HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 06-15-10 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
JUNE 15, 2010
2. Docket No. 10040009 DP /ADLS: Turkey Hill Minit Markets.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a mixed use building with office, retail, and fuel station
uses. It is located at the northeast corner of Range Line Rd. Carmel Dr. (former Pizza Hut site). The site is
zoned B -8 /Business and lies within the Carmel Dr. Range Line Rd. Overlay. Filed by Steve Fuller of TH
Midwest Inc.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new retail/office building and a fuel station with canopy on
1.24 acres. The building materials are primarily brick, chiseled face block, and burnished block. This site is north of
the Fineberg building, south of Kroger, and east of Arby's. A Shell gas station is located southwest. Please view the
petitioner's information packet for further detail.
Variance approvals requested from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) are:
Minimum 70% frontage, building Number of signs facing South ROW
Minimum 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Number of signs facing West ROW
Definition of Changeable Copy, sign Total square footage, signage
Number of signs Permit ground signs in overlay zone
Staff's outstanding review comments (to be addressed at the Committee review level):
1. The City Engineering Dept. will further work with the petitioner on the proposed roundabout sidewalks for
that street intersection.
2. The Forestry Dept. approved the landscape plan. Because of the specific site of the existing trees (existing
asphalt in drip line -to be removed and replaced), there will not be a standard tree preservation plan. but the
existing trees on the landscape plan are to be kept as noted.
3. Planning Zoning Dept. (DOCS) comments:
a) Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application.
b) Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application.
c) Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement affidavit page of the application.
d) Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor's
Office.
e) Please provide a sight line exhibit to show that the rooftop mounted equipment is screened from view,
since the 2D blackline building elevations show some of the rooftop equipment exposed.
f) Signage comments (and other talking points for Committee level review /discussion):
1. Sign #1: This sign seems to be too small to be effective from a distance. Looking at the before and
after renderings, it looks as though it is squeezed in between the second story windows and the
awnings. What if the sign was placed above the second story windows in a larger brick accent
"frame
2. Sign #2: The Department is okay with tenant returning at a later date for sign approvals.
3. Sign #3: The window signs are acceptable.
4. Sign #4: The Department is not okay with projecting sign's positioning on building. The drawings
under Tab 5 of the info packet clearly show that the rood eaves will somewhat block view of the
sign. Can it be moved higher on the building? Other options: a.) The Dept. would almost rather see
2
a wall sign similar to #1. It would be very neat placed in the brick frame and would be more visible
to eastbound Carmel Dr. traffic. Could move the "Est. 2010" sign to the north brick accent
"frame or b.) move the projecting sign to north end of building and create a larger, square
brick accent frame to surround the projecting sign. Having this in addition to the wall sign.
Remove "Est. 2010" from this elevation. This position would also be good if the upper story tenant
did come in and want a projecting sign at the corner of the building. It would provide greater
distance between the two projecting signs.
5. Sign #5: The Dept. originally suggested that "Turkey Hill" not be on this ground sign, only pricing,
because the Dept. suggested the wall sign would give greater visibility. The Dept. would like to see
the wall return to uniform height, and only have the prices on it.
6. Sign #6: Before and after photos show an issue with the address monuments along Carmel Dr. The
"100" monument will block view of gas prices. Can you provide a different rendering of what this
might look like driving westbound on Carmel Dr.? Now, the image reads as if taken from across
the street.
7. West elevation: Can some of the spans of brick knee wall be taken away from the sidewalk
entrance that leads to the door on Range Line Rd.? It looks "closed in" from both the renderings
and the before and after shots. It might feel more open if it wasn't so tight, right up to the sidewalk.
Another option: not have the wall in front of the building at all..
8. Concern that the shingle color is too close to the color of the brick, per the color renderings. (The
before and after photos and the renderings show different color shingles.) The entire building
seems very dark and monotone. Can different color bricks be used around the windows, roof lines,
and other accents?
9. Please add horizontal accent bricks in the vertical accent stripes on both the west and the east
building elevations.
10. On the east elevation, switch the "Est. 2010" to the smaller (northern part) elevation and have a
larger brick frame on the larger (southern part) elevation.
11. Can awnings be added above the doors leading to the second story tenant?
12. Are the proposed goose neck lights scaled appropriately for the building?
The Dept of Community Services (DOCS) requests that the Plan Commission sends this item to the July 6
Special Studies Committee meeting for further review /discussion.
3