HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
Conn. Angelina V
From:
Sent:
. To:
Cc:
Subject:
Duncan, Gary R
Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:55 PM
Conn, Angelina V; Jim Rinehart
Redden, Nick; Duncan, Gary R; Greg Acqua; Ewing, Gregory; Ochs, Timothy
RE: Prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
Works for me.. .but we will need to see additional detail to approve this like a primary
plat (more detailed cd's submitted later)
-----Original Message-----
From: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn@carmel.in.gov>
To: "Jim Rinehart" <jrinehart@Stoeppelwerth.coffi>
Cc: "Redden, Nick" <nredden@carmel.in.gov>; "Duncan. Gary R" <gduncan@carmel.in.gov>;
"Greg Acqua" <GAcqua@rlscompanies.com>; "Ewing, Gregory" <Gregory.Ewing@icemiller.com>;
"Ochs, Timothy" <Timothy.Ochs@icemiller.com>
Sent: 06-Nov-08 12:51
Subject: RE: prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
Jim-
I would recommend you proceed with the dp and adls approvals from the plan commission.
Then, come back later for TAC (technical advisory committee) review when you want the
construction plans reviewed/approved. This is where the engineering dept would then
review/approve the construction documents.
Of course, with the dpjadls route the plan commission would like to see the detailed
landscape plan, site plan, building elevations, etc.
Does this work for you all?
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning
1 Civic Square. 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p. 317-571-2417
f. 317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
P please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Jim Rinehart [mailto:jrinehart@Stoeppelwerth.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06. 2008 11:15 AM
To: Ewing, Gregory; Dchs, Timothy
Cc: Redden, Nick; Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R; Greg Acqua
Subject: RE: Prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
Greg E. / Tim O.
1
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Duncan, Gary R
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:55 AM
To: 'Jim Rinehart'
Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Redden, Nick
Subject: RE: prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
I agree Jim. If this is only an ADLS submittal, then we will need to approve the
Development Plan at a later date. You do not need to respond to the letter issued item by
item. Simply respond by indicating that the comments are acknowledged and will be
considered as the development plan is developed.
please understand however, that no part of the site plan as approved by the PC or the sub-
committee can be construed as approved by Engineering. Our future comments may
changes to the site plan.
re~irl
Please consider our comments as the construction documents are developed. We will ref r
-back to this comment letter as we review the development plan when it is submitted. A
response to the comment issued accompanying the development plan when submitted would make
the review a lot easier.
Gary
From: Jim Rinehart [mailto:jrinehart@Stoeppelwerth.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:38 PM
To: Duncan, Gary R
Subject: RE: prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
Sorry I didn't get back with you yet, I was still working on parts of my response.
In general, we are only submitting for ADLS approval and have no intention of getting
approval for construction plans at this point. Since this is a 35 acre private
development that is outside of the "norm" we want to take this one step at a time. W
fully understand that construction type details will be required, but my understandin~ as
it was explained by the attorney was that for this level of approval we could go withlthe
submittal that we made. In other communities I would be calling this more of a prima y
plat type of plan and approval with the understanding that construction plans have to be
approved after the initial plan has been approved during this step.
This job has a longer than typical timeframe, and I think they want to be sure with each
step and not spend money to create plans for things like final construction plans until
they have heard what PC, Sub Committee, etc... has to say about the general plan first.
I still planned on getting an item by item response to you regarding your comment letter,
but what I expected for a handful of my responses was to inform you that we would be
addressing those items in our final construction plans at a later date.
3
Page 1 of 2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Thursday, November 06,200810:53 AM
To: Duncan, Gary R
Cc: Redden, Nick; 'Jim Rinehart'
Subject: RE: Prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
If/when approved by the plan commission, this will need to be clarified that it is an adls application approval only..
(They submitted both dp and adls applications, and so the docket no. issued is for a dp/adls.)
Angie Connl Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
~ Plea~e consider the environment before prinl1ng thi:; e-l.nail
From: Duncan, Gary R
Sent: ThursdaYI November 06, 2008 8:55 AM
To: 'Jim Rinehart'
Cc: Connl Angelina V; Reddenl Nick
Subject: RE: Prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
I agree Jim. If this is only an ADLS submittal. then we will need to approve the Development Plan at a later date. Yau do
not need to respond to the letter issued item by item. Simply respond by indicating that the comments are acknowledged
and will be considered as the development plan is developed.
Please understand however, that no pmt of the site plan as approved by the PC or the sub-commiltee can be constnted as
approved by Engineering. Our future comments may require changes to the site plan.
Please consider om comments as the construction documents are developed. We will refer back to this comme.nt letter as
we review the development plan when it is submitted. A response to the comment issued accompanying the develoPlncnt
plan when submitted would make the review a lot easier.
Gary
From: Jim Rinehart [mailto:jrinehart@Stoeppelwerth.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1 :38 PM
To: Duncan, Gary R
Subject: RE: Prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
Sorry I didn't get back with you yet, I was still working on parts of my response.
In general, we are only submitting for ADLS approval and have no intention of getting approval for construction plans at
this point. Since this is a 35 acre private development that is outside of the "norm" we want to take this one step at a
time. We fully understand that construction type details will be required, but my understanding as it was explained by the
attorney was that for this level of approval we could go with the submittal that we made. In other communities I would be
calling this more of a primary plat type of plan and approval with the understanding that construction plans have to be
approved after the initial plan has been approved during this step.
This job has a longer than typical timeframe, and I think they want to be sure with each step and not spend money to
create plans farthings like final construction plans until they have heard what PC, Sub Committee, etc... has to say about
the general plan first.
I still planned on getting an item by item response to you regarding your comment letter, but what I expected for a handful
11/6/2008
I
Page :2 of 2
of my responses was to inform you that we would be addressing those items in our final construction plans at a later date.
Let me know if any part of this doesn't make sense.
Thanks,
Jim Rinehart, P.E.
Stoeppelwerth & Associates
7965 East 106th Street
Fishers, IN 46038
Work (317) 570-4848
Fax (317) 570-4788
Mobile (317) 503-0401
E-mail jrinehart@stoeppelwerth.com
From: Duncan, Gary R [mailto:gduncan@carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:42 PM
To: Jim Rinehart
Subject: RE: Prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
Jim,
Did you receive my response to this email? I just want to confirm. I was out of the office when I replied.
Gary
From: Jim Rinehart [mailto:jrinehart@Stoeppelwerth.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:30 PM
To: Duncan, Gary R
Subject: FW: Prairie Landing-Carmel Engineering Comments
Gary.
I received the attached comments from Greg Ewing at Ice Miller mid week last week. As part of the design team for this
project I was asked to review the letter and address the comments that pertained to my part of the design. As you saw
from the submittal Stoeppelwerth is doing the site design and will be addressing that portion of the review letter.
Since this submittal was for ADLS review and approval only I am uncertain why there are comments that are asking for
things such as storm, sanitary, and street profiles, detail sheets, etc... I understand that these items will be required at
the time we ask for construction plan approval, but atthis time they seem to be a bit premature. I understand that there is
also a list of items that are clearly appropriate for the ADLS review such as street separation, use of curb, floodplain
mitigation needs, etc...
At the top of the last section is does start off by calling comment #'5 37 - 61 "Construction Plan Review Comments" this
heading led me to believe their may have been a bit of confusion on how this submittal was to be reviewed by the
engineering department. I Would like to discuss this with you further at your convenience so I can be clear on the intent
of the comments in this letter. Obviously, there may also be some confusion on my part here as well so if we can talk and
get this straightened out I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Jim Rinehart, P.E.
Stoeppelwerth & Associates
7965 East 106th Street
Fishers, IN 46038
Work (317) .570-4848
Fax (317) 570-4788
Mobile (317) 503-0401
E-mail jrinenart@stoeppelwerth.com
11/612008
~
Ie
LL.P
LEGAL COUNSEL
October 30, 2008
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236.5952
[)IRECT FAX: (317) 592-4720
INTERNIo-r: T;'molhy.Ochs@icemiller.com
David Littlejohn
Alternative Transportation Coordinator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square, 3rd Floor
Carmel, IN 46032
Re: Prairie Landing CCRC (Legacy PUD) Docket No. 08090018 DPIADLS
Dear David:
Thank you for your initial review and conmlents sent to Greg Ewing in my office, by
letter dated October 10, 2008, regarding our initial 9-19-08 filing for the Prairie Landing CeRC
(Legacy PUD).
Following is a point-by-point response to your five (5) comments.
1. "The City of Carmel Parking Ordinance requires that multi-family residences include
bicycle parking Bicycle parking spaces are required at a rate of one (1) bicycle parking
space per evety three (3) living units with a maximum of forty (40) spaces. In this
instance the site will require a/ leas/ forty (40) bicycle parking spaces. Please revise
your plans to show the requires bicycle parking spaces, on your site. Please see the City
of Carmel's Parking Ordinance in order to determine appropriate locations,
specifications and construction de/ails for the above. "
Although the development will consist of a continuing care retirement community with
relatively few bicycle riders, particularly within the attached residential component, we
understand and appreciate the requirements of the Parking Ordinance. Therefore, future
plans to be submitted will provide at least the minimum number of forty (40) bicycle
parking spaces.
2. "The Legacy's Exhibit 3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires a primary walking path
along the east and south boundaries of this site. Please revise your plan /0 include this
change. 1/
Exhibit 3 of the Legacy PUD does indicate a sidewalk or walking path along the east and
south boundaries of the site.
One American Square I Suite 2900 I IndianapDlis. IN 46222-0200 I P ]17-236-2iOO I F 317-2]6-2219
IND1ANAPOllS I CHiCAGO I DUPAGE COUNTY Il j WASHINGTON DC
www.icemiller.com
,
David Littlej ohn
October 30, 2008
Page 2
The sidewalk or walking path along the east side would be along Community Drive,
which is off-site and not part of the subject real estate. East Cannel LLC, an entity of
Platinum Properties, will be installing Community Drive and will install the sidewalks or
walking paths along that street in accordance with the Legacy PUD.
The sidewalk or walking path along the south side is identified as "conceptual" in
Exhibit 3 of the Legacy PUD. Therefore, sidewalks or walking paths should be provided
generally east-west through the site, but are not required along the south property line. In
that light, we have provided sidewalks or waiking paths from the westerillnost property
line to the easternmost property line through the site, some of which are relatively near
the south property line.
3. liThe Legacy's Exhibit 6: Street Plan (Minimum Cross-Section Standards for Known
Street Locations) requires a Primary Point of Connectivity at the intersection of River Rd
and Community Dr. Please pravidedetails afthis connection. /I
The Primary Point of Connectivity at the intersection of River Road and Community
Drive is off-site and not part oftlw subject real estate. East Carmel LLC, an entity of
Platinum Properties, will be installing this Primary Point of Connectivity.
4. liThe Subdivision Control Ordinance and the Alternative Transportation Plan requires a
5' sidewalk on each side of all internal streefs. Please consider revising your plans to
include this change. If
We have discussed this issue at some length wjth you and Angie Conn subsequent to
your October 10 comment letter, and prior to this correspondence.
Since we are not proposing to subdivide the property, we understand the provisions of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance will not apply.
We understand the provisions of the Alternative Transportation Plan, in this context;
represent a recommendation of both the Comprehensive Plan and the'Thoroughfare Plan,
rather than an ordinance requirement.
We have provided sidewalks or walking paths throughout the proposed development.
Although we have not provided sidewalks or walking paths on both sides of every portion
of every private street, we believe we have met the spirit and intent of the Alternative
Transportation Plan by providing convenient pedestrian connectivity throughout the
proposed development, while minimizing the hard-surface where possible ill order to
provide for a "green" development.
5. "Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps at all crosswalks. 1/
Future plans will indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps at all crosswalks.
~" iI
David Littlejohn
October 30,2008
Page 3
We look forward to working with you, other members of the Carmel City staff, and the
Plan Commissioners as we proceed through the DP/ADLS process. Should you have additional
comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
cc: Angie Conn, DOCS
Greg Acqua, RLS Companies
Jim Rinehart, Stoeppelwerth
Scott Hall, EGA Architects
Lany Hemp, HempDesign
Paul Rioux, East Cannel, LLC
1/2242121.1
Memo
To: Scatt Brewer, City of Carmel
From: Larry Hemp, HempDesign
cc: Greg Ewing, Ice Miller
Date: 10/13/08
IRe: Prairie Landing
Hi Scott. Below find a summary of the changes we will make to our landscape plans in response to
your comments from our meeting an 1afT/08.
1. Label cottage types on the overall site plan to coordinate with the cottage details on the detail
sheet.
2. Mod~y the plant schedules to include quantities for your reference.
3. Replace Prairifire Cra.bs and Winter King Hawthorns in close proximity to sidewalks with higher
branched tree species.
4. Include trees specified in the cottage details on the overall site plan to better depict the actual
number of trees being used site-wide.
. Page 1
Page 10f3
Conn, Angelina V
From: Ewing, Gregory [Gregory.Ewing@icemiller.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02,2008 11 :24 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Ochs, Timothy
Subject: RE: Prairie Landing CCRe Parking
Angie, There are 173 two-bedroom independent living apartments. Thanks. Greg 1
~L{ If. p\i:j J\4i tl C
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 10: 15 AM
To: Ewing, Gregory
Cc: Ochs, Timothy
Subject: RE: Prairie Landing CCRC Parking
Hi, Greg: how many of the independent living units will have 2 bedrooms or 2 beds per unit?
Also, here are my research results:
~I zoning ordinance parking regulations require the following for a nursing, retirement, or convalescent facility: 1 space
per bed, plus one space per employee.
Park Place PUQ(Z-500-06) parking requirements:
6,1 Parking Requirements.
6.1 (a) Each independent residential living unit shall have one and four-tenths (1.4) covered garage spaces or on-grade
parking stalls on site.
6.1 (b) Each assisted living unit shall have one (1) on-site parking space per unit and every four (4) nursing beds shall have
one (1) on-site parking stall .
6.1 (c) In additiOIl to the above parking spaces, there shall also be a minimum of seventy five (75) additional on site parking
spaces for visitors and staff to serve the site.
6.1 (d) There shall be a minimum of eight (8) handicapped parking spaces to serve the site.
(As of today, there are commitments to city council that the real estate shall not exceed 191 independent living units, 20
as.>sisted living units, and 28 nursing care units. But a PUD amendment will soon be heard by the Plan commission, and a
commitment amendment will soon be heard by the counciL)
Park Place PUD
(unit type,
breakdown of)
independent assisted nursing care memory support
current PUD 195 20 28 n/a
City Council PUD commitments 191 20 28 n/a
proposed PUD amend 171 44 30 18
Sunrise at Old Meridian & US 31 (docket no 07010009 DP/ADLS):
78 units of assisted living and 62 units of independent living.
The petitioner received a variance from the parking ordinance to reduce the parking ratio to one space per independent living
unit (some are 2 bedroom units) arid 0.5 spaces per assisted living unit. Required parking = 208; provided parking =109.
Strafford at WestClay, Village of WestClay PUD Z-465-04: .
Elder Care Center: one space per employee and 1 space per 10 senior citizens. The aggregate is one space per employee and
one space for each 6 senior citizens.
Detached single family: 2 spaces per dwelling.
Attached dwellings: 1 space per first bedroom, plus 0.5 spaces for each additional bedroom.
Stratford Overflow parking (docket no 08080024 TAC): 26 spaces.
Stratford total parking numbers: (05110019TAC)....?
1 0/2/2008
Page 1 of 1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Fox, Jason [JFox@StratfordCompanies.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 200811:47 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V; gsnelling@snellingeng.com
Subject: Re: Stratford at Westclay Parking numbers
132 garage parking. 27 private street surface parking. Each cottage has a 1 car garage. We don't allow driveway parking
or street parking for the cottages. Jason
'2 \LP u r\l\S
-LlO ~AJ+-t-Llrj
\?) \ \ Y\~~'Vlc[Q'\lUt {l V I ~ J' '
'30 Q),Sls~ml I Nl"c\\15>
12 S J&III--€.6.1 /1 tl~ ~_!-::~~.'1-1~~\
r"/ ,.. f .,tl..A--
/' .' u, ,\ '
/// , "..,{)..i) ~, /I~ -: i-\ L.'
/". /" '" V.- 0./.. t1\.1
.,.-- . '-" '"} \ _ I v
/" \) , \
\>'-", .-z.~ " , . . \ "t ,
'(//,/-2-D '
ISf/bed
~
I/~
10/2/2008
Page 1 of 3
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 10: 15 AM
To: 'Ewing, Gregory'
Cc: Ochs, Timothy
Subject: RE: Prairie Landing CCRC Parking
Hi, Greg: how many of the independent living units will have 2 bedrooms or 2 beds per unit?
Also, here are my research results:
Carmel zoning ordinance parking regulations require the following for a nursing, retirement, or convalescent facility: 1 space per
bed, plus one space per employee.
PaLk Pla~lLPUD (Z-500-06l-Rarkin9LeJtuirnm~rllii;
6.1 Parking Requirements.
6.1 (a) Each independent residential living unit shall have one and four-tenths (1.4) covered garage spaces or on-grade parking stalls
on site.
6.1 (b) Each assisted living unit shall have one (1) on-site parking space per unit and every four (4) nursing beds shall have one (1)
on-site parking stall.
6.1 (c) In addition to the above parking spaces, there shall also be a minjmum of seventy five (75) additional on site parking spaces for
visitors aDd staff to serve the site,
6.1 (d) There shall be a minimum of eight (8) handicapped parking spaces to serve the site.
(As of today, there are commitments to city council that the real estate shall not exceed 191 independent living units, 20 assisted living
units, and 28 nursing care units. But a PU D amendment will soon be heard by the Plan commission, and a commitment amendment will
soon be heard by the council.)
~arkela~e PUD
(unit type,
breakdown of)
independent assisted nursing care memory support
current PUD 195 20 28 nla
City Council PUDcommitments 191 20 28 nla
proposed PUD amend 171 44 30 18
SJJnri~J:jlt Old.Me[i~lan~~U_S~3J-<dQ.c.ke!J]~LOTQ1QO_OJJ DPI ADLSt
78 units of assisted living and 62 units of independent living.
The petitioner r.eceived a variance from the parking ordinance to reduce the parking ratio to one space per independent living unit
(some are 2 bedroom units) and 0.5 spaces per assisted living unit. Required parking = 208; provided parking =109.
Stratford at .WestClaYl--'liJIa9-e_oU'\Les_tCJay~UD Z-465-04:
Elder Care Center: one space per employee and 1 space per 10 senior citizens. The aggregate is one space per employee and one
space for each 6 senior citizens.
Detached single family: 2 spaces per dwelling.
Attached dwellings: 1 space per first bedroom, plus 0.5 spaces for each additional bedroom.
Stratford Overflow parking (docket no 08080024 TAC): 26 spaces.
Stratford total parking numbers: (0511 0019TAC)..?
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
-----Original Message---~-
101212008
Page 2 of 3
From: Ewing, Gregory [mailto:Gregory.Ewing@icemiller.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:49 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Ochs, Timothy
Subject: Prairie Landing CCRC Parking
Angie,
Thanks for meeting with Tim and me earlier today, with Mike.
To recap, I understand you (with Mike's direction) will evaluate recent CCRC developments
with regard to parking, particularly as the Legacy PUD and the zoning ordinance are
generally silent regarding parking for the myriad of use elements within our CCRC
proposal.
We understand that you and Mike will likely determine the following 'breakdown of uses and
parking needs accordingly for each to be sufficient:
A. Large Central Congregate Building:
Independent Living: 225 units at 1.5 spaces per 338 (although many of these households
will actually have zero or one vehicle)
Assisted Living: 18 units (zero motorists)
Memory Support: 18 units (zero motorists)
Skilled Nursing: 36 units (zero motorists)
Total (Assisted Living, Memory Support and Skilled Nursing) = 72 units (zero motorists)
Therefore, the additional 68 spaces provided, in addition to the 338 spaces (above),
equals the 406 provided. This 406 is more than adequate to accommodate those occupants
with vehicles and also empjoyees and guests.
B.
The Cottages:
~o etv--plOL?i/
SJ~'
Cottages: 60 units at 1.5 spaces per = 90
Therefore, the 2 spaces in e,ach garage and the two spaces in each driveway (240 spaces)
far exceeds the minimum requirement.
Parking Grand Total: 406 spaces associated with the Large Central Congregate Building
and 240 spaces associated with the Cottages 646 total spaces on-site.
Thanks again to you and Mike for your time in evaluating the parking issues for this
unique facility.
Greg
Gregory J. Ewing
Practice Group 'Specialist - Real Estate
Ice Miller LLP
Once American Square, Suite 2900
Indianapolis~ IN 46282
317-236-2124
*******************.*************,********,********************~****************,*************
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Except tQ the extent that this advice concerns the
qualification of any qualified plan, tQ ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department
Regulations, we are nQw required to advise you that, unless .otherwise expressly
indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communicatiQn, including any
attachments, is not intended or written by us tQ be used, and cannot be used, by anyone
fQr the purpase .of avoiding,federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the federal
government or for promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related
matters addressed herein.