Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 03-20-02CARMEL /CLAY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES March 20, 2002 Jon Dobosiewicz Carmel DOCS John South Ham. Co. Soil Water John Duffy Carmel Utilities Dick Hill Carmel Engineering Steve Cash Ham. Co. Surveyors Steve Broermann Ham. Co. Highway Laurence Lillig DOCS Scott Brewer Carmel Urban Forester Mike McBride Carmel Engineering Jeff Farmer Time Warner Cable. Bill Akers Carmel Communication Cntr Gary Hoyt Carmel Fire Dept. Shelborne Park, Section 1 (Secondary Plat Construction Plans) The site is located on the north side of West 131 Street approximately one quarter mile east of Shelborne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential Estate. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Roger L. Kessler. Steve Staton of Stoeppelwerth Associates presented the case. Section 1 is located at 131 Street. There will be 28 lots. Roger Kessler, Logan Limited, added that the sanitary sewer would come through the Lakes of Hayden Run. Water will be from 141 Street through the Murphy property. Drainage will flow to the south through the Lakes and into the legal drain. Steve Broermann wrote a comment letter. The entrance on 131 Street must be adjusted to accommodate left turn lanes into Shelborne Park Subdivision. Roger Kessler agreed to improvements on 131 st Street. Steve Staton understands that 131 st Street will eventually be extended to 48 -foot of pavement with 12 -foot lanes. The proposed entrance provides for 12 -foot lanes. The petitioner needs to extend the pavement out. Steve Broermann responded this road project might not occur for another 20 years. Steve Staton stated the left -turn lanes increase the pavement. Jon Dobosiewicz will defer to Hamilton County. As long as the County is consistent in applying the standard, then Hamilton County can make the call. The City of Carmel will not question their judgment. If construction plans have gone forward, they must implement their standards. Steve Broermann believes this plan is safer. This is pavement marking; the County does not want curbs and gutters. Roger Kessler agreed to do so. Steve Broermann added if a future development is not proposed directly across from an entrance, then the builder must construct full accel /decel lanes. If a subdivision is developed across the street, they will modify to get the left turn lane. Additional right of way will be needed to the east to get this constructed. Jeff Farmer will make his comments in writing. Scott Brewer made some comments on the first set of plans that were submitted with the primary plat. No landscape plans were included with the secondary plat. Specific plans are needed. The most recent landscape plans show trees on the eastern and western s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar I boundaries. Mr. Brewer requires construction plans with specifications for tree types, size, and location. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated it is important to have landscaping on the construction plans to make certain there is no conflict between utilities and landscape placement. A separate sheet is acceptable now. Bill Akers spoke with Steve Staton. All names within the subdivision have been approved. No amenity building is planned. Addresses will be available in the next couple of weeks. Gary Hoyt understands that Lincolnshire Boulevard is a collector road to the property to the east. Roger Kessler stated there is an intervening parcel before Centex's property that is under contract. The primary plat application for that land will be filed on March 21 The collector road will not connect for a few months, but will within six months. Mr. Hoyt likes the turnarounds. Queenslands Way will eventually connect. The property to the west is being worked on now for a water tower. That one will be done in six to twelve months. John South wrote a letter. His comment is in regard to drainage. There is a large structure that is two feet below grade. The drain tile is two to three feet deep. Mr. South inquired how they would intercept the existing tile. He stated factors involving the site indicate there is an existing drain tile. Connection must be made at the property line. Another option is to run parallel pipe from the structure, at the road, out to the property line to change the rcp. There is considerable slope from the structure to the property line. John South stated it should be three feet deep. They can adjust the rear Swale. The erosion control plan needs more detail. Roger Kessler agreed to provide that. Jon Dobosiewicz distributed comment letters from Jay Alley and Rick McClain. Sheet 3 of the construction plans identifies an asphalt path in lieu of a sidewalk along the north and west side of the collector road. Detail is needed in the right of way for a crosswalk to accommodate the six -foot asphalt path. The County has typically provided a concrete approach and apron. The path must be a ten -foot, not a six -foot, width at 131 Street. The pathway, as it intersects to the east, should be pulled closer to the right of way. Mr. Kessler will coordinate landscape plans with their neighbor to the east for smooth transition. Jon Dobosiewicz stated it is inappropriate to duplicate efforts with both a sidewalk and a path. He wants to confirm that the south corner, where the collector intersects, is in line with the north edge of property that is to the east. On page 1 of the secondary plat, the Legend identifies a common lot address. The petitioner should avoid placing common lot addresses on the plat. Corner lots, for instance, create problems. In the top left corner of the plat, the source of title and docket numbers must be added. The normal pool, bottom, and 100 -year elevations need to be added to the two lakes in the subdivision. Monumentation needs to be pinned everywhere there is a tangent at the point where curves intersect. On sheet 2, there is no bearing on a concrete monument on the east side by lot 23. On sheet 1, common area "I" has been identified as a variable drainage, utility, and sanitary sewer easement. A 25 -foot drainage, utility, and sanitary sewer easement are also indicated. Jon Dobosiewicz suggested adding the landscaping within a linear easement or identifying the area within the common areas as a landscape s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 2 maintenance easement. Steve Broermann stated it must be identified as a drainage /utility easement. The easement could continue along the right of way. This will avoid conflicts between landscape and easements. The 40 -foot building line does not need to be identified along 131S Street. Mr. Dobosiewicz requested the two -foot non access easement be extended around Common Area 1 up to Lot 1 and Common Area 2 up to the intersection of Beckwith Drive. The Department does not want access any closer to the intersection. Department certification is needed only on the last page with signatures. On sheet 4, remove the City signature block and add the County Commissioners' signature. Also, they must add Mike Hollibaugh. Also required is an engineer's estimate pursuant to the commitment that was made for roadway improvement. That is the difference between minimal level, which is typical of the County Highway Department, and production of two 12 -foot lanes. Jon Dobosiewicz stated his first concern is that access to these developments is adequate. The second concern is whether the City can make use of any other contributions for offsite improvements. Carmel suggests acquiring additional right of way along the frontage with those dollars to obtain the three -foot shoulder and the pathway to get connection from the west to east boundary of the Lakes of Hayden Run. The goal is continuity. Roger Kessler inquired about the letter written by Jay Alley. Mr. Dobosiewicz suggested he call Jay Alley. John Duffy sent a comment letter on March 13 He gave the petitioner a copy and suggested a separate meeting. Steve Cash will write a letter tomorrow. A petition for regulated drain is needed. He will address procedural items. The revised Brendal Study for the watershed sets the allowable discharge at 0.24 cfs. Jon Dobosiewicz said it is the City's preference to spend funds now rather than to establish an escrow fund. Perhaps the petitioner can offer water and sewer hook up with additional landscaping to the property owner to the east. The City could then credit what would be reasonable for right of way. If they can handle this efficiently, the City will not penalize. Roger Kessler will work with the owner. The poles are on the south side; there are no poles to move. Laurence Lillig understands there are no buildings within the amenity area. Board of Zoning Appeals approval may be needed in the future if improvements are made. A trellis will not require BZA approval. However, Mr. Lillig should see the design. Because the subdivision is utilizing reduced front yard set backs, it is subject to Section 26.2.7. There will not be entrance signage. If signs are placed on collector road easements, they will need encroachment approval from the County. The signs were part of the primary plat with the landscape plan. These small signs will be similar to those of the Lakes of Hazel Dell. A brick wall with wrought iron is proposed. The petitioner may call Mr. Dobosiewicz with questions. The subdivision may go to 40 -foot setback and not deal with Section 26.2.7 of the Ordinance. s: TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee\Minute s \tac2002mar Lakes at Hayden Run, sec 1 (Secondary plat construction plan) Rodney Muller, Centex Homes, explained the Secondary Plat. Section 1, will be comprised of 66 lots and is located just west of Towne Road and north of 131 Street. The lots are on approximately 44 acres. Steve Cash will mail a letter tomorrow morning. Their calcs should reflect the Brendal Drain study. He believes the numbers conform to it but must tie together for future reference. It has been adjusted from 0.3 to 0.24 cfs. All of the procedural items are needed. An outlet request is not required. However, a petition, a non enforcement, an engineers' estimate, and letters of credit/bond are required. Mr. Cash's letter will outline the other technical items. John South wrote a letter. He wants to see the lots in Section I indicated. A note should be included in the plans regarding the proper capping of the well. A septic field will be removed. There is an existing drain tile that crosses the property at the southwest corner in the common area. Mr. South suggests replacing it but does not know how far it goes into the property. He will work with Rodney Muller and the adjoining property owner on the west side. Perimeter sediment controls are needed. One of the paragraphs regarding erosion control maintenance is redundant. The two paragraphs about C350 do not seem necessary. Steve Broermann has not finished his review but will do by Friday. The petitioner has not had any contact with the property owner on the south side about right of way. Mr. Muller will do so. Steve Broermann wants a passing blister on the south side. Jeff Farmer suggested going ahead with the crossings. He will get in touch with the petitioner. Scott Brewer's set of plans does not have a landscape plan included. He needs a set. Roger Muller stated there are not many changes. He will get plans to Mr. Brewer. Bill Akers has the street names for the subdivision. He needs a revised sheet with all the names. Addresses will be assigned by next week. Gary Hoyt requested a Knox box. It should be noted on the plans. The petitioner may choose between recessed and surface mount. Rodney Muller stated the sections are phased in one section per year. Gary Hoyt requested an emergency turn- around at Lorenzo Boulevard. On Street B, a temporary "turn around" for the fire trucks is needed also. Jon Dobosiewicz said street names are needed. A source of title and key map should be added on page 1. On page 3, the non access easements should turn into the first intersection. "West" should be added to 131 Street on all pages. It is important to illustrate that there will not be conflicts between utilities and landscaping. He suggested s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 4 the petitioner identify linear landscape so there is no problem in the future. On construction plans, the minimum specification for sidewalks is five feet. Ten -foot wide asphalt is correct on the plans. Page 3 must identify a detail for the ramp and intersection of the pathway with existing streets. Between lots 31 and 32, there is a path that would intersect with the sidewalk. A concrete approach is needed to the ten -foot path. The weir that is located at the southwest corner discharges into the right of way. It is only an emergency over flow. It can be changed to 100 year. The pond is supposed to detain to 100 year. A weir can be used as a control structure. The pipe will pick up the majority. But, if the water rises high enough, they will utilize what is there. The petitioner must confirm the actual design. Mr. Dobosiewicz wants to make certain no sediment is left on the sidewalks. He suggested they speak with the developer of Shelborne Park. An estimate must be provided of the difference between improvements. Carmel has not determined the maintenance of the fund. If the secondary plat is recorded prior to this determination, the petitioner must provide a paragraph to commemorate understanding that they will be delivered at or prior to the recording of the secondary plat. On page 3, a detail of stripped cross walk connecting with the asphalt path in Hayden Run is needed. Laurence Lillig stated an amenity area in common area 3 is labeled, in its entirety, as a drainage utility and sanitary sewer easement. These easements must be identified specifically. The amenity area cannot be built within an easement. The amenity area will require a special use approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The use of a 35 -foot reduced set back at the building line will make the subdivision subject to Section 26.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with architectural offsets in the residence. A copy of the section is available. Proposed signs are on the landscape plans. They will be located at located at 131 Street and street A on the east side. The petitioner will need to contact the County for Consent to locate the signs within the easements. Sign permits will be needed. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated a sign maintenance easement would be required. Jon Dobosiewicz suggested extending the non access easement to Street C. Then lot 44 will not access off Street A. The minimum County street width is 28 feet (back to curb back to curb). There is a 30 -foot requirement in the City limits. Jon Dobosiewicz will check the Ordinance. Mr. Muller believes there can be 28 -foot internal streets, but not collectors. Dick Hill prefers 30 feet. The City will ask for voluntary annexation. Laurence Lillig referenced Chapter 6. Jon Dobosiewicz wants to make the transition as simple as possible for the petitioner. The property is not contiguous, but will draw from WestClay. Carmax Auto Superstores (Construction plans) The applicant seeks approval to construct an auto sales facility. The site is located at the northwest corner of East 96 Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned B -3 /Business. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for Carmax. Attorney Dave Coots presented the case. He introduced Tony Curp, Carmax, Chip Scaclione, IDI of Atlanta, Doug Corey, Mid States Engineering, and Chuck Patterson, POH Architects. The project is located northeast of 96 Street and Gray Road. Carmax s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 5 is an auto wholesale /retail establishment. It is similar to the businesses along 96 Street. Mr. Coots is interested in working with TAC to get engineering questions resolved as quickly as possible as the matter is on the April 22' BZA agenda for special use approval. Carmax will reappear at the April 17 TAC meeting. There are some signage issues that do no involve TAC. Dick Hill and Mike McBride sent a letter with their revisions noted in bold text. A legal description and usage figures to calculate fees are needed. Indianapolis Water and Carmel Sanitary Sewer will serve the site. The outlot legal description can be provided too. Laurence Lillig stated the Department has received two different sets of plans; both dated February 28, 2002, with two different configurations. Doug Corey indicated the correct set has the detention facility near the center of the site. A new set of plans was given to Mr. Lillig. Dick Hill stated City annexation goes to the center of Gray Road. The County has jurisdiction of the right of way. Jon Dobosiewicz believes the parcel will still be within the County's jurisdiction at the time of permitting. Steve Broermann suggested the inter -local agreement similar to what was done with the North Haven project. The Board of Public Works would accept dedication. Dick Hill will defer to Laurence Lillig and Jon Dobosiewicz for road improvements on Gray Road. Dave Coots stated it is easier designing to City or County standards but not both. Mr. Coots asked if the City would agree to incorporate Gray Road in its entirety. Mr. Lillig stated if this is acceptable with the County and City, then an agreement could be drafted. Dick Hill said the "inter- local" would work well. Dave Coots will see this is done. Mr. Hill requested a written response to their engineering comments. He also asked for a detail of the entrance on a separate sheet. Asphalt paths must not be constructed in the right of way on both roads. Doug Corey is working to align the entrance with the development across the road. Jon Dobosiewicz requested the petitioner show the entirety of improvements on their plans. It will be months or years away for the other development. The petitioner must decide if this will be a single ownership or if the petitioner will plat. Detail drawings of 96 Street improvement are needed. Jon Dobosiewicz suggested a separate set of construction drawings. FDQ stands for the "final quality control" department. Before cars are parked on the lot, they are cleaned and photographed in this department. The plans show no detail of the sanitary sewer or water. The site to the west provides a manhole for the connect. Water is on Gray Road. That will be indicated. The petitioner should contact John Duffy for comments on the sanitary sewer. There is not enough easement on the site plan. There are no utility or drainage easements. Doug Corey will include those on the final plan. There will initially be wet detention. Under ground storage is anticipated in the future. The drainage calcs will be revised. Approximately 14 acres come down to the corner; a pipe will run to Carmel Creek. Doug Corey stated the other site blocked off their natural drainage. They want to get into the right of way near the asphalt path. Mike McBride stated there is not a lot of room behind the right of way. The path is irregular; it is not a typical setback. Jon Dobosiewicz stated the City did not require the platting of an easement outside of the right of way. He wants five feet of easement from the current owner. Dick Hill suggested another meeting to deal with drainage issues. A wet detention area must be must be lined. Carmel Utility Department determines the specifications for wet detention. s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 6 Laurence Lillig stated the previous plan showed an 85 -foot half right of way that the County requires and a 70 -foot half right of way at the Gray Road intersection. There is no radius or chamfer. Mike McBride thinks it would be desirable to have a widened right of way. He will speak with Kate Weese. The Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in October. A 50 -foot chamfer is requested. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated turn lanes and 10 -foot asphalt do not provide the required separation between the pavement and asphalt paths. The transformer and signal pole will not fit. Dave Coots will investigate how much space is actually needed. Steve Cash inquired about the annexation timetable. Jon Dobosiewicz said the site is annexed. The property across the street, Martin Marietta, is not annexed. Doug Corey stated there is no culvert at the low spot at 96 Street. The water stands there. John South's letter states he needs updated and completed plans. Their erosion control plan should be easy. The outlots need to be stabilized or seeded. The petitioner proposes to fill in the low areas. Doug Corey stated they would install a paved, side ditch up to Gray Road, pick up the north, and turn it around. They will pick up some of the sheet flow from the west and add a small structure. The next set of plans will incorporate this. The side ditch will be two feet with a three -foot wide section. Steve Broermann stated the County would not permit a concrete side ditch in the right of way if the site remains with the County. Mr. Corey stated the drainage would be piped to Gray Road. Presently, the water just sits in the area. There is no place for it to go. John South suggested minimizing the amount and putting the water back into the ground. Jon Dobosiewicz said more discussion is needed. Mr. Dobosiewicz believes a concrete swale does not work well with the asphalt path and improvements required with platting at the entrances. Laurence Lillig stated Gray Road is 120 feet wide, planned for four lanes, and a 10- asphalt path. Jon Dobosiewicz must have a detailed plan. Scott Brewer wrote two letters. The majority of his comments regard the size of features to be plotted, the greenbelt, and selection of plants. Jon South's comments to increase ground water retention would be helpful. Dave Coots questioned why they are required to line detention ponds while seeking to get more water into the ground. Mr. South responded that the source of the storm water needs to be considered. If the water is oily from the streets or parking lot, then it should be kept out of the ground. But, clean water from landscaping should be infiltrated back into the soil. Along Gray Road there is a 15- foot landscape stripe on the plans, but no 30 -foot greenbelt is plotted. A minimum 30- foot greenbelt is required because the other side of Gray Road and to the north is zoned S 1. Zoning information must be provided on the south. Mr. Corey understands on the southeast corner, the 30 -foot greenbelt would be back from the 50 -foot chamfer. It must be outside of the right of way. On the outlots it does not make that much difference, but it does for the north side. Tony Kirk asked if there is any provision for variances from that because the greenbelt and right of way requires three or four acres of expensive land. s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 7 Laurence Lillig responded that they could make application but he does not believe the Department of Community Services would support it. The 30 -foot greenbelt is a good way to buffer the considerable amount of asphalt. Carmel might support some sort of reduction if the landscaping serves that purpose. It would have to be substantial. He suggested coordinating with Scott Brewer. Mr. Lillig could not predict how surrounding property might be rezoned. The petitioner must deal with the present zoning. Mr. Brewer added that putting irrigation under the pavement will give the soil volume and the trees will grow better. He will be happy to speak with their landscape architect. The use of structural soils is suggested. Gary Hoyt believes the Sales and Service buildings are connected by a breezeway with sectional doors at either end. They can be connected. Just one Knox box is needed. Both buildings will be sprinkled. Mr. Hoyt would like to discuss the location of the one hook up. There are no basements; the buildings are single story. Mr. Hoyt also requested connection caps and a couple of extra fire hydrants. He suggested the entrance on 96 Street just west of Gray Road and another one in the parking island. The Fire Department can discuss locations with them. Jon Dobosiewicz wants to determine if the petitioner plans to plat the real estate and what that time line would be. The Department of Community Services does not want the petitioner to go through one set of review standards for a single business now and then a different set of standards for improvements on Gray Road a short time later. Different comments would be provided based upon their decision. The level of improvements along perimeter streets will be more significant with a plat. If they intend to split off outlots in the future, Mr. Dobosiewicz highly suggests the petitioner bring in a plat identifying the number of lots. The lot lines can be adjusted at the time of secondary plat. Tony Kirk asked if the platting process could be started and stay on the same time line. Jon Dobosiewicz is not working with any understanding because he has not been advised of their intention to plat. He said there has been discussion of the distinctions between platting and not platting since last fall. However, they can run concurrently. He would expect the petitioner, through the platting procedure, to create an urban cross section along the frontage of the site with Gray Road. It would consist, at maximum, of two 12- foot lanes with curb and gutter. Inlets would be drawn from the right of way and directed thru pipes. A swale would not be used. There is no good success for open drainage in situations where there is a lot of relief. Jon Dobosiewicz asked the petitioner to decide. The area described as "future paved" would require a variance if constructed with gravel. The Ordinance calls for pavement. Tony Kirk asked if they could plant grass and add pavement in the future. Mr. Dobosiewicz needs a letter stating the area will not become aggregate when the City finds it is being used for parking. Mr. Kirk stated the area would be grass surrounded by a wall. Lighting levels on the site are significant. The Ordinance permits 0.3 foot candles at the property line adjacent to business zoning and 0.1 at residential. Their packet for distribution has significant signage. The Department of Community Services cannot support a 30 -foot pylon sign. Mr. Kirk will discuss signage to gain the Department of Community Service's support. s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 8 Laurence Lillig understands that Dave Coots is the Department's primary contact. Architectural elevations of the building are needed. He suggests rethinking signage and scheduling a separate meeting to discuss this. Dave Coots agreed. A list of adjoiners is needed. Mr. Coots just received a list from the auditors this week. Mr. Lillig stated this is the first time he has seen the new plan for special use approval. Laurence Lillig will write a second comment letter. The biggest changes are the pond location, the increase in the building size, and the parking configuration. Discussion followed regarding outlot access. Mr. Kirk thinks they will access internally. Dick Hill cannot support cuts on 96 Street or Gray Road. The internal drive must be the access point. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated the City is trying to correct old problems and will not support more cuts. Tony Kirk stated they might go underground with detention. Doug Corey has a preliminary traffic study. Mr. Lillig needs a copy of the draft. Steve Fehribach did two studies. They have not been finalized. However, Engineering will look at those numbers while waiting for the final traffic study. Laurence Lillig's original letter referenced the raised median on 96 Street. The median will be raised out to the intersection. Dick Hill will require an accel /decel on 96 Street and Gray Road. Mr. Lillig strongly recommends platting. The utility easement would be well served by a plat. There is a waste district main under 96 Street. Ten -foot asphalt paths must be installed on Gray Road and 96 Street. He believes the 96 Street Auto Park's 10 -foot asphalt path has been installed and stubs out to this property. The path will have to be just within the right of way. Cut sheets for the luminaries are needed and flat lenses are strongly recommended. The light levels at the property lines are above acceptable limits. The zoning on the south side of 96 Street must be indicated. The light level at the property line is limited to 0.1 for residential and 0.3 for commercial. The Department of Community Services typically recommends that the pole heights not exceed the height of the building. Height is determined as the higher of the flat roof or the mid point of the gable section. Signage will be discussed later. The guardrail is a security feature. The ornamental fence is on the public side of the guardrail. An elevation of the masonry wall, as viewed from the public side, is needed. The dumpster located at the northeast corner of the service building appears exposed. An elevation is needed. Jon Dobosiewicz requested a copy of the traffic study. He understands the petitioner's request for access on 96 Street includes a raised median between Gray Road and the entrance to Palmer Dodge. This will not be a striped but a raised median, preventing traffic cross over. Doug Corey stated the raised median would end just before Palmer Dodge. It is possible to turn into Palmer Dodge. Jon Dobosiewicz wants it to extend to the end of the taper that creates the dedicated turn lane into Palmer Dodge. Laurence Lillig needs amended plans and materials, reflecting TAC comments, as soon as possible to keep this matter on the April 22' hearing track. The publication deadline date is March 28 Mr. Coots requested a docket number. Mr. Lillig needs to see the signage plan and plans for the landscape buffer on the east if a variance is needed. An application must be completed also. A meeting should be scheduled with Scott Brewer. The width of the easement versus 30 feet should be determined. Even if the property across the way is rezoned to Business -8, there is a minimum of 15 to 30 feet. That ruling will need to be made quickly. s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 9 Towne Meadow Elementary (Site Improvements) The applicant seeks approval to construct additions to existing parking areas. The site is located at 10640 Towne Road. The site is zoned S- 1 /Resdential Very Low density. Filed by Fanning /Howey Associates, Inc. for Carmel /Clay Schools. Prairie Trace Elementary (Site Improvements) The applicant seeks approval to construct additions to existing parking areas. The site is located at 14200 North River Road. The site is zoned S- 1/Residential Low Density. Filed by Fanning /Howey Associates, Inc. for Carmel /Clay Schools. Jeff Bolinger stated both schools are identical in layout. More space is needed at Towne Meadows. Additional parking is also required. The school has created a staging area, in crushed stone, to provide a place for equipment and materials. Later it will become a permanent parking area. The petitioner is proceeding with construction. Prairie Trace is almost identical. As part of the first phase project, the petitioner is also addressing sidewalk expansion and demolition of some of the curbing in preparation for expansion of the parking lot. Some of the landscaping needed to be moved. Landscaping was added at Towne Meadow. At a prior meeting, the schools were asked to install additional landscaping at both locations. Additional parking is planned for teachers and staff. Planting islands have been created. Buffer planting, as a screen through the parking lot, will be added. Prairie Trace was asked to provide more screening because there is a drive into a neighborhood. It will be similar to other plantings at the front of building. Access will be provided for walking students. The access will tie into the boulevard without cutting through the parking lot. All the islands will be curbed as well as the parking lot. Dick Hill stated Towne Meadow School is outside of their jurisdiction. Prairie Trace will receive comments. The additions have been approved. There are no easements involved in the parking areas. The curb inlets have changed to flat castings. Calcs have been done on drainage. There is no impact; storage is sufficient. The light poles will remain where they are. The petitioner tried to keep them close to the islands. Dick Hill requested a key map. The entry drive for the educational service building will be redone. The parking lot will be re- topped. Jon Dobosiewicz suggested, since the asphalt will be torn up, that the school align with Cherry Tree Avenue and the entrance into Davis Subdivision instead of the fire station. Dick Hill will ask for a path or sidewalk in front. There is no dedicated left turn lane. Jeff Bolinger stated they are just going to the same limits that exist. Dick Hill stated the accel /decel lane should be striped. The school system will submit an amendment for their special use for building expansions on Carmel Junior High. That will be separate. The path is not a requirement for this project. Laurence Lillig suggested installing the asphalt path at this time. Jeff Bolinger responded that a sidewalk is planned. It will connect to the transportation area and to the ball field. It would be more economic to do now. s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 10 Steve Cash needs another set of calculations for both schools. He did not see them with the plans. An outlet permit is needed for Towne Meadow Elementary, however the fee is waived. The permit form can be downloaded off the County web site. Springmill Run is the drain. The creek is located just off the detention area. Mr. Cash had no design comments. The erosion control plan must be in place. Prairie Trace School is similar in design, but does not require a permit. It is not part of the regulated drain. John South recommended the inlet on the west side of Prairie Trace be protected prior to construction to stop sedimentation. Jeff Bolinger stated filter fabric protection should be in place now. Steve Broermann stated the Towne Meadow School does not affect anything in the right of way. Prairie Trace is outside of the Hamilton County jurisdiction. Scott Brewer received the construction plans and spoke with Jim Blanchard of the Building Permits Department. He had not gotten landscape plans. Jeff Bolinger will provide another set. The site plan arrived, but not the landscape plan. Mr. Bolinger stated it is included on the site plan. They tried to incorporate what was used in the planting islands for continuity. Scott Brewer found the plans. He will make comments if any are needed. Gary Hoyt had no comments. Bill Akers sent word that the correct address for Towne Meadow School is 10850 Towne Road. Jon Dobosiewicz asked the petitioner to articulate the turn around for Towne Meadow School. He suggested extending the landscape. Jeff Bolinger explained their attempt to maximize the spaces. There is a new island that forms the driveway into the new area. The placement of the nearby lighting makes parking difficult. Mr. Bolinger will change it. 13719 Smokey Ridge (Developmental Standards Variance) Tim Colon, Pools of Fun, applied for a developmental standards variance to allow construction of a pool that encroaches into a drainage and utility easement. He distributed a site plan. Mr. Colon applied the new drawing to what TAC members have. He said Kate Weese evaluated the site to see if it would be acceptable and saw no problem. Dick Hill wrote a letter when the variance first came to TAC. He stated this plan does not agree with the plan Inspector Bob Allen reviewed. Mr. Allen came to an understanding with a Pools of Fun representative regarding the location of the pool. The dimensions on the plan are different. Mr. Colon reviewed his documents. Dick Hill stated these documents should include a drawing with hand written dimensions. Tim Colon will put that information on the new drawing. The petitioner will need a consent s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 11 to encroach with the City. It will include the pool and driveway of the side load garage. Engineering needs an accurate drawing showing the agreed to dimensions. Laurence Lillig understood the dimensions were: 76 feet from the east, 27 feet from the north, and 26 feet from the west. The drawings Mr. Colon brought today shows dimensions as: 25 feet from the west, 70 from the east, and 14 feet from the north. The 14 feet present a problem and would require a variance for rear yard setback. Mr. Lillig suggested the application be completed quickly to remain on track for the April meeting. Dick Hill would like to schedule another meeting with their inspector. Steve Cash, John South, Scott Brewer, and Gary Hoyt had no other comments. 12411 Towne Road (Pond) The applicant seeks approval to expand an existing pond. The site is located at 12411 Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential Estate. Filed by Shelley L. Stout. Mike Stout presented the case. He introduced his wife, Shelley, and Tom Spiker who will excavate the pond. They are building on a property at Towne Road. The parcel is low compared to surrounding sites. The existing, small pond is silted in with old drain tiles running to it. The petitioners want to enlarge the pond and, as a result, better handle drainage from the surrounding properties. Steve Cash has no objections to their project but has a couple of recommendations. The Stout parcel receives a lot of run off from the property to the west. Mr. Cash suggested doing something with that area, as it will probably be very wet most of the time. There is a drain tile that goes up the southern boundary and to the pond. Replacing the file and installing a catch basin can improve that area along the property line. Or, the land could be swaled a little better. Currently, there is a tile at the bottom part of the site. The petitioner does not plan to fill in the low area; an open channel will be utilized. Steve Cash suggested installing a new pipe to the property line with a catch basin. The surface flow will go to the catch basin. Or, it can be improved by cutting a v -line swale to that point. It is good that nothing is being blocked from the north. The depth of the pond will be 8.5 feet. Typically, the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office recommends a safety ledge for ponds. Steve Cash can provide the details for construction. Mr. Spiker plans a 3 to 1 slope. Mr. Cash suggested a 5 -to -1 slope. A catch basin would help gather the collection of no -till debris from farm fields and prevent it from going to the ditch. Mr. Stout is considering laterals to the pond. Steve Cash recommends tying any field tile into the new pipe. John South stated an erosion control plan is needed only if more than five acres are disturbed. The pond needs seeding and bank specifications on the plan. He suggested some type of rigid pipe to discharge the tiles into the pond. A steel CMP with animal guard should be placed on the end of the existing drain tiles. Mr. South recommended a rock check dam within the channel. It would be a temporary facility made out of riprap s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 12 to serve as a sediment barrier. It will help catch some of the sediment flow while the pond is being dug. Mrs. Stout inquired about bank seeding and stabilization. John South suggested tall fescue though it is not wildlife friendly. It is not good around horses. A blue grass /rye grass mix is an excellent material. Steve Broermann had no comments. No permits are required. Scott Brewer did not receive plans. However, he has no direct requirements. If the Stouts wish to landscape their pond with trees and plants, Mr. Brewer can advise them. Geese can be a problem. Seeding with native pond vegetation instead of short grass can discourage them. Gary Hoyt has no problem or concerns. Laurence Lillig referenced his letter of March 18'. Mr. and Mrs. Stout should contact Steve Broermann of the Hamilton County Highway Department regarding dedication of the required 70 -foot half right of way for the Towne Road frontage. The Thoroughfare Plan will connect the West 126 Street collector road to Meeting House Road in the Village of WestClay. The alignment will go thru the property and continue north and west. The City does not know exactly where it will be located. Carmel is suggesting a commitment to dedicate once the design is accomplished. This dedication of both rights of way is tied to the special use approval process. Eventually, Towne Road will be similar to Hazel Dell Parkway. The Village of WestClay will construct their segment of the road. The Stouts will not be asked to construct the road. Mr. Stout believes dedication will use two to three acres of their property. Mr. Lillig responded that it depends on where the alignment of the road occurs. Approval of the special use for the pond is tied to dedication of right of way. Carmel approval is not required for drainage work to the existing pond. Plans indicate a pole barn will be relocated to Tract 2. Accessory buildings are not allowed on tracts without a principle building. A new deed must be prepared combining Tracts 1 and 2. Mr. Stout understands approval is not required if they decide to just install drain file throughout the entire property. To receive permission to construct the pond, they must agree to right of way dedication along the frontage and some corner which is yet to be determined. Mr. Lillig stated right of way dedication is one of the requirements for special use approval. Jon Dobosiewicz added it is his obligation to not allow improvements that inhibit construction as identified in the Thoroughfare Plan. Adding drainage to the property that discharges into the existing swale or drain does not require approval. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated he was not suggesting the Stouts sidestep the requirements. If they do not want to dedicate right of way pursuant to the process of special use approval, they may drain their property to today's location and not construct or modify the pond. If Mr. Stout wishes to just de -silt the pond, plans would be required for the Department to determine if approval is necessary. If they excavate the pond eight feet deeper, approval would be required. Mr. Lillig said it might be a depth issue in regard to the expansion of the use. With respect to a pond, volume is a primary factor in determining expansion, and increased depth yields increased volume. It would be a s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 13 factor. Installation of drain tiles would not require approval by the Department. Mr. Dobosiewicz stated the Stout's charge is to return with plans for Carmel's review. If they modify the pond's volume, approval is required. Steve Cash stated an outlet request is needed if the Stouts run a tile into the ditch. Mr. Dobosiewicz clarified that he is not asking Mr. and Mrs. Stout to provide access for two to three acres of their property. Rather, through their request for special use approval to construct the pond, there are certain requirements of the Ordinance. If the Stouts elect to pursue another route, the Department has endeavored to explain what they can and cannot do. The requirements were in place at the time of purchase and are the requirements today. Mr. and Mr. Stout may elect to construct a pond, which requires compliance with the Ordinance that requires special use approval and dedication of the right of way. Mike Stout acknowledged that Mr. Dobosiewicz was correct. However, by enlarging the pond and increasing the drainage potential of this property the Stouts must dedicate rights of way to Carmel. Mr. Stout expressed surprise and disappointment that these requirements can be attached to each other. The Stouts will consider their options. 3663 W. 106 Street Turkle Tract (V -14 -02 V- 15 -02) Dave Barnes, Weihe Engineers, Inc., presented the case and introduced Mike Coppinger, the owner of Turkle Tract. The petitioner purchased this tract containing two or three parcels. The existing residence will be demolished and replaced with a single family home. There is also an existing garage in front of the proposed site of the new home. Board of Zoning Appeals approval is needed to retain the garage. A developmental standards variance is needed for deficient frontage. A width of 50 feet is required; the parcel has frontage of 30 feet. The owner is not able to obtain more frontage. Steve Cash has been unable to discuss this matter with his supervisor. There is a gap in the regulated drain from 106 Street to Ashbrooke Subdivision. The taxpayer wants it to become regulated. Mr. Cash will investigate. The parcel will be described as two tracts. There is a large watershed going through the property with a 54 -inch pipe. Steve Cash suggested making certain there are no flooding problems. There may be a localized flood issue. The allowable discharge rate is 0.25 cfs per acre. It is important to make certain there is no flooding. The home will be on sanitary sewer. If they need an outlet for the foundation drain or sump pump, it will be important to get the elevations so they can tie into the system. A permit would be required from the Surveyor's office. Mr. Cash will determine the County Surveyor's intent. Crooked Creek is regulated south to 96 Street. Regulation provides a way for the drain to be maintained. There can be erosion problems, beaver dams, and flood -out areas. John South wrote a letter. There are potential wetland areas along the east property line and in some of areas Steve Cash discussed. In spring, the parcel is extremely wet. The drainage is poorly defined. It is important that any improvements to the property do not worsen existing drainage. Much could be done to improve it. The property is accepting water from neighbors to the northeast. There is additional drainage from 106 Street s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 14 through English Oaks Subdivision. The land is low and it is wet. The wetlands should be mapped out before the petitioner determines the house location. Steve Broermann stated the driveway already exists on 106 Street. No requirements need to be met. He will write comments by Friday of this week. Scott Brewer understands the petitioner is combining plots. There are three tracts. Mr. Coppinger just purchased a new two -acre tract that lies between the north and south halves of the property. It will all be combined to create one, 7.3 acre tract. Mr. Barnes will write two descriptions. One will be for the overall tract and for the one -acre tract for the existing house. The parcel is a large wooded area. Mr. Brewer encouraged anything they can do to preserve the wooded area. He offered support and information. John South asked if the well would be abandoned. It will not. The well will be private. Sewer will come from Ashbrooke Subdivision. Gary Hoyt received the plans. He had no comments. Jon Dobosiewicz asked the petitioner to dedicate the prescribed amount of right of way on 106 Street. Laurence Lillig wants to see copies of the deeds once they are ready. Addresses must be clearly labeled on the mailboxes and homes. Long Branch Subdivision Amenity Area (SU- 10 -02, V- 11 -02, and V- 12 -02) Tim Walter, Platinum Properties, LLC, and Don Fisher, Insight Engineering, Inc., reviewed the construction plans for the amenity area: pool, basketball court, play area, club house, and swimming pool of Long Branch Estates. Steve Cash did not see plans. The amenity area will be at the entrance of the subdivision. No extra piping is proposed. They will tie into the existing perimeter storm sewers. The parking lot will back into the road. There are some sub surface drains. The entrance is at the catch basin. This does not create a problem. The curbs will remain. It will be constructed like a residential drive. The parking lot must be curbed. The curb comes out to sidewalk and gets depressed down. Between the walk and the existing curb, another curb is not shown. It is designed like a residential driveway cut. Steve Cash believes nothing is being added to what is already done. He had no additional comments. Tim Walter stated there would be subsurface drains installed to drain the basketball court and play ground. Mr. Cash stated an outlet request would be required. There will be erosion control on the inlets. John South wrote a letter. Some details must be added. Erosion control is needed around the inlets. Silt fences will be around the yard inlets. John South missed the detail. Cross braces should be added for post support. Phasing should be detailed. Mr. South outlined s:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 15 the process for inlet protection. Silt fencing should be installed first and then a gravel base for the parking lot. Steve Broermann sent a letter on March 11 The outside radii at the entrance /exit should be 20 feet. Two trees must be removed from the right of way. They may be installed in the corners near the sidewalks, but not in the right of way. Scott Brewer did not write a letter but will send one to Don Fisher. Laurence Lillig's letter regarding buffer yard requirements was referenced. The plantings should be extended to the back of the adjacent lots. On the westside, there are a couple of spruces with a PO /2 detail. This should be changed. The six euonymus shrubs are labeled in the same fashion. On the eastside they are correct. The red maples are not suggested. Street trees are not required, but they match the look of the other neighboring properties. The latest date for American Standards for Nursery Stock is 1996. A note must be included in the plans stating stakes and wires will be removed after one year. Tree planting detail should include a note to plant root flare at grade or slightly above. Mr. Brewer will write a letter. Gary Hoyt requested a Knox box at the pool house. It can be recessed. Jon Dobosiewicz asked why the petitioner could not add five feet to the landscape buffer. He advised installing a hedgerow or something to dress it up. Mr. Fisher wants the building as close to the road as possible as a focus point. Tim Walter asked if the sidewalk in front of the building was necessary. It is not required. Walking through the parking lot is acceptable. Mr. Dobosiewicz wants a five -foot strip added. The petitioner can apply for a variance, but might be better to just include the five -foot strip. The pool size will not be granted. The Board of Zoning Appeals will strictly observe the minimal pool size of 2,000 square foot. A Commitment for a lifeguard must be drafted. Laurence Lillig received front elevations of the structure. A signed lifeguard Commitment is needed. No signs are planned for the pool area. Laurence Lillig will write a commitment for them in the format needed. The meeting adjourned at 1:44 p.m. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002mar 16