Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 8-3-04CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT REPORT August 3, 2004 e Docket No. 04050028 DP/ADLS: Walnut Creek Marketplace The applicant proposes a retail center. The site is located northeast of 99th Street and Michigan Rd/US 421. The site is zoned B-3/Business and B-2/Business within the US Highway 421 Overlay. ,~ ~ Filed by Mary Solaria ofBingham McHale for Duke Realty. ~ \~c ?1~. ~ Residents from the area expressed several concerns at the meeting on July 20th. A copy of the letter from Ashbrooke was sent out with the meeting agenda. Additional copies will be available at the committee meeting. It is my understanding that a letter from the Spring Arbor neighborhood will be delivered to the Department prior to the meeting. Copies of this letter will be made available at the meeting as well. Commission concerns centered on traffic and access to the site as well as future traffic flow in the area. There were specific comments related to the desire not to see additional traffic signals along US 421 and a signal at the 96th Street/North Augusta intersection (upon the extension of Commerce Drive). In addition the Commission requested the petitioner work with residents to address concerns. Very little of the site specifics (building elevations and signage) were addressed. The Department will have our traffic consultant at the meeting to address questions from the committee and discuss background growth in terms of traffic. The applicant has yet to adequately address several of our initial concerns as identified in this and the previous report. Please refer to the background section for a list of these concerns. The applicant should also modify their plans in response to comments form the Hamilton County Highway Department letter dated July 14th. The Department anticipated that the applicant would address our concerns as part of their presentation to the Commission on July 20th. Due to the length of the meeting they may have thought it was best to come to the committee meeting prepared to addressed them at length. If the applicant is not prepared to address these items on August 3~a the Department will ask the Committee to table the petition until the next Committee meeting date. If the applicant shows progress in addredsing Department concerns it may be appropriate for the Committee to set a special meeting date to review the proposal due to its many complexities and overall magnitude. This was done for the Clay Terrace project, which was of a similar overall size. A special meeting would be of considerable assistance to the applicant in that it may allow rd them to present revisions based on the comments received on August 3 prior to the next regular committee meeting saving them one or two additional months in committee. Committee Report 2004-0803 The Department recommends that the Subdivision Committee forward this item back to the full Plan Commission after all comments and concerns are addressed. Background: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Plan for the construction of a retail center along US 421. Please see the informational packet prepared by the applicant for an overview of the site. The applicant has submitted an additional information packet at the request of' the department. The packet is enclosed with the Department Report. The development plan and ADLS for the site includes three Multi'Tenant Buildings of compatible design and two outlots and one larger area for future development. The outlots and future development area will require DP/ADLS approval at the time those plans are complete. Eight variance applications have been filed with this proposal for review. While the variances will require action by the BZA the Plan Commission should become familiar with the nature of the requests as they relate to compliance with the US 421 overlay Requirements. The Department has meet with the applicant on several occasions to address concerns with the proposal. Our Primary areas of concern relate, access to the site, signage, and overall building design. The following items are those that require additional discussion by the Commission: ADLS Primary Building Elevations: 1. Please illustrate that the roof top A/C units will be sufficiently screened from view from adjoining properties. This may require section drawings illustrating the Ashbrooke and Spring Arbor neighborhoods. The Department recommends increasing the height of the fagade wall to the height of the roof top mounted equipment at a minimum. 2. Maintain consistent architectural design details. Symmetry and regulating lines should be followed in the design. 3. Provide additional architectural relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or vision windows, columns, etc.) 4. The truck dock area is something that was recently detailed by the applicant. The Department requests further detail regarding this area and will support nothing less than full screening of the truck docks, as they are adjacent to Commerce Drive and the residentially zoned area to the east. 'B' Shops Building Elevations' 5. Provide additional architecmlal relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or vision windows, columns, etc.) 6. Building projections of 8' are required. While a variance application is anticipated please provide greater relief. This could be accomplished by bumping out the three- center tenant bays 4'+/-. 7. Please paint service doors to match color of area on building. 8. Please vary color of offset brick; change color when the wall plane is recessed vs. Committee Report 2004-0803 protruding. All Buildings: 9. The Ordinance requires that the front and sides of buildings on comer lots be similarly detailed. While DOCS will support less detailing on the rear (east) of the buildings as now proposed more attention needs to be paid to the north and south elevations. Do not confuse detailing with placement of track docks. If track docks are placed along Commerce Drive they should be treated in an appropriate manner due too the fact that they are fronting a public street. 10. The Ordinance requires that buildings with multiple storefronts be of a unified design, through the use of among other things common architectural details, signage and lighting consistent with the overall building style. Please focus on this with the Commission. Wall Signs: 11. White face lit signs with bronze returns will be supported. 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 buildings at the comer of 131st Street and Hazel Dell Parkway provide an example of the preferred method of signage for multi-tenant buildings. 12. 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. 13. Wall sign size for the "B" Shops building is permitted at 35 square feet. It is our understanding that the application and elevations have been revised accordingly. 14. 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 provide elevations for comparison purposes that illustrate signage of this size. Variance approval will be required for larger signs. DOCS will look for uniformity in design (see comment number 11) when considering support for relief to allow larger sings on the primary building. The 245 square feet proposed is more than twice what is permitted and approximately 100 square feet larger than the largest size sign permitted under the ordinance. On the record, DOCS will not support signage of the proposed size for a multi-tenant building. 15. 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. The Plan Commission will address uniformity of design. c. Prohibit wall signs facing Commerce Drive and residential area to east. Ground Sign "A" 16. The Department is not opposed to three ground signs for this significant a development. However, three signs of this type (area and height) will not be supported. Please provide an illustration with same materials and the following . Committee Report 2004-0803 17. 18. speCifications for discussion: a. Two-foot wide +/- columns on either side. b. One row of sign panels, each two-foot tall and 4' wide, four panels tall. c. Same cornice and frieze design. d. Overall dimensions 8' wide, not to exceed 12' tall. e. DOCS would strongly prefer not to see duplication on signs along US 421 and also not prefer one tenant occupying more than the area of one sign panel. The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream colored). Please use single color copy to compliment the sign design. The Department will not support the proposed sign height along Commerce Drive. The applicant should meet the requirements of the ordinance. Ground Sign 'B': 19. A variance will be needed to allow fewer than all tenants to be identified on these signs. DOCS will support this request. 20. The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream colored) with single color copy only, similar to ground sign "A". Lighting: 21. 22. 23. The maximum height of parking lot fixtures is 24'. This is including any base structure. Please revise application information. The Department will not support a request for relief. Provide cut sheets for all building mounted lighting fixtures (architecmra! and security- 90 degree cut-off required). The Department is not in support of the fixtures as proposed. The applicant should provide house side shields for all fixtures along the Commerce Drive side of the property. This will aid in reducing the impact on the residential area to the east. Landscaping: 24. It is recognized that you will request relief for the 5' building base landscaping requirement along the east side of the primary building. This will be supported due to the additional evergreen plantings along the Commerce Drive frontage. 25. Red Baron Crabapples and Royal Star Magnolias are not shade trees. Shade trees are required within interior parking lot islands. Please revise plans. Variance relief Will not be sUpported. 26. DOCS recommends addressing landscaping along south property line of development with this application as opposed to leaving discussion for future development phase. 27. Landscape Buffer plantings need to be addressed between your proposed storm water detention areas and adjacent properties residential properties. A "D" buffer is required. ' 28. Please see additional public comments. Access & Traffic Study: 29. The traffic study is not intended, nor will DOCS allow it to be used, to suggest that there is an engineering need for the proposed traffic signal. The traffic study only concludes that if access were permitted to the site at the proposed location it would Committee Report 2004-0803 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 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. As required by ordinance access to this property is allowed from Retail Parkway and Commerce Drive. Therefore, is incumbent on the applicant to illustrate how access from these locations is insufficient to serve the site. The traffic study only draws such conclusions based on the existing alignment of the Retail Parkway/US 421 intersection. Improvements to the configuration of this intersection should be explored to fin'ther understand the necessity to seek a variance to allow additional direct access to US 421. The traffic study suggests that 25% of the traffic accessing the proposed development and adjacent retail to the north would use a Commerce Drive Extension from 96tn Street. The construction of Commerce Drive and its extension south to 96t~ Street is a critical component of the Thoroughfare Plan. The Department has in the past and continues to encourage Hamilton County to expedite the construction of this road segment, as it will improve traffic flow in the area. The applicant supports the construction of Commerce Drive. With access being provided too the Speedway site and a primary/secondary plat required we will request the closing of one of the cuts to this site along with the modification of the other to a right-in/right-out. Access is ft~her controlled by the center median extending south form the signal at Retail Parkway and US 421. The Department has not received revised drawings illustrating a site design that excludes the Speedway property as was indicated at the public hearing. The Department may support access to the subject property via right-in/fight-out access onto US 421. These need to be designed with medians to encourage proper use.. We do have concern that extending a median may not be practical due to access on the west side of US 421 but would ensure proper use of the fight-in / fight-out access. Input from the State Highway Department regarding the suitability of access to the property in relation to the Ordinance still needs to be obtained. General Comments: Overall the proposed development lacks innovative site design as directed by Ordinance. This proposal may be viewed as similar to the same unimaginative power centers we see 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. With that said DOCS looks forward to working with Duke in refining this proposal (in ways noted above) to meet the letter of the ordinance and intent where variances will be Supported. Committee Report 2004-0803