HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 9-9-04CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
September 9, 2004
lm
Docket No. 04050028 DP/ADLS' Walnut Creek Marketplace
Development Plan and ADLS
The applicant proposes a retail center. The site is located northeast of 99th Street and
Michigan Rd~S 421. The site is zoned B-3/Business and B-2/Business within the US
Highway 421 Overlay. 'i
Filed by Mary Solada of Bingham McHale for Duke Realty.
It appears that the applicant has reached agreements with most of the neighborhood concerns
with the exception of providing a 6' mound along the south property line and fencing the
proposed ponds. The Department is not in support of fencing the ponds. The applicant needs to
provide a copy of any agreements with surrounding neighbors in the form of a commitment for
review by the Committee.
Commission concerns still center on traffic and access to the site as well as future traffic flow in
the area. There remain specific comments related to the desire not to see additional traffic
signals along US 421. The applicant has address several of the DOCS concerns as identified in
this and the previous reports regarding the proposed access. It appears (based on our review
assisted by John Myers) that the proposed signal and access will not diminish the levels of
service along US 421 at either Retail Parkway, 96th or 106th Streets. However, based on our
analysis the existing Retail Parkway signal (with improvements as recommended by the
Hamilton County Highway Department) will adequately serve this development as well. The
question for the Committee, Commission and ultimately the Board of Zoning Appeals to answer
is not whether the lack of a signal makes it difficult for Duke to attract tenants to the site based
on tenant preferences. The question for the Commission and BZA to answer centers on
approving the alternative that promotes the steady flow of traffic after considering all of the
evidence and the specific ordinance requirement as follows'
23C.13 Aeee~ to Individual Tracts.
The purpose of this Section is to make the closing of all curb cuts along U.S. Highway 421
possible by establishing a common access road to the rear parking lots of all tracts within the
Overlay Zone. Frontage roads and common entrances shared by several businesses and
developments shall be encouraged and may be required at the discretion of the Commission. In
those cases .where tracts can be accessed via connection to an arterial, collector, or adjoining
parking lot, curb cuts shall not be established on U.S. Highway 421. The Commission shall
encourage maximum distances between curb cuts to U.S. Highway 421 in cooperation with the
Indiana Department of Transportation. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation to and through the site
shall be coordinated with vehicular access, Greenbelt design, and parking.
All this is complicated by the notion that the proposed signal location (at 99th Street) provides
greater connectivity to the surrounding roadway network than Retail Parkway. One solution may
be to allow the proposed access and potential signal subject to the removal of the signal at Retail
Parkway. This would likely involve extending the existing raised median past that intersection.
Committee Report 2004-0909
Ultimately this is an item for the Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals to decide. The
applicant needs variance approval to allow any access from this site directly to US 421. The
Department has made it clear that we will offer no support for the proposed access without a
guarantee for the construction of Commerce Drive down to 96th Street.
Up to the last meeting very little of the site specifics (building elevations and signage) were
addressed. Please see the enclosed letter from an area resident regarding the architecture of the
proposed buildings. The Department will update the Board on further discussions we will be
having with the applicant on the topic of building design. The Department has had an opportunity
to fully review the applicants revised information and still have concerns regarding the
following:
All Building Elevations'
1. Maintain consistent architectural design details. Synunetry and regulating lines
should be followed in the design. The Ordinance requires that buildings with
multiple storefronts be of a un/fled design, through the use of among other things
common architectural details, signage and lighting consistent with the overall
building style. It is our understanding that changes are being made to address
additional concerns.
2. Provide cream color window mullions and symmetry in storefront area.
3. A commitment should be made for all future buildings within the development to
follow the established architectural theme.
Wall Signs:
4. White face-lit signs with dark bronze returns will be supported for all buildings.
DOCS will request the Plan Commission'restrict the signs in this manner. The
Department has received negative comments regarding the unrestricted variety of
colors across other multi-tenant building in the US 421 Corridor. The comments
center on the idea that the signs detract form the architectural design of the buildings.
The Commission under'could allow alternate colors Under the ADLS Amendment
process on a case-by-case basis as an alternative for the bigger building. This should
be addressed in a commitment/
5. Please provide signage details (cut sheet illustrating mounting style, letter type,
lighting style, etc.) Individual face lit channel letters mounted directly to the building
is acceptable.
6. Wall sign size for the "B" Shops building should be restricted to 35 square feet in
area. This should be addressed in the commitment.
7. Wall sign size for the primary building is permitted at 115 square feet if frontage is
provided to US 421 and each tenant has between 151-300 feet of frontage. Please
note that the building has no frofitage on US 421. Variance approval will be required.
8. Assuming that Duke will desire to seek variance approval for signage the Department
will ask the BZA to consider the following general conditions be added to any signage
variance approval:
a. Prohibit window signage.
b. Allow Plan Commission to hear requests to vary color on signs less than 170
square feet in area but require all signs between 170 and 225 square feet in area to
be adhere to white face with dark bronze return.
c. Prohibit wall signs facing Commerce Drive, Retail parkway and 99th Street.
Committee Report 2004-0909
Ground Sign 'A':
9. The Department is not opposed to a sign of this general design. We have added
suggestions which will gain our support:
a. Reduce the overall width of the sign by 3'. The sign is to close to being a square
that will not be as attractive as a narrower look. We would like to see something
more to the same proportions as the proposed sign "C".
b. The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored). Please use single color copy (dark bronze) to compliment the sign
design.
c. All sign dimensions and style, illumination, etc. need to be clearly called out in
the commitments.
Ground Sign 'B"
10. The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored) with single color copy only (dark bronze), text (not the sign cabinet) would
be illuminated at night. This should be made clear on the revised sign renderings.
Ground Sign 'C"
11. The Department is in support of this sign provide it meets the suggested criteria.
Landscaping:
12. Landscaping along property lines (as discussed with neighbors) needs to be addressed
in a Commitment as well as the formal submittal of a revised Landscape Plan.
Access'
1:3.
14.
15.
16.
There is not an engineering need for the proposed traffic signal. The traffic related
documentation indicates that if access were permitted to the site at the proposed
location it would warrant a signal and that the signal installation would not diminish
the level of service of the adjacent signalized intersections. This is a policy neutral
conclusion. If the Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals denied the request for
access at the proposed location there would be no need for a signal. Please refer to
Section 23C. 13 form ordinance (provided earlier).
The Department requests a non-access easement along the west side of the frontage
drive adjacent to the Speedway and the other building due to their lack of
participation in the overall project.
The Department may support access to the subject property via a right-in/fight-out
access onto US 421 (at the proposed location, not across from 99th Street). It would
need to be designed with median to encourage proper use.
Input fi'om the State Highway Department regarding the suitability of access to the
property in relation to the Ordinance still needs to be obtained. The Department has
scheduled a meeting with INDOT on Tuesday, September 7th and will report to the
Commission at the Thursday meeting.
The overall proposal still lacks innovative site design as directed by Ordinance. This proposal is
similar to the same unimaginative power centers developers place in other communities that do
not have an ordinance in place like the US 421 Overlay. The overlay is designed to promote the
steady flow of traffic and create a special sense of place through the use of a common
architectural and site design theme.
The Department recommends that the Special Studies Committee forward this item back to
the full Plan Commission after all comments and concerns are addressed.
Committee Report 2004-0909