Loading...
Special Comp. Plan Update mtg minutes 4.9.91 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 The board members present were : Jeff Davis , Sue McMullen, Richard Klar, Annabelle Ogle, Henrietta Lamb, Tom Welch, Alan Potasnik, Caroline Bainbridge, Michael Nardi, Henry Blackwell and Tom Whitehead. The staff members present were : Wes Bucher, David Cunningham, Mike Hollibaugh and Dorthy Neisler. THIS IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE • MEETING ON APRIL 9, 1991 . JEFF DAVIS : We received a letter from John Myers of HNTB indicating the draft changes that he feels like that have been indicated by this committee that we want . You have looked them over and that along with the letter we go from staff about the concerns as they understood them, letter dated April 3rd. Dear Plan Commission Members, future roads #1, comprehensive plan #2, these two pieces of information as far as we understand should solve #3 the Blackwell Letter part 2 , number 44 116th stru t. rec.Lmunendation . You know I have been on this Plan Commission ten years and I never got a letter named after me. I think that is sharp. Blackwell you are moving right ahead here . HENRY BLACKWELL: I 'm afraid I won' t get a check this time . ALAN POTASNIK: Is this open for comment? JEFF DAVIS: It is open for comment, if people that have read it and understand what these two pieces of paper do for us, these two things and feel like it has done what we have asked that comment would be fine . I think these are supposed to handle everything we have asked for up to now and if not then that is what we will start our discussion. ALAN POTASNIK: If I could address, I have a couple of questions to John and I ' ll make this sweet and short as possible . John, at the last meeting that we have with regards to this I had some concerns about 116th Street Task Force and trying to implement their recommendations into our update of the Comprehensive Plan . Is what you presented 1 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 tonight in the proposed text changes does that do that? JOHN MYERS : Yes , and I should say that everything that is here is tentative of course and subject to the will of the Plan Commission. What I have done based on the letter of April 3rd from the staff is to put together some wording that we are comfortable with in terms of a positive response to the 116th Street Committee . That is about four pages from the back, it is an insert, it says page 138 on the top. Everything here is in somewhat draft form but the intent was when you vote on this tonight you will know specifically what you are voting on and there are now four or five paragraphs here so I am not sure what . . . ALAN POTASNIK: Just in continuation of the question, I guess is what I had asked perhaps that this Plan Commission consider with regards to supplementing our update with the task force recommendations, if that was in the letter and if you feel that that would be compatible with what we are trying to do here with this . I didn' t want to make this something that was more difficult last time then what needed to be, but I guess my question to you as our traffic engineer is do you feel that if we did do that for the purposes of this update it would work. And, in tandem with that question the other point that I brought up that was extending the road east of Gray Road it said in the update 136th Street including that to be 146th Street and bring these in line with the counties standards . JOHN MYERS : As far as the Hazeldell connection we had essentially, we were in line with them between 146th and 116th although there was a typo in the text, it mentioned 136th instead of 146th, so there was not an inconsistency there anyway. There was an inconsistency between 116th and 96th and that we had that shown as a secondary arterial, the county had it shown as a primary arterial . There was a difference of 10 ' in the right-of-way width in those classes the staff had recommended a primary arterial, we certainly have no problem with that. It is one of the changes that is shown on this map, I know that you all can ' t see the changes that are on this map and I would even go so far as to say that if you wanted to pass that down the line and look at it that I think that that could be done . Anyway I don ' t really see any sort of inconsistency with the Hazeldell question . As far as the 116th Street, of course I think that was more difficult . That was more difficult for us because we have recommended four lanes 2 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9 , 1991 in that section really from the time we began to have recommendations in this study. I think from a purely technical sense looking at land use the traffic it generates and where it is likely to want to be in the network, given the layout of the roadways , four lanes is still warranted long range for that roadway. And the text that we have here doesn ' t say that four lanes is not warranted long range and it makes reference to the fact that we recommended that all along. At the same time, I think there needs to be, well I want to be careful about how I say this because I think it is a judgement that you have to make, but I think that it is reasonable to recognize that there has been a process that has occurred here, there has been a cross section of the community identified on a committee . I know personally that I spent three hours with that committee and I don' t think there is anything that you have heard as, a Plan Commission or even as a Steering Committee with regard to this issue that that committee did not also hear. I know that they had a lot of testimony, there was quite an extended process that came up with an answer. I would say that three lanes over the short term, not based on specific studies that we have done but studies that I have had a chance to look at that has been done by a professor from Purdue University. In looking at existing conditions apparently based on his study three lanes , even a two lane roadway would give acceptable service . So, I think in the long term there are always options, there is no single roadway on this map that has to be any specific configuration to solve future needs . We do leave the door open in our verbiage that there may ultimately need to be other improvements on parallel routes and this should be a subject in the next plan update. As far as the plan itself , the plan is expressed in terms of functional classification, the functional classification is not changed. We also have an exhibit, it happens to be under this exhibit .8 that shows recommended improvements over the next 20 years that do include lanes . We have changed that to show three lanes on that section. I think it is a case where we believe that the studies we have done are proper, are right from a technical sense and if I had blinders on and looked only at traffic I would still say that four lanes is the right answer. I think it was the objective of the 116th Street Committee to take a broader view and their recommendation was three lanes, I think there is nothing inappropriate, about having a respect for that and I find myself in a position that I can respect that process and at the same time say that given the land use that we have assumed and ordinary processes and a technical sense of generating traffic from those and putting them on the network that we don' t see anything different now then we saw a year ago in terms of ultimately with the residential development and the pattern of streets that you have there now that there is going to be a need for that east west roadway capacity somewhere. If it 3 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 is not on 116th Street it is likely to be needed somewhere else . There is even another factor here and that you can still get from point A to point B and it is matter of what sort of conditions on the roadways that you want to tolerate . That is really a judgement call and we can use levels of service and measures that are ordinarily used, but once again we are looking into the future and we are talking about future land use, future development and a future four lanes . I don' t know if this is the end of the question forever, but I think at this point in time it is kind of a tough question that you have in terms of balancing the recommendations of a committee that has gone to an extensive process versus the technical answers you are getting from us . So what we have done here in the text is to try and describe what I am saying now in a way that is comprehensible and reasonable and I think you still have the option of using this text or use the original text. We recommended four lanes , it is based on technical findings and you can simply go with that . I think the option is yours . ALAN POTASNIK: But if we do accept the text of the recommendation by the 116th Street review committee as you bring it now, that doesn' t stop you from sometime in the future of picking up that option and realizing that as our needs as a city change, so perhaps might the future needs of 116th Street and other streets around the area . We are closing the door on ever changing that from a three lane somewhere . JOHN MYERS : As a matter of fact I think that we have verbiage here all along both in the text and on the graphics that have made reference to area wide planning versus corridors specific studies . Sometimes we say engineering studies and sometimes we say site specific, but still ours is an area wide view, I think our Comprehensive Plan is probably the most general document that even deals with these issues . This was a corridor specific study that was done on 116th Street, there are some additions here now. This verbiage that strengthen the fact that there are guidelines that are given from the Comprehensive Plan from the geometric design • standards . The functional classifications that when it comes to a specific roadway each one is a specific question, either in the alignment of a new roadway, location of an interchange on a freeway, or the number of lanes on any specific roadway. I don ' t see it as being automatically being inconsistent and I think that the verbiage is here for that now. ALAN POTASNIK: 4 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 I guess , in closing I might just want to make a point that I think that we have to be aware of what we are considering here and that is the Comprehensive Plan Update . It is 1991, this again has to be done in 1995 again, and it would appear to me from review, and it is too bad that this task force came as last as it did with their findings and facts on this . But, it would appear that if we end up looking and we are changing the Hazeldell connection from a secondary to a primary arterial with regards to 116th Street, it would seem to me that by designating that as such as a primary arterial it would be more desirable in handling perhaps some traffic off of 116th Street . JOHN MYERS: I wonder Jeff if you would mind, I think I could do this for about fifteen minutes and walkthrough all of this . ' Ok. My intent was over the last several months there have been a number of comments and a number of things that in fact, that we have agreed on at these meetings and we have tried to collect all of those in one place. It is a fairly short letter here in a page and a half and there are only items even though there are a lot of attachments . I would just like to tell you what is here and what we have done . The first item is Minor Collectors and this was a reference that was made in the letter from the staff on April 3rd. There were a number of, I would say the most minor roadways were not shown on this Comprehensive Plan . We have added those to the map that is here now and they are in blue, I can't tell blue from black from here . I could go over and point to some of them but at any rate they are the most minor roads on here and the reason they haven' t been on this map up to this point is because when we changed the geometric standards to have a consistency with the county we increased the right-of-way on the collector roadways from 60 ' to 80 ' . There was never a formal discussion with the Steering Committee or the Plan Commission I 'm sure but there was some direction at the time I had some discussion with Rick Brandau of the staff . He and I just kind of looked at it and said which one of these are really the most minor collectors and where there may be some question whether really a 80 ' right-of-way ought to be there instead of a 60 . Those were left off . I think that is sort of a hard call whether you have them on there or not . Collector roadway is one that collects traffic from local streets and feeds arterials . So I think that it is kind of difficult at that lower end whether it is a collector or not a collector. I also don ' t think that it is terribly relevant. At any rate these are shown on the map, they are the ones that were marked in yellow I think on the letter you got from Wes . If you don' t mind I think I will just go through each item just like that and then we can come back if you have questions, Jeff . The Hazeldell Road Corridor we just talked 5 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 about, there have been some changes made in the text to reflect to what we just described and also the changes have been made on the map to show that as either primary arterial or secondary parkway all the way up . It has a minimum of 100 ' of right-of-way just as the county has . We have added text and I will just go ahead and read this as it is only one paragraph. It should be noted that this Thoroughfare Plan is based on 1989 data and studies . Although the results are suitable for supporting an area wide plan, they are not sufficient to replace traffic impact studies for specific developments . The Plan Commission will continue to request that updated traffic data and studies be submitted with development proposals . That is added under the section on Thoroughfare Plan. It is not the exact wording that we received in the letter but I think it is very close and we just simply added a phrase that is suitable for supporting an area wide plan. Item 4, West Parallel Collector, I think we will all remember the discussions we had of what is the route of that west parallel connector between Spring Mill and 31 and the fact that whatever we show on there isn' t really the route because we haven' t done this specific corridor studies . And, given that fact, why add something that looks very specific when they are really saying and really believing that it is not . So our understanding was that we would show that as a straight line between 31 and Spring Mill and that is what we have done . I think that you can actually can see that from almost anywhere in the room. The fifth item, Right-of-way limitations again, this was mentioned at the very end at one of the meetings . This is a response to a concern that we are showing some classifications through areas that are restricted due to existing development and so even though we are showing our classification that has a wide right-of-way we don' t necessarily believe, for instance on 116th Street that it is reasonable to go out and take 150 ' right-of-way for a primary parkway, in an area that is fronted by houses and development on each side . As we mentioned at the end of that meeting that it was our suggestion that we use some hash marks to indicate that there right-of-way restrictions in certain areas and the discussion with the staff in addition to 116th Street, 146th Street was identified between Spring Mill and Hazeldell. I am sure there are others, those are the only two that have been identified at this point, and another paragraph, this was also • added this was under the one that was added previously under thoroughfare plan, on page 130 and I ' ll read this paragraph. Even though we don' t have it identified on here . The paragraph say that: Some deviations from standards have been identified in formulating the Thoroughfare Plan . Figure X. 8 indicates three- lane construction for a section of 116th Street, although its functional classification would suggest more . Figure X. 7 indicates right-of-way constraints to parkway construction on both 116th and 146th Streets, even though they are designated as 6 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 parkways . Similar adjustments to geometric standards may be recognized elsewhere by the Plan Commission on a case-by-case basis, as indicated in Section E, Proposed Minimum Geometric Standards . Which is that it is another additional paragraph that talks about basically the same thing. It includes the statement that it is not the intent of this plan to supersede project level studies which identifies a right-of-way or lane reductions to reduce community impact . Neither is it the intent of this plan to specify project time tables or specific alignments for new roadways . These are appropriate topics for project level studies . I think you can start to get a sense of that idea now being added through here and emphasized. Again, I really think it is inappropriate to look at an area like this as a whole and for that to supersede a concentrated study on a particular section of roadway or a particular corridor. Item 6,, Secondary Parkways, again it was a recommendation of ours that originally we had all primary parkways with 150 ' of right-of-way, it was our recommendation that that be kept for the two eastwest roadways, with respect to north south roadways given the fact that there are already two very high capacity roadways with wide rights-of- way, 31 and Keystone, the primary arterials would really not be needed that kind of ultimate capacity and right-of-way would not be needed for Towne Road, Hazeldell or Gray Road. We have made those changes on the graphic . 116th Street we have already talked quite a bit about that and this is in response to the recommendations of the committee . It doesn' t really back away from the technical recommendations of four lanes but it does recognize that process, at least at this point in time is a project specific recommendation that the three lanes be shown. Finally the last three pages of this package are the explanatory notes from the various exhibits and I have blown these up so they are easier to read. The first one would go on the color poster, that includes both land use and the thoroughfare plan . This note seemed to read before as if it referred only to the land use plans, so there are just a couple of phrases added, that it communicates an illustrative representation of a consensus opinion for future roadways and distribution density of future development . Further, once again the same statement is not the purpose of the plan to indicate exactly locations from future development . Then we added specific lines for roadways or precise amount of acreage for any given land use. The next one is one that has always been on figure x.8 which talks about a 20 year time frame being approximate, actual improvements based on verified needs getting back to a corridor level of analysis and so on. Basically what we have done is take the same note and add to the exhibit that we are looking at now that shows the functional class and all we have done is take out the reference to 20 year time frame, because there is no time frame on that thoroughfare plan itself . And that is shown on the last exhibit . 7 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 I am sorry that I didn ' t get these out to you about a week ago so you could study all this text . It didn ' t exist a week ago. I would certainly be glad to answer any questions about any of this material . I think I have got it all and I 'm sure you will let me know if I 've left anything out. JEFF DAVIS : Are there any other questions of the Comprehensive Plan at this time? My understanding is that these are the things we have asked them to address to the questions that we had. Does this answer everybody' s questions? JOHN MYERS: Joanne has one other thing, it was in response to the suggestion that Judy Hagan had, it is one page earlier in the text. JOANNE GREEN: It is on page 67 and I will pass copies out . Quickly as John had said at the bottom of page 67 , since the preparation of 1985 update under the portion that is crossed out . A consensus opinion we changed from seems to be emerging to has emerged. How symbolic. How appropriate. That is all ! JEFF DAVIS : The staff has no other questions of the planners then? Alright, CAROLINE BAINBRIDGE: I would like to make a motion that we accept this Docket No. 1-91 CP an amendment to the ordinance D 454 entitled the Comprehensive Plan Update City of Carmel, Clay Township 1985 effective September 30, 1985 amendment to Comprehensive Plan Update City of Carmel, Clay Township 1990 . I move that it be approved as presented with attachment 1 and the information that we were given by HNTB this evening. RICHARD KLAR: I ' ll seconded. JEFF DAVIS: It was seconded. Is there any discussion at this point? 8 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 SUE MCMULLEN: Call for the question! JEFF DAVIS: Everyone in favor of signify by saying aye . Opposed the same sign. Unanimously approved. JEFF DAVIS : There is a resolution here that HENRY BLACKWELL: Mr. Chairman I would like to move acceptance of the Resolution, I think you each have a copy of it in front of you . RICHARD KLAR: I ' ll seconded. JEFF DAVIS: Is there any discussion of the so called, Blackwell Resolution to accompany this? There is no discussion, everyone in favor of , what we are doing is sending this with the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council . Everyone in favor of signify by saying aye . Those opposed the same sign. I don ' t believe it . Unanimously approved. DAVID CUNNINGHAM: Jeff, the only outstanding question that staff has is are you going to appoint the 1995 Update Committee now? JEFF DAVIS : I don't think anyone would serve if I tried to appoint them now. I would like to have that committee, have people be in mind to serve in 30 days . I would like to have some carry over from the old committee . DAVID CUNNINGHAM: Will you be chairing it? 9 SPECIAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PLAN MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 JEFF DAVIS: Until the end of the year. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 10 P.M. 10