Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0826; Chamber of CommerceAugust 26, 2008 MEMORANDUM To: Business Issues Committee cc: Mike Hollibaugh, Adrienne Keeling DOCS From: Mo Re: Summary of Comments from 20 August Business Issues Meeting Comprehensive Plan Draft. In general, the group’s remaining concerns center around the document’s specificity. The group’s view is that Comprehensive Plans, per the information contained in the mandate on page 5, are designed to provide statements of objectives and policy. Instead, in many instances, the document recommends usages for specific parcels of land and suggests language more suited for future form-based zoning ordinances than comprehensive plans (e.g., page 41, Structure Features “All facades facing a public right-of-way must have at least two windows per floor.”) Our comments follow by page number. Page 7: First paragraph under East Carmel Characteristics, end of paragraph. Aren’t there two more? Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons? Also, a typo - Third paragraph under East Carmel Characteristics, last sentence “Public and private decision making must give due consideration to ‘this’ not ‘his’ important resource.” Page 8: Fourth paragraph under South Central Carmel Characteristics: “There are two golf courses; one that is under pressure to be redeveloped.” Belongs in Comp Plan? Who is applying the pressure and why? Two paragraphs down – 96th Street is an east/west connector as well. Page 12: Fourth paragraph under Objective Profile: Do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? Page 14: Under Parkland: Information is dated. Central Park has been completed. Page 17: Repeat from our first set of comments. First sentence in introduction was not understandable. “Managing community form is the art and schedule of influencing development in a manner that results in a superior quality built and natural environment in which people reside, work and recreate; and creates the opportunity for businesses to thrive.” Say what? English teacher’s nightmare! This is a repeat comment from last time. Lots of specifics here. Objective 1.2 “desired features” – definition? Objective 1.3 – Very specific language. Is the Comp Plan an ordinance? In other words, can it be perceived as the law in Carmel? Objective 1.5 What is “unsuitable commercial development?” Objective 2.2 Can we say we want more businesses and not just more corporations? Objective 2.3 “The City needs to commission a study on housing choices.” Belongs in Comp Plan? Objective 2.4 is an opinion, not an objective. Page 18 Objective 3.3 Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .” Objective 3.5 Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” In the same objective, “Create incentives for development – add standards.” Objective 3.10 Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed of high-quality materials? Page 19: Objective 4.6 “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples? Objective 5.2 It’s our understanding Carmel has several trails on top of pipe lines. Presumably this is allowed in Indiana, since it is not in several other states. Are owners of the pipelines aware of this? Page 20: Objective 5.6 Shouldn’t developers be added to the list of those we’re encouraging, since they hire the architects and designers? Objective 6.1: Define monotonous. What are Carmel’s “character goals?” Wouldn’t defining character goals be something a comp plan would address? Page 21: Objective 7.3 We need a definition for “large-scale employment nodes.” While the encouragement of walking and bicycling is laudable, requiring businesses to provide facilities for walkers and bikers is expensive, both to build and to maintain. This is a repeat comment from last time. Page 22: Objective 2.2: What is “world class?” Why would specific developments (i.e. Village of West Clay and Earlham College property) be singled out? This is a repeat comment from last time. Objective 3.3: Why would the city’s comp plan drill down to suggesting that a particular property owner, in this case Northview Christian Life Church, be encouraged to sell a portion of its land? This struck us as completely inappropriate for this document. This is a repeat from last time. Page 23: Objective 1.2 Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan? Objective 2.4 We do not understand why musical performances would be a topic for comprehensive plan. Page 24: Objective 1.5 “Areas adjacent to single family residential should not exceed five unites per acre. . .” The job of the comp plan or zoning ordinance? Page 25: Objective 2.1 “. . .other housing styles that cater to high income families.” Do we really want to say this? West Carmel is for rich people? Doesn’t use of the term “estate character” convey this in a less-offensive way? Objective 3.3 We understood there a Michigan Road overlay already exists. We also are having trouble matching the concept of a four-lane highway with “village character.” Objective 5.1 Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? Page 30: Development Features “Minimum of 10% open space in subdivisions. . .” Comp plan or zoning ordinance? Should there be mention of trails or bicycle/pedestrian connectivity here? Page 34: Purpose We’re not sure if “workforce housing” is the new term for affordable, diverse housing opportunities, but wonder if Carmel wants to specify whom they are identifying. Why teachers, fire fighters and police officers? Why not retail salespeople, roofers and nurses’ aides? We’d recommend the deletion of the items in parenthesis. Page 36: Development Features. “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops abuts the street? The caption on the lower picture singles out an existing building. We’d recommend the use of outside-of-Carmel examples when the document is being critical. Page 39: Land Uses. Fourth bullet – isn’t this a zoning ordinance issue? We’d make the same comment about the items under Structure Features on this page. Page 40: Under Development Features, same comments as previous about strip commercial development. Page 41: Under Structure Features – Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance? Page 42: Structure Orientation on Site – Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the zoning ordinance. Part 4: Transportation The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new neighborhoods. Page 86 Keystone – Needs updating due to recent engineering and construction? Page 88 Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan? A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed. Page 89: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive Residential? Page 95, 96 & 97: Mixed Use Design Guidelines These too specific in our opinion, even delving into sign specifications (e.g. “Ground floor tenants should be allowed 1 ½ square feet of sign area per lineal foot of building signage. . .” How will this language be integrated into the new sign ordinance? General Comments: Lots of vague terminology and definition issues remain. Feeling that the document is frequently too specific to particular sites or developments.