Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Correspondence
August 25, 1994 Dave Cunningham DOCD One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Dave: Thanks for returning my phone calls promptly and searching through materials to answer my questions. I thought you might like to see a copy of the letter I sent to Plan Commission members since I will be out -of -state during the Subcommittee Meeting. I have spoken with Bob Hoffman, who plans to attend and can, hopefully, at least raise the issue of the entrance on 106th. But I can't predict whether he will use the opportunity to address other issues instead. You know I hope this proposed plan improves in a variety of ways, but I agree that the entrance is a preventable problem that is just waiting to rise up and snag the area's residents. If this project goes forward with this entrance, everyone who must deal with this part of 106th is going to end up frustrated, angry, and insisting that something be done. If we're lucky, it won't became an accident zone. I hope you can do something to help prevent that. Sincerely, �d Maril Anderson a 3884 Shelborne Court Carmel, In 46032 August 25, 1994 Dear I am sure you know things don't always go as planned. In cooperating with the time guidelines, an issue did not get addressed at the hearing for the proposed Weston Communities that I would now like to bring to your attention. There will be 4 non - aligned street entrances within a short distance of 106th and Michigan Road *. Estridge retains control of the northern commercial development, and DOCD urged Estridge at the TAC meetings to 1) align the street serving the east side of the commercial section with the entrance south into the Worster development, and, 2) make the residential entrance T -off from this street on the east side of the commercial section. This would do several important things to greatly improve projected traffic flow and safety in the area: a) eliminate one street cut and provide for a crossroad wherein later a traffic light could be sensibly installed, b) eliminate the need for all the new homeowners in Weston Communities to turn out on 106th Street in order to drive a very short distance before turning back into the Marsh grocery store and other stores, and c) provide a safer way for children and adults to ride their bikes or to walk to'the stores. Using one street with an almost immediate T- street entrance into the residential section would provide for the commercial area to actually serve the community. I would also like to respond to Mr. Nelson's rebuttal remarks and share some additional information I have unearthed. First, while Mr. Nelson and I are in agreement that 3.5 acres is being preserved, I welcome anyone to use the scale on the aerial section map /photo to calculate for themselves the acreage of the woods. (None of the woods has been cut down since the section map /photo was taken.) The woods is clearly at least 6.976 acres, not the 5 Mr. Nelson used in rebuttal. Although it is harder to figure the acreage involved in retention pond #6 and its surrounding non -lot land, it is grossly inaccurate to count this as 6.976 acres. I believe this was a labeling error, with the acreage of the woods mistakenly duplicated here. I calculate about 3 acres in this area. I maintain 20% of their claimed Common Area does not exist. The numbers from the "Total Listed" below were obtained from the papers on file with DOCD and match the numbers on the platting. Comlion Areas: Total Listed* Actual Total ** #1 - pipeline, retention, community center #6 - retention pond #6 - woods #11 - existing wetland 18.456 acres 18.456 acres 6.976 acres 3.? acres 6.976 acres 2.559 acres 2.464 acres 2.464 acres 37.43 acres 29.98 acres * entrance into Marsh orocery store. a divided entrance south into the Worster property. an entrance to the hack side of the Estridoe /Kite commercial property, and an entrance into Weston Communities. Furthermore, I spoke with Mr. John South of the County Soil Conservation Office, who said there were pockets of wetlands within the woods which would prohibit it from being fully developed. Kind of matches with Al Moss's remarks about the part of the "preserved" woods being a swamp, doesn't it? That means that from the entire property, none of the land that could be developed is actually not being developed. Estridae Group is not preserving any acreage they could reasonably use and then they ask to use the revoked Cluster Ordinance so that 100 excess homes can be built. Mr. South made mention of "10 acres of wetland," which we clarified was the area identified as 2.464 on the proposed platting. Mr. South said he had not seen any plans since Estridge Group was told to rework the plans, but that he is certain there must be at least 5 acres of identified wetlands in this area. Since I knew DOCD had asked at a TAC meeting for a copy of the wetlands report, I inquired about this with DOCD. As of August 23rd, DOCD does not have a copy of this report. I find it hard to believe Estridge Group would try to put lots on identified wetlands, but shouldn't somebody be checking this before platting is approved? Lastly, Estridge provided DOCD with the average gross density per proposed sections. Weston Ridge is 1.7, Weston Park is 2.21, and Weston Village is 2.20. PLEASE NOTE: For the Village to average 2.21 density, the entire 18.5 acre pipeline and retention pond area must be allocated towards the total acreage of the Village, even though it borders only a portion. If you do not consider these 18.5 acres as part of the Village, the density increases to 3.44! Remember that Brandywine is the density in the area currently, and it is 0.70. The Merriam Report recommends transitioning within the new development, which clearly is not happening in this proposal. I find it,particularly irksome that Estridae Group provides a 50' or more wide buffer between Weston Park and Weston Village where lots change by about 4000 square feet, but between Brandywine and Weston Park where lot size drops 26,760 square feet, there is no greenbelt buffer provided. I hope you agree there are significant problems with this proposed development and that it does not provide any justification for use of this revoked Cluster Ordinance. Undevelopable land is undevelopable land, not a reason for a rezone in disguise. Sincerely, Marilyn Anderson JAMES J. NELSON CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JANET WOLF SWISS JAMES E. SHINAVER of counsel JANE B. MERRILL NELSON FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW August 18, 1994 Ramona Hancock Department. of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 3021 EAST 98th STREET SUITE 220 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 317=844 -0106 FAX: 317- 846 -8782 Dear Ramona: In connection with the Primary Plat application of Estridge Development Co., Inc. for the residential community to be known as Weston Communities, please find enclosed herein the following: 1. One (1) set of 24" x 36" blueline drawings of the Primary Plat; 2. One (1) set of 24" x 36" blueline drawings of the landscape plan as prepared by Carole Boleman; 3. An amendment to the traffic impact analysis prepared by A & F Engineering, including the suggested traffic to be generated by the Linkside development (if developed) and the Huntersfield development (when completed); 4. A summary of information regarding lot sizes and density for each of the three neighborhoods to be known as The Village, The Park, and Weston Ridge. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, and With kindest regards, ON & FRANKENBERGER JJN.Ih CC: David D. Cunningham J. Nelson Plan Commission Hearing: Weston Project, August 16th, 1994 The blue areas indicate existing lots and residences. All homes are on at least one acre. In the area of the proposed development, Brandywine is the density, averaging 0.70 homes per gross acre. This land proposed for the Weston Communities is zoned S -1. . People have different dreams in regards to a home. My husband and I did not purchase a home in Carmel or its east side because we don't want to live in a "city" area. I know affordability is an issue, but let's not get confused. Some people can afford to buy 5 or 10 acres or more and create their own island of low density. Not everyone can. Our one acre lot in a low- density area was our affordable dream. . And it is not an unrealistic dream for others today. Houses on the lower end in Brandywine sell for around $150,000. New custom homes are offered in Larkspur at 116th and Shelborne starting in the $160,000. These are more affordable than many of the homes Estridge Group is proposing. What happens to the valued low- density in the area if this proposal is permitted. {Overlay on aerial.} Compared to Brandywine, you have a tripling of average gross density from 0.70 to 2.05. Can anyone be surprised that current residents don't like this? What would this proposal look like if it were developed at current S -1 standards? The pipeline would still be there, just like it was when Estridge Group looked at developing the parcel. They would still need retention ponds, and there would still be a wetland. 181 acres times the 1.5 gross average density on land zoned S -1 equals 271.5 houses. But this plan asks for 371 houses- -100 more than the land is zoned for. Isn't this just a sneaky way to use the now- defunct Cluster Ordinance to rezone to higher density? The developer is agreeing not to fully develop the woods. But are we really being asked to believe that forgoing those few acres requires 100 extra lots to make up for the lost profit? The average lot size in Weston Park is 80 x 130 feet. The comparable minimum lot size under existing zoning categories is not S -1, S -2, or R -1, but R -2. The average lot size in Weston Village is 60 x 100 feet, comparable to what zoning? R -4. These two sections make up close to 3/4 of the land to be developed. But the land is zoned S -1. Again I ask: Isn't this just a sneaky way to rezone to higher density? Things got interesting last night as I was outlining the lots. I discovered that 20% of the listed Common Area just does not exist on this earth. I compared the sizes of retention ponds #6 & #7 and the surrounding land. My calculations indicate indicate approximately 3 acres for #6, not the almost 7 listed. But it's only 4.5 illusionary acres, right? No, it gets much worse. I discovered that half of this woods is counted twice - -once as protected and part of the total Common Area and again as it is sold for lots. Because I have notes from the papers on file with DOCD, I am sure it is not just a labelling error. The woods is 7 acres and half of it is counted twice. I was outraged. They are protecting only 3.5 acres of woods and using that to justify 100 homes in excess of the zoning? At best 10 S -1 sized lots could be placed in that 3.5 acres of protected woods. If we put those 10 homes in the woods and made the project fit the zoning, 1 out of every 3 homes in the entire project would have to disappear. I could mark out 1 of every 3. I'd love to have that pen. I stood here last spring and foretold the developer would say they need small lots in order to sell houses next to a commerical development. But Estridge Group retains control over the development in the commerical section. Estridge can help ensure that what is built is not injurious to their housing. 'c But let's conceed that lower - priced houses with smaller lots make more sense next to a commercial development. This could be a great example of a good Cluster Ordinance being an asset to planning. The Merriam Report recommends transition zoning. Estridge Group could put 1 acre lots where lots abuts Brandywine. Then the developer would want to transition the move to smaller size lots within his own property, just as the Merriam report recommends. Estridge Group would truly be giving up lots that could otherwise be developed under the existing zoning and it would then be reasonable to place smaller- than- minimum sized lots next to the commercial section. By maintaining the 1.5 per gross acre average density, the Cluster Option could create a win -win situation. The more lot size decreased on the western portion, the more the developer would have to compensate by providing lots with sizes that exceeded S -1 standards. This transitioning of lot sizes would provide the current residents with a nice buffer and the builder with the needed justification for the use of the Cluster Ordinance. Developers can be expected to seek the highest profit, but this is not a reason for justifying use of this Cluster Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the now - revoked Ordinance reads that it is to encourage "an alternate and efficient utilization of land with regard to compatibility with the surrounding uses and neighborhoods." This drastic change in zoning density clearly makes this proposal not compatible. I would further argue that "alternate and efficient utilization" does not mean increased utilization. Furthermore, other factors that are integral to the purpose and intent of the Ordinance are not met. This proposal crams in tract housing in the most efficient way possible with the exception of 3.5 acres of woods. It does not meet the citation for "ingenuity and originality." Although a community center /park could be one way to solve the "problem" of the pipeline, it does not preserve space that could otherwise be developed. It does not preserve anything from anything, nor does it justify the use of the Cluster Ordinance. It seems we have an excellent example here of why this Plan Commission and the City Council voted to revoke the Cluster Ordinance the developer seeks to use. Do not let this be the only S -1 property in Clay West where this faulty, revoked ordinance is used and used to glaringly show the very faults that resulted in its revocation. What a slap in the face not only to the current residents, but to this Plan Commission and to the City Council! This request for 100 excess, lots while ignoring the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, is exactly the kind of manipulative use that resulted in revocation. Plan this area and make it compatible with the existing residences. Insist the developer build within the S -1 zoning guidelines or use transitioning to enable smaller- than- permitted lots next to the commercial section while holding to the 1.5 houses per gross acre. And lastly, a final question: Where is the affordable area for people like us if you turn land zoned S -1 into just one more place of city -sized lots? 3sfy SiiP e CL PROPOSED WESTON PROJECT This 181 acres is zoned S -1, which permits a maximum of 271.5 homes. This proposal uses the defunct Cluster Ordinance to propose 381 homes. This is 100 more than the land is zoned for and creates a situation where 1 in 3 lots should not exist. COMPARISON OF LOTS SUBDIVISION NAME TOTAL LOTS LOT SIZE Equivalent Zoning Category Brandywine The Park @ Weston Place The Village @ Weston Place 30 43,560 sq ft "Old" S -1, 1 acre lots 162 10,400 sq ft R -2, 80' wide 114 6,600 sq ft R -4 Note: Lots in Weston Ridge are 93% of the size of the minimum S -1 sized lot with sewer service. Since they make up barely 1/4 of the total number of houses in this proposal, they are not a signficant part of the problem. In addition, there is a buffer of retention ponds or minimum of 30 foot of landscaped land except next to one property. Where two lots abut Brandywine on the north, the lots are.230 & 190 feet wide. COMMON AREAS Common Areas: #1 - pipeline, retention pond, community center /pool /courts, etc. #6 - retention pond #6 - woods #7 - retention pond #11 - existing wetland * From papers on file with DOCD ** From platting Total Listed* Actual Total ** 18.456 acres 6.976 acres 6.976 acres 2.559 acres 2.464 acres TOTAL: 37.43 18.456 acres 3.? acres 3.5 acres 2.559 acres 2.464 acres 29.98 JAMES J. NELSON CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JANET WOLF SWISS JAMES E. SHINAVER of counsel JANE B. MERRILL NELSON FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW August 8, 1994 Mr. David Cunningham Department of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Dave: 3021 EAsr 98th STREET SurrE 220 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 317- 844 -0106 FAX: 317 - 846 -8782 In connection with, the Primary Plat Application of Estridge Development Co., Inc. for the real estate to be known as Weston Communities, please find enclosed the. revised Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Weston Communities addressing your comments in the review letter. You will note the following changes: 1. Article IV (Page 10) of the Declaration provides that the Common Area and Green Belt will be maintained by the Association. Article IX, Section. 26 (Page 28) provides that each Lot will have a dusk -to -dawn light; and 3.. Article XVII provides for the waiver of each lot owner's right to remonstrate against annexation of all or any part of the real estate by the City of Carmel, Indiana. Should you have any questions, please call. . Thank you, and JJN.lh CC: Kenneth Brasseur With kindest regards, SITE DATA PREPARED FOR: ESTRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1041 WEST MAIN STREET CARMEL, IN. 46032 PHONE: (317) 582 -2437 PREPARED COMMUNITY TYPICAL LOT SIZE SMALLEST LOT The Village @ Weston Place 60' X 110' 6600 S.F. The Park @ Weston Place 80' X 130' 10000 S.F. Weston Ridge 100' X 140 14000 S.F. PREPARED FOR: ESTRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1041 WEST MAIN STREET CARMEL, IN. 46032 PHONE: (317) 582 -2437 PREPARED SITE DATA SMALLEST LOT LARGEST LOT NUMBER OF LOTS 6600 S.F. 18300 S.F. 114 10000 S.F. 29400 S.F. 162 14000 S.F. 36 400 S.F. 95 TOTAL LOTS TOTAL ACRES GROSS DENSITY TOTAL COMMON AREA PRESENT ZONING SUBMITAL DATE PREPARED BY: 371 181.05 2.05 U/A 37.097 Ac. S -1 5/19/44 STOEPPELWERTH AND ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Sc LAND SURVEYORS 9940 ALLISONVILLE ROAD P.O. BOX 509007 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46250 PHONE: (317) 849 -5935 AUG 0 I: NELSON FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW JAMES J. NELSON CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JANET WOLF SWISS JAMES E. SHINAVER of counsel JANE B. MERRILL July 19, 1994 Mr. David Cunningham Department of Community Development One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Dave: 3021 EAsr 98th STREET Surre 220 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 317 - 844 -0106 FAX: 317 - 846 -8782 In connection with your review letter of June 3, 1994, regarding Weston Communities, please be advised that the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions will include (1) a dusk -to -dawn light on each Lot; (2) provision for the maintenance and replacement of materials in the Common Area; will contain a non- opposition to annexation provision binding on all future owners; and (3) (4) contain the appropriate restrictions in the Common Areas and along the roadways. Should you wish to discuss this with me fiarther, please feel free to call. Thank you, and JJN.Ih With kindest regards, CONSULTING ENGINEERS LAND' S'URVE..YORS, R. M.:Stoeppelwerth, PE, PLS ;• David`J. Stoeppelwerth, PE, PLS • Curtis-C. Huff, PLS :•r Dennis D. Olmstead, PLS • Jeffory W. Darling, PLS - July 7, 1994 Department of Community Development 1 Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Attention: David Cunningham Re: • . Weston Communities. Primary Plat Dear •Mr. Cunningham: Enclosed you will -find "two sets of the,; revised Primary Plat for•'Weston Communities which were revised in accordance with comments listed in your letter dated June 3; 1994 and meetings with your department. Those comments were addressed as follows: OVERALL DESIGN 1) An access point to the commercial area about midway along the West line was added where the lots were: reconfigured to preserve an existing _wetland. As stated before, a meandering six (6) foot wide biking/walking path will be ' built along the North side of 106th Street. The lots adjacentto Brandywine subdivision along the East line were reconfigured to meet •the S-1 Zoning. (120' wide, 15,000,sq.ft.). The developer preferred not to eliminate lots 93 thru 96 and 115 thru 119. The total common area is 37.1 acres. The amenities proposed to be located in Common Area #1 are listed on the Primary Plat. Common.Areas #5, #8, & #9 are'for the "eyebrow "" drives; Common Areas #2, #3, & #4 are landscaped areas, Common AReas #6 & #7 include landscaping and retentino ponds, Common Area . #6 will -be reserved as a Woodland Preserve. 5) The developer chose; not to provide an "access way" to Common ARea #5 between lots but did enlarge °Common Area #6 across the rear of lots 67, 68, 69 and added a 20 -foot wide• common, area across the rear of lots 91 and 92 to connect the previously seperate areas.. 9940 Allisonville'Road P.O. Box 509007 • Indianapolis, Indiana 46250' • (311) 849.5935 .• 1:800-7284911. • FAX: (317) 849 -5942 DOCD.. Page Two July 7, 1994 6).. The developer does not believe a common-area totally surrounded by lots would be a desirable situation. SUPPORT ITEMS Jim Nelson will submit the "public notice information" by a- separate submittal A statement of "non- opposition to annexation" will be added to, the covenants and will be submitted by the developer by a separate submittal. 3) The developer will utilize the "cluster option" for the reasons stated in paragraph 33.0.1 (Purpose and Intent) of the Cluster Ordinance. A copy of the Hamilton'County Highway response letter dated 6122/94 has been enclosed. Those comments will be .addressed accordingly and a copy of our response letter will be sent to you.. The covenants will include the four (4) items.that you `requested and will be submitted by the developer by a separate , subrital. Steve Fehribach..with A & F Engineering is preparing a "traffic operations analysis" and will submit it by a separate submittal. Acopy Of the "Sanitary Sewer Connection Application" for Clay Township Regional Waste District is enclosed which was signed by Marvin Pike 8) Copies of all TAC member's' responses received prior to the date of this letter are enclosed. Carole Bolernan, ASLA met with Mike Hollibaugh from your department regarding comments concerning landscaping and signage. Her revised plans will be submitted to Mike by July' 15, 1994. 10) The existing_wetland was delineated by J.F. New & Associates and is shown on the Primary Plat. They also are preparing a report which will be submitted by a separate submittal.. ,Permit applications-will be submitted to all the appropriate agencies (i.e. Army Corps, DNR, IDEM) if required. We are proposing to, leave this wetland area in its natural state. PRIMARY PLAT 1) The submission date and all subsequent revision dates were added.to the Primary Plat. DOCD Page Three •. July 7, 19.94 2) Street names were added to the Primary Plat and submitted to Luanne Stephens at Carmel /Clay Communications Center for final approval. 3) All easements are shown on the Primary Plat with their intended use labeled. 4) The enclosed. Hamilton County Highway letter dated 6/22/94; which was Jose Kreutz Primary Plat review comments, does not list any comments regarding the entrance configuration or islands, however; there are specific comments regarding street design. 5) Sumter Way was reconfigured to connect into Yorktown Crossing, therefore; no variance will be needed. The enclosed Hamilton County Highway letter dated 6/22/94 has a list of comments regarding the eyebrows, which were addressed, however; there was not any comments regarding the "entrance islands" at 106th Street and Shelbourne Road. The streets were reconfigured to avoid the existing wetland; There are no 100 -year flood areas on this site. Passing . blisters are proposed at each entrance as shown: Dimensions were added to the 106th Street .entrance passing blister. The storm sewer, water-system and sanitary sewers have been submitted to all the appropriate agencies for review. Each of their comments will be addressed. 10) Carole Boleman's plans will show the sidewalks along 106th Street and Shelbourne Road and how they will be incorporated with the landscaping and mounding. 11) The sidewalk/intersection detail shown on Sheet #4 addresses your concerns. 12) The,Primary Plat shows the proposed configuration of the lots with lot numbers and dimensions.. The site data on Sheet #1 shows the square footage of the smallest and largest lots within each community. 13) " The amenity area is labeled as "Private Recreational Facilities" on the Primary Plat. 14) Existing monuments and markers were added to the Primary Plat. 15) There are not any flood plain districts on this site. DOCD Page. Four July 7, 1994 16) The existing wetland area has been shown with dimensions on the Primary Plat. (See also support item #6) 17) Instead of adding a stub street between lots 58 & 59. A stub was added to the West to align with Percy Court. 18) The sign easeinentsrwill be added to the Primary Plat upon final approval of the landscaping plans which will confirm the sign locations. 19) The developer has agreed to the improvements requested by the Hamilton County Highway which will be "installed at the time of construction for each of the respective sections. 20) The developer realizes that they are required to get "Special Use' approval of the amenity /recreation area. 21) Typical parking details are 'located on Sheet #4. SUPPORTIVE MATERIALS PER CLUSTER ORDINANCE 1) Since the developer is also the builder-master planning can be done much easier. 2) Carole Boleman will address in her revised plans the following: a. treatment of greenbelt buffers b. site lighting, landscaping and signage 3) The typical parking plans' are' shown on Sheet #4. 4) The 'covenants will include specific instructions for maintaining all. common areas, 6) See #3 above. PUBLIC NOTICE 1) Jim Nelson will submit the "Public Notice Information" by a separate submittal. DOCD Page "Five July 7, 1994 FILING FEE 1) The developer is prepared to pay the filing fee upon receiving the docket number. Please call me at 577 -3405 if you have any additional questions or comments. Best Regards, STOEPPELWERTH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Dennis-D. Olmstead, P. L. S. cc: Paul Rioux, Estridge cc: Ken Brasseur; Estridge DD094/19584d0C CONSULTING ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS R.M. Stoeppelwerth, PE, PLS • David J. Stoeppelwerth, PE, PLS • Curtis C. Huff, PLS • Dennis D. Olmstead, PLS • Jeffory W. Darling, PLS June 16, 1994 Mr. David Cunningham Department of Community Development 1 Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Weston Communities Primary Plat Dear David: This letter & enclosures are preliminary responses to the comments listed in your letter dated June 3, 1994. (Blank responses require further discussion with DOCD.) These comments will be addressed as follows: Overall Design A meandering six (6) foot wide biking/walking path is proposed along the North side of 106th Street as shown on Sheet #4 of the landscape plans. This is proposed to provide safe access to the proposed commercial area for the residents of this community. We believe the accesses you recommended would not be desirable for the following reasons. 1. Pedestrian traffic between residences. A break would be needed in the 50 -foot wide landscaped buffer between the commercial and the residential areas at each of these locations which diminishes the screening effect. 3 These accesses would outlet into the rear delivery area of the commercial buildings. We noted that the plans do not clearly show the proposed path extending all the way to the commercial area so this will be clarified. �y 1 OOAn AII1t.,..;11. D,, .1 . D 1 D..�.;norm . 1..,16,.�..11� I.d1�.� A6740 . (71710A0 4074 . 1 40n 774 4017 . LAY. 17171 9AO. SOA7 744\ Department of Community Development June 16, 1994 Page Two 3 Common Area #1: Playground, Pool, Clubhouse, Tennis Courts, Basketball Court, lake and landscaped open areas. Common Areas 2, 3 and 4: Landscaped buffer areas. Common Area 5: Existing Woodland Preserve Common Areas 6 & 7: Lakes and landscaped mounds and open areas. 5. Support Items 1. Jim Nelson will supply. 2. Statement of non- opposition to annexation will be added to the covenants. 3. This site is utilizing the cluster option for the reasons stated in paragraph 33.0.1 (Purpose and Intent) of the Cluster Ordinance. We are awaiting response from the County Highway Department. The covenants shall be modified to address your comments regarding dusk to dawn lights, maintenance and replacement of material in common areas, non - opposition to annexation and fencing restrictions. A traffic operations analysis has been ordered. Department of Community Development June 16, 1994 Page Three A copy of the Clay Regional Sewer capacity availability and conditional connection permit is enclosed. 8. Enclosed are copies of correspondence received from TAC members to date. 9. The landscape Architect is meeting with Mike Hollibaugh regarding his comments. 10. ' Estridge has ordered a wetland study of this site including delineation and evaluation. 11. Primary Plat 1. We will add dates of submission of latest revisions to the plans as they occur. 2. We have a partial list of street names approved by Luanne and have submitted additional names for approval 3. We have indicated the use of all easements. 4. We are awaiting the County Highway Department comments regarding this design. 5. We will revise this plat to eliminate the west cul -de -sac by connecting that street into the street that stubs to the South. We are awaiting County Highway Department comments. 7. There is no 100 -year food area on this site according the FIRM #180081-0011 dated 5/19/81. The passing blisters are dimensioned in accordance with the requirements. We acknowledge that the storm sewers, water system and sanitary sewers must be reviewed by the appropriate departments. Department of Community Development June 16, 1994 Page Four 10. Sidewalks will be added to the plat along 106th Street and Shelborne Road. 11. The sidewalk/intersections detail on Sheet #4 should be acceptable as shown. 12. The lot layout does show lot dimensions and lot numbers. We have indicated on Sheet #1 a site data table that states the minimum lot area for each community. 13. We will label Common Area #1 as providing private recreational facilities for the residents within the subdivision. There are no areas proposed for public use. 14. We will add all existing monuments and markers. 15. There are no FP, FF or FW districts on this site. 16. A wetland study has been ordered. 17. We will add a stub street to the West out of Weston Ridge; however, we do not believe it should be located between Lots 58 and 59. 18. Sign easements will be added. 19. On 106th Street an additional 12 -foot lane will be added on the North side from the entrance West to U.S. #421. 20. We acknowledge Special Use approval will be required for the recreational uses in Common Area #1. 21. A typical parking plan for a 3 and 4 bedroom houses is shown on Sheet #4. Supportive Materials Per Cluster Ordinance 1. Typical floor plans and pictures of typical houses are shown in the booklet on file. Department of Community Development June 16, 1994 Page Five 2. Treatment of greenbelt buffer areas and open spaces is shown on the landscape plan. 3. Landscaping and signage is shown on the landscape plans. Site lighting will be accomplished with two (2) dusk to dawn lights on each house. A typical parking plan is shown on Sheet #4. The covenants shall be modified to state the means of maintaining the Common Areas and revise the statements regarding the maintenance of the 20' greenbelt easement to be maintained by the lot owners. 6. We acknowledge that minimum separation is required between structures. 7. The typical parking plan should be acceptable as it has been in the past. Public Notice Filing Fee Jim Nelson will provide this information. We acknowledge that the filing fee must be paid to obtain a docket number. These are preliminary responses to your comments. After our meeting with you on June 17, we will revise our plans and complete this letter accordingly. Very truly yours, STOEPPELWERTH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Curtis C. Huff, P. L. S. Enclosures cc: Estridge Development, Inc. Jim Nelson CCH94119584CL City of C Curt Huff Stoeppelwerth & Assoc. P. O. Box 509007 Indpls., IN 46250 (01 rmel June 3, 1994 Re: Weston Communities - Primary Plat - Preliminary review Dear Curt, Upon review of your submitted materials, I have found the following items will need to be addressed: Overall design - The following are recommendations that the Department has developed after a review of the project: - Recommend the inclusion of access points (believe this was committed to at the rezone stage of the development) sidewalks, walkways, bike paths to the commercial area, between the following lots; 14 & 15, 91 & 92, 100 & 101, 10.8 & 109. - Strongly recommend reconfiguring lots 97 - 110 to match min. zoning sized lots in the Brandywine subdivision 120' lot width, 15,000 square feet. - Recommend eliminating lots 92 -96 and 115 - 119 to add to the common areas and open access (physical and visual) - What are the proposed uses in the common areas? Please include detail on any improvements. - Recommend accessway be incorporated between lots 91& 92 in Weston Ridge for access to the common area. Additionally allow for access along the south property line of lots 92 & 93 between the two common areas. - Please refer to the attached drawings for additional lot reconfiguration for the incorporation of more common area and added features to the development - See three attached drawings- Support items - Public notice information from the County Auditor's office - Non - opposition to annexation of the property - Statement justifying using the cluster option for this property ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2400 Page 2 Weston Communities June 3, 1994 - Statement from the County Highway Department regarding the impact of the development on the surrounding roadway system and recommended improvements for each adjoining street and entrance point - per section 5.3.5 - Covenants and restrictions for this development per section 5.3.7 - have received a preliminary copy, have following requests; - dusk to dawn yard lights to be installed on each lot by the builder /developer per 7.1.7 of the Cluster ordinance. - specific sections on the maintenance and replacement of material in the common areas - non - opposition to annexation section to be added for all lots - restrictions on fencing within the common areas and along roadways - Pursuant to Carmel \Clay Plan Commission Resolution 021892 a traffic operations analysis will need to be prepared and submitted prior to complete review of the project - A statement from Clay Regional Sewer needs to be submitted confirming adequate capacity and conformance with the Master Sewer Plan for the Clay West - per section 5.3.10 - Correspondence from the TAC members needs to be submitted upon receipt, as of the date of this letter no correspondence has been received - per section 5.3.3. - Landscape plan - has been reviewed by Mike Hollibaugh of our office, preliminary review, indicates the following: - Master Plan is not legible nor is the concept effectively communicated, provide a more detailed conceptual plan. - It is not clear how existing vegetation is to be incorporated and preserved as a part of the buffering requirements. - Can plans be submitted showing the similar detail of the entrance plans for all of the perimeter buffer areas - - Please submit a tree preservation plan for the existing wooded areas. - Delineate all wetlands on site - provide statements form the Army Corps and IDEM, DNR on the proposal and its potential impacts on jurisdictional wetlands -- Signage plan - please dimension proposed signage area - to confirm compliance with the sign ordinance - will the sign at 106th, be the only development identification sign? Sign Easements need to be added. Will, there internal directional, phasing or predevelopment signs for this project? Primary Plat - Add date of submission latest revision to the plans for ease of identification of updates - Street names will need to be completed and submitted for approval from the Carmel \Clay Communications Center - Luanne Stephens - per section 5.2.3 - All easements need to be shown indicating their use for drainage or utilities and legal . drains or water courses - per section 5.2.4 and section 6.6.2 Page 3 Weston Communities June 3, 1994 -4 Please contact the County Highway office regarding the entrance configuration of islands and street design. - - The cul -de -sac off of the cul -de -sac in the north section will require a variance for length - length is measured as the combined total of both cul -de -sacs. - The entrance islands off of 106th Street and Shelbourne Road and the islands in the eyebrows will need County approval as currently shown. 2 - Will the streets in the wetland area be located within th- 100 year flood lin- . - privately maintained? If not please contact the Hamilton County -i • - . . • - office for requirements of locating streets within the 100 year floodline. - Please dimension all passing blisters and accel \decel lanes shown on the plans to confirm conformity with the requirements. If passing blisters are not to be installed at the entrances or Subdivision Regulation variances will need to be applied for and included in the public notice. - Location, size and capacity of storm sewer, water system and sanitary sewer will need to be reviewed by the appropriate Departments, County Surveyor, SCS for drainage. -4 - Sidewalks along 106th Street and Shelbourne Road will need to be added to the plans and installed at the time of development. 2, - The sidewalk\intersection detail on the Detail page needs to be adjusted son a pedestrian does not have to enter the street to change direction on the sidewalks t of lots, showing the dimensions and lot numbers, and the approximat uare = per section 5.2.6 2 - Parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public schools, parks, playgrounds or other public use, private recreational facilities for the people within the subdivision, and other areas to be used for community purposes need to be shown and labeled - per section -4--- Add all existing monuments and markers to the plans - per section 5.2.9 NoaS - Indicate the location of flood plains as established by the FP, FF, and FW flood plain districts cited in the Zoning ordinance per section 5.2.10 - Indicate and dimension the wetland area on this site. Have you submitted to DNR and Army Corps for wetland delineation and encroachment into the wetland, and if so what is the timing of approval form the DNR on the encroachment into the wetland study? per ection 6.2.1 - Certain proposed streets need to be extended to the boundary for future ,e? development per section 6.3.3; @►e4/ -_- Add a stub to the west between lots 58 & 59 in the north section to allow for access to the parcel to the west in the future - Sign easements need to be added at all sign locations - What of 106th Street and Shelbourne Road will be improved with this project and how will the rest of it completed or be guaranteed to be completed? - Special Use approval will be required for the amenity and recreational uses proposed within your plans. - A full parking plan will need to be submitted per Cluster section 7.1.8 Page 4 Weston Communities June 3, 1993 Supportive materials - per Cluster ordinance - Section 7.1.3 of the cluster ordinance requires the following items to be submitted to complete the file; the location and style of building units - treatment of the greenbelt buffers and other open spaces - site lighting, landscaping, and signage 7 - number of and location of all parking spaces - means of adequately maintaining all common areas - Minimum sideyards will need to be maintained between structures during development - I would strongly recommend that you study the placement of the different footprints on lots to avoid conflicts with the sideyard setback requirements - As stated previously, a typical parking plan has been submitted, the Department would request that full parking plan that meets section 7.1.8 (especially the 4 bedroom criteria) be prepared and submitted. Public Notice - as of the date of this letter, I have not received any of the Public Notice information required by the ordinance. Filing Fee - A $2240.00 + $100.00 for each required variance of the Subdivision Regulations will need to be submitted prior to docket number issuance. The above comments will need to be addressed and updated plans need to be submitted no later than June 17, 1994, to assure our office adequate time to review your proposed project. Due to the length of the above comments, I have tenantively scheduled you for a preliminary review of the Primary Plat by TAC at the June 22, 1994 TAC meeting. At this time, I will tenantively schedule you for the July 19, 1994 Plan Commission meeting. Page 5 Weston Communities June 3, 1994 If you have any questions to the above comments or the process before you, feel free to contact me at (317) 571 -2444, at your convenience. Sincerel David D. Cunni am, AICP Director of Cu ent Planning Department of Community Development City of Carmel, Indiana Enclosures - 3 DDC cc: Paul Rioux, 1041 West Main Street, Carmel., IN 46032 Plan Commission File DDC file Mike Hollibaugh file pity of Carmel Curt Huff Stoeppelwerth & Assoc. P. O. Box 509007 Indpls., IN 46250 June 3, 1994 Re: Weston Communities. - Primary Plat - Preliminary review Dear Curt, Upon review of your submitted materials, I have found the following items will need to be addressed: Overall design - The following are recommendations that the Department has developed after a review of the project: K , w A,0A O lobs* o„ 11 ecommend the inclusion of access points (believe this was committed to at the rezone stage of the development) sidewalks, walkways, bike paths to the commercial area, be en the following lots; 14 & 15, 91 & 92, 100 & 101, 108 & 109. trongly recommend reconfiguring lots 97 - 110 to match min. zoning sized lots in the Brpdywine subdivision 120' lot width, 15,000 square feet. ecommend eliminating lots 92 -96 and 115 - 119 to add to the common areas and open acs (physical and visual) What are the proposed uses in the common areas? Please include detail on any imements. Recommend accessway be incorporated between lots 91& 92 in Weston Ridge for access to the common area. Additionally allow for access along the south property line of 1 92 & 93 between the two common areas. Please refer to the attached drawings for additional lot reconfiguration for the incorporation of more common area and added features to the development - See three attached drawings- Support items Oublic notice information from the County Auditor's office QNon- opposition to annexation of the property ? (}Statement justifying using the cluster option for this property ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571.2400 Page 2 Weston Communities June 3, 1994 Statement from the County Highway Department regarding the impact of the development on the surrounding roadway system and recommended improvements for each adjoining street and entrance point - per section 5.3.5 0 ()Covenants and restrictions for this development per section 5.3.7 - have received a preliminary copy, have following requests; - dusk to dawn yard lights to be installed on each lot by the builder /developer per 7.1.7 of the Cluster ordinance. - specific sections on the maintenance and replacement of material in the common areas - non - opposition to annexation section to be added for all lots - restrictions on fencing within the common areas and along roadways QPursuant to Carmel \Clay Plan Commission Resolution 021892 a traffic operations anal sis will need to be prepared and submitted prior to complete review of the project statement from Clay Regional Sewer needs to be submitted confirming adequate capacity and conformance with the Master Sewer Plan for the Clay West - per section 5.3 Correspondence from the TAC members needs to be submitted upon receipt, as of the date of this letter no correspondence has been received - per section 5.3.3. 0 ()Landscape plan - has been reviewed by Mike Hollibaugh of our office, preliminary review, indicates the following: - Master Plan is not legible nor is the concept effectively communicated, provide a more detailed conceptual plan. - It is not clear how existing vegetation is top be incorporated and preserved as a part of the buffering requirements. - Can plans be submitted showing the similar detail of the entrance plans for all of the perimeter buffer areas - Please submit a tree preservation plan for the existing wooded areas. - Delineate all wetlands on site - provide statements form the Army Corps and IDEM, DNR on the proposal and its potential impacts on jurisdictional wetlands O OS' ignage plan - please dimension proposed signage area - to confirm compliance with the sign ordinance - will the sign at 106th, be the only development identification sign? Sign Easements need to be added. Will there internal directional, phasing or predevelopment signs for this project? date of submission latest revision to the plans for ease of identification of updates Street names will need to be completed and submitted for approval from the Ca el \Clay Communications Center - Luanne Stephens - per section 5.2.3 All easements need to be shown indicating their use for drainage or utilities and legal drains or water courses - per section 5.2.4 and section 6.6.2 Page 3 Weston Communities June 3, 1994 Please contact the County Highway office regarding the entrance configuration.of isla s and street design. he cul -de -sac off of the cul -de -sac in the north section will require a variance for 1en - length is measured as the combined total of both cul -de -sacs. he entrance islands off of 106th Street and Shelbourne Road and the islands in the eye ows will need County approval as currently shown. Will the streets in the wetland area be located within the 100 year flood line be privately maintained? If not please contact the Hamilton County Highway Dept. office for refements of locating streets within the 100 year floodline. Please dimension all passing blisters and accel \decel lanes shown on the plans to confirm conformity with the requirements. If passing blisters are not to be installed at the entrances or Subdivision Regulation variances will need to be applied for and included in the public notice. °Location, size and capacity of storm sewer, water system and sanitary sewer will need to be reviewed by the appropriate Departments, County Surveyor, SCS for drainage. © Sidewalks along 106th Street and Shelbourne Road will need to be added to the plans and}n stalled at the time of development. 64he sidewalk \intersection detail on the Detail page needs to be adjusted son a pedestrian not have to enter the street to change direction on the sidewalks 0.ayout of lots, showing the dimensions and lot numbers, and the approximate square foo ge - per section 5.2.6 Parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public schools, parks, playgrounds or other public use, private recreational facilities for the people within the subdivision, and other areas to be used for community purposes need to be shown and labeled - per section 5.2.7 •Add all existing monuments and markers to the plans - per section 5.2.9 e1ndicate the location of flood plains as established by the FP, FF, and FW flood plain distrcts cited in the Zoning ordinance per section 5.2.10 ./Indicate and dimension the wetland area on this site. Have you submitted to DNR and Army Corps for wetland delineation and encroachment into the wetland, and if so what is the timing of approval form the DNR on the encroachment into the wetland study? per section 6.2.1 '6ertain proposed streets need to be extended to the boundary for future development per section 6.3.3; add a stub to the west between lots 58 & 59 in the north section to allow for access to the parcel to the west in the future ign easements need to be added at all sign locations What of 106th Street and Shelbourne Road will be improved with this project and how will the rest of it completed or be guaranteed to be completed? vecial Use approval will be required for the amenity and recreational uses proposed within your plans. 0/A full parking plan will need to be submitted per Cluster section 7.1.8 Page 4 Weston Communities June 3, 1993 Supportive m erials - per Cluster ordinance --Sion 7.1. complete th - the fi loc - treatm - site li - numb -me. - Minimum s I would str lots to avo - As stat request be pr of the cluster ordinance requires the following items to be submitted to e; lion and style of building units nt of the greenbelt buffers and other open spaces ting, landscaping, and signage r of and location of all parking spaces of adequately maintaining all common areas deyards will need to be maintained between structures during development - ngly recommend that you study the placement of the different footprints on 'd conflicts with the sideyard setback requirements previously, a typical parking plan has been submitted, the Department would at full parking plan that meets section 7.1.8 (especially the 4 bedroom criteria) ared and submitted. • Public Notice gas of the date of this letter, I have not received any of the Public Notice information required by the ordinance. Filing Fee 6A $2240.00 + $100.00 for each required variance of the Subdivision Regulations will need to be submitted prior to docket number issuance. The above comments will need to be addressed and updated plans need to be submitted no later than June 17, 1994, to assure our office adequate time to review your proposed project. Due to the length of the above comments, I have tenantively scheduled you for a preliminary review of the Primary Plat by TAC at the June 22, 1994 TAC meeting. At this time, I will tenantively schedule you for the July 19, 1994 Plan Commission meeting. Page 5 Weston Communities June 3, 1994 If you have any questions to the above comments or the process before you, feel free to contact me at (317) 571 -2444, at your convenience. Sincerel David D. Cunnin. am, AICP Director of Cu ent Planning Department of Community Development City of Carmel, Indiana Enclosures - 3 DDC cc: Paul Rioux, 1041 West Main Street, Carmel., IN 46032 Plan Commission File DDC file Mike Hollibaugh file CONSULTING E'N'GINEERS L' A N D S U R V E Y O R S . R.M. Stoeppelwerth, PE, PLS • David J. Stoeppelwert, PE, PLS • Curtis C. Huff, PLS • Dennis D. Olmstead, PLS • Jelfory W. Darling, PLS May 19, 1994 . Department of Community Development 1 Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Attention: David Cunningham Re: Primary Plat Weston Communities ` Dear David: Enclosed are the following items regarding the filing for . primary, plat approval for Weston Communities: 2 cc'' 2 sets 2 "cc 1 cc 1 cc Primary Plat Landscape Plans Supporting, data booklet - Primary Plat Application Letters to Agencies and Utilities This project is located on the north side of 106th Street west of Shelborne Road and consist of 388 lots on 181 acres. The applicant. is Estridge Development; Inc., who proposes to utilize the "cluster" option in the development of this site which is zoned S -1. Mr. Jim Nelson will be handling the legal notices and the presentations before the Carmel Plan Commission. We are °anticipating that this primary plat could be heard at the July 19, 1994 Plan Commission. 9940 Allisonville Road • P.0.`Box 509007 • Indianapolis, Indiana 46250 • (31'1) 849 -5935 • 1- 800 - 128 -6911 • FAX (311) 849 -5942 recycled paper Dept: of' Community Development Page 2 May 19, 1994. Please address,your,questions or comments to:- Curt Huff Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc. P:O:,Box'509007 - Indianapol'is, IN 46250 (317).577- 3403 Thank you for your cooperation. . Very truly yours, STOEPPELWERTH & ASSOCIATES, INC