HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence: Responses to Dept. Report 4-6-11ÒÛÔÍÑÒ ú ÚÎßÒÕÛÒÞÛÎÙÛÎ
APROFESSIONALCORPORATION
ATTORNEYSATLAW
3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170
JAMES J. NELSON JANE B. MERRILL,
CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER Of Counsel
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
JAMES E. SHINAVER
PHONE: 317-844-0106
LAWRENCE J. KEMPER
FACSIMILE: 317-846-8782
JOHN B. FLATT JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ,
FREDRIC LAWRENCE Land Use Professional
JAMES A. NICKLOY
CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON
April 6, 2011
Angie Conn
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: The Bridges
Docket Nos. 10120008 Z
Carmel Plan Commission - February 15, 2011
Special Studies Committee – March 1, 2011
Special Studies Committee – March 29,2011
Dear Angie:
Below please see the response to the questions included in the numerous review comments
received from DOCS regarding the Bridges PUD.
Preliminary Planning/Zoning Department review comments (Angie Conn – Jan. 12, 2011)
:
1.Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their
correspondence with you.DOCS has beencopied on all TAC correspondence.
2.Provide the filled out and notarized Affidavit of Notice of Public Hearing page of the
application.This was provided on February 11 as requested in the docket assignment.
3.Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. This was provided on
February 11 as requested in the docket assignment.
4.Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement Affidavit page of the
application.This was provided on February 11 as requested in the docket assignment.
5.Provide a copy of the Official List of Adjacent Property Owners from Hamilton County
Auditor’s Office. This was provided on February 11 with items 2 thru 4 noted above.
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
1 of 11
6.Provide digital files of the final approved plans and elevations, in addition to paper copies.
This will be provided post approval as requested.
7.Please provide a draft copy of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. As discussed
with DOCS these items are produced at the Development Plan stage and afterward. It will be
provided at that time as requested.
8.In the Definitions section, define “Minor Alterations and Minor Material Alterations.”Minor
Alteration is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. We will delete the use of “Minor Material
Alteration” as it is not necessary to define.
9.Page 8 – gross floor area: would this include the garages?Yes
10.Page 8- Parking Space definition: please amend this definition. It is a little unclear with the
width requirement and how supporting columns can occupy that width… The Definition will
be amended based on the discussion with DOCS and Engineering. A minimum opening of
7.5 feet will be added.
11.Page 9 – sign face: for sign area, you state that this does not include a logo. The Carmel Sign
ordinance does include the logo in the area of a sign. Please change, or at least limit the size
of the logo, such as 25% of the sign area.A limitation of 25% of the maximum sign area will
be added for a logo as requested.
12.Page 10, Section 3: please change the last part of the sentence to: …shall have on all sides
the same architectural features, construction materials, and be architecturally compatible with
the principal building…This change will be made. An exception for fuel station canopy
will be noted as discussed.
13.Page 10, Section 4.1 – please mark these uses as permitted in the use table as well, somehow,
perhaps with an asterisk.The use categories will be marked on the Use Table and a footnote
added to the Table.
14.Page 12, Section 5.1.B: perhaps these Uses can be shown as permitted in the Use Table, too.
See response to item 13 above.
15.Rachel Boone, Sign Permits Officer, will soon issue review comments on your proposed
signage requirements. Her contact info is 317-571-2417 and rboone@carmel.in.gov.See
comments and responses below.
16.Page 14, section 6.5: please as ‘recycling receptacles’ to this paragraph, too. This will be
added as requested.
17.Pg 14, Section 6.5: Amenities/Pedestrian Furniture. states that Amenities are permitted and
may include “without limitation”, Bike Racks, Pedestrian walkway/trailway, Bike
trailway… The City wants to see at least a minimum requirement, that meets City standards.
)… You could then go above and beyond those, but would at least be required to provide the
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
2 of 11
base City standards. If you do not meet the City standards, then we need you to specify how
you will provide bicycle parking (location, rack type, etc…). This will be amended to state
that the minimum requirements for the noted amenities will also meet the standards
contained within the PUD or zoning ordinance as applicable.
18.Page 15, section 7.2: please add Retention Ponds to areas to be landscaped, so that they end
up looking more natural and not ‘engineered’. Text will be added in the landscape section of
the PUD addressing landscaping around ponds and their design to be undulating and not
geometric in shape so they appear more natural. We will review the addition of text with the
Urban Forester prior to finalizing.
19.Page 15, section 7.3.A: when ‘portions of the Real Estate’ is referred to, what does that
mean? The Dept. would want to see a greenbelt buffer along all of the real estate. Also,
please increase the buffer to 10 or 15-ft for portions of real estate not abutting a street right
of way.As discussed with DOCS this area is generally and only along the eastern
perimeter of the real estate. This will be noted in the text.
20.Page 16 – also add the widths of these three bufferyard areas. As discussed with DOCS the
widths are already noted in the Landscape section.
21.Page 16, section 7.3 – please include buffering requirements between office and residential
use block and the commercial amenity use block. A 10’ bufferyard will be added and
required between the noted use blocks.
22.Page 16, section 7.4.A – it is suggested that the street trees be planted a minimum of 15-ft
and a max of 40-ft on center. The text will be changed reduce the minimum to 15’ and 40’
on average by not to require they be evenly spaced..
23.Page 17, section 7.5.A – please remove the word ‘the’ after “ten feet in depth from the
Building perimeter”. OK
24.Page 17, section 7.5.C.1: ‘Turf’ should not be considered a primary landscape material….
Turf will be removed as a primary landscape material as discussed.
25.Page 18, section 7.5.E: the Dept. does not support foundation plantings helping fulfill and
count toward the buffer planting requirements. Text will be added to the section to set a
standard where the two areas coincide so that the count is not cumulative.
26.Page 18, section 7.6.A: please change the number of parking spaces from 18 to 9. As
discussed with DOCS the intent is to limit the size of the parking fields where possible.
Increasing this standard is counter to the idea of reducing the size of parking areas.
27.Page 19, section 8.2: please add that the site lights should have 90-degree cut off and/or plat
lenses.This will be noted as requested.
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
3 of 11
28.Page 20, section8.2.G: where you state ‘reasonably required for security purposes’, please
set a quantity for this, otherwise it is hard to enforce. Add something like: “0.1 horizontal
foot-candles at grade level.”A percentage of the site lighting to be turned off will be added.
As discussed we are contemplating leaving 25-50 percent of the light on.
29.Page 26, section 11: Please add the statement that “sidewalks shall be installed on both sides
of the street.”As discussed this will be noted.A provision may be added to allow a
reduction based on the approval of the City Engineer.
30.Page 26, section 13: Add mechanical equipment, gas meter, and electric meter screening to
“Additional Requirements and Standards”. This will be added as requested. A note will be
added to address potential conflicts with building code requirements.
31.Page 27, Section 13.8 : these proposed road rights of way do not meet the Comprehensive
Plan Thoroughfare Plan’s.As discussed Engineering will review and comment on the
necessary widths to identify in the PUD.
32.Page 29, section 16: how would the city enforce this? require an approval/consent letter from
the controlling developer before we issue an ILP? A letter of consent will be required similar
to the consent for filing necessary from a property owner when applications are filed.
33.Exhibit 2, page 1 of 1: attached are some proposed changes to the concept plan.As
discussed with DOCS the parking area between the main buildings in the Commercial
Amenity Use block is being reviewed to provide one way traffic movement and angled
parking. This should provide additional space for interior landscaping and make the traffic
pattern function more like a street layout. Engineering also prefers a one way pattern in this
area to assist the operation of the round-a-bouts. The location of the office building in this
area is helps to contain the public space as designed. Moving the building out toward
Springmill Road detaches it from the rest of the commercial activity which is not desirable.
34.Exhibit 6- page 1 of 9- Part 2.b: please change the word ‘architectural’ to ‘architecture’. OK
35.Exhibit 6 – page 2 of 9: you state you will follow a consistent architectural theme, but
perhaps you should narrow it down to one or two, such as prairie style.The prairie style of
design will be noted.
36.Exhibit 6 – page 2 of 9: add a requirement that buildings should be designed to have a
defined base, a middle, and a top formed by an articulated cornice and roof appropriate to the
building style.The proposed prairie style of design is not consistent with these requested
featured. As discussed it was not the intent of DOCS to restrict the prairie style.
37.Exhibit 6 – page 2 of 9: the Dept suggests you to limit the usage of EIFS ( and perhaps
stucco) to be 10% of a facade or to only use it at least 8-ft above grade. The use of EIFS will
be restricted to 8’ and above.
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
4 of 11
38.Exhibit 6 – page 3 of 9: D. add that all primary façade shall have operable windows. As
discussed operable windows are not typically used in commercial applications (retail, office,
and restaurant).
39.Exhibit 6 – page 3 of 9: D & E: Also, we would like to discuss the facades and the
requirements you state for how far they can extend. 2 x average height and 3 x average
height.We have discussed these standards with the architect and they feel that this will
achieve adequate breaks in the facades.
40.Exhibit 6 – page 3 of 9: H: the paragraph does not have a finished sentence at the end….
“attached at the top only for authenticity” will be added to complete the sentence.
41.Exhibit 6 – page 4 of 9: part 5.A.1: describe in more detail how the facades will be
articulated.The following detail will be added. “Facades shall be articulated through the use
of changes in the wall plane, through the use of varying materials on the facades, changes in
color of materials, through variation in the fenestration and patterning of the framing for the
glazing.”
42.Exhibit 6 – page 5 of 9: part 6.B.4: remove the phrase ‘be encouraged to’. Also add
‘windows and doors shall compromise a minimum of 70% of the first floor storefront
façade’.As discussed this standard is not intended to apply evenly across all building
facades (front, side and rear). We will provide additional text to clarify.
43.Exhibit 6 – page 6 of 9: does prototype identity mean franchise? Who determines if their
identify is compatible with the rest of the development? the City? Yes and Plan Commission
via ADLS review.
44.Exhibit 6 – page 7 of 9: part 10.B: Please add the requirement to have windows on all
facades.This will be added.
45.Exhibit 6 – page 8 of 9: Part 12.B – please add something about eliminating Box buildings,
similar to what is written in the US 421 Overlay requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This
will be addressed in a similar manner to the standards noted for other building types.
46.Exhibit 6 – page 8 of 9: Part 13: add the requirements that any canopies over the fueling
pumps shall be compatible with the Bridges District and incorporate materials and
architectural features of the primary building. OK
47.Exhibit 6 – page 8 of 9: Part 14.b: please add recycling receptacles and a permitted amenity.
OK
48.Exhibit 6 – page 8 of 9: Part 14.b.18: the Dept needs more detail on these advertising panels.
These might be considered a sign and would not be permitted. See response under signage
comments.
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
5 of 11
49.Please spell-check the entire document, and where appropriate, change the word compliment
to complement throughout the document. OK
50.Please consider incorporating LEED or ‘green’ building practices into the PUD requirements,
such as a white roof, solar panels, pervious pavers in all or part of the parking area,
bioswales, etc. Green List is attached, for reference.OK – This will be considered as part of
the ADLS process.
51.Provide a bike and pedestrian plan to maximize the direct sidewalk/path connectivity within
the site (it looks like there are a lot of missed opportunities.). As discussed this is the
concept plan and specific review of connectivity will occur at DP stage. With the said
adjustments will be made to the concept plan to reflect the paths and connectivity discussed
with DOCS.
52.Things to consider: Bike lockers, locker room and showers (in the offices), and long term
bike parking (for residents).OK David Littlejohn will provide sample Text. This will be
reviewed at the DP stage.
53.Some of the parking areas could be changed to boulevards (in the middle of the site) with on-
street parking or changed into landscape buffers between parking lots, rather than having one
giant parking lot in between buildings. This item was discussed at our meeting on February
3 and we are waiting to make adjustments to the specific area between the buildings noted
previously. We anticipate comments from Engineering on the round-a-bouts areas.
Comments form Rachel Boone ( January 12, 2011):
1.I think there should be more mixed use and restaurants more centrally located within the site.
It would be great if it was within walking distance of both the residential and the business
crowd.The mix of proposed uses and location of buildings was discussed with DOCS. The
PUD requires pedestrian connectivity and all areas of the plan will be connected.
2.I think there should be tree-lined landscaped medians down the center street of the
development? This comment is address in other responses. As indicated modifications are
being made to address this request per discussion at the meeting with staff. As discussed the
drives will be made one way and a landscape areas will be added down the middle.
3.Within Sections 9.6 A & B, 9.7 A & B, 9.9 A, 9.10 and 9.11: it says “Article” 25.7.02…
This should be “Section”.OK. This change will be made.
4.In Definitions section: Sign, Height of Ground – please change to overall height of sign
structure, not highest point of sign face. OK. This change will be made.
5.Sections 9.1 & 9.2 – Not in favor of both sign types. Center ID ground signs can have
changeable copy. We do not feel it is necessary to have a sign at each corner of the
development and at each entrance to the development. We would prefer only signage at each
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
6 of 11
entrance to the development. This item was discussed at the meeting with DOCS on
February 3. The Center signs area in place to establish an identity for the district and will not
include tenant identification. In addition the applicant agreed to exclude tenant names
(changeable copy) from entrance signs along Springmill Road.
6.In Sections 9.1 & 9.2, by changeable copy, do you mean tenant panels or information
messages? Tenant Panels
7.Section 9.1 – (If not deleted/changed) 90 sq. ft. for a sign that does not have changeable copy
is entirely too large. 75 sq. ft. should be the maximum square footage allowed. OK. This
change will be made.
8.Section 9.3 B. What is “street sign style”? Directory signs do not need to be 9’ tall. The
street style of sign was discussed and it was agreed that it was acceptable and a size limit of 6
square feet would be set for the street style of directional.
9.Section 9.3 C/D – The number and location should be limited to only multi-tenant/multi-level
buildings that have 7 or more tenants.This item was discussed with DOCS and it was agreed
that the proposed text was acceptable. It is important for a development of this type to
provide a complete wayfinding system for customers.
10.Section 9.4 C – The Dept. is not ok with signs not facing street frontages. The preliminary
layout of the buildings should provide for enough signage to face public streets. This item
was discussed with DOCS and it was agreed that the proposed text was acceptable based on
the described building positioning and site lines from Illinois Street. In addition, as discussed
many buildings may not face a public street. Rather, they may face interior courtyards,
parking areas, and interior (non-public) drives. If there is a concern raised at the
Development Plan phase regarding a specific building at a specific location there is an
opportunity to address it at that time.
11.Section 9.4 D – Only ok with two signs per frontage if it is public street frontage, and if C is
deleted.This item was discussed with DOCS and it was agreed that the proposed text was
acceptable. See item 10.
12.Section 9.4 E – why is this necessary? Directory signs can provide ample identification.
Entrance signs assist in identification of the appropriate building entrance for patrons to
access in larger office buildings.
13.Section 9.5 B – Not in favor of one sign per façade. This is how sign clutter is created. One
sign per public street frontage should be enough. The Dept. would be in favor of something
small for the rear of the building, if that is how the building is accessed, but this item makes
me think no signs are allowed at the rear. Please clarify. This item was discussed with
DOCS. It was noted that the buildings in the development are intended to be seen from all
vantage points and the no public streets are proposed other than existing and Illinois Street
affording insufficient signage for the purpose of identifying buildings and uses from interior
spaces, parking areas and drives. See notes in #10 above as well.
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
7 of 11
14.Section 9.5 C – Again, signs should face public street frontages. It was noted that the
buildings in the development are intended to be seen from all vantage points and the no
public streets are proposed other than existing and Illinois Street affording insufficient
signage for the purpose of identifying buildings and uses from interior spaces, parking areas
and drives. In addition many buildings may not face a public street. Rather, they may face
interior courtyards, parking areas, and interior (non-public) drives. If we were to follow your
recommendation many businesses would not be permitted a sign at all as they do not have
frontage on a public street.
15.Section 9.5 D – This is covered by the Sign Chart, I don’t believe it’s necessary to have in
the text. The sign chart is not explicit in its wording and reference. This text states clearly
the application of the chart.
16.Section 9.5 I – Drive thru signs will have to comply with the Sign Ordinance according to
this item. And if so, that section of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance should be cited here. This
item was discussed and it was agreed that DOCS will provide text as a base line or definitive
allowance based on past variance and ADLS experience. If acceptable the text will be added
to this section of the PUD.
17.Section 9.8 – Suspended (ground) signs should only be utilized in pedestrian areas. This site
plan does not lend well for use of suspended (ground) signs. Please remove from sign types
allowed.OK.Suspended signs will be deleted and removed from the section.
18.Section 9.8 B –Two suspended, projecting, porch or awning signs is too much. Only one
would be necessary unless they are located on a corner with a lot of pedestrian activity.
Awning signs – should not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for the main wall sign.
Two signs will be permitted only for corner tenants as discussed. The area for awning sings
will be reduced to 10% of the overall forward face of the subject tenant’s awnings as seen in
elevation view.
19.Section 9.8 C – Maximum projecting sign size for a sign in addition to a wall sign should not
exceed 5 sq. ft. and be installed at least 8’ above ground. Not in favor of 30 % of the awning
allowed to be covered. Awning signage should be whatever square footage is left over from
the wall sign allotment. OK. 8’ will be added as the minimum distance from grade. The area
for awning sings will be reduced to 10% of the overall face of the subject tenant’s awnings.
20.Section 9.9 B – Not in favor of portable signs. This item was discussed with DOCS and
described as sandwich board style of signs (2’ wide by 5’ tall maximum) used to advertise to
pedestrians the “specials of the day”. Per the request from DOCS dated March 4 this sign
type will be removed form the request (see notes below under Additional Review Comments
– Signage – Rachel Boone (March 4, 2010):))
21.Section 9.9 C 1. Murals – This would be off-premise advertising. Only willing to allow
advertising for stores or businesses within the premises. 2. Why does it have to have indirect
lighting? Can it just not have lighting at all? The advertising would be for stores or
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
8 of 11
businesses on the property such as the signs at Clay Terrace. However, a limit to the square
footage will be set and a maximum number determined and included in the PUD text.
Lighting if any will be indirect. We will provide a photographic example.
22.Section 9.12 B – add “exposed” to the sentence: “This system does not include an exposed
LED lighting source…” If they would like to use LED lighting, which is more energy
efficient, we should allow that. We only do not want exposed LED pricing signs. Perhaps an
exhibit showing this type of signage should be included in the PUD, so there is no confusion.
OK. the text will be amended so as not to preclude internal LED, only exposed LED.
23.Section 9.12 C – Not in support of this item at all. Automobile service stations should choose
between permitted wall signs and ground signs. This item was discussed with DOCS. A
limit of one wall sign shall be set for this use and a size limitation of 5’ tall and 30 square
feet in area set for the 2 ground signs. In addition the text will state that the wall signag shall
not be located on the fuel pump island canopy structure.
24.Section 9.13 – Please add “less than 3’ tall”. Which buildings do you foresee needing
incidental signs? What type of incidental signs? OK. The text will specify that the
maximum height of a ground mounted incidental sign be 3’. In addition text regarding
banners will be added for banners with any message or copy.
25.Part 14 B. 4. – How big will these fabric banners be? What will they say? When do they get
approved? Where will they be installed? The size, location and review of the same will be
done as part of the ADLS review for the site. The banners are not a sign unless they have
copy or a message on them. If they have a sign on them they will be regulated as incidental
signs as noted above in item 24.
26.Part 14 B. 12. – Where will flag poles be allowed? Are they freestanding or attached to a
building? Will they be allowed to have more than one flag on the pole at the same time? Are
corporate flags allowed? Is there a size limitation? Yes, Both, Yes, Yes, and Yes
respectively. The Zoning Ordinance standards with respect to flags will be noted in the sign
section of the PUD and a reference place next to this item. The maximum area for corporate
flage in the Zoning Ordinance will be used.
27.Part 14 B. 15. – Any signage on umbrellas should be 3 sq. ft. or lessOK.
28.Part 14 B. 18. – What advertising panels are these? Where are they going? What will they
say? How big will they be? Please keep in mind we are not ok with off premise advertising.
This will be changed to Murals and Section 9.9.C will be referenced. See response on item
21 above.
Alternative Transportation Review and Comments (January 13, 2011):
th
1.The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires the construction of a 10’ asphalt path along 111
th
St, 116 St, Springmill Rd, and both sides of Illinois St. Please revise the plans to include
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
9 of 11
and label these facilities. OK the concept plan will be adjusted to illustrate these. Note that
the PUD also requires compliance with these standards per Section 11.
2.Please connect all internal sidewalks to each other, provide a sidewalk on both sides of all of
the entrances to the development. Please revise the plans to reflect these changes. OK. Note
that the PUD also requires compliance with these standards per Section 11. This change will
be reviewed at the DP stage of development once engineered construction plans are
submitted.
3.Please change Section 11.1 of the PUD to read that Sidewalks and paths within public street
right-of-way shall meet the requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan and the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan. OK. It is our understanding that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a part of
the Thoroughfare Plan. We will add this and state it explicitly.
4.Please change Section 11.2 of the PUD to read Sidewalks and paths and walkways shall be
provided on both sides of all interior streets and shall allow for pedestrian mobility with the
Bridges District.OK. This text will be added to section 11.2.
5.Please consider providing long term covered bicycling parking for the apartments and
including shower and locker room facilities within the commercial buildings. If this is
already in consideration please provide details on how this will be provided. OK. David
Littlejohn will provide sample Text. This will be reviewed at the DP stage.
Urban Forester Review and Comments (December 29, 2010):
1.Section 7.1.A - The ordinance should state minimum requirements, language like ‘may be
considered’ are not suitable.OK. This language will be changed to “is permitted”.
2.Section 7.1.B - Near here would be a great place to add wordage about the City of Carmel
Planting detail usage.OK. This reference will be added.
3.Section 7.5.D - The ordinance should state minimum requirements, language like ‘also
encouraged’ are not suitable. OK. This text will be deleted.
4.Section 7.5.E - Requirements will need to be written in each specific area to be landscaped.
One requirement will not be allowed to fulfill other requirements. OK. This language will
be changed to establish a maximum allowance so that it is not cumulative in the number of
plantings. See item 25 in the first section of comments above.
5.Section 7.6.B - Low wall or fence will not be allowed in lieu of 100% of the plantings. I
suggest that notes stating that a wall or fence may be used in lieu of 50% of the required
landscaping or something of that sort. OK. The maximum will be set at 50%.
6.Section 7.8 - ‘Overgrown’ – this word is an indication that the design is flawed before it was
even designed. I would like to see this word removed or at least limited as to replace if a
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
10 of 11
safety hazard. Because it may be ‘overgrown’ does not mean it needs to be removed. Also in
this section, the last sentence ‘Street trees shall be maintained by the City’; I believe this is
contradicted of section 7.4.C and 7.4.E. If these trees are to be installed and maintained it
would be in the best interest of the development to maintain all the trees installed for the
project according to the mentioned requirements. OK. Overgrow shall be deleted and street
shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner.
Additional Review Comments – Signage – Rachel Boone (March 4, 2010):
1.I’m not sure if anyone else has made this point, but it would be nice if the drive down the
center of the project was more like a boulevard. It appears to just be a parking isle drive
throughout the site. I think it would enhance the campus feel of the site if it was an actual
street. But the drive seems to essentially disappear at the end of the site by the residential. I
think it would be safer if there were more streets designated through this part of the site. I
still realize this is conceptual, but it would be nice to know you are also thinking this way for
safety and aesthetics. The Concept Plan will be revised to add a right-in / right-out along
th
111 Street as requested and the drive between this point and the Commercial Amenity Use
Block will be refined and include pedestrian facilities including sidewalk. We will also
coordinate with the Alternative Transportation Coordinator at the time Development Plans
are prepared to adequately address both pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns. Safety
and aesthetics are part of our site design and traffic and pedestrian circulation discussions.
2.Still do not feel it is necessary to have a sign at every corner of the site and at every entrance.
Additional restrictions have been added to signs along Springmill Road and regarding sign
lighting. See response under item #5 of comments from Rachel Book – Dated January 12,
2011)
3.I do understand with the possible layout most signs may not face a public street. But I do still
feel there should be a hierarchy of allowable signs that identify the front entrance of a store
versus a back or secondary entrance or a part of the building with no entrance at all. See
response under item #10 of comments from Rachel Book – Dated January 12, 2011)
4.I am concerned about signs facing the interior of the project toward the residential and
toward the south residential. Can we safeguard against that? Restrictions are provided
regarding wall signs on commercial buildings, adjacent to Springmill, facing Springmill
Road.
5.There is a fine line for these Sandwich board signs. They are technically not allowed
anywhere in Carmel. I do not feel we should start allowing them now. This sign type has
been removed.
The Bridges - Ltr to A Conn - DOCS response 040611
11 of 11