Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceMarch 30, 2006 Ron and Penny Schafer 9604 Maple Dr. caa i.ev( We have lived in this home for 28 years, raised five children, got them all through college. In 1997 we decided to add a third car garage so I would have a place to put many shop tools that had been in storage for many years and put them to use in my upcoming retirement. As it worked out I just fully retired this past January. We also, at this time, made a Master suite by combing two bedrooms to create a large walk in closet and master bath. Total cost a little over $35,000. This past year we spent about $3500.00 putting in a new front sidewalk and large rear patio deck. We presently are planning on redoing the kitchen as we already have the bathrooms. We have done and are planning on doing all this updating for two reasons. One because we enjoy the more updated appearance and two for the resale value that the house should bring if and when we want to sell it. Now at a time when we are thinking about downsizing and maybe enjoying the fruits of our labors, we find the City of Carmel appears to be trying to devalue our and ours neighbors homes. We do not feel we have done anything to bring this type of treatment by the City of Carmel and would ask those persons responsible for these actions to put yourself in our places and see what your reactions would be. Respectfully, Ron and Penny Schafer SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 30,2006 FOREST GLEN AREA'S OF MAPLE DRIVE AND LINCOLN BLVD. 1. EXPLANATION OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO OUR AREA CONCERNS. 2. PROPOSALS FOR FOREST GLEN NEIGHBORHOOD TIME LINE OF EVENTS BELOW IS A LAY OUT AND TIME LINE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES EXPLANATION OF THE VISION OF SOUTH CARMEL, OUR AREA AND HOW THAT EXPLANATION HAS CHANGED FROM AUGUST 2005 TO MARCH 2006. THIS, WE HOPE, EXPLAINS OUR CONCERNS. AUGUST MEETING: 5, 10 20 YEAR VISION MAPS SHOWING RESIDENTAL AREA'S IN TACT TALK OF IMPROVEMENTS. POSSIBILITY OF FRONTAGE USAGE CHANGES SECOND MEETING: WITH ANTICIPATION OF LEARNING MORE ABOUT OUR AREA'S USAGE, WE WERE PRESENTED WITH MUCH OF THE SAME INFORMATION. SMALLER SUBCOMII LEES WERE ASKED FOR. AT THIS MEETING, QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT THE PITTMAN PROJECT. THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY WERE UNAWARE AND HAD NO DETAILS OTHER THAN THAT THEY WANTED US TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT MULT- FAMILY USE OF THE OPEN SPACE NORTH OF 98 ST BORDERING WESTFIELD BLVD. WHEN ASKED ABOUT AREA IMPROVEMENTS OR AFFECTS OF THESE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON OUR NEIGHBOR- HOOD, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS A GOOD QUESTION. THEN THEY POLITLY THANKED US FOR ASKING THE QUESTION, BUT NO ANSWER WAS GIVEN TO THE QUESTION. AS A RESULT OF THIS MEETING, SMALLER SUB- COML. 1i ES WERE FORMED FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR IMPUT. WHEN FOREST GLEN ASKED THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TO BE REPRESENTED ON ONE OF THESE COMMITTEES, AND NAMES WERE GIVEN OF RESIDENTS WILLING TO SIT ON THESE COMITTEES, WE WERE DENIED. FEBRUARY MEETING: AT THIS MEETING WE WERE SURPRISED TO SEE THAT OUR AREA ALONG WITH THE WILD CHERRY AREA HAD BEEN (112) CHANGED AGAIN TO A LAND USE OF TRANSITIONAL. IT NEEDS TO BE SAID THAT DURING THIS TIME FRAME. THE PITTMAN COMMUNITY WAS PREPARING FOR A REZONING MEETING OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OR 98 ST AND EAST OF WESTFIELD BLVD. PROPERTY OWANERS WERE BEING APPROACHED TO SELL THEIR LAND ON BOTH 96 ST. AND WESTFIELD BLVD. DEVELOPERS WERE APPROACHING THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN ALL THESE AREAS THAT ONLY THREE MONTHS EARLIER IN MEETINGS WERE MERELY 10 AND 20 YEAR PROJECTIONS OF LAND USE CHANGES.. WHEN WE WERE TOLD OF THE CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND FOUND OUT THAT CARMEL HAD REQUESTED THAT MAPLE DRIVE BE OPENED AS PART OF THE PITTMAN PROPOSAL, WE WERE CONCERNED, UNINFORMED AND KEPT IN THE DARK. THIS WAS NOT DONE BY PITTMAN PARTNERS, BUT BY AN AGENCY OF CARMEL. RESULTS PROPERTY VALUES AND THE MARKETABILITY OF OUR PROPERTIES HAS BEEN AFFECTED GREATLY BY THE RECKLESS UNFOLDING OF THESE LAND USE PROPOSALS. AT THE PUBLIC PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 2006, KTITREL AND (113) THE FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION WAS PORTRAYED AS AN AREA IN TRANSITION WITH LOWERING PROPERTY VALUES. THREE TO FOUR EXAMPLES OF HOUSING PROBLEMS WERE PORTRAYED TO PAINT A PICTURE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE BRINK. WE ARE TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS DEPICTION IS WRONG AND THE RESPONSIBLITY FOR THIS DEPICTION FALLS SQUARELY ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. WE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH REAL. ESTATE SELLING IN OUR AERA OR INCREASING LAND VALUES UNTIL THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS STARTED IN AUG. OF 2005 AND ALSO ANNOUNCED TO EVERY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER THAT OUR AREA WAS GOING TO BE TRANFORMED. ON BEHALF OF FOREST GLEN, WE FORMALLY ASK FOR A PUBLIC RETRACTION OF THIS STATEMENT OF LOWERING LAND VALUES AND ASK TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC DEPICTION REMOVED FROM THE CARMEL WEB SITE. IN ADDITION WE ASK TO HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD IN WHAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT STUDY THAT AF'FECTS US, THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH CARMEL. WHAT THE PEOPLE OF FOREST GLEN ARE IN SUPPORT OF: 1. WE ARE NOT AGAINST CHANGE. 2. WE ARE AGAINST THE DISCOORDINATION OF PLANNING AND CHANGE WITHOUT THE BALANCE OF CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO AREA RESIDENTS THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS. 3. WE ARE PREPAIRED TO ACCEPT CHANGE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CARMEL REALIZES WE HAVE A VISION FOR OUR PART IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE THIS A VISION OF THE FUTURE. A PLAN TO SHOW THE VALUE OF THE FOREST GLEN AREA AS THE FUTURE. OF THIS AREA IS CONSIDERED: WE BELEIVE THAT MAPLE DR AND LINCOLN BLVD. HAVE A SPECIAL BLEND OF HOMES WITH VARIED ARCHITECTURE, SET ON LAND WITH MATURE TREE CANAPIES THAT ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO REPLICATE. OUR LOT SIZES ALLOW THESE QUALITY CONSTRUCTED HOMES TO SIT BACK OFF THE STREETS. WE BELIEVE THAT AS THE PROPOSED PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE PLANNING STAGES FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT EAST OF FOREST GLEN ON 96 ST., TO A "GRADUAL RESIDENTIAL USE" PROPOSAL AS PROJECTS MOVE TOWARD WESTFIELD BLVD., AND AS IT RELATES TO THE PITTMAN PROJECT TO OUR SOUTH THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO CONSIDER IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR AREA. THE FOREST GLEN AREA FITS NATURALY INTO THIS AREA TRANSITION MODEL AND CAN IMPROVE THE AREA'S APPEAL. LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE PROPOSED AREA IMPROVEMENTS, MAPLE DR. AND LINCOLN BLVD. CAN HANDLE THE NEEDS OF THE FUTURE AND BE A TREASURED ASSET TO CARMEL AND THE 96 ST. CORRIDOR. WE HAVE HEARD FROM BOTH MR. PITTMAN AND FROM CARMEL'S OWN PLANNING PROJECT SPOKESMAN THAT THE REASON THAT CARMEL ENVISIONS THIS AREA AS A GOOD PLACE TO PLAN FOR NEW FAMILY UNITS (BOTH SINGLE TOWN HOMES AND CONDO'S) IS BECAUSE OF THE AVAILABILITY AND PROXIMITY TO SURROUNDING AMENITIES. THAT IS PART OF WHY WE ENJOY OUR AREA. WE ARE NOT AN AREA OF DIMINISHING PROPERTY VALUES, JUST AN AREA THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE PLANNING PUZZLE. OUR PROPOSAL 1. IF THESE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE TO GO FORWARD. WE HAVE TO BE ASSURED THAT FOREST GLEN HAS A COMMITMENT FROM CARMEL TO IMPROVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO HANDLE ITS FUTURE NEEDS, OTHER WISE WE CONTINUE OUR STANCE OF NOT WANTING TO OPEN OUR ROADS TO INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW. SPECIFICALLY: A. WHILE PLANNING DRAINAGE FOR THESE NEW PROJECTS. IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE IN THE FOREST GLEN AREA TO HANDLE SURFACE RUNOFF, BOTH EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED. B IF TIM CITY IS-ADAMENT -ABOUT OPENING MAPLE DRIVE TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC FROM 96 AND 99 STREETS INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PROJECTS TO OUR NORTH, WIDEN MAPLE DRIVE. C. PUT IN SIDE WALKS ON BOTH MAPLE AND LINCOLN TO ENSURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE A SAFE WALKING, BIKING AND PLAYING SPACE FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. D. AS PART OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF CARMEL. DO NOT OPEN UP 98 STEET, BUT INSTEAD CREATE A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO LINK THE NEWLY PROPOSED PITTMAN COMMUNITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF CHESTERTON, WILD CHERRY, MAPLE AND LINCOLN. WE "'EEL THAT WITH THE LIMITED EASEMENT ON 98 STREET AND THE LIMITED LAND USE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT ONLY A VERY INEXPENSIVE USE OF THIS LAND, BUT CREATES A NATURAL BUFFER AND A CONNECTION OF THIS NEW COMMUNITY WITH THE COMMUNITY'S AROUND IT. IT ALSO WOULD BE THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR AREA TO HAVE. THE AVAILIBILITY OF FAMILY ACCESS TO OTHER NIEGHBORDOODS AND POSSIBLY IN THE FUTURE, THE MONON TRAIL. WE BELEIVE.THIS LAND USE WOULD CREATE A CINERGY WITH TIE NEW AND THE OLD, BUILDING TILE COMMUNITY THAT CARMEL IS STRIVING TO ACHEIVE. SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL: ABOVE ALL ELSE. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THIS QUIET AREA. WE NEED A COMMITMENT FROM CARMEL THAT THEY WILL CREATE A PROGRAM THAT WILL SLOW TRAFFIC AND DISCOURAGE DRIVE THROUGH COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ON OUR STREETS. WE WILL SUPPORT SPEED BUMPS. AND OR OTHER METHODS OF ACHEIVING THIS. WITH PROPOSED TRAFFIC INCREASING FROM 50 60 CARS A DAY NOW, TO OVER 400 600 CARS A DAY. THIS IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE. SPECIFIC BENEFITS OF THESE PROPOSALS: WITH THE NATURAL FLOW OF COMMERCIAL EXPANSION OF THIS AREA, THIS PROPOSAL BLENDS THE FUTURE NEEDS OF CARMEL IN A BALANCED PROGRESSION OF VALUED OLD BLENDED WITH NEEDED NEW. IT PRESERVES THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT CALL THIS AREA HOME BUT IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND LAND VALUES THAT CARMEL IS KNOWN FOR IF THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE AT THE TIME THAT NEEDED WORK IS DONE TO SUPPORT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THIS SHOULD BE THE MOST ECONOMICAL TIME AND MINIMIZE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. FOREST GLEN (MAPLE AND LINCOLN), VIEWED FROM 96 STREET WITH ITS TREE LINED CANAPIES, MANICURED STREETS AND VARIED HOME DESIGNS, BECOMES A REMINDER THAT OLD TIME NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NOT GONE, JUST GETTING BETTER 961: STREET CURB APPEAL: PETER T. SOLE 9629 MAPLE DRIVE. INDIANAPOLIS, IN. 46280 WE BELEIVE ENTERING THESE NEWLY FORMED MULTI- UNIT UPSCALED DEVELOPMENTS OFF MAPLE DRIVE WILL MAKE THOSE DEVELOPED AREAS FEEL ENTERTWINED AND PART OF THE HOMETOWN ATMOSPHERE; FROM 96 STREET, MAPLE AND LINCOLN TAKES ON A WHOLE NEW LOOK. PROPERTY VALUES IMPROVE, OUR NEIGHBORS START AGAIN TO INVEST IN THEIR PROPERTIES AND CARMEL HAS SUCCESSFULY RE- INVENTED YET ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A SPOKESMAN FOR MY NEIGHBOORS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THESE COMMITTIES RECOGNISE AND CONSIDER OUR PROPOSALS AS THIS AREA IS REDESIGNED FOR THE FUTURE. August,19, 2005 To: Residents of the 96 Study Area From: Michael Holli Carmel Department of Community Services Re: AREA PLANNING FOLLOW -UP MEETING On August 15, 2005,uthe Department of Community Services held a meeting to introduce a conceptual neighborhood plan for the area between 96` and 99 Street between Keystone Avenue and the Monon Trail. Hundreds were in attendance; many thoughts, comments and concerns were shared. We invite you to attend a follow -up meeting where the Department would like to present a brief summary of the concerns raised at the August 15 meeting and then proceed with further discussion of the conceptual plan. Included on the back of this invitation is a copy of the conceptual plan, as introduced on August 15. Again, the goal of this important planning exercise is to help better manage growth in the area. This will ensure that any future development proposals would be evaluated against an updated plan,for land use and transportation. Engaging the public in this exercise will ensure that the plan will be mindful of the circumstances which'make this neighborhood unique. Meeting date: Monday, August 29, 2005 Meeting place: Hope Church located at 2500 E 98thStreet. Meeting time: 7:00 PM (ending approx. 9:00 PM) Please plan to attend this important meeting. Feel free to contact Adrienne Keeling, akeeling a,carmel.in.gov, or Mike Hollibaugh, mhollibaugh @cannel.in.gov, with questions. We can also, be reached by phone at 571 -2417. DOUGLAS G. CARTER SHERIFF March 27, 2006 Dennis Pat Maurer 9642 Maple Drive Indianapolis, IN 46280 RE: Traffic Study for Haverstick Road Dear Mr. Mrs. Maurer: In regards to your request for a traffic study of the area of Haverstick Road from 96 Street to 99 Street, and 99 Street from Westfield Blvd. to Keystone. An actual traffic study was not' conducted by this agency. Last:year, that area was:the.subject of directed patrols for the purpose of traffic enforcement. Many citations were issued for violations of the stop sign on Haverstick Road at 98 Street. Citations for speed were issued for motorist exceeding the posted speed limit by 15 miles an hour. Enclosed you will find a two (2) reports, citations and calls for service. Both reports are for the period September 21 through September 30 2005. You will find under the report labeled "citations" a list of tickets issued in the target area for the specified period. The "calls for service" report lists the calls and/or traffic stops logged for the target area for the specified period. Charles W. Murray, Captain Patrol Division Commander Hamilton County Sheriff's Office A Tradition of Service Since 1823 18100 Cumberland Road Noblesville, Indiana 46060 Administration: (317) 773 -1872 Rue.: 27-MAR-2006 12:03 HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFFS Page: 1 GMKVW09 01011834.VW Agency: 00 09/21/2005 thru 09/30/2005 Search Criteria used: i Agency Incident Date 1 Time House No DIR Street Apt No Activity 00 200500028271 09/30/2005 1640 99TH ST /HODGES DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028269 09/30/2005' 1636 99TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500028242 09/30/2005 1019 99TH ST /HOLIDAY DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028240 09/30/2005' 1011 99TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500028161 09/29/2005 1839 9845 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028154 09/29/2005 1759 99TH ST /CHESTER DR ASSIST OTHER AGENCY 00 200500028142 09/29/2005, 1624 99TH ST /HODGES DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028138 09/29/2005 1612 98TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028135 09/29/20051 1605 99TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028134 09/29/2005 1601 99TH ST /HODGES DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028132 09/29/2005 1554 99TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500028130 09/29/2005 1541 9800 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500028114 09/29/2005 1136 10410 CHESTER DR DOG COMPLAINT 00 200500028051 09/28/2005 1709 9700 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028048 09/28/2005 1655 98TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028039 09/28/2005 1535 98TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500028036 09/28/2005 1526 98TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500027960 09/27/2005 1657 2200 E 99TH ST TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027954 09/27/2005 1621 96TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027951 09/27/2005 1554 99TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027948 09/27/2005 1542 9899 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027918 09/27/2005 0759 2300 E 99TH ST TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027917 09/27/2005 0747 99TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500027853 09/26/2005 1421 1757 TIMBER HEIGHTS DR WELFARE INC 911 00 200500027812 09/26/2005 0358 1757 TIMBER HEIGHTS DR WELFARE INC 911 00 200500027778 09/25/2005 1325 2300 E 99TH ST TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500027774 09/25/2005 1200 2300 E 99TH ST TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500027693 09/24/2005 1310 99TH ST /CHESTER DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027692 09/24/2005 1300 99TH ST /CHESTER DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027680 09/24/2005 1145 99TH ST /HOLIDAY DR DRIVING COMPLAINT 00 200500027690 09/24/2005 1239 99TH ST /SUNNYMEADE LN TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027685 09/24/2005 1219 99TH ST /CHESTER DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027688 09/24/2005 1227 2400 E 99TH ST TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027686 09/24/2005 1220 99TH ST /CHESTER DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027683 09/24/2005 1210 99TH ST /CHESTER DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027613 09/23/2005 2200 2340 E 99TH ST FIREWORKS COMPLAINT 00 200500027595 09/23/2005 1938 9800 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027592 09/23/2005 1919 9800 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027590 09/23/2005 1905 9800 CHESTERTON DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027587 09/23/2005 1855 9800 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027582 09/23/2005 1829 2300 E 98TH ST TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027581 09/23/2005 1819 2400 E 96TH ST TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027578 09/23/2005 1729 96TH ST /MAPLE DR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500027573 09/23/2005 1656 9629 MAPLE DR DRIVING COMPLAINT 00 200500027560 09/23/2005 1600 9600 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027559 09/23/2005 1548 9600 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027556 09/23/2005, 1539 98TH ST /CHESTERTON DR TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027553 09/23/2005 1528 9885 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027515 09/23/2005 0740 9783 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500027509 09/23/2005 0659 99TH ST /HOLIDAY DR TRAF ASST -OTHER 00 200500027467 09/22/2005 1902 99TH ST /HOLIDAY DR TRAF ASST -OTHER 00 200500027463 09/22/2005 1758 9800 HAVERSTICK RD TRAFFIC STOP 00 200500027443 09/22/2005 1517 2503 PLEASANT WAY W TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 00 200500027375 09/21/2005 1919 99TH ST /HAVERSTICK RD 10 -37 ACTIVITY 00 200500027361 09/21/2005 1652 9642 MAPLE DR DRIVING COMPLAINT Total Number of Matches: 55 LOCATION 99TH CHESTER DR 99TH CHESTER DR 99TH CHESTER DR 99TH CHESTER DR 99TH CHESTER DR HAVERSTICK RD 98TH ST HAVERSTICK 98TH ST HAVERSTICK RD 98TH 98TH ST HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH ST HAVERSTICK 98TH ST HAVERSTICK 98TH AND HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 96TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 98TH HAVERSTICK 2300 E 99TH ST W/B 2300 E 99TH ST E/B 2300 E 99TH ST W/B 99TH CHESTER PL 9800 HAVERSTICK RD 9800 HAVERSTICK RD Hamilton County Sheriff's Office CITATIONS TRAFFIC CITATION BY LOCATION SUMMARY 09/21/2005 THRU 09/30/2005 DATE TIME NUMBER 09/24/2005 13:10 09/24/2005 12:10 09/24/2005 12:18 09/24/2005 12:40 09/24/2005 13:00 09/27/2005 15:42 09/27/2005 15:53 09/27/2005 16:22 09/29/2005 16:05 09/29/2005 16:25 09/29/2005 18:40 09/29/2005 19:05 09/30/2005 10:22 09/23/2005 15:28 09/23/2005 15:38 09/23/2005 15:48 09/23/2005 16:00 09/23/2005 18:19 09/23/2005 18:19 09/23/2005 18:29 09/23/2005 18:40 09/23/2005 18:53 09/23/2005 19:05 09/23/2005 19:18 09/23/2005 19:36 09/27/2005 17:30 09/30/2005 09:50 09/27/2005 17:15 09/24/2005 12:18 09/28/2005 15:25 09/30/2005 16:55 000000008463 -000 000000080459 -000 000000080460 -000 000000080461 -000 000000080462 -000 000000090818 -000 000000090819 -000 000000090820 -000 000000092547 -000 000000092548 -000 000000092549 -000 000000092550 -000 000000092759 -000 000000092879 -000 000000092880 -000 000000092881 -000 000000092882 -000 000000092883 -000 000000092884 -000 000000092885 -000 000000092886 -000 000000092887 -000 000000092888 -000 000000092889 -000 000000092890 -000 000000092927 -000 000000092928 -000 000000092929 -000 000000101432 -000 000000102041 -000 000000102042 -000 VIOLATION S 9- 21 -5 -3 S 9- 21 -5 -3 S 9- 21 -5 -3 S 9- 21 -5 -3 S 9- 21 -5 -3 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 S 9- 21 -8 -32 S 9- 21 -8 -32 S 9- 21 -8 -32 S 9- 21 -8 -32 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O H9- 21 -4 -1 O II9- 21 -5 -6 O H9- 21 -5 -6 S 9- 24 -19 -1 O H9- 21 -5 -6 O H9- 21 -4 -1 0 H9- 21 -4 -1 S State Statute O County Ordinance 9- 21 -5 -3 Speeding H9- 21 -4 -1 Stop Sign H9- 21 -5 -6 Speeding Hi, my name's Mike Dooley. My family and I are residents of the Forest Glen neighborhood living at 9622 Maple Drive. I have lived in the Carmel area for the past 35 years. Since graduating from Notre Dame in 1989, I have lived in the 96 Street/Westfield Blvd area. (About 16 years) 10 years on Kittrell Drive and about 6 years at our current home on Maple Drive. We live in this area for a number of reasons: We love the mature trees and large lots that this area gives us. Homes that have character and don't all look alike. Little traffic to worry about with my kids and pets. Great neighbors that are kind, quiet, respectful, and diverse. Convenient access to the city and interstate system Affordability And a good school system (Carmel Public Schools) I understand that change and development are a part of everyday life and in most cases good for the community. However, I am here today to voice my concerns over what is being proposed that directly affect our Neighborhood. I would like the record to show that my family and I (along with many of my neighbors on Maple and Lincoln that have signed our petition) oppose the following: We would like our area, forest glen, to be re- classified as "residential conservation" and oppose the classification of "residential transitional We do not want Maple to go through to 99 street. Traffic flow would immediately increase and the safety of our residents, children and pets would be jeopardized. The proposed development already plans to have two entrances as it is and a third option is not necessary. We propose that the Maple Drive and Lincoln Street remain as they are currently. If the road does end up going through, we would expect that the safety of the residents be considered through widening the street, adding sidewalks, streetlamps, and speed bumps to help control the traffic. We do not want 98` Street opened as a road. We propose that to be a walkway /greenway that leads to the Monon trail. And that a landscape buffer be constructed between the Pittman development and our community. In the last meeting on March 21 general comments were made stating that the homes in this area were "less desirable The fact that this was made public record upsets many of us that have planned improvements for this year and for others that might be selling there homes for whatever reason. This has negatively impacted our "fair market value" in the area and we expect a retraction of that comment immediately and a public apology to the residents of these areas. Thank you. March 30, 2006 Ron and Penny Schafer 9604 Maple Dr. We have lived in this home for 28 years, raised five children, got them all through college. In 1997 we decided to add a third car garage so I would have a place to put many shop tools that had been in storage for many years and put them to use in my upcoming retirement. As it worked out I just fully retired this past January. We also, at this time, made a Master suite by combing two bedrooms to create a large walk in closet and master bath. Total cost a little over $35,000. This past year we spent about $3500.00 putting in a new front sidewalk and large rear patio deck. We presently are planning on redoing the kitchen as we already have the bathrooms. We have done and are planning on doing all this updating for two reasons. One because we enjoy the more updated appearance and two for the resale value that the house should bring if and when we want to sell it. Now at a time when we are thinking about downsizing and maybe enjoying the fruits of our labors, we find the City of Carmel appears to be trying to devalue our and ours neighbors homes. We do not feel we have done anything to bring this type of treatment by the City of Carmel and would ask those persons responsible for these actions to put yourself in our places and see what your reactions would be. Respectfully, Ron and Penny Schafer ja!,,,. -g e 1- 03- 36-d(o PETE From: <patrice4632 @sbcgfobal.net> 0 To: <ps @gardensa.com> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 2:58 PM Attach: header.htm Subject: 96th Street and Westfield Blvd.doc 96 Street and Westfield Blvd. Neighborhood Concept Plan Response Prepared by Pat Rice for Carmel -Clay Plan Commission Page 1 of 11 To date, March 26, 2006, the Carmel -Clay Land Use Map has not been changed and adopted to redesignate land use in the area referred to as "The Central Core" nor has the Civic Design been approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan Therefore;The- assumption that the 96th Street/Westfield Study Area shown as a red circle is already part of the new Urban Design Initiative is inaccurate. Although the UDI is fitting for the City, especially from 116 north, we believe this area has its own identity and character and should be reflected in any change to the Comprehensive Plan. This community is not "urban" in the sense that it is not characteristic of city life. It is a community of neighborhoods most of which are within city limits but are not "in the city." We have work ed endlessly to keep this community from becoming another "Keystone at the Crossing." There is much history to how we have accomplished this. Some of these accomplishments were to deter the County from continuing the design of 96 St. east of Keystone being extended west to County Line Rd. The County's plan was to put an "S" curve through the property now developed as "The Retreat" and through the Monon under the overpass connecting up again with 96 Street, destroying the future plans of the Monon Trail. The City gave full support to this endeavor. Another success was to prevail before the Plan Commission in keeping high density commercial from developing on the Fuller property, which is now The Retreat. We worked with the Gibraltar developers for over one year and successfully negotiated the plan you now see, including land given to the Parks Department for both the Monon Trail Head at 96 Street and Lenape Trace Park. Another was to prevail before the same Plan Commission to deny a rezone from S -2 to high density residential PUD developing around "Slime Lake" and destroying the lake by using it as a detention pond instead of preserving it as a living lake. The DNR helped in its protection. We are now faced with another big hurdle in balancing the changes that are coming with preserving the integrity of our community. I, Pat Rice, have been asked to address the "fifty or so" issues referred to by me at the Plan Commission on March 21, 2006. I have identified each section, page and paragraph with comments and documentation. Although not numerically identified, all "fifty or so" issues have been addressed to the best of my ability. 3/27/2006 Pat Rice 9659 Wild Cherry Lane Indianapolis, IN 46280 317- 846 -7770 patrice4632 @sbcglobal.net Page 2 of 11 PROJECT BACKGROUND GOALS (pages 1 -6) Page 5 in this concept plan, paragraph 1, states that "this area is in the heart of Carmel." This area is the southern most section of Clay Township and City limits The "heart of Carmel" is located above 116 Street. (Please clarify meaning.) p.5 /p2 This area has been designated as a "Special Study Area" as part of the overall 96 Street Corridor Study which was adopted as an amendment into the Comprehensive Plan on April 20, 2000. The request to complete this study carne from Cole Alexis on behalf of the community It was our understanding the same procedures would be followed as the original study. This would include a traffic study, intensive land use study, and a traffic impact study reflecting any changes proposed in current land use. What the DOCS implemented has not followed this process and none of these;have been done to date to our knowledge. (Please address.) p.5 /p3 The original meeting was requested by Pat Rice to include representatives of Indianapolis Division of Planning, Nora Community Council, several developers along with several residents of the study area community It was held at the DOCS and open to the public. From the very beginning there seemed to be a misunderstanding of both GOAL and PURPOSE. In a letter dated August 5, 2005, sent to "Residents of the 96 Street Study Area" from Mike Hollibaugh, he states: "The Department of Community Services initiated such a study beginning in late May, hiring a consulting urban planner to help guide the discussion with area residents and development interests, and ultimately to formulate an area plan for this neighborhood." Adam Theis was hired as the consultant and from the first meeting with him; he introduced the Urban Design Initiative as one of the "conceptual" plans. When asked about other plans, he said he would be working on some but at subsequent meetings states he hadn't had time to develop other plans. It became very clear that the plan he introduced was "The Plan" and we were no longer participants but "students" being lectured on the virtues of the Urban Design Initiative. Adam indeed did "guide the discussion" but always away from any ideas that didn't fit with his plan. 3/27/2006 Page 3 of 11 "Lectures" are part of the process stated in the Civic Design on page 5. Many of us have heard at least ten of these lectures! One of the stated goals in paragraph three comes out of the Civic Design document. One goal stated on page 29 of Civic Design raises the issue of a political science concept that is defined as, "efforts to systematically manage popular attitudes and social behavior on a large scale, whether by government or private groups." This refers to "social engineering." In Civic Design it states: "Form the Healthy Carmel Committee. Establish a committee focused on providing assistance with understanding how health is a part of our land use and open space decisions. Demand a `Five Minute Walk for All'." (Bold print is part of that document.) We question if this is what is meant to "promote a pedestrian oriented environment, coordinate with best practice trends in urban planning...." as well as larger social implications of that document. Although the goals may be commendable, they can not be legislated. There are many such implications which reflect one philosophy, but one size doesn't fit all. We are not all the same socially, economically, or politically. A more positive approach would be to embrace our differences without categorizing and labeling. The Civic Design and UDI as presented does not address these very important life issues other than verbage attempting to fix what is perceived as "less valuable," "less desirable," or "blighted." p.5 KEY POINTS For practical purposes, a comprehensive plan is used for rezoning. Although technically and legally it is not rezoning, it still serves as a strong guide for decision making and can be used by a court of law. We believe the document we are addressing is meant to "provide guidance to redesign the community to fit the Civic Design without any consideration given to other possibilities or having had an independent review process. The City may not intend to use "Eminent Domain" but the present plan limits possibilities of land use in such a way that it amounts to a "taking of land." One example is the properties facing 96 Street, several of which are three acres deep. This plan allows only for the front one acre to be redeveloped leaving the homeowners without a house with two empty acres behind the frontage. Furthermore, with the proposed widening of 96 Street and need for additional ROW on these properties and with no access to 96 Street, little land is left to develop. Additional ROW will be needed for an "access road" and parking in the rear. These concerns have not been addressed in a satisfactory way. There are other land use issues as well that may not technically fall under eminent domain but do result in a taking. It is true this community is changing as well as the neighborhoods within this community. We have not seen much "respect of the past" or present in this process. We have only seen the UDI and hypothetical plans without quantifiable information. Other disciplines of expertise such as market analysis, traffic engineering, analysis, wild life assessments, and "boots on the ground" should be part of the study. What does a "10 -year plan" mean in terms of specifics. Using hypotheticals does not give the residents any help in knowing how to plan for the future. Remodeling of homes has been put on hold and sale of homes has all but stopped due to the lack of concrete information. Several homes in this area have become unmarketable due to the instability created by this study. 3/27/2006 p.5 PROCESS Page 4 of 11 There was never a "series of recommendations" apart from moving around pieces of the UDI plan. "The planning ideas were open for comment and suggestion from this group as long as these ideas and suggestions fit in with the UDI. There were no other options given or suggestions considered. Being told this "study" was being put on "fast track Pat Rice requested a community meeting be held at Hope Church. The DOCS sponsored this meeting with over 250 in attendance. That meeting set the tone for all future meetings. There was only one plan, "The Plan and Adam Theis began his series of lectures to the community. Very little time was given for Q &A and Adam consistently used each question to further expound on "The Plan." Needless to say, the community was not pleased. This meeting became very contentious to the point that Mayor Brainard wanted to cancel all future meetings. Pat Rice, still hopeful, suggested a plan for a second meeting to include round table discussion by the different neighborhood groups along with an agenda for discussion. (See attached document #1) The Mayor agreed and the meeting was held. Pat was prepared to speak at the beginning of the meeting to explain the process and encourage residents to participate, still believing the goal of the community might be accomplished through this feedback. However, due to an unfortunate confrontation between Pat and Adam in a meeting held prior in the DOCS, and the unwillingness of the DOCS to consider any thing other than its plan, Pat declined to speak. The meeting of August 29 was held with over 200 in attendance, only to hear Adam's lecture all over again for another hour and half. Although Pat's meeting agenda was handed out by the DOCS, it was never implemented. Very little time was given to Q &A and with the same results. Adam's "answers" took up most of the limited time and nothing of significance changed. In lieu of full participation as suggested, those in attendance were asked to sign up if they wanted to serve on a "steering committee" the DOCS was establishing Approximately forty people signed up, most of who found out they had not been "selected" by an e mail, listing only those who had been. The individuals who were eliminated were never contacted again. This "steering" committee included only one from the original group that met at the beginning. No developers, other individuals with expertise, nor anyone from Marion County were invited to participate. This group became more like a focus group, with Adam doing the "steering (See attached document #2 from Cole Alexis, dated 12/3/05.) There was not full representation of all the neighborhoods, even though one such neighborhood, Forest Glen, requested inclusion and is 3/27/2006 p4 Page 5 of 11 one of those most directly affected. However, the neighborhood of Chesterton had three representatives, one of whom has served as their homeowners' association attorney "The planning team re- evaluated/re- designed recommendations based "....on their perceptions of how they could take feedback from the community and work it into "The Plan." "Continual refinements were made "....but the plan never deviated from the original goal of the DOCS which obviously had pre determined outcome. A fmal community meeting was held on February 15 with little change in the plan. There has been neither consensus nor satisfaction with this whole process, leaving many questions and concerns unanswered. p.5 OUTCOMES "This plan seeks to put in place a conceptual neighborhood plan".... which will serve to impose a new way of living for the residents of our community In one of the books recommended by Adam, "City Comforts," it states clearly that government should not impose the change upon a community. The DOCS has attempted to impose this UDI upon us even before the Civic Design with all these new concepts has gone through procedures in keeping with up- dating and/or amending the Comprehensive Plan. (See attached article from State of Indiana web site.) This would allow the whole community opportunity to participate. An openness to other ideas without a pre planned outcome should be the beginning of such a process. "Best practices in urban planning of neighborhoods are prompting new planning." This best states what we came to realize as the DOCS's goal and that the UDI is what prompted this study. We do not think it has been approached up -front with our community. Doing a wrong thing for a good reason doesn't make it the right thing to do. (The end doesn't justify the means.) What does "best practices" mean in comparison to what? A reputable consultant from another well -known firm states that in their approach to any new urban design it is a given that: "We can't make assumptions without factual information." It has already been stated that this document as well as Civic Design lacks quantifiable information. 3/27/2006 .t. CARMEL REGIONAL (pages 7 -9) Page 6 of 11 This section is particularly troubling in the way it misrepresents what has occurred concerning Marion County and its representatives. We had to press the DOCS about this issue a number of times and between Mr. George Haerle, (Land Use Chairman of Nora Community Council and a mayoral appointment on the Washington Township Citizens Advisory Committee for its Comprehensive Plan), and Pat Rice, arrangements were fmally made for several representatives from Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development as well as representatives from Nora Community Council to attend one of the meetings. However, they received no notices about future meetings until after a call by Pat Rice to the DOCS requesting Marion County be added to the list for noticing. Again, no further contact was made by DOCS until at the urging of one of the members on the Steering Committee, DOCS met with several of the leaders in Marion County to talk about Carmel's vision. In spite of what is written in this document, Marion County was totally unaware of what has been included in this document. No "formal letter to IDMD requesting participation in future land -use planning processes for the outlines land area, including this neighborhood concept plan" has been received by them. Neither they nor Nora Community Council were noticed of the March 21st Plan Commission Meeting nor have they seen the various documents including this final one. (See attached documentation #3 from Keith Holdsworth, IMPD, Ruth Hayes, President of Nora Community Council, and George Haerle, Land Use Chairman of Nora Community Council and representative from Washington Township for Comprehensive Plan Update) On several occasions Adam has referred to past problems between the two jurisdictions and used the phrase, "we are extending our hand" to Marion County. The problem never has been with Marion County's lack of response or cooperation. Lack of response and communication has been on the part of the City of Carmel. For this document to include "Recommendations" to Marion County without its input seems a bit arrogant. To infer under "Continued Actions" that a "regular pattern of discussions" has or will occur is simply not factual. CARMEL'S CENTRAL CORE (pages 11 24) "This neighborhood is included in this core area and plays a major role in the future of these systems. (Please explain what this means.) "In this plan, two specific principles are highlighted, MOBILITY and NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER." Does this mean "commercial node What would that include in our community? One market analyst, who worked with the development of Clay Terrace, has said in his opinion, the location at 98 /99 Westfield Blvd. would not be a good location economically. "Because of its location in the Central Core, this neighborhood will be affected by these larger systems in the future." (Please explain how.) "It is the intention of this section of the concept plan to outline recommendations for how this area can support these overall systems in the Central Core area and establish how these changes will affect the neighborhoods." (Please be specific as to what this means.) We would like clarification of the term, "neighborhood." Presently there are approximately five to eight "neighborhoods" in our community depending on which ones are included. Our individual "neighborhoods" have certain unique characteristics and we consider our "community" to include all the neighborhoods in the area, particularly from 96 Street to 99 Street and from Keystone to Westfield Blvd. We do not want to lose our identities within our neighborhoods and be referred to as all one neighborhood of many in a city. There are 3/27/2006 neighborhoods inside of a community and communities inside the larger city. Is there a different philosophical issue at play? Page 7 of 11 p.12 CIVIC DESIGN: General Recommendations for Creating a Mobile City TRANSIT: Options for Mobility What are the plans for Westfield Blvd.? Is it envisioned to be renamed "Rangeline Road Will be widened to four lanes to 116 Street? We believe an overall plan should be in place before amending the Comprehensive Plan piecemeal. p.13 MOBILITY ISSUES RESULTING LAND USE EFFECTS as related to the 96 Neighborhood Westfield Blvd. "Nearly completed four lane median street" It has been designed as two lane with median. Are there plans to widen it? 96 Street Are there "conceptual" plans to widen before redevelopment? 99 Street "Land Use Effects" What are future options for "redesign" and how will that "affect adjacent land uses in significant ways 96 Street/Keystone as Future Transit Area Does "increase value of surrounding land uses" imply redevelopment of this land? How would this affect Lakewood Gardens III? What might the opposite affect be like? p.16 CIVIC DESIGN: General Recommendations for Creating Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Centers 3/27/2006 What examples from other communities like ours have been observed and evaluated? p.17 WHAT MAKES A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER? How do these example fit into 98 /99 and Westfield. It seems that if a plan is to be amended, there should be clarification of how present ordinances would be changed. None of these examples would comply with present ordinances. The DOCS plan for commercial at the front of the Pittman project at this area appears to look very much like the architect and design of City Center. Please explain the purpose of a "look- alike." Is this an application of Civic Design p.11 "Identity and Gateway. Current arrival into the Central Core of Carmel is a non- descript experience for residents and visitors due to the lack of public art, visual excitement and development patter uniqueness." We think this "entrance into Carmel" should reflect both this community's identity as well. We don't think we need "visual excitement" but rather a sense of tranquility. p.18 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS in the 96 Neighborhood Decentralizing Commercial Centers There seems to be confusion as to why Carmel would want to "decentralize" commercial centers when ground has just been broken for City Center, and Merchants Center and Clay Terrace being viable new commercial centers. (Please clam what this means.) CURRENT STATUS NEIGHBORHOOD (Smaller) CENTER #2 Page 8 of 11 "Located along Westfield Blvd. which handles a high amount of traffic daily, make it a viable option for neighborhood scaled commercial activity." This seems contradictory in terms of "neighborhood" and on the other hand a high amount of traffic which already exists. This would most likely be a stop -off for traffic coming from outside the neighborhood and not "pedestrian friendly." p.19 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER ISSUES as related to the 96 Neighborhood 3/27/2006 Westfield Blvd. Re- design "The Westfield Blvd. corridor is an entrance into the City of Carmel from the south and also carries a larger amount of traffic. As this role has increased over time, it has and is making single family residential uses less desirable along its sides." Does the label, "less desirable" hold true for the entire Westfield Blvd. corridor? Has a market analysis been done reflecting various assumptions of property values as residential and mixed -use and commercial? (This has been done on land known as "The Tintera Property. We understand the issues with certain pieces of property but we believe these can be addressed by redesign and redevelopment along with city ordinances rather than derogatory labeling. Within our community homes are valued from $170,000 to $800,000. This is a wide range and reflects what we believe to be a viable housing market which includes "affordable housing" along with "high end housing." We also believe with a good plan in place for new development, redevelopment and upgraded infrastructure, this community will not only be revitalized but could affect the surrounding neighborhoods as well. Our identity is not "South Carmel Although we have had no clear "named" identity in the past (apart from the "grey area," due to our Indianapolis zip codes,) each neighborhood within our larger community does have. We have been asked to submit a name to identify this area and we want to have a name that identifies our community of neighborhoods. One suggestion has been "Lenape Trace of South Carmel." There is a story as to the naming of Lenape Trace Park. A Cub Scout Den from Orchard Park Elementary School discovered the name when studying the Delaware Indian Tribe. Their native name is the "Lene Lenape" Indian Tribe. A representative was at the dedication of the park. This area was part of their journey into exile, leaving a "trace" behind in relics discovered by earlier farmers and residents of this area. It would also seem fitting to name: the trails to be installed in this area which will connect up with the Monon Trail, Lenape Trails. p.23 MIXED -USE Neighborhood Center #2: Recommendations ACCESS PARKING The map shows 99 Street being rerouted through the Pittman project. Is this still an option being considered? p.24 Photo Analogy: Forest Preserve City Park Are there any current plans underway to preserve "Slime Lake" (also known to locals as "Lake Ugh and what does "City Park" mean? p.26 NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES Page 9 of 11 This page has significant implications to homeowners in this area. Using labels such as "less desirable" and "less valuable" is very damaging to this area. This document is available to the public and may be serving to create some of the resale issues currently being experienced. Up 3/27/2006 until information like this began being distributed, homes in this area did "hold value well and have add on/renovation potential in current form." Both renovation and sales have all but come to a halt. A retraction of these labels is of great significance to this community. We see current issues as follows: absentee landlords who are buying property on speculation traffic on 96 Street backing up from Keystone to Kittrell during peak hours due to Keystone intersection (The bright spot is the opening of the round -about which is functioning beyond expectation with its great design.) community in flux with the plethora of confusing information as a result of this study p.27 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Westfield /96 Frontage: Recommendations This designation is an issue for all the residents both with frontage and with contiguous property. It limits redevelopment and land locks several homeowners. Since most property fronting 96 Street is at least one acre or more, it is prime for future redevelopment yet this plan fails to fully address this critical issues. An access drive for' the front one acre parcels and increased ROW leaves little land left to market. It also affects all contiguous property. (Please refer to the attached overlay, #4 prepared by Pittman Partners, Inc. It has been designed for this area and is included as an alternative for your consideration. We request this be reviewed by both the City of Carmel and Nora Community Council.) p.28 RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION TRANSITIONAL AREA Recommendations Page 10 of 11 The recommendations of sidewalks and bus stops do not address the problem of drainage. All neighborhoods have swales and swales to not lend themselves to sidewalks! Home maintenance and ownership once was the norm. How does the UDI practically and realistically deal with these issues? TRANSITIONAL AREA: Another problematic label with confusing and ambiguous description. The 96 frontage is also "transitional" yet have been excluded from this designation. (See attached overlay prepared by Pittman Partners, Inc. as a possible solution.) p.30 ARTIST'S RENDITIONS OF POSSIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN This is not a pleasant image of our area! PLEASE omit. p.30 AFFECTED PARCELS DIAGRAM 3/27/2006 This is not just a diagram but a land -use map. Problems with this rendition have already been address. CHART (no page number) This chart is very ambiguous and confusing. RECOMMENDATIONS Page 11 of 11 Review existing guidelines Generate traffic impact study Assess level of need Determine how to meet need and function Take new assumptions and factor into the study Make an over all plan that can be implemented in phases that are practical as well as visionary Require architect, design, and materials used for new or re- development to be in keeping with the neighborhood in which they will be located 3/27 Mar 27 06 03:05p Pat Rice 1- 317 846 -7770 p.1 The following outline will be used for discussion at the August 29 meeting With the following changes already in the "pipe line what are the most important issues for your neighborhood and how do you think they will affect you? Round -A -Bout at 96 Westfield and future widening and raising of the Westfield bridge Widening of Westfield from 96 to 99 Streets Land -use in Marion County being changed from agricultural to business use along south side of 96 Street in new Comprehensive Plan due out this fall Properties on both north and south sides selling for office/business use (although not being in the open about it therefore under the zoning radar) Woods on 96 Street between Haverstick and Wild Cherry Lane being proposed for office buildings by owner (Tintera) Land and houses on Westfield between 96 to 99 under option for redevelopment Golf course (Sunrise) potential for future development Do you think an overall plan for this area is needed? If yes, what part(s) of the conceptual plan do you think will work? Are there parts you would be opposed to? What ideas can you bring to this process? How can this area be identified? (Name for area) Any other comments/questions? Please check one of the following neighborhoods represented by your group: Orchard Park Walden Pond Hamilton Hts. (Norriston/101' Holaday Hills Dales Surfwood Heights (Westfield Blvd/Kittrell) Forest Glen (Lincoln/Maple) Kittrell/Lincoln/Maple Wild Cherry Corner Chesterton Lakewood Gardens III Brooks Bend Other (please identify) Mar 27 06 03:05p Pat Rice patrice4632(asb net 1 -317- 846 -7770 p.l From: <Istakhan @aol.com> To: <MHollibaugh @carmetin.gov> Cc: <adam @edenlanddesign.com <AKeeting @carmel.in.gov <patrico1632 @sbcglobal.net <J Brainard @carmel. i n.gov> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 8:21 PM Subject: Re: Land Use Study Wild Cherry Comer (WCC) Mike, I'm glad you asked such a good question. I don't think we (WCC) are in any rush to "cash out" But we are not willing t o compromise our investment either. The path we are now marching down was not our first pick At the beginning of the year, when 1 reminded the BZA of the fact that a land use study had been repeatedly proposed but never delivered (by the county), 1 urged in my petition that a land use recommendation would level the playing field between residential landowners and developers. Until a plan could be completed, I asked for BZAs support to retard the encroachment of business into our area. 1 said that until such a study could be delivered, residents would be at a disadvantage —and development would be piecemeal and likely to fall short of the neighborhood's long -term needs. A strategy was —and is— needed. Our motivations. WCC's proposition went into this process thinking that change is inevitable but is still manageable. If we could hold it back and slow it down, we would. But not at the cost of our property's best possible use once change arrived. We are pragmatists and flexible. Money is not our primary motivation, but it does factor in_ We were neither committed to immediate development nor long -term conservation. Individually, we have different 'pain thresholds' for change. Individually, we have different 'pain thresholds' for change. But uniformily, we reject a 'solution' that makes us less happy with our existing homes and comes at a significant cost of our property value. We'd rather sell —or at least threaten to do so. The most recent version of the plan explicitly demonstrated the scope of probable change. We feel that the steering committee group has failed to address trying to influence Marion County's comprehensive plan whatsoever. The whole area south of 96th St is clearly being assumed to be developed commercially with the exception of the woodland preserve. Furthermore, the frontage road solution on our side of 96th St (though hinted at in the introduction of the Work/Live buffering solution) had not been fully articulated before. It offered a solution to the buffering concerns we had, but at what we perceive as our own personal expense. And we got loud and clear negative comments about it by various developers with whom we consulted. We felt that if we accepted that compromise, we would lose our ability to challenge it effectively in the future. Furthermore, the land holders with larger lots along 96th St loathed the way the frontage roads would carve up their lots. They were not willing to sell off their frontage and stay in the home; they could not see themselves staying in their home afterward; and they felt that they could not get 'a fair price' for their remaining residence and back acreage. They convinced the folks along Wild Cherry Lane that to accept the frontage roads Live -Work solution would lock them in long -term to a residential land use. Also, the proposed solution cannot be implemented piecemeal. For the frontage road to be effective, it has to be implemented contiguously. As long as there is a hold out, development cannot proceed. Most folks who buy homes with extra acreage are interested in doing so because of a combination of interests: privacy, appreciating nature and wildlife and investment I still think the situation can be defused or a mechanism for compromise can be established (though some of my neighbors may disagree). But what we saw as your proposed rush for closure for endorsement has served as our catalyst to push for more agressive zoning for the areas along 96th St, including WCC. Our Options. Aside from simply dropping the study or trying to move ahead with the recommendation as it is, we do have several altematives worth exploring. When we, as a group, are ready to explore them, we can discuss: 1. In previous historical negotiations, a few of us have worked with property owners who were looking to sell to developers to help screen or "vet" the proposals. For example, with The Retreat (96th Westfield), the landowner screened a few developers based on pace and then had us interview the rest About half of them were proposing commercial usage —which we rejected at the time. We looked at high level conceptual designs, rejecting the 4 -story proposals. We then helped negotiate the green space, park, trail and landscaping for several of the designs. We recommended to the landowner the developer that would face the least negative community feedback and promised to help support that developer's proposal. [This process took about two years.] We think 12/3/2005 412. Mar 27 06 03:06p Pat Rice Cole Alexis 9658 Wild Cherry Lane 575 -8577 1- 317 -846 -7770 p.2 such a collaborative mechanism like this could allow for constructive feedback by Chesterton and others about any developers' designs for WCC, Lincoln -Maple and Kittrell. I'd like to introduce this process at Steering Committee to see if other members might be reassured by such a checks and balances approach. However, we are prepared to proceed without it [There is a significant probability that 1 would find myself in the residents "left- behind" camp. 1 think this altemative makes the most sense long -term because it emphasizes collaboration.] Despite Adam's comments last meeting, an effort can be made to preserve green space and trees even with a Mixed Used assignment 1 can imagine a park with improved access that Chesterton residents would embrace, despite certain comments offered Tuesday. The signers of our petition constitute up to 25 contiguous acres. 20 to 30% of that could make a very suitable buffer and park for Chesterton. 2. Drop from your proposal the portion of the frontage road 1 Live Work buffering solution for -WCC, and indicate that a Mixed Use Commercial /Residential will be acceptable —once the south side of 96th St actually goes commercial and specify that some minimum acrage (say, five or more acres] would be required for such redevelopment proposals. [For those who are interested in keeping WCC as a buffer, they can help work with Marion County and NCC to slow down the growth.] Our Feedback Regarding Lessons Learned 1. t think this would have been avoidable if we as participants had had more control of the Steering Committee's meeting agenda. [Adam has tended to lecture us too much on urban planning and the ideas behind land use planning. The information provided a needed common framework, but should have been limited to 20 to 25% of our committee time. I think it ran 60 to 75% of it instead.] 2. Agendas and meeting materials were not available in advance and frequently were not structured in a way to provide anything other than individual free -form feedback. Only feedback on certain issues was reviewed by the entire group. Concerns were shared, but resolutions were rarely committed to, let alone articulated, until the next version of "the plan." We transitioned from topic to topic without corning to closure on anything, leaving you and Adam to propose the specific compromises usually days or weeks after our discussion. 3. We should have spent more time leaming about each others interests and motivations. All of the responses we hear in committee struck me as short-term needs rather than long -term. We all have a list of needs; our differences come from how we individually prioritize them and how we react to change. I have said to you that this committee was being run as a focus group, not a steering committee. When you try to get an endorsement out of such a sample group and either a consensus cannot be established or the endorsement does not represent reflect the entire population, there are only a handful of possible explanations... 4. We've had basically one plan on the table to discuss, and we've been told we could tweak it. Our attempts to push the envelope in tweaking it stem from our limited discussion about how and when land use designations could and should change. [When WCC rejected Single Residential As Office, I said we had not been able to arrive at a consensus about what it should be; when you counter- proposed a more conservative Residential Conservation, you also sent several non verbal signals that you and Adam intended to fast -track that solution. For us to discuss traffic access immediately thereafter would have meant that we stipulated to Residential Conservation.] I hope this helps you better understand my /our position. Mar 27 06 03:08p Pat Rice 1- 317 -846 -7770 p.1 Page 1 of 1 �3 patrice4632@sbcglobaLnet From: "Keith Holdsworth" <KHOLDSWO @Indygov.org> To: <patrice4632 @sbcglobal.net> Cc: "Michael Peoni" <MPEONI @lndygov.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:14 AM Subject: Potential for a sub -area plan for the 96th Street /KeystoneAvenue /1 -465 triangle This message is in answer to your question during our phone conversation concerning the process for a sub -area plan for this area. The first course of action for the Indianapolis Division of Planning would be to work with the Marion County neighborhood associations in the area to determine the level of interest in doing a sub-area plan. If the neighborhood groups were not interested in working on a plan for this area, it is unlikely that the Division would move forward with a sub -area plan. Time, money and staff numbers limit the number of sub -area plans the Division can take on at any given time and our first priority has to be those areas where residents are interested in helping develop, and then implement, a plan. If the neighborhood was interested in working on a plan, the Division has a typical process that would probably take about a year to accomplish_ It would involve working with neighborhood -based committees and would include a number of open, public meetings. Because of the area's location on our jurisdiction boundary, we would want to coordinate with the City of Carmel as a part of our process. I hope this helps answer your question, if you have any other concerns or questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. 3/23/2006 Mar 27 06 03:08p Pat Rice 03/24/2006 15:31 3172530246 To: Carmel Plan Commission March 24, 2006 Re: "96th and Westfield Blvd Neighborhood one pt Plan Dear Commission Members: We have just Teamed from Pat Rice of the above referenced document. The existence of this plan, which includes an area in Marion County, comes as asurprise to us. While Nora Northside Community Council, inc. (NCC) representatives attended a few (non public) study meetings last year as observers only, we were never aware that any recommendations would be made regarding potential development concepts and standards for land uses within NCC's official area of interest (south of 96th Street). In addition. we have received no copies of such plan or any notice that this plan was to be officially reviewed and perhaps ratified by your body. This situation leads me to share several concerns we have had about our relationship with planning and zoning in Carmel. •Recent zoning decisions in Carmel lead Marion County neighborhood leaders and citizens to perceive that Carmel really does not regard our input to be significant or worthy of consideration. There appears to be little respect given to the impacts of zoning decisions upon residents of Marion County. •We do not regularly receive notice of zoning and variance cases on the north side of 96th Street. One sometimes wonders if all of the time, effort, and resources devoted to 96th Street planning, are nothing more than an exercise in futility. Specifically, (would point to the 1999 96th Street Corridor Study (Michigan Road to Keystone). Marion County taxpayers invested agreat deal of staff time and resources and citizen volunteers gave hundreds of hours in developing the plan which was adopted by the Carmel Plan Commission on March 21, 2000, and the Cannel Council on April 10, 2000. In less than a year, Carmel approved the destruction of a viable, stable middle class neighborhood for the development of a commercial office park in violation of that very plan. That said. we must affirm that as always, NCC would welcome an opportunity to work WiTH Carmel 0 n regional planning. We fully understand that what happens on one side of 96th Street impacts the other side as well and believe that only through cooperative efforts, can orderly growth and development be achieved in both Carmel and Marion County. it would be our hope that, at the least, we be given ttie courtesy of an opportunity to review this plan, present it to concerned citizens in a public meeting, and submit a response prior to any official action by your body. Thank your for consideration of this request. Ruth R. Hayes, NCC President 8565 North Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, 46240 Phone 253 -9191 1- 317 -846 -7770 P.D. Bat 40324 Indanapols. arNana 16240 cc: Maury Plambeck, Director DMD: Mike Peoni, Planning Administrator, DMD; Keith Holdsworth, Principal Planner, ()MD Mayor Jim Brainard The Nara- Northside Community COur<rl. Inc. Is a npt.VOt- profit corporation In the state of Indiana eno is tax exempt under Section 50t(o)(3) of the IRS Code. p.2 PAGE 01/01 Mar 27 06 03:08p Pat Rice 03/26/2006 21:32 3172530246 NCC 5 82 IMBIBE, ILD. IInlmlulula lm. 482u8 1 -317- 846 -7770 p.3 PAGE 01/01 To: Pat Rice From George S- Haerle, Land Use Chairman Nora- Northside Community Council, Inc. Date: March 26, 2006 Re: "96th /Westfield Neighborhood Concept Plan" Process regarding Adoption of Washington Township, Marion County, Comprehensive Plan' On November 1, 2004, Mayor Bart Peterson appointed me as one of seven members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for the Washington Township Comprehensive Plan (per state statute°. This committee was to review and comment on the Washington Township Comprehensive Plan which is the final phase of a process to update the Marion County Comprehensive Plan which began in September, 2000. The second phase of the planning process called for mapping (seven public meetings with attendance ranging from 18 to 35 persons plus staff). The Advisory Committee held three meetings (lune through August, 2005) followed by a final public meeting on September 12. At the July 19, 2005, committee meeting, staff informed the committee that "Carmel had hired a consultant to study the area from Keystone Avenue to the Monon and from 1465 to 99th Street. The Marion County plan was to be office commercial, while Carmel's consultant envisions it to be a mix of office and residential, with tree preservation and sortie low-intensity retail. Based on the time needed for the Carmel vision to come together, staff proposed that we stick with our current land use recommendations, but developments may dictate an amendment to the plan at a future date." (From committee minutes of July 19, 2005.) The Washington Township Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Metropolitan Development Commission on October 5, 2005. In mid -May, 2005, we were invited to participate" in a Carrnei- sponsored land use study meeting for 96th Street (Keystone to Westfield) on May 23, 2005. Several NCC Directors attended several meetings and officials of the Indianapolis• Department of Metropolitan Development also attended some meetings. On September 22, I was informed that a 15 person Steering Committee had been "assembled "While we have only chosen citizens from the north of 96th Street for the committee, we still value your input and presence as a representative of the Nora Community Council. You are welcome to attend." W e have attended three of five Steering Committee meetings, the last being onJanuary 25, 2006. We have not received any information since that time of any additional meetings or received any materials regarding a "concept plan I hope this information answers your concerns. Sincerely, George S. Haerle of 4 Maintain a close working relationship with the county commissioners and city council, and encourage them to use the plan. Encourage officials to include the cost of updating the plan in the budgetary process. How Is the Plan Amended? After your community has adopted and used the plan for a period of time, new and developing conditions might call for its amendment. Indiana statutes provide for amendment; however, this authority should be used with discretion. A plan's value can be diminished through too frequent or capricious changes. The procedure to amend a plan is similar to the plan adoption process. The plan commission, the governing body or bodies, or local citizens may propose an amendment to the plan, but any proposal must always be referred to the plan commission for consideration. After it is referred to the plan commission, the commission members review the proposal. They may refer it to a study committee for recommendations. The commission then holds a public hearing. While evaluating an amendment, the commission should be sure that the change fits the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and that special interest groups are not being given preferential treatment. In addition, they should consider all impacts of the change. These might include adverse effects to adjacent landowners, established commerce, existing traffic patterns, public service delivery, and the ability to meet the needs of low- income and minority groups. After the public hearings have been held and evaluation completed, the plan commission may adopt the proposed amendment and refer it to the appropriate legislative body or bodies for review and adoption. An amendment is not effective until the governing body has approved it. Finally, the plan commission files the officially adopted amendment with the county recorder, and the amend- ment becomes part of the revised plan. How Often Should the Plan Be Revised? The plan should be reviewed every three to five years. This ensures that the study data and planning maps reflect current status. Policies may also have to be updated. A review by a study committee may be simple in communities that have grown little in recent years or quite elaborate in communities that have witnessed rapid growth or change. The following questions may help you during the review process. Can the goals, objectives, and policies be improved? Have population characteristics changed? If so, how will these changes affect the jurisdiction in the future? Has the economy changed? What long -term effect will these changes have? Has the natural environment been degraded or improved? What kind of development has been occurring and where? Is this kind of development sought, 3/14/2006 11:10 AM March 17, 2006 To: Carmel -Clay Plan Commission Members From: Pat Rice for Wild Cherry Corner Residents You have received information from the Department of Community Services under New Business, 6H. Docket No. 06020017. We believe there are many serious issues concerning this proposal. Having recently received the final document, "96 Street Westfield Blvd. Neighborhood Concept Plan," we have numerous concerns with the document itself. We find it ambiguous and lacking quantifiable data and are concerned about how it would be interpreted and who will serve as the final arbiter in the process. We believe the document to be misleading in a number of areas. I want to state up front that the "concept" of the Civic Design is not in question here. What is at issue is how it has been used and applied to our area before first being properly vetted through the required process instructed by the City Council. 96 and Westfield Blvd Special Study Area fzeGitivo Pc MTEL We believe the method used to design this study is in violation of the decision made by the Carmel City Council pertaining to Resolution CC- 01- 09- 06 -02. In consideration of the resolution, having been sent from this Commission with the wording: "The adoption of CIVIC DESIGN does not bind the Plan Commission or Common Council to take steps toward its full or partial implementation..." it was withdrawn from the Council agenda on recommendation from the Land Use Committee which met on Thursday, January 12, 2006. The minutes read as follows: "A recommendation was made to withdraw the resolution by Ron Carter at the next Council meeting, seconded by Brian Mayo. Vote was unanimous." I believe the Land Use Committee members reflected your concerns that the Civic Design, or "Urban Design Initiative was too open ended and did not provide adequate quantifiable information on which to base future decisions by either this body or the Common Council. Furthermore, the Department was instructed to be more specific rather than hypothetical and to begin the process of properly moving this amendment through noticed public hearings as the Comprehensive Plan was done. To our knowledge, this procedure has not been followed to date. After going before the Board of Zoning appeals and prevailing in our request for denial for a "special use" rezone on residential property in our community, we requested a study identified as a "Special Study Area" in the 1996 "96 Street Corridor Study" be conducted. That study was sponsored by both the cities of Carmel and Indianapolis and funded by the MPO with a well -known planner, John Meyers. Upon completion, the study was adopted as an amendment into both the Indianapolis and Carmel -Clay Comprehensive Plans with several issues remaining open. In Chapter Seven, Page 7 -7 under Implementation, it reads as follows: "Several issues remain to be resolved in this area. These issues include the extension of 96 St. west of Westfield, direction to how the intersection with the Monon would work and detailed land use intensity in the area." 2 Without completion of the bridge east of Keystone, and possible extension of 96 Street through the Monon or with a bridge over I465 proposed by the County, there was not enough data on the traffic impact to complete this part of the 96 Street Corridor Study of 1996. Although we have requested this study be implemented several times over the past several years, our most recent request was triggered by speculative buying in our area with conversion of residences into office, rental property left to run down due to absentee ownership, the Marion County Comprehensive Plan being updated to include change in change in land use from agriculture to commercial on the south side of 96 Street, and several new developments preparing to come in for rezone changing S -2 for both commercial and higher density residential. We never envisioned what was about to take place! Instead of staying within the confines of the Special Study, the City hired a consultant, Adam Theis, to develop a "conceptual" plan using the Urban Design Initiative (Civic Design) for our area. We were not informed that this was in lieu of our original request nor were we aware at that time of the Civic Design concept. After several meetings, it became clear the Department had a different agenda than ours. Nothing we tried to say or question made any difference in terms of the direction being taken. We continued to be told that what was being presented was "only conceptual yet when offered other ideas, Adam always brought everything back to "The Plan". Several months ago during a hearing before this Committee, the DOCS presented the "Civic Design" as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Adam Theis was asked specifically if the 96 Blvd Study was related to the "Civic Design" and he said it was not. The document you have before you, "96 Street and Westfield Blvd. Neighborhood Concept Plan clearly reflects that it was and is related. This proposal would be a piecemeal approach to the larger Central Core District without an overall plan in place. No matter how the words are parsed, this appears to be an attempt to put one section of the Central Core District into the Comprehensive Plan under the "Urban Renewal Initiative" without going through proper procedures. In reality, it would have to be an amendment to the amendment already in place. $25,000 later in consulting fees and untold hours both by the DOCS and members of this community, it appears we are no closer to answering the issues of the original Special Study that was requested in the first place. The map in this document is one of a number of different versions which have been put forth like "moving deck chairs around" without a clear plan for implementation. It is only one of the many issues we have with this document. The attached communication to Mike Hollibaugh dated December 3, 2005 from Mr. Cole Alexis, member of the Steering Committee and resident of Wild Cherry Corner, has been included to provide some insight into the difficulties encountered. Therefore, it is our belief that Docket No. 06020017 to amend the Comprehensive Plan be sent to the City Council with a negative recommendation and noted that the "96 and Westfield Blvd Special Study Area" be addressed. If the "Civic Design" is one of the 3 tools deemed necessary to address it, then the 96 /Westfield Study should remain on hold until that document has gone through the proper process. Realizing that you may need to have more information, we would ask that you appoint a special committee from both Subdivision and Special Study Committees, or with the entire Plan Commission hold a separate public hearing to address only this item of the agenda. We would also request that the public hearing be left open until then. Respectfully submitted, Pat Rice for: Bob Harshberger Don Hollenback Mr. Mrs. Richard Imel Mr. Mrs. Randy Stair Sandy Guion John Tintera Mr. Mrs. Eric Neeley Mr. Mrs. Robert Johns Mr. Mrs. Tim Tolliver Mr. Mrs. Jim Palecek Mr. Cole Alexis and Dr. Alice Johns Pat Rice Mr. Mrs. Wally Smith Mr. Mrs. Norm Wiseman Mr. Mrs. Phil Hatch Gordon Goodwin and Zelma Taylor 2406 E. 96 Street 2420 E. 96 Street 2430 E. 96 Street 2480 E. 96 Street 9602 Wild Cherry Lane 96 Street/Wild Cherry Lane 9603 Wild Cherry Lane 9624 Wild Cherry Lane 9648 Wild Cherry Lane 9649 Wild Cherry Lane 9658 Wild Cherry Lane 9659 Wild Cherry Lane 9673 Wild Cherry Lane 9650 Haverstick Road 9660 Haverstick Road 9670 Haverstick Road (319 High St. Petersburg, VA) patrice4632(a@sbcglobal.net From: <Istakhan @aol.com> To: <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> Cc: <adam @edenlanddesign.com <AKeeling @carmel.in.gov <patrice4632 @sbcglobal.net <J Brainard @carmel. in.gov> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 8:21 PM Subject: Re: Land Use Study Wild Cherry Corner (WCC) Mike, I'm glad you asked such a good question. I don't think we (WCC) are in any rush to "cash out." But we are not willing to compromise our investment either. The path we are now marching down was not our first pick At the beginning of the year, when I reminded the BZA of the fact that a land use study had been repeatedly proposed but never delivered (by the county), I urged in my petition that a land use recommendation would level the playing field between residential landowners and developers. Until a plan could be completed, I asked for BZAs support to retard the encroachment of business into our area. I said that until such a study could be delivered, residents would be at a disadvantage —and development would be piecemeal and likely to fall short of the neighborhood's long -term needs. A strategy was —and is— needed. Our motivations. WCC's proposition went into this process thinking that change is inevitable but is still manageable. If we could hold it back and slow it down, we would. But not at the cost of our property's best possible use once change arrived. We are pragmatists and flexible. Money is not our primary motivation, but it does factor in. We were neither committed to immediate development nor long -term conservation. Individually, we have different 'pain thresholds' for change. Individually, we have different 'pain thresholds' for change. But uniformily, we reject a 'solution' that makes'us less happy with our existing homes and comes at a significant cost of our property value. We'd rather sell —or at least threaten to do so. The most recent version of the plan explicitly demonstrated the scope of probable change. We feel that the steering committee group has failed to address trying to influence Marion County's comprehensive plan whatsoever. The whole area south of 96th St is clearly being assumed to be developed commercially with the exception of the woodland preserve. Furthermore, the frontage road solution on our side of 96th St. (though hinted at in the introduction of the Work/Live buffering solution) had not been fully articulated before. It offered a solution to the buffering concems we had, but at what we perceive as our own personal expense. And we got loud and clear negative comments about it by various developers with whom we consulted. We felt that if we accepted that compromise, we would lose our ability to challenge it effectively in the future. Furthermore, the land holders with larger Tots along 96th St loathed the way the frontage roads would carve up their lots. They were not willing to sell off their frontage and stay in the home; they could not see themselves staying in their home afterward; and they felt that they could not get 'a fair price' for their remaining residence and back acreage. They convinced the folks along Wild Cherry Lane that to accept the frontage roads Live -Work solution would lock them in Tong -term to a residential land use. Also, the proposed solution cannot be implemented piecemeal. For the frontage road to be effective, it has to be implemented contiguously. As long as there is a hold out, development cannot proceed. Most folks who buy homes with extra acreage are interested in doing so because of a combination of interests: privacy, appreciating nature and wildlife and investment. I still think the situation can be defused ora mechanism for compromise can be established (though some of my neighbors may disagree). But what we saw as your proposed rush for closure for endorsement has served as our catalyst to push for more agressive zoning for the areas along 96th St, including WCC. Our Options. Aside from simply dropping the study or trying to move ahead with the recommendation as it is, we do have several altematives worth exploring. When we, as a group, are ready to explore them, we can discuss: 1. In previous historical negotiations, a few of us have worked with property owners who were looking to sell to developers to help screen or "vet" the proposals. For example, with The Retreat (96th Westfield), the landowner screened a few developers based on price and then had us interview the rest. About half of them were proposing commercial usage —which we rejected at the time. We looked at high level conceptual designs, rejecting the 4 -story proposals. We then helped negotiate the green space, park, trail and landscaping for several of the designs. We recommended to the landowner the developer that would face the least negative community feedback and promised to help support that developer's proposal. [This process took about two years.] We think 12/3/2005 such a collaborative mechanism like this could allow for constructive feedback by Chesterton and others about any developers' designs for WCC, Lincoln -Maple and Kittrell. I'd like to introduce this process at Steering Committee to see if other members might be reassured by such a checks and balances approach. However, we are prepared to proceed without it. [There is a significant probability that I. would find myself in the residents "left behind" camp. I think this alternative makes the most sense long -term because it emphasizes collaboration.] Despite Adam's comments last meeting, an effort can be made to preserve green space and trees even with a Mixed Used assignment. I can imagine a park with improved access that Chesterton residents would embrace, despite certain comments offered Tuesday. The signers of our petition constitute up to 25 contiguous acres. 20 to 30% of that could make a very suitable buffer and park for Chesterton. 2. Drop from your proposal the portion of the frontage road Live Work buffering solution for WCC, and indicate that a Mixed Use Commercial /Residential will be acceptable —once the south side of 96th St actually goes commercial and specify that some minimum acrage [say, five or more acres] would be required for such redevelopment proposals. [For those who are interested in keeping WCC as a buffer, they can help work with Marion County and NCC to slow down the growth.] Our Feedback Regarding Lessons Learned 1. I think this would have been avoidable if we as participants had had more control of the Steering Committee's meeting agenda. [Adam has tended to lecture us too much on urban planning and the ideas behind land use planning. The information provided a needed common framework, but should have been limited to 20 to 25% of our committee time. I think it ran 60 to 75% of it instead.] 2. Agendas and meeting materials were not available in advance and frequently were not structured in a way to provide anything other than individual free -form feedback. Only feedback on certain issues was reviewed by the entire group. Concerns were shared, but resolutions were rarely committed to, let alone articulated, until the next version of "the plan." We transitioned from topic to topic without coming to closure on anything, leaving you and Adam to propose the specific compromises usually days or weeks after our discussion. 3. We should have spent more time learning about each others interests and motivations. All of the responses we hear in committee struck me as short-term needs rather than long -term. We all have a list of needs; our differences come from how we individually prioritize them and how we react to change. I have said to you that this committee was being run as a focus group,.not a steering committee. When you try to get an endorsement out of such a sample group and either a consensus cannot be established or the endorsement does not represent reflect the entire population, there are only a handful of possible explanations... 4. We've had basically one plan on the table to discuss, and we've been told we could tweak it. Our attempts to push the envelope in tweaking it stem from our limited discussion about how and when land use designations could and should change. [When WCC rejected Single Residential As Office, I said we had not been able to arrive at a consensus about what it should be; when you counter- proposed a more conservative Residential Conservation, you also sent several non verbal signals that you and Adam intended to fast -track that solution. For us to discuss traffic access immediately thereafter would have meant that we stipulated to Residential Conservation.] I hope this helps you better understand my /our position. Cole Alexis 9658 Wild Cherry Lane 575 -8577 John B. Tintera 2700 E. 96 Street Carmel, IN 46280 March 17, 2006 Plan Commission City of Carmel To Plan Commission Members: The Carmel Department of Community Services has recently issued the 96 Street Westfield Blvd Area Neighborhood Planning Study. The Tintera family has owned the 2700 block of East 96 Street (bound by Haverstick and Wild Cherry Lane) since the late 1940s. Attached is an aerial photo of the site. Previously, we filed a rezone application to reclassify the real estate from its current residential zoning to an Office Use designation under the B -2 zoning classification, and then after the introduction of the 96 Street Westfield Blvd Area Neighborhood Planning Study we placed the rezone request on hold and participated in the "study process" by attending meetings and discussing the relevant issues with some of our neighbors and DOCS. Prior to the "study process we had worked with our neighbors and the DOCS extensively while seeking a rezone to the office designation for the parcel at 2700 E 96 Street. The recent Neighborhood Study has designated the parcel at 2700 E 96 Street as Medium Density Residential. We respectfully ask you to reconsider classifying the parcel as Medium Density Residential, and change the classification to Neighborhood Commercial under the 96 Street Westfield Blvd Area Neighborhood Planning Study. Prior to the recent "study process we have worked with the several of the neighbors near the parcel at 2700 E 96 Street. These neighbors include some of the approximately 20 closest parcels or property owners. My understanding is that the neighbors signed and submitted a recommendation on November 29 2005 that they are in favor of "Mixed -Use Residential" classification and not the existing residential classification. This recommendation includes two components, "residential housing" and "neighborhood scale commercial sites." We look forward to the comments and clarifications from this group. The recent Neighborhood Planning Study created a "Transitional Zone," which is in part, immediately north of the parcel at 2700 E. 96 Street. The Neighborhood Planning Study describes this "Transition Zone" by stating: The Depattinent recognizes that the private real estate market might desire the redevelopment of several single family lots in these areas. While maintaining and improving the existing residential community is encouraged, consideration will be given to: Private market assembly of contiguous land for redevelopment, adjacent to a changing land use area on Westfield Blvd. or 96th Street, which total a minimum of 5 gross acres. Should this occur, the Depait,uent would begin a special review of the land assembly, working to understand development form, access and parking, and open space issues. To the extent that the study contemplated "changing land use," we seek further clarification from the Plan Commission on the potential conclusions from the study as they affect my family's real estate. The Tintera family desires to be consistent the principles of the new Civic Design document, the Neighborhood Study, and we desire to continue working with adjacent neighbors and resolve planning issues for the 2700 block of E. 96 Street. The document Civic Design, Guiding Design Principles for the Future of Carmel's Central Core, states that "Each neighborhood should have its own future planning to define its character and development. These plans should be based on the principles in this document" (pg 13). Our neighborhood on 96 street is designated graphically on page 20 under a "City of Neighborhoods" as a "hybrid" of Density and Mixed Land -Use. Civic Design also places an emphasis on small parcel development. Page 11 of Civic Design states that "The City should seek opportunities to encourage small development ventures to add interest and variety to the build environment." If significant "tracks larger than 5 acres" as stated in the Neighborhood Plan above are optioned up, then it is less likely a "small development venture" can be achieved and the Civic Design principle number 2, an "Interesting City';', is reduced or marginalized. In order to encourage "small development ventures," it might improve the neighborhood planning process to extend consideration to a smaller scale. We believe that parcel at 2600 E 96` Street is well positioned to support the planning principles in Civic Design and create a Central Core which is Pedestrian- Oriented and Intentionally Designed. As stated in Civic Design and mentioned several times by Adam and Mike during the planning process, one of the general principles is to create a walkable neighborhood and reduce the number of car trips. Adam has suggested a "goal to reduce 2 of 5 car trips" or a 40% reduction in car trips. Adam has stated further, "We would prefer a neighborhood where someone can walk to lunch from work rather than drive." Civic Design has also mentioned that a problem from past urban planning is the creation of "mono use districts" such as residential suburban subdivisions, which did not encourage a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. We believe the parcel at 2700 E 96` Street is well positioned to serve the goals of a Pedestrian- Oriented neighborhood. Since the parcel is located on 96` Street, our initiative is supported by adequate access on 96"' Street, not only by automobile, but by an alternative bike and walk path which is scheduled to be 10' wide inside the right -of- way along 96 Street. Since the parcel already includes this 10' bike /walk path, residents and any office workers will have access to mixed use amenities as part of a Neighborhood Commercial classification. Furthermore, according to Civic Design on page 23, the parcel at 2700 E 96 Street is on the East Loop of the proposed Intra -Urban Carmel Transit System. It is for these reasons that our requested classification the parcel at 2700 E 96` Street is consistent with the Civic Design principles and why we are in favor of Neighborhood Commercial and opposed to a proposed land use of Medium Density Residential in the Neighborhood Study. The 96"' Street Westfield Blvd Area Neighborhood Planning Study, Civic Design principles, and the Video "Carmel Urban Design Initiative" on the City of Carmel's website all cite the principle of Three Rules of Urban Design. This includes: 1) Build to the Sidewalk, 2) Make the Building Front Permeable and 3) Put Parking Behind the Front of the Building. The parcel at 2700 E 96"' is well positioned to accommodate this principle and we look forward to implementing this. I would like to add further that since the parcel is adjacent to proposed Neighborhood Commercial to the East in the recent Neighborhood Study and adjacent to Office with incidental Retail use to the South in the recently adopted Marion County Comprehensive plan, then it would be arguably consistent to assign a similar use classification of Neighborhood Commercial for the parcel at 2700 E. 96 Street. It would not be inconsistent to assign a use classification to the parcel of Neighborhood Commercial since the adjacent parcel's uses are compatible. It is for this reason that a use classification of Neighborhood Commercial for the parcel at 2700 E. 96` Street is well- suited. Given that the Neighborhood Study contemplated additional consideration for the "Transitional Zone," Civic Design states that neighborhood planning "should be based on the principles in this document," Civic Design "encourages small development ventures" to create an "Interesting City," the ability to accommodate a Pedestrian- Oriented neighborhood along with the goals of the Intra -Urban Carmel Transit System, the Three Rules of Urban Design stated by Civic Design, and the presence of two adjacent parcels classified for commercial use, we respectfully request a use classification of "Neighborhood Commercial" for the parcel at 2700 E. 96 Street. Sincerely, John B. Tintera Thank you for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission Subdivisons committee. I would like to address the posting on the web site under the heading March 10, 2006 Plan Commission Submittal.PDF On Page 26 A Balloon caption pointing to the Forest Glen subdivision states: "Single family homes north of 96 St. become less desirable with limited left (east) turning and high traffic'. I have prepared a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation of the homes in the Forest Glen Subdivision for viewing by this subcommittee. The residents of Forest Glen are very concerned and disturbed by the City of Carmel placing this comment on its official website. This Comment and others made by the Department of Community Services and Eden Land Development have already effected the property values and the resale of at least two properties on Maple Drive. As you can see by these pictures the properties are desirable and have in the past sold within 90 days of being placed on the market. Since the beginning of the study properties have not been able to generate a credible offer to a seller. This neighborhood was developed in the early 1960s. Many of the families have remodeled their homes and put literally thousands of dollars in remodeling and up grading of the structures. For the Carmel City Community Services Department through its Contractor to state this is a Less Desirable Area is an affront to the hard working homeowners and retired couples It is wrong for the City to annex this area and then systematically attack the property in a public forum by saying it is less desirable thus reducing the resale value in such a way as to deny the property owner a fair return on their investment. These statements boarders on, if it is not, an actual libelous depiction of the neighborhood. The neighborhood has been denied any representation on the steering committee even though residents came forward and volunteered when the Department of Community Services requested it, E -mails were sent to volunteer all were met with indifference. Yet two other areas were afforded with up to THREE representatives for their neighborhoods. It would appear there might have been a specific agenda the Community Services Department had in mind and Forest Glen did not meet the criteria of that agenda. As stated previously Forest Glen does not oppose development of the "Horse Farm" But it does oppose the reclassification of the neighborhood as a Transitional and Less Desirable We respectfully request we be returned to the Residential Conservation as stated in these petitions. Dennis Pat Maurer 9642 Maple Drive Indpls, IN 46280 Page 1 of 1 Keeling, Adrienne M From: Keeling, Adrienne M Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:03 PM To: DeVore, Laura B Cc: Morrissey, Phyllis G; Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V; Blanchard, Jim E; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Littlejohn, David W; Griffin, Matt L; Brennan, Kevin S; Mindham, Daren; Holmes, Christine B Subject: Docket No. Assignment: (CPA) 96th Westfield Neighborhood Plan #06020017 CPA) Laura, Please prepare a new docket folder. I have issued the necessary Docket Number for (CPA) 96 Westfield Neighborhood Plan. It will be the following: Docket No. 06020017 CPA Total Fee: 2/20/2006 $0.00 (exempt) $0.00 Docket No. 06020017 OA: 96 Westfield Neighborhood Plan The applicant seeks to amend the Carmel /Clay Comprehensive Plan in order to incorporate the 96 Westfield Neighborhood Plan. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Petitioner, please note the following: 1. This Item will not be on an agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 2. Published Public Notice will occur no later than Friday, February 24. Published notice is required within the Indianapolis Star. 3. Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than Noon, Friday, March 17. Failure to submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the petition. 4. The Fifteen (15) Informational Packets will be delivered to Plan Commission Secretary Ramona Hancock no later than NOON, Friday, March 10. 5. The Item will appear on the March 21 agenda of the Plan Commission under (Public Hearings). 6. The Item will also appear on the March 30, 2006 agenda of the Plan Commission Subdivision Committee.