Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 06-20-06y osC~ eG9a ~~~ Cit of Carmel .~ ?~~ y CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION -MEMORANDUM- Date: June 15, 2006 To: Plan Commission Members From: Adrienne Keeling Department of Community Services Re: June 20a' 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, please contact me at akeeline(cr~carmel.in.eov or at 571-2417. 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 TOPIC: PAGES 1-40 Foreword Part I: Community Profile Part 2: Comprehensive Plan Essence Part 3: Land Classification Plan This session will be a review of the sections covered during the previous two meetings. Any of pages 1-40 aze open for further discussion; however, given that the Commission's discussion of Part 3 only progressed to page 28 (iJrban Residential), it maybe wise pick up there. Also, there has been limited Plan Commission discussion of Part 2: Comprehensive Plan Essence. In the mean time, if you have any comments you would like to submit, please feel free to do so. DRAFT PLAN We are still working from Draft A, which you all received in advance of the May Plan Commission meeting. In an effort to minimize confusion with multiple drafts, we will continue to work from Drag A. Draft A is also available for the public to view on the web at: htto://www.ci.carmel. in.us/services/DOCS/DOCSCPU.htm. PUBLIC COMMENTS An updated comment summary spreadsheet is also attached, which incorporates new public comments given at the June 13`h review meeting. However, this edition does not yet include a summary of all the written submittals. Several letters were passed around at the June 13`h Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 meeting, and have also been included in this transmittal in case you were unable to attend, or did not receive a copy. We will continue to forwazd all written correspondence regazding the Plan, regardless of which section is under review. MEETING ORGANIZATION As this is a review meeting of sections previously reviewed, the Deparhnent would like to focus on Plan Commission comments. Public comment is welcome; however, repeat comments should be discouraged. FUTURE MEETINGS: June 27, 2006 7:00 AM Council Chambers PAGES 41-72 Part 4: Transportation Plan June 29, 2006 4:30 PM Council Chambers PAGES 73-92 Part 5: Corridors & Subazeas July 12, 2006 6:00 PM Council Chambers PAGES 41-92 Parts 4-5 July 15, 2006 9:00 AM Council Chambers PAGES 1-92 Entire Plan Comp Plan Review Memo 2006-0620 Page 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 ASV of Cqq~~ ~~ ,~~~MFkf~p` ° C it o f C acme 1 `\\ \~NUTANP / CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMPRHEHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2006 LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBERS TIME: 4:30 P.M. CARMEL CITY HALL DOORS OPEN AT 4:00 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 TOPIC: PAGES 1-40 Foreword Part 1: Community Profile Part 2: Comprehensive Plan Essence Part 3: Land Classification Plan Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417 ..; Comprehensive Plan Comments GENERAL Date Name Page - Comment 5/6/2006 Pat Rice rename to Carmel-Clay Consolidated Comprehensive Plan 5/6/2006 Andy Crook Should plan for Electrical infrastructure (substations), force to be underground or buffered 5/6/2006 Thomas Baker Too much density too fast especially along Old Meridian, see Reston, VA 5/6/2006 Angie Molt PUDs are expensive and time consuming for the public to track 5/6/2006 Steve Pittman Should recognize and bring White River corridor into community 5/6/2006 Steve Pittman Recognize Williams Creek corridor as asset 5/6/2006 Dan Dutcher Consider discussion board for public comments 5/6/2006 Pat Rice Have public meeting at Orchard Park 5/11/2006 Pat Rice Remove references to Civic Design, not an official document 5/11/2006 Pat Rice words city, community, neigbhorhood seem to be used interchageably 5/11/2006 Ron Carter Ensure bicyclists are considered, not just pedestrians 5/16/2006 Pat Rice Would like definitions of mixed-use, exurban, essence, innovative design 5/16/2006 Pat Rice Holiday Hills 8 Dales redevelopment rumors 5/16/2006 Judy Hagan Don't forget about Clay Township 5/16/2006 Angie Molt Be sensitive to older neighborhoods like Auman 5/16/2006 Dee Fox No mention of PUDs in this document; how will they be handled? 5/22/2006 Kevin Heber Conservation Plan 6/6/2006 Judy Hagan Carmel exists b/c of schools, can families thrive in "New Urbanism?" 6/6/2006 Dee Fox New Urbanism: old model failed, things change (big boxes, auto). Privacy, quiet, nature are important today. 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia Add language clarifying conflicts with approved land uses, Clarian example, (see letter) FOREWORD X Date Name Page Comment 5/6/2006 Pat Rice 6 Define outdated and irrelevant 5/11/2006 Pat Rice 5 Where's the community analysis data? PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE X Date Name Page Comment 5/6/2006 Dan Dutcher Community Profile should look forward. 5/11/2006 Ron Carter Data sources should be named 5/16/2006 Carol Schleif Chart labels too small, data are 5 years old rv~srecoe PART 5/16/2006 Dan Dutcher City-wide Technology and Land Use 5/11/2006 Pat Rice City-wide pg. 15, Policy 1, Introduction: °enviable" is a negative term 6/6/2006 Marilyn Anderson City-wide Pg. 15, Policy 1, Introduction: Mixed Use is not for everyone, new urbanism is just a fad 6/6/2006 Dee Fox City-wide Pg. 15, Policy 1, Introduction: Mixed Use is not for everyone 6/6/2006 Dee Fox City-wide Pg. 15, Policy 2, Introduction: West Clay is a suburb of Indianapolis 6/6/2006 Dee Fox City-wide Pg. 15, 2.1: High arch standards should also apply to residential 6/6/2006 Marilyn Anderson City-wide Better define where PUDs and new urbanism should go 6/6/2006 Marilyn Anderson City-wide 7.1 is good 6/6/2006 Pat Rice City-wide 7.3: we should encourage, rather than require 6/6/2006 Cheryl Gettlefinger City-wide encourage development practices which: reduce flooding and soil contamination, encourage wetland preservation and natural habitats (see letter for suggestions) DOCS Central Missing: supporting policies for Monon Trail, urban cross section 5/24/2006 Dan Dutcher Central Support the idea for higher education in the Core, if only single building/satellite classes 5/16/2006 Judy Hagan Central Protect the Monon Trail, recognize urban section 5/11/2006 Ron Carter Central add 5.4: The Monon should be enhanced as anon-motorized commuter trail, north & southbound. DOCS West Missing: supporting policies for W. 116th Street Overlay DOCS West Missing: supporting policies for Michigan Road Corridor 5/16/2006 Dee Fox West West Carmel underserved in terms of parkland/population -should study parkland per capita per district 6/6/2006 Marilyn Anderson West 1.1: large setback to hide density not enough, there are other consequences to density. Infrastructure may never catch up with needs of mixed use, density. Transity may never make sense in west. 6/6/2006 Marilyn Anderson West 3.2: Not sure why 96th Street is singled-out for protection 6/6/2006 Dee Fox West keep West Clay low density, no surprises 5/6/2006 Pat Rice Divide Central Carmel into Central Core and South Central Carmel-Clay at 116th 5/6/2006 Bill Carrier Divide Central Carmel into Central Core and South Central Carmel-Clay at 116th ND CLASSIFICATION PLAN Date Name Page Comment 6/13/2006 Plan Commission 26 Clarify only 15% open space because individual lots are larger 6/13/2006 Plan Commission 26 Neighborhood service good fit w/Conservation Res? "Good fit" potentially misleading, find another term 6/13/2006 Plan Commission 26 Add hip roofs as acceptable 6/13/2006 Dee Fox 26 Neighborhood service should not be listed as adjacent use to Cons. Res., conflicts w/pg 21 Obj 1.2 5/16/2006 Andy Crook 27 Suburban Classification good, but needs more clarification on density parameters 5/16/2006 Dee Fox 27 Density: 4.9 du/a is unacceptible 5/16/2006 Marilyn Anderson 27 Density: 1-4.9 tlu/a is a wide range, how do we guide until zoning districts placed? 6/13/2006 Otto Krohn for Herbisons 27 Desity of 1.0 du/a is economically too low, a better threshhold would be 2.5 du/a (see letter) a~ivzooa 6/13/2006 Plan Commission 6/13/2006 Plan Commission 28 6/13/2006 Dee Fox 28 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 29 6/13/2006 Dee Fox 29 6/13/2006 Dee Fox 32 6/13/2006 Dee Fox 35 6/13/2006 Dee Fox 35 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 36 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 37 5/6/2006 Pat Rice LCM 5/6/2006 Mark Rattermann LCM 5/6/2006 Tom Kendall LCM 5/6/2006 Steve Pittman LCM 5/9/2006 Richard Wickliff, Barbara LCM Layton 5/16/2006 Marilyn Anderson LCM 5/16/2006 Marilyn Anderson LCM 6/13/2006 Plan Commission LCM 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia LCM 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia LCM 6/13/2006 Angie Molt LCM 6/13/2006 Angie Molt LCM 6/13/2006 John Pittman LCM 6/13/2006 Karen Carter LCM 6/13/2006 Marilyn Anderson LCM 6/13/2006 Marilyn Anderson LCM 6/13/2006 Pat Truelove LCM 6/13/2006 John Tintera LCM 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia LCM 6/13/2006 Paul Shoopman LCM 6/13/2006 Plan Commission LCM 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 5/16/2006 Judy Hagan 5/16/2006 Steve Pittman 5/16/2006 Dee Fox 6/13/2006 Pat Rice 6/13/2006 Karen Carter Create additional district for 2.1 du/a and higher, re-evaluate best-fits (see how it falls on LCM) Urban Residential should emphasize connectivity in Development features Increase Open Space requirement from 10%, in Urban Residential Structure Features: Discourage front-load garage on bldgs w/more than two units. Need upper density limit on Multifamily Residential Community Vitality Node should not be both community- and neighborhood-serving Need density limit on Core Support Likes specification for "usable open space," but usable should be defined Structure Features: Maximum soundproofing b/t uses, hidden trash storage/disposal Structure Features: Maximum soundproofing b/t uses, hidden trash storage/disposal Classity 96th & W F area as Area for Special Study Should consider covenants and deed restrictions in Land Classification Classity Mine as Commercial or Areafor Special Study Classity 96th & W F area as Area for Special Study NE corner 103rd/Springmill from Employment Node to Conservation Residential (covenants) Lowest densities should be centralized (away from Mich Rd, 96th), reverse of what's shown Brandywine, Crossfields: may qualify as Conservation Res; Shoopman: not Cons Res Re-classify Martin Marietta as an Area for Special Study (Molitor to assist w/boundary) Check w/Clarian PUD Community Vitality Node instead of Suburban Residential W of Illinois, N of 116th OR define Residential Transition to allow support services/businesses wattention to scale and massing to minimize impact to residential to west Core should be surrounded by low intensity AumanMewark are approx. 2 du/a, not Urban Residential -harmful to long term residents SE cor 116th &Springmill should not be Suburban Residential, should be transition Urban Residential wrong for Auman area Michigan Road and 146th only areas appropriate for commercial/office in West Carmel Identity potential school land in West Carmel Auman is Suburban, not Urban -would like for it to stay the same, save old trees and quiet neigbhorhood Consider doing a land use inventory to compare with needs for the future Consider supporting services for office workers (US 31 large daytime population) Compromised/affected parcels need special considerations (Fortune, Guererro) Twin Lakes and Crooked Stick are missing from map "Development Features": Bike/ped connections from ends of cul-de-sacs Stress importance of residential character of Springmill Rd. Recognize 146th Street as important corridor "Best Fits" need work Need additional classifications/consideration for Transitional, Historic, Wildlife Consider wildlife displacement and relocation s/is~zooe 6/13/2006 John A Smith Why split Conservation and Suburban Residential? 6/13/2006 Dee Fox Need to address large hotels and mega-churches and their impacts on residential 6/13/2006 Dee Fox "Development Features": Protect environmental features, should be in all classifications 6/13/2006 Marilyn Anderson See Suburban Nation pages 102, 139, 202 and 264 for information on living preferences, regional planning, transit densities and New Urbanism principles. 6/13/2006 Marilyn Anderson Define compromised/marginalized parcels 6/13/2006 Marilyn Anderson Explain PUDs and their purposes and reasons 6/13/2006 Terry Huff Would now like to move on, please allow him the same development process as others (that surrounded him) were allowed -lives in West Carmel 6/13/2006 Liz Hobbs Handout: Higher-Density, Myth & Fact (ULI Manual) 6/13/2006 Paul Shoopman 1 du/a may raise property taxes, and are lessening in demand 6/13/2006 Paul Shoopman Attention should focus on development features/quality, not on densities 6/13/2006 Plan Commission Create a table showing appropriate adjacent classifications PART Date Name Page Comment 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 44 Design Priorities: Bike/ped path connection from cut-de-sacs 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 45 Street Features: bike lanes are mathmatically precluded 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 47 Street Features: bike lanes are mathmatically precluded 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 51 Move bike lanes from secondary to primary priority 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 60 Safety Enhancements: add raised crosswalks 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 61 Side Path Priorities, Primary: Placement on both sides of street 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 61 Safety Enhancements: add raised crosswalks 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 61 106th Street Photo: replace w/ photo showing 10' path 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 62 Primary Priority: Placement on both sides of street 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 62 Safety Enhancements: Painted, rather than raised, markings 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 62 Safety Enhancements: Separation b/t parking area to avoid open car door collisions 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 63 General Description: add commuting to list of activities 5/11/2006 Ron Carter 65 Urban Collectors: consider showing parallel bicycle through route 5/11/2006 Ron Carter Consider creating a street hierarchy illustration 5/16/2006 H. McLaughlin 120' Parkway too wide for W. 116th Street 5/16/2006 Jeff Scott W 116th Street Corridor should mirror 96th in varying widths 5/19/2006 Mike Sharp Illinois Street should be designed considering residential context (per PC recommendation) DOCS Missing: Monon Trail, urban cross section e~is2oos PART S: CRlfICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS X Date Name Page Comment 5/25/2006 Gene Valanzano 76 Change words "amenity node" to "office-supporting commercial" 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia 78 Change words "amenity node" to "office-supporting commercial" 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia 78 Clarity if amenity node/office supporting commercial must be in 6-8 story bldg -may not be convenient for residents or practical for office bldg security 5/6/2006 Steve Pittman 79 Map labeling confusing (conservation residental) shows suburban res on LCM 5/25/2006 Gene Valanzano 79 Check labels with Clarian PUD 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia 79 Check labels with Clarian PUD 5/25/2006 Gene Valanzano 79 Discrepancies between 31 Corridor map and LCM, retail 126th/31 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia 79 Discrepancies between US 31 corridor map and LCM, NW 116th/Illinois -suburban res vs residential transition 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia 79 Discrepancies between US 31 corridor map and LCM, NW 116th/SpringMill -conservation res vs suburban res 6/13/2006 Joseph Scimia 79 define residential transition DOCS 89 Incorporate Mixed Medical map amendment 5/16/2006 Pat Rice 90 96th Street extension referenced as existing in thoroughfare plan DOCS Missing: W. 116th Street Estate Corridor DOCS Missing: Michigan Road Corridor s'is/zoos