HomeMy WebLinkAboutCopy of 2008-0930 Comp Plan notes 2008 PC DRAFTX Date Name Comment Notes
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 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.
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 Comment Notes
8/24/2008 Tom Jones Note the purpose of the plan is to improve the health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens.
For the city to attempt to mandate preferred architectural details could infringe on individual rights.
No change in text, 9/9/08
GENERAL COMMENTS
PREFACE
Comprehensive Plan Comments - July 24, 2008 DRAFT
1 9/30/2008
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Fulfillment of the mandate - Public Involvement: Absent is the extensive public participation and
surveys on what residents wanted that formed the current 2020 plan.
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox A few public meetings on the revision in 2006 may have met the "letter of the law", but they do not
broadly reach the time-crunched public who have a hard time keeping up with the details and
react to changes.
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox In 2006, the stated reason for the abrupt halt was a flawed process and insufficient public
participation. All agreed that the process was very rushed.
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 2 years later the revision process is moving on quickly from where it left off. Many residents are
unaware that the process has restarted and/or that the City's revisions would drastically change
the 2020 Plan protections they relied on.
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox How is this time different from 2006? On this issue of such importance to the public's future, the
city should again pursue an accurate read on public opinion via a comprehensive survey and/or
district citizen groups actively involved in developing the Plan.
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives: Planning and zoning are not supposed to be market-
based.
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Language in the 2020 Plan that is protective of residential communities and "the quality of life that
attracted them", is now conspicuously missing.
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox "Freshen" is deceptively inaccurate. The 2020 Plan would be totally changed by the City's new
focus on urbanizing, higher densities, and placing commercial uses in residential areas.
Suburban residents, Carmel's foundation, feel threatened.
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Why don't the bulleted documents include the 116th St. Overlay and US 421 studies? No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox "Form-based" regulations do not negate the non-visual impacts of inappropriate uses. No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox If easily amendable at any time, will there be public notice and overview of all changes? How will
the public ever keep up, or be able to count on what the Plan says?
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Drafting and Public Input - The public had little time to review the full draft prior to the one open
house. How many could not attend? Will all oral/written comments be condensed for public
review, including those from developers?
No change in text, 9/9/08
9/9/2008 CWIC2 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 East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08
8/26/2008 Chamber East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his" to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox East Carmel - No mention of Keystone commercial area. to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08
8/6/2008 Pat Rice Does not explain East-West boundaries see map on pg 7, 9/9/08
2 9/30/2008
8/26/2008 Chamber 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?
to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08
X 8/26/2008 Chamber South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street is a connector SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
X 8/6/2008 Pat Rice South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street omitted as east/west connectivity. Compare w/pg 90
describing 96th as "major east/west arterial"
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan North Central Carmel, a higher education facility already exists in the Life and Learning Center.
Owned by Clay Twp and leased to Ivy Tech and IUPUI.
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
9/6/2008 Judy Hagan 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 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 South Central Carmel-No mention of west boundary employment area(US 31) to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox (West Carmel): End of 2nd paragraph, Change "residential" amenities to "recreational". to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08
9/9/2008 CWIC2 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 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 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, VOWC is a
Part 3 issue, 9/9/08
X Date Name Comment Notes
PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE
3 9/30/2008
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 4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 Population Growth-Does chart include entire Township? Carmel is built on families w/ children,
who came for nonurban lifestyles and schools. Why do these revisions focus on urbanizing and
on developing for everyone but them?
no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox All charts are 8 yrs out of date. no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Education-All suburbs and Hamilton County have higher graduation rates than Indianapolis.
Carmel now strives to morph into a city, which its suburban residents fled. Increased population
means facing the need for a second high school.
no change in text, 9/9/08
8/26/2008 Chamber Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Omit Mohawk Hill Golf Club no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Development Trends: The upward trend in Town Homes/Multi-Family units is due to City officials
actively encouraging them.
no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox The current solution to crowded schools seems to be to increase density, but build new
developments that aim to exclude children!
no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Golf courses-Most are under pressure to be developed, or are private. Sadly, few public courses
will exist.
no change in text, 9/9/08
X Date Name Comment Notes
9/8/2008 Dee Fox This is where the whole focus is changed from the 2020 Plan, so as to increase density and add
commercial development to the suburbs. If "the public can base their expectations" on this Part,
then the content needs to be based on the public's desire to protect existing chosen lifestyles and
neighborhoods.
no change in text, 9/9/08
8/26/2008 Chamber Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition?
PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE
4 9/30/2008
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Obj. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5: Objectives of Carmel government and its suburban residents are not the same.
Inserting "mixed use" into suburban areas makes a harsh contrast inevitable, and effective
transition difficult. Locate such nodes now, so that the decision is not left to developers, and so
that homebuyers know what to expect. Brace for many fights over what constitutes "unsuitable
commercial development." Most residential areas formed as havens from the effects of
commercial development, and consider all of it to be unsuitable.
no change in text, 9/9/08
8/26/2008 Chamber 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
9/9/2008 CWIC2 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 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 Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?” no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 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 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 Obj. 2.3: “The City needs to commission a study on housing choices.” Belongs in Comp Plan? no change in text, 9/9/08
9/9/2008 CWIC2 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 Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
5 9/30/2008
9/9/2008 CWIC2 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 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 Policy 1 Intro: Land use based planning protected homeowners from unwanted commercial and
mult-story bldgs next to single-family homes.
no change in text, 9/9/08
8/26/2008 Chamber 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 Policy 2 Intro: Carmel has always been a suburb w/ a "desirable quality of life." Other realities,
though, are its image is snobbish, it is unaffordable to many, it lacks "non-white-collar" jobs, and it
is unlikely to be able to support public transportation if Indianapolis can't.
no change in text, 9/9/08
6 9/30/2008
8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 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 title, Leading Edge City, 9/9/08
9/9/2008 CWIC2 We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional
suburban residences.
8/18/2008 Karen Carter Obj. 3.1: Instead of "branding," suggest the word "promoting".
8/26/2008 Chamber Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed of
high-quality materials?
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Obj. 3.10: Transition problems, especially along residential Spring Mill Road.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 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 Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .”
9/9/2008 CWIC2 Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the same problem as Objective 3.2
8/26/2008 Chamber Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.”
9/8/2008 Dee Fox obj. 3.5: Exclude increased density from the list of incentives.
8/26/2008 Chamber Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 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 Policy 4 Intro: Subdivisions are neighborhoods. What "outside destabilizing forces"?
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Obj. 4.3: Establishing neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries has basically been
done by acknowledging 4 unique districts.
no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Obj. 4.4: This new. Explain.
9/9/2008 CWIC2 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.
7 9/30/2008
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples?
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 Obj. 5.1: The city's "vision" would alter/negate the chosen lifestyle of its residents, based on
unproven trends.
no change in text, 9/9/08
9/9/2008 CWIC2 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 Obj. 5.2: How will the public be informed and have input? Limit how often it can be revised.
Frequently and readily revisable means no rest, control, or security for the public.
no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 Obj. 5.7: Again, what reward? Not increased density! The City seems to equate "sprawl" w/ its
foundation of single-family homes on lots that offer some privacy.
no change in text, 9/9/08
8/29/2008 Tom Jones 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 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 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.
9/8/2008 CWIC2 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 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 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.
8 9/30/2008
9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 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 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 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 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 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 Obj. 7.3: Define "small scale" and "large scale". Retroactive?
8/26/2008 Chamber 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 Julie & Jerry Williams 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 Obj. 7.9: Carmel needs to address the mercury levels in CFL's & how to dispose of them safely
before "jumping on that bandwagon"
no change in text, 9/9/08
9/8/2008 Dee Fox Obj. 7.9: Encourage the city and residents to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and lawn
chemicals.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 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 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 Obj. 3.3: The idea has merit but is it wise to make specific recommendations about privately
owned property?
delete, 9/9/08
9 9/30/2008
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 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 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 Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact surrounding residences."
8/26/2008 Chamber Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan? to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
8/26/2008 Chamber 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 Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for North Central Carmel.
8/26/2008 Chamber 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 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 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 Obj. 2.3: Should this say "west" rather than "east" to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
9/15/2008 Karen Gould 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 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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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.
10 9/30/2008
9/8/2008 CWIC2 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 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 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 Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of West Carmel.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 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 Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along".
8/26/2008 Chamber 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 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.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 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 Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the area.
8/26/2008 Chamber Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? no change in text, 9/9/08
9/11/2008 Tom Jones Obj. 5.3: The residents of the Little Eagle Creek area should be made aware that a greenway is
an objective of development.
9/8/2008 Dee Fox 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 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
11 9/30/2008
X Date Name Comment Notes
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.
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?
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Introduction: Appropriate Adjacent - Conditional Fit is based on only "orientation, transitions, and
architecture"? What about use, height, and density?
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 Development Features: Add, “including passive enjoyment of nature” to the last one, “Promote
recreation.”
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Land Uses: add "pocket parks" to the list
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Examples: Delete Village of West Clay open space network, this is zoned PUD not a park zone
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Can title be changed to from "Estate" to "Conservation" or "Rural" Residential?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Purpose: end the sentence after "…who desire a large residential lot"
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Best Fit - Move "Suburban Residential" to Conditional.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: Remove Low Intensity Suburban and Suburban.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Conditional Fit: add low intensity suburban residential (only at perimeter).
8/26/2008 Chamber 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?
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
12 9/30/2008
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 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."
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, 3rd bullet: delete "on estate sized lots" at the end of the sentence.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 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."
9/19/2008 CWIC2 Purpose: Amend to read, “Establish and protect housing opportunities for people who desire low
density or subdivision living.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Geographic Location - Why are no such areas shown for South Central Carmel on the Land
Classification map?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Geographic location: Delete South Central since none is shown on the map
9/3/2008 Andy Crook 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Intensity/Density: limit to 1.0. should not change from current densities without a public survey
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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!
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: delete Suburban Residential
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Structure Orientation on Site: delete courtyard-loading garages.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 Development Features: Define “designed open space.” Is it usable?
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Open Space - "50% should be designed" was added. Why? Is it usable? Define both.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features: add "and on dry land as a designed landscape."
9/19/2008 CWIC2 Suburban Res: In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6 to 1 to divide this classification further.
That should be reflected in this draft.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 Purpose: Amend to read, “To establish housing opportunities for people who desire to have less
yard & to enjoy closer proximity to their neighbors.
13 9/30/2008
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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.
9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 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?
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Geographic Location - What is the basis for applying up to 4.9 u/a to all of South Central and East
Carmel.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet
8/19/2008 Andy Crook Intensity/Density: 4.9 du/a is too high.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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 Density - Range is too broad. In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6-1 to further divide this
classification.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 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.
9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 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?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: delete attached residential and neighborhood service node
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node, delete community vitality
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Structure Features, 3rd bullet: add "on lots less than 80' wide."
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape."
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 1st Photo: Isn't Enclave 7 units per acre?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet, since townhouses are listed under attached residential
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Intensity/Density: should be between 2.9 and 5 units per acre.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Best Fit - No mention of "Neighborhood Support Center". "Core Support", with no density limits,
should be moved to Conditional.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: delete neighborhood service node and core support
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Conditional Fit - "Urban" 8 u/a could go next to "Suburban Res." 2 u/a??
14 9/30/2008
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node and core support only at edges of Old Town
Residential & limited to 2 stories)
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Structure Features: delete "however, three stories may be appropriate in some circumstances"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 10% to 30%
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape"
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, last bullet: instead of "have designs fitting the context," replace with "look
like a single family dwelling from each different street elevation"
8/26/2008 Chamber 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Purpose: replace text with "To establish opportunities for residents who want a more compact
living environment."
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.)
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Best Fit- Move "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)", to conditional. No mention of "Neighborhood Support
Center".
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: delete suburban residential and urban residential
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Conditional Fit - Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res." (1-1.9 u/a). Densities of the 2 classifications
are much too far apart.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 20% to 30%
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape"
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 2nd Photo: how about the Amli apartments on 146th?
9/22/2008 Dee Fox West Carmel - Not needed or wanted. The 1-mile road grid could put one on every corner.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Land Uses - Community centers, YMCA's, and most fitness centers are too big for this, and
would be traffic magnets.
15 9/30/2008
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Density - One mile is too close. Does the 7,500 sq. ft. (approx. 1/6 acre), include parking area?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Intensity/Density, 1st bullet: add "neighboring" in front of "developments"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Examples - Hard to find any in Carmel b/c suburban residents have chosen not to live next to
nonresidential uses.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Examples: add "see illustration"
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: after suburban residential add "except in West Carmel"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Conditional Fit - Remove "Estate Residential".
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Conditional Fit: delete estate residential, add "east carmel only" after Low Intensity Suburban Res
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Structure Features: Mostly glass fronts look "urban", and would make "activities" totally visible.
Drive-throughs allowed?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Structure Features: change max height to 1.5 stories
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Structure Orientation - Only visibility can be partially buffered. Cannot adequately buffer other
impacts listed above.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 2nd Photo: add photo of bank at village of west clay
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Purpose: add "and sigle use" after mixed use
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox The 80,000 sq. ft. per node, (about 1.84 acres), should be stated here to avoid confusion. Parking
included in that space?
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: delete Urban residential
16 9/30/2008
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res, add Urban Res (at perimeter only)
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
8/26/2008 Chamber Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops abuts the
street?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features: replace "is discouraged" with "that are built to the street."
8/26/2008 Chamber 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Geographic Location, 2nd sentence: replace "integrated into" with "sensitively built when next to
residential"
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: all classifications except "single family residential classifications"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res." should be included here.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Conditional Fit: single family residential classifications
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Specify significant buffering of municipal facilities from residences.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Structure Orientation: add "honoring privacy and views of existing single family detached
dwellings"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 1st Photo caption: delete "a great" example
9/22/2008 Dee Fox West Carmel - These should be limited to along Michigan Road.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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 Geographic Location - With 10 u/a allowed, and no limit on commercial intensity, these are not
"most appropriate" near "minor" thoroughfares.
17 9/30/2008
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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 Best Fit - Omit "NSN" for reasons stated earlier.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: delete "residential"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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 Conditional Fit: add attached residential, delete suburban and urban residential
9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 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!!
8/26/2008 Chamber 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.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Conditional Fit: delete suburban and urban residential
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Structure Features, 1st bullet: add "and only two stories next to single family residential
neighborhoods"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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 Conditional Fit: add "attached" to residential
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 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?
8/26/2008 Chamber Development Features: same comments as previous about strip commercial development.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, 1st bullet: instead of "discouraged" replace with "built to the street"
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Land Uses: delete entertainment
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Core Support: Best Fit- Since there are no residential or commercial limits on intensity, "Urban
Res. (4-8 u/a)" should move to Conditional.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Best Fit: delete Urban residential
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Conditional Fit - Replace "NSN" with "CVN".
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Conditional Fit: add urban residential (perimeter edges only)
8/26/2008 Chamber Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Structure Features: add "two story maximim next to urban residential"
18 9/30/2008
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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 Development Features: increase open space to 20 or 30%
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features: add bullet "Protect pre-development environmental features"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Land Uses: should entertainment be SU? Music/noise?
8/26/2008 Chamber Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the zoning
ordinance.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Structure Orientation: add bullet "A maximum of two stories at right-of-way next to single family
detached residential neighborhoods"
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features, 1st bullet: add "except next to single family detached neighborhoods."
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Development Features: add bullet "Pocket parks are encouraged."
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Geographic Location: delete Old Town (move to secondary core, per map)
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Examples: delete Old Town Shops (move to secondary core, per map)
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 1st Photo: move to secondary core
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 2nd Photo: there are other nice drawings we could include here
9/22/2008 DOCS Adjust Table per discussion and to be "symmetrical"
9/22/2008 Dee Fox 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 Final paragraph, 1st sentence - The classifications on the Map have density ranges; therefore,
developers will assume that the Map establishes certain density rights.
X Date Name Comment Notes
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Add back major street names to map
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif In general the map is too specific (down to the parcel)
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 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.
Resolved
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/29/2008 CWIC2 The VWC area with this classification is not compatible with the surrounding area that currently
fits Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Community Vitality Node is not listed as an appropriate
adjacent classification.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP
VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY
19 9/30/2008
9/29/2008 CWIC2 The VWC area with this classification has a lot of acres with no buildings. This invites Brenwick
to return with a new ordinance using the new classification. The only limit on the commercial
intensity is “the maximum building envelope, maximum impervious surface, and on-site parking
requirements.” We do not believe the City really wants a Merchants Square or West Carmel
Center (examples cited) at this location. Area residents do not. This area is a red-hot button
issue for area residents and increasing the intensity will heat the flames for many residents.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/29/2008 CWIC2 This classification would also permit residential density up to 10 u/a, surrounded by homes at a
much, much lower density.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/29/2008 CWIC2 If this classification remains, the to-be-expected increase in intensity of use would result in
pressure to change intensity of use on surrounding land.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/29/2008 CWIC2 “Location” for Community Vitality Node says it is most appropriate near major thoroughfares.
Michigan Rd is a major thoroughfare and is designed for the truck traffic that a large commercial
area requires. Towne Road is not planned to become a Michigan Rd and the required truck traffic
would change the quality of life for those near Town Road and for those driving through on their
way to and from their homes in the area.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Since the Community Vitality Node would allow this area to become much more intense than ever
planned, this land does not fit this category. While the approved plan may be larger than the next
lower classification, Neighborhood Service Node, reclassifying it to NSN would be much less apt
to result in Brenwick asking for a new plan that changes what has already been approved.
Neighborhood Service Node is also much more in keeping with the approval it was granted and
promises made by City Council to not allow this area affect surrounding properties.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Village of WestClay (VWC) Zoning Changes-The commercial area west of Towne Rd. is a
promised "NSN", not an intense "CVN". It is located in an area of "Low Intensity Sub. Res.", which
is not listed as an Appropriate Adjacent Classification to a "CVN". The "CVN" classification would
open up possibilities for the VWC that its approval does not permit.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/22/2008 Dee Fox The VWC, (overall density 2.1 u/a), is NOT "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", as on the Map. That
classification could lead to more than doubling the currently permitted density of the portions that
are not yet built out. It would also further increase the rezoning requests from owners of the
surrounding, now "compromised", properties. The "transitioning" from the VWC was supposed to
stop with the Trillium development.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/29/2008 CWIC2 VWC’s Urban Residential: CWIC2 support’s Dee Fox’s comment—inadvertently omitted in our
submission. Undeveloped land remains so Brenwick could return with a new ordinance
requesting much higher density, using this classification as the intent of the new Comp Plan.
This will be changed to Neighborhood
Service Node
9/3/2008 Andy Crook 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.
NO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL
20 9/30/2008
9/19/2008 CWIC2 Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West in 5 locations. Details will be provided
when everyone can look at the map.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)-Inappropriate in West Carmel. The lower limit would double current
zoning. The upper limit is "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a), and 5 times the current zoning.
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Land south of 116th between Michigan
Rd & Shelborne Rd. Proposed as Suburban Residential, with density between 2.0 to 4.9 two
subdivisions:
a. Includes homes with acreage as well as two subdivisions with very low
densities—Brandywine (0.61 u/a) and Woodhaven (0.77 u/a). Each was built when lots were
required to be a minimum of 1 acre and the expectation was 1 acre lots for the area. The
expectation for large lots was reinforced with the 2020 Comp Plan.
b. Directly east of Brandywine is Bridleborne at a density of 0.40 u/a and English Oaks with
1.26 u/a. To the south is a church and then a fire station on the corner. While these uses are
different from the surrounding developments, their abundance of green space and low intensity of
use is much more compatible than a subdivision with a 4.9 density.
A color change will be made to Yellow to
indicate Low Density Suburban
Residential
c. The highest density in the entire quadrant is Weston at 2.14, barely over the Suburban
Residential category. But that is misleading: Weston has several sections, each with very
different densities. As part of its approval under the 1st Cluster Ordinance, it was required to
“transition” its density, lowering the u/a as it went eastward. Weston Village, the section farthest
west, abuts the commercial area. It is the densest section, above 2.14. Weston Park, the section
between Weston Village and Brandywine, is less dense with houses abutting Brandywine on 1/3
acre lots. North of Brandywine is Weston Ridge, with ½ acre lots. It is appropriate to include the
section of Weston closest to the commercial area in Suburban Residential, but not appropriate to
include the rest of this quadrant. This quadrant should be divided into different zoning
classifications that more appropriately fit what currently exists. (Marilyn: “I have a personal stake
in this. I live in Brandywine on a 1 acre lot. I would never have bought and built in an area zoned
for even a 2.0 u/a.”)
A color change will be made to Yellow to
indicate Low Density Suburban
Residential
d. Between 96th and 106th west of Shelborne are single family estate lots abutting 106th St.
and two subdivisions with densities of 1.76 and 2.13. An argument could perhaps be made that
this section is more appropriately zoned Low Intensity Suburban Residential, with a density of 1.0
to 1.9. That is more compatible with the Estate Residential category to its east.
21 9/30/2008
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: West of Towne Road abutting the
Village of WestClay is the Fortune Property, now platted as Trillium at a density of 1.76. The
approved density clearly fits the Low Intensity Suburban Residential category. Why isn’t it labeled
as such? The ground is still bare so this category could easily result in Adams & Marshall
vacating that approved plan and returning with a new plan at 4.9 u/a that would then legally have
to be approved. This classification violates the promises of containing the VWC’s density within
its property and no more transitioning. City Council upheld this promise when they approved the
project only after lowering the density to 1.76. This is just completely inappropriate.
This will remain orange to indicate
Suburban Residential
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Northwest corner of Towne Road &
131st (Guerrero Property). We’ve had this fight before—you know the issues. As part of its
approval, the VWC was promised to be the exception in the area and was promised to be
contained. Zoning this as Suburban Residential violates the promises and should not be done.
This will remain orange to indicate
Suburban Residential
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: East side of Towne Rd from about
136th to 141st. Every surrounding subdivision has a density of less than 1.42 with an average of
1.33. Suburban Residential would almost quadruple the density. Where’s the compatibility? How
would you like to own a home that now backs up to this drastic change from what was expected.
This will remain orange to indicate
Suburban Residential
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Two locations along 146th St. Density
of adjoining subdivisions averages approx. 1.48 u/a. The proposed density is about 3.5 times as
high. Where is the compatibility?
This color will change to pink indicating it
is an Area for Special Study
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 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.
Language will remain the same
9/22/2008 CWIC2 Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west
of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential.
Language will remain the same.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox A density spreadsheet based on DOCS figures shows subdivision density averages west of
Spring Mill Road: All=1.18 u/a; North of 116th St.=1.28 u/a; South of 116th=1.05 u/a/ (If included
private landowners, area numbers would be even lower.)
Language will remain the same.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox Low intensity Sub. Res-Up to 1.9 u/a for most of Northwest Clay is still too high, for reasons
stated previously under that classification. Residents see no reason to raise density limits at all,
especially not beyond the levels of most existing developments. Since currently zoned density
limits, (1.0 u/a), have not been enforced, why would anyone believe that higher limits would be?
Doubling the density would also be incompatible with the estate character of West Carmel.
Language will remain the same.
LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL
22 9/30/2008
9/15/2008 Karen Gould I reside in Laurel Lakes Subdivision at 126th and Towne Road. I am opposed to any increase in
the housing density in this area. We moved here because of the lack of high density housing,
and the housing in WestClay is dense enough. We do not need any more apartments in this area
or more houses crammed onto an acre of land. There is no need to increase the density any
further in this area.
Language will remain the same.
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Carmel west of Springmill Rd. currently averages approx. 1.22 u/a. South of 116th St. averages
approx. 1.05 u/a. while north of 116th St. averages approximately 1.28 u/a.
No action required.
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Reducing the top density to 1.5 u/a is helpful, but the intent is in conflict with the plan for
incentives. With a zoned density of 1.5 u/a, any development of any quality could be developed
at 1.5 u/a. Incentives would not have any value, since they only work if the developer gains
something he otherwise could not do. If the density is 1.5 u/a but density is used as an incentive,
it can be expected that some developments would end up closer to the 1.9, even though that
supposedly is not the intent.
Language will remain the same.
9/29/2008 CWIC2 Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west
of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential. Estate Residential is in keeping with the
character of the area, in keeping with the current zoning that people believed they were getting
when they invested in their homes, and in keeping with what the vast majority of the residents in
the area strongly desire
No action required.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 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?
The Parks Department is currently
updating their Comp. Plan, so any
changes will be brought forth in their plan.
Our language will remain the same.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif Along Spring Mill Rd, the existing residential neighborhoods need to be labeled with the density
they currently have. I doubt that they will be redeveloped before the next comp plan update
occurs.
Language will remain the same.
9/26/2008 Steve Pittman I am also very concerned that the Comprehensive Plan continues to encourage sprawl.
Neighborhoods like The Reserve at Spring Mill, Williams Mill, Spring Arbor and Ashbury Park
could not be duplicated in many places on the west side of Carmel. We need to find places
where more dense, vibrant and creative communities can be created on the west side. We need
to be aware of the impact of the new 146th St on the west side of Carmel and plan appropriately.
Please consider changing the entire corridor from 141st to 146th St to Suburban Residential from
the Boone County Line to Town Rd. In addition, this is the ideal area for a large outdoor sports
park that our community needs and wants. This is ideal for this use because it could be
accessed off of a busy 146th St and be less invasive to residential.
This color will change to pink indicating it
is an Area for Special Study
X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
WEST CARMEL: OTHER
23 9/30/2008
X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Add Greek Orthodox Church (106th/Shelborne) and Hebrew Congregation (W of University HS)
as Institutional
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 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.
This area is zoned C2. The land has
recently been purchased. The new owner
will determine use.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support motion carried
9/16/2008 Roger Kilmer If the north meridian heights rezone goes through, we should update this land classification map
to change the meridian heights neighborhood (located east of US 31 and 131st st.) from the
peach color (suburban residential) to the blue color (employment node).
The color will change to Blue to indicate
Employment Node.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif SW corner of 116th and Westfield Blvd should be Orange. We ruled out higher density when we
denied Townhomes at Central Park.
This color will change to Pink indicating it
is an Area for Special Study
9/25/2008 Mike Johnson The current land use plan identifies the land on the north side of 96th Street, between Haverstick
Road and Westfield Boulevard for low density residential use. In my opinion, this is not the best
use of this land. The properties east of Haverstick are commercial properties. Some of the
homes on the north side of 96th Street, west of Haverstick Road, are already being used for
commercial use. The Washington Township Land Use Plan identifies all of the land on the south
side of 96th Street between Keystone Avenue and Westfield Boulevard and south to the interstate
for office commercial use, community commercial use and heavy commercial use. The future
development of the land on the south side of 96th Street, for commercial use, should influence
how the land on the north side of 96th Street is developed. In my opinion, the land on the north
side of 96th Street should be identified for similar commercial development. Existing and future
residents living in this area would benefit from business development along this corridor.
This color will change to pink indicating it
is an Area for Special Study
9/26/2008 Steve Pittman The area between Westfield Blvd and Haverstick north of and adjacent to 96th St should also be
looked at closely as an area in transition. South of 96th St and north of and adjacent to I465 will
be commercial and is currently under contract by a commercial developer. This development will
have an impact on the area north of 96th St. I am not suggesting how this area change only that
it will change and I recommend that we look to our planning staff and paid consultant for
guidance.
This color will change to pink indicating it
is an Area for Special Study
31 CORRIDOR
8/19/2008 Steve Pittman 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.
Language will remain the same.
8/21/2008 Barbara Layton No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially Language will remain the same.
NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL
SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL
24 9/30/2008
9/9/2008 Luci Snyder US 31: While acknowledging that the land west of Springmill Road is and should remain
residential, as a member of the fiscal body, I believe that Meridian commercial corridor should
have Springmill as its western boundary.
The Meridian Corridor is our high profile business corridor and as such, generates the taxes that
help keep residential property taxes low.
The only remaining large area of land available for signature/headquarter development is that
between Illinois and Springmill. Carmel must protect that for the highest and best commercial use
to guarantee that the necessary commercial tax base as we close out our available land.
Language will remain the same.
9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison I do not understand why the Meridian Surburban neighborhood is in the Regional Vitality Node.
That is the neighborhood just south of 111th and and just west of Meridian. I hope the residents
in this area have been made aware of this change.
Language will remain the same.
9/25/2008 Mike Johnson It appears that the proposed land use plan identifies the area from 111th Street north to 116th and
east from Spring Mill Road to west of Illinois St. for low and medium density residential use. In
my personal opinion, when you take the future development of US 31, along with the existing
commercial office space and Clarian hospital into consideration, this is not the best use for this
land. This land is better suited for low or medium density commercial use. It is unlikely that
prospective home buyers would be attracted to low or medium density residential properties that
are directly adjacent to mid-rise office buildings and/or a hospital, due to the setting, traffic volume
and traffic noise.
Language will remain the same.
9/26/2008 Steve Pittman It is my belief that the property in the general vicinity of 116th and US 31 West to Spring Mill Rd,
South to 111th St and North to Spring Lake Estates subdivision should be planned to allow for
intense commercial development. I also believe that more intense uses should occur on the west
side of Spring Mill Rd. We shouldn’t be provincial in our thinking and try to compartmentalize
development and planning. As a community we are blessed to still have so much ground in this
area to create a sense of place for businesses and residents on the west side. It is inconceivable
to develop and build residential between Illinois St and Spring Mill Rd. Illinois Street is a major
road w 120 of row. In addition, its adjacency to the future limited access highway US 31, the
truck and commercial traffic on US 31 and the relocated truck traffic from Keystone, the
helicopters flying overhead to and from Clarian Hospital make residential impractical and
destined to fail or never happen.
Language will remain the same.
25 9/30/2008
This plan for the area between Illinois and Spring Mill Rd represents yesterday’s thinking of 25
years ago. The world has drastically changed. This is not fiscally responsible either. We need to
continue to grow a strong commercial tax base. Why are we willing to allow commercial east of
Pennsylvania Ave. but not west of Illinois? This does not make any sense. Residents and
employers / employees in west Carmel want to see dynamic development that would allow for
restaurants, offices, hotels and the amenities that development like this would provide. They are
not stuck in the old way of thinking. Please consider changing this area to Regional Vitality Node.
Language will remain the same.
9/26/2008 Ivan Barrett I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the
marketing and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually
asked about the nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many
buyers who are looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations
that there would be commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are
often discouraged at the lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I
encourage you to plan for a special area West of Meridian that would include such services as
offices, retail uses including grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that the
best place to create such a node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring Mill Rd.
Housing is not an appropriate or best use for this area.
Language will remain the same.
9/26/2008 Irina Powers Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive
Plan update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in
commercial mixed use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west side.
A commercial mixed use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal choice
for this side of town. My family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421 to eat,
shop, etc. Commercial uses for the area would provide the greatest benefit to residents of
western Carmel.
Language will remain the same.
9/26/2008 Jack & Kathy Gordon We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further
commercial development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities
like gas stations, restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties on
the northeast and southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect location
for commercial development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large hospital and is
a crossroads for residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that Carmel will have
some foresight rather than looking into the past when making decision about the future of this
area.
Language will remain the same.
26 9/30/2008
9/26/2008 Randy Yust The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many
reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart Center’s
helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents.” Similar
distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be developed as
residential properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be
rezoned Employment Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian North.
Although the primary flight plan uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight plans,
causing the helicopters to cross over the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why would we put
residential housing in an area where a medical helicopter would fly over?
Language will remain the same.
Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best
interest. Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional
medical center, would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/ access
onto Spring Mill prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois.
US 31 will become a limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will
there be significant traffic in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic
on US 31 but the added truck traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is
becoming a major road to move local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31 becomes
limited access. It is important to finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior to
construction commencement on US 31 in 2011. It is inconceivable that you would have residential
use in such a corridor. It is poor planning and an irresponsible use of such prime land to maximize
our tax base.
Language will remain the same.
Commercial development on vacant properties along Illinois St should be encouraged. As the city
can see complete buildout w/in 10 years, NAV will flatten. We should take every opportunity to
encourage commercial development in this area to keep property taxes low for residents.
Language will remain the same.
9/26/2008 Rob & Anne Kelton I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St. to
116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly urge
you to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd that any
of that property would be anything but COMMERCIAL.
As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class
development that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With
that area being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to attracting
business, it certainly seems that having businesses on that property would be beneficial to
everyone in the city. It would represent good fiscal planning for the city of Carmel and help grow
the tax base.
Language will remain the same.
27 9/30/2008
There is not a shortage of homes in the area. The city could use more money to help pay for all of
the improvements that have been made, such as athletic centers and theatres. If we remember
correctly, there were an awful lot of people who were not happy about the Monon trail be
extended through their backyards, but the city decided to put it through for the greater good of the
majority and to improve the appeal of the city. To not apply the same thinking to other
development issues seems nothing less than bias and corrupt.
Given today's economy with $700 billion bailouts, we need revenue for our city. What we don't
need is more homes.
Language will remain the same.
9/26/2008 Peter Powers I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the
Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in
west Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this side
of town. A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that housing
is compatible with the surrounding area.
Language will remain the same.
9/26/2008 Bob McKinney As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate
Agency, I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay
township in a manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west clay
be treated in a manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is detrimental
not only to the whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on the west side
of Carmel. It is my hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the west side of
meridian, that a development is created on the west side of meridian that would serve the people
who live on the west side and those who are employed on the west side. I know it is very
discouraging to the homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to and the potential
high end customers that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and drive far distances
for minor conveniences.
Language will remain the same.
We need to create a hub in the area of 116th Street and Spring Mill Rd for a tremendous
development that properly utilizes the precious and dwindling land resources we have left. I
envision an area that contains offices both professional and medical, hospitality w hotels and
restaurants. I would be hopeful that amenities like walking trails, water features, fire pits, sand
volleyball courts and pocket parks could be created to compete w such places as silicon valley,
Boston’s technology corridor, Denver and any other great place where creative and successful
people are attracted to. Please do not allow for the degradation of our tax base by requiring
housing to go into areas where housing will fail and a use which further encourages the need for
the construction of more schools and higher taxes.
Language will remain the same.
28 9/30/2008
9/26/2008 John Levinsohn As a resident of Western Clay Township, I am writing you today in reference to the C3
Comprehensive Plan that is currently under consideration and specifically about the underutilized
property surrounding the intersection of 116th Street and Springmill Road. The immediate area
has evolved into a first class commercial corridor that contains immense employment
opportunities as well as substantial revenue for the City. It is my hope that we can further enrich
this area by providing additional commercial assets of the same stature and supplementing those
assets with services that the population, both day time and full time, may enjoy.
Language will remain the same.
While I know there is a vocal minority that opposes the type of planning that should be applied to
this area; the idea that Springmill Road is some sort of demarcation that needs to be buffered
hinders the power of sound planning for the highest and best use of those properties and
subsequently the City as a whole. Given what has been accomplished by the City of Carmel in
recent years I expect that those properties will represent planning and development worthy of
national recognition. I appreciate the efforts you all put forth to ensure that the City and its
residents continue to prosper. Thank you for your time.
Language will remain the same.
9/29/2008 RJ Rudolph As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of the
Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over the
past year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers is for
higher density residential and assisted living and some from retail support.
Language will remain the same.
Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street is
planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential
development over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased
demand for business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for
convenience of people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers
that have shown interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density
residential are attracted to the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical Center,
The Indiana Heart Hospital and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the demand
for services on the west side of Meridian Street.
Language will remain the same.
With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks
and planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense to
have higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential
further west of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North,
Fidelity Office Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully with
all land owners and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents.
The general economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard
look at where they live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of
residential developments and support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit
to the entire area.
Language will remain the same.
29 9/30/2008
9/29/2008 Tom Osborne My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at 130th
and Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My family
and I moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian Street.
We have seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing that has
been lacking for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and amenities west
of US 31. As Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a soon to be limited
access freeway, it has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel across it.
Language will remain the same.
The intersection at 116th and Spring Mill provides Carmel the opportunity to allow something
uniquely special to be developed there due to the large amount of land that exists in an area that
is mostly developed. With the advent of quality mixed use developments we have seen here and
though out progressive communities around the country, and the benefits they provide their
surrounding communities, it would only make sense that the area around 116th and Spring Mill be
planned to provide the same benefits. Mixed use projects that include higher density residential
and support retail and office are the perfect buffer between the single family residences to the
west and the offices, hospital and highway to the east. In the age of where people are wanting
and needing to drive less, allowing mixed use developments to take place at 116th and Spring Mill
makes more sense today then ever.
Language will remain the same.
9/29/2008 Michael Puckett SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located
on the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building owner
in the office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result of the
Illinois Street and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several years.
Similar to other buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has declined
significantly in recent years and interest in available space has waned. While we recognize that
several factors play into this trend, feedback from both existing and potential tenants consistently
includes two issues: 1) difficulty in accessing our park due to the requirement to enter from Illinois
Street on the west side of the property/lack of access through Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on
116th Street and 2) lack of amenities in the adjoining areas including restaurants, dry cleaners,
etc. Currently, everyone doing business on the west side of Meridian Street is required, at a
minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania Street to reach any significant retail/convenience
shopping area.
Language will remain the same.
30 9/30/2008
After taking time to review the proposed Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, we have
noted that the property just west of Fidelity Plaza, which would include the property just north of
111th Street, west of Illinois Street, south of 116th Street and East of Spring Mill Road, is to be
zoned residential. From our perspective, it would be best if this property was zoned as either a
Community Vitality Node or a Regional Vitality Node. While some high-density housing might be
successful in this area, we do not believe zoning the entire area residential will be the best use of
this land as it relates to the surrounding communities, including the businesses in the area. As a
building owner in the area, we would like to see the area just West of Meridian Street between
111th Street and 116th Street become a strong business community; however, this area is being
placed at a disadvantage to areas east of Meridian Street based on the currently planned zoning
requirements.
Language will remain the same.
We request that you reconsider the zoning plans for the above referenced area between Illinois
Street and Spring Mill Road and zone this area as either Community Vitality Node or Regional
Vitality Node. This zoning will allow for much needed commercial development in the area.
Language will remain the same.
9/29/2008 John Moorin I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan. My
name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently sold
my company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This is the
3rd business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these businesses have
ever been located in Hamilton County. I would very much like to
have the opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to be closer to my
home and family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live.
Language will remain the same.
Unfortunately there really is no good commercial park that I know of around. We need one that
will attract business to locate and grow. We compete on a regional and national level for our
employees.and they look for a more modern environment than what this county currently offers.
Employees today want to be able to have convenient retail next to them. They want to be able to
eat and shop next to where they are. They want places to with walking trails, bike paths and other
outdoor activities. These types of things can lure the best and brightest to us. Being close to
residential is a plus because people wouldn't have to commute nearly as far and we can limit
sprawl.
Language will remain the same.
I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with
Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life
science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay. The
office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then that park
would reap the benefit as well.
Language will remain the same.
31 9/30/2008
This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the
community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been so
plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should
want in at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for
the community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to
support the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have set
a high standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens.
Language will remain the same.
X Date Name Comment Notes
9/29/2008 CWIC2 CWIC2 acknowledges that the needs of residents that live along thoroughfares must be balanced
against the needs of the greater community for efficient and effective traffic movement. We
support connectivity as a guiding principle and roadways constructed to handle the traffic
demand. We support the bike lanes since we know all too well how much one bike rider can back
up traffic on the current roadways. Gridlock benefits no one.
We do ask that you do everything possible to minimize the impact on the affected neighbors.
Please consider carefully the following:
1. Can the medians required for trees be reduced while still maintaining healthy trees? Perhaps
some good street trees require less space.
2. Are side paths to take 10 feet each side of the roads or is this for both? (Totaling the numbers
in the illustrations does not come to the right-of-way numbers). We support side paths and do not
wish them to be too narrow, but neither do we wish them to be “expansive.” Ten foot each side
seems much beyond what is needed.
The Urban Forester states that 12 ft. is
the minimum space for healthy trees. In
terms of the bike path, this is a requirment
of the City Transportation Plan.
3. There is right-of-way extending some distance past the paths. Please explain the use of this
right-of-way. Can this be reasonably reduced?
Language will remain.
4. Areas where homes and neighborhoods were established before the existing Thoroughfare
Plan was developed usually lack the needed right-of-way. Those residents would sometimes
have to give up significant pieces of their yard. We ask that the proposed Plan be sensitive to this
and make every reasonable accommodation to treat the road in context with its surroundings.
For example: Keystone, Hazel Dell, 116th St., and Towne Road are all classified as Primary
Parkway. Obviously Keystone is of a different magnitude than Hazel Dell, and Carmel West is
different in character from Carmel East.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Collector Street-Define buffer planting. Language will remain.
PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
32 9/30/2008
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Parking on Residential Parkways? Spring Mill is classified a residential parkway.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Residential Parkway 2 or 4 lane: General Description-There are already many driveway accesses
on these roads. Reducing driveway access is not compatible with maintaining "residential
character".
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Primary Priorities-For 2 lane Residential and Primary Parkways, a minimum 16 ft median seems
unnecessary and excessive through residential areas. It would move the road too close to
adjacent homes.
Language will be changed to identify both
2 and 4 lane areas.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox The photo example of Residential Parkway 4 Lane, (Hazel Dell), is a larger "Primary Parkway" on
the map.
Language will remain the same.
9/9/2008 Peter Langowski The Residential Parkway page shows a picture of Hazel Dell, but then the map says that all of
Hazel Dell is a Primary Parkway.
Language will remain the same.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Primary Parkway (Towne Rd, 116th, 131st, Keystone, & Hazel Dell) - I hope that the Primary
Priority of "Sensitive to context" means that Carmel does not intend to treat Towne Rd. or 116th
St. the same as Keystone or Hazel Dell. Such major streets would not be in keeping with the
character of West Carmel.
will not happen
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Is an exit ramp planned at Towne Rd. and I-465, south of 96th? no control
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Secondary Arterial (Shelborne Rd, College, Carmel Dr, Oak Ridge Rd.)-The photo example is a
"Primary Parkway" on the map.
be more specific where is located.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox No median is required here. Why should Towne Rd require a 40 ft greater Right of Way than
Shelborne Rd?
Towne Rd. goes through
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Primary Arterial-This is the widest, most intense street classification (more than Keystone's). 96th
St is an odd choice, especially if the C3 Plan's intent is to preserve any residential character
there.
comment related more to the map
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Street Classification Chart does not include bike or ped treatment required. note above : see also pedestrian plan
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Street Classification Chart: Add "Median sizes", "Sidewalks/Paths", & "Bicycle lanes". done
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Urban Collector St.-Change Right of Way from 55 to 66 feet. Wording will be changed.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Residential Parkway 2 lane-Change Right of way to 100 feet. Wording will be changed.
8/6/2008 Pat Rice Recommend 96th from Haverstick to Westfield is Primary Pkwy instead of Primary Arterial Language will remain.
8/14/2008 Adam Houghton Residential Parkways are too large/unsafe for current conditions on residential streets including
Four Seasons Way. (this reflects west side connectivity exhibit)
no land will be taken
33 9/30/2008
9/8/2008 Adam Houghton The Thoroughfare plan includes a number of streets in the northwest corner of Carmel to be
converted from residential streets to residential parkways. Given that these new parkways will go
through established neighborhoods is there not a substantial safety risk associated with the
increased volume of traffic and the fact that a large number of houses will connect directly to
these parkways (very different to other parkways such as Ditch road where few houses connect
directly). In addition will this conversion to parkways (which would require widening the roads)
involve significant acquisition of land from existing home owners resulting in negative effects on
home values? Given that the current grid system in this area (Towne, 131st etc) will go through
significant improvements in the future, providing significant additional capacity, and that building
densities will remain low in these areas I am unable to see the justification for or benefit of
additional parkways in this area.
no land will be taken
9/9/2008 Peter Langowski 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.
This is an issue for the City Council.
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.
This is an issue for the City Council.
34 9/30/2008
9/29/2008 John Tintera Since all of the potential changes resulting from a future 96th St & Westfield Bvld Area Study are
not shown in the Thoroughfare Plan Map and Land Classification Plan Map, consider temporarily
removing the proposed roundabout and 96th and Haverstick until the transportation issues in this
area are resolve with a future Study. The Planning Staff and Engineering will benefit from
additional time to determine if actual traffic counts on Haverstick are sufficient to support a
proposed roundabout or whether alternatives should be considered.
Area in special study area
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Thoroughfare Plan Map: Residential Parkways on the map do not specify 2 or 4 lanes. Will identify 2 vs. 4 lanes
9/29/2008 CWIC2 There is a description for Residential Parkway 2-lane and Residential Parkway 4-lane, but these
are not distinguished on the map. Please identify where each is planned.
Will identify 2 vs. 4 lanes
9/29/2008 Dee Fox The DOCS has a list of how roads have been changed from the new 2020 Plan (2005), including-
1) Urban Arterial (90') and Urban Collector (66') are new classifications. 2) Of the other 9
classifications, 4 had Right of Ways (ROW) increased by 10 ft, and "Residential Parkway 4 lane"
increased by 20 ft. 3) In West Carmel- a. 7 roads increased from Collector (2020 Plan=80' ROW,
now 90'; no median) to Residential Parkway (2020 plan 4 lane=100' ROW, now 120'; 12 foot
median). b. 131st St. increased from Residential Parkway (120' ROW; 12 ft median) To Primary
Parkway (140' ROW; 16' median.) c. 96th St. increased from Residential Parkway (120' ROW; 12'
median) To Primary Arterial (150' ROW; no median.)
This was a comment only. No change
required.
9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Marilyn served on the Plan Commission when the current Transportation Plan was developed. At
that time, no definitive information was available about the State’s plan for 421/Michigan Rd.
Shelborne Road was classified as a Secondary Arterial because of the need for major N/S
thoroughfares. Things have changed. Michigan Road will be easily accessed by the two planned
Primary Parkways of 131st and 116th and the 4-lane 146th St. It is worth reconsidering how far
east from Michigan Road it remains important for the City to spend the money for a 4-lane N/S
road. At the very least, between 96th & 116th, it makes sense to encourage traffic to move to
Michigan Road.
No change required.
9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
With the expansion of Michigan Road to 4 lanes plus turn lanes south of 116th, Shelborne Road
south of 116th is no longer needed to carry the same weight as in the previous plan.
No change required.
9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
116th St. is planned as a Primary Parkway and will need to carry the east and west bound traffic.
Regardless of what happens with Shelborne Road, the City will have to pay the costs for
upgrading 116th St. Since Shelborne at 116th is only 1-mile from Michigan Rd. and even less far
south of 116th, a 4-lane Shelborne south of 116th may not be the best use of funds.
No change required.
9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
There are homes and subdivisions on Shelborne south of 116th St. that pre-existed the last
Thoroughfare Plan. This means the City does not already have the right-of-way, but would have
to purchase it and the City could avoid bringing the road very close to some homes.
No change required.
9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
There are existing single family homes outside of subdivisions that will have no option but to
enter/exit a 4-lane road. Brandywine’s exit/entrance sits at a dip in the road for southbound
traffic, which already makes exiting Brandywine hazardous during rush hour
No change required.
35 9/30/2008
9/30/2008 Fred Yde Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for SW Clay – By October 25, 2007, Carmel shall initiate
a process by which the existing Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for the Annexation
Territory will be made available for review and revision as necessary and advisable. Public
meetings will be held in the Annexation Territory for input, prior to any changes being made. No
decision to build or expand any road in the Annexation Territory other than Illinois Street or
Commerce Drive from its current size or character will be made prior to January 2012… This last
sentence (1) shall not prohibit Carmel from accepting roads that are dedicated to Carmel by a
developer; and (2) shall not apply to the addition of a turning lane, which may be required by the
City of Carmel with respect to a new development or new construction.
John Molitor will review this issues. He
will be contacting Mr. Bushman for further
clarification.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox On-Street Bicycle Lane: In 2006, it was stated that serious bicyclists would rather ride in the
street than use bike lanes, because they don't feel safe. Can changes be made to remedy that?
Otherwise, the lanes just take up space and add expense.
Language will remain.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Bicycle & Pedestrian Classification Table: The description under "Off-Street Trail, Right of Way"
matches the Draft B language, but not the current language on page 72.
Language will be changed.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox The map is on page 75; not 71. will change
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Confusing. Is Illinois to get path or lane? could be both path and lane clarify
language
9/29/2008 CWIC2 The map identifies an “Enhanced Sidewalk,” but where is the descriptor of what that is? carry over language from old meridian,
descriptor will be added consult with
engineering department
8/26/2008 Chamber The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new
neighborhoods.
No action required.
X Date Name Comment Notes
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Current Overlay Zones (Michigan Rd, 116th St., US 31, etc.) should be included and/or
referenced in the Comp. Plan.
8/26/2008 Chamber Keystone: does this need section to be updated due to recent engineering and construction?
9/5/2008 Tim DeFrench 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.
PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS
KEYSTONE PARKWAY CORRIDOR
36 9/30/2008
9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison Keystone, Design Guidelines: Protect residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone
from conflicting land use encroachment -- Question??? Why not protect the ones on the west
side as well? Same goes for the softening of effects of commercial development for residential
neighborhood for the residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone -- Question????
Why not protect the residential neighborhood on the west side of Keystone. Should not
neighborhoods on bordering the west side of Keystone be added to this section??
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Design Guidelines-This Comp Plan Revision frequently refers to the need to protect and buffer
residential neighborhoods from commercial development; while at the same time, it encourages
putting more such land uses next to established residential neighborhoods.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Design Guidelines-Adequate buffering is questionably possible. A busy 4 lane road is not a buffer,
but is a problem in itself.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Design Guidelines-The last bullet statement seems to conflict with the state on page 77 that says
high density is not encouraged for the sake of establishing a transit system.
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 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.
8/21/2008 Barbara Layton US 31: no Commercial West of Illinois, Pittman farm can be developed residentially
9/6/2008 Chad Scott US 31: I do not want Illinois street expansion by my neighborhood at 106th street through 111th
Street
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.
9/9/2008 Gerry Golden I remain opposed to the Meridan corridor/Illinois St collector as it is a strong financially rewarding
project for Carmel and the major corporate developers while adversely impacting the few original
homeowners. We dramatically lose our home appreciation while the adjecent land owners and
developers and the city of Carmel have huge financial gains. There should be financial
consideration to these original homeowners. There should be sufficient $ available to help these
homeowners.
8/19/2008 Judy Hagan US 31: define Transition-Sensitive Residential
8/19/2008 Ron Houck US 31: what is transition-sensitive residential? How does this work when encouraging 6-10 story
buildings in the corridor?
US 31 CORRIDOR
SPRING MILL CORRIDOR, ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE
ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
BUILDING HEIGHT - TRANSITION SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL
37 9/30/2008
9/29/2008 Ron Houck What is the driving force behind the need to establish a 6-10 story building height requirement
between Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street? What is wrong with letting the market determine
the size of building as dictated by land prices and demand? This new height requirement would
have effectively precluded many of the existing high-quality buildings already located in the US 31
corridor. The requirement of 6-10 story buildings in this area produces numerous impacts that
are damaging to the existing adjacent residential areas on both sides of US 31. With the
narrowness of the corridor on the Pennsylvania Street side south of 116th Street and the
proximity of existing residential properties, it will be impractical to buffer from this size of building
from the residential areas without adversely affecting their property values.
9/5/2008 Ron Houck US 31: Requirement for 6-10 Story Buildngs seems to be in conflict with the statement in Design
Guidelines that addresses transition of mass and scale between US 31 & Illinois to minimize
impact to residential development. So, if the area from Illinois Street to Pennsylvania Street is
required to have 6 to 10 story buildings, how will or how can the scale and mass of structures
between US 31 and Illinois Street be transitioned when it abuts the “Transition-Sensitive
Residential” areas on the US 31 Corridor map on page 89? The area colored as “Transition-
Sensitive Residential” (blue-green are on Map #1) occupies the entire western side of Illinois
street from 103rd Street to 131st Street. It is not practically possible to transition scale and mass,
as specified in the Design Guidelines, within the confines of the corridor after allowing for parking
for a 6-10 story of building.
9/5/2008 Ron Houck US 31: My home is located in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (Map #1 and Map #2), which is
located between 107th and 111th Streets on the east side of Spring Mill Road in the map area
designated as “Transition-Sensitive Residential”. My address is 315 W 107th Street (red star on
map #2), which uncharacteristically for a numbered street, exists only as this cul-de-sac.
Properties along the east side of our subdivision are all large lots on cul-de-sacs and the homes
have large set backs with some near the rear of the lots.Our subdivision was originally platted in
1980, prior to the enactment of the US 31 Overlay Zone. At the time of enactment, the US 31
Overlay Zone was 600 feet on either side of US 31. Even after the US 31 Overlay Zone was put
in place the conceptual design for Illinois Street was a meandering road confined interior to the
overlay zone with double loading within the overlay zone. A few years ago the US 31 dimensions
were expanded west several hundred feet. In Map #1 above, compare the dimensions of the US
31 Overlay zone between US 31 and Pennsylvania to the size of the overlay on the west side of
US 31. In many places it is two to three times as wide.
38 9/30/2008
At the time the US 31 Overlay Zone was expanded, Illinois Street was pushed to the western
boundary of the overlay, placing it directly adjacent to our residential properties. Until this
expansion of the US 31 Overlay Zone, our neighborhood had always enjoyed a comfortable
boundary abutting residentially zoned property.This re-configuration of the US 31 Overlay zone
has caused the encroachment of office buildings into what was a residentially zoned area. This
current revision to the Comprehensive Plan only further negatively impacts our area. Some
protection is certainly in order. It is impractical to consider 6 to 10 story office building abutting
residential areas. Even with the separation by Illinois Street the towering visual impact will
negatively affect property values and our quality of life. The scale and mass of 6-10 story
buildings is simply too large to not have a considerable negative impact to our neighborhood.
Next to the transition-sensitive residential areas with existing homes the building height in the
corridor should be capped at four stories.
9/9/2008 Joseph Hile US 31: Was concerned with the language regarding Illinois Street extension regarding 6-10 story
buildings?? How will this "Blend" in with homes that are adjacent to the us 31 corridor? We are
located just west of the proposed Illinois St extention and are concerned along with a number of
our neighbors? The specific area in question is between 111th and 106th west of US 31.
9/9/2008 Hart 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 Ed Skarbeck US 31: I live in Spring Mill Place Subdivision. In review of the draft, Section Critical Corridors and
Subareas, Part 5, Section 2, the U.S. 31 Corridor, is the discussion of the extensions/additions to
Illinois Street from 106th northbound. This stretch of Illinois (from 106th to 111th) will most
certainly have an effect on property values in our neighborhood. While we all have several
concerns and are not overly thrilled to have a four-lane parkway, we realize the inevitable.
Please allow this letter as a show of support for the detailed letter and concerns raised by Spring
Mill Place Subdivision resident Ron Houck.
Of significant concern is the “requirement for 6-10 story buildings” within that corridor. Having
visions of a parkway (that is necessary for tolerable north to south travel) as our eastern
boundary - nicely concealed by dense, mature trees, bushes and built up hills - is one thing, but
the thought of towering commercial buildings is a whole other issue. Please consider the lack of
need for cramming more offices in this area…We’ve got a wonderful and very desirable
neighborhood for 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
39 9/30/2008
9/9/2008 Gerry Golden US 31: I have been a resident of Spring Mill Place (east of Springmill Rd between 106 and 116 st)
since 1980 and have attended and sometimes spoken concerning the re- zoning of this corridor.
Concerning "Respect transition and buffering agreements with adjacent subdivisions" it was
agreed to in last meeting to have buildings no higher than 6 stories easy of our development and
that the buffer zone would consist of extra width with mounding with both deciduous and
evergreen trees.
We anticipate that these agreements will remain.
9/9/2008 David Roach I would like to express my concern regarding the "Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan C3-
Plan" ,US 31 Corridor, Part 5 : Critical Corridors and Subareas, specifically page 88 which
requires 6 -10 story buildings between Illinois Street & Pennsylvania Street. We all understand
these buildings will be for the owners highest & best use and will be 10 story buildings,due to the
cost of the land. Our sub-division "Spring Mill Place" would be a Transition-Sensitive Residential
area (pg. 89) right next to 10 story buildings.(location N. of 106th Street/E. of Springmill Road.).
I feel height restrictions must be set for the US 31 Corridor next to residential housing.These
heights should be set at two story maximum. We need a buffer zone. We do not want to be the
buffer zone for 10 story buildings.
9/10/2008 Steven Kirsh US 31: I live at 365 W. 107th Street, Carmel (which is near 106th and Springmill). Unlike many of
my neighbors, I favor (a) being annexed by Carmel and (b) having Illinois Street as a Parkway.
(Likewise, I would favor Springmill as a Parkway, but I don't think that is being contemplated at
this time.) However, I oppose the idea 6 story office buildings on the west side US 31 between
106th and 111th Streets. I believe buildings of that height would significantly deflate the value of
our homes for, at least, two reasons: (a) the tenants in the upper floors would look directly into the
backyards of the adjacent home owners, and (b) there is no way to effectively screen from view
of the residences a 6 story building.
9/14/2008 Carolyn Scott US 31: As a resident of the Springmill Place neighborhood, I wanted to share my disappointment
and fear over the Illinois Street expansion.
Of greatest concern, the proposed 6-10 story buildings ruining the charm and safety of our
neighborhood. Every night when I put my kids to bed, I look out their windows and admire the
beautiful view. Our tree-lined neighborhood is what drew our family to Carmel. Looking out of
those same windows and seeing 6-10story buildings, would be devastating.
I would ask that the Carmel City Council would consider keeping existing families happy, instead
of trying to lure prospective tenants by proposing such tall buildings.
US 31 OTHER
40 9/30/2008
8/26/2008 Chamber US 31: A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed.
8/26/2008 Chamber US 31: Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan?
9/9/2008 Gerry Golden US 31: Concerning "Prepare for mass transit line", this is scary as it was origianlly planned for the
Keystone Ave corridor. You are already changing Meridian corridor to handle the truck traffic from
revised Keystone corridor. Please do not overwhelm the Illinois St corridor.
8/26/2008 Chamber US 31: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive
Residential?
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Add, "lighting should be designed to not trespass into residential areas" (as for Home Place, page
100).
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Why is path only on the east side? (Keystone has paths on both sides.)
9/29/2008 Dee Fox "Preserve/Install Tree Canopy" is only shown for one tiny area, way north. Surely there are more
places. Trees should be installed along Illinois St. and along Spring Mill Rd. as a buffer.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Have fire protection and earthquake resistance been planned for the increase in 10 story bldgs?
8/6/2008 Pat Rice 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.
8/6/2008 Pat Rice 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 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 96th St: Corridor is rapidly changing.
8/19/2008 Jim Palecek 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 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).
96TH STREET CORRIDOR
City Center/Old Town Subarea
41 9/30/2008
9/29/2008 Dee Fox If form based code "replaces" the zoning ordinance, on what basis could an undesirable use be
denied?
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Discouraging ground floor offices and on-street parking conflicts with the Primary and Secondary
Core lists of ground floor office uses (pages 42,43), and also with Urban Streets that allow on-
street parking.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Maps are on pages 98/99; not 94.
8/26/2008 Chamber 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?
9/29/2008 Dee Fox To be consistent, the lower left column should use "stories", instead of "feet".
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Multifamily Attached units look alike and are difficult for drivers to identify. Better to regulate size
of freestanding signs than to prohibit them.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Why are drive-throughs prohibited in this mixed-use "Village", but are allowed in the less intense
Village of WestClay?
9/23/2008 Matt Milam Since Carmel has not annexed Home Place and not taking any tax dollars from the area and the
Home Place annexation is in court for the next three years. I would suggest that the City of
Carmel leave Home Place area out of the Comprehensive Plan.
9/23/2008 Matt Milam If you are going to leave Home Place in the plan, please have a representative from the Home
Place area on the committee so that the people who live in the area have imput.
9/23/2008 Matt Milam This compehensive plan has changed names a number of times and is an off and on process. If
you are going to institute the plan, then put it in place. Quit wasting taxpayer money year after
year and quit wasting peoples time since they have to sit through the meetings year after year.
9/23/2008 Matt Milam Home Place does not need buildings that have the retail on the bottom with condo's on top or
other office space. This is a fine design if the City of Carmel wants that for their streets, but leave
Home Place alone. The fiscal plan that Carmel wrote for the annexation said that it would keep
the Home Place history in place and not go making it just like Carmel. The people of Home Place
do not need arches, and all brick buildings and statues and all the other crap you have in Carmel
to make us feel important.
9/29/2008 Dee Fox Home Place Subarea: Change "8" Story to "10" Story.
OLD MERIDIAN SUBAREA
HOME PLACE SUBAREA
42 9/30/2008
43 9/30/2008
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Add back major street names to map
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general the map is too specific (down to the parcel)
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general, residential densities should not be increased without an extensive homeowner
survey. I would change them all to their current densities until we get that information.
8/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM VOWC: Community Vitality too intense for 131st/Towne. Should be Neigh Service Node.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM 131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Village of WestClay (VWC) Zoning Changes-The commercial area west of Towne Rd. is a
promised "NSN", not an intense "CVN". It is located in an area of "Low Intensity Sub. Res.",
which is not listed as an Appropriate Adjacent Classification to a "CVN". The "CVN" classification
would open up possibilities for the VWC that its approval does not permit.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM The VWC, (overall density 2.1 u/a), is NOT "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", as on the Map. That
classification could lead to more than doubling the currently permitted density of the portions that
are not yet built out. It would also further increase the rezoning requests from owners of the
surrounding, now "compromised", properties. The "transitioning" from the VWC was supposed
to stop with the Trillium development.
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.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West in 5 locations. Details will be provided
when everyone can look at the map.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)-Inappropriate in West Carmel. The lower limit would double current
zoning. The upper limit is "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a), and 5 times the current zoning.
8/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM 1.9 Du/a is too high for West Clay. Existing densities are from 1.18 to 1.28 (see density map)
9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM 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.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Green (1 unit per acre) should be used for all residential areas from 96th to 146th and Spring
Mill to Michigan Rd,. except for existing developments that exceed 1 unit per acre now.
9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west
of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential.
9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Currently this area averages approximately 1.22 u/a. South of 116th St. averages approximately
1.05 u/a. while north of 116th St. averages approximately 1.28 u/a.
9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Since incentives for quality include increasing density, a zoning density of 1 u/a already can be
expected to increase density above the current averages.
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP
VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY
NO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL
LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL
Land Classification Map Comments 9/26/2008
9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Estate Residential zoning is in keeping with the character of the area, in keeping with the current
zoning that people believed they were getting when they invested in their homes, and in keeping
with what the vast majority of the residents in the area strongly desire.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM A density spreadsheet based on DOCS figures shows subdivision density averages west of
Spring Mill Road: All=1.18 u/a; North of 116th St.=1.28 u/a; South of 116th=1.05 u/a/ (If included
private landowners, area numbers would be even lower.)
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Low intensity Sub. Res-Up to 1.9 u/a for most of Northwest Clay is still too high, for reasons
stated previously under that classification. Residents see no reason to raise density limits at all,
especially not beyond the levels of most existing developments. Since currently zoned density
limits, (1.0 u/a), have not been enforced, why would anyone believe that higher limits would be?
Doubling the density would also be incompatible with the estate character of West Carmel.
9/15/2008 Karen Gould LCM I reside in Laurel Lakes Subdivision at 126th and Towne Road. I am opposed to any increase in
the housing density in this area. We moved here because of the lack of high density housing,
and the housing in WestClay is dense enough. We do not need any more apartments in this
area or more houses crammed onto an acre of land. There is no need to increase the density
any further in this area.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM East Carmel has 10 parks & river greenway. Central has 5 & Monon Greenway. West has 1
City park & 1 County park. Why aren’t we identifying where the next park should go before there
is no land left?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Along Spring Mill Rd, the existing residential neighborhoods need to be labeled with the density
they currently have. I doubt that they will be redeveloped before the next comp plan update
X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM occurs. Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add Greek Orthodox Church (106th/Shelborne) and Hebrew Congregation (W of University HS)
as Institutional
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Could we put a park at the Monon and Main, SW corner? I have had several people ask for
this….It would be an ideal location for a gazebo, park benches and bike parking during the Arts
festival. Most old towns have this amenity.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support
9/16/2008 Roger Kilmer LCM If the north meridian heights rezone goes through, we should update this land classification map
to change the meridian heights neighborhood (located east of US 31 and 131st st.) from the
peach color (suburban residential) to the blue color (employment node).
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM SW corner of 116th and Westfield Blvd should be Orange. We ruled out higher density when we
denied Townhomes at Central Park.
31 CORRIDOR
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.
8/21/2008 Barbara Layton LCM No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially
9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison LCM I do not understand why the Meridian Surburban neighborhood is in the Regional Vitality Node.
That is the neighborhood just south of 111th and and just west of Meridian. I hope the residents
in this area have been made aware of this change.
WEST CARMEL: OTHER
NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL
SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL
Land Classification Map Comments 9/26/2008