Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-03-04-85MINUTES OF T HE CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 4, 1 985 The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Reiman at 7:00 P.M. on March 4, 1985. Council members present were Badger, Fleming, Garretson, Johnson, Doane, McMullen and Solaro. Also present were City Attorneys Byers and Andrews and Clerk-Treasurer Hancock. Invocation was given by Miss Doane followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Miss Doane made a motion to approve the minutes of the Feb. 4th Council meeting, Executive Meeting and Board of Finance meeting. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen and passed 6-0-1, Mr. Garretson abstaining as he was not present for all of the meetings. Old Business P u blic Hearing - Ordinance D-411, Additional Appropriation - General Fund - Mayor Reiman opened the meeting for public hearing on Ordinance D-431, an ordinance to appropriate funds from the general fund for the police department. There being no response from the public, the public hearing was closed. Vote was taken on Ordinance D-431, which passed unanimously Amendment to Cable TV Franchise - Mr. Johnson made a motion to table this item since the ordinance was not in proper form and bring this item back at the March 18th meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Solaro and passed unanimously. New Business Introduction of Ordinance D-432, Ordinance for Additional Appropriation from Cumulative Capital Improvement Fund - Mr. Johnson explained that approximately $5000 was needed for an architectural study for the ne~l fire station. Mr. Fleming made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-432. Motion seconded by Mr. Johnson and passed unanimously. EDC Inducement Resolution - Carmel Manor Healthcare Center - Mr. James Crawford, attorney for Carmel Manor Healthcare Center appeared before the Council to present the project and answer any questions. Mr. Don Smith and Mr. Bob Langston principals in the project were also present. Mr. Garretson made a motion to adopt Resolution 3-4-85-1. Motion seconded by Mr. Badger and passed unanimously. Public Hearing - Ordinance Z-204, Proposed Rezone Switches, Inc. - Mayor Reiman stated the format for the public hearing and asked that a motion be made to make the minutes of the January 21, 1985 meeting and all documents pertaining to Switches received during the last six months a part of the record. Mayor Reiman also asked that the Clerk-Treasurer make the remarks of the Council a part of the record. Mr. Badger made a motion to include the Council minutes of January 21, 1985 and all documents received in the past 6 months pertaining to Switches, a part of the records of this meeting. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen and passed unanimously . Mr. Garretson made a motion to introduce Ordinance Z-204 and dispense with the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Fleming. Mr. E. Davis Coots, 255 E. Carmel Dr, Carmel, attorney for Switches, Inc. made his presentation, referring to documents he had filed with the Clerk-Treasurers office addressing some of the concerns of the remonstrators. (Document are attached hereto and made a part hereof). Mr. Coots explained that the weather had prohibited Switches from making a perk test on the ground in question. Mr. Coots stated that the permit applied for from the State Board of Health had been held up as a result of not being able to run a perk test. Mr. Coots also explained that the application for permit to State Highway Department had been filed but that the rules of the Dept. of Highways were that the issue must be decided locally before the highway would make decision on the permit Mr. Coots distributed copies of the State Highway procedure and same is hereby made a part of the record. Mr. Coots showed the Council two pictures and a map showing U.S.421 from 96th Street to north of 116th Street as it now exists. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting to the public for the hearing. Mr. Frank Spencer, Room 450 Century Bldg. Indianapolis, attorney for the demonstrators addressed the Council again reiterating that the petition was not signed by the owners of the property. Mr. Spencer also pointed out that the Plan Commission had not approved on the ordinance now before the Council. Mr. Spencer also stated that the Council had been told that the State Highway Commission had approved and the State Board had approved and were now being told the application had been made. Mr Spencer stated it was his opinion that the Council has no statutory authority to act on c conditional ordinance. Mr. Spencer stated he also had not received a copy of the covenant. Mr. John Olenick, 4558 Woodhaven Dr., Zionsville. Mr. Olenick asked that the Council incorporate as part of this record all of the previously submitted data and oral comments. Mr. Olenick stated that Switches had stated previously that they had obtained approval from the State Board of Health, the State Highway Commissioner and the Hamilton County Board of Health. Mr. Olenick further stated that a check this after noon showed Switches had not submitted any additional data recently and Mr. Olenick felt that the Petitioner lacked integrity, dignity and credibility. Donna Thompson, 950 Tillson Dr, Zionsville, Timber Ridge, stated she felt the rezone and building at the proposed site would alter the drainage, which already has problems, would increase the traffic which is already too heavy for the road and that there were alternative sites in Hamilton County but the residents could not move their houses and had no alternative. Mr. Don Bryenton, 4685 W. 116th St.,Zionsville, asked that his verbal and written comments previously made before the Plan Commission and Council be made a part of the record. Mr. Bryenton stated that as a resident he saw the development in Mr. Coots' photograph in a different light as a commercia use in the midst of residential development. Mr. Bryenton pointed out that traffic was already a problem and that he felt the issue of proper sewage treatment had not been adequately answered. Mr. Bryenton stated he had been informed that during the comprehensive plan meetings the consultants have stated that the best use of this land is residential or left agricultural. Mr. Bryenton asked the Council to deny the rezone in that Switches has an alternative. Lucille Martin Heeter, 4415 W. 116 St., Zionsville, asked that newspapers clippings and information she had sent to the Council be made a part of the record. Mrs Heeter showed the Council where her property was located on the photo and stated that if Switches was allowed to build, she may not the able to develop her land as a residential area. Mr. Jack Bigham, 3755 W. 116Th St., Zionsville, stated that a perk test of course could not be made at this time, that his back yard was a foot under water and felt the problem would be compounded if the rezone went through. Mr. Brigham questioned whether this was a start ing block and the whole area then be rezoned business. He questioned which was better for the tax base and community, business or residential. Mr. Carl David Toth, 4451 Haven Ct., Zionsville, stated his property was closest to the pro pos ed rezone and the if the rezone were approved, it would change the quality of life in the area and he would loose money on his investment in his home. Mr. Lowell Van De Mark, 11370 Shelburn Rd.,Zionsville, stated the drainage was poor and there had been problems with well wa;er. Mr. Van DeMark felt this rezone would compound the problems . Mayor Reiman closed the public hearing. Mr. Coots, attorney for Petitioner was given time for summation. Mr. Coots asked Mr. Chuck Simpson of Simpson Engineering, 320 Massachusetts Ave., Indianapolis, reaffirm that the proper petitions had been filed with the State Highway Commission and State Board of Health. Mr. Simpson stated that final approval will not, by virtue of their procedures, grant final approval until the property is rezoned. The purpose of their procedures is to avoid making a decision that may have an effect on the local government's decision. The rezone must be done first. Mr. Coots also reiterated that all of the landscaping and buffer zone plans as approved under the M-3 zoning were still in the plans. Mr. Mayor then opened the meeting for comments from the Council. Mr. Badger stated his views on the project. He saw there were four basic objections from the remonstrators. One that it did not adhere to the comprehensive plan but the plan is out dated and circumstances had overtaken it. Mr. Badger feels the plan should be redone but doesn't see it as a hinderance to this project. Secondly, the strain on the water table. Mr. Badger stated that this project would use three times less water than would be used if the land were developed under The S-l zoning for residential. Also the concern of sewage in the area had been raised. Mr. Badger stated he felt the evidence presented clearly showed that the planned facility would be 200% more effective than if the land were devel oped under S-l and septic tanks were installed for each residence. Finally, the highway is very crowded. Mr. Badger stated he felt the traffic impact would be marginal and that it was merely a matter of time before the State Highway recognized the problem and widened the road to four lanes. Mr. Badger stated this project would bring in employment for 60 to 100 people with a payroll of about $2 million a year. Meaning $6 million into the community to the Hamilton and Boone area's. The sales tax would bring in a lot of money also $40,000 to $70,000 in property tax. Mr. Badger felt the project is very aesthetic and had a country club appearance. Finally, Mr. Badger stated he understood Woodhaven development was not as successful as hoped and that the addition of Switches would bring new residents to the area and benefit the value of the property. Mrs. McMullen asked Mr. Simpsoll to address Item 4 in the letter from the State Board of health addressed to Mr. Simpsoll which states "The submittal proposed the use of aerobic home wastewater treatment plants. We have not objection to the use of properly designed equipment of this type in lieu of a septic tank providing the total tank volume for no more than two units is at least equal to that of the required septic tank capacity. One days detention at design flow. The proposed equipment has a capacity of only 500 gallons per tank,~a total capacity of 1800 gallons must be provided for the design flow of 1800 CPDs if two tanks are to be used, they must be installed in series and another requirement is that the inlet and outlet of each tank must include baffles or sanitary T's which meet septic tank requirements. Mrs. McMulllen asked Mr. Simpson what exactly was proposed and did the proposal meet requirements. Mr. Simpson stated the proposal was for two 1000 gallon tanks. not 500 gallon tanks. The estimate of usage would be 1800 gallons per day. The baffling was in the Y but not detailed. Mrs. McMullen asked the opinion of the city attorney re garding Mr. Spencers remarks on the covenant offering. Mr. Byers stated that the legis lative body could place restrictions on zoning as they see fit. The covenant which applies to the city code and that the legislative body could place these restrictions on the rezone. Mrs. McMullen stated that as a member of the Plan Commission and Land Use Committee has heard these arguments and presentations for many hours and that she felt this is a quality project and the best use of the land. Mrs. McMullen stated she feels what is offered from the M-3 zone offered a lot of protection. Mr. Solaro asked Mr. Coots about his letters of Feb. 27 and 28 in which the covenant was "watered down" and wanted to allow what the second covenant had to do with bonding or financing. Mr. Coots stated when he presented the original covenant of Feb. 27 to Mr. Duffy was concerned with title one year limitation on all approvals, on EDC funding and having this restriction as a condition of being able to utilize the property as a B-5 zone with an M-3 development standard and that that restriction would encumber the marketability of the sale of EDC bonds which might be requested at some point after or if the bonds were approved along with the quasi-automatic revision to S-l in the event it was not approved within one year by the bonding authority. Mr. Solaro stated he had visited the land and did not feel that at this time the rezone would be the best use of the land. That a rezone would be opening the area to spot zoning and the project did not have proper utilities to support a commercial development. Mr. Solaro stated there is not commercial development adjacent to the property or north of 102nd Street and questions the adequacy of water supply and adequacy of the drainage. Mr. Garretson referred to his statement made a the meeting of Feb. 4, 1985, copy of which i attached and made a part hereof. Mr. Garretson also stated that since the comprehensive plan was not yet complete,that it is precipitous to spot zone this piece of land and in fluence how the zoning of that area would go until the plan is complete. Mr. Garretson also referenced Mr. Badger's statement that this project would be an economic benefit to the community and that Mr. Garretson felt that the best benefit to the community would be from continued use of the property is now zoned. Mr. Garretson also felt the problem of utili ties had not been properly addressed. Mr. Garretson stated that this would be the beginn ing of zoning for commercial where there were not utilities to support such development and that to rezone at this point would be precipitous. Miss Doane stated she had heard both sides of this issue in Plan Commission and voted for the rezone and had heard the presentation before the Council and had not heard anything new and felt the rezone was the best use of the land. Mr. Fleming stated he felt the Petitioner had his rights and the homeowners had their right and that a rezone at this time was not the best use of the land and intended to vote against the rezone . Mr. Johnson stated he had attended the meeting on the comprehensive plan on Wednesday and the plan showed this area as commercial.~ Mr. Badger again stated that in regard to utilities the Switches proposal would provide for a septic system 200 times better than individual septic systems and would use 1/3 the water Mr. Badger felt that was significant better use of the land. Mr. Garretson questioned what if the petitioner runs into a roadblock that prevents their proposed septic system from going in, and decides to go ahead with a regular- septic system what was to prevent that from happening. Mr. Garretson was advised that the State Board of Health and the permit would prevent an alternate system from that proposed. Mrs. McMullen stated that whenever something was proposed, the idea seemed to be to doubt everything and at some point people had to have some faith that a project was based on good faith. Mrs. McMullen stated she felt the proposed septic system was more efficient the a home system and that it would have constant supervision which a home system wouldn't have Mrs. McMullen stated again she felt the project was good. Mr. Solaro stated the matter of the septic system kept cropping up and he didn't know if it was going to meet the code requirements or not. Mr. Solaro stated he had a letter in his file which said the septic system was not adequate but Mr. Coots' engineer stated that was not so. Mr. Solaro stated he felt adequate time had passed so that there should be something in writing to clarify the issue. Mr. Solaro stated he felt there were still too many questions and issues unanswered. Mayor Reiman stated she was still working on the gasoline problem and there was just no way to speed-up action from the State Board of Health. Mr. Garretson made a motion to suspend the rules and act upon Ordinance Z-204 this evening. Motion seconded by Mr. Badger and passed unanimously. Mr. Badger made a motion to approve Ordinance Z-204. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen and passed 4-3, Fleming, Solaro and Garretson voting nay. The meeting recessed at 9:00 and reconvened at 9:10 Public Hearing - Ordinance Z-205, Rezone- The Estridge Grou p , Inc. - Mrs. McMullen made a motion to introduce Ordinance Z-205 and dispense with the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mr. Garretson and passed unanimously. Mr. Jim Nelson, attorney for the Estridge Group, Inc. appeared before the Council to present the development called Waterford at Carmel Drive and Keystone Ave. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting for public hearing on Ordinance Z-205. There being no response from the public, Mayor Reiman closed the public hearing. Mr. Paul Estridge, Sr. and Paul Reo were present from The Estridge Group to answer any questions the Council may have. Mr. Garretson made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance Z-205 this evening. Motion seconded by Miss Doane and passed unanimously. Vote was taken on Ordinance Z-205 which passed unanimously. Other Business Mayor Reiman announced there could be an executive session on Wednesday March 6 at 6:00 P.M regarding possible land acquisition. The Council decided to cancel the meeting of April 1 due to spring break and hold the first meeting of April on April 8. Mayor Reiman announced Lee Dolen had retired from the Police Department after twenty years of service. Mayor Reiman stated she had met with the State Highway Commission and an agreement was made to extend Carmel Drive out to U.S. 31 to connect at Old Meridian. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the same was duly adjourned at 9:45 P.M. APPROVED: ATTEST: