HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 05-18-05
CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MAY 18, 2005
TAC Members present:
Communications, Bill Akers email comments
Urban Forester, DOCS, Scott Brewer
Carmel Schools, Ron Farrand, email comments
Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes
Carmel Fire Marshal, Gary Hoyt
Clay Township Reg. Waste, Candy Feltner email comments
Hamilton County Highway, email comments
Carnek Engineering, Nick Redden
Vectren Energy, Chuck Shupperd
Hamilton Co. Soil & Water, John South
Dept. of Community Services, Jon Dobosiewicz, Matt Griffin, Intern
Nathan Anderson
Docket No. 05050002 SP: Villas at Morgan Creek
The applicant seeks to plat 11 lots on 6.05 acres. The site is located at 14309
Gray Road and is zoned S1 (Residential).
Filed by Adam DeHart of Keeler-Webb Assoc. for Covenant Group, LLC.
Present for Petitioner: Adam DeHart of Keeler-Webb Assoc., Jerry Corbier, Covenant Group,
The majority of changes have occurred with the storm system and erosion control. A few minor
changes, the petitioner is currently working with DNR on the construction of a bridge for either
side of the creek for crossing.
COMMENTS:
? Vectren, Chuck Shupperd does not have revised plans; Vectren needs 4 inch pipe for gas.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter for Dean Groves. Cinergy needs digital copy and service request.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden, submitted comments to Adam DeHart during
the meeting.
? Carmel Fire Dept, Gary Hoyt, sent a comment letter to Adam last month. Intend to gate
the community? Petitioner says “No.” Any amenity on site such as pool/bath house?
Petitioner says “No.” Adam De Hart commented that homes will be an English-type villa
with courtyards, one and two-stories.
? Carmel Urban Forester, Scott Brewer, has only a Development Plan, no landscape plan
received.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz. Wants to make sure the sidewalk is 5-foot, concrete.
Secondary Plat review—petitioner needs to follow up with TAC Agencies with the
recordable plat, especially Surveyor’s office for proper identification of 100-year flood on
the recordable plat. This item will go to BPW rather than Hamilton County. The bridge
should be pushed up to 45 feet so that the required amount of right-of-way will be
available on the north side.
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 1
End
______________
Docket No. 05040008 DP Amend/ADLS Amend:
Brownstone Homes at Guilford Reserve
The applicant seeks to construct 40 townhomes on 4.993 acres. The site is located
at 1101 South Guilford Road and is zoned PUD.
Filed by Robert Barbato for Crawford Development, LLC.
Adam DeHart, Keeler-Webb, Robert Barbato and David Clain were present representing
Crawford Development.
Comments from Adam DeHart: Development Plan and ADLS have been amended in response to
flood plain issues on the site. The petitioner is not going to be able to put 14 units on the east
side of the Creek as originally planned in the PUD. The revision moved 6 of the 14 lots back to
the west side of the Creek. The petitioner has worked with the Surveyor in re-locating the
retention pond from the west side of the Creek to the east side of the Creek so that it would be
considered by DNR a flood control structure as opposed to a true detention or retention pond.
There are two reasons for that—one, so that the petitioner can apply for a variance from the
Hamilton County Drainage Ordinance that requires on-site detention—we are creating a flood
control structure in lieu of detention and the pond is much bigger. The petitioner needs the dirt
material, and it is beneficial to the neighbors and basically what the petitioner must give up in
th
order to get the variance for the on-site detention. Some neighborhoods south of 116 Street
flood from Carmel Creek, and on top of the detention ponds from Carmel Science & Technology
Park and the proposed structure, it will not completely alleviate the problem but it will certainly
help.
The new plan now has a total of 40 units, still crossing the Creek on an existing structure and
installing a cul-de-sac in so that there will be a good place to turn around and also create good
access to the pond for maintenance. Everything east of the Creek will be designated as a
regulated, legal drain easement.
COMMENTS:
? Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes, concurred with Adam’s summary of the project.
There should be an answer forthcoming from the Drainage Board hopefully Monday next
week.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin sent Adam a comment letter, nothing further at this time.
? Vectren Energy, Chuck Shupperd, has up-dated plans—project has been assigned to
Cathy Beeson and anything additional should be directed to her.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter, no additional comments at this time.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden, submitted comment letter—asking for a
response to previous written comments and that the comments be incorporated into the
plan before they proceed with their review.
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt had no further comments but was in favor of the design
changes presented—much more efficient for the Fire Dept.
? Hamilton County Soil & Water, John South did not write a letter, is waiting for an up-
dated erosion control plan. Two questions—where is the intended, excavated material
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 2
going—on site? Adam’s response: majority will be used for building pads and fill for the
streets, etc. The remainder/excess is not known—no specifics yet. John South said this
really needs to be addressed so that traffic/trucking and mud into the street will be
minimized if there is a lot of trucking of spoils from the site—whether it is a wash pit or
stone is brought up to the loading site, it needs to be addressed. Adam DeHart said he
would try to address in the storm water pollution plan. John South, question two: With
the revision of the plan, it looks like the water quality aspects of the storm water design
have gone “down the tube.” Adam DeHart responded that he will be picking that up and
addressing it.
? City of Carmel Urban Forester, Scott Brewer sent an email to Adam. The north and south
landscaping and tree preservation are in conflict with utility easements. Electric and Gas
are on both the north and south sides all the way to the Creek. Petitioner needs to see
landscaping and utility levels and determine where conflicts are and how they can be
addressed. It looks as if the 15-foot landscape easement and the 15-foot utility easement is
the exact same 15 feet—this needs to be separated. Petitioner will look at.
? Clay Township Regional Waste, email comments—Development has not yet received
IDEM approval. Pre-construction meeting need to occur; any additional changes to
approved plan needs to be reviewed by District’s engineers.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz no additional comments other than the department must see the
updated and revised site plan before the Secondary Plat is signed.
? Clay Township Regional Waste, email comments: Development has received no IDEM
approval. Preconstruction meeting needs to be held. Any additional changes to the
approved plans need to be reviewed by District’s engineers.
End
_______________________________________________
Docket No. 05030024 PP: Sweet Charity Estates - Primary Plat
The applicant seeks to plat a residential subdivision of 22 lots on 38.68 acres±.
th
The site is located at 1303 West 116 Street and is zoned S1/Residential.
Filed by Paul Reis of Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP
Present for Petitioner: Paul Reis, 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1200, Mike DeBoy and Kevin
Roberts, DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc.
The petitioner has applied for a residential development to be known as Sweet Charity Estates, a
th
section of land at 1303 West 116 Street. The 22 lots are at least an acre or more per lot for
custom homes. This primary plat is in the very preliminary stages.
COMMENTS:
? County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes sent comment letter. This is currently an
unincorporated area but will become a Hamilton County regulated drain subdivision once
Clay Creek becomes a regulated drain. A flood plain study will need to be done.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin said he emailed comments to Paul Reis and Mike DeBoy.
th
? Vectren, Indiana Gas, Chuck Shupperd said there is gas on 116 Street and Ditch Road.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter said this project is IPL territory.
? Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden submitted copy of their comments and encouraged
petitioner to contact Engineering if they had any questions.
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 3
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt said he had sent a letter to Stacy April 18. Need to know
width
road of the entrances. Petitioner responded it is 50 feet on the main right-of-way,
probably 70 feet at the front entrance. Pavement width? 20 feet. Any amenity building
on site? Response: “No.” Existing structures will remain for foreseeable future. At this
time, nothing is contemplated as being “gated.” Gary Hoyt says Fire Dept. is requesting
that newly platted subdivisions be installed with fire hydrant markers perpendicular to the
fire hydrants in the middle of the street.
? County Soil & Water, John South faxed comment letter—had comments regarding the
soils—generally speaking subdivisions utilize the soils well, basements are not
recommended in the Brookston areas. John South says the stream will need to be
evaluated for erosion control measures, if needed, between the Surveyor’s office and Soil
& Water office—the Commissioner’s have made it quite clear this needs to be addressed
by the developer up front rather than homeowners in the future. The common area is nice
and can be enhanced with a wildlife habitat that would be better than it is now.
? Carmel Urban Forester, Scott Brewer emailed Mike Hollibaugh earlier—Scott has no
landscaping information for review at this time. Property is not being developed under
ROSO, but there are still landscape buffer issues—will need to see plans—petitioner
agrees.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz—there is an opportunity here because of the lot configuration
and sizes—perhaps the petitioner could commit to planting requirements in the rear of
those lots to address the buffer standards; then, as each owner came in, they would
conform to the plan. It would have to be at the building permit stage on each individual
lot—not a set plan. Jon Dobosiewicz suggested that Paul Reis include in the covenants
and restrictions the rear yard landscaping requirements to meet the buffer standards and
then present the plan to the Commission, exclusive of species and type, but the number of
plantings every 100 lineal feet of perimeter.
? Clay Township Regional Waste, email comments. Sanitary sewer construction plans need
to be submitted for review to District engineers—the District has not received sewer
service plans. The District project application needs to be completed. An IDEM
construction permit will be needed. All IDEM submittal info should be provided
following the District’s plan review along with plans if revisions have been requested.
Matt Griffin asked if the waivers had been applied for and what the current status is. Paul
Reis responded that they would re-group after this meeting and would be applying for the
waivers.
End
_______________________________________
Docket No. 05040027 DP/ADLS: West Carmel Center Office Park
The applicant seeks to create 4 office buildings on approximately 6 acres±. The
site is located southeast of Commerce Drive. and Carwinion Way. The site is
zoned B-5/Business.
Filed by Jack Lashenik of American Consulting, Inc. for Coastal Partners.
Present for Petitioner: Alen Fetahagic and Rod Pizarro, American Consulting Engineering; Paul
Meier, Architect.
COMMENTS:
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 4
? County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes has major concerns with this project. Due to the
fact that the ponds are part of Cool Creek detention system, there is a statutory 75-foot
easement from top of bank, and there are buildings shown within the easement, the
Surveyor’s office denies this petition as presented. Alen Fetahagic said he would call Greg
Hoyes and set up a meeting to resolve.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin referred to the Department Comment letter. Alen Fetahagic referred
to item #4 that referred to a 50-foot setback plus 15 feet on Commerce Drive and would
like to discuss. It was recommended that a meeting be scheduled to resolve. Jon
Dobosiewicz commented that the 50-foot setback may have inadvertently been identified.
The Department would like to see buildings along Commerce Drive pulled up to the
street; the Department would support relief from the Ordinance.
? Alen Fetahagic questioned the 10-foot wide asphalt path, whether or not it has already
been constructed. Jon Dobosiewicz said it was constructed to the north and south of the
site, not along the east side—it should show on the plans. Jon asked for renderings of the
buildings as they would look on site and what is on the east.
? Clay Township Regional Waste, email comments—request sanitary sewer construction
plans be submitted to District for review. District project application needs to be
completed; an IDE construction permit will be needed. All IDEM submittal info should be
provided following the District’s plan review along with plans if revisions have been
requested.
? Vectren Engergy, Chuck Supperd says gas main stops at the back side of Target. Vectren
will extend the main around Retail Parkway to Commerce Drive. Question as to the best
layout for the meters.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter—not Cinergy territory—Indpls Power & Light.
? Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden, no comments
th
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt sent comment letter sent to Mike Jett on May 11.
Petitioner says buildings will not be sprinklered—no basements. Gary Hoyt requests
knocks box—secure box for Fire Dept access on each bldg. Would like to schedule
meeting in early June to discuss possibility of additional fire hydrants along Commerce
Drive for better water access.
? Soil & Water Conservation, John South faxed a letter last Monday to Mike Jett. Suggests
if building construction will be in staged fashion, there should be some consideration for
temporary seeding of the building pads in construction sequence. Also, the inlet
protection shown is probably not appropriate in those areas of driving surface—same
gravel bank—would be appropriate for curb inlet but not for driving surface area—would
recommend some type of practice that actually fits down into the catch basin. Request
that the petitioner be clearer on the water quality narrative—be specific on what water
quality practices are designed and employed, not a litany of what is possible. Also, if there
is going to be a lot of truckloads in/out of normal construction entrances, there needs to
be better housekeeping or better practices to minimize tracking into the street, i.e. longer
construction entrances, keeping the trucks on a stone surface, providing better
housekeeping and cleaning of the streets, etc. Perhaps submit an exhibit of how this will
be employed, but the standard 100-foot construction entrance is not adequate.
? Urban Forester, Scott Brewer suggests petitioner look at the landscaping again—it does
not meet the bufferyard requirements. Petitioner said they have applied for a variance to
move the landscaping to the top of bank because of the pond along the east side—the
west side of the pond will be landscaped. Scott requested a full landscape plan; need to
see street trees on Commerce Drive. Species comments: Hedge Maple is not a shade tree
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 5
and the amount of species is not approved or recommended for disease. Scott said he
would be glad to send the petitioner comments by email—petitioner also needs to look at
utilities and potential contact with landscape.
? DOCS Jon Dobosiewicz introduced summer intern Nathan Anderson. No additional
comments on this project, but would advise the petitioner to work closely with the
Surveyor’s Office and get the issues resolved before Plan Commission. Also, verify the
setback along Commerce Drive so that a variance can be requested, and within the
narrative statement submitted with the application, build rationale behind the request for
building setback.
End
_____________________________________
Docket No. 05050001 DP/ADLS: Nightingale Home Healthcare
The applicant seeks approval for an office building on 1.23 acres±.The site is
located at 1036 S Range Line Rd, and is zoned B-3/Business within the
Carmel Dr-Range Line Rd Overlay.
Filed by Mark Swanson of Mark Swanson Associates.
Present for Petitioner: Mark Sawnson and Dennis Lockwood, Mark Swanson Associates; Mike
DeBoy and Kevin Roberts from DeBoy Land Development Services. The building at 1036 South
Range Line Road is a three-story building and encompass approximately 30,000 square feet.
Currently, the business is located at 1036 Range Line Road in an existing house that will be
demolished.
COMMENTS:
? County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes faxed comment letter regarding regulated drain,
watershed, .24 CFS per acre. Kevin will look at containing the entire site and submit data.
At that time we’ll determine requirements for detention.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin reported that Angie Conn had sent a comment letter to the
petitioner—no additional comments at this time. Matt asked about the second sign and
whether or not the petitioner would seek a variance. Mark Swanson said he had
discussed it with the owner and it is still under consideration at the present time.
? Vectren Energy, Chuck Shupperd asked if petitioner was planning on using gas to the new
construction; Mr. Swanson responded in the affirmative.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter stated the contact for this area is Dean Groves and he asked that a
new service request be submitted. Dean Groves would also like to have a hard copy of
the site plan as well as a CAD drawing. The form has an area to be filled in for electric
loading. Shirley asked the petitioner to coordinate with Dean Groves the removal of the
service to the existing house.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden said his comments are not completed but will
get to the petitioner as soon as possible.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz said there was discussion regarding this site and access to
Veterans Way. Nothing is proposed here. Mark Swanson said that access is still active
discussion with him and the property owners. Jon suggested Mark Swanson contact either
the Mayor’s Office or Les Olds.
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Dennis and has had a response. The building
will apparently be sprinkled, and Gary would like to set up a meeting in early June to
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 6
discuss where the Fire Dept. connection would go. Mark Swanson says the building will
have a fire alarm. Gary Hoyt said a remote enunciator panel at the main entrance would
be appreciated; a Knox box is requested on the building for Fire Dept. access as well as
Fire Dept connection caps from the Knox Company to secure the pressed seam in the Fire
Dept connection. Basement? No. Underground parking? The lower floor has parking—
enclosed on three sides, and will be sprinkled.
? Soil & Water Conservation, John South faxes letter to petitioner. Is or is not the site
greater than one acre? If over, it would fall under the Rule 5 requirements for a storm
water pollution prevention layout. Request some documentation of dimensions for the
actual disturbed area of the site. Mark Swanson said the site plan has dimensions: 140
feet wide by 380-it calculates to less than one acre and can furnish the legal description;
there is an additional 10 feet of right-of-way that needs to be taken into account that was
dedicated to the City. Allowing for the exclusion of the 10 feet puts it under one acre.
There will be no construction within the 10-foot right-of-way. Additional comment from
John South: Along the south property line is a dramatic grade change between property
line and existing. Contrary to statement, it looks like slopes will not be 3 to 1 or flatter. It
appears that a retaining wall or some such structure will have to be designed along that
location—it needs to be clear on the plans. Petitioner states there are plans for a retaining
wall.
? City Urban Forester, Scott Brewer said this is the first submission received with the Range
Line Road Overlay and it is a little different. No review letter prepared as yet. Petitioner
is removing a substantial amount of large, mature trees—street trees are required under
the Ordinance. Scott suggested that the petitioner use structural soils to bridge
underneath the sidewalk to give the trees the maximum amount of rooting space. Existing
trees should show on the plans so that it is very clear to the Plan Commission what is
being removed. Mark Swanson that on the plan that was submitted, the designated
symbol for the trees was on a layer that got turned off. There are about one and one-half
dozen trees that will be removed. Regarding the parking lot, Scott Brewer suggested that
the petitioner combine the two different islands into one large island with plantings within
so that 3 or 4 substantial shade trees could be accommodated in the area.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz sent a comment letter. Jon suggested that in three spots, an
element be created or pattern where there was a window. Regarding the parking area
underneath, perhaps something could be created that would be an opening or two along
the south end to let some natural light into the space. The petitioner concurred. Jon
suggested that Mark Swanson contact Les Olds and present his plan to the CRC to get
some feedback.
End
______________________________________________
Docket No. 05040026 DP/ADLS: Burford Office Park
The applicant seeks approval to construct a 2 building office complex on 1.73
acres in conjunction with the following rezone:
Docket No. 05040028 Z: Burford Office Park
The applicant seeks to rezone 1.73 acres from R1 and R3 to B5. The site is
located at 10430 Delaware St. N and is zoned R1 and R3, and is within the Home
Place District Overlay Zone.
Filed by Jim Shinaver for Burford Properties, LLC.
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 7
Preliminary Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz. This proposed office park is in the area of Home Place
and is the first project that TAC has seen in this area. It is a new plan for us. Probably in June,
the Department will make some amendments to the setbacks required within this area. This
proposal is the first project in this area.
In attendance for petitioner: Jim Shinaver, attorney, Nelson & Frankenberger; Dr. Lynn Burford;
Shawn Curran, Curran Architecture; Jessica Hartman, Parsons, Cunningham & Shartle,
Engineers; Debbie Shumate, Harding Dahm Realty.
rdth
The project consists of 4 individual parcels located north of 103 Street, south of 106, east of
and adjacent to Pennsylvania Street. These properties are currently zoned R1 and R3 and
requested for rezoning to B5 to permit the construction of two office buildings on this site. This
is being viewed as a phase I and phase II development. If all approvals were granted, the building
on the northern portion of the site would be constructed first, then the building on the southern
portion at a later date.
COMMENTS:
? Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes sent a comment letter to Jessica
Hartman with a copy to Jim Shinaver. As of now, the site is unincorporated Hamilton
County and within Clara Knott’s watershed. The Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office will
not approve the roadside ditches at Delaware and Pennsylvania Streets as adequate outlets
for this site. This is a very old subdivision with roadside ditches and very poor drainage.
If this were approved, we would hear from every resident in the subdivision that we are
not helping their drainage. Mr. Hoyes invited the petitioner to meet with his office—there
are plans for storm water runoff work in the area that has never moved forward. Perhaps
a better outlet for this site can be provided.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin emailed a letter to Jim Shinaver. Just a few comments: We will need
a replat of the Penn View Heights Subdivision that created these lots. We are working
internally to address some of the setback issues. The small path leading from the residence
to the rear of the property—any use? What is it? Petitioner responded the existing path
was formerly used by the eastern resident to access a mini barn, or some other structure at
the rear of the property.
? Jim Shinaver referred to photo metrics referenced in Matt’s letter. Jim Shinaver and the
th
petitioner met with Jon Dobosiewicz on May 5 and hand-delivered some cutsheets of
some lights and photometrics.
? Vectren Energy: Chuck Shupperd asked if gas would be used for either one or both of
these buildings—Vectren has a main just south of this property.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter said the engineer on this project is Dean Groves and he will be the
contact person. Shirley gave a sheet to the petitioner with load information on it--
Petitioner is to make a service request by calling the 1-800 number. Dean Groves has also
requested a hard copy of the site plan as well as a CAD drawing.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden does not have comments concluded as yet; will
be forthcoming.
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Jessica. Anticipating automatic sprinkler
system protection? No. Fire Alarm? Yes. Gary Hoyt said the Fire Dept would request
an enunciator panel that is a remote panel at the front entrance to the building. Gary Hoyt
also requested Knox box on the building for Fire Dept access. Fire Dept would like to
have a set of keys. Building Height? 22.6 ft to the ridgeline—no basement. Gary Hoyt
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 8
rd
further commented that there is an office space just north of 103 and Pennsylvania—is
this development going right next to it? Jon Dobosiewicz said it was separated by one or
two lots. Gary Hoyt said the street narrows after it crosses from Pennsylvania—is there
any anticipation that the City will widen? Jon Dobosiewicz responded in the affirmative.
Gary Hoyt requested additional fire hydrants installed in this area—probably coordinated
with roadway improvements.
? Soil & Water Conservation, John South commented that at this time, he has very few
comments with the rezone. As the building and construction plans go forward, the
petitioner will have to submit a storm water pollution prevention plan.
? Clay Township Regional Waste District, email comments: This is located within the
District’s service area. Sanitary sewer construction plans need to be submitted for review
to the District’s engineers. The District has not received sewer service plans. District
project application needs to be completed. An IDEM construction permit will be needed.
All IDEM submittal info should be provided following the District’s plan review along
with plans if revisions have been requested.
? Urban Forester, Scott Brewer said it does not look as if the petitioner meets the perimeter
buffer guidelines. There should be 60 shade trees—the petitioner may want to revisit the
amount of landscaping. In some areas, it is not clear where the trees are in relation to the
ponds—landscaping is in conflict with utilities.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz asked if Scott Brewer could take a close look to see if it is the
Ordinance requiring too much or is the petitioner short. As the first “out of the gate,” we
want to make sure we have not adopted a standard that is unreasonable. We may want to
make some modifications to the setbacks if there is no space to put additional plantings.
End
_____________________________________
Docket No. 05050003 Z: Fortune Rezone
The applicant seeks to rezone 43.6 acres from S1 to PUD for the purpose of
developing a site with single family homes, townhomes, and limited commercial
st
uses. The site is located at 2555 W 131 Street and is zoned S1.
Filed by Charlie Frankenberger.
Overview: Charlie Frankenberger representing Indiana Land Development in their request for a
rezone classification from S-1 to a mixed use PUD. Also present: Paul Shoopman, Chris
Wiseman, engineer from Cripe & Assoc. The petitioner will be appearing before the Plan
st
Commission on June 21 in connection with the rezone only. The Development Plan application
th
will be filed May 20 and the petitioner will confer with the Department regarding bringing these
st
two procedures together. The site contains 43 acres and is located south of 131 Street, west of
Towne Road, between two parcels being developed as a part of the Village of WestClay PUD.
The plan divides the real estate into areas A, B, and C; A is at the north, C is attached single-
family, B is a mix of townhomes and attached single-family, and area A will be developed either
for limited commercial, civic uses or townhomes. There has been a suggestion that we leave the
real estate undeveloped for a certain period of time to discuss the details to allow for the
possibility of interested civic users.
COMMENTS:
? Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes only had a letter, no plans for the site.
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 9
? DOCS, Matt Griffin sent a comment letter. Item 1 in the letter –the site as designed is
fine, but there are some opportunities in cooperation with the neighbors, Village of
WestClay, to align the streets so that there is no redundancy in access—looks like there is
an option at Lincoln Street that would afford an extra lot or two. Paul Shoopman
responded that he had talked with Keith Lash at Brenwick—there is a lot of conversation.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz commented that there is opportunity for a layout, whether that is
their response to your plan or in cooperation. There are definitely specific areas, whether
Brenwick comes back and modifies their area to the west in response to your plan, but
working together might lead to a much more responsive plan and I would encourage that
to happen.
? Charlie Frankenberger commented that Keith Lash seemed encouraged and cooperative;
Charlie also agreed with Jon’s comments that there is some synergy that can be achieved
by cooperating in the overall development.
stth
? Vectren Energy, Chuck Shupperd said there is gas on 131 and 126 Street and can
service this project. If Village of WestClay goes before this, we will come out and make
the connection.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter had no formal comment at this stage but will be the contact
th
person when this starts to develop. There is a high transmission line along 126 Street—
please consider—the poles have been moved back to the new right-of-way, but unsure
where they would fall in respect to an entrance.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden has not yet finished comments, but will submit
as soon as possible.
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt sent Paul Shoopman a letter advising no additional
requirements at this time until construction documents show utilities and streets.
? Soil & Water, John South also sent a letter to Paul Shoopman. A couple of comments on
the rezone uses: 1) We do not recommend basements in the Brookston soil types 2)
There is a wetland shown on the plan—is that an existing, jurisdictional wetland or is that
proposed? If jurisdictional, please provide additional information.
? Urban Forester, Scott Brewer has received the tree preservation plan and a lot of material
from Judd Scott—so far submission is OK—probably will be some comments on the PUD
because of so much stuff in different sections, it is a little confusing.
? Charlie Frankenberger asked that Scott wait until the petitioner submitted a revised PUD.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz referred to Section 4.2 and 4.3 and suggested that the petitioner
be more specific with regard to the number of plantings along the perimeter. Also,
regarding the PUD under 3.4, when calling out residential and commercial floor areas
permitted, perhaps refer to maximum number of units rather than reciting specific
numbers; the other issue is density—this should be discussed at the macro level in concert
with the Comprehensive Plan. The areas and uses—what will need to run along with this
is a set of commitments that would talk about area A. The identified uses and setbacks are
adequate—no comments on what has been provided in those areas for the three zones.
However, petitioner should look closely at the intended product type to make sure that
they do not have to return to the Plan Commission if a conflict were discovered between
the intended product type and the language in the Ordinance. It will be necessary for the
petitioner to provide an exhibit for information to the Commission that gets them
comfortable with the product.
? Clay Township Regional Waste, email comments. This is located within the District’s
service area. Sanitary sewer construction plans need to be submitted for review to the
District’s engineers. The District has not received sewer service plans. District project
application needs to be completed. An IDEM construction permit will be needed. All
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 10
IDEM submittal information should be provided following the District’s plan review along
with plans if revisions have been requested.
End
______________________________________
Docket No. 05050004 Z: Arden Townhomes
The applicant seeks to rezone 12.72 acres from R1 to PUD for the purpose of
developing a site with 100 proposed townhomes. The site is located at 1940 E.
th
136 Street and is zoned R1 – Residential.
Filed by Jim Shinaver for Buckingham Properties.
Overview: Jim Shinaver, attorney, Nelson & Frankenbers; David Leazenby, Buckhingham
Properties; Rich Kelly, Engineer, EMHT Engineering. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the
th
property to a PUD on 12.72 acres located at 1940 East 136Street. At this stage, the petition is
for the rezone only. If the rezone is approved, the petitioner would return with a detailed
Development Plan and ADLS review.
COMMENTS:
? County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes faxed comment letter—no objection to the rezone.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin did not prepare a comment letter; will put Jon D’s comments and
writing.
? Vectren Energy, Chuck Shupperd said there is already gas at the road and no problem
serving the PUD.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter has no comments at this time.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden distributed comment letter.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz suggested the petitioner get a real good handle on the flood plain
and get comfortable with it before they are too far along in the process.
th
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt sent a letter of May 11 and will forego those comments
now—no problem the proposal, and petitioner will probably see those comments again.
Regarding school access, turning radius is probably pretty good, but nice to have an
additional access—the Fire Dept would applaud the additional access if the school would
go for that.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz responded that in the initial plans, it is the single point of access
onto Smokey Row that is narrow, heavily wooded. At least explore the opportunity with
the school for additional access.
? Soil & Water, John South commented that basic soils information is pretty decent for a
change—very few building limitations on this particular site. It seems that there are some
areas where hard surfaces could be limited. The areas where there is paring or drives to
the rear of the building should be minimized for the benefit of water quality. Soil & Water
will also need to look at the stability of Cool Creek running through the property and
address existing and potential erosion control problems along Cool Creek.
? Rich Kelly, Engineer, responded that as the petitioner moves into the Engineering phase,
they will get with John South.
? Urban Forester, Scott Brewer has no main problems with the PUD. In Section 8.3, 8.4,
and 8.5, there are several different landscaping items—are they cumulative? Also, in
Section 8.6, the tree conservation area, if you list everything you could possibly want in
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 11
the tree conservation, it does not become a tree conservation area. The area could be
better defined.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz suggested a separate exhibit, perhaps an aerial photo delineating
the area for tree preservation. Jon also said he would be more comfortable replacing the
12 shrubs per building to some number per unit.
? Jon Dobosiewicz has a copy of the PUD Ordinance and will provide it to the petitioner.
There is some language that Jon would like to see added—1400 square feet per unit seems
a little small. The minimum distance called out is 10 feet between buildings. Section 6.2
refers to minimum building setbacks as being 10 feet from the real estate. Jon suggested
breaking it down into east property line, west, north--the south has a greater setback than
the other areas. Section 7 talks about the building facades and Jon would ask that the
petitioner establish a percentage of masonry so there is not an all Hardy-Plank building
with some brick accent. Section 9C calls off street lighting and refers to Exhibit D which
shows the light fixture. The site plan, Exhibit G, does not identify any light standards.
Parking: add additional language indicating that was possible, 18 feet behind units should
be provided to provide the additional space. Regarding access to the school site, section
13.1B there is a lot of language that needs to be cleaned up—there are some mis-
references. The Department will review administratively a Secondary Plat, not a
Development Plan. The petitioner may want to define “condominium.”
End
_________________________________
Docket No. 05050005 PP: Yorktown Woods - Primary Plat
The applicant seeks to plat a residential subdivision of 33 lots on 12.4 acres.
Docket No. 05050006 SW: 07.05.07 (2) – Woodlands
The applicant seeks to remove 44% percent of the existing young woodlands
(ordinance permits only 30% clearing). The site is located S of Laura Visa Drive
Stub/E of SR 431. The site is zoned R1/Residential.
Filed by Gary Merritt.
Overview: Charlie Frankenberger, attorney, Nelson & Frankenberger, representing the Merritt,
Hubbard, and Ellis in their request for a primary plat approval and one subdivision waiver
pertaining to tree clearing. Also present, Brian Cross and Eric Gleissner.
The real estate is 12.4 acres located east of and adjacent to Keystone, north of Smokey Row,
west of Carey Road and just south of Laura Vista Subdivision. In order to appease the concerns
of the residents of Foster Estates, the petitioner would like to route construction traffic onto the
access road off of Smokey Row Road, immediately east of Keystone and north off Smokey Row.
The petitioner does not anticipate a lot of in/out traffic, but it would a considerable relief to the
residents of Foster Estates it this access road could be used for development/construction traffic.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that there is a landscape business in that area and their truck traffic
is primarily AM out and PM return—during heavy traffic times—and this may not be a big change
in the kind of activity seen currently.
For subdivisions that have more than 15 lots, if there is only one point of ingress/egress, a waiver
or variance is required; if you stub, for purposes of the Ordinance, that constitutes the other
entrance.
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 12
COMMENTS:
? Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes said this project is out of their
jurisdiction.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin emailed comments to Mr. Merritt yesterday. The 431 Overlay
requires a 30-foot landscape greenbelt along its right-of-way. The cul-de-sac bulbs
will infringe into the right-of-way. The petitioner is advised to work with Scott
Brewer to determine an appropriate way to handle the plantings and how the buffer
will be handled. The Department would also like to see a pedestrian connection
between the two cul-de-sac bulbs to make it easy for people to use. David Leazenby
thought some sort of natural trail would be good so that the vegetation would not
have to be torn up. The greenbelt could be an issue—to pull the cul-de-sacs back, the
setbacks get into the lots. DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz said that would require a
Development Standards Variance. The Department will work with the petitioner.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter stated that Dean Groves is the actual contact person on this
project. Dean Groves has indicated he is unsure how this project will be fed.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden gave comment letter to petitioner.
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt sent Eric a comment letter. Request fire hydrant
markers are placed perpendicular to the road. Additional comments—Concord Drive
may already be in existence—suggest contact Bill Akers in communication. Access
road for construction, would that stay? Gary Hoyt said Fire Dept would request
connector pavers to allow fire equipment access and could use the construction road
for secondary ingress—that is a City Street. The petitioner will research. Gary Hoyt
said that at present, access would be difficult for fire equipment. Petitioner said he
would remove that section of pavement to the south property line when construction is
complete. Gary Hoyt will send the petitioner specs on the fire trucks—12-foot width
would be adequate.
? Soil & Water Conservation, John South noted that the soil is fairly decent; would
recommend that the pond have a positive outlet. John was encouraged by the re-
forestation plan. It was mentioned that the elevation would have to be raised quite a
bit on the pond to make it work—there is an approximate 20-foot drop. It might
require an easement on the neighbor’s property. The pond is more or less a
percolation pond and fluctuates quite a bit.
? Urban Forester, Scott Brewer emailed comments to Eric yesterday. Four points:
overall pretty encouraged, just ad more species of trees and more trees, the buffer
needs to be heavier at the cul-de-sacs, but will work with the petitioner.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz encouraged the petitioner to have an exhibit that illustrated
thth
Carey Road to the east, the highway to the west, 146 Street to the north, and 136
Street to the south. The Plan Commission will definitely want to see stub streets; Jon
suggested the petitioner highlight with arrows.
End
___________________________________________________
Docket No. 05050013 TAC: Village of West Clay – Regency 1 Building
The applicant seeks to construct a mixed-use building with 7,250 sq. ft. of
retail/commercial and 18,960 sq. ft. of residential. The site is located at the SW
corner of Horseferry Road and Bird Cage Walk and is zoned PUD.
Filed by Brandon Burke of the Schneider Corp. for Brenwick TND Communities.
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 13
Overview: Brandon Burke, Schneider Corp, 12821 East New Market Street, Suite 100, for
Brenwick Development. Also in attendance: Kevin Krulik, Brenwick; Jamie Ford, Schneider
Corporation; Heather Worrell, Ratio Architects.
The Regency Building is located within the Village Center on the corner of Birdcage Walk
Horseferry Road in the northeast corner of Block E. The Regency Building is multi-story, mixed-
use building with 19,000square feet of residential space and approximately 7,000 square feet of
commercial.
COMMENTS:
? County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes faxed a comment letter to Brandon. Only a few
items.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin has no comments at this time.
? Vectren Energy, Chuck Shupperd says already services area—new building no problem.
? Cinergy, Shirley Hunter gave petitioner service request form—understands there is an
electric line to be relocated and will work with Kevin Krulik to accomplish.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden has not yet finished comments but will get to
petitioner ASAP.
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt sent letter to Brandon—requests a meeting in June to go
over fire dept. connections locations. Basements? “No” Gary Hoyt requested Knox box
for emergency access. Request Enunciator panel at the main entrance. No underground
parking.
? County Soil & Water, John South emailed comments of approval
? City Urban Forester, Scott Brewer did not receive landscaping plans.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz asked the location of mechanicals—rooftop? “Yes” The only
suggestion is that the rooftop mechanicals are extremely visible and a parapet wall is
.
requested for screening
End
____________________________________________
Docket No. 05050019 TAC: Mayflower Park, Blk 6, Lot 5: 2down Solutions
The petitioner seeks to construct a new office/warehouse building. The site is
th
located southeast of 99 Street and Mayflower Park Dr and is zoned I1/Industrial.
Filed by Greg Snelling on behalf of 2down Solutions, LLC.
Overview: Sean Curran, Curran Architecture. The property is within Mayflower Park, an 8,000
square foot building that will be occupied by 2down Solutions, a commercial landscaping
company; part of the building will be warehouse space for storing vehicles and equipment.
Behind the building is a paved area used for staging of materials and trucks, and a covered carport
area for parking trailers. This is an existing, platted site.
COMMENTS:
? County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes sent comment letter—requested drainage calcs to
justify detention.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin—looks like Angie Conn sent a comment letter—looking for more
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 14
information—no real objection to what is seen thus far—would like to see copy of
complete landscape plan and lighting/photometric plan. Otherwise, no comment.
? Vectren Energy, Chuck Shupperd, petitioner to call service for west end—ready for
service.
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden has no comments at this time.
? Carmel Fire Dept, Gary Hoyt sent a letter to Sean; response was a little confusing.
Petitioner says the building is not to be sprinkled but there is space for the fire hydrant. If
there is a fire alarm, would like an enunciator at the main entrance. The Knox box
location is fine.
? Soil & Water Conservation, John South sent comments via email. The dry basins will
probably not be very dry. Sean says the owner would like to make the ponds into
wetlands with plantings on the banks and within the shelves so that they can become water
quality basins. The center will be deep enough for sediment to settle out, but there will be
a shelf around perimeter to allow wetlands plantings. John South asked if the site is pretty
balanced. The petitioner is proposing that some of the soil will be used for the adjacent,
th
Fuller Engineering site that Browning is building. Some dirt was brought in from 99
Street and it is just being moved around. Sean said he would talk to the contractor; if they
are not going to use the dirt, the petitioner will show a stockpile, silt fence, and temporary
seeding. John South said the bigger issue is that same sites that have a lot of importing or
exporting material and tracking ends up being a significant problem. The petitioner said
the goal is for it to balance.
? Urban Forester, Scott Brewer said he just got the landscape plans on Friday and has not
had time to email. Looks as if utility lines are running through—not sure if overhead—
hope they are underground. Petitioner says everything is underground but the cylinder.
Some of the trees specifications are two inches, all shade trees should be 2.5 inches and
the quantity numbers do not match the plan—there are four red maples on the table and
there are 12 listed on the plans—these need to agree. Also, there is a lot of pavement—
please give some thought to an alternative, pervious pavement—that is a lot of asphalt!
Petitioner states he has no personal experience with pervious pavement—would like to see
how it works during winter with traditional freezing and thawing before specifying it as a
use.
? Clay Township Regional Waste, email comments. The District has not received sewer
service plans. District project application needs to be completed.
End
_________________________________________
th
Docket No. 05050021 ADLS: 96 Street Professional Park – Building 3
The applicant seeks approval of a 10,121 sq. ft. office building, related site design,
and parking. The site is located at 9745 Randall Drive and is zoned B3/Business.
Filed by Stacy Fouts of Insight Engineering.
Present for Petitioner: Daryl Holtz, Insight Engineering proposes the construction of a third
th
office building in the 96 Street Professional Park on Randall Drive. The building will be in the
th
block on the west side of Carmel Creek north of 96 Street. It is possible that two more buildings
will be built in this block. There are 46 parking spaces; there will be a new drive coming off
Randall Drive and the building will have a residential look to match the existing buildings.
COMMENTS:
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 15
? Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office, Greg Hoyes sent a letter to Daryl Holtz stating the
project is outside their jurisdiction but would not recommend because of flooding. The
petitioner responded that when CarMax was built, there was no storm drain included and
the water was forced over to Tom Wood and O’Brien. To remedy, CarMax installed a 4
foot diameter storm sewer from the southeast corner of O’Brien’s property to Carmel
Creek.
? DOCS, Jon Dobosiewicz suggests petitioner get this item addressed prior to hearing date
at Plan Commission on June 21, 2005.
? DOCS, Matt Griffin emailed comments to Stacey Fouts at Insight. Would like to see
entire photometric plan. The wall packs look as if they will cast a lot of light out rather
than down, closer to the building. Request pedestrian access from sidewalk to main
building and delineation of space/route from sidewalk to building. (striping or cross-
hatching)
? Vectren Energy, Chuck Shupperd says standard facility, no problem servicing
? City of Carmel Engineering, Nick Redden has concerns regarding flood plain and drainage
and will have to work through that. Petitioner will get back with Engineering.
? Carmel Fire Dept., Gary Hoyt sent a letter and has had a response addressing issues.
? County Soil & Water, John South sent a letter—need to determine whether this is a Rule
5 site or not. Petitioner says disturbed area just under an acre. John South requests a
construction limit and rough calculation. If under one acre, this is still a Rule 5 project,
the petitioner just does not have to go through the normal plan procedure. Would like to
see the basic requirements listed on the plan.
? Carmel Urban Forester, Scott Brewer did not get a letter out but will send ASAP. Project
does not appear to meet perimeter buffer guidelines. Graphic detail needs to say:
“planted at grade level.” No tree protection shown for existing trees along the front and
no plantings at all behind the buildings.
S:/Technical Advisory Committee/Minutes/2005/TAC2005may18 16