Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp. Plan Update Minutes 7/18/89 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE MINUTES - JULY 18, 1989 The committee meeting was brought to order by Sue McMullen, Vice President at 7 : 37 P .M. at the Carmel City Meeting Hall . Committee members present were : Lindley Myers , Greg Binders , Alan Potasnik, George Sweet, Bob Boone, Will Wright, and Jim Dillon . Staff members present were : Wes Bucher, David Cunningham, Terry Jones , Brad Buenig and Dorthy Neisler. Everyone on the committee received packets previous to this meeting. Mr.John Myers, Ms . Joanne Green and Mr. Brian Pieplow of HNTB made the presentations . Ms . Green stated that HNTB is right on schedule to meet the summer deadline . The next meeting is scheduled for August 8 , 1989 at 7 : 30 P.M. HNTB has meet with the consultants for the Hamilton County Comprehensive Plan and will continue to coordinate our efforts as we see them relevant . We will continue to coordinate our efforts with Recreation Master Plan that is presently underway. Mr. Wes Bucher stated we have a questionnaire prepared (approximately a 20 question survey) and hope to be completed within the next two weeks . Ms . Joanne Green stated that the statistics for the unbuilt lots available in the township were incorrect . AHM Graves will be the source for the specific statistics . There were 3 scenarios displayed and were left with the Department of Community Development for anyone to review. Mr. John Myers stated that we will be having a meeting in the close future that will be discussing traffic only. Work flow diagrams were distributed to all committee members . Mr. Myers stated that there inventory count is now complete . The Indiana Department of Highways have finished their counts and should be available within the month. The over capacity of traffic that we have found is on U. S . 31 and Keystone . We have come up with a plan of action on this . The traffic counts we would like to do would be manual intersection counts that record turning movements and through movements at 15 minute intervals . We would like to do that over a three hour period in the morning and a three hour period in the afternoon. If we use the 24 hour counts and find the intersection is under capacity by a significant amount there is very little need to refine that data. Our recommendation is at this time use what we have and that we monitor this need as we go and if we need additional data, as indicated by the analysis , then we get it . Background traffic growth is that growth in area traffic that occurs because of conditions outside of Carmel and Clay Township. We know this can be a significant factor in Hamilton County. We will use 3 primary sources for that, the first is background traffic rate that is ordinarily used by the Indiana Department of HIghways and they have a program that they use that takes into account the county population growth anticipated by the Indiana School of Business and also employment growth that is anticipated. That goes into their formula and they develop a growth rate that they use for their projects . This would apply north of 146th Street . We will use this as one source for background traffic growth rate . A second source would be to look at townships directly and take a look at what the IU School of Business is forecasting for growth in those and make a comparison of the growth rate that we would receive from that . The third source is to try to identify the major generators that are just outside the study area. The Simon Retail Mall would be an example of that . The background traffic growth is one part of the four castings scenario. One of the items in the mailing was a pair of maps, one of them shows non-residential development has been approved and has not been built at this time . The trip generation from those developments won ' t be reflected in current traffic counts . We call this the program network or the committed network and within 4 to 6 weeks we expect to tell you what the conditions will be and when those are built out . Finally the future scenarios for development of a plan, Task 8 in the work program is the development of a future land use scenario for testing with the transportation network and this will be the final element for forecasting traffic for this study. That was the major topic is to talk about the gross scenario which may occur in Carmel in the future and what different patterns might occur and we feel this will probably take two meetings to come to a resolution to what this scenario might look like . Once that scenario is developed and will in fact superimpose the additional traffic that would be generated from that onto to the committed traffic network to see what additional needs over and above those for the committed network that would be necessary for the transportation plan . . Mr. Greg Binder questioned what capacity is on a road? Mr.Myers stated that they are referring to intersection capacities . We look only at peak hours, that is the demand we have to meet and capacity is measured in terms of hourly capacity. We look at intersections because, because it is really the intersections that determine the capacity of the roadway network, it is not the main line between the intersections , it is those friction points particularly where main road cross . Current methods for calculating these measures are based on a fairly simple premise that there are only so many vehicles that can cross the center of an intersection during an hour. So it has to do with the number of lanes , but it is just a matter of identifying the critical movements as a signal goes through its phases . Adding those up over a hour period, if they get over a certain thresholds then that intersection is operating above its capacity. In the 1985 manual of the Institute Transportation Engineers on highway capacity Page 3 identifies three different categories : under capacity, near capacity or over capacity. Mr. Jim Dillon commended HNTB on the packet of information that was sent out . He questioned the fact that they did not mention Springmill Road. Mr. Myers stated that we do have information on these roads, they will be getting counts on these roads . Mr. Will Wright questioned how much does it cost to run a traffic study? Mr. Myers stated for a full days count is $350 . 00 in one place for 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon . Mr. Brian Pieplow stated to sum up what we have heard so far, the development of the future land use as we all know is an evolutionary process . It starts with the analysis that was presented at the last meeting looking at existing land uses in the community, what is going on now and what is being programmed to be built . Looking at the existing zoning map prepared by City staff and one comment was made that we should classify the areas that are zoned as S-i as low density residential because in fact you can build up to three dwelling units per acre if there is sewer service . To look at existing zoning in its impacts of what could happen in the future, we have refined this exhibit to reflect that and you will see that now low density residential area land accounts for about 71% of the township at this time . Another thing we looked at are the factors influencing future development in the township, city area. The first set was a series of environmental considerations , and Mr. Pieplow explained and discussed the illustration . Another issue brought up at the last meeting was the utility service considerations . The plan concept scenario ' s were broken into three displays : A=Central, B=Neighborhoods Villages and C=Corridor Linkages were displayed and discussed. These scenarios are not absolute in and of themselves . What we have tried to do is represent a primary idea with each one . A fifteen break was taken and the scenarios were viewed and then returned for discussion. Mr.Greg Binder questioned if there is a danger if we compromise and put all these together to much that we lose what we are trying to achieve? Mr. Pieplow stated that we need to keep a clear vision of what we want to Carmel to be like in the future as it builds out as we are developing. We can take a little from each one and they can work together. It depends on what your community priorities are and what the interest is of this community. Mr. George Sweet questioned what is the time horizon for this plan? Page 4 Mr. Pieplow stated for the actual Comprehensive Plan Update exhibit it would be an ultimate build out much like the 1985 Plan . At some point in time when Carmel has no undeveloped land left this is what we want the community to look like . This is a picture of what we want it to be 10-20 years from now. Mr.Jim Dillon commented that a presentation of what happens at a given period should be at least considered as some form of color bar graph, or a pie chart that simply encompasses the given geographical area and say that this is a piece of the pie that we envision as being commercial and this piece envisioned as higher intensity, and low density. To avoid the predetermination of what that particular landowner may or may not do with that piece of property so that we don ' t supercede the function of the Planning Commission . Is there any interest in trying to present it in a little different way then the stereotype way that we have done in the past? Mr. Pieplow stated that this should be addressed to the Steering Committee and the Plan Commission Representatives as well . We have tried to developed a framework and illustrates a vision or an overall guideline for development that in case of the 1985 Plan, that everything West of Springmill Road is developed in a lower density residential type pattern . The actual legal mechanisms are of course are the zoning plans , the Plan Commission review process and subdivision process . Whereas the plan is more of a guiding tool or a guiding light . Mr. Wright questioned approximately what percentage would they suggest given across the country that we designate to particular residents and not prescribe particularly where that should be? Mr. Pieplow stated that you could take the land use as Carmel has today because we tend to be resistent to change and if we kept the same type of development that we have today and we were to define that in terms of percentages based on land use that is consumed up until now. We would 'assume that we would carry out that same percentage over time in the unfinished areas that might be a logical way of presenting it and not necessarily dictating that is the way it happens . That would be a reasonable and supportive and defendable position to take . That is the reason we are here to determine what we want different from this 1985 Plan, what do we want as the 1989 Updated Comprehensive Land Use and Circulation Plan? The question was asked for Mr. Pieplow to speak of the pluses and minuses as to philosophy and also have some expression to you as to the viability and the enthusiasm or trauma or depending on the point of view on implementing those scenarios in a community. Mr. Pieplow stated it is not very prescriptive as a plan but it does indicate some things that may be disturbing or certainly very different from the 1985 plan . That is exactly why we have a diagram that is radically different in that area, to start Page 5 generating some of that feed back. That is the idea of a neighborhood village type scenario is attractive and is attractive for the West side area, what is going to be the best manifestation of that? Is it in diagram form, will you have a retail neighborhood serving center on the intersection of two major North, South, East, West Road with community servicing activity centers or churches, etc. That is what this diagram is showing. A primary difference in all of these plans , I think they are more at word then the 1985 Plan and they are more dispersed. Alternative A it focuses the higher density around the center core of the city and lower density around the perimeter. Pluses on this plan it could be very strong as far as an identity for Carmel, a very identifiable center city area as this community develops , there would be very strong ties to the neighborhoods , the other neighborhoods using these major roadways , such as 116th, 131st, Meridian and Keystone . Another feature would be a very strong identity road, representing some type of parkway or linear park type roadway. It would act as a transition area between the higher density residential areas and the low residential areas out in the hinter lands . It could also serve an important around the city circulation function and an important recreational function as well if that is how it were manifested. On Alternative B this is the more diagrammatic of all of them, it is more conceptual it talks about a neighborhood retail center surrounded by a higher density housing, surrounded by a more moderate density and then transition into a lower density housing. This model is more commonly seen in a southern, southwestern city, such as Plano, Texas . In Plano,on every mile road is a six lane boulevard and one of their major problems was there is no identity for the community because everyone of these had a retail shopping center on every corner at every one mile boulevard. One of the recommendations that came out on the Comprehensive Plan was to instead focus your larger neighborhood, larger grocery stores , etc . at the intersections of very important East West, North South roadways . And at the intersection of a major North South roadway and a more minor East West roadway be more of a gateway into a neighborhood allowing for more identity signage . At the one mile intersection where there were retail centers and were not as highly trafficked as they were not on the major roadways . There retail corners were pretty much already in place . On there retail corners they had a band of higher density housing, towne housing or apartments that acted as a buffer between that and more dense suburban development and then lower intensity and in fact their roadway networks are even radial around those one mile intersection points . In terms of the Alternative C this is more of a garden city type scene . The natural features in the community play a lot more important part in organizing land use and how the community is developed. They also by connecting the roadways in a similar treated landscaped, it creates a different feeling and identity for Carmel then what we perhaps have today or it insures in these areas that are more rural now as they develop we still keep some of the things that make Carmel Carmel throughout the community and that everybody can participate in that . These residents can get on a bike trail and Page 6 come on down to the White River or a general recreational facility or can come visit other neighbors in the eastern or western communities . Mr. Dillon stated that I think the public feels that to much of both planning and zoning in cities today seems to serve as a point by which arbitration starts . it does not offer adequate protection to the homeowner. it does appear to me that arbitration is a viable entity in this community. In the last Comprehensive Plan there were 9 transition areas mentioned. That has created some of the greatest amount of discussion that has taken plan . I would think that if we could not be nonspecific and try to be more specific and please don ' t use the mixed use . That is a major step backward. I would think that the public feels different then Mr. Wright does about making this a big or generalized concept . I think that they would rather have things spelled out in a little bit more detail . I also think that they are not entirely intellectual deficient that a well thought out plan will have some benefit . As I look at the three scenarios, Alternative A, I am not sure I want to put another interstate as 465 around Carmel, there are some features on A that are worthy of being implemented, Alternative C, I feel that an improvement of the North South roadways, the kind of defining along the lines of what the west may be and what may occur along 31 . I would point out to you that you are trespassing on some the commercial development within the corridor on the northern part of most of your maps that may have to be rethought . There is a specific piece of property that I think is still up for grabs one way or the other. Alternative B, I would agree with Mr. Wright that if you build those red and blue circles those would be considered fire bases by which artillery would be directed at downtown Carmel, I do not think would be wise . I do believe that concept may be good in a community that is not as far along as our community is as far as its development as our community is . Alternative C, I think has many nice features , there is one major weakness , I think in Plan A and Plan C that needs to be addressed. You feel your density is going to be more central to Carmel all the area to the east is going to be heavily effected by our neighbors to the east that our outside of this township . I think it is naive to think that will be left at a lower density. I feel there are many features about all of these plans , but would probably dismiss Alternative B, that could be viable entities . Mr. Boone echoed Jim Dillon ' s remarks . I feel it is necessary to get down to a line drawing. I feel flood plains are not displayed on the maps properly. Mr. Pieplow stated that some of the environmental considerations will play a heavy roll in the what the ultimate land use plan looks like, more so than they did in the 1985 Plan . Mr. Greg Binder stated that he supported the position of needing a map. I feel it is real important that we have a specific direction where things are going to go . I feel consistency is a real key. I feel the A and C are more consistent to what we Page 7 already have . Mr. Sweet stated that he agreed with Mr. Dillon ' s comments . Mr. Sweet stated that perhaps outside the idea of this steering committee and outside the comprehensive plan that he would like to charge some of this community to look at the practicality of making the City of Carmel that entire map . His question to Joanne is that something that this group looks at . We look at the ultimate build out of this community we are in fact transition between Marion County, the City of Indianapolis , and rural central Indiana. We will be a grouping of 50 to 100, 000 people and why wouldn ' t it be reasonable to recommend a study by the various political groups to look into the feasibility of a metropolitan government for Clay Township. Mr. Pieplow responded stating that it is very appropriate as a policy recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan . One of the things that we will be looking at the end of this process are changes to the policies that are additions or amendments to the policies that are currently in the Comprehensive Plan document . If that is a feeling that is felt by the steering committee that would facilitate the achievement of this plan, it would be appropriate as a policy to recommend that kind of study to be undertaken . There was further discussion regarding the feasibility of a metropolitan government for Clay Township . Ms . McMullen stated that August 1, 1989 would be a good time for further discussion on these Alternative Plans , following the subcommittee meetings at about 8 : 30 P .M. . There will also be a meeting on August 8th and also on August 22 , 1989 . A gentleman from the public stated that the density range of 2-2 1/2 units per acre and that density is not even addressed within these color codes . He would like to see a finer classification of residential density. Mr. Wes Bucher, Department of Community Development stated that there a number of things occurring that indicate some trends towards this , we are seeing a lot more activity here on 421 corridor. He stated that on 96th Street, the completion of the bridge will be a lot heavier commercial traffic, all along 96th and all the way over to I69 . We are getting some sibilance of more decentralized commercial area or commercial areas that are not quite as well represented on these maps as may be what will occur. Mr. Greg Binder stated his concern if that is what we want Carmel to be in 20 years . What do you want Carmel to be perceived as? He feels decentralization is a real concern . Mr. Lindley Meyers requested clarification of the purpose of these alternatives are . To him they represent some reasonable representation of how growth is going to occur. We need to better 'Page 8 define a little bit better when we think this will occur. These alternatives need to represent how it will occur. We need to be very specific in what we mean, when we say transitional zone and also need to emphasize the fact that it is not a definite thing. We may not want these decentralized areas , but how do you explain that we are going to stop that . Ms . Green stated that it all boils down to the limiting factor. It is going to happen, how are you going to limit it . That is why this particular scenario was developed. Mr. Pieplow stated what we are trying to do is come up with a reasonable plan, that both reasonably reflects what is actually going on out there, that is why we spent the time looking at the existing land use and the existing zoning. Looking at the utility services to see what kind of impact that is going to have on development and looking at the flood plain and other environmental factors . Mr. Pieplow feels that a good goal for this committee would be have a plan that projects the community values of Carmel, what do we want Carmel to be like, but is balanced and realistic against some areas where things are happening. It interweaves those two objectives together, that would be the most successful plan and most useful . Mrs . Sue Dillon stated that reading through the state statutes there is something about the Comprehensive Plan and its purpose and that it is a guide to zoning. Mrs . Dillon also stated that Boulder, Colorado updates their comprehensive plan twice a year and do all the rezones at that time . If you need to take more a shorter term approach, rather than a futuristic approach, she doesn ' t feel there is anyway to predict the future . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 38 P .M.