Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 10-01-245 Carmel Plan Commission COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Department Report 2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00099 DP/ADLS: Spring Mill Shops The applicant seeks Development Plan and ADLS approval for three new multi-tenant commercial buildings totaling 14,870 square feet. The site is located at the NW corner of 116th Street and Spring Mill Road, within Jackson’s Grant Village. The buildings have specific addresses of 11675, 11745, and 11785 Village Corner Court. It is zoned PUD, under Jackson’s Grant Village (Z-653-20). Filed by Sean McKinnies of Republic Development. *Updates to the report are in blue. Project Overview: The Petitioner proposes to construct a small neighborhood retail center. This was included as part of the original concept plan for the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD. Surrounding this site to the north and west are the townhome and single-family homes of the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple is located to the south, zoned S-2/Single Family residential and West 116th Street Overlay. Southeast is the Bridges retail development, zoned PUD (Z-550-11). East across Spring Mill Road is vacant land zoned PUD (Z-409-03 Clarian North Hospital Campus). Please see the Petitioner’s Information packet for more details. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards this project MEETS: Section 4: Concept Plan • Area C – buildings pulled up to Spring Mill Road with parking behind (to west) Section 6: Permitted Uses • Mixed uses proposed – office, retail, service, restaurant etc. allowed in Use Table Section 7: Bulk and Density Standards – Neighborhood Commercial Buildings • Min. front yard setback: 5’ required, 24’ provided east, 10’ provided north • Min. Side Yard: 10’ from residential, >50’ provided • Min. rear yard: 10’ required, 32’ proposed (south) Section 8: Architectural Design • Min. bldg. height: 18’ required, 19’4” proposed • Max. bldg. height: 35’ allowed, 25’4” proposed Section 11: Parking and Loading • Parking – 65 spaces proposed, 45 spaces required • Parking not allowed between commercial building and Spring Mill Road – compliant. • Bicycle parking: 24 spaces proposed (4 racks or 8 spaces per building) and 12 spaces required (2 racks or 4 spaces per building) Section 12: Landscaping • 20’ wide greenbelt along Spring Mill Council Commitments: • Max. Front Yard Setback from Spring Mill: 35’ allowed, 24’ requested PUD Standards NOT MET or are unknown, therefore revisions or more information is required: • Section 7: Bulk and Density Standards – Neighborhood Commercial Buildings: Maximum lot coverage: 80% allowed, percentage unknown • Section 9: Signage: Variances likely required for signage to face west to interior parking lot, not Spring Mill Road • Section 10: Lighting – Parking lot light fixtures unknown, max height cannot exceed 18’ or 15’ within 90’ of single family residential Site Plan, Parking and Engineering: • The proposed site plan closely follows the concept plan approved by the PUD. • Three commercial buildings are proposed, none greater than 7,500 sq. ft. as required by Council Commitments with PUD approval. o Building sizes are 4,920 square feet (Bldg. A & C) and 5,030 square feet (Bldg. B). o Total of 14,870 square feet, which is less than the 20,000 square feet allowed by the PUD. • 65 parking spaces are provided behind (to the west and south of) the commercial buildings. • A minimum of three spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of interior commercial space is required. 45 spaces required • Due to the utility locations both running parallel along Spring Mill Road and in between buildings, the Petitioner is proposing removeable patio/pergola spaces for outdoor dining o Eight potential locations are called out on the site plan 6 o Half are on the east side of the buildings, and half are in between or on the west side of the buildings. • The site plan will need to be expanded to include the JG Village Section 2 townhome plans, so that proper pedestrian connections can be identified and aligned with proposed site improvements. • The Engineering Dept. did not receive sufficient plans for full review. A full drawing set must be provided for this project to progress through the approval process. Active Transportation: • Two bicycle parking spaces are required for every 5,000 sq. ft. of commercial space with a minimum of four spaces per building required. • Four bicycle racks (eight spaces) have been located adjacent to each building for a total of 12 racks (24 spaces). • Sidewalks are provided around each building, connecting to a main sidewalk adjacent to the entrance drive and parking lot. • A 10’ sidewalk is provided to connect the path from Spring Mill Road between buildings B and C to the middle of the parking lot. Staff would like to see this sidewalk connect to the planned sidewalks in front of the townhomes on the west side of the parking lot. This will provide full pedestrian access to the commercial area for residents. • 4’ wide sidewalks are proposed in some areas, where 5’ is the minimum requirement. Petitioner, please revise. Architectural Design: • There are three different but complimentary building color schemes: o Building A has blue brick, gray walls and white accents on the columns and overhangs. Wood accents are also used over the tenant doors as an awning and as a trellis feature at the top of the columns. o Building B is primarily white brick, with brown and tan fiber cement siding breaking up the center of the building. The entrance is at the southwest corner of the building in a tower format. It will have a black roof and black accents. o Building C uses the same white brick as Building B but has light tan and dark tan fiber cement siding. Accents are in the dark tan color. Wood accents are also used over the tenant doors as an awning and as a trellis feature at the top of the columns. • Each building combines a more traditional pitched roof structure and a modern flat top roof. • This combination was shown in the concept images of the PUD and in the Petitioner’s submittal. However, Staff would like to continue working through the details with the Petitioner. • For example, below in the left image (from conceptual drawings), the blue portion of the building looks like one complete section under the pitched roof (see red dashes). In the center image, the area under the pitched roof has many different parts and design elements. It does not appear to be “connected” to the roof style above it. • Similarly, there are some parts of the building where dormers (on the pitched roof) are located have no connection or relation to the portion of the building below it. (See image above on the right.) Staff would like to see some more continuity. • Section 2.3 of Exhibit F states that “Buildings abutting Spring Mill Road shall have finished facades facing Spring Mill Road.” The facades have matching building materials but lack interest and appear very much like the back of a building. No windows are provided, only a door. See image above on right. • There is also concern with visibility of the rooftop AC units located on the flat roof portions of the building. How tall is the parapet? Please provide a section view. Lighting: • Decorative wall sconces will be provided all around the buildings: o Buildings A & C – the multi-tenant buildings will have about 13 7 o Building B – the proposed restaurant/single tenant building will have about 6 o The light is a goose-neck style, with an 18” diameter shade to shield the light source in black. • Parking lot lighting info has not been provided. Petitioner, please clarify if parking lot lights will be provided. Landscaping: • 19 trees, over 300 shrubs, over 100 grasses, and over 200 perennials will be planted on the site. • A 20’ greenbelt is required and provided along Spring Mill Road. However, this area is filled with utilities – gas, cable, and fiber optics; so, trees and plants have been placed as room is available. • A 15’ wide landscaping island is provided between the two rows of parking. • The PUD’s tree preservation area to the south of this project will not be impacted. • The Urban Forester has reviewed and approved the landscaping plan; however, changes might be necessary due to new bike rack locations adjacent to each building. An update will be provided. Signage: • The Jackson’s Grant Village PUD follows what is allowed by the UDO for signage. o One main identification sign per tenant per public street is allowed by the UDO. o The corner tenant of building A is the only tenant that will be allowed two main identification signs by right – one north, and one east. • Other signs will be allowed such as secondary projecting signs and incidental signs. • Spandrel panel sizes for wall signs have been identified on the building elevations to meet 70% height and 85% width requirements. • The UDO would allow for signage to face the interior parking lot, if the building is within 15’ of the street right- of-way (ROW). o Buildings B and C are 24-28’ away from Spring Mill Road. A variance will be required to allow for signage to face west towards the interior parking lot. o Building A is within 10’ of Village Green Drive and would qualify if the entrances are for the general public to use. If they are not for the public (i.e. employee only), they would not qualify. • Staff is working with the Petitioner on a full signage plan which would identify location, type, size, lighting style, and installation method. • Ground signs identifying Jackson’s Grant Village have already been installed at the vehicular entrances to the development. Recap of August 20, 2024 Plan Commission Public Hearing: • Shawn Curran, Architect, gave an overview of the project layout and building sizes. • The plan is for neighborhood-scaled commercial development, with up to possible 15 tenants. • They are hoping for one restaurant to take the entire center building though. • No members of the public spoke in favor or against the project. • Plan Commission members noted there were still many details to be worked out. o The architecture is attractive, but it falls short of the character imagery provided by the PUD. o Would like each storefront to look more independent and for the gable portions to appear grounded. o The buildings seem to turn their back to Spring Mill Rd., want to see life brough to that side. • Sent to Plan Com. Committee for more review and must come back to full Plan Commission for the final vote. Updates in Packet for October 1, 2024 Committee meeting: • The Petitioner made some adjustments to design of the multi-tenant buildings (A & C). • The most notable change was the length of the pitched roof. • Unfortunately, this change does not address the relationship of the roof and the tenant space below it. • The back of the building now has double doors instead of a single door. • The design of the awnings on all buildings has changed to a thicker/larger scaled wood piece. • Please see before and after images below for multi-tenant buildings A & C. • The middle building (B) did not have any significant changes to the design. • While its design was better than the other buildings, some elements could still be adjusted to create a “built over time” aesthetic. 8 Multi-tenant building West elevation (parking lot side) Before: West elevation After: South elevation Before: South elevation After: East elevation (Spring Mill Road) Before: East elevation After: 9 DOCS Remaining Comments/Concerns: 1. All bolded concerns above remain. 2. Full engineered drawings have not yet been provided. 3. Architectural design of the building form has improved but is not ready for department support. 4. Further design modification is recommended. Recommendation: The Department of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission sends this item to the Thursday, November 7, 2024 Committee meeting for further review and discussion.