HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 06-07-11 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT REPORT
JUNE 7, 2011
3. Docket No. 11040005 ADLS,Amend: Ed Martin Signage.
The applicant seeks approval for a new wall signage a building entry element. The site is located at 9896
N. Michigan Rd and is zone d I -1 /Industrial within the Michigan Rd Overlay Zone. Filed by George Small,
AIA, of Design Point Inc.
The Petitioner seeks approval for a new exterior building entry element and new signage. Please view the
petitioner's information packet for further detail. The existing Ed Martin name and Buick and GMC logos (wall
signs) will be removed. The will.be replaced with the words Ed Martin, Buick and GMC. These signs will be
installed on the new building entry element. The Department understands that the tan,brick and cornice features of
the building will not be changed to white as shown in the graphic rendering, but the petitioner should verify this.
The black band and the silver entry element/feature are the only changes to the building.
Petitioner, please address the following outstanding comments:
1. Please provide more information on the materials this entry feature is,made out of. (Provided.)
2. Please state whether or not you will be painting the entire front of the building:( Will not be painting the
building.)
3. It would also help to see a photo of the existing building with this new entry feature superimposed on it. The
Dept. is concerned the modern style of the entry feature does not blend well with the classic architecture and
detailing of the building. (Was not provided at last meeting, but is n'ow.
4. Please provide detailed rendering of the proposed signage, including size, lighting style, colors and materials.
(Provided.)
5. Variance may be required for the wall sign size. (/t is notrequired at this time.)
6. Will there be any changes to the existing ground sign or any directional /incidental signs? (No.)
Comments from May 4 Subdivision Committee meeting:
a) Need to see rendering of building entry element superimposed on the existing building.
b) Concern with, two different architectural styles blending together.
c) Will the top of the keystone on the existing entry be completely covered by the new entry element?
The Department is still concerned with the entry element being more modern and being installed on a very
traditional architectural style building. The two do not seem to .blend well. The keystone will still be visible. The
latest renderings show a black bar painted across the front of the building. Petitioner, please confirm that the
building will not be painted with a black stripe. Additional research on the US 421 Overlay Zone regulations
shows:
F. Entrances. Building entrances shall be defined and articulated by architectural elements such as lintels,
pediments, pilasters, columns, and other design elements appropriate to the architectural style and details of the
building as a whole. The location, orientation, proportion and style of doors must faithfully reflect the chosen style
of the building.
K. Suitability of building materials. Unless otherwise approved by the Commission, building materials shall be
consistent with and /or complementary to those which replicate Federal, Georgian, Italianate and Greek Revival
Periods of American architecture, as follows:
1. Exposed foundation shall be constructed of one or more of the following:
a. Red brick;
b. Stone (limestone, granite, fieldstone, etc.);
c. Split -face block or architectural pre -cast concrete, if surface looks like brick or stone.
2
2. Facade walls shall be constructed of any combination of red brick or stone. The following materials may
also be applied as trim details, but shall not exceed ten percent (10 of the overall non window
facade area:
a. Red brick or stone of a contrasting color;
b. Smooth cut cedar shingles;
c. Wood clapboard siding;
d. Wood beaded .siding;
e. Stucco with smooth finish, or EIFS.
3. Warehouse facilities, including self- storage and mini warehouse uses, shall have a high- quality facade
treatment on all sides consistent with the following:
a. Red brick facades trimmed with split -faced aggregate block (of a color and texture resembling
Indiana limestone), provided that it also includes accents (such as windowsills, lintels above
windows and doorways, building corners, parapet coping, etc:)
b. Split -face aggregate block (of a color and texture resembling Indiana limestone) provided that it
also incorporates redbrick accents.
c. Pre -cast concrete wall panels of a color and texture resembling either red brick or Indiana
limestone, provided the building design also incorporates architecturally appropriate details of
contrasting color and material, as noted previously, in Subparagraphs K(1) and K(2).
d. Stone or synthetic stone,, provided the building design also incorporates architecturally appropriate
details of contrasting color and material, as noted previously in Subparagraphs K(1) and K(2).
Therefore, the Department thinks that this entry element style is not appropriate for the building. It might also be
determined by the Committee thatBZA variance approval is needed, in order to deviate from the US 421 Overlay
Regulations to.install this specific entry element.
Recommendation:
After all comments /concerns are addressed, the Dept of Community Services ,(DOGS) recommends positive
consideration of the new signage, but negative consideration of the new entry element style, for Docket No.
11040005 ADLS Amend.
3