Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence . D1i~e CONSTRUCTION V~DiQ 01/ ,<j1 Blair D. CamlOsino Development Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96,h Street Suite JOO Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 3/7-808-6/79 Fax 808-6797 blair. Carmosino@dukerealty.com May 14, 2003 Mr. Tom Miller 342 Fleetwood Court Carmel, IN 46032 ~ ::.I( 1"J11fCF/IIED /'Ii! 1 fj ?"'t1~ DOCS f../IIJ\) ~k~__",,'!:l Dear Tom, Thank you for your correspondence dated May 7,2003. Find enclosed information relating to the available planting area along Meridian Corners. The letter enclosed with your corres"pondence from"the County Survey directs the potential for plant material 6-7 feet east of the fence in your rear yard. The enclosed plans depict why we have not done plantings in that area and why we cannot. The area immediately adjacent to the fence is encumbered with a Telephone easement. During the construction of Meridian Corners, we explored all opportunities to enhance plantings along this corridor and found numerous encumbrances thus limiting our planting ability to what exists today. I was hopeful that your efforts had convinced the County Surveyor to allow planting closer to their structure but I see from their correspondence to you they are in the same position as they were when we reviewed opportunities for plantings back in 1999. Regarding the mound taking shape on the west side of Hamilton VI (East side of Meridian Corners). I understand that we are still shaping this mound and it is not yet complete. We still intend on building this as high as possible considering future maintenance and mowing of the mound. Should you have any further questions please call me directly. Thank you. 3~ Blair Carmosino Development Services Enclosure (1) cc: Kate Weese, J.:~r,'UObP5i~Z, Brent Stutzman, Tassy Davis, file 600 East 90th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa . .' Du~ u Blair D, Carmosino Development Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 317-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 blair. Carmosino@dukerealty.com CONSTRUCTION ~ CC--'I'IFD Rc. -,\-i'LL ,\ : :::1 n :":~ ~": i'l; (;."!\ v'..J . April 29, 2003 DOCS ~~ ~I-'--'-"" - .- ---- - .------- - . .-- Tom Miller 342 Fleetwood Court Carmel, IN 46032 Hamilton Crossing VI - Follow;:up------- (/ \ \ \, "'" ".Dd- \~1 -.------ ,/'/ ".""..... Dear Tom, -_..-~_....__. ..-"-/-' _/",r" ."..-'......-" ~ / As a follow-up to our zoning petition on the Hamilton VI, I need to get with you/from you .. __." _ _aJittle_more_.inf.ormation. --_.---~ ---- First, I am interested in getting from you the name of the person at the County Surveyor's office that you spoke with regarding the plantings on the legal drain. Hopefully you have some type of correspondence or notes that confirms your findings that they are now allowing plantings over this legal drain. Would you please forward to my attention any contact information, phone log or notes on conversations you had with the County Surveyor regarding this matter. Secondly, our lighting design is fairly complete. We are willing to meet with you on site to review the final design one last time. We can meet at your convenience on-site to review. I would ask that you contact me by phone or e-mail to arrange such a review if you are interested. Sincerely, l!:carmOSino Development Services cc: \;.~~~:PobO$ie~ Brant Kercheval, Brent Stutzman, Brad Bryce, file 600 East 96'" Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati C I evel and Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa :.ii. ,.,' i u u EL ;;'j)\ ']" ~31- _L:..C I . . ,,\ > '.,~ ~>.Y --::/ ~..f A , :;r ,/ 7 R6C'F: \f~'\ a: A!AArl IVED \>1 ~1 . 'lJ!1I 13 r: I 2003 !.", ()J DOCS /-' '/ ,,^'.I ): /~;:,,/ & /\\ // I 4 -r\~Y ]MvlES BRAINARD, MAYOR March 11, 2003 Board of Public Works and Safety One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RE: 13151 Street Right of Way Dedication/Hamilton Crossing Dear Board Members: Mr. Blair Carmosino, Development Services of the Duke Realty Corporation, has requested the Board sign the Dedication of Public Right of Way documents presented for approval. These documents dedicate additional right of way on West 13151 Street, from the right of way of U.S. 31 on the east to Meridian Comers Boulevard on the west and contiguous to the northern boundary of Duke's Hamilton Crossing Development. This dedication will result in a total dedication of 40-feet south half right of way. The current half right of way at this location is 16.5 feet. On behalf of the City of Carmel, I would like to thank Mr. Carmosino and the Duke Realty Limited Partnership for this Dedication of Right of Way. I recommend the Board accept and sign this document. Sincerely, 'n7.~ W~ M. Kate Weese, P.E. City Engineer MKW /rbh Enclosures Cc: Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS Laurence Lillig, DOCS S:\BPW03\KUKEI31 ROWDED DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING O~E CMC SQUARE, CAfu'vIEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441, FAX 317.571-2439 El'vIAIL kweese@ci.carmel.in.us Ib' .,. .~ ~ u CITY OF CARMEL ENGINEERING DEPT. Memo To: Sandy Johnson, Clerk-Treasurer's Office From: Dick Hill cc: M. Kate Weese Date: 3/12/03 Re: Board of Public and Safety Agenda Please add the following items to the Board of Public Works and Safety Agenda for the March 19, 2003 meeting: Aareements 1. Agreement for Professional Services MS Consultants Sight Distance Corrections of Gray Road M. Kate Weese City Engineer Dedications 1. Dedications of Right of Way 31st Between U.S. 31 and Meridian Comers Hamilton Crossing Blair Carmosino Duke Realty . Page 1 'I i-- I ...;.. u u 1 City of Carmel DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES January 22, 2003 Mr. Blair Carmosino Duke Construction 600 East 96th Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Hamilton Crossing Building #6 Landscape Plan J5'?-- pO{])I:J.4.~A.;( Dear Blair: Thank you for your response letter dated January 20,2003. There was only one additional comment I needed to add. In my December 17, 2002, comment letter on this project, item six states: "A graphic planting detail is needed for the plans. The detail must show planting requirements by notes and graphic drawings, including the plant material root flares (top of root crown versus top of soil ball) must be installed at grade level, bindings and the upper third of the burlap must be removed, and any other planting details required." After reviewing the latest set of plans supplied, the graphic planting detail is still not provided. This detail needs to be on the plans. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, J~g~ Scott Brewer, Urban Forester Department of Community Services CC: Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 u w City of Carmel DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES December 17, 2002 Mr. Blair Carmosino Duke Construction 600 East 96th Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Hamilton Crossing Building #6 Landscape Plan Dear Mr. Carmosino: These comments are based on review of plans received in this office, and reflect my comments made in the TAC Meeting in November 20,2002: 1. Please substitute an alternative ornamental species for the ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana). European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), hophombeam (Ostrya virginana), or yellowwood (Cladrastis kentukea) could be appropriate substitutes species. 2. Hawthorns or other species with thorns should not be planted with 10 feet of a driveway or walking path or sidewalk. 3. It does not appear that you meet the buffering requirements found in Carmel Ordinance 26.4 for the west side where the border is a thoroughfare and residential subdivision. That should be a level "D" buffer of 5 shade trees, 5 ornamental trees, and 27 shrubs (or 9 evergreens) per 100 linear feet increment. 4. Red maples (Acer rubrem) do not fair well as street or parking lot trees. Please choose a more appropriate hardwood species as an alternative. Since you already have 31 other maples on site, please choose a species outside the Acer family. 5. A species of greater mature height than Maiden grass (Mas canthus sinensis) should be chosen for around the parking garage building. Plume grass (Erianthus ravennae) is one example that would provide a better scale for the garage. A species of upright growing shrub would also work. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 ,-~ u u 6. A graphic planting detail is needed for the plans. The detail must show planting requirements by notes and graphic drawings including the plant material root flairs must be installed at grade level, bindings and the upper third of the burlap must be removed, and any other planting details required. 7. While the timing of the State of Indiana's ramp requirements is still in question, some provision needs to be made to buffer the (Phase 2) affected sections in the meantime. I would entertain a proposal for adequate "temporary" buffer ofthickly planted ornamental grasses or tall maturing native landscape shrubs that might later be transplanted when the ramps specifications from the State are known. A commitment should also be made to plant the required buffer within a certain time period if the State has decided not to move forward with plans for the ramp from US 31, I would think that two years would be adequate for reach some conclusion. Please reply to these comments by in writing and by amended plans. Please contact me at 317-571-2478 or by email atSbrewer@ci.carme1.in.us. Sincerely, S~ Scott Brewer Urban Forester, Department of Community Services CC: Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS ". . " ~., . .,.. ,". it . Duk~ Blair D. Carmosino Developmellt Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96'" Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 317-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 bIair. Carmosino@dukerealty.com u CONSTRUCTION January 20, 2003 Building 6 - Hamilton Crossing - DP/ADLS Scott Brewer Urban Planner City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Scott, We have received and reviewed your comment letter on the above referenced project dated January 7,2003. Below are responses to all comments/issues in your letter with action items noted. I will be referring to your numbering for each item. Item 1 - We have substituted the ornamental pears with the Tree Lilac (Syringa Verticulata 'Ivory Silk). We feel this is a comparable species selection for this type of application. Item 5 - We would prefer to stay with the specified maiden grass variety ('morning light'), which will continue the established theme established for the entire development. Item 7 - We have ~~mitted to Jon our commitment for landscaping of Phase 2 of the landscaping. It isc::Q.y,Ulope that a decision on this ramp will be rendered within the next 6 months and the geometry for the ramp can be defined shortly thereafter. If that were indeed the case, the timing of the decision and finalizing would work would be well with our construction schedule such that the installation of the Phase 2 landscaping would correspond with our initial landscaping. It is our desire to finish jobs as soon as possible so that we can close our books on projects, however we are not anxious to put in plantings knowing that we will see them relocated or destroyed. I am hopeful that the timing of the decisions relating to the ramp will enable this phase 2 work to occur with the initial plantings or following by one planting season. If the ramp decision lingers on well beyond our original ideas, we will work with Staff in treating this are is some fashion that is cost affective But as of right now, I believe we have a appropriate approach to this area articulated with our current submittals. Should you have any questions or require further information prior to our TAC meeting. Please feel free to call. Thank you. 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus .. , - Duk~ -2- ,'. .' CONSTRUCTION Sinc~fely, /' " /}' ! OL-~ / Blair Carmosino Development Services Enclosures Draft Landscaping Commitment Letter 1 copy of (C500) Landscape Plan Q January 20, 2003 cc: Jennifer Burk, Alan Tucker, Larry Longman, Steve Granner, Pete Harrington, Joe Rogers, Brant Kercheval, file 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa Fax u w . . CITY OF CARMEL ~ ..!. ~ I,. .. .; DePartment of Community SelVices One Civic Square Carmel, IN 4E032 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (317) 571-2426 <-///J.' /) . To: ~ L.~pt..p.~~ Fax: Id f - ~?C:P7 / From. ~ Pages: Phone: Date: /- /7- N Re: 1k~k.-4;eeA// ~ cc: I o Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply o Please Recycle f:,~tt.cu 7' /5/- 001 ....2>~A',me/V/4~ ~ /, '., ,/:? . "'l/~/ L J&,/ 'jVL~:6:r- C/2-"~-,z.~~ ~-?J) ~~ / \ V u ~ CITY OF CARMEL, , " Department of Community Services , - One Civic Square Carmel, IN 4&J32 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (317) 571-2426 Fax Phone: Re~ y;J (l t2J4P-/fi-~- . (/ o Urgent 0 For Review D P.lease Comment 0 Please Reply FrQm~0 Pages: S Date: ~- "/3--613 ,. ;?/J . /7 . To: ~/7l~ Fax: got -- r; 79'7 CC: o Please Recycle _J I '/1/ --,/1 ~h~// 9V~~J "'-""t?,b &?-O~::::""f" ~.~ 0 Duke o CONSTRUCTION Blair D. Carmosino Development Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96'h Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 317-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 blair. Carmosino@dukerealty.com January 8, 2003 Hamilton Crossing Building VI + RECFIVED JAN 9 2003 DOCS Jon Dobosiewicz (E-mail) Planning Administrator City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Jon, Find enclosed two items that I failed to leave for Staff at the Special Studies meeting last night. You will find attached a sign location plan as you requested, the revised landscape land that includes the additional plantings on the west side of the project and the site section that was presented and discussed at the Special Studies meeting last night. The sign location plan depicts the location of the ground identification signage and the tenant signage proposed for this building that conforms to the signage approvals for the Hamilton Crossing development. The latest landscape plan enclosed depicts the additional plantings on the west side of the property that were requested by the Neighbors to the west. This plan may already be a little dated by the fact that we received another correspondence from Scott Brewer on the landscaping dated January 7,2003. This plan attached does not address any issues raised in Scott letter of the ih. The site section plan was prepared to evaluate the light source visibility and the effectiveness of our screening. The fence height on this plan is incorrect. We denote an eight foot high fence and in reality it is actually only six feet. Since this plan is to scale, it is easy to derive new lines with a correct fence height sketched on the plan. Finally, the Special Studies Committee approved the project with some contingencies. One item that I may need your help with deals with the right-of-way requests for the project along Meridian Corners and 131s1 Street. I copied you on a letter address to Kate proposing a reasonable and hopefully mutually agreeable approach to these right-ot-way requests. I need to get a response to that letter prior to the Planning Commission Meeting of the 21 SI. I would appreciate any input you may have on that letter and any assistance you can provide in getting a response from the City Engineer. " Should you have any questions or require further information at this point please call me directly. Thank you. lair Carmosino Development Services Enclosures (3) 600 East 96th Street cc: Ste~~~f@4j1ner; Larry Longman, file Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa ~(;G Q Q A" " ~ City of Carmel DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES January 7, 2003 Mr. Blair Carmosino Duke Construction 600 East 96th Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 amilton Crossing Building #6 Landscape Plan RE: Dear Mr. Carmosino: I received your reply to my comment letter yesterday (January 6,2003) and would like to address several of your reply comments. I also need to say I have not received a copy of the plan revisions with the additional plantings you refer in your letter. I will need to review a copy to determine if the plan meets ordinance requirements. My additional comments are as follows: 1. Please substitute an alternative ornamental species for the ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana). European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginana), or yellowwood (Cladrastis kentukea) could be appropriate substitutes species. The State of Maryland now includes Pvrus callervana on their list of invasive species, and the National Wildlife Federation will soon follow suit. I have attached some information concerning the invasive problems with this species. Pyrus calleryana is also on the NOT RECOMMEDED species section of Carmel's Urban Forestry website (also attached. Invasive species and exotic pests have become a major problem facing the landscape industry in the United States. We can limit the scope of this problem in our area by not planting any more invasive species. 5. A species of greater mature height than Maiden grass (Mascanthus sinensis) should be chosen for around the parking garage building. Plume grass (Erianthus ravennae) is one example that would provide a better scale for the garage. A species of upright growing shrub would also work. Jon Dobosiewicz may have additional comments on the aesthetics of the structure. I felt my comments were based on aesthetics, not just screening, but you may work out this comment with Jon and any structure comments he has. 7. While the timing of the State ofIndiana's ramp requirements is still in question, some provision needs to be made to buffer the-(Phase 2),affected sections in the ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 Q o meantime. I would entertain a proposal for adequate "temporary" buffer of thickly planted ornamental grasses or tall maturing native landscape shrubs that might later be transplanted when the ramps specifications from the State are known. A commitment should also be made to plant the required buffer within a certain time period if the State has decided noUo move forward with plans for the ramp from US 31, I would think that two years would be adequate for reach some conclusion. You may work out a suitable timeline for commitment on landscape plantings for this area with Jon Dobosiewicz. Jon feels confident that a State of Indiana decision will be made in 6 to 12 months. A letter of commitment detailing the plantings that are to be installed by a selected date would be sufficient to cover my concerns. This allows Duke Construction to put off the affected plantings until a more appropriate date, but does not leave that date open-ended. Please reply to these comments by in writing and by amended plans. Please contact me at 317-571-2478 or by email atSbrewer@ci.carmel.in.us. Sincerely, Scott Brewer Urban Forester, Department of Community Services CC: Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS u Q Subject: RE: The Plague of Pears comes to town. Additions of the Bradford pear and its cultivars to the invasive species list WE NEED YOUR HELP! Montgomery County has this year planted Bradford Pear cultivars in median strips after being warned since 1999 that we were in for a "plague of pears" and given alternatives. There are hundreds just starting to flower now on along the median strips and perhaps elsewhere as well. Are there any thoughts on how we can get the Bradford Pear and its cultivars to the invasive species list before our towns and woods are taken over by it? I don't know how to stop this kind of irresponsible planting otherwise. What a horrible waste! I am going to try and get the county to remove and replace these trees but I need support and help. I have attached Craig Tufts observations and the "Plague of Pears" article again below. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. -Kathy Michels 1701 Ladd St. Silver Spring, MD 20902 ph: 301-435-6031, 649-5684 fax: 301-402-0779 Michelsk@nih.gov -----Original Message----- From: Michels, Kathleen (FIC) [SMTP:Kathleen_Michels@nih.gov] Subject: [NativePlantseast] RE: The Plague of Pears-Invasion of our wildlands Lots of requests for the Pear article so here it is. I also copied Craig Tuft's observation below. If anyone has seen Melaeuca - the comparison is frightening indeed. The important point to note is that from an invasive standpoint THE CUL TIV ARS are the problem!! I hope this helps to convince everyone to work on getting all the Pyrus calleryana (ESPECIALLY THE CUL TIVARS) out of our landscapes and wildlands. - Kathy Michels We are seeing swarms of these cultivar hybrids coming up along Rt 7 and Rt 50 in Loudoun and Fairfax Counties, VA. In some areas, stem densities of saplings remind me more of melaleuca in Florida than anything else I can think of. I will pass your note along to friends who have Arbor Day contacts. Perhaps we can help them in justifying dropping this tree. Craig Tufts, Chief Naturalist, National Wildlife Federation The CominQ PlaQue of Pears By: Bob Stewart, Area Extension Educator, University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension, Prince George's County Office While driving the Capital Beltway around Washington, D.C. this past April, I began noticing a large number of white flowering trees in the areas just off the road. For the following three weeks I continued to see these same white flowered w Q trees everywhere. They weren't dogwoods. They weren't wild cherries or shad blow Amelanchier. Finally, driving along Route 450 in Bowie, my curiosity got the better of me and I pulled off the road and had a closer look at one of these trees. It was a pear. Not the common edible pear, Pyrus communis but the ornamental pear, Pyrus calleryana. It was obvious from where these trees were growing they weren't planned plantings. These trees were coming up wild and in tremendous numbers. In the spot in Bowie, I counted over one hundred trees in a stretch of neglected ground about 100 feet long and 50 feet wide. They were so thick that in places the individual young trees grew only a foot or two apart. We seem to have a new horticultural plague on our hands in Maryland, a plague of pears. In 1918, the USDA was searching in China for improved root-stock plants for our commercial pear varieties. More than 100 pounds of Pyrus calleryana seed was brought back and sown at the USDA Plant Introduction Station in Glenn Dale, Maryland. A vigorous non-spiny seedling, found among the normally spiny Pyrus calleryana seedlings was selected out and given the name Bradford. The Bradford pear was quite a tree. It was fast growing, had dark shiny leaves and had a wonderfully formal shape. It grew easily and was adaptable to a wide range of site conditions. It wasn't troubled by bug or disease, and it was loved universally by the nursery world, landscaper, and homeowner. In 1982, the National Landscape Association voted it the second most popular tree in America, just behind the flowering crabapple. Oh yes, there was another nice thing about the Bradford pear, since most trees were identical clones, propagated by grafting, it didn't self-pollinate and didn't produce fruit. The Cinderella story of the Bradford pear ended once it was discovered that these trees begin to fall apart when they reach an age of about twenty years, right at the pinnacle of their landscape glory. The very narrow crotch angles of the erect and plentiful branches are weak, and a gusty thunderstorm or a coating of wet snow or ice will bring the branches crashing down. In an attempt to make a better Bradford there appeared a succession of new Callery pear cultivars. These had improved, or at least different, branching patterns with less chance of the branch breaking problem. Now the Bradford was not alone. There were other callery pears in the landscape to keep it company. There was the Aristocrat pear, and the Chanticleer pear, and the Redspire pear. There was also something else cross pollination among the Callery pears. Suddenly Bradford and the other pears began to produce fruit. True, the fruit was small, an inch or less in diameter, but some of the trees produced very large quantities of this small fruit. In some way, and I suspect it may be the birds, the seeds within the fruit is being disseminated far and wide and new hybrid Callery pears are popping up in every vacant lot and along every roadside throughout the area. u o Whether or not a plethora of wild, ornamental pears is a plague depends on who eventually cleans up the ground on which they are rising up like new sown grass. Mowing over an overgrown patch of weeds is one thing; removing hundreds of four and five inch caliper trees is quite another. I live down the road apiece in Southern Maryland, and the other day I was picking up trash along the county road right-of-way in front of our house. Standing straight and tall out of the long grass and ragweed plants were two broom-stick stem-sized Callery pear seedlings. The invasion is on Carmel Indiana Department of Community Services Q Q Ulmus parvifolia * - Chinese I Lacebark Elm Ulmus parvifolia * 'Dynasty' - Dynasty Chinese Elm Ulmus 'Pioneer' * - Pioneer Elm Ulmus x hollandica* 'Urban' - Urban Elm *Limit use Undesirable Street Trees: Comments: Acer negundo - Boxelder: Aggressive, Shallow roots, Weak wood Acer rubrum - Red Maple: Shallow roots, Easily damaged, Chlorotic Acer saccharinum - Silver Maple: Aggressive, Shallow roots, Weak wood Ailanthus altissima - Tree of Heaven: Seeds, Suckers, Weak wood Betula papyrifera - Paper Birch: Insects Betula pendula - Euorpean White Birch: Insects Elaeagnus angustifolia - Russian Olive: Form, Disease Fraxinus velutina glabra - Modesto Ash: Sidewalk damage problems Ginkgo bi/oba - Female - Female Ginkgo: Fruits Morus species - Mulberry: Fruits, Shallow roots Pice a or Pinus species - Spruce or Pine: Shallow roots, Low branches, Salt spray Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' - Bradford Pear: Weak branching, Low branches Populus alba - White Poplar: Suckers, Shallow roots, Weak wood Populus deltoides - Cottonwood: Weak wood, Shallow roots, Seeds Populus nigra 'Italica' - Lombardy Poplar: Insects, Disease, Short-lived Quercus palustris - Pin Oak: Soil problems, Yellowing, Low branches Salix species - Willow: Weak wood, Shallow roots Ulmus americana - American Elm: Insects, Disease http://www.ci.carme1.in.us/services/DOCS/DOCSUFCarmeITreeSuggestions.htm Page 5 of6 1/7/2003 Carmel Indiana Department of Community Services Q Page 4 of6 o Corylus colurna - Turkish Filbert Eucommia ulmoides - Hardy Rubber Tree Fagus grandifolia - American Beech Fagus sylvatica - European Beech Fraxinus americana - White Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica - Green Ash Ginkgo bi/oba - Ginkgo (male only) Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Moraine' - Moraine Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Shademaster' - Shademaster Honeylocust Gymnoclanus dioica - Kentucky Coffeetree Liriodendron tulipifera - Tuliptree Magnolia acuminata - Cucumber Magnolia Metasequoia glyptostroboides - Dawn Redwood Platanus x acerifolia 'Bloodgood' - Bloodgood London Planetree Platanus x acerifolia 'Columbia' - Columbia London Planetree Platanus x acerifolia 'Liberty' - Liberty London Planetree Quercus alba - White Oak Quercus bicolor - Swamp White Oak Quercus coccinea - Scarlet Oak Quercus macrocarpa - Bur Oak Quercus muehlenbergii - Chinkapin Oak Quercus rubra - Northern Red Oak Taxodium distichum - Bald Cypress Tilia americana 'Redmond' - Redmond Linden Tilia tomentosa - Silver Linden http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/DOCS/DOCSUFCarmeITreeSuggestions.htrn 1/7/2003 Carmel Indiana Department of Community Services Q Page 3 of6 Q Alnus cordata - Italian Alder Alnus glutinosa - European Black Alder Betula nigra - River Birch Betula nigra - River Birch Carpinus betulus - European Hornbeam Cladrastis kentukea - Yellowwood Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea Tricolor' or 'Roseo-marginata' - Tricolor Beech Gleditsia triacanthos inermis llmpcole'- Imperial Honeylocust Koelreuteria paniculata - Golden-Rain Tree Nyssa sylvatica - Sourgum / Blackgum Ostrya virginiana - Hophornbeam PhefJodendron amurense 'Macho' - Male Corktree Quercus robur 'Fastigiata' - Pyramidal English Oak Quercus robur'Skyrocket' - Skyrocket English Oak Sophora japonica - pagodatree Tifia cordata 'Corzam' - Corinthian Littleleaf Linden Tifia x ffavescens 'Glenleven' - Glenleven Hybrid Linden LARGE TREES Suitable for tree lawns at least 8 feet wide and not under wires Acer nigrum - Black Maple Acer platanoides 'Emerald Queen' - Emerald Queen Norway Maple Celtis laevigata 'All Seasons' - All Seasons Sugarberry Celtis occidentalis 'Prairie Pride' - Prairie Pride Hackberry Cercidiphyflum japonicum - Katsura Tree http://www.ci.carmeLin.us/services/DOCS/DOCSUFCarmeITreeSuggestions.htm 1/7/2003 Carmel Indiana Department of Community Services Q Page 2 of6 o Prunus virginiana 'Canada Red Select' - Canada Red Select Cherry Sorbus tianshanica 'Dwarf Crown' - Turkestan Mountain Ash Syringa reticulata 'Ivory Silk' - Ivory Silk Japanese Tree Lilac SMALL TREES with broad crowns Suitable for tree lawns at least 8 feet wide. and under wires. Acer campestre - Hedge Maple Acer ginnala - Amur Maple Acer tartarian - Tartarian Maple Amelanchier laevis 'Cumulus' - Cumulus Serviceberry Carpinus caroliniana - American Hornbeam Cereis canadensis - Redbud Chionanthus virginicus - Fringetree Comus altemifolia - Pagoda Dogwood Halesia carolina - Silverbell Maackia amurensis - Amur Maackia or Mayday Tree Malus spp. - Crabapple Varieties *: Centzam, Red Splender, Red Jewel, Van Eseltine, Zumi "See Indiana Urban Forest Council's recommended Crabapple list." Prunus virginiana 'Shubert' - Shubert Chokecherry Robinia pseuacacia 'Globehead' - Globe Locust Syringa reticulata - Japanese Tree Lilac */imit use - over planted genus MEDIUM TREES Suitable for tree lawns 6 to 8 feet wide. but not under wires. Aesculus x camea 'Briotii' - Rubyred Horsechestnut http://www.ci.carme1.in.us/services/DOCS/DOCSUFCarmelTreeSuggestions.htm 1/7/2003 Cannel Indiana Department of Community Services U Page 1 of6 (J Elf1JAJl TMENT OF i~O...lt1II'4KUJl,'I'lE L ~ .' l'V.ill~VJf.. 1. 'f,J Jl S ER VICES Urban Forestry r;'~';'~',;i~'~';] Carmel Trees Street Tree Species Recommendations List This following list is provided as a guide to the most appropriate species for street tree plantings in urban areas. There is no single perfect tree; the most successful course is to match the planting site limitations with the right tree for that spot. Each site must be evaluated and possible restrictions of tree species noted. These restrictions include rooting space, soil texture, soil pH, drainage, exposure, overhead wires and surrounding building surfaces. The trees appearing on this list have different requirements and tolerances. All of these species should do well in the urban forest environment of Carmel. Before selecting any particular species or variety, further research should be done to ensure that the site would satisfy the specific requirements of the plant. Some of the species or cultivars listed here may not be readily available at local nurseries, particularly in calipers large enough for planting in high traffic areas. Tree shelters and staking may provide limited protection. SMALL TREES with narrow crowns Suitable for tree lawns 3 to 5 feet wide. and under wires. Acer griseum - Paperbark Maple Amelanchier arborea - Shad blow Serviceberry Amelanchier x grandiflora 'Robin Hill' - Robin Hill Serviceberry Camus kousa - Kousa Dogwood Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Leprachan' - Leprachan Ash Magnolia x quinquepeta 'Galaxy' - Galaxy Magnolia Prunus serrulata 'Amanogawa' - Amanogawa Oriental Cherry http://www.ci.carme1.in.us/servicesIDOCSIDOCSUFCarmeITreeSuggestions.htm 1/7/2003 -; Dtik~ o Blair D. Carmosino Developmem Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96111 Street Suite 100 Indianapolis. IN 46240 PH: 317-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 blair. Cannosino@dukerealty.com CONSTRUCTION January 6, 2003 Hamilton Crossing - Building VI Landscape Plan Scott Brewer Urban Planner City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ Dear Scott, We have received and reviewed your comment letter on the above referenced project. Below are responses to all comments/issues raised in your letter with action items noted. Thank you for providing a letter of this nature. It assists with making sure all comments are adequately addressed. I will be referring to the numbering in your letter, which is attached for reference. Item 1 - The species we have chosen for this building reflect a continuation of the landscape theme established for the entire development and are species that we are comfortable using based on our long-term maintenance and up keep of the Hamilton Crossing development. Unless specific code requirement dictate changing of these species we prefer to leave as specified on our original application. Item 2 - This issue has been eliminated with revisions to the plans to increase screening along the west line of the property. Additional spruce plantings have been added/substituted in this location. Item 3 - The addition of the spruces on the west property line as noted above provides the additional plantings for compliance. Item 4 - The red maples (Acer rubrem) has performed well on our projects. Our 20 years plus of specifying, planting and maintaining these species has given us no reason to substitute this species. Item 5 - We would prefer to stay with the specified maiden grass variety ('morning light') which grows to a 5'.6' height as evident at our Parkwood VI building. The plantings next to the garage are not intended to "screen" the garage but rather enhance the aesthetics of the structure and the property. The appropriate visual screening of the garage is better done with the additional spruces planted on site a greater distance from the structure. 600 East 96'h Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa . o CONSTRUCTION Blair D. Carmosino Development Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96'" Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 317-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 blair. Carmosillo@dukerealty.com Item 6 - The graphic planting details will be added as requested and will show with the submission of the final plans for this project. Item 7 - Although we understand your concerns with the timeliness of the ramp and the associated plantings, we are reluctant to plant anything in this location even if it can be relocated. Although the intentions of relocating plantings in this area are good, it will be difficult to assume that a contractor performing the work on the ramp will carry through those plans. We would rather wait until a decision on this ramp is rendered. It is our understanding that a decision on the ramp is due within the next year. In the event no ramp will be located at this location, these any plantings in this area will be move northward to the 13151 Street R/W. In the event a ramp is chosen for this location, then the exact delineation of the R!W for this ramp will follow shortly behind the decision which will establish a well defined construction line that will provide us the confidence that our plantings can be installed once and begin their growth in a location that will not change. Should you have any questions or require further information please contact me directly. Sincerely, #- {lC--- Blair Carmosino Development Services cc: Jon Dobosiewicz, Steve Granner, Larry Longman, Brant Kercheval, Joe Rogers, Alan Tucker, file 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa " o 0 City of Carmel DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES December 17,2002 Mr. Blair Carmosino Duke Construction 600 East 96th Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Hamilton Crossing Building #6 Landscape Plan Dear Mr. Carmosino: These comments are based on review of plans received in this office, and reflect my comments made in the TAC Meeting in November 20,2002: 1. Please substitute an alternative ornamental species for the ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana). European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginana), or yellowwood (Cladrastis kentukea) could be appropriate substitutes species. 2. Hawthorns or other species with thorns should not be planted with 10 feet of a driveway or walking path or sidewalk. 3. It does not appear that you meet the buffering requirements found in Carmel Ordinance 26.4 for the west side where the border is a thoroughfare and residential subdivision. That should be a level "D" buffer of 5 shade trees, 5 ornamental trees, and 27 shrubs (or 9 evergreens) per 100 linear feet increment. 4. Red maples (Acer rubrem) do not fair well as street or parking lot trees. Please choose a more appropriate hardwood species as an alternative. Since you already have 31 other maples on site, please choose a species outside the Acer family. 5. A species of greater mature height than Maiden grass (Mascanthus sinensis) should be chosen for around the parking garage building. Plume grass (Erianthus ravennae) is one example that would provide a better scale for the garage. A species of upright growing shrub would also work. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417. v Q . 6. A graphic planting detail is needed for the plans. The detail must show planting requirements by notes and graphic drawings including the plant material root flairs must be installed at grade level, bindings and the upper third of the burlap must be removed, and any other planting details required. 7. While the timing of the State of Indiana's ramp requirements is still in question, some provision needs to be made to buffer the (Phase 2) affected sections in the meantime. I would entertain a proposal for adequate "temporary" buffer of thickly planted ornamental grasses or tall maturing native landscape shrubs that might later be transplanted when the ramps . specifications from the State are known. A commitment should also be made to plant the required buffer within a certain time period if the State has decided not to move forward with plans for the ramp from US 31, I would think that two years would be adequate for reach some conclusion. Please reply to these comments by in writing. and by amended plans.. Please contact me at 317-571-2478 or by email atSbrewer@ci.carmel.in.us. Scott Brewer Urban Forester, Department of Community Services CC: Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS ~ J u u CITY OF CARMEL Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 4ED32 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (317) 571-2426 Fax To~ ~ {}~ tOg/h7C?7 r. :~ r _ .t::J.-~ o Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment Fax: From. W Pages: b Date: /- c::2 -~ cc: o Please Reply o Please Recycle 4~, /b';?- DOl J/'..fmt?/l1/A'~ ~~rr.- ~7L'-jn.#6 w w CITY OF CARMEL Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 4E032 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (317) 571-2426 Fax To: t:Jlal;- Gr/nOJ/;o From: '/ Vb/] '-3 Pages: SOg~~ 797' Date: /O?- cv?- o~ Re: ~c-/~./5Ue-~' Aiif~/l4 cc: ( . v !)OCK({,~ /1/0, ///!>n/ /h/J (;-tJ.5.f"Y / /5-') -cO{ 2J? A/n&/1c~//4- oL.(/ d~~6 1 , .; u u .~ City of Carmel DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES December 17, 2002 Mr. Blair Carmosino Duke Construction 600 East 96th Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Hamilton Crossing Building #6 Landscape Plan Dear Mr. Carmosino: These comments are based on review of plans received in this office, and reflect my comments made in the TAC Meeting in November 20,2002: 1. Please substitute an alternative ornamental species for the ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana). European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginana), or yellowwood (Cladrastis kentukea) could be appropriate substitutes species. 2. Hawthorns or other species with thorns should not be planted with 10 feet of a driveway or walking path or sidewalk. 3. It does not appear that you meet the buffering requirements found in Carmel Ordinance 26.4 for the west side where the border is a thoroughfare and residential subdivision. That should be a level "D" buffer of 5 shade trees, 5 ornamental trees, and 27 shrubs (or 9 evergreens) per 100 linear feet increment. 4. Red maples (Acer rubrem) do not fair well as street or parking lot trees. Please choose a more appropriate hardwood species as an alternative. Since you already have 31 other maples on site, please choose a species outside the Acer family. 5. A species of greater mature height than Maiden grass (Mascanthus sinensis) should be chosen for around the parking garage building. Plume grass (Erianthus ravennae) is one example that would provide a better scale for the garage. A species of upright growing shrub would also work. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571.2417 I '. ...- u u :~ 6. A graphic planting detail is needed for the plans. The detail must show planting requirements by notes and graphic drawings including the plant material root flairs must be installed at grade level, bindings and the upper third ofthe burlap must be removed, and any other planting details required. 7. While the timing of the State of Indiana's ramp requirements is still in question, some provision needs to be made to buffer the (phase 2) affected sections in the meantime. I would entertain a proposal for adequate "temporary" buffer of thickly planted ornamental grasses or tall maturing native landscape shrubs that might later be transplanted when the ramps specifications from the State are known. A commitment should also be made to plant the required buffer within a certain time period ifthe State has decided not to move forward with plans for the ramp from US 31, I would think that two years would be adequate for reach some conclusion. Please reply to these comments by in writing and by amended plans. Please contact me at 317-571-2478 or by email atSbrewer@ci.carme1.in.us. Scott Brewer Urban Forester, Department of Community Services CC: Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS ~J , Duk~ Q Blair D. Carmosino Development Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96rh Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 317-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 blair. Carmosino@dukerealty.com " CONSTRUCTION Hamilton Crossing Bldg. VI - Right-of-way December 11, 2002 ~-r\:~~~!-"'L~ .' \\ ~\....,. - '-. ; " '. ,,)>- ' '--':.~ / / ~ ;("">/ ~ "(,/ '\. I'h~i' .4 .' , ....1 .l?Fr " . (--; i'1;' -...FlVrD -.- - J'-{ Ui..n ~... ---j IS'll "1.J.f .') {1.." 'I " t:~ DO~0 liJt)2 )~I \ - , ~ u r::-/ \~')':, I.;y ,.,/ ,.... ../....../ ',< ,-",-," ;.,. :/' P. E. Kate Weese City Engineer City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Kate, This is a follow up to our meeting the other day regarding right-of-way requests for the above referenced project. As discussed in our meeting, we hope to find a way to deal with these right-of-way requests in a fashion that does hinder the approvals, design and progress of this property while still providing right-of-way flexibility for the City's future plans in this area. I have attached for reference two exhibits for your reference. The large exhibit is an overlay of the proposed right-of-way ov~r the existing site plans for this building. The 11x17 exhibit is a proposed right-of-way summary. The right-of-way issues relate to the Meridian Corners frontage of the property, the 131 st Street frontage and the potential round-a-bout at the intersection of these streets. The criteria used for plotting these right-of-ways is as follows: Meridian Corners Frontage: 10 feet parallel to the existing Eastern Right-of-way of Meridian Corners along the western line of the proposed building VI site. Round-a-bout: Proposed diameter of 250 feet: (Assuming the Back of curb to back of curb diameter of the round-a-bout is 175-200 feet and the round-a-bout is centered on the intersection) 131 st Street Frontage: 35 five feet additional right-of-way paralleling 131st Street from the Round-a-bout to a point of intersection with the proposed ramp reserved right-of-way line. Dealing with the Meridian Corners right-of-way frontage first: As stated in our meeting, we object to and fail to see the need for 10 feet of additional right-of-way along this frontage. Our basis for this is the fact that the road was completed within the last 2 years to then City Standards and changes contemplated with additional right-of-way widths should have been addressed during the design or prior to the construction of the last segment of this roadway. However, with that stated, we do feel that 10 feet of 600 East 96th Street Atlanta Dallas Orlando Suite 100 Chicago Indianapolis Raleigh 1 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Cincinnati Minneapolis St. Louis 317 .808.6000 Cleveland Nashville Tampa! . www.dukerealty.com Columbus -.. '.' I , 0- Duke o December 16, 2002 CONSTRUCTION additional right-of-way on the East side of Meridian Corners could be made available at a point in time when the City has detailed plans justifying this additional taking of 10 feet. Our proposal for this frontage would be that Duke will provide, as a part of the approval of the Building VI approval, a letter, commitment or agreement indicating that Duke will grant 10 an additional feet of Right-of-way along the western boundary of the Bldg. VI site at a point in time when the City has completed plans depicting the improvements for the widening of Meridian Corners necessitating the additional 10 feet. This approach enables to the project to proceed as designed while providing the City the flexibility with this right-of-way issue. The round-a-bout right-of-way is proposed to be handled in the same manner. You can see from our large exhibit that the round-a-bout right-of-way will clip a corner of the proposed parking. We do not see this as an issue or creating the need to move this parking area today. As noted previously, this round-a-bout right-of-way is plotted on an assumed diameter. Without detailed plans, I believe we have shown the most conservative configuration of this proposed right-of-way that provides the City the best flexibility. Our other concerns with the right-of-way grant for this round-a-bout include the details surrounding the viability of a round-a-bout at this location and the jurisdiction of right of way at this location should a ramp be located at 131 st Street. The viability issue centers around the conflicting issues that a round-a-bout is desired by the City at this location but round-a-bout of this size are believe to limited in their ability to move mass volumes of traffic. The City is desirous of moving an interchange to 131 st Street but encouraging a traffic device that limits or deters the ability of the receiving road to handle traffic volumes typical of a interstate ramp. It is our opinion that a round-a-bout the size of what is planned at Meridian Corners and 131 st Street will be a negative factor in an interchange analysis at this location. The other factor of jurisdiction of this area is also in question. It is our experience that the State Transportation departments typically control the right-of-way and thus the design and maintenance of the roads over and through the interchange and ramps and to and through the first intersections of the ramps. We believe that once a decision is rendered on this ramp location, the design of the ramp, the jurisdiction, maintenance and operation by the State will extend down to and possibly through the intersection of 131st Street and Meridian Corners. We again have prepared a approach to this right-of-way request that we believe gives the City flexibility in the future to deal with design issues while still not creating a huge impact or impasse affecting this development. We again propose that Duke will provide a commitment, letter or agreement that will provide the City to receive this right-of-way as depicted on the attached exhibits at a point in time plans and details warrant the need for this right-of-way. Until such time, Duke will continue to enjoy this property and develop in a fashion as depicted on our current development plans. Finally, the right-of-way for 131 st Street is a similar issue. The thoroughfare plans for the City have evolved since the original zoning of this development. We are committed to and plan on dedicating the right-of-way necessary to comply with the original plans for 600 East 96th Street Atlanta Dallas Orlando Suite 100 Chicago Indianapolis Raleigh 2 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Cincinnati Minneapolis St. Louis 317 .808.6000 Cleveland Nashville Tampa l' www.dukerealty.com Columbus I Dtrk~ o December 16, 2002 ; CONSTRUCTION this development and that is a 40 half right-of-way. What is in question is any additional right-of-way dedications above the 40 foot half. The thoroughfare plans of the City have recently been revised to require that 13151 Street right-of-way be 150 feet total (75 foot half) from US 31 to Meridian Corners. This recent revision of the thoroughfare plan was tied to and was implemented with the right-of-way reservation areas associated with the ramp proposed at 13151 Street. (Resolution 08-07-003) It is our opinion that our development plans in this park has best respect the reservation of this right-of-way. We wish to continue that approach but not at the expense of due compensation. What we are proposing is an area of 1315t Street additional right-of-way to be dedicated, again at a point in time when warranted with detailed plans, to accommodate the total 150 feet of right-of-way as proposed on the current thoroughfare plan. Again, the uncertainties of this ramp location play into this right-of-way grant but in this case, additionally the question of jurisdiction and what will happen at this location if the ramp is not located at 13151 Street factor into the 13151 right-of-way issue. If we assume that a ramp is not located at 1315t Street, then we would assume that Carmel would still desire that 1315t somehow bridge over US 31 and 1315t Street would be classified as a secondary arterial on the thoroughfare plan. With no interchange, the right-of-way widths the secondary arterial of 90 feet would be all that would be necessary as demonstrated in other locations on the City's thoroughfare plan at interstate crossing locations. We reference a location where a secon~ary arterial crosses interstates elsewhere in the City plan that 90 foot widths are maintained and proposed; that location being the crossing of Springmill Road over 465. Even if future changes to the thoroughfare plan warrant 131 5t Street becoming a Secondary Parkway, the right-of-way requirement would only be 120 feet total (60 foot half). Combining this issue with the fact that most of the 131 5t Street right-of-way lies within the area reserved for a potential ramp and also being an area that if a ramp is built, would be under the jurisdiction of the State, we fail to see why at this point in time we should dedicate right-of-way. You will see on our attached exhibits an area of 1315t Street proposed right-of-way near the proposed of 1315t Street that we are willing to follow a similar approach to granting this right-of-way as outlined for the Meridian Corners 10 feet and the round-a-bout, but this area is proposed to be limited to that location only and not extend the entire frontage of 1315t Street due to the uncertainties of this ramp and the surrounding issues as outlined above. In summary, we are prepared to work with the City in the best way possible to reserve right-of-way necessary for the location of a ramp at 1315t Street, however we need to do this in a fashion that realizes and takes into account all the uncertainties with or without an interchange being located at 13151 Street. We feel our areas designated on the attached 11 x17 exhibit as areas of future grants is the best approach to providing the City the flexibility it needs to work through the details of the road improvements in this area while still allowing proper and entitled enjoyment of this land by Duke. 600 East 96th Street Atlanta Dallas Orlando Suite 100 Chicago Indianapolis Raleigh 3 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Cincinnati Minneapolis St. Louis 317.808.6000 Cleveland Nashville Tampa .I . www.dukerealty.com Columbus I ~,~ 0 Duke o December 16, 2002 CONSTRUCTION As you are aware, this matter is rather timely since we will be before the Planning Commission the 1 ih of December. I will offer the Duke representatives available at your convenience to discuss this matter further. Finally, our reference to future grants or dedications of the right-of-ways as references in this correspondences for the areas depicted on the attached 11 x17 exhibit means donations of these areas to the City without compensation providing the areas are as depicted on the attached. Should you have any questions, concerns, or wish to schedule a follow up meeting please call me directly. Thank you. 1~ Blair Carmosino Development Services Enclosures (3) cc: Jon Dobosiewicz, Dick Hill, Jennifer Burk, Larry Longman, Larry Gigerich, Paul Spranger, Leslie Sinnott, Steve Granner, file 600 East 96th Street Atlanta Dallas Orlando Suite 100 Chicago Indianapolis Raleigh 4 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Cincinnati Minneapolis St. Louis 317.808.6000 Cleveland Nashville Tampa! . www.dukerealty.com Columbus o u CITY OF CARMEL Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 4&X32 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (:317) 571.2426 Fax Phone: Re: ~,-t. ~t Fro~ r Pages: 3~. ~ Date: 1:< ./;;). . t?~ To: ~ t~ Fax: ?D ~. -& 791 CC= o Urgent 0 For Review 0 P.lease Comment 0 Please Reply o Please Recycle ~~ fJ1~~& I 157-D'A bP AwtmrJ(AbL.S "- .W w CIVl OF CARME~ Department of Community Services . , ... One Civic Square Cannel, IN 4S032 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (317) 571-2426 Fax TO=~~ Fax: JtJ! -~ c 797 Fro.. ~ Pages: jL/ Phone: R.'~~~^~:..J~ = . /7VtLuu /~ ~O\ ;--./ I r - . A .' &L r/ YV'k7J.1 e-..~---J ~/1 . / J b Date: /c::?- ~'_.O~ /S7-Cdl.2>/~e-/ 5.l)L.0 .... Vj ~( .~ p' ? u w City of Carmel .--:.----\l--.i~~~ /'\\ \ - -.' I I . , \. . \. .--'.'(,/::" I I ", . / ........../ , --, I.' ,I I--~ November 19 2002: , 1--\ \' .~.. \:/ Mr. Joe Rogers I . .,.':.~/. 1: \ \/ Duke Construction -._'_1.-2.....-/ 600 East 96th Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 ~ t~ECF;IJ{D . 20 ;'//111) DOCS '..~( , '/\ "', ,.../\ .-; \ 'I .~i i ,f I.. "// RE: Hamilton Crossing Building #6 - Project Review #1 Dear Mr. Rogers: The City Engineer has not reviewed the drawings or the drainage calculations submitted for this project. We reserve the right to provide additional comments upon her review: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The project site is located within current City of Carmel Corporate Limits. 2. Jurisdictions: . Streets and Curbs - Hamilton Crossing Boulevard/Private Meridian Comers Boulevard and 13151 Street/City of Carmel . Water - Indianapolis Water Company Service Area . Sanitary Sewers - Clay Township Regional Waste District Service Area . Storm Sewers/Storm Drainage - Hamilton County Surveyors Office/City of Carmel 3. Board of Public Works and Safety approval requirements: It does not appear that this project will require any Board of Public Works and Safety approvals with the possible exception of dedication of additional right of way requirements. 4. T.A.C. Review/Drawings submitted for approval: We request that all comments and comment letters generated by this office be answered in writing and be accompanied bya drawing reflecting requested revisions. Final drawings will not be approved for construction until all Engineering Department issues have been resolved. The design engineer must certify all drawings submitted for final approval. This office will require a minimum of three-sets of drawings for approval after all issues have been resolved. The drawings will be stamped as approved and will be signed by the City Engineer. The Owner will receive one-set which is to be maintained on the construction site at all times. Our Public Works Inspector will receive one-set and one-set will be maintained in the Engineering Department. PROJECT COMMENTS 5. All sheets - Meridian Crossing Boulevard should be Meridian Comers Boulevard. 6, Identify and dimension the right of way line of Meridian Comers Boulevard, Hamilton Crossing Boulevard and 13151 Street. Thoroughfare Plan requirements are 75-foot half right of way for 13151 Street and 60-foot half right of way for Meridian Comers Boulevard. 7. It does not appear that provisions have been made for a proposed round-a-bout at the intersection of Meridian Comers Boulevard and 13151 Street. 8. Identify the west right of way line of U.S. 3 I. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317(571-2400 v..; .4 ..' 'i" .,. '-.) o Mr. Joe Rogers November 19,2002 Page 2 As I have indicated, the City Engineer has not had the opportunity to review the plans or the drainage calculations. Therefore, we reserve the right to provide additional comments after she has reviewed the plans and the calculations. If you have questions, contact Kate Weese, Mike McBride or me at 571-2441. Sincerely, Dick Hill, Assistant Director Department of Engineering Cc: M. Kate Weese, City Engineer Mike McBride, Assistant City Engineer Jon Dobosiewicz, Department of Community Services Laurence Lillig, Department of Community Services Steve Cash, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office S :\PROJ REY02\HAM CROSS#5 ~~"""."...,.. , u u I/~/ 02.. k~I~~ *t \ ~ --4 v' ," - "' - --=--- __,.__.___.___.-.....O<~"""---~.~-..-~~-----'----,,--,_..~...---- """'" -~_...-.,...- t ~~/~-~---I ~5_~_~--,-"-~--~-,~_._~~~~--~-~"- --"-- --_. --- --- -~ --"'---.-.-.---.-....----'. --~~-- -~-~~-~~--~ ._._~- ~---.,.--' - -~---,~ I . ~~~-~~~~4t~~-~~~~c-~~~l)&~----- - \)PQ:,~ ~ ~-~~-"--~~"-~--------- I ~ h~.-!,II~-L.-~,,~-"~~-~---I~~~J-~~~~.-.--~= L -~~~------ ~ - -".--~----_-..-.-_._---,- L - -~........-._--=-------------~_.._- - i (, i S'OIt.. ~ ~ ----.--~--------~._~ i - 1 t- L -..-_~- --~~-""- I - ------~~ _. 1 I i l - --...-~-~._.-""~~--~----~-------_._.--.-.-- I I I I - ,...----- l.1 .3c.~ ~ Pttr.II_"D>~.s: .~ I I -- ! I I -_.-----'-'-"'""'-- i - I r I l I I ~ r l- I ----. - - ---...... ----~------..---">----..---._~_.- -.------- I -i ,~------------ ----... --.--...--.----- _.._----~- ----- I)' \ L u o l ,.~ Fahey, Joyce 0 From: Sent: To: Subject: Andy Kern [Andy.Kern@ctrwd.org] Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11 :33 AM rfarrand@ccs.k12.in.us; AKeeling@ci.carmel.in.us; CTingley@ci.carmel.in.us; DHiII@cLcarmel.in.us; DPattyn@cLcarmel.in.us; Ghoyt@ci.carmel.in.us; GStahl@ci.carmel.in.us; JDobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us; J Fahey@ci.carmel.in.us; JKendall@ci.carmel.in.us; JPFoster@ci.carmel.in.us; KHahn@ci.carmel.in.us; LLillig@ci.carmel.in.us; MFogarty@ci.carmel.in.us; M Hollibaugh@ci.carmel.in.us; MMcBride@ci.carmel.in.us; MSnyder@ci.carmel.in.us; PMorrissey@ci.carmel.in.us; PPace@ci.carmel.in.us; RHancock@ci.carmel.in.us; SBrewer@ci.carmel.in.us; slillard@ci.carmeLin.us; W Akers@ci.carmel.in.us; Dean.Groves@Cinergy.COM; sprater@cmsenergy.com; sjb@co.hamilton.in.us; stc@co.hamilton.in.us; Jay Alley; john- south@iaswcd.org; jeffry.farmer@timewarnercable.com; tskolak@usps.gov; CShupperd@vectren.com Re: Change in Agenda for November 20th Hello everyone: Following are CTRWD comments on the agenda items effecting our sanitary sewers or service area for the November 20, 2002 TAC meeting. Please feel free to copy and distribute this email or attach it to your meeting minutes. We have also created a new page on our website linked to the "Construction" page where we have posted all CTRWD TAC comments from 2001 and 2002 meetings held to date. We will continue to add to this page every month so please let everyone know they can view our comments online now too. prooosed Wireless Communication Towers-Crooked Stick Golf Course Soecial Exception Application The District has not received any plans for this proposal. Building permits should NOT be issued unless the District has issued connection permits. Hamilton Crossing Building #6 (Development Plan) The plans that the District received are in accordance with the District specifications. Building permits should NOT be issued unless the District has issued connection permits. Pennsylvania and 122nd Street-Northeast Corner (Rezone) The District has no comments on the rezone unless it affects the sanitary sewers in this development. Lakeside Park, Section Two (Secondary plat and Construction Plans) The plans received by the District do not contain the most recent version of the District's Sanitary Sewer Specifications. Revised plans need to be submitted. A preconstruct ion meeting will need to be held before the construction of the proposed sanitary sewers. Building permits should NOT be issued unless the District has issued connection permits. Please remind all TAC applicants to provide plans directly to the District at our main office address in care of Andy Kern at: 10701 N. College Ave., Suite A, Indianapolis, IN 46280-1098. If there are questions about the District's requirements, then please refer to our website for current information on the District's construction specification and permit standards. We are a member of the rupps underground locate network so call 1-800-382-5544 before you dig! Please feel free to contact Jay or me if you have questions or need additional information. Thanks! 1 ~ "" Andy Kern, project special:W Clay Township Regional Waste District Hamilton County, IN, USA ,~ http://www.ctrwd.org/ ; 317-844-9200 (phone) 317-844-9203 (fax) o >>> "Dobosiewicz, Jon C" <JDobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us> 11/12/02 12:07PM >>> To all, The item scheduled for 11am is called off. The l1am spot will be filled with the following item which was inadvertently left off the agenda. 11:00 a.m. Carmel City Center Parcel 2B (Development Plan) The applicant is proposing office and retail The site is located at the southwest corner of 3rd Avenue Drive. Filed by Greg Snelling of CSO. SW and buildings. City Center Thanks, Jon See revised agenda attached. ' <<TAC2002-1120.rtf>> 2 ~ \ u u HAMIL TON VI The building and parking structure location is zoned B-5. Approximately the east half of the east parking area is zoned B-2. All of the site is within the US 31 Highway Corridor Overlay Zone. B-5 Business District Ree:ulations: Two loading berths are required which must be 12 feet by 45 feet. Accessory Buildine:s and Uses Ree:ulations: The parking garage is considered an accessory building. Accessory buildings are limited to a maximum height of 25 feet. The parapet and the rooftop stairway access structure heights are exempted by Section 26.1.4. So, based on the definition of Building Height, the height ofthe garage will be measured to the highest point ofthe top parking deck. If this exceeds 25 feet, a variance will be required. An accessory building must be located a minimum of25 feet behind the front line of the principal building (along all street frontages). This would require that the parking garage be located to the east of Hamilton VI. The conceptual site plan shows non-conformance along the Meridian Crossing Boulevard and 131 st Street frontages. This can perhaps be resolved for the 131 st street frontage by moving the garage southward, but a variance will be required for the Meridian Crossing Boulevard frontage. US Hie:hwav 31 Corridor Overlay Zone Ree:ulations: Any accessory building shall have on all sides the same building proportions, architectural features, construction materials, and in general be architecturally compatible with the Principal Building with which it is associated. Above grade, structured parking facilities shall have on all sides architectural features that are compatible with the principal building with which it is associated. The Commission may grant a waiver of 35% of any dimensional or quantitative standard. There is a build-to-line along Meridian Comers Boulevard of20 feet. This is for the principal building. Thus, a variance will be required. The maximum building height for all buildings along Meridian Comers Boulevard is 55 feet [assumes Section 23B.8.3.B(3) controls over 23B.8.3.B(1)]. Thus, a variance will be required (or a waiver can be granted up to 74.25 feet). u u Since the parking garage is an accessory building, it will not have to comply with the Golden Section, eight comers, and three building materials requirements. Direct, articulated pedestrian access must be provided from the street to the primary entrance of Hamilton VI (don't know if that also includes 131st Street and Meridian Comers Boulevard). Connection must be made to the pedestrian/bicycle path on Hamilton V and somehow connecting to the Hamilton I site. The service bay must be screened from 131 st Street using masonry wall(s), plant material, or a combination thereof. Light standards may not exceed a height of25 feet (or a waiver can be granted up to 37.5 feet). #49148 ;> , Du~e u Blair D. Carmosino Development Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96'h Street Suite JOO Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 317-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 blair. Carmosino@dukerealty.com ;r"5 CONSTRUCTION November 12, 2002 Hamilton VI TAC Comments VIA FAX 571-2615, ORIGINAL TO BE SUBMITTED AT TAC <~f\ Ci}' ~>,>,,:v frj'J '" " ~ cs:~'<J \; f".-,,";~ ~ &- ' ~.. ~ I ..,.,,-.:::::::' ~\ 'r--~ -'0 (;..( ,"}-.!=-::> t'l 'I. I c...)......; <:.:5 :,,--:-: I ..-, ~ ~. . ~.;;~. ~~, ~ ;::1.1 ",-.\ _~...:J 'j' "/>., ~ /....... \/../.~ - - I /:; \~ "0'j\~ ..<\,./.11 "..-"',;,..~f I ..~ ",4' \ '<::'~.J..rlf3 ! TTS \"Y' ---y"~...--:;"--- Gary Holt Fire Marshall City of Carmel Two Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Gary, Thank you for your comments on the above referenced well in advance of the TAC meeting. We greatly appreciate receiving these comments in a timely fashion so that we can have sufficient time to address each comment. Below are our responses to you comments. We have used the item numbers of your correspondence and attached a copy of your comment letter for reference. L Yes, the building will be sprinklered. The fire department connection is anticipated to be located adjacent the water room (near the trash enclosure) on the north side of the building. Contingent on wall space requirements for domestic and fire water assemblies, we are attempting to satisfy your request for exterior access to this room. 2. We are currently finalizing the plans showing the height of the parapet at the fifth floor. The final height of the elevator penthouse and screen wall will be dictated by the height of the Cooling Tower, which is an unknown at this time. We will forward plans with the parapet elevations that are known. 3. 4, We anticipate providing a dry standpipe system for the parking garage. The garage is open air and will not have subterranean levels. S. The building does not have a basement. 6. We will be providing a fire department Knox Box. Our assumption for the "main entrance" as it relates to the fire department, will be the corridor adjacent to the water room on the north side of the building. 7. We will put the alarm control panel adjacent to the water room at the north entrance. 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa ;. , Dt~e Q BLair D. Carmosiflo DeveLopmeflt Services Duke ReaLty Corporatiofl 600 E. 96th Street Suite 100 IfldiaflapoLis, IN 46240 PH: 317.808.6179 Fax 808.6797 bLair. Carmosiflo@dukereaLty.com CONSTRUCTION 8. We will provide the hydrant at the northwest corner of the parking garage if we are allowed to make an additional tap on the Iwe main. We do not wish to provide an additional hydrant at the easternmost island between the buildings. To do so, we will be required to install 375' of additional underground main from our service lead-in and cross under the storm sewer system. The other alternative is to provide 275' of additional underground main if we are permitted to make an additional tap along Hamilton Crossing Boulevard. We feel these costs are not merited to install a single hydrant. Please provide us with the justification to help us understand the need or review other cost effective alternatives. Meanwhile we will explore-the possibility of additional taps from the Water Company. The construction drawings for the project will incorporate changes necessary to address the comments as noted above. We will be issuing revised construction documents once we get full input from the Planning Commission and of course prior to receiving our ILP. In the mean time we would like to explore with you alternatives or options to adequately address item 8 noted above. Should you have any further questions or comments please feel free to contact me directly. Thank you. ~O~ Blair Carmosino Development Services cc: ~~~~~R~~~.1}-arry Longman, Steve Granner, Alan Tucker, Joe Rogers, file 600 East 90th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa .t' u o City of Carmel Fire Department Headquarters 2 CIVIC SQUARB CARMEL; INDIANA 46032- 317/571.2600 Joe Rogers. Woolpert, LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive Indianapolis, IN 46268-4192 RE: Hamilton Crossing 8 LETTER OF APPROVAL The undersigned has feviewed the proposed plans for Hamilton Crossing 6 and has approved the plans subject to the following: 1. Is the building to be sprinklered building? If so we will need a meeting to discuss the location of the fire department connection. If the building Is sprlnkJered, we are requesting an exterior access door that leads directly to the riser room. 2. Our office Is requesting a set of plans detailing the height of the building and parking structure. 3. Is the parking structure equipped with a dry standpipe for fire department use? Will the parking garage have subterranean level{s)? 4. Will this stNcture have a basement? 5. We are requesting a Knox box. which will be located at the main entrance for fire department emergency access. 6. Our offlee Is requesting that the fire alarm control panel or remote enunciator panel be placed at the main entrance. 7. Our office Is requesting two additional fire hydrants to be located at the northwest comer of the parking garage drive at the garage drive entrance and far east par1<ing Island off the street dividing bldg. 6 and bldg. 6 Please respond to the above noted condltion(s) in writing and submit to our office prior to the scheduled TechnIcal Advisory Meeting for thIs project Date: November 4. 2002 By: Gary Hoyt, FIre Marshal Carmel Fire Department FIle Prwe.otlon Sa_ Uwt end Pqen, ... c "j 0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW AND COMMENT Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District 1108 South 9th Street, Noblesville IN 46060 Ph- 317-773-1432 or Email at john-south@iaswcd.org . PROJECT NAME: Hamilton Crossing Building #6 SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Joe Rogers W oolpert 7140 Waldemar Drive Indianapolis, IN 46268-4192' Duke Construction 600 East 96th Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Ph: 317-808-6000 REVIEWED BY: John B. South P .E. Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE: Plan Review Date: 11/11/02 Acreage: 7 ac LOCATION: South side of 131 st Street, just west of US3 I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sec. 26 TOWNSHIP: 18N RANGE: 3E CIVIL TOWNSHIP: Clay SOIL SURVEY MAP SHEET: 50 The technical review and comments are intended to evaluate the completeness of the erosion and sediment control plan for the project. The erosion and sediment control plan submitted was not reviewedfor the adequacy of the engineering design. All practices included in the plan, as well as those recommended in the comments should be evaluated as to their feasibility by a qualified individual with structural practices designed by a qualified engineer. The plan has not been reviewedfor local, state, or federal permits that may be required to proceed with this project. Additional information, including design calculations may be requested to fUrther evaluate the erosion and sediment control plan. The erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan: X Satisfies the minimum requirements and intent of 3271AC 15-5 (Rule 5). Notification will be forwarded to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. X Refer to the comments section for additional information. Does not satisfy the minimum requirements and intent of 3271AC 15-5 (Rule 5); deficiencies are noted in the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted: Proper implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan and inspections of the construction site by the developer or a representative are necessary to minimize off-site sedimentation. The developer should be aware that unforeseen construction activities and weather conditions may effect the performance of a practice or the erosion and sediment control plan. The plan must be aflexible document, with provisions to modifY or substitute practices as necessary. Revised 4 / 97 ~ PROJECT: Hamilton croQng Building #6 u Page 2 of3 Yes No x IA x 1B x IC x ID x IE Yes No x 2A x 2B x 2C x 2D x 2E x 2F x 2G x x 2H 21 Yes x No 3A x 3B Yes No x See comment4A x 4B x 4C x 4D x 4E x 4F x x x x x 4G 4H 41 4J 4K ARE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ON THE PLANS? (All Plans Must Include Appropriate Legends, Scales, and North Arrow) (Items that are Not Applicable to this Project are designated by NA) PROJECT INFORMATION Project Location Map (Show project in relation to other areas of the county) Narrative Describing the Nature and Purpose of the Project Location of Planned and/or Existing Roads, Utilities, Structures, Highways, etc. Lot and/or Building Locations Landuse of Adjacent Areas (Show the Entire Upstream Watershed and Adjacent Areas Within 500 Feet of the Property Lines) TOPOGRAPHIC, DRAINAGE, AND GENERAL SITE FEATURES Existing Vegetation (IdentifY and Delineate) Location and Name of All Wetlands, Lakes and Water Courses On and Adjacent to the Site 100 Year Floodplains, Floodway Fringes, and Floodways (Note if None) Soils Information (If hydric soils are present, it is the responsibility of the owner/developer to investigate the existence of wetlands and to obtain permits from the appropriate government agencies.) Existing and Planned Contours at an Interval Appropriate to Indicate Drainage Patterns Locations of Specific Points Where Stormwater Discharge Will Leave the Site Identify All Receiving Waters {If Discharge is to a Separate Municipal Storm Sewer, IdentifY the Name of the Municipal Operator and the Ultimate Receiving Water) Potential Areas Where Storm water May Enter Groundwater (Note if None) Location of Storm water System (Include Culverts, Storm Sewers, Channels. and Swales) LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES Location and Approximate Dimensions of All Disturbed Areas [i.e., Construction Limits] (Areas Where Vegetative Cover Will Be Preserved Should be Clearly Designated) Soil Stockpiles and or Borrow Areas (Show Locations or Note if None) EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES Sequence of When Each Measure Will Be Implemented (Relative to Earth Disturbing Activities) Monitoring and Maintenance Guidelines for Each Measure Perimeter Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) Temporary Seeding (Specifications; Including Seed Mix, Fertilizer, Lime, and Mulch Rates) Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) Permanent Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) Storm Drain Inlet Protection (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) Stormwater Outlet Protection (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) Stable Construction Entrance (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) Erosion and Sediment Control on Individual Building Lots (Specifications) Permanent Seeding (Specifications; Including Seed Mix, Fertilizer, Lime, and Mulch Rates) Revised 4 / 97 v , EROQN AND SEDIMENT CONTROQLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT: Hamilton Crossing Building #6 Page 3 of 3 Note: All erosion and sediment control measures shown on the plans and referenced in this review must meet the design criteria, standards, and specifications outlined in the "Indiana Handbookfor Erosion Control in Developing Areas" from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil Conservation or similar Guidance Documents. Item 4A- If you can make it clear on the plans that the perimeter ofthe site will need to be temporary seeded when the earth work is completed. Builders like to wait till the sidewalk and trees are planted at the end of the project before they will seed these areas. Cc: Carmel DOCS Ha. Co. Surveyor IDEM File u ~='c.n~"',andIB Eastsrn ~:;'ip8!~np-(;o. [....;:1.. fir' (""',"f)'"',',u F'1 "j'\-I+I'p<O. U . h...;;:) . .) ............'t I a 'J . C.\.. j l. '....... involved i t~)rOject ,.~ - LL-ll-O^ R~'{ ,~ ,~ ,- . -- -- -. -, ---..-, !I" (';... II ( -, CARMEUCLA Y TECIINICALAnVISORY COMMITTEE AGE~A DOCS Date: November 20, 2002 Place: Department of Community Services Conference Room 3rd Floor - Carmel City Hall 9'00 ~ m 9,20 H m 9'~OH m 10"0 Hm 10'40 H m 11 '00 H m 11 "0 H m l1'~O pm Proposed Wireless Communication Towers - Crooked Stick Golf Course Special Exception Application I The applicant seeks approval to construct three wireless communication towers. The site is located between Ditch Road and Towne Road, north of 106th Street. ,<.) C- Filed by Joseph M. Scirnia of Baker & Daniels for AT & T. Riverview Medical Park PUD (Rezone) The applicant seeks to rezone 11.09 acres to a Planned Unit Development district. 1 The site is zoned S-1 (Residential). C- Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. Hamilton Crossing Building #6 (Development Plan) The applicant seeks approval to construct an office building. The site is generally 4 located on the south side of 131 st St. between U. S. 31 and Meridian Comers Blvd. 0- Filed by Blair D. Carmosino of Duke Realty Corporation. Pennsylvania and 12200 Street - Northeast Comer (Rezone) The applicant seeks to rezone 28.378 acres zoned R-l (Residential) and M-3 4 (Manufacturing) to B-6 (Business). ; The site is located at the northeast comer of 122m Street and Pennsylvania Road. Filed by Blair D. Carmosino of Duke Realty Corporation. Lakeside Park, Section nm (Secondary Plat and Construction Plans) The site is located on the southwest comer of West 141st Street and Towne Road. ~ The site is zoned S-I/Residence - Very Low Density. ' c.. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth & Associates. Village of Mount Carmel, Section 10 (primary Plat) ~ The applicant is proposing a 5-lot subdivision. The site is located at the southwest L comer of 146th Street and Village Drive. Filed by Chuck Wright of the Elliot Wright Group, LLC. Clay Terrace (preliminary Development Plan) The applicant seeks approval of a preliminary development plan. The site is located l,f-. at the southwest comer of US Highway 31 and East 146th Street. "f- Filed by Jeff Clayton of American Consulting, Inc. for the Lauth Property Group. Cannel High School Campus (Plat Vacation, r-o-w vacation and grant) 4- The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision, vacate and ' dedicate new right-of-way in order to modify the Carmel High School Campus. Filed by Allen Cradler ofFanningIHowey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. . 0 Duke o November 6, 2002 ~~~ q,\Y ! ~~;; y W f " ao RECEIVED NOV 8 2002 DOCS Blair D. Carmosino Development Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 317-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 blair. Carmosino@dukerealty.com CONSTRUCTION Building 6 - Hamilton Crossing - DP/A Jon Dobosiewicz Planning Administrator City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Jon, We received your correspondence dated October 24, 2002 relating to the above referenced. This correspondence shall respond to each item raised in your letter. I will be referring to your numbering for each item. 1. 131 sl Street a. 75 foot half R/W along 131 sl Street proposed. It is apparent from review of the thoroughfare plan that this 75 foot half right-of-way is in anticipation of the ramp being located at 131s1 Street with the upgrade of US 31 to interstate status. The prior thoroughfare plan width on 131s1 Street was 80 foot total (40 half) and is the width that this park was planned around. We do not argue the need for sufficient right-of-way in the event and when the ramp is built, however we do wish to take advantage of the property until such a time. We would propose that Duke provide a letter of understanding or an agreement that would essentially agree to the dedication of this land at such time the plans for the ramp and the 131 sl Street improvements are approved through all governing agencies. With this agreement, we would concede any compensation for improvements made within this area and furthermore we would limit any improvements to this area to parking and no permanent structures. We would not concede compensation for any land itself beyond the 40-foot half right-of-way originally planned. Our proposal is based on two critical issues relating to the 75-foot half right-of-way purposed. First being the timing of the proposed upgrade of US 31. Best estimates show the upgrade commencing in the year 2010. We have essentially seven years of enjoyment of this property before the best estimates for commencement of construction. We also have a tenant with a specific parking requirement that requires this area for parking. Secondly, if the ramp is not located at 131 sl Street, we have yet to see Carmel plans for 131 sl Street. Currently, as you well know, 131 sl does not cross US 31. If the interchange does not go at 131 s., will the State build a bridge with their funds with the upgrade where a crossing does not currently exist? Will Carmel fund a bridge crossing of 131 sl Street or will 131 sl terminate? Obviously, if it terminates, then the 75-foot half right- of-way is not necessary. If a bridge over 31 occurs, then it seems that 120 foot of right- of-way would be more appropriate to match the thoroughfare plan for the portions of 131 sl Street away from the proposed ramp area. I would request that staff strongly consider our proposal for a letter of agreement as noted prior. It seems with the entire complex issues surrounding the US 31 upgrade; this agreement approach would provide Carmel the ability to have access to the right-of-way when/if needed without causing delays with the development in the corridor. 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa , 0 Duke o -2- November 8, 2002 CONSTRUCTION b. The Parking spaces within the proposed 75-foot half right-of-way will stay in place until the above matter is resolved. 2. Meridian Corners Boulevard: a. No further Right-of-way will be granted for Meridian Corners. We recently completed this road as a part of our original zoning commitment for this property. We designed and built the road to the then Carmel standards. The road was approved and accepted by Carmel to those standards. The road is improved to four lanes with a median and meets thoroughfare standards as constructed. b. So noted, plans will be changed to read Meridian Corners Blvd. c. Refer to item 2a. 3. So noted. The area referenced is clearly depicted on the plans as a future parking area and not part of this approval. 4. a., b., and c. Variances so noted. 5. Architectural Design Requirements a. The elevation of the penthouse is drawn at the height we would like to build it at, however the Mechanical Engineering has not yet been completed. There is a chance we may have to build the penthouse a little taller when the actual cooling tower is selected in order to assure proper screening. Therefore we dimensioned the penthouse at ta worse case scenario. b. We are adding to the appearance of the stairway access. Revised elevations are enclosed. c. The loading docks are adequately screened. This proposed architectural screening for the docks is similar to the Parkwood 6 (600 E. 96th Street) facility. The dock is a scissor lift, so when not in use it will be flush with the pavement. The architectural features of the building are continued around the dock and dumpster area. Off the building, you can see that we have landscaping planned between 131st and the north face of the building. We revised the landscaping to install some of the phase 2 landscaping with the initial construction to assist with screening this dock area. I have enclosed for reference a photo of the Parkwood 6 dock facility for an example of this type of dock and dumpster treatment. d. Golden Section exhibits enclosed for review. e. An illustration of the glass areas on the facades enclosed for review. 6. Landscaping; 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa , 0 Duke o -3- November 8, 2002 CONSTRUCTION a. Written commitment (draft form) is enclosed for review and approval and will be executed with ADLS approval. b. Please clarify where matter is addressed in the code. Is Section 23B.1 0.2,C(2) being applied? We were working under the discussions we had when Steve and I met with you and Laurence and I thought we determined that if we connected the garage to the office building, then the garage was also a part of the "building" and if we did not connect it, then the building would be treated as an accessory structure. We do not recall a 10-foot landscape strip being required around accessory structures. Has not Section 23.B.1 0.2, C been interpreted to apply to the "principal" buildings only? c. A cut sheet of light fixtures was included with the original submittal. Enclosed with this reference is a copy of that material. Should you need more information please contact me directly. 7. The letter and the plans for the project have been forwarded to InDOT as required. You should be in receipt of a copy of this letter. If not, please call and I will fax a copy to your attention. Please review the enclosed material. We will be happy to discuss further at our TAC meeting of November 20th or at a special meeting outside of TAC if necessary. We will be further supplementing our application with the required renderings next week. We originally hoped to have them completed for inclusion with this correspondence but we had difficulties with the colors and printing of the renderings. Please look forward to submission of the renderings next week. Should you have any questions or require further information prior to our TAC meeting. Please feel free to call. Thank you. #~ Blair Carmosino Development Services Enclosures Draft Landscaping Commitment Letter 1 copy of Golden Section Exhibit which includes glass coverage calculations Digital Photos of Parkwood 6 Loading Dock (2 Views) Renderings of buildings (3 views) cc: Jennifer Burk, Alan Tucker, Larry Longman, Steve Granner, Pete Harrington, Joe Rogers, Brant Kercheval, file 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa Page 1 of2 Hollibaugh, Mike P From: Weese, Kate K Sent: Monday, November 04,2002 11 :35 AM To: 'M.D. Marrs' ,.\ Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: Parks @ Springmill Meredith: I can certainly look into improvements to the striping at this intersection, but in order to go further with another more permanent type of improvement (for example to make it a 4-way stop or a signalized intersection) you would first need to contact your council representative and get him involved (your area is in Kevin Kirby's district). These types of improvements and the studies necessary to get them warranted and built, involve much more costs and the city cannot initiate those projects without some direction internally from the council in addition to the Mayor. The location of this intersection is particularly tricky when you consider the numerous issues that have been discussed relative to the upgrade of US 31 and the City of Carmel's efforts to work with the State (INDOT) on incorporating our concerns into their design (raised versus depressed elevations of the "interstate", interchange locations/configurations, feeder streets and inter-related traffic patterns and more). Anyway, my point is, we will do what we can to help improve the safety of this intersection, but certain longer range modifications should only be considered as they fit in with the "bigger" plan. c -----Original Message----- From: M.D. Marrs [mailto:themarrs@indy.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 11:20 PM To: Weese, Kate K Cc: Duncan, Rusty; Munson, Chris Subject: Fw: Parks @ Springmill Kate, Please see the what I copied from the message I sent you back in March. The intersection of 131st and Meridian Corners is getting busier all the C time, and with the recent announcement of all the jobs coming to the Duke Properties between 131st and 126th, this is only going to get worse. , This intersection receives traffic from our neighborhood, Abacus Daycare, people bailing off of US31 and Springmill. All this with no marked lanes. What can be done with this intersection before the traffic gets even worse? What is the criteria to get a traffic light? Finally, the intersection of Meridian Corners and 131st (Southbound) is becoming a real challenge in the morning. Is there any chance of the lanes being separated such as a left turn only, right/straight? The northbound lanes are marked this way. (Copied from earlier message) As always I appreciate your help. 11/04/2002 Fax u u CITY OF CARMEL Department of Community Services One CiVic Square Carme', IN 46032 (317) 571-2417 ' Fax: (317) 571 ~2425 To: ~~ ~/12~ Fax: lof- 6 797 ./ Frong ~ Pages: Of Date: /~-.3/-0~ Phone: Re: ce: o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply o Please Recycle u u Carmel October 28, 2002 Mr. Joe Rogers Woolpert LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive Indianapolis, IN 46268-4192 ~/{~,1>)1\. 11. I .- v~~ - /-())y , ~!!j) /''',' A ~/ J~~t' T '\~ /:-..::.7/ RECf/'/ED ~ (~f on . V,. r--- . u Q II I 7_.....~ T 2" 1.002 F-I <) DOCS j:;~1 \v;..\ ,("j ~/ . A..l J j'. '. " ".""'-. /(;{> >C' / J--.. .-<<'\ y '<l j};T.,.-r-4;',\Y '~- (5'1-0~ D (J ItJI'TJM.-J.- RE: Hamilton Crossing Building 6 Dear Mr. Rogers: I have received and reviewed the information for the above-mentioned 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. Ti othy J. Green Acting Chief of Police T JG:vb cc: Dept. of Community Services rcement Agency Fax (317) 571.2512 (317) 571.2500 A Nationally Accredit 10/25/02 15:30 FAX October 25, 2002 HAMILTON CO HWY. ~~~ Carmel DOCD U U HAMILTON COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1m 0011001 Mr. Joe Rogers Woolpert LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46268-4192 RE: Hamilton Crossing, Building 6 S of 131&1 Street / W of Meridian Crossing Clay Township Dear Mr. Rogers: This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of a transmittal received 10/25/2002 containing the plans for the above-mentioned project. After reviewing the plans the Highway Department has the following comments: t ~t.Ct_\\ItD GC1 1~ ~~~2. DOCS 00 ;J\ ~,..~. i"'_. "'/ v. tItIl~Y 1. It appears this project lies entirely within the limits of the City of Carmel. Therefore, all future comments should be directed toward the City. If you have any information contrary to this statement, please contact me immediately. If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please feel free to contact me at anytime. Sincerely, )L I C------- Steven J. Broennann Staff Engineer cc: Jon Doboslewicz Jenny Chapman G:\USERS\SB\02T AC\1 G-25-02hamlltonxlng6.doc 1700 South lOth Street NoblesvlJle, In. 46060 www.co.hamllton.in.us ()fRce(317) 773-7770 Fax (317) 776-9814 ~ - otrtfe Q Blair D. Carmosino Development Services Duke Realty Corporation 600 E. 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 PH: 3/7-808-6179 Fax 808-6797 blair. Carmosino@dukerealty.com October 23,2002 CONSTRUCTION 1$[2 ~ RECEIVED nCT 25 2002 DOCS Mr. J. Brian Nicol Commissioner ?in '-' Indiana Department of TransportatIon 100 N. Senate Avenue Room ICGN 755 Indianapolis, IN 46204 f)earMr.~Nicol;---. -- This correspondence is to service as notice to INDOT that we have on file the attached plans with the City of Carmel, Indiana. The plans were filed October 18th, 2002 in anticipation of a public hearing on December 17th. The project is on file with the City of Carmel. This site was laid out with digital plans provided from Parsons, Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. that depicted potential Right-of-way at the 131st Street and US 31 intersection. The potential Right-of-way is intended to provide land for a proposed ramp at this location. Should you have any questions or concerns please contact me directly. Thank you. 600 East 96th Street Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 317.808.6000 www.dukerealty.com Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dallas Indianapolis Minneapolis Nashville Orlando Raleigh St. Louis Tampa .. . w w /~ VVOOLPERI Wool pert Transmittal If enclosures are not received as noted below, please call sender or Wool pert at 317.299.7500 Date: October 23,2002 Re: To: Carmel Dept. of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Order Number: 60316 Shipped Via: We are sending you D Shop Drawings D Other D Samples D Specifications ~ Plans D Change Order Copies Date No. Description 1 10/23/02 Hamilton County # 6 Plans Remarks: I Copy To: Signature: Joe Rogers WOOLPERT LLP 7140 Waldemar Drive' Indianapolis, Indiana 46268-4192 317.299.7500' Fax 317.291.5805' www.woolpert.com / (j / (') City of Carmel VIA FAX: 808-6797 Original by mail October 24, 2002 COpy Blair Caromsino Duke Realty: Limited Partnership 600 East 96th Street, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Building # 6, Hamilton Crossing - DP/ADLS Dear Blair: This letter is in response to the applications you filed for Building # 6, Hamilton Crossing. The following comments need to be addressed and/or plans/applications updated accordingly: 1. 131 st Street: a. The Ordinance requires a 75' half ROW along 131 st Street. The plans show 40'. Amend plans and prepare documentation for the dedication of that ROW. Dedication is required. b. Because the half ROW for 131 st Street is 75', the parking spaces perpendicular to 131 st Street encroach into the required 15' buffer yard. Revise this area and the area labeled "Future Parking (not a part of this approval)" section. 2. Meridian Comers Boulevard: a. The ordinance requires a 60' half. The plans illustrate a 100' full width or 50' half. Amend plans and prepare documentation for the dedication of that ROW. Dedication is required. b. Change "Meridian Crossing Blvd." to "Meridian Comers Blvd." c. Because the half ROW is 60', the parking spaces perpendicular to the road encroach into the required 15' buffer yard. Revise this area. 3. Note: the maximum distance a parking space can be from a building is 300'. You have identified many parking spaces in the labeled "Future parking, not part of this approval". Please be advised that the future approval of this parking area would . . reqUIre a vanance. 4. Variances: a. A variance will be needed regarding the 90' Build to Line along U.S. 31 (see Section 23B.8.1A of the Ordinance). A variance request has been submitted. b. A variance will also be needed regarding the accessory building (parking plaza) setback from Meridian Comers Blvd. (see Section 25.1.2.B.3.a.i (a) of the Ordinance). A variance request has been submitted. Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CAR.J.\1EL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 -' J (j ~ ~ c. A v:ariance will be required from to allow parking between the U. S. 31 right- of':way and the front build-to-line (see Section 23 B.12.A). A variance request has been submitted. 5. Architectural Design Requirements: a. The elevation of the building is dimensioned at 86'6"; it is scaled to measure 83' on the plan. Please revise and/or clarify. b. Revise the appearance of the stairway access structures in the parking plaza to more closely match the appearance of the ones in the plazas found at Parkwood Crossing West. Utilize the window, aluminum and per-cast concrete elements found in the primary structure. c. What methods are being used to screen the loading dock on the north side of the building along 131 st Street? Please advise. d. Provide exhibits per Section 23B.9.G including golden section analysis and three perspectives of site from U.S. 31. e. Provide an illustration to confirm that the glass areas of the fayade do not exceed 70% of the overall fayade (see Section 23B.9.C). 6. Landscaping: a, Provide written commitment regarding proposed Phase II Landscaping. b. The landscaping area around the parking plaza is required to be 10' in width. Where drives don't permit, an equal landscape area can be shifted to another location surrounding the building. 7. Provide a cut sheet displaying the appearance of the light fixtures. Confirm that the maximum pole height is 25' in height 8. Per Section 23B.17.4 of the Ordinance please forward a letter with a site plan of the proposed DP to the Commissioner offudiana Department of Transportation advising him of the proposal and requesting any comments. If you have any questions or if I may be of assistance please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, .b,(L '? ~o~ C. Dobosiewicz Planning Administrator Building #6, Hamilton Crossing-DP-ADLS Page 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARl\-ffiL, INDIANA 46032 317 /571-2417 - "-' , () o CITY OF CARMEL Department of Community SelVices One Civic Square Carmel, IN 40032 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (:317) 571-2426 Fax To: ~ at)~ Fax: /&!-b 797 Phone: From: Pages: Date: Re.~ 4Fb W~~ CCl . 7)p/ ~..f)U o Urgent 0 For Review 0 P.Jease Comment ~ (3 / () - c:2y.. Oe1 o Please Reply o Please Recycle