HomeMy WebLinkAbout Review CommentsE
Keesling, Rachel M
From:
Keesling, Rachel M
Sent:
Monday, January 30, 2017 4:21 PM
To:
Brett Huff; 'Ravi Patel'
Cc:
Conn, Angelina V, Mindham, Daren; Jordan, Alex; Littlejohn, David W; Pietrzak, Ross
Subject:
Docket No. 16120023 ADLS: Hyatt Place - Review Comments
Hi Brett,
The Planning/Zoning Department's preliminary review comments are listed below for the Hyatt Place Hotel. I apologize
for the delay in sending these. Please address each item via letter as soon as you are able. If you would like to meet to
go over these, please let me know.
Thanks,
Rachel
General:
1. Please provide paper and digital copies of any revised documents.
2. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you.
3. Please verify that this site is within the "North Illinois Street Expansion" TIF District.
4. Please list what 'green' or sustainable site or building design aspects will implemented, similar to the LEER
checklist from the US Green Building Council. (This is not a requirement, but the Commission looks favorably
upon this.)
5. Please revise the architectural renderings — the south and north elevations are mislabeled.
Submitted Variances:
6. Use Variance —The Department is supportive of this request.
7. Cultural & Entertainment use —The Department is supportive of this request.
8. 2 Signs —The Department is supportive of this request.
EIFS percentage — As currently proposed, the Department is not in support of this request. However, we do
believe there are changes that can be made in order to eliminate the need for this request.
New Variances Needed:
10. Right of way dedication needed — 90' required, 50' proposed, see #13 below
11. No parking allowed between US 31 and the build -to line, see #14 below
12. Lighting limits at the property line, a maximum of 0.3 footcandles is allowed. See #29 below.
Site Plan, Parking, Engineering:
13. Ch. 2.09 — Compliance with the Transportation Plan, 90' street right-of-way required, only 50' proposed. A
variance is needed. (Please note this comment was on the original DP review comments and you replied that
you would apply for that variance.)
14. 23B.12.A. — No parking is allowed between the US 31 right of way and the build to line of the building. Roughly 7
spaces are shown in this area. A variance is needed. (Please note this comment was also on the original DP
review comments and you replied that you would apply for that variance.)
15. Ch. 2313.16.01— Dumpster enclosure — Enclosure material needs to be architecturally compatible with the
building and be fully enclosed on all sides (including a roof). Please provide elevations showing all sides of the
proposed dumpster enclosure.
16. Please continue to work with Alex Jordan in the Engineering Dept. regarding his construction drawing comments
and concerns.
F
Active Transportation:
17. Will the proposed sidewalk along the frontage road terminate at the street? Orjust in the middle of the block?
Please continue this to terminate at the street.
18. Do you know the Ritz Charles' timeline for connecting to the two proposed sidewalks that the hotel will provide
leading to their property?
19. Please also see David Littlejohn's comments sent on 1/13/17.
Architectural Design:
20. 23B.08.03.B.(2) — Building height — 150' maximum or 40% is 153', 149'3.75" proposed — OK.
21. 23B.09.A. — Other hotels in the corridor have consistent building materials across the facade. Please remove the
EIFS material proposed under the windows and as vertical architectural accents and replace with brick to keep a
continuous material across the facade.
22. 23B.09.B. — A minimum of three materials are required for the exterior of the building. Only two materials are
proposed — brick and EIFS.
a. While you do have two different colors of brick, it still counts as one material.
b. Cast stone is used, however, it is only as an accent material. More stone should be incorporated to meet
this requirement.
c. The Reflective EIFS proposed is still EIFS, and is limited to 10% of the facade and should be used only as a
"trim detail." As proposed, the reflective EIFS takes up about 34%of the width of the facade. If this was
the only EIFS material you had, it still isn't applied as a "trim detail." Please choose another material for
this part of the facade.
d. The tan EIFS that is shown primarily under windows is also not used as a "trim detail." This placement
under the windows causes concern for the Dept. both in the design of the building and the future
maintenance with potential water leakage/damage from the windows.
i. Please remove the EIFS from under all windows and as vertical architectural accents on the east,
west and south facades.
ii. Please replace this EIFS with brick of the same color as the areas around it and continue all stone
banding across thefa4ade.
iii. In the areas where it is used as a vertical accent, this could be the same shape and size of the
window bricked in. A bricked in window look would keep the symmetry and flow of the windows
across the building.
23. In the darker brick areas of the building, are there additional accent lines (either recessed or projected bricks)
shown within the brick? Or did it just print out odd?
24. If there are not accent lines in the dark brick, can something be added to provide detail? Such as recessed or
projected rows of bricks —especially on the east and west elevations.
25. Please provide for window sills and headers on all windows the same as is proposed on the first floor.
26. We would like to see more of a base, middle and top created for the hotel. Is it possible to do some simple
banding of bricks either recessed or projected along the cornice line to create additional detailing?
27. 238.09.D. — What do the sides and rear of the large angular accent piece (with metallic EIFS) look like? The east
elevation seems clear, however the west and south elevations are not shown on the renderings.
28. 23B.09.E.(2) — A perspective computer enhanced color rendering is required to show how the building will look
from both north and southbound US 31 as well as from across the street on the first floor level. Please provide.
Lighting:
29. 23B.13.F. —The photometrics plan appears to exceed the 0.3 footcandle maximum at all property lines. Please
revise the fixtures chosen, add shields, or relocate poles to meet this requirement. Otherwise, a variance will be
required.
30. Is the plan to install new lights on the Ritz's property where your new entrance will be? Will new lights be
installed in the new right-of-way (frontage road)?
Landscaping:
31. Please see Daren Mindham's review comments sent on 1/12/17.
Si na e:
32. The proposed sign for the south elevation — can it be moved to the right (east) a little to be centered between
the first three sets of windows?
33. Please call out the spandrel panel area of proposed wall signs on the elevations. This draws a box around where
the sign will be placed, as defined by nearby architectural elements.
Rachel Keesling
Planning Administrator
City of Carmel, Indiana
1 Civic Square
3rd Floor— DOCS
Carmel, IN 46032
317-571-2417
rkeesling@carmel.in.gov