HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c py eJI(1~~ o+- -G
Cffi'V1yYt,~ . ~
t( u Vt Y ()yl l-\tt tI ~
~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~ ~::A~~ =t!: 0 'Joz(]o25 ~p
Estridge Development Company (hereafter, "Estridge"), the contract purchaser of the real
estate located in Hamilton County, Indiana, and described in what is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by referenced as Exhibit "A" (the "Real Estate"), makes the following
Commitments (the "Commitments") to the Plan Commission of the City of Carmel (the "Plan
Commission").
Section 1. Cross Reference. These Commitments are made in connection with approvals
obtained under Docket Numbers 05020028PP and 05020029SW.
Section 2.
reference:
Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by
Exhibit "A". Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A" is the
legal description of the real estate (the "Real Estate");
Exhibit "B". Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B" is the
primary plat for a subdivision known as "Runyon Hall".
Section 3. Definitions. Different words and terms are defined throughout thes~
) ,',
Commitments and, further, the following definitions shall apply throughout these Commitments:'
1. Developer. The term "Developer" shall mean and refer to Estridge and its successors and
assIgns.
2. Subdivision. The term "Subdivision" shall mean and refer to Runyon Hall which is a plat
filed under Docket Numbers 05020028PP and 05020029SW.
Section 4. Commitments. The Developer agrees and commits to the following:
All homes to be constructed in the Subdivision shall be The Estridge Companies new 800 series
homes and the average square footage for these homes shall be 3500 square feet and all homes
shall have a basement. The following are additional commitments:
1. Perimeter Lots:
Lots 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38, as the same are shown on Exhibit "B~',~
are perimeter lots (the "Perimeter Lots") and all homes constructed on Perimeter Lots
shall have a first floor brick wrap.
Message
Page 1 of3
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Wednesday, July 06,2005 12:42 PM
To: 'Dutcher, Dan'
Cc: Griffin, Matt L; jmolitor@prodigy.net; charlie@nf-Iaw.com; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Hancock, Ramona B;
Wold, Alexia K; DK@indy.rr.com; nrhoad@gmail.com; SueWestermeier@aol.com;
rripma@usavingsbank.com
Subject: RE: Abney Glen & landscape approval on Kendall Woods lots not facing Shelborne Rd
Dan,
I think this is this the subdivision you were referring to: Runyon Hall:? approved May 17, 2005: the proposed
commitments (no electronic file, only paper copy) refer to home construction and what architectural elements are
required. I will put a copy of it in the Abney Glen File and I will fax a copy of this commitment document to Charlie
Frankenberger to view....
Here is the gist of what was approved with the subdivision primary plat for Runyon Hall: .t.h;.e....p.e.ti.t.i.QIle.r...b..3.S
.3gre.e.d...tbJlt...s.iX...{6)..1Q.t.s.....3.dj.3.c.e.J.l.t....t.Q....1.4.6.th...S.tr.ee.t....a.s...~.eIl..a.s..Jlt.b;.er...lQ.t.s....\V.l.t.b..iu....th.e....S.uJld.i.yls..i.QI1...3.Jld
adjacent to Woodfield Subdivision would be defined as perimeter lots and would have brick lvrap
on all elevations and the rear yard of those homes would have one additional shade tree and one
ornamental tree in addition to the other landscaping on site.
meeting minutes attached:
6i. Docket No. 05020028 PP: Runyon Hall
The applicant seeks to plat 58 lots on 39.08 acres and seeks the following subdivision
waIver:
Docket No. 05020029 SW: 06.03.19 (4) - Access to Arterials
The applicant seeks to reduce the 200 foot buffer area adjacent to 146th Street to 35 feet.
The site is located at 5333 E 146th Street and is zoned 81 Residential.
Filed by Jim Shinaver for Estridge Development Co.
Jim Shinaver, attorney with Nelson & Frankenberger appeared before the Commission representing the
applicant. Also in attendance was Ron Barker, Estridge Development Co.
The proposed development consists of 56 residential lots on 39 acres, located south of and adjacent to
146th Street and slightly west of Hazel Dell Parkway. Four lots were eliminated from the initial
proposal. The anticipated price range of the homes within Runyon Hall is between $450,000 and
$500,000.
In support of the Subdivision Waiver, the petitioner has agreed that six (6) lots adjacent to 146tb.
Street as well as other lots within the Subdivision and adjacent to Woodfield Subdivision would be
defined as perimeter lots and would have brick wrap on all elevations and the rear yard of those
.bJJJ.Jle.s......lYq:uld......b;.aye......Q.u.e......3.(ldlt.i.Q.J13l....s.h.ade......tr.e.e......3.D.d~.....Q.n.e......Q.rJl3.nleJltal....tr.ee.....ln.......3.d.d.itlQ.D......tQ.....t.b,.e......Q.t.b,.er.
13.D.d.s.c.ap.i.u.g...D.D.....s.i.te.!.
The drainage issues were discussed regarding the Ashton and Woodfield ponds. The site drainage has
been redesigned and will not discharge into the Woodfield pond but instead, will take a route south and
east of that location and connect into a drainage pipe within the backyard of an owner who is in the
7/6/2005
Message
,
Page 2 of3
· Ashton Subdivision. A letter has now been received from the County Surveyor's office regarding their
review of the drainage as it relates to the primary plat stage as well as a letter from the City of Carmel
Engineering Department regarding their review of the drainage as it relates to the primary plat stage.
The Department of Engineering letter states that based on their review, at this point, they recommend
that the project as it relates to drainage be moved along to the Secondary Plat stage where the drainage
will continue to be reviewed in detail. The Engineering Dept. would have jurisdiction to issue final
permits regarding the drainage.
The petitioner committed to involved Caesar Turin, president of the Woodfield HOA, as well as Dennis
Alt, a representative of the Ashton HOA in the process that relates to secondary plat approval. The
petitioner has also been provided with the Post Office Box number of the Ashton HOA. Finally, the
petitioner will also include involving Mr. Grossman and Mr. Hannah, since their back yards are
affected.
Committee Report, Rick Ripma. The biggest issue on this development was the drainage. However, the
Committee voted 4-0 to move it on. The drainage issue was not resolved but rather left open for the
entire Commission to complete. Another issue was the 200-foot buffer, but with the landscaping
and commitments on brick, the Committee was comfortable with the buffer. There was some
concern with the entryway off of 146th Street, but all-in-all, felt that this was a pretty good layout.
Additional landscaping has been done to protect the homes that would back up to this development and
146th Street. The Committee voted unanimously 4-0 to recommend approval.
Department Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz. Letters have been received from both the Engineering
Department and the County Surveyor's Office that are favorable to the concerns. Also, at the Committee
meeting, no additional members of the public came forth with comments or concerns. At this time, the
Department is recommending approval of the primary plat and subdivision waiver.
Madeleine Torres asked if there would be anything in writing from the homeowners whose back yards
are going to be affected by the drainage situation.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded that nothing in writing is needed. The drainage issue has been brought to
light in this petitioner because of concerns brought up by the adjacent owners. The petitioner has
worked closely with the adjoining homeowners to educate them on what action they need to take prior to
construction of the subdivision.
Wayne Haney asked if the Committee had discussed making some active areas in the subdivision where
social interaction could occur, i.e. benches, gazebo, anything that would encourage people to
intermingle-Dan Dutcher concurred.
Ron Baker, Chief Operating Officer of The Estridge Companies, 1041 West Main Street, Carmel stated
that benches, chaise, all those types of things, would be installed in a small area where social interaction
could occur.
Jerry Chomanczuk expressed concern regarding the reduction in the 200-foot buffer with increased
landscaping and fencing.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded that the Department feels that this proposal meets the intent of the
Ordinance. It was more an issue of the Plan Commission gaining additional control over the area.
7/6/2005
City of Carmel Planning Commission Meeting
May 17, 2005 - 6:00 PM
Docket Nos. 05040012 PP, 05040013 SW, 05040014 SW
Adjoining Property Owner Comments / Requests (Long Branch Estates, Lot 144)
1. Save as many trees as possible and the natural pond in the southwest comer of the property in
question.
- The Trees and Pond are the only Bridge between the 12 acres south of the property that are Carmel
Preserve Land and the Creel( through the property that is also Carmel Preserve Land.
- This can only be accomplished by ensllring there is no construction within the trees' drip lines to
ensure the trees do not die.
- Do not understand why you would fill in a natural pond when you have to build other retention ponds
in the neighborhood (Just to gain one more lot?)?
2. Greater than or equal to 35 feet (prefer 50 feet like Long Branch Estates) of common area / land around
the property perimeter. The proposed development has common land behind lot 39 (the natural pond),
but it does not go behind lots 40-42 or the rest of the properties.
- Tl1is would help ensure the privacy and integrity of the wilderness land in the area.
- This would also prevent a variety of fences running right up against the property line between the
Abney Glen and Long Branch Estate properties.
- The Long Branch Estates developers did this by request of its neighbors, and we would appreciate the
same courtesy from the Abney Glen developers.
3. Developers' / C011struction Teams do what they said they would do in our May 6th Community
Information Meeting.
- No changes to the property that impact drainage on any Long Branch Estates lots or common land.
- Lots 39 through 42 to have a rear lot setback of at least 100 feet to help preserve the trees in the area.
Indiana Land Development stated on May 16th the setback would be close to 160 feet.
- Standard Work Hours, thinl(ing about the adjoining homes and their families (7 am to Dusk), maybe
Saturdays, but not Sllndays.
- Homes all Brick and Hardy Plank, with minimum square footage requirements.
- Black fence stays to preserve area's openness and nature (No large wood or brick privacy fences).
- Abney Glen covenants the same as Long Branch Estates on fence types and barns.
- No utility work coming in from the West or South sides of the property.
- Price range for the lots of $225,000 and up, and homes from $500,000 and up.
Thank you for your consideration of my input.
Rick and Theresa Bonar
3845 Branch Creek Court
Long Branch Estates
Home: 317-733-0387
Work: 317-433-9365
Cell: 317-796-4860
Testimony before the Carmel City Planning Commission
Indiana Development Company - Filo Property
May 17, 2005
My name is John Harris. I reside at 3800 Verdure Lane, Long Branch
Estates. I am Vice President of the Long Branch Estates' Home Owners
Association's Board of Directors. I am here on behalf of the homeowners
within our development. Long Branch Estates is the development
immediately adjacent to the proposed development on the south and west
side boundaries. There may be additional comments provided by individual
homeowners later in this session.
We would like to thank the Planning Commission for the opportunity to
present our comments and concerns pertaining to the proposed development
of the Filo property. First, we would like to compliment Paul Shoopman,
President of Indiana Development, for reaching out to our homeowners to
present their proposed development and inquire about the questions and
,\
concerns we have. During this interchange we have been 'able to identify
many areas of review that are important to present to you this evening.
As with most homeowners associations we are most interested and
concerned with neighboring activities that have the potential for negatively
impacting our investment in our homes and our community. To this end OUf
comments are areas that he has indicated in many circumstances to
understand and willing to address. OUf request is that the City of Carmel
and this Planning Commission incorporate these issues into binding
obligations by not only the developer, but subsequent builders and
1
homeowners within the proposed development. In the case that this
developer does not complete the development as proposed, we submit that
these requirements be carried further to any and all future parties involved in
the development of this property. We have been compromised by similar
circumstances by other neighboring development south of Long Branch
Estates now under development by KB Homes.
The majority of the comments center on maintaining the integrity and value
of the property's pastoral and wooded nature, and the conditions that will
occur during the development of the property and subsequent construction of
dwellings. The issues are as follows:
1. This property contains extensive wooded areas that add value to the
area. This is of special interest to those Long Branch properties
immediately adjacent to the proposed development where they
provide a visual background and barrier between the properties. It
should be noted that when Long Branch Estates was before this
Commission, Dr. Filo was extremely vocal in the preservation of the
natural setting of our property. We request the following:
a. All trees and associated natural plantings which include shrubs
and trees of numerous types are formally defined as a preserve
within a 35 foot distance from the western and southern
property lines under the statutes of the City of Carmel that will
prevent them from being removed by the developer, builders or
homeowners.
b. All major standings of trees within the development be
protected from removal unless they are found to be structurally
"
2
unsound or defined as underbrush. We request that our HOA
be provided the opportunity to work with the City Planning
COlnmission and its' environmental planner, Scott Brewer, to
define which trees are allowed to be removed. We respect the
fact that the developer may need to remove certain areas of
vegetation to be able to develop this property, but request the
opportunity to comment on activities internal to this
development.
c. The proposed road on the south central portion of the
development be shortened to prevent car lights being shown
into the homes immediately adjacent in Long Branch Estates.
This can be achieved by shortening the road and placing an
evergreen barrier between the end of the road and the property
boundary. The last home on the proposed south western lot can
have its' driveway on its' northern property line. It should also
be required that no streetlights of any type be allowed on this
road.
d. In areas of perimeter properties that are being requested to be
set aside as a preserve that do not have existing trees that the
developer place large size (greater than 8 feet) evergreens,
preferably spruce trees, to enhance the visual barrier of the
development and the quality of this preserve. We believe that
these actions will not only protect the values of our property,
but that of future homeowners in this development.
e. The Filo Property contains major stands of wild flowers that
should be either preserved or allowed for controlled removal to
replant them by interested parties.
3
2. The second area of concern is with the nature of construction to be
performed on the property and adjacent roads.
a. There exists a stream that flows continually across this property
into the Long Branch Estates. At no time do we want any form
of disturbance to these waters of the state to be negatively
impacted by any construction activity including, but not limited
by, erosion and sedimentation, or impact to the natural flora and
fauna. If said conditions are observed in the stream on Long
Branch Estates that the City impose a cease and desist order
immediately with full restitution of damaged conditions.
b. There are proposed two street entrances and two driveways to
be added to the very narrow 121 st Street. The anticipated
construction equipment will overwhelm this road's traffic flow
and imposition of construction debris, such as dirt from
construction vehicles accessing the proposed development.
We request that all earthmoving equipment be required to enter
or leave the property by Shelbourne. We are sensitive to this
issue with how KB Homes has compromised the conditions on
116th Street and used our development for the movement of
heavy equipment and construction trucks. Numerous requests
to the City for assistance have not been responded to.
c. For the size of development, there appears to be an
extraordinary number of access roads on both Shelbourne and
121 st Streets, as well as additional driveways directly to these
roads. Our development is considerably larger and only has
one entrance on 116th Street and one on 121 st Street.
4
Consideration of reducing the number of accesses should be
made.
d. The time period of construction by the developer and
subsequent builders be allowed only during periods when it is
reasonable and not disturb our homeowners. It is proposed to
limit activity between 7 am and dusk on weekdays and 8am and
dusl( on weekends.
e. We request that the City of Carmel enforce its codes during the
construction to prevent dust to development by using proper
watering of the earth.
3. The final area of comments include general design considerations and
includes:
a. The wall(way along 121 st Street be continued along the south
side of the road as an extension of the walkway we have
established.
b. The ponds being destroyed and replaced follow wetlands
requirements under the Corp of Engineers requirements both in
law and in principle.
Based upon our discussions with the developer we believe most of these
conditions are reasonable and that he is willing to address them. We ask you
to formally mal(e them a binding and legal condition of this developer or any
others involved in future actions on this property. We have discussed these
issues with our City Councilman, a past member of this Commission, and he
concurs in their reasonableness.
5
04/18/2005 19:48
3177769628
e
HAMILTON CO SURVEYOR
e
PAGE 82/03
7. All floodplain areas determined by the study will be required to be place in a
Drainage Basemen~ to prevent filling and encroachments in the future.
8. Hamilton County Surveyor's Office does not permit storm water detention ponds in
the floodplain. This provides no tequire on-site detention for the site, as is just
becomes additional floodplain storage area.
9. Hamilton County Ordinance 4-26-99.c(7)e requires all minimum finished floor
elevations to be a minimum of2 feet about the tOO year water surface elevation of
this na.tural watercourse. These minimum finished floor elevations must be denoted
on the construction plans.
10. Hamilton County Ordinance 4-26-99-C(3) will require improvements to the natural
watercourse across the site. These impro"ements will include~ but not limited to.
debris and flowline obstru.ction removal, tree clearing from top ofbanlc. to top of bank
plus 30 feet on. the north side of the ditch, and stream bank erosion repair and
stabilization.
11. The natural watercourse across this site will become part of the Long Branch
RegUlated Drain. along with a.ll the stonn pipes within the development. The
easement associated with the open regulated drain will need to be 25 feet from. the top
of bank on each size of the stream, as required by Ie 36-9..27.33.
12. Before construction plans design begins please schedule an onsite meeting with this
office. the engineer, and the developer to walk the open ditch and discusS what
improvements will be required.
13. The HCSO knows about off-site water. Long Branch Subdivision (south). Kendall
Wood (north), and northwest of the site, that nm across this site to the open ditch.. All
of these offsite areas will need to be picked up in pipes and routed thru the stonn
system or directly to the open ditch. Please make sure all off~site drainage areas are
taken into account when doing final site design for this project.
14. The HCSO will require that the existing channel crossing on this parcel be removed,
as it causes a back up of the water in the regulated drain. The crossing could be
replaced if needed, but would need a properly engineered crossing to be designed.
15. The Sanitary Scwer Interceptor and on-site mains will need to m.eet HCSO Design
Standards C-6 and M-S when running along or crossing the open ditch.
16. No landscape planting will be permitted or allowed within the proposed regulated
drainage easements per Indiana Code 36-9-27-33(d). In common areas that are
dedicated as Drainage Easements, no trees will be allowed within 15 feet in each
direction from the centerline of pipe. The proposed street treeS should be behind the
sidewalks to prevent the root infiltration into the SSPs under the curb line. The
proposed laDdscape plms DO NOT lDeet tbese requirements.
-At
e
e
County Surveyor's Office issues have been resolved. The design engineer must certify all
drawings submitted for final approval. Because of the dual jurisdiction between the City of
Carmel and the Hamilton County Surveyor, we will require a minimum of eight-sets of drawings
for approval after all issues have been resolved. The drawings will be stamped as approved and
\vill be signed by the City Engineer and by Carmel Utilities. The eight-sets will then be sent to the
Hamilton County Surveyor's Office for approval and signatures. Three approved sets are to be
returned to the City of Carmel. The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office will retain two-sets.. The
Developer, the Engineer and the Contractor will each receive one-set.
5. Please be advised that any installation of signs, walls, irrigation systems, etc. within dedicated
right of way or dedicated easements will require a Consent to Encroach Agreement with the City
of Carmel's Board of Public Works and Safetv.
6. Carmel Utilities/W ater Distribution should be provided copies of all drawings and revisions for
review of water issues. They will provide a separate review regarding these issues.
7. Carmel Utilities does not subscribe to "Holey Moley" and should be contacted directly for all
water main locations.
8. I have included copies of the following for your use:
. Subdivision Proj ect Approval Procedures
. Performance Release Procedure
. Subdivision Building Permits
. Permit Data, Contacts, etc.
. Subdivision Sign requirements
Please share copies of the enclosures with the developer and contractors associated with this
proj ect.
BONDING REQUIREMENTS
9. Individual Performance Guarantees will be required for the following subdivision improvements:
. Streets (base, binder and surface). You may bond perimeter street improvements separately.
. Curbs
. Water Mains
· Street Signs
. Sidewalks (builders lot sidewalks and perimeter right of way sidewalks/perimeter right of way
asphalt paths may be bonded separately).
The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office will require performance bonding for Storm Drainage
(including sub surface drains), erosion control and monuments & markers. Please contact them
directly to verify their requirements. Sanitary sewers are under the jurisdiction of the Clay
Township Regional Waste District and they should be contacted directly regarding their
requirements.
The amount of the Performance Guarantee is based upon a certified Engineer's Estimate for 100%
of the cost of labor and materials to construct the individual improvements, to be provided by the
design engineer. Please provide detailed Engineers Estimates for each improvement including
unit costs, quantities, materials and types of materials, etc. Upon completion and release of
individual Performance Guarantees, a three-year Maintenance Guarantee will be required. The
Maintenance Guarantee amount is based upon 15% of the Performance amount for Streets and
Curbs and 10% of the Performance amount for all other improvements. Performance Guarantees
may be Performance or Subdivision Bonds, Irrevocable Letters of Credit or Cashier's Checks,
Certified Checks or Official Checks. Please reference the enclosures for more detailed
explanation of our procedures.
AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION FEES
10. Availability (acreage) Fees must be paid after all other Engineering Department requirements
have been satisfied and prior to the start of construction activities. A vailability Fees are based
upon total platted acreage"-:for the development at the current rate of $1,010.00 per acre (Water
Availability Fee). Based upon the indicated acreage on the primary plat, the following Water
Availability Fees would apply:: .
.
tit
e
38.86 Acres @ $1,010.00/Acre = $39,249.00
Connection Fees are currently $1,310.00 for water per single-family residence. Connection Fees
are paid when the infrastructure has been complete, satisfactory test results obtained and the
subdivision has been released for permits. Water Connection Fees are paid on a per-lot basis.
. If an irrigation system, swimming pool or clubhouse is planned for this development,
or any future section of the development, additional Water Connection Fees will be
assessed based upon the recommendation of the Director of Carmel Utilities.
11. We have engaged Crossroad Engineers, PC to review all drainage plans and drainage calculations
submitted for revie\v to this office. We will share Crossroad's comments as they are received.
When construction plans are submitted for T.A.C. review for this development, please provide 2-
sets of plans and calculations to allow us to send the extra set to Crossroad and save some time in
the review process.
COMMENTS - PRIl\'IARY PLAT
12. Please indicate and label the right-of-way for 121 st Street and Shelbome Road. If the existing
right-of-way is less than that prescribed in the thoroughfare plan, the additional right-of-way must
be dedicated.
13. Please indicate and label all existing and proposed entrances and driveways on the east side of
Shelbome Road and the north side of 121 st Street.
14. The existing adjacent subdivision to the west has one access from 121 st Street and one access
from 116th Street. For the northern section of the proposed subdivision, the City will approve a
maximum of one access from 121 st Street and one access from Shelbome Road. Please revise the
street configuration accordingly. The City standard is for proposed access points to be 500 feet
from perimeter road intersections. Line "E" does not meet this requirement.
15. At each of the entrances, a deceleration lane, an acceleration lane, and a passing blister will be
required and must be indicated on the plat. The passing blister requirement shall be waived if the
entrance is aligned with an existing or proposed entrance. The dimensions of these auxiliary lanes
will be according to the road functional classification prescribed by the City of Carmel Twenty
Year Thoroughfare Plan.
16. Please indicate widening across the property frontage or to the extents of the auxiliary lanes,
whichever is greater for 15-foot travel lanes on the property side of 121 st Street and Shelbome
Road. Auxiliary lanes shall be measured from the edge of the IS-foot travel lane. Please add a note
to the site plan that all existing pavement shall be sawcut to a clean edge where new pavement (for
widening or for auxiliary lanes) is to be installed adjacent to existing pavement. Any new
pavement placed in the 121 st Street and Shelbome Road rights-of-way for widening, for auxiliary
lanes and for each entrance up to the mainline right-of-way limit shall meet the following section:
1.5 inches HMA #11 surface on 2 inches HMA #8 binder on 3 inches HMA #5D base on 7 inches
#53 stone on 4 inches #2 stone or match existing, whichever is greater. Please delineate this
section with hatching on the plans and appropriate reference in the legend.
17. The City typically requires 1" milling with 1.5" H.A. C. # 11 resurfacing for the entire width of the
existing roadway across the pro~erty frontage or to the limits of the auxiliary lanes, whichever is
greater. The roadway would then also need to be restriped with thermoplastic striping. Please
develop a plan for the restriping and for striping of the auxiliary lanes. Please add a note to this
plan that all striping shall be thermoplastic. Please delineate the milling and resurfacing areas with
hatching on the plans and appropriate reference in the legend.
18. Please provide a right-of-way \vidth of 50 feet and a back to back pavement width of30 feet for
each of the subdivision streets.
19. Please edit or provide a detail which requires the following pavement section for the paving of the
proposed interior public streets: 1.5 inches HMA # 11 surface on 2 inches H~1A #8 binder on 3
inches HMA #5D base on 7 inches #53 stone. Please add a note that all paving must be completed
in one paving season.
20. In all subsurface drain details, please indicate the location of the drain as it relates to the curb
above to match the City standard detail.
21. As currently drawn, lots 13 and 14 can be accessed only from 121 st Street. Please confirm with
the Department of Community Services that this is acceptable.
22. Please label the 10-foot multi-ase path in the right-of-way across the frontages.
\
..
.
e
23. Please indicate a no access easement along each of the 121 st Street and Shelbome Road frontages.
24. The common area with 41,787 square feet is bounded on the west and east sides by Line "F." The
east Line "F" is redundant and the only lot that would be served by this street is lot 41 and lot 41
can be served otherwise. Please eliminate the east Line "F" and terminate the south end of the
west Line "F" \vith a cul-de-sac. Even with these changes, will Line "F" still exceed the
maximum cul-de-sac length?
25. Please indicate a comer cut that will accommodate a 120-foot radius roundabout centered at the
intersection of 121 st Street and Shelbome Road. The Department requires that the Developer
dedicate this right-of-\vay. The Department understands that this dedication will go through the
Board of Public Works in the future but needs the right-of-way to be shown on the plans to ensure
that the site plan is able to accommodate the future construction.
26. Please remove the Landscape Plan sheet, the Signage Details sheet, and Landscape Details sheet
from the set of plans submitted to the Department of Engineering for approval.
27. Please confirm with the Clay Township Regional \Vaste District that they will accept a sanitary
main under a detention pond.
28. Line "F" entrance mustbe configured such that the left turn lane aligns with the left turn lane of
Saddlebrook at Shelbome.
29. All lots adjacent to side yard easements should be wide enough to accommodate the anticipated
house model and any planned driveways such that there is no encroachment in the easements.
30. A three-foot wide #73 stone shoulder at a minimum depth of six inches is required across the
property frontage or to the limits of the auxiliary lanes, whichever is greater. Subsurface drain is
required beneath the stone shoulder.
31. Please incorporate the Department's cover and backfill standard for all storm sewers and for
sanitary and water mains and laterals within the right-of-way into the design for the secondary
pIa t.
32. There are existing culverts under 121st Street that must be accommodated by this development's
drainage system.
33. Please provide detention volume for the fully developed thoroughfare plan right-of-way for 121 st
Street and Shelbome Road frontages. This requirement shall apply regardless of watershed limits.
Please provide adequately sized pipes to carry water from the street to the proposed ponds.
These comments represent the Department of Engineering's initial review of the primary plat for this
project. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing. Failure to provide written
responses may result in delay of the review process.
It is critical that this office be made aware of all modification made on the plans being resubmitted,
particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews. Please
provide revised plans indicating all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any
changes, including changes resulting from Plan Commission, Special Studies or other committee meetings.
All bonds and performance guarantees (ifrequired) must be posted prior to Engineering Department
approval. Also, Board of Public Works and Safety approval and any other governing agency approvals (if
required) must be obtained prior to Engineering Department approval.
Please contact Crossroad Engineers to obtain a drainage review checklist. The Department will expect the
design submitted for secondary plat to adhere to this checklist.
The Department of Engineering reserves the right to provide additional comments based on subsequent
reviews.
If you have questions, please call me at 571-2441.
Sincerely,
Dobosiewicz: We look to the City Engineers and Surveyor's Office for that acknow dgement.
Turrin: ' We want to see the plans and make sure they adhere to them.
Stein: . .and those final grades do not slope toward the existing prope 'es but shed water
to ard the proper drainage process.
Dobosiewicz: A. Hart can you get them a full revised Site Plan of the
Prese ation and keep them advised of all future meetin .
We have ddressed all the issues that the Neighborho Association sent us and you are
satisfied?
Yes, as long a they keep to the commitments.
The Tree Prese tion is in place as a buffer a the types of trees are Carmel's preferred
list of trees. We ca work with Scott Brewe armel's Environmental Planner to make
changes to your liking. ity of Carmel's gineering, Surveyor's Office, Drainage Code,
Floodway and the Indian NR hold us n compliance with all their regulations. The
public will be notice for int t to con ct. We have to satisfy all the City, County, and
State regulations before a pe . w. be issued. You will be notified.
This is a significant improvemen rom the last review. We normally want to resolve all
the issues before we get to the an ommission. The public can use this time to make
commitments before it move out of ittee.
Westermeier: Waiver for streets is still i place?
DeHart: Yes.
Westermeier: What about the sidew issue from last time?
Dobosiewicz: First lot with Wood eld needed to connect with illas. They will catch that at Secondary
Plat.
Knoll: Why the Waive on street layout?
Dobosiewicz: To keep the out of the Floodplain.
Knoll: I would Ii to see this cleaned up with the Public Hearing
item.
If you elieve this is close enough to approve then you will nee 0 send it on to the Plan
Co ission but if you believe you need to review the other Waive hen you should
k p it in Committee.
otion?
To send Docket No. 04080056 PP: Villas at Morgan's Creek - Primary Plat and
Docket No. 04080057 SW: sca 6.03.07 - Street Layout & Design Standards with
positive recommendation to the full Plan Commission subject to solution on setback and
frontage.
Second.
Knoll:
Turrin:
DeHart:
Dutcher:
Molitor:
Knoll:
Ripma:
Dutcher:
Motion carried; Four (4) in favor zero (0) opposed.
.. .END...
to
l~d b \f\"
Docket No. 04100034 PP: Kendall Wood - Primary Plat (lAl\l 1
Docket No. 04100035 SW: seo 6.03.19 (4) - Access to Arterials --- t. ~l\\:~)".J\
Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth and Associates, Inc. for Steven A. Wilson. r\V
S: \PlanCommission \Minutes \Sub divis ion Committee \2 00 5\subdiv2 005 j an04
4
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
Representing the Petitioner:
Dennis Olmstead, STOEPPELWERTH AND ASSOCIATES
Steve Wilson
Remonstrators:
Jeff Kimbell
Mike Pritz
Gary Brown
The Applicant seeks to plat a residential subdivision of 17 lots on 17.889 acres. The Petitioner also seeks
a Subdivision Waiver on access to arterials. The Applicant request that the required 200 feet buffer area
be reduced to 25 feet. The site is located at the NW comer of 121 8t Street and Shelborne Road and is
zoned S-I.
Wilson:
Dobosiewicz:
Knoll:
Kimbell:
Pri tz:
Dobosiewicz:
Pri tz:
Wilson:
Dobosiewicz:
Wilson:
Knoll:
Olmstead:
Wilson:
Dutcher:
Wilson:
Dutcher:
Dobosiewicz:
We are adding a perimeter brick wall with a gatehouse. The lots are 120 feet wide by 180
feet deep. The City has requested we add more landscaping to the lots and we are
complying.
I am not sure if I received the public comments from the Public Hearing. The 200 feet
buffer is for the houses that are within 200 feet of Shelborne Road or 1218t Street and
face the interior of the subdivision. That would include lots 1, 10, 11, 12, & 17.
Does the author of this letter understand that?
I do understand but if you look at the larger block there is no variance to that. The
neighborhood at 1318t Street the homes appear to be 200 feet away from 131 st Street and
do not face the road. We are looking for uniformity in this particular block. We are not
in favor of the brick wall for the same reasons stated.
I live on the eastern side, adjoining the proposed. We have animals and it is a rural area.
The trees described on the Landscape Plan belong to us not Kendall Wood's. We would
like to understand how the Landscape Plan is going to fit into the character of the area?
We would like to see uniformity of the fencing. We have concern with the drainage now
and when the wall is built.
Whether there is a wall or not these homes will be architecturally acceptable. We do
have flexibility with the wall issue. With regard to the drainage and landscaping, this is a
preliminary plan; if the trees in question are not on their property they still need to meet
the "D Buffer Standard" and would be cleared up at the secondary stage. Drainage must
go through the Surveyor's Office for approval and Saddlebrook for the Sanitary Sewer.
Access to the Sanitary will be available to you then.
We did not get a lot of the information on this subdivision. We would like to see what is
proposed for lighting.
No street lights proposed. Lights, directionally at the entrance.
On the western edge fencing can you make a commitment on the type?
We can make it "wood only" on the western edge.
Gatehouse discussion what was that?
Decorative only to hide irrigation and metering equipment.
These are public streets no gates.
Do we have a Landscaping Plan approval?
We are assuming yes.
Is the Department comfortable with that point?
Yes. When you come back with the Secondary Plat Construction Plans you will not be
allowed to count trees as part of the buffer that are not on Kendall Wood property.
S: \PlanCommission \Minutes \SubdivisionCommittee \2005\subdiv200 5 j an04
5
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
On the 14th I asked about planting requirements. Many lots do not have planting
requirements and I did not see any planting requirements in the covenants. I want an idea
of what is appropriate.
We want to see the minimums for each lot spelled out.
We want a minimum standard established.
What kind of numbers are you considering S. Wilson? Get us some minimum numbers.
Covenants could describe the materials or value.
I think you are looking for a buffer between the wall and the neighbors. I think we need it
spelled out. Just put in $5,000 for each lot?
Okay.
What is the height of the wall?
7.5 feet.
When will we see the Tree Preservation and Landscaping Plans?
When we get Construction Plans. When this comes to T AC we can forward a copy of the
plans to you.
Pritz: Okay. Lighting will not change? There will be no streetlights?
Dobosiewicz: If they do they would need to bring that as an Amendment through Committee.
Wilson: Decorative lights in the front no lights at all in the back of the development.
Dobosiewicz: We could, as a condition on the Waiver approval, make the motion that there would be
no more than three (3) pole lights at the entrance.
On the landscaping I will accept the dollar amount on the houses but for the back,
exposed west side of the development, allocate landscaping in the back as well.
Wilson I do not want to do that. I think we are being fair with regard to the landscaping.
Dutcher: If you can allocate a minimum for backyards in lots 13, 14,15.. . (interrupted).
Wilson: . . .no, we are allocating enough and that is up to the homeowner.
...(continued discussion on backyard landscaping, no resolution).
Knoll: Petitioner, please keep Mr. Kimbell and Mr. Pritz informed all along the way.
Wilson: We will.
Ripma: Recommend forwarding with a positive recommendation to the Plan Commission Docket
No. 04100034 PP and Docket No. 04100035 SW with the addition of no more than three
(3) pole lights at the entry, landscape commitment of$5,000 per lot, and wood fencing
on the western end.
Westermeier: Second.
.
Dutcher:
Dobosiewicz:
Dutcher:
Dobosiewicz:
Molitor:
Dobosiewicz:
Wilson:
Knoll:
Wilson:
Pritz:
Dobosiewicz:
Dutcher:
Motion carried; four (4) in favor zero (0) opposed.
...END...
Counsel:
John Molitor
. utes \SubdivisionCommittee \2 00 5\subdiv2 00 5 j an04
6
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417