Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdditional Info: Engineering & ForestryConn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Mindham, Daren Monday, May 23, 2011 9:36 AM 'Jackson, John'; Staresnick, Brian Kerry B. Nielsen; Conn, Angelina V RE: LDS Planting Design Submittal 2011- 05- 20_Planting Plan Submittal_City of Carmel.pdf John, The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I have reviewed the 5/20/11 drawings and offer the following comments: URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS 1) Please put the project's name in the title block. 2) I think it would be best to just remove the Notes: 1 comment about 15 the oaks are still at 16% (which is totally fine) but it really makes ,the notes statement not relevant. 3) Ginkgo is spelled Ginko in the plant schedule. Please add the second g. 4) As mentioned and noted during conversation, all utilities (electric) will need to be marked with tree locations adjusted accordingly. 5) The shrubs are not labeled. I assume this is was not done so that it was easier to read the plan for now. Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by revised plan when further resolutions have been decided. Thank you for getting this plan further completed. I believe we are at point that the rest of the comments are minor, If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks. Sincerely, Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317- 571 -2283 *The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. Nelson Henderson From: Jackson, John mailto :JJackson @ratioarchitects.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 3:13 PM To: Mindham, Daren; Staresnick, Brian Cc: Kerry B. Nielsen; Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: LDS Planting Design Submittal Daren, 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Kerry B. Nielsen [NielsenKB @Idschurch.org] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 1:59 PM To: Mindham, Daren Cc: Jackson, John; Conn, Angelina V; Staresnick, Brian Subject: RE: LDS Planting Design Submittal 1. Ratio is responding to the planting schedule and tree numbers. 2. This is at design development level, but it does represent design and direction for the site. 3. We will certainly coordinate tree placement related to utilities ect when we have utility information to do that. 4. We would like to clarify the timing and level of additional information and detail noted below as we understand is for final planting drawings. We think we have provided the information needed to support the BZA review as stated in Angie's Dept Report. I would like to confirm that with you. Please call to have a quick discussion with John and me. Thanks. Kerry B. Nielsen, AIA Project Manager Temple and Special Projects nielsenkb@ldschurch.org 801- 240 -6448 From: Mindham, Daren [mailto:dmindham ©carmel.in.govj Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:15 AM To: Staresnick, Brian Cc: Jackson, John; Kerry B. Nielsen; Conn, Angelina V Subject: LDS Planting Design Submittal Brian, URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS 1 The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I ha.w. .reviewed the 5/18/11 drawings and offer t -he font comments: 1) L202 Plant Schedule 1. Please show all quantities, keeping in mind the 15% diversity limit of any one genus. We have updated the plant schedule to show all quantities and associated percentages of totals of each plant. From my figures 32% of the shade trees are of the oak genus. I would like to see the diversity based off of the total trees on the site and that no one genus is more than 15 I think depending on the number of evergreens to be added this will be close. As is oaks are about 18.7% of the total tree population. Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Brian, The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I have reviewed the 5/18/11 drawings and offer the following comments: URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS 1) Mindham, Daren Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:15 AM 'Staresnick, Brian' Jackson, John; Kerry B. Nielsen; Conn, Angelina V LDS Planting Design Submittal 2011- 05- 18_Planting Plan Submittal_City of Carmel.pdf; Species Diversity for Developments.pdf L202 Plant Schedule 1. Please show all quantities, keeping in mind the 15% diversity limit of any one genus. We have updated the plant schedule to show all quantities and associated percentages of totals of each plant. From my figures 32% of the shade trees are of the oak genus. I would like to see the diversity based off of the total trees on the site and that no one genus is more than 15 I think depending on the number of evergreens to be added this will be close. As is oaks are about 18.7% of the total tree population. Currently your %'s do not correlate with your Notes #1 statement. Depending on the evergreens count this statement may become correct. And with that, the evergreens will need to be shown and listed. 2) 3) ...The design for the 116t Street edge is simply proposed as shown on the drawings... Is the design changing, is this the decided design or is this still just a concept plan? 3) 4) The exact electric primary and secondary service location is not yet determined, but will be coordinated with the tree locations... This will be important to have before final landscape plan approval. 4) Labels for all symbols will need to be completed. I am pleased with all the other comments to my review. Looks like we are getting on track. 1 Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter or revised plan. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks. Sincerely, Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317 571 -2283 *The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. Nelson Henderson From: Staresnick, Brian mailto: BStaresnick @ratioarchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 6:36 PM To: Mindham, Daren Cc: Jackson, John; Kerry B. Nielsen Subject: LOS Planting Design Submittal Daren, For your review, I am submitting a revised copy of the LDS planting design. Also, please see our response to your comments from earlier today. Let us know if you need anything else. Best, Brian Staresnick 0 0■■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0■ 0 0 0■ O B■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS 5) L203 I would like to have the attached Carmel planting details used in City of Carmel projects. If existing details are necessary because of other information that is provide, please adjust the current detail so that it shows the burlap and basket is completely removed. There are aspects of our planting details that coordinate with specifications, so we have retained our details but have included language requiring the removal of askets and b dap 6) 1202 Plant Schedule 1. I requested that all shade trees be 2.5" in caliper. I will allow 3" caliper, but I recommend a smaller size tree due to increased shock and decreased survivability of the larger stock. Shade tree caliper has been changed to 2.5 2. Please show all quantities, keeping in mind the 15% diversity limit of any one genus. We have updated the plant schedule to show all quantities and associated percentages of totals of each plant. 3: Pin oak is still listed as a species. Because of the clay soil of Clay township, pin oak has increased health concerns. Please substitute this species for another or if possible increase the amount of red oaks, keeping in mind the 15% diversity. We have removed Pin Oak and have increased the quantity of Red Oak. In order to stay below 15% for any one species, we have also added Honeylocust and Pyramidal English Oak to the palette (both are acceptable per the Approved Tree Species list from Carmel). 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Duncan, Gary R Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:09 PM Conn, Angelina V Barnes, David R; 'Greg R. Hoyes'; Greg Ilko; McBride, Mike T; Kerry B. Nielsen; Redden, Nick; Thomas, John G Update: Docket No. 11020010 SU Latter -Day Saints Mormon Temple Meetinghouse Good afternoon Angie, Since the previous meeting, the DOE has had several meetings with the petitioner regarding this development. The DOE provides the following comments as a follow up to the previously issued comments: 1 Previous Comment: We have requested a meeting to review the overall plan for the 116 Street frontage considering the planned improvements to the roundabout and the planned Silvara Development to the north. It is expected that we will discuss compliance with the City's thoroughfare plan and any financial commitments made in lieu of physical construction of the improvements stipulated by the Thoroughfare Plan at this meeting. The DOE continues to have meetings with the petitioner and representatives of the other adjacent developers to coordinate the planned improvements to the roadway network in the area. The DOE is also discussing compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan with the petitioner. 2. Previous Comment: We have requested that the access from 116t Street be shifted as far to the west as possible. The DOE, the petitioner and representatives of the development to the north have coordinated an aligned access to each development. The DOE supports the current location of the access from 116`" Street. 3. Previous Comment: We have requested a public road connection through the development meeting the City's standards for a local street due to the fact that Valeside Crescent is a public right -of -way. While this entire roadway is not required to be constructed with the planned temple and meetinghouse, the roadway shall be master planned. Such roadways shall be contained within a 50 -foot right -of -way and satisfy the design standards outlined in Section 6.03 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The petitioner has agreed to construct a roadway meeting current City standards within a 50 foot width right -of -way within the development. Long -term, the City desires a connection to the Valeside Crescent northern stub street that was constructed with the Williams Mill development. At the request of the Williams Mill Homeowners Association, the private roadways within the Willliams Mill development were recently accepted into the public inventory. Since these roadways are public right -of -way, a connection to the stub street must also be public right -of -way and is the basis for this comment. The final alignment of this roadway does not have to be established as a part of the BZA approval. The Department will review the alignment of the roadway and the connection to Williams Mil! at such time as a plan for development of this area is submitted. However, the Department recommends that the petitioner commit to the construction of a public road connection to Valeside Crescent during a subsequent phase of development. 4. Previous Comment: Detention facilities shall. be 50 -feet from road right -of -way unless a barrier is provided. The petitioner has indicated that the final design will provide the requisite separation or the provision of a barrier consistent with the Storm Water Technical Standards. 5. Previous Comment: We envision a connection from the south stub street to 116` Street and a minimum of one east west street providing access to Springmill Road. A traffic study would identify the need for a second access from Springmill Road; but I do not expect the traffic volumes to be that high (except during services) since the majority of the property will be residential. The petitioner has indicated that the internal roadways will be public streets. Currently, the petitioner is only requesting one access from Springmill Road. This access is aligned with the proposed entrance to the proposed Bridges development to the east. The submitted traffic study included two entrances from Springmill Road. The traffic study indicates that with certain improvements to Springmill Road, a second access from Springmill Road is feasible while maintaining an acceptable level of service. The Department will review this additional access with the petitioner at such time as a development plan is developed for this portion of the development. 6. Previous Comment: We have requested dedication of additional right -of -way as follows: 70 -foot half across 116 Street frontage, 50 -foot measured from the section line across the Springmill Road frontage (ignore the current roadway alignment shift), a chamfer that is perpendicular to a 120 foot radius measured from the intersection of the section lines. 1 2 The petitioner has indicated a 70 foot half right -of -way across the 116 Street frontage and a 50 foot half right -of -way for the Springmill Road frontage from the existing roadway centerline of Springmill Road. The petitioner has agreed to dedicate the additional right -of -way for the roundabout at the intersection of 116 Street and Springmill Road when the final geometry of the roundabout is established. The DOE is agreeable to this and•requests that this approach to the right -of -way dedication be formalized in a commitment. 7. Previous Comment: We have asked them to confirm with the DOCS the need for a stub street to the west from this property. The petitioner has indicated that the DOCS has not requested such a stub street to the west. 8. Previous Comment: Given the pending Bridges PUD development, we will not request the construction of a passing blister at the Springmill Road entrance. The DOE would like to clarify this comment. The Department will not require the construction of a passing blister by the petitioner at this time. In the event that improved infrastructure does not exist within the Springmill Road right -of -way and traffic conditions satisfy the warrants for the provision of a passing blister, the DOE will require the petitioner to construct such a passing blister. In the event that a passing blister is warranted and there is not adequate right -of -way on the east side of the roadway, the DOE will expect the petitioner to make a good faith effort to acquire the right -of- way necessary for the construction of a passing blister and construct such a passing blister. 9. Previous Comment: The hydraulics of the existing pond will need to be analyzed. The development shall conform to the new flat release rates. The upstream /off -site watershed will need to be considered also. The petitioner has indicated that the final configuration of the pond will satisfy the current standards for both storm water management and storm water treatment. 10. Previous Comment: The offsite discharge from the Bridges Development will need to be coordinated and accommodated by this development. It has not been established if the Bridges will manage the runoff before leaving the site or if they will approach the LDS about managing the water in the existing pond or a modified facility. The DOE rescinds the previous comment. The storm water technical standards only require the development to accommodate the current off -site watershed that drains through the property. 11. Previous Comment: Reconstruction of the existing plastic drainage pipe under 116 Street will need to be coordinated. It is not known if Silvara will negate the need for this pipe. Short term and long -term (if the discharge is to be perpetuated) accommodation of the drainage from this pipe needs to be considered. The DOE rescinds this previous comment. During final design, the Department may require the reconstruction of the existing plastic drainage pipe under 116 Street. 12. If the existing pond is intended to be utilized as a BMP, it must be demonstrated that adequate treatment will be provided in the current and /or modified configuration. The petitioner has indicated that the final configuration of the pond will satisfy the current standards for both storm water management and storm water treatment. 13. The maximum water surface elevations of the off -site flood routing will need to be considered in establishing the on- site MFPG and MLAG elevations. The petitioner has indicated that this analysis will be conducted during the final design. 14. Off -site flood routes must be contained in an easement per the Storm Water Technical Standards. The petitioner has indicated that such easements will be determined during the final design. 15. I have not seen a traffic study. If this were purely a residential subdivision, we would not require one. Since there is a non-residential use proposed and the traffic from the use, in conjunction with the adjacent proposed uses, is expected to warrant improvements to the adjacent road network, we are requesting that a traffic study be developed. This traffic study needs to consider the Bridges and Silvara. The Department has received and reviewed the traffic study. The traffic study identifies certain improvements that are required to maintain an acceptable level of service on the adjacent roadways when considering the traffic associated with this development. These improvements are indicated on the current development plan. The Department continues to work with the petitioner as well as representatives of the proposed developments adjacent to this development to identify how best to implement the roadway improvements that are necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service in the area. 16. The Departments comment letter dated April 1, 2011 did not address alignment of the Springmill Road access with the opposing access to the Bridges. The expectation was that the entrances were aligned. As I understand it, presently, the entrances are not aligned and are approximately 80 -feet apart. The Department understands that the petitioner has discussed aligning the entrances with the Bridges developer and that each would shift the proposed entrance 40 -feet to achieve the desired alignment. The Department has not verified this on the current plan for the Latter Day Saints Temple. In general, the location of each entrance is acceptable to the Department. Shifting the entrances within the current 80 -foot offset so that they are aligned would be acceptable. The Department will rely on the petitioners to establish a location that is mutually acceptable to each development. If the parties agree to a location that is substantially different that what is proposed, we will need to evaluate the location further. The Department understands that the petitioner and the adjacent developers have a established the location of an aligned entrance. Each development has shifted the respective entrance 40 feet such that they align. The Department supports the proposed access location provided that the improvements identified in the traffic study or those improvements identified by the Department of Engineering are implemented The petitioner has satisfactorily addressed all Department comments. Thanks so much, 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) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Brian, The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. 1 have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments: URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS Mindham, Daren Wednesday, May 18, 2011 'BStaresnick@ ratioarchitects.com' Kerry B. Nielsen; 'Jackson, John'; Conn, Angelina V Carmel LDS Temple project 2011- 05- 17_Planting Plan Submittal_City of Carmel.pdf; Treedetail- Carmel.pdf; Evergreendetail Carmel.pdf; Shrubdetail Carmel.pdf; Species Diversity for Developments.pdf 1) L203 I would like to have the attached Carmel planting details used in City of Carmel projects. If existing details are necessary because of other information that is provide, please adjust the current detail so that it shows the burlap and basket is completely removed. 2) L202 Plant Schedule 1. I requested that all shade trees be 2.5" in caliper. I will allow 3" caliper, but I recommend a smaller size tree due to increased shock and decreased survivability of the larger stock. 2. Please show all quantities, keeping in mind the 15% diversity limit of any one genus. 3. Pin oak is still listed as a species. Because of the clay soil of Clay township, pin oak has increased health concerns. Please substitute this species for another or if possible increase the amount of red oaks, keeping in mind the 15% diversity. 3) The planting module is a fine idea as mentioned in past conversation, however, they are only usable to me if there is variability in general location within the module, not in quantity (and species) as along 116 St shows. 4) Please adjust, where needed, plant material where utilities are marked. There are a few locations where the 'W' water conflicts with material. Please try to leave a 3 -5' spacing around the water and other utilities. Also, I do not see the electric on the plan where it connects to the buildings. Are all utilities shown on the plan? 5) Please add landscaping around the 3 sides of the utility shed to screen it from view. I recommend arborvitae or a dense shrub. Are there any outside transformers or the like? Please screen these as well, if applicable to this development. 6) After further conversation with Angie Conn, the southern border will need to meet the perimeter bufferyard requirement. The street trees and the other buffering landscaping will count towards this number, but shrubs and ornamentals may need to be added. Please base the linear feet as the same as the northern perimeter. (see 7) 7) L201 As referring to the northern perimeter bufferyard requirements; there are 500 linear feet shown on the plan, however in the bufferyard chart, the numbers are based off of only 400'. Please adjust the requirements according to 500 linear feet. I am willing to work with material not directly in this buffer to count towards the requirements as mentioned in previous conversations. With that, is there plans for any shrubbery around the meeting house? I would request that some shrubbery enhance the southern side of the meetinghouse if not all sides to substitute for any lacking shrub counts from the bufferyard requirements. 1 I believe that we are at the stage that we would like to see a finalized landscape plan for the approval process. Please submit a fully complete revised plan and I will make comments from there. Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter /email and revised plan. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks. Sincerely, Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317 571 -2283 *The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. Nelson Henderson From: Staresnick, Brian Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:15 PM To: 'dmindham ©carmel.in.gov' Cc: 'NielsenKB ©Idschurch.org'; Jackson, John Subject: Carmel LDS Temple project Daren, Thanks Daren, we appreciate your help as we work toward approval of this part of the project. 2 Attached please find the technical planting drawings for the Carmel LDS Temple project. We are providing these for your review as requested. We are hopeful that the level of detail and information will be sufficient for an acceptable recommendation from you to Angie. John Jackson will touch base later today by phone to see whether you have any initial comments or concerns that we need to address. In the meantime, if everything appears to be consistent with prior discussions and the ordinance requirements and you do not feel further discussion is necessary, please let Kerry and John know that. Brian Staresnick Landscape Architectural Graduate RATIO defining spaces, creating places, enhancing community (sm) RATIOarchitects.com 1 Indianapolis, IN 317.633.4040 j Champaign, IL 217.352.7696 Raleigh, NC 919.821.0805 RATIO Architects, Inc. Confidentiality Notice: This email, including any attachments, may contain confidential or proprietary information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message. Copyright Notice: Any artwork or images to be reproduced or published in any manner shall be credited "RATIO Architects, Inc." or be accompanied by the line RATIO Architects, Inc." Conn, Angelina V From: Kerry B. Nielsen [NielsenKB @Idschurch.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:45 PM To: Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Ryan Lindley; Matt Brown Subject: RE: Draft BZA Comments Gary This response clarifies the items as we discussed. This should address the open BZA items and allow us to work with you on future residential use. Thank you! Kerry B. Nielsen, AIA Project Manager Temple and Special Projects nielsenkb@ldschurch.org From: Duncan, Gary R [mai!to:gduncan ©carmef.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:27 PM To: Kerry B. Nielsen Cc: Ryan Lindley; Matt Brown Subject: RE: Draft BZA Comments 1 Gentleman, here are my second draft comments for the three comments in question. Also, i have included at the end our closing statement. 3. Previous Comment: We have requested a public road connection through the development meeting the City's standards for a local street due to the fact that Valeside Crescent is a public right -of -way. While this entire roadway is not required to be constructed with the planned temple and meetinghouse, the roadway shall be master planned. Such roadways shall be contained within a 50 -foot right -of -way and satisfy the design standards outlined in Section 6.03 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The petitioner has agreed to construct a roadway meeting current City standards within a 50 foot width right -of -way within the development. Long-term, the City desires a connection to the Valeside Crescent northern stub street that was constructed with the Williams Mill development. At the request of the Williams,Mill Homeowners Association, the private roadways within the Will/lams Mill development were recently accepted into the public inventory. Since these roadways are public right -of -way, a connection to the stub street must also be public right -of -way and is the basis for this comment. The Department is not requesting that the final alignment of this roadway be established as a part of the BZA approval. The Department will review the alignment of the roadway and the connection to Williams Mill at such time as a plan for development of this area is submitted. However, as a part of the BZA approval, the Department recommends that the petitioner commit to the construction of a public road connection to Valeside Crescent during a subsequent phase of development. 5. Previous Comment: We envision a connection from the south stub street to 116 Street and a minimum of one east west street providing access to Springmill Road. A traffic study would identify the need for a second access from Springmill Road; but I do not expect the traffic volumes to be that high (except during services) since the majority of the property will be residential. The petitioner has indicated that the internal roadways will be public streets. Currently, the petitioner is only requesting one access from Springmill Road. This access is aligned with the proposed entrance to the proposed Bridges development to the east. The submitted traffic study included two entrances from Springmil! Road. The traffic study indicates that with certain improvements to Springmill Road, a second access from Springmill Road is feasible while maintaining an acceptable level of service. The Department will review this additional access with the petitioner at such time as a development plan is developed for this portion of the development. 16. The Departments comment letter dated April 1, 2011 did not address alignment of the Springmill Road access with the opposing access to the Bridges. The expectation was that the entrances were aligned. As I understand it, presently, the entrances are not aligned and are approximately 80 -feet apart. The Department understands that the petitioner has discussed aligning the entrances with the Bridges developer and that each would shift the proposed entrance 40 -feet to achieve the desired alignment. The Department has not verified this on the current plan for the Latter Day Saints Temple. In general, the location of each entrance is acceptable to the Department. Shifting the entrances within the current 80 -foot offset so that they are aligned would be acceptable. The Department will rely on the petitioners to establish a location that is mutually acceptable to each development. If the parties agree to a location that is substantially different that what is proposed, we will need to evaluate the location further. The Department understands that the petitioner and the adjacent developers have a established the location of an aligned entrance. Each development has shifted the respective entrance 40 feet such that they align. The Department supports the proposed access location provided that the improvements. The petitioner has satisfactorily addressed all Department comments. From: Kerry B. Nielsen mailto:NielsenKB ©Idschurch.org] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:39 PM To: Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Ryan Lindley; Matt Brown Subject: FW: Draft BZA Comments Thanks for your quick response. See our review as marked in text below. We suggest you send DOE response to Angie Conn ASAP with additions noted. Thanks. Kerry B. Nielsen, AIA Project Manager Temple and Special Projects nielsenkb@ldschurch.org From: Duncan, Gary R [mailto:gduncan ©carmel.in.gov] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 1:41 PM To: Kerry B. Nielsen Cc: Jeffrey Banning; Matt Brown; Ryan Lindley Subject: Draft BZA Comments Gentleman, Here are my draft comments (in bold). Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Gary Since the previous meeting, the DOE has had several meetings with the petitioner regarding this development. The DOE provides the following comments as a follow up to the previously issued comments: 6. Previous Comment: We have requested a meeting to review the overall plan for the 116` Street frontage considering the planned improvements to the roundabout and the planned Silvara Development to the north. It is expected that we will discuss compliance with the City's thoroughfare plan and any financial commitments made in lieu of physical construction of the improvements stipulated by the Thoroughfare Plan at this meeting. 2 :Conn, Angelina V From: Kerry B. Nielsen [NielsenKB @Idschurch.org] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:39 PM 'To:. Duncan, Gary R; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Ryan Lindley; Matt Brown Subject: FW: Draft BZA Comments from Engineering Dept to latter day saints Thanks for your quick response. See our review as marked in text below. We suggest you send DOE responses to Angie Conn ASAP with additions noted.Thanks. Kerry B. Nielsen, AIA Project Manager Temple and Special Projects nielsenkb @Idschurch.orq From: Duncan, Gary R f mailto:gduncan@carmel.in.govl Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 1:41. PM To: Kerry B. Nielsen Cc: Jeffrey Banning; Matt Brown; Ryan Lindley Subject: Draft BZA Comments Gentleman, Here are my draft comments (in bold). Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Gary Since the previous meeting, the DOE, has had several meetings with the petitioner regarding this development. The DOE provides the following comments as a follow up to the previously issued comments: 1. Previous Comment: We have requested a meeting to review the overall plan for the 116 Street frontage considering the planned improvements to the roundabout and the planned Silvara Development to the north. It is expected that we will discuss compliance with the City's thoroughfare plan and any financial commitments made in lieu of physical construction of the improvements stipulated by the Thoroughfare Plan at this meeting. The DOE continues to have meetings with the petiti and representatives of the other adjacent developers to coordinate the planned improvements to the roadway network in the area. The DOE is also discussing compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan with the petitianer. OK. 2 Previous Comment: We have requested that the access from 116' Street be shifted as far to the west as possible. The DOE, the petitioner and representatives of the development to the north have coordinated an aligned access to each development. The DOE supports the current location of the access from 116 Street. OK. 3. Previous Comment: We have requested a public road connection through the development meeting the City's standards for a local street due to the fact that Valeside Crescent is a public right -of -way. While this entire roadway is not required to be constructed with the planned temple and meetinghouse, the roadway shall be master planned. Such roadways shall be contained within a 50 -foot right -of -way and satisfy the design standards outlined in Section 6.03 of the Subdivision. Control Ordinance. The petitioner has agreed to construct a roadway meeting current City standards within a 50 foot width right -of -way. We need to clarify your 'requested' for the connection to Valeside Crescent. The neighbors have concern. We would like to review this with you. 4. Previous Comment: Detention facilities shall be 50 -feet from road right -of -way unless a barrier is provided. 1 The petitioner has indicated that the final design will provide the requisite separation or the provision of a barrier consistent with the Storm Water Technical Standards. OK. 5. Previous Comment: We envision a connection from the south stub street to 116 Street and a minimum of one east west street providing access to Springmill Road. A traffic study would identify the need for a second access from Springmill Road; but I do not expect the traffic volumes to be that high (except during services) since the majority of the property will be residential. The petitioner has indicated that the internal roadways will be public streets. Currently, the petitioner is only requesting one access from Springmill Road. This access is aligned with the proposed entrance to the proposed Bridges development to the east. The submitted traffic study included two entrances from Springmill Road. This is same as #3 above. Phase 1 will have 50' ROW connect to Springmill Rd. Phase 2 Residential may have the second 50' ROW connect to Springmill Rd. 6. Previous Comment: We have requested dedication of additional right -of -way as follows: 70 -foot half across 116 Street frontage, 50 -foot measured from the section line across the Springmill Road frontage (ignore the current roadway alignment shift), a chamfer that is perpendicular to a 120 -foot radius measured from the intersection of the section lines. The petitioner has indicated a 70 foot half right -of -way across the 116 Street frontage. The petitioner has agreed to dedicate the additional right -of -way for the roundabout at the intersection of 116 Street and Springmill Road when the final geometry of the roundabout is established. The DOE is agreeable to this and requests that this approach to the right -of -way dedication be formalized in a commitment. We understand there will also be a 50' half ROW on Springmill Rd. 7. Previous Comment: We have asked them to confirm with the DOCS the need for a stub street to the west from this property. The petitioner has indicated that the DOCS has not requested such a stub street to the west. OK. 8. Previous Comment: Given the pending Bridges PUD development, we will not request the construction of a passing blister at the Springmill Road entrance: The DOE would like to clarify this comment. The Department will not require the construction of a passing blister by the petitioner at this time. In the event that improved infrastructure does not exist within the Springmill Road right -of -way and traffic conditions satisfy the warrants for the provision of a passing blister, the DOE will require the petitioner to construct such a passing blister. In the event that a passing blister is warranted and there is not adequate right -of -way on the east side of the roadway, the DOE will expect the petitioner to make a good faith effort to acquire the right -of- way necessary for the construction of a passing blister and construct such a passing blister. OK. 9. Previous Comment: The hydraulics of the existing pond will need to be analyzed. The development shall conform to the new flat release rates. The upstream/off-site watershed will need to be considered also. The petitioner has indicated that the final configuration of the pond will satisfy the current standards for both storm water management and storm water treatment. OK. 10. Previous Comment: The offsite discharge from the Bridges Development will need to be coordinated and accommodated this development. It has not been established if the Bridges will manage the runoff before leaving the site or if they will approach the LDS about managing the water in the existing pond or a modified facility. The DOE rescinds the previous comment. The storm water technical standards only require the development to accommodate the current off -site watershed that drains through the property. OK. 11. Previous Comment: Reconstruction of the existing plastic drainage pipe under 116 Street will need to be coordinated. It is not known if Silvara will negate the need for this pipe. Short term and long -term (if the discharge is to be perpetuated) accommodation of the drainage from this pipe needs to be considered. 2 The DOE rescinds this previous comment. During final design, the Department may require the reconstruction of the existing plastic drainage pipe under 116 Street. OK. 12. If the existing pond is intended to be utilized as a BMP, it must be demonstrated that adequate treatment will be provided in the current and /or modified configuration. The petitioner has indicated that the final configuration of the pond will satisfy the current standards for both storm water management and storm water treatment. OK. 13. The maximum water surface elevations of the off -site flood routing will need to be considered in establishing the on- site MFPG and MLAG elevations. The petitioner has indicated that this analysis will be conducted during the final design. OK. 14. Off -site flood routes must be contained in an easement per the Storm Water Technical Standards. The petitioner has indicated that such easements will be determined during the final design. OK. 15. I have not seen a traffic study. If this were purely a residential subdivision, we would not require one. Since there is a non residential use proposed and the traffic from the use, in conjunction with the adjacent proposed uses, is expected to warrant improvements to the adjacent road network, we are requesting that a traffic study be developed. This traffic study needs to consider the Bridges and Silvara. The Department has received and reviewed the traffic study. The traffic study identifies certain improvements that are required to maintain an acceptable level of service on the adjacent roadway when considering the traffic associated with this development. These improvements are indicated on the current development plan. The Department continues to work with the petitioner as well as representatives of the proposed developments adjacent to this development to identify how best to implement the roadway improvements that are necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service in the area. OK. 16. The Departments comment letter dated April 1, 2011 did not address alignment of the Springmill Road access with the opposing access to the Bridges. The expectation was that the entrances were aligned. As I understand it, presently, the entrances are not aligned and are approximately, 80 -feet apart. The Department understands that the petitioner has discussed aligning the entrances with the Bridges developer and that each would shift the proposed entrance 40 -feet to achieve the desired alignment. The Department has not verified this on the current plan for the Latter Day Saints Temple. In general, the location of each entrance is acceptable to the Department. Shifting the entrances within the current 80 -foot offset so that they are aligned would be acceptable. The Department will rely on the petitioners to establish a location that is mutually acceptable to each development. If the parties agree to a location that is substantially different that what is proposed, we will need to evaluate the location further. The Department understands that the petitioner and the adjacent developers have a established the location of an aligned entrance. Each development has shifted the respective entrance 40 feet such that they align. This is the same as tl5 above. it does close the question. Please add your recommendation. We suggest the below text: Recommendation to BZA= All of DOE concerns have been addressed and can be concluded with review of final design and construction documents. DOE recommends approval of BZA Docket No 11020010 SU. Thanks so much, Gary R. Duncan, Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer 3 April 22, 2011 Mr. Gary Duncan Carmel Engineering Respectfully, Ryan R. Lindley Director of Development "Your Project is Our Priority" Re; Latter Day Saints Special Use Mr. Duncan, Thank you for your comment letter dated April 20, 2011. On behalf of our client, we offer the following response /comments: 1. We are currently coordinating overall planning for both 116 and Springmill with the other projects proposed on the northwest and southeast corners. Our on -going intent is to work through the details and insure compliance with the City's thoroughfare plan. 2. The current proposed access from-116 is located near the middle of the' existing wooded area. We feel moving the access west will require the removal of to much of the natural buffer between the west adjoiner. We would like to review a coordinated ROW improvement plan approach with you. 3. The road connection through the development will be designed to meet City standards for a local public street. Detention facilities will be located a minimum 50' from the proposed right -of -way or a barrier will be provided. 4. We have shown 70' half right -of -way along and 50' half right -of -way along Springmill per your request. We will accommodate requested right -of -way near the round -a -bout when -the final geometry of the improvements is determined. 5. DOCS has not requested a stub street to the west. There is no planned ROW to serve or connect. 6. It is understood that due to the Bridges development a passing blister will not need constructed at this time. 7. Hydraulics and hydrology for the existing pond will be analyzed during the final design in conformance with Carmel regulations. Off -site watersheds are being coordinated with both proposed projects. 8. The existing plastic pipe under 116' will be analyzed and coordinated with the Silvan project. It is anticipated the pipe will be removed and replaced with an appropriately sized pipe to accommodate the existing conditions. 9. The intent for the existing pond is to re- construct to meet City requirements for both water quantity and quality. 10. Water surface elevations for off -site flood routing will be analyzed during final design and flood protection grades will be determined. Building finish floor elevations will be set above the flood protection grades. 11. Easements will he provided for off -site flood routing. 12. A traffic impact analysis has been performed for the proposed development, a copy will be provided. We trust the above response adequately addresses your comments. If you should have additional questions or require additional information please contact me. Kerry Nielsen would like to review the TIA with you directly. We are available to review with you Monday or Tuesday. Banning Engineering, P.C. 853 Columbia Road, Suite 101 Plainfield, IN 46168 Phone: (317) 707 -3700 Fax: (317) 707 -3800 E -mail: banning @BanningEngineering.com Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Friday, April 22, 201 1 1:46 PM To: 'May, Casey' Cc: Mindham, Daren Subject: RE: bufferyard requirements follow up Latter Day Saints Temple /Meetinghouse Attachments: FW: Special Use Application for LDS Temple and Meetinghouse at SWC 116th /Springmill Thanks, Casey. The Forestry Dept is looking for a more engineered landscape plan. It should also show the bufferyard plantings south of the meeting house or south of the access drive, since there should be a bufferyard between the meetinghouse and temple and the future residential area to the south. The Landscaping plan (showing easements, setbacks, and bufferyards) should contain: location of plantings type and sizes of plantings Planting legend Planting details Mounding locations and details I have copied the city forester, Daren Mindham, on this email. He will ultimately review and approve the final landscape plan. Also, attached is the latest email from Daren to the petitioner, stating what he needs. Sincerely, Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning Zoning Division Dept. of Community Services 1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr. Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317-571-2417 1 F: 317 571 -2426 1 E: aconnOcarmel.in.gov W: www.carmel.in.gov /services /DOCS /DOCSDOPZ.htm Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: May, Casey jmailto:CMayfi ratioarchitects.com] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:26 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: bufferyard requirements follow up I look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards, Casey May RATIO I defining spaces, creating places, enhancing community (sm) RATIOarchitects.com l Indianapolis, IN 317.633.4040.1 Champaign, IL 217.352.7696 Hi Angie 1 just left a voicemail, but thought that I would follow up with this email containing a little more information. Please find the current site plan for the Temple project and a copy of the City of Carmel's bufferyard requirements. Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:20 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: latter day saints special use Engineering Dept major outstanding comments Angie, 1. We have requested a meeting to review the overall plan for the 116 Street frontage considering the planned improvements to the roundabout and the planned Silvara Development to the north. It is expected that we will discuss compliance with the City's thoroughfare plan and any financial commitments made in lieu of physical construction of the improvements stipulated by the Thoroughfare Plan at this meeting. 2. We have requested that the access from 116 Street be shifted as far to the west as possible. 3. We have requested a public road connection through the development meeting the City's standards for a local street due to the fact that Valeside Crescent is a public right -of -way. While this entire roadway is not required to be constructed with the planned temple and meetinghouse, the roadway shall be master planned. Such roadways shall be contained within a 50 -foot right -of -way and satisfy the design standards outlined in Section 6.03 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Detention facilities shall be 50 -feet from road right -of -way unless a barrier is provided. We envision a connection from the south stub street to 116 Street and a minimum of one east -west street providing access to Springmill Road. A traffic study would identify the need for a second access from Springmill Road; but I do not expect the traffic volumes to be that high (except during services) since the majority of the property will be residential. 4. We have requested dedication of additional right -of -way as follows: 70 -foot half across 116 Street frontage, 50 -foot measured from the section line across the Springmill Road frontage (ignore the current roadway alignment shift), a chamfer that is perpendicular to a 120-foot radius measured from the intersection of the section lines. 5. We have asked them to confirm with the DOCS the need for a stub street to the west from this property. 6. Given the pending Bridges PUD development, we will not request the construction of a passing blister at the Springmill Road entrance. 7. The hydraulics of the existing pond will need to be analyzed. The development shall conform to the new flat release rates. The upstream /off -site watershed will need to be considered also. The offsite discharge from the Bridges Development will need to be coordinated and accommodated by this development. It has not been established if the Bridges will manage the runoff before leaving the site or if they will approach the LDS about managing the water in the existing pond or a modified facility. 8. Reconstruction of the existing plastic drainage pipe under 116 Street will need to be coordinated. It is not known if Silvara will negate the need for this pipe. Short term and long -term (if the discharge is to be perpetuated) accommodation of the drainage from this pipe needs to be considered. 9. If the existing pond is intended to be utilized as a BMP, it must be demonstrated that adequate treatment will be provided in the current and /or modified configuration. 10. The maximum water surface elevations of the off -site flood routing will need to be considered in establishing the on -site MFPG and MLAG elevations. 11. Off -site flood routes must be contained in an easement per the Storm Water Technical Standards. 12. I have not seen a traffic study. If this were purely a residential subdivision, we would not require one. Since there is a non residential use proposed and the traffic from the use, in conjunction with the adjacent proposed uses, is expected to warrant improvements to the adjacent road network, we are requesting that a traffic study be developed. This traffic study needs to consider the Bridges and Silvara. Thanks so much! Gary From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:01 AM To: Duncan, Gary R Subject: latter day saints special use Importance: High 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: This is the last contact I had with them. I have a concept landscape plan but that is all. Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317- 571 -2283 *The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. Nelson Henderson Kerry, Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317 -571 -2283 Mindham, Daren Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:47 PM Conn, Angelina V FW: Special Use Application for LDS Temple and Meetinghouse at SWC 116th /Springmill Treedetail Carmel.pdf; Evergreendetail- Carmel.pdf; Shrubdetail Carmel.pdf; Species Diversity for Developments.pdf; Tree Preservation Detail.pdf From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:24 PM. To: 'Kerry B. Nielsen' -Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: Special Use Application for LDS Temple and Meetinghouse at SWC 116th Springmill Eventually, a comprehensive landscape plan will need to be submitted. I have attached a few documents to help. *The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. "Nelson Henderson From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:04 PM To: Akers, William P; Blanchard, Jim E; 'Brooke Gajownik'; 'David Lucas'; Duffy, John M; Duncan, Gary R; Ellison, Christopher M; 'Greg Iiko'; Hohlt, William G; Huffman, David; 'Jason Kirkman'; 'Jason LeMaster'; 'Joel Thurman'; Krueskamp, Theresa A; Redden, Nick; 'Ron Farrand'; 'Ryan Hartman'; 'Shirley Hunter'; Westermeier, Mark; 'Gary.McNamee©duke-energy.com'; 'Yackle, Troy 'jlclark @vectren.com'; Thomas, John G; Duane .whiting @veoliawaterna.com'; Greg .Hoyes @hamiltoncounty.in.gov'; Robert. Thompson @hamiltoncounty.in.gov'; 'dan.davenport @aes.com'; 'doland.w.wise @usps.gov'; Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David W; 'KREBS, STEVEN J (ATTINB)'; 'Larry Beard'; Green, Timothy J Cc: 'Kerry B. Nielsen'; Martin, Candy Subject: FW: Special Use Application for LDS Temple and Meetinghouse at SWC 116th Springmill Good afternoon, TAC members: I just wanted to send these electronic plans to you, just in case the petitioner does not. Please let Kerry know if you need paper copies of the plans, but he will probably have those paper copies to you by tomorrow. Kerry Nielson is the contact person, and his info is below. This petition will be heard at the March 16 TAC meeting. Thank you, -Angie Conn, Planning Administrator From: Kerry B. Nielsen jmailto:NielsenKB(a Idschurch.oral. Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:02 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Special Use Application for Temple and Meetinghouse on S -2 Parcel at Springmill Rd 116th St latter day sains LDS Please see attached documents related to Subject: 1. Special Use Application 2. Site Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Temple Concept Elevations 5. Meetinghouse Concept Elevation I will bring /send hard copies based on list. Thanks. Tryrnp!€?and Spstiat Projects rO ect Mat8a f"Kr nr l.*ri b d5ch'Urch,t 5th Erg io Te t rl S2 008 56it Lake ctt ti 9tctit B 150-63 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the Intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are.not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:30 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: FW: Latter Day Saints_Temple Engineering Dept comments pt 2 Connie please print and hand out at Monday's BZA meeting. Thanks! -Angie From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 201.1 3:26 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Latter Day Saints Temple Angie, Please find the following comments for the proposed Latter Day Saints Temple at the southwest corner of 116 Street and Springmill Road. Comments 1 -12 were issued in a letter from the Department to the petitioner dated April 1, 2011. Comment 13 is a new comment that is provided for the benefit of the Board so they are aware of the issue. 1. We have requested a meeting to review the overall plan for the 116 Street frontage considering the planned improvements to the roundabout and the planned Silvara Development to the north. It is expected that we will discuss compliance with the City's thoroughfare plan and any financial commitments made in lieu of physical construction of the improvements stipulated by the Thoroughfare Plan at this meeting. 2. We have requested that the access from 116 Street be shifted as far to the west as possible. 3. We have requested a public road connection through the development meeting the City's standards for a local street due to the fact that Valeside Crescent is a public right -of -way. While this entire roadway is not required to be constructed with the planned temple and meetinghouse, the roadway shall be master planned. Such roadways shall be contained within a 50 -foot right -of- way -and satisfy the design standards outlined in Section 6.03 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Detention facilities shall be S0 -feet from road right -of -way unless a barrier is provided. We envision a connection from the south stub street to 116 Street and a minimum of one east -west street providing access to Springmill Road. A traffic study would identify the need for a second access from Springmill Road; but I do not expect the traffic volumes to be that high (except during services) since the majority of the property will be residential. 4. We have requested dedication of additional right -of -way as follows: 70 -foot half across 116 Street frontage, 50 -foot measured from the section line across the Springmill Road frontage (ignore the current roadway alignment shift), a chamfer that is perpendicular to a 120 -foot radius measured from the intersection of the section lines. 5. We have asked them to confirm with the DOCS the need for a stub street to the west from this property. 6. Given the pending Bridges PUD.development, we will not request the construction of a passing blister at the Springmill Road entrance. 7. The hydraulics of the existing pond will need to be analyzed. The development shall conform to the new flat release rates. The upstream /off -site watershed will need to be considered also. The offsite discharge from the Bridges Development will need to be coordinated and accommodated by this development. It has not been established if the Bridges will manage the runoff before leaving the site or if they will approach the LDS about managing the water in the existing pond or a modified facility. 8. Reconstruction of the existing plastic drainage pipe under 116 Street will need to be coordinated. It is not known if Silvara will negate the need for this pipe. Short term and long -term (if the discharge is to be perpetuated) accommodation of the drainage from this pipe needs to be considered. 9. If the existing pond is intended to be utilized as a BMP, it must be demonstrated that adequate treatment will be provided in the current and /or modified configuration. 1 10. The maximum water surface elevations of the off -site flood routing will need to be considered in establishing the on- site MFPG and MLAG elevations. 11. Off -site flood routes, must be contained in an easement per the Storm Water Technical Standards. 12. I have not seen a traffic study. If this were purely a residential subdivision, we would not require one. Since there is a non residential use proposed and the traffic from the use, in conjunction with the adjacent proposed uses, is expected to warrant improvements to the adjacent road network, we are requesting that a traffic study be developed. This traffic study needs to consider the Bridges and Silvara. 13. The Departments comment letter dated April 1, 2011 did not address alignment of the Springmill Road access with the opposing access to the Bridges. The expectation was that the entrances were aligned. As I understand it, presently, the entrances are not aligned and are approximately 80 -feet apart. The Department understands that the petitioner has discussed aligning the entrances with the Bridges developer and that each would shift the proposed entrance 40 -feet to achieve the desired alignment. The Department has not verified this on the current plan for the Latter Day Saints Temple. In general, the location of each entrance is acceptable to the Department. Shifting the entrances within the current 80 -foot offset so that they are aligned would be acceptable. The Department will rely on the petitioners to establish a location that is mutually acceptable to each development. If the parties agree to a location that is substantially different that what is proposed, we will need to evaluate the location further. Thanks so much, 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 2 From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:26 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Latter Day Saints Temple Angie, Please find the following comments for the proposed Latter Day Saints Temple at the southwest corner of 116 Street and Springmill Road. Comments 1 -12 were issued in a letter from the Department to the petitioner dated April 1, 2011. Comment 13 is a new comment that is provided for the benefit of the Board so they are aware of the issue. 1. We have requested a meeting to review the overall plan for the 116 Street frontage considering the planned improvements to the roundabout and the planned Silvara Development to the north. It is expected that we will discuss compliance with the City's thoroughfare plan and any financial commitments made in lieu of physical construction of the improvements stipulated by the Thoroughfare Plan at this meeting. 2. We have requested that the access from 116 Street be shifted as far to the west as possible. 3. We have requested a public road connection through the development meeting the City's standards for a local street due to the fact that Valeside Crescent is a public right -of -way. While this entire roadway is not required to be constructed with the planned temple and meetinghouse, the roadway shall be master planned. Such roadways shall be contained within a 50 -foot right -of -way and satisfy the design standards outlined in Section 6.03 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Detention facilities shall be 50 -feet from road right -of -way unless a barrier is provided. We envision a connection from the south stub street to 116 Street and a minimum of one east -west street providing access to Springmill Road. A traffic study would identify the need for a second access from Springmill Road; but I do not expect the traffic volumes to be that high (except during services) since the majority of the property will be residential. 4. We have requested dedication of additional right -of -way as follows: 70 -foot half across 116 Street frontage, 50 -foot measured from the section line across the Springmill Road frontage (ignore the current roadway alignment shift), a chamfer that is perpendicular to.a 120 -foot radius measured from the intersection of the section lines. 5. We have asked them to confirm with the DOCS the need for a stub street to the west from this property. 6. Given the pending Bridges PUD development, we will not request the construction of a passing blister at the Springmill:Road entrance. 7. The hydraulics of the existing pond will need to be analyzed. The development shall conform to the new flat release rates. The upstream /off -site watershed will need to be considered also. The offsite discharge from the Bridges Development will need to be coordinated and accommodated by this development. It has not been established if the Bridges will manage the runoff before leaving the site or if they will approach the LDS about managing the water in the existing pond or a modified facility. 8. Reconstruction of the existing plastic drainage pipe under 116 Street will need to be coordinated. It is not known if Silvara will negate the need for this pipe. Short term and long -term (if the discharge is to be perpetuated) accommodation of the drainage from this pipe needs to be considered. 9. If the existing pond is intended to be utilized as a BMP, it must be demonstrated that adequate treatment will be provided in the current and /or modified configuration. 10. The maximum water surface elevations of the off -site flood routing will need to be considered in establishing the on -site MFPG and MLAG elevations. 11. Off -site flood routes must be contained in an easement per the Storm Water Technical Standards. 12. I have not seen a traffic study. If this were purely a residential subdivision, we would not require one. Since there is a non- residential use proposed and the traffic from the use, in conjunction with the adjacent proposed uses, is expected to warrant improvements to the adjacent road network, we are requesting that a traffic study be developed. This traffic study needs to consider the Bridges and Silvara. 13. The Departments comment letter dated April 1, 2011 did not address alignment of the Springmill Road access with the opposing access to the Bridges. The expectation was that the entrances were aligned. As I understand it, presently, the entrances are not aligned and are approximately 80 -feet apart. The Department understands that the petitioner has discussed aligning the entrances with the Bridges developer and that each would shift the proposed entrance 40 -feet to achieve the desired alignment. The Department has not verified this on the current plan for the Latter Day Saints Temple. In general, the location of each entrance is acceptable to the Department. Shifting the entrances within the current 80- foot'offset so that they are aligned would be acceptable. The Department will rely on the petitioners to establish a location that is mutually acceptable to each development. If the parties agree to a,location that is substantially different that what-is proposed, we will need to evaluate the location further. Thanks so much, 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) gduncan@carmel.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Docket No. Petitioner: 2. 3. t,0 4. 5 afr kg--4" -Cc-e 1 CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BALLOT OF FACT SPECIAL USE 1'1020 SU Suburban Land =Reserve, Inc. cLi l'un.11 >C. 4A--t 5;4.. /7-‘276e-- 7_ c7 11.4 C ,4 DATED THIS 25 DAY OF April 6 ,er1 7(oy 20 1 1 Board Member Page 9 filen cial useapticafion 2011.doc rev. 12/28/2010 '7-1 4- '2 I I RECEIVED APR 1 4 2011 DOGS Banning 1. Please submit a full set of to -scale plans on 24 x 36 paper or similar size. Please include the landscape plan, photometric plan, grading /drainage plan, utilities plan, etc. MHTN 2. Please submit a set of to -scale exterior architecture building elevations. Also, please provide details on the building materials and colors. 1' MHTN 3. Please provide to -scale floor plans of the meeting house and of the temple. 1 TSP 4. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you. 4 Banning 5. Note: The landscaping bufferyard standards are under chapter 26.04 of the zoning ordinance. 3 TSP /MHTN 6. Feel free to, bring color and material samples to the BZA meeting. 1 TSP 7. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor's Office. 4 TSP 8. Provide the filled out Notice of the Public Hearing before the BZA form. 4 TSP 9. Please provide the filled out Findings of Fact sheet, within the application. (On Ballot sheets, only fill out docket number, petitioner, and date.) 4 TSP/Banning i +'lease provide proof of notice from the:IndyStar newspaper and provide the green signed return receipts from the certified mailings. TSP /Banning 1. Please provide a: parking breakdown chart; the parking ordinance requires 1 parking space for every 4 seats in the main assembly area. '4 Banning 12. This site has 2 front yards; please show /label the 100 -ft BSL along Springmill Rd, too. 3 Banning 13. Please provide the lot cover percentage. Please include the pavement and building footprints in this calculation. 3 MHTN /Spectrum 14. Please provide photometric plan for lighting fixture design and location details, such as parking lot lighting, building up- lighting, landscape lighting, etc. 3 MHTN /Spectrum 15. Please make sure that all exterior light fixtures have flat lenses and 90- degree cut offs, and have shields on the sides that face residential neighborhoods. 3 Banning 16. Side yard building setbacks for a church are 25 -ft, per zoning ordinance chapter 26.02.08. Please add this to the site plan, along the west property Banning Pe r the C3 Plan Pedestrian and Bike Plan map, please also show /label a 6 -ft wide bicycle land and a 10 -ft wide sidepath along 116th St. (see A ternative Transportation Systems details) 3 MHTN /Banning 18. Please provide better pedestrian connectivity from the paths along 116`" St. and Springmill Rd (closer to the roundabout), to the temple. 3 MHTN 19. Please show bike parking location and bike rack details, per section 27.06 of the ordinance. TSP Note there is a stated exception 1 Banning 20. Prepare an estimated construction cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan Alternative Transportation Plan; contact the Engineering Dept. for ..)re details. ROW improvement cost. 4 TSP /Banning 11_4 Please work with the City Engineering Dept. to see is a Traffic Study Analysis is required. TIA MHTN /Ratio 2., Do you propose any fencing? If so please provide details on the fence design location. TSP Note Ornamental fence in setback OK 2 TSP /MHTN c Please consider using additional LEED or 'green' building practices, such as a white membrane roof, solar panels, skylights, pervious pavers in all S art of the parking area, etc. List is attached. 1 MHTN /Banning 24. Please fabeI"the mechanical equipmentlocations on the site plan and provide details on how they are screened from view. This includes electric and gas meters. TSP Note Lable Utility building, show plan 2 MHTN /Banning 25. Please show /label the trash dumpster and provide the trash dumpster enclosure /screening details. TSP Note Labie Utility building, show plan 2 TSP 26. Will you be breaking this land into parcels? If so, each parcel must be at least 3 acres in size, per the West 116 Street Overlay. 4 Banning 27. There is concern about the proposal to extend the pond to the northwest towards the house at 11450 Chateaux Dr. and the loss of trees /screening /buffering. TSP Note show area pond South of Phase I line 3 MHTN /Ratio 28. Please provide the signage locations and details on colors, materials, design, lighting, etc. Per sign ordinance chapter 25.07.02 -05 two signs are permitted, since you have two frontages, and directional signage that is 3 -ft tall or less and 3 sq ft in area or less is considered exempt signage. TSP Note show Temple monument sign location, elevation, size, materials and lighting. 2 TSP /Banning 29. Per chapter 26.01.01: In the S -2 Residential Districts limiting height to thirty -five (35) feet, the required Side and Rear Yards are increased an additional foot for each foot such Structure exceeds twenty -five (25) feet in height. TSP Note height exception provided for spire 3 INDIN Temple and Meetinghouse Project Special Use Application Carmel TAC Review Action B Department's Review Comments; please address the followin Response to SU Application Review Comments from Angie Conn 2 -21 -2011 Please review any questions with Kerry B. Nielsen, Proiect Manager INDIN SU Application Review Comments Response 3 -15 -2011 3/15/2011 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Good afternoon, Kerry Please reply to each of the review comments for the LDS Church application via email or letter correspondence on or before March 18. Additional review comments may be voiced at the March 16 TAC meeting. Thank you. Department's Review Comments; please address the following: 1. Please submit a full set of.to -scale plans on 24 x 36 paper or similar size. Please include the landscape plan, photometric plan, drainage plan, utilities plan, etc. 2. Please submit a set of to- scale exterior architecture building elevations. Also, please provide details on the building materials and colors. 3. Please provide to -scale floor plans of the meeting house and of the temple. 4. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you. 5. Note: The landscaping bufferyard standards are under chapter 26.04 of the zoning ordinance. 6. Feel free to bring color and material samples to the BZA meeting. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor's Office. �i S r -8. Provide the filled out Notice of the Public Hearing before the BZA form. Please provide the filled out Findings of Fact sheet, within the application. (On Ballot sheets, only fill out docket number, petitioner, and date.) lease provide proof of notice from the IndyStar newspaper and provide the green signed return receipts from the certified mailings. 11. Please provide a parking breakdown chart; the parking ordinance requires 1 parking space for every 4 seats in the main assembly area. 12. This site has 2 front yards; please show /label the 100 -ft BSL along Springmill Rd, too. 13. Please provide the lot cover percentage. Please include the pavement and building footprints in this calculation. 14. Please provide all lighting fixture design and location details, such as parking lot lighting, building up- lighting, landscape lighting, etc. 15. Please make sure that all exterior light fixtures have flat lenses and 90- degree cut offs, and have shields on the sides that face residential neighborhoods. Side yard building setbacks for a church are 25 -ft, per zoning ordinance chapter 26.02.08. Please add this to the ite plan, along the west property line. er the C3 Plan Pedestrian and Bike Plan map, please also show /label a 6 -ft wide bicycle lane and a 10 -ft wide sidepath along 116 St. (Please work with David Littlejohn, Alternative Transportation Systems Coordinator, on the details of this.) 18. Please provide better pedestrian connectivity from the paths along 116 St. and Springmill Rd (closer to the roundabout), to the temple. 19. Please show bike parking location and bike rack details, per section 27.06 of the ordinance. 0 Prepare an estimated construction cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan Alternative Transportation Plan; contact the Engineering Dept. for more details. Please work with the City Engineering Dept. to see is a Traffic Study Analysis is required. A vvt_Q_. Do you propose any fencing? If so please provide details on the fence design location. (p% A- (Cs" C 5 2 3. lease consider using additional LEED or `green' building practices, such as a white membrane roof, solar panels, skylights, pervious pavers in all or part of the parking area, etc. List is attached. 24. Please label the mechanical equipment locations on the site plan and provide details on how they are screened from view. This includes electric and gas meters. 25. Please show /label the trash dumpster and provide the trash dumpster enclosure /screening details. 26. Will you be breaking this land into parcels? If so, each parcel must be at least 3 acres in size, per the West 116 Street Overlay. CO \•?(1e.vt -VIl 2-62, 7 27. There is concern about the proposal to extend he p o nd to the northwest to ards the house at 11450 Chateaux Dr. and the loss of trees /screening /buffering. l k wA ci_d_a 4 28. Please provide the signage locations and details on colors, materials, design, lighting, etc. Per sign ordinance chapter 25.07.02 -05 two signs are permitted, since you have two frontages, and directional signage that is 3 -ft �s o uu/ errs( \\O P Ise. 0- Conn, Angelina V Monday, February 21, 2011 4:09 PM 'Kerry B. Nielsen' 'Ryan Lindley' Review Comments for LDS Mormon Temple Meetinghouse (Docket No. 11020010 SU) Carmel Green Building Checklist.doc CO 5 v c C .,vice O>St�OU t kv QQ4 0,AD l.J eQ tall or less and 3 sq ft in area or less is considered exempt signage. Rachel Boone, Sign Permits Specialist, can help you formulate a signage plan; she can be contacted at 317 571 -2417 and rboone @carmel.in.gov. 291 Per chapter 26.01.01: In the S -1, S -2, R -1, R -2, and R -3 Residential Districts limiting height to thirty -five (35) feet, the required Side and Rear Yards are increased an additional foot for each foot such Structure exceeds twenty -five (25) feet in height. 6/LA St 66- Angie Conn, n, Plam7ing Administrator City of Carmel, Department of Community Services C P� ad Floor, One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 4 317.571.2417 phone 317.571.2426 fax http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us /services /communityservice.html P Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail 2