Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence 3. "Signs must comply with the approved Unified Center architectural scheme, and must be of a similar design and identical in lighting and style of construction." How about this instead? "Signs must comply with the approved Unified Center architectural scheme, and must be of a similar design, lighting and mounting/installation method." The reason this statement needs to be vague is so that we have the flexibility to allow different centers to be creative and have different types of signs and lighting styles. However, within the same center, the signs need to be similar. We don't feel it is necessary to spell out what type of lighting (LED, neon, external, internal, reverse lit) or mounting method (raceway or flush mount) as to"revise any ambiguous terms and descriptions." It needs to be similar to what is already installed and approved. So, my question is how do you propose to change the wording of the requirement so we are more clear, yet flexible enough to allow for all centers and their different requirements? I think we should write it to the audience. In this case a business owner. So how about this. "Your sign may also need to comply with your location's architectural scheme. If you think you are in a Unified Center(defined in definitions) please consult the property management company or City to find out if additional sign requirements apply". This will be taken care of with Exhibit Y. 7. What exactly needs to be refined from the Temporary sign section?Which kinds of temporary signs should be illuminated in your opinion? What is the need for illuminated temporary signs? We are having a hard time grasping this "need" and are fearful of the temporary sign becoming more permanent in nature.._as many developers take advantage of now. First I would stick to your guns that a temporary sign is for 1 year or less. Any sign over 1 year becomes a permanent sign regardless of type, materials, etc. I suggest refining this section to make what temporary signs are allowed very specific and eliminate the need for permits on these types of signs. If it is a true temporary sign. and falls within the ordinance limits, I propose that no permits be needed. If it is not a true temporary sign then it should fall into the permanent sign guidelines, permit needs, etc. I can go over the nit-picky details with you but generally I would suggest combining the sections (such as subdivision and non-residential construction) that specify the same type of sign criteria (both allow 32 sq.ft., B' height. ground signs). These have been combined. Regarding lighting, let me know what the concern is (not sure what "temporary signs becoming more permanent in nature" means. In my mind either is is a temp sign (use for 1 year or less) or it is a permanent sign (and falls under those restrictions)). To me there are two main issues. If the temporary sign needs to be lighted to be seen (like a banner in Iue of a permanent sign) why not allow it to be lighted? Secondly, how do you define an illuminated temporary sign? Is a canopy light that shines on a banner an illuminated temp sign? We said it was not in our meeting. If that is not a problem then tell me a bit more about what a problem would be? Does that make sense? The issue we are thinking of are temporary real estate signs being purposefully lit by ground mounted lights or reflective surfaces.We do not want these signs to become like (low level) billboards along U.S. 31 or any of the other roads. If the other temporary signs are lit incidentally by gooseneck lighting or ground mounted lights that were previously existing, we are ok with that. What we cannot have are temporary signs being constructed with light sources within them. I have not had an issue thus far regarding temporary signs not being lit and I do not see it likely becoming an issue. 9. I believe we are aiming for a description of design materials for our permanent monument/ground signs. You know that we prefer our signs to be well constructed and not have a "temporary' look to them. Now we need to define what this is. We require that monument signs match the architectural style of the building they accompany. Typically this would be brick, stone or other masonry materials. We would like to see all monument signs have some sort of base, side supports, middle sign area and top cap. You mentioned these ideals were restricting to other materials that are faux masonry. How durable are these materials, how common are they, and how much less expensive are they? How would you propose we write that flexibility into the ordinance? First I would suggest staying with the term "monument" sign as "ground" sign is too vague. I understand the desire to have the sign match the building but what if the building is an odd material (lap board siding) that would make a sign look funny if made of the same material. I don't think there is terminology that is specific enough to be part of the ordinance regarding the sign "look"that would not be vague or confusing. I would suggest a text similar to "monument signs (as defined and example pictures provided) must be of similar look to a masonry sign (brick, stone, stucco, and dryvit are appearance options) and comply with the height and square footage requirements as noted in the appendix tables. Please note that only sign panel area (that area that encompasses the sign text) calculates into the sign area. Columns, bases, and caps must comply with height requirements but do not calculate into the sign area limitations". Does that work? Perhaps we can include in the Exhibit Y a note about the sign square footage is only calculated by the sign face and that structural supports do not apply. We are still working on the design requirements but will take into consideration the underlined portion above. 1. We are going to stick with the current format of the sign ordinance, but will create a user friendly guide to include on the web and in the application package. I will create an instruction sheet to go with the sign permit application, as well as a list of commercial centers with pre-approved sign packages. In the instructions, I will give links to the website and where they can find the sign ordinance, the application, examples of other applications and sign packages. 2. We are gathering a list of all of the developments that currently have sign packages. We hope to have this list available online. I am currently working on this list. Some packages are online already. They will be referred to in the instruction sheet, not the ordinance itself. 3. We are still working on clearing up some of the terms, and may need additional suggestions from the committee.We are working on the use of the word Frontage. All other issues (design requirement related)should be resolved with illustrations and the new Exhibit Y. 4. We are looking into adding some of the things that are brought up at Plan Commission but not specifically in the ordinance, such as color or materials; however we do not want to restrict creativity either. In our design guidelines, we plan on limiting color choices and options—within reason. The process will be explained in the instruction sheet. 5. Conflicting information in the ordinance will be edited. If you know of any specific conflicts, please let us know. It has been done! 6. We are exploring the possibility of taking signs out of the regular plan commission process, but feel it is important that sign packages are reviewed by the Plan Commission in context of Architectural Design and recognize there may still be a need for their input. We are not to this point yet. First priority is updating the Ordinance itself, establishing design guidelines/requirements, then taking on the issue of Plan commission or no Plan Commission. Signs will not be dropped from the ADLS process. It may be handled administratively in an application that is combined with the sign permit application. A combined application for ADLS and permit may alleviate costs— but it has not been discussed at this time. 7. We discussed the ban on illuminating temporary signs and we have contacted Joel to ask for more clarification as to which signs he would like to see illuminated, and any suggestions he has for wording. Temporary signs are not to be intently and directly illumination. Indirect or incidental lighting on temporary signs is ok. This has not been an issue before. The committee is only noticing this pre-existing requirement because we took it out of each section (to eliminate redundancy) and put it in a common section at the beginning. 8. The section on Use Variance signs has been taken out of the ordinance, and if a use variance is granted, then they will just follow the sign requirements that pertain to their use (single tenant, institutional, etc). Exactly. 9. We have contacted Joel for suggestions in regards to refining types and materials. Done. 10. Institutional and Recreational signs have been combined into one section. Yes! 11. We are working on changing the wording for unified centers and multi-tenant buildings so that hopefully it is clearer. Still working on it. 12. In regards to the size of signs based on lineal feet of frontage, we are struggling to find a simple solution. We understand the concerns of the committee, but also feel that distance from right-of-way and length of building frontage are important variables. This may need more discussion by the committee. We feel the sign chart works ok for now. Updated comments 10 September 2007 Goals 1. Create a fair, functional permitting process that minimizes processing time. Time may be reduced by combining ADLS and the sign permit for existing buildings. New buildings will still have to go through the regular ADLS process and that time will not be able to be reduced. Currently, people may think it takes a long time because they are unaware of the deadlines that exist. I am not sure how to alleviate this. I don't think I will be able to contact every land lord in town to let them know of the process. The applicant will simply have to be proactive in contacting either the Chamber or the City of Carmel to find out what applications, fees, deadlines, etc. there are involved in getting a business going. 2. Eliminate the time-consuming and expensive backlog of signage discussions at Plan Commission and committee levels. Currently, most sign cases are not that time consuming. The ones that are time consuming are the controversial ones that do not meet our sign ordinance. Hopefully, with the additional design guidelines, it will be more clear for business owners what they can and cannot have. 3. Eliminate subjective approval criteria and communicate verbally and pictorially what businesses need to do to gain approval. We hope to do this with the design guidelines. We plan on adding pictures. 4. Reduce the categories and simplify the terminology. Provide adequate depictions of sign opportunities (a sign "catalog") so that businesses can see what their options are. Some categories have been reduced or eliminated. Sign photos will be included so that business owners will have a graphic representation of what they can have based on what type of building they are located in. 5. Grant the Department of Community Services the power to approve signs that meet the published requirements. We hope to do this. 6. Write a sign ordinance that allows for the removal of the "S"from ADLS. The sign ordinance should cover the city's rules on signs. The S will not be removed from ADLS, All new construction will still have to submit signage in their building plans. Existing buildings may be allowed to have administrative approval of ADLS. We are working on this. 7. Provide opportunities for multi-tenant commercial projects to avoid the long, difficult ADLS process. Since they do not know who the tenants will be, nor the breakdown in square footage per tenant, they are typically forced to apply for every signage opportunity available and the are later backed into an ADLS amendment process that is time- consuming, expensive and unfriendly to business. We hope the new design guidelines and combined ADLS/sign permit for existing buildings will alleviate this. 8. Create a section on the permitting process telling business owners what they need to do step by step. Forms needed should be identified and specific information about where they're to be delivered provided. There should also be an indication of who can be contacted for questions. An instruction sheet will be created. Specific to the first draft of the ordinance changes: 25-07-01-01a General Guidelines. 1. "All signs require Administrator approval"_ This implies all signs must be submitted for approval. This is not the case as currently written. Yes it is. All signs must at the very least, be approved by me, the sign permit specialist. 3. and some may need additional review by the plan commission". This is too vague and should be eliminated. The reason the ordinance exists is to avoid the need for plan commission review. It has been eliminated. 4. " and real estate signs over 6 sq. ft". Do we really want to require a permit for these? The language is vague; you can't figure out what criteria would cause the sign to not be approved. This is intended for large parcels of real estate. We do not go out and measure each of the different realtors`for sale" signs. 5. "Temporary signs may not be illuminated". Recommend this be deleted. If the business has a grand opening banner on the building and wants it to be seen at night by using a ground light, why is that any different than a permanently lighted sign? If it is indirectly illuminated, that is ok. It can not be constructed to have lighting within it. -03 Exempted Signs. 1. Eliminate most of these examples. They only add to confusion and argument on definitions. The list should only include very specific signs. For example the text could read "Parking signs, integral signs,and private directional signs less than 3 sq. ft." "Address number signs (see chart)" and "Public building signs."We feel this section is fine as is. -04 Prohibited Signs section q - v. Vehicle signs. The issue is not size but those who place graphics on a vehicle and park it at a business as a sign. Current court cases have upheld vehicle graphics as long as the vehicle is actually used in the business (assumes the vehicle is drivable, etc.). The ordinance addresses this issue in the preceding sections. Recommend elimination of this section; clean up the language to indicate that you can't have a vehicle serve as your business sign. Need to look at this some more. We have cleaned up the prohibited sign list to be more clear and less repetitive. 25.07.02 Permanent Signs 1. Standardize the permitted sign styles for sections -01 thru -06 (residential related signs). Combine these types into one category. We have combined into three sections. We feel this is adequate. 2. Eliminate section -07 Special Use Signs and combine with another section? Most SU sign requests are for churches. Why not use the same standard for churches that we allow for single tenant buildings? Done. 3. If distance from right of way is essential, then the City needs to be able to provide businesses with where the right of way is. Something like"right of way as supplied by the City of Carmel's engineering department." Right of way determination can be found online on our GIS site. 5. -08(Single Tenant Building) Expand the Sign Classification section to reference specific drawings and three sign categories (panel or cabinet; individual letters; monument sign). Provide drawings with specifications to eliminate the guesswork. Shorten the number and type to one sign per public road frontage with a maximum of three. Done. Ground Sign specifications would fall into the chart and no longer be in each specific building type section. Done. Delete the Copy section. These standards can be covered under the sign type chart. We will not be deleting the copy section. It is necessary to regulate copy. 6. Beginning with 09 (Single Tenant)and through to—14 (Old Meridian District) Rewrite this to basically say"here are the signs allowed." Change the references to square footage to percentages of space. The specification of size ranges can have unintended consequences. For example, if an owner has a 1200 square-foot tenant and a 6000 square foot tenant in the same building, the smaller tenant gets a 30 sq. ft. sign and the 6000 a 45 sq.ft. sign, at a 5-50 foot right of way range. Assuming a two-foot height on the sign, the 6000 sq. ft. tenant would have a sign 22.5 feet wide for 100 feet of frontage. A sign package eliminates this problem. Eliminate the sections for location, design, copy, and illumination as they will be in the sign catalog section (e.g. "If you have an illuminated sign, reference the lighting section.") They will not be deleted. Location is fine. Exhibit Y will be used for design. Copy and illumination will stay as is. Define all uses so "special use"can be eliminated. Deleted. In multi-tenant buildings, one or more signs per building face per tenant should be allowed. A business can have three building faces: one facing the parking lot; one facing the street and one end cap. No. Only one per street frontage. Projecting or blade signs are permissible to the extent buildings can adequately space them; however, all signs should be described in the catalog. They can be used in multi-tenant mixed use buildings, or if a sign package or overlay zone specifically allows them. 7. -12 (Window signs). Shorten this section and improve the definition. A window sign "is any sign affixed to the window or window frame." Recommend that the total combined square footage of all window signage be no more than 50% of the particular window pane. 30% is plenty. Eliminate the temporary or permanent language (they are all temporary by definition). Illuminated or non-illuminated can be eliminated (with current technology the difference is hard to tell).We are speaking mainly of exposed neon signs. We will keep it as is. 25.07.03 Temporary signs 1. Combine sections -01 and -02. The specs are the same. The time use for signs on lots remaining is the main difference and is oddly detailed. Can't we just say "the sign must be removed with no more than 5%of the lots remain"? Done. 2. -03 (Real Estate Signs). Not recommending we require permits for larger lot sizes as in the new general standards. We need a sign size for business lots over 10 acres (32 sq.ft. is the common size). Yes, I plan on adding this section. Make the sign height for five acres or less 6'. 5' is fine. It also makes best use of an 8' post going 2' into the ground. 3. -05, -06, -07 (additional signs). Eliminate this section by grouping into one specific to the issues. Done. 25.07.04-03 Interim Signage Pending Permanent Sign—c. The maximum sign area should not exceed the area of the applied permanent sign. Approved is fine. They need to be approved first. Also, if a board sign is defined as a temporary awning sign, the ordinance should specify that one is allowed per business per frontage. The closeness of the sign to the building can be specified. What is a board sign? 25.07.06 —Legal Non-Conforming Signs. Following the last rewrite, there was supposed to be a list of legal non-conforming signs submitted, notice given to owners and procedures for appeal given. What is the status of that list'? If a sign has been in place for more than five years without any notice of violation, under what set of circumstances can the City require those signs to be removed or changed? We are working on completing that list. Sign Catalog—taken care of with instruction sheet. The creation of a sign catalog would provide an easy-to-use reference for any business attempting to investigate signage requirements. All elements should be available on line and easily accessible through the city's web site. • Each zoned area (e.g. Old Town, Arts & Design District, 31 Overlay, etc.) would have its own section which would include the following: o Map of area included. o Types of signs useable in that area (e.g. blade, hanging, monument, etc.) including photos/illustrations of each type. o Size requirements with examples. o Number requirements with examples. • Application Process Manual o Step by step description of the permitting process. o Copies of all forms with instructions on how they should be completed and to whom they should be delivered. o Contact names, numbers and emails for questions. I came into this conversation with some goals that I think the revised ordinance should pursue. think might be helpful to have a list of goals to work from. Some of your emails have changed this list. Please feel free to add more. 1. The business owner should know that he/she is submitting a sign permit request that meets the ordinance and that the permit request will be approved. That is what my job is to do—help them meet the ordinance. To do this we need to reduce categories and simplify terminology. Done. If we have a functional ordinance permit requests that meet the ordinance should be a "rubber stamp" process. We are hoping to make that happen with the combined ADLS/sign permit process. 2. The ordinance must eliminate subjective approval criteria. Specific text and pictures should show acceptable sign types that includes desired details. For example, if the committees want monument signs to have limestone caps on the columns then the ordinance should state that and pictures should show it. If this is not a criteria then it should not be added later in the permit approval process. Photos and design guidelines/criteria are being created. 3. Allow signage to meet business needs. Retail establishments place great emphasis on signage options. The ordinance should allow these within reason. Likewise, office complexes need less signage. Signs are used for two purposes, directional (find the place) and advertising (sell the stuff). We prefer informational over advertising. Non illuminated window signs are for advertising. If a retail business (who wants advertising related signs) chooses a location that is not retail (ordinance allows primarily directional signs) there should be no complaints about sign restrictions. Exactly. I also think we need a section on the permit process (what the business owner is supposed to do). Instruction sheet will take care of this. 1. Three forms are needed and are to be delivered (can we take fax or email? Why not?) to the office located at (most people don't know where to go). 2. Indicate on the form who is to be contacted for questions as well as for permit pick up and payment. (there is current confusion on who gets called (the business owner or sign contractor) when the permit is ready for pick up). It is up to the applicant. I am not going to require one or the other to pay me. 3. Permits must be kept on file by the business owner (not the sign contractor). Many business owners do not have their original permit. It is the sign company's responsibility to give this back to them if they are the ones picking up the final permit. ADLS permits, as related to signs, are another issue needing addressed. For signage purposes can ADLS requests mimic the sign ordinance? The landlord would be responsible for controlling sign requirements that are more strict than the ordinance. Why do we have 2 areas (ADLS and the sign ordinance) for signage type requirements that the City is responsible for maintaining? The City should enforce the ordinance. The landlord should enforce their own specific sign criteria. The City enforces signs. The landlord in the ADLS process determines what size and type of signs are allowed. They are not always keen on following up with tenants and telling them the proper procedure for getting signs permitted. The landlord should know the process and help its tenants. Here are my preliminary thoughts on the draft sign ordinance. 25.07.02-08 Single Tenant Building d) "Six feet for signs located 5-300 feet from right of way. . ." This language is used throughout the draft. There's a big difference between 5 feet and 300 feet! Six foot signs are fine for 5 feet but too small for 300 feet distances. Ground signs are rarely located far from a road. 6' is plenty. 25.07.02-10 Multi-Tenant Multi-Level Building f) Design "Signs in Unified Centers must be of similar design. . ." Does this mean similar color? What if corporate logos are not the same color? Why should retail tenants have to have the same color signage? Businesses invest significant sums into their corporate identities. I have difficulty with the city deciding that someone's logo color or design is inappropriate. Exhibit Y will hopefully resolve this. 25.07.02-13 Old Town Carmel f) Color & Design - "Signs in Unified Centers must be of similar design and identical in lighting, color, height of sign area and style of construction." I've got the same problem here with specifying logo color. Similar is pretty subjective. What I think is similar may not be what someone else thinks is similar. We will become less subjective when our guidelines/requirements are made. I'm presuming that although landscaping requirements have been removed form the individual descriptions, they will be included separately in some addendum. I need some sign drawings too. I'm sure Joel is familiar with the nomenclature, but I'm not! We do need to create a landscaping visual guide. Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, it is included in the front guidelines section. A number of goals were established based on discussions with Mo and among staff. They are as follows: 1. Reduce subjective Plan Commission decision making for sign approvals Yes, we would like to do that with our design guidelines. 2. Establish sign design criteria ditto. 3. Delegate to DOCS staff sign design approval yes that is the plan. 4. Eliminate wasted time for sign approvals ditto. 5. Eliminate redundant and/or conflicting sign ordinance provisions done. Rachel/Boone. Sign Permit Specialist Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http://www.ci.carmel.in.uslservices/communityservice.html Hancock, Ramona B From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:20 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: June 11th sign ordinance discussion June 11 (special) Committee Meetingsummary: 1. Add the heights allowed of signs back into.thesign chart. 2. Delete the freeway sign chart to eliminate confusion. 3. Possibly add in ranges for sizes so there is not a big jump between building frontages. 4. The proposed changes to the Address number chart were agreeable. 5. Eliminate Diagram 1, sign face separation zero degree minimum. Add statement to 60 degree maximum"to be considered one sign". ' • 6. Eliminate Diagram 2 and replace with simple verbiage regarding having a real estate sign in the front half and back half of a lot. 7. 25.07.01-03: Administration and Enforcement letter D, call out which sections of the Ordinance where it is ok. 8. Reference City Code number for enforcement of signs. 9. 25.07.01-05: Exempted signs: add in previous discussed Misc. Signs sections where appropriate. 10. Check website reference for UMTCD. I1. 25.07.01-06: Prohibited signs a. C.: Simplify to say off premise signs are illegal and signs shall be removed when a business leaves or closes. b. E.: Remove "including digital, i.e. LED signs". c. F.: Remove "have a major moving part" and "or electric air pressure" and substitute "natural or man- made" after wind. 12. 25.07.01-07: Legal Non Conforming Signs: Take out report requirement and dates. Publish the list of remaining legal non-conforming signs on the website. IZG7.riI.e.L Boo new Sign.Permit Specialist City of Carmel Department of Community Services 3rd.Floor One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 '317.571.241 7 317.571.2426 fax http://www.cicarmel.in.us/services/communityservice.html APlease consider the environment before printing this e-mail • 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:52 AM To: The Point Betsie InterNetwork-Alan Potasnik; Rider, Kevin D; Steve Lawson; stromquist @wmbi.net; John Adams (Home); John Molitor; Mo Merhoff; Barbara Eden Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn,.Angelina V; Keeling, Adrienne M; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Additional SS mtg. for Sign Ordinance Hi everyone, We have a new date for our special meeting to discuss the Sign Ordinance. It is Monday,June 11th at 6 PM in the caucus rooms. Please confirm that you will still be able to attend.The Sign Ordinance will be the only item on the agenda. Reminder: the Sign Ordinance is tabled from the regular June Sul meeting because I will be out on vacation. Thanks, Rachel 1Rachel13orrne, Sign Permit Specialist City of Carmel Department of Community Services 3rd Floor One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http://www.ci.carmetin.us/services/communityservice.html APlease consider the environment before priming his e-mail 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Boone, Rachel M. Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:46 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K Subject: Notes from last night's meeting Hi Ramona, Here are the items I wrote down that we discussed and decided on last night. Hopefully this will help you with the minutes. Angie and Lex, if you have anything to add, please feel free to do so. I've also already copied this into the draft for next month's committee report as well. Lastly, I updated the schedule with brief descriptions of what we've discussed and what-we might discuss at the next meetings. Thanks! Rachel ,tan. 3,2011 Committee meeting summary: L Rachel passed out copies of Village of West Clay PUD and Clay Terrace PUD sign language for comparison to the new Multi Tenant Buildings section. 2. It was discussed in great detail why additional signage for secondary entrances to retail/office spaces is important for both identification and access. 3. Why are rear entrance signs only allowed for buildings that have a front yard depth of less than 15 feet? Rachel to remember/find out why this was proposed. Can there be staff discretion of the 15' rule? Say the range of 16-18' would also be allowed a sign? 4. Overall, the use of the word "Street Frontage" should be adjusted/replaced due to changing development patterns in Carmel. Ideas included: a. Public Access Entrance b. Customer/Pedestrian Access c. Vehicular Access d. Thoroughfare/Alley Access 5. Need adefinition of"Public Entrance/Access" arid determine what that language is for allowing additional signs on:facades. 6. Define what a primary and secondary entrance is— to help distinguish what kind of sign is allowed to go where. i.e. Secondary entrances could be allowed a smaller/non-illuminated sign in addition to a main identification sign. 7. Create.a visual Guide example of"Tenant Facade" to more clearly illustrate where a Secondary Projecting sign is allowed to be placed (to assure it is only places on that tenant's property). 8. Change definition of"Multi-tenant, Multi-Level Non-Retail and Service Building" into Single Office I3uilding for less confusion. Proposed Committee MeetingSchedule/Topics: The proposed schedule for discussing the new Sign Ordinance is.as.follows: 1 1. November 1: Discussed changing existing building ADLS Amendment sign review to administrative by the Department and discussed Overview Memo provided. 2. December 6: Discussed Permanent signs 25.07.02—25.07.02-03. 3. January 3: Discussed Permanent signs 25.07.02-04. 4. February 7: Finish discussing Permanent Signs beginning with 25.07.02-05. 5. March 6:General Provisions &Temporary Signs. 6. March 29: Sign Ordinance Visual Guide &Sign size charts. 7. May 1: Definitions. 8. June 5: Final overview and review all changes, send back to full PC for approval at June 19th meeting. 12a.che Boovt& Sign Permit Specialist City of Carmel Department of Community Services 3rd Floor One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 317.571.2426 fax http://www.ci.carrneLin.us/services/communityservice.html A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mad 2 1 "5 i`2 51 •n, ad_ aJA4friki: - _ - f 5 c-acti 5 '` rf uwa ute -i-t § Yt . `—Sly_A 6r\ a- • .Q S. - neves-,cAa: ll= 1 -PAGE, - ub\A c S d = _nhe.sse 1,AA kcol- U,livoci? s fat f -Ker G :17-ea _ CiAt YWv -facaL0; rc+�1 -v-'Ski¢° _Q okil \ C tLIt- - nr O'UotUt ai ce .. - 4- �rY 2hAvvTJA 50, St s .\n ev\44,ex ps • • 1 • • • • r I. - • N Boone, Rachel M. From: Lisa Schweitzer[lisa @premiersigngroup.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:53 PM To: Boone, Rachel M. Subject: Sign Ordinance/Proposed.Modifications Hi Rachel, Thank you for inviting us to provide feedback on the efforts and work you are doing to update the Carmel Sign Ordinance. Upon initial review,we are in agreement with the proposed changes overall. If you would like,we can provide more detailed feedback on particular sections if you would like. However, in general, we are clearly in favor of simplifying and streamlining the process which it appears you are attempting to accomplish with these changes. The ADLS Amendment process has always been a challenge for our clients due to the strict deadlines as well as the additional fees and time required to attend hearings°and'file paperwork. We always encourage our clients to attend to help represent themselves, however it is sometime difficult to fit into their schedules especially not knowing how long it will actually take. Also,the timing of the hearings once a:month are sometimes not "user friendly" for business owners in existing buildings as they typically try to time their signage arrival with the opening of the business. The building is long and ready for signage and the business is ready to open, but they have to wait to get on the docketand allow for all the submittals etc as well. George and Jeff's was an example of this where the business was ready to open in August, then going into Fall when it gets dark earlier, they had no lighted signage for evening hours. It was detrimental to their business. We would be in favor of some type of administrative approval process for an ADLS amendment signage approval to an existing structure. Please let us know if you would like any additional feedback or comment from us as you go through this process. We are happy to invest the time in helping so we can all work together more efficiently. Thank you, Lisa Schweitzer Premier Sign Group, Inc. 815 East 63rd Place Indianapolis IN 46220 C: 317.403.5080 P: 317.613.4411 F: 317.613.4412 www.premiersigngroup.com 1 ,611 12 4M r♦i- Thr".., *Lis �/ RECEIV y� op OCT 1 7 2011 A Carmel Does Chamber lT,b bra Singular Focus, Shared Success ZL Sign Ordinance Public Hearing Comments ltd tt - The Carmel Chamber is committed to ensuring that businesses are provided with 2011 Board of Directors an easily-accessible, fair and understandable sign ordinance to attract and retain businesses in our community. Two and a half years ago, the Carmel Chamber Dr. Lynda Smirz,Chair began working with the Department of Community Services to•redrafi the current sign ro Health Nona Hospital ordinance, which was initially adopted in 1980, significantly amended in 1995 and Susan Ziel,Chair-elect further amended over the past 16 years. Krieg Derandf LLP Bill Redman,Treasurer We had four major goals: The Nationar Bank of rndimmpolis Celest Higgins,Secretary • Make the ordinance business-user friendly. Obtaining approval for signage Old National Bank has become considerably more complicated,and expensive. The ability for Randy Sorrell,Past Chair small businesses in particular to complete the'process without an attorney has Surrmmdings by Natureworkst become increasingly difficult, and the process itself unfairly time consuming. • Clarify d simplify the standards and definitions. Without such clarity, the Melissa panies �' P �' Yr Pairor Companies likelihood of subjectivity, inconsistent decisions and inconsistent treatment increase. If the sign being presented meets the requirements for the type of Jlie troche WestPoint Private Client Group signage allowed in the area concerned,•it should be approved without protracted personal discussions. Josh Carr Northwestern, Mutual Streamline the process. Allow businesses not requesting major variances Financial Network from written standards to receive approval from the Department of Community Services. Michael Chittenden • Level the playing field. The Carmel business community isn't lobbying to Si. Vincent Cannel eaapuar legalize billboards. All they ask is a fair opportunity to help customers and Torn Dapp clients locate their business, wherever that business happens to be located. cnrdex,Inc. Ron Hanson Thanks to some incredibly hard work by the Department of Community Services, Hanson&Snyder especially Mike Hollibaugh and Rachel Boone, and by our committee, a lot has been Mike Naparlu accomplished and we find ourselves in agreement on many items in the proposed REt b,vntme,ns,inc. ordinance. Terri Nix Gilts to Go by Basket Case We also have somerareas of concern, and look forward to both sharing those with you Mike Vail and to working at the committee level to positively resolve those. Firestone Diversified Products Mo Merhoff The Carmel Chamber Sign Ordinance Task Force President Barbara Eden, Barbara Eden Design David Fineberg, The Fineberg Group Joel Hall, Sign-a-Rama Mo Merhoff Carmel Chamber 37 E. Main Street, Suite 300, Carmel, IN 46032 ' 317 846-1049 Fx 317 844-6843 www.carmelchamber.com Q •