Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 02-05-02 , ~ CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT REPORT February 5, 2002 3. 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 prior to the December 18th Plan Commission meeting for greater detail. In addition the applicant has sent a letter dated January 24th to all of the committee members addressing many Issues. The public and Plan Commission Members raised the following issues: 1. Desire to see detail of what the building are gong to look like. 2. Desire to see market study of the area justifying the need for additional business zoned property in the jurisdiction. Discussion included the City Center and the possible negative impact this rezone would have on the ability to attract retailers to the City Center. 3. Concern regarding the buffering along 146th Street. Additional points to note (primarily a reprint form the December 18th Department Report): 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. In addition, the ability to provide a connection, offofRangeline Road to the existing use as well future access to Circle Drive upon the potential improvement to U.S. 31 to limited access Interstate, is a concern that should be addressed by the Traffic Study and the applicant. The Department will not support the request for this zoning change with adequate improvement to address this area. 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. If the Commission feels more comfortable with the approval of a Development Plan at this time the Committee Report 2002-2-5.rtf Department would support that position. The applicant can always return to the Plan Commission in the future to request an amendment to the approved Development Plan. 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 ~ nnique c1e~ien ~nc1 er~phic im~~ anc1 ~tyle rather than conformance with a single design and graphic image and style across the center. It was noted at the Plan Commission meeting that the Committee wanted to see more details. The Department will advise the Committee of the necessary changes to the PUD ordinance if changes are requested. The language in the proposed ordinance provides for very liberal design within the center. If adopted in its current form the Plan Commission may be restricted in the future as to the modifications it could request for individual tenants. 4. 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 the any other approved uses along the U.S. 31 corridor. It provides a fifty-foot tree preservation area with the inclusion ofa 8-foot fence (see plans). The applicant has provided the changes requested by the Department with regard to interior plantings. The Department has requested a reforestation plan. The applicant is in the process of producing said plan. It should be noted that 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. 5. The applicant has provided additional information with respect to signage. It would still be appropriate for this ordinance to address signage in a more comprehensive manner as opposed to amending what would be permitted by the current ordinance. The Department would like to see the PUD regulate the entire sign package for the site, not just particular signs. The Department is also not in favor of allowing a single tenant to occupy any portion or all of the proposed ground signs. We would like to see limitations on the permitted square footage per tenant and a reserved area to identify 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 continued to the March 5t\ 2002 Subdivision Committee, as requested by the applicant for further discussion and review. Committee Report 2002-2-5.rtf