HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 06-05-12 CARMEL PLANICOMMIS.SION IaSPECIALrSTUDIES:COMMITTEE
J.UNE5, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT
8. Docket No. 12030010 DP Amend/ADLS: The Centre; Part B-- Southeast.Corner Retail Building.
The applicant'seeks site-plan & design approvals for a partial'redevelopment of the site The site is located at
1342-1430 S.Range Line Road. It is zoned B-3/Business, within the Carmel Dr. Range Line Rd. Overlay Zone.
Filed by1 Paul Reis of'Krieg Devault; for Kite Realty Co.
.General Info:
The;petitioner seeks site plan and design approval for a new retail building at the southeast corner of the site, right at the
intersectionof Range Line Rd..and 116"' Street. Several BZA Variances are still pending for this overall redevelopment,.
and on June 25,'the BZA Ilearing,Officer will review the following remaining.variance requests, if needed:
Docket No 12020018 V ZO Chptr.23Ff09 Construction Materials (Might be withdrawn)
Docket No /2020019 V ZO Chptr.,23F.10 Architectural.Design.
Docket No 12020020 V ZO Chptr.>23F.11 Landscaping
Docket No. 12020021 V ZO Chptr..d23F, 12 Lighting
Docket No 12020023 V ZO Chptr..23F.15 Parking (Toabe withdrawn, since zoning waiver was granted)
Please view the petitioner's May 1 informational packet for more detail., (Revisions should be handed out at the
June 5'Committee-meeting,..by the:Petitioner:)'
Background Info:
The Special Studies Committee.reviewed/approved Phase.l of this partial redevelopnientat.their March 29 meeting. Phase
l of The Centre's'redevelopment;project Is to rebuild the former Osco and CVS tenant space,to bring in a grocery store
tenant as an anchor store.
At the May.l Committee meeting, this currentpetitionwas split into,2'parts. Part A was for the:Bank.and Retail/Drive-
Thal building, which was forwarded by the,SpecialiStudies Committee back to the Commission with a favorable
recommendation. PartB is for thecornerRetai1 Building, which was continued to•this June 5 committee meeting for
further review/discussion.
On May 15, the Commission approved`Part-A, for the Bank.and;Retail/Drive-Thru.building, as well as the new
development plan for The Centre which includes the demolition and reconstruction of the small retail stores in the multi
tenant building.
Re`capaofscomments from therApril 11cPlan Commission public hearing.meeting,:relevant to this building:
A. Dempster locations,should be'looked at again.
B'. Willthesecond story of the corner retail building;have a separate access?
C. Concern`with traffic flow on the site and around the site (Also need to address delivery truck traffic flow and drive
thru traffic`,flow,too.)
D. Building,design—need to address the issue of largeiareas of solid walls with no windows or detailing.
Staff 7s comments for_the Petitioner:
1. City Engineering,Dep't. Comthents Regarding the overall.Development Plan; we have met with the petitioner and/or
representativesseveral times. We have discussed access;,right-of-way,,drainage,,and storm water quality. The plan
to date:hasibeen consistent with City standards and discussions that have taken place, The Department will support
the locations of the proposed curb cuts/access points. The.Department is,satisfied with the storm water management
system concept that has been presented. The,Department will work;with thepetitioneron formalizing a commitment
to dedicateithe right-of-way potentially:necessary for the future roundabout at the intersection at such time"as a more
definitive plan is+developed, The Department has no issues with this item being approved by the Commission, but
still needs to see the revised=plans for this building:
2. Please submit to-scale architectural building elevations on 24"x36"or similar-'sized.paper.
3. Need more detail about the rooftop mechanical unit screen walls„how they look, and how it fits in with the overall
building architecture.
•
6
4; Per,,ZO chapter 23F.10.02—there should be distinct cornice lines atth e tops of the walls. (Some of the walls just
have metal,coping, such;•as)he'west elevation,of the retail building)
5. Pleasesubmitto-scale floor plans or typical'store layouts.
6. Pleaseshow/label the electric and!gas meters on the building'elevations.
7., Additional Staff cojmneiats:
a) Staff thinks the proposed/designs is,very plain,.Just like we mentioned for the main grocery building, it needs more
details on the brickwork-;throughout the building to:break it up,and make it more interesting.
b) Please atdd the double brick soldier,course to;the west elevation,just beneath the aluminum coping.
c) Staff would love to seea-functionatmain entrance at the southeast corner of the building.
d) Is there notabetter way to incorporate the loading/trash area into the building? Can there be a second floor above
that loading area?
e) The new proposal for the glass.element/bump out atthesoutheastcomer does help with the proportions and
begins•to address the corner. However, wrapping the masonry veneer base seems to take away from the impact of
the glass•aiid aluminum'entry. Please remov'e;this•and;contmue.the glass/aluminum feature to the ground.
f) The Dept...provid'ed architectural building elevations:to•the developer many months ago, suggesting how the
building could-look and address the comer;,this proposed building does not meet those expectations. The biggest
concern is how the building addresses the comer.
Recommendation:
The Dept of.Community Services(DOGS)recommends:that;the,Plan Commission discusses this item and then continues
it to the-Wednesday, June 27 Coriunitteemeeting for further review:anddiscussion.
•
7