Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-05-15-78 MINUTES OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 15, !978 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:30 PM by Mayor Pickett, who presided. All members, Clerk-Treasurer and City Attorney were present. Councilwoman Doane gave the invocation. Mayor Pickett led the pledge of allegiance. Councilman Swift moved to approve the minutes of the last meeting, Councilman Meacham seconded it and it passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: AGENDA ITEM#l: REPORT OF STANDING COMMITT,.'~.' CHAIRMEN: No ~eports. NEW BUSINESS: AGENDA IT~I#l: PUBLIC HEARING-ORDINANCE ~D-l~: Mayor Pickett opened advertised public hearim~ for special appropriation of $~,210.00 from MVH General fund to budget acct ~262 to appropriate money received from the federal government for expenditures incurred during the 1978 blizzard. There were no comments from the public. Mayor Pickett read proposed Ordinance ~fD-159 appropriatim~ the funds. Councilman Coots moved to adopt proposed ordinance, Councilman Meacham seconded it. Councilman Swift moved to suspend the rules and act on the ordinance tonight, Councilman Horvath seconded it and it passed unanimously. Motion to adopt passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#2: RE-ZONE REQUEST FROM $-2 TO B-~ - 126th & KEYSTONE-KEN THOMPSON: Mr. Ken Thompson appeared before the Council to request a re-zone on property at 126th & Keystone. Attorney Doug Church and Richard Pollack were also present. Mr. Ken Thompson passed out minutes of the Plan Commission. He stated, "that after several outstandi~ hearings on this program we went back and tried to review and see what we were really trying to do here and what our obligations were and what we weMe trying to accomplish and we reviewed the ordinances and we came up that wWre supposed to be and shall be held to the minimum requirements for the promotion of public health, safety, comforts, morals, convenience and general welfare and serve as a guide for the future. That is our zoning ordinances. And weTe also supposed to ensure the highest and best use of the land that will not cause undue hazard and will not have a negative effect on a budding property. Now, that's what ~re going to try to accomplish and we're going to try to review this thing to see if we have or we have not. So we're here to try and provide you with the facts so we will assure you that this project will indeed meet theneeds of the community, provide an~appointment, raise the tax base with no expenditures to the schools and this project will have a $44,000.00 a year tax assessment as to the library, road maintenance etc. on those thim%rs exclusive to schools which we'll cover later. We intend to show that this protects the natural beauty of the site, supports the utility system and is consistent with the development that now exsists along Keystone. During the hearing which I listened to, there was considerable conversation that this or any other project must be am asset or a benefit to the community. The question really becomes then,,'what is really an asset? and what do some people just intend to interpret as an asset or do they want or don't want?" Our ability to evaluate this proposal on a meaningful perimeter, rather than an emotional one that somebody doesn't want or wants, and to really be a benefit to this community. I think we would also have to say that providin~ housing for low income, moderate income families, elderly and handicapped people has to be considered in the best interest of the come, unity. Now there are Page 5/15/78 several programs that this community supports in HUD Programs Sections 202 Elderly and Handicapped and Program Section 8 Housing Assisting for the Elderly which we have got to consider. During the presentation of this project, it was pointed out that every service report was positive. We have adequate sanitary sewers ~hat~re installed, they have always been plsnned for this kind'of a project, the water m~ins are installed adequate for the project, and have already been ~rramged so that exsisting resident~benefited by the installation of over-sized mains down through this project. The roads, as Fred Hohl said, are adequate to handle the needs of the project, which brings us to traffic. This is the only site that I know of in the town of Carmel that has thorough- fare on three sides of it. We dedicated the right-of-way for 126th St. several years ago to allow £~he~Guntyto improve that, which~h~s been a benefit. We have the figures here for the comparison of the traffic figures. If we go multi-family, according to the experts, we can provide 158 units on this site and be far below the maximum number which is 222 which our present zoning allows us. That would yield somewhere between 900 and 126~ cars a day. If we go office buildings, usi~ the figure l~ ca~s per 1000 sq. ft, 103,000 sq. ft. would be 1,~2, or an increase of 178. We still have the possibility of winning our case in court in Court of Appeals, amd if it goes commercial, at 80 per 1000 sq ft. it's 8000 a day. Now somewhere between multi-family and commercial is where we think this should go. The construction of single- family or multi-family on this project as is presently zoned requires the destruction of the existing trees and park like area t~at is now eEisting alo~ 126th St." A drawing of the proposed project was shown. Mr. Thompson stated, "We have prepared the multi-family lay-out and a single-family lay-out that would work on this ground accordi~ to its existing zoning. The top one is the multi-family which is a combination of a one or two bedroom courts in the center with three bedroom townhouses fl~dked on both ends and you cam see the wooded area goes alo~ about right through here, that would have to intrude on that area with this situation. With an office park we don't have to do that. I don't see how it can be a traffic p~o~lem which is causi~ the defeats on this because the traffic is too simil~. The character of the neighborhood - one of the things here in the report is that it would be out of character with the neighborhood, so we reviewed all the corners alo~ Keystone which goes through Clay township." Pointi~ to the drawing, Ken Thompson stated, "This turquoise celored corner is a use other than single-family. That's 2~ corners up through there and ll of them are somethi~ else other than single-family, mine of them are vacant and five of them are residential. This particular site we have one vacant, the biggest apartment project we've got in town and one church. So I question whether we're destroying the integrity or the residential nature of the corner that has no residences on it. The study'prepared by Joe Beamon which was entered £n the other case there, really pointed out that commercial development or something other than single-family didn't necessarily devalue the property. So we just remind you of that. The question of the plush drawings etc. of what we can do with office buildi~s: If we build the apartments there's no question about it, that we can spend about $18 to $22 per sq. ft. If we build office buildings we can spend from $~0 to $5~ per sq. ft. which ~allows us, those were not plush drawings, we intend to build that and it really ~ives us a better opportunity, allows us to concentrate the buildings in the center of the site and it gives us more to work with for landscaping and that type thing. Now there was one really good question that said~ "Well,what would prevent this project from becoming commercial in a year?" Well, there's a couple of things. One is a special exceRtion that once we get an approval for an office building I don't think we can just automatically change it. The other thing is, this project is not going to be built in one year. We're not going to either approve or disapprove the project and walk out there the next da~ and see this thing. This project here will take a minimum of three years amd probably five yea~s to build. P~ge ~ 5/15/78 Now Schutz and Thompson itself w~nts an office building, and office buildings are alot better, as far as we're concerned, an investment as to depreciation and just ease of operation which we have a tendency to hang cords with the easy ones rather than the hard~ones. I have here all of these figures which I'm goiD~ to give you now that are not mine. They are just merely those that have~b~en presented to the town from one organization or the other. The question, if we don't have a traffic problem and we can build a better project by going office buildings, then the other one that I see that we have to contend with is the devaluation of property. This sheet I'm going to give you are excerpts from the Orderly prevention of Crisis in the Carmel-Clay School system. This next sheet is from the Treasurer's office in Hamilton County and it's the valuation ofa conti~nous row of houses in Cool Creek to see if we are in danger of devaluatiD~ property or not." Mr. Thompson points to the green areas on the drawin~ and states that, "this down here was probably built somewhere about half way through before we put the signs up that we were going to reserve that corner site for commercial. There is no home that I know of under $109,000.00 on that street. These houses up in here whish we are presently building with everybody having full knowledge of how many times we have tried to re-zone this corner and our adament intentions that we're going to build something there other than single-family. The minimum that I know of is in excess of $125,000.00. We're building spec houses in this area right here at $150,000.00. Now if i~s all this bad and we're going to devalue everything, I don't really see how that happens since our sales are going pretty good and you can see the price range of houses that we're really concerned about. Each of these red dots represents a remonstrator that spoke. The blue ones adjacent to it represents a person that signed the sheet that was at the meeting. Now I don't know about devaluatiD~ this property or this one or these when these people sit here and look at Steak & Shake and The M~rket Place and McDonald's, why they are so concerned about ~his area here. So these were the people I was primarily concerned about as far as devaluation goes. Then we analyze the project as to the school system. These are the figures from the school board. The houses that you have in front of you and their evaluation which are verified and if they have 1.7 to 1.8, and I used 1.? the lower figttre, lack $12,087.00 per year of supporting themselves in the school system alone. That excludes the $137,000.00 that the school board contends they have to make as an investment to provide a place to educate those children. This project as it's planned would be a 2.2 million dollar project and at the present tax rate we would add to the school system alone $80,360.00 every year and would add to the other accessories such as the roads and the library, etc. $~,000 a year. We would add no children to the school system. The only burden I know of that we would add to would be the stress on the fire department and police department as to the patrolling the area. In addition to that, we have already contributed $27,700.00 to the water fund which we did four years ago for two reasons, one the water fund needed it and the other one was that we thought it would go to $1,000 an acre,it went to zero. We would pay today $6,120.00 into the sanitary system which has already been installed. And our building permit would run $1,~60.00 so this project would generate for the City $122,880.00 a year plus an initial investment of $55,300.00 and that doesn't count the right-of-way that we donated years ago to 126th St., the extension of the water mains and improvement of the loops to improve the fire service to existing residents or any of those other items you want to talk about. Now, everybody knows what we paid for the ground. We paid $6,000.00 an acre for the ground in March 1971. There's 15.35 acres left. It's zoned for multi-fsm~ly subject to a special exception. We intend to use this land for something. If we made the decision that we would go single-family right now and develop this project that we've ~ot laid out right here, that requires about 200 and some thousand dollars additional money to put the rest of the streets in etc. and I really question whether or not I can go to any lending institution and borrow the money based on a project that's going to lose money. Today we have $18,956~n acre in that Page 5/15/? ground and there's no way that we can spend those additional f~nds to sell those lots ~nd even got our money back. I'm not sure whether that's your fault or mine but that's the way it is and I have been led to believe that that's justification to re-zone a piece of property. And with that, I think that what we're talking about here is we have a choice. We can either build that or some version of it (apartments) or we can build this. Now that's what I think we're down to." ~ Councilman Garretson said, "You h~ven't told us what that is." Mr. Thompson replied, "tha~ is the office project." Councilman Garretson states, "its just offices?" Mr. Thompson replied, "yes, strictly offices. We wanted a bank but the bank is a hang-up. If anybody thinks.that makes this ground commercial, forget the bank. The way we look at it is this, we need an investment in the land and in the town. And I don't think anybody can contend that we are just out here trying to get rich quick or anything else like that. We've already done that. Now this is an office park that is financially beneficial to me, financially beneficial to the town and is a whole lot better, in my mind, than apartments, but I can't develop single-f~mily. We, either our fault, your fault, or collectively, we' have now invested that much in that corner." Councilman Coots asked, "How do you get to $18,960.00 per acre for the remaining 15 acres?" Mr. Thompson replied,"You t~ke $6,000 times the interest rate for those years." Councilwoman Reiman asked, "What are you asking for tonight, I thought you were asking for re-zone to commercial and now you're talking about apartments." Mr. Thompson replied, "No, I want to be able to build this office park." Councilman Garretson asked, "Is that drive, upper drive off on to High Drive?" Mr. Thompson replied, "Yes this is off on to High Drive." Councilmmn Garretson asked, "Isn't that concerni~ many of the residents the traffic flow on High Drive as opposed to 126th St?" Mr. Thompson replied, "It wasn't mentioned." Councilman Horvath asked, "What about the hill on 126th St, right there. That will create a traffic hazard. Especially in the winter time." Mr. Thompson replied, "The hill here, this is a very flat area that goes back to this hill." Councilman Horvath~stated, "I'm talking about the hill on 126th St. That caused problems this year and there wasn't anything on that land." Mr. Thompson replied, "If it causes a problem with offices, then it will cause ~a problem with apartments, because the traffic is very nearly the same. And if it is a problem, if it's really a da~ger situation, then we ought to change the hill. And we ought to say we have a d~ngorous hill rather than denying a p~oject which is a benefit." Co~qc~lm~ Horvath said, "I don't think that intersection was created for any commercial there. I'm talking about 126th & E~te~e. You only have 2 lane traffic." Mr. Thompson replied, "Well then I think if you feel 126th St.~ is the problem then we should say OK then we should improve 126th St. & Keystone. Perhaps another lane should be brought from this project out, but the traffic is the same. Now, since you weren't on the board, maybe you know but we had approved ~00 apartments to the south of this thing. We didn't build it for one reason or another. We also had 160 condos approved to the east of it, so that's now a si~le-family. But this corner, we're down to the fishing and cutting bait here, we're not going to change on this corner. And we thought maybe we might have given somebody the impression that we were just kiddi~ about this beoause we did have apartments approved~we did have condos approve~and we did build single-£amily." Councilman Garretson asked, "what kind of apartments are your talki~about~" Page 511517 Mr. Thompson replied, "We're ready to go, we're going to do something. ~r~ of the center courts there will either be 8 or 12 units in the center courts with three bedroom town houses attached to each end." Councilman Garretson asked, "Are we talking HUD subsidized apartments?" Mr. Thompson replied, "No, I don't think that will be necessary. However, we come in with this one, we lose on a special exception, smd I will solicit some help to get this project approved. I will either build apartments or office buildings or will continue to tighten fact and we'll have either commercial or apartments on this corner." Councilwoman Reiman~asked~tHe M~yor what the recommendation from the Plan Commission was. Councilman Coots stated it was an ll-0 negative vote from the Plan Commission. Richard Pollack reviewed this project. "What we're talking about is a combination of ~ne and two story office useage that we have designed around a series of court yards and water features with connecting coverage so a person can go from one building to another building. It's thought of as beio~ a campus type plan. There is a sketch of the scale of the project. We are trying to stay within the type restrictions of the single-family a~eas around it. And as Ken mentioned, we initially showed a bank location to the north and west with the office spaces to the east, And as Ken mentioned, if this is a problem for youwe can reconsider not having this in the project. We've developed the parking alon~the exterior so that the court yards and the views from the office space can be very attractive." Councilman Garretson asked, "Will the area be screened from the roads?" Mr. Pollack replied, "We have a very intense landscape planting plan that surrounds the entire project and we also have fine existing trees and rolling ~round Gu 126th St. frontage." Mr. Thompson commented, "We're also going to ~et into mounding. I think the mounding is the important part cause you can talk about screening and vegetation and sometimes that doesn't get it. But mounding is a positive screen. I've seen it work too m~y times. And it really does an effective job." Mr. Doug Church commented that, "for the benefit of the Council members that are not on the Plan Commission the specific request here tonight is to re-zone the ground to a B-3 category which requires that in the event there was an ordinance adopted tonight changing the zoning to B-3 that the project we're showing you here for the office park would have to go back to the Plan Commission for an advisory hearing;then on tb~the Board of ZoningAppeals for the adoption of a special exception. And the question was raised before as to whether or not the project which we're showingyou would be the project, in fact, we would pursue, in the event of a re-zoningand we have submitted as part of the packet with the Plan Commission restrictions of covenants that would limit this developer to develop and apply for the special exception as we have shown in these plans. So you know how we get here in the course of aski~ for a re-zone, this matter has been heard by the Plan Commission and i~s their resolution which the Mayor will ultimately read. These plans that we have developed and brought here are a little more detailed than normally we would prepare in the course of a re-zonio~ application but we have done so with the intent of showing you precisely the nature of the construction and improvements we would propose to build on this site in the event there was a re-zone and in the further event ~here would be a special exception granted on this site." Councilman Garretson asked, "Now this land is zoned presently for multi- family dwellings?" Mr. Church replied, "That is correct, you would allow multi-family upon the granting of a special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals and as Ken pointed out that could be as high as 220 units on the 1~.35 acre ground." Page 6 5/15/78 Councilman Garretsen asked,'"When the Plan Com~ssicn unanimously rejected this proposal~were the members awa~e that in effect sounds like an either/or situation either its goi~ to be apartments or its going to be office space?" ~ounci~man Coots stated, "Members of the Commission are aware generally what R-2 classification means and by other p~esentations as it affects this real estat~ I think I can state that they are generally aware that Mr. Thompson intends to develop this piece of real estate into something other than single- family residences~ There~has been and is pendingnow in the Appellate Court a writ of certiorari appealed from the Hamilton Circuit Court by Mr. Thompson on the special exception application before the Board of Zoning Appeals to develop this end of the con~nercial real estate that was, I think we perhaps all saw it at one time, a neighborhood convenience center that would contain various commercial pieces of property~from low density commercial to a large volume grocery store was one of the possibilities. And so I think the Plan Commission, of course, was aware of that special exception application having considered it and determined not to vote in favor of that. As to the specific items of evidence that we now have, such as the impact on tax rates, the per capita population or population of apartments in feeding into the school system as opposed to this proposed use etc., that information was not presented to the Plan Commission, although it may have been presented to the land use subcommittee, I don't know that. It is not a part of the record. That would perhaps be new items of information the Plan Commission did not have available to it at the time it considered this re-zone petition a month ago." Councilman Garretson asked, "Did they give the grounds in which they objected to the petition?" Councilman Coots stated, "They are contained in the minutes. Here, the Plan Commission on a re-zone application is not required to set out as the Board of Zoning Appeals findings of fact. It being an adv£sory quasi legislative recommendation to the City Council~so, therefore, they do not specifically set forth those items that they find favorable or unfavorable in how they came out on the scales of public interest. BLur I think it would be fair to say that all the comments contained in Pages 19 & 20 of the Plan Commission minutes would reflect those things that were discussed at the land use subcommittee meetings and the Plan Commissionin general." Councilman Garretson asked, "Since it was an advisory recommendation to the Council, does the Councilthen have to give its findings of fact to why it didn't?" Councilman Coots stated, "No, 'A negative recommendation from the Plan Commission requires a 3/2 Council affirmative vote to override." The M~yor stated he had the Plan Commission minutes of the April 18th meeting and proceeded to read them. The M~yor asked if there were any further comments from Council members. Councilwoman Reiman asked the M~yor if it would be permissible to put a letter from a citizen in the record. The M~yor stated it would be. The letter was from Mrs. Squire, 1315 L~wrence Rd. Councilma~ Coots asked if there was a re-zone ordinance. The Mayor indicated yes end had copies. Councilwom~ Doane stated, "I don't understand the difference in the tax on the City. And want ~o know how much the residents give to the City and how much the proposed project gives to the City." Mr. Thompson stated, "Residential housi~ requires at a minimum of assessment $23,750.00 to support one child in the school system. This project with its present zoning allows for 80 ft. lots. And we've kind of been holdi~ it all up in one corner thinking that someday we'd be successful at something. The reference is that this project will put into the school system at the presenttax rate $80,360.00 a year. That's directly to the schools. The $4~,520.00 goes to roads, libraries, p~rks, whatever county and city assessments are. What was the number of lots on that? 23 lots and you could assume evaluation of most up to $50,000.00 and you'd come out with about $30,000.00 on a home on this project. 18 houses Page 5/15/?s presently built, presently assessed comes out $12,000.00 a home every year. Now something in this town has to offset that and the only way you~re ~oing to get it done is with something other than single-family. Because if a guy goes in with two kids he's goi~ to have a $90,000.00 house to break even on. And here's $12~,000.00 a year with relatively no expense, in fact, none, other thau' the fire department that has to consider the evaluation and the police department that would say OK we have that many more buildings to look after. But the utilities we've paid for. The roads we've paid for and if you're going to locate it someplace in this City, we built three thoroughfares. We built one entirely, we donated the right-of-way for 126th St., and I don't think that we ought to say to the developers, all right this is a thoroughfare and then say now we don't want the~traffic on it but the choice here is not whether or not you have more traffic its just a matter of multi-family and office buildings and 172 cars a day estimated that's practically the same. We built a thoroughfare, we built Caz*eel Drive through the project. We've got a thoroughfare running into C~rmel Drive. We've got Keystone and we've got 126th St." Councilman Coots stated, "Mr. Garretson, I mis --spoke, its presently zoned R-2 which is a less dense residential classification as opposed to R-~ that I recited earlier which is a more dense residential zoning classification." Councilman Garretson asked, "Does R-2, which it presently is, allow multi-family dwelling?" Councilman Coots replied, "Yes, it does but in a less dense volume than of course, and I think the entire surrounding area is R-l, is it not?" Mr. Thompson replied, "No, the entire area to the south is R-2 where we have built the single-family houses which wouldmake S-2 lots but its on R-2 ground. Around to the east is R-1. Back there in that woods why they probably make S-1 that's where its R-2. The project as laid out, we knew it was R-2. That matches R-2. Its 158 units on there and we could'ye went to 222 if you really want to get them on there reasonably well. We dohave to encroach on that Woodland area on 126th St. and we have to come down that hill with them but that can be done." Councilman C-arretson asked, "Will there be a clubhouse with the apartments?" Mr. Thompson replied, "There will be down at the Park where it says playground. They were alittle bit concerned about the design of the clubhouse but we'll work on that and have that done." The Mayor asked if there were any more comments from the Council. Councilman Swift said, "You know ~e've been playing with this corner for years, longer than most of you have been here, and I've always maintained that if we aren't careful we'll get something not as desirable as we would like. And I sympathize with the people who don't want flashing neon lights on what I would still consider a residential side of Keystone. But I think that we'd best understand that a special exception is alot easier to get, even if you have to go to court, than a change of zonim~. Courts haven't overturned our zoning, have they Doug~ ever. They've beat us several times on architectual design and lighting decisions and failure to approve specific plans and this kind of thing. But'.,I hate to keep this thing alive,really that is the debate over what it's going to be. I hate to continue to go on and on but I really think th~ our residents who live in that area and our Plan commission which has not reallybeen confronted with the, this or that choice, would be well advised to think about what they face here very carefully. Audi assume that if we turn down the re-zone, I,m not necessarily speaki~-g for it, but, you continue to turn somethi~ down long enough, you may get something you like even less. And I think that the Plan Commission they're advisory, in natu~e,~.they should consider this more carefully than they have, really. After all, planning of the community is not a choice as to whether you~ge going to have a specific project or whether you're just going to leave it a vacant field for the short run. PlanniD~ams farther than that and wehave not gotten that on this corner because the residents,quite naturally, have been opposed to business' of various kinds there and have had a substantial influence Page 8 5/15/? on our Plan Commission and our Town Board and our City Council through the years. T~ey've been very effective to date. But there ~ould be a point at which their effectiveness boomerangea on us to the extent that we wished we'd done somethi~ else. I hate to see us mske this kind of choice tonight. I really don't know that we're thinki~ about it carefully enough asto what might happen there.'! Councilwom~nReiman stated, "It concerns me that tonight we're voti~ about that and yet some of us are concerned about threats. I don'tiike threats about if you_don't buy this plan you'll be sorry when I come back. I must say, and I'm not playing to the audience, but I must say if this is the way democracy works, it's great when the people come out, that is their right, and there is too much apathy now and there hasn't been apathy in this situation. I've. come out to the meetings and have sat in the public rather than up here but when I was on the Plan Commission in 76 this csme up and now its 78 and up again. I have no idea how many times it has come up and I'm really not concerned with any future threats of the petitioner even though he brought up a couple tonight. I don't like scare tactics but I do have in my possession, and everyone on the Plan Commission received it and everyone on the Council received it and yet I don't think it has received any attention. And it comes from attorney Jack Rodgers. He bri~s upa case here which I'm not a lawyer, I do not understand but I do not understand why it has not been looked into by our city attorney. Because this statee that a petitioner is not able to come back every six months and make these people come out every six menths and I would like to know if this is correct or not. This attorney says that it is and i~s a state law and I hear other poeple here in town say that isn't so. Have you seen that letter Mr~ Mayor from M~ Rodgers?" Councilm~n Coots stated, "I'm f~miliar with the letter and I'vereviewed it alo~with Bill Merrill who is chairman of the land use committee and by the way is also an attorney ~nd I don't think Mr. Rodgers is saying that Mr. Thompson can't come back every six months and petition for something on his rea~l estate. That is our ordinance that permits him to do that. Mr. Rodgers' interpretation of a couple of cases summarized in thEt letter is that when he does that the burden is on the petitioner to then show a change in circumstances that permits him to seek a repetitious cha~ge in zoning and if he's been denied on project A, he must show a chan~e in circumstances that permits him to come beck with project B or C or whatever. And thEt merely changing in the paint or changing in the location is not in fact a ch~ge from project A to project B but none the less the b~_rden is on the petitioner to show those circumstances that have changed that permit him to do that. The Plan Comm~ssionhas always operated under the rules of procedure that the burden of proving the change in circumstances to make a recommendation on a re-zone application or for a speciE1 exception is on the person seeking that petition and as procedural as those cases are, I think the Plan Commission followed that procedure in determining whether or not Mr. Thompson could re-present a petition. This project is not barred by what is referred to in that letter by collEteral estoppel or res adjudicate merely on the basis of it bei~ a re-zone application when the umendment to the use of the real estate was a special exception. Mr. Rodgers is here if there is more he would like to ~mplify on thEt letter why I'd be willing to consider it with you but I think basically those cases on the M~rion County Board of Zoning AppeEls were on the procedural question of who hEs the burden of proving a change in circumstances that permits a board to subsequently hear a re-zone or in Mzrion County it would be a development plan." The Mayor stated, "I'did not receive a copy of this letter. If I hEd ~ received it I would have had it reviewed but I did not get E copy of this." Page 9 5/15/? Councilman Coots stated, "That's not your fault Mr. Rodgers. If its anyone's fault I'll t~d~e the blame for it, but you can spend a good deal of time xeroxing around this place. And I think the contents of the letter were well discussed both at the land use committee and at the Plan Con~ission he,ring on the matter." Councilwoman Reiman stated, "I'm sorry to differ with you on that but it was my understanding that at the land use committee it was put in the file and not discussed. But Mr. Merrill looked it over as an attorney but did not discuss it with anyone else in the room or the petitioner at that time snd that concerns me that we h~ven't gotten an opinion from our city attorney on it and looked into it f~rther. I just wanted to add that because I thought it's rather important." Councilman Coots stated, "Plan Comm~ ~sion Council did review the contents of that letter with Mr. Merrill and with myself and it's my impression that information then went to the land use committee. I didn't sit in on that comm~ tree that evening. But how far down it got into the land use committees w~ll, I don't know. But Mr. Boje, who is the Plan Commission a~torney, Mr. Merrill and I did review the letter when we received it from you, I think it was or maybe Mrs. Kerr. Al, I have a couple of comments that I'd like to throw out, perhaps before we get too far alo~ the line. I think as a Colmcil we have to determine on any re-zone application whether it be 15 acres as this project or my back yard if I seek to re-zone it. The question is whether or not the proposed land use adds to the health, welfare, general well bei~ of the community as a whole. And aside from this project, a l0 story high-rise or whatever project contemplated on this real estate and regardless of the safeguards built into the B-3 zoningmechanism that we have here in Carmel that requires Plan Commission approval, once the piece of property is re-zoned for a purpose that ~s a permitted use within that zoning classification, you have taken that real estate out of the overall master plan that the community established back when and have now tagged it with a new potential for use. That's not always bad because things do change and communities change and our size changes and our needs ch~e and our question, I think, is whether or not this proposed change in this use of real estateis compatible with how the City in this sector of the City has grown. If it is a needed element, if it doesn't detract from the property values or the thin~s as Mr. Thompson has pointed out then it perhaps is something that should be considered in re-zoning it. If it is not, and the evidence to me must preponderate very heavily in favor of re-zoning a piece of real estate such as this and if the need is not so drastic as to virtually necessitate it, then I don't feel the petitioner has met the burden of proof to require us to re-zone it and we can act somewhat arbitrary or without the specific findings of fact in order to grant it or deny it. Now then, if we consider the overall land zoning in 1961 when we beg~n zoning property and in 1966 when we updated the zoning of property by the then comprehensive plan, R-1 and R-2 was determined to be the zoni~ classification for that a~ea. As we have heard from the people at the Plan Commission hearing-s many of them relied on that zoning, they bought their homes based upon that zoning and all of the homes in that area far exceed R-1 or R-2 lot sizes and square footage of homes, etc. And Mr. Thompson, in part, has contributed to that in buildi~ them larger than perhaps they should have been or required to be or something like that. B~t those were economic judgments made at that time. If it is not your intent and you are perfectly capable of applying to the Buildi~ Commissioner tomorrow for 158 apartment building permits once the special exception has been approved, those people knew that potential existed in 1966 when this property was re-zoned. So the argument goes both ways. Zoning and sticking to zoning has its good and bad aspects. Switchi~ from zoniug~I think, has more detrimental effects and I think that c~n probably summarize the attitude of the Plan Commission in turning this matter down." Page 10 5/15/?s The Mayor asked if there were any more con~nentS from the Council members. The Mayor then opened for comments from the public. Ron Reimer, Horseshoe Lu., "I've been in Carmel 2½ years now arid I've spoken several times regarding this particular project and most of the arguments that Mr. Thompson puts forth for his project or speeches he talks about the tax base for the community and the question is not whether we have a tax Base for the community but whether or not we have it in this area. We have land zoned commercially, we have other land available for these kinds of projects. That's why it was put in the master plan and I haven't heard any compellim~ arguments fo~ changing that master plan. The tax base is still there. Taxes still come in from homes. This is a residential community and there are taxes coming in from those homes. He talks about the traffic, it appears there are so m~uy car~ per square foot but he doesn't discuss the clients that will be added: The fact that we'll have people transients rather than the neighborhood people rather than the residents~ The fact that once we break the master plan then it means nothing and we are in fact opening up the community of Carmel to spot zoning. The fact that he's come back several times with the same project, even after its been turned do~m, is certainly encouragement for anybody to come back again and again and again and in effect wear dow~ the remonstrators. Mr. Thompson has done alot for the community and he's done that in the past, but there's nothing that says this program is the best for this community or that neighborhood in the future. We've talked about traffic, we've talked about the use of that land, we've talked about spot zoning, we've talked about the taxes and really, the question is why in this area should it be re-zoned and then the others we've considered when and if they come up." Jack Rodgers, 16 Horseshoe Ln., "I think there's just about three:points I'd like to make and I think this gentleman made them very well when he said many people, I being one looked very heavily into the areas and how they were zoned before we purchased the property. Now, as he said, I think the burden is on the petitioner of those cases which I think is certainly relavent to any administrative body on the petitioner to show a change of circumstances and he has to show it's to the public welfame and benefit not to the individual developers welfare and benefit and I think you have to determine whether this type of project is actually needed there. And the second point and probably what I'm most concerned with is the east side of Keystone now beim~ asked to be zoned commercial. Really I don't care what kind of aommercial goes in there. The purpose of this is to keepthe east side of Keystone primarily residential. He apparently had an exhibit there which I couldn't see which showed certain corners in Clay township on Keystone were zoned commercial, I believe he said. The point is, between 106th & l~6th on the east side of Keystone what is the present zoning and do you want to break that bs~rrier, so to speak. And'I think that's my major concern for the planning for yo~: as a Council to consider wh~t the residents are most concerned with. It's the liability, the integrity, if you will, of yoturmaster plan and of your Boning till you can show an overwhelming, compulsive public need then I don't think you should break this so called barrier and I think you don't want this part of Carmel on Keystone to go like other parts of Keystone which you all know have gone in the past." Susan Brock, lOgO Ridge Rd., "I truly would be hopeful if Council members would not buy Mr. Swift's suggestion , the devil you know may be better than the devil you don't know. We've been through this far too lom~ to succumb to that sort of thing at this point. I think the Plan Comm~esion has been very thorough in their investigation and listening and come up with their decision to pass on to you and I think any time that you let any person run with that attitude you're in trouble and when you are in trouble as our governing people the whole town of Carmel is." Page 11 5/15/78 Jim Vogel, 1129 Fairbanks Dr., "I believe Mr. Thompson indicated he has about $18,900.00 invested in the remaining 15 acres and at this time he doesn't think he can sell them and make a profit but the whole project didn't start with 15 acres. It was a much larger tract of land which he sold and made a profit. The whole project made a profit. Whereas, we're only talking about one and in land development there's speculation,always potential for lose, always potential for gain. So I think the whole project that he's developed meeds to be considered not just the 15 acres." Felix Mundt, 611 Mohawk Ct in Cool Creek, "I'm greatly concerned about some of the things I've heard this evening. I have lived in Cool Creek for 8 years and I think I have attended virtually every mee%in~ that has been held on ~his project since it all started. I think someone missed the point. None of us are looking for a tax break. I know the community well, I know the people well. I hear them complain about federal taxes, but I've never heard andy complaints about local taxes. As far as this project is concerned, any time you wanted to go over there after a hearing and hear how it's been defeated you can go over there and hear how gleeful people are. We don't need that. Thank you." The M~yor asked if there were any more comments from the audience. Bob Battreall, 1319 Cool Creek Dr., "One very brief statement. I've been in Carmel for two years. I did the same as the gentleman, when I moved up here, I checked the zoning very closely. The last home I moved out of was for this reason and my property was depreciated because at that time we were adjacent to quite a large area on a corner at 71st & SR 37 which went commercial, you should go down there now, you can't even drive through the area. And this is the thing that scares me the same way. You crack the one and away we go up and down." The Mayor asked if there were any other comments. Proposed ordinance re-zoning the tract was read by Mayor Pickett. Resolution from Plan Commission recommending the re-zone request be denied was read byMayor Pickett. Councilman C~rretson stated he would vote against the ordinance because the people who have made an investment in property adjacent to the amea in question should not have the rules changed on them without their agreement unless there is an overwhelming, compelling reason, which he didn't feel there was. Councilman Swift stated he did not agree that the average resident out there is expecting apartments to be built out there. He stated he didn't feel the petitionerwas making a threat to build what the area was zoned for. Councilman Coots moved for adoption of proposed ordinance, Coucilwoman Doane seconded it. Councilman Garretson moved to suspend the rules and acs on the ordinance tonight, Councilwoman Reiman seconded it and it passed ~imously. Motion to adopt ordinance failed 6-0. Councilman Swift abstaining. Meeting was recessed at 8:50 PM. Meeting was re-convened at 9 PM. Councilwoman Reimanwas not present. AGENDA ITEM#3: ANNEXATION ORDINANCE FOR BR00KSHIRE PINES: Proposed ordinance annexing 26.85 acres known as Brookshire Pines was read by Mayor Pickett. Councilman Coots asked if it was Brookshire Pines or Brookshire Estates. Mr. Hohl stated he thought it was Pines. Councilman Coots moved for adoption of proposed ordinance, Councilman Garretson seconded it. Ordinance was shown as being introduced. AGENDA ITEM #4: ORDINANCE B-12~ TRANSFERRING FUNDS WITHIN THE MAYOR~ CITY COURT~ BUILDING COMMISSIONER~ FIRE~ POLICE AND MVH BUDGETS: Mayor Pickett read proposed Ordinance B-125 transferring funds within the City budget. Councilman Meacham moved for adoption, Councilman Horvath seconded it. Councilman Garretson moved to suspend the rules, Councilman Meacham seconded it and it passed unanimously. Motion to adopt passed unanimously. Page 12 5/15/78 AGE~DA ITeM ~5: ORDINANCE ~D-160 - AUTHORiZING ADDITIONAL UTILITY EXPENDITL~RES: Mayor Pickett read proposed ordinance D-160 authorizi~ expendit~-res for engineering .for utilities and expenditures for Regional Sewer Board budget. Councilman Garretson stated he would approve it if Mr. Hohl would have the proposed Regional Sewer Board budget typed in a more readable fashion. Mr. Hohl stated he would have his secretary do that. Clerk-Treasurer requested a s~mmary Of how the grant system and payments to the entities was going t~ work. Mr. Hohl stated he would have the consulti~ engineer ~prepare one. Councilman Horvath moved for adoption of ordinance, Councilwoman Deans seconded it. Councilman Coots moved to suspend the r~les, Councilman Meacham seconded it and it passed unanimously. Motion to adopt passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM,S6: ORDINANCE AMENDING 1~78 SALARY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZINGHIRING OF SUMMER HELP FOR STREET DEPARTMENT: M~yor Pickett read proposed ~rdinance ~D-161 authorizing eight s~mmer help positions in the street department at a rate of $3.00 per hour. Counc~lm~. G~rretson moved for adoption, Councilman Swift seconded it. Councilman Garretson moved to suspend the rules, Councilman Horvath seconded it and it passed unanimously. Motion to adopt passed unanimously. ADDED ITEMS: Councilman Garretson stated he had been informed of a new law - Public Law 9-SB106 effective M~rch 8, 1978 which deals with the vacancy of a Clerk-Treasurer position and which allows for the Chief deputy to assume office, should that vacancy occur. He stated this indicated a deputy could~be app~ointed and asked the City Attorney to review it. Mr. Kern stated he was not f~m~liar with it, but didn't believe a deputy would have ~ny powers of an official. He stated he would look at it and report back. Councilman Coots asked why we are paying for cha~io~ on those lights confined strictly to Keystone Square, or are these on road right-of-way. Mayor Pickett stated those were supposed to be on ll6th Street and would double check to There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:42 PM. Peggy L~o~ S~ith' Clerk-Treasurer Approved: