Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 01-15-03 CARMEL/CLAY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes January 15, 2003 Jon Dobosiewicz – Carmel DOCS Jim Blanchard – Carmel DOCS/BCE Dick Hill – Carmel Engineering Mike McBride – Carmel Engineering Gary Hoyt – Carmel Fire Department Chuck Shupperd – Vectren Energy Jenny Chapman – Hamilton Co. Surveyor Office Sharon Prater – Panhandle Eastern Steve Broermann – Hamilton Co. Highway John South – Hamilton Co. Soil & Water West Carmel Center, Block B - The Goddard School (Development Plan) The applicant seeks approval to construct a day care / preschool. The site is located on the east side of Commerce Drive just north of Carwinion Way. Filed by James Peck of Civil Designs, LLP for The Goddard School. Present for the petitioner: James Stutzman, Carl David Toth, with BRDA and Jim Peck, Aaron Hurt with Civil Designs. th Jim Peck, the property is located at 106 Street and Michigan Road which is part of the 421 Overlay Zone. The applicant next to us, The Unique Building, will be following our discussion. We initially discussed coming in with a single access and have the ability to continue the parking across the front of the Unique development and add another exit. From our standpoint and after talking with the group next door, that doesn’t bother us. They have a concern and would prefer not to do that. We will need to apply for a variance to keep the building forward to minimize the amount of parking. From a parking standpoint, we need from 28 to 32 spaces. With this plan we have 28 spaces so it works out adequately for us. At this time, we are taking down the piece that has all the Panhandle Eastern easements on it. American Consulting Engineers is working with them to define the easement because it has been floating around for a while. In the back, we have the Goddard School, which is a preschool learning center. James Stutzman is the architect for Goddard School. We will pass out the building elevations brought today. Included is a fenced in playground area that is all sod. We have sidewalks around the building so that when children come in and out, they won’t have muddy shoes. There will be playground equipment made by Little Tykes. This is high-end equipment priced at around $45,000. The developer is extending sanitary sewer and water lines to provide service for not only us but also the people adjoining the site. James Stutzman, we are passing around photos of comparable buildings that we have already completed. Also, there are floor plans of the proposed building for the site. This building is 8,000 SF and is designed for use by 124 students and 10 to 15 staff members. It has a total occupant load of around 130 to 135 people. Each classroom has a direct exit to the outside so the building is surrounded by a number of doors, which is a requirement of code in daycare design and safety. The age group is from diaper age children up to 5 yrs old. For the design of the building, we are using a modular brick. The height to the top of the articulated eave line is 12'. The height to the mass of the roof is 33'. This is not the height to the top of the cupola but to the 1 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January mass roof so we are under most zoning limitations for 35' on that. The shingles will be a high definition laminated shadow detail. The brickwork is articulated with a flared arch (known as flat or gauged arch). In our rendering, the colors are very close except for the shingles in. The trim, the siding and any non-brick surface will be white. The brick will be a colonial red. The singles will be a mid-range gray. The photos are represented by projects built in Zionsville and one under construction in South Elgin Illinois (a Chicago suburb). This is very close to the proposed building for Carmel. Jenny Chapman, Hamilton County Surveyors Office, did not receive plans. This will need an outlet permit for storm sewer. Jim Peck, there is a 24" storm sewer that has been stubbed out for us. We will tie into that and continue that out to the development (northwest). Chuck Shupperd, Vectren Energy, we understand construction will be in the spring around May or so after the permitting and variance processes. I am passing along the contact person’s name and information about the customer data sheet for load requirements. You should call the 800 number to get this into the system. With spring approaching, with the requirements complete you will be on schedule. Steve Broermann, Hamilton County Highway Department, did not receive plans. Will this be platted? As soon as we receive the plans, we will send out a letter. You will need a driveway or entrance permit and that will be covered in the letter. Jon Dobosiewicz, DOCS, my presumption is that it will come in as a secondary plat for each individual lot. That will also come thru TAC. The secondary plat is not a public hearing item. If you are in a position to file the secondary, you can be on TAC next month. Jim Peck will get with the owners on this matter. There will be a single plat for the two lots. This is the remainder of Lot B 3 & 4. Jim Blanchard, Department of Community Services/BCE, did not receive plans. Do you have a walkway to a public way? James Stutzman, we have the walkway at the building exits. The building is completely surrounded by a 5' sidewalk. Jim Peck, we are bringing the 5' sidewalk up to the front of the building. Jim Blanchard would also like to request specific details on the radiant walls and firewalls. This should include the method to be used. I understand there will be a construction trailer. I am passing along the Temporary Use Application that needs to be completed. We are also requesting you complete the checklist for the pre-submittal meeting which is needed prior to permits being issued. Jim Peck, the contractor on this will be Robert R. Shire, Brentwood Tennessee. They built the one in Noblesville, Zionsville and the soon to be completed South Elgin Illinois. They have a Carmel 2 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January office. Gary Hoyt, Carmel Fire Department, did not receive a set of plans (a business card is passed to the petitioner). I understand this will be a sprinkled building. We need to sit down and talk about several items such as exits/entrances, mechanical room riser, and fire department connections. We will also need a set of plans showing the utilities/water lines. We might request an additional fire hydrant if there isn’t one close enough. Since the building will have a fire alarm system, we will request that the fire alarm enunciator panel be located at the main entrance. The Goddard School on Medical Drive has the mechanicals above; how will this project be laid out? James Stutzman, we will have 5 air handlers in the attic on a mezzanine and be accessible through a rung ladder. It will either be in the ceiling of the staff room or in the small adjacent room. Gary also requests a Knox Box. I have the application available. I will leave it up to you whether it is recessed or surface mount. After I receive the plans, I will forward a comment letter. Sharon Prater, Panhandle Eastern did not receive plans. For clarification, the agreement to correct easement descriptions and boundaries has been completed and recorded. American Consulting Engineers has a copy of that. We want to make sure that it is accurately plotted on this plan. Make sure your site fits without encroachment on the easement. We can make no further comments until we have seen that correction on the plans. Jim Peck, we have been working very close with you and ACE in the past. We will confirm the information and revise the survey to show the instrument number that has been recorded. Sharon asks where will they stock pile? Jim Peck notes they will not put anything on the pipeline easement. We have instructed them to keep everything off that easement. Sharon, I question this because recently Applebee’s was approved, we didn’t know it, but the contractor was driving all over our easement. Even though we furnish and send out the requirements, you will need to contact us directly to make sure you work closely with our people. The contractor working in front of Target is driving over and dumping on our easement, which is pretty wet. They do not know how deep it is and could damage the pipeline. You need to convey to your contractor to contact our office before they begin. They should not be driving all over the area. Jim Peck notes they might spread some access topsoil and replant everything. Our intent is to maintain and mow the lawn area. th Jon, our meeting of the Plan Commission is on the 18 of February and that is when this will be first heard. One of the most critical issues is that Sharon has time to read those plans and has an adequate time to respond. We do not want to waste the Plan Commission’s time on plans that need to be tweaked. 3 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Jim Peck, we have actually held off submitting this until we knew that the easement was resolved before we went in and actually optioned the ground. Jon, we will get that addressed on the secondary plat and it should clear that up. John South, Hamilton County Soil & Water, needs a set of plans. It looks like you have the basics of the erosion control plan. You will have to file a NOI even though the site is less than 5 acres. A quick glance over the plans reveals you will need more detail on the construction sequence. Include the sod in the drawing. This will include how they will build the site out and conform to the rules. We need to look at what happens between when you start construction and when you finish. Jim Peck, we will probably sod the entire site and playground area to dress it up. Jon, you noted that with the parking lot you would be filing a variance. As well, the logo sign will require the filing of a sign variance. Jim Peck, after talking with our client, I explained getting the logo sign variance would be slim to none. I expressed to everyone that we need to have the logo sign less than 3 SF. We think that can be done. Jon, when you find out, you will need to amend your petition showing 3 SF. Provide a new elevation to the Plan Commission showing the size. The dumpster enclosure is identified as a split-faced block building. I think it should match the exterior of the main structure. It is also located in an area that we don’t think is the best location. There were some discussions about this use and how it relates to the adjoining office to the north. While we may end up having it connect at that location, there is still the discussion about not having it connect. I wonder how a trash truck can maneuver in that area. It would be difficult. I would like to see you incorporate it somewhere closer to the entrance and bumping two parking spaces over. You could place it much farther back in line with the face of building. It should not be sitting out front. Perhaps bump it into the play area. The backside would not hurt anything. This would allow the trash truck to get in, back out, and exit appropriately. On the plans you show light fixtures that are not acceptable. It needs to direct light downward. If you use shield options, show that to the Plan Commission. Scott Brewer is at a conference offsite. I would like for you to contact him. It appears, based on my review, that the planting numbers might be correct but Scott will have comments on species. The Plan Commission will want to know that Scott has looked at this. The commitment concerning the use and development of real estate that is attached to the zoning, in 1990, is unrecorded. I’m not sure why they did not share that with you. We have had this issue with other sites. It is limited solely for general office and professional office. We will set out an application for the Commitment Amendment and it should be filed by Friday. You can attach it to the same notice along with the DP. You will need to set up a meeting to discuss that one particular issue with Laurence Lillig our liaison to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Jim Peck, our next meeting will be to discuss the parking. The Goddard School is not like Kinder Care where everyone shows up at 7:30 in the morning and drops off their children and at 5:15 PM they are picked up. We have had traffic studies that show between 7AM and 11AM (every 15 minutes or so) you might have 5 cars where parents are coming in. Goddard requires that the children be brought into the building. There would be no stacking. It might be a good idea to explain this to the Plan Commission. 4 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Jon, as for the adjoining site, I think they may be fearful that the elimination of the 10 or 11 spaces, if the parking lots are connected, would encourage people to use their area. I would develop a concept for a fallback on parking. West Carmel Center, Block B - Unique – The Specialty Group (Development Plan) The applicant seeks approval to construct an office building. The site is located on the east side of Commerce Drive just north of Carwinion Way. Filed by Paul G. Reis of Drewry Simmons Pitts & Vornehm, LLP for Unique – The Specialty Group, Inc. Paul Reis, attorney for Unique-The Specialty Group, is filing a Development Plan/ADLS approval petition. With Paul today are, Christopher Day, Caldera Development; Rusty Skoor, Falcon Engineering; Dan Sulkoske, Kramer Corporation. The petitioner would like to begin with a housekeeping item, this particular piece of property is by commitment falling within the 421 or Michigan Road Overlay Zone. This ordinance requires a 3-acre tract of land for development purposes. However, we are filing this week a request to amend with regard to the commitment and the application of that ordinance so we can move forward on our development plan only for Unique. At one point the group that was ahead of us, The Goddard School, would need to be joined with us to get 3 acres. We are going to proceed but will only be able to address those issues relative to the Unique project. The Unique project is the construction of an office building and in the future a conference center. We believe everyone has received packets. We have received a series of letters and faxed back to those TAC members some of our comments. We are reviewing all of those items. The only issue we are not comfortable with right now and will need to have some follow-up discussion with DOCS and Steve Broermann is the need for connection with the parking lot and the parcel to the south. We will plan a meeting after the TAC meeting. Jenny hands another copy of the department comment letter to Rusty. You will need an outlet permit. The site is in Crooked Creek Watershed. On your plans you show the outlet to the south. After discussions with Steve in our office, we find there is an actual inlet in the ditch that you can connect to instead of having it open. Rusty Skoor, Falcon Engineering, my worry is the legal drain. After we look at the documents, I would like to discuss that further at another meeting. Chuck hands information to Rusty. We will come down from Commerce Park and extend our service. You should call your contact person to request a custom load data sheet. We understand you will begin construction sometime around spring. Call the 800 number to get the information into the system after you have been approved. Steve sent a letter. I did not have a chance to talk with the county engineer about the connection before this meeting. What he thinks is it is no different from our opinion whether it is a school or not. We would like to see all the parcels connected. We can talk, but this will probably be our stance. Paul Reis, Commerce Drive is in a sense a frontage road. We have only two parcels here. This means that all those people, if they didn’t have ready access out to Michigan Road, would come 5 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January back into Commerce Drive. Please take this back to county engineering and talk with Mike Howard. You are saying that people using one piece of private property have a right to go over another piece of private property. You are creating an easement. That may have some legal issues. I would like to hear a good reason why you need for people to drive over our area to get to Commerce Drive if they have a curb cut and if we have a curb cut. Jon, the answer is the whole 3-acre requirement and minimum size requirement for the DP approval. When the owner submits a secondary plat, I can illustrate to them that there is going to be one driveway cut on Commerce Drive for both these proposed parcels. Paul, I am asking the county if they are going to deny the second parcel. Jon, the Plan Commission has the decision on the Development Plan approval. DOCS has the decision on reviewing the secondary plat. We have talked about this issue of cross connectivity and the proposed use and your client’s concern about liability. I would like to participate with you in your discussions with the county highway. You are asking the Plan Commission for a discussion on allowing a parcel of less size than is required in the overlay zone-presuming that you are going to ask for individual access off the road for an undersized parcel. The adjacent owner is asking for that same consideration. Perhaps even a single driveway cut into the site could be discussed. I don’t think a single driveway cut is necessary. The Plan Commission, in light of the request to reduce the parcel size, may feel that is an important feature. We can discuss this further. Rusty, I understand that The Goddard School has asked for a variance because they don’t have the parking. Is that part of the discussion? Jon, I would not suggest that. I have asked them to come up with an option to show the parking spaces. The ownership should be made aware of the access to this parcel. If you felt this was not made clear, then you should make it clear this time. I agree with Paul. I have already asked them to remove their dumpster and relocate it. I don’t think they should be designing their site to presume that they are going to pick up trash and the driver has to back all the way out through the parking lot. The driver may want to go through your site. You can meet the required parking requirement without providing the spaces. We are getting into a situation where the owner has the desire to sell these as individual lots without planning it from a comprehensive perspective. This has created problems for us in the past. We need to have additional discussion about this but not at TAC. Paul, if there is going to be an issue about separate access on the secondary plat, we would like to know about that ahead of time. That will radically affect our going forward. Steve, the only reason we might not allow it is because the city has a specific request. I looked at the plans and the possibility of moving the driveway if the site was reversed. It eliminates any need to mess with the storm sewer. Rusty, our problem would be we have a 50' setback on the rear line. If you flip it, we would loose some depth and it would not work as well. Steve, to be honest, it doesn’t matter. It would just be one less construction issue. 6 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Jim Blanchard, the rear exit by the patio will need a walkway to a public way. Rusty, this is outside the buffer. Jon, the sidewalk can encroach within the buffer as long as an adequate amount of other area is provided for to compensate for what is lost. Paul, we understand the location and the basic need for certain landscaping area. Jim, it is not yet determined if a construction trailer will be needed. Just in case, I am forwarding a Temporary Use Application. Prior to a permit being issued we will need to schedule a presubmittal meeting. Please use this checklist, which will need to be signed off prior to that meeting. This can be used for commercial as well. Gary Hoyt has received comments for the petitioner. I understand this building will have 5,500 SF total. To reiterate, anytime you have a door going outside (rear or sides of the building) to relieve the building of occupants, you must have sidewalks to a public way. Any exits that end at a stoop pad or grass has to go to a sidewalk. We need a set of plans that will show more detail on the utility especially affecting the 8" water line. This will show us where a hydrant might be located. If we don’t have one and to have the water supply close, I might suggest we can pull one from the adjoining property if they are willing. Rusty, those plans are being done by American Consulting Engineers for this area. Jon, if Gary is going to ask for a hydrant at a particular location, we will make that part of the secondary plat. They can decide whether to make that a part of the easement. Rusty, that was shown originally along the front. Gary, your proposed water line is a ¾". It is not big enough for a fire hydrant. We can discuss that with the secondary. Sharon Prater, Panhandle Eastern, everything appears to be outside our easement. The only thing I would like to see on the construction drawings is to clearly identify the 30" high-pressure main. You are showing a question mark at the 100' easement. You need to identify that it is our easement. I know it is close to the ditch. Because of some of the construction issues that have occurred to the north, we need to make sure that your contractor contacts our office about any crossing over the line. Get with us before any stock piling. Rusty, we received our information from the land title survey and from ACE. They still question the width. They think we are a little bit wider. They have a centerline easement that defines it from a legal description. You and I have talked about this in the past. They have a discrepancy about where you say the gas line is marked and where the easement is shown. They define both from the centerline and 50' over. The 4' is definitely outside your easement. Jon, would showing some type of fencing keep them from driving over it? 7 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Dan, we can stage that to meet your requirements. Sharon, the reseeding of the right-of-way and your plan to keep it maintained is a great idea. Just a reminder, do not plant trees or landscape in the easement. If you will show that on the plans and if you will have the contractor get with us, it would be greatly appreciated. John South passed a letter. The erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan does not satisfy the minimum requirements and intent of Rule 5 (less that 5 acres); deficiencies are noted in the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted. Jon, we can coordinate and meet with the county highway department. I am not sure we need to get ACE involved at this point. The issue in my mind is that the north part of this tract was developed with a single curb cut access off of Commerce Drive to serve the lots. That discussion can be planned for another time. I am not opposed to the current concept and I have some sensitivity to that. Does the site plan show sidewalk along Commerce Drive? There needs to be a detail showing the sidewalk. Did you not show it because of the pipeline? Sharon, you can cross the pipeline with the sidewalk as long as it is at a right angle and shallow. Paul, did we stop at the driveway? Jon, we can get with them on that to get it resolved. I don’t want to have it installed and then have to take it out before they install the curb. Is there a detail of the dumpster enclosure? We still do not have a cut sheet on lighting fixtures. On the lighting details, it should show the Plan Commission what those will look like, pole lighting, etc. Scott Brewer is away at a conference. He may have comments on species. He will forward those to you as soon as he returns. Sharon might want to comment on the existing woodland areas that are within your easement boundaries. Paul, when we do the building elevations we can insert the lighting. Rusty notes he has had some meetings regarding the landscaping. Sharon, we mowed the 50' right-of-way last year. Typically when we go out for a bid, it is for either side of the right-of-way. Jon, when Phase Two comes through and you submit the ADLS, we will check the landscaping and address the driveway. This is a single story building but has a look of a 1½ story for the 421 Overlay. You should send a new set of plans and individually respond back to TAC members. Village of West Clay, Section 10004-A (Secondary Plat & Construction Plans) th The site is located along Towne Road south of 126 Street within the Village of West Clay. The site is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development (Z-387-02). Filed by Dave Sexton of the Schneider Corporation for Brenwick TND Communities. 8 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Brandon Burke with Schneider Corporation and Keith Lash with Brenwick are here to present the Village of West Clay, Section 10004-A. It is zoned PUD and it is 18.7 acres or 35 lots. We are showing an overall exhibit of West Clay. This section is located in the southern portion. It borders th Towne Road, which runs north and south and just south of 126 Street. Currently the existing Village of West Clay Section 10004-A ties into existing Section 50001 and Section 50006. The roundabout, Meeting House Road, ties into Hoover Road. We slightly amended the geometry of the southern portion. That is illustrated with an overlay on our exhibit. Keith gives a brief explanation of the changes. On the original we showed a similar S curve with the road going to the south. We have designed Section 10004 A & B for a specific builder and specific product. We designed it for that builder but did not have a signed deal. We have agreed in terms. It is definitely a high quality product, as we would expect in West Clay. The architecture will conform to that of the village. The change that this includes is also the alley product and continuing the village look to the south. As you leave the area, the architecture is the rear load garage with front a porch. We need to talk with Steve as to whether we may or may not need a variance. Steve, with this specific section, the variances that would be needed were granted for the others. After looking at your information, we can determine the future needs. Jenny passed a copy of the department letter. This is a regulated subdivision. We will need drainage calculations and landscape plans. It appears you are using older details. You will want to change those and bring them up to date. Chuck, we see no problems. We will bring gas out of the previous section. There is nothing on Towne Road to tie into at this time but there probably will be in the future. We will just come out, dead end, and put an extension north and south. Maybe get outside the entrance if necessary. Once we get your details, we will talk further. Steve would like to discuss the eyebrow. We have some concern about the drainage at the connection. Is the crown going all one way? Brandon, the interior of the eyebrow will be raised so that it drains to the outside. Steve, I’m worried about water standing at the outside connection to Shaftesbury Road. If it were reversed, it makes it much easier for the water to get out. I went through the details at the intersection and it works on paper but not in reality. Keith, the inlets, being where they are helps, but we need to check this further. Steve, the valley across the eyebrow (with that being a public street) I don’t know if we want that in there. My concern is plowing. If it does remain public and you start running a plow through there, how long will it take to tear the curb out? We might need to call Dave for his opinion since he will eventually take over the maintenance of the street. This would be the connection of the 9 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January eyebrow at Shaftesbury Road. Keith, we will end up with drainage coming from Lot 89 to the south. In anticipation of Carmel annexation, we set this up to be public. Jon, how far do we carry storm water? Are you concerned about water standing in this area? Keith, we are proposing a valley gutter to maintain the flow line. Steve, a subsurface drain is also needed on the other side. Can you check on changing the curb types. As I mentioned in my letter, I would like to see the Laurel Lakes entrance. Keith has a question about Item 1 in Steve’s letter regarding the triangular right-of-way. Those are 35' and they were done in being consistent with previous requirements. One of the variances was for the right-of-way chamfers to be less than 50'. Jim Blanchard, will any buildings be removed or wells capped? It is noted there will be none. We will need the building elevations for Lot 897 and you need to show that it is 2' below the 100-year level. All lots will need to be identified before we can issue any permits. This can be lot numbers on the curb or a sign on the lot itself. Gary notes the eyebrow is 19' wide face to face. Mike McBride, Carmel Engineering, notes the county has this all covered. John South, the erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan does not satisfy the minimum requirements and intent of Rule 5; deficiencies are noted in the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted. One other comment, you should use the existing pond for a sediment trap or basin. You need to provide some information that it has the quantity of storage required for the watershed that is flowing to it. As long as it meets state standard for sediment basin. Jon, you are showing the right-of-way dedication for Meeting House Road north and west. Can you verify for me that it is part of 50006-B whether that same right-of-way to the property was dedicated? Keith, via the plat it was not. At the time we did the rezone, we just agreed it would come through at some time. DOCS asked that it be defined so we have done that. Jon, it may vary on Section 50006-B because it may curve and go up. It might be best to wait and define it or submit a replat of the common area or dedicate it on a separate instrument in the future. My concern is that you are showing an inlet for the existing watercourse. Is the 9' path going to be a water crossing? You need to modify that on your construction plans or pull the inlet over. Keith, the inlet picks up the flow line of the swale. We will review the path plan and redo the landscaping. 10 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Jon, you may want to talk with the county about ADA requirements on your crossings. Adjacent to Lot 894, you are identifying the alleyway coming in. Is that consistent with other sections? It might make sense to take that and extend it another 20' to create a turnaround. Keith, that is consistent with other sections. This will turn into a driveway. Jon will assign a Docket Number. I don’t have any questions about the plat. You need to get the new plans to TAC members. Old Meridian Professional Building (Development Plan) The applicant seeks approval to construct an office building. The site is located at the southwest corner of Old Meridian Street and Pennsylvania Street. The site is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by James K. Wheeler of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for John N. Kirk and Lowell Thomas Kirk. Mike DeBoy and Mila Slepaya, Mid-States Engineering; Tom Kirk, John Kirk Enterprises; Jim Wheeler, Coots Henke & Wheeler. The triangular piece of real estate is located at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania and Old Meridian. The site is southwest of the Kirk Family Boat & Furniture Sales facility. This is a two-story professional office building. The curb cut will be off Pennsylvania and a curb cut off of Old Meridian. We have received comments back from most TAC members. Before we go into more detail, we wanted to get more information from the TAC meeting today. Jenny sent a letter. The site is located in the WR Fertig watershed. The allowable discharge is 0.24 cfs/acre. An outlet permit will be required. Please provide drainage calculations for our review. Mike DeBoy, we do not have dedicated onsite drainage. We are working through the existing facility. Jon, is that recorded as a private easement? Mike DeBoy, that is one of the issues we would like to discuss. Part of that storm sewer crosses Pennsylvania and Kirk’s other property. My understanding with Jenny and Steve is to have an offsite easement. We have relayed that request to Mr. Kirk. Jon, I cannot in good faith recommend to the Plan Commission that they approve the site without a recorded easement. There could be a problem if the property were sold. Mike DeBoy, Mr. Kirk and Mr. Wheeler realize that at some point that property could be sold and there would be the need to maintain the drainage system or modify it. These are the issues that the city engineers have looked at. Part of the system that runs underneath the building is part of the issue. Obviously we do not want an easement that runs through the building. That is one of the biggest issues here today. We can continue the discussion on this at this time or schedule another date. One idea is to reroute the sewer. We would like to come back with an alternate plan showing the rerouting of the sewer can be effective to the south and east of the existing building. We can 11 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January show the plan and potentially reserve the easement subject to conditions. However, at this time since the drain is working. It might be best not to construct it or relocate it but have the easement reserved for future rerouting. This all depends on being accepted by Jon and Dick Hill. Our reason is, where it makes the turn and goes north and east off the site, we think we can run it east and north and not change the drainage profile or hydraulics of that outlet. They will stay the same. Dick Hill, once you have the plan, set an appointment with Kate Weese, Jenny, and Jon to go over this. Jon, we understand the concept. I‘m hesitant because I’m assuming that Kirk is not going to own this building when it gets built. I would not want to attach any deadline to any negotiation that would occur after the Plan Commission agrees to the plans such as the deadline to secure the required easements. This must satisfy the city engineer prior to any building permits being issued. There is a timing issue. I do not have a problem with that, subject to the resolution of the drainage issue. Our role is to protect the interest of the city and the interest of future property owner. Mike, we can look at that and sit down with you to get that squared away. I think we can come up with a satisfactory outcome. We want to make sure you have an easement that you can use in the future. Jon, what I will be looking at for the Plan Commission is to take final action on what we have heard from the city engineer. There is reasonable expectation of resolution for providing adequate drainage. Chuck, are you planning on using gas? If so, you should contact your representative and get the load information. It is noted this is a two-story multi-tenant building. We have gas on Meridian. Steve, No comments. Jim Blanchard, are there any buildings that will be removed or wells capped? The site is vacant as recorded on the survey. All exits will require a sidewalk to public way. Before we issue any permits, we will need to have a presubmittal meeting. Please follow the provided checklist. There will not be a construction trailer on site. Mike, we didn’t anticipate any exits. To the east will be the dumpster facility. When you ask about the public way, it is confirmed you are you talking about back to the parking lot only. Gary sent a letter to Mr. Wheeler. We will require a Knox Box and you may obtain an application through our office. When you have received your information, please let us know if the building will be sprinkled. With the amount of square footage, it will probably be sprinkled. We need to set up a meeting to discuss where we will put the fire department connections. We also need to discuss the exterior entrance to the riser room. The building will most likely have a fire alarm if it is sprinkled. We request, at least, a remote enunciator panel at the front vestibule. You can put your actual enunciator panel in the alarm room or mechanical room. We would like to see something when we come in the front door so we can determine where the problem is in the building. I came 12 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January up with approximately 17,040 SF total for the building. A building of this size needs a fire hydrant somewhere on the property. The closest fire hydrant I could find, after driving the site, was at the nd John Kirk Cobalt sign where his boat dealership is located. The other closest would be at 122 and Pennsylvania Street. If the building is sprinkled, generally we request that a hydrant be within 100' of the hookup. We can have a meeting, as we get closer. Mike McBride notes the department mailed a letter but they have a revised final version that will be sent to the petitioner in the next day or so. Most of the first page is standard comments. I would like to draw your attention to the second page under Project Comments. The first couple of comments 9, 10, and 11 mostly deal with the right-of-way along Pennsylvania and Old Meridian. The change was, there will be some additional right-of-way required along the left turn lane that goes across the north side of the property. The current plans show the road improvements that were designed with the old Pennsylvania Street project. The roundabout, as you probably have noticed, wasn’t shown with the Pennsylvania project. It has been included in the Old Meridian Street improvements, which we plan to start construction on later this year. The right-of-way requirements have changed because the state is now involved in federal dollars so we have some site distance requirements that have changed and some cross section eliminates that have changed. We will need some additional right-of-way. You will need to obtain the electronic version of this. Mike DeBoy, how much change has there been in the right-of-way? Mike McBride notes on the back of the letter just passed to the petitioner, there is a rough sketch of what the new right-of-way requirements would be. It does not appear to affect any of your site plans. This will not be eaten up with pavement. A lot of it is required because of site distance. You will be able to see it more clearly once you get the revised plan. As far as Old Meridian Street Project, we do not anticipate the taking of any additional right-of-way. John South sent a letter. This site is less than 5 acres and not part of a larger common plan of development. The petitioner does not need to submit an NOI for Rule 5. Drainage for this site discharges at the southeast corner. Silt fence is not adequate for concentrated flow or larger drainage areas. Filling this corner first would contain the sheet flow and cause ponding before the water could be discharged offsite. Another option is to install the storm sewer first and direct the flow to inlet #1. The inlet would be suitably protected. The perimeter of the site should be seeded after the curbs are installed. Jon, have you closed on the right-of-way? We need a legal description of the existing parcel and identify the property line instead of dash lines. James Wheeler, we believe the city condemned that. Jon, the additional right-of-way as identified in the letter, is proposed as a 50' half. Pursuant to our Thoroughfare Plan it is actually a 60' half. It does not affect your parking on the site plan. The dedication of the 60' half as well as the area identified in a letter received from the city is required. We have received the application for the ADLS approval but not an application for a Development 13 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Plan. The Development Plan is a public hearing item. If you will get that submitted to me in the next few days, I will get a Docket Number assigned so you can get your notice published. Mike DeBoy questions Dick Hill about INDOT and Jon responds. Jon, it is not necessary that the property be platted. I am assuming that the parcel is relatively old. The parcel to the north has already been acquired so there are no issues that the ordinance speaks to regarding adjacent tracts. There is no waiver involved because it predicates an established date in the ordinance. It is a conforming parcel for purposes of submitting the DP. We will want to make that dedication to go to the Board of Works. Old Meridian is the city’s. It will go to DPW for additional right-of-way dedications and attach that as a condition for approval to the DP. There is an existing pole sign on the property to be removed and we will bring that to the Plan Commission’s attention. I have not received any additional details on signage. If it is not submitted now, it will have to come back as an ADLS Amendment in the future. If you would like to indicate where you would like a sign located, illustrate that and show the design materials. That way an additional hearing would not be required in the future. With regard to the building setbacks on Pennsylvania Street, I don’t see it called out. Also, I have not seen cut sheets on lighting fixtures and pole locations. We will need those as soon as possible. Scott Brewer, Urban Forester is at a conference today. I would suggest you contact him separately to let him know what has been done. Mike DeBoy, the landscape plans will be prepared by others. We will have those submitted to Scott and ask for his comments. As it relates to the storm sewer, can we set an appointment today? If we get a conceptual design together, should we submit that to Kate Weese or Dick Hill? A meeting is tentatively planned for Friday. Jon, if engineering responds saying a satisfactory resolution is forthcoming, I’ll have the Plan Commission in a position to approve it subject to their final approval. Riverview Medical Park (Primary Plat) The applicant seeks approval to plat a three-lot subdivision on 11.09± acres. The site is located at th the southeast corner of Hazel Dell Parkway and 146 Street. The site is zoned S-1/Residence - Low Density. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Plum Creek Partners, LLC. Charlie Frankenberger represents Plum Creek Partners. Also present for Plum Creek is Janet Sterling with Schneider Engineering. Plum Creek has asked to rezone the 11 acres located on the th southeast corner of 146 and Hazel Dell. Currently there is an abandoned house on that corner. In connection with that rezone request, we were asked to plat the real estate. We have submitted the application for Primary Plat approval and plans have been distributed to TAC members. Jenny sent a letter. We will need your drainage calculations. If you are connecting to Ashmore Trace Subdivision, we will need an outlet permit. The annexation will determine whether it is regulated. Charlie, our real estate is part of the city-initiated annexation. Dick, it has been approved by City Council and is in remonstrance. 14 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Jon, it should be recorded February 13, 2003. Jenny notes it will not be regulated. Janet will get the drainage calculations to Jenny. th Chuck, Vectren is on 146Street so we can service the project. Steve, we don’t have any additional comments from what we talked about in the past concerning the site. It appears all of the right-of-way was shown (including the left turn configuration). As far as the length for the turn lane, where did you come with the length? It is noted the petitioner used the numbers as previously directed. Has there been a traffic study done for this site that would suggest that the lane should be something other than what it is? We would not want it smaller. Charlie, a traffic study has not been done. Our initial understanding that the interest was not so much whether it would accommodate traffic, but more a study would be focused on the location of the cuts and how they would function. We understand engineering would like to see a traffic operations analysis. We will provide Steve a copy if one is done. Jon, we are more interested in how the access point functions and not by how the traffic affects the th use of Cherry Tree and 146 Street. Steve, our concern also is about the turn lane and the stacking that may occur. Janet notes the concerns. Jim Blanchard, before any dirt moving, we have a demolition form to be completed. We would like to see the report from the environmental inspections. Gary spoke with Janet yesterday. I have made a sketch to illustrate the freestanding post indicator valve out at the easement by the fire hydrant. Possibly a second farther down the property but that would be a long way. The other option is to have one by the drive coming in. Janet, we were going to put a fire hydrant a little closer to the lake. Gary’s suggestions are noted. Gary, we don’t need anything out west. We can wait until it develops out. If you have an exit from the rear of the building, it needs to have a walkway connected to a public way. We can discuss that and other issues further. Dick passes the department comment letter. The only issue we have with the plat itself is the detention area. You are showing contours that appear to be a retaining wall. Since we have not received revised plans from our initial meeting, we were not sure about the contours. Jon wants to see a general layout of the area. It is noted the secondary will show the easement and other comments. 15 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Dick, our original comment letter asked for a response letter regarding our issues and whether a resolution had been made. Did the meeting with Kate Weese and Jon address the traffic study and curb cuts on Hazel Dell? Janet sent a letter addressing those issues. We will be submitting revised plans soon. We met with Mike McBride and changed some of the items in question. Jon, are there dual lefts on Hazel Dell? I’m concerned about the right in and right out. I see the need to make some improvements as far as the southbound traffic goes. When we add that second lane southbound, we may want to include the construction of the median even if it is raised 2'. Janet, we will do the median. Mike McBride, it should not be that far off. This should not affect the development to the north. Steve, there has been no submittal for the property to the north. Akin/Seasons will remain and that will be one main entrance. John South sent a letter with comments on the primary submittal. Soil comments: you are dealing with the Brookston and Weslyn soils which are the worst. The drainage at the southwest corner of the site needs to be improved. From a practical standpoint, there still is an obstruction where the church built and where the existing pipe discharges on Hazel Dell Road. We will also need an erosion control plan. Janet, there is riprap in the area that winds its way through. Some dredging might be appropriate. We can clean it out, straighten it, and replace the riprap. th Jon, it calls out a concrete walk on 146Street. I don’t think it is concrete. It is probably asphalt (refers to Plan 101 where it calls out the right-of-way). Janet, it is asphalt. We will probably do a concrete ramp in that area. Jon, will you remove the approach to the existing abandoned home? When the plat is approved, will they remove the existing structure? The county highway department will probably replace the curb. Janet is not sure they will demolish it. Jon, Scott Brewer is not here today. I would ask that you contact him regarding landscaping and plant species and also make sure he has the latest plans. Some of the requirements probably have been added. Dick Hill, when might we expect the final set of construction plans? Janet, the final set will be done during February. As to what is required by you, we can submit intermediate plans. We have to go through the Board of Public Works. I have been told we cannot do that until we have Plan Commission approval. We were waiting on that and the sanitary lift 16 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January station, unless you instruct us otherwise. We are proceeding with the plan and design now. Should I submit it to you and wait to be on the agenda? Jon, it is a timing issue and an expense for the client. It could be April or May before we get through Plan Commission. Janet, we will submit final revised plans to address TAC comments and wait to get on the agenda. Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 1 – The Overlook (DP/ADLS) Petitioner seeks approval to construct a multi-tenant commercial building. The site is located at the st northwest corner of Hazel Dell Parkway and East 131 Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Gershman Brown Hazel Dell Property, LLC. Charlie Frankenberger; Tom Crowley and Spencer Knotts with Gershman Brown; Craig Rapp with CWRA, LLC; and David George with ACE are present to give an overview of the project. This is st a request for DP/ADLS approval of Lot 1 located on the northwest corner of 131Street and Hazel Dell. The site is zoned B3. We are here to receive your comments and suggestions. Jenny sent a letter. You will need an outlet permit. We need the drainage plan that shows your calculations. Chuck, we have gas at the south and east side so it will depend of the location of meters. We can service multi-meter sets. You can supply us with the layout at a later time. Jim Blanchard asks if there will there a construction trailer? I will forward an application for temporary use along with a presubmittal checklist. We will need to schedule a meeting prior to any permits being issued. Gary hands his department letter to the petitioner. We understand you are still deciding on whether the building will be sprinkled. We need to schedule a meeting to discuss where the fire department connection will be. Also, on a sprinkled building, we generally ask for an exterior entrance to the riser room. I drove the site to get a feel for the layout and determine the location of hydrants. This st site borders the current strip center on Hazel Dell and 131 Street. I did see one fire hydrant close to your parcel so I don’t believe another one would be necessary. We will need further details on your utilities. There will not be a basement in the building. If a fire alarm system were provided, we would ask for at least a remote enunciator panel up front or in the mechanical room. We are also requesting a Knox Box. If the building is sprinkled, we need a fire department connection cap. We typically like to have the box located at the enunciator panel, which can be flush mount or recessed. If it is recessed, call me before you do the brick so I can get an application to you for the kit. Craig Rapp, we have been asked to sprinkle the building and we are in the process of developing a plan. Dave and I will schedule a meeting with Gary. Dick Hill sent a letter. If you will, please share those enclosures with the engineer. Our letter covers our general requirements. It gives information on the Board of Works, sewer, and water. No other 17 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January comments until we receive the construction plans and drainage calculations. th Craig, we plan on being complete with the construction documents approximately February 10. If we have questions in the interim, should we call the city engineer? John South, the erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and it has been determined that the plan does not satisfy the minimum requirements and intent of Rule 5; deficiencies are noted in the checklist and in the comments section. Deficiencies constitute potential violations of the rule and must be adequately addressed for compliance. The information necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be submitted. Jon, it is my understanding you have not distributed civil drawings to TAC members. You need to make a request to get on the agenda for February with your civil drawings as well as the secondary plat. We will take care of that at February TAC. The variances that were approved for Osco have expired. The request for relief from the parking setback from the buffer will need to go back to BZA. I can’t anticipate that they would have changed their opinion, but there is that potential. You will need to ask Scott Brewer for comments with regard to landscaping. While there is not a particular requirement on this property at its particular location with regard to landscaping, I would pay closer attention to providing screening adjacent to the area. I know the reason for the knee wall is for the variance. You might want to explore that and carry along that same type theme. This will help screen the vehicles in the parking lot (from view of Hazel Dell Parkway). A variance for the parking setback is needed. The Plan Commission will want a specific idea of what is intended. The renderings you have provided for the elevations are accurate. The cut sheet for lighting is adequate; just reduce it down for the packet of information you will be providing to the Plan Commission. I will be assigning Docket Numbers in the next few days. I would like to schedule a separate meeting to discuss the secondary and some of the commitments that are attached to the property. Lot 4 applied for and received a Commitment Amendment to allow restaurant use of a specific portion (%) of the building. I don’t know how receptive the Plan Commission will be to consider the same thing. We are trying to exclude “restaurant”. I want to get a determination from our Director and get that to you in writing so you can decide if you want to proceed to the Plan Commission. Charlie will get the file and review it. David George, one restaurant has shown interest. My intention was to go through this and then as we had users we would come back in. Jon, to qualify, a Delicatessen is included as a permitted use. A Starbuck’s or coffee shop would fall closer. I will schedule an appointment with Charlie. I am okay with the design and I think it is compatible with the surrounding. It has more punch than the other building (not that the other building is bad) it’s just that yours has more curb appeal. I would propose a consistent theme for signage. The other company has already established the color white. You are going to have to make the sale to the Plan Commission on the variety. We have talked about going to other colors. You need to identify that on your sign program. Currently there is no definitive separation for the signs. 18 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January David, we will probably go with all black. Ritz Charles (Amended Development Plan) Petitioner seeks approval to construct an accessory building. The site is located at 12156 North Meridian Street. The site is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler for Charles Lazzara of Ritz Charles, Inc. TABLED Foster Addition. Lot 3 -Windows & Siding of Indianapolis, Inc. (Site Development Plan) Petitioner seeks Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping & Signage approval to modify an existing site and construct an accessory building. The site is located at 431 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-1/Business. Filed by David Cremeans for A/C LLC. Dave Barnes, Weihe Engineers, presents the project details. The petitioner proposes a 30 x 40 structure. This is a lot within the Foster Subdivision. Currently it is a commercial site. The proposed building would be behind the existing structure with a gravel drive off of the alley to the east. The petitioner wishes to revise the parking up front. The proposed building would be used as a warehouse. There would be no water or sewer to the building. We would like to sheet drain it off the gravel around to the front at Range Line Road where there is a structure that is involved with a legal drain. We would ask for an outlet. Jenny received the petitioner’s calculations but has not had an opportunity to look at them. You will need an outlet permit. Dave, Kate Weese, Carmel City Engineer, is working with us on the study. Chuck, it is understood that only electric will be at the site. The petitioner notes it is a warehouse with no plans to heat it at this time. In case there is a change, I am passing along your contact person information. We will work with you on the meter size if there is a change. I could not tell by the drawings if the property line of the existing building will have room to relocate. When you get further along, just give us a call if you have questions. John South, due to the scope of this project, I have no comments. A letter from the department was passed to the petitioner. Jim Blanchard, what is the height of the building? I understand the warehouse will be used only for storage. What is the SF? Dave, I have not seen the elevations. I believe the height would be 20'. I have only seen the dimensions of the residence, which appears to be 35 X 50. Jim, you will need a handicap ramp and one ADA approved restroom facility. 19 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Gary sent a letter. We have no additional requirements at this time. I understand you have no other information on the proposed building for example if it will have a loft. Dave, beyond the current information, the owner has not given any other details. Dick Hill, Kate Weese is still reviewing the project. The previous and most recent use was a residence. That being the case, you will have to go to the board for curb cut approval. Jon, we will ask that one cut be closed. I gather that the petitioner does not want to do that. Gary, at one time the residence was used for sales of electronic equipment. But most recently it has been entirely residential. Jon, we are now turning it from residential to commercial. The fees for sanitary sewer and water are different for residential and commercial. Dick, the Utility Department will have to review this, but we will give you a credit for a single family (1 EDU) and then determine the usage of commercial and calculate the difference. Dave, if the utility is not in building does the petitioner still pay? Dick, it’s based on the use and not on the fixtures. Jon, the ADLS Amendment was approved in December. Dick, I have copied Carmel Utilities on the letter. You should touch base with John Duffy. Dave, the petitioner is out of town and will be flying back today. I will share the letter with him and schedule a meeting with Jon. Jon, does city engineering have any concerns about the alley? Will we require the owner to make any improvements? Dick, I’m not sure how we will handle this. A lot of alleys are in sad shape. Jon, my only concern is the panel truck will visit the site. They are showing a 12' access into the site. I don’t think they can park and load in the alley. My understanding is it is not permissible. Will there be some agreement? Dave, several options have been mentioned. We might do landscaping or install a fence. Jon, I do not see this moving forward in February unless significant changes are made to this plan. I am unwilling to support any relief if there is to be a gravel parking area next to the alley adjacent to those residents without any type of buffer. To the north they had to go to great lengths to provide a buffer (a 6' tall fence with no access to the alley). This owner wants to propose a building with gravel parking that is not permitted and setbacks that are not permitted, etc. We should schedule 20 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January a meeting outside of TAC to discuss with the owner all of the development standards for a property within this area. Dick, the right-of-way will need an additional 5' dedication to be consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan. For Range Line Road, it looks like 33'. Maybe we thought it was 40'. Jon, these issues will be addressed in our meeting. As far as the landscaping plan, there are side yard setback requirements of 5' (the proposed asphalt is in question). Please convey to the owner that there is absolutely no way that there can be any support for that from our department. We have many issues to resolve. Jim Blanchard, before any permits can be issued, please complete the presubmittal checklist. Carmel United Methodist Food Pantry & Counseling Center (Use Variance) The applicant seeks approval to convert the existing parsonage into a food pantry and counseling center. The site is located at 621 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned R-2/Residence. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker & Daniels for Carmel United Methodist Church. Roger Kilmer, Land Use Consultant with Baker and Daniels, representing Carmel United Methodist Church in their application for a Use Variance. They are looking to relocate their counseling services and food pantry currently operating out of their church building. They would like to have this in the parsonage, which is on the same parcel of ground. Laurence Lillig suggested this would require a Use Variance, which is why we are here today. There are no proposed changes to the exterior of the parsonage. There might be some relocation of interior partitions just to separate the two uses. In your package, an aerial photo was included. The drive or garage area would most likely be used for delivery of food items into the facility. We are not looking to change any parking. There is already quite a bit of parking provided for the church. John South passed a letter. I have no resource concerns with this project. Jenny passed a copy of her department letter. No further comments. Jim Blanchard, we will need a handicap ramp and an ADA approved restroom facility. Please provide us with a set of plans showing these details. Jon questions Jim if there are any state allowances for variances on those requirements? The response is No. The Director of Building and Code Enforcement has confirmed this. Roger confirms this can be a unisex restroom facility. Gary apologized for not sending a letter. One will be in the mail soon. In the aerial photo, I believe it does not show the addition that has been added on recently. I am trying to fix the proximity of the parsonage and the entrance to the church. I have a Knox Box at the exterior entrance of the new section (southeast corner). I am not going to ask for a Knox Box on the parsonage, but I would like to see the key to the parsonage put in the Knox Box. This will give us quick access. 21 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January Dick Hill sent a letter. The city engineering department has no issues. On behalf of our Utility Department, no food preparation is noted. If there are changes in this area, the church will need a grease trap. Jon, Laurence Lillig did not indicate any comments. 22 S:TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee\\Minutes\\tac2003January