HomeMy WebLinkAboutCopy of 2008-0912 Comp Plan notes 2008 PC DRAFTX Date Name Page Comment Notes from 9/9 Meeting
8/18/2008 Karen Carter The document divides the community (providing service nodes, this area for the rich, this
area for the poor)
Leo Direckman stated that these
General Comments are too broad to
discuss in this venue, and are more
political in nature than planning.
These should be discussed at full Plan
Commission and/or City Council level.
8/19/2008 Steve Pittman Recognize 146th Street as a changing and prominent corridor
8/19/2008 Marilyn Anderson The possibility of a more neighborhood service nodes is in direct conflict with the values of
West Clay residents (see article in Money mag).
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.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes from 9/9 Meeting
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.
Mr. Jones was not available to discuss
this issue. This is a legal issue.
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.
Hearing process was discussed at last
Plan Commission. No further
comment.
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.
.Adrienne reviewed actions taken at
previous Plan Commission meeting.
Public comment was accepted.
Another public meeting will be held at
the City Council and Plan will be
reviewed again.
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.
* correspondance lists from previous
mailings were used.
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.
* let everyone know how to get to the
draft
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives: Planning and zoning are not supposed to be
market-based.
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.
ehensive Plan Comments - July 24, 2008 DRAFT
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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Why don't the bulleted documents include the 116th St. Overlay and US 421 studies? Those area changes did not result in
comp. plans
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 "Form-based" regulations do not negate the non-visual impacts of inappropriate uses. Comment only.
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?
Every plan change includes public
notice and distribution list. Comp. Plan
will be on the City web page. When
changes made can be highlited and
inserted in. Version numbers will be
used.
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?
This will absolutely occur.
8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons to be changed in next draft.
8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his" to be changed in next draft.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 7 & 8 East Carmel - No mention of Keystone commercial area. to be changed in next draft.
8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8 Does not explain East-West boundaries see map on pg 7.
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?
wording to be changed - remove
pressure. Courses to be named
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 8 South Central Carmel-No mention of west boundary employment area(US 31) to be changed in next draft.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 (West Carmel): End of 2nd paragraph, Change "residential" amenities to "recreational". to be changed in next draft.
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.
9/8/2008 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.
to be chaged in next draft.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes from 9/9 Meeting
8/19/2008 Dan Dutcher 0 Figures should reflect the entire township and show growth trends Add titles, show clear city vs twp
figures.
8/26/2008 Chamber 12 4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? to be changed in next draft.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12 Objective Profile: Woodlots-A goal should be to strengthen cutting limitation and
replacement requirements for mature trees.
Will add City-Wide objective to
address woodland preservation in next
draft.
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?
Already addressed in previous
comment
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13 All charts are 8 yrs out of date. no change in text, 9/9/08
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.
Not within the scope of this document.
8/26/2008 Chamber 14 Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated To be changed in next draft.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Omit Mohawk Hill Golf Club No change at this time.
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.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes from 9/9 Meeting
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.
There are attempts to identify different
types of patterns of growth, and
development trends, i.e.,the west is
rural, the east is more surburban
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.
Committee would prefer the term
Leading Edge City. This should be
incorporated throughout the
document.
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?
Carol Schleif gave written comments
to Adrienne and Brad. They will
incorporate these into the next draft.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition? It was determined that this line needs
to be more specific. i.e., subarea plans
and/or guidelines - will be inserted.
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?
Comp plans are not enforceable
documents. They should be thought of
as a broad brush, outling what the
public, Plan Commission and planners
would like to see.The Indiana State
Supreme Court last year gave a ruling
that said that communities do not have
to adhere to their Comp. Plans. John
Molitor, City Council stated that the
only time the Comp. Plan must be
consulted is for granting of a use
variance.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?” No change in text.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.3: “The City needs to commission a study on housing choices.” Belongs in Comp
Plan?
This does not belong in the plan.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective To be changed in next draft.
8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.2: Can we say we want more businesses and not just more corporations? "attract more businesses" will be in the
next draft.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Policy 1 Intro: Land use based planning protected homeowners from unwanted commercial
and mult-story bldgs next to single-family homes.
No change in text.
9/8/2008 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.
This needs to be looked at project by
project or at the City Council level.
Some of these concerns will be
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.
Discussed in previous comments.
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.
Within in the next year we will be
studing housing choices. Lengthy
discussion ensued on whether studies
should be done to survey residents.
Pros and Cons were discussed. No
final action.
8/18/2008 Karen Carter 18 Obj. 3.1: Instead of "branding," suggest the word "promoting". Wording to be changed.
8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .” Wording to be changed.
8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” Wording to be changed.
8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.” Adrienne will follow up with Chamber
regarding this comment.
8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed
of high-quality materials?
Wording to remain the same.
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."
No action taken after discussion
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 obj. 3.5: Exclude increased density from the list of incentives. No action - moot point.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.10: Transition problems, especially along residential Spring Mill Road. ? Final action
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Policy 4 Intro: Subdivisions are neighborhoods. What "outside destabilizing forces"? Put a "period" after neighborhoods.
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.
Wording will be changed.
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.
? Final action
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.4: This new. Explain. Brad stated that stating that areas
have these amenities is what helps
define those neighborhoods.
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.
Wording will remain the same.
8/26/2008 Chamber 19 Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples? Wording will remain the same.
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.
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.
Change wording after "flexibility" in
the next sentence and remove rest of
the piece
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 the same.
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.
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?
The Mayor has committed to do his
best to have this done. We will
encourage this to be done, but cannot
demand.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 & 21 Env. Awareness/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 the same.
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.
Change reward to promote.
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.
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?
Wording will be changed.
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 objective.
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 objective.
8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan? Second sentence regarding building
heights will be removed.
8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 2.4: We do not understand why musical performances would be a topic for
comprehensive plan.
Sentence will end at Carmel
Performing Arts Center.
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?
Wording will remain the same.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.3: Should this say "west" rather than "east" Wording will be changed.
8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 25 West Central: I think the Village of West Clay needs to be more directly addressed
throughout the various policies reflected in The West Clay Section
No action taken after discussion
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?
First sentence will end with "estate
character housing and other housing
styles." Rest of sentence will be
stricken.
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.”
Wording will remain the same.
8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? Wording will remain the same.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
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?
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.
8/19/2008 Andy Crook 32 Suburban Res: 4.9 du/a is too high.
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.
8/26/2008 Chamber 40 Development Features: same comments as previous about strip commercial development.
8/26/2008 Chamber 41 Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance?
8/26/2008 Chamber 42 Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the
zoning ordinance.
8/19/2008 Steve Pittman LCM 116th & Spring Mill: Potential to create something for west-siders to avoid crossing 31.
Difficult for service/office workers to get anywhere on their lunch hours. Intense office next
to large lot single family does not make sense from a planning perspective.
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add Greek Orthodox Church (106th/Shelborne) and Hebrew Congregation (W of University
HS) as Institutional
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
8/19/2008 Marilyn Anderson LCM VOWC: Community Vitality too intense for 131st/Towne. Should be Neigh Service Node.
8/19/2008 Marilyn Anderson LCM 1.9 Du/a is too high for West Clay. Existing densities are from 1.18 to 1.28 (see density
map)
8/21/2008 Barbara Layton LCM No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially
9/3/2008 Andy Crook LCM DO NOT support suburban residential classification in NW Clay. The map is too much
patch work nature. Support Low Intensity Suburban up to 1.5 instead.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 62 Street Classification Chart does not include bike or ped treatment required.
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 55, 56, 62 Parking on Residential Parkways? Spring Mill is classified a residential parkway.
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Bike/Ped Map Confusing. Is Illinois to get path or lane?
8/6/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan Recommend 96th from Haverstick to Westfield is Primary Pkwy instead of Primary Arterial
8/14/2008 Adam Houghton Thorough Plan Residential Parkways are too large/unsafe for current conditions on residential streets
including Four Seasons Way. (this reflects west side connectivity exhibit)
8/26/2008 Chamber The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new
neighborhoods.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
9/5/2008 Tim DeFrench 86 Keystone: The third bullet under the Design Goals should also state protection of the
established neighborhoods on the west side of Keystone. "Roughly" 98th to just south of
116th 126th to smokey row.
8/26/2008 Chamber 86 Keystone: does this need to be updated due to recent engineering and construction?
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 88 US 31: reconfirm Spring Mill as a residential corridor w/Illinois as a boundary and the
importance of a compact US 31 corridor with sufficient mass to facilitate reaching other
goals such as future transit.
8/19/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: what is transition-sensitive residential? How does this work when encouraging 6-10
story buildings in the corridor?
8/21/2008 Barbara Layton 88 US 31: no Commercial West of Illinois, Pittman farm can be developed residentially
8/26/2008 Chamber 88 US 31: Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan?
8/26/2008 Chamber 88 US 31: A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed.
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 89 US 31: define Transition-Sensitive Residential
8/26/2008 Chamber 89 US 31: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive
Residential?
8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St: Neighborhood should be planned by following these proposed recommendations
from Parts 2 & 3: pg. 17: Objective 1.5, pg. 24: Objective 1.4, pg. 24: Objective 3.2, pg 36:
Neighborhood Service Nodes to be strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling
proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential classifications.
PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS
6 9/3/2008
8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90 Enhance East/West Connectivity: include statement about connecting Penn to Westfield
Blvd (as already mentioned in HomePlace section). If straight alignment over 465 were
implemented, would there be a need to connect Penn through the Monon?
8/19/2008 Joy Sullivan 90 96th St: Chesterton neighborhood would like to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Commercial development along 96th Street should only occur one lot deep along 96th and
provide adequate buffer. Lighting and after hours traffic should be minimized when
considering type of business.
8/19/2008 Steve Pittman 90 96th St: Corridor is rapidly changing.
8/19/2008 Jim Palecek 90 96th St: Corridor and area have changed. 96th backs up past Wild Cherry, commercial
along 96th Street, decreased quality of life. Difficult to sell, difficult to stay.
8/19/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St Corridor Study has been referenced, but most of the assumptions made in 1999 are
outdated or no longer applicable. Please delete outdated assumptions. Please update the
information to reflect the changing nature of the area, as it no longer reflects a stable
residential neighborhood. Wash Twp Comprehensive Plan (Marion County) indicates
Commercial Uses on S sd of 96th. Commercial uses and multifamily rentals exist in the
area. Duke redevelopment (Parkwood).
8/26/2008 Chamber 95, 96, 97 Old Meridian: Mixed Use Design Guidelines These too specific in our opinion, even delving
into sign specifications (e.g. “Ground floor tenants should be allowed 1 ½ square feet of
sign area per lineal foot of building signage. . .” How will this language be integrated into
the new sign ordinance?
9/9/2008 Hart 88 US 31: I strongly protest that the corridor between Meridian and Illinois Street at 106-111
Streets is designated as a 6-10 story employment corridor that will overshadow our
neighborhood. Please remove that designation from this stretch of the corridor.
9/9/2008 Hart Illinois Street from 106th to 111th Streets will abut the east side of my neighborhood, Spring
Mill Place. Many residents of this subdiision attended nearly two years' of meetings on this
topic at City Hall, and reached agreement with the City that was recorded as a Resolution
that is inconsistent with the current rendering of Illinois Street for this segment. Please
refer to the Resolution rather than discarding those years of work.
7 9/3/2008
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.
8/26/2008 Chamber 36 Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops
abuts the street?
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.
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.
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
5 9/3/2008
Wording will remain the same.
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.
This will also be put in the
environmenal section.
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?
These will be addressed in the
upcoming architecural guidelines
document.
4 9/3/2008
covered in another section.
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.
Discussion was held regarding policies
in other small towns and cities and
how this issue is handled. Some
areas do have lists of areas to be
redeveloped. It was determined to
drop this entire objective. Modify
wording in this section.
PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE
3 9/3/2008
A polictical statement
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 The current solution to crowded schools seems to be to increase density, but build new
developments that aim to exclude children!
No change in text
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Golf courses-Most are under pressure to be developed, or are private. Sadly, few public
courses will exist.
Brookshire and Sunrise are public golf
courses.
PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE
2 9/3/2008
GENERAL COMMENTS
PREFACE
1 9/3/2008