HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 04-17-12 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
APRIL 17, 2012
3. Docket No. 12030010 DP Amend/ADLS:: The Centre.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approvals fora partial redevelopment of the site.
Theapplicant"also seeks the following zoning waiver request:
4. Dock&No 12030012 ZW ZO Chptrs 23F.15 & 23Fi02.04: Required#of parking spaces.
The site is located at 1342-1430 S. Range Line Road. It is zoned B-3/Business, within the Cannel 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.
Phase 2 involves portions of the existing building to be removed peixnanently, portions to be rebuilt, and a few new
standalone buildings will be built as a part of'his overall project — a new bank building, a new building at the corner
(where the bank exists today), and a new multi tenant building along Range Line Rd. The Petitioner seeks site plan and
design approval to construct a bank building at the southwest'comer of the site, a new retail building at the southeast
corner 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 mote 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
Docket No 12020016 V ZO 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
pedestriah 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 Apri123,the BZA Hearing Officer will review the following remaining variance requests:
Docket No. 12020018 V ZO Chptr. 23F.09 ConstructiomMaterials,(Might be withdrawn)
Docket No. 12020019 V ZO Chptr. 23F.10 Architectural Design
Docket No. 12020020 V ZO Chptr, 23F.11 Landscaping
Docket No. 12020021 V ZO Chptr. 23F.12 Lighting
Docket No. 12020023 V ZOtChptr. 23F.15 Parking(Might be withdrawn)
Staff's outstanding commentsfor the Petitioner(from the week of April 10): (These review comments were briefly
discussed withthe petitioner on April 10,and the info packet twas 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
standardstand discussions that have taken place. The Department will.support the locations of the proposed curb
3
;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
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 sent to committee.
2. The Alternative Transportation Systems Coordinator has issued review comments,and is waiting for a response.
3. .City.Forestry.Dept, has not yet approved the landscape plan,but only has a few changes requested.
4. Please provide copies of youncorrespondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you.
5. Remember to include the Development Plan application's Findings of Fact sheet in your final information packets.
6. Provide Abe filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application.
7. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application:
8. Provide,the_filled out and notarized,Public Notice Sign Placement afdavit`.page of the application.
9. Provide a copy of the OfficiafListof Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor's Office.
10. Please submit to-scale architectural building elevations on 241x36" or similar sizedpaper.
11. Need more detail about the rooftop mechanical unit screen walls,how they look, and how it fits in with the overall
building architecture. .
12. Per ZO chapter 23F.10:02—there should be distinct cornice lines at the tops of the walls. (Some of the walls just
have metal coping,such as the west elevation of the retail building.)
13. Please submit to-scale floor:plans or typical store layouts.
14. Please label the electric andgas`meters on the elevations.
15. Please consider using LEED or `green',site and building practices,such as a white membrane roof,solar panels,
native plants,rain gardens,etc.
16. Prepare;an estimated constructiofr.cost to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan&Alternative Transportation Plan;
contact the Engineering Dept..for-more,details.
17. Please provide the bike rack design details,.per ZO Chapter 27.06:of the ordinance.
18. 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...
19. Additional Staff comments:
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 the brickwork throughout the building to break it up and make it more interesting.
2. Please add the double briok1soldier course to the west elevation,just beneath the aluminum coping.
3. It would:be nice:to have a-real store entrance at 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 Dept: provided architectural building elevations to-the developer many months ago,suggesting how the building
could look and address the corner,this proposed building does not meet those expectations. The biggest concern is
how the building,addresses the corner.
New Bank!Building, comments:
1. Overall,,Staff generally likes the building design. It is different, yet similar to what they have now,but with some
more complexity.
2. Staff likes the"heaviness"/height of the coping/parapet walls,but we think they need some different elements so that
they're not so similar; too-much white EIFS...
3. Staff thinks the biggest impact(of a•change)could be on the(drive;thhi soffit. Making part of that`brick or a different
design/material will help it notseem so un-proportional. Or,perhaps not having the soffit not as thick,or widening
the columns;right now it seems top heavy on two tiny stick supports.
4. The southeast elevation could also„take`advantage of different materials to break up the EIFS. It would be nice to see
some detailed brick (vertical)or stonework on the archway and the side bottom 1/3 of the'entrance elevations. •
Oudot building at northeast'corner, comments:
4
•
•
1. Staff thinks this building design is a really good starting point. The awnings certainly break up the façade and help
add:a'bit of character.
2'. One thing that might help is to add some brick detailing with different color bricks to create boxes or areas where the
signs will go,similar to Turkey Hill at Cannel Dr. It would add visual interest and give more attention to the sign.
This could work on both the first and second floor, if they plan to have tenants and signs up there.
3. The west elevation of the building could use some more detail,iif this-is what people will see from where they are
parking;and walking to the building.
4. It might be nice to see different color brick/detailing above the windows without the metal channel lintel.
5. Can you add a'few more ground level windows to the south elevation?
Recommendation:
The Dept of Community Services•(DOCS)recommends that the Plan Commission sends this item to the May 1 Special
Studies Committee meeting for fuitherreview and discussion.
5