Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence CERTIFICATION OF THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON A PETITION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO INDIANA CODE 36-7-4-508 RESOLUTION No. CC-OI-09-06-02 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Civic Design Policies) To: The Honorable Common Council of the City of Carmel Hamilton County, Indiana Dear Members: The Carmel Plan Commission offers you the following report on the application of the City of Carmel, Department of Community Services (Docket No. 05100008 CPA) petitioning the Commission to Amend the Carmel Clay 2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan to include Civic Design Policies for the Carmel central core. The Carmel Plan Commission's recommendation on the petition of City of Carmel, Department of Community Services is FAVORABLE. At a regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, December 20, 2005, the Carmel Plan Commission voted ten (10) in Favor, zero (0) Opposed, zero (0) Abstaining, to forward to the Common Council the proposed Resolution No. CC-OI-09-06-02 with a Favorable Recommendation. 0L/ DATED: Thursday, December 22, 2005 2005-1222; 05100008 CPA; Civic Design Policies Certification Received DEe 2 2 2005 Cannel Clerk- Treasurer - --- -'- <I ., .' ., October 19, 2005 Dear Plan Commission Members: I am sending you this information in response to your meeting of October 18 at which time the Department of Community Services presented you with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. I have tried to distill six months of meetings and volumes of communications into these few pages in order to give you a bit of history of what is going on at in our community that relates to this. I believe it will reflect the kind of confusion the vision of "New Urbanization" could create in its present form as presented to you Tuesday evening. As I listened to the presentation by Adam Theis, I was concerned about the lack of information you were given. As we all know too well, "the devil is in the details." I was pleased with your questions and comments, especially the thought that one person might be given the power to virtually rewrite the Comprehensive Plan with his vision of what a New Urban Design District should look like. If it is the City's plan to totally change the landscape of this district, there should be a long and carefully thought-through process with more than one planner being consulted. It would amount to a separate comprehensive plan which should include public meetings before adopted into the larger Comprehensive Plan. If on the other hand, this is a general concept for this area, then let the market place, residents, and Plan Commission function as already provided in our Comp Plan. A "Planned Unit Development" could function very well for any area under consideration for redevelopment. Last spring, after successfully seeing a Special Use Variance turned down in our community by the BZA as well as change of land use on the Marion County side south side from residential to commercial, we requested a study be implemented on the 96th Street Corridor between Keystone and Westfield. This area had been earmarked as a "Special Study Area" over eight years ago. I requested a meeting with the Department and on May 23, several residents, developers, and representatives from the Nora Community Council, met with the Department. Mike introduced us to Adam Theis as the consultant urban planner who would be "helping" with the study. At no time during that meeting or subsequent meetings, (I have attended at least nine) did I ever hear mentioned that there was a larger vision and that we would become the "poster child" for the New Urbanization in Carmel. In fact, Mike was very specific that "this time things would be different because planning would be from the bottom up and not from the top down." He emphasized on several occasions that this would be a first and everything presented was "only conceptual." He told me that our study was being put on a "fast track" and I wrongly assumed that all he meant was that it was being given priority. As I listened Tuesday evening, it confirmed what we have come to realize over the past six months; "conceptual" meant until the larger vision of New Urbanization became the guiding force of the Comprehensive Plan. We had absolutely no idea what was about to happen and what our request would ultimately encompass! I believe it was at the second meeting that Adam presented two "conceptual plans" of which only one was really an option. When I asked him why he only presented one \, option rather than several as promised, he told me he didn't have time between meetings to prepare. I now know that was not the case. There really weren't any other options. The "vision" you heard is the option. The details are another story! There have been a number of meetings since our original one but all center around what I refer to as "the vision." Adam has a way of always bringing the discussion back to how it fits with his idea of the vision. It is not the concept we are troubled by. It is the attempt to micro- manage the process that is at the heart of our concern. Attached is the land use plan he formulated which I believe reflects this. I would also suggest you look at two documents prepared by Adam entitled 96th Street & Westfield Blvd - (not dated) and 96th Street & Westfield Blvd. - Neighborhood Planning Study, dated September 27, 2005. Although Mike still insists it is only conceptual, the underlying plan does not change. Site specific details are to be under the umbrella of "The Vision" which we now know was on fast track to become the guiding force of the Comprehensive Plan for the center section of the map. If any re-development can be shown to be under this umbrella, there really is nothing much the Plan Commission or public can do. We now are beginning to realize why we have been so confused about how we were to participate. Adam designed our area with details before ever consulting with anyone in the community and then we were supposed to respond to his plan. Let me put it this way. We asked for a parade. We thought we were given permits for the parade only to find out that what we really got were tickets to be cheering spectators at the parade. The original "study group" Mike refers to in his memo was never reassembled and instead a "steering committee" was chosen by the Department to discuss the plan Adam designed. Input from the original group simply disappeared! Adam referred to our area in his presentation to you, yet when asked the question concerning public in put, he said there had been very little. Perhaps he was technically correct but not accurate. There has been a plethora of communications by residents concerning this vision as it affects our community. I have attached several which have tried to address the issues. His interpretation of the vision of "New Urbanization" does not reflect participation of our community. We do want to participate in the changes that we all recognize need to take place but we do not want to be used as the poster child. I believe you have correctly identified the major problem with the larger vision - it is too open ended for consistent interpretation by the Plan Commission. But that is part of the vision! This is actually stated in the book Adam referred to, "City Comforts." Were this to be approved as presented, the tale would indeed wag the dog! There is much more I haven't covered but I trust this will have served the purpose. at Ric 9659 Wild Cherry Lane (patrice463 2@sbcglobal.net) L. . >(; "" I II I . frrrl \ r I In ') T f fIn1 r 111111 "'';'-'; ~ ~l I \ 1 '1 . . ,--- : P! , 1'1 i t J\~~/' \ I -, 11 .~-, ,_.---------.2-, ___.~___.- ~ ~ .,~' ., ,. ...-~ 6~. I . ~ 5 t T :. -.-,. ~ ., . :.t F """ ~ '" I.....-.- ~ _,_ ~ _ Jf'""- ~..y M I ~ . ~.li, , "lit 4 ". ,fti - ~ ~'.ll._.- ____..._...l!_ 'I':\~~; . I -" . I "4 rI '. ~ ,I is! ;"} it, ~t -'04. -..- -1-- - -- - ---- --- _.~-- ~ n t..j. ," t L"'-'~ \ -' "-): i .~ .' ). ',/...... j l -. ,-,. 1\ ....-"T"" "Il;..~ !k.t "! ~i ~ \~~ 'i (-~ \ >- ,\..... ~. J' \t; , 1 I i I : ~U'__'_> ~ #"''''''' I I ,_ I ~ -. i ! <,..~- uuc[..... ~._;pi~,.._. ""Of" J'~J CITI OF CARMEL JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR To: August 5, 2005 Residents of the ~t Study Area Michael Hollibah~ Carmel Department of Community Services From: Re: AREA PLANNING MEETING Recently, a number of your neighbors organized against an office project proposed along Haverstick Road that would have altered the residential character in that area. The Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals listened and turned down the petition. At the hearing, those neighborhood representatives also requested a special planning study be done to help better manage growth in the area and ensure that any future development proposals would be evaluated against an updated plan for land use and transportation, mindful ofthe circumstances which make this particular area unique. The Department of Community Services initiated such a study beginning in late May, hiring a consulting urban planner tQ..help_guide the discussion with area1_e~idents. and development interests, and ultimately to formulate an area plan for this neighborhood - a plan respectful of the current residential areas, but mindful of growing pressure from private sector developers which is taking shape and will effect change in the study area- with or without a new plan. As part of the planning process, the Department has been asked by study participants to hold an informational meeting in order to share concepts and ideas being formulated, and obtain feedback regarding a new neighborhood plan for the area between 96th to 101 st streets, and between Keystone Avenue and the Monon Trail. A map of the study area is attached. Meeting date: Monday, August 15, 2005 Meeting place: Hope Church located at 2500 E 98th Street. Meeting time: 7:00 PM (ending approx. 9:00 PM) Please plan to attend this important meeting. Feel free to contact me with questions at 571- 2417, or email at mhollibaugh@carmeLin.gov. ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2401, FAX 317.844.3498 EMAIL jbrainarc1@ci.carmel.in.us Village Mixed-Use This land use category consists of a development focused on a mixed-use core of small, neighborhood office/retail nodes, public and semi public uses, open space and light industrial development. Residential development densities vary from compact single-family residential development and small-scale multi-family residential development near the "Main Street" or "Village Center" and progress to lower densities outward from this core. Village mixed use areas are intended to strengthen existing, historically rural, small towns and cities within Indianapolis, which are intended to continue as neighborhood gathering places and should allow a wide range of small businesses, housing types, and public and semi-public facilities. This category should be compatible in size and scale to existing villages in Marion County. It will allow development of residential and limited commercial uses on smaller lots than in other sections of rural and suburban Indianapolis. Potential development in these areas should focus on design issues related to architecture, building size, parking, landscaping and lighting to promote a pedestrian-oriented "village" or "small town" atmosphere, rather than focusing on residential density. Strip commercial development (integrated centers setback from rights-of-way by parking areas), large-scale freestanding retail uses and heavy industrial development are generally inappropriate within this land use category. The Plan anticipates that this category will typically be designated as a critical area. The Plan also anticipates that development of property with this recommendation would result from a public input process. " -J/t~ ()d~ ragl:. I VI J patrice4632@sbcglobal.net Cc: "rmspahrs" <rmspahrs4@earthlink.net> IIIHollibaugh, Mike pili <MHollibaugh@carmel.in.gov>; "Adam Thies" <adam@edenlanddesign.com>; "Keeling, Adrienne M" <AKeeling@carmel.in.gov> "Cole Alexis" <Istakhan@aol.com>; "Jim Alred" <jim.alred@thomson.net>; "Eugene Bowen" <shelbybowen@sbcglobal.net>; "Bill Carrier" <Wpcar@aol.com>; "Joyce Harris" <jengha@aol.com>; "Charles Harshbarger" <bobrharsh@aol.com>; "Dennis Huff' <dennis185@aol.com>; "Faunette Johnston" <fjohnston@wiley.com>; "Susan Kasle" <skasle@indy.rr.com>; "Mike Mundy" <mike_mundy@mjinsurance.com>; "Jason Shelburne" <jshelburne@bigotires.com>; "William Smith" <wsmith1@indy.rr.com>; "Joy Sullivan" <ksqe2@yahoo.com>; "Michelle Spahr" <rmspahrs4@earthlink.net> Monday, October 10, 200510:07 PM Comprehensive Plan for 96th-99th Street From: To: Sent: Subject: Listed herein are some of the concerns that I have regarding the City of Carmel's proposed redevelopment of the neighborhood where we live. As you are aware, my family lives at 9892 Haverstick Road which is located on the southwest comer of Haverstick Road and 99th Street. Our property is encompassed in the area designated on the proposed redevelopment map as "Woodland Conservation Zone". The majority of the remaining part of this wooded area is owned by John and Jody Tzucker. As we have previously discussed, I agree that a plan for the neighborhood is a positive proactive approach to the maintenance of this family oriented neighborhood. ~~.Rite....se..ve.ral.lJl~etings,"how~ysr, th~ nature and eX!~Qf...!~2eve1spruen(plan,proposed~by_the City_has nqt significantly changed despite public~comment.. I am still hopeful that tlleconcems oftlieneighborfio~d can be implemented in a truly cooperative plan that everyone can accept. ~rall, th~Rlanp!2posed b~he GLty_d9.es E9! Rai~in or_promote.. tbis sumrr9.an-!lejghl2grh02~ ~HP.j~~ v.!!ue~ of c2!.n.!Ilunity and family.. In particular, changing the character of this neighborhood from a predominantly residential neighborhood to an urban commercial neighborhood is frankly not supported by the majority of residents. The destruction of single family dwellings with the construction of less desirable structures as well as destruction of mature trees and lack of wildlife preservation is not prudent. This urbanization will dramatically increase traffic flow and make the entire neighborhood a less desirable area to live. The specific concerns that I believe require design changes are all follows: 1. To the extent necessary for safety, more compact single family dwellings could be developed at a minimum 1 lot deep along 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard if the existing homeowners do not intend to reside along the increased traffic flow caused by the road construction on these 2 streets. An alternative could be the construction of an access road adjacent to the streets [96th Street and Westfield Blvd.] similar to the access road presently existing between 98th and 99th Street adjacent to Keystone A venue with limited access to Keystone. 2. The Woodland Conservation Zone at Haverstick and proceeding west rage L or j along 99th Street, including our property, should be designated as Residential Conservation Zone. As you are aware from communications with the Tzuckers and us, we do not have any immediate plans to develop the wooded properties and intend, at this time, to preserve the woods. The zone descriptions and basic guidelines for the Woodland Conservation area frankly limit the value of the property and constitute a "taking" without the formal eminent domain proceedings. The reference to compensation to the owners for the development of the area as a park or open space is vague and compromising. For example, the suggestion of transfer of development rights to an adjacent property is not feasible since the woodland property is surrounded by 3 and, sometimes, 4 sides that are designated as residential conservation. In addition, any development into residential structures is limited to "Prairie Style" , "Arts and Crafts" and modem styles. This limitation would be in contradiction of the houses presently located on the properties. Such descriptions included in the Woodland Conservation Zone do not provide sufficient protection of the property values and our homes. In fact, the Residential Conservation Zone language is sufficient to protect the natural wooded area as it maintains the building height and scale to that presently existing in the area. Likewise it commends the preservation of mature trees which appears to be the focus of our concerns as well as the concerns of the City. 3. As discussed hereinabove, only the areas directly next to Westfield Blvd. should be developed as potential urban projects to the extent of 1 lot deep. Such construction should be limited to 2 stories in height. Such construction might act as a buffer for the remaining residents to protect them from the noise and lack of privacy from the expansion of Westfield Blvd. The proposed commercial development of the remainder of the southeast comer of 99th Street and Westfield Blvd. is not acceptable. This area should be retained as residential conservation zone. As stated in the Zone descriptions. "Replacing this character and vegetation/tree canopy would not be possible with redevelopment and redevelopment of this area would eliminate a significant community resource of quality housing stock and old, quality tree growth." Likewise, this area is a refuge for wildlife that has been displaced by the other high density developments in the area. Furthermore, the housing unit size of less than 1 ,200 square feet is not compatible with homes in the area. Commercial development in this area ia also not desired. The description has commercial structures of up to 3,000 square feet. That is a substantial size building for a primarily residential area. Not only is the size of such commercial structures inadvisable, the zone allows 3 parking spaces for each 1,000 feet. Thus a 3,000 square foot building could have up to 9 parking spaces. If you multiply this by several commercial establishments, you have major parking lot areas that substantially decrease the green space cherished by this area. On street parking to support such commercial enterprises would restrict traffic flow and possibly necessitate widening 99th Street, further destroying valuable trees and green space. The requirement of 2 car garages for each structure with rear alleys would additionally destroy valuable tree canopy and quality vegetation. 10/11/2005 yage j or j In the past week, our neighborhood has experienced what additional traffic would be like with the closure of parts of 96th Street and Westfield Blvd. The substantially increased traffic flow through residential areas inhabited by numerous children is devastating to the family values and community that Carmel allegedly values. 4. Comments regarding the Mixed Use Residential Zone west of Westfield Blvd. at the intersection with 99th Street are the same as for the east side of Westfield Blvd. Single family dwellings should not be more than 2 stories tall. The more dense urban residences should be only 1 lot deep along Westfield Blvd. The housing unit amount ofless than 1,000 square feet is unacceptable as well as the commercial sites of up to 5,000 square feet for the reasons discussed above. 4 parking spaces for every 1,000 feet would create the potential of 20 parking spaces for each 5,000 square foot commercial building. I realize that there has been alot of time and effort put forth in developing the proposed plan. However, in order for the community to support this plan, substantial changes need to be instituted. I am certain the overall mission is to create a plan which is supported by the persons most affected, and not to appease outside special interests who currently do not, nor will not, live in the area they will forever alter. I look forward to open and constructive discussion regarding this matter in an effort to preserve the integrity of this community while still providing an ample tax base for the City of Carmel. 10/11/2005 ~ -0- - --- patrice4632@sbcqlobal.net From: To: Cc: Sent: SUbject: <Istakhan@aol.com> <MHollibaugh@carmel.in.gov>; <adam@edenlanddesign.com> <AKeeling@carmel.in.gov>; <patrice4632@sbcglobal.net> Thursday, September 08,20055:30 PM Feedback Regarding 8/29 presentation & New Issues This week, I reviewed the 8/29 presentation. Thank you for clarifying the purpose and use of the overlay and distinguishing this effort from rezoning. Last night, I was also able to meet with and get input from most of the residents of Wild Cherry Corner. Based upon our conversation, all of the residents are aware of our meetings. Most of them thought that the 8/29 presentation adequately defined the process and the various alternatives, but the penetration of understanding was still far from 100%. But the situation is much improved. Which of these issues can you address right away and which need to be dealt with by the steering committee?: 1. We've noticed that 1-456 is being expanded by two lanes each way one section at a time. One would think that the interstate plan would be to gather more land whenever they prepare to replace the Westfield bridge which spans the interstate. a) Does the extension of 96th St west of Westfield take into account the probable expansion of 1-465? b) Have you had any forewarnings ofthis? c) Will our extension plan fit the reduced footprint? d) Do we need to revisit the alternative of extending 99th St. as an alternative? 2. We believe that the 1-acre parcels belonging to Wild Cherry Corner may have certain restrictions within our deeds. Would the proposed overlay supercede that in any way? Should there be any relief to those restrictions made available by this process? 3. Though in our study area, the area south of 96th St. falls outside the City of Carmel's jurisdiction. a) Is a more restrictive overlay for this area an option? b) Do you have an update regarding if there has been any demonstratable cooperation with Marion County and other regional representatives to date? I am aware that they've attended one (or two?) of the pre-planning sessions. But have we gotten any feedback or any other indication that would lead us to believe that we would participate in our efforts? Or do we get the impression that they are taking a wait-and-see attitude? (If so, we stakeholders need to know that.) c) For example, if the north side of 96th St reflect a Live-Work arrangement, then could the area immediately across from it to do so as well? 4. We'd like some clarification as soon as possible about the planned for 98th St extension which ;s intended to connect to Westfield Blvd. We understand that one of the attendees who has an option to develop the land adjacent to the extension wants to move forward soon, perhaps even before our study's recommendations can be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. This extension is a very sensitive issue for homes adjacent to it. 5. I was advised that a sketch of the proposed 96th St parkway was shown during the 8/29 presentation, but we could not find it in the presentation on the website. Can you release a copy to me? 6. The two areas north of 96th St. designated "Single Family as Office" and 'Woodland Preservation" seems to pose a dilemma for anyone who wants to stay in the neighborhood but also anticipates development pressure. Currently, I believe all of Wild Cherry Corner is zoned for residential. As a result of the conceptual plan, there are mixed expectations for those having larger lots. The proposed plan seems to contradict itself in that some large (3 acre) parcels are split between "Live-Work" and "Woodland Preservation". Furthermore, a large lot that is designated solely 'Woodland Preservation" is likely to be slated for development soon. Unless the lot can be purchased now, either by public or private entities for preservation, we recommend the designated area of "Single Family as Office" be completely rethought. In our view the proposed boundaries fail to realistically protect and buffer the Residential Conservation Zone or the interests of stakeholders within the "Single Family as Office" zone. (This concern is exacerbated by the concem about the area south of 96th S1. [#3 above].) 9/8/2005 ..L -0- - _.&. - 7. We had understood that emminent domain was not planned to be used, but that such was exercised recently. Are there other circumstances under which you might consider using that remedy? (Specifically, to connect up Maple, Lincoln, Wild Cherry, etc. thru to 98th St.?) 8. Can you please provide us a list of those who have so far volunteered to serve on the steering committee? That's all for now. Cole Alexis 9658 Wild Cherry Lane Indianapolis IN 46280 317 575-8577 9/8/2005 10/10/05 MON 12:32 FAX 317 587 6779 SOURCING ijlJ001 To: Adrienne Keeling Department of Community Services Division of Planning and Zoning FAX: 571-2426 From: Jim AIred RE: %th Street and Westfield Blvd Neighborhood Planning Study 14 pages total hi'. ~ '1(..1'1 n....t-!lt" '"f.?, " t"(~ /') vOe,>y Adrienne, I have marked up the handout from the last meeting with my comments. In addition, I have those below. Jim 1. The "Single Family as Office Zone" between Haverstick and Wild Cherry is not going to work because a. no one is going to know there are businesses there. There is no drive-by or foot traffic along those streets as there is on north Rangeline Road in Carmel. It'll be even worse on Wild Cherry Drive because it's a dead-end street. A lot of the businesses will be hidden behind the "woodland conservation zone' along 96th St. b. no one will want to go there because it'll be so hard to get back out onto east- bound 96th St. It's bad enough now with just the traffic from the homes in there. If you add business traffic, it'll be worse. Traffic will go north on Haverstick to avoid 96th St, but traffic on Wild Cherry can't 2. What is the plan for buffering between dissimilar use zones? 3. Is the plan for the "Live / Work Zone" along 96th St to block off Kittrell, Lincoln, and Maple? Will those streets then have access from the north? . 4. Bike lanes and bike paths are quite different. Bike lanes are for more experienced cyclists who travel at faster speeds. Bicycles in bike lanes are more visible to cars, but the cyclist needs to be much more aware of the cars. Bicycles on bike paths can't travel as fast as in a bike lane because of the presence of pedestrians and the hazards associated with curb cuts and automobile cross-traffic. Cars routinely do not look before pulling across bike paths, but cars will stop before pulling across bike lanes. Kids riding their bikes to school should use bike paths. People commuting to work will probably want to use bike lanes. They really serve different needs, and they both need to be present. 5. If the intent is to create a pedestrian-friendly area, some sidewalks will have to be built. As far as I know, my street is the only one in the whole area under study which has a sidewalk. Sidewalks need to be wide enough that two people can pass. Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: Istakhan@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 28,20059:48 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: Keeling, Adrienne M; adam@edenlanddesign.com Subject: Steering Committee - Internal Documentation To Be Used For Next Meeting? I'm curious as to how you intend to compile everyone's feedback so that we can review it as a group. I have been grateful for your responses, but have felt that most of the feedback I and others have sent has been used more to modify or clarify your presentation rather than the plan itself. - - - - ... ~ -- - ~ I am expecting that the Steering Committee will compile all the feedback raised as issues, preferences, etc. and vet these with some group discussion to obtain a sense of consensus. If that is not your expectation or if you think perhaps I need to elaborate on the procedure and organization of compiling the feedback, please call me so that we can discuss it. I have no idea how you normally do this, but in my business we'd use a series of logs to categorize issues that call for a decision or resolution (and merely capture the comments and preferences). If you having problems envisioning this, imagine a project management issues log as either a word document in table form or an Excel spreadsheet with the following types of entries in each row: Subdivision, Issue #, Date Received, Title of Issue, Description of Issue, Person Received From, Resolution/Decision, Decision Date. For purposes of my own organization, that's probably how I'll organize my input to you. (If you already had a format in mind, let me know ASAP so I can save us both some time. And ignore my iimpertinence and forgive my butting in.) The important thing is that everyone on the Steering Committee should see each other's comments--and comments or suggestions by others. [Please make sure we've captured any outstanding questions that have been raised by stakeholder to date!] I think it's going to be important that the Steering Committee see all the feedback, though we would very much appreciate your sorting and prioritizing the items in such a way so that you propose what we're to discuss. If someone on the Steering Committee wants to discuss something in a different order--or something we were planning to skip over, we can decide as a committee of the whole if we want to accommodate them. If we can achieve a common format, I'm hoping you can distribute the issue-decision log electronically in advance? So we can prepare? Probably in *.pdf or *rtf format? Justing thinking "out loud". Thanks! Cole Q /') Q /') ()() '" Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: Keeling, Adrienne M Wednesday, October 05,200512:56 PM DeVore, Laura B Morrissey, Phyllis G; Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Blanchard, Jim E; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Littlejohn, David W; Griffin, Matt L; Brennan, Kevin S; Mindham, Daren Subject: Docket No. Assignment: (CPA) Comp Plan Amendment - Civic Design Policies (#05100008 CPA) Sent: To: Cc: I have printed this e-mail and updated the file. I have issued the necessary Docket Number for (CPA) Comp Plan Amendment - Civic Design Policies. It will be the following: Docket No. 05100008 CPA Total Fee: $0.00 (exempt) $0.00 Docket No. 05100008 CPA: Comp Plan Amendment - Civic Design Policies The applicant seeks to amend the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan in order to add Civic Design policies. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Petitioner, please note the following: 1. This Item will not be on an agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 2. Published Public Notice will occur no later than Friday, October 7. Published notice is required within the Indianapolis Star. 3. Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than Noon, Friday, October 14. Failure to submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the petition. 4. The Fifteen (15) Informational Packets will be delivered to Plan Commission Secretary Ramona Hancock no later than NOON, Friday, October 7. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the tabling of the petition. 5. The Item will appear on the October 18 agenda of the Plan Commission under (Public Hearings). 6. The Item will also appear on the November 1 agenda of the Plan Commission Subdivision Committee. Please contact Adrienne Keeling at 571-2417 (Fax: 571-2426) with this information. 10/612005