HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 11-01-07,N10 q
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 2007
Docke rNo 070300353)P Pro 1V aR aiie Holiday -=Inn
The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full - service hotel. ADLS is under another
docket no. below. The site is located at 136"' Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business
within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of DeBoy Land Development
Services, Inc. for Justus Home Builders, Inc.
11. Docket,N07070009ADLS:- Holiday Inn-at'Pro Med Ln
The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full- service hotel.
The site is located at 136`" Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US
31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke & Wheeler for Midwest
Hospitality Group, Inc.
The applicant seeks approval for the development plan of this site for a 4 -story full- service hotel with a
restaurant and conference space, within. The applicant also seeks architecture /design approval. The
building elevations and an ADLS application have been submitted for Plan Commission review /approval
under a separate docket number. The site is 2.65 acres. The lot cover percentage is 65 %, with pavement
and building footprint included; this meets the ordinance requirement. There will be some pervious
pavement and brick pavers to help with water detention and infiltration. Underground parking is also
proposed in order to meet the parking requirement for a hotel, conference meeting space, and restaurant.
Regarding 40 -ft building setback (BSL): Under the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone Zoning Ordinance, building
setback lines are established for certain streets within the zone. Smokey Row Road is not mentioned in
the Ordinance. In 2005, when a developer was proposing a PUD for the development of the site, they
discussed the development standards with DOCS Staff at the time, and it was agreed that a 40 foot
building setback line was appropriate. This would allow the buildings to be brought closer to the street to
improve visibility from U.S. 31. The development plan approved by the Plan Commission in 2005 and
again in 2007 provided for a 40 foot BSL. Accordingly, the plat approved by the Plan Commission and
the Board of Public Works shows this standard.
Please see the petitioner's information packet for full details.
The following are the Department's comments /concerns:
1. Engineering Dept comments: The Department will not support approval by the committee until a
traffic study is prepared and evaluated and all outstanding DOE issues are resolved.
2. Urban Forestry Dept: Scott Brewer, City Forester, has reviewed the updated landscape and tree
preservation plans; there is a conflict with certain preserved trees and the location of sewer
structures and some other minor changes needed.
3. The creation of the proposed retaining wall location may negatively affect the existing tree roots.
4. Please show the structure /column locations of underground parking area on the site plan.
5. Possibly reduce the parking lot aisle widths to 23 -ft, which is the minimum width that the parking
ordinance requires.
6. Building materials on the building elevation must be labeled clearly. (EIFS is allowed as a
building material, but not as a major building material; see Zoning Ordinance chapter 23B.09.C.)
7. Please provide the trash dumpster enclosure elevations /materials /colors.
8. Please show the mechanical equipment locations and whether it is screened with a parapet wall,
landscaping, etc.
CARMEL 0000916
9. A variance request from BZA for sign facing east, not toward a public road, will be required.
10. Regarding the internally illuminated wall signs — it is recommended the signs show green during
the day and shine white at night (day /nite plex).
August 21 Plan Commission meeting comments:
1. Request for site plan overlay on an aerial photo, also showing the Justus Office building site plan.
2. Issue of incomplete submittals — if they do not have everything for the deadline for the next
meeting, the petitioner will table themselves.
3. Staff can possibly send out drafts of the committee agendas.
4. The petitioner states that there will be 4 -5 people per shift, or 7 people in the largest shift.
5. A commissioner rhetorically asked: is this the highest and best use of this land? No.
6. The attorney for the project stated that the sign will be white at night and green by day, and that
the sign will move to the north facade. He also stated that the restaurant will only be for hotel
guests; a voucher will be handed out.
Neighbor concerns voiced at the August 21 Plan Commission meeting:
a. Environmental impacts of the cumulative impacts.
b. Sustainable development/LEED should be incorporated.
c. The hotel land use vs. original medical land uses proposed with the initial rezone.
d. Noise
e. Drainage
f. Sociological factors
g. Access to site
h. School traffic
i. Number of parking spaces
j. Lot cover percentage
k. Tree preservation
1. Signage
m. Smells
The Department of Community Services recommends the committee briefly discuss and
then continue this item to the November 29 committee meeting for further review and to
allow the petitioner time to address all issues /concerns.
CARMEL 0000917