Planning staff presented the US 31 Sub Area Plan at a public committee meeting at the Carmel Library, describing it as guidance to inform future development rather than a change to zoning or immediate land-use authorizations. The plan focuses on repurposing underutilized surface parking, improving connectivity across the five-plus-mile US 31 corridor, and identifying locations for open space and pedestrian improvements.

The presenter emphasized that the plan “doesn’t change zoning” and is intended to guide reviews by the planning commission, redevelopment commission and city council. “This is guidance for developers,” one staff speaker said.

Residents and council members raised several concerns. Traffic and safety near neighborhood streets were a recurring theme: resident Gus Tamara said the stretch near Spring Mill Road has grown worse over the last six years and warned that additional commercial development could increase accidents and congestion. “It’s become more and more congested,” Tamara said, urging caution about further intensification adjacent to one-lane residential streets.

Neighbors also questioned how the plan’s illustrations and positive framing would be interpreted by the public and by future landowners. A council member cautioned against subjective language in the draft that labels particular developments as “wins” without clear, objective standards. Several residents said the maps in the packet lack street names and neighborhood identifiers, making it difficult for lay readers to understand which parcels are affected.

Green-space and property-ownership issues surfaced in comments about a stand of woods near the IU hospital property. Speakers asked why preservation of that wooded parcel is discussed if it sits outside the plan boundary; staff replied that the plan can signal public support for preserved green space but cannot directly control land that is privately owned by another institution.

On parking and market trends, staff framed the plan as a long-term response to changes in office demand and large-surface parking patterns. The document recommends discussing reduced parking minimums and exploring shared, structured parking over time; staff and council members said that any policy changes on parking standards would require separate policy action.

Several commenters urged more clarity and “guardrails” for design details—lighting, noise, height transitions and buffering—that can affect adjacent neighborhoods. Kathy Stettler, a Spring Lake resident, said the woods “is very important to all of Carmel,” and asked for stronger assurances that neighborhood character and screening would be respected.

Committee members acknowledged past situations where neighborhood promises felt unmet and said the purpose of the meeting was to hear residents’ concerns. Paul Morrison, who identified himself as a board member of Jackson Grant, asked that property owners be updated on the process and encouraged more targeted outreach to affected neighborhoods.

Staff agreed to improve public access to materials (the packet is in Laserfiche and linked from the comprehensive-plan sub area pages) and to post images or links on the land-use committee page. The committee invited residents to return for the next meeting in two weeks for a continued, topic-by-topic discussion. No formal votes on the plan were taken at the meeting; the committee adjourned at 7:12 p.m.

The committee’s next steps include collecting focused public feedback, clarifying map labels and boundaries in the packet, and considering additional review of nearby PUDs and infrastructure implications before any policy changes are advanced to council or the planning commission.