Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 06-19-12City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2012 City Hall Council Chambers, 2 "a Floor One Civic Square Carmel 1N 46032 6:00 PM Members present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Joshua Kirsh, Alan Potasnik, Sue Westermeier DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Planning Administrator Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary The Minutes of the May 15, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted. F. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: There was no appeal regarding litigation on the Kensington Homeowners — the case is essentially over and the Plan Commission prevailed. G. Reports, Dept Announcements, Rachel Boone: Item 2 under New Business, Meridian and Main, Parcel 1, Building 1 has been tabled to July 17, 2012. H. Public Hearings 1. Docket No. 12040020 CA: Franciscan St. Francis Health, North Meridian Medical Pavilion. The applicant seeks commitment amendment approval regarding signage commitments. The site is located at 12188 N. Meridian St. and is zoned B- 6/Business within the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney & Evans for HCRI Carmel Building A Medical Facility, LLC and HCRI Cannel Building B Medical Facility, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Steve Granner, Bose McKinney & Evans, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis. Also in attendance: Jerrod Stark, Executive Director of Mooresville Franciscan St. Francis Health Facilities; Steven Wheatley, Operations Director of Carmel Franciscan St. Francis Health Facility; Roger Barksdale, Vice President, Ancillary Services for Franciscan Alliance, Inc; Robert Stefanski, Property Manager and Agent for the Owner of the Site; Michael Blum, Vice President of Sign Solutions Overview: • 2- building complex, currently owned by a Real Estate Investment Trust — Health Care REIT, Inc 1 June 19, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • Franciscan Health Care was neither owner nor a tenant in either of the buildings at the time the previous petitions were filed • The petitioner is not asking for any additional sign that is not permitted on the site, numbers - wise, under the Sign Ordinance — only the height of the two signs and number of panels within the sign area of each sign • Petitioner is requesting 8 tenant panels rather than existing 4 on current sign along Illinois Street Jerrod Stark, Exec Director, Mooresville & Carmel Campus:: • Carmel Franciscan offers a faith - based, health care alternative for Carmel residents, Hamilton County & surrounding communities • Short-stay, acute care hospital offers comprehensive imaging services, in- patient/out- patient surgical services, rehab service, oncology & infusion, cardiac testing, laboratory, six -bed in- patient unit & more • In addition, services provided within the hospital include primary care practice & specialty care services & practices • Significant obstacle on a daily basis is the confusion related to signage on Illinois Street in front of the building • With one sign, patients are regularly re- directed to the twin bldg to the south & tenants in that bldg do the same • Many patients are first -time visitors to the hospital and are frustrated by inadequate signage • The petitioner respectfully requests approval for additional signage needs Additional Information, Steve Granner: • Original commitments adopted in 2004 and amended in 2008 • Petitioner requests two things o Proposed new ground sign at south entrance along Illinois Street be allowed to be same height, size, & construction as existing ground sign at north entrance along Illinois St o Petitioner is asking that both signs be limited to eight tenant panels per face • The site has one, single address for both buildings — bldgs that are identical — and it is confusing for first time visitors • Original commitments from 2004 use the term "Directory & building identification signage" for signs proposed for both Illinois Street entrances • Applicable term in the Sign Ordinance for signs at both entrances along Illinois Street is: Center Identification Ground Sign and under the standards of Section 25.0.02 -10F requires that these two signs "must be of similar design and identical in lighting and style of construction." • Denying this request, as suggested in Dept Report, would make it impossible for petitioner or anyone else to comply with existing wording of Commitments, if it is desired to make the two signs the same height as contemplated in original, 2004 Commitments • Commitments provide for a sign at each entrance • Without amendment to 2008 revised commitments, proposed south entrance sign cannot be allowed to be identical in height to existing north entrance sign • Commitment number 5 does not limit number of tenant panels on each sign; neither does the sign regulation limit the number of tenant panels on each sign • The petitioner is not asking to increase the area of the panels, only a different division of the existing total panel area 2 June 19, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting • The petitioner is asking that existing commitments be amended so that both signs along Illinois Street can be 8 feet tall rather than 5 feet mentioned in the original commitments, and so that both signs can have eight panels within the permitted sign area Public Remonstrance: None Public Hearing Closed Dept Comments, Rachel Boone: • Height commitment for 8 feet was for one sign only, not both, and Dept Report should be amended accordingly • 8 feet in height is not an issue, but would like it to be exactly similar to the existing sign • Variance is on file for the 8 -foot height sign • Dept Report should be amended to say that the Dept is in support of the 8 -foot tall sign • Franciscan Health was not involved at the time the commitments were made • There are other sign types available which are not being utilized on this site, i.e. directory signs that could be 20 square feet, 5 feet tall, next to the doors — design approved in 2007 when first building was being occupied, but those signs were never installed • There are also directional signs, three square feet, three feet tall, that are not being utilized for this site — also proposed in 2007 but never explored • Neighbors in the area spoke very strongly about not wanting wall signs facing their neighborhood • The Dept feels it is easy to find the bldgs and can be further clarified with directional signs • The Dept recommends suspending the Rules of Procedure and vote for: A being the height which the Dept supports at 8 feet; B being the commitment to the number of panels which the Dept supports at the current number of 4 Commission Members' Comments: • Monument signs are to identify the building, not every tenant in the bldg • Eight panels would create a problem with people slowing down to read the signs • There are no decal or turn lanes for either entrance to this site, and traffic slowing to read the signs would create a traffic hazard • Facility is not just a hospital and has a variety of other uses as well • Other hospital facilities in the area have taken advantage of internal directional signage to make navigation thru the campus easier • It makes sense to have both signs identical and match • As Illinois Street is built out, it makes sense to be consistent • Suggestions included re- numbering the buildings, renaming the Medical Group, adding "A" and "B" to the respective buildings • If the true argument is confusion, then the interior directory signs make sense • Directory signs need to be reasonably placed to get people to right facility Robert Stefanski, representing the property ownership /management company, stated there are currently 13 practice groups in Bldg A, the south building, Jerrod Stark stated that it would be pretty involved to change the address of the service providers from a health care perspective, since there are a lot of agencies involved: State Board of Health, billing 3 June 19, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting numbers with Medicare/Medicaid, DEA licenses for physicians and prescriptive privileges — a lengthy, involved process. Woody Rider made formal motion to allow the Special Studies Committee to take definitive Docket No. 12040020 CA, Franciscan St. Francis Health, North Meridian Medical Pavilion; 8 -0 The Commission asked that the Petitioner present an interior sign package to the Special StudiesCommittee for consideration at its meeting on June 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM. I. Old Business J. New Business it would be action on Approved 1 Docket No. 12050014 DP /ADLS: Olive Garden Restaurant. Petitioner seeks preliminary feedback about proposed architecture for a new Olive Garden Restaurant at 10206 N. Michigan Rd., within the US 421/Michigan Rd. Corridor Overlay Zone. (The Plarming/Zoning Dept. will then relay comments back to the petitioner.) Present for Petitioner: Jack DeGagne, Site Development Manager for Darden Angie Conn, Dept Comments: Petitioner is requesting preliminary feedback from the Commission regarding proposed architecture on a new Olive Garden Restaurant. The site is within the US 421/Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone. The Dept is unsure if this is totally Italianate architecture or a spin -off. It is more Tuscan-type. The petitioner will argue its compliance next month before the Plan Commission. The roof is clay tile and not a permitted building material. It is understood that their proto -type is mostly stone, clay tile and pergola. Perhaps adding stucco to the walls would help to give the building an "old world feel." Commission Comments: • The building is a consistent look and feel • The building does not fit the Michigan Road Overlay standards • The two -story element is already present — kudos to petitioner • Tuscan is difficult to accomplish with the requirements of the 421 corridor • If KFC, Taco Bell, Burger King, Best Buy, and others can comply with the corridor Overlay requirements, then anyone can • This can be done, but will require greater creativity and flexibility to deviate from the standard Jay Dorman referred to a letter received from QWIC2 regarding the appropriateness of a preliminary "feed -back meeting." John Molitor had reviewed the letter from QWIC2 there is nothing in State Statute that authorizes a formal "feed -back, preliminary meeting." If this is going to be done on a regular basis, there needs to be a formal, established procedure, perhaps a committee for preliminary review, or establish a quasi - public hearing process which would probably provide for public notice to affected neighbors. Otherwise, it is not recommended that this procedure be followed at this time 4 June 19, 2012 Carmel Plan Commission Meeting 2. TABLED TO JULY 17 - Docket No. 12020024 ADLS: Meridian and Main, Parcel 1, Building 1. K. Adjournment at 7:00 PM. I /r //_mil /_ R mona Hancock, Se retary St. & Pennsylvania Way, at 1440 Jay Dorman, President 5