Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PUD Clean copy - CoCo Commons PUD 12-14-2011
c0 Conn, Angelina V From: • Conn., Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:19 AM • To; 'Granner,-Steven' Cc 'Calderon,Joseph' 'Boone, Rachel M.,; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Signage review comments for CoCo Commons PUD (12/14/11 version) Good morning,Steve—Staff offers the following additional review comments,as it relates signage standards within the 12/14/2011 version of the CoCo Commons PUD. Please address/respond to the following review comments on or before January 9: 1. Area.A:The Department still does-not support the number of signs:allowed for the anchor building.At a minimum, Staff would like to see the sign on the east facade removed. Staff would appreciate the number being reduced for the west and north, as well. 2. Area B North: Staff is not in favor of allowing wall signs where there is no entrance to the space.Staff would be ok with corner tenants•having two signs, but not the interior tenants. 3. Area B South: Staff is concerned about corner tenants in the south area having lighted signs still shining into the neighbors' homes. Perhaps,you can,amend the PUD text to state that signage lighting it is not allowed on those elevations(west and east) at:all. Also,Staff is concerned about a possible middle(corner)tenant having two signs on the different facades, as Staff thinks this would be excessive. 4. Area C:Staff is not in favor of one sign on every facade of the possible building. Please limit to three (two wall and one ground).Also,what..about:a ground sign for the outlot tenant? Usually that is one of an outlot tenant's primary requests. What happened to signage for outlot 2? Is that no longer an outlot? (Please note that I will be out of the office from Jan. 6-20; please correspond,with Rachel and Alexia during that time.) Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning'&Zoning Division Dept. of Community°Services 1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr. • Carmel, IN 46032 O: 317-571-2417 I F: 317-571-2426 I E: 'aconn©carmel.in.gov Check>out our hew website: www.carmeldocs.corn Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail • 1 6_0ey Conn, Angelina V From: Granner, Steven [sgranner @boselaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:23 PM TO Conn, Angelina V Subject: RE: v7 Coco Commons PUD& Redline Angie, There were 7 changes that were made to the PUD Ordinance after the last meeting with the.neighbors. 1—The language about submitting plans to the,Saddle Creek folks for their review before any ADLS filing. (Sec. 7.1) 2—Adding the last 2 sentences in Noise Mitigation,about deliveries and no 24.:hour uses in Area "B" South. (Sec. 3.6 G) Oh,oh. Looks like we didn't get"F"&"G"changed to"H"& "I"! Can you change that on your two copies or do you want me to send you new ones? 3—We deleted taverns and night clubs as permitted uses. We also added definitions for them, and amended the definition of restaurant, so that it is clearer what we are and are not permitting. (Exhibit 4& Sec. 8.1) 4—They didn't want cell towers, so we don't permit them anymore,just individual tenant communication equipment was retained as a permitted use. (Exhibit 4 and Sec. 2.3) 5—We deleted"automobile service stations" and "car washes" as permitted primary uses. We now define "gasoline station". We only permit gasoline stations as an accessory use in Areas"A & "B" and only as an accessory use to a grocery store anchor and as an accessory use to a convenience market in Area "C".We now define both "grocery store" and."convenience market".A car wash is now only permitted in Area"C" and only as an accessory to a convenience market. (Exhibit 4& Sec. 8.1)The Exhibit 4 now only lists primary uses—we deleted the one accessory use that was previously listed. 6—We added the fencing options to address their security concerns. (Exhibit 6&Sec. 5.4.B.2.a) 7-We added the language about drainage that sets a framework for what might happen. (Sec. 3.6.H) I'm not sure to what level the home owners in Saddle Creek do or do not understand that County.Highway will be sending a substantial amount of storm water runoff from the new 146th&Towne Road improvements, and from the watershed to the north, into Saddle Creek's existing retention pond system. Please let me know if redline changes raise any issues with you. Thanks, Steve • Steven.B.Granner;AICP 1 Zoning Consultant Bose McKinney&Evans.LLP iI www:boselaw.corn 111 Monument Circle I Suite 2700 I Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 SGranner@boselaw.com I P 317-684-5304 I F 317-223-0304 Assistant Contact I Stacey R.Cleveland I SCleveland @boselaw.com I P 317-684-5197 1 F 317-223-0197 From: Conn, Angelina V fmailto:AconnOcarmel.in.govl Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:20 PM