Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-11-16-81MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 6 1981 The meeting of the City Cbuncil was called to ordex by Mayor Reiman at 7:3n P.M. on November 16, 1981. Council members Kerr, Shepherd, Walker, Johnson, McMullen, Fleming and Garretson were present. Also present was City Attorney, Mike Howard and Asst. Clerk-Treasurer. Mr. Garretson asked that the Clerk-Treasurer listen to the tapes concerning the item on 116th St. & Meridian Expansion he had asked tabled indefinitely rather than to the Nove. 16th meeting. Mr. Garretson made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 2, 1981. Motion seconded by Mr. Fleming and passed unanimously. Mayor Reiman announced that the items for rezone on Carmel Research and Devolopment Park and Tutweiler Cadilac had been withdrawn from the agenda. Mr. Johnson read a letter from Leroy K. New, Atty, representing Carmel Research & Development Park asking for withdrawal. New Business Transfer of Funds - Fire Dept. - Mr. Johnson made a motion to introduce Ordinance B-206, Transfer of Funds for Fire Dept. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen. Mr. Garretson stated he had a problem with the transfers, in that purchases were made before a request was submitted for transfer. Chief Swails spoke to the Council and explained some of his advance purchases were made becau.se of roofing problems at Station #3 that had to be repaired immediately. He went on to say that Some other purchases that would normally have gone under the Go Bond, were handled in his budget Mr. Garretson made a motion to delete the transfers in the Fire Dept. from 1-132 Overtime to 5-51 Insurance; 2-213 Traveling Expense to 5-51 Insuranse; 2-264 Copy Machine to 5-51 Insurance; 5-54 Clothing Allow. to 5-51 Insurance and 5-58 Auto Allow. to 5-51 Insurance totaling $3300.no. Motion seconded by Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Garretson made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance B-206 as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Johnson. Vote was taken on amended Ordinance B-206 which passed unanimously. Old Business Ordinance Z-180 - Frye Rezone - Mr. Garretson made note that the property in question was surrounded by residential zones and that it would be his intention not to vote for the rezone. Mrs. Kerr felt a domino effect would develop and that it would not be appropriate to vote for the rezone. Mrs. McMullen stated even though her vote was cast the other way in the Plan Cbmmission, she felt that she would have to change and vote against the rezone. Mr. Walker stated his vote would be against the rezone. Mr. Johnson made a call for the question. Vote was taken on Ordinance Z-180 which failed on a vote of 0-7. Mayor Reiman stated that Rangeline Road was not built at that point to accommodate business and when Clyde E. Williams layed out plans several years ago for Rangeline Road, it has to accommodate right and left turn lanes. Mayor Reiman asked that this be a part of the record. New Business Public Hearing - Ordinance Z-183 - Smokey Row Road Rezone - Mr. Walker made a motion to introduce Ordinance Z-183. Motion seconded by Mr. Johnson. Mrs. McMullen made a motion to waive the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Shepherd and passed unanimDusly. Mr. E. Davis Coots, attorney for the petitioner spoke to the Council. City Council Meeting Nov. 16, 1981 Page Two He explained this piece of property in question is a 10 acre tract located at the northwest corner of Smokey Row Road or 136th St. Mr. Coots stated the proposed rezone is to R-4 for multi-family unit dwellings of 10,000 Sq.Ft. lots. He said the request for the rezone as to why this piece of property is the economics of this size of the parcel of real estate. Mr. Al Oak from Cripe Engineering spoke to the Council concerning the transportation aspect in a subdivision of this sort. Discussion ensued. Mayor Reiman opened the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. Mr. Joe W. Ricketts, 2922 E. 136th St., a land owner on Smokey Row Rd., spoke against the rezone. Mayor Reiman closed the public hearing at 8:54 P.M. Discussion Ensued. Mr. Walker made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance Z-183 tonight. Motion seconded by Mrs. Kerr. Vote was taken on Ordinance Z-183 which failed on a vote of 5-2; Garretson and Johnson voting nay. Transfer of Funds - Engineering Dept. - Mr. Johnson made a motion to introduce and suspend with the reading of Ordinance B-207. Motions econded by MR. Fleming. Mr. Garretson moved to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance B-207 tonight. Motion seconded by Mr. Walker and passed unanimously. Vote was taken on Ordinance B-207 which passed unanimously. Transfer of Funds - MVH - Mrs. McMullen moved to introduce and dispense with the reading of Ordinance B-208. Motions econded by Mr. Walker. Mr. Garretson made a mDtion to delete the amount of $2114.79 fro l m e item 4-424 (Bitumlnous Materials) to 2-262 (Street & Alley Resurfacing) and place $1000.00 in same. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMhllen. and passed 6-1; Walker voting nay. Mr. Garretson moved to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance B-208 as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Walker and passed unanimously. Vote was taken on Ordinance B-208 which passed unanimously. Transfer of Funds - Dept. of Community Developement - Mr. Johnson made a motion to introduce Ordinance B-209 and dispense with the readinq of same. Mbtion seconded by Mrs. Kerr. Mr. Johnson moved to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance B-209 this evening. Motion seconded by Mr. Walker and passed unanimously. Vote was taken on Ordinance B-209 which passed unanimously. Discussion of Sign Ordinance - Mr. Johnson stated some time ago he had acted as a one of several petitioners on behalf of his church. He explained that after going through the regular procedural route of platting & discussing construction, etc through the BZA and Plan Commission the subject of signs came up. They were told that any emblem on a building was considered a sign or logo. Mr. Johnson, as well as the other people involved, felt a cross or emblem similar to, was part of the architect of the church. He stated that regardless of what was thought, the people involved in his petition left the meeting feeling as though they had been attacked. Mr. Johnson explained that what bothered him was the fact that these People, or petitioners, were citizens of this community and were treated like outsiders or wrongdoers. His feeling was that if all petitioners or remonstraters or just citizens that came before any governing body of the City left feeling the same way as he and the people involved with him did, then it was sad and are these bodies really trying to help. Mr. Johnson requested Attorney Howard to research the Plan Commission A joinder and report back to the Council his findings. Announcements Mr. Garretson read a letter to the Council expressing his feelings on the growth of Carmel,the advantages of having the Industrial Park and the annexing of Guilford. (See letter attached to these minutes) Mr. Garretson made a motion to move that the City Council request formally that the Plan Commission take up the creation of an City Council Meeting Nov. 16, 1981 Page Three I-3 zoning classification as soon as possible and that every effort be expended to bring together the view of all those affected and interested in its outcome and also to annex Guilford in the City. Mr. Garretson made a motion to add this item to the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Johnson and failed on a vote of 6-l; Mrs. Kerr voting nay. Mr. Walker extended his congratulations to the Carmel Football Team. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the same was duly adjourned at 10:02 P.M. APPROVED: ATTEST NOVEMBER 16, 1981 THIS ISSUE HAS HAD NEARLY A TEN-MONTH HEARING IN OUR COMMUNITY AND HAS GENERATED EARNEST AND VOLATILE CONVERSATION. ON THE ONE HAND WE HAVE PERCEIVED COMMUNITY NEEDS FOR INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EXPANSION, AND ON THE OTHER, SINCERE CITIZENS CONCERNED THAT SUCH GROWTH AND EXPANSION NOT IMPACT THEIR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN A NEGATIVE MANNER WHERE PROPERTY VALUES ARE LOWERED AND THE AESTHETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL NATURE OF THEIR COMMUNITY IS ALTERED. THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE PROPOSED PETITION COULD HAVE FOUND THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF THIS COUNCIL IN ITS PRESENT FOPM, LET ALONE A ~/3 MAJORITY. UNQUESTIONABLY, THE EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT OF SO MANY PEOPLE CONVINCED OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THEIR CAUSE, HAS LED TO PERSONAL ACRIMONY, THE DECISION BY MR. ~EW TO WITHDRAW HIS PETITION TONIGHT SHOULD PROVIDE US A SPAN OF TIME TO COOL EMOTIONS, BUT IT DOES NOT PUT AN END TO THE ISSUE, FOR SURELY HE AND HIS ASSOCIATES WILL BE BACK AGAIN. AND IN A BROADER SENSE, THE ISSUE IS DEEPER THAN A SPECIFIC ~55 ACRES AND THE WELFARE OF THREE OR FO~R SUBDIVISIONS. THE ISSUE IS ONE OF "QUALITY OF LIFE', OF COMMUNITY BALANCE AND OF COMMUNITY VIABILITY. AS CIVIL OFFICIALS WE AT THIS TABLE, HAVE TO LOOK DOWN THE PATH FOUR, EIGHT, TWELVE, TWENTY YEARS ON MANY OF OUR DECISIONS. IN THE PAST WE HAVE BEEN GAUGHT IN THE TRAUMA OF UNRESTRAINED GROWTH; BUT OUR ONCE THRIVING GROWTH HAS BEEN ABATED BY A SICK ECONOMY AND SPIRALING INTEREST RATES. BUT SURELY THE LONG TERM PATH WILL SEE A REDUCTION IN INTEREST RATES AND A PERIOD OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY, llE CANNOT ESCAPE THE INEVITABLE REVIVAL. IN DEED, THE CITY IS PRESENTLY EXPANDING ITS SEWERS AND WATER FACILITIES SO THAT WHEN GROWTH DOES RESUME, UTILITIES WILL BE AVAILABLE. WE ARE PROBABLY VERY FOURTUNATE TO HAVE THIS ECONOMIC PAUSE AT THIS TIME. BUT NEITHER THE CITY, NOR THE TOWNSHIP, NOR THE COUNTY CAN PROVIDE PERMANENT JOBS FOR OUR ADULTS OR PARTTIME JOBS FOR OUR YOUTH . SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF OUR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WORK DURING PART OR ALL OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. GOVERNMENT CANNOT UNDERWRITE THE DAD'S CLUB PROGRAMS, THE CARMEL CLAY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, THE CARMEL CLASSIC, THE BAND, THE SWIM CLUB, THE BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL LEAGUES, THE CHURCH BOUTIQUES AND RAFFLES, AND THE HOST OF VOLUNTARY EFFORTS THAT HAVE MADE CARMEL UNIQUE IN THE PRIVATE SERVICES OFFERED ITS CITIZENS. TO ALLOW GROWTH THAT SPURNS ALL BUT RESIDENCES WILL SURELY BRING AN INCREASE IN POPULATION AND A DILUTION IN PRIVATE SUPPORT OF SERVIACES FOR THAT POPULATION. AND FROM A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, AS ONE SURVEYS THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE STATE, OF LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT AND OF SCHOOL COPORATIONS, AND UNDERSTANDS THE EVOLUTION OF THE TAXING SYSTEM USED IN INDIANA, WE MUST REALIZE THAT NO TAX LAW IS ANCHORED IN CONCRETE. THE 1973 TAX FREEZE IS THAWING. THE PROPERTY TAX REPLACEMENT FUND WHICH WAS BEEN PAYING 20%-30% OF EVERY PROPERTY OWNER'S TAX BILL IS NEARLY BANKRUPT. LOCAL OPTION INCREASES IN BOTH PROPERTY AND INCOME TAXES ARE NOW BEING BANNERED ABOUT OPENLY BY NUMEROUS INFLUENTIAL LOBBYING GROUPS. WESTFIELD AND WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP HAVE GONE A STEP BEYOND TO AN "IMPOSED" PROPERTY TAX INCREASE TO BAIL OUT ~TS SCHOOL SYSTEM FROM FINANCIAL CHAOS. WE CANNOT SIT HERE TONIGHT, THEN, AND COMPLACENTLY BELIEVE THE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN IN OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT INCREASE. LIKEWISE THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT PROPERTY TAXES FROM RESIDENTIAL HOMES CANNOT SUPPORT SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES IN A QUALITY MANNER BY THEMSELVES. NOW, THE QUESTION (IT SEEMS TO ME) IS ONE OF HOW DO WE ACHIAEVE THE BALANCE IN A MANNER THAT HAS THE LEAST NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ESTABLISHED HOMESTEDS. THROUGHOUT THIS TEN MONTH DEBATE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES VOICED A WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE. I WOULD MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT AS A STEP TOWARD ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM. THE PETITIONER FOR THE INDUSTRIAL PARK HAS ALREADY INDICATED HIS INTENTION OF RETURNING TO THE PLAN COMMISSION. RATHER THAN WAIT AND THEN REACT, WE SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE. MUCH TALK HAS BOUNCED BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF AN I-3 ZONING CLASSIFICATION. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION AND ITS APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES BEGIN IMMEDIATELY THE RESEARCH AND DISCUSSIONS NECESSARY TO CREATE SUCH A ZONING CLASSIFICATION. THE PLAN COMMISSION SHOULD SOLICIT THE VIEWS OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHE POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS, OF REPRESENTATIVES OF JOHNSON SUBDIVISION, WILSON VILLAGE, THORNHURST AND OTHER POTENTIAL AFFECTED AREAS. SUCH CLASSIFICATION SHOULD ENABLE THE PLAN COMMISSION TO PASS UPON FUTURE PETITIONS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ADDING COUNTLESS COVENANTS WHOSE ENFORCAB1LITY HAS COME INTO QUESTIAON DURING THESE HEARINGS. THEREFORE, MADAMN r;AYOR, I WOULD MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FORMALLY THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION TAKE THE CREATION OF AN I-3 ZONING CLASSIFICATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THAT EVERY EFFORT BE EXPENDED TO BRING TOGETHER THE VIEWS OF ALL THOSE AFFECTED AND INTERESTED IN ITS OUTCOME.