Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp. Plan mtg 2/5/91 TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 33 ��' DAVIS DZ-: Dillon JIM DILLON Mr. Davis, some time the buck has got to stop being passed. We literally fought George Sweet on that road when it came out one of the reasons was because you could go straight across the street and extend it on up outside the corridor. We heard all this song and dance that you have come up with tonight about oh no, we could move it in and you just said they could move it across there. I think that is the whole point, as long as it is there that is where it is going to be. Put it inside, make them move it out. JEFF DAVIS That°s fine. JIM DILLON You've got to stop passing the buck. JOHN MYERS You know we have an organizational chart in your office, the transportation department I asked for a partner, why is the transportation department all the way down here in the lower right hand corner. He said in, it really doesn't make any difference. I said, Good, let's put it up Mere on top and I guess the point is we say it doesn't make any difference and people have a preference and I guess it might be good if we could all have a vote on where the road is going to go, even though we say we don't know where it is going to go and then at least people wouldn't get upset when they saw the dashed line on the map. JEFF DAVIS The public here tonight would like to be assured that this road will not extended unnecessarily outside the corridor. What I would like to do is make a motion that we show this road on the west side as a straight line midway of the 600 ° corridor from the starting point to 465 . Midway of the 600 ' , 300 ' from 31. DAVID CUNNINGHAM Jeff, as going back through history, this road was proposed and I am going to have to reference to another staff member, but I believe in the 61 plan originally that there was a Meridian Corridor concept. With Meridian in the middle, two alterative roads on the outside, those both being placed in 600 ° . I think that is kind of the basis of the limits of the corridor. I also believe engineering wise it would be inept of us to put it at 300 ' . JEFF DAVIS • TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 34 It is at 600 ' on the east side, at no risk. Right now it goes on the 1 -st side. DAVID CUNNINGHAM Wouldn't it be reasonable to put it at the 600 ' ? JEFF DAVIS I 've made the motion is there a second? RON HOUCK I guess I 'm not sure what the parliamentary procedure is, do we have to second this before we discuss it? JEFF DAVIS It is not motion until it is seconded. RON HOUCK I 'll second it. JEFF DAVIS Discussion? RON HOUCK Now, I guess according to the scale on this map, if in fact it is at 600 ' on the 1st side, clearly it looks like it is much greater than 600 ' on the west sine. I mean unless my extends clearly into the orange oarea and outsidemetry is reallyoffthe area that. You cansis ethat ven it marked for the corridor. My concern is and I think a number of residence share this, while there are some pieces of the roadway that are dictated b what is already in place, there are many sections that are not dictated y because the land is undeveloped and this is the greate -t chance we have for an impact in those areas . Much of what is shown here 'itside the corridor is land that that is still undeveloped. There is a c -ice to serve as a guiding influence as to where the placement of this rc 'way should be. So I think for that reason, I think a number of people and myself included have .:oncern that this, even tho .h it is conceptual and that there are all kind of disclaimers made on maps . ‘.t some point the Plan Commission members who sit in judgement on a projec ., the petitioner and any clients or consultants that he may hire at some point, has to look at the document, the text, the maps and wonder what is this thin sayin that reason I think it is important to have it located differentlythan the is where it is now. I think thatwg g• And I think for than that. peopleshes are certainly dfferent TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 35 DAV I S Very good. Yes . • JOHN MYERS Something that we could do, at least on the Thoroughfare Plan, to make But wherever you put it we then could put a note, the letters, the words, right along the road that says location to be determined. So even if you showed a straight line somebody could look there, they don't have to read text or disclaimer. It is going to say right along the side of that road and we could put the same thing on Hazeldell and any other roadway that is a new alignment. So, that may supplement your discussion. JEFF DAVIS I think we can do that. But I think we want to address moving this conceptual plan, I don't have any real objection to moving the conceptual plan inside the 600 ' corridor. There is any further discussion. ALAN POTASNIK I don't have any problem with that either, Jeff. Really that's the way it sounds to me, it seems logical to do that, I don't see any problem with r' zt. JEFF DAVIS Anyone else? I think if we put it someplace where it obviously can't go it becomes more conceptual . JOHN MYERS I wasn't going to say that. That crossed my mind. Especially if we have a note on there, location to be determined. JEFF DAVIS Is it getting late or did I actually say that? CAROLINE BAINBRIDGE How much time went into the preparation and the placing c `his line, how long did you people study this, the whole committee sent :s out to us . I cannot believe that we are sitting here still talking abc' this line. I think that we need to deal with it and vote on it. JEFF DAVIS TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 36 Is there any further discussion? The motion would put the conceptual collector road on the east side of 31 midway on the map i;,—Lde the 600 ' commercial zone. 300 ' . The west side of 31 . MICHAEL NARDI Ron, could you restate what you had mentioned about how this could be used according to the Indiana Code then? Because then we may need to put a disclaimer, this map doesn't meet Indiana code whatever. RON HOUCK I think if I understand your question, it was the legal question I ask about? This was in the material that you also received and if you look at the duties of Plan Commission, Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan, on the last page which is #17 under local government, I 'm not sure what you really want me to do here except restate it. MICHAEL NARDI Would you please restate that? RON HOUCK There is a, however, they legally refer to this paragraph. 36-7-4-506 which is title Thoroughfare Plans included in Comprehensive Plans; location change, vacation or improvement of thoroughfares . Under Item C is that it says, that after a thoroughfare plan has been included in the Comprehensive Plan thoroughfares may be located, changed, widened, straightened, or vacated only in the manner indicated by the Comprehensive Plan. That was the question that has been referred to Mr. Wendling for an answer at a later date. Exactly how our thoroughfare Plan will be impacted upon by that statement and what we determine both in text and according to the map. ALAN POTASNIK Sen am I correct to understand even if we do vote on this change, I guess will direct it to staff, president, the attorney, until we get this legal opinion we won't know what we have here. RON HOUCK To me it doesn't keep us from doing anything the way we have been. I think the legal opinion will be separate and apart from our decision to how the Thoroughfare Plan should be arranged. I mean we are discussing how we think the Thoroughfare Plan should be and to me, the legal question is something related but separate from the issue we are discussing right now. CAROLINE BAINBRIDGE I think it is directly related, because I need to know whether I am going • TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 37 tae held to this dotted line no matter where it is and I want to know that before I vote. RONALD HOUCK Well, you have heard that there will be disclaimers . JEFF DAVIS But you have also reminded us that that may not be enough. Now I will tell you that if we vote for this and put in the middle, and our legal opinion comes back and yes that is where it is located, we may have effectively eliminated every building in this row. RONALD HOUCK I can also see it being very positive as well. JEFF DAVIS Any further discussion? Seeing none I will ask for a vote those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. OppoLied Hold up L in_d.. , who voted which. Who voted in favor: Who voted against. Does not carry. " right, before we go any further I suggest we get a legal opinion. like to have it as close to 31 as reasonable, let' s get a legal opinion about what we are doing before we go to DAVID CUNNNINGHAM Jeff, just so we can move on and not belabor the point. I 'm sure we will relate this to Bill in the morning and that could be his first question to be addressed and when we take this back to full commission JEFF DAVIS r would like that addressed by a letter to the Plan Commission members . DAVID CUNNINGHAM OK. JEFF DAVIS So we will know the answer to that before the next meeting, I don't want to have to discuss this, I want that part of it resolved so we' ll know the legal aspect. As soon as possible. ALAN POTASNIK TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 38 I would like a procedural question with regards to this . we are doing here this evening. Will this be referred, when it gets uune with this committee, back to Land Use, what is the procedure that is going to happen with this? JEFF DAVIS We are going to make these corrections and then it is going to stay with the full Plan Commission. I think, we are reviewing this as this committee as a whole. So I think it is all going to be handled at this level if we can cover it all tonight. We will, if we cannot DAVID CUNNINGHAM As a quick follow-up to that at the last Commission meeting you did suspend the rules to point this committee to review this . Therefore, bypassing JEFF DAVIS I think it simplifies the solution if we all sit in on this and the whole Plan Commission Make sure we find out these decisions . SUE DILLON I think as it was pointed out tonight that it is not reasonable, I 'm sorry for the disruption, it is not reasonable to expect this road to go through a residential neighborhood, residential housing and in fact Spring Mill Road amendment reads that everything west on 600 ' Meridian Corridor shall be residential in nature. Therefore, I think especially on the DePauw property, in light of all the development around there I am very uncomfortable with that, we had a big fight with Radnor last year over that. I won't go through that again. We have a thousand signatures from the residence out there asking for that project to be defeated and they used the map I am very concerned about that houses I 'll show you that at least 1100 here is the corridor. It is way out there in the corridor and you've got houses on 136th, houses all along there, solid houses and you are not going to move it. I think it should be up to 600 ' Comprehensive Plan which is an ordinance to the existing JEFF DAVIS I think should be within the 600 ' , I think that was the intention. SUE DILLON Am I to understand the way you just voted it stays where it is . TRA' CRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE uPDATE PLtuv i9 JEFF DAVIS L.�. We just voted that we are not going to change it right, we would like to have a legal opinion to find out - I really don't want to locate this someplace where it can't be located and find out legally we are stuck with it and find it is unable to build it. As far as we are concerned it is not located anywhere, far as I am concerned it has no location on this map. I understand what you are saying and we want to safeguard you against that, we get a legal opinion, if we can legally move this over, I have no problem with moving it against 31 . Because it is only a concept anyway, if that helps, I don't have any problem doing that. But I don't want to locate it someplace and then find out that we are legally stuck with it. I don't want to locate it a conceptual road and then find we are stuck by law in leaving it there. If that's the case then we are going to have to get very specific where we put it or leave it off . Just indicate it in writing but leave it off the map. We may find that we have to leave it off the map altogether and indicate in writing what we would like for it to be. In order to have some kind of control,. I don't disagree with you, I don't think it should go through large residential areas either.. I don't think it should sit a long distance from 31 either, I don't think we have any disagreement there. It is just how we are coming about doing it and how we are getting into doing it. I don't think you are in any disagreement with the Plan Commission, I don't think you will find any problems here either. The terminology in how we are doing it and I think we have got to find it out now. We have got to get a legal opinion and find out exactly where we are at. If we need to move it or take it off that is what we will have to do. -., JE DILLON Let me ask you another question. Are we going back to the previous questions that were asked? JEFF DAVIS Yes . Yes we have spent some amount of time on Mr. Blackwell's letter. It was a pretty decent letter so it deserved some time. We have we think a complete listing of the questions that were asked in the public hearing at ;he last meeting and we want to cover those. Some of those questions were covered in the answer to Mr. Blackwell's letter, some of them were not and we have our coverage there on that. We will get a legal opinion, I would ask that the Plan Commission members receive that in the mail prior to the next meeting, so we have information available to make that decision and not have to do it up here. That shouldn't take long. Does everyone feel that we have adequately covered Mr. Blackwell's letter. RON HOUCK I guess I have a question about density, in terms of how exactly we have addressed it. I know I think my understanding of the overlying tone from i \ TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 40 staff and probably also your feelings that the underlying density has not been changed, has not been increased. . However, I is that Mr. Myers stated that the traffic nwere he concern I have batraffic density or an estimation of assumedrdensityof1runiitsed peroacra e. However, all the undeveloped land is in the text of this stipulates it to be 1 1/2 units per acre. Effectively to me that means that there is going to be 50% more traffic generated then least residentially than what was estimated. Maybe if John is still around he can answer that. JEFF DAVIS I think that is a land use issue, I think he answered it and his answer was fairly adequate. Now the question is whether this is all going to develop as S-1 at that rate. And, I would suggest that probably not in fact the case. We see a lot of projects out there developing in lesser densities than that right now I would anticipate that all every remaining acre in the western part of Clay Township will not develop as S-1 at that particular rate. The overall density may be much less than 1 unit per acre. Obviously that is a guide. Our traffic plan based on a gross density of 1' unit per acre in western Clay Township some of those areas will need to be , developed in lesser density than 1 . 5 units per acre. We have encouraged that in some of our ordinances and we continue to encourage it with our variance process . We have builders who find a market for that type of housing, hopefully they will continue to. They we will encourage that type of development. So even though a large portions of it may develop at 1 .5P hopefully other portions will develop at a much lesser density so the overall density will be no more than and hopefully less than 1 unit per acre. DAVID CUNNINGHAM After a quick clarification with John, if you will turn to page 109 and look at that chart, as you go across the top it does say major land uses and has three classifications for residential and the commercial . It does state the maximum density and that would be at the build out scenario which John stated would be, I guess erroneous was the word, but would be practically non-feasible for lack of a better word. Therefore, for the traffic explanation they assumed 1 acre per a 2, a 6 and 10, 000 s are foot. That is what they assumed for the traffic situation. Similar where they assumed the program versus the build-out. That is what I am understanding. JOHN MYERS Sorry I stepped out, I heard you say density and I went water. and got a drink of JEFF DAVIS Really, that is a land use thing and your traffic study indicated w did with it. Hopefully there will be some green areas involved, hat you possibly