Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse-Planning-10-31-12Civil Site GROUP, INC 643 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317 - 423 -3305 Fax: 317- 423 -3306 October 31, 2012 Ms. Angie Conn City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: 317 -571 -2281 Subject: Dunkin Donuts / C -Store Commercial Development Docket No. 12030014 -16 DP /ADLS 9800 North Michigan Road Dear Ms. Conn, Please find attached revisions and responses related to the Detailed Development Plans provided by Civil Site Group. The following responses below are for selected comments pertaining to our information. Additional information will be provided to you by the Architect and Legal Counsel for the project. 10. A cross access easement has been added to the Detailed Development Plans. Please see revised sheet C2.0. 21. The site has been adjusted to provide the full 36' greenbelt adjacent to the parking along Michigan Road. Please see the revised Detailed Development Plans. 30. A &F Engineering has been commissioned to perform a full traffic impact study (TIS). Based on meetings and correspondence with INDOT, they have dictated the scope and requirements for the TIS. The traffic counts have been completed and once the conclusions and report are compiled, they will be submitted to INDOT for approval. 31. We have had multiple meetings with INDOT regarding the proposed driveways for the project. INDOT has given us the scope and requirements for a full traffic study (TIS) which is currently underway. INDOT will not issue a final approval for the driveways until they have had a chance to analyze the completed TIS. However, based on the preliminary correspondence, INDOT would be willing to approve the two driveways as long as they are supported by data from the TIS and will cause a minimal impact to traffic patterns in the area. 32. Bicycle parking areas were labeled on the previously submitted plans. A detail of the proposed bicycle rack has been added to revised sheet C2.0. 33. We have verified with the site lighting vender, TechLite, that all proposed fixtures on -site are indeed flat lenses with 90- degree cutoffs. Ms. Angie Conn City of Carmel Dunkin Donuts / C -Store Commercial Development October3l, 2012 Page 2 of 2 35. The site lighting plan has been revised to show a maximum height of 24' A.F.G. (above finished grade). Please see revised sheet SL1.0. 36. The only outdoor sales will be at the northwest corner of the C -Store building with the display being located behind the building. It will be screened by a wall with gates. Please see the revised Detailed Development Plans. 37. The site plan works best from a logistical and functionality standpoint as it is laid out currently. The traffic circulation through and around the site is ideal as it is now. Rotating the commercial building 90- degrees and moving it closer to Michigan Road could impede access into the site from the northern curb cut. The location of the northern curb cut is being dictated by INDOT to line up with 98th Street on the East side of Michigan Road. Also, rotating and moving the commercial building would cause the back of the building to be visible from Michigan Road which is not desirable. In addition, tenants ideally will need to face Michigan Road directly for the best visibility. 38. We received two minor comments from the Urban Forester and have addressed those with this revision. I hope the above addresses your concerns and we look forward to receiving final approval for the project. Thank you. Sincerely, Civil Site Group, Inc. Eric A. Gleissner, P.E. Principal Attachments: Revised Detailed Development Plans Copy of Comment Letter Eric Gleissner From: Conn, Angelina V <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:28 PM To: 'Jon Dobosiewicz' Cc: 'Eric Gleissner'; 'Jim Shinaver'; 'bradames @comcast.net; Boone, Rachel M.; Donahue - Wold, Alexia K Subject: RE: Review comments for Docket Nos. 12030014 -16 DP & ADLS: 9800 N. Michigan Rd. /BP /Dunkin Donuts Attachments: Carmel Green Building Checklist.doc Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good afternoon, Jon - The Department has re- reviewed the proposed project for this site, since it has changed in layout, design, and architecture. Please reply to each of the review comments for the DP & ADLS applications via email or letter correspondence by Nov. 5. Also, we can meet prior to that to discuss the review comments you have questions about. Thank you. Planning /Zoning Dept. review comments: 1. Feel free to bring color /material samples of the building to the Plan Commission meeting. 2. Please provide paper copies of the revised applications. 3. Please provide digital copies of any revised plans. 4. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you. 5. Remember to include the Development Plan application's Findings of Fact sheet in your final information packets. 6. Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application. 7. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. 8. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement affidavit page of the application. 9. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor's Office. 10. Show /label a cross access easement across the site, so that when the site connects to the adjacent sites there will not be an issue with vehicular traffic accessing the site from the north and from the south. See Zoning Ordinance Chapters 23C.13 and 23C.11.D, too. 11. Please submit to -scale architectural building elevations on 24 "x36" or similar sized paper. 12. On each building, please provide the percent of EIFS of all non - window facade areas, per ZO Chapter 23C.09.K.2. (It must be less than or equal to 10 %, otherwise a BZA variance will be required.) 13. Please lower the parapet to reduce the total percent of EIFS OR use more brick between the heights of 4 -ft and 14 -ft, possibly, for a 10 -ft wide band of brick at least. The ratios look 'off. 14. Both the C -Store south elevation and Commercial retail building west elevation have long and monotonous walls, which are not permitted by ZO Chapter 23C.09.B. 15. What is the bollards color? 16. Gas canopy location might need BZA variance approval. See ZO Chapter 25.01.02 and ZO Chapter 25.19.c - Setbacks of accessory buildings & uses. 1 17. Cornices - please finish the detailing /reveals on the sides /ends. 18. You will need a BZA variance from ZO Chapter 23C.09.D: 8 -ft deep bumpouts /recessions, facades and detailing, etc. The Dept. recommends that you at least show 4 -ft deep projections and recessions. 19. Modulating roof /roofline on all visible elevations is required. 20. Building must appear to be 1.5 stories tall. 21. BZA variance is required for the parking spaces located along the front of the site, where it is not setback 36 -ft to accommodate the 30 -ft wide greenbelt, plus the 6 -ft wide parking perimeter buffer, per ZO Chapter 23C.10.03.5.a. Also, per ZO chapter 23C.11.F: Parking within front yard setbacks shall be discouraged and limited to a maximum of two (2) rows of parking, subject to minimum Greenbelt width, minimum bufferyard requirements and maximum building setback standards. 22. Is there not more detailing or a changeup of materials that can be done to break up the upper EIFS portion of the building? 23. Maybe remove the awnings from the windows, or at least place them lower than they are shown. Right now, it looks awkward. 24. The grids in the windows and the door entries: please make them the same pattern or proportionate. 25. Please paint the backs of the taller parapets a brick color. 26. Please provide more detail on the metal canopies. Also, can you make them deeper, to provide more of an overhang? 27. Please submit to -scale floor plans or typical store layouts for the Dunkin Donuts and C- store. 28. Please label the mechanical equipment locations (rooftop or ground level) on the site plan and building elevations and provide details on how they are screened from view or camouflaged. This includes electric and gas meters; see ZO Chapter 23C.10.02.5. 29. Please consider using additional LEED or `green' site and building practices, such as a white membrane roof, solar panels, native plants, rain gardens, etc. List is attached. 30. Please verify with the City Engineering Dept. that no type of traffic analysis is required. 31. Please provide correspondence from INDOT about the 2 curb cuts and their approvals of that. 32. Please show /label the bicycle parking areas and provide the bike rack details, per ZO Chapter 27.06 of the ordinance. 33. Please verify that all parking lot pole light fixtures have flat lenses and /or 90- degree cutoffs so that the light is downcast. 34. Please provide the wall sconce design details/ cut sheets. 35. Per ZO Chapter 23C.12.B, please amend the parking lot pole lights to be a maximum height of 24 feet. 36. Would like a commitment to have no or very little outdoor sales and displays associated with the gas station /convenience store to limit the propane gas exchanges, mulch stacks, washer fluid displays, etc. per ZO Chapter 23C.14.01, storage areas must be completely screened from view. 37. The Dept. would like the plan modified to shift one or both of the buildings closer to Michigan Rd. Can you rotate the commercial retail building 90- degrees and slide it closer to Michigan Rd, to be sited closer to the north property line? 38. Daren Mindham with the City Forestry Dept, will review the Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan. 39. BZA variance will be required for the drive thru stacking location, per ZO Chapter 23C.11.G. 40. Signage review & additional review comments: Dunkin Donuts /BP and commercial retail buildings: 2 a) We don't think the EIFS is placed in the best possible location. It should be utilized above the entry doors to aid in installation and visibility of the signage. Right now, the signage blends into the building and does not stand out against the brick. b) Where the EIFS is located, it would be best to continue the brick all the way up the facade to the cornice element, or even use a different color brick to make it stand out from the feature entrances /protrusions of the tenants' areas. c) On the commercial retail building, I don't think using the CMU block all the way up the entry feature is an appropriate material. This should be kept at the base. Then perhaps a different color brick could be used to call attention to that particular part of the building, to that tenant's entry feature. d) We would also like to see some more architectural elements built into the sign band area of each building. It would be good to see some brick detailing around the EIFS, to call out a specific sign band area or placement for the sign - to frame each sign, in a way. e) For the both buildings, the recessed brick detail is very distracting. Perhaps this feature would be better on the other facade elevations where the EIFS top half is proposed, but not the main ones. f) Would also like to see more detailing to define the two spaces (Dunkin and BP). Perhaps some edge molding at the corners of the building and a matching one in- between the spaces would help add some detail and separation. g) If EIFS is required above the entry doors to the tenant spaces, perhaps have less scoring on them to make it stand out less and /or paint it to match the surrounding materials so it does not stand out as much. Right now the buildings look very busy with so many different elevations and materials. h) Staff would like to see the same window awning colors for all sides of the Dunkin Donuts /BP building. Dunkin Donuts /BP building Signage: a) Each tenant is allowed 40 square feet per sign chart B. b) We will consider the main signage /ROW to be facing north, so there is consistency between the signage for the two tenants. c) Dunkin Donuts signage and awning detail facing south will need BZA variance approval. We will not support these variances for additional signage and signage not facing a right -of -way. d) Dunkin Donuts signage facing east will also require a BZA variance for number of signs and going over the total square footage allowed. These variances might be supported by Staff. e) Dunkin Donuts signage facing all directions will be subject to the 25% logo rule for their coffee cup logo. Please submit additional size information for the logos. f) BP will require a BZA variance for a 100% logo sign. g) Need to see more detail on the drive thru menu board, menu canopy, etc. The size is limited to 6 feet tall and 16 square feet in size. Staff would like a masonry base on this sign. Commercial retail building: a) Please submit information on the signage requirements for tenants, including but not limited to: i. Size ii. Color iii. Lighting style iv. Installation method v. Signage on awnings permitted? b) If they would prefer it just meet the Sign Ordinance requirements, that is okay, too, but we just need to know. Gas Station island & canopy areas: a) Signage is not allowed on the roof of the gas station canopy. This will require a BZA variance that the Dept. will not support. b) The design of the canopy as all EIFS material is not preferred. Perhaps the color needs to change? Or have less breaks or scoring in the material? It looks very choppy. We have seen more ornate and detailed canopies recently and this one needs a bit more substance. c) The gas canopy seem a little top- heavy. Is there a way to widen the columns or to reduce the thickness of the canopy, to remedy this? 3 d) Need to see signage details for the gas station bumps and pump markers. All signage for pumps and markers needs to be 3 square feet or less to be considered exempt. Otherwise, BZA variances will be required. Ground signs: a) The height for the Dunkin Donuts /BP ground sign is ok. We need more detail on the size, though. b) The ground sign which is for the tenant panels is limited to 20 sq. ft. and 5 -ft tall. Please provide more detail on the size. c) The tenant signage sign with four panels will also require the name of the shopping center development to be at the top of the sign. d) If possible, Staff would like to see a more pronounced base for each sign, to balance out the top cornice of the sign. Right now it seems a bit "top heavy". Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning & Zoning Division Dept. of Community Services 1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr. Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317 - 571 -2417 1 F: 317 - 571 -2426 1 E: aconn ©carmel.in.gov W: www.carmeldocs.com APlease consider the environment before printing this e -mail 4