Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondencePlan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 1 1 TriCo Regional Sewer Utility Ryan Hartman 2/27/24 1:28 PM Comment TriCo has no issue w/ the PUD. When construction plans are provided we will do a full plan review at that time. Info Only 2 1 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 2/27/24 1:55 PM Changemark Tree Preservation Areas Please show and label any tree preservation areas. These areas may be along the southern or eastern perimeter and of limited width but are measurable areas that preservation wording would be important. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:16 PM Tree preservation shown onexhibit included with resubmittalon July 10. Resolved 3 1 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 2/27/24 1:55 PM Changemark shrub quantity It way make sense to make this three shrubs as you would have one on each end and one in the middle for symmetry, instead of two, Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:16 PM Amended as requested. Resolved 4 1 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 2/27/24 1:55 PM Changemark Parking lot landscaping Please add more detail to this requirement. For example, noting at least one shade tree per 10 parking spaces. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:17 PM Amended - Compliance with UDO required. Resolved 5 1 Fire Carmel Fire 3/4/24 7:42 AM Comment Indiana Fire Code Section 3310.1 Required Fire Department Vehicle Access. Approved Asphalt fire apparatus access roads shall be provided to and through the construction site during construction. Fire Apparatus access roads must be capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus and maintained clear at all times. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Info Only 6 1 Fire Carmel Fire 3/4/24 7:42 AM Comment IFC Section 3312.1 Fire Hydrants shall be fully functional tested and approved by Carmel Water Utilities prior to any combustible materials arriving on the site. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Info Only 7 1 Fire Carmel Fire 3/4/24 7:47 AM Comment Provide a emergency vehicle circulation auto turn plan. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Thought this was provided previously. Info Only 8 1 Carmel Water Operations Steve Cook 3/12/24 1:45 PM Changemark Changemark note #01 Carmel Utilities would like to have a meeting to discuss water utility design for this site Steve Cook Carmel Water 317-716-3913 or 317-733-2849 office Concept Plan 021424.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:05 AM Lennare met with Carmel Utilities on June 28, 2024 Resolved 9 1 Vectren Energy Chad Miller 3/14/24 1:28 PM Comment No comments on rezone. Will make comments on the construction plans when they are submitted. Info Only REVIEW COMMENTS Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 10 1 CrossRoad Engineers Willie Hall 3/18/24 9:32 AM Comment Please provide preliminary drainage calculations to verify concept detention basin is adequately sized. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:38 PM A revised drainage report has been uploaded. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 10/25/24 9:48 AM A revised drainage report has not been uploaded to ProjectDox that shows the new layout and contains updated/requested information. The last drainage report was uploaded 7/10/24. Per discussions with Engineering, updated summary will need to be provided prior to drainage approval of the PUD. And to clarify, we just need preliminary detention sizing to verify that the area allocated will be adequately sized for the site's detention needs to avoid issues down the line. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:03 AM This was provided to before the 10/1/24 Committee Meeting – should be resolved ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Drainage caluculations are done. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 7/25/24 12:06 PM See comment on the submitted drainage report. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:05 AM Kyle from HWC is working on this, and we will submit it when our revisions. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 11 1 CrossRoad Engineers Willie Hall 3/18/24 9:32 AM Comment Please provide wetland determination for this site. Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 10/25/24 9:51 AM Approval documentation from jurisdictional agencies not found in ProjectDox. This will need to be provided prior to final drainage approval. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:04 AM Provided – should be resolved ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Entire report will be provided. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 7/25/24 11:58 AM Please include the entire Wetland and Waterbody Delineation report for this site. Appropriate approval documentation by the jurisdictional agencies (e.g. IDEM/USACE) for this report will be required. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:06 AM Included with resubmittal on July 10. Info Only 12 1 Engineering Alex Jordan 3/18/24 12:27 PM Changemark Please remove the first sentence of this section We would like for you to remove that statement that the best efforts will be made to incorporate the natural vegetation. The pond banks will need planted with native vegetation in order to count as a best management practice. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:06 AM Removed as requested. Resolved 13 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:32 PM Library Comment Please provide a comparison chart of the PUD standards, the existing zoning district, and the closest matching zoning district. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:07 AM Included with resubmittal on July 10. Resolved 14 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:32 PM Library Comment Please list what green or sustainable site or building design aspects will implemented, similar to the LEED checklist: www.usgbc.org/leed/rating- systems from the US Green Building Council. (This is not a requirement, but the Commission looks favorably upon this.) Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:08 AM All homes are energy efficient. They are inspected by a third party to verify we provide homes that are more energy efficient than the building code requires. Additional list provided with July 10 resubmittal. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 15 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:32 PM Library Comment Submit a copy of the Adjoining Property Owners List from Hamilton County. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:17 PM provided ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:09 AM This will be provided with the Proof of Notice prior to Plan Commission. Resolved 16 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:32 PM Library Comment Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:17 PM provided ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:09 AM This will be provided with the Proof of Notice prior to Plan Commission. Resolved 17 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:32 PM Library Comment Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:17 PM provided ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:09 AM This will be provided with the Proof of Notice prior to Plan Commission. Resolved 18 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:32 PM Library Comment Submit Proof of Publication from the newspaper. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:17 PM provided ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:09 AM This will be provided with the Proof of Notice prior to Plan Commission. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 19 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:32 PM Library Comment Submit Certificate of Mailing for proof of mailing. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:17 PM provided ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:09 AM This will be provided with the Proof of Notice prior to Plan Commission. Resolved 20 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:32 PM Library Comment Submit a copy of the Sign Affidavit. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:17 PM provided ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:10 AM This will be provided with the Proof of Notice prior to Plan Commission. Resolved 21 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:33 PM Library Comment Please submit a traffic memo and/or traffic impact analysis study. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:10 AM Submitted with documetns on July 10. Resolved 22 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/18/24 3:33 PM Library Comment Will you have trash and recycling dumpsters for the whole development or individual bins for each unit? Please reach out to Republic Services to discuss your plans with them. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:10 AM Each unit will have their own trash and recycling bin. Only dumpsters will be on the commercial property. Lennar reached out to Republic Services to confirm. Resolved 23 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 2:58 PM Changemark Section 4.9 Parking Revise this section to specifically include requirements for bicycle parking to comply with the UDO. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:09 PM Amended as requested. Resolved 24 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 2:58 PM Changemark Sec. 8.3 Sidewalk and Pedestrian Amenities A. Please revise this section to specify that a five foot sidewalk will be required along both sides of all internal street except where a ten foot path is provided along a segment. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:10 PM Amended as requested. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 25 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 3:18 PM Changemark Sidewalk connection to site from path along Towne Rd. Revise the plans to include a sidewalk connection from the path along the east side of Towne Rd. to the sidewalk along the south side of 146th St frontage Rd. Concept Plan 021424.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:22 AM See updated connectivity plan. We will provide this when we file the Primary Plat. We will add language to address it in the PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:20 PM Provided ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:10 PM We will provide this when we file the Primary Plat. We will add langauge to address it in the PUD. Resolved 26 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 3:18 PM Changemark Crosswalk across Frontage Rd to connect to 146th St path Revise the plan to include a crosswalk across the frontage road to provide a sidewalk/path connection to the path along the south side of the 146th St. Concept Plan 021424.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:22 AM See updated connectivity plan. We will provide this when we file the Primary Plat. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:21 PM Provided ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:11 PM We will provide this when we file the Primary Plat. We will add langauge to address it in the PUD. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 27 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 3:18 PM Changemark N/S Trail along interior St. Please revise the plan to include a north south trail along the interior street adjacent to the commercial building to provide a trail connection from the east west trail on the south side of the development to the path along the south side of 146th St. Concept Plan 021424.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:24 AM See updated connectivity Plan with revised path/sidewalk locations. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will revist. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: David Littlejohn - 7/17/24 3:45 PM The connectivity plan still shows a sidewalk on both sides of the street and it removed the trail/path along the east/west street on the south side of the project. Please consider revising the plan to include the requested north/south trail/path and keeping the east/west path along the south side of the development as part of this project to provide better bicycle connectivity/accessibility in this development. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:12 PM See connectivity plan. Resolved 28 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 3:18 PM Changemark Path section from proposed trail to Towne Rd path Please consider revising the plan to include a path instead of a sidewalk from the proposed trail on the south side of the site to the path along the east side of Towne Rd to provide a full path/trial connection in this area. Concept Plan 021424.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:24 AM See updated connectivity Plan with revised path/sidewalk locations. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will revist. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: David Littlejohn - 7/17/24 3:47 PM The east/west path along the south of the project has been removed. Please consider keeping that facility as part of this project to provide better bicycle connectivity/accessibility in this development. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:12 PM See connectivity plan. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 29 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 3:18 PM Changemark Bicycle parking Section 5.29 of the City's UDO requires bicycle parking for commercial and attached dwelling uses. Revise the plans to show where bicycle parking will be provided throughout the site. Please refer to section 5.29 for more details/information on the city's bicycle parking standards/requirements. Concept Plan 021424.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:14 PM This will be provide this when the Primary Plat is submitted. Language added to the PUD requirig complinace with the standards of the UDO. Resolved 30 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 3:22 PM Changemark Sidewalk along entire 146th St frontage rd frontage Revise this section to require a sidewalk along the site's entire frontage of the 146th St frontage rd. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:14 PM See connectivity plan. Resolved 31 1 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 3/19/24 3:29 PM Changemark Sidewalk along frontage rd at north east corner Revise the plan to show a sidewalk along the 146th frontage rd at the north east corner of the development. Concept Plan 021424.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:14 PM Provided. See connectivity plan. Resolved 32 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/19/24 4:51 PM Comment Please provide a separate pedestrian connectivity exhibit showing the sidewalks, paths, and trail, all highlighted on a site plan. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:12 AM Provided with July 10 resubmittal. Resolved 33 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/19/24 5:11 PM Changemark Area B Lot Width 24 ft. lot width seems too small if there will also be a 6 ft. side yard. That would only leave room for a 12 ft. wide home. Please increase this and show a typical plot plan layout for one of these types of lots. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:09 AM Area B is now 42’ min since the homes are 30’ wide with 6’ side yard setbacks. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 1:39 PM I did not see an answer to my question in the PUD. How wide will the rear load detached homes be? ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:18 PM see PUD ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/1/24 1:52 PM How wide will the rear load detached homes be? A 30 ft. lot width with two 6 ft. side yard setbacks would only leave room for an 18 ft. wide home. Is that correct? ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:15 AM Lot sidth changed to 30' Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 34 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/19/24 5:14 PM Changemark Area C Lot Coverage Please establish a maximum lot coverage. The UDO lists 80% or the Urban Residential District. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:15 AM Lot coverage shanged to 80% Resolved 35 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/19/24 5:14 PM Changemark Area C Lot Width Please list a minimum lot width. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:15 AM Lot width of 24' added. Resolved 36 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/19/24 5:16 PM Changemark Pavement at southern entry This looks like a different pavement material than a typical street. Please require this other pavement material in the PUD. 2024.Feb.09_146th and Towne_Entry Park_rev.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 4:25 PM I did not see where this was added. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:16 AM Text added as requseted and moved to parkign section. Resolved 37 1 Sign Permits Aliza Shalit 3/20/24 12:44 PM Comment All signs require sign permit application and reviews. Please apply through our online permitting site for each new or updated sign. Info Only 38 1 Sign Permits Aliza Shalit 3/20/24 12:46 PM Changemark Multi tenant Development Sign Package All multi tenant buildings are required to have a sign package. Please make sure you develop one with the building plans. This must be completed prior to any signage being permitted and installed. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Info Only 39 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/20/24 4:31 PM Changemark Street Lighting Please require the street lighting to meet the UDO standards and be provided by the developer. Refer to UDO Sec. 7.33 and 7.32 Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:16 AM Amened as requested. Resolved 40 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/20/24 4:41 PM Changemark Street Tree Spacing Please change to require a maximum spacing of 50 feet between street trees per the UDO. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:17 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 41 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/20/24 4:45 PM Changemark Area A Corner Lot Trees Please insert "facade" between side and facing. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:17 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 42 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/20/24 4:46 PM Changemark Area B and Area C Corner Lot Trees Please insert "facade" between side and facing. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:17 AM Change made as requested. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 43 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/20/24 5:40 PM Changemark Alley Width How wide will the pavement be? Please add wording that alleys will comply with the City of Carmel Standards for Alleys. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:18 AM 20' standard added. Resolved 44 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/20/24 5:42 PM Changemark Sec. 8.2 Internal Streets Can you add some wording to allow the unique pavement shown in the street at the western entrance? Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:19 AM Change made as requested and moved to parking section. Resolved 45 1 Sign Permits Aliza Shalit 3/21/24 8:26 AM Changemark Entry feature Entry feature will require ADLS Amend approval as well as a sign permit. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Info Only 46 1 Sign Permits Aliza Shalit 3/21/24 11:59 AM Changemark Entryway features Per UDO Standards (7.11 EF-01: Residential Entryway Feature (EF) Standards), a setback greater than 15ft is required to establish a Residential Entryway Feature. This condition must be met in order to allow these features at the specified intersections. Concept Plan 021424.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:09 PM Entry Features shall comply with the UDO. Info Only 47 1 Sign Permits Aliza Shalit 3/21/24 12:00 PM Changemark Entryway feature allowance Per UDO Standards (7.11 EF-01: Residential Entryway Feature (EF) Standards), a setback greater than 15ft is required to establish a Residential Entryway Feature. This condition must be met in order to allow these features at the specified intersections. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Reviewer Response: Aliza Shalit - 7/25/24 2:56 PM ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:09 PM Entry Features shall comply with the UDO. Info Only 48 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/22/24 4:45 PM Changemark Neighborhood Commercial Parking Please add a maximum of 2 rows of parking between the building and the frontage road. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:19 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 49 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/22/24 4:47 PM Changemark Bike Parking Please also reference that Bicycle Parking shall comply with the UDO. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:19 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 50 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/22/24 4:52 PM Changemark Parking Lot Landscaping Please require parking lot landscaping to comply with the commercial landscaping standards in the UDO. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:20 AM Change made as requested. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 51 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/22/24 4:54 PM Changemark Sec. 8.3 Sidewalks Please insert "both sides of" after "along" so that sidewalks are required on both sides of a street. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:20 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 54 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/22/24 5:07 PM Changemark Sec. 8.6.C and D Additional Uses Not Permitted Why are these sections separate from the Exhibit C Use Table. Please include these uses in the Use Table so that the requirements are all together and easier to find instead of having to check 2 different places for permitted or prohibited uses. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:20 AM Change made as requested. All uses included on the Use Table only. Resolved 55 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 4:15 PM Changemark Number of Windows Please require 2 windows per level for the side facades. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:21 AM Change made as requested. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 56 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 4:17 PM Changemark Porch Size Thank you for requiring a minimum 30 sq. ft. porch. Will this apply to the townhomes as well? And can the porches be 6 ft. deep as well so they can be useable for seating? Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:42 PM PUD text revised to require 6' porch. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/31/24 4:24 PM We are not in support of a smaller front porch that does not provide good functionality. Please provide a reason why you cannot provide a minimum 6 ft. porch for this brand new subdivision. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:09 AM With our changes, we can only have this standard in Area A & B. We can provide a front porch that is 3.5' deep min. Area C will not have this requirement. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 9:50 AM Area C does not need this requirement. For Area B, we still maintain that the front porches need to be a minimum of 6 ft. deep so they can be useable for seating. This is a brand new subdivision where you are not limited to how you design the homes. 6 ft. deep front porches has been our standard policy for many years. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We can make it 36' min. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 11:21 AM Please require a minimum 6 ft. deep front porch, which is our standard that we request so that furniture can be placed on the front porch. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:21 AM With our changes, we can only have this standard in Area A & B. We can provide a front porch that is 3.5' deep min. Area C will not have this requirement. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 57 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 4:18 PM Changemark Primary Roof Overhang All roofs should have an overhang. Please change this requirement so it is not just for the primary roof. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:22 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 58 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 4:21 PM Changemark Masonry Wainscot Please add wording to require the same masonry wainscot used on the front elevation to wrap around to the side and the rear of the unit. A stone wainscot on the front will need to be stone on the sides and rear, and should not switch to brick. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:22 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 59 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 4:23 PM Changemark Architectural Standards Elevation Definition Add some wording to clarify what would make a different elevation. For instance, a change in building material or porch columns would not make it a different elevation. To be different, the elevation would need to have changes in the form by altering the roof type or pitch, porch placement, or significant dormer type or location. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:23 AM Anti-montony standard for Area A & B revised indicating the same elevation may not be used directly across the street and on eather side of a subject home. This will not be applied to Area C for the townhomes. Resolved 60 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 4:26 PM Changemark Exhibit I Sec 3 Spelling error in Design Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:22 AM Corrected. Resolved 61 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 4:29 PM Changemark Exhibit I Section Numbers Please double check the Section numbers as I believe Section 3 is repeated. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will double check the PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 12:10 PM I don't think this got changed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:22 AM Corrected. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 62 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 4:30 PM Changemark Exhibit I Building Materials Please change the building materials to require "Principal Buildings shall be faced on front, sides, and rear with brick, stone or similarly detailed precast concrete and trimmed in metal, stone, precast concrete, wood, fiber cement, or EIFS. Use of EIFS and fiber cement products shall be limited to upper floor trim or upper floor accent material only. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 11:28 AM ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:28 AM This cannot be applied to the single-family homes and townhomes. The main siding is Hardi which is fiber cement. We can commit that brick wainscot will be provided on all sides, and that each façade will have a min. of 2 materials. Resolved 63 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 5:39 PM Changemark Access to Commercial Please consider adding another access point from the frontage road to the commercial parking lot. Concept Plan 021424.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 1:39 PM This comment is no longer valid as the commercial component of the development was removed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We don't believe it is necessary for the commerical given the number of access points into the community, and the curve of that road. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/9/24 11:14 AM Thank you for the response. We would like to discuss this further. Would a right-in/right-out be safer? ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:40 AM This is not possible. The curve in the frontage road will create a safety issue with another entrance to to limited visability for line of sight. Resolved 64 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 5:52 PM Changemark Add wainscot to character imagery Please show the required wainscot on the homes in the character imagery. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:41 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 65 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 5:52 PM Changemark Character imagery windows Add 2 windows per level on the side facades in the character imagery. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:41 AM Change made as requested. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 66 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 5:54 PM Changemark Exhibit D Character Imagery Missing Please include the Exhibit D character imagery in the PUD for the A lots. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:41 AM Added as requested. Resolved 67 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/27/24 6:00 PM Changemark Area A lots Overhangs Do these homes have the 11 inch overhang required in the PUD? Woodcrest Product.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:41 AM Yes, specified ing PUD architectural Exhibit H Resolved 68 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:12 PM Changemark Commercial Building Architecture This is a good start, but overall the scale is off on the 2 story elements and the there should be more brick throughout the building. Please change the building materials to require brick or stone as the main material with trim allowed to be other materials. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 1:42 PM This comment is no longer valid as the commercial component of the development was removed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We are not making any other changes to the homes architecturally. These are the way the homes are designed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 5:01 PM Thank you for the changes made so far. Please see some additional architectural comments marked up in the PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:59 AM Please see the below regardign archtectural changes in general: 1. The building base has been changed to the same height and material color. 2. The building height (the sign band height) has been lowered by 2-feet. 3. At the 2 story features, the siding has been eliminated at the sign band area. The siding has been eliminated at the end cap (see around the drive thru window that is now all brick). 4. The storefront area under the awning has been modified to better show the top strip of glass as vision. 5. The red column has been eliminated. The area was changed to face brick. 6. Along the rear, I have widened the brick piers, changed the building base to the same height and material color, and lowered the building height. The end cap is now all brick. These changes have lessened the area of siding. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM 7. I have eliminated one color of face brick and one of siding. The red columns are eliminated. Hopefully, the loss of these colors will satisfy. 8. The bottom row along the storefront is an infill panel. It is not transparent. It is a metal laminated composite material that fits inside the storefront frame. I feel this is a good use of material for 2 reasons. The first being, because of the foundational plantings, the lower row of storefront will never be clean. The second, it allows the tenant to put tables or display items against the storefront without seeing legs or casework through the glass. 69 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:12 PM Changemark Consistent Base Please change the base so that it is a consistent color and height. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:48 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 70 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:12 PM Changemark 2-story element Do the peaked roof areas have useable space on the second floor? If not, please lower the height of these to be more in scale with the building or make them a flat roof. Or add some windows in the space between the roof and the storefronts. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:48 AM Lennare would like to retain flexibility to use the second floor area Resolved 71 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:12 PM Changemark Minimize Siding Please minimize the use of siding on this commercial building. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 1:42 PM This comment is no longer valid as the commercial component of the development was removed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We can address this if the commercial is not removed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 4:51 PM Thank you, but please reduce further and replace all horizontal siding with brick. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:50 AM The use of siding has been reduced. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 72 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:12 PM Changemark Material Under Awning What is the material under the awnings? It should be brick or clear glazing. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:51 AM Material is brick or galzing. Resolved 73 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:12 PM Changemark Red Columns Please change this red prefinished fiber cement column board. This area could be a stacked brick to add more detail around the storefront systems. You could also add a soldier course across the top of the storefront system. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:52 AM Changed to Masonry. Resolved 74 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:14 PM Changemark Rear Elevation of Commercial Building This rear elevation will need to be improved since it is visible from the main north south street. Please change the siding to brick and add some other details so the building has four-sided architecture. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 1:42 PM This comment is no longer valid as the commercial component of the development was removed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:18 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 4:54 PM We still have concerns with this rear facade being very visible. From the rendering perspectives, even with the wall one will clearly see the rear. Please require 4 sided architecture. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:55 AM Adjustments have been made to thsi elevation. siding is still used in this area only as it is "back fo house" and screened with wall alogn easd side fo commercial area. Resolved 75 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:16 PM Changemark Commercial Architecture Materials There are too many materials on the facades in the Concept Imagery. Please reduce the number of materials on the commercial building so that it is not so busy. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:54 AM The number of colors has been reduced to address this comment. Resolved 76 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:20 PM Changemark Prefinished infill panel What is a prefinished infill panel and what will this look like. Is it clear glazing? Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:55 AM It is a laminated metal panel with applied accent. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 77 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:25 PM Changemark Primary Roof Definition Please add a definition for Primary Roof so there is no confusion come permit time. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 11:57 AM Change made as requested. Resolved 78 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 3/29/24 4:30 PM Changemark Shared space and flush street How do you anticipate this space being used? Will it be closed to cars sometimes or used for seating? Or will it always remain open for vehicles? Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:01 PM It may be closed, we don’t have programming at this point but owant the ability to close it. Resolved 79 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 11:48 AM Changemark Accessory Buildings and Uses Are Solar panels included in the allowed Accessory Uses? Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:10 AM Yes, added to the use table. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 10:25 AM I still think this applicable as people may want solar panels on their roof. Please add this as an allowed accessory use in all areas. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:18 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/1/24 11:46 AM I did not see this added to the use table. Please add Solar Panels to the use table and allow them as Accessory Uses in all Areas. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:01 PM Yes, added to the use table. Resolved 80 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 1:16 PM Changemark Accessory Uses Trash Enclosure Does Sec. 3.B. apply to screening of trash as well, so that the UDO would govern for the commercial trash enclosures? Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:03 PM Added this to the noted section, trash encosures would be governed by UDO. Resolved 81 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 2:21 PM Changemark Short Term Residential Rentals Did you want to allow Short Term Residential Rentals by a Special Exception, similar to what is allowed in the UDO? Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:04 PM We prohibit them in our CC&R's and added in the PUD in Accessory Uses. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 82 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 2:24 PM Changemark Ex H Sec. 2. A. EIFS Spelling I believe this is supposed to be spelled EIFS. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:04 PM Corrected. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM 83 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 2:37 PM Changemark Townhome Floor Plans Per UDO Sec. 7.05, please require the townhomes to have at least 4 unique floor plans throughout the development, with at least two unique floor plans per building. Mirror images of a floor plan or incidental alterations to a floor plan shall not constitute a unique floor plan. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:43 PM Masonry enhancements made to 6-unit buildings to address this comment. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 11/1/24 9:53 AM What about another townhome product type, as I mentioned in my last comment? Also, please add more brick to some of the units to break up the monotony and add some diversity if you can only have 2 floor plans. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:10 AM Lennar will require 2 unique floor plans for each townhome building. We don’t have plans that would allow 4. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 10:52 AM What if you introduced another townhome product type? Do you have another townhouse design that would compliment your current proposed elevations? Also, do you have some other anti-monotony suggestions that would help with this requirement which is intended to promote architectural diversity? ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Are townhomes don't have that many unique plans if we cannot count mirroring of the floor plan. Two is all we can commit to in our PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 10:55 AM 2 unique floor plans per building is fine, but can you require 4 unique floor plans throughout the development? ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:05 PM Lennar will require 2 unique floor plans for each townhome building. We don’t have plans that would allow 4. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 84 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 3:04 PM Changemark Townhome Architectural Diversity Can you add UDO Sec. 7.05.C to the PUD please. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:10 AM We can provide two (2) color schemes so that adjacent buildings may have alternating colors. Also, we can vary the unit count between buildings so that two (2) adjacent units do not have the exact same elevation. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:05 PM Ok. Please add wording to the PUD to require a building to have a different color package than the building next to it or directly across the street. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM There will be a color change between buildings, and depending on the unit count, there will be variety in each building. We can vary the number of units in each building so that each building does not look the same next to each other. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 11:22 AM Can you please explain why they cannot comply? Can elements from this section of the UDO be incorporated? Hopefully each building will not be the same? Some variety from building to building is important to avoid a cookie cutter or repetitive aesthetic. Changes in features from building to building should clearly distinguish one building from one another, yet be complementary of one another. Please add some wording to the PUD to address this. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:05 PM Lennar cannot comply with this section, and we are using Character Exhibits to illustrate the townhomes. Resolved 85 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 3:06 PM Changemark Number of Units in Townhome building Please limit the number of units in a townhome building to 5, as shown on the concept plan. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:06 PM Lennar will add a limit of 6 units per townhome building. Flexibility in the site plan is needed when we add utilities and easements. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 86 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 4:49 PM Changemark Masonry Color Please require a minimum of 4 masonry colors in the development. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/31/24 4:31 PM I believe you changed this to 3 masonry colors. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:11 AM A min. of 2 masonry colors. When there is too much variation on color, it doesn't look well. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:09 PM Yes, please look at requiring a third masonry color, especially for the single family homes. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We can explore a third color option but more than that will create a non uniform look that we don't think looks well when it comes to townhome development. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/7/24 4:57 PM We disagree that too much variation on color doesn't look good. With only 2 masonry colors, the homes start to look the same, especially with small setbacks. We have seen this in other developments as well. What if you required 3 masonry colors? This could include different types of masonry as well. Clay Corner appears to have multiple masonry colors and I think this looks very nice and gives some variety to the streetscape. The Old Town area also has some nice variety. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:06 PM A min. of 2 masonry colors. When there is too much varation on color, it doesn't look well. Resolved 87 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 4:53 PM Changemark Gravel Driveways Please consider adding gravel as a prohibited driveway material. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:07 PM Added to the PUD. However, gravel between driveways in Area C is allowed. There is not enough room for grass to grow well. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 88 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 4:57 PM Changemark Ex. H Sec. 1 B Alterations Can you change the title of this section from Alterations to Compliance? This section would apply to any proposed floor plan or elevation, correct, not just alterations? Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:12 PM Ok. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Why if it is covered in Sec. 9? ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 5:04 PM Please keep this section ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:08 PM Section Removed. Compliance regulated under Section 9 of the PUD. Resolved 89 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 4:59 PM Changemark Ex H Sec. 1.B Residential Committee Please change Residential Committee to a Committee of the Plan Commission. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:12 PM Ok. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Why if it is covered in Sec. 9? ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 5:04 PM Please keep this section ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:08 PM Section Removed. Compliance regulated under Section 9 of the PUD. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 90 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 5:03 PM Changemark Ex I Sec 1. B Alterations Can you change the title of this section from Alterations to Compliance? This section would apply to any proposed floor plan or elevation, correct, not just alterations? Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:12 PM Ok. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Why if it is covered in Sec. 9? ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 8/8/24 5:04 PM Please keep this section ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:08 PM Section Removed. Compliance regulated under Section 9 of the PUD. Resolved 91 1 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 4/1/24 5:11 PM Changemark Stoop Definition Can you define stoop? A stoop would not be a porch, correct? Are stoops covered? I don't think a covered stoop should encroach into the front yard. Towne 146 PUD 3 021524.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 7/10/24 12:08 PM Stoops are concrete walkways raised above the ground floor. Typically, they extend out in front of the home and we want to allow them to enchroach into the front yard setback. Resolved 92 2 Fire Carmel Fire 7/15/24 7:29 AM Comment All Fire Department Connection locations, PIV locations, and Fire Hydrants locations shall be approved by the CFD. CFD approvals for these items has not been issued at this time. Submit a detailed utility plan to receive the required approvals. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM OK Info Only 93 2 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 7/16/24 10:56 AM Changemark Write out requirement for parking It simplifies for all understanding if you write out the requirement for parking. Please replace D.1 with below. D.1.a. A minimum of one (1) shade tree and five (5) shrubs shall be planted for every ten (10) parking spaces provide. b. Parking lot plantings shall be located within parking lots and contained by landscape islands, median, traffic delineators, at the end of parking bays, and located within five (5) feet of the perimeter of the parking lot in a manner such that no parking space is located more than sixty-six (66) feet from a shade tree. c. Fifty percent (50%) of the required parking lot plantings shall be located within five (5) feet of the perimeter of the parking lot, except when this area is landscaped by perimeter bufferyard requirements. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Daren Mindham - 9/30/24 1:31 PM ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 94 2 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 7/16/24 3:21 PM Changemark perimeter bufferyard requirements Please add wording for all perimeter bufferyard areas. This should include the two tree preservation areas and notations for the width of the area and the plant quantities. Can the 'landscape buffer' along the eastern area of the south perimeter be a reforested area? See UDO 5.19.F.1.e. for the UDO requirements. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Daren Mindham - 9/30/24 1:34 PM ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Our pond is going along the east property line and we will maintain as many trees as we can. Resolved 95 2 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 7/16/24 3:26 PM Changemark open space area requirements The open space requirements of UDO 7.19 have strict requirements and do not allow for any small narrow piece of lawn area to be considered viable open space. Please specifically note in an open space plan the acreage and locations of the open space that will meet this 3-acre requirement of Section 5.1. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM What is considered narrow? We showed 3 acres of open space and does not include landscap strips. Resolved 96 2 Fire Carmel Fire 7/17/24 7:18 AM Comment IFC 503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall be designed and constructed so as to allow the turning around of the longest piece of fire apparatus available to the servicing fire department. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM OK Info Only 97 2 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 7/17/24 3:15 PM Changemark 5' minimum sidewalk width The City of Carmel's minimum sidewalk width for all sidewalks is 5' wide. Revise these sections of sidewalk to be 5' wide to comply with the City's minimum sidewalk width requirements. Exhibit J2 - Connectivity Plan - 7.2.24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:47 PM walks to each unit have been left at 3' ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: David Littlejohn - 11/7/24 1:40 PM The city's minimum sidewalk width for all sidewalks is 5' wide. Revise the plans to include a minimum of 5' wide sidewalks for all sidewalks to meet the City's minimum sidewalk width requirements. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:25 AM Sidewalk in street is 5' and the wlak to the front door of the hme is 3' ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will revise. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 98 2 Engineering Alex Jordan 7/18/24 10:31 AM Changemark Thank you for providing this sheet but please submit the full delineation report Please also include the verifications from both USACE and IDEM on all the features included on this map. Towne 146 - Wetland Delination - 7.2.24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/20/24 5:15 PM Please confirm that the e-mail sent at 11:40 by Kyle Eichhorn addressees this comment. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 11/18/24 3:27 PM Please have the delineation submitted as previously requested. However, we will allow the project to move forward with confirmation from the developer that they will committed to doing offsite mitigation if IDEM or USACE take further jurisdiction above and beyond the opinion of the consultant. Please have the developer email us this confirmation. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:39 PM A revised drainage report has been uploaded. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 10/28/24 1:47 PM We have received the full delineation but please have the USACE and IDEM verifications provided once they have reviewed the report. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:07 AM This was provided to before the 10/1/24 Committee Meeting – should be resolved ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 9/27/24 9:05 AM We will look for this information on the next submittal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 99 2 Engineering Alex Jordan 7/18/24 11:03 AM Changemark We were unable to locate this hatching on the conceptual plan, please revise Towne 146 PUD 8 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 9/26/24 10:34 AM This section states that a cross-hatching is shown on the concept plan but we did not see this shown. However, it appears that this section has been removed so this comment can be disregarded. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM What hatching? Info Only 100 2 Engineering Alex Jordan 7/19/24 2:42 PM Changemark Please contact the County Surveyor's Office and Highway Department about the pond expansion The Ambleside pond is located within County right-of-way and contains a regulated drain. Crossroad Engineers will review the preliminary drainage report provided but please also provide us with confirmation from the two County departments that they will allow this pond expansion. Towne 146 - Color Concept Plan - 7.2.24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We have met with both of these agencies and will need to work through everything once zoning is approved. Resolved 101 2 CrossRoad Engineers Willie Hall 7/25/24 1:50 PM Changemark 302.03 For sites where the pre-developed area has more than one (1) outlet, the release rate should be computed based on pre-developed discharge to each outlet point. It appears that the proposed basin limits and associated allowable release rates are based on the post-developed limits. Please review and revise accordingly. For sites where depressional storage exists, the general release rates may have to be further reduced. If depressional storage exists at the site, site-specific release rates must be calculated according to methodology described in Chapter 200 of the STSM. GIS appears to indicate depressional storage in the southeast corner of the site. Please review and revise accordingly. DrainRep-2023-330 7-10-2024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:38 PM A revised drainage report has been upladed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:06 AM HWC has reviewed and will provide compliance in the Primary Plat submittal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will have our engineer review and revise this. Resolved 102 2 CrossRoad Engineers Willie Hall 7/25/24 2:07 PM Changemark Direct Discharge This basin does not appear to be included in the schematic or ICPR inputs. Please confirm that runoff from this area is being accounted for in the overall release rate. DrainRep-2023-330 7-10-2024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:38 PM A revised drainage report has been uploaded. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:07 AM HWC will review for our refile. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will have our engineer review and revise this. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 103 2 Sign Permits Aliza Shalit 7/25/24 3:05 PM Changemark minimum setback Please update to "minimum setback of five (5) feet". Towne 146 PUD 8 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:21 AM Revised. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Aliza Shalit - 9/24/24 2:21 PM This update has not been made. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will revise. Resolved 104 2 Carmel Water Operations Steve Cook 7/29/24 8:10 AM Comment we will need to review and approve construction prints with water design Info Only 105 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/1/24 11:56 AM Changemark Sec 4.1 Bulk Standards Table Please add "Area D" before Neighborhood Commercial to be consistent with the rest of the table. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:13 PM N/A ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will revise Resolved 106 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/1/24 1:45 PM Changemark Rear Load Lot Width This lot width still seems low as it would only leave room for an 18 ft. wide home. Is that correct? Please submit a plot plan showing how a rear load home will fit on a parcel. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:11 AM 30' changeson standards table. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:16 PM Ok, but the PUD still says 30 ft. minimum for the Ara B lots. Are you saying you want to change this to 36 ft. for the Area B Lots? ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Townhome min. needs to be 24' and SFD needs to be 36' min. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 107 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/1/24 2:15 PM Changemark Gravel between townhome driveways Is there another material you can use instead of gravel? Will you plant a shrub or flowers between driveways? Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/30/24 5:12 PM ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:12 AM Two shrubs and mulch prvided ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 11:08 AM Ok, please add this as a requirement. If shrubs will be planted, then mulch would be a better ground cover versus gravel. Please do not allow gravel. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We can provide up to two shrubs Resolved 108 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/2/24 4:14 PM Changemark Add Existing Zoning Please add the Existing Zoning for the site to this Zoning Comparison Chart. Towne 146 - Zoning Comparison Chart - 7.2.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:13 AM Uploaded ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 11:10 AM Once this is done, please upload the revised Zoning Comparison Chart and please give it the exact same name as the first chart and the software will version it for us. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 109 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/5/24 4:52 PM Changemark Architectural Standards Residential Sec. 1.B Why was this Alterations section removed? Can we discuss this, as it seemed like a good idea when you originally proposed it. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:17 PM Ok. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Adjacent neighbors didn’t want this section so we removed it. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 110 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/5/24 4:56 PM Changemark Masonry Wainscot Please add this wording after "masonry", "that is used on the wainscot" and then delete "used". Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:13 AM Uploaded ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 11:12 AM Thank you. Please upload the revised PUD when this has been changed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do Resolved 111 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/6/24 10:23 AM Changemark Porch Depth Please require a minimum porch depth for Area B of 6 ft. This is the minimum recommended in Carmel's Residential Design Standards and Guidelines to allow sufficient room for furniture. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:43 PM Porch design changed to 6' ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/31/24 4:34 PM We are not in support of a smaller front porch that does not provide good functionality. You should be able to provide a minimum 6 ft. porch for this brand new subdivision. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:13 AM The porches are 4' on those homes if it is measured from the framing. Technically 3’6” if measured from the exterior brick wainscot. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:19 PM Ok, but the PUD says 3.5 ft. Please change the PUD to 4 ft. Is 4 ft. enough for furniture? ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Our portches are 4' on those homes. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 112 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/7/24 2:26 PM Changemark Monotony Mitigation Single Family Detached Thank you for adding wording to clarify a change in elevation. However, you lessened the monotony clause by only requiring different elevations for side by side lots. Please change that part of the clause back to require different elevations for 2 lots on each side of the subject lot. The way it is written now, every other home could be the same elevation which would only require 2 total elevations for that lot type. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:14 AM PUD Updated ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 2:36 PM Please update PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 113 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 10:49 AM Changemark Masonry Color Please require a minimum of 3 masonry colors in the residential area. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:14 AM PUD Updated. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:33 PM Please update PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 114 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 10:53 AM Changemark Anti-Monotony Exemption Please remove section b of this exemption. Even if the lots are separated by a street or a common area, from the street view, we don't want to see two exact homes next to each other. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:14 AM PUD Updated ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:34 PM Please update PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 115 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 11:05 AM Changemark 6 unit Townhome building Please provide an image of what a 6 unit townhome building will look like. Exhibit F - Area C Townhomes - 1 page.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:14 AM PUD Updated ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:34 PM Please provide. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 116 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 11:37 AM Changemark Monotony Mitigation Single Family Detached Replace "of" with "or" Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:14 AM PUD Updated ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:36 PM Please update PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 117 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 11:38 AM Changemark Monotony Mitigation Single-family detached remove "significant" Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:14 AM PUD Updated ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:36 PM Please update PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 118 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 12:06 PM Changemark Exhibit I Sec 1.B Alterations Why was this Alterations section removed? Can we discuss this, as it seemed like a good idea when you originally proposed it. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Adjacent neighbors didn’ want this section so we removed it. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 119 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 12:15 PM Changemark Exhibit I Building Materials Please add "and trimmed in" before "architectural metals..". Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:20 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 120 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:29 PM Changemark Commercial Building Base Landscaping Please add requirements for building base landscaping for the commercial buildings. The renderings show abundant building base landscaping and the petitioner's comments reference the building base landscaping as a screen for the bottom metal panels. You can just require compliance with the Commercial Landscaping Standards of the UDO. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:20 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 121 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Prefinished Shake Style Roofing Panel What material is this roofing material? What is a roofing panel? Please provide a spec sheet to give us an idea of what this type of roof material is/how it works. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:20 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 122 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Reduce the number of bottom panels Please incorporate more floor to ceiling glass into some of the of the storefronts, instead of all having the metal panels at the bottom. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:21 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 123 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Horizontal Fiber Siding Please remove the horizontal fiber cement siding material from the entire building front and back) and replace with brick. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:21 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 124 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Heavier cornice These center portions of the building look a little blank/understated compared to the end units with the pitched roof. They need a heavier cornice to keep balance with the ends of the building and not look like "filler" areas. Please adjust the concept drawings. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:21 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 125 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Additional Soldier Course On all elevations, please incorporate an additional soldier course detailing in the brick facades for added detail. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:22 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 126 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Top Soldier Course Why is the soldier course brick at the cornice area a different color? It could be ok, but we should use it in other places to have it be a significant part of the design. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:22 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 127 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Windows in gables Instead of resting the window in the gable on top of the trim, can it be moved up to have room for siding/shake underneath it and between the window and the trim? Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:22 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 128 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Red block base The dark red block base of the building is a very stark contrast to the brown brick. Can this be a lighter color stone or perhaps a darker brown brick color? Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:22 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 129 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Green Awnings Can you look at a different color than green for the awnings? this might blend into any trees and feels a bit too Christmasy with the dark red brick/stone base. Or if another color stone or brick is chosen for the base, we might be ok with keeping the green. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:22 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 130 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:51 PM Changemark Downspouts Please make the downspout colors on the rear blend into the facade color more. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:22 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 131 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:53 PM Changemark Sides of Dormer Windows The sides of the dormer windows Ã?¢Ã?â?¬Ã?â?? please make those the same shake as the side of the gable. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:22 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 132 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 2:56 PM Changemark Sign Spandrel Panel Areas About how big will these sign spandrel panel areas be? Please show a dashed rectangle for the sign spandrel areas for each tenant space and label it sign spandrel panel so that everyone knows where the signage can be located. Refer to the UDO for where the sign spandrel area can be located. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:23 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 133 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 3:41 PM Changemark Parking Lot Lamp Posts The parking lot lights in these renderings are very modern. Are these just a placeholder, or is this the style you would like to install? Exhibit G - Neighborhood Commercial - 6 pages.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:23 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 134 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 3:41 PM Changemark Roof Overhang What will be the depth of the roof overhangs? Exhibit G - Neighborhood Commercial - 6 pages.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:24 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM MA Resolved 135 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 4:08 PM Changemark Signage Type Do you plan to have wall signs or canopy signs for this building? Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:24 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 136 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 4:21 PM Changemark Add section to Building Design and Mass for Commercial Standards Please add this section for commercial buildings. "Building Facades: Facades shall have a defined base or foundation, a middle or modulated wall, and a top formed by a pitched roof or articulated cornice, in each instance appropriate to the building style. Facades constructed of more than one material shall only change materials along a horizontal line, or along a vertical line of an architectural element (not a diagonal line). The material that appears to be heavier shall always be placed beneath the lighter material. All facades of buildings shall be of the same materials and similarly detailed. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 9/26/24 2:24 PM NA ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 137 2 Sign Permits Aliza Shalit 8/8/24 4:21 PM Changemark Spandrel panels - see all outlines Please designate spandrel panels for signage as shown. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Reviewer Response: Aliza Shalit - 9/24/24 2:23 PM A sign package will be required for all multi tenant commercial buildings. Spandrel panels will be required to be shown at that time. No sign will be allowed to be installed until this has been completed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Info Only 138 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 4:22 PM Changemark AC for Townhomes Where will the AC units be located for the townhomes? Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM They are located on the rear or side of the corner units. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 139 2 Sign Permits Aliza Shalit 8/8/24 4:22 PM Changemark Sign Package A sign Plan (Package) will be required for all multi tenant commercial buildings before any signage can be permitted. Commercial Elevations 2024-0208 - Option D.pdf Info Only 140 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 4:24 PM Changemark Gravel between driveways Please do not allow gravel between driveways as this is not conducive for plantings. It should be mulch instead. Towne 146 PUD - red line 071024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:15 AM PUD Revised. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:38 PM Please update PUD. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Ok Resolved 141 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/8/24 4:27 PM Changemark Pavement Material at South Entrance Please add back the crosshatching to indicate a different pavement material as people enter the development from the south entrance. Exhibit B - Concept Plan - 7.2.24 - 1 page.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM NA Resolved 142 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/9/24 3:13 PM Changemark Townhomes facing rear of commercial Are you comfortable having these townhomes face the rear of the commercial building? I feel like it was a better design when the only the ends of the townhomes faced the commercial. Exhibit B - Concept Plan - 7.2.24 - 1 page.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We have revised our concept plan to address this. Resolved 143 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/9/24 3:15 PM Changemark On-street parking Will the streets in front of the townhomes accommodate on-street parking? In the previous layout some of the streets showed on-street parking. Exhibit B - Concept Plan - 7.2.24 - 1 page.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM We will put onstreet parking when there is room. Resolved 144 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/9/24 3:17 PM Changemark Open Space Areas Did you lose any open space with this new layout? I don't see the park next to the pond anymore. Will there be any kind of design open space adjacent to the pond? Exhibit B - Concept Plan - 7.2.24 - 1 page.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Yes, it did change Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 145 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/9/24 4:38 PM Changemark Sidewalk in front of townhomes Please change this sidewalk in front of the townhomes to a 5 ft. sidewalk. Exhibit J2 - Connectivity Plan - 7.2.24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:16 AM Walk in street 5' walk to door to walk in street 3' ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:44 PM Please update connectivity plan. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 146 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/9/24 4:41 PM Changemark Sidewalk connection to Towne Please show a sidewalk connection on the Concept Plan from the Towne Rd. path to the development entrance. Exhibit B - Concept Plan - 7.2.24 - 1 page.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:17 AM PUD Updated ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:47 PM Please update Concept Plan ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 147 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/9/24 4:52 PM Changemark ADLS for Area A and B Is ADLS required for the single family homes? I didn't think the PUD required this. Towne 146 - Zoning Comparison Chart - 7.2.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:17 AM Correct. See corrected comparison list. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/18/24 3:50 PM On your Zoning Comparison Chart you show that Area A and B require ADLS. These are the single-family home sections. Are you planning to submit all the single family home elevations for ADLS review? ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Not sure what this means. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 148 2 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 8/9/24 4:52 PM Changemark Area C Lot Width I believe the PUD now calls for a 24 ft. lot width for Area C. Please update the Zoning Comparison Chart. Towne 146 - Zoning Comparison Chart - 7.2.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:18 AM PUD Updated ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 9/20/24 4:15 PM Will do. Resolved 149 3 CrossRoad Engineers Willie Hall 9/23/24 9:42 AM Comment Our review is pending until an updated drainage report is provided. Info Only 150 3 Addressing Dave McCoy 9/23/24 11:07 AM Comment As this project moves through the development process, at some point new street names will be needed. At the appropriate time please contact me (dmccoy@carmel.in.gov) to discuss the process for assigning new street names. Info Only 151 3 Engineering Alex Jordan 9/27/24 9:11 AM Comment Please clarify in the PUD how the existing wetlands will be handled. It appears that the southeastern wetland will now be preserved. If so, we will need it to be placed within a water quality preservation easement per Section 7.10 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:08 AM See additional text in PUD. Resolved 152 3 Engineering Alex Jordan 9/27/24 9:15 AM Comment Please clarify which pond configuration will be proposed. There were two different configurations uploaded into the site drawing folder with this submittal. Additionally, the PUD shows the pond connected to the Ambleside pond in the northeast corner of the site but Section 8.5 references a "southern pond". Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:08 AM SIngle Pond Configuration. Resolved 153 3 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 9/30/24 3:14 PM Changemark Open space exhibit I have attached a sample open space exhibit (which is uploaded to the correspondence folder). In it, it shows a breakdown of the area types and its acreage within an open space summary. Please provide information like this summary and delineate on the open space exhibit areas as shown in the sample with hatchings. Towne 146 PUD 1- red line ordiance 092024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:25 AM See Open Space plna submitted 10-23-24 Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 154 3 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/3/24 11:06 AM Changemark site layout version Of the two types of overall designs, I would prefer this one 'R' over the other based on the ability to preserve the existing trees along the east perimeter. The area with the best existing trees is along the eastern perimeter and the SE corner. This is evident from Woodland Evaluation completed by Jud Scott. I also see a benefit environmentally to have a larger continuous area of open space provided on the 'R' plan; as the 'Q' plan breaks up the open space with the Area A font loads. 3b - 2024.SEPT.13_146 and Towne_Plan R_color.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:26 AM Plan Q was prefered and is being advance with the request. Resolved 155 3 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/3/24 11:10 AM Changemark SE tree area An aerial map vs the delineation of these front load homes along the north area of the triangle tree area seems to overlap. Many of the existing trees are right at the edge of the tree area and would not survive construction damage. Please confirm the existing trees at the edge of the tree area is outside any demolition grading. 3b - 2024.SEPT.13_146 and Towne_Plan R_color.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:27 AM See open space plan and wetland language added to PUD. Resolved 156 3 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 10/15/24 10:12 AM Comment I appears that there are two site plans being considered for this project. I will wait for when the final proposed site plan is determined to make my comments regarding sidewalk and path connectivity. Info Only 157 3 Hamilton County Surveyor Samuel Clark 10/18/24 11:45 AM Comment Please coordinate with Ambleside reps regarding the potential merging of detention ponds. Info Only 158 3 Hamilton County Surveyor Samuel Clark 10/18/24 11:48 AM Comment Drainage infrastructure is to be county regulated. Please coordinate with our office over necessary procedural items when the detailed development plan and drainage calcs are completed. Info Only 159 3 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/18/24 4:04 PM Changemark Update Connectivity Plan Please provide an updated version of the Connectivity Plan. Exhibit J2 - Connectivity Plan - 7.2.24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:18 AM Submitted 10-23 Resolved 160 3 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/18/24 4:04 PM Changemark Concept Plan Q I prefer Concept Plan Q with the combined pond if it saves more trees and is better for water quality. And if a good maintenance agreement can be worked out. 3a - 2024.SEPT.13_146 and Towne_Plan Q_color.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:19 AM Conept Plan Q is preferedand included in the PUD. Resolved 161 3 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/18/24 4:04 PM Changemark Path Extension Please extend the path that you show in the southeast corner all the way west to connect to Towne Rd. 3a - 2024.SEPT.13_146 and Towne_Plan Q_color.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:19 AM Connectivity Plan updated and submitted 10-23 Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 162 3 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/18/24 4:31 PM Changemark Primary Plat versus Development Plan Please consider which route you want to take. If you go the Development Plan route, then all engineered site drawings will be required at that time. If you go the Primary Plat route, then the engineered site drawings come with the Secondary Plat phase. Towne 146 PUD 1- red line ordiance 092024.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:19 AM See revisions to file Primary Plat. Resolved 163 3 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/18/24 4:45 PM Changemark Masonry on Townhomes Can some of the units of the townhomes include more masonry than just a wainscot? That would help provide additional variety and aesthetic appeal for these long buildings. Exhibit F - Area C Townhomes - 1 page.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:44 PM Masonry changes made. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 10/31/24 4:35 PM Please provide an update on this at Committee. This would especially help with the 6 unit buildings which appear very monotonous. Those buildings need some more work. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 10/24/24 10:20 AM Lennar can explore adding this. Resolved 164 4 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/25/24 8:51 AM Changemark Open Space plan vs Concept Plan exhibit There seems to be confusion on referencing the open space plan vs the concept plan and the letter of each as an exhibit. Currently, it seems that the Neighborhood Commercial - 6 pages is called exhibit G. Please revise to clarify what each exhibit is and that they are referenced accurately in the PUD. Currently the new open space plan does not note what exhibit it is on the document. Towne 146 PUD 12 102324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:50 PM Open Space plan is page 3 of Exhibit B Resolved 165 4 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/25/24 8:51 AM Changemark Section 5.5 I do not see these areas on the open space plan. Please label this. Towne 146 PUD 12 102324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:51 PM See updated Open Space Plan. Resolved 166 4 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/25/24 8:51 AM Changemark Section 5.7 Common Area Landscaping Please provide a description on how the common areas are to be landscaped. Either per the Open space plan or wording that adds that the designed open space areas will be landscaped with shade trees as approved by Urban Forester. Please provide some wording to note that all common area spaces will have trees and landscaping. Towne 146 PUD 12 102324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:51 PM 10 shade trees per acre added. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 167 4 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/25/24 8:51 AM Changemark 6.2.B foundation and lot planting standards I do not see an exhibit with these areas notated. Please label this on all landscaping documents. Towne 146 PUD 12 102324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:51 PM see updated open space plan. Resolved 168 4 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/25/24 9:02 AM Changemark drainage area Please label this area and the groundcover type. Can it be a prairie grass mix? If it is not to be open space, simply label it as such as well. 146th & Towne - Open Space Exhibit.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:51 PM see updated plan. Resolved 169 4 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/25/24 9:02 AM Changemark trail location If this is where the trail location is proposed, please provide tree preservation fencing on both sides of this trail. 146th & Towne - Open Space Exhibit.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:52 PM Understood Resolved 170 4 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 10/25/24 9:03 AM Changemark Exhibit letter Please label this document the correct Exhibit 'letter'. 146th & Towne - Open Space Exhibit.pdf Reviewer Response: Daren Mindham - 11/14/24 3:14 PM The notation was not added, only shown as " ". Please revise. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:52 PM Page 3 of Exhibit B Info Only 171 4 Engineering Alex Jordan 10/31/24 2:35 PM Changemark Please remove rear yard drainage easements from this section We do not want these overlapping with the preservation easement. Please also clarify that the grading listed in this section is permitted only in association with the installation of storm, sanitary, and the permitted pathways. Towne 146 PUD 12 102324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/20/24 5:16 PM It has been removed. See latest PUD version downloaded and sent to staff in advance of the PC meeting. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 11/18/24 3:25 PM It does not appear that the rear yard drainage was removed from this section. Please revise. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:41 PM Understood. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 172 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/31/24 3:34 PM Changemark Section 5.3 Existing Wetland Thank you for preserving the wetland. Please remove "rear yard drainage easements" from this section as we do not want these overlapping with the preservation easement. Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/20/24 5:11 PM It has been removed. See latest PUD version downloaded and sent to staff in advance of the PC meeting. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 11/14/24 2:50 PM This does not appear to be removed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:45 PM removed Resolved 173 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/31/24 3:34 PM Changemark Additional Sidewalk Locations Please add these additional sidewalk locations to the Connectivity Plan. Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:45 PM added. Resolved 174 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/31/24 3:38 PM Changemark Missing 3 ft. sidewalk It looks like the northeast townhome building is missing the 3 ft. sidewalks from the front door to the trail. Please show those on the Connectivity Plan. Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:45 PM added walks. Resolved 175 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/31/24 4:20 PM Changemark Masonry Wainscot Let's try this. Could you replace Section 2.A.1 of the Architectural Standards with the following. "All homes shall have a masonry wainscot on all sides of the building up to the lowest windowsill on the first floor, at a minimum. The same masonry material used on the front wainscot shall be used on the side and rear wainscots." Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:45 PM text edited. Resolved 176 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/31/24 4:23 PM Changemark Architectural Standards Section 2.D.1 Insert "square" between "thirteen (13)" and "feet" Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:45 PM added. Resolved 177 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 10/31/24 4:30 PM Changemark Townhome Monotony Mitigation Please change Section 4.D. to require adjacent buildings to have different color schemes. Right now it says "may". It should say "shall". Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:45 PM shall added. Resolved 178 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/1/24 9:50 AM Changemark Section 4.7.D Gravel between driveways Please remove the last sentence in this section as this is addressed in the Architectural Standards Section 6 and gravel is not allowed between driveways now. Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:45 PM removed as requested. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 179 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/1/24 10:49 AM Changemark Section 8.3.A Spelling Error Is this "with" meant to be "width"? Please correct. Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:46 PM correct. Resolved 180 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/1/24 10:59 AM Changemark Trail Connection to Ambleside Is this where the trail connection to Ambleside will be? The concept plan shows it further east. 146th & Towne - Open Space Exhibit.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:46 PM Trail noted on connectivity plan. Resolved 181 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/1/24 11:07 AM Changemark Section 3.d Correction I believe this is supposed to be "(iii)" instead of "(ii)". Please correct. 146th Towne Carmel Rental Zoning Commitments - 10.22.24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/20/24 5:16 PM It has been removed. See latest commitment version downloaded and sent to staff in advance of the PC meeting. ---------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 11/15/24 11:48 AM I did not see this changed. Please correct. ---------------------------------------------------------- Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:46 PM Exited. UnResolved 182 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/1/24 11:07 AM Changemark Section 4.e Correction I believe this is supposed to be "(iii)" instead of "(ii)". Please correct. 146th Towne Carmel Rental Zoning Commitments - 10.22.24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:46 PM Edited. Resolved 183 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/4/24 4:50 PM Changemark 6 unit townhomes Thank you for submitting elevations of a 6-unit building. These are very long without much variety. Please add more brick to the fronts of some of the units to help break up the facade more. 6-Unit 2-Story RL Control Plans.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:46 PM Masonry modified. Resolved 184 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/4/24 4:50 PM Changemark Wainscot on rear The townhomes would have a masonry wainscot on all sides, correct? 6-Unit 2-Story RL Control Plans.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:46 PM Correct. Resolved 185 4 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/5/24 4:44 PM Changemark Trees in Common Areas Please require a minimum of 10 trees per acre of common area to be planted in the common areas. Towne 146 red line 2nd committee to 3rd committee.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:46 PM Added Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 186 4 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 11/7/24 9:13 AM Changemark Path alignment Please realign this path so that it straight/direct and does not require a cyclist to switchback/zigzag around the path. The proposed design would be very difficult to ride and does not provide a direct connection through the site. Connectivitiy Exhibit - Layout Q 10-22- 24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:47 PM See revised Connectivity Plan Resolved 187 4 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 11/7/24 9:13 AM Changemark sidewalk connections from on street parking to sidewalks Please revise the plans to include small sidewalk connections from the on- street parking spaces to the sidewalks along the streets. This will allow for people to get to/from their vehicles without having to walk through the lawn of the tree rows. Connectivitiy Exhibit - Layout Q 10-22- 24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:48 PM See revised Connectivity Plan Resolved 188 4 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 11/7/24 9:13 AM Changemark Path connection Revise the plans to provide a direct path connection from the path through the preserved tree area to the path that connects to the 146th St path. Connectivitiy Exhibit - Layout Q 10-22- 24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:48 PM See revised Connectivity Plan Resolved 189 4 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 11/7/24 9:47 AM Changemark Two Exhibit Bs This shows two Exhibit Bs. Please revise this to avoid confusion. Towne 146 PUD 12 102324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:48 PM There are 3 pages in Exhibit B. Resolved 190 4 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 11/7/24 9:48 AM Changemark Change this to the Connectivity Plan Exhibit Towne 146 PUD 12 102324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:49 PM Connectivity Plan is page 2 of Exhibit B Resolved 191 4 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 11/7/24 9:50 AM Changemark Change to Path Revise this to say a path connection shall be provided to correspond with the connectivity plan. Towne 146 PUD 12 102324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:49 PM Edited. Resolved 192 4 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 11/7/24 1:37 PM Changemark Sidewalk extensions/connections Revise the plan to include four north/south sidewalk extensions to connect the proposed north/south sidewalks along the interior streets to the frontage road and an east/west sidewalk to provide pedestrian access/connectivity through the site to/from the path connection on the east side of the development. Connectivitiy Exhibit - Layout Q 10-22- 24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:49 PM revised. Resolved 193 4 Transportation Systems David Littlejohn 11/7/24 1:39 PM Changemark 5' minimum sidewalk width The city's minimum sidewalk width standard is 5 ft wide. Revise the plans to include a minimum of 5 ft wide sidewalks for all new sidewalks in this development. Connectivitiy Exhibit - Layout Q 10-22- 24.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/13/24 12:50 PM only 3' walk is the service walk to the dwelling door. Resolved Plan Review - Review Comments Report Project Name: PZ-2024-00028 PUD Towne 146th Workflow Started: 2/20/2024 12:30:12 PM Report Generated: 12/02/2024 01:15 PM REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS 194 5 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 11/15/24 9:19 AM Changemark Sec 5.6 Estate spelling Please correct spelling. Twone 146 PUD Red line PC PH to 111324.pdf Info Only 195 5 Urban Forestry Daren Mindham 11/15/24 9:20 AM Changemark PUD Sec 6.2.B Please label Areas A, B, and C on the open space plan and all other coordinating plans. 146th & Towne - Open Space Exhibit.pdf Info Only 196 5 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/19/24 6:04 PM Changemark Section 3.7 I believe Section 3.7 should be Section 3.6 and Section 3.8 should be Section 3.7 Twone 146 PUD Red line PC PH to 111324.pdf Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/20/24 5:19 PM I will update the ordinance we send to council. Resolved 197 5 Planning & Zoning Alexia Lopez 11/20/24 4:51 PM Comment Please upload the most recent version of the PUD with any corrections. Responded by: Jon Dobosiewicz - 11/20/24 5:25 PM See submitted with this response. Resolved I NDIANA D EPARTMENT OF E NVIRONMENTAL M ANAGEMENT We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 100 N. Senate Avenue • Indianapolis, IN 46204 (800) 451-6027 • (317) 232-8603 • www.idem.IN.gov Eric J. Holcomb Brian C. Rockensuess Governor Commissioner An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper WATER OF THE STATE DETERMINATION PROJECT NO.: 2024-384-29-GCW-Q PROJECT NAME: SE of W 146th ST & Towne RD AUTHORITY: 327 IAC 17-1-3(13), 327 IAC 17-1-3(17) DATE OF ISSUANCE: May 17, 2024 DATE OF EXPIRATION: May 6, 2029 APPROVED: ________________________________________ James Turner, Wetlands Section Chief Surface Water and Operations Office of Water Quality RESPONSIBLE PARTIES: Jeffrey Reasner Lennar Corporation 11555 North Meridian Street, Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 DELINEATOR(S): Bailey Duncan and Tim Douglas Meristem 877 Port Drive Avon, Indiana 46123 AGENT(S): Bailey Duncan Meristem 877 Port Drive Avon, Indiana 46123 DELINEATION DATE: January 10, 2024 DATE REPORT RECEIVED: May 6, 2024 IDEM No. 2024-384-29-GCW-Q, SE of W 146th ST & Towne RD Page 2 TRACT LOCATION: At the Southeast intersection of West 146th Street & Towne Road. Latitude 39.997998, Longitude -86.200105 Hamilton County The project tract is approximately 15.7 acres in size and is located in Carmel. USACE ID: LRL-2024-00076-jde PROPOSED ACTIVITY: Housing development CONCLUSIONS: The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has reached the following conclusions about whether any Waters, as defined in 327 IAC 17-1-3(13), exist on the property. In accordance with 327 IAC 17-1-3(17) the department makes all isolated wetland determinations consistent with the Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1 of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. SITE ID ACRES CLASS FORESTED EXEMPT PERMIT NEEDED FOR PROPOSED ACTIVITY AUTHORITY Wetland A 0.154 Cropland No NA No IC 13-18-22- 1(d)(2) Wetland B 0.245 II No No No IC 13-18-22- 1(b)(7) Wetland C 0.903 II No No Yes IC 13-18-22 IDEM No. 2024-384-29-GCW-Q, SE of W 146th ST & Towne RD Page 3 Public Law 1-2024 made changes to Indiana’s Isolated Wetlands Laws. These changes become effective July 1, 2024, and will result in the following Classifications: SITE ID ACRES CLASS FORESTED EXEMPT PERMIT NEEDED FOR PROPOSED ACTIVITY AUTHORITY Wetland A 0.154 Cropland No NA No IC 13-18-22- 1(d)(2) Wetland B 0.245 II No Yes No IC 13-18-22- 1(b)(7) Wetland C 0.903 II No No Yes IC 13-18-22 COMMENTS: Wetland A is located on land that has been in agricultural production (cropped) within the last (10) years. Per IC 13-18-22-1(d)(2), the development of cropland does not require a permit if it has been used for agricultural production in the last ten(10) years immediately preceding the development, if the United States Army Corps of Engineers has issued a jurisdictional determination confirming that the cropland does not contain wetlands subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Note: this determination will not change after July 1, 2024. Wetland B is a class II wetland located within a municipality, wholly contained within a tract, and is under three-fourths (3/4) acre in size. Impacts to Wetland C do not require a permit under IC 13-18-22-1(b)(7). Based on the changes effective July 1, 2024, impacts to Wetland B will still require no permit. Wetland C is a 0.905 acre class II emergent and scrub-shrub wetland. Impacts to Wetland C before or after July 1, 2024, will require permitting under IC 13-18-22. The Indiana Code regulates some activities differently within isolated wetlands. This determination was made based on the activity as proposed in the materials submitted to IDEM. If the proposed activity changes, the determination above may no longer be accurate. IDEM No. 2024-384-29-GCW-Q, SE of W 146th ST & Towne RD Page 4 DISCLAIMER: This determination is based upon the information provided in the above referenced delineation report and/or the above referenced field evaluation. This determination does not relieve the recipient from the responsibility of obtaining any permits or authorizations that may be required for this project or related activities from IDEM or any other agency or person. The project site and the associated construction may be subject to the Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSGP). The CSGP specifically addresses stormwater run-off and the pollutants associated with all land- disturbing activities of one acre or more. If applicable, permit coverage must be obtained prior to the initiation of land-disturbing activities. Please contact the IDEM Stormwater Program at Stormwat@idem.IN.gov or 317-233-1864 concerning obtaining permit coverage under the CSGP. You may also wish to contact the Indiana Department of Natural Resources at 317-232-4160, or toll free at 877-928-3755, concerning the possible requirement of a Natural Freshwater Lake or Construction in a Floodway Permit. This determination does not: (1) authorize impacts or activities; (2) authorize any injury to persons or private property or invasion of other private rights, or any infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations; (3) convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges; (4) preempt any duty to obtain federal, state or local permits or authorizations required by law for the execution of the project or related activities; or (5) authorize changes in the plan design detailed in the application. APPEALS PROCEDURES: This decision may be appealed in accordance with IC 4-21.5, the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act. The steps that must be followed to qualify for review are: 1. You must petition for review in writing that states facts demonstrating that you are either the person to whom this decision is directed, a person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the decision, or a person entitled to review under any law. 2. You must file the petition for review with the Office of Environmental Adjudication (OEA) at the following address: Office of Environmental Adjudication 100 North Senate Avenue IGCN Room N103 Indianapolis, IN 46204 IDEM No. 2024-384-29-GCW-Q, SE of W 146th ST & Towne RD Page 5 3. You must file the petition within eighteen (18) days of the mailing date of this decision. If the eighteenth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or other day that the OEA offices are closed during regular business hours, you may file the petition the next day that the OEA offices are open during regular business hours. The petition is deemed filed on the earliest of the following dates: the date it is personally delivered to OEA; the date that the envelope containing the petition is postmarked if it is mailed by United States mail; or, the date it is shown to have been deposited with a private carrier on the private carrier's receipt, if sent by private carrier. Identifying the permit, decision, or other order for which you seek review by number, name of the responsible, location, or date of this notice will expedite review of the petition. Note that if a petition for review is granted pursuant to IC 4-21.5-3-7, the petitioner will, and any other person may, obtain notice of any prehearing conferences, preliminary hearings, hearings, stays, and any orders disposing of the proceedings by requesting copies of such notices from OEA. If you have procedural or scheduling questions regarding your Petition for Administrative Review, additional information on the review process is available at the website of the Office of Environmental Adjudication at http://www.in.gov/oea. If you have any questions about this determination, contact Graham Wrin by phone at 317-605-4105 or by e-mail at GCWrin@idem.IN.gov. cc: Bailey Duncan, Meristem DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOUISVILLE DISTRICT INDIANAPOLIS REGULATORY OFFICE 8902 OTIS AVENUE, SUITE S106B INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46216 May 6, 2024 Regulatory Division North Branch ID No. LRL-2024-00076-jde Mr. Keith Lash Lennar Corporation 11555 North Meridian Street, Suite 400 Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Mr. Lash: This letter is in regard to the correspondence dated January 19, 2024, from Meristem, LLC, requesting an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) on your behalf for a 15.7-Acre review area located at 39.9980, -86.2001 near Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana. A location map of the review area is enclosed. The site was reviewed pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 404 of the CWA requires that a Department of the Army (DA) permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill material into “waters of the United States (U.S.),” including wetlands, prior to conducting the work (33 U.S.C. 1344). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires that a DA Permit be obtained for structures or work in or affecting navigable “waters of the U.S.,” prior to conducting the work (33 U.S.C. 403). Based on the information provided to this office, the site contains Wetland A, Wetland B, Wetland C, and Drainage Pattern 1 which are not considered to be “waters of the U.S.” and are not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, this determination does not relieve you of the responsibility to comply with applicable state law. We urge you to contact the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Quality at WetlandsProgram@idem.in.gov to determine the applicability of state law to your project. This letter contains an AJD for the aforementioned site. If you object to the AJD, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal the AJD, you must submit a completed RFA form to the Lakes and Rivers Division Office at the address listed on the enclosed NAP RFA form. In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by July 5, 2024. It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division office if you do not object to the determination in this letter. This jurisdictional determination is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. The delineation included herein has been conducted to identify the location and extent of the aquatic resource boundaries and/or the jurisdictional status of aquatic resources for purposes of the Clean Water Act for the particular site identified in this request. This delineation and/or jurisdictional determination may not be valid for the Wetland Conservation Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should discuss the applicability of a certified wetland determination with the local USDA service center prior to starting work. If you have any questions, please contact us by writing to the above address, or contact me directly at 317-543-9424 or Justin.D.Eshelman@usace.army.mil. Any correspondence on this matter should refer to our ID Number LRL-2024-00076-jde. A copy of this letter will be furnished to your authorized agent. Sincerely, Justin D. Eshelman Project Manager Indianapolis Regulatory Office Enclosures Copy Furnished: IDEM (Wrin) Meristem, LLC (Duncan) January 2024 0 200 400100 Feet 1 in = 200 feet Meristem ´SE of W 146th ST & Towne RD Clay Township Hamilton County, Indiana Legend Study Area (15.7 acres) Drainage Patterns Scrub-Shrub Wetlands Emergent Wetlands Appendix A, Figure 6: Water Resources Delineation Map Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Imagery Date: September 15, 2022 Wetland A (PEM): 0.154-acre USACE- and IDEM- Non-Jurisdictional Wetland B (PEM): 0.245-acre USACE- and IDEM- Non-Jurisdictional Wetland C (PEM/PSS): 0.903-acre Overall 0.753-acre PEM 0.150-acre PSS USACE Non-Jurisdictional IDEM Jurisdictional Drainage Pattern 1: 287 LF USACE- and IDEM- Non-Jurisdictional -1- NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Lennar Corporation File Number: LRL-2024-76 Date: 05/06/2024 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE C PERMIT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE D X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION F SECTION I The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil- Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/appeals/ or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. -2- C. PERMIT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Not appealable You received a permit denial without prejudice because a required Federal, state, and/or local authorization and/or certification has been denied for activities which also require a Department of the Army permit before final action has been taken on the Ar my permit application. The permit denial without prejudice is not appealable. There is no prejudice to the right of the applicant to reinstate processing of the Army permit application if subsequent approval is received from the appropriate Federal, state, and/or local agency on a previously denied authorization and/or certification. D: PERMIT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE: You may appeal the permit denial You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the d ate of this notice. E: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information for reconsideration • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division e ngineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. • RECONSIDERATION: You may request that the district engineer reconsider the approved JD by submitting new information or data to the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. The district will determine whether the information submitted qualifies as new information or data that justifies reconsideration of the approved JD. A reconsideration request does not initiate the appeal process. You may submit a request for appeal to the d ivision engineer to preserve your appeal rights while the district is determining whether the submitted information qualifies for a reconsideration. F: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: Not appealable You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision you may contact: Justin Eshelman U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District Indianapolis Regulatory Office 8902 Otis Avenue, S106B Indianapolis, IN 46216 Office Phone: 317-543-9424 e-mail: Justin.D.Eshelman@usace.army.mil If you have questions regarding the appeal process, or to submit your request for appeal, you may contact: Katherine A. McCafferty Regulatory Administrative Appeals Officer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division 550 Main Street, Room 10780 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3222 Office Phone: 513-684-2699, FAX: 513-684-2460 e-mail: katherine.a.mccafferty@usace.army.mil -3- SECTION II – REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. Use additional pages as necessary. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day notice of any site investigation and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. _______________________________ Signature of appellant or agent. Date: Email address of appellant and/or agent: Telephone number: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOUISVILLE DISTRICT INDIANAPOLIS REGULATORY OFFICE 8902 OTIS AVENUE, SUITE S106B INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46216 CELRL - RDN May 6, 2024 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023) ,1 LRL-2024-00076-jde. BACKGROUND. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a Corps document stating the presence or absence of waters of the United States on a parcel or a written statement and map identifying the limits of waters of the United States on a parcel. AJDs are clearly designated appealable actions and will include a basis of JD with the document.2 AJDs are case-specific and are typically made in response to a request. AJDs are valid for a period of five years unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date or a District Engineer has identified, after public notice and comment, that specific geographic areas with rapidly changing environmental conditions merit re-verification on a more frequent basis.3 For the purposes of this AJD, we have relied on section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA),4 the Clean Water Act (CWA) implementing regulations published by the Department of the Army in 1986 and amended in 1993 (references 2.a. and 2.b. respectively), the 2008 Rapanos-Carabell guidance (reference 2.c.), and other applicable guidance, relevant case law and longstanding practice, (collectively the pre- 2015 regulatory regime), and the Sackett decision (reference 2.d.) in evaluating jurisdiction. This Memorandum for Record (MFR) constitutes the basis of jurisdiction for a Corps AJD as defined in 33 CFR §331.2. The features addressed in this AJD were evaluated consistent with the definition of “waters of the United States” found in the pre-2015 regulatory regime and consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. This AJD did not rely on the 2023 “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” as amended on 8 September 2023 (Amended 2023 Rule) because, as of the date of this decision, the Amended 2023 Rule is not applicable in Indiana due to litigation. 1 While the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett had no effect on some categories of waters covered under the CWA, and no effect on any waters covered under RHA, all categories are included in this Memorandum for Record for efficiency. 2 33 CFR 331.2. 3 Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-02. 4 USACE has authority under both Section 9 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 but for convenience, in this MFR, jurisdiction under RHA will be referred to as Section 10. CELRL - RDN SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00076-jde. 2 1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. a. Provide a list of each individual feature within the review area and the jurisdictional status of each one (i.e., identify whether each feature is/is not a water of the United States and/or a navigable water of the United States). i. Wetland A is not a water of the U.S. or a navigable water of the U.S. ii. Wetland B is not a water of the U.S. or a navigable water of the U.S. iii. Wetland C is not a water of the U.S. or a navigable water of the U.S. iv. Drainage Pattern 1 is not a water of the U.S. or a navigable water of the U.S. 2. REFERENCES. a. Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers, 51 FR 41206 (November 13, 1986). b. Clean Water Act Regulatory Programs, 58 FR 45008 (August 25, 1993). c. U.S. EPA & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (December 2, 2008) d. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. _, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023) 3. REVIEW AREA. 15.7-acre review area located at 39.9980, -86.2001 near Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana. See attached AJD Map. 4. NEAREST TRADITIONAL NAVIGABLE WATER (TNW), INTERSTATE WATER, OR THE TERRITORIAL SEAS TO WHICH THE AQUATIC RESOURCE IS CONNECTED. N/A 5. FLOWPATH FROM THE SUBJECT AQUATIC RESOURCES TO A TNW, INTERSTATE WATER, OR THE TERRITORIAL SEAS. N/A 6. SECTION 10 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS5: Describe aquatic resources or other features within the review area determined to be jurisdictional in accordance with 5 33 CFR 329.9(a) A waterbody which was navigable in its natural or improved state, or which was susceptible of reasonable improvement (as discussed in § 329.8(b) of this part) retains its character as CELRL - RDN SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00076-jde. 3 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Include the size of each aquatic resource or other feature within the review area and how it was determined to be jurisdictional in accordance with Section 10.6 N/A 7. SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS: Describe the aquatic resources within the review area that were found to meet the definition of waters of the United States in accordance with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett. List each aquatic resource separately, by name, consistent with the naming convention used in section 1, above. Include a rationale for each aquatic resource, supporting that the aquatic resource meets the relevant category of “waters of the United States” in the pre-2015 regulatory regime. The rationale should also include a written description of, or reference to a map in the administrative record that shows, the lateral limits of jurisdiction for each aquatic resource, including how that limit was determined, and incorporate relevant references used. Include the size of each aquatic resource in acres or linear feet and attach and reference related figures as needed. a. TNWs (a)(1): N/A b. Interstate Waters (a)(2): N/A c. Other Waters (a)(3): N/A d. Impoundments (a)(4): N/A e. Tributaries (a)(5): N/A f. The territorial seas (a)(6): N/A g. Adjacent wetlands (a)(7): N/A 8. NON-JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES AND FEATURES a. Describe aquatic resources and other features within the review area identified as “generally non-jurisdictional” in the preamble to the 1986 regulations (referred “navigable in law” even though it is not presently used for commerce, or is presently incapable of such use because of changed conditions or the presence of obstructions. 6 This MFR is not to be used to make a report of findings to support a determination that the water is a navigable water of the United States. The district must follow the procedures outlined in 33 CFR part 329.14 to make a determination that water is a navigable water of the United States subject to Section 10 of the RHA. CELRL - RDN SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00076-jde. 4 to as “preamble waters”).7 Include size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be non-jurisdictional under the CWA as a preamble water. N/A b. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area identified as “generally not jurisdictional” in the Rapanos guidance. Include size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be non-jurisdictional under the CWA based on the criteria listed in the guidance. - Drainage Pattern 1 (287 linear feet) is located within a drainage ditch that was excavated in dry land, draining only dry land, and does not carry relatively permanent water. Per the Hamilton County GIS Drains layer, the drainage ditch is the West 146th Street Expansion Arm, a subdivision regulated drain, of the Williams Creek Drainage Area. Based on aerial imagery, the drainage ditch was excavated between 10/2016 – 08/2017 and discharges into a riprap scour pad at the southern review area boundary connected to an off-site residential stormwater detention pond. The off-site detention pond is connected to an adjacent pond via a grassed swale before entering the underground storm sewer system. - Wetland A is a 0.154-acre emergent wetland that formed within and is wholly contained to a drainage ditch that was excavated in dry land, draining only dry land, and does not carry relatively permanent water. The dominant vegetation within the wetland is narrowleaf cattail. Per the Hamilton County GIS Drains layer, the drainage ditch is the West 146th Street Expansion Arm, a subdivision regulated drain, of the Williams Creek Drainage Area. Based on aerial imagery, the drainage ditch was excavated between 10/2016 – 08/2017 and discharges into a riprap scour pad at the southern review area boundary connected to an off-site residential stormwater detention pond. The off-site detention pond is connected to an adjacent pond via a grassed swale before entering the underground storm sewer system. c. Describe aquatic resources and features identified within the review area as waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA. Include the size of the waste treatment system within the review area and describe how it was determined to be a waste treatment system. N/A d. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area determined to be prior converted cropland in accordance with the 1993 regulations (reference 7 51 FR 41217, November 13, 1986. CELRL - RDN SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00076-jde. 5 2.b.). Include the size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to be prior converted cropland. N/A e. Describe aquatic resources (i.e. lakes and ponds) within the review area, which do not have a nexus to interstate or foreign commerce, and prior to the January 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” would have been jurisdictional based solely on the “Migratory Bird Rule.” Include the size of the aquatic resource or feature, and how it was determined to be an “isolated water” in accordance with SWANCC. N/A f. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area that were determined to be non-jurisdictional because they do not meet one or more categories of waters of the United States under the pre-2015 regulatory regime consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett (e.g., tributaries that are non-relatively permanent waters; non-tidal wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water). - Wetland B is 0.245-acre emergent wetland that does not have a continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water. The wetland is located within a depressional area surrounded by an adjacent agricultural field. The wetland abuts a riprap scour pad at the southern review area boundary connected to an off-site residential stormwater detention pond. The off-site detention pond is connected to an adjacent pond via a grassed swale before entering the underground storm sewer system. As such, the off-site pond would not be considered a part of the tributary system and Wetland B would not be an adjacent wetland. - Wetland C is a 0.903-acre wetland (0.753-acre emergent and 0.150-acre scrub-shrub) that does not have a continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water. The wetland is located is the southeastern corner of the review area along a wooded fence row on the eastern boundary and an off- site pond berm along the southern boundary. The wetland is connected to the off-site residential storm water detention pond by a drainpipe. The off-site detention pond is connected to an adjacent pond via a grassed swale before entering the underground storm sewer system. As such, the off-site pond would not be considered a part of the tributary system and Wetland C would not be an adjacent wetland. 9. DATA SOURCES. List sources of data/information used in making determination. Include titles and dates of sources used and ensure that information referenced is available in the administrative record. a. Office evaluation conducted on 04/17/2024. CELRL - RDN SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00076-jde. 6 b. 20240118_Lennar_146thST&TowneRD_AJD_RequestPackage (Includes Study Area Location Map; USGS Topo and NWI Map; 1’ Elevation Contour Map; Hydric Soils Map; 2022 Aerial Imagery; Wetland Determination Data Forms dated 01/10/2024; Study Area Photographs dated 01/10/2024. c. LRL-2024-00076-jde GoogleEarth Streetview; LRL-2024-00076-jde Hamilton County GIS Drains; LRL-2024-00076-jde NHD and LiDAR 10. OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION. N/A 11. NOTE: The structure and format of this MFR were developed in coordination with the EPA and Department of the Army. The MFR’s structure and format may be subject to future modification or may be rescinded as needed to implement additional guidance from the agencies; however, the approved jurisdictional determination described herein is a final agency action. 550 Congressional Blvd., Suite 210, Carmel, Indiana 46032 317-844-0106 JAMES E. SHINAVER LAWRENCE J. KEMPER * JOHN B. FLATT * FREDRIC LAWRENCE VALERIE L. MATHEIS ** BRYNN E. CRAVEN JANE B. MERRILL – Of Counsel JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ Land Use Professional *Also licensed in Kentucky **Also licensed in Illinois VIA HAND DELIVERY September 20, 2024 City of Carmel Attn: Alexia Lopez Re: Lennar Homes of Indiana, LLC – 146 Towne PUD Docket No. PZ-2024-00028 PUD Plan Commission - Committee of the Whole Brochure Submittal Dear Alexia: Enclosed please find one (1) copy of the Plan Commission Committee of the Whole brochure for the October 1, 2024 meeting, as well as a flash drive that contains a digital copy of the brochure. Thanks for your assistance in this matter and should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, NELSON & FRANKENBERGER, LLC Jon Dobosiewicz Jon C. Dobosiewicz Land Use Professional 550 Congressional Blvd., Suite 210, Carmel, Indiana 46032 317-844-0106 JAMES E. SHINAVER LAWRENCE J. KEMPER * JOHN B. FLATT * FREDRIC LAWRENCE VALERIE L. MATHEIS ** BRYNN E. CRAVEN JANE B. MERRILL – Of Counsel JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ Land Use Professional *Also licensed in Kentucky **Also licensed in Illinois VIA HAND DELIVERY August 9, 2024 City of Carmel Attn: Alexia Lopez Re: Lennar Homes of Indiana, LLC – 146 Towne PUD Docket No. PZ-2024-00028 PUD Plan Commission Brochures for Rezone Request Dear Alexia: Enclosed please find one (1) copy of the Plan Commission brochures for the August 20, 2024 meeting, as well as a flash drive that contains a digital copy of the brochure. Thanks for your assistance in this matter and should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, NELSON & FRANKENBERGER, LLC Jon Dobosiewicz Jon C. Dobosiewicz Land Use Professional