Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarmel Plan Commission Public Hearing Transcript re: Comp. Plan Update - Date unknown CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 1 THIS IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DOCKET NO. 1-91 CP. 2i. Commission to consider Docket No. 1-91 CP, an amendment to Ordinance D-454, entitled the Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Carmel/Clay Township, 1985, effective September 30, 1985 . The amendment for review is presently captioned as the "Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Carmel/Clay Township, 1990 . " Filed by William E. Wendling, Jr. , Attorney for the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission. The public hearing was opened at 8: 32 P.M. JOANNE GREEN Good evening, members of the public, City of Carmel and the Carmel Plan Commission. We are here after two years of discussions and planning efforts to present to you tonight the amendment to the Carmel Comprehensive Update. My name is Joanne Green, I am Project Manager, with HNTB. With me tonight is John Myers, who is Project Engineer for this the thoroughfare plan and circulation analysis portion of the amendment. In 1989 we were contracted by the City of Carmel to prepare this amendment to the update. I would like to review briefly with you the process that was involved in that for the new members of the Plan Commission. We spent the first few months determining what this update needed to be. After considerable discussion and meetings with the Steering Committee and the public and ourselves it was determined that the update an analysis two specific areas for review. And, those two areas were overall land use for the township and transportation and circulation. These were based on priorities that were established, goals that were established and objectives for those goals and it focused on issues that were current and potentially anticipated between 1990 and 1995 assuming current build out for land use. The particular areas of analysis also included the undeveloped land, that area of land that is presently zoned S-1 and the transition areas as was indicated earlier. One of the crucial steps to this process was a phone survey, a random telephone survey that was prepared that yet further helped us to develop what the community wanted. The community was able to offer this input into this process initially. We were able to pull from that very helpful information for direction in terms of this amendment. I would like to show you a few slides that were prepared to present the process that was used, the finished land use plan and then I will ask John Myers to present the completed thoroughfare plan. One of the first things that we prepared was an existing land use to look at all the existing land use allocations . These were illustrated by using aerial photography in which we generalized 1 CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 2 and came up with some of our own land use divisions and categories . This was one of the first steps that we did to look at the current and existing situation. This was an aerial study that was done from a very current aerial . The diagrams you see below which will be included as part of the finished document illustrate the division of the specific land uses involved. We also analyzed existing zoning in terms of the categories that we established. This is the graphic that illustrated that, which was very helpful in our analysis of the current conditions . Some of the physical factors that influenced the present proposed land use plan; we studied the open space, the green areas and the waterways and the drainage ways as they currently exist as a part of our environmental . We also prepared a study looking at the utilities service considerations for proposed utility service areas and existing. After we took all this information and brought it all together the planning team actually prepared three different conceptual scenarios in terms of an overall general land use direction that could be taken. This was one alternative that we created and it was referred to as the central focus, this scenario very simply looked at the central core of Carmel developing from the central portion of the community out maintaining more dense type of uses toward the center and obviously less dense uses out towards the preface. The red illustrates some of the high density industrial areas , the lavender heavy commercial, the orange higher density residential and light density illustrated by the light orange and then the pale yellow being very low density residential . We also proposed in this scenario a green belt that could be a parkway that would surround the community. Another scenario that we looked at was the neighborhood villages scenario. This dealt with the density in the non-residential uses focused in satellite village clusters looking at potential development, residential development and the need for light commercial to medium commercial areas that would serve those particular residential areas basically maintaining the Meridian Street Corridor in the first scheme as very commercial as it is now and the scheme maintains basically the downtown as it is now. Focusing the small developmental clusters that would incorporate not only commercial but public types of uses in these areas that are illustrated by the blue dots that you see in the plan. Finally the third, was the corridor linkage scenario and that was actually looking at connecting the proposed and existing uses through a green belt and greenway system for easy access all over the community. Basically looked at building upon a land use that presently exists and working from that existing land use. At the point, then got the Steering Committee involved and we had a work session with the Steering Committee to allow them the chance to bring their markers out and get the paper down and start coloring and looking at their own ideas in terms of how these things could develop. That combined with the our process for analyzing and the first three scenarios that we came up with we developed a final land use plan which basically 41 CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 3 is illustrated by this plan here. I would like to review that. This is a combination circulation thoroughfare plan and I will have John Myers explain that a little further. But basically our finished land use plan responds directly to elements that were brought about from each one of the scenarios that we thought were most dual. It basically maintains the regional commercial office being heavily included along US 31 keeping some of the local commercial offices along Keystone. It looks at establishing areas designated for greenways and open space recreation areas that are illustrated in all of the green areas but yet it has a very realistic approach in terms of these village center type approaches to development. Knowing that these residential areas will have to be serviced and respond to the residential development and will have to be incorporated into the plan. These commercial nodes are designated by the red star (didn't pick up sound) . You will not see any transition areas on this particular plan, it was felt by the Steering Committee that that has been a source of problem in the past and we have recommended and the Steering Committee recommended the use of the graduated type of buffering system graduated zoning and land use that would actually identify specific uses as buffer areas that would coincide and be proper adjacent to some of the residential areas, but that use actually identified as the buffer area as opposed to a gray area that was illustrated in the past plan. The next step was once we developed a land use plan we used that as a basis for traffic circulation and forecasting and at this point I would like to ask John Myers to come forward and address that and present his portion of the study. JOHN MYERS Thank you, Sue. It is certainly a pleasure to be here to present this plan to the Plan Commission. A genuine sincere pleasure to be here, after all this time it certainly been interesting the changes we have seen occur in just the last two years . I 'll make reference to a few of those because they do have an effect on traffic as I go. I did distribute a handout which is a detailed flow chart of the activities of the traffic study. Many of you have seen this several times previous . This was distributed early in the study through the first several meetings we used it to track our progress as we moved through. In fact, the traffic studies from beginning to end followed this outline pretty closely. In the end we did pretty much what we expected to at the beginning and we believe that you do have a good thoroughfare plan as a result. The scope of our study for the thoroughfare plan was defined at the time we began as being somewhat limited as Joanne said, land use and thoroughfares . Given the limited resources that were available for this study it was thought that these were the areas CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 4 that needed concentration. The thoroughfare plan is expressed in terms of a functional classification of major roadways and the functional classification then infers standards and the final comprehensive plan document, as the Mayor said earlier, does have standards that correlate with the functional classification. In that regard, it is important in terms of the function of the Plan Commission as you review proposed developments and otherwise carry on your tasks that you have a recognition of what future right-of-way needs are, future pavements needs and etc. is inferred by the functional classifications from the plan and the standards that go along with those. Our other charge was to identify the number of lanes within these functional classifications . Our intent is to provide a long term prospective with respect to thoroughfares generally in the 20 year range. It was not our intent and we are not project specific in terms of these recommendations . In fact, new roadways are shown in a general way, that is it is not our intent to show a specific alignment for a new roadway. The alignment of a roadway is dependent on specific land use in that vicinity and we did not do specific location studies for the new roadways . Therefore, where we showed dash lines or roadways on new alignments these will require further study to identify specifically where they should go. I 'm going to make a very brief overview of the process and try to focus on the results . I hope that any interest or any questions that you may have about the process can be brought out in questions that you might have. The most important thing that I would like to emphasize in terms of process is that this thoroughfare plan is developed based on specific relationships between land use and travel . I think that the last thing Joanne said was that based on the land use plan that has been developed a thoroughfare plan was also developed. I think that this is a very important point, the recommendations that we have made are not based on good planning principals, they are not based on what would seem to be good spacing according to some book. Our recommendations are based on specific land use generating the traffic from those and taking a look at what future needs will be to serve those specific land uses . Another words if the land use changes then the traffic recommendations could change as well . We used three scenarios to develop our plan, an existing scenario where we just simply took a look at the existing conditions . A program scenario which we used to identify minimum needs and the program scenario represents an existing plus a development that has been approved by the Plan Commission as of March, 1989 . Sort of like telling your age that gives a little indication of how long we have been going on with this study. The important point is that the program scenario representing minimum needs is based on actual developments, that have actually been approved, even though they have not yet been built. So it is not a population forecast that come from IU or anything like that, these are CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 5 actual developments. Then we also took a look at build out as a third scenario. I don't know if you were paying close attention, when Joanne showed the slide of existing land use, there were some large blue areas on either side of the township, these are areas that are undeveloped right now or agricultural . You will notice that the land use plan doesn't retain any of these areas . The land use plan just as the last land use plan indicates a build out throughout the entire township. Those blue areas become essentially either yellow or low density residential or kind of an orange color for medium density. We took a look at this build out in terms of the full township and also including a build out of what were the lavender areas were the commercial areas . We also use this as a guide for developing this thoroughfare plan. Again, our target is a 20 year target build out which certainly occur over longer than a 20 year period, maybe as long as 40 or 50 years or maybe some areas may never actually built out. I will get into how we use the build out scenario in a minute. Again, to emphasize the relationship between land use and travel, for the program scenario we looked at various sketch plans to identify a general framework for developing future needs and this was based primarily on the needs of the regional highways which are essentially US 31 and Keystone Avenue. From that then we move forward to look at the build out scenario and we use this for the regional roadways for US 31 and Keystone in kind of guarded fashion. We generated the trips from either zones for residential developments from specific developments where these were known in the program scenario or from using various rates for future commercial developments . We distributed these trips on the network using a distribution formula that has actually been used in the past for the Indianapolis Travel Simulation model and then we assign these to the network, actually put them on the streets from one point to another, based on the shortest path for travel . We found some pretty large numbers on U.S. 31 and Keystone, we scratched our head a little bit and realized that the level of our analysis is not really suitable for the kind of results that we were seeing on the regional roadways and we were able to identify why. Using the trip distribution formulas from Indianapolis model which is really based on historic patterns primarily we were reflecting very heavy trips from Carmel to Indianapolis . Over an extended period of time as Clay Township builds out and is in fact developed throughout the township and growth occurs north and other areas outside the township, then the travel patterns that exist now are likely to be different. In fact, if we use those old relationships we are likely to get unreliable answers . Also these regional needs such as on U.S. 31 and Keystone are dependent on what the State of Indiana does and what other jurisdictions do throughout the area. The build out scenario was very useful in the residential areas in the lower density areas in the township. For instance, if there is a corner of the township that might be developed as a subdivision within the next 20 years it may CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 6 represent a small portion of the overall area. But, in that localized area, in fact it is a build out and it is important for you as a Plan Commission and the planners that work with the City to recognize what the ultimate need might be to serve a build out even in that small area. Another words, say in western Clay Township when the first subdivision goes in, if Towne Road needs to be four lanes in the future and it needs a fairly wide to right-of-way it is important to know at that time. We did use the build out process and looked at that more heavily for the local roadways . Basically our preliminary thoroughfare plan is an extension of the program scenario, that identified the minimum needs based on program developments and what that had already been approved. Then we modified that added to it based on what we learned from looking at the build out scenario. On the exhibits that we have on both sides and hopefully by facing one toward the audience and one toward the commission that most of you can see one or the other. We have shown a functional classification of the roadways . We also have a second exhibit that shows a recommended 20 year improvement plan and there is a fairly large disclaimer on the 20 years plan that says various things . One is that actual improvements should not be initiated until the need is actually shown by traffic volumes and developments . It is interesting that we had that because when we started this plan two years ago we were in the midst, here in Carmel, of a pretty active history, particularly along U.S . 31 . Now (away from the mike) two years later, because of the economy the way it is, that growth is much less than what it was at that time. Our reference to market conditions turned out to be right on track. I guess I will say now that keep in mind as we go through this that we are looking at a 20 year period. Sometimes it is sort of difficult to look ahead that far and imagine how things are going to be rather than the way they are now. Over the next twenty years it would probably not be a very good assumption that the economy is going to go ahead the way it has in the last half of 1990 . The planned document itself reviews the thoroughfare plan in terms of three different sections recognizing the different characteristics of the area and that is in terms of a Western Section, Central Section and Eastern Section. I would like to review our results of recommendations in that way. The Western Section is low density now, it is anticipated to be low density in the future, this is essentially what was in the last plan and it is the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee that this pattern be carried into the future. This is roughly for the purpose of estimating the traffic, we used a rate of one unit per acre and this is a gross figure so it accounts for streets and roadways and other public uses . Based on one unit per acre through most of that area we find that it will be served well by two lane roadways . We did find a need for some arterial and collectors, these are roughly two to three miles spacing and these roadways were 116th Street, 146th Street and Towne Road. Other than that the area can be served by two CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 7 lane roadways . A few other items worth mentioning in the Western Section, one is Michigan Road, Michigan Road is at the very corner and it is unique for this part of the township, it just barely gets into the city area at all . We have identified a need there for a minimum of four lanes, but recognize that given future growth in Boone County that, in fact, the need might be greater and we see this as an issue for Endot in the future. Second item that doesn't actually show up on here, but influenced our recommendation in Western Clay Township is an interchange at Towne Road and I465 . About a year ago there was a study release by Endot that gave a favorable recommendation to this as an additional interchange in Marion County. We see this as being advantageous to Clay Township having an additional access point and so we have assumed that in our plan and again we are recommending four lanes on Towne Road as an extension of Township Line Road. We so no urgency for any of the recommended changes in Western Clay Township and the right-of-way should be set aside now, but the improvements themselves should move forward as the need exhibits itself. Central Clay Township is the most developed part of the township, certainly has the largest concentration of commercial areas . We found some interesting things on U.S. 31, between 1981 and 1989 in the extensive growth that I mentioned earlier, there was a 80% growth in traffic on U.S. 31. During that time, within the Meridian Corridor there was about two and one half million square feet of commercial space built. I don't know if two and one half million square feet means very much to you, the Bank One Tower in downtown Indianapolis, is about a million square feet. If it helps you can think of it as 2 and one half bank towers between 1981 and 1989 . We didn't do a market analysis and don't claim to have specific knowledge on that, but it may be unlikely that kind of development boom in that period of time would happen in the future. It had some interesting effects on U.S. 31, when Indot counted traffic on U.S. 31 in 1989 they found that, in fact, in the morning peak there is now more traffic north bound toward Carmel then there is south bound toward Indianapolis . That is not true in the evening peak, in the evening peak it is still the same direction it always has been it is mainly coming from Indianapolis towards Carmel. It was certainly interesting to find that in the morning, that there is more traffic coming toward Carmel then going away from it on U.S . 31 . The morning peak is characterized by home work trips , the afternoon peak is a mixture of home to work trips, shopping trips, and other purposes . We see this morning pattern as being a specific indication of the increase of employment along U.S. 31 . As of March of 1989 there had been an additional 3 .2 million square feet of commercial development approved within the U.S. 31 Corridor. Based on the traffic that is generated from that plus based on the collector relationship if you will at 31 to the surrounding area and the residential areas as they go to and from Indianapolis, we found a significant increase in traffic on CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 8 U.S . 31 will occur in the program scenario. This is not a build out this is based on a proved development to a volume of approximately 54 thousand vehicles . It is in the range of 50 thousand vehicles per day. There is no arterial roadway in Indianapolis that carries 50 thousand vehicles a day. As far as we can tell right now the highest arterial roadway volume in Indianapolis is on Allisonville Road, the short section, just north of 465 between there and 86th Street, that is in the range of 44-45 thousand vehicles per day. Keystone Avenue near 71st Street carries in the range of 35 thousand vehicles on six lanes, 38th Street carries between 30-40 thousand. Up over 50 thousand we find this fairly clearly warranting a freeway type of improvement. Unless there is a major parallel roadway built elsewhere and we did look at those options and discuss those with the Steering Committee. it was our recommendation that the community would be best served and that impact and cost would be minimized by making the improvements where the major demand and that is on U. S. 31 . For those of you that may not understand exactly what I mean when I say a freeway, we would be eliminating traffic signals and building interchanges so that turns would be made off of the main line and in fact, it would be like the interstates around Marion County. We did not specifically say where the interchanges should go and certainly this is a topic that warrants additional study. We have identified the need for a freeway there and not specifically what that would be. We did investigate it enough to satisfy ourselves of its feasibility. I think I am being a little bit long here. The other major roadways Keystone Avenue, it is a little bit different than 31, it is influenced by the residential areas throughout eastern Clay Township and also central Clay Township. It still very much shows the historic pattern of very heavy inbound towards Indianapolis from Carmel in the morning and then back in the evening. It is still very much a roadway that is used for home to work trips and those work trips are going south rather than north as they are on U.S. 31 . I don't have the rates right here but the growth on Keystone Avenue were much lower, the growth rate was much lower since the last update in comparison to U.S . 31 . So it is a very gradual growth on Keystone, it occurs as each house is built, kind of in a trickle fashion and we would anticipate that that pattern will increase in the future. We have identified a need for additional lanes on Keystone Avenue based on the program development and that it should be widened from four lane to six lane (change in tape) . That scenario that six lanes are likely to be needed as far north as 131st Street. The other major improvement that we have recommended is a collector system along U.S . 31. This was in the old plan, it is a series of collector roadways that are closely parallel , these are shown as dash lines on the plan. These are four lane roadways that are used as a collection and distribution system for traffic on U.S . 31, from 31 to the office buildings . The specific location of these roadways and how they might connect with the CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 9 future freeway are also subjects of a future study. Other recommendations in Central Clay Township have to do with four lane existing arterial and again, to emphasize that this should be done when the need exhibits itself with actual traffic volumes . We have seen a need that either widen College or Rangeline to four lanes ultimately and also in east west direction 146th Street and 116th Street. There are a few other new sections and these are distinguished as Guilford and 126th Street. I just received a note from Joanne mentions parkways and I am going to go ahead and talk about eastern Clay Township then come back and talk about the new classification that didn't exist in the last plan related to the three different areas . In eastern Clay Township it is shown as predominantly medium density residential for the purpose of generating traffic we used a rate of 2 units per acre. The characteristics of eastern Clay Township are that the whole area essentially acts as a puddle that feeds Keystone Avenue and this is due to location of White River and a few bridge crossings . Traffic tends to move south and west until it gets to Keystone then moves onto Indianapolis . What we found here was with the medium density of residential and given the spacing of roadways that two lane roadways are not enough generally to serve this area. The roadways are about a mile apart and if we look at the map we see that it is different than central Clay Township where the roadway spacing is closer and eastern Clay Township the opportunity to have half mile roadway spacing is either blocked by subdivisions that exist now, lakes, golf courses and other areas that have been built out. Based on that and the medium density residential we find a need for four lanes on 116th, 106th, 126th and 146th. We find a need for four lanes for most of the east west roadways in eastern Clay Township. In fact, we see an ultimate need for 96th Street to be six lanes and this is based on the east west travel pattern I am referring to, it is also based on the commercial development, the red area that was shown on the land use map. We see that red area as being an extension of Castleton. In fact, after 96th is extend across the new bridge across the river that the regional commercial of Castleton is likely to expand along 96th Street creating a need for six lanes . A question that we have had many times is what effect would the improvements on 96th Street have on other east west roadways. The answer to that is in the short term we think it will be a relief. It would certainly help east west traffic flow. Ultimately, when that commercial development occurs, if it occurs in accordance with the land use plan, that relief is going to become less and less as that development occurs . So ultimately we still see a need for the four lane roadways. We are showing a realignment of the intersection along of Hazeldell actually an extension of Hazeldell and then aligning with River Road near 116th Street. It is sort of interesting that we have shown a dash line in a few various places as we have gone along and again this should be based on specific engineering CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 10 studies . We have settled on an alignment that is the same as the last plan, because we did not want to infer that we had studied anything further on the alignment. In fact, that is not the case, this is a reflection of demand and not a reflection of specific quarter location studies . North south we recommend the widening of Gray Road from 116th Street south to four lanes and Hazeldell as I mentioned. In terms of parkways, parkways are a new designation that were suggested during this and approved by the Steering Committee. Parkways have a wider right-of-way, they are generally arterial roadways that have a wider right-of-way to allow a median and landscaping treatment . We have two parkways shown in the functional classifications , a primary parkway which has a right- of-way of 150 ' and a secondary parkway which has a right-of-way of 120 ' . The primary parkway would allow for wider median, more landscaping and also future expansion to six lanes if needed. The parkways are identified with dotted lines, they are 116th Street, 146th, Towne Road, Gray Road at least as far north as 116th and Hazeldell from 116th to 146th. I hasten to add that we also have a caveat in the report, it is our recommendation that in fact, in built up areas you don't automatically try to create 150 ' of right-of-way. It should be again based on specific route studies, environmental studies and specifically I am saying, that it wouldn't make sense to go out and get 150 ' of right-of-way on a roadway like 116th Street in eastern Clay Township, when it would take homes and have the kind of severe impact that that would have. I think it was the intent of the Steering Committee that in open areas where right-of-way could be aside and this could be done with minimal impact that it should be done. Brad, I am then going to ask you to expose the second exhibit. I think it helps me when I look at a thoroughfare plan to see what is actually recommended over the next 20 years . This is our recommendation for the next 20 years, it is based primarily on the program scenario. It includes widening of 116th, it includes widening of Keystone, improvements on 31 at least a part of the parallel collector roadway system as needs are demonstrated, depending on actual development; Towne Road, 146th Street, 126th Street, I think it is pretty well self-explanatory. We also have three circles shown on there as areas that we recommend more additional study. One of these is at Range Line Road or Westfield Boulevard and 96th Street, because it seems clear that it would be desirable to have 96th Street be a through street instead of the kind of funny sort of situation that is there now. That requires some pretty detailed engineering studies to look at line and grades and that sort of think. Also, at Smokey Row and 31, that strange intersection complex that was created when 31 was relocated and also 146th Street and 31 . As a final comment we also recommended a report that CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 11 transportation demand management actions would be useful for Carmel, especially in the 31 corridor. Specifically we mentioned ride sharing, car pools and van pools, staggered work hours, flex time, improved transit service, non-vehicle modes of travel, including bicycles and walking and employees services in the immediate area that would reduce the need for travel, such as day care, bank machines, retail, etc. . We have also made the recommendation and discussed this informal with some of the operators of businesses in that area to be consideration given to the traffic management association. I know that there has been a lot of cooperation from the developers along 31 in the past implementing transportation improvements . I think that they could be very effective in terms of transportation to man management as well, especially the staggered work hours and flex time. If you can avoid the peaking characteristics then you can get more from your roadway network. We don't think that this is going to solve your problems, but every little bit that can be done in this would help. That is all I have on thoroughfares and just be more than pleased to answer any questions that you might have. JEFF DAVIS Why you take a seat and take a break and we will see what we can do here. That was a very nice presentation, we appreciate it. I am going to handle it this way. I am going to ask for people who would like to speak in favor of this, people who have questions of it and people who are in opposition to this Comprehensive Plan. That is the order we will take it in, if you are in opposition you will come last but you will have an opportunity. We don't necessarily have a petitioner here tonight, if there are questions we will try to keep track of the questions . The Steering Committee and the HNTB will try to help answer the questions . This is a combined project, we all have a partnership in this . So, is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this Comprehensive Plan as they understand it this evening? Would anyone like to ask questions of this? JUDY HAGAN For the record I am Judy Hagan, my address is 10946 Springmill Lane. First of all I want to thank the Plan Commissioners and the Task Force Members who work so hard on this plan. This has been a long two year process . I would also like to thank the staff and HNTB, they have provided a lot of very useful information for all of us . I am sure that it will make the job easier in the future. I have three concerns I want to address tonight. The first one is, in reviewing the goals, objectives and policies in Chapter 7 I see that no changes were made in that section. And, I also want to recall that in 1988 an amendment was passed to this section, called the Springmill Road Amendment, CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 12 and, I realize that this has not been incorporated into the text. That was passed by the Plan Commission, it was shortly thereafter passed unanimously by City Council and I feel it should be included in the text . Can you assure me that it will be? JEFF DAVIS I think we can, but we will answer all the questions just like a normal public hearing so we can keep track of the questions . Do you have any other questions? JUDY HAGAN I have two more questions . In Chapter 6 on Problems and Opportunities, this follows from the Springmill Road Amendment work and on page 67, for those of you who have your text, the very last paragraph at the end of the page talks about the policy question that was introduced by what kind of commercial development should be encouraged west of the corridor? There is not very much new language in that section, but in the italics at the end, in light of the consensus that has formed, I think that new language is exceedingly weak. I would just like to recommend that entire paragraph be struck from the new plan if possible, because I think we have resolved the issue. ALAN POTASNIK Could you just repeat that, because when you started I was trying to JUDY HAGAN Page 67, it is the last paragraph, it starts with a policy question is introduced. The new language is in italics and I think that all of you that have served on the update would agree that probably that language in italics is a little weak, considering the processes that we have been through for the last two years . It just seems to me that it would be easier to strike that. We have resolved this problem, let's remove it and move on. My third comment that I wanted to make is about the new LCO's or Light Commercial Office. I want to commend HNTB for suggesting that. I think that that will be a very useful category and may resolve some of the touchy areas that we have. I do have a concern as to the zoning categories that are listed in that and one category goes to 45 ' . I am wondering if that isn't a little high for the intent. Page 100 begins the discussion about the LCO's . That is an entirely new section in this plan. On page 101, the second paragraph the kinds of things that are being talked about as potential LCO designations are small scale personal service stores, cleaners, local serving commercial, which I think is really excellent. But, back in the front in CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 13 another place when we are categorizing we sort of put 45 ' high buildings in there too. I think we may be back to the same old arguments if that stands . So I am sure this will go on to review as we update the zoning ordinances, but could we keep that in mind. This is an excellent split between the regional serving office and the local serving commercial. Thank you very much. JEFF DAVIS Thank you! Anyone else who has a question. LEE WEBB My name is Lee Webb, 10442 Connaught Dr. , in Carmel . I have got a couple of comments just sitting here listening to the plan and layout and I don't have any written preparation. I mainly want to address two things, one is the density and I would hope that as we have been continually harping on that we would continue to keep the density of development down and that the Plan Commission would not approve request for smaller lot sizes in the most of the areas of Carmel that are now low density, and keep them the same size that they are, one acre. I would also like to see incorporated these traffic plans that have been mentioned here and get these streets widened out before the development happens . Particularly set aside the right-of-way as developments go in, otherwise it makes it much harder and much more expensive and a lot more fight down the line. Definitely 31 needs to be increased to the freeway status with a collector road, 116th although many people don't want it, if I lived on it I wouldn't want it, but in all practical view 116th Street has got to be widened to take the traffic that it carries now. As well as 96th on the east end and Township and 146th Street. I would hope that those would be planned for in the near future rather than 20 years from now, instead of waiting till the traffic gets to be gridlocked before you can't even build on them. Thank you. JOHN KASSELBAUM My name is John Kasselbaum, I live at 2503 Pleasant Way West, in the southern part of the township. I have spoken before the Plan Commission in previous years on a particular docket in behalf of 450 residents in the area bounded by Keystone, Range Line Rd. ,96th Street and 99th Street. I have a question specifically related to the land use plan that was projected here on the screen previously. Specifically the area in the vicinity of Keystone and 96th Street that was shown in a red color, wondering if that was intended to identify the specific zoning as it exists today in that vicinity. As it appears to have been presented by an artist brush of a marker, I think it technically encompasses my house and some others in that area. The question is was that marking on that map intended to cover the zoning as it exists CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 14 now? JEFF DAVIS I could tell you with out going any further that does not reflect the zoning as it exists now. I can explain to you a little and I will not interrupt this presentation. I 'll explain to you later the reasoning behind that. JOHN KASSELBAUM I would assume the reason behind that provides some flexibility about the planning in those areas . JEFF DAVIS When we get to it we will review these things and I think we can explain why we have provided that. It is not intended to say that you have been rezoned with a brush mark. JOHN KASSELBAUM I guess my concern is that we are showing medium density residential as being capable of putting right next to an industrial kind of atmosphere. JEFF DAVIS Anyone else here that has questions? RICK MCKINNEY My name is Rick McKinney, I live at 50 Wilson Dr. Carmel, and I have a couple simple questions . Mr. Myers could you repeat after I am done what you said about Guilford and 126th Street, I thought you said something about widening that. The second one, also, did you say that the plans recommendation was not to build roads until needed? Third, also, you mentioned that it was rare that there was an intersection or strip of land that had 50, 000 cars and I was wondering what the classification, if you know, 82nd Street between Allisonville and like Shadeland. I have seen on the Indianapolis Metro that it is close to 100, 000 cars a day. Another point, and this is really simple, how many copies of the Comprehensive Plan are available for the public at the Library and the Department of Community Development? What is the cost to obtain a private copy, and why wasn't the entire plan revised instead of just a couple of sections? Thank you! JEFF DAVIS Anyone else have any questions? Would anyone like to speak in CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 15 opposition of this plan? JIM DILLON My name is Jim Dillon. I reside at 507 Cornwall Ct. , Carmel, IN. I served on the Comprehensive Plan Update Advisory Committee representing the public . As president of a coalition of homeowners in Clay West, I represent approximately 6 , 000 residents residing west of Meridian Street in Clay Township. There are many ways that this Comprehensive Plan Update document is an improvement over the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. It has provided us with current traffic data and a traffic plan. It has updated several areas of obsolete information. It has provided an improved land use map. However, one change in the proposed Plan is of great concern to the residents in the western part of the township. That change is to be found on page 99 of the Plan where a proposed density of 1.5 units per gross acre is recommended in the S-1 zones west of Spring Mill Road. The 1985 Plan recommends 1 acre lots in Clay West. We are requesting that a gross density of development of 1 unit per acre be adopted in this update document. To help guide this update of the Comprehensive Plan, the services of American Marketmetrics were used to conduct an impartial, random sampling survey of residents from all over Carmel/Clay. Unfortunately, some of those results seem to have been ignored in the drafting this update. I would like to exhibit three of the graphs prepared by American Marketmetrics to remind this Commission what the citizens of Carmel/Clay want to see happening in their community. 1) One question asked of the people, was, "What doe you see as the greatest issue facing Carmel and Clay Township in our area's growth over the next 5 years? ' These results are shown in this first graph entitled "ISSUES OVER THE NEXT 5 YEARS" . The single issue of most concern was overdevelopment, followed closely by traffic/roads and next by green space. 2) Another question was intended to determine the level of concern on various planning and zoning issues, with density being one of the issues . The results are shown in this next graph. 89% of the people expressed concern about density of development, with 32% being very concerned and 23% being most concerned. I would like to remind you that these are not 89% of the people living in Clay West but are 89% of all of the people who will be affected by this plan. 3) To help determine what kind of density people want, the next question asked, "If a new housing project was approved near CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 16 your home, would you prefer it to be on lots which are smaller, larger, or about the same size as yours? " The responses, as shown on this graph indicate, that 87% of the people want lots the same size or larger. 9% didn't care and only 4% wanted smaller. What does this tell us? It says that there is great concern about overdevelopment . There is great concern about the current and additional traffic that overdevelopment will generate. It tells us that 87% of the people want densities no greater than what we already have in our area. Until recent years, the western portion of the township has been used for agricultural purposes with a few small homesteads interspersed throughout. As subdivisions were developed, low densities became the custom because of the required one acre or more of space to accommodate septic systems . Therefore, the trend for open space has been established in Clay West. People could have bought homes elsewhere on smaller lots, but the fact is that they want open space. Why do some people need open space? Open space provides privacy. It provides outdoor opportunities that don't exist in more densely developed areas, such as opportunities to enjoy nature, to garden, to accommodate horses and other animals . What open space really provides is a way of life that is very important to a lot of people. The proposed density of 1 . 5 units per acre in the S-1 zone is not going to preserve open space! Some people are quick to say that the desire to maintain a low density of development in Clay West is an elitist move. THIS IS NOT TRUE ! Councilman Lonzo testified last spring after driving around in the western portion of the township, that he had found all price levels of houses in Clay West beginning with very affordable smaller houses and including larger homes . This is exactly the same as you will find within the Carmel city limits . There has been a tendency in recent subdivisions both inside and outside the Carmel city limits to build larger homes . The main difference being that the homes inside Carmel are being built on smaller lots . We firmly believe that there should be a place to meet everyone's needs . We certainly commend the establishment of the new park board and look forward to the preservation of public open space through a parks system, however, the reality of public open space benefiting Clay West is a dream for the far future. In Clay West there are approximately 6,000 people who want open space preserved and low density of development is the only way to assure this . Development in Clay West has been half as dense as the proposed 1 . 5 units per acre. According to data provided by the Department CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 17 of Community Development, since 1975, 27 sections of subdivisions have been developed in S-1 in Clay West on septic systems with the average density of development being . 600 units per acre. Ten sections of subdivisions have been developed in S-1 on sanitary sewers with an average density of .724 unites per acre. These are the current existing densities in subdivisions and these figures don't even take into consideration the many homes that exist outside of subdivisions on small acreage. Please listen to the people of Carmel/Clay who will be affected by this Comprehensive Plan. We are concerned with overdevelopment. 89% of us are concerned about the density of development. 87% of us want lot sizes that are the same or larger than what already exists in our area. 1.5 unites per acre in the S-1 zone in Clay West in reality doubles the existing densities that have been developed in Clay West subdivisions and doubles the density called for in the Comprehensive Plan. I am asking that, on page 99 of the Comprehensive Plan Update in reference to the area west of Spring Mill Road, you substitute language to read, "In areas of the community where this plan designation falls on land zoned "S-1" , it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Update that development density should average no more than 1 unit per gross acre. " Thank you. JEFF DAVIS Any other people? ELLEN WATSON Good evening panel members and I thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ellen Watson and I live at 13513 Towne Road in Clay West. I represent my husband and my family of four children, as well as the neighbors who reside on the east and west side of Towne Road between 131st and 141st Street. My husband and I and children moved to Carmel fourteen years ago looking for a rural home that we felt would be suited to our four children, dog, cat and our love of vegetable gardening adequate enough to supply us through the winter and out of our pursuit of outdoor activities both lavorious and recreational. We were very fortunate we found a preexisting home on a five acre lot. It was in a community of people who lived on similar size lots and shared many of our interests . Over the years as the children were raised and I had more time to pay attention, it has come to my attention that my particular life style is not guaranteed or protected by a zoning ordinance in Clay Township. As the denser subdivisions have continued to creep to within a little over a mile of our location of my home we have begun to feel threatened by the owned, but as yet undeveloped large amounts of farm land. There is directly north and east large amounts of farm land undeveloped, about a half a mile south are large lands undeveloped and directly west CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 18 of our home are additional parcels . I have come here today to appeal to you to help us preserve our chosen rural living. I now draw your attention to the map I have passed out to you, I have highlighted my particular five acre lot in orange. And, when we moved there, there were only three five acre lots with houses on them. In the fourteen years I 've been there an additional twelve houses have developed on five or more acre lots . Homes with 40 acres across the street farms most of it but has three houses on 5 acre lots . South of Thoman has just recently started development, the two houses south of Dye on Towne Road east side have developed, the two 5 acre lots on 136th Street east of me have developed, the twenty acres across on the north side of 136th Street 20 acre lot has just developed and Donald and Linda on the 40 acres north at 141st Street has 3 houses on that lot. The land east of my home is residential for approximately the two miles to Spring Mill and it has been consistently developed on multi-level acre lots with some farming intermittently. I realize that many people do not choose a multi-acre residential place as I do, but, I have come here today to ask you to consider zoning more consistent with the existing development that you see on this map. It is very clear that western Clay Township has developed for the most part with acreage or with subdivisions that average less than 1 unit per acre. It seems much more consistent with the existing development to recommend a developmental density for the future of just 1 unit per gross acre. I ask for your support for the 1 unit per gross acre in keeping with the existing and current development of the area. I am most appreciative of your time and the efforts you put in towards this . JEFF DAVIS Thank you. GREG BINDER My name is Greg Binder, I live at 11861 Hoster Rd. . I am the mirror side of Jim Dillon although I don't have a presentation as eloquent as his . I to served on Comp Plan Update Advisory Committee and I represented Clay East as well as I could. I am President of Northwood Hills Civic Association and so you will know exactly where I reside, I am the yellow square on the graphs that are not up anymore, but the piece of ground is S-1 remaining on the east side of town. I am here in the adverse section of this remonstrant but I guess I am more of the middle type ground. We spent two years on this plan and I really think that it was a long arguouis process and at any time when you have a committee put together with a variety of interest you are going to have a plan that does not necessarily suit everybody's needs . I echo the concerns for the S-1, I am not so much adamant about the concerns of S-1 because of the rural nature of our neighborhood, CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 19 but more adamant because of the method in which the S-1 and S-2 classifications were arrived at. The 1.5 and 1 . 8 for S-2 recommended houses per acre, I got into the Comprehensive Plan about two years ago obviously but a little bit before that when the S-1 controversy came up in this township and at that time we were promised that the S-i issue would be dealt with in the Comprehensive Plan Update. I was left with the impression that I guess during the Comprehensive Plan Update we would study and analysis and look at the neighboring communities and try to come up with a consensus as to what our most restrictive or least dense housing category should be. Unfortunately, that never really occurred and the S-1 and the S-2 were kind of just thrown out from the Steering Committee based on what would be marketable way to develop the land and not based on what the community needs, the community wants or what surrounding communities would consider their least dense development. At this point, that is my primary area of concern. I personally would like to see that we don't do anything with S-1 and S-2 in this Comp Plan Update and that we do an additional survey or an additional task force smaller in size than the one we had, but a little bit deeper into the scope of who we ask the questions to and try to come up with a well founded method of determining what S-1 and S-2 are least dense housing classification should be. The other area of concern I have was not so much a concern that I would want to change but I think it is an area of concern that the Planning Commission should understand as your looking at this plan and looking at every housing subdivision, platting and rezone process that comes through here. All the four lane highways that are being recommended or highways, roadways, parkways , I think the parkways are an excellent addition. I guess I overall support approvement of this plan for no other reason, than the fact that we are all now aware that the handle, the traffic needs of this community we are going to have to have a four lane 116th, a four lane 106th, a four lane 96th, a four lane 146th, we are going to have to have a bridge on 96th Street, we are going to have to have a bridge on 146th Street across the river. Sometimes we get a little miotic in looking at one little section of town and this little section of the area but the overall ballgame right now there is, what I would consider a sever traffic problem. We have professional traffic planners who spent two years looking at our traffic needs and have come up with basic recommendations that says we have got to have four lanes on all our major thoroughfares . That to me is not the ideal situation that the community wants to see and I think it is clear that we need those roads according to the traffic studies so therefore, we can't close our eyes and say it is not going to happen. I think we should be very conscious that when we develop or over develop or approve rezones that every time we increase density we increase that problem not decrease it. I already think it is a problem that we have to have all those four lane roads proposed, a freeway on 31, 6 lanes on Keystone those are realities . Those CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 20 are proposed building which have already been approved and is in the process . That is not somebody's dream which is on a piece of paper right now and hasn't even gotten here and for that reason I think it is important that we recognize that and do approve the traffic scenario so we can set aside land now before the houses are built and so we can realize what additional density will do to this community. Once again, my S-1 concern is the S-1 concern that it was developed in accordance with a real method of determining of what should be the right zoning. We just kind of took it and said the market place can't afford to build any more than that anyway, so we will leave it at that. I thank you for your time and I did appreciate being a part of the process, although I must admit sometimes it was long and drawn out and I really respect anyone that sits up there on this board for the amount of time you put in. Thank you. JEFF DAVIS Thank you, Greg. Anyone else like to speak. CINDY GASPER Hi, I am Cindy Gasper, I live on 6 Points Road, I need to bring up my----. Except I would like to share my thoughts concerning what the new plan is going to allow in actuality it is really a caveat that has come up. In the new plan, in essence, it turns Carmels S-1 low density housing, low density area zones into reality into a high density zone by any other communities standards . I feel this goes against the intent of the original plan, which was to offer in Carmel an area with low density housing over on the S-1 zones . The major issue with the new Comprehensive Plan its, the sewers are available, this is where the caveat plays into this . If sewers are available the recommendation of one acre lot size which is set aside for that the recommendation the one acre lot size which he based all his information on basically get pushed aside and it allows for up to almost 75% more of a housing because it goes to 15---let me go over to my graph -- One acre is 43,560 square feet, that is what the largest lot size zoned is for Zionsville and Indianapolis . County is very close to that with 40, 000, Boone County has in this survey the largest of 130, 680 square feet . Where as in Carmel you get sewers in your S-1 zone this caveat allows this to go down to 15, 000 square feet. That is 75% reduction from the one acre that was the intent. That to me is a very large concern because - you guys can't see this very well -- What happens is not only our supposed large lots, S-1 largest lot zone of 15, 000 square feet, this in actuality are largest becomes one of the smallest for the second largest or the medium zoned area. So we have this caveat that has occurred because of the sewers . Did I make myself clear on that? We intend to have the acre lot but when you allow sewers to come in we have that CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 21 ordinance that only allows 15,000 square feet and so that really makes Carmel instead of having meeting the standards of the area communities and with what people want over on the S-1 zoning and what the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, we lose it and even become smaller than the medium zoned. I think that is something that needs to be addressed. Please keep it in mind that the intent of one acre large lots ---- , I would really appreciate if a new classification could be built. If you go back to the plans, this area, I drove this today with my little boy, we went from Spring Mill Road down 136th, back 131st, up Ditch to 141st Street it is basically a two miles between Spring Mill and Towne Road and down Ditch at 6 Points, those are the only two north south and Towne. There are only 98 homes total in that whole area. I lived there nine and one half years and we have had twelve new homes come in that area. There were 98 houses . I went by people that I know and I know my community. There has been 13 houses sold, new families moving in, in the last 9 1/2 years in existing housing that's been there and there has been 21 new homes built to make the total of 98 . So the significance of this is that this area out here or your S-1 's is a stable community, it doesn't turn over very fast, as a matter of fact there are only three houses for sale of all the 98 . There are three houses that I didn't include that are just being built. I only counted complete, lived in family houses . So you are talking about a stable community, you don't have high turn over, it's people that pay the taxes, as a matter of fact, because of the sewers going in for the new school, and I 'm not complaining about it, but we have to pay $2500 an acre. Most of these people, that Owen had mentioned , we got 20 acres, 5 acres, $2500 times 5 acres is a lot, that is what I 've got less than 5 acres, is a lot of money to me. I don't have any of these large houses, I think we paid less than $125,000 for our house. We have just got a house and 5 acres, that not a state house, it's just a house. I like my house. The significance of this, please don't loose that, what the sewers end up doing with this group of people is we get just tremendously small standards set. I don't think that is truly their intent for the Comprehensive Plan. And, please, I don't think that is your intent. Let's keep it at least S-i being an acre per unit or better yet come up with a possibly new classification like 2 acres or something like that for certain areas . I appreciate your time, I do appreciate all the effort and work you all put into this because this meeting always last longer than you expect. Thanks for your time. JOHN KASSELBAUM John Kasselbaum again, 2503 Pleasant Way West. This is an opportunity to speak in opposition to the plan and depending on the answers to some questions that I had earlier I would have either spoken or not. I would like to express some concerns since the questions were not able to be answered earlier. Not • CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 22 having answered the questions, as I understand the Comprehensive Plan combined with the land use map, it does allow medium density residential to be adjacent to regional commercial office kinds of facilities . The concern of me and 450 plus residents that I speak in behalf of in the 96th and Keystone area, our concern is the what we think of as the creeping auto dealer cancers that are happening down in that area. Currently we have an auto agency, which I think was a mistake with it adjacent to a residential area, and I don't know if it is S-1 or S-2, I 'm not familiar with that. There have been petitions in the past to put another auto agency right next to that and move further even into it. As I read the Comprehensive Plan as proposed that would allow that to happen and as I said before the brush to the artist, the brush and the very vague boundaries showing of what I think as a heavy commercial application adjacent to a medium density residential . I don't think is appropriate. In other words, something more appropriate as a transition, particularly in an area where there is consideration given to. In this case, be given to rezoning should be some transition made there between what is now an established residential area and what we guess would interpret that auto agency kind of an approach to be a regional commercial office kind of zone. The description in the post Comprehensive Plan did not identify where that fell within the zoning. I appreciate all the efforts that went into this proposed plan, I know there is a lot of work into it, looking at it from the convenience to the Plan Commission it provides more flexibility as it is written in administering a zoning or rezoning. On the other side it provides more flexibility to commercial development and when it starts to impact our particular area course we get concerned. As I stated before I would speak in behalf of these people to say that the thrust and approach the Comprehensive Plan is positive, except for these finer points here that do not provide a reasonable transition from an established residential area to a commercial development. Thank you. MARY BETH FLEMING Good evening, my name is Mary Beth Fleming, and I live at 1277 West Smokey Row Road. For the most part I feel that the Comprehensive Plan which in my text, I will be referring to as the Master Plan, is good and we are happy with it, but I do have these concerns. On March 20, 1990 at a public hearing residence of Clay West presented a petition to the Planning Commission. This petition was signed by 140 residence of Clay West. Of those asked to sign that petition only two refused. These petitioners live between Spring Mill and Shelborne Road and between 131st from the south and 146th on the north. The petition requested that the undeveloped land zoned S-1 remaining in Clay West be zoned in 1 acre or greater lots . These 140 signatures have been ignored. In the revised Master Plan that is up for adoption CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 23 tonight, the area of S-1 undeveloped land in Clay West shows not even one tract of land has been set aside for 1 acre minimum zoning. The committee which revised Carmel's Master Plan has not only totally ignored these 140 petitioners, but has also ignored the results of their very own survey conducted by American Marketmetrics in August of 89 . This survey as you have already been shown tonight conclusively indicates that 87% of Carmel/Clay citizens requested that future building development be done on lot sizes, either the same size or greater than the ones they currently live on. Someone has paid American Marketmetrics to conduct a survey concerning the publics feelings and then has ignored those very results . On March the 20th, 1990, on June the 4th, 1990 and again tonight, I would like to impress upon you the Planning Commission before you vote to adopt this revised Master Plan that the residence from Spring Mill to West Road and 131st on the south and to 146th on the north have living needs which are different than those in S-1 subdivisions . Many of us, if not all of us, have chosen Clay West because we require space, for whatever personal reasons . At a sacrifice to our own pocketbooks we bought multiple acre tracts of land, led by real estate agents who stated that land in Clay West would be developed on 5 acre lots or more. And, that was based on current subdivision codes . And, led by the 1985 Master Plan which stated that Clay West would be 1 acre minimum lots . We understood Clay West was the space that the Carmel City Planners planned to protect, so we retreated from subdivisions in other parts of Carmel, because we were subdivision misfits . We wanted orchards, we wanted horses, we wanted several dogs, we wanted skeet shoots, we wanted go-cart tracks to name just a few interest that smaller lots do not allow. Several residents park a couple of tractors or tri-axel trucks in plain view, these things are considered offensive eye sorers to homeowners in subdivisions . For these reasons we have politely excused ourselves from subdivision life and we have retreated west like the American Indians to the outer most corner of our community. And now, like the American Indians our local government is deaf to our pleas for space. Allowing a zoning category of 1.5 houses per acre called S-1, to surround us on all sides . Are Carmel's governing bodies inviting us to leave, to move west again to Zionsville where the zoning allows 3 acres minimum lots and open spaces protected. All surrounding towns have S-1 categories with a lower density than Carmel's . If this Master Plan is passed with S-1 zoning, allowing 1 . 5 houses per acre, we will be multiple acre tracts of land surrounded by ten times our current density. If the Planning Commission will please tour the geographical area I have outlined they will clearly see the homes are on 1 acre or more tracts of land. We are not just a bunch of houses haphazardly plunked down, we are where we are by design, a design to suit our lifestyle. There is already a development trend in our area which will not be enhanced by S-1 . We ask that the Planning Commission examine data on nationally famous model communities, to enable them to CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 24 see that a well planned and balanced community allows everyone the space that they need, be it great or be it small . We respectfully request for a third time the density of S-1 be reduced. We also request for new zoning categories, allowing for 1 acre, 3 acre and 5 acre minimum zoning and that these new zoning categories appear in Clay West. Thank you very much. KATHY BENJAMIN Good evening Mr. Davis, Mr. Myers . I am here this evening not as a candidate and not as Kathy Benjamin, but as a representative of the 116th Street Task Force. Katherine Benjamin, 11214 Moss Drive, Carmel . What you see represented in this volume is 116th Street Task Force information. It has been derived since October 1, 1990 with the help of Mr. Myers of HNTB and U.S. Engineering and other engineering firms around the area and has not to do so much with the density, although I certainly do empathize with the people here this evening, but has to do more with the thoroughfare plan. Without going into long dissertation with respect to that and not knowing what was given to the new people on this board. And, by the way I am sorry but one of those first meetings that you come to has to be this long, staff is already out in the hall, so I know how you must feel . At any rate, not knowing what staff gave you in your packets for the new people, not knowing whether the people from the Steering Committee gave all of you as Plan Commission of the whole, there was a letter written December 17 by Mr. John Myers who is the able Chairman of the 116th Street Task Force. If you have that letter in your packet stop me now and I will not go any further. If you don't them or you are not familiar with that letter, I do have a copy of it, I won't read it to you but I will certainly make it available to you. Would you like a copy of that? JEFF DAVIS I don't think any of the new members do, I think all the old members have the letter. KATHERINE BENJAMIN: If the new members don't have, I 'll be happy to ask John to get you one or Mr. Terry Jones can you get you one. I 'll be happy to get it to you myself. But, we the 116th Street Task Force are most concerned that you do please remember, that as we are doing 116th unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it, it has taken us into a number of different areas . Not the least of which is Hazeldell and River Road south and Gray Road south and so on as you have heard this evening. So we will be happy to get to you that letter and any other information you might like from the committee. Thank you so much. CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 25 JEFF DAVIS Thank you. Anyone else like to speak tonight? PATTY APPLESON: My name is Patty Appleson and I reside 11813 Somerset Way East, Carmel. I am the President of the PTO at Woodbrook Elementary, located on 116th Street. We feel it is very important to express our Parent Teacher Organizations continued interest to you the Planning Committee. Your decisions will effect everyone in Carmel/Clay. Petitions have been circulated supporting three lanes, 1233 signatures were obtained with signatures of residence as far north as 146th Street. The petition read as follows: I quote, "We the undersigned members of the Woodbrook PTO concerned parents, neighbors and Carmel residence are against any plans or proposals that focus on widening 116th Street east of Keystone Avenue to four or five lanes of traffic. Instead, we recommend that 116th Street be two lanes, one east bound, one west bound separated by a grassy treed boulevard. The center boulevard would accommodate left turn lanes for east and west bound traffic to turn onto all residential streets . As part of this project the City of Carmel should install and maintain concrete sidewalks parallel to the street on both the north and the south sides of 116th Street. The current speed limit of 30 should be retained. " We want to promote a smooth traffic flow for the cars on 116th Street. We do not want to create a four lane situation that would attract trucks and even more non-residential traffic through our neighborhood. Recently, when the bridge over White Water was closed due to high water, east west commuter traffic found alternate routes and it made a positive impact on 116th Street at that time. Traffic was at a minimum during this period. If these commuter passenger vehicles found alternate routes under the circumstances think of the relief that possibly 96th Street could bring. A four lane highway could not alleviate our turning problems . Do we want our children in school buses traveling on a four lane highway? It is not fair to subject our children to that. With the anticipation of the completion of 96th Street we could relief from our current traffic problem. Even earlier it was stated that 96th Street could give relief to our problem and then he prefaced it if the growth pattern continues it would not be the final solution to the problem. The little or the big word however you want to look at it is "if" we don't know what the growth pattern is going to be with the economy and different things that are happening and then we are basing some of these things decisions on facts that we really don't know about yet. There are certain things that cannot be measured in statistics and here I think is where you as a panel and the voting party need to separate yourselves . Issues that you won't find on an engineers report. We want to preserve two main reasons why we did settle in Carmel; #1 - to be a part of • CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 26 its conscious citizenship, one that takes an active part in the betterment of Carmel; #2 - to be a part of this wonderful residential community that values the high priority given to its families, not commuter traffic . Widening 116th Street could cause us to loose much more than a few minutes of travel time, think about it. When voting for recommendations for the fate of 116th Street, please make sure your vote will reflect the best possible solution for this residential area. It is a residential area and let's keep it that way for many years to come. Tonight, it has been mentioned that it is hard to imagine what it will be like in Carmel twenty years from now. If you all look at a modified solution to 116th Street it will not be hard to visualize what it will be like 20 years down the road. If 116th Street goes to four lane, it will be hard to visualize what our lovely Carmel community may become along that strip. We appreciate the time that each of you have given to this very important issue. Thank you for considering the modified safe, yet effective change of three lanes for 116th Street. JEFF DAVIS Thank you. WALTER PAVELICH: My name is Walter Pavelich, I live at 1429 Springmill Circle in Carmel . I am a resident of Spring Mill Crossing and live on property bordering 136th Street on the north side. Tonight I want to speak against the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the DePauw property. The DePauw property is south of 136th Street, north of 131st Street, east of Spring Mill Road and west of U.S. 31 . Almost a year ago, I spoke before this Plan Commission on behalf of over 1000 people in Spring Mill Crossing concerning a Radnor Corporation proposed development of the DePauw property. At that time several points were made concerning the development. Among these points was the square footage and subsequent land area use for the commercial development and the resulting invariable traffic situations that would result. Commercial development of this property must be kept within the 600 foot corridor. As demonstrated at that meeting in February of last year over 400 people were present to oppose such expansive commercial development. I see no realization this opposition in the Comprehensive Plan and I ask that you incorporate the Spring Mill Road Amendment into the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your time. RANDY SCHULTZ : Hi, my name is Randy Schultz I live at 3796 Shelborne Ct. . I would like to welcome the new members here tonight. Two years ago at the beginning of this Comprehensive Plan they ask for CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 27 audience participation. At that time I got involved, I attended most of the meetings, some of them I spoke at and others I just listened at. Over the two years, we have redrawn the boundary lines of different color areas several areas, made several new plans, we have gone back and forth on the traffic . But, the one thing we never did get resolved was the size of the density for S-1 and S-2 . Now in that two year time period, we filled the audience with people who spoke against having high density lots and preferred to have low density lots . We had petitions signed, we did a telephone survey that included the whole city area, not just the people on the west side of town. And it still came back that people preferred to have the lower density lots . I guess I am a little surprised that it is still in the Comprehensive Plan that people still prefer to have the same density that it is zoned at now, and not to be changed to a higher density. Thank you. JEFF DAVIS: Thank you. TOM KENDALL: Good evening, my name is Tom Kendall I reside at 11818 Gray Rd. . I 've just been taking a few notes this evening and would like to share some thoughts with you. First of all I would to certainly congratulate and thank all those people who worked hard for the two years to get the Comprehensive Plan Update to where it is today. I know it is a lot of hard work. I can appreciate what they do. I think just because two years were spent in preparation and probably a lot of money spent on it as well, doesn't necessarily mean that it is right. I know, I do these things every day. I work real hard in putting proposals and things together and I give them to my boss and he says you worked hard but it still is not the way I want it, go back and do it over again. So, I would suggest don't necessarily vote in favor of it because a lot of people have worked hard. I don't think out of all the people that who were standing up here this evening any are saying throw the whole thing out. There seem to be just a few issues that did need to be addressed and tweaked a change and I think perhaps an excellent Comprehensive Plan will result. Some of the things that I wanted to touch on myself of course was the 116th Street issue. Some of you may know that is the issue I got involved in over a year ago and I have been opposed to widening 116th Street beyond the three lanes . When I look at the plans that were shown this evening with the dotted line across 116th Street indicating that it was a primary park way with a designation that could theoretically give it a 150 ' right-of-way. Comparing that to what it is today, I try and imagine what a 150 ' of right-of-way through a residential area might look like. For those of you that are familiar with it if you could imagine for a CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 28 moment in the area of Haverstick Road and 116th Street,there is an old house that has been there for, I believe over 100 years that is currently about 1 lanes distance from 116th Street. 116th Street, I don't know the exact width of it but I doubt that is a whole lot more than 45 or 50 feet at the most at that point. Widening it to 150 ' right-of-way would certainly be very difficult and probably destroy a home like that . I try to imagine what 150 ' of right-of-way would look like in front of our elementary school and I would think that it would bring it so close to the front door of our school where my children go to school . It has been a constant concern for me and as you can see for the viewers of a number of other people here this evening. Hopefully when considering the Update you might want to consider a revision for 116th Street to give it some sort of designation to where it is no more than a three lane width, with a center turn lane down the middle it should be able to handle a sufficient amount of traffic . The traffic problems I know because I travel it every day. Come from the fact that a lot of people stop and turn left and people back up behind them. If we can get the left hand turners out of the flow of traffic into their own turn lanes, the traffic should be able to flow better. Especially with the improvements of certain intersections, like Gray Road intersection which is planned and even though it is outside our boundaries other areas such as Eller Road where there seems to be a lot of traffic congestion. Focus on those areas where it will keep the traffic moving. I think we can probably accomplish that without a five lane option. The four lane traffic, I was trying to note here, I recall at a meeting we had at Woodbrook Elementary School, I believe the current traffic count on 116th in that area is about 13, 000 cars a day. We ask the question approximately what would the traffic be if it were four lanes and the answer was that it would probably double, bring it to about 26, 000 cars . According to the numbers that I received from the Indiana State Department of Highways current traffic count on Keystone Avenue at 116th Street is about 27 , 000 cars a day. So another words the traffic on a four lane 116th Street in front of our elementary school would be approximately what traffic is like on Keystone Avenue today. And again, I would hate to a Keystone Avenue running east and west through our residential area in front of our elementary school . The area of density it certainly has come up a couple of times tonight and I wonder if somewhat of a solution perhaps wouldn't be changing the terminology from gross density to net density. The Comprehensive Plan Update is calling for about a 1 .5 homes per acre in gross density. If that were in net density and we took 2 acres of land and subtracted the 20% for infrastructure, that would leave about 1 . 6 acres to put 2 houses on. Essentially back to a gross that is about 1 house per acre and if for some reason someone felt good about the 1 . 5 or the 1 . 6 I think we change the terminology from gross to net might solve that problem and houses would still be 1 house per acre. I think it is especially important in light CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 29 of the talk and the new study committee that is being formed to consider the possibility of a unified government between the City of Carmel and Clay Township. As it has been pointed out a number of times tonight once an area has sewers the 15,000 sq. ft. rule applies per S-1 density and if we could wave a magic wand, I don't know whether the decision would be right or wrong at this point I certainly haven't studied it enough to look at a unit government issue, but if it became unit government overnight it seems the people on the west side would be entitled to streets that were up to City standards and would be up to having City sewers . If those sewers had to be put in not to mention the cost of putting in the streets and sewers it would then make any new development fall within the 15, 000 sq. ft. designation. And again, if that gross density, from what we saw on the map tonight, that would be almost three houses to gross acre of land. I think that is what the people are trying to tell you, they don't want to see. I hope that you will coordinate the planning of the Comprehensive Plan with possibilities of other things such as unigov whether it happens a year from now or twenty years from now. The fact that it is being considered is a possibility, should also be a consideration in your decision as to how that will effect the density in the west side. Finally, I would like to close from the sheer numbers of people that we have seen, no one wanted to speak in favor of the plan and again I don't think anyone is speaking totally against it. But, there are a few issues that they are against, please listen to the people. The people of the community, the people that spoke tonight, some represent 10 or 20 people others several hundred people and I think that is a very good representation of the community in general saying that there are certain things in this plan that they would like to see changed and hopefully in a public hearing tonight your the people that will be listening to the people in the community and be able to make those changes and come up with the ideal Comprehensive Plan Update. Thank you. JEFF DAVIS: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this time? JOHN PITTMAN: Mr. Davis, members of the Plan Commission I am John Pittman, I live at 201 W. 106th St. , Indianapolis, Indiana. Although it is a little pocket I still live in Carmel. All my kids have gone to Carmel High School . I see a lot of new faces here tonight that were not here two years ago when I came before this body for a zoning case. I didn't come here tonight to give a speech, in fact, I came to get educated. i haven't seen any of the documents but thought there might be some handouts where I would learn what was going on as far as what is zoned what. So my CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 30 comments are based on what I was able to see tonight on the board and some of those pictures were pretty small, so I might not have everything absolutely right in my thinking. But I am here in concern as a potential developer of 110 acres of property along Spring Mill Road. I have little experience in development, we have developed 40 acres of residential land in Zionsville, Indiana, in a subdivision called Long Brook. I would invite any of you to go look at it, it is a sold out unit. We divided 40 acres in to 10 lots, so we made nice big lots for everyone, it is on septic and city water. So we have a bit of a feel for what a nice project should look like, a nice residential project. Now I am concerned about two different projects . We moved up to Carmel about 20 years ago, so I represent one of the older members in this audience tonight and at that time there was a lot of farm land in close. We bought farm land for a period of time and I now own 40 acres where we live at 106th Street going down Spring Mill Road and I own the farm at 116th and Spring Mill Road which is about 70 acres . A couple of years ago we came in and tried to zone the 70 acres using the Comprehensive or the Master Plan at that time, which called for the north end of that project to be commercial and the south end to be transitional . We were very frustrated in trying to find out what transitional represented and no one would tell us . So we ended up making the south end of our project residential instead of transitional, it was residential . So the project we went before the Plan Commission called for 35 acres to be residential, 35 acres to be commercial, and by commercial I am talking about high quality office park. I see in the thoroughfare plan, by the way Mr. Myers was my traffic consultant at that time, and he told me at that time that we were going to have this big thoroughfare right through the middle of our property, I see he hasn't changed his mind, it is still there. It is a four lane road, I think he said, so now we are talking about a four lane road right through the middle of our property. I hear all these folks talking about concerns of 116th Street going through a residential neighborhood. We are talking about a four lane road going through the middle of our property and then on the other side of the property six story office buildings and then across the street on Spring Mill Road a future high school . I think I am pretty secure in saying that undoubtedly will be a future high school . Although that was a very hard thing to pin down at that last meeting, but I don't think there is any move of the school board to sell that 80 acres across the street. As I saw that plan tonight it calls for this area to be residential and I 've talked with a lot of architects and a lot of builders and I can't find anybody that thinks that's good land usage for that property. I challenge any of you to drive by the corner of 116th Street and Spring Mill Road and think about a four lane road right through the middle of that property and think about whether you would like to buy a lot to build a home in that location, with a six story office buildings on one side and a high school which will be a very busy place CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 31 across the street on the other side. I would like for you to look at that again. The other area that I am concerned about is down where I live at 106th Street and we own the property that goes down along Spring Mill Road. We have about forty acres there. I think that is a different piece of property. That piece of property has some nice rolling characteristics to the land, some ravines and I really think that that can be developed into a nice residential project, if it is property buffered. But, right now we don't know that that is going to happen. As you will recall the land right next to us was zoned commercial for the Browning Corporation, and that certainly does not stay within the 600 ' corridor, that comes way on back several hundred more feet. At our home location we are faced with owning residentially zoned land and adjacent to that is high density commercial property, but it undoubtedly be a nice project with nice office buildings. There is scheduled to be a four lane road coming right adjacent to our property line and I 'm concerned about what kind of buffering we are going to have between our property and that commercial property. So far I have not been assured by your Plan unit, Mr. Bucher and Armstrong that there is going to be any buffering there and I want you to look at that because here we are I have 40 acres that is going to be zoned residential adjacent to this heavily commercial project. What kind of buffering are you planning there being between commercial property and residential property? Remember that the other site we offered 35 acres of houses as a buffer between the commercial and the residential and that wasn't satisfactory, so I am wondering what is satisfactory for the commercial project next to our residential land. I would appreciate you looking at both those areas . Thank you. JEFF DAVIS: Anyone else? GARY GRIFFITH: I am Gary Griffith I live at 1801 W. 116th St. , and I just came down here kind of out of my own interest to see what the future plans were. I must say that I am really impressed with the work that has been put into this project and it is really impressive to see those four lane and six lane highways and super freeways that are going to get us out of Carmel and get us downtown. I suppose with the housing density that is being currently proposed we are going to need those freeways . It will be just like Indianapolis perhaps these gentlemen that develop these road designs live in Indianapolis and are used to that type of thing. I think from the standpoint of the rest of us that are here at this meeting we moved to this area to escape that type of environment. I would just hope that the Plan Commission would consider that when they are looking at the housing density and CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 32 stick to the one house per acre or perhaps consider even making it larger where you have one house per 1 1/2 acres . Perhaps if we (change in tape) . JEFF DAVIS: If that is everyone that would like to speak at this time. First, I would like to thank the public for the quality of their presentation here tonight. We appreciate this type of presentation, most everybody made good points and presented it in a reasonable manner. In response to that I think it would be inappropriate for us to respond to these complaints . I 'm sure a lot of people were takings notes and we have a good set of minutes . What I would like to do, the staff has recommended that we turn this over to a committee of the whole Plan Commission for further study on the next committee night . What I would like to do is to answer these questions on our next committee night. Due to the lateness of the hour and I don't think this type of presentation deserves a quick off the cuff response. There are some things that I would like to research. I will tell you one thing that it was never the intention of this plan to create a higher density in western Clay Township. If in fact that is what we have done, we have missed some numbers some place. What we thought we were doing was clarifying some things by going to a gross density instead of a net density. We need to run some numbers down and we need to do a little more study than what we are doing. On what we actually come up with. What you have asked us to do is not a complete reversal of the plan, there is some fine tuning to do, there are some areas I think we could probably look at very closely, there are some things that we can do with this project that may make it more palatable. There may be some things we can't do. One of the things about the traffic study is we can't make the figures be any different than what they are, but I would tell you this that the Plan Commission does build these roads . What we wanted to do was have this for ourselves so we could look where our planning was going to go and try to set aside some right-of-ways, avoid a controversial like we have with 116th Street by laying out some of these future roads, so people would know when they move there what was planned for the area and have the right-of-ways already purchased and set back. Not trying to build a road after a house is already in place. This plan does not try to run a four lane road on 116th Street. There are other people studying this and we are aware of it. We started before the task force started, this is what the numbers indicated to us, there are other answers, our planner has told us there are other answers . If the Plan Commission will be sensitive to it, I 'm sure all areas of government will be sensitive to it to what the Task Force comes up with. This is not a plan to brush 116th Street over anybody, just that we started our plan first, this is what the numbers indicated. There are other ways to approach this and we are aware of it. In CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 33 our plan, in fact, makes disclaimers to that point. We need to be sensitive to what has been built there, sensitive to the needs of the public and what is already in existence. So we are well aware of this . What I would like to do is take this issue up again as a response to the remonstrators at a committee of the whole on our next committee meeting night. Does anyone of the Plan Commission object to that? JOHN MYERS: There were some questions that answers could be given quickly. JEFF DAVIS: If you have some questions there that you would like to go through quickly. One of the reasons I don't want to do this tonight is because of the lateness of the hour and we still have a full agenda behind us . If you got some things that you can answer fairly quickly. JOHN MYERS: Less than 30 seconds. JEFF DAVIS: Fine, go ahead and do that. JOHN MYERS: Guilford widening, no we don't recommend widening Guilford, 126th Street widening, we are showing that between Hazeldell and Keystone not built until needed, there is a gray area between waiting until after you need four lanes and trying to operate on two lanes versus being on the border line, so that is not absolute. And, you would think this last question was prompted, but the 100, 000 anywhere on any arterial is ridiculous and I just happen to have a whole pile of things here that show average daily traffic examples and I want to distribute these. So that is all I have got. JEFF DAVIS: Very good, Dave. DAVE CUNNINGHAM: Jeff, three points one of which was asked I believe by a member of the audience. There has been 2 copies of the proposed Comp Plan at the library that can be checked out, in addition to that there are 5 copies in our office that any member of the public CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 34 can come in and they have two options , they can just take it out on their own recognance to make copies themselves or we will copy it for them at our cost of copies . Second point would be if you are taking it to a full committee of the Commission we would recommend suspension of the rules because current rules of procedure recommend that this go to a select committee, and third point I would ask due to the other agendas on the 5th maybe Subdivision being the only other committee that will meet that evening if they could meet at 7 P.M. therefore we could have this item come up at 7 : 30 P.M. with full Commission. JEFF DAVIS: There are two copies of this at the public library and five copies at the office of Community Development. They will make copies for you or you can take it and make copies yourself. Since this is a draft copy there are not copies available to sell, the final copy will be for sale. Since this is a draft copy we did not make a lot of extra copies, I don't think it is possible to buy them, but you can come in and look at them, you can look at them at the library, you can make copies of particular portions of it. DAVID CUNNINGHAM: They would be able to be purchased at the cost of our reproduction. That is the only cost. JEFF DAVIS: Dave has suggested that we suspend the rules in order to hear this as a committee of the whole, in this room February 5 . SUE MCMULLEN: I so move. ALAN POTASNIR: Seconded. JEFF DAVIS: Is there any discussion? Everybody in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? We will here this issue at 8 P.M. in this room. It will give us one hour from 7 to 8 P.M. to handle our other committee assignments . We will start this issue at 8 o'clock in this room on February 5, 1991. The committee meeting will start at 7 P.M. for only this one night. Like to start off with answering your questions and then we can go into further CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 35 discussion.