HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp. Plan Update meeting 2/3/1990 1
The Carmel Comprehensive Update Plan meeting was brought to order by Jeff
Davis, Chairman at the City Meeting Hall on February 13 , 1990 at 7 : 35 P.M.
The committee members present were : Jeff Davis , Sue McMullen, Ila Badger,
Richard Klar, Alan Potasnik, George Sweet, Will Wright, Jim Dillon, Lindley
Myers, Greg Binder and Bill Merrill .
The staff members present were : Rick Brandau, David Cunningham, Terry
Jones and Dorthy Neisler.
Ms . Joann Green and Mr. John Myers from Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff
(HNTB) were present .
A transcript of the Carmel Comprehensive Update Plan Meeting on February
13, 1990 .
JEFF DAVIS, Chairman:
Ladies and Gentleman this is the regular meeting of the City of Carmel
Comprehensive Plan Update of Clay Township . We are getting towards the end
of the Comprehensive Plan. On our agenda tonight we have five questions to
finalize, this will be our last meeting discussing what we are going to do .
We have only answers to provide tonight, not questions . I don ' t see anyway
to have a lot of public participation at this point in time . I would want
to tell you that there will be at least two public hearings on this plan,
after it is developed. Before the Plan Commission votes on it, at which
time you will have an opportunity to speak to the completed plan, it can be
modified at that time, it can be accepted or rejected . Then it will go to
the City Council and the same thing will happen there, they will have a
public hearing on it . There will be two opportunities to speak to this
plan once it is completed. We are fairly far along with it and we tried to
get a lot of public input early on. We have reached a point now that is
very inflexible to go back and start over with a lot of questions at this
point . We have been meeting now for almost a year on a monthly basis . We
are out of time and we have a time limit for the planner. They cannot
finish the plan without the answers to these questions . We are also out of
money, the money we spent to do it . It is all based on those things . So,
we have to proceed at this meeting to answer these five questions . What
this is, is a meeting held in public so you can all see what we are doing,
but I really don' t think we can entertain a lot of public discussion of
what we are doing tonight . Knowing that and knowing that you will have an
opportunity to speak in the future, we are going to proceed at this time .
JOANN GREEN:
Thank you, Jeff . Good evening members of the Steering Committee . We have
with us this evening all of the graphics and plans that we have prepared to
date that reflect the almost final Land Use plan . I would like to preface
these questions by saying, that we understand that there are a few small
areas on this color plan. There are a few questions that we have with
regard to that and there are some areas that I think, from what I gather
from members of the Steering Committee that we need to clarify on the final
Land Use Plan.
The first question that is on the list that I distributed to the Steering
Committeeimembers is : 1) The type of map that you want for the final
product . Our understanding of what we feel should be on this final map is
a Land Use Plan, is a replacement of the fold-out plan that was a part of
the 1985 update and the type of map that you would want to have indicated
for that purpose . Do you want to show proposed Land Use and do you want to
propose or indicate existing Land Uses and/or existing zoning as part of 2
this process . The question though is posed to you, but please remember
that this an update only and that this plan should reflect the vision of
the community and the Steering Committee for this process . I would like to
entertain some discussion on this, Jeff, with regard to that question.
JEFF DAVIS :
I thought a lot of these questions have already been answered by a matter
of consensus . I thought after the last meeting they had not been answered.
I don ' t think we are going to be able to answer these by a consensus
agreement . We will in fact be voting on these questions in the form of a
motion and everybody on the committee will be able to vote . Unless there
is some serious objection to that . Does anybody have any questions about
the Land Use Plan as it was presented at the last meeting? Are there any
changes you would like to have made?
ALAN POTASNIK:
Mr. President, are you talking about changes that have been made since the
last regular meeting?
JEFF DAVIS :
Have there been any changes made on that map since the last meeting?
JOANN GREEN:
No, this is the plan that was developed in November, after the working
session in November.
ALAN POTASNIK:
There have been various times when the committee in one form or fashion
have met with the staff to point out some changes . Since those meetings or
time when members have been able to come in and talk to staff relative to
this map, there has not been any changes , is that correct?
JOANN GREEN:
No
JEFF DAVIS:
We thought it was inappropriate to make changes as individuals . The changes
should be made at the committee ' s suggestion and this points of issue,
points of discussion, those types of discussions are the reason why we have
this question now.
JOANN GREEN:
I think it might be appropriate too, to say that coupled with this first
question, should be the second question : Method of interpretation and
drafting the final land use plan. Based on the Land Use Plan that was
prepared in 1985 there were some concerns over the type of graphic that was
used there . We proposed to provide the final Land Use Plan in a similar
format, to provide flexibility for the Comprehensive Plan as opposed to
being very site specific about specific land uses .
JEFF DAVIS :
It was suggested that in areas you were concerned may be to site specific,
that those could easily be explained in the text that they are the general
location. Such as the red nodules indicating commercial, possible future
growth but not recommending that that be the location . Obviously, if we
are going to put them on, we have to put them somewhere . The text of the
matter could very easily be explained that those were just to indicate that
somewhere in that general vicinity there should be future small commercial.
I think that the two areas of major question was the one over by Lynnwood
Farms and there is another one on the western part of the township. As we
put those down that night, there was never any indication that we wanted
anything located specifically at those points . Those were just to indicate
that in the future as those areas build out there should be small
commercial services available.
ALAN POTASNIK:
I just want to reiterate that and make sure everybody well understands the
fact that is the case. The point that we all understand the fact that is
general sense, we are not dealing in specifics .
JEFF DAVIS :
That is what we have to do, note on there what we consider to be a general
sense .
ALAN POTASNIK;
We want to make sure everybody understands that is what the case is .
Joann, the last time we discussed and saw this map was back in November, is
that correct?
JOANN GREEN:
We had it at the last meeting in January to. This is the same plan yes .
ALAN POTASNIK:
A lot of time has passed and I don ' t know if it would be out of order or if
any of the committee members might want to review it .
JEFF DAVIS:
No, certainly if you feel you need to that, go right ahead.
SUE MCMULLEN:
Before we do that, I would like to ask Mr. Bucher or some member of the
staff if they did not have concerns about this . If that would be
appropriate at this time to have them address those .
JEFF DAVIS :
Is Wes here this evening?
RICK BRANDAU:
We can talk about certain areas of concern, we primarily went over concerns
with Joann and Jeff, basically the hand out that Joann gave you is a brief
synopsis that we had given out to them. While we had about nine items,
basically narrowed those down to a few concerns . Our main concerns
primarily were those of how committee and plan commission itself will view
this document . We primarily will do whatever is deemed needed for the
community. We feel that this is primarily this committee and the Plan
Commissions role. There were a few key questions that we wanted to point
out and bring out in the light just as food for thought, to have a good
idea in yours minds and make sure if this is the kind of plan you want .
The types of things Joann is talking about is, do you want this plan to
represent what was talked about at other meetings , the dream, the overall
plan for the community and goal, long range, short range goal for the
community. Do you want it to show some of the existing land use or is it a
combination more or less of an overlapping of both. We were concerned with
site specific areas, as Jeff talked about the red nodes out in the
undeveloped portions of the jurisdiction, we feel strongly you probably
4
want some flexibility in just our recognizing the need. However, there are
other areas in the jurisdiction that you will want to be strongly site
specific, areas that are already developed. Such as down at 96th and
Haverstick on the west of Keystone . 96th and Day Drive is a better example,
that area came before the committee as a rezone and was denied. This plan
as shown right now shows the business into that area as a rezone and was
denied. So those are the type of areas that we are concerned about and
would like to bring out to you and make sure that you review as thorough
and you are getting the plan you want .
JEFF DAVIS :
It appears that out of necessity this is going to have to be somewhat of a
combination map. Obviously, we are dealing with things that already exist
and we are dealing with areas that have not been built . There are very few
instances where something already exists that I think would be reasonable
and recommend' that something else should be there . That is a potential
thing that might happen, there are many areas we should say, if it was
residential now that we figured should be business some time in the future .
There is some potential where houses or business may become so viable you
might want to buy houses I don ' t think we want our map to
necessarily reflect that that ' s our goal .
ALAN POTASNIK:
Again, I hear that would be perhaps a contradiction of what Rick said and
to what you pointed out, regarding being site specific . It seems like Rick
is saying the point there that came down there that came last year relevant
to Haverstick and 96th in that vicinity.
JEFF DAVIS:
I don't believe Rick and I are in disagreement, I think he agrees to that
some areas necessarily have to be not site specific and I think he
indicated that, some areas probably should be . I think we have an
overlapping map. There are particular areas on there that may be of
concern, one of them 96th and Haverstick is . Most of the areas are, the
undeveloped areas we don' t have to be site specific, or we may be site
specific. Certainly the commercial unities are undeveloped areas , I don ' t
think we would want to indicate that we want something commercial built
exactly here. Your planners haven ' t indicated to me that they can handle
that in a fix by saying this is just a general location. It can be located
anywhere in this general area. Other areas that we indicate one thing with
something else that already exists . The question is do we want that to go
on. That becomes specific in that ' s contradictory at the same time .
ALAN POTASNIK:
I understand what you are saying and I concur with that . Just so as long
as everybody on the committee and the public understands what we have .
JOANN GREEN:
I think one of the problems that you had, correct me if I 'm wrong Jeff,
that the last Comprehensive Plan was the how that was used in terms of
gaining rezoning. I think part of that was due in fact to the lack of
support of text that described the nature of the plan objective and we hope
not to disclaimer in the text and describe you know. Be very specific in
the text along with the graphic itself . I think from the standpoint of
actually showing existing land use then is in conflict with a proposed land
use plan that is a build-out land use plan, because even those areas down
at 96th and Haverstick, this build-out plan could be you know may not take
place for 40 years . If you are specifically stating that as a part of the
supported text, that might be a possibility, a way of handling that .
5
ILA BADGER:
Does this text now exist?
JOANN GREEN:
We have done an outline for the changes that will be made to the existing
Comprehensive text . But we have not completed any text at this point .
After we have a final vote or a final approved land use plan we will have
the finished text to the Steering Committee within two weeks for your
preliminary review.
ILA BADGER:
I am uncomfortable with this map. I think I expressed that a couple of
weeks ago. I wonder if we can actually accomplish what we need to by using
just a single map. I 'm not so sure what we don ' t need an underlying map
that shows existing zoning and then maybe an overlay map that shows some
dreams and where we would like to go. But I don ' t know how you combine
those two into one document .
JOANN GREEN:
I think graphically it is very very difficult, probably impossible, unless
you go to some very involved graphic technic to do so for this next update
unless you provide as part of the plan, not an overlay, but separate plans
that would indicate those things that you are saying. But they may not
overlay them but they could compare them next to one another.
ILA BADGER:
You can say all you want about understanding, but there is a small amount
of people in this room in comparison to the number of people who live in
Carmel/Clay Township. And, that was the understanding that we had with the
last Comprehensive Plan, that this was just a generalization . There were no
lines that were drawn, in fact the lines were drawn and very round curves
and to try and give it the illusion. This doesn ' t even do that .
JOANN GREEN:
This is very site specific .
ILA BADGER:
It is very site specific and I am extremely concerned with that, extremely
concerned.
JOANN GREEN:
We have gone past the point of agreeing to use this type of graphic and
want to reflect for comparative purposes a graphic that would be similar
some ways to the technique that was used for the last update . But there
was still a question about the wide areas in between the curved areas .
BILL MERRILL:
There was a question, and I guess that is what I want to address . Number
one, I think there are two. Using several maps at least two maps one to
show what the zoning is and maybe one the zoning, one the uses and the
dream. But people need to understand, this is the third comprehensive plan
that I have been involved in, that this is not met to be black and white .
It is not met to be site specific, it is if you will look at the statues
which enable us to do this, to dictate that we must do this, it is to be a
guide it is not to be set in concrete . It may be appropriate to put that
on every page of the Comprehensive Plan .
•
JOANN GREEN: 6
I think it can be handled effectively with text right on the page whether
you do it right on the page .
BILL MERRILL:
Do you call that a disclaimer? Something at the bottom that says remember
folks don't come in here and say but the map says this, because the map is
only looking at generalities . We can ' t look five years, ten years , 15
years into the future and say this is what ought to be on this particular
square foot and if we did that we would be so inflexible that everything
the whole scheme would break.
JOANN GREEN:
It is a vision not a declaration .
BILL MERRILL:
But I think we all tend to use this for whatever purpose we want to use it
for and we must remember that it is not met to be in concrete . However we
do that, I don' t know that the last plan was bad, I think that are ability
to work with it and to tell people look this is not in concrete, may be the
problem.
JOANN GREEN:
I believe the plan was a workable one, I just believe that the supportive
text was inadequate for communities and your needs .
JEFF DAVIS :
Anyone else? Do we have the consensus then that this map should not be
site specific or if the map itself would indicate that there should be a
disclaimer on it? Does anybody have any objections to that? Use basically
this map that the indicate the disclaimer that this is a general plan of
what we would like to do yet it is not met to dictate in detail future
development or some disclaimer similar to that . Is everyone in agreement
with that? Fine . That being the case, one of my questions is answered
because it leads into the next thing. We had large transition areas in the
last plan, we had transitions area there because we felt that that is would
definitely what they would do, they would be transition from one item to
another. You' ll notice that there are no real transition areas here,
nothing is indicating that except on the outline boundary of the 421
corridor and is it on the Meridian corridor to Joann.
JOANN GREEN;
No, that is a red line .
JEFF DAVIS :
I thought we had talked about this and we had come up with an answer,
obviously I was incorrect after the last meeting. What I hoped you might
do is put a thin line there to indicate . I understand that everybody was
uncomfortable with the large transition area, I don ' t object to that to
much. But I think we are dishonest if we indicate to someone that we will
be building large lot residential housings next to commercial property,
because that is not going to happen either. I had hoped that maybe a thin
line would indicate a non-dimensional transition of some sort, around these
commercial areas, just so people would understand that in all reality there
probably would be a transition of some kind. Now that does not say that it
has to be office buildings or retail it could be higher density housing,
there is a variety of things that could perform this transition. It does
not leave us asking for any particular thing, but letting the public know
that there would be some type of transition. It is just very difficult toy
build large lot residential next to a commercial building, it just doesn' t
work that way. We don ' t want to a strip of farm ground in between all of
this either. I ' ll just throw it out for discussion. Dr. Dillon.
JIM DILLON:
Jeffrey, I am absolutely opposed to the use of the transition, you
specifically refuse to let that die in my opinion. You keep bringing it
back. I 've seen at least twice in the last month before this body, not
this body but the Plan Commission, where developers have had no problem in
submitting plans with homes right up against residential areas because it
was convenient for them. Yet, when it comes to developing the transitional
areas the standard argument that ' s always given is you can ' t build homes up
against commercial . Now I think it can ' t wash one way one time and the
other way the next . I would be very much opposed to placing any
transitional zones against this property. I think that was one of the
great errors in the last plan in a certain respect and has led to a lot of
controversy that ' s occurred, because transition to the homeowner and
transition to the developer is interpreted to fit their own scheme . And,
somewhere maybe in between is the correct way. But, you know that some
point in time you have to stop commercial development from spreading to
have residential neighborhoods exist and I don' t think by enlarging the
area that would be commercialized is protecting the neighborhood in my
opinion.
JEFF DAVIS:
Anyone else?
ILA BADGER:
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that parcels of land that are
already zoned in a specific classification, there are some of them that are
not reflected on that map? Am I the only one in this group that is a
concern to?
BILL MERRILL:
A specific area, show us an example .
ILA BADGER:
Go out on 421 and I believe Altum had a rezone within the last couple of
years north on there, and I don ' t believe it is reflected on there . What
is it a B-3 or a B-5? Right next to Switches property.
BILL MERRILL:
Looks to me like it is reflected on there . Right at the place of 421,
right below 106th and north on 421 .
JOANN GREEN:
It is a general area.
JEFF DAVIS:
I think that is not specific for one thing because we have already
indicated this map will not be specific.
BILL MERRILL:
I guess that question if we go to a nonspecific situation then I 'm not
troubled by that.
JEFF DAVIS :
I 'm not troubled by that . 8
ILA BADGER:
Has anyone studied the map in depth to know exactly where we stand from the
existing land uses? Has the department spent any time at all studying
this?
TERRY JONES :
Excuse me, but I spent some time studying the existing Comprehensive Plan,
the actual Land Use that is existing currently that HNTB has prepared for
you. And also this map that is presented before you tonight . And, this was
after some conversation that we had with Joann, and I think that Rick
mentioned that one of the questions that arises there are some areas that
are show discrepancy with what this map shows and with what the current
Comprehensive Plan map shows as well as the land use and its actual zoning.
Rick pointed out that at 96th and Haverstick there is an apartment complex
on Carmel Drive across from the Keystone Square area, that is shown in the
red. Should that be shown in the high density residential, there is a few
other areas . i have a list here of what each map shows and it gives the
discrepancies from one to another. But it gets back to what Joann was
saying it is almost impossible to try to come up with one map that will do
all the things that you want it to do. And so without getting real site
specific it becomes a very difficult task to try to do what maybe you are
wanting to know. But there are quite a few discrepancies, but I think what
you might want to consider is much like what we have been discussing. How
general do you want the Comprehensive Plan to be?
JEFF DAVIS :
We are in general agreement because I asked if everybody was in general
agreement that this would not be a site specific map. We have that
agreement and no one spoke up again.
JOANN GREEN:
I think maybe that might be that concern might be addressed when we and if
we would provide side by side these existing zoning in the document will
show existing zoning, existing land use and the proposed land use plan
consecutively for comparative purposes . Again, this reflects a vision of
the community that could build-out never and it could build-out in ten
years, well it won' t build-out in ten years, but it could build-out in 40
years and we wanted to stay away from being specific .
JEFF DAVIS :
Would like to get back to the transition. Are Dr. Dillon and myself the
only ones that have an opinion on transition? Mr. Merrill .
BILL MERRILL:
Obviously, that is not the case . We were trying, as you know you were
involved with the last comprehensive plan, we were trying to be honest, we
were trying to be flexible, and I think we accomplished a lot of good
purposes . We got some controversy, we got some people that are not happy
with the transition zone. Anytime we have rezoning, anytime we have
anything to do with land use we have some people that are happy and some
people that are unhappy. That happens for years and years and years and I
imagine that will continue to happen . We 've already stated that the plan
is not set in concrete. If we state that enough times drive that home
maybe the necessity for having a transition zone on the map is not as
necessary. But, Dr. Dillon must realize that regardless of whether there
is a transition zone on the map or not, there are going to be people that
•
9
come in and look at the highest and best use and the various things that go
into rezoning changes and that even if we leave it off then if he feels
better about that that does not mean that you are going to end up with the
residential next to a ten story office building. The areas in which you
are talking about residential being next to commercial are basically low
rise commercial and that is entirely different . So these things are going
to happen no matter what we put on this map. So I guess my concern is if
that causes too much controversy if the community cannot understand it we
leave it off . It won' t really make any difference, it ' s going to happen.
Yes, I am concerned about it because I think it is a very honest approach.
It is a transition zone .
ILA BADGER:
I was always very supportive of the transition zone, but I think like you
Bill, anytime a petitioner files for a rezone you have a piece of land that
is in a transitional situation regardless , so it will happen .
JEFF DAVIS :
Are there any other comments about the use of transitions?
I am willing to leave them off and go with the non-site specific plan and
have no further problems with, I still feel they might be better on there
but if it would cause less confusion leave it off .
ALAN POTASNIK:
Do you want to get, you think that in that situation again what I hear so
everybody understands what is going on then perhaps the topic of transition
should be addressed at whatever disclaimer is brought in, that in fact,
just discussed not on the map pure .
JEFF DAVIS:
I think if we leave it off the map we should leave it off the disclaimer.
I think this is the time to put transitions away, if we are going to have a
map that is not site specific and we are not going to show the potential
for transitional zones, we have some generalities left on the map, let ' s
leave the transitions out of the whole thing.
JIM DILLON:
I think one of the problems with the current plan was to do with the fact
that the text and the map were a little bit out of joint . Many people who
don ' t know anything about this process will pick up the handout that has
the map on it, but they don ' t read the bound document because it would make
them ill and so they look at the map and the map becomes almost the gospel .
I would think that a disclaimer, if you will, on the map would be
beneficial, but I think that we also though should try to avoid in the text
the kind of inconsistencies if at all possible because if the map says one
thing and the text says the other I don ' t know what 's right, I would assume
that the text is probably correct or should be correct maybe but I think
that was the problem.
JEFF DAVIS:
Ok, we have a consensus, that we want a non specific map , this map with no
transition zones, we are doing this by consensus, we are not even voting,
this is very good. Are there any other questions about the map? Joann do
you know where we are with the map now? Do you feel comfortable with this?
JOANN GREEN:
Yes
•
WILL WRIGHT: 10
I don' t necessarily disagree for a change with Dr. Dillon, but I do
disagree with the specific omission of transition zones almost implying
that transition zones are not allowed. I don' t care whether you call a
transition zones or different market segments or whether you call one a
density of housing or whatever else . The reality of economics indicate
that every piece of land has its best use and that we are not going to get
some fine physician to buy a million dollar house backed up to a commercial
office building. We are not going to get him to buy a house next a another
physicians pig sty that managed to get built in our community, so that
there is some realities of life that are going to be here and that there
has to be some market segment as we go through areas and logic prevails
that higher density housing is probably the best buffer for commercial
property that one can conceive of . I can ' t think of a golf course or a
driving range being very functional . But, I don ' t think we can afford to
buy enough parks to surround all the commercial properties around here so
that a park would even be considered a transitional area. So I guess I
have a problem with the total mission as if there was something wrong with
transition areas . Maybe our definition is flawed, but the realities of
economics can' t be ignored.
JEFF DAVIS:
I don ' t know whether by leaving the word transition out ignores that
because I think a lot of us here that everyone here knows that its
transitional, whether it is higher density residential or lower use
commercial.
WILL WRIGHT:
We need to find some way to define it so that it is not offensive to
somebody who is disturbed by transition areas . But I think that you have
to face the fact that they are there and that they are going to be there
and is the only logical way to deal with a lighted commercial site and
adding some best use to the land in between . Somebody 25 years old would
love to buy a house at $100, 000 is entirely different from somebody paying
a quarter of a million dollars for a house or a half million dollars for a
house as it goes through. There is transitions that exist that can ' t be
ignored.
JEFF DAVIS :
Does anybody have a word or a phrase that would work in its place? Mr.
Potasnik you are good with words, do you have anything?
ALAN POTASNIK:
I was criticized for not having enough words . I just have to go back again
to what was brought up relevant to this we are going to see a definition
that was ambiguous to no definition at all .
JEFF DAVIS :
Might we put a sentence in there about locating any particular place on the
map. A sentence or a paragraph indicating the summary or transition. A
change or a use from the word to low density residential but there will be
some areas that we will anticipate .
WILL WRIGHT:
If we can get Dr. Dillon to agree with that, I certainly would.
JIM DILLON:
No, I still don' t like that because that says this to me; your property is
zoned S-i except we can transition that property and this11
why we can do it. I don ' t disagree with p p y gives a reason
in and ask to rezone that property for highest ur dand nbest nuse . you can come
clearly don' t like to see you have something out there to allow you if you
will to make that process easier on the people that want to do that . I
think the public would like to prefer that if you remember the survey that
we took, as part of this bodies effort, only 5% wanted property of less
size than theirs and over 50% wanted property larger than theirs and almost
nobody wanted commercial property next to them. That is what the public
wants . Which may not be in agreement with the vote on this body, I
understand that, but as one who represents the public that is what the
public said in our survey.
BILL MERRILL:
I hesitate to say this but I 'm going to say it and those surveys and I say
this as a challenge i suppose not as a threat I 'm not in a position to
threaten anybody and wouldn ' t do any way. But, what the public wants
really has nothing to do with zoning. I 'm sorry I have to say that and I 'm
next door to places that are being rezoned but if you look at the laws, if
you look at what you are trying to do, it ' s nice to have these surveys,
it ' s not the most popular thing I could every say, but it has to be
realized because this is the framework in which you work. We ' ve got what
the public want but part of the public is the person that owns the piece of
ground that is not used or wants to be used for a different purpose . I can
take it down to an individual homeowners standpoint and I can say the
public may prefer green for front doors, but you have a perfect right in
most subdivisions in Carmel and most areas to paint your door red if you
want to. But if we took a survey out here and the favorite color of 95% of
the people was blue that has nothing to do with the color that you can
paint your front door. Somewhere in that analogy maybe there is some
senses what we are trying to do. Whether we talk about transition zones or
not Will, I think they are there they ought to be addressed, but if there
not addressed all we ' re doing is making some people happy for a moment but
those areas are going to be transitioned anyway. I do think you have to be
real careful of saying, if we took a vote in here tonight, I would be with
this and say, should we develop anymore ground in Carmel? Let ' s just take
that, let ' s make that a poll, I would say that we could get 90% of the
people in Carmel to say no let ' s stop. But the fact that we say that isn' t
going to stop it, it can' t stop it . No matter who you elect to the
commission, no matter what you do politically you can ' t stop it because
people have property rights to develop their property in a way that is
consistent to the highest and best use . That ' s maybe off the subject .
JEFF DAVIS:
Not really Mr. Merrill, I 'm glad that you said that because we do have to
realize that other people besides homeowners have property rights, people
that own large tracts of ground also have rights to and even they may be a
minority they still have certain rights to do what they want to within
reason that is not injurious to the rest of the homeowners . It is not
particularly a popular position because there are not that many people that
own large tracts of land. But then we can ' t deny them all of their rights
either, some of them we can, we can regulate them and manipulate somewhat .
We can forbid them from doing something that is actually harmful and
injurious to you. When the problem comes is when you get to the borderline
cases of what is harmful and each of us have a different idea of what is
harmful and what is not . That ' s where we get hung up. There are two sides
to this . What do we want to do with the transitions? Let ' s have a show of
hands, I think we ready to vote . How many just want let knowing that their
problem will be some and not discuss it on the text or the map. How many12
prefer to handle it that way? How many want to put it in the text? I
think we will just leave them out, looks like the vote indicates it will be
closer than I thought it would be . We will not discuss transitions at all !
Does that answer all the map questions?
JOANN GREEN:
Yes
JEFF DAVIS :
Question #2, if you would like to explain that question to some extent?
JOANN GREEN:
Question #2? Method of interpretation and drafting the final land use plan
refers to the technique that we should indicate the land use . Means should
we show similarly to the plan of 1985 on the map or do we investigate other
ways . With the curved lines and the wide areas in between or do we
investigate other typographics . If the Steering Committee is comfortable .
JEFF DAVIS :
Are we comfortable with this map having taken care of transition areas?
Are we going to say on the map and in the text this is a non specific plan?
Is everyone on the committee comfortable with this map as it now states?
ALAN POTASNIK:
Again, I have to point out the fact that we talked about this being an
update and I 'm just wondering if it probably shouldn' t tie in what we have
previously and update what we had previously?
JEFF DAVIS :
You got me a little confused, Alan. It is changed from the previous map.
ALAN POTASNIK:
I understand that, but I mean the method in which we show it . We talk
about Joann something like this opposed to what we see in our current
Comprehensive Plan.
JOANN GREEN:
What I am saying is doing something similar to you have in the present
Comprehensive Plan revising that to look more like And I think what
might help you to in this instance would be to leave off the scale, any
kind of a graphic or scale on that drawing, to keep people from actually
measuring the areas .
JIM DILLON:
I brought this up once before on the map of down at 96th and Springmill
across the bridge that some would blow is currently designated as a
commercial area, it is currently not developed and it ' s a matter of
sensitivity I think with those people in that area whether that is
something that should be changed on that map. I mentioned that once
before, and I think that . . . . It is south of 465 , it is right at the corner
of Springmill and 96th, we are designating that commercial . Now on three
corners there it is all residential, I mean those people really love us to
the point they want that bridge blown and barb-wire strung and whatever.
So I just bring that up that maybe is a something we ought to think about .
13It is east of Springmill iStreet, st in that not the way over to1, where the old fllingstationwas over there .
WILL WRIGHT:
In as much as we really adhere to our guidelines that this is only a
guideline is it are we or are we not going to get hung up on specifics of
how this is interpreted. Anybody that comes in has to follow certain
procedures for the Planning Commission in order to use that ground
irregardless what ' s on that map. We are in one breath saying that map is
not specific and then as long as it serves our purpose it is specific and I
guess that is the comedy of this action, because either what we are doing
is meaningful or meaningless . Depending upon how you want to interpret it
is if it serves your purpose it ' s meaningful and if it doesn ' t it is
meaningless . I am really confused as to one breath saying we are specific
and the next that we are not .
JIM DILLON:
There are some areas that are just so small, it is hard not to address
them.
JEFF DAVIS :
I understand what you are saying Will, if it is going to be a general map
then he has to be general in all places . That doesn 't indicate that would
necessarily, that would slip through rezone or make the zoning any easier
because it ' s there and the map is not specific . The map is not an
authorized resort .
WILL WRIGHT:
It gets down to that would be a very excellent place to demonstrate
transition. With the omission of transition and its ignoring why it is
either black or white which it' s obviously not, so that this is a very
difficult thing from which to finalize without people obviously misusing it
for self-serving purposes . No matter what that self-serving purpose might
be. As one of special use and one of special resistance .
BILL MERRILL:
How far east is that area go?
JOANN GREEN:
I 'm not sure, the residential area? The residential area in question goes
about 1 block.
BILL MERRILL:
Personally I am pretty sympathetic with that . I think that ' s an area we
ought to figure out how
JEFF DAVIS :
Is everybody satisfied with leaving that area alone as it is?
BILL MERRILL:
That is not a good commercial area, I don' t know how far east that goes ,
maybe you could look at that and make a slight correction.
JOANN GREEN:
So you want us to show the area encompassed by residential as that use or
just leave the commercial out?
JEFF DAVIS :
I think possibl 14
y just leave the commercial out of there altogether since
there are already houses built there .
WILL WRIGHT:
I think that is what we have to do to be consistent .
JEFF DAVIS :
You understand what portion that is?
JOANN GREEN:
Yes
JOHN MYERS :
I wonder if you'd mind if I jump in here just because I have an opinion,
and I am a staff member of HNTB, but it seems to me that where the edges
aren' t distinct that there is still an indication. As I look up and down
Springmill Road I see differences up there in the thickness of yellow, it
seems like there is a difference in thickness of yellow at Springmill near
96th then there is further north at 106th. That tells me something even
though I don' t know where that is, it just looks a little bit bigger
further north. So as a suggestion maybe just ought to be a little bit
wider down there to suggest that there may be some residential along
Springmill and somewhere along the way its going to turn into commercial
when it gets over to 31 . Another observation is that I465 is a significant
barrier, so that the purple areas if you will going up there except where
the existing residential land use already is along 31 is contiguous going
all the way up along 31 and that is reasonable, but when you cross that
I465 barrier you could have a total change in land use and there is not a
transition area there because the barrier itself is so significant you
could have high rise commercial on one side and residential on the other
side and their compatibility has to do with I465 rather than with each
other. Just as a suggestion if the yellow was a little bit wider it would
send a message that indistinct barrier is between there somewhere . That ' s
harder to see right now.
JOANN GREEN:
I would concur with that !
JEFF DAVIS :
Does everybody agree with that?
JOANN GREEN:
Would you clarify that point in terms of how we want to widen it, should we
be told how far to widen it?
JEFF DAVIS :
I think what we ended up with was to eliminate the commercial on the south
side of I465 .
JOANN GREEN:
Eliminate all the commercial on the south side . Ok, from Springmill over
to 31?
JEFF DAVIS:
To the midpoint there where it shows, midway is over to 31 is that what it
is showing now?
JOANN GREEN:
No, it is showin 15
g. . . the small yellow area shown here . . .
WILL WRIGHT:
I think we should make that small yellow area wider but I certainly don ' t
concur that the use of that ground is best used for residential all the way
across there.
JEFF DAVIS :
Should make it wider. .
WILL WRIGHT:
I think making it a little wider is being realistic but making it all
residential is not realistic .
JOANN GREEN:
Should we widen then north of I465?
JEFF DAVIS :
No, that is already committed up there . Just that little square down there
just widen it back off of Springmill . . . half the distance .
JOANN GREEN:
Half the distance?
WILL WRIGHT:
I think whatever the distance is now double it .
JEFF DAVIS:
Am I incorrect Joann or are we through the first 3 items?
JOANN GREEN:
I think we are ! Question #4 .
GREG BINDER:
I had a question on the final drafting. It is obvious that a lot of people
have a lot of concerns about the use of transition zones and this being a
general road map, general guide for the future and a vision if you will of
what we want, but then we get down to splitting hairs whether we are going
to move the pen and inch or a quarter of an inch down the road here. Is
there an opportunity graphically to use a zigzag line or something
indicating that this is an area that we ' re not trying to define
specifically but we have some concerns . I don' t really want to put a gray
area but I think we should identify the fact that these are areas of
negotiation that we all understand might have some transition, I don' t
know.
JOANN GREEN:
It is hard to show any area on a drawing without assigning a dimension to
it. If that can be done, with some types of shading possibly, but you are
talking about it almost an impossibility. No matter what someone will
define that area, no matter how it is shown .
GREG BINDER:
I personally don' t know the difference between sitting here and moving that
line over than saying on the other hand we want this to be a general guide .
I understand the concerns being issued there, but once again we are looking
at what Mr. Wright stated as a transition zone . What area could be
developed in a number of ways lets put it that way. I 'm just trying to
come up another solution rather than a black line or a white line or gray16
area. Basically, the whole plan is up to the interpretation of the Plan
Commission as the variances come through.
JOANN GREEN:
It is question of how much this document is going to be used as a tool for
the Plan Commission or a document for the public . And, I don ' t know how
you define that, is it both or is it equally both or is it more for one
entity than the other. Is it primarily a tool for the Plan Commission?
JEFF DAVIS :
I think the last one is probably more of a tool for the Plan
Commission Some of the things studied on the Plan Commission we all
with hesitation That is not exactly what we want either, we didn ' t
ask for anything in the Comprehensive Plan . We had a general idea of what
we thought might be there, we had several presentations and this is what
your Comprehensive Plan has asked for and we spent a lot of time and money
involved here and now we are ready to give it to you. That ' s not exactly
what we wanted either so, I think maybe just a general plan. I don ' t feel
uncomfortable moving with this . Anyone else?
Question #4!
JOANN GREEN:
Suggestions for including approach and this update for handling the
proposed green belt/linkage areas . I think there have been some questions
raised by the staff in terms of these areas that have been shown on this
plan and how this program is going to implemented. i propose that we
provide in this document a proposal to suggest that it become policy that
the area obviously this whole issue needs to be studied in greater detail.
Due to the amount of resources available, and of course the amount of time
we have, I think that would be the most appropriate way unless there are
objections from the steering committee .
JEFF DAVIS :
Basically what we are talking about is those green belts, called the
drainage areas of the undeveloped area . We have indicated that they were
going to be useful for public areas, as developments come in if we have
indicated that we can in fact start developing as for public use .
There are a lot of things involved. . . .that we can ask for and we can
probably receive it . But then we need somebody to administer it, somebody
to maintain it a parks department which we do not have . I don ' t know
whether the Plan Commission wants to have a parks department or not, maybe
someone else should do that . But, we have to decide whether we want to
become a piece of policy or we just want to have it something for further
discussion, a potential use .
JIM DILLON:
I would suggest that it would be something for further discussion. Back
into history, the first Comprehensive Plan that we did in this community
back in 1970, I don' t know if there was anyone here it was by 1960, I
forget what year it was . When the initial map came out on the proposed
Comprehensive Plan it had something similar to this following the
creekways . I don ' t know if you have seen this in past history, it exists,
I might even be able to pull one out somewhere . Very very controversial,
interesting to contemplate, good thought but then when you get down to
specifics and suddenly people realize that your going to have people
tracking through your backyard that you have no way to have privacy in
those areas that adjoin these areas, it became a very very hot issue. One7
in which was dropped from that plan, I think it is very important that we
have bicycle paths, that we have recreational areas I guess or at least
ways that you can walk from place to place . I don 't know that we have to
have a path across everybodys front yard or back yard. I think it will
become a very controversial area, I think it needs to be studied, I think
we could look at the ways it has been done in other communities . But I
think to try to set it in anything close to concrete at this time would be
a mistake.
JIM DILLON:
I think it is unfortunate that the Parks Planning Task Force report which
was due in January this year has not been released yet . Because I think
that that could provide some help to this issue . It is interesting in
dealing with individuals from outside the community, when they find that we
do not have a park board or have parks, I think they are appalled at that
idea for a community that is looked upon as sophisticated as many people
think we are that we do not have that kind of problem. It is interesting,
I just happen to have a copy of the 1971 Comprehensive Plan that says, "the
absence of public and semi-public open space within the present urban
pattern is an inherent disadvantage, it is a well known fact that such
large open spaces are important as they break up the residential landscape
and provide oases within the monotony of continuous residential
development, as the area develops the opportunities for open space
development grow more remote as the land values increase, thus the township
is a relatively low amount of land set aside for public open spaces and a
complete absence of public recreational facilities . " This appears to be
one of our most serious problems in future development . This document was
published in 1971 and the bottom line is we can ' t bite the bullet because
that is about where we are today, if you will, and we have been unable to
crack this problem. I 'm not to sure we are any closer to that then we were
then.
GREG BINDER:
I guess I would like to reiterate what he is saying, I think it is
important to do something now and once again we are talking about a general
plan, we are not talking about making a park out of every drainage ditch.
I think we are talking about considering the park option with every
development that comes in with every future land use we look at that we
want to look at where are we with our parks?
I think we have to set the empathis if you will, that this is the time to
start doing, the Comprehensive Plan is addressing parks as needed and were
trying to set aside some space, maybe not in that section of land there or
the section here, but the idea is there that we should really consider
that . I don ' t see any way to start the wheel of motion better than saying
that this is the desire of the plan .
WILL WRIGHT:
I vaguely remember the green spaces that we have up there are this plan at
least addresses that issue and somewhat awaits the condition of denial .
I 've been in this community for a number of years now and I am appalled at
the people who want someone else to pay for them a park. I vaguely
remember that a presentation that was made for the establishment of a park
on 116th Street on the west side of this community of which the park
commission of Hamilton County was offering to purchase some land for that
purpose and residents that were near that area lobbied vehemently to stop
the creation of a park on 116th Street because some undesirable person
might come and play in that park. Now we are out talking about parks, I
think we addressed the park issue here and having serviced on the Park 18
Board as well and frustrated that you can ' t find someway to find people an
inequitable solution to creating community parks which are definitely
needed and need to be places of beauty and action whatever so that you try
to avoid the stampede of let somebody else pay, but figure out how we can
pay.
JOANN GREEN:
I might add to, in addition to these areas used as active recreation type
park facilities that this plan does promote the securing of green areas
that will not necessarily be utilized for an active type of recreational
use and that that is the first step in creating these public parks .
JIM DILLON:
As I understand Question #4 it is talking about the green belt and linkage
areas and not about parks in general . My comments were basically to the
what, appeared to be green belt/linkage type areas, I think setting aside
forest preserves or green areas this is fine . Obviously, most people know
that I disagree with how the parks question is approached, but I think this
is just my comments in regard to green belt and linkage areas, which is
what I thought the question was .
ALAN POTASNIK:
I would like to point out as long as we are talking about this, I think
that when I get out and talk to people who are in my council and district
the number one thing that comes up other than traffic for individuals that
have moved into this community and obviously we live in this community that
is a very mobile community is this parks issue recreational facilities (see
video) i think we can ' t be shortsighted about
JOANN GREEN:
On a more positive note the community of Fort Wayne, Indiana was in your
situation when they started to look at their back park situation in the mid
18-early 1900 's and they have one of the finest today, one of the finest
park systems known in the mid-west and I think we are prepared as planners
and I am as an old diehard landscape architect you' ll always find me
pushing for those parks . I think we are prepared to address not just the
fact in this update that you' re wanting and needing and desirous of having
parks in your community, but a means to start the implementation process .
I think the process needs to be defined and I think we are prepared to
maybe state some very general recommendations for that purpose .
JEFF DAVIS:
We agree that we should probably encourage the implementation and have it
be handled by the City Parks Board, but by putting the general areas where
see the potential for this type of use and try to encourage that
development of that Parks Department and possibly using these areas . Is
that what we are saying, we will leave them on the map as they are? Mainly
what we want to do is leave them on here, but we have no way of
implementing the things, so we assume that the City will be able to, we
encourage the City to in some manner to accommodate this . Would that be
reasonable?
JOANN GREEN:
Question #5 is then a concern that has been a concern of ours and the
staffs and the community and the Steering Committee and that is a method
for which in some areas the proposed land use should concur with present
zoning and I want to immediately go right to the heart, I think, of this
question and that is the residential zoning issue and the issue of the S-1
19
zoning and the density of the residential areas to the west portion of Clay
Township. it is my understanding that when those sewers are going to be in
place, within the next year and a half and present S-1 zoning will allow
for any type of density up to (correct me if I 'm wrong, what is the density
allowed) 15,000, that somehow it should be mentioned in this update that
there be means to which that issue be addressed soon or the west portion of
Clay Township will not be lots developed 1 to 2 units per acre, but much
greater than that because of the allowances for the sewers in that area and
how would you suggest then that we address this issue in this update .
Similarly to the green belt areas, I don ' t know.
RICK BRANDAU:
If I might expand on that question a little bit, we had a list of questions
as to what the use of the terminology and the definitions on the map
itself . It ' s an area of controversy but it is something that needs to be
dealt with as far as the less than 2 units per acre . Our current zoning
would allow greater than that once sewers come on line out there . The
bottom line of it is you might see this plan right now, but
you are not to get that once the
sewers go on line, our current zoning ordinance
does not comply with what you are proposing.
GREG BINDER:
What is the method of changing that, because I think we have identified a
year ago that the S-i was the least restrictive of any S-i or any least
dense zoning in any neighborhood in the area, any town in the area. But I
don't know how to go about changing it, you know from three houses per acre
to two houses per acre . Is that something that has to go through council or
I 'm not sure if that is an ordinance change that is generated at City
Council or the Plan Commission level or I don' t know how we can solve that
problem right here . I 'd like to.
JOANN GREEN:
I 'm not so sure that we are prepared to solve the problem, or can use this
as an opportunity to correct it, to begin to correct it .
JIM DILLON:
There was a proposal that was brought to the Plan Commission about changing
the density to 2 acres per lot, that item was debated, eventually tabled
and was to be quote "decided as part of this review process" . In
actuality, what needs to be decided is not so much the review process as I
see it is the need for the City Council or this body or whatever to change
the ordinances . It is interesting, the ordinances are currently on the
books, were written in the early 80 ' s . After the 1971 plan I read from
before, and it' s interesting the ordinances don ' t match that plan at that
time which was in existence prior to those ordinances being written . And
some states have found that not to be in keeping with the law, especially
the state of Wisconsin. I think we do need to solve that, I think it is an
absolute crime because of sewers that all of Clay West has to build-out at
2 or 3 units to the acre. I think in S-1 there should be no more than 1
home per acre, I think that is the bare bottom minimum, I don' t care
whether there are sewers or not . At the same time I am impervious to the
request that it takes so much more money to put homes on sewers . I don' t
really care about that . If we can' t afford to do that then we don ' t put in
the sewers . But, I do not think that we should use the sewers as a vehicle
or a mechanism by which we are going to increase the density. I think we
should establish by statue that we want in the S-1 zoning category, one
home per acre with or without sewer. Stop!
BILL MERRILL: 20
If I agree with you, I would ask you the question, i may agree with you I
don 't have to take a stand on that right this moment . How do you do that?
First of all before I get to that, I would have to say that you have
indicated an inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances
we didn ' t deem it necessary to change those ordinances . We felt that we
were doing what we wanted to do. So you may look at that as a mistake, we
did it pretty much by design. The same people who have wanted to limit the
growth on the west side of Meridian and I have been nobody that has wanted
to limit the growth any more than I have . I 've lived out there myself
since the mid 60 ' s I guess . My wife has lived there since she was 2 years
old, 106th was a gravel road, on and on and on. One of the reasons that I
became involved in this issue was to try and slow down, what I think is
inevitable, is the growth on the west side . One of the ways we did that
was by telling the people on the sewer board put all the sewers you want
east of Meridian but don ' t bring them west and for a long time they
listened to us and they didn ' t bring them. And then, people thought we
could slow down development by saying until there is development and until
there is sewers out here we don ' t want any development . Various people who
have wanted to slow down development can take credit for the fast pace of
development that is going to happen once the sewers are there . I don ' t
know how you slow it down, how do you tell somebody that today you could
build 3 houses on your property and tomorrow you can only build one under
the Constitution of the United States of American you can ' t take somebody' s
property rights away from them without compensating for them, this whole
zoning issue is a matter of doing that and balancing one persons right
against another persons right and I think we need to look into that Dr.
Dillon to find out just what we can do . It may be that somewhere between
one house on two acres and 3 houses an acre there is something that will
fly. But, I don't think you can just go out there and all of a sudden, as
I said earlier, stop development, you can ' t do that, it won ' t happen.
People have tried to do it in other states and it goes up to the Supreme
Court, it comes back down, you can't do it, you got to build sewers, you
got to do this and this and this ! So we need to work together, I don ' t
know that we disagree, i think what we ought to say in this plan is that
there is an inconsistency and it ought to be addressed and I think
immediately we ought to start the Plan Commission looking into that and
figuring out what they can do and then what should be done . Because I
think there is a question of what can be done as well as what should be
done.
JIM DILLON:
Mr. Merrill raises an ugly subject of taking and I think it ought to be
commented upon. That this is not taking, the Constitution guarantees the
landowner a return on his property that is equitable but does not
necessarily give him a right to the most money he can make on his property.
So I think that that is a violaceous argument, one that does not really
hold nor would it stand up in a court of law today. I think on the issue
of parks you could raise that a lot greater incidence of is that taking for
instance compared to this issue. I do not see that .
BILL MERRILL:
I think we need a legal opinion on that to indicate what we can or can' t
do. You and I are not going to decide that . You as a Doctor, I guess I am
a lawyer, but neither one of us are judges . Those people are going to
decide .
JIM DILLON:
That is correct, I will not disagree with that . But I do think that that21
issue was raised before when this was brought to a question and I think
that is a very self serving argument, that oh my God this is taking, I
disagree with that .
BILL MERRILL:
I assure you that you are going to have to convince the City Council of
that before they are going to vote on it, because they are going to want to
be assured that they are not doing something that is going to get them in
hot water, so we might as well just answer the question . But it seems to
me to answer number 5 as you put a statement in there that this needs to be
addressed because there is an inconsistency and that you approach the
question of the ordinance at the Plan Commission level, where the change in
the ordinance has to originate .
GEORGE SWEET:
Jeff, I am a little confused as to what this body is to do. I guess having
spent a year attempting to coin a phrase, "dream a little bit for the
community" , my impression of this Comprehensive Plan by statutory and
equally enabled it as well as our thought pattern for years, was that of
where the community wants to go in its general thrust . BEing involved in
an enterprise that takes planning not only of land but of attempting to set
forth plans where we set directions, that is what I thought this was to be .
Jim, you have indicated tonight that you represent the public. I get your
newsletter and I note that you do. I have a problem, I guess, with I have
a problem with the fact that it is conveniently a place to plan, dream a
little bit, until such time as we want to drive a point home . I don't
think that hissing and cheering, this sort of thing in the atmosphere of
planning for the public good gets us anywhere . Let me for the record say
something specific . I happen to be in the business of developing land and
there are 43 , 560 square feet in an acre, with a 15 , 000 minimum you cannot
develop 3 per acre . I submit that in S-1 you cannot develop more than 1 . 5
to an acre if you want to sell the lot . I would submit to you and I 've
worked a long time and have tried very hard to even increase the density.
The primary reason that I do is not to get rich, Jim, is an attempt to hold
lot prices down. Because everybody in this community those that want to
come here can' t live in a half million dollar house . We are on our way, at
one acre lots in this community, with the land cost of what it is to that
will be the only entry into this at least on the west side of Meridian. I
don ' t believe that the entire public wants that . Certainly many of the
people that you get to meetings and you come to most meetings, you 'd think
that this very vocal group speaks for everyone, I don't believe that . I do
believe even in S-2, which I believe this depicts is a light yellow to
the west of Springmill . I personally believe as a practioner doing it that
you cannot more than 1. 7 per acre no matter how hard you try at 100 '
frontage and a 12, 000 ft. lot, if you want to sell them. I think that that
is a major problem, I think you see in this community and other communities
developers who develop using the standards, minimum standards as maximum
standards in their development and I think you will find they are not very
successful. People are very discerning, a person that buys a lot doesn' t
really check the specifics of the zoning ordinance, he looks at the lot
itself and says how big is it, how would my family like to live on it? I
believe that there have been many areas in Carmel that have been developed
not to the minimum standards, you live in one of them. I believe that this
body is not empowered, number one to make this decision . It can make a
recommendation to the Plan Commission, which then has to make a
recommendation to the City Council, all the while this has to be gone
through public hearings . If it isn ' t done that way, then I believe Bill ' s
•
22
comment about the legal side of it will rear its head. I just believe that
this may be the time, Jim you may feel this is the time to debate this, but
I certainly cannot sit on this body and indicate that I would endorse an
amendment to this, that this is what this committee is endorsing, because
this committee member will not . I believe that the community is well
served by having flexible land use, I believe that it is well served as it
is shown up there with a low density land use west of Springmill . I think
you will find in reality that there will be many developments of 3 acre
lots, many developments of 1 acre lots and a few no more than 1 . 7 per acre
on the west side. I think it important to have a heterogeneous mix in your
community.
JEFF DAVIS :
The Plan Commission at present has leaned over backwards to encourage the
development of large lot subdivisions in the western Clay Township to the
point of granting variances and the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted a
multitude of variances to accommodate large lots subdivisions . There is a
variety of a long string of variances, one access road that we hold very
dear, we 've granted that to encourage large acreage subdivision lots,
private streets, no sidewalks, a variety of things we have done with
several subdivisions that are developing out there now. I will assume that
we will continue to encourage the development of subdivisions with very few
houses and very low density. We have went out of our way to encourage
them. I agree with Mr. Sweet, there will be some of both and I think that
we will see a lot of them. I think we will have to look at the western
part of the township is an overall density, because I think you are going
to find a lot of subdivisions developed out there at 2-3 acre lots and
there will be some of higher densities but overall we don ' t see the density
and we don ' t see the sewer controlling the whole western part of Clay
Township. I just don' t see that happening. That is a potential
possibility, but I really think that there is going to be a combination of
uses out there and overall density will never be as high as it is on the
eastern part of the township. it just hasn ' t started out that way. Is a
matter of fact what ' s happening right now. Anyone else?
GREG BINDER:
I just want to reiterate we came into this plan and tabling consideration
of S-1 at the Plan Commission level because the Comprehensive Plan was
going to address it . I 'm not sure we can say we are going to do this or
are going to do that but I certainly think that, I guess I would throw this
to you Joann and your staff, is to what recommendations a planner can make
in this regard. Because once again, I will reiterate that we our least
restricted density S-1 is well behind all of our neighbors in similar size
communities . I think something should be addressed and I don ' t think it is
our place here to make the decision but I think we have to come out of this
Comprehensive Plan with some of that commitment that we came into it, that
we are going to address at the Comprehensive Plan.
JOANN GREEN:
I think the level that we have addressed that issue is by which you see up
here on the plan and the level at which we were contracted to provide that
input and that is to suggest land uses based on the desires of the
community and the desires of the members of the Steering committee and all
those entities involved. I don' t believe we can do anymore at this point
then to suggest again that that should be addressed in the immediacy of
which that should be addressed and suggestions on how to address it . That
would probably be the level of our involvement that we would feel most
comfortable with for this update and the level that was agreed to in the
•
planning 23
early stages of the
P g process too. My question was, was there any
means at which we you know any items specific that you would request that
we include with regard to this decision in this text and in the plan.
JEFF DAVIS:
Does anyone have any comments on Question #5?
RICK BRANDAU:
Again, it ' s still primarily a realization of what our main goal was that
involved that question in that when you have a colored on map that
shows that dictates a low density and the low density is less than 2 units
per acre, just realize that our current zoning once sewers come on line
will allow greater than that eventually. We were just wanting to bring to
your attention, that that is essential .
JIM DILLON:
We 've heard the word vision used tonight a couple of times . I have a bad
vision about sewers . I want to know why that has to dictate density. I 've
never had that adequately explained why that is, I understand how you can
increase the density of the sewers . Especially, in the western part of the
township that has poor soil conditions for septic systems . But, I think it
is a mistake to have that be the underline planning tool in this community
is sewers . I think that is not in keeping again, forgive me George, what
the public wants . I ' ll quote chapter and verse in the survey that was done
again and I think if the public will accept this be supportive of this and
then to find out that their properties densities are going to be changed
because the sewer was brought in they will never understand that well . I
just don't think they will .
JEFF DAVIS:
Specifically, how does the sewer change the density of S-1? If there is a
sewer what changes on a S-1 piece of ground?
RICK BRANDAU:
At present if sewer and water are not available at the site you cannot go
below 1/8th the lot size minimum by ordinance for 1 acre . Once sewer is
available and public water is available on the site current S-1 zoning
which is always the largest lot residential you would have 15,000 square
feet. An acre is 32, 560 square feet
JEFF DAVIS :
Mr. Sweet has assured us that there is no way the developer has one lot, or
greater than 1 . 5 . What we are doing is picking up a 1/2 lot per each. Is
that correct?
RICK BRANDAU:
Yes .
GEORGE SWEET:
The current ordinances specify what density can be done given certain
public amenities . Two of those are sewer and water. You ' re right, you
cannot because of the 43, 000 feet you have to take a certain amount for
roads, public right-of-ways that are given, for other things that are done,
another words circulation. You can' t develop the entire 43, 000 feet in
residential lots . I submit that if you take the existing subdivisions
which have been developed under this category for years, you will find that
very very few, if any, can be developed at the maximum use allowed under
the ordinance at 15, 000 feet and are sold. I would also say that if you
are to restudy this, I think there are many things that the current
ordinances is detrimental to development . That is the front footage . What
we are doing is we as we increase the front footage of the lot we are
increasing the price of the lot . Then maybe everyone says well that is
fine, but that 's people that are already here . The people that would like
to come here, have to pay for that lot .
JEFF DAVIS :
in the S-1 subdivisions that have been developed
have 3 lots per acre density currently.
R ICK 'DAU: Q N'V j
I 'm sure that some, I 'm sure that a cluster has in S-i but.
I would probably venture to say that the closest we have got would be more
the recent ones . There is none developed here with 3 per acre here, you
can't get three past 15, 000 does not add up to 43 , 560 . Not being a smart
ass back at you, the only thing that would be close would be the cluster of
Lake Forest, that has 142 lots on 74 acres,that is 1 . 89 .
JEFF DAVIS :
Even that, the cluster of houses which we consider certainly relatively
high density is not two lots per acre on the average . We have to be
careful that we don ' t get semantics involved here about the density. If
it, in fact, is not going to be that dense . This requires more study, no
question about that, I 'm not trying to make light of it . The questions I
am asking are met for a better understanding for everyone .
DAVE CUNNINGHAM:
In the S-1 zoning there has not been a development developed at the
absolute maximum, take 15 , 000 and 4356 you come up with 2 . 3 units per acre .
In that general range there has not one been developed at that rate .
JEFF DAVIS:
So even with sewers all we are picking up is a 1/2 lot per acre, generally.
JOANN GREEN:
I think that, Jeff, what we are saying here is that this is specifically a
zoning question. Zoning issues .
JEFF DAVIS:
We did commit to making some adjustments in our Land Use study. We need to
let the conversation roll here for just a little bit, so we can line
something up here for the future.
WILL WRIGHT:
I would like to be corrected if I 'm wrong here, but there is a zoning
ordinance that determines that the definition of S-1 and S-2, etc. on down
the line. To take a probability of possibility and exaggerate it to make a
point is predictable. In so doing we should realize with these ordinances
what has been done and has been done is the community, both on the east and
the west side, have been done in extremely low density basis . As a builder
of expensive houses, why I have to serve the cause of large and expensive
homes because that is how I make my living. But at the same time, I find
it disturbing that people can insist with anger and with fear of loss of
some kind of personal quality of life on the basis of an exaggeration . I
find it interesting that so many people are here tonight obviously being
very concerned about what happens in our township today. I probably could
have a much larger crowd if I 'd have sent out letters to everybody in the
construction industry implying that their jobs were at stake and that they
were denied the right to build houses in this community, and they should 25
come here and fight for their rights . Believe me, that would have been a
terrible exaggeration, except that when it serves ones cause its ok, and
when it serves someone else cause it is not ok. So that the zoning
ordinance is something in all honesty probably needs some fine tuning,
major surgery I doubt, but fine tuning would probably a very champion of a
cause of fine tuning so that we can prove the quality of our life just a
little bit . Not one where we use the word exaggeration and we play on
peoples fears as a means of serving a cause, whether it be just or
otherwise.
JEFF DAVIS:
Anyone else? i personally have a commitment to address the S-1, I
indicated that we would try to do that in the Comprehensive Plan, we have
addressed Land Use, we still have the question of the S-1 hanging. It has
not been adequately addressed, I agree with that . The whole Subdivision
Ordinance, which is undergoing review, which anticipate a change within the
next year. Hopefully, we will be done with in 18 months . We have a feel
for what the community would like from our survey. We have a lot of
comments came from the Comprehensive Plan, the staff has developed a lot of
questions and answers, we probably have more questions than answers, but I
will tell you that the zoning ordinances are an ongoing moving thing, there
will be changes and there will be reviews . We have not come up with a
definitive answer about the S-i zone .
GEORGE SWEET:
Jeff, it may serve your purpose to try and put reality with the ordinance.
It makes sense to me that the way the ordinance is stated now at 12, 000 for
S-2, 15 , 000 for S-1 that its hard to tamper with that without changing the
ordinance . It certainly would seem to me that it would be a reflection of
the consensus if you will, of the public that there is not point in
allowing densities that are greater than what is done in a normal market
fashion today. i for one would have no opposition if you were to suggest
HNTB to put in the body of the thing that S-i would not allow densities
greater than 1. 5 or S-2 not greater than 1 . 8 per acre. I believe that
reflects reality regardless of the way the ordinance is written right now.
WILL WRIGHT:
I have a consensus for that as well ! the purpose of what most
people are trying to achieve.
JEFF DAVIS:
That is a major change from where the ordinance is now and if that is a
reality than obviously that should be very simple to achieve. Would that
satisfy the bulk or would that go some distance towards satisfying everyone
on this committee if we were able to do that?
WILL WRIGHT:
Some in our industry might want to lynch George and I on that . I 'd run
that risk!
JEFF DAVIS :
If that were in the Comprehensive Plan, it should be quite easy to modify
the zoning ordinance to reflect that. If that is the wishes of the
Comprehensive Plan, if there is a consensus . That is not one you refer two
acres, but it is substantially less density than what the ordinance
presently allows . If it reflects more accurately the reality than what we
are building, then I certainly would be in favor of that myself . Do I see
that we have a consensus here? Dr. Dillon is opposed, we understand that .
Are the rest of us in agreement that we can go at least that far at this
time? Alright. If you would include those two densities for S-1 and S-2 .
We are just making a recommendation to the Plan Commission. The ordinance
has to be changed later, it will require additional public hearings . There
will be a public hearing for this Comprehensive Plan and then there will be
a public hearing for any changes in the ordinance that this plan generates .
It is a long term thing. Mr. Dillon .
JIM DILLON:
I guess my only problem with that is a matter of who is wagging the tail .
We've heard that the plan should plan and what I think we have just
proposed to do is bring our plan in line with our ordinances and not our
ordinances in line with our plan. I 'm not so sure that is what I 'm
interested in seeing that we do.
JEFF DAVIS:
takes change in the ordinance to bring it in line with what is
being developed. We 've asked that the ordinance be changed to reflect the
densities that have been developed here recently. That does not mean that
it where it ends up. That is what we suggest as a starting point . That is
not necessarily the finishing point .
GEORGE SWEET:
Maybe I ought to withdraw my suggestion.
JEFF DAVIS :
No, I think it is alright . I think it is more than what we have . It
sounds reasonable. This is a request in the change of the ordinance, not a
change in the plan to meet the ordinance, it is a request for showing less
density in the ordinance from which it presently shows .
ALAN POTASNIK:
I just want to make one point, I have kept quite in regards to all of this,
in case, because of my position with land use . i just want to make a point
that it is interesting to me that after all of this discussion and I 've
been saying this over a year now, that our zoning ordinance, our
subdivision ordinances are outdated, it is refreshing to hear someone else,
other people bring up the fact that there has to be changes and fine
tuning. Maybe something will get done in regards to that and feel that in
the past when these things have been brought out, the importance of the
address of those ordinances that we have and doing the subdivision an
overall zoning ordinance has to be brought in line too.
JEFF DAVIS:
I hope this will be a major effort of the Plan Commissions part for the
next year and half to two years to do this sort of thing.
ILA BADGER:
This may not be a popular statement, but I think that the revision of the
zoning ordinances have been a high priority with Plan Commission for a long
time. We need to get the City Administration to back us on that and to
fund it for us .
JEFF DAVIS:
Mrs . McMullen had one further question about the map that she felt that you
did not have an opportunity to bring up and I 'd like to give her that 27
opportunity.
SUE MCMULLEN:
I 've expressed this concern before . The corner of 106th and Keystone on
the southwest corner extends down all of bright orange zoning
classification. I for one never, was not in favor of having that the
orange, and I don ' t know who was .
JOANN GREEN:
We indicated it I think as a possible transitional type use between that
intersection and the residential
JEFF DAVIS :
Does anyone object to taking that orange area off the map?
GREG BINDER:
Before we move onto adjournment, how do the roads fit into the overall
scenario that we are going to show, I know we want extensive parkways
systems recommendation, i was just kind of curious of what specific maps
are going to be drawn up in that regard.
JEFF DAVIS :
What are you going to put on this map that relates to your traffic study?
JOHN MYERS :
It will be very similar to the last map. It is a simple answer, but. The
last color foldout . Another words, this is going to be a color map that is
going to show anticipated land use, will also show the roadways by
functional classifications if they exist they are solid and they are new
they are dash and the type of roadway will be shown. As far as the number
of lanes that are recommended these will have to be on a separate table .
But it is basically functional classification of roadways and whether they
exist and whether they are there .
WILL WRIGHT:
They are not going to be omitted after all the work we had done on traffic,
are they?
JOHN MYERS:
Oh gosh, no! We wouldn' t forget the roads .
WILL WRIGHT:
Are we going to have a chance to review those before this is printed and
passed out to the public?
JOHN MYERS:
Maybe Joann should answer that, I would assume though that there would be a
full review before we make however many copies we are going to make .
JOANN GREEN:
Before final printing of the document, we will be bringing in our final
graphics prior to printing for final approval .
WILL WRIGHT:
Do you think it will be possible for us to have these prior to that
meeting?
JOANN GREEN: 28
Yes . Absolutely. Let me just back up here a little bit . First of all,
and to review briefly the schedules . I think now that we have enough
information, we will proceed with the development of the preliminary text
and we will issue that, we ' ll need to discuss that a little bit about how
we want to implement that, but we will submit that preliminary text for
your review initially and in the meantime we will be developing the final
graphics and we can get those to you as soon as we get them done . Probably
within the next four weeks . That is what I would anticipate .
JEFF DAVIS:
Are there any further questions that you need to ask this committee?
JOANN GREEN:
Not at this time .
JEFF DAVIS :
You think you can go ahead with what you have planned for the next 30 days?
JOANN GREEN:
Yes .
GREG BINDER:
So we are going to come out of this with two essential maps, my
understanding is the land use and the roads, are they going to be all one?
JOANN GREEN:
They will be all one.
GREG BINDER:
If it becomes difficult to show everything we want to show on one map, will
you take the liberty to split it out?
JOANN GREEN:
Yes, we can do it on an overlay type of process, I think John can we not do
that? We are committed to put on the inserted map, maybe I ought to
refresh you on what will be the end product here?
GREG BINDER:
I 'm assuming something similar to the one we have now?
JOANN GREEN:
Very similar. The same thing. The foldout plan, the same size, the same
types of color illustrations and amendments to the text of the old
Comprehensive Plan and those will be inserted in the areas that relates to
the area being changed.
GREG BINDER:
Is it a bad thought to have two separate maps, one land use and one roads
and that way each specific area can get a better attention to it .
JOANN GREEN:
I think, based on the way it was done in 1985 it was very effective . It
was very readable .
GREG BINDER:
I agree, but I think we spent more time on analyzing the roads this time .
We've done a lot more detailed analysis, and a lot more thought processing
into the road system than we did in that plan. 29
WILL WRIGHT:
If you are looking for a consensus, I think we ought to split them up into
two graphs . i think the road results are such as every bit important as
the land use, because if I want to send a message out to anybody that buys
a piece of ground that you know you got a big ticket road to pay for next
to it and you don't ignore it .
JOHN MYERS :
I guess I just wanted to relay the problem that we had last time was that
we found the we could show functional classification and the difference
between a major arterial or a freeway. We could show new roads and
existing roads, but even when we didn ' t have any land use on the map we had
trouble when we tried to add the third item of number of lanes . If we put
the roads on a white sheet or we put it on a land use map we are going to
have that problem. I think the second thing is in terms of rights-of-way
and geometric standards to go along with these that we would have a lot of
difficulty showing that on the graphic. So that these are going to be, if
you remember the foldout last time, they had the geometric standards on
there and they had some supplemental tables, but when you folded it out you
had one big map. There probably only a couple of things that we could show
with the roads anyway. It is really a question whether it has a colored
background or a white background. I think it is a hard question, maybe
even a question of judgement whether there is greater emphasis one way or
the other. There is still going to be a map, it still going to have to be
supplemented.
ALAN POTASNIK:
Could we have just one by itself
JOHN MYERS:
It certainly could be done. I wonder if in fact that may actually, well
Joann is a whispering additional cost, but my thinking is if one good big
colored map. it seems like that ought have the road on there, that is the
best way to get the message across, because that ' s the one that captures
the attention and that ' s the one people tend to look at . If it is put in
another place, another map either it is duplication which may not hurt
anything or it could actually deplete the purpose. So, I think that we can
do it in such a way, as I look at this I see one of the differences are
that there are other corridors shown on here besides roadway corridors and
that is a difference between this and the last one . The last one didn' t
have the pipelines, it didn ' t have the green dots moving around on there .
So the roads don' t come out quite as much on this, but I tend to think on
the final graphic it would be similar to the last one and I think that they
do stand out maybe an aesthetic judgement question from different people
might see it differently. Maybe we ought to hold it until the next meeting
and see how it looks . Because it is not reflected on here .
JEFF DAVIS :
You will have a graphic at the meeting, and you will have on that map what
you plan to put on there for roads, right?
JOHN MYERS :
We are talking about a review of getting your ok on the graphic as well as
the text, I think that is when we will get the real hard core little nit
picky comments and we would help that when we finish that
JEFF DAVIS : 30
within the next 30 days will show the roads, right?
JOHN MYERS:
I think we are going to have a mockup of that .
JEFF DAVIS:
Show what you want to show on one map and if we don ' t feel that that is
adequate then we will address it at that time, if we think we need more we
can address it then. Go ahead and put the roads on the map as you were
planning to put them on anyway. Then we can address it at the time, if we
don' t feel it is adequate.
JOANN GREEN:
We use the overlay method anyway, so we can show you what the roads will
look like together and/or separate .
JEFF DAVIS:
Very good, that will be an easier time to do it . You have no further
questions?
JOANN GREEN:
No
JEFF DAVIS:
Do the members of the committee have any further questions?
The next meeting date will be the second Tuesday of March, March 13, 1990 .
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 30 P.M.
.
. 1 '
ae--4:
CONTRACT FOR PLANNING SERVICES
•
THIS ENGINEERING AND PLANNING CONTRACT, made, entered into and executed
this 14th day of April, 1989, by and between The City of Carmel, Cannel
Board of Public Works, hereinafter called the "Client, " and HOWARD NEEDLES
TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF, 225 N. New Jersey Street, Indianapolis, Indiana,
hereinafter called the "Planner."
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Client desires to contract for planning services concerning
the Carmel Comprehensive Plan Update, 1989 , hereinafter called the
"Project. "
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Client and the Planner, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and agreements herein contained, do mutually agree as follows:
The Client agrees to employ the Planner and the Planner agrees to perform
professional planning services in connection with the Project, as stated in
the sections to follow and outlined hereinafter; and for having rendered
such services, the Client agrees to pay to the Planner compensation for
these services as mutually agreed. All services performed under chi,
contract shall be performed under the direct supervision of the City o:.
Carmel and/or their duly authorized representative. The Planner will be
advised, in writing, of the Client's representative.
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Services of the Client
The Client will furnish items as listed in Attachment A, "Services
to be Provided by the Client, " attached hereto and made a part of
this planning contract.
B. Services of the Planner
The Planner will furnish planning services set forth in Attachment
B, "Services to be Provided by the Planner" attached he eto and
made a part of this contract. The Planner will furnish t e Client
a detailed outline of work prior to the execution of this
contract.
1
This outline of work will be complete so that the Planner's "Scope
of Services" under this contract can be accomplished within the
specified time and the contract cost. This WORK OUTLINE will
accompany the contract and be contained within Attachment B.
2. PROGRESS. After execution of this contract, the Planner shall not
proceed with the work outlined under "Scope of Services" until advised
in writing by the Client to proceed.
The Planner shall, from time to time during the progress of the work,
confer with the Client. The Planner shall prepare and present such
.information and studies as may be pertinent and necessary or as may be
requested by the Client in order to evaluate features of the work.
At the request of the Client or the Planner, conferences shall be pro-
vided at the Planner's office, the office of the Client, or at other
locations designated by the Client. These conferences shall also in-
clude inspection of the Planner's services and work when requested by
the Client.
Should the Client desire to suspend the work, but not terminate the
contract, this may be done by thirty (30) days' notice given by the
Client in writing to that effect, and the work may be reinstated and
resumed in full force and effect upon receipt from the Client of sixty
(60) days' notice in writing to that effect.
The Planner shall prepare monthly progress reports in sufficient detail
to support the progress of the work and in support of vouchers request-
ing monthly payment.
The Planner shall furnish all equipment, materials and sup1lies
required to perform his work under this contract except as provided
herein.
3. CHANGES OF WORK. The Planner shall make such revisions in the work
included in this contract which has been completed as are necessary to
correct errors appearing therein when required to do so by the Client.
No additional compensation shall be paid for this work.
If the Client finds it necessary to request changes to the previously
satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof, the Planner shall make
such revisions if requested and as directed by the Client. This will
be considered as additional work and paid for as specified under para-
' graph 4. , Additional Work.
4. ADDITIONAL WORK. Work not specifically described under "Scope of
Services" must be approved by supplemental agreement to this contract
by the Client before it is undertaken by the Planner. (Special cases
may arise under this contract where the supplemental agreement covering
such change cannot be processed and delays to project would result.
Such work in these cases can be authorized by a letter from the Client
2
•
or its authorized representative to be followed by the supplemental
agreement) . If the Planner is of the opinion that any work he has been
directed to perform is beyond the scope of this agreement and con-
stitutes extra work, he shall promptly notify the Client in writing.
In the event the Client finds that such work does constitute extra
work, then the Client shall so advise the Planner, in writing, and
shall provide extra compensation to the Planner for doing this work on
the same basis as covered under "Compensation" and as provided under a
supplemental agreement.
5. COMPENSATION. The Client shall pay and the Planner agrees to accept in
full compensation for the Planning services to be performed under the
contract, fees as outlined below.
Invoices for the basic services will be prepared on a monthly basis,
based on the percentage of work completed as determined by the Planner.
This percentage work complete will be supported by the progress reports
noted in paragraph 2. Payment to the Planner on invoices submitted to
the client is due upon receipt and shall be made within 30 days from
invoice date.
The amount payable under this contract is $60,000. The amount payable
may be revised in the event of change of scope, increased cost, com-
plexity or character of work as authorized by the Client.
6. COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL WORK. Invoicing shall be prepared on the
basis of hourly rates for the employees as per the attached hourly rate
schedule.
7. SUBLETTING. The Planner shall notify the Client of any portions of the
work under this contract that will be subcontracted. Subcontractors
shall comply with the provisions of this contract. Subcontractors are
independent contractors with complete control over the means and pro-
cedures of performing their Contract Services and shall be responsible
for the satisfactory performance of their own services; however, the
Planner reserves the right to review Subcontractor's performance of thL
Subcontract Services.
8. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT. The contract may be terminated by any of the
following conditions:
(a) By mutual agreement and consent of both parties thereto.
(b) By the Client, by notice in writing to the Planner as consequences
of failure by the Planner to perform the services herein set forth
in a satisfactory manner and within the limits provided, with
proper allowances being made for circumstances beyond the control
of the Planner.
(c) By either party, upon the failure of the other party to fulfill
his obligations as set forth in the "Scope of Services. "
3
(d) By the Client for reasons of his own and not subject to the mutual
consent of the Planner upon not less than thirty (30) days'
written notice to the Planner.
(e) By satisfactory completion of all services and obligations
described herein.
The termination of this contract and payment of an amount in settlement
as prescribed above shall extinguish all rights, duties, obligations
and liabilities of the Client and the Planner under this contract. If
the termination of this contract is due to the failure of the Planner
,to fulfill his contract obligations, the Client may take over the
project and pursue the work to completion by contract or otherwise.
9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Planner shall comply with all Federal, State
and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and the
orders and decrees of any courts, or administrative bodies or tribunals
in any matter affecting the performance of this contract, including,
without limitation, workmen's compensation laws, minimum and maximum
salary and wage statutes and regulations, and licensing law.; and
regulations. When required, the Planner shall furnish the Client with
satisfactory proof of his compliance therewith.
10. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The Client and the Planner each binds himself,
his successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the other
party to this agreement and to the successors, executors, admini-
strators, and assigns of such other party in respect to all covenants
of this agreement. Neither the Client nor the Planner shall assign,
sublet, or transfer his interest in this agreement without written
consent of the other.
11. INSPECTION OF CONSULTANT'S BOOKS AND RECORDS. The Client, fci the
purpose of termination of the contract prior to completion, may examine
or have examined the books and records of the Planner at the Planner's
office for the purpose of checking the amount of the work performed by
the Planner at the time of contract termination. The Planner shall
maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other
evidence pertaining to cost incurred and shall make such materials
available at his office during the contract period and for one year
from the date of final payment under this contract.
12. INDEMNIFICATION. The Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Planner and his Subcontractors of any from any claims, actions or
• causes of action directly caused by any negligent error, action or
omission on the part of the Client or any entity for which the Client
is legally liable, and arising out of its professional services.
The Planner and his Subcontractors agrees to indemnify and hold harm-
less the Client of and from any claims, actions or causes of action
directly caused by any negligent error, action or omission on the part
of the Planner and arising out of its professional services.
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this contract for Planning Services
has signed or caused their respective names to be signed to duplicate
counterparts hereof on the 14th day of April, 1989.
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF CARMEL BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
APPROVED:
By: By:
Stephen G. Goddard, P.E. , Partn Dorothy J. Hancock
William McFadden
• Stephen Spaugh
Date: , 1989
•
5
•
ATTACHMENT A
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT
GENERAL PROVISIONS
It is understood that the primary responsibilities of the Consultant will be
focused on technical analysis and the development of recommendations and that
the Client, primarily through its Department of Community Development Staff,
will be relied upon to provide necessary data for consultant activity,
preparation of records, documenting key discussion points and decisions made
at Steering Committee meetings, and analysis of modifications needed in
current development review and plan administration procedures to achieve 1989
Update plan implementation.
Accordingly, a representative from the Department of Community Development
will attend all Steering Committee meetings, the Public Information Meeting
and City Council presentation as outlined in Attachment B. Department of
Community Development staff will also share the responsibility of reviewing
Consultant's work with the Plan Steering Committee throughout the project.
Department of Community Development staff will also act on behalf of the
Consultant and Plan Steering Committee in representing and reporting; on
progress and status of the study effort to the Plan Commission, City Council,
various civic and community groups and individuals as required by the Plan
Commission.
The Department of Community Development will also be responsible for making
text for the entire 1985 Comprehensive Plan Update available in an electronic
word processed format compatible for use by HNTB. Text will have been proofed
and corrected for typographical, spelling and format errors and be delivered
on 5 1/4" 360K/1.2MB floppy disks. It is understood that HNTB will use word
processed text provided for updates and addenda for this project.
Specific services to be provided by the Client with corresponding dates of
need generally include the following:
Service to be Provided
o Definitive study area boundaries to be used for the project.
o Relevant population and economic statistical data from Department of
Community Development files, U.S. Census Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, or
other agencies.
• o Data on existing land use in the study area including information by
land use type, density and typical household size for currently
developed areas.
o City/Township zoning maps and ordinances for study area.
o Data regarding land use types, densities, and typical household sizes
for tracts of land currently being rezoned, recently rezoned, approvLd
for development or under development.
-1-
o Data on study area transportation system necessary co determine such
features as generalized capacities, operational characteristics, high
hazard locations and desired level of service standards for major
thoroughfares.
o Existing traffic count data.
o Meeting with appropriate City/Township staff and other public agencies
to discuss existing and proposed transportation improvements which would
influence the study area.
o Data describing the water and wastewater systems serving the study arca
including information to determine such features as approximate service
areas , supply points, treated water supply storage capacity and
availability, major service and interceptor lines, wastewater treatment
capacity, current system demands and funded improvements for major
components of the water and wastewater systems over the next five years.
o Meeting with appropriate City/Township staff plus representatives from
other pertinent agencies to discuss existing and proposed water and
wastewater facilities, improvements and capacities and abilities to
serve the study area.
o FEMA Flood Insurance maps for the study area.
o Review of previously adopted goals, objectives and policies from 1. 85
Comprehensive Plan Update.
o Review of significant deficiencies between adopted goals, objectives,
and policies and directives as implied in the Updated Land Use Plan and
Updated Thoroughfare Plan as recommended for adoption by the Steering
Committee.
o Development and provision of future land use scenarios for use in
developing the future thoroughfare plan.
o Review of major provisions of current zoning ordinance and development
review process to assess consistency with achieving directives as
implied in the Updated Land Use Plan and Updated Thoroughfare Plan.
o Presentation of findings and recommendations for modifications of goal,
objectives, policies and procedures to achieve Updated Land Use Plan and
Updated Thoroughfare Plan for review and adoption at Steering Committee
meeting.
�. _- . t ty .wns • zo . and or. ', . . 6. .
o Review city/township zoning maps and ordinance and determine current
distribution of zoning classifications in terms of area (expressed in
acres) and percentages by classification relative to overall study area.
-2-
ATTACHMENT B
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE PLANNER
•
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Carmel/Clay Plan Commission has expressed the desire to contract with
Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff (HNTB) for the update of the 1985
Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Carmel and Clay Township. Based
upon a careful review of the RFP issued by the Plan Commission President
November 3, 1988 and discussions with Department of Community Development
Staff, Plan Commission Members and the 1989 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering
Committee, HNTB proposes to provide professional comprehensive planning
services to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission according to the work plan and
description of tasks presented in this Attachment B.
It is understood that the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission is satisfied with the
1985 Update and that a total revision of the Comprehensive Plan is expected to
be undertaken within five years. Accordingly, the work program for the 1989
Update is focused on deficiencies in the 1985 Update in addition to problems
and issues which are current or anticipated within the next five years. This
focus specifically relates to land use and transportation issues and their
interrelationships in consideration of currently undeveloped land and land
zoned "S-1".
General work tasks and descriptions are outlined as follows:
WORK PLAN OUTLINE
TASK 1: DEVELOP PROJECT WORK PROGRAM
1.1: Meet with Plan Commission President and Director of Community
Development to discuss project goals, direction and schedule.
1.2: Develop project work program options including; possible work tasks ,
resource requirements and schedule.
1.3: Review project work program options with Steering Committee to
establish priorities and project scope. (February 14th meeting)
1.4: Prepare project work program based on priorities as set by Steering
Committee; determine project schedule, responsibilities, number of
meetings, and project deliverables.
1.5: Seek approval of project work program and contract by Plan
•
Commission. (March 14th meeting)
•
-1-
TASK 2: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY/BASE MAPPING
2.1: Obtain composite mosaic of negatives from most recent flight
available for the study area to produce a film positive at a reduced
scale suitable for base mapping purposes.
2.2: Indicate study area boundaries and label significant roadways and
geographic features on film positive.
2.3: Design title block, legend and graphic formats for recording of
information on study exhibits.
2.4: Secure twelve reproducible contact mylars of film positive for use in
planning analysis graphics.
TASK 3: EXISTING LAND USE AND DENSITY
3.1: Analyze data on existing land use in the study area compiled by
Department of Community Development Staff plus new aerial photo base
map to determine approximate existing land use and density patterns.
3.2: Prepare existing land use and density information tables, exhibit
and text for Update report and Steering Committee meeting.
TASK 4: EXISTING ZONING
4.1: Prepare existing zoning information tables, exhibit and text for
Update report and Steering Committee meeting, based on information
and finding provided by the Department of Community Development staff
as described in Attachment A.
TASK 5: PROGRAMMED LAND USE AND DENSITY
5.1: Analyze pertinent data provided by the Community Development Staff to
determine approximate existing plus programmed land use and density
patterns anticipated within the next five years.
5.2: Prepare programmed land use and density information tables, exhibit
and text for Update report and presentation at Steering Committee
meeting.
5.3: Present significant findings of Tasks 3,4 & 5 at Steering Committee
meeting to verify information and study direction.
-2-
5.4: Prepare exhibit, describing major components of existing ani
programmed infrastructure framework as they relate to ability to
serve existing plus programmed development over the next five years.
TASK 6: EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
6.1: Compile existing data regarding daily traffic counts, peak hour
counts, intersection turning movement counts, and peak hour factors
for use in analysis and forecasting.
•
6.2: Review existing arterial roadway service levels and identify existing
capacity deficiencies.
6.3: Estimate additional peak hour trips generated by programmed land-use
changes from Task 5, making use of existing traffic impact studies
and/or ITE Trip Generation Guidelines , and make generalized
assignment of the trips to the arterial system for analysis.
6.4: Review arterial roadway service levels with programmed land-use
changes in place and identify capacity deficiencies.
6.5: Identify potential roadway improvements to address capacity
deficiencies found in Tasks 6.3 and 6.5. Improvements shall be
expressed in terms of roadway classification and lane widths plus
specific intersection recommendations at critical locations where
improvements exceed ordinary arterial designs (e . g. grade
separations, interchanges) .
6.6: Prepare exhibit, tables and text describing major components of
existing and programmed transportation network and corresponding
deficiencies as it relates to ability to serve existing and
programmed development over the next five years.
TASK 7: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
7.1: Review aerial photographs to determine significant woodland areas.
7.2: Prepare exhibit and text describing significant findings aria
considerations as they relate to presently undeveloped tracts of
land.
7.3: Present findings from Tasks 6 & 7 at Steering Committee meeting co
discuss implications for development of future land use scenarios.
-3-
•
•
TASK 8: UPDATED LAND USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT
8.1: Review findings and information discovered during the course of
performing Tasks 3-7 and prepare a land use scenario for five years
into the future based on "Existing Trends" .
8.2: Prepare up to two alternate land use scenarios for five years into
the future based on criteria to be determined by the Steering
Committee.
Prepare tables illustrating anticipated numbers of additional
dwelling units and gross square footage of non-residential uses by
categories established for the "Existing Trends" scenario and up to
two alternate scenarios.
8.4: Compile information into exhibits and text form for Update report and
presentation at a Steering Committee meeting.
8.5: Present land use scenarios and select one scenario for use in the
development of an Updated Thoroughfare Plan in Task 9 . (Note;
Selected scenario may be a combination of features from several of
the alternates.)
8.6: Compile tabular, text and graphic summary of land use categories and
densities of the selected future land use scenario for use in Task 5 .
TASK 9: UPDATED THOROUGHFARE PLAN DEVELOPMENT
9.1: Identify general traffic levels anticipated on major existing or
proposed thoroughfares indicated in Task 6.6 based on information
developed in Task 8.6 plus anticipated, significant land use changes
external to the study area for the same period.
9.2: Estimate additional peak hour trips generated by the future land-uLc
scenario identified in Task 8.6 and make generalized assignment of
the trips to the arterial system for analysis.
9.3: Review arterial roadway service levels with programmed improvements
and the future land-use scenario and identify capacity deficiencies .
9.4: Identify potential roadway improvements to address capacity
deficiencies found in Task 9.3. Improvements shall be expressed in
terms of roadway classification and lane widths plus specific
intersection recommendations at critical locations where improvements
exceed ordinary arterial designs (e . g. grade separations ,
interchanges) .
-4-
•
•
9.5: Present findings from Task 9 at Steering Committee meeting for
acceptance of, or discussions of modifications to, the proposed
Updated Land Use Plan and corresponding Updated Thoroughfare Plan.
TASK 10: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
10.1: Prepare final Updated Land Use Plan and Updated Thoroughfare Plan
based on modifications requested by Steering Committee in Task 9.5.
10.2: Compile goal, objective, policy, and procedural changes recommended
by staff with adopted Land Use Plan and Thoroughfare Plan, and key
findings and decisions from Tasks 3 through 9 into final 1969 Update
Report.
10.3: Compile key features of 1989 Update into a black and white
reproducible mock up of Executive Summary Poster.
10.4: Distribute report and summary poster mock up to Steering Committee
members. (Produce 20 black and white photo copies.)
10.5: Present report and summary poster mock up to Steering Committee for
review, comment and a vote to forward to City Council for adoption.
10.6: Distribute report and summary poster mock up to City Council for
review and adoption. (Produce 20 black and white photo copies.)
10.7: Attend City Council meeting where report and summary poster mock up
are to be considered for adoption.
10.8: Finalize camera ready text and graphics as approved by council in
Task 10.7 and incorporate into final report and summary poster.
(Produce 50 black and white offset printed copies of "Modified 1985
Update" version. Produce 1000, two color off set printed copies of
Executive Summary Poster.)
10.9: Deliver printed reports, posters, originals and 5 1/4" 360K text
disks in ASCII format to Department of Community Development staff
for distribution.
-5-
•
ATTACHMENT C
LIST OF DELIVERABLES
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Final Report of the 1989 Update will be delivered to the City/Township
Plan Commission and consist of updated text and graphic information which
reflect the findings and decisions made during the course of this study. The
entire document text from the 1985 Update will be made available in electronic
form, from the Client. The Consultant will agree to substitute the updated
information as revisions to the 1985 Update with modifications made during the
course of the 1989 Update study noted in legislative format. Interim
deliverables will include summary tables, handouts and exhibits to be prepared
for review purposes at Plan Steering Committee meetings necessary fo::
discussion topics.
Exhibits will be produced on contact mylars of the aerial photographic base
map prepared as described in Attachment A. Exhibit information will be used
for Steering Committee meetings at full size (with color enhancements as
appropriate) and reduced to 11"x 17" size for black and white reproauction for
final report and summary poster purposes.
•
EXHIBITS:
o Study Area Base Map
o Existing Land Use and Density
o Existing Zoning
o Programmed Land Use and Density
o Existing and Programmed Transportation System
o Existing Trends Land Use Scenario
o Alternate Land Use Scenario A
o Alternate Land Use Scenario B
o Updated Land Use Plan
o Updated Thoroughfare Plan
o Environmental Considerations
REPORTS:
• o Final Report Draft
- 20 black and white photo copies for Steering Committee review
- 20 black and white photo copies for City Council review
-1-
•
o Executive Summary Poster Mock up
- 20 black line diazo print copies for Steering Committee review
- 20 black line diazo print copies for City Council review
FINAL REPORT DELIVERABLES:
o Executive Summary Poster Final
- 1000 copies two color off set printed both sides of approximately 16"
by 22" size folded to 8.5" x 11"
o Final Report
- 50 copies, black and white 8.5" x 11", one sided with 2 color printed
cover and supportive graphics, GBC bound
•
-2-
_ .25 North
MEIN &8Er'�GSN'7GF�'
G NEcDLE TAM
New Jersey Street
i-IOWAR pLANNE���
Indianapolis.;radiant
ARCI-IITECTS ENGiNE8R5
46204-?133
(317)636-4682
December 8, 1989 EV<(317)633.0505
Mr. Jeff Davis
President
Carmel Plan Commission
c/o Rural Route 199A
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Dear Mr. Davis:
reciate the time you took to meet with us to review the status of the
We app date.
Comprehensive Plan Up
As discussed, the Final
for r
we are beginning to coordinate the graphics resent contract, our final
Land Use Plan Poster . Based our
two colors include black, one
pdeliverables include a two color poster.
other color and shades thereof. After
useconsiderable
colorshthatand
you have oon
wbelieve that it is important
your present poster for purposes of readability from ardnstitcwithand
theclearer
1985
understanding of the proposed land use plan when comp g
his would require an additional $1,500.00 to offset the
Land Use Plan. T
difference between the 2-color and the poster you now have.
cluded
e
ffort
the
The second item we discussed i FebruarytandeMarch. 1riWhenethe in
final
programming of this project last
contract was signed in April, approximately 15% of the fee had been
expended. This was due in part to the Steering Committee's desire to re-
analyze the priorities for this update and establish goals and objectives.
This required an extensive effort to develop the final program
to write a contract and keep it within the resources available.
Typically,
it has been our experience on similar projects that the
e on similawe
effort should not eofeed thel0of the buet.difference dung ng theocourseeof, the
were able to make up a portion
project. We are requesting, however, the remaining portion in the amount
of $2,500.00 to complete the work objectives as described in Attachment B,
Tasks 2 through Task 10 of the Contract, dated April 1989.
The third item we discussed was with regard to the Thoroughfare Plan. In a
meeting with the staff on November 2, 1989 , Mr. Bucher identified
de in of ied eeVeral
locations which warrant careful consideration
development. Among these locations, the following three intersections were
identified as needing further definition of alignment and configuration:
• U.S. 31/Smoky Row Road/Rohrer Road
• U.S. 31/Range Line Road
• 96th Street/Westfield Boulevard
Partnere Charges T.Henngan PE.Oarcel J.Sega!PE,Joan L.Cotton PE.Franc`so do Heli PE.Pocert S Soma PE.Donald A.Cuees PE.W.rlrae,Love FA,A.
n H.Slaney.Jr P Harvey K.Hammond.Jr.PE.Stephen G.Goddard PE.
-'�oerc'i Malar PE,James L.Tutee.Jr PE.Hugo E.Small PE.Gary C.Goodman AIA.G F
~ R.Cnard D.Beckman FE - P n PE Cecl�P.Counts PE.Stanley I.Mast PE.
JoonW`Mont.Jr.PE. Roberts W.Shntnem PE.Harry O.eertossa PE.Fa.C^= Poo,son Robe Anna Dan E Ort r S Kende.P T James
GPA. PE.Rona',d A.Aandns AAA.-4 ..erome Buser PE.,:arse M Corners PE.
Robert'F PE.EJa car aeO L o PE.James O.Stephen a PE.Ross L.Jensen A.
J 000AIA.Franc T no-M,'er FAIA.Cot;as C.Mynre PE.Carr J Mel.ea P£.Dan.F.Sacker PE,
Ati
Pr�nCe PE. B.pa:�nn PE.Saul A-JaCods PE.E `ng H. P Tncma6 L W�iliams AIA.Oen nes E.Ccn 4i�n PE.
Ocher P.Fara ra PE.Bernard LE Prescott PE.Ponerd L.H rc a PE.Robert W.L..sco^Ce E.
R.cha ro L-Far FE. AIA.Donald Ic E t PE,MoRe,se n 0 Sadulsky PE.Senid^"n A 'Nadler PE.Roger S.Austn PE,John 0-Brothers PE.
Jahn E-Kupke PE Apdney P PeIIo PE Scaven M.Puss AIA.Rupert A.Luck PE.Genn ..r
s L.O'Rarr y.Jr PF.ROCerc M Scan PE .'J`J.[n r . L ...ev -
OHieee A,Texandrra.VA At'ant .'CA Myth TX Baton POuge LA P.cstor.MA C tarestu^ Mrnneape•.s.MN.Yew Ydrk,NV,
n,TX.Indranapol.s.IN alrvrne,CA.Kansas Crcy,MO.Lax.ngton.KY.Les,ngtdn.MA.Los A 4 CA M .FL.Mrwaukee.Wi.
Orlando.FL.Overland Park.KS.PhrladelOh,e.PA.Phoenix.AZ.Rele.gn,NC.Seattle.WA.Tampa.FL.Tulsa.OK,Wltmrngton,DE
Mr. Jeff Davis
Page 2
December 8, 1989
We agree that potential problems and constraints are complex at these
locations and they warrant additional study. Showing "dots" on the
Thoroughfare Plan to denote intersection improvements will not provide
alignment and right-of-way information needed by the Plan Commission and
staff in evaluating future developments. Therefore, the interests of
Carmel and Clay Township may be best served by developing this additional
detail now and incorporating the rest into the plan.
We propose to develop the additional Thoroughfare Plan details using
available aerial photography and contour mapping. We have estimated the
cost for this additional work to be $7,500.00. If the work is authorized
before the end of the year, it can most likely be completed for review with
the full Thoroughfare Plan in January.
In summary, we are requesting the following:
1. Multicolor Land Use Plan Poster
$1,500.00
$2,500.00
2. Planning
3. Intersection Alignment and $7,500.00
Configuration
We appreciate your consideration in this matter. If you require any
additional information or have any questions, please contact us.
We look forward to our continued service to the City of Carmel. Thank you
very much.
Sincerely,
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
// �.�;,TILL -'2 V �'• Y
Stephen G. Goddard, P.E. Joann K. Green, ASLA
Partner Director of Planning and
Landscape Architecture
SGG/JKG/ck
cc: Carmel Department of
Public Works /
Mr. Wes Bucher �/
-OWARG NEEDLES TAMMEN &BErGENCOF=
225.Vnrtb
HNTB ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS New ferny Street
Indianapolis.
Indiana
November 8, 1989 46204-2135
(317)636-4682
F-LY(317)633-0505
Mr. Jeff Davis
R. R. 1, Box 199A
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: Carmel Comprehensive Plan Update
HNTB Project No. 13139
Dear Mr. Davis:
We look forward to the Steering Committee Meetings scheduled for 7:00 p.m. ,
Monday, November 13th and Wednesday, November 15th. For your information,
we have enclosed the agenda for those meetings.
Monday, November 13, 1989:
1. Review concensus preferences and priorities regarding future land use
(as based on previous Steering Committee Meetings, questionnaire
results and staff comments).
2. Review issues/areas for which no concensus exists presently.
3. Divide into small groups to propose solutions to unresolved issues/
areas.
4. Presentation of individual groups' ideas.
5. Discussion to determine points of agreement.
Wednesday, November 15, 1989:
HNTB will take concensus recommendations and develop a composite future
land use and transportation plan for discussion and final concensus.
Please come prepared to work. The purpose of this workshop is to provide a
forum for your direct input. HNTB will provide the necessary materials
including prints of aerial surveys, existing land use plans, markers and
tracing paper. We will be available to lend guidance and answer questions.
If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Joann' K.V Green, ASLA
Director of Landscape Architecture
JKG:bv
cc: Mr. Wes Bucher
PE.Oarla!J.Sp•gai PE.Jonn L.Cotton PE.Francs X,Hell PE.Robert S.Coma PE,Coned A.Ouoies PE.Wiliam Love-AIA.
Robert re Wier
T_Hannigan K.Hammon.Jr.PE.Stephen G.Goddard PE.
Robert O-Mlllsr PE.James L Tutua.Jr.PE,Hugh E.Schell PE.Cary C-Goodman AIA.Gordon H.Slaney.Jr PE.Harvey
Jonn'W W.gnt.Jr PE.Richard O.Bectman PEpunts PE.Stone,:I.Mast PE.
Associates Con R art PE.Kendall T.Lincoln CPA,Roberts W.Si-niche,'PE.Harry O.Bertossa PE.Reich E.Robison .Cecil P.C
Robert W.Aria PE.Walter Sharko PE.James O.Russell PE.Ross L Jensen AIA.Frank T.Lamm PE.Ronelb W Aarons AIA.H.Jerome Burst PE.Blase M Carrera PE.
re PE.
V.chael P Ingardie PE.Bernard L.Prince PE,Stepnen B.Guinn PE.Saul A.Jacobs PE.Ewing H.Miller FAIR.Douglas C.MThomas
o a5 C r Jamwaa AIA. ,Cans E C oaken PE.
Richard L.Fannon AIA.Donald P.Keuch PE.Gouges E.Prescott PE.Ronald L.Hartle PE.Robert'W.Luscombe PE.
PE.
John E.Kuoke PE.Rodney P.Pello PE.Steven M.Reiss AIA.Robert A.Leek PE,Glenn O.Sodulsky PE.Benlamrn A.Wh,sler PE.Roger S-Austin PE.John C.Brothers
Charles L.O'R..11y,Jr PE.Robert M.Sloan PECO.
Offices Alexandria.VA.Atlanta.GA.Austin.TX.Baton Rouge.LA.Boston.MA.Charleston.WV.Chicago,IL.Cl,00l nd.OH.FCal,.. X.Denver.WM.n O ca rs.e dN.J.Hartfew n ko CT,
Houston.TX.IndianacolIs.IN,Irvine.CA.Kansas Cty.MO.Lexington.KY.Lexington.MA.Los Angeles.CA.
Oflando,FL,Overland Park,KS.
Ph,ledelonla.PA,Phoenix,AZ.Rale.gh,NC.Seattle.WA.Tamoa.FL.Tulsa.OK,Wilmington.OE
WESTERN SECTION
Consensus Items:
1. Land use should be predominantly residential.
2. Overall residential density should be lowest in community.
3. A network of connected open spaces is important.
Issue Areas:
1. How dense should residential development be in this area?
2. Should residential allowed
isbycurrentzoning?
ies indicated in the 1989 Plan be
lower than those
3. Are "neighborhood serving" commercial uses appropriate? Should
they be clustered in "nodes" or developed in "strips"?
4. How should development along the 421 corridor influence future
development in the area drainage courses, and
5. Should natural areas such as creeks, g
other significant natural areas be left in an undeveloped state
and designated for park land?
CENTRAL SECTION
Consensus Items:
The "Transition Zones" designation does not work well for the
1.
community.
2. North/South transrindicated for need improvement.
in 1985
3. Densities and areasand
Plan need better definition. office
4. Central Section s tin thehe community
us of commercial,
industrial development
Issue Areas: predominant character of land use along
1. What should be the p
Spring Mill Road?
2. What are appropriate uses for "Transition Areas"?
3. Should growth be limited or deferred due to transportation
infrastructure limitations. parkland areas be indicated on
4. Should additional open space and p
the plan?
5. What is appropriate land use mix for tracts of land:
o North and south of Meridian at 136th Street?
o Along 116th Street between College Avenue and Range Line
Road?
o In the Pennsylvania Street Corridor?
o South of Meridian at Range Line?
o South of Keystone and 106th?
o Between Old Meridian, Main, and Guilford?
o Range Line Road north of Main?
EASTERN SECTION
Consensus Items:
1. Community services and utilities support more dense development
in this section of the community.
2. 1989 Plan should better reflect environmental considerations,
such as flood plains, than 1985 Plan.
3. White River has potential to become an important recreation
amenity for Carmel?
4. A network of connected open spaces is important.
Issue Areas:
1. How can White River valley be better utilized for the public
benefit in the 1989 Plan?
2. How should the completion of the 96th ST Bridge influence
development?
3. Should an increased amount of industrial uses be accommodated?
4. What should overall housing density be in this section?
5. Are "civic nodes" clustering such uses as libraries, churches,
police, fire, schools, health care, etc. appropriate? If so,
where should these occur?
6. What is appropriate mix of land use for tracts of land;
o East of Meridian and south of 146th Street?
o East of Keystone and north of Smokey Row Road?
7. How should neighborhood serving retail areas be accommodated in
developing areas east of Gray Road?
A T
0
a
0
u p d
00
J Z. y� ZH
Z. x•20 it .ly
m w Z a
O <Z % III!
a a a Y ap
px Oaa 2 a0 W\�0 pi.
a z
A W<6 a 3 Y y l l i 1 1
',',',",St
S a'- Y 6 Y y
111
L.,
.."-L
Z y- H II! Jpl
ZY< �.�..: O 2uYi I r w„,- mwe0
ml 5yo a<
<00 Wlpih Ot s�L<- "T-w„,-
YOx P 2
2J5y O<mow O
2.
D
z7. t
OWa0 2 Au72
23
14
fr5�O~ a
► aP OZ<yOu
0.
100mwZ
2
O =
ap •
-
^ �1"'CC W uZ ` 0.Zy1N t OOI
ZI
= DUS I OCD00
% J y i• Nz yl O aci< uu c. z`2a = �pP iiii
an
— u D °' z aP I°i u pia i W.
2 Y a N a I U 2 P z p .] J%I
L • P. ? p a- J1,37 O>
Y v w U u C f O I Y 4r,1 6 Z 2 0.2
�ul o 02.
0 p O - 3^ U L Z PI U Mild"W n U<—
,0,a - ox o'er o--
a
p \
z C
% O U r
U iat: 2 nZ p1 O O Y y-
i z zp iluY 5p Z
D Yy ��0.Z f.„
Z 40
i
UfP 2m2Z >
.,,
a 2
C0.Mx
T
mw:Lli
.a uZaP % ^ PP 2 5 a' pYUO
C..0 04
v h=D f, UZa =;T y z ` r y >GZS ' o0. ~ Oi<V
i2 0 a ODir
a0 r . p�
7 a 00 0z0 F
- i+ " u
_ z w.P n a
a
P
o PP P PP i W2m
a<
-
ti-%Ly.D vYi �2>.r y - n 4ZOZ
a.
�rG 3
,- ;iac w <132 s JUm OL700
t,:.; 3 ,,pl.. -
7 0 a G N U %
00.: <3
O
r % uz
0 <5
p sc
z u
J 5 O>
N.11
wow.
P a
Li Z.
- o !071! W
qu
a
a
a
I t 3 -u
r
y 2 0. OIUi1NP �iw
u <
c 0 -
- 1
' M 'Cr
r tv
Date:25-May-89
CARMEL,INDIANA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE HNTB JOB NO.13139-11-00
DISTRIBUTION OF LAND BY ZONING CATEGORY
• GROUPED ACCORDING TO PREDOMINANT LIKE USES
'AG RICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL 1-3 DU/AC
,ZONING> • ACREAGE
S-1
18,919.
S-2 3,444
1TOTAL 22;363 A/R.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-4DU/AC
ZONINGACREAGE
R-1 • • • • • 4,853
_R-2 1,325 .
TOTAL• 6,178 • LDR .
•
'MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1=5 DUTAC
ZONING • • • ACREAGE
R-3 403
TOTAL 403 -MDR
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL' . 6-15 DU/AC
ZONING ACREAGE
R-4 . ;.__
238
R-5 15
TOTAL 253 .:HDR
LIGHT COMMERCIADOFFICE (LOCAL)
ZONING : ACREAGE
B-1 • 72
B-3 645 •
B-4 •• 16
B-5 • 295
B-7 59
TOTAL . 1.,087 LC/O
HEAVY':COMMERCIAL/OFFICE..:(REGIONAL)
IZONING .ACREAGE
B-2 • 306
B-6 429
B-8 157
NOTAL
892 :>HC/O
INDUSTRIAUMANUFACTURING
ZONINGACREAGE
I_1 565 ,;; ,.
1-2 . 0
M-3 ..313
TOTAL 878: I/M :
Source:Howard Needles Tammen&Bergendolt
W
Q � �
0
z c) o
� c
< Q m
n- o
L-- W
c) -2 °I...isi:::ilijittilirc, -cc:)cj
o >
OD
111111111111111.1.111mill
0
Z __CT)OW cr .
0
W
LL W J
W 2 F-
..�.� o LuZ
46
Cr
Q I J
vameirl Z
CO
w
C) Q m
z
CSS ® o
....................: .:..............:....:...-......•••••.'•••:.,...........•.••••..•.........•;,••••:;::::::::,:::-:.::;:' J 0 •
oU E
ww
J m ¢J H
T— W o �U CO
0
U
o W076
p - oZ a)
w
0 zm z
CC L
as
0 .
I