Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence96th and Westfield Draft Sub Area Plan: Comments Received After The 11/03/2009 Special Studies Meeting !INSTALL SIDE PATHS, Person with Interest's Comments Planner /Staff Notes I believe that the comments at the meeting in regard to sidewalks on 99th Street STRONGLY stressed that there should only be sidewalks on the NORTH SIDE of 99th Street. Much of the sidewalk footage is already in place and there is a gas pipe line that must stay clear that has caused all trees and foliage to be cleared already. It makes greater fiscal and physical, moral and logical sense to confine the sidewalk/bike paths to the north side of the Street. 11/6/2009 Lucy Hunter Email It would be unconscionable to clear the large trees on the south side of the Street when we have already lost so much canopy over the last few weeks. There are old hard wood trees on the south side that should stay intact. This is the gist of the sidewalk comments offered by Michele Spahr. Please amend your list to reflect the fact that the residents believe that the sidewalks should be on the North side of the Street. Date Name ITHE MAP Date Format There is no need to have a sidewalk on the south side of 99th Street as there is already one on the north side for approx. 1/2 of the way from Westfield towards Keystone. This area also must be kept clear for the gas lines and I think it would be 11/11/2009 Denise Pullins Email disheartening to see more trees cut down needlessly to put a sidewalk on the south side of 99th Street. To date, 1 have never seen an overabundance of foot traffic on the existing sidewalk that would not allow another group of people to walk along 99th Street. Honestly, there are not enough walkers using the north sidewalk now. 11/23/2009 Dorothy Greene Email The south side of 99th Street has the mature trees and the north side has no trees due to all of them having been taken down because of a gas pipeline there. So the sidewalk should be on the north side. Further isolation of the adjacent neighborhoods would violate the stated objective of suburban connectivity stated in C3 and 11/16/2009 John B. Tintera Email Carmel land planning at large. For these reasons, 1 would support the Side Paths or Sidewalks connecting 96th Street to the northern neighborhoods already shown at Haverstick Road, Wild Cherry Lane, and Maple Drive. !BUFFER STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS FROM REDEVELOPMENT Date Name Format Person with Interest's Comments 11/18/2009 Sue Westermeier Email Is it feasible to change the proposed stub streets at the 96th Street /Westfield project to a south looped road? CONNECT MAPLE STREET TO 99TH STREET Date Name Format Person with Interest's Comments After observing the discussion of 96th Street 8 Westfield Subarea Plan during the November 3rd, 2009 meeting of the Special Study Committee, I want to support the connection of 98th Street from Westfield Blvd to Maple Drive. The committee, in the 11/16/2009 John B. Tintera Email same meeting, already decided to not connect Maple drive to 96th Street. Further isolation of the adjacent neighborhoods would violate the stated objective of suburban connectivity stated in C3 and Carmel land planning at large. Name Format 11/6/2009 Pat Rice Email 11/6/2009 Edward Steele Email These all make good sense. I fully support them. Person with Interest's Comments Planner /Staff Notes PlannerlStaff Notes Planner /Staff Notes Pat's comment was regarding the bulleted list of recommended changes 11/6/2009 Pat Rice Email Under Primary Parkway two different categories (or terms) are being used. Shouldn't the Thoroughfare Plan Map also reflect email, a summary from the Special Studies Committee Meeting. the change to Primary Parkway rather than Parkway Arterial? Land Use Classification Map needs to be revised to show that WCC properties (apart from the historical site) can be redeveloped into commercial and or higher density residential." This does not preclude the homeowners from not selling, just designates the reality and they can choose to be part of or opt out. The color code (legend) may need to reflect both by striping it with both colors. After reviewing the proposed plan in depth my husband and 1 have some major concerns about the proposed changes to our Brad's email response: In summary, nothing happens to your home if this neighborhood. Our biggest concern is looking at the map, it appears our home is part of the proposed buffer zone. We reside at Plan is adopted. The plan is the first step 10 communicating what the city 11/8/2009 Kristen Shears Email 9609 Maple Drive. Can you confirm that our house is in fact in the buffer zone? If it is, what happens to our home, what is the would be willing to consider "IF' the area were to evolve from what it is today. plan for notifying those residents that may be losing their homes if that is happening, and what type of compensation might they If no one is willing to sell their properties, then the area will not have an evolution in land use and the city would be tine with that. Ms. Shears receive? responded w /appreciation for the clarity provided. IMISCELANEOUS Date Name Format Person with Interest's Comments Planner /Staff Notes Sarah informed Mack that this plan does not recommend any changes to I want to make sure that when the properties along 96th Street get "re- zoned" for commercial uses, that the City should be fair to Zoning and that it is conceptual. Mack was also asked to review Draft B when 11/3/2009 Mack Bowen Phone the property owners. Therefore, when they get compensated for their land (ROW for the expansion of 96th Street to a Primary that they are using commercial property ales, not residential property rates. it is posted online and to submit any comments he may have to Sarah via Parkway) y g rates, pr p ry email. What will be corning in the form of household requirements and /or obligations for the septic/sewer install for this neighborhood? 11/11/2009 Sue Kent Email Why are/ aren't the sewer systems our OWN responsibility? I understand the "Barrett Law", but THAT got turned down the last time it was purposed here. 11/24/2009 Shirley Lyday Email I would like to know if you could tell me what the cost will be for sewers. I am on the corner of 99th and Haverstick. Sarah replied and informed Ms. Lyday that the 96th Street and Westfield Blvd. Subarea Plan is a "conceptual° plan and is an update to the City of Carmel, C3 Plan. We do not address the sewer system in detail and therefore is not able to address her question. She was directed to the project website. !FAVORABLE i Date Name Format Person with Interest's Comments Planner /Staff Notes Mr. Steele's comment was regarding the bulleted list of recommended changes email, a summary from the Special Studies Committee Meeting. 12/01/2009 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Brad and Sarah, Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:55 AM 'Sarah Horn'; 'Bradley Johnson' Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V 96th and Westfield Sub Area Plan Comments 96th and Westfield Boulevard Plan for Staff ConfirmationLex.pdf Attached are my comments which are mostly either small punctuation or grammatical changes. Let me know if you have any questions about those. After speaking with Mike, we really didn't have any big changes. Everything looks good and matches up with the notes I took at the meeting. We appreciate your hard work on this. In regards to the changes to the 96 Street Corridor Plan, I agree with you and Angie that it would be a good idea to change the plan and to present the conflict /change to the committee. Packets for the committee are due Friday if you think you could send me a copy of the revised plan by then. If not, we can send out the changes on the 25 which is when the department reports go out. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Alexia Donahue Wold Planning Administrator City of Carmel, DOCS One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317.571.2417 awold@carmcl.in.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Barnes, David R Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 10:01 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Pleasant Way Angie: FYI Ms. Horn should be headed in right direction. From: Duffy, John M Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 9:47 AM To: Duncan, Gary R; 'Sarah Horn'; Barnes, David R Cc: 'suekent @ymail.com' Subject: RE: Pleasant Way Gary, This area falls within the Clay Regional Waste District service area. They can be contacted at 844 -9200. I think the initial point of contact would be Ryan Hartman. J Duffy From: Duncan, Gary R Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 9:36 AM To: 'Sarah Horn'; Barnes, David R Cc: suekent @ymail.com; Duffy, John M Subject: RE: Pleasant Way Sarah, As the question pertains to sanitary sewers, the City's Utility Department would be able to better answer the question. am uncertain if this area is served by the City of Carmel or the Clay Regional Waste District. If Carmel does not provide sanitary sewer service to this area, I expect that the question will be forwarded to the Clay Regional Waste District. I am copying John Duffy, the Director of Carmel Utilities, on this email. Gary From: Sarah Horn [mailto :shorn @groundrulesinc.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 9:21 AM To: Barnes, David R; Duncan, Gary R Cc: suekent @ymail.com Subject: Pleasant Way Gary Duncan and Dave Barnes, I received your names as Engineering Department contacts from Angie Conn, City of Carmel Planning Administrator. She recommended that I forward this on to you both to see if one of you could respond to Ms. Kent's request (see below). I have copied Ms. Kent on this email. Her issues are not addressed in the 96 Street and Westfield Blvd. Subarea Plan that we are working on with the City. However, we did want to direct her to the correct department at the City for her concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sarah L. Horn, AICP Senior Planner 1 Ground Rules, Inc. 1455 W. Oak Street, Suite C Zionsville, Indiana 46077 (317) 733 -3535 office (317) 733 -3550 fax Grounauks www.groundrulesinc.com From: Sue Kent [mailto:suekent @ymail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:35 AM To: Sarah Horn Subject: Re: 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan Special Studies Committee Meeting Results Hi Ms. Horn, My name is Sue Kent. We live at 9855 Pleasant Way, in Lakewood Gardens, between 98th. St. and 99th. St. I came to the very first meeting at the Monon Center. At that meeting, I asked about what would happen to our septic systems if all the surrounding streets were torn up and /or replaced with this proposal. About 2 weeks after that meeting, we were all receiving letters regarding the proposal of sewer system installation in our neighborhood, to the tune of $19,000 per household. OUCH! We're all on budgets around here and our septic systems are on their 40th year of a 25 -year life expectancy. Are there any answers for us, or even, options for us in that regard? What will be coming in the form of household requirements and /or obligations for the septic /sewer install for this neighborhood? Why are/ aren't the sewer systems our OWN responsibility? I understand the "Barrett Law but THAT got turned down the last time it was purposed here. Most of this neighborhood struggle to pay bills...the "barrett law" will only make things worse when they assess this "price tag" to our mortgages! I, personally, have a problem with this but, I am in favor of sewers BEFORE our septics fail us miserably!! I only have 3 children...some neighbors have more! That is a LOT of septic waste! We need to be advised in preparation for what could /will be forthcoming for us. Any information you may have will be helpful. Thank You for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sue Kent From: Sarah Horn <shorn @groundrulesinc.com> To: Sarah Horn <shorn @groundrulesinc.com> Sent: Fri, November 6, 2009 12:37:58 PM Subject: 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan Special Studies Committee Meeting Results Property and business owners, On behalf of the City of Carmel and Ground Rules Inc. we would like to thank those of you who attended the Special Studies Committee meeting on November 3rd, for the meeting for and deliberation over the 96 Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan. There were several property owners that attended the Committee Meeting that participated and offered suggestions for modification to various elements of the plan. Based on information and deliberation, the Special Studies Committee made several recommendations for changes. Those changes will be reflected in Draft B and included: Maple Dr connection to 96th St: Maple Dr should not have vehicular connection to 96th St. Kittrell Dr, Lincoln Blvd, and Maple Dr: Terminate all three streets with cul -de -sacs. 2 Do not Zink Kittrell Dr and Lincoln Blvd at the south end, as shown with a dashed line on the Draft A map. Side Path Sidewalks: Include pedestrian facilities on both sides of 99th St. The text should state that "if" pedestrian facilities are going to exist on both sides, the north side of the street should have a side path and the south side have a sidewalk. This configuration will allow more of the existing mature trees to be preserved. A bike /pedestrian path should extend from Maple Street's (proposed) cul -de -sac down to 96th St. Buffer Text Clarification: Clarify that the "buffer" is not a set line it is meant to be conceptual, indicating that an effective buffer should be established in any proposed redevelopment design, but not necessarily placed exactly where shown on the map. Make sure that the text states that if a wall is used as part of a buffer, it should be constructed with materials other than wood (durability, brick, etc.). Primary Parkway: Change the street classification from Primary Arterial to Parkway Arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan Map; applicable to the segment between Westfield Blvd and Haverstick Reflect the "Primary Parkway" classification in the text of the Subarea Plan Commercial Building Footprints: Clarify that the term "2 lots and 3 lots deep" reflects the limitation of where building footprints of commercial development can occur. Land Use Classification Map: Revise the Land Classification Map to show that residential areas along Westfield Blvd. can be redeveloped into higher density residential uses. Minor Modifications: Several minor word changes. A few mistakes were corrected. The next step in the process will be a second Special Studies Committee Meeting on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:00 PM, at City Hall (room to be determined). Ground Rules Inc. will be presenting Draft B. The main purpose of the meeting will be for the Special Studies Committee to confirm the changes requested were made correctly. However, additional comments and dialog will be welcomed. If the Subarea Plan gets voted out of the Special Studies Committee, then it will likely go to the next Plan Commission Meeting for their approval on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:00 PM. Draft B will be posted to the City's website and you will receive another notice via email when it is available for your review. All comments received (via letter, email, phone, etc.) will continue to be compiled and recorded in a spreadsheet format, then presented to the Special Studies Committee on December 1st. &nb sp; Please feel free to continue to submit your comments and concerns to me at: shorn@groundrulesinc.com Thank you for your interest and support! Sarah L. Horn, MCP Senior Planner Ground Rules, Inc. 1455 W. Oak Street, Suite C Zionsville, Indiana 46077 3 (317) 733 -3535 office (317) 733 -3550 fax Error! Filename not specified. www.croundrulesinc.com 4 Conn, Angelina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kristen: Bradley Johnson [bjohnson @groundrulesinc.com] Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:05 PM herbandkristen@indy.rr.com 'Sarah Horn'; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan image001.gif I am in receipt of your message originally sent to Sarah. She did in fact forward your message to me on Monday but was unaware of my schedule limitations which prevented me from responding any sooner. First, I want to say thank you for your interest and inquiry. We've been on a quest to learn as much as we can from residents and to fully understand their concerns. In response to your letter (copied at the bottom), I understand your home to be the third home north of 96 Street on the east side of Maple Drive. It seems your intent is to understand how the proposed plan would affect your property. Based on your questions, I feel it important to first describe what the proposed plan is and what it is not. The proposed 96 Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea Plan is an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan (i.e. the C3 Plan), and: Is a depiction of changes that the city would support Contains a map illustration that depicts "conceptually" a strategy for protecting neighborhoods, buffering, and designates areas that would be considered for redevelopment Recognizes issues that were raised by property owners and proposed "fixes" Is a long -range picture (vision) of what is believed to be the right direction for the subarea based on neighborhood input to date, market forces, issues identified, study of the area, and well- founded planning and design principles Is not a rezoning of property The map illustration is not to be interpreted literally It is not a "program" document that identifies properties for acquisition or compensation Getting back to your questions. I can offer the following: The city has no intention of or reason for acquiring your home. It would not serve any public need. Your house will remain a residence until you decide to do something different. The plan would apply to an attempt to redevelop your land. The plan specifically states that "IF" a "DEVELOPER" is able to assemble residential properties from "WILLING" sellers along 96 Street; and "IF" the proposed redevelopment project is primarily for office buildings (i.e. employment uses); and "IF" the design of the redevelopment project fits the context (i.e. height, location of parking, landscaping, building materials); and "IF" the project includes a buffer between it and stable neighborhoods that the city would "CONSIDER" approving the project. At the last meeting with the Special Studies Committee, they clearly communicated to the audience that the "buffer" shown on the map is a graphical depiction of the need to buffer redevelopment areas from areas intended to be preserved; the buffer is NOT to be measurable, precise, or a fixed location. Draft B of the subarea plan will flagrantly state this message. 1 Although you could surmise by only looking at the map illustration that your property is at least partially shown as buffer, it doesn't mean at all that your property is going to be used for that. This is not a rezoning of property or a project that the city would implement. Again, in summary, nothing happens to your home if this plan is adopted. The plan is the first step in communicating what the city would be willing to consider "IF" the area were to evolve from what it is today; which, even if there were willing sellers, would likely take ten or more years to actually change. If no one is willing to sell their properties, then the area will not have an evolution in land use and the city would be fine with that. In regard to notice, the city has already exceeded the notification requirements for such a planning document to be considered and adopted. Legal notice was published in the newspaper several weeks ago according to State Statute, and a mailed (postcard) notice was sent to every property owner on record in the study area. We held two public open houses that were attended by over 100 persons from the study area (some from your street), and we have continued to communicate with those attendees and others that have asked to be on our email list. The only legal requirement is the legal notice, but we realize that it alone is insufficient for notifying property owners and have volunteered the extra measures. Although the city does not have the resources or intent to widen and improve 96 Street, it has been on the long -range plan for many years. At some point, 96 Street will be widened and we know the existing right of way for that project is insufficient for such improvements. Because there isn't any engineering studies or pre- engineering design completed or in the works, we do not know how much right of way would be necessary. However, it is safe to say that within the next 20 years, the city would have to acquire additional right of way from both sides of 96 Street to make improvements to the road. However, there is no chance that such acquisition of right of way for 96 Street would directly impact your property or the property south of you. Only the properties with frontage on 96 Street would likely to be involved. Draft B of the plan will be published soon. You will be notified by email when it is posted on the city's website. Draft A is currently considered obsolete. I think a lot of what I've stated above will be confirmed and be more clear to you when you read it. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us again. If you do so, we only ask that you contact Sarah Horn whom you initially contacted, as she is the "point person" for all communication. Thanks again for your inquiry and concerns. All the best, Brad Bradley E. Johnson, AICP Principal Planner /President Ground Rules, Inc. 1455 W. Oak Street, Suite C Zionsville, Indiana 46077 (317) 733 -3535 office (317) 733-3550 fax Groundibies 2 After reviewing the proposed plan in depth my husband and I have some major concerns about the proposed changes to our neighborhood. Our biggest concern is looking at the map, it appears our home is part of the proposed buffer zone. We reside at 9609 Maple Drive. Can you confirm that our house is in fact in the buffer zone? If it is, what happens to our home, what is the plan for notifying those residents that may be losing their homes if that is happening, and what type of compensation might they receive? Thank you in advanced for your prompt response. Kristen Shears www.ciroundrulesinc.com 3 96th and Westfield Draft Sub Area Plan (DESCRIPTION Date 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Date Date Name Ground Rules (CRITICAL SUBAREA BOUNDARIES Name Ground Rules 'INSTALL SIDE PATHS Name 10/18/2009 Michelle Spahr 10/26/2009 Pat Rice 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Format (Last paragraph) Please address the plan for grade separation between Keystone and Westfield Blvd. on 96th Street. Letter Does the plan still include a round -about at 96th St. and Haverstick? Format Format Email (BUFFER STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS FROM REDEVELOPMENT Date Name Format Letter Letter 10/20/2009 Mike Dooley Email 10/20/2009 Mike Dooley Email 10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting 10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting Person with Interest's Comments Need to change last paragraph, first line, to read "In upcoming years, 1 -465 is..." Person with Interest's Comments May need to change orientation map to extend to Monon Greenway. Need to change title to "Critical Subarea Boundaries" not "Critical Area Boundaries" Person with Interest's Comments This is certainly a valid strategy for a neighborhood that contains few walkways for pedestrians. The concern that I have is the side path that is proposed along the south side of 99th Street from Keystone to Westfield Boulevard. As you are aware, there are 13 acres of dense woods starting at the comer of Haverstick and 99th and heading west. Installing side paths or sidewalks would involve the destruction of at least 7 trees that are in excess of 18 inches in diameter as well as multiple smaller trees. The proposed plan states that a goal is preserving the tree canopy. In particular, the proposed plan states that "Carmel will utilize its zoning regulations and processes to reasonably protect existing tree canopy in the subarea." Destruction of the trees on the south side of 99th Street would not be consistent with this policy. Rather, it would be consistent with prior plans and negotiations for the sidewalk to be planned for the north side of 99th. There are already existing sidewalks on the north side of 99th at the Brooks Bend and Waldon Ponds neighborhoods. Thus, it would only entail construction of sidewalks on the north side of 99th Street between these 2 subdivisions. In particular, when the neighborhood worked with the City of Carmel and Estridge, the developer of Brooks Bend, the City indicated that eventually sidewalks would be extended west from Brooks Bend. It is my understanding that easements were retained in the remainder of the development to the immediate west of Brooks Bend for eventual sidewalks. In addition, the trees have already been cleared on the north side of 99th Street for the recent utilities that have been installed on the north side of 99th Street in the Hills and Dales neighborhood. Completing sidewalks on the north side of 99th Street would be less costly as well as preserving mature tree canopy. 10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting Supportive of sidepaths, however they should be located on the north side of 99th Street to preserve the existing woodlands on the south side of the street. Person with Interest's Comments What defines a "stable neighborhood" from a "residential area" and to which areas do these apply? What is meant by "...but preservation of as many residential dwellings should also be considered" and what areas are being referenced? I would like the plan to include language that states that any decorative walls be only constructed of non -wood materials. i.e. Brick, Stone, composite material only. I feel wood fencing that has been used in past projects deteriorates too quickly and just become an "eye sore" for the community. At the last meeting, we discussed the possibility of having cul -de -sacs at the end of some of the streets. Maple, Lincoln and Kittrell. I know that this option was supported by many of the people on those streets. I would like to see it as part of the plan. I feel that if Maple is connected all the way through to 99' street, this would be a negative to the neighborhood. During high traffic times, many people would use this street as a cut through to avoid the round about. We already have many car dealers using the street as a test drive area and this is dangerous to the children in the area. So, I propose cutting off access to the south to 96'" street and making Maple Drive a cul-de -sac. If this option is not possible, then we would need "speed humos" in place to protect the residents. Strongly support maintaining the residential areas Would prefer greenspace as a buffer instead of a wall. Planner /Staff Notes The language for grade separation at Keystone Parkway and 96th Street is in the document. The plan for a roundabout at 96th and Haverstick is not. Planner /Staff Notes Planner /Staff Notes The 13 acres of woods is a developable parcel. When it develops, the developer would likely be required to build a sidepath on the south side of 99th Street consistent with Aramore. With Aramore's piece, a significant portion of sidepath on the south side of 99th Street would be built at the expense of development. The north side sounds like a good opportunity as well. Showing sidepath on both sides of the street may be a good compromise. Planner /Staff Notes We based "stable" on the opinions of the 100+ persons that attended the open houses and professional planner observation during field research. 10/29/2009 !STABILIZE HAMILTON HEIGHTS AND FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISIONS Date 10/26/2009 Date Date Date Name Pat Rice 10/26/2009 Pat Rice 10/23/2009 Steve Pittman Email !ADD STREETLIGHTS AND SIDEWALKS Name 'IMPROVE SURFACE DRAINAGE Name Name Format Letter Letter Format 10/20/2009 Mike Dooley Email Format 10/20/2009 Mike Dooley Email (CONNECT MAPLE; STREET: TO 99TH STREET Format 10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email 10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email 10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email 10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email 10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email 10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email 10/20/2009 Pete Sole Email 10/20/2009 Pete Sole 10/20/2009 Pete Sole PC Meeting PC Meeting Person with Interest's Comments This text is a bit confusing. (please see "Other Comments Emergency access need to be addressed This is already an issue with the round -about when traffic is at grid -lock north, south, east and around the circle. I would like to comment on how to preserve the residential on Maple and Lincoln. It is my belief that if we want the residential on those 2 streets to improve and not become rentals, then it would be a good idea to create commercial off of 96`" Street and then cul -de -sac these streets where commercial meets the residential. This area would have a new major entryway at 98'" Street and have a second point of ingress and egress through Aramore to 99 5 Street. We may want to do that with Kittrell also, but plan on having all of the houses between 98 w Street and 96`" street between Kittrell and Westfield to be redeveloped to a much higher urban density classification. That additional density coupled w Aramore would allow for some walkable business and retail to thrive on 96'" Street. I think this could be really cool in the long run. I know Cannel does not like to cul -de -sac streets and they want more of a grid pattem but this may be an example where the cul -de -sac makes sense. Person with Interest's Comments I would like the plan to commit to including sidewalks and street lighting in the Forest Glen area. The current plan language is very vague. Person with Interest's Comments I would like the plan's language to include a more "specific plan" as to resolving the drainage issues in Forest Glen. The Not enough engineering study has been conducted to add more at this time. language currently is vague and really means that this problem will linger on and not get resolved in my view. One idea is if the cul -de -sac option is put in place for some of the streets, part of the buffering area could include a landscaped drainage Pond to help handle the overflow during rainy periods. Person with Interest's Comments We ask it to be mandated that going forward as par of the plans, that Maple Drive be closed off to 96th Street. Would support connections to either 99th Street or Westfield Blvd. be considered and approved. The bottom line is this. We know that change is inevitable. We also know the pressures that are present to modify the land use on 96th Street, Haverstick is already being groomed as an access road from 99th to 96th complete with a roundabout. If the proposed modifications and land use changes are put into place, opening Maple Ddve to the traffic that will be created will only server to destroy our quite, tree -lined family neighborhood and turn it into just another traffic moving street. It was stated under the (connect maple street to 99th section) that Maple Dr. should be open to 99th and or 98th Streets for emergency needs. This does have some merit, but only if maple would be closed off to 96th street. Without that closure, our safety and security is harmed not strengthened by these changes. The traffic would increase both from 96th going south and west, the traffic from Westfield going west and the traffic from 99th St. Going south would be funneled down our street any time cars wanted to avoid backups or delays on these streets. At present we are used by the auto dealerships as test tracks for their customers. We also get traffic every moming and evening as it is from these peak times, even now when our streets go nowhere. To say that the opening of these streets in some way benefits the residents is not an aroument. If 96th St. is to be redesigned to include more commercial development we do not think that opening up our street to traffic from Westfield and or 99th Street should be considered unless and considered as part of those changes that Maple Dr. be closed to 96th activity with access being rerouted from either 99th St, or from an entrance that would open pitman's development to Westfield blvd. Most of the information that has been shared with our neighborhoods was shared three years ago when this whole process started. Although for the most part we understand that change is inevitable change that does not consider its resident's needs should be open for modifications. I, and most of our neighborhoods concerns are centered around the safety of our children, the preservation of our way of life in our neighborhoods and the value of our assets as it pertains to our homes. We are here because we choose to be and have worked to make our street a place that we are proud of. Maple Drive should continue to be a dead end street, in order to limit traffic for the safety of our children. If there is commercial development, then Maple Dr should not be connected through to 96th Street to protect our neighborhood. 2 Planner /Staff Note Applies also to "Connect Maple Street to 99th Street" section, and "Maintain Westfield Boulevard as a Residential Corridor" section. Planner /Staff Notes Could be tied to "developer costs" similarly to building cul -de -sacs, at least for portions of the neighborhood. Also, if residential redevelopent occurs along Westfield, that too could partially fund street lighting. Planner /Staff Notes Planner /Staff Notes 1 0/29/2009 'ALLOW EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ;ALONG '96TH'STREET Date 10/18/2009 Michelle Spahr Email 1GROWTH MANAGEMENT Date Name 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Name Format Format Person with Interest's Comments "Redevelopment along 96 Street should be permitted only when it is contiguous to existing commercial uses..." This Letter statement rules out redevelopment west of Haverstick. (The dental office on the east side of Haverstick is a Special Use and is zoned S -2 not zoned commercial.) 3 Planner /Staff Notes This text presents major issues and needs to be explained as to the meaning of words and phrases. The wording opens up This subarea plan is consistent with most of the others in its degree of being a legal issue as well as allowing for decisions to be made by other than the Plan Commission and City Council. Ground "conceptual." Rules has stated several times that this plan is "conceptual" and not binding nor "property specific." It is my understanding 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter the purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to be more than just conceptual as an actual document that gives direction to developers and the public and speaks on behalf of the City of Carmel. Using the term conceptual leaves everything open to interpretation at any given time by whomever is doing the interpreting. A plan brings clarity and direction for interpretation. 10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting In the Chesterton area, the depth of the commercial should be only (2) lots deep, as opposed to (3). 10/20/2009 Michelle Spahr PC Meeting Would support single story commercial, consistent with the residential character. The second concem that I have is the width and height of the of the employment centers along 96th Street. Although we recognize that the north side of 96th Street will eventually become commercial, we would like to anticipate that the commercial development will be more professional and less invasive than suggested in the proposed plan. In particular, we would rather see the commercial developments at a width of 2 lots for the entire length of 96th Street not just that area located contiguous to Cherry Lane. In addition, the buildings should be 1 story with facades and roof designs that are consistent with the area. I would refer your attention to the commercial buildings east of Haverstick on the north side of 96th Street. In particular, the building on the northeast corner of Haverstick and 96th Street is a dentist office that is a renovated single family dwelling. To the east of the dental office are several recent commercial construction projects that are single story low light density and professional in design. I am referring to the medical building and the jewelry store. The design and style of these buildings would be consistent with a more professional commercial setting that would enhance rather than detract from the remaining residential character of the neighborhood. 10/14/2009 Joy Sullivan Email At the maximum it should be 2 lots deep on East side of Wild Cherry I feel that the plan should in compass only two lots deep (commercial area) East of Wild Cherry Alexia has responded to Ms. Sullivan and a copy of the comment will be 10/14/2009 Joy Sullivan Email distributed to the Plan Commission members before the October meeting 10/1/2009 Frank Hahn Letter Asking that the properties located at 9639 and 9659 would be included in the plans as neighborhood business locations 10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email In the description the term "three properties deep" is used. However, on the map it shows three acres deep three Acres is not a linear measurement. The map is scaled to reflect 3 properties properties would cut off the two northern properties on Wild Cherry Lane which acreage runs east/west deep. 10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email I believe the intent (according to the map) should read "three acres deep" rather than three properties deep Acres are not linear measurements 10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email The historic property facing Haverstick was included and I wondered if that was an oversight The historic property is in the "residential" area 10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email Another phrase that may be problematic is re: neighborhood serving commercial If fully supported by community." I'm concerned about using the word "fully" not knowing what that could mean in the future 10/12/2009 Pat Rice Email Also, the light blue code between Haverstick and Keystone I believe should be "employment node" rather then "community The predominant use is "community serving", but don't take issue with vitality node" in keeping with the existing usage "employment" being used. 9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email Feels that all of the sections /areas identified directly adjacent to 96th and directly adjacent to Westfield should be planned for redevelopment and /or transitional use. The entire sections numbered 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 should also be included in the redevelopment options The reference to numbers is from a map we used in the first open house. 9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email The numbers mostly correspond to the areas shown in the first draft of the subarea plan. The other sections /areas more interior to the 96th Street and Westfield Blvd. roadways could remain protected 9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email neighborhoods, with buffers, if the landowners there preferred, which seemed the case at the afternoon open house that I attended We feel that the possibility of re- development of the land directly adjacent to 96th Street and directly adjacent to Westfield Blvd. would provide the opportunity to improve the use of these lands, from their original 1950's and 1960's residential 9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email characteristic, to possibly something more currently characteristic (i.e.: the 96th Street and Westfield Blvd. roadways being more heavily traveled now than then), and, provide for the highest and best current use of the land. The re- development in these roadway adjacent sections /areas could possibly be office, commercial, retail, or residential in nature 9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email We feel the re- development/transitional option should be available and characteristic along 96th Street, through the 96th StreetNdestfield Blvd. intersection, and, continuing North through t h e area in question along Westfield Blvd 9/28/2009 Steve Caldwell Email We directly own 6 parcels in the section /area you numbered 10, directly fronting along Westfield Blvd Person with Interest's Comments Planner /Staff Notes These areas are supported in the document to be redeveloped for more intense residential uses. 1 0/29/2009 (UTILIZE TRANSITIONAL LAND USES AND FORM TO SOFTEN IMPACTS OF POTENTIALLY LARGE -SCALE OFFICE. DEVELOPMENT' SOUTH OF 96TH STREET Date Name 10/26/2009 Pat Rice 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Format Letter Letter 10/23/2009 Steve Pittman Email !MAINTAINrWESTFIELD BLVD ASA =RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR Date Name Format The words "maintained as" followed by "however redevelopment..." seem to be conflictive. I support maintaining Westfield Boulevard as residential, I am concerned about high density condominiums and apartments. 10/18/2009 Michelle Spahr Email At a minimum, if multi- family dwellings are considered, they should be no greater than 2 stories in height and designed with no more than 4 units per building with substantial preen space and trees. 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter (DESIGN GUIDELINES Date Name Format 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter Person with Interest's Comments Planner /Staff Notes What are two conflicting land uses This section seems somewhat confusing. Wild Cherry Comer area. I interacted closely with these folks when I was going through zoning on Aramore and became very familiar with their part of the world. I went so far as to share with them how I thought the area should be planned. I know we need to be sensitive to the Chesterton neighborhood and that this area will not develop ovemight. I also think it is important that the approved study that comes out of the council needs to send a message that Carmel knows and wants this area to be developed and encourages a developer to bring in a plan and that the city is open to a good plan that is not bound by existing property lines. To that end, I think the plan should encourage this area to be developed commercially or to be developed commercially w a higher density residential component transitioning to Chesterton. I don't think one could actually look at developing the front of the property commercially and not develop the back of the parcel. It all needs to be developed together. Since none of us can see the future, it is important to build in as much flexibility for the property to be developed in a manner that meets the demands of the market at the time that it is developed. That being said Carmel should and will control the architectural integrity of the development along w the appropriate buffering to the preserved residential areas. Person with Interest's Comments Person with Interest's Comments Protect and enhance existing tree canopy" suggest using the phrase, "preserve tree canopy where possible." Again, use of the terminology, "stable neighborhoods," needs the area(s) defined. What does "buffer designs that do not consume large areas which necessitate the demolition of additional residential structure mean? What area(s) are involved? Using the word "if" again implies that it is not the Plan Commission that determines whether or not such a development is appropriate. After the Plan Commission and City Council hear from the community, it is still up to them, not the community to decide. That's what public hearings are all about. (Same wording is used as a caption under photo at bottom left.) 4 Planner /Staff Notes Planner /Staff Notes 1 0/29/2009 WILD CHERRY CORNER (WCC Date Name 10/20/2009 10/16/2009 Pat Rice 10/16/2009 Pat Rice 10/16/2009 Pat Rice 10/17/2009 Charles Mary Harshbarger 10/15/2009 Pat Rice 10/15/2009 Pat Rice 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 1THE MAP Date 10/26/2009 Pat Rice PC Meeting Pat Rice Pat Rice Pat Rice Pat Rice Pat Rice Pat Rice Name Pat Rice 10/26/2009 Pat Rice 10/26/2009 Pat Rice 10/23/2009 Pat Rice 10/15/2009 Pat Rice 10/15/2009 Pat Rice Format Phone Person with Interest's Comments WCC wants to remain a "quiet residential oasis" She plans to submit and present the following two things: That they believe the buffer boundary should be shown on the map further north to include her property and the Alexis family to the west of Pat's property, but still avoiding the historic property. She also believes the Imel and Hollenback properties should be included; and that the text in the document should be modified to say something like the depth of redevelopment shall be limited to 3 properties deep for building sites, but may include additional properties in depth if those properties are used for buffering." Other notable information is that the Hollenback property, which is the middle "bowling alley" lot east of Maple Drive, is now Phone party to the attempted sale of the Wild Cherry Corner "neighborhood." There is one property included in the group sale, the Jones family, that is north and west of Pat's home. It gains access from the Wild Cherry stub street coming out of Chesterton neighborhood. Pat was suggesting that it too be included in the text and on the map as a redevelopment property. Phone Email Email Email Email Email Email Phone Is the plan to change the entire Wild Cherry Comer area from S -2 to commercial or will only the area shown as proposed redevelopment be changed to commercial? We own 2 acres at 2406 E. 96th St., which is the northwest corner of Wild Email Cherry Comer. Although we are not interested in selling our property at this time, if the plan is to change the entire Wild Cherry Corner to commercial, we would like to be included in the change in case we decide to participate in any future redevelopment. The proposed map excludes four of the original properties of Wild Cherry Corner WCC residents have been working with the City for ten years to get something resolved. For many years, we worked to Email preserve this area as residential, but as things have developed over the past five years especially, this is no longer an option We believe WCC should be seen as a whole, not fragmented. Perhaps it could be designated for a mixed use redevelopment allowing for a PUD which would give the Planning Commission and City control of how it is developed Wild Cherry Comer is not a platted subdivision There was a court ruling made many years ago when the developers of the Chesterton Subdivision attempted to cut through Wild Cherry Lane cul -de -sac to 96th Street All of WCC (Wild Cherry Corner) properties include one or more acres with the exception of the above mentioned The small home on the Historic property sits very close to Haverstick and the entire property is already well buffered. The owners have expressed that they are not opposed to the rest of WCC being developed Wild Cherry Corner is not part of the Chesterton Neighborhood as proposal suggests Planner /Staff Notes The text modification sounds reasonable and might be supported by other property owners in the subarea. The map modification I'm not fully in support of, but think there is room for compromise. I think it is reasonable to show the buffer bumped further north to conceptually include part of the next two properties, but I think it's risky to go much more north. The text seems to be the areatest concern. The map information we reviewed from the Realtor representing the neighborhood didn't include it. Had we known that, we would likely have shown 3 properties deep starting one property farther to the west. Although they were historically part of Wild Cherry Comer division, their home was established many years ago as being north of the barricade and has always been associated with the Chesterton neighborhood. Although they may be willing /wanting to sell, including that property for redevelopment would very likely generate significant remonstration. I also rationally I cannot see the need or benefit to the surrounding area (or to a developer for that matter) to have that orooertv redeveloped. Format Letter Letter Email Phone The buffer area shown can be considered a "taking" Phone Clarity needed on which district the historic home is in Person with Interest's Comments Ground Rules has stated that the map is "only conceptual." One cannot tell just where the buffer demarcation line is drawn Letter without exact location given. If the map represents the text, then it too presents the legal issues raised in the text and is indeed property specific. The map does not reflect the various types of residential land use but rather suggests all areas outside the commercial area remain classified as "residential preservation" without defining what the word "residential" means. (Example: Aramore is a higher residential area than Chesterton Subdivision but appears on the map to be the same.) Ground Rules stated that it is difficult to get developers to combine commercial and residential, yet it does occur in a number of places. Is there a classification that would permit a combination commercial and urban residential? Requested the classification that the church property falls under and also historical sites. 5 Planner /Staff Notes Sarah replied that the church properties are identified as "Institutional Nodes" on the Proposed C3 Future Land Classification Map and that the historical sites are identified as "Suburban Residential" Sarah sent Pat an email asking her to share her likes, dislikes, and ideas to remedy her dislikes. It is clearly in the "protect neighborhood" classification 10/29/2009 MISCELANEOUS Date Name Format 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter 10/27/2009 Michael Johnson Email 10/23/2009 Steve Pittman Email 10/16/2009 Pat Rice Phone 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter !FAVORABLE Date Name Format 10/22/2009 Edward Steele Email 10/20/2009 Pat Rice PC Meeting 10/20/2009 Luci Snyder PC Meeting 10/20/2009 Luci Snyder PC Meeting 10/20/2009 Luci Snyder PC Meeting 10/20/2009 John Tintera PC Meeting 10/18/2009 Michelle Spahr Email 10/13/2009 Luci Snyder Email Person with Interest's Comments Some of the language used in this subarea plan seems to be vague and at times ambiguous, leaving important issues unanswered and unresolved. Throughout the subarea text, words such as "would," "should," or "will" seem to be interchanged and lack clear direction in the context in which they are used. (Compare with the Home Place Subarea text which gives clear contextual direction.) It is my opinion that the highest and best use of the land making up Wild Cherry Comer is for commercial urban residential use. The current and future residents will benefit from the development of Wild Cherry Corner, as well as those that work along or use the 96th Street corridor. The most logical approach would be to include all of the properties making up Wild Cherry Comer for land re-classification to include commercial urban residential opportunities. This will present a cohesive area for development to the type of developer that the City of Carmel would like to attract. While I have not been close to this most recent study, with my investment at Aramore, I am hopeful that this area develops out in a very dynamic and attractive way. Wants to know rational for map and language in draft plan The new Comprehensive Plan Transportation map is showing this section of 96th as a Primary Arterial. That was taken from the Hamilton County Transportation map but that was never the correct classification. The County had planned to expand 96th St. west as a Primary Arterial but was taken off the table after the 96th St. Corridor Study. The accurate classification was a Secondary Arterial and then changed after the study to a Residential Parkway. This was added as an amendment to the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive Plan and has been shown in a number of conceptual plans. Given the changes that will be taking place on 96th St. between Keystone and Westreld Blvd. and a plan exists to extend 96th St. to Pennsylvania Parkway, a decision needs to be made as to what classification best applies to this section of 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter roadway. The proposed extension from Westfield to Penn is designated as a Secondary Parkway which seems to best fit the entire section of road from Keystone to Pennsylvania Parkway. (See the parkway treatment of Westfield Blvd. from 96th St. roundabout to 99th Street.) This information is a significant part of the missing link in the 10- year -old Special Study which was to make a decision on 10/26/2009 Pat Rice Letter the configuration of 96th Street from Keystone to Westfield Blvd. and from Westfield to Pennsylvania Parkway. Person with Interest's Comments I would like to add a vote of complete approval to the subarea plan as it presently exists. I cannot think of any significant change I would recommend. The planning demonstrates logic and common sense in every way. The neighborhood can benefit from a well designed plan. The properties on 96th Street are in "limbo" Now is the time to finalize a plan for this area. It has been a delight to see all of the opinions coming to a consensus. Well studies, and good involvement. I am pleased to see that the present plan is a thoughtful plan taking into account many of the concems of the homeowners in our neighborhood. Thank you for all of your work on this project 6 Planner /Staff Notes All language is based on what we believe is supported by the 100+ people that attended the open house. We can add a description of the preferred cross section for 96th Street between Keystone Pkwy. and Westfield Blvd. If the City has a good sense of what its design will be, it could prove useful to communicate to the development community. Planner /Staff Notes 10/29/2009 Date: October 26, 2009 To: Ground Rules, Inc. Department of Community Services Plan Commission Members City Council Members From: Pat Rice Re: Request by Ground Rules, Inc. for comments on the 96 St. /Westfield Subarea document Description (Last para) Please address the plan for grade separation between Keystone and Westfield Blvd. on 96 Street. Does the plan still include a round -about at 96 St. and Haverstick? The new Comprehensive Plan Transportation map is showing this section of 96 as a Primary Arterial. That was taken from the Hamilton County Transportation map but that was never the correct classification. The County had planned to expand 96 St. west as a Primary Arterial but was taken off the table after the 96 St. Corridor Study. The accurate classification was a Secondary Arterial and then changed after the study to a Residential Parkway. This was added as an amendment to the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive Plan and has been shown in a number of conceptual plans. Given the changes that will be taking place on 96 St. between Keystone and Westfield Blvd. and a plan to extend to Pennsylvania Parkway, a decision needs to be made as to what classification best applies to this section of roadway. The proposed extension from Westfield to Penn is designated as a Secondary Parkway which seems to best fit the entire section of road from Keystone to Pennsylvania Parkway. (See the parkway treatment of Westfield Blvd. from 968 St. round -about to 99 Street.) This information is a significant part of the missing link in the 10 -year -old Special Study which was to make a decision on the configuration of 96 Street from Keystone to Westfield Blvd. and from Westfield to Pennsylvania Parkway. Buffer Stable Neighborhoods from Redevelopment What defines a "stable neighborhood" from a "residential area" and to which areas do these apply? What is meant by "...but preservation of as many residential dwellings should also be considered" and what areas are being referenced? Stabilize Hamilton Heights and Forest Glen Subdivision This text is a bit confusing. (please see "Other Comments Emergency access need to be addressed. This is already an issue with the round -about when traffic is at grid -lock north, south, east and around the circle. Allow Employment Centers along 96th Street This text presents major issues and needs to be explained as to the meaning of words and phrases. The wording opens up a legal issue as well as allowing for decisions to be made by other than the Plan Commission and City Council. Ground Rules has stated several times that this plan is "conceptual" and not binding nor "property specific." It is my understanding the purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to be more than just conceptual as an actual document that gives direction to developers and the public and speaks on behalf of the City of Carmel. Using the term conceptual leaves everything open to interpretation at any given time by whomever is doing the interpreting. A plan brings clarity and direction for interpretation. Growth Management "Redevelopment along 96 Street should be permitted only when it is contiguous to existing commercial uses..." This statement rules out redevelopment west of Haverstick. (The dental office on the east side of Haverstick is a Special Use and is zoned S -2 not zoned commercial.) Utilize Transitional Land Uses and Form to Soften Impacts of Potentially Large scale Office Development South of 96 Street What are "two conflicting land uses This section seems somewhat confusing. Maintain Westfield Blvd as a Residential Corridor The words "maintained as" followed by "however redevelopment..." seem to be conflictive. Design Guidelines "Protect and enhance existing tree canopy" suggest using the phrase, "preserve tree canopy where possible." Again, use of the terminology, "stable neighborhoods," needs the area(s) defined. What does "buffer designs that do not consume large areas which necessitate the demolition of additional residential structure" mean? What area(s) are involved? Using the word "if' again implies that it is not the Plan Commission that determines whether or not such a development is appropriate. After the Plan Commission and City Council hear from the community, it is still up to them, not the community to decide. That's what public hearings are all about. (Same wording is used as a caption under photo at bottom left.) The Map Ground Rules has stated that the map is "only conceptual." One cannot tell just where the buffer demarcation line is drawn without exact location given. If the map represents the text, then it too presents the legal issues raised in the text and is indeed property specific. The map does not reflect the various types of residential land use but rather suggests all areas outside the commercial area remain classified as "residential preservation" without defining what the word "residential" means. (Example: Aramore is a higher residential area than Chesterton Subdivision but appears on the map to be the same.) Ground Rules stated that it is difficult to get developers to combine commercial and residential, yet it does occur in a number of places. Is there a classification that would permit a combination commercial and urban residential? Other Comments Some of the language used in this subarea plan seems to be vague and at times ambiguous, leaving important issues unanswered and unresolved. Throughout the subarea text, words such as "would," "should," or "will" seem to be interchanged and lack clear direction in the context in which they are used. (Compare with the Home Place Subarea text which gives clear contextual direction.) October 21, 2009 To: Department of Community Services Plan Commission Members Carmel City Council Mayor Jim Brainard From: Pat Rice Re: Additional Background Information re: Wild Cherry Corner /Chesterton Homeowners Assn. /Surrounding Neighborhoods The following condensed history is an important piece to why this area has been in a state of flux for so many years. In the twenty some years I have lived in Wild Cherry Corner, we have reached out to the Chesterton community to join together on various issues from safety to political forums and other larger community issues. Each time, the president of the homeowners association refused saying Chesterton wishes to remain "separate." We have met from time to time with homeowners on Kittrell, Lincoln and Maple. We were involved with Lakewood Gardens residents helping to find a solution as to how they could be protected when the commercial development came in to their south and east. I initiated "Grass- Roots" and attempted to draw the entire community together through the organization. It did serve the community well during a number of critical years. Many individual Chesterton homeowners were part of that attempt. Although they were willing to participate, the association always held sway. Chesterton has always remained an island unto itself. Grass -Roots sponsored several community meetings and residents of Chesterton attended without the blessing of their association and being told by the president they board did not support any involvement with Grass Roots. In the past two elections it became very political when I personally did not support the anti- mayor, mayor bashing campaign. From that point on I became known as "the Mayor's girl" and "enemy #1". During the last primary, Chesterton sponsored a forum at Hope Church for the candidates. We asked if we could attend, not assuming on our own just to show up. At first the association board told us no, it was just for Chesterton. Then they decided that Wild Cherry residents could attend with the stipulation that we could not speak or ask any questions of the candidates. We have asked to meet with them for a number of years to try and work together to come up with a plan for the whole community that would both protect them and at the same time work to resolve the changes in the community. They declined through their board president or representative. We have twice approached Luci Snyder to set up a meeting as the City Council representative. This has not happened. We can only conclude that Chesterton cares only about itself and has no interest or concern for others in the community surrounding them. I don't believe this speaks of all Chesterton residents but rather the controlling few. It has been this way for over fifty years. Some of their spokespersons have ridiculed and made fun of anyone, especially Wild Cherry Corner residents, outside their community at public meetings, including the recent open houses held for public input. It was residents from Chesterton who "blew up" the meeting held at Hope Church several years ago. They had rallied forces "loaded for bear" against the City of Carmel and Mayor Brainard. They have never wanted to be part of Carmel and came prepared to sabotage the meeting. They succeeded. Although I initiated the meetings through the DOCS, I had no idea that there would be such disrespect and disruption from being able to have a civil discussion. I must add that at that time, the Department didn't handle the meeting well either with Adam trying to convince those in attendance how "wonderful" being a part of Carmel was. That was red meat for Chesterton. The original meeting was to encourage those in attendance to break into small groups according to the area in which they lived and discuss questions that I had prepared and been given the go ahead by the Department. The questionnaire was printed and ready to go but the Department (Mike H.) did not utilize it but instead tried to open the meeting with some comments that no one could hear and then turned it over to Adam. That was the end of any hope of having real community input and trying to work together. The City then blamed me for the upheaval and Chesterton blamed me for what the City did! Chesterton leadership rallied the community to join in the anti annexation fight continues to encourage anti mayor, anti -City of Carmel rhetoric yet now wanting to use the City to maintain their autonomy and ask the City to provide them with "protection" from the outside world. I have tried to keep this separate from the discussion but believe it is time everyone knows the "rest of the story." Hancock, Ramona B From: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:50 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: FW: 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea Original Message From: Michelle Spahr [mailto:mspahr1224 @earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 6:26 PM To: Keeling, Adrienne M; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W; Sarah Horn Subject: 96th Street and Westfield Boulevard Subarea I would appreciate it if you could please pass on this email to the Secretary of the Plan Commission prior to the hearing on Tuesday, October 20, 2009. I do not know if Adrienne has had her baby. If so, please tell her congratulations. If not, hopefully, baby will be here soon! I live at 9892 Haverstick Road in the woods on the southwest corner of 99th and Haverstick. I have been fortunate to have sat on the neighborhood /City of Carmel committee several years ago which considered the future of our neighborhood. I have also participated in the neighborhood involvement with the Brooks Bend neighborhood which was developed by Estridge. I am pleased to see that the present plan is a thoughtful plan taking into account many of the concerns of the homeowners in our neighborhood. There are, however, several concerns which I would like to address. The first is the location of side paths for pedestrian traffic. This is certainly a valid strategy for a neighborhood that contains few walkways for pedestrians. The concern that I have is the side path that is proposed along the south side of 99th Street from Keystone to Westfield Boulevard. As you are aware, there are 13 acres of dense woods starting at the corner of Haverstick and 99th and heading west. Installing side paths or sidewalks would involve the destruction of at least 7 trees that are in excess of 18 inches in diameter as well as multiple smaller trees. The proposed plan states that a goal is preserving the tree canopy. In particular, the proposed plan states that "Carmel will utilize its zoning regulations and processes to reasonably protect existing tree canopy in the subarea." Destruction of the trees on the south side of 99th Street would not be consistent with this policy. Rather, it would be consistent with prior plans and negotiations for the sidewalk to be planned for the north side of 99th. There are already existing sidewalks on the north side of 99th at the Brooks Bend and Waldon Ponds neighborhoods. Thus, it would only entail construction of sidewalks on the north side of 99th Street between these 2 subdivisions. In particular, when the neighborhood worked with the City of Carmel and Estridge, the developer of Brooks Bend, the City indicated that eventually sidewalks would be extended west from Brooks Bend. It is my understanding that easements were retained in the remainder of the development to the immediate west of Brooks Bend for eventual sidewalks. In addition, the trees have already been cleared on the north side of 99th Street for the recent utilities that have been installed on the north side of 99th Street in the Hills and Dales neighborhood. Completing sidewalks on the north side of 99th Street would be less costly as well as preserving mature tree canopy. The second concern that I have is the width and height of the of the employment centers along 96th Street. Although we recognize that the north side of 96th Street will eventually become commercial, we would like to anticipate that the commercial development will be more professional and less invasive than suggested in the proposed plan. In particular, we would rather see the commercial developments at a width of 2 lots for the entire length of 96th Street not just that area located contiguous to Cherry Lane. In addition, the buildings should be 1 story with facades and roof designs that are consistent with the area. I would refer your attention to the commercial buildings east of Haverstick on the north side of 96th Street. In particular, the building on the northeast corner of Haverstick and 96th Street is a dentist office that is a renovated single family dwelling. To the east of the dental office are several recent commercial construction projects that are single story low light density and professional in design. I am referring to the medical building and the 1 jewelry store. The design and style of these buildings would be consistent with a more professional commercial setting that would enhance rather than detract from the remaining residential character of the neighborhood. Finally, while I support maintaining Westfield Boulevard as residential, I am concerned about high density condominiums and apartments. At a minimum, if multi- family dwellings are considered, they should be no greater than 2 stories in height and designed with no more than 4 units per building with substantial green space and trees. If you have any question or would like to discuss my concerns in more detail, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. Michelle Spahr 9892 Haverstick Road Indianapolis, IN 46280 844 -1957 [home] 694 -3236 [cell] 2 Donahue -Wold, Alexia K From: Ken Sullivan [ksqe2@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:26 AM To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K Cc: Keeling, Adrienne M Subject: Comprehensive plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Alexia, After reviewing the proposed plan, I have one concern. I feel that the plan should in compass only two lots deep (commercial area) East of Wild Cherry. I am aware that there are two lots on the west side on Wild Cherry that are deep lots. I can see the need to allow those to change in their entirety:however, I do not think that it would be in the neighbors best interest to allow the lots to the East of wild cherry to also be commercial. At the maxi mun it should be 21ots deep on East side of Wild Cherry. It seems logical to make Wild Cherry the divider between three lots on the west and 21ots on the east. -depth of commercial properties. Thanks for you time Sincerely, Joy Sullivan 10/14/2009 Page 1 of 1 10/13/09 Dear Mike Hollibaugh: I'm sending this current cover letter along with my delayed original letter, with attachments, due to a major computer failure and subsequent repair. 1 received a call from Pat Rice on Monday 10/12/09 indicating that Carmel Planning Zoning had decided in Wild Cherry Corner "s favor concerning its change of land use. Thank you for the prompt decision and careful consideration of our area's ever changing land use issues. Sincerely, Norman Wiseman 9650 Haverstick Rd. Indianapolis, IN 46280 4 RECEIVED OCT 14 2009 ROCS Dear Mike Hollibaugh: I have been a longtime resident (since 1974) of Haverstick Rd and Wild Cherry Corner. In recent years this area has undergone a gradual transition from suburban, single owner properties to mixed use business and commercial properties. I am not attempting to speak for other residents of Wild Cherry Corner but, we are in agreement that this is an area of significant change. For some of us the transition is already evident and has been for several years. Wild Cherry Corner has taken the first steps in this new phase by listing its properties for sale. Consideration for change of use is a necessary step in this process. I don't think any of the Wild Cherry Corner residents have taken this decision lightly. Listed in the attachment are points to be made for changing the land use status. Sincerely, Norman Wiseman 9650 Haverstick Rd. Indianapolis, IN 46280 Email: macaque @msn.com Phone: 317- 844 -7271 10/ 09 9650 Haverstick Rd. Indianapolis, IN 46280 WILD CHERRY CORNER 9/24/09 Points indicating the need for Wild Cherry change of land use: Residential home owner integrity has changed. The first three houses on the north side of 96th St. the east side of Haverstick Rd. are no longer resident owned homes. Two are now rentals (owner of both rentals has, in the past, petitioned for a change of variance) and one is now a dental office. Traffic flow on 96th St. has become increasingly difficult to navigate, especially during peak hours. The increased traffic and future use of 96 th St. needs to be addressed. Eventual changes will have an impact on the surrounding residential areas. All properties on both sides of 96th St. east of Haverstick Rd. are currently of either business or commercial use. Indianapolis /Nora comprehensive plan for the south side of 96th St. between Keystone Ave. Westfield Blvd. calls for mixed business /commercial use. Development of the roundabout at 96th St. and Keystone Ave. will have a major impact on the area as a whole and its future use. Owner of undeveloped property (3.5 acres) on the north west corner of 96th St. Haverstick Rd, intends to develop this for business use. My property is adjacent to and north of this area on Haverstick Rd. Single resident properties (now converted to rentals) on Westfield Blvd, and south of 98th St. are in development transition. Submitted by Norman Wiseman, resident and property owner of: MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/ GARDEN OFFICE MIXED USE /COMMERCIAL/ LIVE WORK SWeppeluwfh d aceatiaha. .144. COWL.10 .G.PAS Wa N. 111''OOa 4..- 9650 Havecs --ic k RA, (flocm N i nd w ,se no ces i nce) October 1, 2009 Adrenne Keeling City of Carmel, Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN. 46032 RE: Plan for 96 and Westfield Subarea Plan Carmel C3 Dear Ms. Keeling, The Hahn Surveying Group, Inc. is a land surveying company located at 2850 East 96 Street for the past 15 years. I am the President of that company and the owner of the building. The proposed widening of 96 Street will surely take all of my parking lot and possibly my building as well. Either way the business will be forced to relocate. I had assumed that 96 Street would be widened eventually so when the house at 9639 Haverstick came up for sale, I purchased it in the hope that we could move to that building in the future. This property is contiguous to our present location and would allow us to stay in the same approximate area. There are 15 families that would be affected if we were forced to move from the area. We have shown over the years that we are a good neighbor. Our business is open Monday through Friday Sam to 5pm and we rarely work on Saturdays. We deal with most of our clients via the telephone or the internet, so we have very little client traffic at our location and a low impact on the neighborhood. I also started Engineered Alternatives, Inc. which is a civil engineering design company. They are also working from the 2850 East 96 Street location. When the house at 9659 Haverstick came on the market, I purchased it with the hopes that EA could eventually relocated there. I would ask that the properties located at 9639 and 9659 Haverstick Road be included in your plans as neighborhood business locations. Thank You, HAHN SURVEYING GROUP, INC. COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL LAND SURVEYS Frank M. Hahn, PE 2850 EAST 96TH STREET, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 PHONE: (317) 846 -0840 FAX: (317) 846 -4298 E -MAIL: INFO @HAHNSURVEYING.COM Cc: Bradley Johnson, Ground Rules LN ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES, INC. SPECIALIZING IN SITE DESIGN RECEIVED OCt -6 DOCS (Noe/ O2(S &PA Sep 22 09 03:55p Z. Taylor Ms. Adrienne Keeling Department of Community Services Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46031 Re: Open House Planning for 96 Street Corridor Ms. Keeling, 804 862 8450 September 21, 2009 p.1 I thank the Department of Community Services for holding the mentioned meeting on September 24, and inviting input from residents. Our property is located 9680 Haverstick Road, a house for which first deed of transfer was recorded in 1863. Along with this historic house are 2+ acres of old and native trees as well as many native plants. Other houses in this area are not as old, but most have old native trees and plants. Many residents in this area chose to remain after raising their children; some of those children have chosen to remain in the neighborhood. Living here are numbers of young couples, as the houses are affordable as "starter homes." Cities and suburbs are seeing the value of mixed residents such as we see in our community -older people living around young families with young children. This is also a neighborhood of different ethnicities. As you may know, the close proximity to I465 allows our "green space" to absorb a lot of air pollution. Moreover, the natural landscaping of this neighborhood, with its many trees and bushes, helps with muffling of the auto sounds that never cease. Green spaces are recognized as a way of dealing with both of these problems. A higher density use of this neighborhood would require additional hard surfacing, creating more storm runoff, a problem now causing many communities to find ways to "harvest" such runoff in order to reduce expenditures for water purification for the community. The change from the present neighborhood population to a more dense population will create greater congestion. The 96 Street link between Keystone and Westfield is already heavily traveled. Isn't the City trying to reduce congestion with the lovely roundabouts which have been/are being installed on Keystone and Westfield? Let us leave this neighborhood as it is as a way of saying to everyone that Carmel recognizes the value of green spaces, and that it has a place for residents whose incomes fall within a wide range. The City may be seen to welcome older residents on fixed incomes, young families with modest incomes, and other individuals who assimilate as good and productive citizens. Quality of life is an important attribute to consider when making decisions that impact in so many ways. This neighborhood offers goodness on these counts. My husband works for the Army, and it is our plan to return to our home when he retires. We have owned our home since 1972, and many of our neighbors have been in the neighborhood as long or longer. We are comfortable with our proximity to I465, and consider it as much a plus as do those who would profit from development of the area. Sincerely, Zelma Taylor