Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarmel Comp. Plan Update Minutes 8/30/90 02110 __IrlCf'Lri, CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30, 1990 The Carmel Comprehensive Update Plan meeting was brought to order by Jeff Davis , Chairman at the City Council Chambers on August 30, 1990 at 7 : 46 P .M. The committee members present were : Jeff Davis , Will Wright, Alan Potasnik, Sue McMullen, George Sweet, Lindley Myers , Jim Dillon, Bill Merrill and Ila Badger. Greg Binder arrived at 8 : 47 P.M. The staff members present were : Wes Bucher, David Cunningham, 8 . Terry Jones, and Dorthy Neisler. Ms . Joanne Green and Mr. John Myers from HNTB were present . Mr. Davis started the meeting with the discussion of the six ( 6 ) portions of the latest draft of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan Update that the staff feels needs further discussion, amongst the committee, HNTB and staff, prior to final adoption/approval of this draft . The staff is currently still going through the Comprehensive Plan for technical and grammatical errors . Ms . Joanne Green explained the comments and the staff stated their concerns and comments for each question to be reviewed (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the 0 . 1 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30, 1990 Master Copy) . There was discussion regarding Page 26, paragraph 1, the comment regarding "Market Demands" . Staff questioned whether market demands should "dictate" a comprehensive land use plan . Mr. Will Wright moved to leave the words "Market Demands" in paragraph 1, Page 26 , as stated. LMr. Alan Potasnik seconded Approved 7-0 . There was discussion regarding Page 26, Items 1, 2,& 3 , does this document adequately address these 3 primary areas of concern? Mr. Wes Bucher stated his concerns that if you read from a standpoint of dealing with overall land use in the community, future land use issues were divided into only 3 primary areas of concern . He felt that land use issues probably are residential land use issues , commercial land use issues , transportation or whatever it might relate to those things, central core or industrial versus whatever types of issues . If this is meant to be geographical areas , then he thinks they designated these three areas correctly. Joanne Green, HNTB, stated that it should be 3 basic geographic land use areas of concern . 2 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30 , 1990 However, the geographic reference, Bucher feels , by ommiting areas would tend to say that we are not concerned with large portions of the Meridian Corridor that is undeveloped, and he doesn ' t feel that that is a fair viewpoint . Mr. Davis stated that one of the concerns was the large lot, low density development in the western part of the township . Mr. Will Wright moved to accept comment #2 , Page 26 , items 1, 2 , & 3 reading: " were divided into three primary geographical areas of concern. Mrs . Sue McMullen seconded. Approved 7-0 . Statement #3 , Page 103 & 104, bottom and top; Staff asked if the committee ' s feelings toward the open space and greenbelt linkages strong enough to leave these concepts in the plan and request the Plan Commission begin implementing them? There was discussion from the staff and committee . Will Wright felt that too strong a statement would be a confiscation of property rights . Staff questioned whether the Plan Commission would weigh wording as strongly for a residential development along a pipeline as they do for a zoning change request . 3 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30 , 1990 Mr. Will Wright moved to leave the Comprehensive Update as it is written in regards to this item. Mr.Jim Dillon seconded. Mr. Wes Bucher stated that staff was simply saying that you are making a strong statement that these are special opportunity corridors for you to deal with as development issues come before the Plan Commission . It would be no different from dealing with someone coming in with a project and saying the Comprehensive Plan shows this is red on the map and they would like this zoned commercially, and that the Plan Commission should take that into ,O ' consideration as they look at this rezone . Bucher stated that a request to say that the pipeline or a stream area or something that effects your development may tie someday into a park in that area and this presents a special opportunity corridor as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and should provide willingness to consider using this ground as part of your project for public purpose . Staff will present concept with projects that are present . However, the last two times this was mentioned, the attitude of "those are peoples ' backyards and no, we don ' t want to do that" prevailed. Staff is comfortable with page 103 and 104 as written, and would like to point out that we feel this makes a strong statement that this is something desirable to have in our community. "It is not a legislative attempt to confiscate 4 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30 , 1990 property, " stated Bucher. Mr. Jeff Davis remarked that when people are going to develop properties that include this type of ground, and have indicated to the people that are going to develop it that we are interested in doing something with this ground if you have that same interest . The Comprehensive Plan indicates we see these as areas that could be something built to serve the community. Bring us a plan, maybe we can give you something back. Maybe it would be best to use this for special purposes , especially the gas line, because it is very limited what you can do with it; you can' t build a house on it or use hard pavement on it . A landscape area, some kind of running path, or just a walking area, there is a variety of things that could be done with such areas . Leave it up to the developers, they are the inventive people . L.. A motion was made to leave the language as written. Approved 8-1, Mr. Merrill voted against . Mrs . Ila Badger moved to amend that "can be" changed to "could" . NEED CLARIFICATION ON ABOVE STATEMENT. WHERE IS THIS? �� f 10 1 1)141163‘11111 :;;r:: 9-0 . 5 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30, 1990 Items 4 and 5 on Page 116 , paragraph 4 and Page 125 , last paragraph, were tied together. ????????? Mr.John Myers, HNTB stated that the guideline that is used for federal funding is a book that is published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials, their design guidelines are known as the Green Book. On this particular issue, a level of service C or D, the ASHTO Green Book is unclear. It says a level service of C is desireable and goes on to say that level of service D is sometimes acceptable in urbanized areas . In the context of this particular section, in the sketch plans we are looking at major movements and how to serve a north south traffic demand. All three sketch plans would have somewhat of a radical effect in terms of cost or on some part of the community. In that context it was our judgement that a level of service D was an appropriate measure . In the recently adopted Transportation study guidelines for the City of Indianapolis, the level of service D is the standard that must be met. The point is , there is no absolute answer because there is no absolute criteria about the conditions the book discusses about urbanized areas . 6 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30, 1990 Mr. Davis stated that he felt the committee was asking, "Is there anything in this statement, at this level of planning for roads , that would preclude federal funding or anything in this area? Have we said anything here that would discourage federal funding for a future plan?" Mr. John Myers answered, "No, " but he felt this is the appropriate approach, but really needs to qualify it . If you had a specific project and you found, in engineering studies , that you achieved a level of service D with the proposed improvements, there is no guarantee that the federal highway administration may not come back and say, "In our judgement this is a situation that ought to have an improvement that gets you to a level of service C . " If you are interested in a guarantee of federal funding, if there is such a thing, they will not question the level of service aspect of a project if it is a level of service C. Is that level of service reasonable, is that appropriate, is that the right thing? That is what is discussed in this paragraph from the national guidelines . Mr. Myers does not feel that the level of service D is inappropriate . Mr. Davis stated that he felt there would be further studies involved before federal funding would be applied for. 7 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30, 1990 There was further iscussion. DID THEY VOTE ON THIS? It 0 IA 0. S i Fizaw4e1 U• Mr. Sweet moved that "we take the reference to the freeway being a preferred alternate" and that we state that "there are alternatives, or what they are, and we changed the map to show that we should refer to the alternatives in the text section. " Mr. Potasnik and Mr. Wright spoke . Mr. John Myers stated in the text we have taken a first scenario with an assumed amount of development, and it is clear in the text that the assumed amount of development was approved as of a certain date . Then we looked at some broad approaches of how to treat the demand that is generated by that development . The purpose of dealing with sketch plans at this stage, that was very early on, was that these are such radical different concepts that the rest of the plan is going to be built around these concepts . What is shown is not a recommendation for a plan . If there is been a decision at this point in the study that we are going to widen roadways and there is not going to be a US 31 Freeway this would be a radically different plan than what we see here . What is shown here as the sketch plan for widening roadways would have been extended and strengthened. Some of the four lane roadways would be turned into six lane roadways , the concept of building a 8 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30, 1990 thoroughfare plan around a freeway type standard, and freeway capacity on 31 has made it possible to reduce the levels of improvements that are shown on a number of the roadways . It was important to make that decision early because it affected all of the rest of the plan . That is why these are called sketch plans, and the word conceptual is used throughout here . In order to change that now, we are really backing way up. We can change our assumptions and we can say we are not going to serve this much land use when we develop this thoroughfare plan . It would not serve as much of what you show as the land use plan as we are serving with this recommended plan. But, that is really up to you. If we serve only that development that we have assumed, which again is just a portion of the full land use plan, and we say that the freeway is not included as a concept as sketch plan, we are now at a place where we really have to back up and take a new start at this thoroughfare plan development because it ripples all across this thoroughfare plan. This particular comment says it was recommended to the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee that US 31 be proposed as a freeway. Mr. Myers is the one who made the recommendation, and when these 3 sketch plans were presented, Mr. Myers did in fact recommend that the best concept to build a thoroughfare plan around was a freeway on US 31 where the demand is concentrated. It is a true statement as it was, but maybe it should say it was recommended 9 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30 , 1990 by HNTB to the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee . Whether to include 31 freeway in the thoroughfare plan is really the base assumptions that the plan is serving the land use, or there are going to have to be a lot of other changes in thoroughfare plan. Mr. Myers can ' t represent to the committee that this thoroughfare plan serves the land use that we have assumed as a base condition without the freeway concept . Mr. Will Wright asked Mr. Myers when would the earliest the construction would begin? Would you see any necessity for the state to accelerate its plan to meet the short term date of seven years? Would it be safe to assume that we are planning far beyond the scope of the plan that we are developing here and we have a five year plan and that it isn' t even totally possible that this freeway would start construction during that five year period? Mr. Myers stated that he felt it was unlikely that it would be built in seven years . If everything clicked, though, he would estimate that it could be done as early as seven years . Mr. Myers stated that certainly not at this time does he feel that the state will accelerate its plan. 10 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30 , 1990 Mr. Davis stated that we did not ask for a five year traffic study. We asked the planner to bring us the facts on the traffic study. There was further discussion. Mr. Sweet moved that we leave the context like it is, (other than Mr. Myers making it stronger that we got to have what is already underway) , and that we should in fact, urge the state to improve all interchanges as well as Towne Road across on the north side because it impacts us regardless of the sketches . We leave in context as the thoroughfare plan as stated, that we delete the freeway reference on the map, that we only put a note there (it is already a four lane highway) to "see text . " When somebody picks this map up and looks , they see a four lane highway there and know it is there now. We should continue to consider, in a long range planning effort, how the serious problem in the entire community based around how to keep US 31 continue to be solved and these are alternatives that are under discussion. Mr. Potasnik states that we add page 118 dealing with Plan 1 it is reflected into George motion dealt with on 125 , add 1 and la esdl and include it as one plan . include north and south roadways between Spring Mill and US 31 as currently shown on the 1985 I°P OFW.6 f 11 FER /i CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30 , 1990 • , Comprehensive Plan into one . Mr. Sweet moved that you delete the term freeway from the map and you put a notation "see text" , that you delete the paragraph on page 125 in its entirety and substitute a statement that John or staff can frame that all of these alternatives deserve further study and that none should be ruled out and that we express right here that we charge the next statutory required Comprehensive Plan to attempt to refine these alternatives on an ongoing basis . To get away from the fact that we are jeopardizing what he thinks is the major improvement that this community needs . [..... Mr. Will Wright seconded Approved 9-1 . Mr. George Sweet moved that page 127 remain the same as it reads right now. Mr. Will Wright seconded. Approved 10-0 Mr. George Sweet moved that we delete the statement the note "freeway" on the legend of the map and indicate "see text" . LM.._ McMullen seconded. Approved 10-1 . 12 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30 , 1990 Mr. George Sweet moved that Mr. Myers and staff take whatever ft steps they see appropriate to emphasize that the state do everything possible to upgrade all interchanges on our southern boundary, particular emphasis on 31 and 465 . Mr. Alan Potasnik seconded. Mr. Sweet withdrew the above motion . Seconded. Mr. George Sweet moved that the text be changed to emphasize that all steps be taken immediately to implement any improvements to the intersection at US 31 and 465 . Mr. Potasnik. Approved 10-0 . 40 1 Mr. George Sweet moved that the paragraph at the bottom of page 125 be deleted in its entirety and that staff and John come up with a paragraph that indicates that all of the alternatives above should be under continuing investigation by a Comprehensive Plan Study Group and that nothing in the Planning Process during the next 5 years should be done to jeopardize any of these being done and related text throughout the remainder of the chapter. LM . Potasnik seconded. Approved 10-0 . 13 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30, 1990 Mr. George Sweet moved that the paragraph at the bottom of page 125 be deleted in its entirety and that a statement being made that all three alternatives are being studied and should be continually investigated during the 5 year planning scenario and that nothing be done in the planning process in the next 5 years to foreclose any of those options . Mr. George Sweet moved that we express that a formalized Comprehensive Plan process be an ongoing thing and that in fact the proper legislative parts of the local government insure that funding for such an ongoing plan and the backup data that staff LMneeds be provided. r. Will Wright seconded. Mr. George Sweet moved that this existing committee form the basis of that committee and start meeting, take a three month break and meet on a quarterly basis . Mr. Wright seconded. Approved 10-1 . Mr. Sweet moved that on page 127 that no changes be made . Mr. Wright seconded. 14 CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE MINUTES -AUGUST 30, 1990 Mr. Will Wright recommended that with the changes that were made tonight that we forward this report on to the Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation by concensus of the entire group . (000.101.5. Mr. George Sweet seconded. Approved 9-1 . Jim Dillon against . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 08 P.M. 15