HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocument r: docket 1-91 public hearing THIS IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DOCKET NO. 1-91 CP.
2i . Commission to consider Docket No . 1-91 CP, an amendment
to Ordinance D-'1 I , entitled the Comprehensive Plan
update , City o'r Carmel /Clay Township, 19135, effective
September 20, 1985. The amendment for review is
presently captioned as the "Amendment to Comprehensive
Plan Update, City of Carmel /Clay Township, 1990. "
Filed by William E . Wendlinq , Jr . , Attorney for the
Carmel /Clay Plan Commission .
The public hearing was opened at E1: 22 P. M.
JOANNE GREEN
Good everting , members of the public , City of Carmel and the Carmel
Plan Commission . We are here after two years of discussions and
planning et torts Lo present to you tonight the amendment to the
Carmel COmpr ehensi vea Update. Hy name is Joanne Green , I am Project
Manager , with I-INTO . WiLI, me tonight is John Myers , who is Project
Englneee Ion
portion 01 the amendment . In 1989 we were contracted by the City
of Carmel to prepare this amendment to the update. I would like to
review briefly with you the process that was involved in that for
the new iricinbers ut the Plan Commission . We spent the first few
months determining what this update needed to be. After
considerable discussion and meetings with the Steering Committee
and the public and ourselves it was determined that the update an
analysis two spl_c111C areas tor review. And , those two areas were
overall land use for the township and transportation and
circulation . These were based on priorities that were established ,
goals that were established and objectives for those goals and it
focused on issues that were current and potentially anticipated
between; 1990 and 1995 assuming current build out for land use. The
particular areas of analysis also included the undeveloped land ,
that area of land that is presently zoned S-1 and the transition
areas as was indicated earlier . One of the Crucial steps to this
process was a phone survey , a random telephone survey that was
prepared that yet further helped us to develop what the community
wanted . The community was able to offer this input into this
process initially . We were able to pull from that very helpful
information for direction in terms of this amendment. I would like
to snow you a few slides that were prepared to present the process
that was used , the finished land use plan and then I will ask John
Flyers to present the completed thoroughfare plan .
One of the first things that we prepared was an existing land use
to look at all the existing land use allocations . These were
illustrated by using aerial photography in which we generalized and
came up with some of our own land use divisions and categories.
This was one of the first steps that we did to look at the current
and existing situation . This was an aerial study that was done
from a very current aerial . The diagrams you see below which will
be included as part of the finished document illustrate the
division of the specific land uses involved . We also analyzed
existing zoning in terms of the categories that we established .
This is the graphic that illustrated that , which was very helpful
in our analysis of the current conditions . Some of the physical
factors that influenced the present proposed land use plan ; we
studied the open space, the green areas and the waterways and the
drainage ways as they currently exist as a part of our
environmental . We also prepared a study looking at the utilities
service considerations for proposed utility service areas and
existing . After we took all this information and brought it all
together the planning team actually prepared three different
conceptual scenarios in terms of an overall general land use
direction that could be taken . This was one alternative that we
created and it was referred to as the central focus, this scenario
very simply looked at the central core of Carmel developing from
the central portion of the community out maintaining more dense
type of uses toward the center and obviously less dense uses out
towards the preface. The red illustrates some of the high density
industrial areas , the lavender heavy commercial , the orange higher
density residential and light density illustrated by the light
orange and then the pale yellow being very low density residential .
We also proposed in this scenario a green belt that could be a
parkway that would surround the community . Another scenario that
we looked at was the neighborhood villages scenario. This dealt
with the density in the non-residential uses focused in satellite
village clusters looking at potential development, residential
development and the need for light commercial to medium commercial
areas that would serve those particular residential areas basically
maintaining the Meridian Street Corridor in the first scheme as
very commercial as it is now and the scheme maintains basically the
downtown as it is now. Focusing the small developmental clusters
that would incorporate not only commercial but public types of uses
in these areas that are illustrated by the blue dots that you see
in the plan . Finally the third , was the corridor linkage scenario
and that was actually looking at connecting the proposed and
existing uses through a green belt and greenway system for easy
access all over the community . Basically looked at building upon
a land use that presently exists and working from that existing
land use. At the point , then got the Steering Committee involved
and we had a work session with the Steering Committee to allow them
the chance to bring their markers out and get the paper down and
start coloring and looking at their own ideas in terms of how these
things could develop. That combined with the our process for
analyzing and the first three scenarios that we came up with we
developed a final land use plan which basically is illustrated by
this plan here. I would like to review that . This is a combination
circulation thoroughfare plan and I will have John Myers explain
that a little further. But basically our finished land use plan
responds directly to elements that were brought about from each rine,
and open space recreation areas that are illustrated in all of the
green areas but yet it has a very realistic approach in terms of
these village center type approaches to development . Knowing that
these residential areas wi l 1 have to be serviced and respond to the
residential development and will have to be incorporated into the
plan . These coli mercial nodes are designated by the red star
(didn ' t pick up sound ) . You will not see any transition areas or.
this particular plan , it was felt by the Steering Committee that
that has been a source of problem in the past and we have
recommended and the Steering Committee recommended the use of the
graduated type of buffering system graduated zoning and land use
that would actually identify specific uses as buffer areas that
would coincide and be proper adjacent to some of the residential
areas , but that use actually identified as the buffer area as
opposed to a gray area that was illustrated in the past plan . The
next step was once we developed a land use plan we used that as a
basis for traffic circulation and forecasting and at this point I
would like to ask John Myers to come forward and address that and
present his portion of the study .
JOHN MYERS
Thank you , Sue. It is certainly a pleasure to be here to present
this plan to the Plan Commission . A genuine sincere pleasure to be
here, after all this, time it certainly been interesting the changes
we have seen occur in just the last two years . I ' l l snake reference
to a few of those because they do have an effect on traffic as I
go. I did distribute a handout which is a detailed flow chart of
the activities of the traffic study . Many of you have seen this
several times previous . This was distributed early in the study
through the first several meetings we used it to track our progress
as we moved through. In fact , the traffic studies from beginning
to end followed this outline pretty closely . In the end we did
pretty much what we expected to at the beginning and we believe
that you do have a good thoroughfare plan as a result .
The scope of our study for the thoroughfare plan was defined at the
time we began as being somewhat limited as Joanne said , land use
and thoroughfares . Given the limited resources that were available
for this study it was thought that these were the areas that needed
concentration . The thoroughfare plan is expressed in terms of a
functional classification of major roadways and the functional
classification then infers standards and the final comprehensive
plan document , as the Mayor said earlier , does have standards that
correlate with the functional classification . in that regard , it
is important in terns of the *unction of the Plan Commission as you
review prl.:opused developments and otherwise carry on your tasks that
you have a recognition Gt what future right-of-way needs are,
future pavements needs and etc . is interred by the functional
classifications from the plan and the standards that go along with
those. Our other charge was to identify the number of lanes within
these functional classifications. Our intent is to provide a long
term prospective with respect to thoroughfares generally in the 20
3
year range . It was not our intent and we are not project specific
in terms of these recommendations . In fact , new roadways are shown
in a general way , that is it is not our intent to show a specific
alignment for a new roadway . The alignment of a roadway is
dependent on specific land use in that vicinity and we did not do
specific location studies for the new roadways . Therefore, where
we showed dash lines or roadways on new alignments these will
require further study to identify specifically where they should
go. I ' m going to make a very brief overview of the process and try
to focus on the results. I hope that any interest or any questions
that you may have about the process can be brought out in questions
that you might have. The most important thing that I would like to
emphasize in terms of process is that this thoroughfare plan is
developed based on specific relationships between land use and
travel . I think that the last thing Joanne said was that based on
the land use plan that has been developed a thoroughfare plan was
also developed . I think that this is a very important point , the
recommendations that we have made are not based on good planning
principals , they are not based on what would seem to be good
spacing according to some book . Our recommendations are based on
specific land use generating the traffic from those and taking a
look at what future needs will be to serve those specific land
uses. Another words if the land use changes then the traffic
recommendations could change as well .
We used three scenarios to develop our plan , an existing scenario
where we just simply took a look at the existing conditions. A
program scenario which we used to identify minimum needs and the
program scenario represents an existing plus a development that has
been approved by the Plan Commission as of March. 1989 . Sort of
like telling your age that gives a little indication of how long we
have been going on with this study . The important point is that
the program scenario representing minimum needs is based on actual
developments, that have actually been approved , even though they
have not yet been built . So it is not a population forecast that
come from IU or anything like that , these are actual developments .
Then we also took a look at build out as a third scenario. I don ' t
know if you were paying close attention , when Joanne showed the
slide of existing land use, there were some large blue areas on
either side of the township, these are areas that are undeveloped
right now or agricultural . You will notice that the land use plan
doesn ' t retain any of these areas . The land use plan just as the
last land use plan indicates a build out throughout the entire
township. Those blue areas become essentially either yellow or low
density residential or kind of an orange color for medium density .
We took a look at this build out in terms of the full township and
also including a build out of what were the lavender areas were the
commercial areas . We also use this as a guide for developing this
thoroughfare plan . Again , our target is a 20 year target build out
which certainly occur over longer than a 20 year period , maybe as
long as 40 or 50 years or mayhP some �r� ,� „ • . ,
to identify a general framework for developing future needs and
this was based primarily on the needs of the regional highways
which are essentially US 31 and Keystone Avenue. From that then we
move forward to look at the build out scenario and we use this for
the regional roadways for US 31 and Keystone in kind of guarded
fashion . We generated the trips from either- zones for residential
developments from specific developments where these were known in
the program scenario or from using various rates for future
commercial developments . We distributed these trips on the network
using a distribution formula that has actually been used in the
past for the Indianapolis Travel Simulation model and then we
assign these to the network , actually put them on the streets from
one point to another, based on the shortest path for travel . We
found some pretty large numbers on U.S. 31 and Keystone, we
scratched our head a little bit and realized that the level of our
analysis is not really suitable for the kind of results that we
were seeing on the regional roadways and we were able to identify
why . Using the trip distribution formulas from Indianapolis model
which is really based on historic patterns primarily we were
reflecting very heavy trips from Carmel to Indianapolis,
an
extended period of time as Clay Township builds out and is `iner fact
developed throughout the township and growth occurs north and other
areas outside the township, then the travel patterns that exist now
are likely to be different . In fact , if we use those old
relationships we are likely to get unreliable answers . Also these
regional heeds such .as on U.S. 31 and Keystone are dependent on what
the State of Iridian, does and what other jurisdictions do
throughout the area . The build out scenario was very useful in the
residential areas in the lower density areas in the township. For
instance, if there is a corner of the township that might be
developed as a subdivision within the next 20 years it may
represent a small portion of the overall area. But , in that
localized area , in fact it is a build out and it is important for-
you as a Plan Commission and the planners that work with the City
to recognize what the ultimate need might be to serve a build out
even in that small area. Another words, say in western Clay
Township when the first subdivision goes in , if Towne Road needs to
be four lanes in the future and it needs a fairly wide to right-of-
way it is important to know at that time. We did use the build out
process and looked at that more heavily for the local roadways .
Basically our preliminary thoroughfare plan is an extension of the
program scenario, that identified the minimum needs based on
program developments and what that had already been approved. Then
we modified that added to it based on what we learned from looking
at the build out scenario. On the exhibits that we have on both
sides and hopefully by facing one toward the audience and one
toward the commission that most of you can see one or the other .
We have shown a functional classification of the roadways. We also
have a second exhibit that shows a recommended 20
year improvement
plan and there is a fairly large disclaimer- on the 20 years plan
that says various tnings. One is that actual improvements should
not be initiated until the need is actually shown by traffic
volumes and developments. It is interesting that we had that
because when we started this plan two years ago we were in the
midst , here in Carmel , of a pretty active history , particularly
along U. S . 31 . Now ( away from the mike ) two years later , because of
the economy the way it is , that growth is much less than what it
was at that time. Our reference to market conditions turned out to
be right on track . I guess I will say now that keep in mind as we
go through this that we are looking at a 20 year period . Sometimes
it is sort of difficult to look ahead that far and imagine how
things are going to be rather than the way they are now. Over the
next twenty years it would probably not be a very good assumption
that the economy is going to go ahead the way it has in the last
half of 1990. The planned document itself reviews the thoroughfare
plan in terms of three different sections recognizing the different
characteristics of the area and that is in terms of a Western
Section , Central Section and Eastern Section . I would like to
review our results of recommendations in that way .
The Western Section is low density now, it is anticipated to be low
density in the future , this is essentially what was in the last
plan and it is the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan
Steering Committee that this pattern be carried into the future.
This is roughly for the purpose of estimating the traffic , we used
a rate of one unit per acre and this is a gross figure so it
accounts for streets and roadways and other public uses . Based on
one unit per acre through most of that area we find that it will be
served well by two lane roadways . We did find a need for some
arterial and collectors , these are roughly two to three miles
spacing and these roadways were 116th Street , 146th Street and
Towne Road . Other than that the area can be served by two lane
roadways . A few other items worth mentioning in the Western
Section , one is Michigan Road , Michigan Road is at the very corner
and it is unique for this part of the township , it just barely gets
into the city area at all . We have identified a need there for a
minimum of four lanes , but recognize that given future growth in
Boone County that , in fact , the need might be greater and we see
this as an issue for Endot in the future. Second item that doesn ' t
actually show up on here , but influenced our recommendation in
Western Clay Township is an interchange at Towne Road and I465.
About a year ago there was a study release by Endot that gave a
favorable recommendation to this as an additional interchange in
Marion County . We see this as being advantageous to Clay Township
having an additional access point and so we have assumed that in
our plan and again we are recommending four lanes on Towne Road as
an extension of Township Line Road . We so no urgency for any of
the recommended changes in Western Clay Township and the right-of-
way should be set aside now, but the improvements themselves should
move forward as the need exhibits itself . Central Clay Township is
the most developed part of the township, certainly has the largest
concentration of commercial areas. We found some interesting things
on U.S. 31 , between 1981 and 1989 in the extensive growth that I
mentioned earlier , there was a 80% growth in traffic on U.S. 31 .
During that time, within the Meridian Corridor there was about two
and one half million square feet of commercial space built. I
don ' t know if two and one half million square feet mr—. r ver„
t,
half bank towers between 1981 and 1989 . We didn ' t do a market
analysis and don ' t claim to have specific knowledge on that , but it
may be unlikely that kind of development boom in that period of
time would happen in the future. It had some interesting effects
on U.S.31 , when Indot counted traffic on U.S. 31 in 1989 they found
that , in tact , in the morning peak there is now more traffic north
bound toward Carmel then there is south bound toward Indianapolis.
That is not true in the evening peak , in the evening peak it is
still the same direction it always has been it is mainly coming
from Indianapolis towards Carmel . It was certainly interesting to
find that in the morning , that there is more traffic coming toward
Carmel then going away from it on U.S.31 . The morning peak is
characterized by home work trips , the afternoon peak is a mixture
of home to work trips, shopping trips , and other purposes . We see
this morning pattern as being a specific indication of the increase
of employment along U.S . 31 . As of March of 1989 there had been an
additional 3.2 million square feet of commercial development
approved within the U.S. 31 Corridor . eased on the traffic that is
generated from that plus based on the collector relationship if you
will at 31 to the surrounding area and the residential areas as
they go to and from Indianapolis , we found a significant increase
in traffic on U.S. 31 will occur in the program scenario. This is
not a build out this is based on a proved development to a volume
of approximately 54 thousand vehicles . It is in the range of 50
thousand vehicles per day . There is no arterial roadway in
Indianapolis that carr iea 50 thousand vehicles a day . As far as we
can tell right now the highest arterial roadway volume in
Indianapolis is on Allisonville Road , the short section , just north
of 465 between there and 86th Street , that is in the range of 44-45
thousand vehicles per day . Keystone Avenue near 71st Street
carries in the range of 35 thousand vehicles on six lanes, 38th
Street carries between 30-40 thousand . Up over 50 thousand we find
this fairly clearly warranting a freeway type of improvement.
Unless there is a major parallel roadway built elsewhere and we did
look at those options and discuss those with the Steering
Committee. It was our recommendation that the community would be
best served and that impact and cost would be Minimized by making
the improvements where the major demand and that is on U.S.31 . For
those of you that may not understand exactly what I mean when I say
a freeway , we would be eliminating traffic signals and building
interchanges so that turns would be made oft of the main line and
in fact, it would be like the interstates around Marion County . We
did not specifically say where the interchanges should go and
certainly this is a topic that warrants additional study . We have
identified the need for a freeway there and not specifically what
that would be. We did investigate it enough to satisfy ourselves
of its feasibility . I think I am being a little bit long here.
The other major roadways Keystone Avenue, it is a little bit
different than 31 , it is influenced by the residential areas
throughout eastern Clay Township and also central Clay Township.
It still very much shows the historic pattern of very heavy inbound
towards Indianapolis from Carmel in the morning and then back, in
the evening . It is still very much a roadway that is used for home
to work trips and those work trips are going south rather than
'l
•
•
north as they are on U.S . 31 . I don ' t have the rates right here but
the growth on Keystone Avenue were much lower , the Growth rate was
much lower since the last update in comparison to U. S . 31 . So it is
a very gradual growth on Keystone, it occurs as each house is
built , kind of in a trickle fashion and we would anticipate that
that pattern will increase in the future. We have identified a
need for additional lanes on Keystone Avenue based on the program
development and that it should be widened from four lane to six
lane ( change in tape ) . That scenario that six lanes are likely to
be needed as far north as 131st Street . The other major
improvement that we have recommended is a collector system along
U.S. 31 . This was in the old plan , it is a series of collector
roadways that are closely parallel , these are shown as dash lines
on the plan . These are four lane roadways that are used as a
collection and distribution system for traffic on U.S. 31 , from 31
to the office buildings . The specific location of these roadways
and how they might connect with the future freeway are also
subjects of a future study . Other recommendations in Central Clay
Township have to do with four lane existing arterial and again , to
emphasize that this should be done when the need exhibits itself
with actual traffic volumes . We have seen a need that either widen
College or Rangeline to four lanes ultimately and also in east west
direction 146th Street and 116th Street . There are a few other new
sections and these are distinguished as Guilford and 126th Street .
I just received a note from Joanne mentions parkways and I am going
to go ahead and talk about eastern Clay Township then come back and
talk about the new classification that didn ' t exist in the last
plan related to the three different areas .
In eastern Clay Township it is shown as predominantly medium
density residential for the purpose of generating traffic we used
a rate of 2 units per acre. The characteristics of eastern Clay
Township are that the whole area essentially acts as a puddle that
feeds Keystone Avenue and this is due to location of White River
and a few bridge crossings. Traffic tends to move south and west
until it gets to Keystone then moves onto Indianapolis . What we
found here was with the medium density of residential and given the
spacing of roadways that two lane roadways are not enough generally
to serve this area . The roadways are about a mile apart and if we
look at the map we see that it is different than central Clay
Township where the roadway spacing is closer and eastern Clay
Township the opportunity to have half mile roadway spacing is
either blocked by subdivisions that exist now , lakes , golf courses
and other areas that have been built out . Based on that and the
medium density residential we find a need for four lanes on 116th,
106th, 126th and 146th. We find a need for four lanes for most of
the east west roadways in eastern Clay Township. In fact , we see
an ultimate need for 96th Street to be six lanes and this is based
on the east west travel pattern I am referring to, it is also based
on the commercial development , the red area that was shown on the
land use map. We see that red area as being an extension of
Castleton . In fact , after 96th is +en,i r . . . - _ -
A question that we have had many times is what effect would the
improvements on 96th Street have on other east west roadways . The
answer to that is in the short term we think it will be a relief .
It would certainly help east west traffic flow. Ultimately , when
that commercial development occurs , if it occurs in accordance with
the land use plan , that relief is going to become less and less as
that development occurs . So ultimately we still see a need for the
four lane roadways . We are showing a realignment of the
intersection along of Hazeldell actually an extension of Hazeldell
and then aligning with River Road near 116th Street . It is sort of
interesting that we have shown a dash line in a few various places
as we have gone along and again this should be based on specific
engineering studies . We have settled on an alignment that is the
same as the last plan , because we did not want to infer that we had
studied anything further on the alignment . In fact , that is not
the case, this is a reflection of demand and not a reflection of
specific quarter- location studies. North south we recommend the
widening of Gray Road from 116th Street south to four lanes and
Hazeldell as I mentioned .
In terms of parkways , parkways are a new designation that were
suggested during this and approved by the Steering Committee.
Parkways have a wider right-of-way , they are generally arterial
roadways that have a wider right-of-way to allow a median and
landscaping treatment . We have two parkways shown in the
functional classifications , a primary parkway which has a right-of-
way of 150 ' and a secondary parkway which has a right-of-way of
120 ' . The primary parkway would allow for wider median , more
landscaping and also future expansion to six lanes if needed . The
parkways are identified with dotted lines , they are 116th Street ,
146th , Towne Road , Gray Road at least as far north as 116th and
Hazeldell from 116th to 146th. I hasten to add that we also have
a caveat in the repor-t , it is our recommendation that in fact, in
built up areas you don ' t automatically try to create 150 ' of right-
of-way . It should be again based on specific route studies,
environmental studies and specifically 1 am saying , that it
wouldn ' t make sense to go out and get 150 ' of right-of-way on a
roadway like 116th Street in eastern Clay Township, when it would
. take homes and have the kind of severe impact that that would have.
I think it was the intent of the Steering Committee that in open
areas where right-of-way could be aside and this could be done with
minimal impact that it should be done.
Brad , I am then going to ask you to expose the second exhibit. I
think it helps me when I look at a thoroughfare plan to see what is
actually recommended over the next 20 years. This is our
recommendation for the next 20 years , it is based primarily on the
program scenario. It includes widening of 116th, it includes
widening of Keystone , improvements on 31 at least a part of the
parallel collector- roadway system as needs are demonstrated ,
depending on actual development ; Towne Road , 146th Street , 126th
Street , I think it is pretty well self-explanatory . We also have
three circles shown on there as areas that we recommend more
additional study . One of these is at Range Line Road or Westfield
Boulevard and 96th Street , because it seems clear that it would be
desirable to have 96th Street be a through street instead of the
kind of funny sort of situation that is there now. That requires
some pretty detailed engineering studies to look at line and grades
and that sort of think . Also, at Smokey Row and 31 , that strange
intersection complex that was created when 31 was relocated and
also 146th Street and 31 .
As a final comment we also recommended a report that transportation
demand management actions would be useful for Carmel , especially in
the 31 corridor. Specifically we mentioned ride sharing , car pools
and van pools, staggered work hours , flex time, improved transit
service, non-vehicle modes of travel , including bicycles and
walking and employees services in the immediate area that would
reduce the need for travel , such as day care, bank machines ,
retail , etc . . We have also made the recommendation and discussed
. this informal with some of the operators of businesses in that area
to be consideration given to the traffic management association .
I know that there has been a lot of cooperation from the developers
along 31 in the past implementing transportation improvements . I
think that they could be very effective in terms of transportation
to man management as well , especially the staogered work hours and
flex time. If you can avoid the peaking characteristics then you
can get more from your roadway network . We don ' t think that this
is going to solve your problems , but every little bit that can be
done in this would help. That is all I have on thoroughfares and
just
have. be more than pleased to answer any questions that you might
JEFF DAVIS
Why you take a seat and take a break and we will see what we can do
here. That was a very nice presentation , we appreciate it . I am
going to handle it this way . I am going to ask for people who
would like to speak in favor of this , people who have questions of
it and people who are in opposition to this Comprehensive Plan .
That is the order we will take it in , if you are in opposition you
will come last but you will have an opportunity . We don ' t
necessarily have a petitioner here tonight , if there are questions
we will try to keep track of the questions . The Steering Committee
and the HNTB will try to help answer the questions . This is a
combined project , we all have a partnership in this . So, is there
anyone that would like to speak in favor of this Comprehensive Plan
as they understand it this evening? Would anyone like to ask
questions of this?
JUDY HAGAN
For the record I am Judy Hagan , my address is 10946 Springmill
Lane. First of all I want to thank the Plan Commissioners and the
Task Force Members who work so hard on this plan . This has been a
long two year process . I would also like to thank the st.nf{ •.,�+
HNTA. +hr,v h r^
I have three concerns I want to address tonight. The first one is ,
in reviewing the goals , objectives and policies in Chapter 7 I see
that no changes were made. in that section . And , I also want to
recall that in 190u an amendment was passed to this section , called
the Spr ingmil l Road Amendment , and , I realize that this has not
been incorporated into the text. That was passed by the Plan
Commission , it was shortly thereafter passed unanimously by City
Council and I feel it should be included in the text. Can you
assure me that it will be?
JEFF DAVIS
I think we can , but we will answer all the questions just like a
normal public hearing so we can keep track of the questions . Do
you have any other questions?
JUDY HAGAN
I have two more questions. In Chapter 6 on Problems and
Opportunities, this follows from the Springmill Road Amendment work
and on page 67 , for those of you who have your text , the very last
paragraph at the end of the page talks about the policy question
that was introduced by what kind of commercial development should
be encouraged west of the corridor? There is not very much new
language in that section , but in the italics at the end , in light
of the consensus that has formed , I think that new language is
exceedingly weak . I would just like to recommend that entire
paragraph be struck from the new plan if possible, because I think
we have resolved the issue.
ALAN POTASNIK
Could you just repeat that, because when you started I was trying
to
JUDY HAGAN
Page 67 , it is the last paragraph, it starts with a policy question
is introduced . The new language is in italics and I think that all
of you that have served on the update would agree that probably
that language in italics is a little weak , considering the
processes that we have been through tor the last two years. 1t
just seems to me that it would be easier to strike that. We have
resolved this problem, let' s remove it and move on. My third
comment that I wanted to make is about the new LCO' s or Light
Commercial Office. 1 want to commend HNTB for suggesting that. 1
think that that will be a very useful. category and may resolve some
of the touchy areas that we have. I do have a concern as to the
zoning categories that are listed in that and one category goes to
45' . I am wondering if that isn ' t a little high for the intent.
Page 100 begins the discussion about the LCO' s. That is an
entirely new section in this plan . On page 101 , the second
paragraph the kinds of things that are being talked about as
potential LCO designations are small scale personal service stores,
1/
cleaners , local serving commercial , which I think is really
excellent . But , back in the front in another place when we are
categorizing we sort of put 45' high buildings in there too. I
think we may be back to the same old arguments if that stands . So
I am sure this will (Jo on to review as we update the zoning
ordinances , but could we keep that in mind . This is an excellent
split between the regional serving office and the local serving
commercial . Thank you very much.
JEFF DAVIS
Thank you ! Anyone else who has a question .
LEE WEBB
My name is Lee Webb, 10442 Connaught Dr . , in Carmel . I have got a
couple of comments just sitting here listening to the plan and
layout and I don ' t have any written preparation . I mainly want to
address two things , one is the density and I would hope that as we
have been continually harping on that we would continue to keep the
density of development down and that the Plan Commission would not
approve request for smaller lot sizes in the most of the areas of
Carmel that are now low density , and keep them the same size that
they are, one acre. I would also like to see incorporated these
traffic plans that have been mentioned here and get these streets
widened out before the development happens . Particularly set aside
the right-of-way as developments go in , otherwise it makes it much
harder and much more expensive and a lot more fight down the line.
Definitely 31 needs to be increased to the freeway status with a
collector road , 116th although many people don ' t want it . if I
lived on it I wouldn ' t want it , but in all practical view 116th
Street has got to be widened to take the traffic that it carries
now. As well as 96th on the east end and Township and 146th
Street . I would hope that those would be planned for in the near
future rather than 20 years from now, instead of waiting till the
traffic gets to be gridlocked before you can ' t even build on them.
Thank you .
JOHN KASSELBAUM
My name is John Kasselbaum , I live at 2503 Pleasant Way West, in
the southern part of the township. I have spoken before the Plan
Commission in previous years on a particular docket in behalf of
450 residents in the area bounded by Keystone, Range Line Rd . .96th
Street and 99th Street . I have a question specifically related to
the land use plan that was projected here on the screen previously .
Specifically the area in the vicinity of Keystone and 96th Street
that was shown in a red color, wondering if that was intended to
identify the specific zoning as it exists today in that vicinity .
As it appears to have been presented by an artist brush of a
marker , I think it technically encompasses my house and some others
in that area . The question is was that m,rI ;r.ri ^^ 4-1„ 4- " ..._
JEFF DAVIS
I could Cell you wtlh, Out going any turther that does not reflect
the zoning as it exists now. I can explain to you a little and I
will not interrupt this presentation . I ' ll explain to you later
the reasoning behind that.
JOHN KASSEL BAUM
I would assume the reason behind that provides some flexibility
about the planning in those areas .
JEFF DAVIS
When we eget to it we will review these things and I think we can
explain why we have provided that . It is not intended to say that
you have been rezoned with a brush mark .
JOHN KASSELBAUM
I guess my concern is that we are showing medium density
residential as being capable of putting right „ext to an industrial
kind of atmosphere.
JEFF DAVIS
Anyone else here that has questions?
RIC< MCKINNEY
My name is Rick McKinney , I live at 50 Wilson Dr. Carmel , and I
have a couple simple questions. Mr . Myers could you repeat after
I am done what you said about Guilford and 12th Street , I thought
you said something about widening that . The second one, also, did
you say that the plans recommendation was not to build roads until
needed? Third , also, you mentioned that it was rare that there was
an intersection or strip of land that had 50,000
wondering what the classification if62nd Street
cars and I wasn
Al lisonvil le and like Shadeland . I have seer, onon the Indianapolis
Metro that it is close to 100,000 cars a day . Another point, and
this is really simple, how many copies of the Comprehensive Plan
are available for the public at the Library and the Department of
Community Development? What is the cost to obtain a private copy ,
and why wasn ' t the entire plan revised instead of just a couple of
sections? Thank you !
JEFF DAVIS
Anyone else have any questions? Would anyone like to speak in
opposition of this plan?
JIM DILLON
My name is Jim Dillon . I reside at 507 Cornwall Ct . , Carmel , IN.
/3
•
I served on the Comprehensive Plan Update Advisory Committee
representing the public . As president of a coalition of homeowners
in Clay West . I represent approximately 6,00() residents residing_
west of Meridian Street in Clay Township.
There are many ways that this Comprehensive Plan Update document is
an improvement over the 1985 Comprehensive Plan . It has provided
us with current traffic data and a traffic plan . It has updated
several areas of obsolete information . It has provided an improved
land use map. However , one change in the proposed Plan is of great
.concern to the residents in the western part of the township. That
change is to be found on page 99 of the Plan where a proposed
density of 1 . 5 units per gross acre is recommended in the S-1 zones
west of Spring Mill Road . The 1985 Plan recommends 1 acre lots in
Clay West. We are requesting that a gross density of development
of 1 unit per acre be adopted in this update document .
To help guide this update of the Comprehensive Plan , the services
of American Marketmetrics were used to conduct an impartial , random
sampling survey of residents from all over Carmel /Clay .
Unfortunately , some of those results seem to have been ignored in
the drafting this update. I would like to exhibit three of the
graphs prepared by American Marketmetrics to remind this Commission
what the citizens of Carmel /Clay want to see happening in their
community .
1 ) One question asked of the people, was , "What doe you see as
the greatest issue facing Carmel and Clay Township in our
area ' s growth over the next 5 years?' These results are shown
in this first graph entitled " ISSUES OVER THE NEXT 5 YEARS" .
The single issue of most concern was overdevelopment , followed
closely by traffic/roads and next by green space.
2 ) Another question was intended to determine the level of
concern on various planning and zoning issues , with density
being one of the issues . The results are shown in this next
graph. 89% of the people expressed concern about density of
development , with 32% being very concerned and 23% being most
concerned . I would like to remind you that these are not 89%
of the people living in Clay West but are 89% of all of the
people who will be affected by this plan .
3) To help determine what kind of density people want, the next
question asked , " If a new housing project was approved near
your home, would you prefer it to be on lots which are
smaller, larger , or about the same size as yours?" The
responses , as shown on this graph indicate, that 87% of the
people want lots the same size or larger . 9/ didn ' t care and
only 4% wanted smaller .
What does this tell us^ Ita-
already have in our area .
Until recent years , the western portion of the township has been
used for agricultural purposes with a few small homesteads
interspersed throughout . As subdivisions were developed , low
densities became the custom because of the required one acre or
more of space to accommodate septic systems . Therefore , the trend
for Open space has been established in Clay West . People could
have bought homes elsewhere on smaller lots , but the fact is that
they want open space. Why do some people need open space? Open
space provides pr"i'vaC [ t vides outdoor opportunities that
y provides
dora t exist in more densely developed areas , such as opportunities
to enjoy nature. to garden , to accommodate horses and other
animals . What open space really provides is a way of life that is
very important to a lot of people. The proposed density of 1 . 5
units per acre in the S-1 zone is not going to preserve open space !
Some people are quick to say that the desire to maintain a low
density of development in Clay West is an elitist move. THIS IS
NOT TRUE ! Councilman Loi. o testified last spring after driving
around in the western portion of the township, that he had found
all price levels ut houses in Clay West beginning with very
affordable smaller houses and including larger homes . This is
exactly the same as you will find within the Carmel city limits.
There has been a tendency in recent subdivisions both inside and
outside the Carmel city limits to build larger homes. The main
difference being that the homes inside Carmel are being built on
smaller lots . We firmly believe that there should be a place to
meet everyone' s needs .
We certainly commend the establishment of the new park board and
look forward to the preservation of public open space through a
parks system, however , the reality of public open space benefiting
Clay West is a dream for the far future. In Clay West there are
approximately 6,000 people who want open space preserved and low
density of development is the only way to assure this.
Development in Clay West has been half as dense as the proposed 1 .5
units per acre. According to data provided by the Department of
Community Development, since 1975 , 27 sections of subdivisions have
been developed in S-1 in Clay West on septic systems with the
average density of development being .600 units per acre. Ten
sections of subdivisions have been developed in S-1 on sanitary
sewers with an average density of . 724 unites per acre. These are
the current existing densities in subdivisions and these figures
don ' t even take into consideration the many homes that exist
outside of subdivisions on small acreage.
Please listen to the people of Carmel /Clay who will be affected by
this Comprehensive Plan . We are concerned with overdevelopment .
89% of us are concerned about the density of development. 07% of
us want lot sizes that are the same or larger than what already
exists in our area. 1 . 5 unites per acre in the S-1 zone in Clay
West in reality doubles the existing densities that have been
/S
developed in Clay West subdivisions and doubles the density called
for in the Comprehensive Plan .
Comprehensive Plan U I am asking that , on page 99 of the
Com Road Update in reference to the area west of Spring
. you substitute languaqe to read , " In areas of
community where this plan designation falls on land zoned "S-1" the
is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Update that development
density , i t
should average no more than 1 unitP t
you. per gross acre. " Thank
JEFF DAVIS
Any other people?
ELLEN WATSON
Good evening panel members and I
My name is Ellen Watson and I thank you for this opportunity .
West. I represent my husband andlivm at 1,;51::, Towne Road in Clay
well as the neighbors who reside on thefamy y of four children , as
east and west side of Towne
Road between 131st and 141st Street. M
moved to Carmel fourteen Y husband and I and children
years
rago looking for a rural home that we
felt would be suited to our
vegetable gardenias children , dog , cat and our love of
veg gab of g adequate enough to supply us through the winter
our pursuit of outdoor activities both lavorious and
recreational . We were very fortunate we found a
on a five acre lot . It was in a preexisting home
similar size lots and shared manycommunity of people who lived on
as the children were raised and Iohad f umorer ttimetto Over
it has come to mythe years
attention that my particular life pay
guaranteed or protected by
the denser subdivisions have zoning ordinance in Clay Townshi
over a mile of continued to cree P• As
our location of my P to within a little
threatened by the owned , home we have begun to feel
farm land . but as yet undeveloped large amounts of
There is directly north and east lar
land undeveloped , about a half a mile south ga e amountsarof ands
undeveloped and directly west of large lands
I have come here today to a our home are additional parcels .
chosen rural appeal to you to help us preserve our
passedhooutr to living . I now draw your attention to the map I have
you , I have highlighted my particular five acre lot
in orange. And , when w
acre ange with houseswn one moved there, there were only three five
there an additional twelve houses have developed onfiveor more
acre lots . Homes with 40 acres rs e been
but has three houses on 5 cacrealotss the Street farms most of it
just
recently started development South of Thomas has
Road east side have developed , the two houses south of Dye on Towne
east of methe two 5 acre lots on 136th Street
have developed, the twenty acres across an
side of 136th Street 20 acre lot has the nth
just developed and Donaidoand
Linda on the 40 acres north at 141st Street has 3 houses on
lot. The land east of my
approximately two mi a SP rinhome is residential for a ttht
g Mill and it has been r mately the
multi-level acro > . , � onri�+ � ,
consistent with the existing development that: you see on this map .
It is very clear that western Clay Township Inas developed for the
most part with acre: or with subdivisions that average less than
1 unit per acre . It seems much more consistent with the existing
development to recommend a developmental density for the future of
just 1 unit per gross acre . I ask for your support for the 1 unit
per gross acre in keeping with the existing and current development
of the area. I am most appreciative of your time and the efforts
you put in towards this .
JEFF DAVIS
Thank you .
GREG BINDER
Ny name is Greg Binder , I live at 11861 I-loster Rd . . I am the
mirror side of Jim Dillon although I don ' t have a presentation as
eloquent as his . I to served on Comp Plan Update Advisory Committee
and I represented Clay East as well as I could . I am President of
Northwood Hills Civic: Association and so you will know exactly
where 1 reside , 1 am the yellow square on the graphs that are not
up anymore , but the piece of ground is S-1 remaining on the east
side of town . I am here in the adverse section of this remonstrant
but I guess I am more of the middle type ground . We spent two
years on this plan and I really think that it was a long arguouis
process and at any time when you have a committee put together with
a variety of interest you are going to have a plan that does not
necessarily suit everybody ' s needs. I echo the concerns for the S-
1 , I am not so iruc:l'i adamant about the concerns of S-1 because of
the rural nature of our neighborhood , but more adamant because of
the method in which the S-1 and S-2 classifications were arrived
at . The 1 . 5 and 1 .0 for S-2 recommended houses per acre, I got
into the Comprehensive Plan about two years ago obviously but a
little bit before that when the S-1 controversy came up in this
township and at that time we were promised that the S-i issue would
be dealt with in the Comprehensive Plan Update. I was left with
the impression that I guess during the Comprehensive Plan Update we
would study and analysis and look at the neighboring communities
and try to come up with a consensus as to what our most restrictive
or least dense housing category should be. Unfortunately , that
never really occurred and the S-1 and the 6-2 were kind of just
thrown out from the Steering Committee based on what would be
marketable way to develop the land and not based on what the
community needs , the community wants or what surrounding
communities would consider their least dense development. At this
point , that is my primary area of concern . I personally would like
to see that we don ' t do anything with S-1 and S-2 in this Comp Plan
Update and that we do an additional survey or an additional task
force smaller in size than the one we had , but a little bit deeper
into the scope of who we ask the questions La and try to come up
with a well founded method of determining what S-1 and 6-2 are
least dense housing classification should be . The other area of
concern I have was not so much a concern that I would want to
change but I think it is an area of concern that the Planning
Commission should understand as your lookin
looking at every housing subdivision g at this plan and
that comes through here. All the + platting and rezone process
four lane highways that are being
recommended or highways , roadways , parkways , I think the parkways
are an excellent addition . I guess I overall support approvement
of this plan for no other reason , than the fact that we are all now
aware that the handle, the traffic needs of this community we are
going to have to have a four lane 116th. a four lane 106th, a four
lane 96th, a four lane 146th, we are
on 96th Street , we are going to have to have a bridge
going to have to have a bridge on 146th
Street across the river. Sometimes we get a little miotic in
looking at one little section of town and this little section of
the area but the overall ballgame right now there is , what I would
consider a sever traffic problem. We have
tffic
planners who spent two years looking at our t pffic needsrofssionalandahave
come up with basic recommendations that says we have got to have
four lanes on all our major thoroughfares. That to me is not the
ideal situation that the community wants to see and 1 think it is
clear that we need those roads according to the traffic studies so
therefore, we can ' t close our eyes and say it is not
happen . I think we should be verygoing to
or over develop or approve conscious that when we develop
rezones that every time we increase
density we increase that problem not decrease it. I already think
it is a problem that we have to have all those four lane roads
proposed , a freeway on 31 , 6 lanes on Keystone those are realities.
Those are proposed building which have already been a
in the process . That is not somebody ' sPProved ande f
dream
even
paper right now and hasn ' twhich is on a piece of
gotten here and for that reason I
think it is important that we recognize that and do approve the
traffic scenario so we can set aside land now before the houses are
built and so we can realize what additional density will do to this
community . Once again , my S-1 concern is the S-1 concern that it
was developed in accordance with a real method of determining of
what should be the right zoning . We just kind of took it and said
the market place can ' t afford to build any more than that anyway ,
so we will leave it at that. I thank you for
appreciate being a part of the your time and I did
sometimes it was longand process , although I must admit
osits up drawn out and I really respect anyone
there on this board for the amount of time you put in .
Thank you .
JEFF DAVIS
Thank you , Greg . Anyone else like to speak .
CINDY GASPER
Hi , I am Cindy Gasper , I live on 6 Points Road , I need to bringu
my-----• p
Except I would like to share my t
the new plan is going to allow in act,,, thoughts concerning what
that h, �- it., ; ,
goes against the intent of the original plan , which was to of fer in
Carmel an area with louen� � �y housingu��in0 overon the o-^ zones. The
major issue with the new Comprehensive Olan its , the sewers are
available, this is wvere the caveat plays into this. If sewers are
recommendation of one acre lot size which is set
available the
aside for that the recommendation the one acre lot size which he
based all his information on basically get pushed aside and it
allows for up to almost 75% more of a housing because it goes to
15---let me go over to my graph -- One acre is 43, 560 square feet,
-
that is what the largest lot size zoned is for Zionsville and
County is very close to that
Indianapolis .
with 40 ,000, hasinthis survey the largest of 1130,680 BooneCo�^n�
County Carmel you get sewers in your S-1 zone
square feet . Where as in That is
this caveat al \ows this to go down to 15,080 square feet.
75% reduction from the one acre that was the intent . That to me is
a very large concern because - you guys can ' t see this very well --
What happens is not only our supposed large lots , S-1 largest lot
zone of 15,000 square feet, this in actuality are largest becomes
"
one of the smallest
f-r the second largest or the
medium
m zaned
area. So we have this caveat that has occurred becauseof the
sewers. Did I make myself clear on that? We intend to have the
acre lot but when you allow sewers Lo come in we have that
ordinance that only allows 15,000 square /=et and so that really
makes Carmel instead of having meeting the standards of the area
communities and with what people want over on the S-1 zoning and
what the intent of the Comprehensive Plan , we lose it and even
become smaller than the medium zoned . I think that is something
that needs to be addressed . Please keep it in mind that the intent
of one acre large lots ---- , I would really appreciate if a new
classification could be built. If you go back to the plans, this
area, I drove this today with my little boy , we went from Spring
l36�� back l�1�� up Ditch to 141st Street it is
Mill Road down , ,
---basically a two miles between Spring Mill and Towne Road and down
Ditch at 6 Points, those are the only two north south and Towne.
There are only 98 homes total in that whole area. I lived there
nine and one half years and we have had twelve new homes come in
that area. There were 98 houses. I went by people that I know and
I know my community . There has been 13 houses sold , new families
moving in , in the last 9 1/2 years in existing housing that' s been
there and there has been 21 new homes built to make the total of
98. So the significance of this is that this area out here or your
S-1 ' s is a stable community , it doesn ' t turn over very fast, as a
matter of fact there are only three houses for saleof all the 98.
There are three houses that I didn ' t include that are just being
built^ I only counted complete, lived in family houses. So you are talking about a stable community , you don ' t have high turn
over, it ' s people that pay the taxes, as a matter of fact, because
of the sewers going in for the new school , and I ' m not complaining
about
it , but we have to pay $2500 an acre. Most of these people,
20 acres , 5 acres,Owen had mentioned , we got $2500 times 5
acres is a lot , that is what I ' ve got less than 5 acres, is a lot
of money to me. I don ' t have any of these large houses, I think we
paid less than $125*000 for our house. We have just got a house
and 5 acres, that. not a state house, it' s just. a house. I like my
� �
v �
•
house. The significance of this , please don ' t loose that, what the
sewers end up doing with this group of people is we get just
tremendously small standards set . I don ' t think that is truly
their intent for the Comprehensive Plan . And , please, I don ' t
think that is your intent . Let ' s keep it at least S-1 being an
acre per unit or better yet come up with a possibly new
classification like 2 acres or something like that for certain
areas. I appreciate your time, I do appreciate all the effort and
work you all put into this because this meeting always last longer
than you expect. Thanks for your time.
JOHN KASSELHAUM
John Kasselbaum again , 2503 Pleasant Way West . This is an
opportunity to speak in opposition to the plan and depending on the
answers to some questions that I had earlier I would have either
spoken or not . I would like to express some concerns since the
questions were not able to be answered earlier. Not having
answered the questions , as I understand the Comprehensive Plan
combined with the land use map, it does allow medium density
residential to be adjacent to regional commercial office kinds of
facilities . The concern of me and 450 plus residents that I speak
in behalf of in the 96th and Keystone area , our concern is the what
we think of as the creeping auto dealer cancers that are happening
down in that area . Currently we have an auto agency ,
was a mistake with it adjacent to a residential a ea ,N and I don't
know if it is S-1 or S-2. I 'm not familiar with that . There have
been petitions in the past to put another auto agency right next to
that and move further even into it. As I readthe Co
Plan as proposed that would allow that to happenand as I
hensaid
before the brush to the artist, the brush and the very
boundaries showing of what ' I think as a heavy
application adjacent to a medium density residential _ commerciat
think is appropriate. In other words , something more appropriate
as a 'transition , particularly in an area where there is
consideration given to. In this case, be given to rezoning should
be some transition made there between what is now an established
residential area and what we guess would interpret that auto agency
kind of an approach to be a reoional
zone. The description incommercial office kind . of
identify where that fell within posthe zoningg ' I. aComspp Plan did not
efforts that went into this apprehenreciate all the
work into it , lookingproposed plan , I know there is a lot of
at it from the convenience to the Plan
Commission it provides more flexibility as it is wr
administering a zoning or rezonin itten in
more flexibility to commercial dg ' On the other side it provides
iorct our flexibility
and when it starts to
particular area course we get concerned . As I stated
before I would speak in behalf of these people to say that the
thrust and approach the Comprehensive Plan is
positive, except for
these finer points here that do not provide a reasonable transition
from an established residential area to a r'r,m^.r-.-
Thank vnu .
MARY BETH FLEM 1 NG
Good evening , my name: is Mary Beth Fleming , and I live at 1277 West
Smokey . Row Road . For the most part I feel that the Comprehensive
Plan which in my text, I will be referring to as the Master Plan ,
is good and we are happy with it, but I do have these concerns. On
March 20, 1990 at a public hearing residence of Clay West presented
a petition to the Planning Commission . This petition was signed by
140 residence of Clay West . Of those asked to sign that petition
only two refused . These petitioners live between Spring Mill and
She l borne Road and between 131st from the south and 146th on the
north. The petition requested that the undeveloped land zoned S-1
remaining in Clay West be zoned in 1 acre or greater lots. These
140 signatures have been ignored . In the revised Master Plan that
is up for adoption tonight , the area of S-1 undeveloped land in
Clay West shows not even one tract of land has been set aside for
1 acre minimum zoning . The committee which revised Carmel ' s Master
Plan has not only totally ignored these 140 petitioners , but has
also ignored the results of their very own survey conducted by
American Mar ketmetr'ics in August of 69. This survey as you have
already been shown tonight conclusively indicates that 67/ of
Caramel /Clay citizens requested that future building development be
done on lot sizes, either the :;arae size or grt:._,LL-r tna, one
they currently live on . Someone has paid American Marketmetrlcs to
conduct a survey concerning the publics feelings and then has
ignored those very results. On March the 20th, 1990, on June the
4th, 1990 and again tonight, I would like to impress upon you the
Planning Commission before you vote to adopt this revised Master
Plan that the residence from Spring Mill to West Road and 131st on
the south and to 146th on the north have living needs which are
different than those in S--1 subdivisions . lieny of us, if not all
of us , have chosen Clay West because we require space, for whatever
personal reasons. At a sacrifice to our own pocketbooks we bought
multiple acre tracts of land , led by reel estate agents who stated
that land in Clay West would be developed on 5 acre lots or more.
And , that was based on current subdivision codes. And , led by the
1905 Muster Plan which stated that Clay West would be 1 acre
minimum lots. We understood Clay West WC;-5 the space that the
Carmel City Planners planned to protect , so we retreated from
subdivisions in other parts of Carmel , because we were subdivision
misfits. We wanted orchards, we wanted horses , we wanted several
dogs , we wanted skeet shoots, we wanted go-cart tracks to name just
a few interest that smaller lots do not allow. Several residents
park a couple of tractors or tri-axel trucks in plain view, these
things are considered offensive eye sorers to homeowners in
subdivisions. For these reasons we have politely excused ourselves
from subdivision life and we have retreated west like the American
Indians to the outer most corner of our community . And now, like
the American Indians our local government is deaf to our pleas for
space. Allowing a zoning category of 1 . 5 houses per acre called S-
1 , to surround us on all sides . Are Carmel ' s governing bodies
inviting us to leave, to move west again to Zionsville where the
zoning allows 3 acres minimum lots and open spaces protected . All
surrounding towns have S-1 categories with a lower density than
rarmel ' s , 1
] hi c Master 1C�r' P]
na
1 . houses f t <+C`YE • ere will is Passsect with, S-1 zonino , .
1 .
susurrounded t,'Y ten e .times i {.a multiple acre tracts ofI :a(•,land
rt,r uncle wj ] 1 our current density . find
please tour the If the Plannin
they wi I I clearly o(�aor�,pl-,i ca l area
land. y see the homes are or, ] l havemoroutlined
We are
we are where wet ust a bunch of houses haphazardoy plunked
down ,of
There is are by design , a design haphazardly p] ulife ty
already a development trend in ourtsuit our will
ri tib.
enhanced by S- area w
1 . We ask that the P, which will ect be
on nationally famous mode] communities .icn-,ino �.(i(t,miccjDn ei;c+R'rint. data
ca well to enablethat
planned and balanced them to see
that community allows everyone thespace
e
they need • be it Brea
request for t or be it �c l y
a third time the small . We respectfully
request for new density of S-1 be reduced .
Zoning categories a:l ] owjri, WE also
sG
re and
5 acre minimum zoning andt � � for 1 acre, _.
in Clay West . Thank. erytmuchthece new •'_Gn11p CatepG!'iBSCd;,tJear
veu ••
KATHY BENJAMIN
Good evening Mr . Davis .
adjevee . Mr . Ayer-s , 1
candidate
Stn and not as Kathynjamin . baut here this evening o as a
ri:hy
Street Task Force. Katherine as c7 re-Presentative Gf the inc ben "c
What you see represented in Benjamin . 11214 Moss Drive,
Task, Force information . this volume is 116th Street
withasthe eel It has been derived _inCe October
p of Mr . MYers of HNTB and U. S . 1 . 1990
enaineerinq firms around JEn9lr�eer-] n
the area and has not to do a �nchd o withh
the density , although 1 certainly do empathize with then c'p] re
this evening . but has to do more with people hen.
Without uc;ina into long dissertation t."� thoroughfare
k:Wowing what was given sertation with resc,ect to that an not
the way I am c to the new people Or: d not
sorry but one of those first meetir, is beard . bo
howhas to be this long , staff is already out in thee hal you�� come to
,ow you must feel . At any hall ..
rate. not knowing so 1 you
in,
packets for 9 !.,I'�at staff gave
the new people, not knowjn t,_ rGU in
from the jteE'rinq Committee q whether thepeople
the (.,hale, there was a gave
all of you as Plan Commission
who ish the able Cletteran of written December 17 byMr, 1Gn ofs
have that letter in the 116th Street Task Force.
r Jol-,r, Myyouers
further.
Your Packet stop me now ° Ce• If
If you don ' t and I will not go any
letter. I do have ay t,�err, or YOU are not familiar with
certainlyemake it available toof t. I won ' t read it tothat
you . Wouldyou but I will
YOU like a Cop)' of that?
JEFF DAVIS
I don ' t think any of the new members do , I think all the old
members have the letter ,
KATHERINE BENJAMIN,
If the new members clop
one or Mr . Terry Jor,r.s r ��sve I 1 I be happy to ask ,lr,hn r
it , it has taken us Toto a number of different areas. Not the
least of which is H aeldel l and River Road south and Gray Road
south and so on as that lu eave tter aeard nd a d any this
otl'ier-.Ilnftir(Ti:a` o tlonewill you migGt
happy to get to you _
like from the committe=e. Thank you so much.
JEFF DAVIS
Thank you. Anyone cit like to speak tonight?
PATTY APPLESON:
My name Patty Appleson and I reside 11013 Somerset Way East,
is
Carmel . I am the President of the PTO at Woodbrook Elementary ,
located on 116th Street. We feel it is very important to express
our Parent Teacher Organizations continued interest to you the
Planning Committee. Your decisions will effect everyone in
Cannel /Clay . Petitions have been circulated supporting three
lanes , 1233 signatures were obtained with signatures of residence
as far north as 146th Street. The petition read as follows:
quote , "We the undersigned members of the Woodb(uok. PTO concerned
.,Cli_) Carmel residence are against on Olawil or
pr.opoSOls that focus on widening 116th Street tat til
Avenue to four or five lanes of traffic .
Instead , we recommend
that 116th Street be two lanes, one east t bound , one west bound
separated by a grassy treed boulevard . The center- boulevard would
accommodate left turn lanes for east and west bound traffic to turn
onto all residential streets. As part of this project the City y of
Carmel should install and maintain concrete sidewalks para
o
the street on both the north and the south sides of 116th Street.
The current speed limit of 30 should be retained . " We want to
promote a smooth traffic flow for the cars on 116th Street . We do
not want to create a four lane situation that would attract trucks
and even more non-residential traffic through our neighborhood .
Recently , when the bridge over White Water was closed due to high
water , east west commuter traffic found alternate routes and it
made a positive impact on 116th Street at that time. Traffic was
at a minimum during this period . If these commuter passenger
vehicles found alternate routes under the circumstances think of
the relief that possibly 96th Street could bring . A four lane
highway could not alleviate our turning problems . Do we want
tour
children in school buses traveling on a four lune highway
not fair to subject our children to that. With the anticipation of
the completion of 96th Street we could relief from our current
traffic problem. Even earlier it was stated that 96th Street cod
give relief to our problem and then he prefaced it if the growth
pattern continues it would not be the final wsoluto lookon atth,t
to e
problem. The little or the big word however you
is "it " we don ' t know what the growth pattern is going to be with
the economy and different things that are happening and then we are
basing some of these things decisions on facts
that,rwe reallymedored
know about yet. There are certain things
e
in party
and to here
separt to yourselis ves.re you Issues that youand
wonl'�t
voting par ty
:23
find on an engineers report . We want to
why we did settle in Carmel ; 41 preserve two main reasons
citizenship. one that takes an a` to be a part of its conscious
Carmel ; �� _ to be a cove Dart in the betterment of
that values the b a part of this wonderful residential community
tatfia . g Priority given to its families , not commuter
Widening 116th Street could cause us
than a few minutes of travel time to looms
recommendations for think about it . When
evoting for
the fate of 116th Street ,
vote will reflect the best possible solution pforathisakr sure tour
area • It is a residential area and let ' s keep residential
manyYears to come. Tonight it that way for many
it has been mentioned that it is hard to
imagine what it will be like in
you all look at a modified solution rmtol 116ttrhty Streeyeartcfrom it now, If
w
e
hard to visualize what it will be like ill not f
116th Street goo=_ `��
to four- lane )'ears down the road . It
our lovely Carmel community malt will be hard to visualize what
appreciate the time that each obecome along that strip. We
f
mportant ssue. Thank. you have oiven to this very
iiortanssuee of you for considering the modified safe,
three lanes for 116th Street . yet
JEFF DAVIS
Thank you .
WALTER PAVELICH:
My name is Walter Pavelich. I live a
Carmel . I am a resident. gf t 1429 Springmill Circle in
Spring Crossing and live on
property bordering 136th Street onthelnlorth side. T
to speak; against the Comprehensive Plan as it relates toithe DI
ePauw
property . The DePauw property is south of
131st Street , 136tH Street , north
east of Spring Mill Road and west of U• S . 3
a year ago, I spoke before this Plan �1 • Almost ver
1000 people in Serino Mill Crossing Commission on behalf of over
proposed development of concerning Radnor Corporation
poins were made the DePau�, property . At that
was
severalth commercial square footage and subsequent land areag thesesefo points
development and the resultingthe
situations that would result . invariable traffic
property must Commercial development of
demonstratedu at be kept within the 600 footthis
that meeting corridor, 00
People were to in February of last year over 40G
development . present oppose such p
I see no realization expansive commercial
Comprehensive Plan and I ask this opposition
Comp Amendment into the thatin the
Rime. Comprehensive
incorporate the Spring Mill
Plan . Thank you for your
RANDY SCHULTZ :
Hi , my name is Randy Schultz I live at 3796 Shel horns r^ '- r
like to welcome the new ,
Over the two years , we have redrawn the boundary lines of different
color areas several areas , made several new plans , we have gone
back and forth on the traffic . but , the one thing we never did get
resolved was the size of the density for S-1 and 5-2 . Now in that
two year time period , we tilled the audience with people who spoke
against having high density lots and preferred to have low density
lots . We had petitions signed , we did a telephone survey that
included the whole city area , not just the people on the west side
of town . And it still came back that people preferred to have the
lower density lots . I guess 1 am a little surprised that it is
still in the Comprehensive Plan that people still prefer to have
the same density that it is zoned at now, and not to be changed to
a higher density . Thank you .
JEFF DAVIS:
Thank you .
TOM KENDALL :
Good evening , my name is Tom Kendall I reside at 11818 Gray Rd . .
I ' ve just been taking a few notes this evening and would like to
share sone thoughts with you . First of all I would to certainly
congratulate and thank. all those people who work. e1.J hard for the two
years to get the Comprehensive Plan Update to where it is today .
I krrow it is a lot of hard work . 1 can appreciate what they do.
I think just because two years were spent in preparation and
probably a lot of money spent on it as well , doesri t necessarily
mean that it is right . I know, I do these things every day . I work
real hard in putting proposals and things together and I dive them
to my boss and he says you worked hard but it still is not the way
I want it , go back and do it over again . So, I would suggest don ' t
necessarily vote in favor of it because a lot of people have worked
hard . I don ' t think out of all the people that who were standing
up here this evening any are saying throw the whole thing out .
There seem to be just a few issues that did need to be addressed
and tweaked a change and I think perhaps an excellent Comprehensive
Plan will result . Some of the things that I wanted to touch on
myself of course was the 116th Street issue . Some of you may know
that is the issue I got involved in over a year ago and I have been
opposed to widening 116th Street beyond the three lanes. When I
look at the plans that were shown this evening with the dotted line
across 116th Street indicating that it was a primary park way with
a designation that could theoretically give it a 150' right-of-way .
Comparing that to what it is today , I try and imagine what a 150 '
of right-of-way through a residential area might look like. For
those of you that are familiar with it if you could imagine for a
moment in the area of Haverstick Road and 116th Street, there is an
old house that has been there for , i believe over 100 years that is
currently about 1 lanes distance from 116th Street . 116th Street ,
1 don ' t know the enact width of it but I doubt that is a whole lot
more than 45 or t0 leet at the most at that point:. . Widening it to
150' right-of-way would certainly be very difficult and probably
destroy a home like that . I try to imagine what 150 ' of right-of-
5-
way would look like in front of our elementary school and I would
think that it would bring it so close
school where my childrento the front door of our
concern for me and as go to school . It has been a constant
otheroyou can see for the viewers of a number of
people here this evening . Hopefully when considering the
Update you might want to consider a revision for 116th Street to
give it some sort of designation to where it is no more than a
three lane width, with a center turn lane down the middle it should
be able to handle a sufficient amount of traffic . The traff
problems I know because I travel it everit
that a lot of people stop and ty day . Come frog, the fact
them. urn left and people back up behind
If we can get the left hand turners out of the flow of
traffic into their own turn lanes . the traffic should be able to
flow better . Especially with the improvements of
intersections , like Gray Road intersection which is certaid
and
even though it is outside our boundaries other areas suchparsed Eller
Road where there seems to be a lot of traffic congestion . Focus on
those areas where it will keep the traffic moving . ,
probably accomplish that without a five lane option . The lfournkelacan
ne
traffic, I was trying to note here. I recall at a meeting we had at
Woodbrook Elementary School , I believe the current traffic count on
116th in that area is about 13 . 000 cars
a
approximately what would the traffic beif� it were
esfourelanestand
the answer was that it would probably double , bring it to about
26 . 000 cars . According to the numbers that I received from the
Indiana State Department of Highways ,
Keystone Avenue at 116th Street is about 27 t00 cars c a day .counon
So
another words the traffic on a four lane 116th Street in front of
our elementary school would be approximately what traffic is
on Keystone Avenue today . like
And again , I would hate to a Keystone
Avenue running east and west through our residential area in front
of our elementary school . The area of density it certainly has
come up a couple of times tonight and 1 wonder if somewhat of a
solution perhaps wouldn ' t be changing the
terminology from
gross
density to net density . The Comprehensive
Plan Update is calling
for about a 1 . 5 homes per acre in gross densit
y . If were in
net density and we took 2 acres of land and subtractedthat the 20% for
infrastructure, that would leave about 1 .6 acres to put 2 houses
on . Essentially back to a gross that is about 1 house
if for some reason someone felt good about the 1 . 5 oyer acre and
think we change the terminology from gross to net might solve
elthat
problem and houses would still be 1 house
especially important in light of per acre. I think it is
al
committee that is being formed to consider kthcend the new study
unified government between the City of Carmel andClayTow of a
As it has been pointed out a number of times tonight onceganshiarea
has sewers the 15 , 000 sq . ft . rule a
we could wave a magicpplies per S-1 density and if
we right or wron wand . I don ' t know whether the decision would
enough to look n g aatuthis point I certainly haven ' t studied it
it government issue, but if it became unit
government overnight it .o,.„� 4-.,- ,,_
m::te any new development fell within the 15,000 sgq . ft . designation .
And again , it that alross density , t rom what we saw On the map
tonight , that would be almost three houses to gross acre of land .
I think that is what the people are trying to tell you , they don ' t
want to see. I hope that you will coordinate the planning of the
Comprehensive Plan with possibilities of other things such as
urigov whether it happens a year from now or twenty years from now.
The fact that it is being considered is a possibility , should also
be a consideration in your decision as to how that will effect the
density in the west side . Finally , I would like to close from the
sneer numbers Ot people that we have sects , no one wanted to speak
in favor of the plan .and again I don ' t think anycrse is speaking
totally against it . But , there are a few issues that they are
against , please listen to the people. The people of the community ,
the people that spoke tonight , some represent 10 or 20 people
others several hundred people and I think that is a very good
representation of the community in general saying that there are
certain things in this plan that they would like to see changed and
hopefully in a public hearing tonight your the people that will be
listening to the people in the community and be able to make those
changes and come up with the ideal Comprehensive Plan Update.
Thank you .
JEFF DAVIS:
Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this
time?
JOHN P I 1 T MAN:
11r . Davis , members or the Plan Commission I am John Pittman , I live
at 201 W . 106th St. , Indianapolis, Indiana. Although it is a
little pocket I still live in Carmel . All my kids have gone to
Carmel High School . I see a lot of new faces here tonight that
were not here two years ago when I came before this body for a
zoning case. I didn ' t come here tonight to give a speech, in fact,
I came to get educated . I haven ' t seen any of the documents but
thought there might be soma handouts where I would learn what was
going on as far as what is zoned what. So my comments are based on
what I was able to see tonight on the board and some of those
pictures were pretty small , so I might not have everything
absolutely right in nay thinking . But I am here in concern as a
potential developer of 110 acres of property along Spring Mill
Road . I have little experience in development , we have developed
40 acres of residential land in Zionsville, Indiana, in a
subdivision called Long Brook . I would invite any of you to go
look at it , it is a sold out unit. We divided 40 acres in to 10
lots, so we made mice big lots for everyone, it is on septic and
city water . So we have a bit of a feel for what a nice project
should look like, a nice residential project . Now I amt concerned
about two different projects . We moved up to Carmel about 20 years
ago, so I represent one of the older members in this audience
tonight and at that time there was a lot of farm land in close. We
bought farm land for a period of time and I now own 40 acres where
�
7
.r.
we live at 106th Street going down Spring Mill Road and I own the
farm at 116th and Spring Mill Road which is about 70 acres . A
couple of years ago we came in and tried to zone the 70 acres using
the Comprehensive or the Master Plan at that time, which called for
the north end of that project to be commercial and the south end to
be transitional . We were very frustrated in trying to find out what
transitional represented and no one would tell us ,
making the south end of So we ended up
antithal . iwas our project residential instead of
residential . So the project we went before
the Plan Commission called for 35 acres to be residential , 35 acres
to be commercial , and by commercial I am talking about high
office park . I see in the thoroughfare 9 quality
was myPlan , by the way Mr . Myers
traffic consultant at that time, and he told me at that time
that we were going to have this big thoroughfare right through, the
middle of our property . I see he hasn ' t changed his mind , it is
still there. It is a four lane road . I
thnk he said , so noare talking about a four lane road right through the middle of,�our
property . I hear all these folks talking
Street going through a residential neighboro td .conW We erns of 1116
kith
about a four lane road going through the middle of ourproperty
rperty aty and
then on the other side of the nd
property SAY story office buildings
and then across the street on Spring Mill Road a future high
school . I think I am pretty secure in sayin
be a future high school . Although g that undoubtedly will
pin down at that last meeting , g that was a very hard thing to
of the school board to sell thatu80t laccresdon ' tacr'oss ink thetherstreet .is any Ae svI
saw that plan tonight it calls for this area
to be identil I ' ve talked with a lot of architects and a lot ofresbuildersaandnnd I
can ' t find anybody that thinks that ' s
property . 1 challenge any of you good land usage for that
Street and Spring Mill Road and thin: drive bout ay four laneeroaof
d 116th
through the middle of that property and think about whether fiyot
would like to buy a lot to build a home in that location , withyou
six story office buildings on one side and a high school which will
be a very busy place across the
like for you to look at that H street on the other side. 1 would
conerned about is gain . The other area that I am
down where I live at 106th Street and we own the
property that goes down along
forty acres there . I think that Spslag ifferent Mill Road . We have about
That piece of property has some nice rollingc a piece of properth ,
land, some ravines and I really characteristics to the
into a nice residential think that that can be developed
rightonow on ' t knowproject , if it is property buffered . But .
that toat usls was going to happen . As
zoned commercial yfu "'t h 1
recall the land right next
Browning Corporation , and that certainl or the
600 ' corridor, that comes wayY does not stay within the
At our home location we on bath. several hundred more feet .
land and adjacent to that is high density faced with owning residentially
it undoubted] zoned
Y be a nicewY commercialuproperty , re
is scheduled to be a fourr lane road nice office buildings .
coming right adjacent. There our
Property line and I ' m concerned about what 4 i r,ri ,-,f 1--,"going to our
going to tia"., _
you to look at that because here we are I have 40 acres that is
going to be zoned residential adjacent to this heavily commercial
project . What kind of buffering are you planning there being
between commercial property and residential property? Remember
that the other site we offered 35 acres of houses as a buffer
between the commercial and the residential and that wasn' t
satisfactory , so I am wondering what is satisfactory for the
commercial project next to our residential land . I would
appreciate you looking at both those areas. Thank you.
JEFF DAVIS:
Anyone else?
GARY GRIFFITH:
I am Gary Griffith I live at 1001 W. 11Sth `tat . , and I ' just came
down here kind of out of my own interest to see what the future
plans were. I must say that I am really impressed with the work
that has been put into this project and it is really impressive to
see those four lane and sir: lane highways and super freeways that
are going to get us out of Carmel and get us downtown . I suppose
with the housing density that is being currently proposed we are
going to need those freeways. It will be just like Indianapolis
perhaps these gentlemen that develop these road designs live in
Indianapolis and are used to that type of thing . I think from the
standpoint of the rc :1 of us that are here at this meeting we moved
to this area to escape that type of environment . I would just hope
that the Plan Commission would consider that when they are looking
at the housing density and stick to the one house per acre or
perhaps consider even making it larger where you have one house per
1 1/2 acres. Perhaps if we ( change in tape) .
JEFF DAVIS:
If that is everyone that would like to speak at this time. First,
I would like to thank the public for the quality of their
presentation here tonight . We appreciate this type of
presentation , most everybody made good points and presented it in
a reasonable manner . In response to that I think it would be
inappropriate for us to respond to these complaints. I ' m sure a
lot of people were takings notes and we have a good set of minutes.
What I would like to do, the staff has recommended that we turn
this over to a committee of the whole Plan Commission for further
study on the next committee night. What I would like to do is to
answer these questions on our next committee night. Due to the
lateness of the hour and I don ' t think this type of presentation
deserves a quick off the cuff response. There are some things that
I would like to research. I will tell you one thing that it was
never the intention of this plan to create a higher density in
western Clay Township. If in fact that is what we have done, we
have missed some numbers some place. What we thought we were doing
was clarifying some things by going to a gross density instead of
a net density . We need to run some numbers down and we need to do
•
1
a little more study than what we are doing .
come up with. What you have asked us to do0 isN not thaUae ccal I to
reversal of the plan , there is some fine tuning to do, there aree
some areas I think we could probably look at very closely . there
are some thinos that we can do with this project that may make it
more palatable. There may be some things we can ' t do.
One of the
thinos about the traffic study is we can ' t make the figures be any
different than what they are, but I would tell
ou thit the
Plan Commission does build these roads . What we� w ntedstohdo was
have this for ourselves so we could look where our planning was
going to go and try to set aside some right-of-ways , avoid a
controversial like we have with 116th
Street by laying out some of
these future roads , so
people would know when they move there what
was planned for the area and have
t-of-ways areay
purchased and set back . Not trying to build he la hroad after al house
is already in place. This plan does not try to run a four lane road
on 116th Street . There are other people studying this and we are
aware of it . We started before the task force state ,
what the numbers indicated to us , there are otherranswers , sour
planner has told us there are other answers .
Commission will be sensitiveIf the Plan
oovernment will be sensitivetoit to what the Task Forceto it , I ' m sure all areas comes uof
p
with. This is not a plan to brush 116th Street over anbody , just
s
Y i
that we started our plan first , this is what the numbers indicated .
There are other ways to approach this and we are aware of it .
our plan , in fact . makes disclaimers to that our
peto be
sensitive to what has been built there, sensitive •toWtheeneeds of
the public and what is already in existence. So we are well aware
of this . What I would like to do is take this issue up again as a
response to the remonstrators at a committee of the whole on our
next committee meeting night. Does anyone of the Plan Commission
object to that?
JOHN MYERS :
There were some questions that answers could be given quickly .
JEFF DAVIS :
If you have some questions there that
the reasons you would like to go through
quickly . One of t
I don ' t want to do this tonight is
because of the lateness of the hour and we still have a full agenda
behind us . If you got some things that you can answer fairly
quickly .
JOHN MYERS :
Less than 30 seconds .
JEFF DAVIS:
Guilford widening , no we don ' t recommend widening Guilford , 126th
Slri:et widening , we are showing that between H:_azeldell and Keystone
not built until needed . there is a gray area between waiting until
atter you need tour lanes and trying to operate on two lanes versus
being or. the border line, so that is not absolute . And , you would
think this last question was prompted , but the 100 ,000 anywhere or.
any arterial is ridiculous and I just happen to have a whole pile
of things here that show average daily traffic examples and I want
to distribute these . So that is all I have got .
JEFF DAVIS:
Very good , Dave .
DAVE CUNNINGHAM:
Jeff , three points one of which was asked I believe by a member of
the audience. There has beer. 2 copies of the proposed Comp Plan at
the library that can be checked out , in addition to that there are
5 copies in our office that any member oft take 1te `► out on blic art their own
and they have two options , they can just , it for them at
themselves or we will copy
r G:Cr.:.l�li:an�..e to make copies you are taking it topar- cost of copies . ci
'_3cond point would be if
a full committee of the Commission we would recommend suspension of
the rules because cur'r'ent rules of procedure r eco'kmend tod hatl'.et hisher go
to a select committee , and third point I would ca.
agendas on the 5th maybe Subdivision being the only other committee
that will meet that evening if they could meet at 7 P.M. therefore
we could nave this item come up at 7: 30 P .M. with full Commission .
JEFF DAV“-1:
There are two copies of this at the public library and five copies
at the office of Community Development. yourself .will Since thissifor
r
you or you can take it and make cop1es the final copy
draft copy there are not copies available to sell ,
will be for sale. Since this is a draft copy we did not make a lot
of extra copies , I don ' t think it is possible to buy them, but you
can come in and look at their., you can look at them at the library ,
you can make copies of particular portions of it.
DAVID CUNNINGHAM:
They would be able to he purchased at the cost of our reproduction .
That is the only cost .
JEFF DAVIS:
Dave has suggested that we suspend the rules in order to hear this
as a committee of the whole , in this room February 5.
SUE MCMULLEN:
I so move.
•
ALAN POTASNIK:
Seconded .
JEFF DAVIS:
Is there any discussion? Everybody in favor signify by sa ina ay
e.
Opposed same sign? We will here this issue at 0 P .M. y
It will give us one hour- from 7 to 9 P.M. in this room.
committee assignments . We will start this i souea handle e o' clock her
this room on February 5, 1991 . The committee meeting will start at
7 P.M. for only this one night . Like to start off with answering_
your question=_ and then we can go into further discussion .