HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp Plan Website Feedback Spreadsheet_Updated 10-03-22Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
00 Process
Comments from DRAFT #4, 03/30/2022
Matthew Pierce mjp.pierce@gmail.com 00 Process The top three things identified as most important to the future of Carmel were: well maintained streets and neighborhoods, affordability, walkable/bikeable destinations.
I do not see how the current draft addresses the first two priorities. It seems to be so focused on adding high-density development and having things a walk away, it
would sacrifice our existing neighborhoods and reduce our affordability.
8/10/2022
Carolyn Wyatt cawytt@gmail.com 00 Process I find it appalling that City Council can move forward on a comprehensive plan without representation from District 1. Mr Kimball was highly involved and active in our
district. I applaud the assistance from Mr. Worrell on the street parking around the school. However, this still leaves District 1 without a vote. At a minimum, I want a
proxy vote for District 1 until the next election. It is completely out of bounds to conduct business while the epicenter of the city is lacking representation.
5/27/2022
Comments from DRAFT #2, 01/20/2022
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 00 Process Please ensure that there is more than one Plan Commission Committee meeting to discuss all of the new "redline" changes to the initial Comprehensive Plan Revision
draft, as well as to discuss other much-needed improvements to the plan that still have not been addressed by these changes.
To my knowledge, the DOCS posted their "redline" changes on January 21, 2022. This means that the first Plan Commission Committee meeting to discuss these changes
will be held just 12 days later, on February 2. This clearly provides very little time for Carmel residents to even become aware that the "redline" update has been
released, to review all of the changes in the plan (or sometimes the lack thereof), to inform others about these findings, and to provide feedback via the Comprehensive
Plan website or via emails to the Plan Commission. This needlessly short timeline is an impediment to public feedback, similar in nature to the timing of the Public
Hearings for several newly-proposed development projects that were held just four days before Christmas. Let's give everyone a fair chance to react and provide
feedback to all of the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan revision draft in a more reasonable timeframe.
Note that one week after the "redline" changes were released on January 21, there are currently only 7 new public comments that have been entered onto the website
spreadsheet. That is likely an indicator that most Carmel residents do not know that this update has been released, and/or that they have not had sufficient time to fully
review the updated draft and to provide feedback. That feedback will not only include comments about the actual "redline" changes that have now been made by the
DOCS. It could also include comments about the many remaining undesirable aspects of the initial draft plan that have not (yet) been changed at all.
Bottom line: I request that the Plan Commission Committee hold more than one meeting to cover this important part of the review process. There is no need to rush this
effort. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that the DOCS will need to make at least one more "redline" update after receiving many additional (anticipated)
recommendations by Plan Commissioners at the upcoming Committee meeting(s), and after further public input is provided both before and after the February 2
meeting.
1/29/2022
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 00 Process (0.2 Engagement Reach, page 6). Please share the demographics for the Online Survey, Talk of the Town Webinars, and Pop-Ups. What were participants’ ages, genders?
Did they live in Carmel or work in Carmel? Were they homeowners or renters? Where did they live in Carmel: East, West or Downtown? How long did they live in
Carmel? How many participants are represented by a red dot on the Engagement Reach map? It looks like most red dots and green dots were in the downtown area. I
did the survey, listened to the 4 Webinars and went to a Pop-Up session. Was I counted as 1 or 3 people?
(Objective: 0.3, Page 7) Online Survey. Please line up the “three things most valued about the Carmel community” by its percentage. Public Amenities (52%) should be
on the left. Safety (34%) should be in the middle. Walkability/Bikeability (22%) should be at the right.
(0.6, Page 10) Stakeholder. HOAs should be included under Stakeholders.
1/31/2022
1 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 00 Process Introduction, pg. 2: This is not “Our Plan” or the Carmel “community's” vision, as long as it promotes increased density, urban form-based development, and
commercial/mixed-use development everywhere, especially in Carmel’s established single-family residential areas and even within existing neighborhoods. This Draft is
not just an “update” to “refine goals”. It’s a drastic change that doesn’t seem to value Carmel’s zoned, suburban single-family homeowners. This proposed new Comp
Plan seems to be all about crowding in as many people as possible, and providing more tax revenue to the City.
0.1 Engagement Timeline, pg. 5: Long into the process, most people were not aware that a new Comp Plan revision was happening, and many still are not aware. To my
knowledge, the City administration did not follow through on public requests to notify all of Carmel’s HOAs. There was heavy reliance on expecting residents to routinely
be checking the City website.
0.3 Online Survey, pg.7: Only 700+ respondents out of the roughly 100,000 Carmel population. No demographic information, which could affect answers, was reported
about the Survey respondents, such as age, area of Carmel, etc. The Survey was mostly about convincing citizens to be in support of the City’s use of TIF funding for
development. There was no obvious connection to changing the Comp Plan. For instance, it never directly asked if residents favor increased density and
commercial/mixed-use development near and within their neighborhoods, or if they agree with Carmel government’s “vision” that development “form” (appearance)
matters more than density and uses, when determining fitting-in with the surroundings. The top 2 results for “most valued” about Carmel were Public Amenities, and
Safety. (I believe that City-driven rapid population growth will overcrowd public amenities, and decrease safety.) The top 2 things “most important to the future of
Carmel” were Well Maintained Streets & Neighborhoods, and Affordability. (I believe that Carmel needs to protect what little affordable housing still remains, and to
build some new neighborhoods of affordable housing instead of all “luxury” developments.)
0.4 Talk of the Town Webinar Series, pg. 8: Essentially a marketing pitch by urban development consultants, to promote Carmel government’s “vision” of over-
population and over-development.
0.5 In-Person Pop-Ups, pg. 9: It didn’t help attendance that these occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. No demographic information or indication of what residents
were saying was reported to the public.
0.6 Stakeholder Meetings, pg.10: List of 14 Stakeholder groups were mainly City government, marketing, development, and business interests. Did not include one of
the most affected groups — Homeowners and Neighborhood HOAs.
2/6/2022
Comments from the INITIAL DRAFT, 10/08/2021
Jill Reese jillreese@me.com 00 Process After reviewing 700 total surveys, you stated that the top 3 things most valued about the Carmel community are: safety; walkability/bikeability; and public amenities
(schools, parks, etc.) What was the breakdown in percentage of total answers for these top 3 three things?
10/27/2021
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 00 Process I have been following the Comp Plan development since the unfortunate rezoning of a small lot at the Monon/146th intersection. City Council ruled in favor of luxury
townhomes that have no place in this neighborhood. After numerous conversations with residents, City Council remained patronizing and condescending towards middle-
class homeowners. The new Comp Plan seems to lay the foundation for city-wide policy changes that circumvent homeowner input. Going forward, will the “form” of our
neighborhood be current single-family homes or will it be the new, unwanted, overpriced luxury eyesore? With that in mind, my number one goal of staying involved
now is to urge the City of Carmel to actively reach out to all Carmel residents and solicit input! You must drop the “city planners know best; residents will get used to
change or move” mentality. The pop-up shops were sparsely attended, and no one really knows what’s going on until it is too late or when it’s election season. Please
send postcards, ask specific questions, write letters to each neighborhood outlining specific changes for that neighborhood, take out a whole page of advertising in the
Current, ask businesses to put up posters, be present and highly visible at all events around town. This plan must be seen by more than 1% of the entire Carmel
population! Many City Council members prided themselves in walking door to door to be re-elected. This city-wide Comp Plan revision needs that level of engagement
and conversation.
10/29/2021
Terry Thurston terryjhurston@icloud.com 00 Process The process for feedback and input was not started according to this document was not started until September and goes only through November. Why is the timeline so
short. This plan has been poorly communicated until very recently at Town Hall and CNAN meeting.
There have been no in-person engagements in the White River pattern area. As a resident of Plum Creek Village (and the president of the HOA) we request an in person
engagement
There were 700 survey responses. How many were emailed? This was a generic survey and did not address many of the plan issues
10/30/2021
Betty Wessel baycitywessel@aol.com 00 Process 700 participants out of a population of 100,000 does not appear to be a representative sample nor statistically valid. So I doubt the feedback speaks for the entire
population of Carmel. How was the public notified of the sessions? I only just heard of this plan from my HOA last week. Feed back time to adoption seems awfully short
august thru November appears you're trying to push something through without adequate feedback.
11/1/2021
2 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Marsha Putt marshaputt@gmail.com 00 Process I am just now being made aware of a significant proposal to our neighborhood and surrounding area. As a resident of Plum Creek Village, we are being clumped into a
White River Project...which makes no sense. So now we begin our feedback on this process which I would have thought we would have been made aware of this much
earlier?
I am echoing the sentiments of our HOA President:
The process for feedback and input was not started, according to this document, until August and goes only through November. Why is the timeline so short? This plan
has been poorly communicated until very recently at Town Halls and CNAN meeting.
There have been no in-person engagement sessions in the White River pattern area. As a resident of Plum Creek Village (and the president of the HOA) we request an in
person engagement
There were 700 survey responses. How many were emailed? This was a generic survey and did not address many of the plan issues.
11/1/2021
Bart Schlosser bartschlosser@gmail.com 00 Process I'm a resident of Plum Creek Village, and I only recently became aware of this development plan---all of which is very unsettling as a long-time Carmel resident. I have
many concerns that I've shared with our HOA President. We have many concerns on this plan beginning with the overall process:
The process for feedback and input was not started, according to this document, until August and goes only through November. Why is the timeline so short? This plan
has been poorly communicated until very recently at Town Halls and CNAN meeting.
There have been no in-person engagement sessions in the White River pattern area. As a resident of Plum Creek Village, we request an in person engagement.
11/1/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 00 Process (O Process) Though “The engagement process for the Comprehensive Plan spanned a year’s worth of focus group meetings, surveys, neighborhood popups throughout
the city, an online conversation series and open office hours for residents and business owners to share input. Only 1000+ people out of an estimated 100,000 Carmel
population participated in these events, because most people in Carmel just did not know about them.
(0.2 Engagement Reach, page 6). Please share the demographics for the Online Survey, Talk of the Town Webinars, and Pop-Ups. What were participants’ ages, genders?
Did they live in Carmel or work in Carmel? Were they homeowners or renters? Where did they live in Carmel: East, West or Downtown? How long did they live in
Carmel? How many participants are represented by a red dot on the Engagement Reach map? It looks like most red dots and green dots were in the downtown area. I
did the survey, listened to the 4 Webinars and went to a Pop-Up session. Was I counted as 1 or 6 people?
11/2/2021
Claudia Hammonds claudiawhammonds@gmail.com 00 Process The process for feedback and input was not started, according to this document, until August and goes only through November. Why is the timeline so short? This plan
has been poorly communicated until very recently at Town Halls and CNAN meeting.
11/3/2021
Claudia Hammonds claudiawhammonds@gmail.com 00 Process There have been no in-person engagement sessions in the White River pattern area. As a resident of Plum Creek Village, I request an in person meeting.11/3/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 00 Process The DOCS touts the extent of public engagement that was solicited in the development of this Comprehensive Plan revision draft, but I believe that the public
engagement process was actually limited, controlled, and insufficient.
Regarding the referenced online survey, most Carmel residents were unaware that this survey was even taking place. In addition, there was no place in the survey for
residents to identify whether they live in the central core area or in the lower-density areas of Carmel. The survey was actually titled as being a "Community Investment
Survey", and much of the survey was devoted to attempting to demonstrate public buy-in for the extensive use of TIFs to finance development projects in and near
downtown Carmel. There was no mention of the Comprehensive Plan anywhere in the survey, and there were no questions about what type of development that
residents would (or would not) want to see in the different areas of Carmel. Furthermore, the results for only two very generic survey questions are shown in the
Comprehensive Plan revision draft. To my knowledge, the full survey results, and the individual comments from survey respondents, have never been published.
Regarding the Talk of the Town Webinar Series held in March/April, it is not clear what is meant by the statement that there have been 500 "views" of the webinars. If,
for example, 125 viewers watched each of the four sessions at separate times, would the DOCS consider that to be 500 "views"? I maintain that most Carmel residents
were unaware that these Webinars were even being held. Furthermore, although public participants in the Webinars were encouraged to submit questions, they were
not permitted to actually speak. Several Carmel residents who submitted questions have since said that their questions (and comments) were either sidestepped or
reframed by the consultants. These Webinar sessions felt more like a marketing campaign by the City, rather then a genuine attempt to receive and incorporate public
feedback.
Regarding the In-Person Pop-Up Sessions held in May, once again most Carmel residents were unaware that these pop-up events were even being held, and these
sessions were announced (on the City website only) just 4-5 days in advance. There were apparently not much more than 100 total participants for all five sessions
counted together. Although these sessions did provide an opportunity for a limited number of residents to have direct interaction with DOCS officials and the consultants,
these sessions did not provide much of an opportunity for participants to hear what other residents in their area were saying.
Regarding the so-called Stakeholder Meetings, the Comprehensive Plan revision draft states that 35 such meetings were held with several listed community groups.
However, the Homeowners Associations in Carmel, which represent tens of thousands of Carmel residents, were apparently not even contacted. In my view, this
indicates that the DOCS and their hired consultants did not value the opinions of the HOA board members and/or that the City did not want any negative publicity to be
generated via the anticipated unfavorable feedback from the HOAs regarding certain aspects of the draft plan.
(continued below)
11/7/2021
3 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 00 Process (continued from above )... The timing/schedule of the approval process is another issue. The DOCS and the consultants worked for several months to develop this
Comprehensive Plan revision draft. Yet, once the draft plan was released on October 1, the City arranged for the Plan Commission public hearing to be held just 18 days
later. This provided very little notice for Carmel residents to even find out that the draft plan had been released, to review the details and specifics of this extensive plan,
to spread the word to fellow residents about the public hearing, and to write and send emails to Plan Commissioners in advance of the public hearing. There was no need
for this fire drill. Furthermore, the DOCS has made virtually no effort (to date) to spread the word about this plan revision in "Current in Carmel" or in any other form of
public media other than on the City's website.
This is a plan developed by City officials to push their "vision" for more-intense development across Carmel, under the pretense of claiming that the plan is well supported
by Carmel residents via extensive public engagement. In reality, it is doubtful that many Carmel residents know that the Comprehensive Plan is even being revised, much
less the drastic changes that are being proposed. Going forward, we need to put the brakes
on the ongoing approval process by the Plan Commission (which is to be followed by City Council). As the next step, the DOCS should schedule and hold well-publicized
public meetings about the Comprehensive Plan revision draft, in each of the districts of Carmel, and in sufficiently large venues. This would provide an opportunity for the
DOCS and the consultants to explain what is actually in the plan. Most importantly, it would allow the public to ask questions, to hear what other residents in their area
are saying, and to provide constructive feedback and suggestions. This would subsequently allow the opportunity for significant changes to be made to the draft plan in
direct recognition of this public feedback, before the approval process is then restarted. Note that district-specific public meetings were held during the process of
generating the current Comprehensive Plan back in 2009, and the feedback resulted in significant changes being made to that plan to include several additional
protections for Carmel homeowners. To date, the DOCS has resisted requests to hold such public meetings regarding the new Comprehensive Plan revision draft.
The City needs to do better than this.
11/7/2021
Jeff Lefevere jlefevere@gmail.com 00 Process Mayor Brainard has proven time and again that his vision, when executed, yields favorable outcomes for all citizens.
Not a single person can argue the benefits of our park system, the Monon and roundabouts on the quality of life in Carmel. This is a fitting legacy.
Likewise, the planning is yielding increasing property values. After many years of stagnation (at least on the east side) from 2005 - 2017, property values driven by
population growth has been considerable and looks to continue this way for many years to come.
Areas of criticism that the mayor would do well to acknowledge if not heed include the following:
- Not everybody wants to bike and walk everywhere -- for exercise maybe, but not like in NYC where I go to the bodega three blocks over.
- The city buying private property and giving to developers for a nominal cost looks and feels like cronyism
- City-owned businesses (and debt anchors) like the Palladium and the Hotel Carmichael should be avoided at all costs. The city should do city things. Not operate a
performance hall and luxury hotel.
- More transparency in communication and decision-making around areas in which people have opinions (art, the loss of character when small businesses are pushed out
for new construction, the viability and/or need of mixed-use development for everything, pet projects like the Carousel of '17 and Feinstein's contract, etc.)
Carmel is a wonderful place to live with wonderful people, but the unilateral decision-making and cloak and dagger nature of the City-Council, combined with the house
organ (Current in Carmel) can make it feel like we live in a utopia run by a wizard behind the curtain and benevolent despot racking up debt.
11/28/2021
01 Policy Goals & Objectives
Comments from DRAFT #6, 09/28/2022
Michael Van Noy vannoymike@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives Keep Objective 1.3.7 in plan.10/2/2022
Beth Etherington bethetherington@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives Please keep Objective 1.3.7 in to protect the integrity of Carmel neighborhoods. 10/2/2022
Jason Perfetti jperfetti@celgene.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives Please keep 1.3.7 in the comprehensive plan to protect Carmel neighborhoods.10/2/2022
Delia Pinyerd deepinyerd@yahoo.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives Please keep Objective 1.3.7 in the Comprehensive Plan. Vote to keep Objective 1.3.7 !!!10/2/2022
Brian Rogers infinitetape@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives I can't understate how crucial 1.3.7 is and that it be followed. As more commercial interest is expressed in Old Town and Midtown, eventually further expansion will be at
the very edges. We are already seeing the conflict between established neighborhoods and new, high-rise commercial development. It is vital that new developments are
sized to naturally transition to existing neighborhoods, not tower over them.
10/2/2022
Peggy Anderson peggyanderson721@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives Yes to objective 1.3.7. Please protect our neighborhoods.10/1/2022
Russ Lilly rcl1225@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.7. Protect single family neighborhoods….Carmel is developing too many multistory buildings….I have been here 30 years and it’s our neighborhoods that us
desirable.
10/1/2022
4 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Julie Burns lunatuna1986@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives I live off of Emerson and Main Street on York Drive (closer to Main). The excessive building is getting ridiculous. The traffic is terrible and people drive dangerously fast. I
would like to ask that you keep Objective 1.3.7 in to prevent further obnoxious developments. Thank you.
10/1/2022
Michele Ewing slosarz7@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives Please keep Objective 1. 3.7. In.10/1/2022
Susie Kennedy sbeaty14@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
I am writing to request the following objective is approved and maintained in the final Approval of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan; Objective 1.3.7: Protect single-family
neighborhoods from dissimilar adjacent uses with respect to scale of buildings, building materials, lighting, noise and other incompatible impacts.
10/1/2022
Charlie Demler cdemler77@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Please keep this in. This will help save our neighborhoods! Objective 1.3.7: Protect single-family neighborhoods from dissimilar adjacent uses with respect to scale of
buildings, building materials, lighting, noise and other incompatible impacts.
10/1/2022
Comments from DRAFT #5, 08/08/2022
David Gagliano dave.a.gagliano@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Carmel residents welcome the addition of 1.3.7 as a Guiding Principle at it just makes good common sense to be considerate of adjacent homes / residents before
allowing anything extraordinary to be developed that disrupts existing, established neighborhoods.
9/18/2022
Comments from DRAFT #4, 03/30/2022
Bradley Pease bpease@carmel.in.gov 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.6: Encourage electrical **and communication** utility lines to be buried throughout the community **to improve safety**, especially in urbanizing areas.
Care must be given to the location of **above-ground equipment** so pedestrian infrastructure is not precluded by conflicts with **these** facilities.
7/25/2022
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
In Section 1.6 add a policy stating the following.
"Promote a conservation of energy plan for retail and commercial office buildings to minimize or eliminate after hours lighting, especially when adjacent to residential
neighborhoods."
4/26/2022
Ronald Houch rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
In Section 1.3 add a policy stating the following.
"Preserve the stability and quality of life in single-family residential neighborhoods by minimizing the impact of adjacent dissimilar uses with respect to transitions in scale
of buildings, compatibility of use, and impacts of sound, traffic and lighting."
4/26/2022
Gus Navarra gusnavarra@comcast.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.2 ) Enhance Economic Vitality:
Objective 1.2.5: “Clarify and streamline development processes without lessening standards, expectations, or results.”
…FEEDBACK: Add text “include in the development process and potential zoning changes for existing neighborhoods an opportunity for residents to collaborate with
developers and incorporate their feedback before proposals are approved by city administrators.” This would serve to align expectations with local residents’ preference
and requests with developers plans.
1.3 ) Foster A City of Neighborhoods:
Objective 1.3.2: “Conduct Planning in greater detail. These small area plans are critical where development pressure meet local needs. Clear character goals
communicate to developers the city’s and residents’ expectations.”
…FEEDBACK: Add text “incorporate existing neighborhoods residents’ feedback and requests and ensure they are publicly recorded and addressed prior to implementing
potential zoning changes and new development plans.”
This would serve to provide adequate communication and sincere efforts by developers (i.e., neighborhood surveys, recorded meetings attended by stakeholders & city
administrators) to recognize residents’ requests and provide potential compromise and solutions for all stakeholders.
1.5 ) Cultivate Community Character
Objective 1.5.2: “Create an opt-in developer, broker, and builder guild aligned to the community’s priorities and values, facilitating communication with major
stakeholders”.
…FEEDBACK: we recommend to remove the text “opt-in” altogether and ensure this process is in fact implemented.
4/22/2022
Gus Navarra gusnavarra@comcast.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
We recommend to add in the Policies and Goals of the Comp Plan to “implement policies to manage growth in both population and new building plans, define and
propose reasonable density levels and support sustainability and existing wooded areas & natural habitats ongoing and ensure available resources.”
We believe we do not necessarily need to build greater density or more “up” with 5 or more stories apartments / townhomes just because we cannot build “out” due to
less land now available within Carmel’s city limits and/or a desire to increase the city’s tax receipts exponentially. We support reasonable growth while also maintaining
Carmel’s natural beauty and overall livability.
4/22/2022
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Goal 1.8 - "Roundabouts have successfully kept cars moving safely and efficiently... .....Modes outside of personal vehicles have allowed for a lighter impact on street
surfaces, air quality, and general congestion. Two to five percent of all commuting traffic should be made by foot, bicycle or other form of micro-mobility by 2030". If this
is to be the case, please include some objective for improving safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. at roundabouts that have become EVERYWHERE! Many multi-lane
roundabouts are IMPOSSIBLE to safely cross and prohibit the goal of being able to access amenities close by (objective 1.3.4)
4/12/2022
Comments from DRAFT #2, 01/20/2022
5 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Peter Langowski mandplango@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Strongly support the addition of section 1.7.3 purchasing natural areas adjacent to trails. I would strongly suggest that the purchase of God's natural art could be a valid
use of "art money" which is currently focused on putting things in the middle of roundabouts.
1/24/2022
Roy LeBlanc rleblanc@indy.rr.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Glad to see the upgrades near CHS, and hope it provides convenience and safety for pedestrians and drivers.
As a driver who took the same route home for over 5 years I think you need to address the following with students for their safety.
On COUNTLESS occasions I saw students crossing the intersection at a snails pace, and NEVER looking up, left, or right when crossing the street at the light. I observed this
with students coming and going from and to the library.
I don't think there is any self awareness, or self preservation on the part of the students, and it really turned my stomach watching this happen again and again.
With all of the technology and distractions in vehicles today I think a safety course would be a good thing for all CHS students. I'll be having grandchildren attending the
high school in the near future, and am concerned for their safety as well as other students. I might be older, but I do care.
1/28/2022
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.3 (updated) still advocates to "Focus zoning and other land use controls on building form to reduce reliance on use- and density-related instructions." I
maintain that the Comprehensive Plan should not be used as an instrument to undermine the established residential zoning. This Objective should be removed.
Objective 1.3.1 (updated) now states that "Carmel desires the quality of life benefits derived from the principles of traditional neighborhood design in all neighborhoods,
including an active and walkable center, a variety of housing types, and a mixture of land uses." This is a thinly-veiled attempt by the DOCS to push for mixed-used
development anywhere and everywhere. I submit that most suburban Carmel homeowners do not desire to live in or near a mixed-use neighborhood, and that this sort
of City-driven social engineering should not become the norm. At the very least, the phrase "in all neighborhoods" needs to be removed from this Objective.
Objective 1.3.4 (updated) (formerly 1.3.5) now states "Support opportunities to allow more residents to be located within a short walk or bike ride to many daily needs."
This is an obvious attempt to justify pushing commercial development into areas that are not zoned for that use. I recommend changing this Objective to say "Support
opportunities that allow more residents in Downtown development patterns to be located within ...", to align with the approach already used for changes to Objective
1.2.2.
Objective 1.3.5 (updated) (formerly 1.3.6) now states "Commercial uses will fit within the character of their surroundings by their form and design ...". I maintain that no
matter how it is cloaked, commercial uses will not fit in with suburban residential surroundings by function, and function is more important to most nearby neighbors
than form. I recommend changing this Objective to say, "Commercial uses, where permitted by the established zoning, will fit within the character of their surroundings
by their form and design ...".
Objective 1.5.1 (updated) now states "Encourage different housing types within a neighborhood to support different household types and economic resiliency." This is
clearly code language for encouraging the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (potentially as rentals) in the back yards of existing residential neighborhoods
throughout Carmel. The underlying goal is to increase density and City tax revenues by allowing/encouraging two dwellings on one lot. Please remove this Objective
altogether, or change it to say "Encourage different housing types within proposed new neighborhoods, within the constraints of the residential zoning, to support ...". It
has already been seen that developers have little appetite for building ADUs, because market demand for this is very limited. Again, we do not need or want this type of
social engineering to be pushed into existing neighborhoods by the City.
continued below...
1/29/2022
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.2 (updated) lobbies to "Create an opt-in developer, broker, and builder guild to align to the community's priorities and values, facilitating communication
with major stakeholders." This would seem to be a controlled forum that could allow the City to further influence developers to conform to its vision. (In fact, this
objective previously talked about aligning to "the City's priorities and values", which provides considerable insight as to the real intent.) At the very least, HOA
representatives and area residents should be participants in any such guild, to hopefully ensure better alignment with the community's actual priorities and values, and
not just the priorities and values of the City administration.
Objective 1.7.6 states "Encourage mixed-use neighborhoods to make it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles." This is yet another thinly-veiled attempt by the
DOCS to justify the spread of mixed-use development everywhere, by trying to link it to a largely separate and more popular goal. I maintain that this Objective should
simply say "Make it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles." The rest is just gamesmanship, to give the developers something favorable-sounding to cite when
they try to push mixed-use development into existing residential areas of single-family homes.
At the Plan Commission Committee meetings held in November and December of 2021, Plan Commissioners requested that language be added to the Objectives to
provide additional protections for homeowners in and near Downtown residential neighborhoods, and to add language to protect the integrity of all existing single-family
residential neighborhoods against unwanted infill with different housing types. I see no evidence that any such language has been added to the "redline" update. Please
follow up on this.
1/29/2022
6 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.1 Manage Community Form
(Objective: 1.1.1) How will form-oriented regulations and design enhance neighborhood character?
(Objective: 1.1.3) Add including “neighborhoods and HOAs.” They were not included under Stakeholders on page 10 and should be included here also.
(Objective: 1.1.5) “Thoughtful blending of uses and character” that are incompatible with residential areas does not change the consequences of those uses. There
needs to be a significant and reasonable buffer to protect residential areas.
(Objective: 1.1.7) Prohibit large neon and/or blinking signs that are visible from residential areas. Glowing Signs and lighting of buildings such as CVS at The Bridges, Ritz
Charles adjacent to Spring Lake Estates, and on the front of Zotec add to light pollution, are unnecessary and are distracting for neighbors. It is hard for neighbors to track
and respond to proposals for these lights and lighted signs.
(Objective: 1.1.8) A 5-story building is still a 5-story building, no matter how you dress it up, especially next to 1 and 2-story neighborhoods (Ex. The Bridges PUD is
allowing 5-story Steadman Apartments next to 1 and 2 story neighborhoods)
(Objective: 1.1.9) Good to incorporate “natural areas.” What size, how often, what will they look like?
1/31/2022
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.2 Enhance Economic Vitality
(Objective 1.2.2) This statement is an improvement, however I ask that it be reworded to reflect the importance and value of Single-Family homes in the downtown area.
(Objective: 1.2.3) Development form (architecture) should not be more important than uses and density. Just because it looks like a house and is near my house. I do not
want a bar, restaurant or other use that will dramatically impact the quality of my life in my home. (Just because The GOAT Tavern is in a house near other houses, its
expectations to do business, open and noisy until 3 am should not preempt the quality of life and protections for homeowners in their neighborhood,)
(Objective 1.2.4) “to educate the public and elected officials on consumer preferences...” should include demographics and more statistics collected from the surveys,
webinars, and pop-ups. This should include shared discussions with residents about their preferences, including planning District Town Halls to discuss this Comp Plan. I
feel that the City’s vision is propelled by consultants without representation from all parts of Carmel.
(Objective 1.2.5) “Clarify and streamline development vision and processes without lessening standards, expectations or results.” Please add “or public input from
neighbors and/or HOAs. Already from the beginning of a rezone for a proposed development the City guides the developer through the process so their plan will be
accepted. What does need to be clarified is the importance of an early role for adjacent neighbors to be able to participate in this process, before the developer says, we
already gave up or adjusted all these items to satisfy the City, sorry, not possible, we have nothing left to give up or adjust. Almost all development proposals are
accepted, usually with only a few minor tweaks that benefit the adjacent neighbors.
(Objective: 1.2.8) Good addition.
1/31/2022
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.3 Foster a City of Neighborhoods
“This document encourages traditional neighborhoods with easy access to many amenities.” Residents should have a choice if addition of amenities are not wanted by
their neighborhoods.
(Objective: 1.3.1) “variety of housing types” and “mixture of land uses” suggests ADUs, lot splitting, and commercial uses many homeowners feel will not add to quality-
of-life benefits.
(Objective 1.3.4, formerly 1.3.5) Support residents that do not wish to be near “small scale amenities.”
(Objective: 1.3.5, formerly 1.3.6) Uses cannot be hidden by form and design. The architecture/form of a business located adjacent to neighborhood of Single-Family
homes does not make what takes place/use inside its form (uses such a bar, strip mall, gas station, etc.) compatible with the neighborhood. When the Gas Station
amendment requiring a 500’ setback from residential areas, day cares, etc. recently passed, this set back was not required for a PUD rezone. PUD rezones are often
proposed adjacent to existing neighborhoods. It could be possible to have a gas station in an incompatible location if it just looked like the adjacent neighborhood.
(Objective: 1.3.6) “Promoting housing options to support aging in place.” is a good addition
1/31/2022
7 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.4 Reinforce Adaptability
(Objective: 1.4.6) Add landscaping and usable green areas to “by creating pathways that connect east to west and encouraging ground floor, landscaping and usable
green areas, and public space…”
1.5 Cultivate Community Character
(Objective: 1.5.1) This seems to be a hidden push for ADUs or lot splitting in current neighborhoods. People can already request this through the BZA. Please remove
this objective or say, “Encourage different housing types within in proposed developments.”
(Objective 1.5.2) Why should the City create a guild for developers, brokers, and builders “aligned to City priorities and values, facilitating communication with major
stakeholders.” HOAs representatives and area residents should be added to this guild.
Where do HOAs and homeowners fit into this guild?
1.6 Lighten Carmel’s environmental Footprint PUDs should have a contingency which notes that gas stations should be at least 500’ away from residential uses.
(Objective 1.6.2) How can we encourage fewer students to drive to school? This would help the environment, save gas, and reduce parking in nearby neighborhoods.
1.8 Improve Mobility Options and Functionality (Objective 1.8.9) To “ensure access and mobility needs of Carmel’s aging and disabled population” can you require
developers who market to empty nesters and active seniors to have Universal Design Standards and opportunities so that they can age in place?
1/31/2022
Mike Miller mmiller0112@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
My comments are all on Section 1.6, Lighten Carmel’s Environmental Footprint”, and how it will shape Carmel’s Climate Action Plan. Some of my comments are more
details on what I feel should be included in the Climate Action Plan, and perhaps are more appropriate there than in the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 1.6 Lighten Carmel’s Environmental Footprint
General: Carmel has shown leadership on environmental issues. It needs to aggressively pursue carbon reducing efforts, with the goal of becoming net-zero for all
municipal entities while encouraging and promoting the same for residents and businesses.
Objective 1.6.1: Carmel’s Climate Action Plan needs to include concrete steps and a timeline to reduce emissions.
Objective 1.6.4: green building practices need to emphasize 100% electric buildings. New construction with gas appliances will perpetuate greenhouse gas emissions for
the life of these appliances.
Objective 1.6.6: Carmel needs to transition its vehicle fleet to 100% electric. This process will encourage the city’s charging infrastructure development and set an
example for its citizens.
Objective 1.6.11: Carmel needs to lead efforts to change state laws discouraging residential solar adoption, including net metering and HOA restrictions. Carmel should
expand its public solar generation with a detailed, multi-year plan towards a net zero community.
Objective 1.6.16: Carmel’s electric vehicle charging infrastructure plan needs to be aggressive and destination appropriate to encourage EV use by its citizens and visitors.
Level 2 chargers should be placed where drivers will be parked for several hours (hotels, downtown parking garages, etc.). DC fast charging (Level 3) chargers need to be
placed near corridors with access to amenities where drivers will spend 30 minutes to one hour (shopping, restaurants, internet access, etc.). Charging infrastructure
needs to be designed for expansion.
2/1/2022
8 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Introduction, pg. 12:
* I favor the removal of all of the Objectives marked in green on the Draft, for “Scope discussion.” Especially, promoting marketing and branding does not belong in a
Comp Plan. * “Redline” Drafts should show the crossed-out original wording that was replaced. * The Policy Goals & Objectives "describe the intent" of this Comp Plan.
The rest of the Plan is based on these policies, which "are intended as a common vision to guide the public and decision makers…” But it’s not a “common vision”
because the DOCS and developers will cite these tilted Objectives as justification for inserting more-intense development into residential areas where it’s currently not
permitted or desired. * Plan Commissioners need to go back to the Policy Goals & Objectives for more thorough review, as intended. The first pass was quick, and
mainly looked at whether or not they fit in the scope of a Comp Plan. Many Objectives received no comments at all.
1.1 Manage Community Form (pg. 13)
States that managing “form” (scale & detail of building architecture)…”facilitates improved quality of life.” Designing a building’s appearance to not look like what it’s
used for, does not facilitate improved quality of life when inserted into zoned single-family residential areas where that use is not permitted.
Objective 1.1.1: Says “focus on form-oriented regulations and design review…”. This Objective needs to clarify that form-based development is for Urban areas only.
Objective 1.1.5: Still says, “Further improve neighborhood edges through thoughtful blending of uses and character…” Do neighborhood edges really need
improvement? Dissimilar uses and character do not improve neighborhood edges.
1.2 Enhance Economic Vitality (pg. 14)
States “Carmel has become the center of northern suburban growth", but the Mayor has made it clear that his “vision” is aimed at not being suburban.
Objective 1.2.1: States that the US 31 Corridor still has “significant room to grow through infill and redevelopment…”, so put the proposed dense and mixed-use
development there, instead of intruding into single-family residential areas, where the zoning does not permit that intense development, and where it would be very
detrimental to the lifestyle and area character that Carmel’s homeowners chose.
Objective 1.2.2: Good changes, to encourage mixed-use developments “in downtown development patterns.” Please add a statement about protecting downtown area
existing single-family homeowners and neighborhoods.
(Continued below...)
2/6/2022
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.3: (This is two different subjects that that do not belong in the same Objective.)
* “Focus zoning and other land use controls on building form to reduce reliance on use- and density-related restrictions.” This attempts to weaken/control the zoning,
and again tries to substitute urban form-based development for residential area density restrictions and use-based development. Where this would apply is left wide-
open. I believe that use and density regulations are expected and essential for compatible development in single-family residential areas, for preserving character, and
for transitions. The saying, “First do no harm” applies here. This Objective is harmful, and should be removed.
* “Parking minimums should be monitored and adjusted…to help adjust mobility patterns away from driving.” The result of scarce parking spaces will not be a decrease
in driving. People who can’t easily find a parking space, just won’t return. For many people and many circumstances, it is impractical to not drive.
Objective 1.2.4: “Educate the public and elected officials on consumer preferences, development and market trends,” to get them aligned with the City government’s
idea of the "appropriate development community.” This is both manipulative, and not within the scope of a Comp Plan. This Objective should be removed.
1.3 Foster a City of Neighborhoods (pg. 16) States “This document encourages traditional neighborhoods with easy access to many amenities.”
Objective 1.3.1: “Carmel [add “government”] desires the quality of life benefits derived from the principles of traditional neighborhood design [remove “in all
neighborhoods”] including active & walkable centers, a variety of housing types, transportation options, and a mixture of land uses."
* Another example of City-driven, heavy-handed, social engineering. The City forced the Village of WestClay “traditional neighborhood” into West Carmel as an
“exception.” Obviously, most suburban homeowners don’t seek to live in or near mixed-use mini-downtowns. They chose zoning that does not permit this. Much has
changed since the times of historic “traditional neighborhoods” — commercial uses, transportation, and density have all become become much more intense and
intrusive.
* Carmel government apparently believes that it knows what residents should want, and knows what’s best for us better than we do ourselves. Very “Big Brother”. This
needs to stop. This Objective needs to be changed or preferably removed.
Objective 1.3.2: “Clear character goals communicate to developers, the City’s and residents’ expectations.” I believe that the basis of this should be the zoning (not even
mentioned here). Also, density and uses (which the City is attempting to override via “form"-based development) are crucial elements of character and transition. City
“small area plans” of subareas and corridors need to include that area’s residents in the process, starting early in the design discussions, and a statement to affirm this
should be added to this Objective.
(Continued below...)
2/6/2022
9 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.4 (formerly 1.3.5):
* “Support opportunities that allow more residents [add “in downtown development patterns”] to be located within a short walk or bike ride to many daily needs. This
can be done by allowing more walkable and diverse housing options to be built near existing amenity centers, and allowing small scale amenities to develop near some
residential areas.” (My recommended addition above is similar to the change already made in Obj. 1.2.2 regarding mixed-use developments.)
* Even though the term, “20-minute city/neighborhood” has been removed due to objections to promoting commercial development within a 20-minute walk of most
residents everywhere, the City’s intent still remains to push commercial development into zoned single-family residential areas where that use is not permitted or
wanted. This Comp Plan Draft is still pushing for this, via new “Typical Corridor” commercial nodes, and commercial nodes within neighborhoods. Public input is
repeatedly telling the City to stop trying to do this!
Objective 1.3.5 (formerly 1.3.6): “Commercial uses will fit within the character of their surroundings by their form and design…” “Buildings should be designed to be
flexible” so that the use can change “while protecting the established character…” In my view, this again ignores zoning, density, and non-permitted uses in residential
areas. “Form-based” development is meant for urban areas. And again, the “use” (function) is more important than “form” (appearance) to most nearby neighbors. A
“use” does not become compatible with its surroundings by being disguised to not look like its impactful function. A gas station that looks like a house is still a gas station.
Objective 1.3.6: “Promote housing options to support aging in place. Whether adapting current homes…”
* Adapting current homes would include the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which the City now avoids calling by name due to previous controversy over
promoting these in established single-family neighborhoods. (That controversy includes allowing a second dwelling on one lot, possible rentals, negative impacts on
adjacent neighbors, and other concerns.) Please keep the ADU approval requirements unchanged in established neighborhoods. ADUs should be offered in proposed
new developments, where buyers could know to expect them, and could choose whether or not to live near them.
* I recommend adding to this Objective, encouragement/support for including Universal Design Standards in proposed housing aimed at retirees, empty-nesters, or
active seniors, to enable aging in place.
1.4 Reinforce Adaptability (pg. 18)
Objective 1.4.2: This is essentially a warning to the public that they can’t count on the Development Pattern Areas Plan map because it will be continually changing. How
will the public be made aware of when, and what, changes are made?
(Continued below...)
2/6/2022
10 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.5 Cultivate Community Character (pg. 19)
Objective 1.5.1: “Encourage different housing types and sizes within a neighborhood…”
* How does the City define “ a neighborhood”? A single subdivision? A larger area that also includes surrounding subdivisions?
* This again appears to be a disguised push for adding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and lot-splitting inside established single-family neighborhoods, as well as housing
types not permitted by some residential zoning.
* The City trying to bend the interiors of existing neighborhoods to its will is beyond-the-pale. This Objective needs to be reworded, to not target established
neighborhoods. Perhaps, “Encourage different housing types and sizes within proposed new neighborhoods/developments, within the constraints of the applicable
zoning, to support…”
Objective 1.5.2: “Create an opt-in developer, broker and builder guild aligned to the community’s [Formerly, “to City”] priorities and values, facilitating communications
with major stakeholders.”
* This is very troubling. The previous wording indicates the true intent, and an awareness that the City’s priorities/values and the community’s priorities/values are not
necessarily the same. Especially true, when it comes to the City’s goal to push more-intense development into Carmel’s single-family residential areas (where it is not
permitted by the zoning, or desired), via proposed drastic changes to the Comp Plan. There is certainly not yet a community consensus with the City’s goals in this so-
called “Our Plan”.
* This sounds like a “behind the scenes” club of powerful influencers, to further the City’s intense development goals. This would just exacerbate the existing severe
imbalance of power: Monied, powerful City leaders, development interests, and their attorneys, versus ordinary Carmel homeowners and neighborhoods who can only
plead to preserve where they live. In addition, I don’t think this Objective fits within the scope of a Comp Plan, and I would like to see it removed. But if it stays, then this
guild should include HOAs and homeowners, since they are the major stakeholders who will have to live with the results of this power imbalance.
Objective 1.5.4: “Encourage the preservation, replacement and continual planting of canopy shade trees throughout the city. Areas of focus include woodlands within
new developments…” This lip-service needs to quickly become real policy action with some “teeth." The City routinely allows developers to destroy existing large
woodlands of true wildlife habitat, and then “replaces" those with individual, small, spaced-out “stick trees” along the streets and a few feet of grass around drainage
ponds for “wildlife habitat.” The latest atrocity is in progress: The proposed Flora on Springmill PUD Rezone 18-acre site is entirely forested with mature trees and true
wildlife habitat along Williams Creek. If approved, a whopping 80% of this site’s forest will be destroyed to allow a development of dwellings at triple the zoned density,
with negligible interior “greenspace”.
(continued below...)
2/6/2022
11 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.6 Lighten Carmel’s Environmental Footprint (pg. 20) I think this section needs an Objective about reducing light pollution. For instance, it is not desirable to have
interior floors of office buildings lit up all night, when no one is there.
Objective 1.6.3: Promotes “workforce and affordable housing development in locations near jobs…” A worthy goal that the City clearly needs to work on in the
downtown areas, Meridian Corridor, and Michigan Road Corridor. What little affordable housing remains is constantly threatened by development, and Carmel
builds/encourages “luxury” everything. The City’s “solution” so far seems to be an expectation that suburban homeowners in existing single-family neighborhoods should
provide dabs of scattered, incongruous affordable housing by adding a second dwelling on their lot (ADU, Accessory Dwelling Unit), splitting their lot, and/or accepting
unplanned significant increases in density within or near their neighborhoods.
1.7 Support Healthful Living (pg. 22)
Objective 1.7.3: “Target for acquisition undeveloped parcels adjacent to greenways and trails for future park sites and public open spaces.” Yes, please keep natural
areas natural, as retreats in nature, and do not allow commercial uses there (including along the Monon Greenway).
Objective 1.7.6: “Encourage mixed-use neighborhoods to make it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles…providing the option for exercise in people’s daily
routines.” This is just using exercise as an unrelated excuse for the City to promote more-lucrative mixed-use development in existing single-family areas where it is not
zoned, needed, or wanted. Options for exercise are endless, and people are quite capable of figuring out exercise routines without local government overreach of
pushing commercial uses into their residential neighborhoods. This Objective should be removed.
1.8 Improve Mobility Options and Functionality (pg. 24) Introduction, pg. 24: City-driven, unnatural, rapid population growth in Carmel is being used to justify a goal of
creating mass transit and discouraging driving.
* For the foreseeable future, this endeavor is uncertain and very expensive, at best. There are many and complex reasons why people prefer to drive cars. Mass transit
works in very dense, large urban metropolitan areas—not in suburbs. Even Indianapolis has not been able to make mass transit work. Carmel’s trial of convenient and
affordable non-stop bus transit to downtown Indianapolis also did not succeed.
* “Two to five percent of all commuting traffic should be made by foot, bicycle, or other form of micro-mobility by 2030.” The increasing number of people who can
work from home already has a much larger effect regarding commuting traffic.
* How much population and development growth is too much before it actually decreases the quality of life for all?
Objective 1.8.1: Is promoting regional transit that “would provide local businesses with access to a regional workforce” Carmel’s way of avoiding having to build or
protect affordable homes?
Objective 1.8.6 (formerly 1.8.3): The City is considering adjustable pricing for street parking spaces, “in vibrant areas”, to “shift behavior away from single occupancy
vehicles.” If I can’t find a parking space, or have to pay to park, or have no option but parallel parking on a busy narrow street, I won’t go there again. Easy, free, safe
parking is one of the advantages of moving to a suburb.
2/6/2022
12 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Mark Jungemann markjungemann@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Section 1.6 Environment...consider modifying this to including FOSTER A REPUTATION AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY ACTIVE CITY. Our home values go up if we live in a
city/state that is recognized as environmentally friendly.
Some ideas to engage people who live in Carmel as well as government/business:
HOAs govern much of the outdoor behavior of Carmel residents. Foster communication/education and support for HOAs to adopt policies that encourage conservation.
This may include help to amend HOA bylaws.
No Mow Lawns
Turf grass can be beautiful, but it requires water, fertilizer and chemicals. If HOA policies allow it, convert turf grass to clover, no mow fescue or sedge. These options are
utilized by helpful insects and birds and require almost no maintenance. Fewer chemicals in the water runoff help improve water quality. This action increases bird and
butterfly species in our city.
City buildings and business which current grow turf grass and landscaping plants: Think of all the mowing and planting expense our tax dollars support. Switch to native
plants and no-mow/native areas for government and businesses.
ONLY native plants and trees
Request that HOAs encourage members to plant only native plant species. HOA common areas can be re-planted with native species only. Common area turf grass can
be replaced so there is no mowing expense and no chemical application. Consider organizing invasive removal days for neighborhoods. Meet neighbors and help them
improve their environment. We are at our best when helping others.
Alternative energy sources / Requiring lights???
Solar panels have come a long way and they can improve property values if HOA policies allow them, including those that face the street.
Many HOAs require homeowners keep a post and/or house light on, but there is no evidence that shows this practice reduces crime...it does cost money and carbon
though. If you must have lights on at night, try solar powered lights.
(cont. below...)
2/7/2022
Mark Jungemann markjungemann@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
(cont. from above...) City Building Codes/Building Permits
Any new developments can be required by city code or building permit to retain an area of native plants and to leave areas of established forest wild. Enough of these
native areas will add up to a huge positive impact on our environment, and connected native plantings areas offer a safe corridor for wildlife movement. Consider using
creeks and lakes as wildlife corridors, including road crossings where road work is already planned. Require developers (and subsequent transfer of bylaws to HOAs) to
work with Carmel Parks & Recreation to expand native areas and keep existing stands of trees wild.
Only Native Plants
Similar to other cities, create an ordinance to ban invasive plants so they are not planted and also provide resources to help homeowners remove invasive species they
already have planted. Set a 10 year goal to eradicate landscape invasive species, e.g. Callery Pear, Vinca, Burning Bush. .
What about my lawn-mowing business? While some policies may force business to adapt, this is a good thing. Nature rewards those who adapt best. Change your
business from mowing to planting and maintaining native plants.
2/7/2022
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
I am still concerned with the wording on the introductory paragraph to 1.3 Foster a City of Neighborhoods. Could you add "where development pattern supports this
objective" at the end of the last sentence?
I am also concerned with the addition of 1.8.1. I am AGAINST building a transit system that makes it easier for people around the region to get into Carmel. I believe this
will just increase crime and crowding! (for reference, in Atlanta, when the Metro system connected their downtown to Buckhead (an upscale neighborhood), it was the
beginning of the downfall of Buckhead with increased crime.
2/25/2022
Comments from the INITIAL DRAFT, 10/08/2021
Barbara Eden edenbarbara@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.1: "Continue to evaluate the pros and cons of form-oriented regulations rather than use to enhance community character as described in this Plan's
Development Patterns." Define "form-oriented" and "use" Make sure all terms are defined so people outside of planning professionals can understand
10/25/2021
13 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Kathy Clark kaclark1948@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
> Please realize that a substantial % of Carmel is residential (single
> family homes) and that the Goals and Objectives must be different for residential areas than downtown, industrial corridor areas Increasing the density of Carmel
cannot be a universal goal for Carmel. Only specific areas lend themselves to high density.
> "Growing up, not out" can only apply to a small % of our wonderful city.
> 1.1 - Managing Community Form: One set of statements cannot apply to both our residential components and our commercial/downtown components.
12/1/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Section 1.1: To be able to better comprehend the Comprehensive Plan Draft several words and phrases need to be defined, and examples given:
Objective 1.1.1 Define “form-oriented regulations” and “community character”.
11/2/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.2 Define “uniqueness”, “subarea”.11/2/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.3 Who are the stakeholders? Does this include HOAs and residents?11/2/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.3
Implement the Comprehensive Plan’s vision through capital investment and all relevant land development controls, providing consistency and clarity for all
stakeholders.
A strength of the draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) is linking "Managing Community Form" to the goal of Carmel "growing up, and not out" in order to "eventually
support transit access."
However, I do not think the Plan, in its current form, provides the "clarity for all stakeholders" so that "capital investment" can be targeted so Carmel will grow in ways
that will "eventually support transit access."
For the Plan to provide this clarity regarding transit access:
The Plan should identify and provide a focused discussion of the areas in Carmel that are closest to achieving the density of development that is required for viable public
transportation nodes to emerge.
In the areas of Carmel where public transportation nodes have the best chance of emerging, the Plan should allow the uses and building heights needed to achieve the
density required for a viable transit access point.
The Plan should discuss the challenges that have to be overcome in order for these nodes to connect with the Indianapolis transit system.
"Growing up and not out" should primarily take place at these identified emerging transportation nodes. Isn't "growing up and not out" anywhere else just delaying the
emergence of the viability of these identified transportation nodes and creating more car dependent growth and more sprawl?
10/30/2021
Barbara Eden edenbarbara@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.5 "Further improve neighborhood edges through thoughtful blending of uses and character as established in the Development Patterns section."
This is a nice cover all statement. Can there be more examples, or elaboration?
10/25/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.5: Further improve neighborhood edges through thoughtful blending of uses and character as established in the Development Patterns section.
Need further refinement of what is meant by "neighborhood edges" and how will they be determined. This sounds like an argument for local serving retail, which is not
well received in west Carmel. Many residents prefer a more homogeneous single-family use.
10/23/2021
14 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
"The design and maintenance of the public realm, including sidewalks and streets, are often what leaves a lasting impression of Carmel."
Objective 1.1.5
Further improve neighborhood edges through thoughtful blending of uses and character as established in the Development Patterns section.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Objective 1.1.5 should be reworded so the goal is to "thoughtfully blend" edges throughout Carmel and not just at "neighborhood boundaries".
The beguiling assumption in the draft of the Comprehensive Plan (the plan) is that it is easy to "thoughtfully blend" or harmonize commercial and residential uses when
they are in close proximity within a mixed use development or where one development pattern is hard against another development pattern.
If you want residents to celebrate and not just tolerate the new development near their homes, invite them to the launch of the process. Have resident input at a pre-
filing meeting between DOCS staff and developers.
Currently, residents are notified of a new nearby development just 21 days before the first public hearing. The final, official site plans that will be the basis of the first
public hearing aren't available to the public on the LaserFiche system until 10 days prior to the first hearing. Residents can see the DOCS review of the project just 5 days
before the first hearing.
The first time developers and DOCS staff are hearing ideas from residents is at the first public hearing. Residents became generally aware of an intention to develop a
nearby property just 3 weeks earlier. They were able to view the final proposed site plan just 10 days earlier. Consequently, the input of residents at these hearings can at
times be shrill, inaccurate and easily dismissed as just blindly oppositional.
Can you blame these residents?
Currently, resident input is very late and very rushed in the approval process. Resident input only enters the process AFTER developers and the DOCS have spent a
considerable amount of time and money developing site plans at pre-filing meetings. It becomes time consuming and costly to revise these plans based on input from
nearby residents that was only heard late in the process. Earlier resident input would make it easier to achieve an outcome that was more widely viewed as a
"thoughtfully blended" edge.
Resident input at pre-filing meetings could be structured so thoughtful ideas were introduced into the approval process. This early resident input into the approval
process could be achieved without creating unproductive delays.
I apologize if I have been inaccurate in my description of the timeline of when official documents become available or where the input of residents enters the
development approval process. If there are inaccuracies in my understanding of this timeline, it would be helpful if the DOCS published an accurate timeline in the Comp
Plan.
10/31/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.5 is a major objective in the proposed update of the comprehensive plan that should be elaborated on in the Development Patterns section but is not.11/20/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.5 Define “edges” and “blending of uses and character”. You can’t hide uses.11/2/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.7 Prohibit large neon and/or blinking lights on the surface of buildings. Check out the purple lights on the face of the ZOTEC building near 116th and
Illinois. Are such lights allowed without a variance?
11/2/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.9 Will there be regulations about the sizes of “unique and private open spaces”? How close together can they be?11/2/2021
Margo McAlear mmcalear987@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.1.9: As Carmel continues to infill and develop, preserve and create unique public and private open spaces where appropriate.
This is key, but what is currently preserved or being created? When there is zoned land for single family housing, a PUD can more easily win. Who creates the preserved
land that cannot be developed? You can only easily create unique, open public lands if you have bunches of money to buy for whomever owns that land.
I don't get why this is even a goal. It unrealistically creates expectations. It should be openly stated in this objective that to achieve this goal you are going to have to
accept much more commercial/density to pay for this.
11/11/2021
Judy Hagan RL72JF@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2 (Policy Goal): Section 1.2 generally seems to have many issues jumbled together that warrant consideration apart from a general lumping of "economic
vitality". If the "20 Minute City" was a truly an economically realistic goal, we'd still have corner grocery stores and the new grocery to replace the O'Malia's on the east
side would not have been such a struggle; nor would the struggles of Village of West Clay commercial continue. We need to come up with our own time clock and
parameters for this particular concept.
10/27/2021
Kay Mulhall ksemulhall@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.2 Enhance Economic Vitality
Many terms in the plan are not defined so it is unclear how many of the objectives will impact neighborhoods. For example, what do the planners mean by: “Encourage
pedestrian-scaled mixed-use developments where appropriate” pg 14 “Small scale amenities” pg 17
11/29/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.1: While maximizing the impact of US 31 business district there must be sensitivity to adjacent residential uses, which abut the US31 corridor in many areas.10/23/2021
15 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.2 - I object to the plan's NEGATIVE impression of "single-use developments" that "lack vitality during off-peak times." Many of us chose to move to Carmel
to achieve just that...the peace and quiet of single-use developments, and specifically the beauty and ambiance of West Carmel. We DO NOT want multi-use
developments with constant traffic, noise, delivery trucks, etc. Additionally, the statement that "single-use developments provide significantly less property tax value per
acre in Carmel" is objectionable. Is that what Carmel's City Council's goal is? To provide greater property tax value per acre? That is seriously a dangerous statement to
include in a comprehensive plan!!! Please DO NOT include either of these statements in the plan!
Your concept of "20-minute neighborhoods for more residents, allowing most daily needs to be met within a short walk or bike ride", is not what I'd want in Carmel. Most
older residents wouldn't walk the distances regardless, and the younger residents are too busy, or already out and about in a car to care.
11/1/2021
Gus Navarra gusnavarra@comcast.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.2 : "encourage pedestrian scaled mixed use developments, urban form, and 20 minute neighborhoods", single use (i.e., single family homes) lack vitality
during off peak times and provide significantly less property tax value per acre" ....FEEDBACK: I am NOT supportive of "20 minute neighborhoods" especially if it infringes
on existing neighborhoods and may over-ride the majority of residents' wishes who live in that neighborhood and /or require zoning changes. I prefer to keep the natural
beauty of existing neighborhoods and not force zoning changes. We seem to have ample amenities in many areas across Carmel and in very close proximity to many
neighborhoods already. I also prefer use vs. form. I believe we should not increase density primality to increase property tax value per acre or create a "20 minute city"
which seems to be over-building more than what is truly necessary.
Other text: Hello, bellow is my feedback regarding the proposed Comp Plan:
Thank You for your efforts to update the CP and requesting input from the public. I am available as needed to provide additional feedback if needed.
10/24/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.2 states: "Encourage pedestrian-scaled mixed-use development where appropriate. Single-use developments tend to lack vitality during off-peak times,
and provide significantly less property tax value per acre in Carmel." My Feedback: In other words, City government officials desire a shift from single-family residential
development to mixed-use development (for example: first-floor commercial with apartments above, in multi-story buildings). Existing single-family neighborhoods, and
separately-zoned established business districts are apparently viewed as being insufficiently vibrant, and do not maximize tax revenues for the City.
10/28/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.2 Is more “property tax value per acres in Carmel” a legitimate reason for Single-Use developments to need to have vitality 24/7? This sends a message
that Single-Family homes ranging in size and price will no longer be valued on their own as a housing choice. I ask that this Objective be discussed, rethought, and
reworded to reflect the importance and value of Single-Family homes in areas of Carmel, where many residents moved to avoid “Vitality” 24/7. If we have a limited
number of Single-Family homes, people who wish to live in a neighborhood of Single-Family homes will move to nearby cities.
11/2/2021
Kay Mulhall ksemulhall@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Obj. 1.2.2 Encourage pedestrian-scaled mixed use developments where appropriate. Single-use developments tend to lack vitality during off-peak times, and provide
significantly less property tax value per acre in Carmel. This urban form will support 20-minute neighborhoods for more residents, allowing most daily needs to be met
within a short walk or bike ride.
People choose their neighborhoods for certain features. Residents that have selected their neighborhood because they enjoy quiet and a natural setting do not feel the
need for more "vitality." This entire objective appears to be a way to increase property tax dollars for the city by forcing mixed use development into every neighborhood.
11/29/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective: 1.2.3. Development form (architecture) should not be more important than uses and density. I care more about the uses allowed near me and the increased
density than if an incompatible business just looks like the architecture in my area. Just because it looks like a house and is near my house, I do not want a bar, restaurant
or other use that will dramatically impact the quality of my life in my home. (Just because The GOAT Tavern is in a house near other houses, its expectations to do
business, be open and noisy until 3 am should not preempt the quality of life and protections for homeowners in their neighborhood,)
11/2/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.3 - Almost no one in a suburban Carmel neighborhood wants increased density or relaxed use restrictions next door. We purchased suburban homes that
aren't duplexes or quadplexes or let out on AirBnB for good reasons -- health, safety, security, leisure, beauty, value, quiet, decongestion -- and the city has an obligation
to citizens to preserve those qualities that drew us here. Also, the Plan notes Covid-19 in 1.4, well one of the very clear lessons from Covid-19 is that during a pandemic
people want to be AWAY FROM CONGESTION, away from cities, and more spread out! Please learn at least this one simple Covid lesson: suburbs have been the safe
place during the pandemic as dense city cores emptied out.
10/21/2021
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.3 "Focus zoning and other land use controls on building form, while relaxing use- and density-related restrictions.” Use and density-related restrictions
should NOT be relaxed. There is no one-size fits all approach to redeveloping individual neighborhoods. Homeowners need to determine if new proposals are a good fit.
There is a big difference between adding a car mechanic or tavern vs a coffeeshop next to the neighborhood school bus stop. Of course, form is important, but use and
density are what shape a neighborhood feel and sense of community. Who decides on “a look” for an existing neighborhood? The 146th/Monon project does not match
the look and feel of anything in any of the nearby neighborhoods. Allowing a general, loose approach to redevelopment will encourage more ill-fitting projects and it
would cut off communication with residents once policies are implemented to fit the comp plan.
10/29/2021
16 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Gus Navarra gusnavarra@comcast.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.3 : "focus zoning on building form while relaxing use and density related restrictions" . FEEDBACK: I am not supportive of relaxing use and density related
restrictions. My preference is for any proposed zoning changes to existing neighborhoods be a collaborative process for residents in that neighborhood and developers
and Carmel Administrators, and all parties to work together and compromise as needed to allow input and requests to be implemented or incorporated into final
decisions or changes.
Other text: Hello, bellow is my feedback regarding the proposed Comp Plan:
Thank You for your efforts to update the CP and requesting input from the public. I am available as needed to provide additional feedback if needed.
10/24/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.3 states: "Focus zoning and other land-use controls on building form, while relaxing use- and density-restrictions." My feedback: It does not seem to
matter to certain City planners, or their hired consultants, what the function of a building is, only how it looks. Also, this plan proposes to further weaken the established
density limits and use-restrictions that were meant to provide compatibility with existing residential areas, even beyond the extent to which these zoning protections are
already being routinely undermined via PUD (Planned Unit Development) rezone approvals.
10/28/2021
Margo McAlear mmcalear987@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.3: Focus zoning and other land use controls on building form, while relaxing use- and density-related restrictions.
Why does Carmel have to keep growing? To produce more taxes? For what? LIght shows on the water tower? For the abstract art structure near Kroger's on Rangeline Rd
that cost $209,000? For more boutique luxury hotels? To have world class art?
Before we pay for more growth and relax density and use related restrictions, let's ask "what for"? "To what end"? When is enough, enough? This is like some monster
that has to eat more because it is bigger, so it eats more so it gets even bigger, so it needs to eat more.... When is 'controlled growth' just a substitute for avoiding hard
questions?
11/11/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.4 states: "Utilize a range of communication platforms to educate the public and elected officials on consumer preferences, development, and market
trends." My Feedback: In other words, the City intends to enlighten its uninformed and unsophisticated residents as to how they need to change, and how they should
want to live. Following the latest trends is paramount, especially if it also increases tax revenues.
10/28/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.4 “to educate the public and elected officials on consumer preferences...” should include demographics and more statistics collected from the surveys,
webinars, and pop-ups. This should include shared discussions with residents about their preferences, including planning District Town Halls to discuss this Comp Plan. I
feel that the City’s vision is being propelled by our Mayor, DOCS and consultants without representation from all parts of Carmel.
11/2/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.5 “Clarify and streamline development vision and processes that make enacting this Plan easier for private developers.” Already from the beginning of a
rezone for a proposed development the City guides the developer through the process so their plan will be accepted. What does need to be clarified is how adjacent
HOAs and neighbors can participate early in the development process, before the developer says, “We already gave up or adjusted all these items to satisfy the City. We
can’t afford to adjust or negotiate with neighbors.” In the past 10 years almost all development proposals have been accepted, usually with only a few minor tweaks that
benefit the adjacent neighbors.
11/2/2021
Gus Navarra gusnavarra@comcast.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.5 : "streamline processes that make enacting this comp plan easier for private developers." FEEDBACK: I am not supportive of making it easier for private
developers without improvements to allow more public input and public's requests to be incorporated into development devisions. I want to ensure there is adequate
process for the public to have equal input and voice to the entire development process. I am available to work with Carmel Administrators to review more feedback and
make recommendations for improvements. Please feel free to email me at gusnavarrra@comcast.net
Other text: Hello, bellow is my feedback regarding the proposed Comp Plan:
Thank You for your efforts to update the CP and requesting input from the public. I am available as needed to provide additional feedback if needed.
10/24/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.5 states: "Clarify and streamline development vision and processes that make enacting this Plan easier for private developers ... ." My Feedback: This
objective seems intent on enabling development proposals to more easily slide through the approval process, despite any objections that residents may raise regarding
certain aspects of incompatible proposals. Furthermore, please note that the process is already tilted in favor of the developers. The DOCS routinely lobbies for the
developers every step of the way, and City Council has not voted against a single incompatible development proposal in residential areas for several years. This includes
projects at over four times the allowable residential density, or 3-story townhouses, or commercial development, all in areas zoned as single-family residential.
10/28/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.5: Clarify and streamline development vision and processes that make enacting this Plan easier for private developers, while limiting unproductive and
disruptive uses.
This objective needs more clarification. What is meant by making enactment of this Plan easier for private developers? Enacting the plan is a city process not a private
developer exercise.
10/23/2021
17 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Kay Mulhall ksemulhall@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.5
Clarify and streamline development vision and processes that make enacting this Plan easier for private developers, while limiting unproductive and disruptive uses.
Why should Carmel make things easier for private developers? Who decides what development is unproductive and disruptive? A better objective would be for Carmel to
make private development plans more transparent to the residents who in the area of the planned development.
11/29/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.6 - Almost no one in a suburban Carmel neighborhood wants a city bus rumbling down our residential streets or electric scooters cluttering our sidewalks.
We see near empty busses and unused dedicated bus lanes and we trip over messy scooters every day when working in Indianapolis, and we chose not to live there for
good reasons.
10/21/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.7: Promote the advancement of technology infrastructure, including telecom and fiber optics, to support city-wide commerce, the workplace, and home
enterprise.
What is "home enterprise"? Is it working from a home office? Having a small business in one's home, as an artist might with a studio and on-line as well as in person
sales? Doing assembly or manufacturing from a room in one's home? Participating in the hospitality industry from home, i.e. holding charity parties, hosting AirBnB
guests?
11/3/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.9: Promote the Arts & Design District, Midtown, and City Center by marketing them as community and regional destinations of Central Carmel along the
Monon Greenway.
This may be a policy goal of the city in general, but it does not fall under the purview of this document.
11/3/2021
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.11 "The City will strive to further the “Carmel” brand as a great place to live, work, play, and raise a family. The City has already established a notable
degree of branding; branding being positive name recognition and impression.” I’m not sure where the positive brand name narrative comes from. Sure, we have great
schools, lots of parks and we welcome all religions. But ever since moving here in 2013, we get mostly negative comments about moving into “racist, rich, white, corrupt,
fancy, tone-deaf Carmel.” We moved here because my husband’s California employer was recruited to move headquarters to Carmel. I’ve read the national publications
and “best of…” lists but the local reality of how the rest of Indiana perceives Carmel appears much different. Perception is not reality. We do enjoy living here and find
ourselves defending our city a lot. This celebrated “Carmel” brand needs to dive a little deeper into who we are, how we are seen, and who we want to be. 1) I would
like to see the “Carmel” brand focus on diversity that includes progressive public artwork from local artists, accessible/affordable performance arts, worldly cuisine (not
another burger place), recruiting progressive companies with strong multicultural leaders, actively protecting citizens from outside hate groups such as Unify Carmel etc.
2) Carmel needs to be celebrating and supporting teachers, working-class families and anyone who is about to be priced out of town with this continued focus on growth
and steamrolling current residents. We need to feel like we belong here and that we matter at least as much as future residents.
10/29/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.2.11: The City will strive to further the “Carmel” brand as a great place to live, work, play, and raise a family. The City has already established a notable degree
of branding; branding being positive name recognition and impression. Branding of a community is important when trying to attract quality employers and businesses.
Although zoning decisions may affect what the marketing department has to work with while promoting the "brand", it is not a function of a land-use plan.
11/3/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.1 - It is demonstrably false that Carmel residents desire traditional neighborhoods (assuming we could agree on what that means) that include a variety of
housing types. Very few suburban Carmel neighborhoods include a variety of housing types, and for a reason -- people who chose to live in detached, single-family,
suburban homes want to live in a neighborhood of detached, single-family, suburban homes. Let's be honest, we like variety of facades, but not types.
10/21/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.1: Carmel desires the quality of life benefits derived from the principles of traditional neighborhood design in all neighborhoods including active & walkable
centers, a variety of housing types, transportation options, and a mixture of land uses.
Not all residents in all parts of the city share the same desires for a mixture of land uses near their neighborhoods. This is important to recognize in zoning and land-use
planning.
10/23/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.3 - I'm afraid this ship has sailed for SW Carmel, which is an area defined by developments and not physical boundaries. Although I am sympathetic to this
objective, I can't even imagine how it would be implemented in SW Carmel except perhaps in some ideologically-motivated, disastrous fashion. Without additional detail
I have to object to this being a useful goal for SW Carmel.
10/21/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.3: It would be good to see practical examples of where this has been done in other cities our size, and the purpose.10/23/2021
Sonja Popp-Stahly poppstahly@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.3
Establish neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries rather than by each development’s name. Neighborhoods are more than each development project. A
concerted effort should be established to determine neighborhood boundaries throughout the City, and then promote their identity and boundaries.
COMMENT:
I don’t quite understand the concept of neighborhoods not including subdivisions. I live in a well-established subdivision. I associate our neighborhood to being out
subdivision. I don’t want the subdivision identity or importance or sense of community to be diminished, redefined or removed.
11/25/2021
18 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Barbara Eden edenbarbara@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.5 "Strive to be a "20-minute city" allowing most daily needs to be met within a short walk or bike ride for most residents. This means allowing more
walkable and diverse housing options to be built near existing amenity centers, and allowing small scale amenities to develop near residential areas."
Objective 1.3.6 "The 20-minute city concept can guide the location of neighborhood serving commercial centers. Commercial uses can fit within the character of their
surroundings by their form and design, as described in this plan's Typical Corridors Development Pattern. Flexible building designs help ensure the use can change over
the lifetime of the building while protecting character in particularly sensitive areas."
20-minute city concept
There are many citizens who live west of 31 who do not want Commercial development or a "20-minute city", allowing most daily needs to be met within a short walk or
bike ride. How can the existing estate homes and neighborhoods' concerns be further addressed instead of a blanket concept as outlined in the "typical corridors"????
10/25/2021
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.5 - "Strive to be a '20-minute city' allowing most daily needs to be met within a short walk or bike ride for most residents. This means allowing more
walkable and diverse housing options to be built near existing amenity" - If this is truly a goal, which I am actually in agreement with, then it seems counterintuitive to also
want to increase residential density. Adding density (aka more people) is only going to create more traffic, increasingly dangerous streets and roundabouts, and therefore
PROHIBIT safe walking or biking to any existing amenity. I live in Jackson's Grant neighborhood (even though I guess you want that to be referred to not by its
neighborhood name, but by 116th and SpringMill location). I would love to be able to walk to The Bridges for restaurants or groceries at times. And I really thought that
would be possible when we moved here 3 years ago. However, the roundabout at 116th and SpringMill, like most roundabouts near existing amenities, is DANGEROUS to
walk or bike across. How about some pedestrian flyover bridges??
11/1/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.5 - This is probably THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE of all the goals in the Plan. We are suburbanites, for Pete's sake! We have kids, cars, we shop at Costco and
Home Depot, we commute to work. Please stop attacking our basic, fine, enviable way of life by trying to push buildings and congestion close to us when we deliberately
moved father from it. If work, school, grocery stores, clothes stores, theaters, restaurants, soccer/basketball practice, library, etc. are all within a "short walk or bike ride"
distance, life would be miserable. The traffic, noise, lights, and congestion would be awful (because who will walk/bike to pick up $800 worth of groceries or a sheet of
drywall, or for the 5-6 months of the year when the Indiana weather sucks for walking or biking!?) and less safe for our children. Even in the most remote parts of
Carmel, there's hardly an amenity in the world that can't be found by driving 8 minutes; we don't need or want those amenities right next door!
10/21/2021
Gail Dietz dietz1410@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.5 " allowing small scale amenities to be developed near residential areas." Could I have several examples of what you mean here please?10/25/2021
Gus Navarra gusnavarra@comcast.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.5 : "strive to be a 20 minute city and allow small scale amenities to develop near residential areas." FEEDBACK : I am not supportive of this objective as we
have adequate amenities in many areas of Carmel and in close enough proximity to existing neighborhoods. This seems to be creating additional commercial units and
greater density where it is not needed. I am in favor of building amenities in new neighborhoods and areas where it may be appropriate. Overall I prefer reasonable
density and reduced commercial units in neighborhoods. The downtown core is appropriate for higher density and commercial units vs. in multiple and existing
neighborhoods across Carmel. I prefer a balance between the natural beauty and greens space in neighborhoods and commercial units and greater density in designated
(and planned) areas outside of neighborhoods.
Other text: Hello, bellow is my feedback regarding the proposed Comp Plan:
Thank You for your efforts to update the CP and requesting input from the public. I am available as needed to provide additional feedback if needed.
10/24/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.5 states: "Strive to be a '20-minute city', allowing most daily needs to be met within a short walk or bike ride for most residents. This means allowing more
walkable and diverse housing options to be built near existing amenity centers, and allowing small-scale amenities to develop near residential areas." My Feedback: By
these numbers, City officials are apparently aiming to allow commercial development within one mile (a 20-minute walk) of most Carmel residents, even though many
residents do not want to be forced to live with the usual downsides associated with nearby commercial development, e.g., traffic congestion, parking lots, noise, lighting,
and late operating hours. (The recent experience with The Goat Tavern illustrates these issues.) Also, does the City truly believe that "most daily needs" can actually be
provided within a one-mile radius via walking and biking? This clearly ignores basic realities, such as economies-of-scale for merchants, the inability of residents to carry
heavy goods via bicycle or on foot, the additional time involved, or the effects of inclement weather.
10/28/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.5 What does it mean to “strive to be a ‘20-minute City” allowing most daily needs to be met within a short walk or bike ride”? We don’t want or need a
grocery store, drug store, coffee shop, or other commercial development every mile. How can we carry several bags of groceries on our mile walk through our often-
challenging Indiana rain, snow or heat? What are the unintended consequences? When Jackson Grant Village was proposed, many of their residents said the caddy-
corner mall, The Bridges, was close enough to them. Most neighbors didn’t want commercial and townhouses added next to their Single-Family homes. There was added
frustration that the increased density from the townhouses would overwhelm the already overcrowded amenities.
11/2/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.6 The architecture/form of a business located adjacent to neighborhood of Single-Family homes does not make what takes place/use inside its form (uses
such a bar, strip mall, gas station, etc.) compatible with the neighborhood. When the Gas Station amendment requiring a 500’ setback from residential areas, day cares,
etc. recently passed, this set back was not required for a PUD rezone. PUD rezones are often proposed adjacent to existing neighborhoods. It possible for a PUD to have
a gas station in an incompatible location, if it just looks like the adjacent neighborhood.
11/2/2021
19 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.6 - Neighborhood serving commercial centers - This worries me. It will bring more traffic, delivery trucks, gas stations, etc. I also fear these will only add to
the already vacant commercial centers in Carmel since then residents won't need to utilize existing amenities. Please look at this objective carefully! Perhaps study the
number of already vacant commercial areas? One in particular to note near me is at 126th and Illinois (near La Hacienda).
11/1/2021
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.6 "The 20-minute city concept can guide the location of neighborhood serving commercial centers. Commercial uses can fit within the character of their
surroundings by their form and design, as described in this plan’s Typical Corridors Development Pattern. Flexible building designs help ensure the use can change over
the lifetime of the building while protecting character in particularly sensitive areas.” I think this needs more explanation. What commercial uses fit into a residential
neighborhood? Who gets to decide on the actual commercial use and density? Do homeowners want commercial uses in their current neighborhoods? How does a row of
multistory dwellings with tiny balconies protect the character of a neighborhood with lawns and gardens? I just don’t think this 20-minute city concept can be applied as a
blanket statement across all neighborhoods. It will be so stressful to see a for sale sign next door wondering if another family will move in or if someone is tearing down
the house to build a few condos. What protection do homeowners have to achieve a compromise with developers?
10/29/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.6 further states: "The 20-minute city concept can guide the location of neighborhood-serving commercial centers. Commercial uses can fit within the
character of the surroundings by form and design." My Feedback: No matter how it is cloaked, commercial uses will not fit the residential surroundings by function, and
it appears that the City's intention is to proliferate more-lucrative commercial development at roughly one-mile intervals throughout the areas of Carmel that are
currently zoned as residential-only.
10/28/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.3.6: The 20-minute city concept can guide the location of neighborhood serving "commercial centers". How does a 20-minute walk to a commercial center
meet resident needs? Provide examples of this to better understand what uses are considered appropriately located near residential neighborhoods.
10/23/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.4: An environmentally conscious Plan would not be seeking to squeeze more and more people into the city limits of Carmel. More people require more roads and
services, which cost more, hence requiring more taxpayers who require more services, which means more taxpayers are needed. A true circulus vitiosus.
11/2/2021
Linda Downer downlin@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.1 Reinforce Adaptability: One of the next evolutions that is being considered in some forums is creating energy solutions in a small independent area, thus,
making the area independent from the grid. Is it possible to have a neighborhood develop an off the grid footprint based on solar and battery back-up. I know this seems
futuristic but some believe that one of our biggest problems is the large electrical grid and its dispersal. The City could help this by creating areas that are built with the
infrastructure or perhaps making this possible with new building use codes. To be more specific, imagine a local church that gives its rear parking lot over to solar panels
that can be parked under. What is generated is spread to the church and immediate neighborhood. This is not too far out as I have seen it in the St. Petersburg area. Or
when repurposing a facility like Orchard Park School use that to put panels on that service the neighborhood. Our future needs to adapt to new structures and ideas in the
electrical generation area.
10/25/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.2: Periodically review and revise the Development Pattern Areas Plan map to adapt to changes in the built environment
Meaning that the Development Pattern Areas will be brought into line after one exception after another is made (as currently occurs in PUD form), destroying the
confidence of people in the Zoning of Carmel and, as is already happening, causing people who loved their neighborhoods as is, will leave to find elsewhere what is being
taken away from them by money-driven planning.
You might as well come out and say it: As we build out with one commercial center after another we will eventually tear up any agreements about maintaining a
residential character anywhere in Carmel.
11/2/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.3 - Again, "flexible building types" are fine for an urban core, but are anathema to a suburban neighborhood. 10/21/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.3 states: "Continue to recognize, plan, and update critical corridors and subareas with a focus on flexible building types over specific uses." My Feedback:
The specification of additional so-called "critical corridors" by City officials could at any time open up even more areas in Carmel to higher-intensity residential
development and to commercial development. Also, there appears to be little interest in the draft plan to control specific uses, such that almost anything could
potentially go next to existing residential areas.
10/28/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.3: What is meant by "flexible building types"?10/23/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.3 “Critical Corridors” need to be better defined. What uses are allowed, how much can they intrude into the existing neighborhoods, how tall can buildings
be? Critical Corridors extend through much of Carmel with the potential of having an large impact on much of our population.
11/2/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.7 - Again, SW Carmel's character as a place of detached, single-family houses on large lots is under assault by this Plan. The bias towards urban living in the
Plan is troubling and completely out of touch with what residents want. We don't want the urban core of mixed housing types creeping into our neighborhoods.
10/21/2021
20 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.7 "Add a mix of housing types to diversify options and support Carmel’s changing demographics and workforce needs, especially along future transit and
trail corridors. A wide mix of housing types adds stability as demographic and preference patterns ebb and flow.” What is our changing demographic? Is Carmel getting
older? Younger? More diverse? Or just “more”? How many people will continue working from home after the pandemic? (I know we both are – my husband’s employer is
downsizing office space and embracing a workforce from all over the country instead of hiring local – no commute needed) Do young families really want a
condo/apartment rather than a starter home with a yard? I would love to see some research on that. Also, our workforce needs should include teachers, social workers,
service personnel, non-profit workers – anyone who this city depends on night and day but who is no longer able to afford an actual home here. It is stressful living here
with a low-income yet necessary profession and extremely high housing prices. The comp plan draft only outlines the needs of future workers of future employers and
how those needs will be met on the backs of current workers.
10/29/2021
Gail Dietz dietz1410@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.7 where it is stated "have a mix of housing options." In my opinion, Carmel residents enjoy the residential neighborhoods that keep their housing
investment in tact. To throw in a "mix of housing options" i.e. apartments, in the middle of a housing subdivision could significantly change the neighborhood and lower
the single family home value. Apartment dwellers are usually transient and companies that own the rental apartments have a propensity to change ownership thus
creating an unstable property value.
10/25/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.7: What housing types, if any, are missing in Carmel?10/23/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.4.8: Establish a training program for elected and appointed officials aimed at providing a broad primer on municipal functions and national best practices. This
should help synchronize various bodies and departments that can then adjust to changing conditions and priorities.
A noble sentiment, but not within the purview of this document.
11/4/2021
Judy Hagan RL72JF@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5: Regarding Section 1.5, the sub paragraphs of 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 and 1.5.9 seem to be the only specifics about anything so far. While important, they are
probably not top of mind by the majority of the community.
10/27/2021
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.1 - "Encourage different housing types and sizes within the same neighborhood to support different household types and economic resiliency. This allows
options for new residents and allows current residents to age in Carmel as they move through different life stages." Please define "housing types". If you mean similar to
Jackson's Grant, with larger family homes and smaller-lot sized homes, I agree. However, if this mean houses, condos, and apartments together in the same
neighborhood, I would NOT want to live in a house in that neighborhood! The transiency of apartments, and perhaps even condos, is not something I'd like as a
homeowner.
11/1/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.1 - Ditto. Please modify the plan to place more emphasis on preserving the good character of Carmel's single-family, detached homes on large lots. I know
the urbanites that draft these plans abhor the thought, but suburbs are wonderful places to live, they are sustainable, healthy, safe, quiet, lovely, and worth preserving
and worth expanding!
10/21/2021
Gail Dietz dietz1410@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.1 , where it is stated that the goal is to have different housing types and sizes within the same neighborhood-this is NOT the reason I moved to Carmel and
paid property taxes for over 30 years. I wish to retain the value of my property and this Objective appears to go against common sense.
10/25/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.1 states "Establish different housing types and sizes within the same neighborhood to support different household types and economic resiliency." My
Feedback: This is thinly-veiled code language for encouraging the construction of so-called Accessory Dwelling Units (potentially as rentals) in the back yards of existing
residential neighborhoods, to allow two dwellings on one lot. The "economic resiliency" will primarily come in the form of increased property tax revenues into the City's
coffers.
10/28/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.1: Encourage different housing types and sizes within the same neighborhood to support different household types and economic resiliency.
I assume "same neighborhood" here is a much larger area than a single subdivision??
10/23/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.2 - The op-in guild sounds like a cabal for doling out city favors to compliant builders. The potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption makes
this one a very bad idea.
10/21/2021
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.2 "Create an opt-in developer, broker and builder guild aligned to City priorities and values, facilitating communication with major stakeholders.” Please tell
me that “major stakeholders” are indeed Carmel homeowners?????? How does this ensure our City has the interests of current residents who voted for them at heart
rather than catering to developers and future businesses? I feel like the City should be a strong buffer between developers and homeowners. Instead, developers and the
City team up against homeowners.
10/29/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.2 states: "Create an opt-in developer, broker, and builder guild aligned to City priorities and values, facilitating communication with major stakeholders."
My feedback: In other words, the intent is to get the powerful special interests in lockstep with the City's vision. Homeowners Associations and the general public are not
included in the list of stakeholders, and apparently need not apply.
10/28/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.1 “Establish different housing types and sizes within the same neighborhood.” Please include examples. Are you encouraging ADUs in established
neighborhoods? This could mean that neighbors on all sides could add an ADU above, below, beside or behind a current home. And though that unit might initially be for
a family member, it might be rented, and change the character of neighborhood. When a percentage of ADUs were proposed to be required included in new
developments, representatives for developers said they couldn’t afford to do that, and the City Council withdrew that provision. Instead, it is in the established (and also
often affordable) neighborhoods with yards large enough for an ADU that seem to be encouraged to do this.
11/2/2021
21 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.2 Why should the City create a guild for developers, brokers, and builders “aligned to City priorities and values, facilitating communication with major
stakeholders”? Where do HOAs and homeowners fit into this guild? I propose that the City create an ombudsman or similar position to provide residents with relevant
information and help residents interact with the City and developer during the development process. Homeowners need to have more early participation and say in
development decisions that homeowners will have to live with, long after City officials and the developers have moved on.
11/2/2021
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.3 "Encourage usable and functioning green spaces, green roofs, green walls, and other features to help beautify the City while managing stormwater and
providing wildlife habitat." I struggle with this part because “high density redevelopment” and “managing stormwater and providing wildlife habitat” clashes in every
sense of the topic. “Usable and functioning green spaces” is also misleading. To me, a functioning greenspace is a native no-mow habitat that takes care of itself and
allows stormwater to filter naturally into the ground and creeks. To city planner, it’s usually a mono-culture lawn around a drainage pond that needs herbicides,
pesticides, mowing and watering. Both can be interpreted as functional depending on who you ask. The Monon Greenway needs to official be protected from further
development. The “green” needs to be expanded with native trees and native plants. In many areas, trees are removed to pave the way for encroaching condos while
invasive plants take over in other areas. Established neighborhoods with large healthy trees need to be off-limits for redevelopment. No more cutting down good trees to
make room for bigger houses.
10/29/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.7/8/9 - I will support any arts program that includes selling or destroying the absurd collection of human sculpture kitsch that clutters downtown Carmel's
sidewalks.
10/21/2021
Barbara Eden edenbarbara@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.9 "Explore a future world-class public art museum to complement current public and private offerings."
Where did this come from?
No other similar public private development initiatives described in comp plan
10/25/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.5.9: Explore a future world-class public art museum to complement current public and private offerings.
Interesting idea for a Carmel Arts Council, but not for the Plan Commission.
11/3/2021
Cindy Muse cindanddavidmuse@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.6: I applaud Carmel's incorporation of many objectives to Lighten Carmel's Environmental Impact (1.6), particularly the development and implementation of
a Climate Action Plan, encouraging green spaces and tree plantings, public transportation alternatives, and expanding the market for clean energy.
An additional suggestion would be encouraging the use of permeable pavements in city and commercial parking lots. Permeable pavements can catch precipitation and
surface allowing it to slowly infiltrate it into the soil or discharge through a drain tile. Such pavements can mitigate erosion, serious floods, transport and build up of
pollutants and degraded habitats. Thanks to all the folks who have spent many hours in thoughtful consideration of this comprehensive plan for Carmel
10/28/2021
Jennifer Lentz jennifer_lentz@yahoo.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.6.4
Encourage green building practices that seek to limit carbon impacts.
Recommendation: Require new buildings to be all electric with zero gas appliances or gas heating for a future where electricity comes entirely from renewables.
11/23/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.6.6: Continue the policy emphasizing that City vehicles be energy efficient and low emission cars and trucks, increasing zero-emission vehicles when feasible.
This may be a policy goal of the city in general, but it does not fall under the purview of this document.
11/3/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.6.10: Reduce heat island effect by tree preservation and planting, reducing the amount of pavement dedicated to parking Fine thought but the practice is and
will remain cutting down forested areas to seal them over with steel, glass, asphalt, and cement.
It is absolutely unbelievable, given the history of development in Carmel, to imagine that heat islands will become fewer rather than more as field after field is built up
with townhouses, apartment buildings, shopping centers....
11/2/2021
Linda Downer downlin@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.6.15: I am not aware of any composting program within the City....except for what I compost in my own pile. I always feel bad putting yard waste that is too
big to compost myself into trash cans. It would be great if we had bins at certain times of the year that we could put not only leaves in but tree and bush trimmings, and
garden trimmings. Perhaps this could be put through a giant shredder and composted locally.
10/25/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.7: One thing that will not promote a healthy city is plowing up more trees and fields to approve building ever more health care facilities in an area already over-served
by multiple hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices.
11/2/2021
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.1 - I agree with this objective. Question: Is there a city park in Carmel where a resident can go to play a game of pickup basketball with friends? Pickleball?
Futsal? There's not, and it's really sad (we do have a sand volleyball court out by River Rd, which is great! More such stuff, please.). Where can our teens and young
adults gather to play for free? We need more parks and to improve the play options at the ones we have.
10/21/2021
22 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.1
Strive to provide multiple types of facilities for exercise, opportunities to immerse oneself into nature, sport facilities and leagues, access to recreation programs, access
to health education programs, and encouragement to succeed in one’s personal health goals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Objective would be more credible if it provided some specifics on how the city would use the land use planning process to achieve this objective. Where and when
in the land use planning and approval process do we have the opportunity to provide this health related infrastructure? Who is responsible for raising these issues at
those times? Who is responsible for identifying areas of Carmel most in need of additional health infrastructure. How is responsible for developing the metrics and
measuring our progress?
11/12/2021
Margo McAlear mmcalear987@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.1: This is a worthy goal. It would be a better goal if twinned with planning on any public transportation infrastructure. It is important that people who
need/benefit from these services may need public transportation, particularly youth, single moms/dads, seniors. Planning for these facilities should also be twinned with
public transportation
11/11/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.2
Access to space for physical activity can be provided with continued planning and investment in walking and bicycling facilities, including expansion of the City’s Bike
Share system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Access to space for physical activity" is incredibly important for young people. In the parts of Carmel that are most dense, I don't see the tennis courts, basketball courts
or playing fields nearby that I think are needed there. This Objective should be amended to recognize that kids don't walk and bike for exercise, they walk and bike to get
to a place where they can meet friends and play games. We should invest in more than the infrastructure needed for walking and biking so all Carmel neighborhoods have
playing fields or open space nearby for physical activity.
11/12/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.3: Work corroboratively with local health systems to offer outreach services, health and wellness clinics, screenings, classes, smoking cessation programs,
dietary support, mental health clinics, immunization programs, and the like.
This seems like a social program that does not fit into the context of a Comprehensive Plan.
10/23/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.3
Work corroboratively with local health systems to offer outreach services, health and wellness clinics, screenings, classes, smoking cessation programs, dietary support,
mental health clinics, immunization programs, and the like.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This Objective would be more credible if it provided some specifics on how the city would use the land use planning process to provide these health-related services.
Where and when in the land use planning and approval process do we have the opportunity to provide these health related services? Who is responsible for raising these
issues at those times? Who is responsible for identifying areas of Carmel most in need of these services and developing the metrics and measuring our progress?
11/12/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.4
Work with local health systems to support the City’s efforts on influencing social determinants of health, including active transportation; access to exercise spaces, green
space and food; hiring, training, and promoting a local workforce; and expanding health housing options for all citizens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Objective would be more credible if it provided some specifics on how the city would use the land use planning process to influence these social determinants of
health.
11/12/2021
Margo McAlear mmcalear987@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.5: Encourage mixed-use, 20-minute neighborhoods making it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles.
Not sure why we have to have a one size fits all approach. We chose West Carmel because it did not seem overburdened with Commercial. Mixed use, 20 minute
neighborhoods make sense in and around the city center, especially for people who want that more urban feel.
11/11/2021
Margo McAlear mmcalear987@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.5: Encourage mixed-use, 20-minute neighborhoods making it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles.
Roundabouts are efficient and time saving...but for motorists, not pedestrians. Because there are no crosswalks, e.g. at the Bridges connecting to people who live along
Springmill Rd, and this commercial node is continually busy, one has to sprint across 116 to the Southern side. More and more roundabouts are being constructed along
106, 116th and north making them busy on these corridors of commercial. So, there needs to be crosswalks or perhaps signals, especially because people are not able to
quickly cross.
11/11/2021
23 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.5
Encourage mixed-use, 20-minute neighborhoods making it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles. This will provide a healthy lifestyle by providing the option for
exercise in people’s daily routines.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think mixed-use and 20-minute neighborhoods are a good idea close to the city center. Neighborhood serving commercial areas away from the city center are not going
to receive enough traffic from bike riders and walkers, especially in winter, to be economically viable. So neighborhood serving commercial areas away from the city
center are going to need a lot of car traffic and parking which tends to diminish the value of the commercial destination as an amenity for nearby residents.
The concept of mixed use and 20 minute neighborhoods should be dropped from the Comprehensive Plan except in neighborhoods in the City Center. The concept of 20
minute neighborhoods beyond the city center is an effort to take some of the shine of the laudable goals of personal fitness and reducing CO2 emissions and hoping some
of that shine rubs off on the much more dubious goal of extending commercial activity down the corridors away from the city center.
If you really want to protect the environment and increase personal fitness, there are much stronger levers that can be found to achieve those goals than putting
neighborhood serving commercial nodes beyond the city center.
11/15/2021
Denise Waite dpwaite490@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Several objectives discuss the encouragement of walking and biking activities. Objective 1.7.8 addresses street amenities and mentions convenience and desirability but
fails to address safety. Traffic in many roundabouts in the city often moves quickly making it difficult to safely cross. Consider addressing the installation of more
crosswalk flashers to enhance the safety of those residents that do walk and bike around the city.
10/21/2021
Linda Downer downlin@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.9 Support Healthful Living: Love the bikeable City! I do it all year long. It is getting better with the bike trails. The City will come along and plow those
trails and then an independent contractor will plow out a Church or shopping Center parking lot and leave 2' hills across the bike trail. Enforce proper clean up! One
specific area that is bad with snow is from Keystone west to the High School. This private style walk way should be changed to a multiuse path that is plowed in the
winter. This is important to the local students who walk and ride the area.
10/25/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.9: Maintain efficient snow removal from sidewalks, curb ramps, and multi-purpose paths to encourage physical activity in the colder months.
While this is very desirable, it seems it should be a city administration policy, but not appropriate for the context of a Comprehensive Plan.
10/23/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.7.10: Support local food and agriculture by expanding community gardens throughout the city, through educational and pilot programs, and increasing
participation in the Farmers Market.
While desirable this is more appropriate as a city goal rather than content for a Comprehensive Plan.
10/23/2021
Judy Hagan RL72JF@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.8 (Policy Goal): Section 1.8 would make more sense if the DOCS study on transit that was referenced in earlier comments on the Comp Plan update webpage
was shared to clarify what "last mile" might mean. The transit study is another piece of data that needs to inform the Comp Plan update.
10/27/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.8.1
Make walking and biking safe and convenient by implementing complete streets, which are designed and operated to prioritize safety, comfort, and access to destinations
for all people who use the street.
----------------------------------------
To get a significant number of bicycle commuters safely using the Monon and east-west bike trail connectors, there have to be more separate grade crossings installed
that allow riders and traffic to proceed through the intersection at the same time without stopping.
11/12/2021
Barbara Eden edenbarbara@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.8.3 Complete the major east-west path links to complement the Monon Greenway, with a supporting set of paths, trails, and shared streets linking these to
neighborhoods, destinations, and neighboring municipalities thereby offering bicycling as a meaningful coxammuting option.
Misspelled???? Define?
10/25/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.8.4: Charging for parking seems questionable as this may discourage people from visiting businesses or retail.10/23/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.8.4
On valuable public rights-of-way in vibrant areas, establish dynamic pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't want to do this to my neighbors. Owning a car is already very expensive. One of the good things Carmel has done is to build and provide free parking in places
where you would expect parking to be scarce and expensive. When I go to the vibrant parts of Carmel, I am glad that I will probably run into friends from all over Carmel
and most have had to drive to be there. Dynamic pricing for parking sounds like we are trying to speed up the transition from a car dependent culture to a walking-biking
culture. However, car dependency is still baked into the layout of Carmel. By making parking expensive you are making a bigger impact on family budgets and excluding
participation in the vibrant parts of town. You aren't making much of an impact on car dependency because car ownership and use is still a necessity for living in most
places in Carmel.
11/12/2021
24 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Sonja Popp-Stahly poppstahly@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Obj 1.8.4: On valuable public rights-of-way in vibrant areas, establish dynamic pricing for street parking spaces to shift behavior away from single occupancy vehicles.
Dynamic pricing adjusts by the time of day, location, and day of the week to ensure some street parking spots are always available, thereby cutting down on vehicles
circling a block in search of a spot.
COMMENT:
I am very much opposed to Carmel starting to charge for street parking, such as on Main Street or the Monon in Midtown. I am also very much again dynamic pricing,
which sounds like surge pricing and price gauging. Keep parking free in Carmel! This is not Indianapolis or Chicago or NYC!
11/25/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.8.6: Seek to electrify and right-size the public fleet of vehicles. The number of multi-use paths and narrower streets may require smaller service vehicles.
At most the Plan Commission could make sure that multi-use paths and streets within developments are wide enough to accommodate public vehicles. They cannot
decide on what vehicles are purchased by city services.
11/3/2021
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.8.7 To “ensure access and mobility needs of Carmel’s aging and disabled population” Please require developers who market to empty nesters and active
seniors to have requirements for Universal Design Standards and opportunities so that they can age in place?
11/2/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Objective 1.8.7 Ensure that the access and mobility needs of Carmel’s aging and disabled populations are considered, including safe and affordable
transportation...Children have no drivers' licenses, many elders no long have them, but thinking that bicycles will do the trick is short-sighted. Decent public
transportation is necessary for a city that wishes to move away from the individual automobile.
11/2/2021
Steve Strass sstrass2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Prior to the comprehensive plan hearing scheduled on 10/19/21, please review and share this letter of concern with all parties involved in the decision-making process as
it pertains to updates to the plan. The Spring Lake Estates neighborhood, which is located in the US-31 Corridor area of Carmel, is described in the current
comprehensive plan to be a Critical Corridor. Planners and city leaders have committed to guide any commercial development in this Critical Corridor so that it provides
these protections to nearby residential areas like ours:
A. Building heights should be reduced as they encroach on Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street; and building heights should not exceed 3 stories when
adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
B. Prohibit branded architecture
C. Respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require appropriate buffering
Please observe the below image of parcel D. The Spring Lake Estates neighborhood resides north of parcel D, buffered by forest. This forest provides a natural preserve
for various wildlife, as well as a beautiful landscape and privacy to the homes that reside on the south side of Mallard Court.
Considering commercial development that has already taken place in parcels A through C to the east of Spring Lake Estates (creating additional noise pollution and bright
lighting), the current hospital east of N. Illinois St., and the potential commercial development on the southeast and southwest corners of parcel D at the roundabouts on
116th St., the residents of Spring Lake Estates and Jackson's Grant across Springmill Rd., west of parcel D, envision a tremendous opportunity to develop a green space for
the residential and professional communities.
[Comments continue in the next row]
10/14/2021
25 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Steve Strass sstrass2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
We propose for parcel D to be developed into a beautiful, walkable green space where all surrounding parties could benefit. Our vision and goals are to:
1. Avoid any further reduction to the current forest buffering Spring Lake Estates from parcel D on the north side, as well as retain the additional forest that resides on
the south side of parcel D closer to 116th St.
2. Develop the land in parcel D between these two current forest buffers into a beautiful park recreational green space, which we envision to include paved parkways for
walking and bicycling, ponds, fountains, trees, flowers, plants, sitting areas (I.e., benches, possibly a pavilion area for gatherings, similar to the new one constructed at
Coxhall Gardens), trash can areas, dog bag stations, etc. The sidewalk that dead ends just outside of the south entrance of Spring Lake Estates could be continued all the
way to 116th St. to provide safe and easy access to this new park. We accept the possibility of commercial development on the southeast corner of parcel D at the 116th
St. roundabout, but are asking to leave the buffer of trees in place on that south end of parcel D so that a park could be developed between the forest buffer on the north
side of parcel D south of Mallard Court and the forest buffer currently closer to 116th St.
3. Provide a spacious and beautiful recreational space for those families living in the surrounding neighborhoods, such as Spring Lake Estates, Jackson's Grant, Springmill
Ridge, etc. In addition, a terrific natural habitat and sanctuary for all employees working at IU Health North Hospital and the businesses located at The Bridges at Carmel
Market District for exercise and lunch breaks to assist with work life balance.
4. Continue to be a nationwide leader in the development of an Eco-Friendly city, by investing in parks and recreation, further reducing our carbon footprint.
The residents and working professionals in the US-31 corridor know that we can continue to develop wonderful spaces for our community in Carmel by working together
with those making final decisions on planning. Please put serious thought into this proposal. We all understand the need to develop value-add commercial spaces, and I
believe the surrounding residents have been very open to compromise in this area, considering the commercial development that has already taken place and will
continue to take place.
Ask yourself, if you lived in our neighborhoods, would you want more buildings, traffic, noise, concrete, and trees cut down? Or would you rather live and work in a place
that has been described within this letter?
Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to call me if you'd like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
Steve Strass, Spring Lake Estates
375 Mallard Court
Carmel, IN 46032
317-515-7732
10/14/2021
Judy Hagan RL72JF@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
A new issue going forward is how the remaining infill/unplatted properties will develop and how the "edges" of different uses are resolved. There is a map dated "2021
UnplattedLots.pdf" on the DOCS website under the current C3 Plan page. It would be helpful to update and share that map to reflect the undeveloped parcels whether
they are already a PUD or rezone or plat or are an unplatted acreage; also helpful would be a map of all the parking lots from the Meridian Corridor east to Keystone (the
central city) that have potential for redevelopment. While life has certainly changed during the pandemic, some changes were expected by futurists and have just
accelerated. One of the suggestions of the draft Comp Plan is continuous training for elected and appointed officials on timely topics of development. This seems a good
time to start that effort and include citizens as well. That was a strength of the C3 Comp Plan and seems to be missing so far.
10/27/2021
Amanda Goldner amanda_goldner@yahoo.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
As a resident who walks everywhere, I find it very difficult to cross streets safely, especially at roundabouts. I often find myself stranded in the middle of the roundabout.
Few go 15 mph through the roundabouts or allows pedestrians to cross. Even on Rangeline where there is a pedestrian warning button, no one stops or slows when the
light is blinking. In order to make Carmel pedestrian friendly, a plan needs to be developed for how and where people can safely cross especially since there was an
emphasis in the plan on kids walking to school.
10/26/2021
Jill Reese jill@wagnerreese.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Do you have any objectives that address alleviating traffic congestion and pedestrian safety issues and otherwise enhancing ingress/egress to/from Carmel High School? I
still do not see any although I have provided similar feedback in the past. This is one school of 5300+ students from every corner of Carmel, so walking and using bicycles
is not feasible for the vast majority. If there are no such objectives, why not? Thank you for your time.
10/6/2021
Judy Hagan RL72JF@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Finally, I don't see anything addressing "affordability" which apparently was one of the top 3 things most important to the future of Carmel according to surveys done so
far. The Hamilton County Community Foundation has had a similar issue as a focus for the last several years. They do not appear on the list of stakeholders described on
the draft website. Might be helpful to have their input. Thank you for the opportunity to comment thus far.
10/27/2021
Judy Hagan RL72JF@sbcglobal.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
I am struck by what is initially missing from this update of the Comp Plan. The current C3 Plan began with a Community Profile with all kinds of data providing a snapshot
of the community 10 years ago. Updated basic information is essential to guide planning for the next decade. It would be helpful as a base to review C3 for successful
completion of many of its goals and what needs to carry over to a new Comp Plan as well as the new issues.
10/27/2021
26 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
CHARLES SWITZER ctswitzer@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
I strongly oppose many of the policy goals and objectives of the current draft of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, as detailed below. The goals and objectives are fine for
Carmel's urban core and Michigan and Meridian Streets, but are a worrisome for our suburban neighborhoods. The balance of Carmel's suburban neighborhoods, its
thriving city center, and its strong retail and business corridors (Michigan and Meridian streets) provides the character, quality, and aesthetic that has made Carmel such a
fantastic, award-winning city, that drew me here 12 years ago, and that continues to attract residents. I'm afraid this Plan tips that balance way too strongly toward the
urban/business side to the detriment of its suburban side.
Tellingly, the word "suburb" is used only once in the entire Policy Goals & Objectives section, which seems to indicate an anti-suburban bias of its drafters and supporters,
and there's no explicit language anywhere in the Plan addressing a strong need to preserve Carmel's suburban character and neighborhoods. The current draft of the
plan must be revised to address this issue or the Plan will be a huge step in hastening Carmel's decline as the best city in Indiana to live and raise a family.
The thrust of the Plan is densification, densification, densification, as if densification is both inevitable and desirable. It's neither. There are preserved, vibrant, lovely
suburbs in nearly every major city in America, and it would be a shame if Carmel destroys hers. I live on Carmel's SW side, just south of Coxhall, and am sad that there's
nearly nothing in the Plan that addresses the need of my part of town to be preserved as one of the great vibrant, lovely suburbs that will remain an attractive area for
families for generations.
Below is my list of the Objectives that work fine for the urban core, but that few residents want for our suburban neighborhoods.
[Comments on specific Objectives moved to separate rows]
Except for the Plan's object of densifying and urbanizing our lovely suburbs, I don't have objections to the Plan's other Objectives. Please revise the Plan to strongly
emphasize the city's intent to preserve the suburban nature of our suburban neighborhoods. Thank you.
10/21/2021
Steve Strass sstrass2@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
After reviewing the latest policy goals and objectives, not feeling confident decisions will be made in the best interest of Carmel residents. Has anyone seen the movie It's
a Wonderful Life? The fictional town of Bedford Falls? That was a great place to live. Once all the big lights, apartments, traffic, and every square inch of trees were cut
down, it became Pottersville. A commercially loud, lack of neighborhood environment, with lights and value depreciation. Is old man Potter running this place? If this
trend continues, I, along with many influential friends in Carmel, are contacting our personal friends at Money.com, Kiplingers, and CNBC to let them know this big status
talk up about Carmel Indiana as being a top ranked place to live in Indiana is becoming a facade. Once they send their investigative reporters and interview locals across
every district, see what happens with their next published ranking articles on Carmel, IN.
As a reminder, I had previously submitted a letter regarding parcel D located in the US 31 Corridor.
11/1/2021
Karla Stein kstein923@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
We appreciate Carmel establishing the city as the most beautiful and well desired community to live in and are proud to call Carmel home. However, we do not approve
of turning 116th Street into a busy boulevard. Many of the homes on this street are luxury estates not housing developments that contribute to the overall appeal and
beauty increasing property values. It is Carmel's street of the Who's Who of Indiana! Widening the road with a median will deter from the prestige of this unique street. In
addition, it will not allow residents the ability to make turns in both directions causing travel delays plus challenges for emergency vehicles and school buses. We say NO
to 116th Boulevard!
11/2/2021
Jayesh Patel aolseva@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
I live in Springlake Estate and I am very dissatisfied with the City considering to change the zoning rules for the development at the corner of 116th st. and Springmill
road. I have no issues of developing those empty land, but I hope the city officials use their best judgement to protect the residential character of our neighborhood.
Firstly, they developed a short wall on Illinois street which does not protect our neighborhood from the noise pollution of US 31 as well as the traffic of Illinois St. Now the
city wants more commercial projects without proper protection of the quite neighborhoods. I hope the city officials listen to the voice and concerns of their citizens.
11/7/2021
27 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Kyle Musleh kyle@muslehfinancialgroup.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
As a resident of Spring Lake Estates, a neighborhood that has been seemingly forgotten in the draft of the comprehensive plan, I would love to be present at the Townhall
on Wednesday 11/10 however given the very brief notice given and my work schedule I am unable to attend. As a voting resident of Carmel for the past 13 years I still
would like my voice to be heard especially by our representatives Tony Green and Tim Hannon.
As such I would like to reiterate things I put in a letter to the city that I believe must be addressed. At this point these should be unique complaints to the council but
echoes of the concerns of my neighbors in Spring Lake Estates about the new comprehensive plan.
Carmel's new comprehensive plan should afford Spring Lake Estates the same protections of the former plan:
1. Spring Lake Estates should continue to be categorized as a Sensitive Residential area because of its close proximity commercially zoned area.
2. The building heights should be limited and should not exceed a maximum height of 3 stories within close proximity of Spring Lake Estates and the other neighborhoods
in the Illinois St Corridor.
3. Commercial development near all residential areas in Carmel should respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods and require appropriate buffering 4. The study of
the vacant property to the south of Spring Lake Estates (immediately behind my property) should be completed as called for in the previous plan and should include
public input especially those who this property butts up against.
5. Open space, green space, and forest (which has been determined a priority in Carmel) should be preserved within a walkable distance from Spring Lake Estates.
I trust that my voice will be heard even though I am unable to attend the Town Hall this Wednesday.
11/8/2021
Jennifer Lentz jennifer_lentz@yahoo.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
1.6 Lighten Carmel’s Environmental Footprint Please strongly consider using electric lawn mowers and landscape equipment or require the companies providing this
service to do so when trimming city green spaces.
According to https://www.onlynaturalenergy.com/grass-lawns-are-an-ecological-catastrophe/:
"Another estimate is that every gallon of gasoline burned by lawnmowers emits 20 pounds of CO2. According to the EPA, one gas lawn mower emits 89 pounds of CO2
and 34 pounds of other pollutants per year. According to a Swedish study, using a mower for one hour has the same carbon footprint as a 100-mile car trip. The EPA
found that gasoline-powered lawn mowers emit eight times more nitrogen oxides, 3,300 times more hydrocarbons, 5,000 times more carbon monoxide and more than
twice the CO2 per hour of operation than electric lawn mowers."
I found Quiet Cut a Hoosier Environmental Council green business https://franklinbrotherslandscape.com/ that's a commercial electric lawn mowing service that is
carbon neutral! Carmel could be a great example in this space too - not just with our roundabouts which are awesome!
Also, why not electrify all city vehicles? Add roof-top solar to all municipal buildings. Require geo-thermal heating/cooling for buildings over X square feet (large
buildings).
These are just a few ideas, but with the climate crisis and the slow pace of state and federal action we can move forward at a local level.
Thank you for requesting feedback on the 10 year plan.
11/8/2021
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
Should you perhaps include an objective to address VACANT retail and commercial spaces? Seems like we wouldn’t want to keep building more until the vacancies are at
a minimum.
12/2/2021
Eric Martz ericmartz21@gmail.com 01 Policy Goals &
Objectives
My wife, Brenda, and I moved to Plum Creek Village here in Carmel in November 2019 as we downsized and relocated from Geist. We have enjoyed and engaged in many
activities, facilities, resources, and businesses during our time in Carmel. We are proud to call Carmel our home and hope that we can do so for many more years.
We have recently reviewed the Carmel Comprehensive Plan draft. We agree that planning and change are necessary components of any community's vitality and viability.
Still, as the author, Ellen Glasgow, said, "All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward."
Our concern with The Plan is specific to the impact on our lives as our property is on the northeast corner of Medalist Parkway and 126th Street and the implications for
our Plum Creek Village neighborhood in general. We question the transit corridor and housing diversity components as they would seem to be disruptive to the lives of
our neighbors and us. The proposed changes that directly impact our neighborhood will degrade the quality of life and uniqueness of Plum Creek Village residents.
Embracing change is part of life, but it should primarily benefit current residents, not support growth and transition between neighboring areas at the expense of Carmel
residents. Change for change's sake is not sound growth.
12/7/2021
02 Development Patterns
Comments from DRAFT #4, 03/30/2022
Kelly Baskett kelly@akmonuments.com 02 Development
Patterns
Please do not vote for overall plans for more and more density.
People keep voicing about the desire to see density curbed, and this new plan would enhance the development process of the builders, with very, very little protection for
the homeowner (of a single-family home).
There are a lot of people who do not know anything about this new Comprehensive Plan. Can it please be pushed back until more Carmel Citizens know about it?
8/16/2022
28 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Chris Welsh Leonard-Blanche@comcast.net 02 Development
Patterns Please do not make Carmel so dense that it increases commute times and/or makes it impossible to get around. Bike lanes are great but not at the expense of car lanes.
Our weather is not conducive to walking and biking much of the year. The vast majority of people get around using cars. Please do not force us to walk or bike just to
satisfy a small minority of vocal people and groups. Do to force us to leave Carmel because it has become to dense. It seems the city it getting much more dense and I
wonder if that is just to increase the tax base to pay for all the vanity projects.
8/15/2022
Joy Sullivan sullivan70@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
I have several concerns with the overall direction that Carmel is taking. Carmel appears to be on a build, build, build plan and all of it is high end housing. I fear we are
losing our diversity in housing options . We are headed toward only having expensive choices. We need affordable housing for the middle class - our tradesmen and
support staff. If we stay on this trajectory we could end up like SunValley Idaho. They now face a housing. They have priced out their teachers, firemen, restaurant
workers etc. If we keep only supporting high end, high density housing we too will face this problem. It is good to have our support work force live in our community.
Diversity is healthy for a thriving community!!
8/12/2022
Joy Sullivan sullivan70@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
We cherish the wooded feel of Carmel. Guests from other areas always comment on how wonderfully wooded Carmel is.
How will the Comp Plan and Carmel council insist that developers save trees, protect wildlife, and provide green spaces with their project?( not just a bench thrown in )
Green space with a development promotes gathering and a sense of community. When you feel a sense of community you take pride in your surroundings and maintain
them.
We seem to be constantly hearing developers ask for a rezone to accommodate: high density, too tall of buildings , and parking for too small of a space, saying that
because of the cost of the property, it is not financially feasible to save trees, or protect the wildlife, or provide usable green space. I have never heard the Plan
Commission or City Council come back and say they should bring back another proposal, go back to the land seller and say it can't be re-zoned and they will have to offer
a lower price to accommodate the existing zoning.
What is Carmel's goal in terms of population? We are growing at an alarming rate. Can the schools and roads accommodate this goal?
We MUST offer affordable single family housing and duplexes. We need a diverse community and our teachers and police and firemen need to be able to live in our
community. (When the developers of these expensive townhomes are asked about bus stops and green spaces and amenities for families they say they don't have
families living in their communities) We don't want to price out families from Carmel.
All of Carmel should not look the same-- mixed use and commercial property. Variation is good for the community!
This plan appears to set a precedent of allowing high density- 3+ story buildings to abutt single family neighborhoods, devaluing the adjacent properties and potentially
allowing continued encroachment on the existing single family properties.( what is to stop the homeowner adjacent the 3 story development from selling out to the
developer-because they don't want to live near a 3 story building and that developer building another building and so forth, eventually taking over a large part of the
neighborhood?)
8/11/2022
Matthew Pierce mjp.pierce@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
I oppose the limits of the Gateway shown near 96th and Haverstick and feel it should not extend west of Day Drive.
The way the draft plan shows the Gateway, it encompasses several existing single-family homes. The plan's vision appears to be for those existing single-family homes to
be converted to mixed use development with up to 5 story building heights. That is a huge jump from single story homes to what is envisioned in a Gateway.
In addition, the existing low-height commercial in the area provides a proper transition to the neighboring residential neighborhood. If that commercial area actually
redeveloped by what is allowed under a Gateway, our neighborhood would lose a transition.
My family could go from currently in the middle of a wooded residential area, to in the future being adjacent to large development. As a result, I oppose the Gateway
shown in this area.
8/10/2022
Terri Osborn tab189@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
I am opposed to designating College Avenue between 111th and 116th as a “typical corridor”. I live in Applewood Estates just west of College. I do not want retail and
commercial development along this portion of College.
8/9/2022
David Gagliano dave.a.gagliano@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Please revise the maximum height of any building in the downtown Carmel area to ideally 4 stories or certainly no more than 5 stories. 5 stories would be acceptable if it
is not backing up to a single family residence but if that is the case, reduce the maximum to 3 or 4 stories. Keep the largest height for the Meridian Corridor as traffic
generally is passing those buildings at 55 mph. There has been so much remonstrance against height in downtown Carmel and without a dedicated Council advocate,
residents feel helpless. Thank you for your service!
8/5/2022
29 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Kreig Voreis kdvoreis@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
I am a resident of Waterwood of Carmel, which boarders College Ave between 111th and 116th. I saw in the Carmel Current this week that there is discussion on the
designation of College Ave as a Typical Corridor. This area of Carmel is a heavy residential area and one of the few affordable housing areas left in Carmel. I am strongly
opposed to designating College AVE as a Typical Corridor. Please follow suit with removing this designation like the commission did with other residential roads below.
Thank you!
"The commission removed typical corridor designations from Main Street between Keystone Parkway to Hazel Dell Parkway, 126th Street between Keystone Parkway
and River Road, 106th Street from west of U.S. 31 to east of Gray Road and 116th Street from Spring Mill Road to the city’s western boundary."
7/24/2022
Trent Wood trent@nucleusre.com 02 Development
Patterns
I own a home at 10315 N College - on the proposed corridor. When I purchased the home in 2016, it was with the understanding that the ultimate plan would likely be to
develop along College and make it into a typical corridor. I am completely in favor of that direction.
7/18/2022
Bill Shaffer bill@gatea.com 02 Development
Patterns
Adding 22 roundabouts with no cost or safety justification is irresponsible. The city spent a quarter-million dollars on a roundabout return on investment sturdy. Nothing
has been reported publicly. Why add to debt without a payback?
7/18/2022
Cindy Williams williams.cindy09@yahoo.com 02 Development
Patterns
Home Place's Penn Dr, which runs along Pennsylvania St, is a perfect use for a typical corridor. Originally being residential it was wonderful for SFH, now there has been
nothing but commercial building and increased 31 traffic. Redevelopment here could benefit Home Place the most with displacing the least amount of people.
7/14/2022
Holly Bujna bujnaholly@yahoo.com 02 Development
Patterns
Please don't redevelop college. You will be hurting the integrity of the existing established neighborhoods and cause long term residents who live in home place like
myself to have to relocate
7/12/2022
Charles Demler cdemler77@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
I am writing to let you know as a 42 year resident of my home that backs up to AT&T property. Please reduce the 6 story plan from Pure to 2 stories underground and 4
stories high. No other neighborhood in Carmel has a 6 story building backing up to a residential neighborhood.
I also do not want to see any lot splitting in Johnson Addition or Wilson Village. The homes on Emerson Rd are all 35 feet back from the road. Please keep that same
distance moving forward.
5/3/2022
Cindy Babcock cvesco14@yahoo.com 02 Development
Patterns
I have lived in the Wilson Village neighborhood, just west of Midtown and the Monon for 15 years. I attended Monday's City Council meeting and spoke at the public
hearing about my disagreement with the Comp Plan's proposed 6 story maximum height of structures in the Downtown Development Pattern.
The development of Midtown has created a wonderful area; full of vitality, with numerous areas and establishments for people (and pets) of all ages to enjoy. I've studied
the 2012 Speck Midtown Plan for months, and what we see now truly is the first phase of that plan "come to life." My question: Why has the second phase of the Speck
plan, which moves into the area west of 3rd Ave. SW and south of Emerson Drive, not been given any consideration in the continued development of Midtown? What is
proposed in that area now is a 6 story multifamily mixed use structure and office buildings. The Speck plan imagined row homes, 3 story multifamily buildings and high
end single family homes, all in keeping with the current styles seen in Midtown and City Center. The scale of the structures in the Speck plan take into account the
neighboring existing older ranch homes. A 6 story structure is overwhelming in scale, regardless of the transition down to 3 story office buildings, then 1 story homes.
Currently, there are no buildings in Midtown over 5 stories high. Understandably, there are more parcels available to build more multifamily mixed use projects along the
Monon, on the East side of 3rd Ave. SW. However, the West side of 3rd Ave. SW borders on a single family neighborhood of predominantly one story ranch homes. If the
City intends to build 6 story structures, they should remain on the East side of 3rd Ave. SW. I believe consideration should be given to making the West side of 3rd Ave SW
and Industrial Drive a "Sub Area" and restricting heights to 4 stories. I don't see how anything higher can be considered "thoughtful transition."
I do hope City Council will give these thoughts some consideration in their review of the proposed Comp Plan.
4/22/2022
Clay Williams clay.williams7@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Is there anywhere that you can find details about timelines, roadmaps, phases, city priorities, or anything that helps give a rough idea of when to expect these changes to
start happening? Objective 1.1.5 lists 2020-2025 for park & trail systems, but I can't find anywhere that mentions when to expect downtown west/east, white river,
typical corridors, etc. to begin seeing changes that fit into the comprehensive plan.
4/1/2022
Comments from DRAFT #2, 01/20/2022
Kay Mulhall ksemulhall@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
At the December 7, 2021 Planning Commission Mtg, Planning Commission members directed DOCS to remove the corridor designation from several streets including
126th Street east of Keystone. The corridor designation was removed from the other streets with the exception of 126th Street. Why did DOCS override the decision of
the Commission? 126th Street east of Keystone should NOT be designated as a corridor.
1/28/2022
30 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown: (updated) There are still no building height limits specified whatsoever in most of the Downtown area. I recommend a 5-story maximum, with limits of 2-3
stories when in proximity to residential neighborhoods.
Downtown West: (updated) There are still no building height limits specified whatsoever in most of the Meridian corridor. I recommend a 10-story maximum, with
limits of 2-3 stories when in proximity to residential neighborhoods.
White River: (updated) In the "redline" update, 3-story buildings and commercial development are still being encouraged along the full length of the White River in
Carmel, and 6-story buildings are still being encouraged nearby. This is unacceptable for an area that is identified as an "ecological asset" in the Comprehensive Plan.
This area should be preserved for parks, recreation, wildlife, and tree preservation. This is a key issue for a city that likes to market itself as "Tree City USA".
Estates: (updated) In the "redline" update, the DOCS is still lobbying to allow some form of "Hospitality" (and event) uses in the Estates area in SW Carmel, even though
the Plan Commission Committee specifically recommended the removal of that use from the initial draft plan. Why is the DOCS trying to force this "Hospitality" use into
the Estates area, and what do they already have in mind? Also, note the questionable City assurances that noise and other disruptions at venues would be controlled. We
have repeatedly seen that this has not happened with many of the events held at the Lucas Estate. I encourage Plan Commissioners to hold your ground to keep
"Hospitality" uses out of the Estates area.
Typical Corridors: (updated) Thank you for removing the "Typical Corridors" designation for 116th Street west of Spring Mill Road. This is one of the two most
substantial and favorable changes made in the "redline" update. However, I recall that the Plan Commission Committee also recommended removing sections of East
126th Street from the "Typical Corridors" designation, and this does not appear to have been done. Furthermore, I would like to see the removal of the "Typical
Corridors" designation everywhere, at least as currently defined, which still encourages 3-story buildings and commercial development along most of 146th Street, much
of 96th Street, and several other largely-residential streets on the east side. The "Typical Corridors" designation appears to be nothing more than a contrived mechanism
to drive the spread of higher-intensity development into areas that are zoned only for residential purposes. Let's just agree to throw the "Typical Corridors" concept into
the dumpster where it belongs.
Monon Greenway: (updated) Thank you for removing prior wording that had encouraged 5-story buildings along the entire length of the Monon Trail in Carmel. This is
the other of the two most substantial and favorable changes made in the "redline" update. However, commercial development is still being encouraged along the entire
length of the Monon trail, even in established residential areas within the Monon Greenway designation. This needs to be changed.
1/29/2022
William McGinnis william_mcginnis_300@comcast.net 02 Development
Patterns
What is the city's position on residential Bed and Breakfast, trading vacation homes and Granny Shacks (Accessory Dwelling Units? I personally am opposed to such
arrangements.
1/29/2022
Jill Reese jillreese@me.com 02 Development
Patterns
I live in the Estates and object to "Hospitality" being specifically included as a permitted use. I question--whom does this serve? Bed & Breakfast establishments and so-
called "small venues" (the latter term being much too vague) are antithetical to the use desired by the vast, vast majority of homeowners in the Estates. Those examples
of hospitality are much better suited to other development patterns in Carmel. Someone desiring a hospitality use can petition of the BZA for such use. Specifically
including the use in the Comprehensive Plan is unnecessary and appears to be politically motivated and a pretext for something Estate homeowners have already
established they do not want. Moreover, I believe it has been demonstrated that current noise ordinances and the like have not be sufficient to curb past hospitality use
disputes. See, for example,
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/2018/07/16/lucas-defies-carmels-shutdown-party-barn/776832002/
1/28/2022
Kathleen Dunbar kathyadunbar@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
I am confused. It was discussed in one of the meetings that the Estates section should remain Residential and remove Hospitality from the uses. The draft plan reads that
way now, which is good. However, the annotated version says it is up for discussion again in order to allow bed and breakfast and other small venues? What has
happened to have to discuss this again? Did I miss a meeting?
1/23/2022
31 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Julie Kempf juliekempf@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
The Typical Corridors are still widely inconsistent in the current draft and need revision (pdf 1/20/22; online map viewed 1/28/22). Are these typical corridors needed in
this plan at all? If they are needed, the corridors along 106th, College, and Pennsylvania in the greater Home Place area need to be removed.
If the primary purpose of a typical corridor is to “provide connectivity” other major routes such as Rangeline, Keystone, Meridian, Towne, all of 116th, and all of Main St
need to be identified as such too. However, based on the Commission's discussion and highlighted further by the revised purpose, typical corridors seem to be more
focused on "expanded development" than city connectivity, which is why there was heartburn about some "green" corridors being listed as a typical corridor.
There is a significant concentration of typical corridors in south central Carmel in/around Home Place which also seems out of place. Is this level of concentration
appropriate? As a resident of this area, I don't see the concentration of travel greater here than other parts of Carmel, especially the major N/S corridor of Rangeline Road
(not currently identified as one). Pennsylvania Parkway is a nice route, but doesn't its neighboring road (Meridian) serve as the primary N/S corridor? Pennsylvania
Parkway already is under the US 31/Meridian development pattern, so what is the purpose of Penn. Pkwy as a corridor? College Ave will be a nice Blvd once the upcoming
work is complete, but I don't know that it's a more significant corridor than other roads in Carmel.
How were the identified corridors selected? Do they have any concrete measures such as vehicular usage? The current selection seems haphazard.
I believe the problem is lack of a well-defined purpose/intention to corridors. Would it be better to define corridors as simply the major routes that provide important
connectivity within Carmel and to neighboring communities? That is, they are solely defined as significant thoroughfares within and through Carmel (based on some
travel metrics) WITHOUT noting expanded development and how they are to be treated, look, or feel. Some corridors need to have limited development to create a green
feel and others need to have expanded development to provide amenities depending on specific location, context, and needs. It's hard to treat all corridors the same and
I don't think there is anything wrong with different land use patterns with individual corridors, or even sections of the same corridor.
But in the end, it may be simplest to remove the corridors entirely. We all know where development is needed and desired in Carmel. We don't need corridors to tell us
so.
1/28/2022
Peter Langowski mandplango@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Additional neighborhood serving commercial along 126th St. east of Keystone in the "connector" is not appropriate in my opinion. Consider creating a "transportation
connector" designation whose purpose is to connect the movement of people as applicable for 126th east of Keystone. "Commercial connector" is what the document
currently reads whenever the word "connector" is used.
1/24/2022
32 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 02 Development
Patterns
2.1 Development Patterns
Under “Open Space” Please encourage usable green space.
PLEASE ON EACH OF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN PAGES 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos to include a small map with the
area described colored.
(Downtown, p. 28) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos to include a small map with the area described colored.
General Use Categories: “Small Batch Manufacturing/Educational Hospitality” should be in magenta.
(Downtown West, p. 29) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos and include a small map with the area described colored.
Max Height (stories). Protect 1 and 2-story residents. Include a step up from 1 to 2-story residential areas to 5 stories.
(Downtown East, p. 30) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos to include a small map with the area described colored.
(West Neighborhoods, p. 31) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos to include a small map with the area described colored. Why
has this changed from its previous standard of one unit/acre? Why do most of the photos appear to be from Village of West Clay, although there are many additional
neighborhoods?
Typical Lot Size: I think should be ½ to 5 acres.
(East Neighborhoods, p. 32) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos to include a small map with the area described colored.
(White River, p. 33) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos to include a small map with the area described colored.
continued below...
1/31/2022
33 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 02 Development
Patterns
(Estates, p. 34) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos and include a small map with the area described colored.
Typical Lot size: Not true: Should be 2.4 unit/acre to 5 acres or varies to 5 acres.
General Use Categories Permitted: Neighbors and Plan Commissioners asked that Hospitality be removed as a use. Since it was removed, why has this discussion
returned? Hospitality, Bed and Breakfast and small venue should not be included as uses. I have heard that enforcement for noise and traffic has not worked for
neighbors.
(Gateway, p. 35, previously was Michigan p. 36) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos to include a small map with the area
described colored.
Max Height (stories): 5. Why is this height necessary? Protect 1 and 2-story residents. Include a step up from 1 to 2 story residential areas to 5 stories.
(Typical Corridors, p. 36) “They allow expanded housing options”. Are you allowing and protecting existing Single-Family homes? Protect 1 and 2-story residents. Include
a step up from 1 to 2-story residential areas to higher buildings. (Monon Urban Boulevard, p, 37) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the
photos to include a small map with the area described colored.
Max Height (stories) 5 “only when within 200 feet of edge of development patterns”. Protect 1 and 2-story residents. Include a step up from 1 to 2-story residential
areas to 5 stories.
(Monon Greenway, p. 38) 1. Add names of streets surrounding the area. 2. Remove a few of the photos to include a small map with the area described colored.
Max Height (stories): 5. Protect 1 and 2-story residents. Include a step up from 1 to-2 story residential areas to 5 stories.
2.2 Development Patterns Map
Land Classification Plan 2009, p. 39. Please explain why the southwest corner of Carmel is “Areas Excluded from the Land Classification Map.” Several people have called
me about this. I am guessing that other people wonder about it too. If the reason was that following annexation the land was never reclassified, then add that or an
appropriate explanation to the map.
Development Patterns Plan Recommended Update, p. 40: Change the color for public parks or use a hashmarks or an outline. They are hard to see.
continued below...
1/31/2022
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com 02 Development
Patterns
2.3 Development Pattern Summary
Max Height Stories: Add Step up by stories next to residential area to Downtown, Downtown West, Downtown East, West Neighborhoods, White River, Monon Urban
Boulevard, Gateway, Estates, Typ. Lot Size (AC): 5+ is not accurate. At least change Estates to Varies to 5 +.
Thoroughfare Plan Recommended Update: Why have you recategorized several Local Streets to Boulevards. (Along 116th St, 106th, Towne Road, Spring Mill Road.)
1/31/2022
Denise Waite dpwaite490@outlook.com 02 Development
Patterns
126th Street - During the November 29 planning commission meeting, there was significant discussion regarding the classification of Main Street and 126th Street as
corridors. Carrie Holle and Woody Rider requested the removal of both Main Street and 126th Street as corridors. Christine Zoccola indicated that the general sentiment
is to take them out. Again, at the November 30 meeting, Christine reiterated that the general sentiment was to remove Main Street and 126th Street as corridors.
However, the revised draft continues to reflect 126th Street as a corridor. The committee also requested that W 116th Street be removed as a corridor. The revised draft
reflects all requests except 126th Street. Why was the request of the committee disregarded?
1/31/2022
Denise Waite dpwaite490@outlook.com 02 Development
Patterns
East Neighborhood - There is a discrepancy between the pdf map and the online map. On the pdf Development Patterns map, the residential area south of River Road
Park to 122nd Street appears to be labeled as East Neighborhood. However, on the Development Patterns map at carmelcomprehensiveplan.com, it appears this area
has no designation. What is the correct designation for this area?
1/31/2022
Lisa Sharlow sharlow2002@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
I was horrified to learn that you are trying to develop a number of streets in West Carmel from local streets to boulevards. 106, 96, Towne, etc. This will increase traffic,
noise, and crime. We are already dealing with breakins with these streets zones as local, what will we be looking at when they become boulevards? What will happen
when the large estates have more functions and bring in more people with their crime, noise, traffic, litter and total disregard for the residents that live here and bought
these properties after having been promised that the area will stay rural and quiet. I am strongly opposed to the changes you are trying to make. Please don't ruin our
great city. Slow down the growth and think about what the increase in businesses and people will do to our beautiful city.
1/31/2022
Gary Bilsland gbilsland@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
I understand the plan is to change Towne Road from 96th Street to 116th Street, from “Local” to “Boulevard”. I am opposed to this change, I travel this road all the time
and do not see the necessity for this. Traffic is NEVER a problem, The current road can handle the traffic it carries.
I am also opposed to any pathway to increase the density and add commercial mix-use/ multi level developments anywhere west of Spring Mill Road and along typical
corridors in West Carmel.
2/1/2022
34 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Ken Barthel kenb170@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
2.1 - Estates; the comment suggesting that "hospitality" or small venues be permitted on or around the estate section or anywhere in West Carmel is commercialization
and is not appropriate.
West Neighborhoods - this description appears to be focused on the Village of West Clay and from the pictures used, depicts VWC and is not representative of "west"
neighborhood. The goal should not be to transform West Carmel into the same concept as the VWC.
2/1/2022
Susan Hanthorn smhanthorn@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
I have either attended or watched meetings of the Carmel Plan Commission regarding the Comprehensive Plan. During these meetings, there were discussions about
changing many items in the plan and the changes were made accordingly. One item discussed was 126th Street designated as being a typical corridor. It was my
understanding that after that discussion and recommendations from several individuals on the commission, the designation would be removed. Yet it still remains in the
plan for approval. It is hard to understand why it is necessary to designate 126th as a typical corridor. When I look at the Development Patterns map, 146th is also
designated as a typical corridor. Does that mean those of us who live along 126th Street can expect the same wide, busy road; commercial businesses like storage
facilities and gas stations and a huge increase of density in housing? I am opposed to 126th Street being designated a typical corridor. I do not believe that it is necessary.
I am not against change, in fact I embrace the changes that have been made to the city center and am proud of our city. But I don’t believe that big change and growth is
always necessary. Slow down…take time to listen to the residents. As I mentioned in a previous post: with a population of approximately 104,918 residents in Carmel, why
weren’t more residents asked to participate in the initial survey that was taken regarding this plan? Barely 1% of the residents of Carmel participated. How many of those
1000+ people actually live near where the changes are being made? My opinion is that more residents should be asked for their opinion of this proposed plan and it
should not move forward to be voted on until that happens.
2/2/2022
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Introduction (pg. 27): “Each Development Pattern uses the inherent contextual qualities with its place in Carmel to shape future growth and development decision
making that is consistent with that overall character.” An additional “Typical Corridor Pattern", is used to define how the surrounding Development Pattern may be
complemented to meet that particular corridor.”
* Most of what the new Comp Plan proposes is not consistent with the overall character of Carmel’s existing single-family residential Districts. The added “Typical
Corridors” are just an excuse for the City to insert lucrative commercial/mixed-use development where it is currently not zoned, needed, or wanted. Addition of taller
buildings, commercial/mixed-use development, and lot-splitting where residential Development Patterns meet the street corridor certainly does not “complement" those
Development Patterns.
Development Pattern Descriptions (pg. 27):
*** The deliberate omission of any mention of or comparison of density in Carmel’s different areas is unacceptable. City government has made clear that it doesn’t care
about density, but density is of utmost importance to residents. Density is a determining factor of “character”, serves to distinguish between different areas, and the
public understands it and uses it when making home buying decisions.*** Please make the following information available to the public: The zoned density range, and
the average existing density for the West Neighborhoods, Estates, and East Neighborhoods areas, and in the customary units per acre (not lots per acre).
BLOCK SIZE: Does anyone know why this is important? How will this be used?
LOT SIZE: There is a large range of lot sizes in every area of Carmel now, since the City has ignored the zoning, and approved rezones parcel by parcel to allow new
developments to have higher density and smaller lots.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Please list both stories and height in feet, so that everyone can visualize this. When Max. Height says, “5 stories within 200 feet of edge of pattern
area where 5 is the max”, what pattern area(s) would that be?
Downtown & Downtown West need an overall maximum height limit, and a significantly lower height limit when next to homes. Downtown East & Gateway also need a
lower height limit when next to homes.
OPEN SPACE: Please specify what this typically includes, such as retention ponds.
GENERAL USE CATEGORIES: States, “Typical uses that may generally be found within the Development Pattern." There is confusion about whether these lists contain
currently permitted uses, additional new uses that the City wants to allow in an area, or both.
(continued below...)
2/6/2022
35 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown (pg. 28):
* States that residential uses are important. So, don’t box-in existing homes with tall buildings and small buffers. Needs an overall maximum height limit to protect the
character of the Arts & Design District (I suggest 5 stories), and a maximum height limit when next to homes (I suggest no more than a 1-story increase).
* Hospitality Use: I ask again, what are the specific uses included under this category? * Why is “Retail” sometimes separated out from “Commercial” use?
Downtown West (pg. 29):
* Needs an overall maximum height limit, so we don’t end up with skyscrapers. Also needs a maximum height limit when next to homes, that transitions away by 1-story
increments. * This is the appropriate place for dense, mixed-use development and parking garages, as long as it includes exceptional transitioning, setbacks, and
buffering for nearby homes.
Downtown East (pg.30):
* Max Height on pg. 30 and on Summary page 42 are not consistent. * Also needs a lower height limit when next to homes.
West Neighborhoods (pg. 31):
* Maximum Height (stories): Why has the height limit for all of Carmel’s "2-story homes" now been raised to 2.5 stories? Please also include the equivalent height limit
in feet.
* General Use Categories Permitted: It is deceptive that Commercial use is not listed in any of the single-family residential Development Patterns, but the City proposes
to use its newly proposed “Typical Corridor” designations (146th Street in this case) to allow both a 1-story height increase, smaller lot size, and Commercial use in S-1
zoned West Carmel that would not permit this.
* Currently, large lots and setbacks along 146th Street provide their own buffers, so lot splitting into smaller lots would only make the noise exposure worse. Why
doesn’t Carmel just support the longtime homeowners along W. 146th Street by building a set back, landscaped wall along the Carmel side of 146th Street, as has been
done on other sections of 146th Street that border residential developments?
* The pictured homes are not typical of the wide variety of neighborhood homes in this area.
East Neighborhoods (pg. 32):
* Height limit raised from 2 stories to 2.5 stories. Open Space should include Subdivision Common Areas.
* General Use Categories Permitted: Includes “Commercial” on this pg 32, but “Commercial” is not listed for East Neighborhoods on the Summary pg 42. (Continued
below...)
2/6/2022
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River (pg. 33):
* Keep this area as natural as possible. Spare it from being converted into just another entertainment venue. * Maximum Height (stories): 2 greater than adjacent
development pattern, max. 3 stories along the river, and max. 6 stories along 96th St. and at the E/W gateways are all too tall. Please at least reduce each of these to be
one story less than listed here. * Please include the people who live in this area in the early planning and design stages.
Estates (pg. 34):
* Height limit raised from 2 stories to 2.5 stories. * General Use Categories Permitted: The DOCS is still pushing to allow certain Hospitality uses and “small venues",
even though area residents and Plan Commissioners requested that Hospitality uses not be added as a permitted use. For the reasons stated in my recent letter, I urge
the Plan Commissioners to stand firm on keeping the permitted uses in the Estates area “Residential only."
* Also, the north side of W. 96th Street is the southern border of Carmel's Estates area, and the City has labelled W. 96th Street a newly designated “Typical Corridor”
that allows a 1-story height increase, lot splitting, and commercial use that the S-1 zoning does not permit. I believe that W. 96th Street between Shelborne Road and just
past Ditch Road should not be designated a “Typical Corridor” because that portion of Carmel’s north side of 96th Street is lined with Estate area established homes and 2
churches.
Gateway (pg. 35):
* Michigan Road is a widely familiar location. “Gateway” has no identity. Please consider naming the 2 Gateways separately, based on recognizable location: Michigan
Road Gateway, and 96th St. Gateway. * Maximum Height (5 stories): Specify that where adjacent to single-family homes, the nearest building be no more than 1-story
greater, with 1-story step-up transitions from there. This would prevent repeating the mistake made at the Steadman apartments at The Bridges, where the “buffer” 3-
story building height next to the street could jump directly to 5 stories (a very “in-your-face” objectionable view to the homeowners just across the street).
(continued below...)
2/6/2022
36 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors (pg. 36): “They allow expanded housing options and limited commercial as long as they are consistent with the character of adjacent patterns.”
* I am so grateful to the Plan Commission for removal of beautiful W. 116th St. from the Typical Corridors designation. Thank you!
* Despite the reworded attempt at justification, a more accurate term would be “Targeted” Corridors. These are just an excuse and “green light” for City government to
push commercial uses, increased density and height, and smaller lots into single-family residential areas where this is not permitted by the zoning. (Also, this street
designation would essentially enable the City's very unpopular “20-minute neighborhood” concept, without actually using that name trigger.) The description uses vague
words open to interpretation, and contains no limits on development total size or frequency.) This Typical Corridor development would not serve as a “buffer”, but rather
as an incompatible intrusion. Homes along roads are generally already buffered via larger lot size, setback distance, fences, walls, and/or trees. This is a City government-
desired “solution” in search of a problem. Please make this added road designation go away.
Monon Greenway (pg. 38): I appreciate the removal of encouraging 5-story buildings along the Monon. Please keep this Greenway as natural as possible, by also
removing “Commercial” as a permitted use. At the very least, I think that any Commercial uses should be limited to specific lowest-impact uses, and limited in frequency
to “few and far between.”
2/6/2022
Terry Thurston terryjthurston@icloud.com 02 Development
Patterns
There is still concern from many residents in Plum Creek Village about the plans for 126th St. Page 40 states "maintained 126th St corridor to connect core with river
amenities." Page 56 shows 126th St as an arterial street. Page 58 defines arterial street as 4-5 lanes. Four - 5 lanes would potentially impact the entrances to our
neighborhood (Plum Creek village). Is the intent to extend 126th Street into the park? Parking facilities are currently located off of River Road.
There is a proposed roundabout at 122nd St and Medalist Parkway at the entrance to Plum Creek Village. We currently have a traffic and speed issue with folks cutting
through our neighborhood from River Rd to access 126th St. There is also a golf cart path just north of this intersection which is currently a 3- way stop. A roundabout
would potentially encourage more traffic and speed through our neighborhood.
There is a proposed roundabout at 126th St at River Road which has little traffic. Is the purpose of this to extend 126th St. into the park?
2/5/2022
Comments from the INITIAL DRAFT, 10/08/2021
Barbara Eden edenbarbara@att.net 02 Development
Patterns
Development Pattern photo examples - should they all be of Carmel locations? Or could they be better examples more indicative of the actual Carmel development
patterns?? And respective of different home types in one Development Pattern area??
10/25/2021
Barbara Eden edenbarbara@att.net 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown East Purpose: "Downtown's eastern edge transitions in density toward residential neighborhoods east of Keystone Parkway. Intended to have more
integrated mixed uses as redevelopment occurs." Include mentioning residential neighborhoods to South also
10/25/2021
Julie Kempf juliekempf@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown East: There is a substantial section of the Northridge residential subdivision in south central Carmel that is currently classified as "Downtown East." My
neighbors and I believe this classification is inappropriate. The "East Neighborhoods" classification is a better fit.
10/30/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown West (Meridian Street corridor): The draft plan does not specify any building height limits whatsoever in most of the Downtown West area. This is
unacceptable. A reasonable proposal would be a limit of 10 stories, with limits of only 2-3 stories within proximity of existing residential areas.
11/11/2021
Barbara Eden edenbarbara@att.net 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown West Purpose: "Carmel's freeway corridor with expansive visibility and easy freeway access buffering the freeway from the neighborhoods to the west and
urban core to the east." There are also residential neighborhoods to east, not just "urban core"
10/25/2021
Alex Buckler akbuckler27@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown West(?): I am deeply concerned about the multifamily community and hospitality use that is planned at Spring Mill and 111th St. Before this PUD was
approved over a decade ago, was it not the stance that anything west of Illinois would be kept residential without the concern of commercial and hospitality
developments creeping in? It appears however that big business has won out over the interest of its citizens who now have to deal with the increased traffic, light
pollution, and noise pollution. It is incomprehensible how this could have been approved especially with the estates that flank it to the south and west. What about the
people who have invested a great deal of money and time into their properties with the thought they would provide privacy to only have that taken away and their
property value diminished? I for one do not want to look out my front window at a 5 story high apartment building.
11/10/2021
Justin Hendricks jmechendricks@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
I tuned in to the Plan Commission meeting this evening (Nov 29). While Spring Lake Estates did come up when reviewing the Downtown West development pattern
(thank you, Christine), it was not specifically noted the potential impact of undesirable development immediately south of the neighborhood, north of 116th Street, east
of Spring Mill Road, west of Illinois Street. I believe the comprehensive plan is able to more easily deliver a path for development including PUDs, and development of
that land, particularly the north most wooded area, would result in elimination of visual and auditory barriers considerably reducing home values and a safe haven for
local wildlife. Ordinance Z-409-03 Clarian Hospital North excludes these woods from the PUD, and the proposed comprehensive plan draft includes this area in the
Downtown West development pattern where the characteristics read "Max Height (stories) 5 only when within 200 feet of edge of development pattern where 5 stories
is the max; 3 story minimum at intersections." Presumably, approving the new comprehensive plan in its current state would open the door for 3 to 5 story buildings in
our back yards.
What can the Plan Commission do address this issue in the proposed draft plan? Is there an opportunity to move the southern West Neighborhoods border of this area
to encompass the woods excluded from the PUD such that it reflects current zoning (S-2)?
11/29/2021
37 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown: The draft plan does not specify any building height limits whatsoever in most of the Downtown area. This is unacceptable. A reasonable proposal would be
a limit of 5 stories, with limits of only 2-3 stories within proximity of existing residential areas.
11/11/2021
David Gagliano dave.a.gagliano@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown: Apartments are already overbuilt in downtown Carmel. Keep any future lease/rentals to along the Meridian Corridor if height is going to be allowed.
Apartments are so overbuilt in downtown Carmel already and the vacancy rate will increase dramatically as a result of aging of buildings; further construction (supply vs.
demand) and the housing market correction as owners who sold their primary residences and were forced to rent in order to make a "no contingency offer" succeed in
buying their new home.
11/12/2021
David Gagliano dave.a.gagliano@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown: For downtown Carmel, please do NOT allow single family lots to be subdivided further for two houses. The lots are abnormally small already and
subdividing further like what was permitted on Main and York is atrocious. It ruins a neighborhood completely and decreases values for any adjacent properties as well
as those in the "neighborhood".
11/12/2021
Deborah Washburn deborahwas@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown: I own a single family home in the Downtown area which is highlighted in pink on the map and considered as a “special study” area. What does this mean? My
mothers lives in this smaller home and her neighbors are greatly diversified across many ethnicities and nationalities, along with single adults, all who would be displaced
out of Carmel, their hometown, if your special study decides that their affordable housing does not fit in with the vision that a special study group would determine not to
be good for the future of the city. Just want to make sure that affordable existing single family housing remains within the city of Carmel. Not everyone want to live in a
high density building and new is not necessarily better.
10/26/2021
Linda Cornwell lindacor1413@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Downtown: The building of high-rise apartments and condos in the downtown area of Carmel has resulted in increased population density which is starting to strain the
downtown infrastructure and roadways. To avoid the overpopulation of the downtown area, please stop the building of multiple dwelling buildings such as the high-rise
apartments on the Monon Trail.
10/28/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
The idea that "Downtown" extends all the way south to 116th St. is ridiculous.
It is as silly as saying that 38th St. is downtown Indianapolis! It is urban, no doubt, but does not have any of the flair of the Carmel downtown with (unfortunately rarer
and rarer) small cozy homes and interesting shops. The many individual homes along the south of 116th street in so-called Downtown are better placed in the East
Neighborhoods while the buildings north of 116th St. have been turned it into more of a Commercial Corridor.
White River is an odd concept the way it is bounded. Why in the world would a school that serves the East Neighborhoods be yanked out of the very neighborhoods it
serves and made part of White River, protruding into its rightful home? Other sections of White River are also a batch of odd peninsulas that are completely divorced
from the river as such. This is especially true of the anvil shape north of 116th and west of Hazel Dell, but also the section north of 96th St. and west of Grey Road. The
commercial strip along 96th has more in common in terms of character with the Meridian Corridor, which has been misleadingly named "Downtown West" although it
too is far from the geography and character of a Midwest Downtown. How about renaming all these things "Commercial Corridor"? - that is most descriptive.
I find it most disturbing to look at what is intended for what was originally a lovely area of S1 development. The encroachment of commercial north and south of 116th
on west side of Spring Mill is like a threat to the rest of what is currently the West Neighborhood and Estates. Also west along Illinois St where it empties into Spring Mill
is a most peculiar triangle of land considered "West Downtown" although to the north and west is Estates.
I fail to see the reason of naming anything "Downtown East" - either it is downtown or it is a residential area like the East Neighborhood and should be included in that.
12/7/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Estates (Southwest Carmel): What is envisioned by the proposed "hospitality" uses in the draft plan? It is obvious that City officials are up to something here.11/11/2021
Kathleen Dunbar kathyadunbar@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
Estates: Why is hospitality a part of the Estates Development pattern? Estates should be strictly residential. Hospitality seems very broad and could include bars and
restaurants....not wanted!
10/19/2021
Jacob Gorden jacob@heartlandhealthinsurance.com 02 Development
Patterns
Hello! First off, I love this city and I wouldn't raise my kids anywhere else. We live in West Carmel and I would like to see more connectivity from West Carmel to
downtown Carmel. It seems like central Carmel and East Carmel have easier access to downtown. I'd love to see some safe, multi-use paths connecting the West side to
the Arts and Design District, Farmer's Market, etc. Perhaps something that connects directly with the Monon. A path on 116th would be great. Especially that can get
you all the way West to Michigan Rd, but also to Central Carmel, as stated above.
I think an old school movie theater with big marquee could be really cool too. I think we need a new movie theater. That's all for now, I may share more later!
10/21/2021
38 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Erin Shea elockie6@hotmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
It has been exciting seeing the development of this wonderful city. I had one area in which I would like to provide feedback. As Carmel continues to grow, I think it’s very
important to not lose sight of appropriately sized green space and community gathering sites. I already see areas being overly crowded for events that could be
amazingly enjoyable. However, long lines and complete congestion already seem to be an issue. It will deter people and diminish the appeal of attending these events, as
it has with my family.
One example was Oktoberfest. The Oktoberfest celebration this year was a brilliant idea. But as we arrived 20 minutes after it’s start, the lines were as long as the street
and no place to sit, we immediately turned around and left along with many others. I feel this is becoming a trend in our green space/gathering places. And I worry about
how unappealing events will become as our population grows. We should be able to attend and enjoy events in our community without the stress of wondering if we’ll
have to wait in line for an hour to get water. I am grateful for the opportunity to submit feedback as a member of the community and hope you consider this as you plan
for future development.
11/4/2021
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Monon Greenway Feedback: re "Streetscape Facilities Residential Sidewalk, Multi-use Path, Enhanced Multi-use Path, Bike/Scooter Parking, Mobility Lane, Cycle Track,
Bioswale, Open Space Parks, Plazas, Town Greens/Squares, Courtyards, Greenways, Conservation Areas"
The Greenway portions of the Monon (north and south of the Urban portion) should be protected and the entire path needs to be a conservation area with minimal
interruptions/paths into neighborhoods. No more condos/ townhomes/ shops bordering the Greenway please.
Adding manicured parks, plazas, squares, courtyards etc will ruin the natural beauty and history of the Monon. I would advocate for a generous buffer of trees and native
species between the Monon Greenway and future developments along the Monon. Healthy living includes access to nature within the 20min city concept.
10/29/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Monon Greenway: The draft plan encourages 5-story buildings and commercial development along the full length of the Monon Trail across Carmel. One can just
envision the current canopy of trees being replaced by a wall of 5-story buildings, broken up by numerous clusters of bars and suitably "vibrant" restaurants. Please leave
the Monon Trail the way it is, and protect the nearby residents from rampant over-development.
11/11/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors: The draft plan encourages 3-story buildings (sometimes higher) and commercial development along several so-called "Typical Corridors" in residential
areas throughout Carmel. This includes 96th Street from Michigan Road east to the Monon Trail, 116th Street from the Boone County line east to Keystone Parkway,
126th Street from Keystone Parkway east to River Road, Main Street from Old Meridian Street east to past Hazel Dell Parkway, 146th Street across almost of all of
Carmel, and College Avenue from 96th Street north to 116th Street. Clearly, such development would completely change the character of many residential areas
throughout Carmel. Of all the undesirable concepts being proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan, this is probably the worst. Please toss this ill-advised idea into the
dumpster where it belongs.
11/11/2021
Susie Moore mooreworld1@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors: I am extremely concerned about the idea to develop commercial nodes at the roundabouts on 116th and 106th streets in southwest Carmel. This
area is full of multimillion dollar estates, and the reason we moved here is to be away from commercial development. We totally understood when we built our homes
that we were not within walking distance of a grocery store, etc. and that is totally fine. It is horrifying to think that one can invest millions of dollars in one's home, only
to have a strip mall or restaurant be built across the street. That in NOT why we chose southwest Carmel in which to live! PLEASE do not even consider this horrible idea
here. I love the idea of multiuse paths and bike paths to connect the streets and allow for bike rides to The Bridges of Carmel or over to Michigan Road, but DO NOT
adulterate the beautiful open green space and large estates with commercial development! Thank you, Susie Moore
1151 W 116th St, Carmel
10/26/2021
Joseph Thomas jt434067@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors: I am quite concerned that the defined uses of corridor defined routes will degrade the neighborhood quality and feel and eventually fall prey to retail
establishments mixed into those areas. Such establishments (bars, restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores etc) are already plentiful and would serve little value now
and long into the future.
11/2/2021
James Noland noland.james@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors: The goal of making Carmel a 20 minute city is irrational. If each resident is within 20 minutes walking of most daily needs there would be and incredible
redundancy of stores and services where they could not be profitable. This idea would however provide a foothold for commercial development near any neighborhood.
A Bad idea. One that would ruin the residential nature of Carmel West.
11/4/2021
James Noland noland.james@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors: We do not need a commercial development within a 20 minute walk of every home. The character of 116th street would be adversely affected and
devalue homes presently there. Estate owners might be encouraged to leave the area.
10/27/2021
Betty Wessel baycitywessel@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors: Why isn't 116 street considered a typical corridor from Keystone to River road? Why isn't 126 street considered a typical corridor from Hazeldell to
Keystone?
10/31/2021
39 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
I am trying to visualize the planned for allowable building densities along a typical corridor.
Take 116th street going west from Springmill Rd to the Boone County line.
North of this stretch of 116th is the West Neighborhoods Development Pattern with proposed planned for lot sizes ranging from 1/8 acre to 5 acres.
South of this stretch of 116th is the West Neighborhoods Development Pattern where typical lot sizes are greater than 5 acres.
In the Typical Corridor Development Pattern, lot splits will be allowed and automatic if the lot split "results in lots that are within 20% of the size of the typical lot size in
the adjacent development pattern."
Does this mean that for parts of corridors where the properties outside but adjacent to the corridor are on half acres lots, the lots inside the corridor could be split
without review and public input as long as the split resulted in two lots that were only 20% smaller than the adjacent half acre lots?
Or does it mean that lots can be automatically split on the north side of 116th street where 116th is adjacent to the West Neighborhoods Development Pattern as long
as the resulting lots are no more than 20% smaller than 1/8 acre?
What is the reference for "20% smaller?"
11/22/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors
-----------------------------------------
In the Introduction to the Development Patterns Section the draft of the Comprehensive Plan says......
-----------------------------------------
Along select primary corridors that are of city-wide importance, an additional Development Pattern, the Corridor Pattern, is used to define how the surrounding
Development Pattern may be complemented to meet that particular corridor.
-----------------------------------------
The claim is made that the new Typical Corridors Development Pattern has "city-wide importance."
When you think about the city-wide importance of the Typical Corridors as a Development Pattern, you shouldn't think about the transportation importance of these
corridors. That is discussed in other parts of the plan.
The importance of these corridors to allow travel in the City by car, bike or by walking is discussed in the Street Typologies section.
These corridors are not important for connecting residents to a transit system that would take them to destinations in Carmel or beyond since a transit system like this is
not important enough to be discussed anywhere in the plan
So subtracting out these transportation concerns, what is the city-wide importance of the Typical Corridors Development Pattern?
This is not explained or defended anywhere in the Comp Plan.
In the Development Patterns section, the city-wide importance of Typical Corridors isn't related to transportation. The Typical Corridors Development Pattern is creating
a community goal through the Comp Plan to encourage higher density of residential and commercial development along these corridors radiating out in all directions
from the city center.
This is not smart growth. Smart growth concentrates growth close to the city center.
This is urban sprawl.
Does creating a Comprehensive Plan that encourages urban sprawl have city-wide importance?
11/22/2021
Kay Mulhall ksemulhall@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors:
All of the characteristics listed under Typical Corridors are designed to increase the ability for the city to increase the density in neighborhoods throughout the city (taller
buildings, smaller lot sizes, greater building coverage). It is clear that the desire to aggressively grow Carmel to increase tax revenue and make projects easier for private
developers far outweighs the desire of residents who actually live in the neighborhoods along the corridors.
General Use Categories Permitted Based on adjacent development pattern plus limited neighborhood-serving retail/commercial built consistent with the adjacent
character.
Who decides what is "consistent with the adjacent character" of the neighborhood? The city? The private developer? The neighborhood residents?
11/29/2021
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 02 Development
Patterns
Yeah to Christine Zoccola!!!! Yes, please take out the "typical corridor" designation on 116th Street between Spring Mill and Michigan Road. There was a lengthy
discussion at the Plan Commission meeting 11/29 about concern that this corridor will lose it's character and I whole-heartedly agree.
The Comp Plan page 33 (Typical Corridors) says: "General Use Categories Permitted: Based on adjacent development pattern PLUS limited neighborhood serving
retail/commercial built consistent with the adjacent character as otherwise described". This clearly allows retail/commercial along the 116th Street corridor. DELETE
THAT TYPICAL CORRIDOR!
11/29/2021
40 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Ilene Smith schanksmith@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
Let's remember WHY people move to Carmel before we force more development. We could choose to live in an urban city, if we wish, or move toward the suburbs,
which is CARMEL. We don't want businesses (either retail or commercial) right next door to our homes, unless a homeowner has chosen to reside in an area zoned for
mixed-use. We want safe neighborhoods, great schools, beautiful green space. The concept for most suburban neighborhoods is that we can commute to work or
restaurants or nightlife, rather than live within it. If we want to live within it, then we choose to live in an urban area along with more noise and traffic. People in CARMEL
don't want that. We want the suburban experience with less noise and traffic.
DO NOT create a commercial corridor on 116th Street or any other area between Carmel and Zionsville. Those thoroughfares are at capacity as they are and cannot
manage additional traffic and noise. The homeowners nearby opted for the space as it currently exists and would most certainly not have built or moved into homes near
retail or commercial development. The many schools along these corridors and in these areas deserve the quiet and safety of neighborhoods. There's no need for any
retail nor commercial development near schools.
This concept of a "retail/commercial corridor" will disturb the suburban serenity and safety that we all wanted when we moved to the suburbs. Additionally, there is
currently a surplus of retail and commercial real estate and no need for additional retail/commercial development. Note that there's a saturation point for customers and
most new businesses don't create new customers and bring more success for each entity. Instead, they often cannibalize customers from other businesses, leading to
failed businesses and a further glut of abandoned commercial space. If we wanted to walk or ride a bike to the store, then we'd live in an urban neighborhood or a mixed-
use area with that option. We moved to CARMEL so that we wouldn't be right next to retail or commercial businesses and we're happy to bike or drive 10-15 minutes for
whatever conveniences we choose. The charm of CARMEL is the blend of homes that have welcomed a growing city. Don't sacrifice the suburbs for the city ~ the citizens
of CARMEL don't want that.
While we all want progress, let's pause and think about consequences before forging ahead.
1/2/2022
Kathy Clark kaclark1948@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
> Please remove the term "Typical Corridor" from 126th and Main Streets east of Keystone.
> Plan's color designations are quite confusing.
- Please re-color/re-designate Plum Creek Village as yellow to render it an East Neighborhood NOT White River
- Please designate ALL schools and school properties one color (only some schools are culled out and specifically designated).
- Please designate ALL golf courses and parks one color (Here again, only some are so designated)
- Please designate Conner Prairie owned property different from White River property (simple color change)
12/1/2021
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
Typical Corridors are nothing more than the attempt to subvert Zoning and destroy the character of the neighborhoods they bound.
This is especially true of the "typical corridor", actually a rolling country road, along 116th St.
East 126th St. corridor has also been inserted into completely residential development with certain standards and intends to increase density and add commercial
atypical of the existing East Neighborhoods.
Even Main Street corridor as it extends east away from the actual denser and mixed use downtown area encroaches with unnatural demands for development in
established East Neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone Ave.
12/7/2021
Jill Reese jillreese@me.com 02 Development
Patterns
I have watched the meetings online, and I sincerely thank all the committee members for your preparation and time in reviewing the proposed revised Carmel Comp Plan.
Please continue to ask tough questions and suggest changes that you believe behoove all citizens.
In particular, I thank Ms. Zoccola, Ms. Holle, and Mr. Rider for standing strong in their efforts to strike the designation of typical corridors on 116th on the west and 126th
and Main on the east and by the high school. Please continue to fight to protect Carmel’s established neighborhoods! Ms. Holle took the words right out of my brain
when she reminded everyone that Mr. Rider may not always be the gatekeeper on the council to vote against an intensification of height, land coverage, etc. in these
particular “typical corridors.” The so-called “flexibility” to intensify is not necessary now or at any time in the foreseeable future in particular areas. This plan is not going
to last 100 years, and this can be added IF it ever seems a remote possibility. Much of Carmel has already largely been bulldozed and rebuilt—I hardly think it needs to
virtue signal that is it “open-minded.” It seems clear to me that what some city officials actually desire is a “green light” now to inappropriately change existing
neighborhoods where the majority of citizens to not favor it. Please remain resolute in opposing these typical corridors.
Mr. Kirsch’s arguably vindictive comment about the schools "operating in a silo" was surprising. “Why bend over backwards” to protect the schools? To maintain the
excellence of the public high school because it is an important foundation to our community and closely tied to property values! Admittedly I do not know everything the
city engineer has proposed to CCS to improve traffic and pedestrian safety around CHS. However, in my opinion, he did little when the topic came up a couple of years
ago involving pedestrian bridges or tunnels from the north side of the CHS parking lot on 136th over 136th to CHS. It could be done, but the price tag was too steep for
those in the administration in whose good graces some must remain.
12/2/2021
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 02 Development
Patterns
West Neighborhoods, Estates: Please maintain the current ambiance of the West Neighborhoods and Estates. Limit commercial nodes and mixed-use
developments/PUDs! This area of Carmel is perhaps one of the greatest assets to the city....retaining a suburban/rural/historical feel to what will undoubtedly become a
more urban city.
11/1/2021
41 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Lisa Sharlow sharlow2002@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
I moved into my specific area of Carmel because of the vast areas of green space it had. If I wanted to live in an area with stores, lots of traffic and congestion, I would
have chosen another spot. We were told that our area of Carmel would stay green with large lots and lots of space and now, I fear you are disregarding all that we have
with the new plan. I live in the area that I believe is referred to as Estates. I live in a neighborhood called Huntington Chase that is between 106th and 116th Streets and
Towne Road. It's wonderful to have a city that has so many different areas, I firmly believe that is what makes a place great. Let's keep the areas of 116th and 106th
green, with lots and lots of trees, greenery and space. Don't crowd it with commerce, small lots and traffic. With traffic and stores comes crime and congestion. Don't
change that area of Carmel, leave it the way it is and don't rezone it for higher buildings and businesses. We are perfectly happy driving for 5 minutes to get to a store, I
don't need to walk to a store. If I did, I would move to a different location. Absolutely everyone I have talked to about this agrees with me and does not want this area to
change at all! They just can't figure out how to comment on the comprehensive plan, and these are educated people! No offence, but it's confusing to figure out how to
comment here, except that now I have figured out how to do it, it's pretty simple. Please give others a chance to comment. I'm sure more people want to reach out to
you.
12/28/2021
Mike Louden jlouden953@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
We've lived in Home Place 27 years. Love our little town that's now a Carmel neighborhood. We realize change is coming and that's not a bad thing. I think our little
community although its been annexed into Carmel should remain residential. Not having any buildings higher than 2 story as it currently is. Please, we don't need any
monster 3 / 4 / or 5 story buildings at the intersection of 106th and College. Those would totally destroy the nice small town community feel. Its been here for over
hundred years since 1914 actually. Let our own small town feel live on as our neighborhood / community grows ! Thanks Mike& Kathy Louden 750 e 107th st
10/22/2021
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: The draft plan encourages 3-story buildings and commercial development along the full length of the White River, with 6-story buildings encouraged nearby.
This is not appropriate for the last remaining large-scale refuge for wildlife and tree preservation in Carmel. Please keep the focus on parks, recreation, and nature
preservation near the White River.
11/11/2021
Patrick Ryan pmrgrp@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: After review of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan (Draft), we have numerous questions concerning how that plan would impact our Plum Creek Village
residential area. First, why has there not been in-person type informational/ question and answer meetings publicized and scheduled for the affected areas to explain
prospective changes. For example, why is Plum Creek Village classified in the White River Pattern vs East Pattern as other nearby residential areas have been? How does
that impact our location compared to the Eastern Pattern?
11/1/2021
Terry Thurston terryjthurston@icloud.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: As a resident of Plum Creek Village, I am very concerned about the classification our neighborhood in the White River Pattern.
1. Why is this included within the Plum Creek Golf Course when we are separate entities and a residential development. We should be in the East pattern as it looks as
though Prairie View to our east has been included in the east neighborhood.
2. What are the "gateways" to the E/W corridors on 126th St.
3. What are the plans for River Road park?
10/30/2021
Claudia Hammonds claudiawhammonds@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: As a resident of Plum Creek Village, I am very concerned about the classification our neighborhood in the White River Pattern.
1. Why is this included within the Plum Creek Golf Course when we are separate entities and a residential development. We should be in the East pattern as it looks as
though Prairie View to our east has been included in the east neighborhood.
2. What are the "gateways" to the E/W corridors on 126th St?
3. What are the plans for River Road park?
11/3/2021
Bart Schlosser bartschlosser@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: As a resident of Plum Creek Village, I echo the sentiments expressed by our HOA President. Many facets of this development proposal are very unsettling.
1. Why are we included as part of White River project? Our neighborhood is this included within the Plum Creek Golf Course and we are separate entities and a
residential development. We should be in the East pattern as it looks as though Prairie View to our east has been included in the east neighborhood.
2. What are the "gateways" to the E/W corridors on 126th St?
3. What are the plans for River Road park?
Please consider this feedback - the proposal is detrimental to our neighborhood and will not benefit the Carmel community...it will only serve to diminish a wonderful
area.
11/1/2021
Marsha Putt marshaputt@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: As a resident of Plum Creek Village, we are VERY concerned about the classification our neighborhood in the White River Pattern. We are echoing the
sentiments of our HOA President:
1. Why is this included within the Plum Creek Golf Course when we are separate entities and a residential development. We should be in the East pattern as it looks as
though Prairie View to our east has been included in the east neighborhood.
2. What are the "gateways" to the E/W corridors on 126th St?
3. What are the plans for River Road park?
This is a wonderful neighborhood, and your plan would destroy the character of our area, and the very reason we bought our home here. I know Carmel has paid
attention to resident feedback - please do so here as well. I am hoping this is a gross oversight on someone's part.
11/1/2021
42 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Eileen Ryan ecrconsult@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: As a resident of Plum Creek Village, which is off of 126th street, we have some concerns about the ideas that have been expressed in Section 2 –
Development Plans. It is related to 126th street being widened and termed a "gateway" within the White River area plans.
In addition to the many residential areas that come off of 126th street, there are two schools located on this street which for the safety of everyone concerned do not
need more traffic. We did not move to this locale to have a larger traffic pattern develop and to be looking at 6 story buildings!
We understand this is a DRAFT plan, but to our knowledge, no one in our Village were one of the 700 people surveyed. Before this plan begins to progress, it is important
to obtain feedback from the surrounding residential areas that would be affected by the PLAN. Please take this into consideration and provide in-person meetings with
the various constituents to give more details on the planning process.
11/1/2021
Denise Waite dpwaite490@outlook.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: Based on the Development Pattern map, Plum Creek Village is classified as part of the White River neighborhood. Plum Creek Village consists of 90
detached single family dwellings and is surrounded by the Plum Creek Golf Course. Please explain why this area is not included as part of East Neighborhoods, along with
Plum Creek Ridge and Plum Creek Farms which are also situated along the Plum Creek Golf Course. There are no other detached single family neighborhoods included in
the White River neighborhood.
Also of concern is the Max Height Characteristic within the White River which could allow for 6 story buildings along E/W corridor gateways. Please explain which E/W
corridors would be affected and why it is necessary to incorporate that level of building in this area.
10/21/2021
Betty Wessel baycitywessel@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: I would hate to see the river road corridor developed. The existing wildlife is already moving into neighborhoods along river road Wildlife needs to be
protected
10/31/2021
Peter Langowski mandplango@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: The White River Development pattern appears to be the biggest new direction from any of the areas listed with regard to movement away from the present
uses, with six story buildings at the E-W gateways, hospitality uses and other uses that do not exist at all in the area today. The use of the term "varies" also hints at fairly
significant ideas afoot. Please provide some further focus on this development pattern, specifically include and integrate the Conner Prairie plans and the ongoing work
of mywhiteriver.com into your efforts.
10/24/2021
Lee Williams leewilliams1944@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: Why is our neighborhood, Plum Creek Village, considered part of the White River pattern area? We are a neighborhood like any other neighborhood and
should be included in the East Neighborhoods pattern area.
11/2/2021
Betty Wessel baycitywessel@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: Why is plum creek village included in the White River section and not the East neighborhood section? Northwood Hills and Prairie view are in the East
section.
10/31/2021
Steve Mehringer stevemehringer@aol.com 02 Development
Patterns
White River: We live at 12469 Medalist Pkwy in Plum Creek Village. Anything that can be done to reduce commercial traffic on Medalist would be greatly appreciated.
Speed tables have helped, but all sizes of commercial trucks (including semis) use it as a detour. They are often in a hurry and do not recognize as a residential street.
Seems like we should be included in East Neighborhood, and are not compatible with the type of developement that would be considered for White River area.
11/15/2021
Kay Mulhall ksemulhall@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Summary Table-White River pg 41
Max height-2 greater than the adjacent development pattern except: max of 3 along river and a max of 6 along 96th and at E/W corridor gateways
The plan needs to define E/W corridor gateways. In the plan’s current state, 6 story buildings would be allowed in locations including the corner of 126th and River Road
and the roundabout at 126th and Hazel Dell.
11/29/2021
David Kandel dlkandel@icloud.com 02 Development
Patterns
2-Development Patterns: Crashes my browser. Tried a different browser and crashed.
Plus, how are we to know what to put in the first 3 boxes. I just guessed and put my name and email address. Nothing there to help.
Poorly designed if you ACTUALLY want feedback.
11/1/2021
Tracey Ray tvarana@sbcglobal.net 02 Development
Patterns
As a Carmel resident, so am sadly disappointed in all of the building development and destruction of natural environment. The latest; taking down the “Christmas Tree”
on Main Street downtown Carmel. We are losing our greenery!!! Please replace and replant trees that are removed. We need our trees to breathe and for the charm and
beauty of our great city of Carmel.
11/3/2021
Kathy Bolander kbolander365@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
With more & more commerces being done online, I would sincerely hope our city's 10 year plan would really think before more "multiuse" strips are built in Carmel ie
lower retail space with apartments/condo on the top.
Also, it would be a super great thing to think about building more affordable housing for those who would work in Carmel & the surrounding area. Those making $40 -
$60K per year. It would be a real feather in Carmel's cap to say they lead the way for affordable housing for all, not just those making more than the "median income".
11/16/2021
43 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Objective 1.1.5 is a major objective in the proposed update of the comprehensive plan that should be elaborated on in the Development Patterns section but is not.
Further improve neighborhood edges through thoughtful blending of uses and character as established in the Development Patterns section.
___________________________
For each Development Pattern I found statements of purpose, planned for block size, lot size, building height and building coverage etc.
I do not find any language in the Development Patterns section or anywhere else in the draft that would guide the Plan Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals and City
Council in situations calling for "thoughtful blending of uses and character."
The Development Patterns section discusses each pattern in isolation from other patterns without acknowledging the challenge that arises when one Development
Pattern is next to or runs through another Development Pattern. This is particularly important for the proposed Corridor Pattern running through the Neighborhood
Development patterns. The beguiling assumption that runs all through the proposed new Comp plan is that adjacent commercial and residential uses associated with
higher density development will complement each other and result in civic harmony.
Here is some of the language from the existing C3 plan that addresses this concern but has been omitted in the new plan:
---------------------
page 17 ........ managing community form is more permissive of integrating complementary uses and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing land
classifications
page 17 ....... Objective 1.4: Be very sensitive to connectivity and transitions between adjacent areas. Discourage unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building
orientation, character, land use, and density. If there exists contrast, utilize multiple design principles to soften transitions.
--------------------------------------------------
The language above should be added to the Introduction to the Development Patterns section to deliver on major policy objective 1.1.5
11/20/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
For the parts of the city that are planned to have similar uses, building heights, and dwelling units per acre, the existing plan uses the term "Land Classifications" and the
proposed C3 update uses the term "Development Pattern"
The Estate Residential, Low Intensity Suburban Residential and Suburban Residential Land Classifications in the existing C3 plan are combined to form the West
Neighborhoods Development Pattern in the C3 update.
The maps that would facilitate comparing the two plans are shown on pages 37 and 38 of the PDF version of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
The website version of the C3 Update shows a map of Development Patterns. The website version does not show a map of the Land Classifications used in the previous C3
plan.
This makes it hard for users of the website to see how the Comp Plan is changing in their part of the city.
11/20/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Below are the densities planned for in C3 Plan Update (Most Common Lot Sizes).
West Neighborhoods Development Pattern: 1/8 - 5 acres (pdf version) West Neighborhoods Development Pattern: 1/8 - 5 acres (Summary Table pdf version)
West Neighborhoods Development Pattern: 1/2 - 8 acres (website) West Neighborhoods Development Pattern: 1/8 - 5 acres (Summary Table website)
As you can see above, there are significant discrepancies in the reported planned for densities in different parts of the website version of the Comp Plan update and
between the website version and the pdf version.
It isn't clear what the planned for densities are for the West Neighborhoods Development pattern.
This discrepancy needs to be corrected and time given for the public to work through the implications once everyone is clear on what the right numbers are.
11/21/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
Why has the metric used to measure the planned for density in the Developmental Patterns shifted from the number of dwelling units per acre (existing C3 plan) to the
number of lots per acre (C3 update)?
11/21/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
In the existing C3 plan the metric used to measure the planned for density was dwelling units per acre. In the Comprehensive Plan Update, planned for density is
measured as lots per acre.
This shift has huge implications for citizens trying to visualize the changes that are being planned for.
When future densities are quantified as dwelling units per acre as they were in the previous plan, that is a stable metric because the meaning of the dwellings
measurement in the numerator and acres measurement in the denominator is more stable and clear going forward.
As soon as you start quantifying planned for densities using the measurement of lots per acre, that measurement is much less stable and clear. If you measure planned for
density as lots per acre, you can't see and think about what's coming.
An Ordinance was defeated in the City Council early in 2021 that established standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (AUD's). This ordinance would have allowed 1
Accessory Dwelling Unity per single family residential lot.
So the 1 residential lot before the ordinance passes means 1 dwelling. After the ordinance passes (if it does) 1 residential lot means 2 dwellings.
In California, SB9 allows for lot splitting. So 1 residential lot can be split and each of the 2 lots can have a dwelling and an AUD for a total of 4 dwellings from 1 lot. This
type of legislation is happening in other states.
Using the dwelling units per acre metric would be a much more clear and transparent way of communicating the planned for densities throughout Carmel.
11/21/2021
44 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
In the existing C3 Plan, the highest planned for density in Carmel west of Illinois and north of 116th is in the Low Intensity Suburban Land Classification which planned for
a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre. This higher density was planned for in the old plan for about 10% of the area west of Illinois and north of 116th. The planned for
density in the rest of the area was lower.
The Estate Residential, Low Intensity Suburban Residential and Suburban Residential Land Classifications used in the existing C3 plan are combined to form the West
Neighborhoods Development Pattern in the C3 update.
In the C3 Update, West Neighborhood Development Pattern, the maximum planned for density calls for 1/8 acre lots. That translates into a maximum of 8 dwelling units
allowed per acre throughout the West Neighborhood Development Pattern.
This assumes that an Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance isn't put into effect which would further increase the allowable density.
With or without an AUD ordinance, this is a huge increase in planned for density.
Where in the Comprehensive Plan draft is the need for this density explained?
On pages 12-14 of the previous Comprehensive Plan, there was a Community Profile section that discussed trends in population growth, trends in development and the
current inventory of community facilities. This section provided valuable information that helped readers understand why the goals and density targets in subsequent
parts of the plan were worthwhile goals to plan for and achieve.
A similar community profile is needed but not found in the Comprehensive Plan Update.
A community profile section should be added to the draft of the Comprehensive Plan update that justifies the higher density targets in the new plan. This community
profile section should answer these questions
Carmel is now a city of roughly 100,000 residents. When were we a city of roughly 50,000 residents? Are we planning on adding another 50,000 residents during the
lifetime of the new Comprehensive Plan? When in the Comprehensive Planning process have city planners, the city council and the plan commission engaged residents in
an informed discussion of the tradeoffs and desirability of becoming a city of 150,000?
11/21/2021
Mark Dewart mdewart2@gmail.com 02 Development
Patterns
In the Discussion of the West Neighborhoods Development Pattern at the 11/29/21 Plan Commission Meeting, there was a question about a typo in the description of the
typical lot sizes.
The clarification that was sought was whether the typical lot sizes in West Neighborhoods was 1/2 acre - 5 acres as reported on the website or 1/8 acre to 5 acres as
reported in the PDF version of the Comp Plan draft.
Here is a transcript of that exchange that begins at 1:42:40 on the Plan Commission Comprehensive Plan Review - November 29, 2021 Youtube Video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJbDrZYOd7M&list=PLviymz2u1ww1M7JaVfxh4Nl2VHUJVuJQ6&index=70
----------------------------------------
Plan Commission Member Christine Zoccola: Adrienne, I think there is a typo on typical lot sizes. It should be 1/2. Is that right? Am I remembering that correctly?
Adrienne Keeling: It is correctly listed on this pdf. On the online version it was listed as 1/2 to 5 acres.
----------------------------------------
In this exchange, the incorrect typical lot size is referred to twice and the correct typical lot size is never stated.
This correction should be as fully and clearly stated as it was in the Monday, November 29, 2021 Department Report:
"We recently corrected a typo on the website regarding the Typical Lot Size listed in the West Neighborhoods Development Pattern. The correct figure is 1/8 to 5 acres as
listed in the PDF (pages 29, 40) and on the online Summary Table. The West Neighborhood Characteristics on the website incorrectly listed ½ to 5 acres."
11/30/2021
Elizabeth Solazzo elizabeth@solazzo.com 02 Development
Patterns
I think there is too much focus on bringing apartments buildings and large business developments to areas that are not conducive to the traffic. Driving downtown Main
Street and Rangeline is a nightmare and makes me a nervous wreck with people walking, narrow 1 lane streets, round about after round about. There is nothing quaint
about it. Focus on the empty building around Carmel - rather than bigger and larger think of the ease of use. There’s no ease of use - everywhere you go in Carmel is a
headache waiting to happen.
1/17/2022
03 Street Typologies
Comments from DRAFT #4, 03/30/2022
Matthew Pierce mjp.pierce@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies The Thoroughfare Plan shows Haverstick Road between 96th and 99th as a "Local Road" but it does not meet the right-of-way requirements of 46-ft. If that section of
road had a right-of-way width of 46-ft, it would go through a home at 9680 Haverstick Road, so it must be less than that.
8/11/2022
45 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Dawn Wick dmwick@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies I am formally requesting an environmental impact study be completed for the 96th Street extension to Pennsylvania Parkway. Specifically, the impact to Monon Lake and
the wildlife. As a resident of Carmel, I request that the civil and environmental engineering firm contracted not be involved with the city planning or associated with any
city employees. I also request a formal report on the current drainage issues on the south side of the lake and the impact a new road along the lake will have on the
drainage. What are the specifications for the road to be built a between Monon Lake and I-465? I want dimensions of the road, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. Please include
the legal distance a road must remain from the freeway and the distance required between said new road and the lake. As a reminder, the natural vegetation around the
lake is protected by law.
4/25/2022
Erin Mora 13005dg@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies The Main Street future proposed loop should be a priority. Bike lane/pedestrian access linking the West Carmel neighborhoods to Arts and Design need to be improved.
The areas are geographically close and more can be done to encourage a healthy community by proposing increased bike and pedestrian access. With minimal cost,
more safety measures can be installed, such as the pedestrian crossing flashing lights that we can call to cross Towne Rd at Glebe. More signage reminding drivers of
cyclists would also help especially at roundabouts, as would reducing the speed limit on Towne and Main to 25. Consider speedbumps, widening sidewalks. We should
consider pedestrian bridges over the 31 and Main interchange where it is very scary as a pedestrian/cyclist. We have a ton of families in Village of West Clay and other
West Carmel neighborhoods who would love to access The Arts and Design district by bike. Please reconsider golf carts on Main as well as shuttles to better connect
these areas.
4/23/2022
Gus Navarra gusnavarra@comcast.net 03 Street Typologies Pg. 57: Thoroughfare Plan Map indicates 116th Street west of Spring Mill Road is designated as a Boulevard.
Given this is area is earmarked with estate size lots our preference is to designate 116th Street heading west of Spring Mill Road as a Local street typology and avoid
building medians and prohibit “on street” parking on this stretch of road. Medians would reduce the frontage size of the yards bordering 116th St. and are not needed
and not in character with the charm and pastoral setting of this area.
4/22/2022
Keith Grindstaff keg1_us@yahoo.com 03 Street Typologies Why no roundabout in the plan for Main and Rangeline? Seems like with the lot one development that would be included.4/22/2022
Comments from DRAFT #2, 01/20/2022
Deborah Washburn deborahwas@aol.com 03 Street Typologies I have looked through the proposed local roads in downtown Carmel and note that their is an East to West road proposed to go through Carmel Station directly next to
the home I own where my mother lives. I am concerned that this small, pocket neighborhood of affordable single family homes with an attached garage will be
demolished and replaced with homes that the members of the current neighborhood would not be able to afford. This road would displace many single residents, elderly
residents, single parent families and recent immigrant families. This neighborhood has become an area within the city that has great diversity while allowing the ease of
access to shopping, entertainment, healthcare and employment. I fear, after owning home(s) in Carmel since the 1980’s, that the spirit of the current plan would create
further disregard for people who have moved to this area for the schools, low crime rate and easy access to life’s necessities (along with maintaining a place for retirees
to live near their families) who are not considered “wealthy” but are hard working middle class families and individuals. It would be a shame to remove such a needed
and diverse neighborhood from this community and call it progress.
1/21/2022
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies I would like to reinforce feedback provided by several other respondents asking to remove the "Boulevard" designation that has been applied to 116th Street west of
Spring Mill Road in the Comprehensive Plan revision draft. (Note that the recent "redline" update has removed the "Typical Corridors" designation, but it has not
removed the "Boulevard" designation.) A wider Boulevard configuration would require significant and undesirable changes to the topology and character of West 116th
street, as well as a significant loss of mature trees. Please keep this road the way it is, but add a walking/biking path on one side or the other, if possible. There may be
merit in having a walking/biking path on both sides of 116th street in areas near West Park and Coxhall Gardens.
Also, note that in the latest "redline" update, (PDF, page 57), the DOCS is now attempting to change portions of three additional streets in southwest Carmel to a
"Boulevard" designation. This would thereby require a minimum 12-foot wide raised center median and likely an expanded right-of-way. The proposed change would
apply to: 106th Street from Michigan Road to Shelborne, 96th Street from Shelborne to Spring Mill Road, and Towne Road from 116th Street to 96th Street. For affected
residents, the construction of a Boulevard could involve giving up part of their property, and potentially the loss of mature trees, and would likely restrict their ability to
turn left from (or into) their driveways. Also, this proposed designation may possibly be in violation of the NOAX annexation agreement, which should be investigated. I
ask the Plan Commission Committee to deny this last-minute change by the DOCS, at least for now. Carmel citizens should be provided with much more notice and
explanation (with an opportunity to provide feedback) before such a significant change in designation is made. My guess is that most of the residents along these streets
are completely unaware of this proposed change, which is buried deep within the recent 1/21/22 "redline" update of the initial Comprehensive Plan revision draft.
1/29/2022
46 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Charles McHenry emchenry52@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies I live in Plum Creek Village. I see that you still have E. 126th Street as a main artery ending at the Park at River Road & 126th St. Why? For you to take the park and
change it to some kind of fancy family playground is a waste of money. It is great as it is. It is a place to walk your pets and just relax. Don't make it something it's not
meant to be.
Now, let's look at the other end of my neighborhood at 122nd & River Rd........A ROUNDABOUT???? SERIOUSLY? WHY? It is fine as it is. Traffic does not warrant it. It is
a slow intersection. The only time I have had trouble getting through it in the 22 years I have lived here was when my front axle broke and I stalled out in the middle of
the intersection. Quit messing with stuff that doesn't need fixed.
1/28/2022
Denise Waite dpwaite490@outlook.com 03 Street Typologies River Road - There seems to be a disproportionate preference to Carmel’s west side compared to Carmel's east side in regards to Conservation Corridors. There are
multiple, large sections of the west side of Carmel designated as Conservation Corridors. Yet, the only Conservation Corridor east of Keystone is Gray Road on the east
side of town. As stated on page 55 of the draft comprehensive plan, a Conservation Corridor is “to protect environmental features and unique aesthetic qualities of
context-sensitive corridors.” It seems appropriate to designate River Road as a Conservation Corridor based on this definition
1/31/2022
Ken Barthel kenb170@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies Expansion of and designation changes to Towne Road, 96th St., and the section of 106th St. will add congestion and promote additional traffic in the suburban / estate
areas of West Carmel. This would also provide for additional commercialization in west carmel which is not welcomed.
2/1/2022
Susan Hanthorn smhanthorn@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies According to the Comprehensive Plan, it is proposed that there will be roundabouts at the intersections of River Road and 126th as well as River Road at 122nd &
Medalist Parkway. I can only imagine what that will do to the cut-through traffic in our beautiful neighborhood. It is already a problem and it will only increase if you
install a roundabout at that intersection. I believe it will destroy our property values and ruin the character of our charming neighborhood. Currently, cars speed and don’t
stop at the stop signs at that intersection. They cut through our neighborhood, speeding and literally flying over the speed humps. I very much oppose a roundabout at
that intersection.
2/2/2022
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies Boulevard (pg.49):
* Discrepancy: Minimum Standard shows 12 foot wide median. Chart shows required 11-14 foot wide median.
* Right-of-way (ROW) 68-100 feet; 3 lanes; Required 11-14 foot wide median and 6 foot wide tree lawns
* W. 116th Street: Please consider not designating W. 116th Street a “Boulevard.” This tree-lined street does not need contrived Tree Lawns or a Median. These would
detract from the natural character of this street, increase the width of right-of-way needed, likely sacrifice mature trees, and likely impede some homeowners from easily
exiting and entering their driveways. Passing blisters in the few places needed work fine. This street is also designated a “Conservation Corridor” (added pg. 55; map pg.
57): The 9 Priorities listed for “context-sensitive” Conservation Corridors do not support a Boulevard designation for W. 116th Street (such as, improvements designed to
the minimum required for safety, and with the lowest impact that is necessary. Minimize negative impacts on private residential properties, and avoid removal of
significant/mature trees). How can residents along all Conservation Corridors be assured of Priority #9? “Include adjacent and nearby private residential property owners
in early design discussions."
Thoroughfare Plan Recommended Update (map pg. 57): I have not yet heard any reasons why the DOCS recently proposed to recategorize 3 streets in the Southwest
Carmel Estates area, from “Local” to “Boulevard”. I believe the “Local” Road is a better fit than a “Boulevard”, that the NOAX annexation agreement needs to be upheld,
and that these streets need to be treated with the context-sensitivity and low impact of their Conservation Corridor designations.
“Local” Road" (pg. 50) = ROW 46-78 feet; 2 lanes; no median; optional tree lawns.
“Boulevard” (pg. 49) = ROW 68-100 feet; 3 lanes; Required 11-14 foot wide median and 6 foot wide tree lawns.
(Collector Street per NOAX annexation agreement = ROW 80 feet)
1) Towne Road, between W. 116th St. and W. 96th St. (Conservation Corridor, NOAX Collector St.)
Starting south of 116th St., many homes are very close to Towne Road, as are old and new trees. There are many direct driveway accesses. A narrow median on Towne
Rd. near 106th St. is planted with “stick” trees that are continually dying and needing to be replaced. A “Boulevard" would not be a good fit.
2) W. 106th St. between Shelborne Rd. and Michigan Rd. (Conservation Corridor, NOAX Collector St.)
3) W. 96th St. between Shelborne Rd. and Spring Mill Rd. (Typical Corridor, Conservation Corridor, Parkway Collector St., ROW 90 feet)
2/6/2022
Comments from the INITIAL DRAFT, 10/08/2021
Kathleen Dunbar kathyadunbar@aol.com 03 Street Typologies There is no definition for conservation corridor...ie, the estates? why?10/19/2021
Donald Winston donald_winston@hotmail.com 03 Street Typologies I oppose the 116th Street desingation and a median 11/2/2021
Jonathon Fruchte thefruchtes@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies I'm pleased to see that there do not appear to be changes to the number of lanes on 96th west of Springmill Rd. Not long ago, Ascension Health was seeking zoning and
lane changes beyond the Meridian Corridor. The neighborhoods, including mine which is Deerfield, do not want more traffic than is already on 96th street. Is adding road
restrictions, such as no thru semi/tractor trailers, something being considered in the comprehensive plan? For example, when 465 gets backed up, it's shocking how many
trucks are using 96th Street West as a detour to Michigan Road. They are loud and sometimes too large to fit in the roundabout causing traffic problems. We've taken up
this issue with Tony Green (City Council), but I figured adding feedback as part of the comprehensive plan can't hurt.
10/27/2021
Sandra Richardson wernersandra@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies I have a question: What is the "Collector Street per NOAX agreement" dashed lines that go through several neighborhoods? 10/29/2021
47 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Terry Thurston terryjthurston@icloud.com 03 Street Typologies 126th Street is classified as a primary arterial street ( 4 lanes) east of Hazel Dell Blvd. Part this street street is in the White River pattern area, which means it could have
up to 6 ft ht for development of institutional, educational, hospitality, retro; and residental. What are the plans for this. How does this impact current zoning?
Why is there a proposed roundabout at 122nd and River Road. If more traffic is anticipated, the intersection at River Rd and 116th should also be studied. This is a
dangerous intersection and there should be a "No Right on Red" sign there.. this roundabout could also encourage more through traffic on Medalist Parkway which is
already a problem.
10/30/2021
Charles McHenry emchenry52@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies Please remove 126th St and Main St as Typical Corridors. I am concerned that by leaving these as Typical Corridors we will be subject to unwanted retail, commercial
and other properties.
12/2/2021
Susie Moore mooreworld1@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies I am a resident who lives in Southwest Carmel on 116th Street. I strongly oppose turning 116th Street into a boulevard with a median down the middle. All of 116th
Street, west of Springmill and east of Michigan, is residential. By putting medians down the middle of the street, we will be unable to turn left out of our driveways. This
is unacceptable. I do not understand the reasoning of this plan. If it is to make it "more green" because of the trees that are to be planted in the median, let me say that
we have lots of trees and wooded areas here, and do not need trees down the middle of 116th Street. The plan to make 116th into a boulevard will only make life more
difficult for all of the resident who live along this road. Please do not add medians to our street!
10/31/2021
John Chipman nbinperu@hotmail.com 03 Street Typologies The "Talk of the Town" series was most helpful and reassuring with regards to maintaining much of what makes Carmel a great city. I appreciate the candor "that we
cannot predict the future," but we can also channel development efforts towards best practices. I am still unclear about the vision for 116th street (west).
11/20/2021
Betty Wessel baycitywessel@aol.com 03 Street Typologies Why was the proposed round about at 106 and hazeldell eliminated?
Why add a round about at Medalist and 122/river road? There is already considerable cut through traffic on medalist and this could make it worse. Also traffic on river
road from 116 to 122 will most likely increase. Is there a plan to improve/widen river road?
Why isn't a round about considered for 116 and river road? Its very difficult to turn right on red (from river road southbound to 116) very limited visibility. Consider
adding a "no turn on red" sign.
What are plans for the River Road park (126 & river road) - has the county been solicited for feedback since they manage that park?
10/31/2021
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 03 Street Typologies With increased traffic, many multi-lane roundabouts are becoming dangerous and will just get worse in the next 10 years. Also with the increasing number of drivers
from OUTSIDE of Carmel (more companies and visitors??), some have no idea how to navigate these roundabouts. They certainly are NOT pedestrian/bike friendly, as
your plan seems to want Carmel to be walkable and bikable. As a driver, my observation is that most of the danger is because each roundabout is different, sometimes
you can turn from the middle lane, sometimes you can't, etc. Signage is sometimes confusing, and arrows painted on the street are many times missing or covered by
cars. As a pedestrian I don't even try them! Sometimes drivers stop in the middle of the roundabout for the pedestrian, which is very dangerous for both the car and the
wallker. Can we think of a plan to make these safer for drivers AND pedestrians?
11/1/2021
Marsha Putt marshaputt@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies 126th Street is classified as a primary arterial street ( 4 lanes). Part this street street is in the White River pattern area, which means it could have up to 6 ft ht for
development of institutional, educational, hospitality, and residential. What are the plans for this? How does this impact current zoning?
Why is there a proposed roundabout at 122nd and River Road? THIS IS TERRIBLE! If more traffic is anticipated, the intersection at River Rd and 116th should also be
studied. This is a dangerous intersection and there should be a "No Right on Red" sign there.. This roundabout could also encourage more through traffic on Medalist
Parkway which is already a problem. We are constantly fighting cut-through traffic and this would only contribute to the danger of the speeding traffic....you would
destroy the property values and the character of what is now a quiet and peaceful neighborhood.
Can't stress how we fear this proposal is for the area near 126th/122nd/ River Road--you are encouraging people to speed, increasing traffic, and destroying a beautiful
quiet area. It doesn't achieve the desired effect -- quite the opposite.
11/1/2021
Marjorie Kress mkress001@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies As a resident of Plum Creek Village, I am adding my voice to the request that PCV be rightfully designated as an East Carmel area and not part of the White River
Development. I strongly object to the designation of 126th St. as a corridor. Our development has access to many amenities in multiple directions within ten minutes
drive time. As the city planners speak to housing diversity, it is imperative that small lot, individual housing in a non- commercial setting be preserved.
12/7/2021
David Kandel dlkandel@icloud.com 03 Street Typologies Crashes my browser. Tried a different browser and crashed.
Plus, how are we to know what to put in the first 3 boxes. I just guessed and put my name and email address. Nothing there to help.
Poorly designed if you ACTUALLY want feedback.
11/1/2021
Carolyn Snyder smesnyder@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies I have a single family home (no neighborhood) on 116th street. I love the idea of extending the multi use path so it is possible to get to the parks without walking through
grass and swampy ground. However, I am very concerned that turning 116th street into a boulevard would make my home (with very little yard between the house and
116th street) unlivable. Where is the land coming from for the boulevard?
11/1/2021
Lisa Korff korff123@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies I don’t want to see 116th Street west of Springmill turned into a corridor. This area contains many pleasant features, trees, and other natural landscape that I don’t want
to see destroyed by this business focused plan.
12/7/2021
48 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Bart Schlosser bartschlosser@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies Regarding Street Typologies for the proposed Carmel Plan ---126th Street is classified as a primary arterial street ( 4 lanes). Part this street street is in the White River
pattern area, which means it could have up to 6 ft ht for development of institutional, educational, hospitality, and residential. What are the plans for this? How does this
impact current zoning?
Why is there a proposed roundabout at 122nd and River Road? If more traffic is anticipated, the intersection at River Rd and 116th should also be studied. This is a
dangerous intersection and there should be a "No Right on Red" sign there.. This roundabout could also encourage more through traffic on Medalist Parkway which is
already a terrible problem with cut through traffic on a street not intended for that volume - If anything --cut off the neighborhood access on Medalist at 122 and river to
stop the insanity - that's a pain to our residents, but cut-through/speeding traffic is already an issue we are trying to resolve in our neighborhood. Please understand I'm
not speaking for the HOA, but this proposal creates a huge traffic increase potential. If 126 is widened, and we sacrifice a quiet neighborhood and greenspace, we need
to stop the people cutting through Medalist and destroying our quiet neighborhood of Plum Creek Village.
11/1/2021
Jeff Putka jputka@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies Bottom line up front: We are extremely supportive of re-developing Main Street as a boulevard.
Over the past two years my wife and I developed the property at 515 W Main Street and moved in ~6 months ago (we chose Carmel after comparing and contrasting the
Comprehensive Plans of both Carmel and Indianapolis). During our time, we've observed that the maintained speed on Main Street is well in excess of the posted speed
limit, and is also favored as a cruising location for motorcycles and modified cars that accelerate hard out of the roundabout at 4th Ave SW and Main. We have also
witnessed numerous collisions at the intersection of York and Main, including pedestrians that have been struck by vehicle traffic.
It's our hypothesis that the street is simply too wide, and is perceived to be psychologically safe to drive on at higher rates of speed. In fact, we've observed a significant
reduction in overall street speed during events like Artmobilia when the additional lane(s) are filled with parked cards, reducing the perceived width of the roadway. If I
had to estimate, it appeared to reduce speeds by 15-20mph easily, and *significantly* reduced traffic noise, even with the increased traffic volume.
In Main Street's current form, it does not fit well with the vision for Carmel as laid out in the comprehensive plan to be both mobile and pedestrian friendly. We strongly
support the proposed effort to redevelop Main Street into a boulevard. We believe this will help encourage lower speeds making it safer for pedestrian and bicycle usage
while also reducing ambient noise pollution and creating a aesthetically pleasing streetscape. To us, this is a significant win that will make Carmel a more enjoyable
experience for us and others looking to be a part of the community.
11/2/2021
Rene Lewin rene.lewin@sbcglobal.net 03 Street Typologies I understand that you plan to make 116th street from Springmill Rd to Michigan Rd. into a boulevard . I would like to understand how this proposed change to 116th
street will affect my property located at 4141 west 116th street.
11/3/2021
Claudia Hammonds claudiawhammonds@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies 126th Street is classified as a primary arterial street ( 4 lanes). Part this street street is in the White River pattern area, which means it could have up to 6 ft ht for
development of institutional, educational, hospitality, and residential. What are the plans for this? How does this impact current zoning?
Why is there a proposed roundabout at 122nd and River Road? If more traffic is anticipated, the intersection at River Rd and 116th should also be studied. This is a
dangerous intersection and there should be a "No Right on Red" sign there.. This roundabout could also encourage more through traffic on Medalist Parkway which is
already a problem.
11/3/2021
James Noland noland.james@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies Turning west 116th street into a “boulevard” is a bad idea. Boulevard is a euphemism for High Volume Thoroughfare. More traffic and ensuing noise though the Estate
Portion of Carmel. Not to mention no left turns from our driveways.
11/4/2021
Jeffrey Scott jscottrca@aol.com 03 Street Typologies Thank you for providing a video of the 11/29 planning commission meeting.
I thought the comprehensive plan discussion was thoughtful (and civil).
In particular, I wanted to point out that I support the idea from Christine Zocolla in regards to protecting W 116th St Corridor by removing the "typical corridor" label and
explore the possibility of making W 116th a green corridor with bike paths and sidewalks. As a homeowner in this area, I would like to remind everyone that when this
area was annexed we were told we would get sidewalks as part of the improvements.
Additionally, I support the comment from Carrie Holle on "protecting the neighborhoods" by making the changes to the CP draft now. I share her opinion that those who
are trying to protect the neighborhoods today will eventually be replaced and therefore we cannot rely on "context" to fend off future developments. If the situation
changes in the future, then the next CP can address it.
11/30/2021
Kathy Clark kaclark1948@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies > Why is Gray Rd north of 116th St purple (Conservation Corridor) vs greeen (Blvd)?
> What is a Conservation Corridor?
> Why is 116th St east of Hazel Dell referred to as a "Proposed Arterial" when it already exists?
12/1/2021
Ronald Houck rfhouck@hotmail.com 03 Street Typologies 111th Street doesn't have enough traffic to warrant upgrading to an arterial from Illinois Street to Springmill Road.12/3/2021
49 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Alison Brown mabepi@aol.com 03 Street Typologies I am shocked to see that land-intensive Boulevards are being spread all though Carmel, giving more and more surface to automobiles and less to people. Indeed, many of
these Boulevards seem to be little more than land-grabs, reducing family lots and asphalting great swaths of the neighborhoods they run through.
Carmel needs fewer "boulevards" and many more Conservation Corridors (which were, mirabile dictu, not really defined in this comprehensive plan). Although the White
River neighborhood is supposed to centered on this recreational amenity, none of the streets adjacent to it are Conservation Corridors. Rather they are pavement-
intensive boulevards or simple local streets.
Most peculiar is the little stick of 116th St. east of Hazel Dell that is suddenly an "Arterial" after all the rest of 116th is a Boulevard - but west of Spring Mill it really should
be a Conservation Corridor in keeping with the Estate neighborhood it bounds.
12/7/2021
Kristin Meyers kjmeyers2@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies It appears on the plan that the corridor of 111th St between Westfield and Monon center has been proposed to develop into multi-use street. Upgrading this stretch of
road to allow for either bike lanes or sidewalk would do a tremendous amount to
1) improve walkability, safety within the residential area. Many people utilize the monon center and access the monon trail. I have seen children walking along 111th in
the road alone, women pushing strollers, and I myself have been grazed by cars all while rushing my portion of the walk along 111th to get to the Monon trail.
2) improve access to key developments within Carmel such as Monon Center and Central park, Midtown, Center for Performing arts, downtown. Without a safe way to
access the monon trail and then these development areas, our family has been discouraged from exploring these areas. Or we have chosen to drive our car and park to
them, which has negative environmental and health impacts.
With the roundabout installations at 111th/Westfield and 111th/College, it only makes sense to have a continuous, multiuse path for access along 111th, thus improving
walkability, bikeability, and easy access to key Carmel developments.
12/7/2021
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies Carmel's roads, even within a designated Typology, should not all look similar and contrived. They should reflect function, the character of their urban or non-urban
surroundings, and take up only the minimum right-of-way (ROW) necessary.
Of particular concern is preserving unique West 116th St. as a beautiful, natural, green corridor lined with non-urban residential surroundings. It is designated a
"Boulevard" and (define!) "Conservation Corridor." Preserve its rolling nature that follows the land contours, and a small ROW lined with mature trees and driveways.
A Boulevard's "Minimum Standard" of 68' ROW is excessive for W. 116th St:
A "required" 11-14' wide Median is not needed or wanted (adds more concrete plus areas to mow and water, hinders access from driveways, and a wider ROW
increases loss of mature trees and amount of property taken). Passing blisters where needed would be sufficient.
A "required" 6' Tree Lawn on each side is not needed or wanted (shown with a row of little street tree varieties and lampposts). Planting 6' tall specimens of small Street
tree varieties is no substitute for the mature large trees lost to increased ROW, and adds maintenance of planting, mowing, and watering. Separation of road and path
can be done via low natural-looking barriers, if needed. The lampposts look urban, are not natural, and add unwanted extra light in this area.
A single Multi-Use Path for use by both bicycles and pedestrians is needed on one side of the road. (Both sides is debatable, given that use of existing West Carmel paths
is light, and serious bicyclists usually ride in the street.) What happens to homes very close to the street, and/or when the wider road/path must cross low, wet, wooded
areas?
A "Boulevard's "Augmented Standard" of up to 100' ROW would be totally out-of-line for W. 116th St: In addition to the comments above, this road should never have
on-street parking lanes, and does not need separate extra lanes for bicycles only, as long as the Multi-Use path is wide enough to comfortably accommodate both
bicyclists and pedestrians.
My recommendations for W. 116th St: Minimal ROW (the 2 travel lanes, with passing blisters where needed, and a Multi-Use path on one or possibly both sides would be
sufficient and considerably less than the Boulevard "minimum" 68' ROW). This would look more-natural, prevent added maintenance, and would preserve mature trees,
private properties, and driveway access. Natural character also means minimal to no extra lighting, and no sculptures! Instead, consider natural-looking occasional
benches, birdhouses, areas of native wildflowers and/or pollinator plants, and groundcover instead of grass that needs to be mowed.
12/7/2021
Nancy Cheesman ncheesman@att.net 03 Street Typologies Is there some reason why roundabouts are NOT included in Street Typologies or Streetscape Facilities. It seems like there is extremely detailed descriptions of streets and
their facilities, but no descriptions of what new roundabouts could/should look like. And the facilities surrounding them? I'd love to see in this 10 year plan, a suggestion
for how pedestrians and bikes can safely cross roundabouts. The roundabouts, especially the multi-lane ones, are dangerous to cross! If a car stops for a pedestrian, he is
likely to get rear-ended by the next car coming around the roundabout who hasn't seem him stop ahead. Also, in a multi-lane roundabout, a car in one lane may stop, but
a car in the other lane doesn't. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. Please make a plan!
12/7/2021
Michael Christian mrchristian46@gmail.com 03 Street Typologies The plan shows a proposed roundabout at Nevelle and Rohrer Rd. I do not believe that is a good location for a roundabout. It will require taking land from the houses on
the west side of Rohrer Rd. or into the Buckeye Pipeline substation located at that corner. If the intent is to slow down traffic on Rohrer Rd., that is already being done by
the pedestrian crosswalk installed at the Monon Trailhead immediately north of that intersection.
12/29/2021
04 Streetscape Facilities
Comments from DRAFT #4, 03/30/2022
50 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Danny Fox wfox09@gmail.com 04 Streetscape Facilities I’m glad to see the intersection section of the Monon Trail and 106st has a grade separated crossing planned. I hope this one of the first things to be done once this plan is
approved.
7/2/2022
Comments from DRAFT #2, 01/20/2022
Dee Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com 04 Streetscape Facilities * Multi-use Paths: In West Carmel, these do not seem to be heavily used. And the context also differs in different areas of West Carmel. So, I don’t agree with a blanket
requirement that these paths must go on both sides of every street shown in blue on the Mobility and Pedestrian Plan Map Recommended Update (pg. 70). I also hope
that signage and lighting can be kept to a minimum.
* Delivery/Pick-up and Loading Zones: Please provide places where large trucks can make bulk deliveries that take time, without having to block a lane of traffic.
2/6/2022
Comments from the INITIAL DRAFT, 10/08/2021
Mike Beale mikepbeale@gmail.com 04 Streetscape Facilities I really like the addition of paths and mobility lanes. That is going to make my bike commute so much better! My only thought is how about some mobility lanes on the
west side. Mike
10/21/2021
Mike Wheeler mike1w@sbcglobal.net 04 Streetscape Facilities On the maps there is something called a "Grade-Separated Crossing". What does this mean? For example there is one shown at 136th street (Smokey Row) and the
Monon trail. It seems to be just a crosswalk to me.
10/27/2021
Bill Zafian bill_zafian@yahoo.com 04 Streetscape Facilities The stretch of 136 street between Ditch and Towne is very narrow. The bike path is incomplete and it seems as though there is nothing in the plan to complete it. There
is a fire house east of Ditch road and when the fire truck makes a run west on 136th towards Towne, the cars going east have to pull into driveways or side roads to leave
enough room for the truck to squeeze by. It seems like this stretch of 136st could use some improvements.
10/28/2021
Fred Glaeser fglaeser@hotmail.com 04 Streetscape Facilities Would this be an appropriate platform to make a request for safer crossings of streets for pedestrians? This will be my third attempt to have the safety for pedestrians
addressed during rush hours when school is in session at two intersections in my neighborhood. The first is at East Carmel Drive and 126th Street. The second is High
Drive and 126th Street. Any improvement, such as a roundabout or a pedestrian overpass would be terrific.
10/29/2021
John Wright john.c.wright61@gmail.com 04 Streetscape Facilities I am pleased with the intentions, and generally, the plan. However, the future plan is a bit confusing for me. As a regular user of the paths and streets in the city, I am
having difficulty reconciling what exists and what is planned on the east side of the city regarding multi-use paths and mobility lanes. Again, I like the plan, generally, but
lack some confidence in it given what seems to be some inaccuracies.
10/31/2021
Betty Wessel baycitywessel@aol.com 04 Streetscape Facilities Where are the proposed bus stops?
I believe the map shows that 126 will be widened - how many lanes?
10/31/2021
Marsha Putt marshaputt@gmail.com 04 Streetscape Facilities What are plans for buses and where are bus stops planned?
Why has this entire plan been so poorly communicated and and why are we now just finding out about proposals that destroy greenspace, wildlife/park areas, and quiet
neighborhoods? Please don't ruin Carmel and turn it into Fishers!
11/1/2021
David Kandel dlkandel@icloud.com 04 Streetscape Facilities Crashes my browser. Tried a different browser and crashed.
Plus, how are we to know what to put in the first 3 boxes. I just guessed and put my name and email address. Nothing there to help.
Poorly designed if you ACTUALLY want feedback.
11/1/2021
Bart Schlosser bartschlosser@gmail.com 04 Streetscape Facilities Regarding this portion of the plan---What are plans for buses and where are bus stops planned near Plum Creek Village?11/1/2021
Barbara Barnett bbarnett1219@aol.com 04 Streetscape Facilities I am opposed to your current plan to turn 116th St into a boulevard with a median. This will make it impossible for any of us with homes residing on 116th St to make a
left turn out of our driveways.
11/2/2021
Claudia Hammonds claudiawhammonds@gmail.com 04 Streetscape Facilities What are plans for buses and where are bus stops planned?11/3/2021
05 Subarea Plans
Comments from DRAFT #4, 03/30/2022
David Gagliano dave.a.gagliano@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans Residents in the Downtown Carmel Area do not want building heights greater than 4 stories when adjacent to residential neighborhoods as well as appropriate "steps" in
height from the adjacent home to the tallest structure on that parcel (e.g., two story townhomes followed by the four story building). Underground parking should be
utilized before adding height.
5/2/2022
Ann Ihrer annihrer@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans Carmel development is too much within such small amount of land. The heights and cramped spacing of buildings is becoming ugly. So much of the family friendly
businesses and green space has been eaten up by Brainard plan, whom he doesn't seem to realize he's being played by developers. Carmel is turning the corner on being
considered the best place to live if things continue, there is a time to stop and enrich what is already here. Yes, things get old and that's when you create a new facade
not build a 4, 5, 6 story building too close to a street and not add side walks, rip out trees and grass spaces. I look around there is so much property for lease, what's
wrong. Taking down a wonderful lot at Main and Rangeline (where a fine looking PNC Bank was) to make another multii use with parking lot building is stupid and truly
makes me wonder what you guys are doing.
4/3/2022
51 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Comments from DRAFT #2, 01/20/2022
David Gagliano dave.a.gagliano@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans Please designate the neighborhood areas around Downtown Carmel as Single Family structures only with no opportunity to tear down existing structures and either
subdivide those parcels (aka Lot Splitting) or combine single family parcels and tear down for multi-family structures such as townhomes. Neighborhoods surrounding
the downtown Carmel area (e.g., Arts & Design District; Johnson Addition; Wilson Village; Oman/Nappanee/Pawnee Streets should remain as Single Family only in order
to maintain walkability to downtown establishments)
1/23/2022
Comments from the INITIAL DRAFT, 10/08/2021
Ed Balda edbalda@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans It was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting that the subarea plans will be carried forward from the 2009 plan. If that is true, why is this section still blank
without even noting that intent?
10/25/2021
David Gagliano dave.a.gagliano@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans We need more owner-occupied dwellings versus rentals in downtown Carmel. We can achieve density with 3 story townhomes and condos along 3rd/4th Ave NW with
all of the open land versus putting in more 4-5 story rental buildings. The drive from the Palladium north to Main Street would look wonderful this way and would still
achieve the City's density objectives
10/29/2021
David Gagliano dave.a.gagliano@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans I'll focus my comments on the Central Carmel area of The Plan as I live in downtown Carmel. The City's desire for more "density" needs to be executed thoughtfully --
especially in the areas surrounding the Monon Trail and Arts & Design District. We NEED to make sure we protect the integrity of the Neighborhoods that have been
established for years in a similar manner to what we have done in areas North of Main Street on both sides of the Monon Trail. Neighborhoods such as Johnson Addition,
Newark (I believe that's the area east of Range line and south of 126th street) and East of Carmel High School need to be similarly preserved now that more people are
moving to downtown Carmel. We cannot degrade the aesthetic beauty of these areas by allowing townhomes or multiple homes to be built in the middle of these areas
in a random fashion. I have no problem with purchasing an existing home and either tearing it down or renovating it, including adding a second story as long as the
"footprint" / lot coverage is somewhat reasonable to what existed previously. That increases values of the area and increases our tax base. If we allow townhomes to
be mixed with homes in the event 2+ homeowners sell their homes to a "developer", we devalue the neighborhood and create major drainage issues that affect all
adjacent homes. Our Johnson Addition neighborhood area is essentially south of Main Street and West of 4th Avenue SW. All homes, including the few on Main Street
should be kept as single family residences and not be allowed to skirt the integrity of the bylaws by allowing townhomes or even "accessory dwellings" other than a
finished area above a functioning, detached garage. My recommendation to create more density in the Central Area would be limited to the areas South of Industrial
Drive; North of Carmel Drive and West of Range Line Road in the downtown area as well as the Meridian / Pennsylvania Corridor where density exists today and
significant parcels of undeveloped land exist. Thoughtful development and growth will allow our City to increase our tax base while preserving the beauty and charm we
enjoy as a City.
There is a saying that rings true to me here -- BULLS MAKE MONEY. BEARS MAKE MONEY. PIGS GET SLAUGHTERED. Let's not be greedy.
10/29/2021
Julie Kempf juliekempf@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans More information needs to be provided on the subarea plans, even if it is nothing more than the process about subarea plan development process.10/30/2021
Catherine Stein cathywstein@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans I am interested in discussing plans for the non-invasive industrial areas adjacent to many homes in the Wilson subdivision. We recently renovated a ranch in this
neighborhood and are concerned to hear about potential 6-story apartments that will tower over our small homes and take away all privacy in many back yards. This is a
well-established community of neighbors and families that deserve a say in what could catastrophically devalue our properties.
11/5/2021
Charles McHenry emchenry52@gmail.com 05 Subarea Plans Please remove Plum Creek Village from the White River Development Pattern and include it in the East Carmel Development Pattern (the same as Lynnwood Farms and
Plum Creek Farms) which is primarily residential, parks and institutions (schools).
12/2/2021
Kevin Sharlow sharky0013@aol.com 05 Subarea Plans I would like to express my concerns regarding several aspects include in the draft updated Carmel Comprehensive Plan. I have lived in the Estates section of west Carmel
for 12 years. Like the majority of my friend and neighbors, my family and I chose this area due to it's existing development structure and quiet, residential lifestyle. In
fact, the area bounded on the east and west by Meridian and Michigan Road, and on the north and south by 96th and 131st, provide a safe and relaxed retreat from other
areas of Carmel that are more commercial in nature and/or more densely populated. The draft Plan includes concepts such as multi-use / mixed use; high density; 20-
minute city; and eased zoning restrictions; and Accessory Dwellings; that may sound good on paper and even be useful in certain areas of Carmel. But these concepts, if
allowed in the Estates and West Neighborhoods, would not serve to improve the existing quality of life, they would significantly degrade it. In the Estates, all of the
essential retail and commercial businesses we require for day-to-day living are a simple 5-minute or less drive away. We simply do not need, or want, to have our
tranquility disrupted my more of the same that is already easily available and obtainable. It is my understanding that the 2009 version of the Comprehensive Plan
included certain protections for the Estates area in order to preserve it's existing make-up. I implore you to continue to respect those protections and include them in the
updated Plan.
12/28/2021
Angela Walker twalker4@att.net 05 Subarea Plans I'm oppose to having the suburban areas designed like downtown Carmel. Keep the downtown the area the main focus and hub of our communities and keep the suburb
for communities of homes.
1/5/2022
None
Comments from DRAFT #3, 03/04/2022
52 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Jacqueline Phillips jackiephillips16@gmail.com None I have been a resident of Carmel for the last 6 years and live in the Village of West Clay. The following are my thoughts on the recent revision of the 'redline' for the
Comprehension Plan draft. First, I am excited to see the growth, changes, and updates to our City. I have enjoyed following along on the new developments, particularly
in Mid-town/Arts district. I enjoy seeing the arts celebrated and community fostered. It is what I love about living in Carmel and in the Village of West Clay. I enjoy having
access to a variety of conveniences. From restaurants to entertainment to outdoor spaces. However, while I love living in mixed-use development, I also understand that
not everyone wants to live close to commercial development. As our City grows and expands, I ask that the City would keep a variety of developments for all the different
families that make up a diverse demographic of people and lifestyles. A "one size fits all" approach with mixed-use development will invariably box in the feel of Carmel.
What makes Carmel great is that depending on people's lifestyle, they can choose to live anywhere from estates, urban/city, mixed-use, traditional neighborhood, and so
on. As this plan is revised and revisited, I ask that current neighborhoods would be kept to how they are were originally intended in regards to mixed-use, single-family
homes, estates, etc. I think there are creative ways Carmel can grow and expand its offerings and that we keep the variety of neighborhoods and developments to meet
the needs of families and people and their lifestyles.
Lastly, I understand that to keep Carmel in line with the changes that have been brought in by new businesses and families looking to establish themselves in the
community, I ask that we would be sensitive to the developments and changes addressed and the impact it would have on people's quality of life. Carmel has established
itself as innovative and community-oriented. If density and commercial development become the epicenter of the Comprehension Plan, we will lose sight of what has
driven so many people here, to begin with. Which is the access to green spaces, parks, easy access to shopping/arts, and so on. Please listen to the feedback of the
residents.
I am thankful for all Carmel is doing in creating a beautiful and safe place to live! Thank you for your time and consideration.
3/14/2022
Comments from DRAFT #2, 01/20/2022
Robert Waring americalovescrap@yahoo.com None I briefly looked over your PDF and I didn't see anything related to fixing this god awful sewer system in Wilson Village that has repeatedly destroyed my home multiple
times over the last 20 years. Not surprised.
1/23/2022
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com None GENERAL COMMENTS Please: Have more than 1 meeting to discuss and modify the Redline revision, 12 days is too short for thoughtful feedback from many people who
are interested in the future of Carmel. Hold a Public Hearing for the Redline revision before you vote on it and send it to City Council. Vote at another meeting after the
Public Hearing. Extend the time a person may speak at the Public Hearing to 3 minutes, no matter the number of people wishing to talk.
Reading the Comp Plan Redline, I see the specific protections removed from Single-Family homeowners and leaving most development decisions to the discretion of
developers, the Mayor, and the DOCS.
I propose that the City create an ombudsman or similar position for residents to ask the City for information and support, to help residents interact with the City and
developer during the development process.
As was requested during the Public Hearing and by Plan Commissioners, how and when is the City informing Carmel’s HOAs about the Comprehensive Plan draft.
Form based development vs use-based development would be an unsettling and dangerous new standard for future development throughout Carmel. This would be
especially true for Single-Family homeowners who have invested in their homes assuming and expecting that their continued use and enjoyment of their property would
not be adversely affected and in some cases destroyed by the City permitting a totally different type of development adjacent to their home or in their neighborhood.
1/31/2022
Pamala Renninger pam.renninger@gmail.com None Many in the community would like to know a summary of the comments the community have submitted and how those have been addressed in the plan and if any
modifications were made.
1/31/2022
Comments from the INITIAL DRAFT, 10/08/2021
Kim Hale khale0404@hotmail.com None How about "Our City, YOUR plan"???? That would be a more accurate saying.10/19/2021
Charles Demler cdemler77@gmail.com None I moved into my home on Emerson Rd in 1980. Over all those years Carmel has made some wonderful changes in the City. Johnson Addition and Wilson Village are unique
in that we have now HOA and we have affordable housing. We don't need more high rises especially if they are for rentals.
Pure Development is proposing a 6 story high rise on the AT&T lot for apartments. That is right up against Johnson Addition neighborhood. We don't need a building like
that in downtown Carmel Thanks
10/23/2021
Lee Williams leewilliams1944@gmail.com None It looks there is a plan for a roundabout at 122nd and River Road. Why? A roundabout would encourage more traffic on Medalist Pkwy. which is already too heavily
traveled and speed, even with the speed humps, is a problem.
11/1/2021
53 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Jill Meisenheimer jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com None I ask that you continue to have open discussions with homeowners and consider their suggestions as you modify the Comp Plan revision draft.
Please consider extending the time/person may speak at the Public Hearing for Plan Commission and at the Public Hearing for City Council to 3 minutes, no matter the
number of people wishing to talk. A limit of 2 minute/person for the public hearing at Plan Commission and/or City Council will not be adequate for many people who
wish to share their concerns at the Public Hearing. And many people will not use their full 3 minutes.
The Comp Plan Draft takes away specific protections from Single-Family homeowners and leaves most development decisions to the discretion of developers, the Mayor,
and the DOCS. The City’s proposed Comp Plan revision is not just an update, it is a major change and expansion in the types and locations of increased-intensity
development that City government would promote throughout all parts of Carmel. It appears that Carmel, through the Comp Plan, envisions increased density,
commercial and mixed-use developments, and "form-based" development rather than use-based development.
I propose that the City create an ombudsman or similar position to provide residents with relevant information and help residents interact with the City and developer
during the development process. Homeowners need to have more early participation and say in development decisions that homeowners will have to live with, long
after City officials and the developers have moved on.
Many residents didn’t, and still don’t know about the Comp Plan and/or have not had the time to read through it and comprehend how what these changes may
practically affect them. Allow time for people to be able to engage in this process. Please do read and address the public’s comments about the Objectives, even if they
have been submitted after the Committee meeting that was to discuss a particular section of the draft.
How and when will the City inform Carmel’s HOAs about the Comprehensive Plan draft? This was requested during the Public Hearing and by Plan Commissioners.
11/2/2021
Stewart Bick stew.bick@mac.com None I have lived on 116th Street in a 1880 home on the National Register of Historic Places since 1980. Carmel has seen a huge growth and enjoyed many successes through
shared vision of our citizens and government officials.
I have reviewed this Comprehensive Plan Draft and have very strong issues with the idea of turning 116th St from Springmill Rd to the Zionsville city limit into a boulevard.
Thoughts:
1. This idea will provide no change of traffic capacity but will require all residents and guests to use only one direction when entering or leaving their properties.
2. The need to purchase right of way will be very expensive as many of these properties have the original "one rod" distance from the centerline still in their deeds. This
will also cause high legal costs for all.
3. West 116th Street is very scenic as is and to take land from owners to place a median, which will need to be maintained by the City, and provide no additional benefit
is very short sighted and will be vigorously battled by the residents impacted.
4. Our area understands the possible need for walkways and bike-paths in the future.
In summary, small paths can be a benefit for all, a BOULEVARD is an assault and will be viewed so by all. This money can be used in a much less controversial manner and
much more beneficial projects for our community.
Not every idea by a consultant should be viewed as a great idea.
11/2/2021
Heather Benesh hbenesh@sbcglobal.net None Please don’t cut down that beautiful tree on range line and main! It’s beautiful and a staple in our community! The same with the antique mall building. Stop tearing
down parts of Carmel history.
11/3/2021
54 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
David Fox dasfox2009@gmail.com None We all expect City government to provide certain basic services, such as police and fire protection, roads, schools, parks, and libraries. Carmel does all of these things
well. However, this Comprehensive Plan revision draft is emblematic of how City officials are engaged in social engineering in ways that go far beyond the normal role of
local government.
Thirty years ago, the downtown area of Carmel was definitely in need of some upgrading, but it has since been transformed into an upscale and oversized urban core that
some refer to as Urban Disneyland. And now, via this Comprehensive Plan revision draft, City officials propose to accelerate the spread of a higher-density and more-
urban environment across all of Carmel.
A clear objective of this plan is to raise ever more tax dollars, in order to feed the endless cycle of government-driven and government-funded overdevelopment. The City
has already amassed more than 1.5 BILLION dollars in debt, and it seems to have an endless appetite for more revenue. Densification has become a primary route to
increasing City revenues, despite objections from the public.
I challenge the DOCS to conduct a well-advertised survey of Carmel residents regarding specific development issues. Ask us if we would like to see commercial
development within a 20-minute walk (about one mile) from our homes. Ask us if we would like to see mixed-use development, increased density, and multi-family
housing spread into single-family residential areas throughout Carmel. Ask us if we would like to see 3-story buildings and commercial development anywhere along the
many designated "Typical Corridors" in Carmel. Ask us if we would like to see 5-story buildings anywhere along the Monon Trail in Carmel, and ask us if we would like to
see 3-story buildings and commercial development anywhere along the White River in Carmel. We all know what the answers would be. But some City officials
apparently do not care what the majority of Carmel residents would have to say on these subjects. These officials covet the extra tax revenue, along with the accolades of
appearing to be suitably upscale, "vibrant", and trend-driven.
There have certainly been some positive changes made in the downtown area of Carmel over the years. But the City has gone too far, too fast, and spent too much in the
process. This Comprehensive Plan revision draft, if approved without major revisions, will only accelerate many unneeded and unwanted development trends into
residential areas throughout Carmel. We do not need to have all types of development everywhere.
To anyone reading these words, please let Plan Commissioners, City Councilors, and the Mayor know what you think about specific aspects of this proposed
Comprehensive Plan.
11/13/2021
Susan Hanthorn smhanthorn@gmail.com None I am aware that the City of Carmel and the Department of Community Services is updating the city’s Comprehensive Plan that will refine goals related to growth for the
next 10 years. It is my understanding that the plan is still under consideration with the City Council and the Carmel Plan Commission. After reading the plan, I would like to
share my concerns based on what I have seen in the plan that relates to our neighborhood, Plum Creek Village. I also made additional comments as I went through the
plan. I apologize for the length of this letter, but once I got started, I wanted to share all of my thoughts, not just the ones concerning our neighborhood.
My biggest concern is for my neighborhood: Plum Creek Village. In the plan, the Plum Creek Village neighborhood, as well as the Plum Creek Village Golf Course are being
included in the White River area, when in my opinion, they should be a part of the East Neighborhood. Does that mean that our neighborhood, as well as the golf course
will be redeveloped. Is the golf course selling to make way for your plans? If not, it sure gives them a reason to sell. Is that your plan? It took my husband and I two years
to find this type of neighborhood with a story and a half home (we wanted a ranch but there were none to be had). We plan on this being our forever home and I am
concerned that your plans will not be the best plan for our charming neighborhood.
As I went through the Plan page by page, a few other things concerned me. With a population of approximately 104,918 residents in Carmel, why weren’t more residents
asked to participate in the survey? Barely 1% of the residents of Carmel participated. How many of those 1000+ people actually live near where the changes are being
made? My opinion is that more residents should be asked for their opinion of this proposed plan. The views presented from 700 people do not represent enough of our
community to get a feel for what residents would like to see happen in our community.
Part of the plan mentions traditional neighborhood developments and the benefits of their principals. I totally understand the concept of TND’s, in fact for several years I
worked with George Sweet and Tom Huston selling the concept and the benefits of TND’s with their community: The Village of WestClay. I also travelled to other states
and took groups of builders and real estate agent on trips to see other traditional neighborhood developments so they too could sell the concept. I love that parts of
Carmel are using that concept. I believe in it. But it is not always sustainable and is not a necessary change. One change that would be a benefit to our city would be
neighborhoods that would support the lifestyle of people in their 60’s and 70’s. There is a severe shortage in Carmel for affordable housing for empty-nester/retirees that
are ranch homes. It took us 2 years to find the home we live in and it is not even a ranch, its a story and a half. I hope your plan includes a solution to this huge problem. I
would be curious about the percentage of people in that age group that are residents of Carmel.
I also hope that when the plan refers to redefining neighborhoods into areas of the city by physical boundaries (not neighborhood names) that the city doesn’t plan to
mimic what they have downtown. If the city plans to change areas that are already established neighborhoods, they should be asking for more feedback from the
community. I do not believe that we need that type of concept everywhere. I also believe that we do not need to grow up (meaning buildings with more stories). If the
city is running out of land to build new homes, how about if we make what we already have better. If you are not careful, most people will either not want to live in
Carmel because of the extreme growth and density or they will be forced out because of the lack of affordable housing. (cont. below)
12/6/2021
55 10/3/2022
Compiled Comments - Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted via Website through 10/3/22
First Last Email Address Section Message Date
Susan Hanthorn smhanthorn@gmail.com None From the Plan: {Encourage mixed-use, 20-minute neighborhoods making it easier for people to walk or ride their bicycles. This will provide a healthy lifestyle by providing
the option for exercise in people’s daily routines.} Are you talking about new mixed-use neighborhoods? If I am not mistaken, there are very few parcels of land left in
Carmel for mixed use neighborhoods. Unless you are planning to redevelop what we already have. If that is the case, where will that development take place? The 20-
minute city concept is already a drivable concept. I can get to many neighboring towns by car and have access to their businesses ie: stores, restaurants, churches, etc. all
within 20 minutes. There are plenty of walking/bike paths already. Why are you proposing more when the current paths throughout the city are in good shape and in my
opinion do not currently get fully utilized.
From the Plan: {Strive to provide multiple types of facilities for exercise, opportunities to immerse oneself into nature, sport facilities and leagues, access to recreation
programs, access to health education programs, and encouragement to succeed in one’s personal health goals.} Near our home, we have a large piece of property
designated for soccer fields that is rarely used, as well as a beautiful park (River Road) that has sports fields that are almost never used for sports or leagues of any kind.
Why not use those for your proposed plan? They already exist and yet it seems that you are planning to create more. (cont. below)
12/6/2021
Susan Hanthorn smhanthorn@gmail.com None White River
From the Plan: {Max Height (stories): 2 greater than the adjacent development pattern with the following exceptions: maximum of 3 stories along the river and a
maximum of 6 stories along 96th St and at E/W corridor gateways.} Does that mean that the golf course could be sold and buildings with heights of 4 stories could be
built? Or in the soccer park at 126th and River Roads, or River Road Park?? Base on the description of the White River area, I am concerned that our neighborhood is
included. The description for the White River Plan is vague. Again, why is our neighborhood and the Plum Creek Golf Course included in the Development Patterns for the
White River part of the Plan?
In the description of the Development Patterns, commercial is listed for the East Neighborhoods but it is NOT listed on the description for the West Neighborhoods. Why
is that? Is the plan to create more commercial among the current residential on the East side? What would be the benefits of including a corridor designation for 126th
Street? I do not see any and I believe that 116th would be the better option.
I am not sure that I understand why there would need to be a difference between a multi-use path and a mobility lane. The plan has listed that the north side of 126th
Street would be a proposed multi-use path (when there is already a multi-use path on the south side) and a proposed mobility lane on the south side of 126th (when
again, there is already a path located there). Since when do we need a separate path for bikes and skateboards? My husband and I walk every day year-round along 126th
street and in the park along River Road and there is not enough foot traffic or bike traffic to warrant the plans. I again wonder, why is our neighborhood and the golf
course a part of the White River plan?
12/6/2021
Emily Meiner emgill231@gmail.com None Just a note to check the versions at all of your links - I think the downloadable version of the draft plan is an old version. It is different than the version you can click
through directly on the website; looks like there are updated/added numbers and dates on the website version.
12/4/2021
Tammy Collins thecollinssix@yahoo.com None The plan looks nice. It provides lots of opportunities for activity, biking and making Carmel the top city in the area to live.
My concern is and has been the number of apartments that have been built in the city. My preference would to be to have more patio homes for senior living or starter
homes. I think we have enough high density housing.
1/7/2022
Eileen Vairo evairo@indy.rr.com None Carmel is quickly becoming a drive through community. With all the roundabouts on heavily trafficked roads many residents cannot get out of their sections. Has anyone
looked at 116th Street lately or Carmel Drive or 126th Street? We do not need any more roundabouts on these roads. Also consider the east side of Smoky Row Road
during school starting and closing. It’s a disaster. Thanks for letting me vent PS. What about AFFORDABLE ranch homes as the population ages?
1/17/2022
56 10/3/2022