HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview of Comp. Plan Update Draft PAGE PARAGRAPH
REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DRAFT
JAMES C. DILLON
1 1 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDS 3-5 YEAR
UPDATES IN MINUTES OF 1985 ADOPTION
YET WE ARE CALLING FOR A
FIVE YEAR UPDATE?
4 6 CARMEL MISSPELLED
5 1 WORD FANNING MISUSED
6 1 FAILS TO MENTION ANNEXATIONS FROM
1984 ONWARD
8 1 1995 UPDATE OR IS IT 1993
17 5 WHERE IS ORDINANCE D-584
21 2 PLATE #?
21 3 MUST CLARIFIED AS NO ZONING CATEGORY
FOR A/R. THIS IS CURRENTLY S-1.
WHAT ABOUT A 5 ACRE RULE UNLESS
SUBDIVIDED?
21 4 Low DENSITY - Two UNITS PER ACRE IS
DOUBLING THE DENSITY OVER WHAT THE
1985 PLAN SUGGESTED FOR LOW DENSITY.
IS Low DENSITY S-1? WHAT ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT? No MENTION OF
SEWERS? SHOULD BE ONE UNIT PER ACRE
WITH OR WITHOUT SEWERS.
21 5 MEDIUM DENSITY STILL QUITE DENSE.
IS THIS S-2 & R-1?
22 LAST THIS TIES IN WITH QUESTIONS RAISED
FROM PAGE 21. THIS NEEDS
CLARIFICATION!
22 LAST NEED TABLE CLARIFIED
27 3 PLATE #?
28 6 LC/O B-3 HAS 7 STORY BUILDINGS?
How CAN THIS BE "LIGHT" COMMERCIAL?
PAGE PARAGRAPH
31 LAND HAS THE SPRINGMILL RD. AMENDMENT
USE (ORDINANCE D-584) BEEN TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION HERE?
31 LAST THE BIG UNCERTAINTY IS SEWERS, AND
THEIR EFFECT ON DENSITY.
32 2 WHAT DATA SUPPORTS THIS? IS THIS
PROJECTION SPECULATIVE?
32 4 Is INCORRECT--IE OUT OF DATE
34 3 NEEDS CLARIFICATION. DOESN 'T MAKE
SENSE. SHOULDN 'T INADEQUATE LAND
FOR SCHOOLS AND RECREATION BE
ADDRESSED?
35 3 SHOULDN'T ZONING IN SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES BE CONSIDERED AMONG THE
ITEMS BEING COMPARED? I . E. LOT SIZE
38 10 DENSITY LISTED AS 1. 7 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE. WHERE DID THIS
COME FROM? COMMUNITY SURVEY SAID
GREATEST CONCERN "IN NEXT FIVE
YEARS", WAS "OVER DEVELOPMENT". 57%
WANT LOTS OF SAME SIZE, 30% WANT
LARGER LOTS, AND ONLY 4% WANT
SMALLER LOTS ADJOINING THEIR
PROPERTY.
39 1 DENSITY HERE IS HIGH
39 6 PARAGRAPH OUT OF DATE--CARMEL DR.
40 4 LYNWOOD FARM IS NOW PART OF CITY.
41 4 MUST MAKE STATEMENT ABOUT DENSITY
AND SEWERS. BECAUSE OF SEWER
AVAILABILITY TOWNSHIP WIDE, DENSITY
OF DEVELOPMENT NOW BECOMES THE
DOMINANT ISSUE.
43 2 IT WOULD BE NICE IF THIS SECTION
WERE TRUE, HOWEVER, THANKS TO DUKE
AND TRAMMEL CROW, THIS IS NO LONGER
VALID.
fi
PAGE PARAGRAPH
45 5 ADD WESTERN 1/3 OF TWP. TO LOWER
INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT
46 D SHOULD THIS PARAGRAPH BE DELETED?
47 2 POPULATION ALREADY AT 40, 000,
ESTIMATE 1990 CENSUS
47 4 "REMAINING" MISSPELLED
49 4 NO MENTION OF SCHOOL PROPERTY ON
136TH WEST OF SPRINGMILL
49-53 ALL SCHOOL PLANS NOT CURRENT
50 4 SCHOOLS ARE CURRENTLY OVERCAPACITY.
60 3 COULD AND SHOULD BE UPDATED AS IS
PIVOTAL TO MUCH OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL
ISSUES.
61-65 ALL SHOULD BE CORRECTED FOR GOLF COURSES
AND SHOULD HAVE SOME INPUT FROM PARK
TASK FORCE
62 & 63 IS EVERYONE MISSING THESE PAGES?
65 BOTTOM <STATION #1 HAS MOVED
66 4 INCORRECT - NEW 100' TOWER LADDER
69 B SHOULD YOU MENTION THAT WITH NEW 31-
465 INTERCHANGE WILL ONLY HANDLE
50, 000 VEHICLES PER DAY
70 E NEEDS UPDATED VEHICLE COUNTS
74 1 FIRST STATEMENT SHOULD BE DELETED
77 3 "CONFLICTS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
INTERESTS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS WEST
OF THE MERIDIAN CORRIDOR. "
77 END No! ! No MENTION OF SPRINGMILL ROAD
AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT IS NOT JUST
ONE TRACK DEEP, THERE IS NO MULTI-
FAMILY ALONG SPRING MILL.
I _
PAGE PARAGRAPH
78 1 ANY DATA TO SHOW THAT PENN ST.
PROVIDES RELIEF?
78 2 DOUBLE LOADING SHOULD BE FIRMED UP.
SURVEY DID NOT SUPPORT STATEMENT AT
END OF PARAGRAPH.
78 3 I OBJECT TO THE STATEMENT ABOUT
MOVING OFF OF 31 - WHAT ABOUT
ORDINANCE D-584?
78 5 INCREASING THE TAX BASE--THOMPSON
TAX ABATEMENT
79 1 FIRST AND LAST PART OF PARAGRAPH NOT
CURRENT
79 2 THIS ISSUE SETTLED BY SMR AMENDMENT
WHERE IS ORDINANCE D-584 MENTIONED?
IT WAS OFFICIALLY ADOPTED BY CITY
COUNCIL! ! !
79 3 NOT TRUE. THIS PRESENTS A BIG
PROBLEM! WHICH IS WHY FEW HAVE
GAINED APPROVAL.
f 80 4 MAY NEED TO REWRITE THIS PARAGRAPH
- 84 3 ALREADYBEENACHIEVED
$4 4 NO. MENTION OF NEW HIGH SCHOOL
ATHLETIC FACILITY
87 D SHOULD PARK TASK FORCE REPORT BE
ENTERED HERE?
88 1&2 OUT OF DATE
93 1 GOAL 6 IS ORDINANCE D-584
(SPRINGMILL ROAD AMENDMENT)
95 POLICY 2 SHOULD BE RETAINED
95 5&6 PARAGRAPHS ARE GOBBLEDYGOOK
96 E SHOULD STATE WHERE COMMERCIAL IS TO
OCCUR
PAGE PARAGRAPH
97 8 $TRIPES=STRIPS
105-108 ALL IS REACHING SDECISIONS SION OF MBYHODS OF .
UPDATE
COMMITTEE" IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO
WARRANT THIS MUCH SPACE?
110 A BY ELIMINATING LANGUAGE ARE
INCREASING DENSITY GREATER THAN 1
UNIT PER ACRE AND ARE CONSIDERING
THE ENTIRE WEST SEWERED. SURVEY
DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS DENSITY.
119 2 WHO SAID WE ARE TO BE A FULL SERVICE -
COMMUNITY?
120 2c OUT OF DATE
120 3A STRENGTHCORRIDORSN TO(EASTS&ATE WESTPSIDES) LL TOROAD
REMAIN RESIDENTIAL, THE LAND S-1, AT
1 UNIT TO THE ACRE
123 3 PLATE # MISSING
125 3 No! No! No! DENSITY IN S-1 SHOULD
BE 1 UNIT PER ACRE AND NOT INCREASED
BECAUSE OF SEWERS. GROSS DENSITY IS
A BAD TERM HERE. WHEN TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION ALL-OF THE MULTI-ACRE -
LOTS IN S-1,. ,YOU COULD END UP WITH ,.
8-10 UNITS PER ACRE IN ORDER TO `;.
ACHIEVE GROSS DENSITIES SUGGESTED
HERE.
141-160 ALL CLARIFY WHAT THIS TEXT MEANS.
163 1-6 NEED TO ADD NORTH-SOUTH ROAD EAST
SIDE - HAZEL DEL.
164 5 WITH NEW CENSUS DATA, WON'T WE FALL
UNDER INDOT REGIONAL PLAN?
165 4 CLARIFY FIGURE X.5.
166 2 CLARIFY FIGURE X. 3 AND X.4.
-•a
PAGE PARAGRAPH
168 3 MEDIUM DENSITY DESCRIBED AS 2 UNITS
PER ACRE? INCONSISTENCY!
176 A OR B SIMON PROJECT