Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarmel/Clay 2020 Vision Planning ProcessCAR M EIJCLAy PLANNING PROCESS .11 .011■10.1110.Ntilj00". I1CJIIC MAI . rota (ann am (LaT Tomunilr, 11E11511411101 11996 PINTS • '0102 or OIN1TN Ti • • Nita AhAlkii NI vpiptaiiim ruovi'm •II N 11111 I 'MI ClatIon Nil/AMIN In' ,OPTII MU .1 UN 'CHAPTER 21.0E VELOPIVIENTVONDITION$ AND:TRENbS.,:. I(I\V/llu VI , miNoM:1i TRITOIN MIA rdc111,1F1 riMPTER 3010'•020 VISIONING PROMS • • ru.:IllohouRfor Nwiriara Or MINIM lilq5 l'n011,03r.h dC1110i1 51173 VONV.11..‘13KAI 2`716 Y .• • • • OM TER 4 LAND USE PLAN" 1111':II•Iii Phi- all,(aCgp H,NiIIrIG .(IIrI CHAPTER 5 i GROWTH POLICIES PLAN 110.'.>HG li111111 dN.kik ..#11M1i;IH1-IH''�aH.H�'.NG'L) t. )If .k d�Nk'JH'H 7'�N;tG'�wHK U;Ia'I N'.N °�n'II (ii kib'.N';I'm' (I b't N'K)H_IIt'.111i Ub CHAPTER 6: MO QUG FARE °PLAN CaG Nya :4(11111V/et w N . I II�G'.IPI V I hitI rii iv' )14011111t HK )N1 HEN :v‘NG';$ ' H H ilk )II K »(tII U illi'�11G G' N'N .�HN';I 1'0 'V.I It- *IN CHAPTER 7: IMP LEMENTATI el��u aN °'I Nr �IiH t ' tin J."4 a:;a I11IN'IM1Ii'.N'J IIVr., N'p.flN';I cNGa ya aN.H<<HG'.:, e'aN-d 111h A tli1ll1;l«u N gthah'IdkIkh'. 11111i.11..) ItrAiMil.(1101'CS h t' li'11.0Hr 1114'- TN'aIIt carIYto., Inv'N o1U /r.,kl vi. IN's QC'1m Nuh'1�'IN'tor K�H�G'N' ��H'�aC'w'. Ala MIK SYSH'G'.N d N''MAin hanilth ti'cok.Igk (aI G''1a 'I' h::ta(aa_. 'h mioh ', IM E rll-t r • It is important to understand the purpose of consensus building, the function of a comprehensive plan and the relationship a plan has to a zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations. In terms of an analogy, planning for a community is very similar to the steps a family takes to remodel and add on to their home. In the first step the family talks through the aspects-of the home that they like and don't like. Through these discussions they then determine what rooms they need to preserve and what rooms should be added onto,-as.well as new spaces to the home. In the building of a city this is the consensus building'stage or in this example the Carmel -Clay 2020 Vision. Having consensus on the future shape of the house, the family then moves into the phase of having specific plans drawn up showing the electrical plan, the framing plan and other specific functional drawings which show how the house will be constructed. In city building, this is analogous to the preparation of the functional plans of a comprehensive plan, including a land -use plan, a thoroughfare plan, parks plan etc. Once the vision has been established and functional plans drawn showing how that vision would look, the family moves into the phase of selecting roof materials, types of windows, interior colors etc. These are all items which are important to achieving the original vision but cannot be determined until the functional plans showing their placement are developed. In the building of a community, these implementation devices are the changes in a zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations which are needed to achieve a land use plan. c,a.�uq„Y 2020 �r o • • InilitObK1110h1 By the Spring of 1995, the City of Carmel and Clay Township area had experienced such significant growth as to exceed all projections from the 1991 Comprehensive Plan Update. The rapid build out pace threatened the preservation of community values and cultural amenities throughout the community. The Plan Commission and Depar Latent of Community Services realized the importance of strategically and comprehensively addressing the communities' vision for the future and implementing measures to ensure that development did not overrun the communities' acceptable limitations. HNTB Corporation, a local consultant and consultant to the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, was selected to guide this effort through a unique and challenging citizen participation program entitled Carmel -Clay 2020 Vision. hrsc P noti or Mt PLOPIIIN PR®eESg 2020 Vision brought historic and projected analyses of land use and development trends in Carmel and Clay Township to the public through a series of neighborhood -based workshops and community -wide presentations. The input received at the neighborhood workshops in conjunction with a telephone survey and a series of facilitated focus group sessions guided the formulation of a prioritized consensus of public concerns and long term goals. This document chronicles the research and analyses that provide the fundamental building blocks of the 2020 Vision process and takes one step further. It evaluates the relationship of consensus items and public perception to historic and projected trends and makes specific recommendations for amending public policy in Carmel -Clay Township to achieve the community goals established in the 2020 Vision process. This plan is an action guide designed to respond to the rapid and changing development trends in Carmel -Clay Township. It is designed to enable the public to preserve the quality of life that attracted them; that has made Carmel -Clay Township the fastest growing community in the State of Indiana. yrM.tcty 2020 a • CrATTEK OAT or P[xAREA • • • • To understand the attraction of Indiana's fastest growing area over the last 25 years, it is important to reflect upon its past. In fact, many of the origins for Carmel /Clay Township's current development pattern lie in historic decisions and actions made over the last 170 years. To really know the how's and why's behind how Carmel -Clay was developed is to know the origins of the settlements of Bethlehem, Mattsville, Mulberry Corner and Pleasant Grove. It is to know the significance of Northern Beach, the Monon, the Indiana Union Traction Line, White Chapel, Kinzers Cabin and Ellers Bridge. It is to know the legacy of various pioneer families including the McShanes, the Warrens, the Greens and the Moffitts. This chapter is a short collection of information to ascertain how Carmel and Clay Township have evolved. The bulk of this background is taken from several historic documents including; Maps of Indiana Counties in 1876, the 1901 edition of the Histony of Hamilton County and the 1987 Carmel Sesquicentennial publication titled Cannel: A Second Discovery. Acknowledgments must also be made to information derived from the various newsletters of the Carmel Clay Historical Society and specifically to the oral history of Mr. Tom Rumer. to LT 3ETTLEMEHTI HN CLIP( TO NJfIE Southern Hamilton County is prominent in early Indiana history. Settlements of Delaware and Miami Indians are well chronicled. Less well known are the origins of various prehistoric Indian mounds on the east side of White River. These mounds possibly date back 5,000 years. The recorded settlement in the CANMEyCL4y 2020 The John Kinzer log cabin, built. in 1828, is located on the east side of Keystone around Main St. This structure is on the National Register of I- Iistoric Places. Photo taken from the book Carmel: A Second Discovery 1 -2 • The Maples, built by Benjamin Chapell in 1840 is located on West Smoky Row Road. Photo from the book Carmel: A Second Discovery. established in the settlement. area dates back to the early 1820's with the Conner family homestead along the east side of White River in Delaware Township. Restored, the Conner Prairie Farm gives us great insight into early 1800's life in Indiana and more particularly southern Hamilton County. In 1824 Francis McShane developed the first recorded permanent settlement on the west side of White River, when he - built his cabin in the area on what is now the Orchard Park Subdivision. The McShanes daughter Sarah was the first recorded birth in the township. Their home at 10000 Westfield Boulevard still stands. The Town of Bethlehem was laid out on the 13th day of April, 1837 by Seth Green, Daniel Warren and two others and consisted of fourteen lots at what is now the intersection of Rangeline and Main Street. In 1846 a post office was During the naming of the post office it was discovered that there already existed another Bethlehem Post Office in the State. Out of necessity a new name was agreed upon based on the biblical town of Carmel. This name was credited to the many Quaker and Methodist residents of the area. Southwest of the original town layout, Daniel Warren had purchased the 160 acre quarter section as a family farm. His deed was signed by Andrew Jackson. On the south bank of Cool Creek, eight miles southwest of Noblesville and currently the intersection of 116th Street and Haverstick, was the small village of Mattsville. This cluster of buildings dating back to the mid 1800's included a general CAN MWCGY 2620 Y IQn 1 -3 • store, blacksmith shop and a post office. In 1874 a county historian wrote that, "There is quite an amount of trade and business done at this point, but not much prospect for improvement." Today, Mattsville has evolved to be the area of Woodbrook School, Woodland Springs, Woodland Green and Brookshire Subdivisions. . � h`--• v r .... a er tb. tr rI. t, )1, 1 1 7gg n ea er .e f := I� "' -= Jr' ? ..�+n 3 i Y:r .74 ?n 4 r j� 7 _ r� , V..t Fw yi..f 1 J1 •rt.� r - ..11 Y.:. 11....ir..���r 7,Y- ..-r 34 r} y, ... .:..yp,... sr . r; AEI uncN • ..,yr..a'„y • .sue } -,.. .r.—." _ .f 1 'r -,r- az - ss . 7.4 y .1 • a -71* r y � ;/ ♦ ��" .IS ' 1r Apt PI u JI r {.,-, -° 1� ,. ,g r . irk :- I ix. r >' G•� R.t.Y 1: It PM Ft:e9Y it A t ' . :rr" F:w T Ir. Uf UE r _Al :1 it 1 0 .Y e t4. Map of area which now makes tip Clay Township, from the book Maps of Indiana Counties in 1876. In 1832, a school was constructed on a farm at what is now 106th and College Avenue. Two decades later the Pleasant Grove Methodist Church arose next to what is now the historic Pleasant Grove cemetery. Over time this area evolved into the community of Home Place. From these pockets of settlements established in the 1830's have evolved the areas we now know commonly as Carmel and Clay Township. 2' •20 WARP - 1 -4 I P L L T • • IT3MPO TATDOIN LBIKI While these early settlements flourished in varying degrees, their connections to the outside world similarly grew in importance. Clearly many of the early routes through Carmel and Clay Township were the extension of old Indian paths along the White River and various streams throughout the township. Mattsville Pike now better known as 116th Street was formerly such a pathway. This major east -west route was the site of the Eller Covered Bridge over White River which was erected in 1869. This landmark bridge succumbed in 1959 to vandals who burned it beyond repair. The "Indian Trail" was a north south pathway along Cool Creek which crossed Mattsville Pike. This old "Indian Trail" evolved into a stagecoach stopover for travelers going to the state capitol. This marker placed by Union State Bank in 1979 records the historic significance for Carmel around the intersection of Main Street and Rangeline. This photo taken, from the book Cannel: A Second Discovery. Another route which grew into prominence was The Indianapolis -Peru Pike. This roadway which became Rangeline and then Road 31 crossed on either side of a huge Mulberry Tree at what is now 106th Street. The area was better known as Mulberry Corner. The Indianapolis -Peru Pike or Rangeline Road, was at one time a tollway. In addition to its significance as the location of the Town of Bethlehem later to be known as Carmel, the road was the boundary line between Clay Township and Delaware Township. This boundary line was later changed in the 1950's and moved to the White River. CARmEVCIny 2620 Vision 1 -5 • • An old crossing of Cool Creek along the "Indian Trail" allowed passage into Mattsville in what is now the Woodlands area. This bridge was taken out for the development of homes along Windsor Drive in the 1970's. Photo from the book Carmel: A Second Discovenf. Perhaps the most significant and recent incremental road decision which directed growth and development of Carmel and Clay Township was the decision in the 1960's by the State of Indiana to extend a new state highway from Keystone in Marion County northward through Hamilton County. While the incremental pattern of certain historic paths evolving into major roadways directed much of the development pattern we know today, the construction of railways throughout the township also had significant impact on the urbanization pattern. The Monon Railroad or "Hoosier Line" as it was known connected Chicago and Louisville by way of 541 miles of track in Indiana. The Monon was the first rail line to cross Indiana from south to north. It was first incorporated on July 8, 1847 as the New Albany and Salem Railroad. The Civil War pushed the fledgling line into a position of importance, providing a supply line to the Mason -Dixon line. In 1883 a station was constructed in Carmel. This station has been subsequently moved farther west of its original location and renovated. For decades, the Monon was a flourishing line between Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville. CaRM t/Ct *y Yitiso 1 -6 • The railroad operated through Carmel and Clay Township as a freight and passenger line until 1984. Since that time the rail right -of -way has been abandoned. In Marion County this right -of -way is in the process of being developed as a bicycle and pedestrian trail. Parallel to the Monon tracks the Indiana Union Traction Line constructed an Interurban Railroad line between Indianapolis and Noblesville through Carmel. Evidence of this right -of -way is still in existence in the area between. the Monon and Rangeline, south of Eighth St. This interurban line operated between 1903 and 1938 and provided the first real commuter link between the outlying communities and downtown Indianapolis. This line offered cheap fares and good connections for day travel to numerous Indiana towns and cities. It even had its own stock cars for the transporting of cattle and other livestock to market. At one time there were a dozen or more trains running each way each day. The alignment of this old interurban line is best viewed at the southeast corner of Carmel City Hall. This photo shows the Carmel Monon Depot while the line was still in active use and before the Depot was renovated by the Carmel Clay Historical Society. Photo from the book Cannel: A Second Discovery. These rail lines along with Rangeline's connection between Westfield and Indianapolis subsequently formed the axis along which the earliest urbanization of Carmel and Clay Township took place. CAPMFUAACIAy 6 t i ry 'Vision 1 -7 • • OTHEI 3 PI JTUS or ME bZVQL©MQ {T IFG I 1 Residents of Carmel and Clay Township have historically had higher income characteristics than many other outlying areas Indianapolis. Similar to other urban patterns the reason for this pattern is consistent with other basic urban growth theories. While it is logical that Carmel and Clay Township have been the beneficiary of the outward migration of the higher income Meridian Street, it is useful to understand why these residents selected the north in the first place. Reviewing metropolitan areas developed in the 1800's before central water supply facilities were in place, one phenomenon exists. Specifically, in these urban areas, the higher income neighborhoods tended to locate upstream, presumably where the water supply was more pure. Indianapolis certainly fits this model as do other major urban areas such as Cincinnati, Louisville, Dallas and others. In those rare areas where the major river runs from south to north, the historic higher income neighborhoods are located on the south. Denver is one of the best examples of this model. From 1900 until 1950 Carmel and Clay Township held steady in its population. The Town of Carmel (later city) had a population of 498 in 1900 and 1,009 in 1950. Similarly, Clay Township had a population of 1283 in 1900 and just over 2,000 in 1950. In her book Carmel: A Second Discovery, Dorothy S. Smith succinctly points to two public policy actions made in the decade between 1950 and 1960 which set Carmel and Clay Township on its course of experiencing rapid growth between 1970 and 1995. The first public policy action took place in 1954 when a public referendum was supported to enlarge Clay Township from Rangeline Road to White River so that Carmel Clay schools could be created. The second action occurred when the state CAa s IJCIAy 2 ®Z® Vkk n 1 -8 of Indiana determined that Keystone Avenue in Marion County needed to be extended through Clay Township as US 431. Opening up the entire eastern half of the township for development when this roadway was completed in 1964, Carmel and Clay Township were positioned to accommodate a massive influx of growth when Indianapolis became suburbanized beyond its county boundaries beginning in the late 1960's. Carmel changed from town to city status in 1975. C�NMEVCIAy 2 2�1 Viiion 1 -9 CIAFER 2: ()EVE MMIEr QOo M b0 °DOoNg • EN1VIFOiIMENIAL cON161 10113 While principally an agrarian landscape for the past 150 years, significant environmental features do remain in Clay Township. The most significant environmental feature in the township is the White River and its associated flood plain and riparian areas. Situated on the eastern boundary of the township this river landscape relates significant natural and historical legacies of the township. The floodplain area of White River is fairly extensive along its western bank In certain segments this floodplain reaches nearly 1/2 mile away from the centerline of the river and provides for the most extensive expanse of undeveloped and natural landscape in the township. Other streams and creeks traverse the township in a northwesterly alignment, eventually draining into White River. While Cool Creek has been predominately urbanized its most basic floodway has been preserved as a natural amenity along Brookshire Golf Course. Williams Creek, west of Meridian is another environmental corridor which has large segments still undeveloped. Another environmental feature associated with waterways which exists in the township is wetlands. Several wetlands as designated on the National Wetland Inventory Maps exist in Clay Township and have been noted on the "Significant Environmental Features" map on page 2 - 3. These are not "Jurisdictional Wetlands" as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To meet the Corps' Delineation Manual criteria a wetland must possess all of the following characteristics; 1) hydric soils, 2) hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) hydrology. Any proposed modification to the designated wetlands on the Open Space /Environmental Features Map should be subject to a thorough analysis to determine wetland status. C..MIt1Ay 20. Nation 2 -2 The four basic soil types found in Clay Township are described in the "Soil Suitability Map" on page 2 - 4. The distribution of these soil types has had a significant impact on the urbanization pattern of the township. The most extensive soil type in the township is the Crosby - Brookston variety. Existing in over half of the township, predominantly west of Keystone, this soil type exhibits good characteristics to support agriculture and poorer capabilities, due to its wetness, for urban uses. The Miami- Crosby soil and Ockley- Westland Fox soil varieties present the best soil qualities in the Township for urbanization. Conversely, the Shoals - Genesee variety typically found along waterways is characteristically poor due to flooding. From the period between 1830 and 1970 the vast majority of the township was used for agricultural purposes. A recent study conducted by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for U.S. 31 indicates that less than 10% of Hamilton County remains as woodlands. Very few original woodland areas have survived in Clay Township. The "Significant Environmental. Features" map identifies those concentrations of woodland areas which remain in Clay Township which are greater than 50 acres. Most of these woodland concentrations occur along White River or other streams and tributaries such as Cool Creek or Williams Creek. The topography of Clay Township is gently rolling to flat, with the greatest topographical relief occurring along White River. There are no apparent unusual underground geological features in the area such as caves, mines or sinkholes which could impact development. Groundwater is a significantly important feature in Carmel and Clay Township as the water supply system for the City of Carmel and rural residents comes from the groundwater. The groundwater sources occur in the sand and gravel GcrtLC�ny 2020 2 -5 • aquifer system of the West Fork of the White River valley. Groundwater in Clay Township is available at depths of 50 - 400 feet in the glacial drift with wells yielding several hundred gallons per minute. The City of Carmel has over 20 groundwater well sites _predominately located between -Cool =Creek and the White River, -with a- handful -of- other- sites located west of this area. Recently, the City of Carmel has sought to protect the integrity of these wellsites by acquiring a circumferential land area radiating 200 feet around each wellhead. This circumferential area is termed a "wellhead protection area ". Other significant environmental features are the Monon rail right of way which traverses the township in a northwesterly direction and numerous major utility corridors. 2 -6 • • Wfil .OPil®YTV®ft15 The urbanization of Carmel and Clay Township has been swift. As noted on the adjacent charts, the township has seen over half of its 50 square miles of land area developed during a 25 -year period. Beginning in the late 1960's the population of Carmel and Clay Township exploded. As noted in Figure 1, the population of Clay Township grew from 10,200 in 1960 to just under 20,000 in 1970. The in both the Township and Census Year Hamilton County Clay Township City of Cannel Medan Household Size Figure 1 Carmel/Clay Township Historic Population Trends 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 24,614 28,491 40,132 54,532 82,027 108,936 1,528 2,311 10,215 19,518 32,606 43,007 771 1,009 1,442 6,568 18,272 25,380 Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable 3.4 3 2.6 'Delaware-Clay Township line moved to White Rive from Range Line Road In 1955 City of Carmel increased by over 400% in this same period. This growth pattern has continued City over the last 25 year period. With a land area of approximately 50 square miles, Clay Township's land -use patterns have significantly changed over the last 25 year period. In 1970, approximately 86% of the land area was vacant or used for agricultural purposes. In 1995, only approximately 34% of the land area remains as vacant or agricultural. Figures 2 and 3 depict the historic urbanization between 1971 and 1995. 2 ®2® 2 -7 • Clearly a significant portion of the growth in the area has been residential, however commercial, retail, and office growth have also been significant As demonstrated by data supplied by F.C. Tucker Company Inc., there is a significant amount of office space in the Carmel -Clay area Beginning in 1990 and every year thereafter, more office space has been absorbed or leased in suburban areas than in downtown Indianapolis. The Carmel -Clay office market has been the primary beneficiary of this phenomenon and today boasts more office space than any other suburban area outside of downtown Indianapolis. Figures 4, 5 and 6 depict the suburban office and retail markets, and the market position Carmel has established. GurdtCGy 2020 .O • Residential ❑ Office//Retail 0 Industrial /Mfg. • PubiidSerni- Public ❑AgriNacant • Residential ❑ Office/Retail 0 Industrial/Mfg. • Public./Semi- Public ❑ Agri/Vacant 2 -8 • 1 katb3 Nth rROJE(T10Pi3 The Carmel -Clay Township area has undergone tremendous change in the last twenty -five year period. With only around a third of the land area remaining to sustain growth it becomes useful to estimate the time period over which continued urbanization will build out Figure 6 Suburban Office Market: 1994 Absorption lottlieseWhel Narthweet Narth'Carmel Keystone Erl73a.th Camdsttn u,m 1 epee mums -%�sT'iI 17,117 1 17 1110.14.0 m,. j•1 -- 71,744 71,744 r,1N 71,770 11.1,011 '60,000 0 54000 100,000 • 154000 r..t ••••■■ r.a.. MT.. C.. -..... N]4 • 200,000 par. A Cana .ar.0 the area. Three population projection models (Figures 8, 9, & 10) have been prepared and reviewed for their applicability. The first methodology is a projection of population made by the IUPUI Center for Urban Policy in its report for the City of Carmel in December 1993. This projection is considered too conservative in that the population projection made for the year 2010 (53,560) has nearly already been exceeded. It is estimated that the current population of Clay Township is 51,470. 2020 2 -9 • A second methodology has been prepared by HNTB and consists of using State of Indiana projections for Hamilton County and taking out a pro rata share of population growth based on historic trends for Clay Township. This methodology also appears conservative in that its projections for the year 2000 have been equaled by the end of 1995. The third methodology is based upon historic building permit trends. This alternative has been selected as being the most accurate of the methodologies. As shown in Single Family Residential Cluster Two - Family Mufti-Family TOTAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE Business Church Office Industrial Publlellnst TOTAL NON - RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL STRUCTURES Subdivision Application Primary Plain a. 28 dwelling units b. 298 dwelling units e. 24 dwelling units d. 324 dwelling units Figure 7 CarmeUClay Building Permit History 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988_ _1989 1990 1991_ 1992._ 1993_ 1994 _ .TOTAL. % of 1994 Construction 327 423 486 587 522 516 417 353 440 410 574 5155 72.29% 17 24 15 96 105 122 120 110 132 187 928 23.55% 40 61 0 22 0 3 2 4 8 • 11 11 162 1.39% 7a , 24b lc 21d 0 4e 0 2f lg tth 91 80 1.13% 374 525 511 645 618 628 541 479 559 664 781 6325 98.36% 13 22 16 26 20 17 16 5 5 10 11 161 1.39% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 0:00% 8 3 11 14 12 8 2 2 2 1 2 65 0,25% 1 4 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 10 0.00% 23 29 37 42 33 25 23 10 8 13 13 256 1.64% 397 : 534 548 687 651. 653 564 489 567 677 794 6581 100.00% 27 23 21 18 18 11 13 14 11 21 11 168 c. 96 dwelling units L 58 dwelling unfits g. 36 dwelling units h. 88 dwelling units L 72 dwelling units Figure 7, an average of 632 single family residential building permits were issued annually during the previous ten year period. The distribution ranges from a low of 327 single family permits in 1984 to a high of 781 permits in 1994. Using this methodology, the Carmel -Clay area is projected to have a population of just under 60,000 persons in the year 2000 and approximately 85,000 in the year 2015. 2020 iA 2 -10 • • As noted previously, an area representing approximately one - third of the land area of Clay Township remains in undeveloped condition. This equates to a and area of just around 16 square miles. In assessing current building density trends it is clear that buildout of Clay Township would occur before the year 2020 if current trends continue. Figure 11 is an estimate of land uses in the year 2010 given current building density trends and projections of continued population growth. As can be noted from this table, Clay Township could achieve buildout status in approximately fifteen years. This projection assumes no dramatic increases in building densities to accommodate the growth in population of approximately 35,000 more residents - Figure 8 Population Projection Methodology #1 Census Year Clay Township' 1990 2000 2010 2020 43,007 49,580 53,660 Unavailable 109,93e 127,600 136,800 140,900 Source: IUPUI Center for Urban Policy Research, A Report on the City of Carmel, December 1893. Census Year Hamilton County Clay Township* Township as % of County Median Household Size Figure 9 Population Projection Methodology #2 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 54,632 52,027 109,93e 127,600 136,800 140,900 19,619 32,606 43,007 51,120 64,760 58;580 36.79% 39.75% 39.48% 40.00% 40.00% 40.14% 3.40. 3.00 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 *clay Township projections made by HNTB are based on the Township's historic percentage of Hamilton Co. Source; Indiana Counties Projections, IU School of Business, 1993. Figure 10 Population Projection Methodology #3 Census Year Clay Township' , 1990 1996 2000 2010 2020 43,007 61,470 59,833 76,868 93,786 *Between 1990 61996 a total of 3,255 residential building permit. were issued. This methodology uses 1990 Census population, median household elze NUM', and buliding permit data to calculate population growth since 1990. An assumption of continued growth of 540 dwelling unite per year In Clay Township Is used to project future population figures. Source: Carmel Department of Community Services Building Perron .Trends, 1996. Cw.dKl.y 2020 Wait 2 -11 • • • than currently reside in Carmel and Clay Township today. WritiligHITT P 1 ,lL8n3 Within Carmel and Clay Township, there are eleven school sites making up the Carmel-Clay Schoo l D istrict T his includes eight elementary schools, two junior high schools and one senior high school. Of these eleven schools only one is located in the western third of the township. In anticipation of continued growth and demand for facilities in western Clay Township the school district has acquired two school sites which are currently vacant. This includes a forty acre tract located at the southwest corner of what would be 120th St. and Towne Road and a 160 acre parcel at the southeast corner of 126th St and Shelbourne. The Carmel -Clay School District has been proactively planning for growth in its service area. In conversations with school officials the following standards are used in sizing both land area and enrollment for elementary and junior high school sites. Elementary schools are sized to accommodate an enrollment of approximately 600 students in grades K - 5. These elementary schools typically are constructed on a 25 acre site. Junior high schools are sized to accommodate an enrollment of approximately 1,000 students in grades 6 - 8. These facilities are constructed on 40 acre sites. Considerable debate has occurred about the need for a second high school. Currently no long term plans anticipate the need for such facility and that increased enrollment will be accommodated through expansion of existing facilities. In reviewing the population projections selected for use in the previous section, it is Census Year Residential Commercial Industrial U.S. 31 Corridor Other Public/Semi- Public Vacant UndevJAgrl. TOTAL Figure 11 CarmellClay Township Land Use Trends 1971* 1985` 1995" 2015** Acres % Acres e% Acres % Acres % 1,463 4.67% 5,401 17.24% 14,413 46.00% 19,213 61.32% 84 0.27% 397 1.27% 2,819 9.00% 3,200 10.21% 161 0.51% 1,228 3.92% 0.00% 2,240 7.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5,112 16.32% 2,556 8.16% 3,341 10.66% 3,640 11.30% 1,567 6.00% 27,068 86.39% 20,965 66.91% 10,560 33.70% 0.00% 31,332 100.00% 31,332 100.00% 31,332 100.00% 31,332 100.00% •1071 0.1085 estimates completed by Wootpert St sale were Included In the Public/Semi-Public Land Ues Category. "1006 & 2010 animates prepared by HNTB. Streets Included In all and use types. 2 -12 • anticipated that an additional 25,000 residents will move into Clay Township before it meets its buildout condition in approximately 2015. Using current family size models and age distributions it is anticipated that of these 25,000 residents approximately 21% or 5,250 will be school age. Of this 5,250 approximately 43% or 2,272 would be elementary school age, 21% or 1,103 would be junior high age and 36% or 1,875 would be senior high age. This would equate to the need of between three and four new elementary schools and one new junior high school. From a projected residential growth location standpoint, it appears that at least one of these new elementary schools would need to be on the far northeast reaches of the township and two new elementary schools located in the western third of the township. The projected new junior high school would also be warranted to be located in the western third of the township. Public parkland sites in Carmel and Clay Township are few in number and are depicted on the Community Facilities Map. Another characteristic depicted on this Figure is public and private golf courses. While public parks are few in number public and private golf courses providing open space throughout the township are very plentiful. In total there are eight golf courses within Carmel and Clay Township. These golf courses include: Public Courses • Sunrise • Plum Creek • Brookshire • Prairie View • Mohawk Hills fine) ne) 2 -13 • Private Courses • Woodland Country Club • Crooked Stick • Twin Lakes Many of these golf courses are creative uses of floodplain areas within the township. Another series of community facilities which have been used in varying locations as a community asset are a series of major pipelines throughout the township. These pipelines include major gas lines which cannot be built over. Each of these lines possess the potential for use as a frail segment. All of these pipelines run diagonally across the township in a southwesterly direction. The three most northern of these four pipelines traverse across the least developed portion of the township and provide the opportunity for trail segments. Some segments of the most northern pipeline have been used as a trail segment through various subdivisions. The most valuable asset from the standpoint of trail segments is the Monon rail right-of-way. At approximately 5.25 miles in length, it is projected that upon acquisition by the City . it will add over twenty five acres of additional park land. Z2c &AI TAY 2 -14 • 2 -15 3: if 2020 NIDg1101110HQ IF30oCE33 • INTRODUCTION The Carmel /Clay 2020 Vision was a process of varied citizen participation /involvement techniques including surveys, focus groups, and neighborhood Meetings. It was designed to reach all segments of the population from school -age children to the elderly. The product of this process is a series of ten goals the community wishes to maintain, achieve and improve as it continues to mature. Cognizance of these goals, as a foundation for subsequent planning and decision - making, will assure that this desired quality of life is achieved. The 2020 Vision Plan is the culmination of citizen viewpoints and previous planning efforts. Its importance lies in being a consensus document which spells out the quality of life issues which are important to the community. Having this document of fundamental goals and actions, more detailed planning efforts can be pursued and correlated to one another because of the development of a common set of commu- nity objectives. ORMel/Clny 2 ®2® VI/ion 3 -2 • SUMMARY OF FINDINGS During the visioning process every comment is vital, therefore, all citizen input was carefully documented. To keep the information at a manageable level, a consensus of the findings was formed. The information gathered from the neighborhood meetings, along with the citizen survey and the first focus group was the basis for the identification of the ten major issues needing to be addressed. Citizen Survey A majority of the residents rated the quality of life in Carmel /Clay as either excellent or good (94 %). The number one reason for living in this area, as taken from the 1995 survey, was the quality of the school system, (36 %), with convenience to work (19 %) and convenience to family (7 %). However, in the 1989 survey the top three included schools (28 %), quality of life (24 %), and neighborhoods (14 %). Issues facing Carmel /Clay over the next 5 years seemed to coincide with the reasons for people choosing to live in the area: population growth /overpopulation (19 %), maintaining school quality (18.2 %), and growth of schools /redistricting (15.5 %) are as taken from the 1995 survey. While a few of the same issues were mentioned in the 1989 survey, the top three were as follows: over development (36 %), traffic /roads (31 %), and green space (9 %). When .using the 1989 results as a bench mark, it is easy to see that growth management was a recurring issue, along with the fact that school related issues 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% - 15% 5% MOST IMPORTANT REASONS FOR LIVING IN THE AREA 36% 19% 7% 6% 6% Quality of Schools Convenience to Work Convenience to Family Low Crime Good Loc Lion C..aroEl/Clay 2' 2e Y,ri ®n seem more prevalent now. Kids in Planning Series Although not every student was asked to state an opinion, a significant number participated. This included participation from: 147 elementary, 76 junior high, and 94 high school students. Most of the students involved in this aspect seemed sincerely interested in having their opinions heard. A notable amount of students felt that there are not enough recreation opportunities for 'the youth (60 %, 69.9 %, and 60.6 %, respectively). A consistently stated issue at the elementary level was the fact that trees were being destroyed to build more homes. Fifty -five percent (55 %) of junior high students felt strongly that the growth of the community is occurring too fast. The students' responses for the same question regarding the issues facing Carmel /Clay over the next five years varied considerably from their adult counterparts with only one remaining constant: the issue of over - development/over population. At the high school level, the top three issues were drugs (51.1 %), over - development (35 1%), and crime (21.3 %). Junior high students stated housing costs (35.5 %), over- development (34.2 %), and traffic /roads (28.9 %) will be the future issues. Neighborhood Meetings Each neighborhood meeting followed the same format and was provided with the same statistical information trends and projections. The twelve items of consensus which were subsequently refined into ten goals were gleaned from those stated at each neighborhood meeting. Many concerns were similar while others were unique to that particular area. The neighborhood meetings were highly interactive and involved small group discussions about community quality of life features to be maintained or improved. While each of the eight meetings;had a particular issue unique to that geographic area of the community, several 3 -4 items of consensus were common to all meetings. This included the desire for strong growth management, the need for a community center, retention of neighborhood schools, and public policy to expand the availability of open space and park land. Focus Groups The use of Focus Groups were invaluable as a technique to evaluate and discuss findings of the Citizen Survey and Neighborhood Meetings. The Focus Groups enabled detailed discussions to ascertain the reasoning behind certain priorities. Upon development of the twelve Items of Consensus for the Rankings from Focus Group II Town Mtg. I Original Twelve Items 1 3 Neighborhood Schools 3 1 Safe /Secure Neighborhoods 2 $ Nature of Housing 4 4 Growth Management. East -West Access Infrastructure Planning Open Space 5 Retail Centers Natural Features Dads Club Downtown Carmel Community Center CAIt14Wa y 2020 Yirion • Neighborhood Meetings, one of the Focus Group sessions ranked the importance of dealing with certain issues. Interestingly, this ranking was strikingly similar to the prioritization by the first Town Hall Meeting. These priorities are identified in the table. PROPOSED ACTION STEPS The following ten goals represent the quality of life features residents of Carmel /Clay would like to see maintained or improved as the community matures. .These ten goals and their subsequent suggested action steps have been organized into four broad topic • areas including; Housing and Neighborhoods, Growth Management, Commerce and Economy, and Recreation and Open Space. • Hous.. and. Nei hborlioods �{yy A . Preserve and protect the concept of neighborhood elementary schools. • On a semi - annual basis, the City. Council and the School Board should meet together to discuss planning for neighborhood schools.;_ • The Department of Community Services and the School District should continue to meet regularly to discuss trends in growth and development. • The School Board should continue its policy of developing and maintain- ing neighborhood elementary schools. • During the development review process, the need for future school sites should be evaluated. • Expand opportunities for multiple use of school facilities to continue their identity with adjacent neighborhoods • The School Board should continue to anticipate growth and development, and identify facility needs and new sites and accommodate growth. CA Rbl WCCIAy 22 xiiion • • The Nature of Housing in Carmel /Clay should continue to be of a single family variety. Public policy should continue the course of giving preference to single family hous- ing. Residential zoning should be rewritten to specifically guide the level of density de- sired within each district. Revise the Zoning Code so that uses permitted in the district are related to the district's purpose. • Ensure the stability of existing neighborhoods through code enforcement and infra- structure maintenance. • The functions of the Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals should be clarified to reflect current Indiana Land Use Law. Maintain the safe and secure feeling of neighborhoods. • The City/Township subdivisions shall continue to be reviewed for development standards encouraging safe neighborhoods including sidewalks, lighting standards, etc. • Encourage the development of Homeowners Association. • Sustain the current high level of service provided for emergency services (police, fire, etc.). • The city should adopt a street lighting policy and program • Design new trails and parks with an emphasis on neighborhood safety. Gq. d /Cl,y 2,,A2 Yi:io 1 %(; • GrowthManagemen Encourage proactive infrastructure planning and enhance east -west access.. • The City shall adopt a five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to fund infrastructure maintenance and replacement in existing neighborhoods, as well as new facilities in growth areas. • Similar steps should be encouraged for the development of five year CIP programs in the unincorporated portions of Clay Township. • The City should study alternative infrastructure financing techniques • The City/Township Plan Commission should consider updating its development codes to reflect modern development techniques. • Update the community's standard for drainage and stormwater management. • Planning for non - vehicular travel (walks, bike routes, and trails) should continue to be encouraged. In its evaluation of future road classifications /improvements along U.S. 31 and 431, East -West access must be improved for auto as well as pedestrian traffic to avoid the Township being divided into three separate areas. Methods to improve growth management should be enhanced • The Carmel /Clay Zoning and Subdivision Regulations should be amended to reflect the adopted 2020 Vision and Land Use Plan. • A five year CIP plan shall be adopted by the City of Carmel. • The City of Carmel and Hamilton County should meet annually to discuss priorities for transportation improvements. • A development consultation/review process shall be introduced by the Department of Community Services to be adopted between Carmel /Clay and Hamilton County, Westfield, Noblesville, Zionsville, Fishers, and the City of Indianapolis. • Adopt development standards which promote innovative development patterns, protect natural 'resources and provide open space. 3 -S • • Rego -a: t.i P. -0410- Develop a community center to serve the needs of the Carmel /Clay population. • Conduct an evaluation of program and space needs to determine the magnitude and range of alternatives. The center should be oriented to meet a cross section of needs from youth to elderly. The viabilitiy of reusing existing facilities (i.e., the Plaza) vs. construction of a new facility should be assessed. • The need and desire for a community center shall be incorporated into the five year CIP. Programming alternatives should be discussed with the School Board to identify joint use opportunities (i.e., continued use of gyms, new joint pool for high school and the community). Significant natural features should be preserved and open space /public, park land expanded, • Utilizing findings of the Vision Plan as a foundation, a detailed five year Parks and Recreation Plan should be prepared for Carmel /Clay Township. Such plan should identify long -term natural features to be preserved, open space areas to be acquired, and park land to be developed. • The Carmel /Clay Township Subdivision Code should be revised to ensure protection of significant environmental features and trail segments during the development review process. Development of the Monon as a major community and regional north -south non automotive corridor through Clay Township and connecting into the Indianapolis segment should be implemented. C.aao[UCky 2620 raison • • • Develop funding for acquisition and maintenance of existing public open space /park improvements in a five year CIP. • Evaluate alternative financing techniques through which new developments would bear a more equitable share of responsibility for new parks and open space. • Inventory important natural and historic areas in Carmel /Clay worthy of protection. Continue Dads Club as a community asset. • The Dads Club should continue to develop a formal relationship for field use with the School District. • As part of the five year Parks and Recreation master planning process for Carmel /Clay Township, active field needs will be analyzed based on the projected population. • The Dads Club should pursue acquisition of additional fields through joint use agreements with the Carmel /Clay Parks Board and School District. • On an annual basis the.Dads Club and Parks Board shall meet in a planning session to discuss goals, scheduling and capital facility planning. C R EUCL.y 2®2 YlLiaft • • Commerce:and- Cop�w Mr'TF� % �.ic'3.stw�:✓.L.T= a� w Y. ...4+�- •sC+ewwinx +....�....yg,>+.y- JC�- .+- f��xta•o.. ;y�y.�_ .i., nOM 3C. ..Y MilAWi. Rl T.r.`vT�q'�y`'S'Viti . lfir: S ,... k — . c. � ... .. ..: M�.[_.V - .:i'?_"G'�-�. µdc H•K. .� k��.y^Ns.•y- ... .. Revitalize /Reuse existing retail centers. • Develop a comprehensive inventory of all retail centers in Clay Township. • Encourage the Business Community to develop an on -going report identify- ing absorption and vacancy rates of the retail centers. • The City should enhance its business retention strategy as the basic element of its economic development plan. Actions to revitalize downtown Carmel should continue. • Planned public infrastructure improvements should be continued. • Building owners should be encouraged to restore their building facades. • Strategies to redevelop areas of Main and Rangeline should be prepared. • Public celebrations and festivals should center their activities around the down- town nucleus. CAR. IVCI.y 2 20 YiiiOn 3 -11 • • CONCLUSION By the year 2020 it is projected that the Carmel /Clay area will have essentially been built out. At that point the area will be the residential home to approximately 85,000 persons. With those conditions in mind, a concerted effort was made during the 2020 Vision process to have current citizens identify the quality of life features that would need to be retained and enhanced over the next twenty-five years. During the six month planning process nearly 1,100 residents provided their input. The Goals and Action Steps represent the results of this citizen driven input process. The Carmel /Clay 2020 Vision is a consensus document that relates ten quality of life features citizens expect to be maintained or enhanced. As a policy - making tool it has the capacity to be used to guide budget priorities as well as serve a common foundation of community objectives for other subsequent detailed planning efforts such as the Long Range Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, and Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Carmel /Clay 2020 Vision is not an end -all document, but represents a comprehensive overview of the community's agenda for its future. It is an iterative product that pulls together input from a variety of means to establish a broad -based policy direction. Its value will be measured by how much it is used to guide future planning and development in the community. CARMEUCt v 2620 Ifitjoft • CAR■EVCky 2020 Y on • 3 -14 (1L • • Cir EA 4: q3E • The Carmel -Clay 2020 Vision Plan is a document which builds on previous planning efforts in Carmel and Clay Township. Specifically, this plan utilizes data and or conclusions from the following: • POLIS Report • DOCS Land Inventory Study • Merriam /S1 Study • Comprehensive Plans of 1971, 1985 and 1991 • BSU Downtown Charrette • 1989 Citizen Survey • Hamilton Co. Alternative Transportation Plan • INDOT/ U.S. 31 Alternatives Study • Miscellaneous Traffic Studies • Various Parks Dept. Studies Elements relating to the physical structure of the city and township have been incorporated from these studies into the 2020 Plan, including Carmel and Clay Township's existing and planned transportation as well as specific geographic plans relating to the physical growth, redevelopment and stabilization of various sections of the city and township. As a general plan relating to the structure of the community, the 2020 Plan represents a framework for subsequent, more focused planning efforts. Similar to thoroughfare planning, there is a need to develop plans for public facility and infrastructure placement including educational facilities, governmental facilities such as libraries and recreation facilities 4 -z and utilities. In this instance, the 2020 Plan provides a context of where development is desired and can be sustained at the most reasonable cost to the city, township, school district and public utilities. Availability of development and growth intensity policies allows infrastructure to be properly programmed to support and encourage appropriate growth. flIThiObOLO IT The 2020 Plan contains general policies intended to influence growth, development and stability of the city in the future; it will be implemented by subsequent specific ordinances, programs, zoning decisions and City Council actions including the development of a long -range Capital Improvement Plan. The elements of the 2020 Plan include three general -use maps and a series of development concepts. The general use maps make a critical distinction between residential areas, regional and community employment centers, and environmentally sensitive areas. The delineation of these areas was accomplished through a subtractive process. First, environmentally sensitive areas were delineated. This included identifying floodplain areas, wetlands, wooded areas , wellhead protection areas and public and private open space areas including public parks, Dad's Club field areas golf courses, utility corridors and the Monon rail right -of -way. 4 -3 • Figure 1 Carmel /Clay Township Development. Density by Zone employment center growth, may warrant a lower level infrastructure is not as sufficient. 2620 yitiop The second delineation related to identifying those areas that currently serve as centers of community and regional employment and where their logical expansions could occur without disrupting the quality of residential life. The third step in the process involved establishing the general outline of residential communities where people live. These residential community areas do include those neighborhood scale shopping areas where residents do their convenience shopping. After distinguishing these three basic areas, intensity policies were developed for residential communities and Regional /Community Employment Centers. The logic for determining intensity levels relates to the fact that some areas, while they can sustain regional of intensity than others because the existing or planned 4 -4 • To determine intensity levels, existing development and their associated densities were studied. This research, compiled by the Carmel Department of Community Services, included an analysis of all residential and commercial projects constructed over the last fifteen years. Figure 1 is a graph of built densities of residential projects. This information is organized by the residential zoning district the project was constructed within. What can be noted from this residential densities analysis is that there are five distinct levels of residential density which currently exist in the Carmel -Clay area. In addition, as determined in the 2020 visioning process, there is a definable standard for acceptable neighborhood commercial areas. The Residential Community Intensity levels, as depicted in the Residential Community Areas Map on page 4 - 7, and their associated general characteristics are as follows: 1. Rural Residential: Single- family housing on at least one acre of land. 2. Very Low Intensity Residential: Single - family detached housing developed in a platted subdivision with densities between 1.0 and 1.3 dwelling units per acre. An example development of this intensity is Claridge Farms at 1.3 d.u. /acre. 3. Low Intensity Residential: Single - family detached housing developed in a platted subdivision with densities between 1.3 and 3.0 du's /acre. Developments of this type include Bentley Oaks at 2.6 du's /acre. Gnn[VGLy 202@ Vision 4 -5 • • 4. Medium Intensity Residential: Typically single - family detached housing but could include duplexes. Developed in a platted subdivision, these developments are between .3.0 and 5.0 du's /acre. Examples include Brooks Bend at 3.4 du's /acre and The Enclave at 4.6 du's /acre. 5. High Intensity Residential: Could be single- family detached or multi - family with densities greater than 5.0 du's per acre. Examples include Carmel Station at 8.1 du's per acre and the Maples at 6.9 du's /acre. 6. Neighborhood Commercial Intensity within Residential Communities: These are neighborhood centers which provide for convenience shopping for adjacent neighborhoods. Their scale is compatible with adjacent residential areas in that they are no more than two stories in height, they have up to 100,000 sq. ft. of retail on development sites less than 10 acres. The most notable example which was identified in the visioning process is Brookshire Village Shoppes at 126th and Gray Road. GnMCVCIay Z ®ZO ritiost 4 -6 • Within Regional and Community Employment Center areas, as depicted in the Regional /Community Employment Areas Map on page 4 - 9, five levels of intensity have been identified_ They include the following. 1 Olde Towne Downtown: Building intensities are actually very intense due to their lot coverage and street frontage. Similar building form of structures fronting on the street versus parking areas in front of the structure are encouraged. 2. Lower Intensity CornMercial: This building form is typified by structures of one to two stories and includes offices, office /showroom flex spaces, and industrial /warehouse spaces. An example is the Carmel Science and Technology Park. 3. Medium. Intensity: This development includes community retail centers up to 200,000 sq. ft. and retail developments with more than 10 acres. Additionally, this intensity includes low to mid -rise office complexes between three and five floors. Examples include Meridian Villages. 4. High Intensity: This development includes regional retail centers greater than 200,000 sq. ft. and other commercial complexes reliant on high visibility and mobility, such as auto showrooms etc. Examples include Keystone Square Mall and the "Auto Showroom Row" at 96th Street and Keystone Avenue. 5. U.S. 31 Corridor: This corridor is reserved for very high intensity office uses along the frontage of 31 (greater than five stories) and support retail or commercial behind the frontage parcels to support the office uses. 2 20 Viiion 4 -8 • LAE D I3[. PL The proposed Land Use Plan distinguishes residential communities, where people live and do their convenience shopping, from Regional /Community Employment Areas, where the principal employment base of the community occurs. Included in the land use plan are features viewed by citizens in the 2020 process as being important to preserve including unique environmental features and potential trail corridors. The placement of intensity levels is based on the availability of infrastructure and other features supporting a particular level of development including: • the adjacent development pattern • regional access • access to the regional transportation system • infrastructure support The Land Use Plan is a guide and will be achieved through public and private actions. To assist in the community's incremental growth evaluations, policies have been developed to assist in the decision- making. Policies have been prepared for each intensity level. These policies become important as an on -going series of guidelines flexible enough to reflect changes in market conditions (e.g., the development of a new road). While flexible enough to reflect market changes, they are also formulated to protect and stabilize residential communities. These policies are detailed in Chapter 5. The policies of the 2020 plan form the conditions desirable for supporting various levels of development intensity.. The policies provide flexibility to reflect changing conditions and are intended to be used by the Plan Commission and City Council in their deliberations over zoning decision- making. Supplementing the policies portion of the plan, the maps in this chapter graphically communicate the long term development pattern. 4 -9 • QIA KO W TH F0,11(ll J r • • REgibEHTIAL COlfua1"( YOLK E3 Preservation of strong residential communities was seen in the 2020 visioning process as a means of continuing the high quality of life in the Carmel -Clay Township area. To accomplish this objective, several general policies are presented, followed by more specific policies within high, medium and low - intensity levels. 1.1 GENERAL POLICIES FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AREAS 1.1.1 In residential communities, land should be used primarily for residential purposes. Commercial development within residential communities generally should occur only when the commercial use is not of a community or regional serving nature and when the intensity and scale is compatible with surrounding residential uses. 1.1.2 Transitions, in scale and density, should occur between residential communities and community /regional employment areas to facilitate maintenance of neighborhood stability. In areas where zoning changes are requested, such transition shall be encouraged and considered as part of the approval process. 1.1.3 In the platting process of residential areas, the City shall require the preservation of unique landscapes and shall encourage the maximization of public access to features such as hillsides, woodland stands, wetlands and natural drainageways. Y /l 5 -2 • 1.1.4 Consistent with objectives identified in the 2020 visioning process, the platting process may require for dedication of useable properties for the expansion of the public open space system in the Carmel -Clay area. 1.1.5 The land development process shall provide for development of multiple modes of accessing certain areas of the community. In addition to the auto, this should include development of the pedestrian and bicycle network system as delineated on the Alternative Transportation Thoroughfare Plan Map. 1.1.6 The mapping of Rural Residential and Very Low Density areas in this Comprehensive Plan is not intended to preclude consideration of innovative higher density residential enclaves occurring adjacent to cultural, educational, or neighborhood service centers within Rural Residential and Very Low Density areas provided such were designed so as to serve and enhance the greater community, complement the general architectural theme of the immediate area, and do not generate significant traffic congestion. 1.2 RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREA POLICIES 1.2.1. In certain areas of the township, housing on very large lots shall be encouraged. The area for this very low density housing shall be west of Spring Mill Road. C ..d /CLAY 22 Vision ascommag 5 -3 • 1.2.2 Rural residential type housing shall not be required to be served by central water or sewer. On -site systems of water supply and wastewater treatment must be able to be approved by the appropriate county health organizations. 1.3 VERY LOW INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA POLICIES 1.3.1 Stable very low- intensity residential areas should be protected from destabilizing forces. No changes will be made through zoning or other public action which are adverse to the character of such areas. 1.3.2 New residential developments of very low- intensity residential areas should be discouraged from being located adjacent to Community /Regional Employment. Areas 5 -4 • 1.4 LOW - INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA POLICIES 1.4.1 Cluster style development in low - intensity residential areas is encouraged when: • traditional single lot platting results in the destruction or modification of a major environmental feature such as a hillside, significant stand of trees or creek bank, and • the increased intensity in a particular area of the site in the cluster area has a compatible transition with adjacent traditional low- intensity areas, and • a homeowners association is established to be responsible for common areas, or • The overall density of the cluster development, including its undeveloped or common areas, should not exceed the permitted density of the underlying zoning. 1.4.2 Low - intensity neighborhoods should be served by and be accessible to: • neighborhood commercial centers • parks or playgrounds and • schools • bicycle and /or pedestrian trails • fire, police, public safety 5 -5 • 1.5 MEDIUM- INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA POLICIES 1.5.1 Medium- intensity residential areas may be permitted where regional access is directly available by virtue of the fact that the development site is directly adjacent to a least a collector roadway 1.5.2 The predominant site access to medium- intensity residential areas should not directly utilize minor streets which pass through low - intensity residential areas. 1.5.3 Medium - intensity residential areas should be adequately buffered from rural residential, very low or low - intensity residential areas through the existence of at least one of the following: • main roads • public and institutional buildings • open spaces • landscaping and screening C .it/ L y 22 V siot1 5 -6 • 1.5.4 Medium - intensity residential areas should be served by and be accessible to nearby: • neighborhood commercial centers • parks or playgrounds and • schools • bicycle and /or pedestrian trails • police, fire, and public safety 1.5.5 Medium - intensity residential development should be encouraged along the edges of residential communities and community /regional employment centers, except where existing low- intensity residential development is stable. 5 -7 • 1.6 HIGH - INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA POLICIES 1.6.1 High - intensity residential development shall be encouraged to occur: • in and adjacent to the CBD, or along the edge of residential community areas adjacent to high- or medium - intensity commercial areas, or as part of intensive mixed -use projects. ` 2/J High- intensity residential areas shall only be encouraged where regional access is directly available by virtue of the fact that the development site is adjacent to at least a secondary arterial or secondary parkway. 1.6.3 Access to high- intensity residential areas from the regional serving roadways should not pass through low - intensity residential areas. 1.6.4 High - intensity residential areas should be adequately buffered from medium- intensity residential areas through the existence of at least one of the following: • main roads • public and institutional buildings GN ®MtL/C1 y Z,,i1.2O Vilion • • • open space • landscaping and screening 1.6.5 High - intensity residential areas should be served if possible, by and accessible to nearby: • neighborhood commercial centers • parks or playgrounds • schools • bicycle and /or pedestrian trails • police, fire and public safety 1.6.6 High - intensity residential areas should generally not occur directly adjacent to low or very low- intensity residential areas. CAPMEVC1 y 2026 Vi, on • 1.7 NEIGHBORHOOD- SERVING COMMERCIAL POLICIES. 1.7.1 Neighborhood- serving office and retail uses should be located in residential community areas. These uses should be of an intensity and scale compatible with surrounding residential uses. 1.7.2 New neighborhood- serving commercial areas should generally have the following access characteristics: • the site is at the intersection of at least a principal arterial or parkway and a collector; or • other locations where access is adequate for the use and does not adversely affect the surrounding residential neighborhood. 1.7.3 Retail /commercial rezoning requests in a residential community shall be evaluated based in part on the existence of comparable retail facilities. 1.7.4 Neighborhood- serving commercial establishments shall be adequately buffered from low - intensity residential areas through the existence of at least one of the following: • main roads • public and institutional buildings Gzrcl/CGy 2020 Virion 5 -10 • • • open space • landscaping and screening • sensitive site design 1.7.5 Neighborhood commercial areas shall be locations of varied community activity for the neighborhoods they serve. 1.7.6 Pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood commercial areas should be available from adjacent residential areas where possible, consistant with the Alternative Transportation Thoroughfare Plan. C RMEUCL.y 202 Visilop 5 -11 • • • Figure 1 Carmel Clay Township Proposed Growth Policies Residential/Community Areas INTENSITY LEVEL CHARACTER AREA DESIGNATION ADJACENCY REGIONAL ACCESS SUPPORT CIRCULATION INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT TRANSITION TO REG /COMM EMP AREAS Neighborhood Commercial Nbhd. scale retail. Center is 100k sq. ft. mak on 10 or less acres ' Residential Community or Regional /Community Employment Area Site could be within residential comm areas. Design is compatible, buffering adj. prop Is mandatory Site is at intersection of principal arterial or parkway and collector Site has direct access to reg access without any traffic intrusion into adj nbhds. Water, sewer, drainage adquately in place or planned - as part of development Buffered from adjacent res. Bevel by all of the following: - scale of bldg design - - landscaping of adj properties, loading High Intensity .,0,.. Greater than 5 d.u.s per acre. Typically of a townhouse or multi- family building form. lt. Residential Community or Regional /Community Employment Area Could serve as a transition use between Reg /Comm Emp Area and medium or low intensity residential areas Site is adjacent to Wean! a secondary arterial or . secondary parkway Access to site directly from regional access. Water, sewer, drainage adquately in place or planned as part of development Buffered from any Reg /Comm Emp. areas by at least one: - arterial or parkway - public/inst. bldg. • dedicated open space / transition density - scale of design %"' Medium Intensity Moderately dense single family detached building form between 3 and 5d.u.s per acre Residential Community Could serve as transiton use between low density comrnlCBD /nbad comm uses and low or very low density single family Site is adjacent to at least a collector road. Access'to site directly form regional access Water, sewer, drainage adquately in place or planned as part of development Bufferedfrom lower intensity Reg/Comm areas by at least one: - collector - public/insL bldg. - dedicated open space - transition density - scale of design . Low Intensity Low density single family delached building form between 1.3 and 3.0 d.u's ' per acre Residential Community Could serve as transition use between medium intensity residential and very low intensity res. or as buffer between low int reg emp., nbhd comm. CBD and very low intensity residential No regional accessibility required Standard hierarchy of access necessary to serve development Water, sewer, drainage adequately in place or planned as part of development Buffered from CBD or Nbhd comet areas by at least one: - collector - public../nsL bldg. - dedicated open space - transition density - scale of design Very Low Intensity Low density single family detached building form between 1.0 and 1.3 d.u's per acre Residential Community Never adjacent to any Regional / Community Employment areas No regional accessibility required Standard hierarchy of access necessary to serve development Water, sewer, drainage adequately in place or planned as part of development Buffered from Nbhd comm areas by at least one: - collector - public/inst. bldg. - dedicated open space - transition density - scale of design Rural Residential Estate type housing on lots with at least one acre of land Residential Community Never adjacent lo any Regional /Community Employment areas No regional accessibility required Standard hierarchy of access necessary to serve development ._ No central water or sewer required Never adjacent to Reg /Comm Emp areas 5 -12 (annum/ft QOM' I rrinomENT MU. IPOLICIES The City of Carmel and Clay Township have a goal of encouraging broad -based economic development to retain their healthy, economic positions in the metropolitan area. The following policies are intended to provide for that controlled quality growth. 2.1 GENERAL POLICIES FOR ALL COMMUNITY/ REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AREAS 2.1.1. Community and regional serving retail, office and industrial uses shall be located only in community /regional employment areas. 2.1.2 Residential uses are only generally encouraged in community /regional employment areas when they are part of a mixed -use project, adjacent to the CBD, or on the fringe between community /regional employment centers and residential communities. 2.1.3 Adequate buffering, including Landscaping, density, and scale transition between community /regional employment areas and residential communities shall be encouraged. 0-EvCL.y 202 Vision 5- 13 • 2.1.4 The City shall encourage nodal, versus strip or scattered site development, in community /regional employment areas by strengthening access control guidelines. 2.1.5 In the platting process of proposed developments within community /regional employment areas, the City shall require the preservation of unique landscape features and should attempt to maximize public access to environmental features such as hillsides, woodland stands, wetlands and natural drainageways. 2.2 OLD TOWN /CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT POLICIES 2.2.1 Street oriented retail and office uses should continue to be encouraged in the core area of the Old Town /CBD. 2.2.2 Development regulations shall allow more dense development in the CBD than in other areas of the City and Township. 2.2.3 The community should continue to encourage incentives for adaptive reuse of the buildings in the area of Main and Rangeline. CANM EVCky 2020 iiion 5 -14 • 2.2.4 High intensity housing should occur within the Old Town /CBD and adjacent to this area. 2.3 U.S. 31 CORRIDOR COMMUNITY/REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AREA POLICIES 2.3.1 High intensity office development shall be encouraged to locate in the U.S. 31 Corridor community /regional employment areas. 2.3.2 Retail and other commercial uses shall only be considered in this corridor as an ancillary use to the office development. Any free- standing retail and commercial uses should be located away from the frontage of the roadway 2.3.3 The highest intensity of office development shall be encouraged where access to U.S. 31 is greatest. This includes those areas at the intersection of U.S. 31 and a Primary Arterial or Primary Parkway. 26120 5 -15 • 2.3.4 Direct area access from U.S. 31 or a service road of U.S. 31 must be available to the development site. Major access to the development site through rural residential, very low, low- or medium- intensity residential areas should not be permitted. 2.3.5 U.S. 31 corridor uses should be buffered or provide transition from high, medium, and low intensity community /regional employment areas through one of the following: • main roads • public and institutional buildings • dedicated open space • landscape buffering 2.3.6 New U.S. 31 corridor developments when located directly adjacent to low and very low- intensity residential communities, shall provide buffering and or transition to minimize negative impacts. 2.3.7 A residential proximity slope equating the height of office buildings based upon a distance from residential community areas should be established in the Subdivision Regulations. GVrd/GAy 2020 fyipit 5 -16 • 2.3.8 Uses in this corridor shall be encouraged to connect with other modes of transportation (e.g.: pedestrian, bicycle, bus, auto, etc.). 2.3.9 Cooperative public /private actions to improve urban design, landscaping and other amenities that will enhance the competitive posture of high- intensity nodes throughout the Carmel /Clay area should be encouraged. 2.3.10 Uses in this corridor should be adequately buffered or provided transition from residential communities through the existence of at least one of the following: • freeways • public and institutional buildings • dedicated open space • landscape buffering C.. .EVCLAy 2020 Vision 5 -17 2.4 HIGH INTENSITY COMMUNITY/REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AREA POLICIES 2.4.1 Intense levels of retail and commercial development shall be encouraged to locate in high- intensity Community/ Regional Employment areas. 2.4.2 High- intensity commercial developments shall only be located in community /regional employment areas where regional access is available to the site by virtue of the fact that the development site is located at the intersection of an expressway and a principal arterial or principal parkway. 2.4.3 Direct area access from regional transportation systems must be available to high- intensity commercial nodes. Major access to the high intensity regional employment area should be discouraged through very low, low- or medium - intensity residential areas. 2.4.4 High - intensity community /regional employment areas should be buffered or provide transition from medium, low- intensity commercial areas through one of the following: • main roads • public and institutional buildings CARMdlCIAy Z ®R® Vi!IOn 5 -18 • open space; and • landscaped bufferyards 2.4.5 New high- intensity commercial developments should be discouraged from locating directly adjacent to rural, low and very low - intensity residential communities. 2.4.6 High- intensity commercial nodes shall be encouraged to connect with other public multi -modal transportation systems (e_g_: pedestrian, bicycle, bus, auto, etc.), consistent with the Alternative Transportation Thoroughfare Plan. 2.4.7 Cooperative public /private actions to improve urban design, landscaping and other amenities that will enhance the competitive posture of high- intensity nodes throughout the Carmel /Clay area should be encouraged. 2.4.8 High- intensity commercially developed areas should be adequately buffered or provided transition from residential communities through the existence of at least one of the following: • freeways 5 -19 • • • public and institutional buildings • open space; or • high- or medium- intensity residential uses developed on the edge. 2.4.9 Freestanding mid -rise office and regional serving retail should be encouraged to locate only in high- intensity community /regional employment areas. 2cAOR""266 Vi,ion 5 - 20 • 2.5 MEDIUM - INTENSITY COMMUNITY/REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AREA POLICIES 2.5.1 Medium- intensity commercial developments shall only be located in community /regional employment areas where regional access is available to the site by virtue of the fact that the development site is located at the intersection of an expressway and a secondary arterial or parkway. 2.5.2 Direct area access from regional transportation systems must be available to medium - intensity commercial nodes. Major access to the high intensity regional employment area should not be permitted through very low, low- or medium - intensity residential areas. 2.5.3 Medium - intensity commercial developments without adequate transition or buffering should be discouraged from locating directly adjacent to rural, low or very low - intensity residential areas. 2.5.4 Medium - intensity commercial developments should be buffered or be provided transition from residential community areas through the existence of- • at least a major thoroughfare or freeway; or • public and institutional buildings; or C MMdjCLty Vision 5 -21 • • open space; or • high- or medium - intensity residential uses developed on the fringe between the medium- intensity commercial area and a residential community area. 2.5.5 High - intensity commercial developments should only be permitted in medium- intensity community /regional employment areas when the following characteristics exist: • direct access from the site to an expressway is available • the high - intensity development site is adequately buffered. C�RreVCLay 2 2e vi,ion 5 -22 • 2.6 LOW - INTENSITY COMMUNITY/REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AREA POLICIES 2.6.1 Low -rise garden office and community - serving retail shall be encouraged to locate in low- intensity community /regional areas 2.6.2 Low - intensity commercial areas should only be located where regional access is available; including, the intersection of at least a principal arterial, or parkway, and secondary arterial or parkway. 2.6.3 Direct area access from regional thoroughfare systems must be available on a major throughway and must not have to pass through residential community areas on minor streets. 2.6.4 Low - intensity commercial developments should be buffered from residential communities through the existence of at least one of the following: • a divided secondary thoroughfare • public and institutional buildings • open space • scale of design 22 Y 1 ®/i 5 - 23 2.6.5 Medium- and high- intensity commercial developments should only be permitted in low- intensity Community /Regional Employment areas when the following characteristics exist: • regional access consists of at least direct access from the site to an expressway. • the high - and medium- intensity development site is adequately buffered 2.6.6 Industries, warehouses and commercial uses necessary to support such areas shall be located within low intensity community /regional employment areas. Office support facilities for such developments shall be considered a secondary use. 2.6.7 The community should encourage the concentration of industrial warehouse developments in low intensity community/ regional employment areas through : • zoning decisions; and • concentrated economic development C.RwiUCL.y 2 Z® Yitiao 5 -24 • • • Figure 2 Carmel/Clay Township Proposed Growth Policies Regional/Community Employment Areas INTENSITY LEVEL CHARACTER AREA DESIGNATION ADJACENCY REGIONAL ACCESS SUPPORT CIRCULATION INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT TRANSITION TO RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES U.S. 31 Corridor Offices greeter than 5 11Eg. Thomson Ebc., Regional' Community Empbyment Area Not adjacent to bw density residential Site is adjacent to expressway and principal ateriat or principal parkway Access to site directly from regional access. Water, sewer, drainage adequate to serve site Buffered from residential commercial by el Best ana: - expnesswey/piiicipal arterials - pubic/institutional building - docketed open space - transition density High Intensity Regional Retail greater than 250k sq. ft , intense commercial RegionaVCommunity Empbyment Area Not adjacent to bw density residential Site is adjacent to expressway aid principal arterial or principal parkway Access to site directly Water, sewer, drainage adequate to serve site Buffered from residential commercial by at bast one: - expressway/principal ateriats - publchtstitutional building - dedicated open space - transition density from regiaral ems. Medium Intensity Community retail greater than 100k sq. ft_ Low to mid rise office 3 - 5 lbors Eg. Meridian V loges, Graves Office Bldg. RegionaVCommunity Empbyment Area Could be adjacent to bw density residential it adequate buffer, transition Site is adjacent to expressway and secondary arterial or secondary parkway Access to site is direly from regional access. Water, sewer, drainage adequate to sans site Buffered from residential comma 'al by at bast one: - expresswey/prvcipal arterial;. - pub *stifutionel buik5ng . dedicated open space - transition density - scab of bligdesign Low Intensity One to two story offices Offxce/sh ovarom Rex space, indus. warehouse Eg. Carmel Science and Technobgy Park ReganeVCommunity Empbyment Area Could be adjacent to bw density residential if adequate buffer, barsitian Site is adjacent to principal arterial or parkway and secondary arterial a parkway Access to site direly cram regional access Water, sewer, drainage adquatey in place or planed as pert of devebpment Buffered from residential commercial by at bast one: - pink. arteriaVpkwy - pubic iutihrtional bulking - dedicated open space - transition density - scab of bldg design Central Bus. District Downtown area of Carmel in vicinity of Rangefne end Main St Regional /Community Empbyment Area is adjacent to residential Devebpment should be pedestrian scale. Building frontage to street Sites have access to Rangefne or Main St Water, sewer, drainage adequately in place or planned as pert of devebpment Buffered from residential commercial by at bast one: - scab of bldg. design Access to site could be from cofactor connecting into Raigefne cr Mein - le dscaping of rear poking Neighborhood Commercial Nbld. scab retail Center is 100k sq. ft. max on 10 or lass saes Residential Community Area _ Site is within resid. camm areas. Design is compatibb with adjacent scab. Buffering of rear bt Ina with adjacent res. is mandatory ate is al intersection of principal arterial or periaray end cofactor Site has direct access to regional access without any traffic intrusion into adjacent nbhds. Water, sewer, drainage adequately in place or planned as part of devebpment Buffered from, adjacent residential commercial by al of the following: - scale of bldg. design - landscaping of rear parking, bndng t.us+rV� -uV 2626 •® 5 - 25 Cura lOOo AO }t I gt • • • As a northern growth area of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Statistical Area, the Carmel -Clay Township area has developed with a high amount of alternative north -south routes into the historic core of the region, namely Indianapolis. Conversely east -west roadways are fairly limited across the township as the economic ties with areas to the east and west were historically much less important and the White River had to be crossed on the east border. North -south routes which traverse from one end of the township to the other include: • Shelbourne • Towne • Ditch /Clay Center • Spring Mill Rd. • 31 (Meridian) • Range Line Rd. /Westfield Blvd. • 431 (Keystone) • Gray Rd. • River Rd. Continuous east -west roadways across the township are much fewer in number and include: • 106th St. • 116th St. • 131st St. • 146th St. 6 -2 • • Figure 1 Historic Carmel /Clay Township North /South Roadway Classification Roadway Comprehensive Plan Freeway Expressway Primary Thoroughfare Secondary Thoroughfare Parkway Collector Hazeldell 1991 X (N. of 116th) 1985 X 1971 X Hazeldell 1991 X (S. of 116th) 1985 X 1971 X Gray Rd. 1991 X (N. of 116th) 1985 X 1971 X Gray Rd. 1991 X (S. of 116th) 1985 X 1971 X Keystone 1991 X 1985 X 1971 X Rangeiine/ 1991 X Westfield Blvd. 1985 X 1971 X College Ave. 1991 X 1985 X 1971 X Meridian (US 31) 1991 X 1985 X 1971 X Spring Mill 1991 X 1985 X 1971 X Ditch 1991 X 1985 X 1971 X Towne 1991 X 1985 X 1971 X 6 -3 • CARMI Figure 2 Historic Carmel/ClayTownship East/West Roadway Classification Roadway Comprehensive Plan Freeway Expressway Primary Thoroughfare Secondary Thoroughfare Parkway Collector 96th St. 1991 X (E. of Rangeline) 1985 X 1971 X 3bth St. 1991 X (W. of Rangelin'e) 1985 X 1971 X 1Ubth St. 1991 X (E. of Spring Mill) 1985 X 1971 X 1Ubth St. 1991 X (W. of Spring Mill) 1985 X 1971 X 11 bth St. 1991 (W. of U.S. 31) 1985 X 1971 X 'Mtn 5t. 1S51 X (W. of Spring Mill) 1985 X ''Carmel 1971 X Dr. 1991 X (W. of Keystone) 1985 X 1971 X 12bth St. 1991 x 1985 X • 1971 X 131st St. 1991 X 1985 X 1971 X 136th St. 1991 7C 1985 X 1971 X fibth St. 1991 x t® 1985 1971 . X X 6 -4 • X VorgorrriA JOXROAM T(J The City of Carmel and Clay Township are linked in a north /south fashion by three U.S. or state highways. These include; Michigan Road (U.S. 421), Meridian (U.S. 31) and Keystone (U.S. 431). These three roadways combine to carry over 110,000 vehicles per day across some portion of the township. Michigan Road (U.S. 421) Michigan Road provides accessibility to the far western edge of the township and is configured as a four lane non - divided highway. This roadway connects with an interchange onto I -465, the circumferential interstate highway around Indianapolis. Meridian Street (U.S. 31) U.S. 31 is a four to eight lane roadway linking Carmel to Westfield and Kokomo to the north, and Indianapolis to the south. U.S. 31 is a divided roadway as it passes through Clay Township. It also has a major multi- laned interchange access to 1465. Traffic volumes range from 35,000 (in the north) to 45,000 vehicles per day on this roadway. Access control is good on this roadway and is consistent with modern development standards to enhance the carrying capacity of the roadway. 6 -5 • • As noted on Figure 3, traffic volumes between 1989 and 1993 (the latest published counts) have increased from 8% in the southern reaches of the township to over 22% in the northern segments. This increase parallels the northern urbanization of the township. Keystone Avenue (U.S.431) Keystone Avenue is a major state highway traversing through Clay Township. This roadway is controlled in its access and exists as a six-lane divided roadway from the southern edge of the township at 96th St. to north of 103rd. North of 103rd this roadway is four lane with an added turning lane at each of the bisecting east -west streets. Keystone in its southern connection at 96th Street carries Figure 3 Estimated Daily Traffic Levels at Selected Locations Comparison of Traffic Increases Between 1989 and 1993 Estimated Daily Traffic Route Section 1989 1993 Vol Incr. % Incr. U.S. 31 1-465 to 103rd St. 43,000 46,259 3,259 8% 111th St. to 116th SL 40,000 41,387 1,387 3% 116th SL to 131st St. 29,000 32,000 3,000 10% 131st SL to 136th SL 22,500 27,460 4,960 22% Keystone Ave 96th 51. to 98th St. 37,000 49,357 12,357 33% 106th SL to 116th SL 32,500 38,659 6,159. 19% 116th SL to Carmel Or. 29,000 30,167 1,167 4% 126th St. to 131st St, 24,500 30,167 5,667 23% Range Line Rd 96th SL to 103rd St. 10,500 12,350 1,850 18•/, Carmel Dr. to 126th. St. 15,000 18,395 3,395 231/4 131str SL to 136th 51. 9,000 9,869 869 10 1O6th St. Range Line Rd. to U.S. 31 11,000 7,612 -3,388 -31% 116th St Gray Rd. to Keystone Ave. 14,000 18,364 4,364 31% Keystone to Range Line 11,500 15,443 3,943 34% Range Line Rd. to U.S.31 7,700 9,179 1,479 19% Carmel Or U.S. 31 to Guilford 6,400 Guilford to Rangeiine 11,838 Rangellne to Keystone 17,065 more traffic than any road segment in the township. It can be expected that in 1997, when the 96th St. bridge over White River is constructed, Keystone will carry additional traffic. The following figure is a map of the township and relates traffic volumes per segment of those roads which are designated as at least a collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. While growth in Clay Township took on a residential character in the 1970's, the area has now emerged as a major employment center. Currently, the second largest concentration of office space is located in Clay Township CAard/Clay 2' ,�. 20 Yi110 A 6 -6 • predominately located along the U.S. 31 corridor. Other emerging employment centers include College Park in northern Marion and southern Boone counties to the west of Day Township and the Castleton /Fishers employment center to the east of the township. As the area's employment reliance on downtown Indianapolis shifts to these adjacent areas, the need for good east -west access will be magnified. This trend is adequately shown by the comparative traffic volumes table. As can be noted on this table, the segment which showed the highest increase in volumes was the east -west link of 116th St., between Keystone and the White River. This roadway link is currently being widened from two to three lanes. The emerging importance of east west links is further demonstrated in the review depicting how various roadways have been classified in the previous 1971,1985 and 1991 Thoroughfare Plans. What is very noticeable in this comparison is the frequency that east -west streets have been upgraded in their status on the Thoroughfare Plan. As can be noted, east -west roads which have had their status increased include; 96th, 116th, Carmel Dr. west of Keystone, 131st, and 136th. This upgrading reflects urbanization adjacent to Clay Township and the need to provide for east west access linkages. 6 -7 • • C.MEENT TDIN5PORTaTOOn 1155M5 In the context of the Comprehensive Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan is defined by a functional classification system (including number of lanes) for all roadways within the planning area and a corresponding set of geometric standards. Together, these elements provide sufficient information to guide future actions regarding the location, right -of -way, and design of public roadways. In addition to functional classification and geometric standards, a Comprehensive Plan can address a range of other planning issues related to the future transportation system. The issues identified through the following summary points are those which were raised in the citizen involvement phase of the 2020 process. East -West Continuity Across U.S. 31 U.S. 31 is the principle north -south roadway in the Indianapolis region. Through Clay Township it carries volumes ranging from 27,000 to 46,000. As residential growth in Hamilton County's Clay and Washington townships continues to boom, traffic volumes along U.S. 31 will continue to soar. Currently classified as a "Freeway" on the Carmel -Clay Thoroughfare Plan, this roadway is being studied by the state of Indiana for the purpose of adding capacity. Options receiving favorable backing so far in the process include making the roadway into a more limited highway with a character similar to an Interstate with interchanges. With thetownship already bifurcated into three areas by U.S. 31 and Keystone, citizens expressed considerable concern about the ability to traverse east -west, particularly across U.S. 31. 2020 ! o n 6 -8 • Adequate Road Capacity to Serve Emerging Community and Regional Employment Growth Areas A fundamental concept of this Comprehensive Plan relates to the distinction of residential community areas, where people live and do their convenience shopping, and community /regional employment areas, which provide for the economic viability of the area. Consistently, in the 2020 Visioning Process, citizens expressed the value and acceptance of community /regional employment areas, if the traffic and other associated impacts were mitigated. Pedestrian Facilities - Location and Standards On multiple occasions, citizens expressed the desire for the expansion of sidewalks and trails to provide for non - motorized mobility. Hamilton County has recently become the first county in the state to develop and adopt an Alternative Transportation Mobility Plan and has identified many routes through Carmel and Clay Township as being shared bicycle lane or separated trails as part of a countywide system. Each of the issues presented above was considered in the development of transportation recommendations presented in the following section. AGn.EUCI�y Yirioe 6 -9 • TriOU lQHMKE FL ®nnr ii ii H5 East -West Continuity Across U.S. 31 Recommendations Consistent with the objectives voiced in the various citizen meetings and timely with the current analysis by the state of Indiana study of U.S. 31, the following recommendations are made. • Encourage the State to develop interchanges off of U.S. 31 to serve the Community /Regional Employment. Areas at 106th, 116th, Carmel Drive, 1315tSt.,136stSt. and 146th St. • Encourage the State to develop overpasses or underpasses of U.S. 31 to provide additional Residential Community Area east -west mobility at 111th, 1315t and 1365t Streets. Recommendations to Ensure Adequate Road Capacity to Serve Emerging Community/Regional Employment Growth Areas Again it must be noted that in the 2020 Visioning process, citizens were cautiously encouraging of the continued need to expand the commercial /industrial tax base through business growth if the negative impacts of that growth could be mitigated and contained. The following actions are recommended to deal with this objective: • The 1991 Land Use and Thoroughfare Plan recognized the controlled growth potential of the community /regional employment area along the Meridian /U.S. 31 corridor. In order to accommodate anticipated growth and yet mitigate such traffic impacts on the adjacent residential community areas, two access roadways parallel to U.S. 31 were recommended. On the east, this parallel roadway involves the extension of Pennsylvania St. from 103rd to 131st Similarly an access roadway, at roughly the same spacing, as 2O Ifigion 6 -10 Pennsylvania St., needs to be developed on the west side of U.S. 31 to provide business access and preserve the integrity of Spring Mill as a residential community area collector road. • To enhance mobility within the Carmel Drive community /regional employment area, Carmel Drive should be upgraded to primary arterial status on the Thoroughfare Plan. Accordingly, access cuts onto Carmel Drive should be minimized or consolidated. • As urbanization continues in the northern areas of Clay Township and southern Washington Township, east - west access is going to continue to emerge as being critical. For this reason 146th Street should be upgraded to primary arterial status and the appropriate right -of -way secured at time of subdivision plat approval. Overall Township Mobility Recommendations As Clay Township approaches its buildout over the next twenty year period, and high growth rates continue to be exhibited in adjacent Washington Township and Fall Creek Township, planning to ensure adequate roadway capacity within Carmel and Clay Township must take place to accommodate an acceptable level of growth. Based on the proposed land use plan and the associated commensurate traffic in Clay Township as well as the adjacent townships, the following recommendations are made: • To enhance east -west mobility in the western reaches of Clay Township, particularly to serve the long range Clay Township school facility at Towne and 12651 , a new east -west roadway should be extended in a configuration between Carmel Drive at U.S. 31 and the school property. • In order to discourage the further geographic bifurcation of Clay Township and traffic intrusion into the large, existing residential community area west of Spring Mill, alternatives being analyzed by the state of Indiana to uo�cUq,r Yirjon 6 - 11 • designate Ditch or Spring Mill Road as an alternative U.S. 31 alignment should be strongly discouraged by the City of Carmel and Clay Township. • Continuous north -south access should be enhanced in the eastern edge of the township through the construction of Hazeldell Road from 146th to 96th Streets. When completed this facility will provide the only continuous north -south access throughout the township, east of Keystone Avenue. To maintain the emerging high residential quality of this area, the roadway should be developed as a parkway. Pedestrian Facilities Locations and Standards Consistent with opinions expressed in the 2020 Visioning Process, an alternative transportation system of sidewalks and trails should be developed. • The first priority in the development of this pedestrian system should be the construction of the Monon Trail. This facility has been recommended as the major north -south link of the Bicycle and. Pedestrian System Plan for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area (an eight county region) and is a major link in the Hamilton County Alternative Transportation Plan. • The Hamilton County Alternative Transportation Plan adopted in 1995 by the Hamilton County Commissioners recommends standards for the development of bicycling and pedestrian systems. These standards should be likewise adopted by the Carmel -Clay Township Plan Commission and incorporated into the Thoroughfare Plan. • Route recommendations of the Hamilton County Alternative Transportation System Plan should be developed through Carmel and Clay Township. • Carmel and Clay Township should make every effort to develop existing utility corridors into connecting trail linkages. 6 -12 • o Carmel and Clay Township should make every effort to develop existing utility corridors into connecting trail linkages. 2620 U1oe 6 -13 rt 7: llfl L Eu P • • • Implementation of the recommendations in this Comprehensive Plan will involve the modification and adoption of multiple city development control ordinances. This includes the following documents • Zoning Ordinance • Subdivision Regulations • Capital Improvement Plan • Park and Open Space Plan Specific amendments to these documents are detailed in the following. 415OMOfNI or PROINUCD cornmENTE FILM MD gROVIril POUIUI J The Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for how the community desires to grow. Development is the domain of the private sector, however it is the Comprehensive Plan which serves to first give assurance to existing residents as to what they can expect to develop adjacent or near them. Likewise one of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan is to give some predictability to the development community as to where types and intensities of development could occur. To assist the Carmel /Clay Township Plan Commission and Carmel City Council, growth policies or planning concepts have been prepared to describe the conditions which need to be present for a type and intensity of land use to be sustained. The growth policies are a guide to assist Plan Commissioners and Council members in their deliberations over land use. Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan will give these policy makers a tool to consistently evaluate the merits of development proposals on a case by case basis. Ga.dfd.y 2020 anon 7 -2 • arm ZOIM OCOLI NIKr A community's zoning ordinance is the legal framework to reflect the development concepts defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The current zoning ordinance for Carmel and Clay Township contains numerous ambiguities and development standards which are no longer valid in the community. Specifically, the ordinance contains thirteen residential zoning categories, in many instances with little, if any, difference in the standards. This zoning ordinance has not been comprehensively reviewed to clarify district standards with the development intensities reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the corresponding zoning map does not sufficiently reflect the community's vision for its long range build out. A comprehensive overview of the community zoning ordinance, including a comprehensive review of the zoning map should be conducted to bring into synch the Comprehensive Plan and the communities principle development control ordinance. A major end product of the revision to the Zoning Map, should be the delineation of areas in the community which are appropriate to be mapped as Rural Residential. This should be accompanied with a correlated ordinance revision to include a Rural Residential District with a development standard of at least one acre of land per single family dwelling unit. C Td1Clny 2620 ritio1 7 -3 • antito II L oJo®I4 (O JTEOL KEUIL1Tt • The subdivision regulations contain the standards for the development of the community. This includes standards for street construction, utilities etc_ Throughout the citizen involvement phase of the 2020 Visioning Process, citizens expressed the desire for new developments to adhere to higher standards in the development of transportation facilities and provision of public open space. Similarly, members of the development community complained about the lack of consistency in the platting process of what improvements and their magnitude would have to be made. The Carmel /Clay Township Subdivision Regulations should be amended to specifically modify and clarify standards for at least the three design issues which were raised in the 2020 Vision Process. These include: • The Subdivision Regulations shall be amended to encourage the preservation of significant environmental features. • A park impact fee should be developed to replace the extraction system which currently exists. • The dedication of street rights -of -way necessary to serve a proposed development should also be clarified. Such ordinance needs to be crafted in such a way that the dedication is commensurate with the impact of the development. G�rEIACI.y 2020 on 7 -4 • • The Hamilton County Alternative Transportation Task Force and subsequently the Hamilton County Plan Commission and County Commissioners adopted a series of standards for the development of bicycle and pedestrian systems throughout the county. These standards define the type of bicycle lane, path or trail to be installed on certain type of streets. bEVELor r VE.YEAQ cam 1111FRownLwT 4(W1 Just like an entrepreneur establishes a "business plan" laying out expected costs to run a business and projected revenues, a community must establish a long range capital improvement plan. Such a Five Year Capital Improvement Plan is a useful tool to not only mitigate projected impacts before they are a problem, a CIP is a useful tool to direct growth. In this Comprehensive Plan several improvements have been cited in order to maintain or improve the quality of life in the Carmel /Clay Township area. Projects which should be prioritized and incorporated into such a five year CIP include: • Acquisition and development of the Monon Trail • Acquisition of certain unique environmental features • Expansion of public open space • Construction of Hazeldell Parkway • Construction of the U.S. 31 service roads • Construction of 126th St. from Range Line to Carmel Dr. • Construction of some alignment of 126th St. west of U.S. 31 • Widening of 146th Street. c�.E+,CUv 0 202 1J�1 7 -5 The previous list is not exhaustive nor is it suggested that all of these projects could be accomplished over the next five year period. Integral to a five year CIP is the process of analyzing the city and township's revenue stream and determfining the allocation that could be dedicated on an annual basis to capital improvements. Currently, no CIP exists. DQV1 LOPrrunIT or EVEN 3 MQQ AINI5 311J Min A fundamental finding of the 2020 Visioning Process and subsequently the Comprehensive Plan was the collective community's desire to expand the public open space opportunities. The land -use plan delineates opportunities where unique environmental features exist and can be used when the Plan Commission evaluates new development proposals to protect such features. A long range parks and open space plan, however, needs to be developed to prioritize the key components of the community's park and open space system. MIA lli fl ro s agra 3IPtuaL 3TNlbeE5 There are four areas within the township where it has been concluded that follow -up detailed special study is warranted. These areas are designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The issues to be studied and resolved through a focused planning study include the following: U.S. 31 Corridor Plan - The U.S. 31 corridor is the community's major north -south link. The character emerging and being advocated in this corridor is that of a high quality office center. Over the next several years the state of Indiana will need to make certain traffic improvements to the basic road. system (alignment, traffic lanes, interchanges) to this corridor in order to maintain its traffic efficiency. While already the second largest concentration of office development outside of downtown Indianapolis, the corridor is currently less than 25% built out A rare opportunity G.r�LCLy foie fyisp 7 -6 • exists to plan for a higher standard of development design. Such corridor plan should deal with transportation issues, physical design issues and land use /zoning issues. • Old Town/Village Center Study Area - The historic center of Carmel at Rangeline Rd. and Main St. Warrants further focused study. While an urban design plan has been completed, opportunities exist to connect this area to the high school and additionally in a southern direction to connect into the Civic Center complex and commercial uses along Rangeline. • 96th & Westfield Boulevard Special Study Area - Several issues remain to be resolved in this area. These issues include the extension of 96th Street west of Westfield, direction as to how the intersection with the Monon would work and detailed land use intensity in the area. • Eller Road/River Crossing Special Study Area - While replacement of the current two lane bridge to a three lane bridge at 116th Street across White River is anticipated in the near future, additional bridge opportunities in the Eller Road /River Road area need to be explored to provide for better north south traffic movement. The previous points form the basis of how the vision expressed by citizens in the 2020 Visioning process which have been subsequently organized into a long range plan for the community could be implemented. GardiCUy 2020 rRion 7 -7 • • IN THE CARMEL CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN RE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE of AMERICAN VILLAGE PROPERTIES, LLC Applicant Docket No. V- 187 -00 November 27, 2000 DECISION Upon application and after a public hearing pursuant to the Advisory Planning Law of the State of Indiana and the Rules of Procedure of the Board, the Board hereby denies, by a 4 -1 vote, the application for a Development Standards Variance filed by the Applicant. Members voting to deny: Dierckman, Mohr, Plavchak, Weinkauf. Member voting to approve: Rice. FINDINGS The Board finds that the Applicant has not met Criteria #1, #2, and #3 under Section 10- 134(b) of the Carmel City Code (Section 30.4 of the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance): riterion #1 —The Board finds that the approval of the Variance will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, in that the Applicant's proposed planned unit development will create undue traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site and the potential for increased criminal and traffic violations in the adjacent neighborhood. riterion #2 —The Board finds that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the Variance will be affected in a substantially adverse manner, (i) because the residential property owners in the immediate vicinity do not want to live within sight of the more intensive land uses proposed for the Applicant's planned unit development; (ii) because the traffic congestion, noise pollution, and light pollution that will come with such a planned unit development will impair the value of the neighboring, single- family residential properties, resulting in a decrease in their relative property values of between 5% and 10% per property; and (iii) because the high- density, multi- family land use proposed for the planned unit development does not perform as a buffer between the commercial uses in the U.S. Highway 421 Corridor and the single- family residential uses in the adjacent area. C. Criterion #3 —The Board finds that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property included in the Variance, in that the Applicant can still profitably develop that property under the existing land use ordinances and regulations without employing the mechanism of a planned unit development district ordinance. 1-L Filed in the Office of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals this 4 ` day of December, 2000. 2 Charles Weinkauf President ATTEST: Stephen Engelking Director Carmel Department of Community Services • • City of C October 19, 2000 Leo Dierckman Michael Mohr Earlene Plavchak Pat Rice Charles Weinkauf Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: (el rmel Rarely have I felt it necessary to speak out on issues involving variances that come before you, but I believe it important that you and the public know my thoughts as to why I believe the proposed variances for "Town Village" (UV -84 -00 and V0- 85 -00) should not be approved. These variances are scheduled to be heard at your meeting scheduled for October 23, 2000. Carmel has a rich history of excellence in the area of zoning and planning which is one of several factors that has resulted in Carmel being the desirable place to live and work that it is today. Consistency and careful alication of our zoning laws is required if our community is to grow and property values maintained. There is a long- standing promise, which is reflected in our Comprehensive Plan and our ordinances, that there should be no commercial development of any type in residential zones West of Spring Mill Road. Residents who have invested their savings in homes in this area have and continue to rely on the City of Carmel to keep that promise. I respectfully ask that you reject any and all variances for commercial development of any type west of Spring Mill Road, and in particular the Town Village /Cypress Gardens project. Several people have pointed out to me lately that the BZA agendas are getting longer with each passing month even though development has decreased slightly this year over last. Some have suggested that this is because the BZA is "easier to get through" than the Plan Commission. You should be aware of these comments. I would ask that ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2400 • Page 2 Board of Zoning Appeals October 19, 2000 you keep in mind that a zoning plan works only if numerous exceptions are not made. If exceptions are always granted, our zoning plans will become useless. Our staff planners are top rate; .there are none better in Indiana and I ask that you take their advice and counsel into consideration whenever possible. Thank you for the hours of valuable time that you dedicate to Carmel; your service is truly appreciated by everyone who benefits from the wonderful appearance of our city. Very truly yours, dein ZZaale 'Vt4, Jim Brainard Mayor JB:ch