HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 12-04-12 Carmel Plan Commission
SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
December 4, 2012 Department Report
2. Docket No. 12030014 DP: 9800 N. Michigan Rd.
3. Docket No. 12030016 ADLS: I°unkin onuts, C-Store & Gas Canopy.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for two multi-tenant buildings & fuel canopy on 3.56
acres. The site is located at 9800 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned I-1/Industrial, within the US 421/Michigan
Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Brad Walker of H & H Restaurant Mngmt.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for two multi-tenant buildings, as well as a fuel/gas canopy.
The rear of the site will be used for tree preservation areas and for storm water detention areas. Please view the
petitioner's info packet for further detail. (A supplemental info packet will be provided by the Petitioner at
the Committee meeting.)
Nov. 20 Meeting, comments from Plan Commission members:
1. Please move the bike rack locations closer to the front of the site, closer to Michigan Rd.
2. Please make the detention pond more natural looking with shore plantings and a natural shape.
3. Please shift the pedestrian access over that comes off of Michigan Rd., going to the buildings.
4. Please use metal gates instead of wooden gates for screening of the dumpsters and the meters.
5. Would like to see photo examples of what the gas canopy could look like.
6. Need to further address the traffic flow on the site.
7. Approach the adjacent property owners about a cross access easement.
8. Add speed `humps' along the `access' road.
9. It will be tough to turn left out of the site to go north.
SZA Variances: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved the following variance requests on November 26, for:
a) The location of car stacking for drive-thru lanes
b) Total number of signs for Dunkin Donuts,
c) Not meeting the 8 feet deep building façade offsets/projections,4 feet requested,
d) Total signage square footage for Dunkin Donuts, (withdrawn)
e) Dunkin Donuts logo, Identification sign> 25% logo area, 32% requested, (withdrawn)
f) Both buildings not meeting the 120 feet maximum building setback (withdrawn)
Outstanding Review Comments for the Petitioner:
1. Remember to include the Development Plan application's Findings of Fact sheet in your final info packets.
2. The petitioner proposes to add a 25-ft wide cross access easement and future driveway connections to
connect to the parcels to the north and the south, labeled as "if needed". However,the Dept. would like the
petitioner to build the site and pave those driveway connections up to the property lines today, instead of
waiting for a future time to connect. The Overlay Zone also calls for this type of connectivity.
3. Please submit a copy of the Traffic Impact Study. (The petitioner will submit an email copy to Staff)
4. Please provide correspondence from INDOT about the 2 curb cuts and their approvals of that. (The
petitioner is still waiting for this from INDOT, and will email Staff when they get a response.)
5. How does a patron access the outdoor sales area? And what items are located within that sales area?
6. The Dept. would prefer the buildings sited even closer to the street, as that would allow for greater visibility
of the signage and the tenants and also fall in line with other buildings in the corridor.However, the latest
site plan is acceptable, because the buildings meet the maximum 120-ft setback.
7. While the proposed redesign with the added brick and reduced EIFS is nice, the Department is concerned
about the visibility of the signage because of the brick background. Would it be possible to have EIFS
2
� r
behind the signs for better visibility and ease of repair after a tenant leaves? In conjunction with that, could
the EIFS above the canopy(and below the limestone header)be changed to vision glass? This would help
allow more light into the building and keep the EIFS at less than 10% so no variance would be required.
Please explore these options.
8. Fuel pumps canopy: The Dept. might be in favor of the green color, if it is committed that the green part will
not be lit in any way (interior nor exterior), and if the petitioner could enhance the cornice line on the
canopy to better complement the building architecture.
9. Engineering Dept. comments: Comments were issued on 10/25 by the Engineering Dept., with stormwater
quality comments following on 11/9. Additional plans were received on 11/7, with nothing new since then.
Comments effecting the site plan include:
a) A water resources study is required for the west half of the project due to depressional areas and
hydric soils (indicators of wetlands) before any development will be allowed in this area.
b) The proposed outlet from the parking lot to the pond is adjacent to the pond outlet structure, causing
"short-circuiting" of the pond, minimizing the treatment capacity of the pond.
c) A shut-off valve will be required downstream of the water quality unit, prior to the discharge into the
pond, in the event of a gasoline spill.
d) The two proposed entrances to the site off of Michigan Road need to be approved by INDOT. The
Engineering Dept. understands that the developer is currently performing a traffic impact study,
which is required by INDOT for the two access points onto Michigan Rd.
10. Please remove the 40 square foot restriction for wall sign size; it now goes by percentages, with the new
sign ordinance.
11. Please provide the height and width of the logos for both Dunkin Donuts and the IndyGo (race flag) signs.
12. Thank you for providing a photo example of a gas pump, however we need to see the actual dimensions of
the signs on the pump. Please also note that additional advertising signs on the gas pumps will be restricted
to only one sign that is three Square feet in size, typically placed on top of the pump. This advertising sign
may not display any off premise information. It must relate to the site itself.
13. Ground signs:
a) The Directory sign location, as proposed (by the vehicular entrance), does not meet the new Sign
Ordinance standards for location. It must be placed near the pedestrian entrance to the building. Please
revise the location, or remove the sign altogether, because it will not be as necessary due to the visibility
of all tenants from the parking area.
b) Note: The Petitioner has chosen to wait until a"patch" ordinance amendment is approved by City
Council for approval of the electronic price display for the gas sign. The Department had planned to
allow electronic moving signs that still look like hand-changeable numbers; however this seems to have
been erroneously omitted from the recently-adopted sign ordinance update.
Recommendation:
Only after all comments and concerns are addressed, can the Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) then
recommend that the Commission sends this item to the December 18 Plan Commission meeting with a
favorable recommendation.
3