Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 08-16-00 Carmel/Clay Technical Advisory Committee Minutes August 16, 2000 Members present were: Laurence Lillig – Carmel DOCS John South – Ham. Co. Soil & Water Jeff Rice – Ameritech Chuck Shupperd – Indiana Gas Scott Brewer – Carmel Urban Forester John Lester – Carmel/Clay Parks & Rec. Dick Hill & Craig Parks – Carmel Eng. Steve Broermann – Ham. Co. Highway Bill Akers – Carmel/Clay Communications Jim Neal – Ham. Co. Highway Pam Waggoner – Indianapolis Water Co. College Park Baptist Church (SUA-91-00) th The site is located at 2606 West 96 Street. The site is zoned S-1/residence. Filed by Miranda Simmons of Schenkel Shultz for College Park Baptist. Mark Strong, Engineering Vision, Inc., on behalf of Schenkel Shultz, explained the 15,000 square foot building addition. There will be minor changes to the parking lot and related utilities. John Lester commented that there is an existing four-foot wide sidewalk or path. The church may do some expansion to the southeast in the future. There is also interest in adding another wing on the southwest side of the building. Jeff Rice believes this property may have a Trinity or Zionsville exchange for telephone service. Steve Broermann stated there are preliminary plans for a roundabout intersection. However, The City of Indianapolis is not supportive of roundabouts. The path may be in th the way of expansion of Towne Road and 96 Street. If there are changes, it may be appropriate to construct sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Lillig added that a road expansion is not planned at this time but the petitioner should keep it in mind for the future. John Lester said the intention is to make Towne Road look like Hazel Dell Parkway with a path at least on one side if not both sides. A similar path will be required with future th expansion of 96 Street. Chuck Shupperd said the proposed addition would not affect his gas line. An upgrade of the meter may be required; the petitioner should contact their commercial representative. Mr. Shupperd assumes all utilities will be together. He suggested relocation of the service when they start construction. Steve Broermann understands there is no change to the entrance. He will send his comments to Mark Strong. Mr. Broermann will request some additional right of way s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 1 along Towne Road. He wants the location of the roads shown in relationship to the existing building. Mr. Broermann wants to preserve space for any future roundabout. He also requested the location of the lift station be shown on the plans. Jeff Rice was told the petitioner does not plan to relocate the phone service. Additional phone lines may be needed. He requested the petitioner call if new lines are desired. John South recommends inlet protection around the existing and proposed inlets for storm sewer. Because he is installing stone and asphalt quickly, Mark Strong did not think it would be necessary to provide protection. However, he agreed to do so in the interim. He will show some temporary inlet protection on the plans. Scott Brewer did not receive a set of landscape plans. There probably will be some additional buffering requirements along the north property line. Mr. Strong stated the church is presently leasing the property to the north, probably with the intent to purchase. Mr. Brewer believes some buffering may be needed between the parking and the north line. Parking lots are required to be buffered. Mr. Brewer thought a waiver could be considered. The petitioner is applying for a Special Use. The zoning is residential. Therefore, the buffering requirements are clear. A set of landscape plans was not produced. Mr. Strong will see that something is done. Bill Akers had no comments. Laurence Lillig needs to know the height of the addition. The S1 zone has a 25-foot height limit measured at mid point of the gable. He believes the College Park Church has a variance for height and has discussed this issue with Schenkel Shultz. The City might be able to consider that variance to apply to this addition. Mr. Lillig will investigate. He needs updated plans. The addition will be protected by a fire sprinkler system. Village of WestClay, Section 3001a, Village Center, Plan 2, Buildings 1 & 2 The site is located on the northwest corner of Rhettsbury Street and Meetinghouse Road. The site is zoned PUD/planned unit development. Filed by Jose Kreutz of Brenwick Development Company. The matter was presented by Keith Lash of Schneider Corporation. He introduced Jose Kreutz, Brenwick, Terry Hebert, BOC, and Bill Brosrub, William Gordon Group. Two buildings will be constructed in the Village of WestClay at the southeast corner of commercial block F. These are for retail commercial/dwelling uses. The plans are filed. Most of the infrastructure is in place. A sanitary sewer main will be extended to service these two buildings. There is an existing water main. Storm drainage will be collected from the parking lot and piped into the existing storm sewer. The storm sewer will be private. s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 2 John Lester had no comments. Chuck Shupperd gave Mr. Lash a business card for the commercial representative. The project will have multi business with just one meter. Building 2 can be caught off the street to the south. He proposes to do a small main extension for the back building. The meter can go off either street. Bill Brosrub will be the contractor. Keith Lash may do curb radiuses similar to previous work at University Green. The asphalt in the middle will be cut and torn out. Les Locke will not require a driveway cut. Jeff Rice inquired about when service would be needed. The petitioner requested service in the first quarter—January or February. This will be a multi tenant project. He needs the name and address of the person in charge of leasing. Jose Kreutz gave him his business card. Mr. Rice said there were laterals and man hole runs near by. John South had no comments Steve Cash requested a copy of the drainage report. The easements must be added to the primary plat to incorporate the on-site portion of Elliot Creek as a regulated drain. Scott Brewer needs landscape plans. Jose Kreutz will provide a set within two or three weeks. Bill Akers will get addresses out soon. Keith Lash will provide a site plan with all of the addresses. Laurence Lillig asked about Frogmore Street. It has the same problem as Broad Street. The addresses are flip flopped and need to be changed. There are three houses on the left side of Frogmore. Jose Kreutz knows the address changes need to be done but would like to ask for a little time. Bill Akers believes his list is now correct. Mr. Kreutz stated Brenwick would take a plat amendment to the commissioners. Mr. Lillig stated this would be recorded as amendments. He also commented that the plat does not need to be completely redone. Steve Broermann will contact the petitioner. Bill Brosrub said this should be correctable. Laurence Lillig asked for the plat for blocks E and F. Keith Lash will provide them by tomorrow. Mr. Lillig also needs architectural elevations and a letter from the architect certifying it. Jose Kreutz will provide them. Laurence Lillig did not think there are any substantial comments from the fire department. Discussion followed regarding the silt trap. Jose Kreutz requested a week to plant winter rye in that area. There will be future construction but there are no plans to disturb the winter rye field until after the first half of next year. The petitioner would like permission to build the silt trap after that time. Steve Broermann suggested building the silt trap now. Jose Kreutz agreed. s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 3 Kite Property (Lowe’s Construction Plans) th The site is located southeast of East 146 Street and US 31. The site is zoned PUD/planned unit development. Filed by Mark Settlemyre of Cornerstone Surveys. The Lowe’s Home Improvement Center project was presented by Mark Settlemyre, Cornerstone Surveys, Inc. Bill Keller, KES Consultants, Inc, Bob Hittle, American Consulting, Inc., and Kevin Allen, Kite Development, also attended the meeting. The project will be located in the southeast quadrant of 146th Street and US 31. There will be future retail development to the south of this site. Kite Development Corporation is developing the parcel. They are working with the County Highway Department to build a road to the south to access Lowe’s and the future development to the south. The petitioner is also studying a ramp system. The State Highway Department will take over and wrap it back around to US 31. Craig Parks has not written a comment letter. The plans are not complete. The storm sewer systems on one page do not match the profiles. It does not appear there are outlets for the detention basin. He had questions on how Lowe’s will fill in the pond. It is important to have adequate storage elsewhere before the pond is filled. Mr. Parks also th inquired about access. The access for the site will be from the intersection of 146 and Greyhound Pass. Mark Settlemyre stated drainage plans were premature at the time of submittal. Much has been accomplished since then. He has the calculations for the pond. They will start excavating for the new pond and filling the existing pond. Craig Parks must have upgraded plans. th John Lester’s major concern is trying to do a path off of 146 Street. It was not shown on the plans, therefore, he cannot make any comments. The sidewalk should be eight feet wide. Kevin Allen understands the City of Carmel will own the right of way to a point 50 or 100 feet south of the stoplight. That would be the second entrance. Jim Neal corrected that impression. He said it would be an INDOT right of way. Mr. Neal believes the County is building and maintaining the road. They are presently working with the developer and INDOT to get the road built. The County Highway Department can maintain the road. Kevin Allen stated the sidewalk is shown on the roadway plans. It can also be shown on the landscape or site development plan for clarity if needed. Mr. Lester said an eight-foot asphalt walkway is preferred. He said it is an important link; at some point it will continue. Mr. Neal believes a path will never be allowed in the right of way. Perhaps it will be sufficient to construct a path to the first entrance. There is no need to continue a path to the retention ponds. Mr. Lester requested a revised set of plans. s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 4 Chuck Shupperd stated they will bring their main through the utility easement, run service to the Lowe’s, and have it available for phase two. Mark Settlemyre said there would be an eighty-foot utility easement strip. Jeff Rice requested a four-inch PVC. This will provide additional room if needed in the future. Kevin Allen asked how much lead time is needed for requesting service. Breaking ground is dependent upon getting an environmental permit. They hope to move dirt this winter. If a permit is obtained, then they would like to begin work before Christmas. Therefore, they would like to have service by the first quarter of next year. John South stated he could do a better job reviewing the project if more of the total layout is shown on the plan. There is a need for more road and drainage swales than are proposed on both sides of the project. Phase two is not needed at this time. The Soil & Water Dept. will need the plan for any grading that will occur in the first construction phase. It would be helpful to have all of this on one plan. The details of the road may be on a separate set. If the petitioner is building the road, drainage, wetland mitigation, etc., then the erosion control plan needs to be part of the whole puzzle. Some of Mr. South’s comments are geared toward that. The plans need to reflect how they will take care of the existing drainage ways. Permitting needs to be done for environmental purposes. A permit is needed for filling the existing pond and wetland mitigation. Bob Hittle said American Consulting is doing the environmental permitting for the project. The two plan sheets show each of the two drainage ways. There is some detail and a written narrative of implementation of these plans. It discusses plant material. Mr. Hittle can provide additional copies of the narrative that is a complete discussion of what is going to happened. The formal landscaping along the entire perimeter is a commitment. Their environmental mitigation addresses the relocation of the two surface drainage ways that run through the property. One runs from the northwest corner to the southeast. The other extends south along the alignment of the proposed ramps. The ditch that runs diagonally through the center of the property will be moved to the west edge of the property outside of the formal landscape area. Mitigation for that drainage way and the existing frontage road right of way will be vacated by the County. Mitigation for the th drainage way, that runs south from the intersection of Greyhound and 146 Street, will be reconstructed along the east side of the ramps. The drainage ways have curbs and will protect the banks of the channel. There will be one inch to one and a half inch trees, three gallon seedlings, bare root seedlings, and planting of native vegetation. There are two separate purposes for the landscaping treatment. One is beautification of the site and the other is environmental mitigation of the site. The environmental mitigation is more natural in appearance. The longer ditch along the west property line will be between the highway right of way and the formal development of the site. The other ditch along the west property line will be between the highway and the formal development of the site. The other ditch on the east side of the access road and ramps system will be between the edge of the pavement and the brick wall that is part of the developer’s commitment to the residents’ association. The band on the west side is 65 to 75 feet wide. The band on the east side is 35 to 40 feet wide. Mr. Hittle will meet with IDEM and the Corps of Engineers regarding the mitigation. The petitioner is providing a little less on the s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 5 environmental mitigation than typically required. However, complimenting the environmental with the formal site landscaping provides a package that he believes will be acceptable to the agencies. John South said the erosion control plan needs more work. The site tilts west to east and most of the sediment traps are on the west side. There is a need for more traps on the east side. If Mr. South sees the whole package, he may be able to use some of the proposed channels, for a period of time, as sediment traps. Mr. Hittle said if it was advantageous, they could become permanent parts of the channel. The channel could be widened and left as a former siltation/sediment basin. He believes this would be functional. John South recommends seeding the idle land at the south part of the parcel. Mr. Hittle said when this plan was presented to the Special Studies Committee, they did not have any tenants beyond speculation on the second phase. In order to do their site grading, they needed to get the site balanced out. When doing work on the interior ponds, they committed to rough grading phase 2 to their preliminary site grades and reseeding for the year or two years while looking for a tenant. John South still needs to see the whole plan. He wants to review it as the entire plan not as phase 1 and as phase 2. Steve Cash asked if this land has been annexed. Laurence Lillig stated it was still in the township. The County is doing a TIF district on this land. Mr. Lillig continued that if the County establishes a TIF district, he was not sure what the affects of annexing would be. Jim Neal said the TIF district is between the County and City. Laurence Lillig is not aware of any initiative to annex this land. There is an annexation plan for the west part of township. Steve Cash’s particular concern is to verify that the runoff that comes from the northwest th and northeast areas under 146 Street is taken into consideration. This is a large watershed and a substantial area that drains through the site. The County surveyor expressed interest to continue the county regulated drain through the site. He wants to verify that 20 to 30 years from now the storm sewers and the drainage ditches will be well maintained. This will be investigated further. Mr. Hittle asked if it was a problem to have the environmental mitigation border the drainage way as far as it being converted to a legal drain. Mr. Cash said it would not. Bob Hittle hopes future work on the ditch will not wipe out the mitigation area. Mr. Cash also needs a 100-year flood plan. Bob Hittle has all the calculations updated now. They agreed to have another meeting. Scott Brewer reviewed what he had but will reserve comments for a letter to be written later. The thinks the ponds are nice. The plans need more detail. th Bill Akers asked if Greyhound Pass would continue across 146 Street up to the pond area, to the public right of way, or the entrance into the development. Mr. Hittle said it would and indicated the point on a map that changes from local, county, or city to full INDOT with no access or limited access. s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 6 Laurence Lillig asked if Greyhound Pass would be straightened as it comes south to form a four-way. Jim Neal said it would. The right of way will be an extension of Greyhound. Mr. Neal would like it to remain Greyhound Pass and is aware that Greyhound Pass is also in Carmel just 1.5 miles away. Mr. Lillig asked when the lots in Danbury Estates will be vacated and Dublin Drive reconfigured. Jim Neal said the County controls all but one lot. It will be a plat vacation of several lots and some right of way. That subdivision is in the corporate limits and under the jurisdiction of the Plan Commission. The vacation also goes to the Board of Public Works. Danbury Estates is in the City, but lots were purchased by the County. Mr. Lillig also asked about the ramps. When the project was submitted, it was the Department’s understanding that the State of Indiana signed off on this. He has been informed in the past week that INDOT has done no such thing and is opposed to any final answer for these ramps. The State feels the ramp is still under consideration and not an approved plan. The TIF district was supposed to be on the Plan Commission agenda. The County attorney removed it because INDOT was going to send a remonstrator. Jim Neal said the Highway Department is working with INDOT to discuss this. Until three weeks ago, he was under the impression there were just a few details to be worked out. Mr. Neal is trying to establish a meeting with Commissioner Chris Clikka, the County attorney, and representatives from ACE to discuss this. The City of Carmel was completely surprised. This probably does not affect access to phase 1. Laurence Lillig requested that the department be kept up to date and if possible they coordinate any meetings with the State with Mike Hollibaugh. This is a US 31 Corridor issue. Jim Neal knew the State of Indiana had questions about the ramp but did not know the State would determine it was “not on board”. He thought there were small details to be worked out, not where the right of way would be cut. The State does not want to do anything to jeopardize the Environmental Impact Statement. He is confident it can be resolved with discussions. Mark Settlemyre said Lowe’s has requested spot lights on poles to shine on the building. Laurence Lillig responded the petitioner is subject to the ADLS approval of the Plan Commission. He further remembered that only “up lighting” was approved. Discussion followed regarding signage. Mr. Settlemyre will contact Dawn Pattyn, DOCS, to apply for temporary signage. Opus Landmark at Meridian DP/ADLS The site is located on the northeast corner of West Carmel Drive and North Meridian Street. The site is zoned B-2/business and is located in the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Springmill Properties, LP. s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 7 Attorney Paul Reis represented OPUS North Corporation on a proposed three office building complex at 126th Street and US 31. He introduced Larry Spysinski, Director of Construction, John Cumming, Director of Real Estate, Lee Ruda, project architect, Norm Taylor, engineer from Woolpert, and Mark Monroe, clerk and planner for Reis Law Firm. The office buildings are proposed for a 23.67 acre site. A rendering of the buildings was displayed. Mr. Reis has filed the development plan, landscape plan, and signage plan. Craig Parks referred to his letter and requested a separate meeting. Paul Reis agreed. Pam Waggoner, Indianapolis Water Company, said there was a 12-inch main available on the west side of Pennsylvania Street. She submitted their first set of drawings to Mark Schockly. He in involved with domestic lines and fire lines and will handle approval. thst Chuck Shupperd stated there is a gas line at 126 and 131 Streets. He believes this project will start at the north and extend down Pennsylvania. The petitioner is still considering if they will need multiple meters. They will set it up as multi tenants. Mr. Shupperd requested a pre-construction meeting. Larry Spysinski stated they would probably locate on the northwest corner. Jeff Rice distributed his business card to the Opus representatives. He needs to send a multi tenant letter requesting information on the number of entrances, size of conduits, etc. John Cumming said tenants might take an entire floor, a half, or even a quarter floor. Service is needed for the late second quarter of next year. Use will probably be a mix typical of the area. John South sent numerous letters to Paul Reis. Mr. South is considering this as two projects: the overall plan and the building itself. The parking lot is huge, however, the size is expected for a project of this multitude. Mr. South asked if Opus would consider a land bank for part of the parking lot to cut down on hard pavement until some of the other buildings are completed. The reflection pond in front has a large broad rim. It is shallow and will be good for aquatic plants. The pavement grade on the south side does not work for John South’s calculations. He is not sure the silt fence is needed along north and south and but is needed on Pennsylvania. He recommends a rock horseshoe dam for further erosion control and sediment protection for the existing pond or excavated area at the south end of the property. He requested information regarding construction sequence; the comments should describe process. Mr. South asked if all construction work will be confined to construction limits, or will fill from the ponds be placed on other areas on the property. Norman Taylor responded they would totally construct the first pond. The excess clay will be stock piled for the second building. The clay will be rimmed with erosion control measures possibly with some planting. Mr. South requested this be shown on the plans. The pond will be the first thing constructed; they will start at the right of way line’s west edge. The pond at the south end will have no construction but a pipe going into it. They can provide outlet protection at the horseshoe. However, that detention pond will not be constructed until building three is done. Markings on the plan indicate the top of the s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 8 curb. It will be necessary to subtract six inches for the gutter line. This is appropriately labeled on the plans. The ledge of the pond will be dropped a little deeper to permit aquatic growth. It will be three feet at edge and then one percent across. Steve Cash stated the project is in the WR Fertig Watershed. It will be necessary to obtain an outlet request permit. He commented that the drainage report was well done. There is a restrictive discharge rate in that water shed. The report complies with it. The storm sewer falls under the City Engineer’s jurisdiction. The permit is on the web site. Scott Brewer commented that their plans look nice. He has not had time to write a letter. Pin oaks are not good for the front of buildings. They are acid lovers. Red maples are planned for one side of the parking lot. These trees do not do well with restricted root space. The developer might think of a better tree for this area. The project is in the US 31 Overlay that has a tree protection ordinance. Seventy percent of the trees must be preserved in the green belt. Mr. Brewer needs plans. Austrian pines do not do well here. There will be landscaping around a portion of the ponds, but they have to provide fire access. The drawings show examples that are similar to what they plan to do. Norman Taylor asked Mr. Brewer to suggest alternative trees to Larry Hemp, Woolpert LLP. They will also do seasonal color plantings. Bill Akers has spoken with Mark Monroe on the addressing issue. The project will be addressed off Pennsylvania not Meridian because of the access. This is important for fire and police response time. Laurence Lillig would like to meet with Craig Parks to discuss Pennsylvania construction. Mike Hollibaugh asked about the traffic analysis. Larry Spysinski has preliminary copies. Most of the Department’s comments have been incorporated into the current plan. Town Village Senior Housing Facility (UV-84-00; V-85-00) th The site is located on the northwest corner of West 96 Street and Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned S-2/residence. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Cypress Senior LP. Attorney Paul Reis introduced the project for senior adult living. He introduced Rusty Ross, Town Village, Phil Warrenburg, Weihe Engineers, Mark Monroe, planner and clerk from Reis Law Firm, and Steve Delaney, real estate broker, The proposed three-story construction will be at the northwest corner of Spring Mill and th 96 Street on 17 acres of land. Mr. Reis cited its location in relation to I-465. The building is oriented farther to the north and the east in recognition of the residential area to the south and west. The access point will be off of Spring Mill Road. Steve Cash’s letter directed them to contact ACE regarding a possible roundabout. The have received drainage comments. The landscape plan is shown. They will talk additionally with neighbors and also discuss screening, particularly on the south and west sides, with Scott Brewer. s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 9 Pam Waggoner said there is 20-inch main heading south from the Interstate on the east side of Spring Mill Road. The project will be sprinkled. Ms. Waggoner will check if there will be enough pressure. If there is not enough pressure, the developer will be th required to connect the 12-inch main south of 96 Street to the 20-inch main. If they are able to tap the 20-inch and no main extensions are needed, they would contact Mark Schockly. Chuck Shupperd stated there is no gas availability. Indiana Gas Company would have to th cross the Interstate going both ways. He is not sure of the cost. There is gas at 96 and Ditch Road, but they would still have to cross the Interstate. The other closest gas source th is at the 96 and College location. Citizens Gas might be better able to provide service. Phil Warrenburg received correspondence from Indiana Gas projecting gas service to rd Spring Mill and 103 Street in the future. Steve Broermann, has contacted INDOT. The right of way along Spring Mill Road has been relinquished back to the Highway Department. His comments will address the construction plans. This will be limited access. When Mr. Broermann sent his letter, they just started the design of the roundabout and he did not have the exact dimensions. th Mr. Broermann is not sure of the width of 96 Street. Jeff Rice requested a set of plans. John South believes the petitioner received his letter. The soil is sufficient for the project. He recommends trying to retain the trees along I-465 as it is a good noise buffer. Mr. South would like more construction details later. Steve Cash sent a letter in July on this project. Mark Monroe answered his questions regarding the outlet for the site. The standard discharge rates will apply. The outlet for this is the roadside ditch on I-465. Philip Warrenburg stated it would be either be a County or State ditch depending on depth calculations and point of access. There is quite a bit of grade change. John South recommends a State ditch because the discharge point will be up stream of a lot of the grade changes. The State will give a better depth proportion, allow a deeper detention model, and preserve some of the trees. They might be able to compress the size of the pond if they can increase the depth. Provided this works with the owner’s scheme, it will have to be handled as a safety issue. Steve Cash will need a road cut permit. It will follow jurisdictional guidelines for discharge. Mr. Cash stated the site is not annexed. Laurence Lillig said that was correct even though the land across the street is annexed. Scott Brewer agreed with John South’s recommendation for a smaller pond to allow a visual buffer and naturalized planting. He feels the plan is preliminary as things were not labeled individually. There are diversity issues. Mr. Brewer recommends no more 15 percent for any one tree species. All the evergreens are white pines. He questioned if there will be plants on the mounding. Phil Warrenburg said there would not. It will be either back or forward planted. Mr. Brewer commented that depending on the drain s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 10 situation, it might be helpful with evergreens to plant them on the edge. The woods have not been evaluated. Mark Monroe added that research had been done back to the year 1948. Three quarters of the property has been farmed. The corner was a wood lot. The rest was clear cut; what remains is second growth. There is history of it being farmed. Rusty Ross believes the trees are 30 to 35 years old. Scott Brewer requested a report on tree preservation. He would like to know what effect grading and clearing would have on drainage for the trees. Phil Warrenburg said this would be a no entry zone around an “L” shape. It all drains away. There will a 20-foot swath that would be called “disturbed” for construction traffic. After the 20-foot line, a snow fence would be installed to protect the area. Scott Brewer asked for these details. He will write a letter with suggested plant pallet. Bill Akers stated this building would have one main address. Apartment numbers will be assigned. The gates will be touch pad accessed. It will have a knox box. Rusty Ross said signs would be installed for the fire department indicating what buildings have what apartments. There is a central alarm system. This is not assisted living. There will be an elevator in each pod. Laurence Lillig confirmed there would be 234 units. He needs to know the floor area of each of the units. There will be more than 12 units per acre. In terms of density, this is more than twice what is allowed in an R-4 district. The parking requirement for retirement communities, nursing homes, and convalescent facilities is one space per bed and one space per employee. The number of spaces shown on the plan is, therefore, deficient. Mr. Lillig needs to know the number of employees at the facility. He also requested a detailed written explanation of the difference between a senior housing facility and a retirement community. Mr. Lillig does not believe there is a difference and thinks this case requires a rezone. The calculations provided, which specify open space th areas for the site, do not take into account rights of way for Spring Mill or 96. Those numbers need to be recalculated. He also asked how many trips this project will generate. The TAC meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon. s:\\TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2000aug 11