Comp. Plan Update 1990 Minority Report 10/26/90 OCT 2 91990
Comprehensive Plan Update - City of Carmel/Clay Township
2,JVL[) 1990 Minority Report
October 26, 1990
I cannot favorably support the proposed update to the
comprehensive plan of 1985 and therefore respectfully submit this
minority report.
The composition of the Committee to revise the 1985
Comprehensive Plan was heavily composed of the developmental and
real estate interests in the community. In fact, two members work
for the same development company. I question whether the public
interest is best served by this composition.
The Comprehensive Plan Update Committee was charged with
predominantly reviewing land use and traffic. Opinions gathered
through a survey conducted in the community as part of the review,
subsequently have been ignored and swept under the rug. Failure to
establish concise definitions is a major shortcoming of the
majority report. A traffic study compiled by HNTV produced a large
amount of data to show that traffic congestion will be at a crisis
level with the already approved development projects. Future
development beyond what has already been approved, was never
considered by the traffic study.
The majority report reflects a comprehensive plan proposing
that the average density of development in the S-1 areas, so
designated as low density residential , would be an average of 1. 5
units per acre and in the S-1, an average of 1. 8 units per acre.
This is a considerable increase in the density as it currently
stands in the 1985 plan, which is 1 dwelling per acre in S-l.
Let me draw an example. If one had a hundred acres of land
zoned S-1 in the old Plan and wished to develop it, approximately
20% of the area would be set aside for roads and infrastructure.
This would leave a total of 80 acres of ground with one unit per
acre, there would be 80 units on the original 100 acres. In the
proposed change, 1. 5 average units has been proposed. This is
virtually doubling the current density. Again, using the scenario
as above, if one had 100 acres of land and 20% was set aside for
infrastructure, that would leave 80 acres. This 80 acres then could
have 150 units placed on them, which would be a little over 1/2
acre per unit. This is a considerable increase in the density as
compared to the 1985 plan. The S-1 areas in Clay Township can
already be developed to a denser standard than our surrounding
neighbors, including Marion County. The proposed changes are far
denser and include in the average method, all retention ponds,
roads, sidewalks and should be reduced from 1. 5 and 1. 8 average
units in S-1 and S-2 to a far lower number. In my opinion, this
Proposal density increase does not reflect the interest of the
majority of the citizens in this community as reflected in the
community survey nor is it acceptable to me personally or, I feel,
to the majority of taxpayers who live in the western part of this
township.
Comprehensive Plan Update
City of Carmel/Clay Township
1990 Minority Report
October 26, 1990
- page 2 -
In addition, the effect on development by providing sewers, has
been skillfully avoided in this proposal. Sewers are one of the major
burning issues in the development process in the large areas of
undeveloped property in Clay Township.
I would like to put forth that density has been significantly
increased in the majority report, and the issue of sanitary sewers and
its effect on density has not been addressed. Therefore, I would propose
that we revert to the 1985 plan and its proposed density of 1 unit per
acre and not allow sanitary sewers to increase the density of development
without rezoning taking place.
The other major area of deficiency in the majority report has to do
with an eleventh hour change in a previously approved roadway improvement
plan to Highway 31. It was proposed by qualified traffic engineers at
HNTV that Highway 31 eventually should become a freeway status roadway.
This was subsequently deleted at the final meeting of the Committee. I
feel the original language should be restored in which it stated that it
was recommended that the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee that US
31 be proposed as a freeway to satisfy minimum future needs. Although it
is not the least expensive, it minimizes socioeconomic impact, and it is
the only alternative which provides excess capacity to meet additional
future needs.
It has been a privilege to serve on this Committee. I strongly
would ask that either changes be made in current proposed document or
that it be rejected and we revert to the previous document in order to
not increase the density in the S-1 and S-2 areas.
I "(
4q ES C. DILLON
517 Cornwall Court
'armel, Indiana 46032