HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
,:;"
August 28, 2006
u
u
Re: 09/05/06 Hearing on Townhomes at Central Park Project
Dear
Thanks to you and all the Subdivision Committee members for taking the time to listen to
citizens' concerns related to the proposed Townhomes at Central Park development.
I believe the consensus of our group (Creekside, Wood Valley, Pine Valley, Jordan Woods, and
residents along Westfield Boulevard) is that we have no quarrel with development, so long as it
fits the guidelines established by the Comprehensive Plan, reasonably respects the property
rights of nearby residents and somehow passes a common sense test on fit to context. We have
argued that to date, tIus development fai Is on all the above tests - being, among other things, too
tall and too dense to offer a graceful transition between commercial and residential, destructive
of too many trees to serve the goal of preserving existing tree canopy, and unleashing too many
cars into an area already fraught with traffic problems. We have offered examples ofthe types of
development that we would consider appropriate and acceptable. To date, the developers have
taken only token, baby steps to alleviate our initial concerns and to fit their design to the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
We would like to add some additional commentary for your consideration during the upcoming
hearing:
1. The area under consideration is designated under the Comprehensive Plan, in the Land
Classification Plan as Multi-family Residential. (Interestingly, it is the only parcel on the
Classification Map so designated in the whole township south of 1 1 6th Street, except
those already occupied by that usage.) The plan plainly states under "Structure Features"
that the maximum is two stories, or three stories, if context reflects the same scale.
(italics mine). There is nothing within a half mile of this site that even vaguely suggests a
context for three story scale.
The density standards in the Land Classification Plan call for multi-family developments
of seven units per acre or greater. Another section in the Comprehensive Plan calls f~r
"avoiding unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land
use, and density". This would certainly suggest that this plot, introduced into an existing
single family residential area that has probably less than one unit per acre, be limited to a
density that is very low in the range specified in the Classification Plan.
Based upon the above, we believe that any further proposal for this plot that is
greater than two stories in height and greater that eight units per acre should be
rejected out of hand -- disapproved as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and its included Classification Plan.
2. The recent approval of plans for both Gramercy and the PUDat 96th and Westfield have
added to increasing concern among Carmel citizens that "anything goes" in zoning, and
that we are rushing headlong into beconting an overcrowded brick city.W e need some
assurance that someone is watching the store, and that urban style growth, while at some
level desirable, will ~completelY overwhelm the comfortabb-lesidential, family-
oriented character of Carmel that lured many, if not most, of us here. Erecting "twin
towers" of three story buildings at each end of the Westfield Corridor between 96th and
1161h would seem to offer a clear intention to add this stretch to the burgeoning new
urban movement and a clear invitation to developers to make it happen. We would
submit that the Westfield Corridor is a unique and beautiful asset of the city that should
be preserved as a green, single-family residential entranceway to a more urban downtown
Carmel. That is the usage specified in the Comprehensive Plan.
We would strongly urge that, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, any
development of the site under consideration here lJe evaluated for its potential for
providing a graceful transition between the commercial/urban character of the 116th
Street area and the single-family neighborhoods that it adjoins, not as a free-
standing parcel or an invitation to non-standard development.
Thanks again for all of your careful deliberations on this proposal. We will look forward to the
discussion and decision on September 5. We will be there.
Jack Engledow
1819 Wood Valley Drive
Cannel, IN 46032
846-7056
j ackengledow@sbcglobal.com
Personal Notes from June 29, 2006 plan cOlmnission subdivision committee meeting:
VilIa2e on the Monon - 06030005 PP & 06030028 SW
Vote: 4-0 favorable recommendation of both docket nos. with tree mitigation & preservation, review
species of trees along Rohrer Rd to be the shade tree type, connect to the sidewalk to the south of the
site and to no leave a gap, and record the commitments, per the engineering dept.
Houses will be 1800 to 2400 sq ft in area and will cost $300 - 400,000. for empty nesters.
Trails will be 6-ft wide dusty trails.
No remonstrators were present.
At the July 18 meeting~ the petitioner will present a site plan that shows conceptual building
footprints on all lots (also labeling frontJside/rear yard setbacks).
-=--=--~ -
_ H . - .. . '.,,:: "..-- -..','..-....~ 1>-" -._..r....:.;o"" ,,". ",L " _
"FoM\n;h.@mes..ati@eii',ti;il~1imt~~1J'(J'o1f~o\fJi:~RlJn' '
KeptLh eoillmittee, to be heard at the August 1 meeting.
All trees will be cleared along the Vectren gas pipeline. Units will be 1400 sq ft and around $250-
300,000.
Supporters ofproject:
Greg Robbins, property owner of the site, has committed to moving any movable large trees on the
site to his new place of residence or donate them to the park.
Aramore and the park entrance have changed the character ofthe Westfield blvd corridor.
Dale Sollenberger: stated that current traffic & noise of dumpster in comer shopping strip interferes
with the quality of life. He admits it is not the suburban area the thought is was. This project will fit.
Remonstrance:
Density is the major issue. It is not in the right location.
Westfield boulevard is a tree corridor; keep it that way.
Keep it zoned R-l
2 homeowners are in favor of it, while 166 home owners are against it.
Drainage issues with site to the north.
With all the development going on, the floodplain in Creekside is rising.
Jack Engledow: it is too tall, too dense, and will set a precedent for future high density developments
along Westfield, cuaing a domino effect.
Trees are not adequately preserved during construction; many will die along Westfield Blvd.
Townhomes will become rentals. 40% decline in townhome demand.
Where wi II guests park?
Will urbanization go down to 96th street?
A traffic light is needed at 111 th st & Westfield blvd.
What about affordable housing?
A transition is needed.
The major issues from neighbors is: transition~ density, scale.
-AC
,
Page 1 of2
Griffin, Matt L
From: Brewer, Scott I
Sent: Friday, May 26, 20067:02 PM
To: 'Tim Seitz'
Cc: Griffin, Matt L; Holmes, Christine B
Subject: Town Homes of Central Park
Dear Tim:
I recently authored this sort of ordinance in reference to another PUD and thought it might apply in part to the
Townhomes at Central Park PUD. Because the desire is to take the secondary plat approval out of TAC review
and the hands of the plan commission, I believe these changes are required for the PUD.
My suggestions for the PUD Landscaping requirements:
Section 8 Landsca[ling Reg\jirem.ents
8.1 (a) 2lcmting Standards. Landscaping installed pursuant to this ordinance and the City of Carmel planting
s ta n da rd san d B M P s (h tt P .llw\!LW~i. Q(3rmeJ.m.J.l.fu'~el}'ig~$/J)QC~ll..lrR<:lnEQre::;tf.Y..ftl.Q.lNY9.2_Q1Q%.?_Qp.J9IJJ%2~n[f:;le::;%
2Q~t<:lnc:l9I(;t~j;)Q.f) shall be integrated with other functional and ornamental site design elements, where
appropriate, such as landscape materials, paths, sidewalks, or any water features. Adequate soil volumes for
mature growth shall be considered and supplied for each plant material that is installed. Alternative or pervious
paving materials shall be considered, or alternative planting media shall be considered, for urban areas were
planting space is limited by restrictions such as buildings, asphalt or concrete paving, building parking decks, etc.
Graphic planting details will be supplied to the City of Carmel for each alternative planting situation before ADLS
approval of that section.
8.1 (b) Plant Materials.. Landscaping materials shall be appropriate to local growing and climate conditions, and
meet the requirements of the ANZI 60.1 (1996) Standards. Plant health and suitability, maintenance, and
compatibility with site construction features are critical factors that shall be considered. Plantings should be
designed with diversity, structured patterns, and complementary textures and colors, and should reinforce the
overall character of the area.
1. Shade trees shall be at least two and a half inches (2 Yz") in caliper diameter when planted.
2. Ornamental trees shall be at least one and a half inch (1 Yz") in caliper diameter when planted.
3. Evergreen trees shall be at least six feet (6') in height when planted.
4. Shrubs shall be at least eighteen inches (18") in height when planted.
5. Ornamental grasses shall attain a mature height of at least three feet (3').
8.2 Maintenance. (as is)
8.3 Building Base LandscaQing These plantings may help fulfill bufferyard requirements where applicable:
The building base landscaping adjacent to the front elevation of each Townhome unit shall include a
minimum of five (5) shrubs and/or ornamental grasses Additionally, one shade tree and one ornamental
tree shall be planted for every two (2) units If the trees can not be planted between the unit and the
sidewalk, then an alternative location may be chosen for planting. The rear of the units should also be
planted with trees and ornamental grasses. The planting area shall be ten feet wide (10') on the front and
rear and five feet (5') on the sides. Existing trees should be preserved where possible and credit on an
unit by unit basis.
8.4 Perimeter Planting and BuffELryj:lrd Reguirements.
(i) (This works both ways - buffer neighbors from your development and buffering your residents from the
neighbors) The perimeter bufferyard requirements found in Carmel Clay Land Use Regulations Section
26.04 shall apply. The planting strip shall be at least a 10 foot wide planting strip This shall be separate
from all utility and drainage easements unless there exists written permission to share those easements
with plantings.
6/112006
---
Page 2 of2
8.5 Lot Interior Perimeter Landsq~Ring Reguirement. Adjacent to any drive or parking lot, a five foot (5') wide
perimeter planting strip shall be provided on all sides with a minimum planting of three (3) shade trees,
two (2) ornamental trees and at least twenty-five shrubs perone hundred (100') linear feet to screen the
vehicles from sight. These plantings may occupy the same space as the required bufferyards, the
numbers must be in addition to the bufferyard plantings
8.6 Street Trees. Shade trees shall be planted along all streets within the right-of-way, parallel to the street and
installed per City of Carmel standards. This standard includes, but may not be limited to, medians and
Rangeline Road, One shade tree shall be installed every thirty to forty feet (30'-40'). As per City
standards no street trees shall be planted in conflict with drainage or utility easements or structures,
underground detention (unless so designed for that purpose), or within traffic vision safety clearances.
Species shall be chosen from the City of Carmel's published list of recommended street trees:
(bttpj/www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/DOCS/Urban ForestrvfRecommended %20Trees12-05.pdf)
8.7 Pipeline easements (as is)
$J~ Pedestrian Corridors Any pedestrian corridors that are platted shall be planted with shade trees for cover [at
least
a minimum of one (1) per fifty feet (50') where possible] and shrubs and ground cover or ornamental
grasses for interest and beautification. If these corridors are platted through other landscaped areas, the
shade trees planted for those requires may fulfill these requirements,
A final landscape plan must be submitted showing specific species, location, plant numbers, a plant schedule,
planting notes, graphic planting details, perimeter bufferyard details, tree preservation details, etc., before final
landscape approval can be given. Please answer these comments in writing and by revised PUD and/or plan. It
would have been really nice to make comments if a plan packet had been submitted to me.
Scott Brewer, City Forester
Environmental Planner, DOCS
City of Carmel,
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
PH' 317-571-2478
FAX: 317-571-2426
6/112006
Wi(uam and1.(atlierine 1(ruger
May 25, 2006
To; Special Studies Committee
Regarding: Rezoning of 8.8 acres along Westfield Boulevard,
Docket No. 06040017 PUD
Dear Committee Members,
Katherine and I have lived in the Carmel area for over twenty
years. We have raised five children here, and through the years have
"fallen in love" with this community.
But we. along with many others residents, have become deeply
concerned about the direction and rapidity of its "growth."
Our attraction to this community was its charming "rural
flavor." But now, we seem to be witnessing the strangulation and
disappearance of the very essence of life that drew us here.
In particular. we are gravely concerned about the planned
dismantling and destruction of the plush, tree lined Westfield
Boulevard corridor between 106th and 116th streets.
We long only for the highest quality of life for the residents of
our community, thus we felt the urgency to "voice" our own heartfelt
concerns and those of a vast number of Carmelites.
Most sincerely,
tJril [l:d
,
317~843-1600
10835 Timber Lane CarmeL In 46032
A Better Vision, A Better Way
(to enhance the quality of the lives of Carmel citizens)
OUf City is Blessed with a Treasu re
In order to best consider the wisdom of approving the rezoning
referred to in docket no. 06040017 PUD , it should be viewed in the
broader context of the future of Westfield Blvd. from l06th to 116th
Street. This corridor is rich in beauty and history. Lined with mature,
stately trees, it presents a park-like ambiance that mirrors the
attractiveness of Westfield Blvd. from Broadripple to 86th Street. It is
one of the most lovely and unique "parkways" in Carmel. The
Westfield Blvd. corridor is a God-given treasure that has been revered
and cherished for generations. (see attachments 1 & 2). Such a
"gem" needs to be protected, preserved, and enhanced - not
dismantled and destroyed.
The current master plan of Carmel should be revisited. It's
objective, creating a four-lane "highway" with a median, would
necessitate the destruction of those stately trees and would transform
Westfield Blvd.. into "just another roadway", The beauty and park-like
ambiance of the corridor would be forever lost.
Dismantlement Begins
A rezoning approval of the 8.8 acres, which consists of green,
plush grassy hills and foliage (see attachments 3 & 4) would be the
beginning of the dismantlement of Westfield Blvd. as we have known
it.
We have not spoken with one Carmel resident - family, friend,
neighbor, business associate, or social acquaintance - who favors
either the high density housinq or the destruction of the trees alonq
Westfield Blvd. Not one! (see attachment 5).
In addition to degrading the natural aesthetics of the area, the
proposed townhouse project would create horrific traffic problems.
The eight or so cars now entering and exiting Westfield Blvd. from
existing homes would be replaced by 150 cars or more! It is obvious
that this would be extremely detrimental to the quality of life for both
local residents and those traversing the boulevard.
Because of the uniqueness of this area, a "cookie-cutter"
approach is totally inapprooriate. What works for Guilford Road or
Springmill Road, would not work here. The people of Carmel deserve
to have better alternatives sought.
2.
One Vision" a quaint, warm, and inviting entry into
Carmel
The north entrance into Carmel (Rangeline Road north of Main
Street) has a charming, old-fashioned appeal. Houses have been built
or remodeled to reflect a "time of old". The streets have pedestrian
walkways and are lined with enchanting street lights. Whether driving
through, or visiting a business, the setting allows one to enjoy the
loveliness of the past. (see attachment 6).
The neighborhood of Rosemeade Commons (near 116th and the
Monon Trail) epitomizes that historic feel. The developer, Scott Unger,
was respectful of the mature trees when he built period-style homes,
reflecting the architecture of the late 1800s. (see attachment 7).
These concepts could be implemented along the Westfield Blvd.
corridor providing a striking, inviting entrance into the city of Carmel
from the south. Our property, "Bears' Hollow," is an example of such
a conversion. (see attachment 8) Imagine Westfield Blvd. lined with
period houses - what an appealing sight!
A Suggested Course of Action
1. Place a moratorium on any changes in zoning along the corridor.
2. Have an appropriate agency or committee conduct a study of what
options might truly enhance the quality of life of our Carmel residents.
3. In that study, consider "mirroring" the northern entrance to the city
via Rangeline Road, encouraging the renovation or building of houses
that are historic in appearance.
4. Consider the "investment" of transforming the corridor into an
inviting, picturesque entryway into Carmel in which all residents could
benefit and be proud.
5. Present the favored option or options"to the people of Carmel for
input. (We believe choosing the "historic" option would receive
overwhelming support from the public.)
In essence, treat the corridor with the respect and appreciation
it deserves, utilizing the God-given resources to enhance both
the beauty and dignity of our city.
3.
In Carmel's Own Words
We will close with the city government's own stated philosophy and
words:
Video on Carmel Qrowth and development -
Changes will not be implemented by imposition, but through
cooperation... it's a matter of options not demanding its own way.
City of Carmel website homeoage -
The city is committed to preserving its vitality through controlled
expansion and prudent planning.
Mayor James Brainard (response to Carmel's receiving "The Sterling
Tree City USA" honor and the "2006 Tree City USA" award) -
"We appreciate being recognized for our efforts to protect,
expand and improve our community's natural resources, particularly
the trees. Our trees definitely contribute to the beauty of the city, as
well as to the overall quality of life here. "
Decisions concerning the Westfield Boulevard corridor are at a
critical juncture - the path chosen will drastically impact both current
and future generations.
May God grant you the wisdom to make the decisions that
will beautify our community and are truly in the best interests
of its citizens.
Respectfully submitted by Bill and Kit Kruger, Carmel residents for
over twenty years who love our community.
Attach. I
Westfie,{c{ 'Bou(ell ara
, ja{{2oo5
-
..
IiiIiiIIr- -
-
-
.~.,,,.~
-.-0:::
Attach. J
tv estfie[a ~o,u{evara
fare 20U 5
-....LL
.. - ---=-----=- - - -- --
WESTfiEld BoulEVARd -
A God qiVEN TREASURE.
attach.3
THE bEAUTy of THE 8,8, ACRES UNdER CONsi,dERATioN
--
-...
~ -
attach.4
HiE bEAUTY of T~E 8,8 ACRES LINdER CONsidERATioN
Plus~ fRONTAGE foliAqE liNiNq bOTH sidES of boulEVARd
Lf)
.J::
U
flJ
.....
.....
flJ
"'0
C :2 Q)
CO:J..D
>0.......
........r:.u
::J V\ Q)
Q)co ~ .0
O!o.. .
.0 _ 0... U
Q) VI Q) Q)
J:Q)VI>
....... U ::J 0
4-::JO~
00_0-
VI ~ 0-
c: Q) c: CO
o ~. 3
.~ co 0
~ !o.. .......
....... ::J Q)
VI........c
::J co .......
= c
-
~..
t
Ii-
.it
~T.:
~J {'~
I ..
j
Northern entry into the City of Carmel via Rangeline Road
tll
....
....
OJ
n
:::r
Q)
Rosemeade Commons - a beautiful. example of what could enhance
Westfield Boulevard
Q)
...
....
Q)
n
::r
--.J
lAvision upgrades ana quaint new heuses lining th~ Wes.tfield ~lyd.
corridor - what a desirable beflefit aA~ attraction fer our city!
tl.I
-
-
tl.I
"
?'"
00
June 2003
Bears I Hollow
11429 Westfield Boulevard
MMCH 2~,2.00~
COMMUNITYVOICES
CarmelAM
THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR' WWW.lNDYSTAR.COM
City needs to. slow growth
, By Jackie Schmidt
I glanced ar~und .Jenny. chas-
tain's parlor duririg our"first
meeting March 5, ashamed' at
how few of the guests) knew.
, These were my l1eighbors~
They represented the mix of
people living within' blocks of
, me: young, retired, professional,
blue collar, men, women, single
and married., Old Town Carmel
has become wonderfully diverse.
I recalled' a favorite quote:
''We've got two lives. One we're
given, ,and the other one we
make." (Mary Chapin Carpenter,
"The Hard Way") , .
The lives given these . folks
constituted quite an assortment;
but, indeed, there was a common
passion for the lives they had
made for themselves in tbe
charming, historic' neighbor-
boods comprising i Carmel's
popular Arts arid Design District.
Thls was the first meeting of
Carmel Residents for Historic
Preservation. .
Make no mistake; thiS group is
not opposed to progress. It is,
however, gravely concerned
about rapid-fire expansion a,nd
city approval of many, monoto-
nous 'three-story townhouse
complexes. Before one multi-
unit complex iS,sold out - allow-
ing the city to' determine its im-
pact - another one, nearby is ap-
'proved, then another,' then
another. The group asserts that'
progress should be measured by
quality, not quantity.
By the time group members '
presented their
remarks to the
Carmel plan
Commission on
March '7, two
days after that
first meeting,
their numbers
, had .more than
doubled. J;>res-
erv~iion group
members had
circulated peti-
. ,tions door-to-
door, in their !,\,orkplaces and
churches, and. on' the Monon
Trail.
, Many of those who signed the
petitions expressed similar con-
cerns for, Carmel. One person la-
mented, "One day the 'land on
Main Street where Phil Hin-
,shaw's antique store ol1cestood
was' teaming with trees and
wildlife ... and a week later,
Jackie
Schmidt
there was nothing there but pated from the 200-unit Tradi-
mud." , tions complex and 160-plus from
The question, for 'city leaders the 80-unit Arden complex for'a
and developers concerning the combined increase of 330 uHits
proposed 9-acre Village Green and 660 cars within two blocks
Development at I36thStreet and of the narrow intersection of
the Manon Trail: How will this Range Line and Smokey Row.
affect our environment, traffic Drivers there already wait
flo~, school systems and our through several lights when high
families' overall quality of life? school and stadium traffic peak.
Local residents who track The group.is requesting a wet-
nearby wildlife and want to see lands survey, a detailed traffic
habitats protected displayed a study and more data regarding
poster ,listing 76 birds and ani- effects on the all'eady-congested
mals spotted in the area last year. Manon Trail and overcrowded
This tract of land includes part Carmel school system. The plan
of the wetlands ofthe Little Cool. Commission's next meeting is at
Creek basin and will require re- 6 p.m. March 3D, You can be silre
moval ,of seven trees with 48- the preservation group's growing
inch trunk diameters, 27 with membership will be well repre-
24-inch diameters, and one spec-. sented. After all, they have made
tacular 60-inch sycamore. ' a good life in Old Town and want
Such destruction of trees . to see it preserved. '
seems contradictory for Carmel, Interested? Visit the group's
a city that has received the Na- Web site, mypage.iu.eduj-
tional Arbor Day Foundation's paanders/crhp_home.htm and
Tree City USA Growth Award sign up for the group's e-news-
for the past 11 years., letter or call (317)' 566-8812 or,
Carmel Residents for Historic ,(317) 581-1608.
Preservation also questioned ... Community Voices is a regular fea-
traffic congestion resulting from ture of Carmel A.M. This weel(s
adding mpre than 100 cars to this featu~e is b~ Jackie Schmidt.
quiet city neighborhood ~ in ad- To wnte alllnsta!lment, please contact
d't' t th 400 I 't" us at carmelam@md~star.com or (Un
1 IOn 0 e . -p us an lCl- 444-2600.
A greener city means
, '. ab,etter city
MY VIEW
O. ur offices recently
j~ined w!th Kee~ In.
, ,dlanapohs Beaunful
Inc. and its commu-
nity partners tokick off an im-
portant initia-
tive known as
Neighbo~-
Woods, which
will literally ,
change the
landscape of
Indianapolis:
Neighbor:.
Woods is about '
. engaging people
from across the .
city to plant
100,000 trees
over, 10 years;
its success will
reqillre all ofus
to come to.
gether to meet
the challenge of
unprovmg our
conununity and '.
its environment
Simply put, . .'
Indianapolis. -
needs more
trees. A recent
study by IUPUI puts Center
Township's tree canopy 'at only 15
percent; urban forestry specialists
recommend Z5percent tree' cover
in Urban areas:
As Indianapolis thri.;res, we
need to ensure that the quality of
life remains high, Trees are a
valuable means to lift up our
spirits and neighborhoods. Re-
search shows that trees improve
air and wa~r quality, property
values, public safety and neigh-
borhoodvitality, and have the po-
tential to iffiprove business c1i~
mates.
. Trees help filter .our water
and air, provide proteCtion for
wildlife, prevent soil erosion, ,
and help regulate the earth's
temperature by absorbing car-
bon and providing shade, help-
ing to reduce cooling costs.
Recent articles in The Indi-
anapolis Star have highlighted
the air quality challenges met-
ropolitan areas face, and trees
go a long way toward address-
ing these issues. Trees improve
ozone and particulate matter
levels in the air, creating a
healthier and safer environ-
. Lugar, R-Ind.,
is U.S. senator
from Indiana.
.Peterson is the
mayor of Indi-
anapolis.
Richard Lugar.
Bart Peterson
ment.
More trees will aid efforts to
fIx our century-old sewers,
dean' up streams and rivers; .
and improve storm-water run-
off .
Trees also positively in1.pact a .
city's business environment Com.
panies want to locate, grow and
inv~st in areas attractive to their
employees-and client>;. A leafy ca-
nopy across Indianapolis Will im.
prove the aesthetic look of our
city and improve the quality of
life forworke,rs. cli~nts and visi-
. tors. _
Providing for public.safety is
the No.1 priority for govern-
ment, and trees can play an im-
portant role. A study of Chicago
neighborhoods by the univer-
sity of Illinois found.that apart-
ment complexes surrounded by
trees and greenery are dramati-
cally safer than buildings de-
void of green. The greener the
surroundings, the fewer crimes
occur against people and prop-
erty. ,.
Finally, research conducted
at th'e Wharton School of-the
University of Pennsylvania -
showed that new tree plantings
increase surrounding housing
values by about 10 percent.
We encourage businesses and
residents to use this opportu-
nity to take ownership of their
community and be a part of
NeighborWoods: They'can
make a lasting contribution to
conserve our natural environ-
ment for gerterarions to come.
, Early investments by Veolia
Water and Indianapolis Power &
Light have NeighborWoods up
and running, but this bold effort
will require many more 'contribu-
tions in the years ahead. Our city
needs everyone's time, talent and
treasure to plant more trees.
For more information, 01' to
learn how you can be a part of
. NeighborWoods, contact Keep
'Indianapolis Beautiful at (317)
264-7555 or visit www.kibLorg.
-l
:J:
",
2:
d
j;:
:2
:b
-0
o
,
Vi
V1
-l
:b
""
~
.::IE
~
2:
o
-<
V1
--I
:b
~
'"'
C>
s:
o
"2.
::J
-.
o
::J
:2:
en
o
Z
rn
V>
o
:b
~
s:
:b
.-<.
....
!='
..,
c:>
c:>
C'
e
....
"
:rH~,INDIANAPO~ISSTAR,. WWW.lNDYSTAR.COM
:..
;
'"' WEI)NESDAV;MAY 3, 2006 A15
---...:..-----...
---.,.'
... . " ".._ ..1
TteesWiJl"st(~rlgtlien .
'-b' '" ',', ,'; ',,: "-,,' ",' ::C b"'O
nelgh' orno.o,(l:',ta"fIC
, .--, }' . -;.; .' ",-':".... ,. .' .", .
"':MY VIEW.
: ,W' ""'~~4=J,~,eaf6r,e".
, ','"i" , . Keep Indianapolis
, ,. . ,Beautiful is ' '
launching lndiana's first Neigh-
,borWoods,programAcrossthc'" .
country, volunteernire ,planting' , Experience 'showS that iaB,s
tre~s'to heal' ' ',' ,approach -engaging;ordinary
thc'environ-': people to become tenders and
ment and .reVi- . stewards of the treecaIiopy - is
talize COln.11)Uf' , ': tremendoJ.lsly ~ffective. A J.:ecent
',nities. ' 'S~?Jl' c~n4uc~dbyPortland State,
'Neighbor-' Ul1lVerSlty fotiQd ,that pprtland,
':Woods net~ Ore., Was 'successful in 'increasing
',,\york member ' its tree canopy over a period of
6rganizatio~s' ,'30 Years. The study found that
:,Hke Kffi,have " canopy ga4ls :were the greate~t in
'6rgmized, Walker is ex. locations where' citizens had vol-
, 450,00'0 volun- ecuti~e directo,r', 'unteer~dto plant trees" org;un, .. ze, d
teers to plant 8 ' of Alliance- for 'arLd tramed by a local nonprofit
million-treesiu"COmm!lnity ,,' , " :,Trees are not the only things'
cities across . Tr~es' in'Wash~ ,that wi1l!talre' root as a reSult of
America... . ingtDn,D~C: ,RIB's NeighborWoodsprograrn.
. KIB'spresi7, ',.', Neighbors \'lho ,mayno-w be >
dent,' DaVid Forsell; 'noted his pr- 'strimgers to each o'ther will work , .
ganization's 10-year.goalof ' 'together,toimprove the quality of
planting 100,000' ,community. " ,theirli~s,E~pOV{erii1g people,
trees and the $14milli.cm:fund- tree by'tree, streefhystreet, ,
raisiIJ.g ~arnpaign.thai'willbe, ' ,Sp'!1"kSgreat,~. Neighbor~'
needed to makethis'p,os~ible~ :,' hood Watch'gTOups form, friend~
Veolia W~ter=Jndiiln.ap,Olis' and' '.' Slllpsblossom, streets become '
lndianapolis, Power & Light, Co'. ,'cleaner.. alid 'gt..eener. iWhile the
are to becomniended fortheir people of Indian-
contribution of , apolis rally,to plant
$400,000 that ' Neighborhood . 100,000 trees, the .
kicks off this (:alll7' fabric. of Indy's '
paign, as is'Mayor 'watch groups .> . neighhorhoods'will
Bart Peterson for form,"friendships be strengthened.
pledging the dty's> bIQSso:mJ'stre,ets '. We hope to see
support. . . . many more corp.-
: But is $14 million become,deaner munitiesfollowln-
'an achievable goal?' .,and"gre,ener.';' dianapolis' lead in
If the people of In-, ," J" ...... '., ," ' e~githe public
dianapolis - iindespeciilly the...: .to reach'canopy-:goals. With $1.75
philanthropic, plJblic and'priyate' ,million in'supporffrom,The
sectors - decide. that it is" thel,1' it Home DePot Fo~dation, Alliance
will he. Ambitious ,tree can?py-'.. for Community Trees recently
, goals are being ,achieved in cities hiuniilied a national campaign to
. across the country. .One individual ,expand voluhteer-base.d Neigh-
can make an extraOJ;dinili1)i 'differ~. botWoods programs. to help re~
',ence, as happened in,tb.ecase,of ': store tree 'canopy in Aplerican cit-
. Washington, D.C. There, Phi1.an7 'ies. ..., . . , '..
throp~ Betty Brown ClOSey,was" Indianapolis has ,an il1spiring
ISO horrified to read'~f aM per,- goal,'capable orgaruzers and a
cent loss in,the 9ity's tree canopy , greafgamepla:b. for meeting its
, that she contributed $50'rriillion ' , tree canopy targets. Pli;!dges of
to' create dte,CaseYTrees En.dow.., support are starting to come in.
ment Fund. Since 2001, the pr- : We 'urge all of Indianapolis. to
. ganization has llwentoriedevery jumpo'n the bandwagon and
street tree.in thecapitaJ arid .. . enjoy ,the many. benefits o~
helped reSidents plant thousands ,planmng, pl~t1ng and caring
of trees. . for a healthy urbaJ,1 forest
Alice Ewen Wa"ker
PNr". 'ut-. 2.00~
THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR - WWW.INDYSTAIl.COM
CarmelAM
;~~~::ltt~!:i~ L'IVINGI CARMEL
COMMUNITY VOICES
Preserve
our trees
in parks,
ree areas
By Jerry WUliams
As a resident of Carmel, I
, was happy to read. in
. Lesley Rogers Barrett's
article July 15 that
Mayor Jim Brainard has made
the decision to increase parks
and green space.
It appears that once construe.,
tion of Central Park is com-
pleted, more than 600 aCres of
land will be dedicated to parks
and green space in Carmel.
, But I can't help see the irony.
Having lived in Carmel the past
eight years, I have witnessed
countless acres of woods being
destroyed to make way for de-
velopment. And I'm sure the to-
tal woodlands acreage these de-
velopments have destroyed far
exceeds that of the green space
created in the mayor's parks and
recreation areas.
U.".m The' ,iecision to Illake a 161-
acre parcel of mostly farm. fields
:PIto q!;!DtrilkPatk,'lZt>t:ilplete.withi:,
a req;eational comp!ex. i~ much '
. i!lette.r ,than haVing it developed
into another shopping mall or
'densely populated neighborhood.
, And I appreciate that this park's
J:t1aiQ furiction is that of a com-
muriity center.
. In spite of my support of the
concept, I question some of the
thought that went into its plan-
ning. Some, areas of the site con-
tain beautiful mature trees grow-
ing where park structures and
features are being constructed or
'are slated to be constructed. In
my opinion, the park plans
should retain the mature trees
,and position its structures and
features around them;
As an example, construction'
crews at Central Park are clear-
ing trees around the perimeter of
the park to create a walking path
that will connect to the Monon
Trail. The path easily could have
been rerouted.
Stately trees along the perim-
eter of Central Park could have
enhanced the look and feel ofthe
park:. With every tract of wooded
land I have seen destroyed ill
Carmel to make way for develop-
ment, I can't help but wonder if
a more thoughtful development
design could have saved [fiany of
those trees.
I have a few thoughts that I
hope the mayor and the Parks
and Recreation Board will keep
in mind for future park and rec-
reation sites:
. Not everyone ill our com-
munity believes parks and green
space should be develqped.
. Many in Carmel feel that
the presence of untouched trees
and wood lots also dermes a
park.
_ . Matching sets of small oma-
mentiU trees, bought and planted
oy the city, is not the only defwi-
tion of green space.
. Better thought and planning
need to occur so natural occur-
ring mature trees are included in
'park designs.
Preserving mature trees has
not been a priority for commer-
cial developers or many residen-
tial developers. If the priority of
preserving what remains of our
community's dwindling natural
areas does not occur in our
parks, then where will it be a pri-
ority?
, -
<.. ,. ~ ~. _ .'__.' __"L.. .-.., , ...". ~._ _"..c_.,' '..",," ._'......""._.__.'_'""_n _..~<...,.",w;.:.-_..,.........:""'^,'~...,
. Office workers
with a view of
nature are more
productive{ report
fewer illnesses
and higher job
satisfaction.
10 FACTS
Trees
. II II
. Reduce chronic
mental fatigue in
residents of urban
. neighborhoods, a
precursor to .
aggressive behavior..
:;:I,;"0'>i~;;; ;";"';:;;";;;{".
. C~t ;'B;:~ttentiQD~d~fj}ft\ '
',. " _ <, '::.;"":, :,:~_,,, "",-i-':ts': .' :,._-,', ~ :,':-, ........< ':":'::":' ....., - ~;'.."x '
hype~a, ................... ...i~~roet/derI1giisftat~i
~~~.~~~l~tfff~r~'~j~~~~j};"
And respir'atory:iprl,blem's',sllch;ii}'s/'i; ....
asthma, a leading chronic disease for
children{ are. ameliorated.
For research resources, visit www.kibi.org.
April 25, 2006
Gregory J. Ewing, AICP
Development Coordinator
Mann Properties
8653 Bash Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46256
RE: Townhomes at Central Park pun
Dear Mr. Ewing:
This letter serves as a follow-up to our meeting held on April 21, 2006. As discussed at the meeting, till
and development of the approximately 0.4 acres of floodplain at the North-West portion of your property
will be allowed. However, the City of Carmel will require mitigation in order that a variance may be
granted to complete the work in the floodplain. There are several options to satisfy the mitigation
requirt::ments and jointly satisfy requirements of the City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Standards
Manual.
The City of Carmel requires all storm water leaving a development site, post-construction, to bc treated by
a minimum of two different Best Management Practices (BMPs) before entering into the City's storm
sewer system. The use of an underground detention structure may be used as water quality storage and
shall compensate for the floodplain loss that will be encountered; however, it will no be acceptable as a
water quality BMP. As discussed, a mechanical separator may serve as one of these BMPs. There are
several other more "natural" options that shall be pursued to treat storm water on-site, in addition to the
mechanical separator, and also serve in floodplain mitigation.
The Engineering Department will support this project progressing through the approval process pending
that you continue to work with us concerning these issues. Our staff reports to the Department of
Community Services will recommend that any City approvals granted will be conditional upon Engineering
approval.
If you have questions, you may call us at 571-2441.
Sincerely,
Amanda Foley
Storm Water Administrator
Department of Engineering
Cc: Gary Duncan, Department of Engineering
Matt Griffin, Department of Community Services
Nick Redden, Department of Engineering
Engineering File Copy
A WARNING TO THE PARTIES TO A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY: It is highly unlikely that the
single act of reading this document would be found to constitute "all appropriate inquiry into the
previous ownership and uses of the property" so as to protect you against liability under the
"innocent purchaser" provision of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 (35)(B). You are strongly encouraged not only
to read this document carefully but also to take all other actions necessary to the exercise of
due diligence in your inquiry Into the previous ownership and uses of the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT FOR
TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY
For Use Bv County Recorder's Office
County
Date
The following information is provided under
Ie 13-25-3, the Responsible Property Transfer Doc. No.
Law.
Vol.
Page
Rec'd by:
I. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
A. Address of property: 110 South Rangeline Road
Street
Carmel
City or Town
Township
Tax Parcel Identification No. (Key Number):
B. Legal Description:
Section
25
Township 18 North
Range 3 West
Enter or attach complete legal description in this area:
Please see Exhibit A. attached.
LIABILITY DISCLOSURE
Transferors and transferees of real property are advised that their ownership or other
control of such property may render them liable for environmental cleanup costs
whether or not they caused or contributed to the presence of environmental problems
in association with the property.
C. Property Characteristics:
Lot Size
Acreage
Check all types of improvement and uses that pertain to the property:
o Apartment building (6 units or less)
o Commercial apartment (over 6 units)
o Store, office, commercial building
o Industrial building
o Farm, with buildings
lZl Other (specify) - Former Gasoline Station
II. NA TURf OF TRANSFER
A. (1) Is this a transfer by deed or other instrument of
conveyance of fee title to property?
(2) Is this a transfer by assignment of over 25% of beneficial
interest of a land trust?
(3) A lease exceeding a term of 40 years?
(4) A collateral assignment of beneficial interest?
(5) An installment contract for the sale af property?
(6) A mortgage or trust deed?
(7) A lease of any duration that include an aptian to purchase?
B. (1) Identify Transferor:
BP Products North America Inc.
Name and Current Address af Transferor
Trust No.
Yes No
lZl 0
0 [g]
0 lZl
0 lZl
0 lZl
0 [R]
0 [g]
Name and Address of Trustee if this is a transfer of beneficial interest of a land trust.
(2) Identify person who has completed this form on behalf of the Transferor and who has
knowledge of the information contained in this form:
Name, position (if any), and address
2
Telephone No.
C. Identify Transferee:
The City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission
Name and current address of Transferee
III. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
A. Regulatory Information During Current Ownership
1. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
generation, manufacture, processing, transportation, treatment, storage, or handling of
"hazardous substance," as defined by IC 13-11-2-98? This question does not apply to
consumer goods stored or handled by a retailer in the same form and approximate
amount, concentration, and manner as they are sold to consumers, unless the retailer
has engaged in any commercial mixing (other than paint mixing or tinting of consumer
sized containers), finishing, refinishing, servicing, or cleaning operations on the property.
[8] Yes 0 No
2. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
processing, storage, or handling of petroleum, other than that which was associated
directly with the transferor's vehicle usage?
[8] Yes 0 No
3. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
generation, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of "hazardous waste," as
defined in IC 13-11-2-99(a)?
DYes
[8] No
4. Are there any of the following specific units (operating or closed) at the property that.
are used or were used by the Transferor to manage hazardous wastes, hazardous
substances, or petroleum?
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Land Application
Waste Pile
Incinerator
Storage Tank (Above Ground)
Storage Tank (Underground)
Container Storage Area
Injection Wells
Wastewater Treatment Units
Septic Tanks
Transfer Stations
Waste Recycling Operations
Waste Treatment Detoxification
Other Land Disposal Area
Yes
o
o
o
o
o
o
lID
o
o
lRl
o
o
o
o
o
3
No
[8]
lID
lID
lRl
l&J
[8]
o
lID
lRl
o
[8]
[8]
lliI
[8]
lliI
If there are "YES" answers to any of the above items and the transfer of property that
requires the filing of this document is other than a mortgage or trust deed or collateral
assignment of beneficial interest in a land trust, you must attach to the copies of this
document that you file with the county recorder and the department of environmental
management a site plan that identifies the location of each unit.
5. Has the transferor every held any of the following in regard to this real property?
(A) Permits for discharges of wastewater to waters of Indiana.
!:8JYes [] No
(B) Permits for emissions to the atmosphere.
DYes [KI No
(C) Permits for any waste storage, waste treatment, or waste disposal operation.
DYes [KI No
6. Has the Transferor ever discharged any wastewater (other than sewage) to a
publicly owned treatment works?
DYes IRl No
7. Has the Transferor been required to take any of the following actions relative to this
property?
(A) Filed an emergency and hazardous chemical inventory form pursuant to the
federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42
U.S.C.11022).
DYes
IRl No
(8) Filed a toxic chemical release form pursuant to the federal Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S. C. 11023).
DYes [RJ No
8. Has the Transferor or any facility on the property or the property been the subject of
any of the following state or federal governmental actions?
(A) Written notification regarding known, suspected, or alleged contamination on or
emanating from the property.
[RIYes DNa
(B) Filing an environmental enforcement case with a court or the solid waste
management board for which a final order or consent decree was entered.
DYes [8] No
(C) If the answer to question (8) was Yes, then indicate whether or not the final
order or decree is still in effect for this property.
DYes 0 No
4
9. Environmental Releases During Transferor's Ownership.
(A) Has any situation occurred at this site which resulted in a reportable "release" of
any hazardous substances or petroleum as required under state or federal laws?
00 Yes 0 No
(B) Have any hazardous substances or petroleum which were released come into
direct contact with the ground at this site?
[g] Yes 0 No
If the answer to question (A) or (B) is Yes, have any of the following actions or
events been associated with a release on the property?
00 Use of a cleanup contractor to remove or treat materials including soils,
pavement, or other surficial materials?
o Assignment of in-house maintenance staff to remove or treat materials
including soils, pavement, or other surficial materials?
[g] Sampling and analysis of soils?
00 Temporary or more long term monitoring of groundwater at or near the site?
o Impaired usage of an onsite or nearby water well because of offensive
characteristics of water?
o Coping with fumes from subsurface storm drains or inside basements?
o Signs of substances leaching out of the ground along the base slopes or at
other low points on or immediately adjacent to the site?
(C) Is there an environmental defect (as defined in IC 13-11-2-70) on the property
that is not reported under question (A) or (B)?
DYes [EJ No
If the answer is Yes, describe the environmental defect:
10. Is the facility currently operating under a variance granted by the Commissioner of
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management?
DYes [EJ No
5
11. Has the Transferor ever conducted an activity on the site without obtaining a permit
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Management, or another administrative agency or authority with
responsibility for the protection of the environment, when such a permit was required by
law?
DYes
!Rl No
If the answer is Yes, describe the activity:
12. Is there any explanation needed for clarification of any of the above answers or
responses?
Information provided above is related to Indiana Department of Environmental
Manaqement LUST Release Nos. 198911072 and 200303504.
Site Information Under Other Ownership or Operation
1. Provide the following information about the previous owner or about any entity or
person to whom the Transferor leased the property or with whom the Transferor
contracted for the management of the property:
Name:
Type of business or property usage
2. If the Transferor has knowledge, indicate whether the following existed under prior
ownerships, leaseholds granted by the Transferor, or other contracts for management or
use of the property:
Yes No
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Land Application
Waste Pile
Incinerator
Storage Tank (Above Ground)
Storage Tank (Underground)
Container Storage Area
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
[&]
[8]
o
IRI
IRI
[8]
o
[gJ
6
Injection Wells
Wastewater Treatment Units
Septic Tanks
Transfer Stations
Waste Recycling Operations
Waste Treatment Detoxification
Other Land Disposal Area
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
IRl
[R]
[R]
IRl
1RI
lRl
lRl
IV. CERTIFICATION
A. Based on my inquiry of those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, I
certify that the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and
accurate.
BP Products North America Inc.
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
,2006
STATE OF INDIANA
5S:
COUNTY OF
Before me, a Notary Public in and for the above-referenced County and State,
personally appeared of , who
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of said
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this
day of
,2006.
Notary Public
Printed
I am a resident of
My commission expires:
County, Indiana.
B. This form was delivered to me with all elements completed on
2006.
7
THE CITY OF CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
COUNTY OF
)
) 55:
)
STATE OF
Before me, a Notary Public in and for the above-referenced County and State,
personally appeared , the of The City of Carmel
Redevelopment Commission, who acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument on
behalf of said limited liability company.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this
day of
,2003.
Notary Public
Printed
I am a resident of
County,
My commission expires:
This instrument was prepared by
8
A WARNING TO THE PARTIES TO A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY: It is highly unlikely that the
single act of reading this document would be found to constitute "all appropriate inquiry into the
previous ownership and uses of the property" so as to protect you against liability under the
"innocent purchaser" provision of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(B). You are strongly encouraged not only
to read this document carefully but also to take all other actions necessary to the exercise of
due diligence in your inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT FOR
TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY
For Use By County Recorder's Office
County
Date
The following information is provided under
IC 13-25-3, the Responsible Property Transfer Doc. No.
Law.
Vol.
Page
Rec'd by:
I. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
A. Address of property: 110 South Ranqeline Road
Street
Carmel
City or Town
Township
Tax Parcel Identification No. (Key Number):
B. Legal Description:
Section
25
Township 18 North
Range 3 West
Enter or attach complete legal description in this area:
Please see Exhibit A. attached.
LIABILITY DISCLOSURE
Transferors and transferees of real property are advised that their ownership or other
control of such property may render them liable for environmental cleanup costs
whether or not they caused or contributed to the presence of environmental problems
in association with the property.
C. Property Characteristics:
Lot Size
Acreage
Check all types of improvement and uses that pertain to the property:
o Apartment building (6 units or less)
o Commercial apartment (over 6 units)
o Store, office, commercial building
o Industrial building
o Farm, with buildings
lliJ Other (specify) - Former Gasoline Station
II. NATURE OF TRANSFER
A. (1) Is this a transfer by deed or other instrument of
conveyance of fee title to property?
(2) Is this a transfer by assignment of over 25% of beneficial
interest of a land trust?
(3) A lease exceeding a term of 40 years?
(4) A collateral assignment of beneficial interest?
(5) An installment contract for the sale of property?
(6) A mortgage or trust deed?
(7) A lease of any duration that include an option to purchase?
B. (1) Identify Transferor:
BP Products North America Inc.
Name and Current Address of Transferor
Trust No.
Yes No
[8] 0
0 lliJ
0 lliJ
0 lliJ
0 lliJ
0 [8]
0 lliJ
Name and Address of Trustee if this is a transfer of beneficial interest of a land trust.
(2) Identify person who has completed this form on behalf of the Transferor and who has
knowledge of the information contained in this form:
Name, position (if any), and address
2
Telephone No.
C. Identify Transferee:
The City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission
Name and current address of Transferee
III. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
A. Regulatory Information During Current Ownership
1. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
generation, manufacture, processing, transportation, treatment, storage, or handling of
"hazardous substance," as defined by Ie 13-11-2-98? This question does not apply to
consumer goods stored or handled by a retailer in the same form and approximate
amount, concentration, and manner as they are sold to consumers, unless the retailer
has engaged in any commercial mixing {other than paint mixing or tinting of consumer
sized containers}, finishing, refinishing, servicing, or cleaning operations on the property.
IRI Yes 0 No
2. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
processing, storage, or handling of petroleum, other than that which was associated
directly with the transferor's vehicle usage?
IRI Yes 0 No
3. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
generation, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of "hazardous waste," as
defined in IC 13-11-2-99(a)?
DYes
[E] No
4. Are there any of the following specific units (operating or closed) at the property that
are used or were used by the Transferor to manage hazardous wastes, hazardous
substances, or petroleum?
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Land Application
Waste Pile
Incinerator
Storage Tank (Above Ground)
Storage Tank (Underground)
Container Storage Area
Injection Wells
Wastewater Treatment Units
Septic Tanks
Transfer Stations
Waste Recycling Operations
Waste Treatment Detoxification
Other Land Disposal Area
Yes
o
o
o
o
o
o
IRl
o
o
lEI
o
o
o
o
o
3
No
1RI
lliJ
lliJ
lEI
llil
[Rl
o
1KI
1RI
o
[8]
1RI
IRl
llil
llil
If there are "YES" answers to any of the above items and the transfer of property that
requires the filing of this document is other than a mortgage or trust deed or collateral
assignment of beneficial interest in a land trust, you must attach to the copies of this
document that you file with the county recorder and the department of environmental
management a site plan that identifies the location of each unit.
5. Has the transferor every held any of the following in regard to this real property?
(A) Permits for discharges of wastewater to waters of Indiana.
OOVes CJ No
(B) Permits for emissions to the atmosphere.
DYes 00 No
(C) Permits for any waste storage, waste treatment, or waste disposal operation.
DYes 1RI No
6. Has the Transferor ever discharged any wastewater (other than sewage) to a
publicly owned treatment works?
o Yes lID No
7. Has the Transferor been required to take any of the following actions relative to this
property?
(A) Filed an emergency and hazardous chemical inventory form pursuant to the
federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42
U.S.C. 11022).
DYes
fZI No
(B) Filed a toxic chemical release form pursuant to the federal Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S. C. 11023).
DYes 1RI No
8. Has the Transferor or any facility on the property or the property been the subject of
any of the following state or federal governmental actions?
(A) Written notification regarding known, suspected, or alleged contamination on or
emanating from the property.
l:8JYes DNa
(B) Filing an environmental enforcement case with a court or the solid waste
management board for which a final order or consent decree was entered.
DYes 1RI No
(C) If the answer to question {B} was Yes, then indicate whether or not the final
order or decree is still in effect for this property.
DYes 0 No
4
9. Environmental Releases During Transferor's Ownership.
(A) Has any situation occurred at this site which resulted in a reportable "release" of
any hazardous substances or petroleum as required under state or federal laws?
IEJ Yes D No
(B) Have any hazardous substances or petroleum which were released come into
direct contact with the ground at this site?
[g] Yes D No
If the answer to question (A) or (8) is Yes, have any of the following actions or
events been associated with a release on the property?
[8] Use of a cleanLip contractor to remove or treat materials including soils,
pavement. or other surficial materials?
D Assignment of in-house maintenance staff to remove or treat materials
including soils, pavement, or other surficial materials?
[8] Sampling and analysis of soils?
1ZI Temporary or more long term monitoring of groundwater at or near the site?
D Impaired usage of an onsite or nearby water well because of offensive.
characteristics of water?
o Coping with fumes from subsurface storm drains or inside basements?
o Signs of substances leaching out of the ground along the base slopes or at
other low points on or immediately adjacent to the site?
(C) Is there an environmental defect (as defined in IC 13-11-2-70) on the property
that is not reported under question (A) or (8)?
DYes 1ZI No
If the answer is Yes, describe the environmental defect:
10. Is the facility currently operating under a variance granted by the Commissioner of
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management?
DYes 1ZI No
5
11. Has the Transferor ever conducted an activity on the site without obtaining a permit
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Management, or another administrative agency or authority with
responsibility for the protection of the environment, when such a permit was required by
law?
DYes
[8] No
If the answer is Yes, describe the activity:
12. Is there any explanation needed for clarification of any of the above answers or
responses?
Information provided above is related to Indiana Department of Environmental
Management LUST Release Nos. 198911072 and 200303504.
Site Information Under Other Ownership or Operation
1. Provide the following information about the previous owner or about any entity or
person to whom the Transferor leased the property or with whom the Transferor
contracted for the management of the property:
Name:
Type of business or property usage
2. If the Transferor has knowledge, indicate whether the following existed under prior
ownerships, leaseholds granted by the Transferor, or other contracts for management or
use of the property:
Yes No
Landfill 0 [8]
Surface Impoundment 0 [8]
Land Application 0 [8]
Waste Pile 0 [8]
Incinerator 0 [8]
Storage Tank (Above Ground) 0 [8]
Storage Tank (Underground) 0 [8]
Container Storage Area 0 [8]
6
Injection Wells
Wastewater Treatment Units
Septic Tanks
Transfer Stations
Waste Recycling Operations
Waste Treatment Detoxification
Other Land Disposal Area
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
[RI
[RI
[g]
[8]
[8]
[E]
[8J
IV. CERTlFICA liON
A. Based on my inquiry of those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, I
certify that the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and
accurate.
BP Products North America Inc.
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
,2006
COUNTY OF
)
) SS:
)
STATE OF INDIANA
Before me, a Notary Public in and for the above-referenced County and State,
personally appeared of, who
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of said
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this _ day of
,2006.
Notary Public
Printed
I am a resident of
My commission expires:
County, Indiana.
B. This form was delivered to me with all elements completed on
2006.
7
THE CITY OF CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
COUNTY OF
)
) ss:
)
STATE OF
Before me, a Notary Public in and for the above-referenced County and State,
personally appeared I the of The City of Carmel
Redevelopment Commission, who acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument on
behalf of said limited liability company.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this
day of
,2003.
Notary Public
Printed
I am a resident of
County,
My commission expires:
This instrument was prepared by
8
A WARNING TO THE PARTIES TO A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY: It is highly unlikely that the
single act of reading this document would be found to constitute "all appropriate inquiry into the
previous ownership and uses of the property" so as to protect you against liability under the
"innocent purchaser" provision of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(B). You are strongly encouraged not only
to read this document carefully but also to take all other actions necessary to the exercise of
due diligence in your inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT FOR
TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY
For Use By Countv Recorder's Office
County
Date
The following information is provided under
IC 13-25-3, the Responsible Property Transfer Doc. No.
Law.
Vol.
Page
Rec'd by:
I. PROPERTY IDENTI FICA TION
A. Address of property: 110 South Ranqeline Road
Street
Carmel
City or Town
Township
Tax Parcel Identification No. (Key Number):
B. Legal Description:
Section
25
Township 18 North
Range 3 West
Enter or attach complete legal description in this area:
Please see Exhibit A. attached.
LIABILITY DISCLOSURE
Transferors and transferees of real property are advised that their ownership or other
control of such property may render them liable for environmental cleanup costs
whether or not they caused or contributed to the presence of environmental problems
in association with the property.
C. Property Characteristics:
Lot Size
Acreage
Check all types of improvement and uses that pertain to the property:
o Apartment building (6 units or less)
o Commercial apartment (over 6 units)
o Store, office, commercial building
o Industrial building
o Farm, with buildings
[8] Other (specify) - Former Gasoline Station
II. NA TU RE OF TRANSFER
A. (1) Is this a transfer by deed or other instrument of
conveyance of fee title to property?
(2) Is this a transfer by assignment of over 25% of beneficial
interest of a land trust?
(3) A lease exceeding a term of 40 years?
(4) A collateral assignment of beneficial interest?
(5) An installment contract for the sale of property?
(6) A mortgage or trust deed?
(7) A lease of any duration that include an option to purchase?
B. (1) Identify Transferor:
BP Products North America Inc.
Name and Current Address of Transferor
Trust No.
Yes No
[8] 0
0 [8]
0 I:RI
0 [RJ
0 [RJ
0 [RJ
0 [RJ
Name and Address of Trustee if this is a transfer of beneficial interest of a land trust.
(2) Identify person who has completed this form on behalf of the Transferor and who has
knowledge of the information contained in this form:
Name, position (if any), and address
2
Telephone No.
C. Identify Transferee:
The City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission
Name and current address of Transferee
III. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
A. Regulatory Information During Current Ownership
1. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
generation, manufacture, processing, transportation, treatment, storage, or handling of
"hazardous substance," as defined by Ie 13-11-2-98? This question does not apply to
consumer goods stored or handled by a retailer in the same form and approximate
amount, concentration, and manner as they are sold to consumers, unless the retailer
has engaged in any commercial mixing (other than paint mixing or tinting of consumer
sized containers), finishing, refinishing, servicing, or cleaning operations on the property.
[R] Yes 0 No
2. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
processing, storage, or handling of petroleum, other than that which was associated
directly with the transferor's vehicle usage?
[R] Yes 0 No
3. Has the Transferor ever conducted operations on the property which involved the
generation, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of "hazardous waste," as
defined in Ie 13-11-2-99(a)?
DYes
[R] No
4. Are there any of the following specific units (operating or closed) at the property that
are used or were used by the Transferor to manage hazardous wastes, hazardous
substances, or petroleum?
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Land Application
Waste Pile
Incinerator
Storage Tank (Above Ground)
Storage Tank (Underground)
Container Storage Area
Injection Wells
Wastewater Treatment Units
Septic Tanks
Transfer Stations
Waste Recycling Operations
Waste Treatment Detoxification
Other Land Disposal Area
Yes
o
o
o
o
o
o
[8]
o
o
[R]
o
o
o
o
o
3
No
!RI
[8]
[8]
[8]
[8]
[R]
o
[8]
!RI
D
lRl
[R]
!RI
[8]
[8]
If there are "YES" answers to any of the above items and the transfer of property that
requires the filing of this document is other than a mortgage or trust deed or collateral
assignment of beneficial interest in a land trust, you must attach to the copies of this
document that you file with the county recorder and the department of environmental
management a site plan that identifies the location of each unit.
5. Has the transferor every held any of the following in regard to this real property?
(A) Permits for discharges of wastewater to waters of Indiana.
lRlYes D No
(B) Permits for emissions to the atmosphere.
DYes IKl No
(C) Permits for any waste storage, waste treatment, or waste disposal operation.
DYes IKl No
6. Has the Transferor ever discharged any wastewater (other than sewage) to a
publicly owned treatment works?
DYes lRl No
7. Has the Transferor been required to take any of the following actions relative to this
property?
(A) Filed an emergency and hazardous chemical inventory form pursuant to the
federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42
U.S.C.11022).
DYes
IKl No
(8) Filed a toxic chemical release form pursuant to the federal Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S. C. 11023).
DYes IKl No
8. Has the Transferor or any facility on the property or the property been the subject of
any of the following state or federal governmental actions?
(A) Written notification regarding known, suspected, or alleged contamination on or
emanating from the property.
[RIYes DNo
(8) Filing an environmental enforcement case with a court or the solid waste
management board for which a final order or consent decree was entered.
o Yes lEI No
(C) If the answer to question (8) was Yes, then indicate whether or not the final
order or decree is still in effect for this property.
DYes 0 No
4
9. Environmental Releases During Transferor's Ownership.
(A) Has any situation occurred at this site which resulted in a reportable "release" of
any hazardous substances or petroleum as required under state or federal laws?
[RI Yes 0 No
(8) Have any hazardous substances or petroleum which were released come into
direct contact with the ground at this site?
[RI Yes 0 No
If the answer to question (A) or (8) is Yes, have any of the following actions or
events been associated with a release on the property?
[g] Use of a cleanup contractor to remove or treat materials including soils,
pavement, or other surficial materials?
o Assignment of in-house maintenance staff to remove or treat materials
including soils, pavement, or other surficial materials?
[RI Sampling and analysIs of soils?
[g] Temporary or more long term monitoring of groundwater at or near the site?
o Impaired usage of an onsite or nearby water well because of offensive
characteristics of water?
o Coping with fumes from subsurface storm drains or inside basements?
o Signs of substances leaching out of the ground along the base slopes or at
other low points on or immediately adjacent to the site?
(C) Is there an environmental defect (as defined in IC 13-11-2-70) on the property
that is not reported under question (A) or (8)?
DYes [g] No
If the answer is Yes, describe the environmental defect:
10. Is the facility currently operating under a variance granted by the Commissioner of
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management?
DYes IRl No
5
11. Has the Transferor ever conducted an activity on the site without obtaining a permit
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Management, or another administrative agency or authority with
responsibility for the protection of the environment, when such a permit was required by
law?
DYes
[R] No
If the answer is Yes, describe the activity:
12. Is there any explanation needed for clarification of any of the above answers or
responses?
Information provided above is related to Indiana Deoartment of Environmental
ManaQement LUST Release Nos. 198911072 and 200303504.
Site Information Under Other Ownership or Operation
1 . Provide the following information about the previous owner or about any entity or
person to whom the Transferor leased the property or with whom the Transferor
contracted for the management of the property:
Name:
Type of business or property usage
2. If the Transferor has knowledge, indicate whether the following existed under prior
ownerships, leaseholds granted by the Transferor, or other contracts for management or
use of the property:
Yes No
Landfill 0 [R]
Surface Impoundment 0 [R]
Land Application 0 00
Waste Pile 0 [R]
Incinerator 0 [8]
Storage Tank (Above Ground) 0 l&:I
Storage Tank (Underground) 0 [8]
Container Storage Area 0 l&:I
6
Injection Wells
Wastewater Treatment Units
Septic Tanks
Transfer Stations
Waste Recycling Operations
Waste Treatment Detoxification
Other Land Disposal Area
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
lRl
lRl
[Kl
lRl
1KI
(R]
[8]
IV. CERTIFICATION
A. Based on my inquiry of those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, I
certify that the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and
accurate.
BP Products North America Inc.
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
,2006
COUNTY OF
)
) SS:
)
STATE OF INDIANA
Before me, a Notary Public in and for the above-referenced County and State,
personally appeared of, who
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of said
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this
day of
,2006.
Notary Public
Printed
1 am a resident of
My commission expires:
County, Indiana.
B. This form was delivered to me with all elements completed on
2006.
7
THE CITY OF CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
COUNTY OF
)
) SS:
)
STATE OF
Before me, a Notary Public in and for the above-referenced County and State,
personally appeared , the of The City of Carmel
Redevelopment Commission, who acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument on
behalf of said limited liability company.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this
day of
,2003.
Notary Public
Printed
I am a resident of
County,
My commission expires:
This instrument was prepared by
8
04/05/2005 12:29
317775%28
HAMILTON CO SURVEYOR
PAGE 01/01
.:Kcnton C 'Ward, Sumfl'or
'r/ion.' (; 17) 7{G-<+;q.~J5
'rf/J C3 '7) 7il~-:-1G:1.8
SlIr(c .rSl
Onl' .7lrlfllj{'111I C~H1Iry.' Srlrll!r~
:!VvhlrM.,/Ic, Im/frIP/1I 4(.;06')-.2.2j(1
April 5, 2006
RE: TOWlllbomes at Central Park
tf....'::;.>.;;:~- '-.,
.'~ '\. .\\
.. .
i -
l~'i i ,i
\ ,I .
~.-.'> I I'
'/ ~ - .
- , I
. -":',~. - -'7'~'!//
-~--:-.........-
Bingham McHale
ATTN: Annemarie Varga
2700 Market Tower
lOWest Market Street
Indianapolis. IN 46204-4900
VIA FACSIMILE: 236-9907
Dear Mrs. Varga.:
We have reviewed the concept plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office on
March 13, 2006, ror this project and have the following conunents:
L The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the City of
CtlTl:nel
2. The proposed project DOES NOT fall in a Carttlel Wellhead Protection Zone.
3. The proposed project does not fall in a regulated dral.n watershed.
4. Please direct all storm sewer related questions to the City of Carmel Engineering
Department, unless new regulated drain is being proposed to drain this site.
S, The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no objections to the proposed project.
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317.776-8495.
Sincerely,
~2bf
Plan Reviewer
CC: Matt Griffin ~ Carmel DOCD, Amanda Foley - Cannel Engineering
Dick Hill - Cannel Engineering. Mike McBride - HCHD
Greg Ilko - Crossroads Engineering
OWO~b() (?- P() 0
EL
March 24, 2006
JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR
Ms. Annemarie Varga
Bingham McHale LLP
2700 Market Tower
lOWest Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900
RE: Townhomes at Central Park PUO-Project Review #1
Dear Mr. Shinaver:
We have reviewed the plans submitted for review at the April 19, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee
meeting. We offer the following comments:
GENERAL INFORMA nON
1. The project site is located within current City of Carmel Corporate Limits.
2. Jurisdictions:
o Streets and Right of Way - City of Carmel (Westfield Boulevard)
. Water - City of Cannel Utilities
. Sanitary Sewers - Clay Township Regional Waste District
. Storm SewerslDrainage - City of Cannel.
. Legal Drains ~ Hamilton County Surveyor's Office.
3. Board of Public Works and Safety Requirements:
. Water Availability approval from the Board is based upon the total number oftownhome
units and number of bedrooms per unit. Reference item #11 below for a more detailed
explanation. Ifa community swimming pool or bathhouse is planned, additional Water
Availability approval from the Board will be required and additional Water Connection Fees
will be assessed. If entryWay or other community irrigation systems are planned, these will
also require additional Water Availability approval from the Board and additional Water
Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the size and usage ofthe system.
. Commercial Curb Cut Approval- This approval will be required for the Westfield Boulevard
entrance. Provide a letter to this office requesting BPWS Commercial Curb Cut approval.
Provide an 8 If2 x ] ] exhibit or exhibits detailing the requested curb cut(s) with all appropriate
dimensional data including width, radii, aceVdeceVpassing blister dimensions, existing and
opposing streets or drives, etc.
. Temporary Construction Entrance approval if the location is at a site other than a permanent
curb cut on Westfield Boulevard. Submission requirements are the same as for commercial
curb cut.
. Any permanent improvement to be installed within dedicated right of way or dedicated
easements. This approval would require a Consent to Encroach Agreement between the
Owner and the City of Carmel.
II Secondary Plat approval if applicable.
. Dedication of Right of Way if not platted.
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
ONE CWIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FAX 317.571.2439
EMAIL engineering@ci.carmel.in.us
I am also enclosing a schedule for Board of Public Works and Safety meeting dates and agenda
deadlines for your use. Please use the Engineering Department deadlines for submissions to the
Board.
Any submission to the Board requires prior approval by the Carmel Clay Plan Commission
and/or the Board of Zoning Appeals (if applicable) and completion 0/ review by the Technical
Advisory Committee. All written requests to be placed on the Board's agenda must include the
appropriate Docket Number and the date (or dates) o/approvalby the Plan Commission andlor
the Board of Zoning Appeals (if applicable).
4. T.A.C. Review/Drawings submitted for approval:
We request that all comments and comment letters generated by this office be answered in writing
and be accompanied by a drawing reflecting requested revisions. Final drawings will not be
approved for construction until all Engineering Department and Utility Department issues have
been resolved. The design engineer must certify all drawings submitted for final approval. This
office will require a minimum of four-sets of drawings for approval after all issues have been
resolved. The drawings will be stamped as approved and will be signed by the City Engineer and
Director of Carmel Utilities. The Owner will receive one-set which is to be maintained on the
construction site at all times. Carmel Utilities wiIl receive one-set, our Public Works Inspector
will receive one-set and one-set will be maintained in the Engineering Department. If additional
approved sets are desired, we will approve a maximum of two-additional sets. However, the
additional sets must be submitted with the required four-sets. We also require the submission of
one digital CD of the approved construction plans per City of Carmel requirements.
5. Please be advised that any installation of signs, walls, irrigation systems, etc. within dedicated
right of way or dedicated easements will require a Consent to Encroach Agreement with the City
of Carmel. This agreement, with the exception of irrigation systems, requires BPWS approval.
The City Engineer may approve irrigation system agreements.
6. Carmel Utilities should be provided drawings for review of water issues. They will provide a
separate review regarding these issues.
7. Carmel Utilities does subscribe to "Holey Moley" who should be contacted directly for all water
main locations.
8. I am including copies of the following with this correspondence:
. Subdivision Project Approval Procedures
. Commercial Project Approval Procedures
o Performance Release Procedure
e Subdivision Building Permits
. Permit Data, Contacts, etc.
. Street Signage Requirements
BONDING REOUlREMENTS
9. Upon initial review, it appears the following bonding requirements may apply to this project:
Performance GuaranteeslEngineer's Estimates
00 Streets (base, binder and surface must be bonded together)
" Curb & Gutters
" Water Mains
. Storm SewerslDrainage
oil Monuments and Markers
o Street Signs
o Sidewalks (Interior-builders lot right of way sidewalks and Exterior-common area/perimeter
right of way sidewalks/asphalt paths may be bonded separately).
o Right of Way Improvements may be bonded separately. This could include accel/decellanes,
passing blister, pavement widening, thermoplastic striping, stone shoulders, curbs, etc.
Erosion control may require a Performance Guarantee. This will be determined later. If the
interior streets are to be private streets, the bonding requirements listed above for Streets, Curb &
Gutters, Storm Sewers, Street Signs and Interior Sidewalks would be affected.
The amountofthe Performance Guarantee is based upon a certified Engineer's Estimate for 100%
of the cost of labor and materials to construct the individual improvements, to be provided by the
design engineer. Please provide detailed Engineer's Estimates for each improvement including
quantities, unit costs, pipe sizes and materials, etc. Upon completion and release of individual
Performance Guarantees, a three-year Maintenance Guarantee will be required. The Maintenance
Guarantee amount is based upon 15% of the Performance amount for Streets and Curbs and 10%
of the Performance amount for all other improvements. Performance Guarantees may be
Performance or Subdivision Bonds or Irrevocable Letters of Credit. Please reference the
enclosures for more detailed explanation of our procedures.
Right of Way Permit and Bonding
Any work in the dedicated right of way of Westfield Boulevard will require an approved Right of
Way Permit and a License & Permit Bond. The bond amount is determined by the number of
instances of work in the right of way at $2,000.00 per instance. However, if the work is included
in the scope of work of a required and posted Performance Guarantee, the Performance Guarantee
may be used to satisfy the bond requirements of the Right of Way Permit. Please contact our
Right of Way Manager, Fred Glaser, to arrange right of way permitting and bonding.
10. We have engaged Crossroad Engineers, PC to review all drainage plans and drainage calculations
submitted to this office for review. We will share Crossroad's comments as they are received.
When construction plans are submitted for review for this development, please provide a set of
drawings and drainage calculations directly to Crossroad.
AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION FEES
II. Availability (acreage) Fees must be paid after all other Engineering Department requirements
have been satisfied and prior to approval and start of construction activities. Availability Fees are
based upon total platted acreage or legal description acreage for the development at the current
rate of $1,01 0.00 per acre for Water Availability.
Based upon the indicated acreage on the enclosed legal descriptions, the following Availability
Fees, at current rates, would apply:
Water - 8.796 Acres @ $1,0 I 0.001 Acre = $ 8,884.00
Connection Fees-Based on the drawings submitted, there appear to be 16-buildings with a total of
1 iO-single family townhome units. Please provide this office with a listing of the buildings, units
per building and number of bedrooms per unit. The current Water Connection Fee is $1,310.00
per EDU. Connection Fees are paid when the infrastructure has been completed, satisfactory test
results obtained and the development has been released for building permits. Connection Fees are
paid on a building-building~lot basis. The EDU calculation is based on the following:
I-Bedroom Unit @ 0.54 EDUs per Unit
2-Bedroom Unit @ 0.8] EDUs per Unit
3-Bedroom Unit @ 1.00 EDU per Unit
The Availability and Connections Fees are current as of this date but are subject to future
revisions.
If an irrigation system, swimming pool or clubhouse isplannedfor this development, additional
Water Connection Fees will be assessed based upon tI,e recommendations of the Director of
Carmel Utilities.
PROJECT COMMENTS
A seven-page Plan Certification Form has been enclosed. This form was created with the desire and intent
to streamline the plan review process. We request that you please complete this form and return it to the
Department of Engineering as soon as possible. Additional comments will be provided by the Department
of Engineering after the Certification Form is returned.
Please treat each item on the form as a requirement of the Department of Engineering. Providing a "no" or
"N/A" response to any of the items does not relieve the Developer of the responsibility of meeting the
requirements ofthe Department of Engineering. The Department of Engineering will make the final
determination as to the acceptability ofany "no" or ''NIA'' responses.
12. Please contact Crossroad Engineers to obtain drainage review checklist for consideration in
developing secondary plat and that design effort. The Department would expect the secondary
plat and construction drawings submitted to confonn to the requirements of the checklist.
13. Please provide detention volume for the fully developed site and for the fully developed
thoroughfare plan right-of-way for the Westfield Boulevard frontage. This requirement shall
apply regardless of watershed limits. Please provide adequately sized pipes to carry water from
the street to the proposed ponds.
14. If off-site easements will be necessary to install the utilities, these easements must be secured prior
to the Department of Engineering approving the drawings.
15. Please provide ADA ramps where tbe entrance crosses the asphalt path and at all interior street
intersections.
16. The Department requires that the construction drawings be developed in accordance with the City
of Cannel digital submission standards and that all required submittals for primary plat, secondary
plat, and construction drawings be made. The digital files must be submitted to the Department of
Engineering prior to approval of the construction plans.
17. The City has adopted a new paving policy. Please revise any notes, specifications, and details to
accommodate this policy. The language of these policies must be added to a specification sheet on
the plans.
18. The City has adopted a new curbing policy. Please revise any notes, specifications, and details to
accommodate this policy. The language of these policies must be added to a specification sheet on
the plans.
19. This project is subject to the Cannel Stonnwater Management Ordinance, which was adopted
February 6, 2006.
These comments represent the Department of Engineering's initial review of the PUD for this project. We
request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written responses
may result in the delay of the review process.
It is critical that this office be made aware of all modifications made on the plans being re-submitted,
particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please
provide revised plans including all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any
changes, including changes resulting from Plan Conunission, BZA or other committee meetings.
All bonds and performance guarantees must be posted prior to Engineering Department approval of
construction plans. Board of Public Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals
(if required) must be obtained prior to Engineering Department approval. All performance guarantees must
be posted prior to submission of secondary plats for Board of Public Works and Safety approval.
The Department reserves the right to provide additional comments based upon subsequent reviews and on
the grading and drainage system upon receipt of drainage calculations and more detailed construction
drawings that provide grading elevations, pipe sizing and invert elevations. These comments may affect
the drainage system layout presented on the primary plat.
If you have questions, please call me at 571-2441.
Sincerely,
e=~~ ~
Plan Review Coordinator
Department of Engineering
Enclosures
Cc: Matt Griffin, Department of Community Services
John Duffy, Carmel Utilities
Paul Pace, Carmel Utilities
Greg Ilko, Crossroad Engineers
Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office
Engineering File Copy
Engineering Department Review
S:\PROJREV06\TOWNHOMESA TCENTRALP ARK