The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCopy of 2008-1028 Comp Plan notes 2008 PC DRAFTX Date Name Page Comment Notes 1 8/18/2008 Karen Carter The document divides the community (providing service nodes, this area for the rich, this area for the poor) No change in text, 9/9/08 2 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman Recognize 146th Street as a changing and prominent corridor OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 3 8/19/2008 Marilyn Anderson The possibility of a more neighborhood service nodes is in direct conflict with the values of West Clay residents (see article in Money mag). expanded upon in later comments 4 8/19/2008 Andy Crook Need an overall plan for utility placement. We have a 2nd rate substation; the city should take more control No change in text, 9/9/08 5 8/26/2008 Chamber Lots of vague terminology and definition issues remain. No change in text, 9/9/08 6 8/26/2008 Chamber Feeling that the document is frequently too specific to particular sites or developments. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 7 9/8/2008 Dee Fox How far along is the PC on developing residential quality/architectural standards? No change in text, 9/9/08 8 9/8/2008 Dee Fox References to Neighborhood Service Nodes should also include the new Neighborhood Support Centers. (pg 22, obj. 1.2; page 24, obj. 1.1, etc. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 9 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Strictly define permitted uses in Neighborhood Support/Service Nodes No change in text, 9/9/08 10 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Define "usable" open space. New trees in Carmel are routinely planted too close together. No change in text, 9/9/08 11 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Address appropriate locations of Mega-churches that serve as Community Centers. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 12 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Address appropriate use of PUD's, and their amendment process. No change in text, 9/9/08 13 9/15/2008 Leslie Webb I believe that city plans must explore the most energy efficient designs possible in our buildings (LEED, Energy Star, etc) and means of transportation (mass transit of some sort). We need to provide an alternative to cars. The era of cheap energy is over and those cities that are best prepared will have a marked advantage. Minimize urban sprawl. More mixed use. We must support and encourage alternative energy options such as wind and solar to move away from fossil based fuels and reduce our carbon footprint. We should protect existing trees and plant as many more trees as possible to sequester carbon, provide cooling and air/water filtration. Please explore all green and sustainable city planning practices. 14 10/6/2008 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. 15 10/6/2008 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. 16 10/9/2008 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. GENERAL COMMENTS PREFACE Comprehensive Plan Comments - July 24, 2008 DRAFT , OCTOBER 23, 2008 DRAFT 1 10/28/2008 X Date Name Page Comment Notes 17 8/24/2008 Tom Jones 5 Note the purpose of the plan is to improve the health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens. For the city to attempt to mandate preferred architectural details could infringe on individual rights. No change in text, 9/9/08 18 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 Fulfillment of the mandate - Public Involvement: Absent is the extensive public participation and surveys on what residents wanted that formed the current 2020 plan. No change in text, 9/9/08 19 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 A few public meetings on the revision in 2006 may have met the "letter of the law", but they do not broadly reach the time-crunched public who have a hard time keeping up with the details and react to changes. No change in text, 9/9/08 20 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 In 2006, the stated reason for the abrupt halt was a flawed process and insufficient public participation. All agreed that the process was very rushed. No change in text, 9/9/08 21 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 2 years later the revision process is moving on quickly from where it left off. Many residents are unaware that the process has restarted and/or that the City's revisions would drastically change the 2020 Plan protections they relied on. No change in text, 9/9/08 22 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 How is this time different from 2006? On this issue of such importance to the public's future, the city should again pursue an accurate read on public opinion via a comprehensive survey and/or district citizen groups actively involved in developing the Plan. No change in text, 9/9/08 23 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives: Planning and zoning are not supposed to be market- based. No change in text, 9/9/08 24 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Language in the 2020 Plan that is protective of residential communities and "the quality of life that attracted them", is now conspicuously missing. No change in text, 9/9/08 25 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 "Freshen" is deceptively inaccurate. The 2020 Plan would be totally changed by the City's new focus on urbanizing, higher densities, and placing commercial uses in residential areas. Suburban residents, Carmel's foundation, feel threatened. No change in text, 9/9/08 26 9/8/2008 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 27 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 "Form-based" regulations do not negate the non-visual impacts of inappropriate uses. No change in text, 9/9/08 28 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 If easily amendable at any time, will there be public notice and overview of all changes? How will the public ever keep up, or be able to count on what the Plan says? No change in text, 9/9/08 29 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Drafting and Public Input - The public had little time to review the full draft prior to the one open house. How many could not attend? Will all oral/written comments be condensed for public review, including those from developers? No change in text, 9/9/08 30 9/9/2008 CWIC2 6 Last Paragraph: The plan "will require effort and support by residents." How will you know you have the support of residents? Many, many Carmel West residents have pretty clearly communicated to us and we to you thir strong desires to maintain a density of 1.0 u/a and no commercial areas beyond the existing ones at Meridian St., Michigan Rd. and the Village of WestClay. Surveys and several well-attended meetings were held for the existing 2020 Plan. Why aren't these methods being used again? No change in text, 9/9/08 31 8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 32 8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 33 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 7 & 8 East Carmel - No mention of Keystone commercial area. No change in text, 9/9/08 34 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8 Does not explain East-West boundaries No change in text, 9/9/08 2 10/28/2008 35 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 4th paragraph: “There are two golf courses; one that is under pressure to be redeveloped.” Belongs in Comp Plan? Who is applying the pressure and why? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 36 X 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street is a connector SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT 37 X 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street omitted as east/west connectivity. Compare w/pg 90 describing 96th as "major east/west arterial" SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT 38 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 8 North Central Carmel, a higher education facility already exists in the Life and Learning Center. Owned by Clay Twp and leased to Ivy Tech and IUPUI. SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT 39 9/6/2008 Judy Hagan 8 I'd like to see more explanation about the Community Life and Learning Center b/c the name does not well define it for purposes of a planning document and b/c Objective 2.6 on pg 23 is in support of higher education. I think "Clay Township" should be included in the the title. Could something to the effect of "Clay Township's Community Life and Learning Center, operated by IUPUI and IvyTech, currently provides higher education opportunites in the former C/C Public Library building." OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 40 9/9/2008 CWIC2 8 A section in the previous draft on page 8 was omitted, which we believe should be included: "The West Carmel district…has the least developed road network…[Additionally, it is] unlike East Carmel, where many neighborhoods were built with connecting streets to adjacent developments or stubbed streets to undeveloped areas." Traffic does not have, and cannot have nearly as many options in at least the southern part. This important defining characteristic should be listed and considered for planning purposes. 41 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 8 South Central Carmel-No mention of west boundary employment area(US 31) OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 42 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 (West Carmel): End of 2nd paragraph, Change "residential" amenities to "recreational". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 43 9/9/2008 CWIC2 9 2nd Paragraph is problematic. It cites "pride of place and rural living" as "historical," while stating that valueas have now turned to "amenities." For the vast majority of Carmel West residents, there has been no such change. Carmel West have always fought hard to keep density low and it's hugely important to a great many residents today, not just "historically." Yet that's not stated anywhere. It must be clearly stated or it's not "our" Comp Plan and it will not have the support of the Carmel West residents. 44 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 West Carmel Characteristics: Largest district with fewest parks. One city and one county park, in the center, were largely donated in response to overdevelopment concerns. Especially w/ 146th St developing, the city needs to promptly obtain park land on the north end, while land is still available. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 45 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 Last Paragraph: Add "community and" regional destination. The Village of WestClay should not be mapped as a Community Vitality Node. It is a neighborhood-serving. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT X Date Name Page Comment Notes 46 8/19/2008 Dan Dutcher Figures should reflect the entire township and show growth trends OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 47 9/8/2008 Dan Dutcher I suggest a reference to the likely timetable for "build out." I think that would dovetail well with the discussion regarding the emergence of Carmel as an Edge City, beyond a traditional residential suburb. 48 8/26/2008 Chamber 12 4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT "historically" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE 3 10/28/2008 49 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12 Objective Profile: Woodlots-A goal should be to strengthen cutting limitation and replacement requirements for mature trees. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 50 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12 Population Growth-Does chart include entire Township? Carmel is built on families w/ children, who came for nonurban lifestyles and schools. Why do these revisions focus on urbanizing and on developing for everyone but them? no change in text, 9/9/08 51 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13 All charts are 8 yrs out of date. no change in text, 9/9/08 52 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13 Education-All suburbs and Hamilton County have higher graduation rates than Indianapolis. Carmel now strives to morph into a city, which its suburban residents fled. Increased population means facing the need for a second high school. no change in text, 9/9/08 53 8/26/2008 Chamber 14 Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 54 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Omit Mohawk Hill Golf Club no change in text, 9/9/08 55 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Development Trends: The upward trend in Town Homes/Multi-Family units is due to City officials actively encouraging them. no change in text, 9/9/08 56 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 The current solution to crowded schools seems to be to increase density, but build new developments that aim to exclude children! no change in text, 9/9/08 57 9/8/2008 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 X Date Name Page Comment Notes 58 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 16 This is where the whole focus is changed from the 2020 Plan, so as to increase density and add commercial development to the suburbs. If "the public can base their expectations" on this Part, then the content needs to be based on the public's desire to protect existing chosen lifestyles and neighborhoods. no change in text, 9/9/08 59 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition? no change in text, 9/9/08 60 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5: Objectives of Carmel government and its suburban residents are not the same. Inserting "mixed use" into suburban areas makes a harsh contrast inevitable, and effective transition difficult. Locate such nodes now, so that the decision is not left to developers, and so that homebuyers know what to expect. Brace for many fights over what constitutes "unsuitable commercial development." Most residential areas formed as havens from the effects of commercial development, and consider all of it to be unsuitable. no change in text, 9/9/08 61 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.3: Very specific language. Is the Comp Plan an ordinance? In other words, can it be perceived as the law in Carmel? no change in text, 9/9/08 62 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.4, second sentence: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back. 63 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Are we really saying that essentially we always want to see mixed use in commercial areas? Is there no concern that there may be a limit to demand for this or that the desire for this be more specific to areas that contain, or will contain, typical urban shopping and entertainment venues—as in not in a suburban areas that want to be sururban. PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE 4 10/28/2008 64 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?” no change in text, 9/9/08 65 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 1.6: How does one determine which neighborhoods are not subject to redevelopment? Those not on the list will see home values plummet. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 66 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 2.2, 2.3: The few affordable housing options are being "redeveloped" to become expensive. Many "transplants" from other areas appreciate the chance to get more spacious homes/yards for less money in Indiana. no change in text, 9/9/08 67 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.2: Can we say we want more businesses and not just more corporations? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 68 8/26/2008 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 69 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 2.3: The study on housing choices should have already been done and it should help drive the Comp Plan, not the other way around. The population chart on page 12 clearly shows this is an area of families—the age groups that are the largest include 35-54 year-olds and their children. Please ensure the new Comp Plan does not overallocate residences for other age groups, that it takes care that their location suits the needs of the people who would chose them, and it reflects the studies that show that the large age group for families wants surburban living, not urban living. Give us our peace and quiet. no change in text, 9/9/08 70 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 5 10/28/2008 71 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Policy 1 Into: The last sentence before Objective 1.1 states, “This model [form-based] is more permissive of mixed used nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing land classifications.” How will this be truly accomplished? What guarantees do residents have that it won’t be at the whim of changing faces at DOCS, the Plan Commission, and City Council and however they want to interpret “permissive” and “sensitivity” at that time? How do we trust this, when Carmel West residents turned out in droves for the 2020 Plan to insist on a density of 1 u/a, but we’ve had to keep fighting over this? Now you’re asking us to “trust” on this issue when we’re once again fighting to keep the character of the area the same as it was when we decided to invest in our homes in the area. This isn’t just a wording problem—it’s a problem with the concepts contained in the Plan. If this is only a problem with Carmel West, then apply the concepts east of Meridian and give plans for Carmel West enough structure and limitations that this issue goes away. Here are examples that feed fears about future “insensitivity” being imposed: 1. Objective 1.4, 2nd sentence: The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back. 2. Objective 1.5: Discussed (but contributes to the fear). 3. Objective 3.2. Discussed & modified (but contributes to fear--implies this should be utilized everywhere at all times, even in low-density residential areas.) 4. Objective 3.4 has the same problem as Objective 3.2 5. Objective 4.1. Discussed. Change terminology for “traditional neighborhood design principals.” 6. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please 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. 72 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Policy 1 Intro: Land use based planning protected homeowners from unwanted commercial and mult-story bldgs next to single-family homes. no change in text, 9/9/08 73 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Policy 1, 1st sentence: “Managing community form is the art and science of influencing development in a manner that results in a superior quality built and natural environment in which people reside, work and recreate; and creates the opportunity for businesses to thrive.” Say what? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 74 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Policy 2 Intro: Carmel has always been a suburb w/ a "desirable quality of life." Other realities, though, are its image is snobbish, it is unaffordable to many, it lacks "non-white-collar" jobs, and it is unlikely to be able to support public transportation if Indianapolis can't. no change in text, 9/9/08 75 8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 17 Policy 2: This is great. Edge cities are distinct from traditional bedroom suburbs. I would only suggest a bit of elaboration that edge cities have been a modern trend and that their evolution and distinct nature from traditional suburbs is likely to be further enhanced by economic trends like higher fuel prices, etc. Leading Edge City, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 6 10/28/2008 76 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional suburban residences. 77 8/18/2008 Karen Carter 18 Obj. 3.1: Instead of "branding," suggest the word "promoting". no change in text, 9/9/08 78 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed of high-quality materials? no change in text, 9/9/08 79 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.10: Transition problems, especially along residential Spring Mill Road. no change in text, 9/9/08 80 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.2: Add to the end of first sent. "in urban core and commercial areas". Suburban residents have chosen not to live near urban 24/7 "vitality." add "where appropriate", OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 81 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.2: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed, even though discussed and modified to add the words “where appropriate” at the end of the first sentence. 82 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .” OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 83 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the same problem as Objective 3.2 84 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.” no change in text, 9/9/08 85 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 obj. 3.5: Exclude increased density from the list of incentives. no change in text, 9/9/08 86 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08 87 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 4.1: ALARMING. This type of development does not belong everywhere! Do not include suburban areas in statements of urban objectives, especially vague and general statements. no change in text, 9/9/08 88 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 4.1: states a desire for “traditional neighborhood design principals, in all neighborhoods including…..estate, suburban or urban.” So we’re stating that more Villages of WestClay (VWC) are the goal anywhere in Carmel? Approval of the VWC was given with the promise, often restated, that the VWC would be the exception in Clay West. This objective violates that promise and CWIC2 can guarantee a huge uprising from Carmel West residents over this. discussed 9/9/08. Re-word, clarify tradiitional neighborhood design principals 89 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Policy 4 Intro: Subdivisions are neighborhoods. What "outside destabilizing forces"? delete, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 90 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.3: Establishing neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries has basically been done by acknowledging 4 unique districts. no change in text, 9/9/08 91 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.4: This new. Explain. no change in text, 9/9/08 92 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 4.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not having commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what benefits are most important to them and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of not including retail amongst neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document. 93 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.5: To the end of the first sent., add "in context to appropriate locations". Agreement from surrounding homeowners should be required. Suburbanites purposely fled the traffic, trucks, noise, and light of commercial development. no change in text, 9/9/08 94 8/26/2008 Chamber 19 Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples? no change in text, 9/9/08 95 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.6: Estate and large lot owners will move away from commercial development. Zoning exceptions will be sought for the nearby "compromised" properties. Effective transition is questionably possible, one mile apart is too close. In West Carmel's one-mile road grid, that would be one on every corner. no change in text, 9/9/08 96 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 5.1: The city's "vision" would alter/negate the chosen lifestyle of its residents, based on unproven trends. no change in text, 9/9/08 7 10/28/2008 97 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 5.2: Does this mean Carmel would make changes to Land Classifications without going through a Comp Plan revision? Please no, and please tell us it would not just be a 10-day notice with a Plan Commission hearing, meeting, approval, and repeat in City Council. That is not nearly enough warning and time for input for making such a drastic change. addressed 9/9/08, no change in text 98 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 5.2: How will the public be informed and have input? Limit how often it can be revised. Frequently and readily revisable means no rest, control, or security for the public. no change in text, 9/9/08 99 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Policy 5 Intro: "Fear of change" has been added! It's the routine label for residents who disagree with any of the city's plans. Certain changes are justifiably opposed as plain bad ideas that would adversely affect many people. It is the city's push to imitate Traditional Neighborhoods that is "based on the models that were successful 50 or more years ago/" Even the real ones that remain are dying, b/c circumstances of both residential life and business are very different now. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 100 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 5.7: Again, what reward? Not increased density! The City seems to equate "sprawl" w/ its foundation of single-family homes on lots that offer some privacy. no change in text, 9/9/08 101 8/29/2008 Tom Jones 20 Obj. 5.7: This could include moving toward more naturalistic lawn care. Golf courses and private lawns could allow grass to go dormant instead of using valuable water resources. no change in text, 9/9/08 102 8/26/2008 Chamber 20 Obj. 6.1: Define monotonous. What are Carmel’s “character goals?” Wouldn’t defining character goals be something a comp plan would address? no change in text, 9/9/08 103 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.2: Exactly who is "the community" (Carmel government?), and why should they be able to dictate "character goals" for the different districts? We are not Disneyland. Redevelopment (Old Town) and new development should not be treated the same way. addressed 9/9/08, no change in text 104 9/8/2008 CWIC2 20 Obj. 6.2: states “the community will identify appropriate character goals, subareas, and neighborhoods for…West Carmel.” West Carmel already knows what those are and we keep stating them. Please do as this objective states: respect our values and help uphold them. addressed 9/9/08, no change in text 105 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.3: "Significant" landscaping has been removed! Even the most attractive landscaping is not effective if there is not enough of it. 106 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.4: Add "preservation". Carmel does not do enough to protect mature trees from development, and their replacements do not compare in size or number. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 107 9/12/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 108 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.7: West Carmel has request buried utility lines, and it could be done in conjunction w/ new road work. I've been told that it is expensive and that the utility company is reluctant b/c of the extra labor. Is that the end of the discussion? no change in text, 9/9/08 109 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Policy 6 Intro: West Carmel's character is already establised as uniquely very low density residential, mostly without urban intrusion. This Plan threatens to change, rahter than protect it. no change in text, 9/9/08 8 10/28/2008 110 9/8/2008 CWIC2 20 Policy 6: “Community character” is cited in various places and has its own section under Part 1, Policy 6, page 20. When asked where we live, most residents respond with “West Carmel,” giving their particular subdivision only when nailing location down further. As written, this document is a threat to the highly valued sense of “community character” that already exists in Carmel West. no change in text, 9/9/08 111 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective 7.8 and page 21, Objective 7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative certification. Shown below is a link to a recent article in Scientific American covering some of the common objections to LEED Certification. 112 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true 113 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.3: Define "small scale" and "large scale". Retroactive? no change in text, 9/9/08 114 8/26/2008 Chamber 21 Obj. 7.3: We need a definition for “large-scale employment nodes.” While the encouragement of walking and bicycling is laudable, requiring businesses to provide facilities for walkers and bikers is expensive, both to build and to maintain. no change in text, 9/9/08 115 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 21 Obj. 7.5: The City should require (not strongly recommend) LEED or equivalent buildings for all new taxpayer paid construction. 116 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Carmel needs to address the mercury levels in CFL's & how to dispose of them safely before "jumping on that bandwagon" no change in text, 9/9/08 117 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Encourage the city and residents to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and lawn chemicals. no change in text, 9/9/08 118 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.10: Be mindful that windmills, large solar panels, electrical utilities, water towers, and cell towers are eyesores in residential aeras. Take great care in locating and screening. 119 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 1.2: "Allow" has been changed to "support and encourage"! (mention new "support centers", too.) Locate nodes NOW, and get public approval. To the "strictly regulated" list, add hours of operation, buffering, uses, and signage. The impact of these nodes is more than visual. 120 8/26/2008 Chamber 22 Obj. 2.2: What is “world class?” Why would specific developments (i.e. Village of West Clay and Earlham College property) be singled out? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 121 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.2: Put a limit on density that transitions to residential. Impacts of increased density are not just visual. now Objective 6.2 122 8/26/2008 Tom Jones 22 Obj. 3.3: The idea has merit but is it wise to make specific recommendations about privately owned property? deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 123 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.3: This intent to expand and intensify areas "sold" to the public as small "neighborhood- serving", is one major reason why so many residents do not want them. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 124 8/26/2008 Chamber 22 Obj. 3.3: Why would the city’s comp plan drill down to suggesting that a particular property owner, in this case Northview Christian Life Church, be encouraged to sell a portion of its land? This struck us as completely inappropriate for this document. deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 125 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.2: Discourage "residential opportunities" near the mine. The problems were predictable, and houses already there should not have been approved. now Objective 7.2 126 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact surrounding residences." 127 8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan? deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 128 8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 2.4: We do not understand why musical performances would be a topic for comprehensive plan. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 129 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for North Central Carmel. 9 10/28/2008 130 8/26/2008 Chamber 24 Obj. 1.5: “Areas adjacent to single family residential should not exceed five unites per acre. . .” The job of the comp plan or zoning ordinance? deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 131 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.5: Since the "intense fringe areas" are limited to 5.0 units/acre adjacent to single-family residential, then the Suburban Residential density (up to 4.9 u/a) applied to the entire South Central residential area is too high. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 132 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.1, 2.2: Threats of redevelopment are causing residents to panic and leave. Busy roads are not a buffer. 133 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.3: Should this say "west" rather than "east" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 134 9/15/2008 Karen Gould 25 General Comments: I am also opposed to any increase in amenities, such as gas stations and shops. We are quite content to drive to what we need, not to have it in our immediate neighborhood. When we became part of Carmel, we thought Carmel would look out for the needs of the people...not tell us what our needs are (more retail, etc.) This is a residential area and we do no want an urbanized area shoved on us. Let us be a part of the decision as to what becomes of our area. There are plenty of shops on Michigan Road or on Meridian at which we all can do our business. We don't want it in our neighborhood. 135 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 General Comments: Suburban (and especially West Carmel) residents have chosen not to live close to high density and commercial development. Estate owners will move away from it. West Carmel is already conveniently and adequately served. Any location issues need to be settled now. Otherwise, there will be a fight over every proposal. Also, "PUDs" still need to be addressed in West Carmel. 136 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Increase open space requrement soon, before buildout. Replace "Allow" wilth "Consider". Distinguish between Neighborhood Support Centers and Neighborhood Service Nodes. The size and density of the latter are especially not appropriate in West Carmel. To the "strictly regulated", ADD hours of operation, uses, signage, and buffering. 137 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.1: We’ve heard the argument that if you can’t really see the homes as you drive down the road, it doesn’t really matter how many homes are in the subdivision. That’s not an argument we buy and it is not what we want. The only way this works is if a significantly large open space is mandatory, not “considered.” 138 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable. no change in text, 9/9/08 139 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 2.1: “. . .other housing styles that cater to high income families.” Do we really want to say this? West Carmel is for rich people? Doesn’t use of the term “estate character” convey this in a less-offensive way? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 140 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of West Carmel. 141 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.2: Custom homes require higher-income buyers, who generally do not desire to be near higher densities and/or commercial development. "Accessory dwellings" is vague. Are they prohibited now? Can they be rentals? 142 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.1: The last sent. Is STILL a problem. "Residential intensity" has unwanted effects in West Carmel, whether it is visible or not. now Objective 6.1 143 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along". 144 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 3.3: We understood there a Michigan Road overlay already exists. We also are having trouble matching the concept of a four-lane highway with “village character.” no change in text, 9/9/08 10 10/28/2008 145 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.4: Are "institutional" uses considered to be residential? Why no mention of the 116th St. Overlay already in place? There is much concern about the fate of the southwest corner of 116th St. and Towne Rd. no change in text, 9/9/08 146 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 4.2: Leave out entirely, or replace "Establish" with "Consider". They are not needed or wanted here, are not compatible with preserving rural character, and would not significantly prevent driving. They would struggle to survive and would add large truck traffice, noise, light, and trash problems. now objective 7.2 147 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 4.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable. now objective 7.2 148 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the area. now objective 1.5 149 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? no change in text, 9/9/08 150 9/11/2008 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. no change in text, 9/9/08 151 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.4: Replace "WestClay Secondary Core" with "The Village of WestClay". As per page 42, the Village of WestClay commercial core is a "Secondary Core" in form only. now objective 1.8 152 8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 25 West Central: I think the Village of West Clay needs to be more directly addressed throughout the various policies reflected in The West Clay Section no change in text, 9/9/08 X Date Name Page Comment Notes 153 9/19/2008 CWIC2 Carmel West has a strong sense of community and character, which is a draw for many people. Most people invested in their homes in Carmel West specifically because the zoning promised the area would be low-density residential and that commercial uses would not intrude. They opted out of “urban” life. Many couldn’t afford to buy and build on acreage, but want space between our neighbors, no commercial intrusions, plenty of greenspace and no “walls” of close- together houses when we’re out and about. no change in text, 9/23/08 154 9/20/2008 Tom Jones Where does "agricultural" fit in the Land Classification Plan? The current S-1 zoning ordinance allows for a tree nursery on ten acres of land and I believe owning a horse requires five acres. Acknowledging that the actual ordinance governs the use - should there be any mention in this "broadbrush" document? no change in text, 9/23/08 155 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 28 Introduction: Appropriate Adjacent - Conditional Fit is based on only "orientation, transitions, and architecture"? What about use, height, and density? no change in text, 9/23/08 156 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 28 A statement is needed that the listed "Appropriate Adjacent Classifications" are not meant to encourage these uses other than where identified on the Land Classification Map, and that their inclusion does not suggest automatic approval. Otherwise, they will invite disputes. no change in text, 9/23/08 157 9/19/2008 CWIC2 29 Development Features: Add, “including passive enjoyment of nature” to the last one, “Promote recreation.” OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 158 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29 Land Uses: add "pocket parks" to the list OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 159 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29 Examples: Delete Village of West Clay open space network, this is zoned PUD not a park zone pocket parks, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 160 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Can title be changed to from "Estate" to "Conservation" or "Rural" Residential? no change in text, 9/23/08 PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN 11 10/28/2008 161 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Purpose: end the sentence after "…who desire a large residential lot" no change in text, 9/23/08 162 9/19/2008 CWIC2 30 Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: How compatible is Suburban Residential, 4.9 u/a with a 1.0 u/a? Would you want a 5 times as dense neighborhood behind your house? In Carmel West, people chose a low-density residential area, not just a low-density subdivision. Remove this. Conditional, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 163 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 30 Best Fit - Move "Suburban Residential" to Conditional. Conditional, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 164 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Best Fit: Remove Low Intensity Suburban and Suburban. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 165 9/19/2008 CWIC2 30 Conditional Fit: “Attached Residential” has a density of 7.0 u/a and is too much a difference from 1.0 u/a. Remove this. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 166 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Conditional Fit: add low intensity suburban residential (only at perimeter). OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 167 8/26/2008 Chamber 30 Development Features: “Minimum of 10% open space in subdivisions. . .” Comp plan or zoning ordinance? Should there be mention of trails or bicycle/pedestrian connectivity here? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 168 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features: delete second sentence (perception of open space), add "At least 50% of the open space must be on dry land as a designed landscape." no change in text, 9/23/08 169 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features, 3rd bullet: delete "on estate sized lots" at the end of the sentence. no change in text, 9/23/08 170 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features: add a bullet point, "Garages must be side-loaded or front-loeaded if set behind the main building by at least 50 feet." no change in text, 9/23/08 171 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Purpose: Amend to read, “Establish and protect housing opportunities for people who desire low density or subdivision living. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 172 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Geographic Location - Why are no such areas shown for South Central Carmel on the Land Classification map? deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 173 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Geographic location: Delete South Central since none is shown on the map deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 174 9/3/2008 Andy Crook 31 Intensity/Density: Supports higher than 1.0 but thinks 1.5 should be upper limit in reflection of what has been approved and developed. "Fill in" developments need higher densities to make development of smaller tracts work financially. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 175 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Density - This is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The upper limit of 1.9 u/a is too high, and does not reflect existing densities. It would raise the density to be in line with the Village of WestClay exception, (where a .1 density increase added 70 extra houses). It would double the current zoning, and would not reflect recent denial of 2 rezone proposals at that density. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 176 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Intensity/Density: limit to 1.0. should not change from current densities without a public survey OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 177 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: Delete Suburban Residential, Neighborhood Service Node, and Community Vitality Node. A change in density next door from a 1.2 to 4.9 is way too extreme for people in West Carmel who want to live in a low-density residential area. And again, West Carmel residents chose to live away from typical urban features provided by even a “Neighborhood Service Node,” let alone a “Community Vitality Node” that could have 80,000 sq. ft. of retail! OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 178 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Best Fit: delete Suburban Residential no change in text, 9/23/08 179 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Conditional Fit: add Suburban Residential (at edges), delete attached residential, neighborhood service should be changed to support, delete community vitality node since there are none present. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 180 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Structure Orientation on Site: delete courtyard-loading garages. no change in text, 9/23/08 181 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Development Features: Define “designed open space.” Is it usable? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 182 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Open Space - "50% should be designed" was added. Why? Is it usable? Define both. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 12 10/28/2008 183 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Development Features: add "and on dry land as a designed landscape." no change in text, 9/23/08 184 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Suburban Res: In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6 to 1 to divide this classification further. That should be reflected in this draft. no change in text, 9/23/08 185 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Purpose: Amend to read, “To establish housing opportunities for people who desire to have less yard & to enjoy closer proximity to their neighbors. no change in text, 9/23/08 186 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Geographic location: Strike “West.” This doesn’t exist outside of the Village of WestClay and Stanford Park, which were approved as “exceptions. They certainly are a very small piece of the area. It is not typical. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 187 9/22/2008 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? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 188 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Geographic Location - What is the basis for applying up to 4.9 u/a to all of South Central and East Carmel. no change in text, 9/23/08 189 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet no change in text, 9/23/08 190 8/19/2008 Andy Crook 32 Intensity/Density: 4.9 du/a is too high. no change in text, 9/23/08 191 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Intensity/Density: Add the phrase “where there is good connectivity” to the end. Reduce the top number to at least 3.9. Urban residential starts at 4.0, so nothing is served by the overlap. At 3.9, equal sized lots would be approximately 1/5 of an acre. That is “urban”, not “suburban,” particularly in Carmel West. no change in text, 9/23/08 192 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Density - Range is too broad. In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6-1 to further divide this classification. no change in text, 9/23/08 193 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Intensity/Density: should be between 1.0 and 2.9. R-1 is now 2.9 max and shouldn't change unless survey indicates otherwise. no change in text, 9/23/08 194 9/22/2008 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? "will be" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 195 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Best Fit: delete attached residential and neighborhood service node OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 196 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Best Fit - Add "Neighborhood Support Center". Move "Attached Residential (7 u/a or greater)", and "Neighborhood Service Node (80,000 sq. ft., up to 6 u/a)" to Conditional Fit. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 197 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Conditional Fit - All of these would be very conditional, (allowing 6-14 u/a), especially next to the lower end of this range (2-4.9 u/a). Employment Nodes allow up to 4 stories. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 198 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node, delete community vitality OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 199 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Structure Features, 3rd bullet: add "on lots less than 80' wide." no change in text, 9/23/08 200 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape." no change in text, 9/23/08 201 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 1st Photo: Isn't Enclave 7 units per acre? no change in text, 9/23/08 202 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet, since townhouses are listed under attached residential no change in text, 9/23/08 203 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Intensity/Density: should be between 2.9 and 5 units per acre. no change in text, 9/23/08 204 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Examples - To Village of WestClay, add "in form only". Its 2.1 u/a is nowhere near the "Urban" density of 4-8 u/a, and therefore should not be classified "Urban" on the Map. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 205 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Best Fit - No mention of "Neighborhood Support Center". "Core Support", with no density limits, should be moved to Conditional. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 206 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Best Fit: delete neighborhood service node and core support OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 207 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Conditional Fit - "Urban" 8 u/a could go next to "Suburban Res." 2 u/a?? no change in text, 9/23/08 13 10/28/2008 208 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node and core support only at edges of Old Town Residential & limited to 2 stories) OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 209 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Structure Features: delete "however, three stories may be appropriate in some circumstances" no change in text, 9/23/08 210 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Open Space - "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) gets 20%, but "Urban" (4-8 u/a) is only 10%?? Dense developments need more open space, and there is none off-site/nearby for most of these areas. no change in text, 9/23/08 211 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 10% to 30% no change in text, 9/23/08 212 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape" no change in text, 9/23/08 213 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, last bullet: instead of "have designs fitting the context," replace with "look like a single family dwelling from each different street elevation" no change in text, 9/23/08 214 8/26/2008 Chamber 34 Purpose: We’re not sure if “workforce housing” is the new term for affordable, diverse housing opportunities, but wonder if Carmel wants to specify whom they are identifying. Why teachers, fire fighters and police officers? Why not retail salespeople, roofers and nurses’ aides? We’d recommend the deletion of the items in parenthesis. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 215 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Purpose: replace text with "To establish opportunities for residents who want a more compact living environment." no change in text, 9/23/08 216 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Attached Res: Density- Needs upper limit. In 2006, Commissioners voted 5-2 to cap it at 10 u/a. DOCS wanted double that, to bring the community "in line with the market", and b/c lower density=fewer amenities. (Planning and zoning should serve to prevent development from being market-based, which would often be very unsuitable to an area. Otherwise, there is little point in either.) no change in text, 9/23/08 217 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Best Fit- Move "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)", to conditional. No mention of "Neighborhood Support Center". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 218 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Best Fit: delete suburban residential and urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 219 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Conditional Fit - Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res." (1-1.9 u/a). Densities of the 2 classifications are much too far apart. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 220 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 221 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 20% to 30% no change in text, 9/23/08 222 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape" no change in text, 9/23/08 223 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 2nd Photo: how about the Amli apartments on 146th? no change in text, 9/23/08 224 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 West Carmel - Not needed or wanted. The 1-mile road grid could put one on every corner. no change in text, 9/23/08 225 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Neighborhood Support Center (NEW): Purpose - These would negatively impact residential areas by adding light, noise, signs, traffic, trash, and large trucks where they otherwise would not be. no change in text, 9/23/08 226 9/19/2008 CWIC2 35 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West. no change in text, 9/23/08 227 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Land Uses - Community centers, YMCA's, and most fitness centers are too big for this, and would be traffic magnets. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 228 9/19/2008 CWIC2 35 Intensity/Density: 1 mile apart in Carmel West is far more than the area desires—and permitting these on every non-subdivision intersection in a low-density area makes their viability highly questionable. These adversely affect the character and desirability of Carmel West. no change in text, 9/23/08 229 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Density - One mile is too close. Does the 7,500 sq. ft. (approx. 1/6 acre), include parking area? no change in text, 9/23/08 230 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Intensity/Density, 1st bullet: add "neighboring" in front of "developments" no change in text, 9/23/08 14 10/28/2008 231 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Examples - Hard to find any in Carmel b/c suburban residents have chosen not to live next to nonresidential uses. no change in text, 9/23/08 232 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Examples: add "see illustration" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 233 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Best Fit: after suburban residential add "except in West Carmel" no change in text, 9/23/08 234 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Conditional Fit - Remove "Estate Residential". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 235 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Conditional Fit: delete estate residential, add "east carmel only" after Low Intensity Suburban Res no change in text, 9/23/08 236 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Structure Features: Mostly glass fronts look "urban", and would make "activities" totally visible. Drive-throughs allowed? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 237 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Structure Features: change max height to 1.5 stories no change in text, 9/23/08 238 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Structure Orientation - Only visibility can be partially buffered. Cannot adequately buffer other impacts listed above. no change in text, 9/23/08 239 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 2nd Photo: add photo of bank at village of west clay IN PROGRESS 240 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 West Carmel - These would not "preserve the estate character" or "reinforce rural character", (page 25). Residents bought in Clay West to avoid living near high density and commercial intrusion. Estate owners will move away from it. no change in text, 9/23/08 241 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Purpose: add "and sigle use" after mixed use no change in text, 9/23/08 242 9/19/2008 CWIC2 36 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West. These are incredibly too urban for the character of the area (80,000 sq. ft.! and 6 u/a). These destroy the very reason most people invested in their homes in Carmel West. no change in text, 9/23/08 243 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Land Uses - A "NSN" and a "Commercial Vitality Node (CVN)" differ mainly in size and residential density. "NSN" allowable uses need to be much more limited and specific. no change in text, 9/23/08 244 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Density - Up to 6 u/a is too high. Equivalent to the "Urban" range (4-8 u/a), it is not appropriate for suburbs. It would just be a loophole to put higher density where it otherwise would not permitted. no change in text, 9/23/08 245 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 The 80,000 sq. ft. per node, (about 1.84 acres), should be stated here to avoid confusion. Parking included in that space? moved, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 246 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Best Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) would especially not be best fit. By definition, "NSN's" should stand alone, to serve "unserved" areas; so remove "NSN" (chart page 44), and "CVN" (text & chart). Otherwise, the size limits on "NSN'S" become meaningless. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 247 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Best Fit: delete Urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 248 9/19/2008 CWIC2 36 Conditional Fit: Strike “Suburban Residential.” Strike Low Intensity Suburban Residential from “Conditional Fit.” People greatly fear that the areas identified as Suburban Residential on the maps will be used to insert these in Carmel West. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 249 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Conditional Fit- Remove "Regional Vitality Node (RVN)" and "Core Support". Same reason as above. List "Core Support" under "CVN" and "RVN", not for "NSN". Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res. (1-1.9 u/a)", which is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The "NSN" 6 u/a equates to "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", which is correctly not listed as an "Appropriate Adjacent Classification" for "Low Intensity Sub. Res.". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 250 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res, add Urban Res (at perimeter only) OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 15 10/28/2008 251 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Structure Orientation - Again, nonvisual negative impacts cannot be adequately buffered from residences. "Use" still matters more than "form" to the public. "Disguising" a non-residential use to not look like what it is, does not negate the nonvisual impacts of living near it. The Village of WestClay commercial "NSN" west of Towne Rd. is on the Map as a "CVN". That absolutely needs to change. no change in text, 9/23/08 252 8/26/2008 Chamber 36 Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops abuts the street? deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 253 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Development Features: replace "is discouraged" with "that are built to the street." deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 254 8/26/2008 Chamber 36 3rd Photo: The caption on the lower picture singles out an existing building. We’d recommend the use of outside-of-Carmel examples when the document is being critical. fixed caption, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 255 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Geographic Location, 2nd sentence: replace "integrated into" with "sensitively built when next to residential" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 256 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Best Fit: all classifications except "single family residential classifications" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 257 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res." should be included here. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 258 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Conditional Fit: single family residential classifications OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 259 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Specify significant buffering of municipal facilities from residences. no change in text, 9/23/08 260 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Structure Orientation: add "honoring privacy and views of existing single family detached dwellings" no change in text, 9/23/08 261 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Development Features - The Community-center-type uses of mega-churches would normally fall under "NSN" or "CVN". Neither of those lists "Estate Res." as an appropriate adjacent fit, but it is listed here. In "Conditional Fit" areas, those mixed-uses should be restricted to those that serve the institution, not the general public. no change in text, 9/23/08 262 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 1st Photo caption: delete "a great" example OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 263 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 West Carmel - These should be limited to along Michigan Road. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 264 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Community Vitality Node (CVN): Purpose - Omit "and neighborhood serving". It blurs the line between those 2 classifications, which differ in size, density, and hopefully uses. no change in text, 9/23/08 265 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Geographic Location - With 10 u/a allowed, and no limit on commercial intensity, these are not "most appropriate" near "minor" thoroughfares. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 266 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Examples - On the Map, Merchants Square is a "RVN", and the Village of WestClay "NSN" is incorrectly shown as a "CVN". no change in text, 9/23/08 267 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Best Fit - Omit "NSN" for reasons stated earlier. no change in text, 9/23/08 268 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38 Best Fit: delete "residential" attached, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 269 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Conditional Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" would especially not be compatible. "Core Support" is listed under "NSN" and "RVN", but not "CVN"? It should be listed under "CVN" and "RVN", but not under "NSN". no change in text, 9/23/08 270 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38 Conditional Fit: add attached residential, delete suburban and urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 271 9/22/2008 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!! no change in text, 9/23/08 16 10/28/2008 272 8/26/2008 Chamber 39 Land Uses, 4th Bullet: Fourth bullet – isn’t this a zoning ordinance issue? We’d make the same comment about the items under Structure Features on this page. delete "but only" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 273 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 39 Employment Node: Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" is a very questionable fit next to 4 stories with densities up to 14 u/a. no change in text, 9/23/08 274 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39 Conditional Fit: delete suburban and urban residential no change in text, 9/23/08 275 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39 Structure Features, 1st bullet: add "and only two stories next to single family residential neighborhoods" no change in text, 9/23/08 276 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 40 Regional Vitality Node (RVN): Conditional Fit - Remove "NSN". If next to a "RVN" (or "CVN"), it is no longer "neighborhood serving". no change in text, 9/23/08 277 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Conditional Fit: add "attached" to residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 278 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Structure Features: delete "or eight stories if within the US 31 Corridor overlay." What about the developer who wanted to build a residential tower between Clay Terrace and the residential neighborhood to the west? no change in text, 9/23/08 279 8/26/2008 Chamber 40 Development Features: same comments as previous about strip commercial development. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 280 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Development Features, 1st bullet: instead of "discouraged" replace with "built to the street" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 281 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Land Uses: delete entertainment no change in text, 9/23/08 282 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Core Support: Best Fit- Since there are no residential or commercial limits on intensity, "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)" should move to Conditional. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 283 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Best Fit: delete Urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 284 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Conditional Fit - Replace "NSN" with "CVN". no change in text, 9/23/08 285 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Conditional Fit: add urban residential (perimeter edges only) no change in text, 9/23/08 286 8/26/2008 Chamber 41 Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance? no change in text, 9/23/08 287 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Structure Features: add "two story maximim next to urban residential" no change in text, 9/23/08 288 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Open Space - "Attached Res. (7 u/a & up)" requires 20% (half usable), but "Core Support (no density limits)" only requires 15% (no mention of usable)? no change in text, 9/23/08 289 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: increase open space to 20 or 30% no change in text, 9/23/08 290 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: add bullet "Protect pre-development environmental features" no change in text, 9/23/08 291 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 42 Land Uses & Examples: Add "Form Only" to both references to the Village of WestClay. Residents are wary of attempts to classify it in any way that could expand its current restrictions. no change in text, 9/23/08 292 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Land Uses: should entertainment be SU? Music/noise? no change in text, 9/23/08 293 8/26/2008 Chamber 42 Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the zoning ordinance. no change in text, 9/23/08 294 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Structure Orientation: add bullet "A maximum of two stories at right-of-way next to single family detached residential neighborhoods" no change in text, 9/23/08 295 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Development Features, 1st bullet: add "except next to single family detached neighborhoods." no change in text, 9/23/08 296 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Development Features: add bullet "Pocket parks are encouraged." OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 297 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Geographic Location: delete Old Town (move to secondary core, per map) no change in text, 9/23/08 298 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Examples: delete Old Town Shops (move to secondary core, per map) no change in text, 9/23/08 299 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 1st Photo: move to secondary core no change in text, 9/23/08 300 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 2nd Photo: there are other nice drawings we could include here OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 301 9/22/2008 DOCS 44 Adjust Table per discussion and to be "symmetrical" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 17 10/28/2008 302 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 44 Land Classification Map Description: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence-This detailed map will be "construed" that way. Everyone expects the Comprehensive Plan and zoning to match. no change in text, 9/23/08 303 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 44 Final paragraph, 1st sentence - The classifications on the Map have density ranges; therefore, developers will assume that the Map establishes certain density rights. no change in text, 9/23/08 X Date Name Page Comment Notes 304 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Add back major street names to map OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 305 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general the map is too specific (down to the parcel) no change, 9/30/2008 306 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. no change, 9/30/2008 307 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM 131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 308 9/29/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 309 9/29/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 310 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM This classification would also permit residential density up to 10 u/a, surrounded by homes at a much, much lower density. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 311 9/29/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 312 9/29/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 313 9/29/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY 18 10/28/2008 314 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 315 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 316 9/29/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 317 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 318 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 319 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT NO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL 19 10/28/2008 320 9/29/2008 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 intensity of use is much more compatible than a subdivision with a 4.9 density. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 321 c. The highest density in the entire quadrant is Weston at 2.14, barely over the Suburban Residential category. But that is misleading: Weston has several sections, each with very different densities. As part of its approval under the 1st Cluster Ordinance, it was required to “transition” its density, lowering the u/a as it went eastward. Weston Village, the section farthest west, abuts the commercial area. It is the densest section, above 2.14. Weston Park, the section between Weston Village and Brandywine, is less dense with houses abutting Brandywine on 1/3 acre lots. North of Brandywine is Weston Ridge, with ½ acre lots. It is appropriate to include the section of Weston closest to the commercial area in Suburban Residential, but not appropriate to include the rest of this quadrant. This quadrant should be divided into different zoning classifications that more appropriately fit what currently exists. (Marilyn: “I have a personal stake in this. I live in Brandywine on a 1 acre lot. I would never have bought and built in an area zoned for even a 2.0 u/a.”) OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 322 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 323 9/29/2008 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 no change, 9/30/2008 324 9/29/2008 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 and should not be done. no change, 9/30/2008 20 10/28/2008 325 9/29/2008 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 to this drastic change from what was expected. no change, 9/30/2008 326 9/29/2008 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? 146th Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 327 328 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. no change, 9/30/2008 329 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. no change, 9/30/2008 330 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.) no change, 9/30/2008 331 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. no change, 9/30/2008 332 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. no change, 9/30/2008 333 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 334 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 335 9/29/2008 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. Estate Residential is in keeping with the character of the area, in keeping with the current zoning that people believed they were getting when they invested in their homes, and in keeping with what the vast majority of the residents in the area strongly desire no change, 9/30/2008 336 LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL WEST CARMEL: OTHER 21 10/28/2008 337 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? no change, 9/30/2008 338 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 occurs. no change, 9/30/2008 339 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM I am also very concerned that the Comprehensive Plan continues to encourage sprawl. Neighborhoods like The Reserve at Spring Mill, Williams Mill, Spring Arbor and Ashbury Park could not be duplicated in many places on the west side of Carmel. We need to find places where more dense, vibrant and creative communities can be created on the west side. We need to be aware of the impact of the new 146th St on the west side of Carmel and plan appropriately. Please consider changing the entire corridor from 141st to 146th St to Suburban Residential from the Boone County Line to Town Rd. In addition, this is the ideal area for a large outdoor sports park that our community needs and wants. This is ideal for this use because it could be accessed off of a busy 146th St and be less invasive to residential. 146th Special Study Corridor, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 340 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT 341 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 342 343 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. no change 344 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support extend sec core and core support to 4th Ave. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 345 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). EMPLOYMENT, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 346 9/30/2008 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. EMPLOYMENT, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 347 NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL 22 10/28/2008 348 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. urban res, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 349 9/25/2008 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 residents living in this area would benefit from business development along this corridor. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 350 9/26/2008 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. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 351 31 CORRIDOR 352 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 353 8/21/2008 Barbara Layton LCM No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 354 9/9/2008 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 Springmill. Carmel must protect that for the highest and best commercial use to guarantee that the necessary commercial tax base as we close out our available land. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 355 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. no change, 9/30/2008 23 10/28/2008 356 9/25/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 357 9/26/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 358 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. 359 9/26/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 24 10/28/2008 360 9/26/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 361 9/26/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 362 9/26/2008 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? Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 363 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. 25 10/28/2008 364 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. 365 9/26/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 366 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. 367 9/26/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 368 9/26/2008 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 Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 26 10/28/2008 369 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. 370 9/26/2008 John Levinsohn LCM 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 371 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. 372 9/29/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 373 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. 27 10/28/2008 374 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. 375 9/29/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 376 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. 28 10/28/2008 377 9/29/2008 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 Street is required, at a minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania Street to reach any significant retail/convenience shopping area. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 378 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. 379 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. 380 9/29/2008 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. Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 381 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. 29 10/28/2008 382 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. 383 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. X Date Name Page Comment Notes 384 9/29/2008 CWIC2 CWIC2 acknowledges that the needs of residents that live along thoroughfares must be balanced against the needs of the greater community for efficient and effective traffic movement. We support connectivity as a guiding principle and roadways constructed to handle the traffic demand. We support the bike lanes since we know all too well how much one bike rider can back up traffic on the current roadways. Gridlock benefits no one. We do ask that you do everything possible to minimize the impact on the affected neighbors. Please consider carefully the following: 1. Can the medians required for trees be reduced while still maintaining healthy trees? Perhaps some good street trees require less space. 2. Are side paths to take 10 feet each side of the roads or is this for both? (Totaling the numbers in the illustrations does not come to the right-of-way numbers). We support side paths and do not wish them to be too narrow, but neither do we wish them to be “expansive.” Ten foot each side seems much beyond what is needed. no change, 9/30/2008 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. 385 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 53 Collector Street-Define buffer planting. no change, 9/30/2008 PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN 30 10/28/2008 386 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 55, 56, 62 Parking on Residential Parkways? Spring Mill is classified a residential parkway. no parking 387 9/29/2008 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". 4-lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 388 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 389 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56 The photo example of Residential Parkway 4 Lane, (Hazel Dell), is a larger "Primary Parkway" on the map. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 390 9/9/2008 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. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 391 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 392 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 58 Is an exit ramp planned at Towne Rd. and I-465, south of 96th? not that we're aware 393 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 60 Secondary Arterial (Shelborne Rd, College, Carmel Dr, Oak Ridge Rd.)-The photo example is a "Primary Parkway" on the map. no change, 9/30/2008 394 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 60 No median is required here. Why should Towne Rd require a 40 ft greater Right of Way than Shelborne Rd? no change, 9/30/2008 395 9/29/2008 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. parts changed on map 396 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 62 Street Classification Chart does not include bike or ped treatment required. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 397 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Street Classification Chart: Add "Median sizes", "Sidewalks/Paths", & "Bicycle lanes". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 398 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Urban Collector St.-Change Right of Way from 55 to 66 feet. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 399 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Residential Parkway 2 lane-Change Right of way to 100 feet. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 400 8/6/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan Recommend 96th from Haverstick to Westfield is Primary Pkwy instead of Primary Arterial OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 401 8/14/2008 Adam Houghton Thorough Plan Residential Parkways are too large/unsafe for current conditions on residential streets including Four Seasons Way. (this reflects west side connectivity exhibit) no change, 9/30/2008 31 10/28/2008 402 9/8/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 403 9/9/2008 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 important that the northern portion of Hazel Dell not become a speed-through corridor for our Westfield and Noblesville neighbors to the north who have not adhered to their old comprehensive plans. no change, 9/30/2008 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 the vision of the east side we don't want to see. Hazel Dell should not be the conduit for a retail war, them trying to draw Carmel shoppers north of 146th and "us" trying to draw them down at 96th. 404 9/29/2008 John Tintera Thorough Plan Since all of the potential changes resulting from a future 96th St & Westfield Bvld Area Study are not shown in the Thoroughfare Plan Map and Land Classification Plan Map, consider temporarily removing the proposed roundabout and 96th and Haverstick until the transportation issues in this area are resolve with a future Study. The Planning Staff and Engineering will benefit from additional time to determine if actual traffic counts on Haverstick are sufficient to support a proposed roundabout or whether alternatives should be considered. no change, 9/30/2008 405 9/29/2008 Dee Fox Thorough Plan Thoroughfare Plan Map: Residential Parkways on the map do not specify 2 or 4 lanes. 4 lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 32 10/28/2008 406 9/29/2008 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. 4 lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 407 9/29/2008 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.) no change, 9/30/2008 408 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 409 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 410 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 411 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 412 9/29/2008 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 no change, 9/30/2008 413 9/30/2008 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. no R/W increases for SW Clay, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 414 10/7/2008 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 415 9/29/2008 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. no change, 9/30/2008 416 9/29/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 417 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 74 The map is on page 75; not 71. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 418 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Bike/Ped Map Confusing. Is Illinois to get path or lane? 419 9/29/2008 CWIC2 Bike/Ped Map The map identifies an “Enhanced Sidewalk,” but where is the descriptor of what that is? 34 10/28/2008 420 8/26/2008 Chamber The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new neighborhoods. no change, 9/30/2008 X Date Name Page Comment Notes 421 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 84 Current Overlay Zones (Michigan Rd, 116th St., US 31, etc.) should be included and/or referenced in the Comp. Plan. note added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 422 423 8/26/2008 Chamber 86 Keystone: does this need section to be updated due to recent engineering and construction? no change, 10/14/2008 424 9/5/2008 Tim DeFrench 86 Keystone: The third bullet under the Design Goals should also state protection of the established neighborhoods on the west side of Keystone. "Roughly" 98th to just south of 116th 126th to smokey row. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 425 9/22/2008 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?? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 426 9/29/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 427 9/29/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 428 9/29/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 429 430 US 31 GENERAL 431 10/10/2008 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. 432 10/10/2008 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. 433 10/10/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 434 10/10/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS KEYSTONE PARKWAY CORRIDOR US 31 CORRIDOR 35 10/28/2008 435 10/10/2008 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 436 8/26/2008 Chamber 88 Design Guidelines, 5th bullet: A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 437 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88 Design Guidelines, 8th bullet: 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. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 438 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 9th bullet: Respect transition and buffering adjacent to existing subdivisions. Take out AGREEMENTS. There are not any buffering agreements. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 439 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 88 Design Guidelines: Add, "lighting should be designed to not trespass into residential areas" (as for Home Place, page 100). no change, 10/14/2008 440 8/26/2008 Chamber 89 US 31: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive Residential? no change, 10/14/2008 441 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 89 Why is path only on the east side? (Keystone has paths on both sides.) no change, 10/14/2008 442 9/29/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 443 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89 I think it is good that the boundaries for the Meridian Corridor extend west of spring mill no change, 10/14/2008 444 10/10/2008 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? no change, 10/14/2008 445 446 9/6/2008 Chad Scott 88 US 31: I do not want Illinois street expansion by my neighborhood at 106th street through 111th Street no change, 10/14/2008 447 9/9/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 448 9/9/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 449 450 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 88 US 31: reconfirm Spring Mill as a residential corridor w/Illinois as a boundary and the importance of a compact US 31 corridor with sufficient mass to facilitate reaching other goals such as future transit. no change, 10/14/2008 451 8/21/2008 Barbara Layton 88 US 31: no Commercial West of Illinois, Pittman farm can be developed residentially ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT SPRING MILL CORRIDOR, ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 36 10/28/2008 452 9/30/2008 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. 453 9/30/2008 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. 454 10/10/2008 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. 455 9/26/2008 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. 456 9/26/2008 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 greatest benefit to residents of western Carmel. Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 37 10/28/2008 457 9/26/2008 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. 458 9/26/2008 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? 459 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. 460 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. 461 9/26/2008 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. Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 38 10/28/2008 462 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. 463 9/26/2008 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. 464 9/26/2008 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. 465 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. 466 9/26/2008 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. Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 39 10/28/2008 467 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. 468 9/29/2008 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. 469 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. 470 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. 471 9/29/2008 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. Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 40 10/28/2008 472 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. 473 9/29/2008 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. 474 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. 475 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. Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 41 10/28/2008 476 9/29/2008 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. 477 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. 478 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. 479 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. 480 10/15/2008 Andy Marsh I am a homeowner is Spring Mill Place Subdivision just south of 111th on the east side of Spring Mill Road. We purchased our home 5 years and planned to raise our two small children at the back of a cul-de-sac with a heavily wooded backyard. The mere thought of a busy road being located just on the other side of our property line with the potential for 6-10 story office buildings makes us very uneasy. One of the reasons were purchased this home and piece of property it is located on was the seclusion and peacefullness that is hard to find in a neighborhood in Carmel. We live on nearly 2 acres and reguarly have deer, rabbits, and other wildlife in our back woods and yard and the thought of losing them to another roadway and commercial office buildings is a shame. While we understand the birms and trees are planned to seperate our backyards from the Illinois street expansion, having this in our backyard will create noise and decrease our property values which is unfair. Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 42 10/28/2008 481 On a second note, I would like to express my desire to retain the orange color designation (residential) for the parcel of land just north of our subdivision located between 111th and 116th street just east of springmill road. On Sept 23, 2008, it was agreed upon to leave this area as residential and move on to other areas of concern. To our surprise, on Oct 14th meeting, this same area was discussed again, while not on the agenda for that evening, and some plan commission members asked that this area be changed to pink. This action defeats the purpose of deciding to do one thing and then changing to another. This process is unfair and a complete waste of time for community members to show up if previous decisions are cast away and new agendas delivered. 482 10/15/2008 Ron Houck As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. 483 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 484 1015/2008 R. Kevin Williams I agree with Ron Houck. In addition, I should bring to your attention, that over 20 years ago, Dr. Pittman attempted to get all this acreage re-zoned commercial at that time. This was not long after we built and purchased our house. At the time, this re-zoning did not agree with the comprehensive plan. They attempted to use the fact he received a slight variance for one parcel, to act as precedent for re-zoning the whole section of land. I personally hired Ice Miller at that time to fight this, then was joined by other residents. At that time, the planning commission was frankly overwhelmingly in favor of this change. However, in my opinion, when they found out they might be in for an extended legal battle, apparently they re-considered, and decided to shelve it. Shortly thereafter, when Dr. Pittman and Jim Nelson again tried to force the issue, a concerned group of residents here gathered together and successfully defeated the proposal. 485 Dr. Pittman decided to (for a time) turn that property into a pig farm, as an attempted slap in the face to the residents. At the time, Browning called me at my office several times, trying to get me to convince folks to settle, because the smell was directed towards his development. However, as one of my neighbors who grew up on a farm said... "the smell doesn't bother me, to me it smells like money!" Eventually that pig farm went away. I am sure he will threaten something like that again. 43 10/28/2008 486 Nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, there is MORE residential in this area that would be affected at this time. I am sure this issue would be fought even harder this go around. There are parties that are still attempting to surround our neighborhood with commercial development. This was not what we expected when we purchased our houses, nor improved them over the years. I am sure this would be an extended and messy battle that would make the annexation look like a picnic. 487 10/15/2008 Linda Oldiges As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to Section 5. I did not attend the Oct. 14th meeting but 488 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. I understand that some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Why then would you make this a special study area now. It seems that this action merely prolongs the process and involves our 489 10/15/2008 Gerry Golden As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision since 1981, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. 490 However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. 491 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 492 10/16/2008 Michael Diehr I live at 10966 Springmill Lane in Carmel just south of the Parcel of land by our subdivision (111th - 116th St on the east side of Springmill Road). This is the parcel affectionately known as the Pittman pig farm. I do not want this parcel of land (the Ptiman Pig farm) to be changed from it's residential status to a special study area. This would have a adverse affect on my property value and change the quality of life in our neighborhood. I oppose this change. 493 10/16/2008 CPT David Gardiner I am a resident of Spring Mill Place subdivision. I have been unable to attend the recent planning meetings due to the fact that I am currently serving overseas on active duty for the military. 44 10/28/2008 494 I have recently learned, from other similarly concerned residents, that the commission is considering creating a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I am very much opposed to this! This area has many families living across the street on 111th and Springmill streets. It is not appropriate for this land to be turned to commercial use and the large increase in traffic and light pollution. 495 Another office park does not fit the character of the area nor the vision of its resident's who believe that the best use for the land is for residential or continued agricultural purposes. 496 My understanding is that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and a decision was made to leave it designated as residential - as it should be. 497 However, at the October 14th meeting this same issue was raised again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. It seems to me this issue was settled at the previous meeting. The fact that it was allowed to be reconsidered w/out advance notice to interested parties is a great disservice to interested residents like myself who have been told this issue has been resolved at a previous meeting. 498 This area should remain designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. Caving in to special interests and creating a special study area merely prolongs the process in the hopes that local residents will weary of the bureaucracy and endless meetings and eventually give in. 499 It is my hope that you do your best to help prevent this area from becoming yet another office park. 500 10/16/2008 Carolyn Scott As a resident of Springmill Place, I would ask that the designation of the parcel of north of our subdivision retain orange color. We would like to preserve the beauty and character of our neighborhood. Commercial buildings would destroy this! 501 10/16/2008 Lou Jenkins Please accept my request to retain the color mapping of orange from the possible change to pink. As I understand the proposal, this would allow Dr.Pittman to convert zoning from residential to commercial. This is clearly not the understanding of the home owners in Spring Mill Place that the property would be developed commercially. If you would pass my request to stay with the orange mapping, I would appreciate your help. 502 10/16/2008 Dan & Linda Oldiges As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. 45 10/28/2008 503 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 504 10/19/2008 Suzanne Glesing My name is Suzanne Glesing, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. As a resident, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. 505 I realize that there was recently a meeting which took place on September 23rd that was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. 506 It is also my understanding that on October 14th another meeting was held and the previous conclusion from the September meeting was reversed. This is a disservice to your process and especially a disservice to those who took the time to attend the FIRST meeting. Why take the time, if simply another meeting will be held less that one month later and have all of previous discussions revisited and CHANGED? Especially when it was not even on the agenda and all of the same people are not in attendance. 507 Having been made aware of the results of the September meeting, I felt no need to attend the October meeting because a decision had already been made. Apparently I was wrong. Even though these issues were finalized at the previous meeting - they were revisited without the same people who had previously taken the time to be present. This is absolutely unfair and seemingly unethical. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. 508 As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets is ONCE AGAIN going to be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. WHY?! This has already been addressed, and finalized in September. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves 509 I WILL be at the next meeting - as will many other members of my neighborhood. Hopefully the effort will result in an improvement of communication and resolve. 510 10/19/2008 Valerie Eickmeier As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting! 511 Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings.This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down the residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the members of this residential community! 46 10/28/2008 512 10/20/2008 Jacqueline Baques I agree with Valerie's statements. If the decision was already made at the prior meeting to leave the area designated as residential, there was no need to revisit that topic at the next meeting. Our neighborhood's consensus is that we ALL would like to see that area left at its former designation as residential. 513 10/19/2008 Dan Belcher I am a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision and would like to state my opposition to the creation of a special study area for the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to 116th Street. The area now being considered for special study was discussed on September 23 and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. I am in favor of leaving this area designated as residential, and considering future project proposals at the time they are presented to the Plan Commission. Creating a special study area is unnecessary and only prolongs the process to the advantage of developers who ultimately want this area changed from residential to commercial. This change would clearly be to the detriment of the homeowners in our subdivision. Please strongly consider this request to maintain this area designated as residential. 514 10/20/2008 Janice Byrne As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting! 515 Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings. This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down the residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the members of this residential community! 516 10/20/2008 Alexis Schwartz As a new resident of the Spring Mill Place neighborhood, I am in complete consensus with the rest of my neighbors that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting. Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, 517 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would.Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area. 518 10/20/2008 John and Tammy Lieberman My wife and I are homeowners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (10989 Spring Mill Lane) which subdivision is located due south of the Pittman Parcel. I am the principal real estate broker in Lieberman and Associates, Inc. and have been a licensed real estate broker for 23 years. I have been involved in several feasibility studies of many residential and commercial properties over many years as my father was a real estate developer. Obviously, my wife and I and all home owners in Spring Mill Place are concerned about our future property values. 47 10/28/2008 519 I am aware that the Pittman Parcel is being considered as a potential special study area under the Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. I am in agreement with Ron Houck (that lives in our subdivision) per his prior statement to you. I believe the best use of the Pittman Parcel in light of the existing residential communities surrounding that parcel is for the Pittman Parcel to be residential. 520 I realize that no specific project/development proposal is being reviewed right now by the Carmel Planning Commission for development of the property. But given the nice Williams Mill subdivision (on the west side of Spring Mill Road across from the Pitman Parcel), I believe that another well planned development like Williams Mill would fit well into the residential design and flavor of our existing two subdivisions (Williams Mill and Spring Mill Place.) 521 I am therefore opposed to changing the property to a Special Study Area. Thank you for giving consideration to my thoughts as well as to all of the other home owners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. 522 10/20/2008 Rick Pearson I'm also a resident of Spring Mill Place and fully agree with those I'm referencing below. In addition please include my position to those who have written before me. 523 Those proposing and supporting this special study are using this as a tactic to buy time by drawing those opposed into battle of attrition. We have jobs, families, and other responsibilities and should not have to continually make a case against an obstinate desire to commercially develop a piece of property that has already been addressed. The safety of our children, the value of our homes, and the overall community that exists today should not be overlooked for someone else's profit. This neighborhood is well established and has a strong desire to maintain the community it has created. I believe it is on record by the very developer pushing this issue, that the property being discussed cannot be developed residentially because there is no value in homes constructed next to an office building. How can one argue homes will have a lower value and cannot be built and then insist on putting an office next to our homes and pretend it will have no impact our community? This is ludicrous. 524 I implore you to realize and honor what we as a community have work so hard to create and preserve over the years. Please re-establish the property being referenced back to residential. 525 10/20/2008 Lani & Greg Thompson I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting. 526 Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring. 48 10/28/2008 527 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would. Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area. 528 10/20/2008 Gary and Denise Lewis As residents of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, we are opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th St. to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. 529 The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was addressed again by those wishing to try it again. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. 530 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in more meetings, a strategy seemingly designed to wear down the residents. We plan on attending the October 28th meeting to monitor the progress being made on behalf of our community. 531 10/21/2008 Mike Sharp I concur with the many e-mails you have received on this topic. 532 10/21/2008 Chris & Alexis Shwartz We are aware that the Pittman property (east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street) is being considered as a potential special study area under the far reaching Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. Consistent with the vote at the September 23rd meeting, we strongly believe that the property should remain residential, and therefore strongly oppose changing its classification to a Special Study Area. 533 The fact that those supporting commercial development decided to bring this matter up at a subsequent meeting following a decision to classify residential further clouds our belief in a fair and appropriate process. This approach was unfair to us that believed this issue was decided at a previous meeting. 49 10/28/2008 534 Developing this land for commercial use will: 1. Adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place as well as the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill Road 2. Increase traffic through our subdivision as well as those surrounding thoroughfares in our area 3. Increase the safety risks to the many children that call Spring Mill Place home with added foot and automotive traffic 4. Potentially increase crime in our area. Our position and consensus on this topic is unwavering. 535 10/21/2008 Rhonda & Andy Marsh I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting. 536 Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring. 537 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary reasons we bought our home, having 2 small children. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would. 538 Our land backs up to the land that will be developed for Illinois Street, so we are also VERY concerned with the potential height o f the buildings that will line Illinois Street. The reason we bought this home was because it is on a 2 acre wooded lot and we love the wildlife that inhabits the area behind our house. We (our children) will be losing the opportunity to see deer, ducks, rabbits, squirrels, etc... out of our back windows when this project is complete. Please don't ask us to look out our windows at 6-10 story buildings instead!! 539 Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area. 540 10/21/2008 Bill & Brie Williams As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area for the land on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. We put our home up for sale last summer and several prospective buyers asked specifically about the potential development of the aforementioned land parcel. The uncertainty about the future development of that property negatively impacted our ability to sell our home. Most buyers voiced the same concerns that we ourselves have about the negative impact such development would have on our property value in the future. 50 10/28/2008 541 The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. 542 This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. 543 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 544 10/21/2008 Jill H. Meisenheimer I have attended several Carmel Comp plan meetings in the past and I thought the following issue had been decided months ago. As a resident of Williams Mills subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road from South of 116th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I have heard that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was left designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. I was dismayed to hear that at the October 14th meeting this same area was revisited though it was not on the agenda and interested parties were not in attendance. This is not fair to those people who thought these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. 545 The area should be still designated as residential (orange), as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. 546 I am also terrible concerned that the Comp Plan is suggesting a requirement of 6-10 story buildings in this area. Already the traffic in our area is so clogged that I often have a tough time getting to and from our Williams Mills home from 116th and Meridian and that doesn't even include the impossiblity of actually waiting for the many traffic lights it can take to actually cross Meridian at 116th Street. I plan to be at the meeting on next Tuesday. 547 10/21/2008 Richard Clement We are very concerned about the plan to revise zoning for the Pittman property north of 111th. We definitely will attend the October 28th meeting. 51 10/28/2008 548 10/21/2008 Richard Vitales As a resident of the Williams Mill subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study of the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting, the process was to move on to subsequent items of business. However, at the October 14th meeting, this subject was once again revisited by those who want to reverse the decision already made. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. 549 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings; a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 550 10/22/2008 David Roach My name is David Roach, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. 551 I am in complete consensus with the entire neighborhood that does not want the land to the north of 111th Street to become a commercial property and does not want this property to be a special study area. Development of this land commercially would negatively impact our neighborhood(traffic,theft,values,etc.).Please leave the area as residential as agreed.We do not feel that 6-10 story buildings to the east of our neighborhood would be in our best interest. 552 We do not need any prolonging meetings wearing down the residents of this neighborhood.The Carmel Planning Commission should make this decision as if they were living here with no agenda. 553 10/24/2008 Barbara Layton Adrienne, we were at the meeting wherein Steve Pittman requested that his pig farm be reclassified, and such request was denied. The revised comp plan indicates his request was honored. 554 We OBJECT to his land being reclassified. 555 Further, the land north along Spring Mill Road owned by Clarian was zoned residential. This was a compromise intended to satisfy the surrounding residential property owners. This too has been reclassified. 556 Please DO NOT reclassify either of these two properties. No commercial west of Illinois MUST remain in effect. Thanks much. :-) 557 10/25/2008 Michael & Robertal Mattasits As homeowners and residents of the Williams Mill subdivision, located at 111th & Sprindmill Rd., we are opposed to the creation of a special study area for the parcel of land east of Springmill and north of 111th (commonly referred to as the Pittman Pig Farm). 558 We support the current residential designation. 52 10/28/2008 559 10/26/2008 Lyle Hartman My wife Marian and I live in Williams Mill and have lived in Carmel or Clay Twp since 1972. The Plan Commission indicated at the Sept 23rd meeting that the east side of Spring Mill North of 111th street would remain residential. However, the Oct 14th meeting indicated an intent to revisit this decision and create a special study area. This issue appears on the agenda for Oct 28. 560 The process of revisiting agenda items that were previously agreed to creates confusion and is unfair to those who attend meetings and leave believing that issues have been finalized. The process needlessly involves residents in more meetings and is a waste of time and money. The Plan Commission may want to consider a process where areas like this would be reviewed on a routine schedule of perhaps every five (5) years. Such a process would permit all parties to be appropriately notified and to be able to attend meetings when issues are being considered that have an impact on their immediate neighborhoods. 561 Please allow the prior decision to stand and leave this area zoned residential. 562 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective 7.8 and page 21, Objective 7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative certification. Shown below is a link to a recent article in Scientific American covering some of the common objections to LEED Certification. 563 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true 564 10/27/2008 Kathleen Hart I attended the Sept 30 and Oct 14 meetings which addressed, among other items, the Land Use Map for the Illinois Street expansion along our neighborhood, Spring Mill Place. I appreciate all the hard work that your Commission is putting in on this project. However, I write to ask that you reconsider the vote on October 14 to create a special study (pink) area for the east side of Spring Mill Road between 111 and 116th Streets (the Pittman parcel). I may not be able to attend the Oct 28 meeting and hope you will consider this email in lieu of my attendance. The reasons, some of which I tried to raise during the Oct 14 meeting, are as follows: 565 1. Our neighborhood appeared at the Sept 23, 30 and Oct 14 meetings for areas that affect the perimeter of our neighborhood. As stated previously, our neighborhood has approximately 48 homes on 1+ acres each. 566 2. On Sept 23, we were told to return on Sept 30 because the agenda was too full to reach our area of interest. At the Sept 30 meeting, a vote was taken after discussion that our neighborhood (east side of Spring Mill Road between 106 and 111th Streets) should be changed to "yellow" on the land use and planning map because it qualifies for low density classification and not likely to change any time in the foreseeable future. We thank you for this discussion and vote. 567 Also at the Sept 30 meeting, Mr. Pittman attended and advocated that his entire parcel be changed to employment node (blue) color, making arguments about helicopters and residential development that were not accepted. A discussion was held and vote taken, which resulted in no color change to his parcel (which is presently residential/orange east of Spring Mill Road and blue east of Illinois Street). 53 10/28/2008 568 3. At the Oct 14 meeting, many reps of our neighborhood as well as Mr. Pittman appeared once more. It was confirmed on the record that even though the map colors had not changed, our neighborhood segment was indeed now to be yellow. Mr. Pittman then took the opportunity to ask that blue be extended to his entire parcel -- and many of his written comments repeated a suggestion that the commercial zone be extended to the west side of Illinois all the way to Spring Mill Road; after discussion, this was declined (I recall one basis was that a vote previously taken and would not be revisited) and the orange color was to remain between Spring Mill Road and Illinois Street. 569 At a later point in the Oct 14 meeting, discussion was had about the Clarian segment (north of 116th Street). It was suggested that a special study (pink) area be created. A discussion (with many people talking over each other) was held -- in the midst of which Mr. Pittman added his property -- and the vote taken to create a special study (pink) area -- apparently for both Clarian and Pittman parcels. 570 4. The Clarian and Pittman parcels are very different as to what borders them and why Clarian may qualify for amendments as to future use that Pittman should not. As I was briefly able to raise at the Oct 14 meeting, the first vote and second discussion on the Pittman parcel should hold firm, i.e., it stay orange. Further, that changing it now to a special study area will require our low density neighborhood to attend countless more meetings so in the future we cannot be foreclosed from protesting any amended use or zoning sought for the Pittman parcel. 571 5. Government works because we have good leaders who make decisions after hearing the voices of its citizens. The Commission heard discussion on the Pittman parcel on September 30 and voted to keep it orange. Our neighborhood attendance paid off. This decision was even used as the basis to keep the parcel as orange when Mr. Pittman asked a second time for a change early into the October 14 meeting. By then, Mr. Pittman had authored more comments on the subject (many long ones) and obtained comments from new supporters who didn't appear at the meeting yet generically favored westside development -- although not specifying it required Pittman's particular parcel to do so. If Mr. Pittman (or others) are allowed to show up eternally and refine their arguments and support for a vote they repeatedly seek (and to the eventual attrition of foes who relied on the prior vote when they timely gave their arguments and showed support), the process breaks down and is entirely unreliable for all of its citizens. 572 6. Therefore, I ask that you reinstate the Sept 30 vote on the Pittman parcel upon which many of my neighbors relied and do not allow the Pittman parcel to become part of the special study area that is appropriate for its differently situated neighbor, Clarian. 573 SUMMARY: 574 Spring Mill Place (between 106 & 111 Streets): YELLOW 575 Pittman parcel (between 111 & 116 Streets): ORANGE 576 Clarian parcel (north of 116 to Spring Lakes subdivision): PINK 577 Thank you. 54 10/28/2008 578 10/27/2008 Ed Skarbeck My name is Ed Skarbeck, I am a resident of Spring Mill Place Subdivision…In addition to the email that I submitted below (on September 9, 2008), please accept this email as my input in regards to the issues described below. As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. From previous meetings and communications, I was under the impression that this area would remain properly zoned as residential. However, it has come to our attention that the area is being “revisited” at the meeting tomorrow, 10/28/08. How many times are we going to have to go through this? I will attend tomorrow’s meeting and, again, support the unanimous position of our neighborhood to strongly oppose the re-zoning of this area. Please note, that I am in full support of the detailed emails and communications that Ron Houck has provided you in regards to the many issues we are dealing with in the changes proposed to our surrounding neighbors and areas. 579 10/27/2008 Chad M. Pulley I am counsel for Conseco, Inc. who owns 48 acres of undeveloped land on the southwest corner of Springmill Rd. and 116th St (the “Parcel”). This land is one of the largest undeveloped tracts of land along Springmill Rd. on the east side of “West Carmel” and has a unique opportunity to significantly contribute to West Carmel’s landscape. However, in order to promote the greatest contribution to West Carmel’s landscape, the Parcel should be included in the Special Study so that its optimal uses can be considered in conjunction with the uses of the land along the east side of Springmill Rd. This land can provide significant value to the Special Study by providing more potential and opportunities. Furthermore, there is no cost to the City of Carmel for at least including these 48 acres in the analysis, research, and plans of the Special Study. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Committee include the Parcel in the Special Study and designate the Parcel as “Area for Special Study” on the C3 Plan map 580 10/27/2008 Chuck Cremens I am the authorized representative of Conseco Inc, dealing with the 48 acres at the southwest corner of 116th and Springmill Rd. I have been following the C3 Plan meetings through our real estate agents, Resource Commercial Real Estate and our legal counsel, Riley Bennett & Egloff, who have attended all of the Special Committee's meetings. I have also had dicussions with other owners in the area, in particular Steve Pittman. It is our understanding that the Committee has recommended that there be a "Special Study" to address the Springmill Corridor. We couldn't agree more with the proposed approach. We also think it is essential that Conseco's 48 acres be included in the "Special Study" process. It is important for its inclusion due to its location and size. We also hope that we can bring value to the Committee through our active paricipation in the Study process. Conseco and the Committee believably share the same objective of maximizing the opportunity along the Springmill Corridor. 581 Thank you for your work on this important project and your consideration to include our property in the "Special Study". 582 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 89 US 31: define Transition-Sensitive Residential 583 8/19/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: what is transition-sensitive residential? How does this work when encouraging 6-10 story buildings in the corridor? no change, 10/14/2008 584 8/26/2008 Chamber 88 US 31: Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan? no change, 10/14/2008 BUILDING HEIGHT - TRANSITION SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL 55 10/28/2008 585 9/29/2008 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. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 586 9/5/2008 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. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 587 9/5/2008 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 west several hundred feet. In Map #1 above, compare the dimensions of the US 31 Overlay zone between US 31 and Pennsylvania to the size of the overlay on the west side of US 31. In many places it is two to three times as wide. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 56 10/28/2008 588 At the time the US 31 Overlay Zone was expanded, Illinois Street was pushed to the western boundary of the overlay, placing it directly adjacent to our residential properties. Until this expansion of the US 31 Overlay Zone, our neighborhood had always enjoyed a comfortable boundary abutting residentially zoned property.This re-configuration of the US 31 Overlay zone has caused the encroachment of office buildings into what was a residentially zoned area. This current revision to the Comprehensive Plan only further negatively impacts our area. Some protection is certainly in order. It is impractical to consider 6 to 10 story office building abutting residential areas. Even with the separation by Illinois Street the towering visual impact will negatively affect property values and our quality of life. The scale and mass of 6-10 story buildings is simply too large to not have a considerable negative impact to our neighborhood. Next to the transition-sensitive residential areas with existing homes the building height in the corridor should be capped at four stories. 589 9/9/2008 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. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 590 9/9/2008 Hart 88 US 31: I strongly protest that the corridor between Meridian and Illinois Street at 106-111 Streets is designated as a 6-10 story employment corridor that will overshadow our neighborhood. Please remove that designation from this stretch of the corridor. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 591 9/9/2008 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 New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 57 10/28/2008 592 9/9/2008 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. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 593 9/9/2008 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 maximum. We need a buffer zone. We do not want to be the buffer zone for 10 story buildings. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 594 9/10/2008 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. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 595 9/14/2008 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. New language, cross-section drawing added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 596 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 88/89 Have fire protection and earthquake resistance been planned for the increase in 10 story bldgs? no change, 10/14/2008 96TH STREET CORRIDOR 58 10/28/2008 597 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St: Neighborhood should be planned by following these proposed recommendations from Parts 2 & 3: pg. 17: Objective 1.5, pg. 24: Objective 1.4, pg. 24: Objective 3.2, pg 36: Neighborhood Service Nodes to be strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential classifications. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 598 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90 Enhance East/West Connectivity: include statement about connecting Penn to Westfield Blvd (as already mentioned in HomePlace section). If straight alignment over 465 were implemented, would there be a need to connect Penn through the Monon? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 599 8/19/2008 Joy Sullivan 90 96th St: Chesterton neighborhood would like to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Commercial development along 96th Street should only occur one lot deep along 96th and provide adequate buffer. Lighting and after hours traffic should be minimized when considering type of business. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 600 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman 90 96th St: Corridor is rapidly changing. This should be considered as plans are made for the future. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 601 8/19/2008 Jim Palecek 90 96th St: Corridor and area have changed. 96th backs up past Wild Cherry, commercial along 96th Street, decreased quality of life. Difficult to sell, difficult to stay. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 602 8/19/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St Corridor Study has been referenced, but most of the assumptions made in 1999 are outdated or no longer applicable. Please delete outdated assumptions. Please update the information to reflect the changing nature of the area, as it no longer reflects a stable residential neighborhood. Wash Twp Comprehensive Plan (Marion County) indicates Commercial Uses on S sd of 96th. Commercial uses and multifamily rentals exist in the area. Duke redevelopment (Parkwood). Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 603 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Description: Serves as…east/west arterial (change to corridor) no change, 10/14/2008 604 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Buffer Residential Areas: delete “near Michigan Road” – too site specific no change, 10/14/2008 605 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Enhance East/West Connectivity: confer with discription and maps on pp. 63-75-90-91- 100-101. no change, 10/14/2008 606 10/14/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 607 10/14/2008 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.) no change, 10/14/2008 608 10/27/2008 Pat Rice Subarea section was missing -- page was blank. So I don't know what if any changes have been made. 609 10/27/2008 Pat Rice 88/90 section re:maintaining residential character is obsolete. That whole paragraph from land use to traffic simply is no longer applicable. Should be deleted or some comment made that although that study was referred to, many changes have taken place both in land use and traffic. 59 10/28/2008 610 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.) no change, 10/14/2008 611 10/7/2008 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. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 612 10/7/2008 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!) Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 613 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Need signage to indicate connection route to Monon. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 614 10/7/2008 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. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 615 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Path along 96th Street (to be constructed) as part of road improvement. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 616 10/7/2008 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?) Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 617 10/14/2008 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: no change, 10/14/2008 618 • (p.17) Essence Objective 1.5 “Strongly promote mixed use in areas suitable for commercial development, and protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development. 619 • (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.” 620 • Essence Objective 3.2 “Endeavor to plan neighborhoods, gateways, boundaries, and service areas through more detailed subarea plans. 621 • (p.36) Neighborhood Service Node (Geographic Location) “Strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential classifications.” 622 10/14/2008 Pat Rice Add new Subarea Recommend the attached for a 96th St. & Westfield Blvd. District Subarea. Wording from the Home Place Subarea was utilized. no change, 10/14/2008 City Center/Old Town Subarea 60 10/28/2008 623 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 92 If form based code "replaces" the zoning ordinance, on what basis could an undesirable use be denied? no change, 10/14/2008 624 9/29/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 625 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 94 Maps are on pages 98/99; not 94. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 626 8/26/2008 Chamber 95, 96, 97 Old Meridian: Mixed Use Design Guidelines These too specific in our opinion, even delving into sign specifications (e.g. “Ground floor tenants should be allowed 1 ½ square feet of sign area per lineal foot of building signage. . .” How will this language be integrated into the new sign ordinance? no change, 10/14/2008 627 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95 To be consistent, the lower left column should use "stories", instead of "feet". no change, 10/14/2008 628 9/29/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 629 9/29/2008 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, 10/14/2008 630 9/23/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 631 9/23/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 632 9/23/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 633 9/23/2008 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. no change, 10/14/2008 634 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 101 Home Place Subarea: Change "8" Story to "10" Story. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT OLD MERIDIAN SUBAREA HOME PLACE SUBAREA 61 10/28/2008 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 X Date Name Page Comment Notes 1 9/15/2008 Leslie Webb I believe that city plans must explore the most energy efficient designs possible in our buildings (LEED, Energy Star, etc) and means of transportation (mass transit of some sort). We need to provide an alternative to cars. The era of cheap energy is over and those cities that are best prepared will have a marked advantage. Minimize urban sprawl. More mixed use. We must support and encourage alternative energy options such as wind and solar to move away from fossil based fuels and reduce our carbon footprint. We should protect existing trees and plant as many more trees as possible to sequester carbon, provide cooling and air/water filtration. Please explore all green and sustainable city planning practices. 2 10/6/2008 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. 3 10/6/2008 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. 4 10/9/2008 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. X Date Name Page Comment Notes 5 9/9/2008 CWIC2 8 A section in the previous draft on page 8 was omitted, which we believe should be included: "The West Carmel district…has the least developed road network…[Additionally, it is] unlike East Carmel, where many neighborhoods were built with connecting streets to adjacent developments or stubbed streets to undeveloped areas." Traffic does not have, and cannot have nearly as many options in at least the southern part. This important defining characteristic should be listed and considered for planning purposes. X Date Name Page Comment Notes 6 9/8/2008 Dan Dutcher I suggest a reference to the likely timetable for "build out." I think that would dovetail well with the discussion regarding the emergence of Carmel as an Edge City, beyond a traditional residential suburb. X Date Name Page Comment Notes GENERAL COMMENTS PREFACE PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE Comprehensive Plan Comments - OCTOBER 23, 2008 DRAFT 64 10/28/2008 7 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.4, second sentence: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back. 8 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Are we really saying that essentially we always want to see mixed use in commercial areas? Is there no concern that there may be a limit to demand for this or that the desire for this be more specific to areas that contain, or will contain, typical urban shopping and entertainment venues—as in not in a suburban areas that want to be sururban. 9 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Policy 1 Into: The last sentence before Objective 1.1 states, “This model [form-based] is more permissive of mixed used nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing land classifications.” How will this be truly accomplished? What guarantees do residents have that it won’t be at the whim of changing faces at DOCS, the Plan Commission, and City Council and however they want to interpret “permissive” and “sensitivity” at that time? How do we trust this, when Carmel West residents turned out in droves for the 2020 Plan to insist on a density of 1 u/a, but we’ve had to keep fighting over this? Now you’re asking us to “trust” on this issue when we’re once again fighting to keep the character of the area the same as it was when we decided to invest in our homes in the area. This isn’t just a wording problem—it’s a problem with the concepts contained in the Plan. If this is only a problem with Carmel West, then apply the concepts east of Meridian and give plans for Carmel West enough structure and limitations that this issue goes away. Here are examples that feed fears about future “insensitivity” being imposed: 1. Objective 1.4, 2nd sentence: The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back. 2. Objective 1.5: Discussed (but contributes to the fear). 3. Objective 3.2. Discussed & modified (but contributes to fear--implies this should be utilized everywhere at all times, even in low-density residential areas.) 4. Objective 3.4 has the same problem as Objective 3.2 5. Objective 4.1. Discussed. Change terminology for “traditional neighborhood design principals.” 6. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please 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. 10 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional suburban residences. 11 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.2: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed, even though discussed and modified to add the words “where appropriate” at the end of the first sentence. 12 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the same problem as Objective 3.2 13 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 4.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not having commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what benefits are most important to them and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of not including retail amongst neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document. DOCS Note: Policies and Objectives were consolidated and re-numbered for consistency 65 10/28/2008 14 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective 7.8 and page 21, Objective 7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative certification. Shown below is a link to a recent article in Scientific American covering some of the common objections to LEED Certification. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true 15 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 21 Obj. 7.5: The City should require (not strongly recommend) LEED or equivalent buildings for all new taxpayer paid construction. 16 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.10: Be mindful that windmills, large solar panels, electrical utilities, water towers, and cell towers are eyesores in residential aeras. Take great care in locating and screening. 17 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 1.2: "Allow" has been changed to "support and encourage"! (mention new "support centers", too.) Locate nodes NOW, and get public approval. To the "strictly regulated" list, add hours of operation, buffering, uses, and signage. The impact of these nodes is more than visual. 18 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.2: Put a limit on density that transitions to residential. Impacts of increased density are not just visual. now Objective 6.2 19 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.2: Discourage "residential opportunities" near the mine. The problems were predictable, and houses already there should not have been approved. now Objective 7.2 20 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact surrounding residences." 21 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for North Central Carmel. 22 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.1, 2.2: Threats of redevelopment are causing residents to panic and leave. Busy roads are not a buffer. 23 9/15/2008 Karen Gould 25 General Comments: I am also opposed to any increase in amenities, such as gas stations and shops. We are quite content to drive to what we need, not to have it in our immediate neighborhood. When we became part of Carmel, we thought Carmel would look out for the needs of the people...not tell us what our needs are (more retail, etc.) This is a residential area and we do no want an urbanized area shoved on us. Let us be a part of the decision as to what becomes of our area. There are plenty of shops on Michigan Road or on Meridian at which we all can do our business. We don't want it in our neighborhood. 24 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 General Comments: Suburban (and especially West Carmel) residents have chosen not to live close to high density and commercial development. Estate owners will move away from it. West Carmel is already conveniently and adequately served. Any location issues need to be settled now. Otherwise, there will be a fight over every proposal. Also, "PUDs" still need to be addressed in West Carmel. 25 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Increase open space requrement soon, before buildout. Replace "Allow" wilth "Consider". Distinguish between Neighborhood Support Centers and Neighborhood Service Nodes. The size and density of the latter are especially not appropriate in West Carmel. To the "strictly regulated", ADD hours of operation, uses, signage, and buffering. 26 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.1: We’ve heard the argument that if you can’t really see the homes as you drive down the road, it doesn’t really matter how many homes are in the subdivision. That’s not an argument we buy and it is not what we want. The only way this works is if a significantly large open space is mandatory, not “considered.” 27 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of West Carmel. 28 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.2: Custom homes require higher-income buyers, who generally do not desire to be near higher densities and/or commercial development. "Accessory dwellings" is vague. Are they prohibited now? Can they be rentals? 29 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.1: The last sent. Is STILL a problem. "Residential intensity" has unwanted effects in West Carmel, whether it is visible or not. now Objective 6.1 66 10/28/2008 30 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along". 31 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 4.2: Leave out entirely, or replace "Establish" with "Consider". They are not needed or wanted here, are not compatible with preserving rural character, and would not significantly prevent driving. They would struggle to survive and would add large truck traffice, noise, light, and trash problems. now objective 7.2 32 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 4.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable. now objective 7.2 33 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the area. now objective 1.5 34 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.4: Replace "WestClay Secondary Core" with "The Village of WestClay". As per page 42, the Village of WestClay commercial core is a "Secondary Core" in form only. now objective 1.8 X Date Name Page Comment Notes X Date Name Page Comment Notes X Date Name Page Comment Notes X Date Name Page Comment Notes 36 10/15/2008 Andy Marsh I am a homeowner is Spring Mill Place Subdivision just south of 111th on the east side of Spring Mill Road. We purchased our home 5 years and planned to raise our two small children at the back of a cul-de-sac with a heavily wooded backyard. The mere thought of a busy road being located just on the other side of our property line with the potential for 6-10 story office buildings makes us very uneasy. One of the reasons were purchased this home and piece of property it is located on was the seclusion and peacefullness that is hard to find in a neighborhood in Carmel. We live on nearly 2 acres and reguarly have deer, rabbits, and other wildlife in our back woods and yard and the thought of losing them to another roadway and commercial office buildings is a shame. While we understand the birms and trees are planned to seperate our backyards from the Illinois street expansion, having this in our backyard will create noise and decrease our property values which is unfair. PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS SPRING MILL CORRIDOR, ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE DOCS Note: See Cross-Section drawing on Page 86, illustrating height transition from 10 stories to residential areas DOCS Note: After discussions with Engineering, 4-Lane Residential Parkway has been deleted. DOCS Note: SW Clay Right-of-Way was addressed by noting classifications with lesser width. 67 10/28/2008 On a second note, I would like to express my desire to retain the orange color designation (residential) for the parcel of land just north of our subdivision located between 111th and 116th street just east of springmill road. On Sept 23, 2008, it was agreed upon to leave this area as residential and move on to other areas of concern. To our surprise, on Oct 14th meeting, this same area was discussed again, while not on the agenda for that evening, and some plan commission members asked that this area be changed to pink. This action defeats the purpose of deciding to do one thing and then changing to another. This process is unfair and a complete waste of time for community members to show up if previous decisions are cast away and new agendas delivered. 37 10/15/2008 Ron Houck As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 38 1015/2008 R. Kevin Williams I agree with Ron Houck. In addition, I should bring to your attention, that over 20 years ago, Dr. Pittman attempted to get all this acreage re-zoned commercial at that time. This was not long after we built and purchased our house. At the time, this re-zoning did not agree with the comprehensive plan. They attempted to use the fact he received a slight variance for one parcel, to act as precedent for re-zoning the whole section of land. I personally hired Ice Miller at that time to fight this, then was joined by other residents. At that time, the planning commission was frankly overwhelmingly in favor of this change. However, in my opinion, when they found out they might be in for an extended legal battle, apparently they re-considered, and decided to shelve it. Shortly thereafter, when Dr. Pittman and Jim Nelson again tried to force the issue, a concerned group of residents here gathered together and successfully defeated the proposal. Dr. Pittman decided to (for a time) turn that property into a pig farm, as an attempted slap in the face to the residents. At the time, Browning called me at my office several times, trying to get me to convince folks to settle, because the smell was directed towards his development. However, as one of my neighbors who grew up on a farm said... "the smell doesn't bother me, to me it smells like money!" Eventually that pig farm went away. I am sure he will threaten something like that again. Nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, there is MORE residential in this area that would be affected at this time. I am sure this issue would be fought even harder this go around. There are parties that are still attempting to surround our neighborhood with commercial development. This was not what we expected when we purchased our houses, nor improved them over the years. I am sure this would be an extended and messy battle that would make the annexation look like a picnic. 68 10/28/2008 39 10/15/2008 Linda Oldiges As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to Section 5. I did not attend the Oct. 14th meeting but was upset to hear that this previous area was revisited without warning. I don't understand how all of you could consider making this a special study area whereas commercial use could be considered. At the last meeting we were told that our neighborhood fit the description of yellow on your maps. How could you entertain putting a commercial area next to a low density subdivision. In addition we have million dollar estate homes across the street, which should be deemed green on the map. This study does not make sense to me and sounds like a big waste of tax payers money. I am starting to lose faith in your whole process. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. I understand that some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Why then would you make this a special study area now. It seems that this action merely prolongs the process and involves our subdivision in more meetings. Are you merely trying to wear us down? What's going on here?? 40 10/15/2008 Gerry Golden As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision since 1981, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 41 10/16/2008 Michael Diehr I live at 10966 Springmill Lane in Carmel just south of the Parcel of land by our subdivision (111th - 116th St on the east side of Springmill Road). This is the parcel affectionately known as the Pittman pig farm. I do not want this parcel of land (the Ptiman Pig farm) to be changed from it's residential status to a special study area. This would have a adverse affect on my property value and change the quality of life in our neighborhood. I oppose this change. 42 10/16/2008 CPT David Gardiner I am a resident of Spring Mill Place subdivision. I have been unable to attend the recent planning meetings due to the fact that I am currently serving overseas on active duty for the military. 69 10/28/2008 I have recently learned, from other similarly concerned residents, that the commission is considering creating a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I am very much opposed to this! This area has many families living across the street on 111th and Springmill streets. It is not appropriate for this land to be turned to commercial use and the large increase in traffic and light pollution. Another office park does not fit the character of the area nor the vision of its resident's who believe that the best use for the land is for residential or continued agricultural purposes. My understanding is that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and a decision was made to leave it designated as residential - as it should be. However, at the October 14th meeting this same issue was raised again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. It seems to me this issue was settled at the previous meeting. The fact that it was allowed to be reconsidered w/out advance notice to interested parties is a great disservice to interested residents like myself who have been told this issue has been resolved at a previous meeting. This area should remain designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. Caving in to special interests and creating a special study area merely prolongs the process in the hopes that local residents will weary of the bureaucracy and endless meetings and eventually give in. It is my hope that you do your best to help prevent this area from becoming yet another office park. 43 10/16/2008 Carolyn Scott As a resident of Springmill Place, I would ask that the designation of the parcel of north of our subdivision retain orange color. We would like to preserve the beauty and character of our neighborhood. Commercial buildings would destroy this! 44 10/16/2008 Lou Jenkins Please accept my request to retain the color mapping of orange from the possible change to pink. As I understand the proposal, this would allow Dr.Pittman to convert zoning from residential to commercial. This is clearly not the understanding of the home owners in Spring Mill Place that the property would be developed commercially. If you would pass my request to stay with the orange mapping, I would appreciate your help. 45 10/16/2008 Dan & Linda Oldiges As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 70 10/28/2008 46 10/19/2008 Suzanne Glesing My name is Suzanne Glesing, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. As a resident, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I realize that there was recently a meeting which took place on September 23rd that was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. It is also my understanding that on October 14th another meeting was held and the previous conclusion from the September meeting was reversed. This is a disservice to your process and especially a disservice to those who took the time to attend the FIRST meeting. Why take the time, if simply another meeting will be held less that one month later and have all of previous discussions revisited and CHANGED? Especially when it was not even on the agenda and all of the same people are not in attendance. Having been made aware of the results of the September meeting, I felt no need to attend the October meeting because a decision had already been made. Apparently I was wrong. Even though these issues were finalized at the previous meeting - they were revisited without the same people who had previously taken the time to be present. This is absolutely unfair and seemingly unethical. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets is ONCE AGAIN going to be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. WHY?! This has already been addressed, and finalized in September. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents of my subdivision in yet MORE MEETINGS, a strategy merely designed to wear down my neighbors and myself. We all have busy lives involving our children, our families, our jobs and whatever else. Taking the time to attend YET ANOTHER meeting - feel as if our presence is worthwhile - only to find out that it will once again be a WASTE OF TIME leaves all of us more than disappointed in the system that we are expected to count on. I WILL be at the next meeting - as will many other members of my neighborhood. Hopefully the effort will result in an improvement of communication and resolve. 47 10/19/2008 Valerie Eickmeier As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting! Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings.This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down the residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the members of this residential community! 48 10/20/2008 Jacqueline Baques I agree with Valerie's statements. If the decision was already made at the prior meeting to leave the area designated as residential, there was no need to revisit that topic at the next meeting. Our neighborhood's consensus is that we ALL would like to see that area left at its former designation as residential. 71 10/28/2008 49 10/19/2008 Dan Belcher I am a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision and would like to state my opposition to the creation of a special study area for the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to 116th Street. The area now being considered for special study was discussed on September 23 and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. I am in favor of leaving this area designated as residential, and considering future project proposals at the time they are presented to the Plan Commission. Creating a special study area is unnecessary and only prolongs the process to the advantage of developers who ultimately want this area changed from residential to commercial. This change would clearly be to the detriment of the homeowners in our subdivision. Please strongly consider this request to maintain this area designated as residential. 50 10/20/2008 Janice Byrne As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting! Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings. This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down the residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the members of this residential community! 51 10/20/2008 Alexis Schwartz As a new resident of the Spring Mill Place neighborhood, I am in complete consensus with the rest of my neighbors that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting. Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would.Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area. 52 10/20/2008 John and Tammy Lieberman My wife and I are homeowners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (10989 Spring Mill Lane) which subdivision is located due south of the Pittman Parcel. I am the principal real estate broker in Lieberman and Associates, Inc. and have been a licensed real estate broker for 23 years. I have been involved in several feasibility studies of many residential and commercial properties over many years as my father was a real estate developer. Obviously, my wife and I and all home owners in Spring Mill Place are concerned about our future property values. I am aware that the Pittman Parcel is being considered as a potential special study area under the Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. I am in agreement with Ron Houck (that lives in our subdivision) per his prior statement to you. I believe the best use of the Pittman Parcel in light of the existing residential communities surrounding that parcel is for the Pittman Parcel to be residential. 72 10/28/2008 I realize that no specific project/development proposal is being reviewed right now by the Carmel Planning Commission for development of the property. But given the nice Williams Mill subdivision (on the west side of Spring Mill Road across from the Pitman Parcel), I believe that another well planned development like Williams Mill would fit well into the residential design and flavor of our existing two subdivisions (Williams Mill and Spring Mill Place.) I am therefore opposed to changing the property to a Special Study Area. Thank you for giving consideration to my thoughts as well as to all of the other home owners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. 53 10/20/2008 Rick Pearson I'm also a resident of Spring Mill Place and fully agree with those I'm referencing below. In addition please include my position to those who have written before me. Those proposing and supporting this special study are using this as a tactic to buy time by drawing those opposed into battle of attrition. We have jobs, families, and other responsibilities and should not have to continually make a case against an obstinate desire to commercially develop a piece of property that has already been addressed. The safety of our children, the value of our homes, and the overall community that exists today should not be overlooked for someone else's profit. This neighborhood is well established and has a strong desire to maintain the community it has created. I believe it is on record by the very developer pushing this issue, that the property being discussed cannot be developed residentially because there is no value in homes constructed next to an office building. How can one argue homes will have a lower value and cannot be built and then insist on putting an office next to our homes and pretend it will have no impact our community? This is ludicrous. I implore you to realize and honor what we as a community have work so hard to create and preserve over the years. Please re-establish the property being referenced back to residential. 54 10/20/2008 Lani & Greg Thompson I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting. Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring. Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would. Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area. 55 10/20/2008 Gary and Denise Lewis As residents of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, we are opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th St. to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. 73 10/28/2008 The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was addressed again by those wishing to try it again. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in more meetings, a strategy seemingly designed to wear down the residents. We plan on attending the October 28th meeting to monitor the progress being made on behalf of our community. 56 10/21/2008 Mike Sharp I concur with the many e-mails you have received on this topic. 57 10/21/2008 Chris & Alexis Shwartz We are aware that the Pittman property (east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street) is being considered as a potential special study area under the far reaching Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. Consistent with the vote at the September 23rd meeting, we strongly believe that the property should remain residential, and therefore strongly oppose changing its classification to a Special Study Area. The fact that those supporting commercial development decided to bring this matter up at a subsequent meeting following a decision to classify residential further clouds our belief in a fair and appropriate process. This approach was unfair to us that believed this issue was decided at a previous meeting. Developing this land for commercial use will: 1. Adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place as well as the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill Road 2. Increase traffic through our subdivision as well as those surrounding thoroughfares in our area 3. Increase the safety risks to the many children that call Spring Mill Place home with added foot and automotive traffic 4. Potentially increase crime in our area. Our position and consensus on this topic is unwavering. 58 10/21/2008 Rhonda & Andy Marsh I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting. Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring. Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary reasons we bought our home, having 2 small children. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would. 74 10/28/2008 Our land backs up to the land that will be developed for Illinois Street, so we are also VERY concerned with the potential height o f the buildings that will line Illinois Street. The reason we bought this home was because it is on a 2 acre wooded lot and we love the wildlife that inhabits the area behind our house. We (our children) will be losing the opportunity to see deer, ducks, rabbits, squirrels, etc... out of our back windows when this project is complete. Please don't ask us to look out our windows at 6-10 story buildings instead!! Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area. 59 10/21/2008 Bill & Brie Williams As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area for the land on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. We put our home up for sale last summer and several prospective buyers asked specifically about the potential development of the aforementioned land parcel. The uncertainty about the future development of that property negatively impacted our ability to sell our home. Most buyers voiced the same concerns that we ourselves have about the negative impact such development would have on our property value in the future. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 60 10/21/2008 Jill H. Meisenheimer I have attended several Carmel Comp plan meetings in the past and I thought the following issue had been decided months ago. As a resident of Williams Mills subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road from South of 116th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I have heard that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was left designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. I was dismayed to hear that at the October 14th meeting this same area was revisited though it was not on the agenda and interested parties were not in attendance. This is not fair to those people who thought these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. The area should be still designated as residential (orange), as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. 75 10/28/2008 I am also terrible concerned that the Comp Plan is suggesting a requirement of 6-10 story buildings in this area. Already the traffic in our area is so clogged that I often have a tough time getting to and from our Williams Mills home from 116th and Meridian and that doesn't even include the impossiblity of actually waiting for the many traffic lights it can take to actually cross Meridian at 116th Street. I plan to be at the meeting on next Tuesday. 61 10/21/2008 Richard Clement We are very concerned about the plan to revise zoning for the Pittman property north of 111th. We definitely will attend the October 28th meeting. 62 10/21/2008 Richard Vitales As a resident of the Williams Mill subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study of the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting, the process was to move on to subsequent items of business. However, at the October 14th meeting, this subject was once again revisited by those who want to reverse the decision already made. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings; a strategy merely designed to wear down residents. 63 10/22/2008 David Roach My name is David Roach, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. I am in complete consensus with the entire neighborhood that does not want the land to the north of 111th Street to become a commercial property and does not want this property to be a special study area. Development of this land commercially would negatively impact our neighborhood(traffic,theft,values,etc.).Please leave the area as residential as agreed.We do not feel that 6-10 story buildings to the east of our neighborhood would be in our best interest. We do not need any prolonging meetings wearing down the residents of this neighborhood.The Carmel Planning Commission should make this decision as if they were living here with no agenda. 64 10/24/2008 Barbara Layton Adrienne, we were at the meeting wherein Steve Pittman requested that his pig farm be reclassified, and such request was denied. The revised comp plan indicates his request was honored. We OBJECT to his land being reclassified. Further, the land north along Spring Mill Road owned by Clarian was zoned residential. This was a compromise intended to satisfy the surrounding residential property owners. This too has been reclassified. Please DO NOT reclassify either of these two properties. No commercial west of Illinois MUST remain in effect. Thanks much. :-) 65 10/25/2008 Michael & Robertal Mattasits As homeowners and residents of the Williams Mill subdivision, located at 111th & Sprindmill Rd., we are opposed to the creation of a special study area for the parcel of land east of Springmill and north of 111th (commonly referred to as the Pittman Pig Farm). We support the current residential designation. 76 10/28/2008 66 10/26/2008 Lyle Hartman My wife Marian and I live in Williams Mill and have lived in Carmel or Clay Twp since 1972. The Plan Commission indicated at the Sept 23rd meeting that the east side of Spring Mill North of 111th street would remain residential. However, the Oct 14th meeting indicated an intent to revisit this decision and create a special study area. This issue appears on the agenda for Oct 28. The process of revisiting agenda items that were previously agreed to creates confusion and is unfair to those who attend meetings and leave believing that issues have been finalized. The process needlessly involves residents in more meetings and is a waste of time and money. The Plan Commission may want to consider a process where areas like this would be reviewed on a routine schedule of perhaps every five (5) years. Such a process would permit all parties to be appropriately notified and to be able to attend meetings when issues are being considered that have an impact on their immediate neighborhoods. Please allow the prior decision to stand and leave this area zoned residential. 67 10/27/2008 Kathleen Hart I attended the Sept 30 and Oct 14 meetings which addressed, among other items, the Land Use Map for the Illinois Street expansion along our neighborhood, Spring Mill Place. I appreciate all the hard work that your Commission is putting in on this project. However, I write to ask that you reconsider the vote on October 14 to create a special study (pink) area for the east side of Spring Mill Road between 111 and 116th Streets (the Pittman parcel). I may not be able to attend the Oct 28 meeting and hope you will consider this email in lieu of my attendance. The reasons, some of which I tried to raise during the Oct 14 meeting, are as follows: 1. Our neighborhood appeared at the Sept 23, 30 and Oct 14 meetings for areas that affect the perimeter of our neighborhood. As stated previously, our neighborhood has approximately 48 homes on 1+ acres each. 2. On Sept 23, we were told to return on Sept 30 because the agenda was too full to reach our area of interest. At the Sept 30 meeting, a vote was taken after discussion that our neighborhood (east side of Spring Mill Road between 106 and 111th Streets) should be changed to "yellow" on the land use and planning map because it qualifies for low density classification and not likely to change any time in the foreseeable future. We thank you for this discussion and vote. Also at the Sept 30 meeting, Mr. Pittman attended and advocated that his entire parcel be changed to employment node (blue) color, making arguments about helicopters and residential development that were not accepted. A discussion was held and vote taken, which resulted in no color change to his parcel (which is presently residential/orange east of Spring Mill Road and blue east of Illinois Street). 3. At the Oct 14 meeting, many reps of our neighborhood as well as Mr. Pittman appeared once more. It was confirmed on the record that even though the map colors had not changed, our neighborhood segment was indeed now to be yellow. Mr. Pittman then took the opportunity to ask that blue be extended to his entire parcel -- and many of his written comments repeated a suggestion that the commercial zone be extended to the west side of Illinois all the way to Spring Mill Road; after discussion, this was declined (I recall one basis was that a vote previously taken and would not be revisited) and the orange color was to remain between Spring Mill Road and Illinois Street. At a later point in the Oct 14 meeting, discussion was had about the Clarian segment (north of 116th Street). It was suggested that a special study (pink) area be created. A discussion (with many people talking over each other) was held -- in the midst of which Mr. Pittman added his property -- and the vote taken to create a special study (pink) area -- apparently for both Clarian and Pittman parcels. 77 10/28/2008 4. The Clarian and Pittman parcels are very different as to what borders them and why Clarian may qualify for amendments as to future use that Pittman should not. As I was briefly able to raise at the Oct 14 meeting, the first vote and second discussion on the Pittman parcel should hold firm, i.e., it stay orange. Further, that changing it now to a special study area will require our low density neighborhood to attend countless more meetings so in the future we cannot be foreclosed from protesting any amended use or zoning sought for the Pittman parcel. 5. Government works because we have good leaders who make decisions after hearing the voices of its citizens. The Commission heard discussion on the Pittman parcel on September 30 and voted to keep it orange. Our neighborhood attendance paid off. This decision was even used as the basis to keep the parcel as orange when Mr. Pittman asked a second time for a change early into the October 14 meeting. By then, Mr. Pittman had authored more comments on the subject (many long ones) and obtained comments from new supporters who didn't appear at the meeting yet generically favored westside development -- although not specifying it required Pittman's particular parcel to do so. If Mr. Pittman (or others) are allowed to show up eternally and refine their arguments and support for a vote they repeatedly seek (and to the eventual attrition of foes who relied on the prior vote when they timely gave their arguments and showed support), the process breaks down and is entirely unreliable for all of its citizens. 6. Therefore, I ask that you reinstate the Sept 30 vote on the Pittman parcel upon which many of my neighbors relied and do not allow the Pittman parcel to become part of the special study area that is appropriate for its differently situated neighbor, Clarian. SUMMARY: Spring Mill Place (between 106 & 111 Streets): YELLOW Pittman parcel (between 111 & 116 Streets): ORANGE Clarian parcel (north of 116 to Spring Lakes subdivision): PINK Thank you. 68 10/27/2008 Ed Skarbeck My name is Ed Skarbeck, I am a resident of Spring Mill Place Subdivision…In addition to the email that I submitted below (on September 9, 2008), please accept this email as my input in regards to the issues described below. As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. From previous meetings and communications, I was under the impression that this area would remain properly zoned as residential. However, it has come to our attention that the area is being “revisited” at the meeting tomorrow, 10/28/08. How many times are we going to have to go through this? I will attend tomorrow’s meeting and, again, support the unanimous position of our neighborhood to strongly oppose the re-zoning of this area. Please note, that I am in full support of the detailed emails and communications that Ron Houck has provided you in regards to the many issues we are dealing with in the changes proposed to our surrounding neighbors and areas. 78 10/28/2008 69 10/27/2008 Chad M. Pulley I am counsel for Conseco, Inc. who owns 48 acres of undeveloped land on the southwest corner of Springmill Rd. and 116th St (the “Parcel”). This land is one of the largest undeveloped tracts of land along Springmill Rd. on the east side of “West Carmel” and has a unique opportunity to significantly contribute to West Carmel’s landscape. However, in order to promote the greatest contribution to West Carmel’s landscape, the Parcel should be included in the Special Study so that its optimal uses can be considered in conjunction with the uses of the land along the east side of Springmill Rd. This land can provide significant value to the Special Study by providing more potential and opportunities. Furthermore, there is no cost to the City of Carmel for at least including these 48 acres in the analysis, research, and plans of the Special Study. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Committee include the Parcel in the Special Study and designate the Parcel as “Area for Special Study” on the C3 Plan map 70 10/27/2008 Chuck Cremens I am the authorized representative of Conseco Inc, dealing with the 48 acres at the southwest corner of 116th and Springmill Rd. I have been following the C3 Plan meetings through our real estate agents, Resource Commercial Real Estate and our legal counsel, Riley Bennett & Egloff, who have attended all of the Special Committee's meetings. I have also had dicussions with other owners in the area, in particular Steve Pittman. It is our understanding that the Committee has recommended that there be a "Special Study" to address the Springmill Corridor. We couldn't agree more with the proposed approach. We also think it is essential that Conseco's 48 acres be included in the "Special Study" process. It is important for its inclusion due to its location and size. We also hope that we can bring value to the Committee through our active paricipation in the Study process. Conseco and the Committee believably share the same objective of maximizing the opportunity along the Springmill Corridor. Thank you for your work on this important project and your consideration to include our property in the "Special Study". 71 10/27/2008 Pat Rice Subarea section was missing -- page was blank. So I don't know what if any changes have been made. 72 10/27/2008 Pat Rice 88/90 section re:maintaining residential character is obsolete. That whole paragraph from land use to traffic simply is no longer applicable. Should be deleted or some comment made that although that study was referred to, many changes have taken place both in land use and traffic. 96TH STREET CORRIDOR 79 10/28/2008 St. when it become a Secondary Parkway. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT 33 10/28/2008