Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 08-22-061 1 H ~_~~~ ~~20~~ Cit of Carmel ~,~,~~ Y CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION -MEMORANDUM- Date: August 18, 2006 To: Plan Commission Members From: Adrienne Keeling Department of Community Services Re: August 22"d Comprehensive Plan Review meeting -Docket No. 06040021 CP Enclosed are the agenda and information packets regarding the next phase of Comprehensive Plan review. If you have any questions, ptease contact me at akeeling@carmel.in.eov or at 571-2417. Docket No. 06040021 CP: Comprehensive Plan Update 2006 The applicant seeks to update and reformat the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. REVIEW TOPICS: PAGES 1-22 REVISIONS (Wrap-up) Foreword Part l: Community Profile Part 2: Comprehensive Plan Essence PAGES 43-78 REVISIONS Part 4: Transportation Plan Anyone in attendance for Comprehensive Plan Review on August 15 received a copy of Part 4, otherwise they are enclosed. Also enclosed is the existing thoroughfare plan map and spreadsheet listing the changes resulting in the proposed map on page 59. If you have comments on these sections and are unable to attend the review session, please send them to me as soon as possible. Your comments are welcome in any format, whether it be a marked hard copy, notes attached to the electronic .pdf file, or listed in email. DRAFT PLAN All changes from Draft A are indicated in red. Draft B sections are also available for the public to view on the web at: htto://www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/DOGS/DOCSCPU.htm. PUBLIC COMMENTS Enclosed are public comments received since the last meeting. A separate comment spreadsheet which tracks comments for Draft B will be distributed at the meeting. Pagc I ONF. CiViC SQUARF. CAR~IF.t., iNDiANA 46032 377/i71-2417 MEETING ORGANIZATION it is likely that our quorum for this meeting will dissolve at 7:OOpm, so discussion should be planned accordingly. We suggest that the PC resume discussion on Part 2 (page 13), and that we discuss some of the public comments prior to beginning review of Part 4. FUTURE MEETINGS: After this meeting on August 22, the next meeting dates are: - Wednesday, August 30 at 6:OOpm - Tuesday, September 5 at 4:30pm (prior to Committees) Q~mp Plan Review Memu 2006-OR22 Pagc 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARb1FS., 1NDIAN.A 46032 317/571-2417 /\t:{ OF Cqq~~ i~ Gra~TNeery~F! ~~, ~ M ~ ,~ Clt of Carmel /~~pNp CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006 LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBERS TIME: 5:30 P.M. CARMEL CITY HALL DOORS OPEN AT 5:00 P.M. ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 The Plan Commission will meet to consider the following item: 1. Docket No. 06040021 CP: Comprehensive Plan Update 2006 The applicant seeks to update and reformat the CarmeUClay Comprehensive Plan. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. REVIEW TOPICS: PAGES 1-22 REVISIONS (Wrap-up) Foreword Part 1: Community Profile Part 2: Comprehensive Plan Essence PAGES 43-78 REVISIONS Part 4: Transportation Plan Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 146th Street t t i i ~ ~ ~ ~ t 141st Street i i ~ i r, i i 131st 6th Street ~ ~ ( ~} -~ `' I 1 - '`~ I 3 J 3 ~„cq • .. ~ ( 1 t ' 7 N iv 116th Street t ~ in~_ ~' ~ ~ ' _ ~ c ro _; ~~ a~ ~ r r . `;r ~ \,:, c a ~; ~~ ~±, t 106th Street 3 ° ~ ~ ~,~ _ `;' ~ o `,i ~ m o ~ ' ~ - , G!;.', ~° ~ N'-!y /~ ~' ''. '~ r r n ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~r~ ; p / , ~ . i ~. M{ ~,~ d O m I Recommended Minimum Geometric Design Standards Pro osed p E~6s6n g Classification ROW Maximum Lanes (Maximum Pavement Width) Curbs Sidewalks & Paths On-Street Parlvng Street Trees Buffer Plantings ~1eY 40' 1 (12') No No Nane Yas No Residential Street Lane (1) 40' 2 (22') No No None Yes No Residential Street Minor (2) 40' 2 (26') Yes See ATP One Side Only Yes No - Residential Street Major (3J 50' 2 (30') Yes See ATP One Side Ony Yes No - - Collector Street BO' 4 (48') Yes See ATP Optional, both Yes Yes ^ ^ ^ ~ Secondary Arlerial 90' ' 4 (48') Yes See ATP None Yes Yes riri Primary Arterial 150' 4 (48') Yes See A7P None No Yes - - ~ Secondary Parkway 12 4 (48') Yes See ATP None Yes Yes ~ Primary Parkway 14D' " 4 (48') Yes See A7P Nane Yes Yes ~~° Residential Parkway 100' 4 (48') Yes See ATP Optional,both Yes Yes Freeway/Interstate FEDERAL AND STATE STANDAADS APPLY A_ State Highway FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS APPLY Notes: 1 Services rourleen {14) residential lots or less V Interchange Location 2 Senrices forty (40) residential lots or less ® Overpass Location 3 Services more than forty (4D) residential lots Q Roundabout Intersection ATP Altemafive Transportation Plan {7 Proposed Roundabout Intersection 20-Year Thoroughfare Plan City of Carmel & Clay Township Amendment Approved July 18, 2005, per Resolution No. CC-07-1S-05-D1 Thoroughfare Plan Changes Location added/modified Chan a Previous Classification 1 Shelbourne Rd and 141st St. added ro osed roundabout 2 Shelbourne Rd and 131st St. added ro osed roundabout 3 Shelbourne Rd and 126th St. added ro osed roundabout 4 Shelbourne Rd. and 121st St. added ro osed roundabout 5 Shelbourne Rd. and 116th St. added ro osed roundabout 6 Shelbourne Rd. and 106th St. added ro osed roundabout 7 Towne Rd. and 141st St. added ro osed roundabout 8 Towne Rd. and 136th St. added ro osed roundabout 9 Towne Rd. and 131st St. added ro osed roundabout 10 Towne Rd. and Glebe St. added ro osed roundabout 11 Towne Rd. and 126th St. added ro osed roundabout 12 Towne Rd. and 116th St. added ro osed roundabout 13 Towne Rd. and 106th St. added ro osed roundabout 14 Ditch Rd. and 141st St. added existin roundabout 15 Ditch Rd. and 136th St. added existin roundabout 16 Ditch Rd. and 131st St. added ro osed roundabout 17 Ditch Rd. and 116th St. added ro osed roundabout 18 Ditch Rd. and 106th St. added ro osed roundabout 19 Cla Center Rd. and 131st St. added ro osed roundabout 20 Cla Center Rd. and 116th St. added ro osed roundabout 21 S rin mill Rd. and 141st St. added existin roundabout 22 S rin mill Rd. and 136th St. added ro osed roundabout 23 S rin mill Rd. and 131st St. modified existin roundabout 24 S rin mill Rd. and Dorset Rd. added ro osed roundabout 25 S rin mill Rd. and 116th St. modified existin roundabout 26 S rin mill Rd. and 106th St. modified existin roundabout 27 S rin mill Rd. and 96th St. modified existin roundabout 28 Oak Rid a Rd. and Bennet Dr. added existin roundabout 29 Oak Rid a Rd. and Adios Pass added existin roundabout 30 Illinois St. and 136th St. modified existin roundabout 31 Illinois St. and 131st St. modified existin roundabout 32 Illinois St. and 116th St. modified existin roundabout 33 Illinois St. and 103rd St. modified existin roundabout 34 Old Meridian St. and 131st St. modified existin roundabout 35 Old Meridian St. and Guilford Rd. modified existin roundabout 36 OId Meridian St. and Penns vania St. modified existin roundabout 37 Penns vania St. and 103rd St. added ro osed roundabout 38 Penns Ivania St. and 106th St. added ro osed roundabout 39 Penns Ivania St. and 111th St. added ro osed roundabout 40 Rohrer Rd. and Nevelle Ln added ro osed roundabout ~.d Location added/modified Chan a Previous Classification 41 Cla Terrace Blvd. added existin roundabout 42 Cla Terrace Blvd. added existin roundabout 43 Colle a Ave. and 111th St. added ro osed roundabout 44 Westfield Blvd. and 96th St. added existin roundabout 45 Westfield Blvd. and 111th St. added ro osed roundabout 46 Ran eline Rd. and 136th St. added ro osed roundabout 47 Care Rd. and 136th St. added ro osed roundabout 48 Gra Rd. and 136th St. added ro osed roundabout 49 Gra Rd. and 106th St. added existin roundabout 50 Hazel Dell Pk and 131st St. modified existin roundabout 51 Hazel Dell Pk and 126th St. modified existin roundabout 52 River Rd. and 131st St. modified existin roundabout 53 River Rd. and 126th St. added ro osed roundabout 54 Commerce Drive and 96th St. added ro osed roundabout 55 AAA Wa and Medical Drive added ro osed roundabout 56 West Rd. and 141st St. added proposed roundabout 57 Shelborne Rd. and extended 98th St. added ro osed roundabout 58 Meridian US 31 and Ran eline Rd. modified interchan a location 59 Meridian US 31 and 136th St. modified interchan a location 60 Ke stone Ave. and 136th St. modified interchan a location 61 Ke stone Ave. and 131st St. modified interchan a location 62 Ke stone Ave. and 126th St. modified interchan a location 63 Ke stone Ave. and Carmel Dr. modified interchan a location 64 Ke tone Ave. and 116th St. modified interchan a location 65 Ke stone Ave. and 106th St. modified interchan a location 66 Ke tone Ave. and 96th St. modified interchan a location 67 Ke stone Ave. modified Prima Arterial State Hi hwa 68 Monon Trail and 136th St. added trail over ass/under ass 69 Monon Trail and Ci Center Drive added trail over ass/under ass 70 Monon Trail and Carmel Drive added trail over ass/under ass 71 Monon Trail and 116th St. added trail over ass/under ass 72 Monon Trail and 111th St. added trail over ass/under ass 73 Monon Trail and 106th St. added trail over ass/under ass 74 Monon Trail and 1.465 added trail over ass/under ass old classificiation 75 West Road, between 146th and 116th added/modified Residential Parkwa collector 76 141st St., between Coun line and S rin mill Rd. modified Residential Parkwa 77 136th St., between West Rd. and Gra Rd. modified Residential Parkwa collector/seconds arkwa 78 131st St., between Coun line and Guilford Rd. modified Prima Parkwa residential arkwa 79 131st St., between Guilford Rd. and Carmel School Dr. modified Urban Collector residential arkwa Location added/modified Chan a Previous Classification 80 131st St., between Ke stone Ave. and River Rd. modified Prima Parkwa residential arkwa 81 Heather Knoll Pk etc. between 146th and 131st modified Residential Parkwa collector 82 Tuscan Blvd., between 131st St. and 126th St. modified Residential Parkwa collector 83 new road, between 131st St. and 126th St. added Residential Parkwa collector 84 new road, between 146th St. and 136th St. modified Residential Parkwa collector 85 Ditch Rd., between 146th St. and 131st St. modified Residential Parkwa Collector 86 126th St., between West Rd. and Ditch Rd. modified Residential Parkwa collector 87 Ditch Rd. extension to Cla Center Road added Residential Parkwa 88 Weston Point Dr., between Michi an Rd. and 116th St. added Collector 89 96th St. between Shelborne Rd. and S rin Mill Rd. modified Prima Arterial residential arkwa 90 96th St. between S rin Mill Rd. and Colle a Ave. modified Prima Arterial rims arkwa 91 96th St. between Colle a Ave. and Ke stone Ave. modified Prima Arterial seconds arkwa 92 111th St. between Illinois St. and Penns vania St. modified Prima Arterial collector 93 103rd St. between Illinois St. and Penns vania St. modified Prima Arterial collector 94 Old Meridian St. between Meridian St. and Penns vania St. modified Urban Arterial seconds arkwa 95 Grand Blvd. Between Guilford Rd. and 131st St. modified Urban Arterial seconds arterial 96 Guilford Rd. between Old Meridian St. and 116th St. modified Urban Arterial collector 97 Lark Dr. between 136th St. and 3rd Ave. NW added Residential Street 98 Crescent Dr. added connection to 3rd Ave. SW added Residential Street 99 Veterans Wa ,extended to ali n with Executive Dr. added Residential Street 100 AAA Wa ,between 116th St. and Carmel Drive modified Urban Arterial residential street 101 Ran eline Rd. between US 31 and116th St. modified Urban Arterial seconds arterial 102 Westfield Blvd. between 116th St. and 96th St. modified Urban Arterial collector 103 Carmel Dr. between Ke stone Ave. and 126th St. modified Collector residential street 104 River Rd. between 116th St. and 126th St. modified Residential Parkwa collector 105 River Rd. added curve reali nment 106 River Rd., between 126th St. and 146th St. modified Residential Parkwa seconds arterial 107 Nevelle Ln, extension to Cla Terrace Blvd. added Residential Street 108 new road between Ke stone Ave. and AAA Wa added Collector 109 3rd Ave. SW, extended to 116th St. added Collector 110 new road between extended Ditch Rd. and Cla Center Rd. added Residential Parkwa 111 Cool Creek North Trail added new trail 112 Cool Creek North Trail at Ke stone Ave added trail over ass/under ass 113 Cool Creek North Trail at Ran eline Rd. added trail over ass/under ass 114 Desi n Standards -Urban Arterial added new classification 115 Desi n Standards -Urban Collector added new classification .r Page 1 of 2 Keeling, Adrienne M From: mandplango@juno.com Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:48 AM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: Re: New Comprehensive Plan section posted Adrienne: Thanks for the update, The section about the East side and encouraging the church to not expand but instead to develop the southwest comer of 131st and Hazel Dell doesn't sit right with me still. Thompson got their rezone in 1995 and eleven years later still have an empty lot; our local serving commercial needs aze being met. Developing a regional shopping area to pull people down from Noblesville into the middle of our residential area shouldn't be a goal for encouraging the existing character of the East side. Hazel Dell started in the plan as a secondary pazkway north of 116th to serve residential only and has been tweaked through each redefinition into something differently named, we need to remember the original (and I still believe best) purpose of the road. Can you please forward this quick thought into the next public discussion on this topic. Sincerely, Peter Langowski 5322 Rippling Brook Way Carme146033 On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:04:48 -0400 "Keeling, Adrienne M" <AKeelin carmel.in.eov> writes Hello Everyone: A revised draft of Pages 1-22 (titled Draft B) has been posted on the web at: htto://www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/DOGS/DOCSCPU htm, and is available for review in the DOGS office, Carmel City Hall, Third Floor. The Plan Commission will meet to review this section on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 from 4:30 - 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers. An email notification will be sent when additional revised sections and meeting dates are available. If you have any questions, please contact Adrienne Keeling at akeelin @carmel.in.gov or 317-571-2417. Sincerely, Adrienne Keeling Planning Administrator Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 317-571-2426 fax akeeling a{~.carmel.in.go_v_ 8/17/2006 ~~ , RECEIVED '; August 16, 2006. ': h,ElG i ~, i0t6 To: Members of the Plan Commission D~C$ From: Marilyn Mesh, Representative for Jordan Woodlands' Homeowners Assoc>atio~. i=! ~: r~ Yesterday afternoon I attended the meeting which covered revisions of Parts 1 and 2 of the proposed C3 Plan. I was the last speaker from the public and you were in a time crunch. First of all, I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak given the circumstances. I used my notes, but tried to cut out parts as I went. You asked that I submit it in writing, so I have attached a copy of my statement, which is more complete than my remarks. You also said that I could turn it in today, and I trust that means that it will become part of the public record, which is my intention. Aside from the position staterra=nt on behalf of my neighborhood, I would like to add a couple of personal remarks. As 1 read through the current revisions, I found an item that I feel lacked clarity. On page 8, South Central Carmel Characteristics, fourth paragraph, reference is made to "two golf courses; one that is under pressure to be developed." I initially wondered what golf course needed to be further developed and it made no sense to me. As I thought about it, I remembered hearing tumors about the putting range or golf course(?) on the west side of Westfield Blvd. near 99`" Street. I think the rumors involved that property being used for another purpose. I am now assuming that is what you are referring to, but this would certainly not be obvious to most people unfamiliar with the area. If my assumption is correct, perhaps wording similar to "for a different use or purpose" should be added to the end of the sentence. I strong}y agree with the way the western border of both the North Central and South Central districts is currently drawn, which you also agreed with after considerable discussion. I realize that actual streets make nice, neat boundaries, but to use either Spring Mill or U.S. 31, depending an which one was used, would have meant that whenever you set objectives for a particular district, you would forever have to spell out exceptions for either the residential area east of Spring Mill or the business commercial azea west of U.S. 31. Although the current boundary may be hazd to spell out on paper, it is most definitely the more sensible way to go. I am also most appreciative of your intent to delete any references implying people or their properties should be treated differently based on their socioeconomic status. Unfortunately, most of us know instances where this has occurred, but it would be inexcusable to sanction such actions. Last of all, I want to thank all of you for serving on this wmmission It is becoming increasingly clear to me what a time commitment this is, especially as I have seen the same people on different subcommittees. In your position, you really do have the power to affect the quality of our lives in Carmel and I wouldn't want just anyone who has the time in that position You are our representatives so I was glad to know that you do want a survey done to learn how we, the people, feel. t August I5, 2006 My name is Marilyn Mesh and for the past 35 yeazs I have lived at 10918 Timber Lane, which is located in the Jordan Woodlands neighborhood on the northwest comer of 106a' Street and Keystone, with entrances on both 106th and on Westfield Blvd. I am here today as the official representative of the Jordan Woodlands Homeowners' Association. Our neighborhood has 166 homes, some of which date back to the mid-SOs and some of which have been built in the past three years. Under the revised C3 Plan, we now fall in the South Central Carme] area. Because we have never received notification for the initial public input meetings for the Central Carmel area as listed on page 6 of the C3 Plan, we aze new to this process. First of all, we strongly agree with the city-wide policy (Page I S-Objective 1.5) to protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development, (Page 15-Objective 2.2) to enhance quality of life to provide a superior quality place for people in ALL socioeconomic classes to live, and (Page 16-Objective 4.1) to achieve those quality of life benefits of traditional neighborhoods, which we certainly are. On page 17, Objective 6.4, particularly speaks to us in that it promotes the planting and care of canopy trees and extols the virtues of these trees such as adding care and comfort to the environment, heat relief, softening of noise and light, and air purification, not to mention the pure beauty of the long-standing trees along our roadways. It also states that "this is a particularly important objective because so many mature trees are lost through development." As this city-wide policy also applies to the South Central Carmel Policies and Objectives, we would especially like to see some specific guidelines written into the plan to protect the Westfield Blvd. corridor from 106`° to 116`ti, with ita current predominant character of single-family homes or xt m low-density housing, AND ALSO with its character as a gorgeous boulevard of canopy trees. We feel it is an ideal entrance into the more commercial city area which starts at 116th Street and oppose allowing "greater development intensity" on the north end to "better transition" between single-family neighborhoods and the existing commercial area (Page 21- Objective I.4). Currently, we have a beautifiil gateway, or door into the city, unmarred by a transitional area. We see absolutely no need for such an azea which most certainly would eat into the existing natural beauty of tlvs corridor. Many of the South Central objectives (Page 21-Objectives) .2, 4.1, 4.3 and 5.2) support this view, with the exception of the wording of the previously mentioned South Central Carmel Objective) .4. Outside of our area of South Central Carmel, the policies and objectives for the North Central Carmel area really affect all of Carmel's citizens. We specifically oppose the building height limit of 10 stories (Page 20-Objective 1.2) and propose that, with the exception of the existing U.S. 31 Corridor office buildings, all other buildings in Cannel should not exceed 3 to 4 stories AND should be nowhere near any existing residential developments. To that end, we do not understand why the wording of the original North Central Cannel Objective 1.4 (page 20) was deleted. It is equally important to the entire Carmel area that the longtime residences of North Central Carmel also be afforded the right of protection as single-family residential neighborhoods, without any significant expansion of nearby multi-family or commercial development. The obvious one under study at present is the Gramercy development, which ignores the rights of nearby residents to maintain the value of their neighborhood in which they have considerable financial and personal investment. It is unconscionable for fellow citizens to allow this to happen to ANY Carmel homeowner. As for building heights (Page 20-Objective 2.3), we see no need. to have a minimum building height of 2 stories along Carmel Drive. We do not necessarily oppose two stories, but see no need for a minimum Also on page 20, the wording in Objective 4.1 should be changed from "when possible" to "where appropriate" as it refers to reinforcing urban character. This is not uniformly appropriate across the board for all of the North Central Carmel area. Again on page 20, Objective S.2 should state that trees in North Central Carmel should be conserved wherever they exist, not ~ as part of parks and squares as stated. The recent destruction of the historic Hinshaw property, also known as The Heritage, on West Main is a prime example of why tree protection is important. This is urban redevelopment at its absolute worst. In brief, we do not believe that the development of a "world class city" (Page 2-Policy 2 Introduction) requires the destruction of significant parts of the existing city, building tall buildings, or increasing density and traffic congestion. To the contrary, a world class city has "most importantly a desirable quality of life," presumably for ALL of its citizens. We have the opportunity to build such a city without some of the negative aspects that often go with it. 'T'hank you for your consideration. C - ,~ l-end-~<a~ ; 7~C.d„i (u ,ne.e.P+..=s~, nit