The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03060224 Plan Revision 7/14/03CTTY.OF eARAREL foe Rqvis/on fo O~/ /no/ Plon Sqbmi~ed ~)at4 Original Building Permit Number: Address of Builder: Telephone Number: ~ob Address:. q36o Lot i Subdivision: Est. Total Cost ApplicenYs Address & Telephone Num Additional Sq. Ft. DEPT OF COMMUNiTy SERVICES of perju~ (:ndiana ~ ]~th that peovided in this-Application n to Original Plan is true my knowledge and belief, and that information that would tend Dept. of Communi~ Seevices ~egarding the truth of the ma~ers ATTENT~:ON: Ar Approved by: Applicant's Printed Name plans apply to specified revisions ONLY. Date: Add tonal Fees Owed, --- c> s; permits/revision to octive ;ermits form Project CARMEL FIRE DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW Address Received Releasea Reviewed Type City Permit Reviewer Position Comments: 08/~2/2003 13:37 F~[ 7705691786 PIEP~R OBRI~N m;RR ~001/00! Augu~ 12~003 FAX; (317) 571-2426 If you have any question Sincerely, ARCHITECTS NL Smith Associate / Pmjed Manager ou like to reduce your turnaround time? Would Y ' WITH STATE OF INDIAHA AT ELECTRONICALLY FILE YOUR pEOjEGT CONSTRUCTION DESIGN RELEASE · *~ Form 4~'191 (R91~-~8) Repot printed on: Jul~ 11, 2003 II-N. II-N. SPK ARCH ELEC MECH s'rR CARMAX iNDiANAPOLIS B, S-3 8O119 Public Salty and 1Yalnt~ in~ffJtute CARMEL HAMILTON conditions No ~ If ~ ~ml~m mv~. v~h ~ i review II ~l~oia De adnlent of Rre Please b~ ed ~ klan the matter for . ' ' ' te or a day In ~lch ~e p ~. ~ Iffylng under Stale ~tu ~r I~' you Fire ~, , $ turd a Sunday, legal . a t~e fimt working ay ,,.,., da... ,,.~ -.._~__~...._"'"'"'" ~' '._., ". '"',,o... ,. ,,. ,.,,- ~. '"."'~"'~"'""' ".__ _~_.. ~.. ~,., ~ .,, .,,=~,-,~- · ?~'."~,"'" ..... tm final, and you must comply with Code review official Page 111 e lightin spaces; IF Ih wall in ne; #7144 Narrative increased by 30 Revised dimensions Revised section markers ination ination and notes ~itor, Shower and Computer (170) Revised dimensions. ARdOOm layouts ded sheet Vinyl to Service Writers and Ops Manager Added Clear sealed Concrete to Parts Rev sed Service bay flooring colors Revised detail marker Parts, Janitor, Shower and Computer Revised Room layouts Coordinated showroom diffuser locations per Mech. Drawings. Revised Column Line 12.2 ins to Showroom, presentation and lift location ns Deleted shown on plan let elevations to reflect location 16 Narrative plan location A7.3 Revised B Revised Section at Iocat Pads, Janitor, Shower and Computer J ~ociated equipment accordingly. lule es area __ Adde t4 Narrative ; sched[ Shower, from "1" to EF-19. CARMax ~elocate an~tor Closet. From: Sent: To: Subject: Brewer, Scott I Thursday, July 31,2003 3:56 PM Blanchard, Jim E FW: CarMax Indianapolis Projec! Addendum FYI ..... ~dginal Message From: Dobosiewicz, .]on C Thursday, .]uJy31 2003 11:33AM Sent: To: Brewer, Scott Subject: RE: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Yes. Thanks, 11:07 AM TO: Dobosiewicz .]on C CC: Blanchard, Jim E Subject: RE: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum It"s a lot Of plant material to change, but is relatively minor ~n relationship to species changes. If the sigh changes are ok. t would think this would be ok as well ..... Odginal Message Fro~: Dobosiewicz, .]on C Sent Thursday, .]u y 31, 2003 11:01 AM To: Brewer~ Scott I Subject: RE: CarMax Indianal~olis Project Addenoum Scott If you believe the changes are something we would typically allow after PC approval they are OK The sign move is OK. we allowed that, Thanks. Jon ..... Odginal Message From: Brewer Scott I Sent Thumday, .luly 31, 2003 9:~ AM To: Dobosiewicz .]on C Cc: Blanchard, ]Jm E Subject: RE: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Thanks for keeping me in the loop Jori I talked to Keith Long their landscape designer, The landscape mater a changes were all do to the change in sign locations, The material changes are roughly equa in number, They have increased some flowers ¢illys arid annuals) and decreased ornamental grasses, chaged the species of 6 ornamental trees (cherry to serviceberry) replaced some periannual flowers with I~oXWood shrubs (30), and switched 80 yews to a lower growing variety all around the sign(s) I told Keith that he had to check with you about the switch ~n s gn ocations, but that the material changes were not h ghly sign flcant But when we get 7-8 pages of total changes that does seem significant. I told him until he talkec~ to ~/ou and got your approva the anascape was to remain the same as you directed Scott Brewer Urban Forester, City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 (317) 571-2478 ..... Original Message- .... From: DoDosiewicz, Jon C Sent: Tuesday, .July 29, 2003 4:41 PM To: 'But:z, Bill' Cc: S~ahl Gaye H Kendall, 3eftA; Brewer, Scott Subject: RE: Cadqax Indianapolis Project Addendum Thanks. These are my only two concerns. Jon ..... Original Message ..... From: Butz, BiJ~ [maJJto:bbutz@mid-stateseng.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:31 PM To! Dobosiewicz, Jori C Cc: Stah[, Gayla H; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I Subject: RE: CarMax Indianapolis Projec~ Addendum Jon, forward your email to the owner ,and th~ architect To my understanding, the architect was under w the impression that they could make-minor'-adjustments to the site without causing a problem. I will contact the architect and the owner to further in¥orm them of the issues you have presented, t Will let them know the following items need to be changed back to keep from returning to P~an Commission: The s~te wall height needs to be 8' not 6' The landscapin9 needs to be the same as it was submitted to Plan Commission If there are any additional items, please let me know what they are and I will relay them to tl~e owner Thank You. Bitl Butz ..... Original Message From: Dobosiewicz, ion C [~wicz ci.carmel.in.us>] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:02 PM TO: Butz, Bill C¢: StahJ, Gayla H; Kendall, 3eft A; Brewer, Scott J Subject: RE: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Bill. I advised Building and Code Enforcement that had an ~ssue with a change in the sc?,en wall he ght from the ~pproved plans which was a height of 8 to what is on the plans now, 6. This change was made after approval by the Plan Commission and will require add tona review to De allowed. n addition severa changes have been proposed to the landscaping plans. The owner needs to be advised that the plan approved by the Plan Commission is the plan to be constructed unless they return to the Plan commiss on bnd have the revised ptan approved. This process is not a t me consuming as the original process but wilt require approval by the PC. 'The process my take between 30-45 days depending on when an application is filet Ptease let me know what informatior the owner relied on in making these changes without retummg for an amendment to the approved plans, The original approval process was qmte ume consuming and I can not believe that the owner understood that these changes could be made after they had submitted plans and received approval by the PC, I advised Jeff Kendall the issuing a stop work order on the LiP was not in order but you will need to amend the above noted item~. Our Department will be reviewing for substant al ~:ompliance aWth the plans approved by the Plan Commission not the building set, I do not want to get on site t the end of the process and help you figure out how to add 2 to the wall height. The issue needs to be resolved now, Thanks Jon C. Dobosiewicz Planning Administrator Deparrmem of Community City of Carmel One Civic Square carmel, IN 46032 Phone: 317.571.2417 Fax: 317.57 L2426 j dobosiewicz~ci.carmel.in.us ..... Odginal Message- .... From: Butz, Bill [<mailto'~d-statesenq.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 3u y 29, 2003 2:01 PM To: jdobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: CarHax Indianapolis Project Addendum Jon, have heard from Building Services that the Addendum for the CarMax Project had been rejected. I am checking to see what all of the items are so that they can be relayed to the Architect and the owner so that a decision can be made as far as what needs to be done. If you could please email me back and let me know What the items of concern are it would be a great help. Thank you, Bill Butz Project Engineer Mid-States Engineering, LLC 350 East New York Street, Suite 300 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: (317) 634 ~ 6434 Fax: (317) 634 ~ 3576 bbutz@mid-stateseng,com <<www.mid-s~ 350 E, New York St. Suite 300 Indianapolis iN 46204 317-634-6434 www.mid-stateseng,com Aviation Engineering Date: 7/16/2003 Indiana 46032 [] sending here within: Phase/Task RMB/t000 [] Same Day [] Copy of State Addendum 3 1 1 4 1 Remarks: me at 616-2057 if you have any questions or require any additional information. From: Bill Butz CC: Ned sparkman, IDI Earl Smith, POH [] Client ould ou like to reduce your turnaround time? eflte24.,7~leml.ttcte.tn,u", Dr vim, uu~ ,,~,~- -.-, .... ~ ~ ~ pdnt~d on: JUby 11, 2003 It-N. lbN. SPK Occupancy B. S-3 ARCH ELEC ME[CH PLUM STR TO: Owner I Archlte~ I Engineer TERRY L HERR 80119 3000 ROYAL BLVD SOUTH ALPHARETTA GA 3Q022 PublIG Safe~ and Training 96TH ST CARMEL HAMILTON conditions in the released plana'at~d/or-- spinY, cations-- must flied CONDITIONS ........... for cor~ de~ reMase ~e plans U n~aPP~~u" * ' Safe ~e~e~ ~ ~am~ ~ ~ ~ntofF~m F m P~ ~ ~ S~, a ~ hd~ u~ ~ ~.ma~r. If you ~ final, and ~ ~t ROBTN PHILIPS and ZiP DEPT ~ C~MUN~ SERVICES JEFF ~ND~ ONE C VIC SQUARE _ CARME~ IN Page 1/1 Would you like to reduce your turnaround time? ELECTRONICALLY FiLE YOUR PROJEGT WITH STATE OF NDLANA AT eflle24.T~aenm,atate,ln.ua, Or VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT www,al.oro/sem a/OsbG.htm L CONSTRUCTION DESIGN RELEASE E~Ke Form 4'~191 ARCH ELEC MECH PLUM STR ~ Indiana State Emerlpmc*J Manengement Del~m/m~at of Fire and Building Publlo $a'~ty and Training CARMAX INDIANAPOLIS gBTH institute ;' City ~ ' I ~°u~Y_~ . ......... :__ ;... ~. ~ .tlbject to, but ilot necessanty t~m~u ~u, :.- ~1~~Oe~ ~'""' "' ~ ~" ~'~ ~"m~ m ~n,~~null G~. P~g ~m~ ,,.,--,.-----* page 1/1 ould ou like to reduce your turneround time? E~Wc;RoNicY~L~ FIL~ YOUR'i';O~E=T W~" ST^?E OF mDU~"~ ^T elite24.7 ~m&~mt~,ln,uu, or VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT www,al,~q;i/lemn/oeb;.html. CONSTRUCTION DESIGN RELEASE · tnt~ FOrm 4t191 (RgI~.~) Rnpo~ Pdntnd o~: July 11, ~03 nd~na ~p~m ~ Fire ~d ~ Bui)dlflg ~ PLAN R~IEW DI~ O~=e of~ S~ 6~ldlng C~mi~t=n~ ~Mr I ~hl~ I E~I~ lnd~na II-N, II-N, SPK B, S.3 ARCH ELEC MECH PLUM STR Addendum - cARMAX ~NDIANAPOLIS I 961'H ST __ Cit~ i County ' Publln Sa~W and l'raln|~g ALPHARETTA GA 3OO~ I~tum ~ ~ ,, , ~,i,' ?be , ire b Ilmi~flon, ~ he.me null ~ND ~ONB: under e~u~ in ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~e~ ~e pI~ ~m~' P~~-"~ '~ ~l~. ~in~~J ' '~ ~ °'~ ~"r" "'ffi' ~ ~ ~ ~U ~, ~a~ D~Y~' ~t of~ ~le ~ a p,~ ~,,.-.,- a-~s ~' ~fl~ ~t ~- N~.C ~- ~~ , ~, ~h~( )~ , and v~ Page 1/1 Subject: 2003 9:44 AM Blanchard. Jim E RE: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum ~nd .~ o remain the same as Scott Brewer Urban Forester, City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571-2478 ..... Original Message ..... From: DObosiewicz, :ion C Sent: ~uesday, July 29 2003 4:41 PM TO: Butz Bill Cc Stah, Gayle H; Kenda I, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I Subject: RE: CarMax Indianaeolis Project Addendum Thanks These are my only two concerns. Jori es were all do to the change in sign ~ncreased some flowers (Iii ys and annuals) and (cherry to serviceberry), replaced some r growing variety, all around the sign(s). s, but that the material changes were not highly anificant. I told him until he talked to you and Cc: sProjectAddendum if there Thank You. Bill Butz architect was under the I wilt contact the I will let them know the following from returning to Plan Commission: not 6' , it was submitted to Plan Commission ,t me know what they are and will relay them to the owner. ..... Original Message From: Dobosiewicz, Jun C <~ewicz, ci.carmeLin.u >1 To:Se'nt:Butz, Bill Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:02 Ce: Stahl Gayle H; Kendall, JeffA; Brewer, Scott I Subject RE: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Bill I advised Building and Code Enforcement that I had an issue with a ch,ange in the screen wail height from the approved plans ~hich was a height of 8' to what is on the plans now, 6~ This change Was made after aporoval by the Plan Commission and wilt requ re additional review to be allowed. In addition several changes have been proposed to the landscaping plans. The owner needs to be adwseo that the plan approved by the Plan Commission is the plan to be constructed unless they return to the Plan Commission and have the revised plan approved. This process is not a time consuming as the original process but will require approval by the PC. The process my take between 30-45 days depending on when an application is filed. P ease let me know what information the owner rel ed on in making these changes without returning for an amendment to the approved plans. The original approval process was quite t me consuming and I can not believe that the owner understood that these changes could be made after they had submitted plans and received approval by the PC. I advised Jeff Kendall the issuing a stop work order on the LIP was not in order but you will need to amend the above noted items. Our Department Will be reviewing for substantial compliance with the plans approved by the Plan Commission ,n, ot the building set. I do not w~nt to get on site at the end of the process and help you figure out how to add 2 to the wall height The issue needs to be resolved now ThanKs, Ion C. Dobosiewicz Planning Administrator Department of Community Servmes City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: 317.571,2417 Fax: 317,571.2426 j dobosiewicz~ci.carmel.in,us ..... ~riginal Message ..... From: Butz Bill [<maiito:b ub tz -'mid-statesen .com>] ~ent Tuesday July 29, 2003 2:01 PM To: · dobosiewJcz@cJ,carmeLin.us Subject: CarHax Indianapolis Project Addendum Jun. I have heard from Building Services that the Addendum for the CarMax Project had been rejected. I am checking to see what all of the items are so that they can be relayed to the Architect and the owner so that a decision can be made as far as what needs to be done, If you could please email me back and let me know what the items of concern are it wou d be a great he p Thank you, Bill Butz 2 350 East New York Street, Suite 300 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: (317) 634 * 6434 Fax; (317) 634 - 3576 bbutz@mid-stateseng.com <<ww~.mid-statesen- .com>> Blanchard, Jim E Brewer Scott I Thursday, July 31,2003 11:07 AM Dobosiewicz. Jori C F~lanchard, Jim E E: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum It's a lot of plant material to change, but is relatively minor in relationship to species changes. If the sigh changes are ok t Would think this would be ok as welt. ..... O, riginal Message- From: Dobosiewicz, .]on C Se.rtl: Thursday~ July 31, 2003 11:01 AN To: , Brewer, Scott I Subject: RE: C. arNax indianapolis Project Addendum Scott If you believe the changes OK, we allowed that. Thanks Jon ..... ~riginal Message Fro~: Brewer Scott I Se.hr: Thursday, July 3~., 2003 9:44 AN TO= Dobosiewicz Ion C Blanchard, Jim E Subject= RE: CarlVlax indianapotis Project Addendum ThanKs for keeping me in the loop are something we would typically allow after PC approval they are OK. The sign move is all do to the change in s~gn illys ana rtety, all I but that the material changes were not ~ seem significant. I told him unul ne same as you directed. rmel Services ..... Original Ness, age ..... From= Dobos~ewicz .]on C Sent Tuesday, July 29, 2003 4:41 PN TO. 'Butz, Bill' CC: Sta.h.I, Gayla H; Kendall, ]eft A; Brewer, Scott I Subject: RE: C. anVlax Indianapolis Project Addendum Thanks, These are my only two concerns Jon ..... Odginal Message ..... From: Butz, Bill [mailto:bbutz@mid-stateseng,com] Sent: Tuesday. July 29, 2003 3:31 PM To: Dobosiewicz. ]on C Cc: Stahl, Gayle H; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott Subject: RE: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Jon. I w II forward your email to the o_w.n, er an.d the architect, To my understanding, the architect was under the impression treat they could make mino¢ adjustments to the Site w thout caus ng a problem. I will contact the architect and th~ owner to further infor~ them of the issues you have presente~ I will let them know the following items need to be changed back to keep from returning to Plan Commission: - The site wall height needs to be S" not 6~ - The landscaping needs to be the same as it was submitted to Plan Commission If there are any additional items, please let me Know what they are and I will relay them to the owner. Thank You Bill Buzz ..... Original Message ..... From: Dobos~ewicz, .]on C [<mailto:JDobosie_w~cz~ ~ent: Tuesday, .]uly 29 2003 3 02 PM To: But:z, Bill Cc: StahJ, Gayle H; Kendall, .]eft A; Brewer, Scott I Subject: RE: CariVlax I~dianapolis Project Addendum Bill I advised Building and Code Enforcement that I ,h, ad an issue w~th a change in t,,he screen wall height from the approved plans which was a height of 8 to what is on the plans now, 6~ This change was made after approval by the Plan Commission and will requ re additional review to be allowed. In addition several changes have been proposed to the landscaping plans, The owner needs to be advised that the plan approved by the P an Commission is the plan t~) be constructed unless they return to the Plafi Commission and have the revised plan approved, This process is not a time ' ] as the original process but will require approval by the PC. The process my take between riding on When an application is filed. in making these changes without returning uite time consuming nges could be made after they had h [ne now. Thanks Jon C. Dobosiewicz Plann/ng Administrator Department of Community Sewices City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel. IN 46032 Phone: 317.571 2417 Fax: 31T57L2426 j dobosiewicz(~ci.carmel.in.us ..... Original Message ..... From: Butz, Bill [<mailto:bbu~z mid-sta esen .com>] Sent: Tuesday~ July 29~ 2003 2:01 PM To: jdobosJewicz@ci,carmel,in,us Subject: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Jon, I have heard from BU iding Services that the Addendum for the CarMax Project had been rejected. I am checking to see what all of the items are so that they can be relayed to the Architect and the owner so that a decision can be made as far as what needs to be done. If you could please email me back and let me know what the items of concern are it would be a great help, Thank you. Bill Butz Project Engineer Mid-States Engineering, LLC Phone: (317) 634 - 6434 Fax: (317) 634 - 3576 bbutz@mid-stateseng,com Blanchard, Jim E To: Cc: Subject: 003 12:15 PM Stah, Gay e H; Hi I, Dick B; Weese, Kate K; McBride, Mike T; Kee ing, Adrienne M; Babb~t[, Pamela A; Butler, Angelina V; Ca,ndy Feltner !E-mail); Pattyn, Dawn E; Hoyt, Gary A; Kendall, Jeff A Jenny Chapman (E-ma); J~rry Liston B anchard Jim E; John South (E-mail) Dobosiewicz. Jori C; Hancock. Ramona B; Lillard Sarah N: Brewer. Scott l 'Steve Broerman': Akers. William P 'rpeabody@mdrowe.com' RE: Pre-Submittal Meeting: Monon Greenway: Restroom Buildings but would months ago, No PC or BZA approvals )nform to what was ..... Original Message From: Stahl, Gayla H Sent: Friday, `july 18, 2003 ~ [:47 AM To: Dick Hil; Kate Weese; Mike McBride Adrienne Keeling Babbitt, Pamela A; Butler, Angelina V; Candy Feltner (E-mail); Dawn Pattvn; Hoyi:¢ Gary A 3eft Kenda; Jenny Chapman (E-mail); 3erw Liston; `jim Blanchard; John South (E-mail) .]on Dobosiewicz: Laurence Lil ig Ra_m?na Hancock Sarah Lillard Scott Brewer; Steve Broerman; William Akem Cc: rpeabody@mdrowe.com Pre-Submittal ~4eeting: Monon Greenway: Restroom Buildings The has ii meeting for the purpose of enways Restroom Buildings: Rohrer Rd. location and 96th ~n Meeting Date: PENDING None, per applicant. Representative: Ross Peabody affect the issuance of this permit, please Blanchard, Jim E From: Sent: To: Subject: Lillard, Sarah N Monday, July 14, 2003 3:28 PM Stahl, Gayle H; Blanchard, Jim E; Dolan, Veronica A: Cook. Kathleen: Kendall. Jeff A CarMax Addendum FYI... he time they submitted ained. A Jim r s be t) Thank you, Sarah :lirect these to the attention of Gayle Stahl. out on and off during the next couple of weeks. I figured this was None CARMax Store #7144 Addendum Narrative lination : I~lan, re~;ised all the existing spa Revise oo sensor. ~e ~ Added Mass eets lent s~ n an ot. The__ CARMax Store #7144 Addendum Narrative sign was r-~T~-cated to the~the entry drive ~Street. Landscape beds were modified to reflect the new s~gn placement. Three Yoshino Cherries were removed from the west side of~the entry drive on East 96~ MOl increased by 30 c. Densiformis Yew decreased by 80 d, Hick's Yew increased by 84 e. Yeshino Cherry decreased by 6 f, Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry increased by 6 Revised Column Line 12.2 Revised dimensions Revised section markers Added Door to Room 186 Revised F Revised Col 12.2 Revised dimensions Added Fire Extingu sher (F.E.) designation Revised section markers m layouts Shower and Computer Added counter to Buyers Added two view windows to Internet Room (170) Revised counter hei~ ht at Business Office _ CARMax Store #7144 Addendum Narrative F.E.C. and F.E. Locations wer and Computer C~er locations per Mech. Drawings. ns to Showroom, presentation and canopies. A7. owmom wall __ , as shown on plan I Revised note reference Q1,0 CARMax Store #7144 Addendum Narrative ~e Manual, not motorized -- Moved soap dispensers on Deta I 1 to reflect plan location De eted note on Deta 6 . Revised braces on Detail 25 to reflect plan Deleted dimension on Detail 15, see referenced detail Revised Business Counter Section Revised Section at Prod./Cos. Manager tons. ~ -- Revised Mer~'s and Women s Toilet, Parts, Janitor, Shower and Computer Room layouts Revised associated equipment accordingly. ~tion for ~ Footing steps in F.Q.C. adjusted to match other parts of the building Dimensions from face of Presentation lanes to building comer pro.vided Slab thickness' in F.Q.C. Service, and Presentation changed to 6 thick KCS joists placed under RTU-9 and RTU-10 Mirrore Added CARMax Store #7144 Addendum Narrative Sheet P~wer Washer model number ~M CARMax Store #7144 Addendum Narrative Data/PBX Room. ) to be floor mounted. Blanchard, Jim E To Subject: Kendall, Jeff A Tuesday, July 29, 2003 4:50 PM Blanchard, Jim E FW: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum This is FYI to you ..... Original Hessage ..... From: Dobosiewicz ,3on C Sent: TueSday ,,july 29 2003 4:41 PM 'Butz, Bill Stahl Gay~e H; Kendall, ,jeffA; Brewer, Scott 1 RE CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Jo are my only two concerns, ..... Original Message From: Butz, Bill [mailto:bbutz@mid-stateseng.com] Se.nt: Tuesday, 3uly 29, 2003 3:31 PM TO: Dobo$iewicz 3on C Cc: Stahl Gayle H Kendall, .]eftA; Brewer, Scott Subject: RE: CarHax I'ndianapolis Project Addendum Jon. w forward your em,a, il to th,e. owner and the architect. To my understanding, the arch tect was under the impression that they could make mino~ adjustments to the ste without (Jausing a problem. I will contact the architect and the owner to further inform them of the issues you have presented. I will let them know the following items need to be changed back to keep from returning to Plan Commission - The site wall height needs to be 8' not 6' - The landscaping needs to be the same as it was submitted to Plan Commission If there are any additional items, please let me know What they are and I will relay them to the owner. Thank You. Bill Butz ..... O. riglnal Message ..... FrOm DobosieWicz~ ,3on C I < mailto:]Dobos~wicz _ cLcarme_Lin.u$>: Se.mt Tuesday, .july 29, 2003 3:02 PM To: Butz Bill Stahl, GayJe H; Kendall, ,3eft A; Brewer, Scott I Subject: RE: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Bill I advised Bu Iding and Code Enforcem.e, nt that I had a approved plans which was a height of 8 to what is On the Plan Commission and will require additional revie, In addition several changes have been proposed to t~ the plan approved by the Plan Commission is the pla~ Cor~missi6n and have the revised plan approved. Thi., but will require approval by the PC. The process my ta ;sue with a ch,ange in the screen wall height from the ; plans now 6. This change was made after approval by ) ~Je allowed. ~ndscap ng plans, The owner needs to be adv sed that be constructed unless they return to the Plan process is not a time consuming as the original process ~ between 30-45 days depending on when an application ; let me know what information the owner relied on in making these changes without returning for an .~ approved plans. The original approval process was quite tinge consuming and I can not believe that these changes co~t~i be m~de after they had submitted plans and received :1 to amend the d 2' to the wall height The issue n Services 46032 from Bui Indianapolis Project Addendum are be m for the CarMax Project had been rejected, I am to the Architect and the owner so that a please email me back and let me know eat help, 30O Subject: Jim E Brewer, Scott I Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:22 PM Blanchard, Jim E FW: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum To: Cc: subject: Dobosiewicz, 3on C Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:02 PM 'BUtZ, BJlJ Staht, Gayle H; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I RE: CarMax Indianapolis Projec~ Addendum advised Building and Code ,E, nforcement that I had an issue with a change m the screen wall height from the approve~ plans which was ~ height of 8 to what s on the plans now 6'. This change was made after apprm/al by the Plan Comm Ssion and wilt r~quire add tional review to be allowed. n addition several changes have been proposed to the landscaping plans. The owner needs to be advised that the Dian approved by the Plan Commission is the plan to be constructed unless they return to the Plan Commission and have the rev sod plan approved, This process is not a time consuming as the origina process but will require approva by the PC. The process my take between 30-45 days depending on when an applJc-ation is filed Please let me know what information the owner relied on in making ~hese changes w~thout returning for an amendmem to the approved plans. The original approvat process was quite time consuming and I can not believe that the owner understood that these changes could be made after they had submitted plans and received approval by the PC, Iadv sed Jeff Kendall the issuing a stop work order on the L P was not n order but you will need to amend the above noted items~ Our Department Will be reviewing for substantial compliance with the plans approved by the Plan ~cmmission not the building set. I do not want to get on site at the end of the process and help you figure out how to add 2 to the wall height. The issue needs to be resolved now. ThanKs jdobosiewicz ..... OdginaI Message From: Butz Bill [maJlto:bbutz@mid*~ateseng.com] Se.hr: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:01 PM To: jdobosiewicz@ci .carmel .in .us Subject: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Jon, Thar D6 help. I checking to o that a decision can be made let me know what the items of concern are ~t .corn> Blanchard, Jim E Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Stahl Gayle H Tuesday Ju y 29, 2003 4:16 PM Jim E FV~ Sent: Cc: Subject: FYI...pretty stern e ..... Original Message Dobosiewicz, .1on C ,T. uesday July 29 2003 3:02 PM Butz, Bill' Stahl Gayle H; Kendall, JeffA; Brewer, Scott RE: CarMax Ind anapolis Project Addendum aovised Building and Code ,E, nforcement that I had an issu_,e, with a change in the screen wall height from the approved ans which was a height of 8 to what is on the plans now. 6. This change was made after approval by the Plan )remission and will require additional review to be allowed. addition several changes have been proposed to the landscaping p ans. The owner needs to be advised that the p~an approved by the Plan Commission is the plan to be constructed unless they return to the Plan Commission and have the revised plan approved. This process is not a time consuming as the original process but will require approval by the PC The process my take betWeen 30-45 days depending on when an application is filed. Please let me know what information the owner re ied on in making these changes without return ng for an amendment to the approved plans. The orig nal approval process was quite time consuming ahd I can not believe that the owner understood that these changes could be made after they had submitted plans and received approval by the PC I advised Jeff Kenda I the issuing a stop work order on the LIP was not n order but you will need to amend the auove noted items, Our Department will be reviewing fOr substantial compliance with the I~lans approved by the Plan Commission not the building set. I do not want to get on site at the end of the process ami help you figure out how to add 2' to the wall height. The issue needs to be resolved now. Thanks Jon C. Dobosiewmz Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: 317.571.2417 Fax: 317.571.2426 j dobosiewicz~ci.carmel.in.us ..... ~figinal Message From: Butz BII [mailto:bbutz@mid-stateseng corn] Se.nt: TueSday July 29 2003 2:01 PM To, jdobosiewicz@d,carrnel.in,us Subject: CarMax Indianapolis Project Addendum Jori I have heard from Building Services that the Addendum for the CarMax Project had bee~ rejected. I am checking to see what all of the items are so that they can be relayed to the Architect and the owner so tt~at a decision can be made as far as what needs to be done. If you could pleas~ email me back and let me know what the tems of concern are it would be a great help, Thank you, Suite 300 634-6434