Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards US‑31 sub‑area draft to full commission after revisions; IU wooded parcel and trail network discussed
Summary
The committee reviewed a revised US‑31 sub‑area plan draft, asked for clarifying language about the purpose and limits of sub‑area plans, enlarged maps and a neighborhood index, and discussed a 20‑acre wooded parcel near IU Health as a potential future green space. The committee voted to forward the revised draft to the full Planning Commission.
The Carmel Plan Committee reviewed a revised draft of the US‑31 sub‑area plan Sept. 30 and voted to forward the document to the full Planning Commission, directing staff to make several clarifying edits and to add supporting material requested by the committee.
Adrienne Keeling of the Department of Community Services summarized edits added to the draft, including new language explaining the purpose and limits of sub‑area plans. Keeling said the document now clarifies that a sub‑area plan “does not change or update zoning regulations in the Carmel Unified Development Ordinance,” and that most recommendations will require additional action to be implemented.
The committee supported enlarging the plan maps (the corridor was split across two pages for readability) and asked staff to provide a single‑page neighborhood index that would label adjacent subdivisions for reader reference. Staff said the development‑pattern online map already shows neighborhood names at higher zoom levels but agreed to add a one‑page map to the appendix to orient readers.
Several members raised letters and resident concerns about a roughly 20‑acre wooded area near the IU Health property and the possibility of preserving that area as publicly accessible parkland or green space. Staff and department directors cautioned that the excluded wooded parcel lies outside the sub‑area boundary and that existing PUDs and zoning (S2 or other underlying zones) remain in effect. Committee members nevertheless asked staff to add clarifying language to the plan noting the public interest, that the area is outside the study boundary, and that the plan’s inclusion of a recommended trail or greenway is aspirational and would require further interagency coordination and funding.
The draft also adds clarifying language about tax‑increment financing districts and how redevelopment incentives relate to development patterns along the corridor. Staff included map clarifications to show priority development sites, routes and greenway alignments, and emphasized that alignments are conceptual and not drawn to scale.
A motion to forward the US‑31 sub‑area plan draft to the full Planning Commission, subject to the committee’s requested edits, passed after a voice vote. Staff said they will post the revised draft and supporting map materials in the project‑doc system and return to the Planning Commission for final action.
