Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-01-13-86 MlNUTES OF THE CARMEL ClTY COUNClL MEETlNG JANUARY 13, 1986 The meeting of the Carmel CLty Council was called to order by Mayor Reiman at 7:00 P.M. on January 13, 1986, with Council members Miller, McMullen, Doane, Fleming, Garretson, Johnson and Badger present. Also present was City Attorney Andrews and Clerk- Treasurer Hancock. lnvocation was given by Miss Doane followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Fleming made a motion to approve the minutes of December 16, 1985. Motion seconded by Mr. Miller and passed unanimously. New Business Election of Council President - Mr. Garretson made a motion to nominate Mr. Fleming for President of the Council for 1986. Mrs. McMullen seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson made a motion to close nominations Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Fleming was elected President of the Council for 1986. City Council - Plan Commission Appointments - Mr. Johnson made a motion to reappoint Mrs. McMullen, Miss Doane and Mr. Vaughn Story to the Plan Commission for 1986. Motion seconded by Mr. Garretson. Vote was taken and Mrs. Sue McMullen, Miss Minnie Doane and Mr. Vaughn Story were appointed to the Plan Commission for 1986. Chaplain - Parlimentarian Appointments - Mayor Reiman appointed Miss Doane as Chaplain an Mrs. McMullen as Parliamentarian for 1986. Public Hearing - Ordinance Z-210 - Proposed Rezone, Meridian-465 Associates, LTD, lndiana Limited Partnership - A Three-Part Rezone for a Parcel of Ground 75.969 Acres in size at the N.W. Corner of 1-465 and U.S. 31 in Clay Twp. - Mayor Reiman explained the procedure for the Public Hearing. Mr. Johnson made a motion to introduce Ordinance Z-210. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen. Mr. Garretson made a motion to suspend the rules and dispense with the reading of Ordinance Z-210. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen and passed unanimously. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting for Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. Mr. James Nelson, 3663 Brum]ey Way, Carmel,Attorney for Meridian- 465 Associates, LTD, a division of R.V. Welch lnvestments, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner for the rezone Also present on behalf of the petitioner were Mr. Richard Rembusch, 11550 North Meridian, Carmel, General Cclunsel for R.V. Welch lnvestments and representatives from Schneider Engineering; Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf, lnc. and Pflum-Crossmeyer. Mr. Nelson included in his presentation that use exceptions of the B-5 zoning would be exten ed to the B-6, B-3 and B-l zoning if approved. Mr. Nelson also set out the covenants which would run with the property (copy attached). Mr. Nelson stated that the proposed rezone fit into the proposec use set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Douglas Church, 930 Conrer Street, Noblesville, attorney representing the residents in opposition of the rezone addressed the Council. Mr. Church set out as some oi the opposition concerns: The statement that the Plan Commission accepts the covenants pro- posed by the petitioner and stated he felt this was contract zoning; the B-l permitted uses were objectional; the fact that Lhe residents affected did not have representation on the body making the decision on the rezone; the reduction inproperty values and the increased traffic flow. Mr. Church stated that it was his clients' opinion that the rezone would be a fundamentc 1 change in philosophy of the Carmel zoning . Mr. Dick Wickliff, 10300 Springmill Road, Chairman of Heartland North Homeowners, spoke in opposition the rezone stating that the rezone to B-6 would allow a building height ol eight stories. Mr. Wickliff stated he felt this rezone and the uses it would permit is not responsible especially when there is no development plan. Mr. Harrison Eiteljorg, 9950 Springmill Road, spoke against the rezone stating the proposed rezone and the extension of a road to exit onto Springmill Road could destory the natural beauty of the area and turn Springmill Road into a commercial highway. Mr. Jim Culbreth, 353 East 107th Street, in Springmill Place spoke against the rezone stating he had moved all over the country and moved to Carmel because of the quality of life and the quality of working life after coming home. Mr. Culbreth stated the traffic at 106th and Springmill Road was already a problem and this would only make it worse. Mr. Jim Baumgardt, 320 Springridge Court spoke against the rezone stating that he had been transferred many times and whenever he came back to central lndiana he always came back to Carmel because it has the reputation and history of protecting individuals and their property by responsible zoning laws. Mr. Baumgardt stated he had taken a poll of residents east of Keystone and the great majority of those polled also felt this was not a good rezone proposal. Mrs. Sally Lieber, 10750 Springmill Road, the Northwest corner of 106th and Springmill stated that the property hcd been in here husband's family since 1936 and given some of the original property tc the State of lndiana as a Natural Conservancy. Mrs. Lieber stated Governor Bowen, at the dedication of Butternut Woods, Natural Conservancy, stated it was a pleasure to accept the natural heritage of such a lovely land. Mrs. Lieber urged the Council to reject this proposed rezone and protect the nature of the area. Mr. Ed Gagnon, 10480 Spingnill Road, directly across Springmill Road from the proposed rezone, spoke against the rezone stating that his house was one of seven directly across from the proposed rezone and most directly affected by the sight, sound, drainage, etc. of the project. Mr. Gagnon stated that the people in those seven homes were a cross-section of the American homeowner. Mr. Gagnon stated he felt the best use was to keep zoning as it is, put a buffer between the B-5 zone, make the most residential which would be most responsible use of the land. Mr. Gagnon stated it was an emotional issue for the residents, but asked the Council to consider the validity of the arguments stating they just wanted a fair shake. Mr. Larry Frey, 12409 Lancelot Lane, Brookshire, spoke against the rezone stating he did not live in the area but felt that the beauty of the community was its residential areas Mr. Frey stated that he had been transferred to the area and chose it because it is a lovely residential community stating that if the rezone were approved, it would ruin the community and the traffic could choke the area. Mr. Bob Coakley, 4972 Riley Mews,spoke against the rezone stating that he had moved from Tampa and had seen the mistakes mady by commercial zoning in an area those roads could not handle the traffic. Mr. Coakley stated he had chose this area because the realtor stated it was a good location for many reasons but one of them was the zoning principles. Mr. Cockley asked the Council to keep those responsible zoning principles. Ms.Mary Grein, 12051 Hampton Court, which is east of Keystone, spoke against the rezone stating that she had moved to this community because it was a "quaint community" but finds it takes as long to get to Keystone at the Crossing from her home now as it did when she lived much further from Keystone at the Crossing in lndianapolis. Ms. Grein stated the traffic at Meridian and 1-465 would be as bad as that at Keystone and 1- 465 if this rezone is approved. Mrs. Elizabeth Bodner, 10545 Springmill Road, spoke against the rezone stating that the zoning as it now stands allows for commercial development along Meridian Street and should be restricted to thct area. Mrs. Bodner stated that to rezone the parcel a proposed could adversely affect the residential values, increase the traffic, cause security problems and that any traffic generated by the development of the area should be routed only to Meridian Street. Mr. Guy Grazier, 10120 Springmill Road, an Environmental Specialist with the State spoke against the rezone stating that he works continuously with the problems of pollution. Mr. Grazier stated that there would be an enormous impact on the air, land and water if this rezone is approved. Mr. Grazier stated he felt there could be great amounts of pollution and recommended a study of the environmental impact be made before any rezone is approved. There was a five minute recess between 9:30 and 9.35 P.M. Mr. Randy Shields, 4322 Powder Horn Court, six miles east of the proposed rezone, stated that he had moved to the area because of its past reputation as being a good residential area. Mr. Shields stated he felt the area was growing too rapidly and in the process, buildings were not being given the proper inspections. He stated in his area, Blue Creek Woods, there were several problems with elevation and drainage. Mr. Shields asked the Council to guarantee the current residents a standard of excellence and quality of life before granting a rezone that changes that. Mr. Jerry Vest, 10951 Cottingham Drive, which is west of Meridian and north of 111th St., spoke against the rezone stating his concern for all areas north on Meridian and west thereof if a rezone were granted that took commercial development over to Springmill. Mr. Vest asked the Council to consider Springmill as a residential corridor and not mix it with the Meridian Corrider. Mr. Wally Boysen, 1099 Springmill Court, spoke against the rezone stating that the rezone had passed the Plan Commiss on by a vote of 8-5 which to him indicated that some members of the Plan Commission had some grave concerns and asked that the Council consider the closeness of the vote of the Plan Commission. Mr. Mike Perry, 341 Spring Ranch Court, spoke against the rezone stating that he enjoyed riding a bicycle but already the traffic on Springmill prohibited riding any later than about 6:45 A. Mr. Perry stated that he is in the investment business and he felt that the proposed rezone was asking for permission to do whatever the developer wanted to do with the land and compared: to his asking investors to just through their money into a pool and let him do whatever he wanted to with it. Mrs . Jeanne Book, 12550 Springmill Road spoke in opposition of the rezone stating that Marion County has been good to residents between 86th and 96th Streets by keeping low intensity lighting and low buildings . Mrs. Book stated she was concerned about the remainder of the Meridian Corridor if a precedent was set by taking the commercial zoning all the way over to Springmill Road. Ms. Betty Hawkins, 10240 North Delaware. representative of the Northridge Homeowners spoke against the rezone stating that the traffic at the corner of 103rd and Meridian is dangerous now and the proposed development of the area would add to the traffic problems and dump more traffic onto 103rd Street between Meridian and College Avenue. Mr. Gene Newcombe, 10510 Hussy Lane, spoke against the rezone stating that as a pro fessional in interior designer, he was very much aware of aesthetic values. Mr. Newcombe stated that the Springmill area is now serene, quiet and lovely and asked that the Council deny the rezone and keep the commercial area divided from the residential area. Mr. Newcombe stated he shouldn't let aesthetic slide away . Mr. Richard Albright, 10235 North Delaware, member of the Plan Commission spoke against the rezone stating his primary concern was the traffic stating that the development should have the infrastructure to support. Mr. Albright stated the infrastructure simply will not support it at this time. Mr. Albright also stated that once the rezone is passed, the Plan Commission does not have control of the development plan. Ms. Elizabeth Frenzel, 11960 Springmill Road spoke against the rezone stating the traffic is too great now to safely ride, bicycle or jog along the road. She asked the Council to consider what will happen to the residential area if this is allowed to pass. Mr. Bill Bahret, 517 West 9 rd Street, spoke against the rezone stating that the Central lndiana Bicycling Associaticn used Springmill Road as one of their main routes in to and out of lndianapolis. Mr. Bahret stated the proposed rezone and obvious increase in traffic along Springmill would ruin this road as a bicycle route. There were no more people wishing to address the Council and the petitioner was given time for rebuttal. Mr. Richard Rembusch, Vice President and Legal Counsel for R.V. Welch lnvestments stated that the petitioner felt this was the highest and best use of the subject land. Mr. Rembusch introduced Mr. Richard E. Nichols, 6320 Rucker Road (office) and 6315 Colebrook Drive, lndianapolis (home) as a professional appraiser giving his credentials to sleak as an authority on the impact of the proposed rezone on the residential values il the area. Mr. Nichols, after giving examples of other area of similar nature, stated that the State Highway was considering the change of the inter change at Meridian and 1-465 from a diamond shape to a full cloverleaf which would relieve the traffic problem. Mr. Nichols also stated the mixed use development when aesthetical and compatibly done would have no adverse impact on the marketability of the residential area. Mr. Rembusch stated a traffic study had been done and the reasons for the proposed exits onto 106th Street and Springmill Road. Mr. Rembusch also stated that the area toward the interstate had not been expended as S-2 zoning because the lighting and noise on the interstate would not be desirable for residential development. Mr. Rembusch answered the question posed earlier regarding the reason for R.V. Welch purchasing the property knowing the zoning restrictions and then trying to change them by stating that R.V. Welch lnvestments felt they would be protecting their investment further up Meridian by developing this area as an attractive gateway to the Meridian Corridor. Mr. Rembusch suggested that the vote on the rezone should not be based on the emotion or number of demonstrators but on solid rezoning principals. The public hearing was closed at 10:47 P.M. Mayor Reiman opened the meeting up to questions from the Council members. Mrs. McMullen stated she did not have her mind made up prior to the Plan Commission vote as had been suggested but had listened to the concerns and weighed the arguments on both sides. She stated the Plan Commission nembers put a lot of time into what they do and felt that the members had open minds. Mrs. McMullen stated the Plan Commission had asked for input when working on the Comprehensive Plan but they had not heard from these people until they were emotionally involved. Mr. Garretson asked the City Attorney to research the conflict between the petitioner and remonstrators attorneys regarding contract zoning and report to the Council on January 27th. Mr. Garretsol also asked that the City Engineer, Tom Welch, review the traffic report in the petitioners material and give his opinion at the next meeting. Mr. Garretson asked Mr. Albright how many years he had served on the Plan Commission and asked for a definition of the "highest and best use". Mr. Albright responded that he had been on the Plan Commission for five years and there was no set definition as to the "highest and best use". Miss Doane asked representatives of the petitioner if the project can function with only one entrance to Meridian Street. Mr. Nelson stated that the traffic study had shown the entrances on lO6th Street and Springmill would make the project more accessible to emergency vehicles and prevent long cul-de-sacs. Miss Doane also asked the City Attorney for an opinion on the contract zoning dispute. There was a five minutes recess between 11:00 and 11:15 P.M. Mr. Johnson asked petitioner why they had requested a B-l zoning and why B-6 instead of the B-5 present zoning. Petitioner answered that the B-l would allow retail and that B-2 was most intense. The D-6 zoning was requested to permit a hotel to be built where the B- 5 would not. lt was pointed out that the B-5 zoning allowed for a height of 60 ft. and the B-6 allowed for a height of 120 feet or eight stories. Mr. Johnson questioned why the petitioner had not requested the B-5 overlay zone to be extended through the whole project. Mr. Rembusch replied that the B-5 addressed a front yard facing Meridian Street and would not allow the buildings toward the inner part of the project to face any other way. Mr. Johnson stated that he had been on the Plan Commission when the overlay zone had been adopted and that the intent was to prohibit Meridian Street being developed into a number of small strip shopping areas. The traffic study was further explained and in answer to Mr. Johnson's question, the petitioners stated that the pro ject would take a minimum of four to five years to develop Mr. Johnson further questioned Mr. Church regarding his corcerns on the covenants. Mr. Miller stated that he was concerned with the quality of life in Carmel and that he felt it was important to consider the quality development R.V. Welch lnvestment had done in the area. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Gagnon if he would feel more comfortable taking a chance with someone else developing the land if this proposed rezone were rejected. Mr. Gagnon answered that he felt the Plan Commission would require the same quality of all developers. Mr. Fleming inquired as to the date of availability of the Clay sewers and was answered that the sewers should be available by the summer or fall of 1987. Mr. Fleming inquired about the cut on Springmill Road and was informed by the petitioner that there is already a cut at the point the proposed road from the project would emerge. Discussion on Ordinance Z-210 was completed at 11:50 P.M. A vote will be taken on the ordinance on January 27, 1986. There was a recess between 11:50 and 11:57 P.M. Ordinances D-468 and D-469 = City Code Update - Mr. Garretson made a motion to introduce Ordinances D-468 and D-469 and dispense with the reading of same and suspend the rules and act on Ordinances D- 468 and D-469 this evening. Motion seconded by Mr. Johnson and passed unanimously. Vote was taken on Ordinances D-468 and D-469 which passed unanimously Ordinances D-470, D-471 and D-472 Regarding Carmel Civic Square - Mr. Garretson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-470 and dispense with the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen. Mr. Johnson made a motion to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-470 this evening. Motion seconded by Miss Doane and passed unanimously. Vote was taken on Ordinance D-470 which passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-471 and dispense with the reading of same. Motion seconded by Mrs. McMullen. Ordinance D-471 was shown as introduced. Mr. Garretson made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-472, dispense with the reading and suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-472 this evening. Motion seconded by Mr. Badger and passed unanimously. Vote was taken on Ordinance D-472 which passed unanimously. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the same was duly adjourned at 12:10 A.M. APPROVED: ATTEST: Dorthy J. Hancock, Clerk-Treasurer