone from this property. He suggested submitting an amended cover sheet that makes this clear. He suggested calling this petition the “Hunters Creek Office Park PUD” for the sake of clarity. Within the Ordinance, Mr. Lillig suggested a wider set back for side yards that are adjacent to residential property. He referred to the property to the west. There is commercial use to the south. Front yards are on the other side. He suggested splitting Section 5.4 out to an A and a B. There is a “typo” in Section 5.2. Jon Dobosiewicz said they should address dedication of the right of way on Rohrer and Marana with a rezone rather than attaching it to a development plan. Morana Drive is a 50-foot right of way. Changing from residential to commercial would require a 30-foot half right of way. These plans show the sidewalk placed on their property. Additional right of way may be necessary on Morana to accommodate the sidewalk. Laurence Lillig stated the minimum lot size is acceptable. He suggested the preparation of a document exhibiting the worse case scenarios for platting that displays a building on each individual lot with individual easements. There are easement conflicts. Mr. Lillig requested some language that speaks to conflicts within easements. This plan does not s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 11 necessarily show all of the easements. Jon Dobosiewicz mentioned that the Ordinance does not address the number of parking spaces needed. Medical use requires one space for every 250 square feet. That will increase the number of required parking spaces. The ADLS process will not be reviewed concurrently with rezone. Mr. Lillig stated the sign plan is needed with an ADLS. None is shown on the architectural plans. Signage standards must be addressed. Carpenter GMAC (Development Plan Amendment) – 126-01 DP Amend/ADLS Amend nd The site is located at 790 West 122 Street. The site is zoned M-3. Filed by David Caveness of Carpenter Co., Inc. nd Dave Caveness and Skip Booher were present. The GMAC site is located at 122 Street. The road will eventually be called City Center Drive. The petitioner requests a variance to their original development plan to add on to the back of building. The 1,400 square feet of office space will match the existing architecture, the setbacks are fine, and there is no need for additional parking. Steve Cash has not seen this plan. The office space addition will be constructed off the back of the building to facilitate the growth of the business. Steve Cash corrected his first statement; he has seen this. The large pond is existing. Dick Hill and Mike McBride find the drawing confusing. The “existing” and “proposed” must be identified. Mr. Booher said he highlighted the new in yellow. The temporary curve for parking is also new. Mike McBride stated no date has been determined for the renaming of City Center Drive. Mr. Lillig asked to be apprised; a secondary plat amendment will need to be recorded. Chuck Shupperd commented that the gas meter would have to be moved. With this additional square footage, the petitioner may desire an increase in meter size. Scott Brewer understands there will be no landscape changes. The property is zoned M3. Mr. Brewer will check that the site currently meets the standard. A solid, visional screen landscape border is required for M3. It is presently on the other side of the lake. Landscaping is around the parking lot, in the front, and on both sides of the building. It was constructed three or four years ago. Rick McClain will have to move utilities. Mr. Caveness is aware of that. Jeff Kendall gave David Caveness a permitting procedure sheet. Gary Hoyt had no comments. Jon Dobosiewicz had no comments. The plans indicate the same design, same overall development plan, and same setback. The Department might ask the Plan Commission to s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 12 waive its Rules and Procedures at the hearing. If there are no questions from Plan Commission members or the public, it might be heard in November rather than December. th U.S. Highway 31 & 146 Street Planned Unit Development District (PUD Rezone) – 127-01 Z th The site is located at the southwest corner of US Highway 31 and 146 Street. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for the Lauth Property Group. Attorney Paul Reis introduced Joe Downs and Mike Hartman, Lauth Property Group. th The property is located at the southwest corner of 146 Street and US 31. The proposed use on the 56 acres is neighborhood retail along with restaurants. The project will be coordinated with the construction of a Range Line Road extension from the current intersection of Range Line and US 31 on the south and connecting on the north with the now existing Western Way Road. Mr. Reis is in discussion with the Highway Department and Indiana Department of Transportation concerning the construction of this road and the issue of any ramps that may be required or reserved with the upgrade of US 31. The petitioner is addressing the issues raised by the Fire Department and Hamilton County Soil and Water. The pipeline across the property is owned by Equalon. Mr. Downs is continuing discussions concerning the pipeline and the development of the site. Steve Cash will deal with the drainage aspects of this project. He has no comments at this rezone time; the project will come before TAC again. The land is annexed; Mr. Cash will defer to the City of Carmel. Dick Hill and Mike McBride will review the project and write comments. The parcel is annexed and utilities are available. Mr. Reis stated there are two parcels that are not under contract with the client. The first parcel that is under the road might be obtained by the County through condemnation in conjunction with construction of the road. The second parcel is privately owned. They are trying to acquire it. For the rezone now, those two parcels are excluded. Kate Weese sent a comment that all roads, signals, ramps, and traffic systems shall be evaluated according to Carmel, Hamilton County, and INDOT standards to coordinate the US 31 update. th Chuck Shupperd has a gas line on 146 Street. He expects they will follow the new Range Line Road. Jim Neal has had meetings with the petitioner and INDOT to discuss issues. The site plan road alignment will change at the south end of the project. They are working on the final location for the reserved right of way for the ramps. INDOT cannot comment about US 31 while it is under study. However, INDOT will need to approve the improvements at the intersection. But, the Department will not comment of the impact of EIS. Scott Brewer did not receive this PUD Ordinance. One should be sent to Mr. Brewer for review. He commented that there is no landscape or tree preservation plan. Paul Reis is s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 13 in active discussion with the neighboring owners and will address the landscape buffer and tree preservation. Scott Brewer suggested a separate meeting. The 31 Overlay is the standard; it is a good place to start. John South stated the soils are suitable except for shoals at the south end. These have to be further addressed. The gas line and existing drainage way should be included in the preliminary sketch. They are important concerns. A wetland investigation should be done on the property. A statement concerning increased storm water run off is required. Jeff Kendall had no comments. Rick McClain suggested a meeting. He understands that the roadwork will be a County project that is funded by TIF District. Jim Neal confirmed. John Lester had no comments on the rezone request. The pathways look good. Gary Hoyt said his questions were answered previously. He is waiting for another set of drawings. Jon Dobosiewicz suggested incorporating something into the Ordinance in regard to what the City desires and the fire code concerning the larger buildings. Gary Hoyt wants to present the language to proper channels at the Fire Department. This stems back to he new Target building without fire alarms. Mr. Hoyt wants to put additional safety mechanisms in place. Mr. Dobosiewicz met last week with Mr. Reis to discuss the project. He has notes but has not written a letter yet. There were issues with regard to th setbacks from 146 Street and US 31. The landscaping requirements need significant work. The Department has concern about the architecture of the building along with the structure of the Ordinance to only require development plan approval by the DOCS. Jon Dobosiewicz also wants the Plan Commission to approve a preliminary development plan. He does not know if the Department can make a favorable recommendation at the November meeting with the limited amount of information regarding the layout of the roadway and chronology of improvements and who will be making them. Agreements in writing for the production of Range Line Road and other infrastructure are necessary. If that parcel at the roadway is not included, an amendment would be necessary to later incorporate it into the site plan. He proposed language to address the outlots now that are not included. If the site plan changes dramatically, Jon Dobosiewicz will delay in issuing comments. There was discussion previously about the relocation of the proposed signal at the ramp aligning with Walters Drive. The City does not want multiple cuts. Once a traffic analysis is prepared, the Department will have comments on these issues. Paul Reis asked about roadway improvement. Mr. Dobosiewicz wants a letter from the County saying they will build a road. The petitioner has held off doing the traffic analysis until Jim Neal has had a conversation with INDOT. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 14 th North Gray Road & 146 Street Planned Unit Development District (PUD Rezone) – 128-01 Z th The site is located at the southeast corner of North Gray Road and 146 Street. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Hearthview Residential, LLC. Paul Reis introduced Chris Read, Hearthview Residential LLC, and Greg Rasmussen, Weihe Engineers, Inc. Mr. Reis sent the initial site plan for this single-family, attached housing planned unit development. The vacant 11.5 acres of land are located at the th southeast corner of 146 Street and Gray Road. The project is designed to be consistent th with the road improvement and upgrade of 146 Street and Gray Road. Comments have been received from Soil and Water, Highway Department, Fire Department, and Carmel Clay Schools. Mr. Reis is studying those and getting responses back as soon as possible. Steve Cash understands annexation is not planned for a few years. It is within the watershed of the Mitchner Regulated Drain and is located east of the proposed site. Further discussion about the impact of the flood plain is necessary. An outlet permit will be required as they are discharging into the watershed. There are offsite concerns about the water that comes across the site. A design is necessary to handle the run off. Greg Rasmussen stated no plan has been developed; today’s proceedings are at the rezone stage. The petitioner will return to TAC with construction plans. Chris Read said the drain travels north and then swings south. Greg Rasmussen thinks water will go into the pond or be directed south and eventually back into the Mitchner Drain. The discharge requirements will be standard. Dick Hill normally would have no jurisdiction at this location. But, because Carmel utilities will service the land, then the petitioner would be required to record a written commitment to annexation or sign a non remonstrance agreement. Mr. Reis believes the project touches two lots that are continuous. Jon Dobosiewicz said if it is continuous, he would expect voluntary annexation. Chuck stated there is a facility on Gray Road. Chris Read said the units would be metered separately. The meters will be installed at the rear of the buildings. Steve Broermann wrote a letter to Mr. Reis. Regarding the entrances and proximity of the loop street to the exterior road, 150 feet are needed to prevent a back up that would affect traffic on Gray Road. They need 150 feet from center line to center line. The th location of the entrance on 146 Street should be moved to the east. The County Engineer would like to keep it as far from the intersection as possible. There should be a left turn built for this entrance and a left turn onto Gray Road. A median cut is needed. Some work is necessary to the median to allow a left turn. There will be a left turn for this project and then the next left turn will be on Gray Road. Paul Reis will be in touch. Scott Brewer did not have an opportunity to write a letter, but will do so. He did not receive a copy of the PUD Ordinance. There are no unit plans; this is the only plan. However, landscape plans will be developed. Planting and preservation details are needed. The existing trees need to be indicated. Mr. Reis stated this project is not s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 15 subject to the Open Space Ordinance. Covenants and restrictions are proposed. John South sent comments. The soils are suitable for the project. There would be some benefit in keeping the nice roll of the site and not scraping it completely flat. The drainage way from the west needs to be shown on the plan. The erosion sediment plan is a little more difficult due to the rolling topography. Wetlands may be involved and state permits may be involved. Jeff Kendall understands these single family attached units are condos that will be individually owned. The State Building Code calls them townhomes. A cluster of units will be built all at once. State approved plans will be required. Rick McClain was told the yard work would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The electricity will be in the common utility easement. John Lester did not see the continuation of the trail south on Gray Road. A ten-foot asphalt path is required. Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Paul Reis. He asked to see the water plans. The two-story units that have with walk-out basements will have 30 to 35 foot roof lines. There will be no parking underneath. Chris Read stated no amenity center is planned. Basement walk outs will be an option. Jeff Kendall stated the basements must be two feet about the 100- year flood level within the lake boundary. Jon Dobosiewicz stated most of his comments have been discussed. The relocation of th access on 146 Street addressed the problem of residents backing out of units into an area th where traffic was coming off 146 Street. Staff would support relocation to the east. This is a land use decision. Detached single family use is permitted today. Additional information should be submitted that expresses the difference between what is permitted now as opposed to what is being proposed. Mr. Dobosiewicz wants the side yard dimension indicated. Section 5.2.a-discusses a green belt but no dimension is given. At least a 20-foot separation between right of way and driveway is necessary. Minimum planting requirements within the green belt are needed. Section 6-Parking Requirements- indicate parking space dimensions of 9’ X 16’. Carmel minimums are 9’ x 20’ or 10’ x 18’. Jon Dobosiewicz asked the petitioner to reconsider the greater dimension. All asphalt must be curbed unless another standard is adopted. No sign plan has been presented. This situation does not require a development plan. However, he suggested giving the Plan Commission an opportunity to approve a general plan. Staff would approve a revised plan. He would like more buffering between the project and the th Intersection of Gray Road and 146 Street. Cross sections or elevations of the buildings and/or renderings of proposed landscaping will help explain the project. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 16 USTA PUD (ADLS; Construction Plans) - 129-01 ADLS th The site is located on the northwest corner of East 96 Street and the Monon Greenway. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development (Z-361). John Smeltzer of Bose McKinney & Evans for Midwest Youth Tennis Foundation, Inc. Atty. John Smeltzer represented the petitioner. He introduced Rich Fitzgerald, Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf, and Greg Rasmussen, Weihe Engineers, Inc. Steve Cash stated the location of this project does not affect the County regulated drain. It is next to the Monon Greenway. A permit from the County is not required. Mr. Cash will write a letter; his comments will regard discharge rates. Dick Hill and Mike McBride reviewed the project. Mr. Hill said the site is in a gray area. It is outside of the corporate limits. But, it will be annexed. Their comment letter will be based on the assumption it will become the City’s jurisdiction. The right of way and easement lines need to be identified. There is an existing four-foot concrete sidewalk. If this parcel is annexed prior to development, there are several encroachments that the City will treat differently than the County would. There is a 10-foot long, 18-inch diameter RCP under the four-foot sidewalk. Mr. Hill asked how they would treat access to the Monon. Mr. Rasmussen believes they might “but” the sidewalks up side by side. It is still undecided and will be considered. Mr. Hill will write a comment letter. Chuck Shupperd stated his gas facility stops at Five Seasons. No decision has been made yet on gas use. Mr. Shupperd gave the petitioner a data sheet for gas load and size of meter. If gas is desired, the line would need to be extended from the Five Seasons. Steve Broermann commented the sidewalk shown within the right of way would be permitted. But it should be noted, if anything happens to the right of way, it would be eliminated. The petitioner should work with the City but it is within the County right of way. Scott Brewer stated if this land is annexed, street trees would be allowed in the City right of way. He commented that the planting details are very nice. There was discussion regarding jurisdiction of the right of way. Mr. Smeltzer would be happy to plant trees, but understands the County will remove them. Scott Brewer did not realize where the right of way is located. Rich Fitzgerald said there would not be construction in the County right of way other than the walk. Mr. Brewer suggested substituting the Hawthorns near the walk because of their thorns. Red maples would be a good alternate. He also suggested planting one additional hardwood specie to increase diversity. A note should be added to the planting details to remove stakes and wires after one year. The plant materials meet American standards for nursery stock. An irrigation and/or watering plan for the plants is needed. John South sent Greg Rasmussen comments regarding the erosion control plan. He also did not realize there was a right of way line across the property. He is not sure how his s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 17 comments might have to change because of that. Mr. South will review the project again. Jeff Kendall assumes this is a two-story, mixed occupancy use. There will be business offices and no tennis courts. The first floor will be occupied by the tennis associations and their hall of fame. The second floor will be leased to tenants. Mr. Kendall encouraged the petitioner to get a commercial permit information sheet. John Lester stated a connection is not shown to the Monon Greenway. One alternative is to not connect to the four-foot sidewalk. They may wish to come across opposite of the plaza and enter to the north. There is a parking lot on the other side with no sidewalk to the east. Mr. Lester stated this must be addressed. The plan shows a sidewalk and then a th stub to 96 Street but does not get over to the Greenway. John Smelter noted that on Sheet 5 a connection is shown. Mr. Lester is concerned this is in the highway right of way and might be taken out. The petitioner approached the County about the installation of a dry detention area with landscaping. The County is not interested. Mr. Lester suggested a different route to the Greenway. The brick plaza might be a nice entryway. Jon Dobosiewicz suggested providing a set of plans that indicates surrounding uses. A culvert across the drainage ditch and construction of an access over it would be required. It would also entail opening a path through the trees. It might not be necessary to continue the sidewalk. He would like to speak further with the petitioner about this. They may also want to provide restroom facilities at some point. Jon Dobosiewicz would like a connection to the Monon within 50 feet of the plaza space. A condition of the rezone was a connection to the Monon. The plan is not clear to him. The entire area drains here; there are pipes beneath which should not want to disturb. Mr. Lester mentioned not changing the four-foot sidewalk. A separate meeting was suggested. Jon Dobosiewicz wants to be able to tell the Plan Commission this project complies with th the commitments of the rezone. If they cannot accomplish this before November 20, the petitioner can indicate continuing work with the Parks Department to come up with a final design. Ron Carter is on the committee. He wants to see this connected. John Lester requested a copy of sheet 5. Craig Flandermeyer is the project architect with th Schmidt. Mr. Lester wants a 10-foot path along 96 Street as called for in the Thoroughfare Plan. The four-foot sidewalk is not adequate. Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Rich Fitzgerald. The Fire Department wants a Knox box installed. Mr. Fitzgerald is 99 percent sure the building will be sprinkled. Mr. Hoyt also wants an exterior entrance to the riser room. If the building is sprinkled, fire department prevention caps should be used. Applications are available through Gary Hoyt’s office. The building will be 24,000 square feet in size. Jon Dobosiewicz commented the site plan identifies a dumpster/trash bin. It must have an enclosure similar in architecture to the building. In previous discussion, they spoke of sliding the building to the south and west. Rich Fitzgerald talked with the civil engineer; it cannot be done. The plan is being submitted as shown in this location. Jon Dobosiewicz needs to look at the Ordinance to determine if there is a walk along the northeast side of the building. He might interpret it as access to the building through the s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 18 walk at a perpendicular angle. But, not as the walk along the length of the building. Rich Fitzgerald commented the walk is there because of the door placed at the end of the building. Mr. Dobosiewicz does not want the four-foot concrete walk dismissed. The Ordinance requires it be brought up to current standards. The Plan Commission needs a plan of connection to the Monon Greenway. John Smelter responded this is not on their property. Jon Dobosiewicz said this is no different than a sidewalk in a right of way. Mr. Smeltzer stated his client always said they would connect their property to the Monon, but now they are being asked to improve the sidewalk. Jon Dobosiewicz said it is a separate issue. There is the expectation they will follow the Alternative Transportation Plan. The County Highway Department has instructed the petitioner to work with the City regarding details on how this is constructed. They must bring a substandard improvement up to current standards. Mr. Smeltzer asked if that was necessary even th though their property does not touch the 96 Street right of way. Jon Dobosiewicz responded it was a distinction without a difference. The road in the right of way is farther from their property than is typical. Nevertheless, it is the road that is adjacent to their property. Mr. Dobosiewicz wants to instruct the Plan Commission that the project complies with the Ordinance. Right now this may be a hang up. John Smeltzer stated the four-foot sidewalk is already installed. Will they have to widen it to ten feet. He is concerned about the expense. He said it would be easier, less expensive, and more aesthetically pleasing to try to connect as they have or go straight to the trail. But, once they get to the stub, they are in Hamilton County’s dedicated right of way. Mr. Smeltzer was told there a lot of drainage issues. If they moved it, the drainage problems and sidewalk would be avoided. Also, the sidewalk could be removed by the County. Mr. Dobosiewicz wants them to comply with the transportation plan. John Smeltzer thinks it is wasteful to improve a sidewalk to no where. Mr. Dobosiewicz responded the sidewalk would ultimately connect. He suggested scheduling a meeting with DOCS and Parks. J.C. Sipe Jewelers (UV-96-01; Construction Plans) th The site is located at 3000 East 96 Street. The site is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by Fred Simmons of Simmons & Associates for the Sipe Family LLC. Fred Simmons, the project architect, introduced Tim Seitz, the landscape architect, and Patrick Shea, American Consulting, Inc. This project was presented to TAC about two months ago in preparation for a BZA hearing. It was extended to next Monday night. Construction plans for the 4,000 square foot jewelry store are to be reviewed now. The th parcel is located at the corner of Day Drive and 96 Street. It is immediately west of Tom Wood Lexus. The drawings specifically related to landscape have not been revised. Steve Cash did not see where the two-year run off rate for drainage calculations was addressed. He needs to have the predeveloped rate for run-off. It will probably not change the design. Mr. Cash needs to know how the outfall from the detention area will be designed. Steve Cash recommends an overflow outfall structure. A four-inch orifice gets clogged. Any size less than six inches is not good for this situation. Chuck Shupperd stated there is a gas main at the property. The building will use gas. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 19 Steve Broermann stated everything has been addressed. John South sent a letter. He assumes they will address his comments. Fred Simmons said they would. Jeff Kendall suggested stopping at the first floor for the commercial permitting procedure. Scott Brewer sent a letter and received a response. He will be glad to meet with the petitioners to discuss the reforestation project. Included in that will be the perimeter buffering requirement and planting in the dry detention areas. It is possible to utilize some of that space to make that detention area more effective. He suggested nurseries that provide the appropriate kind of plants. Jon Dobosiewicz stated Laurence Lillig would be primarily responsible for this case as a land use under the Board of Zoning Appeals. All of the other Day Drive uses farther north are residential uses. He thinks that a hedgerow similar to what is being proposed along the north driveway should be installed along the east and south border of the parking lot. Mr. Dobosiewicz suggested exploring the relocation of parking to the west side of building or moving the building closer to the road. The Department’s position is that the project should be submitted as a rezone. Fred Simmons stated placement of the building was restricted by setbacks. Mr. Dobosiewicz commented that those referenced setbacks are for residential uses. He again suggested parking to the rear or side of building so the residents do not turn onto this street and see a parking lot. The building setback is no more important that the use. Laurence Lillig wrote comments in a letter and the petitioner has responded. The only outstanding question is the address on the east. Fred Simmons responded the petitioner will probably utilize a mailbox but has not decided. Currently, one ten-square-foot sign for identification is permitted. The Department has suggested a signage amendment. If approved, this project’s proposed signs would be permitted. The amendment is currently before the City Council. Mr. Lillig reiterated the Department’s continuing opposition to this project’s moving forward as a Use Variance rather than as a Rezone petition. The meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteee\Minutes\tac2001oct 20