Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes COM 01-03-19 • Lastly,the signage has been reduced to two wall signs. However,there are a few new signs that have appeared; "main entry"and"ambulance only". Both are over 3 sq. ft. and would require a variance. The petitioner will come back to the Department of Community Services(Staff)with finalized signage. • I gave the petitioner an illustration of where the spandrel panels should be for the signage. • All of the Staff's concerns have been addressed save for a few questions for the architect. • Staff recommends approval. Committee Comments: John Adams • There was a conversation at some point regarding the trees along 146th St. The agreement was to remove the majority of the trees correct?What is the final agreement? • Rachel Keesling-In the Department Report the trees are addressed.They will be used as Christmas Trees. • Will keeping them interfere with the construction phase? • Anthony Zerrer-The trees will be protected during construction.The landscape plans have been approved by the Urban Forester. • Rachel Keesling- Staff is excited about the agreement.The evergreens at the intersection will be removed. Staff has given the ok for the landscape plan. • The existing driveway will remain which is a great use of what is existing. Material will not be wasted. • Andrew Buroker-We have met with the Urban Forester and heard his concerns. • Weren't there questions about exactly where the exterior lights will go at the entrances and exits? • Rachel Keesling-I will need help from the petitioner's architect to understand what type of lights will be present at these locations. • Assuming approval occurs tonight,the Committee assumes Staff will work with the petitioner regarding lighting. Alan Potasnik • Rachel,you are alright with all the other signage concerns?The petitioner will need to acquire a variance for the"ambulance only"sign. What is the other concern? • Rachel Keesling-There is also a"main entrance"sign,as well as,a large ground sign at the entrance that is too large. Staff will work with them on assessing their needs.The petitioner will come back with sign permits that can be approved administratively. John motions to approve Docket No. 18110005 ADLS,Tom seconds,motion passes 3-0.Absent Campbell. 2. TABLED to February 5—Docket No. 18100014 DP/ADLS: Bank of America .. i Y. - 3. Docket No. 18100015 DP/ADLS: Aloft&Element Hotels 4. Docket No. 18100016 V : UDO Section 2.40 MC—Minimum Front Yard Setback(to US 31): 50' required, 24' proposed 5. Docket No. 18100017 V: UDO Section 5.39.E.6.—Sign proposed to be installed above cornice line,which is not allowed per the UDO 6. Docket No. 18100018 V: UDO Section 5.07.C.2.—60% Clear glazing required on the ground floor facade, less than 60% requested 7. Docket No. 18100019 V:UDO Section 5.07.D.3.—Lots greater than 300'wide shall have at least 2 principal bldgs.covering 75% of the lot's width,one building proposed covering 17.95%of the lot width(784.54') 8. Docket No. 18110003 V:UDO Section 5.07.E.1.—Along US 31,any façade greater than 5 stories shall be stepped back at or below the 6th story,no Stepback proposed 9. Docket No. 18110004 V:UDO Section 5.39.I.2.b.—Wall sign requirements for Multi-tenant,Multi-Level Office Building proposed,Single Tenant Building classification required The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new dual branded hotel on 5.35 acres. It will be 6 stories/70' tall with 230 rooms combined. The site is located at 10101 N. Meridian Street(the previous Cadillac Commercial Committee Minutes 01-03-19 2 dealership site,new address to be assigned for this use). The site is zoned MC/Meridian Corridor and is not located within any overlay zone. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&Frankenberger,LLC on behalf of Ascent Hospitality Management Co.,LLC. Petitioners: Jon Dobosiewicz(Nelson&Frankenberger),Matt Pleasant(Nelson&Frankenberger),Jim Shinaver (Nelson&Frankenberger),Rusty Spiars(Spiars Engineering),&Mark Eriksson(CSO Architects) Jon Dobosiewicz • The plan before the Committee this evening was reviewed by the Plan Commission(Commission)on December 18t. We will review changes made and field any questions. • I will read through the Department Report for this particular petition and hand out supplemental material for the Committee. • Document 1: Site Plan w/Bicycle Parking: Short term bicycle parking is proposed on the west side of the building adjacent to the Aloft entrance.A minimum of four bicycle spots is required and six will be provided. • Document 2: Renderings:Another set of questions arose from the Commission regarding visibility of the building from the interchange.The image is taken from a minivan positioned in the right hand lane. • Alan Potasnik-If you are headed east this is what would be seen? • No, if you are headed north off of I-465 onto Meridian Street. Page 2 is a little further north.The first floor is completely concealed from the driver's view due to the concrete barricade. The rooftop mounted equipment will not be visible from the interstate. • Alan Potasnik-For the sake of clarification which hotel is closer to the highway? • Aloft is closer in the image.Element is the further hotel. • Document 3: Outdoor Patio Exhibits: This document is meant to illustrate the open space in the hotel, which is in yellow. Pages 2-3 are examples of other open spaces from other Aloft and Element hotels. • Another question arose about the purpose and intent of a full service hotel.The Renaissance has 12,000- 13,000 square feet of meeting space with around 500 parking space for 260 hotel rooms because they operate as a free standing conference facility and hotel. The 9,000 square foot conference space at this location is meant for conferences at the hotel whose guests are also staying at the hotels. It is intended for functions that serve guests at the hotel. • There is a restaurant associated with the Alfot and Element. The brands experience is for guests staying at the hotel.At Main Street and US 31 there is a full service hotel and the restaurant is meant for people who want to eat at the hotel. • Document 4: Sign Details: Heading west to north on Pennsylvania Parkway one will not be able to see the hotel due to a large heavily landscaped median.The sign will be positioned at the right-in right-out. It is only one-sided because no one will be able to see the sign from the south.The letters and logo are push through acrylic letters and will be the only illuminated parts at night. • Document 5:Nighttime Photos of Existing Hotels: You will find photos of other hotels and how the building is illuminated.This is not reflective of our lighting plan and is meant to show how it looks in other locations.The lighting is indirect and reflected.Lightbulbs are not visible. • Document 6: Exterior Light Examples&Details: The last handout gives two examples of the Aloft lighting plan and the second page shows two of the element hotel signs. The last three pages are details of how the light is shown onto the building.Page 3 is a channel lighting and is only present on the Aloft portion of the building. • Mark Eriksson-Page 4 is the lighting details for the Aloft roof detail on the western elevation. • Page 5 shows how the lighting roof detail is illuminated. There is a light reflected in the back. • There were a few other questions regarding parking data in relation to Uber and Lyft. We were unable to find any meaningful data.There were also questions regarding wayfinding signage. We request approval for wayfinding signage in the right-of-way, subject to the Engineering Department(Engineering)and Board of Public Works(BPW)Approval. We will present to Engineering a traffic plan.We did not think that the Commission would recommend anything that Engineering viewed a best practice and what BPW would approve. • Tom Kegley-Anything you can do to start the dialogue about wayfinding signage will help our decision making process. Commercial Committee Minutes 01-03-19 3 Department Report& Committee Comments • Rachel Keesling-At the January 3`d Commission most of the variance requests were described. Staff is in support of the site related variances including,the front yard setback(18100016 V)and the percent of building on the site(18100019 V). • Rachel Keesling-The petitioner including information on bicycle parking spaces,types of racks and interior bicycle parking. Three racks,accommodating six spaces,will be provided near the front door of the Aloft building. Long-term interior bicycle parking will not be provided. Staff is not pleased with this, but it is not required. • Rachel Keesling-Regarding the architecture,the petitioner requested a variance for the first floor glazing requirement.At least 60%clear glazing is required and 0% is present on the west elevation, 17%on the east elevation,and 63%on the south elevation. Staff is generally in support of this.The west elevation has no windows on the conference space,why is this? • Mark Eriksson-Typically, conference spaces are used for presentations and meetings and the shades are pulled down most of the time. It is easier to leave out windows because they will be shut anyway. • Rachel Keesling- Staff believes there could be windows,but is okay with no windows. • Rachel Keesling- Staff is in support of the variance for the 6th floor setback requirement(18110003 V). • Rachel Keesling-The rooftop feature is indirectly illuminated and not a visible light source. Staff does have new concerns about the light bars on the side of the building because it is an exposed light.Typically Staff asks lights to be low level and concealed.The overall design is nice and I noticed there were cover bars in the previous elevation,but am not thrilled that they are illuminated. • Alan Potasnik-When you say you are in favor of those do you mean clear light? • Rachel Keesling-No, I mean if the bars were just a metal piece of color, like a decoration or architectural feature. It does not follow the design aesthetic that Carmel desires.The rooftop design feature is new and different for design and the light bars cause concern. • Alan Potasnik-I did not think I would like the roof feature,but I do. This is not Las Vegas and the light bars do not add anything. • Tom Kegley-In Renderings the building lights are toned down. Is this what Staff is looking for? • Mark Eriksson-It is daytime in those photos. • Jim Shinaver-We might want to revisit the level of illumination of the colored light bars.The photos do not accurately represent the illumination level. The level of illumination can be toned down.We do not want to look like Las Vegas.Based on the character of the building and rooftop feature we believed there was a level of appropriateness for a subdued light bar illumination. • Mark Eriksson-There are photos directly from the Marriot Hotel website.The images are dramatic and eye catching.Night time shots can be very dramatic(on purpose). • Alan Potasnik-There is no one model for each hotel and each building can deviate?Can each location vary to an extent?We understand there is a corporate logo and identity. • Mark Eriksson-There are variations that are allowed by the brand and features that are recommended such as the color bands,rooftop feature,and colored panels next to windows. Features with variability are up-lighting,down-lighting, up-down lighting,and no lighting. All the various locations have local municipalities that approve features based on their standards. • Alan Potasnik-Do the light bars change colors? • Mark Eriksson-They are blue and magenta. Some of the photos are older. In early 2013 Marriot slightly changed their color scheme from a blue and yellow to a blue and magenta. • John Adams-My personal opinion is that the light bars detract from the roof feature.That is going to be spectacular.They do not add anything. • Rachel Keesling-On the landscaping plan a few items needed to be changed to match. They match now. • Rachel Keesling- Staff does not feel that four signs,two signs per brand,are necessary. Staff is not in support of that variance(18100004 V). Staff is in support of the Aloft sign above the cornice line and under the roof feature(18100017 V). Some of the sign sizes need to be tweaked, if approved, in order to comply with the size requirements.Can the Element portion on the ground sign be scaled up? • Mark Eriksson-The sizes are taken straight from the Marriott signage guide. • Jon Dobosiewicz-The dark surface area could be moved up and the copy and logo can be expanded. Commercial Committee Minutes 01-03-19 4 • Rachel Keesling-The dark area can be extended upward and the Element logo and copy can be larger. The larger the better. • Mark Eriksson—That can be easily done. • Jon Dobosiewicz-If you look at Renderings,with support from Staff and the positive feedback regarding the roof feature about the roof sign,we do not feel the south facing Aloft sign is necessary because the west facing sign is partially visible.The south facing Element sign is difficult to view from the west and south because of its location.The west facing Element sign provides that appropriate exposure. There is a classification for a multi-tenant mixed-use building and a multi-tenant office building,but no classification for a multi-tenant building with the same uses.If the building were multi-tenant mixed-use or a multi-tenant office building all four signs are permitted. Because there is no classification we are compelled to seek a variance. We are currently being classified as a single-tenant building which we are not because there are two hotels. We do not want to argue with Staff but bring this issue up for basis of comparison.We seek the Committee's consideration,approval, and recommendation. If consideration were given to the other Element sign on the west elevation then we can do without the south facing Aloft sign. • Rachel Keesling-If the petitioner is willing to remove the south facing Aloft sign,a sign could be installed above the entry way doors and counted as an awning sign,which utilizes left over square footage from wall signs.The need for the variance will no longer be needed then. • Mark Eriksson-All the south facing signs would be removed then? • Rachel Keesling-Yes. • Mark Eriksson-Then no identifiers would be visible from I-465. • Jon Dobosiewicz-1-465 visibility is only from the south. The building is not visible eastbound on I-465 because of the overpass. • Rachel Keesling-I understand the importance for visibility,but the use is destination oriented. Guests will know where they are going. • Mark Eriksson-They will know where to get to. How to get there is a little difficult because they have to get off at 106th St.and then head south along Pennsylvania Parkway. • Rachel Keesling-But they will know that because that is where they are going. • John Adams-I do not know about that. Having visited a lot of hotels and motels,a lot of time it is a challenge,regardless of GPS. • Tom Kegley-Until they stay there,guests will never find the site. • Jon Dobosiewicz-Our intent of being seen by the Combo Committee is to obtain an opportunity to dialogue about some of the request. We are not in a position to give up our request and relinquish a chance to allow the Plan Commission to vote in favor. • John Adams-I have concern about guests visiting the hotel for the first time. Without adequate signage on the Element hotel it may be difficult. What are Staffs main concerns with granting the variance?Will this set a precedent or is this such a rare case? • Rachel Keesling-This is in essence a single use building, similar to a car lot or grocery store where different tenants are in one building but the primary use is grocery or car sales.Existence of these secondary tenants doesn't instantly qualify them for a sign. Two signs should be adequate.There is a ground sign which will help with first time visitors.There is visibility from the interstate. Staff does not feel additional signage is necessary. The Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)can be utilized to allow awning signage(for identification once a patron is in the parking lot). • John Adams-I am uncomfortable with a sign not being on the Element portion,especially if there is inclement weather. We should not make it more difficult for people.A sign should be on the south elevation of the building. • Alan Potasnik-Is there a study or known percentage regarding how many people will access the site,from the interstate or local City streets? • Jon Dobosiewicz-Predominately from I-465. • Alan Potasnik-What if somebody came from Indianapolis via College Ave? • Jon Dobosiewicz-It is not unlikely,just a low percentage. • Alan Potasnik-Is that the reason there is no signage for north and west bound traffic on Pennsylvania Parkway? Commercial Committee Minutes 01-03-19 5 • Jon Dobosiewicz-there is a residential neighborhood east of the subject property.The UDO limits us. We feel we are asking for an appropriate amount of signs and will reduce the amount further. We do not want an east façade sign because it will face residential uses. We want an adequate amount of signage to I-465 and US 31.The Element hotel has no exposure to 1-465 without the current proposed sign facing south. • Rachel Keesling-If we are done with the signage discussion I would like to talk about the light bars, which is more critical to me than the amount of signage requested. • Alan Potasnik-I do not like them and see feel they are not appropriate. • Jon Dobosiewicz-Is it acceptable that the bars are just colored and not illuminated? • Alan Potasnik-That is Staff s feeling,I feel like none of it is necessary. • Mark Eriksson-We can control this element in order to make them less obvious and more subdued. It is a feature of the Aloft brand,but is also a controllable element. The light can be changed to any color. • Alan Potasnik- Something similar to the Monon Trail pedestrian bridge across Carmel Dr. even isn't appropriate. • Rachel Keesling-I appreciate that it is something that can be diminished,but it a feature that we do not want to see on the building.Having the(vertical)colors on the building next to the windows is ok,but not the(horizontal)bar design features. • Alan Potasnik-Do the lights from the light bars bleed into the windows? • Mark Eriksson-No. • Rachel Keesling-I can appreciate that the light would not bleed into the room widows, it just does not fit the Carmel's design or desired aesthetic. • Alan Potasnik-Is it Marriott's position that this a must,a required aspect of the branding? • Mark Eriksson-They are flexible,however,when it comes down to municipal jurisdiction,Marriot will push back but the brand will have to live with it. • John Adams-We want another Marriott and this development can be successful.The light bars are a problem and out of characteristic with the rest of the US 31 corridor developments. The roof feature will be great and spectacular. • Jon Dobosiewicz-We would ask for your consideration to include the bars but will accept an approval of the DP/ADLS and variances subject to not allowing the light bars to be illuminated. We respect the thoughts tonight and those of the rest of the Commission and unless we hear the remainder of the Commission in favor of the bars we will know where we stand. • Alan Potasnik-I think the elimination of the bar would satisfy the Commission.The pictures show a dramatic effect of the roof feature. • Rachel Keesling-It is hard to dislike the feature. I think the big sticking point is the light bars. Staff recommends the petition is sent to Commission subject to removal of the illuminated color bars, as well as, Committee's recommendation on the other variances. • Alan Potasnik-As far as the interior bike racks is concerned; it is up to the petitioner. Glazing is up to the petitioner as well.The Ritz Charles also has areas with less light and windows.If the reason is because the room demands it then fine.The light/color bars on the side of the building are the issue. • Rachel Keesling-If we could have a concrete lighting plan for the next meeting Staff would feel more comfortable. • Mark Eriksson-Is a night time illuminated rendering needed? • Rachel Keesling-Yes. • Jon Dobosiewicz-We will create night time renderings. • Alan Potasnik-What about the colored lights? • Jon Dobosiewicz-We will include both. • Alan Potasnik-Please include the rendering well in advance for Staffs review. • Jon Dobosiewicz-Because of the holiday schedule we would normally have a packet submitted tomorrow for the Commission meeting on January 15th • Rachel Keesling-If you submit it to Staff on January 10th it can go out to the Commission with the Department Reports. • Jim Shinaver-The Commission is on January 15t. When can a rendering,with and without the illuminated color bars,be ready for submittal? • Mark Eriksson-A week from today is plenty of time. Commercial Committee Minutes 01-03-19 6 • John Adams-Where are we at?We have disagreements on the signs and color bars. There are a couple things that are not quite settled. I think we should send this petition to Commission,with reservations about the color bars and signage. • Jon Dobosiewicz-We would be accepting of any recommendation made. If the Committee acted on behalf of the full Commission would we receive approval without the illuminated color bars? • Committee members-Yes. • Jon Dobosiewicz-I request the Committee to give favorable recommendation without the color bars. We will know where we are at. • John Adams-The Commission can do whatever they would like. • Jon Dobosiewicz-I do not want the Commission to be confused and not understand what the Committee's stance is. • Alan Potasnik-If this goes to the Commission with an either-or situation, it is similar to a non- recommendation. I do not want to do that. • Jon Dobosiewicz-We request the recommendation based on the removal of the color bars, illuminated or otherwise. • John Adams-I am not sure where we are at regarding signage. • Rachel Keesling-If the south facing Aloft sign were removed Staff would support this. • John Adams-Do you think the petitioner and Staff can work something out before the Commission meeting? John motions to forward Docket Nos. 18110015 DP/ADLS, 18100016-18 V,& 18110003-4 V to full Plan Commission with Favorable Recommendation,with the conditions that the color bars, illuminated or not,and the south facing signage is removed,Tom seconds,motion passes 3-0. Absent Campbell. Meeting adjourned at 7:19 PM. Nathan Chavez Recording Secretary Alan tasnik Chairman Commercial Committee Minutes 01-03-19 7