HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 11:00 AM
To: 'Rex Ramage'
Cc: David Compton; David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com> (DAyala@terrasitedev.com);
Randy Green; 'Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com'
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
Thank you, Rex.
This gives me enough info to update the Dept. Report.And, my responses are in your email below in GREEN.
Also, I have one additional question: at the last meeting it was discussed that the Petitioner will make a commitment _
that a landowner cannot build on the south side of the pipeline on Lot 3 -what is the status of that?
Thank you, \ 3 Z ..—
Angie Conn, AICP ,ev�^-c`'`'l
Carmel Planning &Zoning Dept.
From: Rex Ramage [mailto:Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:46 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: David Compton; David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com> (DAyala@terrasitedev.com); Randy Green;
Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com'
Subject: RE: Westbridge PUD
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links
from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
Angie,
Please see our responses in red below.
Thanks,
IPuIteC (). ,
Rex Ramage
Land Acquisition Manager I Indianapolis Division
317.814.2026
Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com
From:Conn,Angelina V<Aconn@carmel.in.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:25 PM
To: Rex Ramage<Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com>; David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com> (DAyala@terrasitedev.com)
<DAyala@terrasitedev.com>
Cc: 'Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com'<Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com>; David Compton
<David.Compton@PulteGroup.com>; Randy Green <isbgcapital@gmail.com>
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
Good afternoon, David & Rex—
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:25 PM
To: Rex Ramage; David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com> (DAyala@terrasitedev.com)
Cc: 'Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com'; david.compton@pultegroup.com; Randy Green
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
Good afternoon, David & Rex—
I need clarification on the below-listed items, please, as I update the Dept. Report(which gets distributed Thursday,
noon):
a) There was a commitment made at the last meeting to doing 2 story brick on the ends of the townhome buildings
with the most visibly.This is not reflected in the portion of the latest info packet that addresses the architecture.
b) At the last meeting, the committee asked that you also widen the tree protection area fencing area. I have not
seen that on the latest plans.
c) They also asked that you add a Tree Protection fencing requirement language to the PUD text. I did not see that.
Did I miss it?
d) Out of curiosity, what will the Amenity Area end up being? A picnic gazebo area?
e) What is the distance between the east side of the easternmost townhome buildings and the proposed sidewalk
just east of that building? I have not seen that specified on any site plan or landscape plan or conceptual plot
plan.
f) For the Ditch Design, please also provide Staff with renderings and/or photo examples,too.
g) Regarding PUD Section 4.8— my original comment was: "Why was the max. height for fences in the front yard
removed?This should be referenced." ... with the latest Redline version, are you saying that because it is silent
and does not address it, that we would just refer back to the UDO regs? Please confirm.
Thank you in advance,
Angie Conn, AICP
Carmel Planning&Zoning Dept.
1 Civic Sq. 3rd Flr., Carmel, IN 46032
P: 317-571-2417 I W: www.carmeldocs.com
From: Timothy.Ochs@iicemiller.com [mailto:Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 1:21 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: 'Rex Ramage'; 'david.compton@pultegroup.com'; 'Randy Green'
Subject: RE: Westbridge PUD
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links
from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
Angie: The redline version is attached.
Tim
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Jordan, Alex
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Thomas,John G
Subject: Westbridge Update
Hey Angie,
Sorry we didn't get back with you Friday.We were in contact with their engineer and we have agreed to meet with them
and the County to discuss the variances they are requesting.As stated by the project engineer, if they"cannot get
beyond these items there is nothing to discuss, as this project is not viable." We have significant concerns with the
requested variances, as does our drainage consultant.We will know more definitively after the meeting whether we will
support the request.At this time, we cannot support the variances with the information provided to date. We have also
not been contacted on when this meeting will be held so we cannot yet provide a time frame for our decision.At this
time we would still give this project a negative recommendation.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Alex
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:43 AM
To: Jordan, Alex;Willie Hall
Cc: Kashman, Jeremy M; Lopez,Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V; Robert Doster; Keesling, Rachel
M; Randy Green; Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;Thomas,John G;
Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
Attachments: Westbridge set-11x17.pdf
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links
from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
All,
Attached are the 1 1x17 set of plans that corrects inconsistent plan data (elevations). This is a quick fix to one
comment. Other (specifically drainage comments) are being addressed under separate cover.
The open space plan was replaced to correspond to sheet 1.0.
Regards,
Dave
From:Jordan, Alex<ajordan@carmel.in.gov>
Sent:Thursday, March 14, 2019 4:27 PM
To: David Ayala<DAyala@terrasitedev.com>; Willie Hall <whall@crossroadengineers.com>
Cc: Kashman,Jeremy M <jkashman@carmel.in.gov>; Lopez,Alexia K<alopez@carmel.in.gov>; Conn, Angelina V
<Aconn@carmel.in.gov>; Robert Doster<RDoster@terrasitedev.com>; Keesling, Rachel M <rkeesling@carmel.in.gov>;
Randy Green <isbgcapital@gmail.com>; Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;Thomas,John G<jthomas@carmel.in.gov>;
Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com
Subject: RE: Westbridge PUD
Good afternoon,
Thank you for the response. We have addressed each of your comments in red below.We are going to meet with the
County Surveyor's Office to discuss the project and requested variances. Once we have held this meeting, we will
schedule a meeting with everyone to discuss. If you can provide any clarification on the comments below, it would assist
us in evaluating the variance request.
Sincerely,
Alex Jordan
Plan Review Coordinator
City of Carmel Engineering Department
(317) 571-2305
ajordan@carmel.in.gov
From: David Ayala [mailto:DAyala@terrasitedev.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 4:49 PM
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Jordan, Alex;Willie Hall; Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov
Cc: Kashman, Jeremy M; Lopez, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V; Robert Doster; Keesling, Rachel
M; Randy Green; Thomas,John G; Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
Attachments: West Bridge - Primary Plat Review#1.pdf
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links
from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
Alex,
I will provide you a response comments below, by tomorrow. It is imperative that we meet with the County with
you. What is the purpose of excluding us? We would prefer to be able to present the information from our
delineation of the existing floodplain study to County directly. We know what assumptions were or were not
made. Please reconsider this.
Regards,
Dave
From:Jordan,Alex<ajordan@carmel.in.gov>
Sent:Thursday, March 14, 2019 4:27 PM
To: David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>; Willie Hall <whall@crossroadengineers.com>
Cc: Kashman,Jeremy M <jkashman@carmel.in.gov>; Lopez, Alexia K<alopezPcarmel.in.gov>; Conn,Angelina V
<Aconn@carmel.in.gov>; Robert Doster<RDoster@terrasitedev.com>; Keesling, Rachel M <rkeesling@carmel.in.gov>;
Randy Green<isbecapital@gmail.com>;Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;Thomas,John G <ithomas@carmel.in.gov>;
Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com
Subject: RE: Westbridge PUD
Good afternoon,
Thank you for the response. We have addressed each of your comments in red below. We are going to meet with the
County Surveyor's Office to discuss the project and requested variances. Once we have held this meeting, we will
schedule a meeting with everyone to discuss. If you can provide any clarification on the comments below, it would assist
us in evaluating the variance request.
Sincerely,
Alex Jordan
Plan Review Coordinator
City of Carmel Engineering Department
(317) 571-2305
aiordan@carmel.in.gov
From: David Ayala [mailto:DAyala@terrasitedev.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 4:49 PM
To:Jordan,Alex<aiordan@carmel.in.gov>;Willie Hall<whall@crossroadengineers.com>
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 4:49 PM
To: Jordan,Alex;Willie Hall
Cc: Kashman, Jeremy M; Lopez, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V; Robert Doster; Keesling, Rachel
M; Randy Green; Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov; Thomas, John G;
Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links
from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
Alex,
The purpose of the proposed meeting is to discuss the 100-year flood plain elevation and the detention. If we
can not get beyond these two items there is nothing to discuss, as this Project is not viable. The models we
have prepared that are in the current drainage report propose to lower the proposed floodplain
elevations. The existing floodplain is localized and primarily effects our property and our southern
adjoiners. Any drainage improvements that we are proposing, reduces and lowers the floodplain elevations.
This is a difficult design that will require some flexibility and requests for variances. At this time, the following are
the proposed variances that we would anticipate filling/requesting:
Hamilton County Surveyor's Office (HCSO):
1. Request for a reduction in the width of the legal drain width from 75' from the top of bank to 50' (total)
width;
2. Variance for Construction in the Floodplain. We would like to reshape the floodplain and redirect water
from our site into a detention pond to reduce the existing limits of the floodplain;
3. Variance from a 3:1 mitigation requirement for fill in the floodplain, because the new floodplain would be
behind our new berm of a proposed pond. Essentially,we are converting floodplain to detention-storage, so
the mitigation is the creation of our pond.
City of Carmel:
1. All of the above variance would also have to be requested from the City because they abide by HSCO
standards;
2. Request for a variance of the requirements of 30' storm drainage easements. The proposed easements
would be 15' and 20'. We discussed this in our last meeting. The City's concern was that we were going to
allow 100-year flood routing between lots. None of the proposed easements would allow overland 100-year
flood routing within them. This was discussed in the comment responses and in our last meeting;
3. Request for a variance from the requirement of 2' feet (vertical) freeboard around the SW pond. For this
design, it may be as little as 6-inches. (I had this variance approved less than 6 months ago, Proscenium).
4. Request a variance to allow parts of the 100-year flood routing to be encapsulated (piped) in lei of overland
flow. (I had this variance granted for underground detention facilities in the last 12 months, Geico Parking).
Inconsistent Plan Information, Proposed Pond Design Easements and Emergency Overflows are all discussed in
the drainage report, comment responses or were discussed at the last meeting. These items have been
addressed in the last submittal.
1
CONSULTING ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL/SITE ENGINEERING
E R R A LAND SURVEYING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING/INSPECTION
February 5, 2019
Angelina Conn
Plan Review Coordinator
City of Carmel Engineering Dept.
Carmel, Indiana
RE: Westbridge, PUD
Docket No. 18010004 Z
TERRA Project# 1812001
Angelina,
Based on the comments that we have reviewed from the staff report for the above referenced Project
we offer the additional information that you may need prior to preliminary approval.
• TAC Review Comments/Concerns:
O The proposed sanitary alignment information along with rim and invert elevations have
been added to Sheet C2.0. We also note approximate gas main elevations. There is
more than adequate clearance in the location of the proposed crossings. We have
included a flood route exhibit in the drainage report. In general, the drain flood
elevation is 6' to 8' below the proposed the proposed finished floors. See the revised
drainage report. As noted in the report, the proposed ponds have the capacity to
provide necessary detention and water quality, 106th Street runoff is addressed, and the
flood routing is shown and meets requirements.
• Drainage
O The requested documents for floodplain label on the plat, drainage report, etc. has
been addressed and documents forwarded to Engineering.
• Wetlands
O A small wetland was found in the west edge of the site, but will not impact the
proposed site plan. Although it is identified as "Waters of the US", at less than 0.1 acre
and with no more than 300 lineal feet of ditch/stream disturbance, it does not require
mitigation. According to V3 Consultants who did the study, we will need to submit a
notice to the Corp of Engineers, but there should be no other requirements.
• Ditch Design
O See drainage report.
• Townhouse Architecture
O See Developer supplied information.
• Legend
O A legend has been added to Sheet C 1.5 as requested.
• Open Space Plans
O The Primary Open Space Plan and Exhibit have been combined as requested and is
the plan recently stamped by the city forester.
OFFICE 209 E. 175th Street,Suite A Westfield,IN 46074 I PHONE 317.399.1216 I FAX 317.399.1216 I WEBSITE www.TERRAsitedev.com
Conn, Angelina V
From: David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 3:58 PM
To: Willie Hall; Lara Boesche; ryan.hartman@trico.eco;Jordan, Alex
Cc: Kashman,Jeremy M; Lopez, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V; Robert Doster; Keesling, Rachel
M; Randy Green; Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
Attachments: TERRA Response_CrossRoad Engineers 2019-0305019.pdf;TERRA Response_Carmel_
Angie Conn_2019-0305019.pdf;TERRA Response_Alex Jordan_r1_2019-0305.pdf
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links
from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
Willie,
Attached are all current comment response letters.
Dave
From:Willie Hall<whall@crossroadengineers.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:42 PM
To: Lara Boesche<LBoesche@terrasitedev.com>; ryan.hartman@trico.eco; David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>;
ajordan@carmel.in.gov
Cc:jkashman@carmel.in.gov; alopez@carmel.in.gov;aconn@carmel.in.gov; Robert Doster
<RDoster@terrasitedev.com>; rkeesling@carmel.in.gov; Randy Green <isbgcapital@gmail.com>;
Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov
Subject: RE: Westbridge PUD
Lara,
Please provide a revised drainage report and a comment response letter indicating the changes that have been made to
address the comments, so we can complete our re-review.
Also, please note that Greg Hoyes is no longer with HCSO. The appropriate contact information is now-
Surveyor(a�hamiltoncounty.in.gov or Jerry L. Liston Jerry.Liston(c�hamiltoncounty.in.gov.
Thanks,
Willie
WILLIAM HALL II, PE
M (260)243-1287
0(317)780-1555 x 140
whallcrossroadengineers.com
CROSSROAD ENGINEERS, PC
3417 Sherman Drive
Beech Grove, IN 46107
crossroadengineers.com
Facebook I Linkedln
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Willie Hall <whall@crossroadengineers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 6:11 PM
To: David Ayala; Lara Boesche; ryan.hartman@trico.eco;Jordan, Alex
Cc: Kashman, Jeremy M; Lopez, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V; Robert Doster; Keesling, Rachel
M; Randy Green; Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;Thomas, John G; Bob Bleich
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
Importance: High
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links
from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
David,
With the timing of the submittal, we haven't been able to do a full review of the submitted drainage report; however, I did a
brief review of the resubmitted plat/plan documents and wanted to share some of those comments prior to the end of the
day.
• Existing Floodplain Limits—We will complete a review of the calculated Crooked Creek floodplain BFE
elevations within the drainage report. However, based on the elevation of 890.20 indicated with the report, it
appears that the delineation of the existing floodplain limits are incorrect. It appears the delineation on the east
side of the creek were based on existing topography, but the delineation on the west side of the creek was based
on proposed contours. The delineation of the floodplain limits shall be based on the existing topography on the
site. Considering existing topography, the floodplain limits shall be extended to occupy almost all of Common
Area "F", a large area of Common Area "E", Lots 4-6, and some of the private roadway. It appears that the
project is proposed fill placement within the floodplain and detention within the floodplain. Both conditions do not
meet ordinance (both City of Carmel and Hamilton County Surveyors Office) and would require significant
modifications to the proposed site design.
• Detention Below the 100-year BFE—As mentioned above, it appears that Pond 2 is proposed within the limits
of the Crooked Creek floodplain. Further, it appears that the normal pool of the detention and all critical flood
elevations are located below the regulatory BFE. The current proposed condition results in zero realized
detention volume in Pond 2 and reduced detention volume in Pond 1 (DRY). Elevations of the proposed
detention facilities will need to be revised, which may impact the amount of proposed fill placement within the
floodplain and the resulting MFPG/ MLAG elevations for the lots.
• Inconsistent Plan Information—Among other information, items such as critical pond elevations,
NP/TOB/Spillway elevations, etc. is inconsistent on the various plan sheet.
• Proposed Pond Design—The proposed Pond 1 contours and elevations are inconsistent on various plan
sheets. It is unclear if the bottom slope of the dry detention basin meets ordinance requirements. Also, the dry
basin information indicates a Normal Pool elevation?? In addition, it appears that Pond 2 is not in conformance
with the HCSO typical pond details. Per those details, the wet pond should contain a minimum 2 ft. of freeboard,
which does not appear to be provided.
• Easements—As was included in Alex's last e-mail, it was recommended that you coordinate with City of Carmel
and HCSO for approval of the proposed drainage easement reductions. I do not believe this happened. To that
point, there are multiple easements that are not sufficient in width, and that would require a waiver from
both. Some of those possibilities were discussed. In addition, the outfall structures and emergency overflow path
from detention facilities are to be located within 30 ft. drainage easements. It appears that, at a minimum,
modifications to Lots 4-6 will be required to provide the necessary 30 ft. easement.
• Emergency Overflow—There are significant concerns with the emergency overflow scenario from Pond
1. Considering the presence of the 15 ft. tree preservation easement, existing topography, the private roadway,
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Ryan Hartman <ryan.hartman@trico.eco>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 1:47 PM
To: Lara Boesche; David Ayala;Jordan, Alex
Cc: Kashman, Jeremy M; Lopez, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V; Robert Doster; Keesling, Rachel
M; Randy Green;whall@crossroadengineers.com; greg.hoyes@hamiltoncounty.in.gov
Subject: RE:Westbridge PUD
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links
from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
Lara,
Manhole SS102 falls in the middle of the Gas Pipeline Easement and there is no profile view of sewer from SS105 West.
Ryan Hartman, District Engineer
TriCo Regional Sewer Utility
. T R I C O . 10701 North College Avenue, Suite A, Indianapolis, Indiana 46280
Phone 317-844-9200 • Direct 317-660-6604 • Website www.trico.eco • Email ryan.hartmanti
Clay Township Regional Waste District is now TriCo Regional Sewer Utility. New Name.... Same Great Utilit
From: Lara Boesche<LBoesche@terrasitedev.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:14 PM
To: Ryan Hartman<ryan.hartman@trico.eco>; David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>; ajordan@carmel.in.gov
Cc:jkashman@carmel.in.gov; alopez@carmel.in.gov; aconn@carmel.in.gov; Robert Doster
<RDoster@terrasitedev.com>; rkeesling@carmel.in.gov; Randy Green<isbecapital@gmail.com>;
whall@crossroadengineers.com; greg.hoyes@hamiltoncounty.in.gov
Subject: RE: Westbridge PUD
All-
See the attachments for the revised set of preliminary plans.
From: David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:54 PM
To: Lara Boesche<LBoesche@terrasitedev.com>
Subject: FW: Westbridge PUD
From: Ryan Hartman<ryan.hartman@trico.eco>
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 4:03 PM
To: David Ayala <DAyala@terrasitedev.com>; ajordan@carmel.in.gov
Cc: Kashman,Jeremy M <jkashman@carmel.in.gov>; Lopez, Alexia K<alopez@carmel.in.gov>; Cc: Conn,Angelina V
<Aconn@carmel.in.gov>; Robert Doster<RDoster@terrasitedev.com>; Keesling, Rachel M <rkeesling@carmel.in.gov>;
Randy Green <isbgcapital@gmail.com>; Hall,Willie<whall@crossroadengineers.com>; Greg R. Noyes
Conn, Angelina V l � � � ��ca 1)
From: Thomas, John G
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Jordan, Alex; 'Willie Hall'
Subject: RE: Westbridge Packet
Hi Angie,
Unfortunately, the resubmittal has raised more concerns with this project. I would not recommend this project to
move forward based on a brief review of today's submittal. The floodplain limits/elevation are only shown in the
proposed condition and I don't believe they have provided the existing floodplain limits/elevations. If you overlay the
proposed floodplain elevation on the existing site conditions, the development is proposing fill in the floodplain and
detention in the floodplain. Both conditions do not meet our code and would require a variance. The scope of the site
redesign to get the our department to support variances from our code for these issues would have a significant effect
on the site design. Additionally, I haven't seen anything that address the existing stream and wetland that they are
planning to fill, which was our other concern that would affect site design. There are other issues that I discussed with
Willie and he should be sending you a brief summary as well.
Sincerely,
John Thomas, CPESC, CMS4S
Storm Water Administrator
City of Carmel Engineering Department
(p) 317-571-2314
(f) 317-571-2439
Original Message
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 10:21 AM
To: Thomas, John G
Cc: Jordan, Alex; 'Willie Hall'
Subject: RE: Westbridge Packet
Good morning,John - Please let me know if/when the Westbridge team submits their revised documents to you today. (I
have not seen anything, yet.)Thanks.
Angie Conn, AICP
Carmel Planning & Zoning Dept.
Original Message
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 11:43 AM
To: 'Willie Hall';Jordan, Alex; Thomas,John G
Cc: 'ryan.hartman@trico.eco'; 'Jerry L. Liston'; Keesling, Rachel M
Subject: RE: Westbridge Packet
Thanks, Willie -
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Jordan, Alex
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 2:49 PM
To: 'Randy Green'; 'DAyala@terrasitedev.com'
Cc: Thomas,John G; Kashman,Jeremy M; Conn, Angelina V; Keesling, Rachel M; Hall,Willie;
Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com;timothy.ochs@icemiller.com
Subject: Westbridge Remaining Comments and Concerns
Good afternoon,
We have reviewed the response letter provided to us on 2/1/19 as well as the packet provided to us by Angie Conn on
2/26/19. Below we have listed all comments that will need addressed prior to our approval of the primary plat. Many of
the responses in the response letter state that the requested information will be provided at final approval but we will
require several of them to be addressed on the primary plat. We have listed these comments below:
1. We will require the floodplain shown on the primary plat in order to verify that no improvements are proposed
within its limits.This cannot wait until the final drainage calculations as the limits of the floodplain could affect
the layout of the site.This will also need to be used to calculate the minimum flood protection grade for each
building which is required on primary plats per Section 102.05 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual.
2. The wetland delineation must be submitted to the USACE and IDEM for review and approval and a plan of action
needs to be discussed with them.The delineation states, "Wetland A, Crooked Creek, and UNT1 appear to be a
"Waters of the U.S." and would likely be considered "Waters of the U.S." and under the regulatory authority of
the USACE and IDEM." We stressed at our meeting on 1/18/19 that this must be submitted to any regulating
agencies but we have not been informed that this has happened.The primary plat also shows the turnaround
and detention facility located where the wetland and water of the U.S.were identified but there is no mention
that these will be mitigated.We would like to have more confidence that these limitations have been factored
into the site design and project cost.
3. A drainage report was not supplied with the most recent packet. We will need this now that a third lot was
proposed on the east side of the site.The move to three lots is creating more of a minor subdivision,which
would typically require detention to be provided for the development, rather than requiring something lot by
lot.Also,the CN values for the east side of the development will likely need to be revised based on the smaller
lots and likely increased total impervious coverage.The drainage calculations should be revised to account for
that. There was also an additional detention facility added east of the amenity area that we will need to see
preliminary calculations for prior to approval.
4. We have concerns with the overflow routing and easements. It appears that the overflow for the northwest
pond may discharge west where there is not an adequate outlet.The detailed design of this can be revised and
fixed during final plans, but another issue is lack of sufficient easement for that routing. Easements for the
outfall from a detention facility and for the emergency overflow routing from a detention facility should be
contained within a 30 ft. easement, and that is not provided.This change may impact lot layout, and we
recommend that this be revised prior to primary plat/PUD approval.
5. There are multiple easements that are not as required by the ordinance. We may be okay with providing waivers
from some of these easements, but we recommend that those conversations happen now, so that the lot layout
does not need to be revised following the approval of this primary plat/ PUD.Additionally,the County will need
to verify that a reduced width legal drain easement of 25' is adequate.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Alex Jordan
Plan Review Coordinator
City of Carmel Engineering Department
(317) 571-2305
aiordan@carmel.in.gov
2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Jordan, Alex
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 2:53 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Keesling, Rachel M
Cc: Thomas, John G
Subject: Westbridge
Hey Angie,
Below are the major items that we still have concerns about with Westbridge. I'll email these to them tomorrow
but wanted to get them to you for the department report.
1. We will require the floodplain shown on the primary plat in order to verify that no improvements are
proposed within its limits. This cannot wait until the final drainage calculations as the limits of the floodplain
could affect the layout of the site. This will also need to be used to calculate the minimum flood protection
grade for each building which is required on primary plats per Section 102.05 of the Storm Water Technical
Standards Manual.
2. The wetland delineation must be submitted to the USAGE and IDEM for review and approval and a plan of
action needs to be submitted for them. The delineation states, "Wetland A, Crooked Creek, and UNT1 appear
to be a "Waters of the U.S." and would likely be considered "Waters of the U.S." and under the regulatory
authority of the USAGE and IDEM." We stressed at our meeting on 1/18/19 that this must be submitted to any
regulating agencies but we have not been informed that this has happened. The primary plat also shows the
turnaround and detention facility located where the wetland and water of the U.S. were identified but there is
no mention that these will be mitigated.
3. A drainage report was not supplied with the most recent packet. We will need this now that a third lot was
proposed on the east side of the site. There was also an additional detention facility added east of the amenity
area that we will need to see preliminary calculations for prior to approval.
Email secured by Check Point
Conn, Angelina V
From: Willie Hall <whall@crossroadengineers.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 11:38 AM
To: Conn,Angelina V;Jordan, Alex;Thomas,John G; 'ryan.hartman@trico.eco'; 'Jerry L.
Liston'
Cc: 'Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov'
Subject: RE:Westbridge Packet
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links from unknown
senders or unexpected email. ****
Hey Angie,
I'll defer to John and Alex on this one. We haven't completed a full re-review at this point, because the response to
almost all of our comments indicated that they will be addressing them at a later date. It looks like they made some
revisions to the northwest detention basin and added another basin by the amenity area, but there are no revised
drainage calculations included in the packet. So there really isn't enough information to complete a re-review.
Thanks,
Willie
WILLIAM HALL II, P.E.
(317) 780-1555 x140 Office
whall@crossroadengineers.com
Original Message
From: Conn,Angelina V<Aconn@carmel.in.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 8:34 AM
To:Jordan,Alex<aiordan@carmel.in.gov>;Thomas,John G <ithomas@carmel.in.gov>; 'ryan.hartman@trico.eco'
<ryan.hartman@trico.eco>; 'Jerry L. Liston' <Jerry.Liston@hamiltoncounty.in.gov>
Cc: Willie Hall<whall@crossroadengineers.com>; 'Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov'
<Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov>
Subject: RE: Westbridge Packet
Good morning,
Attached is their official info packet for the March 5 Committee meeting. it was submitted right at 430pm yesterday.
Angie Conn, AICP
Carmel Planning&Zoning Dept.
Original Message
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent:Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:35 PM
To:Jordan, Alex;Thomas,John G; ryan.hartman@trico.eco; 'Jerry L. Liston'
Cc: 'Willie Hall'; 'Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov'
Subject: FW: Westbridge Packet
Good afternoon, Gentlemen -
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Jerry L. Liston <Jerry.Liston@hamiltoncounty.in.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V;Jordan, Alex;Thomas,John G; ryan.hartman@trico.eco
Cc: 'Willie Hair; Kenton C.Ward; Luther M. Cline
Subject: Crooked Creek Drain,Weston Park Arm -Westbridge Packet
****This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links from unknown
senders or unexpected email. ****
Angie
I am in receipt of your email of February 26 with the attached/latest"unofficial" Westbridge PUD packet.
In checking Greg's file for the project it appears 3 preliminary review letters starting in early 2018 have been sent to
the petitioners for this site. It appears this site has several challenges related to the regulated drain that crosses the site
from looking over Greg's letters in the file.
It is my understanding if the petitioners receive plan commission approval for the site then the petitioner will file
construction plans for a further in depth review on our end. If this is the case,then our office is comfortable with the
PUD Rezone/Primary Plat petition moving forward. If that is not the case please advise.
Jerry L. Liston
Hamilton County Surveyor's Office
Original Message
From: Conn, Angelina V<Aconn@carmel.in.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:35 PM
To:Jordan,Alex<aiordan@carmel.in.gov>;Thomas,John G <ithomas@carmel.in.Rov>; ryan.hartman@trico.eco;Jerry L.
Liston <Jerry.Liston@hamiltoncounty.in.gov>
Cc: 'Willie Hall' <whall@crossroadengineers.com>; Surveyor<surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.Rov>
Subject: FW: Westbridge Packet
Good afternoon, Gentlemen -
Attached is the Petitioner's"Unofficial" Plan Commission info packet from last Friday(that they rescinded).They are
supposed to submit a revised PC info packet today for us to mail out with the Staff Reports on Thursday. However, I
wanted you to get a head start on review, as there is also a wetland study report contained in the document.
Also, if you can please let me know your approval status, and if you are comfortable with the PUD Rezone/Primary Plat
petition moving out of committee and getting a final vote at the March 19 Plan Commission meeting, I would appreciate
it. Or, let me know if you have any major issues or concerns that I need to let the Plan Commission committee know
about. Staff Reports go out this Thursday after lunch, so please let me know before then.Thanks!
Angie Conn,AICP
Carmel Planning&Zoning Dept.
1 Civic Sq. 3rd Flr., Carmel, IN 46032
P: 317-571-2417 I W:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.carmeldocs.com&data=01%7C01%7CJerry.Liston%40ha
miltoncounty.in.gov%7Ca910fbf2d7f845daf29308d69c21970f%7C66d b0e9bcfb94584a4cbdce4f443be45%7C0&am p;sda
ta=w8t3V3hy5vt30HveHggkW7N BDiw5Jeiln3wG5hbU9iM%3D&reserved=0
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Ryan Hartman <ryan.hartman@trico.eco>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:02 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V;Jordan, Alex;Thomas, John G; 'Jerry L. Liston'
Cc: 'Willie Hall'; 'Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov'
Subject: RE:Westbridge Packet
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links from unknown
senders or unexpected email. ****
Angie,
I am going to hold comment until construction plans come through for review. What you have supplied is the first
time that I have seen the sanitary sewer alignment like this and appears as if they are now going back to the three lots vs
two lots on East side of the parcel? and as stated earlier not sure that it will work but the risk will be on them.
Ryan Hartman, District Engineer
TriCo Regional Sewer Utility
10701 North College Avenue, Suite A
Indianapolis, Indiana 46280
Phone 317-844-9200
Direct 317-660-6604
ryan.hartmant trico.eco Original Message
From: Conn,Angelina V<Aconn@carmel.in.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 8:34 AM
To:Jordan,Alex<aiordan@carmel.in.gov>;Thomas,John G <ithomas@carmel.in.gov>; Ryan Hartman
<ryan.hartmantWtrico.eco>; 'Jerry L. Liston' <Jerry.Liston@hamiltoncounty.in.gov>
Cc: 'Willie Hall'<whall@crossroadengineers.com>; 'Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov'
<Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov>
Subject: RE: Westbridge Packet
Good morning,
Attached is their official info packet for the March 5 Committee meeting. it was submitted right at 430pm yesterday.
Angie Conn, AICP
Carmel Planning&Zoning Dept.
Original Message
From: Conn,Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:35 PM
To:Jordan,Alex;Thomas,John G; rvan.hartman@trico.eco; 'Jerry L. Liston'
Cc: 'Willie Hall'; 'Surveyor@hamiltoncounty.in.gov'
Subject: FW: Westbridge Packet
Good afternoon, Gentlemen -
1
CONSULTING ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL/SITE ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
E F:\R A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING/INSPECTION
TRANSMITTAL
To: City of Carmel Date: FEBRUARY 26, 2019
1 Civic Square 3rd Floor Project: Westbridge Subdivision
Carmel, IN 46032 Project #: 1711002
ATTN: Angie Conn, AICP
Carmel - Planning & Zoning Dept.
From: David Ayala
DAyala@TERRAsitedev.com
317.903.9055
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
Attached Via: ❑ Mail ❑ FedEx ❑ UPS ® Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Electronic Delivery
#Copies Date Description
1 02/26/19 Westbridge PUD (11x17) & pdf via email
Angie,
Per your instructions, pls find the 9 paper copies of PUD documents attached.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at your earliest
convenience at (317) 903-9055 or at DAayla@TERRAsitedev.com
Thank you,
/1.
David Ayala, EIT, LS ` J
Senior Project Manager FEB 2 62 I
,
OFFICE 209 E. 175thStreet,Suite A Westfield,IN 46074 I PHONE 317.399.1216 I FAX 317.399.1216 I WEBSITE www.TERRAsitedev.com
Shestak, Joe
Subject:FW: Pollinator and no mow signs (Westbridge)
Attachments:image1.jpeg; ATT00001.txt; image2.jpeg; ATT00002.txt
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Green \[mailto:isbgcapital@gmail.com\]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:48 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: david.compton@pultegroup.com; Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com; isbgcapital@gmail.com
Subject: Pollinator and no mow signs
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links from unknown senders or
unexpected email. ****
Angie, here are 2 examples of signs that we would create for the no mow zone and pollination areas at Westbridge. Thanks
1
vL—CJI - LV I (
CONSULTING ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL/SITE ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
E R R A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING/INSPECTION
February 1, 2019
Alex Jordan
Plan Review Coordinator
City of Carmel Engineering Dept.
Carmel, Indiana
RE: Westbridge, PUD
Docket No. 18010004 Z
TERRA Project# 1812001
Alex,
Based on the comments that we have reviewed from the staff report for the above referenced Project
and the comments received from Crossroads Engineers we offer the additional information that you
may need prior to preliminary approval. A response to comments was provided for the comments
that were received on January 9, 2019. Additionally, from our January 18th, 2019 meeting the following
items were our understanding of the items that needed to be addressed prior to secondary plat
approval:
• TriCo Regional Sewer Utility
o They required that a letter from the Gas Company would be needed approving our
final alignment and crossing of the gas mains;
A letter of approval for the final alignment will be submitted with the final engineering
submittal.
o A request was made to verify the depths of the sewers.
We have verified that there is adequate depth of the existing sanitary sewer located
approximately 300 westerly, along 106th Street, to service the site. At the high end of
the site,we estimate that the final depth will be between 5 and 6-feet;
• Hamilton County Surveyors Office
o A request was made to show the limits of the 100-year storm event (flood plain limits)
through the exist open water course.
Hamilton County Surveyors Office provided drainage calculations for the existing
tributary of Stoney Creek. It was determined from these calculations that a maximum
of 24.3 cfs (100-yr event) was flowing through the Proposed site from the northern Offiste
areas. Based on the allowable discharges to this tributary, the maximum flow through
the open ditch in the proposed conditions would be approximately 27.0 cfs. Iff no
changes are made to the existing ditch, the banks of it would not be exceeded
jhorizontally from the top) by more that 10-feet on either side of the ditch. The revised
plat has shown a proposed 50-foot (total width) legal drain easement. Final drainage
calculations will be provided during final engineering approval process.
The northeastern lot of Lots 7-5 has been eliminated to accommodate the proposed
legal drain easement
o The County Requested that all legal drain improvements comply with IDEM/DNR/USCE
requirements.
We are not proposing a significant reduction in the amount of enclosure of the existing
legal drain and it's tributary. All improvements will comply with IDEM/DNR/USCE
requirements.
OFFICE 209 E. 175thStreet,Suite A Westfield,IN 46074 I PHONE 317.399.1216 I FAX 317.399.1216 I WEBSITE www.TERRAsitedev.com
CrossRoads
o Per Section 102.05.i.e of the STSM, please provide the minimum flood protection grades.
This information is to be provided on the plan sheets. Note, per comment #7 of the
HCSO review dated May 9, 2018, a site-specific floodplain study to determine
adequate flood protection grades will be required.
Please see HCSO comment 2 above.
o Per Section 102.05.i.f of the STSM, please provide additional information on the
proposed detention basins including size, normal pool area,capacity,critical pond
elevations (bottom of pond, normal pool,2-year, 10-year, 100-year),top of bank and
spillway elevations.
The requested information will be provided at final approval.
o Please revise to include the 2-year and 10-year critical storm elevations on the plan
sheets.
The requested information will be provided at final approval.
o The critical pond elevation (100-year) shown for Pond 1 (NW Pond) is not the elevation
provided in the preliminary drainage report.
The requested information will be provided for final approval. All pads will be 2.5'
above the 100-yr flood elevation or spillway elevation per City requirements.
o The emergency overflow elevation on Plan Sheet C2.0 appears to be incorrect based
on the drainage calculations.
The requested information will be provided at final approval. All pads will be 2.5'
above the 100-yr flood elevation or spillway elevation per City requirements.
o If this project moves forward, please note that detention facilities designed with
permanent pools or containing permanent lakes shall have a water area of at least
one-half (0.5) acre with a minimum depth of eight (8) feet. Pond 1 (NW Pond) will
need to be revised to meet both of these criteria.
The NW Pond will be revised to be a constructed wetland or dry detention basin that
complies with the City of Carmel Standards.
o Per Section 102.05.i.i of the STSM,please include a basic outline of post
construction stormwater quality features (locations,sizes,easements,etc.).
Stormwater Quality features will be provided with final engineering approval
submission.
o Details indicate post-construction storm water quality features are intended,but
none are outlined in the plans.
Post-Construction Stormwater Quality details will be provided with final
engineering approval submission.
Error!Reference source not found.
E RRA Error!Reference source not found. TERRA Project No:Error!Reference source not found.
Page 2 of 4
SITE DEVELOPMENT
o Easements in general should be reviewed and revised in accordance with City
of Carmel/HCSO easement requirements.
Terra explained during the January 181" meeting that that the easements between lots
on the northern side of the proposed roadways were not intended to convey
emergency routing. Emergency routing from the northern pond and roadway would
be conveyed southwesterly to the "hammerhead" and thence through proposed
easements to the southern pond. Storm sewers in the roadway located in
"hammerhead" would be appropriately sized to convey emergency routing to the
southern pond. Revised easement widths have been shown on the revised submission.
o Per Section 102.05.iii.a of the STSM,the post-developed drainage report should
include a post-development watershed map to include any off-site drainage
areas that need to be accommodated,including the fully developed right-of-
way of 106t"Street per the City of Carmel 20-year Thoroughfare Plan.
Per our meeting on January 18t", 2019, it was agreed upon that all stormwater
runoff from roadway improvements would be addressed as follows:
■ All roadside improvements and required drainage on the south side of
1061"Street and West of the proposed entrance would be
accommodated for and included in the drainage improvements for
this development.
■ All roadside improvements and required drainage on the south side of
1061"Street and East of the proposed entrance would be provided
through direct or compensatory storage in the drainage improvements
for this development.
o In addition to this standard,please delineate the "disturbed"versus
"undisturbed" areas in each post-developed basin.
This plat is intended to be constructed and approved under several approvals.
Lots 1-3 (Executive Lots) shall be submitted and approved under separate
cover. Lots 1-6 thru 7-4 will be constructed in phases and will be submitted
individually for final approval.
o Per City review Meeting -The extension of the existing 3x4 box culvert should be revised
to comply with IDEM/DNR/USCE requirements and all improvements that affect waters
of the State shall be identified and addressed.
Common Area C has been revised to reduce the amount of enclosure of the existing
ditch. A report by V3 implicated that additional permitting may be required for the
proposed improvements shown near the wetlands area identified near the proposed
"hammerhead". Two lots located south of the proposed roadway have been
eliminated to reduce the impact on the existing watercourses. All remediation,
permitting and requirements of the proposed improvements shall comply with
IDEM/DNR/USCE requirements and will be submitted with final plans.
Error!Reference source not found.
E RRA Error!Reference source not found. TERRA Project No:Error!Reference source not found.
Page 3 of 4
SITE DEVELOPMENT
o Per City review Meeting - Flood Protection Grades-It was requested that the widths of
the easements between loots be increased to ensure that the 25-foot setback for flood
protection could be maintained. It was also noted that the northern most lot of Lots 7-5
and southern most lot of Lots 3-6 did not appear to maintain the minimum separation.
Terra explained during the January 18th meeting that that the easements between lots
on the northern side of the proposed roadways were not intended to convey
emergency routing. Emergency routing from the northern pond and roadway would
be conveyed southwesterly to the "hammerhead" and thence through proposed
easements to the southern pond. Storm sewers in the roadway located in
"hammerhead" would be appropriately sized to convey emergency routing to the
southern pond.
Respectfully,
Terra Site Development
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8 LAND SURVEYORS
David N. Ayala, El, PS
Survey Manager/Sr. Engineer
Cc: Jeremy Kashman-City Engineer, Carmel, IN
Angie Conn-Planning, Carmel, IN
Greg Noyes- Hamilton Co. Surveyor's Office, IN
Willie Hall-Crossroads Engineering
Randy Green- Developer
Dave Compton - Developer
Error!Reference source not found.
E RRA Error!Reference source not found. TERRA Project No:Error!Reference source not found.
Page 4 of 4
SITE DEVELOPMENT
Shestak, Joe
From:Mindham, Daren
Sent:Friday, February 01, 2019 8:17 AM
To:'Randy Green'; Chavez, Nathan; Shestak, Joe
Cc:david.compton@pultegroup.com; Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com;
timothy.ochs@icemiller.com
Subject:RE: 180971_Westbridge Landscape_2019-01-31.pdf
I have no further comments.
Daren Mindham
Urban Forester – City of Carmel
317-571-2283
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Green \[mailto:isbgcapital@gmail.com\]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:15 PM
To: Mindham, Daren; Chavez, Nathan; Shestak, Joe
Cc: david.compton@pultegroup.com; Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com; timothy.ochs@icemiller.com; isbgcapital@gmail.com
Subject: 180971_Westbridge Landscape_2019-01-31.pdf
Daren could you please review the attached revised plans to confirm that all your concerns have been met. Thanks
Email secured by Check Point
1
'— -,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS
1 rCIVIL/SITE ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
E R IrA GEOTECH ENTA ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING/INSPECTION
January 18, 2019
Alex Jordan
Plan Review Coordinator
City of Carmel Engineering Dept.
Carmel, Indiana
RE: Westbridge, PUD
Docket No. 18010004 Z
TERRA Project# 1812001
Mr. Jordan,
After review of the e-mail comments for the above referenced Project that we received January 9,
2019, via e-mail,we offer the following responses:
1. Repeat comment from review letter dated 9/19/18:Per Section 102.05 of the Storm water Technical
Standards Manual, the following will need to be included with the primary plat:
a. If surface drainage is planned (roadside ditches, swales, grassed waterways, water courses, open
ditches, roll curb and gutter sections), show location of said type;location and approximate size
of road culverts;and location and typical cross-section of grades, swales, waterways, roadside
ditches and open ditches, if applicable. The comment response letter states that a roadside
swale was provided along 106th Street but we are unable to locate this. There is a swale along the
south side of the path but we can't confirm that the roadside drainage will enter this swale until
more detailed grading is provided. The swale shown is only 110'so please show how the rest of
106th Street will be conveyed to the ponds. Please show on the plans. It also states that other
surface drainage features are noted on the plans but we are unable to locate them as well.
Please revise to show these.
To accommodate the road side drainage along 106th street we offer the following:
• North Side
o Roadside drainage west of the existing box culvert will be directed to the proposed
North pond;
o Roadside drainage east of the existing box culvert will be regraded and directed to the
as it now exists;
• South Side
o Roadside drainage west of the existing box culvert will be directed to the proposed
North pond;
o Roadside drainage east of the existing box culvert will be regraded and directed to the
as it now exists. A new inlet will be added to the extension of the box culvert. Grading
shall be provided to allow for storage during flooding events and will be included in a
new drainage easement.
The existing drainage basins along both the north and south sides of the road are to include an
equivalent amount of area, offsite and onsite, as now exists. Drainage to the west will be detained
and drainage to the east will be allowed to direct discharge to the existing/extended box culvert. In
addition, grading east of the box culvert south of 106th Street will maximize detention for 10-yr+storm
durations events, decreasing the amount directly discharging to the existing culvert. Grading is not
OFFICE 209 E. 175thStreet,Suite A Westfield,IN 46074 I PHONE 317.399.1216 I FAX 317.399.1216 I WEBSITE www.TERRAsitedev.com
intended to meet City standards (ie. 1%min.). The intent will not be to channelize the flow but to
decrease the times-of-concentration through detention and naturalized flows.
b. If subsurface drain tile is planned, show location; connection to storm sewer; outlet in open drain
or retention facility or other adequate outlet.Thank you for showing the SSD under the curb but
the swale detail on C10.1 is shown containing SSD as well. Please show this SSD on plan view.
Swale underdrains will be provided for roadside ditches and other swales that do not meet the
minimum standards of the City (le. <1%). All underdrains will be shown on final plans and will daylight
into existing/proposed storm structures, ponds or ditches. Underdrains may have to be designed off-
set to the corresponding flowlines to provide cover.
c. Minimum flood protection grades.There is only one MFPG provided on the plans(set at an
elevation of 892.36). Is this the MFPG for all lots within the site? Does this take into account the
possible local flooding created around the curb inlets in the 100-year clogged condition?
The detailed plans will account and illustrate the maximum flood elevations for all areas. All building
pads will be designed to have a minimum flood protection grade of 2.0-feet. All minimum finish
floor/lowest opening elevations for each pad/lot will designated on the plans.
d. The approximate capacity of any retention basins to be located in or directly affecting the
proposed subdivision, critical pond elevations, top of bank and spillway elevations.Thank you for
providing most of this information but we still need the capacity of the basins provided on the
plans.
The maximum pond capacities will be detailed on the final plans and will meet the minimum
requirements of the City.
e. Indicate portions of site within a floodway, flood fringe, or floodplain as determined by the City of
Carmel Flood Hazard Area Ordinance.The provided response letter states that the site is in Zone
X but please provide a statement on the plans that state this. Please provide the limits of the 100-
year elevation of the on-site regulated drain.
The limits of the floodway, flood fringe and flood plain, as well as 100-yr elevations, for the regulated
drain will be provided on the final plans.
f. A statement as to whether or not the FEMA Base Flood elevation will flood portions of the
property via the outfall or storm piping system.The provided response letter states that the site is
not subject to flooding but please provide a statement on the plans that state this.
As this is an unstudied FEMA portion of a regulated drain, no statement will be provided regarding a
FEMA BFE. Drainage calculations will be provided to help determine an estimated BFE. The estimated
BFE for the 100-yr event will be disclosed in the drainage report and will be shown in the plans
accordingly.
g. Indicate flood routing of off-site and on-site runoff.The comment response letter provided states
that this was indicated on the plans but we are unable to locate it on the plans without a legend
item indicating what symbol is used to represent it. Please clearly show this on the next submittal.
All offsite basins will be clearly delineated in the drainage report and indicated therein.
h. Basic outline of post construction storm water quality features;including their location, sizes,
easements, etc.It appears that none of these features are shown on the plans.The ponds are
shown but they must be naturalized to count as a BMP.They will also need to be contained within
a BMP easement,which is not call out on the plans.Also,a water quality diversion structure detail
is provided but we cannot locate a water quality unit detail or the location of either on plan view.
Please revise.
Error!Reference source not found.
E RRA Error!Reference source not found. TERRA Project No:Error!Reference source not found.
Page 2 of 6
SITE DEVELOPMENT
-
A SWPPP and O&M Manual, including post construction BMP maintenance, easements, water quality
calculations will be detailed and provided in the Final Detailed plans and submittal package.
2. Repeat comment from review letter dated 9/19/18: We require all public or private roads to be
constructed to City standards. Per the Thoroughfare Plan, local streets require 56' of right-of-way and
street width of 32'. Currently it appears that only 40' right-of-way is shown and the road width is 24' but it is
not clearly labeled on the plans. Please revise.We will need to have the City Engineers approval for the
proposed right-of-way and street widths prior to our approval of the primary plat.
Per correspondence with the Developer and the City, the PUD r/w shown in plan is intended to be 32-
feet. Conflicting road cross sections will be omitted. A letter from the City with all approved variance
requests and approvals shall be included with the final submittal.
3. Repeat comment from review letter dated 9/19/18: Please show what kind of easements the common
areas and detention areas will be classified as on the plans.
Final plans will either directly call out all types of easements for common areas or shall be provided in
plan notes on the drawings.
4. Repeat comment from review letter dated 9/19/18: Please show sidewalk on both side of the proposed
street.The comment response letter states that the owner has requested to not have sidewalk on either
side of the street but the provide road cross-sections on C10.0 both show sidewalk. Please clarify what will
be done here and verify that David Littlejohn,the City's Alternative Transportation Coordinator,is fine
without having sidewalk along the streets.
Sidewalks will be discussed and shown as agreed upon during a plan review meeting. All proposed
agreements will be provided a request for variance or approval of agreed upon engineering solutions.
5. Repeat comment from review letter dated 9/1911.8:The cul-de-sac at the end of the roadway will need to
be shown per City standard drawing 10-26 or 10-27. Please revise.The response letter provide states that
the turn around's have been approved but we do not recall the City Engineer approving these.Section
8.3(B)of the PUD states that the turnarounds shall be approved by CFD but needs to also state that they
must be approved by the City Engineer.We will need to speak with him regarding the turnarounds prior to
our approval of the primary plat.
Turn arounds will be discussed and shown, as agreed upon during a plan review meeting. All
proposed agreements will be provided a request for variance or approval of agreed upon
engineering solutions.
6. Repeat comment from review letter dated 9/19/18:Compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan includes
constructing half of the improvements prescribed by the Thoroughfare Plan across the properties
frontage. If it will not be constructed,a commitment will need to be made to the City equal to the value
of construction these improvements to be deposited in the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund.This site will
need to either build half the improvement prescribed on sheet 56 of the Thoroughfare Plan or contribute
the price of constructing these improvements within the right-of-way.The existing 2 lane road will need to
be widened to have 11' lanes,2'of curb, a 6'tree lawn with street trees, and the proposed 10' multi-use
path as well as a bicycle and parking lane.
All proposed improvements discussed above have been shown on the existing plans. Improvement or
bonding is to be discussed in the plan review meeting and documented as noted.
7. Please provide a legend for each sheet calling out what all the symbols provided represent.
A legend will be provided as required.
Error!Reference source not found.
E R RA Error!Reference source not found. TERRA Project No:Error!Reference source not found.
Page 3 of 6
SITE DEVELOPMENT
,
8. The 100 year elevation of Pond 1 is listed a 8891.6. Please revise.
Typos will be corrected. Please hyphenate "100-year" for future comment response letters.
9. Please show the 2 wetlands and unnamed tributary on CO.1 that were discovered with the wetland
delineation.
The newly delineated wetlands will be shown on all future submittals.
10. Has the report completed by V3 been submitted to USACE and IDEM for review? Please clarify how the
tributary and wetlands will be handled on the site. Will the site layout remain as proposed or will it be
reworked around the wetlands?
The existing wetlands, as delineated and located, are each less than 0.10 acres and have been
determined to be isolated. Under current regulations they are not required to be reported or
mitigated, if disturbed. We will request that the V3 report outlines these stipulations and a copy will be
provided to all regulatory agencies requesting it.
11. If lots 1 and 2 on the east side of the site will both access off the proposed private drive,we will require
the old driveway to the existing home to be removed. If it will remain and be used by lot 1, the portion of
the drive within the right-of-way will need to be reconstructed to meet the City's residential driveway
detail.
Lots 1 & 2 will be discussed in more detail at the plan review meeting.
12. It appears that Pond 1 does not comply with any of the County's standard pond cross-section. It also
does not appear to meet the City's standard of an acre of water surface or a safety shelf. Please
redesign to comply with one of the County standard cross-sections and Chapter 300 of the Storm Water
Technical Standards Manual. If this cannot be accomplished, a variance will need to be applied for from
all standards that cannot be met.
Pond 1 is more intended to provide water quality for a portion of the site. It is an extended forebay to
pond 2 but has detention capabilities as well. If required, it will be detailed and explain in a request
for variance letter.
13. Chapter 300 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual requires that all new pipes must be
contained within a 30' easement. Please revise the easement between lots 1 and 2 and lots 2 and 3 to be
30' rather than the proposed 15'.
The widths proposed easements will be discussed in more detail at the plan review meeting.
14. Please provide sizing calculations for the new box culvert proposed to convey the existing regulated
drain. Does the proposed culvert meet IDEM design requirements?
The sizing of the extension of the box culvert will be discussed in more detail at the plan review
meeting. IDEM does not provide design requirements for culverts, nor does INDOT for local roads that
they do not regulate.
15. Has the County approved the drainage design and easement widths proposed throughout the site?
The final drainage design will be discussed in more detail at the plan review meeting.
16. The proposed release rate for the 10-year storm exceeds the allowable release rate by 0.17cfs. Please
revise so that the allowable release rate is met.
The proposed release rate, as shown is for a minimum of a 6-in. orifice. The difference from the design
orifice of 4-in. verse allowable will be detailed in the final drainage report.
Error!Reference source not found.
E RRA Error!Reference source not found. TERRA Project No:Error!Reference source not found.
Page 4 of 6
SITE DEVELOPMENT
17. Why are lots 1 and 2 on the east side of the site excluded from the basin map provided in the drainage
report? If these lots are not included in the design for the two proposed ponds, how and where will they
be detained and treated?
The intent of showing Lots 1 and 2 was for plating purposes only. Lot 1 is fully developed, and no
additional detention storage will be included. The extents of its improvements will not be disturbed or
altered to increase stormwater runoff. Lot 2, for future development, shall be required to provide its
own detention storage and water quality. This will be more clearly defined in the revised drainage
report.
18. The proposed parking for the amenity area will need to be curbed. Please show this on the plans.
These improvements shall be provided, as noted.
19. Part of the turnaround for the private drive is shown within the creek while the rest of it is right on the top
of bank. Please pull this section of the turnaround back to avoid any issue with the creek.
The private drive will be revised, per discussions in the plan review meeting. All agreed upon
improvements will be detailed and shown in future plans and addressed in a(n) variance/agreement
letter.
20. It appears that a retaining wall may needed to install the passing blister on the north side of 106th Street.
There is a large roadside swale there that will need to be maintained or filled in and piped to the creek
with this project.
Necessary improvements required for improvements will be discussed in more detail based on final
design and grading.
21. Please show all sidewalk called out for in the PUD.Section 8.4 of the PUD states that sidewalk will be
installed in front of the townhomes and extended to the guest parking,amenity pavilion, and then the
multi-use path but this is not shown on the plans.
All proposed sidewalks and multi-use paths will be shown in the final detailed plans as discussed and
agreed upon in a review meeting.
22. The easement around the existing regulated drainage will need to comply with all standards set forth by
Section 7.10(F)(3) of the UDO.This easement will also need to be labelled as a "Water Quality Preservation
Easement".
All easements required for the regulated drain improvements/renovations will be discussed and
agreed upon in a plan review meeting. All agreement/variances shall be outlined an approved as
discussed above.
23. There is a 54' local road cross-section is provided in the plans on C10.0 but Section 8.4 of the PUD calls for
a 56' right-of-way. Please revise.
Please see comment 2 above.
24. Are the ponds intended to count towards the open space requirement? If so, please ensure that they
comply with the requirements set forth by Section 7.19(G)(1) of the UDO.
All intended use of open space requirements of the City shall comply with Section 7.19(G)(1) of the UDO
and will be further discussed in a plan review meeting.
Error!Reference source not found.
E RRA Error!Reference source not found. TERRA Project No:Error!Reference source not found.
Page 5 of 6
SITE DEVELOPMENT
• rY
25. Please replace the swale detail and curb detail on C10.1 with the City's standard drawings for each. Our
detail can be found here.
The detail shall be revised as noted above.
26. Please move the proposed sanitary sewer structure out of the deceleration lane.We do not allow for
casting/structures to be installed within the pavement.
All structures, sanitary and storm, shall be placed per City standards. In the event that a structure can
not meet City standards, it shall be detailed and outlined as to the reasons it con not meet the
Standard and a request for variance will be requested.
27. Please have a hard copy of this plan set sent to Crossroad Engineers for their review.A request for hard
copies was made by Willie Hall on 1 1/19/18 but have yet to receive them.
A hard copy of the plans and drainage report were delivered to Crossroads Engineers. No comments
have been provided.
We request that the City, for all future review responses, provide all comments compiled from internal
departments and contractors in one response letter. Terra intends to provide a complete and
comprehensive response to all comments provided and appreciates working with the City and its
corresponding partners in new developments.
Thank you,
TERRA Site Dev Iopment, nc.
David N. Ayala
Survey Manager/Sr. Engineer
Cc: Jeremy Kashman-City Engineer, Carmel, IN
Angie Conn- Planning, Carmel, IN
Greg Noyes- Hamilton Co. Surveyor's Office, IN
Willie Hall-Crossroads Engineering
Randy Green-Developer
Dave Compton - Developer
Error!Reference source not found.
E RRA Error!Reference source not found. TERRA Project No:Error!Reference source not found.
Page 6 of 6
SITE DEVELOPMENT
Shestak, Joe
From:Lopez, Alexia K
Sent:Wednesday, January 02, 2019 12:14 PM
To:Randy Green (isbgcapital@gmail.com); Ochs, Timothy (Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com); Rex
Ramage (Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com)
Cc:Shestak, Joe
Subject:Westbridge PUD
Hello,
th
Since we have tabled this item to a Special Committee meeting for January 15 at 5:00 pm, the packets for the committee
th
members will be due this Friday January 4 at noon. If they vote you out of committee, then you would be on the agenda
under old business for the full Plan Commission meeting that same night at 6:00 pm. Packets for the Plan Commission meeting
are also due this Friday, so please bring us 9 copies of your packet with the updated information and we will distribute it to the
committee members and to the full Plan Commission members. You may want to make a note in the packet somewhere that
you are hoping to be heard at the Plan Commission meeting if the committee votes you out.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Alexia Lopez
Planning Administrator
City of Carmel, DOCS
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317.571.2417
alopez@carmel.in.gov
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
1
November 2, 2018
Mr. Greg Hoyes
Hamilton County Surveyors Office
Suite 188
On Hamilton County Square
Noblesville, IN 46060
Re: Westbridge Primary Plat
4281 West 106th St, Carmel, IN
Dear Mr. Hoyes
We have been working on and revising the primary plat for the project noted. The following is our
response to your review letter of September 25, 2018.
1. Your comment regarding Carmel jurisdiction is noted
2. Your comment that the project is not in a wellfield protection zone is noted
3. Your comment regarding allowable discharge rates for the site are noted and are reflected
in the provided drainage calculations. Due to the small size of the development, and the
City of Carmel requirement for a minimum 6" diameter orifice, our actual proposed
release rate for the developed area is 0.12 cfs for a 10 year design storm instead of the
requested 0.1 cfs. We request a variance from this requirement for the project.
4. Your comment regarding any drain relocation requiring Hamilton County Drainage
Board approval is noted. We assume a public hearing will be held to address this.
5. Your comment regarding allowable release rates being reduced by any direct discharge
areas not being detained is noted and is reflected in the drainage calculations provided
6. Your note regarding petition to add the storm sewer system to the Hamilton County
Regulated Drain system is noted
7. A revised drainage calculation report is included, reflecting the current project design
requirements
8. We note that the we will be requesting a 30' drain easement for the portion of the
regulated drain being enclosed, and the open ditch portion reduced to 25' per side from
top of bank, from the Drainage Board
9. The revised layout results in limited exposure of the townhome sites to water in the drain.
And in order to get storm water across the gas easement pipelines, it was necessary to
raise floor grades approximately 3 to 4 feet above existing grade. We note that IDNR
does not have any studies registered for this drain to determine a BFE. If a site study will
be required, it will be performed as part of the final design and construction plans
10. No tree planting is proposed within the regulated drain easement.
11. Preliminary drainage calculations are enclosed, which are based on them proposed
primary plat. Construction plans, along with any related adjustments in the drainage
calculations, will be provided.
Please continue with your review of the project plans and calculations and let us know of any additional
comments that we need to address.
Sincerely,
November 2, 2018
Mr. Alex Jordan
Department of Engineering,
One Civic Square,
Carmel, IN 46032
Re: Westbridge Primary Plat
4281 West 106`" St, Carmel, IN
Dear Mr. Jordan
We have been working on and revising the primary plat for the project noted. The following is our
response to your review letter of September 19, 2018.
1. As requested, we have included the additional information in the primary plat:
a. We have noted one roadside ditch to help direct runoff from 106th Street to the
north detention pond. Other surface drainage features are noted on the plans and
details
b. Subsurface drain tiles under the curb sections have been noted
c. Flood protection grades have been provided in the drainage calculations and noted
on the plans
d. Pond design information is provided in the calculations and critical elevations
noted on the plans
e. The project area is Zone X, minimal flooding risk, per the Ordinance
f. There is no BFE established for the site. No portion of the site, with the exception
of the legal drain, is subject to flooding
g. Flood routing has been indicted on the plan
h. Post construction water quality will be provided by the two detention ponds
i. A pre -development watershed map is included in the drainage report
j. A post -developed water shed map is included in the drainage report
k. The summary drainage report includes a statement regarding limited flood risk,
the expected impact to downstream property, and a copy of the review and
response to the Hamilton County Drainage Board. The watershed involved is less
than 1 square mile and is not within IDNR jurisdiction, and the 106th right-of-way
runoff has been directed to the north detention basin as requested
2. The owner email address has been added to the plan
3. The owner has requested a right-of-way width with 24' pavement for the project, which
have been labeled on the plans
4. Curb and subsurface drains have been added to both sides of the street
5. The owner has requested that the project be exempt from having sidewalk on both sides
of the street
6. A tee type turn around at the end of the street has been approved for the project
7. The pavement and right -of way width of 106' Street has been added to the plan
8. The site elevations and horizontal datum are per 1988 NAVD and ISPC NAD83
respectively
9. Adjacent landowner names and zoning have been added to the plans
10. Easement and common are types have been added to the plans
11. The detention provided is only for the 1061 Street half right-of-way and this portion
/phase of the development
12. Easements between the lots are for required building separation and utilities and drainage
13. The 10' pedestrian pathway along 10611 Street has been added
14. Acceleration, deceleration, and passing lane has been added to 106th Street
15. The proposed storm sewer \drainage system layout has been added to the plans
16. The revisions and adjustments proposed for the legal drain that is in site have been shown
on the plans. Revisions to the size and locations of detention have also been provided.
17. The drain location has been revised to avoid infringement on the lots and the
requirements of the gas pipeline requirements
18. A water resource study did not indicate any waters of the US or the presence of wetlands
19. The Thoroughfare plan calls for a 2 lane road section for this area of 1061 Street which
already exists. Additional work that may be required to meet the plan and any associated
improvement deposit is so noted.
We are including response letters to other reviewing agencies with this submittal for your information.
Other general information provided in your review letter is noted and will be addressed as the project
proceeds through the review process.
Please continue with your review of the project plans and calculations and let us know of any additional
comments that we need to address.
Sincerely,
November 2, 2018
Mr. William Hall II, P.E.
Crossroad Engineers, PC
3417 Sherman Dr
Beech Grove, IN 46107
Re: Westbridge Primary Plat
4281 West 106th St, Carmel, IN
Dear Mr. Hall
We have been working on and revising the primary plat for the project noted. The following is our
response to your review letter of September 14, 2018.
1. As requested, we have shown the proposed preliminary storm sewer system information
on the plan.
2. Minimal surface drainage is proposed for the development. There is one section of
roadside ditch proposed in order to pickup runoff from 1061 Street and direct it to the
detention pond. A detail is included as requested
3. Subsurface drains are noted for under the proposed street curbs.
4. All of the project site is noted as Zone X on the FEMA map for the area
5. Minimum flood protection grades are noted in the drainage calculations and on the plans
6. Details for the detention ponds are noted in the drainage calculations and have been
added to the plans as requested
7. The project area is not in any FEMA flood zone or listed in the IDNR Floodplain Portal
and has no established Base Flood elevation
8. Flood routing information has been added to the plan.
9. Post construction storm water quality will be provided by the detention ponds
10. Pre developed drainage maps have been added to the preliminary drainage calculations.
They include runoff from the 1061 Street 1/2 right-of-way.
11. Post developed drainage map have been added to the preliminary drainage calculations.
They include runoff from the 1061 Street 1/2 right-of-way.
12. The preliminary report includes a statement that the proposed development has no
potential flooding from a 100 year design storm or less. See Table 1
13. The proposed development will result in a significant reduction in peak stormwater
runoff from the site resulting in reduced impact to the downstream property and is so
noted in the summary report. See Table 1
14. Comments have been received and responded to from the Hamilton County Drainage
Board regarding the Weston Park Arm of the Crooked Creek Regulated Drain.
15. The upstream drainage area is less than 1 square mile and not within the IDNR
jurisdiction
16. The 20 year Throughfare plan calls for a 2 -lane, 24' wide pavement for 1061 Street
which matches existing conditions. Provisions are made in the design and drainage
calculations to collect runoff from the south %2 of the right-of-way and directed to the
development detention ponds.
Please continue with your review of the project plans and calculations and let us know of any additional
comments that we need to address.
Sincerely,
Robert Doster, P.E.
Terra Site Development
209 E 1751h St, Suite A
Westfield, IN 46074