HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
Shestak, Joe
From:Keeling, Adrienne M
Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 4:17 PM
To:'Dee Fox'
Cc:Shestak, Joe
Subject:RE: UDO Patch Amendment (Docket No. 18100007 OA).
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Dee:
I am following up on the question regarding foundation plantings around industrial buildings. The Urban Forester shared some
points based on his experiences:
Foundation plantings were often not practical or effective given the amount of parking, driveways and loading docks
associated with industrial uses.
Foundation plantings are very small in scale compared to the typically-large building size, so it was determined that
buffering along the perimeter of the site was a more effective use of landscaping material, especially with lot coverage
in I1 Districts as high as 90%.
Industrial buildings have relatively few customers/pedestrians (either visiting or walking by on a sidewalk) compared to
commercial buildings.
Have a great weekend,
Adrienne
From: Keeling, Adrienne M
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:28 PM
To: 'Dee Fox'
Cc: Shestak, Joe
Subject: RE: UDO Patch Amendment (Docket No. 18100007 OA).
Hi Dee: See my responses below in red. Hope this helps!
Adrienne
From: Dee Fox \[mailto:dasfox2009@gmail.com\]
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 12:22 PM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Cc: Shestak, Joe
Subject: UDO Patch Amendment (Docket No. 18100007 OA).
Hi Adrienne,
I could not attend the 12/4/18 PC Committee meeting on the UDO Patch Amendment, which the Dept. Report
indicates will only have one Committee meeting. So, below are some comments/questions that I hope you can reply
to sometime after the Committee meeting, and before the final vote. I have referenced line numbers in the copy of the
Ordinance in the Packet.
* Article 2: Zoning Districts
Line 71: R3 DISTRICT should correspond to the Urban Residential Comp. Plan classification, not Suburban. We
have proposed this additional revision for the full Plan Commission meeting on December 18.
* Section 5.16: Urban Core Height Standards
1
Shestak, Joe
From:Dee Fox <dasfox2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:22 PM
To:Keeling, Adrienne M
Cc:Shestak, Joe
Subject:UDO Patch Amendment (Docket No. 18100007 OA).
Hi Adrienne,
I could not attend the 12/4/18 PC Committee meeting on the UDO Patch Amendment, which the Dept. Report
indicates will only have one Committee meeting. So, below are some comments/questions that I hope you can reply
to sometime after the Committee meeting, and before the final vote. I have referenced line numbers in the copy of the
Ordinance in the Packet.
* Article 2: Zoning Districts
Line 71: R3 DISTRICT should correspond to the Urban Residential Comp. Plan classification, not Suburban.
* Section 5.16: Urban Core Height Standards
Lines 235-236: The obvious question when reading this is, "What is considered to be a major intersection?" It is
helpful to leave this short definition where it is, in order to prevent having to stop and look it up elsewhere. Someone
looking up this section may not have read the previous section on Urban Residential, so wouldn't know that this
definition was there.
* Section 5.19: Commercial Landscaping Standards Planting Table
Lines 267-268: Why do the two largest Bufferyards (C & D) have the most reduction in required shade/evergreen
trees? Does the reduced number of "8" for Bufferyard D still require at least 3 of those to be evergreen trees? I hope
so. Significantly reducing the number of required Ornamental Trees and Shrubs would reduce the needed lower-level
screening.
Lines 273-274: Why do commercial buildings require foundation plantings, but industrial buildings do not?
Lines 282-315: Parking Lot Planting section as amended seems more confusing because it is no longer specified what
refers to Perimeter Plantings vs. Interior Plantings. I don't think it is desirable to have a reduced number of plantings
around the perimeter of parking lots. Is this reduction necessary in that location? Why?
* Section 5.20: Bufferyard Standards Planting Table
Line 375: What is the reason for increasing minimum Front and Side Yard widths, while decreasing Rear Yard
widths? Is the point merely to make the Front, Side, & Rear Yard widths the same within a certain type of
Bufferyard? Again, the decrease in Ornamental Trees and Shrubs would reduce the needed lower-level screening. In
particular, the reduction in the required number of shrubs is pretty drastic.
* Section 5.28: General Parking Standards
Line 378 etc: As a general comment, the DOCS has previously indicated the desire to decrease the number of
required parking spaces. However, keep in mind that if it becomes even more of a hassle to find a convenient parking
space in congested downtown Carmel, many will go elsewhere to shop where there is ample closeby parking, just as
many avoid downtown Indy for the same reason.
* Article 11: Definitions ("Vision Clearance on Corner Lots")
Lines 573-575: I was hoping that an amendment to Definitions was going to be for "Special Event, Outdoor", the
definition that has caused and continues to cause so much trouble for neighbors around the Lucas Estate. Since this
use is being abused in a residential area, it needs to be defined as specifically as possible and include some limits,
especially on frequency and/or scale. For most homeowners, this use is relatively infrequent and small-scale, so they
1
could easily abide by a reasonable frequency/scale limit. Maybe there could be a permit application for the
infrequent, truly "community special events", like some of the events listed under the current definition. Please amend
this definition as soon as possible, in a way that would prevent other estates from also doing what the Lucas Estate
has been doing: Frequent, large-scale, outdoor events/parties that are operated like a business.
Thanks for considering my thoughts on the above proposed amendments,
Dee Fox
Email secured by Check Point
2