Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0918; CWIC2To: CCC Plan Special Committee From: CWIC2 Date: Sept. 18, 2008 Please understand that some items in CWIC2’s Sept 9th document CWIC2 were discussed, but not changed in a way that makes them more acceptable to CWIC2 members. We have asked that the original comments be made part of the official record. Please note that the first comment for Part 2 references multiple objectives that feed a huge fear among CWIC2 members. It seems important that all these references remain identified, even if noted as discussed and commentary deleted. Whereas individual ones may be “overlooked,” the totality of these combine to confirm fears and objections. Which gets to a problem with the document of comments provided to you: it seems to restrict input to short-to-the-precise-document wording. I’m really curious as to how the grouping of issues with Part 2 is handled? How will comments with an overarching theme be handled? Marilyn Anderson Below is the updated version of what was submitted for the Sept. 9th meeting: Preface, Page 6, last paragraph: The plan “will require effort and support by residents.” How will you know you have the support of residents? Many, many Carmel West residents have pretty clearly communicated to us and we to you their strong desires to maintain a density of 1.0 u/a and no commercial areas beyond the existing ones at Meridian St., Michigan Rd. and the Village of WestClay. Surveys and several well-attended meetings were held for the existing 2020 Plan before and during its construction. Why aren’t these methods being used again? The 2nd paragraph on page 9 is problematic. It cites “pride of place and rural living” as “historical,” while stating that values have now turned to “amenities.” For the vast majority of Carmel West residents, there has been no such change. Carmel West have always fought hard to keep density low and it’s hugely important to a great many residents today, not just “historically.” Yet that’s not stated anywhere. A section in the previous draft on page 8 was omitted, which we believe should be included: “The West Carmel district…has the least developed road network. …[Additionally, it is] unlike East Carmel, where many neighborhoods were built with connecting streets to adjacent developments or stubbed streets to undeveloped areas.” Traffic does not have, and cannot have nearly as many options in at least the southern part. This important defining characteristic should be listed and considered for planning purposes. Part 2: The last sentence before Objective 1.1 states, “This model [form-based] is more permissive of mixed used nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing land classifications.” How will this be truly accomplished? What guarantees do residents have that it won’t be at the whim of changing faces at DOCS, the Plan Commission, and City Council and however they want to interpret “permissive” and “sensitivity” at that time? How do we trust this, when Carmel West residents turned out in droves for the 2020 Plan to insist on a density of 1 u/a, but we’ve had to keep fighting over this? Now you’re asking us to “trust” on this issue when we’re once again fighting to keep the character of the area the same as it was when we decided to invest in our homes in the area. This isn’t just a wording problem—it’s a problem with the concepts contained in the Plan. If this is only a problem with Carmel West, then apply the concepts east of Meridian and give plans for Carmel West enough structure and limitations that this issue goes away. Here are examples that feed fears about future “insensitivity” being imposed: 1. Objective 1.4, 2nd sentence: The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back. 2. Objective 1.5: Discussed (but contributes to the fear). 3. Objective 3.2. Discussed & modified (but contributes to fear--implies this should be utilized everywhere at all times, even in low-density residential areas.) 4. Objective 3.4 has the same problem as Objective 3.2 5. Objective 4.1. Discussed. Change terminology for “traditional neighborhood design principals.” 6. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not having commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what benefits are most important to them and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of not including retail amongst neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document. We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional suburban residences. West Carmel Policies & Objectives (Page 25): “Community character” is cited in various places and has its own section under Part 1, Policy 6, page 20. When asked where we live, most residents respond with “West Carmel,” giving their particular subdivision only when nailing location down further. As written, this document is a threat to the highly valued sense of “community character” that already exists in Carmel West. Objective 6.2 states “the community will identify appropriate character goals, subareas, and neighborhoods for…West Carmel.” West Carmel already knows what those are and we keep stating them. Please do as this objective states: respect our values and help uphold them. Objective 1.1 (page 25): We’ve heard the argument that if you can’t really see the homes as you drive down the road, it doesn’t really matter how many homes are in the subdivision. That’s not an argument we buy and it is not what we want. The only way this works is if a significantly large open space is mandatory, not “considered.” Objective 1.2 & 4.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable.