Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 01-15-19 2. Docket No. 18100015 DP/ADLS: Aloft& Element Hotels 3. Docket No. 18100016 V : UDO Section 2.40 MC—Minimum Front Yard Setback(to US 31): 50' required, 24' proposed 4. 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 5. Docket No. 18100018 V: UDO Section 5.07.C.2.—60% Clear glazing required on the ground floor façade, less than 60% requested 6. 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') 7. 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 8. 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 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. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz: • With me tonight are Nash Patel,Jim Shinaver,and members of our development team,the project engineer and architect • We've been previously heard at the Plan Commission in December,and the Commercial Committee in January • Presented an aerial site map • Presented elevations of the south and west building perimeter • The applicant has made the following adjustments to the building plans: o Removed the small, south facing Aloft wall sign o Removed all accent blue&magenta horizontal lighting bands that were placed on the building. The Commercial Committee recommended for the removal of these lights. • Presented a night time view to show all the night time building lighting • The up-lights that illuminate both sides of the blade/fin is the only visible lighting on the building • Staff asked us to amend the ground sign • Staff asked for removal of the building sign on the south side of the building • There will be an Aloft sign and an Element sign on the west side along the roof line of the building • We request you approve our variance and DP/ADLS requests,with the removal of the variance needed for the south facing wall sign Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The Petitioner has been working with staff to address our concerns and comments • The blue rectangular entry feature on the Element side has a blue light above the cornice line • The lighting color bands have been removed from the Aloft side • The tower elements on the corner on the Aloft side are now gray to match the Element side • They provided us additional views of their courtyard • They provided views from exit ramp on 465 going north towards 31 to show you won't see the mechanical roof top equipment • The landscape plan has been approved by the Urban Forester • They are proposing four total signs,two for Element,one for Aloft, and one combined ground sign • We ask for approval after the removal of the south facing Aloft sign John Molitor: It's not required to follow the BZA's Rules of Procedure in regards to written ballots.You may follow the Plan Commission's Rules of Procedure which requires only a motion,and the President to execute the formal findings. 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 Commercial Committee Report: Alan Potasnik • There was a lot of discussion of the architecture design and color of the upper half of the building. We did not have the night view of the building at Committee but they presented to it us now. Their rendering of the night view clears up some of those questions. Committee Comments: Tom Kegley: If you are driving east bound on 465,there's no signage visible for Aloft. I think the removal of the south facing sign in that location is a mistake. Alan: Does this building sit in the 31 Corridor? Jon Dobosiewicz: It's in the MC zone. Alan: Do the old restrictions apply? Jon Dobosiewicz: They do apply. The 31 Corridor is the predecessor to the MC zone. Alan: How does this apply to the old 31 Overlay restrictions? Jon Dobosiewicz: The variances we requested would been the same variances we would have requested under the old Overlay. Alan: Does the light shine upwards under the canopy of the drive thru? Mark Erickson,Architect: Referring to night time rendering. The light you see going up the side of the building, is mounted to the bottom of the fin/blade. There's no canopy or awning underneath the light. The canopy covers up the bottom of the middle light. Alan: What about the interior lights that make a T at the fin? Mark Erickson: Those lights are coming through the windows that are from the 24-7 lights from the public corridor area of the hotel,by the elevator bays. Alan: What about the white light that is in the soffit that goes around the building? Are those individual lights? Mark Erickson: That is known as a LED strip light or a tape light. Alan: What about the lights shown underneath the canopy? Mark Erickson: Referring to east rendering,there are 6 cam lights underneath the canopy. Alan: Will the lights ever change in color,or just stay a white light? Mark Erickson: They will stay the same color,a white light as shown in the rendering in front of you tonight. Alan: Will the light on the top of roof of the Aloft building ever change colors? Jon Dobosiewicz: The light does not generate a color. The light is only reflecting off a blue painted surface. Alan: Can you show the renderings of the view from the 465 ramp. Jon Dobosiewicz: Referring to rendering, when traveling west bound on 465 heading north on the ramp to 31,you would see half way up the 2°d floor,and not see the 1st floor. You would see the top of the canopy above the drop off area. Josh: Can you point out the signage? Jon Dobosiewicz: Referring to the rendering,the Aloft sign and the circular Element sign are on the west side of the building, facing the 465 ramp to 31. This rendering is still showing the Aloft sign on the south facing side of the building. Brad: Let's come back to Tom's comment about the visibility of the south facing sign. Jon Dobosiewicz: Referring to the rendering, it was discussed at Committee that the Aloft sign at the top of the building gave it great exposure. Alan: The main entrance will be very visible for guests during the day or night. Brad: To add to Tom's comment,I think there's significant value of the proposed Aloft sign facing the south. If this is an office building,we have no issues with multiple tenants placing their signage high on the building. The other lodging property in this area has four signs on their property. I don't have a problem with the variance of the additional Aloft sign on the south elevation. According to the Department Report,the Petitioner has agreed to remove the sign. Jon Dobosiewicz: We would defer to the will of the Plan Commission on this issue. We can support and accept either decision. Brad: What's Staff's issue with this sign? Rachel: This will be a destination oriented hotel. If you are traveling westbound on 465,you will have to exit at 106th Street and drive back north to the hotel. We would prefer no signage on the top of the building on the south elevation and let them utilize the awning signage over the entrances. Once you have arrived,the signage on the awning will tell you where to go. There's no need for the additional signage at the top of the building when the signage on the awning will let you know where you are at. This is a single use building, even though there are two tenants in the building. This is similar to a grocery store or a car dealership. This will be a destination oriented place. Brad: I think about the several multi-brand auto dealerships on 96th Street and we allow Imultiple signs to represent each of their brands. I don't see any difference in this case. Two distinctly, independent operated hotels on a dual branded property,this additional signage has business merit. Alan: It was brought up at Committee that Carmel has no ordinance with regards to commercial office buildings that have multiple tenants which allow additional signage. But this is a unique property in Cannel and there's nothing in the Ordinance to address this type of hotel. That is why the Committee took the direction we did on this. Maybe the Plan Commission needs to readdress our Ordinance in regards to adding a multiple tenant hotel building. Josh: This is a real unique site and you 7 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19 don't have the opportunity to see the canopy sign or signage on the door from street level. I agree with Staff's assessment. Most people are going to rely on their GPS or Uber drive to get them to their destination. But I don't think it makes Cannel look trashy to add one more sign to this building. Tom: Putting myself in the place of travel and going to a destination hotel. I've never been there before,and I only see one sign that says Element. Am I lost? I'm looking for some reassurance that I'm in the right place. If the extra sign is there,then I see it when I drive by. Brad: The Aloft and Element will be run as two separate businesses. If this was an office building,we would not be having this conversation. There's brand awareness and business value to the signage. Alan: The sign on the south side was not a part of discussion when we were at Committee. For this specific property,we studied the whole thing and there's nothing that addresses this situation. Josh: Even in light what President Grabow described for a multi-tenant buildings. Alan: There are multi-tenant office buildings in Cannel that the Staff brought up to our attention that are covered in the Ordinance. If we choose to do this,then we are doing without it being allowed in our Ordinance. I feel strongly in following Staff's recommendation and that's why I'm voting the way I am. A motion made by Josh and seconded by John to approve Docket Nos. 18100015 DP/ADLS, 18100016-19 V,and 18110003 V(18110004 V was excluded from the motion to include the additional sign on the south elevation) Motion passes 7-1,Potasnik,absent Casati Meeting Adjourned at 7:56 p.m. J Shestak Plan Commission Secretary Brad Grabow President 8 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 1-15-19