Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 11-20-02CARMEL /CLAY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES November 20, 2002 Jon Dobosiewicz Carmel DOCS Brian Hanson Carmel DOCS Scott Brewer Carmel DOCS Dick Hill Carmel Engineering Alan Young Carmel Fire Department Chuck Shupperd Vectren Energy Steve Broermann Hamilton County Highway Dean Groves CINergy/PSI Jenny Chapman Surveyor's Office Bill Akers 911 Communications Sharon Roberts Hamilton County Soil Water Ron Farrand Carmel/Clay Schools Proposed Wireless Communication Towers Crooked Stick Golf Course Special Exception Application Docket No. 114 -02 Z The applicant seeks approval to construct three wireless communication towers. The site is located between Ditch Road and Towne Road, north of 106 Street. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker Daniels for AT T. Tabled. Riverview Medical Park PUD (Rezone) Docket No. 164 -02 Z The applicant seeks to rezone 11.09 acres to a Planned Unit Development district. The site is zoned S -1 (Residential). Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. Charlie Frankenberger representing Plum Creek Partners introduces Bryan Chandler with PCP, LLC and Janet Sterling with Schneider Corporation. We are proposing to develop the southeast corner of 146 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway into a medical center, offices and possibly a bank. It is now zoned residential. Charlie passes around the room a photograph of the site (enlarged aerial is not yet available). The site is approximately 11 acres. Since we distributed plans to TAC members originally, we have become aware of the requirement of the highway department that our entrance off 146 Street should be relocated further east so that it aligns with the existing cut on the north side of 146 Street. That change will cause the revision of our site plan. We will describe to you generally what we anticipate in terms of a revised site plan. It is our hope that your comments are not so specific but more general in nature so that it will be unnecessary to return to the Technical Advisory Committee in January. We can have a delay of 30 days, but we'll describe those revisions generally and receive your comments. Janet Sterling comments the drive that Jim Neal, Hamilton County Highway, has asked us to line up with is just to the northwest of the pond. This is in line with the curved drive on the east side of the building. This is to get a full left turn lane. Riverview is of the thinking that a circular will allow people to come in and immediately see the drop off zone and then pull into the parking area. If the main entrance is in another location, that will entail some flip flopping of the site. From an engineering standpoint that is somewhat significant (this is echoed by TAC members as well). From S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November the zoning perspective it probably is not too significant. We will need to shuffle some buildings and parking around to get that to happen. It will allow us a right in, right only, at this location and allow us to shift a little so as to allow us to stay between the two storm structures. It could wiggle a bit. We will meet with Kate Weese to further define this. Charlie notes that they will be in a position in the next few days to get the revised site plans. Alan Young confirms Janet will meet with Gary Hoyt. They have received our letter of concerns. Specifically, there will be a discussion regarding hydrant locations and Knox box locations. Chuck Shupperd asks about the way the buildings are staggered. We will need to extend our main on the ground and run service to both of them. I did not see a utility easement on the plans (check whether the buildings will be switched around). Since both buildings will be parallel to 146 Street then we can take both services. We can wait for the new site plans to see the different configurations whether they are staggered or flip- flopped. This will be the same for other utilities. They will need an easement. Chuck passes his business card to Janet. Scott Brewer, since this is a rezone, the landscape plan is not essential at this point. On the landscape plan there were no planting details. There are no tree protection details. It appears you are trying to save some of the large trees. It does not meet the buffer requirements. Scott measured the perimeter not just 146 Street. You will be in Level D. On the perimeter I have 161 total shade trees, 161 ornamentals, 850 shrubs, or 290 evergreens. Charlie adds that the petitioner is asking for a rezone of the entire site and in addition an ADLS /DP for the back parcel. We will provide the detail that you need to see for that approval. There will be other TAC requirements on the ADLS /DP. Scott understands that foundation plans were not included because the project has not come that far. With the construction plans, the planting details will be added. When you have information on the water features, please forward those to me. It is early in the process for those details, but eventually we need to see those. As well, plant quantities should be noted on the schedule. We realize this is a huge job to count. Regarding the lift station, if it should every overflow, we would like to be sure where it will go. At this time it looks like it will drain into a storm sewer and end up in the lake /pond. I would suggest an overflow basin. Something to catch or hold a certain amount so that if the electricity should ever go out or if it malfunctions, it will not drain over the parking lot, into the storm sewer, and into the retention pond. Jenny Chapman confirms with Charlie that Steve Cash received the plans. Charlie gives another set to Jenny. Jenny will send a letter immediately to petitioner. Steve Broermann No Comments. Steve thanked Janet for the opportunity to meet ahead of this and discuss the plans. Dick Hill gave a letter to Charlie. Items 1 -10 are general requirements. Number 11 states we will need to see drainage calculations. Jon Dobosiewicz regarding this and other TAC member requests, the department does not have a problem with Riverview Medical Park returning to TAC in January. We will look for responses S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 2 from engineering and other members before we are comfortable with forwarding a recommendation. If you feel you can work outside TAC to resolve these issues that is fine. I would leave myself open to make a determination based upon the revisions. I would resubmit a full set to everyone so that you are getting consistent comments. This will then go to Plan Commission with member comments in place. Charlie concurs with Jon. Dick confirms this is a private storm system. Also confirmed, a traffic study is on the way. The curb cut on Hazel Dell is an issue with the Engineering Department. We understand why it is put where it is because of the big Swale. Kate Weese wants additional information prior to giving final approval on the curb cut. You should show existing pavement markings on Hazel Dell. Along with this, show the existing Hazel Dell Christian Church curb cut and lanes. The big concern is the proximity of that drive to 146 Street and it's current layout. Kate would like to see alternative locations such as shared arrangements. A meeting with the engineering department should be set in the near future. On the plan you show a future cross access along the south border. Can you further explain the purpose of the cross access. Bryan Chandler answers Dick's question about the cross access. The church approached us because they were looking for some way to access 146 Street through the property. We suggested the access. Dick notes the storm sewer connection to Ashton Trace will most likely be annexed in the spring of 2003. If this project comes before that time, you will need Board of Works approval since it is outside the city currently. You should label the Hazel Dell Parkway right -of -way on the drawings. The landscape easement should be shown as well. The existing landscape probably was completed with the original Hazel Dell. It might be a little different from the greenbelt you are showing. Has the petitioner mentioned an additional Hazel Dell right -of -way dedication? Janet will look into this further. There may be more right -of -way on 146 Street going to the east. Charlie notes the highway department has sent a letter on this. They will review the letter to determine how this is based and how much is available. Bill Akers confirms he has received the construction plans. We will allow only one address for the site. Since there will be two buildings on one piece of land, we will designate one address and show it as Building A and Building B. This will come at a later time. It is noted the medical office building is one story. Technically the one tenant is the hospital. The hospital will have doctors, doctor groups, and practices to which we will assign suite numbers. The immediate care center will be one office with clinical space. As we get closer we will discuss the suite layout and the numbers. Dean Groves has concerns about easements. We will need easements for our primary transformers. There is a concern about the power to the lift station. It is determined that the petitioner does not have a final design on the station. The petitioner will coordinate with CINergy /PSI on their preference. We will need a final set of site plans. You may call in your service request at the 800 number on my business card. As we get closer, I will provide loading sheets so we can determine what size transformers you will need. S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 3 Jon Dobosiewicz adds additional comments to Scott Brewer's previous statement. Steve Broermann's suggestion regarding the full access alignment to the east will also be addressed. Along the perimeter of the parking lot, we would like to see additional shrubs at the parking and drive areas. Special attention should be given to areas along the buildings especially those along the north and south. There really is not enough area there to do any meaningful amount of landscaping. This should be looked at again and revised. The PUD Ordinance calls for specific landscaping. This can afford you flexibility and it can afford you a predicament. If you do not follow the standards, the Plan Commission will decide for you what those standards will be. I'm sure you will not want to subject the project to the discretion of the Plan Commission. If there are ground signs proposed for the property, we will want those to conform to the PUD Ordinance as well as landscaping adjacent to the signs. Within the ordinance, I view this site something similar to what our standards are along Michigan Road. You are proposing a 15' greenbelt setback from the right -of -way of 146 Street. Along with the additional dedication of right -of -way, it is my anticipation that 146 Street will not be expanded for some time. That may address the issue for getting an 85' half plus the 15'. This might accommodate the same thing. This is just a comparison for the Plan Commission. The greenbelt along Michigan Road is 30'. You can establish a minimum side yard setback of 10'. My preference (noting the council has issues regarding commercial along 146 Street) is that you establish a build to line and pull the building farther forward. You can also get the parking to the sides and rear away from 146 Street. If there is not going to be commercial along 146 Street, it doesn't want to look like we are flanking the street with parking lots. The ordinance requires that all buildings have 8 external corners. The Medical Office Building does not conform. Based on the plan, the PUD requires a sloped roof. With this, you cannot accommodate more than a one -story design. Section 6.5 of the PUD Ordinance talks about maximum square footage. It establishes 42,000 SF for this site. Based upon a maximum single story building and a minimum building requirement, I believe you cannot get 42,000 SF. You cannot get there unless you are going to do a parking deck that is two stories. The ordinance is defined by height. In this example, the height is 28' and it says all roofs will be pitch. With regard to the questions about easements, dedication of right -of -way, and drive cut locations, my preference would be that you commit to submitting a plat and accommodate the dedication through that plat. As well, accommodate the necessary easements for drainage, utility, and storm water. There should be a standard design vocabulary for all three lots on the site. The design issues will be addressed outside of TAC. Another meeting will be set with petitioner to further discuss Section 12.2. Petitioner might also change the title of Development Plan Conceptual to Development Plan Preliminary to be consistent with the text. The pedestrian access to the path from 146 Street from the building should be addressed. The drive cuts to the south of the church should be combined to form a single drive. Scott did not receive a copy of the PUD Ordinance. After receiving and reviewing the landscaping, a letter will be sent to petitioner. Sharon Roberts has sent a letter. Our department has concerns about the south west corner of the site and would appreciate your comments Hamilton Crossing Building #6 (Development Plan) Docket No. 157 -02 DP Amend The applicant seeks approval to construct an office building. The site is generally located on the south side of 131S St. between U.S. 31 and Meridian Corners Blvd. Filed by Blair D. Carmosino of Duke Realty Corporation. S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 4 Blair Carmosino gave an overview of the project and introduced Larry Longman, Alan Tucker, and Joe Rogers. This is a five -story office building with approximately 180,000 SF with structured parking (ratio 4 per 1,000). It is designed in a similar fashion with sensitivity to the proposed right of -ways at the interchange at 131 Street. We believe everyone has received plans. There are extra copies today for those who might need them. Comments from TAC members have been received and the early responses are greatly appreciated. We have already sent a follow -up to the Fire Department and the Department of Community Services. Alan confirms the building will be sprinkled. A message from Gary Hoyt asked that a meeting be set to discuss access and location. Gary would also like a set of plans showing height of building and parking structure (Blair will send a copy of the elevation to Gary). It is noted the parking garage is equipped with dry standpipe. There are no subterranean levels and no basement in the main structure. A Knox box will be at the front entrance. We have had some discussions regarding a standard policy on location of a Knox box. If there were a large distance (this building would qualify), then you would have one at the sprinkler room also. This building will require two. A remote alarm panel at the front entrance will be needed. The two additional fire hydrants will be discussed with Gary Hoyt. Joe Rogers comments on the fire hydrants. They are checking with the civil engineer to get additional water taps. This would be somewhat of a long distance water service coming in. The one we already know about is in the northwest corner of the garage. We will be permitted to make another tap at that location. The one you requested at the driveway between Hamilton Building 5 and 6 is still being investigated. Chuck states this is a multi -story total electric building. Scott would like to know when Phase Two landscaping is going in? Blair jokingly asks if Scott knows when the ramp will go in. We will leave it open until then. Some of the screen around the dock area will have a row of trees on the west mid- section. This will help facilitate the screening of the dock. Scott will meet with Blair on that later. One of my species comments is about finding a substitute for the pears. You have two at the parking structure. I would like to discourage the pears because long term they become a maintenance problem. Is there a path on the western edge? Blair states there should be a sidewalk installed. Scott notes there are some Washington Hawthorns on the edge and should be replaced with something without thorns. It appears you do not meet the buffer yard guidelines on the west side. With the residential area and with the parking structure going in, you will want to meet the guidelines especially on the side. There is a mound shown on the south side. We are short the shrubs entry as well. Regarding the grasses at the parking structure, you need as much height as possible. The maidenhair grass might not be the best selection. You will need one with more height for the structure. A grass or upright ornamental would give the sense of scale. I need a graphic planting detail. Scott will send a letter explaining the root flare and burlap binding as well as other information. Jenny has not yet sent a letter. You will need an outlet permit and that will be explained in my letter. S: TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November Dick notes Kate Weese has not looked at the plans. I would suggest you set a meeting with the engineering department. Typically we do not have many comments in this area because Hamilton Crossing is a private street. I'm sure you'll want to talk with Kate about the right -of -way issues in particular the roundabout at 131S Street and Meridian Corners Blvd. In your plans it seems no allowance has been made for this. In your future meeting, you can discuss whether more right -of- way is needed. The thoroughfare plan calls for more than is currently there. Bill has talked with Blair about the address of the building. Bill will send a letter to confirm the address as 13085 Hamilton Crossing Blvd. Bill notes it is a five -story building. Later we can talk about the suite layout and numbers for the suites. On the site plan, it should read Meridian Corners Blvd. Dean has concerns about the easements. There are no platted easements along Meridian Corners Blvd. I have power cable along 131S Street that was originally planned to come in to feed your transformer, and that is still valid. I have a concern regarding the new ramp system. We could use some of that but we will need some easements eventually on the north side to get our equipment in and out of the road right -of -way. We know that Meridian Corners Blvd is a public right -of -way. Blair has looked at the status of Hamilton Crossing. It is an ingress /egress easement but not a utility easement. Within two days we should have the draft. Your concerns should be addressed at that time. Jon received Blair's letter of November 6th. We have had lengthy discussions about the right -of- way at 131S Street and Meridian Corners Blvd. I know the city has the intention to construct a roundabout at that corner. The city is in the process of designing a roundabout at 131S Street and Spring Mill Road. I believe we will address that from a comprehensive standpoint and decide what happens at US31 barring what the state decides about how that works. My suggestion, and it may take Plan Commission action, not to comply with the thoroughfare plan. The setback from Meridian Corners is 15'. There is a 15' landscape buffer along 131S Street. If you dedicate the right -of -way pursuant to the thoroughfare plan the parking spaces would still be outside the proposed right -of -way. It's the buffer that would be reduced and /or eliminated. Perhaps an easement or something that would get us the necessary right -of -way at the center section to accommodate the roundabout. This would accommodate the parking spaces without removal or relocation. Again, reserve the area until the state makes a decision (as early as next February) on their alignment. We will try to answer this before we get to the Plan Commission so they don't have to worry with that discussion. I still need to talk with Kate about this and the roundabout issues. The 10' (or 8') landscaping around the parking plaza needs to be identified on the site as areas that are not considered as required landscaping. If you can come up with the same area, I believe that will be acceptable. Some edges fall outside the 25' requirement. Follow Scott's comments about species and materials in that area. It affords us the ability to come up with a solution. We meet the intent by providing a screen around the accessory building. Hopefully the site is not so tight that we can't get 4 or 5 more feet east to west. The parking island, according to the ordinance, requires that there are a certain number of shrubs. Your plan needs to be amended. The area on the plans says that future parking is not apart of this approval. I would like a note added to have that defined as a limitation of 300' from the building on parking spaces. It should be noted on the set what area parking is required. If you decide in the future, that the layout is different, you would be required to seek a variance. The installation of an asphalt path south of this site at Meridian Corners (there is a segment between Hamilton Crossing Blvd as you come off S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 6 US31) has not been completed. I have not researched it back to see if it was on the plans before. We would like that gap filled. It is also my understanding, outside TAC issues and in conjunction with road improvements; there is some grant money the city has committed to and /or through the Hamilton County Alliance for improvements. I don't know what the dollar amount is, but we want to make sure those are used and we are not loosing out. This might be state incentive money. Sharon confirms petitioner has received their comments. Pennsylvania and 122 °d Street Northeast Corner (Rezone) Docket No. 166 -02 Z The applicant seeks to rezone 28.378 acres zoned R -1 (Residential) and M -3 (Manufacturing) to B- 6 (Business). The site is located at the northeast corner of 122 Street and Pennsylvania Road. Filed by Blair D. Carmosino of Duke Realty Corporation. CONSECO Blair Carmosino presents the project at Pennsylvania and 122 Street. There are approximately 29 acres. The site is currently zoned M3 which matches Meridian Technology Park to the south and a small portion of land on the north that is still zoned RI. We are entertaining an option on this property and desirous of seeking a B6 zoning on the property to allow a mixed use to office development. We felt the B6 appropriate for the flexibility to have some retail in there all within code. We have done our due diligence as far as survey, topo, and communication with the county surveyor's office. We have addressed the surveyor's concerns about drainage. Alan No Comments. Chuck has a gas main north, south, and east of that corner. As it develops, we can make a decision on the facilities. Blair noticed on the survey there are several utilities not within easements. However, they are within the boundary of proposed right -of -ways. We don't see it as a big concern. Chuck, Vectren is on Old Meridian to the north. Also, at College Avenue, we extended our facility to the two hotels. Blair directing his question to Dean Groves with CINergy /PSI: we believe your facilities were designed and installed, as they exist today, based on the future widening of both those thoroughfares? Dean (Easements) confirms to the best of his knowledge that was put in before his coming to the Carmel office. Chuck notes when we extended our facilities up to the two hotels the plans we had on the right -of- way was actually proposed (or what it was supposed to be). The hotels came through TAC approximately 2 years before they started building and things had changed. We were just going by what plans we had showing what was suppose to be there. We stayed the same distance as what we had done in prior years. Chuck and Blair will investigate the matter further. S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November Scott needs the development and landscape plans. The field has become quite a wildlife area. They get cover in the tree lines. With all the construction that has been happening to the north and south, it is used heavily as a sanctuary. As you develop the area, you might keep this in mind and keep the buffers on the edges heavy so this can be used as a wildlife corridor. Jenny has already talked with the petitioner about the restrictions on the watershed. Our letter covers the requirements. Steve No Comments. Dick does not have comments at this time. Just a note regarding City Center, it will start next spring or summer and the right -of -way is set. Blair understands the plans are done as well as the design. There is some question about this. After follow -up phone calls, parties will meet for further discussion. Bill No Comments. Dean No Comments. Jon feels it is not necessary to put together a traffic study for this site. The city has planned well ahead on the improvements for Pennsylvania and 122n Street. I will let the council work out the issues on what level of commitment as far as any improvement to those facilities that they want to see pursuant to the Rezone. At a minimum we would want you to prepare a legal description for the preparation of the necessary right -of -way pursuant to the thoroughfare plan on both those streets. We will get a letter out detailing those items. The B6 zoning does not require Development Plan approval. The department, pursuant to the request to Rezone, would like for you to commit to Development Plan approval along with ADLS to the Plan Commission. It would be easier to amend. It might be attached to the Rezone. I don't want to encumber the property. In Section 3 of the Rezone, we are committed to go through Development Plan approval. I know you have another issue with regard to title and landscape easement along the roadway. The B6 is going to require a buffer to be removed to be consistent. The Plan Commission will want to see a plan for what the site is going to look like. You will come back and go through ADLS. I don't know the expectation of the Plan Commission as to whether they want to see this site developed with a consistent design theme or whether they might be thinking the buildings could all be different. With respect to the office to the south and the plans they have for Old Meridian to the north, I think you would want to portray some level consistency for the site. Blair asks if this would go through Special Studies Committee? Jon notes this is not necessarily the case. They will want to know what to expect. This is similar to Hamilton Crossing as it has a somewhat consistent design theme. It gives them some understanding as to how it will move forward. Do you intend to plat this as single ownership or how will you proceed in subdividing it out? Blair has two conception plans. S: TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November Jon suggests submitting a primary showing several different lots. Then you would approve a conditional secondary that would establish your perimeter easements and utility easements. Sharon confirms comments have been received. Lakeside Park, Section Two (Secondary Plat and Construction Plans) Docket No. 168 -02 SP 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. Ray Roehling, Developer, accompanies Ed Fleming with Stoeppelwerth. Last month we presented Section One. Section Two has approximately 22 acres located at the southeast corner of the entire parcel. Alan No Comments. Gary Hoyt has the hydrant locations. Chuck will come out of Section One. Scott observes that on the landscape plan they have dropped off numbers. We will need to see the numbers. Take note of the planting depth for root flare at grade level. The tree preservation zone is only on the landscape plan and I believe you have not given this to the grading contractor. On the erosion control plan and all other plans, this tree preservation doesn't appear. If you are handing them a plan that does not include this and it is all cleared, I will be a little upset. Be sure it is on the plan. Have you started the storm sewer to the common area? Ed is considering the area where a house is located. It looks like a pretty clean place to get through. Scott would be happy to make a site visit when they get started. The other item is the tree preservation plan that was submitted with the Primary. It should be in the construction plan set as it goes out. These need to be on the landscape plan, but if it is not on the construction plans it will be too late. The point is if the contractors go in and clear areas that are defined as part of your primary plat approval as areas to be preserved for the purpose of meeting your landscape requirements? Ray agrees to delineate that area. Scott notes all the borders on the buffer requirements were dropped out because the petitioner wanted to preserve the woods. If the woods go away, you will need to plant a lot more trees. You might want to put in protection fencing. If they cut the swale too far south and tear out the trees, then who will pay for this? On your erosion control plan, it shows the limits of the construction going all the way to the edge. This is a conflict of the tree preservation plan. Jenny received the revised plans yesterday. We will get a letter to you this week. Steve comments the big issue is the centerline radius that the petitioner is showing as Street D. It does not meet the centerline requirement. A variance from the board of commissioners will be S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November needed. You need to contact Kim Rauch at the Auditor's office. Notify her that you want to be place on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners. You will then need to notify the commissioners in writing and copy on the highway department on that letter. It doesn't hurt to have letters from the fire department and school board saying they have no objections. The highway department will object simply because it does not meet the standard but when the commissioners ask for a recommendation, we will give our recommendation. I do not think it would be a problem to get the variance. The commissioners have the authority to overrule. In the past on issues like this, it has not been a problem. All others items are standard. Ray does not know who will be first at the roundabout. Would it be left off until the connectors? Steve wants whoever gets there first to build it. Ray will build half of it. But if it doesn't connect to anything, there wouldn't be any point in building it. What about the stub street? Jon says Centex has submitted Section Two for the Lakes. It is suggested a call toTom Kutz might be in order. Steve, if Centex gets there first and they want to stub, and have you build it, we do not have a problem with that or vice versa. As long as there is an agreement between the two of you and I know who is going to build it. Dick No Comments. Bill would like to have the street names. Sections One and Two are needed. Dean notes Ron Booher has this area. We have not received site plans. Ed will get those out today. Sharon is filling in for John South. The department wants to make sure that you seed the common areas either temporary or permanent whenever you seed the swales and pond banks. We are also concerned whether you will do Sections One and Two together or separate. If you do them together, please let us know. Ed explains they are in the process of putting this together and will submit an overall plan. Sharon gives a letter to Ed outlining Section Two comments. Jon, on Street B the two medians that intersect Street C, you need to align with the walks so they do not butt into those showing on Sheet No. 3. This is additional information. It was not in my letter you recently received. Pull the walks over so they do not intersect. When you came through with the plans, the intent of the proposed asphalt path was to have a path that connected fully from north to south. The thoroughfare plan requires the construction of a 10' asphalt path. I know for other developments we have accommodated that concern by having connections outside the right of -way. I think we are going to end up with something we do not want to see. I would like to see you continue with the 5' sidewalk as opposed to the asphalt connections you are showing on the plan. The 10' path does not connect to anything 10' down here. The 6' path you are showing that comes down and around the hill should be eliminated. You can show the asphalt connecting at the S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 10 south end on Sheet 3 (from the other subdivision) to your subdivision utilizing the 5' concrete walks. The 5' concrete walk is a standard in our ordinance. That is consistent with the intent of the Primary Plat approval. As far as maintenance goes in the future, the on and off will create a problem. If there is a standard crossing requirement, I would like to see you follow that plan. Ed can move it up, but they were just trying to keep them across from each other. We will explore that further. Jon would like to cover the issue of the roundabout. If you have plans for signage or something that distinguishes your subdivision from the adjacent subdivision, it might be a good idea to coordinate with Tom Kutz. This could be a type of monument that shows the distinction between the two subdivisions and create an identity for both sides. Street names are going to change at the roundabout. On another matter, we are going to change administratively the monument concern in the subdivisions. You are identifying 23 monuments in this section alone, the areas that are in concrete. Unless they are at the far corner and unless they are on the perimeter of the primary plat, they will not be required to be concrete. This has been a discussion for some time with other developers. Surveyors do not rely upon the monuments. Ed confirms they will make adjustments at the corners. Carmel City Center Parcel 2B (Development Plan) The applicant is proposing office and retail buildings. The site is located at the southwest corner of 3 rd Avenue SW and City Center Drive. Filed by Greg Snelling of CSO. Greg Snelling with CSO and Steve Sturtz of Cruz Sturtz Architects gives an overview. This site is within the City Center project. We are proposing two office buildings. Our development is approximately two of the four acres on the south end just north of the reflecting pond, which is currently under construction. Alan confirms the petitioner has received the fire department comment letter. This will be a sprinkled building. Gary Hoyt would like to set a meeting to discuss location of fire department connections. We would like to see a hydrant at the entrance of the service road located on 126 Street on the east side. The height of the building is 54'. The parking garage is in the lower level. It is noted approximately 60 vehicles can be accommodated in the garage. Gary will discuss other requirements during the meeting. We will ask that you install four Knox box. Chuck handed information to the petitioner. Our facility is just south of your location. Please call our 800 number to get your service request into our system. Jerry Breeck will be your contact to get things going. It looks like this project will start before the end of the year. Scott has not sent a letter. I do not have planting details. I will need a graphic detail also. My species comments: it would be good if you can replace the red maples with taller shade trees. They have maintenance issues and do not work well on these sites. The ornamental pears are short lived as well. For a shade tree you can go with a European Hornbeam or a `Fastigiata There are some buffering issues. It looks like the shrubs are bunched in one location. You have 40 to 50 yews in an area that is T wide by 20' long. S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 11 Greg notes this may have been an attempt to incorporate that with the architecture of the AMLI building. We will go back and review this with our landscape architect. Scott, the idea is to have those views into the parking areas blocked. It looks like an error. There are some other errors as well. They need to be reviewed. We talked about the west side buffer issue. On the south side there is nothing along the building. At the reflecting pond it would be nice to buffer the street and get some shade trees in that area. Greg wants to try and maintain the area properly. There is a coordination issue with storm water surface drainage. We want to make sure the water does not flow onto the reflecting pond. This is a concern of the Carmel Redevelopment Commission. We want to keep that flat and sloping onto our parking lot. If we start filling trees in, we need to be sure we can get the water out and not block any drains. After we receive your letter, we'll have our landscape architect get with you and resolve these issues. As a suggestion, we could possibly funnel around the trees. Sod perhaps might be more desirable. Jon, my preference would be that they do a hedge along the area. This would separate the reflecting pond from the parking area. I don't think the aesthetic that the CRC is going for is a stroll along the pond next to the parking lot. To provide some type of transition between the parking area and the walk along the reflecting pond, would seem to make all the sense in the world. I don't think we were looking for a view of the pavement on one side and the reflecting pond on the other side. Kelli Lawrence has joined our discussion as the liaison to the Carmel Redevelopment Commission. This is especially true where the spaces actually back right up to the pond. Greg notes Les Olds has been an advisor on this project. Les suggested that we not have mulch or shrubs in that location. I believe he received this directive from the CRC. If this begins to drain, it will flow right into the middle of the pond. We will point out to the CRC that there is not a buffer or transition between the walk along the pond and the parking lot. Kelli suggests a buffer at the parking spots to the east where it comes up to the courtyard. Scott would like to note there is a possible mechanical solution. I will detail that in a letter to you. If you have trees with ground cover, you will need to have someone weeding or mowing around each one of those trees. In areas like that you could just edge with mulch and eliminate the maintenance hassle, tree damage, and wear and tear on the plants. If Les wants any suggest, we can have another meeting. Jenny sent a letter. No comments. This is in city limits. Steve No Comments. Dick apologizes this has not been reviewed at this time. We will get with you as soon as possible. Bill, this is a two story all office building. We will meet with the Address Committee later to discuss the addressing. Later when you have the tenants and know who will occupy each office, I will need to assign the suite numbers. S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 12 Dean passed along his business cards. On the south edge the easement by the reflecting pond has, I believe, a 10' for the transformer. Down the road, will you individually meter the buildings? Will tenants have their own meter? I have a concern whether there is enough room for metering structures along that line. I will make myself available whenever you are ready to get together. I'm sure we would all like to avoid any conflicts. The same is true if your tenants use gas. We will need to see some elevations to see how much space we have to work with. Sharon will forward the Hamilton County Soil and Water comment letter. Kelli has a few sidewalk concerns. We would like to see the jog in the walk on the northwest side of the building eliminated. There is no connection to the south side of the building. There is the potential to bring the walk just west and then south along the western property line. Please confirm and illustrate on the plans the 70' half right -of -way at City Center Drive. Do you have plans for signage for the building or directional signage for the drive area? I will work on getting you some direction on the signage. We most assuredly need one -way signs to show people where this begins. Steve Sturtz, we were going to be told what we should do regarding the ground sign. We were told this would be unique. There would be a resemblance to the Colonial Williamsburg signs that stick out of the buildings. Greg, we have two Stop signs and one Do Not Enter sign. We felt no more would be needed. Kelli, the parking space on the east side is very close to the east entrance. I realize you are limited on parking on the site. Perhaps this would avoid backing into a complicated area of enter /exit. Steve Sturtz, there is concern about parking and we hope to address that very soon. Greg, I believe the Redevelopment Commission did not want to connect this. Jon, we cannot solve all the problems here. We're not asking you to eliminate those two spaces. A queuing area might help. Kelli asks for a lighting plan. I have some standards we used from the Shapiro project. Jon would like to see more correspondence from Les as to how this will drain. You need to check with the CRC regarding parking and the pond and what the end result will be. This will make them aware when they make their decision about the ADLS DP. Greg, if we work out all the issues in the next week or two, what would be the procedure for allowing us to start site work. Jon, after you close we don't need a site permit. We need the building permit. As long as you don't pour concrete, you're not under construction. You can do everything but pour concrete. Greg confirms after we just close on the property. We will have the staging area offsite. Once we get the foundation release, we can take it to Jeff Kendall. Jon, you will go through a presubmittal process. There will be some internal routing. You are S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 13 looking at 7 to 10 days. Steve Sturtz is concerned about getting the base down, but the timing looks possible. Clay Terrace (Preliminary Development Plan) Docket No. 144 -02 PDP 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. David George is joined by Mark Jang to present the project. From the overall plan, we have some site revisions. Range Line Road has stayed the same. The alignment is set on our tie in points at both ends. You will see similar roads on both submissions. There is a slight revision on some of the building placements to the east up near our water feature at the northeast side. A slight revision to the road that comes from the left side where the sporting good store is shown. We moved our water feature /pond. The storm layout is pretty much the same. What we are trying to do is take as much of the road as possible down to the south. At the north end of the site, we are taking that over to the northeast comer. A lot of the utilities, as you saw before, still tie into the back. Water and sanitary are shown at the back on both the east side and the west side. Some utilities have changed as a result of the building placements. We had a 50' buffer on the west side for landscaping. We have another 4 1/2' allotted for a retaining wall (based on our grading plan). We wanted to leave enough space to move it up and down as needed. We also have 50' pipeline easement relocation. It is now diagonally and will run at 146 Street. Mark Jang, Jon has my response regarding comments from last TAC meeting. If members would like copies, please let me know. Most questions have been answered. One suggestion was to rotate parking because parking wasn't conducive to traffic flow. We have revised the southwest corner because parking was skewed. Now it has been modified to help the flow of traffic. There are a lot of issues like this that have been changed as a result of our last meeting. There are landscape islands along the walkway that looks smaller than what is required (10' wide X 40') which gives 400 SF minimum requirement for the PUD Ordinance. We will make those changes on the next set of drawings. Also, we will try to itemize and calculate what we are doing in the 6% for landscaping as well as the asphalt and get this back to Scott Brewer. We want to set a meeting with Scott. This will all occur prior to our submission for Planning and Zoning hearing which we believe is December 17. We need to submit by the 6 Prior to that I will individually meet with TAC members. We met with Shell Oil. They have no problem with the easement relocation and what we are doing as far as the design. One of the requests from the last TAC meeting was a written confirmation from Shell Oil regarding planting of trees in their easement. Is this still needed? Scott, it is standard where pipelines are concerned. They do not allow planting. We still need a confirmation from Shell. Mark Jang confirms with Jon that a meeting will be set with the Hamilton County Engineering Department. Jon wants to see, regarding the US 31 through lane as one goes north, the through lane we are creating on the right side. We will discuss what is happening with the traffic at this location. We will also set a meeting with Steve Broermann to get up to speed with what we are doing. Also, you want to see a 10' landscaping setback along 146 Street. This is shown within S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 14 the Shell easement. When we get the water, that will cover that. There was a comment about the hardscape plan along Range Line Road. I'm not sure we made that comment. We don't have a hardscape plan. Jon, I meant the proposed plantings along Range Line Road are to occur within the proposed right of -way. We would want to see a detailed plan of that. That might come with the ADLS with each individual site. What I was referring to was the planting requirements for the area along Range Line would be for planters or grates or inside the sidewalk area. This must meet Scott's approval as far as size of area. There are some breaks in parking rows where you will plant trees. I'm sure you will want these to be shade trees. How wide is that area? Is that a typical width for the space? The ordinance prescribes a 9' width for a shade tree. I think that would be a point to start to meet that standard. Scott, I am also concerned about the soil bindings for those plantings in pavement areas. Only small shrubs will grow or a Bradford Pear that will grow 20' high then fade out. That number of plantings and the look you want along there without having the soil bindings for the roots to go into to allow the trees to mature. As an example, we have done this in front of Shapiro's and at Providence at Old Meridian. We can explore this and other options. Paul Reis, my question to Joe was whether we want to get into that level of detail now or ADLS. We do not want to hold up the Development Plan. We talked about that early on. Jon, I don't want you to come back with the ADLS and say that the county has already bid to ACE the contract for the design of Range Line Road and the improvements that are necessary. We didn't take into consideration this issue of swale volumes and the areas we need to plant trees in and now we are beyond the point of no return. Chuck, my main concern is the easements. We need to set down and do a preliminary layout of the utility easements and where they will lay for different phases. The phone, electric, and gas companies need to sit down in a joint meeting and discuss which way you will develop first and where you want the easements. Mark Jang will talk with both Vectren and CINergy. I will let you know the date of the Ameritech meeting. I believe it is set up tentative for December 3r at 2PM at the Lauth office. We would like to get together. Dean, we have an overhead electrical line that will need to be removed. It will be going underground. We replace poles with big ugly switchgears. Mark, we need to discuss this further. I want to talk about the service, how we put in the main, and how we will come off the individual transformers. Jon, I had asked for an update on the establishment of the right -of -way line along US 31. David, the entire frontage road is state ownership. They have not maintained it overtime; the county has maintained it. What we are investigating is what happened on the north side with the dedication of the edge of the right -of -way. Jon, when do you anticipate resolution of that issue? I would caution you to not design into a S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 15 right -of -way that you do not have the ability design. I can't in good conscientious ask the Plan Commission to approve a Development Plan that does not comply with those standards. I need to have an answer to that question before we can offer you additional comments based upon setbacks. My answer today would have to be, no. It does not comply because you do not have control. Paul, I believe we talked in Steve's office. I have a deed reference from that meeting. I understand where Jon is going. I believe it was a swap. Is it in the city of Carmel? Dick, it is on our road inventory. Paul, we will have that resolved. Jon, based upon the presumption that the right -of -way would be as indicated on the plan, yes the setback works. That is a question that needs to be resolved. We would like to see comment number four responses from the state. Parsons Transportation has had this information from the beginning. They have been working with the state. Jon, I want a copy saying I sent a letter to Brian Nichol. Brian has an opportunity to comment or not comment. Mark, regarding the frontage road issue, if it goes beyond the December 17 Plan Commission would you be willing to give us a conditional approval based on this? Jon, I can't assure you the Plan Commission will buy into that. I would think it sounds reasonable. The Plan Commission has the authority to grant a conditional approval. Jon, the right -of -way on 146 Street has been discussed with Steve. The setbacks and buffer yards are consistent. Presuming you are going to create a legal description for the dedication, there is not going to be a plat. It should be 85'. Jon, I need an exhibit showing that that 6% has been met for the landscaping requirement. Scott, we also need to see something about reforestation commitments. Earlier it was agreed to but I have not heard about it lately. The plan has changed so much from the first set. We do not want to get to ADLS? Oops we can't do it. Jon has asked for a clarification of sign position at Range Line Road and US 31. The PUD Ordinance illustrates they will be on the project real estate. The area south of the Walter Plaza has not been included. Paul, B3 will allow this and they own the real estate. It is not an offsite. It is part of the project. That sign will go through ADLS. Jon, I don't have a problem with that. I just want to be sure we understand these right -of -way issues. I can work through your explanation that it is part of the real estate and part of the PUD. S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 16 Paul, there was an ongoing discussion with the county at that time about what property was going to be retained by the county and what was included in this project. We did not need to rezone that parcel if it was going to be a part of the project. Jon, Mike Cook filed the plat vacation. A plat vacation will be required for Walters Rolling Acres lots that are south of this. It is my understanding that the county was the lead agency on that area not included within the plan. We would request whatever plans you have to date, on what's happening on the south side of the intersection and how access to nursery is going be addressed. There are rumors it will be accessed off Circle Drive. I have to work through that process and how we are administratively going to get that access to the business off Circle Drive. On the original plan there were sidewalks on either side of Range Line Road coming up from US31. There is now a proposal not to provide those walks. This is pursuant to the thoroughfare plan and alternative transportation plan. If we are making improvements on the south side of the intersection and on the north side, I don't know what type, if any, pedestrian crossing the state is going to recommend for that area. We have a pedestrian crossing at 431 at Main Street. I interested in seeing that design. The Plan Commission is going to have great interest in us confirming for them that these traffic issues are resolved. Mark, a sidewalk will be installed on the future Walters Drive all way back to the roundabout. I am inclined to ask, we'll plan for the sidewalk but do we need a commitment to install it at this time. When the overpass becomes reality, I want to do the sidewalk. Jon, there are little slivers of land between those lots and the US31 right -of -way; coincidentally, they are owned by one person. It would seem to me as a marketing tool and /or an objective for the community, that we might seek to procure an easement along those individual tracts. We could connect with the Monon Trail over into this site. This would get people from having to cross at Range Line and it would afford you a connection over to the Monon Trail to the site as a marketing tool. 38 Circle Drive is the address of the property in question. The county will probably buy the lot behind the nursery to provide access into the nursery. This might be a governmental function. That is an issue between the nursery and the county. That will not slow this down. I want this to be made part of the record in TAC that we are discussing this issue. This is pursuant to the PUD and the time the improvements will be completed based on the PUD. Paul, they are building a road that is pursuant to their thoroughfare plan. Our project just happens to be a part of what enables them to do that. That is Mike Howard, the City of Carmel, and potentially the nursery. Dean asks Mark about voltage. It will be 277/480V and transform down to what the tenant needs. Each tenant, as they need it, will have their own. Dick, did Kate Weese receive a copy of the letter you are referring to in response to the Rezone comments? Mark sent Kate an email after their meeting. Jon will give a copy of the letter to Dick. Sharon, you will need to submit an erosion control plan. Steve, in the letter we sent, almost all those issues are related to the design of the new road. The S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 17 county is going to be, at least from the highway standpoint, very reluctant to issue any approvals for anything until the road design is set and we are sure that the building will not interfere with the road. It is hard for us to look at this plan and know that the road will work. The right -of -ways are tight. The lane widths are not what we want to see. They are shown as 11 not 12. We want a bigger median. A lot of issues with road design are going to effect the placement of the building. We have not given any approval related to the road. There is a letter approving the concept. This does not define lane widths. We need to set a meeting soon. We have selected a consultant for the road design. The meeting should include Jim Neal. Jon would like to have an exhibit prepared that shows the area proposed for consideration of the ramps. This should be superimposed on this layout so we can identify the setbacks, boundaries, and hatched in areas. Regarding the DP approval, is it Lauth's expectation that once the DP is approved they would bring back an ADLS with buildings set is place, parking lots set in place, and now we are just talking about landscaping? This building in particular (drive thru's), do we ask the Plan Commission is it their desire to have these drive thru's oriented toward the US31 right -of -way and if so what type of measures are being taken so that is not the main focus or view. If it is a concern. If they approve the preliminary development plan and come back with an ADLS, I don't want these guys to be encumbered. That discussion should occur today as part of the preliminary development plan. How do we screen the drive- thru's? Joe Downs, we want to deal with it now. Carmel High School Campus (Plat Vacation, r -o -w vacation and grant) Docket 165 -02 PV The applicant seeks to vacate a portion Carmelwood Subdivision, vacate and dedicate new right -of- way in order to modify the Carmel High School Campus. Filed by Allen Cradler of Fanning /Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Jeff Bolinger, Allen Cradler, and Chuck Tyler are present for Fanning /Howey Associates and Ron Farrand represents Carmel/Clay Schools. We are here for the Freshman Center project at Carmel High School. In previous meetings with the department, we had a two -step process. The school has purchased some additional property in the Carmelwood Subdivision on the northwest. We are going through step one which is the plat vacation of those purchased properties, the existing right of -way, and a new right -of -way to reconnect Sylvan Lane and Audubon Drive. There are six purchased properties. Our plan is showing the right -of -way and the spur that comes off 4 th Avenue. These are the existing conditions. Jon, has the city already vacated those portions of the right -of -way that fall within the parking area? Allen, I believe the city has not taken that action totally. On the Survey, they have some things that are vacated. The additional properties purchased at the last, those had been vacated. Jon, we are looking to clean up the whole issue. Allen, the proposed conditions would be the school's presently owned property would follow this line and tie back to their existing property. The new right -of -way would be granted to connect up Sylvan Lane and Audubon Drive. As you get to the intersection, once you turn right, you will be back on school property. They would still have an access drive. At previous discussions, this S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 18 would be a connection made for emergency access. In the second step we would still need to go through the Board of Zoning Appeals and we will come back through TAC again. Jon, we will see the building additions and proposed improvements again. Today we are seeing the vacation of lots and the vacation of the right -of -way for the Carmelwood Subdivision. Alan Young, the hydrant on the plans we received shows it being vacated at the northwest corner. Please get with Gary to make sure we do not loose access to a hydrant on that corner. Scott No Comments. Chuck has a main in the right -of -way and service to retirement. For the houses that are still there, there will be retirements involved. The 4" that is on 2n Street NE that is running to school property and in the right -of -way will be vacated. The meter will stay there and service just the upgrade for the additional load. At the point you are vacating overland right -of -way, you need to put that into some type of easement. We can deal with that on the construction part. You are responsible for the site work for the reconstruction of the right -of -way that is going to be relinquished for those houses. That will be worked out with another department on retirement. I try to coordinate the retirement items. At some point, you need to call the 800 number on my card and Jerry Breeck will follow through with you. On the retirement of the services and main, we need to get that into the system. How many days do these owners have to move? It is confirmed they have to be out by February 15 They will individually call in to shut off for final payment. You will probably be in TAC in December. We can go from there. Scott, when will you begin the construction of the road or right -of -way? The construction has been confirmed to begin next spring. We would like to get together and talk about landscaping. Obviously it looks like on the plan some preliminary things have been done. I probably will have some comments after I receive the landscape plans. I would also like to talk about tree preservation especially in the area where you are improving the road. You can try to move some of the trees on the school property and perhaps purchase some trees from the current homeowners. Steve No Comments. Dick will pass along comments at end of this meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the right -of -way is through the city council. The plat vacation, which will be submitted to Plan Commission, is through the Plan Commission. I have a form for the dedication that can be sent electronically to you. Our records show that something might have been misrecorded. We show an area that comes down into the existing parking lot is still identified as public right -of -way. We should clean up the whole record. That portion of Audubon Drive has not been included in the vacation. After looking at the plans from the original vacation, that portion of Audubon Drive was part of a relocated street. Ron notes it has all been addressed. Jon, the area you are identifying is still part of the plat. The area just to the south as shown on our S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 19 records is still part of the right -of -way. I don't know if our records show that these are still lots within the subdivision. The legal description that you will want to prepare for the right -of -way dedication should be prepared for everything. Ron, we will look into that further. Dick, we have the original drawings for that particular area. I believe we have the right -of -way dedication documents. We will schedule a meeting to go over the details. Bill No Comments. Dean has the same concerns as Vectren. We have poles and services that will need to be relocated and /or moved. We can work through that. Jon, the process for the City Council does not have to come after the process for the Plan Commission. This will be on the agenda for December 17 I think we will act on it that evening. You can make your request in front of the City Council at any time. A discussion about the Freshman Center can be made at the Board of Zoning Appeals. S:TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002November 20