Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 09-18-02CARMEL /CLAY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes September 18, 2002 Jon Dobosiewicz Carmel DOCS Brian Hanson Carmel DOCS Jenny Chapman Hamilton Co. Surveyor Office Dick Hill Carmel Engineering Dean Groves CINergy/PSI John South Hamilton Co. Soil Water Laurence Lillig Carmel DOCS Scott Brewer Carmel DOCS Steve Broe Hamilton Co. Highway Mike McBride Carmel Engineering Gary Hoyt Carmel Fire Department Ron Farrand Carmel/Clay Schools Manor Healthcare Corporation (Rezone) The applicant seeks to rezone 4.321 acres to the OM/MF (Old Meridian Multi Family) zone designation. The site is generally located south of 131 Street between Old Meridian Avenue and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned OM /SFA (Old Meridian Single Family Attached). Filed by Paul G. Reis of Drewry Simmons Pitts Vornehm for Manor Healthcare Corporation. Paul Reis and Mark Monroe with Drewry Simmons, Steve Hormann and John Houchin with Edward Rose Development Company, and Gary Murray with Paul L Cripe, Inc. gave an overview of Manor Healthcare and briefly explained how the project is evolving. The Old Meridian District allows multi family housing. Ultimately this property, totaling 16 acres, is to be a multi family housing project. However, there is a 4 -acre piece of ground that the petitioner is seeking to rezone from single family attached to multi family. That is the subject of the matter before TAC. We have been in conversation with the Department of Community Services about the project. In particular if you look at the Old Meridian District on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, there calls for a road to be built from Old Meridian connecting with Main Street. We are in the process of locating exacting how the road would go through the project and what the affect would be. Pending further engineering work, we will address those road issues and how it impacts the project. Jenny Chapman, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office, sent a letter on August 29 The southern portion of your site is in the W. R. Fertig water shed. They have restrictions on their outflow of .25 CSF per acre. You will need an outlet permit from our office. We don't have objections to the rezone. When we receive your construction plans, further comments will be made at that time. Steve Broermann, Hamilton County Highway, sent a letter out. No objections to the rezone. A reminder: 131 Street is still under the jurisdiction of the highway department. Any work done there will require permits from our office. Nothing to add to the letter I sent. Dick Hill, Carmel engineering, no comments have been sent. We are waiting for the construction plans. A note that this is part of Ordinance 210 (approved by City Council) will probably take effect early next year. s TechnicalAdvis oryCommitte e \Minutes \tac 2002s eptemb er Paul questions if Dick is referring to the annexation. How are we doing with the streets as they are annexed? Paul also asks about the subdivision that has been cancelled. All parties note the jurisdictions will shift. It all depends on the timing. Scott Brewer, DOGS, did not receive plans. Mark Monroe notes this is being done in two stages. A site plan was mailed to Scott. The landscape plans will be forwarded. Mike McBride, Carmel engineering, received rendering and overall site plan. We will reserve our comments until we see what you incorporate with the Old Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Department of Community Services requirements. Gary Hoyt, Carmel Fire Department, sent a letter. Steve has answered all questions. One final question: are you going to be developing the future connector street to the south of the project where you show a roundabout? Will the city do this? It always interests me to find better ways in and out of a complex. Paul notes it has been discussed with the city. There will be future discussions. At this time there are no plans to build the connector street. A new site plan will be sent. Dean Groves, CINergy /PSI, received rendering but did not receive site plans. We will need to discuss loading and electrical requirements. Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS expands on comment made by Gary Hoyt. I am sure we will get support from Ed Rose on providing additional access to the site that is consistent with the request from the Fire Department. We would prefer that you not come back and ask for as few cuts as possible into the site. That may be your desire to have reduced access into the area. The whole concept is connectivity. If that does not meet your Performa, I want you to bring that up to the Plan Commission and have that discussion. We don't want to come back later and have a discussion about having reduced access because that's the way the group likes to operate. We have received that feeling from a previous discussion. Gary should not misunderstand your response to his question or his observation of access into the site. Steve Hormann, we will take that into consideration. As you know there has been discussion about the street along the eastern boundary of the site, which would have some impact on our plan. Jon: A reminder: be prepared to provide additional points about the location to the Plan Commission. If that is not going to meet your desires, make it known to the Plan Commission so they can advise you. I have not received from our consultant the exact alignment of the interior roadway. When we do receive that, I will forward it to Paul. We will try to get a digital so we can get it to you as soon as possible so you are prepared for the Plan Commission. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 2 Paul, addressing his comments to Mike, that is why we have had a couple discussions with the department. As soon as we can figure out where the path is, then we can address some of the items in question. Jon previously discussed the Comprehensive Plan and language within the ordinance regarding placement of buildings. We did not come to a conclusion as to whether this would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically with regard to this area to accommodate an alternate alignment other than what was proposed as part of the Old Meridian zones. John South, Hamilton County Soil Water, comments that putting the clubhouse in the corner would preserve more trees. The space around the buildings is all pavements. You are leaving some green space around the clubhouse. Drainage along 131 Street is not the greatest. We need to be sure that drainage is maintained along the lots abutting that area the cross easements and ponds. Are there two separate ownerships: between Summer Trace and Manor Healthcare? Paul, Manor Healthcare Corporation owns most of the area with some additional lots to be purchased. Eventually there will be separate ownerships. Maintenance will be set up with SummerTrace and it involves the cross easement. New Collegewood Elementary School (Construction Plans) The applicant seeks approval to construct a new middle school facility. The site is located at the southeast corner of West 126 Street and Shelborne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Estate. Filed by Jeff Bolinger of Fanning /Howey Associates for Carmel /Clay Schools Bill Payne and Jeff Bolinger with Fanning /Howey and Terry Quillman with TLF Engineers returns to present the next project for Carmel /Clay Schools. We brought the overall master plan for most of the campus. Our focus is on the new Collegewood Elementary School that is down at the southwest corner. Although the application forms shows 159 acres, we are reviewing approximately 11 acres. Everything else has been seen at a previous TAC and has been through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Some of the things we are doing now, at Collegewood, will tie in from a utility standpoint to the plans already in place. As you know, earthwork is already underway at the middle school site. If you are familiar with Towne Meadow Elementary School, you will have an understanding of this building. The difference will be the color. Exterior colors will be changed to match the middle school. The entrance is to the north and west of the school. We will have visitor parking and student drop off by vehicles out front. Bus parking and staff parking will be to the back. It is very similar to what happens at Towne Meadow and Prairie Trace. All access will be accommodated via the interior access drive. We have entrance and exit off the visitor parking in the front. We have an entrance near the bus queuing area and an exit to the interior access drive. Overall, the elementary site has approximately 200 parking spaces. For major events where we need overflow parking, we can take advantage of the middle school parking spaces. It's nice to have those two facilities next to each other. The playground areas, "noted in light gray" to the south of building, are segregated for kindergarten, intermediate and primary areas. A general use play field to the west of the building will accommodate Physical Education activities and team sport usage. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 3 Jenny Chapman has sent a letter. We have talked by phone about the master drainage plan and it is noted that an updated copy is needed. An outlet permit will be needed for the project. No fee is required for schools. Bill Payne handed Jenny a copy of the plans Bill Payne notes that they will not have a new outlet for this project. Steve Broermann, it is understood that all the improvements are being made as part of the other development. Steve will send additional comments by the end of the day. How are the paths and ADA ramps to work? We do not want to see those empty out onto the accel /decel lanes. This will be in my comments for the road improvements for the middle school. We need to shift so we can get across the street at a shorter point. I have not looked at the elementary site but it would seem similar. As for a right -of -way, we could put an intersection cut at the entrance to allow it to remain part of the right -of -way. Otherwise it would be an easement so it can be maintained. Bill Payne notes it could be put back further into property. Dick Hill, No comments Scott Brewer sent an email yesterday. Scott notes the west perimeter along Shelborne Road needs to be more heavily buffered. Jeff Bolinger acknowledges the email sent by Scott. On other sites Prairie Trace and Towne Meadow, with a lighter density, can we mirror this project to those? Scott confirms that more trees are on this site. It is suggested that they use those back further into the site. As the trees grow, we would like to see a more wooded site. The numbers listed in the email can be adjusted per our discussion. We will not count rows to make sure everything within 15' matches those numbers. The point is those numbers are requirements now and as we shift things around on the site, they come within a percentage of what we require. It is okay to use the ones on site as part of those numbers. We are willing to work with you, but let it be understood that we would like to see more shade trees along the road. Regarding the trees along the south, please take extra steps so that heavy construction equipment does not get too close so as to preserve root system. Jeff Bolinger confirms numbers from the list and will make adjustments per email from Scott. Laurence Lillig, DOCS, references sheet G2.0 that shows the property line and grading. Scott will look again at the information. A meeting will be arranged to walk the area. The fence row can be checked at that time. Jeff questions the 20' distance. The drainage structure might come into play. We will install fencing to help with equipment control s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 4 Scott will provide a written plan. I will include species comments as well. Laurence would like a copy of Scott's email Mike McBride notes this is outside the corporate limits of the city engineering department. We will defer to Hamilton County Departments. Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Alan. I received a phone call from Ryan. Ryan said the sprinkler system is a mirror of Prairie Trace. That will work for us. We would like to see the enunciator panel remain in its current front location. We require a Knox Box and FDC caps. One additional comment: along the west side of the school about mid way, the fire hydrant is shown behind a fence. We would like to avoid tearing down a fence. Please be sure the fire hydrant is not boxed in. John South recommends some changes on the erosion control plan. The sequence is buried in the project information. That needs to be drawn out. The contractor needs to have a clear understanding. To that you should add temporary seeding and inlet protection. Terry Quillman asks John to expand on the sequencing. John asks that they show the plan and construction details. Give more consideration to temporary seeding. The way your construction schedule is heading you will need quite a bit of seeding for fall; do not wait until the project is completed. The sequence needs to be further addressed. Dean Groves notes the petitioner has been working with Ron Booher. Dean will defer any comments to Ron. Jon Dobosiewicz, one of my requests was with regards to providing a temporary asphalt connection over from the street to the asphalt path on the southwest corner. We would like to see you provide the connection and also provide a 5' wide asphalt connection over from the corner so the people can get from the right -of -way to the path, or we will make the connection for you. Feedback from your engineer with regard to our request on aligning the drive exiting the bus parking area with the adjacent drive to north has been received. Laurence has the email from Alan Blunk. The email indicates a slope issue that they felt was at the maximum limits of what was acceptable. Terry indicates the slope is 8% to get into the drive. INDOT reports 8 -10% maximum for field entrances. For buses less than 5% is probably appropriate. Jon indicated that engineering does not want this to be dedicated. Jon asks Terry if he can expand on how this might be a concern and further explain points 4 and 5. POINTS FROM EMAIL: 1. Slope to connect to MS drive would be 8 which is at the upper limit of what I would consider to be acceptable. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 5 2. More traffic, including busses would have to double back through the lot to exit. This safety concern to me seems to outweigh the slight improvement gained by aligning the drives. 3. Major loading of bus traffic only occurs twice a day it is not steady load of traffic during the day, and in fact, there will be no traffic exiting the bus lot at other times of the day. 4. Typical subdivision design standards dictate separation of streets /drives by a minimum of 150' we have 200' currently. 5. This is a private drive that will not be dedicated to the city. Bill notes this is a matter of identifying a safe standard of reference. We are complying with those standards. This is an internal private access drive and allowed by the school corporation. Slopes are the biggest concern: especially the way in which the bus queuing area is used. Once the buses are stacked and they begin to depart, we want them to depart that parking area as soon as possible. We would prefer that they not drive back through behind parked vehicles from a safety standpoint. Jon, should drive be pulled east and south? Jeff, this area will be a future ball field. The further we bring it, the more we encroach into that space (50' one way or the other). Jon, the logic is not to double back. I don't want you to contradict your rationale. Engineering indicates there will be improvement gained by aligning the drives. Ron Farrand, Prairie Trace and Towne Meadow we double back all the way. This is not an issue. In this case, we are going back to an exit where ultimately the parents will be exiting. We are trying to separate that in this case. We don't have that at the other schools. Functionally we want a separate drive if engineering allows it. If it is too steep, during "icy conditions" buses do tend to slide out. That is a concern. Bill notes another option is to slide it 20'— 30 to the east, at the end of parking area. It would have no impact to the west. Jon: our preference is that it would be aligned across from the middle school. It would provide a direct route to cut into the school area during events. At a minimum, we request you provide a sidewalk connection. We would require that for a public street. Jeff suggests taking out an island to add the sidewalk connection. Again, grades would be an unsafe condition. The alignment will be discussed further. Laurence notes that by locating the driveway to the east, that raises the question about the location of the gates. The gates are to keep people from accessing the rear drive. The purpose of one has been defeated. People will cut through the parking lot to get out. I would suggest moving the gate farther east to cut it off at that point. Also discussed with Mr. Blunk, we show the parents coming in on the west drive and then looping around to drop off. The intent is that they would come out thru the middle of the three gates; the same drive buses will be entering in the morning, s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 6 Ron, parents are not allowed to leave if the buses are in the area. They must wait. Control staff handles that. Laurence, where is the bus control individual located? Ron, actually they are not controlling the buses, they are controlling the parents. The buses come and all queue up. The kids are let off the buses at 8:05 AM. Monitors are there to let kids go. There is also someone out front. Parents are then held "sometime 3 deep" (they queue all the cars up that might be there in the morning or the afternoon). The buses and parent vehicles are coming to the school at the same time but are going to two different places. Laurence, why don't we loop them back out this west entrance? This would avoid potential conflict with buses at the middle drive? Ron, we can certainly look at that as a possibility when we get there. We always have that option to send the parents out the other way. It's the same when we have a supervisory person there; they would direct them another way out. Jeff we might have a conflict with bus traffic and parent traffic. Ron, it's the same situation at most schools. The parents are coming and going at the same time as the buses. It's a matter of how we direct them on site Laurence, buses are making a left turn against outgoing automotive traffic. Parents are stacked to get out of the drive. The conflict of drop off and pick up could be eliminated. It is suggested that the petitioner take a closer look at this situation. The fire department would also need that ability to maneuver around the building. Jon, for the board you might want to put together a narrative to explain how traffic is directed to reduce conflicts. Laurence, a clear explanation of how that functions might be advised. If it is used at other schools successfully, that might also be included. Ron, case in point is Towne Meadow. We added a parking lot to that building. As a part of that project, we added a connector in the same situation. There are people there to control the flow of traffic. Laurence, on another note, the pond issue: specifically the way the path spills out onto your drive. There should be a better way of handling the pedestrian traffic. I would suggest extending sidewalk along the south side of the drive to that point. Bill will check with school on this. They could possibly extend the path down across the field. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september Jon observes that the south west end of the parking lot where the sidewalk adjoins and connects to the asphalt the curved section of the trail that butt into concrete walk: would it be better to make that curb connection concrete and butt it up against the trail at a right angle path? There will be a long stretch that will be a maintenance issue. It might be difficult to clean. Gary Hoyt questions Ron: very recently there have been some renovations to Prairie Trace and Towne Meadow. Will this be a mirror of the expanded version? Ron responds that this will be a duplicate of Towne Meadow with the expansion already there. Carmel Clay Historical Society (Use Variance Development Plan) The applicant seeks approval to construct an additional structure. The site is located at 211 First Street Southwest. The site is zoned R -2 /Residence within the Old Town Overlay Zone. Filed by Balay Architects for the Carmel Clay Historical Society. Leroy New, 1910 E. 106 Street, Carmel 46032. Phone number 846 -5515. Present to give an overview of the project. Tabled to October meeting. TAC members have not received plans. Clay Creek Overlook (Primary and Secondary Plats) The applicant seeks approval to plat a I -lot residential subdivision on 1.006± acres. The site is located at the east end of Redgold Run adjacent to High Grove Subdivision. The site is zoned S- I /Residence Estate. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Shamrock Builders, Inc. Dennis Olmstead describes the details of the project. We are not providing any infra structure to the streets. We do have to add a sanitary lateral and it will connect to an existing water line for domestic service. We are going to construct a house on the lot. Jenny has sent comments. Steve Cash suggested you petition to have Clay Creek regulated. The creek would have to be cleared during construction. Dennis notes the builder will probably object to doing too much clearing. But I don't think they will object to selective clearing. That was the attractiveness of the lot. We will have further discussions with Steve Steve Broermann sent a letter. The reason the right -of -way was extended through the property line is the lot becomes undevelopable because of an access point on the remaining parcel. There is not enough ground to get a street in and back to the parcel. The right -of -way was extended at that point. The highway doesn't object. The remaining parcel would be left as is, unless they could acquire additional ground to construct a wide enough road to get back there. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september g Dennis, they would not put a structure across creek anyway Steve, that is correct. That is why we put the stub in the right -of -way. High Grove wanted it to be up front. Jon regarding that issue, this will go to the Plan Commission as public hearing and the adjacent owners will get notice. What we will do is make certain that those particular comments are made as part of the public hearing. That adjacent owner will know that this is the position their property will be in. No additional access for them to come in at some later time and further develop the site. Laurence, they would need a variance to build a house now. The remainder is undevelopable without going to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Steve Broermann, when High Grove was developed we were told nothing would be developed on that parcel. This is a perfect example of something happening later someone has changed their mind. We had to wrestle to get the stub in the right -of -way. As I mentioned, crossing the creek would call for a structure. Is that what they want to do with their property? Dick Hill, we do not have jurisdiction. No comments. Scott Brewer. No comments. If you need my help in petitioning the surveyor's office not to clear the creek, I will be happy to lend my services. Gary Hoyt sent letter. No comments. John South, a setback line or drainage easement along the creek would be appropriate to keep the builders out. Dennis if it becomes a regulated drain, we will have to provide for the drainage easement. Jon, will the easement be on the secondary? Dennis, yes it will be on the secondary; 35' from the top Dean Groves, Ron Booher work with petitioner on power concerns. Jon, the comments made today by the Highway Department sheds some additional lights on the matter. I want to take those comments into consideration. This is scheduled for public hearing on Oct 15'. Has this been split from the parent tract? Dennis, there has been a survey prepared. I don't know if the title has been transferred yet, but there is a survey. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september C� Jon, we want to make a clear representation to the current owner of the parent tract of what restrictions the platting of this one lot sets on the remainder of their tract. We may need to take a closer look at what is going on. Is there a floodway located in this area that would require you to file a waiver to request subdiving in a floodway? Dennis, the maps indicated the lot is not in Zone A. Just a note, if studied, every ditch and every stream has some sort of floodway associated with it. There is no mapped floodway 15' easements along the perimeter. That will carry out the legal drain. Laurence, they might have to go along the diagonal. Jon questions the monuments. Are you also identifying the monuments on the secondary? All the monuments on the corners need to be concrete. I have a comment about the name of the subdivision. Wouldn't it be simpler to call this High Grove III? Consider High Grove Overlook or High Grove Pointe. Dennis because of some other controversy we ran into while going through the process, it is my fault because I advised them not to name it something with High Grove in it. Only because people object to another piece of ground that is not actually associated with High Grove. Laurence, transfer mapping might kick it out. Jon, would Shamrock incorporate it into the covenants and restrictions of the subdivision? Dennis will talk with the petitioner. Do I indicate on the Primary Plat "High Grove "(if we change)? Amend this tract into the High Grove plat. Laurence if they have no objection I would suggest "High Grove" III with the next lot number. It can be exempt from the covenants and restriction. Dennis, technically the remainder will have to go through the BZA for variance to frontage on public road. They can talk with Laurence if there are any questions. Natureworks (Site Development Plan) The, applicant seeks approval of a Site Development Plan to renovate an existing site. The site is located at 421 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -I Business. Filed by Randy Sorrell. Randy Sorrell owns and operates Natureworks. Natureworks is a residential landscape design and light construction company. There is a piece of property located on Range Line Road on which we have a contingency agreement. We want to renovate the building entirely and turn it into a professional office for our business. At the request of the TAC members, Randy presents the poster board for clearer details. The building is at 421 Range Line Road next to the trophy shop. As shown on the drawing, Range Line Road is on the left. We plan to asphalt or concrete a s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 10 couple parking spaces as well as the drive back to the garage. Currently it is a cinder block building in poor condition. We will add vinyl siding to the building, new windows, and a new roof. The color of the siding will be taupe gray. A small sign will be placed in the front. The front porch that exists is rough. It is a deck that is falling apart so we plan on removing it. That area will be turned into a front porch with pavers. An old world soft look with wrap steps that continue around the entire front porch. There will be two or three steps that move into a sidewalk that encompass the two parking spaces. We will add a small subtle, water feature up front. Also, a Pergola over the front porch made from natural cedar that will remain unpainted. Presently in the rear there is a rough concrete slab patio that we will enlarge. That will become a deck and a Pergola overhead. You then step down to brick pavers and a sidewalk that will take you to the garage, this all becomes landscaping that continues to the back. We will add another large water feature of limestone 6 to 18" tall. We can work with the grade that exists. Trees, shrubs, and other landscaping will also be added. Currently there is an unused alleyway that has gone back naturally. Jon asks for the present location of the fence line to determine if the alley will be blocked. I want to make sure you are aware of the building and code requirements in converting the residence to a commercial structure and working with the state on state releases when required. You will want to meet with Jeff Kendall to go over those requirements. What is the proposal for the garage? Randy, everything on our property is not on someone else's property. We have a foot or two between the garage and the trophy shop property. The garage will be exclusively for storage. We outsource most of our work. We do have a small in house crew. We will store some tools during construction. Gary Hoyt, is this a professional office? What types of vehicles will be parked at the location? What are your plans for storing chemicals? Randy, parking is for our client's vehicles. We have seed in bulk (2 or 3 bags of 100 lb seed), a bottle of roundup, etc. No fertilizer or related products will be stored at the site. We will not have crews operating from here. A foreman, two times a week, will be in to swap out shovels, etc. This is a big business plan change for us. We will use this as a place to conduct business. To bring clients in to review progress of jobs. Also, we will bring in new clients to look at plans, pergolas, and patios, etc. A show house so to speak. Dick Hill, please provide our office with a set of plans. In converting this from a residential to a commercial, you will need a couple of Board of Public Works approvals. The DPW meets twice a month. 1. Convert the entrance from a residential to a commercial. 2. You will probably have some additional sewer and water connection fees. On the drawings you will be providing, we would appreciate it if you would show the existing curb cuts and how they align with any existing cuts across the street. 3. You will need to get an approval for a commercial drive. It is up to the Utility Department, but you might owe some additional connection fees. Do you anticipate truck traffic using the driveway? s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 11 Randy drives a half -ton Silverado and one landscape truck to be driven by our foreman. It is a one -ton dump truck. There will not be semis on the driveway. Jon would like to expand on the identity of the new asphalt drive in that location. The ordinance would require that the area be curved. You need to show where the storm water is going to go. If there are inlets, you will need to bring someone with civil engineering experience on board to work with our engineering department to determine how you will drain the site. Randy, we need to determine where water runoff from the driveway will go. Scott Brewer received a copy of the plans but would like a larger copy. I would ask that you change your choice from "Red Maple" to a larger shade tree. Red Maple is not good for the urban setting. Ash would be a good selection. Laurence, while we are talking about landscaping, are there any overhead lines? Dean believes the power lines are in the alleyway. The feed to the house is a concern to me. I have not received site plans for this project. Randy notes it is an overhead feed to the house. Gary Hoyt would like a set of plans. How do you propose to change the inside of the house? You will need to talk with Jeff Kendall about the exterior "construction design release" to the state. Typically on businesses I request a Knox box. Because I am familiar with this location, I don't think it would be necessary at this time. Randy we are just going to paint and carpet. Randy receives a list of TAC members. It is requested that the plans be mailed to each member. John South will not need plans for this project. No Comments. Jon, we will need a drainage plan and identify the parking lot. The parking lot should be asphalt and curbed (when you meet with your civil engineer please discuss this). You should talk with the city engineering department about the driveway cut and that it needs the DPW approval. The ordinance buffer yard guidelines require a 5' setback on the north and south side of this property. A 25' setback is required on the east side of the property. You have that met on the north. It does appear, however, you will be encroaching by 2' on the south. It looks like there might be 3' as well. I encourage you to file for a variance, on that requirement. On the north side, I am not sure what is adjacent to you over the other property lines. The buffer yard requirement along Range Line Road is 15'. You only have a 4' setback at the parking spaces. Again, I will want to take a look at your landscaping plans. For the parking spaces you will be required to file a variance from that 15' setback. In addition there is a 45' half right -of -way (Thoroughfare Plan). We will be looking for you to conform to a setback. As a part of a request for a variance from the setback, we can get this pulled from the parking another foot or two over in favor of the relief s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 12 from the 15' setback. In the future, we can make road improvements or sidewalks along that frontage. The proposed signage needs to be a minimum 7 -8' setback. Regarding the two parking spaces in front, if they are a 9' in width, they need to be 20' in depth. Depending on the tight radius, zou need to allow more room or pull to the south. This will go to the Plan Commission Oct 15 and it is not a public hearing item. It will likely then be sent to committee for hearing on Nov 12 then back to the Plan Commission for final approval at the Nov 19 meeting. It is advised between now and then you get together with the civil engineer and the city engineer and get things ironed out before the Nov 12 date. Laurence is the city's liaison to the BZA. Together you can file for those two buffer yard variances. Your civil engineer will confirm the drawing and will show that it meets the Thoroughfare Plan to determine setback into buffer yard. Also, photos to the Plan Commission will help give them an idea of "before and after" and what you are proposing. This would give them a better idea of colors and materials. You should begin immediately creating the outline. You will need relief from the south and north buffer yard and the front buffer yard. Laurence, assuming you curve the driveway and can meet the geometry at the street curb cut. One final comment; try to make the connection at the sidewalk. Jon: I would file for those as soon as possible. That would put you running concurrent and after the Plan Commission would approve the plans, you would then be in a position to file and be on the BZA agenda in November. This would put your approval from the BZA just a week after your approval from the Plan Commission. You do not want to file and then have it strung out to December or January. We can provide you with the documentation. s:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002september 13