Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence i i 7. rA a eta, �4, 'l .ai 11 111,• II 0 ,1• ,11,:0. 11 11,1E1111 .III III Ill •t;.1 ::: 11' ITT+.g�'fl fir CITYI z •` • EL WI F t,: January 22,2008 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR 4� �� Mr.Brent White 7 `���' r;C C9" DeBoy Land Development Services ,art..:, 501 South 9th Street, Suite 100 J�'' Noblesville,IN 46060 �o� e, �l RE: Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#5 e 8 �V' Dear Mr.White: The City has received your comment letter and drawings submitted to this office on November 20,2007 in response to the City's letter dated September 11,2007.The comments from previous City reviews have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: PROJECT COMMENTS 1. Previous Comments 9,3(g),and 9(a).It is apparent,although the response to previous comment 3(g)indicates that City ADA ramps detail will be applied to all ADA ramps on-site,that a different ramp detail is proposed on-site.Due to the fact that the existing path is being widened, City standard ADA ramps shall be constructed where the path crosses the existing entrance.Please indicate these ramps with a specific keynote for the City standard ADA ramps and include the City ADA ramp details on the plans. 2. Previous Comment 10.The Department could not find the note indicated in your response. Please indicate the limits of removal on the demolition plan and indicate replacement of the path on the site plan per the path cross section. 3. Previous Comment 11.The widening is not indicated on the site plan.Please indicate the widening and indicate that the existing pavement shall be sawcut to a clean edge and the resulting vertical face prepared with a tack coat prior to paving. 4. Previous Comment 12.The Department could not find the detail indicated as having been added to the plan set. 5. Previous Comment 14.Thank you for your response.As per the last comment letter,the Department rescinds this comment. 6. Previous Comment 22.Thank you for your response.The previous comment was not referring solely to the utility work in the right-of-way.The only access to the property to the north is through this site.A traffic maintenance plan shall be provided for this traffic. PROJECT COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO SEPTEMBER 11,2007 LETTER 7. Previous Comment 1(a).Thank you for indicating a 25-foot half right-of-way.Does the property description for this parcel indicate this right-of-way or does it need to be rededicated? 8. Previous Comment 1(b).Thank you for your response. The Department will verify your response with the DOCS as it is not likely that the trees will survive what is being proposed. 9. Previous Comment 1(0.The response did not adequately address the question and the information requested has not been indicated on the plans. 10. Previous Comment 2(b).Demolition of a portion of the 24-inch pipe draining into the pond from the northeast has not been indicated on the sheet. 11. Previous Comment 3(a).Thank you for your response.Please be aware that there may be additional easement encumbering the property. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAX 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering @carmel.in.gov Mr.Brent White January 22,2008 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park-Project Review#4 Page 2 of 5 12. Previous Comment 3(c).Thank you for your response.The property owner is responsible for addressing public safety issues on private property.As such,by approval of the construction plans, the Department does not approve the guardrail indicated on the plans.If the City were responsible for addressing this particular public safety issue,the City would follow accepted INDOT guidelines or other accepted practices/guidelines as appropriate to this circumstance. 13. Previous Comment 3(e).Thank you for making the revision.The keynotes in the plan view now need to be deleted. 14. Previous Comment 3(f).Thank you for your response.The Department acknowledges that there is an existing easement but it does not encompass the entirety of the new pond.Due to the fact that drainage from other properties will utilize the proposed pond,the Department suggests that the drainage easement encompass the entire proposed pond. 15. Previous Comment 4(c).The M.E.spots and the resulting slope have not been indicated. 16. Previous Comment 4(d).As best as the Department can determine,the curb line has not been moved.Has the grading been revised to result in a shallower slope down to the property line? What is the maximum slope now? 17. Previous Comment 4(e).Per response above,it is not apparent that the storm sewers and curb line have been moved.How will the low areas being created on the property line be drained?The Department will not approve a plan that violates City Code. 18. Previous Comment 4(f).The Department understands that the site is being raised;however City Code prevents grading that creates a problem for adjacent or upstream properties. See comment above. 19. Previous Comment 4(g).Please indicate the proposed curb inlet.The Department is unclear as to why this curb inlet was not indicated on the plan set submitted for this review. 20. Previous Comment 4(k).The Department restates this comment.The pond will not be constructed with the sharp angles contour represented on the plans and less detention volume than indicated in the drainage report will be provided in the As-Built condition. 21. Previous Comment 4(1).Thank you for your response and for revising the grading.It is apparent that two"holes"are being created. Will a swale be indicated to drain these areas?The Department understands that efforts are being made to preserve the existing vegetation;but it is unlikely that the current plan is going to result in the preservation of the amount of vegetation indicated. Raising the casting of the existing structure TC=844.4 to 847 will certainly cause water to trap in the right-of-way.Is it possible to extend a pipe out of structure TC=844.4 to the toe of the proposed slope to provide positive drainage of this area of the r/w?Also,does the area at the northeast corner of the property drain into the existing end section stubbed out of structure TC=846.16?If it does,is it possible to better direct this area of the site and the right-of-way into this end section?If it does not,is it possible to drain this area into the end section? 22. Previous Comment 5(a).Please indicate the requisite information on the plans.The Department is unclear as to why this information was not indicated on the plan set submitted for this review. 23. Previous Comment 5(b).Please indicate the proposed 3:1 side slope on the cross sections. 24. Previous Comment 6(a).Thank you for adding the note.Please revise the text of the-note to read as requested. 25. Previous Comment 6(c).Due to the fact that the invert of the piping for the structure with the previous top-of-casting elevation of 840.80 is now indicated 4.6-feet higher than those elevations presented on previous reviews,the Department rescinds this request. 26. Previous Comment 7(a).Is the 3.5-foot sump necessary for water quality? 27. Previous Comment 9(d).The changes indicated in your response were not made to the plan sets we reviewed. 28. Previous Comment 9(e). Since the walk has been moved,this previous comment is no longer relevant.Refer to comment 13 of this letter related to the keynotes being correct as indicated in your response. 29. Previous Comment 10(b).Thank you for adding the requested detail.Does this detail now conflict with detail 3 and 4 on Sheet C10.1? Mr.Brent White January 22,2008 RE: Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Page 3 of 5 30. Previous Comments 1(d)and 4(q).The Department is of the opinion that the proposed spillway will not provide a benefit for the reasons outlined below.There is a history of drainage problems in the area and it is not desired to create a system that may augment the problems.The Department understands that there is very little that can be done to modify the conditions of the existing system and flood route outfall.The Department requests that the proposed spillway be deleted from the project or a smaller spillway(although it will not really function as outlined below)be installed such that the overflow is directed to the northeast through the existing clearing in the existing trees. a. The entire area west of the centerline of Washington Boulevard drains to the pond and there is no positive outfall from the spillway.The pond will simply continue to stage higher and higher until it spills over Washington Boulevard.The existing pond would be expected to function the same way. b. The top bank elevation 846.50 should never be realized since the system will overflow out of the existing piping from the north(Fireman's Insurance property)and likely cross Washington Boulevard at some point north of the site before reaching this elevation (actually before reaching the 100-year elevation indicated on the plans for the proposed pond). c. The spillway will appear incredibly imposing considering the existing drainage problems in the area and the fact that the exiting pond does not have a defined spillway. d. The proposed spillway will result in the loss of a large amount of vegetation. e. .The proposed spillway will provide no real benefit since it will never truly act as a spillway. 31. The current plan indicates grading in the existing right-of-way of Washington Boulevard for the proposed spillway.No grading can occur in the City's right-of-way with the exception of that grading necessary to maintain drainage of the right-of-way.Also,there can be no clearing of trees within the right-of-way without the approval of the Urban Forester.The Department understands that the drainage of the right-of-way in this area is not ideal but in the area of the proposed spillway,the right-of-way drains at a very shallow slope(varies from 1.3%to 3.1%by the Department calculations across the proposed spillway area)into the property and into the existing pond.Per comment 30 above,the Department is of the opinion that the spillway will serve no real function and that the grading in the right-of-way across the area of the proposed spillway should be maintained in the-current condition and not be disturbed by this project.This should have the effect of preserving more existing vegetation,even more so if the grading west of the property line is limited to that necessary to reach existing grade(rather than the top of the proposed spillway). ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED ON THIS REVIEW 1. Why is the bottom of the rip-rap of the spillway indicated below the 100-year elevation of the pond?The water will drain through the rip-rap if there is a positive discharge and will not reach the maximum WSE indicated. I do not believe there is positive discharge though. 2. Please indicate on the plans that the contractor shall uncover the existing manhole under the Pennsylvania Street path,verify the inverts and pipe sizing,raise the casting to grade and repair the path. 3. What is the existing 100-year elevation of the pond?Is the 100-year elevation being raised by the project?Does the proposed 100-year elevation result in water backing up and into the Fireman's Insurance parking lot? 4. The Department requests the installation of a safety ledge per the Storm Water Technical Standards. 5. Based on the new information related to the piping from the north on the west side of Washington Boulevard,it is apparent that the 100-year elevation of the pond will result in water backing up through the 24-inch pipe from the north/northeast,into the southerly flowing ditch on the Fireman's Insurance property and spill across Washington Boulevard.The detention volume at the maximum water surface elevation will not be realized.The detention volume shall be based on Mr.Brent White January 22,2008 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Page 4 of 5 that volume provided and contained on-site(or at least also on the Fireman's Insurance property if an agreement or easement is in place to allow this storage on the property or it is proved that the existing pond causes the same condition). 6. Thank you for indicating the guardrail adjacent to the proposed forebay.This guardrail shall be indicated outside of the 25-foot half right-of-way and any clear zone associated with Washington Boulevard if such a clear zone extends beyond the right-of-way.The Department suggests that you contact Jim Shields and Weihe Engineers to obtain specifications for a wooden guardrail system that the City considered as acceptable in satisfying the requirements of Section 302.06(4)of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual. 7. Is this existing access through the site to the Police and Fireman's Insurance property a normal crown section?If so,the current plan changes this to an inverted crown.Has this been reviewed with the Police and Fireman's Insurance property owner? 8. There are contours indicated from the bottom of the wall down to the normal pool.These contours appear to be very steep(possibly 1:1 slope). If the normal pool is offset from the wall, is it possible to create a shallower slope from the normal pool to the wall to allow safer egress from the pond area in the event that someone enters the pond area? 9. The Emergency Spillway Detail indicates an existing Top Bank elevation of 846.50.While this may be the case on the north,west and south sides of the existing pond, it is not the case on the eastern side of the existing pond. 10. Grading is indicated within the existing drainage easement across the eastern side of the site.This violates several City Codes and standards and blocks the flood route from the Fireman's Insurance property. The City cannot approve grading within this easement. 11. The final outlet note on the grading plan for the overall flood route of the property is not entirely correct.The water will flood over Washington Boulevard before it reaches 116th Street.By the proposed plan,the 100-year rain event will cause this to happen;not just the flood route in the event that the capacity of the pond is exceeded. These comments represent the Department of Engineering's fifth review of the construction plans for this project. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. 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 any 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,Board of Zoning Appeals or from other committee meetings. All bonds and Performance Guarantees must be posted prior to Engineering Department approval of construction plans. Board of Public Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals (if required)must be obtained prior to Engineering Department approval. All Performance Guarantees must be posted prior to submission of secondary plats for Board of Public Works and Safety approval. The Department reserves the right to provide additional comments based upon subsequent reviews. If you have questions,please call me at(317)571-2441. Sing - Y, . R.D .n, r.,P . Assistant V ity En.' =-r Departm:It of Engineering Mr.Brent White January 22,2008 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Page 5 of 5 Cc: Angie Conn,Department of Community Services John Duffy,Carmel Utilities Paul Pace,Cannel Utilities Greg Ilko,Crossroad Engineers Greg Hoyes,Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Richard Young,Wolfson Young Corp. Engineering File Copy Engineering Department Review/File Copy \\Apps2\user data\eng\shared\DHiII\PROJREVO8\PENNWOODPROFOFFICEPARK#5.doc Page 1 of 1 Conn,Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:48 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J Cc: Lillard, Sarah N Subject: Pennwood Professional Office Complex Dear Angie: Yesterday, I met Michael Deboy, along with his assistant Stacy Fouts, and the building owner, a Mr. Wolf, at the site of the Pennwood Office Complex at his request so that he could "show" me a couple of things. When we arrived he talked for some length about the size of the pond, and the use of the building (medical offices) and the increased need for additional parking spaces. He wanted to"work out a deal"where they could plant more plant material or larger plant material and still achieve"the spirit of the ordinance". He rolled out the current plan and asked me to show him where they could do that. So I asked him to show me the plantable areas. He pointed to areas that were drainage swales on the east perimeter that now have large mature trees. I said as he should be aware that he can not plant in a drainage easement. I think first of all, he needs to work out his drainage issues with Gary Duncan and Amanda Foley, and then I would be glad to work with him. But for my part, he should do as much as he could to preserve what was there, because there is no way to purchase trees of that size or buffering capacity. We then looked at the trees along the east perimeter and where he thought the ROW line fell. They did not have it staked. He talks like he is open to innovative ideas, but we will see when he resubmits plans. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317-571-2478 FAX: 317-571-2426 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Brewer, Scott I Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:26 PM To: 'Michael L. DeBoy' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; 'Stacey A. Fouts'; Brent A. White; Duncan, Gary R; Foley, Amanda J Subject: RE: Pennwood Office Park Attachments: image001.jpg Dear Michael: This plan does not take into account any apparent existing vegetation at all. Efforts should be made to preserve and incorporate existing trees and shrubs into the landscape plan. The redesign of the pond seems to be for the sole purpose of wiping out any trees that might have a chance to be preserved onsite, with no other explanation proposed. The trees that appear to be preserved on the plan (on the east bufferyard)are actually in the drainage way, and on another plan are marked in an area to receive permanent seeding. Has any thought been given to giving this building some LEEDs accreditation? The plan is also almost completely impervious surface except for the pond, It would be a really good parking area to make large areas pervious surface, such as pavers, possibly reducing the size of the pond and increasing the parking capability. - Larger soil volumes need to captured together (at a minimum 400 sf) in the parking lot. - No small trees in the parking lot (i.e. crabapples), but large maturing shade trees - Limit species to 15%, genus to 20%for diversity reasons (Limit maples) - Root flare to be planted at grade level - There needs to be more shade trees around the building, both for aesthetics and environmental factors. - Structural soil technology can be utilized to provide needed soil volumes. - Trees near the entrance could be saved in a group, or - Trees along the eastern property line might be saved as a group. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me by phone or email. Scott Brewer, City Forester Environmental Planner, DOCS City of Carmel, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 PH: 317-571-2478 FAX: 317-571-2426 From: Michael L. DeBoy [mailto:mld©deboyland.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:33 PM To: Brewer, Scott I Cc: Stacey A. Fouts; Colin R. Patterson; Brent A. White Subject: Pennwood Office Park Scott, I was touching base with you on the status of your review of Pennwood. If you need any further information, please let us know. Thank you in advance for your time. Michael L. DeBoy, LS it 501 S.9t'Street,Suite 100,Noblesville,IN 46060 DEBOY LW)O V€WPMENr SO M'ES Office (317)770-1801 Toll Free:(888)801-8555 Fax (317)770-1821 9/25/2007 Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:00 PM To: 'Stacey A. Fouts'; Greg Ilko; Conn, Angelina V; Foley, Amanda J; Littlejohn, David W; Brewer, Scott I; Holmes, Christine B Cc: Michael L. DeBoy; Colin R. Patterson; brentw @deboyland.com Subject: RE: Pennwood Office Park Comments will be mailed and likely emailed today. One comment that was not issued in the letter relates to the definition of Minimum Flood Protection Grade, Note 12 on Sheet C4.0. As applicable, the following items shall be used in developing the minimum flood protection grade definition for this project. The language in the manual addresses various scenarios so it would be appropriate to develop a specific definition for this site. Unless the proposed building has a basement, I would expect that 1(a), 1(b), 2(a)(i) and 2(b)(i) below would apply. Minimum Flood Protection Grades From Sections 104.02, 302.06 and 303.07 of the City of Carmel Storm Water Technical Standards Manual 1. Definitions a. Minimum Flood Protection Grade of all structures fronting a pond or open ditch shall be no less than 2 feet above any adjacent 100-year local or regional flood elevations, whichever is greater, for all windows, doors,pipe entrances, window wells, and any other structure member where floodwaters can enter a building. b. Lowest Adjacent Grade is the elevation of the lowest grade adjacent to a structure, where the soil meets the foundation around the outside of the structure (including structural members such as basement walkout, patios, decks, porches, support posts or piers, and rim of the window well. 2. Standard: Lowest Adjacent Grade a. General i. The Lowest Adjacent Grade for residential, commercial, or industrial buildings shall have two feet of freeboard above the flooding source's 100-year flood elevation under proposed conditions. b. For areas outside a Special Flood Hazards Area(SFHA) or FEMA or IDNR designated floodplain i. The Lowest Adjacent Grade for all residential, commercial, or industrial buildings adjacent to ponds shall be set a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year pond elevation or 2 feet above the emergency overflow weir elevation, whichever is higher. ii. The Lowest Adjacent Grade for all residential, commercial, or industrial buildings shall be set a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year pond elevation or 2 feet above the emergency overflow weir elevation,whichever is higher. iii. The Lowest Adjacent Grade for all residential, commercial, or industrial buildings shall be set a minimum of 2 feet above the highest noted overflow path/ponding elevation across the property frontage. iv. In addition to the Lowest Adjacent Grade requirements, any basement floor must be at least a foot above the normal water level of any wet-bottom pond. 3. Standard: Lowest Floor Elevation a. For areas within a Special Flood Hazards Area(SFHA) or FEMA or IDNR designated floodplain. b. The lowest floor elevations of all residential, commercial, or industrial buildings shall be such that 9/12/2007 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:49 AM To: 'Stacey A. Fouts' Subject: RE: Pennwood Professional Office Park Attachments: image001.jpg Yes, this makes sense. We can start the two years from the approval of the revised drawings. But first, I need a copy of the revised drawings for site plan and building elevations, please, since I cannot find the originals from a few months ago. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services - Planning &Zoning 1 Civic Square,3rd Floor City of Carmel, IN 46032 p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426 aconn @carmel.in.gov From: Stacey A. Fouts [mailto:saf @deboyland.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:44 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Lenard Wolfson; Michael L. DeBoy; Colin R. Patterson; brentw @deboyland.com Subject: Pennwood Professional Office Park Angie, As you are aware, this project was given approval by the DOCS Department appox. 6-8 months ago. But since there are have been changes and we are getting administrative approval. We would like to request/confirm that the two years we have to pull a permit start from date of approval of the revised drawings. Let me know if this email does not make since. Thanks, • ,'; Stacey Fouts , a Client Relations/Permit Processing DEVELOPMENT pEyEtarvENT. 501 S.9th Street,Suite 100,Noblesville,IN 46060 0'0; }i3O$0— , Office:(317)770-1801 Toll Free:(888)801-8555 Fax:(317)770-1821 www.deboyland.com This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential.Any unauthorized review;use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient(s),please Contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. 9/12/2007 U WA � �f� u n rn n �',,-uk `u : n -f.1 Jut C,/V�� Ni *-P ail IC II b r II ito, ,tom, CITY. #k .n,.. . EL DOcs September 11,2007 ' ' ' JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Y Mr.Brent White - DeBoy Land Development Services 501 South 9th Street,Suite 100 Noblesville,IN 46060 RE: Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Dear Mr.White: The City has received your comment letter and drawings dated June 26,2007 and drawings dated August 23,2007. The following is a review of the plans dated August 23,2007 to identify if comments issued in a letter dated September 1,2006 have been satisfactorily addressed and incorporated into the current plan set. The comments from the City review dated September 1,2006 have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: PROJECT COMMENTS 7. All paving within the existing and proposed City right-of-way shall conform to the requirements of the Department of Engineering. Please add a note to the drawings that 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 City right-of-way.Please add this note to Sheets C2.0 and C4.0. 9. ADA ramps are required at all locations where the sidewalks or asphalt paths cross the streets. The Department would expect that City standard ADA ramps are required where the ATP path crosses the existing drive. 10. Please delineate any open pavement cuts of existing pavement and curb cuts on the plan for sawcut,removal,and replacement.Will the water main connection require any lane restrictions,open pavement cuts,removal of existing curb,or removal of portions of the existing sidewalk?If so,Board of Public Works and Safety approval is required. 11. An asphalt path is required along the entire Pennsylvania Street frontage,per the Alternative Transportation Plan.Unless the existing walk is allowed to remain by the DOCS,the Alternative Transporttation Plan requires installtion of a 10-foot wide asphalt multi-use path. 12. Please add an Asphalt Path Detail that requires 1 inch HMA#11 surface on 2 inches HMA#8 binder on 5 inches#53 stone,if applicable.The Department restates this comment if the DOCS requires the installation of a multi-use path. 14. The City typically requires 1"milling with 1.5"H.A.C.#11 resurfacing for the entire width of the existing roadway across the property frontage or to the limits of the auxiliary lanes,whichever is greater.The roadway would then also need to be restriped with thermoplastic striping.Please develop a plan for the restriping. Please add a note to this plan that all striping shall be thermoplastic. Please delineate the milling and resurfacing areas with hatching on the plans and appropriate reference in the legend.The City rescinds this previous comment. 19. As the drainage design progresses,the design shall accommodate detention volume for the fully developed site and for the fully developed thoroughfare plan right-of-way for the perimeter road frontages. This requirement shall apply regardless of watershed limits. Please provide adequately DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAX 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering@carmel.in.gov Mr.Brent White September 11,2007 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Page 2 of 6 sized pipes to carry water from the street to the proposed ponds.The Department restates this comment. 20. This project is subject to the Cannel Stormwater Management Ordinance,which was adopted February 6,2006.The Department restates this comment. 22. Please provide a maintenance of traffic plan.The Department requests a maintenance of traffic plan to maintain traffic within the existing entrance and for maintaining traffic to the property served through the proposed site.Any lane restrictions of Pennsylvania Avenue for utility connections will also require a maintenance of traffic plan. 24. If it will be necessary to relocate existing utilities,the expense of such relocation shall be borne solely by the developer.If it will be necessary to relocate existing utility poles,they must be relocated to within one foot of the proposed right-of-way: 25. The Department requires that the construction drawings be developed in accordance with the City of Cannel 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 approval of the construction plans. 27. The City has adopted a new curbing policy. Please revise any notes,specifications,and details to accommodate this policy.The language of this policy must be added to a specification sheet on the plans.The Department restates this comment. 28. The City's Thoroughfare Plan requires construction of half of the improvements prescribed by the Thoroughfare Plan across the frontage. Typically,developers provide the money equal to the value of constructing these improvements to the City for deposit in the City's non-reverting Thoroughfare Plan fund.The Department restates this comment.This commitment applies to the Pennsylvania Street frontage. Based on a review of the revised sets submitted,the Department offers the following comments: 1. General Items a. The Thoroughfare Plan requires a 25-foot half right-of-way for Washington Boulevard. Please confirm the existing right-of-way.The original Trammel Crow plans indicate a 25-foot half right-of-way. b. The Alternative Transportation Plan requires a 5-foot sidewalk across the Washington Boulevard frontage.Please confirm with the DOCS if this will be required. c. What was the normal pool of the pond when the survey was completed?The City's GIS indicate an elevation of 840.9.The Trammel Crow plans and the Police and Fireman's Insurance Association Plans indicate a design normal pool elevation of 840.70. d. Why is the overflow directed due east and not northeast along the existing tree line where no clearing is required? e. Are the top casting and invert elevation of the existing manhole with a TC=840.80 accurate?The contours indicated on the plans do not support this top casting elevation. The design top casting per Police and Fireman's Insurance Association Plans is 844+/-. The design pipe inverts at this structure are 840.80 and the pipe end section at the pond indicated a design invert elevation of 840.70. f. What is the invert of the Structure with TC=846.19?The Police and Fireman's Insurance Plans indicate a top casting elevation of 843 and an invert elevation of 841.28. 2. Sheet C1.0 a. Please identify where the dewatering system to drain the pond will be discharged. b. The portion of the existing 24-inch pipe to the northeast and the 12-inch pipe to the northwest needs to be identified with a keynote.Keynote 3 would not be appropriate to use as this note indicates complete removal of the improvement.The amount of pipe to be removed should also be indicated. c. Please add a note to the plans that a right-of-way permit shall be obtained prior to the use of the existing entrance from Pennsylvania Street as a construction entrance. Mr.Brent White September 11,2007 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Page 3 of 6 3. Sheet C2.0 a. Are there any other easements encumbering the property besides the retention pond easement,drainage easement and the ingress/egress easements?The original Trammel Crow plans indicated several easements for the overall site that are not indicated on the plans.The Department is unable to ascertain if these other easements encumber the site being developed. b. There is a small encroachment of the proposed parking lot into the drainage easement. Are agreements in place with the adjacent property to the north to allow this encroachment? c. To what standard does the proposed guardrail conform?The guardrail system shall provide the same protection as an INDOT guardrail system. d. Railing or guardrail is required at the top of the proposed wall at the southern edge of the proposed parking lot. e. Keynote`B"and"D"is redundant within the limits of the existing entrance.The Department would assume that Keynote"D"would be applicable with a standard sidewalk(not an integral curb and walk)with an expansion joint at the walk/back curb interface. f. A BMP easement is noted.Does this easement need to be a drainage/detention easement also? ;. _ . .-. _ . . -..-- - -. g. Keynote"5".The Department assumes.that unless City standard ADA ramps will be utilized on-site,that two keynotes will be required to specify on-site versus right-of-way ADA ramps. h. The Department could not find Keynote"T"on the plan view. 4. Sheet C3.0 a. Please label the existing outfall pipe.The original Trammel Crow plans indicate a 12- inch pipe with a 0.0%slope from the pond to the connection with the Legal Drain at 116th Street.Please also indicate the invert elevation of the existing manhole adjacent to Pennsylvania Street where the 12-inch outfall pipe turns. b. Please indicate the existing swale between existing structure TC=846.19 and existing structure TC=840.80. c. M.E.spots are required at the property line where the proposed site connects with the existing access to the north.Please indicate the resulting slope between the property line and the first east-west drive aisle south of the property line. d. The back of curb location along the north property line does not leave adequate room to get back down to grade at the property line.Is an agreement in place to allow construction grading off of the property?If not,in some instances,there will be a 1:1 (or steeper)slope from the back of curb down to the existing grade at the property line. e. It is apparent that two undrained"holes"are being created along the north property line. f. The Department suggests that a swale be cut along the north property line.Unless an agreement is in place to allow work off of the property,this swale must be entirely on the proposed development site.If an agreement can be reached with the adjacent property owner,then the swale can be located at the property line or perhaps farther to the north. The swale should outlet to the existing swale to the east and drain into the existing end section. g. A"hole"is being created within the existing entrance along the eastern curb line,just south of the limits of construction.This area shall be properly drained. h. Please indicate the slope of the western pond bank from the eastern curb line of the existing entrance down to the normal pool. i. There is a discrepancy between the emergency spillway noted on the spillway detail and the pond information.Please revise the detail or revise the pond information on this and any other sheet that contains this information. j. The Top of Bank line on the property to the south on this sheet does not match the Top of Bank indicated on Sheet C1.0. Mr.Brent White September 11,2007 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Page 4 of 6 k. Have the drawn contours been utilized to establish pond volume?If so,the contours will not be constructed this way and the as-built pond will likely have less than the design storage volume. 1. It is apparent that the grading from the eastern limits of the proposed parking lot goes from the back edge of curb down to the existing pavement edge.The existing roadside swale needs to be maintained in this area.The Department would expect that such grading would also kill the existing trees if they are intended to be preserved. m. The original Trammel Crow plans indicate that the road drainage from the south was to have been directed into the pond.Is it possible to direct the roadside drainage from the south into the forebay? n. Does the proposed spillway block any existing roadside drainage? o. The overflow shall be directed to a swale or to the existing roadside drainage system and cannot be directed down the Washington Boulevard pavement as the current grading plan will cause. p. The parking lot is 3-4 feet above Washington Boulevard. Is it expected to cause any headlight issues with the existing homes on the east side of Washington Boulevard? q. Why is the spillway so wide?If the spillway were active,the water does not have a positive outfall in this direction.The roadside drainage from the north and the south drains to the pond and there are no culverts under Washington Boulevard.Has the point where such an overflow would cross Washington Boulevard been:established? r. Is it intended to raise the casting of the manhole withhthe TC=840.80?The current: • ••, ;:;,, ;• - . ... grading plan indicates that there will be 7.45-feet of fill placed over this manhole. s. The 24-inch pipe from the northeast apparently drains into the pond and apparently drains the property to the north.This pipe cannot be impaired or blocked.Is the intent to direct this runoff into the forebay?If so,that would be desirable,but the expected invert elevation of the pipe end after demolition based on the inverts provided on the drawing is lower than the bottom elevation of the forebay.The forebay may need to be lowered or potions of the 24-inch pipe relaid. t. The normal pool of the pond is not accurately depicted on the emergency spillway detail. u. Grading Note 6.Please add to the end of the note:"...and to City Standards within the right-of-way." 5. Sheet C3.1 a. Please provide the requisite information from Section 102.02(xi)(m)of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual to this sheet. b. Please indicate the proposed slopes of the pond bank on the cross sections. c. Please indicate the normal pool and 100-year elevations of the pond on the cross sections. d. Grading Note 6.Please add to the end of the note:"...and to City Standards within the right-of-way." 6. Sheet C4.0 a. Please add a note to this sheet that the Contractor shall obtain an approved right-of-way permit prior to commencing any work in the right-of-way. b. Are the two pipes draining into the pond from the south being modified or cut back to the proposed bank or being modified to drain above the new normal pool elevation? c. The City requests an inlet be installed in the roadside ditch on the east side of Washington Boulevard and a pipe be installed out of this structure under Washington Boulevard to discharge to the existing structure with a TC=840.80.The location of the inlet will need to be determined in the field with a representative of the City so that the existing trees on the east side can be protected to the greatest extent possible. d. The department requests that the existing structure with a TC=840.80 be reconstructed to provide 2-foot minimum cover over the pipes,the inlet casting raised and the swales draining to this inlet re-graded. If such swale re-grading will have a negative impact on the trees to be preserved,please review with this Department. Mr.Brent White September 11,2007 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Page 5 of 6 e. Please revise Utility Note 2 to require conformance with City Standards where such work is in the right-of-way. 7. Sheet C4.1 a. Is the deep sump on Structure 2 indicated on the profile the proposed installation? b. The pipe crowns are not matched. What is the impact on the HGL of the upstream pipes when the 24-inch pipe is flowing full? 8. Sheet C6.0 a. Please delete Note 3. 9. Sheet C10.0 a. Please delete Detail 10-16 and replace with new details available from the City for ADA ramps in the right-of-way. b. If the"Handicap Ramp"Detail is intended for use for all on-site ADA ramps,please ensure that the ramp meets ADA standards. c. Please update Detail 10-11 with the current detail available from the website. d. Please revise the curb joint detail to specify maximum contraction joint spacing of 10- feet and 5-foot maximum contraction joint spacing on radii. e. The Integral Curb and Walk detail cannot likely be used in the existing entrance per Keynote`B"and"D"on Sheet C2.0. • 10. Sheet C10.1 a. Please replace inlet,casting and end section details with Hamilton County Surveyor's Office standard details. •- --- b. If the storm water system is part of a Hamilton County regulated drain system,the RCP trench detail shall be replaced with the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office standard detail for RCP installations.If not,the RCP trench detail shall be replaced with the City of Cannel standard detail for RCP installations. 11. Sheet C10.2 a. Please replace manhole,inlet and sump details with Hamilton County Surveyor's Office standard details. b. The sump detail is overposted with the legend on this sheet. These comments represent the Department of Engineering's fourth review of the construction plans for this project. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. 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 any 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,Board of Zoning Appeals or from other committee meetings. All bonds and Performance Guarantees must be posted prior to Engineering Department approval of construction plans. Board of Public Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals (if required)must be obtained prior to Engineering Department approval. All Performance Guarantees must be posted prior to submission of secondary plats for Board of Public Works and Safety approval. The Department reserves the right to provide additional comments based upon subsequent reviews. If you have questions,please call me at(317)571-2441. Mr.Brent White September 11,2007 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#4 Page 6 of 6 Sincerely, ary R.D is can,Jr. '.E. Assistant I ity Engineer Department of Engineering Cc: Angie Conn,Department of Community Services John Duffy,Carmel Utilities Paul Pace,Carmel Utilities Greg Ilko,Crossroad Engineers Greg Hoyes,Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Richard Young,Wolfson Young Corp. Engineering File Copy Engineering Department Review/File Copy Page 1 of 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Michael L. DeBoy [mld @deboyland.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:46 AM To: Griffin, Matt L Cc: Stacey A. Fouts; Colin R. Patterson; Lenard @wolfsonyoung.com; ryoung @wolfsonyoung.com; Duncan, Gary R Subject: RE: Pennwood Attachments: image001.jpg Matt, I appreciate the feedback. We will work to provide that information to you as soon as possible. Please contact us with any questions or comments. Yours in Service Mike From: Griffin, Matt L [mailto:mgriffin @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:38 AM To: Michael L. DeBoy Subject: RE: Pennwood Mike, We will need to see the new details (building, materials, landscaping, layout, etc). If it meets or exceeds the quality of the approved plan, we can consider it for an administrative approval. Matthew L. Griffin, AICP Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel,IN 46032 phone:317.571.2417 fax: 317.571.2426 email:mgriffint carmel.in.00v From: Michael L. DeBoy [mailto:mld @deboyland.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:43 PM • To: Griffin, Matt L Cc: Duncan, Gary R; Colin R. Patterson; Lenard @wolfsonyoung.com; ryoung @wolfsonyoung.com; Stacey A. Fouts Subject: Pennwood Matt, We met with Gary this morning to discuss storm water detention for the Pennwood Project. Gary was good enough to give us direction in that we will provide detention for the project that meets the 1987 levels and we are able to use acceptable methods and means for this project (standard detention, underground detention, decking, etc.). After consultation with our clients we will probably enlarge the existing detention facility to the North and make adjustments on the site. These adjustments will also include making the building smaller(32,000 SF instead of 40,000 SF)changing the drive alignment for the drive and parking around the building (Please see the attached PDF file). We have attempted to hold the layout and design as original presented and approved with modifications dictated by the revised detention layout. In addition the client has proposed additional architectural 5/7/2007 ~ Page 2 of 2 enhancements to the building (more glass, reduced exterior hard building surface) and is working to provide these revisions to you for review and comment. Our question(s)to you is what is the review process for this revised, but previously publicly approved plan? Because of the reduction building size, the architectural upgrade, less asphalt and other factors, we believe that this could be done administratively and not require a new public hearing. Of course this subject to all departments and agencies reviewing and approving said revised project. Please review at your convenience and please feel free to contact us with any questions or comments. Thanks in advance. Yours in Service, 7-8 Michael L. DeBoy, LS , 501 S.9th Street,Suite 100,Noblesville,IN 46060 "OEVE- E '.S` V'itES. Office:(317)770-1801 Toll Free:(888)801-8555 Fax:(317)770-1821 Degegpers—gootneers—ISLrveyors www.deboyland.com This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain information that is confidential.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient(s),please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments. • • 5/7/2007 w w Page 1 of 1 DeVore, Laura B From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11 :56 AM To: 'Dave Coots' Subject: RE: Special Studies Committee meeting 10/3/06 Dave- I will let the appropriate people know about your request to remove your item from tonight's agenda. Thank you for letting me know. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Division of Planning & Zoning Dept. of Community Services City of Carmel p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426 aconn@carmel.in.gov From: Dave Coots [mailto:DCoots@chwlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03,200611:51 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: lenard@wolfsonyoung.com; mld@deboyland.com Subject: Special Studies Committee meeting 10/3/06 Angie, would you remove docket number 06070008DP/ADLS --Pennwood Professional Office Park from the committee agenda for this evening. We do not have completed the information the commission asked the committee to review. I have called Mark Vollbrecht to inform him of the table. We anticipate revised drawings, surrounding area photos and elevations next week to appear on the November committee agenda. Will that meeting occur on November 7,2006 which is election day or will it be rescheduled? Thank you. 10/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots@chwlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03,200611 :51 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: lenard@wolfsonyoung.com; mld@deboyland.com Subject: Special Studies Committee meeting 10/3/06 Angie, would you remove docket number 06070008DP/ADLS --Pennwood Professional Office Park from the committee agenda for this evening. We do not have completed the information the commission asked the committee to review. I have called Mark Vollbrecht to inform him of the table. We anticipate revised drawings, surrounding area photos and elevations next week to appear on the November committee agenda. Will that meeting occur on November 7,2006 which is election day or will it be rescheduled? Thank you. 10/3/2006 . . Coots, ' Rr~ . . ).. . 'heeler u y ,III ON. VI. }~\' ,II LlW I' C E. DAvis COOTS. August 11, 2006 ELIZABETH I. VAN TASSEL Laura B. DeVore Department of Community Services One Civic Square, Third Floor Cannel, IN 46032 "-.c.. , . JAMES K. WHEELER. DANIEL E. COOTS RE: Docket No. 06070008 DPIADLS Pennwood Proff!ssional Office Park Our File No. 17250. "'\'" '. b. __' /~.' ','. 'C:::: -..".' G":I /"Ti \,- - 0 l... .~ fT1 '~~ I c,' f'.;) ;:: 7> ,I. 2!"'Ti I ~.:. . """ 0 .J.. /'-. " "'~ /,,' :'0; . ' ,/. '. " . ~-\,. "'-- ',~. '."":~-~-" ',.. . ,:// JAY CURTS JAMES D. CRUM JEFFREY S. ZIPES. MATTHEW L. HINKLE RYAN H: CASSMAN LAURA E. TRULOCK. ERIN M. MALOY Dear Laura: .CERTIFIED MEDIATOR OF COUNSEL: STEVEN H. HENKE This letter is ,tb confirm that the Pennwood Professional Office Park project referenced above is being postpqiled from the August meeting to be publically heard at the Septemb~r 19,2006, meeting. We will timely submit proof of publication and ,notice to adjoining property owners as well as packets to be distributed to Plan Commission members on or before September 8, 2006, at noon, Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, COOTS, HENKE & WHEELER, P.C. ~ E. Davis Coots EDC/jc cc:Lenard H~ Wolfson Kevin J. Roberts K:\EDC\WOLFSON, LENARD\DEVORELA.wpd 255 East Carmel Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032.2689 317~844-4693 FAX: 317-573-5385 www.chwlaw.com City of Carmel Via email: kjr@deboyland.com Original by mail July 13, 2006 Kevin J. Roberts DeBoy Land Development Services 501 South 9th Street, Suite 100 Noblesville, Indiana 46060 RE: Pennwood Professional Office Park (06070008 DP/ADLS) Dear Mr. Roberts: This letter is in response to your rezoning application for the Pennwood Professional Office Park application. Comments and concerns are as follows: 1. A copy of the landscape plan approvalletter/e-mail from the Urban Forester is required prior to approval. 2. Please provide elevations indicating how the building will look from Pennsylvania Street. 3. Please provide information on lighting, and any proposed signage. Please wait to submit revised materials until after the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has met on this application. The resubmitted materials should include edits addressing the above comments along with any requirements that arise from the TAC meeting. Additional comments may be made after the requested revisions have been submitted. Sincerely, JbfA. # ~6q. -/I 0{ Christine Barton-Holmes Planning Administrator copy 06070008 DP/ADLS Pennwood Professional Office Park Page 1 ONE CMC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 September 6, 2006 Mr.Brent White Michael DeBoy Land Development Services,Inc. 501 South 9th Street, Suite 100 Noblesville,Indiana 46060 RE: Penwood Professional Office Park Dear Mr. White: The Engineering Depattuient has received your comment letter and drawings dated August 22, 2006 based upon the storm water quality review comments of July 13, 2006. These comments have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: BONDING REQUIREMENTS 1. The following bonding requirements apply to this project: Performance Guarantees An Erosion and Sediment Control Performance Guarantee is needed for this project. This performance guarantee shall be submitted before the Stormwater Management Permit will be approved. STORMWATER QUALITY REVIEW COMMENTS-CONSTRUCTION PLANS The following items of the storm water pollution prevention plan have not been satisfied: B2. Sequence describing storm water quality measure implementation relative to land disturbing activities Where is the outlet to which the pond drains? This outlet needs to be protected during construction. A horseshoe dam around the outlet would be appropriate. B6. Sediment control measures for storm sewer inlet protection There are no curb inlets shown for this project. The curb inlet protection detail should be removed. B14. Monitoring and maintenance guidelines for each proposed storm water quality measure These are on sheet 8.0,not 7.0. C4. Location,dimensions,specifications,and construction details of each storm water quality measure This detail is on 10.1,not 5.0 or 7.0. Please include the sizing calculations and selection criteria for the Stormceptor. CS. Description of maintenance guidelines for post construction storm water quality measures An O&M manual for the Stormceptor needs to be provided. 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 and specifically state any changes,including changes resulting from Plan Commission, Special Studies or other committee meetings. All bonds and performance guarantees(if required)must be posted prior to Engineering Depatttnent approval. Also,Board of Public Works and Safety approval and any other governing agency approvals(if required)must be obtained prior to Engineering Depattment approval. The Depatttuent of Engineering reserves the right to provide additional comments based on subsequent reviews. If you have questions,please contact the Engineering Department at 571-2441. Sincerely, Amanda Foley Storm Water Administrator Department of Engineering cc: Matt Griffin Project File 9s O00008 /AQLS :: ti ti :: :i: ::4 : teS II In II 11 CITY- r ` EL \PGs September 1,2006 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Mr.Kevin Roberts,P.E. DeBoy Land Development Services 501 South 9th Street,Suite 100 Noblesville,IN 46060 RE: Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#2 Dear Mr.Roberts: The City has received your drawings dated August 22,2006 based upon the City review of July 6,2006. The comments from the City review have been satisfactorily addressed with the following exceptions: PROJECT COMMENTS 1. Please label and dimension all right-of-way lines on all sheets included in the plans including the Cover Sheet. Based on additional review,the City provides additional comments: 1. The text on the Vicinity Map is difficult to read. Please revise. 2. Wherever the street name is designated"Pennsylvania Avenue"please revise to"Pennsylvania Street." 3. In the CLIENT NAME section on each sheet"Indianapolis"is misspelled. Please revise. 4. Please remove the titles for the Site Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations sheets from the Sheet List Table on the cover sheet. 5. Please remove the landscape plan from the sets of plans submitted for approval to the Department of Engineering. The Department of Engineering does not approve the landscape plan. Please renumber the subsequent sheets accordingly. 6. Any off-site easements necessary for installation of utilities and storm drainage must be secured prior to the Department of Engineering approving the drawings. 7. All paving within the existing and proposed City right-of-way shall conform to the requirements of the Department of Engineering. Please add a note to the drawings that 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 City right-of-way. 8. Please contact Crossroad Engineers to obtain drainage review checklist for consideration in developing construction plans and that design effort. 9. ADA ramps are required at all locations where the sidewalks or asphalt paths cross the streets. 10. Please delineate any curb cuts on the plan for sawcut,removal,and replacement. 11. An asphalt path is required along the entire Pennsylvania Street frontage,per the Alternative Transportation Plan. 12. Please add an Asphalt Path Detail that requires 1 inch HMA#11 surface on 2 inches HMA#8 binder on 5 inches#53 stone,if applicable. 13. Any new pavement placed in the Pennsylvania Street right-of-way for widening,for auxiliary lanes and for each entrance up to the mainline right-of-way limit shall meet the following section: DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE Civic SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAx 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering @carmel.in.gov Mr.Kevin Roberts,P.E. September 14,2006 Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#2 Page 2 of 3 1.5 inches HMA#11 surface on 2 inches HMA#8 binder on 3 inches HMA#5D base on 7 inches #53 stone on 4 inches#2 stone or match existing,whichever is greater.Please delineate this section with hatching on the plans and appropriate reference in the legend. 14. The City typically requires 1"milling with 1.5"H.A.C.#11 resurfacing for the entire width of the existing roadway across the property frontage or to the limits of the auxiliary lanes,whichever is greater.The roadway would then also need to be restriped with thermoplastic striping.Please develop a plan for the restriping. Please add a note to this plan that all striping shall be thermoplastic. Please delineate the milling and resurfacing areas with hatching on the plans and appropriate reference in the legend. 15. For sidewalk within the right-of-way,please specify the width of the sidewalks to be 5 feet. Please add the following notes to the sidewalk detail: "SPACING BETWEEN TRANSVERSE JOINTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.25 TIMES WIDTH,""SIDEWALK BUILT WITH DRIVEWAYS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 6"OR THICKNESS OF DRIVEWAY,WHICHEVER IS GREATER,"and"JOINTS SHALL BE TOOLED OR SAWED TO A DEPTH OF'A THE SIDEWALK THICKNESS." 16. Please provide the City of Carmel standard detail for straight curb. 17. For subsurface drain within the right-of-way,please add the City of Carmel subsurface drain standard and add the note"ALL SUBSURFACE DRAIN TO BE DOUBLE WALL HANCOR HI-Q OR EQUIVALENT"in the vicinity of the subsurface drain standard. 18. Please indicate dedication of the Right-of-Way prescribed by the City's 20-year Thoroughfare Plan if the existing Right-of-Way is not of sufficient width. 19. As the drainage design progresses,the design shall accommodate detention volume for the fully developed site and for the fully developed thoroughfare plan right-of-way for the perimeter road frontages. This requirement shall apply regardless of watershed limits. Please provide adequately sized pipes to carry water from the street to the proposed ponds. 20. This project is subject to the Cannel Stormwater Management Ordinance,which was adopted February 6,2006. 21. All Pennsylvania Street drainage structures and bridges across the frontage of this development must be indicated on the plans and replaced or improved by the developer to accommodate the widening,auxiliary lanes,multi-use path,and any other required improvements to the property or the roadway. 22. Please provide a maintenance of traffic plan. 23. Please include the note"THERE SHALL BE NO WATER VALVES OR MANHOLES WITHIN THE PAVEMENT,CURBS,OR SIDEWALKS,OR ASPHALT PATHS"on all appropriate sheets. 24. If it will be necessary to relocate existing utility poles,they must be relocated to within one foot of the proposed right-of-way. The expense of such relocation shall be borne by the Developer. 25. The Department requires that the construction drawings be developed in accordance with the City of Cannel 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 approval of the construction plans. 26. The City has adopted a new paving policy. Please revise any notes,specifications,and details to accommodate this policy. The language of this policy must be added to a specification sheet on the plans. 27. The City has adopted a new curbing policy. Please revise any notes,specifications,and details to accommodate this policy.The language of this policy must be added to a specification sheet on the plans. 28. The City's Thoroughfare Plan requires construction of half of the improvements prescribed by the Thoroughfare Plan across the frontage. Typically,developers provide the money equal to the value of constructing these improvements to the City for deposit in the City's non-reverting Thoroughfare Plan fund. 29. The portions of commercial driveways within the right-of-way shall be constructed of concrete and shall have a depressed curb along them to maintain drainage. 7 Mr.Kevin Roberts,P.E. September 14,2006 Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#2 Page 3 of 3 These comments represent the Department of Engineering's second review of the construction plans for this project.We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. 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 any 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,Board of Zoning Appeals or from other committee meetings. All bonds and Performance Guarantees must be posted prior to Engineering Department approval of construction plans. Board of Public Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals (if required)must be obtained prior to Engineering Department approval. All Performance Guarantees must be posted prior to submission of secondary plats for Board of Public Works and Safety approval. The Department reserves the right to provide additional comments based upon subsequent reviews. If you have questions,please call me at(317)571-2441. Sincerely, Gary R.Duman,Jr.,P.E. Assistant City Engineer Department of Engineering Enclosures Cc: Matt Griffin,Department of Community Services John Duffy,Carmel Utilities Paul Pace,Carmel Utilities Greg Ilko,Crossroad Engineers Greg Hoyes,Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Richard Young,Wolfson Young Corp. Engineering File Copy Engineering Department Review S:\DHILL\PROJREVO6\PENNWOODPROFOFFICEPARK#2 • 07/12/2006 11:39 3177769628 HAMILTON CO SURVEYOR PAGE 01/02 ill UC-Qb 7. 006E P/APc5 .21.. r. . N yOR'S opfil .r!' ''':','' /.,,,'...•7 .., j,/?._.-,',---:-.., (..=,-Th....1);--:).14;.-S-S, /1,! ,--;:76:, 67;)___(,/-\.f-.1.2'. --y.•-'-".."-■ :,) __i. r `S:� - rz �_I'r It' 'Ir�� �• .�Ii. lIr �c � I- .I {}:I, ( ` / .1 ).- •,f ,^ • 1 .i P' ^ !ice :�';,i•,1 1„4i; f -I Q., : '14 I� (..a; Ii 1�7 411 til..-a I„(%i MI \\ �46�® tevr�� ` Z s _ J 1 _- ��� (0 1� 4 r 1 IfI _ ;� - 'J\ Irv.N :' I, I` „�4Lr y 1. 6 �- t I yl.t J C�• 4.',X 'Ward, Surveyor Sine r38 'te ► 7Crntntt C. IGcrrd, . , - :- --- i R' Onc,Nnrnilfon County Manrc ��nhlcsr.fillrr, Indiana 46o6o-225v �7n.c (317)�;6.aE_f3 A �� `�11 July 12,2006 �� RV-CV-WEB 1 • DeBoy Land Development Services,Irv. gb 1 P 20 ATTN: Kevin Roberts slit_ : 501 South 9`" Street, Suite 100 Noblesville, IN 46060 VIA FACSIMILE: 770-1821 < 9 RE: Pennwood Office Park Dear Mr. Roberts: We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office on July 5,2006, 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 falls in the W,R.Fretig Regulated Drain Watershed. This watershed has an allowable release rate of 0.25 cfs per acre. 4. Please submit an indirect outlet permit for the discharge into the W.R. Fertig . Regulated Drain. The application is available on our website at • http://www.co.hann.ilton.in.us, go to Departments, Surveyor, and Forms. 5. It appears this site has detention provided but the original drainage calculations will need to be reviewed to ensure the pond is correctly built and the increased runoff will not have a detrimental impact of the surrounding property owner,i.e, raising the 100 year elevation. Please contact me for a copy of the original drainage calculations. 07/12/2006 11:39 3177769628 HAMILTON CO SURVEYOR PAGE 02/02 6. My interpretation of the original drainage calculation is that the Police and Fireman Insurance site was included in the pond detention area but no connection to that pond is shown.Do you know where they drain to and maybe your survey did not pick up a storm sewer from their site to the pond? 7. The site grading plan appears to be removing detention pond storage volume. This needs to be reviewed to ensure that no pond storage volume is lost. 8. Please note that further comments may be necessary at a later date. Should you have any questions,I can be reached at 317-776-8495. Sincerely, &al Greg Hoyes, AC Plan.Reviewer CC: Matt Griffin—Carmel DOCD Amanda Foley—Cannel Engineering Dick Hill—Cannel Engineering Mike McBride—HCBD Greg Ilko -Crossroads Engineering Wolfson Young Corp.—876-2313 7)P ' b 0008 / Des OkaCffiII°IlIlll A Carmel Pi ® ce'{Depair menf s:< C arar:2, L m .4 6032 rte... Afro_ f5' b, 41 July 14, 2006 008 Kevin Roberts DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc. 501 South 9th Street, Suite 100 Noblesville, IN 46060 RE: Plans for TAC Review for Penwood Professional Office Park Dear Mr. Roberts: I have received and reviewed the information for the above-referenced project. 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, Aideed b. -4 Michael D. Fogarty Chief of Police MDF:vb cc: Dept. of Community Services (317)571-2600 A Nationally Accredited Law°Enforcement Agency E.1317)571-2512 AOLS 1t� Rn a 001 %n'LIMP. ,� �i I s' :rum p1 Al 41141E x, :y >\\ CITY�T P FARMEL 0- July 6,2006 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Mr.Kevin Roberts,P.E. DeBoy Land Development Services 501 South 9th Street,Suite 100 Noblesville,IN 46060 RE:Pennwood Professional Office Park—Project Review#1 Dear Mr.Roberts: We have reviewed the construction plans submitted for review at the July 19,2006 Technical Advisory Committee meeting. We offer the following comments: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The project site is located within current City of Carmel Corporate Limits. 2. Jurisdictions: • Streets and Right of Way—City of Cannel(Pennsylvania Street and Washington Boulevard) • Water—City of Cannel Utilities. • Sanitary Sewers—Clay Township Regional Waste District. • Storm Sewers/Drainage—City of Carmel • Legal Drains—Hamilton County Surveyor 3. Board of Public Works and Safety Approval Requirements: • Water Availability approval from the Board is based upon the total number of buildings and the proposed use of the buildings. Reference Item#11 below for a more detailed explanation. If entryway or other internal irrigation systems utilizing Cannel water are planned with this development,they will require additional Water Availability approval from the Board and additional Water Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the size and usage of the system. • Commercial Curb Cut approval. We assume that the curb cut depicted on Pennsylvania Street is an existing and approved curb cut. However,it appears from the plans that the existing curb cut is being modified. If that is the case,Board of Public Works and Safety approval of the modified curb cut will be required. Please provide a letter to this office requesting BPWS Commercial Curb Cut approval. Provide an 8'h x 11 exhibit(or exhibits)detailing the requested curb cut(s)with all appropriate dimensional data including width,radii, accel/decel/passing blister dimensions,existing and opposing streets or drives,etc. • Temporary Construction Entrance approval. BPWS approval is required if the temporary entrance is to be located at a location other than the permanent curb cut. Submission requirements are identical as those required for commercial curb cut approval. • Any open pavement cut of either Pennsylvania Street or Washington Boulevard will require separate BPWS approval. • Any permanent improvement to be installed within dedicated right of way or dedicated easements will require a Consent to Encroach Agreement between the Owner and the City of Cannel. • Secondary Plat approval if applicable. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAx 317.571.2439 EMAIL engineering @carmel.in.gov y • Dedication of Right of Way per the requirements of the City of Cannel's 20-Year Thoroughfare Plan,either via secondary plat approval or through the Board of Public Works and Safety. Any submission to the Board will require prior approval by the Cannel Plan Commission and/or Board of Zoning Appeals and completion of review by the Cannel Technical Advisory Committee. All written requests to be placed on the Board's agenda must include the appropriate Docket Number(s)and the date(or dates)of approval by the Plan Commission and/or the Board of Zoning Appeals. 4. Technical Advisory Committee Review—Drawings submitted for approval: We request that all comments and comment letters generated by this office be answered in writing and to be accompanied by a drawing reflecting requested revisions. Final drawings will not be approved for construction until all Engineering and Utility Department issues have been resolved. The design engineer must certify all drawings submitted for final approval. All drawings are required to be submitted on 24 x 36 sheets. Please do not include landscape,architectural, mechanical,electrical,plumbing,etc. plans with the civil drawings submitted to this office for review and/or approval. This office will require a minimum of 4-sets be submitted for approval after all issues have been resolved. The drawings will be stamped and signed by the City Engineer and by Cannel Utilities. The Owner will receive 1-set which is to be maintained on the construction site at all times. Cannel Utilities will receive 1-set and the Engineering Department will retain 2-sets. If additional approved sets are desired,an additional 2-sets may be submitted for approval for a total of 6-sets. However,the additional sets must be submitted with the required 4-sets. 5. Please be advised that any installation of signs,walls, irrigation systems,etc.within dedicated right of way and/or dedicated easements will require a Consent to Encroach Agreement with the City of Carmel. This agreement,with the exception of agreements for irrigation systems,requires BPWS approval. The City Engineer may approve irrigation system agreements on behalf of the BPWS. 6. Cannel Utilities should always be provided drawings for review of water(and sanitary sewer if applicable)issues. They will provide a separate review regarding their issues. Please provide drawings of this project to: Paul Pace City of Cannel Water Utility 130 1'`Avenue SW Cannel,IN 46032 7. Cannel Utilities subscribe to"Holey Moley"who should be contacted for all water main locations. 8. We have provided copies of the following with this review: • Board of Public Works and Safety Meeting Dates and Agenda Deadlines • Commercial Project Approval Procedures • City of Cannel Usage Tables and Water Fees • Performance Release Procedure • Permit Data,Contacts,etc. These will not be re-submitted with future reviews unless requested. Please share this information with all appropriate entities to be involved in this project. BONDING REQUIREMENTS 9. Upon initial review,it appears the following bonding requirements may apply to this project: Performance Guarantees/Engineer's Estimates • Pennsylvania Street/Washington Boulevard Right of Way Improvements if applicable. This could include accel/decel lanes,passing blister,pavement widening,thermoplastic markings, stone shoulders,curbs,etc. • Right of Way Asphalt Multi-use Paths/Concrete Sidewalks. Please contact Amanda Foley,Engineering Department Storm Water Administrator,for Erosion Control 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 3-Year Maintenance Guarantee will be required. The Maintenance Guarantee amount is based upon 15% of the Performance amount for Streets and Curb&Gutters and 10%of the Performance amount for all other improvements. Performance Guarantees may be Performance/Subdivision Bonds or Irrevocable Letters of Credit. Right of Way Permit and Bonding Any work in the dedicated right of way of either Pennsylvania Street or Washington Boulevard will require an approved Right of Way Permit and a License&Permit type bond. The bond amount is determined by the number of instances of work in the right of way at$2,000.00 per instance. 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,Fred Glaser,to arrange right of way permitting and bonding. Note: Any open pavement cut within Pennsylvania Street or Washington Boulevard will require separate Board of Public Works and Safety approval. 10. We have engaged Crossroad Engineers,PC to review all drainage plans and drainage calculations submitted to this office for review. We will share Crossroad's comments as they are received. When construction plans are submitted for review for this development,please provide a set of drawings and drainage calculations directly to Crossroad. Please obtain a drainage review checklist from Crossroad Engineers. AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION FEES 11. Availability(acreage)Fees must be paid after all other Engineering and Utility Department requirements have been satisfied and prior to approval and start of construction activities. Availability Fees are based upon total platted acreage or legal description acreage for the development at the current rate of$1,010.00 per acre for Water Availability. We could not find a legal description of the property that would indicate acreage for the site. Please provide this office with a legal description that includes the project acreage. Connection Fees—we ask that when you provide this office with a letter of request for BPWS approval of Water Availability for this project,that you include a listing of the proposed buildings, their anticipated use and total square footage of each building. The current Water Connection Fee is$1,310.00 per EDU. Availability and Connection Fees are to be paid prior to the scheduling of the pre-submittal meeting with DOCS Building and Code Enforcement. EDU calculations will be based on our Equivalent User Contribution Multiplier tables,which have been included with this review. Based upon the preliminary information provided on the drawings,Water Connection Fees for this project are estimated as follows: Each of 2-Buildings— 19,920 fft2 @ 0.5 EDUs/1000 ft2(Office Classification)=9.96 EDUs @ $1,310.00 Water Connection Fee/EDU=$13,048.00 per building The Availability and Connection Fees are current as of this review but are subject to future revisions. If an irrigation system using Cannel Water is planned for this development, additional Water Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the recommendation of the Director of Carmel Utilities. PROJECT COMMENTS A seven-page Plan Certification Form has been enclosed. This form was created with the desire and intent to streamline the plan review process. We request that you please complete this form and return it to the Department of Engineering as soon as possible. Additional comments will be provided by the Department of Engineering after the Certification Form is returned. Please treat each item on the form as a requirement of the Department of Engineering. Providing a"no"or "N/A"response to any of the items does not relieve the Developer of the responsibility of meeting the requirements of the Department of Engineering. The Department of Engineering will make the final determination as to the acceptability of any"no"or"N/A"responses. 12. Please label and dimension all right of way lines on all sheets included in the plans including the Cover Sheet. These comments represent the Department of Engineering's initial review of the construction plans for this project.We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. 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 any 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,Board of Zoning Appeals or from other committee meetings. All bonds and Performance Guarantees must be posted prior to Engineering Department approval of construction plans. Board of Public Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals (if required)must be obtained prior to Engineering Department approval. All Performance Guarantees must be posted prior to submission of secondary plats for Board of Public Works and Safety approval. The Department reserves the right to provide additional comments based upon subsequent reviews and on the grading and drainage system upon receipt of drainage calculations and on the proposed construction drawings regarding grading elevations,pipe sizing and invert elevations. These comments may affect the drainage system layout as presented on these construction drawings. If you have questions,please call me at(317)571-2441. Sincerely, Nicholas J.Redden,P.E. Plan Review Coordinator Department of Engineering Enclosures Cc: Matt Griffin,Department of Community Services John Duffy,Cannel Utilities Paul Pace,Cannel Utilities Greg Ilko,Crossroad Engineers Greg Hoyes,Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Richard Young,Wolfson Young Corp. Engineering File Copy Engineering Department Review S:\DHILL\PROJRE VO6\PENNWOODPROFOFFICEPARK