Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:19 PM To: Weddington, Trudy A.; Akers, William P; Barnes, David R; Blanchard, Jim E; Conn, Angelina V; Druley, Elizabeth A; Duffy, John M; Ellison. Christopher M; 'Hartman, Ryan'; 'Noyes, Greg'; 'Hunter, Shirley'; Kempa, Lisa L; Knott, Bruce; 'Lucas, David'; Maki, Sue; Mascari, John A; Mindham, Daren; Thomas, John G; 'Thompson, Robert'; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Glaser, Fred J Cc: Lux, Pamela K; Mishler, Nicholas F Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) I rescind my previous email. The water and sewer will be needed prior to final C of 0 for the early release units. Water for emergency response during construction is available on 99` Street. They still need to clear with CFD that there is an acceptable, durable surface to the units being constructed. From: Weddington, Trudy A. Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:06 PM To: Akers, William P; Barnes, David R; Blanchard, Jim E; Conn, Angelina V; Druley, Elizabeth A; Duffy, John M; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison, Christopher M; 'Hartman, Ryan'; 'Hoyes, Greg'; 'Hunter, Shirley'; Kempa, Lisa L; Knott, Bruce; 'Lucas, David'; Maki, Sue; Mascari, John A; Mindham, Daren; Thomas, John G; 'Thompson, Robert'; Weddington, Trudy A.; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Glaser, Fred J Cc: Lux, Pamela K; Mishler, Nicholas F Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Hello, everyone. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this project, please read the following e -mail chain. Now that you are up to speed, Building and Code Services (BCS) has an Early Release ILP Application for new structures in subdivisions that do not have complete approvals yet. (Please see the attached document.) If this is something Mr. Land would like to pursue and if it is something all of you would be agreeable to doing, Angie, please forward the attached document onto him. Then, BCS can help him obtain at least his first building permit —with conditions, of course. Thanks. 'T udy From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:09 PM To: Weddington, Trudy A.; Blanchard, Jim E Cc: Duncan, Gary R; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Barnes, David R Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Good afternoon, everyone I just spoke with Casey Land and told him I would ask this: Since Casey is already moving dirt, and it is not his fault that Mike H is out of the office this week, would there be an problem if we issued him his building permits with perhaps a parcel hold in Pentamation, that he could not get a final inspection until the Secondary Plat is all signed and recorded, etc? (We have a mylar copy of the secondary plat, but Mike H is not here this week to sign it in order to get it on this month's BPW agenda....) Let me know what you think! Thanks so much, -Angie 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Greg R. Noyes Greg .Hoyes @hamiltoncounty.in.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8 :58 AM To: Weddington, Trudy A.; Barnes, David R; Conn, Angelina V; Druley, Elizabeth A; Duncan, Gary R; Hartman, Ryan; Thomas, John G; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Trudy The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no concerns with this request. If you have any questions, please let me know. .9 eze e -At, e.%ese Plan Reviewer Hamilton County Surveyor's Office From: Weddington, Trudy A. [mailto:tweddington @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:06 PM To: Akers, William P; Barnes, David R; Blanchard, Jim E; Conn, Angelina V; Druley, Elizabeth A; Duffy, John M; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison, Christopher M; Hartman, Ryan; Greg R. Hoyes; Hunter, Shirley; Kempa, Lisa L; Knott, Bruce; David E. Lucas; Maki, Sue; Mascari, John A; Mindham, Daren; Thomas, John G; Robert C. Thompson; Weddington, Trudy A.; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Glaser, Fred J Cc: Lux, Pamela K; Mishler, Nicholas F Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Hello, everyone. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this project, please read the following e -mail chain. Now that you are up to speed, Building and Code Services (BCS) has an Early Release ILP Application for new structures in subdivisions that do not have complete approvals yet. (Please see the attached document.) if this is something Mr. Land would like to pursue and if it is something all of you would be agreeable to doing, Angie, please forward the attached document onto him. Then, BCS can help him obtain at least his first building permit —with conditions, of course. Thanks. udi/ From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:09 PM To: Weddington, Trudy A.; Blanchard, Jim E Cc: Duncan, Gary R; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Barnes, David R Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Good afternoon, everyone I just spoke with Casey Land and told him I would ask this: Since Casey is already moving dirt, and it is not his fault that Mike H is out of the office this week, would there be an problem if we issued him his building permits with perhaps a parcel hold in Pentamation, that he could not get a final inspection until the Secondary Plat is all signed and recorded, etc? (We have a mylar copy of the secondary plat, but Mike H is not here this week to sign it in order to get it on this month's BPW agenda....) Let me know what you think! Thanks so much, 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Duffy, John M Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:58 PM To: Ryan Hartman; Weddington, Trudy A.; Akers, William P; Barnes, David R; Blanchard, Jim E; Conn, Angelina V; Druley, Elizabeth A; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison, Christopher M; Hayes, Greg; Hunter, Shirley; Kempa, Lisa L; Knott, Bruce; Lucas, David; Maki, Sue; Mascari, John A; Mindham, Daren; Thomas, John G; Thompson, Robert; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Glaser, Fred J Cc: Lux, Pamela K; Mishler, Nicholas F Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Trudy, Carmel water has no issues, as long as Casey understands that down the road we will not issue a water meter, or for that matter will not activate water to Ingelnook until all our requirements are satisfied. Thanks J Duffy From: Ryan Hartman [mailto:Ryan.Hartman @CTRWD.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:55 PM To: Weddington, Trudy A.; Akers, William P; Barnes, David R; Blanchard, Jim E; Conn, Angelina V; Druley, Elizabeth A; Duffy, John M; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison, Christopher M; Hoyes, Greg; Hunter, Shirley; Kempa, Lisa L; Knott, Bruce; Lucas, David; Maki, Sue; Mascari, John A; Mindham, Daren; Thomas, John G; Thompson, Robert; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Glaser, Fred J Cc: Lux, Pamela K; Mishler, Nicholas F Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Trudy, Before we can issue a conditional sanitary sewer permit we have asked for a few things which Inglenook is aware of. Those items include sanitary sewer asbuiits, two plot plans, and addresses for the permitted locations. t.- Ryan Hartman, District Engineer CT "PD v. Clay Township Regional Waste District sr t 10701 N. College Avenue, Suite A Indianapolis, Indiana 46280 Phone 317- 844 -9200 Fax 317- 844 -9203 Website www.ctrwd.org Email ryan.hartman @ctrwd.org From: Weddington, Trudy A. mailto :tweddington @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:06 PM To: Akers, William P; Barnes, David R; Blanchard, Jim E; Conn, Angelina V; Druley, Elizabeth A; Duffy, John M; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison, Christopher M; Ryan Hartman; Hoyes, Greg; Hunter, Shirley; Kempa, Lisa L; Knott, Bruce; Lucas, David; Maki, Sue; Mascari, John A; Mindham, Daren; Thomas, John G; Thompson, Robert; Weddington, Trudy A.; Donahue Woid, Alexia K; Glaser, Fred J Cc: Lux, Pamela K; Mishler, Nicholas F Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Hello, everyone. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this project, please read the following e -mail chain. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: MCasey Land [mcaseyland @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:24 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Nick Churchill; Aaron Hughes; Ellison, Christopher M Subject: Re: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Angie, Already knew about Chris and the fire department needs. Just had our "pre -con" meeting on water and water will be started this week. Chris has indicated that he is ok to start foundations without water or the access road, but everything needs to be in place as soon as we put a stick of wood on the siite. Thanks for your help! Casey M. Casey Land, PE LAND Development Building 564 West 77th Street, South Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 317- 255 -5350 land 317- 255 -2997 fax 317 -442 -7773 cell From: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> To: MCasey Land <mcaseyland @yahoo.com> Cc: Nick Churchill <Nick @pittmanpartners.com> Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 9:43:34 AM Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat (Aramore PUD) Casey Jim Blanchard just called me about this and releasing part of the building permits early, before the secondary plat is signed. The building permits dept might be able to release foundation permits early for the model homes, but they need you to get the okay from the carmel fire dept first, because there would need to be access to a fire hydrant and there would have to be adequate turn around for a fire truck and a sturdy enough base /gravel drive for a fire truck in place.... You may want to call Chris Ellison with the Fire Dept. at 571 -2600 and his email address is cellison @carmel.in.aov -Angie Conn, Planning Administrator From: MCasey Land [mailto:mcaseyland @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 6:23 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Nick Churchill Subject: Fw: Inglenook Secondary Plat Angie, Beg for me. Thanks, Casey Forwarded Message From: "Barnes, David R" <dbarnes @carmel.in.gov> 1 To: MCasey Land <mcaseyland @yahoo.com> Cc: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov Nick Churchill <Nick @pittmanpartners.com "Duncan, Gary R" <gduncan carmel.in.gov> Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 3:54:44 PM Subject: RE: inglenook Secondary Plat That is correct, therefore we will not be able to get on the next BPW agenda. If all approved, September 1 should be the date of your request. From: MCasey Land [mailto:mcaseyland @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 3:29 PM To: Barnes, David R Cc: Nick Churchill; Conn, Angelina V Subject: Re: Inglenook Secondary Plat Dave, I turned the signed secondary plats into planning this morning. Per Angie's email I need to give her another mylar. I guess the ink was not set. FYI It is my understanding that Mike is out of the office until the 16th. Thanks Casey M. Casey Land, PE LAND Development Building 564 West 77th Street, South Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 317 255 -5350 land 317 255 -2997 fax 317 442 -7773 cell From: "Barnes, David R" <dbarnes @carmel.in.gov> To: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov MCasey Land <mcaseyland @yahoo.com> Cc: Nick Churchill <Nick @pittmanpartners.com "Duncan, Gary R" <gduncan @carmel.in.gov> Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 1:26:05 PM Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat Mr. Land: To get the plat on the BPW agenda we must first receive a letter of request on letterhead (if possible). This is simply a letter asking to have the plat place on the agenda. More importantly, the plat must be presented to the DOCS (Angie) for approval and signature from their office. This has to be in place prior to our department's sign -off as they will deliver the signed document to our office. Our deadline for the next BPW was August 4 but if you can get everything to us by noon next Wednesday (8/11) we will do what we can to be heard August 18 The following BPW meeting will be 9/1 as indicated by Angie's e-mail. From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:40 PM To: 'MCasey Land' Cc: Nick Churchill; Barnes, David R Subject: RE: Inglenook Secondary Plat Hi, Casey Bill Akers will be able to get you the street addresses without the recorded plat, and you probably already submitted plans to him as part of the TAC review process. The printed ink on the mylar copy you just submitted is rubbing off on everything, and now some of the text is missing! Can you please provide a better copy that has better ink adhesion? Once we have mike h sign this mylar, we can take it down to the engineering dept for them to present to the bpw for their approval. 2 Conn, Angelina V From: James Hall [alandsurveyor @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:22 PM To: MCasey Land Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Krueskamp, Theresa A; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Subject: Re: Inglenook FINAL PLAT SECTION 1A (CAD FILE) Attachments: 09 -073 FINAL PLAT SEC 1A.dwg Attached is the CAD file as requested. Respectfully, Doug Hall, LS JD HALL LAND SURVEYING 1631 South J Street Elwood, Indiana 46036 Ph: 317 -696 -3594 El:: 765 557 -0569 Alt Fx: 317 773 -7161 See our Facebook page for photos recent project information This disk or electronic file (hereinafter referred to collectively as "data') is an actual reproduction of information contained in JD HALL LAND SURVEYING's computer. Because another party other than JD HALL LAND SURVEYING can alter the data, JD HALL LAND SURVEYING is not responsible for any alterations to the data after it is given to the receiving party. Furthermore. JD HALL LAND SURVEYING is not responsible for any data that may become outdated with time and is only responsible for the data as it pertains to the circumstances of the project listed below. The receiving party also agrees that the data is confidential and all data will only be used for the contemplated purpose between JD HALL LAND SURVEYING and the receiving party. The receiving party agrees the data will not be copied, duplicated, or disclosed to any third party. Specific permission must be obtained by a third party, from JD HALL LAND SURVEYING, in writing, if that third party wishes to request a copy of these files. From: MCasey Land <mcaseyland @yahoo.com> To: James Hall <alandsurveyor @yahoo.com> Cc: Angelina Conn <aconn @carmel.in.gov> Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 6:07:55 AM Subject: Fw: Inglenook Angelina Conn <aconn @carmel.in.gov Doug, Please copy Angie on the email with the cad file. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Thomas, John G Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 5:05 PM To: 'Jim Barnes'; Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V; whall@crossroadengineers.com Cc: Jean Wodarek; MCasey Land Subject: RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 revisions Attachments: O &M Manual Requirements.pdf Good afternoon, I don't think a formal response is necessary and thank you for the recent updates. I especially like the permeable paver protection detail and the dual purpose exfiltration trench emergency overflow and monitoring well. I have the following comments on the latest revisions of Inglenook Section 1; 1. Please show BMP /drainage easements around the infiltration depressional storages basin BMPs on sheet C4.2. 2. Please provide "paver protection as necessary" callouts at each permeable paver location on sheet C4.2 3. Please show outlet protection where the underdrain draining the permeable pavers for lots 25 -27 outlets to the infiltration basin. Should this be directly connected to the depressional storage area basin's underdrain to ensure drainage? If so, please provide a connection detail. 4. The SW PPP language on sheet C4.0 appears hazy or blurry. Please modify format to make it clearer. 5. Are the inlets to the underdrains in the depressional storage areas above or below grade? Please clarify this on plans. 6. The depressional storage areas are shown as infiltration basins in the Operation and Maintenance Manual. If they are intended as infiltration basins, please provide a typical cross section on the plans. Please make sure names for all post construction BMP names are consistent between the plans and operation and maintenance manual. 7. What is the intent of the 4" compacted clay liner on the detail 06 -C7.1 and detail 07 -C7.1? 8. Is detail 03 -C7.1 necessary anymore? If not, please remove from plans. 9. With the sheet references, please also list out all post construction BMPs in section 2 of the post- construction SWPPP on sheet C4.0. A general statement will suffice such as; Post construction measures include permeable pavers, bio- retention areas /rain gardens, depressional storage areas /infiltration basins, and exfiltration trenches. 10. Please provide sample inspection checklists for each post- construction BMP in the Operation and Maintenance Manual. 11. Please provide the cross sections all post- construction BMPs that have them. 12. Please provide the underdrain connection details A -C on sheet C3.2 in the Operation and Maintenance Manual. 13. Please provide the exfiltration trench monitoring well emergency overflow detail in the Operation and Maintenance Manual. 14. Please include the requirements of section h in the attached O &M requirements. Please indicate in the O &M that the annual report should be submitted to the following address: City of Carmel Engineering Department Attn: Stormwater Administrator One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 All pretty minor stuff, we are getting close! Please let me know you have any questions and have a great 4th of July! Sincerely, John Thomas, CPESC Stormwater Administrator City of Carmel Engineering Department Office: 317 -571 -2314 Fax: 317 -571 -2439 1 hr WILLIAMS CREEK CONSULTING Corporate June 23, 2010 Babeca Building 919 North East Street Gary R. Duncan, Jr. PE Indianapolis, IN 46202 Assistant City Engineer— City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Ohio Carmel, Indiana, 46032 247 East Livingston Ave Suite B Columbus, OH 43215 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 East 99th Street and Westfield Boulevard Missouri Second Submittal Response 7211 Manchester Ave St. Louis, MO 63143 Dear Mr. Duncan, 1- 877 668 -8848 Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. (WCC) appreciates the thorough review of this project. Reasonable info @williamscreek.net concerns were offered and the design has been clarified where recommended and revised where www.williamscreek.net required. Please find the following text response to comments, below. Comments from Nick Redden's letter dated March 30, 2010 Comment 24: Any open pavement cuts of East 99 Street, other than those required for the curb and median cuts, will require Board approval, Per my entail of May 7, 2010 this approval is required for the water chain connection. This is understood. The project Owner will coordinate these efforts with your office to be added to the Board schedule. Comment 36(b): Please add the following note to the drawings: "IF IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES, THE EXPENSE OF SUCH RELOCATION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER. ALL UTILITY POLES SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY." Could nut locate this note. The requested note has been added to plan sheets C2.0, C3.1, and C5.0. Comment 39: Please provide the requisite stomt water /drainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. Crossroads is reviewing the required suonnoty. Comments received from Crossroads did not address any inadequacy with the information required by Section 100 added to the plan sheets. Comment 44(b): Please provide dimensions for the acceleration and deceleration lanes. Per my entail of May 7, 2010, the Departtne» t rescinds this comment. l The dimensions had already been added to the plan sheets and were not removed. Comments from my email dated May 7, 3010. Comment 1. Please indicate "Approval Pending .:;`tot for Construction" on each sheet. This was not on each sheet. The "Approval Pending /Not for Construction' is now on all sheets which specify construction (excludes existing topography, PLAT, etc.,.) Comment 3. Please confirm if there are any Tree Preservation Easements and Landscaping Easements. These easements cannot be overlapped by drainage and utility (or other) easements. Thank you for your response. The landscaping and drainage easements cannot also be utility easements. The sanitary and water utilities generally run underneath and separate from the stormwater drainage appurtenances and will be installed prior to roadway subgrade preparation, Any and all private utilities will be installed prior to site stabilization and concurrent with roadway subgrade preparation. The intent of the sequencing is to avoid post construction impacts to vegetation, and impacts to subsurface storage. This additional detail to the construction sequencing has been added to the Utility Plan (C5.0 note 14) and to the erosion control plan sequencing (C4.1). Comment 6. Maple Drive appears to satisfy the requirctnents ofa Residential Strcet -Lane per the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan). While on- street parking is not permitted for this type ofroadway, the plan includes construction of on•street parking spaces outside of the proposed travel lanes. Construction of these spaces is not opposed by the Department of Engineering. No Parking signage will likely be required to be installed for the side of the roadway opposite of the on- street parking spaces. Such a restriction requires formal action by the City prior to installing such signage. No response was provided to this comment. The project Owner will proactively correspond with the Planning and Zoning Department to determine whether 'No Parking' signage will be required. If the signage is required, Owner will request formal action by the City. Comment 7. A residential lane requires a tree plot of 5- feet; a 4.5 -foot tree plot is indicated. Since there will be no trees planted In this area, 1 have no issues with the reduced tree plot width. Thank you. Comment 6. Please indicate the design speed of the roadway. Most local streets have a design speed r f 2S -MPH and a posted speed of 25 -MPH. Please confirm that 35 -MPH is an appropriate design speed. Calculations indicate that the road configuration can support a design speed of 35 -MPH. The posted speed limit may therefore be no greater than 35 -MPH. Comment 16. Please indicate the path/sidewalkrequired by the Alternative Transportation Plan across the frontage. City Standard ADA ramps will be required where this facility crosses Maple Drive. Thank you for your response li`e need to formalize a coimninnenf. Project Owner will formalize the commitment at a time convenient for the City. Comment 17. The return radii of the intersections appear to meet the City standards for the road classifications. Please confirm with the Carmel fire Department that the turning radii at the alley intersections with Maple Drive are adequate for their apparatus. Are the radii adequate for moving vans/trucks? What vehicles are expected to regularly access the alleys? Please confirm rm with the Carrel Fire Department. Correspondence with the Carmel Fire Department is ongoing. Comment 18. Aramore was required to widen 99th Street across the frontage so that there would be 24-feet of travel lanes. Auxiliary lanes would be treasured outside of these travel lanes. Aratnore was also required to mill and resurface 99th Street across the frontage of the project. I do not know'if 99th Street was recently resurfaced by the City. 1 have reviewed a comnritriieit letter daied Tune 5, 2006. The commitment letter did not /',elude widening across the 99 street frontage Or trilling and rear) facuig..The connnttrrtent letter also included funding 100% of the off site storm serer project. The off-she sw; in navy work h now being completed by the City. The Department is willing to warc the regnirenrent to Widen the roadway but will require that 99' Sheet be milled and resurfaced across the frontage, inclrrding"tlre auxiliary lanes on the north side of the roadway unless This work was recently completed by the City. The requirement to mill and resurface 99th Street subsequent to the pavement cut required for water service has been added to the intersection detail sheet (C3.1). Comment 19. Please add a note that indicates that the resurfacing of 99th Street cannot take place until all utility installations are complete and the open pavement cuts are restored up to the final surface course in accordance with the City's Street Cut and patch detail. Based on comment 18, this note will need to be added fatless 90 Street was recently resurfaced by the City. The requirement to mill and resurface 99th Street subsequent to the pavement cut required for water service has been added to the intersection detail sheet (C3.1). Confluent 20: 1 have no issues with the sidewalk outside of the right -of -way being 42- inches in width. However, please continue to work withh David Littlejohn on this issue. Thank you for your response. Please continue to work with David Littlejohn to resolve this issue. Project Owner is proactively pursuing correspondence with Mr. Littlejohn. Comment 23. Portions of alleys within the Maple Drive right- of-tvay shall be concrete and shall include a depressed curb in thegutter line of Maple Drive. Thank yen for making the requested revisions. Now that the curbing 13 to be straight curb, it does not ',rake much sense to have a gutter plan infirst these areas. Please eliminate the gutter plan at eirelr entrance (on each side of the roadway) and indicate a depressed straight curb with reinforcing. This revision has been carried out on the plan view and legend on the site layout sheet (C2.0). A detail of the depressed straight curb with reinforcing has been added to detail sheet C7.0. Continent 25. There do not appear to be any perimeter easements as required by the subdivision control ordinance. The easements are SIN not indicated an the plans or on the plat. Perimeter easements have been added and separate all property not owned by the Applicant from other parcels. Continent 30. The overflow route of the drainage system (including the off -site water) must be located within an easement. Per Comment 25, the overflow is not contained fn an easement. Perimeter overflow routes are now located within perimeter easements. Comment 35. Please confirm how the fully developed right -of -way of99th Street is being detained. Thank you for your response. Is this runoff being detained or bypassed? The off-site runoff is being bypassed around the site. Any detention accomplished prior to bypass is incidental and not formally quantified. Comment 42. Please label the 100 -year water 'surface elevation within each rain garden and exfiltration trench. Will water stage within these areas during the 100 -year ram event? A 50 -foot setback is required between the road right of-way and the 100 -year elevation of detention facilities. A 25 -foot setback from structures to be occupied is also required. Ir was not apparent that the 100 -year water syr ace elevation was labeled. Will water stage in these areas during the 100 -year rain event or is the percolation rate-adequate for the runoff rate during the 100 year storm? 100 year water surface elevations within the exfiltration trenches have been annotated on the site drainage facilities plan sheet (C3.2). The rain gardens adjacent to Maple Drive are not expected to stage during a 100 year event given the limited drainage area proposed to route to each rain garden assuming average antecedent moisture conditions. Comment 43. What is the maximum water spread within the right -cif -way during the 100-year rain event? Thank :vim for your response. 1 assume then that the percolation rate through the porous paving systear is at or above 'the peak fiowrate during the 100 rear storm and will not store in the right -of -way? This is correct so long as the porous pavers are properly maintained, A separately bound Post Construction Operation and Maintenance manual is provided to the Owner as well as to the City so that all pre treatment BMPs expected to be subject to sediment deposition can be properly maintained. Comment 48. What Is the basis for the MFPG? Thank;vo r for your response. It appears that the MLAG would then govern. Please establish the MLAG (per comment 49) and provide a basis for this elevation. I expect that the governing condition would be the hater surface elevation remitting front water Rowing through the overflow system during the I00-year raltt event (11)0 year off -site and 1.25 times the 100 -vear oat -site) assuming the sub surface discharge system is unpaired or not functioning. cannot say this for certain. The minimum lowest adjacent grade shall be required to provide 2 feet of freeboard above the flooding source's 100 year flood elevation under proposed conditions. Comment 49. Minimum lowest adjacent grade (MLAG) shall also be established. Definitions for both MI'PG and MLAG need to be added to the sheet. Please add the definitions to the plan sheet. The definitions of both MLAG and MFPG have been added to the grading plan sheet (C3,0) per the Standards. Comment 51. What is the flood route? How will water be conveyed to the rain gardens (or to the overflow route) from the roadway during large rain events? What is the flood route if the rain gardens and exfiltration trenches reach capacity? Has the system been designed with a "spillway" in the event that the rain garden and exfltration trench capacity is unpaired or reduced to zero? Please provide a response. Preferable flow paths have been annotated on the grading plan sheet (C3.0) to indicate the expected flood route from all depressional areas should these areas reach capacity. A "spillway" in the classical sense is not provided. The annotated overflow paths indicate that floodwaters will be directed to the exterior of the development and route south into future phases. Generally, the grade along the periphery of the development is far below the MLAG elevations of the proposed homes making it exceedingly unlikely that houses can flood before floods dissipate to the south. Comment -54. Curb turnouts appear to be necessary for the sag roadway conditions at stations 1 +00, 3 +00 and 6 +00. Al! of the runoff draining to the low p'olnt at Station /+16.64 will be concentrated and drain aeross-the sidewalk Iry discharge into the proposed rain garden. Is this: what is intended? Also, 11 does not appear that the low spot at Station, 3+ 11.04 does not drafts as this area includes an' intergral curb and walk. The drainage proposed to runoff in the vicinity of Station 1 +16.64 is intended and does not appear to generate runoff velocities exceeding 2 ft/s. Scour concerns in this area are viewed as negligible. Runoff in the vicinity of Station 3 +11.04 is proposed to drain through the porous paver system to the sub -grade storage en route to the east exfiltration trench. Comment 55, Please provide a cross section for the 99th Street improvements (widening, milling and resurfacing, gravel shoulder with sub surface drain). Per Comment 18, please 'whale this cross section unless 99 Street was recently resurfaced by the City Milling and resurfacing requirements per the City have been noted on the Entrance Detail sheet (C3.1). For information regarding the gravel shoulder and sub- surface drain, the plan sheet refers to the appropriate detail. Comment 68. There shall be no valve boxes, manhole frames or manhole castings (with the exception of curb inlets) within pavement, curbing, sidewalk or path. With the exceptian of the water valve at the )train top location in 90 Street please I' 01 so that there on no ~Hater valves OP sanita)y castings within the Sidewalk or pavement within the right -aft (4y at. verift that the symbols me not to scale and that the installed frames and castings will not actually be within these arras. It was required to move most water valves slightly to remove them from any and all pavement within the right -of -way (See Utility plan sheet (C5.0)). The exception to this would be the south termination of the line which will temporarily be within pavement of the temporary turn around. Comment 72. Minimum centerline grade is 0.5%. It does not appear that the portions of the roadway with a O% centerline .slope will Have positive drainage since there is not an adjacent roadside swede. Have the "K" values been exceeded where the centerline grade was reduced to 0.5%? Runoff from this section of Maple Drive will flow to the porous paver system en route to the exfiltration trench. The "K" values are acceptable per AASHTO specifications. comment 76. Detail I/C6.O: Straight curb is needed an side of roadway opposite the on- street parking areas; on each side there these is no on- street parking and integral curb and walk is needed adjacent to the parking spaces (unless the rain gardens locations are revised)..Plehsc add a note that all paving is to be completed in the same season. Please indicate that the sub- surface dram shall be double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. 1 could not locate the 'paving to be completed in the sante season" note. l could not locate where the underdrain was noted to be 'double wall Hancor Ni -Q or equivalent The "paving to be completed in the same season" note can be found on the plan and profile sheets (C6.0). The requirement of double wall Hancor Hi-0 or equivalent for the sub surface drain is prevalent across the detail sheet(s) (C7.0 C7.2). Comment 79 (c). Please add the following details to the sheet: Street cut /patch detail The City's bituminous patch detail was included. Is the patch going to be large enough that asphalt can be placed and compacted within the cite area? The detail dictates a 5 foot minimum width for the City's patch detail, which is what the plans reflect. Additional Comments: 1. Are you aware of the existing pipeline north of the property and do you think this will affect the proposed subsurface drainage disposal system? 1 do not believe so since drainage is to the south and 1 do not expect tmy runoff from this site to migrate into any granular Material associated with the pipeline. The pipeline north of the property did not appear to show up on any survey data and we were not aware of the referenced pipeline north of the property. Without knowing the depth of the pipeline or the horizontal distance from the site boundary, it is difficult to be positive. However, the general groundwater gradient will transport site infiltration in a general north to south direction. In this Tight, it appears unlikely that the granular material associated with the pipeline will be impacted due to the development. 2. Did we resolve the concern of root intrusion into the sub- surface drainage piping in the exfiltration trench areas? Protection and maintenance procedures are now further detailed. Generally, the washed gravel exfiltration trenches will hold less water than the adjacent soils. Therefore, the impulse for roots to pierce the proposed fabric should be r: minimal. If this unexpected phenomenon is realized, the volume due to roots is believed to be incidental when compared to the storage volume at large. The underdrain is proposed with cleanouts to assure that the ability of stormwater to migrate freely along the length of the exfiltration trench is preserved. A separately bound Operation and Maintenance plan has now been provided describing required maintenance procedures with regard to underdrain maintenance. 3. Did we discuss utility trenches in the paver areas within the right-of-way and do any utility pains run under these areas? Utilities are not proposed under paver areas within the right -of -way. Water valves and sanitary castings that appeared to encroach into the right -of -way in these areas have been pulled back in response to prior comments. 4. The infrastructure being installed on the west side ofMaple Drive with this section (including the bypass Swale) needs to be included in an easement. Does the plat include these easements? The PLAT has been revised to include these required easements. Outstanding Items These hems need to be addressed but will not hold up constriction release. We need to establish a deadline for finalizing these items. This is understood. The project owner understands the continued involvement with the Board required to resolve all outstanding items. WCC is very thankful for the continued patience and persistence of City staff throughout this process. Hopefully, this project has provided has removed impedance for thinking about these issues ahead of likely federal regulations that may require such strategies for stormwater management. Please don't hesitate to contact me should the above response be considered incomplete or should clarification be required. Thanks A LOT for your help. Best regards, Williams Creek Consulting, Inc. 4 j Jim Barnes PE, CFM Project Engineer CC: File Conn, Angelina V From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:54 AM To: 'mcaseyland @yahoo.com' Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Inglenook Casey, I am sorry that you have some confusion on our process. I had reviewed your project for the April TAC meeting and found no issues with the landscape plan in regards to landscape requirements. This was noted in the TAC minutes. I am sorry a formal review was not submitted to you. Hopefully, this will clear up any forestry concerns. Unfortunately, our Environmental Planner has not been available to review this project throughout the entire process. However, please contact me as I will be the landscape plan reviewer from here on. I do not have any issues about the 4.5" street lawn, since there will not be any trees in this area. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any correspondence. Daren Mindham Urban Forester From: MCasey Land [mailto:mcaseyland @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:54 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Duncan, Gary R Cc: Mindham, Daren; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Re: Inglenook Angie, Here is an example of why I don't understand your TAC program? I personally handed your forester drawings and sent them pdf files and have never heard a word out of them. No comment no issues? Casey From: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> To: "Duncan, Gary R" <gduncan @carmel.in.gov> Cc: MCasey Land <mcaseyland @yahoo.com Mindham, Daren" <dmindham @carmel.in.gov "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> Sent: Mon, June 21, 2010 10:39:17 AM Subject: RE: Inglenook Gary Has the forestry dept okay'd this, as well? Angie Conn, Planning Administrator From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:28 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: MCasey Land' Subject: Inglenook 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:28 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: 'MCasey Land' Subject: Inglenook Angie, Mike The residential lane classification requires a 5 -foot tree lawn between the roadway and the sidewalk. Inglenook is proposing a 4.5 -foot tree lawn; but this area will not be planted with any trees. I believe that they will be planted behind the sidewalk. For this reason, I do not have any issues with the reduced width of the tree lawn along Maple Drive in this subdivision. Gary Gary R. Duncan, Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncanPcarmel.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 1 }hr 411,4, `T'T mgr fit', Cn '5 EL June 21, 2010 JAMES BRAINAR.D, MAYOR Mr. M. Casey Land, P.E. Land Development Building, LLC 564 West 77` Street, South Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 Secondary Plat- Project Review #2 Dear Mr, Land: The City provides the following comments based on a review of the most recently submitted construction plans: Comments from Nick Redden's letter dated March 30, 2010 Comment 24: Any open pavement cuts of East 99 Street, other than those required for the curb and median cuts. will require Board approval. Per my entail of May 7, 2010 this approval is required for the water main connection. Comment 36(b): Please add the following note to the drawings: "IF IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES, THE EXPENSE OF SUCH RELOCATION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER. ALL UTILITY POLES SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT -OF -WAY." Could not locate this note. Comment 39: Please provide the requisite storm watertdrainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. Crossroads is reviewing the required summary-. Comment 44(b): Please provide dimensions for the acceleration and deceleration lanes. Per my email of May 7. 2010, the Department rescinds this comment. Comments from my email dated May 7, 2010. Comment I. Please indicate "Approval Pending/Not for Construction" on each sheet. This was not on each sheet. Comment 3. Please confirm if there are any Tree Preservation Easements and Landscaping Easements. These easements cannot be overlapped by drainage and utility (or other) easements. Thank you for your response. The landscaping and drainage easements cannot also he utility easements. Comment 6. Maple Drive appears to satisfy the requirements of a Residential Street -Lane per the Carpel Clay Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan). While on- street parking is not permitted for this type of roadway, the plan includes construction of on- street parking spaces outside of the proposed travel lanes. Construction of these spaces is not opposed by the Department of Engineering. No Parking signage will likely be required to be installed for the side of the roadway opposite of the on- street parking spaces. Such a restriction requires formal action by the City prior to installing such signage. No response was provided to this comment. DI;RAI:Mil:NT OF ENGIN'I F:IaNG ONE CIvIc SQx CAxna1L, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 Fax 317.571 2439 EMAIL engineerinyitcarrneLin.5OV Mr. M. Casey Land, P.E. June 21, 2010 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 Secondary Plat- Project Review #2 Page 2 of 4 Comment 7. A residential lane requires a tree plot of 5 -feet; a 4.5 -foot tree plot is indicated. Since there will be no trees planted in this area, I have no issues with the reduced tree plot width. Comment 8. Please indicate the design speed of the roadway. Most local streets have a design speed of 25 -MPH and a_posted speed of 25 -MPH. Please confirm that 35 -MPH is an appropriate design speed. Comment 16. Please indicate the path /sidewalk required by the Alternative Transportation Plan across the frontage. City Standard ADA ramps will be required where this facility crosses Maple Drive. Thank you for your response, We need to formalize a commitment. Comment 17. The return radii of the intersections appear to meet the City standards for the road classifications. Please confirm with the Carmel Fire Department thatthe turning radii at the alley intersections With Maple Drive are adequate for their apparatus. Are the radii adequate for moving vans /trucks? What vehicles are expected' to regularly access the alleys? Please confirm with the Carmel Fire Department. Comment 18. Aramore was required to widen 99th Street across the frontage so that there would be 24 -feet of travel lanes. Auxiliary lanes would be measured outside of these travel lanes. Aramore was also required to mill and resurface 99th Street across the frontage of the project. t do not know if 99th Street was recently resurfaced by the City_ I have reviewed a commitment letter dated June 5, 2006. The commitment letter did not include widening across the 99 street frontage or milling and resurfacing. The commitment letter also included funding 100% of the off -site storm sewer project, The off-site storm sewer work is now being completed by the Cily. The Department is willing to waive the requirement to widen the roadway but will require that 99 Street be milled and resurfaced across the _frontage, including the auxiliary lanes on the north side of the roadway unless this work was recently completed by the City. Comment 19. Please add a note that indicates that the resurfacing of 99th Street cannot take place until all utility installations are complete and the open pavement cuts are restored up to the final surface course in accordance with the City's Street Cut and patch detail. Based on comment 18, this note will need to be added unless 99` Street was recently resurfacedby the City, Comment 20.1 have no issues with the sidewalk outside of the right -of -way being 42- inches in width. However, please continue to work with David Littlejohn on this issue. Thank you for your response. Please continue to work with David Littlejohn to resolve this issue. Comment 23. Portions of alleys within the Maple Drive right -of -way shall be concrete and shall include a depressed curb in the gutter line of Maple Drive. Thank you for making the requested revisions. Now that the curbing is to be straight curb, it does not make much sense to have a gutter plan in just these areas. Please eliminate the gutter plan at each entrance (on each side of the roadway) and indicate a depressed straight curb with reinforcing. Comment 25. There do not appear to be any perimeter easements as required by the subdivision .control ordinance. The easements are still not indicated on the plans or an the plat. Comment 30: The overflow route of the drainage system (including the off -site water) must be located within an easement. Per Comment 25, the overflow is not contained an easement. Comment 35. Please confirm how the fully developed right -of -way of 99th Street is being detained. Thank you for your response. Is this runoff being detained or bypassed? J Mr. Ivt. Casey Land, P.E. June 21, 2010 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section I Secondary Plat Project Review #2 Page 3 of 4 Comment 42. Please label the 100 -year water surface elevation within each rain garden and exfiltration trench. Will water stage within these areas during the 100 -year ram event? A 50 -foot setback is required between the road right- of-way and the 100 -year elevation of detention facilities. A 25 -foot setback from structures to be occupied is also required. h was not apparent that the 100 -year water surface elevation was labeled Will water stage in these areas during the 100 year rain event or is the percolation rate adequate for the runoff rate during the 100 year storm? Comment 43. What is the maximum water spread within the right -of -way during the 100 -year rain event? Thank you for your response, 1 assume then that the percolation rate through the porous paving system is at or above the peak flowrate during the 100 year storm and will not store in the right-of-.way? Comment 48. What is the basis for the MFPG? Thank your for your response. It appears that the MLAG would then govern. Please establish the IIJLAG (per comment 49) and provide a basis far This elevation. 1 expect that the governing condition would be the water surface elevation resulting frorn water flowing through the overflow system during the 100 year rain event 1100 year off -site and 1.25 times the 100 -year on -site) assuming the sub surface discharge system is impaired or not functioning, 1 cannot stmt this for certain. Comment 49. Minimum lowest adjacent grade (MLAG) shall also be established. Definitions for both MFPG and MLAG need to be added to the sheet. Please add the definitions to the plan street: Comment 51. What is the flood route? How will water be conveyed to the rain gardens (or to the overflow route) from the roadway during large rain events? What is the flood route if the rain gardens and exfiltration trenches reach capacity? Has the system been designed with a "spillway" in the event that the rain garden and exfiltration trench capacity is impaired or reduced to zero? Please provide a response. Comment 54. Curb turnouts appear to be necessary for the sag roadway conditions at stations 1+00, 3 +00 and 6+00. All of the runoff draining to the low point at Station 1 +16.64 will be con_ centrated and drain across the sidewalk to discharge into the proposed rain garden. Is this what is intended? Also, it does not appear that the low spot at Station 3+ 11.04 does not draM as this area includes an intergral curb and ta'alk. Comment 5.5. Please provide a cross section for the 99th Street improvements (widening, milling and resurfacing, gravel shoulder with sub surface drain). Per Comment 18, please include this cross section unless 99 Street was recently resurfaced by the City Comment 68. There shall be no valve boxes, manhole frames or manhole castings (with the exception of curb inlets) within pavement, curbing, sidewalk or path. With the exception of the water valve at the main tap location m 99' Street. please revise so that there are no water valves or sanitary castings within the sidewalk or pavement within the right -of -way or verify that the symbols are not to scale and that the installed frames and castings will not actually be within these areas. Comment 72. Minimum centerline grade is 0.5 11 does not appear that the portions of the roadway with a 0% centerline slope will have positive drainage since there is not an adjacent roadside swale. Have the "K" values been exceeded where the centerline grade was reduced to 0.5 Comment 76. Detail 1/C6.0: Straight curb is needed on side of roadway opposite the on- street parking areas; on each side where these is no on- street parking and integral curb and walk is needed adjacent to the parking spaces (unless the ram gardens•locations are revised). Please add a note that all paving is to be completed in the same season. Please indicate that the sub- surface drain shall be double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. Mr. M. Casey Land, P.E. June21, 2010 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 Secondary Plat- Project Review #2 Page 4 of 4 I could not locate the "paving 10 be completed in the same season" note. I could not locate where the underdrain was noted to be "double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent". Comment 79 (c). Please add the following details to the sheet: Street cut/patch detail. The City's bituminous patch detail was included. Is the patch going be large enough that asphalt can be placed and compacted within the cut area? Additional Comments: 1. Are you aware of the existing pipeline north of the property and do you think this will affect the proposed subsurface drainage disposal system? i do not believe so since drainage is to the south and I do not expect any runoff from this site to migrate into any granular material associated with the pipeline. 2. Did we resolve the concern of root intrusion into the sub- surface drainage piping in the exfiltration trench areas? 3. Did we discuss utility trenches in the paver areas within the right -of -way and do any utility mains run under these areas? 4. The infrastructure being installed on the west side of Maple Drive with this section (including the bypass swale) needs to be included in an easement.. Does the plat include these easements? Outstanding Items These items need to be addressed but will not hold up construction release. We need to establish a deadline for finalizing these items. 1. Consent -to- Encroach for detention located within the right-of-way. 2. Variance for detention in the right -of -way. 3, Formal commitment for payment in lieu of construction of the ATP path along the 99 Street frontage. 4. BPW approval of the street cut for the water main connection. 5. Commitment to provide results of all monitoring of the subsurface outfalls and to mitigate any negative effects in the master plan of subsequent sections and/or the Aramore system. If you have questions, please contact me at 571 244]. Sincerely, fri d 7 G, Du can, Jr., P.E. Assistant arty Engineer Department of Engineering cc: Angelina Conn, Department of Community Services John Duffy, Carmel Utilities Paul Pace. Cannel Utilities Paul Arnone, Cannel Utilities Greg Hayes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Greg I]ko, Crossroad Engineers, PC L:lshared\DHiII\ PROW EV IOIINGLENC)OKStJBDIVISIONSEC }'ION ISECONDARYPI.ATREV#2.doc Conn, Angelina V From: Littlejohn, David W Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:47 AM To: Mindham, Daren; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Inglenook Subdivision, Section 1A I spoke with Engineering about this... They are ok with them contributing to the NRTF. They will need to submit an estimate for the work and materials to Gary. Let me know if you need anything else. David Littlejohn Alternative Transportation Coordinator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Sq Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571 -2306 g A Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:56 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Inglenook Subdivision, Section 1A I am ok with the landscape plan knowing that the tree preservation area is only noted and not with any design plans or standards. From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:51 PM To: Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren Subject: Inglenook Subdivision, Section 1A Hi, David Daren- The petitioner submitted replies to all TAC comments last Friday. David are you okay with his response about paying money to a fund, instead of building the 5 -ft wide sidewalk along 99 Street? Daren are you okay with the "tree preservation plan Overall, are both of you okay with the plat? Thanks, Angie 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Mindham, Daren Of e 4:3 Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:56 AM To: Conn, Angelina V; Littlejohn, David W Subject: RE: Inglenook Subdivision, Section 1A I am ok with the landscape plan knowing that the tree preservation area is only noted and not with any design plans or standards. From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:51 PM To: Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren Subject: Inglenook Subdivision, Section 1A Hi, David Daren- The petitioner submitted replies to all TAC comments fast Friday. David are you okay with his response about paying money to a fund, instead of building the 5 -ft wide sidewalk along 99 Street? Daren are you okay with the "tree preservation plan Overall, are both of you okay with the plat? Thanks, Angie 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 1:06 PM To: 'Casey Land (mcaseyland @yahoo.com)' Cc: 'casey@ landdevelopbuild. com 'jwodarek @williamscreek.net'; Littlejohn, David W Subject: re: revised plat for Inglenook, Sec 1A (Docket No. 10030019 SP) Hi, Casey I reviewed the revised plat and plans, and have a few more review comments, and after you address those (and all other TAC members' comments), then you can submit the 2 paper and 1 Mylar copy of the plat (with the surveyor's and land owner's signatures) for Mike Hollibaugh to sign: 64��2' There is a typo on the plat stating the zoning. It should be PUD, not PUB. Also, spell run spell -check on the entire document, too. 0` Please label the half road right of way on 99 street right now there is just the number 33.00' and should read something like: 33 ft half r /w. dl--/3'." The location map still does not read clearly. Perhaps you can use a different graphic to show /include the streets: G4 Westfield Blvd, 99 St., 96 St., Haverstick Rd., Keystone Pkwy (no longer SR 431), etc. Please provide an electronic copy (such as pdf or jpg files) of the latest versions of the plat, construction plans, and landscape plan. Z 5'.' The staff has been advised that we cannot present a Secondary Plat to the Director for signature from this point forward until Ms. Terry Krueskamp (tkrueskampPcarmel.in.gov) in Information Systems has received an e -mail with an electronic file attached (MicroStation .dgn is preferred, or AutoCad .dwg of the subdivision), and it (the e -mail) has been copied to myself and Alexia Donahue -Wold awold@ carmel.in.gov). Q Two paper copies and a Mylar of the recorded plat must be submitted following recording of the document. CD The Dept would also like a .pdf or .jpg file of the scanned, recorded plat, as we move toward a paperless office. 8. Note: please work with David Littlejohn on the sidewalk requirements (or payment to the Non reverting Thoroughfare Fund) for 99 Street. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning Zoning Dept 1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317-571-2417 F: 317- 571 -2426 E: aconn©carmel.in.gov W: Website Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail 1 TRANSMITTAL LETTER A 5 6 0, 4 k DATE: May 27, 2010 a .1 *-1 Zp14 vo‘� JOB NAME: Inglenook Development PROJECT TO: We are sending the following via: ['Mail ❑UPS ❑Courier ['Overnight ['Other COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION 1 5 -25 -10 TAC Comments Responses 1 5 -25 -10 Updated Civil Documents Per comments Variance Request ❑For your review approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑For your use ❑Approved as noted DAs requested ❑Returned for corrections ❑For your review comment ❑For Bids Due REMARKS: Please note that comments ave bee co iled into one document and the responses are in BLUE. r Al By: y cc: File 4de) Review Comment City of Carmel TAC '011.x.• g Docket BNoe 100300/9 SP Updated Riley 25, 2010 `s, ,0 OP/Please submit Exhibit E, Conceptual Plan, from the PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09. Exfiibif E has been provided per this request on March 23 Please submit Exhibit H, Architectural Standards Setbacks, from the PUD Ordinance Z- dr 527 -09. Exhibit H has been provided per this request on March 23 w 4 Please submit Exhibit I, Detached Single Family Dwellings (photo examples), from the 0 PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09. Exhibit I has been provided per this request on March 23 A I,/ Please add Docket No. 09020015 Z and 10030019 SP to the plat. This has been added to the final plat document. c /3. On the plat, please show /label the 3 -ft side yard setbacks and /or the aggregate of 6 -ft. This has been added to the final plat document. c' On the plat, please show /label the 6 -ft rear yard setbacks. This has been added to the final plat document. Please add the requirements of the PUD to the plat, such as maximum parcel cover, setbacks, etc. This has been added to the final plat document. ��8' 0 Please verify that there will be a minimum distance of 10 -ft between buildings. The minimum distance required per the PUD is 6 feet. The plan currently shows a minimum of 10' between buildings. de/ Please extend the sidewalks along Maple Drive to connect up to 99 Street. Sidewalks have been extended to 99 Street on the construction documents. 10. Please show /label a 5 -ft wide enhanced sidewalk along 99 Street, per the Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Pedestrian Plan Map. Please contact David Littlejohn at 571 -2417 for more info. Documents submitted and approved for the PUD did not include this sidewalk element. The properties to the west and to the east are owned by w individuals and therefore this sidewalk would not join any other sidewalk in the city. The 5 enhanced sidewalk along 99 street will not be constructed. If the enhanced sidewalk is ∎1 a requirement, the developer will provide funds to the City for defermen in lieu of construction. 11. Please label the half road right of way of 99 Street, per the Comprehensive Plan L 4/ Thoroughfare Plan Map. A 66 -wide Road R/W is required (33 -ft half r /w.) This has been (z'Ivj adjusted on the final plat document and the construction drawings. The label remains unchanged on the existing topographic drawings as those were certified by the previous surveyor. de Please verify the required width of Maple Dr. with the Carmel Engineering Dept, since the 04... Thoroughfare Plan Map requires a 66 -ft wide road R/W. The width of Maple Drive was established in the PUD. All criteria was reviewed with Engineering prior to design started and supported in Engineering comments from May 6, 2010. The width will be 21' back to Q r Q back with a 40' R.O.W. o 1� C.' Q.0, 1G. C/ C Please add the zoning of the property to the plat: PUD /Planned Unit Development. Aramore PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09). This has been added to the final plat document. 1 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket Na. 10030019 SP Updated May 25 Glfry( If possible, please add a 5 -ft non- access easement along the north side of Common Area 1 and Block 1. This has been added to the final plat document. 0 i,,. /5. Please provide a copy of the proposed Covenants Restrictions. These documents were provided on March 23 0 •lease provide copies of your correspondence with TAC members, and their correspondence with you. We will provide a copy of all correspondence. 17. Please revise the tion Loca.Map -on -Sheet 1 to show /label 99 Street, Westfield Blvd, and Haverstick Rd. clearly. This has been completed on the plat and the construction documents. TA- Per Section 10 of the PUD, sign permits will be required for the Subdivision Entrance signs. Please contact Rachel Boone at 571 -2417 for more info. This information has been obtained from Rachel Boone. 19. On Sheet 2, please add the instrument_ number- for- thecov_enants and:' restrictions:;/ his v1` information will be included on the final plat document after recording of the covenants and restrictions. -er Section 8.4 of the PUD, please provide a copy of your Tree Preservation Plan to the orestry Dept. and the Planning Dept. Per the PUD there are no tree preservation requirements. We plan on protecting as many existing trees along 99 Street as possible. The construction documents indicate a "tree protection" fence and the limits of the tree conservation. The only issue that may jeopardize any of these trees is the city's requirement for a 5' sidewalk along 99 Street. I. Please provide an electronic copy (such as pdf or jpg files) of the plat, construction plans, and landscape plan. Updated copies of these documents have been provided as part of this re- submittal. 2 Please submit a revised Secondary Plat after making above mentioned changes. Once these changes have been made and comments addressed, please produce a Mylar copy (with the surveyor's and land owner's signatures) for signature by this Department. Two paper copies of the plat must be filed with the Mylar prior to recording, and two paper copies and a Mylar of the recorded plat must be submitted following recording of the document. Our approval of the secondary plat (signature) will be forthcoming upon revision of the plans according to the items listed above. A revised secondary plat has been provided as part of this re- submittal with required changes incorporated. ito The staff has been advised that we cannot present a Secondary Plat to the Director for signature from this point forward until Ms. Terry Krueskamp trueskamp a(�carmel.in.gov) in Information Systems has received an e-mail with an electronic file attached (MicroStation .dgn is preferred, or AutoCad .dwg of the subdivision), and it (the e-mail) has been copied to myself and Alexia Donahue -Wold (awold(c�carmel.in.gov). An electronic file has been provided as part of this re- submittal with all the required changes incorporated. 24. The Dept would also like a .pdf or .jpg file of the scanned, recorded plat, as we move toward a paperless office. All documents will be provided in .pdf format per this request. 2 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No /0030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 25. The City of Carmel's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires an Enhanced sidewalk along 99 Street. Please revise your plans to include this sidewalk. Documents submitted and approved for the PUD did not include this sidewalk element. The properties to the west and to the east are owned by individuals and therefore this sidewalk would never join any other sidewalk in the city. The enhanced sidewalk along 99 street will not be constructed. It is our understanding that if this enhanced sidewalk is a requirement then it can be eliminated by providing the city with a check in an amount associated with the cost for us to construct the sidewalk 26. Please ensure that all sidewalks are located within the right -of -way or in a platted pedestrian access easement. Sidewalks have been moved within the R.O.W. where possible and common areas are noted as pedestrian access easements as well. 27. Please connect the interior sidewalks to the exterior enhanced sidewalk on both sides of both entry streets. Please revise the plans to reflect these changes. The enhanced sidewalk along 99 street will not be constructed. See our response to comment 25. 28. Please indicate the minimum width for the interior sidewalks as five (5) feet. Please refer to the City of Carmel sidewalk standards for more detail and revise the plans to reflect these changes. This is a pedestrian friendly community. There are "major" and "minor" sidewalks. All sidewalks that are adjacent to streets and within R/W are 5 feet wide. Sidewalks that are in front of cottages are 42" wide. This encourages bikes and rollerblades to be used on the "major" sidewalks throughout the neighborhood. It is important to encourage "wheeled" pedestrian traffic to use the "major" sidewalks and not the minor sidewalks. 29. Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps at all crosswalks. The roadway design includes flush curbs. As such, the sidewalk will be flush with the roadway at the crosswalks, and handicap ramps will not be necessary, with the exception of those provided at the entrance cross walk. 30. Dead —End fire apparatus access roads in excess of one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall be designed and constructed so as to allow the turning around of the longest piece of fire apparatus available to the servicing fire department. See the attachment for a CAD drawing of the longest piece of fire apparatus available to the Carmel Fire Department. The private alley driveways are 165 to 175 feet in length and hydrants are located along Maple Drive. It is not the intent of the development to consider the alleys as "fire apparatus access roads A temporary cul -de -sac has been provided at the temporary terminus on the south end of Maple Drive. 31. Parking shall be prohibited at all times on private drives providing access to each structure. Parking will only be allowed in designated parking spaces. 32. All fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the impact loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced to provide all weather driving capabilities. Maple Drive has been designed to the City of Carmel standard pavement cross section. 33. An approved water supply for fire protection shall be made available as soon as combustible material arrives on the project site. This request will be coordinated with Fire Department. 3 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25 2010 34. Please provide sanitary sewer flows /calculations upon next review. Calculations shall be provided as part of the IDEM permitting process and submitted with the final construction documents. 35. This project will need to be submitted to IDEM for permitting. Please provide CTRWD a copy of all IDEM Submittals for our records. IDEM Water NOI and Sanitary Sewer permit applications are in process. 36. Manhole Prefixes shall be called out at MH #1, MH# ING2, etc. Completed 37. Please insert Summary of Lateral Installation Requirements on Sheet C7.4 www.ctrwd.org. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. 38. The Department of Engineering recommends the back of curb to back of curb pavement width for Maple Street be 30 feet. Pre- design meetings were held with the Department of Engineering and road widths were discussed in detail. The width of Maple Drive was established in the PUD. All criteria was reviewed with Engineering prior to design started and supported in Engineering comments from May 6, 2010. The width will be 21' back to back with a 40' R.O.W. 39. The Department of Engineering recommends the right -of -way width for Maple Street to be 50 Feet. See response to Item 38 above. 40. Please add the note stating "NO EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITY IS TO COMMENCE WITHOUT AN APPROVED STORM WATER MANANAGEMENT PERMIT" to construction set. This note is included in the note section on each sheet of the drawings. 41. Provide all current easements for entire tract to pertinent sheets with correct calls for each. Easements have been indicated. 42. Please provide the requisite storm water /drainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. Because this project is a "low Impact Storm Water" design a specific :Storm Water Design Report has been provided to outline deviations from standard design elements and appropriate variances requested. Applicable plan information has been included in the revised construction documents. 43. Please add note as required in Storm Water Technical Manual Section 102 "Permit Requirement and Procedures, Article 102.02 vii pertaining to construction of storm sewer systems to all storm sewer plan and profile sheets. The storm water system on this project is designed as a low impact system. This system falls outside the current design criteria. The standard note does not apply to the system as designed, variances are sought as part of this review and approval, process and noted in the drainage report. The note has been added where applicable. 44. All swales on site must have sub surface pipe installed. The storm water system on this project is designed as a low impact system. Detail 06 on Sheet 7.1 calls for a 4" underdrain at the bottom of all swales. A Site Drainage Exhibit C3.2 has been added to the drawings to clarify drainage routing and design. In general, swales are located above infiltration trenches which also include underdrains per detail 03 on Sheet 7.1. 4 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 45. Please omit the two sheets with the title Landscape Development Plan from construction sets to be submitted for review by the Department of Engineering. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. 46. Sheet C3.1 Entrances and Intersection Plans please indicate the existing edge of pavement. Existing edge of pavement has been clarified and is'called out with saw -cut note and spot elevations on the entrance plan detail. 47. Sheet C3.1 Entrances and Intersection Plans please providedimensions for the acceleration and deceleration lanes. The dimensions for the acceleration and deceleration lanes can be found on the C2.0 Drawing. They have been added to the C3.1 drawing in the final construction documents. 48. Sheet C3.1 "Entrances and Intersection Plans please provide details for the drainage structures beneath 99 street and Maple Street including length, diameter, and type of material. Detailed information for the drainage structures can be found on the C5.0 Site Utility Plan. A note has been added to the C3.1 drawing to clarify this. 49. Sheet C3.1 Entrances and Intersection Plans please provide a detail for the transition from roll curb to ribbon curb. Please see Detail 13 on Sheet C7.0 50. On Sheet C5.0, the water line has been shown located on the -west side of Maple Street between the back of curb and the right -of -way. On the Maple Drive cross- section on Sheet C6.0, please show the location of the water line on the west side of the street as the sanitary line has been shown on the east side of the street. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 51. The City requires subsurface drain between both edges of the street pavement in the vicinity of the curbs. The street section is not a typical crowned section. It is super elevated as part of the drainage design and underdrain is provided on the low side. 52. In the Maple Street cross section, please revise the 7" compacted aggregate #53 base to 7" compacted #53 stone. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 53. In the Maple Street cross section, please add the aggregate sizes to each of the HMA courses shown. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 54. On Sheet C7.0 Details, please replace Concrete Roll Curb and Gutter detail with City's standard. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 55. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section Within Public Right -of -Way detail, please change title to Asphalt Pavement within East 99 Street Right -of -Way. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 56. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section within Public Right -of -Way detail, please add the aggregate sizes to each of the HMA courses shown. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 5 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated. May 25, 2010 57. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section.within Public Right -of -Way detail, please revise the 7" compacted aggregate #53 base to 7" compacted #53 stone. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 58. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section within Public Right -of -Way detail, beneth the 7" compacted #53 stone add 4" of 2 stone. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 59. On Sheet C7.0.Details, Asphalt Section within Public Right -of -Way detail, please revise conpacted" to "compacted This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 60. On Sheet C7.0 Details, in the curb joint detail, please reduce the spacing between transverse expansion joints from 100' to 50' and reduce the spacing between transverse control joints from 25' to 10' on tangent sections and 5' on radius sections. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 61. On Sheet C7.0 Details, in the curb joint detail, in the traffic signage detail, please remove the concrete footing. This request has-been incorporated into the final construction documents. 62. Please revise the SWPPP on sheet C4.3 to, the City of Carmel format that is attached This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. 63. Please rename the "erosion control plan sheets to "stormwater pollution" control plans. This request has been incorporated into the final construction documents. 64. Please provide an additional stormwater pollution control plan sheet showing the final site layout once section 1A is complete. Please clearly mark post- construction BMPs, drainage, and permanent stabilization methods. Include subsurface drain routing, subsurface drain cleanout locations, and drainage easements. Silt fence or an appropriate sediment control device should be shown surrounding all post- construction BMPs in the event that upslope area hasn't been stabilized. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. 65. Please provide a typical cross section of the rain gardens. A rain garden detail has been added to C7.0 and called out on the C3.2 drawing. 66. Please include a temporary BMP detail on how best to protect the porous paver system during individual lot construction. The cottages are to be built in clusters from the property line out. The pavers will be the last to be installed, and will be constructed starting at the property line and working in. The surface grades are designed to flow away from the paver areas. 67. Please look into using a 4" layer of pea gravel on top of the stone surrounding the underdrain in the vegetated swale and on top of the stone in the exfiltration trench. Concerned that filter fabric will be prone to clogging and prevent infiltration. The vegetated swale is designed to transport surface runoff around the site, not to rely on infiltration of runoff. The primary inflow entering the exfiltration trenches is subsurface and has been pre filtered through the porous paver and /or rain garden sections. 6 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 68. Will underdrains be placed in the rain gardens? If so, please show the connections to the subsurface drainage. No. 69. Please show how the underdrains in the pervious parking areas will be continued through the intersections. This information has been clarified on the C3.2 drawing. 70. Please show how the' underdrains will connect from the pervious parking areas to the exfiltration trenches. This information has been added to sheet C3.2. 71. Please provide a detail for properly connecting the various sections of underdrain. This information has been added to sheet C3.2. 72. Please provide cleanout locations and details for the underdrains that are exposed to root infiltration. Cleanouts have been added to the plan and sock pipe specified. The flow properties of the underdrain were not considered as part of the overall system design. The drainage calculations were performed without utilizing the benefits of the underdrain to ensure that the system would function in the event that the underdrain became unusable. 73. Please call out in the construction details that double walled subsurface drains should be used in the vegetated swale, exfiltration trench, and rain gardens. Underdrains have been noted as double walled per Carmel standards. 74. Please provide an individual building lot detail that shows individual lot controls and indicates that the porous paver protection BMP must be used from the paved roadway to the ingress for the lot. The cottages are to be built in clusters from the property line out. There will not construction traffic allowed on the pavers. 75. Will an injection well permit be required for the exfiltration trench? No. Infiltration BMPs should only be regulated as Class V injection wells if their depth exceeds the longest horizontal dimension of the BMP. 76. Are the exfiltration trenches located in the same areas as the bore that revealed the shallow sand seam? Borings encountered layers of sand and gravel in the areas between Lot 5 and 9, West of Lot 27, and between Lots 14 and 17. There is an exfiltration trench between Lot 5 and 9, and permeable pavement infiltration in the other locations. The linear trenches were routed to encounter and intercept the varied strata on site to maximize overall opportunity to promote transmissivity. For this reason, average rates of all soils found on site were utilized in the calculations. 77. The "Maple Drive Cross Section" on sheet C6.0 shows the sanitary line in the same stone media conveying the storm drainage. Is there a way to separate these systems or change the sanitary backfill to clay to prevent contamination through cross connection (same with sanitary lines under alleyways)? Per discussions and approval by Ryan Hartman at CTRWD, the sanitary trench was allowed to become part of the stormwater infiltration system providing that clay check dams were included across each trench as shown in the profile drawings. The project is on the upstream end of the system and is unlikely to surcharge or operate under conditions where internal pressure develops. During follow up discussions with Ryan, he confirmed that the sanitary sewer will be pressure tested and protected with check dams 7 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 to minimize the likelihood of cross contamination. Clay check dams have been replaced by Ripley Dams, and additional locations included in order to provide additional isolation. 78. Where will the discharge point for the temporary sediment basins be located? The intent is to minimize the discharge from the sediment basins to the maximum extent practical. On the west side of Maple, the ultimate discharge will be to the swale along the west property line. On the east side, temporary culverts have been provided and the overflow discharge routed to the surface swale above the exfiitration trench on the east side of Maple. 79. The temporary sediment basins appear to be located on top of future rain gardens. This will promote compaction of the soils in these areas. Would it be better to fence off the proposed rain garden areas (exfiltration trenches also) at the beginning of construction and relocate the traps? Sediment basin maintenance notes have been added which require cleaning of sediment basins to be performed from the perimeter of the basin. Erosion control sequencing note #6 addresses protection of exfiltration trenches upon completion. 80. How will the discharge from the two separate exfiltration trenches be routed if they overflow? Discharge will be to the south to a temporary swale within the future phase for incorporation into the future stormwater basin and have been clarified on the plan. 81. How will the discharge from the rain gardens be routed if they overflow? The raingardens adjacent to Maple Point Drive do not accept substantial overland flows and are not expected to typically overflow. They will overflow to adjacent depressional areas. This grading has been clarified on the Plan Documents. Begin Response to Gary Duncan May 7, 2010 Email Comments: 82. Please indicate "Approval Pending /Not for Construction" on each sheet. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 83. All backfill notes for utility trenches shall include the following: "shall be per City standard when within the right -of- way This is applicable to Note 8 on Sheet C2.0; Note 5 on Sheets C3.0 and C3.1; Note 6 on. Sheet C5.0; Note for hatching in the legend on Sheets C5.0, C5.1 and C5.2; all notes in profile on Sheets C5.1 and C5.2; and the note in the check dam detail on Sheets C5.1 and C5.2. This request has been incorporated into the documents. Due to the unique nature of the infiltration design and role of the sanitary trench in that function, the project will need to deviate from this standard where the sanitary sewer crosses Maple Drive and connects at Highland 84. Please confirm if there are any Tree Preservation Easements and Landscaping Easements. These easements cannot be overlapped by drainage and utility (or other) easements. LID Stormwater system design incorporates functional native landscaping, thus landscaping is required in and protected by the stormwater easement. Landscape Maintenance will be further specified in the OCR's while we only show the D U.E. on the plat itself. 8 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 85. A maintenance of traffic plan shall be developed for the work in the 99 Street right -of- way. The contractor will provide maintenance of traffic plan complying with MUTCD as part of curb cut permit. 86. Please indicate the limits of what will be constructed with this phase on all sheets. All items shown on the plans are intended to be constructed. Secondary platting will be requested for the portion of the project west of Maple Drive subsequent to the first phase of home construction on the east side. 87. Maple Drive appears to satisfy the requirements of a Residential Street -Lane per the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan). While on- street parking is not permitted for this type of roadway, the plan includes construction of on- street parking spaces outside of the proposed travel lanes. Construction of these spaces is not opposed by the Department of Engineering. No Parking signage will likely be required to be installed for the side of the roadway opposite of the on- street parking spaces. Such a restriction requires formal action by the City prior to installing such signage. 88. A residential lane requires a tree plot of 5-feet; a 4.5 -foot tree plot is indicated. The 4.5' width is the maximum tree plot that can be provided while maintaining previously agreed upon roadway, sidewalk and R.O.W. dimensions. Per the landscape plan, trees are not proposed within this area. Per our post -TAC meeting on May 10 Gary is confirming that this is acceptable. 89. Cover sheet. Please indicate the design speed of the roadway. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 90. Cover sheet. Please provide a legal description of the parent tract and of this section. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 91. Sheet C2.0. How is access to the property to the east being maintained if the portion of the driveway that encroaches onto the property is being removed? The east adjoiners drive is split around a tree off the east line. This creates the "second" branch of the drive that crossed the boundary line and would not adversely affect the adjoiner if that portion across the East line is eliminated. 92. Sheet C2.0. The curbing at the entrance from 99 Street shall be chair back curb within the proposed right -of -way of 99 Street. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 93. Sheet C2.0. Please indicate the location of the "End Roadway" barricades /assemblies. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 94. Sheet C2.0. Please revise the right -of -way pavement text in the legend to read "Pavement within 99 Street Right -of- Way This request has been incorporated into the documents. 95. Sheet C2.0. Please add the following note: All paving within the existing and proposed city Right -Of -Way shall conform to the requirements of the Department of Engineering. The Contractor shall contact the Department of Engineering to schedule a pre construction meeting to review the Department's construction requirements, staff notification requirements, required inspections for certain stages of the work and to 9 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 100300/9 SP Updated May 25, 2010 review the authority of the Department as it relates to work within the existing and proposed Right -Of- Way." This request has been incorporated into the documents. 96. Sheet C2.0. Please revise the auxiliary lanes to be a 100 -foot recovery taper, a 100 -foot deceleration lane and the balance in the deceleration taper. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 97. Sheet C2.0. Please indicate the path /sidewalk required by the Alternative Transportation Plan across the frontage. City Standard ADA ramps will be required where this facility crosses Maple Drive. Documents submitted and approved for the PUD did not include this sidewalk element. The properties to the west and to the east are owned by individuals;and therefore this sidewalk would never join any other sidewalk in the city. The enhanced sidewalk along 99 street will not be constructed. It is our understanding that if this enhanced sidewalk is a requirement then it can be eliminated by providing the city with a check in an amount associated with the cost for us to construct the sidewalk 98. Sheet C2.0. The return radii of the intersections appear to meet the City standards for the road classifications. Please confirm with the Carmel Fire Department that the turning radii at the alley intersections with Maple Drive are adequate for their apparatus. Are the radii adequate for moving vans /trucks? What vehicles are expected to regularly access the alleys? The private alley driveways are 165 to 175 feet in length and hydrants are located along Maple Drive. It is not the intent of the development to consider the alleys as "fire apparatus access roads A variance will be necessary to address the fire department turning radii and access if the alleys are considered fire apparatus access roads. Any vehicle with 20' wheel base or larger would need to execute at 3 point turn to enter the alley. 99. Sheet C2.0. Aramore was required to widen 99 Street across the frontage so that there would be 24 -feet of travel lanes. Auxiliary lanes would be measured outside of these travel lanes. Aramore was also required to mill and resurface 99 Street across the frontage of the project. I do not know if 99 Street was recently resurfaced by the City. Per discussions at the post -TAC meeting, these requirements and the future plans for 99 Street are to be reviewed. For this. submittal, the roadway and drive entrance geometry remain as originally designed. The developer has discussed providing funds to the City for future improvements. 100. Sheet C2.0. Please add a note that indicates that the resurfacing of 99 Street cannot take place until all utility installations are complete and the open pavement cuts are restored up to the final surface course in accordance with the City's Street Cut and patch detail. Pending confirmation of item 99 above. 101. Sheet C2.0. I have no issues with the sidewalk outside of the right -of -way being 42- inches in width. However, please continue to work with David Littlejohn on this issue. See response to item 28. 102. Sheet C2.0. I know that we discussed the use of ribbon curbing; but I was not aware that this was proposed at locations where there is no adjacent on- street parking. City standard curbing is required unless the proposed BMP relies on the absence of curbing. Is it possible to locate the rain gardens adjacent to the parking spaces (with the walk then behind the rain gardens) and allow the excess runoff from the parking areas to enter directly into these areas? A ribbon curb could then be utilized adjacent to the pavers. 10 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No. 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 The use of the ribbon curb allows for sheet flow of runoff from the roadway and is integral to the overall stormwater management design. Per post -TAC meeting discussions, the curb on the west (high) side of Maple Drive has been modified to straight curb meeting City of Carmel standards. 103. Sheet C2.0. Adjacent to Lot 4, is it not possible to locate the walk within the right -of -way? Easement is needed for where the Maple Drive sidewalk is outside of the right -of -way. Since an easement is required, why not place the entire sidewalk within the right -of -way? Walk has been relocated to be within the right of way. Areas where the walk is outside of the R.O.W. are common areas that include pedestrian access easement. 104. Sheet C2.0. Portions of alleys within the Maple Drive right -of -way shall be concrete and shall include a depressed curb in the gutter line of Maple Drive. This has been incorporated into the final documents. 105. Sheet C2.0. Is an easement required for the off -site sanitary sewer? Sanitary sewer easement is shown on C2.0, C5.0 and C5.1. SSE Exhibit description has been provided. 106. Sheet C2.0. There do not appear to be any perimeter easements as required by the subdivision control ordinance. No perimeter easements are noted in the PUD. Building setbacks have been shown along with a 15' perimeter easement. 107. Sheet C2.0. Please indicate ADA ramps where the sidewalk on Maple Drive crosses the "future phase" stub street. The roadway design includes flush curbs on the east side. As such, the sidewalk will be flush with the roadway at the crosswalks, and handicap ramps will not be necessary. Ramps have been added on the west side where flush curb has been changed to straight curb. 108. Sheet C2.0. Please indicate what the double arrow symbols are at the back edge /corners of the on- street parking spaces. The arrows indicate the limits of integral curb /walk and flush curb 109. Sheet C2.0. Please provide a sidewalk connection from the Maple Drive sidewalk to the ATP facility along 99 Street. See item 10 response. 110. Sheet C2.0. Does the PUD allow for lots that do not have public road frontage? Yes. 111. Sheet C2.0. The overflow route of the drainage system (including the off -site water) must be located within an easement. This request will be incorporated into the documents. 112. Sheet C2.0. Is sidewalk planned for the "future phase" stub street? Yes. 113. Sheet C2.0. A 3 -foot wide, 6 -inch deep #73 gravel shoulder is required adjacent to the auxiliary lanes on 99 Street where there is not curbing. A 6 -inch SSD is required under this shoulder. Please indicate this shoulder and SSD on the site plan, the entrance detail and on Sheet C6.0. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 114. Sheet C2.0. Post Construction Storm Water Quality measures are required to be in easements. All PC BMPs are located within Drainage and Utility easements. 11 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 115. Sheet C3.0. What is planned for the runoff from 99 Street and the upstream watershed until the rain gardens west of Maple Drive is constructed. In order to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible the runoff west of the entrance drive will be allowed to continue to flow through the existing wooded area as it does now and overflow to the west overflow swale. Soil borings indicate satisfactory infiltrative capacity in this area. Runoff east of the entrance drive has been incorporated into the proposed rain garden sizing. 116. Sheet C3.0. Please confirm how the fully developed right -of -way of 99 Street is being detained. The surface runoff from 99 Street is incorporated into the rain garden and swale sizing calculations. 117. Sheet C3.0. I assume a continuous swale is needed along both the eastern and western property lines. The swale along the western property line is not continuous. Is the exfiltration swale along the eastern property line for both on -site and off -site runoff? The swale information has been clarified on the newly developed C3.2 Drainage Facility Plan drawing. A bypass swale is proposed above each perimiter exfiltration trench to preserve the exfiltration trench storage capacity for on -site flow. The west overflow swale should be continuous. 118. Sheet C3.0. Please confirm that the 100 -year rain even is contained on -site. The Stormwater Technical Drainage Report provides details related to release rates for City of Carmel design storms. Surface ponding and emergency overflow routes are contained within the property. 119. Sheet C3.0. Are any detention and storm water quality systems located within the proposed right -of -way of Maple Drive? Pervious pavers and subsurface infiltration as shown on the Maple Drive roadway cross section detail on C6.0 are part of the subsurface detention and storm water quality management systems. 120. Sheet C3.0. Are there any direct discharge areas? Per the Stormwater Technical Drainage Report, direct discharge is not anticipated for anything less than the 100 year storm. It is anticipated that a 100 year storm event will discharge less than 1 cfs at the exfiltration trench overflow elevation at the south end of the current phase of the project. 121. Sheet C3.0. Please indicate building pad elevations and finish floor elevations. Pad elevations and MFPG are shown on the C3.0 drawing. Based on Architectural plans, finished floor elevations will be a minimum of 11.5" above MFPG. 122. Sheet C3.0. In furtherance of Comment 44© of the letter dated March 30, 2010 from Nick Redden, please confirm that all known existing culverts, pipes and bridges along 99 Street are shown and that the TC's, IE's, pipe sizes and materials and direction of flow are indicated. Drainage features relevant to the portions of the upstream watershed affecting the proposed development are shown on the existing topographic survey. 123. Sheet C3.0. Please label the 100 -year water surface elevation within each rain garden and exfiltration trench. Will water stage within these areas during the 100 -year rain event? A 50 -foot setback is required between the road right -of -way and the 100 -year 12 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No. 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 elevation of detention facilities. A 25 -foot setback from structures to be occupied is also required. The 25 foot setback from structures is provided from top of bank of all surface storage areas. BMPs within 50 feet of the ROW serve to convey stormwater to the exfiltration trench which serves as the primary detention facility. A waiver will be requested if it is 'determined that the conveyance features are to be held to the setbacks for "detention facilities A variance has been submitted for BMPs within 50' of the ROW. 124. Sheet C3.0. What is the maximum water spread within the right -of -way during the 100 year rain event? In order for Maple Point Drive to drain, the design utilizes a superelevated roadway with flush curb on the downstream side. Subsurface storage is sufficient to stage the 100 year storm below the road elevation. Therefore, any water spread within the ROW during storm events is presumed to incidental. 125. Sheet C3.0. Please ensure that each extension of the piping under 99 Street continues past the limits of the proposed right -of -way. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 126. Sheet C3.0. Please indicate high and low points in the proposed swales and the roadway. Please indicate flow arrows also. Swale flow direction is indicated by arrows in the line type. High and low points have been added in the roadway, the swales do not have high points. 127. Sheet C3.0. Are the alleys to be valley gutters that discharge into Maple Drive? I have concerns with the concentrated flows being introduced into Maple Drive. Alleys are comprised of porous pavers that infiltrate into the subsurface stormwater management system. They have minimal longitudinal slope in order to promote infiltration. 128. Sheet C3.0. What is the upstream watershed of the piping under 99 Street? These pipes are being extended; do they need to be increased in size? Are these pipes part of a regulated drain system and need to satisfy County requirements? Available watershed information was provided by the County Surveyor's Office during TAC. The Surveyor's office did not indicate any additional concerns related to the upstream pipes. Areas utilized in design are depicted in the Stormwater Management Technical Report. 129. Sheet C3.0. What is the basis for the MFPG? The basis of the MFPG is 2.0' above the 100 year storage stage of the LID stormwater management system. For this project, the basement window wells will be the minimum opening. 130. Sheet C3.0. Minimum lowest adjacent grade (MLAG) shall also be established. Definitions for both MFPG and MLAG need to be added to the sheet. In all cases, the MFPG will control, as surrounding MLAG will be higher than the basement window opening. 131. Sheet C3.0. Are any of the existing swales to be extended with future phases? The City has a maximum swale length (3 -lots or 300 feet). Yes, the swales will be extended to the future phase to the south and incorporated into the overall LID Stormwater Management system. Due to the LID stormwater 13 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May. 25, 2010 management design, the project does not have a subsurface pipe system, swales are an integral part of the LID system, and the design deviates from these requirements. 132. Sheet C3.0. What is the flood route? How will water be conveyed to the rain gardens (or to the overflow route) from the roadway during large rain events? What is the flood route if the rain gardens and exfiltration trenches reach capacity? Has the system been designed with a "spillway" in the event that the rain garden and exfiltration trench capacity is impaired or reduced to zero? Jim 133. Sheet C3.0. Were the rain gardens sized based on the inflow rates and exfiltration rates? Were stage /storage curves developed? Yes. Complete design information is included in the Stormwater Technical Drainage Report. 134. Sheet C3.0. Please indicate flow arrows for the 99 Street runoff into the property. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 135. Sheet C3.0. Curb turnouts appear to be necessary for the sag roadway conditions at stations 1 +00, 3 +00 and 6 +00. As indicated on the C2.0 drawing and the C6.0 roadway section detail, he roadway design calls for flush curbs to allow for sheet flow from the roadway surface. 136. Sheet C3.1. Please provide a cross section for the 99 Street improvements (widening, milling and resurfacing, gravel shoulder with sub surface drain) This request will be incorporated into the documents. 137. Sheet C3.1. If Maple Drive is sloped all to one side, is a grade break necessary along the alley return radii? Why not make the entire curb line the high point? Grading has been revised. 138. Sheet C3.1. Intersection A. Are the northeast and southwest corners of this intersection graded too flat for proper drainage? This was formerly a grade transition area. Grades have been revised to reflect consistent super elevation of roadway. 139. Sheet C3.1. Intersection C, Is the northwest corner of this intersection too flat for proper drainage? Please indicate additional spot elevations along the curbing opposite of the "future phase" stub street. This was formerly a grade transition area. Grades have been revised to reflect consistent super elevation of roadway. 140. Sheet C4.0. Will the sediment basins become the future rain gardens? Will the use as sediment basins and work to construct the sediment basin impair the future function of the rain garden? See item 79 response 141. Sheet C4.0. Are the exfiltration trenches for on -site (and therefore construction) runoff? If construction runoff will enter these areas, silt fence is needed on each side of the trench. Exfiltration trenches will be protected from construction runoff. See Erosion control sequencing note #6 which address protection of trenches upon completion. 142. Sheet C5.0. Please confirm that all known existing utilities (sanitary, storm, telecomm, CATV, gas, electric, water) are shown and all TC's, IE's, pipe size and material and flow direction for gravity systems are shown. The available information has been shown. 14 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 143. Sheet C5.0. Please label the proposed sub surface drains and define these drainage systems more clearly on the plans. This request will be incorporated into the documents. 144. Sheet C5.0. Unless the tapping location was specifically requested by the City Water Utility, please locate the water main tapping location to outside of the middle of the intersection of 99th Street and Maple Drive. The proposed tapping location has been modified. 145. Sheet C5.0. Storm pipes within the right -of -way must be RCP. Extensions are noted to be CMP. What is the condition of the existing CMP's? Extensions are noted to be CMP to match existing culverts. The existing CMP's are partially buried. 146. Sheet C5.0. Please provide plan and profiles of the piping under Maple Drive and the extensions of the 99 Street piping. Please include the notes from the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual per Comment 40 of the letter from Nick Redden dated March 30, 2010. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 147. Sheet C5.0. All utility trenches within the right -of -way and public utility trenches outside of the right -of -way but located within 5 -feet of pavement, sidewalk, or path shall be hatched for granular backfill in accordance with the City Standards. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 148. Sheet C5.0. Please indicate granular backfill for the sanitary laterals under Maple Drive at Lots 25 and 27. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 149. Sheet C5.0. There shall be no valve boxes, manhole frames or manhole castings (with the exception of curb inlets) within pavement, curbing, sidewalk or path. Sanitary castings are required in pavement due to site layout constraints. 150. Sheet C5.0. Are roof drain and sump pump connections planned? Roof drains will splash to grade or be captured by owner optional rain barrels. Sump pumps are intended to discharge to rain gardens or surface discharge above exfiltration trenches. Exfiltration rates modeled use rates approximately 1/1 0 of the computed weighted average of soil horizons observed in the borings. This was done in anticipation of permanent exfiltration occurring along the outer boundary of the site. 151. Sheet C5.0. Sub surface drain is required under all curbing in the right -of -way. Please indicate on the Utility Plan and on detail 1/C6.0. Sub surface drain is specified beneath the low side of the super- elevated roadway. 152. Sheet C6.0. Please add proposed water crossings to this sheet with pipe size and design invert elevation. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 153. Sheet C6.0. Minimum centerline grade is 0.5 Roadway is super elevated to drain to porous paver areas. Longitudinal grade necessary for typical curb gutter drainage does not apply here. Modifying existing plans to achieve 0.50% minimum is possible, but K values will be exceeded. 154. Sheet C6.0. Please provide a typical alley cross section. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 15 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket -Noe 10030019 SP Updated May 25 2010 155. Sheet C6.0. Is the street cross section typical? Since the slope changes and there are areas with and without on- street parking, I do not expect this to be a typical section. Stationing for where the street section applies is shown on the detail. 156. Sheet C6.0. Add pipe material to all proposed utility crossings. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 157. Sheet C6.0. Detail 1/C6.0: Straight curb is needed on side of roadway opposite the on- street parking areas; on each side where these is no on- street parking and integral curb and walk is needed adjacent to.the parking spaces (unless the rain gardens locations are revised). Please add a note that all paving is to ,be completed in the same season. Please indicate that the sub surface drain shall be double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. Straight curb is specified where it does not conflict with the drainage design. The referenced sub surface drain has been specified. 158. Sheet C6.0. Is it possible to slope the roadway the same direction the entire length? I expect that the change is due to the curvature of the roadway; however I do not think that the super elevation transitions Iengths,are adequate (even for a low design speed). I have not verified this. Roadway is sloped to drain to pervious paver parking areas for stormwater management. 159. Sheet C6.0. Please add the City Standard sanitary, storm and water main minimum cover note to this sheet. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 160. Sheet C7.0. Please add the following details to the sheet: The following requests have been incorporated into the documents. City ADA ramp details Depressed curb detail Street cut/patch detail Path pavement section (if the ATP requires path along 99 Street) Please add a pavement- section.detail for the Maple Drive pavement section. Maple Drive pavement section is detailed on C6.0 161. Sheet C7.0. Detail 2/C7.0: Please replace with City Standard detail. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 162. Sheet C7.0. Detail 5/C7.0: Please add a note that all paving shall be completed in the same season. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 163. Sheet C7.0. Detail 6/C7.0: Please label.sub- surface drain as double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 164. Sheet C7.0. Detail 7/C7.0: Straight curb is needed (unless adjacent to an integral curb and walk). Please label sub surface drain as double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. Straight curb is specified where it does not conflict with the drainage design. 165. Sheet C7.0. Detail 11/C7.0: Post shall be breakaway in the right -of -way. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 166. Sheet C7.0. Please delete detail 12/C7.0. Stop signs require an ordinance and are installed by the City. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 16 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 167. Sheet C7.1. Please add the City Standard RCP detail. RCP is no longer specified in the Plan Documents. 168. Sheet C7.1. Detail 3/C7.1 and 6/C7.1: Please label sub surface drain as double wall Hancor Hi -Q orequivalent. This request has beery incorporated into the documents. 169. Sheet C7.1. Detail 3/C7.1: A previous mark -up deleted the text "consisting of the following: 1/3 sand, 1/3 topsoil, 1/3 compost." All engineered soil amendments have been modified t� reflect the 1/3 allocation. 170. Sheet C7.3. Please add the City standard minimum cover note to the Sanitary Sewer Bedding and Backfill Detail. This request has been incorporated Into-the documents. 171. Sheet C7.5 Please add the City standard minimum cover note to the Trench Detail and Trench Schedule Detail. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 172. Sheet C7.5. Please add the City standard backfill note for installation within the right -of- way to the Trench Detail and Trench Schedule Detail. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 173. Sheet C9.0. Please delete all references to "City of Michigan City This request has been incorporated into the documents. 174. Sheet C9.0. Please add the City's Curbing Policy. This request will be incorporated into the documents. 175. Sheet C9.0. Please add the City's Paving Policy. This request will be incorporated into the documents. 176. Sheet C9.0. Street and Paving Section: This request has been incorporated into the documents. 177. Please delete Article 3, Section H This request has been incorporated into the documents. 178. Second paragraph of Article 1, Section A: please revise so the specification is applicable solely to streets and parking areas outside of the right -of -way. Please delete "curbs and gutters This request has been incorporated into the documents. 179. Per Section 102.02.v., please revise the Existing Topography Plan to include the following information: 180. Second paragraph of Article 1, Section A: please revise so the specification is applicable solely to streets and parking areas outside of the right -of -way. Please delete "curbs and gutters This request has been incorporated into the documents. 181. Per Section 102.02.v., please revise the Existing Topography Plan to include the following information: 182. One hundred (100) year floodplains, floodway fringes, and floodways, established or identified in accordance with the City of Carmel Flood Hazard Area Ordinance. Please note if none exist. 17 Review COmments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25 2010 There are no Special Flood Hazard Areas as defined by FEMA in the project area. This can be noted on the grading plan, but the existing topography plan will not be altered as it was prepared by others. 183. Per Section 102.02.vi., please revise the Site Utility Plan to indicate and specify the lengths and locations of all underdrain, including the Paver Areas, to be included within the project. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 184. Per Section 102.02.xi., please revise the Site Grading Plan to include the following information: One hundred (100) year floodplains, floodway fringes, and flood ways, established or identified in accordance with the City of Carmel Flood Hazard Area Ordinance. Please note if none exist. This request has been incorporated into the documents. Information regarding any off -site borrow, stockpile, or disposal areas that are associated with a project site, and under the control of the project site owner. Off-site borrow is not anticipated. Soil stockpile locations have been shown on the SWPPP. Indication as to the system being public or private. (Per discussions with the City of Carmel, they expect the system to be private.) A note has been added to the Grading Plan indicating private ownership of the stormwater system. Although the maintenance responsibility resides with the project owner, the City of Carmel reserves the right to perform any maintenance required within and /or affecting the Right -of -Way. Emergency flood routing path(s) and their invert elevations from detention facilities to the receiving system. The elevations and direction of potential stormwater overflows have been added to the Grading Plan. A drainage summary, which summarizes the basic conditions of the drainage design, including site acreage, off site /upstream acreage, allowable release rates, post developed 10-year flows, and 100 -year flows leaving the site, volume of detention retained, volume of detention provided, and any release rate. A drainage summary has been compiled in table format and has been added to the Drainage Plan sheet. The elevations at each corner of every lot, all grade breaks (in swales, or lots and streets)' a minimum house pad elevation for each lot or block, and the flood protection grade for each.lot of block. The requested supplemental grading information has been added to the Grading Plan. Lots at lot corners across Phase 1B (west side of Maple Drive) have not been included as this section of the plat has not been finalized. A note reflecting this has been added to the Grading Plan. Drainage arrows shall be indicated for all surface drainage, swales and on each side of every break in swale slopes. Additional drainage arrows have been added to clarify the design intent. Label slopes of all surface drainage swales. (Also, label slopes of exfiltration trenches.) The swale slope has been noted on the Grading Plan at 0.2 Underdrains have been specified to avoid stagnation concerns. The exfiltration trenches are flat. This is referenced in the detail of the trenches. 185. It appears that there are grades adjacent to buildings that are of higher elevation than the proposed pad elevations indicated on Sheet C3.0. Also, some of the proposed pad elevations are at lower elevations than the indicated MFPG elevations. Verify 18 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Updated May 25 2010 conformance with the requirements of Section 104.02 of the manual. Please review and revise accordingly. Pad grades are low `'hold down" grades to account for basement spoils to be placed on the Tots. Pad grades are provided for City of Carmel to use in approving mass grading. There will be a temporary low spot until basements are excavated and spoils used to bring the pad up to meet MFPG for basement windows. These elevations have been clarified on the Plan Documents and appear to satisfy requirements noted in Section 104.02. 186. Please revise Sheet C3.0 to provide additional spot elevations for Paver Areas, driveways, sidewalk areas, street curb lines, etc. Also, it appears that some of the spot elevations indicated are not in the correct locations. Please review and revise accordingly. Additional spot elevations have been added to the Grading Plan to clarify the design intent. 187. Please provide invert elevations of the pipe extensions for the 99th Street pipe crossings. Detailed information for the drainage structures can be found on the C5.0 Site Utility Plan. A note has been added to the C3.1 drawing to clarify this. 188. It appears that along with off -site drainage from the north, drainage from the full length of Right -ofWay and from the northern most row of houses is directed to drainage basin P11 (SW corner of 99th and Maple). Sheets C3.0 and C3.1 indicate this area to be a Future Raingarden, and do not offer any spot elevations or contours to address the stormwater routing prior to the installation of the Future Rain garden. Please comment on this issue, and revise the plans as necessary. Also, please verify conformance with Section 302.06.12., and that the required drainage areas are not routed through the bypass swale with the offsite areas. The `Future Raingarden' would have provided a relatively small amount of storage and required tree clearing and has been removed from the Plan Documents. Per Section 302.06.12, the system has been designed to accept the fully developed Right -of -Way. Per 302.05, when ignoring the off-site runoff, all onsite runoff is retained prior to entering the bypass swales. 189. Please provide drainage calculations for the bypass drainage swale to verify conformance with Sections 303.02 and 303.05 of the manual. Also, please verify conformance with Section 303.07. The Drainage Report indicates that a maximum passage of 4.3 cfs at the north end of the swale and 11.9 cfs at the downstream end of the swale needs to be accommodated during a 100 year storm event. A calculation addendum using Mannings' formula for open channel flow indicates that the bypass swale should pass 19.4 cfs. This addendum is contained in the revised drainage report. 190. Per Section 303.05, minimum swale slopes are 1.0% unless designed to act as a stormwater quality BMP, and shall have tile underdrains that are outletted into a drop structure or through a standard tile outlet. Also, the'maximum length of rear and side lot swales before reaching an inlet shall not exceed 300 feet or convey water from more than 3 residential lots, whichever is shorter, unless designed to as a stormwater quality BMP. Please review and revise accordingly. Swales are designed to function within the overall LID Stormwater management system. They do have underdains and outlets. In addition, the exfiltration trench beneath the swale can be considered adequate to address any stagnation concerns. 19 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket Noe 1.0030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 191. Drainage calculations refer to a West Exfiltration Trench; however, Sheet C3.0 only shows a drainage swale along the west property line of the site that appears to be the bypass swale. Please revise the plans to include.the location of the West Exfiltration Trench. If the swale shown on the plans is to be an exfiltration trench, the watershed area to be detained that was used in modeling needs to be revised. The Plan Documents have been clarified to better indicate the location and extent of the exfiltration trenches. 192. It appears that the proposed Maple Drive pipe crossing (12 -inch RCP 0.20: will result in a pipe velocity less than the required 2.5 ft/sec per Section 30S.04 of the manual. Also, please provide calculations verifying sufficient capacity.,to convey the peak flowrate, including the off -site area that is being conveyed by the pipe. Please review and revise accordingly. Due to cover concerns, the RCP pipe underneath the entrance drive has been removed. The storage provided in the proposed raingarden exceeds 100 year storm volumes routed to the raingarden. If stormwater runoff to the raingarden exceeds the capacity of the raingarden, excess stormwater will be routed around the east side of the site. 193. According to existing and proposed contours, it appears that there will not be a positive outlet for the drainage swale's surface discharge or underdrain along the west property line of the site. Please verify conformance with Section 302.12, and review and revise accordingly. 18" of cover is proposed above the swale underdrain so that the underdrain is utilized seemingly infrequently. Should stormwater flows enter the underdrain, these will be outlet into the exfiltration trench at the south end of the site. This detail has been clarified on the Plan Documents. 194. On the Intersection C grading detail of Sheet C3.1, it appears that the east edge of pavement for Maple Street will be completely flat and discharge to the east. However, the limited off -site spot grades from the existing topography plan in this area shows the off site area being at a higher elevation. Please comment on the ponding of water or direct discharge that will result. Please review and revise accordingly. These grades have been revised in conjunction with other comments. 195. Please provide a typical section detail of the proposed rain gardens. Sheet C3.0 refers to a detail on SheetC7.1, but there is none provided. This request has been incorporated into the documents. 196. According to the Landscape Development Plan, it is proposed to install multiple tree plantings within the limits of the underdrained bypass swales. Please comment on the impact that the trees will have on the proposed underdrain, and revise as necessary. The underdrains are proposed to be surrounded by washed stone and should represent the location of the most drained areas of the site during dry weather conditions. Root intrusion is not expected to be a problem. However, clean -outs are proposed every 100 feet and at connections should unforeseen difficulties arise. 197. Please provide Existing Conditions Min /Max Reports for the off -site areas that are being bypassed around the site in addition to the reports that are provided for the on -site areas in Appendix A of the report. These reports shall provide the quantity of runoff created, and swale capacity shall be verified. This request has been incorporated into the addendum within the revised drainage report. 198. There are possible concerns with utility trenches (sanitary mains) being located within permeable paver areas, in which infiltration into the groundwater table is being achieved. 20 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No /0030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 Per discussions and approval by Ryan Hartman at CTRWD, the sanitary trench was allowed to become part of the stormwater infiltration system providing that clay check dams were included across each trench as shown in the profile drawings. Follow up conversations with CTRWD suggested the use of Ripley dams which are now specified. 199. Per Section 302.06.01, please provide information to verify that a minimum of 90% of the original detention capacity of the proposed dry detention basin is restored within 48 hours from the start of the design 100 -year storm. Any waiver request for this design standard shall be submitted directly.to the City of Carmel Engineering Department. Calculations indicate that approximately 74% of the storage is returned within 48 hours. A waiver has been requested in the drainage report and will be submitted directly to the City pending coordination with the'City. 200. Per Section 302.06.02 and 302.06.04, all stormwater detention facilities shall be separated by any road right -of -way by no less than fifty (50) feet, measured from the top of bank of the 100 -year pool'if no defined top of back is present. Also, all buildings structures shall be separated from the 100 -year elevation of all stormwater facilities by no less than twenty five (25) feet. Please review and revise accordingly' These are not traditional detention facilities, but water quality features. Detention is handled primarily through subsurface infiltration and storage and it may not be appropriate to hold the rain gardens to the same standards. A waiver will be requested if it is determined that the water quality features are to be held to the setbacks. 201. A perpetual stormwater easement shall be provided for proposed detention facilities and overflow routes in accordance with Section 306 of the manual. Any waiver request for this design standard shall be submitted directly to the City of Carmel Engineering Department. 202. Per Section 302.06.10, no residential lots, or any part thereof, shall be used for any part of a detention basin, assumed full to the 100 -year water surface elevation or the emergency overflow weir elevation, whichever is higher. Please verify that no portions of the 100 -year water surface elevations of the exfiltration trenches, collector areas, porous paver areas, or rain gardens are located within any platted Tots. All stormwater facilities are contained within a perpetual Drainage and Utility Easement. 203. Per Section 302.06.11, please provide verification that an additional ten (10) percent of available capacity has been provided for sediment accumulation within the proposed detention system. The verification can be addressed for surface BMPs. Volume for additional sediment accumulation is not necessary in the trenches as all inflow will be substantially pre- treated via filtration. 204. Per Section 302.06.12, detention basins are to be sized to detain the runoff from the fully developed Right -of -Way per the City of Carmel 20 -year Thoroughfare Plan across all frontages, regardless of existing watershed boundaries or drainage breaks /divides. Please revise the proposed detention facility calculations accordingly. Any waiver request for this design standard shall be submitted directly to the City of Carmel Engineering Department. The detention basins are sized to accommodate Section 302.06.12. 205. An emergency overflow facility shall be provided for the proposed detention facility in accordance with Section 302.11 of the manual. Please provide calculations for the 21 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No. 10030019 SP Updated May 25, 2010 overflow facility verifying that it is capable of conveying 1.25 times the peak inflow discharge from the post developed 100 -year design storm event. The resulting elevations shall be indicated, and compared to the MFPG. The proposed 100 year discharge is approximately 1 cfs. The overflow swale which receives this discharge is sized to pass approximately 19 cfs. 206. It appears that there is,a break in the drainage swale along the west,property line of the site. Please comment on the design of this drainageswale. The drainage break noted in the comment was a product of the erosion control plan which has been modified. The Plan Documents have been clarified to represent a continuous swale from north to south. 207. In the drainage report it is stated that, lithe Owner proposes to observe and monitor actual field conditions during construction to validate the design assumptions in support of the performance of the integrated system. Two items of discussion that the City of Carmel;would like to answered are as follows: Will the City of receive reports during the monitoring period? Yes. What steps will be taken if the report indicates that the drainage system is not functioning as expected? If the drainage system does not perform as expected, overflows will be mitigated in master drainage design of the future phases. 22 Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R J e` t ‘?P Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:21 PM To: 'MCasey Land' Cc: Nick Churchill; Jean Wodarek; Steve Pittman; Barnes, David R; Conn, Angelina V; McBride, Mike T; Redden, Nick; Thomas, John G Subject: RE: Request for a meeting Inglenook Casey, Unfortunately, I have developed a long list of comments. Some of them are for plan content and City Standards. Some are related to required and/or additional improvements and will need to be discussed. Letter dated March 30, 2010 from Nick Redden Comment 24. It appears that this is necessary for the water main connection. Comment 36 (c) and (d). These comments are recommendations only. The roadway presented in the construction drawings is consistent with previous discussions. Comment 44(b). The Department rescinds this comment. Based on additional review, please find the following comments: General 1. Please indicate "Approval Pending /Not for Construction" on each sheet 2. All backfill notes for utility trenches shall include the following: "shall be per City standard when within the right of- way This is applicable to Note 8 on Sheet C2.0; Note 5 on Sheets C3.0 and C3.1; Note 6 on Sheet C5.0; Note for hatching in the legend on Sheets C5.0, C5.1 and C5.2; all notes in profile on Sheets C5.1 and C5.2; and the note in the check dam detail on Sheets C5.1 and C5.2. 3. Please confirm if there are any Tree Preservation Easements and Landscaping Easements. These easements cannot be overlapped by drainage and utility (or other) easements. 4. A maintenance of traffic plan shall be developed for the work in the 99 Street right -of -way. 5. Please indicate the limits of what will be constructed with this phase on all sheets. O Maple Drive appears to satisfy the requirements of a Residential Street -Lane per the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan). While on- street parking is not permitted for this type of roadway, the plan includes construction of on- street parking spaces outside of the proposed travel lanes. Construction of these spaces is not opposed by the Department of Engineering. No Parking signage will likely be required to be installed for the side of the roadway opposite of the on- street parking spaces. Such a restriction requires formal action by the City prior to installing such signage. 7. A residential lane requires a tree plot of 5 -feet; a 4.5 -foot tree plot is indicated. Cover sheet. 8. Please indicate the design speed of the roadway 9. Please provide a legal description of the parent tract and of this section. Sheet C2.0 10. How is access to the property to the east being maintained if the portion of the driveway that encroaches onto the property is being removed? 11. The curbing at the entrance from 99 Street shall be chair back curb within the proposed right -of -way of 99 Street. 1 12. Please indicate the location of the "End Roadway" barricades /assemblies. 13. Please revise the right -of -way pavement text in the legend to read "Pavement within 99 Street Right -of- Way 14. Please add the following note: "All paving within the existing and proposed city Right -Of -Way shall conform to the requirements of the Department of Engineering. The Contractor shall contact the Department of Engineering to schedule a pre construction meeting to review the Department's construction requirements, staff notification requirements, required inspections for certain stages of the work and to review the authority of the Department as it relates to work within the existing and proposed Right -Of- Way." 15. Please revise the auxiliary lanes to be a 100 -foot recovery taper, a 100 -foot deceleration lane and the balance in the deceleration taper. 16. Please indicate the path /sidewalk required by the Alternative Transportation Plan across the frontage. City Standard ADA ramps will be required where this facility crosses Maple Drive. 17. The return radii of the intersections appear to meet the City standards for the road classifications. Please confirm with the Carmel Fire Department that the turning radii at the alley intersections with Maple Drive are adequate for their apparatus. Are the radii adequate for moving vans /trucks? What vehicles are expected to regularly access the alleys? 18. Aramore was required to widen 99 Street across the frontage so that there would be 24 -feet of travel lanes. Auxiliary lanes would be measured outside of these travel lanes. Aramore was also required to mill and resurface 99 Street across the frontage of the project. I do not know if 99 Street was recently resurfaced by the City. 19. Please add a note that indicates that the resurfacing of 99 Street cannot take place until all utility installations are complete and the open pavement cuts are restored up to the final surface course in accordance with the City's Street Cut and patch detail. 20. I have no issues with the sidewalk outside of the right -of -way being 42- inches in width. However, please continue to work with David Littlejohn on this issue. 21. I know that we discussed the use of ribbon curbing; but I was not aware that this was proposed at locations where there is no adjacent on- street parking.City standard curbing is required unless the proposed BMP relies on the absence of curbing. Is it possible to locate the rain gardens adjacent to the parking spaces (with the walk then behind the rain gardens) and allow the excess runoff from the parking areas to enter directly into these areas? A ribbon curb could then be utilized adjacent to the pavers. 22. Adjacent to Lot 4, is it not possible to locate the walk within the right -of -way? Easement is needed for where the Maple Drive sidewalk is outside of the right -of -way. Since an easement is required, why not place the entire sidewalk within the right -of -way? 23. Portions of alleys within the Maple Drive right -of -way shall be concrete and shall include a depressed curb in the gutter line of Maple Drive. 24. Is an easement required for the off -site sanitary sewer? 25. There do not appear to be any perimeter easements as required by the subdivision control ordinance. 26. Please indicate ADA ramps where the sidewalk on Maple Drive crosses the "future phase" stub street 27. Please indicate what the double arrow symbols are at the back edge /corners of the on- street parking spaces 28. Please provide a sidewalk connection from the Maple Drive sidewalk to the ATP facility along 99 Street. 29. Does the PUD allow for lots that do not have public road frontage? 30. The overflow route of the drainage system (including the off-site water) must be located within an easement. 31. Is sidewalk planned for the "future phase" stub street? 2 32. A 3 -foot wide, 6 -inch deep #73 gravel shoulder is required adjacent to the auxiliary lanes on 99 Street where there is not curbing. A 6 -inch SSD is required under this shoulder. Please indicate this shoulder and SSD on the site plan, the entrance detail and on Sheet C6.0. 33. Post Construction Storm Water Quality measures are required to be in easements. Sheet C3.0 34. What is planned for the runoff from 99 Street and the upstream watershed until the rain gardens west of Maple Drive is constructed. 35. Please confirm how the fully developed right -of -way of 99 Street is being detained. 36. I assume a continuous swale is needed along both the eastern and western property lines. The swale along the western property line is not continuous. Is the exfiltration swale along the eastern property line for both on -site and off-site runoff? 37. Please confirm that the 100 -year rain even is contained on -site. 38. Are any detention and storm water quality systems located within the proposed right -of -way of Maple Drive? 39. Are there any direct discharge areas? 40. Please indicate building pad elevations and finish floor elevations 41. In furtherance of Comment 44(c) of the letter dated March 30, 2010 from Nick Redden, please confirm that all known existing culverts, pipes and bridges along 99 Street are shown and that the TC's, IE's, pipe sizes and materials and direction of flow are indicated. 42. Please label the 100 -year water surface elevation within each rain garden and exfiltration trench. Will water stage within these areas during the 100 -year rain event? A 50 -foot setback is required between the road right of -way and the 100 -year elevation of detention facilities. A 25 -foot setback from structures to be occupied is also required. 43. What is the maximum water spread within the right -of -way during the 100 -year rain event? 44. Please ensure that each extension of the piping under 99 Street continues past the limits of the proposed right of -way. 45. Please indicate high and low points in the proposed swales and the roadway. Please indicate flow arrows also. 46. Are the alleys to be valley gutters that discharge into Maple Drive? I have concerns with the concentrated flows being introduced into Maple Drive. 47. What is the upstream watershed of the piping under 99 Street? These pipes are being extended; do they need to be increased in size? Are these pipes part of a regulated drain system and need to satisfy County requirements? 48. What is the basis for the MFPG? 49. Minimum lowest adjacent grade (MLAG) shall also be established. Definitions for both MFPG and MLAG need to be added to the sheet. 50. Are any of the existing swales to be extended with future phases? The City has a maximum swale length (3 -lots or 300- feet). 51. What is the flood route? How will water be conveyed to the rain gardens (or to the overflow route) from the roadway during large rain events? What is the flood route if the rain gardens and exfiltration trenches reach capacity? Has the system been designed with a "spillway" in the event that the rain garden and exfiltration trench capacity is impaired or reduced to zero? 52. Were the rain gardens sized based on the inflow rates and exfiltration rates? Were stage /storage curves developed? 53. Please indicate flow arrows for the 99 Street runoff into the property. 3 54. Curb turnouts appear to be necessary for the sag roadway conditions at stations 1 +00, 3 +00 and 6 +00. Sheet C3.1 55. Please provide a cross section for the 99 Street improvements (widening, milling and resurfacing, gravel shoulder with sub surface drain) 56. If Maple Drive is sloped all to one side, is a grade break necessary along the alley return radii? Why not make the entire curb line the high point? 57. Intersection A. Are the northeast and southwest corners of this intersection graded too flat for proper drainage? 58. Intersection C. Is the northwest corner of this intersection too flat for proper drainage? Please indicate additional spot elevations along the curbing opposite of the "future phase" stub street. Sheet C4.0 59. Will the sediment basins become the future rain gardens? Will the use as sediment basins and work to construct the sediment basin impair the future function of the rain garden? 60. Are the exfiltration trenches for on -site (and therefore construction) runoff? If construction runoff will enter these areas, silt fence is needed on each side of the trench. Sheet C5.0 61. Please confirm that all known existing utilities (sanitary, storm, te(ecomm, CATV, gas, electric, water) are shown and all TC's, IE's, pipe size and material and flow direction for gravity systems are shown. 62. Please label the proposed sub surface drains and define these drainage systems more clearly on the plans. 63. Unless the tapping location was specifically requested by the City Water Utility, please locate the water main tapping location to outside of the middle of the intersection of 99` Street and Maple Drive. 64. Storm pipes within the right -of -way must be RCP. Extensions are noted to be CMP. What is the condition of the existing CMP's? 65. Please provide plan and profiles of the piping under Maple Drive and the extensions of the 99 Street piping. Please include the notes from the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual per Comment 40 of the letter from Nick Redden dated March 30, 2010. 66. All utility trenches within the right -of -way and public utility trenches outside of the right -of -way but located within 5 -feet of pavement, sidewalk, or path shall be hatched for granular backfill in accordance with the City Standards. 67. Please indicate granular backfill for the sanitary laterals under Maple Drive at Lots 25 and 27. 68. There shall be no valve boxes, manhole frames or manhole castings (with the exception of curb inlets) within pavement, curbing, sidewalk or path. 69. Are roof drain and sump pump connections planned? 70. Sub surface drain is required under all curbing in the right -of -way. Please indicate on the Utility Plan and on detail 1/C6.0. Sheet C6.0 71. Please add proposed water crossings to this sheet with pipe size and design invert elevation. 72. Minimum centerline grade is 0.5 73. Please provide a typical alley cross section. 74. Is the street cross section typical? Since the slope changes and there are areas with and without on- street parking, I do not expect this to be a typical section. 75. Add pipe material to all proposed utility crossings. 4 76. Detail 1/C6.0: Straight curb is needed on side of roadway opposite the on- street parking areas; on each side where these is no on- street parking and integral curb and walk is needed adjacent to the parking spaces (unless the rain gardens locations are revised). Please add a note that all paving is to be completed in the same season. Please indicate that the sub surface drain shall be double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. 77. Is it possible to slope the roadway the same direction the entire length? I expect that the change is due to the curvature of the roadway; however I do not think that the super elevation transitions lengths are adequate (even for a low design speed). I have not verified this. 78. Please add the City Standard sanitary, storm and water main minimum cover note to this sheet. Sheet C7.0 79. Please add the following details to the sheet: a. City ADA ramp details b: Depressed curb detail c. Street cut /patch detail d. Path pavement section (if the ATP requires path along 99 Street) e. Please add a pavement section detail for the Maple Drive pavement section. 80. Detail 2/C7.0: Please replace with City Standard detail. 81. Detail 5/C7.0: Please add a note that all paving shall be completed in the same season. 82. Detail 6/C7.0: Please label sub surface drain as double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. 83. Detail 7/C7.0: Straight curb is needed (unless adjacent to an integral curb and walk). Please label sub surface drain as double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. 84. Detail 11/C7.0: Post shall be breakaway in the right -of -way. 85. Please delete detail 12/C7.0. Stop signs require an ordinance and are installed by the City. Sheet C7.1 86. Please add the City Standard RCP detail. 87. Detail 3/C7.1 and 6/C7.1: Please label sub surface drain as double wall Hancor Hi -Q or equivalent. 88. Detail 3/C7.1: A previous mark -up deleted the text "consisting of the following: 1/3 sand, 1/3 topsoil, 1/3 compost" Sheet C7.3 89. Please add the City standard minimum cover note to the Sanitary Sewer Bedding and Backfill Detail. Sheet C7.5 90. Please add the City standard minimum cover note to the Trench Detail and Trench Schedule Detail. 91. Please add the City standard backfill note for installation within the right -of -way to the Trench Detail and Trench Schedule Detail. Sheet C9.0 92. Please delete all references to "City of Michigan City" 93. Please add the City's Curbing Policy 94. Please add the City's Paving Policy 95. Street and Paving Section: a. Please delete Article 3, Section H b. Second paragraph of Article 1, Section A: please revise so the specification is applicable solely to streets and parking areas outside of the right -of -way. Please delete "curbs and gutters 5 From: MCasey Land [mailto:mcaseyland yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 8:55 AM To: Redden, Nick Cc: Duncan, Gary R; Nick Churchill; Jean Wodarek; Steve Pittman Subject: Request for a meeting Inglenook Nick, I sent our a complete response to all the comments from TAC. Please see the attachment, the comments associated with Engineering are near the end of the response as those were the last comments that we got. We are not on the same page on a few major issues like R/W and width of street. Gary is aware of this, but has not had an opportunity to review our drawings yet. FYI We had pre- design meetings and meetings when the design was complete with Gary and our drawings match what was discussed in detail. We need the meeting with Gary and you to close the issues. Thanks, Casey M. Casey Land, PE LAND Development Building 564 West 77th Street, South Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 317 -255 -5350 land 317 255 -2997 fax 317 -442 -7773 cell From: "Redden, Nick" <nredden @carmel.in.gov> To: MCasey Land <mcaseyland @yahoo.com> Sent: Fri, April 23, 2010 8:42:14 AM Subject: RE: Request for a meeting Inglenook Good morning, Casey, Please provide written responses to the letter I sent you on April 19, 2010. Also please provide one set of plans in which have been incorporated the requested revisions. 6 community residents would like to meet you personally since you have been quoted so many times by the developers that you were the one that wanted the congestion at the site. We want to review the situation with you before it is too late. The developer is planning on breaking ground on the last plot in a few weeks. Also we have an HOA meeting on May 13 starting at 6:30 PM where you are welcome to appear to hear the many concerns first hand. At that meeting you and your administration can gain a nice block of voters if appropriate action is taken. I know you are probably saying that the people that moved there deserve what they got because drawings were available for review and were approved by the City. However many of the residents are first time home owners and many of them are not engineers or city planners and were counting on the City to protect there interests. Also the Centex sales force was somewhat disconnected from the developers execution and they were even surprised by many of the actions and results. Tom Sharp who is also an owner in the community and an acquaintance of yours is also hopeful along with many community members that you will put some attention to this urgent situation before there is no turning back. Please email me or call me at any time. Bob Potokar Traditions on the Monon Robert Potokar President CEO Steel Parts Manufacturing Inc. 801 Berryman Pike P.O. Box 700 Tipton, IN 46072 -0700 765 675 -2191 Main 765- 675 -5263 Direct 765- 860 -7163 Cell 765- 675 -4232 Fax www.steelparts.com 5 y�c\ Review Comments City of Carmel TAC t 0 Docket No 10030019 SP 'Please submit Exhibit E, Conceptual Plan, from the PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09. Exhibit E has been provided per this request on March 23` Please submit Exhibit H, Architectural Standards Setbacks, from the PUD Ordinance �Z- 527 -09. Exhibit H has been provided per this request on March 23` ,Please submit Exhibit 1, Detached Single Family Dwellings (photo examples), from the PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09. Exhibit I has been provided per this request on March 23 Please add Docket No. 09020015 Z and 10030019 SP to the plat. This will be added to the final plat document. On the plat, please show /label the 3 -ft side yard setbacks and /or the aggregate of 6 -ft, This will be added to the final plat document. On the plat, please show /label the 6 -ft rear yard setbacks. This will be added to the final plat document. Please add the requirements of the PUD to the plat, such as maximum parcel cover, setbacks, etc. This will be added to the final plat document. Please verify that there will be a minimum distance of ft between buildings. The minimum distance required per the PUD is 6 feet. Our goal is to have 10' between buildings. Please extend the sidewalks along Maple Drive to connect up to 99 Street. Sidewalks will be extended to 99 Street on the construction documents. Please show /label a 5 -ft wide enhanced sidewalk along 99 Street, per the Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Pedestrian Plan Map. Please contact David Littlejohn at 571 -2417 for more info. Documents submitted and approved for the PUD did not include this sidewalk element. The properties to the west and to the east are owned by individuals and therefore this sidewalk would never join any other sidewalk in the city. The enhanced sidewalk along 99 street will not be constructed. It is our understanding that if this enhanced sidewalk is a requirement then it can be eliminated by providing the city with a check in an amount associated with the cost for us to construct the sidewalk 't i f' (eveta oo "C"c v-e 4 Please label the half road right of way of 99 Street, per the Comprehensive Plan Thoroughfare Plan Map. A 66 -wide Road R/W is required (33 -ft half r /w.) This will be added to the final plat document. l Please verify the required width of Maple Dr. with the Carmel Engineering Dept, e since the Thoroughfare Plan Map requires a 66 -ft wide road B/W. The width of 0 Maple Drive was established in the PUD. All criteria was reviewed with Engineering prior to design started. t 1 1 Review Comments City of Cannel `SAC Docket No. 10030019 SP Please add the zoning of the property to the plat: PUD /Planned Unit Development. (Aramore'PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09). This will be added to the final plat document. If possible, please add a 5 -ft non access easement along the north side of Common Area 1 and Block 1. This will be added to the final plat document. ,R�lease provide a copy of the proposed Covenants Restrictions. These documents were provided on March 23 Please provide copies of your correspondence with TAC members, and their correspondence with you. We will provide a copy of all correspondence. Please revise the Location Map on Sheet 1 to show /label 99 Street, Westfield Blvd, and Haverstick Rd. clearly. This will be included on the construction documents. Per Section 10 of the PUD, sign permits will be required for the Subdivision Entrance signs. Please contact Rachel Boone at 571 -2417 for more info. This information has been obtained from Rachel Boone. On Sheet 2, please add the instrument number for the covenants and restrictions. This information will be included on the final plat document. Per Section 8.4 of the PUD, please provide a copy of your Tree Preservation Plan to the Forestry Dept. and the Planning Dept. Per the PUD there are no tree preservation requirements. We plan on protecting as many existing trees along 99 Street as possible. The construction documents indicate a "tree protection" fence and the limits of the tree conservation. The only issue that may jeopardize any of these trees is the city's requirement for a 5' sidewalk along 99 Street. Please provide an electronic copy (such as pdf or jpg files) of the plat, construction plans, and landscape plan. These documents have been provided. Please submit a revised Secondary Plat after making above mentioned changes. Once these changes have been made and comments addressed, please produce a Mylar copy (with the surveyor's and land owner's signatures) for signature by this Department. Two paper copies of the plat must be filed with the Mylar prior to recording, and two paper copies and a Mylar of the recorded plat must be submitted following recording of the document. Our approval of the secondary plat (signature) will be forthcoming upon revision of the plans according to the items listed above. A revised secondary plat will be provided after all required changes have been incorporated. The staff has been advised that we cannot present a Secondary Plat to the Director for signature from this point forward until Ms. Terry Krueskamp (tkrueskamp @carmel.in.qov) in Information Systems has received an e -mail with an electronic file attached (MicroStation .dgn is preferred, or AutoCad .dwg of the subdivision), and it (the e -mail) has been copied to myself and Alexia Donahue -Wald (awold @carmel.in.gov). An electronic file will be provided with all the required changes after all comments have been received. 2 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No. /00300/9 SP The Dept would also like a .pdf or .jpg file of the scanned, recorded at, as we move toward a paperless office. All documents will be provided i .-e e at per this request. The City of Carmel's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires an Enhanced sidewalk along 99 Street. Please revise your plans to include this sidewalk. Documents submitted and approved for the PUD did not include this sidewalk element. The properties to the west and to the east are owned by individuals and therefore this sidewalk would never join any other sidewalk in the city. The enhanced sidewalk along 99 street will not be constructed. It is our understanding that if this enhanced sidewalk is a requirement then it can be eliminated by providing the city with a check in an amount associated with the cost for us to construct the sidewalk Please ensure that all sidewalks are located within the right -of -way or in a platted pedestrian access easement. This information will be included on the final plat document. Please connect the interior sidewalks to the exterior enhanced sidewalk on both sides of both entry streets. Please revise the plans to reflect these changes. he enhanced sidewalk along 99 street will not be constructed. See our response to comment 25. Please indicate the minimum width fo the interior sidewalks as five 5 feet. Please refer to the City of Carmel sidewa s an. ar• s or more detail and revise the plans to reflect these changes. This is a pedestrian friendly community. There are "major" and "minor" sidewalks. All sidewalks that are adjacent to streets and within R/W are 5 feet wide. Sidewalks that are in front of cottages are 42" wide. This encourages bikes and rollerblades to be used on the "major" sidewalks throughout the neighborhood. It is important to encourage "wheeled" pedestrian traffic to use the "major" sidewalks and not the minor sidewalks. At a maximum the sidewalks in front of the cottages need to be 48" wide which is the `old" City of Carmel standard. Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps at all crosswalks. The roadway design includes flush curbs. As such, the sidewalk will be flush with the roadway at the crosswalks, and handicap ramps will not be necessary. Dead —End fire apparatus access roads in excess of one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall be designed and constructed so as to allow the turning around of the longest piece of fire apparatus available to the servicing fire department. See the attachment for a CAD drawing of the Ion est iece of fire apparatus available to the Carmel Fire Department. Th private driveways do exceed 150 feet in length, and the temporary terminus at the sou end of Maple Drive is not currently planned as a cul -de -sac. Per the attachment provided, we would have to provide a cul -de -sac at the end of each with a 41' radius. 3 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No 10030019 SP Parking shall be prohibited at all times on private drives providing access to each structure. Parking will only be allowed in designate parking spaces. All fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the impact Toads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced to provide all weather driving capabilities. Maple Drive has been designed to the City of Carmel standard pavement cross section. An approved water supply for fire protection shall be made available as soon as combustible material arrives on the project site. This request will be coordinated with Fire Department. Please provide sanitary sewer flows /calculations upon next review. Calculations shall be provided with the final construction documents. This project will need to be submitted to IDEM for permitting. Please provide CTRWD a copy of all IDEM Submittals for our records. Conversations have been had with IDEM and the request for permit is in progress. Manhole Prefixes shall be called out at MH #1, MH# 1NG2, etc. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. Please insert Summary of Lateral Installation Requirements on Sheet C7.4 www.ctrwd.orci. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. The Department of Engineering recommends the back of curb to back of curb pavement width for Maple Street be 30 feet. Pre design meetings were held with the Department of Engineering. Road widths were discussed in detail. We are 20' plus designated parallel parking areas. The reason for the 20' width and designated parking is to slow traffic down between 99th and 96th Street and make the development pedestrian friendly. We need to make sure that auto traffic is slowed as much as possible. The Department of Engineering recommends the right -of -way width for Maple Street to be 50 Feet. Pre design meetings were held with the Department of Engineering. Right -of -way widths were discussed in detail. If we have to go to 50' we loose one house for sure Please add the note stating "NO EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITY Y COMMENCE WITHOUT AN APPROVED STORM WATER MANANAGEMETN PERMIT" to construction set. This note is already in the note section on each sheet of the drawings Provide all current easements for entire tract to pertinent sheets with correct calls for each. We will indicate all easements on the subject property on the final construction documents. Please provide the requisite storm water /drainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. Because this project is a "low Impact Storm Water" design a specific Storm Water Design 4 Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No. 10030019 SP Report has been provided. Plan information will be included in the revised construction documents. Please all note as required in Storm Water Technical Manual Section 102 "Permit Requirement and Procedures, Article 102.02 vii pertaining to construction of storm sewer systems to all storm sewer plan and profile sheets. The storm water system on this project is designed as a low impact system. This system falls outside the current design criteria. This comment needs to be addressed after Crossroads completes it's review of the design documents. All swales on site must have sub surface pipe installed. The storm water system on this project is designed as a low impact system. This system falls outside the current design criteria. This comment needs to be addressed after Crossroads completes its review of the design documents. Please omit the two sheets with the title Landscape Development Plan from construction sets to be submitted for review by the Department of Engineering. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. Sheet C3.1 Entrances and Intersection Plans please indicate the existing edge of pavement. Existing edge of pavement is called out with sawcut note and spot elevations on the entrance plan detail Sheet C3.1 Entrances and Intersection Plans please provide dimensions for the acceleration and deceleration lanes. The dimensions for the acceleration and deceleration lanes can be found on the 02.0 Drawing. They will be added to the 03.1 drawing in the final construction documents. Sheet C3.1 Entrances and Intersection Plans please provide details for the drainage structures beneath 99 street and Maple Street including length, diameter, and type of material. Detailed information for the drainage structures can be found on the C5.0 Site Utility Plan Sheet C3.1 Entrances and Intersection Plans please provide a detail for the transition from roll curb to ribbon curb. Please see Detail 13 on Sheet C7.0 On Sheet C5.0, the water line has been shown located on the west side of Maple Street between the back of curb and the right -of -way. On the Maple Drive cross section on Sheet C6.0, please show the location of the water line on the west side of the street as the sanitary line has been shown on the east side of the street. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. The City requires subsurface drain between both edges of the street pavement in the vicinity of the curbs. The storm water system on this project is designed as a low impact system. This system falls outside the current design criteria. This comment needs to be addressed after Crossroads completes its review of the 5 V Review Comments City of Carmel TAC Docket No. 10030019 SP design documents. The street section is not a typical crowned section. It is super elevated as part of the drainage design In the Maple Street cross section, please revise the 7" compacted aggregate #53 base to 7" compacted #53 stone. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. In the Maple Street cross section, please add the aggregate sizes to each of the HMA courses shown. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. On Sheet C7.0 Details, please replace Concrete Roll Curb and Gutter detail with City's standard. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section Within Public Right -of -Way detail, please change title to Asphalt Pavement within East 99 Street Right -of -Way. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section within Public Right -of -Way detail, please add the aggregate sizes to each of the HMA courses shown. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section within Public Right -of -Way detail, please revise the 7" compacted aggregate #53 base to 7" compacted #53 stone. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section within Public Right -of -Way detail, beneth the 7" compacted #53 stone, add 4" of 2 stone. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. On Sheet C7.0 Details, Asphalt Section within Public Right -of -Way detail, please revise "conpacted" to "compacted This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. On Sheet C7.0 Details, in the curb joint detail, please reduce the spacing between transverse expansion joints from 100' to 50' and reduce the spacing between transverse control joints from 25' to 10' on tangent sections and 5' on radius sections. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. On Sheet C7.0 Details, in the curb joint detail, in the traffic signage detail, please remove the concrete footing. This request will be incorporated into the final construction documents. 6 Conn, Angelina V From: MCasey Land [mcaseyland ©yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:10 AM To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Jean Wodarek; Steve Pittman; Nick Churchill; Conn, Angelina V; Doug Chisholm Sr; Redden, Nick Subject: Review Comments Inglenook Development Docket No. 10030019 SP Attachments: TAC REVIEW COMMENTS RESPONSE.doc Gary, We went through a TAC meeting yesterday. We appreciate everyone's efforts and comments. Now we need to have a meeting and close any and all issues that stand in our way of breaking ground by mid -May. We have attached a combined list of the City's comments and our responses. Our response is in RED. We have bolded the ones that we thi nk need to be discussed in detail. Also, we need to obtain Crossroad's comments concerning Storm Water Design. It is our understanding from Jean that they are still reviewing the documents. FYI We are in the process of submitting documents to IDEM and getting that part out way. Our goal is to break ground mid -May and that is going to take some effort on everyone's part. Your assistance is deeply appreciated. When you get an opportunity to look at a calendar, please let us know when you might be able to meet Have a great day! Thanks, Casey M. Casey Land, PE LAND Development Building 564 West 77th Street, South Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 317- 255 -5350 land 317 255 -2997 fax 317 -442 -7773 cell 1 CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA COMMENTS Ryan Hartman Clay Township Regional Waste District Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Place: Planning /Zoning Dept. Conference Room, 3rd Floor, 1 Civic Square, Carmel City Hall Time: 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. Docket No. 10030018 SP: Legacy PUD The Livingstone Cottages, Blk 1. The applicant seeks secondary plat approval for 1 block on 1.10 acres. The site is located at the northwest corner of Community Dr. and. Cherry Creek Blvd. It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Brandon Adomatis of Adult Family Living, Inc. This project falls outside of the CTRWD service area 9:15 a.m. Docket No. 10030019 SP: Inglenook, Sec 1A (Aramore PUD). The applicant seeks secondary plat approval for 12 lots on 5 acres. The site is located east of 2205 E. 99 St. It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Casey Land of Land Development Building. Comments on the Secondary Plat were sent via email on 4/8/2010 Comments on plans were sent via email and mail on 4/12/2010 Please contact me at ryan.hartman @ctrwd.org or via phone at 844 -9200 to discuss any concerns. Page 1 of 1 Filename: TAC2010 -0421 Response M Casy Land LAND Development Building 564 West 77th St. South Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 RE: April 21, 2010 Carmel TAC Inglenook Development Carmel, IN 46032 TAC Plan Review Comments The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plans for the above listed project and is forwarding the following comments for your review. 1. Dead —End fire apparatus access roads in excess of one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall be designed and constructed so as to allow the turning around of the longest piece of fire apparatus available to the servicing fire department. See the attachment for a CAD drawing of the longest piece of fire apparatus available to the Carmel Fire Department. 2. Parking shall be prohibited at all times on private drives providing access to each structure. 3. All fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the impact Toads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced to provide all weather driving capabilities. 4. An approved water supply for fire protection shall be made available as soon as combustible material arrives on the project site. Please respond to the above noted condition(s) in writing and forward this to my attention. If you have any questions I can be contacted directly at 317 -571 -2621. Date: 04/20/2010 By: Chris Ellison, Deputy Fire Marshal Carmel Fire Department 1 'ti_`� \ti wry jr= .4. s‘ p oammem O 1 I iii' 1 r.� O�W a 8 22 S r= 111111•911111110111M N XI x x (S- x x i i C I x' r, Z xi x x r. rt t F 7: x i x -C. 1 x r i x x x x x ,x x x x xL x .vf x •T x x x 1 I° it d i 1 I €7f O-+ro Z u L i r�6 p S C n 0 z sm r i_ al i y T r r' 5 m< �r. y m p 00 WI [NOCr VANUAU:Y .d.`. Conn, Angelina V From: Ellison, Christopher M Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:34 AM To: mcaseyland@?yahoo.com Cc: Ellison, Christopher M; Conn, Angelina V Subject: Inglenook Development Com mnets Attachments: Turning Radius L- 41.jpg; inglenook development TAC.doc Mr.. Land, See the attached comment letter for the Inglenook Development that is scheduled to be reviewed at the April 20, 2010 Carmel TAC meeting. Additionally,per our conversation I have attached a CAD drawing for our largest fire apparatus. Should you have any questions please let me know. Respectfully, Lt. Chris Ellison Deputy Fire Marshal Carmel Fire Dept. 317 571 -2621 1 S rt 1 P P l'�IRO April 19, 2010 1 t f k E P EL Mr. M. Casey Land, P.E. JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Land Development Building, LLC 564 West 77`' Street, South Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 Secondary Plat Project Review #1 Dear Mr. Land: The City received your construction plans on March 29, 2010. The project is scheduled for review at the April 21, 2010 Technical Advisory Committee meeting. We offer the following comments: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. These comments represent the Depai tonent of Engineering's first review of the preliminary development plans for this project. 2. We request that all responses to our coininents be provided in writing and be accompanied by a drawing reflecting the requested revisions. Failure to provide written responses may result in the delay of the review process. 3, It is critical that this office be made aware of all modifications made on the plans being re- submitted, particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews,. Please provide revised plans including all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, BZA or other committee meetings. 4. We have engaged Crossroad Engineers, PC to review all drainage plans and drainage calculations submitted to this office for review. If you have not already done so, please provide a set of drainage plans and calculations to their office for review. We will share Crossroad's comments as they are received. 5. Final drawings will not be approved for construction until: a. All Engineering Department and Utility Department and Hamilton County Surveyor issues have been resolved. b. All bonds and- performance guarantees are posted. c. All Board of Public Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals (if required) are obtained. d. All off -site easements necessary to install utilities to serve the development are secured. e. SWPPP is approved. f. All fees are paid. 6. The Department reserves the right to provide additional comments based upon subsequent reviews. 7. An approved Storm Water Management Permit is required prior to commencing any earth disturbing activity. Please contact Mr. John Thomas regarding storm water quality requirements. 8. An approved right -of -way permit is required prior to commencing any work in the public right -of -way. 9. If it will be necessary to relocate existing utilities, the costs for such relocation shall be borne solely by the developer. Any utility poles requiring relocation shall be relocated to within one -foot of the outside edge of the proposed right -of -way. 10. The Department requires that the construction drawings be developed in accordance with the City of Carmel digital submission standards and that all required submittals for primary plat, DEI RTMFNT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317,571.2441 FAX 317.571.2439 EitiAII. engineeringacarrnel.in.gt' ti Mr. M. Casey Land, P.E. April 19, 2014 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 Secondary Plat- Project Review 1 Page 2 of 5 secondary plat, and construction drawings be made, The digital files must be submitted to the Department of Engineering prior to the approval of the construction plans. Please contact the City GIS Department for the requirements. 11. Jurisdictions: a. The project site is located within current City of Cannel Corporate Limits. b. Perimeter Street and Right -of -Way City of Cannel (East 99 Street) c. Water City of Cannel Utilities d. Sanitary Sewers e. Storm Sewers /Drainage City of Carmel. f. Legal Drains Hamilton County Surveyor's Office 12. Drawings submitted for approval: a. The design engineer must certify all drawings submitted for final approval. b. This office will require 9 sets of drawings for approval after all issues have been resolved. The drawings will be stamped as approved and signed by the City Engineer and by Carmel Utilities. The Owner will receive 3 sets, one of which must be maintained on the construction site at all times. if this project is subject to review and approval by the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office, a total of 11 sets will be required for final approval. 13. Carmel Utilities will provide separate reviews of this project for water issues. Please assure that copies of all drawings are sent to: Paul Pace Paul Arnone Carmel Utilities Distribution Carmel Utilities Collection 3450 West 131" Street 901 North Range Line Road Westfield, IN 46074 Carmel, IN 46032 14. Carmel Utilities subscribes to "Holey Moley" who should be contacted directly for all water main locations. 15. The following items will be sent electronically upon request regarding this con-espondence and project: a. Project Approval Checklist b. Performance /Maintenance Guarantees c. Utility Jurisdictions /Right of Way Permits d. Availability (acreage) Fees BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY 16. A schedule for Board of Public Works and Safety meeting dates and agenda deadlines will be sent electronically for your use upon request. Please use the Engineering Department deadlines for submissions to the Board. 17. Any submission to the Board requires prior approval by the Carmel Clay Plan Commission and /or the Board of Zoning Appeals (if applicable) and completion of review by the Technical Advisory Committee. All written requests to be placed on the Board's agenda must include the appropriate Docket Number and the date (or dates) of approval by the Plan Commission and/or the Board of Zoning Appeals (if applicable). 18. Water Availability and Sanitary Sewer approval from the Board will be required. This is an EDU approval based upon the proposed use of the site. Reference Items #33 to #35 below for additional details /explanations. Please note that if an entryway or other irrigation system is planned for this development, additional Water Availability Approval from the Board will be required and additional Water Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the size and usage of the system as determined by the Director of Carmel Utilities. 19. Commercial Curb Cut Approval. Please provide 8'/ x 11 exhibits with the request for approval. Provide all pertinent information including lane widths, overall width, radii, lane markings, location of opposing drives or streets, relationship to the location of previous curb cut, etc. Mr. M. Casey Land, P.E. April 19, 2010 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 Secondary Plat Project Review #1 Page3 of 5 20, Temporary Construction Entrance Approval. It appears the planned construction entrance is located at the site of a permanent curb cut planned on East 99 Street. Therefore, a separate approval from the, Board will not be required. 21. The installation of any permanent, privately owned andtor maintained improvement (signs, decorative street signs, walls, streetlights, etc.) within dedicated right of way or dedicated easements requires the execution of a Consent to Encroach Agreement between the Owner and the City of Carmel. Such agreements are executed by the Board of Public Works and Safety. The City Engineer may approve irrigation system agreements. 22. Secondary Plat approval if applicable. All performance guarantees must be posted prior to submission of secondary plats for Board of Public Works and Safety approval. 23 Dedication of right -of -way if not platted. This is based upon the City of Carmel 20 -Year Thoroughfare Plan requirements. Dedication documents are available upon request. Please be advised that all Right of Way Dedications must be accompanied by a Sales Disclosure Agreement completed by the owner for the property being dedicated to the City. The dedication document cannot be recorded without a completed Sales Disclosure. The form is available upon request. 24. Any open pavement cuts of East 99 Street, other than those required for the curb and median cuts, will require Board approval. BONDING REQUIREMENTS 25. Please contact Mr. Dave Barnes to review performance guarantee requirements. Please contact Mr. John Duffy to review water and sanitary sewer bonding requirements. 26. The amount of the Performance Guarantee is based upon a certified Engineer's Estimate for 100% of the cost of labor and materials to construct the individual improvements, to be provided by the design engineer. Please provide detailed Engineer's Estimates for each improvement including, quantities, unit costs, pipe sizes, and materials, etc. 27. Upon completion and release of individual Performance Guarantees, a three -year Maintenance Guarantee will be required (see Street Sign comments above). The Maintenance Guarantee amount is based upon 15% of the Performance amount for Streets and Curbs and 10 of the Performance amount for all other improvements. 28. Performance Guarantees may be Performance or Subdivision Bonds or I ►revocable Letters of Credit. 29. Please reference the available enclosures for more detailed explanation of our procedures. RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AND BONDING 30. Any work in the dedicated right -of -way will require an approved Right -of -Way Permit and a License Permit Bond. 31. The bond amount is determined by our Right -of -Way Manager. However, if the work is included in the scope of work of a required and posted Performance Guarantee, the Performance Guarantee may be used to satisfy the bond requirements of the Right -of -Way Permit. 32. Please contact our Right -of -Way Manager, Fred Glaser, to arrange right of way permitting and bonding. AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION FEES 33. We defer to Carmel Utilities regarding this issue. 34. If an entryway or overall site irrigation system is planned for this development, additional Water Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the size and usage of the system and upon the recommendations of the Director of Carmel Utilities. 35. These fees are required to be paid prior to final approval of construction plans by Engineering and prior to issuance of building permits by Building Codes Services. Please confirm these fees and calculations with Carmel Utilities. Mr. M. Casey Land, P.E. April 19, 2010 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 Secondary Plat- Project Review #1 Page 4of5 CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW COMMENTS 36. General Comments a. This project is subject to the City's Storm Water Management and Storm Water Quality Ordinances. b. Please add the following note to the drawings: IF IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES, THE EXPENSE OF SUCH RELOCATION. SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER. ALL UTILITY POLES SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT -OF- WAY." c. The Department of Engineering recommends the back of curb to back of curb pavement width for Maple Street to be 30 feet. d. The Department of Engineering recommends the right -of -way width for Maple Street to be 50 feet. 37. Please add note stating "NO EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITY MAY COMMENCE WITHOUT AN APPROVED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT" to construction set. 38. Provide all current easements for entire tract to pertinent sheets with correct calls for each 39. Please provide the requisite storm water /drainage information required by Section 100 of the Storm Water Technical Standards Manual on the plan sheets. 40. Please add note as required m Storm Vater Technical Standards Manual Section 102 "Permit Requirement and Procedures," Article 102.02 vii pertaining to construction and approval of storrn sewer systems to all storm sewer plan and profile sheets. 41. All swales on site must have sub- surface pipe installed. Pipe to conform to requirements of Storm Water Technical Standards Manual and shall be double wall, HI -Q pipe. 42. Please omit the two sheets with the title Landscape. Development Plan from construction sets to be submitted for review by this department. The Department of Engineering does not have approval authority over landscape plans. 43. Sheet C1.0 Title Sheet. a. Please remove the titles for the Landscape Plan from the Construction Plan Index on the Title Sheet. 44. Sheet C3.1 Entrance and Intersection Plans. a. Please indicate the existing edge of pavement. b. Please provide dimensions for the acceleration and deceleration lanes.. c. Please provide details for the drainage structures beneath 99 Street and Maple Street including Length, diameter, and type of material (reinforced concrete pipe). d. Please provide a detail for the transition from roll curb to ribbon curb. 45. Sheet C6.0 Street Plan and Profile. a. On Sheet C5.0, the water line has been shown located on the west side of Maple Street between the back of curb and the right -of -way. On the Maple Drive cross section on Sheet C6.0, please show the location of the water line on the west side of the street as the sanitary line has been shown on the east side of the street. b. The City requires subsurface drain beneath both edges of the street pavement in the vicinity of the curbs. Please refer to the standard on the City's website. c. In the Maple Street cross section, please revise the 7" compacted aggregate #53 base to 7" compacted #53 stone. d. hi the Maple Street cross section, please add the aggregate sizes to each of the HMA courses shown. 46. Sheet C7.0 Site Details. a. Please replace Concrete Roll Curb Gutter detail with City standard, which is available on the City website. b. Asphalt Pavement Section Within Public Right -of -Way detail. Please change title to Asphalt Pavement Within East 99t Street Right -of -Way. Please add the aggregate sizes to each of the HMA courses shown. Mr. M. Casey Land, P.E. April 19, 2010 RE: Inglenook Subdivision Section 1 Secondary Plat- Project Review 41 Page 5 of 5 Please revise the 7" compacted aggregate #53 base to 7" compacted 453 stone. Beneath the 7" compacted #5 tstone, add 4" of #2 stone. Please revise "conpacted" to "compacted." c. In the Curb Joint Detail, please reduce the spacing between transverse expansion joints from 100 feet to 50 feet and reduce the spacing between transverse control joints from 25 feet to 10 feet on tangent sections and 5 feet on radius sections. d. In the traffic signage detail, please remove the concrete footing. The Department of Engineering does not support setting sign posts in concrete. If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2441. Sincerely, Nicholas J. Redden, P;E. Plan Review Coordinator Department of Engineering cc: Angelina Conn, Department of Community Services John Duffy, Carmel Utilities Paul Pace, Carmel Utilities Paul Arnone, Carmel Utilities Greg Hayes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Greg tlko, Crossroad 'Engineers, PC issvrapps\ user data \z: \shared\DF ILL\ PROJ REVIO\ ING LENQOKSIIBDIVJSIONSECTION '1REV #I .riot 4 3 o C ityofCarme l April 16, 2010 Mr. Casey Land Land Development Building, LLC 6569 Carrollton Ave Indianapolis, IN 46220 RE: Aramore Inglenook Development Sec IA Dear Mr. Land: The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of alternative transportation. 1 have reviewed the drawings submitted for the April 21, 2010 Technical Advisory Committee meeting and offer the following comments: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW COMMENTS 1) The City of Carmel's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires an Enhanced sidewalk along 99` St. Please revise your plans to include this sidewalk. 2) Please ensure that all sidewalks are located within the right -of -way or in a platted pedestrian access easement. 3) Please connect the interior sidewalks to the exterior enhanced sidewalk on both sides of both entry streets. Please revise the plans to reflect these changes. 4) Please indicate the minimum width for the interior sidewalks as five (5) feet. Please refer to the City of Carmel sidewalk standards for more detail and revise the plans to reflect this change. 5) Please indicate ADA compliant handicap ramps at all crosswalks. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written responses may result in delay of the review process. It is critical that this office be made aware of all modification made on the plans being re- submitted, particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please provide revised plans indicating all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, Special Studies or other committee meetings. The Department of Community Services reserves the right to provide additional comments based on subsequent reviews. If you have questions, please contact me at 571 -2417. Sincerely, David Littlejohn Alternative Transportation Coordinator Department of Community Services cc: Angie Conn, Department of Community Services Engineering Department Review Project File Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Conn, Angelina V From: Yackle, Troy [Troy.Yackle @SUG.com] Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 2:51 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: April 21 Technical Advisory Committee meeting agenda Panhandle has no facilities involved in these projects. Thank you Troy A. Yackle Right -of -Way Representative Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line /Trtmkline Gas Company 937 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 Office: (3 733 3 21 3 Fax: (3 733 3 20 4 Cell: (5 37 trov.yacklePsug.com From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:51 AM To: Akers, William P; Blanchard, Jim E; Boone, Rachel M.; Brewer, Scott I; Brooke Gajownik; Carter, Ronald E; Weddington, Trudy A.; Chuck Shupperd; David Lucas; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Duffy, John M; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison, Christopher M; Fogarty, Michael D; Greg Ilko; Hancock, Ramona B; Hohlt, William G; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Holmes, Christine B; Huffman, David; Jason Kirkman; Jason LeMaster; Joel Thurman; Judy Hagan; Keeling, Adrienne M; Knott, Bruce; Krueskamp, Theresa A; Littlejohn, David W; Marilyn Anderson; Mark Zukerman; McBride, Mike T; Pace, Paul V; Randy Marra; Redden, Nick; Richard Heck; Ron Farrand; Ron Morris; Ryan Hartman; Shirley Hunter; Stewart, Lisa M; Tingley, Connie S; Westermeier, Mark; Worthley, Matthew D; Gary.McNamee @duke energy.com; Yackle, Troy; jlclark @vectren.com; Hayes, Melanie; Barnes, David R; mw9285 @aol.com; Martin, Candy; Thomas, John G; Larry Beard; Duane .whiting @veoliawaterna.com; Greg .Hoyes @hamiltoncounty.in.gov; Robert.Thompson @hamiltoncounty.in.gov; dan.davenport@aes.com; doland.w.wise @usps.gov; mike.whitman @duke energy.com; Maki, Sue; Jeffrey Cohen Cc: Haney, Douglas C; Perkins, Tom D; Mindham, Daren; MCasey Land; Jean Wodarek; badomatis @adultfamilyliving.com; jrinehart@stoeppelwerth.com; Brett Huff Subject: April 21 Technical Advisory Committee meeting agenda Good morning, TAC Members: The Wednesday, April 21 Carmel Technical Advisory Committee meeting agenda is attached in 2 file formats. Please let me know if you have not received plans, or if you have any questions /concerns. Sincerely, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning Zoning Dept 1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317 571 -2417 F: 317 571 -2426 E: aconn@carmel.in.gov W: Website P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 1 Conn, Angelina V From: MCasey Land [mcaseyland @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:58 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Duncan, Gary R; Jean Wodarek; Nick Churchill Subject: Fw: Review comments for Docket No. 10030019 SP: Inglenook, Sec 1A (Aramore PUD). Attachments: Exhibit E Amend Conceptual Plan .pdf; Exhibit H Dwelling Matrix.pdf; Exhibit I Single Family Character Exhibit Aramore Amend.pdf; Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of Inglenook 3.17.10.pdf Angelina, Thanks for your quick review of the documents. Attached are documents requested in items 1, 2, 3 and 15. In regards to Item 12, we had "pre- design' meeting with Gary and discussed the width of the road and the project design is based on that meeting. Will notes from that meeting be good enough or do we need to get a letter from Gary. Thanks, Casey Land From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:25 PM To: Casey @landdevelopbuild.com Cc: jwodarek @williamscreek.net; mcaseyland @yahoo.com Subject: Review comments for Docket No. 10030019 SP: Inglenook, Sec 1A (Aramore PUD). Hi, Casey Below are the review comments for Docket No. 10030019 SP. Please reply to each comment by April 21. Additional comments may be voiced at the April 21 TAC meeting. 2,-Please submit Exhibit H, Architectural Standards Setbacks, from the PIA) Ordinance Z 527 09. 3:- Please submit Exhibit I, Detached Single Family Dwellings (photo examples), from the PUD Ordinance Z 527 09. 4. Please add Docket No.s 09020015 Z and 10030019 SP to the plat. 5. On the plat, please show /label the 3 -ft side yard setbacks and/or the aggregate of 6 -ft. 6. On the plat, please show/label the 6 -ft rear yard setbacks. 7. Please add the requirements of the PUD to the plat, such as maximum parcel cover, setbacks, etc. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:25 PM To: 'casey @landdevelopbuild.com' Cc: 'jwodarek @williamscreek.net'; 'Casey Land (mcaseyland @yahoo.com)' Subject: Review comments for Docket No. 10030019 SP: Inglenook, Sec 1A (Aramore PUD). Hi, Casey Below are the review comments for Docket No. 10030019 SP. Please reply to each comment by April 21. Additional comments may be voiced at the April 21 TAC meeting. 0fr'.. Please submit Exhibit E, Conceptual Plan, from the PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09. oV—'2. Please submit Exhibit H, Architectural Standards Setbacks, from the PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09. 6 -42` .Z..., Please submit Exhibit I, Detached Single Family Dwellings (photo examples), from the PUD Ordinance 2 -527- 09. 4. Please add Docket No.s 09020015 Z and 10030019 SP to the plat. 5. On the plat, please show /label the 3 -ft side yard setbacks and/or the aggregate of 6 -ft. 6. On the plat, please show /label the 6 -ft rear yard setbacks. 7. Please add the requirements of the PUD to the plat, such as maximum parcel cover, setbacks, etc. 8. Please verify that there will be a minimum distance of t between buildings. 9. Please extend the sidewalks along Maple Drive to connect up to 99 Street. 10. Please show /label a 5 -ft wide enhanced sidewalk along 99 Street, per the Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Pedestrian Plan Map. Please contact David Littlejohn at 571 -2417 for more info. 11. Please label the half road right of way of 99 Street, per the Comprehensive Plan Thoroughfare Plan Map. A 66 -wide Road R/W is required (33 -ft half r /w.) 12. Please verify the required width of Maple Dr. with the Cannel Engineering Dept, since the Thoroughfare Plan Map requires a 66 -ft wide road R/W. 13. Please add the zoning of the property to the plat: PUD/Planned Unit Development. Aramore PUD Ordinance Z- 527 -09). 14. If possible, please add a 5 -ft non- access easement along the north side of Common Area 1 and Block 1. Please provide a copy of the proposed Covenants Restrictions. 16. Please provide copies of your correspondence with TAC members, and their correspondence with you. 17. Please revise the Location Map on Sheet 1 to show /label 99 Street, Westfield Blvd, and Haverstick Rd. clearly. oy-X Per Section 10 of the PUD, sign permits will be required for the Subdivision Entrance signs. Please contact Rachel Boone at 571 -2417 for more info. 19. On Sheet 2, please add the instrument number for the covenants and restrictions. Per Section 8.4 of the PUD, please provide a copy of your Tree Preservation Plan to the Forestry Dept. and the Planning Dept. 0. Please provide an electronic copy (such as pdf or jpg files) of the plat, construction plans, and landscape plan. 22. Please submit a revised Secondary Plat after making above mentioned changes. Once these changes have been made and comments addressed, please produce a Mylar copy (with the surveyor's and land owner's signatures) for signature by this Department. Two paper copies of the plat must be filed with the Mylar prior to recording. and two paper copies and. a Mylar of the recorded plat must be submitted following recording of the document. Our approval of the secondary plat (signature) will be forthcoming upon revision of the plans according to the items listed above. 23. The staff has been advised that we cannot present a Secondary Plat to the Director for signature from this point forward until Ms. Terry Krueskanip (tkrueskamp @carmel.in.gov) in Information Systems has received an e- mail with an electronic file attached (MicroStation .dgn is preferred, or AutoCad .dwg of the subdivision), and it (the e -mail) has been copied to myself and Alexia Donahue -Wold (awold @carmel.in.gov). 24. The Dept would also like a .pdf or jpg file of the scanned, recorded plat, as we move toward a paperless office. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning Zoning Dept 1 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317-571-2417 F: 317 571 -2426 E: aconn@ carmel.in.aov Website Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Nick Churchill [Nick @pittmanpartners.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:46 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Steve Pittman Subject: RE: aramore pud inglenook, section 1 a Angie, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It appears the change came about as a result of increasing the tree preservation at the entrance and altering the courtyard width to the south. After reviewing the PUD, the increase of a single lot in that area from 11 to 12 does not constitute a Substantial Alteration as it represents a change of only 9.09% and not 10 while at the same time it does not constitute a Minor Alteration as defined by the ordinance (although I believe the intent of the Minor Alteration language to be in reference to the unit limitations placed on Townhomes and Courthomes in Section 6.5 B). The language in Section 14.1(A) and (C) outlines the procedures for handling a Substantial or Minor Alteration to either the CP or FDP; the procedure is not clear for this particular example. However, the language in 14.1 (B) "The Director shall have the sole and exclusive authority to approve without conditions, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Final Development Plans /Secondary Plats (collectively, the "FDP for Aramore; provided, however, that the Director shall not unreasonably withhold or delay the Director's approval of the FDP that is in substantial conformance with the CP and is in conformance with the Development Requirements of this Ordinance" coupled with the fact that the plan meets all the requirements of the PUD and that the PUD says nothing about the density of Detached Single Family Homes, it would appear to me that the proposed FDP was in substantial conformance with both the required measurements and falls within the realm of the Director's authority. My opinion is slightly biased as I see the builder's need to comply with the process and begin the project as soon as possible in order to take full advantage of this building /selling season. Ultimately I believe that this project represents exactly what was presented and intended by the amendment to the PUD last summer. My belief is that the neighborhood will be extraordinary in its appearance and design; if it is also successful it has the potential to be an example of how infill development should be handled. I would like to provide it every opportunity for that success. Please let me know your thoughts and if you need any additional information from us. Also please visit www.inglenookcarmel.com. Have a great week and I look forward to hearing from you. Nick Nick Churchill, LEEDAP 317.573.6692 direct 317.524.6001 fax 317.777.1811 mobile nickPpittmanpartners.com Mail: PO Box 554, Carmel, IN 46082 -0554 Office: 12400 N. Meridian St., Suite 190 Carmel, IN 46032 www.pittmanpartners.com From: Conn, Angelina V {mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:55 AM To: Nick Churchill Subject: aramore pud inglenook, section la 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:55 AM To: 'Nick Churchill' Subject: aramore pud inglenook, section 1 a Hi Nick just wondering if you can help me interpret the Aramore PUD. It states that Exhibit E serves as the development plan and the primary plat. That primary plat shows 11 lots /homes on the east side of Maple Drive, in that section 1, and what was submitted with the secondary plat on Friday shows 12 lots /homes. Under normal circumstances, we would make you do a primary plat amendment (public hearing), because your client is adding an additional lot to the primary plat.... what is your interpretation? l will also run this by the plan commission attorney to get his interpretation of this. Thanks! a 5 ■on3 cts 2(c Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning Zoning Dept S f \1Oyyt (J S �S Civic Square, 3rd Flr Carmel, IN 46032 ClIr b l l f 0\ e L /1 0: 317- 571 -2417 LC-t_ o k- 7 F: 317-571-2426 E: aconn@carmel.in.gov W: Website Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail 1 L I! DEVELOPMENT &BUILDING TRANSMIVAL LEVER RECEIVED 2 s 2010 11 �=4) DATE: March 24, 2010 o DOC JOB NAME: Inglenook Development .r 9$ E3 V PROJECT Docket No. Assignment: Inglenook, Sec 1A (Docket No. 10030019 SP) TO: We are sending the following via: ❑Mail ❑UPS ❑Courier ❑Overnight ['Other COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION 1 3 -24 -09 CD with Inglenook Civil Plans 1 Copy of TAC Submittal For your review approval ['Approved as submitted For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑As requested ❑Retumed for corrections For your review comment ❑For Bids Due REMARKS: If you require a paper copy please email Andy at Image Solutions and he will get you a copy ASAP. printit@isgindy.com ::0 u have u plea ail me at mcaseyland( vahoo.com and we will get you a response M. Casey Land, PE Land Development Building, LLC. cc: File 7 2 eN t. Exhibit B z, RECEIVED -E, History/Summary of the Project MAR 2 6 2010 DOGS Dear Members of the Technical Advisory Committee, The project described in this filing falls within the area of the Aramore PUD Ordinance that was initially approved by a 7 -0 vote in August of 2006. That ordinance allowed for townhomes and courthomes (two flats stacked upon two flats) to be constructed on the 27.35 acres referred to as Aramore. In the summer of 2009 we requested the ability to amend the ordinance to allow single family homes as part of this development and we were ultimately successful in that request. In response to that amendment the first five acre section of the neighborhood has been planned for cottages and is arranged in a common courtyard development pattern. Primary access to the first section will come from 99 Street and align with the entrance to Walden Pond subdivision to the north. Ultimately this drive will connect to the existing Maple Drive to the south as part of the construction of future sections. We look forward to hearing your comments and working with you on this review. Si Casey Lan. Inglenook Development, LLC Jean Wodarek Williams Creek Consulting Nick Churchill Pittman Partners 1 I ZI?, -,7 7 =1.77 1 0 7 a 0 L IL A IVIIIIA4 0 o -.1.- -.,...il i. a I i.. !DI 1 ii. C2 0 E tt tlY I 4 fo lai 4, U.-1r ifftc 0) RECEIVED 16...II.' 6,,,c --41.101-i-"- fTr Ilk Z' A, -1-.',..f,4 F1-44, t Oel ..1, MA 2 5 .'31C) !NI) -vs -',„,.c$A,.,""Ut....-:71., I,, 1 'os.., .4. irilts"6 4 i 0 $;.A4 go 1.4,A I,,, v, ..-,-41=i4-, (10) 0 cv ri ..,,.i J 1 ,,4-6., :a 41 t. cza-,..,.-tz, 'f.---, .iL'''-' ,7,-,„ft,„ 46. .L F.Z.Pi A.,. -v.., 4 :b• 11= 'ct6:1 al t lit, 4. ,-,_#,,,:.'-'1• WAidimii lil f: 'I t PI f" -4 :k fki .aii" lamil 3 3 0 t. l'i. ,,..;='::4-,-; ..11a1,:-:-. ,11,..r.ust....,;,,t,-,' tf- 4threrc" 1/4 Of p linffill i 4 ;4: i 51 r .‘%1'. I't y,, 9 r,*-N'N'4,', ill av, Q:1); :Y l' c2,::iiih.,,- o -,1' .Y..1.. 'it -..f 4b-7,,,P-t,';',4:;,-,,I: t Ls, .4_,...iy., j''''l `".'4 4 41 1: :0 L' 2 1 ''''''''-'1':"::1: '),:,;:11.:t :I TOia..L4r,404.11 A Allit,o, .7''54k4a.....111,1.14IEf.;,;,''. 14-1 frair..,,„,..,IncrEntahrif 4: 4.44iirls.,..**7°=,,---3,"-E.,,*A.,*:-.. 4) -rfg:;:: 3,.. .7d1/4a1.0"i' ,.-1,,...-- 11... ,ri :-..t,, 1, i -51-itt?---1,1'4it---S I 3 i ei==',3,.,,-' -:-15. A'tql 7 .'11) rlelfft aNtp/.4,-,,,,; ,.z.:17,---_--- i., it'' -0 7 .4., r4 1.: :pm il 1,....- A tf, 1 (4-1'i' Ci,„,,,,,L:F -,N.,-::---,.-agi• 7 1 44.1.. iiitt.5!' c.), ti t qz, litti.,..., -,-.7.7',.. ,i' N 4 04 4 r„. 'lq, 1' :t."', V .".....t......--.,7F ',1'..-.:1-,'1', ,4,....r7.,......r".', ''''11‘ WHI.7?f4$' ,iii .1e.r..-,. 0 0 e, li 0 ,,..,..•4 4-4 1 r‘r-104‘,.....'„1,-.1 i,„,,‘,..„- 0,11,11' P711 "ial'i.t-ii rp---1:-..0 =-kf.1.'.. 0 Ir 7: NI- 7' t'--l'if t't 414,. :ril r il :r=) 3 1;.. itlo !ilit 4;f:%,:la Ll"' 4v- it .'s,— igo40 t ..:'5.§7-i', -'4A1 11-42::,":, ,'ky.,..,71.,r4iim,i,Thixittictg -14-1.,..-&&.„,,,,oillto ordg,nrit;;T 61 :i7,14- i:lii.4.4,tw.okw,ET.0.-24.1,1:r--ip,,or,-,;;, ris.: lc- inkrow -powty,...--.,,..,„-ic.r7. ,,.,:-.1 3 v 4.....! ...:4,.. ',:i 1 0-r c .e-IL-,,, k .t-wf;-,Ar 't 4. V tfi 41 '0 1 .galli l 1 7 1 4. ,1 i t Nttr:! 1 ''./0 IW r• l t 1 ;,(1 E-i 4 4 /4, I 4c,-..,...„,-...±....4...,„,,,,, 4.` ;.f 4 ,1:— -r-;>-■::"' VIS,I., ...P,i =';14 t ,r_, kolLC c*::"' r e L 44,51)\-J"'1;'':'t-71 77 -.:'i 11101W ..1i, ,,^-1,17.-,' 6 1'14 4 'vr, i -43' L-1—, -...1 1 =.2-. ,44 -:'.7"-- kt;t;:.'Z'L iiV, 12!'. ..'7 1— 1', '''',,..1; '''.11•,2's:;••1'7: A 1. 'r' 4 '1. .7414: I 4 En 4.1 '.fr37 t4.47--.? E-1 0 ---11,":.11-!-;--- 1 Z t ,';-..4' 99TH STREET i `6 i� REC www.inglenookcarmel.com EE 2 IVED 2070 se' DOGS The intention of pocket neighborhoods designed by Ross Chapin are to provide a well- defined personal space and foster a strong sense of community. Here are the key elements Ross'Chapin clirs uses to accomplish this goal: Layering from Public to Private It is essential to clearly define personal boundaries. A resident arriving home or a guest coming to visit enters through "implied" gates near the mailbox kiosk or the parking pockets into the semi public Commons. This shared garden is edged with a perennial border and a low split -cedar fence A swinging gate opens to the private yard, and a walk leads to steps, the front porch and front door. The porch railing* is at a height just right for 'perching' and is adomed with flower boxes to further define (and express) a personal boundary. Within the cottages, the layering continues with active spaces in front and private spaces in back and above. *We've often found these elements missing when other developers work with the cottage courtyard pattem. The reason it's so important is that the low hedge, fence and porch railing define personal territory. Without them, the resident can feel exposed and less inclined to venture out. Nested Houses To ensure privacy between cottages, the houses 'nest' together: the 'open' side of one house faces the 'closed' side of the next. You could say the houses are spooning! The open side has large windows facing its side yard (which extends to the face of neighboring house), while the closed side has high windows and skylights. The result is that neighbors do not peer into one another's world. Eyes on the Commons The first line of defense for personal security is a strong network of neighbors who know and care for one another. When the active spaces of the houses look onto the shared common areas, a stranger is noticed. As well, nearby neighbors can see if daily patterns are askew next door or be called upon in an emergency. Corralling the Car Cars dominate our lives to a great degree, so its critical they are kept in check. We've intentionally placed parking [in the rear of] the cottages and screened from the street [and courtyard]. The Commons With all paths leading through and all cottages facing the Commons, this is the locus of community. A pea patch garden is on one end, a calm stretch of lawn is on the other, while a child's swing hangs from the heirloom plum tree at the center. To the side is the Workshop: the place to cane a chair, start spring seedlings, and gather for parties. On the roof is a terrace with a terrific overview. The Tool Shed provides a spot for shared garden tools. Mailbox Cluster Rather than picking up mail from your car, boxes are clustered in a kiosk and the pedestrian entrance, increasing 'chance' meetings among neighbors. Cottage Scale These are 1 -1/2 -story cottages, not 2 -story houses. The difference is not just about style, but impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If twice the density of houses are allowed in a single family zone, they need to be cottage scale. Individuality Each cottage, though similar, is unique. This fosters a personal bond of caring and identity with each householder and their home. We carefully chose exterior colors for each cottage in relation to one another a total of 24 different colors! While this was a bit over the top, we feel it is important to clearly differentiate one cottage from another. Each household creates their own garden landscape and flower box garden. Some are like overgrown English Cottage Gardens, while others are simple and Zen -like. But they all seem to work together. Another way the cottages are each unique is because homeowners name their own cottage. When a house has a name, how can it be a commodity El Porch Rooms. So many porches these days are 'faux porches'; they may look like a porch, but have absolutely no function except to provide "modulation of the facade" and "curb appeal." That's just babble. A porch should be large enough to be a room and placed just off of the active area of the house. It should also be next to the commons, where householders can choose to informally engage with neighbors. The passageway to the front door should pass along the side and not the center of the porch to preserve its function as a room. Living Large in a Small House A small house can feel and function large when there is ample light and adequate storage space. Nine -foot and higher ceilings with large windows and skylights fill the rooms with light, creating a much larger perceived sense of space. There is ample storage with walk -in closets, built -in shelves and an attic. We designed in nooks, built -in eating alcoves, and deep sills. Living, dining, kitchen, bedroom and bath are all on the main level and there is a spacious full- height loft accessed by a ship's ladder. U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt o Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. s Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) trarr OF CD i Ll v■. Se-rs) `C-� g v ;L Sv vler2- 3r4 cr \c. r 4 COST- A rle .e /Ct 4 OIr�Z L P STAL CUSTOMER: a c3 Keep this receipt For Inquiries: o y V e ,A ss intemet web site at N cc o m ti www.usps.com or call 1-800-222-1811 O o CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) a OPriority MaIrService m Irst -Class Mai v OPackage Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reveme) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. 43 Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) arlAt POSt bCF e1. 1e:6k AAA z t e r Z a S t a t e S e P c 5 k z l Q e z75 Med icaf 11 c g a Cti c.-tx 'LA <.c 4°3Z' POST CUSTOMER: Keep this receipt. For Inquiries: Postmark Here Access intemet web site at www.usps.com m orcall 1 -800 -222 -1811 o O CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o Ity Mail'"Service m a rst -Class Mai °parcel II Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. in ru Article Sent To: t: (o be completed by mailer) ra Fire.0 :e n FO e SN- .tic+n m ranr rJ Z u1 WO a 4 t C C rvi Lif a'.:'4'. \lS0to r l l STA OMER: rC Post ►R 2 5 2 t i p thi For Inquiries Here Access eb site at MM .ivBDD -.2 22 1811 c o s S 462` CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o- ❑priority MairService m m first -Class MaiPparcel E3 ❑Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt ru Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. -n Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) It ILID 'M ra Ct OSSZZc a E. lot-i i wee 5 so- w G P T C STOMER: La. 0102 I is rec: ipt. For Inquiries: o ark Access inte web site at re www.usps. ,me R E:r t` 0 r r -222 -1811 rn O 6s17 ,l y 1 NE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o Priority MafrServlce m first -Class Mae parcel Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt o Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. N Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) 4 p� e S m ra vr:, r `SP `L 0c or D PL ed 2 u1 1( g 1 r SAiage'. f CUSTOMER: L id Keep this receipt. For Inquiries; g o r °S e� Access intemet web site at wwi.usps.com® 1 m S� Cr ON ordall 1- 800 -222 -1811 0 p O d NV 1 CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o El Priority MairServIce mrst -Class MaiPparcel ca Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt s Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before ru Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) H 1.22x)^4 0 7 Ge< sw y i 63 ,rv'' r S 25 201I�OS �TOMER: Keep is pt. For Inquiries: E.3 Po Here site at )1r....metweb com cc im S 4 m n r call 1- 800 222 -1811 r pS o CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) Q- Priority Mail'"Service m 1rst- Class Mairparcel 0 ❑Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. a Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) t ka." l e"t" t" o a twker a.pbl:S I "i. I a ‘Shia 2 PO�ST z Ke p' Is f For Inquiries: Postmark Here t,' s intemet web site at m LISPS O orcall 1-800-222-1811 0 rm CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o- ['Priority MaII" Service m ❑First -Class MaiPparcel Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt r` Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees p be Raid bcffoLe co A Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) 6� owK 1 L. c. pie ae z l $too C a Nobles I ,s.- 'oc u. pR 25 2 O T 1MER: r' Keep thi, r Inquiries: stoat e I site at ere .usps.com cc 1:1 M 0Sps L),,b Cali 1- 800 222 -1811 0 o o CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) n Priority Mail"Servlce m t -Gass Malt parcel 0 [II Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Q Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be aid before mailing. o Article Sent To: (to be maile t -MI m o- iptAtce<it a '1 e 4 lo A -z1 i-I S kVZ-. cl 1`�` P tai' 1 STOMER: z o �'•ep this receipt. For Inquiries: .o e �$pg Access internet wwwusps.com ®ebsite at cc or call 1- 800-222 -1811 m m LL, o o CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o Priority Mail'Service 0 m ;irst -Class MaiPparcel 0 Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (Sae Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt s Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. 0^ Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) j(► ckvY►ZvA W co a: ou ryt RE' nj 3° F Avt n 8 a .�A4: ...2 alts Ittt g FR 4 0 441 OSTAL CU r u. Keep this nquiries z in o Pos re Acce ernet web site at o ps.com cc r, I 11- 800 -222 -1811 c o CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) n Priority MairService mrst -Class Mae parcel o ❑Packa Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt m Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. a- Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) Sk 100e 6 'r-C39 E"CCSq E5 veCAr�� Lri oe m. )1/4) J 1‘ ,Q 1, -0----: 0 O g ra MAR MAR POSTOMER: 2 5 2OlB tt1 Keep tbis For inquiries: Postmark Here Acc�ldlfemet web site at C� CD U' s co m NIT, -222 -1811 o 0 o SAS 4C n tC CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) u- ❑Qriority MaiI m Irst-Class MaiPparcel Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt is Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must bmaid before Ic r. gg. ut Articie Sent To: (to be completed by mallet) W �'r. ar I 'U?awer'�, l. $(4 to co in (X30 WeSt MbrctS Cee4-- c R 1-4 0.45,1 ei.A. ovi 6 ,7c--T--...,,, i 4„ 4 a CUSTOMER: z t3 Post Keep this For inquiries: cz ss Internet web site at He R 2 5 2 Ia.; .us 1 m or call 1- 800 -222 -1811 0 0 C (k' CItONE TAL USE ONLY) rr s ps 40- Priority Mali Service m E rst -Class MaiPparcel U Package SeMces parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be aid before mailing. a Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer'- fY\ LN C1..K,4 eZ z w�W. Ce.Kf 1/4 0 e e, a c A ,i D OST t1,STOMER: cc ee this recel t For Inquiries: z c3 a P o �4 R 2 5 201 "ACCe$ et web site 0 o www.usps.com k' m ,9Jaal x „800;222 -1811 CI S 0 p c, 1.F j CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o" ['Priority MalrService m First -Class MaiPparcel Package services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. r Article Sent To: (to be completed b mailer) cC r ��wtel tce, ed z W Z 1 STCrceV" ram- O /S tf a W e$ o A ,c F ;x. y Pr 11 z °a o P Keep'i s receipt. For. Inquiries: ,,,j! `Z 5 2010 Acc et web site at cz sps.com cc m 227141 222 -1811 o O n C i U CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) A c �o a' ❑Priority Mali m lass MaiPparcel 0 Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt 1r. Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. s Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) I0 rg gevv.; VirbK. ccJ,..4 }k iik.t.1 b pt. z 1 O' S 10 S k reC t e ,..71" NJ o\ok es.-9 1 1 .e._ r L loo ,o Luc e5 a POSTAL CUSTOMER: z in e s Keep this receipt. For Inquiries: c v P r' Access Internet web site at °z m C- e� ti" b all1- 800 -222 -1811 0 0 MAR (ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o MAR 2 5 2010 to Ma ci m -Class MaiPparcel in Pa ckage Services parcel PS Form 152, £1,,402 46 2 �J (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. u7 Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) j CD-Me` £V1i; V1 afjc- c p z m e %;1.. S e- 1 F\ 11' 1 a Ca.r►Y rut 4locsz- ((uxi f g a POSTAL CUSTOMER: cc rr. c Keep this receipt. For Inquiries: cz Q o O\P ARB�te Access Internet web site at tS x r www.USpS.COri7 M rrl �Q L7 A call 1- 800 222 -1811 p p ,,w *i n. L' ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o— MA 2 5 2010 d ority MarService m I -Class Mailparcel i g.ri Package Services parcel PS Form 15 i (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt s Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. ArlcIe Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) °;a Cagimak Cl (9►44. !x) 0 rg C 5CIAAt LA 4 (o3Z C rq POSTAL CUSTOMER: Keep this receipt. For Inquiries: 0 0 �p ��tmatk c ess Internet web site at Z ��OR ''1;\ v V usps.com m or call 1- 800 -222 -1811 Pr; 2010 L 4 MAR 2 C K ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o a Pri Mali m y r First- Class MairparceI li sps 461- II Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. f'- Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) .0 m ra 1.3 A"f b ut ill C- VvtAvN■SS 6 X21 Z r 1 rl One. ivkC.SCaure. e o^ 4-1 T.^ 0'37._ —3tt 0,otnl}- e ra Ni ()Li PST L CUSTOMER: rz m is receipt. For Inquiries: 1=1 He Here `..w Access Internet m web site at or 1-800- 222 -1811 m M AR 2 5 201 O ECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o AAEx rity Mar service m C/ P: first -Class Mae parcel Package services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt m Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. rl" Article Sent To: (to be completed by /nailer) ft c�n Cv Vi\orze5 co z 16 o llA c1 k) e- SvJ o a C,.2M vvv .v• 1 603Z 30/A ubA ra POSTAL CUSTOMER: z 2 NAp Keep this receipt. For Inquiries: g o 0P0 R Access intemet web site at ii, www.usps.com N v -zoi call 1- 800 -222 -1811 L. k MA R 2 20 HECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) 1,1 il Priority Mali Service irst -Class MaiPparcel o Gsp� 4 62 ,0 i ..t 1 ['Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. a Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) i Z OF∎Li DP" POI ice C let C+it-C 1: 4 Asia PftntelearM I CariA^ .e\ L 41,031 (%ccear POSTAL CUSTOMER: z 1-1 \P /S weep is ipt. For Inquiries: tz o 41 /Q' 4/ si et web site at ere MAR q m m 8°IF4R 2 2010 or -222 -1811 Lu o a CHECK EI AL USE ONLY) o- ppriorlyaMail"Ser CI m 0 N t- Class MaiPparcel o Sp, MI P ackage Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. N m Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) W Gc ILA 46032 eS(cavt410 g a POSTAL CUSTOMER: cc Keep this receipt. For Inquiries: g P "'k 0 L /S+ ss' met web site at O rA us .com cc m c or c 222 -1811 o CH (POSTAL USE ONLY) o— NI NIA 5 2 C 4 :;a.: A 2 •Prt• Mail Service rst lass MaiPparcei m l� hi Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. 43 Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) a tic I F resk •1 pCD CS c .3- C.2r,.-.c.\ z--' ‘337, Scher r a a POSTAL CUSTOMER: cz Kee his receipt. For inquiries: 0 C:1 p iy z,Yf :Z A Internet web site at ps. ec 800 -222 -1811 m c� cz MAR 5 201 r !j E (POSTAL USE ONLY) v Ill MarServIce m v z` �n -Class Malr parcel L S'AS Ae Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. r1 Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) W a Ir Ezse%0 .S s Gord;...ak,,,.. z vt e- C.i.) Squares 3` a Pr- 0 ac (AA C ^S� 4603 Li N -le oIA cc o APOL POSTAL CUSTOMER: c3 ,�4, J st i 2 5, eepithis receipt. For Inquiries: C1 Cess Internet web site at Here cc 1- 800 -222 -1811 m LIAR 2 5 2010 n r O of ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) o ority MalI'�Service m G P 62� a r M. First -Class MaiPparcel a II ackage Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. 1' m Article Sent To: (to be comp by nZi a.i" 2r. ri 6 Trio NC0� G G e- K.)e_ S. Is. 2ri T�lk VC) IS l''‘ 4 6 %0 a POSTAL CUSTOMER: cc Keep this receipt. For. Inquiries: Postmark o Access Internet web site at c. R m moo ,,B e r 11 0-2 22 -1811 o k, ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) Er MAR 2 5 2010 r' riority MarService m 2 FClass Mai °parcel KO ,r„ ge Services parcel PS Form 752,' Q db ri (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must paid before ma ling. o Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) Sd► \t W rl 1/,:)kL ENecco k z ru 75 Sc k'^ park- Dr: 1 UJ eJ Pi e id X'-i 4 ii-1 POSTAL CUSTOMER: z a Keep this receipt. For Inquiries: o "4"k FR /S Access intemet web site at ra BR 42 VIRMakS com N m or call 1 -800 -222 -1811 W m r fi r o a BAR 25 2010 r p (POSTAL USE ONLY) o i Mail Service m F r*Class MaiPparcel a Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation "Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. '.n Article Sent To: be completed by mailer) 11-' Utz 'Paric.5 'zi,l)acic w..c.,.. [4t1 (10 ilk4. s A- 0 rq Ca.� l r_.. Lt 1...d M,z�1� a POSTAL CUSTOMER: Z o ANN Kee this receipt. For. Inquiries: g o _O j emet web site at R www.usps.com® c 51 r Vii: 00 -222 -1811 wm M AR 5 0 0 2 2010 k; (POSTAL USE ONLY) o" It iority Mail Service 0 m c ,�.u:u; lass MaiPparcel Lsps 4.0..v ❑Package services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be aid before mailing. n A rlicle Sent To: (ttoo be completed by mailer) ..S ti SQuec SyA(.750 Ln aw�.C4t�� Co�N 1 ,_4- Nob z t,� 44060 ZzZS \O�Oi2A 8 R' OS1AL CUSTOMER: cc o egp t his receipt. For Inquiries: cz o P os t mar k 'tcAocess Internet web site at 0 MA "7 5 20113 ww ps.com t m 800 222 -1811 m 0 0 O NE (POSTAL USE ONLY) Er G Sps 4& riority MairSenrice m m Mae parcel 0 Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt Postage and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before mailing. s Article Sent To: (to be completed by mailer).=1"c"0 y 'i 'r-c.k..\ 'e W NA. ZZ5tev I_.p1i,�e, Gas C-z. z ru X3'1 Zi eaw.g.; t to f a4 Q a b; ,zpol i S 1" 4 461 -49) z o p.,NAPOtic, POSTAL CUSTOMER: Keep this receipt For inquiries: Ei o `'‘C): i A ccess Internet web site at o www.usps.com O6 icall 1- 800 -222 -1811 0 0 MAR 2 5 2010 s CK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) or V rlority Mail "Service m G 6 4_ 2RV ®2, rst -Class MaiPparcel MI Package Services parcel PS Form 152, May 2002 (See Reverse) T ittma -0„: 41). June 5, 2006 Mr. Nick Redden City of Carmel, Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Mr. Redden: Please let this letter serve to document our commitments for our proposed Aramore project located on the east side of Westfield Boulevard between 98 Street and 99`" Street. 1. We will install the median cut at our entrance on Westfield Boulevard with the acel and decel lanes. Also we will install the 10' asphalt trail in the Westfield Boulevard right of way along our westem frontage that was removed from the City of Carmel work description in the Westfield Boulevard Right of Way. 2. We will dedicate the right of way for 98 street on our property and install a 10' asphalt trail in this right of way, from Westfield Boulevard past our east property line all the way to the Woodbriar Right of Way of the neighborhood to our east. This fulfills Carmet's desire to have interconnectivity between neighborhoods. 3. We will dedicate right of way consistent with the City of Carmel's thoroughfare plan for 99 Street along our frontage. in addition, we will improve 99 Street with acel and decal lanes and a stone shoulder. A passing blister is not necessary because our entry is aligned with the entry at Walden Pond. 4. We will fund and install 100% of all offsite storm drainage from our parcel all the way to the 1-465 right of way discharge point. This will include securing all offsite easements, permits from the City of Carmel, Hamilton County, Indianapolis, Marion County, the State of Indiana and the Indiana Department of Transportation. This improvement not only benefits our parcels but the entire area including City owned right of ways. We will record these commitments for this project as requested. We look forward to discussing this project with you prior to the subdivision review meeting tomorrow night. If you have any questions, 1 can be reached at 580 -0883. Sincerely, Neal Smith C: Steve Pittman C: Mike McBride C: Matt Griffin P.O. Box 554 Carmel, IN 46082 (317) 580 -9693. (317) 580 -9786 Fax