Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCopy of 2008-1014 Comp Plan notes 2008 PC DRAFTName Page Comment Notes Karen Carter The document divides the community (providing service nodes, this area for the rich, this area for the poor) Steve Pittman Recognize 146th Street as a changing and prominent corridor 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). Andy Crook Need an overall plan for utility placement. We have a 2nd rate substation; the city should take more control Chamber Lots of vague terminology and definition issues remain. Chamber Feeling that the document is frequently too specific to particular sites or developments. Dee Fox How far along is the PC on developing residential quality/architectural standards? 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. Dee Fox Strictly define permitted uses in Neighborhood Support/Service Nodes Dee Fox Define "usable" open space. New trees in Carmel are routinely planted too close together. Dee Fox Address appropriate locations of Mega-churches that serve as Community Centers. Dee Fox Address appropriate use of PUD's, and their amendment process. 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. Lee, Margaret & Doug Dolen We respectfully ask that the "history chapter" be returned to the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Building Plan. We believe that it most important to preserving Carmel's architectural heritage. Comprehensive Plan Comments - July 24, 2008 DRAFT 1 10/14/2008 Jeremy Boarman I am writing as a property owner in Old Town Carmel and as a member of the Carmel Clay Historical Society. I recently became aware that the "history" chapter was removed from the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Building Plan. I urge that the missing chapter be reinstated in the plan to ensure the integrity of the architectural culture of the community be preserved. Judy Hagan I read in the C/C Historical Society newsletter that the historic landmark section of the comp plan was being deleted or not included. I totally support the landmark section being retained and expanded actually, to include the landmark farm house on the south side of 116th Street, a little east of the MononGreenway. Mike Hollibaugh visited it a few years ago with me when there was development pressure. It should be a inventoried at a minimum. Name Page Comment Notes Tom Jones 5 Note the purpose of the plan is to improve the health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens. For the city to attempt to mandate preferred architectural details could infringe on individual rights. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 5 Fulfillment of the mandate - Public Involvement: Absent is the extensive public participation and surveys on what residents wanted that formed the current 2020 plan. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 5 A few public meetings on the revision in 2006 may have met the "letter of the law", but they do not broadly reach the time-crunched public who have a hard time keeping up with the details and react to changes. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 5 In 2006, the stated reason for the abrupt halt was a flawed process and insufficient public participation. All agreed that the process was very rushed. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 5 2 years later the revision process is moving on quickly from where it left off. Many residents are unaware that the process has restarted and/or that the City's revisions would drastically change the 2020 Plan protections they relied on. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 5 How is this time different from 2006? On this issue of such importance to the public's future, the city should again pursue an accurate read on public opinion via a comprehensive survey and/or district citizen groups actively involved in developing the Plan. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 6 Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives: Planning and zoning are not supposed to be market-based. No change in text, 9/9/08 2 10/14/2008 Dee Fox 6 Language in the 2020 Plan that is protective of residential communities and "the quality of life that attracted them", is now conspicuously missing. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 6 "Freshen" is deceptively inaccurate. The 2020 Plan would be totally changed by the City's new focus on urbanizing, higher densities, and placing commercial uses in residential areas. Suburban residents, Carmel's foundation, feel threatened. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 6 Why don't the bulleted documents include the 116th St. Overlay and US 421 studies? No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 6 "Form-based" regulations do not negate the non-visual impacts of inappropriate uses. No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 6 If easily amendable at any time, will there be public notice and overview of all changes? How will the public ever keep up, or be able to count on what the Plan says? No change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 6 Drafting and Public Input - The public had little time to review the full draft prior to the one open house. How many could not attend? Will all oral/written comments be condensed for public review, including those from developers? No change in text, 9/9/08 CWIC2 6 Last Paragraph: The plan "will require effort and support by residents." How will you know you have the support of residents? Many, many Carmel West residents have pretty clearly communicated to us and we to you thir strong desires to maintain a density of 1.0 u/a and no commercial areas beyond the existing ones at Meridian St., Michigan Rd. and the Village of WestClay. Surveys and several well-attended meetings were held for the existing 2020 Plan. Why aren't these methods being used again? Chamber 7 East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08 Chamber 7 East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his" to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 7 & 8 East Carmel - No mention of Keystone commercial area. to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08 Pat Rice 8 Does not explain East-West boundaries see map on pg 7, 9/9/08 Chamber 8 South Central, 4th paragraph: “There are two golf courses; one that is under pressure to be redeveloped.” Belongs in Comp Plan? Who is applying the pressure and why? to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08 Chamber 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street is a connector SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT Pat Rice 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street omitted as east/west connectivity. Compare w/pg 90 describing 96th as "major east/west arterial" SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT Judy Hagan 8 North Central Carmel, a higher education facility already exists in the Life and Learning Center. Owned by Clay Twp and leased to Ivy Tech and IUPUI. SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT 3 10/14/2008 Judy Hagan 8 I'd like to see more explanation about the Community Life and Learning Center b/c the name does not well define it for purposes of a planning document and b/c Objective 2.6 on pg 23 is in support of higher education. I think "Clay Township" should be included in the the title. Could something to the effect of "Clay Township's Community Life and Learning Center, operated by IUPUI and IvyTech, currently provides higher education opportunites in the former C/C Public Library building." CWIC2 8 A section in the previous draft on page 8 was omitted, which we believe should be included: "The West Carmel district…has the least developed road network…[Additionally, it is] unlike East Carmel, where many neighborhoods were built with connecting streets to adjacent developments or stubbed streets to undeveloped areas." Traffic does not have, and cannot have nearly as many options in at least the southern part. This important defining characteristic should be listed and considered for planning purposes. Dee Fox 8 South Central Carmel-No mention of west boundary employment area(US 31) to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 9 (West Carmel): End of 2nd paragraph, Change "residential" amenities to "recreational". to be chaged in next draft, 9/9/08 CWIC2 9 2nd Paragraph is problematic. It cites "pride of place and rural living" as "historical," while stating that valueas have now turned to "amenities." For the vast majority of Carmel West residents, there has been no such change. Carmel West have always fought hard to keep density low and it's hugely important to a great many residents today, not just "historically." Yet that's not stated anywhere. It must be clearly stated or it's not "our" Comp Plan and it will not have the support of the Carmel West residents. Dee Fox 9 West Carmel Characteristics: Largest district with fewest parks. One city and one county park, in the center, were largely donated in response to overdevelopment concerns. Especially w/ 146th St developing, the city needs to promptly obtain park land on the north end, while land is still available. add City-Wide objective to add parkland in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 9 Last Paragraph: Add "community and" regional destination. The Village of WestClay should not be mapped as a Community Vitality Node. It is a neighborhood-serving. to be chaged in next draft, VOWC is a Part 3 issue, 9/9/08 Name Page Comment Notes Dan Dutcher Figures should reflect the entire township and show growth trends add titles, be clear city vs twp figures, 9/9/08 4 10/14/2008 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. Chamber 12 4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 12 Objective Profile: Woodlots-A goal should be to strengthen cutting limitation and replacement requirements for mature trees. add City-Wide objective to address woodland preservation in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 12 Population Growth-Does chart include entire Township? Carmel is built on families w/ children, who came for nonurban lifestyles and schools. Why do these revisions focus on urbanizing and on developing for everyone but them? no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 13 All charts are 8 yrs out of date. no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 13 Education-All suburbs and Hamilton County have higher graduation rates than Indianapolis. Carmel now strives to morph into a city, which its suburban residents fled. Increased population means facing the need for a second high school. no change in text, 9/9/08 Chamber 14 Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 14 Omit Mohawk Hill Golf Club no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 14 Development Trends: The upward trend in Town Homes/Multi-Family units is due to City officials actively encouraging them. no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 14 The current solution to crowded schools seems to be to increase density, but build new developments that aim to exclude children! no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 14 Golf courses-Most are under pressure to be developed, or are private. Sadly, few public courses will exist. no change in text, 9/9/08 Name Page Comment Notes Dee Fox 16 This is where the whole focus is changed from the 2020 Plan, so as to increase density and add commercial development to the suburbs. If "the public can base their expectations" on this Part, then the content needs to be based on the public's desire to protect existing chosen lifestyles and neighborhoods. no change in text, 9/9/08 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition? Dee Fox 17 Obj. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5: Objectives of Carmel government and its suburban residents are not the same. Inserting "mixed use" into suburban areas makes a harsh contrast inevitable, and effective transition difficult. Locate such nodes now, so that the decision is not left to developers, and so that homebuyers know what to expect. Brace for many fights over what constitutes "unsuitable commercial development." Most residential areas formed as havens from the effects of commercial development, and consider all of it to be unsuitable. no change in text, 9/9/08 5 10/14/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.3: Very specific language. Is the Comp Plan an ordinance? In other words, can it be perceived as the law in Carmel? no change in text, 9/9/08 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.4, second sentence: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back. CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Are we really saying that essentially we always want to see mixed use in commercial areas? Is there no concern that there may be a limit to demand for this or that the desire for this be more specific to areas that contain, or will contain, typical urban shopping and entertainment venues—as in not in a suburban areas that want to be sururban. Chamber 17 Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?” no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 1.6: How does one determine which neighborhoods are not subject to redevelopment? Those not on the list will see home values plummet. re-work language, may be deleted, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 2.2, 2.3: The few affordable housing options are being "redeveloped" to become expensive. Many "transplants" from other areas appreciate the chance to get more spacious homes/yards for less money in Indiana. Chamber 17 Obj. 2.2: Can we say we want more businesses and not just more corporations? to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.3: “The City needs to commission a study on housing choices.” Belongs in Comp Plan? no change in text, 9/9/08 CWIC2 17 Obj. 2.3: The study on housing choices should have already been done and it should help drive the Comp Plan, not the other way around. The population chart on page 12 clearly shows this is an area of families—the age groups that are the largest include 35-54 year- olds and their children. Please ensure the new Comp Plan does not overallocate residences for other age groups, that it takes care that their location suits the needs of the people who would chose them, and it reflects the studies that show that the large age group for families wants surburban living, not urban living. Give us our peace and quiet. discussed 9/9/08. no change in text. Chamber 17 Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 6 10/14/2008 CWIC2 17 Policy 1 Into: The last sentence before Objective 1.1 states, “This model [form-based] is more permissive of mixed used nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing land classifications.” How will this be truly accomplished? What guarantees do residents have that it won’t be at the whim of changing faces at DOCS, the Plan Commission, and City Council and however they want to interpret “permissive” and “sensitivity” at that time? How do we trust this, when Carmel West residents turned out in droves for the 2020 Plan to insist on a density of 1 u/a, but we’ve had to keep fighting over this? Now you’re asking us to “trust” on this issue when we’re once again fighting to keep the character of the area the same as it was when we decided to invest in our homes in the area. This isn’t just a wording problem—it’s a problem with the concepts contained in the Plan. If this is only a problem with Carmel West, then apply the concepts east of Meridian and give plans for Carmel West enough structure and limitations that this issue goes away. Here are examples that feed fears about future “insensitivity” being imposed: 1. Objective 1.4, 2nd sentence: The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back. 2. Objective 1.5: Discussed (but contributes to the fear). 3. Objective 3.2. Discussed & modified (but contributes to fear-- implies this should be utilized everywhere at all times, even in low- density residential areas.) 4. Objective 3.4 has the same problem as Objective 3.2 5. Objective 4.1. Discussed. Change terminology for “traditional neighborhood design principals.” 6. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not having commercial uses of any kind Dee Fox 17 Policy 1 Intro: Land use based planning protected homeowners from unwanted commercial and mult-story bldgs next to single-family homes. no change in text, 9/9/08 Chamber 17 Policy 1, 1st sentence: “Managing community form is the art and science of influencing development in a manner that results in a superior quality built and natural environment in which people reside, work and recreate; and creates the opportunity for businesses to thrive.” Say what? See carol comments. Re-work language, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 17 Policy 2 Intro: Carmel has always been a suburb w/ a "desirable quality of life." Other realities, though, are its image is snobbish, it is unaffordable to many, it lacks "non-white-collar" jobs, and it is unlikely to be able to support public transportation if Indianapolis can't. no change in text, 9/9/08 7 10/14/2008 Dan Dutcher 17 Policy 2: This is great. Edge cities are distinct from traditional bedroom suburbs. I would only suggest a bit of elaboration that edge cities have been a modern trend and that their evolution and distinct nature from traditional suburbs is likely to be further enhanced by economic trends like higher fuel prices, etc. Change title, Leading Edge City, 9/9/08 CWIC2 17 We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional suburban residences. Karen Carter 18 Obj. 3.1: Instead of "branding," suggest the word "promoting". Chamber 18 Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed of high-quality materials? Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.10: Transition problems, especially along residential Spring Mill Road. Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.2: Add to the end of first sent. "in urban core and commercial areas". Suburban residents have chosen not to live near urban 24/7 "vitality." CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.2: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed, even though discussed and modified to add the words “where appropriate” at the end of the first sentence. Chamber 18 Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .” CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the same problem as Objective 3.2 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.” Dee Fox 18 obj. 3.5: Exclude increased density from the list of incentives. Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 4.1: ALARMING. This type of development does not belong everywhere! Do not include suburban areas in statements of urban objectives, especially vague and general statements. CWIC2 18 Obj. 4.1: states a desire for “traditional neighborhood design principals, in all neighborhoods including…..estate, suburban or urban.” So we’re stating that more Villages of WestClay (VWC) are the goal anywhere in Carmel? Approval of the VWC was given with the promise, often restated, that the VWC would be the exception in Clay West. This objective violates that promise and CWIC2 can guarantee a huge uprising from Carmel West residents over this. discussed 9/9/08. Re-word, clarify tradiitional neighborhood design principals Dee Fox 18 Policy 4 Intro: Subdivisions are neighborhoods. What "outside destabilizing forces"? Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.3: Establishing neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries has basically been done by acknowledging 4 unique districts. no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.4: This new. Explain. 8 10/14/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 4.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not having commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what benefits are most important to them and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of not including retail amongst neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document. Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.5: To the end of the first sent., add "in context to appropriate locations". Agreement from surrounding homeowners should be required. Suburbanites purposely fled the traffic, trucks, noise, and light of commercial development. Chamber 19 Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples? Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.6: Estate and large lot owners will move away from commercial development. Zoning exceptions will be sought for the nearby "compromised" properties. Effective transition is questionably possible, one mile apart is too close. In West Carmel's one-mile road grid, that would be one on every corner. Dee Fox 19 Obj. 5.1: The city's "vision" would alter/negate the chosen lifestyle of its residents, based on unproven trends. no change in text, 9/9/08 CWIC2 19 Obj. 5.2: Does this mean Carmel would make changes to Land Classifications without going through a Comp Plan revision? Please no, and please tell us it would not just be a 10-day notice with a Plan Commission hearing, meeting, approval, and repeat in City Council. That is not nearly enough warning and time for input for making such a drastic change. addressed 9/9/08, no change in text Dee Fox 19 Obj. 5.2: How will the public be informed and have input? Limit how often it can be revised. Frequently and readily revisable means no rest, control, or security for the public. no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 19 Policy 5 Intro: "Fear of change" has been added! It's the routine label for residents who disagree with any of the city's plans. Certain changes are justifiably opposed as plain bad ideas that would adversely affect many people. It is the city's push to imitate Traditional Neighborhoods that is "based on the models that were successful 50 or more years ago/" Even the real ones that remain are dying, b/c circumstances of both residential life and business are very different now. to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 5.7: Again, what reward? Not increased density! The City seems to equate "sprawl" w/ its foundation of single-family homes on lots that offer some privacy. no change in text, 9/9/08 Tom Jones 20 Obj. 5.7: This could include moving toward more naturalistic lawn care. Golf courses and private lawns could allow grass to go dormant instead of using valuable water resources. 9 10/14/2008 Chamber 20 Obj. 6.1: Define monotonous. What are Carmel’s “character goals?” Wouldn’t defining character goals be something a comp plan would address? Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.2: Exactly who is "the community" (Carmel government?), and why should they be able to dictate "character goals" for the different districts? We are not Disneyland. Redevelopment (Old Town) and new development should not be treated the same way. CWIC2 20 Obj. 6.2: states “the community will identify appropriate character goals, subareas, and neighborhoods for…West Carmel.” West Carmel already knows what those are and we keep stating them. Please do as this objective states: respect our values and help uphold them. Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.3: "Significant" landscaping has been removed! Even the most attractive landscaping is not effective if there is not enough of it. Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.4: Add "preservation". Carmel does not do enough to protect mature trees from development, and their replacements do not compare in size or number. Julie & Jerry Williams 20 Obj. 6.4: We also would like to see them beef up the section about retaining existing trees (especially mature trees) and natural areas which happen to exist in an area slated for development. It takes no special skills or vision to mow down everything on a parcel of land and build all anew, including landscaping. However, it does take leadership to insist that, at least when there is taxpayer money involved, we don’t use tax dollars to pay for placing NEW trees onto a cleared lot if there are already mature trees on the property that could be saved. Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.7: West Carmel has request buried utility lines, and it could be done in conjunction w/ new road work. I've been told that it is expensive and that the utility company is reluctant b/c of the extra labor. Is that the end of the discussion? Dee Fox 20 Policy 6 Intro: West Carmel's character is already establised as uniquely very low density residential, mostly without urban intrusion. This Plan threatens to change, rahter than protect it. CWIC2 20 Policy 6: “Community character” is cited in various places and has its own section under Part 1, Policy 6, page 20. When asked where we live, most residents respond with “West Carmel,” giving their particular subdivision only when nailing location down further. As written, this document is a threat to the highly valued sense of “community character” that already exists in Carmel West. Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.10: Be mindful that windmills, large solar panels, electrical utilities, water towers, and cell towers are eyesores in residential aeras. Take great care in locating and screening. Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.3: Define "small scale" and "large scale". Retroactive? 10 10/14/2008 Chamber 21 Obj. 7.3: We need a definition for “large-scale employment nodes.” While the encouragement of walking and bicycling is laudable, requiring businesses to provide facilities for walkers and bikers is expensive, both to build and to maintain. Julie & Jerry Williams 21 Obj. 7.5: The City should require (not strongly recommend) LEED or equivalent buildings for all new taxpayer paid construction. Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Carmel needs to address the mercury levels in CFL's & how to dispose of them safely before "jumping on that bandwagon" no change in text, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Encourage the city and residents to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and lawn chemicals. Dee Fox 22 Obj. 1.2: "Allow" has been changed to "support and encourage"! (mention new "support centers", too.) Locate nodes NOW, and get public approval. To the "strictly regulated" list, add hours of operation, buffering, uses, and signage. The impact of these nodes is more than visual. Chamber 22 Obj. 2.2: What is “world class?” Why would specific developments (i.e. Village of West Clay and Earlham College property) be singled out? to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.2: Put a limit on density that transitions to residential. Impacts of increased density are not just visual. Tom Jones 22 Obj. 3.3: The idea has merit but is it wise to make specific recommendations about privately owned property? delete, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.3: This intent to expand and intensify areas "sold" to the public as small "neighborhood-serving", is one major reason why so many residents do not want them. Chamber 22 Obj. 3.3: Why would the city’s comp plan drill down to suggesting that a particular property owner, in this case Northview Christian Life Church, be encouraged to sell a portion of its land? This struck us as completely inappropriate for this document. delete, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.2: Discourage "residential opportunities" near the mine. The problems were predictable, and houses already there should not have been approved. Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact surrounding residences." Chamber 23 Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan? to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Chamber 23 Obj. 2.4: We do not understand why musical performances would be a topic for comprehensive plan. to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for North Central Carmel. Chamber 24 Obj. 1.5: “Areas adjacent to single family residential should not exceed five unites per acre. . .” The job of the comp plan or zoning ordinance? to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 11 10/14/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.5: Since the "intense fringe areas" are limited to 5.0 units/acre adjacent to single-family residential, then the Suburban Residential density (up to 4.9 u/a) applied to the entire South Central residential area is too high. Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.1, 2.2: Threats of redevelopment are causing residents to panic and leave. Busy roads are not a buffer. Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.3: Should this say "west" rather than "east" to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 Karen Gould 25 General Comments: I am also opposed to any increase in amenities, such as gas stations and shops. We are quite content to drive to what we need, not to have it in our immediate neighborhood. When we became part of Carmel, we thought Carmel would look out for the needs of the people...not tell us what our needs are (more retail, etc.) This is a residential area and we do no want an urbanized area shoved on us. Let us be a part of the decision as to what becomes of our area. There are plenty of shops on Michigan Road or on Meridian at which we all can do our business. We don't want it in our neighborhood. Dee Fox 25 General Comments: Suburban (and especially West Carmel) residents have chosen not to live close to high density and commercial development. Estate owners will move away from it. West Carmel is already conveniently and adequately served. Any location issues need to be settled now. Otherwise, there will be a fight over every proposal. Also, "PUDs" still need to be addressed in West Carmel. Dee Fox 25 Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Increase open space requrement soon, before buildout. Replace "Allow" wilth "Consider". Distinguish between Neighborhood Support Centers and Neighborhood Service Nodes. The size and density of the latter are especially not appropriate in West Carmel. To the "strictly regulated", ADD hours of operation, uses, signage, and buffering. CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.1: We’ve heard the argument that if you can’t really see the homes as you drive down the road, it doesn’t really matter how many homes are in the subdivision. That’s not an argument we buy and it is not what we want. The only way this works is if a significantly large open space is mandatory, not “considered.” CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable. Chamber 25 Obj. 2.1: “. . .other housing styles that cater to high income families.” Do we really want to say this? West Carmel is for rich people? Doesn’t use of the term “estate character” convey this in a less- offensive way? 12 10/14/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of West Carmel. Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.2: Custom homes require higher-income buyers, who generally do not desire to be near higher densities and/or commercial development. "Accessory dwellings" is vague. Are they prohibited now? Can they be rentals? Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.1: The last sent. Is STILL a problem. "Residential intensity" has unwanted effects in West Carmel, whether it is visible or not. Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along". Chamber 25 Obj. 3.3: We understood there a Michigan Road overlay already exists. We also are having trouble matching the concept of a four-lane highway with “village character.” Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.4: Are "institutional" uses considered to be residential? Why no mention of the 116th St. Overlay already in place? There is much concern about the fate of the southwest corner of 116th St. and Towne Rd. Dee Fox 25 Obj. 4.2: Leave out entirely, or replace "Establish" with "Consider". They are not needed or wanted here, are not compatible with preserving rural character, and would not significantly prevent driving. They would struggle to survive and would add large truck traffice, noise, light, and trash problems. CWIC2 25 Obj. 4.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable. Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the area. Chamber 25 Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? no change in text, 9/9/08 Tom Jones 25 Obj. 5.3: The residents of the Little Eagle Creek area should be made aware that a greenway is an objective of development. Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.4: Replace "WestClay Secondary Core" with "The Village of WestClay". As per page 42, the Village of WestClay commercial core is a "Secondary Core" in form only. Dan Dutcher 25 West Central: I think the Village of West Clay needs to be more directly addressed throughout the various policies reflected in The West Clay Section Name Page Comment Notes 13 10/14/2008 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. 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? Dee Fox 28 Introduction: Appropriate Adjacent - Conditional Fit is based on only "orientation, transitions, and architecture"? What about use, height, and density? Dee Fox 28 A statement is needed that the listed "Appropriate Adjacent Classifications" are not meant to encourage these uses other than where identified on the Land Classification Map, and that their inclusion does not suggest automatic approval. Otherwise, they will invite disputes. CWIC2 29 Development Features: Add, “including passive enjoyment of nature” to the last one, “Promote recreation.” Carol Schleif 29 Land Uses: add "pocket parks" to the list Carol Schleif 29 Examples: Delete Village of West Clay open space network, this is zoned PUD not a park zone Carol Schleif 30 Can title be changed to from "Estate" to "Conservation" or "Rural" Residential? Carol Schleif 30 Purpose: end the sentence after "…who desire a large residential lot" CWIC2 30 Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: How compatible is Suburban Residential, 4.9 u/a with a 1.0 u/a? Would you want a 5 times as dense neighborhood behind your house? In Carmel West, people chose a low-density residential area, not just a low-density subdivision. Remove this. Dee Fox 30 Best Fit - Move "Suburban Residential" to Conditional. Carol Schleif 30 Best Fit: Remove Low Intensity Suburban and Suburban. CWIC2 30 Conditional Fit: “Attached Residential” has a density of 7.0 u/a and is too much a difference from 1.0 u/a. Remove this. Carol Schleif 30 Conditional Fit: add low intensity suburban residential (only at perimeter). Chamber 30 Development Features: “Minimum of 10% open space in subdivisions. . .” Comp plan or zoning ordinance? Should there be mention of trails or bicycle/pedestrian connectivity here? 14 10/14/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features: delete second sentence (perception of open space), add "At least 50% of the open space must be on dry land as a designed landscape." Carol Schleif 30 Development Features, 3rd bullet: delete "on estate sized lots" at the end of the sentence. Carol Schleif 30 Development Features: add a bullet point, "Garages must be side- loaded or front-loeaded if set behind the main building by at least 50 feet." CWIC2 31 Purpose: Amend to read, “Establish and protect housing opportunities for people who desire low density or subdivision living. Dee Fox 31 Geographic Location - Why are no such areas shown for South Central Carmel on the Land Classification map? Carol Schleif 31 Geographic location: Delete South Central since none is shown on the map Andy Crook 31 Intensity/Density: Supports higher than 1.0 but thinks 1.5 should be upper limit in reflection of what has been approved and developed. "Fill in" developments need higher densities to make development of smaller tracts work financially. Dee Fox 31 Density - This is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The upper limit of 1.9 u/a is too high, and does not reflect existing densities. It would raise the density to be in line with the Village of WestClay exception, (where a .1 density increase added 70 extra houses). It would double the current zoning, and would not reflect recent denial of 2 rezone proposals at that density. Carol Schleif 31 Intensity/Density: limit to 1.0. should not change from current densities without a public survey CWIC2 31 Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: Delete Suburban Residential, Neighborhood Service Node, and Community Vitality Node. A change in density next door from a 1.2 to 4.9 is way too extreme for people in West Carmel who want to live in a low-density residential area. And again, West Carmel residents chose to live away from typical urban features provided by even a “Neighborhood Service Node,” let alone a “Community Vitality Node” that could have 80,000 sq. ft. of retail! Carol Schleif 31 Best Fit: delete Suburban Residential Carol Schleif 31 Conditional Fit: add Suburban Residential (at edges), delete attached residential, neighborhood service should be changed to support, delete community vitality node since there are none present. Carol Schleif 31 Structure Orientation on Site: delete courtyard-loading garages. CWIC2 31 Development Features: Define “designed open space.” Is it usable? Dee Fox 31 Open Space - "50% should be designed" was added. Why? Is it usable? Define both. 15 10/14/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Development Features: add "and on dry land as a designed landscape." CWIC2 32 Suburban Res: In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6 to 1 to divide this classification further. That should be reflected in this draft. CWIC2 32 Purpose: Amend to read, “To establish housing opportunities for people who desire to have less yard & to enjoy closer proximity to their neighbors. CWIC2 32 Geographic location: Strike “West.” This doesn’t exist outside of the Village of WestClay and Stanford Park, which were approved as “exceptions. They certainly are a very small piece of the area. It is not typical. Joyce Harrison 32 Geographic Location: Why is North Central Carmel not listed? Is it because the city wants to buy up this land and turn it in to something else? Dee Fox 32 Geographic Location - What is the basis for applying up to 4.9 u/a to all of South Central and East Carmel. Carol Schleif 32 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet Andy Crook 32 Intensity/Density: 4.9 du/a is too high. CWIC2 32 Intensity/Density: Add the phrase “where there is good connectivity” to the end. Reduce the top number to at least 3.9. Urban residential starts at 4.0, so nothing is served by the overlap. At 3.9, equal sized lots would be approximately 1/5 of an acre. That is “urban”, not “suburban,” particularly in Carmel West. Dee Fox 32 Density - Range is too broad. In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6-1 to further divide this classification. Carol Schleif 32 Intensity/Density: should be between 1.0 and 2.9. R-1 is now 2.9 max and shouldn't change unless survey indicates otherwise. Joyce Harrison 32 Intensity/Density: Where are the areas that will be 2-4.9 dwellings per acre located? The words “will be” is of concern to me. Are you planning on destroying current neighborhoods to put in new ones? If so how will you go about doing that? Carol Schleif 32 Best Fit: delete attached residential and neighborhood service node Dee Fox 32 Best Fit - Add "Neighborhood Support Center". Move "Attached Residential (7 u/a or greater)", and "Neighborhood Service Node (80,000 sq. ft., up to 6 u/a)" to Conditional Fit. Dee Fox 32 Conditional Fit - All of these would be very conditional, (allowing 6-14 u/a), especially next to the lower end of this range (2-4.9 u/a). Employment Nodes allow up to 4 stories. Carol Schleif 32 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node, delete community vitality Carol Schleif 32 Structure Features, 3rd bullet: add "on lots less than 80' wide." Carol Schleif 32 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape." 16 10/14/2008 Carol Schleif 32 1st Photo: Isn't Enclave 7 units per acre? Carol Schleif 33 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet, since townhouses are listed under attached residential Carol Schleif 33 Intensity/Density: should be between 2.9 and 5 units per acre. Dee Fox 33 Examples - To Village of WestClay, add "in form only". Its 2.1 u/a is nowhere near the "Urban" density of 4-8 u/a, and therefore should not be classified "Urban" on the Map. Dee Fox 33 Best Fit - No mention of "Neighborhood Support Center". "Core Support", with no density limits, should be moved to Conditional. Carol Schleif 33 Best Fit: delete neighborhood service node and core support Dee Fox 33 Conditional Fit - "Urban" 8 u/a could go next to "Suburban Res." 2 u/a?? Carol Schleif 33 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node and core support only at edges of Old Town Residential & limited to 2 stories) Carol Schleif 33 Structure Features: delete "however, three stories may be appropriate in some circumstances" Dee Fox 33 Open Space - "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) gets 20%, but "Urban" (4-8 u/a) is only 10%?? Dense developments need more open space, and there is none off-site/nearby for most of these areas. Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 10% to 30% Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape" Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, last bullet: instead of "have designs fitting the context," replace with "look like a single family dwelling from each different street elevation" Chamber 34 Purpose: We’re not sure if “workforce housing” is the new term for affordable, diverse housing opportunities, but wonder if Carmel wants to specify whom they are identifying. Why teachers, fire fighters and police officers? Why not retail salespeople, roofers and nurses’ aides? We’d recommend the deletion of the items in parenthesis. Carol Schleif 34 Purpose: replace text with "To establish opportunities for residents who want a more compact living environment." Dee Fox 34 Attached Res: Density- Needs upper limit. In 2006, Commissioners voted 5-2 to cap it at 10 u/a. DOCS wanted double that, to bring the community "in line with the market", and b/c lower density=fewer amenities. (Planning and zoning should serve to prevent development from being market-based, which would often be very unsuitable to an area. Otherwise, there is little point in either.) Dee Fox 34 Best Fit- Move "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)", to conditional. No mention of "Neighborhood Support Center". Carol Schleif 34 Best Fit: delete suburban residential and urban residential 17 10/14/2008 Dee Fox 34 Conditional Fit - Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res." (1-1.9 u/a). Densities of the 2 classifications are much too far apart. Carol Schleif 34 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 20% to 30% Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape" Carol Schleif 34 2nd Photo: how about the Amli apartments on 146th? Dee Fox 35 West Carmel - Not needed or wanted. The 1-mile road grid could put one on every corner. Dee Fox 35 Neighborhood Support Center (NEW): Purpose - These would negatively impact residential areas by adding light, noise, signs, traffic, trash, and large trucks where they otherwise would not be. CWIC2 35 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West. Dee Fox 35 Land Uses - Community centers, YMCA's, and most fitness centers are too big for this, and would be traffic magnets. CWIC2 35 Intensity/Density: 1 mile apart in Carmel West is far more than the area desires—and permitting these on every non-subdivision intersection in a low-density area makes their viability highly questionable. These adversely affect the character and desirability of Carmel West. Dee Fox 35 Density - One mile is too close. Does the 7,500 sq. ft. (approx. 1/6 acre), include parking area? Carol Schleif 35 Intensity/Density, 1st bullet: add "neighboring" in front of "developments" Dee Fox 35 Examples - Hard to find any in Carmel b/c suburban residents have chosen not to live next to nonresidential uses. Carol Schleif 35 Examples: add "see illustration" Carol Schleif 35 Best Fit: after suburban residential add "except in West Carmel" Dee Fox 35 Conditional Fit - Remove "Estate Residential". Carol Schleif 35 Conditional Fit: delete estate residential, add "east carmel only" after Low Intensity Suburban Res Dee Fox 35 Structure Features: Mostly glass fronts look "urban", and would make "activities" totally visible. Drive-throughs allowed? Carol Schleif 35 Structure Features: change max height to 1.5 stories Dee Fox 35 Structure Orientation - Only visibility can be partially buffered. Cannot adequately buffer other impacts listed above. Carol Schleif 35 2nd Photo: add photo of bank at village of west clay Dee Fox 36 West Carmel - These would not "preserve the estate character" or "reinforce rural character", (page 25). Residents bought in Clay West to avoid living near high density and commercial intrusion. Estate owners will move away from it. 18 10/14/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Purpose: add "and sigle use" after mixed use CWIC2 36 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West. These are incredibly too urban for the character of the area (80,000 sq. ft.! and 6 u/a). These destroy the very reason most people invested in their homes in Carmel West. Dee Fox 36 Land Uses - A "NSN" and a "Commercial Vitality Node (CVN)" differ mainly in size and residential density. "NSN" allowable uses need to be much more limited and specific. Dee Fox 36 Density - Up to 6 u/a is too high. Equivalent to the "Urban" range (4-8 u/a), it is not appropriate for suburbs. It would just be a loophole to put higher density where it otherwise would not permitted. Dee Fox 36 The 80,000 sq. ft. per node, (about 1.84 acres), should be stated here to avoid confusion. Parking included in that space? Dee Fox 36 Best Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) would especially not be best fit. By definition, "NSN's" should stand alone, to serve "unserved" areas; so remove "NSN" (chart page 44), and "CVN" (text & chart). Otherwise, the size limits on "NSN'S" become meaningless. Carol Schleif 36 Best Fit: delete Urban residential CWIC2 36 Conditional Fit: Strike “Suburban Residential.” Strike Low Intensity Suburban Residential from “Conditional Fit.” People greatly fear that the areas identified as Suburban Residential on the maps will be used to insert these in Carmel West. Dee Fox 36 Conditional Fit- Remove "Regional Vitality Node (RVN)" and "Core Support". Same reason as above. List "Core Support" under "CVN" and "RVN", not for "NSN". Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res. (1-1.9 u/a)", which is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The "NSN" 6 u/a equates to "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", which is correctly not listed as an "Appropriate Adjacent Classification" for "Low Intensity Sub. Res.". Carol Schleif 36 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res, add Urban Res (at perimeter only) Dee Fox 36 Structure Orientation - Again, nonvisual negative impacts cannot be adequately buffered from residences. "Use" still matters more than "form" to the public. "Disguising" a non-residential use to not look like what it is, does not negate the nonvisual impacts of living near it. The Village of WestClay commercial "NSN" west of Towne Rd. is on the Map as a "CVN". That absolutely needs to change. Chamber 36 Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops abuts the street? Carol Schleif 36 Development Features: replace "is discouraged" with "that are built to the street." Chamber 36 3rd Photo: The caption on the lower picture singles out an existing building. We’d recommend the use of outside-of-Carmel examples when the document is being critical. 19 10/14/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Geographic Location, 2nd sentence: replace "integrated into" with "sensitively built when next to residential" Carol Schleif 37 Best Fit: all classifications except "single family residential classifications" Dee Fox 37 Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res." should be included here. Carol Schleif 37 Conditional Fit: single family residential classifications Dee Fox 37 Specify significant buffering of municipal facilities from residences. Carol Schleif 37 Structure Orientation: add "honoring privacy and views of existing single family detached dwellings" Dee Fox 37 Development Features - The Community-center-type uses of mega- churches would normally fall under "NSN" or "CVN". Neither of those lists "Estate Res." as an appropriate adjacent fit, but it is listed here. In "Conditional Fit" areas, those mixed-uses should be restricted to those that serve the institution, not the general public. Carol Schleif 37 1st Photo caption: delete "a great" example Dee Fox 38 West Carmel - These should be limited to along Michigan Road. Dee Fox 38 Community Vitality Node (CVN): Purpose - Omit "and neighborhood serving". It blurs the line between those 2 classifications, which differ in size, density, and hopefully uses. Dee Fox 38 Geographic Location - With 10 u/a allowed, and no limit on commercial intensity, these are not "most appropriate" near "minor" thoroughfares. Dee Fox 38 Examples - On the Map, Merchants Square is a "RVN", and the Village of WestClay "NSN" is incorrectly shown as a "CVN". Dee Fox 38 Best Fit - Omit "NSN" for reasons stated earlier. Carol Schleif 38 Best Fit: delete "residential" Dee Fox 38 Conditional Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" would especially not be compatible. "Core Support" is listed under "NSN" and "RVN", but not "CVN"? It should be listed under "CVN" and "RVN", but not under "NSN". Carol Schleif 38 Conditional Fit: add attached residential, delete suburban and urban residential Joyce Harrison 39 Geographic Location: (appropriate near highways and arterial w/ excellent accesibility) I am assuming that Keystone Parkway is one of those areas as well as Main St. Problem is this area is developed currently with residential homes. Again where are you planning to put these buildings that would not require removals of residential areas first??? Could it be that you are going to destroy current neighborhood in order to do this part of the C3 plan?? Please explain!! Chamber 39 Land Uses, 4th Bullet: Fourth bullet – isn’t this a zoning ordinance issue? We’d make the same comment about the items under Structure Features on this page. 20 10/14/2008 Dee Fox 39 Employment Node: Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" is a very questionable fit next to 4 stories with densities up to 14 u/a. Carol Schleif 39 Conditional Fit: delete suburban and urban residential Carol Schleif 39 Structure Features, 1st bullet: add "and only two stories next to single family residential neighborhoods" Dee Fox 40 Regional Vitality Node (RVN): Conditional Fit - Remove "NSN". If next to a "RVN" (or "CVN"), it is no longer "neighborhood serving". Carol Schleif 40 Conditional Fit: add "attached" to residential Carol Schleif 40 Structure Features: delete "or eight stories if within the US 31 Corridor overlay." What about the developer who wanted to build a residential tower between Clay Terrace and the residential neighborhood to the west? Chamber 40 Development Features: same comments as previous about strip commercial development. Carol Schleif 40 Development Features, 1st bullet: instead of "discouraged" replace with "built to the street" Carol Schleif 41 Land Uses: delete entertainment Dee Fox 41 Core Support: Best Fit- Since there are no residential or commercial limits on intensity, "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)" should move to Conditional. Carol Schleif 41 Best Fit: delete Urban residential Dee Fox 41 Conditional Fit - Replace "NSN" with "CVN". Carol Schleif 41 Conditional Fit: add urban residential (perimeter edges only) Chamber 41 Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance? Carol Schleif 41 Structure Features: add "two story maximim next to urban residential" Dee Fox 41 Open Space - "Attached Res. (7 u/a & up)" requires 20% (half usable), but "Core Support (no density limits)" only requires 15% (no mention of usable)? Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: increase open space to 20 or 30% Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: add bullet "Protect pre-development environmental features" Dee Fox 42 Land Uses & Examples: Add "Form Only" to both references to the Village of WestClay. Residents are wary of attempts to classify it in any way that could expand its current restrictions. Carol Schleif 42 Land Uses: should entertainment be SU? Music/noise? Chamber 42 Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the zoning ordinance. Carol Schleif 42 Structure Orientation: add bullet "A maximum of two stories at right-of- way next to single family detached residential neighborhoods" Carol Schleif 42 Development Features, 1st bullet: add "except next to single family detached neighborhoods." Carol Schleif 42 Development Features: add bullet "Pocket parks are encouraged." 21 10/14/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Geographic Location: delete Old Town (move to secondary core, per map) Carol Schleif 43 Examples: delete Old Town Shops (move to secondary core, per map) Carol Schleif 43 1st Photo: move to secondary core Carol Schleif 43 2nd Photo: there are other nice drawings we could include here DOCS 44 Adjust Table per discussion and to be "symmetrical" Dee Fox 44 Land Classification Map Description: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence- This detailed map will be "construed" that way. Everyone expects the Comprehensive Plan and zoning to match. Dee Fox 44 Final paragraph, 1st sentence - The classifications on the Map have density ranges; therefore, developers will assume that the Map establishes certain density rights. Name Page Comment Notes Carol Schleif LCM Add back major street names to map Carol Schleif LCM In general the map is too specific (down to the parcel) 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. Carol Schleif LCM 131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node CWIC2 LCM The VWC area with this classification is not compatible with the surrounding area that currently fits Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Community Vitality Node is not listed as an appropriate adjacent classification. CWIC2 LCM The VWC area with this classification has a lot of acres with no buildings. This invites Brenwick to return with a new ordinance using the new classification. The only limit on the commercial intensity is “the maximum building envelope, maximum impervious surface, and on-site parking requirements.” We do not believe the City really wants a Merchants Square or West Carmel Center (examples cited) at this location. Area residents do not. This area is a red-hot button issue for area residents and increasing the intensity will heat the flames for many residents. CWIC2 LCM This classification would also permit residential density up to 10 u/a, surrounded by homes at a much, much lower density. CWIC2 LCM If this classification remains, the to-be-expected increase in intensity of use would result in pressure to change intensity of use on surrounding land. VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY 22 10/14/2008 CWIC2 LCM “Location” for Community Vitality Node says it is most appropriate near major thoroughfares. Michigan Rd is a major thoroughfare and is designed for the truck traffic that a large commercial area requires. Towne Road is not planned to become a Michigan Rd and the required truck traffic would change the quality of life for those near Town Road and for those driving through on their way to and from their homes in the area. CWIC2 LCM Since the Community Vitality Node would allow this area to become much more intense than ever planned, this land does not fit this category. While the approved plan may be larger than the next lower classification, Neighborhood Service Node, reclassifying it to NSN would be much less apt to result in Brenwick asking for a new plan that changes what has already been approved. Neighborhood Service Node is also much more in keeping with the approval it was granted and promises made by City Council to not allow this area affect surrounding properties. 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. 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. CWIC2 LCM VWC’s Urban Residential: CWIC2 support’s Dee Fox’s comment—inadvertently omitted in our submission. Undeveloped land remains so Brenwick could return with a new ordinance requesting much higher density, using this classification as the intent of the new Comp Plan. 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. CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West in 5 locations. Details will be provided when everyone can look at the map. NO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL 23 10/14/2008 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. CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Land south of 116th between Michigan Rd & Shelborne Rd. Proposed as Suburban Residential, with density between 2.0 to 4.9 two subdivisions: a. Includes homes with acreage as well as two subdivisions with very low densities—Brandywine (0.61 u/a) and Woodhaven (0.77 u/a). Each was built when lots were required to be a minimum of 1 acre and the expectation was 1 acre lots for the area. The expectation for large lots was reinforced with the 2020 Comp Plan. b. Directly east of Brandywine is Bridleborne at a density of 0.40 u/a and English Oaks with 1.26 u/a. To the south is a church and then a fire station on the corner. While these uses are different from the surrounding developments, their abundance of green space and low 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 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. 24 10/14/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: West of Towne Road abutting the Village of WestClay is the Fortune Property, now platted as Trillium at a density of 1.76. The approved density clearly fits the Low Intensity Suburban Residential category. Why isn’t it labeled as such? The ground is still bare so this category could easily result in Adams & Marshall vacating that approved plan and returning with a new plan at 4.9 u/a that would then legally have to be approved. 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. CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Northwest corner of Towne Road & 131st (Guerrero Property). We’ve had this fight before—you know the issues. As part of its approval, the VWC was promised to be the exception in the area and was promised to be contained. Zoning this as Suburban Residential violates the promises CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: East side of Towne Rd from about 136th to 141st. Every surrounding subdivision has a density of less than 1.42 with an average of 1.33. Suburban Residential would almost quadruple the density. Where’s the compatibility? How would you like to own a home that now backs up CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Two locations along 146th St. Density of adjoining subdivisions averages approx. 1.48 u/a. The proposed density is about 3.5 times as high. Where is the compatibility? 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. 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. 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.) 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. LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL 25 10/14/2008 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. CWIC2 LCM Carmel west of Springmill Rd. currently averages approx. 1.22 u/a. South of 116th St. averages approx. 1.05 u/a. while north of 116th St. averages approximately 1.28 u/a. CWIC2 LCM Reducing the top density to 1.5 u/a is helpful, but the intent is in conflict with the plan for incentives. With a zoned density of 1.5 u/a, any development of any quality could be developed at 1.5 u/a. Incentives would not have any value, since they only work if the developer gains something he otherwise could not do. If the density is 1.5 u/a but density is used as an incentive, it can be expected that some developments would end up closer to the 1.9, even though that supposedly is not the intent. CWIC2 LCM Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential. Estate Residential is in keeping with the character of the area, in keeping with the current zoning that people believed they were getting when they invested in their homes, and in keeping with what the vast majority of the residents in the area strongly desire 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? 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 Steve Pittman LCM be I am redeveloped also very concerned before the that next the comp Comprehensive plan update Plan occurs. 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 Judy Hagan LCM Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT WEST CARMEL: OTHER 26 10/14/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add Greek Orthodox Church (106th/Shelborne) and Hebrew Congregation (W of University HS) as Institutional SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT 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. Carol Schleif LCM West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support 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). James Browning LCM I am writing as a local real estate developer as well as a West Clay Township resident. I have reviewed the proposed changes to the Land Use Plan and I am generally supportive of the plan as proposed. The areas which I have particular interest is the proposed use for the Meridian Heights Subdivision. This area has previously been slated to be commercial uses. Based on Browning Investments propsed commercial development for this area and the overwhelming majority of residents who have contracted to sell their property for commercial uses, it seems only practical to leave the Comprehensive Plan in tact with a commercial use recommendation. 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. Mike Johnson LCM The current land use plan identifies the land on the north side of 96th Street, between Haverstick Road and Westfield Boulevard for low density residential use. In my opinion, this is not the best use of this land. The properties east of Haverstick are commercial properties. Some of the homes on the north side of 96th Street, west of Haverstick Road, are already being used for commercial use. The Washington Township Land Use Plan identifies all of the land on the south side of 96th Street between Keystone Avenue and Westfield Boulevard and south to the interstate for office commercial use, community commercial use and heavy commercial use. The future development of the land on the south side of 96th Street, for commercial use, should influence how the land on the north side of 96th Street is developed. In my opinion, the land on the north side of 96th Street should be identified for similar commercial development. Existing and future NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL 27 10/14/2008 Steve Pittman LCM The area between Westfield Blvd and Haverstick north of and adjacent to 96th St should also be looked at closely as an area in transition. South of 96th St and north of and adjacent to I465 will be commercial and is currently under contract by a commercial developer. This development will have an impact on the area north of 96th St. I am not suggesting how this area change only that it will change and I recommend that we look to our planning staff and paid consultant for guidance. 31 CORRIDOR 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. Barbara Layton LCM No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially Luci Snyder LCM US 31: While acknowledging that the land west of Springmill Road is and should remain residential, as a member of the fiscal body, I believe that Meridian commercial corridor should have Springmill as its western boundary. The Meridian Corridor is our high profile business corridor and as such, generates the taxes that help keep residential property taxes low. The only remaining large area of land available for signature/headquarter development is that between Illinois and Joyce Harrison LCM Springmill. I do not understand Carmel must why protect the Meridian that for Surburban the highest neighborhood and best 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. Mike Johnson LCM It appears that the proposed land use plan identifies the area from 111th Street north to 116th and east from Spring Mill Road to west of Illinois St. for low and medium density residential use. In my personal opinion, when you take the future development of US 31, along with the existing commercial office space and Clarian hospital into consideration, this is not the best use for this land. This land is better suited for low or medium density commercial use. It is unlikely that prospective home buyers would be attracted to low or medium density residential properties that are directly adjacent to mid-rise office buildings and/or a hospital, due to the setting, traffic volume and traffic noise. 28 10/14/2008 Steve Pittman LCM It is my belief that the property in the general vicinity of 116th and US 31 West to Spring Mill Rd, South to 111th St and North to Spring Lake Estates subdivision should be planned to allow for intense commercial development. I also believe that more intense uses should occur on the west side of Spring Mill Rd. We shouldn’t be provincial in our thinking and try to compartmentalize development and planning. As a community we are blessed to still have so much ground in this area to create a sense of place for businesses and residents on the west side. It is inconceivable to develop and build residential between Illinois St and Spring Mill Rd. Illinois Street is a major road w 120 of row. In addition, its adjacency to the future limited access highway US 31, the truck and commercial traffic on US 31 and the relocated truck traffic from Keystone, the helicopters flying overhead to and from Clarian Hospital make residential impractical and destined to fail or never happen. 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. Ivan Barrett LCM I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the marketing and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually asked about the nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many buyers who are looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations that there would be commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are often discouraged at the lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I encourage you to plan for a special area West of Meridian that would include such services as offices, retail uses including grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that the best place to create such a node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring Mill Rd. Housing is not an appropriate or best use for this area. 29 10/14/2008 Irina Powers LCM Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive Plan update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in commercial mixed use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west side. A commercial mixed use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal choice for this side of town. My family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421 to eat, shop, etc. Commercial uses for the area would provide the greatest benefit to residents of western Carmel. Jack & Kathy Gordon LCM We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further commercial development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities like gas stations, restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties on the northeast and southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect location for commercial development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large hospital and is a crossroads for residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that Carmel will have some foresight rather than looking into the past when making decision about the future of this area. Randy Yust LCM The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart Center’s helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents.” Similar distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be developed as residential properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian North. Although the primary flight plan uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight plans, causing the helicopters to cross over the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why would we put residential housing in an area where a medical helicopter would fly over? 30 10/14/2008 Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best interest. Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional medical center, would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/ access onto Spring Mill prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois. US 31 will become a limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will there be significant traffic in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic on US 31 but the added truck traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is becoming a major road to move local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31 becomes limited access. It is important to finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior to construction commencement on US 31 in 2011. Commercial It is inconceivable development that on you vacant would properties have residential along Illinois use St in such should a 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. Rob & Anne Kelton LCM I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St. to 116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly urge you to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd that any of that property would be anything but COMMERCIAL. As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class development that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With that area being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to attracting business, it 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. 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. 31 10/14/2008 Peter Powers LCM I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in west Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this side of town. A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that housing is compatible with the surrounding area. Bob McKinney LCM As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate Agency, I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay township in a manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west clay be treated in a manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is detrimental not only to the whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on the west side of Carmel. It is my hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the west side of meridian, that a development is created on the west side of meridian that would serve the people who live on the west side and those who are employed on the west side. I know it is very discouraging to the homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to and the potential high end customers that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and drive far distances for minor conveniences. 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 John Levinsohn LCM where As a resident housing of will Western fail and Clay a use Township, which further I am writing encourages you today the need 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 32 10/14/2008 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. RJ Rudolph LCM As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of the Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over the past year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers is for higher density residential and assisted living and some from retail support. Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street is planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential development over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased demand for business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for convenience of people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers that have shown interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density residential are attracted to the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical Center, The Indiana Heart Hospital and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the demand for services on the west side of Meridian Street. With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks and planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense to have higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential further west of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North, Fidelity Office Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully with all land owners and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents. The general economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard look at where they live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of residential developments and support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit to the entire area. 33 10/14/2008 Tom Osborne LCM My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at 130th and Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My family and I moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian Street. We have seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing that has been lacking for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and amenities west of US 31. As Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a soon to be limited access freeway, it has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel across it. 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. Michael Puckett LCM SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located on the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building owner in the office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result of the Illinois Street and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several years. Similar to other buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has declined significantly in recent years and interest in available space has waned. While we recognize that several factors play into this trend, feedback from both existing and potential tenants consistently includes two issues: 1) difficulty in accessing our park due to the requirement to enter from Illinois Street on the west side of the property/lack of access through Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on 116th Street and 2) lack of amenities in the adjoining areas including restaurants, dry cleaners, etc. Currently, everyone doing business on the west side of Meridian 34 10/14/2008 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. 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. John Moorin LCM I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan. My name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently sold my company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This is the 3rd business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these businesses have ever been located in Hamilton County. I would very much like to have the opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to be closer to my home and family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live. 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. 35 10/14/2008 I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay. The office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then that park would reap the benefit as well. This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been so plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should want in at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for the community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to support the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have set a high standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens. Name Page Comment Notes 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. 36 10/14/2008 3. There is right-of-way extending some distance past the paths. Please explain the use of this right-of-way. Can this be reasonably reduced? 4. Areas where homes and neighborhoods were established before the existing Thoroughfare Plan was developed usually lack the needed right-of-way. Those residents would sometimes have to give up significant pieces of their yard. We ask that the proposed Plan be sensitive to this and make every reasonable accommodation to treat the road in context with its surroundings. For example: Keystone, Hazel Dell, 116th St., and Towne Road are all classified as Primary Parkway. Obviously Keystone is of a different magnitude than Hazel Dell, and Carmel West is different in character from Carmel East. Dee Fox 53 Collector Street-Define buffer planting. Judy Hagan 55, 56, 62 Parking on Residential Parkways? Spring Mill is classified a residential parkway. Dee Fox 55,56 Residential Parkway 2 or 4 lane: General Description-There are already many driveway accesses on these roads. Reducing driveway access is not compatible with maintaining "residential character". Dee Fox 55,56 Primary Priorities-For 2 lane Residential and Primary Parkways, a minimum 16 ft median seems unnecessary and excessive through residential areas. It would move the road too close to adjacent homes. Dee Fox 55,56 The photo example of Residential Parkway 4 Lane, (Hazel Dell), is a larger "Primary Parkway" on the map. Peter Langowski 56 The Residential Parkway page shows a picture of Hazel Dell, but then the map says that all of Hazel Dell is a Primary Parkway. Dee Fox 58 Primary Parkway (Towne Rd, 116th, 131st, Keystone, & Hazel Dell) - I hope that the Primary Priority of "Sensitive to context" means that Carmel does not intend to treat Towne Rd. or 116th St. the same as Keystone or Hazel Dell. Such major streets would not be in keeping with the character of West Carmel. Dee Fox 58 Is an exit ramp planned at Towne Rd. and I-465, south of 96th? Dee Fox 60 Secondary Arterial (Shelborne Rd, College, Carmel Dr, Oak Ridge Rd.)-The photo example is a "Primary Parkway" on the map. Dee Fox 60 No median is required here. Why should Towne Rd require a 40 ft greater Right of Way than Shelborne Rd? Dee Fox 61 Primary Arterial-This is the widest, most intense street classification (more than Keystone's). 96th St is an odd choice, especially if the C3 Plan's intent is to preserve any residential character there. Judy Hagan 62 Street Classification Chart does not include bike or ped treatment required. Dee Fox 62 Street Classification Chart: Add "Median sizes", "Sidewalks/Paths", & "Bicycle lanes". 37 10/14/2008 Dee Fox 62 Urban Collector St.-Change Right of Way from 55 to 66 feet. Dee Fox 62 Residential Parkway 2 lane-Change Right of way to 100 feet. Pat Rice Thorough Plan Recommend 96th from Haverstick to Westfield is Primary Pkwy instead of Primary Arterial Adam Houghton Thorough Plan Residential Parkways are too large/unsafe for current conditions on residential streets including Four Seasons Way. (this reflects west side connectivity exhibit) Adam Houghton Thorough Plan The Thoroughfare plan includes a number of streets in the northwest corner of Carmel to be converted from residential streets to residential parkways. Given that these new parkways will go through established neighborhoods is there not a substantial safety risk associated with the increased volume of traffic and the fact that a large number of houses will connect directly to these parkways (very different to other parkways such as Ditch road where few houses connect directly). In addition will this conversion to parkways (which would require widening the roads) involve significant acquisition of land from existing home owners resulting in negative effects on home values? Given that the current grid system in this area (Towne, 131st etc) will go through significant improvements in the future, providing significant additional capacity, and that building densities will remain low in these areas I am unable to see the justification for or benefit of additional parkways in this area. Peter Langowski Thorough Plan Please remember that when Hazel Dell funding was originally approved the stipulation that the section of Hazel Dell north of 116th was to be a secondary parkway (the terminology at the time) and the uninhabited portion south of 116th was to be the primary parkway (essentially a county highway) was an important feature that residents like myself and others felt was a very important distinction to the orderly growth of the east side of Carmel. The Hazel Dell area residents were few in number then and we understood the reasons that our western neighbors near Gray Road had to rebuild Hazel Dell as a "four lane highway" as Mr. Battreal and others stated at the time. But the folks near Hazel Dell are also east side residential Carmel residents and are in much greater numbers now. I still feel that it is 38 10/14/2008 With the large increase in the City portion of my property tax bill this past year I have no interest in the plan to build the two additional lanes on the north end of Hazel Dell, invite more traffic, and then pay to maintain the wear and tear until I pass from this earth. Of course there will then be pressure to further commercialize corners like 131st and Hazel Dell on the two southern corners. The empty lot on the north side of 131st was zoned for business in 1995, thirteen years ago and other than over by River Road and 146th we have been fully built out residential on the east side for several years now. There just is not a demand to serve ourselves out in the neighborhoods with any more retail. A Primary Parkway with some large retail areas on the south end in reclaimed mineral extraction areas with a County highway running through the north end to bring Morse Lake shoppers down is John Tintera Thorough Plan the Since vision all of of the the potential east side changes we don't resulting want to from see. a Hazel future Dell 96th should St & not 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. Dee Fox Thorough Plan Thoroughfare Plan Map: Residential Parkways on the map do not specify 2 or 4 lanes. CWIC2 Thorough Plan There is a description for Residential Parkway 2-lane and Residential Parkway 4-lane, but these are not distinguished on the map. Please identify where each is planned. Dee Fox Thorough Plan The DOCS has a list of how roads have been changed from the new 2020 Plan (2005), including- 1) Urban Arterial (90') and Urban Collector (66') are new classifications. 2) Of the other 9 classifications, 4 had Right of Ways (ROW) increased by 10 ft, and "Residential Parkway 4 lane" increased by 20 ft. 3) In West Carmel- a. 7 roads increased from Collector (2020 Plan=80' ROW, now 90'; no median) to Residential Parkway (2020 plan 4 lane=100' ROW, now 120'; 12 foot median). b. 131st St. increased from Residential Parkway (120' ROW; 12 ft median) To Primary Parkway (140' ROW; 16' median.) c. 96th St. increased from Residential Parkway (120' ROW; 12' median) To Primary Arterial (150' ROW; no median.) 39 10/14/2008 Marilyn Anderson & Randy Krupsaw Thorough Plan Marilyn served on the Plan Commission when the current Transportation Plan was developed. At that time, no definitive information was available about the State’s plan for 421/Michigan Rd. Shelborne Road was classified as a Secondary Arterial because of the need for major N/S thoroughfares. Things have changed. Michigan Road will be easily accessed by the two planned Primary Parkways of 131st and 116th and the 4-lane 146th St. It is worth reconsidering how far east from Michigan Road it remains important for the City to spend the money for a 4-lane N/S road. At the very least, between 96th & 116th, it makes sense to encourage traffic to move to Michigan Road. Marilyn Anderson & Randy Krupsaw Thorough Plan With the expansion of Michigan Road to 4 lanes plus turn lanes south of 116th, Shelborne Road south of 116th is no longer needed to carry the same weight as in the previous plan. Marilyn Anderson & Randy Krupsaw Thorough Plan 116th St. is planned as a Primary Parkway and will need to carry the east and west bound traffic. Regardless of what happens with Shelborne Road, the City will have to pay the costs for upgrading 116th St. Since Shelborne at 116th is only 1-mile from Michigan Rd. and even less far south of 116th, a 4-lane Shelborne south of 116th may not be the best use of funds. Marilyn Anderson & Randy Krupsaw Thorough Plan There are homes and subdivisions on Shelborne south of 116th St. that pre-existed the last Thoroughfare Plan. This means the City does not already have the right-of-way, but would have to purchase it and the City could avoid bringing the road very close to some homes. Marilyn Anderson & Randy Krupsaw Thorough Plan There are existing single family homes outside of subdivisions that will have no option but to enter/exit a 4-lane road. Brandywine’s exit/entrance sits at a dip in the road for southbound traffic, which already makes exiting Brandywine hazardous during rush hour Fred Yde Thorough Plan Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for SW Clay – By October 25, 2007, Carmel shall initiate a process by which the existing Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for the Annexation Territory will be made available for review and revision as necessary and advisable. Public meetings will be held in the Annexation Territory for input, prior to any changes being made. No decision to build or expand any road in the Annexation Territory other than Illinois Street or Commerce Drive from its current size or character will be made prior to January 2012… This last sentence (1) shall not prohibit Carmel from accepting roads that are dedicated to Carmel by a developer; and (2) shall not apply to the addition of a turning lane, which may be required by the City of Carmel with respect to a new development or new construction. 40 10/14/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan Westfield Blvd. is shown as an Urban Arterial. This should be changed south of 116th when it changes from Rangeline Road to Westfield Blvd. Not sure what category it fall under until 99th St. when it become a Secondary Parkway. Dee Fox 70 On-Street Bicycle Lane: In 2006, it was stated that serious bicyclists would rather ride in the street than use bike lanes, because they don't feel safe. Can changes be made to remedy that? Otherwise, the lanes just take up space and add expense. Dee Fox 73 Bicycle & Pedestrian Classification Table: The description under "Off- Street Trail, Right of Way" matches the Draft B language, but not the current language on page 72. Dee Fox 74 The map is on page 75; not 71. Judy Hagan Bike/Ped Map Confusing. Is Illinois to get path or lane? CWIC2 Bike/Ped Map The map identifies an “Enhanced Sidewalk,” but where is the descriptor of what that is? Chamber The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new neighborhoods. 41 10/14/2008 Name Page Comment Notes Dee Fox 84 Current Overlay Zones (Michigan Rd, 116th St., US 31, etc.) should be included and/or referenced in the Comp. Plan. If there was no Comp. Plan amendment for particular overlay zones it was not included as an amendment. Chamber 86 Keystone: does this need section to be updated due to recent engineering and construction? There is an illustration on the map outlining where changes are being made on Keystone. There were no interchange changes. Tim DeFrench 86 Keystone: The third bullet under the Design Goals should also state protection of the established neighborhoods on the west side of Keystone. "Roughly" 98th to just south of 116th 126th to smokey row. Language will be added to protect existing residential neighborhoods on both the east and west sides Keystone from conflicting land use. Joyce Harrison 86 Keystone, Design Guidelines: Protect residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone from conflicting land use encroachment -- Question??? Why not protect the ones on the west side as well? Same goes for the softening of effects of commercial development for residential neighborhood for the residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone -- Question???? Why not protect the residential neighborhood on the west side of Keystone. Should not neighborhoods on bordering the west side of Keystone be added to this section?? The sentence will end following - (softening of effect of commercial development for residential neighborhoods.) The map will be updated to indicate where the residential area is. Ms. Harrison made a formal request that a public survey be done to survey citizens whose density will be changed, so that they have a voice of whether or not they want the density change. Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-This Comp Plan Revision frequently refers to the need to protect and buffer residential neighborhoods from commercial development; while at the same time, it encourages putting more such land uses next to established residential neighborhoods. This is a policy problem. No resolution at this time. Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-Adequate buffering is questionably possible. A busy 4 lane road is not a buffer, but is a problem in itself. This is a policy issue, not a comp. plan issue. Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-The last bullet statement seems to conflict with the state on page 77 that says high density is not encouraged for the sake of establishing a transit system. This is a general policy statement and does not effect any one area. This conflict cannot be resolved until after a transit corridor is established. US 31 GENERAL 42 10/14/2008 Steve Pittman 88 While it is important that we discuss this area at length in this meeting, I recommend that the heavy lifting for this corridor be done by the US 31 Committee and make a recommendation back to the Plan Commission. need for additional commercial use - biggest question is in blue node how tall should buildings be: in employment node 6-10 stories this is the way Leo read the comments. Through page 43. Left springmill orange, but yellow in one space. The real debate is in employment node do we change the height. Steve Pittman 88 Should we acknowledge the change in this corridor is not only limited access elevated interchanges but also helicopter traffic, and the addition of truck traffic from Keystone? This diversion of truck traffic from Keystone was done because Keystone was determined to be a residential corridor and US 31 a heavy commercial corridor. 6-10 story in employment node we have guidelilne to protect residential areas. We have bufferyard requirement of 25 feet between commercial/residential areas. There is also a distance to height requirement the closer it gets to residential areas. To require 6-10 story buildings both the Overlay and the underlying zoning would have to be changed. This is a policy statement and does not make it happen, City Council would still have to approve. Steve Pittman 88 Extend Illinois Street From 116th St to 106th Street. This extension is critical to relieve the traffic from Spring Mill prior to US 31 becoming limited access. This needs to happen prior to 2011. Also, change Illinois Street to Spring Mill Rd. as the transition from intense office corridor to low density residential areas to the west. The reason for changing from 3 stories to 6 is : historically the 31 corridor has been a primary tax generator for the City and it is really trying to maximize the economic return to keep taxes low for the residential property owner. Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 3rd bullet: Transition the scale and mass of structures between US 31 and Spring Mill to minimize impact to residential development to the west. We currently have a minimum 3 story requirement. This would bring the minimum requirment to 6 stories. Why has this change been made? Wording needs to be changed. Brad Johnson will will rephrase this section to better reflect the area. It will be clearly spelled out. Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 4th bullet: Require high quality, urban office architecture and campus design between Spring Mill Rd and Pennsylvania St. Office buildings should be required to be between 4- 10 stories between Pennsylvania and Illinois and 2-4 stories between Illinois St and Spring Mill Rd. We should encourage the creation of a “sense of place” for people on the west side of Meridian to live, work, shop and play. A citizen asked to see a practical application of how this would appear. Adrienne will do a cross-section. continuation of above comments. Kathleen Hart asked do we need to have the employment node the blue color on the east side of Illinois street between 106th and 111th or can a less dense color be place next to the area in yellow. This area is already part of the Overlay zone. Ms. Hart stated that currently it is heavily residential. There will be some new language that will deal with height and stair stepping. Chamber 88 Design Guidelines, 5th bullett: A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed. general comment Gerry Golden 88 Design Guidelines, 8th bullett: 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. No alignments for public transportation have been defined. This is just a statement regarding this corridor and the Keystone corridor for future reviw. Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 9th bullett: Respect transition and buffering adjacent to existing subdivisions. Take out AGREEMENTS. There are not any buffering agreements. There is a "resolution" that was passed by City Council. This resolution covers the area between 106th and 111th streets. The word "agreement" was put in to recognize the resolution that the Council had passed I 2002. It is Resolution12-14. The word "agreement" will be taken out. Dee Fox 88 Design Guidelines: Add, "lighting should be designed to not trespass into residential areas" (as for Home Place, page 100). No change. Chamber 89 US 31: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive Residential? Transition-Sensitive Residential - Brad stated that this is what is in the plan today and that may not mean mixed use has not been planned for at this point. Dee Fox 89 Why is path only on the east side? (Keystone has paths on both sides.) Wording will remain the same. Dee Fox 89 "Preserve/Install Tree Canopy" is only shown for one tiny area, way north. Surely there are more places. Trees should be installed along Illinois St. and along Spring Mill Rd. as a buffer. Overlay zone protects trees. Also the Meridian Corridor is a commercial area, and this can conflict with tree preservation. Steve Pittman 89 I think it is good that the boundaries for the Meridian Corridor extend west of spring mill General Comment 44 10/14/2008 Steve Pittman 89 Why are we treating the east side of US 31 different than the west side of US 31? Shouldn’t the boundary extend east of Pennsylvania? There is a US 31 study that entailed the dark blue areas along with corridor, but due to the Illinois St. improvements and Springmill development pressures, and the issues regarding height, this is why it was extended to the west. Mike Hollibaugh mad a further comment regarding the corridor map right now shows the employment corridor stopping at 131st street on the east side. Both sides further to the north so the color should be changed to Blue. Chad Scott 88 US 31: I do not want Illinois street expansion by my neighborhood at 106th street through 111th Street This has already been planned for, no further action is not possible. Hart 89 Illinois Street from 106th to 111th Streets will abut the east side of my neighborhood, Spring Mill Place. Many residents of this subdiision attended nearly two years' of meetings on this topic at City Hall, and reached agreement with the City that was recorded as a Resolution that is inconsistent with the current rendering of Illinois Street for this segment. Please refer to the Resolution rather than discarding those years of work. This was discussed earlier. The Resolution deals with both buffering and separation. Resolution would supercede the Comp. Plan Gerry Golden 88 I remain opposed to the Meridan corridor/Illinois St collector as it is a strong financially rewarding project for Carmel and the major corporate developers while adversely impacting the few original homeowners. We dramatically lose our home appreciation while the adjecent land owners and developers and the city of Carmel have huge financial gains. There should be financial consideration to these original homeowners. There should be sufficient $ available to help these homeowners. This will be left to the City Council Judy Hagan 88 US 31: reconfirm Spring Mill as a residential corridor w/Illinois as a boundary and the importance of a compact US 31 corridor with sufficient mass to facilitate reaching other goals such as future transit. Maintain orange Barbara Layton 88 US 31: no Commercial West of Illinois, Pittman farm can be developed residentially Maintain orange ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT SPRING MILL CORRIDOR, ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE 45 10/14/2008 James Browning 89 US 31: I am interested in the proposed use for the east side of 116th Street and Springmill Road. I believe it would be most useful if the plan allowed for commercial office uses, multi family uses as well as a controlled amount of retail uses. This would include higher densities which are consistent with current urban land planning techniques being implemented in our community. I believe the residents of West Clay would benefit from the services and the overall community would benefit from the growth along the Meridian corridor. General comment Brent Claymon 89 I live in SW Clay Township and would like to offer my perspective on future of development in the 116th and Spring Mill area. There is a significant need for amenities, restaurants, retail stores, etc. focused toward the West side of Carmel. Clarian Hospital is a very nice facility, but clearly in need of complementary development. As things change with US 31 becoming limited access, one would think this makes incorporating new development even more critical. Every world class city has pockets of areas which offer diverse and unique destinations. It seems glaring that West Carmel does not really have that (except for residential developments). A commercial development would also grow the tax base for Carmel, which I have to believe is important in light of challenging times. I would be strongly in favor of a creative mixed use world class development in this area. General comment Steve Pittman 89 Pls change the area denoted as Transition Sensitive Residential from 111th St on the south to Spring Lake Estates on the north to Employment Corridor – nobody believes it is good planning to go from 6-10 story buildings to residential. This is a challenging area. We are trying to maintain a high quality of building standards, while taking into account the closeness of residential properties. Developers encouraged to bring forward a Master Plan. Ivan Barrett 89 I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the marketing and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually asked about the nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many buyers who are looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations that there would be commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are often discouraged at the lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I encourage you to plan for a special area West of Meridian that would include such services as offices, retail uses including grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that the best place to create such a node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring Mill Rd. Housing is not an appropriate or best use for this area. General comment 46 10/14/2008 Irina Powers 89 Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive Plan update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in commercial mixed use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west side. A commercial mixed use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal choice for this side of town. My family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421 to eat, shop, etc. Commercial uses for the area would provide the General comment Jack & Kathy Gordon 89 We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further commercial development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities like gas stations, restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties on the northeast and southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect location for commercial development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large hospital and is a crossroads for residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that Carmel will have some foresight rather than looking into the past when making decision about the future of this area. General comment Randy Yust 89 The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart Center’s helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents.” Similar distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be developed as residential properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian North. Although the primary flight plan uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight plans, causing the helicopters to cross over the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why would we put residential housing in an area where a medical helicopter would fly over? Madeline Torres made a motion to make this area a "Special Study Area." The motion was seconded by Sue Westermeier. Approved. The area would be to the north of 111th st., east of Springmill, west of Illinois and south of 116th st. along with to the north of 116th st. south of the multiuse path that is currently defined in orange - this area will now be "pink." 47 10/14/2008 Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best interest. Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional medical center, would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/ access onto Spring Mill prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois. US 31 will become a limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will there be significant traffic in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic on US 31 but the added truck traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is becoming a major road to move local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31 becomes limited access. It is important to finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior to construction commencement on US 31 in 2011. It is inconceivable that you would have residential use in such a corridor. It is poor planning and an irresponsible use of such prime land to maximize our tax base. This has been discussed. 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. Folks are asking for different things in the same area and that is why it is now a special study area. Rob & Anne Kelton 89 I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St. to 116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly urge you to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd that any of that property would be anything but COMMERCIAL. As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class development that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With that area being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to attracting business, it certainly seems that having businesses on that property would be beneficial to everyone in the city. It would represent good fiscal planning for the city of Carmel and help grow the tax base. As above 48 10/14/2008 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. As above Peter Powers 89 I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in west Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this side of town. A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that housing is compatible with the surrounding area. General comment Bob McKinney 89 As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate Agency, I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay township in a manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west clay be treated in a manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is detrimental not only to the whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on the west side of Carmel. It is my hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the west side of meridian, that a development is created on the west side of meridian that would serve the people who live on the west side and those who are employed on the west side. I know it is very discouraging to the homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to and the potential high end customers that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and drive far distances for minor conveniences. Previously discussed. 49 10/14/2008 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. John Levinsohn 89 As a resident of Western Clay Township, I am writing you today in reference to the C3 Comprehensive Plan that is currently under consideration and specifically about the underutilized property surrounding the intersection of 116th Street and Springmill Road. The immediate area has evolved into a first class commercial corridor that contains immense employment opportunities as well as substantial revenue for the City. It is my hope that we can further enrich this area by providing additional commercial assets of the same stature and supplementing those assets with services that the population, both day time and full time, may enjoy. Previously discussed. 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. RJ Rudolph 89 As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of the Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over the past year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers is for higher density residential and assisted living and some from retail support. This will not be included in the special study area. 50 10/14/2008 Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street is planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential development over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased demand for business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for convenience of people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers that have shown interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density residential are attracted to the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical Center, The Indiana Heart Hospital and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the demand for services on the west side of Meridian Street. With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks and planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense to have higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential further west of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North, Fidelity Office Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully with all land owners and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents. The general economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard look at where they live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of residential developments and support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit to the entire area. Tom Osborne 89 My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at 130th and Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My family and I moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian Street. We have seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing that has been lacking for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and amenities west of US 31. As Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a soon to be limited access freeway, it has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel across it. Previously discussed. 51 10/14/2008 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. Michael Puckett 89 SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located on the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building owner in the office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result of the Illinois Street and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several years. Similar to other buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has declined significantly in recent years and interest in available space has waned. While we recognize that several factors play into this trend, feedback from both existing and potential tenants consistently includes two issues: 1) difficulty in accessing our park due to the requirement to enter from Illinois Street on the west side of the property/lack of access through Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on 116th Street and 2) lack of amenities in the adjoining areas including restaurants, dry cleaners, etc. Currently, everyone doing business on the west side of Meridian Street is required, at a minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania Street to reach any significant retail/convenience shopping area. Previously discussed 52 10/14/2008 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. 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. John Moorin 89 I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan. My name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently sold my company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This is the 3rd business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these businesses have ever been located in Hamilton County. I would very much like to have the opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to be closer to my home and family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live. This is in the special study area. 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. 53 10/14/2008 I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay. The office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then that park would reap the benefit as well. This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been so plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should want in at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for the community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to support the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have set a high standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens. Judy Hagan 89 US 31: define Transition-Sensitive Residential There are no definitions in Comp. Plan Ron Houck 88 US 31: what is transition-sensitive residential? How does this work when encouraging 6-10 story buildings in the corridor? A general cross section will be produced, and crafting the language to specify the heights will help. Chamber 88 US 31: Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan? Ron Houck 88 What is the driving force behind the need to establish a 6-10 story building height requirement between Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street? What is wrong with letting the market determine the size of building as dictated by land prices and demand? This new height requirement would have effectively precluded many of the existing high-quality buildings already located in the US 31 corridor. The requirement of 6-10 story buildings in this area produces numerous impacts that are damaging to the existing adjacent residential areas on both sides of US 31. With the narrowness of the corridor on the Pennsylvania Street side south of 116th Street and the proximity of existing residential properties, it will be impractical to buffer from this size of building from the residential areas without adversely affecting their property values. The language will be reworked BUILDING HEIGHT - TRANSITION SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL 54 10/14/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: Requirement for 6-10 Story Buildngs seems to be in conflict with the statement in Design Guidelines that addresses transition of mass and scale between US 31 & Illinois to minimize impact to residential development. So, if the area from Illinois Street to Pennsylvania Street is required to have 6 to 10 story buildings, how will or how can the scale and mass of structures between US 31 and Illinois Street be transitioned when it abuts the “Transition-Sensitive Residential” areas on the US 31 Corridor map on page 89? The area colored as “Transition-Sensitive Residential” (blue-green are on Map #1) occupies the entire western side of Illinois street from 103rd Street to 131st Street. It is not practically possible to transition scale and mass, as specified in the Design Guidelines, within the confines of the corridor after allowing for parking for a 6-10 story of building. No further action required. Ron Houck 88 US 31: My home is located in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (Map #1 and Map #2), which is located between 107th and 111th Streets on the east side of Spring Mill Road in the map area designated as “Transition-Sensitive Residential”. My address is 315 W 107th Street (red star on map #2), which uncharacteristically for a numbered street, exists only as this cul-de-sac. Properties along the east side of our subdivision are all large lots on cul-de-sacs and the homes have large set backs with some near the rear of the lots.Our subdivision was originally platted in 1980, prior to the enactment of the US 31 Overlay Zone. At the time of enactment, the US 31 Overlay Zone was 600 feet on either side of US 31. Even after the US 31 Overlay Zone was put in place the conceptual design for Illinois Street was a meandering road confined interior to the overlay zone with double loading within the overlay zone. A few years ago the US 31 dimensions were expanded No further action required. 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 No further action required. 55 10/14/2008 Joseph Hile 88 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. Previously discussed. Hart 88 US 31: I strongly protest that the corridor between Meridian and Illinois Street at 106-111 Streets is designated as a 6-10 story employment corridor that will overshadow our neighborhood. Please remove that designation from this stretch of the corridor. Previously discussed cross-section will be done. Ed Skarbeck 88 US 31: I live in Spring Mill Place Subdivision. In review of the draft, Section Critical Corridors and Subareas, Part 5, Section 2, the U.S. 31 Corridor, is the discussion of the extensions/additions to Illinois Street from 106th northbound. This stretch of Illinois (from 106th to 111th) will most certainly have an effect on property values in our neighborhood. While we all have several concerns and are not overly thrilled to have a four-lane parkway, we realize the inevitable. Please allow this letter as a show of support for the detailed letter and concerns raised by Spring Mill Place Subdivision resident Ron Houck. Of significant concern is the “requirement for 6-10 story buildings” within that corridor. Having visions of a parkway (that is necessary for tolerable north to south travel) as our eastern boundary - nicely concealed by dense, mature trees, bushes and built up hills - is one thing, but the thought of towering commercial buildings is a whole other issue. Please consider the lack of need for cramming more Gerry Golden 88 US 31: I have been a resident of Spring Mill Place (east of Springmill Rd between 106 and 116 st) since 1980 and have attended and sometimes spoken concerning the re- zoning of this corridor. Concerning "Respect transition and buffering agreements with adjacent subdivisions" it was agreed to in last meeting to have buildings no higher than 6 stories easy of our development and that the buffer zone would consist of extra width with mounding with both deciduous and evergreen trees. We anticipate that these agreements will remain. Already discussed. 56 10/14/2008 David Roach 88 I would like to express my concern regarding the "Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan C3-Plan" ,US 31 Corridor, Part 5 : Critical Corridors and Subareas, specifically page 88 which requires 6 -10 story buildings between Illinois Street & Pennsylvania Street. We all understand these buildings will be for the owners highest & best use and will be 10 story buildings,due to the cost of the land. Our sub- division "Spring Mill Place" would be a Transition-Sensitive Residential area (pg. 89) right next to 10 story buildings.(location N. of 106th Street/E. of Springmill Road.). I feel height restrictions must be set for the US 31 Corridor next to residential housing.These heights should be set at two story Already discussed. Steven Kirsh 88 US 31: I live at 365 W. 107th Street, Carmel (which is near 106th and Springmill). Unlike many of my neighbors, I favor (a) being annexed by Carmel and (b) having Illinois Street as a Parkway. (Likewise, I would favor Springmill as a Parkway, but I don't think that is being contemplated at this time.) However, I oppose the idea 6 story office buildings on the west side US 31 between 106th and 111th Streets. I believe buildings of that height would significantly deflate the value of our homes for, at least, two reasons: (a) the tenants in the upper floors would look directly into the backyards of the adjacent home owners, and (b) there is no way to effectively screen from view of the residences a 6 story building. Already discussed. Carolyn Scott 88 US 31: As a resident of the Springmill Place neighborhood, I wanted to share my disappointment and fear over the Illinois Street expansion. Of greatest concern, the proposed 6-10 story buildings ruining the charm and safety of our neighborhood. Every night when I put my kids to bed, I look out their windows and admire the beautiful view. Our tree -lined neighborhood is what drew our family to Carmel. Looking out of those same windows and seeing 6-10story buildings, would be devastating. I would ask that the Carmel City Council would consider keeping existing families happy, instead of trying to lure prospective tenants by proposing such tall buildings. Already discussed. Dee Fox 88/89 Have fire protection and earthquake resistance been planned for the increase in 10 story bldgs? This is covered by building codes. 96TH STREET CORRIDOR 57 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St: Neighborhood should be planned by following these proposed recommendations from Parts 2 & 3: pg. 17: Objective 1.5, pg. 24: Objective 1.4, pg. 24: Objective 3.2, pg 36: Neighborhood Service Nodes to be strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential classifications. Pat Rice 90 Enhance East/West Connectivity: include statement about connecting Penn to Westfield Blvd (as already mentioned in HomePlace section). If straight alignment over 465 were implemented, would there be a need to connect Penn through the Monon? Joy Sullivan 90 96th St: Chesterton neighborhood would like to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Commercial development along 96th Street should only occur one lot deep along 96th and provide adequate buffer. Lighting and after hours traffic should be minimized when considering type of business. This will be a special study area. Steve Pittman 90 96th St: Corridor is rapidly changing. This should be considered as plans are made for the future. Jim Palecek 90 96th St: Corridor and area have changed. 96th backs up past Wild Cherry, commercial along 96th Street, decreased quality of life. Difficult to sell, difficult to stay. Pat Rice 90 96th St Corridor Study has been referenced, but most of the assumptions made in 1999 are outdated or no longer applicable. Please delete outdated assumptions. Please update the information to reflect the changing nature of the area, as it no longer reflects a stable residential neighborhood. Wash Twp Comprehensive Plan (Marion County) indicates Commercial Uses on S sd of 96th. Commercial uses and multifamily rentals exist in the area. Duke redevelopment (Parkwood). what is 96th street going to looklike Pat Rice 90 Description: Serves as…east/west arterial (change to corridor) Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Buffer Residential Areas: delete “near Michigan Road” – too site specific Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Enhance East/West Connectivity: confer with discription and maps on pp. 63-75-90-91-100-101. Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Maintain Residential Character: 1999 Corridor Study assumptions have become obsolete due to land use changes on both the north and south sides as well as traffic impact change. Pat Rice 90 The various use of the word “arterial” is confusing and isn’t consistent with the Transportation Plan (Street Classification) on p. 62. There is a problem with the various definitions in terms of ROW. (Recommend a more thorough look at the various sections to determine “best fit” classifications for each.) 58 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 91 The alternative alignment (shown on p.91 upper right corner) is not one of the six transportation options that were evaluated the 1999 Study (see Append. B/Special Study Area) This new option would mean demolishing the Westfield Blvd. bridge and skewing the proposed 96th extension in such a way as to cut off north/south connectivity of Westfield Blvd. in order to make an east/west connection on 96th Street. (#6 in the Study is consistent with “Connect Pennsylvania Parkway to Westfield Boulevard” and the above mentioned descriptions and maps.) The new design would involve the State as well as the Marion County MPO, be extremely costly, and seriously affect the residential areas on both sides (Sherwood Forrest and The Retreat). (Recommend deletion of this option.) Possibility of bridge was discussed - this really would not be practical. Additional explanatory language will be added. Pat Rice 91 two lane “arterial” / three lane arterial w/commercial context: 96th St. from Keystone (4 lanes) narrows to three lanes (although not marked) to two lanes just before Haverstick. Suggest keeping this configuration into the proposed round-about then becoming a Secondary Parkway (cf/entry into round-about at Westfield). The 96th Street extension may not have adequate ROW for a median but would continue perhaps as a Residential Parkway. Pat Rice 91 Bike path crossing needs to be added across 98th St. with flashing lights. (Path from Aramore will connect here as well as future paths along the east side of Westfield.) The crossing at the round-about is unsafe giving the number of accidents occurring and the number and variable vehicle traffic. (Walking across is hard enough!) Recommendations only for future consideration Pat Rice 91 Need signage to indicate connection route to Monon. Pat Rice 91 At present, there doesn’t seem to be bike routes (or multi-paths) planned for this area. Aramore plans to connect Chesterton with a path through the ROW. Haverstick needs a bike path on the east side connecting with Lakewood Gardens sidewalks and then again across 98th St. to Hope Church where paths or sidewalks should be installed along east and south edges. Pat Rice 91 Path along 96th Street (to be constructed) as part of road improvement. Pat Rice 91 Path on west side of Lincoln between 96th St. and 98th St. (Aramore path). (Could this be done as part of the sewer project to run down Lincoln?) Pat Rice Add new Subarea Recommend addition of “96th St. & Westfield Boulevard District Subarea” as new pages 92-93 with a map reflecting the boundaries shown on attached map and change to map on p.101. Recommend adopting submitted land use map in keeping with the vision of the proposed update of the Comprehensive in the following references: 59 10/14/2008 • (p.17) Essence Objective 1.5 “Strongly promote mixed use in areas suitable for commercial development, and protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development. • (p.24) Essence Objective 1.4 “Allow greater development intensity on the north, west, and south edges of the district to serve as a transition from more intensely developed areas.” • Essence Objective 3.2 “Endeavor to plan neighborhoods, gateways, boundaries, and service areas through more detailed subarea plans. • (p.36) Neighborhood Service Node (Geographic Location) “Strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential classifications.” Pat Rice Add new Subarea Recommend the attached for a 96th St. & Westfield Blvd. District Subarea. Wording from the Home Place Subarea was utilized. This will all be designated as "pink" for a special study area. This will allow for other citizens to comment. Asking for a new sub-area at this time; this project was not adopted. Not publically reviewed. It is not listed as a sub area this has not been adopted Dee Fox 92 If form based code "replaces" the zoning ordinance, on what basis could an undesirable use be denied? This is a special study area. Dee Fox 92 Discouraging ground floor offices and on-street parking conflicts with the Primary and Secondary Core lists of ground floor office uses (pages 42,43), and also with Urban Streets that allow on-street parking. Dee Fox 94 Maps are on pages 98/99; not 94. This will be corrected. Chamber 95, 96, 97 Old Meridian: Mixed Use Design Guidelines These too specific in our opinion, even delving into sign specifications (e.g. “Ground floor tenants should be allowed 1 ½ square feet of sign area per lineal foot of building signage. . .” How will this language be integrated into the new sign ordinance? Will be discussed at sign ordinance meeting. Dee Fox 95 To be consistent, the lower left column should use "stories", instead of "feet". Already specified. Dee Fox 95 Multifamily Attached units look alike and are difficult for drivers to identify. Better to regulate size of freestanding signs than to prohibit them. This is already policy. Dee Fox 95 Why are drive-throughs prohibited in this mixed-use "Village", but are allowed in the less intense Village of WestClay? No change this is how the PUD was adopted. City Center/Old Town Subarea OLD MERIDIAN SUBAREA HOME PLACE SUBAREA 60 10/14/2008 Matt Milam 100 Since Carmel has not annexed Home Place and not taking any tax dollars from the area and the Home Place annexation is in court for the next three years. I would suggest that the City of Carmel leave Home Place area out of the Comprehensive Plan. had and is will be planned for Matt Milam 100 If you are going to leave Home Place in the plan, please have a representative from the Home Place area on the committee so that the people who live in the area have imput. This should be taken up with the County to see who is appointed. Matt Milam 100 This compehensive plan has changed names a number of times and is an off and on process. If you are going to institute the plan, then put it in place. Quit wasting taxpayer money year after year and quit wasting peoples time since they have to sit through the meetings year after year. Matt Milam 100 Home Place does not need buildings that have the retail on the bottom with condo's on top or other office space. This is a fine design if the City of Carmel wants that for their streets, but leave Home Place alone. The fiscal plan that Carmel wrote for the annexation said that it would keep the Home Place history in place and not go making it just like Carmel. The people of Home Place do not need arches, and all brick buildings and statues and all the other crap you have in Carmel to make us feel important. This is a comment only. Dee Fox 101 Home Place Subarea: Change "8" Story to "10" Story. Maps will be changed to be consistent. The Comp. Plan Committee will meet again on October 28 to review the revised Comp. Plan with changes. Limited comments will be allowed at that time. 61 10/14/2008 62 10/14/2008 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 43 10/14/2008