HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Packet 02, September 9-22Keeling, Adrienne M
From: Ed Skarbeck [ed@aldebarancapital.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:16 PM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Subject: Resident Comments to the Carmel Plan Commisssion
Page 1 of 1
9/17/2008
Email to:
Adrienne Keeling
Planning Administrator
Carmel Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
September 9, 2008
Dear Adrienne:
Your name and email was provided for comments to the Plan Commission in regards to the City of Carmel’s
Comprehensive Plan. Please accept the following as comments from a concerned resident.
I live in Spring Mill Place Subdivision (western boundary Spring Mill Road, southern boundary 107th
St., northern
boundary 111th
St., and eastern boundary – the proposed Illinois St.).
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 western Carmel residents. I hope that the Plan Commission takes
very seriously, the impact that development in this area will have on the desirability and values of our property.
Providing necessary travel to the existing office parks/buildings along this corridor is understandable. Cramming
office space into small windows of land up against established residential areas does not seem so necessary.
Sincerely,
Ed Skarbeck
Edward Skarbeck
364 Spring Mill Ct.
Carmel, IN 46032
317-844-8485
Keeling, Adrienne M
From: Snyder, Luci
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:10 AM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Subject: RE: Comprehensive Plan Meeting and Supplemental Pages
Page 1 of 2
9/17/2008
Adrienne,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday.
Assuming that we will leave the micro-planning of the 96th St corridor from Haverstick to Rangeline Rd
for a later time, my comments are confined to The Meridian/Springmill Corridor.
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.
Luci Snyder
Carmel City Council - District 5
lsnyder@carmel.in.gov
(C) 513-0242 (H) 846-4754
From: Keeling, Adrienne M
Sent: Fri 9/5/2008 4:01 PM
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Meeting and Supplemental Pages
Good Afternoon:
This is a reminder that the Carmel Plan Commission Comprehensive Plan Review Committee is
scheduled to meet in the City Hall Caucus Rooms at 6pm on Tuesday, September 9. The
Committee will discuss Parts 1-3 as time allows.
Attached is a supplemental packet, containing two pages, which reflects a few suggestions from the
August 19 Public Hearing. Other suggestions not addressed in this supplement await discussion
and/or direction by the Committee. The revisions include:
1. Page 8: Mention existing Community Life and Learning Center in the North Central district.
2. Page 8: Recognition of 96th
Street as an east-west connector in the South Central district.
3. Land Classification Map: Addition of Greek Orthodox Church at 106th
& Shelborne as
Institutional Node.
4. Land Classification Map: Addition of Hebrew Congregation west of University High School as
Institutional Node.
5. Land Classification Map: Addition of 40-acre West Park expansion as Parks & Recreation.
6. Land Classification Map: Addition of Carey Grove and Prairie Meadow Parks as Parks &
Recreation.
Keeling, Adrienne M
From: mandplango@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:02 PM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Subject: Re: Comprehensive Plan Comments
Page 1 of 3
9/17/2008
Ms. Keeling,
Please distribute this rambling comment into the system:
Please review the Transportation Plan portion of the text. The Residential Parkway page shows a
picture of Hazel Dell, but then the map says that all of Hazel Dell is a Primary Parkway. 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. 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.
Thanks for your time,
Peter Langowski
5322 Rippling Brook Way
Carmel, IN 46033
-- "Keeling, Adrienne M" <AKeeling@carmel.in.gov> wrote:
Good Afternoon:
This is a reminder that the Carmel Plan Commission Comprehensive Plan Review Committee is
scheduled to meet in the City Hall Caucus Rooms at 6pm on Tuesday, September 9. The
Committee will discuss Parts 1-3 as time allows.
Keeling, Adrienne M
From: Steven Kirsh [skirsh@kirsh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:52 PM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Cc: jacque@kirsh.com
Subject: US 31 Corridor Plan -- Part 5 Critical Corridors and Subareas
Page 1 of 1
9/17/2008
Adrienne:
I understand that you are the appropriate person to receive comments about the referenced plan. If I am
mistaken, please let me know. 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.
Please confirm that my comments will be shared with the plan commission. If you would like to speak with me by
telephone, you may reach me at 317-575-5555. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Steven M. Kirsh, Attorney
317-575-5555 or 800-333-5736
skirsh@kirsh.com
www.kirsh.com
Keeling, Adrienne M
From: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:07 PM
To: 'Julie Williams'; Keeling, Adrienne M
Cc: 'Jerry Williams'
Subject: RE: Carmel Comprehensive Plan Update
Page 1 of 1
9/17/2008
Hi Julie and Jerry,
I am forwarding your comments to Adrienne Keeling who is leading the Comprehensive Plan update.
Thanks for taking the time look over it and for providing us with your feedback.
Alexia
From: Julie Williams [mailto:julie@greenjaysonline.com]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:00 PM
To: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K
Cc: 'Jerry Williams'
Subject: RE: Carmel Comprehensive Plan Update
Hi Alexia,
We would like to comment that the city should require (not just strongly recommend) LEED or equivalent
buildings for all new taxpayer paid construction.
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.
Thanks for passing these comments along to the appropriate place.
Julie and Jerry Williams
1383 Carey Court
Carmel 46032
Keeling, Adrienne M
From: lwebb [lwebb@indy.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:25 AM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Subject: Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan
Page 1 of 1
9/17/2008
Hi
I am writing to comment on the Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan.
I believe that city plans must explore the most energy efficient designs possible in our buildings (LEEDS,
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.
Thanks for your work.
Leslie Webb
5113 Hummingbird Circle
Carmel IN 46033
575-1077
Keeling, Adrienne M
From: chadscott@aim.com
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:53 AM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Subject: Illinois Street Expansion
Page 1 of 1
9/17/2008
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.
Thank you,
Carolyn Scott
11024 Springmill Lane
Looking for spoilers and reviews on the new TV season? Get AOL's ultimate guide to fall TV.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:thegoulds@iquest.net]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:05 PM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Subject: Response to Proposals
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 appartments 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.
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.
Karen Jackson Gould
To: CCC Plan Special Committee
From: CWIC2
Date: Sept. 18, 2008
Please understand that some items in CWIC2’s Sept 9th document CWIC2 were discussed, but
not changed in a way that makes them more acceptable to CWIC2 members. We have asked that
the original comments be made part of the official record.
Please note that the first comment for Part 2 references multiple objectives that feed a huge fear
among CWIC2 members. It seems important that all these references remain identified, even if
noted as discussed and commentary deleted. Whereas individual ones may be “overlooked,” the
totality of these combine to confirm fears and objections.
Which gets to a problem with the document of comments provided to you: it seems to restrict
input to short-to-the-precise-document wording. I’m really curious as to how the grouping of
issues with Part 2 is handled? How will comments with an overarching theme be handled?
Marilyn Anderson
Below is the updated version of what was submitted for the Sept. 9th meeting:
Preface, Page 6, last paragraph: The plan “will require effort and support by residents.” How
will you know you have the support of residents? Many, many Carmel West residents have
pretty clearly communicated to us and we to you their strong desires to maintain a density of 1.0
u/a and no commercial areas beyond the existing ones at Meridian St., Michigan Rd. and the
Village of WestClay. Surveys and several well-attended meetings were held for the existing
2020 Plan before and during its construction. Why aren’t these methods being used again?
The 2nd paragraph on page 9 is problematic. It cites “pride of place and rural living” as
“historical,” while stating that values have now turned to “amenities.” For the vast majority of
Carmel West residents, there has been no such change. Carmel West have always fought hard to
keep density low and it’s hugely important to a great many residents today, not just
“historically.” Yet that’s not stated anywhere.
A section in the previous draft on page 8 was omitted, which we believe should be included:
“The West Carmel district…has the least developed road network. …[Additionally, it is] unlike
East Carmel, where many neighborhoods were built with connecting streets to adjacent
developments or stubbed streets to undeveloped areas.” Traffic does not have, and cannot have
nearly as many options in at least the southern part. This important defining characteristic
should be listed and considered for planning purposes.
Part 2: The last sentence before Objective 1.1 states, “This model [form-based] is more
permissive of mixed used nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing
land classifications.” How will this be truly accomplished? What guarantees do residents have
that it won’t be at the whim of changing faces at DOCS, the Plan Commission, and City Council
and however they want to interpret “permissive” and “sensitivity” at that time? How do we trust
this, when Carmel West residents turned out in droves for the 2020 Plan to insist on a density of
1 u/a, but we’ve had to keep fighting over this? Now you’re asking us to “trust” on this issue
when we’re once again fighting to keep the character of the area the same as it was when we
decided to invest in our homes in the area. This isn’t just a wording problem—it’s a problem
with the concepts contained in the Plan. If this is only a problem with Carmel West, then apply
the concepts east of Meridian and give plans for Carmel West enough structure and limitations
that this issue goes away. Here are examples that feed fears about future “insensitivity” being
imposed:
1. Objective 1.4, 2nd sentence: The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh
contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is
“Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back.
2. Objective 1.5: Discussed (but contributes to the fear).
3. Objective 3.2. Discussed & modified (but contributes to fear--implies this should be
utilized everywhere at all times, even in low-density residential areas.)
4. Objective 3.4 has the same problem as Objective 3.2
5. Objective 4.1. Discussed. Change terminology for “traditional neighborhood design
principals.”
6. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits
of not having commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are smart
and know what benefits are most important to them and chose the area specifically
because of the benefits of not including retail amongst neighborhoods. This is the
most problematic Objective in the document.
We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional
suburban residences.
West Carmel Policies & Objectives (Page 25):
“Community character” is cited in various places and has its own section under Part 1, Policy 6,
page 20. When asked where we live, most residents respond with “West Carmel,” giving their
particular subdivision only when nailing location down further. As written, this document is a
threat to the highly valued sense of “community character” that already exists in Carmel West.
Objective 6.2 states “the community will identify appropriate character goals, subareas, and
neighborhoods for…West Carmel.” West Carmel already knows what those are and we keep
stating them. Please do as this objective states: respect our values and help uphold them.
Objective 1.1 (page 25): We’ve heard the argument that if you can’t really see the homes as you
drive down the road, it doesn’t really matter how many homes are in the subdivision. That’s not
an argument we buy and it is not what we want. The only way this works is if a significantly
large open space is mandatory, not “considered.”
Objective 1.2 & 4.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people
chose to invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and
3.1 unachievable.
To: CCC Plan Special Committee
From: CWIC2
Date: September 19, 2008
Re: Part 3
Parks & Recreation, Page 29, Development Features: Add, “including passive enjoyment of
nature” to the last one, “Promote recreation.”
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?
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.
Estate Residential, Page 30
1. 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.
2. 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.
Low Intensity Suburban Residential, Page 31:
1. Purpose: Amend to read, “Establish and protect housing opportunities for people
who desire low density or subdivision living.
2. 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!
3. Development Features: Define “designed open space.” Is it usable?
Suburban Residential, Page 32. NOTE: In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6 to 1 to divide this
classification further. That should be reflected in this draft.
1. Purpose: Amend to read, “To establish housing opportunities for people who desire
to have less yard & to enjoy closer proximity to their neighbors.
2. 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.
3. 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.
Neighborhood Support Center, Page 35
1. This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West.
2. 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.
Neighborhood Service Node, Page 36
1. 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.
2. Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: 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.
Land Classification Map, page 45
1. Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West in 5 locations. Details will be
provided when everyone can look at the map.
2. Low Intensity Suburban Residential would significantly change the character of
Carmel West and adversely impact its desirability for current and future residents.
Additional documentation will be provided at the hearing.
3. Community Vitality Node in Village of WestClay. Reclassify it to “Neighborhood
Service Node,” which seems written to fit this parcel. This commercial area already is
a red-hot button issue with many, many area residents and this classification really
riles area residents. This classification permits it to become like the commercial area
on Michigan Road (West Carmel Center) or Merchants’ Square (see examples cited).
Do you really want large numbers of semi-sized delivery trucks on the surrounding
roads? This is a huge increase in intensity of use and it invites Brenwick to submit
new plans.
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Part 3: Land Classification Plan describes and establishes
different land classifications to be applied appropriately
across Carmel's planning jurisdiction, similar to a future
land use plan. The term "land classification" is used instead
of "land use" because each classification integrates both
land use and development form. This hybrid approach for
classifying land will result in a better system for managing
land development.
The following land classifications are used on the Land
Classification Map:
1. Parks and Recreation ................................ pg 29
2. Estate Residential ...................................... pg 30
Could we call it “Conservation Residential” or “Rural
Residential”?
3. Low Intensity Suburban Residential .......... pg 31
4. Suburban Residential ................................. pg 32
5. Urban Residential ....................................... pg 33
6. Attached Residential ................................. pg 34
7. Neighborhood Support Center .................. pg 35
8. Neighborhood Service Node ..................... pg 36
9. Institutional Node ........................................ pg 37
10. Community Vitality Node ............................ pg 38
11. Employment Node ...................................... pg 39
12. Regional Vitality Node ............................... pg 40
13. Core Support .............................................. pg 41
14. Secondary Core .......................................... pg 42
15. Primary Core .............................................. pg 43
Land Classification Map
The Land Classification Map is described on page 4044,
followed by the map on page 4145.
Land Classifications and Descriptions
Each of the land classifications listed above have a page
dedicated to describing how it can be used to manage
growth and development. Further, the following headings
are used to convey the essence of each classification. These
descriptions are intended to be conceptual.
Purpose: This section gives the reader a brief description of
why the land use classification has been established.
Geographic Location: This section conveys where each
classification is best utilized within Carmel's planning
jurisdiction. Some descriptions are vague because they can
be widely applied, while others are very specific to
geographic locations.
Land Uses: This section describes the general land uses that
would be permitted in the classification. The zoning
ordinance would indicate specific land uses permitted.
28 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
Intensity/Density: This section describes the intended intensity
of commercial uses and density of residential uses that
would be fitting of the classification. The zoning ordinance
may utilize more than one zoning district to regulate each
classification.
Examples: This section strives to convey one or more
developments in Carmel that represent the classification. All
examples may not be exact matches, but represent the most
similar in intensity and density.
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: This section describes the
land use classifications that are best used adjacent to the
subject classifi cation. Three categories of compatibility
exist. "Best Fit" are classifi cations that are most suited for
adjacency. "Conditional Fit" indicates land classifi cations
that are suitable for adjacency if the building orientation,
transitions and architecture are implemented with
sensitivity to the context. The third category are those land
classifi cations not listed, which represent classifi cations that
are not typically appropriate adjacent to the subject
classification.
Structure Features: This section identifies critical structural
features that help achieve the purpose of the classifi cation.
Most statements are in regard to height, mass, or form of the
structure.
Structure Orientation On Site: This section addresses where the
footprint of the structure is located. Options typically
include centralized (setbacks on all four sides), zero lot-line
(front, rear, and one-side setback), build-to (specific front
setback), or no setbacks (the structure can cover the entire
site).
Development Features: This section denotes requirements of
subdivisions, planned unit developments, or development
plan projects. Typically, whole-development standards are
described.
Regulation Implementation: This section describes how the
City's development regulations will implement the land use
classification's intent.
i PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
PARKS AND RECREATION
Purpose
• To identify conservation areas and to establish open space
areas for private and public parks and recreation.
Geographic Location
• Distributed throughout Carmel, especially in proximity to
high and medium density residential areas; and adjacent to
the Monon Greenway, White River, and other greenways.
Land Uses
• Parks, recreation, linear trails, greenways, golf courses,
natural areas, pocket parks and the like.
Intensity/Density
• Not applicable.
Examples
• West Park, Central Park, and Hazel Landing Park.
• Village of West Clay open space network.(This is zoned
PUD, not a park zone)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Any land use classification.
Structure Features
• Sensitive to the natural environment or context.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Not applicable.
Development Features
• Protect existing (pre-development) environmental
features.
• Enhance the natural environment.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Promote recreation.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize traditional zoning to regulate this classification.
The Plum Creek Golf Course is a good example of privately held
property that is classified as Parks and Recreation.
West Park has areas dedicated to passive recreation. Its wonderful
natural features are blended with a playground, shelters, and other
park facilities.
Another example of the Parks and Recreation classification is the
Monon Center Outdoor Aqua Park (Central Park) at 111th Street
east of the Monon Greenway.
CARMEL CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 29
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
ESTATE
CONSERVATION/RURALRESIDENTIAL
Purpose
• To establish and protect residential housing opportunities
for people who desire a large residential lot, enjoy secluded
living, or prefer living integrally with nature, and who
require minimal city conveniences.
Geographic Location
• Predominant in West Carmel.
Land Uses
• Single-family detached residential only.
Intensity/Density
• Residential development will be less than 1.0 dwelling unit
per acre.
Examples
• Bridlebourne (northwest of 106th St. and Shelbourne Rd.)
• Laurelwood (southeast of 106th St. and Ditch Rd.)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Estate Residential, Low
Intensity Suburban Residentialand Suburban Residential.
• Conditional Fit: Institutional Node Neighborhood and
Intensity Suburban Residential (only at perimeter)
Structure Features
• Maximum three stories.
• Gable and hip roofs.
• Structures are generally wider than they are deep.
• Front facade generally facing public right-of-way.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Centralized building envelope.
Development Features
• Minimum of 10% open space in subdivisions. The perception
of substantial open space should exist from larger lots and
setbacks. At least 50% of the open space must be on dry
land as a designed landscape.
• Protect existing (pre-development) environmental
features.
• Guest houses and detached facilities permissible on
estate-sized lots.
• Regulation Implementation
• Utilize traditional zoning to regulate this classifi cation.
• Garages must be side loaded or front-loaded if set behind
the main building by at least 50 feet.
This residence is a good example of Estate Residential in West
Carmel.
Estate Residential is established for large homes that may be
isolated on large estates.
Estate Conservation Residential is established for large
homes on large may be located within a neighborhood.
30 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
h
at
i PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
Purpose
• To establish housing opportunities for people who desire
subdivision living.
Geographic Location
• Dominantly appropriate in West and, East and South
Central Carmel(none shown on map).
Land Uses
• Single-family detached residential only.
Intensity/Density
• Density in platted subdivisions will be between 1.0 and 1.9
dwelling units per acre. should not change from current
densities without a public survey
Examples
• Claridge Farms (between Clay Center Rd and Hoover
Rd.)
• Long Branch Estates (116th St. and Shelborne Rd.)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Estate Residential, and
Low Intensity Suburban Residential, and Suburban
Residential.
• Conditional Fit: Suburban Residential. (at edges)
attached Residential, Neighborhood Service Support
Node (existing nodes only, ),and Institutional Node, and
.Community Vitality Node. (none present)
Structure Features
• Maximum two stories.
• Gable and hip roofs.
• Attached garages.
• Structures are generally wider than they are deep.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Centralized building envelope.
• Front facade generally facing public right-of-way.
• Attached garages with either side, or rear, or
courtyard loading.
• Development Features
• Minimum of 15% open space in subdivisions.
• At least 50% of all open space should be designed and on
dry land as a designed landscape.
• Predominant use of curvilinear street layout.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Protect existing (pre-development) environmental
features.
• Integrate with existing (pre-development) environmental
features.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize traditional zoning to regulate this classifi cation.
Homes in The Lakes at Hazel Dell represent suburban development
on larger lots, representing the density allowed in the Low Intensity
Suburban Residential classification.
The Lakes at Hayden Run (131st and Towne Rd.) represent the
upper density range allowed in the Low Intensity Suburban
Residential classification.
CARMEL CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 31
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
Purpose
• To establish housing opportunities for people who desire
moderately dense subdivision living.
Geographic Location
• Dominantly appropriate in West, East, South Central
Carmel.
Land Uses
• Single-family detached residential only.
• One-story ranch, cottage homes are encouraged
Intensity/Density
• Density in platted subdivisions will be between 2.0and 4.9
1.0 and 2.9 dwelling units per acre. (now is R-1 @ 2.9
u/acre maximum) keep unless survey indicates otherwise.
Examples
• Fairgreen Trace (116th St. west of Range Line Rd.)
• Bentley Oaks (136th St. and Oak Ridge Rd.)
• Plum Creek Village (126th St. and River Rd.)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, EstateConservation
Residential, Low Intensity Suburban Residential,
Suburban Residential, Attached Residential,
Neighborhood Service Node, and Institutional Node.
• Conditional Fit: Urban Residential, Neighborhood
Support Node, Community Vitality Node and
Employment Node.
Structure Features
• One-story encouraged, maximum two stories.
• Gable and hip roofs.
• Attached garages with either side, rear, or courtyard
loading on lots less than 80’ wide.
• Structures generally wider than they are deep.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Centralized or zero-lot-line building envelope.
• Front facade generally facing public right-of-way.
Development Features
• Minimum of 20% open space in subdivisions.
• At least 50% of all open space should be usableon dry land
as a designed landscape .
• Predominant use of curvilinear street layout.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Protect existing (pre-development) environmental
features.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize traditional zoning to regulate this classification.
The Enclave of Carmel represents the highest density range
allowed within the Suburban Residential classifi cation.(isn’t
this 7 units/acre???)
Older single-family neighborhoods, like Brookshire Village,
typically built on one-third acre lots, represent mid-range densities
allowed in the Suburban Residential classifi cation.
The Overture represents a lower density Suburban Residential
neighborhood.
32 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
i PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
Purpose
• To establish housing opportunities for people who desire
historic neighborhoods or new subdivisions modeled after
traditional neighborhood design.
Geographic Location
• Utilized primarily in North and South Central Carmel and
in developments modeled after traditional neighborhood
design.
Land Uses
• Single-family detached residential.
• Townhouses or similar residences (up to 15%). listed
under attached residential
• Two-unit residences (up to 5%).
Intensity/Density
• Density in platted subdivisions will generally be between
4.0 and 8.0 2.9 and 5 dwelling units per acre.
Examples
• Old Town Carmel
• Portions of Village of West Clay (131st St. and Towne Rd.)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Urban Residential,
Residential, Neighborhood Service Node, Institutional
Node, and Core Support.
• Conditional Fit: Neighborhood Support Node, and Core
Support (only at edges of Old Town Residential & limited
to 2 stories), Suburban Residential, Employment Node,
Community Vitality Node.
Structure Features
• Maximum two stories. However, three stories may be
appropriate in some circumstances.
• Gable and hip roofs.
• Detached garages.
• Structures are generally deeper than they are wide.
• Front facade must face public right-of-way.
• Front porches (or emphasized front doors).
Structure Orientation On Site
• Centralized, or zero lot-line building envelope.
Development Features
• Minimum of 10%30% open space in subdivisions.
• At least 50% of all open space should be on dry land as a
usabledesigned landscape.
• Grid or modifi ed grid street layout.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Predominant use of alleys for garage access.
• On-street parking.
• Protect existing (pre-development) environmental
features.
• Two-unit structures, if used, will only be permitted on
corners and must have designs fitting the contextlook like a
single family dwelling from each different street elevations.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize hybrid (traditional and form-based) zoning to
regulate this classification.
The historic residential areas in close proximity to Old Town
accurately reflect the form of Urban Residential.
Some residential areas in the Village of West Clay are good
examples of newly constructed Urban Residential form.
he above photo represents a two-unit structure located on an
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL
Purpose
• To diversify housing opportunities for young professionals,
transitional families, empty nesters and workforce housing
(e.g. teachers, fi re fi ghters, police offi cers) near amenities
and where connectivity is good. To establish opportunities
for residents who want a more compact living
environment.
Geographic Location
• Utilized throughout Carmel, but primarily in North and
South Central Carmel.
• Most appropriate near major thoroughfares, urban centers,
parks, vitality centers, and schools.
Land Uses
• Town houses.
• Condominiums.
• Apartments.
Intensity/Density
• Density in developments may be 7.0 dwelling units per acre
or greater.
Examples
• North Haven (96th Street and Gray Road)
• Providence at Old Meridian
• Townhomes at City Center (City Center Drive)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Suburban Residential, Urban
Residential, Attached Residential, Neighborhood Service
Node, Institutional Node, Community Vitality Node, and
Core Support.
• Conditional Fit: Low Intensity Suburban Residential,
Employment Node, Regional Vitality Mode, and Secondary
Core.
Structure Features
• Maximum two stories, or three stories if context reflects the
same scale.
• No front loading garages for town houses or apartments.
• Gable and hip roofs.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Centralized, zero lot line, or build-to front line building
envelope.
Development Features
• Minimum of 20%30% open space in subdivisions, and
similar
percentage in unplatted development (e.g. condominium).
• At least 50% of all open space should be usableon dry
land as a designed landscape.
• Parking to the side or rear of buildings.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Protect pre-development environmental features.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize hybrid (traditional and form-based) zoning to
regulate this classification.
This condominium development refl ects the use and
Attached Residential.
This apartment development is designed to reflect townhouses and is
a good example of how Attached Residential can be used in close
proximity to Core Support and Secondary Core classifications .How
about the Amli apartments on 146
th
i PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT CENTER
Purpose
• To establish areas for significantly limited uses (e.g. a corner
store) that provide daily goods, services and amenities to
residential areas within walking distance. These centers
should provide a notable benefit without negative impact
to nearby residential properties.
Geographic Location
• Strategically utilized throughout Carmel within walking
or cycling proximity to suburban, urban and attached
residential classifications.
Land Uses
• Predominantly nonresidential on ground floors.
• Live-work units.
• Community center, plaza, or community green.
• Fitness center, Boys and Girls Club, or YMCA.
• Small convenience store (no gasoline sales)
Intensity/Density
• Residential density in neighboring developments should
not exceed 2.0 units per acre.
• Nonresidential intensity shall be strictly limited. The space
of any Neighborhood Support Center should be limited to
7,500 sq. ft. cumulatively, and shall be at least 1 mile from
any other Neighborhood Support Center or Neighborhood
Service Node.
Examples
• (to be determinedSee illustration)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Suburban Residential (except
west Carmel), Urban Residential, Attached Residential, and
Institutional Node.
• Conditional Fit: Estate Residential, and Low Intensity
Suburban Residential (east Carmel only).
Structure Features
• Maximum two 1-1/2 stories.
• Gable and hip roofs, or flat if appropriately incorporated
into a traditional neighborhood development.
• Transparent glass/permeable storefronts.
• Context sensitive materials.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Centralized building envelope unless incorporated into a
traditional neighborhood development.
• Buffering adjacent residential uses.
Development Features
• Strip development is disallowed.
• Great sensitivity to traffic circulation, lighting, signs,
connectivity and hours of operation.
• Parking to the side or rear of buildings.
• Protect pre-development environmental features.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize hybrid (traditional and form-based) zoning to
regulate this classification.
This small retail building in Cherry Hill, Michigan is an example of
the small scale of the Neighborhood Support Center classification.
(the bank in Village of West Clay (West of Towne Rd.)
CARMEL CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 35
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE NODE
Purpose
• To establish areas for mixed use and single use
development integrating residential, localized amenities,
and neighborhood-serving commercial.
Geographic Location
• Strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling
proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential
classifications.
Land Uses
• Predominantly nonresidential on ground floors.
• Live-work units.
• Community center, plaza, or community green.
• Fitness center, Boys and Girls Club, or YMCA.
• Ground floor restaurant, office, entertainment, commercial,
institutional on all other floors.
Intensity/Density
• Residential density in developments should not exceed 6.0
units per acre.
• Nonresidential intensity shall be strictly limited. The space
of any single tenant should be limited to 5,000 sq. ft. and
building footprints should be limited to 20,000 sq. ft.
Examples
• Select buildings in the Village of West Clay.
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Suburban Residential,
Urban Residential , Attached Residential, Institutional Node,
Community Vitality Node, and Employment Node.
• Conditional Fit: Low Intensity Suburban Residential,
Urban Residential (at perimeter only), Regional Vitality
Node, and Core Support.
Structure Features
• Maximum two stories.
• Gable and hip roofs, or flat if appropriately incorporated
into a traditional neighborhood development.
• Transparent glass/permeable storefronts.
• Context sensitive materials.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Centralized building envelope unless incorporated into a
traditional neighborhood development.
• Buffering adjacent residential uses.
Development Features
• Strip development is discouraged that are built to the street
• Great sensitivity to traffic circulation, lighting, signs,
connectivity and hours of operation.
• Maximum of 80,000 sq. ft. cumulatively in any node.
• Parking to the side or rear of buildings.
• Protect pre-development environmental features.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize hybrid (traditional and form-based) zoning to
regulate this classification.
This two-story building in the Village of West Clay is a good
example of neighborhood-serving commercial designed to reflect the
context.
Although not the ideal form for future Neighborhood Service Nodes
in Carmel, this type of small strip center at Hazel Dell Parkway
and 131st Street is common in close proximity to suburban
residential neighborhoods.
i PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
INSTITUTIONAL NODE
Purpose
• To establish areas for school and other institutional
campuses, and municipal facilities.
Geographic Location
• Utilized throughout Carmel, but most appropriate along
major thoroughfares. Institutions of a smaller scale may
be sensitively built integrated into when next to
residential neighborhoods.
Land Uses
• Places of worship, school, library, and hospital campus.
• Federal, State and local government facilities.
• Emergency services.
Intensity/Density
• Context sensitive.
Examples
• Carmel High School
• Our Lady of Mt. Carmel
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: All classifications except single family
residential classifications. Estate Residential and Low
Intensity Suburban Residential.
• Conditional Fit: Estate Residential and Low Intensity
Suburban Residential.Single family residential
classifications.
Structure Features
• Context sensitive.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Context sensitive, honoring privacy and views of existing
single family detached dwellings.
Development Features
• Context sensitive.
• Mixed uses are generally allowed, but should be related
to the primary use. For instance, a church could have a
parsonage, book store, or day-care center integrated into
the campus.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Protect pre-development environmental features.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize hybrid (traditional and form-based) zoning to
regulate this classification.
Creekside Middle School is a greatan example of an Institutional
Node and represents a form that could be incorporated into nearly
any area in the City.(Though I think this building is great!)
The City Hall with its campus-like facility is another example of an
Institutional Node. This form is best suited for the City Center area.
Places of worship are no longer used just one-day per week. Mega-
churches are becoming more common and are used for long
durations every day. The Capstone Cafe and Bookstore is a good
example of extra uses incorporated into a church.
CARMEL CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 37
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
COMMUNITY VITALITY NODE
Purpose
• To establish areas for community-serving and neighborhood-
serving commercial development with opportunity to
integrate mixed uses.
Geographic Location
• Most appropriate near major and minor thoroughfares.
Land Uses
• Dominantly retail, service, offi ce, entertainment, restaurant,
and institutional.
• Residential is allowed, but only on upper fl oors.
Intensity/Density
• Commercial intensity is limited by the maximum building
envelope, maximum impervious surface, and on-site
parking requirements.
• Residential density in developments should not exceed 10.0
units per acre and must be primarily in upper fl oors.
Examples
• Merchants' Square
• West Carmel Center (Michigan Rd. and 106th St.)
• Brookshire Village Shoppes
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Residential, Neighborhood
Service Node, Institutional Node, Community Vitality
Node, Employment Node, and Regional Vitality Node.
• Conditional Fit: Attached Residential Suburban
Residential, and Urban Residential.
• Structure Features
• Maximum two stories, or three stories if context reflects the
same scale.
• Transparent glass/permeable storefronts.
Structure Orientation On On-Site
• Context sensitive with the following options: centralized or
build-to front line building envelope.
Development Features
• Strip development is discouraged.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Small to moderate front setbacks.
• Screened and landscaped parking areas.
• Protect pre-development environmental features.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize hybrid (traditional and form-based) zoning to
regulate this classification.
Chain restaurants typically function as a Community Vitality Node.
This Donatos Pizza along Michigan Road represents the desired
small to moderate front setback.
Community Vitality Nodes are served by large roads and often have
stand-alone as well as clustered businesses.
Although strip centers are not preferred, they do typify Community
Vitality Nodes. Their buildings and public parking lots are too large
to be integrated into neighborhoods, but are too small to draw
people from a large region.
38 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
i PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
EMPLOYMENT NODE
Purpose
• To establish areas for large office buildings providing
regional employment with opportunity to integrate
employment-serving mixed uses.
Geographic Location
• Predominantly in North and South Central Carmel.
• Most appropriate near highways and major arterials with
excellent accessibility.
Land Uses
• Professional and business office.
• Hospital and medical office.
• Office-supporting commercial (e.g. small scale restaurants,
coffee houses, print shops, and office supply stores that
directly support office uses).
• Residential is allowed, but only on 4th or higher floors.
Intensity/Density
• Commercial intensity is limited by the maximum building
envelope, maximum impervious surface, and on-site
parking requirements.
• Residential density in developments should not exceed 14.0
units per acre.
Examples
• U.S. 31 Corridor
• Parkwood Crossing East
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood Service Node,
Institutional Node, Community Vitality Node, Employment
Node, and Regional Vitality Node.
• Conditional Fit: Suburban Residential, Urban Residential,
(per Draft B) Attached Residential, Core Support, and
Secondary Core.
Structure Features
• Maximum four stories and only two stories next to single
family residential neighborhoods.
• Minimum four stories and maximum ten stories along U.S.
31 and I-465, but not adjacent to Illinois Street.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Centralized with significant setback from highway corridors
and single-family residential areas.
Development Features
• Parking should be located where it has the least impact on
aesthetics.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Protect pre-development environmental features.
• Secure and sheltered bicycle parking, and shower and
changing facilities for bicycle commuters.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize traditional zoning to regulate this classification.
High quality architecture ensures that the City's position as an
attractive locale for regional, national, and international
corporations is maintained.
Hospitals and medical facilities such as the Clarian North Hospital
are examples of developments that f t into Employment Nodes.
Medium-scale office serves regional employment needs while
providing a context-sensitive transition to neighboring residential
areas.
CARMEL CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 39
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
REGIONAL VITALITY NODE
Purpose
• To establish areas for regional-serving and community-
serving commercial development with opportunity to
integrate mixed uses, including residential.
• To accommodate outdoor life-style centers and similar
development trends.
Geographic Location
• Most appropriate near highways and major thoroughfares
with excellent accessibility.
Land Uses
• Retail, service, hotel, office, entertainment, and restaurant.
• Residential is appropriate when master planned into the
development.
Intensity/Density
• Commercial intensity is limited by the minimum land area,
maximum building envelope, maximum impervious surface,
and on-site parking requirements.
• Residential density is limited to 16.0 units per acre.
Examples
• Clay Terrace (146th St. and U.S. 31)
• West Carmel Marketplace (Michigan Rd. south of 106th
St)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Institutional Node,
Community Vitality Node, Employment Node, and Regional
Vitality Node.
• Conditional Fit: Attached Residential (per Draft B),
Neighborhood Service Node,
and Core Support.
Structure Features
• Maximum three stories, or eight stories if within the U.S.
31 corridor overlay.(What about the developer who wanted
to build a residential tower between Clay Terrace and the
residential neighborhood to the west???)
• Front facade generally facing public right-of-way.
Structure Orientation On On-Site
• Centralized or build-to front line building envelope.
Development Features
• Strip commercial is discouraged.built to the street.
• Small or moderate front setbacks.
• Screened and landscaped parking areas.
• Excellent bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Facilitate automobile accessibility.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize hybrid (traditional and form-based) zoning to
regulate this classification.
Clay Terrace is a regional destination because it has numerous
national, regional, and local chain retail shops. Predominately,
people reach this destination by vehicle, which is typical of a
Regional Vitality Node.
Although Clay Terrace is a Regional Vitality Node, it has been
designed for pedestrian comfort outside the parking areas.
The City is committed to a higher standard for architectural design
than the typical corporate branding architecture.
40 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
i PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
CORE SUPPORT
Purpose
• To establish areas for urban mixed-use development
transitioning away from the Primary and Secondary Core
land classifications. The predominant uses are residential
or commercial uses with lower impact.
Geographic Location
• Exclusively utilized in North Central Carmel.
Land Uses
• Residential and office uses are allowed on all floors.
• Retail, service, office, entertainment, restaurant, and
institutional uses are allowed on ground floors.
• Live-work units.
• Public surface parking lots are allowed behind buildings.
Intensity/Density
• Residential density is limited by the maximum building
envelope.
• Commercial intensity should be sensitive to adjacent
classifications.
Examples
• Townhomes at City Center (City Center Drive)
• Carmel Center Apartments (City Center Drive)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Urban Residential, Attached
Residential, Institutional Node, Core Support, Secondary
Core and Primary Core.
• Conditional Fit: Neighborhood Service Node, Employment
Node, and Regional Vitality Node, Urban Residential
(perimeter edges only).
Structure Features
• Minimum two stories and maximum three stories. And 2-
story maximum next to Urban Residential.
• All facades facing a public right-of-way must have at least
two windows per floor.
Structure Orientation On On-Site
• Front facade built to right-of-way.
Development Features
• Minimum of 15% 20-30%??open space in developments.
• Excellent bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Off-street parking is partially supplemented by on-street
parking.
• Protect pre-development environmental features.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize form-based zoning to regulate this classification.
These three-story townhouses are a good example of form and use to
transition away from more urban development.
Live/work units are an excellent form of development to help
transition away from Primary or Secondary Core classifications.
Office uses with similar intensity as townhouses or multiple-
family developments, such as Pedcor at City Center, are a good
example of Core Support.
CARMEL CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 41
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
SECONDARY CORE
Purpose
• Secondary Core can serve as a transition away from Primary
Core, or can be its own urban center in appropriate areas.
• To establish moderately intense urban nodes akin to a
downtown with commercial and residential uses.
Geographic Location
• Exclusively utilized in North Central Carmel and limited
use at the Village of West Clay.
Land Uses
• Ground Floor: Retail, service, offices, entertainment,
(SU?? Music/noise), restaurants, and institutional.
• Upper Floor(s): Residential, retail, service, office,
entertainment, restaurant, and institutional uses.
• Parking garages are allowed behind or underneath
buildings.
Intensity/Density
• Residential density is limited by the minimum land area and
maximum building envelope standards.
• Commercial intensity is limited by the minimum land area
and maximum building envelope standards.
Examples
• Village of West Clay's commercial core
• Old Town
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Institutional Node, Core
Support, Secondary Core and Primary Core.
• Conditional Fit: Urban Residential, Attached Residential,
and Employment Node.
Structure Features
• Minimum two stories and maximum four stories.
• Ground floor facades must be pedestrian friendly and utilize
significant transparent glass.
• Wide facades must have architectural relief.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Front facade built to right-of-way.
• A maximum of three stories at the right-of-way with all other
stories stepped back.
• A maximum of two stories at right-of-way next to single
family detached residential neighborhoods.
Development Features
• Outdoor seating for restaurants is encouraged except next
to single family detached neighborhoods.
• Outdoor storage is prohibited.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Parking is generally provided off-site in parking facilities
and on-street.
• Pocket parks are encouraged.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize form-based zoning to regulate this classification.
AMLI at Old Town is a good example of new construction that
represents Secondary Core.
Although the commercial district in the Village of West Clay
functions as neighborhood-serving commercial, the massing and
placement of this building reflects the desired form of Secondary Core.
Historic buildings in Old Town are good examples of Secondary
Core.
42 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
i PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
PRIMARY CORE
Purpose
• To establish intense urban areas for downtown commercial
and dense residential uses. Primary Core will only be
allowed in select areas in North Central Carmel.
Geographic Location
• Exclusively utilized in North Central Carmel, specifically
at City Center and Old Town ( move to secondary core -
per map).
Land Uses
• Ground Floor: Retail, service, offices, entertainment,
restaurants, and institutional.
• Upper Floor(s): Residential, retail, service, office,
entertainment, restaurant, and institutional uses.
• Public parking garages are allowed behind buildings or in
upper floors if fronting on a streetscape.
Intensity/Density
• Residential density is limited by the minimum land area and
maximum building envelope standards.
• Commercial intensity is limited by the minimum land area
and maximum building envelope standards.
Examples
• Pedcor at City Center
• Old Town Shops (move to secondary core - per map)
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications
• Best Fit: Parks and Recreation, Institutional Node, Core
Support, Secondary Core and Primary Core.
• Conditional Fit: Attached Residential.
Structure Features
• Minimum four stories and maximum eight stories.
• Ground floor facades must be pedestrian friendly and utilize
significant transparent glass.
• Wide facades must have architectural relief.
Structure Orientation On Site
• Front facade built to right-of-way.
• A maximum of five stories at the right-of-way with all other
stories stepped back.
Development Features
• Outdoor seating for restaurants is encouraged.
• Outdoor storage is prohibited.
• Internal and external bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
• Parking is generally provided off-site in parking facilities
and on-street.
• Contemplate access to mass transit.
Regulation Implementation
• Utilize form-based zoning to regulate this classification.
The Old Town Shoppes provides a good example of Primary
Core.(move to secondary core - per map)
This illustration depicts a proposed development in City Center. If
constructed, this building would accurately reflect the characteristics
of Primary Core.
(There are other nice drawings we could include here)
CARMEL CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 43
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
APPROPRIATE ADJACENT LAND
CLASSIFICATIONS TABLE
The below table provides a quick reference for determining
land classification compatibility. The information in this
table mirrors the content in each of the land classification
descriptions on the previous pages. "B" stands for Best Fit
and "C" stands for Conditional Fit, meaning it is appropriate
when if the more intense development is installed with
sensitivity to the adjacent land classification.
(Adust Table per discussion)
LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP DESCRIPTION
The Land Classification Map on the following page
designates the general distribution of land classifications that
will help manage land use, community form, and
connectivity; and improve quality of life.
Specifically, the map depicts the community's land use and
development form goals (land classifications) in a conceptual
manner. It should not be construed as representing the precise
location of land classifications, but used as a foundation for
support and influence with land use and development form
decisions and zoning map changes.
The Land Classification Map does not establish the right to a
certain density or intensity. The C3 Plan is a broad-brush
approach to future land planning. Each development proposal
should be reviewed with consideration of all sections of the
C3 Plan in addition to site features, context, design standards,
and development standards.
In general, the map is too specific (down to the parcel).
Parks & Recreation
Estate Residential
Low Intensity Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
Urban Residential
Attached Residential
Neighborhood Support Center
Neighborhood Service Node
Institutional Node
Community Vitality Node
Employment Node
Regional Vitality Node
Core Support
Secondary Core
Primary Core
Parks & Recreation B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Estate Residential B B B B
C
C
Low Intensity Suburban Residential B B B B
C C C C
Suburban Residential B B B B C B B B B C C
Urban Residential B
C B B B B B C C
B C
Attached Residential B
C B B B B B B B C C B C
Neighborhood Support Center B C C B B B
B
Neighborhood Service Node B
C B B B
Map
orhood Service Node
ional Node
unity Vitality Node
yment Node Regional
Node Core Support
Secondary Core
Primary Core
Area for Special Study
Major Street
Minor Street
River
Monon Trail
Back Side of Placeholder for Land Classification Plan Pull-Out
jfc Roundabout Interchange w/Sidewalk
X Overpass w/Sidewalk
O New Roundabout
oooooo Separated Multi-Use Path
'jlf Signature Building
Pedestrian Oriented Design
Tree Preservation
—0- Existing Street/Roundabout
------ Proposed Street with Sidewalks
Map Prepared by Ground Rules, Inc. Last Revised 08-28-2006
98 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
(Adrienne, what is this?????)
Map Comments:
• 131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node
• Along Spring Mill Rd, the existing residential neighborhoods need to be labeled with the density the currently have. I
doubt that they will be redeveloped before the next comp plan update occurs.
• 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.
• 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.
• West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support
• SW corner of 116th and Westfield Blvd should be Orange. We ruled out higher density when we denied Townhomes at
Central Park.
• Add back major street names to map
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.
B B B B C C
Institutional Node B C C B B B B B B B B B B B B
Community Vitality Node B
C C B
B B B B B
Employment Node B
C C C
B B B B B C C
Regional Vitality Node B
C
C B B B B C
Core Support B
B B
C B
C C B B B
Secondary Core B
C C
B
C
B B B
Primary Core B
B
B B B
= Best Fit
= Conditional Fit
44 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
36 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
?
Kensington Place is a good example of a lower density attached
residential development. Although it doesn't fi t the traditional form
of Attached Residential, it would be appropriate in select locations.
34 CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
orm of
urban residential corner. Note that the structure is designed to fi
t the form of a single-family neighborhood. The photo is from the
Meridian-Kessler Neighborhood in Indianapolis.
CARMEL CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 33