Brian Eason

JacksonMS

CARMEL— The same day that an ambitious bike-share program rolled out in Indianapolis, a committee revived discussion on a proposal that critics say would roll back efforts to promote cycling in Carmel.

But the Carmel City Council members who helped craft the proposal insist they support cycling — so long as it stays out of their constituents’ front yards.

“The question is how much right of way do we have and can we do what we want to do with it?” said Councilwoman Carol Schleif. “It’s, ‘What do we want our city to look like, and how do we protect what we want to keep?’”

Put another way: Schleif and others have fielded more calls than they want from angry homeowners whose front yards have shrunk because of mandatory bike paths, wide sidewalks and tree canopies.

The proposed changes are part of a broader review of the city’s comprehensive plan, a blueprint for private development as well as city streets.

Mike Hollibaugh, director of Community Services, said the changes initially were supposed to be minor, but once they were being discussed in committee, the small changes morphed into a complete overhaul that bogged down last year.

On the surface, the proposed changes would modify 2009 land-use guidelines aimed at promoting what some call Carmel’s calling cards: mixed-use development, multistory buildings and connectivity for cyclists.

The proposal would change some existing requirements to mere suggestions, and cut others entirely in favor of letting the market dictate development.

The change in the working of the “mixed-use” section recalls for some the recent fights over “Castle Walgreens,” a towering pharmacy on Carmel Drive, or the infamous two-story Turkey Hill gas station, for which no tenant has been found for its top floor.

The changes still would encourage walkability and recreational cycling by requiring sidewalks on most city streets. But on-road bike lanes are on the chopping block.

Instead of bike lanes and sidewalks, major arterial streets, such as East 116th Street and South Range Line Road, would have “multi-use paths.”

While supporters insist that the changes won’t discourage mixed-use developments or cycling, city administration officials aren’t so sure.

“I’m concerned, yeah. I am,” Hollibaugh said. “I just think we’ve been successful with the rules that we have and we’d like to keep them in place. I’m not sure that the market’s ready to say, ‘Yeah, we’ll keep the ball rolling.’”

The counterargument? There has to be a balance between recreational and property rights.

“If we did everything we want to do, we’d have a path five feet off someone’s step,” Chairman Rick Sharp said.

But if Monday’s meeting was any indication, there’s plenty of sausage-making left to do, even though the committee has had the measure for a year and a half.

Sharp is new to the committee, as is Councilwoman Sue Finkam, who served on Land Use in September 2012 when the resolution first came up, but was taken off the committee in 2013 before rejoining it this year. And even those who were on the committee in 2013 had trouble recalling what changes had been voted on, or not.

“It will not celebrate its second birthday in committee,” Sharp said. “My target is to get it out and before the council in July.”

Call Star reporter Brian Eason at (317) 444-6129. Follow him on Twitter: @brianeason.