Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Keesling, Rachel M From: Conn,Angelina V Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:14 PM To: Keesling, Rachel M; 'Sheward, Bryan' Cc: John Reeder;Alex Beatty (alex.beatty@icemiller.com) Subject: RE: Village of WestClay Development - Pre-Filing Meeting Hi, Bryan—I received your voicemail message, asking about platting. It looks like the subject site is located within part of Block A of Section 6003B-of the Village of WestClay subdivision plat. So, yes, if you are thinking of carving out a parcel of land,then you will also have to submit a Replat Application along with your ADLS Application, as part of the TAC review/approval process. We would only charge the base fee for the replat ($352). Here is a web link to the Secondary Plat/Replat application, which also includes an instruction sheet and checklist: http://www.carmel.in.gov/home/showdocument?id=10611.After you read through that document, please let us know if you have any additional questions.Thanks! 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: Keesling, Rachel M Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 9:15 AM To: 'Sheward, Bryan'; Conn, Angelina V Cc: John Reeder; Alex Beatty (alex.beatty@icemiller.com) Subject: RE: Village of West Clay Development- Pre-Filing Meeting Sounds good, see you then! Rachel Keeslin6 Planning Administrator 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.Rov From: Sheward, Bryan [mailto:bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 4:19 PM To: Keesling, Rachel M; Conn, Angelina V Cc: John Reeder; Alex Beatty (alex.beatty@icemiller.com) Subject: Re: Village of West Clay Development- Pre-Filing Meeting Rachel, Let's do 1:30pm. Thank you! Have a great weekend. Bryan Get Outlook for iOS 1 From: Keesling, Rachel M <rkeesling@carmel.in.gov> Sent: Friday,July 27, 2018 8:59:30 AM To: Sheward, Bryan; Conn,Angelina V Cc:John Reeder; Alex Beatty (alex.beatty@icemiller.com) Subject: RE: Village of West Clay Development- Pre-Filing Meeting Hi Bryan, We could do a 1:30 or 2:00. Just let me know. Thanks, Rachel Rachel Keeslin6 Planning Administrator 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov From: Sheward, Bryan [mailto:bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 6:45 AM To: Keesling, Rachel M; Conn, Angelina V Cc: John Reeder; Alex Beatty (alex.beatty©icemiller.com) Subject: RE: Village of West Clay Development - Pre-Filing Meeting Rachel, Would it be possible to meet after 1pm next Wednesday? If not, we can make 10am work. Thanks, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-95631 Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For From: Keesling, Rachel M [mailto:rkeesling@carmel.in.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 10:22 AM To: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com>; Conn, Angelina V<Aconn@carmel.in.gov> Cc:John Reeder<johndreeder@msn.com>; Alex Beatty (alex.beatty@icemiller.com) <alex.beatty@icemiller.com> Subject: RE:Village of West Clay Development- Pre-Filing Meeting Hi Bryan, Thanks for your email. Yes,VOWC projects go through the TAC process and do not have to go before Plan Commission. Next Wednesday works better for me, as I will be out of the office Thursday and Friday. How about 10 or 11 AM? I checked Angie's calendar and believe she is available at both those times. Please let us know if that would work for you. Also,just wanted to let you know I double checked the PUD and these two uses are allowed within the Peripheral Retail Area. Thanks, Rachel 2 Rachel Keeslin8 Planning Administrator 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov From: Sheward, Bryan [mailto:bryan.sheward@ kimley-horn.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 11:22 PM To: Keesling, Rachel M; Conn, Angelina V Cc: John Reeder; Alex Beatty (alex.beatty(&icemiller.com) Subject: Village of West Clay Development - Pre-Filing Meeting Rachel &Angie, I hope you are both doing well. I wanted to reach out to hopefully find a time next week for a pre-filing meeting for a new project planned for the northeast corner of Pettigru and Harleston in the Village of West Clay. Angie, I spoke with you about this a few months back(not sure if you recall). If you recall, it was discussed that this project would be routed through TAC administratively since it resides within the VOWC(ie: no Plan Commission). My client,John Reeder, is proposing two buildings on this—0.5 acre corner. One building is planned to be a Norma's Fine Wine and Spirits store and the other is planned to be a Puccini's restaurant. At this time,the architect(Odle McGuire&Shook) has obtained preliminary architectural/site plan approval from the VOWC Design Board. Are either of you available next week (preferably Wednesday/Thursday)for a pre-filing meeting? Thank you very much! Talk soon, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For Email secured by Check Point Email secured by Check Point Email secured by Check Point 3 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 8:46 AM To: Jordan, Alex;Thomas, John G Cc: Sawyer, Liam; Lasher, Kevin; Keesling, Rachel M Subject: Uptown at West Clay - New Project Alex/John, Good morning. I hope you both have been doing well since the last time I worked with you. I have a new project in the Village of West Clay at the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive and Harleston Street. This 0.56 acre outlot is planned to have two buildings(Norma's Fine Wine&Spirits and a restaurant). We are in plan production now with an anticipated ADLS submittal on 8/17/18 in accordance with the Carmel submittal schedule. I am hoping that you will be able to assist with me with a few items: 1. It is my understanding that the existing wet detention basin to the northeast of the site was master planned for the surrounding development. I've reached out to the Hamilton County Surveyor to see if they have the original drainage report for me to reference. Do you by chance have it? 2. Am I correct in assuming we will need to find a routing path for our onsite storm sewer to get from our site to the pond to the northeast? E&J to the east of our site is currently under construction and the Chase Bank to the north is an existing site. It does not appear I will be able to route our storm sewer to the pond without encroaching into these sites. Was there any forethought into how we would route the drainage from this site to the pond without tearing up adjacent sites? 1 • ��ny t l, ', 1!?" -" ,`,..-t..,,'. Mei . .._ _____..___ .. -.,..., - .., - _ -::_ _ _ _ — -- - - - . I • ri ,... _ . r -1 •I y, war mialmi 1 - - . -3 • . . _____ N I •1 • J • . 4 4 r I AS i t n II Thanks, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For 2 Keesling, Rachel M From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 12:44 PM To: 'Alex.Beatty@icemiller.com'; Keesling, Rachel M; 'Sheward, Bryan' Cc: John Reeder Subject: RE: [EXT] RE:Village of WestClay Development - Pre-Filing Meeting Good afternoon,Alex— Thank you for finding that clause.Yes,that is acceptable to do a metes and bounds parcel 'split off, as long as the area of land conveyed meets all of VOWC's PUD section 23.10("Title to portions of a Village Center Block or the Peripheral Retail Area may be conveyed by a metes and bounds survey description as long as such portion complies with the area and bulk regulations of Section 15 with respect to the intended use of such portion"), as well as meeting any other application development standards regulation within the VOWC PUD ordinance. ...We look forward to reviewing your ADLS submittal for TAC review! Sincerely, 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: Alex.Beatty@icemiller.com [mailto:Alex.Beatty@icemiller.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 12:10 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Keesling, Rachel M; 'Sheward, Bryan' Cc: John Reeder Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Village of WestClay Development- Pre-Filing Meeting Angie, I spoke with the seller and with Bryan this morning regarding platting, and I believe we may not need to file a plat based upon the PUD ordinance for the Village of WestClay. See the attached PUD Ordinance and, specifically,Section 23.10. This provides for transfers within the Peripheral Retail Area (this area) by metes and bounds descriptions. Based upon this language,the seller would like to use this approach. Please let us know if this is acceptable or if you have identified a reason why we would be required to follow the platting process. Thank you, Alex IceMiller LEGAL COUNSEL Alex Beatty Associate Alex.Beattv(aicemiller.com p 317-236-2381 f 317-592-4847 Ice Miller LLP 1 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:04 AM To: Keesling, Rachel M; Conn,Angelina V; Lopez, Alexia K; Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David W; McCoy, David W; Huffman, David; Greg R. Hoyes; whall@crossroadengineers.com;Jordan, Alex; Thomas, John G; 'david.lucas@hamiltoncounty.ini.gov'; Hohlt, William G; Blanchard,Jim E; Sheeks, Mike; Duffy, John M; Faucett, Joe W; Stewart,Jason J; Barlow,James C; Strong, David C; Ellison, Christopher M; Krueskamp, Theresa A; Forward for Westermei8r, Mark; Jason.lemaster@hamiltoncounty.in.gov'; 'health@hamiltoncounty.in.gov'; jason.kirkman@charter.com; meri.seedorf@charter.com; quentin.walker@charter.com; christina.girod@duke-energy.com;jessica.herrington@duke-energy.com; ryan.daugherty@duke-energy.com; 'jlclark@vectren.com'; 'dan.davenport@aes.com'; rodney Johnson@aes.com; 'ckehl@citizensenergygroup.com'; 'rfarrand@ccs.kl2.in.us'; 'ryan.hartman@ctrwd.org'; 'troy.yackle@sug.com'; bw1917@att.com; christopher.bluto@metronetinc.com; K.D Krulik Cc: John Reeder; Rene Hart; Mike Fox;Alex Beatty (alex.beatty@icemiller.com); Brandon Schreeg (brandon@remenschneider.com);Todd McLean; Ben Rawlins; Dyer, Michele; Lasher, Kevin; Medland, Dakota Subject: Westclay Uptown Development - Carmel TAC Submittal Attachments: Attachments.html ShareFile Attachments Expires February 13,2019 170065000_Civil-Plans_20180817.pdf 45.6 MB 170065000_Drainage-Report_20180817.pdf 23.3 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans_20180817.pdf 1.3 MB 170065000_0&M_20180817.pdf 10.6 MB 170065000_TAC-Hard-Copy-Submittal-Reco...817.zip 805.7 KB ADLS-APPLICATION.pdf 1.5 MB Aerial Image.pdf 16.7 MB Legal Description.pdf 176 KB LightingDetails_JohnReeder-UptownatWestClay.pdf 10.5 MB 1 PLANS-ELEVATIONS_20180817.pdf 916.8 KB Stormwater Management Permit Applicati...ned.pdf 401.5 KB Download Attachments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely.Learn More. Carmel Technical Advisory Committee Members, Good morning. Please find attached the submittal package in PDF form for the upcoming"Westclav Uptown Development" Project. This project will be located on the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive & Harleston Street in the Village of West Clay. Hard copies have been sent out to the following agencies per the preference listed on the City of Carmel TAC Members list and should be arriving before the end of business today. • Carmel Planning/Zoning, Dept.—DOCs o 2 Copies—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans o 2 Copies—Full Size Landscape Plans o 2 Copies—Completed ADLS Application o 2 Copies—Legal Description o 2 Copies—Project Site Aerial o 2 Copies—Photometric Lighting Cut Sheets o 2 Copies—Architectural Building Plan and Elevations • Addressing o 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans o 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans • Hamilton County Surveyor's Office o 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans o 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans o 1 Copy—Drainage Report o 1 Copy—O&M Manual • CrossRoad Engineers o 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans o 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans o 1 Copy—Drainage Report o 1 Copy—O&M Manual • Carmel Engineering Department o 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans o 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans o 1 Copy—Drainage Report o 1 Copy—O&M Manual o 1 Copy—Completed Stormwater Management Permit Application • Carmel Building&Code Services Department o 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans o 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans • Carmel City Utilities Dept. o 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans 2 o 1 Copy— Full Size Landscape Plans • Carmel Office of the Fire Chief 0 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans O 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans • Duke Energy O 1 Copy— Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans O 1 Copy— Full Size Landscape Plans • Vectren Energy O 1 Copy— Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans O 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans • Clay Township Regional Waste District o 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans 0 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans If any additional agency would prefer to receive a hard copy or additional hard copies, please reach out to me directly. Thank you very much and I look forward to working with your respective teams! Have a great weekend, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For Email secured by Check Point 3 4' Citi 0c Cpf incl, Carmel Poli �' De 'J �1°t�i7 e t 3 CixLs;^S uar ;xirnnc'l,:lac`rw, a 46032 August 21, 2018 Bryan Sheward, P.E. Kimley-Hom 600 East 96th Street, Suite 460 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Westclay Uptown Development—Cannel TAC Submittal Dear Mr. Sheward: The above mentioned project has been received and reviewed. At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law enforcement efforts. If we can be of any further assistance to you,please contact us. Respectfully, �,__ J es C. Barlow Chief of Police JCB/tka . et�i�r eYy�. �ti'. 4A r>17) ,,„71-2.300 A Nationally {' AccrediteCJ,ta,uV,:E0forcement Agency fax!3173 571_2512 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 6:52 AM To: Keesling, Rachel M; Conn,Angelina V Subject: John Reeder-Westclay Uptown Development Rachel/Angie Good morning. I wanted to shoot a quick note over to both of you to see if you had had a chance to take a look at the plans yet for John Reeder's development in the village of West Clay. Any preliminary comments ahead of the TAC meeting would be appreciated! Thank you. Bryan Sheward, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 317-218-9563 (office) 317-409-6799 (cell) Email secured by Check Point 1 �vRVEyOR'S pF„jC `_u�1' f f r y- -- 1 -_ i�. I+ frL�_'% n r – •) 7 •l -� P i \f I: l(. I _01 , k ! mo , � t I '�f+ I t , (0 ) );:, • —•–'_ !E�=1` 1 � �„ '{{}� + �.': ! RIS �'dd,,�� intuit t fivit aria "�:i �.T.. 4 . Xenton C. ward, CYFJvf Suite'SS Surveyor of.Hamilton County One Monition County Square ePFione(317)7764495 .Noblesville, Indiana46060-2230 'Tax (317)776-9628 September 11,2018 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ATTN: Bryan Sheward 250 East 96th Street, Suite 580 Indianapolis, IN. 46240 VIA E-MAIL: bryan.sheward@a,kimley-horn.com RE: WestClay Uptown Development Dear Mr. Sheward, We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office on August 17,2018, for this project and have the following comments: 1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the City of Cannel. 2. The proposed project DOES NOT fall in a Cannel Wellhead Protection Zone. 3. The proposed project does fall in the Village of West Clay Regulated Drain Watershed. 4. Please submit an outlet permit for the discharge to the Village of West Clay Regulated Drain. The application is available at Surveyor's Form Page. 5. Please submit revised construction plans/drainage calculations once all TAC comments are addressed. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317-776-8495. Sincerely, .5j1 010-fel Greg Hoyes, AC, CFM, CPESC Plan Reviewer CC: Angie Conn—Cannel DOCS,John Thomas—Cannel Engineering Alex Jordon—Cannel Engineering, Willie Hall—Crossroad Engineers Keesling, Rachel M From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 11:10 AM To: Bryan Sheward (bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com); John Reeder; 'AIex.Beatty@icemiller.com'; Mike Fox; Brandon Schreeg (brandon@remenschneider.com); Todd McLean; Ben Rawlins; Dyer, Michele; Lasher, Kevin; Medland, Dakota Cc: Keesling, Rachel M; Lopez, Alexia K; Conn, Angelina V Subject: Forester Review#1. 18080016 TAC: WestClay Uptown Development Bryan, Below are comments for this project specifically addressing the area of landscaping. I have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments: URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS L1.0 and L1.1 sheets 1) Please have the words, "LANDSCAPING MUST BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS ON SHEET L1.1—SEE PLANTING DETAILS" labeled on the landscape plan. Unfortunately, we tend to have issues with landscapers not following these instructions. 2) Please ensure that all general areas are screened with ornamental grasses or shrubs including electrical transformers and dumpsters. 3) Please shift or move the tree that is over the COM underground utility in the NE corner of the site. 4) There seems to be only one area of lawn called out. Can you add LS as a ground cover there so that mowing is not needed site wide or if there are other areas of lawn please distinguish all areas of groundcover, ie. lawn or mulch. It is important that this office be made aware of modifications made on the plans being re-submitted, particularly if any such changes are considered new or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please illustrate how these revisions will be addressed, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, Special Studies or other committee meetings by letter or revised plan. If you have questions, please contact me at 571-2283. Thank you. Sincerely, Daren Mindham Urban Forester — City of Carmel 317-571-2283 From: Keesling, Rachel M Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 12:15 PM To: Blanchard, Jim E; Chavez, Nathan; Conn, Angelina V; Hall, Willie; Haney, Douglas C; Hollibaugh, Mike P; John Molitor; Jordan, Alex; Kashman, Jeremy M; Kass, Joslyn; Keeling, Adrienne M; Keesling, Rachel M; Krueskamp, Theresa A; Littlejohn, David W; Lopez, Alexia K; Lux, Pamela K; Maki, Sue; Martin, Candy; McCoy, David W; Mindham, Daren; Mishler, Nicholas F; Motz, Lisa; Musunuri, Varunima; Pauley, Christine; Pietrzak, Ross; Shestak, Joe; Speth, Nichole M; Thomas, John G; Warner, Caleb; Worrell, Jeff Cc: Bryan Sheward (bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com); John Reeder; 'AIex.Beatty@icemiller.com'; Mike Fox; Brandon 1 II in II n x nn� i V- MEL .JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR September 12,2018 Mr. Bryan Sheward Kimley-Horn 250 East 96th Street,Suite 580 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: WestClay Uptown Development-Project Review#1 Dear Mr.Sheward: The City received your submittal on August 17, 2018. We offer the following comments: CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Please provide the email address of the engineering firm and the developer. 2. Please show the widths and dimensions of all streets on the plans. 3. Please verify that the location of all existing utilities with top of curb and invert elevations, pipe sizes, and direction are shown. 4. Please include all technical information required by Section 102.02(xi)(m)of the Storm Water Technical Standards on the primary plat and the construction drawings. 5. Please verify that all culverts and pipes under the roadway are shown indicating their size,type, and invert elevations. 6. Please verify with CFD that all turning radii are appropriate and adequate for fire trucks. 7. Please show all off-site flood routing through the site along with the ponding limits and elevations of the flooding in the 100-year clogged event. 8. We require that the finished floor of the buildings be 1 foot above the adjacent roadway. Please revise. 9. Please provide the minimum flood protection grade and minimum lowest adjacent grade for each building. 10. Please verify that there will be no direct discharge areas. 11. Please verify that the locations of all electrical power vaults,transformers, power lines,gas lines, television cable,and telephone lines are shown. 12. Please indicate sawcut at the nearest joint of the existing curb past the connection point of the new curb. 13. It appears that some of the curb being installed along the on-street parking areas will be depressed curb. Please call this out on the site plan and provide the City's depressed curb detail. 14. Will Harleston Street or Pettigru Drive need to be restricted or closed to remove the existing curb or to install the on-street parking?If so,Board of Public Works and Safety approval will be required.Please submit a request letter for any restrictions or closures that may be necessary. 15. Please include the following note on the plans: "All Paving Within The Existing And Proposed City Right- Of-Way Shall Conform To The Requirements Of The Department Of Engineering. The Contractor Shall Contact The Department Of Engineering To Schedule A Pre-Construction Meeting To Review The Department's Construction Requirements,Staff Notification Requirements,Required Inspections For Certain Stages Of The Work And To Review The Authority Of The Department As It Relates To Work Within The Existing And Proposed Right-Of-Way." 16. Please indicate the anticipated start construction date in the response letter. 17. Please verify all elevations are North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAVD)and that all horizontal datum is NAD83. I)EI„.,RTMr:xr tMF Erm;1 Oji:Civic.Sii ruu. C:it iri.. IN 16032 OFFICE 317.571.2-1•+1 FAx 31,.5.1.2 ) F.V:V I.mginceringdcirnu I.In.gnr Mr. Bryan Sheward September 12,2018 RE: WestClay Uptown Development - Project Review#1 Page 2 of 5 18. The City has minimum requirements for infrastructure installation prior to starting building construction. A 20' paved access to the building at least to the binder course shall be provided; water main and hydrants need to be in service and other requirements. Please confirm with the Carmel Fire Department. 19. Are there any easements that will need to be vacated? 20. We would like for the site to be wrapped in silt fence and the ends turned into the site on both sides of the construction entrance on C4.0. Please revise the plans to show this. 21. Please place a fiber roll/mulch sock product across the new parking areas on C4.1 to contain any runoff from the site. 22. The project to the east is currently proposing an earthen berm between your projects parking lot and their parking lot. Please revise your plans for reflect this. 23. Please provide a drainage and BMP easement over the underground detention on the plans and in the O&M. Please also connect this easement and the BMP easement over the water quality unit to the City's right-of-way with an access easement on the plans and in the O&M. 24. Please label the water quality unit and isolator row on C4.1. 25. Please list the isolator row under#2 of the post-construction SWPPP on C4.3. 26. Please show the location of the underground detention chambers inspection port on the plans. 27. Please add the City's annual reporting requirement to the O&M manual. It is as follows: "Requirements regarding the submittal of annual inspection reports to the City of Carmel Engineering Department.The first report is due one year after construction is completed, with subsequent reports due each year within the same month of the initial report. If there are any deficiencies found during the inspection,these should be addressed. If the inspection report is not received within the month it is due, if there are deficiencies which were not included in the report,or if any deficiencies included in the report are not addressed in a timely manner,the BMP owner faces enforcement action from the City." 28. Please list the isolator row on the owner's acknowledgement agreement in the O&M. GENERAL INFORMATION • These comments represent the Department of Engineering's first review of the development plan for this project. • We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing and be accompanied by a drawing reflecting the requested revisions. Failure to provide written responses may result in the delay of the review process. • It is critical that this office be made aware of all modifications made on the plans being re-submitted, particularly if any such changes are considered "new"or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please provide revised plans including all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, BZA or other committee meetings. • Final drawings will not be approved for construction until: o All Engineering Department and Utility Department and Hamilton County Surveyor issues have been resolved. o All bonds and performance guarantees are posted. o All Board of Public Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals (if required)are obtained. o All off-site easements necessary to install utilities to serve the development are secured. o SWPPP is approved. o All fees are paid. • The Department reserves the right to provide additional comments based upon subsequent reviews. • An approved Stormwater Management Permit is required prior to commencing any earth disturbing activity. Please contact Mr.John Thomas regarding Stormwater quality requirements. Mr. Bryan Sheward September 12, 2018 RE:WestClay Uptown Development-Project Review#1 Page 3 of 5 • An approved right-of-way permit is required prior to commencing any work in the public right-of-way and for construction equipment access from the City's right-of-way. • If it will be necessary to relocate existing utilities,the costs for such relocation shall be borne solely by the developer. Any utility poles requiring relocation shall be relocated to within one foot of the outside edge of the proposed right-of-way. • The Department requires that the construction drawings be developed in accordance with the City of Carmel digital submission standards and that all required submittals for primary plat,secondary plat,and construction drawings be made. The digital files must be submitted to the Department of Engineering prior to the approval of the construction plans. Please contact the City GIS Department for the requirements. • Jurisdictions: o The project site is located within current City of Carmel Corporate Limits. • Perimeter Street and Right-of-Way—City of Carmel • Water—City of Carmel Utilities • Sanitary Sewers—Trico Regional Sewer Utility • Storm Sewers/Drainage—City of Carmel • Legal Drains—Hamilton County Surveyor's Office • Drawings submitted for approval: o The design engineer must certify all drawings submitted for final approval. o This office will require 9 sets of drawings for approval after all issues have been resolved. The drawings will be stamped as approved and signed by the City Engineer and by Carmel Utilities. The Owner will receive 3 sets, one of which must be maintained on the construction site at all times. If this project is subject to review and approval by the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office, a total of 11 sets will be required for final approval. • As-Built drawings submitted for approval: o This office will require that all requirements set forth by the"Storm Water GIS As-Built Submittal Requirements" are approved before the performance bond is released. This document can be found on the City's website under Procedures,Approval Requirements,and Checklists. • Carmel Utilities will provide separate reviews of this project for water issues. Please assure that copies of all drawings are sent to: John Duffy Carmel Utilities 30 West Main Street Carmel,IN 46032 • Carmel Utilities subscribes to "Holey Moley"who should be contacted directly for all water main locations. • The following items will be sent electronically upon request regarding this correspondence and project: o Project Approval Checklist o Performance/Maintenance Guarantees o Utility Jurisdictions/Right of Way Permits o Availability(acreage) Fees BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY • A schedule for Board of Public Works and Safety meeting dates and agenda deadlines will be sent electronically for your use upon request. Please use the Engineering Department deadlines for submissions to the Board. • Any submission to the Board requires prior approval by the Carmel Clay Plan Commission and/or the Board of Zoning Appeals(if applicable)and completion of review by the Technical Advisory Committee. All written requests to be placed on the Board's agenda must include the appropriate Docket Number Mr. Bryan Sheward September 12, 2018 RE:WestClay Uptown Development- Project Review#1 Page 4 of 5 and the date(or dates)of approval by the Plan Commission and/or the Board of Zoning Appeals(if applicable). • Commercial Curb Cut Approval. Please provide 8%:x 11 exhibits with the request for approval. Provide all pertinent information including lane widths,overall width, radii, lane markings, location of opposing drives or streets, relationship to the location of previous curb cut,etc. • Temporary Construction Entrance Approval. It appears the construction entrance is planned at the location of a permanent curb cut. Therefore Board approval is not required. • The installation of any permanent,privately owned and/or maintained improvement(signs, decorative street signs,walls, streetlights,etc.)within dedicated right of way or dedicated easements requires the execution of a Consent to Encroach Agreement between the Owner and the City of Carmel.Such agreements are executed by the Board of Public Works and Safety. The City Engineer may approve irrigation system agreements. • Secondary Plat approval if applicable. All performance guarantees must be posted prior to submission of secondary plats for Board of Public Works and Safety approval. • Dedication of right-of-way if not platted. This is based upon the City of Carmel 20-Year Thoroughfare Plan requirements. Dedication documents are available upon request. Please be advised that all Right-of-Way Dedications must be accompanied by a Sales Disclosure Agreement completed by the owner for the property being dedicated to the City. The dedication document cannot be recorded without a completed Sales Disclosure. The form is available upon request. • Any open pavement cuts of City right-of-way will require Carmel Board of Public Works and Safety approval. • All existing drives need to be abandoned through the Board of Public Works and Safety. BONDING REQUIREMENTS • Please contact Mr.Caleb Warner to review performance guarantee requirements. Please contact Mr. John Duffy to review water and sanitary sewer bonding requirements. • The amount of the Performance Guarantee is based upon a certified Engineer's Estimate for 100%of the cost of labor and materials to construct the individual improvements,to be provided by the design engineer. Please provide detailed Engineer's Estimates for each improvement including quantities, unit costs, pipe sizes,and materials, etc. • Upon completion and release of individual Performance Guarantees, a three-year Maintenance Guarantee will be required(see Street Sign comments above). The Maintenance Guarantee amount is based upon 15%of the Performance amount for Streets and Curbs and 10%of the Performance amount for all other improvements. • Performance Guarantees may be Performance or Subdivision Bonds or Irrevocable Letters of Credit. RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AND BONDING • Any work in the dedicated right-of-way will require an approved Right-of-Way Permit and a License& Permit Bond. • The bond amount is determined by our Right-of-Way Manager. However, if the work is included in the scope of work of a required and posted Performance Guarantee,the Performance Guarantee may be used to satisfy the bond requirements of the Right of-Way Permit. • Please contact our Right-of-Way Manager,Aaron Hoover,to arrange right-of-way permitting and bonding. AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION FEES • We defer to Carmel Utilities regarding this issue. • If an entryway or overall site irrigation system is planned for this development,additional Water Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the size and usage of the system and upon the recommendations of the Director of Carmel Utilities. Mr. Bryan Sheward September 12,2018 RE:WestClay Uptown Development- Project Review#1 Page 5 of 5 • These fees are required to be paid prior to final approval of construction plans by Engineering and prior to issuance of building permits by Building Codes Services. Please confirm these fees and calculations with Carmel Utilities. If you have questions,please contact me at 571-2441. Sincerely, 0{0&j)I 9el°41 " Alex Jordan Plan Review Coordinator Department of Engineering Cc(via email): Angelina Conn, Department of Community Services Steve Cook,Carmel Utilities John Duffy,Carmel Utilities Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Willie Hall, Crossroad Engineers, PC Jeremy Kashman,Carmel Engineering Rachel Keesling, Department of Community Services David Littlejohn, Department of Community Services Alexia Lopez, Department of Community Services John Thomas, Carmel Engineering Caleb Warner, Department of Engineering Ryan Hartman,Trico Regional Sewer Utility %., oscrNERsh_ve T=:: _ TCity of C N--1.6tmAtiN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES September 18, 2018 Mr. Bryan Sheward Kimley-Horn 250 East 96th St. Ste. 580 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: WestClay Uptown Development Dear Mr. Sheward: The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of alternative transportation. I have reviewed the application submitted for the September 19,2018 Technical Advisory Committee meeting and have no comments regarding this use variance. I have the following comments regarding the conceptual site plan: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW COMMENTS 1) The City of Cannel Parking Ordinance requires short-term bicycle parking to be inverted-U or A-frame racks, within fifty(50) feet of the main entrances of buildings. Please provide bicycle parking for Building B. Please refer to Section 5.29 of the City's Unified Development Ordinance for the City's short-term bicycle parking standards. 2) Please consider providing a sidewalk connection to the property to the west on the north side of Building B. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written responses may result in delay of the review process. It is critical that this office be made aware of all modification made on the plans being re- submitted,particularly if any such changes are considered"new"or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please provide revised plans indicating all revisions. Please notify us of any changes Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 z`st—oF C4 9 ( TfT). •1 o arme �NDIAN� l 1)FPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES and specifically state any changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, Special Studies or other committee meetings. The Department of Community Services reserves the right to provide additional comments based on subsequent reviews. If you have questions, please contact me at 571-2417. Sincerely, David Littlejohn Alternative Transportation Coordinator cc: Rachel Keesling, Department of Community Services Engineering Department Review Project File Page 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 9:32 PM To: Keesling, Rachel M Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Lopez, Alexia K;John Reeder Subject: Westclay Uptown Development - VOWC Approval Attachments: PRA Review Board Lot Development Plan Approval.pdf Rachel, Good seeing you earlier today at TAC. For your records, please see attached for the Village of West Play Review Board's approval of the development plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Please also confirm this is all you need from the VOWC in regards to their review/approval. Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For Email secured by Check Point Pte'—' �W 8C3fD REM • LOT dEvELGIPIWENT PLAN IeMRPRQ�fA.fi he Lot Development P Ia for WestCla U town Develo ment,an Uptown building dated August 17.2018 _"'-'---� p wasaAAroved by the BOa�Y!the submitted by B an sheward • Pitr�D 2018 . oft Torn Charles Huston, Chairman George P. Sweet, Member Todd McLean, Member e.a� 9 Keesling, Rachel M From: Keesling, Rachel M Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 2:29 PM To: Bryan Sheward (bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com) Cc: Mindham, Daren; Pietrzak, Ross Subject: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Hi Bryan, I sincerely apologize for the delay. Please see my review comments below and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Rachel Village of WestClav PUD General: 1. Sections 1-4-OK 2. Section 5.3-Proposed uses are allowed in the Peripheral Retail Area 3. Section 8.2-Please provide the total square footage of the commercial space in the Peripheral retail area - cannot exceed 100,000 sq. ft. 4. Section 8.4-Please note that "Without approval of the Commission, no restaurant located in the Peripheral Retail Area shall be open for business between the hours of 11:01 PM and 6 AM except that the closing time may be extended from 11:01 PM to 12 AM on Friday and Saturday nights." 5. Section 8.6-single story buildings are ok 6. Section 8.7-It appears that all sidewalks around the two buildings are greater than 3' and entrances are not impaired. Please update the site plan to show the patio space for the restaurant, so we can verify site circulation is not impaired. 7. Section 8.9-30' landscape buffer existing-OK 8. Section 8.11-must be designed in accordance with the peripheral retail area design guidelines and have sign off from VOWC Architectural review board-OK 9. Section 9- 13-OK/ n/a 10. Section 14.1-Sidewalks must be provided-OK 11. Section 14.2-sidewalks along commercial structures shall be minimum of 8 feet in width (see comment#13 below) 12. Section 14.4- Bike racks-please address David Littlejohn's comments. 13. Section 14.5-"Sidewalks in the Peripheral Retail Area may be penetrated by tree lawns and/or planting areas." Therefore not meeting the 8' width is ok. 14. Section 15.8.1.A.-lot area 5,000 sq. ft. min required, 0.56 acre provided-OK 15. Section 15.8.1.B.-lot width at build to line: 50' required, 150' and 100' provided-OK 16. Section 15.8.1.C.-Minimum lot depth: 100' required, 188' provided-OK 17. Section 15.8.1.D.-Build to line, 10' unless otherwise indicated on plat or recorded instrument-Appear to be 4' off on Building A and 2' off on Building B. Please adjust to meet this requirement. 18. Section 15.8.1.E.-Maximum building height : 40' allowed, 16'8" provided to top of parapet 19. Section 15.8.1.F.-Onsite parking must comply with Section 16.1 (see#21 below) 20. Section 15.19.-Please note "Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no outdoor storage of goods and materials or refuse containers shall be located in any established setback or established yard abutting a street, nor in any required buffer or screen, except for the temporary placement of refuse for scheduled curbside collection." 21. Section 16.1-parking a. parking for restaurants-one space per 75 sq. ft. of floor area, 35 spaces required b. Other permitted uses as per the zoning ordinance-convenience store/market: one space per 250 sq. ft. of floor area, 15 required c. Total onsite parking provided-22 spaces (24 with 2 ADA included) d. Total shared street parking spaces provided-32 e. Total parking spaces: 56 provided, 50 required-OK 22. Section 16.8-parking lot and space sizes match all ordinance requirements-OK 23. Section 16.9-landscaping of parking lots: Please address Daren Mindham's comments 24. Section 16.11-Are any walls proposed? 25. Section 16.12-Lighting for parking lots shall comply with section 21 (see#42 below) 26. Section 16.15-Landscaping for parking lots in the Peripheral Retail area - Please address Daren Mindham's comments 27. Section 17.1-Loading and service areas shall be placed to the rear or side of buildings-OK 28. Section 17.3-Trash collection areas shall be enclosed and screened as provided in Section 19.14-OK (see#39 below) 29. Section 18.3-Permitted signs-Please work with Ross Pietrzak on proposed signage and provide more detailed sign drawings. He is copied on this email. 30. Section 18.3.A.1.-wall sign cannot project outward from the wall more than 12" 31. Section 18.3.A.2.-Sign area shall not exceed 20%of the ground floor building facade or 45 sq. ft., whichever is less. Please provide the square footage of the building facades. 32. Section 18.3.A.3.-maximum permitted height is 15'-should be OK 33. Section 18.3.A.4.-Height cannot exceed 12"-appears to be 2' tall, needs to be reduced 34. Section 18.3.A.5.-One sign per facade fronting a street-signs allowed to face west and south for each building. Variance will be needed for larger sign facing internally(or see #35 below) 35. Section 18.3.B-one sign not exceeding 6 sq. ft. shall be permitted on any side or rear entrance open to the public. Interior signs may need to be reduced in size to avoid a variance. 36. Section 18.3.M-restaurants are allowed additional signage-wall mounted menu, sandwich board, ground mounted menu 37. Section 18.5.D.- Backlighting of signs is permitted only in the Peripheral Retail Area 38. Section 18.8-Sign permits are required. 39. Section 19-Landscaping: Please address Daren Mindham's comments 40. Section 20-n/a 41. Section 21.1.-Street lights shall be decorative and consistent with development plan. Will street lights be provided? 42. Section 21.3-parking lot light posts may not exceed 20'-20' proposed-OK. Please confirm the color of the light post as well as the goose neck lights. 43. Section 21.8- Lighting in Peripheral Retail Area shall comply with 23C.12B & C of the Zoning Ordinance: need "down lighting style" and limited to 0.3 footcandles at the property lines. Some places on the north and east property lines exceed 0.3 footcandles. Please revise. 44. Section 21.9.-Parking area lights shall be designed and maintained so that it is reduced to the minimum amount reasonably required for security purposes during the hours that retail establishments are not open for business. Please explain how you will comply with this requirement. 45. Section 22-27-n/a Architectural: 46. North and south of Building A-Is there anything we can add to make these facades look more interesting?The detail at the top is great, but would also like something along the base/middle-at pedestrian level. Faux windows?Why were gooseneck lights not proposed here? 47. North end of Building A (tasting room)-Please provide the same base as the rest of the building. 48. East and west of Building B-why were no lights proposed on these facades? 49. Exterior elevation sheet notes-why are there references to fiber cement siding? Everything appears to be brick. 2 50. Building B North façade entry—what was the reason for not repeating the same design as the south side of the building around the entry?The small column feature above the door is nice, but there appears to be enough room for flanking brick columns. Rachel Keesling Planning Administrator City of Carmel, Indiana 1 Civic Square 3`d Floor—DOCS Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov 3 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:04 PM To: Littlejohn, David W Cc: John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder'; Mike Fox; Rene Hart; Todd McLean; mmayol@omscorp.net; rfoster@omscorp.net; Keesling, Rachel M Subject: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Attachments: Attachments.html Importance: High ShareFile Attachments Expires April 15, 2019 170065000_Civil-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 65.8 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans-Rev1_20181001.pdf 1.4 MB Comment-Response-Letter_CarmelAltTran...017.pdf 18 KB Download Attachments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely.Learn More. Mr. Littlejohn, Good afternoon. Please find attached the revised civil and landscape plans and comment response letter for the upcoming WestClay Uptown Development project planned for the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive & Harleston Street in the Village of West Clay. Pursuant to your submittal preferences listed on the TAC Committee Members sheet, I will not be sending a hard copy of the resubmittal items. If you would prefer I send hard copies, please reach out and I will accommodate. Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions. Thank you, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn I 250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-95631 Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For 1 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:09 PM To: Mindham, Daren Cc: John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder'; Mike Fox; Rene Hart;Todd McLean; mmayol@omscorp.net; rfoster@omscorp.net; Keesling, Rachel M Subject: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil/Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Attachments: Attachments.html ShareFile Attachments Expires April 15,2019 170065000_Civil-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 65.8 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans-Rev1_20181001.pdf 1.4 MB 'i. Comment-Response-Letter_CarmelUrbanF...017.pdf 19.9 KB Download Attachments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely.Learn More. Mr. Mindham, Good afternoon. Please find attached the revised civil and landscape plans and comment response letter for the upcoming WestClay Uptown Development project planned for the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive& Harleston Street in the Village of West Clay. Pursuant to your submittal preferences listed on the TAC Committee Members sheet, I will not be sending a hard copy of the resubmittal items. If you would prefer I send hard copies, please reach out and I will accommodate. Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions. Thank you, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn I 250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For 1 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:18 PM To: Greg R. Noyes Cc: John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder'; Mike Fox; Rene Hart; Todd McLean; mmayol@omscorp.net; rfoster@omscorp.net; Keesling, Rachel M Subject: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Attachments: Attachments.html ShareFile Attachments Expires April 15, 2019 170065000_Civil-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 65.8 MB 170065000_Drainage-Report-Rev1_20181017.pdf 19.4 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 1.4 MB 170065000_0&M-Rev1_20181017.pdf 10.5 MB Comment-Response-Letter_HamiltonCoSur...017.pdf 19.4 KB Sheward 9-11-18 review letter.pdf 243.2 KB Download Attachments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely. Learn More. Mr. Noyes, Good afternoon. Please find attached the following resubmittal items for the upcoming WestClay Uptown Development project planned for the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive & Harleston Street in the Village of West Clay. The following hardcopies will be sent to your office today. • 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans—Revision#1 • 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans—Revision#1 • 1 Copy—Drainage Report—Revision#1 • 1 Copy—O&M Manual— Revision #1 • 1 Copy—Comment Response Letter Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions. Thank you, Bryan 1 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:13 PM To: Willie Hall Cc: John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder'; Mike Fox; Rene Hart; Todd McLean; mmayol@omscorp.net; rfoster@omscorp.net; Keesling, Rachel M; Jordan, Alex; Thomas, John G Subject: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Attachments: Attachments.html ShareFile Attachments Expires April 15, 2019 170065000_Civil-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 63.9 MB 170065000_Drainage-Report-Rev1_20181017.pdf 19.4 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 1.4 MB 170065000_0&M-Rev1_20181017.pdf 10.5 MB Comment-Response-Letter_CrossroadEngi...017.pdf 186.9 KB Consent Letter - City of Carmel - Storm Sewer.pdf 143.1 KB Download Attachments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely.Learn More. Mr. Hall, Good afternoon. Please find attached the following resubmittal items for the upcoming WestClay Uptown Development project planned for the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive & Harleston Street in the Village of West Clay. The following hardcopies will be sent to your office today. • 1 Copy— Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans— Revision#1 • 1 Copy— Full Size Landscape Plans— Revision#1 • 1 Copy—Drainage Report—Revision #1 • 1 Copy—O&M Manual— Revision #1 • 1 Copy—Comment Response Letter Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions. Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:17 PM To: Jordan, Alex Cc: John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder'; Mike Fox; Rene Hart; Todd McLean; mmayol@omscorp.net; rfoster@omscorp.net; Keesling, Rachel M; Thomas, John G Subject: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Attachments: Attachments.html ShareFile Attachments Expires April 15, 2019 170065000_Civil-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 63.9 MB 170065000_Drainage-Report-Rev1_20181017.pdf 19.4 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 1.4 MB 170065000_0&M-Rev1_20181017.pdf 10.5 MB Comment-Response-Letter_Carmel-Engine...017.pdf 32 KB Download Attachments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely.Learn More. Mr.Jordan, Good afternoon. Please find attached the following resubmittal items for the upcoming WestClay Uptown Development project planned for the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive & Harleston Street in the Village of West Clay. Per our phone call last week, I am not planning to resubmit hard copies to your office. If you change your mind, please let me know and I'll be happy to accommodate. Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions. Thank you, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn I 250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-95631 Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For 1 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:27 PM To: Cook, Steve L Cc: John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder'; Mike Fox; Rene Hart; Todd McLean; mmayol@omscorp.net; rfoster@omscorp.net; Keesling, Rachel M Subject: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Attachments: Attachments.html ShareFile Attachments Expires April 15, 2019 170065000_Civil-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 63.9 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 1.4 MB City of Carmel.pdf 630.7 KB Comment-Response-Letter_Carmel-Utilitie...017.pdf 19.4 KB Oa Dowrl`' a.AMC ments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely.Learn More. Mr. Cook, Good afternoon. Per our phone call a few minutes ago, please find attached the following resubmittal items for the upcoming WestClay Uptown Development project planned for the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive & Harleston Street in the Village of West Clay. I am happy to send you hard copies of the plans if/when you would like. Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions. Thank you, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn I 250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-95631 Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For 1 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:04 PM To: Ryan Hartman Cc: John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder'; Mike Fox; Rene Hart;Todd McLean; mmayol@omscorp.net; rfoster@omscorp.net; Keesling, Rachel M Subject: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Attachments: Attachments.html ShareFile Attachments Expires April 15,2019 170065000_Civil-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 63.9 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 1.4 MB 170065000 WestclayUptownDev BIdgA_S...App.pdf 1 MB 170065000_WestclayUptownDev_BIdgB_S...App.pdf 979.3 KB 20181017132254521.pdf 464.5 KB Comment-Response-Letter_TCRWD_20181017.pdf 20.3 KB P201.pdf 572 KB Download Attachments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely.Learn More. Mr. Hartman, Good afternoon. Please find attached the following resubmittal items for the upcoming WestClay Uptown Development project planned for the northeast corner of Pettigru Drive& Harleston Street in the Village of West Clay. The following hardcopies will be sent to your office today. • 1 Copy—Full Size Civil/Photometric Plans—Revision#1 • 1 Copy—Full Size Landscape Plans—Revision#1 • 1 Copy—Sewer Application for Building A(including check) • 1 Copy—Sewer Application for Building B (including check) • 1 Copy—Comment Response Letter • 1 Copy—MEP Plans(Per your Request) 1 CITY OF CARMEL JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: Oct 18, 2018 FROM: David McCoy Addressing Coordinator dmccoy@carmel.in.gov RE: Addresses for Westclay Uptown Development Addresses have been assigned for two future buildings in the Westclay Uptown Development: Building A- 12995 Pettigru Dr, Carmel, IN 46032 Building B- 2510 Harleston St, Carmel, IN 46032 DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS THREE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 PHONE 317.571.2576 TIMOTHY M. RENICK, DIRECTOR Keesling, Rachel M From: Keesling, Rachel M Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 4:27 PM To: Bryan Sheward (bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com) Cc: Pietrzak, Ross; Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Hi Bryan, Thank you for addressing my comments. I have updated them below based on your responses. I think all we need now to move forward is final sign off from Daren Mindham and David Littlejohn. Thanks, Rachel Rachel Keeslin6 Planning Administrator 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov From: Keesling, Rachel M Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 2:29 PM To: Bryan Sheward (bryan.sheward©kimley-horn.com) Cc: Mindham, Daren; Pietrzak, Ross Subject: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Hi Bryan, I sincerely apologize for the delay. Please see my review comments below and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Rachel Village of WestClay PUD General: 1. Sections 1-4—OK 2. Section 5.3—Proposed uses are allowed in the Peripheral Retail Area 3. Section 8.2—Please provide the total square footage of the commercial space in the Peripheral retail area — cannot exceed 100,000 sq. ft. —Total to about 49,714—OK. 4. Section 8.4—Please note that "Without approval of the Commission, no restaurant located in the Peripheral Retail Area shall be open for business between the hours of 11:01 PM and 6 AM except that the closing time may be extended from 11:01 PM to 12 AM on Friday and Saturday nights." OK. 5. Section 8.6—single story buildings are ok 6. Section 8.7—It appears that all sidewalks around the two buildings are greater than 3' and entrances are not impaired. Please update the site plan to show the patio space for the restaurant, so we can verify site circulation is not impaired. Done—OK. 7. Section 8.9—30' landscape buffer existing—OK 8. Section 8.11—must be designed in accordance with the peripheral retail area design guidelines and have sign off from VOWC Architectural review board—OK 1 9. Section 9-13-OK/ n/a 10. Section 14.1-Sidewalks must be provided-OK 11. Section 14.2-sidewalks along commercial structures shall be minimum of 8 feet in width (see comment#13 below) OK. 12. Section 14.4-Bike racks-please address David Littlejohn's comments. Waiting for David's approval. 13. Section 14.5-"Sidewalks in the Peripheral Retail Area may be penetrated by tree lawns and/or planting areas." Therefore not meeting the 8' width is ok. OK. 14. Section 15.8.1.A.-lot area 5,000 sq. ft. min required, 0.56 acre provided-OK 15. Section 15.8.1.B.-lot width at build to line: 50' required, 150' and 100' provided-OK 16. Section 15.8.1.C.-Minimum lot depth: 100' required, 188' provided-OK 17. Section 15.8.1.D.-Build to line, 10' unless otherwise indicated on plat or recorded instrument-Appear to be 4' off on Building A and 2' off on Building B. Please adjust to meet this requirement. Will not adjust per agreement with Dept. and matching other adjacent buildings. 18. Section 15.8.1.E.-Maximum building height : 40' allowed, 16'8" provided to top of parapet OK. 19. Section 15.8.1.F.-Onsite parking must comply with Section 16.1 (see#21 below) OK. 20. Section 15.19.-Please note "Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no outdoor storage of goods and materials or refuse containers shall be located in any established setback or established yard abutting a street, nor in any required buffer or screen, except for the temporary placement of refuse for scheduled curbside collection." OK. 21. Section 16.1-parking a. parking for restaurants-one space per 75 sq. ft. of floor area, 35 spaces required b. Other permitted uses as per the zoning ordinance-convenience store/market: one space per 250 sq. ft. of floor area, 15 required c. Total onsite parking provided-22 spaces (24 with 2 ADA included) d. Total shared street parking spaces provided-32 e. Total parking spaces: 56 provided, 50 required -OK 22. Section 16.8-parking lot and space sizes match all ordinance requirements-OK 23. Section 16.9-landscaping of parking lots: Please address Daren Mindham's comments Waiting for Daren's approval. 24. Section 16.11-Are any walls proposed? No walls are proposed-OK. 25. Section 16.12-Lighting for parking lots shall comply with section 21 (see#42 below) Revised with exception of north shared property line and drive aisle-OK. 26. Section 16.15-Landscaping for parking lots in the Peripheral Retail area - Please address Daren Mindham's comments waiting for Daren's approval. 27. Section 17.1-Loading and service areas shall be placed to the rear or side of buildings-OK 28. Section 17.3-Trash collection areas shall be enclosed and screened as provided in Section 19.14-OK (see#39 below) 29. Section 18.3-Permitted signs-Please work with Ross Pietrzak on proposed signage and provide more detailed sign drawings. He is copied on this email. OK. 30. Section 18.3.A.1.-wall sign cannot project outward from the wall more than 12" will comply-OK. 31. Section 18.3.A.2.-Sign area shall not exceed 20%of the ground floor building facade or 45 sq. ft., whichever is less. Please provide the square footage of the building facades. Signage will be reduced to 43 sq.ft.-OK, however, please continue to work with Ross on final signage approvals. 32. Section 18.3.A.3.-maximum permitted height is 15'-should be OK 33. Section 18.3.A.4.-Height cannot exceed 12"-appears to be 2' tall, needs to be reduced-changed to 18"-OK. 34. Section 18.3.A.5.-One sign per facade fronting a street-signs allowed to face west and south for each building.Variance will be needed for larger sign facing internally (or see#35 below) working with Ross on possible variance-OK. 35. Section 18.3.6-one sign not exceeding 6 sq. ft. shall be permitted on any side or rear entrance open to the public. Interior signs may need to be reduced in size to avoid a variance. Please continue to work with Ross on signage. 2 36. Section 18.3.M—restaurants are allowed additional signage—wall mounted menu, sandwich board, ground mounted menu—none are proposed—OK. 37. Section 18.5.D.—Backlighting of signs is permitted only in the Peripheral Retail Area—using gooseneck lights— ok. 38. Section 18.8—Sign permits are required. OK. 39. Section 19—Landscaping: Please address Daren Mindham's comments waiting for Daren's approval. 40. Section 20—n/a 41. Section 21.1.—Street lights shall be decorative and consistent with development plan. Will street lights be provided?Street lights are proposed to follow development pattern of the rest of Uptown—OK. 42. Section 21.3—parking lot light posts may not exceed 20'—20' proposed—OK. Please confirm the color of the light post as well as the goose neck lights. Black is proposed—OK. 43. Section 21.8—Lighting in Peripheral Retail Area shall comply with 23C.12B & C of the Zoning Ordinance: need "down lighting style" and limited to 0.3 footcandles at the property lines. Some places on the north and east property lines exceed 0.3 footcandles. Please revise. Revised with exception of north shared property line and drive aisle—OK. 44. Section 21.9.—Parking area lights shall be designed and maintained so that it is reduced to the minimum amount reasonably required for security purposes during the hours that retail establishments are not open for business. Please explain how you will comply with this requirement. Down light style proposed—OK. 45. Section 22-27—n/a Architectural: 46. North and south of Building A—Is there anything we can add to make these facades look more interesting?The detail at the top is great, but would also like something along the base/middle—at pedestrian level. Faux windows?Why were gooseneck lights not proposed here?South elevation was updated &chose not to accentuate the north facade—OK. 47. North end of Building A(tasting room)—Please provide the same base as the rest of the building. Done—OK. 48. East and west of Building B—why were no lights proposed on these facades? Did not want to accentuate these facades.—OK. 49. Exterior elevation sheet notes—why are there references to fiber cement siding? Everything appears to be brick. Comments removed—OK. 50. Building B North facade entry—what was the reason for not repeating the same design as the south side of the building around the entry?The small column feature above the door is nice, but there appears to be enough room for flanking brick columns. Wanted to keep a simple design—OK. Rachel Keeslin8 Planning Administrator City of Carmel, Indiana 1 Civic Square 3rd Floor—DOCS Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov 3 Keesling, Rachel M From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:16 AM To: 'Sheward, Bryan'; Keesling, Rachel M; Littlejohn, David W Cc: Pietrzak, Ross Subject: RE: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Attachments: Westclay Uptown Dev landscape plan stamped approved.pdf Stamped approved landscape plan attached. Daren Mindham Urban Forester — City of Carmel 317-571-2283 From: Sheward, Bryan [mailto:bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 4:30 PM To: Keesling, Rachel M; Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David W Cc: Pietrzak, Ross Subject: RE: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Thank you Rachel. Daren and David, I'll look forward to your review! Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For From: Keesling, Rachel M <rkeesling@carmel.in.gov> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 4:27 PM To: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Cc: Pietrzak, Ross<rpietrzak@carmel.in.gov>; Mindham, Daren <dmindham@carmel.in.gov>; Littlejohn, David W <dlittlejohn@carmel.in.gov> Subject: RE: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Hi Bryan, Thank you for addressing my comments. I have updated them below based on your responses. I think all we need now to move forward is final sign off from Daren Mindham and David Littlejohn. Thanks, Rachel Rachel Keesling Planning Administrator 317-571-2417 , [APPROVED l :r.. a...�r.rw.o..rK..s. m t l - ., ��►,,1 0 _ CaII.811' NW By dew;w,�m=m 01=53 am.OctxR Ta,wra r k I ,4/ before you Og IAWM' -I - etig IAN _ CGRAPHIC SCO IN FEET ` �' r iv • _ T 5; ®i®®�i.1®®.1� A *7*751+'W 1 w,E z • • w ' •�� �r��� o �' , ads ir42 " _ .,1.44%foie " ,� sDi T �inirim_ i��� f � � fill I ; `O 11 Jr-- agyd E ®4■IMENIV V in't►' " Iii --1 I �� �` _ii g i NOP. �� I,%� ` sy ► g „ aNs Z�� II JI: JIt%.TTTr sl 5 5 ri IliI gray alai ,„„„ w " N,-.. Li E u G �n1am !I It* Ii RIMI 11i Sie'�I��1-vA�� tea. �� I" 5 , in Aft AN gai 421 dal! �-. Cp.N.N9KN\", ..®r�.. 41° E " o_ z E \� f v — I J wl— OL 11 4 8"PVC SAWTAR) SEEP \ `,4�`, h\ % ` ow \ \ IIP • _.__.. ......... III y{ i 1 S ,\ • ••. • O I NA ISSUE: i \v V - -. • • � PROJECT NO. ff .. • • FHA I \ � \\I \\ 1 ♦ ------ SHEET NUIMEN iii } �J0085000 ���3 ' - 1 __ 1.1461011 STREET L1.0 APPROVED Neon.UN,1•,P.otog I.on Sei,c• I My DMMMecham I M•M 1.7.016.,Oat IA 2.7/1 m m lCall'811' I i Ii g PLANT SCHEDULE COMMON NAM, l'i'÷'; CALL ,÷4 DECIDUOUS TREE ' SHRUB I DECIDUOUSTREES5 BOTANICAL NAME PRINCETON SUNBURST COMMON w,EYLIX;us, B6B - .. jl/( MALE SPEC ES ONLY OW ON SENTRY GT GLEDTBA Ta A.CANTHOS IN.MS'SUNBURST' 7CAL. I D 1 DUERGUS IMBRICARA SNNGLEOAN B6B 7CAL `"""`""'32d5 '�� _ C 7cDL E da yhb . Fes..a•TdWa o g BOTANICAL COMMON NAME C,^5 mI SM bowies 0 1. De ORNAMENTAL 2 SYRINGARCERCIS RETI LATAIVORYSL PANS,TM IVORYFORESIL[WAPANE.TREE LILAC abs 7CAL b 3,,,,,k.a a _ * 11 vEr 1 A B cLETHRA ALMEFouAL uR BSPICE nLDX SPICE B6B SEE PLAN ;x NT MIN ",`� ' n .r .M,..a—, —-�.� . $ ' F re,.ane+. Laa e,e�a� A.a.. €g 04 p! HP S HYDRANGEAPANIGULATALIMELIGHT TM LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA B6B SEE PLAN uHTMIN -^"". ..�.ix.• fig,idd•i3 R.� Win. E yg^ 3 vJ < VIBURNUM x JUDDI JUDD VIBURNUM e:e SEE PLAN 24-14,411.4 v"I `°"�°� „ kst [ OTY BOTANICAL NAME F COMMON NAME FM�'=s„de•«. F-d.ave• ^' 1 p< FOWS3IINGANNUALS _ 3eanA.rM NALS AND GRASSESOTY BOTANICAL NAME A ,a AMSONIA HUBRICNTII COMMON NAME ARKANSAS .STAR VI Ae44I. i fg M S 1 GAL u• 91 OK cz Aur __FDERSER FEATHER REED G_ NB COREDPBS VERHDLA•z•GR® 30, ,GAL c ' + �-� ODD i EM ,T EGNNAGEAPURPUREAMAGMA MAGNUSPURPLEGNEFLONE ,GAL IBee Net "7 2F009 NG ULY TURF ,OR uROFE X WATA'BG BLUE LXERS LOW LDA SLOW cc Aoc `u 00 NEPETAx FAA55EN'W .... Md' 0‘517'. ISWN I PA 10 PENN EETUM ALOPECURO DES..t.a. HAMELN MAW FOMTUN GRASS IST d '0SSY AF e • • COWER... ' 1 A I,! v aLDBECMA FULo w'GOLDSRUM ,GAL - __. 1.1 SA u Ba SESIAAUTUMNAUS AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 1GAL Inc. 4 t ' a i! O TREE PLANTING DETAIL ©SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL II 11 LANDSCAPE NOTES a II I .1 1 i, 1 THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL.RESPONSBLE FOR INSTALLING MATERIALS E LANDSCAPE PLAN THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST TO REPAIR a:Aw ce ASHOWN N ON.E, ARE WTH THE SPECIFIED_ CONTRACTORSHALL SEED L ARESNNCH ARE DISTURBEDBY GRADINGPUBLIC AND PRWATE PROPERTY THAT IS DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR THEIR 0 Q STALLATION OR CURING E SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE IOD CALL E VDTI NI E ON AND�PRDRTGGnDN ONGM n�TFGR aRDF GRN FDR M�L« s "TD SGROUNOCOWR EEDEDA AR g CONTRACTOR SHALL STR LSALAC N' °OVE«DBYTURF'SH RECEIVEA4FTWIDEMB,.MMRwR E'R�NG Z W ANTING 2 THE oR suLL REroRT ANY DscaET+AND IN FLAN,.FIELD CONDITIONS IMMEDIATELY TO THE WITHV CID”. HARDWOOD MULCH ASPADED BED EDGE SHALL SEPARATE MULCH BEDS FROM TURF OR Q LANDSCAPE ED NOT ONG A 3 LCONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR OF ANY OF THBR TRENCHES OR E%wVATIONS THAT ,e.DO NOT DISTURB TIEEXISTING PAHEN LIGHTING REQUIRED OR LANDSUCRA�ETWAT EXISTS ADJACENT TO THE SSE UN LESS f OTHERWISE NOTED ON RAN i= a A NURSERY STOCK SHALL BE WELL BRANCHED,HEALTHY FULL PRE-INOCULATED AND FERTILISED.DECIDUOUS ; THE OUAACTORISSHOWN ARE i FOR FOR CONVENIENCE OF OVA..MD JURISDICTIONAL RENEW AGENCIES SSY TREES SHALL BE FREE OF FRESH SCARS TRUNKS`OWL BE WRAPPED IF NECESSARY TO PREVENT SUN SCALD AND �M EYING ALL PUY,OUANTRIES AS DRAMA Iti3 E RE DISEASED,DEFORMED.OR S ALL NUR.RY INSPECTION DAMAGE SHALL BTHE EGVARAMEEDOBST ECOMRACLOR.FOR ONE YALL REMOVE THE WRAP AT HEAIi FROM DE PROPER ATE OF GIN.AS A PART O ' OTHERwSE NOT EWIBTING SUPERIOR QUALITY O Z K S.THE PROPERTY ON WHICHTHE CONTINUED SAIDMATERIALS AREREOUIOF ALL REWIRED RDAPING ALL MNTLBE THE MATERIALSR DURED BYBIUTY TNS.(.TIONF THE a� W D GRADEINTDRFARE8 AMENDED SOIL GANDA,7DEP BE PROVIDED nINPLAN PLANTIBY THENG AREAS B L D Ta RDROPTDA.7DEP HBEGw NIB�D MALL BE MAINTNNED,�RTOFINµA«EP AME F N IMG AREASON AND LL�KEPHALL BE FREEDFTR EOMFTLY LI TEa ANDN6F THE PLANT :R."L M�m a f WITH 2513 PULVERIZED na �. lit 7 PLANTING AREA TOPS.SHALL SSOIL FOR ALL SHRUB.TANDARD TOPSOIL N MEN A GRASS.PERENNIAL AND ANNUAL SECS AMENDED NRF RE BOLQ p$ �$�J W1 F�¢ ORIGINAL ISSUE' a 1 08/17/2018 s PROECT NG. 110005000 SHEET NUMBER 1 L1.1 Keesling, Rachel M From: Littlejohn, David W Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:35 PM To: 'Sheward, Bryan' Cc: Keesling, Rachel M Subject: RE: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Thanks Bryan, I prefer the previous location for Building A, please adjust them back. I am comfortable with the proposed location for Building B as shown. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, David Littlejohn, AICP Alternative Transportation Coordinator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Sq Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2306 A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Sheward, Bryan [mailto:bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:32 PM To: Littlejohn, David W Cc: Keesling, Rachel M Subject: RE: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL David, Not a problem. I had interpreted your comment to mean I needed to move the racks closer to the front door which is on the east face of the building. If you are ok with the racks in their previous location, I will adjust back! Thanks, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE'S 100 Best Companies to Work For From: Littlejohn, David W<dlittlejohn(a@carmel.in.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:29 PM To: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Cc: Keesling, Rachel M <rkeesling@carmel.in.gov> 1 Subject: RE:WestClay Uptown Development-Civil/ Landscaping Resubmittal#1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Bryan, I took a look at the revised plans you provided and the only comment I have is in regards to the bike parking for Building A. I see that you provided bike parking for Building B as I requested, but the bike racks for Building A have been moved from their previous location. Please keep the racks where they were originally proposed along Pettigru Dr at the northwest corner of the building. The new proposed location is in a spot that is difficult to access and it requires cyclist to ride through the parking lot to park their bike near the dumpster. Sincerely, David Littlejohn,AICP Alternative Transportation Coordinator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Sq Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2306 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Sheward, Bryan [mailto:bryan.sheward@ kimley-horn.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:04 PM To: Littlejohn, David W Cc: John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder'; Mike Fox; Rene Hart; Todd McLean; mmayok omscorp.net; rfoster©omscorp.net; Keesling, Rachel M Subject: WestClay Uptown Development- Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Importance: High ShareFile Attachments Expires April 15, 2019 170065000_Civil-Plans-Rev1_20181017.pdf 65.8 MB 170065000_Landscape-Plans-Rev1_20181001.pdf 1.4 MB Comment-Response-Letter_CarmelAltTran...017.pdf 18 KB Download Attachments Bryan Sheward uses ShareFile to share documents securely.Learn More. Mr. Littlejohn, 2 Keesling, Rachel M From: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 10:55 AM To: Keesling, Rachel M Cc: Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: WestClay Uptown Development - Civil / Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Attachments: 170065000_C3.0-Rev2_20181025.pdf Rachel, See attached for the updated Site Plan. I will carry it through the rest of the plan sheets once I receive comments back from Alex Jordan. Let me know if this will suffice for the Letter of Grant. Thanks, Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For From: Keesling, Rachel M <rkeesling@carmel.in.gov> Sent:Thursday, October 25, 2018 9:49 AM To: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Cc: Littlejohn, David W<dlittlejohn@carmel.in.gov> Subject: RE: WestClay Uptown Development-Civil/ Landscaping Resubmittal #1 (Docket No. 18080016) - FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL Hi Bryan, Once you have them moved back, please send an updated site plan to David and I, and I will stamp it approved and release the Letter of Grant. If you can send it to me today, I will get the letter done today because I will be out of the office for a long weekend tomorrow—Monday. Thanks, Rachel Rachel Keeslin8 Planning Administrator 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov From: Littlejohn, David W Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:35 PM To: 'Sheward, Bryan' Cc: Keesling, Rachel M 1 _ _ .____ YiSr.UN.iM MNNMw WA. 1001 11.1E MOM MO.0010 OTT m '2;Q K�MM:r o�O'�.mM m:"�in.c,P Wil \/ I',/�,o/ �, /, <m PRE-00.11910101 1.05 70 MEW ON01000101110100010111 \G ROAM.,IMMO IMMO.FOR COO.0•00 000010011.M ROMs TO.a.•11.NE 002110 MO Mom.00-0-12.0 NMI 2ou op 00 •Jf SCALE IN MET 10 MARK I f / MOM 70 wrcNEM,/,.20-1101-110ro ,o I ?' 200222.222.1.2022.2 a•be 1am.0TMM u.m umi .0 a:c0011101 xc,O..m ro.,Mar MO 22111111 MO POMO 1•20.001 TOM 0.10 0 POND 5 CONSUCTOTS REM M.TO MRS 0.TO START a..e. °0M'~CO2.0110.a GENERAL NOTES 90. m x .11 0.101200 REFF.70 11.0 FNX OF OM ME„ .1011.111.1211222 To.191 .i �aM � ARE TO MVa c��µom.� M.rox�., a» g . '� JP MORGAN CHASE BANE,N A. NO 021000.0,1112 11.1i .. 2.0r.400.TO o MUw INST.a2o0;_:,1415 OMO.MM m.xx..LL a.xm.,M 011.01.0.x SITE DATA 10101 10 <a i w \ 110. If o a • 2222 . ,a a2 .oa 20.4000.2C e = e� . ,.-r-.:",. KEY NOTES C �� 2 OO --- p d. MM.ta .rox>I,CO Villa u - _ _ .r p O. 8772•0. ».<.(ox.iro 10-,.a.) t 4;:G1 a oSM .oNrmCMOMm,10-x2Cl., BENCHMARKS __ O E tr; I ''%--- .co.1.x r.021 ..o p. r W2•r..1 tea ax.,.o1I E i 5 i O "oma.�.,'" . Mx 1.00181 MM.�,.M m:1120., FEET 1 ,_ I . J 1 tea.. ax..x.0 a,.�.D•,:..,.CPS,.R.2•.a E..,..:, MOCK to a.0-. a li 117 z 0 SW woo CM guns.PA 81 e t 0 .1,. .a.828.»xK1..:a.»°"'a..a p .arra.a.,627xQ 8122 Cm pvs O.® TOMO si�a.cm i © 0 � 000 20J'1410'C.m s.00!01.0 ,M MST e1 n M arm xrsc .. l.�Ir(� Lpl 0MIR.OM.xOR 0 R0 1311a..RAM 1 . a � CONNE000 N.TS MEM 0 COO.MN 01.1 OF CORM R. p ° ° iaE�:-2�4e� �n� o ° m 2222�a .PI) so . Ii�i®E m �� - y O,... c., O=caw am. 2•,.0 MO '. B Wd, '-D( P1.1. ° ..---- ®aeea�r. �teawseee ' ,..,x. . CB ��1 ®jI , _�-,,,-,.�.,,,,._r..•ii t � 1 0222-6 pMAU IV IMI UAV acce22,2 swim U011 22¢022.2.2...21 ` ikij 0200 w amx w Os Mo- 2,221 i oi.c.,` iw..� I p Al la Q �I © -��e'', .. ...a _--,6- exwe � ,.... _,"... 0 '!INI11 BUILDINGA a"""n I s I °,I pii� 63.841 SF° 'i s0 ----amnow mon e tIi FF=907.25 1111 2•v® I r \ e i •�����9 Q� �I { PROPOSED BUILDING PAVING AND CURB LEGEND ;2411m 6. 0 (B1'OTHERS) 111 ¢r 1 IMLs =la- UNDER CONSTRUCTION xOy 1( " w7ii 105E9 SF 2•r sc0a" 111141.11111111M01 _aFJ O FF-907.8 Z 0 2 tom i - I �Y . !I. � ��$milli r E&J ENTERPRISE,LLC , r arna Q 0 +1!11111111111111■PZ:111l1�� I°x ` I I " INST 82;17-63,47 J F f • _.. �lF4ritTSfriO 101 0_ ' ��ew © it���-tee ■ = 1 �m.M..rmx Ul uaq'w.0 0 lk x.00 9rM0 BUILDINGS �•_ ": .."w ms..se urs --•.,4'w I,�4�«`� 62.653 SF 7 as-0 _ _ .1122 s �revr wxr 0000x.v�em,.wlw y`cF 907.25 1; - �.,� sc��•��o,A.i♦til ®� 0 '::�� I i �.M..M MIR�,IMAM RATTERN I 9`_"'� ' iO'� ' CAPPED I1M� F i �;� -- � s� ��+O,© yy���Y --..�CO�II�'' 'hC aP`rrva e _ f FOUND RABF(.'ORI - I- ! - __ 91- - _i 3 € _ �' `` ��i�ililG►�.� ���O�L!■�A €I. PARKING SUMMARY a LI- _ O n^,n < i. .- TAFT CIRCLE °I),, - y 4'{3, O I 0°i'.,m..2axc ,o,M - .--r2•0022 .ie:F sm �'O -i y 40'RIGHT-OF-WAY \ y it ' ::CTS Q J In °% 1 y sM o , sM 0 . .,x R,.1,2d -+..n. 1`1 0 0 0 0 ".'°m..M.ama: 22x.1 x.�.a :a: �' W 3 ...M ro .0..� to o .x122.! �� AMMO .. _ i _L_ a� , .,,.m d HARLESTON STREET _ i i 94'RIGHT-OF-WAY ; - -___ e MUM 02 2•.m .au.w Vone • MOM,.'MICR[sins.'aPx Y'D •f MM{. MPH.ISAIE: 02/17/2010 i MA PROJECT NO 1 S 1� I I700E5000 M r SHEET AWR C3.0 Kimley>>> Horn October 17, 2018 Ms. Rachel Keesling City of Carmel Planning Department One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Re: WestClay Uptown Development,Docket#18080016 Dear Ms. Keesling, We are in receipt of your review comments regarding the above referenced project,dated October 1, 2018. Many"comments"provided were followed by"OK". Only the comments provided that required addressing have been listed below. Comment#3—Section 8.2: Please provide the total square footage of the commercial space in the Peripheral retail area—cannot exceed 100,000 sq.ft. Response: Currently there is 35,214 sq. ft. within the Peripheral Retail Area. This WestClay Uptown Development(-7,000 sq. ft.)and Family Express(-7,500 sq. ft.)will be the combined total to—49,714 sq. ft. Comment#4—Section 8.4: Please note that "Without approval of the Commission, no restaurant located in the Peripheral Retail Area shall be open for business between the hours of 11:01 PM and 6 AM except that the closing time may be extended from 11:01 PM to 12 AM on Friday and Saturday nights. Response: Noted. Comment#6—Section 8.7: It appears that all sidewalks around the two buildings are greater than 3'and entrances are not impaired. Please update the site plan to show the patio space for the restaurant, so we can verity site circulation is not impaired. Response: Please refer to the revised civil construction plans. Comment#11—Section 14.2: Sidewalks along commercial structures shall be a minimum of 8 feet in width (see comment#13). Response: Noted. Please refer to the response provided for Comment#13. kimley-hom.corn 250 E.96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317 218 9560 Kim ey>>> Horn Page 2 Comment#12—Section 14.4: Bike racks—Please address David Littlejohn's comments. Response: Please refer to the revised civil construction plans which incorporate revisions requested by Mr.Littlejohn. Comment#13—Section 14.5: "Sidewalks in the Peripheral Retail Area may be penetrated by tree lawns and/or planting areas." Therefore not meeting the 8'width is OK. Response: Noted. Comment#17—Section 15.8.1.D: Build to line, 10'unless otherwise indicated on plat or recorded instrument—Appear to be 4'off on Building A and 2'off on Building B. Please adjust to meet this requirement. Response: Per follow-up conversations, the Carmel Planning Department is accepting of the proposed building locations. Please refer to the attached email correspondence for the record. Comment#20—Section 15.19: Please note "Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no outdoor storage of goods and materials or refuse containers shall be located in any established setback or established yard abutting a street, nor in any required buffer or screen, except for the temporary placement of refuse for scheduled curbside collection." Response: Noted. Comment#23—Section 16.9: Landscaping of parking lots:Please address Daren Mindham's comments. Response: The revised plans have addressed Mr. Mindham's comments. Comment#24—Section 16.11: Are any walls proposed? Response: No walls are proposed. Comment#25—Section 16.12: Lighting for parking lots shall comply with section 21 (see#42 below). Response: Noted. Refer to response provided to Comment#42 below. Comment#26—Section 16.15: Landscaping for parking lots in the Peripheral Retail Area—Please address Daren Mindham's comments. Response: The revised plans have addressed Mr. Mindham's comments. Comment#29—Section 18.3: Permitted signs—Please work with Ross Pietrzak on proposed signage and provide more detailed sign drawings. himley-horn.com 250 E. 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317 218 9560 Kim ey>>>Horn Page 3 Response: Noted. The owner and project architect is coordinating with Mr. Pietzak. Comment#30—Section 18.3.A.1: Wall sign cannot project outward from the wall more than 12". Response: The proposed signage will use applied letters that will not project out greater than 12". Comment#31—Section 18.3.A.2: Sign area shall not exceed 20%of the ground floor building façade or 45 sq.ft., whichever is less. Please provide the square footage of the building facades. Response: Building A west façade= 1,362 sq. ft. Building letters reduced to 18"such that total signage area=43 sq. ft., less than the max allowed 45 sq. ft. Comment#33—Section 18.3.A.4: Height cannot exceed 12"—appears to be 2'tall, needs to be reduced for each building. Variance will be needed for larger sign facing internally(or see #35 below) Response: Village of WestClay signage guidelines allow for 28"in the Peripheral Retail Area (18.3.A.3). We are proposing 18". Comment#34—Section 18.3.A.5: One sign per façade frontage a street—signs allowed to face west and south for each building. Variance will be needed for larger sign facing internally(or see#35 below). Response: The Client is currently deciding whether or not to pursue a variance. Comment#35—Section 18.3.B: One sign not exceeding 6 sq.ft shall be permitted on any side or rear entrance open to the public. Interior signs may need to be reduced in size to avoid a variance. Response: Refer to the revised building elevations. Comment#36—Section 18.3.M:Restaurants are allowed additional signage—wall mounted menu, sandwich board,ground mounted menu. Response: None are proposed at this time. Comment#37—Section 18.5.D:Backlighting of signs is permitted only in the Peripheral Retail Area. Response: Not applicable. We are using gooseneck fixtures. kdmtey hom.com 250 E. 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317 218 9560 Kimley ->> Horn Page 4 Comment#38—Section 18.8: Sign permits are required. Response: Understood. Comment#39—Section 19: Landscaping:Please address Daren Mindham's comments. Response: The revised plans have addressed Mr.Mindham's comments. Comment#41—Section 21.1: Street lights shall be decorative and consistent with development plan. Will street lights be provided? Response: Street lights are proposed along the western and southern property lines to continue the patters seen north and east of the proposed development. Refer to the revised civil plans. Comment#42—Section 21.3: Parking lot light posts may not exceed 20'—20'proposed—OK Please confirm the color of the light post as well as the goose neck lights. Response: The proposed light posts and goose neck lights will be black in color. Comment#43—Section 21.8: Lighting in the Peripheral Retail Area shall comply with 23.C.12B& C of the Zoning Ordinance: need "down lighting style"and limited to 0.3 footcandles.Please revise. Response: Noted. Please refer to the revised photometric plan. It is acknowledged that along the north property line a proposed site light will shine over the property line to the north and exceed the 0.3 footcandle limit. This area however is a drive lane on the south side of the Chase Bank building and is not expected to cause any nuisance issues. For safety reasons,we feel this entry point into the internal parking area of the development should be well lit and there is no feasible way to light this well without bleeding light across the property line. Comment#44—Section 21.9: Parking area lights shall be designed and maintained so that it is reduced to the minimum amount reasonably required for security purposes during the hours that retail establishments are not open for business. Please explain how you will comply with this requirement. Response: Refer to the revised photometric plan. There are two light poles proposed on the site to illuminate the entry drive and internal parking lot. The proposed lights are of the"down light style",which orients the illumination down to avoid horizontal spray. The two light poles proposed are the least amount possible to provide adequate illumination for safety and security. kimley-horn.com 250 E. 96th Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317 218 9560 Kim ey>>> Horn Page 5 Comment#46: North and south of Building A—Is there anything we can add to make these facades look more interesting? The detail at the top is great, but would also like something along the base/middle—at pedestrian level, Faux windows? Why were gooseneck lights not proposed here? Response: The south elevation has been updated. The architect chose to not accentuate the north elevation and dumpster enclosure. Comment#47: North end of Building A (tasting room)—Please provide the same base as the rest of the building. Response: Noted. Please refer to the revised elevations. Comment#48: East and west of Building B— Why were no lights proposed on these facades? Response: The architect did not want to accentuate the east façade of Building B,which is the service entrance to the kitchen. Comment#49: Exterior elevation sheet notes— Why are there references to fiber cement siding? Everything appears to be brick. Response: These comments have been removed. Comment#50: Building B North facade entry— What was the reason for not repeating the same design as the south side of the building around the entry? The small column feature above the door is nice, but there appears to be enough room for flanking brick columns. Response: The architect tried several options on how to address the north entry,but they all seemed like they were"trying too hard." The architect decided to keep it simple and repeat the A-B-B-A rhythm. If you have any questions or require any additional information,please contact me at 317.218.9560. Sincerely, Bryan Sheward,P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Ph: (317) 218-9560 bryan.sheward(d kimley-horn.com kimley-horn.com 250 E. 96' Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317 218 9560 Sheward, Bryan From: Keesling, Rachel M <rkeesling@carmel.in.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:55 AM To: Sheward, Bryan Cc: Rene Hart; Mike Fox;John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder' Subject: RE: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: External Hi Bryan, I apologize for the delay.Thank you for the detailed response.This makes sense and we will not require you to bring the buildings forward to the 10' build to line, as none of the other buildings in the Uptown area have complied with this requirement. Please provide written responses to the other review comments and resubmit your plans and elevations for final review and approval from my Department. Sincerely, Rachel Rachel Keeslin6 Planning Administrator 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov From: Sheward, Bryan [mailto:bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com] Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 1:36 PM To: Keesling, Rachel M Cc: Rene Hart; Mike Fox; John Reeder; 'Norma Reeder' Subject: RE: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Rachel, Good afternoon. I hope you had a nice weekend. I left you a voicemail just before lunch today to discuss. Per our phone conversation last Wednesday,the explanation below is intended to give you a clear and concise written explanation for why we believe it makes better sense to allow both Buildings A and B to reside as shown in the attached Site Plan. This pertains to comment#17 in your review email below. 1. The Chase Bank to the north and the National Bank of Indianapolis to the east did not abide by this 10-ft build- to-line. See graphics below. A narrow section of E&J appears to extend south to reach the 10' build-to-line, but seems to disturb the flow of east/west pedestrian traffic. I am not suggesting that we should be allowed to do this "just because they did", but rather considering how our site will interplay with these existing developments. Chase Bank to the north is setback^'15 feet 1 ...., 1 - M. �a Y ©► I 1 1 • 1,,. i 1 I �1 ,i____4, fs� i6, I itnvj1u �ti4 �� 14 . • ir - - Iv•'' r i © ,• J PROPOSED -. --- ,' BUILDING - pl I 1:` 9y • ` -�i1 Y 01IF• PARCEL-14.106 SS., ;� S90'00' ■ .i` 15 1.1 _ 1.� • Tr r s� , 'g_ ,r I IE ' � L v" •;S90i00'OQ•W 56.76' -*4 ,:o:0000.00/ '-'..: •s■aK, \ "7, `1310 12 4'. j I V-7 ' -R r—cr,•)i 1(-7,)i.,,,., i ( I I P � I I _I r r 1 i '`,,. _ O National Bank of Indianapolis is setback-16' 5.. N84'48'011I ( — !i -fga4v . a,_ _ — - —19.44= � • , 0 d� �.- 1 -- - - all : 8 • 'ill .. ..... ._ _ _, I . 1`I __� E. �p i Q. D2` s PROPOSED I1 $ Q — — — 2+pp• I 21100 _ ,56 3' 2.67 BUILDING 26 101 _ 2 AD' 2D.W P - — — µ vAT10NA DANK C� IM1^,F`1Rf;.l:S 3.445 S F - G rn e- O5 g • co PARCEL- 11503 Si.} _- — - :0 —} ,522' 26r 2E1 —— — 14 15 22 `" cso w )52):-._ ,ii ••"7"41"C4 31.33'• 71.1 d ti - .a.iplimpotpplipsoppli . mme ilLaw.tlIAJ.VIAIC_Pla CI IM Iii, &l •zi, p • -• :::,44 ii. Ap. 0••••••••000 • II= 110 •< • ,,.Ivo . •• 90 �•• — -He-He H 24 2S poINT of ,r^ •-» ��SE ocKOCRfiER !://1 99.7 © OBEGIN, ,EGNNING II N\(., \ 0 .0.' b 4 a 0� 9 IQ .$ V0 A. OIQ .Y1.E.__--E( DEPRESSED CURS&CUTTER ®A 1 A B AMi 2 E&J to the immediate east appears to have a proposed building bump out which reaches the 10' mark, but this appears to hinder pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk. 1 ,. 1 ....) Ci.: ,)-. F.F.E. — 907.80 . r,_; s Block :o I � ,11 i _( Village of West Clay `4 ~' e � :_- : t s ''Section 6003- U e Per Mrfranent#2001013950 to-: to is ^ Al �nitiJ it C �' a a � 4 1 + �t4 s r b al (�d`.�i 1 --""4-1 ti io to I (a, , _:_"'l o'BUILDING "2 I' . :4' kg BACK LINE t t- .. n 1 i. 1 \ Kt 0.) * 0 \ Vigo" ft\ It i o ° 11A -d CONSTRUCTION LIMITS & I IMITt AP nlQTllPpejrr 2. Buildings A and B in our design are intentionally lined up with the Chase to the north and E&J to the east. By shifting Building A westward,several significant issues are created. a. This would create a "jog" in the sidewalk alignment for pedestrians traveling north/south between this project site and the Chase Bank site. I believe this would create an awkward, unneeded shift. b. We are being required to include landscaping beds within the frontage sidewalks that are of adequate width to promote healthy plant growth and to continue the pattern that has already been established along Pettigru. At the moment we show 5'wide landscape planters which is acceptable to Mr. Mindhem and is consistent with neighboring developments. If we shift the building west to the build-to- line,we would not be left with adequate space to accommodate a sidewalk. We would be left with ^'2.2' between the building face and the eastern edge of the planters and 3.3'from the face of curb to the western edge of the planters. This would directly contradict the intention of the zoning ordinance which pushes for wide sidewalks to promote walkability. I see this as a significant issue and reason to allow the building to remain where shown. Similarly, by shifting Building B south,we impede pedestrians. This corner will experience a significant amount of foot traffic and this should be a concern. 3. Lastly,the finish floor elevations of both buildings have been raised based on comments received from Crossroad Engineers and the City Engineering Dept. The proposed grading on the E&J property to the east of our site is the reason for why our finish floor elevations have been increased to 907.25. It has to do with abiding by the Minimum Flood Protection Grade. Our site is located at the corner of Pettigru and Harleston and there are two ADA crosswalks that enter the site in the southwest corner. We are already running at near maximum ADA running and cross slopes to climb grade from these two crosswalks up to the proposed building doors. By pushing both buildings out to the"Built-to-Lines", it will exacerbate the challenge. Our team would very much appreciate your thoughts on this prior to making a formal resubmittal. I am happy to drive to your office today to review in person if that would be helpful! 3 Bryan Bryan Sheward, P.E. (IN, KY, CA) Kimley-Horn 1250 East 96'h Street, Suite 580, Indianapolis, IN 46240 Direct: 317-218-9563 I Mobile: 317-409-6799 Celebrating nine years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For From: Keesling, Rachel M [mailto:rkeesling@carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 2:29 PM To: Sheward, Bryan <bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com> Cc: Mindham, Daren <dmindham@carmel.in.gov>; Pietrzak, Ross<rpietrzak@carmel.in.gov> Subject: Docket No. 18080016 TAC,WestClay Uptown - Review comments Hi Bryan, I sincerely apologize for the delay. Please see my review comments below and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Rachel Village of WestClay PUD General: 1. Sections 1-4-OK 2. Section 5.3-Proposed uses are allowed in the Peripheral Retail Area 3. Section 8.2-Please provide the total square footage of the commercial space in the Peripheral retail area- cannot exceed 100,000 sq. ft. 4. Section 8.4-Please note that "Without approval of the Commission, no restaurant located in the Peripheral Retail Area shall be open for business between the hours of 11:01 PM and 6 AM except that the closing time may be extended from 11:01 PM to 12 AM on Friday and Saturday nights." 5. Section 8.6-single story buildings are ok 6. Section 8.7-It appears that all sidewalks around the two buildings are greater than 3' and entrances are not impaired. Please update the site plan to show the patio space for the restaurant, so we can verify site circulation is not impaired. 7. Section 8.9-30' landscape buffer existing-OK 8. Section 8.11-must be designed in accordance with the peripheral retail area design guidelines and have sign off from VOWC Architectural review board-OK 9. Section 9-13-OK/ n/a 10. Section 14.1-Sidewalks must be provided-OK 11. Section 14.2-sidewalks along commercial structures shall be minimum of 8 feet in width (see comment#13 below) 12. Section 14.4-Bike racks- please address David Littlejohn's comments. 13. Section 14.5-"Sidewalks in the Peripheral Retail Area may be penetrated by tree lawns and/or planting areas." Therefore not meeting the 8'width is ok. 14. Section 15.8.1.A.-lot area 5,000 sq. ft. min required, 0.56 acre provided-OK 15. Section 15.8.1.B.-lot width at build to line:50' required, 150' and 100' provided-OK 16. Section 15.8.1.C.-Minimum lot depth: 100' required, 188' provided-OK 17. Section 15.8.1.D.-Build to line, 10' unless otherwise indicated on plat or recorded instrument-Appear to be 4' off on Building A and 2' off on Building B. Please adjust to meet this requirement. 18. Section 15.8.1.E.-Maximum building height :40'allowed, 16'8" provided to top of parapet 19. Section 15.8.1.F.-Onsite parking must comply with Section 16.1 (see#21 below) 20. Section 15.19.-Please note "Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no outdoor storage of goods and materials or refuse containers shall be located in any established setback or established yard abutting a street, 4 nor in any required buffer or screen, except for the temporary placement of refuse for scheduled curbside collection." 21. Section 16.1- parking a. parking for restaurants-one space per 75 sq. ft. of floor area, 35 spaces required b. Other permitted uses as per the zoning ordinance-convenience store/market: one space per 250 sq. ft. of floor area, 15 required c. Total onsite parking provided-22 spaces (24 with 2 ADA included) d. Total shared street parking spaces provided-32 e. Total parking spaces: 56 provided, 50 required-OK 22. Section 16.8-parking lot and space sizes match all ordinance requirements-OK 23. Section 16.9-landscaping of parking lots: Please address Daren Mindham's comments 24. Section 16.11-Are any walls proposed? 25. Section 16.12-Lighting for parking lots shall comply with section 21 (see#42 below) 26. Section 16.15-Landscaping for parking lots in the Peripheral Retail area - Please address Daren Mindham's comments 27. Section 17.1-Loading and service areas shall be placed to the rear or side of buildings-OK 28. Section 17.3-Trash collection areas shall be enclosed and screened as provided in Section 19.14-OK (see#39 below) 29. Section 18.3-Permitted signs-Please work with Ross Pietrzak on proposed signage and provide more detailed sign drawings. He is copied on this email. 30. Section 18.3.A.1.-wall sign cannot project outward from the wall more than 12" 31. Section 18.3.A.2.-Sign area shall not exceed 20%of the ground floor building facade or 45 sq. ft., whichever is less. Please provide the square footage of the building facades. 32. Section 18.3.A.3.-maximum permitted height is 15'-should be OK 33. Section 18.3.A.4.-Height cannot exceed 12"-appears to be 2'tall, needs to be reduced 34. Section 18.3.A.5. -One sign per facade fronting a street-signs allowed to face west and south for each building. Variance will be needed for larger sign facing internally (or see#35 below) 35. Section 18.3.B-one sign not exceeding 6 sq. ft. shall be permitted on any side or rear entrance open to the public. Interior signs may need to be reduced in size to avoid a variance. 36. Section 18.3.M-restaurants are allowed additional signage-wall mounted menu,sandwich board,ground mounted menu 37. Section 18.5.D. -Backlighting of signs is permitted only in the Peripheral Retail Area 38. Section 18.8-Sign permits are required. 39. Section 19-Landscaping: Please address Daren Mindham's comments 40. Section 20-n/a 41. Section 21.1.-Street lights shall be decorative and consistent with development plan. Will street lights be provided? 42. Section 21.3- parking lot light posts may not exceed 20'-20' proposed-OK. Please confirm the color of the light post as well as the goose neck lights. 43. Section 21.8-Lighting in Peripheral Retail Area shall comply with 23C.12B&C of the Zoning Ordinance: need "down lighting style" and limited to 0.3 footcandles at the property lines. Some places on the north and east property lines exceed 0.3 footcandles. Please revise. 44. Section 21.9.-Parking area lights shall be designed and maintained so that it is reduced to the minimum amount reasonably required for security purposes during the hours that retail establishments are not open for business. Please explain how you will comply with this requirement. 45. Section 22-27-n/a Architectural: 46. North and south of Building A-Is there anything we can add to make these facades look more interesting?The detail at the top is great, but would also like something along the base/middle-at pedestrian level. Faux windows?Why were gooseneck lights not proposed here? 47. North end of Building A(tasting room)-Please provide the same base as the rest of the building. 5 48. East and west of Building B—why were no lights proposed on these facades? 49. Exterior elevation sheet notes—why are there references to fiber cement siding?Everything appears to be brick. 50. Building B North facade entry—what was the reason for not repeating the same design as the south side of the building around the entry?The small column feature above the door is nice, but there appears to be enough room for flanking brick columns. Rachel Keeslin6 Planning Administrator City of Carmel, Indiana 1 Civic Square 3rd Floor—DOCS Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov Email secured by Check Point 6 Keesling, Rachel M From: Keesling, Rachel M Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 2:29 PM To: Bryan Sheward (bryan.sheward@kimley-horn.com) Cc: Mindham, Daren; Pietrzak, Ross Subject: Docket No. 18080016 TAC, WestClay Uptown - Review comments Hi Bryan, I sincerely apologize for the delay. Please see my review comments below and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Rachel Village of WestClay PUD General: 1. Sections 1-4-OK 2. Section 5.3-Proposed uses are allowed in the Peripheral Retail Area 3. Section 8.2-Please provide the total square footage of the commercial space in the Peripheral retail area - cannot exceed 100,000 sq.ft. 4. Section 8.4-Please note that "Without approval of the Commission, no restaurant located in the Peripheral Retail Area shall be open for business between the hours of 11:01 PM and 6 AM except that the closing time may be extended from 11:01 PM to 12 AM on Friday and Saturday nights." 5. Section 8.6-single story buildings are ok 6. Section 8.7- It appears that all sidewalks around the two buildings are greater than 3' and entrances are not impaired. Please update the site plan to show the patio space for the restaurant, so we can verify site circulation is not impaired. 7. Section 8.9-30' landscape buffer existing-OK 8. Section 8.11-must be designed in accordance with the peripheral retail area design guidelines and have sign off from VOWC Architectural review board-OK 9. Section 9-13-OK/n/a 10. Section 14.1-Sidewalks must be provided-OK 11. Section 14.2-sidewalks along commercial structures shall be minimum of 8 feet in width (see comment#13 below) 12. Section 14.4- Bike racks-please address David Littlejohn's comments. 13. Section 14.5-"Sidewalks in the Peripheral Retail Area may be penetrated by tree lawns and/or planting areas." Therefore not meeting the 8' width is ok. 14. Section 15.8.1.A.-lot area 5,000 sq. ft. min required, 0.56 acre provided-OK 15. Section 15.8.1.B.-lot width at build to line: 50' required, 150' and 100' provided-OK 16. Section 15.8.1.C.-Minimum lot depth: 100' required, 188' provided -OK 17. Section 15.8.1.D. -Build to line, 10' unless otherwise indicated on plat or recorded instrument-Appear to be 4' off on Building A and 2' off on Building B. Please adjust to meet this requirement. 18. Section 15.8.1.E.-Maximum building height : 40' allowed, 16'8" provided to top of parapet 19. Section 15.8.1.F.-Onsite parking must comply with Section 16.1 (see#21 below) 20. Section 15.19. -Please note "Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no outdoor storage of goods and materials or refuse containers shall be located in any established setback or established yard abutting a street, nor in any required buffer or screen, except for the temporary placement of refuse for scheduled curbside collection." 21. Section 16.1-parking a. parking for restaurants-one space per 75 sq. ft. of floor area, 35 spaces required i b. Other permitted uses as per the zoning ordinance-convenience store/market: one space per 250 sq. ft. of floor area, 15 required c. Total onsite parking provided -22 spaces (24 with 2 ADA included) d. Total shared street parking spaces provided -32 e. Total parking spaces: 56 provided, 50 required -OK 22. Section 16.8-parking lot and space sizes match all ordinance requirements-OK 23. Section 16.9-landscaping of parking lots: Please address Daren Mindham's comments 24. Section 16.11-Are any walls proposed? 25. Section 16.12-Lighting for parking lots shall comply with section 21 (see#42 below) 26. Section 16.15-Landscaping for parking lots in the Peripheral Retail area - Please address Daren Mindham's comments 27. Section 17.1-Loading and service areas shall be placed to the rear or side of buildings-OK 28. Section 17.3-Trash collection areas shall be enclosed and screened as provided in Section 19.14-OK (see #39 below) 29. Section 18.3-Permitted signs- Please work with Ross Pietrzak on proposed signage and provide more detailed sign drawings. He is copied on this email. 30. Section 18.3.A.1.-wall sign cannot project outward from the wall more than 12" 31. Section 18.3.A.2.-Sign area shall not exceed 20%of the ground floor building facade or 45 sq. ft., whichever is less. Please provide the square footage of the building facades. 32. Section 18.3.A.3.-maximum permitted height is 15'-should be OK 33. Section 18.3.A.4.- Height cannot exceed 12"-appears to be 2' tall, needs to be reduced 34. Section 18.3.A.5.-One sign per facade fronting a street-signs allowed to face west and south for each building. Variance will be needed for larger sign facing internally(or see #35 below) 35. Section 18.3.6-one sign not exceeding 6 sq. ft. shall be permitted on any side or rear entrance open to the public. Interior signs may need to be reduced in size to avoid a variance. 36. Section 18.3.M-restaurants are allowed additional signage-wall mounted menu, sandwich board, ground mounted menu 37. Section 18.5.D.- Backlighting of signs is permitted only in the Peripheral Retail Area 38. Section 18.8-Sign permits are required. 39. Section 19-Landscaping: Please address Daren Mindham's comments 40. Section 20-n/a 41. Section 21.1.-Street lights shall be decorative and consistent with development plan. Will street lights be provided? 42. Section 21.3-parking lot light posts may not exceed 20'-20' proposed -OK. Please confirm the color of the light post as well as the goose neck lights. 43. Section 21.8-Lighting in Peripheral Retail Area shall comply with 23C.12B & C of the Zoning Ordinance: need "down lighting style" and limited to 0.3 footcandles at the property lines. Some places on the north and east property lines exceed 0.3 footcandles. Please revise. 44. Section 21.9.-Parking area lights shall be designed and maintained so that it is reduced to the minimum amount reasonably required for security purposes during the hours that retail establishments are not open for business. Please explain how you will comply with this requirement. 45. Section 22-27-n/a Architectural: 46. North and south of Building A- Is there anything we can add to make these facades look more interesting?The detail at the top is great, but would also like something along the base/middle-at pedestrian level. Faux windows?Why were gooseneck lights not proposed here? 47. North end of Building A(tasting room)-Please provide the same base as the rest of the building. 48. East and west of Building B-why were no lights proposed on these facades? 49. Exterior elevation sheet notes-why are there references to fiber cement siding? Everything appears to be brick. 2 50. Building B North facade entry—what was the reason for not repeating the same design as the south side of the building around the entry?The small column feature above the door is nice, but there appears to be enough room for flanking brick columns. Rachel Keesling Planning Administrator City of Carmel, Indiana 1 Civic Square 3rd Floor—DOCS Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov 3