HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-06-03-91CARMEL CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
7:00 P.M.
JUNE 3, 1991
ONE CIVIC SQUARE/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor
Dorothy J. Hancock. Council members present were Minnie Doane,
David Adams, Annabelle Ogle, Lee Lonzo, Tom Irvin, Frank Fleming
and Alan Potasnik. City Attorney Steve Andrews and Clerk-Treasurer
Susan W. Jones were also in attendance.
Councilor Irvin moved to approve the
MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1991:
minutes of May 20. The motion was seconded by Councilor Fleming.
All members voted aye. Motion carried.
Tom Welch, City Engineer,
TRANSFER OF FUNDS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
explained the need for the transfer to the Council. Welch stated
this was not a new appropriation but rather just a transfer from
one line item to another in budgeted funds for 1991. The amount of
transfer was for a total of $2,310 in the water department and
$2,310 in the sewer department. This transfer was done through a
suggestion from the field examiner of the State Board of Accounts.
Welch stated he wanted to use a current employee of the City
working in the Department of Community Development to do software
support and programming in the Engineering Department.
Councilor Ogle made a motion to adopt Resolution 6-3-91-1 allowing
for the transfer of these funds. The motion was seconded by
Councilor Doane. All members voted aye. Motion carried.
Councilor Potasnik
PUBLIC HEARING/D-697/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:
moved to introduce Ordinance D-697 amending D-454 and to suspend
the rules for reading of the same. The motion was seconded by
Councilor Irvin.
Joann Green from HNTB, the project manager for the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan update, gave a slide presentation to the
Council. Green stated the amendment has gone from a 1989 amendment
to a 1991 amendment but believed the time spent was well worth the
effort. Green stated John Meyers, Director of Transportation for
HNTB was also in attendance and would be presenting the
thoroughfare and circulation plan.
Green outline that in 1989 the City of Carmel contracted with HNTB
to prepare this amendment and focused on issues current and
anticipated between 1990 and 1995 with regard to land use and even
further for circulation thoroughfare. The first few months of the
process was spent to determine exactly what the steering committee
and the City of Carmel needed to have out of this amendment. This
effort was done through the support of staff and a very extensive
public opinion survey which the City of Carmel contracted on a
separate basis. The steering committee was made up of
representatives from the City Council, Plan Commission, residents
and the development community. After the public opinion poll was
done and through discussions held with the committee, it was
determined that the three priorities of this update should be in
the areas of land use, traffic and circulation with some attention
being given to environmental considerations.
Green said the packets mailed to the Council were still in the
preliminary format and will go to final print. They will be
identical in terms of color and type of graphics used in the 1985
comprehensive plan. The format for study was that everything in
italics was the material updated and everything that was not
italicized was information that was identified by the steering
committee as not having to be changed at all.
Green then gave a slide presentation to the Council and to the
public. First Green exhibited an existing land use map and then
categorized these land use areas for analysis purposes. These
zoning areas as they stood in 1989 were agricultural, low density,
medium density, high density, different forms of commercial and
public types of uses such as schools, churches, etc. Pie charts
were used to show distribution and will be included in the final
plan update.
Green then displayed another analysis done on zoning in terms of
the generalized categories that were used for existing land use and
then attempted to show another map showing environmental and
utility service considerations. Green explained there were certain
factors that could influence development such as, woodland areas,
flood plains, and drainage ways.
All this information, Green stated was collected, evaluated and
from that, three land use scenarios were developed.
Green explained the first concept came from a centralized
development scenario. This involved keeping density around the
central portion of the Carmel area and actually providing a very
visible and yet green boundary around the outside. Through the
development of the heavy green areas there would be a boulevard
that would totally surround the community. That would divide the
community equally into certain types of housing density with
primary intensity being towards the center.
Green said the second concept involved a neighborhood village
scenario. The idea behind this concept was to bring more commercial
development out from Carmel and identify locations for intense
commercial developments bounded by medium density residential with
the incorporation of some public spaces. This would take the
intensity of the land use in the central portion of the City and
move it out.
The last scenario, Green described dealt with looking at a linkage
concept where the plan brought opportunities together to provide
different types of linkages throughout Clay township and the
community. Throughout the plan drainage ways and woodland areas ran
like veins and could be set aside for recreational purposes. Again,
boulevards were incorporated into this plan. This plan would link
the entire community through sidewalks, roads, bicycle paths and
recreational opportunities. Basically the rest of the land use
would work on expanding the existing land use the way it currently
exists.
The final plan that was displayed and described by Green was a
combination of the three different scenarios and those ideas
brought forth by the steering committee and staff recommendations.
The basic idea would be the identification of flood plain and
woodland areas set aside for recreational opportunities. Green said
the idea was to show centralized and commercialized nodes yet
keeping a good amount of commercial activity plus high density to
medium density residential to the eastern portion of the community
working towards the regional commercial office area that currently
exists and working with the commercial light industrial
manufacturing off of Range Line Road. This plan provides for small
commercial yet limited commercial activity at those intersections
where they felt it was going to occur anyway and buffering that
with medium density residential and then moving into very low
density residential. The plan called for boulevards with medians,
four lanes probably in some cases with plantings. The linkage
concept was brought into the final plan using drainage ways for
recreational opportunities. Green stated they decided to work with
the existing land use as it exists and not try to fight it too
much. Green said they looked very closely at and were very
sensitive to adjacent surrounding compatible land uses.
Green read a statement from the plan for clarification.
"This land use and thoroughfare plan had been prepared to
communicate an illustrative representation of a consensus of
opinion for the distribution and density of future development
across the community. It is not the purpose of the plan to indicate
exact locations for future development nor specify precise amount
of acreage for any given location."
Green stated this plan is an idea. There are generalized ideas
under generalized locations for these particular land use
categories that were been lumped together. Also incorporated in
this plan is the thoroughfare plan and the final thoroughfare plan
recommendations.
Green said the plan divided the township into three areas and the
elements of consensus opinion are spelled out very clearly in the
comprehensive plan. Green said they worked very closely with the
consensus opinion was and felt this plan was solid and it meets
present planning standards. The plan also provided some creativity
in terms of what Carmel could look like in the future and responded
directly to some of the new recreational opportunities that were so
strong.
John Meyers, from HNTB discussed the thoroughfare plan and
circulation recommendations and how they related and coordinated
the land use to the proposed thoroughfare plan.
Meyers stated one of the most important aspects of this plan was to
link land use with future travel and to take into account future
growth. He stated in particular the two routes considered were US
31 and Keystone Avenue. In 1989 the traffic count on US 31 during
the morning peak counted more cars outbound towards Carmel than
inbound towards Indianapolis south of 116th Street. Meyers said
they found the same pattern on Keystone although it was much less.
Meyers said their objective in developing the thoroughfare plan was
basically two-fold. One, was to identify the functional
classification for roadways in the future. Along with the
functional classifications came standards for each class in terms
of roadway width and right-of-way. The second objective was to
identify the number of lanes. Meyers said they did not focus on
existing traffic, existing traffic problems or existing traffic
needs such as signalization but rather the objective was long term
in accordance with the functional class and number of lanes over a
20 year period. The intent was to guide decisions regarding
thoroughfares especially dealing within individual developments.
Recommendations were not project specific nor was staging and
timing of specific projects considered in the plan.
Meyers said the plan will be useful when a developer comes before
the Plan Commission with a particular land use in mind as to what
roadway in front of the development ought to be whether it is in
western Clay township or whether it is in the central section where
it is fairly well built out. Meyers stated this was a guide that
was developed for the Plan Commission and it was something they
needed.
Meyers said one of the plans did call for the use of local streets
and included widening College, Springmill, Pennsylvania and Range
Line to four lanes. Another alternative was to rely on Township
Line Road and a new interchange with I465. While this study was
underway, INDOT had completed a study of interchanges around the
state and their specific words for the Township Line Road
interchange was that it received a favorable recommendation. Meyers
stated there has not been any commitment by the City of
Indianapolis through their thoroughfare plan and there hasn't been
any commitment by INDOT but it had a favorable recommendation and
would represent an opportunity. This would have an effect on
western Clay township because it would have significant effect on
Town Road. This recommendation would also have a significant effect
on cross streets such as 116th, 106th and 126th.
Another alternative that was considered was turning US31 into a
freeway. Meyers explained that a freeway was an interstate type of
roadway which has no intersections or signals. It was consensus of
the steering committee, at that time and with the recommendations
of HNTB, that US31 be shown as a freeway. Meyers said this
consensus opinion formed a central element of the thoroughfare
plan. From that, Meyers said they looked at the built out scenario
and used that as a guide in identifying the local roadway needs.
A review was also done on the functional classification standards.
The key element to that was to compare the standards of Carmel to
the standards of Hamilton County. The intent was to make them the
same. An additional classification of parkway was added to the
plan. This classification provides for a wider right-of-way so
there can be a landscaped median and landscaping along the edge and
can provide an opportunity to build bike paths and sidewalks. Two
types of parkways were included in the standards, primary and
secondary. Both have the same general intent. The primary parkway
has a right-of-way width of 150 feet and secondary has 120 feet. A
primary parkway could have a wider median with four lanes and
additional landscaping. A primary could also have the ultimate
option of widening to six lanes if needed and still retain a
median.
Meyers then reviewed each section and highlighted the
recommendations of the thoroughfare plan. An exhibit, figure 7 and
figure 8 from the report, was distributed to all persons in
attendance. Figure 7 was the actual thoroughfare plan which showed
the functional classification of all the roadways and figure 8 was
a 20 year road improvement plan. Meyers then read the disclaimer on
the exhibit.
"The 20 year time frame is approximate and dependent upon
development rates."
Meyers said it also goes on to say that the plan could not identify
staging and specific locations for new facilities and also applied
to US31.
Western Clay township was identified by low density in terms of the
comprehensive plan and was identified to be the lowest density in
the future. Right now it is served by two lane roads with arterial
and collectors having two to three mile spacings and primary
arterials are Town Road, 116th and 131st Street. The plan
recommended three parkways in that area. Town Road was stated as a
secondary parkway and 116th and 146th as primary parkways. In terms
of functional classifications, that meant that these roadways would
ultimately be four lanes. Michigan Road was shown as a six lane
roadway in the 20 year roadway improvement plan and a primary
arterial on the thoroughfare plan. The plan anticipated an
interchange at Town Road but was not critical to the effectiveness
of this plan.
Central Clay township, the most developed had the highest
concentration of traffic and the largest amount of commercial.
That, in itself dictated and recommended US31 as a freeway. Meyers
stated that between 1989 and 1991, US31 had about an 80% growth in
traffic and it was not a small volume to begin with. During that
time from 2 1/2 million square feet of office space was built.
Keystone was identified as needing six lanes, north to 131st
Street. A collector and distributor system along the US31 freeway
was also recommended. Meyers stated this was about the same as in
the last plan but instead of just serving the office buildings it
would also serve those land uses from the freeway interchanges and
would see them as being four lanes on either side. The plan shows
116th and 146th as a four lane parkway. College and Range Line were
shown as secondary arterials and indicated four lanes for those
roads.
Meyers commented on 116th Street. Meyers stated that from the
beginning they had identified an ultimate need for four lanes on
116th Street east of Keystone. While the comprehensive plan study
update was underway the 116th Street Task Force recommendations
were delivered. At the final meeting of the Plan Commission when
the Comprehensive Plan update was approved, options were explored
through the recommendations of that task force. Consideration was
given to the fact that this task force was a committee appointed by
the mayor and represented somewhat of a cross-section of citizens
and that a number of hearings were held and this was a very well
informed group. It was the finding of the committee that basically
the traffic benefits of widening the roadway to four lanes or more
would be out-weighed by negative social and neighborhood impacts.
Their recommendation now is three lanes on 116th Street. The Plan
Commission also recognized it might be desirable or advantageous to
widen parallel roadways in the future. Meyers stated that the
recommendations for the parallel roadways would be left up to the
next plan update.
Other recommendations in eastern Clay township included a number of
four lane roadways. Meyers stated the reason for this was because
central Clay township roadways were generally spaced about a half
mile apart and in eastern Clay township the roads are roughly a
mile apart. To be able to build any additional east, west, north or
south roadways would be very difficult if not prohibitive due to
golf courses and subdivisions built out. So as a result of that,
and also the fact that eastern Clay township was shown for medium
density housing as opposed to low density housing, there were a
number of improvements shown. These included, Hazel Dell and Gray
Roads which were shown as secondary and arterials and would also
have four lanes. 116th Street and 146th Street were shown as
primary parkways with limitations. 126th and 106th Street were also
identified for four lanes in the future and six lanes were shown
for 96th Street. The development plan showed a significant amount
of commercial development along 96th Street. Meyers stated that
when 96th Street was finished, and would probably be the first
east-west arterial completed in this area, will certainly relieve
east-west travel in the short term. Ultimately when that area is
totally developed it is believed it will take all of the capacity
of the four lanes to accommodate the traffic and will eventually
need six lanes.
Realignments of intersections were shown along River Road and also
a new roadway connection that would extend Hazel Dell to River Road
and provide a path on down to 96th Street. Meyers stated this was
consistent with Hamilton County's plan for Hazel Dell further
north.
Meyers then went on to discuss transportation demand management.
This included a wide range of activities such as staggered work
hours, work re-scheduling, car pools and transit. The plan's
reaction to this management would be a positive benefit in the
Carmel area especially in the Meridian Corridor where there is a
concentration of offices. However, even though these elements would
aid in traffic, they were not considered in developing the overall
plan.
The mayor then opened the hearing to the public for their comments,
concerns and/or objections.
Sue Dillon, 507 Cornwall Court spoke to the density issue of the
plan update. Dillon stated that only a small portion of the land
west of US 31 is within the corporate limits of Carmel. However,
approximately half of the land mass of Clay township is west of US
31. Until recent years the land has been used for agricultural
purposes with a few small homesteads and as subdivisions were
developed, low density became the custom because they required one
acre or more of space to accommodate septic systems therefore the
trend for open space was established in Clay west. People moved
into this area because they sought what open space provides. Dillon
stated that open space provides privacy and outdoor opportunities
such as enjoying nature, garden, horses and other animals and a
certain way of life that is important to a lot of people. Open
space had been protected in Clay west because of the unavailability
of sanitary sewers. However, as these sewers are becoming available
residents realize their quiet way of life is under threat. The
current zoning ordinances allow for a density of development of 2.3
units per gross acre when community sewers are available which is
three times the density that exists in the subdivisions in Clay
west.
Dillon said that some people have been quick to say that the desire
to maintain the low density of development in Clay west is was
elitist move. Dillon stated this was not true. Dillon said that
Councilor Lonzo testified over a year ago after driving around the
western part of the township, that he had found all price levels of
homes in Clay west. Dillon described the only difference between
the subdivisions within Carmel and Clay west is the same home is
being built on smaller lots in Carmel. Dillon called for protection
and guarantees on the existing lifestyle in Clay west.
The existing comprehensive plan calls for density of development in
Clay west to be one acre lots in the S-l zoning categories. Dillon
said this is actually net density. The revised plan calls for a
density of 1.5 units per acre.
Dillon then gave a visual demonstration to the Council regarding
density as it relates to development.
Dillon stated that Meyer's traffic projections were based on one
unit per gross acre in Clay west, however when the density came up
for a vote, it was recommended that it be 1.5.
Dillon said there were three aspects of the Comprehensive Plan
revision process that she wanted to bring to the Council's
attention.
First, the current minimum lot size in S-l with sanitary sewers and
community water when they are available is 15,000 square feet or
almost three units per acres. Three years ago because of concern
about density a request was made of the Plan Commission to change
the minimum lot size in S-l so that it would be in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. At the public hearing, which was moved to
Carmel Junior High to accommodate the huge crowd, it was decided
that this issue would be addressed in the plan update so that
thorough consideration could be given to this issue. One of the
biggest complaints surrounding the 1985 Comprehensive Plan was
residential apathy and the inability to get input from the public.
On February 13, 1990 density was scheduled to be discussed. The 200
people who came to be heard on this issue were told by the Plan
Commission chairman that it was too late for them to have input.
Not one citizen was allowed to speak.
Second, to help guide the current update of the plan, the services
of American Marketmetrics were used to conduct an impartial, random
survey of all residents from all over Carmel-Clay. Unfortunately,
some of these results were ignored in the drafting of the plan
update. Dillon showed charts and graphs to the Council to
illustrate this charge. One of the questions asked of residents, in
the survey, was what do you see as the greatest issue facing Carmel
and Clay township regarding growth over the next five years. The
single issue of most concern was over development followed closely
by traffic and roads and then greenspace. Another question was to
determine the level of concern on various planning and zoning
issues with density being one of these issues. Dillon displayed the
results in the form of a chart for Council members only but stated
that 98% of residents expressed concern about density of
development with 32% being very concerned and 23% being most
concerned. To determine the type of density that peopled wanted
was, if a new housing project was approved near your home would you
prefer it to be one lots which are smaller, larger or about the
same size as yours. Again, Dillon showed a chart to Council members
only but stated 87% of the people wanted lots the same size or
larger, 9% didn't care and only 4% wanted them smaller.
The third issue that Dillon spoke on was the traffic plan that was
presented and prepared by HNTB. Dillon stated the plan was based on
one unit per gross acre and not 1.5 and that in itself says the
traffic plan is inaccurate. Dillon felt this plan does not
represent the wishes of the citizens of this community but reflects
growth and development interests. Dillon asked for the Council to
listen to the people of Carmel Clay who will be effected by this
plan.
Dillon asked the Council on page 99 of the revised comprehensive
plan, in reference to the land west of Springmill, to substitute
language to read:
"In areas of the community where this plan designation falls in
land zoned S-l, it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan update
that development density average no more than one unit per gross
acre."
Ellen Watson, 13513 Town Road, Westfield spoke to the issue of
density. Watson explained she was a "suburban misfit" and chose her
current style of living in Clay west as an alternative to living in
a subdivision. She stated she had attended a lot of these types of
meetings and asked for the Council to please consider a lower
density for the Clay west area. Watson stated there were eight
neighbors in her area living on minimum five acre tracts and
pleaded for the Council to leave it that way. Watson said her life
style is being threatened because of sanitary sewers being built in
the area. Watson also asked the Council to not make her have to
come to every planning and zoning meeting in case the 50 acres
north of her sells or the 50 acres south of her sells. Watson asked
the Council to please reconsider and give the residents some
security here by making statements that can be withheld five years
from now when perhaps some of them are not here and have not heard
their stories.
Marybeth Fleming, 1277 West Smokey Row Road began her testimony by
stating she lives in the heart of the area, Clay west and also
addressed the issue of density. Fleming stated that on March 20,
1990 residents of Clay west presented a petition to the Plan
Commission. This petition was signed by 140 residents of Clay west.
Of all the persons asked to sign the petition, only 2 refused. All
the petitioners lived between Springmill and Shelbourne Road, 131st
on the south and 146th Street on the north. The petition requested
that the undeveloped land zoned S-l remaining in Clay west be zoned
in one acre or greater lots. Fleming stated these 140 signatures
have been ignored. In the revised comprehensive plan that is up for
adoption, the area of S-l undeveloped land in Clay west shows not
even one tract land has been set aside for one acre minimum zoning.
Fleming charged that the committee which revised Carmel's
Comprehensive Plan had not only totally ignored those 140 petitions
but had also ignored the results of their very own survey conducted
by American
Marketmetrics done in August of 1989. Fleming said this survey
conclusively indicates that 87% of Carmel Clay citizens polled
wanted future building development be done on lot sizes either the
same size or larger than the lot that person currently lived on.
Fleming said that on March 20, 1990, June 4, 1990, in February 1991
and again tonight, she wanted to impress upon both the Plan
Commission and the City Council that before a vote was taken to
adopt the Comprehensive Plan that the residents from Springmill to
Shelbourne and from 131st to 146th that their feelings, which are
different from those who live in S-l subdivisions, be considered.
Fleming stated that the residents of Clay west bought large areas
of land because of a choice of lifestyle and at a sacrifice to
pocket books and at that time the zoning code stated that land be
zoned in no less than S acre tracks of land. The 1985 comprehensive
plan stated that Clay west would be 1 acre minimum lots. Fleming
said she felt that Clay west space would be the area that Carmel
planners would protect and retreated from subdivisions in other
parts of Carmel.
Fleming said that Clay west residents were like the American Indian
and retreated west to the outer most corner of the community and
now like the American Indian, the local government has been deaf to
their pleas for space by allowing a zoning category of 1.5 units
per acre called S-l to surround them on all sides. Fleming stated
she felt Carmel was inviting them to leave and head even further
west to Zionsville where the zoning allows 3 acre minimum lots and
open space is protected. Fleming said that all surrounding towns
have S-l categories with a lower density than Carmel. Fleming
charged that if the revised plan is adopted they will be surrounded
by multiple tracks of land that allows for 10 times the current
density.
Fleming asked the Council to please tour the area that she outlined
and if they do that they will clearly see that all the homes are on
one acre or more. Fleming said there is already a development trend
in the area which will not be enhanced by greater density.
Fleming asked the Council to examine current data on nationally
famous model communities to enable them to see that a well planned
community and a well balanced community allows everyone the space
they need, be it little or be it great.
Fleming requested, for a fourth time, that the density of S-l be
reduced and asked for a new zoning categories allowing for one
acre, three acre and five acre minimum zoning and that these new
zoning categories appear in Clay west on the new comprehensive
plan.
Tom Kendall, 11818 Gray Road stated he wanted to speak on the
density issue in Clay west but felt the speakers before him did an
eloquent job of describing the will of the people. Kendall stated
he had also attended the meetings of the Plan Commission and
hearings of the Comprehensive Plan update committee where dozens of
people spoke and perhaps even where hundreds of people attended and
it seemed as if no one ever listens to the people.
Kendall asked for the Council to please listen to the people
because this is the last hope for the people to get the
Comprehensive Plan put back in order to the way the people of
community would like it. Kendall felt it was a simple request and
could be handled simply with a stroke of pen on one page.
Kendall also asked if the words in the Comprehensive Plan update
concerning 116th Street being three lanes were changed to match the
maps that were distributed at the meeting tonight. Kendall said on
page 138 it listed all the recommended parkways and four lane roads
including 116th Street. Kendall stated that 106th Street, 116th
Street and 126th Street all had elementary schools in the areas.
Kendall asked that four lane roads not be put in front of
elementary schools and through residential neighborhoods.
Kendall said the definitions of a parkway on pages 125 and 126 are
defined in greater detail on page 136 in reference to 116th Street
and 146th Street and says in this plan that parkway standards are
recommended. Kendall asked if the three lane recommendation of the
task force could not be put in writing in the plan. Kendall asked
that if 116th Street is going to be three lanes, why not make 106th
Street and 126th Street no more than three lanes as well and
continue to protect the residential areas and the elementary
schools.
Cindy Gasper, 6 Points Road wanted to support the other that had
already spoken on the issue of density. Gasper felt the purpose of
the comprehensive plan to have a nice variety of living styles for
Carmel. Gasper felt that the low density areas are not fairly
represented on the maps. Gasper said that everything south of 131st
Street has already started to be developed with 15,000 square foot
lots and variances have been granted allowing for higher density.
Gasper said there is only one true area left that is S-1 and that
is only about 10% of the total area.
Gasper said she is asking for protection of the only area left that
is truly S-1. Gasper said she was floored when she heard about
Zionsville requiring three acres, Westfield has something like
46,000 square feet for minimum lot size and Fishers was something
like 36,000 square feet and yet Carmel's was only 15,000. Gasper
said that in this wonderful community, we have allowed the smallest
lot size. Gasper asked the Council to go back and consider the
original S-1 classification of one acre minimum lot size for Clay
west. Gasper said the Council is their last resort and they do not
have another chance. Gasper said she wasn't against growth but was
for good, progressive, controlled growth and a plan that allowed
something for everybody.
Judy Hagan, 10946 Springmill Lane, had concerns about the roads
displayed in the original maps. Hagan said these roads apparently
have taken on lives of their own. Hagan said she has been to every
meeting and the road on the westside of US31 is moving again. Hagan
asked what resolution changed this and stated she has had this
discussion at every meeting. Hagan said to Meyers that if you can
locate Pennsylvania at 600 feet then you can locate our road at 600
feet. Hagan asked what was going on.
Meyers stated it was the request of the Plan Commission that the
western parallel roadway be halfway between Meridian Street and
Springmill Road. Meyers said their drafter got it wrong and it will
not be wrong on the final print. Meyers said it did get
straightened out and his instruction was to put it midway between.
Hagan said the instruction was to put it midway between, within 300
feet, in the middle of the Corridor. Hagan thought it was voted on
and asked for Councilor Potasnik to recall the resolution outcome.
Potasnik thought Ron Houck brought that up and got into the
scenario that if they would do that it go right through a building
so it got moved midway between Springmill and Meridian. Hagan
thought it would be on the backside of the Corridor at least it is
at 600 feet. Potasnik agreed to Hagan's statement per Houk's
resolution. Hagan asked if a new map is going to be put in the
Comprehensive Plan. Hagan felt it disgusting and irritating to come
down to City Hall night after night, month after month and monitor
all of this. Meyers and Green both attested to the fact that the
big colored map that was displayed tonight is not yet the final
map.
Green stated the road was going to be located halfway between
Meridian and Springmill and that was resolved at the last meeting
and the way the road is depicted on the map is a drafting error.
Hagan expressed her disappointment in the update and the process
that led to it. Hagan was disappointed in the lack of attention
given to the community survey that was conducted at the beginning
of the update. The survey clearly identified the issues of most
concern to residents. Hagan felt the update does not address any of
those issues in more than a superficial manner. Hagan went over the
three issues of concern, over-development, traffic and density. She
stated that in February when the update committee met concerning
density that public input was cut off. Hagan stated that hundreds
of people packed City Hall to speak and to listen to the debate but
were met with the announcement that no more public input would be
allowed. What was particularly disappointing to Clay west residents
who are very concerned about density, was that they already had
several density proposals on the table that were supposed to be
acted upon as the update proceeded. Hagan stated that a developer
committee member proposed 1.5 units per acre for allowable density
in the S-1 large lot zone and 1.7 units per acre in the S-2 zone
effectively doubling the existing density of development in Clay
west. Hagan claimed this apparently fit his market nitch so it was
okay with him and there was very little discussion among the update
committee members considering the impact of this proposal. Hagan
claimed no one from the public was allowed to comment and the next
thing that happened was 1.5 and 1.7 were set solidly in concrete.
Hagan told the Council that Clay west residents have repeatedly
expressed to them, to the Plan Commission, to the BZA and to the
Department of Community Development that they feel open space is
their greatest amenity. Hagan said the concerns of the residents
have not been adequately addressed.
Hagan also expressed disappointment in the long range traffic plan
for US31. Hagan said that after months of gathering data and making
the recommendation to freeway US31 to handle the traffic nearest to
it's source the traffic consultant was forced to remove the freeway
recommendation from the new thoroughfare map. Hagan stated this
came about when a development member of the update committee was
dismayed about an Indianapolis newspaper article carrying a
headline about the freeway recommendation. The prospect of a
freeway being needed as a result of the traffic generated by
development on Meridian was apparently such a horrifying thought
that the update committee could not contemplate it and removed the
designation.
Hagan said no thought was given to the space that would be required
to handle overpasses or interchanges at 106th, 116th, 126th, 131st
or 136th Streets. Hagan said the committee seemed to feel that the
horrifying prospect was so far in the future that it did not need
to be dealt with in this century. Hagan then read from a May 13
article in the Ledger about US31 through the Carmel-Westfield area
being added to the Indiana Department of Transportation's annual
highway improvement program. Hagan said the highway improvement
program serves as a master plan for construction for the next five
years and beyond. A project's inclusion in the highway improvement
program is the first step in development of all highway work.
Hagan said now the update doesn't include this pertinent
information so necessary for long-range planning in the Meridian
Corridor. Hagan claimed the new thoroughfare map is already
obsolete because the update committee sidestepped this issue.
Hagan then commented on the lack of planning for green space and
parks. She said the lack of planning continues to speak for
itself.
Hagan said a good deal of the information contained in the update
plan is not current. Hagan said she felt one of the reasons for
doing a comprehensive plan or update is to compile an accurate
source of information about the community. Hagan said in that
sense, the community still does not have an update. Hagan said it
was a serious defect of this project.
Hagan said this seemingly never ending update process has been one
disappointment after another. Hagan said she felt the Council has
some very real and serious challenges to face as the Carmel-Clay
community continues to grow. Those challenges cannot be
successfully met if accurate and timely information is not
available to base decisions on. Citizen participation was curtailed
at the critical stage in the process and the three most important
issues as identified by the community survey were not adequately
addressed or resolved and finally the information was obsolete.
Hagan felt the only bright note in all of this is that we have
found out how not to conduct a development of a plan or update and
could be a valuable lesson for the future.
Ted Johnson, 317 Concord Lane asked those who serve on the Council
and on the Plan Commission to please attempt to answer the question
about why the density was changed and why the public was not
allowed to participate in the process. Johnson also stated he felt
the one thing that bothered him the most was that the plan was
incomplete and it was not done yet. Johnson charged that a lot of
data is old but yet the plan is called an update. Johnson said if
the Council would go through the first section you will see the
data is old.
Johnson said that the disclaimer that Green read on the drawing
conflicts with text. Johnson said that text claims that future land
use decisions will be guided to a great degree by the availability
of utilities, market demand and the policies and guidelines set
forth as a part of the 1990 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
update. Johnson said this plan was dangerous if it is incomplete.
Johnson claimed the drawing or map of the thoroughfare plan did not
match the text and referred to the same things that Kendall
referred to in his remarks with reference to 116th Street as it
related to all streets through populated or residential areas.
Johnson said this plan provided for four lane roads except for
116th Street. Johnson said that all the maps don't necessarily
agree, however he wasn't sure which ones were going to final print
and which ones were final. Johnson said he wasn't one to let things
go on beyond their time but felt this plan was simply not done and
is not a tool that anybody can use at this stage.
Ron Harrington, 11575 North College questioned the thoroughfare
plan and to what extent when the Council votes on the Comprehensive
Plan update is there a presumption that the thoroughfare
expectations as outlined on exhibit 7 and 8 go with that or are
they conceptual ideas that suggest that if you zone everything the
way it is depicted on the colored drawings that the thoroughfare
plan might work. Harrington asked the Council how important are the
Comprehensive Plan and thoroughfare plan or are they just a
suggestion since they span a time frame of over 20 years.
Harrington's concerns were not just with density. Harrington said
he has been in front this body and other such bodies over the last
10 years to remonstrate against a more intensive surface density.
Harrington said most of his issues were of a commercial nature.
Harrington said they moved to Carmel 14 years ago and were
surrounded by farm fields and 40 acres of woods and now all the
trees are gone and have a 90 unit housing addition behind them and
are nearly surrounded by commercial buildings. Harrington stated he
has a lot of worries and concerns about what is going to happen
to College Avenue. Harrington said just to put in a sewer system in
front of his house he lost 17 trees. Harrington said that he could
see in a few years when it is decided to put a four lane highway in
front of him he will not be thrilled. He went on to say he was
concerned about all the major collector streets in his area that
are going to four and six lane highways. Harrington said he was
concerned about the disruption of literally hundreds and hundreds
of people whose homes and lives will be effected by all of the
major road construction and widening. It will no longer just be an
issue for a few residents on 116th Street, east of Keystone but
will involve residents along 126th, Range Line and College.
Harrington said all this disruption is caused by a favorable
recommendation of more density.
Harrington summarized by saying that people are concerned about
traffic but if the Council would slow down density and the number
of people that have to go on these roads maybe the City wouldn't
have to widen all these roads and make thoroughfares out of
everything. Harrington suggested it might be okay to just leave
everything alone. Harrington pardoned himself on an editorial
comment but said it seemed to him as if Carmel doesn't seem to want
to leave things alone. Harrington said for the 10 years he has been
remonstrating he has been defeated everytime and didn't expect to
win this time either but as a last resort was making his pitch
again.
Harrington asked the Council to slow the density down, perhaps not
to the extent of Zionsville or some other places but asked the
Council to think a little about this plan and not just think about
west of Meridian but in other areas that can be disrupted by this
kind of plan changes that are potentially shown in this document.
Mayor Hancock asked Andrews to answer Harrington's question
concerning the thoroughfare plan. Andrews said the entire document
was directional only. Andrews further stated there is a practical
aspect to this plan. Someone could wave this information under this
Council's, another Council's and even the Plan Commission's nose.
Andrews said things change and plans change and what was proposed
25 years ago is no longer the plan we use. Andrews stated that
those kinds of things happen but this plan is only a directional
tool for those bodies to use. The document does not control the
body's decision on planning. Andrews said the Comprehensive Plan
doesn't put it in stone but it sure writes it on the wall.
Hancock asked for clarification of Harrington's question. She
thought he wanted to know that if the comprehensive update plan was
adopted would the thoroughfare plan be adopted as part of the
document. Andrews stated it was part of the recommendation.
Meyers then attempted to clarify some questions that were raised
during the hearing. Meyers read the rest of the disclaimer
concerning the 20 year time frame from exhibit 8.
"All plans are conceptual and subject to adjustments based on
detailed enviornmental and design studies. It is emphasized that
new alignment as well as freeway interchange location and
configurations will require site specific engineering studies.
Actual construction of improvements should be based on verified
needs."
Meyers stated there are three or four places in the text where it
is the recommendation of the plan that none of the improvements
that are shown here be implemented until the need is demonstrated
by actual conditions. Myers felt the point about traffic being tied
to actual land use was exactly right.
Meyers said the relationship between land use and travel directly
ties into a philosophy of his and HNTB's role in serving as a
technical advisor. Meyers said their job was to identify a logical,
accepted process for estimating future traffic and then to follow
that process and give a technical result. Meyers said that is what
was done and that is how the determinations were identified on
certain streets as to three, four or six lanes. Meyers said their
approach was somewhat narrow in terms of quality of life issues.
These issues are not reflected in the trip generation guide manuals
or the Indianapolis model and ultimately gets down to decisions
made by planning committees, steering committees, staff and finally
the City Council. Life style issues can't be reduced to numbers.
Meyers went on to use 116th Street as an example where quality of
life issues came out and a review was done by a committee based on
technical input and technical information and then the judgements
that were involved were not reduced to numbers. Meyers felt it
important to take both into account and ultimately that would
happen on 106th, 126th and on the other roadways shown in this
plan. Ultimately what should happen is that each of these projects
will be looked at individually and based on what the city attorney
said and the specific verbage that is included in the plan update,
none of these things are cast in stone until those individual
studies are done. Meyers again said this is only a guide and is not
the final answer for any individual improvement.
Meyers did say they used one unit per acre in western Clay township
to generate traffic. Meyers assumed this as an average density.
Meyers said if 1.5 is what the plan allows it would be erroneous to
assume that every lot that is ever developed in the future is going
to be at the maximum density. Meyers took into account there will
be some five acre farms.
Meyers addressed the space needs on US 31 for interchanges. He
stated they looked at 106th, 116th, 126th and the other roadways
mentioned enough to see that a tight urban diamond configuration
for the interchanges could be used. Meyers said this interchange
would fit but it is not necessarily the best answer. Tight urban
diamond interchanges at these intersections might not be the best
way to build a freeway on US31. Meyers said that within 10 minutes
at his office, in front of a computer, he generated different
alternatives. Meyers said they looked at these interchanges to see
if they were feasible but did not look nearly enough to tell the
Council or Plan Commission what it ought to be and thought a proper
engineering study that looks at elevations, traffic movements,
circulations, soils, ground water and concentrations of traffic
should or would be done before a final decision on that project is
made.
Harrington again pleaded with the Council to not put something in
this plan that could be misread five years from now as something
that is etched in stone and that was agreed to by this Council,
regardless if it is only a guide or not. Harrington was especially
concerned with plans for College since the county still controlled
that street. Harrington said he worries a lot about the precedent
that is established by saying, yes we like the comprehensive plan
update and that is okay and the streets and roads go along with it
but somebody else is going to look at it five years from now and
assume everybody said that was okay so they will stick it under our
nose and say see you are the one who voted for this and Harrington
said for the record he doesn't want any part of this, especially
the way it was done. Harrington liked some of the changes but
worried a lot about the roads and asked for a voice in the process.
Harrington asked the Council for a way to be heard.
Dick Albright, 12409 Lancelot Lane agreed that the plan update is
not complete but was sure that HNTB would say they have a lot more
time and a lot more money invested in this update than they ever --
dreamed they would have two years ago. Albright said he hoped we
had learned something in how to do an update in an area that is
growing as fast as Carmel and Clay township and should be a
continuing process and should be a process where enough resources
and funds are committed so that it can be done completely.
Albright said that when the update began, emphasis was to be given
to thoroughfare planning because that type of planing had been
largely neglected in the 1985 plan. Albright said there were so
many things that were done and are so far out of date that you
can't help but wonder how valuable this plan is going to be between
now and 1995.
Albright said the plan talks about the desirability of the land in
the northeast part of the township for development yet since the
1985 plan was done, we have found out that the land out there is
not very good for development or it would have been developed by
now.
Albright said the 1985 discussion of the Homeplace area was carried
over into this plan but nothing had been done to update that.
Albright stated there have been studies that have been done and
should have been incorporated into this plan update. Albright
referred to discussions and information from 1985 plan and said
they were just not adedquate for today and felt it could not wait
until 1995. Albright said there was lack of committment in
resources and funds to adequately address the problems of drainage
and roads in the Homeplace area.
Albright was also concerned about density and asked where the
steering committee came from. Albright said the statute says the
Plan Commission shall prepare the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't
say they can delegate it but says they shall do it. Albright
thought is reasonable they invite everyone who is interested to
give their input but it should be the Plan Commission and not a
committee representing a vested interest.
Albright said he compared the 1985 plan to the proposed update and
noticed there are several appendices and are still valid but they
are not included in the update and wondered why.
Albright stated that in the 1985 plan there was a capital
improvements program and that is not included in the update and
wondered why.
It seemed to Albright that a lot of time had been spent and a lot
of good work and good studies but are still left with the question
as to if this document is really a usable comprehensive plan for an
area like Carmel through 1995. Albright stated that history would
suggest that if there is going to be a 1995 Comprehensive Plan,
someone had better start about 1992 or maybe the summer of 1991 or
there is never going to be a 1995 comprehensive plan.
Albright said he felt there was increased public awareness of this
process and perhaps that will mean a willingness to commit adequate
resources to plan. Asking the Plan Commission to do this sort of
thing is asking a lot of volunteers and it is really going to take
dedicated people to do it but if Carmel is to every have a 1995
update then he suggested it be started very, very soon.
Kendall said he had an opportunity to look through HNTB's
preliminary copy which was the one presented to the Plan Commission
when they made their decision which wasn't all that long ago but
noticed there have been a number of changes. Kendall noticed that
106th and 126th Street still say four lanes and 116th Street is
still condsidered a primary arterial and is included on a map.
Kendall said the fact that the map has yet to be changed before the
final document is prepared.
Kendall asked the Council to not take any final action until all
the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" are crossed. Kendall referred to
the intersection at 116th and Gray where after the project had been
presented and a public hearing held that a drainage project was
added and the price was increased. The public hearings were over
and the public was not allowed to speak to the issue.
A discussion was held between Meyers and Dillon concerning the road
between Springmill and Meridian. Dillon asked Meyers to check his
records on where this street was to be located. Meyers said
everyone remembers it to be located halfway between Springmill and
Meridian. Meyers said he thought it was to be placed halfway down
the middle of the strip between US31 and Springmill and Dillon
remembers it to be down the middle of Meridian Corridor.
The mayor asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished
to speak to this plan. Hearing none the hearing was closed to the
public and opened to the Council for their comments.
Councilor Irvin asked if this document was available to the public
for their review. The mayor stated it was. Irvin asked if there was
a minority report filed with the Plan Commission and if there was
would it be possible to get a copy of this report prior to the next
meeting. Irvin stated he had never seen that report.
Councilor Potasnik stated there was a minority report filed by Dr.
Dillon. Potasnik said he felt there should be no problem at all for
the Department of Community Development to get all the Council
members a copy of the report. Irvin thought it would be good to
have this.
Andrews reminded the Council they only have 90 days from the time
the plan was certified to the clerk's office to act on this or it
will become law. The plan received a favorable recommendation from
the Plan Commission. The Council can make changes but the Council
needs to have written instructions back to the Plan Commission.
Councilor Potasnik said it was a very long process to get the
document to this point and unfortunately the Council does not have
that time frame to work in but with what everyone heard tonight and
all the documents in front of them that maybe this will make a
little bit more sense. Potasnik asked if Andrews would keep in
front of them the time frame they had to work with in regards to
this plan and in regards to changes.
There was some debate as to the date it was certified. Clerk-
Treasurer Jones stated the first time she received a copy of the
document or resolution was May 28 but Andrews stated the resolution
from the Plan Commission was dated April 16. Hancock asked if the
resolution was the certification. Andrews said the question has
been raised since the document was up for the last Council meeting
but there was a publication error so the Council couldn't act on it
but that doesn't mean it wasn't certified before that date. Andrews
said no decision had to be made right now and that Hancock had a
resolution dated April 16 which cuts about 45 days out of this
process. Hancock said that a copy of the resolution was in their
packet. Jones stated for the record that she did not receive the
information for the packets until May 28 and did not receive any
certification from the Plan Commission prior to that date
regardless of what was in the packets.
Potasnik asked for clarification on this and thought the 90 days
began upon the date of certification from the secretary of the Plan
Commission and not when there was notice to the public. Andrews
stated that was correct. Andrews said IC-36-7-4-607 says that after
the proposal is certified under Section 605 to the legislative body
the Council has 90 days. Andrews said he would send copies of the
statute and in the meantime Jones, the mayor and he will get
together and figure out the date of certification.
Councilor Lonzo directed his first comment to Harrington and said
his experience has been exactly the opposite of his. Lonzo said
there is an intersection at 116th and Gray Road and it has been in
the Comprehensive Plan to be straightened since the eighth day and
it seemed to him there has been kicking and screaming and attacking
on every possible issue imaginable. Lonzo said he did not feel it
was set in stone.
Lonzo asked those people who spoke tonight that have specific
recommendations, especially in light of the 90 day crunch period,
to let those on the Council know what they are. Lonzo said he only
thought he heard one specific suggestion from Mrs. Dillon. Lonzo
said he heard a couple of people talk at that specific
recommendation which was an amendment on page 99 but he heard lots
of other comments about three acres, five acres, don't push ahead,
not done in time, outdated data and also heard some people talk
about never ending process and can't believe those same people want
to go back to square one. Lonzo again said he wanted to hear from
the public, exactly what they want. Lonzo said he didn't see
anything in the plan that would necessarily save the horse farm
across the street from Mr. Harrington but have an effect as to what
goes on that horse farm in the future.
No other comments were heard from the Council. The mayor stated
this ordinance would come back for action before the Council at
their next meeting.
SECOND READING/ORDINANCE D-698/USE OF CREDIT CARDS BY CITY
Councilor Lonzo moved to amend the ordinance
EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS:
striking in places where the ordinance stated the mayor's executive
assistant and replace it with the word mayor. The motion was
seconded by Councilor Adams.
The mayor stated she didn't have a problem with that.
Ogle asked the question that since the ordinance now says mayor,
does that rule out her appointing someone to do those duties?
Lonzo said he didn't have a problem with sticking that language
back in but felt this wasn't near worth the time, the postage and
all the rest that has gone into the thing but if the State Board of
Accounts have a problem with the way we are using credit cards, he
would feel more comfortable with an elected official.
The mayor again stated she didn't have a problem.
The mayor called for a vote on the amendment. All members voted
aye. Motion carried.
Irvin asked about the use of credit cards for business purposes
only and asked if at anytime does that need approval prior to the
use. Andrews stated that was the entire intent of the ordinance.
Lonzo stated the Board of Public Works approves the claims for
expenses and the Council designates the budget limitations.
Councilor Irvin called for the question. All members voted aye.
Ordinance D-698 passed unanimously.
Andrews stated he would send Jones a clean copy of the ordinance.
SECOND READING/ORDINANCE D-700/RECODIFICATION OF CITY CODES:
Andrews said this was left over from the last time and nothing had
been changed. Andrews said all this does is re-structure the way
city code is set up. It requires new ordinances follow the same
format. It requires the clerk's office to maintain two copies in
her office at all times. There is no publication requirement.
Hancock stated that on the copy she has, on the title page, it
doesn't have the correct Board of Works members or all of the
Council members. Hancock presumed those would be corrected before
the final printing. Andrews said he wouldn't swear to it because
that is done by Hoosier Codification but he would check into that
for the Council on the corrections.
Councilor Potasnik asked for a point of information in Section 5 as
to if the library had a copy or would they be keeping a copy.
Potasnik moved to amend Section 5 and that is in addition to the
Clerk-Treasurer keeping on file and updating this that updates be
sent to the library for insertion into the code.
Andrews thought it was a good idea but cautioned the Council in
that if the library doesn't deem to update then we have ourselves
in a little trick bag because we have this requirement in our
ordinance. Andrews suggested a resolution saying that updates shall
be forwarded to the library at no cost.
Potasnik didn't want to put it into any form that would mandate
them to put it into the books but wanted to make sure in some form
or fashion that they do receive these.
Jones stated it would be the intention of the clerk's office that
if the City purchases a supply of codes and those are sold to the
public or given to the library that a list of names and addressess
will be maintained and they will be put on a mailing list to
receive updates. Jones said some type of a charge will be attached
to the quarterly updates and if people want to pay for the update
then they will receive them as they happen. Jones said she assumed
on the library that she would physcially have to go there and put
the pages in the book. Jones said she knew she was going to have
to do that and didn't have a problem with that.
Potasnik stated that was fine and withdrew his motion. His point
was that a copy would be availabe in a public place for the public
to review.
Lonzo said because it was his intent that there would be a way to
have an update quickly and for the City Council to even have the
pages quicker than quarterly, asked that this be tabled for two
weeks to see if Hoosier Codification can get the changes that have
been asked for before a vote is taken. Lonzo moved to table this
for two weeks. The motion was seconded by Adams. All members voted
aye. Motion carried.
Assistant Police
COMNUNICATIONS CENTER PARKING/PROPOSED ORDINANCE:
Chief Don Allen gave a summary concerning the proposed parking lot
at the Communications Center. It was his understanding that an
ordinance needed to be passed so that enforcement of parking
restrictions could be made by the police. Councilor Lonzo made a
motion to direct Andrews to bring an ordinance establishing
designated parking for the Communications Center to the next
Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Potasnik. All members
voted aye. Motion carried.
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION HEARING REOUEST/CCI FUND/STREET
Street Commissioner David
DEPARTMENT/CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE BARN:
Klingensmith presented his request to the Council. Klingensmith
stated this was decided by the Council at the budget hearings last
year but just didn't get put into the budget. The Board of Works
has taken bids but none were awarded pending the approval of this
appropriation. Councilor Lonzo made a motion to direct the clerk to
advertise for an additional appropriation in the amount of $30,000
from the Cumulative Capital Improvement Fund. The motion was
seconded by Councilor Adams. All members voted aye. Motion carried.
There being no further business before the Council the meeting was
duly adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
APPROVED: