Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 12-18-01 ;10 ~ CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT December 18, 2001 2h. Docket No. 127-01 Z; U.S. Highway 31 & 146th Street PUD (Rezone) Petitioner seeks favorable recommendation of a rezone from the B-3 (Business) and R-l (Residence) districts to a PUD/planned unit development district on 56.79 acres. The site is located at the southwest comer of US Highway 31 and East 146th Street. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for the Lauth Property Group. The applicant is proposing a retail and multi-restaurant development on the southwest comer of 146th Street and u.S. Highway 31. Please refer to the informational packet provided by the applicant for greater detail. Points to note: 1. The plan incorporates the extension of Range Line Road from U.S. 31 to 146th Street. The Department has engaged John Myers to review the Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the Developer. The Department has concern regarding the existing configuration of south (east) leg of Range Line Road at the intersection of U.S. 31 in that it has not been identified for improvement by the study. m addition, the ability to provide a connection, off of Rangeline Road to the existing use as well future access to Circle Drive upon~ potential improvement to U.S. 31 to limited access mterstate, is a concern that should be addressed by the Traffic Study and the applicant. 2. The PUD would require future Development Plan approval by the Commission. The ordinance limits the development of a single tenant of over 80,000 square feet to the east side of Range Line Road. Yes, the large building at the northeast comer of the development looks a lot like a large chain home improvement center. 3. The PUD would require future ADLS approval by the Commission. Photos have been provided to illustrate the style of the proposed development. It is important to note that the language in the PUD ordinance is crafted to provide each tenant a unique design and graphic image and style rather than conformance with a single design and graphic image and style across the center. 5. The plan provides for an extensive buffer between the residential area to the south and west and the proposed retail uses. This buffer exceeds the scale of buffer provided for Y any other approved uses along the U.S. 31 corridor. It provides a fifty-foot tree preservation area with the inclusion of a 8-foot fence (see plans). There are a few changes the~artment would like to see in the ordinance in the interior plantings within parking lots (Section 7.2.D or the proposed PUD ordinance). The ordinance calls for 5 percent of the total surface parking area and it is our belief that the percentage should be 10 percent. This is more reflective of the plan as proposed and ., '. would provide for breaking up the large areas of asphalt parking. We would also like to see a minimum area established for parking lot islands and require they be planted with shade trees as opposed to the option of ornamentals. The plan should incorporate plantings along the perimeter of the parking areas as a means of screening the parking areas from adjacent roadways. This could be achieved by the use of shrubs and/or mounding a height of 2-3 feet. The intent would not be to screen the buildings. Adding a section to 7.2 of the ordinance would cover this concern. In addition, there will be a complete loss of forest area in the central and eastern portion portions ofthe site with the exception of the 50-foot buffer along the west and south property line. The Department has requested a reforestation plan. The applicant has not responded to this request. The Department will not recommend that this ordinance be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation without this issue being resolved to the satisfaction of the Department and Plan Commission. 6. It would be appropriate for this ordinance to address signage in a more comprehensive manner. Number of signs expected, would each freestanding tenant be permitted their own ground sign along U.S. 31 and Range Line Road? The Department is not in favor of leaving these questions unanswered by the PUD Ordinance. Ground si~s should be limited to entrance areas, with one additional sign permitted along 146t Street advertising the center. This item needs additional attention. The Department is in favor of the proposed uses and preliminary design. The items mentioned above should be resolved at the committee level prior to forwarding the proposed ordinance to the City Council for consideration. The Department recommends that this item be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee on January 8th for further discussion.