Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Draft Bz: 8177/2006 Peter Langowski East pg. 19, obj. 3.3: Neighborhood serving commercial needs are being met; there is still an empty lot at 131st/Hazel Dell since rezone in 1995. We should not use Hazel Dell to bring in regional shoppers -Hazel Dell's original purpose was for residential only north of 116th originally. 8/15/2006 Marilyn Mesh North Central pg. 20, obj. 1.2: 10 stories too tall except for US 31 corridor. 3-4 stories more acceptible and should be nowhere near existing residential 8175/200fi Jean ? North Central pg. 20, obj. 1.4: why deleted? 8/15/2006 Marilyn Mesh North Central pg. 20, obj. 1.4: why deleted? 8/15/2006 Marilyn Mesh North Central pg. 20, obj. 2.3: no need for minimum 2 story along Carmel Dr. 8/15/2006 Judy Hagan NoAh Central pg. 20, obj. 2.6: higher education already introduced (IUPUI at CICFILegacy Fund Bldg) 8/75/2006 Marilyn Mesh North Central pg. 20, obj. 4.1: change "when possible" [o "where appropriate" 8/15/2006 Marilyn Mesh North Central pg. 20, obj. 5.2: trees should be conserved everywhere, not just for parks and squares 8115/2006 Steve Housefeld South Central pg. 27, Obj. 1.2: Suggest That "beautification projects" be defined 6/15/2006 Steve Housefield South Central pg. 21, Obj. 1.4: Suggest limits on size, density, scale of projects along borders. Mann proposal too intense 8115/2006 Steve Housefeld South Central pg. 21, Obj. 4.2: Should also protect residential character of Westfield Blvd, 106th, 116th, protect large canopy trees in these areas 8/15/200fi Marilyn Mesh South Central pg. 21: Need to add policy (mirroring City-wide 6.4) to protect the Westfield Blvd corridor with its current predominant character of low density single-family homes and also its character as a boulevard of canopy trees. 8/15/2006 Marilyn Mesh South Central pg. 21, Objs. 7.2, 4.1, 4.3, 5.2: opposed to allowing greater density [o better transition b/t houses and 116th commercial 8/15/2006 Jean? Wesl pg. 22, Objs. 2.1 and 2.2: reads of "economic cleansing" of lower income 8/22/2006 Rhonna Crook West pg. 22, Objs. 2.1 and 2.2: seems offensive and elitist to describe the area '...wealthiest families...CEOs..." 8/1 512 0 06 Dee Fox Missing: language to protect the quality of life for existing residents 8/15/2006 John Tintera Missing: language to revisit the emphasis on East-West Connectivity (as in 20/20) • PART J: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN X Date Name Page Comment 6115/2006 Zeff Weiss LCM Mining area should be area for special study; there is no reference to manufacturing or industrial uses in the area. 8/15/2006 Judy Hagan LCM Missing: Township Gov Clr and Fire Station PART 0: TRANSPORTATION PLAN X Date Name Page Comment 8122/2006 Mark Monroe 77 Transit Plan Map: consider centering "transit hub shading' to show south side of 96th PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS 6 SUBAREAS X Date Name Page Comment anznoss Comprehensive Plan Comments - DR4FT B COMMENTS 8/1 512 0 06 Pat Rice rename to Carmel-Clay Consolidated Comprehensive Plan (C4), what does consolidated 6/1 512 0 06 Judy Hagan Replace "Trail" to "Greenway" when referencing Monon (encroachment issue) Date Name Page Comment 8/1 512 0 06 Pat Rice 2 Table of Contents: add definitions 8/1 512 0 06 Pat Rice 4 Acknowlegemen[s: Why Ground Rules and not Brad's name? 8/1 512 0 06 Pat Rice 6 Add language about the role of Civic Design in addressing the trend toward redevelopment and larger vision for the central core 8/15/2006 Pat Rice 6 How was the essence assembled from existing documents? 8/1512006 Pat Rice 6 First Column, last two paragraphs: need clear interpretation 8/1 512 0 06 Pat Rice 7 Four City Districts: be consistent with word use "the Wesi Carmel district" vs. "West Carmel" 8/1512006 Pat Rice 7 Four City Districts, 2nd Paragraph: 8/1612006 Marilyn Mesh 8 South Central, 3rd Paragraph: Clarify that the golf course is under pressure to develop for a different use or purpose. 8/1 512 0 06 Jill Meisenheimer Move "Characteristics" language and integrate into Part 2 -would be better flow 8/1 512 0 06 Dee Foz Need survey of what residents want, residential groups should help with revisions PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE X Date Name Page Comment 8/1 512 0 06 Dan Dutcher add chart for Clay Township population 8/1 512 0 06 Carol Schleif Add titles to charts 8/15/2006 Plan Commission find updated figures • arzsnaa Message ~ ~ Page 1 of 2 Keeling, Adrienne M From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:24 AM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: FW: C3 Plan Commentary Adrienne, comments for inclusion in the Comp Plan. Ramona -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Mesh (mailto:tedmesh@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:07 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Chomanczuk, Jerry; Idierckman@carmel.in.gov; Dutcher, Dan; Haney, Wayne; Heber, Kevin; Rattermann, Mark; Ripma, Robert J; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan Subject: C3 Plan Commentary To: Members of the Plan Commission From: Marilyn Mesh, Representative for Jordan Woodlands Homeowners Association I am writing as a 35-year resident and the official representative of Jordan Woodlands, a neighborhood on the northwest corner of 106th and Keystone, with entrances on both 106th and on Westfield Blvd. The first homes here were built in the mid-50s. I am writing regarding the C3 Plan, and the aspects of it which my neighborhood has specifically asked our Board of Directors to address. Although there may be many other specific concerns of my neighbors, the two which we feel most qualified and willing to comment on as a group are those nearby -- namely, the land use along Westfield Blvd. from 106th to 116th, and also the road itself, which the plan classifies as an "urban arterial." I have read the classifications of both the roads and the land use and I simply cannot find one which ideally suits that corridor. As most of you know, we have recently objected to the proposed development of 110 townhomes (Townhomes at Central Park) at 11400 Westfield Blvd. We could not support the density, the height, or the character of this development and felt that it in no way provided a "transition" from commercial to residential as had been suggested. This specific proposal has awakened us to the importance of the C3 Plan, which currently designates that same area as "attached residential." While we realize that it may not remain single family residential with its current very low density, we feel that the density should be capped at 4.9 units per acre, based on other such developments we have seen in Carmel. The Creekside neighborhood across the street from it or Monon Farms (116th at the Monon Greenway) are good examples of what would really be a lovely transitional development there. And it would also fill a niche in the housing market that seems somewhat neglected here in Carmel -- the one or one and ahalf-story home ideal for empty-nesters. The other aspect of importance is maintaining the lovely, tree-canopied Westfield Blvd. corridor that has been the main entrance to Carmel in past years and still is the most picturesque one. It personifies what many of us moved here to find and we would like it treated with special consideration. I'm just not convinced that "urban arterial" will deal kndly with it. If "improvements" must be made, we feel it can be done with sensitivity and would welcome the opportunity for public discussion on the best way to manage traffic along this stretch. We do know that traffic problems will increase with the new park and we want to deal with the problems in the best way. I have attached a letter which Jack Engledow of Wood Valley sent recently. No doubt, all of you have seen it, but I want to confirm that Jack has put into words what we all agree is a reasonable stance on the issues involved. We wholeheartedly support his views and hope that you, too, will see the value of preservng the character of this 9/13/2006 Message • • Page 2 of 2 corridor as an asset to the City of Carmel. 9/13/2006 September 7, 2006 Members of the Comprehensive Plan Review Panel: I would like to ask your consideration of two changes in the current draft of the Plan. I believe that the suggestions reflect the basic opinions of a large group of citizens in the Creekside, Wood Valley, Pine Valley and Jordan Woods areas, as well as some residents along Westfield Boulevard. Change the parcel on the west side of Westfield Boulevard between the new Central Park entrance and the shopping center at I l6"' Street from Attached Residential to Suburban Residential. The Subdivision Committee, following three meetings in which strong public concern was expressed, recently rejected a proposal to build three story brick townhouses on this site. The Committee saw the proposed development as too tall and too dense for the site, creating a poor transition between the commercial area to the north and the single family residential area in which it would be embedded. In the final discussion, the Committee members suggested that a lower density development with structures more in keeping with the neighborhood would be much more desirable. The Suburban Residential category would allow such development to take place, permitting densities of up to 4.9 units per acre, and specifying one or two story hipped or gabled roof structures. Projects of this description would fit comfortably into the character of the neighborhood, and are unlikely to generate public disapproval. 2. Designate Westfield Boulevard from 106th Street to ll6th Street as a "Special Green Residential Entrance Corridor", and write unique specifications accordingly. This stretch of road is a picturesque natural resource that should be preserved, though it is obvious that road improvements must be made. None of the standard thoroughfare specifications will accommodate the desired preservation. With creative thinking and design, it should be possible to increase traffic flow and convenience without destroying the special beauty of the area. The mayor has agreed (see attached e-mail). Mike Hollibaugh is currently preparing revised specifications for your consideration. We would hope that the specifications would also preserve the residential, wooded character of the area by restricting changes along this corridor to development of high quality medium and low density residential structures, of the Suburban Residential or limited Urban Residential classifications. Thank you very much for considering these changes. We appreciate the thoughtfixl approach you are taking to the revision process. Jack Engledow 846-7056 j ackengledow@sbcglobal.net - V • • BAKER & DANIELS Lrs EST. 1663 600 E. 96th Street, Suite 600 • Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 Tel. 317.569.9600 • Fax 317.569.4800 www.bakerdan iels. com INDIANA WASHINGTON, O.C. • ~ '[ CHINA \1-~`~~~L ~J L , ~~ `L~uO ,GP 1 D9c~ - ,. September 12, 2006 Carmel Plan Commission c/o Ms. Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator Dept. of Community Services Carmel City Hall One Civic Squaze Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Draft B - C3 Plan 2006 -Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan Deaz Plan Commission Members: On behalf of Clarian Health Partners, Inc., I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Draft B version of the C3 Plan 2006 -Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan and want to express our appreciation for many of the changes and revisions made since our review of the original document. Upon review of the Draft B Version of the C3 Plan 2006 -Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, we noted an inconsistency between the Part 3: Land Classification Plan Man and the Part 5, Critical Corridors and Subazeas plan map for the US 31 Corridor for the azea north of 116`h Street and west of Illinois Street. The Part 3: Land Classification Plan Man recommends the azea west of Illinois Street and north of 116`h Street for an "Employment Node", which matches the approved Clarian PUD land use plan. The Part 5: Critical Corridors and Subareas plan map for the US 31 Comdor recommends the same azea as a "Transition-Sensitive Residential", a recommendation which is not entirely consistent with the approved PUD. We would recommend that the name for the Part 5 recommendation be changed from "Transition-Sensitive Residential" to "Transition-Sensitive Development" to reflect the broader scope of permitted uses as already approved. An alternative recommendation would be to expand the boundazy of the Employment Node recommendation on the US 31 Corridor Plan to match the Part 3: Land Classification Plan Mao. BDDDOI 4519876v1 Carmel Plan Commission -2- September 12, 2006 Again, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present these concems and comments for your review and consideration. Please contact the undersigned if you would like to have further discussions regazding these concems. Sincerely & DANIELS LLP . Scintia for Clarian ealth Partners, Inc. Mr. Scott Rigney BDDB01 4519876v1 Comments from Pat Rice (9/16) • Page 1 of 3 Keeling, Adrienne M From: patrice4632@sbcglobal.net Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:46 PM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: Comments from Pat Rice.doc Comments from Pat Rice (9/12/06) PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP • 96th St./Westfield Blvd. area should be in pink since it is designated as "Special Study Area: by amendment to the present Comprehensive Plan (Vision 20/20) as follows: "DETAILED FOCIISAREA SPECL4L STUDIES" (pp.7-6 to 7-7) There are four areas within the township where it has been concluded that follow- up detailed special study is warranted. These areas are designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The issues to be studied and resolved through a focused planning study include the following: • 96th &Westfield Boulevard Special Study Area -Several issues remain to be resolved in this area. These issues include the extension of 96th Street west of Westfteld, direction as to how the intersection with the Monon would work and detailed land use intensity in the area. • Applying residential parkway concepts on 96th Street will require detailed design studies. They should not be adopted until a detailed design study has been completed. The design study should identify site-specific opportunities and constraints, review traffic impact o~ options, and set specific pavement and right of way lines for implementation. (Ch.6- p.44) (This is what was requested by the community in 2005 but instead, Adam Theis was hired to develop the area under the "Urban Design Initiative" or "Civic Design" and the issues specified in Vision 20/20 were never addressed.) • How will "Historic Sites" be identifted? • How will the "unverified content" be verified? 9/13/2006 Comments from Pat Rice (9/1 ~) ~ Page 2 of 3 CRITICAL CORRIDORS AND SUBAREAS INTRODUCTION (p.8o) • What about "Land Use"? Land use is a critical part of "how it should be used to manage growth and development in these sensitive areas. " • Why is the word, "conceptual" used when it refers to a plan? Under "Critical Con-idor Subarea Descriptions" it reads: "Further, the following headings are used, as described below, to convey the essence of each critical comdor and subarea. These descriptions are intended to be couceptual." Are these just "ideas or notions" or do they describe a "method of accomplishing something"? The teens "essence" and "conceptual" do not convey a comprehensive "plan." Compare with Strategy: This section describes the implementation steps, projects, policies, or programs necessary to achieve the desired result in the critical corridor or subarea. This sounds like a plan rather than a concept. • The 96th Street Corridor is included as one of the studies as: "the result of detailed studies or planning efforts previously completed by the City of Carmel." (draft B) The official document is the 96th Street Corridor Study. There is an important distinction between that study and the "96th Street/WestfieldBlvd. Study"which is still in Committee. FUTURE STUDIES AND PLANS • Under "Potential New Critical Corridor and Subareas", (4) East 96th Street and 96th Street and WestSeld Boulevard District aze both listed. What does (4) refer to and does (8) refer to the Adam Theis plan or a new study? 96TH STREET CORRIDOR (p.86) 9/13/2006 Comments from Pat Rice (9/1~) ~ Page 3 of 3 • Critical Area Boundaries ("The Keystone Avenue Corridor" should read "The 96th Street Corridor") • See the 96TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY amendment adopted into the Carmel-Clay Comprehensive Plan in 1999. Specifically: Ch. 2 (p.4) Ch. 3 (pp.7-8) Ch.4 (p.l l ) Ch. 5 (pp.21 & 23) Ch. 6 (p.44) Ch. 7 (pp.47,49,50,52-53) Appendix B: Related Studies Compare "Strategy" with Home Place Subarea in teens of 96tr` St. extension. The east-west connection is described differently. Under "Enhance East/West Connectivity" and "Connect Pennsylvania Parkway to Westfield Boulevard", and when referencing the 96th St. Corridor Study, the red-line addition appears to misinterpret the study. Abridge was not the "prefen-ed" solution but rather the "skewed" bridged the preferred bridge design. (Ch.7 - p.50 #2) Obviously "...direction as to how the intersection with the Monon would work..." is not refemng to abridge. Also, the "assumptions" of that study are no longer valid since land use and traffic counts have changed and no longer fit the assumptions made in 1999. If after a "detailed study" is done, connecting Westfteld with College via 101St St. is viable, then the whole idea of a bridge goes away. (There have been several suggestions as to how this could work but until a study is completed, there is no verifiable information available.) 9/13/2006 1. C3 PLAN, DRAFT B COMMENTS-PART 5 By Dee Fox, 11389 Royal Ct., Carmel, IN 46032 Sept. 10, 2006 PAGE 81: Future Corridor and Subarea Studies * The West 116th St. Overlay document should be included. * Spring Mill Road is not mentioned. Its previous studies and agreements should be included, or at least a summary or a reference to where to find that information. * Surely, studies have been done on the Michigan Road corridor. * Maybe a separate section is needed for summarizing "Overlay Zones". PABB-82: Keystone Avenue Corridor * Will there be no pedestrian crossings until Carmel gets full control over Keystone? How likely is gaining that control, and what might be a likely timeframe? * At least give consideration to the residential areas west of Keystone that are south of 116th St. * This draft frequently refers to the need to protect and buffer residential neighborhoods from conflicting commercial land use; while at the same time, it continues to encourage the placement of more such land uses next to residential areas. * Adequate buffering is difficult to do. Not only does a busy 4-lane road not soften anything, it is a problem in itself. East- side residents complain of noise and difficulty crossing Keystone. They are requesting sound-walls, which the City does not favor for visual reasons. Again, most residents consider function to be as, or more, important than looks. The City needs to apply its talent for disguising function. (In Pennsylvania, a cell phone tower in a wooded area is built to look like a tree.) * Again, encouraging 15-20 units/acre densities in order to justify mass transit is just "creating a problem to be solved", as Mark would say. Leave out the last half of the final sentence. * Do not prohibit truck traffic on Keystone, so that it all must transfer to U.S. 31. That would necessitate extra driving, and would just move the noise elsewhere for others to endure. Trucks must service the urban/commercial development west of Keystone. That is one reason that residential areas do not want such develop- ments closeby. PAGE 84: U.S. 31 Corridor * The height limit was raised from 8 to 10 stories without con- sulting the affected neiahborhoods. Have Mark's concerns about parking garages, security, and fire protection been addressed? (Are all of these very tall buildings being built to withstand an earthquake?) * Why was transitioning between U.S. 31 and "Spring Mill Road" changed to "Illinois St."? That is a very small area in which to "transition" from 10 stories to 2 stories. * Under "Design Guidelines", does "6 to 8 stories" now nee d: to, say "6 to 10 stories"? The text for "Employment Nodes" requires a minimum height of 4 stories, not 6. - ~;; ~~~~~ • • 2. * There are still no guidelines for what is "Transition-Sensitive Residential". Height or density limits? * The U.S. 31 corridor is being allowed, more and more, to en- croach on established residential areas. The highest buildings should have to be within the 600' proper U.S. 31 corridor. Heights should be restricted next to residential areas. (Brad agreed to that at the July 18th meeting, but where are the limits?) * Form a committee now, to include planners and all affected parties, to design an acceptable plan for along Illinois St. * Add lighting limits to prevent intrusion into residential areas. * Map (page 85)---Preservation of tree canopies is only a small area on the north end. Any that exist along Illinois St. or along Spring Mill Road should be preserved as a buffer. PAGE 86: 96th Street Corridor * Ask Ashbrooke residents if they are being sensitively transitioned and buffered. * Maintain 2-lane roads with residential sensitivity here, but not on all-residential west 116th St. or Towne Road?? PAGE 88: City Center/Old Town Subarea * Does replacing the traditional zoning with a form-based code that does "not regulate land use", mean that a~ use must be allowed? On what basis would Carmel be able to deny an undesirable use, such as "adult entertainment", a "Smokes for Less" store, a "Hooters" restaurant, a pawn or gun shop, etc.? The look of buildings must fit "character goals", but uses do not matter?? Any use is fine anywhere, as long as the building is disguised to fit Carmel's mold? * This section states that "Ground floor offices...will be discouraged." The text of Part 3, under "Primary Core" and "Secondary Core", lists offices as ground floor uses. * Too much ground floor office space does not attract visitors or pedestrians. On-street parking that is too close, detracts from outdoor dining. Zionsville has made both of those mistakes. PAGE 90: Old Meridian Subarea * A 5 story height limit seems too tall. The "Secondary Core• height limit is 4 stories. * Single-Family Attached Guidelines (page 91) 1) Developments under 10 units require no open space? 2) Why 2z stories? The photo examples show 3 stories. 3) All brick front facades can lead to monotony. Buildings with brick fronts only, that have other siding materials on the remaining walls are not attractive. 4) Elevated front doors are not handicapped accessible. 5) No front setback is listed, as it is for "Multifamily". * Multifamily Attached Guidelines 1) Again, no open space for less than 10 units? Part 3 requires 20% open space (50% usable) for"Multifamily". why less here? 2) Do residents want the public walking within 4 to 9 feet of their front windows? The Village Offices require 20 to 30 foot front setbacks. 3) Change heights from "feet" to "stories", as was done every- where else. • • 3. 4) The sign restrictions will make these buildings difficult for drivers to identify. Better to regulate freestanding signs. * Mixed Use Village Guidelines (pages 91 and 92) 1) Ensure plenty of parking, because a shortage can quickly kill a commercial area. 2) State a minimum sidewalk width so that large groups can comfortably pass each other. 3) A minimum of 80% transparent glass seems high. 4) The map, (page 95), differs from Draft "A" in the upper right corner. Building heights in the "Mixed Medical" area of up to 5 stories, should be limited adjacent to residential neighborhoods. PAGE 96: Home Place Subarea * There is conspicuously no mention here of preserving residential areas or discouraging redevelopment. Residents' expressed fears are again validated. * Map (page 97) 1) Why has the path near the top, east of College Ave., been relocated from its position in Draft "A"? 2) Correct "6 to 8 story" to "6 to 10 story". 3) Several paths have been added to the Draft "A" map, (south of 116th St., east of Pennsylvania St., and north of 111th St.) 4) Proposed roundabouts should be shown at 106th St. and West- field. Blvd., and at 116th St. and Pennsylvania St. *** My lack of means that had time to Dee Fox comment on Part 4B does not mean acceptance. It this process has been so rushed that I have not examine it. ~~ ,,,, -----Original Message----- From: Marguerite Havard [mailto:mdaisy@gwickconnect.net] Sent: Monday, September il, 2006 1:22 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Plan Commission meeting, September 12 Ms. Hancock: Attached is a letter from Jack Engledow to the Members of the Comprehensive Plan Review Panel. As a homeowner in Jordan Woods, I would like to add my agreement to Mr. Engledow's suggestions contained in this letter. I would appreciate your conveying my endorsement of the attached letter to the Members before their September 12 meeting. Thank you. Marguerite Havard 1930 Hamilton Lane ~'" September 7, 2006 • • Members of the Comprehensive Plan Review Panel: I would like to ask your consideration of two changes in the current draft of the Plan. I believe that the suggestions reflect the basic opinions of a large group of citizens in the Creekside, Wood Valley, Pine Valley and Jordan Woods areas, as well as some residents along Westfield Boulevard. Change the parcel on the west side of Westfield Boulevard between the new Central Park entrance and the shopping center at 116th Street from Attached Residential to Suburban Residential. The Subdivision Committee, following three meetings in which strong public concern was expressed, recently rejected a proposal to build three story brick townhouses on this site. The Committee saw the proposed development as too tall and too dense for the site, creating a poor transition between the commercial area to the north and the single family residential area in which it would be embedded. In the final discussion, the Committee members suggested that a lower density development with stmctures more in keeping with the neighborhood would be much more desirable. The Suburban Residential category would allow such development to take place, permitting densities of up to 4.9 units per acre, and specifying one or two story hipped or gabled roof structures. Projects of this description would fit comfortably into the character of the neighborhood, and are unlikely to generate public disapproval. 2. Designate Westfield Boulevard from 106th Street to 116th Street as a "Special Green Residential Entrance Corridor", and write unique specifications accordingly. This stretch of road is a picturesque natural resource that should be preserved, though it is obvious that road improvements must be made. None of the standard thoroughfare specifications will accommodate the desired preservation. With creative thinking and design, it should be possible to increase traffic flow and convenience without destroying the special beauty of the area. The mayor has agreed (see attached e-mail). Mike Hollibaugh is currently preparing revised specifications for your consideration. We would hope that the specifications would also preserve the residential, wooded character of the area by restricting changes along this corridor to development of high quality medium and tow density residential stmctures, of the Suburban Residential or limited Urban Residential classifications. Thank you very much for considering these changes. We appreciate the thoughtful approach you are taking to the revision process. Jack Engledow 846-7056 j ackengledow@sbcglobal.net Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:23 AM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: FW: Note to Comprehensive Plan Revision Group Additional Comments for you. RH -----Original Message----- From: Fred Frauhiger [mailto:FredF@bcindy.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:29 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Note to Comprehensive Plan Revision Group Dear Ramona, I wanted to contact you as a resident and board member of Creekside Condominiums. I personally and we as a community agree with The attached comments from Jack Engledow reference to the land classification of the new Comprehensive plan under discussion. The transition from the commercial areas to the north to the established residential area and corridor will greatly determine the entry way to the great city of Carmel and hopefully compliment the exciting development of new city center. The area between the entrance to the Park on Westfield and the creek bordering the strip mall on the soutwest corner of 116th and Westfield/Rangeline presents a great opportunity for a moderate density and maximum two story development models that will transition into the carmel city main corridor from the current residential. Please let me know if any detailed imput I can provide as a resident of the area woulld be of value. Thank you for your consideration. Fred Frauhiger 1744 Creekside Ln. W. 317 696-8362 9/11/2006 R gDCD~ SEP ~ 12006. - \ Do~s ~% \T~ September 11, 2006 Members of the Carmel Plan Commission Subject: Comprehensive Plan 2006, C3, Draft B Steve Housefield Karen Bower 1785 Pine Valley Dr. Carmel, IN 46032 317.575.9017 shousefield(a~sbcglobal.net I am writing in support of two critical issues recently communicated to you via a letter from my neighbor, Jack Engledow. Those issues are as follows: 1. Change the parcel on the west side of Westfield Boulevard between the new Central Park entrance and the shopping center at 116`h Street from Attached Residential to Suburban Residential. Since the Subdivision Committee unanimously rejected the recent proposal to build three-story townhomes on the site, suggesting that much lower density would be most appropriate, this tract needs redesignation to insure that any future development would contain densities of 4.9/acre or less. 2. Designate Westfield Boulevard from 106`h Street to 116`h Street as a "Special Green Residential Entrance Corridor", and write unique specifications accordingly. The Mayor is on-record as supportive of this protection, as referenced in Jack Engledow's correspondence. Thank you for your continued consideration. Steve Housefield Karen Bower . • Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:28 AM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: FW: C3 plan & Gramercy Please see comments below: RH -----Original Message----- From: Pat Truelove [mailto:PTRUELOVE@indy.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 11:52 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: C3 plan & Gramercy Regarding the current C3 plan draft that is going before the committee and council. Please be aware that I am against the current C3 plan as it stands. I feel that there has not been enough public input into this plan. It reads more like it was put together without any consideration of the 2020 plan that was put into effect. This plan changes the city of Carmel from a suburb to urban. We did not move to Carmel 40 years ago to live in an urban area. Also, the use of TIF for Gramercy is not fair to other builders in the area. If Buckingham cannot build without the TIF then they should forget building Gramercy or they should redesign the area to fit into the current neighborhood and not go into the New York dream that the Mayor has presented. If this goes on for the 10 years, what is going to keep them from taking their money and run? Also, with the TIF, that is cutting into our education budget and we are also going to have to pay for all the bonds that will be coming due fairly soon. Bad business and a bad political move. Patricia Truelove 9/11 /2006 September 4, Carmel Plan Adrian: 1 4 RECEIVED sEP - s zoos DOCS Fred Swift has told me that you would like to see a former list of historical sites in Carmel Clay as it appeared in one of the city's comprehensive plans some years ago. Here is a copy of the list from the plan of 1985. I copied it because it is the only such plan we have here at the CCHS, but I know similar lists have appeared in other versions of the plan. For certain, such a list should be maintained currently. We are losing far too many historic structures. Many of these latter, properly restored, could complement the construction of buildings on Main St. which are designed to look old. Often the CCHS can help prospective owners of such existing buildings and homes learn about the history of these structures. For example, for one home currently endangered on W. Main St., we have the floor plans showing how each room was used (even the outbuildings) and hundreds of ages of recollections of members of the family that lived there in the early years of the 20t century. A member of the family invented the first automatic traffic signal used in the Midwest (used first in Carmel). I do hope the historical perspective can be appreciated and preserved in our community. If the oldest part of the city is going to achieve a truly appealing nature for tourists and others, it will have to have more than new buildings to give it a sense of place. All new structures at the expense of anything that preceded us is just another mall, indoors or outdoors. If we can help in the future, please let us know. Thanks for your interest. r-- -~` Y `~-''"~ Tom Rumer CCHS Historian www.carmelcla history.org 'COGr/rilJ'l.Pi(/ ~CJGC!/~/ e9lil,J2ll2~GC'CLf/ crQG(.Pifitd/ Visit Us At 211 First Street, S.W., Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 646-7117 -- Q - - RECEIVED - gEP ~ 8 2006 DOGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Carmel/Clay Township Indiana Prepared for City of Carmel Plan Commission City Hall 40 East Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032 Prepared By: Woolpert Consultants Two "larket Square Center, Suite 880 251 E. Ohio Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2118 September 30, 1985 Ordinance No. D-454 Copy No. ~o ~j0 Price: $50.00 t,~. y~~ • • ~;~y . *` less-critical missing linkages exist in the township. These , include the extension of Hazeldell Road south, in the ~~ northeastern portion of the Township; a possible connection from Meridian Street to Springmill Road between 116th and 1~?. 131st Streets, in the west-central section of the Township; . and the extension of either 126th or 121st Streets east to ~l Meridian Street, also in the west-central portion of the Township. ~~ 4. Sanitary Sewer Service Area / ~ ~ The sanitary sewer service area of the City is of primary 's and the Township's development. Cit th t ~ -t y o e importance This area's general boundaries are: as far west as the vic- ' inity of Oak Ridge Road and Meridian Street, and south to the d south A venue an 116th Street vicinity; then east to Keystone ~~ to the 96th Street vicinity; then east to the White River, 146th Street ` } where the boundary runs north along the river to the Oak Ridge Road area. Additional service t t - ; . t o and then wes as include the Clay Township Regional Wastewater District ' are Hamilton Western Utilities Planning Area. and the ~ 5. Hiss tonic .Sites Thirty-seven historic sites have been identified in the Carmel/ Clay Township area. Most of these are concentrated ~~ in the older core area of Carmel, in the vicinity of Main Street and Range Line Road. Because these are located n as ed already developed areas, t not pt constraints. However, building taking place ~~~.. ~~ . around these sites could alter the integrity of these valued d t an resources. A few sites are located on East 116th Stree in the Smokey Row Road area. Since these particular sites are in areas with surrounding vacant land, they could be more of a constraint than those mentioned earlier. (Refer to _ ~; Table 28/Plate 5 for specific locations of these sites). 6. Other Sites _ ~ Two other significant sites that must be considered are Lyn- the i ; n wood Farm and the Bitternut Nature Preserve, located respectively. f the Township i , ons o eastern and central port Although both of these are presently perceived as development constraints, the potential for development of the Lynwood Farm exists. It is unlikely, however, that the Nature _ ~ Preserve would later be developed, especially because of its ; physiographic constraints. 7. Implications The implications of these existing man-made elements are varied. The intensity of development present in an area often limits the type of potential future development that ~r ~' TABLE 28 CARMEL/CLAY TOWNSHIP, INDIANA CPMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE HISTORICAL SITES SITE LOCATION 1. John Kinzer House (On the National Register) East Main Street 2. Old Monon Railroad Depot 2nd Avenue S.W. 3. Bicentennial House (Chamber of Commerce) West Main Street 4. City Building East Main Street 5. Lumberyard Mall 1st Street S. W. 6. Carmel Cemetery North Range Line Road 7. Methodist Episcopal Church 1st Street S.E. 8. Franklin Booth Home North Range Line Road 9. McShane Homestead Westfield Boulevard 10. The Flowing Well East 116th Street 11. White Chapel Church East 116th Street 12. Richland Meeting House Smokey Row Road and North Range Line Road 13. The Maples West Smokey Row Road 14. Haines House 2721 E. 146th St. 15. Wilkinson House 2724 E. 136th St. 16. Grayce Dawson House 610 First Avenue 17. Thomas Carey House 231 N. Range Line Road 18. Wilkinson-Patterson House 211 N. Range Line Road 19. Sylvanus Carey House 141 N. Range Line Road 20. Locust Hill 310 E. Main Street 21. Zina Warren House 30 W. Main Street 22. Evans-Cross-Henshaw House 216 S. Range Line Road 23. House 530 First Avenue 24. House 1139 S. Range Line Road 25. Matt Richardson Store 4402 E. 116th Street 26. Moffitt House River Avenue 27. J. W. Wilkinson House 2514 E. 99th Street 28. Applegit House 9680 Haverstick Road 29. Donnelley House 11125 Westfield Blvd. 30. Haner-Combs House 1201 E. 106th Street 31. Cabin 809 W. 106th Street 32. Joseph Hussey House 10479 Ditch Road 33. Hoffman House Towne Road 34. Williams House E. 116th Street 35. Newby House 1149 W. 116th Street 36. Todd House 808 E. 116th Street 37. Isaac Stanton House 12851 Spring Mill Road Sources: Indiana Always, April 1983; and 1984-85 Carmel Community Directory. .~ -77- 1.,,,'1 °~ ,.-,~~ ~ 1 ~~ ~. 32 31 1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~_ ~ 37 9 9 ~~ ~ i;~ _ ~~ R,_ 15~~ ~_, ~ w ~~ ~ ,f , ;~ ~. a HISTORICAL SITE "SEE TABtE 28 j Keeling, Adrienne M From: STEVE IARGENT (eclipsefc@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:59 PM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: Comments for Sept. 12 meeting on Carmel Plan To Adrienne Keeling: Please accept these comments for submission at the commission meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 12, regarding parts 3 and 5 of the Carmel plan. 1. Page 41 -- map -- Spring Mill Place subdivision (east of Spring Mill Road and between 106th and 111th) is shown on this map as "suburban residential." However, as platted and existing, Spring Mill Place has a density of less than 1.2 units per acre (49 units on about 42 acres). That density would indicate that Spring Mill Place should be shown and treated as "low density suburban residential." 2. Page 84 -- U.S. 31 Corridor -- *** It would be most appropriate to make "Respect transition and buffering agreements with adjacent subdivisions" more specific to reflect that compliance with the existing resolution CC-12-17-01-02 will be required. That resolution is long-standing and extremely important to the adjoining residents. *** It also would be helpful to clarify that the "requirement" for 6 or more stories is subject to the design guideline to "transition scale and mass of structures between U.S. 31 and Illinois Street to minimize impact to residential developments to the west." It could be indicated that fewer than 6 stories would be more appropriate in certain areas, for example, between 106th and 111th, to protect the existing residential areas. 3. Page 85 -- U.S. 31 Corridor map -- It should be clarified that "transition-sensitive" residential means that this area is protected by the existing resolution regarding buffering and transitions and also is protected by the design provisions for minimizing impact by transitioning "scale and mass of structures" and for sensitive placement of amenity nodes away from the existing residential areas. In any other respect, this area should be treated as "preservation of residential." Thank you for your consideration in bringing these comments to the attention of the commission members. Steve i.argent and Wendy Busch 311 Spring Mill Court Carmel, IN 46032 eclipsefc~msn.com Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline 1 ' • • Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: jackengledow@sbcglobal.net Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:20 PM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Cc: Tom & Dottie Weeks; Brian and Kate Conway; Steve and Melinda Johns; Jack And Nancy Engledow; Bill and Boots McGarvey; Duane and Linda Kennan; Steve Housefield; Fred Frauhiger; Bill Kruger; Marilyn Mesh; Neal Eggeson Subject: Suggestions to the Comprehensive Plan Revision Committee Adrienne: At the risk of becoming your favorite pest, I have attached a note and a copy of an a-mail from Mayor Brainard that I hope you will distribute to the group before their meeting next Tuesday. I promise to slow down (I think). Thanks! Jack Engledow 9/13/2006 September 7, 2006 Members of the Comprehensive Plan Review Panel: I would like to ask your consideration of two changes in the current draft of the Plan. I believe that the suggestions reflect the basic opinions of a large group of citizens in the Creekside, Wood Valley, Pine Valley and Jordan Woods areas, as well as some residents along Westfield Boulevard. Change the parcel on the west side of Westfield Boulevard between the new Central Park entrance and the shopping center at 116`h Street from Attached Residential to Suburban Residential. The Subdivision Committee, following three meetings in which strong public concern was expressed, recently rejected a proposal to build three story brick townhouses on this site. The Committee saw the proposed development as too tall and too dense for the site, creating a poor transition between the commercial area to the north and the single family residential area in which it would be embedded. In the final discussion, the Committee members suggested that a lower density development with structures more in keeping with the neighborhood would be much more desirable. The Suburban Residential category would allow such development to take place, permitting densities of up to 4.9 units per acre, and specifying one or two story hipped or gabled roof structures. Projects of this description would fit comfortably into the character of the neighborhood, and are unlikely to generate public disapproval. 2. Designate Westfield Boulevard from 106`h Street to 116`h Street as a "Special Green Residential Entrance Corridor", and write unique specifications accordingly. This stretch of road is a picturesque natural resource that should be preserved, though it is obvious that road improvements must be made. None of the standard thoroughfare specifications will accommodate the desired preservation. With creative thinking and design, it should be possible to increase traffic flow and convenience without destroying the special beauty of the area. The mayor has agreed (see attached e-mail). Mike Hollibaugh is currently preparing revised specifications for your consideration. We would hope that the specifications would also preserve the residential, wooded character of the area by restricting changes along this corridor to development of high quality medium and low density residential structures, of the Suburban Residential or limited Urban Residential classifications. Thank you very much for considering these changes. We appreciate the thoughtful approach you are taking to the revision process. Jack Engledow 846-7056 j ackengledow@sbcglobal.net Copy of a-mail correspondent. ith Mayor Brainard - 911/06 • Jim; Have you had any further thoughts on the South Entrance Corridor situation that we discussed several weeks ago? I was away for a couple of weeks, and haven't gotten back to you. When you were good enough to contact me about my concerns (shared by others) you had sympathy with the basic idea of restricting Westfield to a two lane thoroughfare with a median with the intent to save many of the trees that line the current road. I think this would be great, and would be greatly appreciated. I do feel, however, that the standard two lane treatment with bike paths that is the norm in other parts of the city is still wide enough to change the look and feel of the existing road, and destroy many of the trees along the way. I think that preserving the essence of that stretch will require some special design considerations -- perhaps narrowing lane or median widths in spots, being very careful which side additional right of way is taken from, allowing grade level changes, placing bike paths to accommodate existing trees, etc. Since the Comprehensive Plan is still in the revision stage, it would seem reasonable to add commentary designating the corridor from 106th Street to 116th Street as a special resource to be preserved, and suggesting the possibility of custom design features to make sure that it happens. I think your suggestion of such a change would be noted and appreciated by a large number of people who have expressed interest in preserving the integrity of this stretch. There is a lot of unease in the land about the rush to New Urbanism, and this could be regarded as a comforting sign that careful attention is being given to balance. I believe this is worth serious consideration. Thanks, as always, for listening. I will look forward to hearing your thoughts. I will be glad to be helpful in any way I can. Jack Engledow Jack, Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but was out of town taking our oldest son to his freshman year at Colby College (in Maine...). I think he wants to get as far away from us as possible... We are working on a green belt plan that actually goes farther than 106th to 116th but includes a green Esplanade north of the City center between roughly 126th and 127th Streets on Range Line. I do not want to say how the road is built yet between 106th adn 116th--needs change, trees die of natural causes and we have yet to put any plans together, do a tree inventory, etc. With that said, I think the idea of maintaining a canopy with the existing trees makes a lot of sense and I would like to see that happen and will work for it. I do not want to overpromise and say we will never have to remove a tree however and then be unable to keep that promise. I have no problem adding this canopy as it exists as a special resource in the Comprehensive Plan and committing to work to protect it. There are ways to curve roads and actually enhance the feel as one enters Carmel in this part of town. Many times, we bend not only streets but often bike paths to accommodate existing large trees when the tree is healthy and has years left on its life span. We should do the same for this section of Range Line. I am copying Mike Hollibaugh and he will arrange to make the notation in the Comprehensive Plan. Please feel free to share this a-mail. will make certain that this area is treated with great care and appreciation of the natural resources of the current tree canopy. I have driven it probalby ten times since our first a-mail on this topic, just looking at the trees and where they are located. I believe that the road can be improved and the canopy kept inplace--it will just take more care ,creativity and attention to detail than other, less treed places. Thanks for your offer of help. Let's stay in touch. Jim _~ ' • • 1. C3 PLANT DRAFT B COMMENTS-PREFACE, PART 1, AND PART 2 ;i~;'.-ire By Dee Fox, 11389 Royal Court, Carmel, TN 46032 t~n^ , Aug. 30, , 2006~~~k~ Most of the changed wording in Draft B is an improvement, although the major issues remain. Suggestions and comments, by page, follow. Ap GE 5: Fulfillment of the Maublic participation, for a variety * Meetings rarely draw much p of reasons. 'The development and review of the Comburdennonsthe complex and lengthy process, which places a heavy public to keep up with the details and defend itself against unwanted changes. On an issue this important, a comprehoupslshouldlbe active- should be performed and/or district citizen g ly involved in writing the plan. PAGE 6: Com Plan Update Objectives * The current 2020 Plan "is designed to enable the .public to preserve the quality-of-life that attracted them", and land use policies are formulated to "protect and stabilize~o~eC~dresidents, communities. Such language was placed there to p but is still conspicuously missing from the new draft. * Replace "Freshen" the content with "Change" or "Adjust". * If this is not a complete revision of the 2020 Plan, it should say so here. * The list of bulleted documents used should include the 116t St. Overlay Zone and any Michigan sosdemtudight here, where it is * Define "form-based regulatory y first mentioned, or refer to the location HoweverdeifntheoC3 Plan * There are advantages to flexibility. ublic overview can be easily amended at any tiublicleverhkeepbupp or feel that it of all changes? 'How will the p can count on what the Plan says? Document Draftin and Pubublicotoethoroughly review the * There was little time for the p full draft prior to the one partial-day open house. * Oral comments have been condensed for public review. What about the content of the written correspondence? PAGE 7: East Carmel Characteristics * Keep the sentences that mention commercial areaIttstimportant outside of East Carmel (and West Carmel, page 8). to acknowledge that they conveniently serve these areas, thus lessen- ing the need for more commercial areas nearby within Carmel. * Keep the paragraph on the mine, but do change "material needs" to "competing business interests". PAGE 8: North Central Carmel Characteristi~,a * Range Line Road shoul' be included as a dominant street corridor. * Include Clay Terrace in the list of commercial areas. South Central Carmel Characteristics * Why is the west boundary employment area along U.S. 31 not mentioned here? • 2. PAGE 8: West Carmel Characteristics * Second and last paragraphs are nice additions! * Michigan Road and U.S. 31 serve as employment areas. * The one city park and one county park were largely donated due to their owners' concerns about overdevelopment. The City needs to promptly locate and purchase park land on the north end, while land is still available. PAGE 10: Objective Profile * Wetlands: Mark these on the Land Classification Map. * Woodlots: Increase cutting limitations and replacement require- ments for mature trees. * Population Growth: Carmel is built on families with children. They moved here for the suburban lifestyle and good schools. It is not wise (or fair) for the new Comp. Plan to focus on urbanizing at their expense, and on developing for everyone but them. PAGE 11: Median Home Value and Poverty Rate * I believe that the percent increase in median home values for Carmel would be much higher if the figures were current (rather than for the year 2000). * It is informative that between 1990 and 2000, only Carmel and Zionsville had an increase in poverty rate. PAGE 12: Building Permit and Dwellin4 Units Trends * The notable upward trend in town home permits is due to some City officials actively encouraging them as part of the new- urbanist "vision". (The total number of town home units has almost doubled in the past two years.) . * Carmel's strength is built on families. However, the current solution to school crowding seems to be to continue to increase density, but build new developments that aim to exclude children! Golf Courses * Omit Mohawk Hills, and identify the others that are under pressure to be developed. Will any survive? PAGE 14: Comp. Plan Essence Introduction * If "the public can base their expectations on the content of this Part", then the content needs to reflect the wishes of each district and to protect existing developments. PAGE 15: Manage Community Form * Introduction: Land use planning protected homeowners. Exactly how is "greater sensitivity to transitions between differing land classifications" going to be accomplished? Have buffering require- ments been significantly increased? The public must now continually fight the placement of commercial and multi-story buildings next to single-family homes. Adequate buffering of those may not even be possible. Locate any mixed-use nodes on the Land Classification Map now, so that the decision is not left to developers and so that homebuyers know what to expect. * Objectives 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5: The City's and its residents' objectives are different. Forcing mixed-use into suburban areas makes harsh contrast inevitable and makes effective transition very difficult, if even possible. Expect many fights over what constitutes . • • 3. "unsuitable commercial development". Other parts of the draft encourage placing commercial development in residential areas. Most residential areas formed as havens from commercial development, and consider all of it to be unsuitable. PAGE 15: Be a World Class City * Introduction: Carmel residents already enjoy a desirable quality of life. Other realities, though, are that Carmel is a suburb, its image is snobbish, it is unaffordable to many, and it can no more support public transportation than Indianapolis can. * Objective 2.1: Include residential high architectural standards. * Objective 2.2: All socioeconomic classes? The City shows no interest in "blue collar" jobs, and plans to expensively "redevelop" its few affordable housing options. * Objective 2.4: Most people agree that a rail line to Indianapolis would be a good idea. However, the last half of this paragraph is STILL a problem and should be omitted. PAGE 16: * Objective 3.2: Add to the first sentence. "Encourage mixed- use developments" in urban core and commercial areas. Suburban residents have purposely fled 24/7 "vitality". * Objective 4.1: Do not include suburban areas in statements of urban objectives, especially vague and general statements. * Objective 4.3: Establishing neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries has basically been done by acknowledging four unique city districts. * Objective 4.4: Define "third places", and add "in context appropriate locations" to the end of that sentence. PAGE 17: * Objective 5.2: Change to "Publicly" review, and specify how often. If the map can be frequently and readily revised, there will be no rest or security for the public. * Objective 6.2: Reword the first sentence to "Promote the uniqueness of neighborhoods and subareas". They are already unique. Omit the last sentence. It sounds arrogant. Exactly who is "the community", and why should they be able to dictate a "character goal" for the different districts? * Objective 6.3: Either keep "significant", or add "ample". Landscape design is not effective if there is not enough of it. * Objective 6.4: Add "preservation" to the first sentence. PAGE 18: Be Environmentally Sensitive * Introduction: Add "encouraging recycling". * Add an objective. Encourage the City and residents to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and lawn chemicals. PAGE 19: East Carmel Policies and.Obiectives * Objective 1.2: Change "Allow" to "Consider". To the list of what "will be strictly reguiated to ensure compatibility with exist- ing residential uses", ADD size of nodes, hours of operation, uses, buffering, signage, and height. * Objective 2.1: Substitute "Protect" for "Embrace". * Ob.iective 3.2: Insert "limited" between "Allow density". The impact of higher density is not just visual. • • 4. PAGE 19: East Carmel Policies and Obiectives * Objective 3.3: Reword. Follow "encouraging" with "mixed-use development there". Substitute "could" for "would". (The likelihood of such expansion efforts is one reason why residents do not want "neighborhood serving commercial".) *. Objective 4.2: Remove the added "or residential". Discourage additional residential development around the mine.. The homes already there should not have been approved. * Objective 4.5: Change "Locate" to "Establish". Add to the end, "Locate and design it so as to minimize the visual impact to surrounding residences." PAGE 20: North Central Carmel Policies and Objectives * Objective 1.2: I believe 10 stories is too high, and the number was quickly and arbitrarily decided upon without public input. Consult the affected surrounding residential areas about increasing height limits from 8 stories to 10. * ORIGINAL Objective 1.4: Add back in! Established residential areas near the newly designated "urban core" deserve consideration. There should be generous buffering requirements and a limit on adjacent building heights to ensure adequate transition. (If this objective is left out, the message is that Carmel will allow established neighborhoods to be forced out by new-urbanism develop- ments. That would be a mistake.) *'Objective 5.3: This is STILL a problem. This generality could be inappropriately applied to a~ area. Also, there is something not right. (or healthy) about crowding people together for the purpose of justifying mass transit in such a small place. PAGE 21: South Central Carmel Policies and Objectives * Objective 1.2: Add "Require significant buffering between contrasting uses, and limit building heights adjacent to residential neighborhoods. * Objective 1.4: Specify density ranges and their boundaries. * Objective 2.3: Should this say ".west", rather than "east"? PAGE 22: West Carmel Policies and Objectives * Objective 1.2: Replace "Allow" with "Consider". .Strictly define neighborhood serving commercial. To the list of "strictly regulated", ADD size of nodes, hours of operation, uses, signage, buffering, and .height. Suburban residents do not want to live next to commercial development: Estate owners will move away from it. West Carmel is already conveniently and adequately .served. The only possibly appropriate areas for neighborhood service nodes would be near 146th St. or near Michigan Road. Locate any nodes now, and place them on the Land Classification Map so that the decision is not left to developers, and so that homebuyers know what to expect. Otherwise, there will be a fight over every proposal. Objective 2.1: Estate areas are unique and do need to be protect- ed by preserving their very low density zoning. Omit everything from the word "cater" forward. Maybe the end of the first sentence could be replaced with "... styles that attract corporate executives." * Objective 2.2: Change the first sentence to "Encourage more Custom home d®veiopm®tlbe 4n 6tder to add character and reduce monotony." • • 5. PAGE 22: West Carmel Poiicies and Objectives * Objective 2.3: Adci "and to prevent monotony". * Objective 3.1: The last sentence is STILL a problem. Replace it with, "Require all developments to be well buffered from perimeter roads." * Objective 3.2: Insert "including" before the word "along". * Objective 3.4: Are institutional uses considered to be residential? * Objective 4.2: Leave out entirely, or change "Establish" to "Consider". These are not compatible with preserving rural character, and they are not needed or wanted here. They would not prevent much driving or supply much living-wage local employment. They would struggle to survive and would add large truck traffic, idling cars, and trash, light, and noise pollution. CONCLUSION: Details are important, but numerous meetings have yet. to tackle the tough, major underlying issues. Should the Comp. Plan be driven by the Mayor's new•-urbanist "vision", by market forces and developers, or by what most Carmel/Clay residents want? How vague or specific should the plan be? What will be the process for future revisions? What recourse do citizens have against zoning changes? Can unwanted high-density and commercial development and multi-story buildings be forced next to low-density, single-family residential neighbor- hoods, or not? Is it more important to increase population growth and follow trends, or to protect the chosen lifestyle of the current population? The goal to change this suburban area into the academic concept of a dense, new-urbanist city is not shared by most Carmel residents. Their chosen, nonurban lifestyles, homes, and zoning protections are threatened. They do not, (as often accused), object to all development. They do object to zoning changes and new harshly contrasting uses being forced into their established, single-family residential areas. Many residents feel confused, and beaten down by the process. Repeated suggestions to obtain an accurate read on public opinion by performing a comprehensive survey continue to go unheeded. Perhaps the City's resistance stems from developers not wanting to wait any longer, and/or perhaps from the likelihood that the results would not support the new-urbanist plan in locations outside of City Center. A detailed analysis of what residents want for their future is a critical step in writing any Comprehensive Plan, and is missing here. Meetings fall short in broadly reaching the time- crunched public on such important, potentially major changes to their lives. '` C3 PLAN, DRAFT B COMMENTS-PART 3 By Dee Fox; 11389 Royal Court, Carmel, IN 46032 ~~~~~~ 5~P 2006 Sept . 5,, , 20061~"~ FOLLOW-UP TO JUNE 20th PLAN COMMISSION REQUESTS: * Jerry requested a map that highlights the differences from-the current 2020 Plan. Has that been done? * Jerry requested examples of densities from Community Vitality Nodes outside of Indiana, since no true examples .exist here. Is 10.0 units/acre appropriate? * Has John Molitor researched the mega-church issue? Mixed uses that just serve the church would usually be acceptable. However, since churches are allowed anywhere, those that include community- center-type uses that serve the general public should be restricted to locations zoned for such uses. DENSITIES: (THIS IS STILL A MAJOR ISSUE) * Only the upper limit of a density range matters, because developers will seek to build at the maximum allowed. * Mr. Shoopman apparently surmised that the City would try to raise the density allowed in West Carmel to match the Village of WestClay (VWC). From the beginning, area residents have fought against the higher densities of his current three rezone proposals, which have been continuously tabled in expectation of changes to the Comp. Plan. Under the proposed terms in Draft B, all of those densities would barely qualify; and the proposals would have to be approved without the need to rezone. * West Carmel residents see no reason to raise density limits at all, and especially not beyond the levels of most of the existing developments. Most developments are about 1.3 u/acre or less. Only a few, on the edges near the major thoroughfares, are in the 1.5-2.0 u/acre range. The proposed "Low Intensity Residential" density of up to 1.9 u/acre is still too high for West Carmel. The Village of WestClay density of 2.0 u/acre is not the standard. It was an imposed PUD "exception" that doubled the zoned density, and still angers area residents. * It would be helpful to include the actual densities of the photo and text examples. * A map showing existing densities in South Central and East Carmel should be made available, before declaring the entire area to be "Suburban Residential" at 2.0-4.9 u/acre. That is too broad a rancTe, to have it all treated the same. That classification should have a lower maximum. A density of 4.9 u/acre is essentially "Urban Residential". * Since S-1 zoned density limits have not been enforced, why would anyone in West Carmel favor a higher limit and believe that it would be enforced? LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP-WEST CARMEL: This map merits a personal meeting between CWIC2 and the DOCS. A few of the problems are listed below. * "Conservation Res." changed colors on the Draft B map, making it more difficult to compare it with Draft A. The "Low Intensity Res." should be the light green. • • 2. * The Village of WestClay commercial area is a promised "Neighbor- hood Service Node", not a "Community Vitality Node (CVN)". It is nothing like the examples of CVN's. Classification as a CVN could unintentionally open up possibilities f.or the VWC that currently are not permitted. The VWC, at an overall density of 2.1 u/acre, is also not "Urban Residential" (5.0-6.9 u/acre), as pictured. * Do not even try to reclassify the Fortune and Guerrero properties near the VWC as "Suburban Res." at 2.0-4.9 u/acre. Area residents are adamant that new developments be kept compatible with the surrounding developments. The Fortune property rezone proposal that attempted to increase density from 1.0 u/acre to 2.9 u/acre, was strongly opposed by area residents, and was recently denied by City Council. The equally opposed Guerrero property rezone proposal will be on the agenda soon, seeking to rezone from 1.0 u/acre, single- family, to 2.94 u/acre with multi-family development. The property is well buffered from the VWC, and none of the surrounding single- family developments are anywhere close to that density. The Draft B designation would allow that density to slide right in. * The only areas in West Carmel that are possibly suited for a small density increase would be along the edges at Michigan Road et 146th St. Even those should not be in a classification that allows up to 5.0 u/acre. The upper limit of "Suburban Res." is essentially "Urban Res.", and would be five times the currently zoned density. * Why is the strip along Towne Road, between 136th and 141st Streets, changed to allow 2.0-4.9 u/acre? * Realistically, everything south of 126th St. should be "Conserva- tion Residential", but both sides of 116th St. definitely should be. * What are the current densities in the Oak Ridge Road area? They are likely less than 2.0 u/acre, but have been altered here to allow up to 4.9 u/acre. * The entire west edge of Shelborne Road, south of 116th St., is mistakenly classified as "Suburban Residential" (2.0-4.9 u/acre). * Most of the "Conservation Res." areas north of 116th St. on Draft A, are now higher density on Draft B. They appear to have been traded to south of 116th St., so.that making that whole area "Conservation Res." would not result in a net gain in the category. LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP-CENTRAL AND EAST CARMEL: * Merchant's Square, in .the text, is a "Community Vitality Node". On the map, it is a "Regional Vitality Node". * The Draft B map removes all "Conservation Res." areas from East Carmel, reclassifying to higher densities. Almost the entire east side would now allow densities up to 4.9 u/acre, thus the need to map out the current densities there. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD'S): * Address these now, or else density requirements will be meaning- less, and every proposal will be a fight. PUD'S are being misused to obtain density increases. They also have no open space requirements, no quality standards, and no limit on coming back to seek exceptions to their original restrictions. They are time-killers for the Pian Commission and public. Specify the purpose of a PUD, and the criteria for its use. Limit the potential gains in density. • • 3. * The term "compromised" properties is also being misused, in the pursuit of extra profits for landsellers and developers. Define it now. GENERAL COMMENTS: * Again, is this a full revision of the 2020 Plan? If not, why not, and what is still applicable from that Plan? * All glass storefronts, all the time, is going to be monotonous. * 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. * Brinq back the term "Multifamily". The term and its meaning are quickly recognizable. "Attached Residential" sounds too similar to other very different residential categories, and is an obvious attempt to "water-down" the meaning. * Existing (pre-development) environmental features: Two class- ifications say "integrate with", (Low Intensity Sub. Res.-and Suburban Res.). Four classifications say "protect", (Parks, Conservation Res., Multifamily Res „ Regional Vitality Node!). The other 8 class- ifications do not mention it at all. It seems reasonable that all but the three "core" classifications should say, "Protect existing environmental features." * Open Space Requirements- Draft B Classification Density Units/acre Open Space Draft A Open Space Draft B Open Space under ROSO Conservation Res. Less than 1.0 15% 10% 15% (not usable) Low Int. Res. 1.0-1.9 20% 15% 20% at (50% designed )1.8u/acre Suburban Res. 2.0-4.9 20% 20% 20~, (50% usable) Urban Res. 5.0-6.9 10% 10% 25% (50% usable) Multifamily Res. 7.0 & up 15% 20% 25% (50% usable) Core Support No limit 10% 15% 25% (usable) (not usable) (roof-top) As it stands,~~Conservation Res.~could end up with an unusable re- tention pond and no open space. To avoid arguments, specify what does not count as "usable" open space. PAGE 24: Land Classification Plan Introduction * The hybrid approach to classifying land is new and unproven, not necessarily better. * Because developers will build at the maximum density allowed, the density limits tend to be too high. There are none for the three "core" classifications. * Adjacent Classifications---The term "Conditional Fit" is an improvement, but the conditions for suitability are too limited. What about height, use, and density? "Carefully regulated" would be stronger than "implemented with sensitivity". I still favor • • 4. leaving out these adjacent classifications because they are confus- ing to keep track of, are not on the map, and will invite battles. At least state that the intention is to not eliminate them from consideration, but that their inclusion does not suggest auto- matic approval. PAGE 26: Conservation Residential * Purpose---If references to the more rural.-atmosphere must be removed, DO NOT insert "and city conveniences". Estate owners moved here for a large area of rural-type land, not for city conveniences. * The upper limit of "Suburban Res." density (4.9 u/acre) is too high to be a "Best Fit". * Either do not decrease the open space from 15% to 10%, or add "usable". "PerceptionMis not all that matters. PAGE 27: Low Intensity Suburban Residential * The lower photo (1.37 u/acre) "represents the upper. density range" (1.0-1.9:u/acre)? The upper photo is 1.71 u/acre, and is not shown as this classification on the map. * Purpose---Add to establish "and protect" ... who desire "low-density or" subdivision living. * Location---"South Central" Carmel has been added to the text, but this classification is not shown anywhere on the map of that area. * Density---All future development would be at the upper limit of 1.9 u/acre, which is still T00 HIGH and is virtually double the current limit. When the Village of WestClay (VWC) was allowed a one-tenth increase in density, it added 70 extra homes (the equiva- lent of another whole subdivision). * Adjacent Classifications---The "Conditional Fits" are worrisome. The densities of UA t0 6.0 u/acre (Neighborhood Service Node), and over 7.0 u/acre (Multifamily), are too high to be adjacent to this classification. They should only be allowed if their densities are similar to adjacent developments. Institutional uses such as mega- churches- and municipal facilities would not be appropriate, either. (Also, the upper density range of "Best Fit: Suburban Residential" would not be at all desirable.) * Open Space---This. was reduced from 20% to 15% and says "designed", rather than "usable". What does "designed" mean? PAGE 28: Suburban Residential *PUrpose---Replace "something besides low density" with "medium to high density". Call a spade a spade. * Location---This is NOT "dominantly appropriate" in West Carmel. Say "limited areas of West Carmel". * Density---The range is too broad and the upper limit should be lower. Most existing suburban developments are well under 4.9 u/acre, and would not want a density that high next to them. * Adjacent Classifications---Move "Multifamily Res." to "Conditional Fit". Again, "Neighborhood Service Node" and "Multifamily Res." densities should only be allowed if similar to that of adjacent developments. The "Conditional Fits" would be very conditional, especially next to the lower end of the "Suburban Res:" density range. • ~ 5. * Structure Features---The upper density range, on cul-de-sacs, may need front load garages. PAGE 29: Urban Residential * Density---The range should start lower than 5.0 u/acre. * Examples---At 2.1 u/acre, the Village of WestClay is an example of urban "form only". It is nowhere near the urban density range, and therefore should not be classified on the map as "Urban Res.". *Adjacent classifications---"Core Support"':should be moved from "Best Fit',' to "Conditional Fit". In order to match the chart on page 39, "Secondary Core" should be added. to "Conditional Fit". * Structure Features---"Maximum" two stories is not correct if the sentence that follows it is added. Is there sufficient space to have detached garages? Are attached garages not allowed? * Open Space---This needs to be increased. There are no parks near many of these areas. Denser developments obviously need open space. "Suburban Res." (up to 4.9 u/acre) requires 20%, but "Urban Res." (5.0-6.9 u/acre) gets only-l0%? That is a big difference between a 4.9 u/acre development and one that is 5.0 u/acre. * Traditional neighborhood design developments should be required to protect existing environmental features. PAGE 30: Multifamily (Attached)}Residential * These buildings typically look more like the center photo, than like the big-house-look of the other two photo examples. * Density---Place an upper limit on 7.0 u/acre "or greater". The highest existing density on the DOCS list is zoned C-1, the Kosene at City Center Condos, at 26.0 u/acre. That is much higher than any other multifamily project. * Adjacent Classifications---Move "Suburban Res." to "Conditional Fit". "Multifamily" densities are especially not appropriate next to the lower end of the "Suburban Res." range (2.0-4.9 u/acre). Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res." from "Conditional Fit". The densities of the two classifications are much too far apart. Be consistent: "Primary Core" was removed as a "Conditional Fit"; but on page 38, "Multifamily Res." is still listed as a "Conditional Fit" for "Primary Core". PAGE 31: Neighborhood Service Node (NSN) * There are very few examples because most suburban residents do not want to live next to commercial uses. After: the strongly opposed insertion of the Village of WestClay (VWC) into the center of West Carmel, the area does not want or need any more "NSN's". * As described, there;is little difference between a "NSN" and a "Community Vitality Node'°(CVN)". "NSN" allowable uses need to be much more limited and specific. * The Draft B map mistakenly classifies the VWC commercial "NSN" as a "CVN". Density---A "'NSN" residential density up to 6.0 u/acre is too high, is not appropriate for the suburbs, and is simply a loophole for inserting high-density into low-density suburban areas. * What is the justification for doubling the size of building footprints from 10,000 to 20,000 sq. ft.? Examples? * Adjacent Classifications--- "Best Fit"--The lower end of the "Suburban Res." range (2.0-4.9 u/acre would especially not be a best fit for the "NSN" density. • • 6. PAGE 31: Neighborhood Service Node (NSN) "Best Fit"--Draft B removed "NSN" as a best fit and replaced it with "Community Vitality Node (CVN)". The chart on page 39 still shows "NSN" as a best fit. Remove the "B". --"NSN's", by definition, should stand alone.- Their purpose is to serve "unserved" areas. By listing "NSN's", "CVN's", and "Regional Vitality Nodes (RVN)"as adjacent fits, the size limitations on a "NSN" become meaningless. (i.e. The Guerrero property owners wanting to put more commercial uses adjacent to the Village of WestClay "NSN".) Omit "CVN" as a best fit. "Conditional Fit"--Remove "RVN". --Remove "Low Intensity Suburban Res.", unless the "NSN" 6.0 u/acre density limit is lowered to a comparable density. ("Urban Res.", at 5.0-6.9 u/acre, is not a listed adjacent use for "Low Intensity Suburban Res.") --List "Core Support" under "CVN" and "RVN", not for "NSN". * Structure Orientation---Again, buffer "significantly", because that will always be very necessary. * Development Features---Again, add "hours of operation" to the second bullet. PAGE 32: Institutional Node * Require heavy buffering of municipal facilities from "Suburban Res." areas. * Hospitals are also listed under "Employment Node". * The community-center-type uses of mega-churches would normally fall under "NSN" or "CVN". Neither node lists "Conservation Res." as a fit, but it is listed here. Mixed-uses should be restricted to those that serve the institution, not the general public. * Require "Protect existing environmental features." on these large parcels. PAGE 33: Community Vitality Node (CVN) * Purpose---Again, do not mix with references to "neighborhood serving". Sizes and densities are different, and the uses should be. * Location---Again, omit "minor" thoroughfares. * Be consistent. Under "Land Uses", residential is allowed "only" on upper floors. Under "Density", it now says "primarily". * Examples---The text lists it here (Merchants' Square), but the map labels it a "RVN". It does draw from a large region. * Again, with a 10.0 u/acre density allowed and no limit on com- mercial intensity, these should be limited in West Carmel to along Michigan Road. * Adjacent Classifications---"Core Support" is a "Conditional Fit" for both "NSN" and "RVN", but not for "CVN"?? It should be listed under "CVN" and "RVN",'but not under "NSN". The lower range of 'Suburban Res." (2.0-4.9 u/acre) would especially not be compatible with a "CVN". PAGE 34: Employment Node * Hospitals are also listed under "Institutional Node". Hotels are still not mentioned. *~~Suburban Res." is a very questionable "Conditional Fit", next to four story buildings with a density up to 14.0 u/acre. * The surrounding residential areas should be consulted about the • 7. quick, arbitrary decision to raise height limits from 8 stories to 10. PAGE 35: Regional Vitality Node (RVN) * Remove "Neighborhood Service Node (NSN)~~from "Conditional Fit" It does not make sense for a "RVN" (or a "CVN") to be next to a "NSN•. * Is the listed 8 story maximum in the U.S. 31 overlay now 10? * Protecting environmental features is under "RVN", but not under "CVN"? PAGE 36: Core Support * Define "commercial uses with lower impact". * Adjacent Classifications---Move "Urban Res." (up to 6.9 u/acre) to "Conditional Fit", because "Core Support" allows any residential density or commercial intensity. "Conditional Fit" includes "NSN" and "RVN", but not "CVN"?? * Open Space---"Multifamily Res." (7.0 & up u/acre) requires 20% (half usable), but "Core Support" (no density limit) only requires 15% (no mention of usable)?? Can roof-top gardens count for the entire amount? Roof-top gardens would have to be a destination, would limit some typical open space uses, and would not be routinely seen going in and out. PAGE 37: Secondary Core *Examples---Add "FORM ONLY" to "Village of Westclay's commercial core". Be careful not to categorize the VWC in any way that could expand its current restrictions. PAGE 38: Primary Core * Be consistent. "Multifamily Res." is listed as a "Conditional Fit", but on page 30, "Primary Core" was removed as a "Conditioanl Fit" to "Multifamily Res.". PAGE 39: Adjacent Land Classifications Table * "When, if"?? Use one or the other! * Does "C" need to be added to both intersections of "Primary Core" and "Multifamily (Attached) Res.", or not? I think "C" should be added to both intersections of "Community Vitality Node" and "Core Support". * Remove "B" from the intersection of "NSN" and "NSN". PLAN COMMISSION MEETING, SEPT. 5, 2006: I wrote this letter before hearing comments from the Plan Commission- ers. I did not have time to rewrite it, so a few comments on their comments follow. * Keep the "estates" term.. It is accurate. I also like the term "common area". * "Designed" open space is too structured. "Usable" is better. The term must be defined (at least what does not count), or else the requi:r'ement is useless. * "Suburban Res."---If the upper density limit of 4.9 u/acre was chosen because there are a few near that in Central Carmel, then that number is too high for the rest of truly suburban Carmel. 8. PLAN COMMISSION MEETING, SEPT. 5, 2006: * East and South Central Carmel---If current densities for a map are unavailable prior to the 1990's, then map out the ones that are available, and safely assume that the older ones are less dense. Show what you have now. * Use matters more than appearance to most people. Just because an auto service center is "disguised" to not look like one, that does not negate the nonvisual impacts of living next to it. Low- density residential areas still won't want such uses adjacent. * Mike said that we are bringing the community in line with the market. Planning and zoning serve to prevent development from being market-based (which is often very unsuitable to an area). If Carmel is determined to make the mistake of now allowing planning and zoning to be market-based, then there is little point in either. * A recent newspaper article makes it clear that Mr. Pittman, (Aramore), plans to demolish more single-family homes for dense development. The expressed fears of Carmel's homeowners are already coming true. Dee Fox ~~ ~ ., • 1~DIA1~1~ Land Development September 5, 2006 ,.; ~,~_ Q~;'~ ; i' RECENED ~ Mike Hollibaugh ~3~ ; SEp - 5 2006_ Department of Community Services ~~ DQ~$ City of Carmel l~ _ Third floor ~ - ~~,' ~`' ~ One Civic Square ~ <! ~ Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Comments to Draft B, Part 3 of the Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Mike: As you know, Indiana Land Development Corporation ("ILDC") and I, personally, own or have under contract a number of parcels within the City of Carmel and western Clay Township that will be affected significantly by the updated Comprehensive Plan ("Plan"). We have had an opportunity to review Draft B of the Plan and have the following comments, all of which specifically relate to Part 3 of the Plan: GUERRERO: ILDC is the owner of approximately 39 acres located on the northwest corner of Towne Road and 13151 Street (the "Guerrero Parcel"). The Guerrero Parcel is rectangular, and outlined on the enclosed aerial photograph. It is immediately across the street from a section of the Villages of West Clay that has been approved for high-density residential uses and commercial development, including a grocery story, gas station, and a free- standing fast food restaurant with adrive-thru facility. In light of the high-density residential and commercial development occurring immediately across the street, we had previously requested that the Plan, along with the Land Use Map included with the Plan, recognize the Guerrero Parcel as a special and unique parcel, so that proper transitioning can occur. Draft B and the Land Use Map designate the Guerrero Parcel as "Suburban Residential." Honestly, this corner should be commercial -not residential. Transition is a cornerstone of established land planning principles, and the transitioning that we are proposing finds support in the existing Plan. We believe that it is only appropriate for the Plan and its Land Use Map to recognize the unique circumstance of the Guerrero Parcel. Indiana Land Development Corporation 8170 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 Phone: (317) 415-0459 Fas: (317) 415-0466 SHELBORNE: ILDC is the contract purchaser of approximately 20 acres of real estate located on the west side of Shelborne Road, just north of 12151 Street (the "Shelborne Parcel"). We are proposing 38 single-family residential lots for this upscale community. We are in agreement with the Plan's designation of this property as "Low Intensity Suburban Residential" and believe that our currently proposed site plan of 1.9 units/acre for the Shelbome Parcel is consistent with the Plan; however, we would like to have it clarified that none of the structure features, structure orientation, development features and/or regulation implementation would apply to our currently proposed petition for the Shelborne Parcel. We are currently more than half-way through the rezone process and believe that to impose retroactively these portions of the Plan would impose an undue hardship on us and cause significant delay in having to redesign the site plan. HAMILTON PLACE: Regarding the approximately 150 acres I own along 116`" Street in western Clay Township, I would like to thank you and Ground Rules, Inc., for correcting the Plan and the Land Use Map to show this property as "Low Intensity Suburban Residential." This correction to the Plan and the Map now reflects its current use as an approved subdivision. However, we would like to have it clarified that none of the structure features or structure orientation will be applicable to this property in any way, as the plat for this property significantly pre-dates the Plan. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1) Additional "Suburban Residential" density classification: Regarding Draft B's changes to the definition of the "Suburban Residential" classification, we believe that the proposed density range of 2.0 to 4.9 units/acre is too broad and does not provide enough certainty for either developers or surrounding homeowners regarding what the appropriate density for an area should be. Based upon previous discussions in public meetings regarding the Plan, we understood that "Suburban Residential" was going to be broken down into three (3) different density categories, and we would request that the Plan Commission implement that original recommendation. To that end, we would ask that the Plan Commission consider breaking "Suburban Residential" into the following two (2) categories: "Medium Suburban Residential" with a density range of 2.0 to 3.4 units per acre; and "High Suburban Residential" with a density range of 3.5 to 4.9 units per acre. Further defining and clarifying the permitted densities within "Suburban Residential" will give greater certainty to both homeowners and developers regarding the types of development allowed in the future and will thus avoid more contentious zoning hearings that arise from too much discretion in approval by the Plan Commission and the Common Council regarding zoning decisions. Indiana Land Development Corporation 8790 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 Phone: (317) 415-0459 Fas: (317) 415-0366 • s 2) Broaden Definition of "Conditional Fit": We would ask that the Plan Commission consider broadening the definition of "Conditional Fit," as its current definition only relies upon building architecture and orientation to determine if a use is appropriate and does not address such land use concepts as density, connectivity, traffic patterns, intensity of use, etc. 3) Eliminate "Structure Features;' "Structure Orientation," and "Develoament Features" from the Land Use Classification definitions: Each of the land use classification definitions contains very specific restrictions regarding architectural and development features, and we believe these restrictions are more appropriately addressed in zoning ordinances and not a comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plans are meant to be land use planning tools and are not meant to replace zoning ordinances. 4) Eliminate conflicts in "Residential" classifications: We would ask the Plan Commission to eliminate the language regarding the encouragement of one-story ranch, cottage homes from the "Suburban Residential" definition. This guideline, when taken together with the permitted three (3) stories allowed under "Conservation Residential" and "Urban Residential" (or 5 stories in the case of the Village of West Clay), will make transition between these two classifications difficult -even though the Plan shows transition between these two uses as being a "Best Fit" - by allowing three-story homes to tower over one-story ranches. There appears to be a more general conflict between what City officials have stated that they want in terms of housing and what has been stated in the Plan. There has been much discussion about wanting more higher-end, custom-style homes in western Clay Township; however, the cun•ent draft of the Plan, with its numerous restrictions and specifications regarding architectural styles, has the unintended effect of limiting the opportunities for custom-style homes and diverse architectural styles by encouraging only one-story ranches with no front-loaded garages in over % of western Clay Township. Finally, there appear to be some conflicts within the Residential classifications as to what use is a "Conditional Fit" and what use is a `Best Fit". The revised "Urban Residential" classification in Draft B has been changed to reflect "Suburban Residential" as a "Conditional Fit" when it was previously shown as a "Best Fit". It is unclear why this change was warranted, but we would ask the Plan Commission to change "Suburban Residential" back to a "Best Fit" for the "Urban Residential" classification. We would also ask the Plan Commission to show "Urban Residential" as a "Best Fit" under the "Suburban Residential" classification. We believe both of these changes are warranted to ensure proper transition - especially in light of the fact that "Neighborhood Service Node" is shown as a Indiana Land Development Corporation 8170 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis,lN 462(18 Phonc: (377) 415-0459 Fax: (317) 415-0466 "Best Fit" under the "Suburban Residential" classification and it would seem unreasonable to show a commercial use as a "Best Fit" for an adjacent use to a single-family subdivision but not townhomes. We would much appreciate relaying this correspondence to the Plan Commission members and to the Common Council as well. As always, we appreciate you hard work and assistance. Sincerely, Indiana Land Development Corporation ~~ ~~ ~x i Paul Shoopman President and CEO Indiana Land Development Corporation 8170 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 462fi8 Phone: (317) 415-0459 Fax: (317) 415-0466 r~ ~ o ~` RE~~~~ooe .^ .~ 5Fe CS Q~ ~ September 5, 2006 Carmel Plan Commission Subject: Land Classification Plan Dear Commission Members: n u Steve Housefield 1785 pine Valley Dr. Carmel, IN 46032 317.575.9017 shousefield(c~sbc~lobal.net Pg 25 Parks & Recreation: The Appropriate Adjacent Classification currently reflects "Best Fit": Any land use classification.". Suggest consideration be given to a more strict definition of what is allowable (in terms of size, density, scale, architecture) i.e. that size be no more than two stories, density no greater than Suburban Residential, with setbacks that mirror the context of a parklike environment. The existing definition, allowing any land use, seems completely inappropriate for any park adjacency. Pg 41 There is a parcel northeast of Central Park, bordered on the north by 116~h St. and on the east by Westfield, that is designated as "Attached Residential". ALL other adjacent properties, to Central Park, are designated "Suburban Residential". The fact that Draft B of the Comprehensive Plan calls for this parcel to be designated as "Attached Residential" is both inconsistent and inappropriate for property adjacent to Central Park. Westfield Blvd. will provide the only eastern access to Central Park. A large scale, dense development, adjacent to this main entrance, will detract greatly from the beauty of this access point. Please consider redesignating this parcel as "Suburban Residential", at the Maximum. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued efforts. Respectfully, Steve Housefield • • Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: jackengledow@sbcglobal.net Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:14 PM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: Comprehensive Plan Comment Adrienne: Many of us believe that the Westfield Boulevard section from 106th St. to 116th St. is a special resource of the city that must be preserved. It deserves a creative solution, not the standard "remove the trees and flatten it out" approach that is the typical procedure for main thoroughfares. The attached document gives the rationale for this position. I would appreciate it if you would enter this a-mail and the enclosure as official comments directed to the Planning Commission. Thanks for your help. Jack Engledow 1819 Wood Valley Drive Carmel, IN 46032 846-7056 acl kengledow sbcglobal.net 8/23/2006 Preserving Carmel's Green South Entrance Corridor Current Situation: Westfield Boulevard is the primary south entrance corridor to central Carmel. It is rolling and tree-lined, presenting a refreshing and almost bucolic experience for the traveler approaching a bustling, dynamic Carmel. In spring, the vaned species of arching trees gradually unfold the promise of a new season. In the summer, the trees form a dense blanket of green, pleasant to the eye for motorists and a welcome noise barrier for residents. In fall, hundred-year-old maples and other trees form a magnificent golden canopy over the bustle of activity passing beneath. When it snows, it's a winter wonderland. This corridor physically represents the best of Old Carmel. Current Future Planning: Our Comprehensive Plan designates Westfield Boulevard as an Urban Arterial. This category calls fora 90' right-of--way, up to four lanes of traffic, with curbs, sidewalks and street-side parking. There is some indication, from the precedent set by the new section of Westfield from 96th Street north, that only two lanes with a median and bike paths might be built here. Even so, if implemented literally and in the conventional manner, this application would be far wider than the existing right of way, and would dramatically change the look and feel of the South Comdor. Most of the existing lazge trees would be bulldozed, the roadway would be flattened, and the new road would look like 116`h Street, or any other new, improved street in any other growing city - functional, decorated with baby trees, hot, and dull. A Modest Proposal: Change the planning philosophy for this comdor. Recognize the existing entryway as a unique and precious resource that should not be wasted. Recognize the opportunity to establish Carmel as a truly unique Edge City -one that certainly is progressive, dynamic and rapid growing, one that has fully embraced the principles of the New Urbanism, but one that has been perceptive enough to hold onto generous samples of the rural and small town charm that attracted many of its residents in the first place (and will attract many others in the future). Carmel can continue to establish its identity as a unique Edge City by not just becoming all urban all the time, but by creatively blending the best of its past with the best of its future. Given this philosophy and objective, the focus would turn to: "How can we design a unique entrance corridor that carefully preserves the trees, beauty and chazacter of the current passageway while allowing reasonable traffic flow?" ,rather than: "Make this one of the Urban Arterials as specified on page 51 of the Comprehensive Plan." This approach need not stymie all new development along this stretch. Rather, it calls for a thoughtful reassessment of how to allow sensible development without destroying the unique character of the area. It demands creativity, not cookie cutting. whys This approach is highly consistent with Tree City USA honor we have earned, and with the Mayor's accompanying observation that: "Our trees definitely contribute to the beauty of the city, as well as to the overall quality of life here". It also supports the Comprehensive Plan's objective to: "promote the planting and care of canopy trees throughout Carmel", because they "add a great deal of character to the built environment... provide relief from heat, soften noise and light and help purify the air we breathe". Another section of the plan, dealing with Central Carmel also states that: "tree areas should be conserved".... It would take twenty-five years or more for new trees even to begin to replace the canopy effect of the hundreds of trees that would be destroyed by conventional road-building standards and techniques in this stretch of road. This move would also be consistent with the highly commendable effort already in effect to keep Old Carmel's small town character in the area north of Main Street. A decision to preserve the Green South Entrance Comdor would mean that visitors and citizens passing through town in a north-south direction could not miss the message that Carmel has been progressive enough to adopt much urban sophistication, but smart enough to hang onto graceful reminders of its small town roots. A parallel situation exists on Keystone Avenue. This is a noisy and busy thoroughfare, as are most important state roads. But the leadership of a previous administration fought to maintain the existing mature green barrier most of the way through Carmel. The result has been preservation of the kind of seasonal delight for travelers and visual and sound barrier for residents that currently characterizes the Westfield Boulevard South Entrance Corridor. The approach proposed also would deflect the public indignation that is bound to ensue if the area is bulldozed. A strong undercurrent of discontent already exists about the amount of natural area that is disappearing almost daily throughout the community. The approval of the Gramercy project has certainly heightened that discontent. The area under consideration is particularly visible and unique. Reaction is likely to get ugly. A strong position by the city leadership to preserve the trees and the basic character of the comdor would send a timely and welcome message to Carmel citizens -- that its leaders are creative and flexible, still concerned about preserving important parts of the natural environment, and still concerned about protecting the interests of owners of existing homes. An example of the type of thinking described here can be found on North Meridian Street in Indianapolis. For ideal traffic flow, the street obviously should be wider. But that possibility has been consistently rejected because it would detract From the green and stately beauty of Indianapolis's most attractive entranceway. We strongly urge Mayor Brainard and the City Council to take measures to preserve Carmel's most attractive entranceway --. our beautiful Green South Entrance Corridor. • ~ Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: Zbreemari@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:52 PM To: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: input for comprehensive plan meeting Aug. 22.06 Adrienne, I cannot be at the meeting tonight, however 1 would like to be on record as stating that the following comment from page 22, draft B referring to West Carmel policies and objectives, objective 2.1 and 2.2 to be very offensive and elitist. The City of Carmel has an image that is not always perceived as that of friendly and welcoming by nonresidents. To state that Clay West is an "area for estate housing and other housing styles that cater to the wealthiest families living in the City", seems to me to send a message that people of lower income need not apply. I feel this is very standoffish and flaunting wealth. Perhaps there is a kinder less insulting way the area could be described without offending people of other income brackets. My interpretation of living in a "Policy 2: Be a World Class City" would be a city that is welcoming to all, not putting conditions on what is required to live in our city. It a person wishes to purchase a home in Carmel, they can determine the value they wish to spend which would therefore dictate the location. If you look around Clay West, you will find that not all homes are high in dollar value and the people who live in those homes work hard and are very good people. World class corporations the city wishes to lure to are area also have employees with incomes which are not that of a CEO. These employees would also like to live our area. There are new homes in Clay West of lower value. What message are we sending to our neighbors? Policy 2: Be a World Class City Objective 2.1: Maintain and protect areas for estate housing and other housing styles that cater to_the._.wealthrest families living. in the_City._These areas are essential to attracting world class corporations, providing the desired quality-of-life far CEOs and other senior employees. Objective 2.2: Encourage more custom-home developments to provide housing opportunities for upper income families. Custom home neighborhoods will also add character to West Carmel by reducing monotony. Concurrently allow "granny flats", carriage houses and other compatible forms of affordable housing. Thank you for passing along my input Respectfully submitted, Rhonna Crook 2288 W. 136th St. Carmel, IN 46032 8/22/2006 • 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, Page 1 of 2 The section about the East side and encouraging the church to not expand but instead to develop the southwest corner 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 chazacter of the East side. Hazel Dell started in the plan as a secondary parkway 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 ].5:04:48 -0400 "Keeling, Adrienne M" <AKeeing~cannel.in.gov> writes: Hello Everyone: A revised draft of Pages 1-22 (titled Draft B) has been posted on the web at: http://www.ci.carmel.in.uslservices/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 akeeling@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@carmel.in.gov 8/17/2006 ( !/ l J • August 16, To: Members of the Plan Commission From: Marilyn Mesh, Representative for Jordan Woodlands' Homeowners As: ~~ v RECEIVED AUG 1 6 2006 _ ~~(;$ _ ~_ Yesterday afternoon I attended the meeting which covered revisions of Parts 1 and 2 of the proposed C3 Plan. t 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 loin 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 statement on behalf of my neighborhood, I would like to add a couple of personal remarks. As I read through the current revisions, I found an item that I feel lacked clarity. On page 8, South Central Carmel Chazacteristics, 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 heazing rumors 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 azea. If my assumption is correct, perhaps wording similaz to "for a different use or purpose" should be added to the end of the sentence. I strongly 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 beundazies, but to use either Spring Mill or U.S. 31, depending on 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 area 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 tbeir 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 commission. It is becoming increasingly clear to me what a tip 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. August 15, 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 corner of 106(4 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 bunt in the past three years. Under the revised C3 Plan, we now fall in the South Central Carmel area. Because we have never received notification for the initial public input meetings for the Central Card azea as listed on page 6 of the C3 Plan, we are new to this process. First of all, we strongly agree with the city-wide policy (Page 15-Objective 1.5) to protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development, (Page I S-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 aze 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 106f° to 116[4, with its current predominant charaMer ofsingle-family homes or atreme 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 1.4). Curreirtly, we have a beautiful gateway, or door into the city, unmarred by a transitional area. We see absolutely no need for such an area which most certainly would eat into the existing natural beauty of this corridor. Many of the South Central objectives (Page 21-Objectivesl.2, 4.1, 4.3 and 5.2) support this view, with the exception of the wording of the previously mentioned South Central Carmel Objectivel.4. Outside of our area of South Central Carmel, the policies and objectives for the North Central Carmel azea really affect all of Carmel's citizens. We specifically oppose the building height Wnit 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 Carmel should not exceed 3 to 4 stories AND should be nowhere neaz any existing residential developments. To that end, we do not understand why the wording of the original North Central Carmel 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 `Svhen 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 azea. Again on page 20, Objective 5.2 should state that trees in North Central Carmel should be conserved wherever they exist, not just 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 bas "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. fw_ .- Comments and questions on the CARMEL (CLAD CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Why is reference to the township almost totally excluded finm the document? • What does "consolidated" include? PREFACE (p2) Table of Contents • Add section for definitions (p4) Aclosowledgments RECENEd AUG ~ `, ?O~b DOGS It has been suggested the consultant be identified by name. Is there a reason why he is not? (p~ Comprehensive Plan Mandate • Part 2: "Comprehensive Plan Essence in the Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan fulfills the requirement for establishing objectives. Although the name, "Civic Design Cruiding Design Principles" has been deleted from the list of documents (p.6), the language and "essence" appears to be the driving force behind this plan. Some of the problems with both language and essence will be addressed following. (p6) Plan Objectives and Methodology Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives Omit last two bullets and add brief statement such as: "The Civic Design Guiding Design Principles" is another document utilized to help provide language to address the trend toward redevelopment and larger vision for the City and Township. " • Please address how the plan assembled the essence from existing documents. • Last two paragraphs (first column) need clear interpretation. 2 ~. (p'n Four City Districts • Inconsistent use of "the" and "district" throughout (eg: South Central Cannel / West Carmel /the North Central Carmel district /the South Central Carmel district /etc.) • (pars 1) Last sentence should include City and Township. • (pare 2) Suggest rewording to read: "The district boundaries were deternvned by evaluating development form, physical boundaries, and public input " • (pare 3) Add to paragraph (pare 2) to read: "Although there technically are boundaries drawn on the map between planning districts, it is not intended to be a hard division. An area on the edge of one district would be evaluated independently to determine which policies best fit the area." • Recommend names of districts reflect the Township as well as the City such as Carmel-Clay South / Carmel-Cl~~e~c. even as the school system reflects city and township as well as developments such as The VIllage of West Clay and Clay Terrace. "Clay" is part of Carmel's history. (p8) South Central Carmel (Clay) Characteristics • (pars 1) Add the before Home Place and change wording "inter-sprinkled" to intermingled • (pare 3) Add the before 96's Street corridor. • (pars 4) Add re- before developed. • (pare 5) Add: Additionally, the Nora 86`x' St. corridor including Keystone at the Crossing; are also recognized for providing commercial amenities to South Central Carmel-Clay. " (cf: last paragraph in West Carmel Characteristics related to Zionsville.) • (pare 5) What does "a narrow mix of single family residential types" mean? • (pars 5) Omit `fiery", add "a"and omit "also exist". West Carmel (Clay) Characteristics • (pare 3) Incomplete sentence: "Unlike East Carmel, where many subdivisions were built with connecting streets to adjacent development or stubbed streets to undeveloped areas." (pare 5) Suggest rewording to omit: "one of the most well known....in the Midwest" to: "and also home to the Village of West Clay, a traditional neighborhood development " (pp10.23) PART I: COMMUNITY PROFILE • Do statistics reflect the township as a whole? • Development Trends and Civic Facilities should include Clay Township. (p14) PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE essence: The constituent elementary notions which constitute a complex notion, and must be enumerated to define it; what follows is a brief statement of the basic meaning of something. "Essence" is a word without substance. To mix "policies" and "objectives" with the "essence" of these policies and objectives is confusing. The first paragraph states that: "the public can base their expectations on the content of this Part." Essence is not content. A policy is a plan of action. An objective is a goal to be attained The three terms, essence, policy and objective are so intermingled and interchanged it is difficult to know exactly what is meant. It may be a goat to "be an adaptable city" but it cannot be a policy. Most of the objectives listed under that section are really the policies to be implemented. It may be a goal to "inspire community character" but it cannot be a policy. As stated before, the "essence" of this document seems to flow from the Civic Design and needs to be spelled out (enumerated) in order to define it. If the Civic Design is going to be the guiding force behind the Comprehensive Plan Up-Date, that document needs to be added as a specific part of the plan and would be appropriately titled, "Comprehensive Plan Essence." It seems to be used as a phantom document bringing confusion to understanding the entire plan. The concept of that document needs cleaz definition if it is to be used as the framework of the Comprehensive Plan. In and of itself, it does not provide substantial substance for a working document. l~ • 4 • Suggest using Part 2 as suggested above and adding a new section, Comprehensive Plan Policies and Objectives. Recommend rethinking and reworking this section in order to produce a document that is both practical and user friendly for everyone. (p15) Policy 1: Manage Community Form (Introduction) (pars 1) "Managing wmmunity form is the art and science of influencing development in a manner that results in a superior quality." What or whose "art and science of influencing" is being referred to and how is it defined? In the pages that follow, there are statements that are suggestions relating to assumptions for which no definitive decision has been made such as: "The City will likely experience more peak-time congestion on major roadways as an inconvenient but positive indicator that a transit system would be successful. The City will need to ask for patience during the years leading up to an operable transit system." (pare 2) "Tools" are defined generally and end with anon-descript term, "and the like." The objectives that follow are ambiguous and confusing. Objective 1:3 uses the phrase "leverage the desired outcomes" but the desired outcomes are a mixture of merging "form-based regulatory tools into the traditional zoning and subdivision control ordinances based on Part 3: Land Classification Plan." • Some statements are factual, others aze "hope for" and still others are suggestions. (p15~ Policy 2: 13e a World Class City World-class: (1) ranking among the foremost in the world (2) of international standard of eacellence (3) of highest order (4) great, as in importance, concern or notoriety Please reference "Global City" (Reference.com/Encyclopedia/Global city) and "How To Become A World-Class City" (Source: Economic Development Abroad. August 2000) The City of Carmel does not, and according to accepted categories used world-wide, will not be able to achieve such a status. Suggest a more realistic identity be stated as a goal rather than a policy. Carmel will redefine itself as it emerges as a growing city within a township that is part of its history. New innovations, new development and redevelopment can all serve in the process but should not be at the expense of history and people. It doesn't have to be "either/or" but rather both. Even when (or if) the entire township is annexed "into the city", it is important to recognize its part of history rather than ignoring it and trying to erase the name "Clay" from Carmel's history. • • 5 • There is a huge difference between taking pride in a community and using terms such as "superior" or "enviable." One takes pride in a community based on its uniqueness of chazacter, reflecting the people who live in it, its place in history, and a commonality of purpose. Pride on the other hand reflects a "one up" or "better than" and comes across as arrogance and snobbery. Consider the phrase in Objective 3.1 (p.l~...: "The city will strive to further the `Carmel' brand as the best place to live, work and raise a family." It comes across as sandbox bragging, "My daddy is stronger than your daddy" and isn't fitting for an official document. Carmel has already been "branded" as being snobbish and arrogant. Why not have a goal to change that image rather than a policy to further it. Language throughout that reflects inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness, diversity rather alienation, would help promote such a change. Policy 4: Be a City of Neighborhoods • This is another example of insensitivity to the people who make up the lazger community. Redefining who and what is a `heighborhood" and attempting to retrofit everyone into a new vision is not the place of government. In Policy 6 under Objective 6:1 (p.l~ it states: "Reject homogeneous development...:' yet this is the very "essence" of this policy as stated in Objective 4.3: Establish neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries rather than by each development's name...a concerted effort should be established to determine neighborhood boundaries throughout the City and then promote their identity and boundaries." A neighborhood is defined as "people living near one another." It isn't the responsibility of government through a comprehensive plan to dictate what constitutes a neighborhood. Interesting that in the West Carmel Policies and Objectives (Objective 2.2) it states: "Custom home neighborhoods will also add character to West Carmel by reducing monotony." (p.l'n Policy 5: Be an Adaptable City Introduction • This paragraph is another example of how Carmel comes across to its neighboring communities as arrogant. "They have not recognized the evidence that downtowns can still be vital places, but have not adjusted to current influences and circumstances." A statement like this does not belong in our comp plan and is another example of insensitivity at best and arrogance at worse. Policy 6: Inspire Community Character Introduction • 6 • "Community character is the aesthetic of a neighborhood...:' What is community character and how does it become the aesthetic of a neighborhood? Whatever this means, it isn't a policy but rather a goal. These are just a few examples of why I have suggested that this section needs rethinking and rewriting. The entire document has a number of structural and grammatical problems which need to be changed as well. Pat Rice August 15, 2006 ~ . ~ ~ ~ IOb~al city -_._ Se.~1~ Dictionary Thesaurus Encyclopedia Web Home Premium: Sign up ~ Logm What is Texas Hold 'Em? Fnd out with M5N search: '~. what is Texas Hold Em '~~`~`'' ----- - ADVERTISEMENT Dictionary -Thesaurus -Encyclopedia -Web Global city A global city (also known as a world city or world-class city) is a ci with a somewhat subjective set of traits, some of which are listed below. to recent years, the term has become increasingly familiar, due to the rise of globalization (i.e. global finance, worldwide communications and travel). These cities are generally seen as meeting most, or at least some, of the following criteria: • International familiarity (or "first-name" familiarity -one would say "Paris", not "Paris, France"). • Active influence and participation in international events and world affairs (for example, New York is home to the United Nations headquarters and Brussels is home to NATO headquarters). • A favly large population (the center of a metropolitan area with a population of at least one million, typically several million). • A major international airport that serves as an established hub for several international avlines. • An advanced transportation system that includes several freeways and/or a large mass transit network offering multiple modes of transportation subwa light rail, regional rail, f~, or bus . • Iu the Wes several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a Little Italy, or other immigrant communities). • International fmancial institutions, law firms, corporate headquarters (especially conglomerates), and stock exchanges that have influence over the world ewnomy. • Advanced communications infrastructure that modem trans-national corporations rely on, such as fiberoptics, Wi-Fi networks, cellulaz phone services, and other high-speed lines of communications. • World-renowned cuhural institutions, such as museums and universities. • A lively cultural scene, including film festivals, premieres, a thriving music or theatre scene; an Orchestra, an opera company, art galleries, and street performers. Several powerful and influential media outlets with an international reach are based in 1 of 3 8/122006 7:35 PM ADVERTISEMENT • 4 Points: Atlant Barcelo~erlin, Buda es Buenas Aires, Co enh Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shan ai There is a schematic map of the GaWC cities at then website, http://vvww.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citymap.html, which shows clearly that the great majority of their defined cities lie in the Northern Hemisphere. The GaWC is a somewhat subjective ranking, as is any other, but the top four listed cities at least match those commonly considered the major world cities. Ezternal Links • "'U.S. Cities in the `World City Network'" by Peter J. Taylor and Robert E. Lang of the Brookings Institution o Key Findings o Full Report in PDF Format • Repository of Links Relating to Urban Places • World Cities article by Jennifer Curtis of Chazles Sturt University • The World-System7s City System: A Reseazch Agenda by Jeffrey Kentor and Michael Timberlake of the University of Utah and David Smith of University of California, Irvine Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ©2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors (Disclaimer) This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. View this article at Wikipedia.org -Edit this article at Wikipedia.org -Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation Copyright ®2006, Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. About Reference.com ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms of Use ~ Link to Us ~ Help ~ Contact Us 3 of 3 8/12/2006 7:35 PM world cities, such as the BBC, Ti~ew York Times, Le Monde, The Chicago ~une, The Times, and Pravda. In the Western World, New York, London, and Paris have been traditionally considered the "big three" world cities -not incidentally, they also serve as symbols of global capitalism. Tokyo can also be added to the top of the list, due to the influence of Japan in world economic affairs. However, many people have a personal list, and any two lists are likely to differ based on cultural background, values, and experience. In certain developed countries, especially the United States, the rise of suburbia and the ongoing migration of manufacturing jobs to developing countries has led to significant urban decay. Therefore, to boost urban regeneration, tourism, and revenue, the goal of building a world lass city has recently become an obsession with the governments of some mid-sizc cities and then constituents. The phenomenon of world-city building, albeit with slightly more success, has also been observed in Sydney, Buenos Aires, Frankfurt, and Toronto: each of these cities has emerged as lazge and influential. GaWC Inventory of World Cities An influential attempt to define and categorise world cities was made by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network (GaWC) http://www.lboro.ac.uWgawc/index.html, based primarily at Loughborough University in England. The roster was outlined in the GaWC Research Bulletin 5 http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawchb/rb5.html and ranked cities based on their provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law. The Inventory identifies three levels of world city, termed Alpha, Beta and Gamma for their relative influence. Each level contains two or three sub-racks. There is also a fourth level of cities that show potential to become world cities in the future. This classification is not yet authoritative, but is certainly useful as a starting point for discussion. The Alpha (most influential) world cities were divided into two sub-ranks: • 12 points: London, New York City, Pans, Tokyo • 10 points: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore The Beta (major) World Cities are: • 9 Points: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich • 8 Points: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, Sao Paulo • 7 Points: Moscow, Seoul The Gamma (minor) World Cities are: • 6 Points: Amsterdam, Boston, Cazacas, Dallas, D?sseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington • 5 Points: Ban ok, Beijing, Montreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw 2 of 3 8/12/2006 7:35 PM HOW TO BECOFIE A WORLD-CLASS CITY "The following article comes from a speech entitled "Globalization and Development of International Cities ojthe Future, "given by Rosabeth Moss Kanter author of the book World Class: Thriving Locally m the Global Economy. Kanter holds an endowed chair as professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School, and advises governments and businesses worldwide. The speech was given during the May 2000 World Competitive Cities Congress in Washington, D.C. The congress is an initiative for the promotion of global urban economic development organized by the World Bank and World Congress. Kanter contends that the global economy is a corrtroversia! subject; there are those who believe that it hurls local economies. Yet, globalization should be able to raise the statrdard of living, as well as the prosperity and heahh of international wmmunities. Wherever a person is located, it is very important for him to meet these standards of global comparison. According to Kanter, the modem global economy is 10 or 12 years old; it began irr 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and communism, and has grown through the deregtilaticn of financial markets in Asia and m 1993 when the World Wide Web was available to the public. People are now a part of something larger and more frighterring than what they are accustomed to on the local level. The global economy is the desire to go shopping. "Shopping" csrr be interpreted as exercising choices with an array of goods and services available to you with the best that the world has to offer; people want to have choices. Some affue~ cities capitalize on mobility m get better goods and services not available in ttrern at home. In the Infamati~ Age, the affiueat, because of the Internet, are less restricted in this sense. However, the true global shoppers are multi-national corporations shopping for the best suppliers that meet the highest standards. They have consolidated their suppliers and they can shop the world for the best. Kanter said, dranks to the Internet, local government mganirations, suppliers and manutacdneas have to compete against international standards. ]'rotectionisn carnrot last with the Internet Foreign suppliers, investors and knowledgeable companies are shopping for skilled labor. 'This fomrs a competition among neighboring cities for world class standards. A strong region must cbrrtain~ main factas to be "world class." Conczpts, competence and connections. CONCEP'T'S Concepts represents the ideas, technologies, innovations and practices of an area They ace high- technology regions with a much more even distribution of wealth. These places attract and create the lmowledge of the future. Examples of this can be found in Boston, Singapore or Silicon Valley. These are places with large migrations of talent and sldlLs; 40 percent of the top management teams in Silicon Valley cerrrpanies are from Asia. A "concepts" location also has institutions; colleges and universities, that are magnets of brainpower. Stanford University, MIT or federal government research centers create centers of mlent. COMPETENCE Competence encompasses all the skills necessary to create things, and is the second component to becoming aworld-class city. These are places that rely on educating their workfm+ce to attract foreign investment A pl~e with high quality cooperative training beyond high school can become a place where companies can locate. Today, cities become world class in the global economy with skilled labor, not jrat cheap labor. CONNECTIONS The corucections factor descn'bes how cities become crossroads of commerce and deals. Cities of international character, led by private and public sector leaders, act as jumping off points itrto the region. They are created by investing in airports and seaports, Irke Miami or Singapore, developing banking institutions and making the goads flow. Cities have to ask themselves, "Where is it a connection to other places?" For example, Miami is one of the de facto capitals of Latin America with more than half of its purchases of goods and services made by foreign visitors. These throe factors are needed to form world class cities. Also, economic development led by development agencies, the private and public sectors, arxi citraen action creates an errvironmerrt in which people want to improve their area. One has to tap Formal economic development as well as the feelings of pride that people have in their community to accomplish these goals. Source: Economic Development Abroad August 2000 ~~- : ;, ~' ~~ RECENED August 15, 2006 Carmel Plan Commission I~ AUG 15 2006 shou sefield(cr~sbcglobal.net Steve Housefield .~ --- DOGS ~ , 1785 Pine Valley Dr. ~ = - --- Carmel, IN 46032 ~~~,~~- ~ ~/} 3 ] 7.575.9017 Subject: C3 Plan 2006 Draft B, South Central Carmel Policies and Objectives Dear Commission Members: I respectfully submit the following three comments for your consideration: Policy 1, Objective 1.2 Suggest that beautification projects be defined. Policy 1, Objective 1.4 Suggest a defined upper limit on size, density and scale for any proposed development on the north, west and south boundaries referenced in this objective. For example, Mann Properties most recent proposal to construct 91 townhomes on 8.8 acres adjacent to Central Park call for three-story structures, obviously an extreme transition from the neighboring one and two-story residences. Also Mann's proposal is for a very high density, again too dense for transition between residential and existing commercial and employment districts. I would suggest that serious consideration be given to a two-story limit, with reduced density, and that siting of buildings be accomplished consistent with existing residential setbacks from right of ways. Policy 4, Objective 4.2 Suggest adding Westfield Blvd., 106`h to 116`h St., to fall under the protection of this objective, i.e. maintenance of the corridor's existing tree canopy. This southern entrance to Carmel has large numbers of old growth canopy trees, which need to be protected from future development destmction. Thank you for considering my comments and I appreciate your service to our community. Sincerely, Steve Housefield ~~~ C4 Comments Pt 1-2 ~ ~~, ,~~,~' ~- Preface • For the analyis of the community, I would suggest a serious public input process as was done last time. It would be helpful such that when the public questions an approach that the City is taking, that the "percent of people poled" could be sited to support a City action or policy. Do a survey ! ! ! ! o See Irvington Survey o See Great Indy Neighborhoods website (survey) Objectives - p. 6: o More current data is available than 5 year old census data. Local developers get the data.....Madeilene Torres' brother said he gets it....maybe he could help. o I have not seen the Development Plan and Strategies, US 31 Corridor, (Is that the US 31 Corridor overlay?} Old Meridian Task Force Report, Integrated Economic Development Plan, Amended Redevelopment Plan or the Interim Report for INDOT US 31 Improvements......where do I find them? o Should the 96~' Street Corridor Study be removed? It's not done. Methodology: - p. 6 o If numbers of meetings are to be listed, they all should be listed. Why not take the (2 meetings) out. Four City Districts: - p. 7 o Move this section to Part 2 such that the earlier parts of the Comp Plan are at the beginning, and as the City is discussed in more and more detail, this happens later in the document. o Mast of the land north of Carmel Drive, east of Rangeline and west of Keystone is residential, and suburban in layout (except for the character areas}. How do we handle that. It is soooo different from the North Central Carmel areas west of Rangline. I would have to say it is more like the South Central or West Carmel areas (like Cook Creekj. I think it needs to be addressed somehow... . North Central Carmel Characteristics: o Add "pockets of the" in front of district has... . o Delete has tilted toward an urban environment with significant" Delete last paragraph - not needed. And, there still are large areas of suburban residential neighborhoods west of Rangeline Rd. South Central Carmel Characteristics: pg. 8 o l~ paragraph -Add "s" to developments. 0 2"~ paragraph -delete "and area surrounding Central Park" 0 3`d paragraph -add and 116 to the end of the last sentence. West Carmel Characteristics - pg. 8 o The last paragraph -was this meant for East Carmel???? There are no commercial uses facing onto 146' in the West side of Carmel. Part One: o Don't use "riparian". Use terms most people use daily. o Graphs -Label with units on each axis, and include titles for each graph. o Need to do third party community surveys as were done for the current comprehensive plan. Part Two City-wide Policies and Objectives: • Objectives should be one sentence, without defensive explanations. This is not meant to be an educational tool. • Diversity in housing changed to "quality" in housing. I dan't think we have public support for diversity in housing. Policy 1: Manage Community Form: Obj. 1.1 "Form-bases and traditional zoning "needs to be described in lay-persons terms, or be defined. Obj. 1.5 • Delete adverbs....creates too much subjectivity and loopholes. • Identify where mixed use should he "promoted". Survey would be paramount in getting community support when these projects come up. Policy 2: Be a World Class City Why use "world class"....we are a very small city. I would hate to be accused of being high on ourselves with such an outlandish goal. What about progressive, landmark, leading? Obj.2.1 pg. 15 • Just say "Carmel is committed to high architectural standards far all buildi~ and facilities." • Delete the rest. It muddies the issues and makes unnecessary loopholes for attorneys. Obj. 2.2 - pg. 15 • Delete "socioeconomic classes" and the last sentence. Obj. 2.3 - pg. 15 • Before we "encourage more diversity in housing types" Shouldn't we have survey info??? • There is all kinds of housing nearby already. Obj. 2.4 & 2.5 - pg. 15 • Delete alI but 1 ~` sentence. Policy 3: Perpetuate Economic Vitality Obj. 3.2 & 3 - pg, 1.6 Mixed use developments are mostly far traditional neighborhoods and commercial sites, NOT the majority of Carmel. There needs to be significant public input on this issue and where they go. Combine 3.2 & 3.3. Obj. 3.4 • Reword to: Utilize technology to to expand and create more effeicient communication. Obj. 3.5 • Delete. Isn't this an in-house procedure? obj. 3.7 • Add this to 3.4 somehow......one topic per objective Policy 4: Be a City of Neighborhoods Intro: • The first two sentences say it all! No need to elaborate. • Remove inferences that neighborhoods were not traditionally known by development names. This is not so, even here they were known by subdivision name. From the 3`~ sentence on is incorrect. Obj. 4.1: Need a survey to say this....remove this one. Obj. 4.2: • Remove "These small area plans....." to the end of the paragraph. Obj. 4.3 * Duplication. • Remove for now Obj. 4.4 • Where neighborhood commercial goes needs a survey....we have heard lots of public consternation about this. • Remove for now. Policy 5: Adaptable City Too wordy. Use first sentence only. Obj. 5.1- 3 • Use sentences or pharases. Be consistant. Policy 6: Inspire Community Character Intro: • "Community character is the aesthetic ofa neighborhood, district, or the entire community" and is essential for successful cities. (or something to that affect) Obj. 6.1: • Remove 2IId sentence Obj. 6.2 • First sentence only. Delete the rest. No Grits. Obj. 6.4 • First sentence only. I think the rest is akeady policy. Policy 7: Environmentally Sensitive - pg. 18 • Add Objective 7.8: Encourage LEER and other renewable energy features to commercial and residential buildings that are completmentary to the archtitecture. e o xes~aeniiai prese o (Could do this in • Remove references to sp East Carmel Policies & Objectives pg. 19 Obj. 1.2 • ID where this is desired on a map. Obj. 3.3 • Remove. • Too detailed. Site specific info should go on a map. North Central Carmel Policies & Objectives pg.20 Obj. 1.2 • Remove Old Town from 10 story building height. Obj. 1.4 Obj. 3.1 Obj. 4.1 Keep. There are still residential areas TND nrincinIes have not because they are TND Carmel east of Rangeline Rd. the public so far. I would remove any TND reference. we not • gee t;olumnia, tiA tromp Tian LVSV, pg. 4 i Obj. 4.2 • Combine l~` & 2na sentences • Delete ,but must have architectural flair and be built from durable materials"....the design review committee will do this. Obj. 5.1 • Keep this one. Obj. 5.: • South Central Carmel Policies & Ob,~ectives pg. 21 Obj. 4.2 "Protect residential character along (not just Keystone Ave) all main corridors and maintain existing tree canopies." West Carmel Policies & Objectives pg. 22 Obj. 1.2 .~ c • Delete • Remove any new mixed use or neighborhood service nodes from W. Clay. • Add "and Suburban Residential" to Conservation Residential to the end of the second sentence. Obj. 1.4 • Delete. • Sounds like a lecture, and not Obj. 2.1 • "Maintain and protect areas fc since we have policy spelling this out. Obj. 2.2 • Delete granny flats. Obj. 3.1 • Residential intensity -should follow density as zoned Delete this last sentence. Obj. 3.2 • Should read "Protect single-family residential character. Delete specific site references....use a map for this. Obj. 3.3 • Shouldn't this go in the architectural guidelines? • Delete Obj. 3.4 • Delete "along 116a' street......"to the end. Obj. 4.2 • Delete. Obj. 5.1 • Delete. It's been policy for years already. • Too much of a lecture. Available in FULL COLOR on the web: www.carmel.in.gov Can~k~ ~~~ ~ ~ i~~ ~;~ ~! 1 vU Tf113tE Of COIITEIIT! Foreword Acknowledgments .................................................................... 4 Comprehensive Plan Mandate ..............il................................... 5 Fulfillment of the Mandate ........................................................ 5 Plan Objectives and Methodology ............................................. 6 ~- ,, Districts ............................................................................ 7 Part 1: Community Profile Objective Profile ..................................................................... 10 -Environmental Conditions ........................................................ 10 -Demographic Information ........................................................ 10 -Community Facility Inventory ................................................... 12 Part 2: Comprehensive Plan Essence Comprehensive Plan Essence Introduction ................. ............ 14 City-Wide Policies and Objectives .............................. ............ 15 East Carmel Policies and Objectives ........................... ............ 19 >i_ =~ Central Carmel Policies and Objectives ............ ............ 20 ~;. ,. ,, -rr,-~ i e a-,c.~.e-~:es ..__. _._. 21 West Carmel Policies and Objectives ......................... ............ 22 Part 3: Land Classification Plan Land Classification Plan Introduction ................... .................... 24 Parks and Recreation ........................................... ................... 25 Conservation Residential .................................... .................... 26 Suburban Residential .......................................... .................... 27 Urban Residential ............................................... .................... 28 Multifamily Residential ....................................... .................... 29 Neighborhood Service Node ................................ .................... 30 Institutional Node ............................................... .................... 31 Community Vitality Node .................................... .................... 32 Employment Node ............................................... .................... 33 Regional Vitality Node ......................................... .................... 34 Core Support ....................................................... .................... 35 Secondary Core ................................................... .................... 36 Primary Core ....................................................... .................... 37 Future Land Classification Map ........................... .................... 38 Part 4: Transportation Plan Transportation Plan Introduction ...................... ....................... 42 Thoroughfare Plan ............................................ ....................... 43 - Residential,Street ....'.....:.::...! ...:................... ..........._.......... 44 -Collector Street ............:..............:...:.:............. ....................... 45 -Urban Collector Street .................................... ........................ 46 -Residential Parkway 2-Lane ........................... ........................ 47 - Residential Parkway 4-Lane ........................... ........................ 48 -Secondary Parkway .::..................................... ........................ 49 - Primary Parkway .............................................. ....................... 50 -Urban Arterial .......:...........:...:................:....... ........................ 51 -Secondary Arterial '... ~ ~......... ~:.....:~...'....' ....... ........................ 52 -Primary Arterial ..........................................:... ........................ 53 Thoroughtare Plan Map .................................. ........................ 54 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Plan ......................... ............... 57 - Residential Sidewalk .............................................. ................ 58 - Urban Residential Sidewalk .................................... ................ 59 -Urban Commercial Sidewalk ................................... ................ 60 - Side Path ............................................................... ................ 61 - On-Street Bicycle Lane ........................................... ................ 62 -Off-Street Trail ........................................................ ................ 63 -Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Plan Map ................. ................ 64 Transit Plan ............................................................. ................ 67 - Commuter Line .......................:.............................. ................ 68 - Intracity Transportation System .............................. ................ 69 - Transit Plan Map .................................................... ................ 70 Part 5: Critical Corridors and Subareas Critical Corridors and Subareas Introduction .............. ............. 74 Keystone Avenue Corridor ......................................... ............. 76 Keystone Avenue Corridor Plan .................................. ............. 77 U.S. 31/Illinois Street Corridor ................................... ............. 78 U.S. 31/Illinois Street Corridor Plan ............................ ............. 79 96th Street Corridor ................................................... ............. 80 96th Street Corridor Plan ............................................ ............. 81 City Center/Old Town Subarea .................................... ............. 82 City Center/Old Town Subarea Plan ............................ ............. 83 Old Meridian Subarea ................................................ ............. 84 Old Meridian Plan ...................................................... ............. 88 01d Meridian Subarea Detail Plan .............................. .............. 89 Home Place Subarea .................................................. ............. 90 Home Place Subarea Plan ......................................... .............. 91 2 C'1SY Df f:AR.MLL. INDI.YN~ DI'aftB DiUft B CAIt M Fa. CON$ULII)Al }:I) fOMNR FIIF N$IVY YI AN 3 ACKOOWtE®GnIEI1Tf City of Carmel Mayor • James Brainard City of Carmel Common Council • Rick Sharp • Kcvin Kirby • Brian Mayo • Joscph Griffiths • Fred Glaser • Mark Rattermann • Ron Carter City of Cannel Plan Commission • Jcrry Chomanczuk • Leo Dierckman • Dan Dutcher • Wayne Haney • Kcvin Hcbcr • Mark Ra[tennann • Rick Ripma • Carol Schleif • Stcvcn Stromquist • Madeleine Torres • Susan Westermeier Department of Community Services • Michael Hollibaugh, A1CP, RLA • Adrienne Kccling, AICP Project Consultalrt • Ground Rules, Tnc. Image Credits Small Area Plan Credits a cir1' or c.:aMCi. rN ni.an.a DI'aft B CORIPREHERfIYE PMR IRRRt)RTE The Stale of Indiana, through Indiana Statutes, Title 36, Article 7, as amended, empowers communities [o plan with the purpose of improving [he health, safety, convenience, and welfaze of [he citizens and to plan for the future dcvclopmcnt of their communities to the end: 1. That highway systems [and street systems] be carefully planned; 2. That new communities grow only with adequate public way, utility, health, educational, and recreational fxcilitics; 3. That the needs of agriculture, industry, and business be recognized in future growth; 4. That residential areas provide healthful surroundings for family lift; and 5. That the growth of the community is commensurate with and promo[i vc of the efficient and economical use of public funds (IC 36-7-4-201). Indiana statutes state that communities may establish planning and zoning entities to fulfill this purpose (IC 36-7-4- 201). A Plan Commission is [he body responsible for maintaining the Comprehensive Plan, which is required by State law [o be developed and maintained (TC 36-7-4-501). Indiana Code 36-7-4-502 and 503 state the required and permissible contents of the Plan. The required Plan elements are listed below: 1. A statement of objectives for the future development of the jurisdiction. 2 A statement of policy for the land use development of the jurisdiction. 3. A statement of policy for the development of public ways, public places, public lands, public structures, and public utilities. f UtfltIRIEOT Of TIIE IRRIIpRTE Throughout [hc planning process and within the Carme( Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, all of the State of I ndiana minimum rcquircmcnts have been met or exceeded. Some of [he highlights include: • The Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan reflects analysis ofthe community, existing land uses, development trends, land use suitability, economic feasibility, and natural land features. • Public involvement provided guidance for this update. lire input exceeded the criteria required by the Slate by providing several opportunities for people to share their thoughts. • Pnrt 2: Comprehensive Pla scene m the Carme( Consolidated ComprehensivePlun u fills the requirement for establishing objectives for future dcvclopmcnt and a policy for the development of public places, public land, public structures and public utilities. • Purt 3: Lund Classification Plan in [he Carmel Conro/idated Comprehensive P/an fulfills the requirement for a land use development policy. • Part 4: Transportation Plan in the Carme! Consolidated Comprehensive Plan fulfills the requirement fordeveloping a public ways policy. T ~µ~'. rJ CARMF I. (lON$[II J UA rF.U ('1)MPIi Y.l I F.N$I V F. YI AN ~ 5 PIRR ORIECTIYES RRD RIETNODOIOGT Comprehensive Plan Update Uhjectives The primary objectives for revising Carmel's 2020 Vision Plan are to: • Remove outdated and irrelevant information; • Remove objectives that have been achieved; • Update information and demographics; • Incorporate current politics and objectives; • Consolidate studies and plans that have been prepazed since the 2020 Vision Plan was adopted; • Distill the existing binderofplanningdocumentsintoamore succinct and simple document; • introduce language ~to address the trend towards redcvdopmcnt; and • Freshen the content to more accurately reflect the City's planning vision'or it: pian~srg i~~risuictio-. The revised plan hat been given [he name Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan) because it assembles the essence from each of the existing, independent plans and studies relating to comprehensive planning. Specifically, the C3 Plan utilizes information and plan elements from the following documents: • Carnet's 2020 Vision Plan • Development Plan and Strategies, U.S. 31 Comdor • 96th Street Corridor Study • Old Meridian Task Force Report • Integrated Economic Development Plan • Amended Redcvclopmen[ Plan • Interim ReportforlNDOTU.5.311mprovements Because the City is interested inutilizing aform-based regulatory system in the future, this plan also establishes the foundation for such a tool. The C3 Plan identi5es where fore-based regulations, hybrid regulations (balanced traditional and form-based regulation), and traditional regulations arc appropriate. As the City develops, urbanizes, and redevelops, more and more detailed planning is expected to be necessary. This plan establishes a framework for subscqucnt, more focused planning efforts. Instead of incorporating those plans as addenda; the C3 Plan has a part for easily adding those plan's essence. Additionally, a standard format is established to dictate consistency as the C3 P/an evolves. Methodology Initial Pu61ic Inpm: The process for this update bcgan in October of 2005 with multiple opportunities for public engagement. The planning team held meetings with the following groups: • CarmeVClay School Board; • Neighborhood association presidents; • Business leaders; • East Camtel general public; • Cenral Cannel gcncral public; • West Carmel general public (2 meetings); • High school students; and • Chamber of Commerce leadership. Community Study: Once the first round of public input was complete, the consulting team focused on intensive study of the built environment and research into the existing planning documents. This step in the process included several meetings with Carmel's planning staffand leadership. Document Draping: Concurrent with studying [he community, the planning team bcgan drafting the Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan. immediately following the first full draft completion, the City scheduled a public open houac for the public and interest groups [o provide feedback about the plan. Puhlic Commem: To be trritten. Implementation The Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan contains gcncral politics intended to influence growth, development, and vitality of the City as it evolves. The C3 Plan tyill be implemented by subscqucnt specific ordinances„programs, zoning decisions, Redevelopment Commission actions, and Common Council actions. s ~ c+rr or ~.~..,«. +~o+..v., Draft B Ti1REE fOUR CITT OISTRICTf Planning for ~hreef our Unique Districts Historically, the City of Cannel and CI ay Township was a homogeneous area consisting of fauns, ruralresidential, estate homes, small [own residential and small town downtown commercial development. The construction of 1-465 (1960's) and S.R. 431 /Keystone (1960's), and significant upgrades to U.S. 31(1970's) in Clay Township all led to the evolution to many types of development in the City and Township. Today [he City has an urbanizing core, an employment condor, significant redevelopment sites, many styles ofresidential development and multiple commercial aarca~. The evolution of the City has also resulted in distinguishable p+arnine districts. `~-~-pyN+tg(~ +~ ''•it~: ;.,n-c2*fe~t v,, planate - praar_°rg, the City of Carmel i= recognizc::i-~ the uniqueness of `?~ :~.:r districts; East Carmel, tior: c Central Carmel. ~eutn Cereal Carr~cl and West Carmel (sec illustrution below). The district boundaries were determined by evaluating development form, physical boundaries, and -,rJic input ~g. Although there technically are boundaries drawn on the map between planning districts, it is not intended [o be a "hard" division. Rather, the reader should view the divisions as conceptual. Therefore, xn area on the edge oY'one district would be evaluated independently to determine which policies best fit that area. ,;. . ~} .. • __ >,' ,- .'• East Carmel Characteristics East Carmel is unique compared to the other t4:v2 districts because it typifies suburbia with curvilinear strccks, dominantly single-family residential uses, and a small number ofcmploymcntorcommcrcialdevelopments. More specifically, the district contains a large number of neighborhoods~with custom-built homes and has very little integrated commercial development. Aside from the commercial corridor along East 96th Street (the south boundary), there are only two integrated~ommercial areas within this district: Brookshire Village Shoppes and Hazel Dell Comer. Two centers along 146th Street are just outside of Carmel, Bridgewater Shoppes and Noble West. East Catmel has a variety of recreational amenities including ten parks and an evolving river greenway. It also has three golf courses. Again, the mix of amenities is very consistent with suburban development. Tne cresence of cuam-ane agg~regac2 mining cl-~eranons aroa = €tt2 tr.'tnt2 F.c : cter 2-. r mien bznte2n..alric,xi ii'~8!:R'.pi i)tP 1I?l{iTl.]:2r 31 i.22d51ii .~~c 2~aatt.~'. North Central Cannel Characteristics No!~h Central Carmel is clearly unique in comparison to the other districts, in that it is an urbanizing core. Although there arc arc3s of suburban development, the district has tilted toward an urban environment with significant mixed- usc vitality. No longer arc the tallest structures two stories and suburban in character. Numerous four-story or higher buildings have been built or arc in the process of being built in this district. Many new buildings are also being built to the front property line, further evolving the character of the area. Draft B c ~aMr:i e„~>~~~ ~~,~, ~~~ rr,M~~~~:~ ~~~~~~~ v~ >~ ~ tirr-`~ Central Carmel has Rx'o.;--; parks, the Monon Trail, and ern: drr°e golf courses; asvci .:...: . . . . . .... ..: ire a}a` a zrl-zeta{ to bz dzt~z':opzd to ~,.;e ,ear ilaurc. It also has two dominant street condors, U.S. 31 and Keystone Avenue, which contribute to and support the urbanizing environment. n J ~ . _ ~ ~,~,C °(~ The>'rlthCentralCanncld' ricteontainsmultiplc commercial areas inclu ' g: Old Town (Arts and Design District), City Center, erchants' Squaze, and Old Meridian Street?-crf--c1.~;, .cod-.;fc:r. The district also includes a wide mix ofresidential developments including historic residential, suburban residential, estate residential, townhouses, flats, apartments, and condominiums. The district is inclusive of significant employment areas. The U.S. 31 Corridor and the Carmel Science and Technology Pazk arc the main focus of employment-type dcvclopment, but many other small office buildings aze distributed throughout tioahCentralCarrncl. Saa*h +'entra9 Carmel ~haractettstics got ti n ~(~ ~ ~ ~I r r: qu: m coup tenor, tc *h othct r ~ s Tai: ec.~.a ~ . a t>mncann_ m6er of ~ 9iL .r ,w~~i .'>>J :12 _e5li en~_al d2 1~pl leri`3110 Ome placr e „T~:t .3,,,. ia~.r ~: ~-I~Wiiii~~1T~d. .~ Idr~?2-~llt _~ at til ~~`e of e -_~_ fir: ii= r elila!'j aP i 2: i ] <!"':'0U3 uS£ l:'? nt Peek 32r'~°. t a _ans* to tram the ~ rtianizine~otth Central Carmel 1.n c~s.res~dzntta!character. Lip:azdbievc_z~ pedestrian au. ti a zx ,: ? th„ area to connzctpeople to ehz ameui.,es it 1 n'thfcmta~ t`ainlzt. The ~f•L'h nCr lA ~v 3PC ! ~'~ dmpiJallent aL'ed a ( ~' V •C ~- t. at:<~i5'~~t : ~ ~r~ or. Sours C2d i,~l i_a-'*:lzl ha rhr~z pay 1.,.:h2 \-for-[1: Trs ?. zrd r.~'ri wolf com~ses: one that is colder pressure to be ~'~dzvaloped. R also has two srrone srrezt corridors, Wzscfiel.~i Boule~~ard and Collree A~'enue, whica pn;aide ~~ood north! south connxtiti ity Pot vehicles. Regional north/south cat~ezti'. i:y is aL:o pros ided :viu't U.S. 31 and Kzysunx - ~,-znuc. Com~cnicrt cast%wct conncc**-_i~ in' is limited to lUrdt Street. Titz ~o~tih : znmal Carmel dis[rizr has onz commercial disnct, ~or.-2 i'_ac2, ;tad tome additions) pockets oY commercial de.°e'err~eatakenrthz9fithSveetCorridor. Thedistrizt u~r~sles>-,...- ~_is of sir.~lz fa?*:ih.~ ;esidential {:apes. incl-_'.ci~= --=~r~~c-=i.;. suhufi~in 1"~iden?iii. a!l~i:Stdtt r2S1d2nilal. are:`~l e:Ilit2d nUntiJel'Of ~ 1 .~nL `tn,,~ tiOndeP'. I aTli 81st :XIS{. West Carmel Characteristics Wes[ Cartncl remains unique even after the dcvclopment of many suburban '.! ~:iz -;."jai *:. ~:. Historically, Wcst Carmel was dominantly horse farms, agricultural land, estate residential and open space. The district is still distinguished from the East Carmel districtby stgntficantly lower density restden[ial and substantial estate homes that are preserving open space T area la, .' 1 ;a ,e r oiac2 a ,l ~a~' :Toni a or a._ rz ~_i ~ ur zstat gin-:es ant! rose tar ~. !nuz~rdect ,Ltd: ~~]_ l.; ._.~...,a. ai.b_.a: u.. -~ a';.t_~ _, -a~_, o ~:hz c~sirias r-sides:~. ?rWest Cannel contains the most substantial number of undeveloped acres and has the least developed road network- -: - -~ -- °---'-- ' - - - - - `-- - ~- Carmel, where many s~.fiuivisons .,..:g;,~~cswcrc built with connecting streets to adjacent developments or stubbed strech to undeveloped areas 'A'- ,: C n t~l t e, -~ a -~u:- tLr:, ,h•,-ee i-_ ~•t2.en» m!o~ ~<,o - -- ? ~z '~c or a,~_,sub,.., ,iL.n:<~t'ith pr..aa ;tr ....,e .{_,,! ..'a ,~i~ of c ~ ;nay otmn.?r.x ~ v ~:- ~ ~[ _~~ .[ . 5 2 a "CI '^ CO ra,.h C 3..3 Y~-f.T.-_c`C'rn':'3n'3-r^.C d ~, . ,~ .. ~~ _.:. . __.,: ai±`ough St ea Camtel is e lareer geographie area than the o h~, ±t,n ice., i= has a lower densilt pzr ac; z. Tate _~~ t e ~3 ii 4 ,t Ca coal [ served ~~ tuo ptd~l ~ p uk' a~.d :, gut, 1aso ''_Y;ornctocncofth "'Ktl~k~,, -. i:iiLJfi 1 ~T ` r1,OJd ~~'b 1-~.,_i2nt5 :F ,!,r ?~~:. the \ it a_c ~ ° i~a;r~'la,. 1 -r~ vt _~~ a ~tr -the nto _ommu ~al trc 1, ~ ~ : _ar, 12 au car'::"cnen ~.: eilit ec+tVes ~?1 ~i1ii oua -r To inn of Zionsciilz, Seth Strcct cor,idor and nc~e commxrcial de's elopnlem along 15th Street are also recoenized for pro;~idfie comtncrial amcniti ~ to Wcst C'a:mcl. 8I C1TY OP GIRMLL. lY D1 iNA a~ Environmental Conditions The following environmental features existin the City's n.:~c:nnu -s~liction ^fi~-rnc?. River, Floodplains and Riparian Areas: The most significant environmental feature in the-t=-i=:• ; _~a~i:;e j r~.risi<c-,(~~n is the, White River and its associatcd floodplain and riparian areas. Situated on the eastern boundary of the-~s~ i~iarrm.in_ ,iunsdictiL?n. th~_ rn-cr prc~iJc=_ an onl•:onanity' .r ;mcofdc io co;reci ro~ize rn~~==~on;nent -.. _ _~_. __- _ - ~n,e-°--.. The floodplain area of White River is fairly extensive along its western bank. In certain segments this floodplain reaches nearly one-half mi le from the centerline of the river and provides for the most extensive expanse of undeveloped and natural landscape in the township. Other streams and creeks traverse [hem ;Mann ~=.-:z i~._-:i;tii_:ion eventually draining into the White River. While Cool Creek has been predominantly urbanized, its most basic tloodway has been preserved as a natural amenity. Williams Creek, west of Meridian Street, is another environmental corridor that has large segments still undeveloped. Wetlands: Another cnvironmcnnrl feature associatcd with waterways that exists in the ~ planm..-g ari,ciicti~m is wetlands. Severalwetlands designated on the National Wetland inventory Maps exist within the t':^: plannin i! _ s_ fiction. WoodlMS: A study conducted by the Indiana Department of Transportation QNDOT)for U.S. 31 indicates that less than 10% of Hamilton County remains as woodlands. Very few original woodland areas have survived in Carmel. Most of these woodland concentrations occur along [he White River or other streams and tributaries such as Cool Creek or Williams Creek. Groundwater: Groundwater is a significantly important feature in Carmel as the water supply system for residents comes from this source. The groundwater sources are found in the sand and gravel aquifer system of the West Fork of the White River valley. Groundwater is available at depths of 50 - 400 feet in the glacial drift with wells yielding several hundred gallons per minute. The City of Carmel has designated areas around these wells as "wellhead protection areas" to help protect the quality of the available drinking water. Demographic In(armation The following demographic information relates to the City of Carmel and [he surrounding communities and State. A i' census infornultion wus =athcrcd by the Indiana Sia*.c Library and all non-oensus information was prepared h~, the Deparruxnt _nf Commutir,~ Se, vices. Population Crowth: The City of Carmel has undergone tremendous growth in [he last twenty-five-year period. The population has increased from 18,272 residents in 1980 to 37,733 in 2000. Recent population estimates for 2006 place the City at 72,339 residents. This estimate is inclusive of the additional population from new development and annexation. (See Table below) 70.000 ~~ - - --.-- -- ~ - l -~-ro- Carmel ~ ~, 60.000 ' ~ Wesffield .... -~~' 50,000 ~ Nohlesville - ~;,,~~~~~_ ~.~ i ~ --~---~ Fishers 40,000 r i ~ Zionsville 30,000 ~ ~ 20,000 ~I~ ~.,,+'°"./°.< i 10,000 1 i 1980 1990 2000 2006 estima~ The population distribution for the City of Carmel for the year 2000 is shown below. The largest segment of the City's population is the 35 to 44 year old range. The 5 to 14 year old range (school age) ranks second with 45-54 yeaz olds ranking third. 10 Ctr]' U! (aRMCL, IN D1.~1N.~1 D(alt B OBIECTItlE PROfttE Education: Cannel has a higher high school graduation rate than [he State of Indiana (97.0% compared to 82.1 %) and Hamilton County (94.2%) but a lower mtc than Fishers, Indiana (98.2%). The number of adults with Bachelor's degrees or higher in Carmel is 58.4%comparcd to the State of Indiana's rate of 19.4%. The rate For both categories exceeds the rates for Indianapolis, Wcstficld, Noblesville, and Hamilton County. D HS G2duati°n Rate ^ Bachelors Degree °r Higher m ox sen r a.a% i Hamill°n Carnwl VE9tieIC Natlea~ille F9nra Lonsrille IMianapols CwMy Wiare 914x 91A% B12K cox '~ ' , . .~ eux e~.n c o% I ~~! ~ 'nk aon ~'- :' m n ry ~ I o o% ~ ox r9 sex w9% y I s ox _ r s.c ~ ~ AY °%L y ~ Y:' i AO% 'FY ~- s m a 2 i Income: The median income divides the income distribution into two equal groups, one having incomes above the median, and other having incomes below the median. Cannel's median household income has incrcascd by 50% from 1990 to 2000, an increase of $27,078. The state's median household income incrcascd by 44%during the same period, while Hamilton County's median household income incrcascd by 55%. Median Home Value: The median home value divides [he total data into two equal parts: one-half of the home values fall below [he median and one-half of the values exceed the median. Cannel's median home value was $205,400 for 2000. Zionsville was the only surrounding community with a higher value m 2000 ($246,300). Carmel's median home value exceeded the State's median vxluc by $112,900. When comparing [he percent incrcasc in median home values, the City of Carmel falls behind all of the surrounding areas. Carmcl's median home value incrcasc from 1990 to 2000 was 44.1%. During that same time period, Noblesville incrcascd 52.T%y Fishers incrcascd 51.6%, Wcstficld increased 95.7%, Zionsville increased 73.3%, Hamilton County incrcascd 56.2% and the State of Indiana increased 72.9%. 14.0 m s p lseo p lsso f7 zooo ~• i 12.0 i - _ _ -- _. _ - _ -_ - _ _ ._ - =_ - I I o ~ 10.0 ~ ,~ ~ I lm ^ 6.0 e [ r g ~ s' ` ~ ~ %~ 4.0 + k t w m { rim - aV n t 0 4 ~ } ~t ~ 2 D ~ ~ Q } y~ I ~ % k e\ °~ am ~ ~o° °y °h yc „~ `Z \A 'D~ ~. ca ~~ G ~d' °a ~ ,~p~ sc F ~ ~ ? ~ ~a DTSF` B Cp°MF.I. ('llh$OI IUA'I'F.I) COMYItF.IIF.N}fVF. YIAM1' Il Poverty Rafe: The poverty rate for Carmel in 2000 was 2.5% comparcd to 2.9°/a for Hamilton County and 9.5'% forthc Stale of Indiana. in comparison to [he surrounding communities, Carmel has the second lowest poverty rxtc behind Fishers (1.8%). Part 2: Comprehensive Ptan Essence establishes the City's planning policies and objectives categorized by gcographic area. Although there are many similarities in each district there arc also significant differences. This approach will clearly communicate and guide the public and its leaders in future decision making and share with the development community the City's policies and objectives. Further, the public can base their expectations on the content of this Part. To address each gcographic area, this Part is divided into the following `rnr'i ~-: sections: 1. City-Wide Policies and Objectives :...... .. pg 15 2. East Carmel Policies and Objectives... ..pg 19 3. North Central Carmel Policies and Objectives....:....L ............................ .. pg 20 4. South Cenhai Carmel PotiGes and Objectives ....................................... .. pg 27 5. West Carmel Policies and Objectives.. .. pg 22 . 14 C1rY (Jf L'.~1AMCL. 1ND1AN.4 Diaft B COIflMtEFIEflfIYE Plflfl ESSEfl6E fflTROpUCTIAfl Policy 1: Manage Community form InUOductien: Managing c$inrnunify Form is thcxrt and scicnca of influencing development in a manner that results in an .~;>~ ?;:f:a!ior quzii*y built and nature) environment in which people reside, work and recreate; and creates the opportunity for businesses to thrive. Managing community form is the culmination of land use planning, transportation planning, urban design, influencing transitions, and placc- making. The tools used to manage community form take shape as development guidelines, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, studies, small area plans, negotiations, commitments, conditions, covenants, redevelopment initiatives, policies, education and the like. No single tool can effectively manage community form. Managing community form is a departure from purely land use based regulations [hat encourage segregation and challenge the community's ability [o establish essential connectivity. This model is more permissive ofmixed use nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing land classifications. Objective 1.1: Merge form-based regulatory tools into tfie traditional zoning and subdivision control ordinances based on Part 3: Land Classification Plan. Objective 1.2: Recognize the uniqueness in each planning district and establish regulations, subarea plans, and/or pattern books to secure and encourage [he desired features. Objective 1.3: Utilize and follow the intent of [hc C3 P/on by applying [he Plan's content to development proposals to leverage the desired outcomes and prevent deviations from the City's policies and objectives. Ohjective 1.4: Be very sensitive to connectivity and transitions between xdjaccnt anus. ~~ct:401 d unplanned or harsh contrast in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density. If there exists contrast, utilize multiple design principles to soften transitions. 06jective i.5: ~we.d::~ornute mis~d ose in areas _aitabl: n-:r cmm~;cr:ia' dev~iupmen*-. srd prerectresideutia: arras 6:>at nnttitzhie celnmercial dz~:aeg,n;ent. 06jeciivs l a': Lomil~~ne to build rile ci^,• far!: ar~d tail ;vsrem th r(n ,u~_ ~rwr..1 l~; mtipgcz ~;Y fP^..,~••~..-' ILRd.~ q~~.?.~,-'C I \eaiv~ jwT 1 ~'o'~Ge~ y`f,S id.a~~`10.9 WU,S ct~"O~¢. Policy 2: Be City wt ~ Introduction: communiy that ha9~ broad name recognition, notable culture, a ~sitivc image, diversity in housing, corporate vitality, strong architectural presence and character, sense of place, public transportation, and most importanNy a desirable quality of life. Objective 2.1: Commit to high architectural standards for all mtrtrit~pal buildings and facilities. '8te-ieteeFts-te~seie b Objective 2.2: Further enhance the amenities, development opportunities, office-supporting commerce and technology necessary to attract additional corporations to Carmel. Concurrently, enhance quality of lift to provide x~-errh~i=1~ ,~-ner~~:p_iality place for people in all socioeconomic classes to live by encouraging high quality public spaces, interesting pazks, oiazas and public gardens. There is significant evidence that high quality of lift is a major attrector for corporations, thus making this a primary component of [his objective. Objective 2.3: Encourage more diversity in housing types to appeal to a more diverse clientele of employees working in Cannel. As Carmel continues to amact re~~ionai and nationo3 headquarters -_ a ,., [hc housing desired by people relocating from other parts of the country and world is not a!u~s: <consistent with Indiana's traditional residentialformofsingle-familydetachedhomes: The City needs to commission a study on housing choices. Objective 2.4: Support an intrncity and commuter transit system as described in Part 4: Zransportatfon Plan. Carmcl's City Core is in the process of achieving the necessary commercial intensity and residential density [o support such a sys<em. The City will likely experience more peak-time congestion on major roadways as an inconvenient but positive indicator that a transit system would be successful. The City will need to ask for patience during the years leading up to an operable transit system. Objective 2.5: Enhance a bicycle- and pedestrian-connected community through expanded installation of side paths, sidewalks, bike lanes, and off-street trails. It is well established [hat many of the moderate-sized world class cities in our nation are bicycle and pedestrian friendly communities. Carmel believes that the establishment of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will further enhance quality of life xnd be greatly appreciated by citizens. COV(OLIU>TY:U COMVH F.II F.ti SINE VLAN 15 ,.: , . 1®licy 3: Perpetuate Economic Vitality " - • Introduction: Vitality is defined in many ways, inclliding iob ~~~~:~ th, quantity ofjobs, quality ofjobs, proliferation of commcrcc, entrepreneurship, investment in property, redevelopment, length of commitment, and degree of risk being taken. Carmel has strong economic vitality, and furthering that trend is of great interest ans impor~a~-,,:e. This section gddresses the objectives that Carmel will utilize to perpemate economic vitality. . Objective 3.1: Cal-d-Thr Cn~ will strive to further the •~ "Carmel" brand as the best clacr to live. 1~'or!c aed tai r a .. famih•d1e ~~-n^r~ty. The Cityhas already es[ablisheda •• notable degree of branding; branding being positive name recognition and impression. Branding ofacommunity is important when trying to attract quality employers and businesses. For instance, well-respected retail businesses want to belocated inwell-known communities. , ,• Ohjective 3.2: Encourage mixed-use developments. Single-use dcvclopments tend to lack vitality during off-peak times. Mired-use developments often combine commercial and residential uses into a single node. This type of development encourages daytime vitality from employment and commcrcc activity and nighttime vitality when people come home from work. Also, this development pattern better utilizes land by allowing compact urban form. Objective 3.3: Retrofit exls[ingsingle-use centersinto mixed- use centers. This encourages both daytime"xnd nighttime vitality and creates a compact urban form. OhjecNve 3.4: Utilize technology to efficiently communicate Cityprojcctsandinitiatives. Expandcxistinglincsof communication [o reach more households and gain more public input :vlodcmizc tLc Ciq~'s ti~cbsitc to acconlodatc Objective 3.5: Clarify and streamline development procedures and processes. Simplify the development process without lessoning standards or expectations. Ohjective 3.5: Plan for transit by encouraging transit opportunities in new dcvclopments where it would benefit the community. Analyze how the City would forth with improved transit options. Objenive 3.1: Promote the ad};;nccn~:cnt of mchnoleev to _";,r,nv:eml,:acr and the r} erevohinv }•~orkplarr and hoe:e enterprise. Policy 4: Be a City at Neighbofioods Imroduetien: Neighborhoods arc an essential component in a community. They create the fabric of a city. ~lra~i•Ei'enalty nci hey were determined by physical boundazies and included a mix of housing, neighborhood-serving commercial, schools, and _ parks within walking distance of each other 06jective 4.1: Carmel is desirous of achieving the quality of life benefits of traditional neighborhoods within [he context of exurb, suburban, and urban development. Ohjective 4.2: The City believes it necessary to conduct planning at a finer detail in critical subareas and corridors. For this reason Pun 5: Critical Corridors and Subureal' was created to house those planning exercises within [he C3 Plun. These small azea plans are important in communities with redevelopment pressures and in rapidly growing areas. Oftentimes, critical corridor and subarea plans can better address transitions, connectivity, and development form. 'They can also address character goals and emphasize to developers a more exact idea of what the City expects. Objective 4.3: Establish neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries rather than by each development's name.... _...:. '~ "'~ ~ _._.:,:..,Neighborhoodsare more than each development project. A concerted effort should be established [o determine neighborhood boundaries throughout the City and then promote their identity and boundaries. Objective 4.4: Consider and encourage "third places" and neighborhood-serving commercial. Every trip to the store should not be a major expedition. Residents and employees should be able to access nearby shopping by caz or walking. K;. ` } if; ~ S ,.1 , •,'1 n ., • '~ ' 16 CIT}' Uf C.4RMDL. 1N DIdNd Draft B Policy 5: Be an Adaptable City Introduction: Being an adaptable city is critical in the evolution of a community. Too many communities do no[ adapt to local, regional, and national influences and suffer from the lackofflexibility. For instance, many communities aze still trying to revitalize their downtowns based on [he models that were successfu150 or more years ago. They have not recognized the evidence that downtowns can still be vital places, but have not adjusted to current influences and circumstances. Objective 5.1: Carmel will regulazly reevaluate the local, regional, and national influences that affect deve]opmen[ success and vitality. The City will also strive to predict the next evolutions in development to better recognize whether they would have a positive or negative effect on the Ci[y. Objective 5.2: Periodically review and revise the Land Classification Pfau Map to adapt to changes in the built environment, evolutions in community values, and changes in community policies. Objective 5.3: Continue to recognize, plan and update critical corridors and subareas. ObjeCive 5.4: Fni,ancz the P,fon~ra ~ra;~ u. _,-crs and IlTlitl' °IIi U",e .E9 LL~e a~ :. L:C;_ ! t ,_:LL `.'~ 1 ~ ~ l P, 1~T, ?C. a _.:.~ .~ "red:r is ~.: trrl- an ~atr_-m ~ 1, .. -n:~_ ~„ ~ i •_n- a , .-,'e ;:~ ri cron io ,~ratLv _r>idennaI and Policy 6: InspRe Commutiity Character hrtroduction: Community character is the aesthetic of a ~ neighborhood, district, or the entire community. Positive community character is desired and often helps build local pride, encourages investment, and improves quality of life. Objective 6.1: Reject homogeneous development and corporate branding architecture. [n residential areas, architectural guidelines should be ins[imted to prevent monotonous development. Commercial and cesidentia'e areas should be subjected to architectural standards that inspire unique and appropriate designs fitting Carmel's chazacter goals. Objective 0.2: Promote a unique community with unique neighborhoods and subazeas. Already the City is investing in the Old Town Arts and Design District, which is a fantastic example of establishing a unique subdistrict. The community will identify appropriate character goals for the East, Central, and West Cammel Districts and critical subazeas. Objective 6.3: Encourage high quality and w;Jl desieczd landscaping to help beautify the City and promote healthful environments. Objective 6.4: Promote the planting and care of canopy trees throughout Carmel. Canopy trees aze desired because they add a great deal of character and comfort to the built environment. They also provide relief from heat, soften noise and light, and help purify the air we breathe. This is a particulazly important objective because so many mature trees are lost throt'~gh development. Objective 6.5: Promote the use of pubjic artajn botfj public spaces and within private developments. Also, encourage designers to include public art in their buildings and surrounds. Objective 6.6: Promote healthy life styles through the use of innovative design and planning. DraftB ueMr, ~o~s~~;~,,r~.;~ Ceavaf:ur:NS;vr. ~; ~~ ~,~ Policy 7: Be Environmentally Sensitive ' hnrodoetion: Being environmentally sensitive is the act of protecting natural areas, introducing naN-~~e plant material into the urban environment, reducing energy consumption, encouraging energy and natural resource conservation, and utilizing "green" building materials. 06jeetive 1.1: Encourage the use of durable materials and construction methods that prolong [he life of buildings. A pazadigm shift is necessary to change the current 30-year life expectancy ofcommercial buildings and some production . homes to a more substantial life expectancy. Carmel has already had some success in encouraging 100-year buildings. For instance, f.~tz.~,r tlrar standard is currently being ~pr-.n-d 3ppiicd to several buildings in the City Center and the Old Town Arts and Design District. 0bjective 1.2: Replace the fleet of City vehicles with energy efficient and low emission cars and vucks. With the introduction of hybrid vehicles, the City now has viable means for improving the environment through energy conservation. ~ '- - " Ohjeetive 1.3: Develop a network to allow non-vehicular trips to be made by ei:~oura~*ing small-,~a;z and requiring targe- 4e~it employment nodes to install covered and secure bicycle parking, and shower and changing facilities for cycling commuters. Concurrently, ensure that adequate bicycling facilities exist to allow safe and efficient bicycle commuting. Gam'"" 0bjective 1.4: The City shoo encourage use of water-saving devices, and ~ --, ~ - citizenS~reduce water consumption by minimizing lawn sprinkling and exploring alternative landscaping ideas. Objective 1.5: Strongly encourage developers to build environmentally scnsitivebuildings, following guidelines similaz to those in the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmenutl Design) program. These "green" buildings conserve energy resources, provide more healthful inside environments, last longer, utilize pralucts made from recycled material, and use products that can be safely disposed of oG recycled when the building is eventually dismantled. Green buildings also strive to use local material to reduce the transportation impact. For instance, importing marble from overseas has an enormous environmental impact compared to delivering Indiana limestone from southern counties. Objective 7.6: Set the precedent for environmental protection or revegetation when developing municipal facilities like parks, fire stations, and maintenance facilities. Objective 1.7: ^, ,.;, << r--~~; ~ -'~; r-rrt,,.~ ton:inuc a? rrn?x' ~-z~=icnal >ufacc and srourd ;cater . . so~~r_es to :,t<:ce safe d_r;ina mater ter Ga:-.ri and a.Ijaccrt municipaliti_s. Institute regulations that f.t~ b:::' protect the delineated yiellhead protection areas from contaminantti and land uses that have a higher risk of contaminating water resources. 18 ~ QTT UP CdRMLL. 1N D19Nd ~[Z1L B Introduction The following sections convey the politics and objectives for the East Carmel District. It is important to note that these sections share some of the same policy headings as the City- Widesection, but the content is specific to East Carmel. Policy 1: Manage Ctimmuttjyy Form ~ ~'~'=`?'"':»' Objective 1.1: Protect [he integrity of thesuburban form and land uses. East Carmel is an area where redevelopment of . --~ residential districts is discouraged, and where investment in single-family homes is strongly encouraged. The City will identify projects, policies, and programs that will maintain the existing stability and encourage investment by homeowners :' Objective 1.2: Allow neighborhood service nodes in context appropriate areas. The objective of these nodes is to allow limited neighborhood-serving conmtereial; mixed-use, and public amenities within walking distance m residents living in surrounding suburban neighborhoods, Lighting, pazking, architecture, landscaping, size of buildings, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be strictly regulated to ensure compatibility with existing residential uses. Policy 2: Be a World Class City Objective 2.1: Embrace the White River greenway and off- _tree[ trail to pTOVide"another Notable linear park and nen- r~>orori~ed rranspcration coct'idor which connects parks as well as acting as the foundation for a latgey, regional greenway. More off-street trails are expected [o contribute, especially in the riparian coerri~dor ofthe W bite River. Objective 2.2: Promotedµasu}er7de~ea~dew~elopment on [he ~Nj ~bgs property. the~ti}•xge•e€Weyt6~y Unique uses or combination of uses would be welcome if designed into the context of the natimal environment and surrounding suburban development. Policy 3: Mspire Community Character Objective 3.1: Reinforce suburban character including tree- lined curvilinear streets, sidewalks separated by tree lawns, and neighborhood parks. Also, maintain the dominant presence of high quality single-family residential form. Objective 3.2: Allow density transitions from single-family residential form along East 96th Street and 146th Street ,but encourage context sensitive buffer development along these corridors to help soften the ~ isua': in~;,uct m lower density residential neighborhoods. Objective 3.3: Consider expanding the neighborhood cormercial node at East 131 s' Street and Hazel Dell Parkway to the southwest coma by encouraging the church to develop a portion of the property with mixed use and a variety of housing types. The arcs would act as an cast side Secondary Core, with the potential for a community transit stop. Policy 4: Be EnvironmeMalty Sensitive Objective 4.1: Aggressively protect the riparian corridor and tloodplain along [he White River from encroachment. Objective 4.2: Continually monitor mining practices to ensure they do no[ devalue property or negatively affect quality of lift. Also, encourage reclamation planning for quarry sites to better coordinate public facilities and infrastmcture improvements, and public recreation ~~e , c>i~erhai opportunities. Objective 4.3: Expand East Carmel bicycle andjredestrian infrastructure, especially in~.areas adjacent to institutional nodes such as schools and-•ehurches, and neighborhood- serving commercial. Objective 4.4: Establish an East Carmel recycling and hazardous materials drop-off station in conjunction with the City's sewage treatment facility. Objective 4.5: Locate an East Carmel satellite facility for Carmel Street Maintenance and otherpublic services. This will help conserve fuel and distribute manpower more equally over the community. ,I rl ... ., i ..~ .: .:ice. DraftB caamr: ~~,se~_~~>A,~~, comvaeuf~HSrvf.~~ a~ ~,9 EAfT CRRIIiEI POlIG1Et Rflf) OIf1ECT1YEf Introduction The following sections convey [he policies and objectives For [be -~onh Central Carmel District. It is important to note that these sections share some of the same policy headings as the City-Wide section, but the content is specific to Vorth Cenhal Carmel. Policy 1: Manage Community Fann. Ohjective 1.1: Encourage compact urban form and mixed-ucc development throughout Nnrth Central Carmel. Objective 1.2: Allow the tallest structures in Carmel to be in the City Ccntcr, xnd along U.S. 31. The building height will be limited to~stories in these subdistricts. g Objective 1.3: Strongly encourage neighborhood xnd community-serving commercial nodes in strategic locations to allow people to walk er hi!~;c from their jobs and homes to those amenities. The objective is [o ensure the entire ?earth Central Carmel disMet has neighborhood-serving or community-serving commercial development within a short walking or bi!.i^~>_ distance of all employment and residential development. -~a~--2~ ~ , ~ .... ... , _ Objective 1.3: Strive for additional street connectivity in abr...,. Central Carmel. The City should strive to connect streets when new development or redevelopment occurs, especially those linkages shown on the Thoroughfare Plan Map. Objective 1.5: Encourage connectivity to and through voi?}•. Central Carmel by establishing bicycle and pedestrian Facilities across Meridian S'eet and Keystone Avenue. Policy 2: Be a~~ e Ohjective 2.1:Establish swell-designed, pedestrian-friendly (including bicycle-fricndly)andvitaldowntown. Tocnsurc vitality, significant incorporation ofresidential and office uses should be required in upper floors. All ground floors should be designed for pedestrian comfort and interaction. 06jective 2.2: Promote a~Memployment corridor and technology park alongU.5.31 `~c<i,:-c•::-P: i;;:,~Urac:~t_ e:np:e~: rtent-;erltin_ c ^;r.;e:rial eves to ::ilni wor's.e~-_ ;is ..n. -_ re_. ,.ants one 1 ~ ~, ~.: «.: -...,-., i , +r ;nd; sc~;di.=incr. Also allowforabroadermixofuses,including additional residential and service retail. 30 CITY OI CdRhiLL. lND1dNA Objective 2.4: Promote the Arts and Design District and the Carmel Performing Arts Center Objective 2.5: °lan for the in*.:•aradon of a trar,3it , rp: near C~... t r r. di (~lanigqc e r e a~ lt~e' ~ - I ea idor. Obl elty E.S~µ?>•G~r n, c> ='h = L~r C tlCGiC'O.: to i4 (_a('L?2,~" I,H 't;'.,_ __ --,,:__ _ Ohl2snve 2,1: !1PJnu': aEQ :i^d^Ce [ne ',e ((}tL11i i rail a> _cnrmotorizc:t n"ur,~polTL_~ _-...:ior. 'ty~ier. ^'.~ctrs(=+.; Policy 3: Be a City of Neighhorhoods Objective 3.1: _ ".. _ , .. ~ oeh Central Cxrmcl should be planned as a collection of ncighborhoods applying traditional neighborhood design principles to connectivity, transitions, location ofneighborhood-serving commercial, Uic:'c!c- and pedestrian-friendly features and the like. Objective 3.2: Endeavor to plan ncighborhoods, gateways, boundaries, and service areas through more detailed subarea plans. ~w~e Policy 4: Inspire Commu ~ Chara erl ~ -~ 061ective 4.1: ~t t en ~ emforce urban chazacter in ~:~^_~~CentmlCarmel_ ..,, _. _ -. C omrnission he study of ~ ~e t„niet o determine he ideal_ y. . LK~nlAlar:CS. it:'itl^ i:llt{C':igl JOil Ifan51i, L1O5. ~.( Fem. n( ~ n.. -.. ~.~ 06jective 4.2: Encourage signature ~bpildings on prominent sites to enhance the district's chazacter: Signature buildings can be private or public buildings, but must have azchitectural flair and be built from durable materials. Ohjective 4.3: Establish a Public Art Master Plan. Include artists in the design process of public spaces. Policy 5: Be Environmentally Sensitive Objective 5.1:. _ .. , ...,~- site- Where possible, locate new publicpazks on land adjacent to or within a short walk from the Monon Trail. Objective S.Z: Tree areas should be conserved and should be evaluated as part of an overall network of small parks and squares. , _ - ~~ p ` ah w~Q/~ ~ ~ ~tY~? (..~wtl ~j Draft B 1'IGRTlI CEtITRAI CARIIIEI POLICIES AOD ~ . ~ " _' _ ,~ ne;x _~.: ume> alongC~,Tne -,.,., ---. _. ~~. _ ,.i~~:.~, _ ._~ 06JECTIYES ~ ~- tOi9Tll ~~nTRiit Cllltili€t 1~9alcles non 013dECTIYEf Introduction The ioilol{r ~.~tttc'; ~nmr~thc ~ulictc5 and ~lb~st+{es ,.: ~r.nd-. i ~l e ,..~ e. I,. -~ •a-1t ti! rote [;tar thesz aCCLi OIiS i!taCC iOmC CS the ~aa: I?Il!i:.: I'~ildin=_5 a5 -..~'_ ICA'- '~'de ~eCF7~I . v.L n!]2 .0r_ _ .? ij. eC ._ (0 Cvl [! (. Pfira! . Policy 1: Manage Community Term Ohteclive i.t \'<, [he u 1 utre r Do ti -. h,l,: •ooc! G : 'C i ~: ~ In' L1C J~ 1 n1C;1 ~. I'Itl k~l b .. iP ^ is SC:d ]!"a GJ t`eti' ^ ~Ci'`.: the ? :! ill : eCtl-21 tic __hi,orheo.S :md ~.: e-npiavntcta eorddoralor.__ i-li;~. Ohjective i.2; Propst and ,aha n: ., vio-tanvly residati*.ial n~i:,hb.,tic. t4 . South ::-" a1 Ca '.aeI t!untr.!, ~., ~t _ .. do l ntUfOSnCt:?. tlifYCtCd Inli aSttl!l iWri rnV'.; <fil Cnii. and earrincadon ~xcec;.s. )tiectivx i.3: strive for a(ldinn;;al stt°et. bir',,ciz m.d ^cJrariun a~r.n:_i~Pv i^ South CcntUl C'arnt_i. +lcjective 1.~:.~I!u:r arc:rcr dc, clopmcnt inte,rsiw on ehc n:_'a^_~. weyt_ and ~octh ho~.mdarv o± ctae disrict, to bzrct _.._:dtion bcr.t:^_r, .;nelo rs;n~iv neisnbod:ood. and tht e~ iairr_* adiaeera cotnrteraia': and emplot~tnent dictrct;. U P91iCy 2: $e a~~~,It~y ' - `~~l'~~ ;ajective 2.1; Encoura~c rci r,;tmcnt anii mamtcnarcc of ?n'one rcsidzntia! area;. ~ - ,,. 06}ective 2.2: Yromete a9~rzrrlp!oemznt corridor tlor - hI.S.. t a- t I ~fi~'! , t t~h.,c ,t t ,za1t ar' t• • 6 s and ar! ray's r. Rcl} utT'el t or .~;tie r al area- Chlectrvx 2.~ Jrn e Lr rr~}cle a 1d re.,z,trian taulltte [~~ i,e sen5hi{'ch• i^.<t;akd throughout the Gxat1 Carmel district. especialle on the nosh. north and east edee~ of the district that abut rporc inunse!y developed arca3. Objective 2.4: Plan for du ureeratior, o(a transit ;tor r_car :he ir,[erec lien el'?ii[h Ctrez[ and Fevstene .~t-zmnz. Policy 3: Be a City o! Neighborhoods objective J.i: ~cu_it Ceat<sl Cannel ei;auld be elan:rd as a ai!'erto2 c•`ne!_hbnrh~~o:!s apph~ing select tra:itior_al neighoorhond desien princio!cs to :ite historic ~uuurou^: ;i ern!. Psl ~icu!.tri c. thr princip':es o;-ennzcr~_-,in.. :ran_itdoaa. 'aP.u i.IC/_iC aP. u' ^CdCSnlflR .flCiliilC• WOUI(1 Uen2i;t ChL d1S[I'iCt • - Draft B i?hjective 3.2: Erdeacor n, pia!; ,ler_ ~orLc:":!_ ea:; v<, .. 1~11411es. 31d e:iL231 as *IIn ~~.gh llOlY detail I ',8ie<; Ala^-. Policy 4: InsPirx Community CMaract~r 061ecttve4l: t ote die e,l t a.,, ~ .c 1 n_~ ~ ~p <. hamuvt{i oorho{dn ~,ut~.C ttrl tan ~~p~W''v" ~~„~w Ohl..ctrre 0.2: P .t.ct the 1 do t.ia! ch ll 1 r.::ilon_ ' ;~~cr~ dd~_ ^,,,.,,_ and n`.n~*ain they. n ; t.rs _~ c trz-_ ~ a !._~l~S . Jr.., Dh~ective 4.9: Feyuire .IZn;t:carr °,a.->e ~ ~~ canaE - ret t.: i."r ^Ien;ed _:.'!' dr'.?iiJ [•L'K?i t0 ^latl;r9!n r;;., ayh:lffi`Ci al [. _e •.:a ,~' ~~ _~ ~_~ha;:ac'r ,,,~cc I-Ce;~a!Ca~,--el i!_5 `.rlCt. Policy 5: i3e inviranmentaliy Sensiav;, . , tl6iactive 5.i: ,!~eres;iveiy n-o: act '.. \!onon 'Trait . n'ee- ': in_ _ '-or, lu _ : ;r:~i ern' i rorncttt:d :~, ao.,. _ s c^ *.I'~c t_ ~ u.: a! Px:'< s{*c. Ohjec[ive 5.2: Stn~n_I j '; :,. .e e{~s> I , r .:a: C. c i-; i!:'. '.I criCt [O Oi ~ 0;150 f\ti (! ii n'_ l! "~ti!Unl Lt ai'.C I'ede{'e~Onlneni. . ~• • •_ :, -_ , (y ItMFL CO~SpI II)dt F.n CI)MYN FIIFNSIVY VLAh ]1 WEfT CRRIREI POIICIEf RRD OBIECTIYEf Introduction The following sections convey the policies and objectives for West Cannel. I[ is important to note that these sections share some of [he same policy headings as [he City-Wide- section, but the content under each heading is specific to West Carmel and adds [o other city-wide objectives. Policy 1: Manage Community F rm 06jectne 1.1: Conserve the .~„,.,.~ character of West Cannel by protectingrrcty~ residential areas and by requiring new subdivisions to have lazge setbacks from and qua'_±t: lam±;capingalrngperimeterroads. Further, require extensive revegeta[ion along perimeter roads and within each new development. A larger open space requirement should also be considered. Objective 1.2 :Y4nraA~VII!~r~~,~.,uin~-~xi15i{l~S:S+e,rr. _.. _,~~l+lq:J [~i5,~Le u rrn ~ nnnrnnrw ~ p - -- .Lighting, Parking, architecture, landscaping, size of buildings, orientation of buildings, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be strictly regulated to assure compatibility. 06jeetive 1.3: Conservation subdivisions and innovative residential community designs that protect vegetation, slopes and arc non-monotonous are preferred. Ohjerxive 1.4: Subdi~ isicat connectivity and transitions between proposed developments and existing subdivisions should be scmtinized to a greater degree in Wcst Carm~e~l. ~ ~ Polity 2: Be ~~ tT S t d q~Tr.s.tGtN Objective 2.1: Maintain and protect areasfev.esh[eaNeusixg nd oth 1~6i12v These areas are essential to attracting world class corporationy f Objective 2.2: Encourage more custom-home developments to provide housing opportunities for upper income families. Custom home neighborhoods will also add chazacter to West Ca[mcl by reducing monotony. ~ ~ - ~ -- ~~ --" ~ ~' °~ - - 06jsctius 2.3: .adcrt residcnriai arhirrtc r: sta~c'srd~ rn :nti'r cuuipatibilin. ~ i:igL q:.;aiit~ arsdiruc ant durariiit~. 22 Ur]' Or CARMLL. INDIANA Policy 3: Inspire Community Character 0bjective 3.1: Reinforce rural character including tree lints, fence rows, barns, pockets of open space, and preservation of wood lots. Residential intensity can exist, but generally should not be obviously portrayed from perimeter roads. Objective 3.2: Protect single-family residential character along Wcs[ 96th S[rec[ between Spring Mill Road and Shclboumc Road. Objective 3.3: Require commercial buildings along Michigan Road to be constructed of durable materials and designed to reflect "village" character. ',~:i!ize a zcrir, _ u-~ir:rmcz c'rcr'.a:. m i, +.plc!nrnt. 06jective 3.4: R~_ ;uira iar~'c :: buck tmd to{size<.::m_'• enlr r°>idrltra! ~ta~ more i !tith Street from Surin_ A~fili Road ..: ; -n d:r Saone r,?~:n*.~' Lint, t_'tih ~e :+ zvc~n? or~~raner Policy 4: Be Environmentally Senskive 06jeetive 4.1: Strive to protect wood lots, wetlands, and other valuable natural features in West Carmel. These features contribute to the district's rural character, but they also provide habitat for plants, birds, and other animals. Objective 4.2: Establish neighborhood-serving commercial nodes to conserve fuel, redact emissions, and promote healthy life styles. Policy 5: Stimulate Connectivity ' 3 '.. ~. ; ..,, ' Ohjective 5.1: West Carmel has mariy,non-conneQting subdivisions. The proliferation of this pattern of •tlevclopment is more tolerable in thitidistrict; however, critical connections shown gnthe Thoroughfare Plan will be adamantly rcquircd. Altho[igh ttfcrc is Icss emphasis on vehicular connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian cpnnectivity will be strictly rcquircd. For instance, where road connectivity between a proposed development and an existing development is not rcquircd, a bic~•clNpcdestrian path wit I be required. Objective 5.2: With the success of the Monon Trail, other off- street facilities are in demand. West Carmel has an opportunity to utilize portions of several pipeline comdon for such a trail. These corridors aze shown as off-street trails in the 2020 ~.rion P/an and in the Alternative Transportation Plan initially adopted in 2001, and aze being supported in the C3 P[an as well. Integrating this type of facility in some areas will be relatively easy, but in built environments may prove to be more difficult. Ohjectne 5.3: Carmel should partner with neighboring communities to plan and implement a significant greenway along Little Eagle Creek. Ohjective 5.4: Continue expansion of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to connect neighborhoods with schools, parks, West Clay Secondary Core, and other destinations. Draft B