Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 10-16-02CARMEL /CLAY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NHNUTES October 16, 2002 Jon Dobosiewicz Carmel DOCS Brian Hanson Carmel DOCS Scott Brewer Carmel DOCS Steve Broermann Hamilton Co. Highway Jenny Chapman Hamilton Co. Surveyor Office Jim Neal Hamilton Co. Highway Chuck Shupperd Vectren Energy Dick Hill Carmel Engineering Mike McBride Carmel Engineering John Duffy Carmel Utilities John South Hamilton Co. Soil Water Gary Hoyt Carmel Fire Department Bill Akers Carmel Communication Center 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. Rob Bennett gave an overview of the project. This is an archival and a conservation center for the Historical Society. The improvement will go on the existing site. It will go between the red building and the gray cottage house to the south, to the east, and join the Monon Trail. Basically this is a temporary storage for their artifacts. It is not planned for visitors. The building is approximately 36' in length in a north /south direction and 18' in an east/west direction. The Society is requesting three variances for the site. First is a parking requirement. They are not adding any parking to this site. Second they are asking for a variance the on setback. The third variance is for a residential district. Jenny Chapman, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office. No Comments. Chuck Shupperd, Vectren Energy. If you are using gas for heating, please complete the appropriate form. The customer data sheet states what will be used for load requirements, line, and equipment. After submitting the form and everything is approved, call our service representative at our 800 number then push option 6 to get a service request into the system. With the turn of weather, it is important to get this going as soon as possible to avoid the backups. Dick Hill, Carmel Engineering. Faxed a letter to Mike Balay, architect. There is not enough information on the drawings to give a proper review. We need the civil set with the topo, driveways, utilities, etc. We will hold our comments until we receive the civil drawings. Scott Brewer, Urban Forester Department of Community Services. I usually review the landscape plans. Those have not been completed at this time. As it stands, you will not meet the buffer yard requirements in a residential zone. That can be another variance. Since you are S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 1 removing some trees, I would like to see those replaced with a variety from the list I can provide. The landscape plan should show the trees to be removed and the ones you will install. John South, Hamilton County Soil Water. This is a small project under the requirements of Rule 5 Erosion Control construction site; thus, the City of Carmel will address that in their review. Gary Hoyt, Carmel Fire Department. Passed a letter to Mr. Bennett. My question is about the temporary storage building and whether it will have another use down the road. Rob adds it is an archival storage for the artifacts that will go into the historic building. They have changed their exhibits. My understanding is that their current storage is the gray cottage. This is not to be an office. They have a tentative restroom planned. It has not been made clear if it will be public or private. Tom Rumer notes they might get into the building once or twice a week -not on a daily basis. Bill Akers, Carmel 911 Communications. No comments. We already have an address. Jon Dobosiewicz, Department of Community Services. Laurence Lillig with our office is the staff member in charge of this petition. On his behalf, I will say we need to see more information and the civil set. Once you have the civil set in hand, schedule a meeting with Laurence outside this format. If the gas company needs to see your plans on how you will access, include that information on the plans. All utilities need to be on site. If you are showing a restroom facility in the building, show how the sanitary laterals from the street will be accessed. At such a point they decide to implement, you will then have a plan in place. You will not need to go through an approval process again on how to get service to the building. The landscape plans also need to be forwarded to Scott Brewer as soon as possible. There still is a question regarding the title to the property on which the building will be located. That will need to be resolved before you proceed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. We must have responses from engineering as to the drainage for the site. If there is additional means necessary to provide adequate drainage for the site, the engineering department will be able to answer that once you have submitted the civil set. Lakeside Park, Section One (Secondary Plat and Construction Plans) The site is located on the southwest corner of West 141 Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Very Low Density. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Roehling Enterprises, Inc. Ed Fleming with Stoeppelwerth introduced Ray Roehling, Developer. This project is 50 lots on approximately 45'/2 acres. Lakeside is located at 136 Street and Towne Road. The overall property is at the corner of 141 Street and Towne. It drains down through the Lakes of Hayden Run. Clay Township is putting an interceptor along the west side of this property. Our sewers will be tying in at this point. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 2 Steve Broermann, My apologies for not having reviewed your plans yet. Regarding annexation, it is noted February 2004 will be the effective date for this area. The C210 is just up to Towne Road at Saddle Creek. We might see Saddle Creek Twelve come in closest. We will want to be sure to coordinate the areas. One item not related to this section of the loop, you might talk about getting a variance. You will need to get it from the county commissioners. We talked about making it a public street. It is needed for this section, but you might consider getting that completed. I can't foresee a problem. I will get your plans reviewed by the end of this week. We will be looking for the same kind of improvements along Towne Road. Resurfacing will probably be needed. I will take a look at these items and put my comments in a letter to you. Jenny Chapman, sent a letter yesterday and asked if petitioner had any questions or comments. Also, Steve Cash in his letter noted offsite drainage access would need to be considered. Ed sent wrong amount but it has since been corrected (150). Drains have not yet been recorded. Chuck Shupperd, when this project was the Hamptons I recall you tried to acquire the easement. We will come across 141 Street and up Towne Road. We will try to make a two way feed. We know eventually it will hook into the second section of Lakes of Hayden Run. Our tie in can be made at that point. Ray Roehling asked if Vectren would be coming across 136 Street. I received a letter that they will be coming across 136 Street. That is critical, because of my offsite water easements for those two houses. They do not have gas now thus it is critical that it is in place. Chuck notes it is not known what the original plans were when the Hamptons was submitted. We are going to extend it for Saddle Creek Ten at 141 Street. We are doing the gas for the Village of West Clay and all the subdivision in that location. We will be across Towne Road and 131 Street so they might come up that way to connect. Dick Hill, this is not in our jurisdiction. We will defer to Hamilton County. Scott Brewer, comments there were open space plans, landscape plans, and buffer requirements, submitted. I noticed the secondary construction does not match. They will need to match. I received plans on August 29 and September 10 that were approved. The Vine Branch tree preservation plan and landscape plan are also different from the current one. On sheet six of my plans, the storm sewer installation runs thru common area number one. That is a tree preservation area that is listed as a primary conservation area. This cannot be trenched. We can discuss other options. I will be happy to meet with your staff. I am passing my list of comments to you for your viewing. Ray confirms the Primary Plat and Secondary Plat do not match. Trees there are pretty far apart. I'm sure something can be done with proper supervision. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 3 John South faxed his letter yesterday. I have a couple questions: 1) Will earthwork be maintained within construction areas (lakes) as you have shown? 2) What will you disturb? You will need to submit an erosion control plan showing what you might disturb beyond the area of Section One. Realistically, don't just submit plans for Section Two. You should submit a total project plan showing in one season what will occur on this project. Ed responds: 1) Completing dirt figures at this time. Plans for Section Two are currently in progress. That might take care of all the questions. 2) We will submit our first phase plans and what will take place until we submit again. John South, regarding your sequencing, it needs to be changed and altered specific to this site. The construction plans as shown are good but they do not evaluate the process during construction. You don't propose any practices to contain any offsite sedimentation. Your watershed drains to the south and east. You need to come up with practices that will contain the sediment before it leaves the property. Your ponds need to be delineated as to which ones will be used. I would like to see a note or a comment on the storm sewer that goes east offsite). I know you are going to be intercepting the existing tile drain. I recommend you hook into the new storm sewer. Ray says owners do not know about the easement and its operational status. They talked about the ponds. They don't know if they are clogged or if they were working in the past. It just sits there. John South says it is probably overloaded. If it doesn't work, it is probably an overstatement. Bill Tyre can farm his farm. I believe it is an 8" tile that goes across Towne Road. It gets larger as it goes down. The outlet is a 12 -15" tile at the south end of the woods. Ray, are you talking about going east on 136 Street? There are no woods there. John South notes it is further below where the temporary channel is going to outlet. Ray questions whether John is identifying the Crooks property or the Brenwick property. The decision is it is where the open channel starts at the southwest corner of the woods. The tile currently opens up and it is a 12 -15" tile. The easement goes across the field. John South, we are estimating approximately 400 -600'. Further analysis after looking at the map, it is probably 800' south. To maintain drainage in the area the tile needs to be hooked up. This needs to be shown on the plan and you need to expect the contractor to comply. Also, similar to this, you have a tile draining south out of your property. That needs to be abandoned correctly at the property line so you are not interfering with the use of it. It does not go into the woods. Gary Hoyt faxed a letter to Ed. What sections are going to be proposed as Phase One? How will you show the overall layout when all is said and done? How fast are streets going in and how S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 4 will they actually connect to each other. Instead of asking for several temporary cul de sacs, the sections may come in so fast we won't need the temporary. We have trouble backing fire trucks around in construction sites. The workers usually park on the street thus narrowing the street. When we get to the end, there is no place to turn around. While backing up, we find it difficult to avoid construction materials, etc. Ray expects to be doing a phase per year. Six lots a month. Gary has a question about I Street. It appears that there is not an addition on that west end. I would like one there because several lots are facing that street. Since Section 2 is very soon thereafter, I'm not going to worry about where C and E Streets come together. We will need rock for the temporary turnaround. As you are going to have an amenity building, if so, we request a Knox Box. Please note this on the plans. Bill Akers, looked over the plans. It is noted there are no street names at this time. After going over the addition, we will need 13 street names. These are sent to the county. It is best to give more names in case the ones you have chosen are already taken. The amenity area will be CA 4 (at the intersection). The post office now has requirements for postbox placement and mailbox placement. I am sending you the guidelines for use as new projects come in. The plans should also go to the post office listed on the sheet. Jon, questions addressing of the main boulevard that goes through the site from north to south. Since there is a roundabout at that location, the address will not be changed. Ray asks if it can be the same. Bill remarks that is not a good idea because it splits off from the other subdivisions. We suggest you not have the same name as example: "Lakes of Hayden Run Try to keep separate. It is easy for public safety vehicles to identify. Jon Dobosiewicz faxed a letter on Monday about some typical comments about the Secondary Plat. You are proficient in your plans and we don't have any big concerns there. The other note on the plans is that we need to show a 10' asphalt path along Towne Road. Specifically on sheet 5, in the detail where the offsite water is shown, you need to pull that 10' path up to the champer. Terminate it there and put a 5' connection over to the right -of -way. Terminate the 10' path there instead of bringing it to the property line. From where the champer starts, bring a 5' section over to the street. This will provide a means for people to get back until something develops to the south and discourage children from hopping onto the 10' path. From a long term planning standpoint, the structure you show at the southeast corner is acceptable. It is a preference of mine to see a structure closer to the edge of the right -of -way. When this develops and the intersection is improved, we will not need to come back and plant another structure, tear up a line, and plant a new structure. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 5 Steve Broermann notes it will probably need to be pushed. It probably will to cross at right angles at the street and come out at a sufficient angle to make improvements at the intersection. It will most likely need to be resurfaced. Ray comments they will resurface half. Will you require us to resurface the whole run? We will be widening half and resurfacing the whole. Jon questions the pathways as shown on the detail sheets. To be consistent with the Primary Plat it calls for a path to be installed coming out of the Lakes at Hayden Run. There is a determination west and generally south to bring it up Towne Road. On your construction set on Sheets 1 -5, it does not show this. It picks it back up later. Farther up in other sections as in Lots 11 and 12 you are going to have driveways crossing the path. Steve Broermann, questions whether parties are aware that new ADA regulations will be going into effect next year. The list gives concerns about ADA structures in right -of -way. It goes back to the denting of ramps. I will put the website in my letter to you. Everything that is built will need to meet those requirements. Every ramp has to be concrete. All connections and curbs have to be concrete. There are also regulations on slopes. Jon wants to see coordination by section. We would have the installation of the asphalt path at one point in time. They should design the driveway approaches for those particular areas that have the asphalt path to accommodate the pathway abutting. Ray asks would they cut and reconnect at that point. Basically we are putting in a partial driveway. You want to see the house in first, and then put the pathway in after all the houses are built. Jon notes if the house comes in and they lay down the asphalt they will have to come back. They should have the driveways installed first. You would then come back in and lay that portion of asphalt. This would eliminate a hodgepodge of construction. If you want to propose an alternative, we can look at that. This will take some coordination so we do not get something inferior. Logistically it would be more effective to do all in concrete. At the intersection of the roundabout, we need to put drop -in approaches. In Section 2 those would intersect so we need to back one out. Steve details the example at 146 Street between US 31 and Rohrer Road. We have the path, the concrete ramps, and concrete driveways. Those individuals would not have a sidewalk in front of their house until all homes are constructed. When all houses are in, you would come back and lay the path. Jon adds a comment for the Board of Zoning Appeals. The recreational facility needs the BZA approval as a Special Use. I would also like to see additional comments from the builder on their proposed improvements for the common areas. Common areas 3 and 4 along with the small common areas in Section 2 need to show more detail as to what is proposed for those S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 6 areas. It is likely those are drainage easements. We will need some coordination between what they propose and the staff at Carmel Utilities. Ask the developer what he proposes and we will get them on at a separate TAC. In review, the Landscape set had differences. They need to match or exceed. Landscape will need to be addressed prior to approval of the plat. After we receive a revised set, any future comments will directed toward the "recordable" instrument rather than the construction plan Steve requests a more complete set. Some of the pages were missing. The entrance detail and intersections raise some questions. Jon has a comment about the entrance: are you seeking to acquire real estate for a passing blister? That will probably be requested by the Hamilton County Highway Department. If real estate cannot be provided, the improvements will be on your site for the northbound traffic. Ray comments he has a good relationship with the owner. The owner will probably work with him on the drainage easement. On another note, the instrument in Jon's office will be taken for recording. Jon comments: in negotiating with this individual for the purchase of an easement for drainage, if it becomes an issue, just purchase the right -of -way. This way we can make an improvement at this intersection in the future rather than come back and negotiate again. Those dollars could be used toward right -of -way purchase. Ray believes it might not be advisable. We have the drainage easement. It looks like we would create a much larger intersection. The owner might put the brakes on with that suggestion. Bill would like to know if a monument sign will be installed at the roundabout area. It might help the police and fire department as they go in and out. A sign could be installed with a subdivision name on one side and a subdivision name on the other side as a distinction between the neighborhoods. Ray says Drees Homes will be doing all the walls. We have not seen any plans for a monument sign. Lakes at Hayden Run, Section Two (Secondary Plat and Construction Plans) The site is located on the north side of West 131 Street approximately one quarter mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential Very Low Density. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Centex Homes. Ed Fleming with Stoeppelwerth and Tom Kutz with Centex Homes presented the details of the project. We are here today for Section Two which is the remaining 45 lots. We are in the process of building Section One. Section Two sits on approximately 38 acres just north of Section One. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October Steve has not finished the review of plans. On a quick look through, nothing seemed to be major. I will wrap up this week and send my written comments to you. No offsite on this Section. No asphalt down at this time. It appears you will begin next year. Jenny sent a letter yesterday. One concern was the elevation of asphalt path. This might cause some concern about the lake. Ed asks about the proposed regulated drain. Jenny will call with more details. Chuck will provide gas. All easements are wrapped up. The permits have been received. Tom Kutz recommends calling the 800 number for conduits on the second phase. Call Greg or me if you need further assistance. Dick will defer to Hamilton County. Scott notes submitted plans have changed somewhat. On the original you had the amount of species. You will need to be adding those back in. I have noted an area of major change. All the previous plans had not shown encroachment in the woods. On your approved open space plan, it saves the woods in its entirety. Now you have shown a path through it. As well, you have shown a lot construction and a drainage easement into it. Tom points out the tree line has changed. The layout hasn't changed. Tom shows Scott changes on the drawing. The original line is noted. Scott, original plans show preservation fencing around the outside drip line. On this plan, no fencing is shown as to tree protection. We can meet at the site for a walk through. Did you have another survey done? Tom will survey the line and get a correction. We will get it shown accurately on the plans. We would like to meander through the woods to save trees. Scott, I would prefer that you not remove more trees just to make a path thru the woods. Perhaps you can put the path on the outside of the woods. You can plant a few more trees if they are needed. Reference Sheet 4: try to pull the path farther south along the tree line and make the shortest cut possible, it would be an advantage. Pull east before it intersects into the tree area. Between this plan and last, street trees were taken out. I would like to see those go back in. You are missing four on Lorenzo Blvd. You need to maintain the same commitment as you did previously. Tom's concern is people might object to the trail being so close to their back yards. Woods are not dense enough and we can meander the trail through. We would only need to clear out some under brush. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October John South sent you a comment letter that satisfies the minimum requirements. I suggest installing the swale along your east property line. Place a height on that rock horseshoe dam. If it is 2' tall that is okay. Gary sent Ed a letter. Does Milano Street run back to the east and connect into a street? If it stops there, we would like to get a temporary cul de sac. Jon notes it is one lot from the intersection. A cul de sac is not needed. Bill has this section addressed. I will also fax addresses. The Post Office has issued new guidelines for mailbox placement and mail delivery. Bill passed guidelines to Tom. Jon: During the primary planning stage there was a discussion about the subdivision to the north (Lakeside Park). They eliminated one of the medians. They are required on both sides. On sheet 3, it appears the 6' asphalt path has an approach to the street. I would like to see that identified on Lablanca Bend. Also, on Lorenzo Blvd depress the curb on one side. I am thinking of the kids who will ride their bikes in the street, see the path, and cut up over the curb. It might as well be depressed and put an approach at the street. I don't necessarily see that we need to pick up on other side. Steve: ADA requires two curb depressions at each intersection. The single would direct a blind person to the middle of the intersection. ADA wants two separate. The curb is already in Section One; it is grand fathered. If the curb is not already put in, it must be changed. Jon: On sheet 4 we would like to see some modifications to the pathway and sidewalk. The crossing could be pulled up, come up on this side, and bend off. Take a look at it from a broader prospective. How can we integrate the sidewalks with the proposed pathway? We need something that works for the flow of pedestrians. We don't need both sidewalk and path, but we do need some coordinated approach to how they all intersect. Tom, are all the sidewalks to be concrete? Can we come up with an alternative? Jon, we don't have any comments about the Secondary Plat. We are using your note on the plat as a prototype for other subdivisions on the pedestrian access easement in the common areas. What we want to be sure of, when residents have gained control of the subdivision, they won't post signs to prohibit neighbors from walking through. Steve, questions how will we handle the construction in the roundabouts? Can we get this done in a coordinated manner? If Centex is there first, talk with Ray Roehling about building a stub in the other two directions. Perhaps discuss this before the next meeting. Tom we are getting ready to put this in next spring. Ray will also be spring. We still need to talk about easements (sanitary or water). S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 9 Village of West Clay, Hellen Wells Building (Construction Plans) The site is located at the southeast corner of 131 Street and Towne Road within the Village of West Clay. The site is zoned PUD /Planned Unit Development. Filed by Dave Sexton of the Schneider Corporation for Brenwick TND Communities. Dave Sexton with Schneider Corporation and Keith Lash from Brenwick are present for the TAC review on the Hellen Wells Building. It's a proposed two -story structure in the Village of West Clay. The placement is just south of the center of town. The two -story structure sits on one of the improved lots/blocks. We are not proposing any additional extensions of sewer mains, water mains, or storm sewers. Those will be up to the sewer lateral water tap. Steve sent a letter. No additional access. No further comments. Jenny No comments. This is already approved. Chuck, it is determined that you want gas for this building. In the front there is a 5' utility. We will bring gas in up the back. On the plans it did not detail a drainage utility easement. There is no main along Meeting House Road. We have one on the north and one on the south side. Some of the other utilities have been coming up the alley. Keith Lash, it would be beneficial if the Vectren main were along Meeting House Road for future connections. If the main were in the front, we could do a tap -in similar to the Miller building across the street as well as the State Farm Building. Chuck, anything built to the north will hopefully get extended in that direction. We will need to get together to discuss this further. The load requirements sheet is handed to Keith. Give Jerry a call if you have any questions. Dick, this is outside Carmel engineering jurisdiction. Scott does not have a landscape plan. As you plan on building more properties such as this, will you have tree pits in the front? You show an open area that shows an existing tree. Do you want to save the tree? Keith, similar to the Miller building, we will build the tree pit around it. Scott would like an opportunity to make comments on the construction. You will not get anything to grow there unless you do it properly. You will be replacing trees every two years. Scott will provide Dave with comments and information on construction. John South, I recommend a silt fence across the front. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 10 Gary sent Dave a letter. No plans to sprinkle the building. There is no basement. The second story will be all office. If the second floor is over 1500 SF, it has to be sprinkled. When I calculate the square footage, I come up with over 2000. There are some options if you do not sprinkle. My last comment is we request a Knox box for emergency access. If it does turn out to be sprinkled, we would request a set of Knox PC caps. I will provide an application. Bill has given addresses. I will send a letter so you can get a permit. Do you know how many tenant spaces there are available in the building? It is noted only one tenant will have an office in the building. The tenant is Hellen Wells. Also, I am passing on to you a new letter from the post office. You may contact the individual on the letter if you have any questions. Jon, did we go through the Secondary Platting on the State Farm and the Dentist Office? Keith noted they are permitted metes and bounds according to the ordinance. It is all similar. What will be to the south of this building? Keith explains it will be a future driveway into Block E. After looking at the proposed sanitary lateral location, it looks like the manhole sits outside the existing easement. If that is a proposed easement, we will need a separate easement to get over the manhole. Will you record a blanket easement for that? Will it include access over the manhole? Once you get other TAC comments resolved, and those other issues, we will then be in a position to issue building permits. Dave, after our final set of architectural plans, we will verify the location. Keith, it will be part of the overall parking lot. The Villas at Sweet Charity Farms (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks approval to plat a 52 -lot residential subdivision on 34.51 acres. The site is located on the south side of 141 Street 1/8 mile east of Towne Road. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residence Estate. Filed by Rich Kelly of EMH &T for Justus Home Builders, Inc Chris White represents Justus Homes who is the developer and builder of the The Villas at Sweet Charity Farms. Rich Kelly filed the application for Justus Home Builders, Inc. The site is located on the south side of 141 Street and east of Towne Road. It is presently owned partly by Nancy Irsay and the Browns own the western half of the site. There are two existing property owners of which the house in the northwest corner will be carved out of this parcel and will remain. We are proposing 52 lots that are approximately 80 x 120 in size utilizing the open space ordinance. This will be 52 lots on 34'/2 acres. Our entrance will line up with the new entrance recently installed by Saddle Creek to the north. We do have a legal drain that cuts through the site which is the reason, partly, for the location of the ponds. Sanitary sewer will be extended from Saddle Creek to the north to our site. We have worked out easements with Platinum Properties who is developing that subdivision. This will come from 146 Street to our site. There is existing water at 141 Street and is the City of Carmel water. There will be no clubhouse or amenity within the subdivision. We will have walking paths throughout the community along with a gazebo. The landscape plans have already been submitted for review. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 11 Steve Broermann, Hamilton County Highway sent a letter to Rich. Chris questions Steve about the widening to the south side from the west line clear over to the east that would be off the property. Steve, that is correct. We would like to see you complete this. Saddle Creek has done their entire site. This would be a 24' wide street across the whole thing. We would like to see you asphalt across the entire area. You can adjust the striping where it needs to be done at the entrance. Also, ADA now requires more stringent guidelines. At intersections they are looking for curb depressions in each direction. The ADA guidelines are on the Federal Highway website. We expect to see all this incorporated. It mostly pertains to the ramps. They must be concrete. We can sit down and further review these requirements. Chris, we can do a proper frontage. We don't feel your widening idea will be acceptable to this developer. Also, is 146 Street similar to 131 Street? It is a collector street per Jon. The thoroughfare plan calls for it to be a four -lane roadway. This will be completed similar to Aberdeen Bend. Jon I would like to see you work out a plan with the County Highway Department on what they want to see farther east. I do not see that you need to go above and beyond what is required on the thoroughfare plan. We would like this to be satisfactory to the highway department as far as the level of improvement. Then you can say the developer will make "x" improvement along the frontage. What we would like to see at the entrance is opposing lots on 141 Street as opposed to decel lanes and exit into the site. Steve, this will fit in. It is just a matter of restriping approximately 2' more pavement. The ordinance calls for a 45' half. The right -of -way exists all the way to Saddle Creek. When they came up with the Special Use approval for horse barns they dedicated additional right -of -way. Saddle Creek added 3' and that would give us 24'. All poles are the on north side of street. It would not be a matter of moving the poles. It would just involve adding some pipes. Jon, I do not have a preference or the ability to ask you to go above and beyond what the ordinance requires. It would be a negotiation between the developer and the county highway department. Jenny sent a letter. We completed a field investigation of the offsite portions of the regulated drain. The inspector has included his requests as far as the clearing and the dredging of the drain Rich, we understand we need to clear the drain all the way to 146 Street. It is regulated all the way so there are no issues with that. We will clear the trees along banks, remove smaller trees, and brush. It is understood you would like to see the flow line reestablished. We will follow up on the documentation relative to the legal drain and nonenforcement. As we get through the Primary Plat plan and get to the construction plans, let's sit down and discuss this more in detail. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 12 As we move forward in this process, we would like to also discuss the considerable offsite water shed to the north of 141 Street. This is approximately 250 acres. It is undeveloped at this point. There are a number of restrictions along the route of the watershed as it feeds on to our site. I believe we should investigate if you are contemplating a restriction when that area develops. This might restrict the outflows. We need to get reasonable side drainage structures. Again we need to sit down and talk about it, as we get further into the design. Chuck, we currently are in the process of extending our facilities to Saddle Creek Ten on 141 Street. Our facilities will be across the street from your entrance. Presently your contact should be Jerry Breeck in our sales department. Once we get moving along, this project will be assigned to an individual in our office for design and conduit crosses. We have no problem with the design and layout Dick, points out this is not part of C 210 Annexation. The right -of -way of 141 Street will be part of the annexation. That part of the annexation will be effective February 2003. Carmel engineering will defer to Hamilton County. Steve Broermann questions the issue of 141 Street with regard to additional improvements. Discussion is held for a future meeting. Jon, as it pertains to annexation, we will probably release for construction subject to your review. We would not want to get into a situation where it would take another two months of revising plans. We will make a clean break. If this comes into TAC in December or January, I would hope that they not hold it up. Mike McBride would like to look further at the control of the right -of -way. We will communicate our findings. Jon, will the developer be pulling new pipes under 141 Street for drainage? With Saddle Creek, it would have to be extensions. I believe they were made long enough to accommodate 24' of pavement. Is the developer required to do resurfacing? Steve, Saddle Creek was resurfaced from Towne Road all the way to Ditch when they completed their widening. They did all of the 141 Street improvements at one time. Rich and Chris might want to get with Saddle Creek/Platinum Properties for resurfacing and coordinate the entrances. 141 Street was chip and seal to asphalt. Originally they put down 12" thick pavement. They just recently did the widening. Scott passed a list of comments. I have concerns about the regulated drain. You show a legal drain and yet you have things plotted in it. Landscaping and lots are shown in this area. I know it is a covered drain but I don't know what you plan to do about the restrictions. Are you going over the existing pipe? You should abandon this and reroute through the pond system. When you come off the corner of your property, you should leave this area natural. My suggestion is to put it to the side so you don't have to disturb it. The small trees and brush should be left as a S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 13 buffer and wildlife trail. You might consider not going down through the middle and create a new swale and open drain. It looks like a 50' easement. Or, you can plant some items on the on the other side. Further notes: you will need to submit a planting detail; a diagram detailing the required buffer yard plantings; a summary table on how that equals out; we also need the species detail of the extra trees. Around the pond and curving to the pond, we need some buffering. The house and PSI substation have heavy buffering at the end of Benevolence Court. Behind these lots you have nothing. Chris it is our understanding that PSI will be doing quite a bit of buffering down that line. We have not seen a plan to date. Scott, along with that we would still like to see buffering at Lots 1 -7. The buffering requirements ask that you plant along the property perimeters. Since you are keeping an open area, we can approve some weight of screening. John South referred to Smith Crosby in his letter. We do not recommend basements for this area due to the high water table. The design of your pond has a narrow neck that may become a trash problem. This aesthetically is not going to look all that nice. The pond nearest the road is going to collect a lot of sediment. You mentioned there is a large watershed upstream that is undeveloped. As this area does develop, you will get a fair amount of sediment in that pond. Some provisions need to be considered about how that will be maintained. Chris, we propose an over dig. With this, our excavating equipment can get in to clean it out. Rich, the concept we looked at is a low flow structure that would allow that channel to be dry. We could elevate it about a foot above the normal pool. That channel becomes our overflow. Saddle Creek Ten was the same as well as Sections 3 and 4 south of 141 Street. It is worth looking into. We also need to look at upstream restrictions. Gary sent Rich a letter and received a prompt response. As for the temporary cul -de -sacs, we do not have a problem with not installing those. One of the homes off Cherry Lane will not be addressed. At the end of Beaumont Blvd South, it will only access two lanes. The two parcels at the dead -end corner have enough room to maneuver around and get back to the intersection. The island at the entrance protrudes out and makes the throat of the entrance narrow. Will this be rollback or tearback curbing? Our concern is turning our ladder to get in there. Most of the homes in this area are two story or more homes. Our ladder will be responding to this type of structure. Chris, would it be helpful to you if we pull back from 141 Street. Gary, yes that would work, or, perhaps you can make the island a rollback instead of a tearback. I can give you some widths and turning radius of the trucks. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 14 Bill Akers would like to talk about the street names. I might suggest that Beaumont Blvd South be cut off when the street starts to go back to the east where it intersects with Benevolence Court. If future development goes in to the east, that can be an east/west street and it can then be north, south, east, and west. I will need a name for that. Also for Beaumont Blvd South, we would like to see another name for it. I like to see the names split up between the two developments across a main thoroughfare like 141 Street. After two more names, I will need to submit these to the county. A couple of the names might not be accepted. As an example, Charity Lane is already in use. We would like to have the names in the next week or so. Just to confirm, you stated you would have a gazebo and not an amenity building. The Post Office now has guidelines for mailbox placement and mail delivery. They are trying to make a standard throughout the township. Please contact the individual on the form if you have further questions. Jon, adjacent to your property there are long expanses of white vinyl fence, do you have any plans to relocate these along the back. Chris, as part of the Purchase Agreement, the owner wants to retain the fence across the frontage. Jon, I would like to see this element carried across into this development as part of the design theme for the open areas. It creates a tie -in. If you do incorporate it across the front, try to pull the fence in along the backside of the right -of -way up to pathway. In addition to the letter we sent, my additional comments are about the location of paths and their connectivity (Jon shows detail sheet): depress curb off street to path; this is to get people off the street and onto the path; pull path up to intersection; snake it as opposed to straight through. The path does not need to be here. If I were asked what would I prefer to have, the pathway or the decorative fencing, I would want to see the fencing to carry the theme across. Getting the right -of -way frontage is more desirable. Lets sit down outside TAC to talk about this further. If we can help you with your issue with the owner and leverage something else in lieu of that which meets our expectation, please let us know. I would entertain that discussion. We have no further comments at this time. Chris, we would like to create a conservation path of approximate 1 /2 acre. Steve answers a meeting with the highway department will be planned soon. Jon will defer to the county highway department on design standards. Collector roads will be discussed at that time. Laura Vista Subdivision (Secondary Plat and Construction Plans) The applicant seeks approval to plat a 55 -lot residential subdivision on 34.94 acres. The site is generally located south of Danbury Estates subdivision between SR 431 and the Foster Estates Subdivision. The site is zoned R -1 /Residence. Filed by Brandon Burke of The Schneider Corporation for Primrose Development, LLC. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 15 Jim White along with Brandon Burke, project engineer, gave an overview of the site. Laura Vista is located west of Foster Estates. Access is off Laura Drive, which comes in from Foster. Lowe's Home Improvement, Keystone Avenue, and the future off ramp from Keystone are also located in the vicinity. There are 54 new lots. Lot 55 is an existing property owned by Gary and Cindy Foust. Brandon, for the most part we have received comments from TAC members. It is my understanding Carmel Engineering did not receive a set of construction plans. We brought those plans today. In addition to that, I will distribute drainage reports as well. Currently we are in the process of having the site annexed. We understand the action may not occur until next year. The design standards for water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer are with the City of Carmel. Because of Cool Creek, the detention standards and discharge rates will be through Hamilton County Surveyor. We will have an interlocal agreement and adhere to those standards through the City of Carmel. Charlie Frankenberger has that agreement and is prepared to take that to the City Council. Steve, we have been talking to the state about sewer connections. They don't want us to allow anything in there right now. They are looking at the possibility of leading into the area. That was the directive from last week. We have not heard back why or the reason for this action. If there is a possibility of out letting the storm sewer on your site from Cool Creek, we will look into that option. Brandon, currently the drainage pattern is to the south. It actually drains into the 431 right -of- way. Then it traverses along that back toward Cool Creek. It's all overland flow. There is a valley that goes from the northeast to southeast corner. Although it is a concern, we want to outlet into Cool Creek for erosion control purposes. With the woodlands there, over time that could be a problem. We took the initiative based on Hamilton County Surveyor's standards. If you are discharging into the water area, they require you to go to the point of discharge. If we can work with engineering, the surveyors, and the City of Carmel on an alternative, we are willing to consider whatever it takes. Steve, we don't understand why the state has taken this position. They are supposed to get back to us. We have shown them what we have and what is going on. We should hear something soon. We will continue to pursue that issue. Jenny, do you know when construction will begin? Jim notes construction should begin soon but there are several variables. We wanted to see what changes might come out of the TAC meeting. The weather will be a factor so it may be next year before we break ground. Annexation will be effective around February 2003 and that will also come into play. Jenny, I have the comments from the Primary Plat from our office. The comments indicate we will defer to the engineer's office. Cool Creek is not regulated at that point and it is being S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 16 annexed. Jenny will get additional information from Steve Broermann. More comments will come from the city. Chuck, we will come out from Foster Estates on the lower drive and make the tie -in. No problem with layout. Dick, we would like to receive a set of drawings. Brandon forwarded the drawings and calculations. Mike McBride has an issue with the Cool Creek North trail. A portion of the trail that exists on this plat is to be constructed by your development. There are some other things in the works. A feasibility study will be done this week, which should include more ideas. We will pass those comments along after the construction drawing is received. We have a general idea where the trail will go. We are trying to coordinate a few of those issues. You will need at least one crossing in the area of Laura Vista where that is going to cross over Cool Creek. Whether it occurs east or west of the ramp at this point we are not exactly positive. We will talk about the bridge issue at another meeting. Jim White, originally we were going to align with the sanitary, but at the meeting last week with Jim Neal it is our understanding that the sanitary is not being relocated. That is a whole different picture. Mike, we are following the sanitary easement everywhere except for this area of Laura Vista. If it does get relocated it will stay very close to the right -of -way of the ramp. It was not a desirable location for a trail. Scott, there are a lot of issues for this site whether it appears in court or here. I was at a DNR meeting for a Kite project just north of here where several serious subjects were discussed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Services have designated this an ecological sensitive area. A letter was sent in July urging this area not be disturbed. A tree preservation plan needs to accompany the Secondary Plat. All the woodland areas need to be protected. I will need a detailed list from you. No structures can be placed in this area. You can't clear trees unless they fall naturally or unless they are hazardous and might fall on someone. I will send you the language regarding these stipulations. If a monument sign is purposed, we need a plan of that sign and its required landscaping detail. On the Primary Plat there is one to the east side. I do not have a landscape plan. If you are not going to submit a landscape plan, we must have an explanation for that. The path that runs through the middle and connects to Laura Vista Drive, I would like to see shade trees along that area. You have cleared a whole section between Laura Vista and the pond. We did not meet with anyone at the Primary Plat stage and discuss tree preservation. It did not come up as an issue at that time. Jon, remarks there does need to be a landscape plan submit. It needs to refer to tree preservation. If it is going to be built within the city, we will require street trees to be planted. Those trees S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 17 need to be identified on the plans. They need to be shown along the perimeter and along the lots by Danbury. You can visit the City of Carmel website and pull the list of trees from DOCS. John South sent a letter regarding erosion control plan. The biggest concern is you need to put in some appropriate practices during initial construction. Sediment traps need to be in place before mass earthwork is done. Define this in a sequencing detail. Gary sent a letter to Brandon. We requested temporary cul de sacs. The Bayview Addition to the north does not have an access street. The decision is the owner to the north will construct a cul -de -sac if they want to develop that parcel into three lots. We need a connector that is close. Jim, to bring you up to date: some of the residents in Foster Estates were talking with the Bayview residents. That was a remnant parcel. Bayview was the original owner of the Danbury property. We talked with those residents. They wanted too much money. The people in Foster became aware that it was available. I think the Foster Association may have purchased the parcel. Jon, we anticipated some type of future development. If Foster did purchase the land, they could still develop it in the future. Perhaps another 50' of street would be gained and onto a cul -de -sac that would service three lots. Gary would like to see a temporary turnaround at both ends. This is a long stretch. We would be serving five lots at the north end and three on the south end. There will not be an amenity building. Bill confirms that Brandon received the list of subdivision addresses faxed over last week. The post office has new guidelines for mailbox placement and mail delivery. A letter is passed to Brandon. The contact person is listed at the bottom of the letter. Jon, the only thing we need to get resolved is the issue regarding the alternative transportation path. There is still some discussion about the route. That still needs to be resolved. This comes after the discussion we had about the property to the north. If you can get more information about the land, it would be most helpful. If it is sold to those people and it is never going to be developed, perhaps I should call them. They might work with us on the right -of -way. The city would not want that street to terminate forever. We would like to obtain enough r -o -w to complete a cul -de -sac. It is not your responsibility to construct it. We do not want to see a sub street with weeds growing everywhere. I will get a comment letter to you today. One additional comment, the 6' asphalt path needs to have public access. The basic language you need to show on the document is "the public has a right to walk on the 6' asphalt paths Jim Neal, it might be necessary to lift up to the interceptor at Danbury. I will check with the highway department. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 18 Clay Terrace (Preliminary Development Plan) The applicant seeks approval of a preliminary development plan. The site is located at the southwest corner of US Highway 31 and East 146 Street. Filed by Jeff Clayton of American Consulting, Inc. for the Lauth Property Group Attendees introduction: Mark Jang, Pat Shea, and Joe Downs with Lauth Property Group; Jeff Clayton with American Consulting, Inc. Joe Downs, we have submitted preliminary engineering and civil engineering portions of the project. There is a lot of work to do on the site to get the area ready for development. Building placement is in question. There is a pipeline to be relocated. The county is building a road. We have started the process of seeking our preliminary Development Plan approval. This is the first step. Jeff Clayton received comments from some city TAC members. Response to comments: erosion control plan has not been completed at this time. We will have this by the time we receive construction permits from the city. None of the buildings have been designed yet. A Knox Box would not a problem. The intent is to sprinkle the buildings. Fire hydrant locations will come with the develop plans at a later date. The Police Department did not have comments. The city issued comments yesterday. A large part of the city comments are relative the design of Range Line Rd. I'm not sure we will be able to get into too much of that until the county has released the design project for Range Line Rd. That is still pending. The configuration and location of roundabouts, intersections, road design and layout are forthcoming. One thing relative to the street design that we can confirm is all of the improvements will be publicly owned. Sanitary pipes will be placed behind the buildings. The storm sewers located in the parking areas will be privately owned. The only item owned by the county will be the storm trunk line. We would dedicate the sanitary and the water to the city. We can talk about the design of the street, but until we get the county on board, I don't believe we can commit to a whole lot of specifics. Jim Neal, we can talk about the storm sewer design later. How will the future right -of -way get protected? Will the covenants run with the property so that everyone knows up front? The center area where there is parking needs to be addressed. Until talking with the county engineer, we have no further comments. Jenny, normally we regulate anything less than 31. I have not had a chance to talk with the county surveyor about this area. The surrounding subdivisions are not regulated. There are no regulated drains through the property. I still need to talk with the county. Jeff notes there is some drainage across the subdivision that comes through the property. The one spot that is concentrated is at the southwest corner the land. There is a ditch that comes onto our site from the back subdivision. That might be one spot where we would put an easement to maintain drainage. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 19 Chuck, since these are going to be dedicated streets, and we are unsure if you will have utility easements on the outside of the r -o -w, we will bring our facilities from 146 Street to the entrance. Are you going to develop the entire street north and south? We stop at Walter Street where Range Line Rd used to parallel. At some point during final layout, we should have a connection from north to south. We will lay to the back of the right -of -way depending on the other utilities. Jeff, can you run behind the buildings? The utility services will probably be located there. Can you take a look at this area? This is going to be very tight in front. You can run the back of both sides. We are running sanitary and water behind and on each side. There will be street, sidewalks, and the front of the building. There will not be much landscaping. It will have a look of a downtown city street. The parking will be up against the curbs and sidewalks. Any landscaping will be in tree wells or planters. Storms will be the only utility out front. Chuck, how wide is the easement for separation? Jeff, no utility easement is shown on the plans. We can give you 5- 6'separation. Especially for running services there is plenty room. Dick faxed a short comment letter to American Consulting yesterday. The comments 1 through 10 are some of our general requirements. They may or may not apply in your case. These are primarily Kate Weese's comments. No further requests. Jeff, on item 3, it gets into some specifics about design issues that are still pending. The locations of the construction entrance, commercial curb cuts, etc. have not been designed yet. Of course we will include the city engineer in on any designs such as roundabouts, intersections, and parking stalls. There is enough flexibility in the plan at this time to make changes. On Range Line Rd outside of the r -o -w, sidewalks will end approximately one foot behind the curb. Dick, can you meet the pool elevation at the detention ponds. Jeff, our surveyor advised us this could be met. We might make some adjustments but not a lot. We will arrange a meeting with the sewer and water staff to discuss the sanitary sewer and manhole covers. Dick, crews have been out to the site to assess this issue. Scott, since there are no landscape plans submitted with these drawings, I would like to remind you a certain amount of landscaping was committed to during the rezone. I will need to have the plans to make my comments. The design has changed significantly. I am concerned about having the space to plant what was required by reforestation. A lot has disappeared under parking lots or retention ponds or building. I would like to be involved in any landscape designs. When I receive the plans, I will be glad to make comments. It is noted that Jeff will have the plans in by middle December. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 20 John South, as you commented, the erosion control plans were not submitted. With the nature of the land, erosion control will be an issue. We will need to deal with this more comprehensively than most plans. We will review those when you have them put together. With the rolling terrain of the property, I wish you could use it more to your advantage. They are leveling most of the site to make it easy to build versus using the topography to make it unique to this part of the county. The existing wells on the property need to be abandoned properly. Gary, will hold comments until receiving detail plans. Bill, as far as addressing goes, will each building be submitted in different stages? Each building shell will have an address on the building. As the tenant is added they will get a suite number. Pat Shea, we would like to get an address per space per tenant. These will be in block portion. Bill, on the drawing you should show this as North Range Line Road. John South, regarding scheduling, do you anticipate building the majority of the property at least the infrastructure in one period of time? As this process is a little unusual, this would be good to know. Jeff, this will be one period of time. Jon, we will see at TAC all if not portions of this at least two more times. This should be on TAC again next month with a revised set of plans. Their intent is to go before the Plan Commission in December to get overall approval of the layout. This meeting is to flush out some of the main comments we need to know to proceed with before moving to final design. This project will be back several times. A department letter is given to Jeff. Along Range Line Rd, we need to see a single set of the improvements. You should coordinate with the county so the plans reflect our discussion here today. You need to file a Plat Vacation for those portions of the Walters Subdivision. Please label the setback ramps for the US31 r -o -w. Once you have this completed and submitted to INDOT, you need to ask for a response to the Development Plan. Comment 6: needs to be changed with regard to the setback, per the ordinance, which shows it as 45'. In addition to that you are purposing a 50' pipeline easement, which also effects the placement of that building. Landscape islands are purposed within that easement. Does the required plantings propose a problem for that easement? You will need to identify a 10' landscape setback along 146 Street. There is a hardscape planned along Range Line Road. As you get south of those building, the ordinance calls for a 10' asphalt path that needs to be illustrated. Pat, Shell said it is okay. We will provide an approval letter. Jeff, can that path stop at the road that goes back into Walters Plaza rather than all the way to the highway? Will there be a crosswalk across the highway? S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 21 Jon, I would look to you to answer those questions for us. If that is in the form of a crosswalk or a separated grade crossing, I am looking for the compliance to the thoroughfare plan. You might need to escrow money to construct the path later. This depends on what INDOT decides. Comment 10: we are looking for a significant number of islands to break up the spans of asphalt. Signage is not part of the real estate on your design. The ordinance adopted by the council permits signage to be located on the real estate. This cannot be placed in the right of way. Comment 13 is a big concern: you need to complete the buffer per the ordinance. You need to revise the plans accordingly. A meeting will be set to go over Jon's department letter in more detail. Jeff, our intention was to show the setbacks measured from the state highway r -o -w. We will show that we have fee simple ownership. Range Line Rd improvements will be completed at one time. Motorcycles of Indianapolis (Amended Development Plan) The site is located at 4146 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B -3 (Business). Filed by Bill Keller of KES Consultants, Inc. for Motorcycles of Indianapolis. Bill Keller passed around the room prints of the front of the building. The site is on the north side of the street adjacent to the Honda Dealership. At one time it was the Dellen Olds and Mercury Dealerships. It is at 96 Street and Bower Drive across from Precedent Office Park in Marion County. The existing building is approximately 22,400 SF and was built in 1996. It will be a show room and service facility for motorcycles. The project we are completing this time is: 1) we would like to change the front canopy of the building to something a little more stylish. We would like to build a new canopy on the west side of the building for a cover over the motorcycles. One of the problems presently, is the service area is small enough that once the motorcycle is finished, there is no place to put it. They have to leave it outside. When an owner comes in to pay a "$1,000" service bill, they don't want to see their possession left in inclement conditions. Mr. Dellen would like to build a canopy of about 3,000 SF on the west side of the building for the convenience of the customer. 2) The next portion of the project is a small office addition to the building on the east side. This would be between Bower Drive East and the building itself. The Dellens operated their automotive group out of an office in the Honda Dealership. They still own the building but lease it all out to Honda. They would like to be at their facility and operate in their main headquarters. It will consist of approximately 2400 SF. This will be a one -story office for a few executives and support staff. The flavor of the building is going to change a little because of the canopy. The canopies are going to be arched, curved, and a little higher in elevation than the existing canopies. No change in the sign on the building. There is one street sign out front. The architecture for the office addition (the building is a split face masonry block) will be consistent with the windows to match the existing facade. We bounced around a bit with the colors. They have decided to stay the same. Essentially, the building is a dark brown painted block. It might be a shade lighter. The canopies will be a bronze color. No new parking. When the dealership was sold, the buildings were retained. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 22 They built a masonry wall around the west and north sides of the "motorcycle property". They built the wall for leasing purposes. The masonry wall is 8' high and separates the two facilities. We will be loosing five parking spaces on the east side with the addition of the office and eight spaces on the south side with the revised canopy. We have some parking we did not use before; thus, we still meet the requirements for parking spaces. There are no new drainage structures. The landscaping is in place except for some low lying planting along 96 Street and a small amount along Bower Drive which was planted but did not survive when street was widen the last time. When snow gets plowed, the area sits under the "snirt They are more than willing to put those back in and they will match the landscaping around the building. Steve No Comment. Chuck No Comment. Dick sent a letter to Bill. I could not tell the scope of the project but now you have explained it. Normally we need more than is shown on the plans. We should have a civil drawing. We have a survey now and more is coming. I should have a full report to you next week. There is a slight change in the drainage. Everything is paved; we are not adding any paving. We will do the calculations. The only change would be to take a little drainage on the southeast corner of that addition to get it out to the parking lot. Steve, I will defer to Jon my question regarding the right -of -way on 96 Street. In my letter to you are the thoroughfare requirements. Bill, I am aware that the survey picked up the actual line and we have not updated this drawing. It will be on the civil drawing. There is a corner jog for the right -of -way but we have the correct line now. The line shown on the east side is the 75' line from the center. It is 144' from the right -of -way line to the front of the canopy. Steve, the only other issue on drainage is the asphalt path. I understand the swale is not longer there and is closing off. There is sidewalk along this area. Jon, we might ask for an additional right -of -way at the corner. We need to get the information before you go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. This would be parallel to road and a corner cut at the intersection. This would not get into your improvements. Be sure to get with engineering and let them know you will be looking for a response. The petition you will have in front of the Plan Commission in November will be on the ADLS Amendment. The variance on the setbacks at Bower Drive to the building will be at the BZA meeting in November. Scott would like a set of revised plans. We ask you to restore what landscaping has been lost over time. John South, due to the small area of construction, erosion control is not a major issue. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 23 Gary faxed a letter requesting a Knox Box. Bill Keller has a Knox Box there now on the east side of the building. If you want it relocated, please let us know what location would be best. Gary confirms it can be left in its current location. Bill Akers No Comment. Jon, the need for the civil drawing to identify the setbacks and the potential for the dedication of right -of -way at the corner should be submitted soon. Other than that you have described some of conditions adequately. You will need to submit plans or renderings of the building elevation with the proposed colors to the Plan Commission on this ADLS Amendment. Bill Keller questions Jon about the department letter: you state the publication should be in the Indianapolis Star only and it is only for the Variance request. Jon notes this is correct. Cherry Creek Estates Formerly Cherry Tree Estates (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks approval to plat a 273 -lot residential subdivision on 149.562 acres. The site is located on the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway north and south of Cherry Tree Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residential Low Intensity. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Platinum Properties, LLC. Representatives from Platinum Properties: Paul Rioux and Tim Walter. Representing Stoeppelwerth Associates: Dennis Olmstead. Paul, we are located at Hazel Dell Parkway and Cherry Tree Road at 141 Street. It is a 150 acre site previously known as the Hazel Foster property. There are two creeks that run through the area and a couple Carmel well sites. It has a floodplain. The Primary Plat has 272 home sites. About 40% of the site is common area. Primary access is across Hazel Dell at Avian Glen just north of the elementary school. This plan proposes running an east/west collector as per the thoroughfare plan. This will eventually get us across to River Road. This plan abandons approximately 90% of the existing Cherry Tree Road that runs through the site and picks it up and ties it into the new thoroughfare. It has about seven stubs and connects to Delaware Trace on the south, Haverstick to east and south, and Spring Creek to the north. Steve, I would like to talk about the annexation. We are aware you would like to begin as soon as possible. I would suggest the interlocal agreement. You will need to work with Carmel on the Hazel Dell Pkwy improvements. I can send you a copy of the interlocal agreement so you can get stared with the process. It is pretty straightforward. I have a question about the realignment of Cherry Tree north and how you are going to tie in Cherry Tree. Paul, we would like to provide 3 designs for consideration: 1) two residents are involved and from which one can we acquire any right -of -way. This will allow the existing Cherry Tree to tie S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 24 in with what will be built. 2) take up a small corner at the triangle to tie in to Spring Hollow. In the future we would like to get this r -o -w to take the jog out of Cherry Tree. 3) talk with Klingensmith. Steve, we will annex east of the city limits all the way to White River. The bridge will be approved in our office. Call Matt Knight, bridge engineer, when you do the hydraulic calculations for the bridge. Be sure to take into account the existing bridge (north on Cherry Tree). Jim Nelson is handling the interlocal. Jenny sent calculations for the subdivision to the north. We need to get a revised plan. You had the floodway on some of the lots. Paul, this has not been revised since our first meeting. We have the flood line touching the back of some lots. That will be changed as it was crossing the creek. We had an issue with realigning. Chuck, will this be developed all at once or in phases? Paul explains it will be four phases. The first phase will come in off Hazel Dell at Cherry Tree. We have some gas that comes out of the old entrance. We can come across and follow the new Cherry Tree Avenue and then connect at the other subdivisions. We have service in at Haverstick to the east. Dick faxed a comment letter to Dennis. Basically items 1 -11 are standard for a subdivision. Have you completed your drainage calculations for this project? Dennis, we have completed only the preliminary calcs. Dick, at the entrances we need 18' back to back. The city engineer will be concerned with less than standard street width. You might be looking at no parking in areas where you desire streets to be less than our standards. Scott did not receive plans. I will have comments on open space and landscape plans when received. Paul, we just finished our inventory and preservation plan. We will address your comments. John Duffy, there is an existing 8" water line on Cherry Tree off of Hazel Dell. We will need to decide if that is a benefit, or, what will we do with it if it is not a benefit. Given that we have two well sites, any lakes or ponds will need to be lined. It is an aesthetic issue as much as anything. We do not want this drawn down. The road going through the north part of well number 17 is utility property. There may be some legal issues regarding how we handle that. You have done a good job otherwise with well protection. Paul, is there a legal issue in getting across the property? We will follow up S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 25 John South sent out his letter. You have numerous soil types on the property. It is an interesting site. Some soils are good for basements and some are not good for basements. The "Wesleyan" and "Brookston" are not recommended for basements. They will have a high water table. Try to plan your layout in conjunction with soil types. The comment by John Duffy on pond liners somewhat trumps my comment as to poor soils for ponds. The lining will be necessary so they don't leak. You have a watershed to the northeast of the well field area, which is not considered in the overall drainage plan. There are no cross pipes. It would be helpful for review if your overall plan shows woodlots, roads, houses, and all features on the property. This would be helpful in getting the bearings on it versus those items shadowed out and not shown. Gary sent Dennis a letter asking for the location of fire hydrants. No temporary cul de sac is needed. Since there will be a pool house and amenity building, please have the builder call us when that is on the plans. We will need a Knox Box. Paul, the amenity building will be in Section Two by the gap between the lots in the center section. We will have this on our Primary. Bill, we have counted 16 street names will be needed. There are a couple street names that come in from other developments and we can keep those. The Post Office now has guidelines for mailbox placement and mail delivery. If you have any questions, please contact the individual listed on the letter. Jon sent a letter to Dennis October 9 Along the east/west collector road that is identified we can suffice with a pathway along the south side. A 10' asphalt path on that south edge. We have provided you with an exhibit showing existing pathways in Spring Creek, along to the south, and near the creek to Haverstick on the south side. I do not suggest you build a pedestrian path across the creek. This is our suggestion as far as pathway connectivity to match up north and south of the plan. It is important for you to provide this information to the Plan Commission. Encourage the city, at a minimum, to achieve an agreement on the right -of -way, at least for accessing Spring Creek. We would participate in some manner. The Klingensmith property is large enough and might develop sometime in the future. The Plan Commission Rules of Procedure (I tried to reach Jim Nelson) requires that a subdivision over 150 lots needs to provide a traffic study. As part of the Primary Plat we need to do that to help us determine what the arrangement along Hazel Dell needs to be. Would entrances need to be in both directions? Do we want to close off the existing access to Cherry Tree perhaps close the median cut? In a passing conversation with the Fire Chief, it is my understanding that with Block A we are prepared to dedicate that to the city for a future fire station. This might be the site as it could be just right in and right onto Cherry Tree. This will be determined at a later date. We would not penalize the developer on tree preservation, as this would be a city project. On the landscape plan I would like to see you focus on an east/west collector roadway and what you would do on the south side at the common areas. Detail some of those groupings around the existing floodplain area. We are going to ask for street trees. We are looking at between 40 -50 on center. You can visit Scott's website for a recommended list. The Plan Commission is going to be very interested in seeing your portray to them the intended use of the common areas. Provide S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 26 photos of the area and how this pathway system operates through the development (benches, gazebo, amenity area). They are more interested in the design at this time. The two cul de sacs that wrap around well site number 17 exceed the length requirements. My suggestion is to apply for the waiver and propose pavers to determine those cul de sacs onto the east/west collector roads. The following comment was not included in my letter: I would like for you to consider and scoot the intersection which would be the future Cherry Tree connection to the east side of the creek. You can pull that south far enough to accommodate a roundabout similar in design to what we have at Lakes Hayden Run and Lakeside Park. Dennis, will that create a problem with geometry coming off the bridge? It will only be about 100' from the bridge deck. We will explore it before we commit. We can be sure pavements accommodate opposing lots. Jon, we need to do one of two things: 1) apply for a waiver for meeting the thoroughfare plan requirements; or, 2) propose an amendment which I can indicate to the Plan Commission that DOCS is in favor. I will provide the forms you need. We will have all bases covered. However it will be developed, we will end up with a connection that is reasonable. We need to button this down immediately. Dick, with the interlocal agreement, will the council have to vacate? If it is not annexed by then, it has to be the county's call. It is a technical call. Jon, the street widths will need to be reviewed by the engineering department. DOCS would support those narrow widths with less than 15 lots. We have had complaints about frontage places in other locations. I believe providing an additional point of access onto Hazel Dell aligned with the school and having this terminate resolves the questions from some individuals. We will further discuss wrapping sidewalks around "eyebrows" with engineering. Providence at Old Meridian (Development Plan Amendment) The applicant seeks approval of an amendment to the approved Development Plan for Providence at Old Meridian. The sit is located at the northeast corner of West Carmel Drive and Old Meridian Avenue. Filed by Gary Murray of Paul I. Cripe for Buckingham. Gary Murray and Skanda Skandarajah with Paul I. Cripe will give an overview of the project. David Leazenby represents Buckingham Companies. The group has filed a change of site plan. It was originally approved as a PUD. As a PUD the site plan governs what moves forward. What we are proposing to do is change Phase Two from apartments to 104 town homes. Our application was for a site plan change that will go back in front of the Plan Commission. We will still need to come back with final detail development plan. We tried to get as much information as we could on these drawings in a short amount of time. We wanted to get some of your comments as it might relate to the technical issues that we will be facing with the detail development plan. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 27 Steve No Comments. Jenny, this is in the city jurisdiction. No Comments. Chuck, will you use gas in fireplaces as you did in the first phase? Once you are approved and you sit down to determine the banks and meters locations that will determine our route at the mains. I noticed from my original set of drawings the buildings have shifted. Gary will get with the builder to finalize some footprints. Street names have been changed. We need to get this plan approved before further changes. Dick, there is not enough for us to comment at this point. I will need to familiarize myself with Phase One, but I think we have to extend sanitary. John Duffy confirms water and sewer is not in. Scott will pass on some written comments. I believe you have the standard plant schedule. Everyone I see has the same mistakes on it. Please have those corrected. I have some species comments. You have a quality note on the plans that plant material should apply to the ANSI Standard; in fact it should read the Nursery Stock Standard. There are some significant changes on this plan from the original PUD that changes a lot of the landscaping and tree preservation areas. Some of the changes were probably because of the new road. I will have some additional comments. You have a large dead oak at the entrance. The one the sidewalk goes around. This should be removed. As a public relations project, you might consider donating the wood from another white oak in the wooded area. Donating the wood to the community becomes a positive spin on public relations. In Phase One, construction soils were used at the front of buildings for planting areas. With the increase in building here and the lessening of open space, maybe that is something we can work on and use more of that in Phase Two. One area on the border with the Arbors was committed to be planted with evergreen screen. That has not been planted yet. John Duffy, double meter pits have been allowed in the past. We would like to review that first. John South No Comment. We will probably see this again at TAC in January as the final construction site. Gary sent a letter to Skanda and received a reply. I understand the proposed road on the plan will happen. Jon, the right -of -way is in the process of being dedicated by the school corporation along the southern portion. Bill, I noticed the street names on this are old names. You should be sure to put the new names as they are on the property at this time. One street has been removed. My question about Arboretum Circle: is that an access point to the Arbors? We will wait for next TAC for my questions on buildings. It looks like there will be 18 town homes (104 units). I will need to S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 28 readdress. The Post Office has new guidelines for mailbox placement and mail delivery. You can call the number at the bottom of the letter. I understand you have provided them with a set of plans. Jon, I have not sent out a comment letter. I will try to get that to you by the end of the week. The original development plan called for a path on the south and east border. I need to be advised on the status of that installation. There are a lot of swales through the area now and some landscaping that do not accommodate the path. It is pretty tight through the area. It will be a challenge to accommodate the path and not interrupt drainage. Are you talking about having an elevated boardwalk? Gary notes they are preparing an ALTA in place of a survey of Phase One. That should be wrapped up soon. It will show the path. Jon, all the following comments will be sent in a letter to the petitioner. Jon reads from Section 7.4.2, page 15: the question is the way your ordinance is written; I don't believe we have the renderings to which you refer. The way your ordinance is written that needs to be submitted along with the DP. The City Council might need to review this. Gary, we are working with two builders. They will lay it out exactly. We anticipate presenting renderings to the Plan Commission. They will have discretion. Does this need to be reviewed by the annexation and land use committee? Jon reads from Section 9.1, page 16: our concern with regard to that requirement is that Georgetown Lane that extends north and east has now been terminated at the backside of the existing Phase One building. DOCS recommends that that continue as originally proposed. Section 10. 1, page 17 the original open space plan was large in Phase Two. We need for you to provide us with some exhibit that you are maintaining 25% open space. That is a sale you will have to make to Plan Commission. They will not agree that it is an open space. Also you need to address the 10% recreational space. This also will need an exhibit showing you are maintaining that 10% requirement. We will ask that the right -of -way be dedicated. The school has dedicated the 60' portion. The metal fencing along that could then be constructed. We will need to discuss how these will come together. Section 19.1, page 25, we need a parking count that maintains the original. It would be best if you show what the number should be and display that count. You are proposing to route storm water off the commercial into the right -of -way. I want you to be clear with engineering. When we produce the boulevard, we will not want drainage accumulating through swales. At this time, the engineering department has specs on this. Mike, we do not have an engineering firm at this time. We only have a landscape architect doing a general layout. Drainage will probably come through this property. We need to have further discussions on this issue. The city has plans for regional drain to that facility. It's a timing situation. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 29 Jon, I also highlighted on your ordinance, that the elevations need to be submitted. The Plan Commission will look favorably on an owner occupied unit to be incorporated into this plan. Be prepared to make a significant presentation about the architectural design. Do as much as you can to take pictures of the existing that has been built. Use those to compare to the renderings. If you are not prepared and make this easy for the Plan Commission, it will cost you 30 days right out of the box. The submittal for title purposes: if you want this Preliminary Development Plan to serve as a Primary Plat, we need to see how are you going to block out those units and how we subdivide. Just amend your plans. Public Notice will be exclusive thru DP. You will be on the November agenda. Jon, last comment: you have one building that should be oriented so it aligns with the boulevard as do the other buildings. Clarian Hospital North (Rezone and Development Plan) The site is located at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania parkway and College Avenue. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker and Daniels for Clarian Health Partners, Inc Joe Scimia and Roger Kilmer Baker and Daniels; Teresa Davis and Danny Babin HKS, Inc.; Kathy Berger and Jamie Poczekay American Consulting, Inc.; Keith London BCCLT, Inc.; David Bickel SWA. Hokanson Companies is the developer who represents Clarian. Joe Scimia on behalf of Clarian Health Partners has submitted various petitions necessary to develop a hospital and an office building within Meridian Corporate Plaza. It is located between I465 and College Avenue. The proposal is to build a single integrated facility, which specializes in women, and children care. The medical office building will provide support for the hospital. There will be a central utility plant located at the corner of I465 and College Avenue. We propose to have off site drainage. Those plans have been revised. You should have in your hands a new set of plans that show onsite drainage capability. The other changes that have occurred when we submitted for ADLS approval. We had an initial sign package that after looking at the ordinance it would have been allowed at other locations. The primary changes have been in the drainage and sign package. The landscape package has changed somewhat. The facility is roughly a 375,000 SF hospital with approximately 150,000 SF of office medical building. There is a large open atrium as well as below grade parking. It is a five -story bldg with the sixth floor being the medical penthouse. Steve, we looked at the plans and a comment letter will be mailed this week. We have some concerns about the storm line that is coming into the intersection of 106 and College. We have had some conversations with Jamie. Please show the line on your plans. It is not to be routed through a pond. The outlets will come from the opposite direction. A lot of trees are to be put in that area. We want to get our line in before the trees go in. I believe the site is in the City of Carmel. Have you put any thought to or considered any improvements to the College Avenue entrance? S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 30 Joe, we are waiting for the traffic study contracted through ANF. There may be some changes due to the study. We will forward a copy to Steve Broermann. Jenny sent a letter and it has been received. Jamie, you ask us to provide storm profile sheets. I understand that will be on the portion that is regulated. The Helipad is shown as being in the detention pond. It will be on a raised platform. It does look like a conflict. Joe confirms with Jon that it is okay if they do not plat, as long as the city gets the right -of -way. Jenny, are you making changes to the storm plans you received from our office? The proposed location is on the northern bank Dick faxed requirements to Jamie. Can you send the engineering department a small set of plans? Jon, a couple items regarding the thoroughfare plan right -of -way with Pennsylvania and College: I believe the traffic study will help us determine whether that is dedicated. It should show improvements, lanes on college, and those that need to be installed to accommodate access at the site. Those are the operational traffic study issues along College and up to 103 and 106 Streets. Included as well is Pennsylvania Parkway between 103 and 106 then south on College down to 96 Street. This is going to the Plan Commission. Those will be the concerns of the members. It is true; we would like to see a signature building on that leg of the corridor. You might receive backlash from the commission if you don't have a traffic study ready for their packets that go out on the 8 th of November. Joe, we understand our deadlines and we are working diligently to meet those timelines. Scott, I have not made a complete review. Originally when I talked with SWA, there is a significant portion of woods being removed. In talking about the US31 Overlay Standards, reforestation projects, the change in detention pond, a lot of the area was going to planting -it's not now. I believe we need to have more discussions on that. We need closer review of plans. There is not a planting schedule. I will need the schedule on the plans David Bickell with SWA, our latest submittal shows the names of trees and plant schedules. Joe, we have filed a request for variance of the requirement with respect to preserving 70% of existing trees. We can't do that and do the project. We tried to make up for that with supplemental plantings. Your point is well taken and we have tried to address that. Scott, I will pass along my suggestion sheet for species. Be careful with the selections as some trees will not do well there and most assuredly will die. I am not excited about your planter boxes. We would like to suggest you provide a bigger routing volume without the containerized S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 31 plants. There will be a maintenance problem. John South, sent Jamie a letter. Basically, you have a great button up plan for your erosion control. You will need to fill in a lot with where you are at and where you are going. We have talked about that and that this is a unique site with unique situations. Jamie, I suggested to the Jacobs Facility and Pepper Construction that we should all get together with you and have a discussion. Every step they take, they will have to adjust their plans. They are aware of that. John will plan a meeting. Will a 401 as well as a 404 Permit be needed or required? Jamie, we have not heard from the Corps of Engineers as to whether that will be needed. Gary, I sent a letter to Jamie and received a response from Teresa Davis. At our meeting most of the Fire Department issues were resolved. When we talked about where the fire department connection was located, I inadvertently stuck it on the west side of the building where the parking lot is located. We should move this to the south side. Only one connection is needed. We are looking at several Knox Boxes around the facility. You might look at a crossover at the atrium area on the 6 Floor. We talked about how that can be done, rather than going down the stairs then back up. Bill, I understand this is going where a 3 -story building is currently. The building will "go away" and the address will remain the same. 401 Pennsylvania Parkway. In the future, I will need a layout of the tenant spaces, patient spaces, and suite numbers. As an example the first floor would be 100, etc. We have a standard to use for these type buildings. Jon met with Joe several weeks ago. The 185' setback from I465 requires a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals because it exceeds the 35% requirement. The height of the accessory building will not be a problem but it needs to be addressed. The setback of that building from College Avenue is more a primary structure but it does need a variance -the half right -of -way for College. Jon confirms he has seen the variance that was filed last Friday. Joe, we have 43' now and proposed 45'. We need to dedicate 2' that is if the traffic study comes back with the figures. Do you need it equally on each side? Jon believes it is not needed as long as it can be on the north side. Jon, I have not had a chance to go over these plans as I did with the original set. We will sit down and cover the ordinance with respect to buildings, parking, and calculations. We may be able to make the determination administratively. We still need to see the 30' buffer yard from I465. Joe, is that measurement from the greenbelt? The landscaping at the lake areas is an alternative treatment. We don't have 30' of planting area. Should we obtain a variance? S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 32 Jon is still discussing with the Director as to whether we have the ability to administratively allow it. We have some justification with the setback at adjacent buildings. We need for you to send us a current set. Also send a set to INDOT with a note asking pursuant to the City of Carmel requirements that they will offer you an the opportunity to comment. This should be sent to Commissioner Nickel. We also will need a copy of the letter showing you have done that. We have covered some of the other items at our previous meetings. I will get into these plans and get comments to you in writing. Laurence Lillig will be your contact for the BZA. Joe, we talked about a trail that would lead to a garden area. It could be an "open area" with a pavilion. Jon., if it becomes a structure, remember we will need to see that as an ADLS. Danny Babin, you asked about the pond. If we labeled it a future parking garage with some sort of storage in the basement, would that be acceptable? I don't know how practical that would be. Jon, I think we can review it as part of the Development Plan at this stage. Jon, this could be placed on the November 12 Special Studies Committee as an informational item if you want to share the information that early. Carmel Transportation Facility Street Department Facility. 131 Street and Shelborne Road. Department of Community Services; Paul I. Cripe. Skanda Skandarajah, Charles Bridenthal, and Mike Grubb. Skanda is Project Manager and Charles Bridenthal is the Landscape Architect from Paul I. Cripe and Mike Grubb. Charles begins the discussion of the development. We are designing the facility for the City of Carmel as their main facility at 131 and Shelborne. We are developing approximately 12 acres of the site along with the pond to the east. The rest of the land will be developed later with the water tower. It will have an administration building, a main salt storage building, a maintenance building, and several storage buildings (some heated). We have had some meetings with user groups. Skanda has more plans with added details. Landscaping plans with small details. Steve has not completed his review of this project. I will send my comments to you by the end of the week. The county engineer has suggested a heavier pavement section for the street. What you are showing now is the typical section. Skanda, semi and salt trucks. Jenny, do you have drainage calculations S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 33 Skanda will forward calcs Dick No comments. Kate has been involved. Scott passed along comments. Your company has a standard that is outdated with several mistakes. There are misnames and wrong numbers and wrong categories. I would like for you to correct this. I would like to see more planting perhaps vegetative cover and a filter strip. Some of the details look as if they are in the pond. On the planting detail, the root "flare" needs to be planted at grade level. For more information, see notes for spelling and standard species comments on the DOCS website. John South has sent correspondence. The biggest issue is the silt fences. For your site, I recommend a combination of swales and settlement basins. Your pond can be a part of the settlement basin. The areas that are going to be left dormant, how much grading will be done there? Skanda, grading and temporary seeding; just repair work; existing surface; maintain and mow. John, another comment is the inlet protection -you had it on your plans a lot. This is not an approved practice. I recommend going back to the Indiana DNR guidebook as to what is approved and not approved. Because you will have salt storage, what will you do about storm water runoff? Carmel might be forced to retrofit? Skanda, salt mixing; no loading of salt. We still have land on the southeast corner -can divert water. John, it just seems logical to look at the issue and address it now (slop over from barn). Charles, lets look at this a little further. Gary sent Skanda a letter. Mike called me and we need only one Knox Box. The hook up for the sprinkler system is okay. Bill, will send Skanda a letter. The Mayor's office is looking at the name of the access drive. Jon, as a follow up to what is taking place today, will we receive a Primary and Secondary Plat that would accomplish the dedication of the right -of -way. Or, will we be doing this by metes and bounds r -o -w? Skanda, does that reflect? Jon, if you would like to prepare a separate document for the right -of -way that the county would accept. We do have to dedicate the streets and right- of- way as well as the perimeter. For now S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 34 we can attach an instrument showing the dedication. Steve, a plat would make it clear and easy. It makes it easy rather than try to figure it out. Jon, the entrance details show a 24' section to the east property line. It would make sense to tie this in to the two entrances to the east. Between these two streets, there would be a three -lane segment. Propose to strip a median that would be a third lane. Steve what is the schedule for the construction of the street? Aberdeen Bend has just submitted their plans. We would like to have some coordination on the two projects. You might call Mid States. Charles, it will be at least spring. Skanda we have had an informal meeting; they want to make that as a four lane plan. Jon, you should also contact Stoeppelwerth. They will be along with Section Two soon. This is all part of the coordinated effort and knowing what is expected from everyone. The sidewalk: our specs call for a 5' and closer to the intersection. Sidewalk and path coming up should not crises cross. In the future, the county is going to request that we widen over to Shelborne. It would be prudent to do that now. When punched out on the north, the traffic study indicated a dedicated left through and a right turn lane. When the fire station comes in and when the tower comes in, we might want to pull all improvements to the north. From a coordination standpoint, they can do that improvement (contact Corby Thompson). At this point we need comments from the county. Get that exhibit prepared along with the dedication. Annexation is projected for February 2004. They will become city streets and we would be responsible for maintenance. Last thought, it would be nice to tie the sidewalk the other sidewalk. Mike Grubb notes as for the sidewalk, the only downside would be the gate. It slides behind the brick wall and the facility is secured. We are doing a wrought iron fence coming off the brick entry. We could propose a gate, fence, and sidewalk to tie into that if it is appropriate. It probably wouldn't be used. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002October 35