Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 10-18-88 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1988 21 The regular meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission was called to order by acqf Davis, Chairman , at 7: 34 P. M. , October 18, 1988 at the City Meeting Hall . The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. The roll was called and members present were as follows: Jeff Davis, Sue McMullen , Frank Fleming , Richard Albright , Bob Boone, Max Moore, Sandra Long , Ila Badger , Henrietta Lamb , Alan Potasnik and Jim O'Neal . Betty Stevenson and Ted Johnson were absent. Staff members present were, Wes Bucher , Chuck Kiphart , David Cunningham, Rick Brandau, Gordon Byers and Dorthy Neisler. Mrs. Badger moved that the minutes of the September 20, 1988 meeting be approved as submitted. Mr. Boone seconded. Motion was carried. Mr. Albright had questioned if the Plan Commission has retained a consultant to upgrade the Comprehensive Plan? Director stated that Mr. Wes Bucher , Department of Community Development a consultant has not been retained at this time. G. PUBLIC HEARING 2g. 7: 30 P. M. , Public hearing on Docket No. 99-88 O. A. an ordinance amendment^ to the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance Z-160 as amended to the following sections of the ordinance: 1 . Zoning Ordinance 2-211 - Satellite Receiving Antennas. 2. Zoning Ordinance Z-160 Sections 5. 3. 1 , 6. 3. 1 , 7. 3. 1 , 8. 3. 1 ,9. 3. 1 and 10. 3. 1 - Accessory Buildings and Uses in residential districts. 3. Zoning Ordinance Z-160, Section 5. 0. 1 , S-1 , Residential District , Purpose & Intent and Section 5. 4.7 minimum lot size. 4. Zoning Ordinance Z-160, section 23. 01-5 permitted uses in the U. S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by the Carmel /Clay Plan Commission. The public hearing was opened at 7: 45 P. M. ITEM #2; Mr. Kiphart stated the major difference in items proposed in the new t llit receiving antennas if installed per ordinance requirement would enot erequire a building permit. Reducing the 12 ' down to 10 ' , color of antenna remains the same, height which is now installed in the rear i of 20 ' from any property line, dish antennas required to be location of antenna willbeamn minimum yard of any lot , ordinance now from either a public street requires dish antennas to be totally screened right of way or from adjacent neighbors, new ordinance does not allow any signage to be put on antennas, would allow dish antennas on roofs of commercial buildings in commercially zoned districts with a permit. Dish antennas installed during the time period of the existing dish antenna ordinance that have not received a permit would be considered in violation of the new ordinance if they did not meet the new requirements; theywould have to removed or brought into conformance. M Kevin Miller , Browning Investments, 11550 N. Meridian offered the Mr. d ordinance: 10 ' height limit should following modifications to the Propose dish to be painted black or apply to residential only; requirements for is to be painted in the same earthtones we feel should remain the same, which color as its surroundings; a side yard is an appropriate location for non- CAF;h1EL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1988 Page A 2 residential antennas; not practical for dish antennas tobetotally screened, if it is it may not be of any use. If existing satellite dishes are to be brought. into F;::OMpliante, what makes ordinance retroactive ? What plan does the City have to compensate owners to bring their dish antennas into compliance? Mr. Lee Webb , 10442 Connaught Drive stated that he felt 10 ' is to restrictive as most dishes are 10 ' in diameter , feels should stick with 12 ' ~^ height. Complete screening may be a problem. He feels comfortable with other restrictions. Mr. Jim O 'Neal asked if anyone from the satellite antenna industry had been contacted regarding this ordinance and have they been contacted at this time. . Mr. Kiphart stated they had not at this time. Mrs. Badger recommended that this item be sent back to committee and that Mr. Miller and Mr. Webb attend. This item was referred to the Industrial °.. Commercial Committee on November 1 , 1988 at 7: 30 F'. M. , at the the City Meeting Hall . Mr. Boone questioned why the Department of Community Development was not requiring and charging for a building permit , why do they not need to get one. Mr. Kiphart stated that the department was trying to simplify the ordinance and building permit procedure. If people installed a dish antenna according to the requirements, we see no reason to require a permit. Mr. Boone questioned that without a permit how are people going to know the requirements for installing a satellite dish. You will have to have someone go out and inspect each antenna, this will be an additional expense. Mr. Albright would like the committee to consider substituting the word "resident" in place of "adjacent property" for the requirement of the full screening of a satellite dish. ITEM #2: Mr. Chuck Kiphart stated that a max of 850 sq. ft. be allowed for accessory buildings with a maximum of 2 accessory building on one lot; height requirement 10 ' from ground level to top of roof ; accessory buildings not change the character of the lot , and that accessory buildings be constructed of wood material as the principal building , an exception to this would be farm buildings. The public did not have any comments. Mr. Albright questioned if we have a definition for farm buildings? Mr. Kiphart stated farms are defined in the zoning ordinance as any legal establishment entity that is 5 acres or more that is established as a farm. Mr. Potasnik asked if the maximum number of accessory buildings would apply to farms? Mr. Kiphart stated that farm buildings would be exempt from this requirement . Mr. O 'Neal moved to approve Item #2 and send it to Council for consideration. . Mrs. Badger seconded. Approved 11-0. ITEM #3: Mr. Chuck Kiphart stated that the current S-1 ordinance allows property to be divided with public & sewer water at a rate of 1 house per 15,000 sq. ft. or approximately 3 units per acres. If public sewer and water are not provided then the requi red size is one acre but may be further increased by County Health Department if they feel more than 1 acre is needed -for septic systems. Proposed ordinance change will change the S--1 district to require one acre of ground per a single family home with public water and sewer CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1988^ acres Pagewia septic 23 facilities, one acre with public sewer and well , stem and a well. . The public discussion was started at 7: 55 P. M. . Mr. Henry Blackwell , 3835 W. 116th Street spoke in favor of the ordinance (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . Mr . Gregory Binder , 11861 Hoster Road , spoke in favor of ordinance (which is a part of the official minutes and ataccheo dtobthe lMaf ster Copy) . who is Ms. Sue Dillon , 507 Cornwall Court , spoke President of the Clay West Information Council , representing 12 homeowner groups in Clay West , the Board of Directors unanimously voted to support the proposed S-1 Zoning Ordinance amendment. Mr. John Proffitt , 3683 Carmel Drive, Carmel stated he owns land in Clay West that is zoned S-1 , he is a citizen and an attorney representing the Hamilton County Builders Council and American National Bank ofany the guardian of the Estate of Ellen Gould. Mr. Proffitt Thev ea t stated that number ofbuilding will not be used for development purposes. average permits issued in Carmel /Clay is less than 600 a year. The present situation with the Clay Regional Sewer District project is that itisoonly eusingh 32,00060-70% a of its capacity. Developers will always have to pay Township.impact .I do Ts proposal will effect 17 ,00 out of acres in Clay p• suggest that you avail yourselves of experts when updating the Comprehensive Flan. There is a plan to update the Comprehensive Plan in 1989. Mr. Proffitt personally feels hat theu apropore a sedlS-1 rdine ance eilhal ngeuisb wrong and bad planning; and that unless y a home in Clay Township. Mr. Jerry Schaum, 1661 W. 136th Street has a contractors business and represents developers, he feels that if we curtail development in the township the building industry in Carmel will be adversely affected by as much as 50%. Mr. John Pittman , 201 W. 106th Street stated that if thei prposed S-1 ordinance was in effect it would exclude Winterwood ypes of subdivisions are we talking about? Most of the lots in Spri ngmi l llStreams are less than one acre in size. Larger lots are part flood plain. exclude the acreage in the flood plain?e ordinance Pittmans f peelsnteattcommon,mon people should not be excluded. He opposes Mr. Richard Rembusch , 11550 N. Meridian , Browning investments, Inc. , spoke against the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rembusch stated that time allocated for this project should be equal for speakers pro and con and questioned if this situation had ever been presented before. Mr. Paul Hensel , 1524 Harrison Street , Noblesville feels the City is trying to keep the Hensel family from selling their property , again. They now have 7 acres which they cannot do anything with because of lot size requirements. Mr. Hensel is opposed to the ordinance. Mr. Lindly Myers, 397 Arbor Drive, Carmel was born and raised in Carmel and has been through all the Carmel /Clay School System. The most upsetting thisordinance change is the way this is being handled , with only a Part of it needs a great deal more discussion before a decision one hour discussion , can be voted upon. Mr. Dave Steppelworth , 11177 We.stminister Ct. like ' st.he Carmel ro ress community that it is today. He admires Carmel for the development p 9 they have made. 5 years Mr. Philip Onderdonk , 596 Tulip Poplar Crest has lived here for terrible changes regarding the traffic. He feels that and has seen the development should be controlled. Mr. Jeff Davis, Chairman stated that this proposed change will not be a rushed process and will receive special attention and further discussion to which the public will be invited. There will be a special Executive CEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER Committee meeting on November 29th , 1988 a8,t ,19 8 Page 4 r, Mrs. Badger requested that the secretary attendMthisrmeetingthis item on Nonly. ovember 29, 1988 to record minutes. Mr. Byers commented , as a Plan Commission we need to reflect what type procedure to take to notify the public and the S-1 landowners, of this ub hearing. of R tic The issue is to whether this is a taking of real estate'' When do we approach the taking of real estate; when we change are ordinances? .a._ individuals that are not aware that this Therelacare and their property is in on S-1tricnance change is taking place Mr. Jeff Davis zoned district . stated there may be another public hearing on this matter. Mrs. Badger request that Mr. Byers be present at the November 29, 1988 Executive Committee meeting. Mr. Boone stated that landowners in the S--1 district should be notified of the ordinance change in that the value of their land will be changed. Mr. Albright stated that if there is any member of the Plan Commission living or owning land in the S-1 District they should disqualify themselves. Mrs. Lamb asked who proposed these changes? Mr. Chuck Liphart stated that consideration regarding changes in the S-1 zoning had been started some 18 months ago. It was originally submitted to the Plan Commission and Executive Committee there land in a zone with more restrictions and hitewasorrejeCted. TThey puth been and is currently concern about the current S-1 density by a roupeofas people that live in the township. There was an official petitionsubmitted to the Plan Commission with a recommended change in the S-1 which was more restrictive than this one tonight. The staff of the Department of Community Development did put together a recommendation for discussion purposes by the Plan Commission that what had been proposed byY less restrictive than and what the current ordinance tallowed ownship At , is Commission committee did review this for. A Flan hearing in front of the full Plan Commission for consto iderati.on.nd it on toThe pPlan c Commission would then go forward and make a final recommendation as to what it would do with the S-1 zone district . Mr. Jeff Davis stated that many letters have been received from the public pro and con on this matter, ITEM #4: Mr. Chuck (iphart stated that the US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone allows some types of retail establishments. The proposed change would require re businesses in a story office building. tail Mr. George Sweet , 9502 to theMGeorge Angola Ct. , Indianapolis, IN proposed d zoning chane. spoke in typcurrent g We have the only B-2 zoned property currently in the Meridian Corridor. Mr. Sweet discussed the history of their current project , and of the investment in their project and some general comments regarding his property. The ordinance that is workable by a developer. Mr. Sweet proposed here tonight i s not ordinance never received notification that this was being drafted. He is riot only opposed to this ordinance but this methodology of bringing it up and does not feel this i s fair the is being handled. way it Mr. E. Davis Coots, 255 E. Carmel Drive, said there was never any discussion or intent when drafting the original U. S. to exclude retail in its �1 Corridor Overlay Zone ogexcluieg l completelyeirety. The ordinance now proposed does that. offthe corridor doesn ' taccomplish any of the purposes that the initial overlayay zone was designed to do. Mr. Richard Rembusch , 11550 N. Meridian , Browning Investments, Inc. reiterated Mr. George Sweets concerning the exclusion of retail business on Meridian; if not there, where? Also Mr. Rembusch feels there is a need for — retail busi ness in the corridor and that traffic problems would increase gif CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1988 Page 5 25 people working in the corridor would have to travel out side the corridor to do their shopping. . Mr. Rusty Richardson , Eaton and Lauth , 1535 Prestwick Lane, Carmel spoke in opposition to the ordinance changes. . Typical retail stores are needed in the corridor. He requests that you not support changing the U. S. 31 Corridor Overlay Zone buildings. Mr. Jeff Davis requested Mr. Byers, Department of Community Development Staff and Plan Commission come up with some recommendations on how to notify everyone properly for public hearings. This project will be referred back to the Land Use Committee on November 1 , 1988 at 7: 30 P. M. at the City Meeting Hall . The public hearing closed at 9: 35 F. M. Mr. Albright questioned if there is a report on the tree preservation policy. Mr. Kiphart stated there has not been time to do this. The staff would like some guidance from Plan Commission regarding ordinance changes. Mr. Boone suggested that the tree preservation ordinance be considered by the -full Plan Commission before going to a sub committee. lg. 7: 30 P. M. , Public Hearing on Docket. No. 94-88 Z (A) a rezone application for 11 . 638 acres of land located at the southeast corner of State Highway 431 (Keystone Avenue) . Site is currently zoned B-5. Rezone request is to rezoned this site to a 8--3 Business zone. (B) a rezone application for 35. 713 acres of land located approximately 1200 feet east of the intersection of 146th Street and State Highway 431 (Keystone Avenue) on the south side of 146th Street. Site is currently zoned 8-5. Rezone request is to rezone this site to an R-3 Residential zone. Filed by Mr. Jim Nelson for Mr. Thomas Leonard for Bayview Development Corp. , Inc. The public hearing opened at 9: 45 F.M. Mrs. McMullen questioned what the legal status of this project is? Mr. Jim Nelson stated there is a law suit pending in Hamilton County among the principals of the business entity that previously owned this parcel of real estate. Mr. Nelson has in his possession a title insurance commitment that shows the title of this parcel of real estate is vested in Bayview Development Co. Bayview Development has a contract to purchase in favor of Gray Road Associates Inc. , President , Thomas Leonard. We have a consent on file from Bayview Development for the rezoning of this land. Mr. Byers feels that the petitioner can go forward his presentation. Mr. Jim Nelson , 3663 Brumley Way,made presentation , a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development. Mr. Thomas Leonard , President of Gray Associates, Inc. , Mr. Dennis Grump of Schnei der Engineering and Jim Kl au,mei er of Pf l ume, Kl ausmei er and Gehrum were present. An aerial map and a proposal zoning exhibit was shown. Mr . John Taylor , 8900 Keystone Crossing , attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. David H. Clark who claim they own 60 interest of this land. Primary issue of this law suit is who owns and what percent interest is owned in this particular parcel of land. Mr. Taylor feels that the Hamilton Country Circuit Court should be permitted to decide this issue before the Plan Commission takes any action on this project. Ms. Cynth:i a Foust , an adjacent homeowner is concerned about how this will affect the acress value and security to her property? Who is responsible for changes in utilities, such as electrical and phones? Where are exit and DUEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1988 P entrance roads through the development going to be? Alage 6 that during construction access to their so there is concern like to see the traffic report. Ms. FoustproPerty will be affected. Would Petitioner at some point. requested a response from Mr. Nelson stated regarding the utilities h d tonight , but the services will not be disrupted.' e oes not have an answer Mr. Thomas Leonard did commit if real estatei frontage road would not be vacated. The intent s annexed to Carmel , ~- through the development, en zon is to provide access Mr. Boone questioned what will be developed first? Mr. Nelson stated that the R-3 zoned district will be developed first flood . . lAlbright questioned how much of the R-3 districtain? would be in the ^ Mr. Nelson stated that 14 acres would be in the flood plain. Als is i .^"hn"�f� ares was obtained just today and about 3 1/2 acreof to, an addi '' ` = � oudcplain , so that totals about 18 a = he five Mr. Albright requested clarification cres^ that they were never signed. How doconcerning the original covenants in piece of property with we get into a situation to rezone a covenants were never covenants being offered and then find out that the bad how do we avoid it signed? What is the effect of that and if the effect is in the future? Mr. Nelson stated the way to avoid it is to make sure you always have signed covenants. You have signed covenants on this application. Sinceth prob .ly^zadopted August 5th did not make reference to covenantsit i e �" u,,eu �-5 Aw1thout the benefit of any covenants s Mr. Albright stated we should protect our l an s^ minutes make reference to the voluntarilynce to tbeing covenants and that they be concern Nelson isnot involved inthelegal part of this petition , his only the rezoning as presented tonight . There was further discussion ^ Mr. Jeff Davis proposed regarding the legal matter of this petition. This petition has been f that we proceed as we normally would 1988 at 7:30 p M at the City Meeting Hall ° The public hearing ^ was closed at 10: 32 P. M. H. OLD BUSINESS lh. Commission to consider Docket No. 83-88 Z 6. 136 acres of land locatedat the a Rezone Application for (Meridian St. ) and 136th St Sout � West corner of US 31 IN Site is^ Street , Clay Tzwnship , Hamilton County, . currently zoned R-2 and S-Z Rezone zone this site to a B-2 Zone Classificat � request is to covenants have been submitted as a part �zon^h No commitments or Filed bY Mr^ E. Davis Coots for' Mr Th o� r e application. . Thomas C. Kleck , Applicant. REMAINS TABLED BY PETITIONER FOR NEW PUBLIC HEARING 2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 90-88 P. P. a Primary Flat (Cluster l " using/ application for Lake Forest Subdivision The plat includes 158 lots on 70. 3 acres of land located on the^ North side v, Hamilton 116th "`, e 1 Street , /2 mile east of Gray Road Cl T onCounty, Indiana. Site is zoned S-1 , si 'gleayamownship ' Filed="tial ~ No variances are requested '' r � �y residential . e dorby Mr. Mark Boyce for the C. F. Morgan gan Co. , Inc. DavisMrs^ SueMcMullenv Vice Chairman took the chair at this time -- removed nzmse�+ due to a conflict of interest. and Mr. Jeff CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1988 Page 7 27 Mr. Albright requested commission note staff recommendations which read as follows: Staff recommends project be tabled per petitioner request and return to Subdivision committee for review of amended plat' Petitioner and staff feel that the technical and purpose and intent of Cluster Ordinance as they relate to this project can be worked out. Mr. Jim Nelson requested to table this item to give petitioner more time to respond to committees comments. Mrs. Badger questioned why "S. O. Sec. 6. 3.2. 1 . , Subdivision of 15 lots or more shall have at least two (2) points of access" this is not applicable to petition we are addressing. Mr. Nelson stated that this Section of the ordinance provides that if you have stub streets it is within the jurisdiction or the scope of the PlanCommission to determine if the stub streets will be utilized within a certain time frame to eliminate the necessity of having two entrances. Mr. Albright moved to table this item and refer it back to the Subdivision Committee. Dr. Long seconded. The motion was carried. 3h. Commission to consider Docket No. 91-88 P. P. , a Primary Plat application for Laurelwood Subdivision. This plat includes 63 lots on 128. 48 acres of land located on the south side of 106th Street approximately 1/4 of a mile east of Ditch Road , Clay Township , Hamilton County, IN. Site is zoned S-1 , single family residential . Petitioner requests variances per the plat submitted from the following sections of the Carmel Subdivision Regulations. 1 . S. O. Sec. 8. 9 sidewalks - Sidewalks shall be mandatory for all subdivisions. 2. S. O. Sec. 6. 3. 6 - streets to be 30 ' wide back to back. 3. S. O. Sec. 6. 3. 2. 0 - private streets are not to be platted. 4. S. O. Sec. 6. 3. 2. 1 - A. Subdivision of 15 lots or more shall have at least two (2) points of access. B. Streets shall be extended to adjacent tracts of land per Plan Commission. The Subdivision Committee report was read by Mr. Albright (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . Mr. E. Davis Coots, 255 E. Carmel Drive made presentation , of which a copy is on file at the Carmel Department Community Development. All staff recommendations have been considered by the petitioner. 1 ) Covenants have been written and will be recorded with the final plat at the time secondary final plat is recorded. They are enforceable by the City of Carmel or by any property owner of the subdivision; 2) The petitioner feels that the market he is seeking to serve and the security aspect requires a single entry way. The boulevard entry way that we provide in effect overcomes in our belief the concerns expressed by some members of the committee that if an accident or something like that could block an emergency vehicle 's entry way into the subdivision; 3) The sidewalk , pedestrian path or something of that order will be constructed North of the brick wall ; 4) The petitioner needs to obtain approval to improve 106th Street and has been presented to the County Commissioners; 5) Lot 7 is a 3 acre lot , Lot 8 is a 4 acre lot. Lot 8 has the required width for S-1 Zone Classification at building line then goes on to open up into the 4 acre expanse in the rear and intends to build home back in the 4 acre lot not on road setback that does CAL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1988 Page 8 meet ordinance requirements. Lot 7 does meet all ordinance requirements; and 6) the drainage system will be private and has been approved by County Surveyor and the covenants provide for maintenance by developer- and can be enforced by Drainage Board and the City of Carmel . Mr. O 'Neal questioned if there would be sidewalks within the subdivision. Mr. Coots stated that this is one of the variances they are seeking is the requirement of sidewalks within the subdivision. Mrs. Badger questioned if there is a distinction between a sidewalk and a pathway and what will the width of the pathway be? Mr. Coots stated it will not be a straight ribbon pathway and will be 4 ' wide. Mrs. Badger questioned why S. O. Sec. 6. 3. 2. 1 should apply to one petitioner and not the other. Mr. Chuck Kiphart stated that a determination was made by the staff that providing stub streets, to adjacent property complied with the ordinance requirements in that they would be connected and provide for a second access at some point in time. Mr. Albright moved that Plan Commission approve the plat with the variance as requested. Mrs. Lamb seconded. Findings of Fact were completed by board members. Approved 9-2, Mr. O 'Neal and Dr. Long against. 4h. Commission to consider Docket No. 96-88 ADLS an Architectural Design , Lighting , Landscaping , Signage and Site plan review for Carmel. Office Ct. (Phase One) a new four (4) building , one story, 22,037 sq. ft. office complex located between Carmel Drive and Carmel Medical Drive directly South of the existing Carmel Putt Putt facility. Site is zoned B-B and 5. 642 acres in size. Filed by Mr. Mark Boyce for the C. F'. Morgan Co. , Inc. TABLED AT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1988. I . NEW BUSINESS 1i . Commission to consider Docket No. 100-88 ADLS an Architectural Design , Lighting , Landscape, Signage and Site plan review for a new one story, 553.3 sq. ft. Napa Auto Parts building located South of Medical Drive, Carmel , IN. Site is zoned B-2 and B-8 and . 75 acres in size. Filed by John and Sandra Beeler. Mr. John Beeler , 7729 Rucker Road , Indianapolis, IN made a presentation. Copies of information presented are on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Mrs. Badger moved that Docket No. 100-88 ADLS be tabled and come back to the public hearing with color exhibits. Item failed for lack of a second. This will be sent to the Industrial and Commercial Committee on November 1 , 1988 at 7: 30 P. M. at the City Meeting Hall . 2i . Commission to consider Docket No. 101-88 ADLS on Architectural Design , Lighting , Landscape, Signage and Site plan review for Foxworthy/Wiese Ford Dealership located at the Northwest corner of State Road 431 (Keystone Ave. ) . Site is zoned B and a part of it is located in the 4.31--Keystone Corridor Overlay Zone. Site is CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1988 Page 9 29 7. 315 acres in size and located in Clay Township , Hamilton Co. , IN. Petitioner proposes to add onto and upgrade existing building , expand parking lot , change lighting , landscaping , drainage, signage, etc. F=iled by Mr. Jim Nelson for Mr. Norman Wiese. Mr. Jim Nelson , 3663 Brumley Way made a presentation. Copies of information presented are on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development. Mr. Rick Brown , Manager of Wiese Ford , Ed Overbeck of Burkhart °.. Associates, the architect for this project were present . An aerial map , site development and landscape plan , parking plan , lighting plan , site lighting fixtures , signage and trash enclosure plans and architectural designs were shown. Dr. Long questioned if the adjacent property owners need to be notified when a renovation is done? f� Mr. Nelson will be notifying property owners of meeting before Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on November 28, 1988, concerning a Special Use petition on this project. Dr. Long questioned if there were any neon lights? Mr. Nelson stated there is not. This will be referred to the Industrial and Commercial Committee on November 1 , 1988 at 7: 30 P. M. at the City Meeting Hall . There was no further business brought before the Plan Commission and the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 50 P. r-i. . Chairman Secretary