HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings 4-15-08IN RE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN,
EXTERIOR LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND
SIGNAGE APPROVAL
of
MIDWEST HOSPITALITY GROUP,
Applicant
IN THE CARMEL PLAN CO
Docket Nos. 07030035 DP
and 07070009 ADLS
April 15, 2008
DECISION
Upon application and after a public hearing pursuant to the Advisory Planning Law of the
State of Indiana and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the Commission hereby denies,
by a 9 -0 vote, the application for DP /ADLS approval filed by the Applicant.
Members voting to deny: Leo Dierckman, Jay Dorman, Kevin Rider, Rick Ripma, Carol
Schleif, Steve Stromquist, Sue Westermeier
Member voting to approve: None.
Members absent and not voting: Dan Dutcher, Wayne Haney, Kevin Heber, Madeleine Torres.
FINDINGS
In accordance with the Carmel Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance the Commission
hereby determines that the Applicant's Development Plan and ADLS Proposal (the "Proposal
should be disapproved pursuant to the following provisions of the Ordinance:
§23B.02.A.2.a: The Proposal is not compatible with existing site features including
topography and wooded areas, in that the Proposal necessitates excessive utilization of retaining
walls and calls for the destruction of virtually all of a mature woodland.
§23B.02.A.2.c: The Proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses, which
uses have been developed without modifying the topography and woodlands so drastically.
§23B.02.A.2.h: The Proposal does not provide for adequate vehicle and bicycle parking
facilities and internal site circulation, in that the proposed bicycle path is only five feet wide, and
the parking facilities would accommodate only 155 vehicles when the Ordinance requires 169 to
be accommodated.
§23B.02.A.2.n: The Proposal is not compatible with existing platted residential uses, in
that the building setbacks with accompanying landscape plans are not sufficient to safeguard the
privacy and quiet enjoyment of the neighboring residents.
§23B.08: The Proposal does not orient the new building with its longest axis parallel to
the adjoining street as required to create a sense of enclosure along the street, nor does the
Proposal locate all parking to the rear or the side of the building as necessary to accomplish this
purpose.
§23B.09.B: The Proposal does not use only permitted materials for the building exteriors,
in that an uncertain percentage of EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finishing System) is utilized as an
exterior finish.
§23B.09.E(2): The Applicant's presentation of the Proposal did not include all required
architectural exhibits, in that no perspective color renderings showing the proposed building
from locations along U.S. 31 were provided to the Commission, and the building elevations that
2
were provided did not show how the parking structure would be ventilated nor how openings to
the parking structure would fit in with the rest of the building.
§23B.10.02.C(1): The Proposal does not show a planting area equal to an area measuring
25 feet in depth by the width of the front of the building plus 20 feet out on both sides along the
building facade that faces U.S. 31, nor does it include as an alternative an innovative and original
design for the planting area as encouraged by §23B.10.C(5).
§23B.10.04: The Proposal does not make a reasonable effort to protect and incorporate
the existing stands of trees into the overall site design, in that fewer than 70% of all trees that are
nine -inch DBH or larger and located within the perimeter buffering were preserved.
§23B.16: The Proposal does not include a roof on the accessory structure for refuse
storage.
§24.02.B.3.a: The Applicant's presentation of the Proposal did not include a traffic study
that provided a meaningful comparative analysis of present volumes on streets bordering the
development, in that the traffic data that were provided were flawed due to the times of day
studied (ignoring traffic generated by Carmel High School students at school start/close times) or
dates of study (data having been compiled during Carmel High School vacation periods).
Filed in the Office of the Carmel Plan Commission this 30 day of May, 2008.
3
Leo Dierckman
President
ATTEST:
R ona Hancock
Secretary