Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence~~ HEARTHVIEj/~J'" Residential March 18, 2004 Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Monon-Farms PUD Garage Location 77-03 Z; Ordinance No. Z-420-03 Dear Jon: RECEIVED MAR 19 ~„OG DOCS Pursuant to our meeting on February 25, 2004 and email correspondence on Mazch 17, 2004, I am attaching the revised location of the new garage being built at Monon Farms. The new garage will be built slightly further back from the interior access drive than originally planned in the PUD site plan. I have also included an exhibit showing the originally proposed location for your information and records. Thank you again for your continued cooperation and assistance in working through the development process. Your time and consideration are greatly appreciated. Best regazds, Kelli Lawrence, AICP . Development Associate Enc (2) ~ . ,,: ~ , i-; ~ ~, .. ~. .. , 6930 Atrium Boardwalk South, Ste. 100 Indianapolis, Indiana 46250 www.hearthview.com ph. (3171 849-6900 fax f317) 849-0200 _~l . T ~.. _ ~'~~- X X X O m'an ,CI-OUi ~ ~ AC (J,-~iiS ~ LL KR VI~VJg i - K1T DR LR ~ ~I - -- - NEW WALK °, _ - ~~ _ ' ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ .' °• NEW GARAGE ^° t (2dx20) :~ - • . ~ LR K/T ~ _ - - ,~ V i~WS: < ' • G O.. . a' • _. au $ -. ~ NORfH HEARTHVIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO.: 2003-120 GARAGE OPTION: 2 DATE: o2-~s-o4 -rT ~ SKETCH NO.: i i Ji' TER HORST, LAMSON & F1SK, INC. ~ 3 8675 PURDUE ROAD coNSU~nHC Evewe[ws INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46268 _ \! X X x 0 .~~.I-~u~ ~;~~ ~.~,IS KR VI ~~/5 KR DR LR ' ~~ -- NEW WALK \ '. , . . _ .r ^ ^ ~ -~ ~; EW GARAGE (20'x20') ~~ ^.. ~ ^ \ ~ e , S _ ~~ . LR KIT'µ ' ~ _.~, . ~ - - .. ~-.. o ^ ~• - - _- . _- ~ • ^ NORTH SCALE: 1 "=20"-0 HEARTHVIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO.: 2003-120 ~ ,~ EXISTING LAYOUT GARAGE OPTION DATE: 02-16-04 g : T SKETCH NO.: C . TER HORST, LAMSON &):LSK, IN 8675 PURDUE ROAD cor+su~nr.~c ENCweERS INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46268 'J G- ~~ 6~J j-~EARTHVIEj/~J'" Residential March 5, 2004 Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Monon Farms Final Elevations 77-03 Z; Ordinance No. Z-420-03 Dear Jon: REC~FNED PIQR 9 ~~J~ DOCS Thank you for meeting with me and Greg Rasmussen on February 25, 2004 regarding the final plans for Monon Farms. Included with this letter are reduced elevations of the paired homes at Monon Farms. Thank you again for your time and assistance. If you need any additional information or have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, ~~ Kelli Lawrence, AICP ,, , -, n ~ , ., . 6930 Atrium Boardwalk South, Ste. 100 Indianapolis, Indiana 46250 www.hearthview.com ph. 13171 849-6900 faz 13171 849-0200 w~wq~wi ~ ~ fo0~ ~Fi~~1~fw~+rM ':~Ir'r~:a,,(l~d]7''.~~i~L.~7 ~ wa~v ~o~aiwwru~oo~ 1Y111B~lAll9Mlid1~1 ~~ r ~Q' ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ :i 1 ~ ~ ~! ~~ a 11 ~ ;, ~~ ~B a~~~; ~i j °. II .. .I mu ul Ila,iuoNl I i uINHINI ~r i iiiiiiluiiliiiijiilllij ~ i i ~~ j ~~ I kY ~u, I I , I ~ j ~~~n~~ ~w~~~~~~ j~h~ji~jjij~jihljjjj j I I~ I~i it II~IIIIIIIIIIIbIIIIIIIII' I ~ ~I~I I ~ it ~l ~ I dl~ .p ~91NIlIIIIIIIIIAIIIIIII i `' I'll I I t I I _I d~) ~ '~~~ (I ~ Il~lllllllllliglllllllil ~ ' i i ullEllualollAilloll _ i ~„~,,,, - ,li~.__ ~.I~'1;- IIVIIINIIIIIIRIIIi!IIII! ___ ;I ~ ~ - IIIIAIIIIIIIIIIIdlltllll ___ li ~~ ~ ,~ ~ s ~ ~: ~I~ ; I I - IIIINIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIi ' (III i .~ ~ (j ~' IlYlihillllll9111111pi ~ I ~;i! ~~ I ilyijjiiilliiuliijiijjj 4 ~.. ~~d~t i ~ i ,I~~II '9 I 9 I I ~~Illillll!II@IIIIIIIII' i ~ e i i ~ ~ ° i IllNlulmul~ll ____:, °°- -- IIINIIIIIIIIIIIBIIIIIIII' I I I ~ t III ~ I ~ ,~ ; ®~~ e;.. ~ ~rw~pw~w rrmta0~ ~w.~w~ rrw (a0~ rro ~+~~ww~r M7~ ra~arsre~ aft 9& `J ~_s ' ~ +~ . ~ ~ ~! ~~i y ~~~ i ~I~I~~~~I , I I NI~u~H~~~~~p_~~; O I 3 pXtltltlgpN''''1 pgp '. '. Ili i' 1~ B.I T. ~.,,. t1 i ~. ,,. ,~~~: o00 ~ ~ , ~~ r Ili ~ '' ` ~ ~ ~! ~;~IiII''~' ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ '~ !m ~ rs~~+~w~1t'~~+• ':Nr'S~'~a,~)~d~'~.4~.y ~stws ~a~v ~oimrrwrruoo~ 1NIIB~INI~NilHrdi ^ ~~ ~~ ^ Q '~i~. :1 ~ i ~ ~ ~ 5~ x'~a,~ ti i i~ ^ i i ~u~i~ oi~ io~~~moi i iumiiii iiiii~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~+~i ~i i i _ ~ i ui ~iiio is iir,,,ui~u ~ ~i , ~ ~ ~ I ^ ~~ -- -i- i -- ----- -' I .~! ~ -. ~ , i i p~' II' I ' ~I S a ,~~, i ~ I ;~= ili ,,,,,,,5,,,,,,,,, ~ i ~. i ~ .dl'i i =, I~ a - i ~i li =~ t .~ ~ouo~~imoomrrii ., ~ i : 3 i i t ~dll:. i i ~~ ' ~ i ' ~ s i i i i i ~ i iii ~~ i i i ~ ~~ i iii ~ i i i f i i ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ d~~~ ti i '~s i ~ i i iii g = i i Il~ll i~!III i ~i ,> i ,~ i i (3 i r ,I ~ i i ~! I' ~ d Iii>~ i ~ i Q ~ ~. ~bs s ~ ~~„ ii ~ ~ i z iii ~qi ° ~ ° °~ ~ ~ ~ ; .~ 4111AI!pIIIINI~NI!H ` i ~ ,illl i :. December 16, 2003 '2. Ali Mr. Gregory L. Rasmussen ~ ~ l Ter Horst, Lamson & Fisk, Inc. 8675 Purdue Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 RE. Hearthvtew ResidenttalPU -Project Review #2 Dear Mr. Rasmussen: This project was originally reviewed as the Monon Townhomes PUD. We have reviewed the cusent drawings submitted for this project. We offer the following comments: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The project site is currently located within current City of Carmel Corporate Limits. The following jurisdictions will apply. 2. Jurisdictions: • Street and Right of Way -City of Carmel (116` Street). • Water -City of Carmel service area. `s ~ 'fii '- <~r ~n_ ~~ ,~O • Sanitary Sewers -Clay Township Regional Waste District service area. • Storm Sewer - City of Carmel (the onsite storm sewers are assumed to be a private system). • Monon Greenway -Carmel Clay Parks Department. 3. Board of Public Works and Safety Approval Requirements: • Water Availability for the residential buildings. If a pool and/or clubhouse are planned, additional Water Availability approval will be required. We will require an estimate of water usage if a clubhouse is planned. We will also require dimensions of the surface water area of the pool if a pool is planned. • If an irrigation system is planned for this development, additional Board of Public Works and Safety Water Availability approval will be required • Commercial Curb Cut for the 116's Street Entrance. We will require an 8 %z x 11 drawing of [he entrance/curb cut to be used as an exhibit for your BPW request. This drawing should include all pertinent dimensions including accel/decel lanes, drive lane widths and median widths, opposing curb cuts, radii, etc. The proposed curb cut should align its lefr tum lane with the lefr tum lane of [he opposing curb cut on the north side of 116'" Street. • Temporary Constmetion Entrance. Same requirements as for the Commercial Curb Cut. If the temporary entrance is to be located a[ the same site as the permanent entrance, separate Board approval for the temporary entrance is not required. • Any permanent improvement (including irrigation systems) to be installed within dedicated right of way and/or dedicated easements. This approval would require a Consent to Encroach Agreement between the Owner and [he City of Carmel. A copy of our Irrigation System Requirements is available upon request. • If this development is not to be platted, the dedication of additional 116's Street will be required through [he Board of Public Works and Safety. Preferred Right of Way Dedication documents are available electronically from this office. Dei~Aar,n:~T or F.nc~~eeat~c Om~: Cwic SQuaae, Cn[au~t, IN 46032 Om~a: 317571.2447 PA?: 317571.2439 EMAIL I: a'cesesci.ctirmeLlnus JAbIES BRAI\4RD, 1VLAYOR ;_ Mr. Greg Rasmussen December 16, 2003 Page 2 • Please be advised that any open pavement cuts of dedicated streets will require separate Board ojPubGc Works mrd Safety approval. I am enclosing a schedule for Board of Public Works and Safety meeting dates and agenda deadlines for your use. Please use the Engineering.Departmentdeodlines for submissions to the Board. Any submission to the Board requires prior final approva(by Use Carmel Clay Plan Commission and/or the Board of Zotrit:g Appeals and completion of review by the Technical Advisory Committee. A(1 written requests in be place on [he Board's agenda must include the appropriate Docket Numbers and the date (or dates) oJapproval by the P(mr Commission anrUor BZA. 4. Water Availability (acreage) and Connection Fees: Availability Fees Availability (acreage) Fees are based on the legal description of the property. Please provide [his office with a legal description that lists the iota] acreage and an exhibit of the legal description. The Water Availability Fee is $1,010.00 per acre. Connection Fees Connection Fees are based upon the average user factor tables from Section 9-200 (sanitary) of our Utility Ordinance. The Connection Fees are $1,310.00 per EDU for water. Please provide this office with a listing of all buildings, building numbers, number of bedrooms, etc., in order that Connection Fees may be calculated. Are these still considered townhomes? • Ilan irrigation system is planned for this development, additional Water Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the recommendatiar of the Director of Carmel Utilities. • Any deviation from the Connection Fee calerrlatians listed in our Ordinance will require Carmel Utilities and Board ofPub(ic Works mrd Safety approvals. 5. TAC Review/Drawings submitted for approval: We request [hat 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 issues have been resolved. All Carmel Utility issues must also re resolved. The design engineer must certify all drawings submitted for final approval. This office will require a minimum of four-sets (maximum of six-sets) of approved drawings afrer al] issues have been resolved. The drawings will be stamped approved and signed by both the City Engineer and Director Carmel Utilities. The Developer/Owner will receive one-set which is to be maintained on the construction site at all times. Carmel Utilities will receive one-set. Our Public Works Inspector will receive one-set and one-set will be maintained in the Department of Engineering. If more than the minimum four-sets are requested to be approved, the additional sets (maximum total of two additional) must be submitted with the four required sets. 6. Please be advised that any instaflation ofsiens, walls, irrieatian systems. etc. within dedicated easements and/or rieht of way will require a Consent in Encroach Aereement between the Owner/Developer and the City of Carmel. This Aereement reanires Board ofPub[ic Works and Safety npnroval. 7. Carmel Utilities does not subscribe to "Holey Moley" and should be contacted directly for all water main locations. 8. Carmel Utilities will provide a separate review of this project for water issues. 9. I am including copies of [he following with this correspondence: • Commercial Project Approval Procedures. • Permit Data, Contacts, etc. • Performance Release Procedure. • Commercial Permitting Procedures. • Dedication of Right of Way documents. • Water Fee Data Mr. Greg Rasmussen December 16, 2003 Page 3 BONDING REQUIREMENTS 10. Upon initial review, it appears the following bonding requirements may apply to this project: Performance Guarantees • Water Mains (from City extension to termination within the development) • Offsite Storm Sewer improvements • 116`" Entrance Improvements If other improvements are to be dedicated, or if this development is to be platted, additional Performance Guarantees maybe iequired. Please provide individual, detailed (materials, quantities, sizes, unit costs, etc.) certified Engineers Estimates for 100% of the cost of labor and materials for the above improvements. Post-individual Performance Guarantees in the amount of the Engineer's Estimates. Three-year Maintenance Guarantees, in the amount of 10% (15% for Entrance improvements) of the Performance Amount, will be required upon release of the Performance Guarantee. Street Cut/Right of R'ay Permit and Bonding Requirements Any work in the dedicated right of way of 116'" Street will require the posting of a Right of Way Permit with appropriate bonding. Please contact Fred Glaser, our Right of Way Inspector/Manager, [o arrange appropriate permitting for this project. It does not appear that there will be any construction activities in the right of way, other than work associated with and covered under the Performance Guarantee Requirements. Open pavement cuts in dedicated streets require separate approval by our Board of Prrblic Works and Safety. PROJECT COMMENTS General 11. We request that the additional 116'" Street right of way associated with this project be dedicated to the City of Carmel in accordance with our Thoroughfare Plan. The right of way requirement for 116`s Street is a total 70-foot half right of way. 12. Has approval been granted for [he private, rather than public, street? We request that this street be constmcted to City of Carmel minimum street standards, i.e. 1-inch H.A. surface on 3-inch H.A. binder on 9-inch compacted aggregate base #53. 13. Please identify and dimension the 116th Street tight of way lines on all sheets. 14. Please identify all existing 116'h Street drives on all sheets. Sheet C2.1 15. That portion of the entrance within the right of way of 116a' Street must conform to the asphalt pavement section of the 116'h Street project. 16. The bollards adjacent to the detention pond and 116'h Street right of way must be installed outside of the 116'h Street right of way. 17. The number of dwelling units will not warrant curb-cut width shown on [he current drawing. We would suggest and entrance cross section of 2-12-foot lanes (edge of pavement to edge of pavement, not back of curb to back of curb). If a center island is desired, it should be of minimal width (maximum of 6-feet back of curb to back of curb). Left tum movement should align with that of the drive on the north side of 1116`" Street, directly across from this proposed drive. 18. If interior sidewalks are proposed, please indicate it on the drawings. 19. Note #4 indicates a temporary drive requirement. What will be the pavement section for the temporary drive? Sheet C3.1- 20. Please incorporate the most current 116`h Street plans into this plan-set, including proposed 116`h storm sewer. Mr. Greg Rasmussen December 16, 2003 Page 4 21. This Department will require that Hearthview construct the portion of the 116` Street storm sewer from a point just west of Hearthview's drive to Carmel Creek. 22. Verification should be ~rovided on the grading plan that the Hearthview drive will be constmcted to meet the proposed 116 Street grade. Current plans show a "M.E.G." note. This is not correct. The following comments are in response to the letter from Ke/!i Lawrence, of Hearthview Residential, addressed to rLfike McBride, Interim City Engineer for the City of Carmel, dated November 25, 2003. Tlris letter details Hearthview Resideatial's perceived cost difference between their originally proposed storm sewer outlet pipe for this development, which was requested by [lie Developer to be placed in the City right of way, and the alternative outlet scenario required by the City which involves Hearthview constructing a piece of the proposed Il6`" Street storm sewer. This storm sewer segment would then be utilized as the motet for this development It is the opinion of this Department that the cost difference represented in this letter does not realistically represent the true construction cost difference. The following facts support this opinion: • It is important to realize that the initial plan for the storm sewer outlet was not a plan that had received the required City approval Therefore, those initial conceptual costs cannot be considered true costs because al/City requirements had not been met. • The location of tJre storm pipe in the initial plmr would not have been acceptable because it was in conflict with the construction of the retaining wall t/mt is proposed to be constructed with the116`h Street project at the same location. Therefore, the pipe would have needed to be located further to the north. • {Vith the pipe being located between a firnrre retaining wall and in a close proximity to the trencfr for the 110` Street storm sewer, granular back fill would have been required regardless. • The statement that "...the majority of the line... " in the original proposal would have a 3 foot depth is not a valid statement JI'i[h the installation of a I2" RCP a 3 foot deep trench would only allow approximately I.5 feet of cover. This would not be acceptable in aright-of-way installation. Additionally, a deeper pipe would increase the $2000%a cost for the originally proposed manhole strtrelures. • Considering the irrstal(ation depth, Ure writ cost for the 270 feet oj11 "RCP ($47.00/If) in the City Trunk Line installation option is acceptable for consideration; however, the unit cost for flee I50 feet of 27"RCP ($81.00/lf) is far from acceptable. The installation depth of the 27" RCP will not be significmrtly more t/mn Use depth of the originally proposed 12"RCP. - • Miscellaneous construction costs of $5000 will not be an item for reimbursement consideration by the City and should be e[inrinated from tJ~is cost breakdown. • A concrete headwall with flap gate was irre[rrded in the original I2"storm sewer design as well and tJrerefore should not be mr additiana(cost. Sheet C5.1-Site Utility Plan 23. There doesn't seem to be any DU & SE easements indicated on the plans. It is our assumption that both the water and sanitary mains will be dedicated mains requiring easements. 24. Has Carmel Utilities approved the placement of the water main under the pavement of [he interior sheet? Sheet C7.1 thru C7.4-Storm Sewer Plan and Profile 25. Within storm structures where smaller pipes drain into larger diameter pipes, we prefer,to have the tops of pipes aligned rather than the bottoms of pipes wherever possible. Mr. Greg Rasmussen December 16, 2003 Page 5 The above comments are based upon the Engineering Deparhnent's second review. Please provide our office with a follow up letter regarding this review and revised plans, indicating all revisions. Second and subsequent reviews will focus only on detailed constmction plans. It is critical that our 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 initial review. If you have questions, please contact Mike McBride or me at 571-2441. Sincerely, ~~ ~~~~ Michael T. McBride, P.E. City Engineer Enclosures cc: Dick Hill, Assistant Duector (w.o. encl.) Fred Glaser, Right of Way Inspector/Manager (w.o. encl.) Jon Dobosiewicz, Department of Community Services (w.o. encl.) Laurence Lillig, Department of Community Services (w.o. encl.) John Duffy, Director of Carmel Utilities (w.o. encl.) Paul Pace, Water Utility (w.o. encl.) S:\PROJREV 03\HEARTHV IE W PUD ., s ` EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW AND COMMENT Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District 1108 South 9th Street, Noblesville IN 46060 Ph- 317-773-1432 or Email at 'ohn-south iaswcd.or PROJECT NAME: Monon Town Homes ~/l~ - b~ ~ SUBMITTED BY: Hearthview Residential Mr. Gregory Rasmussen 6930 Atrium Boardwalk South, suite 100 TLF Consulting Engineers Indianapolis, IN 56250 8675 Purdue Road 317-849-6900 Indianapolis, IN 46268 REVIEWED BY: John B. South P.E. Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control PLAN REVIEW DATE: December 10, 2003 Acreage: 6.4 ac LOCATION: South side of 116`h St. on the east side of the Monon Trail LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sec. 1 TOWNSHIP: 17N RANGE: 3E CIVIL TOWNSHIP: Clay SOIL SURVEY MAP SHEET: 56 The technical review and comments are intended to evaluate the compledeness of the erosion and sediment control plan for the project. The erosion and sediment control plan submitted was not reviewed for the adequacy of the engineering design. All practices included in the plan, as well as those recommended in the comments should be evaluated as to their feasibility by a qualified individual with structural practices designed by a qualified engineer. The plan has not been reviewed far local, state, or federal permits that maybe required to proceed with this project. Additional information, including design calculations may be requested to further evaluate the erosion and sediment control plan. The erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan: Satisfies the minimum requirements and intent of 327IAC 15-5 (Rule 5). Notification will be forwarded to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Refer to the comments section for additional information. X Does not satisfy the minimum requirements and intent of 327IAC 15-5 (Rule 5); deficiencies are noted in the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted: Proper implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan and inspections of the construction site by the developer or a representative are necessary to minimize off-site sedimentation. The developer should be aware that unforeseen construction activities and weather conditions might affect the performance of a practice or the erosion and sediment control plan. The plan must be a flexible document, with provisions to modify or substitute practices as necessary. Revised 4 / 97 i_ PI~nJECT: Monon Town Homes Page 2 of 3 ARE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ON THE PLANS ? (A[[ Plans Must Include Appropriate Legends, Scales, and North Arrow) (/terns that are Not Applicable to this Project are designated by NA) Yes No PROJECT INFORMATION X lA Project Location Map (Show project in relation ro other areas ojthe county) X 1 B Narrative Describing the Nature and Purpose of the Project x ] C Location of Planned and/or Existing Roads, Utilities, Structures, Highways, etc. x 1D Lot and/or Building Locations x 1 E Landuse of Adjacent Areas (Show the Entire Upstream Watershed and Adjacent Areas Within 500 Feet ojlhe Property Lines) Yes No TOPOGRAPHIC, DRAINAGE, AND GENERAL SITE FEATURES X 2A Existing Vegetation (ldent~ and Delineate ) x 2B Location and Name of All Wetlands, Lakes and Water Courses On and Adjacent to the Site x 2C 100 Year Floodplains, Floodway Fringes, and Floodways (Note if None) X 2D Soils Information (lfhydric soils are present, it is the responsibility of the owner/developer to investigate the existence of wetlands and to obtain permits from the appropriate government agencies.) x 2E Existing and Planned Contours at an Interval Appropriate to Indicate Drainage Patterns x 2F Locations of Specific Points Where Stormwater Discharge Will Leave the Site X 2G Identify All Receiving Water3 (/f Discharge is to o Separate Municipal Storm Sewer, ldent~ the Name of the Municipal Operator and the Ultimate Receiving Water) x 2H Potential Areas Where Storm water May Enter Groundwater (Note if None) X 2I Location of Stormwater System (Include Culverts, Storm Sewers, Channels, and Swa[es) Yes No LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES x 3A Location and Approximate Dimensions of All Disturbed Areas [i. e., Construction Limits] (Areas Where Vegelative Cover Will Be Preserved Should be Clearly Designated) x 3B Soil Stockpiles and or Borrow Areas (Show Locations or Note if None) Yes No EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES x 4A Sequence of When Each Measure Will Be Implemented (Relative to Earth Disturbing Activities) x 4B Monitoring and Maintenance Guidelines for Each Measure X 4C Perimeter Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) X 4D Temporary Seeding (Specifications; /ncluding Seed Mix, Fertilizer, Lime, and Mulch Kates) X 4E Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) x 4F Permanent Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) X 4G Storm Drain Inlet PI'Oteetion (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) X 4H Stormwater Outlet Protection (Location, Canstrstction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) X 41 Stable Construction Entrance (Location, Construction Uetail, Dimensions, and Specifications) X 4J Erosion and Sediment Control on Individual Building Lots (Specifications) X 4K Permanent Seeding (Specifications; /ncluding Seed Mix, Fertilizer, Lime, and Mulch Rates) Revised 4 / 97 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT: Monon Town Homes Page 3 of 3 Note: Al! erosion and sediment control measures shown on the plans and referenced in this review must meet the design criteria, standards, and specifications outlined in the "/ndiana Handbook for Erasion Control in Developing Areas "from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil Conservation or similar Guidance Dacuments. 4A. A construction sequence is needed that is specific to the site. Please provide an orderly account of how this project should be constructed to minimize the potential for offsite pollution. Details need to be specific to this site. Issues discussed that should be considered: • Sediment basin construction including the storm pipe to the creek. Require R/W to be stabilized immediately after pipe is installed. Show the minimum size of the basin to satisfy the design requirements for a sediment basin. • A temp. Swale or installation of the storm pipe from str 820 to the pond. • Stabilize pond banks immediately after construction. • Temporary seeding after rough grading is completed. • Maintaining the silt fence behind the curb until the condos are build and grass established. Installation of a construction entrance to each building site. • Maintain clean streets during the home construction. Please separate the construction sequence from the project information to make it easily found by the contractor. 4G. A practice detail is needed for street inlets after the pavement is installed. Please submit sheet 9.1 4J. Items to be addressed in the construction sequence. Note: IDEM will be notified when the plan is approved. Cc: Cannel DOCS Ha. Co. Surveyor File EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW AND COMMENT Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District 1108 South Stn Street, Noblesville IN 46060 Ph- 317-773-1432 or Email at john-south@iaswcd.org PROJECT NAME: Monon Town Homes SUBMITTED BY: ~ Mr. Gregory Rasmussen 6930 Atrium Boardwalk South, Suite 100 TLF Consulting Engineers Indianapolis, IN 56250 8675 Purdue Road 317-849-6900 Indianapolis, IN 46268 REVIEWED BY: John B. South P.E. Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control PLAN REVIEW DATE: December 10, 2003 Acreage: 6.4 ac LOCATION: South side of 116th St. on the east side of the Monon Trail LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sea 1 TOWNSHIP: 17N RANGE: 3E CIVIL TOWNSHIP: Clay SOIL SURVEY MAP SHEET: 56 The technical review and comments are intended to evaluate the completeness of the erosion and sediment control plan for the project. The erosion and sediment control plan submitted was no[ reviewed far the adequacy of the engineering design. All practices included in the plan, as well as those recommended in the comments should be evaluated as to their,jeasibiliry by a qualified individual with structural practices designed by a qualified engineer. The plan has not been reviewed for local, state, or federal permits that may be required to proceed with this project. Additional information, including design calculations may be requested to further evaluate the erosion and sediment control plan. The erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan: X Satisfies the minimum requirements and intent of 3271AC 15-5 (Rule 5). Notification will be forwarded to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Proper implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan and inspections of the construction site by the developer or a representative are necessary to minimize off-site sedimentation. The developer shou/d be aware that unforeseen construction activities and weather conditions might affect the performance ofa practice or the erosion and sediment control plan. The plan must be a flexible document, with provisions to mods or substitute practices as necessary. Revised 4 / 97 cc: Carmel DOCS Ha. Co. Surveyor IDEM File To: The Common Council of the City of Carmel From: Bill Frey, President Donnybrook Home Owners Association 1329 Donnybrook Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ Re: 77-03 (2420-03) Hearthview Residential Date: November 14, 2003 ~=~,s a matter of record, I wish to emphasize our letter to the Planning Commission following our Home Owners ,~~ssociation meeting on September 3, 2003 stated our neighborhood's acceptance of Hearthview's modified plans and the change in zoning. This letter also meant the Home Owners Association was withdrawing the petition of opposition dated June 24, 2003. Please contact me at 502-6725 if any additional information is needed. President R~C~~l1~ED PJQV l ~( `iiS;; DOCS cc: Hearthview Residential I3 A I~ 1{J R Est 1863 600E 96th Street, Sulte 600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317569.9600 Fax 317569.4800 www bakerdaniels.com Indiana Washington, UC. JOSEPH M. SCIMIq 317-569-4680 Joseph.5cimia ®bakertl. com November 14, 2003 City of Carmel Common Council c/o Ms. Carrie Gallagher Clerk-Treasurer's Office One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Ordinance No. Z-420-03: Monon Patio Homes Planned Unit Development Dear Members of the City of Carmel Common Council: ~~ RECF f I,'ED EfOG' '~' 2uy? DOCS China On behalf of Hearthview Residential, LLC, we would like to submit the following for your consideration prior to the November 17, 2003 meeting: Revised Ordinance No. Z-420-03 which has corrected items noted by the Common Council at the November 3, 2003 meeting. 2. Revised Commitments Concerning the Use and Development of Real Estate, specifically addressing the construction standards of the interior residential street. 3. A copy of the Deed and Covenants by which William C. Brandt, Jr. and Joan R. Brandt quitclaimed to the City of Carmel that portion of the Monon Trail adjacent to the subject property. Within this Deed, item 4 addresses minimum landscaping and maintenance of natural vegetation. The proposed landscaping of the Monon Patio Homes Planned Unit Development along the Monon Trail is consistent with this standard. 4. A revised letter of support from Bill Frey, President of the Donnybrook Homeowners Association. The rezoning petition and supporting documentation are on file with the Department of Community Services. On behalf of Hearthview Residential, LLC, we thank you for your consideration. Enclosures {."'-Sincerely, J6s p M. Sdmia /; L DANIELS INIMAN2 794110v1 facsimile transmittal To: Jon Dobosiewicz Fax: 571-2426 Carmel Dept. of Community Scrvices/Cacmel Plan Cormnission From: Ryan Mullens Date: 10/21/2003 Re: PUD (Doc. No. 77-03Z) Pages: 2 CC; ^ Urgerd ^ For Review ^ Please Convent ^ Please Reply ^ Please Regek MoEe.4 FUtached is a letter in support oFlhe proposed r¢onirg of 1211 E. ~ 16° St by Heartlrriew Restlential farthe Nbnan patio I-lorne Banned Und DtrelopmerA. O ~'~ l'am' t„~. ~ O ~',~ lF OC,~ ~p I'd T06T-948-LTE suaTTnN RoueN dSI~ZT EO TZ 1~0 1218 Donnybrook Drive Carmel, IN 46032 (3I7)-566-1867 October 21, 2003 Cazmel Plan Commission Attn: Jon pobosiewicz Carmel Dept. of Community Services Fax #: 571-2426 Dear Members of the Plan Commission I am Ryan Mullens of 1218 Donnybrook Dr, in Donnybrook Woods. The en~,gorth,,,, endsof my property abuts the southern property line of the proposed PUD.(Doc~N~„o"'. 7fg7, 03Zf My family and I were against this proposal with the first presentation from Hearthview. Since the original presentation, Hearthview has made a tremendous effort to work with us on our concerns. They revised their proposal to patio homes and reduced the number of units from twenty eight to twenty, with a brick exterior and a proposed selling price of $275,000 to $325,000. I feel this is a better fit with the surrounding community. Hearthview has also repositioned the units closest to our property line and added a landscaped berm. The berm will allow my house some privacy, while the repositioned units will keep a little bit of an open feeling. With these and the other changes Hearthview has proposed, my family and I are in full support of the proposed re-zoning of 1211E 116a' street. I hope the Plan Commission will see fit to recommend the approval of the PUD. (Doc No. 77-03Z) Sincerely, t,~~ ~~ . Ryan H. Mullens a'd T06T-948-LTE suaTTnW RoueN dST~ZT EO IZ 7~0 One Civic Square Carmel, IN 4~i2 (317) 571-2417 Fax: (317) 571-2426 Cr".~7 To: /~ ~~%~ From: - Fax ~j ~ U,~2c/ ~ Pages: --~ Phone: bate: Re: ^ Urgent ^ For Review CC: Please Comment ^ Please Repiy [7 Please Recycle _~~G~/~ ' ~~~/~,~~ n // Donnybrook Homeowner's Association, Inc. r^ost Office Box #3452 Carmel, IN 46082 To: Carmel/Clay Plan Commission From: Bill Frey, President ~/, Donnybrook Home Owners Associa 1329 Donnybrook Drive, Carmel, IN 4 32 Date: October 20, 2003 ';I-,t`~ ~'~' ` ~ ~~' ;~~ p~,R~`CF j/, ~ ~ j;. l?Q ,FD ~~ ~~,zc, ~S ~ ~ ~ ~,; , ~~i i ~_` We have been asked to confirm our verbal statements made during the recent Subdivision Committee meeting. Our Home Owners Association voted to accept the modified plan (20 units - 10 buildings) after discussions with the neighbors mostly affected by the proposed development, and with the promises by Hearthview that they would sell to owner-occupants only (no rentals) and would not expand to the contiguous property to the east, without first consulting with the Donnybrook Home Owners Association. Other considerations provided by Hearthview were adequate berming, and planting on the south boundary, and access for their residents to the Monon from the northwest quadrant of their development. Our association also took into account that we obviously would prefer the status quo, but realizing we were dealing with a very, very motivated seller, and an equally motivated buyer, who made major changes to their original pans, to accommodate a lot of our concerns hence, we took a conciliatory approach to their request and endorsed the rezoning and future development. Please contact me at 502-6725 if any additional information is necessary. cc: Hearthview Residential City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: October 16, 2003 TO: Joe Scimia FAX: 569-4800 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are 4 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Plan Commission Agenda Dept. Reports were faxed yesterday Please call if you have any questions. CONFIOENT/ALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. if you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the faking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return o(the forwarded documents to us. City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: October 15, 2003 TO: Joe Scimia FAX: 569-4800 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are 2 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Department Reports for October 21St 2003. Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only (or the use o(the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. I( you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the forwarded documents to us. Oct.10~ 2003 6~66PM No•9166 P• 1 Hearthview Residential, LLC 6930 Atrium Boardwalk South, Suite 100 ~ 8 Indianapolis, IN 46250-2028 ro (317) 849.6900 ext. 301 Phone (317)849-0200 Fax +~ ~~RFp~I(/FD www.hearthview.com T .1,~ ?403 ~ Opps Memo via FAX From: Kelli Lawrence To: Ramona Hancock 571-2426 Jon Dobosiewicz 571-2426 CC: Roger Kilmer 569-4800 Date: October 10, 2003 RE: Letter to project neighbors The following letter was sent to all residents of Donnybrook, Rosemeade, and Guilford Park subdivisions. Please let me know if you would like the names and addresses of all the recipients. Thank you. CONFIDENTL4l.iTY nw uaama~on m~m~,.a m e~ tautmue ~ aoMMdw~.nd me~dad ardy ror u+e ua a+n. c:~ rwnm atuw eew rwar ~ ewc mQCaga e ~ me ~+e«wea ntlWne, vcu sro nr.er natirAe wt my ~ maW~a a w, eomMxe b mKtlv a~wrow. Oet~10. 2003 6~66PM ~ ~ Na•9186 P. 2 October 13; 2003 «Title» <~'irst» ~J.ast» «Street Address» «Cit}n>, «State» «Zip» Dear «Title» «Iast»: OCR 1~~ D Opts ?~~3 Recently, information has been distributed to your neighborhood regarding docket number 77-03 Z, Monon Patio Homes PUD, which is currently being heard by the Carmel Plan Commission. In an effort to coma some inacemacies and misconceptions, we are providing the following information about our proposal. Our pro~osal is to rezone the 6.3 acre property located at the southeast comer of the Monon Trail and 116 Street from R-1/Residential to PUD/Planned Unit Development. This Planned Unit Development (PUA) would consist oftentwo-family units, or twenty new homes. T'he plan oleo proposes to retain the existing farm, house on the property. This plan meets. all of the requirements of the current zoning district (R-1) except one - it would allow two units to be attached, rather than having each unit detached, The existing R-1 district would allow the development of 20 detached homes to be built with ao requirements outer than the homes must be 6 feet apart. There would be no azchitectural, yard, unit size, or unit landscaping standards. The R-1 zone would allow these 20 homes, by right' with only administrative review by the Plan Commission. The Monon Patio Homes PUD requests 21 home units, l Otwo-family attached homes and 1 existing single family house. The PUD provides for the following beneftts Drat would not be provided under the existing R-I zoning: • Exterior elevations have been committed to as pad of the Plan Commission process. These elevations, on file with the City of Carmel, specify that the homes must be all brick except for the gables. • In the PUD ordinance, the developer commits that they wlll not rent or lease any of the units. In addition, the PUD ordinance specifies that "no person, group of persons or entity, other than the initial developer, shall own more than one (1) dwelling unit and each dwelling unit shall be designed for and used as a permanent residence." • The PUD includes an extensive landscaping plan which provides a landscaped berm and significant ptamings for the properties abutting the southern property line, preservation and supplementation of the existing vegetative barrier along the Monon Trail, and preservation of the significant trce stand on the northern edge of the property along 116'" Street. • The PUD requires that minimum home size will be 1,800 square feet. The units can be expanded to up to 2,300 square feet at the buyer's option. Ost•10. 2003 6:61PM ~ ~ No•9766 P• 3 A detailed site plan, azchitecturnl plans, and landscape plan haw been committed'to as part of the rezoning process thereby guaranteeing that surrounding property owners will know what will be built on the property. The developer has experience with these homes as they have built them in Sycamore Springs (located at 86"' Street and Dean Road in Ittdianapolis). These homes haw sold for $295,000 -$350,000 iu that development, are directly adjacent to million dollar homes aad are a valued part of the community. This experience reinforces the quality of the proposed product and our intent to sell these homes for $275,000 - $325,000. attached to this letter is a matrix comparing the Monon Patio Homes PUD proposal with the current R-1 zoning classification. In addition, a detailed summary of how the property could be developed using the existing zoning is provided. We hope this letter and the attached 'information helps to clarify our proposal in light of the existing R-1 zoning. Although we are asking the Plan Commission to allow attached homes, we believe we are ofFering a number of neighborhood benefits that woukl.not be provided otherwise. If you have any questions about this information, or the proposal in general, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (317) 849-6900 ext. 301 or email at klawrence@hearthview.com. a copy of the entire project file is available for publtc review at the Carmel Department of Commuttity Services, located on the 3"' floor of Carmel City Hall. Thauk you for your time and consideration Sincerely, KelliLawrence Development Associate CC: Jon Dobosiewicz, Carmel DOCS Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary Enc (2) Oct.10. 2003 5~51PM • • Na•9186 P• 4 Permitted Density • With the same amrnmt of open • 21 trolls total space as provided in the current • Density: 3.299 units/acre plan, a density of 3.23 unita/acre vvon-d be pernaiated on this site. • 20 total mots would be permitted 4 Materials/Aesthetics . No erehifexraal standaords apply • All brick extQiore except gables • Architeoanal elevations have been committed to s, part of the rezone OCOda Minimum Unit si.~ • No minimum square footage • Proposed size of each home: 1 800 fed minimum Pedestrian Connectivity to • None required • Proposed homes will have porchd the Monon Trail that face the Monon Trail • A pathway connexion from the development to the Monon h .~ Minimum Price • No req~tiremems for a minimum • Proposed price Point' price powt Or amt a1Ze $295,000 t0 5325,UpU • The proposed units are cnrrmdy being bmlt end sold aathm Sycaawrs Springs et the name pace l~ffi- • Ia sycamore s~ctuga, these amts are adjaoem tO 51,000,000+ homes mid have comributed to the overall sacooss oftbo ~ ood. Tr~c • 20 homes n®ng the ro a • 21 homes nsing the toadways Family • No rogtrixements to target a • Floor pkms are targeted toward market em nesters. Rental v. Owner occapied • No requirements far tlu • Commitmems are provided development to be for sale rather speci*yigg that all units will be far than for rau seta only Landscaping • Only minimal perimeter • The landscaping plan imcludes a bufiaing is required landscaped berm along the southern property lino • The plan Provides for extensive hnrffaing around the emirs site •'ILe plan regmres the preservation of and additions to she solid vegetative buffet along the Mamam Trail • The plan provides for the preservation of the mature ux stand on the northern 'on ofthe site ' Oct•10. 2003 5~51PM ~ • Na•9186 P• 5 Monon Patio Homes Docket No. 77-03 Z Alternative 1Jevelonment Scenario: Developed as a single-family detached subdivision utilizing the R-1 Zoning District and Open Space provisions of Subdivision Comrol Ordinance, Chapter 7. Required Open Space: 20% of the site area or 55,487 sq. ft. Open Space Provided: 27.7%or 76,963 sq. ft. Base Deosity: 2.9 units per acre Permitted Density: 3.23 amts per acre This would allow 20 detached amts to be buih on the site. No lot standards would apply other than the m;n;ro„m distance between amts must be six feet. .~.>- ~ RECEIVED OCT .~ s~ 2Cu3 ROCS Dear Plan Commissioners, I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residential? LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area _ _ _ forever. This will also seta precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant or candidates for development. Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity of single-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. Sincerely, ~(im ANd Kev:~ Ober 11sw~ SeN: a l.N . ~~w~a~, ~~ H~o3a Dear Plan Commissioners, • R „ ~~ October 8, 2003 U~T~rI~`~~D 2GGG ~ Bruce Barker ~O~S ~y 11575 Freeport Drive h Carmel, In 46032 ~ .~C'~ 814-7616 Prior to your vote on Oct 21 s` regarding 77-03 Z - Hearthview Residential, LLC - Monon Town Homes PUD, I would like to summarize the feelings of myself and many of my neighbors whom I have spoken with. I do not intend to repeat the many issues raised by both sides of this petition. Instead I simply want to summarize the opposition. I reviewed the public file today and inventoried all of the documents which came from the public. I counted 17 individual letters in opposition to this petition. There is also a petition with 57 names and addresses in opposition to this petition. There is a second petition with 23 names also in opposition to this petition. At least 97 individuals (some letters had multiple signatures) have registered their opposition to this petition. I think it is also significant that not one member of the public has taken the time to document their support for this petition, if there is any public support. It should also be noted that the main issue generating the opposition is attached housing. This is important because the petitioner has argued that most of this opposition went away with the reduced number of units. Having spoken with many of the neighbors, I can assure you this is not true. I think it should also be noted that even though Bill Frey of the Donnybrook association states that Donnybrook is in favor of this, 4 different residents of Donnybrook have sent letters of opposition since Oct ls`. Clearly there are several Donnybrook residents who oppose this petition even in its latest state. I would also like to frame this petition in the proper context. The ability to rezone a property is not a right but a privilege. No other neighbor in the surrounding Rl zoning can build attached houses on their property. The petitioners aze asking for a privilege no other neighbor enjoys. As a privilege it should only be given with unanimous approval from the surrounding residents, who moved to this area with the trust that our plan commission would protect our current zoning. 97+ opposing residents is not unanimous approval. Whatever their motivations, nearly 100 of the surrounding neighbors oppose this rezoning and it is unfathomable to me how any commissioner could set aside the wishes of the neighborhood and approve this petition. Respectfully yours, Bruce Barker 11575 Freeport Drive Carmel, IN 46032 814-7616 • ~ RECF~~IVED ' ~ OCT 7 ' 20G3 To: The Carmel/Clay Plan Commission ~ DDC$ From: Carmel Homeowners and Residents Re: 77-03 Z(#03050030)--Hearthview Residential, LLC Petition to rezone the Davis Property from Rl to R3 As residents and homeowners of Cazmel, we want the Plan Commission to uphold and enforce the current zoning code of RI, between Guilford and Rangeline Rd. on 116`s Street. This zoning code was established by the City Council and Plan Commission and supported by the community ten years ago as part of their long term development plan. We oppose Hearthview Residential, LLC's petition to rezone the Davis Property from single-family dwellings with a density averaging between 1.3 and 3.0 to multifamily dwellings with a density of 3.3 for the following reasons: L It violates the current zoning code mandated by the City Council and Planning Commission. 2, It alters the long term comprehensive development plan for this area of Carmel It is the Commission's responsibility to guazd the spirit and integrity of the city's development plan which is achieved through compliance with zoning codes. 3. Approval of the petition would set a new precedent for rezoning other undeveloped properties remaining along 116x' street. The Plan Commission, with support from the surrounding neighborhoods, set the precedem in the past-nothing but RI in this azea. 4. Multi-family dwellings would change the distinctive identity and chazacter of the family neighborhood environment that drew many of us to this area. It ignores the city's objective to promote development that is harmonious and complimentazy to the surrounding properties in appearance and monetary value. 5. It increases the density in the area and further strains the infrastructure. 6. The multi-family duplex homes will compromise the beauty and tranquility of the Monon Trait. The Monon Trail, a gateway between Indianapolis and Westfield, is a community asset enjoyed by vast numbers of children and adults for jogging, walking, biking, and contemplating. The Davis Property is one of the loveliest and most serene segments of the Monon Trail with its lovely fenced in fields and grazing horses. We do not want duplexes or multi-family homes bordering this tranquil route and in close proximity to the city's new park. 7. The Davis Property is prime land and can easily support single-family dwellings. There is no discernable need for or value to either the City of Carmel or the surrounding neighborhoods of building multi-family dwellings at this location. As our commissioners, we urge you to retain the current zoning requirements established for the benefit of the community as a whole and mandated by your committee. We ask you to defeat Hearthview Residential, LLC's petition and put the community interests above the financial interests of a single party. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS //ll /~~lr~ /~G,St~N1~G~~ Uri ~ iI~GF ~-ourn~~- Dr. ~ei~ l(. Cw- Y~^+9- ZN y 6 u ~~- SNFf(YL SoMME,('KA~P~~a~~nm^e~~ ~~cnr~.,,t', /mot/ ~60~~, C~4.Q.rvLL: ~'.v ~dr~~Z ~v~-r~m~~, ~ ~~ ~-t' 6 a> Z Cl~ rmQ9 , _~{ ~ ~Q3-L ~~~~,~~s ~lCG,~~~ ~~v d3Z- ti ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~f~Q ~ ~~~~~~~ w "~dC.bY 1 - , 1 i RECFIVE,D ~ OGS ~ G~:: DOCS NAME J~~~ U SIGNATURE S ~o-f -f (~~~; ~~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ hec~de ~~. ~ ~ ~~ Y~' C~'i G 9~ ~ d 0.~ ~,rn 2C1c~2. ~'L-t n CdC `~ ~, ~ (~ j~ ~,-~n~ ~ 1~~, e ~..9o h ~J e ~? r ; c~ ~ ~°~./~.` ~~~ 1(C~ 5c~ (Z~ se c.~.~ .,~~ Pv~ ~~ SCI= ~'~~~ 1 l-1 lS ~P ~5 ~~ ~' . '~~ ~ 3 ~- 1~,~~ f ~~/Sub l~ ~~-. ~~D 3 ~ % ~11~,~~ ~ S~~r/l~ yi 0 r~ ADDRESS lI ~~8~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~Nu ~ ~~Z s ~,c/ ly- ~llaa ~ 1 / Sf= ~~ ~a 3z ~ , i ~~ s~ _ w ~ o.sa., ~ 4„~ ~ ,~ ~~ RECFNED ~ c ;I ~ pDC~ '~ NAME VI~-~- VVI~~a~ SIGNATURE ~~ ADDRESS 7~~ Cict~j~<s ~~dC--~ ~l~o~?L < r\ R~ 2~~3 ~C~ ~p~S ,~ =. • i Dear Plan Commissioners, I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residential LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for_the_other properties in the area that are either -- _ -vacant o~ ccandidates for development. Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. Sincerely, ~ +"t"""'" ~'~'"`~ us Q~d ,e' % ~„~~. i~14~~ ~~ //S~3 ScL,e~(' ia~e Car..~zG,Z~ y603Z ~CTf j~FO X703 ~~~S Fau One Chic Square Cannel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2417 Fax (317) 57t-2426 Re: CC: ^ Urgent ^ Far Review ^ Please Comment ^ Please Reply Q Please Reeyrle Phone: Dale: ~~ ~~` ~J Dear Plan Commissioners, RECEIVED OCT E 2063 o. DOCS I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview R site~tial LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Resident~aC t~oT Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant or_candidates.for development. _ Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of ~nulti- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. Sincere] , off' SUNIL PATEL - Ilg-g'9 SCHEEL LANE CARM~L I N q-6o3 2 • Dear Plan Commissioners, v RfC~'j~ 0 ocDOCn z o cs I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Re LLC to rezone the property curcently owned by the Davis family from RI Residential Plahned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant orcandidates for development. - Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity of single-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. Sincerely, I~~~ s~,~ t ~. • H ~ OCRCCfIVED c ?CG,? Dear Plan Commissioners, o ~ D~CS I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residelrtial LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from R1 Residential Yo a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either _-- - _-vacant or candidates for developrnent. - - - Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. Sincerely, ~~~,_. FR~~n~ ~~~,esr- ~:~~2t~~~~ ~Vt_TI-~~ti Lam! ~ -~,-~ .~~4/ . ~`-~= ~ -ra u v E ~U ~ ilnu-~~ (Ni ~ ov f ~ l~Klv~~ T~-h~1-~- l-~vvsi~f~ CvtvS~ t'~ ~~'~2io2~tvwJ Ir K~~ G~ 2~~L ,4 J~. ~Sr2+~r3c.~ ~i,~~l-~ ~ `~ ~I a7- Ski°~' ~Z..T- >~tv~71- Sr,~Gc~' I !~}/I= L/oUR 4~h2 ~t.~~ASsC Vu-U ~~ iis~~ 2 5~2 ;r / N ~ ~ ~ - ~~~ CZ cN~<- (y!2 ~~./Pj~Y,t~acv,~~ tti ~ ~h,v~ ~~ 5 y G,lv~~..v~S S~P'~ GJi~ w~9 %S a ~ Sip 1~ tik--1-s l; ff-r~ W>,esv~ Ta e. ~iZ .P~fz . d~ ~ .p~~ w~~~ ~,~ez,, S~~<<,,~-f ~-h~.~~s~ . jY~ C,~-~(J~-~~~ G.~.~e,JJ ~ ~v~.cl ~ ~u~- -h~~e.~ ` 1/ ~ Q:~oS ~'~-e~9- ~V,.c~~- -t~J Ate. S ~ '`~_ SiM~.~l ~ ~V2~ > o ~f~~~,r;~~~ ~._~ ~;v-tis~~-tie. <9_~~~' (- ~+ -~-~,~~,~ ~- ,; ; , ~, ~~. w~. t -n" l0/y~ C.~`~n~-, a ~,U~c_~.` ~~ S~~ _ Ji ~~cti1- S~~-S . --~ ~ 1 t 44 c_,~ ~ ~~; r-- UV~ 12ZL~J~i. t ~ qq ~ . ~~~~ ~_tl~~_.1 ~ ~ ~ `FMS ~J S ~ :n.~. ~! ~_ of-p~~ -r~ru Q-„~~~ ~d~ lsi J ~ ,,.i , ~ ~ ~.,e_ S ~ c~-~-~ ~~ Zoe r < L i~ p G~ ~-~ ~c~ ~ -~-i (~~~ _ ~V~ ,SOvK-2~~ d ~t ~ /e_.ti~Y' ~;~ Ct.cN~ `~- V~-c'.i2_c~ Uc3Cc~'o'~~ (~t~1ru'/) ~ V~C.a~k U~~2S.tw-vim. -St?RC=i ~Z~.c~/ .~Pcc.CQ_~ dl~ ~e~-f~a, c~,~ o ~ or ',d"p~v ~Lµ, ~--~ ~b,_~z..-F Uit~se au ~ LUi ~ ~ lvi-e ~~~'~~?~rS u~CR,ua~ ~ l~c~ W ~ lI G~,G~- .S~~S iG~i~C~ ~{-I r~G~ G r ~ vw-e. -~rbnz -~-~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a /~Gt~e ~ Jc~L~ ~ RECF~~IVED OC7 e 2GG3 Dear Plan Commissioners, p~ DOCS I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Resid\tial~ LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is I.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant-orcandidates fordevelopment. Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. Sincerely, ~~ ! ~d -~hltY1~. ~lo ~'f cZfl S-~t'~1 ~ ~Y'~ CArme~ ~ I M 40032 • • y p~,RFC~'~~FD ~ Do ~ ?pQ3 Dear Plan Commissioners, CS I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residefit~~l- LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from RI Residential t a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also'set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either -vacant-or candidates-for development. Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the RI zoning. Sincerely, (/ "„`~((/"'" s . • ~ RE ~VED OCT C ~OD3 Dear Plan Commissioners, ~^ DDCS I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Resiclerita6 LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant orcandidates for development Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. Sincerely, it 4~6 S~ r.i e, ~~- c~rlmz.l, ZiJ ~~°3~ • '~ ~- OCTE ~~ED ?GG3 Dear Plan Commissioners, O ~~CS I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Resider oa~ LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant or candidatesTo~ development. Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the RI zoning. Sincerely, ~~V`pyQGH E3~ 1 i5i 3 se~« ~-^~ ~~~~ ln)-~t6o3~ Hancock, Ramona B From: Deborah Pickett [Iibertybe1103@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 12:58 PM To: rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: Petition protesting Docket No. 77-03Z;Hearthview Residential PUD To: The Carmel/Clay Plan Commission ~ $ From: Carmel Homeowners and Residents ~ RECEIVED Re: 77-03 Z(#03050030)--Hearthview Residential, LLC Petition to rezone the ~~T C 2~~3 Davis Property from R1 to R3 iq DDCS As residents and homeowners of Carmel, we want the Plan Commission to uphold ~ and enforce the current zoning code of R1, between Guilford and Rangeline Rd. on 116th Street. This zoning code was established by the City Council ~ and Plan Commission and supported by the community ten years ago as part of ~ their long term development plan. We oppose Hearthview Residential, LLC's petition to rezone the Davis Property from single-family dwellings with a density averaging between 1.3 and 3.0 to multifamily dwellings with a density of 3.3 for the following reasons: 1. It violates the current zoning code mandated by the City Council and Planning Commission. 2. It alters the long term comprehensive development plan for this area of Carmel. It is the Commission's responsibility to guard the spirit and integrity of the city's development plan which is achieved through compliance with zoning codes. 3. Approval of the petition would set a new precedent for rezoning other undeveloped properties remaining along 116th street. The Plan Commission, with support from the surrounding neighborhoods, set the precedent in the past-nothing but R1 in this area. 4. Multi-family dwellings would change the distinctive identity and character of the family neighborhood environment that drew many of us to this area. It ignores the city's objective to promote development that is harmonious and complimentary to the surrounding properties in appearance and monetary value. 5. It increases the density in the area and further strains the infrastructure. 6. The multi-family duplex homes will compromise the beauty and tranquility of the Monon Trail. The Monon Trail, a gateway between Indianapolis and Westfield, is a community asset enjoyed by vast numbers of children and adults for jogging, walking, biking, and contemplating. The Davis Property is one of the loveliest and most serene segments of the Monon Trail with its lovely fenced in fields and grazing horses. We do not want duplexes or multi-family homes bordering this tranquil route and in close proximity to the city's new park. 7. The Davis Property is prime land and can easily support single-family dwellings. There is no discernable need for or value to either the City of Carmel or the surrounding neighborhoods of building multi-family dwellings at this location. As our commissioners, we urge you to retain the current zoning requirements established for the benefit of the community as a whole and mandated by your committee. We ask you to defeat Hearthview Residential, LLC's petition and put the community interests above the financial interests of a single party. t i ~ i~~ ~~ ~0 . hlr. 33'illiam hlahonv • 1 1319 Donmbrook Dc ~~ Carmel, IN 46032-3139 Dear Plan Commissioners, 1 J l I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residential LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the curcent range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the curcent composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant er candidates for development. Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the RI zoning. Sincerely, V " L~~/ cti _ Dear Plan Commissioners, I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residential LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from R1 Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning ofthis property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the curcent range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant or candidates-for development. Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the RI zoning. Sincerely, ~,~\ /~'', R~r~;c~ ngr ~ :, DrrCS ,, ,, Dear Plan Commissioners, I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residential LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either - - vacant orcandidates for development. - Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as -ow intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the R1 zoning. Sincerely, i~ ~ ,`i~ ~~~°S l~ia~ri o~~l ~v~ ,_~-,__ e q l '< ~, G0 n ~t,C~~ D 0~ ~S ~~: . Dear Plan Commissioners, I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residential LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from R1 Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either vacant or candidates for development. Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. Sincerely, // ,<L/z.".Jer ~l~~~ /ice lam; ,~~ ~'~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ . y~a.~a i--.- ~-- ~, / ~; ~' ~ ice'`` RECEIVED [ ~, ,, DOGS i • Dear Plan Commissioners, I would like to register my opposition to petition 77-03 Z filed by Hearthview Residential LLC to rezone the property currently owned by the Davis family from Rl Residential to a Planned Unit Development. I am opposed to any rezoning of this property that will allow multi-family dwellings and/or a density that exceeds the current range in the comprehensive plan which is 1.3 to 3.0 dwellings per acre. I list the reasons for this in the following paragraphs. The most important reason to retain the Rl zoning and single-family dwellings is to retain the area's current neighborhood of families. Allowing multi-family dwellings in this area will alter the current composition of neighborhoods of families. Allowing only a few multi-family dwellings into the area will change the composition of the area forever. This will also set a precedent for the other properties in the area that are either --vacant or candidates for development: - - - Another important reason to prevent multi-family dwellings is to prevent the decline of property value. Allowing townhomes, apartments, duplexes, or any other form of multi- family dwellings in the vicinity ofsingle-family-dwellings, more often than not decreases the value of the homes. The final reason is that all of the neighbors to this property have based their plans on this entire area remaining as low intensity use as defined in the comprehensive plan. It is not fair to all of these neighbors be able to violate this plan for the sole reason of profiteering. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in rezoning this property. Please retain this neighborhood under the Rl zoning. ~~ iA~~~~ ate" ~:~; . .t ~ \ `~~ ,., ~-~ ~~~ GS ~: ~~ City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: September 26, 2003 TO: David Sexton FAX: 826-6410 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are 3 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Subdivision Committee Agenda for October 7, 2003 Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. 1(you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this to/ecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this /acsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the (onvarded documents to us. EROSI'~N AND SEDIMENT CONTRO~PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW AND COMMENT Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District 1108 South 9th Street, Noblesville IN 46060 Ph- 317-773-1432 or Email at,john-south(a~iaswcd.org 4 k t:5r x>+d! PROJECT NAME: ononcTo_~YrimI'Iomes°- SUBMITTED BY: Hearthview Residential 6930 Atrium Boardwalk South, suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 56250 317-849-6900 /O Mr. Gregory Rasmussen TLF Consulting Engineers 8675 Purdue Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 REVIEWED BY: John B. South P.E. Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control PLAN REVIEW DATE: September 16, 2003 Acreage: 6.4 ac LOCATION: South side of 116`h St. on the east side of the Monon Trail LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sec. 1 TOWNSHIP: 17N RANGE: 3E CIVIL TOWNSHIP: Clay SOIL SURVEY MAP SHEET: 56 The technical review and comments are intended to evaluate the completeness of the erosion and sediment control plan for the project. The erosion and sediment control plan submitted was not reviewed for the adequacy of the engineering design. All practices included in the plan, as well as those recommended in the comments should be evaluated as to their feasibility by a qualified individual with structural practices designed by a qual fed engineer. The plan has not been reviewed for local, state, or federal permits that may be required to proceed with this project. Additional information, including design calculations may be requested to further evaluate the erosion and sediment control plan. The erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan: Satisfies the minimum requirements and intent of 327tAC 15-5 (Rule 5). Notification Hill be forwarded to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Refer to the comments section for additional information. X Does not satisfy the minimum requirements and intent of 327IAC 15-5 (Rule 5); deficiencies are noted in the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted: Proper implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan and inspections of the construction site by the developer or a representative are necessary Co minimize off-site sedimentation. The developer should be aware that unforeseen construction activities and weather conditions might affect the performance of a practice or the erosion and sediment control plan. The plan must be a flexible document, with provisions to mod or substitute practices as necessary. Rcviscd 4 / 97 ,PROJECT: Monon Town Ho>~ Page 2 of 3 • ARE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ON THE PLANS ? (All Plans Must Grclude Appropriate Legends, Scales, and Nnrtlt Arrow) (/terns thnt are Nn! Applicable to 1l~is Prnjec! are designnted by NA) Yes No PROJECT INFORMATION X I A Project Location Map (Show project in relation to other areas ojthe county) x 1 B Narrative Describing the Nature and Purpose of the Project x IC Location of Planned and/or Existing Roads, Utilities, Structures, Highways, etc. X 1 D Lot and/or Building Locations x I E Landuse of Adjacent Areas (5'haw the Fmire Upstream Watershed and Adjacent Arens Within 500 Peet ojthe Property Lines) Yes No TOPOGRAPHIC, DRAINAGE, AND GENERAL SITE FEATURES X 2A Existing Vegetation (Identify and Delineate ) x 26 Location and Name of All Wetlands, Lakes and Water Courses On and Adjacent to the Site X 2C 100 Year Floodplains, Floodway Fringes, and Floodways (Note ijNone) X 2D Soils Information (/jhydric soils are present, i( is dre responsibility ojlhe ofaner/developer to inves(igate the existence ojwetlnnds and to ob(ain permits from the appropriate government agencies.) x 2E Existing and Planned Contours at an Interval Appropriate to Indicate Drainage Patterns x 2F Locations of Specific Points Where Stormwater Discharge Will Leave [he Site X 2G Identify All Receiving Waters (ljDischarge i.r to a Separate Municipal Storm .Sewer, /dent jv the Name ojlhe Municipal Operator and the Ul(imate Receiving Water) X 2H Potential Areas Where Storm water May Enter Groundwater (Note ijNone) X 21 Location of Stormwater System (/nclude Culverta'. Storm Sewers, Channels, and Swa/es) Yes No LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES x 3A Location and Approximate Dimensions of All Disturbed Areas ~i. e., Construction /.imirs] (Areas Where Vegetative Cover Will Be Preserved Should be Clearly Designater!) X 36 Soil Stockpiles and or Borrow Areas (Show Locations or Note ijNone) Ycs No EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES x 4A Sequence of When Each Measure Will Be Implemented (Relative (o Forth Disncrbitvg Acnvities) x 46 Monitoring and Maintenance Guidelines for Each Measure x 4C Perimeter Sediment Control Measures (Locntion. Construction Ue(ai/, Dimensions, and Specificntions) X 4D Temporary Seeding (Specifications; hrcluding Seed Mix, Fertilizer, /.ime, and Mulch Rcrtes) x 4E Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (/.ocation. Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) x 4F Permanent Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifieations) X 4G Storm Drain Inlet ProteC[i0n (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specificntions) X 4H Stormwater OntlCt Protection (Locntion, Cons[nrction Detail, Dimensions, and Specificntions) X 4I Stable Construction Entrance (Locntion, Construction De[oi/, Dimensions, and 5'pecificntions) x 4J Erosion and Sediment Control on Individual Building Lots (Specifications) X 4K Permanent Seeding (Specifications; /nc6cding Seed Mix, Fertilizer, lime, and Mulch Rotesf Revised 4 / 97 ERO~N AND SEDIMENT CONTRO~LAN TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT: Monon Town Homes Page 3 of 3 Nnte: Al[ erosion aryl sediment rnntrol measures shown an the plans and referenced in t/ris review must meet the design criteria, standards, and specifications outlined in flee "/ndiuna Handhook for Erosion Control in Developir:gAreas"from the 7ndianu Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil Conservation or similar Guidance Documents. 3A. Show construction limits on the plan. 3B. Show location of topsoil piles or describe where it should not be placed. 4A. A construction sequence is needed that is specific to the site. Please provide an orderly account of how this project should be constructed to minimize the potential for offsite pollution. Details need to be specific to this site. 4C. Silt fence is not an adequate practice for the size of this project. I would suggest a sediment basin be designed where the proposed detention basin is located. Provide the necessary information to correctly build the practice (pipe sizes, elevations and dimensions). Temporary diversions need to be shown to direct the storm water into the sediment basin. Part of this site drains toward the Monon trail, west of homes 6 & 7. This storm water will also need to be trapped or diverted. 4D & 4K. Temporary and permanent seeding specifications are needed. The site will be temporary seeded after rough grading is completed. 4G. A practice detail is needed for street inlets after the pavement is installed. 4J. Details are needed for erosion control during home construction. Note: IDEM will be notified when the plan is approved. Cc: Carmel DOGS Ha. Co. Surveyor File " LA ~ _ ; ~ Carmel Clay Schools - 'l`+r~ ,„„,~` Education September 12, 2003 Mr. Gregory L. Rasmussen Ter Horst, Lamson & Fisk, Inc. 8675 Purdue Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 RE H` earthv_ew::Residential Monon Town Homes Dear Mr. Rasmussen: l~ Continuing Excellence in /p~ v 1~ ~. :'~," ~ D' ~~~ ROCS Thank you for your recent submittal of the preliminary site plan for Hearthview Residential, Monon Town Homes. Carmel Clay Schools generally does not provide bus service in cul-de-sacs for school age children. The cul-de-sac in this proposed development will not support the turning radius of our standard 84-passenger school bus. School age children will be required to walk to the development entrance at 116t" street. We recommend a sidewalk be provided from the homes to 116 street. Additionally, as there are no sidewalks present along 116'h street at this location, we recommend inclusion of a paved surface near the development entrance to provide a safe waiting area for school age children to wait for bus pick-up. If you would like to discuss this further or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 317-815-3962. Sinc ely, Ro Farrand, J~ I r "` _ Director of Facilities and Transportation C: City of Carmel, Department of Community Services File Facilities & Transportation Department - 5185 East 131" Street, Carmel, IN46033 317/844-8207-Fax 317/571-9659 Ramona B From: PETTEE JAMES M@LILLY.COM Sent: Tuesday September 16, 2003 7:22 AM To: rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: Rezoning request 77-03 Z: Hearthview Residential, LLC - Monon Town Homes PUD TO: Commissioners FROM: Jim Pettee 11677 Rosemeade Drive Carmel, IN, 46032 I am sending this a-mail to register my opposition to the above mentioned rezoning request. This request should not be allowed based on the Comprehensive Plan in that multi-family dwellings are included and a higher density than permitted in R1 zoning is proposed. The Comprehensive Plan was put in place to manage development for the benefit of the town as well as residents. The Plan must be upheld. This change would not only debase the Plan but also negatively affect property values in the area. We have invested in downtown Carmel by building our homes in town. Now, it is time for you, as Commissioners, to support us. Do not allow this rezoning to occur! Respectfully, Jim Pettee T RECEIVED SEP 16 2003 DOCS City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: September 11, 2003 TO: Joe Scimia FAX: 569-4800 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are 2 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only (or the use of the individual(s) or entity(iesJ named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this to/ecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return o/the forwarded documents to us. Dear Plan Commissioners, ~, I~ S£P~IDrV~D 7f/G,t F 1 DOGS `,- ~' *. Y~ > . , ~:. ; • September 10, 2003 Bruce Barker 11575 Freeport Drive Carmel, In 46032 814-7616 I would like to make some points regarding 77-03 Z - Hearthview Residential, LLC - Monon Town Homes PUD. I am opposed to the rezoning of this property. I appeared before you at the June 17`h plan commission meeting and asked that you deny the petition. I stated my reasons as • Fundamental social change to neighborhood • Loss of property value for nearby residences • Further degradation of Orchard Park Elementary I understand that the petitioner has slightly altered their petition and will present it to you on the September 16`h plan commission meeting. I have reviewed the revised plan and find that it still has the above listed disadvantages. The main problem is that the plan still contains multi-family dwellings. Benefit/disadvantage to neighborhood At the June 17th meeting I asked for a show of hands of all of the neighbors who were in favor of this rezoning. Not one hand was raised. There is no advantage, nor improvement, to the neighborhood if this property is rezoned from its current Rl zoning. It should also be noted that this property can easily be developed under the existing Rl zoning and there are developers willing to make offers to the current owners who will not rezone the property. There is only one advantage to the rezoning and that advantage is more profit for the petitioner. Unfortunately that profit will come at the loss of equity of neighbors and the loss of a traditional family setting. Treatment of neighbors and compliance with commission request I would also like to describe the treatment of neighbors by the petitioners. To date, the petitioners have obliged me to attend 4 Tuesday evening meetings on this issue. Two of those evenings were completely wasted as the petitioner tabled their item. Unfortunately they tabled their item so late in the day that even though I called the office of the plan commission assistanYthat af4ernoon I was not informed of the tabling. To make those 4 evening appointments, I have postponed two business trips and am postponing a third in order to attend the September 16`h meeting. It should also be noted that at the June 17`h plan commission meeting the chairperson of the commission instructed the petitioner to work with the neighbors to resolve the • ! disagreements. To date I have received one letter from the petitioner inviting me to a "public meeting" at their office. This public meeting was eventually postponed, although the petitioner didn't even bother to inform me of the postponement. I don't think that sending one invitation to a meeting that didn't happen is much of an effort to resolve the issues with the neighbors. I point these issues out as further proof of the petitioner's lack of interest in the long-term well-being of this neighborhood. Keenine with Comarehensive Plan I would also like to point out what should already be obvious to the commissioners. Complying with the petitioner's request would violate the comprehensive plan on two accounts. The comprehensive plan shows the area as low intensity. Low intensity is defined as single-family dwellings with a density averaging between 1.3 and 3.0. The petition includes multi-family dwellings and has a density of 3.3. In conclusion I would like the plan commission to deny this petition at the September 16`h meeting. I do not want to go through several more months of schedule juggling at the whims of the petitioner. I would like the plan commission to enforce the zoning that I counted on when I chose my land 7 years ago and the same zoning that I developed my small subdivision under. I see no reason why a developer living outside this neighborhood should be allowed special privileges no other neighbor is granted simply to tum a profilt. Thank you for your consideration. Bruce Barker ~~~~ RAG"ti~lED SEP 10 tuC3 ROCS September 9, 2003 Mr. Gregory L. Rasmussen Ter Horst, Lamson & Fisk, Inc. 8675 Purdue Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 RE: Hearthview Residential, Monon T.H. Project NO.: 2003120 Dear Mr. Rasmussen: I have received and reviewed the information for the above-mentioned project. At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law enforcement efforts. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us. Respectfully Michael D. Foga Chief of Police MDF:vb cc: Dept. of Community 1317) 57Il-250® ~~~ ~~ ~~ _~ ,, ,~ ~ ~,. gin, t% A Nationally Accredit ft~!nc ~forcement Agency ,x13171571-2512 City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax:317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: September 8, 2003 TO: Joe Scimia FAX: 569-4800 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are 4 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: Plan Commission Agenda and Calendar. Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and conhden[ial and are the propeRy of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use o(Ihe individua/(5J or entity(ies) named above. I/you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied in/ormation is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the forwarded documents to us. BADE R ~DANIE L S Est. 1863 600E 96th Stree[, Suite 600 Indlanapolls, Indiana 46240 317.5699600 Fax 317.569.4800 www.bakerdaniels com Indiana Washington, O.C. JOSEPH M. SCIMIA 317-569-4680 Joseph.Scimia ~ bakerd.com VIA HAND DELIVERY September 5, 2003 City of Carmel/Clay Township Plan Commission c/o Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Jon: SfP 5 ~~'l'n `; ,, GGCS ~~~ ~~. ~~_i , China Re: ~77 03 Z= Hearthvi Residue entlal~LLC~Monon~Towri~Homes'$PUD Enclosed are twenty (20) booklets that should be distributed to the members of the Plan Commission prior to their regularly scheduled meeting on September 16, 2003. Please give me a call if you have any questions. JMS:msr Enclosures ' cerely, ose h M. cirri INIMAN2\773084v1 City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax: 317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: September 5, 2003 TO: Joseph Scimia FAX: 569-4800 FROM: Pam Attached hereto are 9 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571 /2417 and ask for Pam. NOTES: TAC Agenda with Calendar and list of TAC Members. Each TAC member will need a full size copy of your project. Please call if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and con(dential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only (or the use of the individual(s) or entity(iesJ named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking o(any action in reliance on the contents o/this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return o/the forwarded documents to us. One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46~i2 (31 ~ 571-24i 7 Fax (317) 571-2426 11% -. To: ~~ (,~E.Q h_ _ ~~ ll-vi t ~ _ From: - Fax 'j",b / `- ~~'C7~ Pages: Phone: Date: ~'~2~ // ' S~ _ Re: CC: ^ Urgent ^ For Review ^ Please Comment ^ Please Reply Q Please Recycle ~~- ~,~tS RUG Q~ 2003 1:31 PM PR B~R DRNIELS 3 317 569 4800 T0~2188#971245#05# P.02 BAKER E51. IA63 DANIELS 600 E. 96M SUMP, SuitC bW IndianapCliS, IMidn0 46140 36.567.9600 Far )17569.4800 wwwbakerdankls.mm ROGER 0. KILNER 317.889.4891 rOger.kitmer®bakertl.COm August 5, 2003 Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz City of Carmel Depamnent of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: 7=;03 Z Hearthviewrl-Monon'Town H Psemo Contnitianoe-Request•ofSubdivision'Committee Meeting Deaz Mr. Dobosiewicz: Induw Washiit&wn. D.C. rniro ~~%~ 'i ,\ j: ~~G ~ ~~ - ~C~ O .7~`l O ./ ly' On behalf of our client, Hearthview Residential, LLC., we request that the above-referenced petition be continued from the August 5, 2003 meeting of the CatmeVClay Subdivision Committee to their September 2, 2003 meeting. We met with members and representatives of adjacent neighborhoods on )uly 24, 2003, to discuss the proposed development. From the information gathered at that meeting, the developer is considering and studying certain aspects of the proposal, but has not finalized the project for review by the Subdivision Committee. We understand that no further actions aze required to continue the above-referenced petition. Consequently, representatives of Heazthview Residential, LLC. will not be present at the August 5, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (317) 569-4680. Sincerely, ~~~.~ Roger A. Kilmer cc: Mr. Jim Thomas - Hearthview Residential, LLC Mr. Joseph Scimia -Baker & Daniels Mr. Jack McKown -Donnybrook HOA INIMAN2 764652v1 ** TOTRL PRGE.02 ** RUG 0,5 2003 1:3! PM FR >~R DRNIELS 3 317 569 4800 TO 12188t3971245Si05tf P.01 i BAYER 8L DANIELS ~` ~~ ~+.~ 1, 600 East 96th Sneet, Suik 600, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 ~ ``~ v~ 317.569.9600 • FAX 317.569.4800 • www.bakerdaniels.com ~` ~~ qq Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend. Elld~art Washington, D.C. Qingdao, P.R. China Facsimile Cover Letter CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: THE MATERIALS IN THIS FACSIMILE TRANSM19510N ARE PRIVATE ANO CONFIDENTIAL AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE SENDER. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE MATERIAL IS PRIVILEGED AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED BELOW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, BE ADNSED THAT ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR THE TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON 7HE CONTENTS OF THIS MATERIAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IP YOU HAVE RECENED THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPWONE TO ARRANGE FOR RETURN OF THE FORWARDED DOCUMENTS TO US. PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) TO: Name om an Fax No, c N . 1. Jon Dobosiewicz Carmel Dept. of Community Services 317-571-2426 (317) 571-2417 From: Ro er A. Kilmer Dste: August 5, 2003 Comments: See attached letter. Retnrn To: RKilmer Total number of pages, including cover letter: 2 Q hard copy of this transmission will be seat by regular mail will be sent by overnight mail X will not be sent wader separate cover IF YOU DO NOT RECEXVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL TAE FAX DEPARTMENT AT 317.569.4888 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, oc eAq ~y 2i~ A;4ae Cit of Carmel -~.o~ ~~ Y CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Date: July 31, 2003 To: Plan Commission Members From: Jon C. Dobosiewicz . Department of Community Services Re: August 5, 2003 Committee meetings -Department Reports Please fmd attached the Department Reports for the items contained on both the Special Studies Committee and Subdivision Committee Agendas for August 5`h. A copy of the agenda for each has also been enclosed. Additional information has been provided regarding one building within the Clay Terrace development. I would like to discuss this with you at the end of the meeting. No additional infornation. Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 1 ~ oe CAA U~ ~~! k~~=~4 Cit of Carmel .~.o~ ~o Y CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2003 LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS TIME: 7:00 P.M. CARMEL CITY HALL DOORS OPEN AT 6:30 P.M. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following items: Docket No. 77-03 Z; (03050030); Hearthview Residential PUD The applicant seeks to rezone a 6.5 acre parcel from R-1/Residence to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) District designation. The property is generally located at the southeast comer of 116`h Street and the Monon Trail. Filed by Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Hearthview Residential. 2. Docket No. 93-03 Z; (03060010); Lockerbie Townhomes at Hunters Creek PUD (Rezone) The applicant seeks to rezone a 5 acre parcel from R-1/Residence and B-3Business to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) District designation. ,The property is located at the southwest corner of Rohrer Road and Marana Drive. Filed by James E. Shinaver of Nelson and Frankenberger for Estridge Development Company. 3. Docket No. 79-03 PP Amend; (03050040); Treesdale Subdivision The applicant is requesting approval of an amended Primary Plat to allow a private street. The site is located on the east side of Towne Road, 1/2 mile south of 106th Street. The site is zoned S-1/Residence -Very Low Intensity. The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver: 79-03a SW (03050041) SCO 6.3.20 private streets Filed by Paul G. Reis of Drewry Simmons Pitts & Vornehm for Lucky, LLC. 4. Docket No. I1-03a Z; Danbury Common Area [only] (P-1 Rezone) Petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation of a rezone from R-1/Residential to P- 1/Pazks and Recreation on 7.8t acres. The site is located generally south of 146`h Street between Dublin Drive and Jason Street. The site is zoned R-1/Residence. Filed by the Department of Community Services. Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 . -~ . ~~~ ~ ~~-D~ Z- July 2s, 2003 ,~~y ~~~~<~ City Planning Commission ~-' ~ RECEIVED ~ One Civic Square ~ ~~ JUL 2~ 21)C3 Carmel, Indiana 46032 '~', DOCS ",'` Dear Commission Members; We understand that the vote for zoning on our property located at 1211 East 116a' Street is on your agenda for either August or September. We would like for your consideration in this matter to include an understanding of our home situation. Our 6.5 acre horse ranch is bordered by the Monon trail. While we love the trail, and think it is a wonderful asset to the city, we were promised ayear-round, heavy brush cover to provide privacy and protection for our family and horses. Despite many conversations with the parks department, that brush cover has never been provided. Secondly, the street is to expand in the front with a 4+ lane road and side walk. This will not only cut into ow front yard, but will also add noise, months of construction, and inconvenience. We will loose some trees, fence, and brick pillars in the process. Finally, the original plan for the Monon calls for a ramp to connect 116'" to the trail. This ramp would cut through ow pasture, again consuming more of our land and further invading our peaceful and private setting. We have spent thousands of dollars on lawyer fees, seeking advice on how to preserve the atmosphere in which we live, but realize this is not going to be possible. We offered Mayor Brainard the opportunity to pwchase the land as a possible addition to Central Pazk. When the mayor declined, we accepted an offer from Mr. Jim Thomas for our land. We investigated the reputation of the builders, and found that Mr. Thomas had worked well in the past with the city's ideas for growth, and is known as a man of his word. Mr. Thomas' offer was not the highest offer we received. We accepted it, however, because we were assured that the quality of homes being built was excellent, and much of the wooded area would be preserved. Additionally, the homes which he planned were felt to be of comparable value to the bordering neighborhood. We believed his project would be better quality and value than the zero lot line homes which we are currently zoned for. In conclusion, we know the neighbors behind our home are not pleased; neither are we. The neighbors would undoubtedly rather have a beautiful horse ranch behind them and so would we! We, however, understand that as the city grows changes are inevitable. We believe we have taken into consideration optimizing quality of life, going through the proper channels, and the meeting the city's growing needs. We are trying to make the best decisions for our family in light of the imminent changes. In fairness to us, we believe the city should consider re-zoning our land to allow for the proposed project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeff and Krista Davis Jeff; Krista, Kacie, McKenzie, Mallory, Mitchell and Nicholas Davis 1211 E. 116' Street, Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 574-0405 One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46J32 (317)571-2417 Fax: (317) 571-2426 Fa~c To: ~~~, ~~~~ From: Fax J~ q- L~~g-lam Pages: y.~.~ ~~ Phone: S~ / _ /~~ ~~ Qate: ~ ~~ ~ 3 Re: / ~ -Q.j Z CC: ^ Urgent ^ For Review ^ Please Common! ^ Please Reply ^ Please Recycle ~- C~ Petition ~ Whereas, the residents of Fairgreen Trace Subdivision and other interested parties wish to state their opposition to the proposed rezoning and subsequent possible development set forth in Docket #77-03, presented by Hearrhview Residential, LLC, for the property commonly known as 1211 East 116th Street, Carmel, Indiana. It is hoped this signed petition will become a part of the permanent record of all Zoning Committees, and the City Council, if necesary. the following individuals have affued their signatures, addresses, and dates: Signature Address ,i y~ llbjo ~acr~fcea ~~~ C~~-\~t,~ 1 ~<~ l~ co -3 3 ~GCC?t~ui i--'!Ji l ~-L-v'w:s ~R - ,,~. >> -. Date J ~` ~-~-d_3 ,~ ~ ~ ~„ 7 ! s ~~ ~7 !~ ~ij ~ /3 0 3 7 "~3., ~ ~ x-13-03 `7/r3 ~~ ~ ~ D3 -~~~ ' -T /3 t"~ _.. , , , ~~~ ~ G/~~ ~774yivr C~ G~~-m~~ ~r~1~~ 5~ ~s~a3 ~ r zz ~„~ <<i~/~U,/ ~t~ G,~,~~1~/ !ldl8 ~/,QG[EGV ~4.~ C~.(s~~c~.uy6o32 To: Secretary of Plan Commission From: William 14. Frey President Donnybrook Homeowners Association Re: a ocket #77~ ~ ~ *(R~?4Ctiig)¢`~ Date: June 6, 2003 This is to advise you and the Plan Commission members that the Board of Directors of our Neighborhood Assoc'sation have voted unanimously to oppose the rezoning and possible development proposed under the above captioned subject. We would like to express our concerns at the June 17, 2003 public meeting. Our 5-6 speakers will express their personal concerns as well as that of the 30 households in our association. Our subjects wil! be property values, traffic, single family vs. multi-family housing, security issues, quality of life, and the density issues. For the record, we are opposed to any development for the subject plat as well as the one contiguous to it on the east side that does not conform to our area, and that of Rosemeade subdivision and Fair Green subdivisions. As an example, only single family, detached housing, minimum square footage of 2,500 square feet, 60 percent brick construction, and a density of not more than three units per acre, and sale prices of $250,000 - $500,000. Any other types of development wilt be strongly opposed. We appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns to the commission. We hope you will favorably consider our opinions and desires, and ask that you deny the proposed rezoning request. _ /Y i lam r sident Donnybrook Homeo err Association o • PETITION Whereas, the residents of Donnybrook Woods Subdivision, and other interested parties wish to state their opposition to the proposed rezoning and subsequent possible development set forth in Docket #77-03, presented by Hearthview Residential, LLC, for the property commonly known as 9279 East 976th Street, Carmel, Indiana. It is hoped this signed petition wilt become a part of the permanent record of all Zoning Committees, and the City Council if necessary. The following individuals gave afexed their signatures, addresses and dates: Signature Address Date ~~ `7 7~' ~t~L 5 '~&/ //rat `P/~ ~' 2-~ © 3 ~~~~~ ~/~Q ~ Z5 a 3 '/~\1 y ' ~ I A r' n Whereas, the residents of Fairgreen Trace Subdivision and other interested parties wish to state their opposition to the proposed retuning and subsequent possible development set forth in Doc e~r"~,77=03; presented by Hearthview Residential, LLC, for the property commonly known as 1211 East 11 th Street, Cazmel, Indiana. ~ Petition ~ It is hoped this signed petition will become a part of the permanent record of all Zoning Committees, and the City Council, if necesary. the following individuals have affixed their signatures, addresses, and dates: Signature Address Date ~~IeD,J /`mot i~'q•-G'a.y ~{; G~rY /s, E,/ yL/ ~~ l l ~% / tl 7i~ (/tC!!' pct fi ~t - ~&,Cn~-c.2% %/~ z G ~t ,.~~ ~' ~~~~n ~ ~-~ 11630 ~grrcr~~~r. C~r-~~~ 7 ~~~~ ~i~Ph ~I!/aor ~~ C~Y7~aef ~' 7-'7-a3 ~~ 7 ~ /' C'~ 7 /3 ~j 7 l3 (~3 ~ !3 0 3 7 -i3- ~ 3 x-13-03 "7/13 1~ ~ ~~- ~ a ~~ ~ i3 v~ ~ J ~CJ (9~P/1 I~K~I r~% C1 ~rn/~v4~1~ !!G/8 ~~,QclEf~ O.P,~ CAIH~~.ti/y6o32 7~~S~o,3 Signatur Address n/ Date l /o /~ 7z~G'hP/'~-.r--+ it ~ s~ 3 ,. BAKE R Est. 1663 DANIELS 600E 96th Street, Suite 600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 3125699600 Fav 317.5694600 www.bakerdanielsmm ROGER A. KILMER 317.569.4891 roger. ki I mer@ bakerd. com July 3, 2003 Mc Jon Dobosiewicz City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: S° 7.7-03,Z,~Rezonin°Q:'- Hearthview / Monon Town Homes PUD uest for Placement on the July 15, 2003 Plan Commissi Dear Mr. Dobosiewicz: i i ~~/ ~,. ~~C~`~~.11`.~, ~, J~~ 3 .,..... ~~, DDS •~~r\~ ~~~. This letter is to request that the referenced project be placed on the July 15, 2003 Agenda of the Carmel Plan Commission to correct an error of notification. It has come to our attention that the notices sent to interested parties for the June l7, 2003 meeting were not sent via Certified Mail as required by the Rules of Procedure. To correct this procedural deficiency, we have sent new notices to all parties, via Certified Mail (a copy of the letter is enclosed), informing them of the intent to correct this matter at the July meeting and republished the legal notice in the Indianapolis Star. We are requesting that the Plan Commission suspend Article VIL, Section 9, which requires notices to be "published or sent not less than 25 days prior to the Public Hearing date." Please note that Indiana Code requires a 10 day notice period with which these revised notices comply. Additionally, we will request the Plan Commission reaffirni their decision to forward the rezoning petition to the Subdivision Committee for further study. We do not intend to present any new inforniation to the Plan Commission regarding the proposed town home development. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ~.~tt~ Roger A. Kilmer Enclosures Indiana Washington, DC. China `. INIMAN2 755253v1 ~AKER4~DANIELS Est. 1863 600E 96th Street, Suiie 600 Indianapolis, Indiana 4Q40 3175699600 Fax 317.569.4800 www.bakerdaniels.mm Indiana JOSEPH M. SCIMIA 317.569.4680 Washington, DL. josephscimia~bakerd.com China July 3, 2003 ' ~ ~ ~ City of Carmel and Clay Township Plan Commission ~~ RECF IVED c/o Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz ~ `~ul 3 ?0~~ Department of Community Services ~~ DDCS One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 ~T ~~`~ Re: 77-03 Z Rezoning - Hearthview / Monon Town Homes PUD Request to Susnend Plan Commission Rules of Notification Dear Members of the City of Carmel and Clay Township Plan Commission: At your June 17, 2003 meeting, the above-referenced petition was presented to you. It has come Yo our attention that the notices sent to interested parties for the June 17, 2003 meeting were not sent via Certified Mail as required by the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure. We apologize for this error. After consultation with the Department of Community Services, we have sent revised notices via Certified Mail to all interested parties for a public hearing on this petition by the Plan Commission on July 15, 2003. We have also republished the legal notice in the Indianapolis Star. No new information regarding the proposed rezoning or development is to be presented at your July 15, 2003 meeting. We are requesting that, at your July 15, 2003 meeting, you suspend Article VH., Section 9 of the City of Carmel/Clay Township Advisory Plan Commission Rules of Procedure which requires notices to be "published or sent not less than twenty-five (25) days prior to the Public Hearing date." The revised notices were sent on July 3, 2003, and the legal nonce was published on July 5, 2003. Please note that Indiana Code requires a ten (10) day notice period, with which these recent notices comply. We are also requesting that you reaffirm the Plan Commission's decision on June 17, 2003, to forward the rezoning petition to the Subdivision Committee for further study. At your June 17, 2003 meeting, it was recommended that a meeting with the area neighborhoods take place prior to the project being reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. A meeting with the area neighborhoods is scheduled to occur on the evening of July 15, 2003. The petition is currently scheduled to be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on August 5, 2003. In closing, we thank you for your consideration of this request. .~ ~cimia INIMAN2 7%294v1 BAKER Est. 1863 ROGER A. KILMER 317.569.4891 roger.kilmer@bakerd.com July 3, 2003 DANIELS 600 E 96th Street, Swte 600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 317.5699600 Fax 317.5694800 www.bakerdanielsmm VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Re: 77-03 Z Rezoning Hearthview Residential / Monon Town Homes PUD Dear Neighbor of 1211 E. 116th Street: Indiana m. D.C. w-1 ~~~' oOC,S '/ ,~%:~' r-i ;: Enclosed please find the Legal Notice of Public Hearing for a Rezoning Petition filed on behalf of Hearthview Residential, LLC. for the July 15, 2003 Plan Commission meeting. In late May, 2003, you should have received a similar notice for the June 17, 2003 meeting, but that Notice was not sent via Certified Mail as required by the Carmel Plan Commission Rules of Procedure. This second notice is being sent to you to comply with this requirement. At the public hearing on July 15, 2003, we will be requesting the Plan Commission to suspend their notice rule that requires notices to be sent no less than twenty-five (25) days prior to the hearing. Indiana state law requires a minimum often (10) day notice. We will not be presenting any new information regarding the proposed rezoning. We will only be requesting that the Plan Commission suspend their notice rule and that they reaffirm their decision of June 17, 2003, to forward the petition to their Subdivision Committee for further study. At this time, the petition is scheduled to be reviewed by the Carmel Plan Commission Subdivision Committee on August 5, 2003. The Rezoning Petition is to establish a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Zoning District to provide for a town home development. A copy of an area map indicating the location of the subject property is reproduced on the back of the Rezoning Notice for your reference. For those of you who have not yet heard, a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed town home development has been scheduled. The meeting will be held on July 15, 2003, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room of the Clay Township Government Center located at 10701 N. College Avenue, Carmel, Indiana. Members of the development team will present the project and then be available to address questions and concerns. While anyone is welcome to attend the public hearing, there is no requirement that you do so. We do hope to see many of you at the neighborhood meeting. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (317) 569-4891. Sincerely, ~~ ~. Ltu.Ar.~ Roger A. Kilmer Enclosure NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF CARMEL/ CLAY TOWNSIIIP ADVISORY PLAN COMMISSION Docket No. 77-03 Z (Rezonin¢) Notice is hereby given that the Ciry of Carme]/Clay Township Advisory Plan Commission, at its public meeting on the 15th day of July, 2003, at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers, 2nd floor of City Ha11, One (1) Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana 46032, will hold a Public Hearing upon a Rezoning Petition filed on behalf of Hearthview Residential, LLC., to rezone property commonly known as 121 I East 116th Street, Carmel, Indiana, to the Planned Unit Development District to provide for the development of a town home complex. The Petition is identified as Docket No. 77-03 Z (Rezoning). The real estate affected by said Petition is owned by Jeffrey and Krista Davis, and is described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 17 North, Range 3 East, in Hamilton County, Indiana, thence East on and along the North line of the Northeast Quarter Section, a distance of 33 feet to the East right-of--way line of the Monon Railroad as it is now located and is the point of beginning; Thence continuing Eastward on and along said North line a distance of 330 feet to a point; thence South parallel to the West line of said Northeast Quarter Section a distance of 660 feet to a point, said point being 6 '/z feet North of the fence corner as it is now located; thence West and parallel with the North line of said Quarter Section a distance of 37.125 feet to a point, said point being a distance of 6 %z feet North of a fence corner as it is now located; thence South and parallel to the West line of said Quarter Section a distance of 330 feet to a point, said point being marked by a fence post; thence West and parallel to the North line of said Quarter Section a distance of 292.87 feet; thence North 990.10 feet to a point, said paint being the point of beginning, all of said land is located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 17 North, Range 3 East in Clay Township of Hamilton County, Indiana. Except Part of the Northeast Quarter (NE ''/a) of Section 1, Township 17 North, Range 3 East, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the North line of said Northeast Quarter Section, distance East 33 feet of the Northwest comer thereof (the same being the East right-of-way line of the Monon Railroad); thence East in-and along said North line 157 feet; thence South 234 feet; thence West 159 feet to a point in said East right-of--way line of the Monon Railroad; thence North in and along said East right-of--way line of the Monon Railroad 234 feet to the place of beginning. The details of the Petition are on file in the Department of Community Services office, 3rd Floor of City Hall, One (1) Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana 46032, and may be examined during normal office hours. Written comments regarding the Petition may be filed with the Secretary of the Plan Commission before the hearing at the above address. Any person may offer verbal comments at the hearing or may file written comments at the hearing. The hearing may be continued to a future date from time to time as may be found necessary RESIDENTIAL, LLC Joseph . S i~iia, Att~rney f Petitioner Baker ~ D iels 600 E. 9 6`h Street, Suite 600 India ap is, Indiana 46240 (317) 9-4680 INIMAN2 742610v1 UNK N ~Jlonon Town Homes PUC~ Location Map ,z~4 Monon Trail ~ 11642 1350 p///!O/O//!~~ ~V~O+ pf Cq9 E ~~0 yF ~ ~~_;~;=a,,,; C i t o f C arm e 1 'ON Gp ~~IVII - '~~ CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Date: June 26, 2003 To: Plan Commission Members From: Jon C. Dobosiewicz Department of Community Services Re: July 1, 2003 Committee meetings -Department Reports Please find attached the Department Reports for the items contained on both the Special Studies Committee and Subdivision Committee Agendas for July ls`, A copy of the agenda for each has also been enclosed. Please note that a special meeting has been called for the full Plan Commission to begin at 7pm the night of July ls` also. The committee meetings will begin directly after that meeting. An agenda and report for that meeting is enclosed. Please note that the applicant has requested that the following item be tabled. It will be placed on the August 5"' Subdivision Committee agenda. 2. Docket No. 77-03 Z; (03050030); Hearthview Residential PUD No additional comments. L ~ u u i ~~ The Executive Committee of the Plan Commission will meet at 6:30 p.m. in the Caucus Rooms, 2"a Floor, City Hall, to discuss a proposed rules change regarding public notice requirements. Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CdIL~fEL, INDLINA 46032 317/571-2417 BAKER~DANIELS Est. 1863 600 E. 96th Street, Suite 600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 3125699600 Fax 3115694600 www.bakerdaniels com ROGER A. KILMER 317.569.4891 roge r. k i Im er@bakerd. com June 23. 2003 ~Ct ., Indiana Washington, DC. China Mr. Jon Dobosiewicz City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: X77-03 Z Hearthvie ~ / Monon Town Homes PUD Continuance Request of Subdivision Committee Meeting Dear Mr. Dobosiewicz: On behalf of our client, Hearthview Residential, LLC., we request that the above-referenced petition be continued from the July 1, 2003 meeting of the Carmel/Clay Subdivision Committee to their August 5, 2003 meeting. This continuance is requested to allow the petitioner an opportunity to meet with representatives of the adjoining neighborhood to discuss the proposed development prior to meeting with the Subdivision Committee. We understand that no further actions are required to continue the above-referenced petition. Consequently, representatives of Hearthview Residential, LLC. will not be present at the July 1, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (3 ] 7) 569-4680. Sincerely, t,< p C1z~- ~ ~ ~ 11.~r..e-~~ R,, o\\ger A. Kilmer cc: Mr. Jim Thomas -Hearthview Residential, LLC Mr. Joseph Scimia -Baker & Daniels Mr. Jack McKown -Donnybrook HOA INIMAN2 752243v1 ~. Babbitt, Pamela A From: Scimia, Joseph M. (Joseph.Scimia@bakerd.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:35 AM To: Babbitt, Pamela A Cc: Thomas, Jr., James E. ; JDobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: RE: agenda ~~"~- -~ (Pamir We will be requesting thast this item be continued to the August meeting of the Subdivision Committee to allow the petitioner and remonstrators to meet. Joe Joseph M. Scimia Baker & Daniels 600 E. 96th Street Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 569-4680 tel. (317) 569-4800 fax joseph.scimia~bakerd.com -----Original Message----- From: Babbitt, Pamela A [mailto:PBabbittC~ci.carmel.in.us7 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:12 PM To: Scimia, Joseph M. Subject: agenda Here is the July 1, agenda «SUB-2003-0701.rtf » ~'~ , D~w ~1U^1V~'r~e v) ~1V ~~ -------------------------------------------- ATTENTZON: This message and all attachments are PRIVATE, and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message immediately. 1 ( Babbitt, Pamela A From: Dobosiewicz, Jon C Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:40 AM To: 'Scimia, Joseph M.'; Babbitt, Pamela A Cc: Thomas, Jr., James E. Subject: RE: agenda (Joe ,_-0 The Department will send out a memo to the Committee members with the Department Report noting the Hearthview item as tabled to the August 5th meeting. Their is not need to attend the meeting to make this request. If you have any other questions please give me a call at 571-2417. Thanks Jon Dobosiewicz -----Original Message----- From: Scimia, Joseph M. [mailto:Joseph.Scimia@bakerd.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:35 AM To: Babbitt, Pamela A Cc: Thomas, Jr., James E. JDObosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: RE: agenda (Pamir ~2~0 ~~ We will be requesting thast this item be continued to the August meeting of the Subdivision Committee to allow the petitioner and remonstrators to meet. Joe Joseph M. Scimia Baker & Daniels 600 E. 96th Street Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 569-4680 tel. (317) 569-4800 fax joseph.scimia@bakerd.com -----Original Message----- From: Babbitt, Pamela A [mailto:PBabbitt@ci.carmel.in.us] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:12 PM To: Scimia, Joseph M. Subject: agenda Here is the July 1, agenda «SUB-2003-0701.rtf» -------------------------------------------- ATTENTION: This message and all attachments are PRIVATE, information that is CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED. If you received this message in error, please notify the e-mail and delete the message immediately. and may contain sender by reply 1 ~~.~fa ~' i~~' ~''~ ~_ ~~ RF ~ G5 To: Secretary of Plan Commission !~ ~Uy ~ i~F~ - From: William A. Frey V .': President Donnybrook Homeowners Association Re: Docket #77-03 (Rezoning) ~a2~~zL2r.J ~~~!~~~~CID Date: June 6, 2003 This is to advise you and the Plan Commission members that the Board of Directors of our Neighborhood Association have voted unanimously to oppose the rezoning and possible development proposed under the above captioned subject. We would like to express our concerns at the June 17, 2003 public meeting. Our 5-6 speakers will express their personal concerns as well as that of the 30 households in our association. Our subjects will be property values, traffic, single family vs. multi-family housing, security issues, quality of life, and the density issues. For the record, we are opposed to any development for the subject plat as welt as the one contiguous to it on the east side that does not conform to our area, and that of Rosemeade subdivision and Fair Green subdivisions. As an example, only single family, detached housing, minimum square footage of 2,500 square feet, 60 percent brick construction, and a density of not more than three units per acre, and sale prices of $250,000 - $500,000. Any other types of developr ent will be strongly opposed. We appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns to the commission. We hope you will favorably consider our opinions and desires, and ask that you deny the proposed rezoning request. i lam r sident Donnybrook Homeo ers Association PETITION Whereas, the residents of Donnybrook Woods Subdivision, and other interested parties wish to state their opposition to the proposed rezoning and subsequent possible development set forth in Docket ~~#77~63resented by Hearthview Residential, LLC, for the property commonly known as 9279 East 998th Street, Carmel, Indiana. It is hoped this signed petition will become a part of the permanent record of all Zoning Committees, and the City Council if necessary. The following individuals have affixed their signatures, addresses and dates: Signature Address Date ~- -~ _' 7 ~i~w z~-~~~~ 1 ~ ~'~r_~ ! ~ ~ ~~ iL~C v- / ~~,~ ~e~ Signature Address ~ s a8 ~S a~ ~ a S/a~ ~~~s o~ ~~ ,~~~ ~ Date 3 ~ ~ ~3 Z~ D> Address ~j Date I ~~t~o '~ '~ ~e~t.- G< < ~'~~ Q~ ~~ ~ 6~-~~s~r ~~ -~`~~ a t5 TUB - -- ~ ~' f L f /- _~7~~ ~ ~.:~ G -- -~ ~~ ~s ~~~ ~ ~-~ a f~ s ~~ ~ ` ~~ ~~ ., Date as" ~ z r ~3 c~/~.r~~ ~.~. _- /~~c~ ~r~(s-~-a~ ~, -mss---~~; Co ~`~ ~ ~ ,~ as~o~ ~ ~,~. ~©~ ~~~~ Signature Address ERO N. AND SEDIMENT CONTR PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW AND COMMENT Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District 1108 South 9th Street, Noblesville-IN 46060 Ph- 317-773-1432 or Email at john-south@iaswcd.org PROJECT NAME: Monon Townhomes SUBMITTED BY: : earthvtew ~EStd~tt~~7 Mr. Greg Rasmussen ~~~-~_, 6930 Atnum ' oa dwalk South, 5-100 Ter Horst, Lawson & Fisk Indianapolis, IN 46250 8675 Purdue Road 317-849-6900 Indianapolis, IN 46268 REVIEWED BY: John B. South P.E. Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control PLAN REVIEW DATE: May 21, 2003 Acreage: 16 ac- LOCATION: South side of 116`" on the east side of the Monon Trailway LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sec. 1 TOWNSHIP: l7N RANGE: 3E CIVIL TOWNSHIP: Clay SOIL SURVEY MAP SHEET: 56 The technical review and comments are intended to evaluate the completeness of the erosion and sediment control plan for the The erosion and sediment control plan submitted was not reviewed for the adequacy of the engineering design. Al[ included in the plan, as well as those recommended in the comments should be evaluated as to their feasibility by a qual~ed individual with structural practices designed by a qua[ifred engineer. The plan has not been reviewed for local, state, or federal permits that may be required to proceed with this project. Additional information, including design calculations may be requested to further evaluate the erosion and sediment control plan. The erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan: Satisfies the minimum requirements and intent of 3271AC 15-5 (Rule 5). Notification will be forwarded to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Refer to the comments section for additional information. X Does not satisfy the minimum requirements and intent of 327IAC 15-5 (Rule 5); deficiencies are noted in the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted: Proper implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan and inspections afthe construction site by the developer or a representative are necessary to minimize off-site sedimentation. The developer should be aware that unforeseen construction activities and weather conditions might affect the performance of a practice or the erasion and sediment control plan. The plan must be a flexible document, with provisions to mod or substitute practices as necessary. Revised 4 / 97 .PROJECT: Monon Townhome~ Page 2 of 3 Yes No X x X x x • ARE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ON THE PLANS ? (Al[ Plans Must Include Appropriate Legends, Scales, and North Arrow) (/lems that are Not Applicable to this Project are designated by NA) PROJECT INFORMATION lA Project LOCation Map (Show project in relation to other areas of the county) 1 B Narrative Describing the Nature and Purpose of the Project 1C Location of Planned and/or Existing Roads, Utilities, Structures, Highways, etc. lD Lot and/or Building Locations 1 E Landuse of Adjacent Areas (Show the Entire Upstream Watershed and Adjacent flreas lYithnr 500 Feet of the Propert)~ Lines) Yes No X x X X X X X X X Yes No x x Yes No x x X X x x X X X x X TOPOGRAPHIC, DRAINAGE, AND GENERAL SITE FEATURES 2A Existing Vegetation (/dentify and Delineate ) 2B Location and Name of All Wetlands, Lakes and Water Courses On and Adjacent to the Site 2C t00 Year Floodplains, Floodway Fringes, and Floodways (More tfNone) 2D SOi1S Information (Ifhydric soils are present, it is the responsibility ojthe owner/developer to investigate the existence ojwe[[ands and to obtain permits from the appropriate government agencies.) 2E Existing and Planned Contours at an Interval Appropriate to Indicate Drainage Patterns 2F Locations of Specific Points Where Stormwater Discharge Will Leave the Site 2G Identify All Receiving Wafers (IjDischarge as to a Separate Municipal Storm Sewer, [den[ify the Name aj[he Municipal Operator and the Ultimate Receiving Water) 2H Potential Areas Where Storm water May Enter Groundwater (Note if None) 21 Location of Stormwater System (Include Culverts, Storm Sewers, Channels, and Swoles) LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 3A Location and Approximate Dimensions of All Disturbed Areas [i. e., Construction Limitsj (Areas Where Vegetative Cover Will Be Preserved Should be Clearly Designated) 3B Soil Stockpiles and or Borrow Areas (Show [,ocations or Note ijNone) EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES 4A Sequence of When Each Measure Will Be Implemented (Relative to Earth Disturbing flctivities) 4B Monitoring and Maintenance Guidelines for Each Measure 4C Perimeter Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) 4D Temporary Seeding (Specifications; Including Seed Mix, Fertilizer, Lime, and Mulch Rates) 4E Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) 4F Permanent Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) 4G Storm Drain lulet Protection (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) 4H Stormwater Outlet Protection (Location, Construction Detail, Drinens~ons, and Speedcations) 4I Stable Construction Entrance (Location, Construction Detail, Dimensions, and Specifications) 4J Erosion and Sediment Control on Individual Building Lots (Specifications) 4K Permanent Seeding (Specifications; /ncluding Seed Mix, Fertilizer, Lime, and Mulch Rates) Revised 4 / 97 ER~ON AND SEDIMENT CONTR~ PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT: Monon Townhomes Page 3 of 3 Note: All erosion and sediment control measures shown on the plans and referenced in this review must meet the design criteria, standards, and specificatimrs outlined in [he "/ndiana Handhook for Erosion Control in Developing Areas "from the !ndiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil Conservation or similar Guidance Documents. 3A. Show construction limits on the plan. 3B. Soil stockpile area is not addressed in the plan as required by Rule 5. It appears from the information provided that the contractor will probably stockpile topsoil somewhere until it can be spread on front and rear yards. A suggestion for stockpile information is determine where stockpiling would be not be desired from an erosion and- sediment control aspect and describe or define undesirable locations. 4A. The sequence needs to provide additional information and direction. Add info about the sediment traps and basins and temporary seeding after rough grading is completed. 4C. The existing watersheds far exceed the design capacity of silt fence. Before the topsoil is stripped or major demolition started, perimeter measures need to be installed. Silt basins or traps are recommended for the west side and northeast corner. Show traps on the plan and provide construction information- elevations and dimensions. Note: IDEM will be notified when the plan is approved. Cc: Carmel DOCS Ha. Co. Surveyor File Babbitt, Pamela A From: Andy Kern [Andy.Kern@ctrwd.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:25 PM To: rfarrand@ccs.k12.in.us; AKeeling@ci.carmel.in.us; CTingley@ci.carmel.in.us; DHill@ci.carmel.in.us; DPattyn@ci.carmel.in.us; Ghoyt@ci.carmel.in.us; GStahl@ci.carmel.in.us; JBlanchard@ci.carmel.in.us; JDobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us; JKendall@ci.carmel.in.us; JPFoster@ci.carmel.in.us; LLillig@ci.carmel.in.us; MFogarty@ci.carmel.in.us; MHollibaugh@ci.carmel.in.us; MMcBride@ci.carmel.in.us; MSnyder@ci.carmel.in.us; PBabbitt@ci.carmel.in.us; PMorrissey@ci.carmel.in.us; PPace@ci.carmel.in.us; RHancock@ci.carmel.in.us; SBrewer@ci.carmel.in.us; slillard@ci.carmel.in.us; WAkers@ci.carmel.in.us; Dean.Groves@Cinergy.COM; sprater@crosenergy.com; sjb@co.hamilton.in.us; stc@co.hamilton.in.us; Jay Alley; john- south@iaswcd.org; Jeffry.farmer@timewarnercable.com; tskolak@usps.gov; C S h u p p e rd @vectre n. co m Subject: Re: Carmel Clay TAC Agenda -May 21, 2003 Hello everyone Following are CTRWD comments on the agenda items effecting our sanitary sewers or service area for the May 21, 2003 TAC meeting. Please feel free to copy and distribute this email or attach it to your meeting minutes. We have also created a new page on our website linked to the "Construction" page where we have posted all CTRWD TAC comments from 2001 and 2002 meetings held to date. We will continue to add to this page every month so please let everyone know they can view our comments online now too. Eagle Ridge Subdivision, (Revised Primary Plat) The plans received by the District need to be revised to show labeled sewer profiles and manhole, lateral and bedding details which are in accordance with District specifications. The plans also need show the most recent version of the District specifications. Revised plans need to be submitted. An IDEM permit will be required and the submittal packet should be sent to the District for review. The District will then submit the project to IDEM for permit approval. A preconstruction meeting will need to be held before the construction of the proposed sanitary sewers. Building permits should NOT be issued unless the District has issued connection permits. Coxhall Park & Garden (Development Plan) The plans received by the District need to be revised to show the water and storm infrastructure in the sewer profiles. The manhole and bedding details need to be revised in accordance with District specifications. The influent hub shown in the grinder pump station is not the same size as the pipe shown in the sanitary plan and profiles. Revised plans need to be submitted. An IDEM permit will be required and the submittal packet should be sent to the District for review. The District will then submit the project to IDEM forpermit approval. A preconstruction meeting will need to be held before the construction of the proposed sanitary sewers. Building permits should NOT be issued unless the District has issued connection permits. Hearthview Residential PUD (Rezone) The plans received by the District need to be revised to show individual laterals for every lot. The manhole and bedding details need to be revised in accordance with District specifications. The most recent version of the District specifications need to be included on the plans. Revised plans need to be submitted. An IDEM permit will be required and the submittal packet should be sent to the District for review. The District will then submit the project to IDEM for permit approval. A preconstruction meeting will need to be held before the construction of the proposed sanitary sewers. Building permits should NOT be issued unless the District has issued connection permits. College Park Baptist Church (Development Plan Amendment) The plans received by the District need to be revised to show the lateral and bedding details in accordance with District specifications-The plans also need show the most recent version of the District specifications for lateral connections. Note #2 on sheet C103 needs to be modified to state that Clay Township Regional Waste District specifications apply for all sanitary sewers. Revised plans need to be submitted. Building permits should NOT be issued unless the District has issued connection permits. Ritz Charles {Amended Development Plan) The plans received by the District need to be revised to show the lateral and bedding details in accordance with District specifications. The plans also need show the most recent version of the District specifications for lateral connections. Revised plans need to be submitted. Building permits should NOT be issued unless the District has issued connection permits. Please remind all TAC applicants to provide plans directly to the District at our main office address in care of Andy Kern at: 10701 N. College Ave., Suite A, Indianapolis, IN 46280-1098. If there are questions about the District's requirements, then please refer to our website for current information on the District's construction specification and permit standards, We are a member of the IUPPS underground locate network so call 1-800-382-5544 before you dig! Please feel free to contact Jay or me if you have questions or need additional information. Thanks! Andy Kern, Project Specialist Clay Township Regional Waste District Hamilton County, IN, USA http://www.ctrwd.org/ 317-844-9200 (phone) 317-844-9203 (fax) »> "DObosiewicz, Jon C" <JDObosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us> 05/12/03 12 :48PM »> To all, Please find attached the agenda for the May 21, 2003 Carmel TAC meeting. «TAC2003-0521.rtf » Thanks, Jon C. Dobosiewicz Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: 317.571.2417 Fax: 317.571.2426 jdobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us 2 ~lt~ ®~ C~r111~1 Fire Department Headquarters 2 CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 Voice (317) 571-2600 Fax (317) 571-2615 Fire Prevention Bureau Roger Kilmer Baker & Daniels 600 E. 96'" St. Suite 600 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE, . 9norr T;nwn'klomes:P-l'jD.l LETTER OF APPROVAL The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plans for Monon Town Homes PUD and has approved the plans subject to the following: 1. We are requesting the installation of cul-de-sac's at all stubbed streets in the project to allow our apparatus to turn around without undo backing. 2. Please find enclosed, a sheet showing turning radii for our apparatus. Our concern is with the street widths only twenty feet (20') our ladder will not be able to make the turn onto the frontage road. Using these figures, please document that we will have adequate turning radius to make turns in this project. 3. Are these structures to be bricked or siding used on the exterior of the buildings? 4. Will these buildings have a fire sprinkler system installed? 5. Since the streets in this project are private streets, we are requesting that "No Parking Signs' be distributed throughout the project in areas that would cause access difficulties, due to the width of our apparatus. Please respond to the above noted condition(s) in writing and submit to our office prior to the scheduled Technical Advisory Meeting for this project. Date: May 19 2003 By: Gary Hoyt, Fire Marshal Carmel Fire Department ~~ ~~ May 12, 2003 RECEIVED ~_ MAY 13 2003 Roger A. Kilmer DOCS Baker & Daniels 600 E. 96th Street, Suite 600 Indianapolis, IN 46240 ~"'-L_ RE: est~for Monom Town,;Womes~PUDF :.:, 12~11~ East. 6<-h~Street Dear Mr. Kilmer: I have received and reviewed the information for the above-mentioned pro}ect. At the present time; I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law enforcement efforts. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us: Respectful~> `- mothy J. Green Acting Chief of Police TJG:vb cc: Dept. of Community Services Q3ll7-571-2~m® .~ :, r'~-- ~° ;. '` t'- r r, A Nationally Accredite~~lv~~r;~iiforcement Agency mom. 1Fas Q3E7- 577L_~~Il2 MRY-08-2003 13:21 FROM:HRMILTOf~ HWY DEP 3177769814 TO:~ 571 2426 P.001~001 HAMILTUI~ C~tI~ITY HIGHWAYDEPARTMEIYT May 8, 2003 Mr. Roger A. Kilmer Baker & Daniels 600 East 96" Street, Suite 600 Indianapolis, IN 46240 V~ ~ ~~~~ ..,, \\ / MAY CFIVED 1F~ - - 8 2G RE: Monon Town Homes Rezone Request S of 116"' Street f E of Monon Trail Clay Township G3 ~- ~'~-' DOCS %"~~ `~ t.~ , :: ~~ ~i _ `~'~ ,~,~f ~ t _r-; Dear Mr. Kilmer: This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of a transmittal received SR/03 containing the plans for the above-mentioned project. After reviewing the plans the Highway pepartment has the following comments: 1. 116'" Street is under the jurisdiction of the City of Carmel, therefore, all proposed Improvements to 11 B`^ Street would need to be approved by the City. 2. N appears that the interior street for this protect will be private. if the streets are to remain private, no further review is required by the Hamilton County Highway Department. If the streets are to be dedicated and the Site is not annexed into the City, further review by the Highway Repartment will be required, If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please feel free to contact me at anytime. Sincerely, ~c,~~i~-si~~ SteverlJ. Broermann Staff Engineer cc: Jon Dobosiewicz Jenny Chapman Greg Rasmussen G: W SF.RSVSBV03tac10&0&03monontovmhomss.gOC 1700 South 101° Street Office (317j 773-7770 JVoblesville, Zn. 46060 www.eo.ham I on.ln~u_q FaX (317) 776A814 Dobosiewicz, Jon C From: Babbitt~P.~a+~ela Sent: Friday A 8 2003"3;57~PM To: Brewer, Scott I; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Lillig, Laurence M; Pattyn, Dawn E Subject: newies " ~ sdale/Adam DeHart/SP; ~Heaghview ;Reside"ntial/Jos',-epfy:Scirri ia°/RezoTn'""e 'fine"F1kvc~.-t ~3os~o 3 O