Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 11-19-19 • The technical amendments will include adding standards for landscaping, signage,and yard standards. The ordinance has been silent in the C-1 district on these items. • We are proposing to restore the previous division of sign standards. Previously,the number and location of signs were determined by Cannel Redevelopment Committee(CRC)project standards,and the size and design of signs were determined by the sign ordinance. Public Comments: None Department Report: None Committee Comments: Alan: Can you explain what the new proposed changes will be regarding the signage? Adrienne Keeling: We are proposing to restore the CRC project standards that determine the location and number of signs on a site. The sign classification,size,and designs will follow the sign ordinance. Alan: So the CRC will decide on these factors and not the Plan Commission? Adrienne Keeling: Correct Sue: Does the CRC have a list of rules and regulations for signage?How do they determine what is allowed?Adrienne Keeling: It's based on a project by project basis. Henry Mestetsky,CRC Director: With projects like City Center and the Proscenium,we want the developers to build up all four sides of their buildings, so there's no rear side to them. We don't want to hold them to a standard where you can only place a sign on one side of the building.The other sides of the building will have activity on them and it makes sense for the Cl and C2 districts we would allow some greater flexibility to allow for more signage. This is not a complete control of the signage, since the Plan Commission and Planning Dept. still have control over what type of sign is allowed. Brad: C-1 and C-2 as they are defined,are going to be public,private projects,and are always involved with the CRC. IHenry Mestetsky: No one can bring in a project in Cl,C2 districts without the CRC approving them. Brad: Some of the proposed uses such as public plaza,private club or lodge are not defined in the UDO. Henry Mestetsky: These terms were not made up. These were uses that were already allowed in Urban Core district,but not in Cl,and C2. Brad: I'm not challenging what you should include,but it's important we have well defined terms within the UDO. Also roof top parks and gardens sounds more like an activity or an amenity than a permitted use. A Motion by Josh and seconded by Laura to Suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on this item tonight. Approved 8-0,Absent Kegley A Motion by Josh and seconded by Laura to forward Docket No. 19100001 OA with a favorable recommendation to the City Council Approved 8-0,Absent Kegley Old Business: 1. Docket No. 19050014 DP/ADLS:Avid Hotel 2. Docket No. 19050015 V: ZO Chapter 5.07(D)(3)—Meridian Corridor Architectural Standards,Massing requiring two principal buildings on a lot with over 300' in width,requesting one principal building The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new hotel( 90 rooms)and mixed use building(up to 7 first floor tenants)on 1.23 acres. The building will be 50,286 sq.ft.,4 stories/55' tall,and will have 97+parking spaces provided(shared parking with CMC Office).The site is located at about approximately 13300 Illinois Street(NW corner of Main Street and US 31). The site is zoned MC/Meridian Corridor and is not within any overlay zone. Filed by Jim Shinaver and Jon Dobosiewicz of Nelson&Frankenberger on behalf of Jim Jacob of Saamrajya,LLC. Petitioner: Rick Lawrence,Nelson&Frankenberger: • Presented an aerial view, shown in Tab 2 3 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 11-19-19 • The BZA denied our UV request for hotel use on the first floor, so we redesigned our site and floor plans • Tab 3 shows the site plan.Access will from Illinois Street through a shared parking lot. We will have pedestrian access to and from Illinois Street. • Presented renderings of the hotel, shown in Tab 4 • A total of 90 guestrooms(not 102 rooms)on floors 2,3,and 4 • Presented east and west building elevations • Presented updated/revised floor plans shown in Tab 7 • Presented brick color samples • Presented proposed signage shown in Tab 5. Two wall signs and one awning signs are being proposed • Tab 5 provides images from multiple street views • Shared access drive is from Illinois Street and is part of an easement agreement that was recorded in 2002 • We believe this development with our revisions and site improvements will be an enhancement to the MC Department Report: Rachel Keesling • Hotel use is only allowed on the 2°d floor and above in the MC • Their UV request for partial hotel use on thels`floor was denied by the BZA. They are back now after revising their plans and Staff is pleased with their changes and updates. • We had concerns about the brick color. We confirmed that it is not painted brick and it will be a regular red and tan brick. They brought us physical examples of the brick. • The building design and placement complies with the overall CMC office park,which was approved in 2001 for 3 buildings in these locations. We are in support of the variance because the original CMC building takes up most of the frontage of the original intent of the ordinance requirement. Commercial Committee Report:Alan Potasnik • The key point from the Committee meeting was the red color of the brick. They passed out samples of the brick. Committee Comments: Carrie: Will the 1' floor be for retail purposes? Where will the signage be? How many tenants will there be? Rick Lawrence: Yes, it is setup for retail. A total of 7 tenants could be here. We envision 9-5 office space for insurance,or stock broker. Carrie: The red in the brick is what kind of red? Rick Lawrence: Presents brick color examples to the Commission. Carrie: What about the red used in the logo sign? Are they neon colors?Sam Patel,Saamrajya,LLC: The exhibit shows the actual colors in the sign. Alan: We discussed this at the Committee and those are the hotel's brand colors. Josh: How does the shared easement agreement work here? Rachel Keesling: The three parcels located here have a signed legal document that states they can use the access drive that would take you in and out of this development.Josh: Is this similar to Mayflower Park? Rachel Keesling: I don't believe this is a similar situation. Mayflower Park is a through street, and this access drive leads only to this development. Sue: I drove this area before this meeting,and there are no street lights or a street sign at the access street to this development. How are the out of towners supposed to know where to turn to get to their destination hotel? We need something out there to address this building. Rachel Keesling: They can use their GPS. A street sign can be put in. They would need approval from the other property owners to have an off-premise sign put at the entrance of this shared access drive. Brad: Who coordinates the City's way finding signage. Rachel Keesling: I do. This hotel can be part of the hospitality corridor.A sign can be placed on Illinois Street. This can be added to the Hamilton County's Visitor's Bureau list. Rick Lawrence: Generally,before people drive to this site,they will look it up on the hotel's website and they will be able to print off a map. GPS will help them navigate. We realize a sign can be very helpful,but we think there are other ways to help. The owner of the CMC office will probably not agree with an off-premise sign for the hotel, but we will reach out to them to propose joint signage that will advertise the l'floor tenants,hotel,and the other CMC office businesses located here. Sue: I think it's a safety issue and it's a bad design. Rachel Keesling: We can have discussions with the Street Department, so they can put up a street light. Josh: What will the street address be for this hotel? Rachel Keesling: It will be an Illinois Street address. Carrie: I think it's a valid concern for the retail/offices 4 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 11-19-19 that will be operating a business on the 1st floor and for the people who will be staying at this hotel will not be from this area. Laura: I also have concerns for hotel guests finding their hotel and I have concerns for the 1'`floor retail thriving Iin this area. Is it possible to do landscape lighting for the number address signage? Rachel Keesling: Yes,that is possible. Sue: I think we need to address this problem now. Rachel Keesling: Until the user is experiencing a problem,we can address it then. The CMC office is currently operating every day now without this issue. Brad: The Plan Commission's role tonight is to determine any signage that is proposed,conforms to our signage standards. Not whether or not a sign is needed. If it becomes an issue,then Staff will have an opportunity to respond. The risk falls on the petitioner. Sue: I think it's a safety risk. Brad: We had the same conversation for the Aloft&Element Hotels at US 31 and 465. A Motion by Josh and seconded by Alan to Approve Docket Nos. 19050014 DP/ADLS and Docket No. 19050015 V. Motion Passes 7-1,Westermeier.Absent Kegley Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. I 564tei , 1 Shestak Plan Commission Secretary Brad Grabow President I I Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 11-19-19