HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 7-20-04CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
July 20, 2004
8h.
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/US 421. The site is zoned B-3/Business and B-2/Business within the US
Highway 421 Overlay.
Filed by Mary Solada of Bingham McHale for Duke Realty.
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:
ADIOS
Primary Building Elevations:
1. Please illustrate that the roof top A/C units will be sufficiently screened fi'om view
from adjoining properties.
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.)
'B' Shops Building Elevations' 4. Provide additional architectural relief to north and south elevations (spandrel and/or
vision windows, columns, etc.)
5. Building projections of 8' are required. While a variance application is anticipated
PCR-2004-0720
o
please provide greater relief. This could be accomplished by bumping out the three-
center tenant bays 4'+/-.
Please paint service doors to match color of area on building.
Please vary color of offset brick; change color when the wall plane is recessed vs.
protruding.
All Buildings:
8. 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.
9. 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'
10. 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 131 st Street and Hazel Dell Parkway provide an example of the preferred
method of signage for multi-tenant buildings.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 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 this size for a multi-
tenant building.
14. 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.
PCR-2004-0720
Ground Sign 'A':
15. 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
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.
16. The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored). Please use single color copy to compliment the sign design.
Ground Sign 'B"
17. A variance will be needed to allow fewer than all tenants to be identified on these
signs. DOCS will support this request.
18. The Department will only support opaque sign panels of the same color (cream
colored) with single color copy only.
Lighting:
19.
20.
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 (architectural and
security- 90 degree cut-off required).
Landscaping:
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. DOCS recommends addressing landscaping along south property line of development
with this application as opposed to leaving discussion for future development phase.
24. Landscape Buffer plantings need to be addressed between your proposed storm water
detention areas and adjacent properties residential properties.
Access & Traffic Study:
25. 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
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.
26. As required by ordinance access to this property is allowed from Retail Parkway and
PCR-2004-0720
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
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 aligmnent of the Retail Parkway/US 421
intersection. Improvements to the configuration of this intersection should be
explored to further 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 96th
Street. The construction of Commerce Drive and its extension south to 96th 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/fight-out. Access is further controlled by the
center median extending south form the signal at Retail Parkway and US 421.
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 / right-out
access.
Input from the State Highway Department regarding the suitability of access to the
property in relation to the Ordinance needs to be obtained.
The Department is in the process of concluding research on the technical merits of the
traffic Study from an outside consultant. Future comments will be delivered to the
Commission and applicant upon further review.
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.
The Department recommends that this item be forwarded to the Special Studies Committee
on August 3rd for further discussion.
PCR-2004-0720