HomeMy WebLinkAboutTranscript of February 5, 1991 meeting re: Comp. Plan e
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
1
THIS IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING REGARDING THE
EHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 15,
COMDR
1991.
THE
G
D
DOTTED LINES IS AN INDICATION THAT THE MIKE'S WERE
E NOT
REING USE TOR IT
WAS
WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE
AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPE.
JEFF DAVIS We have
Ladies and Gentlemen, I want tootoantyou for being here tonight.pass out now with the explanation
a printed handout that we are going pass this out and then explain to you
and some information on it. Wan oe llortunity to read it. The Plass it out
an
what it is and give everybody PP so Wes is going to p
Commission members have not seen
ouiWhattitris and then we will proceed from
and the staff will explain to you
there, after everyone has had a change to read the printings .
WES BUCHER
The co of the transcript should have been
�� ntmailed to ommissionhe other �,1grmbers
copy members of the publicyou to
andc at
ifu thereh are anyDideforl e
the public hearing, we do have some extra copies . I would like
Comm
have those first and then anyoneole�lseBlackwellms letter?e to a pyDoes everyone
have thatstn withmemers get a copy
have them tonight? What wehaveyou goo hthe aheadnext two
and pass
documents you are going to receive, Terry says Plan
those two out. If you would look at the first document that das, thisnis
Commission Committee Review f ulledsfromotheetextive of thennew amendment
some information that we havep
This
that has basically has to do with Mr.throug basBcallyethesdensity. issues . �•
have provided for yougoesyou the
tter.
Blackwell raised some traffic isosuesand
of hiss letters and lethme te115and
This one addresses the density i
format we did that one in. We basicallytook
texhet sidxtbfroy ildtheo1985 you
the 1991 Comprehensive Plan Updates putlookingat that document
discuss density issues you should be able to by
bottom ohten first thepage thatinthe
is
see what the 1985 text says and how was changed in 1991of in t e you go
corresponding areas . Like at the
some staff comments . That continues on document
dBone
through this and have some questionsThe second through this document it would compare the two documents . esondoe
that we handed out is the Plan Commission responsesto
Chet public hearingai,
testimony. o
q
h
What we attempted to do is make a synopsisof the
hearing. That
that were asked by the citizens when they theefullthe
text, we did not try to
is why I gave anyone that spoke a copy
limit anyof their questions or whatever but tried to decipher the
slant or
points that they were trying to make the best we could. Those are
question. Another words the first
bas
one there souwcannsee athat t cJudy Hagan ent by a ked, will the Spring Mill Road
one there y
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 2
Comp. Plan Amendment be included in the Update? A is the recommended
action that is by the staff and a C is a staff comment that may
clarification.
In this case, we are recommending that it shouldbe
some
included in your goal and objectives section as amended in
gone through those questions for each speaker and tried to point 1988. We have
the questions and put them in a little more concise form d t out,so #1
the answers or some of the responses or possibly some of
areas dealing with those. and then some of
ssdeal supportive That is not to say that our documents the rhere aare
necn
decemenr, Y pportive or interpreting what HNTB has done with the
doc ume then If
you
thindok you
have
questions about why they
t
h those certainly that Joanne Green and John aMyerid s fwillnbe glad
tos answer number oquestionsssue for you.
wed b I also might suggest
that a number of the speakers talked about iduc rin was one of athet imaindissues
you may want to discuss . Mr. Blackwell 's densitylettergandethoseiit iss that
before that because again there are some references on
testimony that issues
document. you can come back to those densityback ins in h the public
So, I hope that this helps make a ratherlengthy
meetingt ge
you were at the other night a little more understandable and
little
clearer as to some of the g Y that
and
where the document addressese the°specific°concerns .ncerns Thankthe citizens We haverand
available if you have any questions .
you. We are
ALAN POTASNIK
Mr. President, if I might,aboutelide densityg , just as a clarification, it seems that we have
heato thCombeinnsivbiglpr° lem, nota
regardssatoon theCom pastee vePlan
nt Update, and problemtsebut me issue'vewith
Cocomprehensive in about being havedensitywetried it seems to atI 've heard
oms e h Plant if Update as any to looko for thisi
the Comp me
lan Update therethat areit seemed thater and traffic concerns . just
of thedcommitteeciddthat served be
Land Use and not densitywe had decided that it would be
a point of information. and traffic that are the two main issues .
Just as
JEFF DAVIS
I would like to enter Mr. Blackwell 's letter into the record
future can be referred to as the Blackwell Letter.
opportunity to read the comments on the letter? and in the
opportunity
to ad the its everyone had the
thecern answerss withfithe and
cquons later. Basically, Mr. Blly, we give you
facton
concern
for higher traffic
radenfic willetMl era andidi 's
study, which we on get to tet and we in
to answer the question, does thehousing. The responses of the staff were met
density housing disregardingthe Comprehensive Plan ask for a higher
nO• ng survey that we took.
)n Is no. pageHopefully, this explanation by the staff explainsethatWer� I cally,
th last what we have, in fact, asked for was the densitiesasicS-ly,
be:oits per reducedacre from
1 .59 units per acre with sewers to be reduced from n2 . 9
Being in the Comprehensivethe
plan .be reduced from 3 . 6 to 1 . 8. 9
of law in heaC, breut wen are Planthisis only a This
currently redoing guideline, there is no teeth
the Zoning Ordinance and we
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5 , 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
3
will ask that these densities be put in the S-1 and S-2 Ordinance. So they
will reflect in the ordinance too along with this, then it will have the
power of law, it will be in the ordinance as those densities . Any
questions from the members of the Plan Commission about the answers?
Sometimes the answers are as confusing as the question. No time did the
Comprehensive Plan Committee intend to, my concern last week after the
meeting was that we may have made an error. We did not intend to nor did we
think we had increased the density or ask for an increase in density
anywhere. The non-sewered areas were left unchanged and the areas with
sewers we requested a decrease in density possibility. We did not lessen
the density in the non-sewered areas and we did not go any further than the
decrease we indicated here. We did not go into 1 unit per 5 acres or
anything like this . I will tell you there is a couple of things that
encourage that type of development though, #1, you will see in the western
part of Clay Township some large lot subdivisions . R. J. Klein has built a
couple of them. By the fact that we have been fairly generous in the
issuance of variances seem to go with this type of subdivision for example:
the lack of limiting connecting streets , limiting some of the regulations
on the interior streets, exterior sidewalks . We have always been very
handy to grant variances to a developer who wants to build this type of
large lot subdivisions because we realize that is what the public would
like to see built. So the developer of this type of subdivision has always
met with an affirmative audience of this Plan Commission. We have granted
variances that we probably would not have granted to a normal subdivision.
Also, there is a function of our zoning ordinance that requires after a
piece of property is been split twice it must be platted as a subdivision
if the lots are less than five acres . So when you find someone who is
selling large lots, breaking up a farm or breaking up frontage off his farm
it is very inconvenient. He can sell two building lots but he can't sell
any more without going to a subdivision under our current ordinances . So
that is why you see a lot of areas broken into 5-6 acres , we encourage that
through the ordinance. It makes it much less convoluted for a guy just to
sell off a 5 acre lot then to actually plan a subdivision. We encourage,
especially in western Clay Township, this particular type of development,
the people have asked for. We do not at all discourage it nor does this
Comprehensive Plan at any way discourage it. We took a survey, the results
of that survey was that people like to see don't mention to them something
no more dense than there subdivision and less dense where possible. We
feel like that is what we have done. I felt last week, two weeks ago when
we met that is what we had done, I want to check and make sure. I was the
Chairman of this committee. I still feel that what we have done is what was
asked for. That we have lessened the density or at least in no case have
we encouraged any increase in the density to what is already there. We
have made available the opportunity to build large lot subdivisions and we
encourage it, in our granting of subdivision variance at this body. So in
no way did we ever discourage a lower density. Now then, are there any
other questions of the audience at this time of the density issue as
addressed in Mr. Blackwell 's letter. Do the Plan Commission members have
any questions? Mr. Blackwell's letter also asked that we discuss the
traffic study. Ttithe
traffic study
at more understand
able and
we hae here ourraffcexpert. MonMyersfromHNTBwhowefeel has
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
4
done an excellent job for us on this traffic study, we didn't always see
the numbers we would have liked to have seen, but we always saw some
numbers . He is going to try and explain exactly what he did in the
process .
JOHN MYERS
This exhibit I think is Figure X. 8 and I 'm going to be talking about
Chapter 10, so I assume that you can see that. As a matter of fact, I 'll
tell you what I would like to do. I think at the Plan Commission meeting
last month, I tried to focus on the results of the Thoroughfare Plan and to
identify what the recommendations were as part of the plan. That was
really sort of Part II . What I would like to do now is to talk about Part
I, which is the process of how we got there. I think it is pretty
important that you understand this process so that you can properly
interrupt the results , interrupt the report and the recommendations . it is
important that you understand the strengths as well as the limitations of
the process that we used. The way I intend to do this is to actually
follow Chapter 10 in the report and I have certain sections highlighted and
I would be glad to let you know where I am as I go through here. There is
a certain logic pattern in the report that I think would be helpful for you
and hopefully it will be helpful if you refer to it later. A few
introductory comments just to set the context for this . I would like to go
back to the very beginning when we were interviewed for this project. It
is not always true that on a project that we get involved in that we know
what the fee is or know what resources are available at the time of the
interview. In this case we did. We were aware of the resources that were
available for this update. Having had experience in working in this area
we were also familiar with some of the problems as we saw them at that time
and those are what we discussed in the interview. But, the point I would
like to make is that the resources were really pretty limited for this
Thoroughfare Plan Update. I don't think dollar amounts have very much of a
meaning, but to give a perspective on it, the resources that were allocated
to this Thoroughfare Plan are roughly equivalent to two or three traffic
studies for a major development that you have had here in the past. i can
think of two here that we have been involved here in the past that had
about the same resources allocated to them to this entire Thoroughfare Plan
Update. i think it is important to keep in mind that the resources were
somewhat limited, this was understood from the beginning by the Steering
Committee and certainly by us . So a challenge for us was to try and give
you the best product possible, the best information possible for the
resources that you had available. We were insistent, in fact, I can tell
you that we would not have gotten involved in the Thoroughfare Plan for
this community if we could not relate that directly to Land Use. We would
not be involved in the process in a dynamic growth area such as this where
we simply reviewed a map, used general planning
principals
develop a Thoroughfare Plan. It is to important inthis community,
i udgementt
to
to big an issue. We identified that relationship in our interview and has
ve
carried that all the way through. A few of the things to keep in mind, one
is the time frame. Most Comprehensive Plans, most Thoroughfare Plans have
a 20 year focus . The reason they have a 20 year focus is because as we get
out beyond 20 years the validity of our assumptions becomes less and less
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 5
and also that a 20 year time frame is very reasonable for the kind of
capital improvements plans that need to be done to implement plans . In a
related topic it was our understanding when we started this over two years
ago, that in fact it there was going to be another update in five years, it
would be a larger update. But, it was recognized that there were some
short comings and the 1985 plan and some weaknesses that needed to be
strengthened. So these are all a part of the context I think that is
important in understanding our approach. I think it was a very good
approach, I think it was very cost effective, I think you have gotten a lot
of good information and I'm really very pleased with where we ended up in
terms of the values that you have got in this plan. Starting on page 105,
Chapter 10, Section B there the lower half of the page, by the way I do
have a few extra copies of Chapter 10, I have three. I would like to make
sure that everybody on the Plan Commission brought a copy first, or if
anyone needs one. Hopefully what I say will be clear enough that you don't
have to read it as I go along. Under the topic of traffic forecasting
scenarios . A typical approach in thoroughfare plan development for
urbanized areas such as this is to identify a target year, usually 20 years
in the future, identify anticipated development for that year, simulate the
traffic conditions for that development and formulate a final plan to meet
identified needs . The next sentence is very important. It is recommended
that this process be considered for the next major update of the
Comprehensive Plan. With the level of development that exists here I think
it would be good to be able to use that kind of process . To develop a
computer simulation of your network for the resources that you had
available would really be impossible. I refer to this here as a target
year modeling technique, it wasn't used in this update since an appropriate
simulation model is unavailable and it's development is beyond the
resources available. As a matter of fact, there is a footnote, Carmel is
included in the Indianapolis area travel simulation model, but I can tell
you that they just don't have enough detail in this area to serve your
needs . There could be a lot more said about that, it may be in the future
an enhancement of the Indianapolis model might be a good approach. A good
approach might be to join with other jurisdictions in Hamilton County to
create such a model. On the next page, generalized traffic levels have
been estimated to correspond with three land use scenarios . To guide the
Thoroughfare Plan development plan process by providing three reference
points . As I said, even though the resources were limited it was very
important to us to from a technical standpoint that the transportation
recommendations be tied specifically to land use. Basically, the process
we used is similar to the process that is used for a traffic study for an
individual development. That is generating traffic from specific kinds of
land use and that is ordinarily done using Institute of Transportation and
Engineers trip generation guidelines and that is the methodology that we
used here. And, once that traffic is generated it is added to existing
traffic . The existing scenario is the first scenario that is simply
looking at existing traffic, the program scenario was the second scenario
that we investigated. This is existing land use plus additional
developments which already had been approved by the Carmel/Clay Plan
Commission but not fully implemented in 1989 . The program scenario is also
referred to as the committed scenario in various places . We got a listing
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
6
from the staff of what had been approved and not yet been built at the end
of 1989 . This is included in one of the appendices of the final document
and that list the residential developments as well as commercial
developments have not yet been built. It was our feeling at the time and
still is that is was a conservative estimate of future needs . It has been
pointed out to me through the process and I would recognize now that some
of these developments in fact may not be built. As an initial measure to
identify minimum needs we thought this was the best estimate available for
those that have already been approved, that in fact may never be built,
there are other developments in the area that certainly since the end of
the 1989 that have been approved and that will be built. So we thought
this was the best information that we could use. And again, a conservative
estimate because it is almost like an assumption that there was a
moratorium on growth and nothing else built or nothing else approved after
the end of 1989 . The only thing that happens in Carmel/Clay Township in
the next 20 years is what was approved at the end of 1989 . That is what
the program scenario is . The third scenario is the build-out scenario and
this represents land use intensity generated by all the land use in the
Comprehensive Plan. This is all of the commercial development in the
Meridian Corridor, all of the residential development, there is not an acre
of farm land left in Clay Township and that is what a build-out is .
Certainly this would provide an upper limit reference for estimating needs
and obviously I will get back to that in a little bit. It is most useful
in planning for rural areas of the township where ultimate residential
build-out of some areas are not unlikely in the short term. Then again,
I 'll clarify that in a little bit. The important thing is that we looked
at three scenarios existing, programmed, which is the moratorium at the end
of 1989 and a build-out scenario. Quickly I will go through the steps and
these are on page 107 and the first one is trip generation. i have already
mentioned that this is based on identifying the trip from a particular land
use based on the ITE trip generation guidelines . The second step is
distribution of these trips . Once we know where the trips are being
generated we need to figure out where they are going. The trip
distribution step in this study using the best information available was to
use the Indianapolis Travel Simulation Model . Again, I mentioned that
Carmel is included in that and trip distribution in the Indianapolis Model
is based on a technique that is used around the country for urbanized
areas, it is called a Gravity Model and it relates the intensity of
development between any two zones . The reason it is called a Gravity Model
is that gravity is based on the premise that there is a fraction between
all bodies and the larger the body the greater the traction, so that is the
philosophy that is used for distribution trips . It is a synthetic
technique, it is hard to really measure this and not to get in all that
detail . At any rate the best information available is from the
Indianapolis Travel Simulation Model and this is what we used. We have
Clay Township broken up into 24 individual zones . Indianapolis is actually
I think in 115 zones so theatrically we could identify the percentage of
trips to go from each of those zones to every other zone and we applied
those percentages to the trips that we generated in the trip generation
phase. Now we know how many trips are being generated and where they want
to go. The last step is network assignment. A computer uses pretty
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
complex techniques that take into account the congestion on the roadway
that is reflected by the number of vehicles versus the capacity of the
roadway. In our case, we assign these trips on the network based on the
quickest paths and we did this manually. From one zone to another we
looked at the roadway network, we considered the average speeds on the
routes in between and then simply placed those trips on there. We have a
map in our office that has a map of Clay Township that has just bunches of
little numbers lined up on the routes as we traced trips from each zone to
every other zone. This is basically the technique that we used, this is
the technique that is used on traffic impact studies here, it is done
manually in the way that we did it here. It is the same techniques that is
used for the Chicago Area Transportation Study, the Indianapolis Simulation
Model . But they use data processing techniques that are much quicker and
have other advantages in terms of flexibility. On page 108 talks a little
bit about the average speeds and the last sentence in the upper paragraph
right before Section 3, it says, the diversion of text are estimated manual
to balance network service levels as a part of alternatives development.
If we were to find, let's just say 100,000 vehicles on Springmill Road,
because that is the way it just turned out that people would like to go
based on the three steps that we just went through, then we would either
improve that roadway to accommodate those vehicles or we might improve a
parallel roadway and shift those vehicles over. It is a manual technique
at that point. Once we have generated the trips and we have identified
where they are going to be we simply added those to existing traffic and
that is how we got our forecast of traffic levels . This applies to either
the program scenario or the build-out scenario. Now I am going to skip the
entire section on growth trends, it is really interesting but I want to
focus on process . I am jumping to page 115 . 115 is alternative
transportation system concepts . Section C, three sketch plan alternatives
were reviewed during the process, the sketch plans represent the distinctly
different approaches for meeting future traffic needs . I want to remind
you that we are talking about the program scenario, we haven't looked at
the build-out scenario yet. We are just looking at minimum needs as
identified, as I said earlier, that more moratorium that we created at the
end of 1989 so only approved developments can be built. The following
pages take a look at these sketch plans . There figures X.4 and X.5 and X. 6
and briefly, I think I will just jump to a table, which is on page 123 .
Of course, you could look at the exhibits and see more detail on what the
concepts include. The first one is widened roadways . This says for the
development that have already been approved in the program scenario we
could use an approach of widening existing roadways and this did include
parallel roadways along 31, Pennsylvania and also a collector roadway on
the west. As I recall it also included widening College, maybe widening
Range Line, widening Gray Road and the intent was to widen existing
roadways , widening 31 to 6 lanes . The widening of existing roadways to
satisfy the demand in the program scenario, so that was one option. The
second option was to create a Township Line Road interchange, beef up the
east-west roadways so that would get a heavy utilization. The third
alternative was a freeway on 31. It was our recommendation to the Steering
Committee at the time that we developed these sketch plans and in fact the
US31 freeway is the best answer. It is the location of the highest
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
8
concentration of demand and it would have the least impact on the
community. There is some text here on page 123, none of the major elements
of the sketch plans were ruled out by the Comprehensive Plan Steering
Committee and it goes on to say on the next page, the Thoroughfare Plan
will include a combination of roadway improvements shown in the sketch
plans including US31 improvements, parallel roadway construction and
arterial roadway widening. To review the build-out conditions although not
used to forecast ultimate demand on 31 indicates the need for this
flexibility. Next section, the point I would like to make here is we have
not looked at build-out yet, we are still looking at a condition that is
based on developments that were approved in 1989 . If you look in the
Appendix you can see what each individual development is, you can see what
the housing is in the various zones, etc . that had been approved at that
time. I would like to make the point that US31 freeway is not based on a
build-out. US31 freeway is needed to serve the demand of what has already
been approved in that corridor. In fact, it has other advantages access
capacity to meet future needs is certainly one of them. But, just digress
a little bit on what the numbers are, there were two and one-half million
square feet of commercial space within the Meridian Corridor built in the
1980 's and these are listed in the report. They have been approved at the
end of 1989 but not yet open another 3 . 2 million sq. ft . . Again, as I said
at the last meeting, a million square feet is roughly equivalent
Bank One Tower downtown. That is what warrants the frewayon31 . the new
there was a build-out there would be another seven and a half million
sq. ft. of commercial space within the Meridian Corridor. That kind of
gives a perspective when we began this study we didn't expect to find that
magnitude of traffic demand within the 31 corridor, we thought we would be
looking at short range improvements when we looked at the program scenario.
What we found was in fact was the core of the Comprehensive Plan. On page
128 we do begin to talk about build-out . Again, the build-out scenario
:_ssumes that Clay Township is fully developed in the manner in which it is
shown in the Comprehensive Plan. We used the same methodology for
estimating traffic based on that but again at the end of the paragraph on
top of the page, forecast from the build-out scenario are useful for
evaluating localized needs and the undeveloped portion of the county but
the results are not sufficiently reliable to estimate future regional
needs . I know this addresses the question in the letter, but let me say
first why it works for localized needs . I skipped the whole section on
functional classifications but it ranges between local roadways to major
arterial a local roadway serves just the area surrounding it. It may serve
an individual subdivision, for instance, a collector roadway serves a
larger area, it actually gathers traffic from the local roadways and feeds
those through the arterial roadways . So arterial roadways have a larger
service area. By the time you get to 31 and Keystone in Clay Township it
serves almost the entire township. They have a very large service area.
When we are looking at a small service area of a collector roadway or a
local roadway build-out can occur in the northwest corner of Clay Townshi
within a fairly short period of time. es P
entire township may take 30,40,50 yearsSorwmoreaorthe maybut neverohappen.of There
are likely to be pockets even within the next twenty years that are likely
that will experience build-out and particularly in the residential areas.
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
9
The build-out scenario is very useful, when we look at these local areas .
We don't know where that is going to happen, somewhere out there because of
the wy the subdivisions are developed is going to be build-out for local
and collector roadways . So the build-out scenario is important for looking
at those. Towne Road needs to be four lane in the future, it's important
to identify that now. The text goes on to talk about that under local
needs of build-out. Clearly a major purpose of developing this
Thoroughfare Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan Update to identify
those areas so when that first subdivision is built the right-of-way for
that four lane roadway can be set aside. That is basically what is
discussed here in Section A, just a little side line, there is a comment
here the timing of these roadway improvements would be determined by
localized development rates and related increases in traffic demand. There
are statements like that throughout here and I 've seen some of the staff
comments and in what was distributed here tonight some comments the general
nature of the Comprehensive Plan. The same thing can be said about the
Thoroughfare Plan, this is a guide and it is important to set aside right-
of-way, it does not set timing for individual roadway improvements . This
is our qualifier that is in here, I counted a number of ten times . On to
regional needs of build-out. On regional roadways such as US31 and
Keystone Avenue underlying assumptions and specific results of this for
forecast methodology cannot be considered reliable in determining ultimate
future needs . The reasons are given on the next page. One thing, build-
out of the entire township and this again is the service area of these
major roadways . We have a very long time frame, we say here 40 years or
more. it certainly well beyond the ordinary 20 year planning period. The
second item identified is demographic changes . Certainly if you build
3 . 2 million sq. ft. in commercial space along 31 that has been approved and
you build another 7 .5 million sq. ft. of commercial space along 31 these
underlying relationships that came from the Indianapolis Model in terms of
distribution trips are garbage, it is just out the window, it is no good.
For one thing there would certainly be some other changes that would occur
at the same time, probably north of 146th Street outside the county. By
the time 10 more Bank One buildings were built along 31 the equivalent of
that we would think that there would certainly be some impact in Sheridian
and Westfield and a number of other areas . The underlying relationships
that we use for this study are useful for the program scenario, but when we
get to the build-out the bottom falls out, they don't apply anymore.
Another factor would be with that level of intensity of commercial
development is likely to be other changes such as modal changes . I think
you would have transit service and certainly that is not reflected haanywhere
as an extension of what we are doing in this city. And finally,
las
item is regional network changes and this has to do with the improvements
of these roadways as well as 421, Allisonville Road, 465 , State Road 32 ,
possible new roadways, possible outer belt to Indianapolis, all of these
things might happen in the future. In order to address these kinds of
changes first of all would take a lot of coordination with other agencies .
But also, the methodology that we use here, even though it is very good
our purpose is insufficient for this . This needs a computer simulation
eand Ia tlotnmoreat these resourceshings might would have belooked
becallocated to at in e it. But, the
certainly a to
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
10
bottom line to all of this is that it is inferred, it said in the let
that we didn't give you the numbers on 31 because they were so horrible,er
we adjusted them downward and used that. That is not the case, the reason
we didn'tgive so
you those numbers was because we don't believe them. i
think that we have a responsibility to
sound and useful to you in decision making. youe Tiassimettha that we feel is
methodology that we used here would develop rationalunumbers thisin1
of situation is just wrong. I think that would be irresponsible
those. If I thought they were useful I would be glad to share. kindk
you want to to share
get some sort of idea of that you may just think in your own
mind about what the difference is in the program scenario in existing,I think if
is in a table in here, 3 . 2 million sq. ft of office versus another
you could come up with some numbers . But, I am not goingto it
that,
because I think it is erroneous . 7 1/2 and
page 129, it says once again, within lthe stscopenoft �t is made in do
egion of
network changes cannot be reliable estimatedandwill ignoring uthemel
unreliable forecast. It is important to look at build-out for the
al
area because they have smaller service areas . lead to
me a confidence that our recommendations basic onesnforltheoprogra itgavescenario including a freeway on 31 is a memo need, it could be much
her
in the future. e program
make on future regional on needs, futuree 29with some observations that wecanpartial development of commercial problems will continue on US31, even
require extension of the Property within the overlay zone will
recommended that. What werhaveedonefretoadevelop anorth fThoroughfare
Plan is to
start with the core identified bytheIn fact, we have
in the surrounding areas residenial areasrimprovements
scenario tt atdrerindicated
by the build-out scenario and to make some rational judgementst f indicated
Keystone. On 31 for instance, for 31 and
freeway only far north as 116th Street. scenario would indicate a
future that similar development is likelyWtotoccurhink tfurtherhat in tno foreseeablen31and
I 'm not talking about a build-out, I am talking about similar
what has occurred south of 116th. north on 31
lasthahas ccus ere vo been some In fact, during the largeperiodeth
devlowmeyes sn htereat harva. plirning rgeiod the
So extendingothesfreewaymnorthfairis onely gof
judgements that we made based on the build-out scenario
based on those erroneous numbers . the
based
dfi on bert the Again, just to say a�few tmore lthinot
ngs and
whatImI process, would be glad to answer an
just said about the process is basically said underydiirreCtions, but
Thoroughfare Plan on page 130 .
time table of g Once again it says final configurationst
and demonstrated of theseh need.provements will depend on projects, specific studiesd
abecauseit page
is33' I think that it is important to
point out these statements
paragraph above item 2 there is no urgencyJuto notp that rigid. Page 133 the
the
recommended Thoroughfare Plan composes
in
iternmCanyo sf ip,
improvements should be made connectiontwith needsran
development. I 'm not Clay Township,
going to read all the statements, there dare several
others made like that and in fact,
last time that I think that I will leave anyediscusewed the recommendations
questions that you might so. discussion of that to any
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5 , 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 11
JEFF DAVIS
When these roads are built even though the traffic study may show that we
would need a certain type of road that these side roads have modifications
and they don't have to be necessarily built as drawn and we always have to
be sensitive to the environmental concerns and existing housing. Do you
know where that statement is in there, if you could read that for us .
JOHN MYERS
I think it is pretty well stated on the poster and let me see if I can find
it. I knew it would be in the paragraph on 116th Street on page 138 .
Consistent with other sections of 116th Street this section is recommended
for parkway construction and subject to constraints identified in project
level in environmental studies . I would say that that is the case for all
the recommendations in here. As a matter of fact, kind of related to that
we have some comments here about the 31 freeway to. We have not fully
identified where the freeway would be on 31 and I really would like to make
that clear. I think that an appropriate study of where 31 freeway ought to
be, where the interchanges ought to be, what configuration they ought to
have and what ought to be done on local roadways, probably deserves two or
three times the effort that we made on this study. Most any individual
project is subject to project level studies, and that is true about 116th,
true about US31, it's true about the specific location of Hazeldell and so
I hope that is clear and if it is not it something that we would like to
make clear.
JEFF DAVIS
Very good. Do any members of the Plan Commission have any questions of Mr.
Myers?
MICHAEL NARDI
In your program scenario you take into account every commercial development
already developed or approved up to 1989 here in Carmel and Clay Township,
what about outside the township, such as on the border with the new Dowell
Lanco facility coming in or a media build-out say in Fishers? Does that
mean your program scenario is actually conservative not taking into account
those things or did you actually or was it implicitly taken into account?
MR. MYERS
No, it means it is conservative. And as matter of fact, I would say with
regard to the program scenario itself that is probably it' s biggest
shortcoming. It is not that we didn't recognize the fact that those things
are going to occur, I guess I would rather relate it to the general nature
of the answer that we needed. We could be plus or minus 5,000 vehicles and
get the same answers in terms of the number of lanes . I would really say
that that's a trade off that we made in terms of doing as much as we could
to relate it to things that we knew best. In fact, one might say that
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
12
that's offset somewhat by the fact that everything in the program scenario
is going to be built. In fact, one might say that. I think that maybe the
key is that we were looking at minimal needs and then by reviewing the
build-out scenario these are ultimate sky high needs, not all that ultimate
if you are out in a rural part of the township. But in any case I would
say that given that we have actually underestimated the amount of traffic
and possibly under estimated the improvements related to the program
scenario because in fact we didn't take that into account. i would say
that that should be taken into account in the next update. By the way, we
did include the commercial development at 146th and Meridian, the Simon
Development, even though it is immediately outside it is so large I think
it may have been the highest (turned the tape) .
RON HOUCK
I have a question in reference to the statement you made on page 106 . This
was apparently your program scenario was based on what was approved but not
fully implemented in 1989 . I guess maybe this is partly directed to the
staff, have any developments been approved since the date you are using is
through the complete year of 1989 or through some portion of 1989?
JOHN MYERS
I don't remember the date. I think it is noted in the Appendix. I can't
even say which Appendix it is . We have made no adjustments .
RON HOUCK
Have any projects been approved since the date which is referenced by the
Traffic study?
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Didn't have mike on.
RON HOUCK
Do we know the square footage of what has been approved since the
Thoroughfare Plan has been developed?
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Didn't have mike on.
JEFF DAVIS
Dave, along with that am I correct in remembering that Hewlett-Packard
building has been downsized from its original plan, didn't we leave a
couple of floors off that building? One floor or more?
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 13
Didn't have mike on.
RON HOUCK
I guess we would be safe to say that any proposal like the Thompson
Consumer Electronics would not have been factored into this?
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Didn't have mike on.
JOHN MYERS
I have been told by some developers in fact that they may never
be approved. So I think we do have to assume this is
certainly an approximation. As far as I know this is the first time this
has been done on a community basis of generating this traffic . With this
limitations it is still the best I think you have ever had.
JEFF DAVIS
Go ahead.
RON HOUCK
The other statement I did hear you make and I want to clarify it for my own
information. My understanding of the need for freeway status for 31 is
based on what is built as well as what is approved but not yet built and
does not factor in the 7 1/2 million square feet of potential developable
land?
JOHN MYERS
That is true.
JEFF DAVIS
That 7 1/2 million square feet is not land but is office space square
footage. Land and acreage is one thing square footage of office buildings
obviously is another thing. That land does not have to be developed to
that intensity it can be a commercial development. So I want to make sure
we differentiate that, another words we have various set aside for
commercial development but we do not state the intensity of the
development. When we are talking about 7 1/2 million square feet we are
talking about high rise office buildings . If that land were developed in
some other manner we would certainly limit that 7 1/2 million square feet.
Make sure we are aware of that.
RON HOUCK
I guess my only point being that 7 1/2 million or some portion thereof was
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
14
not factored into the current assessment of the status for US31 being a
freeway.
JOHN MYERS
There again there are some exhibits here, the three sketch plans, on page
118 that are specifically oriented to that program scenario. So even in
terms of the limits of the roadways these relate directly to the program
scenario. They don't all include a freeway, I think it is the third one
that includes the freeway and a matter of fact as I look at it, I see it
goes all the way to 126th Street or Carmel Drive. I thought it was 116th
but in fact it is warranted to go further to the next intersection. What
you see on Figure X. 6 addresses specificallythe
the other things you might notice about it is hat it doesn'tarioshow aOne
for improvements anywhere in western Clay Township and they are somewhat
limited in eastern Clay Township. That is because of the effect of the
commercial development, the fact that the 1980 's obviously saw a very rapid
growth, in that residential growth not as quick. There is simply just not
as much traffic generated by the approved residential developments as there
is by the approved commercial developments . When we look at the build-out
scenario for the residential areas though that was when we designated the
full plan that included the entire township and included some changes to
the roadways you see here plus pretty much filling in the rest of it. This
is the program scenario, sketch plans .
JEFF DAVIS
Anyone else?
ALAN POTASNIK
John, again and maybe I should direct this to David as well so that I have
an understanding about this . That perhaps from your scenarios that there
were some projects that were approved that may never get built that were
included into your projections for lane requirements of these roads . Is
that correct?
JOHN MYERS
I want to make sure I understand the question.
ALAN POTASNIK
I 'm talking about that this Plan Commission had a project that was going
that was proposed for the piece of ground that were the DePauw farm is now,
that perhaps may never get built out to that intensity that was, when this
proposal here was originallyhiss
consideration or something onpthat nground might ace that phave pbeen s ataken takenninto
consideration from the model .
into
JOHN MYERS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 15
Again, the Appendix list the specific square footage for every commercial
development and also the number of dwelling units so if you have a copy of
the report you can look in the Appendix and see every individual
development. I don't even have a copy of the whole thing, I just have
Chapter 10 here. If it was identified to us as being approved at the time,
at the cut off point there, then we assumed the program scenario that the
entire thing was in fact built. So I would fully suspect that there are
cases where we assumed that something would be fully built where it won't
be.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Alan, as a follow up to that, there were several projects in the late 80 's
that were approved as large commercial parks . I think everybody is
familiar with some of the specific ones that when you did approve them as a
Plan Commission there was no time table set on those. They were projected
5 and 10 year build- outs, that was at those current market build-outs
which I think we all know in the late 87 's, 88 's was a lot better for
office projection then it is currently. A lot of those projects I 'm sure a
lot of people are familiar with have been backdated on when they will be
built-out. Some of those back datings may even put them out of this 20
year time period.
ALAN POTASNIK
That was my question. I can remember there was a project that came in,
happen Mr. Nelson came in, it was on a rezone that early on when we looked
at the projects that had been approved by the Plan Commission that now are
not being developed and may not be developed for a while might have been
put into this scenario and that was basically what my question was . There
was similar projects such as that.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Due to the market demand some (Dave & Alan both talking at the same time)
ALAN POTASNIK
I can understand that we would all understand it because of market
conditions that may be sometime, none of us have a crystal ball as to when
they may be built out. John, there was a couple of other things I wanted
to ask you about and really one of them deals in symatics . You referred to
long and short term and when you bring that up how do you define long and
short term with regards to this scenario.
JOHN MYERS
I don't know where I referred to that in here. I guess it would have to be
the context.
ALAN POTASNIK
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 16
Well, as you were going through this you said in the long term and short
term and that is what I was wondering if your definitions would be pass the
term of the usefulness of the
JOHN MYERS
I think I used the term short term when we first looked at the program
scenario I think that most of the communities in Indiana. If
you came into a community to do a project like this and you looked at what
they already approved, you'd be looking at needs to install some signals
here and there and things like that. It is just that this is such a
dynamic growth area that you got a big answer. So short term again we
thought we would be looking at things that are relatively inexpensive that
address a build-out of the few developments that have been approved and we
just simply under estimated the fact that especially in the 1980 's . This
is a very dynamic growth community and so I think it has a different
meaning here then it has in other places . Obviously it is interesting to
see what's happened during the period of this update. We started this when
things were explosive and now it is barely a dribble. We make the comment
through here in several places that our recommendations were really more
comfortable tying our recommendations to scenarios then to specific years .
There are also some references made here that the time frame is actually a
function of market forces . So I think basically the economy is certainly
bought its time in terms of congestion on 31 .
ALAN POTASNIK
I guess my feeling of what was when I asked you that question is that if
there is a text book definition of long and short term. it may not
necessarily apply to Carmel 's definition.
JOHN MYERS
That is probably true, but I don't know what the definition is .
ALAN POTASNIK
One other thing, in all of the tables that you have provided us in this
update, where you show changes and lane re
te of
level of service that these would provide iflthey nweresbroughtthereany up to what
your recommendations would be.
JOHN MYERS
Yes, we keyed our recommendations to a level of service D. As you know,
you sat through all of our Steering Committees, level of service range from
A to F, there is something like school grades . A is very good it
represents free flow and uninhibited movement on the roadway, level of
service F is very poor, it is constrained flow, level service C is
sometimes used as the target for planning, D is also used sometimes as a
target for planning. We had quite a bit of discussion about this at one of
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 17
our meetings . Level of service D is commonly used in urbanized area, it is
a standard that Indianapolis uses as well .
ALAN POTASNIK
Thank you.
JEFF DAVIS
Anyone else?
RON HOUCK
I have a question on the level of service. Under what circumstances is
level C used opposed to D?
JOHN MYERS
I think that the most fundamental reference on the subject of the most
accepted guideline is the Asto green book, the American Association of
State Highways and Transportation officials . They don't give a clear
answer to that, they say level of service C is desirable, that level of
service C should be achieved wherever feasible, then they spend quite a bit
of text talking about the balance between investment levels and
environmental impact levels of service. They say that level of service D
may be acceptable in urbanized areas given financial and environmental
constraints . It was our interpretation that generally this area falls
within the urbanized definition, therefore, we use level of service D.
There could be some discussion or debate on that. I guess I don't have the
answers . Asto says that C is desirable, D is the lowest acceptable. I
think that is the best answer.
RON HOUCK
If we plan for C in your scenario would it significantly effect the impact
of the Thoroughfare Plan either generally or in any specific area?
JOHN MYERS
I would say that it would. I don't have the specific answer. Let's just
say it just as a general answer that a shift from two to four lanes may
happen with 15% less traffic, so I would expect there would be some cases
here that if we were really shooting for a level of C that would kick us up
to a higher improvement. Six lanes instead of four lanes or four lanes
instead of two lanes . I may have a little bit of discomfort because these
numbers are very general and once again it's part of the reason why we
would strongly recommend and I 'm sure that it will happen this and we would
strongly recommend that each project as an individual evaluation because in
fact level of service has to do with a lot of things . The geometry of
intersections is the biggest one, the number of turning movements, even a
percentage of trucks can even the level of service in all these projects
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 18
specific . But generally speaking if you accepted C as a standard instead
of D it would result bigger roads in some places .
JEFF DAVIS
My undeItanding is then that it is not generally in urban areas such as
Carmel and Indianapolis . C is not necessarily a desirable goal it is just
something that would be nice. It is rarely, does Indianapolis strive for a
level of service C.
JOHN MYERS
Well, they think it is very desir—le.
JEFF DAVIS
Do they have it? Does much of it happen?
JOHN MYERS
No, as a matter of fact they just published this year, actually 1990, new
traffic impact study guide lines . They identified in those traffic impact
study guidelines for developments for level of service D as the goal for
improvements that are needed in the roadway network around the development.
I think that they might be said that when the City of Indianapolis makes
some major roadway improvements such as widening of 86th Street, they would
expect to have a level of service C in a short term or maybe even better.
But as the area builds out and they get into their planning year they would
expect to have a level of service D.
JEFF DAVIS
Then it is built the long term builders plan for D as a general rule.
JOHN MYERS
Yes .
JEFF DAVIS
They assume that is what is going to happen. Alright, thank you. Any
other questions? Any member of the public have a question of Mr. Myers?
RON HOUCK
Can I asl nother question, I guess related to that? Not to belabor the
point bu_ would it be a fair statement to say that perhaps Indianapolis
level of service planning is a reflection of what they might practically
achieve and raLL_: .. . what they might practically desire?
JOHN MYERS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 19
Yes, absolutely.
RON HOUCK
Right of way limitations or things of that nature?
JOHN MYERS
Yes, going back to what the green book says that is exactly what the text
says that C is desirable and that C should be the goal and then they have a
lot of however's having to do with environmental impact. If it is a matter
of taking a r^ad homes or doesn't have to be that radical, but to have a
significant cost or significant impact to get a C instead of a D is a
judgement call, in many cases it may not be worth it and there are a lot of
examples of that in Indianapolis . Indianapolis has quite bit of level of
service F and F. I think in the northeast quadrant of Ina_ .napolis they
probably have 20 intersections that operate at E and maybe _0 that operate
at F. If anything I am understating this, so in their case they may be
glad to have a level of service D. There is somewhat of a qualitative
judgement there, it is not an automatic nswer.
l�l,il
I have another question, will we I guess maybe direct to Jeff . Are we to
address specifics of the Thoroughfare Plan now or is this just a general
philosophy?
' F DAVIS
I think if anyone feels they need to address specifics that can be done,
yes .
RON HOUCK
Are we free to do that at this time?
JEFF DAVIS
Yes .
RON HOUCK
I have a question on the what used to be I guess referred to as ,ollector
Road on the west side of US31. I notice that the condonatic -.ow more of
a secondary arterial ana from what I heard yc'i say in Your t se: .tic I
think at least possibly understand why that Cfla.,yc condonation :ecause a
collector is designed for a large area than a secondary arterial. Is that
conservative?
JOHN MYERS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 20
No, not really the reason it was called a Collector Road, because the
roadways are parallel to say freeways such as downtown Indianapolis as
roadway called a collector distributor roadway. We call it a CD roadway
and it is used to connect localized land uses or in a case of downtown
Indianapolis it is local ramps separate from the main line flow. So I
think that the word collector probably really got started in use here
because it serves as a collector distributor roadway for 31 collecting 31
through strategic points with the adjacent land use. It has always been
identified as a four lane roadway on each side though and the collector
classification as I recall, I don't think it calls for four lanes . So that
is the reason it was changed to a secondary arterial.
RON HOUCK
Did the path for the what is now known as a secondary arterial on the west
side of Spring Mill Road change from what the 1985 plan update had on the
map?
JOHN MYERS
It may have changed on the map as a matter of fact I think that some people
ask us to change where we showed it because it bothered them. In fact, we
don't know where that roadway is going to be and it's true for all the new
roadways on here we simply did not do the individual specific project
studies to be able to say what these alignments are. We had a similar
thing happen on Hazeldell . We had Hazeldell showing at one place and a
member of the committee said you've changed this from the last plan. We
think that you are inferring that in fact you ought to go here instead of
there just by the fact that you changed it. It is not our intent to say
where the new roadways are. The dashed line up there means that we don't
know, but it goes from point A to point B and it needs to be studied to
figure out what the alignment is . It may be shown in a different place but
it is not our intent to infer where it is going to go.
RON HOUCK
Not being exactly familiar with the scale on the map, can you tell me
approximately the distance of the secondary arterial from US31 . I guess my
understanding is generally it falls outside the corridor. Is that true?
JEFF DAVIS
I would think that we just explained that we don't know where it goes .
What we did do was reflect some realities there where there is a build out
obviously we can not put through the road through a build out. If the
corridor is built out, if there is a commercial build out to the edge of
the corridor then obviously that road will not go in that commercial area
we will have to go around it. Unfortunately the road was not completed at
the time it might should have been completed or was this concept was not
firm enough in the minds of what we are doing then. But, to ask John to
tell you how far outside it goes, a road that we don't know where it goes
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
21
to start with, I would hoping you tell him you can't tell him that because
obviously we don't know where it goes . We are hoping developers will build
this road. There are no funds available to build the roadway. What we are
hoping is the same with Hazeldell that a lot of this road will be funded by
the developers as they develop that property and we will give them a lot of
latitude about where we put it, what we want to do is start someplace and
end someplace.
RON HOUCK
I guess my only concern is that I understand that this is a generalized
conceptual philosophical approach to traffic planning. However, often
times even with references in the text that stipulate that it is to be used
generally one of the first things we see in a presentation typically is the
map and an illustration on how it conforms to what is presented in the map
or on the map. And for that reason I guess have concerned about even where
conceptual the road might be, because frequently this is taken to be more
literal than conceptual. And for that reason I guess my concern is that it
extends to far to the west corridor and if it is truly a secondary arterial
or collector road way and designed to primarily ease traffic from the
density of development that occurred within the corridor that the placement
of the roadway should be at least the very edge of the corridor or
preferentially in the corridor itself to relief the roadway congestion from
other secondary arterial roads that are designed for more residential
traffic .
JOHN MYERS
Let me respond to that. This is strictly in traffic transit. This doesn't
really have to do with what' s compatible or whether you want to have a
house or four lane road or anything like that. But from a traffic
standpoint technically it doesn't make any difference where the road is, if
it is between Spring Mill and 31 and the intersections operate. Obviously
you can get it so close that you can't get turn lanes in there. But in
terms of the level of analysis that we have done, which is a pretty much a
supply and demand analysis it can be anywhere in there along as it gets
from point A to point B and meets appropriate geometric design guidelines,
then it will work in the context of this plan. That is really true for any
dash line that we have up here.
RON HOUCK
Is it unfair to assume that this roadway could not equally be located
within the corridor and perhaps even better serve it's need within the
corridor than outside the corridor?
JOHN MYERS
Well again, I would say that it is not necessarily better but it could be,
it is just as good. I mean, you may be talking longer driveways, that is
really the only functional difference. So it could basically in there
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
22
anywhere along as the intersections work.
tape) point A to point B. Well actually we will don
anything myyue (changed
because it is your plan. From a technical standpoint anywhere inu want
there
works in terms of our technical analysis.
ALAN POTASNIK
One other point to add to what Ron brought up. It seemed to me that when
were were doing this, this work that brought us to the documents we had a
night that specifically the committee wanted to have included on the
land
use and thoroughfare plan map a disclaimer or a notation that was not
included on the previous one where as you see here it states that
the purpose of the plan to indicate exact locations for future development it is not
that? I would take it that that would mean the roadways as well,
JOHN MYERS
Yes, as a matter of fact this is something I just discovered today,
a little embarrassing, but wee had a disclaimer statement on the
Thoroughfare Plan ma this is
because my copy of Chapter10 was anotjust her ctext opy oand f tdidn't reallyeI left,
exhibits so I decided I had better have the whole co dhave the
the disclaimer we had on an earlier draft somehow didn't appear copy. I discovered that
I am wondering on Figures X. 7 and X. 8 if there is any statement
effect. This in Chapter 10 . e PP r on mine so
don't know where thenew roads lare asubject two mtooen engineering to that
J points,irones is thattwe
I made was that any freeway configurationsg ng study, the other
Iwe uwas to furthernyfrsay and interchange locations also
left hand corner then somehow•it gotnd sleftfoutu don't see that in the lower
ALAN POTASNIK
Well, the other thing is that the text as far as including
presented on this map perhaps should also be included and not justlands ase
and density.
land use
JEFF DAVIS
I would say, in addition to what our
of the Comprehensive Plan Committee tolalert speoplehave ,1othat tthe s the intent
s
of these things would be located generally in some location and
from that people want to start giving them literal locations . Thpossibilitieo
indication that road went outside the 600 ' either. immediately
indication
on a Mill roa and 31 to somewhere was no
give a literal location ttooasconceptual plan
is almost impossible. We have warned again and again that
conceptual plans, this road needs to be located somewhere here
as
development occurs it will be located. these are
of as much concern we There are other areas that may be
partfof Clayhhave local rezone commercial areas in the western
make of Township. We have disclaimed over and over again we tried to
fuzzy areas on the map, we have made them astros with wheels with
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
23
circles , we have explained again and again that this is not the location of
a rezone commercial area. But the general concept that there will need to
be rezone commercial areas somewhere in this area. But immediately people
want to start putting in literal locations of these things, we can do more
than tell you that these are not locations. These are conceptual plans for
roads , they start at one place and end some place else, we are not
indicating any location for them. But it is very difficult, I don't know
how much more we could have explained it. We went into great detail trying
to make sure that there could be no literal interpretation of this, because
we didn't want it interpreted that way.
RON HOUCK
Oh, I understand that, I think that is very good. However, the point of
concern that I have is something that we were given by our
to answer Mr.
Wendling, and unfortunately he is not here tonight I guess
aybe
how this impacts on it. But, it deals with I guess Indiana law and
something they referred to as 36-7-4-506 Thoroughfare Plans included in
Comprehensive Plan, location change vacation or improvement of
thoroughfares . Under item C in that it says , after a thoroughfare plan has
been included in the Comprehensive Plan thoroughfares may be located,
changed, widened, straightened or vacated only in the matter indicated by
the Comprehensive Plan. I understand the illusion to disclaimers that it
is only a general or philosophical concept of how things should be done. I
guess the thing that also causes me concern is what this Item C what impact
that has on what is being written and what is being described in terms of a
map here.
JEFF DAVIS
Didn't use mike.
ATTORNEY FROM CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT
I think I probably can't speak to that point. I 'd much rather prefer to
speak with Mr. Wendling in the morning and relay the concerns that you now
have and ask that he report back to the Plan Commission as a whole. But I
apologize for that. I would prefer to run that through him if I could.
JOHN MYERS
Indianapolis did a specific study about two years ago, hired a consultant
to look at 6 or 8 locations that had been in the Thoroughfare Plan for some
time to use aerial photography and other means to identify a specific route
for those and they were shown in their Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare
Plan much the same way in wVecobservedhave
becauselI amhere.
not anI ' ll
attorney andadd
that is just something I have
don't want to many any opinion.
JEFF DAVIS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
24
Tom
TOM KENDALL
You mentioned that the level of service on the roads can be impacted by the
geometry of the intersection and everything that I see in the Comprehensive
Plan calls for widening roads . But there are no specific recommendations
for improving intersections or changing the
the traffic flow and therefore reduce or eliminaterthehat needltotwidenesome
of the thoroughfares, 116th Street in particular.
little on how the geometry effects these things andCifldheou Comprehensive
Plan should also consider intersection improvements as well as widening
some of the roads .
JOHN MYERS
Yes, I 'd be glad to elaborate on that. it would be desirable to have such
a plan, i hate to keep going back to Indianapolis, but they are the closest
big city that has a lot of precedence and in addition to their long ran e
Thoroughfare Plan and maybe this is an answer to your question to Mr. g
Potasnik. They also have what they consider a short range improvement
plans called a well it is short range improvement plan and it looks at
intersection improvements, signalization and that sort of thing. You don't
have a short range plan here. i think it would be desirable to have that.
It is not a part of this Thoroughfare Plan and probably isn't appropriate
given the level of detail of the forecast and the methodology that we have
used. Having said all of that, I think that that is agood example
it is appropriate to look at project specific, etal of the
than creating improvement projects based on what'sJintthe levThoel roughfareather
Plan. As a matter of fact, I would say that most arterial, the first thing
that we would look at if we wanted to make improvements or even to identify
problemsst is theue iwouldntersection. ndas a matter of fact, I think that thefiimprove a corridor is to provide turning
lanes at the intersections ,
enough traffic volume that theypneed ltraffiic signalswhen those ,ltbecause otraffi high
signals immediately cut the time available to traffic in half. So from
conceptual stand point you really have to have twice as many lanes going
through there to end up whole after you have cut the time in half from a
signal . Also, left turning movements are the biggest
flow for obvious reasons, the
flow on a twoobvious
us lane roit is a conflict everygg somebodyoin trafficesa
Y. So that would the irstethhatmIkwould
left
look at, project specific engineering study is what can we do with the
intersections . In fact, it is impractice in terms of engineering design
is really the main line that flows out of the intersection. It is not the
other way around, it is not a matter of identifying what the main lineFrom an engineering
it
ought to be then design the intersections to fit,
standpoint the first thing we would analyze is the intersections and
improve those first and then main line widening ordinaril follow
is a project specific study. Y s . That
JEFF DAVIS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5 , 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 25
I would like to remind the audience and the Plan Commission, the Plan
Commission will build no roads and no roads will be built off this Traffic
Study nor do we anticipate that there would be. This was originated, this
traffic study was designed to help the Plan Commission plan for the future
and decide what road better should be, if there should be a hold up or if
there was a potential in the future of needing a moratorium in a certain
area, or maybe just changing our zoning ordinances for a certain area
because there would be no way to change this traffic pattern. We don't
have the money to build roads, there are alternative studies going on at
the same time. This study was based for Plan Commission loan for our
Comprehensive Plan so we would have some kind of a tool to use as we review
a project and that projects traffic study. We thought we needed an overall
traffic study. It was never intended that roads should be built from this
traffic study nor did we think that would happen and we don't think it
would happen. At the time this study was going on there were other studies
in the county that the city were doing, they were doing specific studies,
there doing large general studies . Obviously 31 we spent a lot of time
talking about 31 . No one from this Plan Commission or the City of Carmel
will have any large effect on 31, we have alerted it, we know we have a
problem there, the state maybe aware that we have a problem. The state
that is their road, they fund it, they build it. We vote for state
legislators, we don't vote for engineers on the State Highway Department.
As the need comes there the State will either make improvements or they
will not make improvements, if they don't make improvements then the plan
that we have for 31 may not be viable. That plan may need to be changed in
the future. It will be very disruptive, there will be political influence
come into play, there will be all kinds of things happen. At this point
the Plan Commission will set here and watch all this go on because we will
have very little influence on it. 31 was a limited access highway, Carmel
Drive now intersects it, there was never a plan for there to be a Carmel
Drive and 31, the state did not plan for that. Because of something we did
here the state relooked at it and agreed that it was alright they would put
another intersection in there. The same time they come back and closed
some of the turning lanes . 131st Street it is not a crossing lane any more.
We got an access on Carmel Drive, we give up something else there, we have
no Berlin effect on this . We may not have wanted to do it, but there was
nothing we could do about it. The State give us this we are lucky for what
we have got and we deal with that. So beware we felt as a Plan Commission
we needed some tools to look down the road and see what was going to go on,
but we will not be building roads from off this plan. The fact that a two
lane road on 116th Street may have looked most desirable does not mean that
there are not other solutions that we can live with. I 'm sure other
solutions will be addressed, they will all be addressed. There is some
resistance from the commercial community to a freeway type 31, there may be
other ways of improving 31, there may not be. But we will not make that
decision, we will look and see what happens out there and that will govern
what we do with the building and the speed in the manner of which some of
these things are built. It will give us some information to work with to
make a reasonable plan. It also puts residence on notice contrary to what
we experience today on 116th Street. Areas that we see that may need
improvement in the future we will be acquiring right-a-ways as these areas
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 26
develop rather than waiting until houses are there, which is now very
expensive and very painful to acquire right-of-way after areas developed
out. If we see a problem, we have a plan, we have got a collector street
plan, we have got an interceptor plan, we know what we need as far as a
right-of-way, so as those areas develop we will ask the developer to give
us those right-of-ways then. Now then when we need to go back and pre-
approve the roads there need be no disruption to the people that live
there. There needs to be no give backyard, we don't have a school built to
close to the road. So hopefully, we get a little better picture and have a
little better plan down the road. The Plan Commission has not had a
traffic study in the past, this is our first one. We thought this was a
tool that we needed to make reasonable decisions of the future. We are not
going to build roads we know that. There are a lot of other things that
impact that. Mr. Dillon.
JIM DILLON
Mr. Myers we have heard a lot of talk about commercial property, what has
been approved, proposed and what is available. What density did you use in
the western part of the township for your traffic study?
JOHN MYERS
We assumed 1 unit per acre per residential . I guess I would like to
elaborate that a little bit to just make some sense out of that. We
started with aerial photos because aerial photos do a real good job of
showing what development is existing. So we used that to identify the
vacant areas, we then adjusted the vacant areas for what had already been
approved. In fact, in western Clay Township I don't know that there is
anything there is very little that has been approved. Then the remaining
acreage that was left, vacant acreage, we simply applied 1 unit per acre,
that's it. It was gross rather then net.
JOANNE GREEN
I would like to add to obviously conservative response to the
traffic in Clay West to.
JEFF DAVIS
We have a lot of areas out there that are not developed with that intensity
now there is no reason to think that we are going back and resubdivide
those subdivisions . There are subdivisions that are much bigger lots than
1 unit per acre. You are talking about 1 unit per acre per the whole of
western Clay Township.
JOHN MYERS
This is what remaining vacant. The vacant areas we used 1 unit per acre.
JEFF DAVIS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 27
There has been some large lot development go on since we started this .
Judy.
JUDY HAGAN
I want to say I agree very much with you about the secondary arterial on
the west side, the collector or whatever we are calling it now. I agree
with you because we are going to be asking for thoroughfare right-of-way
when developers come in. So I think that road ought to be moved back.
JEFF DAVIS
It can be moved anywhere. It is not
JUDY HAGAN
Ron just read to you the state of law how when it comes push comes to shove
that is what we are going to hear.
JEFF DAVIS
My alternative would be to take it off. Just refer to it in the text.
JUDY HAGAN
Well, that may be a solution, to run it parallel in a straight line just
like you have Pennsylvania on the east side.
JOHN MYERS
Those of you are who have been involved in the federal aid process using
federal funds I think would recognize that first of all it should be in the
Comprehensive Plan for use of Federal Funds . But , then secondly you go
through alignment study on every federal aid job I 've ever been involved it
is a new roadway and those alignment studies take into account those
environmental impact etc . Again, I think you ought to get a legal opinion,
but if this goes through houses with a vacant field next door, I don't
think there is anybody that is going to make you go through that house. I
don't think it is an issue yet.
RON HOUCK
My concern that it is an issue is typically these are things are
constructed in pieces . They are not put in at one time. If that were the
case I 'm sure what you are saying is true. However, a leg is built on this
development, another leg is here and somehow they all line up at the end
hopefully. In that vain I guess the map does become important in what
developers see as guiding the efforts of where the roadway should go.
Whether it is in fact were it should go or not. Therefore, I think that the
placement on the map does become of importance.
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 28
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
The only point I would make to that is if this plan is accepted and is
implemented or if it is not and the 85 plan is used which also shows that
similar type road, you will be one of the bodies , you, the City Council,
County Commissioner. Whichever has the jurisdiction over the actual road
will be one of the bodies that decides the actual placement of that. Now
the developers will dictate their projects to you, you will be the ones
that will be interpreting not only the text, but also the map. That is
your charge as the Planning Commission. You will be the ones deciding the
placement of that road and your the ones that are going to have to sit here
and interrupt that meandering road.
RON HOUCK
I guess in that same vain though I would rather have the road placed
differently and see the petitioner argue against that placement than I
would see us try to argue that it should be different than the placement on
the map.
JOHN MYERS
There isn't nothing that says that you couldn't do more of a detail study
and update your plan.
JOHN M.
Chairman Davis , let me ask you. You mentioned early
on this evening that you are insistent upon relating to land use and
thoroughfare plan. I can't conceive of anything that would be more
important than land use as you attempt to locate a collector, secondary or
an arterial . I recognize the disclaimers that you have given, I understand
that. But as you locate this in the western corridor off of 31 it seems to
me that you have to look at the practical aspects as they just did. A good
portion of the corridor is developed that means it has to come west
of the corridor. You have to plan land use criteria
west of the corridor. All of which appears to be, unless again we are
dealing in generalities at this point, it is single family residential
development. What this plan then would presume to do would be to drop this
arterial in through that single family residential corridor. Necessity in
certain areas because it is a practical matter you can't put it in the
corridor on the west side in places . That is the concern that I have as we
don't seem to relate to this corridor to a land use issue in that respect
opposed to for instance some other alternative that you choose.
JOHN MYERS
Others may have something to say to. My reference relating to
transportation improvements to land use was supply and demand kind of
reference that the demand for travel is predicated by land use the supply
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 29
for travel is predicated by the network of roadways . That is the key
reference that I was speaking to. I think that the effect of a roadway on
the environment, the social environment and its surroundings is an
important issue, but it is an engineering issue. It is not a planning
issue in how we use it here, but because I don't know where that roadway is
going to go. And having said that I agree with everything that you said in
terms of taking care to locate it so it has the minimum impact on people
that live in the area.
JOHN M.
Is it a planning issue.
JOHN MYERS
It is an engineering issue where that gets located. Now there may be a
gray area where planning becomes engineering and engineering becomes
planning. There is for me because I am a Certified Planner Registered
Engineer. I find the area pretty gray. Another words it is an important
point, but once again maybe it goes back to something that we said earlier,
we don't want to overstep the bounds of what we have done in the study. We
could study that corridor, we could identify a specific alignment and maybe
that is desirable, it hasn't been a part of this study. We don't know what
that alignment is and we have tried to use words to indicate that we don't
know what that alignment is . As Jeff has said, if we could figure out a
way to put cotton up through or fuzz balls or dots or dashes or something
else, to make it clear that a roadway is needed in terms of supply and
demand on the network. In this particular case, if there are commercial
developments along that side of 31, which is what is shown as land use on
the Thoroughfare Plan, and the access is not provided by roadways such as
this and is not provided directly by 31 it is going to be provided by some
other northsouth roadway. The only other northsouth roadway I see there is
Spring Mill Road. I think that it is just that simple, I think that the
concept there is that the intent is not to load Spring Mill Road with the
traffic that' s serving the commercial development that is shown on the land
use plan. Correct me Jeff, if I 'm miss stating what the intent of the
Steering Committee was .
JOHN M.
What you said falls right in line with our discussion that you don't want
to load Spring Mill Road, perhaps that is understandable, but you would
load this other residential area that you plan to be developed immediately
west of the corridor. Yet that road does not go into the corridor itself,
because everything as I see it from the plan proposal everything is medium
density residential the rest of the corridor. That is the
concern that I have. My experience Mr. Myers with the Comp Plan was that
(change of tapes)
JOHN MYERS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 30
We have two lines there and we don't know where the lines P-e really
supposed to be. Maybe I am wrong, in terms of the commerciai and
residential . I was having trouble with these hard edges . We have a
roadway, we don't know where it is . We have the note. Having said all
that I 'd say it was up to the commission, we can move that all around, it
doesn't change anything. It may the perception but given all the
disclaimers . Another words your point may be exactly right and as a matter
of fact I see what you are saying now when I look at it more closely and
see how the colors are. You know I was out here one time and I know a
number of people saw this , the size of a postage stamp on a Comp Plan like
this blown up to be a big poster and then some discussion about that. It
is surprising how many ti- :, that came up in our Steering Committee
meetings . That is exactl :hat we do not have in mind to. We do not have
in mind that we know when ._ 4he edge is or the road.
JOHN M.
When this plan is adopted by the Commission and a plan it will certainly be
at some point in time, you are not suggesting that those of us who are
looking to the Plan to determine whether or not a potential development is
viable. We are not to look at that orange area and say and advise our
clients that that is medium density residential, it is not commercial
ground.
JOHN MYERS
I think I have said enough. I think the Plan Commission ought to answer
the question.
JOHN M.
particularly when they relate to land use issues .
Generally are pretty well defined in terms of the area. There is nothing
hard and fast about them, I grant you that.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
The only point that I can follow up if anyone of the Planninc steering
Committee members want to jump in on this ' hey can. As I relate back over
the last two years of the study, the first thing that comes to my mind was
elimination of transition. The second one was that we do not want to be
sight specific, we do not want to follow sight specific with our land use
plan. I remember at leas- six meetings where the note down in the lower
corner was discussed, redefined, rewritten, reproposed, rewritten again and
then finally came up with what we got currently. If anyc pf the Planning
Steering Committee would like to address that point, but that is what I
remember, that this is not a sight specific . Because I remember another
specific sight that the staff came before you in the review process and
asked you looked at that sight six months ago and turned down a project.
Are you being sight specific again? And the answer to the Planning
Steering Committee was, no, this is a general consensus of what the land
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 31
uses should be and that we will develop the exact land uses as the project
are proposed to us . This is actually a guide, it is not cast in stone. Is
that correct?
JEFF DAVIS
That is correct. Is the Comprehensive Plan developed early in the planning
stages? We have been asked many times to eliminate the transition areas .
Against my better judgement I agreed that we should eliminate the
transition areas . Let me tell you, I think that we have been unfair by
doing it and I always thought it was unfair in doing that because there
will in fact have to be always transition areas . We don't show them on the
map, the Comprehensive Plan does not address them, but you do not build
residential housing against an eight story office building and tell people
originally there will not be a transition between this . This is not going
to happen, it was never going to happen. The transition area was a honest
attempt to let people know that something unusual might happen here. We
have no transition areas in this plan. It was a consensus of the
Comprehensive Plan Committee based on a lot of public input that people
wanted definite decisions there. But in order to do this we went ahead and
did that but we also told you that this was not site specific . We cannot
build a large lot house against an eight story office building and
everybody here knows that. If we left the transition area in there you
would be alerted to that, but without the transition area you may or may
not be alerted to it. There will need to be transition areas in some
areas, it is the only reasonable way to develop this land.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
The only follow up to that Jeff, is there was and it was not used to
substitute the transition zones or transition areas, but it does have a
statement underneath the medium density residential that this could be a
possible solution or buffering between a low density residential area and a
local commercial rezone commercial. It was invented to be a transition
use. It was used for a possible buffering system.
JEFF DAVIS
That is one possible, there is a variety of things you can use. There is a
variety of options you can use to do this with. Alright. Are there any
other questions? Mr.Kendall .
TOM KENDALL
In regards to this secondary arterial between Meridian and Spring Mill that
is a hypothetical road at this point. Trying to put it all into
perspective what I gather you are saying is because it is hypothetical and
there is no specific plan for a road, it is irrelevant at this point
whether the dots are half way in between where the bends are because we
don't know where it is going to be. That being the case, why would there
be any objection then to making it a straight line having it closer to
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 32
Meridian Street since it seems to be that what the people it ` ' -, area and
the public would like to see since it is all hypothetical anyway. What's
the difference ?
JEFF DAVIS
It seems somewhat foolish to indicate a road going through a developed area
when there was a vacant area next to it. It did not make any sense, now we
know exactly where the road is going to start at 131st Street, that is
already pretty cut in stone, so we know where it starts there. What we did
was we stayed in the commercial in the corridor so that we could make a
reasonable swing to come out around the Fidelity Plaza developed area at
116th Street. It goes right along the side of that already developed area,
in an area that is not developed. Now then, we can draw that right through
the commercial property of eight story office buildings , but that is not
reasonable. We can draw through th homes south of there, we can draw
through the subdivision south of there and indicate taking =11 the houses
out. Do you think that will not generate some comment from the public?
Why would we not indicate that generally this would be located in a blank
area? We can move the thing, I would just like to take it off .
TOM KENDALL
So basically what you are saying then is that you put it wh ,:e it would
logically go therefore what you are saying if a road were built
this is probably . . .
JEFF DAVIS
It is a good starting place, right, it could be moved closer something
might be torn down, it could be moved farther away, it might be reasonable
depending on what was developed. I 'm not saying that sometime in the
future that land may not be viable enough that people would buy the houses
and tear them down and put a commercial property in there. In which case
then they could be tucked in there. There are a lot of things that can
appen to that road and we know that. We just didn't feel right about
jrawing it through an eight story office building to start with. We really
didn't think that would happen. We left it flexi!-le there, maybe that
could happen, maybe we could tuck it in there somewhere. That is a
possibility because we don't indi ;te where it should go, we know where ' t
will start, because 131st Street is pretty much indicated tucked ri3ht u
against 31 . You won't make the continuation of Carmel Drive or 126th
Street through those commercial properties there. It works fine at that
point. It works pretty good at the south end, there are areas in the
middle there that are really hard to say what is --)ing to ' -,nen to it
TOM KENDALL
a through at all that is the realistic endcresult. If it were going to go
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 33
JEFF DAVIS
Dr. Dillon
JIM DILLON
Mr. Davis, some time the buck has got to stop being passed. We literally
fought George Sweet on that road when it came out one of the reasons was
because you could go straight across the street and extend it on up outside
the corridor. We heard all this song and dance that you have come up with
tonight about oh no, we could move it in and you just said they could move
it across there. I think that is the whole point, as long as it is there
that is where it is going to be. Put it inside, make them move it out.
JEFF DAVIS
That's fine.
JIM DILLON
You've got to stop passing the buck.
JOHN MYERS
You know we have an organizational chart in your office, the
transportation department I asked for a partner, why is the transportation
department all the way down here in the lower right hand corner. He said
John, it really doesn't make any difference. I said, Good, let's put it up
here on top and I guess the point is we say it doesn't make any difference
and people have a preference and I guess it might be good if we could all
have a vote on where the road is going to go, even though we say we don't
know where it is going to go and then at least people wouldn't get upset
when they saw the dashed line on the map.
JEFF DAVIS
The public here tonight would like to be assured that this road will not
extended unnecessarily outside the corridor. What I would like to do is
make a motion that we show this road on the west side as a straight line
midway of the 600 ' corridor from the starting point to 465 . Midway of the
600 ' , 300 ' from 31 .
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Jeff, as going back through history, this road was proposed and I am going
to have to reference to another staff member, but I believe in the 61 plan
originally that there was a Meridian Corridor concept. With Meridian in
the middle, two alterative roads on the outside, those both being placed in
600 ' . I think that is kind of the basis of the limits of the corridor. I
also believe engineering wise it would be inept of us to put it at 300 ' .
JEFF DAVIS
•
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
34
It is at 600 ' on the east side, at no risk. Right now it goes on the 1- -st
side.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Wouldn't it be reasonable to put it at the 600 ' 7
JEFF DAVIS
I 've made the motion is there a second?
RON HOUCK
I guess I 'm not sure what the parliamentary procedure is, do we have to
second this before we discuss it?
JEFF DAVIS
It is not motion until it is seconded.
RON HOUCK
I 'll second it.
JEFF DAVIS
Discussion?
RON HOUCK
Now, I guess according to the scale on this ma
on the 3st side, clearly it looks like it is muchfgreaterintthanit1s 600at' onOthe
west sic.a. I mean unless my geometry is really off. You can see that it
extends clearly into the orange area and outside the area that is even
marked for the corridor. My concern is and I think a number of residence
share this, while there are some pieces of the roadway that are dictated b
what is already in place, there are many sections that are not dictated y
because the land is undeveloped and this is the
greate -
t chanhav
an impact in those areas . Much of what is shown here 'Itsidece theecorridorr
is land that that is still undeveloped. There is a c -ice to serve as a
guiding influence as to where the placement of this rc way should be. So I
`hink for that reason, I think a number of people and myself included have
_oncern that this, even the :h it is conceptual and that there are all kind
of disclaimers made on maps .t some point the Plan Commission members who
sit in judgement on a projec . the petitioner and any clients or
consultants that he may hire at some point, has to look at the document,
the text, the maps and wonder what is this thing saying. And I think
that reason I think it is for
where it is now. I think certainlyhatrthetpeoplesto ewishesit caredtdy than
than that. different
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 35
JEFF DAVIS
Very good. Yes . -
JOHN MYERS
Something that we could do, at least on the Thoroughfare Plan, to make
But wherever you put it we then could put a note, the
letters, the words, right along the road that says location to be
determined. So even if you showed a straight line somebody could look
there, they don't have to read text or disclaimer. It is going to say
right along the side of that road and we could put the same thing on
Hazeldell and any other roadway that is a new alignment. So, that may
supplement your discussion.
JEFF DAVIS
I think we can do that. But I think we want to address moving this
conceptual plan, I don't have any real objection to moving the conceptual
plan inside the 600 ' corridor. There is any further discussion.
ALAN POTASNIK
I don't have any problem with that either, Jeff. Really that's the way it
sounds to me, it seems logical to do that, I don't see any problem with
that.
JEFF DAVIS
Anyone else? I think if we put it someplace where it obviously can't go it
becomes more conceptual.
JOHN MYERS
I wasn't going to say that. That crossed my mind. Especially if we have a
note on there, location to be determined.
JEFF DAVIS
Is it getting late or did I actually say that?
CAROLINE BAINBRIDGE
How much time went into the preparation and the placing c -his line, how
long did you people study this, the whole committee sent '_s out to us . I
cannot believe that we are sitting here still talking abc this line. I
think that we need to deal with it and vote on it.
JEFF DAVIS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 36
Is there any further discussion? The motion would put the conceptual
collector road on the east side of 31 midway on the map i...:�de the 600 '
commercial zone. 300 ' . The west side of 31 .
MICHAEL NARDI
Ron, could you restate what you had mentioned about how this could be used
according to the Indiana Code then? Because then we may need to put a
disclaimer, this map doesn't meet Indiana code whatever.
RON HOUCK
I think if I understand your question, it was the legal question I ask
about? This was in the material that you also received and if you look at
the duties of Plan Commission, Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan, on
the last page which is #17 under local government, I 'm not sure what you
really want me to do here except restate it.
MICHAEL NARDI
Would you please restate that?
RON HOUCK
There is a, however, they legally refer to this paragraph. 36-7-4-506 which
is title Thoroughfare Plans included in Comprehensive Plans ; location
change, vacation or improvement of thoroughfares . Under Item C is that it
says , that after a thoroughfare plan has been included in the Comprehensive
Plan thoroughfares may be located, changed, widened, straightened, or
vacated only in the manner indicated by the Comprehensive Plan. That was
the question that has been referred to Mr. Wendling for an answer at a
later date. Exactly how our thoroughfare Plan will be impacted upon by
that statement and what we determine both in text and according to the map.
ALAN POTASNIK
`yen am I correct to understand even if we do vote on this change, I guess
will direct it to staff, president, the attorney, until we get this legal
opinion we won't know what we have here.
RON HOUCK
To me it doesn't keep us from doing anything the way we have been. I think
the legal opinion will be separate and apart from our decision to how the
Thoroughfare Plan should be arranged. I mean we are discussing how we
think the Thoroughfare Plan should be and to me, the legal question is
something related but separate from the issue we are discussing right now.
CAROLINE BAINBRIDGE
I think it is directly related, because I need to know whether I am going
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 37
to be held to this dotted line no matter where it is and I want to know
that before I vote.
RONALD HOUCK
Well, you have heard that there will be disclaimers .
JEFF DAVIS
But you have also reminded us that that may not be enough. Now I will tell
you that if we vote for this and put in the middle, and our legal opinion
comes back and yes that is where it is located, we may have effectively
eliminated every building in this row.
RONALD HOUCK
I can also see it being very positive as well.
JEFF DAVIS
Any further discussion? Seeing none I will ask for a vote those in favor
of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign. Hold up hands,
who voted which. Who voted in favor: Who voted against. Does not
carry.
Alright, before we go any further I suggest we get a legal opinion.
like to have it as close to 31 as reasonable, let' s get a
legal opinion about what we are doing before we go to
DAVID CUNNNINGHAM
Jeff, just so we can move on and not belabor the point. I 'm sure we will
relate this to Bill in the morning and that could be his first question to
be addressed and when we take this back to full commission
JEFF DAVIS
I would like that addressed by a letter to the Plan Commission members .
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
OK.
JEFF DAVIS
So we will know the answer to that before the next meeting, I don't want to
have to discuss this, I want that part of it resolved so we'll know the
legal aspect. As soon as possible.
ALAN POTASNIK
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 38
I would like a procedural question with regards to this . what we are doing
here this evening. Will this be referred, when it gets uune with this
committee, back to Land Use, what is the procedure that is going to happen
with this?
JEFF DAVIS
We are going to make these corrections and then it is going to stay with
the full Plan Commission. i think, we are reviewing this as this committee
as a whole. So I think it is all going to be handled at this level if we
can cover it all tonight. We will, if we cannot
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
As a quick follow-up to that at the last Commission meeting you did suspend
the rules to point this committee to review this . Therefore,
bypassing
JEFF DAVIS
I think it simplifies the solution if we all sit in on this and the whole
Plan Commission Make sure we find out these
decisions .
SUE DILLON
I think as it was pointed out tonight that it is not reasonable, I 'm sorry
for the disruption, it is not reasonable to expect this road to go through
a residential neighborhood, residential housing and in fact Spring Mill
Road amendment reads that everything west on 600 ' Meridian Corridor shall
be residential in nature. Therefore, i think especially on the DePauw
property, in light of all the development around there I am very
uncomfortable with that, we had a big fight with Radnor last year over
that. I won't go through that again. We have a thousand signatures from
the residence out there asking for that project to be defeated and they
used the map I am very concerned about
that I 'll show you that at least 1100
houses here is the corridor. It is way out there in the
corridor and you've got houses on 136th, houses all along there, solid
houses and you are not going to move it. I think it should be up to 600 '
Comprehensive Plan which is an ordinance to the
existing
JEFF DAVIS
I think should be within the 600 ' , I think that was the
intention.
SUE DILLON
Am I to understand the way you just voted it stays where it is .
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 39
JEFF DAVIS
No. We just voted that we are not going to change it right, we would like
to have a legal opinion to find out - I really don't want to locate this
someplace where it can't be located and find out legally we are stuck with
it and find it is unable to build it. As far as we are concerned it is not
located anywhere, far as I am concerned it has no location on this map. I
understand what you are saying and we want to safeguard you against that,
we get a legal opinion, if we can legally move this over, I have no problem
with moving it against 31 . Because it is only a concept anyway, if that
helps, I don't have any problem doing that. But I don't want to locate it
someplace and then find out that we are legally stuck with it. I don't
want to locate it a conceptual road and then find we are stuck by law in
leaving it there. If that's the case then we are going to have to get very
specific where we put it or leave it off. Just indicate it in writing but
leave it off the map. We may find that we have to leave it off the map
altogether and indicate in writing what we would like for it to be. In
order to have some kind of control,. I don't disagree with you, I don't
think it should go through large residential areas either. I don't think
it should sit a long distance from 31 either, I don't think we have any
disagreement there. It is just how we are coming about doing it and how we
are getting into doing it. I don't think you are in any disagreement with
the Plan Commission, I don't think you will find any problems here either.
The terminology in how we are doing it and I think we have got to find it
out now. We have got to get a legal opinion and find out exactly where we
are at. If we need to move it or take it off that is what we will have to
do.
SUE DILLON
Let me ask you another question. Are we going back to the previous
questions that were asked?
JEFF DAVIS
Yes . Yes we have spent some amount of time on Mr. Blackwell's letter. It
was a pretty decent letter so it deserved some time. We have we think a
complete listing of the questions that were asked in the public hearing at
the last meeting and we want to cover those. Some of those questions were
covered in the answer to Mr. Blackwell's letter, some of them were not and
we have our coverage there on that. We will get a legal opinion, I would
ask that the Plan Commission members receive that in the mail prior to the
next meeting, so we have information available to make that decision and
not have to do it up here. That shouldn't take long. Does everyone feel
that we have adequately covered Mr. Blackwell's letter.
RON HOUCK
I guess I have a question about density, in terms of how exactly we have
addressed it. I know I think my understanding of the overlying tone from
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
40
staff and probably also your feelings that the underlying density has not
been changed, has not been increased. . However, i guess the concern I have
is that Mr. Myers stated that the traffic projections were based on a
traffic density or an estimation of assumed density of 1 unit per acre.
However, all the undeveloped land is in the text of this stipulates it to
be 1 1/2 units per acre. Effectively to me that means that there is going
to be 50% more traffic generated then least residentially than what was
estimated. Maybe if John is still around he can answer that.
JEFF DAVIS
I think that is a land use issue, I think he answered it and his answer was
fairly adequate. Now the question is whether this is all going to develop
as S-1 at that rate. And, I would suggest that probably not in fact the
case. We see a lot of projects out there developing in lesser densities
than that right now I would anticipate that all every remaining acre in the
western part of Clay Township will not develop as S-1 at that particular
rate. The overall density may be much less than 1 unit per acre.
Obviously that is a guide. Our traffic plan based on a gross density of 1
unit per acre in western Clay Township some of those areas will need to be
developed in lesser density than 1 . 5 units per acre. We have encouraged
that in some of our ordinances and we continue to encourage it with our
variance process . We have builders who find a market for that type of
housing, hopefully they will continue to. They we will encourage that type
of development. So even though a large portions of it may develop at 1 .5p
hopefully other portions will develop at a much lesser density so the
overall density will be no more than and hopefully less than 1 unit per
acre.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
After a quick clarification with John, if you will turn to page 109 and
look at that chart, as you go across the top it does say major land uses
and has three classifications for residential and the commercial . It does
state the maximum density and that would be at the build out scenario which
John stated would be, I guess erroneous was the word, but would be
practically non-feasible for lack of a better word. Therefore, for the
traffic explanation they assumed 1 acre per a 2, a 6 and 10, 000 square
foot. That is what they assumed for the traffic situation. Similar where
they assumed the program versus the build-out. That is what I am
understanding.
JOHN MYERS
Sorry I stepped out, I heard you say density and I went and got a drink of
water.
JEFF DAVIS
Really, that is a land use thing and your traffic study indicated w
did with it. Hopefully there will be some green areas involved hat you
possibly
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 41
some park areas in this area.
JOHN MYERS
Exactly. It was never our intent really for this to be land use issue on
this particular page, we were just simply stating we had to assume
something as a gross density and we have had a question throughout this
process, it's been tough to walk that line and not underestimating because
we want to be responsible in our overall approach from a public welfare
point of view. But then we don't want to overestimate because we don't
want to hurt the people that live along the corridor, so there is always a
balance there and this was our judgement. The one unit per acre
to
There may be a golf course out there some day.
JEFF DAVIS
There may be two golf courses, there may be a school, maybe there will be
an airport, we don't know. This gives us potential, the build-out scenario
is a long ways down the road. Hopefully, the Plan Commission and future
Plan Commission will have some effect based on this traffic study of what
we see here. Although it is zoned S-i now that does not mean that, S-i is
not a requirement, it is a possibility, but it is not a requirement.
Another words that land is not required to develop at S-i density. It can
be developed at S-1 densities, but I don't think the most optimistic person
for the future of Carmel would anticipate some time in the next 20 years
every acre of ground will be developed in S-i intensity out there. I
really cannot believe that will happen. There is plenty of time to modify
that if it really starts exploding. We have had a real heavy growth in the
last 10 years here, much more so than many areas of the country, many areas
of the country in this experience and declining growth. Many areas in the
State of Indiana have a stabler declining growth. Indianapolis has had an
explosive amount of growth and we've grown with it but there is no
indication that that will go on forever. It has not gone on in the past
and there is no indication really that Indianapolis will always be one of
the hottest places in the United States . I would suggest probably that the
reverse is more likely. We will in fact have a cooling off period of time
and this development may not be as attractive in this area as it has been.
You may continue to have farms, maybe for the rest of my lifetime. Be able
to grow corn out there.
SUE DILLON
I 'm really not happy the way these questions have been answered because we
made a large presentation as you know. Our data was sent out from the
department We had to look up the number of acres, I think if
you check with the department you will find that our densities were
accurate. Did you check our figures that we presented?
JEFF DAVIS
Dave.
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
42
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
In relationship to current?
SUE DILLON
The statistics we gave you as to the existing density are correct?
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Let me also make the point that in 85 and also in this plan it was
revalidated that the existing low density residential have developed at a
1 . 7 overall average.
SUE DILLON
That is taking the whole township. We are talking about the westernpart
of the township and we took the subdivision, your right there are 12 pages
here, we just used the ones that were in western Clay Township. Because
that is what we are interested in, we are not interested.
JEFF DAVIS
SUE DILLON
Well, I know you are and you should be, you 've already designated the east
side
.tolbehmoderate eveeven
athough •h it is S-1f you . So we are looking at S-1 in the
min
to Hank's letter, I think it islinaccuratetbecause what we are ,talk 'ng
about is existing densities and we would want it my, since you ve referred
to
existing densities . The answer here to Hank's lettertcoo mparestit toewhat 's
possible in the Comprehensive Plan in the zoning ordinance. We are not
talking about that we know what is possible in the zoning ordinances . It
is 2. 9 units per acre in S-1 and you know I went to a meeting lastpear
that Dr. Schneider, the Community Development Information Council sponsored
and his point was very clear about Comprehensive Plans . That they, first
you have the Comprehensive Plan and then you have zoning ordinances and
your zoning ordinances reflect what you want, what 's in your Comprehensive
Plan. It is not the reverse, and the way I interpret the answer is we are
putting the zoning ordinances first. Now historically speaking,
knew the zoning ordinances were not in compliance with the Comprehensive
then in 85 nor in 70 . But it didn't have to be addressed, beeverybody
se we
didn't have sanitarys . p ive
we tried to hit it twoyearsaIt o could be ducked, the issue was uducked. So
know
change in the S-1 minimum lot size atos p2uacres .Mr. Blackwell sponsored a N
and I know that you have answered this correctly technicallyw I have .
Buts letterthk
if he were here tonight, he would say I didn't express myself theI think
meant, because if you look at the rest, he said, Well, I 'm not sureah I
ow
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5 , 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 43
feasible it is for us to consider, let's see, I certainly am not in favor
of greater density then the present zoning provides . That's what he said,
so you've answered that. That is not the intent of his point, I know it.
JEFF DAVIS
Didn't have mike on.
SUE DILLON
He said, he goes on to say, I think we should listen carefully to our
neighbors who live in these areas and have almost unanimously spoken out at
every opportunity against greater density in the Carmel/Clay developing
areas . Greater density. Our statistics show that the density existing in
Clay west averages . 6 on septics and .7 something on sanitary sewers . They
don't, it' s not 2 . 9 . Our statistics are correct. That is what exists and
that was our point and that is what the point of everybody else. He goes
on to say, I would therefore support a proposal that S-1 residential
density not be increased in the update beyond the 1 house per acre, which
is currently provided in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. So I really think
that the answer to Mr. Blackwell 's letter which you have referred to so
many of these questions answered by Mr. Blackwell's letter, answered by Mr.
Blackwell 's letter, answered by Mr. Blackwell' s letter, clearly you
answered ours by Mr. Blackwell 's letter. I 'm not satisfied with this answer
because that wasn't the point we were making.
JEFF DAVIS
Didn't have mike on.
SUE DILLON
How have you reduced it, you haven't reduced it from the previous
Comprehensive Plan, the 85 says 1 house per acre which actually works out
to . 8 units gross, if you take up 20% for infrastructure.
JEFF DAVIS
Didn't have mike on.
SUE DILLON
in S-1 large lots 1 unit per acre. It doesn't mention sewers
in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't mention sewers .
JEFF DAVIS
The ordinance requires 1 house per acre without sewers .
SUE DILLON
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 44
Right, but we 're not talking about the ordinances , we are talking about the
Comprehensive Plan. Let's forget the zoning ordinances . They are going to
come later. They should reflect the Comprehensive Plan, not the
Comprehensive Plan reflect the ordinances .
JEFF DAVIS
We have not increased the density, we are going to leave it there, 1 house
per acre without sewers . That was the intention all along and then with
sewers we have decreased what the ordinance currently allows by almost
half.
SUE DILLON
I know, that's the point, the ordinances don't come before the plan, the
plan is to dictate what the ordinances are.
JEFF DAVIS
I think that is what this plan is what this committee has decided they are
willing to do.
SUE DILLON
And, they want 1 . 5 .
JEFF DAVIS
Yes .
SUE DILLON
But the residents don't want 1 . 5 . Mr. Blackwell does not want 1 . 5, we want
1.
JEFF DAVIS
Do the owners of undeveloped property out there want 1 .5 or less . Do they
have no voice.
SUE DILLON
Were they here?
JEFF DAVIS
It doesn't matter, they are to be protected an
yway. what you
asking us to do is go back and rezone the whole area.Now Atthen,this point, there
committee, if we change the ordinance and lessen the densities at that
point, we have basically are rezoning that whole area. The owners out
there now who can build a certain thing now we are telling them that they
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 45
no longer can build that.
SUE DILLON
We're not rezoning it.
JEFF DAVIS
We change the ordinance it basically does that. We change the S-i
ordinance and limit it with sewers a . 6 units per acre allowed, when we
change the ordinance to fit the Comprehensive Plan, basically we have
rezoned it. This committee was unwilling to do that. We didn't think that
that was a reasonable thing to do giving the variable density that area is
developing at now. We encourage large lot subdivisions and we will
continue to do that. I explained to you the two ways that is encouraged
now. But S-1 ground . . . . that have sewers we don't anticipate that it will
be the whole area that has sewers . We don't anticipate that the average
will go to the S-1 average. What your telling us is every acre out there
will be sewered and will all go to the S-1 average and we do not believe
that is true. We don't believe that the average acres of land should
substantially be changed. The sewers have not been fully utilized at this
point, the interceptor sewers are in the connectors are not. The reason
you still show a . 6 units per acre is because those sewers that are
presently there have not been fully utilized. When they are fully utilized
that percentage will come up to some extent. We don't think it is
reasonable because basically what it does it eliminates the sewers from the
area. We don't think that is reasonable either, that's what this committee
decided. Basically that is where we are at. But we don't think by any
means are we condemning you to an overall average of 1 .5 units per acre,
because we don't think that is going to happen. We don't anticipate that
will happen. We will continue to encourage large lot subdivisions for
areas that are not sewered and these areas will probably never be sewered.
There will be no reason to put a sewer in there.
SUE DILLON
So in other words, we are still stuck with 15, 000 sq. ft. lots . Are largest
lot, I mean we can build to 15,000 sq.ft. ?
JEFF DAVIS
I don't think we even referred to that. It is 1 .5 units per acre.
SUE DILLON
But, our zoning ordinances allow lots to be 15, 000 sq. ft. .
JEFF DAVIS
They won't when they are changed to match this Comprehensive Plan.
SUE DILLON
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
46
What will they be changed to?
JEFF DAVIS
1 .5 units per gross acre. Whatever that figures out to be. We don't know
exactly what they will be changed to. The Comprehensive Plan Committee is
going to ask that they be changed to reflect less density. S-1 1 . 5, S-2
1 . 8.
SUE DILLON
I guess that 's our concern, because Mr. Snyder also said that you fight the
zoning issues at the Comprehensive Plan.
JEFF DAVIS
Right.
SUE DILLON
And, that is why we are fighting, because this is the place to establish
what density we are to have, not when it comes for zoning and you can't
deny it, because it meets the ordinance.
JEFF DAVIS
We understand that and we don't disagree with that.
SUE DILLON
Are you telling me that following this when Campbell Kyle Proffitt redoes
the zoning ordinances or the subdivision ordinances that to
change these to reflect 1 . 5 . they are going
JEFF DAVIS.
And 1 . 8, is that correct? That is what we are going to request. We can't
anticipate that City Council has to vote on it for one thing, we can't make
that ordinance happen.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
The zoning ordinance will be changed to those levels .
SUE DILLON
What would that indicate? What size lots are we talking about?
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 47
1.5 and 1 . 8 density, not indicating any thing with lot size. The
Comprehensive Plan has nothing to do with development standards . That was
the recommendation from this when that would be reviewed.
SUE DILLON
Ok, I still think our request holds, I think it should be 1 unit per acre,
because already 20%, at least 20% comes out of infrastructure, so you are
down to 8/10ths . If every lot was a square and it was the same size you
are down to 8/10th of an acre lots, can't even work out to 1 acre lots .
You take out a pond and you add a swimming pool and whatever, the more you
add the smaller the lots get and pretty soon you are down to 1/2 acre lots,
you are down to 15, 000 sq. ft. .
JEFF DAVIS
We may find that in some areas and sometimes in the future that may be more
desirable, we may find in the new zoning ordinance as we look at it, and
I 'm not telling you anything because I don't vote on it and I won't even be
here. I don't know that it is necessarily beneficial to require people to
leave out amenities just to build big lots . It may be very beneficial to
bui_1d S ill l 1. (, 101_ i i:,..t. d1,1
amenities .
SUE DILLON
I agree.
JEFF DAVIS
parkway type streets . require also a specific
size lot with the limited amenities we force the developer to come in with
a project that will fit the ordinance, not an innovative project with a
park, not a parkway type street and a green area, but we force them to
divide his houses among a specific size lot and a specific density. What I
would very much like to see is giving gross density for gross acres and do
what you will .
SUE DILLON
I agree with you. I think it
JEFF DAVIS
housing out there.
SUE DILLON
Absolutely, it allows flexibility. Come down to 15, 000 sq. ft. or you can
go up to 2 acre lots
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 48
JEFF DAVIS
Some of them could be smaller. .
SUE DILLON
But, we still would like the gross density be 1 per acre and Mr. Blackwell
made that clear. I really feel that this has not been adequately answered.
JEFF DAVIS
That is a major reduction, I think Mr. Blackwell mentioned in his letter
that it may not be practical to reduce on sewers a 1 unit per acre is major
reduction over the current ordinance. Not what you are presently seeing
out there, but you don't largely have sewers out there. On sewers a house
that go on sewers 1 unit per acre would be a major reduction.
SUE DILLON
Well, he said, I 'll quote him, I also recommend that the term estate, large
lot and farmette used in the plan be realistically defined and clarified
such as an estate consisting of 1 dwelling per 2-5 acres or large lots
consisting of 1 dwelling per 1-2 acres and farmette consisting of 1
dwelling per 5-10 acres . He says realistically defining such terms will
help the public. The Plan Commission, developers and the Department of
Community Development determine what is intended. when these terms are
used throughout the Comprehensive Plan. I don't see anywhere in here
where he has suggested that has 1 unit per acre gross density is not
realistic.
JEFF DAVIS
We could describe those things that he has asked us to describe but it
would require an ordinance
SUE DILLON
I think his request if I 'm , maybe you can spot where he has indicated
otherwise, but I read that he says he is asking for 1 unit per acre. And,
I don't think he says that that is unrealistic . Reread his letter and
maybe I 've missed something, I 'm not sure but I don't see where he says
that that is unrealistic .
JEFF DAVIS
Mr. Blackwell may not be able to vote in favor of this project, Then again
maybe a lot of people will not be able to vote in favor of this project.
SUE DILLON
Well, as it is 1 .5 is in fact an increase from the existing density as we
showed by the printout. If anybody wants to look at these, there right
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
49
here, you can get them from the Department of Community Development, you
can go through their files and look up the acreage because the acreage
isn't on here. But you can check our figures is you want to. Point 6 and
point 7 whatever is what exists . And 1 . 5 doubles it. Doubles
JEFF DAVIS
Well, I 'm sure how feasible it is for us to consider new categories of
zoning which would provide for 2 , 3, 4 , 5 acres per house. I 'm certainly
not in favor of greater density then the present zoning provides .
SUE DILLON
That is what I said.
JEFF DAVIS
That is what the zoning provides 2 .
SUE DILLON
Absolutely, that was my point. But I think if Mr. Blackwell were here he
would say that he had worded this incorrectly and they picked up on this
technically. He wants 1 unit per acre.
JEFF DAVIS
And, we still have that in all areas not sewered
SUE DILLON
Not one unit per gross acre proposed, you are proposing 1 .5
JEFF DAVIS
What can you build on a septic tank out there in the present zoning?
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
1 unit per acre.
SUE DILLON
On a septic of course, were facing sewers
JEFF DAVIS
What you are asking us to do is discourage the building of sewers . We will
make it impractical to build sewers, I don't think that whole area will be
sewered. I don't think it ever will be, it is not reasonable. Some of the
area will have to develop without sewers on septic tanks with large lots .
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
50
SUE DILLON
It 's moving in real fast.
JEFF DAVIS
The sewers are not there, they are In some areas . But I think if we do
this, if we say 1 unit per acre then the sewers become economicall
unfeasible and the sewers don't want to arrive. }'
made some concession to the density here, we have made the aconcessions s that we atha
we can make. We have lessened the density per the zoning ordinance. We t
hopefully you will not get a major change in density over whichou are
currently seeing, but in no case can anyone build a subdivision to he
density after this is done that they could have before it was done. The
densities are lessened.
SUE DILLON
We don't have any that are 1 . 5 in this one right now. If you look
you will see what it is and we don't have any in a 1 . 5 . through
JEFF DAVIS
My understanding was they were somewhat denser than that.
SUE DILLON
No,
dense? are not 1 .5, I don't have my chart, let me see. What is
dense? the most
GENTLEMAN
Two questions, first of all do people who have
limits of Carmel do they have a right to have cityperty sewerslbase ton city
ordinances? Another words if they d on current
JEFF DAVIS
It is a city requirement.
GENTLEMAN
Is the city required to provide them sewers if they ey are within the city
MAX MOORE
Mx. Chairman, them, if the they are supposed to have y are within 300 ' of
the pipe.
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 51
JEFF DAVIS
They are required to have them
MAX MOORE
That is correct.
JEFF DAVIS
The City of Indianapolis is largely on sewers . The City of
Indianapolis is largely on septic tanks
GENTLEMAN
My next question to that is with a committee now studying the issue of
Unigo if at some point in time whether it be in the near future or the
distant future, that Clay Township (change of tape) sanitary sewers
throughout the township and therefore go back out and impact on this
decision of density.
I don't know of anyplace in the state where cities have been required to
provide sewers . Very few cities that have sewers in all areas of their
existing cities . This is the older cities . Indianapolis has there is a
process called the barrel law process . If you want a sewer and you were in
a sewer district you can provide it for yourself . I know the City of
Indianapolis is largely unsewered and on septic tanks which probably would
surprise a bunch of you. That is the business I happen to be in. The
barrel law process is available it is quite expensive some areas like the
southwest side of Indianapolis cannot afford a barrel law project. The
value of the property will not equal the cost of the sewer. So they don't
have sewers and likely never will. Some areas, the more fluent areas on
the north side don't have sewers but there property values would indicate
that they could afford a payment of $12-1500 a year for 10 years to pay off
a barrel law sewer. The cities I don't think in any occasion have ever
been required. They provide it where they can, where it is economically
feasible, where it is possible, they would like to provide as much as
possible but the shear dollar figure is so great it's nearly impossible.
What we are seeing here is the potential of having these sewers installed
at no cost to the taxpayers under a development plan, where the developers
pay for the sewer installation in order to make these developments
feasible. If the sewers go in and we have a sewer provided for these areas
that are unsewered that the city probably could never provide them for.
But they are provided at the time of development and that cost is tied in
with the cost of the home. So it becomes available at no real cost to the
taxpayer.
GENTLEMAN
Didn't use mike.
•
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
52
JEFF DAVIS
There is no requirement to provide sewers i can guarantee you that but we
look into it, yes . i have no objection, can you look into that? Because
it just isn't done anywhere in the state.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
As a follow-up to that real quickly, the, and I believe Max can probably
address this better than I could, that currently there is a plan that is in
process of implementation to sewer the entire west township area . The
entire township will be in a sewered district. It currently is in a sewer
access district, but will actually be able to be sewered with the extension
of pipes .
JEFF DAVIS
Does that mean, Max do you intend to put that before there are houses out
there? Sue you still have the floor, I didn't intend, you were looking up
some things, I didn't intend to take that away from you.
SUE DILLON
We don't have the statistics
JEFF DAVIS
Sue, I don 't think this committee is arguing with your statistics at all
and I don't intend to do that, I don't intend to say that they are
inaccurate because I don't believe that they are, but what I am saying is
that this Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a greater density. We
have not changed the non-sewered areas, we have not made any changes, the
areas that are going to get sewers, we have limited the density they can be
developed to.
SUE DILLON
JEFF DAVIS
We are not doubling what was available to be built according to the
ordinance. We have reduced the ordinance
SUE DILLON
JEFF DAVIS
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
53
The point we took is what was the potential that could be built out there
and we minimized that potential . I agree that we do not go as far as you'd
ask us to. This committee
SUE DILLON
JEFF DAVIS
No, I realize that, we realize that there were are a large group of people
that ask for that, but we don't think that you are going to see a major
increase in density in western Clay Township. We don't believe that is
going to happen. That is the way this committee feels at this point.
JIM DILLON
Who is the we, Jeff?
JEFF DAVIS
That's what the committee voted on, there was a majority and a minority
report, we got a minority report. The committee voted on it this plan and
sent it on to the Plan Commission. If I understand if there araye other
members of the committee in the audience
understanding is that we did vote on it.
SUE DILLON
But, there was one vote and we know who it was .
JEFF DAVIS
Go right ahead, I have no problem with that. Let me tell you, I know the
concern is that some members that were members of the committee from the
building community, but they were far outweighed by the members from the
residential community. I would indicate to you that Plan Commission
members are not be considered members of the building community. This
committee is the only Comprehensive Plan that ever included anyone outside
the Plan Commission and we hope to do that in order to get a mix of
opinion. Now we did not get a general consensus on all the cases, on many
cases we did. This committee was formed and I would not have turned down
fifty more members of this committee, at no case did anyone volunteer to
serve on this committee and I say we have a committee full. I accepted
every member that volunteered from the public to serve on this committee.
Had there been a fifty member committee, I would have accepted fifty
members . We had other members who did not attend that had been asked to
serve and I agreed to let them serve, there was never a limitation placed
on this committee. So it did not have to be shaded, the people who served
on this committee were people who were interested in serving and agreed to
do it. Judy.
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE
PLAN 54
JUDY HAGAN
Jeff, it seems to me that they're not paying attention though to
existing property owners and how the area is developed. I know the
is a problem because it is not running in an
sort of shoved up in your neighborhood whenever it gets therethe sewer
Y particular fashion. It is
going up drainage way because it is
on e a ssandt it 's not going like the City of Carmel is doing
to what's residents that liverthere now haeet. So, vecasked you an we not for more attentionn
asking for a much lower density then exists there now,
level of development to be maintained. don't � there not
level densityf development
. justhyouktha for that
probably is the best way I o go n agree with variety
of
the
exist. I have a problem with that, thetoverallddensitylet a vbecausse what lot you
haVe, what you are recommending now we are going to have subdivisions,
very high density you
because we have got .sewers . •off to to the middle out there somewhee
' • . • • • • • • • • • • .property owners starting we're go across the township. Now, if that
developing, developing day , fyou not guys canng s the area from
keep. , , , , , • . . • • by day. If just
area will develop.in.off largeelotsendations for 10 years
probably the whole
JEFF DAVIS
We ,though this committee realizes that we did not giveyou
law or by Plan Commission that the density by
reasonable, you had ask for. We did not feel it was
The committee thought the other density we selected was a more
appropriate and reasonable thing and we are not at all sure that the
density for the area will not continue to develop at about
seeing now. We don't gross
believe that every acre will develop,the ratebyou are
developed as S-i, we just do not believe that.
will be
JUDY HAGAN
I don't agree with you on that. Why don 't you make a recommendation if you
believe that is the way
of long nights like this
lt inls yearsntot� omeVelo anyway Y�^'ay and save us all a lot
JEFF DAVIS
This requires another zoning classification in a rezone.
SUE DILLON
No, it doesn't.
JEFF DAVIS
Why doesn't it, how can we fit it into the S-i with sewers
discouraging the sewers, because that is exactly what nghtot
is going to happen.
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5 , 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
55
SUE DILLON and I don't know if the staff got it.
I 've got some information on that, out or in the process of coming out
There is a new state septic code coming to be really comparable to having
and putting a septic system in is going
sewers, cost wise is what I understhsd. I e areon't know somenewerhsystems that is
going to effect us, but I believe county
going to be required now by satate code
tthat desagree with you, I think we
code which may have some imp
are going to see more sewers, because I think people are willing to pay for
that. The issue is the lot size, I don't live on my 2/3 ' sofaaneacreor I
because I got septic or because I don't have septic or I got
don't have a sewer,
I 'm here because of the lot size. I have a choice, I
could have purchased a smaller lot.
JEFF DAVIS
The members of the Plan Commission are going to vote on this and I think
you've got, the committee has made the recommendation, the have the
minority report and we also have public hearingishussigs here.
The members
Iof the
Plan Commission have been exposed to all
other members of the oii►Tii i tte( have only one vote,
t��sve only c�r�t, vete here, members of
members of the Comprehensive
voteYonnwhethertee will notto accept thisas weproposedit,
the Plan Commission will
it may not be acceptable. I tthekPlanhave
Commissiondwillthis
votebandaired
will fully,
the positions have been made, you are
decide if and the majority ofo this back toan squarelone°anday redocsomeyof these
correct. In which case g
things .
SUE DILLON
On this one issue?
JEFF DAVIS
No we will vote on the Comprehensive Plan.
SUE DILLON
I thought voting on this one issue this 1 acre or 1 . 5
JEFF DAVIS
We can discuss it but I don't think we are going to vote on individual
issues to see what happens with justnatconceptual
aleroad plan. We acceptablewillte
on the Comprehensive Plan, if it i
SUE DILLON
You mean you either accept this plan the way it is or you don't accept it
with no changes, then the public hearings were worthless .
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 56
JEFF DAVIS
No, if it doesn't pass obviously we will have to make changes
become acceptable. We have to go ahead with the plan. Wej
can't it will
it in limbo.
st leave
SUE DILLON
No, but you can't make one change in it?
JEFF DAVIS
I think we will go ahead with the plan having listened to all the
discussion and vote on the plan. If it doesn't
pass then the have to be changed to make it acceptable to the Plan Commissionlan wDoesn't
esl
that accomplish the same thing?
JIM DILLON
it seems to be very logical problem solvin
issue it is not on the bottom of page 29, g• the density is a major
the problem, you sure were paragraph 2 . You ought to address
c
just as quick to put this to avote,vittoo1 1/2•roadways, you ought to be
SUE DILLON
The plan itself is good,
JEFF DAVIS
I 'm not suggesting we throw out the
planTh
and if someone makes a motion we will do �thate Plan Commission sits here
RON HOUCK
I guess I would just like to add a comment I
understanding how we were going to do this . guess maybehatito s thinkmy error in
whether it is density or traffic or anyI would hate to that
anything that is a part of this couldn't pbecfine tunedof text tothe document
better with the consensus byany graphic or
approvaleas the Plan Commission and submit that for
s opposed to having to vote on whether you think it the majority
ofoit is good or bad. I would hope we would be able to do fine tun '
Y to make it as good a document as we can possibly make lit
without having to reject it solely on the basis of 51% of
it was good but
the other 49% of it wasn't.
JEFF DAVIS
I have no problem with ns wishes that. If the Plan Commissiois to vote on
this issue now.
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
57
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Just to interject some quick thoughts . The 1. 5 and the 1.8 is only a
suggestion, until an ordinance is written we are currently at 2 .9 and
whatever the numbers are. We will be there until the ordinances are
updated. For you to change that to 1 unit per acre you need to realize
that is not an immediate change. That is a year possibly 18 months as soon
as the ordinances and that is only if in further study that those 1 acre
requirements are passed on to the zoning ordinances .
JEFF DAVIS
Mrs . Dillon makes a good point, now there
to make an
argument about the density and the coverage, Mrs . Dillon makes a good
point.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Yes, but there ar two things, there is the Comprehensive Plan and there is
an ordinance that enforces things .
JEFF DAVIS
If we are going to change the ordinances, then the plan should reflect what
we want.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Exactly, therefore, you are going to put it for a vote you better be sure
what you are voting for. This is just a suggestion.
JEFF DAVIS
change of the ordinance, I understand that.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
You can say it is 1 unit per 5 acres, but until an ordinance is written it
is going to be 2 . 9 .
JEFF DAVIS
We understand that.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Because currently there are sewers proposed out there.
JEFF DAVIS
•
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 58
Is there a motion on the density of the S-1 zone as it relates
to the
Comprehensive Plan?
RON HOUCK
I think for the purposes of at least getting the issue resolved I would
like to make the motion that the density be changed to 1 unit
acre for the S-1 area.
per gross
JEFF DAVIS
Is there a second?
ALAN POTASNIK
I second it.
JEFF DAVIS
Is there any further discussion?
GENTLEMAN
I have a question for Mr.
Myers, if you don't want to answer this
I 'll understand. After studying a lot of what is going to go
development in Carmel and Clayquestion
as far as with current commercial development whether it be outside on in
Township how do you see Clay west developing
West as far as what is going to go on, where do
conservative estimate and the blow out side? you useeri it betweenthe Clay
Just curious .
JOHN MYERS
I appreciate the fact that you would ask me that question I
understandtfullyo wwhereer .itAisa matter of fact, I 'm not sure that I
don 't feel
going. �
GENTLEMAN
If you don't want to answer it, whether it is personal or
professional
reasons I understand.
JOHN MYERS
It is just that my focus throughout this has been on the transportation
element and we have had others that have been involved in
elements . I guess as an observation this is a the landtuse
maybe recited most strongly with the Steering o anyom itteear issueitself that is
particular involvement that we may Committee oasof
o
interesting to me that the fact in the transportation opposed
we show some deme tieshat thatethat 's It is sort ha
can tell you that that was gotten as much discussPonrascitPhas ,ter 10
intended to be a generalized estimate that was
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
59
done before all this discussion on densities occurred because we had the
transportation and the land use elements moving along concurrently. If
anything I may have a little bit of concern, by the fact that the numbers
are there in Chapter 10 there may be more read into it. So I side stepped
it I think.
JEFF DAVIS
I was going to qualify your answer but you had no particular expertise to
answer that question. If you had answered that you knew more about it that
anyone else sitting up here or anyone in the audience.
JOHN MYERS
I 'm good at avoiding.
JEFF DAVIS
I know you are. Is there any further discussion?
RON HOUCK
The only other comment that I would like to make is has often been eluded
to obviously this survey that was done, it is relative I realize but it
does indicate that people prefer developments no less dense then what they
have. For the western Clay Township this has a different meaning than it
does for the eastern Clay Township. Obviously this is the area that we are
probably most seriously addressing now because it has the most undeveloped
land. In 1985 one of the complaints that was often eluded to was that
there was a lack of public input. The public didn't seem to care. Now
they obviously have shown that they care, they have presented there
material about the density and I think to the extent that this
Comprehensive Plan is going to reflect the wishes and desires of the public
who have already chosen to live here as well as those who might potentially
come to live in western Clay Township. It should be reflective of the
concerns that have raised.
JEFF DAVIS
There are in fact, larger areas of undeveloped land in eastern Clay
Township, but the questions of sewers have already been solved there.
Sewers are available in eastern Clay Township. The real problem is there
has not been land available for sale to develop in eastern Clay Township,
there has been in the west. Anyone else?
ALAN POTASNIK
May I ask the secretary to state the motion as it was presented, please.
Dorthy, that is ok.
HENRIETTA LAMB
•
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
60
I 'm just wondering if we 'd be penalizing the people that have land out on
the west side.
JEFF DAVIS
People who have undeveloped land absolutely, there is no question about
that. The people who have undeveloped land will in fact be penalized
because there land will probably become less valuable. I would caution you
that all these people are not land speculators, there are people out there
who have owned land for periods of time, there are people who have watched
this development come around them, there are some of them farming, there
are some of them are retired farmers, there are a lot of different people
that own land out there. Some of them are speculative ownership. If we
less the density then absolutely we have affected the value of the land, we
certainly have not improved it any.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM
As a general planning statement any changes in zoning does come under
scrutiny of a taking, by interpretation of the courts and that would be one
of the main concerns the staff has over the next year when we do look into
the zoning. There have been many cases on takings throughout the U. S.
That is one of the items that we do need to address as we go through this
process . So yes, there are implications if it is changed, but what the
vote is right now is still a suggestion.
JEFF DAVIS
Judy, I 'll get to you but let the gentleman next to you first, then I 'll
get to you.
GENTLEMAN
Didn't use mike.
JEFF DAVIS
There are a couple of developers here, I 'll let them speak to that.
WILL WRIGHT
I 'll testify to that.
JEFF DAVIS
I don't think data is required as you become, go ahead
WILL WRIGHT
To the point of land use, the desirability over time is very obvious that
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
61
the land owners out there, the more restrictive the zoning the lower the
value of the land. Because of lack marketability.
Itsameis time,mtter of
time, as if everybody put there land up foratidtheity
y
couldn't possibly sell it because of the demand for very very
housing is quite small, it is a very small segment of the overall market.
At least on that one point is the
land
creaowners
twouldlbe hfrthnegatively y on
this basis . It certainly would
RON HOUCK
I have one question, we focused on the remonstrators or the people in
western Clay Township who have presented
ir silades e of
lthe
oissuewners regarding
density, none of the people who apparently
bothered to appear before rnednd dhatethey are preserv,ingthat
theirnterest. Ieiyet
t
the commission seems conce
guess I just have a question about why that is . If they haven't bothered
to voice any concern of their own regarding this .
JEFF DAVIS
I thought the commission was charged with preserving the interest of the
public even if they were not voice .
RON HOUCK
How do we know they are their concerns? If they haven't voiced them. Are
we automatically assuming that we know their concerns?
JEFF DAVIS
Alright, George.
GEORGE SWEET
I have hesitated not tosay
anything
ttonight. I was here two years ago
when the attempt was madeto I think that a this particular
ordinances
question of density is obviously important to me and I can discount it. . .
location,
I think it has been stated that we must serve markets, some markets are
high priced and some markets hborhoodse not othathwercouad affordvery
because pricedf the
we developed Spring Mill g
end buyer developed quite large lots whether or not they are on septic,
whether or not they are on sewers no matter what the density was .
Obviously, contacts with both
Weyour
developedsubdivision
lotcintaomuchl dlesscdense area,
and what
you are discussing tonight.
we are servicing the market people who want to live there. I submit to you
everyone cannot live those priced areas, I submit to you also that many
people will want to and we will continue probably to develop, I hope,
e
ar
projects in western Clay specifically ecurrent ordinance that allowswill ButeIfwouldss
dense that what this or even th
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
62
like to make a strong statement that I do not believe that the public would
be served by listening to the testimony
the last two years . This constant harngue, we 'veiven athis gotpic tolgeththe ldeg
nsor
itfor
down, I don't believe that, I don't believe that serves the public in the
long run. also, believe the practicality of it shouldy ou do
that you are taking land and taking property rights . Thank you, sir.
JEFF DAVIS
Thank you, George.
SUE DILLON
change, we don't care ayears
anything acre or2 acres, I with the
taking. We are not taking anything
JEFF DAVIS
Does Johnson County have a private fund that sewers started in the area?
Is a similar condition to what we have here? This will be decided in the
courts we are going to have to decide that here. If it is a taking the law
am quite
will be overturned if there is one. It'll be decided in the courts and I
s something ewetwillwill
not havebe ltodecideged, no de question about the challenge. That
.
JUDY HAGAN
I am going to address the taking to, because
itcall
taking unless the guys cannot use the land. If you can't do
it, we're not saying that we have never anything on
JEFF DAVIS
Anyone else on the Plan Commission have anything to say?
RONALD HOUCK
Since we, obviously haven't been shy in using our attorney this eve
perhaps we could refer the issue to taking and how it relates to this .
This has been an issue that has been raised for some time about the, you
know what is taking and what isn't.
clarifying some of the other issues heerhaps could alsoathe addsameresst hat.he
is
you
JEFF DAVIS
Does that mean you are asking that this issue not come to a vote tonight?
If that is the wish, i would withdraw my motion that the attorney would
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
63
have a chance to review this .
HENRIETTA LAMB
I second it.
JUDY HAGAN
Going back to John , the northwest corner of the
township has potentially developed twice the density
of now we are going to double all around us and we
are working backwards . That is not the point of planning, if it is
perfectly legitimate to ask for low density in an area other jurisdictions
do it all the time. We are not asking for some anti-american communist
clause
JEFF DAVIS
I don't think anybody accused you of that. I hope you didn't take
keethate
from us and Let me tell you, I 'm sure the people up
thought hard about this, we realize these decisions don't come easy for any
of us . You have a side that you are particularly interested in and you
have selected your position. I have a position tonight that I think is
defensible also. That is not a real problem, I will not forbid to coming
to a vote, that is the way it should be. The vote will decide, the motion
has been withdrawn until we get a legal opinion. The second has been
withdrawn. I tell you what I am going to do, it is eleven o'clock now and
we are going to adjourn for a few minutes . You cato go home iffyou
mllike,
if
everybody goes home we will stop. We are going P
LADY
WE would like to make some money on these farms . A lot of people come here
and I 've made friends with them at school, I like someday we mayfeel
wantlike
to move out .
Webut
we worked hard and we felt
We feel like we should get the price for our
property situation people that have been here for
years . I hope you don't put that in stone or at least have it showing.
JEFF DAVIS
We are concerned about people like you that have lived here and seen this
development take place around them and all of a sudden at the 11th hour we
pull the rug out from under them and say no you put up with the development
going in, but now we are going to take it away from you that right to
develop as the property was developed around you. This is a concern and
although you are a minority, I think this country works on protecting
minority rights .
LADY
Those people that move first we did not want any of them
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
64
here at all, they came and we put up with the changes, some changes were
good and some changes were bad, now I don't like the changes because too
many people are trying to tell us what to do and how to live.
JEFF DAVIS
I have to agree with you to a very large extent, it is my concern about the
people who have not spoken here and I 'm sorry
were all sitting down. But there is a concrniabodiat peoplen't getto justulikelyouwe
.
I have lived in Carmel my entire life. I was born in 1938, it was a ood
community the whole time I have been here, I don't know as if it is any
better now than it was 50 years ago. The changes took place with the
changes we live with, we with, we adapted to them, now then t
people that have caused the change want to change to stophe
always lived here have never asked for the change too stop.
tus
o who
and lived with it. But the people who are in fact the ones that caused tit
he
change, who brought the subdivision they are the ones who wants the changes
Theyto stop now. They are not willing to see changes go on in the future.
want to be assured that there areas will stay the way they
have
always been. i disagree with this, that is the reason I took theosit '
I did.
P ion
The committee adjourned for approximately 15 minutes .
JEFF DAVIS
I 've always been a firm believer that meetings that go on for over a to
period of time end up with bad decisions . We have had a lot of discussion
tonight about the probably the most sensitive issue of the Comprehensiven
Plan. We 've heard a lot of input, we have decided to ask Mr.Houck w ion
the motion to vote on the density has elected to withdraw the
We get an legal opinion. Basically the rest of the questions who made
asked during the public hearing have been listed and the staffmotionauntil
those that were
questions . You have that on a print out. What I wouldsugs answeredd
at this point is adjourn this meeting go home and digest the testimony we u
received tonight, digest the written question, answer page, we will come
back and readdress this at the end of the Plan Commission meetingtw you
from tonight. Maybe having had time to go over the question answers
we have not discussed here tonight we will leave this free to proceedo weeks
fairlythat
quickly at that point. If not we will extend this, thee isno
deadline on passing this . i know some of you are new to the
may make you more comfortable. If you would rather go ahead and press
along tonight we will do that. process, it
meone woul
adjourn though I would certainlyientertain thata like to make a motion to
RON HOUCK
Before any motions are made, I have a
heard tonight I think there are a n question. From the things that I
I 'm not sure we have any expertise toujudge orer ofsues maketaainfwere
ormed deecicisiont
n
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN 65
about. One of them which was referred to the attorney was the taking, what
is involved or are we doing in fact anything that would violate any tenants
of any law. The other thing is the land value, a lot of emphasis has been
placed on a change that might potentially occur in a land owners land
values . I 'm wondering if we could perhaps get some information on that
fact from potentially Mr. Myers firm, HNTB if they have someone with some
expertise in land values that would be familiar with the area that could
potentially answer the question from an unbiased third party. We hear
developers, who say there is obviously an effect, personally I don't know
or is it a matter of degree, or is it a matter of just how much you make.
To me I would like to have unbiased impartial opinion about what we are in
fact or potentially could do to land values . Is it a real concern or not.
JEFF DAVIS
Joanne is that something you feel like your company would be willing or
interested in addressing or have the expertise to do or should we be better
off to address other people in this area.
JOANNE GREEN
I think we have someone in the firm that has the capabilities of studying
that.
JEFF DAVIS
Give us a price, because I am well aware we are out of funds for your
services . So if
JOANNE GREEN
I ' ll have to go back and let you know on that.
JEFF DAVIS
What I would like to do if is that the committee the Plan Commissions
wishes to get that kind of opinion from our developer or planner?
ALAN POTASNIK
To me it is we have a Plan Commission member that requested that I as far
as the he feels the irrelevance of it is important I don't see where if he
asked for the information he should be denied the information if it is
obtainable and at a reasonable
JEFF DAVIS
I agree with Mr. Potasnik, we are out of funds, we have used up all our
funds this should not be an extremely expensive process and if our planner
feels like they are willing to take this on, I certainly have no problem, I
think that is the person to ask rather than someone who may have a biased
TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 MEETING ON COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN
66
opinion. i agree with that. If you could get us an answer, it doesn't
have to be an involved answer, just yes or no is it going to effect the
land values and the negative value, no it will not effect them. Give us a
letter before the next Plan Commission meeting so that we can digest that
information. Very good. Anyone else?
RON HOUCK
•
I would hope that whatever, it would be somewhat quantitative and not
necessarily qualitative. We would have some idea of what is involved
specifically.
JEFF DAVIS
Anyone else? Do you want to proceed on or do you want to adjourn?
CAROLINE BAINBRIDGE
I moved to adjourn
JEFF DAVIS
Is there a second?
RICHARD KLAR
I second it.
JEFF DAVIS
Any discussion, everyone in favor signify by saying aye, those opposed the
same sign. Meeting was adjourned.