Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-05-15-06 City ofCartnel Office of the Clerk-Treasurer " , COMMON COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 15,2006 - 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a, May 1, 2006 Regular Meeting 5. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL 6. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS 7. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES 8. CLAIMS . Payroll . General Claims . Retirement 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS a. Finance, Administration and Rules Committee b. Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee c. Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee d, Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/;11.2414 1 10. OLO BUSINESS a. Fourth Readin2 of Ordinance 0-1799-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Pertaining to Bidding on Certain Public Works Projects (Section 2-183, Immediate Family Bidding Restriction On Public Works Projects); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Glaser and Sharp. b. Third Readin2 of Ordinance 0-1802-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division II, Section 2-62 of the Carmel City Code (procedure For Use of City Credit Cards); Sponsor: Councilor Mayo. c. Second Readin2 of Ordinance 0-1803-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting a Property Maintenance Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Carter, Sharp and Glaser. d. Second Readin2 of Ordinance 0-1805-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Providing for an Additional Appropriation of Funds from the Operating Balance of the City of Carmel General Fund ($325,000), MVH Fund ($450,000), Police Pension Fund ($15,308) and Fire Pension Funds ($74,677); Sponsor: Councilor Mayo. e. Second Readin2 of Ordinance 0-1806-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Lease for Certain Public Improvements Between the City of Carmel Redevelopment Authority and the City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission, Pledging County Option Income Tax Revenues of City to Pay Certain Lease Rental Obligations Thereunder, and Taking Other Actions Related Thereto ($6,100,000); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Carter, Sharp, Griffiths and Mayo. f. Third Readin2 of Ordinance Z-488-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending the Schedule of Uses ofthe Carmel Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A); Sponsor: Councilor Glaser. g. Third Readin2 of Ordinance Z-489-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Rezoning District Classification, Rezoning the Property Located Southwest of the Intersection of Main Street and Old Meridian Street from Old Meridian/Special Use (OM/SU) and Old Meridian/Single Family Attached (OM/SFA) to the Old Meridian Mixed Use (OM/MU) Classification (Centex Homes-Old Meridian); Sponsor: Councilor Glaser. h. Second Readin2 of Ordinance Z-490-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending the Michigan Road Overlay Zone in the Carmel Zoning Ordinance (ZO Chapter 23C); Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. 2 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. First Readinl! of Ordinance Z-491-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Fortune Planned Unit Development District; Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. OTHER BUSINESS a. Second Readinl! of Ordinance 0-1782-05; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana to Vacate a Segment of Right-Of- Way for River Road; Sponsor: Councilor Glaser. TABLED 12/19/05 14. ANNOUNCEMENTS 15. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT 05JI5/Cj(1 CC Agenda 3 I COMMON COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 15,2006 - 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor James Brainard, Council President Richard L. Sharp, Council Members Kevin Kirby, Joseph C. Griffiths, Fredrick J. Glaser, Ronald E. Carter, Mark Rattermann, Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray and Deputy Clerk-Treasurer Lois Fine. Councilor Brian D. Mayo was not in attendance. Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Pastor Luther Brunette, Carmel Lutheran Church, pronounced the Invocation. Mayor Brainard led the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS: I There were none. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve the Minutes of the May 1, 2006 Regular Meeting. Councilor Glaser seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. The Minutes were approved 6-0. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: Wayne Wilson, 24 Wilson Drive, Carmel, IN 46032, addressed the Council regarding concerns with Ordinance D-1806-06 (Bond for road projects). COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERV ATIONS: Councilor Rattermann reviewed with the public and members of the audience how to log on to the City web site and review the City Council paperless packets. Councilor Carter, Councilor Glaser, Council President Sharp and Mayor Brainard all commented on the Bond issue (Ordinance D-1806-06) that was discussed by Wayne Wilson. I ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES: There were none. 1 CLAIMS: I Councilor Griffiths made a motion to approve the claims in the amount of $943,008.51. Councilor Carter seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Claims were approved 6-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Councilor Rattermann reported that the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee met this evening. They discussed Ordinance D-1799-06 which will remain in committee. The committee is recommending changing their meetings to the second Wednesday of every month at 4:00 p.m. The Clerk-Treasurer's office will check the City calendar and advise Councilor Rattermann. Councilor Glaser reported that the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee met on Thursday, May 10, 2006 and discussed Ordinance Z-488-06 which was sent to the full Council with a favorable recommendation, Ordinance Z-489-06 which will remain in committee, Ordinance Z-490-06 which was sent to the full Council with a favorable recommendation, and Ordinance D-1803-06 which was sent to the full Council with a 2-1 favorable recommendation. Councilor Carter reported that the Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee met on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 and discussed the Central Park progress and the Monon covenants. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, June 13, 2006. I Councilor Kirby reported that the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee had not met. OLD BUSINESS Fourth Readinl! of Ordinance D-1799-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Pertaining to Bidding on Certain Public Works Projects (Section 2-183, Immediate Family Bidding Restriction On Public Works Projects); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Glaser and Sharp. (Remains in the Finance Committee). Council President Sharp announced the Third Readinl! of Ordinance D-1802-06: An Ordinance of the Common Council ofthe City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division II, Section 2- 62 of the Carmel City Code (Procedure For Use of City Credit Cards). Councilor Rattermann reported that this ordinance was sent to the fuU Council with a 2-0 favorable recommendation from the Finance Committee. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance D-1802-06 was adopted 6-0. I Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl! ofOrdinanceU-1803-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting a Property Maintenance Code. Councilor Carter made a motion to adopt amended VERSION A May 12, 2006. Councilor Kirby seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. The motion was approved 5-1 (Councilor Rattermann opposed). There was brief Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance D-1803-06, As Amended, was adopted 4-2 (Councilors Griffiths and Rattermann opposed). 2 I Council President Sharp announced the Second Readin!! of Ordinance 0-1805-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Providing for an Additional Appropriation of Funds from the Operating Balance of the City of Carmel General Fund ($325,000), MVH Fund ($450,000), Police Pension Fund ($15,308) and Fire Pension Funds ($74,677). There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance 0-1805-06 was adopted 6-0. Second Readin!! of Ordinance 0-1806-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Lease for Certain Public Improvements Between the City of Carmel Redevelopment Authority and the City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission, Pledging County Option Income Tax Revenues of City to Pay Certain Lease Rental Obligations Thereunder, and Taking Other Actions Related Thereto ($6,100,000). Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Carter, Sharp, Griffiths and Mayo. (Remains in the Finance Committee). Council President Sharp announced the Third Readin!! of Ordinance Z-488-06: An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending the Schedule of Uses of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A). There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance Z-488-06 was adopted 6-0. Third Readin!! of Ordinance Z-489-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Rezoning District Classification, Rezoning the Property Located Southwest of the Intersection of Main Street and Old Meridian Street from Old Meridian/Special Use (OMlSU) and Old Meridian/Single Family Attached (OMlSFA) to the Old Meridian Mixed Use (OMlMU) Classification (Centex Homes- Old Meridian); Sponsor: Councilor Glaser. (Remains in the LUAC Committee). I Council President Sharp announced the Second Readin!! of Ordinance Z-490-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending the Michigan Road Overlay Zone in the Carmel Zoning Ordinance (ZO Chapter 23C). There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance Z-490-06 was adopted 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President Sharp announced the First Readin!! of Ordinance Z-491-06; An Ordinance ofthe Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Fortune Planned Unit Development District. Councilor Rattermann made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Carter seconded. Councilor Rattermann referred to Charlie Frankenberger, Attorney, Nelson & Frankenberger, 3105 East 98th Street, Suite 170, Indianapolis, Indiana 46280, for a presentation to Council. Also in attendance was Bruce Breeden and land owners Tom Neal, Wendy Fortune and Mark and Becky Herbison. Also representing The Indiana Land Development was Paul Shoopman. The following individual expressed concerns regarding Ordinance Z-491-06: Joe Shumaker 14505 Baldwin Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 I The following individuals spoke in favor of Ordinance Z-491-06: Ronnie Lynn Sara Pechous 7326 N. Layman, Indianapolis, IN 46250 5202 Sherwood Court, Carmel, IN 46033 3 The following individuals spoke in opposition to Ordinance Z-491-06: I Marilyn Anderson (attachment 1) Henry Leopold Nadine Baker (attachment 2) Tony Papay Carol Hartman Fred Yde Brian Baker (attachment 3) Dee Fox Dr. John Smith Alan Peacock 3884 Shelborne Court, Carmel, IN 46032 11451 Sutton Place Drive East, Carmel, IN 46032 2495 Durbin Drive, Carmel, IN 46032 2030 W. 1361h Street, Carmel, IN 46032 12881 Shelbome Road, Carmel, IN 46033 2117 Burning Tree Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 2495 Durbin Drive, Carmel, IN 46032 11389 Royal Court, Carmel, IN 46032 2885 W. 131'1 Street, Carmel, IN 46032 13218 Lamana Place, Westfield, IN 46074 Council President Sharp announced at 8:05 p.m. that the Public Hearing would remain open. There was brief Council discussion. Paul Shoopman, 4550 W. 1161h Street, Zionsville, IN 46077, addressed the Council. Council President Sharp referred Ordinance Z-491-06 to the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee for further review and consideration. NEW BUSINESS There was none. OTHER BUSINESS I Second Readinl! of Ordinance D-1782-05; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana to Vacate a Segment of Right-Of-Way for River Road; Sponsor: Councilor Glaser. TABLED 12/19/05. This ordinance remains Tabled. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were none. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS Mayor Brainard adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m. ADJOURNMENT I 05/15/()(1 cc rvlinut..::s ReS~itled, Clerk-Treasurer Diana 1. Cordray, C APPro&~ M~'8 /JeJ../'R /.... SW! I fJ/dftfr, t)((/"t:c/ 4 To: City Councilors Re: Fortune PUD Rezone May 15,2006 I was driving up Rangeline to work at Greenspace's Garden Faire and was struck by the new KFC building. All brick. Where else do you see that? Carmel required Ritter's Custard on Michigan Rd and the Lowe's on N. Meridian to be all brick and to meet some other architectural requirements. Carmel has been very good about setting a high bar for commercial buildings. But other than Old Town, we don't set a base level for quality issues in our residential developments. Why are we leaving the standards up to a developer to offer as us only as an enticement for approving a PUD? Without the base standards in place, a developer can offer a little improvement as justification and there is only this vague wish that it would be nice if we had more. When I was President of the Plan Commission, I attended the National Planning Conference in Denver. I attended two sessions related to architectural design standards and the issues of quality. I have a list of some of the standards that other communities have put into ordinances: 1. architectural features on all sides of a house 2. architectural element required every 15' on all sides, including garage 3. windows on all sides of a house 4. eaves with a specified overhang to provide definition, shadows and interest 5. limit on repetition of models-minimum number of different models available with criteria for different exterior home designs 6. no repeat in model design within x number of houses, unless elevation is different (roof height, orientation, porches, arch detail, materials, dormers) 7. landscaping on all sides of the house and garage 8. certain percentage of homes required to be 1 story or 1 y, story to decrease monotony. 9. nearly identical masses not permitted even with 100' setback from road/greenbelt 10. variable lot widths 11. vary front setback so houses don't all line up Having served on the Plan Commission, I know the struggle to gain improvements in a proposal and the tendency to count all forward progress. But there's a problem when some pieces are improved, everyone agrees it's better than it was and the most the developer will give, so it's now acceptable. I would hope we would keep foremost the premise, "Is what we are looking at right now, good?" If not, we are teaching developers that they will be rewarded if they present something bad first, and then "compromise." Indiana Land Management claims 23 improvements to their proposal. Many are no gain for the area in quality, but a change that just helps the proposal better fit the zoning and what is the norm on a property zoned Low-Density Residential. Do we really want to count: "All landscape beds must be mulched per the PUD requirements" as a gain in quality? Or "Relocated the entry on 1 26th,,? How much does it count that all the front house entry doors . will be designer grade? We did gain Hardiplank siding rather than vinyl, but how much of a gain is that? I see little else that would not be considered standard in almost every subdivision in the area. And all of us know that the quality of materials selected for windows and interior flooring, cabinetry and finishes has a great deal to do with the quality of a home. What does the community really gain here over what is standard in the area? Let's not judge this by where it started, but where it is now compared to the norm. fl-rrAc#/YIEtJr I (,) {;ounc/ / G"' /':!oc. o Which gets me to the crux of the problem with this idea of "higher quality." Carmel has not defined what is standard and what is "higher." With ROSa, Carmel was specific that this percent of increase of a clearly defined open space warranted x amount increase in density. Those density bonuses were still a source of contention and anger for many in this room. Those density bonuses have resulted in some landowners who want to sell their land because they considered the area ruined. I keep hearing that we're trading off higher density in return for better quality. But we're just stating a vague concept, an undefined "higher quality" that is worth whatever amount of higher density, starting with whatever density the developer has the nerve to ask for. Without a definition and a written ordinance, developers will toss a few bones to this concept and every proposal like this will just be one more battle officials and residents will need to fight. That's not good planning for development. Carmel started trading density for open space with the Cluster Ordinance and didn't like the results. Carmel then moved to ROSa, didn't like the results and amended it. Then, amended it again. Then recently, Carmel finally gave up and the density bonuses in ROSa were repealed, because the results still weren't what was desired. Now we're being asked to accept trading undefined "higher quality" for undefined amounts of increased density. Let's not start another experiment, even more open-ended than the original Cluster Ordinance. By the time we've had four strikes with this new experiment, the undeveloped land will be gone and we'll all have to live with the regrets of this learning curve. Don't leave this vague. Before trading away any higher densities, enact ordinances establishing the quality required. And set the bar high. We all want something more than mulched landscape beds before adding even one extra house. The Fortune PUD doesn't come anywhere close to offering enough improvements in quality to warrant increasing density, let alone tripling it. Townhomes are not permitted in the current Comp Plan, nor in the newly proposed Comp Plan. Protect our area. If not low density single- family homes here, then where? My husband and I moved to the area 18 years ago when the only possible development was one house on one acre or more. We bought what we could afford-a I-acre lot in a subdivision- expecting the surrounding area to develop at that low density. We've lived through incredible changes both in the developments around us and in what zoning and ordinances permit. I understand the desire of some landowners to sell and leave the area. They have my sympathy and I wish for them that they get a good profit when they sell. But I strongly believe the thousands of homeowners who will remain, those who don't have their option of profiting from selling a multi-acre parcel, those who invested in their homes based on the zoning plan of low density, should not have to sacrifice their investment in this area to developments that ensure higher profits to a handful oflandsellers and developers. I didn't buy my I -acre lot and build a home on it here because I was happy with my I-acre lot. I bought for the promise of a I-acre lot in an area of low density. Density matters for all kinds of reasons, which I know you've heard many times. You don't have to personally want low density for yourself. But don't take that lifestyle away from us who value it highly. Eleanor Roosevelt said, "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." We ask that you help us keep our dream of an area of low-density single family homes. Say no to this proposal and remember that density and single family homes matter to the majority of resident of Clay West. 4TTflClt/YIBNT J (~) to v. ndl m+r. s/J~7D(, Marilyn Anderson ,. May 15'\ 2006 City Council Meeting - Carmel City Hall - 6PM Nadine Baker 2495 Durbin Drive Carmel, IN 46032 Dear City Councilors- Thank-you for your time and attention this evening in listening to public input on this important issue. I would like to begin by saying that density is very important to myself and to numerous residents of Western Clay Township. This fact is supported by the number of people in attendance this evening. Those individuals with opposing views also recognize the importance of this issue and the number of people to whom density matters, as evidenced by the fact that the signs we placed to notify the public of this meeting were taken down (even those on private property with homeowner's permission). I do not feel this was a professional action. Just as developers have every right to advertise their properties for sale we also have a right to place signs notifying the public of this meeting. The removal of our signs was a disappointing situation as we may have reached others who are now unaware of this meeting due to these unprofessional actions. In our Democracy, we all have a right to express our opinions and should value those opinions even when they differ from our own. I would like to briefly quote a footnote from the book "Suburban Nation" given to me by the mayor. On pg 102 are listed the results of a gallop poll. When people were asked where they preferred to live - in a city, a suburb, a small town, or a farm - 34% chose a small town, 24% chose a suburb, 22% chose a farm, and 19% chose a city. This describes how many people in Western Clay Township feel and why we are coming before you this evening to raise our concerns on the ever-increasing density of projects being proposed in this area. .' People chose to live in this area because of the way it was zoned (S 1). The city council should recognize and honor the commitment made by the zoning of an area for low- density, single-family homes. This zoning resulted in thousands of homeowners making significant investments in the purchase of their property. We are asking you to remember our investment in the area based on low density zoning. There are families who wish to live in an entire area of low density, not just in a low-density subdivision surrounded by a higher-density area. There are also executives for whom this is a mandatory requirement in buying a home. Western Clay Township is Carmel's location for this type of area. If Carmel does not allow for Sl, low-density residential zoning here in WC Township, then where will Carmel have SI zoning? There is value in diversity, so Carmel should be able to allow for higher density areas, such as city center Carmel, and low density residential for those homeowners who prefer these two different lifestyles and living preferences. Forcing high-density projects into a pre-existing low density area is not the answer. fl TTflCllmENT Z (,') CDvnc' J (T)1f s} S/O" .- ',U; . Regarding the proposal before you this evening, it does not fit the zoning in the current comprehensive plan. Rezoning this parcelof land will result in a change from the Comp Plan and force changes in the new Comp Plan that is in progress. This should not be allowed to occur. On Dec 6'\ 2005 when the VWC expansion came before the city council we were given assurances that the higher zoning allowed for in that project would not affect adjacent land. This current proposal has a density that is even higher than the VWC project, almost tripling the current zoning ordinance, so we would like to request that continued increases in density not be allowed. There are numerous subdivisions here in Western Clay Township that have lower densities and are in keeping with the current zoning requirements. A few examples include Crossfields (0.66), Laurel Lakes (1.22), Sedgewick (0.82), Towne Point (1.12), Wexley Chase (1.33), Lakes at Towne Rd (1.34), and Larkspur (0.95) just to name a few. These subdivisions are very aesthetically appealing and in keeping with the nature of the area. The available land in Western Clay Township that is currently for sale or will be in the future could easily be developed in accordance with the current zoning. I would like to make the point that I am not against development, but would like to ask that development occur in keeping with the current S I zoning requirements. Undeveloped land is a valuable resource. Once it is gone it cannot be replaced. Numerous quality of life aspects are of concern to those in the area (which are greatly affected by increases in density) including increased traffic and travel times on the road, air, light and noise pollution. These issues matter to those of us in Western Clay Township and density matters. Thank-you for your time and attention in listening to my views. Sincerely - Nadine Baker . , . . Crossfields'Subdivision Board of Directors , p.' .b.i" /t,ntCrlfYI ENT ').. ( 2.-) t!ounc'/ (J1fr .s- j) s-' /D (p ;' May 15'\ 2006 City Council Meeting - Carmel City Hall - 6PM Brian Baker President, Crossfields subdivision Board of Directors 2495 Durbin Drive Carmel, IN 46032 Dear City Councilors- I would like to begin by stating that I agree with what others have previously said. . I know the topic of traffic congestion in the area has been a contentious topic, in which numerous residents have displayed their frustration that the infrastructure in the area does not have the capacity to handle any increase in density. Currently there are several inefficient intersections in which long waits in lines have now become more common place (for example, 106th and Shelbourne, 116th and Shelbourne, and 106th and Springmill Road) where waits in one car can be as long as fifteen minutes at each intersection. The current Thoroughfare Plan, which was last revised in 1999, was developed based on the density according to zoning AT THAT TIME. The zoning that was in place had an average of 1 home per acre, even though ROSa allowed for density bonuses. If a developer built a 1.5. density subdivisions on 100 acres under ROSa, that would result in at least in 100 extra cars when compared to S 1 zoning (50 extra homes X 2 cars per family) for that one particular subdivision. So I would like to ask the council members "How many ROSO subdivisions with density bonuses do we have?" "How many extra cars are there not plannedfor in the Thoroughfare Plan?' Being the President of my subdivision, and also the chairman of the subdivision Architectural Review Committee, we have recently seen plans to expand garage capacity to include additional 2-3 cars (assuming S I zoning). These additional amounts usually equate to other family members (sons, daughters, and in-laws) having the ability to drive that reside in the residence. Therefore the amount of automobiles present on the road is a conservative number. A more realistic expectation is that each household will have at least 3-4 automobiles that are being used by family members. This would cause an increase in the number of automobile on the road by a factor of 3 (that assuming RSO is 1.5 units/acres)!!! Which is triple the amount that was forecasted in the revised. Thoroughfare Plan of 1999. Furthermore, the projections used to develop the thoroughfare plan were only taking the Carmel West Clay area only into consideration. Westfield has numerous communities Cuun6/ mfr S- j, s-' /OIP R TTflCHrnl3"Nr .3 (.) that are being constructed in which we will share many of the same north/south streets (Towne Road, Shelbourne, and Spring Mill). Consequently, in order to meet the increased traffic capacity, roads will need to be widened from a narrow two lane road that can barely support commercial traffic, to a four lane road with storm drainage. Many homes (especially those south of 116th street), do not have easements that would allow for the expansion of these roads. Are we to allow residents who have been here for numerous years to lose their homes and lor property to imminent domain to allow for increase commercial and residential traffic? This does not seem fair to those homeowners who built here under the commitment of Sl zoning that existed at the time when they moved to the area.. Also, the cost of purchasing houses or land will incur a significant cost to the taxpayer. Widening roads is not the answer.. ..controlling density is the key. The city of Carmel has built several roundabouts at key intersections, which have been very successful to date in aiding traffic congestion in our area. However, roundabouts are only effective to a certain degree in which traffic can be managed effectively through these intersections and they only work in managing the movement of a certain number of cars through these intersections. Allowing density to increase in our area and the additional traffic that will be supplementing the traffic population from Westfield will put a significant strain on the roundabouts at high peak usage, which may render the roundabouts to be ineffective. As I stated earlier, some of these key intersections are surrounded by neighboring property owners in which their investment in their homes can be significantly compromised if there were to allow the expansion of these intersections. This is especially true of the home owners at 116th and Shelbourne Roads. It may be true that one particular development may not be a problem by itself. However, when you have numerous developments being constructed, you may not realize a problem exists until after the problem manifests itself. It is not responsible to keep exceeding the densities outlined in the current Comprehensive Plan and this density adds to great of a burden to an area where the projected traffic already exceeds that included in the Thoroughfare Plan. It rrA CHrne Ni 3 (:2- ) Counc;/ mil' S-/ts lot. If any of the roads are closed due to constructionlrepairs, it will stress the area infrastructure even more in which several routes would be funneled into one. There are very few alternate routes available due to the 1-mie grid structure that currently exists in Western Clay Township. The I-mile grid system will more adequately support the current zoning ordinance. 'I thank the council for giving me the opportunity to speak and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely- Brian Baker President, Crossfields Homeowners Association U'~' ~ ~ ~ ~~~5:~~~~'1~~iDR "'E' \: m~.!!l!!lA ~~ ~~ "t~~ "'. "~ ~~.,r;*v~~ 0."; "~ ~O~"~ -=O~'-----.'r~,'T'., : ,I' . ;: ~ '8m~ '" ".~ iL ",' ."i:.... :",':"',,..;:,1'. .,"0,:.. 1 ", m ." ,~"" .'..,"SW","E;E1'I~~" " nH ... .' ~)lo~,~ ~~;> ~ ol~ "'",,"' v"",,^"" Z "" III ""E ~:r.n", (""" "\'~.;, ,:'::',: : : .,. ':, <, ~ ~ l~ ~r'cr -: ""<If!- '0' 'tj ilL. CIl... .'.' ,'v: :.: IS""~<. ISLOE ~ ~ ~ z!1Il:Yt"PI",^~"~YDR4r.\\\1!' '" .5:lli :."H: ". ,.; ,::,: ,r,"ll.'/. iea ~.~~, k 'I B ,6.'4 m'" ':' 0: ,: ',: ,,/!%;1 ~ ~ d~, t ~,:" '-'",,.c;;ro.,,, ..I / g .:.. .... : r.i! LA OURP"':~ Ig R' .-/"0, ..:;i;',;: 3D,,) ~~~~~" ~ i ~ :~ '" ~~~i: ~ ,:h~DLE I'"~o~, ~ ~W F ,\" "' .' ) :e i.~ ..... 0= ~~""~~ :-1 DR JIDI r..4"G'ffr iJ'lmVfI9ll3S ~ : ~ AN'" 1< " >>eRR CAU,^ ,o..r <: '::: DR '" ~ :'~"" ,:;:\JNI~ m ""1f1'1 ~ rov.:l! m <. "'<11.." '>Jf.&?;@,1Jl... ~ ~ ~ '-'~ '2 % LA 1'11; <% #'( :':'0 Js ,,".!ONO;''% -j He ,. ~'h 5 ~m i\~~ · '1 .~~D's: ~'" ~ " S <II M..;. - ~ ~ m m-l.:I: ~C,.; l!~ '!B -<~~~ o. Y.'~ . ;J;Im>O: en ,., _ ~1,"~ ~~- ,~ (/)0" ~ ',," .,,~ f' 0 ,. _OWNE~~~ ~.... I E~DCTRD"~~ ~ 'R~ ki'[e; ,~N} ~" ~ih: ~~m!_,~ CH.J.. "" S;~JGR"':~"'D"R 1I1; i ~~<9. ,,' - <! ;.::r:.l.~;~. tS!/~.,;>. ~~:;:~;l= '''''''''''t,..,,~ ~lLii~ii~:b )CT i · ~; ~:':l~~'~;'~~r.:'~lnili ~!il ~=~ ~PARK ~)!\;;;~gi:H:~;lx? ~S .~. . 'I,.~~("j .'"' ';'~o~~I;;~~~"~ 2000~,',-' 1\)." '," ," ~ ", ;~;l~~~ ' ODE"EtD~U~;o ." ,',.. 'F....::i;,o:'{:~ ":: AN, '1 9 d < .. \: '.: 1':~'" ..:.L""~, --U~mm~~N_ \9. '*' i~;;,. .:' /'r;:-~'l: ' o ~~ ~ ~ ~,.~~_~~'1~$'11 .... \ ~ ~g . ...,.,,,;.~';" y, " :,1:,;,>:: c;1' "::", ,....::~~~z (__'~ ::,}.. ,~~ ; '9~~' "i, ~ I{ >" .,,' m I"~ !~'~~~; ~ n<W.\:.^.\. ______~ ' .. ..' :.'/~":~: ~~ ,'~~ ,,:fANeIA DR Amc /-/Y18lF'3c'C:i;) .,', .i~r:;;:';?~f;~'!r::' 8ERI~ r;~ ,~{.~ii~~i, NU"~""(I'''' i'~::A;~IJ~DEi . '~R::.::,c~:,:C&J&;m:~J~:!;:{>; :~W~.~I:"" ~;:~~ji::~p e=;J;I",fn Z Z ~ ~ E~>fh~;Y~;::~;~/;'!'~:~'!,' \",{:~-;;:;~,~':;>-, ~:,;/t' ~-~,~~~-"~ :~; '+_, -;:! ":1 Oll3>r11, >5~ ~... ~ ;;5:t:: 5: ~.., '500Vl" ..... "S/IS': "", .!l~. ," ," .. A ,. 'i .l1YDJ(o; !iI., RD ~j ~ ';ii " SP 8 8 ~ s~ 301.." MILL. __RO I'LL~'Xi;.::.~':;,~,J-':::>,.;; ~"i; ,-- .,,:~~~. ;'r'~:;:;--'~'~tt?!:.Q ,:-<~;' ~ ',~:, ~i,"-"; riRvi ~',:~/~MI[r:~~.;::.!:~:.~^",,;01l':;i{-- ';"", ;:,.,iZ'_...,,,,,,,, "-"",,"~~,~;:, "-J; '~~",;,,:~,\~~..'~...~~ @TII.,!l.\.8iiii ,. ";:~~~;I..~~X~N "vi I~ ')i~'_~ ~ 8"~~' P " . .. ~1~)~I'c;",...:~,:,;~ ml '- :'_1I~~' r-;: ;:',--.'_"'<:1',-., IlO ~d 11 ~;Q~":"; w\' _ "'~:: <,;.:~,.:;,-~>~';:; ','~:;I(:<~~;'~';,::' . :,. ';,.'- C,o,)' -:',,~:' M'''':;~biA';':\'~';'Y M '$ -l :n.:-;;,;:~\ "~ ',:_l ",' "",:, 0 AGE":~" :,~ -, . - . 1 , I"'''' "'::.: ... "'\.">,: . ,"',)\':. as. _h~ ';:: ;"'.'. , ~ -. " ;~~~ ': ;: TT. ~~D K,g .....:'; ,:; "'..:5 '.:-:':. '. .'. T.i~ :' ~ :~ ~w ':,~--"'"TI ":im:: ':":;:':-:. :;;!::':;:~~i ~R-ti.,:,,,=oO'i-: nON ',_-< ' - fJ> '1 '~'''1i?'!1'..,'''otl....' :':s ~,.CE' m t:: ~~ (;~ ~ "1~~UCKI J .v li1gj ~ '\ ~PAR' I ..i 17,:~,,~~:::';flt~ ~ c""~", ,. ''', H'~lGTJ:jNlq ':'>_." "- t\:{ o. \", biLE...,,1 '.:; riP< ~,.,,! x 'S; , -,~, ';:~,:'; ,~-;. .~- , _ ~o >>'.,'{,' ,~,' ::. ~ . ~.r'j~~0S', !':'>C'6_~ . :E~:Kl ~~~I.~."L: i\\; 0';<<:: Z . -";_~:?~;o "'~~ , . ,:,,'" -~:,,:;e "_.: ,J t'-~ 'Ii. [if m, ~ ';1B '; _:rusl ~__. _" c' C '. ';:~,J(.',"J ,I "..