HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 03-17-09CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
MARCH l7, 2009
3I. Docket No. 08080020 ADLS: Hotel Indigo
The applicant seeks design approval far a 5-story hotel building. The site is located northeast of
131" St. & US 3l and is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31 Overlay. Filed by Jay Gibson of
CDG Constdting, Inc.
The applicant seeks design approval fora 5-story full service hotel building. The original development plan for
the overall development of 5 buildings was approved last year under docket no. 07040024 DP.
Staff Concerns/Comments:
1. Signage: Signage (sizes and number of) will require BZA variances.
2. Engineering Dept has no isshes with the Commission approving the project, with the condition of final
construction plan approval by the Dept of Engineering.
3. The Foreshy Dept is satisfied with the Landscape Plan, and will also receive a revised tree preservation/
mitigation plan from a secmtd parry (not the petitioner), due to h'ee removal by the second party.
4. Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no outstanding issues with this project.
5. The project is outside the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County Highway Dept.
6. Since across-parking easement will be secured to alleviate the need for a variance, the Dept will need a
copy of the finalized shared parking agreement.
At the January 6, 2009 meeting, the corrunittee voted to send this item to the full plan commission with a
favorable recorruueudation with the following stipulations: The conunittee will review/approve signs after the
BZA variance hearing; no EIFS used; and, final landscape plan approval by Scott, prior to the 1 /20 meeting.
January 20 meeting results: this item was sent back to the conur>ittee level for fiuther review and discussion
about using EIFS as a nvnor building material (While EIFS is not specifically listed as a prohibited exterior
building material in the US 31 Overlay, such as concrete block, it is not listed as permitted.) The project
architect stated that stucco is not as durable in this climate and that the building is only 15'%" EIFS and the rest,
85"/", is stone, brick, glass, etc. A conunissioner suggested the use of a resin or cementitious product.
After the February 3 meetin[t with the subconunittee, the following items are left to be addressed*:
I . EIFS as a building material, different finishes, how it can be reduced or eliminated, alternative materials.
2. Changeable wall art details/materials/lighting, and how it compares with the hotel in Fishers.
3. Changes to the building fapade materials/design.
4. The Comnuttee's favorable recommendation based on not using EIFS.
*The suppleme~ual info packet lists the changes made to the builrlingsince the last rneeting, as well as
information about EIFS as tt building material and how itpe~ forms, compared to other commonly used building
materials. Also, additional informaton about the changeahle wall m~t and its lighting is in the packet and was
rtlso presenter) at the Mm~ch 3 meeting.
March 3 meetinK results: The comnuttee voted 3-1 to send this item to the full Commnission with a favorable
recommendation with the preparation of a Statement of Conunihnents. The Comnnhnents draft is included with
the dept report mailing.
The Dept. of Community Services recommends the Plan Commission vote to approve this item (excluding
Signage) with the condition of submitting a signedh•ecorded copy of the Statement of Commitments.
k?.'~~',~..3
.~