HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1121; Comp Plan Comments Spreadsheet 2008GENERAL COMMENTS
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
1 8/18/2008 Karen Carter The document divides the community (providing service nodes, this area for the rich, this area for the
poor)
No change in text, 9/9/08
2 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman Recognize 146th Street as a changing and prominent corridor OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
3 8/19/2008 Marilyn Anderson The possibility of a more neighborhood service nodes is in direct conflict with the values of West
Clay residents (see article in Money mag).
expanded upon in later comments
4 8/19/2008 Andy Crook Need an overall plan for utility placement. We have a 2nd rate substation; the city should take more
control
No change in text, 9/9/08
5 8/26/2008 Chamber Lots of vague terminology and definition issues remain. No change in text, 9/9/08
6 8/26/2008 Chamber Feeling that the document is frequently too specific to particular sites or developments. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
7 9/8/2008 Dee Fox How far along is the PC on developing residential quality/architectural standards? No change in text, 9/9/08
8 9/8/2008 Dee Fox References to Neighborhood Service Nodes should also include the new Neighborhood Support
Centers. (pg 22, obj. 1.2; page 24, obj. 1.1, etc.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
9 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Strictly define permitted uses in Neighborhood Support/Service Nodes No change in text, 9/9/08
10 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Define "usable" open space. New trees in Carmel are routinely planted too close together. No change in text, 9/9/08
11 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Address appropriate locations of Mega-churches that serve as Community Centers. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
12 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Address appropriate use of PUD's, and their amendment process. No change in text, 9/9/08
13 9/15/2008 Leslie Webb I believe that city plans must explore the most energy efficient designs possible in our buildings
(LEED, Energy Star, etc) and means of transportation (mass transit of some sort). We need to
provide an alternative to cars. The era of cheap energy is over and those cities that are best
prepared will have a marked advantage. Minimize urban sprawl. More mixed use. We must
support and encourage alternative energy options such as wind and solar to move away from fossil
based fuels and reduce our carbon footprint. We should protect existing trees and plant as many
more trees as possible to sequester carbon, provide cooling and air/water filtration. Please explore
all green and sustainable city planning practices.
no change in text, already accommodating
this in policies
14 10/6/2008 Lee, Margaret & Doug
Dolen
We respectfully ask that the "history chapter" be returned to the Carmel Clay Comprehensive
Building Plan. We believe that it most important to preserving Carmel's architectural heritage.
will find a way to link old history chapter to
the web
15 10/6/2008 Jeremy Boarman I am writing as a property owner in Old Town Carmel and as a member of the Carmel Clay Historical
Society. I recently became aware that the "history" chapter was removed from the Carmel Clay
Comprehensive Building Plan. I urge that the missing chapter be reinstated in the plan to ensure the
integrity of the architectural culture of the community be preserved.
will find a way to link old history chapter to
the web
16 10/9/2008 Judy Hagan I read in the C/C Historical Society newsletter that the historic landmark section of the comp plan
was being deleted or not included. I totally support the landmark section being retained and
expanded actually, to include the landmark farm house on the south side of 116th Street, a little east
of the MononGreenway. Mike Hollibaugh visited it a few years ago with me when there was
development pressure. It should be a inventoried at a minimum.
will find a way to link old history chapter to
the web
Comprehensive Plan Comments - July 24, 2008 DRAFT , OCTOBER 23, 2008 DRAFT
1 11/21/2008
PREFACE
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
17 8/24/2008 Tom Jones 5 Note the purpose of the plan is to improve the health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens.
For the city to attempt to mandate preferred architectural details could infringe on individual rights.
No change in text, 9/9/08
18 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 Fulfillment of the mandate - Public Involvement: Absent is the extensive public participation and
surveys on what residents wanted that formed the current 2020 plan.
No change in text, 9/9/08
19 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 A few public meetings on the revision in 2006 may have met the "letter of the law", but they do not
broadly reach the time-crunched public who have a hard time keeping up with the details and react to
changes.
No change in text, 9/9/08
20 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 In 2006, the stated reason for the abrupt halt was a flawed process and insufficient public
participation. All agreed that the process was very rushed.
No change in text, 9/9/08
21 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 2 years later the revision process is moving on quickly from where it left off. Many residents are
unaware that the process has restarted and/or that the City's revisions would drastically change the
2020 Plan protections they relied on.
No change in text, 9/9/08
22 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 How is this time different from 2006? On this issue of such importance to the public's future, the city
should again pursue an accurate read on public opinion via a comprehensive survey and/or district
citizen groups actively involved in developing the Plan.
No change in text, 9/9/08
23 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives: Planning and zoning are not supposed to be market-based. No change in text, 9/9/08
24 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Language in the 2020 Plan that is protective of residential communities and "the quality of life that
attracted them", is now conspicuously missing.
No change in text, 9/9/08
25 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 "Freshen" is deceptively inaccurate. The 2020 Plan would be totally changed by the City's new focus
on urbanizing, higher densities, and placing commercial uses in residential areas. Suburban
residents, Carmel's foundation, feel threatened.
No change in text, 9/9/08
26 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Why don't the bulleted documents include the 116th St. Overlay and US 421 studies? No change in text, 9/9/08
27 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 "Form-based" regulations do not negate the non-visual impacts of inappropriate uses. No change in text, 9/9/08
28 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 If easily amendable at any time, will there be public notice and overview of all changes? How will the
public ever keep up, or be able to count on what the Plan says?
No change in text, 9/9/08
29 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Drafting and Public Input - The public had little time to review the full draft prior to the one open
house. How many could not attend? Will all oral/written comments be condensed for public review,
including those from developers?
No change in text, 9/9/08
30 9/9/2008 CWIC2 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 thir 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. Why aren't these methods
being used again?
No change in text, 9/9/08
31 10/28/2008 CWIC2 6 All of page 6 is new? No change in text, 10/28/08
32 8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
33 8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
2 11/21/2008
34 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 7 & 8 East Carmel - No mention of Keystone commercial area. No change in text, 9/9/08
35 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8 Does not explain East-West boundaries No change in text, 9/9/08
36 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 4th paragraph: “There are two golf courses; one that is under pressure to be
redeveloped.” Belongs in Comp Plan? Who is applying the pressure and why?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
37 X 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street is a connector SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
38 X 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street omitted as east/west connectivity. Compare w/pg 90
describing 96th as "major east/west arterial"
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
39 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 8 North Central Carmel, a higher education facility already exists in the Life and Learning Center.
Owned by Clay Twp and leased to Ivy Tech and IUPUI.
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
40 9/6/2008 Judy Hagan 8 I'd like to see more explanation about the Community Life and Learning Center b/c the name does
not well define it for purposes of a planning document and b/c Objective 2.6 on pg 23 is in support of
higher education. I think "Clay Township" should be included in the the title. Could something to the
effect of "Clay Township's Community Life and Learning Center, operated by IUPUI and IvyTech,
currently provides higher education opportunites in the former C/C Public Library building."
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
41 9/9/2008 CWIC2 8 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.
No change in text, 10/28/08
42 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 8 South Central Carmel-No mention of west boundary employment area(US 31) OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
43 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 (West Carmel): End of 2nd paragraph, Change "residential" amenities to "recreational". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
44 9/9/2008 CWIC2 9 2nd Paragraph is problematic. It cites "pride of place and rural living" as "historical," while stating that
valueas 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. It
must be clearly stated or it's not "our" Comp Plan and it will not have the support of the Carmel West
residents.
"historically" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
45 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 West Carmel Characteristics: Largest district with fewest parks. One city and one county park, in the
center, were largely donated in response to overdevelopment concerns. Especially w/ 146th St
developing, the city needs to promptly obtain park land on the north end, while land is still available.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
46 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 Last Paragraph: Add "community and" regional destination. The Village of WestClay should not be
mapped as a Community Vitality Node. It is a neighborhood-serving.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
47 8/19/2008 Dan Dutcher Figures should reflect the entire township and show growth trends OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
3 11/21/2008
48 9/8/2008 Dan Dutcher I suggest a reference to the likely timetable for "build out." I think that would dovetail well with the
discussion regarding the emergence of Carmel as an Edge City, beyond a traditional residential
suburb.
49 8/26/2008 Chamber 12 4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
50 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12 Objective Profile: Woodlots-A goal should be to strengthen cutting limitation and replacement
requirements for mature trees.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
51 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12 Population Growth-Does chart include entire Township? Carmel is built on families w/ children, who
came for nonurban lifestyles and schools. Why do these revisions focus on urbanizing and on
developing for everyone but them?
no change in text, 9/9/08
52 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13 All charts are 8 yrs out of date. no change in text, 9/9/08
53 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13 Education-All suburbs and Hamilton County have higher graduation rates than Indianapolis. Carmel
now strives to morph into a city, which its suburban residents fled. Increased population means
facing the need for a second high school.
no change in text, 9/9/08
54 8/26/2008 Chamber 14 Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
55 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Omit Mohawk Hill Golf Club no change in text, 9/9/08
56 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Development Trends: The upward trend in Town Homes/Multi-Family units is due to City officials
actively encouraging them.
no change in text, 9/9/08
57 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 The current solution to crowded schools seems to be to increase density, but build new
developments that aim to exclude children!
no change in text, 9/9/08
58 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Golf courses-Most are under pressure to be developed, or are private. Sadly, few public courses will
exist.
no change in text, 9/9/08
PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
59 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 16 This is where the whole focus is changed from the 2020 Plan, so as to increase density and add
commercial development to the suburbs. If "the public can base their expectations" on this Part, then
the content needs to be based on the public's desire to protect existing chosen lifestyles and
neighborhoods.
no change in text, 9/9/08
60 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition? no change in text, 9/9/08
61 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5: Objectives of Carmel government and its suburban residents are not the same.
Inserting "mixed use" into suburban areas makes a harsh contrast inevitable, and effective transition
difficult. Locate such nodes now, so that the decision is not left to developers, and so that
homebuyers know what to expect. Brace for many fights over what constitutes "unsuitable
commercial development." Most residential areas formed as havens from the effects of commercial
development, and consider all of it to be unsuitable.
no change in text, 9/9/08
62 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.3: Very specific language. Is the Comp Plan an ordinance? In other words, can it be
perceived as the law in Carmel?
no change in text, 9/9/08
63 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.4, second sentence: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. 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.
no change in text, 10/28/08
4 11/21/2008
64 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Are we really saying that essentially we
always want to see mixed use in commercial areas? Is there no concern that there may be a limit to
demand for this or that the desire for this be more specific to areas that contain, or will contain,
typical urban shopping and entertainment venues—as in not in a suburban areas that want to be
sururban.
no change in text, 10/28/08
65 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?” no change in text, 9/9/08
66 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 1.6: How does one determine which neighborhoods are not subject to redevelopment? Those
not on the list will see home values plummet.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
67 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 2.2, 2.3: The few affordable housing options are being "redeveloped" to become expensive.
Many "transplants" from other areas appreciate the chance to get more spacious homes/yards for
less money in Indiana.
no change in text, 9/9/08
68 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.2: Can we say we want more businesses and not just more corporations? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
69 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.3: “The City needs to commission a study on housing choices.” Belongs in Comp Plan? no change in text, 9/9/08
70 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 2.3: The study on housing choices should have already been done and it should help drive the
Comp Plan, not the other way around. The population chart on page 12 clearly shows this is an area
of families—the age groups that are the largest include 35-54 year-olds and their children. Please
ensure the new Comp Plan does not overallocate residences for other age groups, that it takes care
that their location suits the needs of the people who would chose them, and it reflects the studies that
show that the large age group for families wants surburban living, not urban living. Give us our
peace and quiet.
no change in text, 9/9/08
71 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
72 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Policy 1 Into: 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
no change in text
73 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Policy 1 Intro: Land use based planning protected homeowners from unwanted commercial and mult-
story bldgs next to single-family homes.
no change in text, 9/9/08
74 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Policy 1, 1st sentence: “Managing community form is the art and science 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?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
75 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Policy 2 Intro: Carmel has always been a suburb w/ a "desirable quality of life." Other realities,
though, are its image is snobbish, it is unaffordable to many, it lacks "non-white-collar" jobs, and it is
unlikely to be able to support public transportation if Indianapolis can't.
no change in text, 9/9/08
5 11/21/2008
76 8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 17 Policy 2: This is great. Edge cities are distinct from traditional bedroom suburbs. I would only suggest
a bit of elaboration that edge cities have been a modern trend and that their evolution and distinct
nature from traditional suburbs is likely to be further enhanced by economic trends like higher fuel
prices, etc.
Leading Edge City, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
77 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional
suburban residences.
already included in geographic policies
recognizing different character
78 8/18/2008 Karen Carter 18 Obj. 3.1: Instead of "branding," suggest the word "promoting". no change in text, 9/9/08
79 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed of high-
quality materials?
no change in text, 9/9/08
80 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.10: Transition problems, especially along residential Spring Mill Road. no change in text, 9/9/08
81 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.2: Add to the end of first sent. "in urban core and commercial areas". Suburban residents have
chosen not to live near urban 24/7 "vitality."
add "where appropriate", OCTOBER 23
DRAFT
82 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.2: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed, even though discussed and modified to
add the words “where appropriate” at the end of the first sentence.
no change in text, 10/28/08
83 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .” OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
84 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the same problem as Objective 3.2 no change in text, 10/28/08
85 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.” no change in text, 9/9/08
86 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 obj. 3.5: Exclude increased density from the list of incentives. no change in text, 9/9/08
87 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
88 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 4.1: ALARMING. This type of development does not belong everywhere! Do not include
suburban areas in statements of urban objectives, especially vague and general statements.
no change in text, 9/9/08
89 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 4.1: states a desire for “traditional neighborhood design principals, in all neighborhoods
including…..estate, suburban or urban.” So we’re stating that more Villages of WestClay (VWC) are
the goal anywhere in Carmel? Approval of the VWC was given with the promise, often restated, that
the VWC would be the exception in Clay West. This objective violates that promise and CWIC2 can
guarantee a huge uprising from Carmel West residents over this.
discussed 9/9/08. Re-word, clarify
tradiitional neighborhood design principals
90 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Policy 4 Intro: Subdivisions are neighborhoods. What "outside destabilizing forces"? delete, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
91 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.3: Establishing neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries has basically been done
by acknowledging 4 unique districts.
no change in text, 9/9/08
92 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.4: This new. Explain. no change in text, 9/9/08
93 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 4.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. 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.
no change in text, 10/28/08
94 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.5: To the end of the first sent., add "in context to appropriate locations". Agreement from
surrounding homeowners should be required. Suburbanites purposely fled the traffic, trucks, noise,
and light of commercial development.
no change in text, 9/9/08
95 8/26/2008 Chamber 19 Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples? no change in text, 9/9/08
6 11/21/2008
96 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.6: Estate and large lot owners will move away from commercial development. Zoning
exceptions will be sought for the nearby "compromised" properties. Effective transition is
questionably possible, one mile apart is too close. In West Carmel's one-mile road grid, that would
be one on every corner.
no change in text, 9/9/08
97 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 5.1: The city's "vision" would alter/negate the chosen lifestyle of its residents, based on
unproven trends.
no change in text, 9/9/08
98 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 5.2: Does this mean Carmel would make changes to Land Classifications without going through
a Comp Plan revision? Please no, and please tell us it would not just be a 10-day notice with a Plan
Commission hearing, meeting, approval, and repeat in City Council. That is not nearly enough
warning and time for input for making such a drastic change.
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
99 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 5.2: How will the public be informed and have input? Limit how often it can be revised.
Frequently and readily revisable means no rest, control, or security for the public.
no change in text, 9/9/08
100 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Policy 5 Intro: "Fear of change" has been added! It's the routine label for residents who disagree with
any of the city's plans. Certain changes are justifiably opposed as plain bad ideas that would
adversely affect many people. It is the city's push to imitate Traditional Neighborhoods that is "based
on the models that were successful 50 or more years ago/" Even the real ones that remain are dying,
b/c circumstances of both residential life and business are very different now.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
101 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 5.7: Again, what reward? Not increased density! The City seems to equate "sprawl" w/ its
foundation of single-family homes on lots that offer some privacy.
no change in text, 9/9/08
102 8/29/2008 Tom Jones 20 Obj. 5.7: This could include moving toward more naturalistic lawn care. Golf courses and private
lawns could allow grass to go dormant instead of using valuable water resources.
no change in text, 9/9/08
103 8/26/2008 Chamber 20 Obj. 6.1: Define monotonous. What are Carmel’s “character goals?” Wouldn’t defining character
goals be something a comp plan would address?
no change in text, 9/9/08
104 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.2: Exactly who is "the community" (Carmel government?), and why should they be able to
dictate "character goals" for the different districts? We are not Disneyland. Redevelopment (Old
Town) and new development should not be treated the same way.
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
105 9/8/2008 CWIC2 20 Obj. 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.
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
106 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.3: "Significant" landscaping has been removed! Even the most attractive landscaping is not
effective if there is not enough of it.
no change in text, 9/9/08
107 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.4: Add "preservation". Carmel does not do enough to protect mature trees from development,
and their replacements do not compare in size or number.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
108 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 20 Obj. 6.4: We also would like to see them beef up the section about retaining existing trees (especially
mature trees) and natural areas which happen to exist in an area slated for development. It takes no
special skills or vision to mow down everything on a parcel of land and build all anew, including
landscaping. However, it does take leadership to insist that, at least when there is taxpayer money
involved, we don’t use tax dollars to pay for placing NEW trees onto a cleared lot if there are already
mature trees on the property that could be saved.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
7 11/21/2008
109 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.7: West Carmel has request buried utility lines, and it could be done in conjunction w/ new
road work. I've been told that it is expensive and that the utility company is reluctant b/c of the extra
labor. Is that the end of the discussion?
no change in text, 9/9/08
110 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Policy 6 Intro: West Carmel's character is already establised as uniquely very low density residential,
mostly without urban intrusion. This Plan threatens to change, rahter than protect it.
no change in text, 9/9/08
111 9/8/2008 CWIC2 20 Policy 6: “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.
no change in text, 9/9/08
112 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective 7.8 and page 21, Objective
7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative certification. Shown below is a link to a recent article in
Scientific American covering some of the common objections to LEED Certification.
add "such as". OCT 31 SUPPLEMENT
113 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true
114 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.3: Define "small scale" and "large scale". Retroactive? no change in text, 9/9/08
115 8/26/2008 Chamber 21 Obj. 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.
no change in text, 9/9/08
116 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 21 Obj. 7.5: The City should require (not strongly recommend) LEED or equivalent buildings for all new
taxpayer paid construction.
other public facilities, OCT 31
SUPPLEMENT
117 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Carmel needs to address the mercury levels in CFL's & how to dispose of them safely
before "jumping on that bandwagon"
no change in text, 9/9/08
118 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Encourage the city and residents to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and lawn
chemicals.
no change in text, 9/9/08
119 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.10: Be mindful that windmills, large solar panels, electrical utilities, water towers, and cell
towers are eyesores in residential aeras. Take great care in locating and screening.
no change in text, 10/28/08
120 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 1.2: "Allow" has been changed to "support and encourage"! (mention new "support centers",
too.) Locate nodes NOW, and get public approval. To the "strictly regulated" list, add hours of
operation, buffering, uses, and signage. The impact of these nodes is more than visual.
change back to "allow", OCT 31
SUPPLEMENT
121 8/26/2008 Chamber 22 Obj. 2.2: What is “world class?” Why would specific developments (i.e. Village of West Clay and
Earlham College property) be singled out?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
122 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.2: Put a limit on density that transitions to residential. Impacts of increased density are not just
visual.
now Objective 6.2, no change in text
123 8/26/2008 Tom Jones 22 Obj. 3.3: The idea has merit but is it wise to make specific recommendations about privately owned
property?
deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
124 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.3: This intent to expand and intensify areas "sold" to the public as small "neighborhood-
serving", is one major reason why so many residents do not want them.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
125 8/26/2008 Chamber 22 Obj. 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.
deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
126 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.2: Discourage "residential opportunities" near the mine. The problems were predictable, and
houses already there should not have been approved.
now Objective 7.2, no change in text
8 11/21/2008
127 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact surrounding residences." now Objective 7.5, no change in text
128 8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan? deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
129 8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 2.4: We do not understand why musical performances would be a topic for comprehensive plan. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
130 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for North Central Carmel. OCTOBER 31 SUPPLEMENT
131 8/26/2008 Chamber 24 Obj. 1.5: “Areas adjacent to single family residential should not exceed five unites per acre. . .” The
job of the comp plan or zoning ordinance?
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
132 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.5: Since the "intense fringe areas" are limited to 5.0 units/acre adjacent to single-family
residential, then the Suburban Residential density (up to 4.9 u/a) applied to the entire South Central
residential area is too high.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
133 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.1, 2.2: Threats of redevelopment are causing residents to panic and leave. Busy roads are not
a buffer.
no change in text, 10/28/08
134 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.3: Should this say "west" rather than "east" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
135 9/15/2008 Karen Gould 25 General Comments: I am also opposed to any increase in amenities, such as gas stations and
shops. We are quite content to drive to what we need, not to have it in our immediate neighborhood.
When we became part of Carmel, we thought Carmel would look out
for the needs of the people...not tell us what our needs are (more retail, etc.)
This is a residential area and we do no want an urbanized area shoved on us. Let us be a part of the
decision as to what becomes of our area. There are plenty of shops on Michigan Road or on
Meridian at which we all can do our business. We don't want it in our neighborhood.
no change in text, 10/28/08
136 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 General Comments: Suburban (and especially West Carmel) residents have chosen not to live close
to high density and commercial development. Estate owners will move away from it. West Carmel is
already conveniently and adequately served. Any location issues need to be settled now. Otherwise,
there will be a fight over every proposal. Also, "PUDs" still need to be addressed in West Carmel.
no change in text, 10/28/08
137 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Increase open space requrement soon, before buildout. Replace "Allow" wilth
"Consider". Distinguish between Neighborhood Support Centers and Neighborhood Service Nodes.
The size and density of the latter are especially not appropriate in West Carmel. To the "strictly
regulated", ADD hours of operation, uses, signage, and buffering.
no change in text, 10/28/08
138 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.1: 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.”
no change in text, 10/28/08
139 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.2: 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.
no change in text, 9/9/08
140 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 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?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
141 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of West Carmel. no change in text, 10/28/08
9 11/21/2008
142 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.2: Custom homes require higher-income buyers, who generally do not desire to be near higher
densities and/or commercial development. "Accessory dwellings" is vague. Are they prohibited now?
Can they be rentals?
no change in text, 10/28/08
143 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.1: The last sent. Is STILL a problem. "Residential intensity" has unwanted effects in West
Carmel, whether it is visible or not.
now Objective 6.1, no change in text
144 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along". no change in text, 10/28/08
145 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 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.”
no change in text, 9/9/08
146 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.4: Are "institutional" uses considered to be residential? Why no mention of the 116th St.
Overlay already in place? There is much concern about the fate of the southwest corner of 116th St.
and Towne Rd.
no change in text, 9/9/08
147 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 4.2: Leave out entirely, or replace "Establish" with "Consider". They are not needed or wanted
here, are not compatible with preserving rural character, and would not significantly prevent driving.
They would struggle to survive and would add large truck traffice, noise, light, and trash problems.
now objective 7.2, "allow limited" as is in
1.2, OCT 31 SUPPLEMENT
148 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 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.
now Objective 7.2, no change in text
149 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the area. now objective 1.5, no change in text
150 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? no change in text, 9/9/08
151 9/11/2008 Tom Jones 25 Obj. 5.3: The residents of the Little Eagle Creek area should be made aware that a greenway is an
objective of development.
no change in text, 9/9/08
152 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.4: Replace "WestClay Secondary Core" with "The Village of WestClay". As per page 42, the
Village of WestClay commercial core is a "Secondary Core" in form only.
now objective 1.8, no change
153 8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 25 West Central: I think the Village of West Clay needs to be more directly addressed throughout the
various policies reflected in The West Clay Section
no change in text, 9/9/08
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
154 9/19/2008 CWIC2 Carmel West has a strong sense of community and character, which is a draw for many people.
Most people invested in their homes in Carmel West specifically because the zoning promised the
area would be low-density residential and that commercial uses would not intrude. They opted out of
“urban” life. Many couldn’t afford to buy and build on acreage, but want space between our
neighbors, no commercial intrusions, plenty of greenspace and no “walls” of close-together houses
when we’re out and about.
no change in text, 9/23/08
155 9/20/2008 Tom Jones Where does "agricultural" fit in the Land Classification Plan? The current S-1 zoning ordinance
allows for a tree nursery on ten acres of land and I believe owning a horse requires five acres.
Acknowledging that the actual ordinance governs the use - should there be any mention in this
"broadbrush" document?
no change in text, 9/23/08
10 11/21/2008
156 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 28 Introduction: Appropriate Adjacent - Conditional Fit is based on only "orientation, transitions, and
architecture"? What about use, height, and density?
no change in text, 9/23/08
157 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 28 A statement is needed that the listed "Appropriate Adjacent Classifications" are not meant to
encourage these uses other than where identified on the Land Classification Map, and that their
inclusion does not suggest automatic approval. Otherwise, they will invite disputes.
no change in text, 9/23/08
158 9/19/2008 CWIC2 29 Development Features: Add, “including passive enjoyment of nature” to the last one, “Promote
recreation.”
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
159 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29 Land Uses: add "pocket parks" to the list OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
160 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29 Examples: Delete Village of West Clay open space network, this is zoned PUD not a park zone pocket parks, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
161 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Can title be changed to from "Estate" to "Conservation" or "Rural" Residential? no change in text, 9/23/08
162 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Purpose: end the sentence after "…who desire a large residential lot" no change in text, 9/23/08
163 9/19/2008 CWIC2 30 Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: How compatible is Suburban Residential, 4.9 u/a with a 1.0
u/a? Would you want a 5 times as dense neighborhood behind your house? In Carmel West,
people chose a low-density residential area, not just a low-density subdivision. Remove this.
Conditional, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
164 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 30 Best Fit - Move "Suburban Residential" to Conditional. Conditional, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
165 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Best Fit: Remove Low Intensity Suburban and Suburban. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
166 9/19/2008 CWIC2 30 Conditional Fit: “Attached Residential” has a density of 7.0 u/a and is too much a difference from 1.0
u/a. Remove this.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
167 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Conditional Fit: add low intensity suburban residential (only at perimeter). OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
168 8/26/2008 Chamber 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?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
169 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features: delete second sentence (perception of open space), add "At least 50% of
the open space must be on dry land as a designed landscape."
no change in text, 9/23/08
170 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features, 3rd bullet: delete "on estate sized lots" at the end of the sentence. no change in text, 9/23/08
171 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features: add a bullet point, "Garages must be side-loaded or front-loeaded if set
behind the main building by at least 50 feet."
no change in text, 9/23/08
172 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Purpose: Amend to read, “Establish and protect housing opportunities for people who desire low
density or subdivision living.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
173 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Geographic Location - Why are no such areas shown for South Central Carmel on the Land
Classification map?
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
174 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Geographic location: Delete South Central since none is shown on the map deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
175 9/3/2008 Andy Crook 31 Intensity/Density: Supports higher than 1.0 but thinks 1.5 should be upper limit in reflection of what
has been approved and developed. "Fill in" developments need higher densities to make
development of smaller tracts work financially.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
176 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Density - This is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The upper limit of 1.9 u/a is too high, and does
not reflect existing densities. It would raise the density to be in line with the Village of WestClay
exception, (where a .1 density increase added 70 extra houses). It would double the current zoning,
and would not reflect recent denial of 2 rezone proposals at that density.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
177 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Intensity/Density: limit to 1.0. should not change from current densities without a public survey OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
11 11/21/2008
178 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: Delete Suburban Residential, Neighborhood Service Node,
and Community Vitality Node. A change in density next door from a 1.2 to 4.9 is way too extreme for
people in West Carmel who want to live in a low-density residential area. And again, West Carmel
residents chose to live away from typical urban features provided by even a “Neighborhood Service
Node,” let alone a “Community Vitality Node” that could have 80,000 sq. ft. of retail!
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
179 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Best Fit: delete Suburban Residential no change in text, 9/23/08
180 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Conditional Fit: add Suburban Residential (at edges), delete attached residential, neighborhood
service should be changed to support, delete community vitality node since there are none present.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
181 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Structure Orientation on Site: delete courtyard-loading garages. no change in text, 9/23/08
182 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Development Features: Define “designed open space.” Is it usable? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
183 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Open Space - "50% should be designed" was added. Why? Is it usable? Define both. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
184 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Development Features: add "and on dry land as a designed landscape." no change in text, 9/23/08
185 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Suburban Res: In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6 to 1 to divide this classification further. That
should be reflected in this draft.
no change in text, 9/23/08
186 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Purpose: Amend to read, “To establish housing opportunities for people who desire to have less
yard & to enjoy closer proximity to their neighbors.
no change in text, 9/23/08
187 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Geographic location: Strike “West.” This doesn’t exist outside of the Village of WestClay and
Stanford Park, which were approved as “exceptions. They certainly are a very small piece of the
area. It is not typical.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
188 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 32 Geographic Location: Why is North Central Carmel not listed? Is it because the city wants to buy up
this land and turn it in to something else?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
189 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Geographic Location - What is the basis for applying up to 4.9 u/a to all of South Central and East
Carmel.
no change in text, 9/23/08
190 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet no change in text, 9/23/08
191 8/19/2008 Andy Crook 32 Intensity/Density: 4.9 du/a is too high. no change in text, 9/23/08
192 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Intensity/Density: Add the phrase “where there is good connectivity” to the end. Reduce the top
number to at least 3.9. Urban residential starts at 4.0, so nothing is served by the overlap. At 3.9,
equal sized lots would be approximately 1/5 of an acre. That is “urban”, not “suburban,” particularly
in Carmel West.
no change in text, 9/23/08
193 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Density - Range is too broad. In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6-1 to further divide this
classification.
no change in text, 9/23/08
194 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Intensity/Density: should be between 1.0 and 2.9. R-1 is now 2.9 max and shouldn't change unless
survey indicates otherwise.
no change in text, 9/23/08
195 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 32 Intensity/Density: Where are the areas that will be 2-4.9 dwellings per acre located? The words “will
be” is of concern to me. Are you planning on destroying current neighborhoods to put in new ones?
If so how will you go about doing that?
"will be" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
196 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Best Fit: delete attached residential and neighborhood service node OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
197 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Best Fit - Add "Neighborhood Support Center". Move "Attached Residential (7 u/a or greater)", and
"Neighborhood Service Node (80,000 sq. ft., up to 6 u/a)" to Conditional Fit.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
12 11/21/2008
198 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Conditional Fit - All of these would be very conditional, (allowing 6-14 u/a), especially next to the
lower end of this range (2-4.9 u/a). Employment Nodes allow up to 4 stories.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
199 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node, delete community vitality OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
200 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Structure Features, 3rd bullet: add "on lots less than 80' wide." no change in text, 9/23/08
201 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape." no change in text, 9/23/08
202 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 1st Photo: Isn't Enclave 7 units per acre? no change in text, 9/23/08
203 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet, since townhouses are listed under attached residential no change in text, 9/23/08
204 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Intensity/Density: should be between 2.9 and 5 units per acre. no change in text, 9/23/08
205 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Examples - To Village of WestClay, add "in form only". Its 2.1 u/a is nowhere near the "Urban"
density of 4-8 u/a, and therefore should not be classified "Urban" on the Map.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
206 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Best Fit - No mention of "Neighborhood Support Center". "Core Support", with no density limits,
should be moved to Conditional.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
207 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Best Fit: delete neighborhood service node and core support OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
208 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Conditional Fit - "Urban" 8 u/a could go next to "Suburban Res." 2 u/a?? no change in text, 9/23/08
209 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node and core support only at edges of Old Town
Residential & limited to 2 stories)
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
210 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Structure Features: delete "however, three stories may be appropriate in some circumstances" no change in text, 9/23/08
211 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Open Space - "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) gets 20%, but "Urban" (4-8 u/a) is only 10%?? Dense
developments need more open space, and there is none off-site/nearby for most of these areas.
no change in text, 9/23/08
212 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 10% to 30% no change in text, 9/23/08
213 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape" no change in text, 9/23/08
214 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, last bullet: instead of "have designs fitting the context," replace with "look like
a single family dwelling from each different street elevation"
no change in text, 9/23/08
215 8/26/2008 Chamber 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.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
216 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Purpose: replace text with "To establish opportunities for residents who want a more compact living
environment."
no change in text, 9/23/08
217 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Attached Res: Density- Needs upper limit. In 2006, Commissioners voted 5-2 to cap it at 10 u/a.
DOCS wanted double that, to bring the community "in line with the market", and b/c lower
density=fewer amenities. (Planning and zoning should serve to prevent development from being
market-based, which would often be very unsuitable to an area. Otherwise, there is little point in
either.)
no change in text, 9/23/08
218 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Best Fit- Move "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)", to conditional. No mention of "Neighborhood Support
Center".
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
219 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Best Fit: delete suburban residential and urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
220 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Conditional Fit - Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res." (1-1.9 u/a). Densities of the 2 classifications are
much too far apart.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
221 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
13 11/21/2008
222 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 20% to 30% no change in text, 9/23/08
223 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape" no change in text, 9/23/08
224 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 2nd Photo: how about the Amli apartments on 146th? no change in text, 9/23/08
225 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 West Carmel - Not needed or wanted. The 1-mile road grid could put one on every corner. no change in text, 9/23/08
226 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Neighborhood Support Center (NEW): Purpose - These would negatively impact residential areas by
adding light, noise, signs, traffic, trash, and large trucks where they otherwise would not be.
no change in text, 9/23/08
227 9/19/2008 CWIC2 35 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West. no change in text, 9/23/08
228 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Land Uses - Community centers, YMCA's, and most fitness centers are too big for this, and would be
traffic magnets.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
229 9/19/2008 CWIC2 35 Intensity/Density: 1 mile apart in Carmel West is far more than the area desires—and permitting
these on every non-subdivision intersection in a low-density area makes their viability highly
questionable. These adversely affect the character and desirability of Carmel West.
no change in text, 9/23/08
230 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Density - One mile is too close. Does the 7,500 sq. ft. (approx. 1/6 acre), include parking area? no change in text, 9/23/08
231 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Intensity/Density, 1st bullet: add "neighboring" in front of "developments" no change in text, 9/23/08
232 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Examples - Hard to find any in Carmel b/c suburban residents have chosen not to live next to
nonresidential uses.
no change in text, 9/23/08
233 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Examples: add "see illustration" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
234 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Best Fit: after suburban residential add "except in West Carmel" no change in text, 9/23/08
235 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Conditional Fit - Remove "Estate Residential". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
236 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Conditional Fit: delete estate residential, add "east carmel only" after Low Intensity Suburban Res no change in text, 9/23/08
237 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Structure Features: Mostly glass fronts look "urban", and would make "activities" totally visible. Drive-
throughs allowed?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
238 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Structure Features: change max height to 1.5 stories no change in text, 9/23/08
239 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Structure Orientation - Only visibility can be partially buffered. Cannot adequately buffer other
impacts listed above.
no change in text, 9/23/08
240 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 2nd Photo: add photo of bank at village of west clay IN PROGRESS
241 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 West Carmel - These would not "preserve the estate character" or "reinforce rural character", (page
25). Residents bought in Clay West to avoid living near high density and commercial intrusion. Estate
owners will move away from it.
no change in text, 9/23/08
242 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Purpose: add "and sigle use" after mixed use no change in text, 9/23/08
243 9/19/2008 CWIC2 36 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West.
These are incredibly too urban for the character of the area (80,000 sq. ft.! and 6 u/a). These
destroy the very reason most people invested in their homes in Carmel West.
no change in text, 9/23/08
244 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Land Uses - A "NSN" and a "Commercial Vitality Node (CVN)" differ mainly in size and residential
density. "NSN" allowable uses need to be much more limited and specific.
no change in text, 9/23/08
245 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Density - Up to 6 u/a is too high. Equivalent to the "Urban" range (4-8 u/a), it is not appropriate for
suburbs. It would just be a loophole to put higher density where it otherwise would not permitted.
no change in text, 9/23/08
14 11/21/2008
246 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 The 80,000 sq. ft. per node, (about 1.84 acres), should be stated here to avoid confusion. Parking
included in that space?
moved, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
247 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Best Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) would especially not be best fit. By definition,
"NSN's" should stand alone, to serve "unserved" areas; so remove "NSN" (chart page 44), and
"CVN" (text & chart). Otherwise, the size limits on "NSN'S" become meaningless.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
248 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Best Fit: delete Urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
249 9/19/2008 CWIC2 36 Conditional Fit: Strike “Suburban Residential.” Strike Low Intensity Suburban Residential from
“Conditional Fit.” People greatly fear that the areas identified as Suburban Residential on the maps
will be used to insert these in Carmel West.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
250 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Conditional Fit- Remove "Regional Vitality Node (RVN)" and "Core Support". Same reason as above.
List "Core Support" under "CVN" and "RVN", not for "NSN". Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res. (1-1.9
u/a)", which is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The "NSN" 6 u/a equates to "Urban Res. (4-8
u/a)", which is correctly not listed as an "Appropriate Adjacent Classification" for "Low Intensity Sub.
Res.".
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
251 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res, add Urban Res (at perimeter only) OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
252 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Structure Orientation - Again, nonvisual negative impacts cannot be adequately buffered from
residences. "Use" still matters more than "form" to the public. "Disguising" a non-residential use to
not look like what it is, does not negate the nonvisual impacts of living near it. The Village of
WestClay commercial "NSN" west of Towne Rd. is on the Map as a "CVN". That absolutely needs to
change.
no change in text, 9/23/08
253 8/26/2008 Chamber 36 Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops abuts the
street?
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
254 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Development Features: replace "is discouraged" with "that are built to the street." deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
255 8/26/2008 Chamber 36 3rd Photo: 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.
fixed caption, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
256 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Geographic Location, 2nd sentence: replace "integrated into" with "sensitively built when next to
residential"
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
257 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Best Fit: all classifications except "single family residential classifications" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
258 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res." should be included here. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
259 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Conditional Fit: single family residential classifications OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
260 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Specify significant buffering of municipal facilities from residences. no change in text, 9/23/08
261 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Structure Orientation: add "honoring privacy and views of existing single family detached dwellings" no change in text, 9/23/08
262 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Development Features - The Community-center-type uses of mega-churches would normally fall
under "NSN" or "CVN". Neither of those lists "Estate Res." as an appropriate adjacent fit, but it is
listed here. In "Conditional Fit" areas, those mixed-uses should be restricted to those that serve the
institution, not the general public.
no change in text, 9/23/08
263 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 1st Photo caption: delete "a great" example OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
264 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 West Carmel - These should be limited to along Michigan Road. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
15 11/21/2008
265 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Community Vitality Node (CVN): Purpose - Omit "and neighborhood serving". It blurs the line
between those 2 classifications, which differ in size, density, and hopefully uses.
no change in text, 9/23/08
266 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Geographic Location - With 10 u/a allowed, and no limit on commercial intensity, these are not "most
appropriate" near "minor" thoroughfares.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
267 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Examples - On the Map, Merchants Square is a "RVN", and the Village of WestClay "NSN" is
incorrectly shown as a "CVN".
no change in text, 9/23/08
268 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Best Fit - Omit "NSN" for reasons stated earlier. no change in text, 9/23/08
269 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38 Best Fit: delete "residential" attached, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
270 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Conditional Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" would especially not be compatible. "Core
Support" is listed under "NSN" and "RVN", but not "CVN"? It should be listed under "CVN" and
"RVN", but not under "NSN".
no change in text, 9/23/08
271 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38 Conditional Fit: add attached residential, delete suburban and urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
272 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 39 Geographic Location: (appropriate near highways and arterial w/ excellent accesibility) I am
assuming that Keystone Parkway is one of those areas as well as Main St. Problem is this area is
developed currently with residential homes. Again where are you planning to put these buildings that
would not require removals of residential areas first??? Could it be that you are going to destroy
current neighborhood in order to do this part of the C3 plan?? Please explain!!
no change in text, 9/23/08
273 8/26/2008 Chamber 39 Land Uses, 4th Bullet: Fourth bullet – isn’t this a zoning ordinance issue? We’d make the same
comment about the items under Structure Features on this page.
delete "but only" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
274 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 39 Employment Node: Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" is a very questionable fit next to 4
stories with densities up to 14 u/a.
no change in text, 9/23/08
275 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39 Conditional Fit: delete suburban and urban residential no change in text, 9/23/08
276 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39 Structure Features, 1st bullet: add "and only two stories next to single family residential
neighborhoods"
no change in text, 9/23/08
277 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 40 Regional Vitality Node (RVN): Conditional Fit - Remove "NSN". If next to a "RVN" (or "CVN"), it is no
longer "neighborhood serving".
no change in text, 9/23/08
278 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Conditional Fit: add "attached" to residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
279 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Structure Features: delete "or eight stories if within the US 31 Corridor overlay." What about the
developer who wanted to build a residential tower between Clay Terrace and the residential
neighborhood to the west?
no change in text, 9/23/08
280 8/26/2008 Chamber 40 Development Features: same comments as previous about strip commercial development. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
281 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Development Features, 1st bullet: instead of "discouraged" replace with "built to the street" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
282 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Land Uses: delete entertainment no change in text, 9/23/08
283 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Core Support: Best Fit- Since there are no residential or commercial limits on intensity, "Urban Res.
(4-8 u/a)" should move to Conditional.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
284 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Best Fit: delete Urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
285 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Conditional Fit - Replace "NSN" with "CVN". no change in text, 9/23/08
286 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Conditional Fit: add urban residential (perimeter edges only) no change in text, 9/23/08
287 8/26/2008 Chamber 41 Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance? no change in text, 9/23/08
288 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Structure Features: add "two story maximim next to urban residential" no change in text, 9/23/08
16 11/21/2008
289 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Open Space - "Attached Res. (7 u/a & up)" requires 20% (half usable), but "Core Support (no density
limits)" only requires 15% (no mention of usable)?
no change in text, 9/23/08
290 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: increase open space to 20 or 30% no change in text, 9/23/08
291 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: add bullet "Protect pre-development environmental features" no change in text, 9/23/08
292 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 42 Land Uses & Examples: Add "Form Only" to both references to the Village of WestClay. Residents
are wary of attempts to classify it in any way that could expand its current restrictions.
no change in text, 9/23/08
293 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Land Uses: should entertainment be SU? Music/noise? no change in text, 9/23/08
294 8/26/2008 Chamber 42 Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the zoning
ordinance.
no change in text, 9/23/08
295 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Structure Orientation: add bullet "A maximum of two stories at right-of-way next to single family
detached residential neighborhoods"
no change in text, 9/23/08
296 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Development Features, 1st bullet: add "except next to single family detached neighborhoods." no change in text, 9/23/08
297 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Development Features: add bullet "Pocket parks are encouraged." OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
298 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Geographic Location: delete Old Town (move to secondary core, per map) no change in text, 9/23/08
299 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Examples: delete Old Town Shops (move to secondary core, per map) no change in text, 9/23/08
300 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 1st Photo: move to secondary core no change in text, 9/23/08
301 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 2nd Photo: there are other nice drawings we could include here OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
302 9/22/2008 DOCS 44 Adjust Table per discussion and to be "symmetrical" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
303 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 44 Land Classification Map Description: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence-This detailed map will be
"construed" that way. Everyone expects the Comprehensive Plan and zoning to match.
no change in text, 9/23/08
304 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 44 Final paragraph, 1st sentence - The classifications on the Map have density ranges; therefore,
developers will assume that the Map establishes certain density rights.
no change in text, 9/23/08
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
305 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Add back major street names to map OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
306 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general the map is too specific (down to the parcel) no change, 9/30/2008
307 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general, residential densities should not be increased without an extensive homeowner survey. I
would change them all to their current densities until we get that information.
no change, 9/30/2008
VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY
308 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM 131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
309 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM The VWC area with this classification is not compatible with the surrounding area that currently fits
Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Community Vitality Node is not listed as an appropriate
adjacent classification.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
310 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM The VWC area with this classification has a lot of acres with no buildings. This invites Brenwick to
return with a new ordinance using the new classification. The only limit on the commercial intensity
is “the maximum building envelope, maximum impervious surface, and on-site parking
requirements.” We do not believe the City really wants a Merchants Square or West Carmel Center
(examples cited) at this location. Area residents do not. This area is a red-hot button issue for area
residents and increasing the intensity will heat the flames for many residents.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
17 11/21/2008
311 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM This classification would also permit residential density up to 10 u/a, surrounded by homes at a
much, much lower density.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
312 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM If this classification remains, the to-be-expected increase in intensity of use would result in pressure
to change intensity of use on surrounding land.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
313 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM “Location” for Community Vitality Node says it is most appropriate near major thoroughfares.
Michigan Rd is a major thoroughfare and is designed for the truck traffic that a large commercial
area requires. Towne Road is not planned to become a Michigan Rd and the required truck traffic
would change the quality of life for those near Town Road and for those driving through on their way
to and from their homes in the area.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
314 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Since the Community Vitality Node would allow this area to become much more intense than ever
planned, this land does not fit this category. While the approved plan may be larger than the next
lower classification, Neighborhood Service Node, reclassifying it to NSN would be much less apt to
result in Brenwick asking for a new plan that changes what has already been approved.
Neighborhood Service Node is also much more in keeping with the approval it was granted and
promises made by City Council to not allow this area affect surrounding properties.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
315 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Village of WestClay (VWC) Zoning Changes-The commercial area west of Towne Rd. is a promised
"NSN", not an intense "CVN". It is located in an area of "Low Intensity Sub. Res.", which is not listed
as an Appropriate Adjacent Classification to a "CVN". The "CVN" classification would open up
possibilities for the VWC that its approval does not permit.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
316 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM The VWC, (overall density 2.1 u/a), is NOT "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", as on the Map. That classification
could lead to more than doubling the currently permitted density of the portions that are not yet built
out. It would also further increase the rezoning requests from owners of the surrounding, now
"compromised", properties. The "transitioning" from the VWC was supposed to stop with the Trillium
development.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
317 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM VWC’s Urban Residential: CWIC2 support’s Dee Fox’s comment—inadvertently omitted in our
submission. Undeveloped land remains so Brenwick could return with a new ordinance requesting
much higher density, using this classification as the intent of the new Comp Plan.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
318 10/28/2008 CWIC2 LCM VOWC Still Urban Residential West of Towne Rd. Should be Suburban Residential OCTOBER 31 SUPPLEMENT
NO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL
319 9/3/2008 Andy Crook LCM DO NOT support suburban residential classification in NW Clay. The map is too much patch work
nature. Support Low Intensity Suburban up to 1.5 instead.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
320 9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West in 5 locations. Details will be provided when
everyone can look at the map.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
321 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)-Inappropriate in West Carmel. The lower limit would double current
zoning. The upper limit is "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a), and 5 times the current zoning.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
18 11/21/2008
322 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Land south of 116th between Michigan Rd
& Shelborne Rd. Proposed as Suburban Residential, with density between 2.0 to 4.9 two
subdivisions:
a. Includes homes with acreage as well as two subdivisions with very low densities—Brandywine
(0.61 u/a) and Woodhaven (0.77 u/a). Each was built when lots were required to be a minimum of 1
acre and the expectation was 1 acre lots for the area. The expectation for large lots was reinforced
with the 2020 Comp Plan.
b. Directly east of Brandywine is Bridleborne at a density of 0.40 u/a and English Oaks with 1.26
u/a. To the south is a church and then a fire station on the corner. While these uses are different
from the surrounding developments, their abundance of green space and low intensity of use is
much more compatible than a subdivision with a 4.9 density.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
c. The highest density in the entire quadrant is Weston at 2.14, barely over the Suburban
Residential category. But that is misleading: Weston has several sections, each with very different
densities. As part of its approval under the 1st Cluster Ordinance, it was required to “transition” its
density, lowering the u/a as it went eastward. Weston Village, the section farthest west, abuts the
commercial area. It is the densest section, above 2.14. Weston Park, the section between Weston
Village and Brandywine, is less dense with houses abutting Brandywine on 1/3 acre lots. North of
Brandywine is Weston Ridge, with ½ acre lots. It is appropriate to include the section of Weston
closest to the commercial area in Suburban Residential, but not appropriate to include the rest of this
quadrant. This quadrant should be divided into different zoning classifications that more
appropriately fit what currently exists. (Marilyn: “I have a personal stake in this. I live in Brandywine
on a 1 acre lot. I would never have bought and built in an area zoned for even a 2.0 u/a.”)
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
d. Between 96th and 106th west of Shelborne are single family estate lots abutting 106th St. and two
subdivisions with densities of 1.76 and 2.13. An argument could perhaps be made that this
section is more appropriately zoned Low Intensity Suburban Residential, with a density of 1.0
to 1.9. That is more compatible with the Estate Residential category to its east.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
323 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: West of Towne Road abutting the Village
of WestClay is the Fortune Property, now platted as Trillium at a density of 1.76. The approved
density clearly fits the Low Intensity Suburban Residential category. Why isn’t it labeled as such?
The ground is still bare so this category could easily result in Adams & Marshall vacating that
approved plan and returning with a new plan at 4 9 u/a that would then legally have to be approved
no change, 9/30/2008
324 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Northwest corner of Towne Road & 131st
(Guerrero Property). We’ve had this fight before—you know the issues. As part of its approval, the
VWC was promised to be the exception in the area and was promised to be contained. Zoning this
as Suburban Residential violates the promises and should not be done.
no change, 9/30/2008
19 11/21/2008
325 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: East side of Towne Rd from about 136th
to 141st. Every surrounding subdivision has a density of less than 1.42 with an average of 1.33.
Suburban Residential would almost quadruple the density. Where’s the compatibility? How would
you like to own a home that now backs up to this drastic change from what was expected.
no change, 9/30/2008
326 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Two locations along 146th St. Density of
adjoining subdivisions averages approx. 1.48 u/a. The proposed density is about 3.5 times as high.
Where is the compatibility?
146th Special Study, OCTOBER 23
DRAFT
LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL
327 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Green (1 unit per acre) should be used for all residential areas from 96th to 146th and Spring Mill to
Michigan Rd,. except for existing developments that exceed 1 unit per acre now.
no change, 9/30/2008
328 9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west of
Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential.
no change, 9/30/2008
329 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM A density spreadsheet based on DOCS figures shows subdivision density averages west of Spring
Mill Road: All=1.18 u/a; North of 116th St.=1.28 u/a; South of 116th=1.05 u/a/ (If included private
landowners, area numbers would be even lower.)
no change, 9/30/2008
330 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Low intensity Sub. Res-Up to 1.9 u/a for most of Northwest Clay is still too high, for reasons stated
previously under that classification. Residents see no reason to raise density limits at all, especially
not beyond the levels of most existing developments. Since currently zoned density limits, (1.0 u/a),
have not been enforced, why would anyone believe that higher limits would be? Doubling the density
would also be incompatible with the estate character of West Carmel.
no change, 9/30/2008
331 9/15/2008 Karen Gould LCM I reside in Laurel Lakes Subdivision at 126th and Towne Road. I am opposed to any increase in the
housing density in this area. We moved here because of the lack of high density housing, and the
housing in WestClay is dense enough. We do not need any more apartments in this area or more
houses crammed onto an acre of land. There is no need to increase the density any further in this
area.
no change, 9/30/2008
332 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Carmel west of Springmill Rd. currently averages approx. 1.22 u/a. South of 116th St. averages
approx. 1.05 u/a. while north of 116th St. averages approximately 1.28 u/a.
no change, 9/30/2008
333 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Reducing the top density to 1.5 u/a is helpful, but the intent is in conflict with the plan for incentives.
With a zoned density of 1.5 u/a, any development of any quality could be developed at 1.5 u/a.
Incentives would not have any value, since they only work if the developer gains something he
otherwise could not do. If the density is 1.5 u/a but density is used as an incentive, it can be
expected that some developments would end up closer to the 1.9, even though that supposedly is
not the intent.
no change, 9/30/2008
334 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west of
Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential. Estate Residential is in keeping with the
character of the area, in keeping with the current zoning that people believed they were getting when
they invested in their homes, and in keeping with what the vast majority of the residents in the area
strongly desire
no change, 9/30/2008
WEST CARMEL: OTHER
20 11/21/2008
335 9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM East Carmel has 10 parks & river greenway. Central has 5 & Monon Greenway. West has 1 City
park & 1 County park. Why aren’t we identifying where the next park should go before there is no
land left?
no change, 9/30/2008
336 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Along Spring Mill Rd, the existing residential neighborhoods need to be labeled with the density they
currently have. I doubt that they will be redeveloped before the next comp plan update occurs.
no change, 9/30/2008
337 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM I am also very concerned that the Comprehensive Plan continues to encourage sprawl.
Neighborhoods like The Reserve at Spring Mill, Williams Mill, Spring Arbor and Ashbury Park could
not be duplicated in many places on the west side of Carmel. We need to find places where more
dense, vibrant and creative communities can be created on the west side. We need to be aware of
the impact of the new 146th St on the west side of Carmel and plan appropriately. Please consider
changing the entire corridor from 141st to 146th St to Suburban Residential from the Boone
County Line to Town Rd. In addition, this is the ideal area for a large outdoor sports park that our
community needs and wants. This is ideal for this use because it could be accessed off of a busy
146th St and be less invasive to residential.
146th Special Study Corridor, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
338 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
339 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add Greek Orthodox Church (106th/Shelborne) and Hebrew Congregation (W of University HS) as
Institutional
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL
341 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Could we put a park at the Monon and Main, SW corner? I have had several people ask for this….It
would be an ideal location for a gazebo, park benches and bike parking during the Arts festival. Most
old towns have this amenity.
no change
342 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support extend sec core and core support to 4th
Ave. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
343 9/16/2008 Roger Kilmer LCM If the north meridian heights rezone goes through, we should update this land classification map to
change the meridian heights neighborhood (located east of US 31 and 131st st.) from the peach
color (suburban residential) to the blue color (employment node).
EMPLOYMENT, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
344 9/30/2008 James Browning LCM I am writing as a local real estate developer as well as a West Clay Township resident. I have
reviewed the proposed changes to the Land Use Plan and I am generally supportive of the plan as
proposed. The areas which I have particular interest is the proposed use for the Meridian Heights
Subdivision. This area has previously been slated to be commercial uses. Based on Browning
Investments propsed commercial development for this area and the overwhelming majority of
residents who have contracted to sell their property for commercial uses, it seems only practical to
leave the Comprehensive Plan in tact with a commercial use recommendation.
EMPLOYMENT, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
345 11/10/2008 Historical Society LCM The Carmel Clay Historical Society supports an "Urban Residential" zoning designation for the site of
our Monon Depot Museum and grounds at 211 First St. SW, and the entirety of the surrounding
neighborhood. It is also essential that "Character Areas" in Carmel be described clearly in official
language as banning townhomes, and that the rule of five (5) units per acre be strictly adhered to
during future development.
no change, 11/12/2008
21 11/21/2008
346 Infill housing of greater than five units per acre would clearly be in stark contrast to the historic
context of this unique urban area. Since the Plan Commission recently refused to rezone part of
this Character sub-area, specifically to safeguard three properties on First St. SW
because of the negative impact such a rezoning would have on this predominantly one-
story neighborhood, it is now essential that all Character Areas be firmly and permanently
designated "Urban Residential" on the City Land Use Map, and that townhomes not
be allowed within these residential areas.
SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL
347 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM SW corner of 116th and Westfield Blvd should be Orange. We ruled out higher density when we
denied Townhomes at Central Park.
urban res, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
348 9/25/2008 Mike Johnson LCM The current land use plan identifies the land on the north side of 96th Street, between Haverstick
Road and Westfield Boulevard for low density residential use. In my opinion, this is not the best use
of this land. The properties east of Haverstick are commercial properties. Some of the homes on
the north side of 96th Street, west of Haverstick Road, are already being used for commercial use.
The Washington Township Land Use Plan identifies all of the land on the south side of 96th Street
between Keystone Avenue and Westfield Boulevard and south to the interstate for office commercial
use, community commercial use and heavy commercial use. The future development of the land on
the south side of 96th Street, for commercial use, should influence how the land on the north side of
96th Street is developed. In my opinion, the land on the north side of 96th Street should be identified
for similar commercial development. Existing and future residents living in this area would benefit
from business development along this corridor.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
349 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM The area between Westfield Blvd and Haverstick north of and adjacent to 96th St should also be
looked at closely as an area in transition. South of 96th St and north of and adjacent to I465 will be
commercial and is currently under contract by a commercial developer. This development will have
an impact on the area north of 96th St. I am not suggesting how this area change only that it will
change and I recommend that we look to our planning staff and paid consultant for guidance.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
350 10/31/2008 Pat Rice LCM the Land Classification map should include The Retreat area which includes the ROW for 96th St.
extension to the Monon. It should also include all the way over to Keystone from 96th to 99th. Was
this overlooked? The map in this section correctly brackets over to Keystone.
November 13 Draft
31 CORRIDOR
351 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman LCM 116th & Spring Mill: Potential to create something for west-siders to avoid crossing 31. Difficult for
service/office workers to get anywhere on their lunch hours. Intense office next to large lot single
family does not make sense from a planning perspective.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
352 8/21/2008 Barbara Layton LCM No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
22 11/21/2008
353 9/9/2008 Luci Snyder LCM US 31: While acknowledging that the land west of Springmill Road is and should remain residential,
as a member of the fiscal body, I believe that Meridian commercial corridor should have Springmill
as its western boundary.
The Meridian Corridor is our high profile business corridor and as such, generates the taxes that help
keep residential property taxes low.
The only remaining large area of land available for signature/headquarter development is that
between Illinois and Springmill. Carmel must protect that for the highest and best commercial use to
guarantee that the necessary commercial tax base as we close out our available land.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
354 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison LCM I do not understand why the Meridian Surburban neighborhood is in the Regional Vitality Node. That
is the neighborhood just south of 111th and and just west of Meridian. I hope the residents in this
area have been made aware of this change.
no change, 9/30/2008
355 9/25/2008 Mike Johnson LCM It appears that the proposed land use plan identifies the area from 111th Street north to 116th and
east from Spring Mill Road to west of Illinois St. for low and medium density residential use. In my
personal opinion, when you take the future development of US 31, along with the existing
commercial office space and Clarian hospital into consideration, this is not the best use for this land.
This land is better suited for low or medium density commercial use. It is unlikely that prospective
home buyers would be attracted to low or medium density residential properties that are directly
adjacent to mid-rise office buildings and/or a hospital, due to the setting, traffic volume and traffic
noise.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
356 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM It is my belief that the property in the general vicinity of 116th and US 31 West to Spring Mill Rd,
South to 111th St and North to Spring Lake Estates subdivision should be planned to allow for
intense commercial development. I also believe that more intense uses should occur on the west
side of Spring Mill Rd. We shouldn’t be provincial in our thinking and try to compartmentalize
development and planning. As a community we are blessed to still have so much ground in this area
to create a sense of place for businesses and residents on the west side. It is inconceivable to
develop and build residential between Illinois St and Spring Mill Rd. Illinois Street is a major road w
120 of row. In addition, its adjacency to the future limited access highway US 31, the truck and
commercial traffic on US 31 and the relocated truck traffic from Keystone, the helicopters flying
overhead to and from Clarian Hospital make residential impractical and destined to fail or never
happen.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
This plan for the area between Illinois and Spring Mill Rd represents yesterday’s thinking of 25 years
ago. The world has drastically changed. This is not fiscally responsible either. We need to continue
to grow a strong commercial tax base. Why are we willing to allow commercial east of Pennsylvania
Ave. but not west of Illinois? This does not make any sense. Residents and employers / employees
in west Carmel want to see dynamic development that would allow for restaurants, offices, hotels
and the amenities that development like this would provide. They are not stuck in the old way of
thinking. Please consider changing this area to Regional Vitality Node.
23 11/21/2008
357 9/26/2008 Ivan Barrett LCM I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the marketing
and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually asked about the
nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many buyers who are
looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations that there would be
commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are often discouraged at the
lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I encourage you to plan for a
special area West of Meridian that would include such services as offices, retail uses including
grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that the best place to create such a
node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring Mill Rd. Housing is not an appropriate or best
use for this area.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
358 9/26/2008 Irina Powers LCM Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive Plan
update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in commercial mixed
use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west side. A commercial mixed
use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal choice for this side of town. My
family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421 to eat, shop, etc. Commercial uses
for the area would provide the greatest benefit to residents of western Carmel.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
359 9/26/2008 Jack & Kathy Gordon LCM We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further commercial
development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities like gas stations,
restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties on the northeast and
southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect location for commercial
development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large hospital and is a crossroads for
residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that Carmel will have some foresight
rather than looking into the past when making decision about the future of this area.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
360 9/26/2008 Randy Yust LCM The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many
reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart Center’s
helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents.” Similar
distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be developed as residential
properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment
Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian North. Although the primary flight plan
uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight plans, causing the helicopters to cross over
the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why would we put residential housing in an area where a
medical helicopter would fly over?
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
24 11/21/2008
Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best interest.
Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional medical center,
would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/ access onto Spring Mill
prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois. US 31 will become a
limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will there be significant traffic
in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic on US 31 but the added truck
traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is becoming a major road to move
local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31 becomes limited access. It is important to
finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior to construction commencement on US 31 in
2011. It is inconceivable that you would have residential use in such a corridor. It is poor planning
and an irresponsible use of such prime land to maximize our tax base.
Commercial development on vacant properties along Illinois St should be encouraged. As the city
can see complete buildout w/in 10 years, NAV will flatten. We should take every opportunity to
encourage commercial development in this area to keep property taxes low for residents.
361 9/26/2008 Rob & Anne Kelton LCM I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St. to
116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly urge you
to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd that any of that
property would be anything but COMMERCIAL.
As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class development
that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With that area
being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to attracting business, it
t i l th th i b i th t t ldb b fi i lt i th it It
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
There is not a shortage of homes in the area. The city could use more money to help pay for all of
the improvements that have been made, such as athletic centers and theatres. If we remember
correctly, there were an awful lot of people who were not happy about the Monon trail be extended
through their backyards, but the city decided to put it through for the greater good of the majority and
to improve the appeal of the city. To not apply the same thinking to other development issues seems
nothing less than bias and corrupt. Given today's economy with $700
billion bailouts, we need revenue for our city. What we don't need is more homes.
362 9/26/2008 Peter Powers LCM I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the
Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in west
Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this side of town.
A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that housing is
compatible with the surrounding area.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
25 11/21/2008
363 9/26/2008 Bob McKinney LCM As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate Agency,
I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay township in a
manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west clay be treated in a
manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is detrimental not only to the
whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on the west side of Carmel. It is my
hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the west side of meridian, that a
development is created on the west side of meridian that would serve the people who live on the
west side and those who are employed on the west side. I know it is very discouraging to the
homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to and the potential high end customers
that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and drive far distances for minor
conveniences.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
We need to create a hub in the area of 116th Street and Spring Mill Rd for a tremendous
development that properly utilizes the precious and dwindling land resources we have left. I envision
an area that contains offices both professional and medical, hospitality w hotels and restaurants. I
would be hopeful that amenities like walking trails, water features, fire pits, sand volleyball courts and
pocket parks could be created to compete w such places as silicon valley, Boston’s technology
corridor, Denver and any other great place where creative and successful people are attracted to.
Please do not allow for the degradation of our tax base by requiring housing to go into areas where
housing will fail and a use which further encourages the need for the construction of more schools
and higher taxes.
364 9/26/2008 John Levinsohn LCM As a resident of Western Clay Township, I am writing you today in reference to the C3
Comprehensive Plan that is currently under consideration and specifically about the underutilized
property surrounding the intersection of 116th Street and Springmill Road. The immediate area has
evolved into a first class commercial corridor that contains immense employment opportunities as
well as substantial revenue for the City. It is my hope that we can further enrich this area by providing
additional commercial assets of the same stature and supplementing those assets with services that
the population, both day time and full time, may enjoy.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
While I know there is a vocal minority that opposes the type of planning that should be applied to this
area; the idea that Springmill Road is some sort of demarcation that needs to be buffered hinders the
power of sound planning for the highest and best use of those properties and subsequently the City
as a whole. Given what has been accomplished by the City of Carmel in recent years I expect that
those properties will represent planning and development worthy of national recognition. I appreciate
the efforts you all put forth to ensure that the City and its residents continue to prosper. Thank you for
your time.
365 9/29/2008 RJ Rudolph LCM As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of the
Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over the past
year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers is for higher
density residential and assisted living and some from retail support.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
26 11/21/2008
Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street is
planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential development
over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased demand for
business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for convenience of
people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers that have shown
interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density residential are attracted to
the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical Center, The Indiana Heart Hospital
and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the demand for services on the west side
of Meridian Street.
With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks and
planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense to have
higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential further west
of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North, Fidelity Office
Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully with all land owners
and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents. The general
economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard look at where they
live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of residential developments and
support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit to the entire area.
366 9/29/2008 Tom Osborne LCM My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at 130th and
Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My family and I
moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian Street. We have
seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing that has been lacking
for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and amenities west of US 31. As
Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a soon to be limited access freeway, it
has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel across it.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
The intersection at 116th and Spring Mill provides Carmel the opportunity to allow something
uniquely special to be developed there due to the large amount of land that exists in an area that is
mostly developed. With the advent of quality mixed use developments we have seen here and
though out progressive communities around the country, and the benefits they provide their
surrounding communities, it would only make sense that the area around 116th and Spring Mill be
planned to provide the same benefits. Mixed use projects that include higher density residential and
support retail and office are the perfect buffer between the single family residences to the west and
the offices, hospital and highway to the east. In the age of where people are wanting and needing to
drive less, allowing mixed use developments to take place at 116th and Spring Mill makes more
sense today then ever.
27 11/21/2008
367 9/29/2008 Michael Puckett LCM SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located on
the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building owner in the
office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result of the Illinois Street
and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several years. Similar to other
buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has declined significantly in recent
years and interest in available space has waned. While we recognize that several factors play into
this trend, feedback from both existing and potential tenants consistently includes two issues: 1)
difficulty in accessing our park due to the requirement to enter from Illinois Street on the west side of
the property/lack of access through Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on 116th Street and 2) lack of
amenities in the adjoining areas including restaurants, dry cleaners, etc. Currently, everyone doing
business on the west side of Meridian Street is required, at a minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
After taking time to review the proposed Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, we have noted
that the property just west of Fidelity Plaza, which would include the property just north of 111th
Street, west of Illinois Street, south of 116th Street and East of Spring Mill Road, is to be zoned
residential. From our perspective, it would be best if this property was zoned as either a Community
Vitality Node or a Regional Vitality Node. While some high-density housing might be successful in
this area, we do not believe zoning the entire area residential will be the best use of this land as it
relates to the surrounding communities, including the businesses in the area. As a building owner in
the area, we would like to see the area just West of Meridian Street between 111th Street and 116th
Street become a strong business community; however, this area is being placed at a disadvantage
to areas east of Meridian Street based on the currently planned zoning requirements.
We request that you reconsider the zoning plans for the above referenced area between Illinois
Street and Spring Mill Road and zone this area as either Community Vitality Node or Regional Vitality
Node. This zoning will allow for much needed commercial development in the area.
368 9/29/2008 John Moorin LCM I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan. My
name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently sold my
company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This is the 3rd
business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these businesses have ever
been located in Hamilton County. I would very much like to have the
opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to be closer to my home and
family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
Unfortunately there really is no good commercial park that I know of around. We need one that will
attract business to locate and grow. We compete on a regional and national level for our
employees.and they look for a more modern environment than what this county currently offers.
Employees today want to be able to have convenient retail next to them. They want to be able to eat
and shop next to where they are. They want places to with walking trails, bike paths and other
outdoor activities. These types of things can lure the best and brightest to us. Being close to
residential is a plus because people wouldn't have to commute nearly as far and we can limit sprawl.
28 11/21/2008
I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with
Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life
science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay. The
office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then that park
would reap the benefit as well.
This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the
community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been so
plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should want in
at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for the
community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to support
the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have set a high
standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens.
PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
369 9/29/2008 CWIC2 CWIC2 acknowledges that the needs of residents that live along thoroughfares must be balanced
against the needs of the greater community for efficient and effective traffic movement. We support
connectivity as a guiding principle and roadways constructed to handle the traffic demand. We
support the bike lanes since we know all too well how much one bike rider can back up traffic on the
current roadways. Gridlock benefits no one.
We do ask that you do everything possible to minimize the impact on the affected neighbors.
Please consider carefully the following:
1. Can the medians required for trees be reduced while still maintaining healthy trees? Perhaps
some good street trees require less space.
2. Are side paths to take 10 feet each side of the roads or is this for both? (Totaling the numbers in
the illustrations does not come to the right-of-way numbers). We support side paths and do not wish
them to be too narrow, but neither do we wish them to be “expansive.” Ten foot each side seems
much beyond what is needed.
no change, 9/30/2008
3. There is right-of-way extending some distance past the paths. Please explain the use of this
right-of-way. Can this be reasonably reduced?
4. Areas where homes and neighborhoods were established before the existing Thoroughfare Plan
was developed usually lack the needed right-of-way. Those residents would sometimes have to give
up significant pieces of their yard. We ask that the proposed Plan be sensitive to this and make
every reasonable accommodation to treat the road in context with its surroundings. For example:
Keystone, Hazel Dell, 116th St., and Towne Road are all classified as Primary Parkway. Obviously
Keystone is of a different magnitude than Hazel Dell, and Carmel West is different in character from
Carmel East.
29 11/21/2008
370 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 53 Collector Street-Define buffer planting. no change, 9/30/2008
371 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 55, 56, 62 Parking on Residential Parkways? Spring Mill is classified a residential parkway. no parking
372 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56 Residential Parkway 2 or 4 lane: General Description-There are already many driveway accesses on
these roads. Reducing driveway access is not compatible with maintaining "residential character".
4-lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
373 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56 Primary Priorities-For 2 lane Residential and Primary Parkways, a minimum 16 ft median seems
unnecessary and excessive through residential areas. It would move the road too close to adjacent
homes.
no change, 9/30/2008
374 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56 The photo example of Residential Parkway 4 Lane, (Hazel Dell), is a larger "Primary Parkway" on the
map.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
375 9/9/2008 Peter Langowski 56 The Residential Parkway page shows a picture of Hazel Dell, but then the map says that all of Hazel
Dell is a Primary Parkway.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
376 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 58 Primary Parkway (Towne Rd, 116th, 131st, Keystone, & Hazel Dell) - I hope that the Primary Priority
of "Sensitive to context" means that Carmel does not intend to treat Towne Rd. or 116th St. the
same as Keystone or Hazel Dell. Such major streets would not be in keeping with the character of
West Carmel.
no change, 9/30/2008
377 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 58 Is an exit ramp planned at Towne Rd. and I-465, south of 96th? not that we're aware
378 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 60 Secondary Arterial (Shelborne Rd, College, Carmel Dr, Oak Ridge Rd.)-The photo example is a
"Primary Parkway" on the map.
no change, 9/30/2008
379 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 60 No median is required here. Why should Towne Rd require a 40 ft greater Right of Way than
Shelborne Rd?
no change, 9/30/2008
380 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 61 Primary Arterial-This is the widest, most intense street classification (more than Keystone's). 96th St
is an odd choice, especially if the C3 Plan's intent is to preserve any residential character there.
parts changed on map
381 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 62 Street Classification Chart does not include bike or ped treatment required. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
382 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Street Classification Chart: Add "Median sizes", "Sidewalks/Paths", & "Bicycle lanes". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
383 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Urban Collector St.-Change Right of Way from 55 to 66 feet. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
384 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Residential Parkway 2 lane-Change Right of way to 100 feet. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
385 8/6/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan Recommend 96th from Haverstick to Westfield is Primary Pkwy instead of Primary Arterial OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
386 8/14/2008 Adam Houghton Thorough Plan Residential Parkways are too large/unsafe for current conditions on residential streets including Four
Seasons Way. (this reflects west side connectivity exhibit)
no change, 9/30/2008
30 11/21/2008
387 9/8/2008 Adam Houghton Thorough Plan The Thoroughfare plan includes a number of streets in the northwest corner of Carmel to be
converted from residential streets to residential parkways. Given that these new parkways will go
through established neighborhoods is there not a substantial safety risk associated with the
increased volume of traffic and the fact that a large number of houses will connect directly to these
parkways (very different to other parkways such as Ditch road where few houses connect directly).
In addition will this conversion to parkways (which would require widening the roads) involve
significant acquisition of land from existing home owners resulting in negative effects on home
values? Given that the current grid system in this area (Towne, 131st etc) will go through significant
improvements in the future, providing significant additional capacity, and that building densities will
remain low in these areas I am unable to see the justification for or benefit of additional parkways in
this area.
no change, 9/30/2008
388 9/9/2008 Peter Langowski Thorough Plan Please remember that when Hazel Dell funding was originally approved the stipulation that the
section of Hazel Dell north of 116th was to be a secondary parkway (the terminology at the time) and
the uninhabited portion south of 116th was to be the primary parkway (essentially a county highway)
was an important feature that residents like myself and others felt was a very important distinction to
the orderly growth of the east side of Carmel. The Hazel Dell area residents were few in number
then and we understood the reasons that our western neighbors near Gray Road had to rebuild
Hazel Dell as a "four lane highway" as Mr. Battreal and others stated at the time. But the folks near
Hazel Dell are also east side residential Carmel residents and are in much greater numbers now. I
still feel that it is important that the northern portion of Hazel Dell not become a speed-through
corridor for our Westfield and Noblesville neighbors to the north who have not adhered to their old
comprehensive plans.
no change, 9/30/2008
With the large increase in the City portion of my property tax bill this past year I have no interest in
the plan to build the two additional lanes on the north end of Hazel Dell, invite more traffic, and then
pay to maintain the wear and tear until I pass from this earth. Of course there will then be pressure
to further commercialize corners like 131st and Hazel Dell on the two southern corners. The empty
lot on the north side of 131st was zoned for business in 1995, thirteen years ago and other than over
by River Road and 146th we have been fully built out residential on the east side for several years
now. There just is not a demand to serve ourselves out in the neighborhoods with any more retail. A
Primary Parkway with some large retail areas on the south end in reclaimed mineral extraction areas
with a County highway running through the north end to bring Morse Lake shoppers down is the
vision of the east side we don't want to see. Hazel Dell should not be the conduit for a retail war,
them trying to draw Carmel shoppers north of 146th and "us" trying to draw them down at 96th.
389 9/29/2008 John Tintera Thorough Plan Since all of the potential changes resulting from a future 96th St & Westfield Bvld Area Study are not
shown in the Thoroughfare Plan Map and Land Classification Plan Map, consider temporarily
removing the proposed roundabout and 96th and Haverstick until the transportation issues in this
area are resolve with a future Study. The Planning Staff and Engineering will benefit from additional
time to determine if actual traffic counts on Haverstick are sufficient to support a proposed
roundabout or whether alternatives should be considered.
no change, 9/30/2008
390 9/29/2008 Dee Fox Thorough Plan Thoroughfare Plan Map: Residential Parkways on the map do not specify 2 or 4 lanes. 4 lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
31 11/21/2008
391 9/29/2008 CWIC2 Thorough Plan There is a description for Residential Parkway 2-lane and Residential Parkway 4-lane, but these are
not distinguished on the map. Please identify where each is planned.
4 lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
392 9/29/2008 Dee Fox Thorough Plan The DOCS has a list of how roads have been changed from the new 2020 Plan (2005), including- 1)
Urban Arterial (90') and Urban Collector (66') are new classifications. 2) Of the other 9
classifications, 4 had Right of Ways (ROW) increased by 10 ft, and "Residential Parkway 4 lane"
increased by 20 ft. 3) In West Carmel- a. 7 roads increased from Collector (2020 Plan=80' ROW,
now 90'; no median) to Residential Parkway (2020 plan 4 lane=100' ROW, now 120'; 12 foot
median). b. 131st St. increased from Residential Parkway (120' ROW; 12 ft median) To Primary
Parkway (140' ROW; 16' median.) c. 96th St. increased from Residential Parkway (120' ROW; 12'
median) To Primary Arterial (150' ROW; no median.)
no change, 9/30/2008
393 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan Marilyn served on the Plan Commission when the current Transportation Plan was developed. At
that time, no definitive information was available about the State’s plan for 421/Michigan Rd.
Shelborne Road was classified as a Secondary Arterial because of the need for major N/S
thoroughfares. Things have changed. Michigan Road will be easily accessed by the two planned
Primary Parkways of 131st and 116th and the 4-lane 146th St. It is worth reconsidering how far east
from Michigan Road it remains important for the City to spend the money for a 4-lane N/S road. At
the very least, between 96th & 116th, it makes sense to encourage traffic to move to Michigan Road.
no change, 9/30/2008
394 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan With the expansion of Michigan Road to 4 lanes plus turn lanes south of 116th, Shelborne Road
south of 116th is no longer needed to carry the same weight as in the previous plan.
no change, 9/30/2008
395 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan 116th St. is planned as a Primary Parkway and will need to carry the east and west bound traffic.
Regardless of what happens with Shelborne Road, the City will have to pay the costs for upgrading
116th St. Since Shelborne at 116th is only 1-mile from Michigan Rd. and even less far south of 116th,
a 4-lane Shelborne south of 116th may not be the best use of funds.
no change, 9/30/2008
396 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan There are homes and subdivisions on Shelborne south of 116th St. that pre-existed the last
Thoroughfare Plan. This means the City does not already have the right-of-way, but would have to
purchase it and the City could avoid bringing the road very close to some homes.
no change, 9/30/2008
397 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan There are existing single family homes outside of subdivisions that will have no option but to
enter/exit a 4-lane road. Brandywine’s exit/entrance sits at a dip in the road for southbound traffic,
which already makes exiting Brandywine hazardous during rush hour
no change, 9/30/2008
398 9/30/2008 Fred Yde Thorough Plan Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for SW Clay – By October 25, 2007, Carmel shall initiate a
process by which the existing Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for the Annexation Territory
will be made available for review and revision as necessary and advisable. Public meetings will be
held in the Annexation Territory for input, prior to any changes being made. No decision to build or
expand any road in the Annexation Territory other than Illinois Street or Commerce Drive
from its current size or character will be made prior to January 2012… This last sentence (1)
shall not prohibit Carmel from accepting roads that are dedicated to Carmel by a developer;
and (2) shall not apply to the addition of a turning lane, which may be required by the City of
Carmel with respect to a new development or new construction.
no R/W increases for SW Clay, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
32 11/21/2008
399 10/7/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan Westfield Blvd. is shown as an Urban Arterial. This should be changed south of 116th when it
changes from Rangeline Road to Westfield Blvd. Not sure what category it fall under until 99th St.
when it become a Secondary Parkway.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
400 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 70 On-Street Bicycle Lane: In 2006, it was stated that serious bicyclists would rather ride in the street
than use bike lanes, because they don't feel safe. Can changes be made to remedy that? Otherwise,
the lanes just take up space and add expense.
no change, 9/30/2008
401 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 73 Bicycle & Pedestrian Classification Table: The description under "Off-Street Trail, Right of Way"
matches the Draft B language, but not the current language on page 72.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
33 11/21/2008
402 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 74 The map is on page 75; not 71. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
403 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Bike/Ped Map Confusing. Is Illinois to get path or lane?
404 9/29/2008 CWIC2 Bike/Ped Map The map identifies an “Enhanced Sidewalk,” but where is the descriptor of what that is?
405 8/26/2008 Chamber The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new neighborhoods. no change, 9/30/2008
PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
406 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 84 Current Overlay Zones (Michigan Rd, 116th St., US 31, etc.) should be included and/or referenced in
the Comp. Plan.
note added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
407 KEYSTONE PARKWAY CORRIDOR
408 8/26/2008 Chamber 86 Keystone: does this need section to be updated due to recent engineering and construction? no change, 10/14/2008
409 9/5/2008 Tim DeFrench 86 Keystone: The third bullet under the Design Goals should also state protection of the established
neighborhoods on the west side of Keystone. "Roughly" 98th to just south of 116th 126th to smokey
row.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
410 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 86 Keystone, Design Guidelines: Protect residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone from
conflicting land use encroachment -- Question??? Why not protect the ones on the west side as
well? Same goes for the softening of effects of commercial development for residential
neighborhood for the residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone -- Question???? Why
not protect the residential neighborhood on the west side of Keystone. Should not neighborhoods on
bordering the west side of Keystone be added to this section??
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
411 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-This Comp Plan Revision frequently refers to the need to protect and buffer
residential neighborhoods from commercial development; while at the same time, it encourages
putting more such land uses next to established residential neighborhoods.
no change, 10/14/2008
412 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-Adequate buffering is questionably possible. A busy 4 lane road is not a buffer,
but is a problem in itself.
no change, 10/14/2008
413 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-The last bullet statement seems to conflict with the state on page 77 that says
high density is not encouraged for the sake of establishing a transit system.
no change, 10/14/2008
414 US 31 CORRIDOR
415 US 31 GENERAL
416 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 While it is important that we discuss this area at length in this meeting, I recommend that the heavy
lifting for this corridor be done by the US 31 Committee and make a recommendation back to the
Plan Commission.
no change
417 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Should we acknowledge the change in this corridor is not only limited access elevated interchanges
but also helicopter traffic, and the addition of truck traffic from Keystone? This diversion of truck
traffic from Keystone was done because Keystone was determined to be a residential corridor and
US 31 a heavy commercial corridor.
no change
34 11/21/2008
418 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Extend Illinois Street From 116th St to 106th Street. This extension is critical to relieve the traffic from
Spring Mill prior to US 31 becoming limited access. This needs to happen prior to 2011. Also,
change Illinois Street to Spring Mill Rd. as the transition from intense office corridor to low density
residential areas to the west.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
419 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 3rd bullet: Transition the scale and mass of structures between US 31 and
Spring Mill to minimize impact to residential development to the west.
no change, 10/14/2008
420 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 4th bullet: Require high quality, urban office architecture and campus design
between Spring Mill Rd and Pennsylvania St. Office buildings should be required to be between 4-
10 stories between Pennsylvania and Illinois and 2-4 stories between Illinois St and Spring Mill Rd.
We should encourage the creation of a “sense of place” for people on the west side of Meridian to
live, work, shop and play.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
421 8/26/2008 Chamber 88 Design Guidelines, 5th bullet: A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
422 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88 Design Guidelines, 8th bullet: Concerning "Prepare for mass transit line", this is scary as it was
origianlly planned for the Keystone Ave corridor. You are already changing Meridian corridor to
handle the truck traffic from revised Keystone corridor. Please do not overwhelm the Illinois St
corridor.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
423 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 9th bullet: Respect transition and buffering adjacent to existing subdivisions.
Take out AGREEMENTS. There are not any buffering agreements.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
424 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 88 Design Guidelines: Add, "lighting should be designed to not trespass into residential areas" (as for
Home Place, page 100).
no change, 10/14/2008
425 8/26/2008 Chamber 89 US 31: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive
Residential?
no change, 10/14/2008
426 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 89 Why is path only on the east side? (Keystone has paths on both sides.) no change, 10/14/2008
427 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 89 "Preserve/Install Tree Canopy" is only shown for one tiny area, way north. Surely there are more
places. Trees should be installed along Illinois St. and along Spring Mill Rd. as a buffer.
no change, 10/14/2008
428 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89 I think it is good that the boundaries for the Meridian Corridor extend west of spring mill no change, 10/14/2008
429 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89 Why are we treating the east side of US 31 different than the west side of US 31? Shouldn’t the
boundary extend east of Pennsylvania?
no change, 10/14/2008
430 ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
431 9/6/2008 Chad Scott 88 US 31: I do not want Illinois street expansion by my neighborhood at 106th street through 111th
Street
no change, 10/14/2008
432 9/9/2008 Hart 89 Illinois Street from 106th to 111th Streets will abut the east side of my neighborhood, Spring Mill
Place. Many residents of this subdiision attended nearly two years' of meetings on this topic at City
Hall, and reached agreement with the City that was recorded as a Resolution that is inconsistent with
the current rendering of Illinois Street for this segment. Please refer to the Resolution rather than
discarding those years of work.
no change, 10/14/2008
35 11/21/2008
433 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88 I remain opposed to the Meridan corridor/Illinois St collector as it is a strong financially rewarding
project for Carmel and the major corporate developers while adversely impacting the few original
homeowners. We dramatically lose our home appreciation while the adjecent land owners and
developers and the city of Carmel have huge financial gains. There should be financial consideration
to these original homeowners. There should be sufficient $ available to help these homeowners.
no change, 10/14/2008
434 SPRING MILL CORRIDOR, ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE
435 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 88 US 31: reconfirm Spring Mill as a residential corridor w/Illinois as a boundary and the importance of a
compact US 31 corridor with sufficient mass to facilitate reaching other goals such as future transit.
no change, 10/14/2008
436 8/21/2008 Barbara Layton 88 US 31: no Commercial West of Illinois, Pittman farm can be developed residentially Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
437 9/30/2008 James Browning 89 US 31: I am interested in the proposed use for the east side of 116th Street and Springmill Road. I
believe it would be most useful if the plan allowed for commercial office uses, multi family uses as
well as a controlled amount of retail uses. This would include higher densities which are consistent
with current urban land planning techniques being implemented in our community. I believe the
residents of West Clay would benefit from the services and the overall community would benefit from
the growth along the Meridian corridor.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
438 9/30/2008 Brent Claymon 89 I live in SW Clay Township and would like to offer my perspective on future of development in the
116th and Spring Mill area. There is a significant need for amenities, restaurants, retail stores, etc.
focused toward the West side of Carmel. Clarian Hospital is a very nice facility, but clearly in need of
complementary development. As things change with US 31 becoming limited access, one would
think this makes incorporating new development even more critical. Every world class city has
pockets of areas which offer diverse and unique destinations. It seems glaring that West Carmel
does not really have that (except for residential developments). A commercial development would
also grow the tax base for Carmel, which I have to believe is important in light of challenging times. I
would be strongly in favor of a creative mixed use world class development in this area.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
439 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89 Pls change the area denoted as Transition Sensitive Residential from 111th St on the south to Spring
Lake Estates on the north to Employment Corridor – nobody believes it is good planning to go from 6-
10 story buildings to residential.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
440 9/26/2008 Ivan Barrett 89 I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the marketing
and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually asked about the
nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many buyers who are
looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations that there would be
commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are often discouraged at the
lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I encourage you to plan for a
special area West of Meridian that would include such services as offices, retail uses including
grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that the best place to create such a
node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring Mill Rd. Housing is not an appropriate or best
use for this area.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
36 11/21/2008
441 9/26/2008 Irina Powers 89 Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive Plan
update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in commercial mixed
use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west side. A commercial mixed
use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal choice for this side of town. My
family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421 to eat, shop, etc. Commercial uses
for the area would provide the greatest benefit to residents of western Carmel.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
442 9/26/2008 Jack & Kathy Gordon 89 We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further commercial
development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities like gas stations,
restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties on the northeast and
southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect location for commercial
development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large hospital and is a crossroads for
residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that Carmel will have some foresight
rather than looking into the past when making decision about the future of this area.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
443 9/26/2008 Randy Yust 89 The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many
reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart Center’s
helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents.” Similar
distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be developed as residential
properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment
Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian North. Although the primary flight plan
uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight plans, causing the helicopters to cross over
the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why would we put residential housing in an area where a
medical helicopter would fly over?
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
444 Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best interest.
Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional medical center,
would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/ access onto Spring Mill
prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois. US 31 will become a
limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will there be significant traffic
in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic on US 31 but the added truck
traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is becoming a major road to move
local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31 becomes limited access. It is important to
finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior to construction commencement on US 31 in
2011. It is inconceivable that you would have residential use in such a corridor. It is poor planning
and an irresponsible use of such prime land to maximize our tax base.
445 Commercial development on vacant properties along Illinois St should be encouraged. As the city
can see complete buildout w/in 10 years, NAV will flatten. We should take every opportunity to
encourage commercial development in this area to keep property taxes low for residents.
37 11/21/2008
446 9/26/2008 Rob & Anne Kelton 89 I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St. to
116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly urge you
to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd that any of that
property would be anything but COMMERCIAL.
As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class development
that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With that area
being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to attracting business, it
certainly seems that having businesses on that property would be beneficial to everyone in the city. It
would represent good fiscal planning for the city of Carmel and help grow the tax base.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
447 There is not a shortage of homes in the area. The city could use more money to help pay for all of
the improvements that have been made, such as athletic centers and theatres. If we remember
correctly, there were an awful lot of people who were not happy about the Monon trail be extended
through their backyards, but the city decided to put it through for the greater good of the majority and
to improve the appeal of the city. To not apply the same thinking to other development issues seems
nothing less than bias and corrupt. Given today's economy with $700
billion bailouts, we need revenue for our city. What we don't need is more homes.
448 9/26/2008 Peter Powers 89 I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the
Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in west
Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this side of town.
A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that housing is
compatible with the surrounding area.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
449 9/26/2008 Bob McKinney 89 As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate Agency,
I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay township in a
manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west clay be treated in a
manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is detrimental not only to the
whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on the west side of Carmel. It is my
hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the west side of meridian, that a
development is created on the west side of meridian that would serve the people who live on the
west side and those who are employed on the west side. I know it is very discouraging to the
homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to and the potential high end customers
that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and drive far distances for minor
conveniences.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
38 11/21/2008
450 We need to create a hub in the area of 116th Street and Spring Mill Rd for a tremendous
development that properly utilizes the precious and dwindling land resources we have left. I envision
an area that contains offices both professional and medical, hospitality w hotels and restaurants. I
would be hopeful that amenities like walking trails, water features, fire pits, sand volleyball courts and
pocket parks could be created to compete w such places as silicon valley, Boston’s technology
corridor, Denver and any other great place where creative and successful people are attracted to.
Please do not allow for the degradation of our tax base by requiring housing to go into areas where
housing will fail and a use which further encourages the need for the construction of more schools
and higher taxes.
451 9/26/2008 John Levinsohn 89 As a resident of Western Clay Township, I am writing you today in reference to the C3
Comprehensive Plan that is currently under consideration and specifically about the underutilized
property surrounding the intersection of 116th Street and Springmill Road. The immediate area has
evolved into a first class commercial corridor that contains immense employment opportunities as
well as substantial revenue for the City. It is my hope that we can further enrich this area by providing
additional commercial assets of the same stature and supplementing those assets with services that
the population, both day time and full time, may enjoy.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
452 While I know there is a vocal minority that opposes the type of planning that should be applied to this
area; the idea that Springmill Road is some sort of demarcation that needs to be buffered hinders the
power of sound planning for the highest and best use of those properties and subsequently the City
as a whole. Given what has been accomplished by the City of Carmel in recent years I expect that
those properties will represent planning and development worthy of national recognition. I appreciate
the efforts you all put forth to ensure that the City and its residents continue to prosper. Thank you for
your time.
453 9/29/2008 RJ Rudolph 89 As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of the
Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over the past
year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers is for higher
density residential and assisted living and some from retail support.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
454 Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street is
planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential development
over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased demand for
business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for convenience of
people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers that have shown
interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density residential are attracted to
the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical Center, The Indiana Heart Hospital
and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the demand for services on the west side
of Meridian Street.
39 11/21/2008
455 With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks and
planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense to have
higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential further west
of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North, Fidelity Office
Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully with all land owners
and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents. The general
economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard look at where they
live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of residential developments and
support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit to the entire area.
456 9/29/2008 Tom Osborne 89 My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at 130th and
Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My family and I
moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian Street. We have
seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing that has been lacking
for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and amenities west of US 31. As
Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a soon to be limited access freeway, it
has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel across it.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
457 The intersection at 116th and Spring Mill provides Carmel the opportunity to allow something
uniquely special to be developed there due to the large amount of land that exists in an area that is
mostly developed. With the advent of quality mixed use developments we have seen here and
though out progressive communities around the country, and the benefits they provide their
surrounding communities, it would only make sense that the area around 116th and Spring Mill be
planned to provide the same benefits. Mixed use projects that include higher density residential and
support retail and office are the perfect buffer between the single family residences to the west and
the offices, hospital and highway to the east. In the age of where people are wanting and needing to
drive less, allowing mixed use developments to take place at 116th and Spring Mill makes more
sense today then ever.
458 9/29/2008 Michael Puckett 89 SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located on
the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building owner in the
office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result of the Illinois Street
and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several years. Similar to other
buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has declined significantly in recent
years and interest in available space has waned. While we recognize that several factors play into
this trend, feedback from both existing and potential tenants consistently includes two issues: 1)
difficulty in accessing our park due to the requirement to enter from Illinois Street on the west side of
the property/lack of access through Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on 116th Street and 2) lack of
amenities in the adjoining areas including restaurants, dry cleaners, etc. Currently, everyone doing
business on the west side of Meridian Street is required, at a minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
40 11/21/2008
459 After taking time to review the proposed Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, we have noted
that the property just west of Fidelity Plaza, which would include the property just north of 111th
Street, west of Illinois Street, south of 116th Street and East of Spring Mill Road, is to be zoned
residential. From our perspective, it would be best if this property was zoned as either a Community
Vitality Node or a Regional Vitality Node. While some high-density housing might be successful in
this area, we do not believe zoning the entire area residential will be the best use of this land as it
relates to the surrounding communities, including the businesses in the area. As a building owner in
the area, we would like to see the area just West of Meridian Street between 111th Street and 116th
Street become a strong business community; however, this area is being placed at a disadvantage
to areas east of Meridian Street based on the currently planned zoning requirements.
460 We request that you reconsider the zoning plans for the above referenced area between Illinois
Street and Spring Mill Road and zone this area as either Community Vitality Node or Regional Vitality
Node. This zoning will allow for much needed commercial development in the area.
461 9/29/2008 John Moorin 89 I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan. My
name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently sold my
company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This is the 3rd
business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these businesses have ever
been located in Hamilton County. I would very much like to have the
opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to be closer to my home and
family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
462 Unfortunately there really is no good commercial park that I know of around. We need one that will
attract business to locate and grow. We compete on a regional and national level for our
employees.and they look for a more modern environment than what this county currently offers.
Employees today want to be able to have convenient retail next to them. They want to be able to eat
and shop next to where they are. They want places to with walking trails, bike paths and other
outdoor activities. These types of things can lure the best and brightest to us. Being close to
residential is a plus because people wouldn't have to commute nearly as far and we can limit sprawl.
463 I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with
Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life
science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay. The
office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then that park
would reap the benefit as well.
464 This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the
community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been so
plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should want in
at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for the
community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to support
the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have set a high
standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens.
41 11/21/2008
465 10/15/2008 Andy Marsh
I am a homeowner is Spring Mill Place Subdivision just south of 111th on the east side of Spring Mill
Road. We purchased our home 5 years and planned to raise our two small children at the back of a
cul-de-sac with a heavily wooded backyard. The mere thought of a busy road being located just on
the other side of our property line with the potential for 6-10 story office buildings makes us very
uneasy. One of the reasons were purchased this home and piece of property it is located on was the
seclusion and peacefullness that is hard to find in a neighborhood in Carmel. We live on nearly 2
acres and reguarly have deer, rabbits, and other wildlife in our back woods and yard and the thought
of losing them to another roadway and commercial office buildings is a shame. While we understand
the birms and trees are planned to seperate our backyards from the Illinois street expansion, having
this in our backyard will create noise and decrease our property values which is unfair.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
466
On a second note, I would like to express my desire to retain the orange color designation
(residential) for the parcel of land just north of our subdivision located between 111th and 116th
street just east of springmill road. On Sept 23, 2008, it was agreed upon to leave this area as
residential and move on to other areas of concern. To our surprise, on Oct 14th meeting, this same
area was discussed again, while not on the agenda for that evening, and some plan commission
members asked that this area be changed to pink. This action defeats the purpose of deciding to do
one thing and then changing to another. This process is unfair and a complete waste of time for
community members to show up if previous decisions are cast away and new agendas delivered.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
467 10/15/2008 Ron Houck
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing
the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and
the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the
process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same
ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to
your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting
issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair
to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
468 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project
for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's
merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and
needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed
to wear down residents.
42 11/21/2008
469 1015/2008 R. Kevin Williams I agree with Ron Houck. In addition, I should bring to your attention, that over 20 years ago, Dr.
Pittman attempted to get all this acreage re-zoned commercial at that time. This was not long after
we built and purchased our house. At the time, this re-zoning did not agree with the comprehensive
plan. They attempted to use the fact he received a slight variance for one parcel, to act as precedent
for re-zoning the whole section of land. I personally hired Ice Miller at that time to fight this, then was
joined by other residents. At that time, the planning commission was frankly overwhelmingly in favor
of this change. However, in my opinion, when they found out they might be in for an extended legal
battle, apparently they re-considered, and decided to shelve it. Shortly thereafter, when Dr. Pittman
and Jim Nelson again tried to force the issue, a concerned group of residents here gathered together
and successfully defeated the proposal.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
470
Dr. Pittman decided to (for a time) turn that property into a pig farm, as an attempted slap in the face
to the residents. At the time, Browning called me at my office several times, trying to get me to
convince folks to settle, because the smell was directed towards his development. However, as one
of my neighbors who grew up on a farm said... "the smell doesn't bother me, to me it smells like
money!" Eventually that pig farm went away. I am sure he will threaten something like that again.
471
Nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, there is MORE residential in this area that would be
affected at this time. I am sure this issue would be fought even harder this go around. There are
parties that are still attempting to surround our neighborhood with commercial development. This
was not what we expected when we purchased our houses, nor improved them over the years. I am
sure this would be an extended and messy battle that would make the annexation look like a picnic.
472 10/15/2008 Linda Oldiges As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing
the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and
the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the
process was to move on to Section 5. I did not attend the Oct. 14th meeting but was upset to hear
that this previous area was revisited without warning. I don't understand how all of you could
consider making this a special study area whereas commercial use could be considered. At the last
meeting we were told that our neighborhood fit the description of yellow on your maps. How
could you entertain putting a commercial area next to a low density subdivision. In addition we have
million dollar estate homes across the street, which should be deemed green on the map. This study
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
473
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. I understand that some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th
meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Why then would you make this a special study
area now. It seems that this action merely prolongs the process and involves our subdivision
in more meetings. Are you merely trying to wear us down? What's going on here??
43 11/21/2008
474 10/15/2008 Gerry Golden As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision since 1981, I am opposed to the creation of a
special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to
discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at
length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that
meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
475 However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take
a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect
resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all
people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking
these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
476 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project
for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's
merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and
needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed
to wear down residents.
477 10/16/2008 Michael Diehr I live at 10966 Springmill Lane in Carmel just south of the Parcel of land by our subdivision (111th -
116th St on the east side of Springmill Road). This is the parcel affectionately known as the Pittman
pig farm. I do not want this parcel of land (the Ptiman Pig farm) to be changed from it's residential
status to a special study area. This would have a adverse affect on my property value and change
the quality of life in our neighborhood. I oppose this change.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
478 10/16/2008 CPT David Gardiner I am a resident of Spring Mill Place subdivision. I have been unable to attend the recent planning
meetings due to the fact that I am currently serving overseas on active duty for the military.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
479
I have recently learned, from other similarly concerned residents, that the commission is considering
creating a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th
Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I am very much opposed to this! This area
has many families living across the street on 111th and Springmill streets. It is not appropriate for
this land to be turned to commercial use and the large increase in traffic and light pollution.
480 Another office park does not fit the character of the area nor the vision of its resident's who believe
that the best use for the land is for residential or continued agricultural purposes.
481 My understanding is that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land
Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and a decision
was made to leave it designated as residential - as it should be.
482 However, at the October 14th meeting this same issue was raised again by those wishing to take a
second bite at the apple. It seems to me this issue was settled at the previous meeting. The fact
that it was allowed to be reconsidered w/out advance notice to interested parties is a great disservice
to interested residents like myself who have been told this issue has been resolved at a previous
meeting.
44 11/21/2008
483
This area should remain designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
Caving in to special interests and creating a special study area merely prolongs the process in the
hopes that local residents will weary of the bureaucracy and endless meetings and eventually give in.
484
It is my hope that you do your best to help prevent this area from becoming yet another office park.
485 10/16/2008 Carolyn Scott As a resident of Springmill Place, I would ask that the designation of the parcel of north of our
subdivision retain orange color. We would like to preserve the beauty and character of our
neighborhood. Commercial buildings would destroy this!
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
486 10/16/2008 Lou Jenkins Please accept my request to retain the color mapping of orange from the possible change to pink.
As I understand the proposal, this would allow Dr.Pittman to convert zoning from residential to
commercial. This is clearly not the understanding of the home owners in Spring Mill Place that the
property would be developed commercially. If you would pass my request to stay with the orange
mapping, I would appreciate your help.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
487 10/16/2008 Dan & Linda Oldiges
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing
the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and
the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the
process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same
ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to
your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting
issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair
to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
488 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project
for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's
merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and
needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed
to wear down residents.
489 10/19/2008 Suzanne Glesing My name is Suzanne Glesing, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. As a resident,
I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill
Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
490 I realize that there was recently a meeting which took place on September 23rd that was solely
devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was
discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections.
45 11/21/2008
491 It is also my understanding that on October 14th another meeting was held and the previous
conclusion from the September meeting was reversed. This is a disservice to your process and
especially a disservice to those who took the time to attend the FIRST meeting. Why take the time,
if simply another meeting will be held less that one month later and have all of previous discussions
revisited and CHANGED? Especially when it was not even on the agenda and all of the same people
are not in attendance.
492 Having been made aware of the results of the September meeting, I felt no need to attend the
October meeting because a decision had already been made . Apparently I was wrong. Even
though these issues were finalized at the previous meeting - they were revisited without the same
people who had previously taken the time to be present. This is absolutely unfair and seemingly
unethical. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting.
493 As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land
between 111th and 116th Streets is ONCE AGAIN going to be presented to the Plan Commission
and it's merits considered at that time. WHY?! This has already been addressed, and finalized in
September. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the
residents of my subdivision in yet MORE MEETINGS, a strategy merely designed to wear down my
neighbors and myself. We all have busy lives involving our children, our families, our jobs and
whatever else. Taking the time to attend YET ANOTHER meeting - feel as if our presence is
worthwhile - only to find out that it will once again be a WASTE OF TIME leaves all of us more than
disappointed in the system that we are expected to count on.
494 I WILL be at the next meeting - as will many other members of my neighborhood. Hopefully the
effort will result in an improvement of communication and resolve.
495 10/19/2008 Valerie Eickmeier As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential,
as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting!
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
496 Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in
our subdivision in yet more meetings.This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down the
residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the
members of this residential community!
497 10/20/2008 Jacqueline Baques I agree with Valerie's statements. If the decision was already made at the prior meeting to leave the
area designated as residential, there was no need to revisit that topic at the next meeting. Our
neighborhood's consensus is that we ALL would like to see that area left at its former designation as
residential.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
46 11/21/2008
498 10/19/2008 Dan Belcher
I am a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision and would like to state my opposition to the
creation of a special study area for the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street
to 116th Street. The area now being considered for special study was discussed on September 23
and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. I am in favor of leaving this area
designated as residential, and considering future project proposals at the time they are presented to
the Plan Commission. Creating a special study area is unnecessary and only prolongs the process
to the advantage of developers who ultimately want this area changed from residential to
commercial. This change would clearly be to the detriment of the homeowners in our subdivision.
Please strongly consider this request to maintain this area designated as residential.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
499 10/20/2008 Janice Byrne As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential,
as agreed to
at the September 23rd meeting!
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
500 Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in
our subdivision in yet more meetings. This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down the
residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the
members of this residential community!
501 10/20/2008 Alexis Schwartz
As a new resident of the Spring Mill Place neighborhood, I am in complete consensus with the rest of
my neighbors that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd
meeting. Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our
homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as
throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial
development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of the
amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
502 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of
the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill
changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so
close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would.Please forward
these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the
rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill
area.
503 10/20/2008 John and Tammy
Lieberman
My wife and I are homeowners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (10989 Spring Mill Lane)
which subdivision is located due south of the Pittman Parcel. I am the principal real estate broker in
Lieberman and Associates, Inc. and have been a licensed real estate broker for 23 years. I have
been involved in several feasibility studies of many residential and commercial properties over many
years as my father was a real estate developer. Obviously, my wife and I and all home owners in
Spring Mill Place are concerned about our future property values.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
47 11/21/2008
504
I am aware that the Pittman Parcel is being considered as a potential special study area under the
Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. I am in agreement with Ron Houck (that lives in our subdivision)
per his prior statement to you. I believe the best use of the Pittman Parcel in light of the existing
residential communities surrounding that parcel is for the Pittman Parcel to be residential.
505 I realize that no specific project/development proposal is being reviewed right now by the Carmel
Planning Commission for development of the property. But given the nice Williams Mill subdivision
(on the west side of Spring Mill Road across from the Pitman Parcel), I believe that another well
planned development like Williams Mill would fit well into the residential design and flavor of our
existing two subdivisions (Williams Mill and Spring Mill Place.)
506 I am therefore opposed to changing the property to a Special Study Area. Thank you for giving
consideration to my thoughts as well as to all of the other home owners in the Spring Mill Place
subdivision.
507 10/20/2008 Rick Pearson I'm also a resident of Spring Mill Place and fully agree with those I'm referencing below. In addition
please include my position to those who have written before me.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
508 Those proposing and supporting this special study are using this as a tactic to buy time by drawing
those opposed into battle of attrition. We have jobs, families, and other responsibilities and should
not have to continually make a case against an obstinate desire to commercially develop a piece of
property that has already been addressed. The safety of our children, the value of our homes, and
the overall community that exists today should not be overlooked for someone else's profit. This
neighborhood is well established and has a strong desire to maintain the community it has created. I
believe it is on record by the very developer pushing this issue, that the property being discussed
cannot be developed residentially because there is no value in homes constructed next to an office
building. How can one argue homes will have a lower value and cannot be built and then insist on
putting an office next to our homes and pretend it will have no impact our community? This is
ludicrous.
509 I implore you to realize and honor what we as a community have work so hard to create and
preserve over the years. Please re-establish the property being referenced back to residential.
510 10/20/2008 Lani & Greg
Thompson I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion
that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of
Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
511
Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in
Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout
the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so
close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of the amount of
both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring.
48 11/21/2008
512 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of
the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill
changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so
close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would. Please forward
these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the
rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill
area.
513 10/20/2008 Gary and Denise
Lewis
As residents of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, we are opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th St. to the southern border
of Spring Lakes Estates.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
514 The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now
being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it
designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to
subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was addressed again
by those wishing to try it again. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and
expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and
all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those who did not attend thinking these
issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
515 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project
for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's
merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and
needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in more meetings, a strategy seemingly designed
to wear down the residents. We plan on attending the October 28th meeting to monitor the progress
being made on behalf of our community.
516 10/21/2008 Mike Sharp I concur with the many e-mails you have received on this topic. Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
517 10/21/2008 Chris & Alexis Shwartz
We are aware that the Pittman property (east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street) is being
considered as a potential special study area under the far reaching Comprehensive Plan for Carmel.
Consistent with the vote at the September 23rd meeting, we strongly believe that the property should
remain residential, and therefore strongly oppose changing its classification to a Special Study Area.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
518 The fact that those supporting commercial development decided to bring this matter up at a
subsequent meeting following a decision to classify residential further clouds our belief in a fair and
appropriate process. This approach was unfair to us that believed this issue was decided at a
previous meeting.
49 11/21/2008
519 Developing this land for commercial use will: 1. Adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring
Mill Place as well as the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill Road
2. Increase traffic through our subdivision as well as those surrounding thoroughfares in our area
3. Increase the safety risks to the many children that call Spring Mill Place home with added foot and
automotive traffic
4. Potentially increase crime in our area.
Our position and consensus on this topic is unwavering.
520 10/21/2008 Rhonda & Andy Marsh
I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion
that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of
Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
521
Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in
Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout
the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so
close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of the amount of
both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring.
522 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of
the primary reasons we bought our home, having 2 small children. A commercial development at
111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for
more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill
would.
523 Our land backs up to the land that will be developed for Illinois Street, so we are also VERY
concerned with the potential height o f the buildings that will line Illinois Street. The reason we
bought this home was because it is on a 2 acre wooded lot and we love the wildlife that inhabits the
area behind our house. We (our children) will be losing the opportunity to see deer, ducks, rabbits,
squirrels, etc... out of our back windows when this project is complete. Please don't ask us to look
out our windows at 6-10 story buildings instead!!
524 Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so
that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the
greater Spring Mill area.
525 10/21/2008 Bill & Brie Williams As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area for the land on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of
Spring Lakes Estates. We put our home up for sale last summer and several prospective buyers
asked specifically about the potential development of the aforementioned land parcel. The
uncertainty about the future development of that property negatively impacted our ability to sell our
home. Most buyers voiced the same concerns that we ourselves have about the negative impact
such development would have on our property value in the future.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
50 11/21/2008
526 The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now
being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it
designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to
subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by
those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those
who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on
the agenda and all people are not in attendance.
527 This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the
previous meeting.
528 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project
for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's
merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and
needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed
to wear down residents.
529 10/21/2008 Jill H. Meisenheimer
I have attended several Carmel Comp plan meetings in the past and I thought the following issue
had been decided months ago. As a resident of Williams Mills subdivision, I am opposed to the
creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road from South of
116th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I have heard that the meeting on
September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being
considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was left designated as
residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. I
was dismayed to hear that at the October 14th meeting this same area was revisited though it was
not on the agenda and interested parties were not in attendance. This is not fair to those people who
thought these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
530 The area should be still designated as residential (orange), as agreed to at the September 23rd
meeting.
531 I am also terrible concerned that the Comp Plan is suggesting a requirement of 6-10 story buildings
in this area. Already the traffic in our area is so clogged that I often have a tough time getting to and
from our Williams Mills home from 116th and Meridian and that doesn't even include the impossiblity
of actually waiting for the many traffic lights it can take to actually cross Meridian at 116th
Street. I plan to be at the meeting on next Tuesday.
532 10/21/2008 Richard Clement We are very concerned about the plan to revise zoning for the Pittman property north of 111th. We
definitely will attend the October 28th meeting.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
51 11/21/2008
533 10/21/2008 Richard Vitales
As a resident of the Williams Mill subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study of the
area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring
Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use
map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision
was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting, the process was
to move on to subsequent items of business. However, at the October 14th meeting, this subject was
once again revisited by those who want to reverse the decision already made. This is a disservice to
your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting
issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair
to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
534 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project
for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's
merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and
needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings; a strategy merely designed
to wear down residents.
535 10/22/2008 David Roach My name is David Roach, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
536 I am in complete consensus with the entire neighborhood that does not want the land to the north of
111th Street to become a commercial property and does not want this property to be a special study
area. Development of this land commercially would negatively impact our
neighborhood(traffic,theft,values,etc.).Please leave the area as residential as agreed.We do not feel
that 6-10 story buildings to the east of our neighborhood would be in our best interest.
537
We do not need any prolonging meetings wearing down the residents of this neighborhood.The
Carmel Planning Commission should make this decision as if they were living here with no agenda.
538 10/24/2008 Barbara Layton
Adrienne, we were at the meeting wherein Steve Pittman requested that his pig farm be reclassified,
and such request was denied. The revised comp plan indicates his request was honored.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
539 We OBJECT to his land being reclassified.
540 Further, the land north along Spring Mill Road owned by Clarian was zoned residential. This was a
compromise intended to satisfy the surrounding residential property owners. This too has been
reclassified.
541 Please DO NOT reclassify either of these two properties. No commercial west of Illinois MUST
remain in effect. Thanks much. :-)
542 10/25/2008 Michael & Robertal
Mattasits
As homeowners and residents of the Williams Mill subdivision, located at 111th & Sprindmill Rd., we
are opposed to the creation of a special study area for the parcel of land east of Springmill and north
of 111th (commonly referred to as the Pittman Pig Farm).
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
543 We support the current residential designation.
52 11/21/2008
544 10/26/2008 Lyle Hartman
My wife Marian and I live in Williams Mill and have lived in Carmel or Clay Twp since 1972. The Plan
Commission indicated at the Sept 23rd meeting that the east side of Spring Mill North of 111th street
would remain residential. However, the Oct 14th meeting indicated an intent to revisit this decision
and create a special study area. This issue appears on the agenda for Oct 28.
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
545 The process of revisiting agenda items that were previously agreed to creates confusion and is unfair
to those who attend meetings and leave believing that issues have been finalized. The process
needlessly involves residents in more meetings and is a waste of time and money. The Plan
Commission may want to consider a process where areas like this would be reviewed on a routine
schedule of perhaps every five (5) years. Such a process would permit all parties to be appropriately
notified and to be able to attend meetings when issues are being considered that have an impact on
their immediate neighborhoods.
546 Please allow the prior decision to stand and leave this area zoned residential.
547 10/27/2008 Kathleen Hart I attended the Sept 30 and Oct 14 meetings which addressed, among other items, the Land Use
Map for the Illinois Street expansion along our neighborhood, Spring Mill Place. I appreciate all the
hard work that your Commission is putting in on this project. However, I write to ask that you
reconsider the vote on October 14 to create a special study (pink) area for the east side of Spring
Mill Road between 111 and 116th Streets (the Pittman parcel). I may not be able to attend the Oct
28 meeting and hope you will consider this email in lieu of my attendance. The reasons, some of
which I tried to raise during the Oct 14 meeting, are as follows:
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
548 1. Our neighborhood appeared at the Sept 23, 30 and Oct 14 meetings for areas that affect the
perimeter of our neighborhood. As stated previously, our neighborhood has approximately 48 homes
on 1+ acres each.
549 2. On Sept 23, we were told to return on Sept 30 because the agenda was too full to reach our
area of interest. At the Sept 30 meeting, a vote was taken after discussion that our neighborhood
(east side of Spring Mill Road between 106 and 111th Streets) should be changed to "yellow" on the
land use and planning map because it qualifies for low density classification and not likely to change
any time in the foreseeable future. We thank you for this discussion and vote.
550 Also at the Sept 30 meeting, Mr. Pittman attended and advocated that his entire parcel be
changed to employment node (blue) color, making arguments about helicopters and residential
development that were not accepted. A discussion was held and vote taken, which resulted in no
color change to his parcel (which is presently residential/orange east of Spring Mill Road and blue
east of Illinois Street).
53 11/21/2008
551
3. At the Oct 14 meeting, many reps of our neighborhood as well as Mr. Pittman appeared once
more. It was confirmed on the record that even though the map colors had not changed, our
neighborhood segment was indeed now to be yellow. Mr. Pittman then took the opportunity to ask
that blue be extended to his entire parcel -- and many of his written comments repeated a suggestion
that the commercial zone be extended to the west side of Illinois all the way to Spring Mill Road; after
discussion, this was declined (I recall one basis was that a vote previously taken and would not be
revisited) and the orange color was to remain between Spring Mill Road and Illinois Street.
552 At a later point in the Oct 14 meeting, discussion was had about the Clarian segment (north of
116th Street). It was suggested that a special study (pink) area be created. A discussion (with many
people talking over each other) was held -- in the midst of which Mr. Pittman added his property --
and the vote taken to create a special study (pink) area -- apparently for both Clarian and Pittman
parcels.
553 4. The Clarian and Pittman parcels are very different as to what borders them and why Clarian may
qualify for amendments as to future use that Pittman should not. As I was briefly able to raise at the
Oct 14 meeting, the first vote and second discussion on the Pittman parcel should hold firm, i.e., it
stay orange. Further, that changing it now to a special study area will require our low density
neighborhood to attend countless more meetings so in the future we cannot be foreclosed from
protesting any amended use or zoning sought for the Pittman parcel.
554 5. Government works because we have good leaders who make decisions after hearing the voices
of its citizens. The Commission heard discussion on the Pittman parcel on September 30 and voted
to keep it orange. Our neighborhood attendance paid off. This decision was even used as the basis
to keep the parcel as orange when Mr. Pittman asked a second time for a change early into the
October 14 meeting. By then, Mr. Pittman had authored more comments on the subject (many long
ones) and obtained comments from new supporters who didn't appear at the meeting yet generically
favored westside development -- although not specifying it required Pittman's particular parcel to do
so. If Mr. Pittman (or others) are allowed to show up eternally and refine their arguments and
support for a vote they repeatedly seek (and to the eventual attrition of foes who relied on the prior
vote when they timely gave their arguments and showed support), the process breaks down and is
entirely unreliable for all of its citizens.
555 6. Therefore, I ask that you reinstate the Sept 30 vote on the Pittman parcel upon which many of
my neighbors relied and do not allow the Pittman parcel to become part of the special study area that
is appropriate for its differently situated neighbor, Clarian.
556 SUMMARY:
557 Spring Mill Place (between 106 & 111 Streets): YELLOW
558 Pittman parcel (between 111 & 116 Streets): ORANGE
559 Clarian parcel (north of 116 to Spring Lakes subdivision): PINK
560 Thank you.
54 11/21/2008
561 10/27/2008 Ed Skarbeck My name is Ed Skarbeck, I am a resident of Spring Mill Place Subdivision…In addition to the email
that I submitted below (on September 9, 2008), please accept this email as my input in regards to
the issues described below. As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the
creation of a special study area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. From previous meetings and communications, I was
under the impression that this area would remain properly zoned as residential. However, it has
come to our attention that the area is being “revisited” at the meeting tomorrow, 10/28/08. How
many times are we going to have to go through this? I will attend tomorrow’s meeting and, again,
support the unanimous position of our neighborhood to strongly oppose the re-zoning of this area.
Please note, that I am in full support of the detailed emails and communications that Ron Houck has
provided you in regards to the many issues we are dealing with in the changes proposed to our
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
562 10/27/2008 Chad M. Pulley I am counsel for Conseco, Inc. who owns 48 acres of undeveloped land on the southwest corner of
Springmill Rd. and 116th St (the “Parcel”). This land is one of the largest undeveloped tracts of land
along Springmill Rd. on the east side of “West Carmel” and has a unique opportunity to significantly
contribute to West Carmel’s landscape. However, in order to promote the greatest contribution to
West Carmel’s landscape, the Parcel should be included in the Special Study so that its optimal uses
can be considered in conjunction with the uses of the land along the east side of Springmill Rd. This
no change, 10/28/2008
563 10/27/2008 Chuck Cremens I am the authorized representative of Conseco Inc, dealing with the 48 acres at the southwest corner
of 116th and Springmill Rd. I have been following the C3 Plan meetings through our real estate
agents, Resource Commercial Real Estate and our legal counsel, Riley Bennett & Egloff, who have
attended all of the Special Committee's meetings. I have also had dicussions with other owners in
the area, in particular Steve Pittman. It is our understanding that the Committee has recommended
that there be a "Special Study" to address the Springmill Corridor. We couldn't agree more with the
proposed approach. We also think it is essential that Conseco's 48 acres be included in the "Special
Study" process. It is important for its inclusion due to its location and size. We also hope that we
can bring value to the Committee through our active paricipation in the Study process. Conseco and
the Committee believably share the same objective of maximizing the opportunity along the
Springmill Corridor.
no change, 10/28/2008
564 Thank you for your work on this important project and your consideration to include our property in
the "Special Study".
565 11/1/2008 Barbara Layton Oh dear. We have a situation here.... We were PROMISED by City Council when the Clarian
rezone was granted that residential would remain along Spring Mill Road west of Illinois Street.
Surrounding lands were specifically discussed, and we were PROMISED that, in particular, the
Pittmans would not be allowed to claim hardship/domino as a result of the Clarian rezone and also
have their land rezoned. FYI, the land to the west of Spring Mill is currently for sale at commercial
rates. Suppose that owner is also hoping for a broken promise as well?
Upheld Special Study Designation, 10/28/08
566 The latest Comp Plan draft has Pittman's land designated as an Area for Special Study, which when
translated, is step one for a rezone. City Council PROMISED this would not be allowed to happen.
Please honor the PROMISES made and do not reclassify either the Clarion or Pittman land. Both
need to remain and be developed residentially. Thanks so much.
567 BUILDING HEIGHT - TRANSITION SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL
55 11/21/2008
568 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 89 US 31: define Transition-Sensitive Residential
569 8/19/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: what is transition-sensitive residential? How does this work when encouraging 6-10 story
buildings in the corridor?
no change, 10/14/2008
570 8/26/2008 Chamber 88 US 31: Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan? no change, 10/14/2008
571 9/29/2008 Ron Houck 88 What is the driving force behind the need to establish a 6-10 story building height requirement
between Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street? What is wrong with letting the market determine
the size of building as dictated by land prices and demand? This new height requirement would have
effectively precluded many of the existing high-quality buildings already located in the US 31 corridor.
The requirement of 6-10 story buildings in this area produces numerous impacts that are damaging
to the existing adjacent residential areas on both sides of US 31. With the narrowness of the
corridor on the Pennsylvania Street side south of 116th Street and the proximity of existing
residential properties, it will be impractical to buffer from this size of building from the residential
areas without adversely affecting their property values.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
572 9/5/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: Requirement for 6-10 Story Buildngs seems to be in conflict with the statement in Design
Guidelines that addresses transition of mass and scale between US 31 & Illinois to minimize impact
to residential development. So, if the area from Illinois Street to Pennsylvania Street is required to
have 6 to 10 story buildings, how will or how can the scale and mass of structures between US 31
and Illinois Street be transitioned when it abuts the “Transition-Sensitive Residential” areas on the
US 31 Corridor map on page 89? The area colored as “Transition-Sensitive Residential” (blue-green
are on Map #1) occupies the entire western side of Illinois street from 103rd Street to 131st Street. It
is not practically possible to transition scale and mass, as specified in the Design Guidelines, within
the confines of the corridor after allowing for parking for a 6-10 story of building.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
573 9/5/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: My home is located in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (Map #1 and Map #2), which is
located between 107th and 111th Streets on the east side of Spring Mill Road in the map area
designated as “Transition-Sensitive Residential”. My address is 315 W 107th Street (red star on
map #2), which uncharacteristically for a numbered street, exists only as this cul-de-sac. Properties
along the east side of our subdivision are all large lots on cul-de-sacs and the homes have large set
backs with some near the rear of the lots.Our subdivision was originally platted in 1980, prior to the
enactment of the US 31 Overlay Zone. At the time of enactment, the US 31 Overlay Zone was 600
feet on either side of US 31. Even after the US 31 Overlay Zone was put in place the conceptual
design for Illinois Street was a meandering road confined interior to the overlay zone with double
loading within the overlay zone. A few years ago the US 31 dimensions were expanded west several
hundred feet. In Map #1 above, compare the dimensions of the US 31 Overlay zone between US 31
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
56 11/21/2008
574 At the time the US 31 Overlay Zone was expanded, Illinois Street was pushed to the western
boundary of the overlay, placing it directly adjacent to our residential properties. Until this expansion
of the US 31 Overlay Zone, our neighborhood had always enjoyed a comfortable boundary abutting
residentially zoned property.This re-configuration of the US 31 Overlay zone has caused the
encroachment of office buildings into what was a residentially zoned area. This current revision to the
Comprehensive Plan only further negatively impacts our area. Some protection is certainly in order.
It is impractical to consider 6 to 10 story office building abutting residential areas. Even with the
separation by Illinois Street the towering visual impact will negatively affect property values and our
quality of life. The scale and mass of 6-10 story buildings is simply too large to not have a
considerable negative impact to our neighborhood. Next to the transition-sensitive residential areas
575 9/9/2008 Joseph Hile 88 US ith 31: i Was ti concerned h th with b ildi the language h i ht i th regarding id Illinois h ld Street b extension d t f regarding t i 6-10 story
buildings?? How will this "Blend" in with homes that are adjacent to the us 31 corridor? We are
located just west of the proposed Illinois St extention and are concerned along with a number of our
neighbors? The specific area in question is between 111th and 106th west of US 31.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
576 9/9/2008 Hart 88 US 31: I strongly protest that the corridor between Meridian and Illinois Street at 106-111 Streets is
designated as a 6-10 story employment corridor that will overshadow our neighborhood. Please
remove that designation from this stretch of the corridor.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
577 9/9/2008 Ed Skarbeck 88 US 31: I live in Spring Mill Place Subdivision. In review of the draft, Section Critical Corridors and
Subareas, Part 5, Section 2, the U.S. 31 Corridor, is the discussion of the extensions/additions to
Illinois Street from 106th northbound. This stretch of Illinois (from 106th to 111th) will most certainly
have an effect on property values in our neighborhood. While we all have several concerns and are
not overly thrilled to have a four-lane parkway, we realize the inevitable.
Please allow this letter as a show of support for the detailed letter and concerns raised by Spring Mill
Place Subdivision resident Ron Houck.
Of significant concern is the “requirement for 6-10 story buildings” within that corridor. Having
visions of a parkway (that is necessary for tolerable north to south travel) as our eastern boundary -
nicely concealed by dense, mature trees, bushes and built up hills - is one thing, but the thought of
towering commercial buildings is a whole other issue. Please consider the lack of need for
cramming more offices in this area…We’ve got a wonderful and very desirable neighborhood for west
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
578 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88 US 31: I have been a resident of Spring Mill Place (east of Springmill Rd between 106 and 116 st)
since 1980 and have attended and sometimes spoken concerning the re- zoning of this corridor.
Concerning "Respect transition and buffering agreements with adjacent subdivisions" it was agreed
to in last meeting to have buildings no higher than 6 stories easy of our development and that the
buffer zone would consist of extra width with mounding with both deciduous and evergreen trees.
We anticipate that these agreements will remain.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
57 11/21/2008
579 9/9/2008 David Roach 88 I would like to express my concern regarding the "Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan C3-
Plan" ,US 31 Corridor, Part 5 : Critical Corridors and Subareas, specifically page 88 which requires 6
10 story buildings between Illinois Street & Pennsylvania Street. We all understand these buildings
will be for the owners highest & best use and will be 10 story buildings,due to the cost of the land.
Our sub-division "Spring Mill Place" would be a Transition-Sensitive Residential area (pg. 89) right
next to 10 story buildings.(location N. of 106th Street/E. of Springmill Road.).
I feel height restrictions must be set for the US 31 Corridor next to residential housing.These heights
should be set at two story maximum. We need a buffer zone. We do not want to be the buffer zone
for 10 story buildings.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
580 9/10/2008 Steven Kirsh 88 US 31: I live at 365 W. 107th Street, Carmel (which is near 106th and Springmill). Unlike many of my
neighbors, I favor (a) being annexed by Carmel and (b) having Illinois Street as a Parkway.
(Likewise, I would favor Springmill as a Parkway, but I don't think that is being contemplated at this
time.) However, I oppose the idea 6 story office buildings on the west side US 31 between 106th and
111th Streets. I believe buildings of that height would significantly deflate the value of our homes for,
at least, two reasons: (a) the tenants in the upper floors would look directly into the backyards of the
adjacent home owners, and (b) there is no way to effectively screen from view of the residences a 6
story building.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
581 9/14/2008 Carolyn Scott 88 US 31: As a resident of the Springmill Place neighborhood, I wanted to share my disappointment and
fear over the Illinois Street expansion.
Of greatest concern, the proposed 6-10 story buildings ruining the charm and safety of our
neighborhood. Every night when I put my kids to bed, I look out their windows and admire the
beautiful view. Our tree-lined neighborhood is what drew our family to Carmel. Looking out of those
same windows and seeing 6-10story buildings, would be devastating.
I would ask that the Carmel City Council would consider keeping existing families happy, instead of
trying to lure prospective tenants by proposing such tall buildings.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
582 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 88/89 Have fire protection and earthquake resistance been planned for the increase in 10 story bldgs? no change, 10/14/2008
58 11/21/2008
583 11/6/2008 Ron Houck 86
The graphic added to Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor section is misleading. Although it is probably designed to be generically
applied, it does not accurately represent the circumstances of our neighborhood with a 100 foot buffer. Additionally, the
buffer area that is shown west of Illinois Street shows deciduous trees taller than a two-story home. To not have a
negative impact on our neighborhood, the buffer must provide total visual screening year round. This would mean
mounding and coniferous trees. The average specimens planted are usually 6-8 foot in height. Even with mounding, this
only provides a 10-12 foot height in the buffer area. To the graphic attached here, I added a typical line-of-sight from a
home to the 10-story building in the cross-section. A view of the upper stories of high buildings is unacceptable, if our
property values are to be protected. For buildings fronting onto US 31 and near adjacent residential areas the building
height should not exceed six stories and for the 3-story and 6-story buildings there should be a maximum height
restrictions of 45 feet and 80 feet, respectively.
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
584 11/4/2008 Dan Oldiges 86
10 foot high buildings on Meridian Street? I live in the Spring Mill Place Subdivision and it seems to me that no one in
Carmel cares about US!!! You want to put the land north of us into commercial (North of 111th) and you want us to wake
up every morning to see a large office complex. Carmel just recently annexed us and it seems that all they want to do is
make our lives miserable. This is a neighborhood with homes not office complexes. If you are going to force things upon
our neighborhood at least contact our neighborhood association and let us know what your plans are before you decide to
have last minute meetings to change your minds. IE.....Designation of north of 111th as a "study" area!!!!
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
585 Make the buildings shorter and stop having meetings to keep changing your minds when we are not there!!!
586 I realize this is not your fault and that you are just being the messenger but some one has to tell the zoning commission to
stop this nonsense.
587 11/4/2008 Gerry Golden 86
With our Spring Mill Place group pushing this concern, why can't the engineers develop a graphic that represents OUR
area? That area is between Springmill and Meridian and between 106 and 111 th streets.
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
588
We can't correctly respond unless we see an actual graphic with correct buffer area and type as outlined in resolution.
589 The engineers keep putting this off as they do not want the council and us to see "reality"?
590
WIth that graphic it will become obvious that even an 8, 9 or 10 story building next to Meridian across from us will be too
tall because of sight lines from homes on east side of Spring Mill Place. I am unable to attend the Wed 12th meeting.
591 11/4/2008 Carolyn Scott 86 It is our hope that the plans for the US 31 Corridor would not include 10 story buildings. Buildings of this heighth would ruin
so much of the beauty of our neighborhood. Please RESPECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD and OUR FAMILIES by keeping
the proposed buildings to no more than the 6 stories.
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
592 11/7/2008 Kathleen Hart 86 I repeat my prior comments and request that the City of Carmel and Plan Commission restrict the existence and/or height
of commercial buildings in the Meridian Street Corridor and anticipated Illinois Street segment near our neighborhood,
Spring Mill Place (located between 106 and 111 Streets on Spring Mill Road) and take all other measures to comply with
the Resolution No. CC-12-17-01-02 that requires our neighborhood to have a "continuous visual and sound buffer" from
the development vis a vis coniferous, deciduous trees and variable mounding, as well as realignment of Illinois Street right
of-way if necessary. Thank you.
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
593 11/7/2008 John & Tammy Lieberm 86
We are in agreement with Ron Houck (my neighbor in the Spring Mill Place subdivision) and his comments (per the
"Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor."
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
595 11/7/2008 Linda Oldiges 86 The graphic added to Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor section is misleading. Although it is probably designed to be generically
applied, it does not accurately represent the circumstances of our neighborhood with a 100 foot buffer. Additionally, the
buffer area that is shown west of Illinois Street shows deciduous trees taller than a two-story home. To not have a
negative impact on our neighborhood, the buffer must provide total visual screening year round. This would mean
mounding and coniferous trees. The average specimens planted are usually 6-8 foot in height. Even with mounding, this
only provides a 10-12 foot height in the buffer area. To the graphic attached here, I added a typical line-of-sight from a
home to the 10-story building in the cross-section. A view of the upper stories of high buildings is unacceptable, if our
property values are to be protected. For buildings fronting onto US 31 and near adjacent residential areas the building
height should not exceed six stories and for the 3-story and 6-story buildings there should be a maximum height
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
596 11/8/2008 Rhonda Marsh 86
I just wanted to agree with the email you received from Ron Houck regarding the potential building height of the proposed
buildings to line the new section of Illinois Street. It will pass along the back of our property. Currently we enjoy a quiet
view out of our backyard windows with the ability to view wildlife and nature daily. Please don't ruin this view with 6-10
story buildings! The main reason we purchased this home for our family with 2 young children was our 2 acre wooded,
quiet, safe lot!! We are very concerned about what these proposed changes will do to our yard, view and property value.
We are asking that the height of these buildings be limited to under 6 stories maximum! Thank you for your consideration
on this most sensitive matter!! Please forward this email to the appropriate council members!
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
597 96TH STREET CORRIDOR
598 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St: Neighborhood should be planned by following these proposed recommendations from Parts
2 & 3: pg. 17: Objective 1.5, pg. 24: Objective 1.4, pg. 24: Objective 3.2, pg 36: Neighborhood
Service Nodes to be strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling proximity to suburban,
urban and attached residential classifications.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
599 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90 Enhance East/West Connectivity: include statement about connecting Penn to Westfield Blvd (as
already mentioned in HomePlace section). If straight alignment over 465 were implemented, would
there be a need to connect Penn through the Monon?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
600 8/19/2008 Joy Sullivan 90 96th St: Chesterton neighborhood would like to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Commercial development along 96th Street should only occur one lot deep along 96th and provide
adequate buffer. Lighting and after hours traffic should be minimized when considering type of
business.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
601 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman 90 96th St: Corridor is rapidly changing. This should be considered as plans are made for the future. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
602 8/19/2008 Jim Palecek 90 96th St: Corridor and area have changed. 96th backs up past Wild Cherry, commercial along 96th
Street, decreased quality of life. Difficult to sell, difficult to stay.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
603 8/19/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St Corridor Study has been referenced, but most of the assumptions made in 1999 are outdated
or no longer applicable. Please delete outdated assumptions. Please update the information to
reflect the changing nature of the area, as it no longer reflects a stable residential neighborhood.
Wash Twp Comprehensive Plan (Marion County) indicates Commercial Uses on S sd of 96th.
Commercial uses and multifamily rentals exist in the area. Duke redevelopment (Parkwood).
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
604 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Description: Serves as…east/west arterial (change to corridor ) no change, 10/14/2008
605 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Buffer Residential Areas: delete “near Michigan Road” – too site specific no change, 10/14/2008
606 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Enhance East/West Connectivity: confer with discription and maps on pp. 63-75-90-91-
100-101.
no change, 10/14/2008
60 11/21/2008
607 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Maintain Residential Character: 1999 Corridor Study assumptions have become obsolete
due to land use changes on both the north and south sides as well as traffic impact change.
no change, 10/14/2008
608 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 The various use of the word “arterial” is confusing and isn’t consistent with the Transportation Plan
(Street Classification) on p. 62. There is a problem with the various definitions in terms of ROW.
(Recommend a more thorough look at the various sections to determine “best fit” classifications for
each.)
no change, 10/14/2008
609 10/27/2008 Pat Rice Subarea section was missing -- page was blank. So I don't know what if any changes have been
made.
610 10/27/2008 Pat Rice 88/90 section re:maintaining residential character is obsolete. That whole paragraph from land use to
traffic simply is no longer applicable. Should be deleted or some comment made that although that
study was referred to, many changes have taken place both in land use and traffic.
611 10/31/2008 Pat Rice 88 There is still no change in the wording on p.88 in the East/West Connectivity. I thought I heard Brad
say that it would be re-worded to be more cohesive. Also look at the wording in the Homeplace
Subarea. The wording says the east/west connection between Westfield and Penn is "essential"
etc.
no change, 11/12/2008
612 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 91 The alternative alignment (shown on p.91 upper right corner) is not one of the six transportation
options that were evaluated the 1999 Study (see Append. B/Special Study Area) This new option
would mean demolishing the Westfield Blvd. bridge and skewing the proposed 96th extension in such
a way as to cut off north/south connectivity of Westfield Blvd. in order to make an east/west
connection on 96th Street. (#6 in the Study is consistent with “Connect Pennsylvania Parkway to
Westfield Boulevard” and the above mentioned descriptions and maps.) The new design would
involve the State as well as the Marion County MPO, be extremely costly, and seriously affect the
residential areas on both sides (Sherwood Forrest and The Retreat). (Recommend deletion of this
option.)
no change, 10/14/2008
613 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 two lane “arterial” / three lane arterial w/commercial context: 96th St. from Keystone (4 lanes)
narrows to three lanes (although not marked) to two lanes just before Haverstick. Suggest keeping
this configuration into the proposed round-about then becoming a Secondary Parkway (cf/entry into
round-about at Westfield). The 96th Street extension may not have adequate ROW for a median but
would continue perhaps as a Residential Parkway.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
614 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Bike path crossing needs to be added across 98th St. with flashing lights. (Path from Aramore will
connect here as well as future paths along the east side of Westfield.) The crossing at the round-
about is unsafe giving the number of accidents occurring and the number and variable vehicle traffic.
(Walking across is hard enough!)
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
615 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Need signage to indicate connection route to Monon. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
616 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 At present, there doesn’t seem to be bike routes (or multi-paths) planned for this area. Aramore
plans to connect Chesterton with a path through the ROW. Haverstick needs a bike path on the east
side connecting with Lakewood Gardens sidewalks and then again across 98th St. to Hope Church
where paths or sidewalks should be installed along east and south edges.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
617 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Path along 96th Street (to be constructed) as part of road improvement. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
61 11/21/2008
618 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Path on west side of Lincoln between 96th St. and 98th St. (Aramore path). (Could this be done as
part of the sewer project to run down Lincoln?)
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
619 10/14/2008 Pat Rice Add new
Subarea
Recommend addition of “96th St. & Westfield Boulevard District Subarea” as new pages 92-93
with a map reflecting the boundaries shown on attached map and change to map on p.101.
Recommend adopting submitted land use map in keeping with the vision of the proposed update of
the Comprehensive in the following references:
no change, 10/14/2008
620 • (p.17) Essence Objective 1.5 “Strongly promote mixed use in areas suitable for commercial
development, and protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development.
621 • (p.24) Essence Objective 1.4 “Allow greater development intensity on the north, west, and south
edges of the district to serve as a transition from more intensely developed areas.”
622 • Essence Objective 3.2 “Endeavor to plan neighborhoods, gateways, boundaries, and service
areas through more detailed subarea plans.
623 • (p.36) Neighborhood Service Node (Geographic Location) “Strategically utilized around
Carmel in walking or cycling proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential classifications.”
624 10/14/2008 Pat Rice Add new
Subarea
Recommend the attached for a 96th St. & Westfield Blvd. District Subarea. Wording from the
Home Place Subarea was utilized.
no change, 10/14/2008
625 City Center/Old Town Subarea
626 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 92 If form based code "replaces" the zoning ordinance, on what basis could an undesirable use be
denied?
no change, 10/14/2008
627 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 92 Discouraging ground floor offices and on-street parking conflicts with the Primary and Secondary
Core lists of ground floor office uses (pages 42,43), and also with Urban Streets that allow on-street
parking.
no change, 10/14/2008
628 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 94 Maps are on pages 98/99; not 94. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
629 OLD MERIDIAN SUBAREA
630 8/26/2008 Chamber 95, 96, 97 Old Meridian: 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?
no change, 10/14/2008
631 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95 To be consistent, the lower left column should use "stories", instead of "feet". no change, 10/14/2008
632 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95 Multifamily Attached units look alike and are difficult for drivers to identify. Better to regulate size of
freestanding signs than to prohibit them.
no change, 10/14/2008
633 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95 Why are drive-throughs prohibited in this mixed-use "Village", but are allowed in the less intense
Village of WestClay?
no change, 10/14/2008
634 HOME PLACE SUBAREA
635 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100 Since Carmel has not annexed Home Place and not taking any tax dollars from the area and the
Home Place annexation is in court for the next three years. I would suggest that the City of Carmel
leave Home Place area out of the Comprehensive Plan.
no change, 10/14/2008
636 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100 If you are going to leave Home Place in the plan, please have a representative from the Home Place
area on the committee so that the people who live in the area have imput.
no change, 10/14/2008
62 11/21/2008
637 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100 This compehensive plan has changed names a number of times and is an off and on process. If you
are going to institute the plan, then put it in place. Quit wasting taxpayer money year after year and
quit wasting peoples time since they have to sit through the meetings year after year.
no change, 10/14/2008
638 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100 Home Place does not need buildings that have the retail on the bottom with condo's on top or other
office space. This is a fine design if the City of Carmel wants that for their streets, but leave Home
Place alone. The fiscal plan that Carmel wrote for the annexation said that it would keep the Home
Place history in place and not go making it just like Carmel. The people of Home Place do not need
arches, and all brick buildings and statues and all the other crap you have in Carmel to make us feel
important.
no change, 10/14/2008
639 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 101 Home Place Subarea: Change "8" Story to "10" Story. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
63 11/21/2008
594 11/7/2008 Andrew Marsh 86 I agree with Ron Houck's comments below. Being at the back of a cul-de-sac and having woods behind our lot which will
face Illinois street and the buildings, we want a reasonable amount of buffer betweeen our back yard and the
road/buildings. There needs to be discussion with the homeowners as to the exact amount of buffer/trees, etc that will be
utilized. Thanks. Andy
buildings limited to 7 stories b/t 106th &
111th on west side of 31, November 13
Draft
59 11/21/2008