Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-21City of C �PJOIflHp Carmel Plan Commission COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE Tuesday, February 2, 2021 Meeting Agenda Location: Virtual Meeting (Zoom) Members Present: Alan Potasnik (Committee Chairman), Joshua Kirsh, Kevin Rider, & Jeff Hill. Staff Present: Rachel Keesling (Planning Administrator), Mike Hollibaugh (DOCS Director), & Nathan Chavez (Recording Secretary) Legal Counsel: Paul Reis Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM The Commercial Committee met to review the following items: 1. Docket No. PZ-2021-00002 ADLS Amend: Teacher's Credit Union — Facade and Site Improvements. The applicant seeks design approval for the renovation of the existing Steak N' Shake restaurant into a new credit union. This site is 1.11 acres and is located at 635 E. Carmel Drive. It is zoned B-8 and is not located within any overlay zone. Filed by Sarah Freymuth of The Redmond Company on behalf of Teacher's Credit Union. Petitioners: Sarah Freymuth (Redmond Company), Eric Ohlfs (Redmond Company), Alen Fetahagic (Kimley- Horn), Brandon Demitruk (Teacher's Credit Union), & Matt Emmer (Teacher's Credit Union): Sarah Freymuth: • We are working with Teachers Credit Union (TCU) out of South Bend, IN. They are looking to expand into the Carmel market and have been working on a new prototype. The subject site, 635 E. Carmel Dr. is appropriate for this new store. • Page 1 of the Submitted Packet shows the before and after of the site. The area reflects a lot of the same values and goals that both TCU and the City of Carmel (City) have. • This is a perfect location. It is a retail community and retail area. There are a lot of other financials in the area as well as retail components. It is a great and ideal location on an existing site. The Steak N' Shake is now vacant and will be turned into the new facility. • The client is in the process of purchasing the site because they would like to make a long-term commitment. This site does require renovations to make it appropriate for its new brand they would like to launch in Carmel. It does tell the story of something that is retail driven and less traditional architecture style that goes with the old school financial standards that one would conjure when thinking of a bank. It is not your grandfather's bank. TCU is something that is really striving to be individualistic to its members and offer high technology resources to members. Finding something that responds to the brand is possible with this site by peeling off the current exterior and working with just the building itself. We are getting rid of a lot of the stereotypical design of the restaurant to show their new brand. With that the store opens up and one could see from the outside in like retail. • When you think of a financial you think of something with a big awning and drive thru. That can be overpowering to a site when you see that. Because TCU is looking into high technology, they are incorporating ITMs (interactive teller machine). Two are proposed and are located in the southeast corner of the site. They are much smaller than the bulky drive-thru ATMs. • The site plan is not changing much overall, other than the addition of the two ITMs. They are also adding a night deposit box. The curb needs to be cut back a little, so that vehicles can access it. • On the exterior (page 3), high end material typically found in retail is proposed. TCU will own the building and want something that will last. We are looking at natural stone products and an aluminum siding that looks like wood but will not rot over time. • Signage works very well with the architecture. Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 , • A lot of the fagade will be peeled away and opened with window space. • The awnings help add a line of vision and are useful as well. They do help block some of the sun and exposure. • There are areas where exterior renovation is needed. For instance, we need to create accessible entries, so the ramps need to be redone on the front. There are plantings around the perimeter on the building. Some look a little ragged and will need to be removed. They look like a hurricane hit them. We have been in contact with the Urban Forester and have created a plan that helps fill in those areas that need extra plantings in order to meet the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) landscaping standards. We are reworking the back curb where the drive up is located. Islands are added to protect the ITMs and other vehicles in the lanes. It is mostly all the exterior site work is between the landscaping and the ITMs. • There are two signs proposed on the building and a few wayfinding signs around the site. The signs are on the front (north) and side (east) closest to the parking. They are internally illuminated. The goal is for the interior to provide a soft glow at night and then the signs give it a pop. Wayfinding signage is present at the drive-ins to help with navigation. Signage is minimal. • The ITMs look like ATMs. They have a little bit of light and signage. The signs are slightly smaller because they were a little over the 3 sq. ft. That has been addressed and corrected. The ITMs are respectful of lighting and sound transfer. They are designed to illuminate around the machine itself and is not made to illuminate the entire parking lot. The speakers in these systems really do offer a lot of audio privacy. Normally they don't disturb the neighbor's property. There is limited signage on the back and sides are well. • Page 18 is of an existing machine. The dimensions are a little bit different but overall, they are similar. • Page 20 shows lighting is limited to just the machine. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The project meets all applicable standards of the UDO. We have been working with the petitioner to make modifications along the way. • The site plan will remain primarily the same. The ITM lanes will be added to the southeast corner of the site. • The proposal for the building modifications are to remove all the features that make it a Steak N' Shake; the 45-degree angle walls, awnings, etc... They will reface the building with an aluminum siding that looks like wood and stone. There will be canopies over the windows including the rear or south fagade, which was not included in your packet but was agreed to by the petitioner. • Signage will meet all UDO requirements. • The only outstanding item is compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. We are working with the petitioner on contributing to the Nom-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund for the cost of the improvements rather than building them now. The Department of Community Services (Staff) is supportive of that and will continue to work with the petitioner. • This is an ADLS Amendment only and the Commercial Committee (Committee) has the authority to vote on this tonight. Staff has no outstanding comments, is supportive of the project, and recommends approval subject to finalizing the Thoroughfare Plan compliance and contribution to the Non -Reverting Thoroughfare Fund. Committee Comments: Joshua Kirsh: • The obvious question is will I still be able to get a milkshake and fries in the middle of the night? Kevin Rider: That was going to be my question. Sarah Freymuth: I am so sorry but unfortunately no. Joshua Krish: I am just kidding. This is a very beautiful product. Again, Rachel has probably worked really hard to get this across the finish line and to bring something so wonderful -to the City. And you are recycling an old building. • I might have heard, in a different role I fulfill, comments regarding cut through traffic on this site. I have seen this, people zooming through the site, and am not quite sure why people may be doing it. Especially since the site has been vacant people are carte blanche to cut through there and am not sure if the Engineering Department (Engineering) or anybody else has made comments about this. I was under the impression that there may be a reduction of access or there would be an exit only onto Carmel Dr. Was any consideration made? Rachel Keesling: We did not bring that up with regards to reducing the number of Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 2 access points. I do think if there is a problem with that now, once construction commences and they block everything off, that option won't be available to people. When they reopen, I am hopeful that this would stop when activity on the site resumes. Joshua Kirsh: I agree with that and think it is probably accurate. I might suggest to the petitioner to express to the clients my concerns. If they are finding it to be an issue after opening the site to circle back with Staff or Engineering, to help with enforcement. Sarah Freymuth: Thank you. I have not heard that this is an issue. Can you elaborate a little more? Are they cutting through Keystone over to Carmel Dr.? Or from Carmel Dr. over to Keystone? Joshua Kirsh: I think what happens is people are coming from the round -a -bout to the northeast (Keystone Parkway and Carmel Dr. roundabout) and instead of continuing south along the frontage road to get into the shopping complex there, which has direct access from that frontage road into the shopping complex, I think what happens is they then proceed westbound onto Carmel Dr. and then pull into your site to cut through your site to gain access to that retail site. I know people in the community that are on this call say, "Oh yeah that definitely happens." It is something you would not know occurs unless you've seen it too many times. Alan Potasnik: I am a chronic abuser. I can tell you exactly what the issue is. I did it today as a matter of fact. I received a phone call as I was driving to my office saying, "Get back home." My first turnoff was on Carmel Dr. and the first access I had to turn around, as I usually do, is cutting through the parking lot of Steak N' Shake, there is no other way really. You can't make a U-turn there. Jeff Hill: There is even a sign that says no U- turn. Alan Potasnik: That is the first area really. I am hoping you redo the parking lot and driveway. It is like driving on the moon. Sarah Freymuth: That is a part of the plan. Alan Potasnik: Joshua brings up a legitimate issue here. Joshua Kirsh: There is an issue that will probably be solved as Rachel has outlined. You are going to be long gone Sarah by the time this becomes an issue. If your clients understand the issue and now Staff is aware of the issue, then they can come back and say it continues to be an issue, I am fairly certain that the City's enforcement arm will be happy to resolve the issue. If we are not going to resolve the issue through connectivity or more specifically, to Rachel, if Engineering is fine with it the way it is, then it will not change. In the future, there will be a series of roundabouts between AAA Way and the entrance to the property, which will probably solve some of these problems, but that is not scheduled, planned, or funded at this point. Kevin Rider: I am also a chronic abuser: You used to be able to make a U-tum there and they added a sign to stop this. I think once it reopens a lot of people will stop that behavior. That building is kind of like an eye sore and I like the improvements. Jeff Hill: For a restaurant use, this would make sense. There are 63 parking spaces there and it feels a little overparked. When I look down the street at the National Bank of Indianapolis and Key Bank, they have about 17 spots a piece. Is there an opportunity to green this up by taking out some parking? Sarah Freymuth: We did look into this. We did eliminate all the parking stalls on the south end of the property to make a little more room for the ITMs. When we did look into adding green space it ended up being very costly to do so because we would have to recurb, regutter, and plant and fill. We spoke with the City about this. We have an estimating team to crunch numbers and make an educated decision on whether this was feasible or not. At the time it was determined that it was not feasible at the time. Rachel Keesling: That was something we looked at and wanted to suggest to them. It would have been the whole south row that Staff was hoping to see put back as green space. It is not a requirement and is existing today. I think this building was built in the 1970's. It has been there a long time and probably legal non -conforming based on what was approved back at the time. We did try and for cost reasons they could not do it. Jeff Hill: I get that, and I think of the other times when this group asks, "Are we over parked, are we under parked?" This seems like out shot. Kevin Rider: • Are there any other Engineering comments we may need to make this contingent upon? Alan Potasnik: I think other than subject to the Throughfare Plan approval, that is all I've heard. Rachel Keesling: Correct. And there are general comments that are still out there on ProjectDox. We are not finished with all the reviews. If you would make it subject to finalizing all comments or ProjectDox that would be good. Kevin Rider: And that would include the Throughfare Plan? Rachel Keesling: Yes. Kevin motions to approve Docket PZ-2021-00002 subject to all ProjectDox comments being addressed, Joshua seconds, motion passes 3-1, Hill. Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 2. Docket No. PZ-2020-00198 DP/ADLS: The Avenue at Bennett Farm. 3. Docket No. PZ-2020-00206 ZW: 20' Maximum Building height, 2216" and 2214" requested. 4. Docket No. PZ-2020-00207 ZW: 30' minimum Greenbelt width required, 28' requested. 5. Docket No. PZ-2020-00208 ZW: Number of Parking spaces — 88 required, 77 requested. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval and associated Development Standards Waiver and Variance approvals for 2 new retail buildings. The site is located at 11100-11150 N. Michigan Rd. (Block A, Bennett Technology Park subdivision). It is zoned B3/Business and US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Steve Hardin and Mark Leach of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, on behalf of Joe Farr of JDF Development LLC. Petitioners: Steve Hardin (Faegre Drinker Biddle), Mark Leech (Faegre Drinker Biddle), Michael Long (Curran Architecture), Ashton Fritz (Fritz Engineering Services LLC), & Joe Farr (JDF Development LLC): Steve Hardin: • We were at the January 191 Plan Commission (Commission) most recently and we had a few pieces of homework to work on with Staff. I will review the three main highlights. • First, bike racks have been added to the single tenant building at the north end. • Staff also requested that bike racks at north end of building be shifted to the middle section. This has been done. • Second, the lighting plan needed to be updated to comply with the lighting requirements. That was submitted and is completed. • Lastly, there were some requested updates for sign package and sign locations to be identified. This has been done as well. • One issue we wanted to discuss was continued dialogue for a request from Staff for an additional connection from this property to the southern property, which is another multi -tenant retail tenant. The way people would access the two properties is paths along Michigan Rd. and Redd Rd. There are connections from both properties directly from those pedestrian paths. Staff requested an additional connection from the two buildings, on a straighter route. Joe Farr does not own the property to the south so we can't control what happens there. It is not a matter of cost to provide some striping and sidewalk. It is more of a practical, `Does it make sense?' He is willing to do what Staff is asking, but just wanted to share with the Committee and seek your decision to add the striping, then we will. Joe Farr: On the crosswalk, Ashton Fritz and I spent quite a bit of time discussing it with Staff. We believe that striping and adding a crosswalk across our parcel is something we are willing to spend the money and do, but taking people across a drive-thru lane and then across another drive line and then across a drive lane at the southern parcel may not be the best approach to direct people to the site. I know people are thinking `Well if you are going to do it anyway and if there is no sidewalk they will just walk through the grass.' I understand why Staff is bringing it up. We are willing to do the work and spend the money on our parcel and put in a sidewalk. I believe the adjacent property owner would be amenable to some striping across the driveway. They don't want to rip up their sidewalk at Sherman Williams and add a handicap ramp there. They would have cross striping up to a sidewalk without a handicap ramp. I am willing to add the striping on their parcel with their approval and do the work on our parcel if the City wants this done. We don't necessarily believe it is the best approach from a design standpoint. • We have addressed all the outstanding issues except some ProjectDox comments that are still being finalized. • We request approval tonight. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • Steve reviewed all the outstanding comments that needed to be addressed; the location of the bicycle racks was adjusted, two new racks were added to the north building, and the lighting plan is now in compliance. • There were a couple of outstanding items in the Department Report. One is the sign package. That is my mistake. It was included in the elevations all along. It was just in small writing and accidently overlook this. The sign package is fine. • The drive-thru sign placement is another thing we were looking for. This was provided today. There is plenty of room to have the drive-thru signage around both the buildings and in landscaping. We are okay with this. The last outstanding item, which has been discussed by the petitioner tonight, is the pedestrian connection Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 through the middle of the site along the drive aisle. I asked for this during my review. It is something that Staff would request from whoever developed this next site to the existing site to the south. It was also mentioned at Commission that it was needed. I know there is adequate space to do it and the petitioner is willing to do it, but I do think it is beneficial and should be included. One of the items that I thought to help make this better is adding the pedestrian refuge in the drive-thru lane. One of the variances the petitioner is getting is for a 23-ft. wide drive aisle instead of 25-ft. This was done to gain back space for the green belt and sidewalk space around the building. I asked the petitioner to reduce the southern drive aisle, which allows for more space between the drive-thru lane and the drive aisles. We could ideally put a pedestrian refuge or a break in this curbing for people to stand. It does provide a space to help for safety precaution, so people can look for oncoming vehicles. There are ways to do it safely and that it should be included in the project. This is our only outstanding comment. • I would like to go over the waiver requests. The first waiver (PZ-2020-00208) is for the number of parking spaces. 88 are required and have been calculated with restaurants in mind. The reduction is for I I spaces for 12.5%. Two of the restaurants will have drive-thrus. That is part of the reason we are supportive of the waiver request. • The second waiver request (PZ-2020-00198) is for building height facing west toward residential. The overlay requires a maximum of 20-ft. and the petitioner has requested 2-ft.-6" and 2-ft.-4" over the 20-ft. height maximum in order to hide the mechanicals on the roof and give architectural emphasis on the columns. Staff is in support of this waiver request. • The final waiver request (PZ-2020-00207) is for a 2-ft. reduction in the Greenbelt along Michigan Rd. We have worked hard with the petitioner to add space back to this area because originally it was 10-ft. into the green belt. This was not acceptable with Staff. We have reworked a bunch of items on site and the petitioner ended up having to ask for more variances, but we were able to get back most of the Greenbelt. The 2-ft. reduction is a small amount compared to what it was. And with the site being as tight as it is, Staff is supportive. • Once the pedestrian connection between the two buildings and two sites are addressed, Staff is in full support of the project and the requested waivers. The Committee has authority to approve it tonight. • Staff recommends approval, subject to finalizing TAC review comments on ProjectDox. Committee Comments: Alan Potasnik: • I am aware of one individual, a Mr. Brian Shapiro, who contacted me and perhaps other Committee members, relative to 2-ft. of landscape buffer he requested Committee try and find and add back in. Staff and I discussed this. For the record, since I was contacted, I would like the Committee to hear from Staff, and if the petitioner could address the ability to add this back in. Steve Hardin: The team is thankful for the time and energy that Rachel Keesling has put into the project. It really was a collaboration. The building is not oversized at all, from a square footage perspective. It is probably smaller on a per square foot per acre than most normal retail buildings are. It is not because the building is any bigger, it is just an unusual taper to for the shape of the site. We had some constraints from the basic standards, when working with Staff they came up with the ideas to reduce drive lane and parking spaces around the site. We were able to find 8-ft., we would have found 10-ft. if we could, but we were unable to. The depth from Michigan Rd. to Redd Rd. was a constraint, which is why the variances and waivers exist, in order to minimize how much we intrude into the Greenbelt. Joe Farr: The site is very tricky. Our original design was 10-ft. into the Greenbelt. We worked extensively with Staff to make changes to the site plan and building. The site is not overdeveloped. The site has 6,300 sq. ft. per buildable acre, which is far less then adjacent properties that are around 7,500 sq. ft. per buildable property. The coverage is far under 80% which is the required amount at 72%. We don't have too much building or parking. The landscape plan has not been compromised. We meet all the standards for landscaping and screening of trees. I understand Brian's comments and concerns and I appreciate his caring for the community so much. I do believe this design works very well for this parcel and allows for plenty of landscaping, screening, and buffering. Rachel Keesling: I would add that at least 5- ft. for a sidewalk width is needed around the front of the building. We would really like to have at least 5-ft. for landscaping around the building and 5-ft. for landscaping where the site is fairly tight. To further answer the question, `Could we find two more feet?' Yes, we could, but it would take away from the sidewalk to the planting areas. We tried to balance everything across the site, and we felt with the new variances this project came together as the optimal outcome. Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 • Were there any other members of the public that provided comments or feedback? Nathan Chavez: There were no other letters from the public. Kevin Rider: • Can you pull up an aerial of the site? The building to the south, that is the Sherman Williams store? Rachel Keesling: There is a nail salon, Moe's, and something else. There are four tenants I believe. Kevin Rider: I understand our traffic connectivity, but I am worried about dragging people across a bunch of drive-thrus. I don't have heart burn either way. If the petitioner is willing, then so be it. I am not sure a lot of people will walk between the two properties. Alan Potasnik: • At Commission Brad Grabow mentioned to look at the pedestrian crossing, and I am assuming this is what you addressed as a part of your report? Rachel Keesling: Yes. This is the connection that Brad Grabow asked for and I spoke about. Alan Potasnik: I am assuming you would like to have that put into any motion that is made? Rachel Keesling: I would. I do think it would be beneficial. Kevin motions to approve Dockets PZ-2020-00198 & 206-208 subject to finalizing ProjectDox comments and adding pedestrian connectivity to south neighboring parcel, Joshua seconds, motion passes 4-0. 6. Docket No. PZ-2020-00210 DP Amend/ADLS Amend: Pennwood Office Park. 7. Docket No. PZ-2020-00225 V: UDO Section 3.17.A.1.b. — Secondary vehicular entrances shall not be through residential areas. Requesting emergency vehicle -only secondary access from Washington Blvd. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for three, one-story office buildings to be constructed on 3.76 acres. The site is located at approximately 11505 N. Pennsylvania Street. It is zoned B-5Business and is located within the West Homeplace Commercial Corridor, High Intensity Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin Buchheit of Krieg DeVault on behalf of the owner, SCB Home Office, LLC. Petitioners: Kevin Buchheit (Krieg DeVault), Steve Bodner (SCB Home Office, LLC), & DJ O'TooIe (Thomason & Associates): Kevin Buchheit: • I will be quick and review all the outstanding comments from Staff and how they have been addressed. • On the north side there is a Side Yard Setback originally shown as 5-ft. That has been increased to a required 10-ft. • On the west building there are three separate doors facing west. Pedestrian connections have been made to all three of them. • Engineering approval is a discussion that will continue after any action tonight. We accept that. • We have proposed soffit lighting at the entrances for security and illumination purposes. That is a nice way to provide illumination without a large illumination footprint. • The updated landscape plan provided to the Urban Forester, reflects discussions with him. It has been approved at least in writing. Once the revised drawings are uploaded the Urban Forester should be prepared to stamp them approved. • There was a question about a safe passage for pedestrians in the large parking lots. We have taken out two parking spaces and added the striping across the south aisle to a point that is about the middle and east building. This reduces our total parking space count to 115 spaces. 110 spaces are required so we still meet that requirement. • The emergency access onto Washington Blvd., the Carmel Fire Department (CFD) has recommended that it be asphalt. So, we will make that asphalt. We discussed initially using a treatment that is more environmentally friendly, but the CFD is worried about not sinking if they go through there. We will make sure it supports their large equipment. • The barrier at that access it yet to be determined, but that determination will be made with CFD and it will include a Knox box. • We looked into shifting the access point of Washington Blvd. a little to the south. That was part of the discussion at the January 19t` Commission meeting. If we tried to do that then we would lose one fairly significant tree on Washington Blvd. We are hoping that the access point will not be used and that there isn't any other fires or emergencies which require its use. I think any headlight intrusion that might occur by Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 emergency access at that point is going to be subordinate and light from emergency vehicles responding. We would like to leave it where it is. • The sidewalk requirement for Washington Blvd., Mr. Bodner has agreed to pay in -lieu at this point. • We discussed the elevation for the garage storage building meant for site maintenance equipment. A revision is available (Dumpster Revision for COMin Laserfiche). Commissioner Brad Grabow was concerned about the gable, as it was presented, not being in harmony with the building structures. Now we have connected the west dumpster and the shed into a single building to save a little bit of cost with a common wall down the middle. We have been in discussion with Rachel Keesling the past few days. Her eagle eye caught a problem with symmetry at the middle section on the south elevation. Right now, the graphic is showing the structure coming to the middle of the common wall. We are going to move that to the west face of the common wall and will take care the symmetry problem without getting in the way of dumpster access and maintenance there. • The site plan has been updated. • The landscape plan has been approved. • The elevations have been updated. We will retain the elevation for the east dumpster as was presented earlier. • Signs will be present as tenants are confirmed. That will be the administrative ADLS Amend process. • The only outstanding issue is addressing any concerns that come out of the ongoing Engineering discussion. We feel many of those may have been already addressed in the revised drawings but will upload those and finish the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) review comments. • We respectfully request your approval tonight. Alan Potasnik: Kevin, at the Commission meeting, Commissioner Nick Kestner brought up access to the third row of parking. Did you address that? Kevin Buchheit: Yes. We are taking out two parking spaces and adding a striped connection between them. That will empty the pedestrians from the far drive aisle to about the midpoint of the middle and east buildings. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • As Kevin mentioned there were a few outstanding issues from the Commission meeting. • The front door pedestrian access from Pennsylvania St. has been added. • The Side Yard Setback on the north has been increased to 10-ft. as required by the UDO. • Nick Kestner's questions about a safe pedestrian access through the middle of parking lot was just addressed. • The Washington Blvd., Non -Reverting Throughfare Fund contribution for the sidewalk will be done. • The underlighting of the soffits on the building for illumination of the fagade and the walkways was mentioned. • The Urban Forester has approved the landscape plan. • The last comment was regarding Engineering Department approval which will be ongoing. • Staff recommends approval tonight. Jeff motions to approve Docket PZ-2020-00210 & PZ-2020-00225 subject to all Engineering Department comments being addressed, Kevin seconds, motion passes 4-0. 8. Docket No. PZ-2020-00119 OA: Sign Standards Amendments. The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to amend Section 5.39 Sign Standards, Sections 7.11 & 7.12 Entryway Feature Standards, Section 5.66 Food Stand Use Standards, Section 1.29 Filing Fees, and Definitions for signage. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Nathan Chavez (Department of Community Services — Sign Administrator): • I am going to share my screen and review changes that have occurred since the January 51 Committee meeting. • I was first asked to review the fee of $0.25 for Construction wraps. I researched fee increases for the Department of Community Services. I found that fees increase based on the Consumer Price Index. At Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 $0.25 the fee will only increase if the Consumer Price Index increases by 4% that year. If the fee were lower than $0.25 it would take a 5% increase, which I am not sure if that has ever happened or not. The last instance of a 4% increase was 2003. This is another reason Staff feels that $0.25 is appropriate, because the fee will eventually increase but not drastically over time. Really this is the appropriate fee. Again, the fee is based on the square footage of signage. The second point, and an idea I've had, based on recent trends with drive-thrus, currently drive-thru establishments, such as McDonalds and Steak N' Shake propose two drive thru lanes instead of the traditional one. Listening to something Kevin Rider once said, "Why would we need a variance, when we can just put this into the ordinance? We need to avoid variances more." I am proposing the Drive-Thru Food Service section (Line 535) to allow for signage based on number of drive-thrus. This is just an additional sign and 30 sq. ft. Two great examples are the McDonalds at Carmel Dr. and Keystone (750 E. Carmel Dr.) and the Freddy's Frozen Custard on Michigan Rd. (9835 N. Michigan Rd.). This way we can avoid the variance process, allow signs outright, and get businesses permits quicker. Another addition is Canopy Signs. Carmel has seen heavy urbanization in our core. Developments in Midtown, City Center, and the Proscenium are seeing more and more signs installed on metal canopies. Currently we use the Wall Sign standards, where a Spandrel Panel is identified to determine size. This has led to mixed results and some frustration from business owners, property owners, and sign companies. I researched other municipal codes and I found provisions for Canopy Signs. Specifically, they limit signage to a maximum of 24" or 2-ft., in height and the width is determined based on the canopy width. I am going to show some examples throughout the City (Document titled Canopy Sign Examples). This includes Fork + Ale in Midtown, Financial Partners Group just to the south of Sun King, Java House recently came in, I don't have a completion photo quite yet, Trueblood is to the north of Financial Partners, and lasty Physique 57 was proposed recently. Over the past two weeks I found all the signs that are considered Canopy Signs and I crunched the numbers for their height. On the screen is the current height of all the signs and their average, which is sitting as 23.86" (Document titled Canopy Numbers). Last week I ran along the Monon looking for these signs and I noticed that these buildings, canopies, and signs are meant for an urbanized pedestrian scale. They are next to streets with low speed limits and there isn't a need to have tall signage. The Trueblood sign is 26.75" tall and if one is on the Monon, this sign will look out of character. It looks too large. As a contrast, just next to it, is the Financial Partners Group sign. With the logo the sign is 23" in height and I would argue it is perfectly scaled for the building, which is why 1 am proposing a 24" maximum. With regards to the width I studied the three earlier mentioned developments and took note of the canopy length. With smaller canopies there needs to be more wiggle room for signage. With larger canopies, such as Fork + Ale there needs to be a constraint on how large a sign can be. For example, we wouldn't want a business to have the logo and name and then list out every single item they sell. Currently, the proposed standards allow 90% of a tenant's canopy length if 14-ft. or less and 70% of a tenant's canopy length if greater than 14-ft.. Truthfully, I am still reviewing these numbers and proposals. Rachel Keesling: I want to tell the Committee that I wish I would have thought of this. I think it does solve the need that we have. I am really glad it is proposed now. With the introduction of the Canopy Signs, they are written in the Sign Standards, so it covers all types of buildings and uses. I would liken this type of sign to Awning Signs, where it may be used as a primary sign or as a secondary sign, if for example an individual or business decides to have a Wall sign on their building then they can use leftover square footage for a Canopy Sign. I believe this was recently used for a hotel on US 31 and 126t' St. (Avid Hotel 19050014 DP/ADLS). This allows for greater flexibility in the urban core, as well as other newer buildings in the City. Moving on to changes in the Ground Sign chart (page 19). An intern and I analyzed every single Ground Sign that was approved from 2018 to 2020. Page 23 is a chart I already showed at Commission. I would like you all to focus on a number of things. The second column is the existing sign area. Best Friends Hotel exists at 19.83 sq. ft. The next column shows what is allowed today based on the current Sign Standards. Given the distance from the right-of-way and the building/tenant frontage, this is how we determine how large and tall a Ground sign may be, 45 sq. ft. is allowed for Best Friends Hotel. The fourth column shows what would be allowed based on the proposed Sign Standards. I made changes to the Ground Sign Chart and then I determined what would be allowed per the changes to the Sign Standards, based on setbacks and street frontage. What we are finding is if these same signs were applied for today, in most instances, except 11 cases, there is still leftover square footage, even if the Ground Sign chart were reduced. Businesses are not utilizing all their square footage. And even with a proposed reduction in what is allowed, there is still so Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 much unused square footage to have an extra sign, if we still went by that rule. The second largest takeaway is the `Distance from ROW (ft.)' column. Businesses are placing their sign as close to the road as possible. And this makes sense. People want their signs up to the road for greater visibility and greater advertising. • To clarify, this is mostly hypothetical, all signs that have been approved are grandfathered in. And if a sign were to just reface then the existing size is unaffected. There are no negative or ill affects towards what currently is installed in the ground unless there is a change in the structure of the Ground Sign. • Moving back to the Ground Sign chart, the first proposal is to reduce the setback bracket to smaller increments because people have signage closer to the road, there is no need to have 5-50, 51-100, and so on and so forth. It is more beneficial to make this smaller and tailor it to what people are actually doing with their signage. I almost entirely removed the last bracket, 201-300 feet. And instead just made this 101+ feet. If a sign is 101+ feet removed, then a business may have 75 sq. ft. of signage. It doesn't matter what the building frontage is, and they can have 8-ft. in height. The next big change is reduction of the maximum sign area. Really this is based off the smallest number in a bracket. For example, 5-30 feet setback with under 50 feet of building frontage is allowed 30 sq. ft. currently. I just increased by 5 sq. ft. for each increased in building frontage. I had multiple Excel documents with calculations trying to determine how this would affect signs and if the existing signs were hypothetically applied for today. Really there is not much of a difference. The signs that would be affected, such as Shamrock Self Storage or Shoppes at Weston Pointe, are signs that my predecessor approved because the Sign were compliant, but he received pushback from individuals whether it was other businesses or government officials. "Why was this sign allowed? This sign is too big." This change stems from those issues he had when he was simply following the Sign Standards. • One thing I want to preface, is when I was rewriting these Sign Standards, whenever I would make a change or deletion, I would always think to myself, `What is an instance where this will not make sense? Where a variance may be needed?' I did my best to think of the entire City from east to west and north to south, how would this negatively affect businesses or where would an exception occur to what is proposed. What I found is that there is always going to be an exception, there is going to be one outlier where there is a structure that was built for residential and converted to commercial, but is outside the area where these types of structures and uses exist. Or I think, `Where is an office building that is allowed a sign facing a Street Frontage, but unfortunately they face a residential neighborhood?' I have gone through many iterations of the Sign Standards and have talked through concerns and circumstances with Rachel Keesling and Mike Hollibaugh. What is proposed is the most appropriate standards given trends in the City with regards to signs and development, while also protecting residential and business uses. • Moving to Food Stand Use -Specific Standards (line 738), this is a small change where the section is now referred to the 5.39 Sign Standards. And then the requirement, `...and shall not exceed ten (10) square feet in area.' is removed. Again, this is following the trend to tie all the sign standards of the UDO into one section. • Residential Entryway Feature Standards (line 747). The Entryway Feature Standards, including commercial (line 809), were introduced when the UDO was adopted. It didn't necessarily fit within the City of Carmel and was a new concept. I found other instances of this section in other municipal UDO's, that the company we hired to create our UDO was also hired to create. All of my proposed changes are gearing what was written back in 2017 and molding it so it fits with the Carmel Sign Standards and the Carmel UDO. This part of the UDO has been used a handful of times. Off the top of my head I can think of three or four. At its best it allows for a slightly taller structure for subdivisions and developments, that keeps signage below 6-ft. in height and within the Sign Standards for size. At its worst, it has allowed a developer to build a structure right on a sidewalk (See page 7 of document titled Exhibits for 03-15-21 Common Council). This should never have happened and my office went back and forth with the developer for quite some time about this particular sign and the revisions will ensure that a sign and its structure is not in the right-of-way or interferes with any sort of pedestrian traffic. Kevin Rider: They actually built that sign into the sidewalk. Nathan Chavez: it was not a pleasant day for me or the sign company when I asked them what was going on with this. • At Commission Brad Grabow had general questions about subdivision signs and how they are taking on a more commercial look and that the lighting may be overt. One of the best examples I can provide is Springmill Ridge. It is a nice -looking sign, it is a little bright, and was never formally approved or permitted. That is a code enforcement issue that I will work on. But how this relates to the petition, is in yellow (lines 801-802 & 806-807). I am proposing, `If externally illuminated, only ground mounted cutoff Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 fixtures shall be used.' and `Illumination levels shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candles at the property line.' This is meant to promote low level externally illuminated signs, which aren't too bright for residential areas. Lastly, with these sections, I have referred them back to the 5.39 Sign Standards sections for both Residential and Non -Residential Entryway Features (lines 755-756 & 816-817). I also reworked the language so that both sections match each other. Before the subsections were in different order. The proposed is much clearer. Lastly, there are the revisions and additions of the definitions (line 856). I have gone through most of these during my presentations with the Committee during the various subject matter. The two newest additions, `Canopy: A permanent shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building and composed of rigid materials.' and `Sign, Canopy: A Sign located on a permanent roof -like structure or canopy of rigid material extending from the building entrance. Permanent Canopies attached to the Building shall be considered separate of the structure.' were recently added. They follow similar definitions, for example the Canopy definition is similar to the definition of the Awning definition and parts of the Canopy Sign definition are similar to the Awning Sign definition. Kevin Rider: Nathan you have been very thorough, professional, and have done a great job. I appreciate all your work. Nathan Chavez: It helps when I have a Committee that asks great questions and challenges me to give better answers and look more thoroughly at things. Joshua Kirsh: I think it says more that Rachel wishes she came up with something. That is the tell -tale sign of a good project. Your department continues to outdo yourselves. Thank you. Alan Potasnik: You did a fine job. I recommend this item be sent to Plan Commission with favorable recommendation, subject to Staff reexamining the newly proposed Canopy signs. I want to make sure this is the right move. Kevin motions to forward Docket PZ-2020-00119 to Plan Commission with favorable recommendation, subject to Staff reexamining the newly proposed Canopy signs, Joshua seconds, motion passes 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:37 PM. 1 Nathan Chavez Recording Secretary Alan Potasnik Committee Chairman 0 Commercial Committee Minutes 02-02-21 10