HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 05-01-12 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
MAY 1, 2012
5-6. Docket No. 12030010 DP Amend/ADLS: The Centre. The applicant seeks site plan & design approvals for a
partial redevelopment of the site 'lie,applicant,also seeks the following zoning waiver request:
Docket No::12-030012 ZW --ZO Chptrs 23F.i15 & 23F.02.04: Required#"of parking'spaces.
The site is'located at 1342-1430'S1:Range.Line Road. It is zoned B-3/Business, within the Carmel Dr. Rangeline Rd.
Overlay.Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault,for Kite Realty Co.
The Special Studies Committee reviewed/approved Phase I of this partial redevelopment at their March 29 meeting. Phase
1 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.
The Petitioner seeks site plan and design approval for phase 2, to construct a bank-building at the southwest corner of the
site a new retail building at the southeast comer of the site, and a multitenant retail building at the northeast corner of the
site Also portions of the existing"multitenant building will be demolished. (At a future date, the existing building
facades that are left --will seek approvals for exterior renovations,,too, to make this retail center have one cohesive
architectural theme:) Please view the petitioner's informational packet for more detail.
This partial redevelopment of the site requires several variance approvals. At the March 6 BZA Hearing Officer meeting,
the following variances were granted:-building orientation occupying less than 70%frontage; building height not having
two occupiable floors (this variance'does not apply to the proposed new retail building at the southeast corner of the site);
and building footprint floor area ratio less'than 0.5. The Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer already granted
variances for:
Docket No 12020014:V ZO Chptr. 23F.05 Building setbacks(applies only to new bank building)
Docket No. 12020015`V ZO Chptr..23F.06 Building'Orientation
DocketNo..12020016 V 20 Chptr. 23F.07 Building Height
Docket No. 12020017 V ZO Chptr.23F.08 Building Footprint
Docket No 12020022 V ZO Chptr. 23F:14 Pedestrian Circulation. (The commitment associated with the
pedestrian circulation-variance is that the petitioner makes-payment into a fund for.installation-of an 8-foot wide sidewalk
along Range Line Road, or entering into an agreement with the City for payment of 8-foot wide sidewalk installation
within six months of streetscape installation on Range Line Rd:)
And on May 29;the BZA Hearing Officer will review the following-remaining variance requests:
Docket No. 12020018 V ZO Chptr, 23F.09 Construction Materials (Might be withdrawn)
Docket No. 12020019 V ZO Chptr.,23F.10 Architectural Design
Docket No. 12020020 V ZO Chptr. 23E11 Landscaping
Docket No, V ZO Chptr.23F:12 Lighting
DocketNo.'12020023 V ZOChptr. 23F,15 Parking (Might be withdrawn)
Re-cap of comments from the April 17'PlanCommission public hearing meeting:
A. Dumpster locations should be looked at again.
B. Pedestrian access to the bank from 116`" Street needs to be better delineated..-:(This is now done)
C. Will the second story of the corner:retail building have a separate access?
D. Concern with traffic flow on the site and around the site (Also need to address delivery truck traffic flow and drive
thru trafficaflow, too.)
E. Building design—need to address the issue of large areas of solid walls with no windows or detailing.
Staffs outstanding comments for the Petitioner(from the week of April 10): (These review comments were briefly
discussed with the petitioner on April 10, and the info packet was just received on April 12...)
1. City Engineering Dep't. Comments: We have met with the petitioner and/or representatives three times. We have
discussed Access, right-of-way, drainage, and storm water quality. The plan to date has been consistent with City
standards and discussions that have taken place. The Department will support the locations of the proposed curb
3
I '
cuts access points: The Department is satisfied with the storm water management system concept that has been
presented. The Department will work with the petitioner on formalizing a commitment to dedicate the right-of-way
potentialltecessary 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 reviewed by the committee.
2. (City Forestry Dept. has now approved.the landscape plan.)
3. Remember;to include the Development Plan application's Findings of Fact sheet in your final information packets.
4. Please,subinit to-scale architectural building elevations on 24"x36"or similar sized paper.
5. Need more detail about the rooftop mechanical unit screen walls, how they look, and how it tits in with the overall
building architec t ure.
6. Per ZO chapter 43E10.02,—there should be distinct cornice lines at the tops of the walls'. (Some of the walls just
have rnetallcoping, such as the west elevation of the retail building:)
7. `PleaseEsubnit to-scale floor plans or typical- layouts:
8: Please;show/label the electric and gas meters on the elevations.
9. .Please consider,using LEED or `green' site and building practices;.such as.a white membrane roof, solar panels,
native plants, rain gardens, etc.
10.- Prepare=anf estimated construction cost to,coinply with the Thoroughfare Plan& Alternative Transportation Plan;
contact the Engineering Dept. for more details.
11. Please provide the bike rack design details,per ZO Chapter 27,06 of theordinance.
12. The outlot building has very few trees'planted around it; it would be nice to have a shade tree or two for potential
outdoor dining:areas...
13. AdditionalCStaffcomments are below:
Retail Building at the southeast corner,comments:
1. Staff thinks the.proposed,design is very plain. Just like we mentioned for the main grocery building, it needs more
details on thebnckwork throughout on thebrickwork throughout the building to break it up and make it morednteresting.
2. Please add the double brick soldier course to the west elevation,just beneath the aluminum coping.
3. Staff would love to see a;functional main,entranceat.the southeast corner.of the building.
4. Is there not a'better way to incorporate the loading/trash area into the building? Can there be a second floor above
that loading area?
5. The new pfoposal.for the glass element/buinp out at the southeast corner 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 and
aluminum'entry. Please remove this and continuethe glass/aluminum feature to the ground.
6. The Dept provided<architectural building elevations to the developer many months ago, suggesting how the building
could-lookiand address the comerthis proposed building does not meet those expectations. The biggest concern is
how the building addresses the corner.
New Bank Building, comments:
I. Staff likes the"heaviness"/height of the coping/parapet walls,but we think they,need some different elements so that
they're notso similar; too much white EWS possibly could change to maroon/red EMS in some places.
2. Staff thinks the biggest impact(of a change) could be on the drive thru soffit. Making.part of that-brick or a different
design/material will help ft not seem so un-proportional.
outlot:building at northeast corner,,comments:
1: One thing that might help is to add some brick detailing with different colorebricks to create boxes or areas where the
signs will go, similar to Turkey Hill at Carmel Dr. It would add'visual'interest and,give more attention to the sign.
This couldawork on-both the firsttand,second floor, if they plan'to have tenants and signs up there.
2. 'Why are there no lights around the rest of the building?It would.be nice to see lights continued around the building,
especially the entrance;to`the upper story tenants.
3. The"dimension'"that was added.to the bump out on the north elevation of the building—can those be larger/more
square to fit the façade?This is for the east and west elevation softhat bump out.
Recommendation: The Dept of Community Services(DOCS)recommendsithat the Plan Commission discusses this
items and then continues is to the June;5 committee meeting.
•
4