Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Zvi, ��yE�®lR'S ®�,�, �,: _e ( l�i l v/ Th�c p:' ^ ' ,t ' Oil yI. . ,_�� C �(4 / t 1', rill v. t �„ , .izi ,-..1 ,- Api-` IIIl , . � (J1flJJ(-ç) - 1 �� , ---' ( f . - --y �-% - -y '' '' =- Xenton C. `Ward, CrF f .._,_„„__, �,; . Suite rSS Surveyor of,7-lamilton County One J-(amilton County Square (Phone(317)776-5495 Noblesville, Indiana 46060-2230 `Far (317)776-9623 March 7, 2012 Fanning-Howey ATTN: Andy Miller 9025 North River Road, Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 46240 VIA E-MAIL: amiller@fhai.com RE: Westside Transportation Facility Addition Dear Mr. Miller: We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office on February 9, 2012, for this project and have the following comments: 1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the City of Carmel. 2. The proposed project does not fall in a Carmel Wellhead Protection Zone. 3. The proposed project does falls in the J.W. Brendle Regulated Drain Watershed. 4. This proposed project is replacing existing impervious area with the new building addition, so no change is runoff will occur. The master drainage plan for this site will not be changed and all discharge requirements will still be met. 5. No permits will be needed from our office for this project. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317-776-8495. Sincerely, Greg Hoyes, AC,CFM, CPESC Plan Reviewer CC: Angie Conn—Carmel DOCS, John Thomas—Carmel Engineering Dave Barnes—Carmel Engineering, Greg Ilko—Crossroad Engineers Conn, Angelina V From: Jeff Bolinger [jbolinger @fhai.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:59 PM To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Greg.Hoyes@hamiltoncounty.in.gov; Chuck Tyler; Andy Miller; William Payne; Willie Hall; Thomas, John G; Conn, Angelina V; Andy Cash Subject: FW: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review#1 Attachments: RE: Carmel High School Fitness Center- Stormwater Quality Proposal (City Comment Responses); RE: Carmel HS Athletic Center- Udpated Plan Sheets for Drainage Review; carmel fitness stormwater permit.pdf; Utility Plan SU12 Rev 3 14-Feb-2012.pdf; Carmel HS Fitness Room Utility Details_2 SU22 17-Jan-2012.pdf; details-G4.1.PDF; G1-0.PDF; G2-0.PDF; G2-1.PDF; GD 1.0.PDF; TAC Cover engineering resubmittal-Model.PDF; Utility Details SU21 Rev 3 14-Feb-2012.pdf From: Jeff Bolinger Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:39 PM To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: 'Greg.Noyes @hamiltoncounty.in.gov'; Chuck Tyler; Andy Miller; William Payne; 'Willie Hall'; Thomas, John G; 'Conn, Angelina V' Subject: FW: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review #1 Gary, Please note the accompanying updated plans that address all of the outstanding plan items for your final review prior to official hardcopy submittal to the city. These include revisions from the original 1-17-2012 Technical advisory comment letter along with your followup letter of 1-25-2012 as well as numerous emails and conversations (2 accompanying)that have taken place between Fanning Howey, our consultants at TLF and Carmel staff. We have also included a copy of the executed stormwater management permit application (original hard copy to be included in final city approved plan submittal). Please review all of the accompanying exhibits and let us know if you and the other departments agree that we have satisfactorily addressed all outstanding issues. Upon your final approval we will assemble the required 9 full sets and deliver with the signed hard copy of the stormwater management permit application for final processing and stamping. Please contact us with any other questions, comments or additional required items. Thanks for your timely review Jeff Bolinger, RI-4 Sr.Associate, Site Dept. Coordinator Fanning Howey T. (317)848-0966 F: (317)848-0843 E-mail: jbolinger@ffiai.com From: Andy Miller Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:26 PM To: Jeff Bolinger; Chuck Tyler; William Payne Subject: FW: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review #1 For your use... Andy Miller, ALA, CDT, LEED AP BD+C Project Manager/Associate 1 FanningNHowey T: (317)848.0966 F: (317)848.0843 E-mail: amiller@fhai.com From: Redden, Nick [mailto:nredden @ carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:15 PM To: Andy Miller Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Duffy, John M; Pace, Paul V; Arnone, Paul S; 'Greg.Hoyes©hamiltoncounty.in.gov'; 'Greg Ilko' Subject: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review #1 2 win et, .,des ctiob January 25,20I2 C1� e � A ET Mr.Paul A.Miller JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Fanning Howey 9025 North River Road, Suite 200 Indianapolis,IN 46240 RE: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review#1 Supplemental Comments Dear Mr.Miller: Please note the following supplemental comments. 1. Please revise comment 8 of the January 17,2012 letter to: "An approved right-of-way permit is required prior to commencing work in the public right-of-way and for construction equipment accessing the site from public right-of-way. 2. The Department withdraws comment 38 of the January 17,2012 letter. 3. Detail 4,Sheet U1.1 —subsurface drain shall be double wall Hancor HiQ or equivalent. 4. General note G1.0—"All concrete curbs..." Please revise to City standard. 5. G2.0 9A-Is this statement accurate? Is detention provided for this area? 6. 11A-Is this statement accurate? 7. 1 5A- Is this statement accurate? 8. Detail 2, Sheet G4.1 -Please revise for 16"of curb below grade(22"total height with 6" reveal). 9. Detail 3, Sheet G4.1 -Replace with City standard detail. 10. Detail 13, Sheet G4.1 -Replace with City standard detail. 11. Please add curb policy to plan set. If you have questions,please contact me at 571-2441. Sincerely, /R.D.nca , ., E. Assistan ity Engineer Depart ent of Engineering cc: Angelina Conn,Department of Community Services John Duffy,Carmel Utilities Paul Pace,Carmel Utilities Paul Arnone,Carmel Utilities Greg Hoyes,Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Greg Ilko,Crossroad Engineers,PC issvrappstuser dataiz:lsharedIDHILLIPROJREV I I\CARMELHIGHSCHOOLWE IGHTROOMADDITIONREV#1 DF:r'.IJ T:01icr ()I EV..Itictrcr::c; ONE CRrc Syr';ARI CAR\Ilil., IN 46032 Or rrrr: 317 571.2441 FAQ 317.571.2439 Emu!. rnguu•rnm:tunnel m g>' Conn, Angelina V From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:54 AM To: Greg R. Noyes; 'Jeff Bolinger' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Barnes, David R; David E. Lucas; Greg Ilko; Thomas,John G; Redden, Nick Subject: RE: Carmel High School Fitness and Weight Room Center Review Letter Good morning Jeff. Nick Redden just issued some comments for this project. A supplement to these comments is forthcoming. I wanted to discuss detention for this project. I am not certain how I considered this in the past to not require detention. I estimate that the total land disturbance (as defined in Section 101.03 of the City's Storm Water Manual) associated with this project is about 25,000-sf; well above 0.25-acres. The area associated with the current parking lot and building expansion does not appear to discharge to a stormwater management facility. Maybe, I previously assumed that there was a master planned detention facility. In that case, switching pavement for roof and a reduction in total impervious does not require any action. With that said, in similar cases, we would look for detention to be provided for the new expansion only. How much detention is realized in the proposed BMP? In the stone layer under the proposed pavement and sidewalk? Would it be possible to expand the proposed BMP to provide more detention? Raise the overflow? Has the school considered the installation of rain barrels as a part of the education component of the BMP? Thanks so much, Gary From: Greg R. Noyes [mailto:Greer.Hovesftamiltoncounty.in.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:48 PM To: 'Jeff Bolinger' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Barnes, David R; David E. Lucas; Duncan, Gary R; Greg Ilko; Thomas, John G Subject: Carmel High School Fitness and Weight Room Center Review Letter Jeff Attached is my review letter for the Fitness and Weight Room Center at Carmel High School. If you have any questions, please let me know. I,, <,, . , ae, eg.�, e Ese Plan Reviewer Hamilton County Surveyor's Office One Hamilton County Square Suite 188 Noblesville, IN. 46060 Phone: (317) 776-8495 Fax: (317) 776-9628 Greq.Noyes@ hamiltoncounty.in.gov Website: www.harniltoncounty.in.gov 1 - LEVI ill January 17,2012 CITY 0, EL Mr. Paul A. Miller JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Fanning Howey 9025 North River Road, Suite 200 Indianapolis,IN 46240 RE: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review#1 Dear Mr.Miller: The City received your construction plans on December 16,2011. The project is scheduled for review at the January 18,2012 Technical Advisory Committee meeting. We offer the following comments: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. These comments represent the Department of Engineering's first review of the construction plans for this project. 2. We request that all responses to our comments 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, DEpAarku.Nr cn' EM.31.\FFRIM, O\r Ci'u: ScM AJw. CARME1., IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2 44l FAN 317.571.2439 EM,vi, •nt; ii,ca rind in gnr, Mr. Paul A. Miller January I7,2012 RE: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review#1 Page 2 of 4 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 Carmel Corporate Limits. b. Perimeter Street and Right-of-Way—City of Carmel(Main Street, 136'"Street) c. Water—City of Carmel Utilities d. Sanitary Sewers—City of Carmel Utilities 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 Cannel 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 correspondence 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. Paul A.Miller January 17,2012 RE: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review 41 Page 3 of 4 20. Temporary Construction Entrance Approval. The location of a construction entrance was not shown on the plans. 21. The installation of any permanent,privately owned and/or 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 either Main Street or 136th Street 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 Irrevocable 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 Cannel 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. w Mr. Paul A.Miller January 17,2012 RE: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition-Project Review#1 Page 4 of 4 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." 37. Please add note stating"NO EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITY MAY COMMENCE WITHOUT AN APPROVED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT"to construction set. 38. All swales on site must have sub-surface pipe installed. Pipe to conform to requirements of Stonn Water Technical Standards Manual and shall be double wall,HI-Q pipe. 39. Please omit Sheet L1.0,Planting Plan;Sheets A1.1,A1.2,A1.3,A2.1,A3.1,A3.2,and E2.1 from construction sets to be submitted for review by this department. The Department of Engineering does not have approval authority over planting plans,architectural,or electrical plans. 40. Sheet C1.0—Title Sheet. a. Please remove the titles for the Planting Plan,Architectural Sheets,and Electrical Site Plan from the Sheet Index. 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 Hoyes,Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Greg Ilko,Crossroad Engineers,PC issvrapps\user data\z:\shared\D}IILL\PROJREV 11\CARM ELH1GHSCHOOLWEIGHTROOMADDITIONItEV#1 C"A oltT,wER�,t! / z 4 City of RJR 9JNI ROW /NM MAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES January 11,2012 Mr. Charles Tyler Fanning/Howy Associates 9025 North River Rd, ste 200 Indianapolis, IN 46240 RE: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition Dear Mr. Tyler: The following letter represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of alternative transportation. I have reviewed the project submitted for the January 18, 2012 Technical Advisory Committee meeting and the comments from the Alternative Transportation review have been satisfactorily addressed. 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 Alexia Donahue-Wold,Depai t,nent of Community Services Engineering Department Review Project File Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 :,y Carmel P01 , par�aen� Carre]L ll ldj1 1a 46032 ,% 2346 0 CP ' ,A'! s C^l JO ,.. ,6?0j? �dl January 5, 2012 c-.9 _ J (o- y ,. r. ,r Eastern Engineering Supply Reprographics 9901 Allisonville Road Fishers, IN 46038 RE: Carmel Fitness Center Job/PO # 206098.00 To Whom It May Concern: I have received and reviewed the information for the above-mentioned project. At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law enforcement efforts. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us. RespectfulI /. Timothy J. Green Chief of Police TJG:vb cc: Dept. of Community Services (317)571-2500 A Nationally Accredited=Lave„Enforcement Agency Fax(317) 571-2512 1 T - � ,,_ -� ��� .1 . 4a.rr.';�I III�. j„__-•• & •',�I — 1\,11$� 'Vt 7 1111 I`1.. . it r\ ..`J �C-- / — _ ..�;J tli/ t('// �4 q ,- If s t:,ti 4 �-_ �r� 1_11' ( i_? II 1 1'((g nw r - _f. �t f.41 . ` ) ),` - ,..a.,..._ 11 it L� �, 5 1 / c:,, \----__-__-- (,0 fi - '1 tt IC T ,)-0� ‘'--1— ' C'j ( '=- 1) - . .'4 �7-`_ , ' 6-" il .� '� A`∎ Xenton C. Ward, CYF.'v( Suite 188 Surveyor of J-(amilton County One J-familton County Square 'P/lone(317)776-8495 ,loble;inlle, Indiana 4606o-223o 'Tax (317)776-9628 January 5, 2012 Fanning Howey ATTN: Jeff Bolinger 9025 North River Road Suite 200 Indianapolis,IN 46240 VIA E-MAIL: ibolinger(&,fhai.com RE: Carmel High School Fitness and Weight Room Center Dear Mr. Bolinger We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office on December 15, 2011, for this project and have the following comments: 1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the City of Carmel. 2. The proposed project DOES fall in a Carmel Wellhead Protection Zone. 3. The proposed project does not falls in a Hamilton County Regulated Drain Watershed 4. Please direct all stormwater questions to the City of Carmel Engineering Department. 5. The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no comments or concerns on this project Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 317-776-8495. Sincerely, ,V101 i it i , Greg Hoyes, AC, CFM, CPESC Plan Reviewer CC: Angie Conn Carmel DOCS John Thomas—Cannel Engineering Dave Barnes—Carmel Engineering Greg Ilko—Crossroad Engineers • Conn, Angelina V rom: Jeff Bolinger Dbolinger @fhai.com] ent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 5:23 PM To: Mindham, Daren Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Chuck Tyler; William Payne; Andy Miller Subject: RE: Docket No. 11120021 TAC: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition. Attachments: rootball inspections w comments.doc; WEBSITES -planting-wire basket removal.docx Daren, Please note comments in Green below. I found the website references quite interesting. I have also added my comments and "ramblings" (from 35+years in field) (forgive me)to the accompanying attachments in Green. It sounds like we are both passionate about our plants and have the same long term results in mind. With your approval we will make the changes to the plans per the notes below. Thanks again for your quick response and I look forward to talking further with you. Jeff Bolinger, RLA Sr.Associate, Site Dept. Coordinator Fanning Howev T: (317)848-0966 F: (317)848-0843 E-mail: jbolinger@fhai.com From: Mindham, Daren [mailto:dmindham @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:33 PM To: Jeff Bolinger c: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Docket No. 11120021 TAC: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition. Jeff, See below in blue for comments. Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office:317-571-2283 From: Mindham, Daren [mailto:dmindham @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 3:50 PM To: Chuck Tyler Cc: Conn, Angelina V; day©cchalaw.com; Ron Farrand; Jeff Bolinger; William Payne Subject: Docket No. 11120021 TAC: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition. Charles, he following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments: 1 URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS 1) On page GD1.0— I do not recommend transplanting the 4 maples along the building,A 90" tree spade would be ideal but the trees are between a building and sidewalk and there doesn't seem to be enough room. Along with that, the trees are not in the best of health and do not seem vigorous. I also do not advise transplanting any ash as Carmel is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer and the cost of transplanting a tree that has a limited life span of a couple years is not productive. As Carmel in the past has been very sensitive to the removal of existing trees on construction sites we were trying to relocate and save as many of the existing trees in areas of new building construction as possible. Per the ANSI standards developed by the ANLA the 5" cal. Maples by the building should only require a 54" spade VS. a 90". A 90" spade however would definitely be better. We selected only the best and most accessible of the trees for transplant but unless the owner would be required to replace these trees with new I think they would be agreeable to omit any transplanting of the Maple or Ash trees as it would be a cost savings for an already extremely tight budget. As you have indicated the Ash trees in our area have had some major pest issues and we would agree with the comment about not relocating those trees. So to clarify,the maples will be transplanted and the ash will not. Agreed I would rather see the additional existing ash replaced with new trees now, but if the existing ash are to be saved, I guess that is agreeable, however, realize they will be dead in the next couple years if not treated. See note under#3, ash will not be transplanted nor will new trees be planted in their place. 2) On page G2.0— Planting note#3 says addition of 6" of top soil. Pardon me if I am reading the plan wrong as I am not 100%what this location is supposed to look like, but if trees are planned for the one bed where the River Birch are shown,there will need to be at least 3-4' of soil depth. Note #3 addresses "all" planting, ground cover beds and lawn areas where we call for a min. of 6" of topsoil. We include this as a general practice to replace topsoil lost in construction. Where we have trees or trees in planters the contractor would need to install additional topsoil or planting soil as called for in the planting details. We will include additional information about planting backfill from your standard planting details to our notes and details to help clarify. Ok. 3) With that, on page L1.0— BN river birch are too big of a species for that size of a planting bed, let alone having 2 in a limited space. We have chosen River Birch to continue the planting palette already established around the building for the raised planters. We have used this tree in numerous planters around the school with great success even without irrigation and would like to continue this theme for the new fitness center addition. We could however limit it to one tree instead of the 2 shown. One BN is fine with me. Agreed I would recommend Japanese Tree Lilac instead, as they will need less soil volume and they flower. For the FA ash replacement I would recommend a Japanese Zelkova as it has an upright shape that will be better for the location. Is it possible to eliminate the ash transplants or any trees in lieu of • ash in their entirety to assist the owner in keeping costs down? As in#1—yes, I don't see it responsible to transplant the 4 ash and the plan is still ok without replacing them with new. Agreed. Maybe one of the spruce could be moved to the other side of the detention to balance the area better and give more room for the spruce?We will substitute Serbian spruce for the Norways and would like keep them in a grouping for major screening of the dumpster area with your approval. 2 The 3 PA are too close to the building and too close to the swale. The Norway spruce (PA) are shown planted above the detention level beside the rain garden and were chosen to screen the dumpster area and are shown to be planted at a min. of 10' from the face of the building. We have used them at similar locations around the school and at a similar spacing with great success and would like to maintain them in the locations shown to help screen the area year round. Serbian Spruce will be substituted I recommend planting them out where the maples are, as to replace the maples. And where the PA are shown, I would plant yellowwoods or smaller trees.The Yellowwood being deciduous would not provide the screening of the dumpster areas that we are looking for that the Norway spruce would provide. The Yellowwood would also eventually get too large for the space (Per Michael Dirrs book the Yellowwood would get to be 30-50' in height and would have a spread of 40-55'). We could however consider changing the Norway spruce to the narrower Serbian spruce that has also been used extensively around the High school. Recommended Tree list is attached. I would like to see Serbian spruce used if possible.Agreed 4) On page L1.0—Plant Schedule— I noticed that there is a comment about 8" max between whorls. This comment is somewhat counter-productive to health landscaping. We request the 8" between whorls on evergreens to provide a denser evergreen for screening purposes. This is accomplished in the nursery by pruning on a regular schedule to provide a vigorous dense tree. We call out a dense tree at the time of planting knowing that the tree will ultimately loosen up naturally over time but it does provide a denser, better screening tree for the long term. I have seen some evergreens(primarily pines ) that have been unpruned that have distance between the growth whorls from 2' to as much as 7' (all were rejected) which defeats the purpose of specifying an evergreen for screening. Increased distance between whorls is a sign of a healthy,vigorous tree • and should be promoted. I will need this comment removed. I disagree with your logic, but I will allow this wording. By adding this note we just try to eliminate trees from "nurseries" that have not done "any"shearing, shaping or pruning that result in extremely loose or"transparent" evergreen trees that don't accomplish the desired screening we are looking for. 5) On page L1.0—Tree Planting detail — I noticed that there is a comment about fertilizer tablets or spikes. Again this is not professionally recommended on newly planted trees. We prefer to keep a note requesting fertilizing. The trees are already stressed due to a reduced root system and in need of extra nutrition until they develop new feeder roots that may have been lost in digging of the tree in the nursery. Knowledge of the nutrients from a soil test is ideal, but if fertilizing is still desired, I will allow this wording as long as the plan shows the spikes are to go outside the rootball, as it does. We will note accordingly I recommend that my Carmel standard details are used (attached) or this statement be removed. The City of Carmel also stresses removal of the all the packaging material at installation; which would include the wire basket. I fully understand some research claims that baskets may cause restriction of roots when the tree is reaching maturity. The basket however by that time, being manufactured of a soft steel that is a quicker rusting and an easier to dissolve material should not present major problems. I feel that benefits of having a basket around the root ball to maintain the integrity of the soil ball by limiting cracking of the soil ball and breaking of a root system that is already stressed at the time of planting far outweighs the "possibility" that several roots may be • limited in the distant future. This was very evident to me "first hand" when baskets were starting to become widely used in the mid 1970's. The staff Horticulturist at the IU/Purdue Ft. Wayne campus "demanded" all wire baskets be removed from the trees at the time of planting on a campus wide tree planting program. The company I was working with at the time ended up losing over 90%of 3 the trees planted due to removal of the baskets. After that year IUPUI amended that statement. We will add the note for removal of the steel baskets "only" if the City will assume responsibility for the trees survival during the initial establishment period. I do agree that the failure to remove synthetic twine bindings around the tree trunk at the base to secure the ball can cause girdling to the tree in the "nearer" future. Fertilizing is not recommended unless nutrients are proven deficient in a soil sample tested by a laboratory or by a trained eye observing a deficiency in a plant's foliage and generally not till after the first year after transplant. You story has limited information for me to understand fully the reasoning, were these trees staked? Drought? Poor stock? Dug too early or in fall? Not watered before installed?90%loss cannot basket related, but I appreciate understanding you experiences. A little more project background... the trees were from well known, inspected nurseries and were dug in typical early spring digging season. The trees were about 2/3 leafed out when the contractor was allowed on site.The growing season was not droughty, trees were staked and watered at time of installation and throughout a typical 60 day establishment period with the owner( IUPUI ) assuming maintenance thereafter. I think the major problem was that the staff Horticulturist demanded the baskets be completely removed "prior" to the tree going into the planting hole which created a very fragile ball as many of the trees were 3" +cal. in size.Any movement with a machine at that point in placement of the tree created fractures in the ball within the burlap breaking many of the feeder roots. With the tree already in a stress mode and somewhat leafed out this just added to the problem. If the trees had been planted totally dormant (not always possible) it may have been a different story. I would be glad to talk with you further. Anyways,the basket itself, I feel, is not really the issue as I also do the final landscape inspections as well. Basket removal for me insures that the twine has been removed,the root flare most likely has been planted at grade, the 'hooks' of the basket are not present (which tend to stick up and trip kids) and basket removal also helps with stump grinding and removal of the tree and stump when dead. Most of the websites you had attached seemed to generally agree (see attachment with high lights)that the removal or bending down of the top portion of the basket is generally acceptable and as you have noted would help to insure that any synthetic bindings are removed which can girdle the tree. By getting the top portion of the basket well below the soil and away from the trunk it should also help minimize contact with a stump grinder if needed in the future. In general it seems that the majority of the sites would like to see at least this top portion of the basket removed or folded down but not necessarily require it to be completely removed. The less the basket is disturbed before going into the planting hole I think the less breakage in the ball will result. If this is acceptable we will revise the notes accordingly. Staking as you have noted would be required. We have all of our trees planted without baskets and have had great success for over 10 years. Of course,with the Indiana wind they need to be staked! Are most of your trees planted in a 2" cal.+size in an early spring planting program when most of the trees are dormant or close to dormant?? I was just curious. Thanks for feedback. 1 have attached a few information documents that you may find interesting as I have put the website document together after a many discussion with landscapers disagreeing with my opinion. As this project is small and you have noted your position I will allow this wording about the planting detail as shown. I think this should address all issues, I will await a final landscape plan for stamping. We will make the noted revisions. Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter or revised plan.Thanks. Sincerely, Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel,Indiana 46032 Office: 317-571-2478 4 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity named. The use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. Please notify flikhe sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete his email from your system. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to see that no viruses are present in the electronic mail. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. 410 5 Conn, Angelina V From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:33 PM To: 'Jeff Bolinger' Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Docket No. 11120021 TAC: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition. Attachments: rootball inspections.doc; WEBSITES - planting - wire basket removal.docx Jeff, See below in blue for comments. Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317-571-2283 From: Mindham, Daren [mailto:dmindham @ carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 3:50 PM To: Chuck Tyler Cc: Conn, Angelina V; davcchalaw.com; Ron Farrand; Jeff Bolinger; William Payne Subject: Docket No. 11120021 TAC: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition. Charles, The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments: URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS 1) On page GD1.0— I do not recommend transplanting the 4 maples along the building, A 90" tree spade would be ideal but the trees are between a building and sidewalk and there doesn't seem to be enough room. Along with that, the trees are not in the best of health and do not seem vigorous. I also do not advise transplanting any ash as Carmel is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer and the cost of transplanting a tree that has a limited life span of a couple years is not productive. As Carmel in the past has been very sensitive to the removal of existing trees on construction sites we were trying to relocate and save as many of the existing trees in areas of new building construction as possible. Per the ANSI standards developed by the ANLA the 5" cal. Maples by the building should only require a 54" spade VS. a 90". A 90" spade however would definitely be better. We selected only the best and most accessible of the trees for transplant but unless the owner would be required to replace these trees with new I think they would be agreeable to omit any transplanting of the Maple or Ash trees as it would be a cost savings for an already extremely tight budget. As you have indicated the Ash trees in our area have had some major pest issues and we would agree with the comment about not relocating those trees. So to clarify,the maples will be transplanted and the ash will not. I would rather see the additional existing ash replaced with new trees now, but if the existing ash are to be saved, I guess that is agreeable, however, realize they will be dead in the next couple years if not treated. 2) On page G2.0— Planting note #3 says addition of 6" of top soil. Pardon me if I am reading the plan wrong as I am not 100%what this location is supposed to look like, but if trees are planned for the one bed where the River Birch are shown,there will need to be at least 3-4' of soil depth. Note #3 addresses "all" planting, ground cover beds and lawn areas where we call for a min. of 6" of topsoil. We include this as a general practice to replace topsoil lost in construction. Where we have trees or trees in planters the contractor would need to install additional topsoil or planting soil as called for in the planting details. We will include additional information about planting backfill from your standard planting details to our notes and details to help clarify. Ok. 3) With that, on page L1.0— BN river birch are too big of a species for that size of a planting bed, let alone having 2 in a limited space. We have chosen River Birch to continue the planting palette already established around the building for the raised planters. We have used this tree in numerous planters around the school with great success even without irrigation and would like to continue this theme for the new fitness center addition. We could however limit it to one tree instead of the 2 shown. One BN is fine with me. I would recommend Japanese Tree Lilac instead, as they will need less soil volume and they flower. For the FA ash replacement I would recommend a Japanese Zelkova as it has an upright shape that will be better for the location. Is it possible to eliminate the ash transplants or any trees in lieu of ash in their entirety to assist the owner in keeping costs down? As in#1—yes, I don't see it responsible to transplant the 4 ash and the plan is still ok without replacing them with new. Maybe one of the spruce could be moved to the other side of the detention to balance the area better and give more room for the spruce? The 3 PA are too close to the building and too close to the swale. The Norway spruce (PA) are shown planted above the detention level beside the rain garden and were chosen to screen the dumpster area and are shown to be planted at a min. of 10' from the face of the building. We have used them at similar locations around the school and at a similar spacing with great success and would like to maintain them in the locations shown to help screen the area year round. I recommend planting them out where the maples are, as to replace the maples. And where the PA are shown, I would plant yellowwoods or smaller trees. The Yellowwood being deciduous would not provide the screening of the dumpster areas that we are looking for that the Norway spruce would provide. The Yellowwood would also eventually get too large for the space (Per Michael Dirrs book the Yellowwood would get to be 30-50' in height and would have a spread of 40-55'). We could however consider changing the Norway spruce to the narrower Serbian spruce that has also been used extensively around the High school. Recommended Tree list is attached. I would like to see Serbian spruce used if possible. 4) On page L1.0— Plant Schedule— I noticed that there is a comment about 8" max between whorls. This comment is somewhat counter-productive to health landscaping. We request the 8" between whorls on evergreens to provide a denser evergreen for screening purposes. This is accomplished in the nursery by pruning on a regular schedule to provide a vigorous dense tree. We call out a dense tree at the time of planting knowing that the tree will ultimately loosen up naturally over time but it does provide a denser, better screening tree for the long term. I have seen some evergreens(primarily pines ) that have been unpruned that have distance between the growth whorls from 2' to as much as 7' (all were rejected) which defeats the purpose of specifying an 2 evergreen for screening. Increased distance between whorls is a sign of a healthy, vigorous tree and should be promoted. I will need this comment removed. I disagree with your logic, but I will allow this wording. 5J On page L1.0—Tree Planting detail — I noticed that there is a comment about fertilizer tablets or spikes. Again this is not professionally recommended on newly planted trees. We prefer to keep a note requesting fertilizing. The trees are already stressed due to a reduced root system and in need of extra nutrition until they develop new feeder roots that may have been lost in digging of the tree in the nursery. Knowledge of the nutrients from a soil test is ideal, but if fertilizing is still desired, I will allow this wording as long as the plan shows the spikes are to go outside the rootball, as it does. I recommend that my Carmel standard details are used (attached) or this statement be removed. The City of Carmel also stresses removal of the all the packaging material at installation; which would include the wire basket. I fully understand some research claims that baskets may cause restriction of roots when the tree is reaching maturity.The basket however by that time, being manufactured of a soft steel that is a quicker rusting and an easier to dissolve material should not present major problems. I feel that benefits of having a basket around the root ball to maintain the integrity of the soil ball by limiting cracking of the soil ball and breaking of a root system that is already stressed at the time of planting far outweighs the "possibility" that several roots may be limited in the distant future. This was very evident to me "first hand" when baskets were starting to become widely used in the mid 1970's. The staff Horticulturist at the 111/Purdue Ft. Wayne campus "demanded" all wire baskets be removed from the trees at the time of planting on a campus wide tree planting program. The company I was working with at the time ended up losing over 90% of the trees planted due to removal of the baskets. After that year IUPUI amended that statement. We will add the note for removal of the steel baskets "only" if the City will assume responsibility for the trees survival during the initial establishment period. I do agree that the failure to remove synthetic twine bindings around the tree trunk at the base to secure the ball can cause girdling to the tree in the "nearer" future. Fertilizing is not recommended unless nutrients are proven deficient in a soil sample tested by a laboratory or by a trained eye observing a deficiency in a plant's foliage and generally not till after the first year after transplant. You story has limited information for me to understand fully the reasoning,were these trees staked?Drought?Poor stock? Dug too early or in fall?Not watered before installed?90%loss cannot basket related,but I appreciate understanding you experiences. Anyways,the basket itself, I feel, is not really the issue as I also do the final landscape inspections as well. Basket removal for me insures that the twine has been removed,the root flare most likely has been planted at grade,the 'hooks'of the basket are not present(which tend to stick up and trip kids) and basket removal also helps with stump grinding and removal of the tree and stump when dead. We have all of our trees planted without baskets and have had great success for over 10 years. Of course,with the Indiana wind they need to be staked! I have attached a few information documents that you may find interesting as I have put the website document together after a many discussion with landscapers disagreeing with my opinion. As this project is small and you have noted your position I will allow this wording about the planting detail as shown. I think this should address all issues, I will await a final landscape plan for stamping. Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter or revised plan. Thanks. 3 Sincerely, Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel,Indiana 46032 Office: 317-571-2478 4 FANNINGN HOWEY , P © co) TRANSMITTAL L, • To: Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Date: January 3, 2012 B :6�, City of Carmel Division of Planning and Zoning Department of Community Services One Civic Square, Third Floor Carmel, IN 46032 Protect: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition Carmel Clay Schools From: Jeffrey L. Bolinger, ASLA Carmel, IN Landscape Architect/Senior Associate Project No. 206098.00 No.of Copies Description of Items 1 Fanning Howey Check No. 301518, in the amount of$303.00, payable to the City of Carmel, for Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Review Sent Via: r Mail F UPS r Overnight r Hand Deliver r Pickup I- Courier E Fax I COMMENTS: Please contact me if you need any additional information prior to the Technical Advisory Committee Review Meeting. jlb/bc Fanning/Howey Associates,Inc.intends to send this information(including any attachments)only to the designated individual or entity.If you received this information in error,please notify the sender by replying to the electronic mail(if electronic)or by telephone at the number indicated on this document. Use,disclosure,dissemination,distribution,or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING 9025 North River Road I Suite 200 I Indianapolis,IN 46240 317.848.0966 I fax 317.848.0843 I www.fhai.com • Conn, Angelina V From: Jeff Bolinger [jbolinger @fhai.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:58 PM To: Mindham, Daren Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Ron Farrand; Chuck Tyler; William Payne; Andy Miller Subject: FW: Docket No. 11120021 TAC: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition. Daren, Please note our responses in red below to your comments. Please contact us with any additional comments or questions. Thanks again for your timely review and response. Jeff Bolinger, RLA Sr.Associate, Site Dept. Coordinator Fanning Howev T: (317)848-0966 F: (317)848-0843 E-mail: jbolinger @fhai.corn From: Mindham, Daren [mailto:dmindham @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 3:50 PM To: Chuck Tyler Cc: Conn, Angelina V; day @cchalaw.com; Ron Farrand; Jeff Bolinger; William Payne Subject: Docket No. 11120021 TAC: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition. Charles, The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments: URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS 1) On page GD1.0— I do not recommend transplanting the 4 maples along the building, A 90" tree spade would be ideal but the trees are between a building and sidewalk and there doesn't seem to be enough room. Along with that, the trees are not in the best of health and do not seem vigorous. I also do not advise transplanting any ash as Carmel is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer and the cost of transplanting a tree that has a limited life span of a couple years is not productive. As Carmel in the past has been very sensitive to the removal of existing trees on construction sites we were trying to relocate and save as many of the existing trees in areas of new building construction as possible. Per the ANSI standards developed by the ANLA the 5" cal. Maples by the building should only require a 54" spade VS. a 90". A 90" spade however would definitely be better. We selected only the best and most accessible of the trees for transplant but unless the owner would be required to replace these trees with new I think they would be agreeable to omit any transplanting of the Maple or Ash trees as it would be a cost savings for an already extremely tight budget. As you have indicated the Ash trees in our area have had some major pest issues and we would agree with the comment about not relocating those trees. 1 2) On page G2.0— Planting note #3 says addition of 6" of top soil. Pardon me if I am reading the plan wrong as I am not 100% what this location is supposed to look like, but if trees are planned for the one bed where the River Birch are shown,there will need to be at least 3-4' of soil depth. Note #3 addresses "all" planting, ground cover beds and lawn areas where we call for a min. of 6" of topsoil. We include this as a general practice to replace topsoil lost in construction. Where we have trees or trees in planters the contractor would need to install additional topsoil or planting soil as called for in the planting details. We will include additional information about planting backfill from your standard planting details to our notes and details to help clarify. 3) With that, on page L1.0— BN river birch are too big of a species for that size of a planting bed, let alone having 2 in a limited space. We have chosen River Birch to continue the planting palette already established around the building for the raised planters. We have used this tree in numerous planters around the school with great success even without irrigation and would like to continue this theme for the new fitness center addition. We could however limit it to one tree instead of the 2 shown. I would recommend Japanese Tree Lilac instead, as they will need less soil volume and they flower. For the FA ash replacement I would recommend a Japanese Zelkova as it has an upright shape that will be better for the location. Is it possible to eliminate the ash transplants or any trees in lieu of ash in their entirety to assist the owner in keeping costs down? The 3 PA are too close to the building and too close to the swale. The Norway spruce (PA) are shown planted above the detention level beside the rain garden and were chosen to screen the dumpster area and are shown to be planted at a min. of 10' from the face of the building. We have used them at similar locations around the school and at a similar spacing with great success and would like to maintain them in the locations shown to help screen the area year round. recommend planting them out where the maples are, as to replace the maples. And where the PA are shown, I would plant yellowwoods or smaller trees. The Yellowwood being deciduous would not provide the screening of the dumpster areas that we are looking for that the Norway spruce would provide. The Yellowwood would also eventually get too large for the space (Per Michael Dirrs book the Yellowwood would get to be 30-50' in height and would have a spread of 40-55'). We could however consider changing the Norway spruce to the narrower Serbian spruce that has also been used extensively around the High school. Recommended Tree list is attached. 4) On page L1.0— Plant Schedule— I noticed that there is a comment about 8" max between whorls. This comment is somewhat counter-productive to health landscaping. We request the 8" between whorls on evergreens to provide a denser evergreen for screening purposes. This is accomplished in the nursery by pruning on a regular schedule to provide a vigorous dense tree. We call out a dense tree at the time of planting knowing that the tree will ultimately loosen up naturally over time but it does provide a denser, better screening tree for the long term. I have seen some evergreens(primarily pines ) that have been unpruned that have distance between the growth whorls from 2' to as much as 7' (all were rejected) which defeats the purpose of specifying an evergreen for screening. Increased distance between whorls is a sign of a healthy, vigorous tree and should be promoted. I will need this comment removed. 5) On page L1.0—Tree Planting detail— I noticed that there is a comment about fertilizer tablets or spikes. Again this is not professionally recommended on newly planted trees. We prefer to keep a note requesting fertilizing. The trees are already stressed due to a reduced root system and in need of extra nutrition until they develop new feeder roots that may have been lost in digging of the tree in the nursery. I recommend that my Carmel standard details are used (attached) or this statement be removed.The City of Carmel also stresses removal of the all the packaging material at installation; which would include the wire basket. I fully understand some research claims that baskets may cause restriction of roots when the tree is reaching maturity. The basket however by 2 that time, being manufactured of a soft steel that is a quicker rusting and an easier to dissolve material should not present major problems. I feel that benefits of having a basket around the root ball to maintain the integrity of the soil ball by limiting cracking of the soil ball and breaking of a root system that is already stressed at the time of planting far outweighs the "possibility" that several roots may be limited in the distant future. This was very evident to me "first hand" when baskets were starting to become widely used in the mid 1970's. The staff Horticulturist at the Ili/Purdue Ft.Wayne campus "demanded" all wire baskets be removed from the trees at the time of planting on a campus wide tree planting program. The company I was working with at the time ended up losing over 90% of the trees planted due to removal of the baskets. After that year IUPUI amended that statement. We will add the note for removal of the steel baskets "only" if the City will assume responsibility for the trees survival during the initial establishment period. I do agree that the failure to remove synthetic twine bindings around the tree trunk at the base to secure the ball can cause girdling to the tree in the "nearer" future. Fertilizing is not recommended unless nutrients are proven deficient in a soil sample tested by a laboratory or by a trained eye observing a deficiency in a plant's foliage and generally not till after the first year after transplant. I realize some of my answers may lead to questions. Please contact me if needed. I too realize that you may have some questions with my responses and we may need to discuss further. Thanks so much for your in depth review. Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter or revised plan.Thanks. Sincerely, Daren Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel,Indiana 46032 Office: 317-571-2478 Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the designated individual or entity. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the electronic mail . Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. , will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful. Any information included in this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance. 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Mindham, Daren Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 3:50 PM To: 'Chuck Tyler' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; 'day @cchalaw.com'; 'Ron Farrand'; 'Jeff Bolinger'; 'William Payne' Subject: Docket No. 11120021 TAC: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition. Attachments: Recommended Tree List.pdf; Treedetail-Carmel.pdf; Evergreendetail-Carmel.pdf; Shrubdetail- Carmel.pdf Charles, The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments: URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS 1) On page GD1.0— I do not recommend transplanting the 4 maples along the building, A 90" tree spade would be ideal but the trees are between a building and sidewalk and there doesn't seem to be enough room. Along with that, the trees are not in the best of health and do not seem vigorous. I also do not advise transplanting any ash as Carmel is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer and the cost of transplanting a tree that has a limited life span of a couple years is not productive. 2) On page G2.0— Planting note #3 says addition of 6" of top soil. Pardon me if I am reading the plan wrong as I am not 100%what this location is supposed to look like, but if trees are planned for the one bed where the River Birch are shown, there will need to be at least 3-4' of soil depth. 3) With that, on page L1.0— BN river birch are too big of a species for that size of a planting bed, let alone having 2 in a limited space. I would recommend Japanese Tree Lilac instead, as they will need less soil volume and they flower. For the FA ash replacement I would recommend a Japanese Zelkova as it has an upright shape that will be better for the location. The 3 PA are too close to the building and too close to the swale. I recommend planting them out where the maples are, as to replace the maples. And where the PA are shown, I would plant yellowwoods or smaller trees. Recommended Tree list is attached. 4) On page L1.0— Plant Schedule— I noticed that there is a comment about 8" max between whorls. This comment is somewhat counter-productive to health landscaping. Increased distance between whorls is a sign of a healthy, vigorous tree and should be promoted. I will need this comment removed. 5) On page L1.0—Tree Planting detail — I noticed that there is a comment about fertilizer tablets or spikes. Again this is not professionally recommended on newly planted trees. I recommend that my Carmel standard details are used (attached) or this statement be removed. The City of Carmel also stresses removal of the all the packaging material at installation; which would include the wire basket. Fertilizing is not recommended unless nutrients are proven deficient in a soil sample tested by a laboratory or by a trained eye observing a deficiency in a plant's foliage and generally not till after the first year after transplant. 1 I realize some of my answers may lead to questions. Please contact me if needed. Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter or revised plan. Thanks. Sincerely, Dairen Mindham Urban Forester City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel.,Indiana 46032 Office: 317-571-2478 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Jennifer McCloud [jmccloud @fhai.com] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 10:28 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Project: 206098.00- Weight Room Addition at Carmel High School - File Transfer- 206098.00 TAC Submittal for Carmel High School Weight Room Addition 12/16/11 Attachments: Transmittal - 00006.pdf IMPORTANT: Click a link below to access files associated with this transmittal that came in through the Fanning Howey Info Exchange web site. The attached file contains the transmittal details. Click here to download associated files Project 206098.00 - Weight Room Addition at Carmel High School Name: Project 206098.00 Number: From: Jennifer McCloud (Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc.) To: Alexia Donahue-Wold (City of Carmel), Angie Conn (City of Carmel), Daren Mindham (City of Carmel), David Littlejohn (City of Carmel), John Thomas (City of Carmel), David Lucas (Hamilton County), Rollin E. Farrand, Jr. RA (Carmel Clay Schools), Steven Krebs (AT &T) CC: Jeff Bolinger (Fanning Howey), Chuck Tyler (Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc.), Andy Miller f=anning/Howey Associates, Inc.) Subject: 206098.00 TAC Submittal for Carmel High School Weight Room Addition 12/16/11 Sent via: Info Exchange expiration None Date: Remarks: Please click on the link provided to download the documents. If you have any questions, please contact Jeffrey Bolinger at 317-848-0966. 1 Copy of the TAC Review Application with Legal Description 1 Set of Plans Including Location Map, Cover Dated December 13, 2011 Transferred Files — Name Type Date Time Size _ 01 - Cover (24x36).pdf PDF File 12/14/2011 12:51 PM 453 KB 02 - Index (24x36).pdf PDF File 12/14/2011 9:05 AM 572 KB_ 03 - GD1-0.PDF PDF File 12/8/2011 2:40 PM 951 KB_ 04 - G1-0.PDF PDF File 12/8/2011 2:41 PM 704 KB 05 - G2-0.PDF PDF File 12/14/2011 11:53 AM 980 KB � 06 - G2-1.PDF PDF File 12/8/2011 2:40 PM 1,086 KB 07 - G4.1.PDF PDF File 12/8/2011 2:40 PM 650 KB_ 08 - L1-0.PDF PDF File 12/8/2011 2:40 PM 875 KB_ 09 - SU1.1 Utility Plan.pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 5:00 PM 324 KB_ 10 - SU2.1 Utility Details 1.pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 5:00 PM 458 KB 11 - SU2.2 Utility Details 2.pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 5:00 PM 1,304 KB 12 - A1-01.dwg (24x36).pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 9:41 AM 727 KB_ 13 - A1-02.dwg (24x36).pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 9:42 AM 720 KB_ 14 - A1-03.dwg (24x36).pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 9:43 AM 542 KB- 15 - A2-01.dwg (24x36).pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 9:44 AM 423 KB_ 16 - A3-01.dwg (24x36).pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 9:47 AM 689 KB_ 1 17 - A3-02.dwg (24x36).pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 9:48 AM 554 KB 18 - E2-01.dwg (24X36).pdf PDF File 12/13/2011 9:38 AM 1,208 KB Copy of TAC Review Application with Legal Description.pdf PDF File 12/16/2011 10:01 AM 1,231 KB To share and learn more about Newforma Info Exchange visit www.newformant.com Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the designated individual or entity. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the electronic mail. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. , will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful. Any information included in this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance. 2 FANNINGN HOWEY , RECF �+! nt,„ 6 jag w l TRANSMITTAL N, To: Angie Conn Date: December 16, 2011\'-,eg g l ®dq?� Alexia Donahue-Wold Department of Community Services Planning and Zoning One Civic Square, 3rd Floor Carmel, IN 46032 Protect: Carmel High School Weight Room Addition From: Paul (Andy) A. Miller, AIA, CDT, LEED AP Carmel Clay Schools BD+C Carmel, IN Project Manager/Associate Project No. 206098.00 No.of Copies Description of Items 1 Original TAC Review Application with Legal Description 1 Copy of TAC Review Application with Legal Description 2 Sets of Plans Including Location Map, Cover Dated December 16, 2011 Sent Via: F Mail 3 UPS r Overnight ` Hand Deliver r Pickup 1' Courier r Fax COMMENTS: pam/jm Fanning/Howey Associates,Inc.intends to send this information(including any attachments)only to the designated individual or entity.If you received this information in error,please notify the sender by replying to the electronic mail(if electronic)or by telephone at the number indicated on this document. Use,disclosure,dissemination,distribution,or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING 9025 North River Road I Suite 200 I Indianapolis,IN 46240 317.848.0966 I fox 317.848.0843 ( www.fhai.com