HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Hank Blackwell to Plan Commission Colleagues 1/31/91 January 31, 1991
Dear Colleagues on the Plan Commission:
Unfortunately, I will be out of the City and unable to
attend the Commission meeting scheduled for February 5, 1990, at
which time the Comprehensive Plan update will be discussed.
Accordingly, I am sending you these brief thoughts I have
regarding the update. If a record is kept of the meeting, I
request that a copy of this letter be inserted in the record.
I was present at the last Commission meeting at which
time the representatives of HNTB presented an overview of the
update. While the presentation was helpful, I found the charts
and graphs, which they presented on the wall, almost impossible
to read from where I sat, and found the maps and charts which
were mailed to us, to be incomplete and inconclusive. I was
somewhat disappointed in the quality of their work.
With regard to the information they presented, there
were two specific areas which I felt needed further review and
explanation. The first of these was the traffic study data. I
understood the HNTB traffic engineer to say that their counts and
projections for future traffic congestion were so horrifying that
they arbitrarily made a very substantial reduction in the
projected traffic, then based their recommendations on these
"adjusted" figures which they knew were erroneous. It seems only
logical that solutions knowingly based on wrong data are bound to
be no solutions at all . I think we need to be given the true
data, regardless of how shocking it is. Let us, the
representatives of the public, decide to what degree we think it
prudent to modify the data. An outside consultant should give
his employer the facts, not some doctored version. We can do our
job well only if we receive "unadjusted" information.
My second concern is with the proposed increased
density for residential areas. Density is the key determinant of
the appearance and quality of life of a city or metropolitan
area. Traffic congestion, accidents, road maintenance,
vandalism, need for increased police and fire services, and
school expansion, to mention only a few items, have been shown to
be driven not only by how rapidly an area develops, but equally
Colleagues on the Plan -2- January 31, 1991
Commission
by how densely an area is developed. The public, whom we
represent, made it clear at the public hearings and in the
surveys that they do not want greater density, and are strongly
in favor of less dense development than even the present S-1
provides. While I 'm not sure how feasible it is for us to
consider new categories of zoning which would provide for 2-3-4-
5 acres per house, I certainly am not in favor of greater density
than the present zoning provides. I think we should listen
carefully to our neighbors who live in these areas, and have
almost unanimously spoken out at every opportunity against
greater density in the Carmel-Clay developing areas.
I would, therefore, support a proposal that S-1
residential density not be increased in the update beyond the one
house per acre which is currently provided in the 1985
Comprehensive Plan. I also recommend that the terms "estate" ,
"large lot" and "farmette" used in the plan be realistically
defined and clarified such as: "estate - consisting of one
dwelling per two to five acres or "large lots - consisting of one
dwelling per one to two acres" and "farmette - consisting of one
dwelling per five to ten acres. " Realistically defining such
terms will help the public, the Plan Commissioners, developers,
and the Department of Community Development accurately determine
what is intended when these terms are used throughout the
Comprehensive Plan.
I would further support a proposal that before any
action is taken by the Planning Commission with regard to
endorsing the update, the Commissioners be given unadjusted and
accurate data concerning the present and future traffic profile
of the Carmel-Clay area.
I see no reason to delay adoption of the update until
every voice is heard and until every i is dotted. However, I
think we must first address the issues of inaccurate traffic
information and the origin, justification and consequences of the
provisions calling for substantially greater density in the
development of residential areas.
Thank you for letting me give you my thoughts on these
issues. I feel they are very important to the future living
conditions and well being of all of us in the Carmel-Clay area.
Sincerely,
Henry B. Blackwell
HBB:bas