Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 08-05-08 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEEE DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 5, 2008 2-4. Docket No. 08070025 ADLS Amend: Clay Terrace \Vallscapes, Paseos - Signage Docket No. 08070026 ADLS Amend: Clay Terrace Wallscapes, south wall of Whole Foods Docket No. 08070027 ADLS Amend: Clay Terrace Wallscapes, east waH facing US 31 The applicant seeks approval for wallscapc signs/banners between the paseos, on the south wall of the Whole Foods Building and an east walI facing US 31, The site is located at 14::\00 Clay Terrace Blvd, and is zoned PUD. Filed by Shawn Smith of Site Enhancement Services. The petitioner seeks approval for wallscape banners/advertisements for companies located in and products sold within Clay Terrace. The wallscapes will be located in three areas: P,lSeos between the buildings leading to the parking lots, on the rear side or one of the northern buildings facing east towards DSW and US 31 and on the rear side of Whole Foods facing south towards the parking lot. The proposed size of the walIscape banners in the Paseos will be between' 91 to 108 sq. ft. each. The proposed size for the wallscape banner facing east towards DSW and US 31 will be 126 sq. Fe The wallscape banner on the rear of Whole Foods is proposed at 952 sq. ft. - spanning most of the wall. Please see your packet for specific placement. These banners would be changed out rt:gularly with different advertisements for stores in Clay Terrace and for other companies whose products are sold within Clay Terrace. No advertising for businesses offsite will be allowed. The Department feels Lhat these banners could enhance the shopping experience at Clay Terrace as well as meet the adveltising,needs of the stores within Clay Terrace. However, we feel that the size and number of the wallscapes may be excessive. If the paseo walls were facing public streets, Lhey would be allowed 60 sq, ft. per fa<,:ade. If Whole Foods and the northern building on the east side of Clay Terrace Blvel. were facing a public street, they would only be allowed 75 sq. 1'1. We would like the applicant to bring examples of 60 and 75 sq. n. wallscapes so that the Committee and the Department can compare with the proposed banner sizes. Because tbese types of sign's are not addressed in the Clay Terrace PUD, thl;) Dt:partment would like to treal them as temporary signs. They would require review. approval, and permit fees before they could be installed. Every time the sign changes, a new permit would need to be acquired. The Department would like the Petitioner to agree tu this. The wallscapes between Old Navy and Limited Too: the Department would prefer to see one wallscape in the center section of the wall or twu smaller wallscapes: one in the center section and one in the first section closest to LimiLed Too. We feel that the sign above the vending machines is unnecessary and too high for pedestrian scale, The wall scapes between Pier One and Baker could be smaller to fit within the brick columns of the building. Perhaps a smaller, vertical wallscape every other section, This would make it more pedestrian scale and not cover the architectural features of the building, The walIscapes between Victoria's Secret and Sur La Table are placed well and seem to fit better than the proposed similar center wallscape between Old Navy and Limited Too. The Department wQuld like to see what these signs would look like as smaller wallscapcs, still centered within the each wall section. The wallscape proposed 0.11 the rear wall of Whole Foods: The Department has many questions regarding this space. \Ve interpret the proposed example to mean it would be reserved for Public or City Events. Would other advertisers be allowed here? We can see this as a nice space for a mural or aITwork, not necessarily advertising for businesses. Would the petitioner be open to that? H not, would this space be used consistently as one banner? Would it be able to be brokcn up for multiple events/advertisers? The Depmtment is concerned that a wallscape of this magnitude could be distracting to drivers. We feel that drivers should be concentrating on driving while in the parking lot, not looking to see who is advertising on that wall. This walIscape would also not be gcared toward pedestrians like the other walJscapes the petitioner is proposing. Tbe Department looks to the CommiLLee for their opinions regarding this wallscape. The sign proposed to face east towards DSW and US 31 would require a variance. It is stated in Ordinance Z-386-02 Section 1 O.3.D.l. "there shall be no wall signs on the east fa~ade of any multi-tenant or single tenant buildings located east of the right-of-way of Range Line Road." The Depmtment is not in support of this sign and lo<:aLion. Outstanding comments/concerns: 1. No specifications on lighting were submitted. Are there plans to illuminate these wall scapes? 2. What material will these wallscapes be made out of? 3 . We would like the Petitioner to bring smaller examples for all of the wallscape locations to compare size and pedestrian scale. 4. Please see bolded comments above in preparation for the meeting. The Dept. of Community Sel'Vices recommends the Committee approve this item, after all questions/concerns are addressed.