Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Minutes PC 05-20-97C.URMEIXI.aY PLAIN COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 CARMEUCLAY PU-'i COMMISSIC 1/13ZA UNOFFICIAL MINI, TES The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmei/Clay Plan Conar esioa was called to order by the Ptesident at 7 00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana on May 20, 1997. Members present were as follows: James Bolander, David Cremeans; Jay Dorman: Richard J. Klan, Alan Klineman; Barry Krauss; James T. ONeal, Sr.; Pat Rice; Sam Rinker Rick Sharp; Luci. Snyder, Paul Spranger, K K_ Thompson: and Chris White. Also present representing the Departmenr of Community Services were: Director Steve Eageilant; Michael Holh migir; Terry Jones; and MarkMOntne. Counsel John & Mohtorwas EL Public Hearing- h. Cimmission to consider Economic Development Plans for the Pennsylvania Street Corridor, he Hazelded Parkway; and the Old Town/ 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Areas. rii eel by the Cannel Redevelopment Commission Michael Shaver, president of Wabash Scienadc, Inc., 4742 Bluffwood North Drive, Indianapolis, 46228 appeared before the Commission and presented Development Plans for the Pennsylvania Street Corridor, Old TowN1_6th Sweet Corridor, :and the Hazeidell Parkway. The Plan Commission's sole roie is to affirm that the proposed projects and the ovead economic development plans conform with the economic development plans for the community under the Comprehensive Plan_ The estimated cost of HazeldelL S20 nnllion plus, is currently under discussion; there is potential for a bond based on the County Option Income Tax to finance the cost of the tntprovemems. Alan Klineman asked if by approving the Economic Development Plans• was the Plan Commission committing itself to approve commercial at various places along HazeldeiL- Nfike Shaver's response was negative, contirmed by John Molitor. Mr. Molitor stated that the Plan Commission is only certifying that these areas are shown on the Comprenensive Plan for this type of develoomerr, and at some timire date, :he Plan Commission is aot required to approve any ,;:'amnutempO1997. may particular commercial development. Rick Roesch, 832 Spruce Drive, Carmel, president of the Redevelopment Commission, stressed that the economics of the plans have not yet been determined There will be other public hearings on the Redevelopment for the indicated locations before anything is decided; there is a lot of work yet to be done. Before any bonds will be issued, the economics of the overall projects have to be decided —the economic benefit to the community, etc. Public hearings will be noticed and held before any dollar amounts are determined. Tim ONeal asked for the Department's position; Mark Monroe reported that the Economic Development Plans are in compliance with the 2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan which was passed in September and approved by the Council. The Department's recommendation is for approval. Tun ONeal moved for the approval of the Economic Development Plans for the Economic Development Areas of Pennsylvania Street Corridor, the Hazeldell Parkway, and the Old Town/ 126th Street Corridor, and that the accompanying Resolutions (4) be adopted; '.MOTION APPROVED 12-0. Luci Snyder moved to reorder the Agenda to hear item 6i., amendments to the U.S. 31 Corridor Plan (Cannel/Clay Comprehensive Plan amendment, Docket No. 16-97 C-P.;) Motion Approved 11 in favor, Rick Sharp opposed. Kevin Kirby, 231 First Avenue NE, Carmel, appeared before the Plan Commission as president of the Carmel City Council and a member of the U.S. 31 Task Force. Mr. Kirby reported that after numerous meetings regarding the U.S. 31 corridor, the Council felt that the most appropriate use for the property located at the northeast corner of 96th Street and Springmill would be a commercial business park The tratfic would be confined to business hours during the week; there would be no entrance onto Springmill and a wide buffer would be required on Springmmill between the indicated parcel and Spnngtntll Road. Tom Thompson confirmed that the boulevard bisecting the of$ce/hotei/snecialty retail component to the east and the residential uses to the west will be the extension of Illinois Street. Paul Sptanger reported the Council had stricken the language referring to densities up to 8 dwelling units per acre on the northwest parcel located west of the Illinois Street extension on U.S. 31 and 116th Street. Paz Rice reported that a number of residents had wanted to speak to the issue, but due to a misunderstanding, did not attend the meeting. Pat asked if the Council would consider hearing the residents, Kevin Kirby stated that he had received a phone call indicating that the residents would be in attendance at the Council meeting and was surprised when they did not attend. c:\minutes\pc11997 may Paz Rice asked a number of questions relating to traffic at the indicated site; W. Kirby indicated that those were issues that would be covered at the rime a development plan is tiled Alan Klineman expressed concern that the Plan Commission had made their recommendation based on the designations in the updated Comprehensive Plan; immediately following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and air amendments thereto, the Zoning Ordinances setting zoning districts are to be put into place. The indicated parcel will be designated as a commercial site, even though there is nothing site specific in place. Mr. Klineman was concerned as to what type of office/commercial could be located on this particular parcel, whether it be towers, low-rise, one story, cottage -Type office buildings, etc. Mr. Klineman felt that there was a big difference between the amount of traffic generated and the land of depreciation of property values. Mr. Kirby reiterated that approving the amendment does not open the door to just anything being built at this location; there will be due process. Rick Sharp commented that this particular parcel should be left at its current zoning. The specific area was discussed at the Task Force breakfast meetings as well as meetings of the Plan Commission, and the residential character of the surrounding area was stressed The Rezone is an established method and would be site specific. The property has increased in value as residential; if it were opened to commercial, the value would increase further. It was Mr. Sharp's belief that by not designating the property as commercial, that the property is being devalued —just the reverse, the property would skyrocket in value. Mr. Sharp asked that the Council accept the Plan Commission's initial recommendation. Dick Klar felt that this particular area should be a mixed use with an additional buffer along Springmiil Road and the other residential area If it couldn't be done accordingly, the site should remain residential zoning until a mixed use could be put into place. The 600 foot setback off U.S. 31 is substantial and more than adequate. Rick Sharp moved to restore the original language regarding an office complex in the area north of 96th Street and east of Springmill Road. Alan Klineman moved to Table the motion in order to allow time for the City Council to review its action and recommendation. Rick Sharp then withdrew his motion to restore the original language. Luci Snyder responded to comments from Alan Klineman; there are projects within the Condor which are coming before the Plan Commission and to postpone any action would create difficulties for those projects which have been tabled or delayed to this point. Mr. Klineman stated that by tabling, it was not his intent to do any more than give persons a c:`,minutes\oc\1997 nav chance to "cool down" and think about the issue. Paul Spranger, as chairman of the U.S. 31 Task Force, reported that there was concern expressed from a number of residents in the area at both the Task Force meetings and the last Plan Commission meeting, of Spnngmill Road being adequately buffered so that an otfice park would not appear to encroach not only on Spnngmill Road but give a message that office or commercial would extend west of Spnngmill. W. Spranger felt that a possible solution would be to bisect this particular parcel and that portion to the west would be developed as residential, that portion to the east would be developed as an innovative office park. Mr. Klineman then withdrew his motion to table. Paul Spranger moved that the Plan Commission amend the U.S. 31 Task Force study to include the parcel under discussion, described as the southwest portion of U.S. 31 and I-465, abutting Springmill Road and 96th Street, and that it be bisected (parallel to U.S. 31 and Sprurgnull), the west portion would retrain the current zoning as medium density residential, and the east portion be zoned appropriate to an office park or similar use, but retaining the underlying 600 feet of commercial and retail service —in et%ct two overlays. Point of Clarification: John Molitor stated that the Plan Commission must approve or disapprove the Council's amendment within 60 days. Tim ONeal moved to accept the City Council's recommendation with respect to the 96th and Sprmgrrill Road area. Rick Sharp then moved to table item 6i until the next regularly scheduled meeting; APPROVED (8 in favor, Luci Snyder, Jim ONeal, Paul Spranger, Tom Thompson, and Chris White opposed.) 2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 27-97 P.P., a Primary Plat application for Paul Shoopman. Petitioner seeks approval to plat 279 tots on 153 acres. The site is located south of 121 st Street and north of 116th Street, just east of the intersection of 116th Street and Michigan Road. The site is zoned S-UResidence. Filed by Paul Shoopman. Rick Sharp announced his mTennon to abstain from discussion and voting on Docket No. 27-97 P.P. due to a conflict of interest. Bill Stober, attorney at 8555 North River Road, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant and the development of the proposed Eagle Ridge Subdivision. Also present were Paul Shoopman, Dave Cunningham, Chris Badger of Schneider Engineering and Steve Fehnbach of .&F Engineering. c:\minutesupc\ 1997.may An aerial photograph of the site was displayed showing the 153 acre tract located on the western edge of Carmel. The property is bounded on the south by 116th Street, on the north by 121st Street; to the west side of the property is the Boone County line, to the east side of the property, within one -quarter mile, is Shelbome Road. The property is zoned S-1 as is the abutting Hamilton County property, and to the west, into Boone County, there is a small portion of residential zoning and abutting :vlichigan Road, there is professional office zoning. The aerial photograph reveals Paul Shoopman's home in the site. The property was acquired in 1990 and developed for the Shoopman residence. The proposed plat is for the development of 279 home sites, individually owned, single family residence. .access to the property is from 116th Street, with a second access on the north side at 121st Street. A stub street has been provided to the east property line. Mr. Stober responded to the Department's comments regarding landscaping plan and roadway mprovements. At the time the Shoopman residence was built and the property first developed, there was put into place around the entire perimeter of the site a substantial landscaping plan —the entire border of the 153 acres begins with a wooden, black, horse -type fence which enclosed the entire property; inside the fence are four different lines of vegetation and trees. The intent and purpose is to preserve and leave in place all of the landscaping that can possibly be left in place with the development of the subdivision, and Schneider Engineering will be working closely with the staff of the Department of Community Services to achieve this end. Approximately 7500 trees were put on the property by the Shoopmans when they developed their real estate. In regard to roadway improvements agreed to by the petitioner: The County Highway Department reviewed the project and proposed that the developer should be responsible for both the widening and improvement of 116th Street and 121st Street, and in addition, to remove a "hump" out of 116th Street as it abuts the property; this is not anticipated as an issue and the developer is prepared to do those things at the time of development of the property. Mr. Stober stated that he had received telephone calls from two neighbors: one who owns the "cutout" on 116th Street, and another neighbor who called to talk about the project. No other communications had been received from the neighbors. It was Mr. Stober's belief that the plat had been filed in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and in compliance with the S-1 requirements of the Ordinance at the time the plat was tiled. The petitioner looks forward to Subdivision Committee review on the 3rd of June. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed project. An unidentified person who stated that he was the land owner immediately to the east which abuts the proposed project (Bennett Family Farms), said that he saw nothing wrong with the project and had no problem with it. c:lmmutes\pc\ 1997 may 5 Members of the public were invited to speak in remonstrance to the project; the following appeared: Ron Houck, 315 West 107th Street, Carmel spoke as a member of the Clay West Information Council which represents approximately 800 homeowners. Mr. Houck wanted to remind the Commission that there was nothing in the area of the proposed density with an S-1 zoning. Mr. Houck stated that the plan was clearly tiled alter the adoption of the 2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan; although there may not be a clear consensus in terms of agreement for everything in the Comprehensive Plan, it is in effect today, passed by City Council. It was An Houck's belief that the proposed project was not in compliance with the intent of residential homes in the subject are& Also, it was Mr. Houck's understanding that the developer was issued a Docket number on the day of the adoption of the S-1 Ordinance and although there may be some legal question regarding "grandfathering," the Comprehensive Plan spoke to this very clearly. The Comprehensive Plan has guided development in Clay West for a number of years prior to the adoption of any change in the S-1 Ordinance. Mr. Houck referred to other states in which there had been disagreements about the governing piece of legislation or planning document that should guide development --other states have case law to present the fact that where ordinances are "out - of -step" with planning documents, the planning document does in fact represent the will of the community and is given more credence than an ordinance that was in effect at the time. The S-1 Ordinance as amended was the dust effort in the history of the community to bring the ordinance into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The governing density dictated by the 1991 Comprehensive Plan was for S- I to be developed at 1.5 units per acre. The proposed project looks like a typical grid system and is not innovative planning. Mr. Houck stated that the Comprehensive Plan is clearly the governing document and should be looked to for guidance. Wendy Brant spoke as a representative of concerned groups of Boone County citizens. A major item of concern is the traffic impact at the intersection of 421 and 334 which will already be handling a great deal of traffic due to the enlargement of the Presbyterian Church. With the construction of the subdivision, there will be more tratfic flowing west to the corridor into Indianapolis, and into Zionsville. ifs. Brant asked the Commission to consider the safety factor of the increased number cars at an intersection which is a major corridor into Zionsville. Carl Terry, 4150 West 116th Street, located immediately east of the proposed site, stated a major concern with drainage. Mr. Terry stated that the drawings show a 27 inch storm sewer going through his property to Long Branch Creek, but that the storm water will be draining to the north end of his property which the Creek goes through, and his property will flood. Mr. Terry reported that at the time Mr. Shoopman received approval for the construction of lakes on his property, Mr. Shoopman promised not to till in the flood plain; Mr. Shoopman tilled in all the flood plain up to nis property line, and at present, the water builds up on Mr. Terrys property. Mr. Terry requested that the drainage matters be resolved. Karen Terry, 4250 West l 16th Street, agreed with her father, Carl Terry, and stated that the c:\minutes\pc\1997 may drainage is a major concern. The storm sewer also goes through her property and her back yard floods during a heavy rain. Allison Brown, 600 West 106th Street, expressed concern regarding the density of the proposed project and the increased traffic tied to the density figures. Ronald Biggs, 4422 West 1 l6th Street, stated that he is the "cutout" shown on the aerial photo, 5.65 acres, and surrounded on three sides by Mr. Shoopman Mr. Biggs stated that he has lived in the property for 32 years and took up residence at a time when the zoning was one unit per 5 acre and thought it would remain low density housing. W. Biggs agreed with the previous speakers regarding the traffic issue. Mr. Biggs stated that a wetland had been created and that there may be some infringement on wetland destruction which should be considered. Also, since Mr. Biggs' property is adjacent to Mr. Shoopman's, an acceleration lane would cut into the front of Mr. Biggs' property and he was not in favor. Mr. Biggs felt that if Mr. Shoopman would move the entrance to the proposed development farther west, an acceleration lane could fit entirely onto theShoopman site. Dave Clemm, 11985 Greenfield Road, on the northwest corner of the proposed development, stated that it was depressing to think that a subdivision of this density was in his future when he had not planned for it. Mr. Clemm stated that he had offered to buy some property from Mr. Shoopman to provide a buffer, but Mr. Shoopman would not sell. Mr. Clemm was in favor of Mowing down or stopping the development altogether. Mr. Thompson stated that the Plan Commission had received a letter from the Boone County Commissioners expressing some concern about proceeding with the development and indicating that they had not approved a commercial development to the west of the subject site wholly because of the traffic hazards which would be created at the intersection_ The Boone County Commissioners formally requested that the Plan Commission give consideration to public safety as the proposed development is reviewed. At this time, the Boone County Commissioners are concerned that approval prior to roadway improvements in place would create a public safety hazard. A letter (with photographs) was also received from John and Janice Kielty expressing opposition to the project. Mr. Stober responded that the remarks from the remonstrators seemed to fall into two issues of drainage and traffic, these items will be fully addressed at Subdivision Committee, however, the project has been reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and the applicant has worked with the County Surveyor on storm drainage. A&F Engineering has submitted a traffic report which does recognize the improvements taking place in the area. The Comprehensive Plan has recommended one unit per acre density; the S- i Ordinance, however, is the proper measure of the density. It is important to note that Mr. Shoopman purchased the ground some time ago, c: Vminutes\pc11997. may s developed it and moved his family in residence, always with the intention of subdividing the remainder of the 153 acres. It is also true that Paul Shoopman was a leader in resisting a proposal to develop an intense retail commercial shopping center immediately west of the subject site at 116th Street and Michigan Road —the effort is to preserve the residential character. The opportunity is to create a subdivision where the developer is a resident of the subdivision. The public hearing was then closed. Mark Monroe reported that the Department had three major points of review: 1. The project complied with the S-1 Ordinance requirements which were intact when the project was tiled and docketed. The project was filed and docketed before the City Council amended the S-1 Ordinance to limit density in this particular area. '-. The Department has not received written confirmation from the petitioner that: a) the landscape plan will be preserved as it currently exists; b) the roadway improvements would be completed during construction as presented this evening. 3. The Department has not received written confirmation from the County Surveyor's office that the drainage plan is adequate as proposed. The Department is recommending that the project proceed to the Subdivision Committee for further review. Many of the items brought out this evening could be addressed tonight. Paul Spranger asked about the relocation of the lakes, Mr. Stober responded that there would be a realignment of the lakes in connection with the storm drainage as shown on the site plan. Paul Spranger also asked about any bike paths or walking paths around the existing lakes; Mr. Stober responded that none was planned. Tom Thompson asked about any recreational facilities for the development; Mr. Stober reported that none is planned —no swimming pool, tennis courts, etc. Docket No. 27-97 PP, a Primary Plat application for Paul Shoopman was referred to Subdivision Committee which will meet June 3rd in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. 3h Commission to consider Docket No. 25-97 P.P., Amend., an amended Primary Plat application for Saddle Creek Development. Petitioner seeks approval to amend the approved primary plat (Sections 1-4) using the Residennal Open Space Ordinance. The site is located at the northwest corner of 136th Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S-1 /Residence. Filed by Jeff Kennelly of Saddle Creek Development, Jeff Kennelly, 123 Village Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The Primary Plat for Saddle Creek Development was approved approximately one year ago by the Plan Commission. Tate infrastructure for the first 65 lots has been installed. Pulte Homes has been selected to build the homes in Saddle Creek. cArnmutempc11997 may Patrick Beirne of Pulte Homes of Indiana ; 1711 North Pennsylvania Street, Carmel introduced himself to the Commission. Pulte Homes is considered the largest residential builder in the country and builds semi -custom to custom homes. The market profile is for semi -custom to custom homes at affordable prices. Pulte Homes looks for high amenity communities and all those things that go into Saddle Creek. Jeff Kennelly repotted that Section I thru 4 is located on the northwest corner of 136th Street and Ditch Road and is being submitted as an amendment to the original primary plat which was approved under the Residential Open Space Ordinance. The approved plat is being amended to add 5 additional lots in order to replace the 5 fits which were reserved as a contingency space for recreation area in the event the 120 acre north parcel did not receive plat approval. Since the 120 acres was approved on October 16 with the recreational area incorporated therein, the 5 lots can now be replaced in Section I thru 4. The amended plat is certified to be in hill compliance with the development standards set forth in the Open Space Ordinance as well as all other standards of the S-I Zoning District of Carmel/Clay Township. Basically, approval is being sought to change the approved plat from 122 lots to 127 lots. Under .he Residential Open Space Ordinance, there is a limit as to the allowable density; Mr. Kennelly reported that according to a site plan, Saddle Creek was allowed 153 lots under straight S- l zoning standards. Saddle Creek feels that the amendment is in order and requests that the Plan Commission approve the amendment to add 5 additional lots in Section 1 through 4 Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed project; none appeared and the public hearing was closed. Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending that the project proceed to the Subdivision Committee for further review. Mr. Monroe reported that item li. on the Agenda was the other half of this particular subdivision- A revised plan had been received for the second half and the Department would like the entire project reviewed as one, including sections l through 4 and 5 through 11, at the Subdivision Cotnaurtee on Jun 3rd. Docket No. 28-97 PP Amend, an amended Primary Plat application for Saddle Creek Development was referred to the Subdivision Committee which will meet June 3rd in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, NOTE: Items 4h. and 5h. were heard together. 41L Commission to consider Docket No. 30-97 DP/ADLS, a Development Plan, architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage applications for Days Inn. Petitioner seeks approval to construct a 40,000 square foot hotel on 2 acres. The site is located on the east side of Michigan Road, one lot north of the intersection of 97th Street. The site is zoned B-6/Business and is located within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone. c:',minutestpc\1997 may 10 Filed by Vi-mal Patel. 5h. Commission to consider Docket No. 31-97 PV, a plat vacation application for Vitttal Patel. Petitioner seeks approval to vacate 3 lots of the Notch Augusta Subdivision. The site is located on the east side of Michigan Road, one lot north of the intersection of 97th Street. The site is zoned B-6Business and is located within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Vimal Patel. Ron Hansen, attorney, Indianapolis, appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also in attendance were D.S. Patel, Chan Patel, and Trent Baxter of SCI Engineering. The project involves 2.066 acres north of the intersection U.S. 421 (Michigan Road) and I-165, in Clay Township. The parcel consists of three, 100X300 foot lots on the east side of 421, in the North Augusta Subdivision, Section 2. There is an existing residence on lot 5, lots 6 and 7 are wooded and have never been developed. To the north is an occupied residence, and a Tack and Saddlery shop to the south. Mr. Hansell reported that in October, 1996, the subject site was rezoned to B-6Business. The proposed use is lodging and limited conference room space for what is to be called the Days Inn Suites, consisting of 67 rooms, 10 parking spaces, containing 39,450 square feet, height will be three stories not to exceed 40 feet, wooden frame is anticipated. Water service will be Indianapolis Water Company, sewer by the Clay Township Regional Waste District. The plat vacation is essentially to create one tract of land 300X300 feet. The real estate has been rezoned B-6iBusiness; the subject real estate and the adjoining properties have been designated as a potential commercial development in the master plan and the tVtichigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone. The property immediately to the south of the subject site, lots 8 and 9, were rezoned B-2 for commercial use. The property immediately to the north is existing resrdential, designated for future commercial development and use, but as yet, has not been rezoned as such. The owners of lot 4 to the north have submitted a letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals indicating their acquiescence in a waiver of the setback requirement for existing residential uses, and have indicated their interest in future commercial development of their lot No. 4 in the plat. Mr. Hansell stated that Michigan Road is being improved and expanded in the immediate area of the surrounding properties. The conditions in and around the real estate have significantly changed so as to defeat the original purpose of the plat, and it is in the public interest to vacate all or part of the plat, and that the value of the pan of the plat not owned by the applicant will not be diminished by the vacation of the pan of the plat herein requested. Trem Baxter, Baxter and Set Engineering, site development engineers for the project, commented that a circular -type entrance was coordinated with the landscape pond; parking is provided for 85 vehicles, including handicap space. For drainage purposes, the area seems to be a common drain for the surrounding areas. The Days Inn Suites has incorporated not only the 2.07 acre site but c:lrninutes\pc\ 1997. may 11 the additional ? 12 acres of off site drainage that will be running through the Days Inn storm water structure to the back of the parking area - Mr. Baxter reported that the lighting for the parking area is a down type, half -globe which will not produce any unwanted glare and will not exceed point one foot candle at the property line. The landscaping plan includes a six foot tall shadow box fence along the north, east, and south property lines. There are numerous trees and shrubs planned; red maple, green ash, ornamental trees, Hawthorne, Mountain Ash and Serviceberry, as well as barberry, Texas Scarlet and Butterfly bush. The front landscaping includes three fountains within the pond. Signage: 73 square feet typical of the Days Inn Hotels. Mr. Hansell stated that the shadow box fence is proposed to be eight feet in height. The petitioner is seeking a variance from the Board of Zoning appeals on May 27 involving the waiver of 120 feet in height on the north side to the adjacent property; the landscape reduction from 20 feet to 10 feet, a variance is also being requested for the lot size minimum requirement for the Overlay Zone to 2.066 acres rather than the 3 acre requirement. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed project; none appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed property; the following appeared: Brian Shapiro, 4610 Woodhaven Drive, Zionsville, Hamilton County, stated that a group of Zionsville residents had followed the proposed project through the TAC review and now public hearing. The Zionsville residents did not have a problem with a suite hotel being built at this location, however, there was a concern with the architectural style, drainage, and the proposed variances in regard to the landscaping and setbacks. The preference of the Zionsville residents would be a Federal, Georgian, or Colonial Style project and the Days Inn developers had assured the Zionsville residents that they probably could be accommodated. Mr. Shapiro stated that the project had very little brick, was mostly dryvit, and has a blue root. The Zionsville residents are asking for some coordination of structure and style in keeping with the ZionsvilleiCarmel/Clay West corridor and are quite concerned about the architecture of the new structures being brought onto the marketplace. The edmination of some of the landscaping is felt to be detrimental to the aesthetics and over a period of time, will only worsen. The drainage is a dennite problem in the area; Mr. Shapiro also stated that he was bothered by the fact that the project of two acres goes against the Ordinance of 3 acres. James Wesley White, a resident of the immediate area for 41 years, stated that he was concerned about drainage at this particular site. The proposed site was once owned by WakeUp Oil Company who spent thousands of dollars surveying and trying to get rid of the water. The water is a major concern and Mr. White wanted to know what was pr000sed to alleviate the drainage situation. c:\minutes\pcu1997 may l2 Paull Lande, 3714 West 97th Street, seven houses from the proposed Days Intl was opposed to the project by reason of drainage and the increased traffic the Days Inn will bring. Mr. Lande asked that the Plan Commission please consider the neighbors. Linda Anstrom, 3737 West 98th Street, stated that she is a neighbor of Mr. White's and agues with previous comments made regarding drainage which is really bad also, Ms. Anstrom agreed with comments regarding traffic and stated that the project is the most ridiculous thing she has ever seen proposed! The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Hansen stated that the applicant is aware of major drainage concerns with this project; the site does act as a common drainway for many of the surrounding neighbors. The petitioner has looked for a way to take all the neighboring water through their storm water structure which was designed to handle a 100 year storm; in addition, :here are improvements coming to Michigan Road which include a storm sewer, and a temporary pumping system will be utilized to keep the proposed site low enough to drain the neighbors until the storm sewer is available, then the site will gravity feed to the new structure. Mark Monroe of the Department confirmed that the petitioner is seeking a number of variances from the Board of Zoning appeals for building setbacks, reduction of landscaped area on the north property line, and one for the reduction of lot size. Drainage is a major concern on this project. At Technical Advisory Committee review, the County Surveyor reported that a temporary pumping system or mechanical means of drainage on this site is unacceptable. The Department has met with the petitioner and discussed access; it is quite possible that the northeast comer of 97th Street and Michigan Road could develop as retail or some other commercial development; the southeast and northeast comer of 98th Street and Michigan Road could also develop in a commercial manner. The Department would like to avoid 3 or 4 curb cuts along Michigan Road in this area. There is probably a workable solution to accommodate all the lots between 97th and 98th Streets into some type of access plan. Pending the resolution of the concerns expressed, the Department recommends that the project proceed to Special Study Committee. Commissioner Paul Spranger was concerned about the reduction in lot size from the 3 acre minimum —that leaves the corridor at risk for a piece meal development. Sam Rincker asked about the actual number of trees being cut down; the response was that many of the trees are small caliper in nature; approximately 29 new trees will be added at the time the shadow box fence is constructed. The petitioner did not think this was an issue; all the trees are to be cut down. Luci Snyder asked if the site would accommodate a retention pond —the site is small. Mark c:Vminutes\pc\1997 may l3 Monroe responded that at one time, the plan did incivae a small pond on the east side of the property with a mechanical means of pumping the water out of the pond —this was unacceptable to the County Surveyor's otfice. The Department has encouraged the petitioner to acquire more property to accommodate drainage; tree preservation; and other issues that could be resolved. Mr. D. S. Patel appeared before the Commission to respond to Luci Snyder's comments. Mr. Patel stated that he is involved in the Days inn project and also works for the State of Indiana. Mr. Pate also stated that he has been involved in Carmel planning since 1977, through the Carmel Wastewater..r. Patel stated that the only problem he can see with the project is with the drainage. There is no drainage Swale or ditches in the area or storm sewer. The 421 expansion will include a 36 inch diameter pipe for the storm sewer. The only thing to be done is to increase the diameter of pipe to take care of the drainage for the entire area. Rick Sharp asked the current plan and whether or not there are a number of changes over what was initially proposed at the rezone stage. Mark Monroe responded that there was no detail presented at the rezone stage; however, there were a number of commitments made by the petitioner, including the maximum height of the hotel, installation of the fence on the east property line, and the installation of the accel/decel lanes along Michigan Road, etc. Rick Sharp asked that the Department make the rezone file available at the Special Study Committee for comparison of concepVreality. Tom Thompson asked for a better description of the signage; the petitioner responded that the sign is pylon, maximum height of 7 feet on a post. Paz Rice asked about the color of the roof, Chan Patel responded that it will not be a blue roof, however they are still working with a designer for an overall color scheme. Docket No. 30-97 DP/ADLS, a Development Plan, architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage applications for Days Inn was referred to the Special Study Committee which will meet Tuesday, June 3rd in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Regarding Docket No. 31-97 PV, a plat vacation for Vimal Patel, members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the plat vacaton; none appeared and the public hearing was closed. There were no comments from Plan Commission memoers and Docket No. 31-97 PV, a plat vacation for Vimal Patel was referred to the Speciai Study Committee which will meet Tuesday, June')rd in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. Item 6h was classified as New Business and will be heard later in the proceedings. , :lmmutempc\ 1997 may 14 71L Commission to consider Docket Nos. 33-97 DP/ADLS and 34-97 SP, a Development Plan, .architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage, and Secondary Plat applications for Duncan Video. Petitioner seeks approval to construct 18,000 square feet of office and warehousing space on 4 acres of land_ The site is located at the northwest corner or Guilford avenue and Adams Street. The site is zoned M-3/Manufacturing. Filed by fret Nelson of Nelson and Frankenberger. Tim Nelson, 3661 Brumley Way, Carmel appeared before the Commission representing John and Karen Beremen. .also present was Paul Meyer of American Consulting Engineers. John and Karen Beremen are the owners of Duncan Video Inc. and have selected a small parcel of land in Carmel Science and Technology Park as the new corporate home for Duncan Video. The Development Plan includes a single story, 18,000 square foot building for Duncan Video. Duncan Video provides design, sales, installation, integration, service and training for broadcasts, production, and industrial video products and systems. Their market area is the State of Indiana and a 150 mile radius of the City of Indianapolis. Locally, their customers include TV Stations Channels 4, 6, 8, and 13. From the corporate side, Thomson Consumer Electronics, Eli Lily, and colleges and universities such as DePauw and Butler. The subject site lies within the Carmel Science & Technology Park near the intersection of Carmel Drive and Guilford, at the northwest comer of Guilford and Adams. The parcel is approximately 4 acres in size and zoned M-3 Industrial. The eastern part of the site is heavily wooded and the development plan contemplates the preservation of the greater pan of the existing wooded area. The building will front on Guilford and the only point of ingress and egress will be from Adams Street. The building is 18,000 square feet, single story, and has a maximum height of 24 feet. The building materials are scored, spilt -face block, dryvit and glass. The colors are light grey with blue trim and blue glass. There is one sign which is a ground sign with the Duncan logo and the common address of the building, 11202 Adams Street. The parking area is located to the front of the building will serve the corporate officers, the parting along the side will serve employee and service area parking. The loading area is to the west end of the building. Plan material has been provided around the perimeter of the property, at the entrance, and around the building The lighting plan is a shoebox style dxture, bronze in color, a 20 foot pole mounted on a two foot stone base, :he light bulb does not protrude below the bottom of the shoebox and meets the footcandle requirement of point one. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed project, the following appeared: Allison Brown 600 West 106th Street, was complimentary of the planner and efforts to save the trees in an industrial zoning. c:\minutesupcu1997 may 15 Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed project; none appeared and the public heating was closed. Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval of the project. Upon motion made by Jim ONeal, the rules were suspended in order to vote on this Docket. Tim ONeal moved for the approval of Docket Nos. 3. -97 DP/ADLS and 34-97 S.P., for Duncan Video, MOTION APPROVED I3-0. 8h. Docket No. 35-97 DP Amend/ADLS Amend for Matthews, Click, Revel, and Henry was TABLED BY THE PETITIONER 9h. Commission to consider Docket No. 39-97 OA, an ordinance amendment to regulate the siting of wireless facilities, including, but not limited to, towers, antennae, and satellite dishes. Filed by the Plan Commission. John Molitor, Counsel, presented the Ordinance Amendment to regulate the siting of wireless facilities. Cellular phones and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio devices, ("ESMR") as well as Personal Communicanon Services, ("PCS") are in the muddle of the electro-magnetic spectrum (just above radioiTV and just below microwave.) Under the Federal Telecommunications legal changes, the PCS part of the spectrum has been auctioned onto many companies across the country and those firms are coming in asking for approval to locate towers or antennae within the community. There are three different types of Antennae: whip, panel, and dish; there are two different types of towers: the lattice and the monopole. A "flower tower" is an existing structure such as a lighting structure, with panel antennae on top. There are also building attached facilities, six or eight story buiidings will accommodate many of the antennae near the top of the building. The Federal Telecommunications Act was passed in February, 1996 and attempts to balance the interest of the service provider within the local communities and also precludes the FCC from pre- empting State and local regulation of siting decisions. The Federal Act provides for: 1) Non-discrimination among service providers. _) Service cannot be prohibited in your community. 3) Whether or not a particular tower or antennae is allowed can be determined on a case -by -case basis, but a denial decision cannot be allowed based on the radio trequency hazard. The Federal Government decided that if the towers and antennae complied with FCC standards, they were safe and local government should not be making that decision. 4) Local officials must rule within a reasonable amount of time, as vet undefined. � 1 Under the Federal law (which also conforms to State law), local otiicials must provide a Nntten reasons for c:`,mmutes\pct 1997.may E any denial decision. 6) Appeals from decisions of local officials are entitled to be taken to Court Mr. Molitor went on to explain three tiers of regulations in regard to the antennae and towers which work within the existing processes with the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Plan Commission. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed Ordinance amendment; none appeared. Member of the public were invited to speak in remonstrance to the proposed Amendment; the following appeared: Ron Houck, 315 West 107th Street, Carmel, questioned the location of towers at will in any commercially zoned area and implies a free standing structure. Mr. Houck asked if there was any provision for the granting of a utility easement on existing commercial development so that there is not a free standing structure and it can be incorporated into commercial development such as the top of a building. John Mohtor responded to Mr. Houck's comments: There has been nothing prepared along the Lines of an easement; there are tremendous incentives for building owners, particularly high rise, to make available their buildings. If the antennae is appropriately camouflaged or is visually unobtrusive, ao approval will be required in a commercial district; if it is in a residential district, approval would still be required, but would be a Special Use type of approval and would go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The public hearing was then closed. Tom Thompson reported that PSI indicated that they may have an opportunity to present possible locations for antennae. Mark Monroe concurred and stated that the Department had accommodated some of their proposals within the proposed Ordinance under permitted uses; anytime an antennae would want to locate on an existing utility pole, it could be done as a permitted use. In a way, the utilities' wishes have already been addressed. Rick Sharp asked the definition of "visually unobtrusive" and who makes that determination. John Molitor responded that a special definition for that term was not provided —in a residential area, it would be up to the Board of Zoning Appeals to make that determination. 1n the commercial areas, it would be an administrative determination by the Director. Jay Dorman commented that it was his understanding that additional cellular licenses had been gamed in this area. Mr. Dorman questioned if a PCS broadcast signal was compatible with a cellular tower, in other words, can they both reside on the same pole? John Molitor thought there was no reason why they couldn't share the same tower, however, they cannot be closer than perhaps 10 to 20 feet from one another, but that would apply to any competitor. c:Vnmures\pc\I997 may 17 -Alan Klineman reported that 9 people had been granted licenses for PCS over the Carmel/Clay area in addition to the existing cellular licensees. Jay Dorman was looking for a defined vendor population and perhaps fix a maximum of antennae structures which could be placed in the community. John Molitor stated that it was conceivable that there could be over 100 of these throughout the township/community. (either towers or 100 different location for antennae. City and Township properties are exempt from the Zoning Ordinance; City and Township facilities are essentially a free area in terms of this Ordinance, subject to the approval only of the Board of Public Works and City and Township outside the City limits. Tom Thompson asked for another meeting of the Task Force to look at provisions for clustering or co -locating and the sue of the monopoles and locations. The Task Force will meet Thursday morning, May 29th at 7 00 AM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. A special meeting of the Plan Commission was scheduled prior to the Committee meetings on June 3rd in Council Chambers in order to finalize the Amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. L Old Business: li. Commission to consider Docket No. 12-97 PP Amend, an amended Primary Plat application for Saddle Creek Development Petitioner seeks approval to amend the approved primary plat using the Residential Open Space Ordinance. The site is located at the northwest corner of 141st Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S- I /Residence. Filed by Jeff Kennelly of Saddle Creek Development. JefKennelly, 123 Village Drive, Carmel appeared before the Commission requesting a amendment to the approved plat for Saddle Creek, Sections 5 through 11. This item was tabled by Mr. Kennelly for 30 days in an etfort to revise the plan. A revised plan was submitted to the Department of Commtfniry Services on May 13 for their review IF a revised plan would be submitted this evening. Mr. Kennelly reported that Pulte Homes wanted to commence construction as soon as possible, and no revisions or changes to the amendment would be submitted either now or in the future. Mr. Kennelly stated that the pennon was in full compliance with the Zoning Laws and Ordinances of Carmel/Clay Township, and although it had received a negative recommendation from the Subdivision Committee, the petitioner is asking for approval of the amendment as presented at the :March 18. 1997 Plan Commission meeting. Dave Cremeans reported that the Subdivision Committee could Lind no basis for approving the requested additional lots and the Committee had voted unanimously to deny recommendation for approval. c:lminuteslpc�1997 may 18 Mr. Thompson commented that a major reason for concern was that the higher density would place this particular subdivision out of context with the remainder of development and character of the area Mark Monroe reported that there are two findings of fact: one pertains to the Open Space application; the second pertains to the Primary Plat application. After some discussion, Docket No. 12-97 PP Amend, was referred to the Subdivision Committee for re -review at its meeting on June 3rd at 7:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Ha11 2i. Commission to consider Docket No. 14-97 Z, a rezone application for Bill Greenwood. Petitioner seeks to rezone less than one acre of property from R-/2Residence to R- 3/Residence to allow for a two-fanady dwelling. The site is located at 240 2nd Street INE. The site is zoned R-2/Residence. Filed by Bill Greenwood. Bill Greenwood, 31 1 Fifth Street NE, Carmel appeared before the Commission requesting a rezone of property located at 240 2nd Street from R-2/Residence to R-3/Residence. Mr. Greenwood maintains the construction of the proposed duplex is compatible with the area and current homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Greenwood stated that 150 feet due west from the proposed site, one could look to the north and south and view 7 duplexes in the area, plus single family homes that are rentals. Mr. Greenwood stated that the proposed duplex is consistent with the area and requested approval of the rezone. Rick Sharp reported that the principal question regarding the petition had been the character of the neighborhood; the Committee felt that the proposed construction would not detract but rather would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. The Committee is recommending approval. Mark Monroe reported that the Department had recommended denial of the rezone based on two reasons from a land use perspective. Many homes in the area are single family —very few "two family dwellings." The subject site is between a zoning district that is allows two family dwellings to the west and single family to the east; the subject parcel is a part of the single family zoned area of Old Town Carmel and the rezone is felt to be inappropriate for the indicated area Luci Snyder said she had visited the area and talked to the residents, all of whom were in favor of the proposed two family dwelling. Jay Dorman also had favorable continents regarding the proposed construction. Rick Sharp moved for the approval of Docket No. 14-97 Z. Bill Greenwood Rezone; APPROVED 12 in favor, Paul Spranger opposed. c:`,minutes\oc\l997 may IL•7 3i. Commission to consider Docket No. 19-97 PP, a Primary Plat application for Pittman Partners. Petitioner seeks approval to plat 47 lots on 20 acres using the Residential Open Space Ordinance. The petitioner also has tiled a corresponding Primary Plat application to subdivide the property using the S-2/Residence development standards. In addition, several variances of the Subdivision Regulations are being requested including: a) Variance of Section 6.3.6 to reduce the required street width from 30 feet to 26 feet and the required right-of-way from 50 feet to 40 feet. b) Variance of Section 6.3.7 to allow cul-de-sacs with a "hammerhead" configuration. c) Variance of Section 6.3.20 to allow for private streets. d) Variance of Section 6.3.22 to eliminate the passing blister (if property cannot be obtained). e) Variance of Section 33.4.05 to reduce the required minimum aggregate side yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. The site is located at the northwest corner of 111 Street and Springmill Road. The site is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by Steve Pittman of Pittman Parmers. Steve Pittman, 10469 Spring 11ighland Drive, Carmel appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the two plans and unanimously recommended the utilization of the Residential Open Space Ordinance and the approval of the variances. There was considerable discussion regarding the variance for the private streets. The County required private streets in order to allow hammerhead cul-de-sacs. The Committee unanimously approved the private streets with the condition that should the property become annexed within the next Live years, the applicant will petition Carmel's Board of Public Works to take the streets into their system and they would be dedicated as City streets; the applicant is willing to comply with this condition. Dave Cremeans reported that the Subdivision Committee did have considerable discussion concerning the private streets. There was a question regarding Variance 6.3._21 the passing blister, and Mr. Pittman also agreed that if the ground should become available within the next rive vears, Mr. Pittman will install the passing blister. Based on the conditions set forth, the committee unanimously recommended approval. Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval pending the Subdivision Committee's requests being placed in writing in commitment form for approval. Dave Cremeans moved for the approval of Docket Yo. 19-97 PP for Pittman Partners, CONDITIONED upon the private streets being petitioned to the Board of Public Works to be c:lminutes\pct 1997. may 20 turned over to the City if annexed within the next five vears, FURTHER CONDITIONED upon Variance 6.3.7-2 being eliminated if the ground becomes available within the next five years on the east side of Spnng Mill across from the entrance to Williams Mill, the pentioner agrees to construct a passing blister, APPROVED with conditions, li in favor, none opposed. 4i. Docket No. 20-97 DP Amend/ADLS Amend., an amended Development Plan and amended Architectural Design for Matthews, Click, Revel, and Henry was TABLED BY THE PE=ONER. 5i. Commission to consider Docket No. 21-97 DP/ADLS, a Development Plan and Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage applications for Marsh and Village Pantry. Petitioner seeks approval to construct an 84,000 square foot grocery store and a 5,000 square foot convenience center on 15 acres. The site is located at the northeast corner of 106th Street and U.S. 421. The site is zoned B-2Business and is located within the U.S. 421 Overiay Zone. Filed by Jim Nelson of Nelson and Frankenberger. Jim Nelson appeared before the Commission and reported that the Special Study Committee had r1mewed this matter on May 6. All the specific items requested to be addressed were addressed and the Committee voted a favorable recommendanon. Rick Sharp reported that the Special Study Committee had discussed outside storage, cum lanes, and the orientation of the building. All concerns were addressed —the orientation of the building seemed to be the best for all concerned in terms of buffering the planned and current residential neighborhoods —and the project received a unanimous recommendation for approval. Since the Committee meeting, a concern had been expressed regarding the roof of the convenience center and this had not been explored. Mark :Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval of the project as resubmitted (land resubmitted.) Dave Cremeans asked about the issue concerning the pitch of the root, Rick Sharp responded that he had been contacted today with the comment that the flat roof line might be felt to be unattractive and that perhaps a pitched roof would be more desirable. Rick Sharp felt that the roof was not an issue and he had no Droblem with the design as is. Jim Nelson responded that he had no prior knowledge of any continents on the roof until 4:00 PM this afternoon; however, the design referred to has been rendered obsolete by Marsh because the pitch root does not function well with the covered gas canopy, it is too costly to construct and c:`,mmutestoc11997 may maintain, but more importantly, it is simply not functional to the new style of covered gas canopies. Upon formal motion made by Rick Sharp, Docket No. 21-97 DP/ADLS, for Marsh and Village Pantry was APPROVED 13 in favor, none opposed. 6i. Cotnnussion to reconsider amendments to the U.S. 31 Corridor Plan (Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Docket No. 16-97 C.P.) Referred to the Plan Commission by the City Council. TABLED BY THE PLAN COMMISSION 7i. Commission to consider Docket No. 88-96 O.A., a zoning ordinance amendment to require that lots abutting or fronting on [Hain thoroughfares be required to gain access from that [Hain thoroughfare by means of an alley or frontage place. Filed by the Plan Commission. Mark Monroe of the Department of Community Services reported that the Subdivision Committee had met prior to the full Commission meeting this evening and had recommended seven amendments to this particular ordinance. 1) The approval of the absence of curbs along the alleyways, but there would be curbs along the frontage place roads that would face the primary streets. 3) Disallowing parking along the alleyways unless the cars were in garages or next to the garage, essentially on private property, otherwise no parking. 3) The inclusion or a hammerhead design cul-de-sac which might allow for 3 or 4 additional lots at the end or a frontage place. 4) On those lots not necessarily facing the street (for instance, the side of the house [night face the street), some type of buffer would be required along the street identical to the buffer or street scape planted along the frontage place. 5) The frontage places would be either public or private and similar to alleyways that are allowed to be either public or private. 6) Fencing would not be allowed within the frontage place area —no fence would be allowed in front of the house; OR 7) If the location was the option which allowed a :0 foot buffer between the street and the lot, there would be no fence allowed within the buffer as well. Mark Monroe reported that the Department is recommending approval of the Ordinance with the aforesaid amendments, pending Plan Commission's approval. In response to questions from Tom Thompson, Mark Monroe reported that the changes that were made at the .May oth meeting were changes recommended by the development community. The Department has addressed many if not all the concerns of the development community. Dave Cremeans asked about the construction of the frontage place roads; Mark Monroe responded that the frontage place roaas will be constructed either to City or County standards, c:',mututes= 1997:nay depending on whether or not they are inside the City limits of Carmel. Upon formal motion made by Paul Spranger and duly seconded, Docket No. 88-96 O.A., Frontage Place Ordinance was APPROVED 13-0. J. New Business Commission to consider DocketNo. 32-97 DP Amend/ADLS .amend, an amended Development Plan and amended .Axchitecturai Design, Lighting, Landscaping, and Signage applications for Conseco. Petitioner seeks approval to construct a 105,000 square foot building on approximately 9 acres. The site is located on the north side of College Drive, within the existing Conseco complex The site is zoned B-2/13usiness. Filed by Robert Olson of CSO Architects and Engineers. Robert Olson of CSO Engineers, 9100 Keystone Crossing, Suite 200, Indianapolis 46240 appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. .approval is being sought for an amended Development Plan and ADLS amendment for a new otHce/conference center to be located on the Conseco campus. John White, vice president of Conseco, was also in attendance as well as Alan Tucker of CSO Architects. .approximately 80,000 square teet of the proposed building will be office space, and the balance will be conference center and meeting rooms to be used by Conseco for training facilities for new product lines. There would be very rare occasions in which Conseco would bus in a maximum of 150 persons from either the airport or surrounding hotels to utilize the conference center. The Ordinance requires 266 parking spaces; a total of 419 have been provided. To the west of the building will be a patio area with trees, on the east side of the building will be a service drive with a dock/loading area for the drop-off of product materials. Most all buildings in the Conseco campus are the same and consist of two story buildings with a fiat root; gey, precast panels v4 h metal frames and bluetgrey window tint. There will be an entrance to the north which will exit into the new parking area - Mark Monroe reported that the property is zoned B-? Business and not M-3 as stated in the Agenda. Pan of the Conseco campus straddles the Meridian Technology Center as well as the Carmel Science & Technology Park which are zoned two different ways and have two different approval processes. The instant case only requires ,DLS approval by the Commission and is not a public hearing. There are not outstanding TAC issues. Upon motion made by Paul Spranger and duly seconded, Docket No. 32-97 DP Amend/ADLS c:Ia=utes\oc,1997 may amend, for Conseco was approved :3-0. There being no durther business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:53 PM CARMEIXLAY PLAN CONMSSION RN Ramona Hancock, Secretary c:'minutes�pct 1997. may H. IC Thompson President '` r � F 1 mil•' �6^ it�E�%e'�^y�'q^��•6qqt { . +r's +i'hyYr :? f .Y - -.' : .� a, �� • t .� t + � r✓. ` `�7F`1�.A,� °-ate..' t.'�0 + - 1'0, -g��1."'a. t �'4eij �•-{. ; 'ryl s �•, 71 F' ) ✓ ¢lyif• AN �.( d�tr� �t _� � ��, �+r .�r� y7, f °•a. 1 a.� !' ?� r � x t ♦'jam C A t -1. r±a 17L ` fl- mL Ir r y 'i r • .� ry^ r .V'`E .i• C. +1i` 1 YiI + 1�L �r S � � C 6' l' _ r ., •tiai "4 �:a 4 33 r k' r• �'. � �3t' r i rQ vk. t- . .af� • S:r� lryf +Z. 'ti , {- d �i-.."� i i•;5` t � �.7r"r`iA'a SZ�,S, v »v '+r i t t +� q' � •>� i yy � 7r• r 8tk `�K�'1 M q3 a -.,9 ti,(a, ri i ! 4�i � Ct $. r Yr r �' r r r - rac �- ?�tY�.rr x; ..• ' - .p°>�` r:fl f f. a � y - '`�'!� ',� : r �}�„�+�5'`�V " ••; Si - �r {• t ' .:� ��R✓> .7�� y • i .. -.}{ a• x�} �f �M <r qf.v � ., > ; � j.�. +y, 14 �n rs 'F � J'�'F 'P � �a�y�'1 �a�r[ � �'T'�i 'rh� x C•'ti �i^fa�'?F '� pp rr•�r. d• d .LL ! }t ro C �r1 s. _) ��1y��• IMa � MS'. i•}f}+, . 1 '� KS tt +y,�<p�.. •y,4'M1J�i�{r i',�' ° b'j�,r '�i +.N ,!j Sr � r. '+$` . � 4 rf' ' • 1 '"p { . 1 `��-j ut r? (f' err ' yrl� � r.} __ ?'r�t,,,il t OZ r � ,..`a� L f fj r{_ I N:� ,� �•r 1�, •• <s .� ✓; 1 Mif r��,, fb �i TIaIM T ' .. - > K;- R a� ' ��h nF r.�L 7'• r q'�uf'�' t aA.ir•"'iYC.� r � ,, itts•. :'tt•. t�' a � f1..� 1 �:i. '.' �° �i`,Ya j `/�Iji S } f - }tl^j f�:-Z1r