Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 12-18-02CARMEUCLAY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes December 18, 2002 Jon Dobosiewicz Carmel DOCS Scott Brewer Carmel DOCS John South Hamilton Co. Soil Water Mike McBride Carmel Engineering Steve Broermann Hamilton Co. Highway Gary Hoyt Carmel Fire Department Jenny Chapman Hamilton Co. Surveyor Office Laurence Lillig Carmel DOCS Brian Hanson Carmel DOCS Dick Hill Carmel Engineering Chuck Shupperd Vectren Energy Jim Blanchard Carmel DOCS/BCE Sharon Prater Panhandle Eastern Village of Mount Carmel, Section 10 (Primary Plat) 182 -02 PP The applicant is proposing a 5 -lot subdivision. The site is located at the southwest corner of East 146 Street and Village Drive. The site is zoned S -2 /Residence. Filed by Chuck Wright of the Elliot Wright Group, LLC. Chuck Wright is introduced. Mr. Wright is the principle owner of the Elliot Wright Group. The overall tract of the Wilfong Property is located at Village Drive North and 146 Street. We are purchasing the southern 5.2 acres of that tract; it is restricted by the Wilfong family from the previous owner. I can only subdivide our portion into 5 different parcels. This is why the lots are of this size so we can fit into the S2 zoning that is currently on the site. We are looking for one variance of the subdivision standard and that is not to connect to Amalfi Drive, which is a stub street out of the Village of Mount Carmel Section Two (southern end of property). We are requesting to come in off Village Drive North with a cul de sac. The balance of the property to the north contains one parcel that is 2.4 acres and the other one directly contiguous to our property is 5.01 acres so it doesn't come into the subdivision process. Chuck Shupperd, Vectren Energy, notes there is gas at the street and will be extended. Jerry Breeck will be your contact person. He is the representative once you have everything approved. Steve Broermann, Hamilton County Highway, we will defer to the city on this project. The site is annexed to the city. Jenny Chapman, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office, confirms the annexation will be recorded in February. As for legal drains, most of Mount Carmel is included. Jenny sent a letter noting comments regarding an outlet permit. There is some question about Section 8. Jenny will check on the regulated drain and revise her letter accordingly. Jim Blanchard, Carmel DOCS Building Code Enforcement, questions the existence of buildings that need to be removed that would have wells, septics, or fuel tanks. It is confirmed that none exist. Elliot Wright Group will be the only builder. The cost and size of the homes will be $500,000 and up with varying square footage. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 1 Gary Hoyt, Carmel Fire Department, sent a letter to Darryl Phillips. Everything looks good. We are pleased that you will not include hammerheads. Mike McBride, Carmel Engineering, has not sent a letter. We have completed somewhat of a review. We are not entirely sure how involved the County Surveyor's Office and County Highway Department will be in this project. We are taking the same stance that we will be in control of this section when construction begins. A more extensive comment letter will be forthcoming. For now my comments are: Our office has not received a primary plat, please forward one as soon as possible. Some of our comments are in relation to the plat. It is unclear where the boundaries of Section 10 will lie on the drainage plan. One of the main concerns is the detention basin and will it be platted in Section 10. It is confirmed that it will be outside Section 10 in a dedicated drainage easement. My request is that you consider platting that as part of Section 10 and that the ownership is clear. The detention basin is more protected because it is a Homeowner Association ownership and benefits the common area. We would like to see it platted as common area rather than being an easement offsite. Otherwise, we might run into some issues since it lies on someone else's property. I understand you are setting up an easement at that location. Again, it is not clear on your drawing where the actual break in Section 10 is located. I'm sure this will be made clear with the plat. We have also noted there will be no improvements to Amalfi Drive. It looks like it only serves three residents. It is however in the county right -of -way at this point but soon to be city. We will look further into that to see how it will be handled. In answer to the question regarding maintenance, we would entertain the idea of maintaining the right -of -way. Chuck Wright, there are three homeowners that are adamant about us not coming through that way. Part of the reason for our current plan is, although we like this entrance, the homeowners do not want any improvements. Mike notes that there is not a street name at this time. Petitioner is in the process of choosing a name. We would like to see that the intersection of Village Drive and Street A be reconfigured to resemble a "T" intersection even if you still wanted the cul de sac drive to be the only traffic that stops. We would like to see that intersection resemble a "T" rather than the slight offset that you are showing currently on the drawings. We believe you have the amount of right -of -way needed to complete this. It is noted that this was done to avoid allowing traffic into the cul de sac and avoid confusions as if it were a secondary street. The same is noted about the concern for the sanitary sewer and where it is located. This is how we would prefer to see it. If there is some reason or extenuating circumstances that would prevent you from doing this, just detail those in your reply. We have not completed a review of the drainage calculations. I noticed there is no emergency overflow indicated. The 100 -year storage elevation and the detention basin will fill the inflow pipes into the detention area and back into some of the swales particularly on the east boundary of Section 10 along the existing homes. It looks like your swale elevation is getting close to where it might allow the 100 -year to escape out the east boundary. We want to make sure that the banks of that swale are of a sufficient elevation to hold that 100 -year elevation and should be higher than your spillway elevation. The bend in your east property line is where it looks the lowest. Along the southwest property line at the back of Lot 4 there is a portion of the drainage easement that does not indicate any grading or swale. It looks as if most of the drainage S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 2 is heading north and west. We would like to see some grading done there to provide a swale in that easement. We will get a letter to you as soon as possible. Darrell Phillips, we have covered the calculations but one of the calculations located near the outlet structure has not been shown on the drawings. We will check on your concern about the swale and redo the areas in question. Scott Brewer, Urban Forester City of Carmel, does not have landscape plans. Please send those to my attention when they are complete. You will be required to adhere to the buffering requirements in Chapter 26.4 that may require you to have a landscape easement outside the drainage swale. Since it will be under city control, we will ask for street trees. You are showing a 25' drainage and utility easement on the circle and a 20' along the other side, this means you will need a landscape easement. I was unable to determine where the utilities would go. Point is taken regarding the storm pipe and it is noted that you can plant adjacent to but not over the top of the storm pipes. It looks like you will have plenty room. After we receive landscape plans, comments will be forwarded if necessary. Jon Dobosiewicz, Carmel DOCS, when was the initial tract, Willow Branch 10.287 acre, created? The Wilfong parcel is an illegal subdivision if we cannot confirm it was created before 1980. When was the 2.453 -acre tract created? Chuck will do more research to confirm dates. The instrument number shows 1995. We will track the ownership and send that information to you. Jon, regarding the residual piece of land that contains existing barns, will that tract be used for an additional home site? It is noted that the Marsh family will have this as a home site. This should be explained further, this has created a nonconforming use of the parcel when existing accessory structures exists before a primary structure on the lot. A variance will be required to resolve that. DOCS as well as Engineering have concerns that the drainage is being provided outside the plat. I will go back and look at the subdivision regulations to confirm if it is acceptable pursuant to the ordinance. We have a desire to see that parcel included as part of the plat so we don't get into issues with private ownership of drainage matters that we need to control for the purposes of storm water to the rest of the subdivision. We want to see a sidewalk along Village Drive connecting the walk along 146 Street down to this development regardless of the platting issue. We want to make sure we can confirm, if we do include parcel two in the plat, that we dedicate additional right -of -way along 146 Street. We share some of the same concerns as Engineering. With Amalfi Drive, it may take something more complex than just vacating. Lot 36 has access off Amalfi Drive and that may require a replat of those few lots in Section 10. Lot 36 would need to maintain frontage otherwise it would need variance and /or subdivision waivers and might need to be reconfigured. Chuck Wright asks if an access easement after vacation would be appropriate between the three parties? S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 3 Jon, it still does not eliminate the need for Lot 36 to have frontage. The ordinance by development standards requires a lot to have a minimum of 50' frontage on a public street. If you vacate the right -of -way, Lot 36 is no longer conforming, and must go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Returning to the BZA would be necessary if they decided to add a yard barn or add a room at some future date. This would take an additional public hearing to replat those three lots to maintain access to Lot 36. I would like to see Amalfi Drive, if it were vacated, become part of Lot 36. Chuck would like to clarify the noted problem with accessory buildings. The subdivision of parcel one of 2.453 acres is in question. Further explanation will be received in a letter from DOCS. The dedication of right -of -way information will also be given to the petitioner. We plan on starting construction in the spring. We are looking at the restrictions and whether it will be 6 lots instead of 5 lots. We also want to resolve the service issues. Darrell needs to show that a deed exists prior to 1980. John South, Hamilton County Soil Water, the dry basin has poorly drained soils and fairly flat thus they will be damp. I recommend that you expand more and put more contour at the bottom. You don't have much depth at the discharge point. If you can get them in that would be great. Otherwise, you should provide more cross slope, which would be beneficial. I will review your earth control plan at the secondary. A copy of the department letter is given to petitioner. Wexley Chase (Primary Plat) 183 -02 PP The applicant is proposing a 40 -lot residential subdivision on 29.974± acres. The site is located on the north side of West 126 Street, t /2 mile west of Towne Road. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residence Estate. Filed by David Warshauer for GWZ -2 Development, LLC. David Warshauer introduced Lance Ferrell, Glenda Garrison, and Mark Zukerman. The project is 40 lots on approximately 30 acres on 126 Street between Towne Road and Shelborne Road on the north side. We would like to thank you for the comments we have received. Lance has taken the comments into account on his plans. We have landscape plans today that are complete and we will submit those to you. John South sent a letter yesterday. No major comments. One recommendation I would like to add to my letter, tree planting along the western common area will enhance the existing wood lot. This is not in the ordinance but would be beneficial. Also the open ditch on the east part allowed by the surveyor's office in preparing a buffer along the existing creek would be a wildlife benefit. Each lot should have access to subsurface drainage. The existing wells and septics should be abandoned correctly. We recommend on the construction plans that you try to minimize cut and fill of the common areas. Chuck, gas is east of this project. We are providing gas on Shelborne Road for the schools. Most likely we will bring it down from the east, connect to Shelborne Road, and then run into the subdivision. Once you have approval, you will want to contact your representative. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 4 Steve has not had a chance to go through the revisions. The concern of the highway department is the coordination of 126 Street with the school system. We only want to do that once. I know you said you have talked with Fanning /Howey; I really think that we need to get that done. I don't know the school's exact schedule but I would like to bring that together. We can set up a meeting to get us all involved. David has talked to the school system and asked for a set of plans. We have not received those yet. Mark has talked with the group as well. A meeting will be planned soon. Lance has talked with Jeff Bolinger and he is sending electronic plans. David, will we need to go to the commissioners for approval on some of the reduced pavement widths? On part of the internal layout, referring to the subdivision ordinance, we asked for reduced widths around islands. Steve, the interior layout is pretty good; our biggest concern is 126 Street. If we make a one way directional, we can avoid that. This same layout exists in Windsor Grove for example. This will not need to go to the commissioners. The right -of -way can be 40'. As for being on the commissioner's agenda, it doesn't matter if you get it before or after. In past experience with the commissioners, if the city is okay with what you are doing, the commissioners have been agreeable. Also, if you have a letter saying that the Fire Department can make that turn with their fire engines, it will certainly help. Please get in contact with me before you get ready to do that. We can work out exactly what you need. Jenny sent a letter with comments about permits and storm sewer regulations. This is a regulated subdivision. What is your time frame on this project? David, if we go to the Plan Commission on the 21S of January and if we go to the Subdivision Committee in February for primary plat approval, then ideally April will be the construction start date. Jim asks if this will be open to other builders. The petitioner confirms only one company will be involved. We would like to set up a meeting to go over the master details. This will speed up the process by two or three days getting the permits out. Are there any buildings on the parcel that will be removed? David, one old wood barn will be demolished. Also, one barn that is relatively new that the owner wants to move. There is a concrete silo that will be taken out. Jim, are there any well or field tanks? The petitioner states there was a residence shown on the site before 1975 but it is not known how long the house has been gone. It is noted the environmental report shows a house close to 126 Street. If you will want a construction trailer on the site and if you plan on having a sales or model home on the site, we would like for you to complete the application I am passing to you. Before any earth moving takes place, we will need a demolition permits. You will need to have Morris Hensley prepare this before you get started. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 5 Curbs will be marked and lot numbers will be in place as stated by petitioner. The Department of Community Services is concerned about those lots around lake. You will be required to give us elevations on the plot plan that the lowest elevation will be 2' above the 100 -year base level. Gary sent Lance a letter and received a quick response. Gary confirms that Aberdeen Bend and Tuscany Boulevard are already extended to 131S Street. I'll fax a copy of our specifications on the ladders so you can plug it into your program. As we were looking at the plans, we may need to bring back the median a little. It might need to be cut back to allow the swing to get in. Scott has not received plans but has been to the site twice. When plans are received, comments will be sent. It is noted that it mirrors exactly what the petitioner discussed during the site visit. Jon sent a letter dated December 3r and would like to touch on some of the comments in the letter. According to the petitioner, the school corporation has not purchased the right -of -way along the frontage from the current owner. The plans you show on Sheet 2 of 6 we would like to see a dedicated left on to the ramp. This was identified in the letter. We are most concerned about the coordinated efforts with the school. The catch basin looks to be designed for a chairback curb. There are other things we need to work out with the school and coordinate these efforts with Fanning /Howey. We sent you an example of the crosswalks and we would need to follow up on that in accordance with ADA requirements. There are 4 or 5 subdivision waivers requested and all are associated with Kilkenny Circle. The department will support these requests. We would want you, in your effort to display that to the Plan Commission, to get feedback from the highway department and the fire department specifically. You might submit that with your booklet stating that they have meet with you and you are prepared to present your idea to the Plan Commission. The areas of pathway between Aberdeen Bend and Tuscany Boulevard along the north side need to be addressed. I would like for you to look at it from a standpoint that the pathways on Sheet 3 of 6 along the legal drain down to 126 Street are accurate. I would ask that you provide a crosswalk over to the school. There will be people coming through this location to where the Dads Club facilities are located. We will need a crosswalk at that location. It is removed from your entrance by 1,000' or more. The ordinance stipulates that crosswalks be provided to businesses no great than 800'. It is in the elementary school plans and they are extending the culvert. You should get plans from Fanning /Howey to see how this can be accommodated. Our thoroughfare plan identifies that corridor more along the lines of a collector street. I'm thinking about the owner to the west. They just bought the house. They should feel more comfortable that people will not walk across their lawn because we are terminating the path. It would be best if you could work with them. This can be accomplished by providing an easement or make a 3' asphalt improvement over to the corner of Shelborne. The easement would not require a dedication of real estate. We could still get for public safety purposes the 3' roadway and the 10' asphalt path to Shelborne. David notes that the owner currently does not see this in a favorable manner. With regard to the Transportation Plan, are we required to extend the path west of our entrance to the property line? We were hoping to trade that pavement with the dedicated left turn lane. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December Lance, the school has a very nice farm that goes into the woods. Could we take our pavement that goes nowhere and dead ends at the house in question and put a crosswalk across just to the west? We will meet with the owner again. An argument that the proposed intersection improvements at the school drive are in excess will be made. David, I think we understand the rationale for the dedication. Lance asks Jenny for more information on the study that was done for the creek at the crossing. Do you know what the school is planning for the area of the culvert extension? Do you have any calculations that determine what was used at Hayden Run and the 100 -year elevation? Jenny will forward the information to Lance. University High School (Special Use, DSV) SUA 212 -02, V213 -02, V214 -02 The applicant seeks approval to construct a building addition and new modular classrooms. The site is located southwest of the intersection of West 116 Street and Towne Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Very Low Density. Filed William E. Wendling, Jr. of Campbell Kyle Proffitt for University High School. Brad Myrick along with Jackie Bieghler gave an overview of the project. We believe everyone is somewhat familiar with the way the school is set up. Currently what we are proposing is that roughly 11.8 acres in the western zone will have the existing multi purpose building for the school, seven portable classrooms, a parking lot and entrance drive, a soccer field, and a softball field. The school would like to remove the softball field and replace it with six tennis courts. This will be an addition on the building of approximately 16,000 SF. This would include a multi- purpose room, additional classrooms, a small warming kitchen, and a few small restroom facilities. As well, there would be a small addition on the eastside of the gymnasium, which would increase the seating capacity. Seating now stands at 250, and they would like to add 250 additional seats. There is an existing gravel drive to the residence, which is occupied by the headmaster. They would like to asphalt that so the service truck could have deliveries for the warming kitchen. This way catered food could be dropped off on a flatbed truck. From the edge extended farther to the east, they are anticipating a growth in student population, to such a degree that they will need additional classrooms over the next 5 years or so. They have speculated that they need twelve additional classrooms, additional parking, and modification to the existing gravel drives around a few of these residences to encapsulate basically another entrance to the school and a public access point to the admissions residence. This would finish up this triangular section of ground north of the gas pipeline easement, which runs through the property. John South sent a letter to Ben Rawlins. I'm not sure where the disturbed areas are on this project. I am under the assumption that it is a continuation of an overall plan. The project comes under Rule 5 requirements. There are several items that need to be on the plans in narrative form. You need to tailor a construction sequence that is unique to fit the site. It is suggested that you only choose and record practices you will use on the site. Please be more distinctive about your seeding plan, where your actual construction will take place and where your seeding is going to S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December take place. Tie the seeding to the sequence and when will it occur. As far as the construction entrance, designate one of the drives as a construction entrance. Chuck, Jerry Breeck will be your Vectren representative. He should be contacted for additional load requirements for the building. If the kitchen requires gas and a bigger meter is needed, just call Jerry for your additional requirements. Steve comments on the county highway department issues. The driveway to the headmaster's house that will be "upgraded" is not part of the original master plan of the site. We have some concern about that driveway going away in the future. We agreed to two entrances into the school when the school was first proposed. This will make three entrances. I don't know if this is a big deal to put it in now. I understand why you want to put it in but we want to make sure it goes away. Some type of commitment will be needed in the future. If we do allow this, and we are still talking about this in our office, it will require a permit to change the use from a residential drive to a commercial drive. We can take care of the permitting issues later. At the entrance to the east, which is opposite to the entrance to the park, we are going to want that constructed to the fullest. We want it built this time and this time only. We don't want in two more years the school saying we want this wider now. I don't recall what widths are required, but we will want that done this time. The widening of 116 Street will need to be done in connection with the western entrance across the entire parcel. We will want it done this time all the way to the eastern property line. Bill Wendling, my question is about the park's accel and decel lanes across the street. They do not go all the way down to Towne Road. Are you suggesting to us that you want ours to go all the way down to Towne Rd? Steve, the park is widened just across their frontage. We are asking that you widen just across your frontage. This will be covered in the comment letter from the department. Laurence Lillig, I am showing two lanes out. One is a left turn and one is straight then right and it is actually divided. That much pavement was not shown on the original submission. On this plan, you are not showing the accel/decel. As far as the middle driveway, it is confirmed that the existing building is a three -car garage left from the original residence that the owner wants to keep for various storage usage. It is not clear whether or not it is on a foundation. Jackie submitted the plans to the county for their review and input as to what is required and what they want to see. Brad notes it is a true residential garage. It is a three -car garage on a slab with metal stud construction. Laurence, if the ultimate goal is to close that drive, it might be best to bring it across to the house and make the connection 10 -15' feet over. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December g Brad, we explored that. This is one of those cases where it comes down to "do not loose the storage Are we talking about a temporary access for a stipulated period of time, for example, five years? Steve, we need to know more about the overall plan for the school and how long it is going to take for complete build out for the master campus. In the future it will come out and it shouldn't be a problem. The commercial permit shouldn't be a problem for the existing drive. Brad, the owner is not prepared to get into that question just yet. Is there going to be a problem with this, for lack of a better word, a temporary interim campus, to get this operational? Bill, you want a commitment from us. Two entrances: whether one is from 116 Street and one of them may eventually be from Towne Road or two on 116 Street. You want the new main drive built forever. Laurence, as a clarification, when we are talking about them having to build that up to standard, we are talking about them building it up to standard within the right -of -way. They can stop at the right -of -way and take it down to two lanes. We want to eliminate constant disruption of 116 Street traffic. Jenny, you will need an outlet permit. No further comments. Jim Blanchard, the first phase you are showing 7 modulars and the 16,000 SF remodel. Jim passes a handout for the requirements on modulars. Will water and sewer be provided to the modulars? There will be ADA ramps. It is confirmed there will be construction trailers on the site. An application is handed to the petitioner. Prior to permits being issued, we will need to schedule a presubmittal meeting. A checklist, which is required, and a commercial permitting procedures application are also handed to the petitioner. The farmhouse is being used as an office. It will be converted to a business; thus, a permit will be needed. This is the small white house used for admissions. Gary sent a letter to Ben. We are going to interconnect the sprinkler system so there is coverage in that area also. On the plans, we are to provide an alarm system to the modulars patched into the rest of the campus. We discussed the possibility of adding additional fire hydrants and the petitioner agreed to this procedure. Sharon Prater, Panhandle Eastern, it looks like you kept everything off the easement. I have a few construction issues. If you work in the dry basin area, you need to make sure you get with our people to select the crossing for heavy equipment. Don't stock pile within the right -of -way. It looks like you have plenty of room elsewhere. After Hamilton County Highway, we need to make sure we see your plans as it looks like there will be pipeline alterations. If you start your widening at your east property line, there will be some type of alteration. We need to look at that proposal. I believe there is some existing casing on the pipeline that we can't allow to be covered with pavement. I'm not sure without having the benefit of seeing what your plan would be for accel/decel, but we really need to be involved in that plan. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December Brad, it is my understanding we need to work hand in hand with the highway department and the pipeline department to figure out how we are going to deal with that extension at the corner. Sharon, where will you start? All four lines will be impacted somehow. Brad would like to define the east property line. Is it the westernmost easement line of the pipeline? Whatever the school owns. I will need to verify with the owner what the school owns or if it is a holding company. On the application this is being shown as a private entity the group we originally dealt with as far as the 88 acres a few years ago when we were talking about the campus. This probably needs clarification. I understood the school itself would be dealing with the 11.8 and the holding company would be dealing with the remaining 77 acres at which time it would be transferred over on an as needed basis to the school. One owner for the entire 88 acres is what I will need to verify. If the school in fact does own the entire 88 acres, our 116 Street improvements begin at the far east corner. Jon, I don't see it that way. The special use approval is on the entire parcel. The parcel we are talking about when we say road improvements to the east property line is the property line at the very northeast corner of your site plan which is part of the special use that has been filed for approval. Bill, we are looking at a special use for everything. It already has special use. We are expanding with the suggestion to TAC members that we go ahead with the special use on top of the special use. Jon, if the concern is the expense of widening the roads at the pipelines, then we would suggest that you work with Sharon and Steve for a commitment when we can do these things over time. This might not be the primary issue at your entrance. My biggest concern at the right -of -way is as one travels along 116 Street one does a fishtail to get across to the site. That is more important to get resolved than it is to get an additional 3' of pavement on the south side of the street. It still needs to get done. If it is your position that you want to save the school the expense and delay it for the future, because their money is better spent today, then ask the BZA to approve your permit subject to a condition that you would commit to it in the future. I appreciate your concern about cost. Scott has not sent a letter. On the planting detail, there is a note to set "top of ball". I would like "top of ball" removed and put the words "root flare" to be set 3 /4" off finished grade. The landscape installer will receive the species balled and burlapped, many of them are too deep in the ball. By planting in this manner it will allow the plants to live. I would like to mirror John South's comments on the limits of construction and grading. I would like that information somewhere on the plan. Jackie, are you requesting a construction limit? Do you have the grading plan in your set? Checking 103 where it shows the proposed grading the area where earth is moved. That is why S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 10 we attached the grading plans to the site to give an idea where the work was going to be. There should be two drawings: 103 North and 103 South. Brad, you are looking for something graphically that gives you some indication of the scope of construction on the site. The boundary line that says this is where all the work will be. Scott, with the roadwork you are doing along 116 Street for this project and along the western boundary, I think you can start putting in buffering requirements and plantings. Once you begin your roadwork and you set your easements, you will know where things will go and plant around them. We can meet separately to discuss this further. Do not plant on the pipeline easement. A reminder about Chapter 26.4 buffering requirements is given. On landscape plans you don't have any species called out and also the plant schedule is missing. We would also like to know what exists on the site and what is proposed. Jon, No Comments. Laurence marked the buffering information. On the 116 Street side it's the buffer for institutional and arterial and on the west side it is institutional abutting single family. Scott is asked to check the original landscape plans. There are several plantings shown on those plans; on the north side at the now existing gymnasium, plantings don't appear on these plans. At this point, I am not suggesting that you put those in as shown on the original plans, but it is an opportunity for you to work with Scott to improve that plan. If you have questions about how the original drains were to work on this site, on the original master plan there was some sort of basin along 116 Street that had a swale that drained south. It doesn't appear it's going to work that way now. Brad, that area has been regraded and redone. We have a drainage pipeline that runs off as shown on 104. The light shade area is an existing in place storm sewer. Further explanation will follow. Laurence confirms with Jenny and John South that that was on the original plan. As long as the surveyor's office and soil water office are satisfied, we are okay. As I mentioned before, I think we do want to have an idea when the curb cut is proposed. I might suggest when the school comes in with the next phase of this development, that that phase should include the cut and some means of making the connection. Whether it is moving or replacing the building. It has been 2 '/2 years since we have seen this project. It may be another 2 t /2 or more before we see another phase. It depends on what satisfies the Hamilton County Highway, at least from the Department of Community Services standpoint, I would like to see that made in the next phase. Jackie, is this road widening you're talking about with respect to the access drive in the middle that the existing entrance will have to go beyond? It will be brought straight down. Steve, the existing entrance, that section of 116 Street was widened. Laurence, it is good that the asphalt path has been added to the plans. There might be some deferral on this. It is 10' by virtue of the fact that 116 Street is a primary arterial. We will look S: TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee AMinutes \tac2002December 11 for temporary asphalt to be brought out toward the road. We do not want people walking out in the street where there are no sidewalks. Keep it in line and stub it out; maybe a 4' temporary connection. On the existing drive it looks like you have a solid curb that comes all the way around. You will need to ramp that or put in a rolling curb. This will accommodate the ADA requirement. It should be a grade. I'm not sure what your plans are about the curbing. It is agreed that a path should installed at the location in question. A connection between the public pedestrian path and by the gymnasium seems to be the natural place. It is confirmed that the tallest addition portion is 32 t /2 feet. On the original site there were two gravel drives. They are still there today. The remainder is from the original farm structure and we need to see those gone. Did the right -of -way get dedicated? We will want to see more information on that, as there is some question about multi property lines. Please provide copies of the dedications and the legal description as well. Because of the question of multi properties, we would suggest that you combine into a single tract. As properties transfer to the school each time you should describe the single parcel. Brad and Jackie note the details regarding the curbing basically encompasses all the development. Bill, at this time we believe it is under one legal description. Shelborne Park, Section 2 (Secondary Plat Construction Plans) 181 -02 SP The site is located on the north side of West 131S Street approximately one quarter mile east of Shelborne Road. The site is zoned S -I /Residence Estate. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Shelborne Park, LLC. Roger Kessler and John Maren with Logan Limited and Steve Staton with Stoeppelwerth gave an overview of the project. This is Section 2 of Shelborne Park. All we are doing is taking existing Section 1, at which construction was recently completed, and adding Section 2 to the extension of the Shelborne Park subdivision. The water and sewer are being extended up along the roadway. The drainage comes back down to the two existing retention ponds. This project will be the extension of the sanitary sewer, water, and the other utilities due north. John South, the foundation that existed on the back parcel has been removed as part of Section 1. The letter sent by our department has a construction sequence you might consider. The sequence needs to be specific to the site and not include those items that are not present and so forth. You need to check Lots 42 and 43 and note where you're going with the new construction. We recommend some changes to the erosion control table especially noting the sequence. I encourage you to have your erosion control contractor on board early in the current project. The contractor was not in charge of it in fact he was quite late. He needs to be on board early so he can move right in behind the contractor. They need to communicate often to coordinate efforts to get the job be done correctly. A lot of bare ground is left that shouldn't have been. On the new sequence, I recommend you seed immediately before curbs are installed. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 12 Chuck, the gas will come out of Section 1. Currently, the mains will be extended down with steel pipe from Towne Road. There is a steel crew working on the other side of Shelborne Road. As soon as the easement is staked, we are moving along with the offsite. Steve Broermann faxed a letter. It looks like you will start in the spring. A new ADA standard for directional ramps needs to be part of your plan. Everything else out there should have them. I will send another copy of the standard. Two crossings as stated would be needed; follow the usual process. Jenny sent a letter. This is a regulated subdivision. The same nonenforcement applies as in Section 1. Jim Blanchard confirms there will be one builder. I will need to meet with the builder to explain the master permitting. That way when you are ready to go on line there won't be any holdups when issuing permits. The turnaround is usually in two to three days compared to five days. Roger, Jim have you not met with our staff? This will be the same product as in Section 1. Can they use that expedited procedure on Section 1 as well? We understand they can come in and do a master review right now. Jim, will you have a construction trailer? If so, please complete the temporary use requirements application. It is confirmed the temporary sales office is currently on site and the model is at drywall stage. The sales trailer should be pulled after the model is complete. I will give you an application for the temporary sales office. Are there any buildings now on the parcel? Any wells, septics, and tanks should be abandoned properly. The lots should be identified at the beginning. Gary sent a letter to James Rinehart of Stoeppelwerth. No comments at this time. Scott, the construction plans for the Secondary did not include a landscape plan. I have one from August of this year with the Primary Plat. If it is the same, it should be included on the plans. John Maren has some minor revisions in the common area at the north end. I will get the landscape plans over to you as soon as possible. Scott, it appears, at the construction fence, all the grading has been done. It no longer has a tree protection fence. I would like to see the protection fence remain up until all houses are constructed. This would eliminate trucks being parked in the area. John Maren, they can't really get in the area. The trees are so dense along that front area. Probably in mid- summer, we will be putting in the walking path that is shown connecting to the Hayden. We will be going in there to do a little bit of that work. Scott does not have that path on his plans. Although it is shown on another part of the plans, we would like to see that segment here. The DOGS' proposed walking path will end at the other location approximately 30' from the west property line. We realize there are some wetland issues S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 13 further to the east. I would like to see the path on the plan at some point. I can walk that area and give you some ideas when you are ready. Jon, regarding the path and Common Area 6 where a couple sidewalks radial out: you might align that path with where the sidewalks radial. This intersection of the path wants to be a depressed curb out to the street. Logically, it is not an intersection nor does it terminate anywhere. It doesn't have to line up with the walks. Roger we can look at bringing it over further. Jon, most of my comments have been sent to you in writing. We need to conclude discussion about the commitment made at time of Primary Plat approval for improvements and find some way to exhaust that issue. With regard to structure 837, the curb inlet is getting punched by four different pipes at that location. More specifically on Lance Drive, by the time they are done, there won't much of anything left. The soil will be all washed away because they try to plug all the gaps. That is an issue we need to explore. Maybe backing that off and setting a manhole in the easement so we don't go out and punch the curb inlets with multiple pipes. It is a cost issue for you. Ultimately we are going to be dissatisfied. Some of the angles are bad and we will end up with an inferior product. I know we are talking about a three -year maintenance on the improvements. I would like for the county surveyor's office and the county highway departments to take a strong look at this. Roger, we understand the issues. West Carmel Center, Block D, Lot 3 Applebee's (Development Plan) 185 -02 DP Amend The applicant seeks development plan approval to construct a restaurant. The site is located at the northeast corner of Michigan Road and Retail Parkway. The site is zoned B -3 /Business within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Troy Terew of Lewis Engineering. Troy Terew and Vaughn Martin represent Applebee's Restaurant. The proposed is located at Michigan Road and 106 Street. This is Lot 3 of Block D West Carmel Center in front of the Target Super Center. It will be utilizing existing access roads and interior drives at the Target Center. It will be part of the master development of Block D. It will be sharing a driveway to the south with the next project, which may be a Fifth Third Bank. I am waiting for a call from Cincinnati on the status of the bank to verify that our driveways line up. John South sent a letter. No further comments. Chuck, Dave Catron takes care of all the food service requests. You can get with him on the load requirements. Steve sent a letter stating county highways are not affected. No further comments. Jenny sent a letter. The only requirement is an outlet permit. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 14 Jim Blanchard, No Comments. Gary sent a letter to Troy and received a response from Paul. All my requests have been met. The building will not be sprinkled. They will install a Knox Box. The fire alarm system will be in the interior. As this moves forward, call my office and we will provide the necessary information. For the Knox Box surface mount, delivery is less than one week. If recess in masonry, it will be the same time frame. When I notice some of the framework beginning, I will stop and provide your contractor with the paperwork. Scott met with the landscape architect. I have not received revised information. Troy will courier the information. Scott asked for several species changes and a couple detail changes be submitted. The original plans did not meet the buffer yard and parking requirements. We have talked about that. As soon as I receive the plans I will forward my comments. Jon sent comments in writing. The issues I think you should be prepared for prior to submittal of the packets to Plan Commission are to make sure that Scott gets an opportunity to review the revised landscape plans, as that needs to be incorporated with the submittal. I don't have specific information on lighting. I need to see cut sheets. I may not have reviewed it yet, but another photometric might be needed, as this one is not sufficient. Other issues: requests on the elevation show 4 signs. We need variance approval and those have not been submitted (you may not need 4). As for Plan Commission, queue up for your distribution on January 10 make sure you have your landscaping issues resolved. Variances will go to Board of Zoning Appeals; all architectural goes to PC. The offset for the 90' frontage will go to BZA. No pole sign or monument sign will be allowed. Target took down their original sign because they did not secure it within an easement. They might come back in and file, but we have not heard back from them. We could look at a multi- tenant sign. Otherwise, you will be permitted a single sign because you have frontage on HWY 421. If forwarded to BZA, they have ultimate decision on the number of signs. We encourage you to work with Target and Fifth Third to come up with a proposal to reinstall the Target sign that was at the intersection. A permissible sign would be an overall height of 6' or 45 SF. Dixie Hi -Way Addition, Lot 8 Glenwood LLC (Development Plan) 188 -02 DP /ADLS The petitioner seeks to convert an existing residence into an office building. The site is located at 10820 North College Avenue. The site is zoned B -1 /Business within the Home Place District Overlay Zone. Filed by Leonard Voigt. Leonard explains that the site plan was seen in a subsequent meeting. The two pages attached are showing the vegetation we will be planting. The landscaping was not on the original site plan so this has been redone. The right -of -way on both College Avenue and Broadway were not S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 15 indicated. We need to deed some of that land to the county and that was not indicated on the plan. The other item that was not on the site plan is one of the buildings does not architecturally meet with the overlay plan since it is made of stucco. We will be demolishing that building and a small parking area will be added. It has a concrete floor so it will be easy to lay the tarmac. Otherwise, we are ready to go except we are asking for a variance on the curbing on the pavement. We are also asking for a variance on the house itself since it has been there for 103 years. It meets the minim 20' of height and it is not over the maximum of 35'. John South, No Comments. Chuck has gas service to the house. It is confirmed nothing else will be added. Steve gave the dedication of right -of -way forms to the petitioner. There is an example attached that will explain how to complete the forms. Get the forms back to us as soon as possible. You will also need a commercial drive permit and this was explained in the letter I recently sent. You may contact Robb Chadwell to get the appropriate permit. Jenny sent a letter. No Comments. Jim Blanchard asks what type of medical services will be performed. Leonard explains that the medical services performed are insurance examinations. The medical history, sometimes a blood draw, and an EKG will be the extent of examinations. I would say that 99% of these activities will be performed off the premises. If an agent wants a client in at the last minute we will have an examination room for the procedure. To comply with the Health Department requirements regarding hazardous waste, we have contracted that pick up from the premises. We are in compliance with OSHA. Jim, you will need to contact Jim Ochs (571 -2444) regarding the new electrical code. This was a change in 2002 for Healthcare Facilities. The petitioner confirms no exterior work will be done. You will also need to have a handicap ramp and a restroom facility that complies with the American Disabilities Act. Leonard, I was not aware of this requirement and this was not in my equation. Jon, the house and any buildings that will be commercial need to meet commercial building code requirements. That issue is not a point of negotiation. Here are the standards for commercial buildings and the standards for homes. If you want to take a home and convert it into a business, you will need to follow the guidelines. There is a range of information that is expected to be known by people who want to go into business. It is not an issue of the overlay plan; it is a building code requirement. You need to surround yourself with enough people who can properly advise you. Leonard, that requirement was never mentioned to me in our previous meetings. I'm taken aback. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 16 Gary sent a letter. One building is confirmed to be demolished (not the garage). Scott just received the revised set of plans. Just to let you know, you can't plant in the county highway right -of -way. It would be better if I receive a separate landscape plan. You are currently showing what is existing and on top of that you are showing what is proposed. I also need a plant detail. Leonard, when you visited the site we walked the property and at that time you felt we really didn't need anything since the older trees caused a tremendous amount of shade and very little would grow there except hosta. On the north side of the property where there is an empty lot, we would need a couple shrubs. This landscaping detail was put together at the direction of the Department of Community Services. Do you still hold with your original request? As you will recall from your site visit, a lot of vegetation was on the property. We have tried to clear that according to the overlay plan. We are trying to carry that out in practical terms. Scott, I have a plan that shows all these plantings. They need to be called out if you are proposing them. Tell me what they are and how you plan to do this. If you are not proposing any plantings then you need to show me that and why you don't need those plantings. There are standard details that say this is how you plant shrubs, etc. You need to show that you will plant with the exact standard so it does not die. If you are unfamiliar with this, you need to have your designer complete that for you. We met over a year ago and now I'm receiving plans that show something different. We can meet separately and I will be happy to clear up any confusion. Dick Hill, No Comments. Jon, Docket Numbers will be issued by the end of the week so you can make notice for the Plan Commission. Leonard questions Steve regarding the highway improvements at 106 Street and College Avenue corridor. You mentioned I might have to put in a sidewalk and that I could commit to it at a future date. I will put in the sidewalk but I would like to ask that it be pushed off to a future point. I will make that request to the Plan Commission. Laurel Oaks (Primary Plat) 186 -02 PP The applicant seeks approval of a Primary Plat for a 22 -lot residential subdivision on 9.145± acres. The site is located on the south side of West Smokey Row Road, 1/8 -mile west of North Range Line Road. The site is zoned R -2 /Residence. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. for Adams Marshall, Inc. Chris White introduced Jim Marshall for Adams Marshall Homes. Doug Westlund was present for Stoeppelwerth. We are proposing 22 lots on 9 acres. The parcel is on the south side of 136 Street directly west of the MononTrail. This parcel is fairly wooded and is the reason for some of the site layout. Our attempt was to try to preserve some of the trees. It has a ditch cutting through the southeast corner to the northwest corner with a creek cutting through the northwest S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 17 corner of the site. The entire southern and southwest portions of the site are very wooded. There is an existing house and barn on the northeast site that will be removed. We are proposing one entrance with a cul de sac and a private hammerhead street for access to the lots on the west side of the creek. There is an existing sanitary on the west line and water up at 131 st Street that we will be bringing to the site. With this development, we will be expanding the walking path along the south property line of the Monon Trail to the southwest corner of the site. There is an existing street stub from the apartment development at our very southwest corner. That can be stubbed into the parcel to the west. We have several waivers that we are asking for: One is the private street. One is the entrance for a subdivision with more than 18 lots. Another is a waiver for the percentage of encroachment at the wooded area. We have recently hired Vine and Branch, Judson Scott, to do a more detail analysis. For the woodlands, we should have these for you early next week. John South sent a letter. Soil information for the site is standard. There is floodplain soil on the western half of the property. I don't believe this area is mapped by FEMA as a floodplain, but I do believe that it exceeds the one square mile so it does have floodway issues and 100 -year elevations. We recommend that the plat not go forward and be approved until those floodways and elevations be determined and shown on the plat. You have some poorly drained soils that you are working with so each lot should have access to sub drainage. Some of the lots do not come up to the right -of -way or street. You would need to look at that further. Finally, there is the question whether a 401 permit is going to be required for the relocation of the existing drain. Some of that might be classified as a wetland area. You will also need a water quality permit. It is obvious that FEMA has not mapped everything. The concept of mapping a floodplain, when they do map, is that it might place the new owner in jeopardy as far as insurance, etc. A greater concern might be the existing regulation to build in a flood. This creek is large enough that it has a jurisdictional floodway. Even if it is not FEMA; there is a state law. We don't know if the lots are within the floodway and we don't know if the proposed pond is in the floodway. Any drainage area that exceeds 640 acres has a floodway determined by DNR and permits are required if built in that floodway. When the land was platted across the road approximately ten years ago on that tract because of the railroad, there was significant floodway. I am not familiar with 136 Street restrictions because of the bridge. Chris White notes that Stoeppelwerth is in the process of doing research. Chuck has gas along 136 Street. Call your contact person once you have approval. You can arrange a setup date for the conduit crossing. Steve, the site is in the city but does not include 136 Street. Any work that is done to 136 Street needs to be permitted through the highway department not including the entrance permit and any utility work in the right -of -way. This is part of the C210 annexation which will be final the first week in January. Defer the county to the city engineer on all issues. There is still the question of the 60" pipe at the bridge. Mike McBride and Dick Hill have not completed their review at this time. A letter is forthcoming. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 18 Jim Blanchard notes that John South addressed some of the concerns the department has with regard to the lots in the floodway. Builders will be required to meet elevation requirements. Openings to basements need to be shown. The existing house and barn to be removed will require a demolition permit. Morris Hensley and Barry McNulty will need to signoff. The petitioner notes there will not be a construction trailer. Adams and Marshall will be the sole builder. Our department will provide a construction trailer application. The petitioner is also given a temporary sales office and model home application. Jim Marshall explains this community is for active adults and this type usually does not require a sales office. It is a 50150 chance that we might put in a sales office. The only construction trailer that we might possibly have would be used only for storage. Gary met with Chris and the owner regarding the hammerheads. We are much more in favor of the original plan. We would rather see you go back to the original with some type of commitment made saying with signage that parking at hammerheads is not allowed. It might be put in the covenants. Please forward your water distribution and hydrant placement plans when they are complete. Dick Hill received a letter from Dennis Olmstead. On the 136 Street Thoroughfare Plan, the collector is shown as a 50' right -of -way. The county was a 50' half but we only need a 40'. At time of annexation, we will require an accel/decel and a passing blister on the north side. Chris, with the number of homes, is there any flexibility? We would like to explore that with you. Because of the creek crossing as well as the Monon Trail, we would like to stay away from the signage. Dick, we normally request further road improvements. We will defer to the Department of Community Services. The interior street is certainly unique. We are not in favor of hammerheads. There is a problem with snow plowing, fire department runs, and parking. That is another point of discussion for us. I did not know this would be private. The Board of Public Works will not accept private streets. Chris, we are open either way. Jon, in talking about this property we were trying to come up with something a little more unique and respectful of the fact that the site is heavily wooded and there would be a limited number of lots. Dick your issues are all warranted. I haven't seen the revised layout. It sounds like there are a lot of issues that should be discussed further. A meeting with Carmel Engineering about what happens on 136 Street and what happens at the Monon Trail should be planned soon. Sometimes when we are asked to accept streets that are not standard streets we are inclined to accept them. I want to make sure engineering is satisfied with the design. The other issue is the study John South touched on. What I don't want to have happen here is to have residents move in and the city or FEMA release findings that will effect their investment because of flood insurance. I don't want the residents to be jeopardized because they can't sell to someone S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 19 because no one can afford flood insurance. Regarding the others who have made comments in writing, I would distribute revised sets to all TAC members especially engineering before you distribute to the Plan Commission. Scott has not received a set. The tree issues are going to be a tough sell with the Plan Commission. You should bring a representative to explain and make a presentation on the specific efforts that will be made to accommodate the preservation of the woodland areas. Northview Christian Life (Special Use) SUA 218 -02, V219 -02 The applicant seeks to construct an addition to the existing church and a new youth center. The site is located on the southwest corner of East 131S Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Low Density. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for Northview Christian Life. Jim Nelson for the petitioner along with David Huffman, Dan Ware, and William Cooper. Christian Life Church has filed an application for Special Use approval. This would permit certain improvements to the existing church facility. Copies were disseminated to all members of the Technical Advisory Committee that I felt would have jurisdictional interest in the matter. I have had a nice response. John South faxed a letter and also has a copy today for the petitioner. It appears the project is 5 acres in size. I think you can probably eliminate the silt fence as shown on the erosion control plan. If you wanted some overall protection and inlet protection at the dry basin that would be an appropriate place to put in a stop gap measure. The erosion control blanket downstream at structure number one, to the east of the youth building, we would require a 2 grade. David Huffman has more questions about the existing structure and John refers to his letter. Jim Blanchard, will there be any buildings to be removed, wells capped, or septics closed on the property? I understand you are adding modulars. A presubmittal meeting for permits will be scheduled. I will give you a checklist and procedures list for you to follow. In these additions, if we have any exits in the back, we will need to have a walkway to a public way. The hard surface should be 44" and is required by DOCS Building and Code Enforcement for fire as well as for the American Disabilities Act. The NFP life safety code is in the Uniform Building Code regarding egress. David, the barn that is currently served by a well and septic is not to be disturbed. Jim Nelson had approval sometime ago for the modular classrooms. Gary handed the petitioner a letter. The gymnasium/youth center is going to be a sprinkled building. We would like to set up a meeting to discuss where we will put the fire department connection. It might be a wall mount unless cars will be parked in front of it. If there will be cars, we ask that it be marked off so no cars will park there when we need clear access. We would also S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 20 need to discuss an exterior entrance door to the riser room instead of having to go inside the building. I would like to request a Knox Box on all freestanding buildings, which would be the gymnasium/youth center and maintenance /garage area. The buildings that are sprinkled should participate in a Keybox System. They have also devised a fire department Siamese cap, which we ask that you purchase and we will install on the connections. It makes the connection safe. I'm sure the building will have a fire alarm system, if not, we request an enunciator panel (or at least a remote panel at the front door). Dan Ware sent a letter to Gary. In the letter we suggested rather than at the main entrance, and a little more remote, there was a better more convenient entrance to where your truck might pull up that the fire alarm enunciator could be located. Gary, typically how our department works is, the chief goes to Knox Box gets the key and makes entry. We like to have that close to where he makes entry. If there is a door more conducive for us to go right in, we can look at that. Dick Hill will mail his comments today. We have not reviewed the drainage calculations but will try to get our responses to you in the comment letter. We did review the water usage for the church and we don't foresee any additional fees. You need to identify 131S Street on the plans regarding the right -of -way. I noticed you have a couple of temporary construction entrances but they are internal. Where will you access your main entrance to the church off 131 st Street? David, notes the temporary 50' will be just stone. William Cooper comments it is a long way to 131S Street. David, also there are substantial speed bumps at the drive off of Hazel Dell Parkway. Dick, the gravel driveway at the entrance off of 131S Street did that receive Board of Works approval? David confirms that was left over from the original farm. It is not quite a gravel drive as it is unused and overgrown. It is a little more defined on the survey than it actually is. There are some sanitary manholes. The driveway fades off once it gets to the hill. It is a visible curb cut, but once you get outside the driveway it turns into overgrown stone. It was used for a while for the youth center. When the church was built, they put in a new entrance. It is not used currently. Dick, Sheet C 1.1 is a little confusing. In Item 13 notes, the arrows point to remove water lines. The petitioner has since corrected this and it is not now pointing to the sidewalk. Duct line pipe was used for future expansion. David, the church is big, but they do have bigger plans. They did not want to redo it if they expanded in the future. Dick would like to see existing buildings on the plans and whether they have water and sewer S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 21 service. David, the barn is served by a well and septic. At the main building, we tried to show the routings. The chapel is not connected. The other small building is just a cover of the shed. The water lines will tap off at 131 st Street and the sanitary line for the new building is pumped through a duplex from Hazel Dell to the north side. Jon, going past the existing barn, the lateral to the barn now is not practical. Dick, the septic seems to be in good condition. I can't speak for the utility department. David, we have not heard any complaints. There are no visible signs of the septic failing. It was put in sometime in the late 80's. We will provide more information on the location. Jon passes letters from Scott Brewer and Chuck Shupperd to the petitioner. Scott and Chuck had previously scheduled meetings that prevented them from being at this portion of TAC. Laurence asks the petitioner: how much of the pavement is new? It is confirmed that the service drive is new. I did not see a note on curbing. Will you file a variance? That is an element of the parking lot. The petitioner will put in the curb. At our last meeting we talked about the elevation of the building that shows the overall height. These plans still do not show what we talked about. Dan will get the changes to Laurence by the end of the week. Laurence, there is still some question about the youth facility. I need an exhibit that I can take to my Director to get a determination or be exempted under the language. I would like to get Docket Numbers assigned Friday. I will meet with Jim if he brings that information in tomorrow. We also discussed the need for sidewalks on 131S Street. I requested that any documentation with respect to that be provided and it has not been received. Dan checked with the church yesterday. They were not able to find the documentation they thought they had. Laurence, then either the 10' asphalt path needs to be shown or a request will need to be made on that as well. Jim will cover that also. The right -of -way along 131S Street is not apparent. You have copies of the dedication. Those need to be in the final plans and confirmed as existing or for the dedication to be made. Dick has a copy of the dedication and will forward it to Laurence. Jim and I found the dedication. Laurence will meet with Jim on Thursday. David received Jenny Chapman's letter. The site is in city limits and in the initial letter she stated it would require an outlet permit. I called her and she said she misunderstood because she S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 22 thought we were putting in a detention pond. She said an outlet permit to Mitchner's Ditch is not required. Jon, to save you some time in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals, if you could have color elevations of the proposed and compare that with the existing it will help them understand. Jim, we can have a sample board of materials. Also, we can show different models, materials, and colors. Carmel/Clay Schools Carmel High School (Special Use, DSV) 187 -02 DP Amend The applicant seeks to construct a building addition and new parking areas at the Carmel High School Campus. Filed by Allen Cradler of Fanning /Howey Associates for Carmel Clay Schools. Allen Cradler, Jeff Bolinger, Chuck Tyler, and Ron Farrand gave an overview. The freshman center consists of a large three -story addition, one single story, and a music addition on the eastside. To facilitate the freshman center addition, the school purchased six properties to allow parking to be replaced, to allow reconfiguration of the drive, and to allow the circulation. The various neighborhood meetings revealed an overall concern of traffic going into the neighborhood. We tried to solve that by once the properties were purchased, we saw an opportunity to disconnect the internal drives from the high school to that neighborhood. We will reconnect Sylvan and Audubon from the 4 th Avenue and 2 nd Street intersection. This would maintain the emergency access on Sylvan and provide another way to serve the people on Audubon. We replaced and added some 25 parking spaces when 132 that were lost. One other piece that shows up is the explanation of the walkway that students use to come from the north parking area. We wanted to get them out of the road that is now closed in the morning and afternoon. This walkway will allow that road to the north to be opened up. It will allow some bus traffic to be shifted, come from the north, and drop off at the natatorium entrance. They are increasing some buses so this is the maximum. We will try to take some traffic off the existing parking lot. There will be the potential to drop students off at the front door to the freshman center to try to alleviate the current arrangement. We still have to maintain the drop off and allow parents to come in and queue up within the drop off, return this way, or head to the north. The remaining area will be buffering and landscaping. There will be a detention to take care of runoff. A natural detention and drainage flow now exists across the property. A picture of the building is now shown. We are using brick to match the latest addition of the building and incorporating precast concrete to tie the buildings together. Some elements are different in design to signify that this is the Freshman Center. The signage for this building will identify this as a place for the 9 th grade students. The 50' is the mechanical mezzanine and is set back from the edge. We will put the parking lot as a point of reference on the drawing to eliminate the expanse of driveway. The peak of the sloped roof is slightly shorter than the mechanical wall. We also brought some overlaid items from a question at the last meeting. The red outlines are the purchased properties. The dark green are existing trees that have been surveyed. The pink areas are existing trees that we will loose based on this layout. The island trees will be taken off the property to a nursery. We will try to transplant some of the trees. We will check with Scott before doing anything because of the shock to the trees. If everything remains on schedule, we will break ground in S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 23 April. We had a meeting this week with Skillman to get our hands on how this will proceed. Some things could begin such as removing houses, connecting roads so we don't have public access, and working on utilities. The projected completion is 2005. Ron Farrand, we will need the parking areas for staging (islands and trees will be considered). Allen, the demolition will be the first item of business. Jon, it appears there is a house that remains on the two north lots. Could the house remain on the lots? Is the school corporation going to put the property back up for sale? This could be used as a buffer. Ron, we do not want to be landlords. We want the buffer in terms of the property. Jon, my question is if you put it back up for sale with a deed restriction, it appears a better buffer than if the house goes away. This is not a recommendation, just a thought about the property. In your discussion with the BZA, you might want to explore that idea more. For example, you could leave the home on the two lots, put them back up for sale with the restrictions that the existing buffering be maintained, etc. I realize it is a complex issue. Ron, we have considered this. If we have the opportunity to buy, we wouldn't want to turn around and sell it. Our feeling is we have it for a buffer and as a green space then there is no potential conflict. Allen, we do maintain a sidewalk along that road. We also maintain a pedestrian access for the neighborhood. We will bring a photo reduced in size for the Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The one other piece of the walk has nothing major that will impact it. The green space that slopes off this drive and access along the east side will remain. We will provide a handicap accessible ramp. At the soccer field there will be a ticket building. Some of the paving will be replaced. The west side paving will be repaired and a new gate for emergency vehicles will be added. It currently is a turn style and ticket area to the football field. Laurence, has any thought been given to what the ultimate size of the school might be? You are saying that this floor plan has a design that should serve at this capacity. Ron, this is according to the numbers which includes the anticipated growth and all other factors. We have no guarantees that the numbers won't change. John South, the erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan does not satisfy the minimum requirement and intent for Rule 5. Deficiencies are noted on the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted. Erosion and sediment control plans need to be submitted prior to demolition work. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 24 Chuck Tyler, when the previous project was planned Carmel Clay was at a certain level and that has accelerated dramatically. This remaining build out is more defined. As this develops over time, the ability to predict the ultimate capacity of buildings is a little better. The superintendent has indicated that if for some reason there is further expansion that will be the time to look at other solutions such as alternative schools or magnet schools. Laurence, it is highly probable and very possible that we will not see an addition like this again? That will be one of the issues you will face when we go to the board. The buffer issues at Clay Junior High are not as great as they are here. In terms of timing, are you planning on bringing Clay back to the January BZA meeting? Ron, do we proceed to the Plan Commission? Laurence, the Plan Commission issue of plat vacation is to get them focused on plat vacation. This should be a blank sheet of paper. As far as the Plan Commission, it could run in parallel to the Special Use approval. Ultimately they both need to be finalized. My concern with the BZA is, (knowing you have been working with the neighbors) if they are still hung up and you roll this out the same night (keeping in mind there are two different projects) their minds are going to fall in together. Ron, does that have to be done before we can proceed to the Subdivision Committee and then to the full Plan Commission? We could delay the middle school. Chuck Tyler, the difficulty here is, from a schedule standpoint, the students are already in the system. The need for this expansion in a timely fashion is very real. Flexibility is more with Clay than with the schedule of the Freshman Center. Jim Blanchard, have you contacted an environmental inspector to verify that the houses do not have asbestos? Petitioner confirms that Phase One has been done on all the houses. Five houses will be torn town. Ron, depending on the public auction of the Taylor /Christy home there might be six homes torn down. If someone buys it, the new owner could have it moved. Jim has a demolition permit requirement. Will students need to pass through the new addition at any time during the construction? For your construction trailers for temporary use, I have a form for you to complete. I also have information and an application for you referring to the presubmittal meeting required before building permits can be issued. Allen, other routes for student movement have been checked with Gary. Gary met with Jeff and Allen last week and all issues have been resolved except one. You are showing the emergency access road going back to Sylvan and Audubon Drive will be closed off early in the project. We will need that access open. Be sure you don't park construction trailers in that area. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 25 Dick Hill has not completed the department comments letter. The new segment will be dedicated. Allen, the vacation of right -of -way was completed the last time we were here through the City Council and BPW. Jon, you should put together a separate set that addresses the sequence. That might also be effective in addressing the questions and comments. Laurence, we would also like to have the legal in hand by the time you get to BZA. The Skillman Corporation is in charge of construction. Jon would like to schedule a meeting before January 7 th to talk about some of the issues that were discussed as part of the plat vacation. We want to be sure we can effectively address all the questions. I would suggest you engage the services of a traffic consultant. I am not advocating that you do an operations analysis or a traffic study per se. They could look at everything and prepare a rendering that says here is the layout and how it will affect the neighborhood. I want to give the Plan Commission an adequate response to any questions that might come up. To have a professional traffic engineer take a look at it and make some recommendations might have a greater impact on the PC especially after the questions from last night. One of the most important things to recognize is the streets are less than what we require today as far as pavement widths and right -of -way widths. Chuck Tyler, I don't think we can do that at this time and make it meaningful. Laurence, before permits can be drawn on this, all the little parcels need to be consolidated. You already have a boundary description for the overall property. That minus the right -of -way dedication should be included. Your rendering goes a long way in showing how it's going to be seen from the ground. You should also include this in your packets to the board. The sign variance applications need to be more specific. We also need to know if it will be illuminated. I especially need the width of the sign before I can issue a Docket Number Friday. Allen, the intent is not to illuminate the sign. Laurence, Paul Cripe is the consultant for the school and he submitted the sign variance proposals for this. These numbers will be tagged to those numbers. In the areas where you are expanding, there were several entrance identification signs that are being relocated. The fire department would also like to know where the entrances would be moving. They have a scheme of the overall building showing them where each is located. You can get a copy of that information from the fire department. We would like a list of where signs will be relocated or eliminated. Dates to remember: January 2n is the notice deadline and the meeting is on January 27 As a final note, any issues you can resolve or any opportunity you have to work with the PC, I would encourage you to do so. If you get to BZA and two of the members are comfortable with what is going on, it is more than likely that the other three will also be comfortable. S: TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee AMinutes \tac2002December 26 340 North Range Line Carmel Bed and Breakfast (Use Variance) The applicant seeks to establish a bed and breakfast use. The site is located at 340 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -5 /Business within the Old Town District Overlay Zone. Filed by Mark T. Monroe of Drewry Simmons Pitts Vornehm for Mary Hopkins. Paul Reis, attorney for Mary Hopkins is accompanied by James Vires. The Petitioner, applicant is seeking to renovate and redevelop an existing single- family residence at the corner of 4 th Street and Range Line in Old Town Carmel into a bed and breakfast facility. We have distributed site plans to everyone. John South, No comments. Jim Blanchard confirms there will be work to the exterior of the building. You will need to follow the guidelines with regard to the overlay zone. We will need to have handicap ramps and a restroom facility in compliance with the American Disabilities Act. Smoke detectors will be required in all bedrooms, hallways, and on each level. The restrooms will be required to have GFGI protection. The bedrooms will be required to have hard fault circuit interrupted protection. Jim passed building permit application/inspection procedures to the petitioner. Please check with Jim Ochs on the presubmittal meeting. Gary sent a letter to Paul. No comments. Dick Hill, we will mail our department comments letter to Paul. The Board of Public Works requirements on this project, at a minim is that you will need commercial curb cuts and sewer and water for the building. I will send you a BPW agenda along with our comments. This site does have city water and sewer. We will need a list of how you will use this facility; such as the number of suites so we can calculate your fees. It is on a single family rate at this time and you will get credit for that. We would like to see service laterals on your drawing. The parking you are showing on your drawing is really unacceptable. We don't encourage direct access from the street. We would like to see you move the parking back onto the property. James Vires notes that the property across the street has similar parking. Laurence, the parking might be there but whether or not it is approved is another matter. I will make a site visit. There needs to be an 80' wide cut on 4 th Street. Dick, unfortunately we have a lot of these that have existed for a long time in Carmel. We try to correct this as new ones come along. Ideally we would like to see a separate parking lot with drives access off 3 rd Street. Paul, practically speaking that is a very narrow lot and what Mary is contemplating is possible expansion to the west. The width of the lot does not give us a lot of room. We considered how S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 27 much traffic there would be because of the way this business works. We can meet with Carmel Engineering and discuss this further. Typically, we are not going to have a lot of in and out traffic. We will follow up on that. Dick, after you receive my comments we can talk further about those possibilities. Do you have any drainage calculations? The engineering department will require the calcs. We will have some requirements. Paul, when they reworked the curbs I believe they put in a storm water system. We will investigate. First Avenue is completely redone. Dick, there is a legal drain to the west. What plans do you have for the western half of site? Paul, the only plans for now are the renovations of the existing structure and add those few parking spaces. In the future if business is good, they might expand. At that point we can look at the drainage. For now it is to fix up what is there and maintain it. Dick, it would seem as though you might want a sidewalk along the frontage. Mary, it is a matter of the narrow lot. We would like to install a sidewalk to the house from the parking lot. Jon, would you be interested in selling the other parcel to another party for construction of something else? An extensive conversation about the possibilities such as City Center is pursued. On the question of the ADLS Amendment, the requirements for the ADLS Amendment needs to be filed within two weeks of going to the committee even if it is in Old Town Overlay Zone. It is zoned B5. Mary answers no to the question of selling the additional parcel. Laurence, the old town standards would apply. The way the ordinance is set up, the site design review is ADLS. Right now where the ADLS is required, the site design is not. Paul, our preference would have been the site design. We can talk with Mike and have the committee review it. Laurence, regarding the parking and traffic, the narrative that was provided said the anticipated capacity of this building would be two apartments and ten guest rooms. Paul, when I filed this, we said from three to ten guest rooms and that was so that we wouldn't have to come back when and if there was ever an expansion. Currently, there will be three guest rooms. Laurence, the expansion would not be covered under this approval. Under this narrative, we will S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 28 reduce to seven with a maximum of ten guest rooms. I concur that the parking lot should be located on site. That is the best situation. There is a 40' right -of -way with only a 16' pavement width. We need to account for the fire trucks. Even with the old town overlay, the guest ability to park and the ability for emergency vehicles to get through is a big concern to me. I would like to see those arranged at a minim of 7 spaces. If they are going to be arranged off street, angled parking would be a preferred situation. Our suggestion is that it should be on site parking. The existing sheds will be restored. The one on 4 th Street, if retained, will need a variance for the setback. It is not on a foundation so moving it should be possible. The area is overgrown so it's hard to get a good feel for it. It is a good looking house. After the appropriate accents are added it will be even more attractive. The city only installed sidewalks on the north. The petitioner would like to put the sidewalk from the parking lot to the house. The site seems to be crisscrossed by a number of utilities but I don't see any easements. The overhead line concerns me when you have the shed so close. It should not be in an easement. A well on site needs to be capped. City water is hooked up to the house. The 100 year -old pump is still there. An abandoned well should be capped because of the potential for contamination of ground water. It is also a danger to children. Talk with the utility department to see what they might require. We would like to request the curb radius at Range Line be dedicated. It appears on the plans that we have two fire hydrants. The fire department would like for those to remain. Paul, do we need to give an easement for the fire hydrants? Gary, the easement is probably there. The reason they might have put two on the property is on Range Line Road the closet fire hydrant is two streets south and this would give them another outlet of water. Laurence, as far as the ADLS, we are going to want to see what is planned for these areas. Jon is working to get a shortened process. This house encroaches into the 5' side yard setback and you will need to file a variance for that as well. Timing for the BZA: they won't hear this matter until ADLS has been decided. You need to get that to them as soon as possible. The exact process is explained to the petitioner. The landscape buffer yards for this bed and breakfast, as it function similarly, is the same as for a multi family. Please prepare an exhibit that shows what exists for those uses. The other option is retail and it is not really that sort of use. If you can get those variances filed, to appear at the January hearing, I need to get a Docket Number issued by Friday. We will need to have revised plans showing the easements. Paul is looking at the title work. Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 12, Lot 5 Linc Systems (DP Amendment) The applicant seeks to construct a building addition. The site is located at 1402 Chase Court and is zoned M- 3/Manufacturing. Filed by Adam DeHart of Keeler Webb Associates for KAT, LLC. John South, this project is less than five acres and is an addition to an established site. I don't S: TechnicatAdvisoryCommittee AMinutes \tac2002December 29 believe an NOI is needed for IDEM for Rule 5. Gary, No Comments. Dick Hill has a letter drafted but not yet mailed. We will need your revised drainage calculations. We would like to see all the utility lines. Up in the northeast corner there are dot dash lines from the corner. The petitioner confirms that is truck turning symbols. The other symbol is the silt fence. The drainage is at the parking lot. Adam, the existing storm sewer is close to it. That is all detailed on the grading plan. Dick, the plans I have show an expanded parking lot over an existing drainage outlet and existing Swale. You don't show how that has been revised. The parking lot is going to be built right over that area. Adam, we are modifying all that so it still goes into the pipe. That will be modified with a new inlet on the grading plan. We will get those to you. We had to retro fit it to make it work. Laurence has Jon's comment letter. We have questions about lighting. Adam will get with the contractor that was there before, as all those lights are existing. I can come up with something that is similar. Laurence, Jon asked for lot coverage verification. Those were sent to Jon. Comments on the landscaping and the elevation will be needed. Jon notes he has notified you regarding the need for an ADLS Amendment. As for the Board of Zoning Appeals, it is pretty straightforward. I have nothing for you at this time. Docket numbers have not been issued. The BZA won't hear the matter until after the Plan Commission. Adam is not aware of the BZA procedure. Is that at their request as opposed to being their required procedure? We will go to the Plan Commission first. We will adjust what we are doing and plan accordingly. Laurence, that is the procedure. You will only need one variance. I can give you a Docket Number but I can't put you on the agenda until this has been settled. Adam, it is my intention to submit things to Jon to make it to the January meeting. Will we then be able to get to the February BZA? Just like any other building project, they want to get started in the spring. On the elevations, which would you and the Plan Commission prefer? Would they prefer a rendering picture from the residential side, Carmel Drive side, or just elevations on all sides? S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 30 Laurence, you should submit all three sides. It is my understanding that this addition replicates the existing architectural. S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee \Minutes \tac2002December 31