HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarmel/Clay Parks Impact Fee Zone Improvement Plan CARMEL/CLAY PARKS IMPACT FEE
ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2001 — 2006 Zone Improvement Plan
October, 2000
1
Introduction
On November 4, 1996, the City of Carmel passed and approved
Ordinance No. D-1249, commonly known as the Parks and Recreation Impact
Fee Ordinance or, the "PRIF Ordinance" for the City of Carmel and Clay
Township (collectively, the "Community"). Consistent with Indiana Code Section
36-7-4-1340, the PRIF Ordinance became effective in May of 1997. With an
initial 5 year life, the Ordinance provides that the Carmel Common Council may
consider and adopt such amendments as are necessary to cause a substantive
compliance with all constitutional and statutory requirements, and based on
economic and market forces over which the Council has no control, the Council
may, not less than once a year, cause a review of the validity of the Impact Fee,
the Impact Zone and the Zone Improvement Plan.
In March of 2000, the Carmel-Clay Park and Recreation Board adopted a
Resolution requesting for the first time since the adoption of the PRIF Ordinance,
that the Carmel Common. Council review the Impact Fee. In response, the
Council directed the Director of the Department of Community Services to cause
a review to be made of the PRIF Ordinance to determine the appropriateness of
the Impact Fee, the Impact Zone and the Zone Improvement Plan and if deemed
necessary, to prepare a proposed replacement impact fee ordinance.
The rapid development experienced in the Community over the past five
years is comparable to that experienced in the prior decade and therefore, the
Community continues to be one of the fastest growing areas in Central Indiana.
Residential and commercial development continue to flourish and the Community
to prosper. The continuation of prosperity and rapid development create a need
to enhance the current plan for future growth and as was achieved when the
PRIF Ordinance was first adopted, the objective is to keep the Community goals
in focus.
In 1995, the Community embarked on the 2020 Vision Process to define
the Community's goals. Paramount among the items of consensus was
provision for the preservation of open space and the expansion of recreation
opportunities. In 1996, the Common Council adopted the PRIF Ordinance and
now, in 2000, revisits it so that the Community goals are kept in focus.
This plan serves as a Zone improvement Plan (sometimes, herein referred
to as the "Plan" and in the adopting Ordinance as the "2001-2006 Zone
Improvement Plan"), in compliance with IC 36-7-4-1300. As such, it provides a
foundation for imposing impact fees of future development to offset additional
costs for park system expansion and improvements.
2
Infrastructure Zone
The infrastructure zone is a single zone coinciding with the boundaries of
Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana (the "Infrastructure Zone"). The
subsequent growth projections and estimated costs described in this Plan
specifically pertain to this Infrastructure Zone.
Approval Process
The following is the approval process through which the prior Zone
Improvement Plan and through which this Plan proceeded to become official
documents of the Community:
• Approval by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the Carmel-Clay Park
and Recreation Board,
• Recommendation by the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission, and
• Approval by the Common Council of the City of Carmel.
Approval by the Common Council is the final step by which to establish the Plan
as a part of the Comprehensive Plan of the Community and provides the basis
for increasing the park and recreation impact fee. Once approved by the
Common Council and once the time frame has run for the Ordinance by which
the Impact Fee is increased has run and the Ordinance in effect, this Plan will be
considered to have replaced the original Zone Improvement Plan adopted in
1996.
3
4,
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
The Carmel-Clay Park and Recreation Board (the "Board") was created in
1991 by virtue of a Joinder Agreement between the City of Carmel and Clay
Township.
The Board approved the Joinder agreement on or about July 27, 1991. The
Joinder Agreement was adopted by the City of Carmel Common Council on or
about August 5, 1991 and by the Clay Township Board on or about August 20,
1991.
The Board is comprised of nine members. The Mayor of Carmel appoints
four members, two from each political party, and the Clay Township Trustee
appoints four members. The remaining member is a representative of the
Carmel-Clay Board of Education.
The Board is empowered to supervise the Carmel-Clay Park and Recreation
Department (the "Park Department"), establish rules governing the use of parks
and recreation facilities and provide protection of park property and activities.
The Board is responsible for hiring personnel, preparing the annual budget and
annual report. The Board also has other contractual and administrative powers,
all as set forth in the Joinder Agreement.
Funding
The City of Carmel Common Council and the Clay Township Board
determine and provide revenues for operation of the Park Department. Budget
share is determined by assessed valuation. Several non-reverting funds were
established in 1993 at the request of the Board. These included a Special Non-
Reverting Capital Fund for land and capital improvements and a Special Non-
Reverting Operating Fund to receive program fees, grants and gifts.
The annual budget is formulated and approved by the Board and submitted to
the City of Carmel Common Council and the Clay Township Board for their
respective approvals.
The Board may issue general obligation bonds to acquire land for parks or
finance improvements. The Board must obtain an ordinance from the City of
Carmel Common Council and a resolution from the Clay Township Board
approving the bond issue.
To raise money to pay for the bonds, the City of Carmel Common Council
and Township Board can levy a special property tax in one special taxing district
on the entire township. Grants, donations and gifts have been regularly received
and utilized in the development of the Carmel-Clay Park and Recreation System.
4
PARK & RECREATION ACTIVITY SINCE NOVEMBER 1996 WHEN
THE PRIF ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED:
1996 •
• Completed improvements to Smokey Row Elementary Neighborhood
Park;
• Completed Phase II of Meadowlark Park expansion;
• Monon Intersections design study;
• The City of Carmel engaged consultants to acquire the Monon
Greenway;
• Completed Phase III and IV of Meadowlark Park;
• Leasing Pleasant Grove Park and making improvements;
• Pursuing acquisition of land; and
• Implementing a Park Impact Fee to ensure that a minimum level of
service is maintained as the Community grows.
1997
• Acquired 15 acres for preservation of the White River greenway and to
connect to the Hamilton County White River Park (nka River Trail);
• Leased 40 acres from the Indianapolis Water Company along the
White River Greenway (nka River Heritage Park);
• The City of Carmel received 79 acres in donations from Martin Marietta
in two locations within the White River Park System (nka Hazel
Landing Park and Founders Park);
• 65 acres were acquired and 10 received in donation for a western clay
park site (nka the West Park);
• Designed River Heritage Park;
• Completed development of Meadowlark Park;
• Engaged consultants to acquire a central park site (nka the Central
Park Site);
• Engaged consultants to design the Monon Greenway;
• Engaged consultants to acquire trailheads for the Monon Greenway;
• Community outreach and partnership with the City of Carmel Utility to
design and commence development of Prairie Meadow Park; and
• Installed interpretive signage at Flowing Well Park.
1998
• Acquired 16 acres for an east park site (nka: Lawrence W. Inlow Park);
• Completed development of Prairie Meadow Park;
• Developed Phase I of River Heritage Park;
• Designed and developed River Trail through an interlocal cooperation
agreement with Hamilton County Parks and Recreation;
• Continued focus on design of the Monon Greenway; and
5
• Continued focus on acquisition of central park site (nka the Central
Park Site).
1999
• Master Planned the West Park;
• Master Planned the Lawrence W. Inlow Park;
• Master Planned Hazel Landing Park;
• Completed Phase II of River Heritage Park (Wetland Project);
• Improved Meadowlark Park;
• Designed and developed River Heritage Park;
• Designed and developed River Trail Park through an Interlocal
cooperation agreement with Hamilton County Parks;
• Acquired 11.74 acres for Cherry Tree Park;
• Initially improved Hazel Landing Park;
• Designed Hazel Landing Park for a three phase development;
• Continued focus on design of the Monon Greenway;
• Continued focus on acquisition of central park site (nka the Central
Park Site); and
• City of Carmel commenced development of first section of the Monon
Greenway.
6
INVENTORY OF EXISTING CARMEL-CLAY PARKS AND
RECREATION BOARD INFRASTRUCTURE
The table below lists all the park sites and inventories their existing facilities. In
addition to these facilities developed by the Carmel-Clay Park and Recreation
Board, the City of Carmel has developed an entertainment gazebo at the Carmel
Civic Center which is used for recreation purposes. Additionally, Clay Township
funded significant improvements at Carmelot Park. This property is owned by
the City of Carmel and leased to Hamilton County.
Carmel-Clay Parks and Recreation Board
Recreational Facilities Inventory by Park Location
. —
T(-) N o 0 - " y
E > � � � 3 c r. 76CO
L L 3 S cq
g E.F `? . e0 a v r�
v� ww 0 cO ¢ 5zaa Qa < 3
1 Carey Grove Park _ • • • • •, • • • 6
2 Central Park 134
3 Cherry Tree • 12
4 Flowing Well Park • • • • • 17
5 Founder's Park 39
6 Hazel Landing • •_ • • 44
7 Lawrence W Inlow Park • • •• •• - • • 16
8 Meadowlark Park •• • • • • • 18
9 Monon Greenway • 1 mi.
10 Pleasant Grove Park • • • • • • 5
11 Prairie Meadow Park _ • • • 5
12 River Heritage Park • • • • • • • • • 40
13 West Park • • • • • • • 75
14 White River Greenway 2.5 mi.
15 Park at 96th&Westfield Blvd. 3
7
STANDARDS OF PARKS AND RECREATION
The previous chart represents the inventory of public park and recreation
facilities in the Community. It is from this inventory that the current level of
service has been established. For the purposes of this Zone Improvement Plan,
this is also the standard that the Board has accepted as the community level of
service.
8
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The population projection for the Community is based upon historic
building permit trends. An average of 694 single family residential building
permits were issued annually from 1985 through 1995. Using this method of
projection, the Carmel-Clay area was projected to have a population of
approximately 62,118 persons in the year 2000,.84,958 persons in the year 2010
and 98,788 persons at build-out in the year 2020. The second chart on this page
portrays the distribution of growth by land use type in the Community.
POPULATION ESTIMATE
Census Year 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020
Clay Township 43,007 62,118 84,958 96,378 98,788*
*Between 1990 and 1995 a total of 3,255 residential building permits were
issued. This methodology uses 1990 census population, median household size
figures and building permit data to calculate population growth since 1990.
Between 1995 and 1999 an average of 996.2 residential single family building
permits were issued.
Source: Carmel/Clay Department of Community Services Building Permit Trends, 1995;
2000.
Carmel-Clay Township
Land Use Trends
Census Year 1990 1995 2000 2010
ACRES % ACRES % ACRES % ACRES
Residential 11,995 38.5 14,413 46.3 17,750 57.0 21321 68.5
Commercial 1685 5.4 2820 9.1 3046 9.8 3325 10.7
Public/Institutional 1740 5.6 2547 8.1 2985. 9.6 3210 10.3
Golf Courses 730 2.4 993 3.2 2305 7.4 2425 7.8
Ag/Undeveloped 14,986 48.1 10,365 33.3 5050 16.2 855 2.8
31,136 100 31,136 100 31,136 100 31,136 100
* Assumes build-out in 2015, average annual growth @ 0.5% per 2020
9
ESTIMATE OF PROJECTED INFRASTRUCTURE & COSTS
(revised 11/7/00)
The earlier discussion established a framework for determining park and
recreational infrastructure needs. An estimate of the nature, location and cost of
the additional infrastructure that will be needed to serve the new development
over the next ten (10) years is computed as follows:
1. Cherry Tree Park $ 550,000.00
2. Founders Park $ 1,650,000.00
3. Hazel Landing Park $ 3,410,000.00
• 4. West Park $ 5.060.000.00
TOTAL: 10,670,000.00
The impact per new unit of residential development over the next ten year
planning period, is approximately $1,185.16/unit. This is calculated by the
proposed new construction ($10,670,000.00) divided by the projected number of
new dwelling units (9,003). However, the impact must be no more than the
current level of service in the Community which is calculated by dividing the total
cost of the current park system ($12,054,651.48) by the total number of current
households (22,851) for the figure of$527.53 per residential dwelling unit.
10
FEE RECOMMENDATION (revised 11/7/00)
As the impact fee will not be the sole source of revenue for parks and
recreation improvements, the fee imposed must be reasonable to the extent that
existing residents will utilize the new facilities equally with the new residents
whom the fee is imposed upon.
With this in mind it is recommended that the Carmel-Clay Park Impact Fee
be set at a maximum of$ 527.53 per dwelling unit. This maximum fee was
arrived at by dividing the total cost of the current park system of$12,054,651.48
by 22,851, the total number of current households. Carmel-Clay has no Road
Impact Fees.
Comparatively, the City of Noblesville, which is now considering an
increase of its impact fee(s), currently collects the following Park Impact Fee
charges:
$230.00 per house;
$230 per each 3 bedroom apartment;
$220.80 for each 2 bedroom apartment;
$147.20 for each 1 bedroom apartment and
$172.50 per mobile home and is talking about increasing it.
Noblesville also charges Road Impact Fees as follows for 4 areas:
($45-$85.00 per trip)
9.55 trips x area fee
If you take the lowest park impact fee cost of$147.20 and add it to the lowest
road impact fee of (9.55 x $45.00) $429.75, Noblesville charges at least $576.95
per dwelling unit.
The City of Fishers currently charges a total impact fee of $870.00 per
dwelling unit. This fee consists of a $520.00 road impact fee and a $350.00 park
impact fee. Like Noblesville, Fishers' officials are considering an increase in its
impact fee rates.
Similar to the impact fee established in 1996 for the Community, the
proposed increased impact fee will be a minimal, but helpful, contribution to the
parks and recreation effort therein. Less than one third of the Community
remains to be developed and therefore will be subject to this fee.
11
--,.
(
MONEY SPENT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE (revised 11/7/00)
Page 1 of 2
. : • i . . . . .
, •
1 •
•C)
• :
I 1 ;
I I i 1 q
. 1
3 i, •
i te
I-- ; .
1 ,:r
, co-
,
;
. i
. i
i,
• 1
1 :
• 1 I 6,
. .
I. 1 c 1 ;ED-: I 112
1 Jo I 0.1 0 j co ,
.1- 114,1 cri i tri 4 I v.. r8:
L
I i0 N: er 4 N
L-r:
Nail I
tg.) m-
I 6-7 I
1 . ,m
I,:r .._,
.....
•":11 'Kr
LC)
•■•I I .1
! 4 t lin
1 I " 1
! !
5 0 - ■
1 9. 4.! i 9. 1
•
: ! I I 6 : 4. (. i
0 .
. It)1 oitn; ItnIcoi icolcni ir--lcol cr):cicol oltrsi
I N
0 I mi calc! toir-I ir--jcol i'v10)1 0.10.!0., N.10.1 • IC)
co 7Tr ' .
. I a•
.
o • ai i ailc. i. icnIcol h.,-:r1 iolo! Nicz■cni orv,
•
. i
. 0 ,1<r), 1 r...;-er; CY5 I CO 0.0 I Cr)I 0.■Cr)pr)I 0)1(111 I 0
.- : >, .
. .
' e- Ca4 1c' VD I 0.1 CO.4.CO i'cr I*-.1 1"tr:,-'0.1 0 1 CO■
.
c...; - to :
. .
ca ut 5
. '
0 c•IK■ii I,-,i1.LC)+ ,a i t---1 !ail r--.1 tcn-tcNike)1 co-tiri! ,--
• e e r c)1 c:)! ■a s 1 c■-),. n e r ,--1 -T r.I N 1 1 Lo, ,"I'1 1.0 i Cr)i
1-. 1-1 •iin.! i ! ;MI I'e-! I f I.1.
....-= . .
1 II
...Y C-1 .-• _cry
-
• I I 1 . I, 1 I '.".11iii ", 1 I.of
a) .
: .
• I i i ' illiliii ! ' I I
. ;
, i , ,
c.- . - co •
•
. . , 1 . 11 : it : i1, I
i I
0 • ,
. I 6•9. 4.9.1 4.);,, I 69.1 to)-.1 I 4.4 i(09.1 1 4,3 V)i ,690.613.,49.1 649.i 4.9•1 I 1401.
• i 1 I ' 4 1 I ,-.11.(1i Icni
cg, Ls ica i • • ,
,c, linigo, Ir., Q. 1 MI 01,47!Ci
107 1.,:riougl l',4",u• i r- (-1! 1
6 .
Ic5,, 16101 tailai iai .Trli fvlsi Lill ailc‘iiQI %0
-ar 1 o - • •
---• - a, 2 021 .,
Ic-N-i•• !c=)!Lc) no- ..cr
711- ::'1. 4n' IN.! rs i cC2.1 i cOj cr2.1, 10.10
cil
. 0! 'V
I 4 ,-, !,-- COI 1,-4,0) CN 0 .■,-! :01 INI0floli (N4-
N cij ail •
. 1-! N- I !..- i Cr)! (N ' 1(11
CI" .
Q C)1 , co";I •
.
I I 1' 1 I ii : IIIII
, ,
c.) . ; 1 i 1 : ■
O• I •
' ,
I I 1 i
•
•
. 44 t 40 1 fik; 1 69, 4.9. 40,9 1 4A, 631 ise• 491 :69:1 i 4ok 1 4.19.i 4e*1 49.
. , ! 1 .
ai 1 co: ,- co
-,' I i.: 1 •
a)
I
co; I I t a) co
.,
... -. ,-, . ■ 1 cci oi
N N
a._ Cr): <0 i 1 I 1 <0 c0_,
oll (NI I,: cr)
, 1
• i
I; 1
4 I 4W1 vs 49, 4A.
'
•
I I
-14 I ci I ..-.1 c.i I-c'.. ci -,_ ci ci -,,. ci Ed
I al clic 1 co c co cic as a c c o c.,
1• " c_ c Q. 3. Cl L1.1 4. a..i W! 0-1 W 1 0. W 0-i III ILI CI. ILI
a. 1
; ,. -Er (N v.) "v. (,-)i Lc)I.4-i ea Co N co co I co 1 N. C) co N U.
2 - 1 gn) C) C) ER.. S Si C) .2 S C) 83 83 i 83 C) C) C). >• s-g,),
,_ ,_ •r- 0
C. C. 1-- •-• r- e- a.,- v•-•1 •■••••• l•-• _
O 0 0 0
1 * /3 i 1-• 13 1 I -••
C 1 C
I 1 i
1
. ,
12
I
MONEY SPENT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE (added 11/7/00)
Page 2 of 2
1996 1997 1998 1999
MONON MONON MONON MONON
$37,009.94* $46,051.16 $526,927.01 1,327,706.20
($36,962.56) $17,421.13
=$2,047.38
WHITE RIVER WHITE RIVER WHITE RIVER WHITE RIVER
34,362.42 $44,125.57
*$36,962.56 was included in the $327,676.00 shown in the chart on page 12 as
"City Funds Independently1991-1996." Accordingly, $36,962.56 is not included
in the subtotals and totals on this page 13.
SUBTOTAL FOR CITY EXPENDITURES FROM 1996-1999
(not including the $327,676.00 in the years 1991-1996): $1,998,640.87
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES FOR GREENWAYS/PATHS
106th STREET: $105,700.00
CARMELOT: $ 14,023.55
TUNNEL ON MONON: $521.075.97
SUBTOTAL: $640,799.52
SUM OF SUBTOTALS: $ 1,998,640.87
$ 640,799.52
$ 2,639,440.39
TOTAL OF SUMS ON PAGES 12 & 13 $ 2,639,440.39
$ 9.415.211.09
$12,054,651.48
13