HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 12-13-12 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
December 13, 2012
4. Docket No. 12100019 DP: The Bridges PUD—Commercial Amenity Use Block, Phase 1.
5. Docket No. 12100020 ADLS: CVS Pharmacy.
6. Docket No. 12100021 ADLS: Commercial Building.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 2 free-standing commercial buildings that front on
116th St. The site is located at 11405 Springmill Rd. and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development.
Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson &Frankenberger LP, for G.B. Developers II, LLC.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for 2 free-standing commercial buildings on 4.6 acres, that
front on 116th St. The CVS pharmacy building will be located a the southeast corner of 116th St. and
Springmill Rd., and the multi-tenant commercial building will be located at the southwest corner of 116th St.
and Illinois St. Please view the petitioner's info packet for further detail.
Outstanding review comments for the Petitioner:
1. Remember to include the Findings of Fact sheet in your final information packets.
2. Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application.
3. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application.
4. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement affidavit page of the application.
5. Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County Auditor's Office.
6. On the CVS (west elevation) &multi-tenant building(south elevation),please finish cornices; relief detail
around the corners on the parapet walls and not have a straight vertical cut off of those cornices.
7. CVS drive thru canopy: please make it less wide/thick. Right now, it looks out of scale.
8. CVS west elevation: will the lighting be security wall paks or wall sconces?Please provide cut sheet
details and also show that it is 90-degree cut off/flat lenses.
9. With the west elevation of CVS facing a busy street(Spring Mill Rd), please add more detailing to that
façade. One could consider this a primary façade that needs more detailing, since it faces a highly travelled
public street. See the PUD Exhibit 6,page 3, sections D &E. (Perhaps, add windows or high windows.)
10. Windows: please show/label how much window space the window graphics will take up. Also, please
provide examples of what the window graphics could look like.
11. Will there be street lights installed along 116th St., Illinois St., and Springmill Rd. as part of this
Development Plan? (See PUD Section 8.1 for that requirement.)
12. There is a maximum 25-ft height for parking area lights, per the PUD. Some of the poles are still 25-ft tall
with a 3-ft base. Please revise.
13. Please verify with the City Engineering Dept. that you do not need to provide a traffic circle at the southern
interior street intersection, as shown on the Concept Plan.
14. Per PUD sections 13.10 and 7.7,please show how the mechanical equipment is screened from view,
including gas, electric, and water meters. Please show/label the locations of these meters on the building
elevations and/or site plans.
15. Note: The Forestry Dept. is ready to approve the landscape plan.
16. The City Engineering Dept. issued a lengthy review letter on Nov. 30, and they are waiting for the
Petitioner's response to those comments.
4
17. CVS/Pharmacy signs:
A. Please confirm the height of the drive thru pharmacy directional sign#9 & #10: (Thank you for
confirming this will be 3'tall, however the drawings were not updated to reflect this detail.)
B. Is there not going to be drive thru lane signage on the drive thru canopy? (Thank you for showing the
new signage that will be placed on the canopy. However, the Dept. does not think it is necessary for the
southwest facing canopy sign. The sign on the northwest, as the cars enter should be sufficient for
identification.)
C. The proposed wall signs locations: Please shift these to fit in better with the overall building design,
perhaps slightly more centered above the 3 blocks of windows areas. And/or, perhaps right over the main
door entrance to the store. (Thank you for shifting the sign location. However, the EIFS material design
was not changed to stop at the edge of the block of windows. The Dept. would prefer this occur and be
replaced with brick, so the building would look more symmetrical and balanced.)
18. Multi-tenant Retail Building:
A. The Dept. still thinks that there is too much EIFS on the building.
B. Where are the tenant signs proposed to be located? The Dept. would prefer no vertical or horizontal
scoring on the EIFS. This interrupts the flow and appearance of the sign. (Thank you for making these
changes to the EIFS to minimize the interruption of possible signage locations.)
C. Sidewalk: some of the drawings show an added sidewalk for the retail building side, along the center
drive aisle. However, the pedestrian connectivity plan does not show on; please revise
19. The Signage Narrative:
A. The Dept. still thinks it would be best to refer to the newly-adopted Carmel Sign Ordinance standards for
sign size. This will allow a percentage of the height(70%) and width(85%)to be used to calculate a
sign's square footage that better fits in the tenant space sign band area.
B. The Dept. still thinks having the sign return match the building facade color does not help the sign to
stand out from the color of the building facade. The Dept. still recommends NOT matching the facade or
sign face color.
C. The Dept. still thinks the sign sizes should refer to the newly-adopted Carmel Sign Ordinance standards,
which are 70%height and 85% width. (It usually becomes more confusing to have separate requirements
that do not match up with the Sign Ordinance.)
Recommendation:
The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends that the Commission sends this item to the January 2,
2013 meeting of the Special Studies Committee, for further review and discussion.
5