The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC-08-19-96-02-VOID - was not given to CouncilResolution No. CC-08-19-96-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAKMEL, INDIANA DIRECTING THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION MAKE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE 2020 VISION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP WHEREAS, I.C. 36-7-4-501 provides that a Comprehensive Plan be approved by Resolution in accordance with the 500 series for the promotion of public health, safety, morals, convenience, order, or the general welfare and for the sako of ~.fficiency and ,, economy in the process of development; and ., WHEREAS, the Carmel/Clay Plan~ ommission ( e "Commission") has prepared the 2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan (the" "); and WHEREAS, I.C. 36-~ -509 provides at the legislate body adopt a resolution approving, rejectirg, or ending the an as present by t Commission; and WHEREAS, ,upon review, the Co ires further refinement and amin ent p.' ' . ? W ~ NO , THERE ORE, E IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Cannel, Indiana as follo s: T:'--. rsuant to I.C. 36-7-4-511, the Commission is hereby directed to prepare am dments to t e Plan encompassing the suggestions contained in Exhibit A, attache hereto d incorporated herein by reference. 2. Pursuant to .36 -4-511, the Commission shall submit the amendments along with the 'ssions recommendations to the Common Council within Adopted this day of Carmel, Indiana. · 1996 by the Common Council of the City of Presiding Officer ATTEST: Diana L. Cordray, Clerk-Treasurer F a x 1V[ e Ill o (revised) EXHIBIT A Date: August 8, 199 To: Steve Engleking From: Ron Carter Re: Comp Plan Update - Zoning Density As I noted to you after Tuesday night's Plan Commission Sub<ommittee meeting and a~ain yesterday on the phone, I was disappointed that the Committee did not take the opportunity offered by City Council to refine the zoning density question. Contrary to what two of the members stated, it was not the intent of the Council to shirk it's duty. The majority of the councilors were not comfortable with the environmental preservation section and the density section. Thus, in good faith, we remanded it to the Plan Commission simply because it is their work product. They have labored over it for the better part of a year and it was a courtesy to them to ask for their continued input. I believe we would, in fact, have sent it back to them whether the state statutes called for it or not. We erred, however, when we did not make more dear, through our debate during the Council meeting and through the submission of our written objections what the concerns o£ the majority are. There appeared some confusion among the Plan Commission members on Tuesday as to exactly what the Council wanted in the way of changes to the document. As I look back on this, our discussions during our meeting or as they were reflected in the official minutes, did not provide the necessary background for the Plan Commission to do it's job. In fact, I am now finding that, by statute, we were required to provide the Plan Commission with our concerns, stated as amendments we would like, in writing. For the above reasons, I am providing my thoughts to you. I believe they are fairly representative o£ the concerns of the majority as I understand them from our floor discussion during the Council meeting and from individual discussions I have had with my colleagues. I would appreciate your staff putting these thoughts into an amendment form for me so that this could be presented in writing to the individual Council members prior to the next meeting of the Council. At that meeting the Council could vote on, or amend, that data and we could then send it formally back to the Plan Commission for their action in accordance with the statutes. Aug'ust 8, 1996 Page 2 My concern on the density issue centers around western Clay Township. Simply put the Comprehensive Plan, as presented to us, provided for zoning densities in that part of the Township that are inappropriate with the existing and planned infrastnxcture and with the current land use paRems of the area, espedally the land that is north of l l6th and west of Spring Mill Rd. In regards to undeveloped land, my personal recommendation is that we amend the preliminary Comp Plan to call for a maximum zoning density of 1.5 units per gross acre below 116th and above 141st from west of Spring Mill Rd to the Boone Co. line. In the area between 116th and 141st the maximum density should be 1.0 units per gross acre. In the remainder of the Township we should leave the densities as they are proposed in the new plan update. It is also my sense of the CounCil majority's wishes that they, like myself, would like to see a way, other than the 1.8 figure proposed by the current Plan revision, to allow for some very innovative planned community development(s) in the Clay West area. The type of development I believe we are referring to here would possibly be characterized by a town square with neighborhood serving retail and social amenities only, smaller homes densely clustered around that square and the entire project buffered by ample green space belts. Possibly the above can be done utilizing the Residential Open Space Ordinance. If not we may simply want to do this by leaving the question alone and taking it on good faith that a properly planned and marketed development of the type described above should, could, and would make it through the fezone process. After all, there is notl'dng in the language that discourages or precludes rezones. In general, my sense, and I believe the sense of the majority, is that we have had a problem with this density issue much too long. We must come to a satisfactory conclusion of this question so that the community can move on in harmony. By proposing to raise the density to 1.8 from its current level, the new Comp Plan will only exacerbate the feelings of powerlessness, distrust, and enmity that have been afoot in the community. We will also need to provide the Plan Commission with our formal written amendments involving the question of the preservation of the remaining significant natural land features. I believe that the changes made by the Sub- committee last Tuesday should be written up by your staff, they can then be submitted by me to the Council during our next meeting, adopted or amended by us and then formally sent back to the Plan Commission for their August 8, 1996 Page 3 approval or amendment. (Make certain to include the Monon among the significant natural features for preservation.) In regards to the above, I believe we might have an amendment offered because the wording may have been weakened too much. However, I believe that can be worked out in Council meeting. So, to sum up ... I am asking you to have your staff take the density scenario as set out above, write that up as a formal set of recommendations from me and on my behalf, making sure to include provisions for the differences in density between the east and west sides of the Township, and provide this to me for. my distribution to my individual colleagues on the Council. In addition they should write up in the same fashion the wording changes on the natural features section. That will also be provided individually to my colleagues. · Both of these will be used as the basis for the formal written Council recommendations which we must provide to the Commission for them to do their statutory duty. We will utilize this material at our meeting on August 19. Please advise me if the above is not satisfactory. cc: Mayor Brainard Debra Grishman Susan Tiettmeyer