Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 10-1-13Page 1 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE October 1, 2013 Department Report 1-3. TABLED TO NOV. 5 - Docket No. 13050012 DP/ADLS: Ricker's Gas Station and Convenience Store, Docket No. 13060001 ZW: Legacy PUD ordinance Z-501-07, Section 9.02 -maximum 15-ft front yard building setback, and Docket No. 13070001 ZW: Legacy PUD Z-501-07, Section 19.2; Building Base Landscaping. The applicant seeks zoning waivers and site plan and design approval for a gas station and convenience store. The site is located at 7729 East 146 Street (at the corner of 146th and River Road). It is zoned PUD, within the Legacy PUD. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP on behalf of Ricker Realty & Development, LLC. These items are tabled to the Nov. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting. Page 2 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE October 1, 2013 Department Report 4. TABLED TO NOV. 5 - Docket No. 13090003 ADLS Amend: 9800 N. Michigan Rd. Dunkin Donuts, C-Store, Gas Canopy & Dairy Queen. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval to slightly modify a previous petition, to now show one multi-tenant building & fuel canopy on 3.56 acres, and to also show one single tenant building on the north portion for a Dairy Queen. The site is loc ated at 9800 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned I-1/Industrial, within the US 421/Michigan Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Eric Gleissner of Civil Site Group, Inc. This item is tabled to the Nov. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting. Page 3 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE October 1, 2013 Department Report 5. Docket No. 13090010 ADLS Amend: Faith's Cake Ball Factory (former Ritter’s site; former George & Jeff’s Crepes & Creamery site). The applicant seeks approval to paint the roof, roof trim, and ground sign trim a fuchsia color. The site is located at 930 N. Range Line Rd. It is zoned B-2/Business and is located within the Carmel Dr.-Range Line Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Faith & Jeff Bublick. The applicant seeks approval to paint the roof, roof trim, and ground sign trim a fuchsia color. Similar bold colors are used in that section of Range Line Rd. with the Public Storage units and their bright orange color and with the Dairy Queen and their red awnings. However, the Department has three concerns: 1. The primary concern from the Department is how that roof will weather, especially since a layer of paint is going to be applied to an already-painted metal roof. How will the roof weather, and will the new layer of paint fade or flake off over time? (A condition should be imposed that the land owner will maintain the roof and paint it annually and/or service it annually.) 2. The concern about the shade or hue of fuchsia being a very bright color. Can it be a darker hue, within the same fuchsia color family? 3. The City Forester (Daren Mindham) would like the petitioner to replace any dead or missing plant material, to bring the site into compliance with the original landscape plan for when it was a Ritter’s. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then approves it, with the condition about the roof maintenance and the landscape plan compliance. Page 4 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE October 1, 2013 Department Report   6. Docket No. 13060010 OA: Carmel Dr-Range Line Road Overlay Sunset Amendment 2013, As Amended by Council, Ordinance Z-576-13. The applicant seeks to amend Zoning Ordinance Chapter 23F: Carmel Drive-Range Line Road Overlay Zone to modify development standards and remove the sunset clause (expiration date). Filed by Carmel Dept. of Community Services. City Council proposed amendments to the ordinance which eliminate the 2 story building requirement, revise the purpose and intent, and shorten the expiration date to June 30, 2014. The Plan Commission has 45 days (until October 31) to consider the Council’s amendments and report back. The options available are: 1. Fail to act within 45 days – the amended ordinance is adopted, requiring no further action. 2. Approve the amendment – the amended ordinance is adopted, requiring no further action. 3. Disapprove the amendment – the ordinance would go back to the Council to either confirm the amendment or consider revisions requested by the Plan Commission. It probably comes as no surprise that staff is concerned about the elimination of the 2 story requirement. Range Line Road is one of Carmel’s most important corridors; it is the spine of Central Carmel. The same reasons to require a second story along the corridor in 2004-2005 still apply today:  Limited Resource: Building upward makes efficient use of the limited land along Range Line Road. There has been no shortage of investment in the corridor.  Form : Building to the street and creating height frames the space to create a sense of enclosure, which improves the corridor’s walkability.  Function: Providing more opportunities (and flexibility of uses) creates more destinations for people to walk to and from…shared by residents, consumers and employees.  Fiscal Impact: We are compiling figures and hope to have more information at the meeting. Finally, as mentioned at the September 17 meeting, the Council asked staff to explore ways to make the Overlay Zone better reflect the different characters along Range Line Road (e.g. it is primarily retail south of Executive Drive, and to the north it is adjacent to residential with an established tree canopy). Staff will begin work right away to meet a June 30 adoption deadline. Look for another proposed amendment in early 2014. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then forwards this item to the Oct. 15 Plan Commission meeting with a recommendation. Page 5 Carmel Plan Commission SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE October 1, 2013 Department Report 7. Docket No. 13070009 DP/ADLS: Horizon Bank. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for new bank/financial institution with drive thru. The site is zoned OM/V-Old Meridian District/Village Zone. The site is located at the northeast corner of Old Meridian Street and Carmel Drive, northwest of 1200 Carmel Dr. Filed by Christopher Brayak of Wightman & Associates, Inc. The applicant seeks approval to construct a new 7,322 sq. ft. bank/financial institution with drive thru. This 2- story yellow/tan brick building will have a limestone base, with a capped dark forest green cornice at the top, and with dark green awnings over the first floor windows. All windows are proposed to be clear vision glass. The main entrance will have a suspended cantilevered canopy. The building is pulled up to Old Meridian Street, with the drive thru component located at the building’s rear. There is no outlot at the corner; it will all be owned by the bank. Please view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. To the north is Providence at Old Meridian, to the west is Meijer, to the east is the former Shepherd Insurance Building, and to the south across the street is a medical office building. The site will connect to the Providence at Old Meridian site, as well as to the former Shepherd Insurance Building site, for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. The signage will be a projecting/blade sign along Old Meridian St. and a ground sign along Carmel Dr. The sign colors are proposed to be a very dark green and an orange, to match their corporate colors. The bank will not utilize a separate trash dumpster. The trash, some of which is confidential, will be retained inside the building and then disposed of offsite by bank personnel. A few months ago, the Plan Commission sent a favorable recommendation to City Council for the bank to rezone their southern parcel, comprised of 0.32 acres, from the Old Meridian/Office Zone to the Old Meridian/ Village Zone. This was done to have the entire project area built on ground that is one zoning classification. Back then, only the northern parcel was zoned Old Meridian/Village Zone. That rezone will be heard by City Council on Sept. 16, 2013, as Ordinance Z-579-13. And in conjunction with that rezone request, a plat vacation was requested prior to that, at the June 18th Plan Commission meeting, to begin the process of combining these two triangular parcels of land. This was presented under Docket No. 13040014 PV, and was approved by the Plan Commission. Sept. 17 Public Hearing Meeting Re-cap: a. John Cumming, with Buckingham Co., is in support of this project. b. Kevin- rezone was heard on Sept. 17 by Council. (Then it was sent to the Council’s 9/24/13 LUAC meeting.) c. Kevin- what is the exact hue/color? Renderings for rezone vs. DP/ADLS vs. color/material samples submitted are all different. d. John A. – screen the transformer & switch gear at the northeast corner of Old Meridian St. & Carmel Dr. e. Mike C- rendering shows a tree lawn along Old Meridian St., but the site plan does not. f. Nick – perhaps paint a mural on the switch box like they do in other cities to make it an art piece. g. Nick - Please add more landscaping in the open spaces to screen/block the parking areas. h. Nick –the yellow brick color isn’t good; needs to match or complement Providence at Old Meridian’s colors. i. Brad –drive thru traffic flow question. j. Alan – asked if there be any wording on the awnings? The petitioner responded that they would like signage on the awnings if they are permitted to do so. (For signage on awnings, the Carmel Sign Ordinance states this: Maximum Sign Area: 1. Awning: a. The area of any Awning graphic will be subtracted from the allowable Sign Area of the (primary) sign type chosen. Location: 1. Awning: Shall be placed at an Page 6 appropriate height over windows or doors for protection from the elements. Design 1. Awning: a. Text and/or graphics may not exceed 12” high on the front valance of a fabric awning. b. Valances cannot exceed 14” in height. c. Text and or graphics may be placed on the top of the Awning for Identification or decoration.) Outstanding Planning Dept. Review Comments: 1. Please include the Development Plan application’s Findings of Fact sheet in your final information packets. 2. Please add landscaping along Carmel Dr., per Zoning Ordinance chapter 20G.04.06. And, please add shade street trees along Carmel Dr. The petitioner has done this, but more shade trees should probably be added along Carmel Dr. Staff would like the Commission to further discuss this. 3. Roof cornice design/style: Staff would like the Commission to further review this feature. 4. Corner tower element, design, colors, and materials: Per the petitioner, the tower is a branding element, plus the green color will be a darker green as shown in the info packets. Staff would like the Commission to further review this feature, and perhaps have deeper roof overhangs for this element or perhaps have it removed from the design. 5. Windows: right now the upper floor windows are smaller in size than the first floor windows. Please make them all the same size, so that they line up vertically. Staff would like the Commission to further discuss and review the windows’ layout and also the patterning within each window. 6. Blade sign, Awnings, and Landscaping in R/W: these items need Board of Public Works approval to encroach into the street right of way; please work with the City Engineering Dept. on that. Petitioner has not contacted the BPW to get on a meeting agenda just yet. 7. Please screen the transformer/utility/switch boxes at the street intersection with landscaping. (Per Duke Energy’s email, plantings (only ornamental grasses) can be planted no closer than 10-ft to the door opening and no closer than 3-ft from the sides of their transformer unit. The painting of the transformer boxes is NOT allowed.) 8. New Comment : is the green cornice considered franchise architecture? The Old Meridian District general standards do not permit this. Staff would like the Commission to further review this, as ZO chapter 20G.04.01 states: Buildings that are stylized in an attempt to use the building itself as advertising shall be prohibited, particularly where the proposed architecture is the result of corporate or franchise architecture. Department Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the Nov. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting for further review and discussion. OR, if all comments can be adequately addressed the night of the committee meeting, then the Dept. is okay with the Committee forwarding the item to the Oct. 15 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation. Page 7 Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE October 1, 2013 Department Report 1. Docket No. 13060017 PP: Silvara Primary Plat. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 360 lots on 266 acres, as well as the following PUD Ordinance Amendment request and Subdivision Control Ordinance waiver requests: 2. Docket No. 13060018 SW: SCO Chapter 8.09 – sidewalks on both sides of street. 3. Docket No. 13060019 SW: SCO Chapter 6.03.24.8 – frontage place curbs. 4. Docket No. 13060020 OA: PUD Chptr 14.3, Exhibit E, and Exhibit L (Section 13) - Total number of access points. 5. Docket No. 13070010 SW: SCO Chapter 6.03.25 – alley length. The site is located at 11960 Springmill Rd., northwest of the intersection of 116th St. and Springmill Rd. It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development and partially in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Filed by Doug Wagner of Republic Development, LLC, for Silvara Development Company, LLC. The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 360 lots on 266 acres (with a maximum of 422 units overall), as well as a PUD Ordinance Amendment request and several Subdivision Control Ordinance waiver requests. P lease view the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details. The PUD rezone was brought through in 2011. The PUD ordinance (with exhibits) can be found online at: http://cocdocs.ci.carmel.in.us/weblink/0/fol/595690/Row1.aspx Waiver sought for sidewalks on both sides of street: The Petitioner states that sidewalks are not necessary where lanes and streets, located internally within the development, are one-sided (with homes) or not loaded (with homes) and a sidewalk or trail exists on the opposite side of the street. Since the last meeting, the petitioner has added a few more sidewalk segments back into the plat design. The Commission will have to decide if the areas where only one sidewalk on the side of the street is shown makes sense. Waiver sought for frontage place curbs: To go along with the developer’s mantra of low impact design, this waiver is being sought in order to allow for drainage to flow across a frontage place street. It will also reduce the need for tree removal, resulting in more tree preservation. The Commission will have to decide if the areas where they do not show curbs on a frontage place street makes sense. (A frontage place is a permanent public or private way situated parallel to an arterial, a parkway, or a collector street in order to provide access to private lots and to eliminate through traffic.) Ordinance Amendment sought for total number of access points: The petitioner would like to have a total of 4 access points along Springmill Rd. so that the Bridgecreek Area can have a second means of access for any potential emergency responses. Right now, the PUD and its exhibits only allow 3 access points along Spring Mill Rd. Also, as a side note, the Petitioner would like to reduce the number of access points along Clay Center Rd. from 2 access points to only 1. Please note that right now, the City Engineering Dept. is not comfortable with the number of access point along Clay Center Rd. being reduced. The Commission will have to decide if number of access points being changed makes sense for this development. (The Planning Dept. will be relying heavily on the professional opinions of City Engineering Dept., the City Fire Dept., and the City Police Dept. to weigh in on this topic, as it could affect life and safety concerns.) Waiver sought for alley length: This waiver is being sought in order to allow for alley lengths to be increased from 600 feet, up to 730-ft, so, alleys can be 130 feet longer than what the City’s ordinance permits The Planning Dept. does not see an issue with this waiver request. The Commission will have to decide if slightly longer alley lengths make sense for this development. Aug. 20 Public Hearing meeting recap: The Plan Commission heard the requests for waivers and changes to the Silvara plan, now that they are ready to move forward and have fully engineered the site. There were many public comments and concerns voiced, as Page 8 well as concerns of the Plan Commission members. The Plan Commission asked the Staff to bring past meeting minutes from the 2011 PUD rezone to the committee meeting, so that references could be made on previous commitments by the Petitioner. They also asked the Petitioner to have Steve Fehribach present at the committee meeting, to discuss traffic and the number of access points. Lastly, they would like to know the City Engineer’s stance on the proposed number of access points for the project. Plan Commissioner Comments: 1. Mike C. – this development should connect to the school site, the one entrance at Clay Center Rd. could be a right-in, right-out, add a median on Springmill Rd. so that people cannot turn left and cause traffic issues. 2. Sue W. – concerned with buffering of perimeter lots and the number of access points to the site. 3. Nick K. – traffic is bad, east/west routes getting cut off. A pedestrian plan is needed. Please also make the plans easy to read. Flooding & storm sewers, relating to waiver request are also a concern. 4. Josh K. – is in favor of green space and buffers, but is concerned with the access points. 5. Steve L. – agrees with comments already said. Rain gardens, LID, and BMP’s should be used. Why are there no ponds on this plan? The concept plan has multiple. Block 3 – is that apartments? 6. Brad G. – What is the timing of the sc hool going in? Should have a connection to the subdivision. Need exhibits and locations of waivers on the site plan, as presented at the public hearing. Concerned with access points. Could use Trex boardwalk instead of sidewalk to help with drainage. Bring in a diagram of trees to be preserved with no curbs on the frontage roads. Auto turn exhibit needed for the “cul-de-squares”. 7. Kevin R. – concerned with buffering at Springmill Streams. Access points were set in stone before with the PUD rezone process. Concerned with lot sizes adjacent to the perimeter - they need to meet what was agreed to. Public Comments: 1. Betsy Mitchell – concerned with closeness of potential new houses to her house, which is in Springmill Streams. Also concerns about the number of access points, quality of life, and easement width. Is it a 30-ft wide buffer plus a 20-ft wide easement, thus making it 50-ft? 2. Jim Dillon – concerned with number of access points, Illinois Street is not complete, perimeter buffer yard and lots. Trees are on their side of the property line (at the north end of the Silvara project). They want a mound with conifers trees to screen them from the new homes. 3. Sue Dillon – the landscape buffer and credits for existing trees sheet done by the Urban Forester and the Petitioner – she does not think the trees they counted should really count because the trees are on their side of the property line. 4. Georgia Moore – her mom is Mrs. Cunningham, lives right at the NWC of 116th/Springmill. What about noise and buffering for her? 5. Bob Christ – lives in Williams Mill subdivision and is concerned with number of access points. 6. Jeanne Book – concerned with access points, round-a-bout, new traffic from this development, increased density, lot sizes, and lack of privacy. 7. Allison Brown - sidewalks are needed for safety. People take the path of least resistance. Access points on Springmill Rd. are a concern. Illinois Street extension is not completed and cannot help with traffic. Sept. 3 Committee Meeting Recap: a) The committee determined that the petitioner’s traffic engineer would present at the Oct. 1 committee meeting, and he will present the traffic impact analysis of the new layout with the new locations of the proposed access points. b) Nick Kestner voiced a concern about disturbing the fringe of the tree preservation areas (tree roots in that area) when grading the swales for the drainage and utility easement. c) The committee discussed connecting the neighborhood to the future school site, via vehicle and/or pedestrian connections. d) Northern perimeter lots, especially the lots that abut Springmill Streams subdivision, were discussed regarding the number of and the bufferyard. (The petitioner noted that they addressed a public comment and have redesigned the layout of lots 349-351, to show only 2 lots backing up to Springmill Streams.) Page 9 e) Sue Dillon submitted photos taken from the Springmill Streams neighborhood side, looking south into the bean field of the Silvara site, where lots 349-351 are proposed. f) There was a question from the public about where the property line is staked between the Silvara property and the Springmill Streams subdivision and if that is correct. g) Landscape buffer and credit for existing trees: (Unless shown otherwise, the City Forester stands by his determination that those existing trees are on the Silvara side and that the mature shade trees count toward the required amount of trees for that stretch of the property line. He stated that those existing trees do count toward the buffer requirements. He also stated that evergreen trees count as shade trees. The Forester would only have a concern if he later found out that the property line was not in the correct location. It would be up to the Commission to ask the petitioner to plant additional trees/evergreens along any areas already deemed okay and not needing any additional plantings.) h) The main entrance design was discussed. i) There will not be a gap in the path that will go down to the roundabout at 116th/Springmill. That is a commitment written into the PUD. j) No ponds are proposed because it has been designed that way to not have any retention ponds, and instead just have smaller bioswales and other Low Impact Design (LID) techniques. k) Block 3 will not be apartments, but will be attached dwellings that are for-sale. l) Petitioner needs to address or respond to the planning department’s outstanding review comments before the Oct. 1 meeting. m) The item was then continued to the Oct. 1 Committee meeting. Side note: On the evening of Sept. 26, some of the Committee members (and City Forester) propose to visit the site’s north property line to observe its existing vegetation and to get a better understanding of the proposed buffering. Outstanding Planning Department Review Comments: 1. Signage: Please provide more details about the signage locations, dimensions, lighting, etc. This includes both the Neighborhood Markers and the Entry Wall Sign.) The info packet showed the conceptual signage design details, but Staff needs to see a sign plan, showing the locations of the proposed signs, too. Plus, this was requested by the committee at the Sept. 3 meeting. The Preliminary Lighting and Signage Plan submitted on 9/16/13 still does not show and/or call out the locations of the proposed signage for the entry walls and signs, the sidewalk markers, nor the neighborhood markers. 2. PUD Section 11.5.E – please provide a copy of that commitment. (Petitioner will submit a draft commitment, as stated in their 9-25-13 response letter.) 3. PUD Section 14.2.A – Road improvement commitment/contribution. Has this been done yet? In accordance with 14.2A- The road fee contribution is due upon recording of the final/secondary plat, other road commitments will be included into the applicable sections construction plans at that time. 4. Sheet 7: The phrase “Community Center” is on the plans near the Private Drive…what does that mean? (Please provide more details about the Community Area, its layout, its architecture, etc.) Petitioner stated that it will be a community center, clubhouse, playground, etc. and that this part of the project come back later for Plan Commission review and approval of the site plan, architecture, etc. 5. Sidewalks must be at least 5-ft wide. Please amend the plans, especially the Paseo Area Landscape Detail. (The Paseo Street detail in the info packets still shows a 4-ft wide sidewalk in the 50-ft right of way cross section at the top of the page, even thought it was amended to be 5-ft wide in the actual detailed sketch.) 6. Two access points needed/requested along Clay Center Rd., per the City Engineer. (Petitioner, please provide an update on this.) (Also, from Gary Duncan in the Engrg Dept. on 9-16-13, regarding second access from Clay Center Road: Please plat a 50-ft right-of-way and build a stub for a future roadway on Page 10 the school property. The southern limit of the 50-foot right-of-way shall be the southern school property line.) 7. The City Engineer would like to see some modifications to the southernmost access point along Springmill Rd. Petitioner, please provide an update on this item.  8. The City Forestry Dept. is concerned about the street trees along Springmill Rd. and Clay Center Rd., and when and how those will get installed. An idea was proposed that that there could be a condition and commitment of approval that those street trees would be installed at a later date, when those streets are widened/improved. Per the petitioner, a double row of street trees is shown on the plans just outside the right-of -way of Spring Mill and Clay Center Road. This was discussed in the subdivision committee meeting on September 3rd. These trees will be installed at the time of construction in the section of the plat in which they are located. With trees being outside the right-of -way this will alleviate the risk of future street widening disturbing the street trees. (The City F orester is okay with this.) 9. Petitioner, please provide updates on whether or not all other City Forestry Dept. issues have been resolved. (The Dept. understands that the Perimeter Landscape Credit Evaluation dated 4/15/2013 has occurred, and that the City Forester has stamped it as approved.) - As of 9/25/13, the Forestry Dept. received a pdf of the revised set of the Landscape Plan, and is reviewing that. (As a side note, the Final/Secondary Plat phase is where the City Forester stamps/approves the final engineered Landscape Plan with planting locations, tree species, etc.) 10. Alternative Transportation Systems: A. Please include all paths and sidewalks that are not within right-of-way in an easement. The 12-ft path is now shown to be within a 20-ft dedicated easement; however, the revised plans still need to be submitted to the Dept. to show this easement on all paths/ sidewalks that are not within right-of-way and to also add PPAE (Pedestrian Path Access Easement) to the legend. On Sept. 25, the petitioner wrote that all paths along Spring Mill Road / Clay Center Drive and internal 5’ sidewalks will be within right-of-way. The 12’ wide east / west path is shown within a dedicated easement. However, they also wrote that internal paths through common area along Williams Creek corridor, and elsewhere, many of which will be field located, are not intended for general public use. These paths are intended for the homeowners within the community and their invited guests. The Dept. is not in favor of the paths not being open for general public use. Please read this email from David Littlejohn, Alternative Transportation Systems Coordinator explaining why: “The main reason we request that the paths be included in easements is to ensure that the paths will always be there and be open to the public. Over time, the paths will need to be maintained and the easement will describe and illustrate that requirement. This is no different than a drainage or utility easement. The City has experienced issues where a path has been removed after it was installed because a neighborhood homeowners association decided that the path was not needed (without City approval). The City has also experienced issues where residents in a neighborhood have tried to tell Carmel residents from outside the neighborhood that they are not able to use their “private” pathway. In both instances the City was able to show the HOA or neighborhood that the path was on an easement that required the path be there and that it be open to the overall public. Without the easement spelled out on the plat, it would have been much more difficult to explain the situation to the neighborhood which could have prolonged or never resolved the problem. Both of the examples occurred in the last few years in subdivisions that were developed within 10 years. In a longer time span a path could just simply crumble or decay, have vegetation over grow it or be blocked in some other way and without an easement the City wouldn’t be able to enforce its maintenance or continuous accessibility…I also spoke with Amanda Foley in the Engineering Dept. about this and she agrees.” B. Main Entrance: the sidewalks are pulled back and just located along the frontage roads, but there is a 12- ft path within the right of way of the main entrance. The Dept. requests that the petitioner adds an additional sidewalk along that main entrance street. (Please still work with the Alternative Page 11 Transportation Systems Coordinator, David Littlejohn, on this. Also, the Petitioner is in the process of discussion about this.) 11. Engineering Dept. approval status: (Please provide an update on this.) 12. Along Clay Center Rd., the 20-ft wide trail easement that is proposed to run through the future school site: who will build that, who will record that easement; when will it be built? Does Carmel/Clay Sc hools know about this proposed easement, so they can incorporate it into their future school site plan? Please address. 13. What is the proposed design of each bridge? Please provide photo examples and/or provide the design spec ifications for each type of bridge proposed to be built. Petitioner stated that the bridge has not been designed at this time. Floodway and dam breach analysis, etc., which are in the process of being completed, will affect the design of the bridge. The design of the bridge will be submitted along with the construction plans and final/secondary plat phase for the applicable section of the plat. 14. Petitioner: please find out if Carmel/Clay Schools would be okay with a vehicular connection to their future school site, from/through this neighborhood. (A representative from the school emailed Staff back that 1) There are currently no discussions regarding the construction of a new school at the future school site; 2) the school could entertain the idea of a vehicular connection to/from the Silvara neighborhood, if it works out and makes sense, but it would depend on the site design for a school and the ability to control inbound traffic; and 3) The school system is supportive of pedestrian connections from the Silvara neighborhood.) The Petitioner is still in the process of discussion about this. 15. The Fire Dept. is okay with the proposed plat layout and with the current number of total access points, and they now have the documents they need from the Petitioner. They also want full access along Clay Center Rd. with that entrance and being able to turn all directions, NOT just right in right out. 16. Paseo Areas design/terminus: This might need to be revised, or another Waiver might need to be filed for and requested from the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The petitioner is still working with the City Engineering Dept. on this. Are these to be private streets? Petitioner stated they will be publically dedicated streets, but will be maintained privately. Staff needs verification of this, and if it okay for public streets to be privately maintained. 17. Street jogs: This design might need to be revised or another Waiver might need to be filed from Subdivision Control Ordinance (SCO) chapter 6.03.01. The petitioner has now filed for additional Plan Commission waiver requests, and they will be presented at the Oct. 15 Plan Commission public hearing meeting: a. Docket No. 13090004 SW: SCO chapter 6.03.01 – minimum distance between intersections = 150’. Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than one hundred fifty (150) feet shall not be permitted. (This waiver is not needed, per the City Engineering Dept.) b. Docket No. 13090005 SW: SCO chapter 6.03.15 – minimum centerline radii is 100’ for cul-de-sac and 150’ for local road. (The City Engineering Dept. will not support this waiver.) c. Docket No. 13090006 SW: SCO chapter6.04.01 – maximum block length shall not exceed 1500 feet. (The City can support this waiver request.) Dept. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the Nov. 5 Subdivision Committee meeting, for further review and discussion. OR, if all comments and concerns are adequately addressed, then the committee can forward it to the full Plan Commission meeting on October 15 with a recommendation.