The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About Review CommentsKeesling, Rachel M From: Keesling, Rachel M Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 3:10 PM To: 'tslakes@versatile-Ilc.com'; 'ktworek@versatile-Ilc.com' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Jordan, Alex; Mindham, Daren; 'dtharp@tharpinvest.com' Subject: Docket No. 15060012 ADLS Amend - Tharp Convenience Center: Review Comments Attachments: EIFS-1.jpg; EIFS 2jpg; Tharp elevation.pdf Hi Tami, Below are the Planning Department's review comments for the proposed improvements at Tharp Convenience Center. Please provide written responses via letter or email by Thursday, July 16`". Please let myself or Angie Conn know if you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss the comments Thanks, Rachel Architectural Design: 1. The Dept. is concerned that painting the metal rounded roof/canopy will result in eventual fading and flaking of the paint. What is the plan to keep this maintained? How long do you expect the paint to last before it starts flaking? 2. Have you considered removing the large curved canopy? If EIFS work is going to be done, the entire facade could be updated by providing a new flat EIFS facade for the tenants to place their signage. 3. The Dept. would also be in support of new modern awnings for the buildings rather than keeping the older rounded canopy. 4. The Dept. is not in favor of the EIFS addition to the top of the building as proposed with the white/black/white pattern. This calls too much un-do attention to the top of the building. Along with the proposed black and white painted canopy, it becomes too 'busy'. Perhaps adding a traditional EIFS cornice that is one color (white or beige) would be more appealing for the building. Please see attached photos of examples of traditional cornice lines. 5. The Dept. is also not in favor of painting the brick on this building. It appears from the pictures that some maintenance and possibly cleaning needs to be done to the brick, only. 6. The proposed pattern and scale of the painting is also not agreeable to the Dept. When we review buildings, we look for them to have a defined base, middle and top. The base should be proportionate to the height of the building, the middle should be one solid area, and the cornice should be well defined, but smaller than the base. This is not the case here. We understand why the proposal is as it is, to match the windows of the building, but this does not result in a balanced look for the building. Please see the attached rendering showing a marked in base, middle and top. The height for a 'proper' base height may look odd on this building with the current window configuration, thus our determination that no painting should be done. Lighting: 7. Is it possible to change the fixtures underneath the canopy to a more concealed fixture? Right now they stick out very far from the canopy and are not very aesthetically pleasing. Landscaping: 8. Daren Mindham has approved the landscaping plan. Signage: 9. What is the plan for tenant signage? Will they just reinstall the same signs? Will there be new criteria set in place? 10. What is the existing material tTiat tenant signs are installed on now? • Enaineerinit: 11. The Thoroughfare Plan calls for a round -about to be located at the corner of Guildford and Main Street. Please see page 15 of this link to the Thoroughfare Plan Map. The Engineering Dept. requests that this right-of-way be dedicated to the City for this future improvement. Please contact Alex Jordan with the Engineering Dept. at aiordan@carmel.in.gov or 317-571-2441 to workout details of this requirement. Rachel Keesling Planning Administrator City of Carmel, Indiana 1 Civic Square 3r° Floor — DOCS Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 rkeesling@carmel.in.gov cl,�)rrl( a r ,tote �� iilill of coy 1--7-1G i i Go vv, <,c f � /u 'CAA. VVY Cv- -7 --1 -1 5 JCTION 1- Exterior Facade Renovation 808 West Main Street Carmel, Indiana VVVj dd txAmp Lt4 VE, -7 -1 5 • J rI •