HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0923 Comp Plan notes 2008 9-23 mtgX Date Name Page Comment
8/18/2008 Karen Carter The document divides the community (providing service nodes, this
area for the rich, this area for the poor)
8/19/2008 Recognize 146th Street as a changing and prominent corridor
8/19/2008 The possibility of a more neighborhood service nodes is in direct
conflict with the values of West Clay residents (see article in Money
mag).
8/19/2008 Andy Crook Need an overall plan for utility placement. We have a 2nd rate
substation; the city should take more control
8/26/2008 Chamber Lots of vague terminology and definition issues remain.
8/26/2008 Chamber Feeling that the document is frequently too specific to particular sites
or developments.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox How far along is the PC on developing residential
quality/architectural standards?
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Strictly define permitted uses in Neighborhood Support/Service
Nodes
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Define "usable" open space. New trees in Carmel are routinely
planted too close together.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Address appropriate locations of Mega-churches that serve as
Community Centers.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Address appropriate use of PUD's, and their amendment process.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Steve Pittman
Marilyn Anderson
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETING NOTES FROM 9/9/08 & 9/23/08
1 9/23/2008
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.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
PREFACE
2 9/23/2008
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives: Planning and zoning are
not supposed to be market-based.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Why don't the bulleted documents include the 116th St. Overlay and
US 421 studies?
Wording will remain as
is.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 "Form-based" regulations do not negate the non-visual impacts of
inappropriate uses.
Wording will remain as
is.
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?
Wording will remain as
is.
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?
Wording will remain as
is.
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?
8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons Language will be added.
8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his" Language will be added.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 7 & 8 East Carmel - No mention of Keystone commercial area. Language will be added.
3 9/23/2008
8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8 Does not explain East-West boundaries see map on pg 7, 9/9/08
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?
Language will be added.
X 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street is a connector
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"
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.
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."
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 8 South Central Carmel-No mention of west boundary employment
area(US 31)
Language will be added.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 (West Carmel): End of 2nd paragraph, Change "residential"
amenities to "recreational".
Language will be added.
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
4 9/23/2008
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.
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.
add City-Wide objective
to add parkland in next
draft, 9/9/08
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.
Language will be added.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
8/19/2008 Dan Dutcher Figures should reflect the entire township and show growth trends add titles, be clear city vs
twp figures, 9/9/08
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.
8/26/2008 Chamber 12 4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? Language will be added.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12 Objective Profile: Woodlots-A goal should be to strengthen cutting
limitation and replacement requirements for mature trees.
add City-Wide objective
to address woodland
preservation in next
draft, 9/9/08
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?
Wording will remain as
is.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13 All charts are 8 yrs out of date. Wording will remain as
is.
PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE
5 9/23/2008
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
8/26/2008 Chamber 14 Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated Language will be added.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Omit Mohawk Hill Golf Club Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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!
Wording will remain as
is.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Golf courses-Most are under pressure to be developed, or are
private. Sadly, few public courses will exist.
Wording will remain as
is.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition? Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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
PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE
6 9/23/2008
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.
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.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?” no change in text, 9/9/08
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.
re-work language, may
be deleted, 9/9/08
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.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.2: Can we say we want more businesses and not just more
corporations?
to be changed in next
draft, 9/9/08
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.3: “The City needs to commission a study on housing
choices.” Belongs in Comp Plan?
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
discussed 9/9/08. no
change in text.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective Language will be added.
7 9/23/2008
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 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
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
8 9/23/2008
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?
See carol comments. Re
-work language, 9/9/08
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Change to title to
Leading Edge City.
9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of
maintaining areas for traditional suburban residences.
8/18/2008 Karen Carter 18 Obj. 3.1: Instead of "branding," suggest the word "promoting".
8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for
buildings to be constructed of high-quality materials?
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.10: Transition problems, especially along residential Spring
Mill Road.
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."
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.
8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” –
to retrofit. . .”
9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the
same problem as Objective 3.2
8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.”
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 obj. 3.5: Exclude increased density from the list of incentives.
9 9/23/2008
8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” to be changed in next
draft, 9/9/08
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.
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
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Policy 4 Intro: Subdivisions are neighborhoods. What "outside
destabilizing forces"?
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.4: This new. Explain.
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.
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.
8/26/2008 Chamber 19 Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.”
Examples?
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.
10 9/23/2008
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
to be changed in next
draft, 9/9/08
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
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?
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.
11 9/23/2008
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.
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.
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.
9/12/2008 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.3: Define "small scale" and "large scale". Retroactive?
Julie & Jerry Williams
12 9/23/2008
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.
9/12/2008 21 Obj. 7.5: The City should require (not strongly recommend) LEED or
equivalent buildings for all new taxpayer paid construction.
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"
Wording will remain as
is.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Encourage the city and residents to minimize the use of
pesticides, herbicides, and lawn chemicals.
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.
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?
to be changed in next
draft, 9/9/08
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.
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?
delete, 9/9/08
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.
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.
delete, 9/9/08
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact
surrounding residences."
8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp
plan?
to be changed in next
draft, 9/9/08
Julie & Jerry Williams
13 9/23/2008
8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 2.4: We do not understand why musical performances would be
a topic for comprehensive plan.
to be changed in next
draft, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for
North Central Carmel.
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?
to be changed in next
draft, 9/9/08
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.
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.3: Should this say "west" rather than "east" to be changed in next
draft, 9/9/08
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.
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.
14 9/23/2008
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.
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.”
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.
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?
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of
West Carmel.
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?
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along".
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.”
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.
15 9/23/2008
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.
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the
area.
8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? no change in text, 9/9/08
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.
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
X Date Name Page Comment Notes from 9/23
Meeting
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.
Simply a comment, no
committee action
required.
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?
With this document we
are planning for the City
not for agriculture,so it is
not part of the document.
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
16 9/23/2008
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?
all parts are considered
in transition. Nothing in
document sez this,
height and density may
be considered. - what is
transition and to make -
this implied could not
address this all
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 29 Development Features: Add, “including passive enjoyment of nature”
to the last one, “Promote recreation.”
will add "promote
recreation".
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29 Land Uses: add "pocket parks" to the list will add "pocket parks" to
all Land Use sections.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29 Examples: Delete Village of West Clay open space network, this is
zoned PUD not a park zone
Change language to
Village of West Clay
Pocket Park.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Can title be changed to from "Estate" to "Conservation" or "Rural"
Residential?
"Estate" wording will
remain.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Purpose: end the sentence after "…who desire a large residential lot" Wording will remain as
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.
Suburban Residental will
be moved from Best Fit
to Conditional Fit. Low-
intensity will remain in
Best Fit.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 30 Best Fit - Move "Suburban Residential" to Conditional. See above
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Best Fit: Remove Low Intensity Suburban and Suburban. Wording will be
removed.
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.
Wording will be
removed.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Conditional Fit: add low intensity suburban residential (only at
perimeter).
17 9/23/2008
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?
Trail and bike path
language will be added.
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."
This is a zoning issue.
Language will remain.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features, 3rd bullet: delete "on estate sized lots" at the
end of the sentence.
Wording will be
removed.
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."
Language will not be
added.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Purpose: Amend to read, “Establish and protect housing
opportunities for people who desire low density or subdivision living.
Language will be added.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Geographic Location - Why are no such areas shown for South
Central Carmel on the Land Classification map?
South Central will be
removed.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Geographic location: Delete South Central since none is shown on
the map
South Central will be
removed.
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.
After discussion it was
determine to change the
intensity/density to 1.5.
All voted in favor.
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.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Intensity/Density: limit to 1.0. should not change from current
densities without a public survey
Previously discussed
and resolved.
18 9/23/2008
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!
Community Vitality Node
will be removed from
Conditional Fit and
Neighborhood Support
will be added to
Conditional Fit
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Best Fit: delete Suburban Residential Language will be
removed.
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.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Structure Orientation on Site: delete courtyard-loading garages. Wording will remain as
is.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Development Features: Define “designed open space.” Is it usable? The word "usable" will be
inserted.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Open Space - "50% should be designed" was added. Why? Is it
usable? Define both.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Development Features: add "and on dry land as a designed
landscape."
Previously discussed
and resolved.
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.
min. 55
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will be
removed.
19 9/23/2008
9/22/2008 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?
Committee spoke to the
concerns of the citizen
and assured her there is
no plan to take over her
property via eminent
domain.
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.
will take out are or will be
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet Wording will remain as
is.
8/19/2008 Andy Crook 32 Intensity/Density: 4.9 du/a is too high. Previously discussed
and resolved.
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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Density - Range is too broad. In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6-
1 to further divide this classification.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
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.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 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?
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Best Fit: delete attached residential and neighborhood service node
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.
Move this classification
to Conditional Fit
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.
comment only issue
covered
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node, delete community
vitality
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Structure Features, 3rd bullet: add "on lots less than 80' wide." No action required.
Joyce Harrison
Joyce Harrison
20 9/23/2008
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed
landscape."
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 1st Photo: Isn't Enclave 7 units per acre? Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet, since townhouses are listed under
attached residential
Wording will remain as
is.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Intensity/Density: should be between 2.9 and 5 units per acre. Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Adrienne will change
language to be more
specific.
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.
Core Support will be
moved to Conditional Fit
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Best Fit: delete neighborhood service node and core support Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Conditional Fit - "Urban" 8 u/a could go next to "Suburban Res." 2
u/a??
Wording will remain as
is.
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)
This is a zoning issue.
Language will remain.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Structure Features: delete "however, three stories may be
appropriate in some circumstances"
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
In former mtgs. We have
discussed requiring
green space on
balconies/roofs placed in
a 3 dimensional way. No
action taken.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 10% to
30%
Wording will remain as
is.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed
landscape"
Wording will remain as
is.
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"
Wording will remain as
is.
21 9/23/2008
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.
Items in parenthesis will
be removed.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Purpose: replace text with "To establish opportunities for residents
who want a more compact living environment."
Previously discussed
and resolved.
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.)
Wording will remain as
is.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Best Fit- Move "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)", to conditional. No
mention of "Neighborhood Support Center".
Wording will remain as
is.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Best Fit: delete suburban residential and urban residential Previously discussed
and resolved.
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.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 20% to
30%
Wording will remain as
is.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed
landscape"
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 2nd Photo: how about the Amli apartments on 146th?
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 West Carmel - Not needed or wanted. The 1-mile road grid could put
one on every corner.
Working will remain as
is.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 35 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new
locations in Carmel West.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
Boys and Girls Club and
YMCA will be removed.
22 9/23/2008
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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?
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Intensity/Density, 1st bullet: add "neighboring" in front of
"developments"
Wording will remain as
is.
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.
comment only issue
covered
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Examples: add "see illustration" Wording will remain as
is.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Best Fit: after suburban residential add "except in West Carmel" Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Conditional Fit - Remove "Estate Residential". Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Conditional Fit: delete estate residential, add "east carmel only" after
Low Intensity Suburban Res
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Structure Features: Mostly glass fronts look "urban", and would make
"activities" totally visible. Drive-throughs allowed?
Drive throughs will not
be allowed. Glass specs
will be removed.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Structure Features: change max height to 1.5 stories Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Structure Orientation - Only visibility can be partially buffered. Cannot
adequately buffer other impacts listed above.
This is a comment only,
no action required.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 2nd Photo: add photo of bank at village of west clay Additional photo will be
inserted.
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.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Purpose: add "and sigle use" after mixed use Wording will remain as
is.
23 9/23/2008
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.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
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.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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?
This language will be
moved to
Intensity/density.
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.
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Best Fit: delete Urban residential Previously discussed
and resolved.
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
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.".
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res, add Urban Res
(at perimeter only)
24 9/23/2008
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.
This will be reviewed on
map review.
8/26/2008 Chamber 36 Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if
the strip of shops abuts the street?
Strip language will be
removed. Adrienne will
revise.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Development Features: replace "is discouraged" with "that are built
to the street."
Wording will be changed.
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.
Another photo will be
inserted showing an
example outside of
Carmel.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Geographic Location, 2nd sentence: replace "integrated into" with
"sensitively built when next to residential"
Wording will be revised.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Best Fit: all classifications except "single family residential
classifications"
Will be placed under
Conditional
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res." should be included here. Will be placed under
Conditional
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Conditional Fit: single family residential classifications Will be placed under
Conditional
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Specify significant buffering of municipal facilities from residences. Appropriate buffering will
be used in transition
area will be added.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Structure Orientation: add "honoring privacy and views of existing
single family detached dwellings"
Appropriate buffering will
be used in transition
area will be added.
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.
This will be reviewed on
a case by case basis.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 1st Photo caption: delete "a great" example "Great" will be deleted.
25 9/23/2008
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 West Carmel - These should be limited to along Michigan Road. This will be reviewed on
map review.
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.
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.
Minor throughfare will be
removed and Adrienne
will reword.
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".
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Best Fit - Omit "NSN" for reasons stated earlier.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38 Best Fit: delete "residential"
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".
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38 Conditional Fit: add attached residential, delete suburban and urban
residential
9/22/2008 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!!
Ms. Harrison was
reassured that there is
no plan for the area of
her home. There is no
plan for a forced eminate
domain.
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.
Language will be
changed to take out
"fourth floor" and "and
only."
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.
ok
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39 Conditional Fit: delete suburban and urban residential
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39 Structure Features, 1st bullet: add "and only two stories next to
single family residential neighborhoods"
Wording will remain as
is.
Joyce Harrison
26 9/23/2008
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".
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Conditional Fit: add "attached" to residential language will be
changed.
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?
This will not be
occurring.
8/26/2008 Chamber 40 Development Features: same comments as previous about strip
commercial development.
Wording will be
removed.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Development Features, 1st bullet: instead of "discouraged" replace
with "built to the street"
Wording will be
removed.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Land Uses: delete entertainment Wording will remain as
is.
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.
same language will be
use
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Best Fit: delete Urban residential Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Conditional Fit - Replace "NSN" with "CVN". Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Conditional Fit: add urban residential (perimeter edges only) Previously discussed
and resolved.
8/26/2008 Chamber 41 Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning
ordinance?
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Structure Features: add "two story maximim next to urban
residential"
Previously discussed
and resolved.
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)?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: increase open space to 20 or 30% Wording will remain as
is.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: add bullet "Protect pre-development
environmental features"
27 9/23/2008
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.
Wording will remain as
is.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Land Uses: should entertainment be SU? Music/noise? City of Carmel Noise
Ordinance should be
utilized.
8/26/2008 Chamber 42 Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our
opinion belongs in the zoning ordinance.
Wording will remain as
is.
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"
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Development Features, 1st bullet: add "except next to single family
detached neighborhoods."
Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Development Features: add bullet "Pocket parks are encouraged." Previously discussed
and resolved.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Geographic Location: delete Old Town (move to secondary core, per
map)
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Examples: delete Old Town Shops (move to secondary core, per
map)
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 1st Photo: move to secondary core
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 2nd Photo: there are other nice drawings we could include here
9/22/2008 DOCS 44 Adjust Table per discussion and to be "symmetrical" ok
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.
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.
This is a disclaimer
statement.
28 9/23/2008