Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan Commission Responses to Public Hearing Testimony 2/5/91 Plan Commission Testimony Responses to PliH Febub.c 5, 1991earing ublic • the 1991 Update as it pertains to the p The following is information contained in testimony (see transcript)• we have attempted to ascertain Note: To the best of the ability of tf he document. specific points and correspondingC = Staff Comment Q = Question/Concern A = Recommended Action Judy Hagan Spring Mill Road Comp. Plan Amendment be included in the Update? 0: Will the Spring Mill Road Comp. Plan Amendment should be included in the Goal and A: The Objectives section as amended in 1988. 0: Should the language to development along Spring Mill Road on page 67 of the 1991 Update be struck? C: Staff feels that this section should not be struck for the following reasons; - It is a direct implementation of the Spring Mill Road Amendment - One of the few areas within the 1991 Update that specifies actual land usages - Limits non-residential development from accessing Spring Mill Road 0: Is a 45' building height applicable to types of developments suggested within the Local Commercial/Office Classification? C: Staff would suggest that on page 21 of the 1991 update, the 45 height limit be struck and on page 23 of the 1991 Update, the suggested zoning classes not be used to describe the different Land Uses. Staff further feels that as projects develop the Purpose and Intent of the individual zoning classifications will dictate actual design guidelines. Lee Webb 0: Concern about density,requesting one acre lots as the standard of residential development C: Refer to DOCD comment of letter by Henry Blackwell. 0: What are the traffic plans for the 116th, 96th and 146th Streets? C: Traffic will be discussed by HNTB. John Kassem$u Q: Specific band Uses in the Keystone Y ne and 96th Street area? C. On p• 97 - 1991 Update states the Plan is making, to be used by both the intended as a , not "Cast in stone • public as well as theguide to developmentprivate decision- not beonding to tone";unanticipated o o interpreted so that the communitytythe Plan should in n addition, the PP rtunities and or to chap can bem flexibleaes followingIstatement a changing development circumstances. Land Use and Thorou hfare Plan has been prepared to communicate p Land Use Me representation is Lan---d USf a consensus opinion for the distribution and densi an illustrative representation of community. It is not the ty of future development across the purpose of the Plan to indicate exact locations for future development, nor specify a precise amount of acreage for anygiven gt n location." Staff feels that the above statements indicate the generalization of the Comprehensive Plan that the Steering Committee reflected throughout the review process; projects\parcels of land will be studied as they are proposed for development and the Codmp. Plan will be used as an overall guideline for that development. p Rick McKinney Q: Is Guilford and 126th Street proposed to be widened? Q: Does the Plan recommend that roads not be built until needed? C: Staff refers to page 31 of the transcript of the public hearing, that states the following: "Guilford widening,no we don't recommend widening Guilford, 126th Street widening,we are showing that between Hazeldell and Keystone not be built until needed, there is a gray area between waiting until after you need four lanes and trying to operate on two lanes versus being on the borderline, so that is not absolute." Q: How many copies of the Proposed Comp. Plan are available and where? C: As indicated within the Public Notice, that appeared in the Dec. 19, 1990, "Copies of said amendment are available for public inspection at the Carmel/Clay Public Library,515 E.Main Street, Carmel, Indiana, and at the Department of Community Development, City Hall, 1 Civic Square, Carmel,Indiana." In addition, the staff would refer to page 31 of the transcript of the public hearing- There has been two copies of the proposed Comp. Plan at the library that can be checked out; in addition to that, there are five copies in our office that any member of the public can come in and check out or we will make copies at the cost of reproduction. Jim Dillon Q: The proposed Comp. Plan Update increases the density of S-1 zoned land, therefore, Dr. Dillon requests that on p. 99 of the 1991 Update the following language be substituted, "In areas of the community where the plan designation falls on land zoned"S-1", it is the intent Com rehensive Plan Update that development density should average no more than of the p 1 unit per gross acre." C: Staff would refer to the comments addressed in response to Mr.Blackwells letter regarding the "increased density issue". Ellen Watson 0: Density of 1 unit per acre be implemented. C: Staff would refer to the comments addressed in response to Mr.Blackwells letter regarding the "increased density issue". Greg Binder 0: Density of 1 unit per acre be implemented. C: Staff would refer to the comments addressed in response to Mr.Blackwells letter regarding the "increased density issue". Cindy Gasper 0: Density of 1 unit per acre or possibly 2, 3 or more acre per unit be implemented. C: Staff would refer to the comments addressed in resp o se like It r.Blcwells letter out that due regarding in the "increased density issue". In addition, the staff wpoint existing "Subdivision" definition requirement, since 1980 lot splits with more than two lots under five acres are required to follow the Subdivision Regulations and plat the land. This requirement has had a significant effect on the development of five acre and larger tracts in the western township area. John Kasselbaum Q: What kinds of buffering proposed by the Comp. Plan Update between Residential and Commercial? C: On page 100 of the 1991 Update the following is stated, "Development possible under the "MDR"designation would be appropriate as a buffering use between Low density Residential areas and areas designated for more intense uses such as High Density Residential, Local Commercial/Office and Regional Commercial/Office.... Staff would state that this follows general planning practices and that actual buffering between each proposed use be reviewed at the time projects are proposed. Mary Beth Fleming Q: Density of 1 unit per acre be implemented. C:Staff would refer to the comments addressed in response to Mr.Blackwells the "increased density issue". letter regarding Kathy Benjamin 0: Concerns with regarding the 116th Street Task Force and the proposed Pla pertaining to 116th street, River Road and Hazeldell Road. p ns suggestions C: Hazeldell/River Road In a letter dated November 5, 1990, from John Schuler, Chairman of the Mayor's 116th Street Task Force, upon unanimous direction, he asked the Plan Commission to consider the Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan as it relates to Hazeldell Road north of 116th to 146th and River Road south of 116th to 96th. The following is a concise breakdown of how each plan addresses Hazeldell/River Road. Carmel/Clay Comp Plan (1990 Update) The Comp Plan (pages 137-138) addresses Hazeldell Road north of 116th to 136th (around the intersection with Cherry Tree Ave.) as a "north-south arterial"to be four- lane, proposed as a "parkway". It does not address River Road south of 116th or Hazeldell north of 136th. The Comp Plan map indicates that Hazeldell be Primary Parkway(150'r/w, 4-6 lanes) from 116th to 146th and a Secondary Arterial (90'r/w, 4 lanes) south of 116th to 96th. (Pages 124-127 address these classifications.) Hamilton County Comp Plan Shows Hazeldell Road as Primary Arterial from 96th to 146th. County and City primary and secondary geometric standards for roadways, in Comp Plans, are the same as far as r/w, width, and # of lanes; however in, May 1989, the county passed an ordinance for minimum road and street standards. These standards would require only 100' of r/w for primary arterial,which would be in conflict with the 100'-120' noted in the County Comp Plan. In a nutshell: -Both plans desire an alignment of Hazeldell Road (north of 116th) and River Road (south of 116th) intersecting at 116th. -Both plans, (somewhat), desire this roadway to be from 4-6 lanes between 96th and 146th. -Both plans designate this roadway as an "arterial" -The only discrepancy I can find is in the actual classification (meaning r/w): County: Primary Arterial City: Secondary Arterial -Due to the County's ordinance the r/w difference would 10'; both designations require at least 4 lanes. DOCD Recommendation: Throughout the process of the update of the CWm e believe lthe nntentve ad Thortheoughfare Steering it has been the direction of the Staff (and Committee) to see that the Carmel/Clay Plan coincide as much as possible with not only the County Plan but the Plans of all surrounding jurisdictions. As for Hazeldell north of 116th to 146th (not 136th) the Carmel/Clay Plan designates a minimum of four-lanes and as much as six-lanes -- "primary parkway" in character. This would be much more significant than t Countye thean, in update beis area.written toconcuraff like to recommend, however, that the text portion of with the map and add language to that effect on pages 137-138. As for River Road south of 116th to 96th, it has never been the intent to consider this section anything but a minimum of four lanes, as is indicated on the map. In order to clarify this, Staff would like to recommend that a section be added to the text portion on pages 137-139,under the topic"Eastern Clay Township(Keystone to White River)" describing this as an integral element in the circulation of traffic in that area, with notations as to the type of roadway it should be, preferably a "primary arterial" from "secondary arterial" due to the fact there is only a 10' difference in right-of-way. Staff would also recommend that the entire Hazeldell/River Road be included in the text under the topic "H. Major Thoroughfares and Circulation" on pages 58-64. Patty Appelson 0: Widening of 116th Street as proposed and what effect that will have on Woodbrook Elementary. C: Staff would direct this to the Traffic planner with HNTB. Walter Pavelich Q: Incorporation of the Springmill Road amendment as it relates to the DePauw property located at the southeast corner of 136th Street and Springmill Road. C: The staff would agree that the Springmill road amendment should be incorporated, but feels that specific sites of development should be addressed as they are proposed for development and that the 1991 Update plan, with the incorporation of the Springmill Road amendment, is a vital part of the development of this referenced site. Randy Schultz Q: Density of 1 unit per acre be implemented. C: Staff would refer to the comments addressed in response to Mr. Blackwells letter re lardin the "increased density issue". b g Tom Kendall Q: Questions about 116th Street widening. C: Staff would direct this to the Traffic planner with HNTB. Q: Proposes to change gross densities to net densities. C: Staff would not recommned this change at this time but would suggest, that this be studied as part of the Zoning ordinance update for all Zoning Classifications. John Pittman Q: What kind of buffering is planned between Residential and Commercial projects? C: On page 100 of the 1991 Update the following is stated, "Development possible under the "MDR"designation would be appropriate as a buffering use between Low density Residential areas and areas designated for more intense uses such as High Density Residential, Local Commercial/Office and Regional Commercial/Office.... Staff would state that this follows general planning practices and states that actual buffering between each proposed use be reviewed at the time projects are proposed. Gary Griffith Q: Density of 1 unit per acre be implemented. C:Staff would refer to the comments addressed in response to Mr.Blackwells letter regarding the "increased density issue".