Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-01-21-85 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 21, 1985 The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Reiman at 7:00 P.M. on Jan.21, 1985, with Council members Badger, Fleming, Johnson, Garretson, Doane, McMullen and Solaro present. Also present was City Attorney Byers and Clerk-Treasurer Representative Martin. Invocation was given by Miss Doane followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Fleming made a motion to approve the minutes of Jan. 7, 1985 and minutes of the Executive Session of Jan. 7, 1985. Moti~n seconded by Mr. Solaro and passed unanimously. Mayor Reiman announced the recognition of 5-year employees and the Jaycee's award would be postponed until the next meeting. New Business Street Dept. Request - Street superintendant, Lee Dolen came before the Council to request the purchase of 2 pick-up trucks with plows instead of the dump truck originally requested at budget time. It was the concensus of the Council that they had no objection to this request. Ordinance D-430 - Introduction - Additional Appropriation - Cumulative Capital Sewer Fund S treet Superintendant, Lee Dolen explained that back in 1983 the Street Dept. requested $6,000 from the Cumulative Capital Sewer Fund to replace and repair storm sewers. All But $300 has been spent as of low and he has a repair to be made now on 5th Street SE that may cost as much as $2000 or more. Special equipment needs to be used at this site for digging and safety. He is requesting $10,000 total of which $2000 will be used to repair this street sewer and the rest used for normal maintenance and street and sewer repairs. Mr. Garretson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-430. Motion seconded by Mr. Johnson and passed unanimously. Ordinance D-430 was shown as introduced. Mr. Garretson made a motion to take a 15-minute recess before beginning the public hearing. Mrs. McMullen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 7:15 and reconvened at 7:30p.m Public Hearing - Ordinance Z-204, Proposed Rezone - Switches, Inc. M3 to B5 - Mayor Reiman opened the public hearing at 7 33p.m. Attorney Frank Spencer, attorney for remonstrators, had presented a written objection to the Council prior to the public hearing. Mayor Reiman asked Mr. Spencer to explain the objection to the Council. The notice as stated in the objection, along with proof of publication copy, was published on Jan. 11, 1985, Mr. Spence stated, with the final action of the Plan Commission was not until Jan. 15, 1985. Under the statute the proceedings as far as the Council was concerned, start after the final action by the Plan Commission and the before, we submit that the notice is not adequate as far as this meeting is concerned having been published before the Plan Commission acted, apparently with clairvoyance on the part of someone from Switches, Inc. Attorney Spencer explained we also noted that the application, the request, was on the agenda for the Council at the same time, prior to the time that the Plan Commission actually acted on the 15th. There fore, this could not have been a fullfillment of the statutory requirement that the matters be available for the examination by the public for a period of 10-days with the Plan Comm. because the Plan Comm. did not take their final action until the 15th, which is only six days ago. Mayor Reiman asked Mr. Coots if he would like to respond to the objection. Mr. Coots stated the purpose of the notice provisions of the act is to apprise adjacent persons and other residents within the County, of a matter that is pending that would affec the rezone of this particular piece of property. By reason of the history of this rezone commencing in August in 1984 all the track record that it has developed over the five months period of time, and by reason of seeking to bring to the finality, getting the matter before the Council, it was noticed on Jan. 11, as Mr. Spencer states, for this meeting. The act permits us to come to the Council with a positive or negative rec ommendation from the Plan Comm. The difference in what happens when we get here with a positive recommendation from the Plan Comm. vs. a negative recommendation Prom the Plan Comm. is in what is required in the way of vote from members of the Council to approve or disapprove a particular petition so we have technically complied with the statute in term of giving the 10-day notice, we can come to the Council with a negative or a positive rec ommendation from the Plan Comm. and we were fortunate to obtain an 11 to 1 recommendation from the Plan Comm. to approve this petition and to avoid the further delay, by reason of the history of this matter, we opted to come to the Plan Comm. at the next available meeting by publishing the notice and by presenting the matters from the Plan Comm. to you. Carmel City Attorney Byers recommended to note Mr. Spencer's objection for the record. Mayor Reiman stated the Council notes Mr. Spencer's objection, have received 4 documents from him prior to the public hearing, and the Council will continue with the public hearing at thistime. Mr. Garretson stated that in lieu of this a final vote on this ordinance this evening to give Attorney Byers ample time to research the objection. Mrs. McMullen directed a question to Mr. Merrill, President of the Plan Comm., asking wasn't this noted at the Plan Comm. and the attorney determined that this was the proper way to proceed? Mr. Merrill stated that he believed so. Mr. Garretson asked to make one statement before the hearing. He stated this has been very emotional for the people affected by it on the western part of the township. We note that we were a party to a previous hearing on a different rezone and noted it then. The record clearly shows that Mr. Fleming and Mr. Garretson were the 2 negative votes against the rezone before and based on the written submission of materials to date and reading of the minutes of the Plan Comm. he would probably, short of being convinced by the petitioners this evening, vote that way again. He also noted the emotionalism transforms itself into a lot of invective, challenging the veracity of the people on the Plan Comm. and this City Council that have nothing to do with the substance of the issue and that if it degenerates into this he will not stay for the remainder of the hearing. Mayor Reiman called the attorney for the petitioner to the microphone. Dave Coots, 24 Rolling Springs Court, Carmel and office address of 255 E. Carmel Dr., Carmel is the attorney representing Switches, Inc. an Indiana Corp. with the current principle place of business in Logansport, IN. The objective of Switches, Inc. is to move their headquarter to Clay Township , US Highway 421 at approximately 111th St. Present with Mr. Coots were Mr. Patrick Duffy, President of Switches, Inc. Dick Wilkins, Director of Human Resources of Switches, Inc., Charles SimFson, President of Simpson Engineering Corp., Dave Clark, General Contractor on the project, and Mr. Toussaint, Listing Realtor. Mrs. McMullen made a motion to introduce Ordinance Z-204. Motion seconded by Miss Doane. Mr. Garretson made a motion to suspend the reading of same. Motion seconded by Miss Doane and passed unanimously. Mr. Coots wanted the record to show prefilings of certain exhibits that have been made done with the objective to give to the Council members and they are also public documents in the Plan Comm. record and were submitted as such at the public hearing before the Plan Comm. They are as stated on the attached letter from E. Davis Coots, dated Jan. 16, 1985, as Items 1-5. Also proof of publication of notice of this hearing with my apology regarding the time discrepancy of 7:30 P.M. instead of 7:00 P.M. Mr. Coots gave a brief background stating that the Council approved the rezone petition to rezone this 11.194 acres located on St. Road 421 between 106th and 116th Streets from its then existing S-l Residential,cgricultural classification to an M-3 classification which is manufacturing designation within the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. From that rezone we went to the Board of Zoning Appeals seeking a variance of the M-3 zoning requirement as Mr. Fleming mentioned at the prior public hearing before the Council that since it was conditioned upon appealing thal: variance why not go obtain that variance first and then come back to the City Council for the M-3 zone approval. This was born out by the Board of Zoning Appeals refusal to grant the variance that would permit Switches to construct its office facility on the M-3 zoned property without public water and public sewer. Since it has been made part of the record through the remonstrance filed with the Plan Comm. and the information presented tonight by Mr. Spencer the Board of Zoning Appeals (from here on known as the BZA) determined in part based on the evidence presented as a part of the remon strance that an industrial zone classification public water and sewer were intregral to granting of that type of zone classification and we were unsuccessful in conveying the assurance that Switches would rever seek to construct manufacturing or industrial concern on that property if granting ar M-3 zone classification and a variance away from public water and sewage requirements. The alternatives at that point was to appeal that deter mination to circuit court and entwine the City in litigation that may be protracted, or by reason of having previously receiving approval by this body a positive or affirmation of the rezone come back to this bcdy with two things. 1.) Rezone the property to B-5 which is strictly an office intended classification and covenant with the City of Carmel would develope this property as previously presented to you and as previously preserted by the Plan Comm. and as contained in Exhibit I presented to you the real estate convenart that it would be developed according to M-3 zone classifi cation with strict adherance tc the criteria that were the cornerstone of the M-3 zone enactment in 1982. Items to be considered are traffic, water, impact on the community and surrounding area, public and tax benefit, etc. Mr. Coots described each of the above items with plans and graphs. See original minutes for attached. Mr. Chuck Simpson, Simpson Engineering Corp., 312 Massachusetts Ave., Indpls., explained the sewer treatment rather than a septic system. Patrick Duffy, President of Switches, Inc., 401 Greenlawn Ave., Logansport, stated that 40 area families were interviewed with 17 for, 19 opposed to it being rezoned to anything, and 4 didn't care one way or another, and quite a few misconceptions were discovered when talking with the families. Main concerns were traffic and property value. Frank Spencer, Attorney representing the remonstrators at the meeting, stated in addition to the previous information given at the beginning of this hearing the following was mentioned: a) No provisions for commitment on the part of the petitioner. He also has not seen a copy of the covenant. b) The petition was signed by Mr. Coots only, was incomplete, no detailed statement of what was proposed if it was rezoned, no proposed ordinance. c) Concern for the legality of the action since the Council did not originate the acti d) Petition was not presented by 50% of the property owners. e) Comprehensive Plan ignored. Ordinance in direct contradiction f) Action of the BZA was application for variance. Turned down by Plan Comm. g) That this is an illegal attempt by the Plan Comm. to get the Council to approve. h) Matters of fact have been determined by the BZA adversely to them. i) Why the use of highway figures of 1981? While the figures were high it can be expected to increase. rhe number of trips by 60 to 100 employees would mean up to 400 trips on an off the highway during the day. The duties of employees in this office in regard to the water usage and the aerobic system chemicals is not clear. j) Would like to see infor~ation as to what highway commission meeting approved this when it hasn't been rezDned, or plans haven't been approved in finality. Would like to know the date and the communication that encouraged the specific approval. k) believes the study was nothing more than a "take-up time" situation and would like the names/addresses of the families that approved. Mr. Spencer submits that this is not properly before the Council as a matter of law and it i not in the public interest but amounts substantially to an appeal from the BZA and there is not merit in the application for that location and what they propose to do at this time. John Olenick, 4558 Woodhaven Dr., Zionsville - stated that data has been previously sub mitted to the City Council and would like to incorporate that data in with this presental If the rezone is approved it would create a problem not a solution. The sign for Switches and surveyors flags, stakes, etc. were put up prior to the BZA meeting, the Board of Health approval, soil and drainage approval, and prior to any building permits. Jesse Splawn, 4101 W. 116th St. Zionsville - Mr. Splawn questioned Mr. Coots regarding presentation on the graph. How many employees was it based on and what percentage would it increase. Mr. Splawn has hald to have a new well dug recently because the water table had dropped 60 feet in 8 years and wondered if he will be expected to dig a new well every year if Switches comes in, possibly lowering the water table and he is terribly concerned. Don Bryenton, 4685 W. 116th St., Zionsville - Mr. Bryenton has appeared before the Council before regarding ground water, sewer and thoughts on the project. Me would like to comment on information from Switches regarding well records, etc. and believes that if the area goes commercial it could affect the water table. The system is not foolproof and needs monitoring since it relies on an absortion field in an area whose ground is not desirable for such a system. He believes traffic will increase by 1% to 1.5% on a road that is already overburdened. Mr. Bryenton believes there are very few positive reasons for this project and requests that the zoning change be denied. Madeline Clark, 4255 W. 116th St. Zionsville - Mrs. Clark would like added to the 19 familie that are against the project. Lucille Heeter, 4415 W. 116th St., Zionsville - Mrs. Heeter believes news articles report incorrect figures regarding footage distance from Woodhaven Development. Tax figures can't be confirmed. Sewage system will discharge directly on the surface of the soil. A business will pollute during the day while residential homes would be vacant because of jobs and school. Delta Faucet's system recycles the water using much less water volume. Mary Gillim, 765 Bloor Lane, Zionsville - Mrs. Gillim wanted to question Dave Coots regardin Zionsville using 1 million gallons of water per day. According to the water department in Zionsville, normal water use is only 450-500 thousand gallons per day. Mr. Coots stated the figures came from the Zionsville peak usage water tables. Alice Splawn 4101 W. 116th St., Zionsville - Mrs. Splawn questioned Mr. Coots regarding that a $100,000 charge for running a water main to the property. Mr. Coots stated that the cost was not economically feasible. Mrs. Paul Justice, 2525 116th St., Zionsville - Mrs. Justice wanted to mention that this is a "bean field" and that food prices will increase if we use up the farm land for buildinc Clarence A. Wickham, 11455-N. Michigan Rd., Zionsville - stated that the road is hazardous and is not designed for traffic and has not been improved and the highway department should consider making improvements. Mr. Wickham is a 28 year resident. Dave Coots - Rebuttal - Mr. Coots stated employee limitation and testing of the system is a responsibility of the landowner. The system is completely enclosed. Traffic at 96th and 421 and on up to Zionsville is a problem and Switches would work with the County and State concerning controlling and/or reducing speeds, designing accesses and intersections. etc. to help illeviate the traffic concerns voiced. Mayor Reiman closed the public hearing at 9:25 P.M. The Council asked questions of Mr. Coots clarifying highway approval, number of employees and limit on the sanitary system, could the Board of Health or OSHA stop the system, could Carmel intervene if problems are noted. Mayor Reiman stated that Carmel could intervene. Could it be incorporated in the convenant that the zoning could not he changed to M-3. Vote on Land Use given to the Plan Comm. on Jan. 15, 1985, for Switches was unanimous in favor and vote was 5-0. Questions were directed to Mr. Splawn, Mrs. Heeter and Mr. Spencer regarding the Comprehensi Plan, distance from project ancl opinion on residential units being built on the property, explanation of how the aerobic system works and location on the property, clarification on the Plan Comm.. not the City Council, approve subdivision requests. Ordinance Z-204 was shown as introduced. There being no further business, to come before the meeting, the same was duly adjourned at 10:00 P.M. APPROVED: ATTEST