HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-06-17-91CARMEL CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
7:00 P.M.
JUNE 17, 1991
ONE CIVIC SQUARE/COUNCIL CHANBERS
The meeting was called to order by Council President David Adams.
Council members present were Minnie Doane, Annabelle Ogle, Lee
Lonzo, Tom Irvin, Frank Fleming and Alan Potasnik. City Attorney
Steve Andrews and Clerk-Treasurer Susan W. Jones were also in
attendance.
Councilor Lonzo made a correction on page
MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1991:
14, the first full paragraph beginning with Mr. Johnson's remarks,
third line down, the word "not" was left out and it should read,
"why the public was not allowed to participate in the process."
Councilor Irvin moved to approve the minutes of June 3, 1991 with
that correction. The motion was seconded by Councilor Fleming. All
members with the exception of President Adams.
Adams stated the public
ORDINANCE D-697/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:
hearing had already been concluded and this ordinance was up before
the Council for their discussion only.
Councilor Irvin asked Steve Andrews to outline how much the Council
could change the comprehensive plan without it having to go back
before the Plan Commission.
Andrews said that as he read the state statute, if the Council made
any changes other than spelling or typos in the recommended
ordinance or the comprehensive plan as presented, it has to go
back. Andrews said changes in density, lot sizes or zoning
categories has to go back.
Andrews stated for the record, the certification status and the
time frame in which the Council has to act on this comprehensive
update. Andrews said he passed out a letter prior to the start of
the meeting that outlined the timetable (see attached). Andrews
said the drop dead date would appear to be July 24, 1991.
Councilor Irvin stated the Springmill amendment is missing from the
document. Irvin said he talked with Wes Bucher, Director of
Community Development, and Bucher stated it was to be included in
the final draft but was omitted. Irvin said the Plan Commission
meets on June 18 and he would like to have a resolution from the
Plan Commission that this amendment is going to be included into
the final draft. Irvin felt the Council should not act on this plan
until they have that assurance.
Andrews stated it was brought to his attention today that the
amendment was missing. Andrews said he thought it was the
intention of the Plan Commission for this amendment to be included
when the update was certified to the Council and that the Plan
Commission was going to certify this at their next meeting.
Andrews said he also heard that final action on this update by the
Council was going to be tabled until the next meeting so that would
give the Plan Commission ample time to have this certification
catch up with the rest of the document.
Adams asked Andrews if that amendment would have its own time frame
or would there be another certification of the entire document.
Adams asked if this could be done on a piecemeal basis or does it
have to be done at one time.
Andrews said that state statute indicates the Plan Commission can
approve the comprehensive plan piecemeal. It does not address what
happens if a piece is left out. Andrews requested more time to look
over the statute in order to answer this question for the Council.
Potasnik asked if the lining up of the text and the maps would also
be done by the next meeting. Andrews said he hoped so.
Ogle asked about the Henry Blackwell letter or resolution. She
stated that she remembered it was to have been part of this
document. Bucher stated a copy of the Blackwell resolution was to
have been inserted in the pocket of the notebooks that were sent
out to the Council. Several of the Council members stated they did
not receive this resolution. During the meeting David Cunningham of
the Department of Community Development passed out copies of this
letter to the Council only. A copy of this letter and resolution
was not presented to the clerk.
Bucher stated a copy of the minority report from Dr. Dillon was
mailed to all Council members after the last Council meeting. All
members stated they had received that report.
Irvin stated that if the Springmill amendment could be included in
the document that it would clear a few of the concerns he had about
the plan.
Irvin then said the 1985 capital improvement plan was not included
in the update and asked if Bucher could bring that to the attention
of the Plan Commission tomorrow night.
Irvin said he agreed with Dick Albright's comments at the last
Council meeting. He said he hoped we had all learned something in
how to do an update in an area that is rapidly growing as Carmel
and Clay Township and hoped that it would be a continuing process.
Irvin said it was a report that in some places was already out dated
and hoped the Council would give enough resources and funds to do
the job like it is supposed to be done and get a complete and up-
to-date plan. Irvin said he realized it was only a guide but he
still had concerns about some of the parts of the plan update.
Irvin then discussed density. He related the information held in
the update and compared it to the current zoning ordinances. Irvin
stated the current plan does not state minimum size lots in S-l and
would recommend this to the Plan Commission. Irvin wanted it stated
that he wanted the plan to reflect that in an area that is zoned S-
1, low density residential, to allow no more than 1.5 units per
acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. In S-2 areas,
Irvin stated it was 1.8 down from 3.6 and would recommend that lot
size should be 15,000 square feet instead of 12,000.
Potasnik stated he had spent two years of his life working on this
document and the plan has now taken on its own personality.
Potasnik said it appears that none of the people in this room are
perfect because the result of all of the input is not so perfect.
Potasnik said he gave a report last July 3 on the update to the
Council and had a $60,000 budget to do this work. Potasnik said
that the steering committee was set up to take in the information
for the Plan Commission and it was made up of a cross section of
the township.
Potasnik said the survey results could be interpreted anyway you
wanted but the fact remains that one of the first questions asked
showed the results were 70% positive in responding to phases
describing Carmel and Clay township and only 14% called it over-
developed. Potasnik said that if we were to take this out of
context then perhaps we should let densities alone and allow S-l
zoning categories to develop at 2.9 units per acre with sewers and
3.6 in the S-2 category. Potasnik said the committee did take the
input and concerns of the residential dwellers and scaled this plan
back to what has been brought before the Council tonight.
Potasnik said as far as public input was concerned the Plan
Commission steering committee voted to accept the report with one
member voting in the negative and then when it came before the Plan
Commission it was further refined and then the majority report was
accepted unanimously by the Plan Commission along with an amendment
from Henry Blackwell. Blackwell was a member of the committee
appointed by the township trustee and a resident of Clay west
acknowledging the input from the public.
Potasnik reminded the Council that this was just an update and was
never intended to be a full blown comprehensive plan and perhaps
when the zoning ordinances are updated that Irvin's concerns could
be addressed at that time.
Lonzo asked Bucher to discuss items in his memo that he had
distributed to Council prior to the meeting.
Potasnik asked Bucher to read the Blackwell resolution into the
minutes. (See attached. )
After Bucher read the resolution he went over the memo as requested
by Lonzo. Bucher said it was an attempt to answer some of the
questions that were asked by the Council and public after the last
Council meeting. (See attached).
Bucher then distributed a letter from Jeff Davis, President of the
Plan Commission that answered some of the questions. (See
attached.) Bucher stated that Davis stated it was the intention of
this update to recommend a decrease in the allowed density. Bucher
stated the basic zoning ordinance would allow 2.9 units per acre in
S-l and this sets a guideline of 1. 5 . It leaves the density the
same in the areas not served by sewers.
Bucher said that Davis wants to form a continuing update committee
and has suggested they meet quarterly. This would allow them to
receive data in a timely manner and make recommendations in the
update in the form of amendments on an ongoing basis so that when
1995 rolls around the update won't be that far behind.
Bucher then distributed a staff diagram concerning density. This
diagram compared the density of the Carmel Clay zoning ordinance
from areas that do and do not have sewers and that are designated
S-l and S-2 zoning. Bucher stated the current comprehensive plan
does not address the density issue by zoning classifications.
Bucher stated that areas that do not have sewers remained the same.
Those areas in the S-l and S-2 that do have sewers, the
comprehensive plan recommended a lower density than is called for
in the zoning ordinance.
Bucher stated there has been situations where there have been homes
built on less than one acre without sewers. Bucher said recently
there was a permit issued for a house that had 1,100 square feet
and was granted a variance by the BZA for lot size. The house was
built on a little over 1/2 acre.
Lonzo was concerned about the idea that housing, density, lot size,
etc. was based on the availability of sewers and what would happen
if suddenly sewers became available through that entire area. Lonzo
said it seemed to him there should be more issues involved in
planning density other than sewers or septic. Lonzo asked where the
Plan Commission came up with 1.5. Bucher said he was not sure of
the answer and called on Potasnik to remember what discussions took
place.
Fleming said that regardless of what the comprehensive plan or
update says the City must follow the zoning ordinances. Bucher said
that was correct and this was only a guide. Bucher said that if a
developer were to ask for a rezone, it might serve as a guide in
the decision making process.
Bucher replied to the question regarding the public hearing. Bucher
said the steering committee and the Plan Commission both held
hearings on the subject of density.
Fleming asked that before the plan was finalized that the official
city seal be displayed on the plan rather than the one from the
Mayor's office.
John Meyers of HNTB answered the question of why 106th and 126th
Street are still being shown as four lanes in the thoroughfare
plan.
Meyers said he wasn't quite sure of how to answer this question.
The technical aspects could be talked about and would show how the
recommendations were generated but said he didn't think that was
the answer the Council was looking for. Meyers put the answer in
the same context as it related to 116th Street and how they
approached the entire issue.
Meyers said he recognized he had a responsibility from a technical
sense in assisting the Plan Commission draw up a thoroughfare plan.
Meyers said there were many disclaimers included in the plan that
basically says they don't know when a lot of these areas are going
to be built out and there would be a need for a thoroughfare
change. Meyers said that when the numbers were developed, the
numbers determined the need for the number of lanes on these roads.
The numbers also said four lanes were needed on 116th Street.
Meyers stated that questions concerning these two streets had never
been asked before this last Council meeting. Meyers said that on
adjusting the text to reflect the three lane recommendation of the
116th Street Task Force was to assist the Plan Commission in
implementing the plan they wanted to implement. The technical
aspects have not changed on 116th Street nor has it changed on any
of the other streets in question.
Bucher answered the question concerning why Home Place was not
included in certain areas of the update. Bucher stated it was due
to the limited scope of work done by the steering committee. He
said they did not specifically look at individual sites such as
Home Place.
Bucher answered the question concerning why nothing was done about
the northeast corner and the fact that soils in that area were not
suitable for development. Bucher stated again that was not part of
the scope of work done by the steering committee.
Andrews answered the question as to why the steering committee did
the update rather than the Plan Commission and how that pertains to
state statute. Andrews said he wasn't aware the Plan Commission
didn't do the plan. He said the steering committee served as
advisors and statute doesn't say they can't do that.
Bucher said there has been a great deal of concern over the correct
maps. Bucher said that after much review from a number of people
concerning what was the location of the frontage road on the west
side of Meridian he asked Meyers to address this question for the
Council.
Meyers said he went back after the last Council meeting and checked
his notes and found that the west roadway had been agreed upon in
the middle of the Meridian overlay zone and his notes specifically
said 300 feet from the right-of-way line of US31. Meyers said that
was based on the meeting of March 5, 1991 and they still don't know
where that roadway is going to go because they need a detail
location study but that the road is where they were asked to put
it. Meyers said it was a drafting error on the maps submitted.
Adams asked about US31 going to a freeway status and what impact
that would have on the parallel roads in Carmel and Clay township.
Meyers said they investigated tight diamond interchanges but he
really didn't know what was going to go in that project. Meyers
said the roads were close enough together to effect each other.
They might create opportunities or they might just get in the way.
Meyers said that would be apart of the US31 study.
Meyers said the parallel roadways would work in concert with the
freeway on US31 and in fact are very important in creating a total
system for access to the high intensity land use along US31. This
entire complex needs to be designed at one time.
Meyers said that even though it says it in the text and even though
proposed roads are shown on the maps with dotted lines that road
studies have not been done to support the location of where the
roadways should be. Environmental factors need to be considered.
Meyers said he would get a corrected map out to the Council before
the update is passed.
Bucher stated the Springmill Road Amendment is part of the current
comprehensive plan and was passed by both the Council and Plan
Commission. It was the intention to put it in the document and had
no real reason why it wasn't. Bucher said there was a question on
page 68 of the document. This document does say, in reference to
the Springmill area, it should be "predominately" residential. The
word predominately may have some conflict with the Springmill
amendment that does say it should be residential in character.
Lonzo asked Meyers to define expressway and freeway. Meyers stated
the generally accepted difference between those two in
transportation circles would be that an expressway is almost a
freeway but it has some traffic signals.
Lonzo asked Potasnik if any discussion was held or serious
consideration ever given to carving out an area on the other side
of Meridian and keep a very low density in some portion of that
land. Potasnik said yes there was some discussion but didn't think
any discussion had taken place in any great detail.
Lonzo said one of the biggest disappointments he had on the Council
was the weekend retreat. Lonzo said Mr. Toft, the facilitator
talked about a shared vision of what this community ought to look
like. Lonzo said he was very disappointed that a very small group
of people, very short-sighted and mainly for political reasons
attacked the Council for that weekend. During that weekend Lonzo
found he shared a lot in common with the people on the Council and
they talked about a wide range of types of housing and Carmel
becoming a real community and not just a bedroom place and stuffing
a lot of people in one area who all have to look alike. Lonzo said
he is now torn by many feelings as he goes through these
discussions and doesn't feel this Council has a shared vision as to
where we are headed and hoped for those who will follow in his
footsteps would have a better feel for each other.
Irvin moved to table Ordinance D-697 until July 1, 1991. Fleming
seconded the motion. All members, with the exception of Adams,
voted aye. Motion carried. Adams did not vote.
Lonzo stated he had received seven letters from residents out in
that area and other concerned citizens and would distribute them to
other members on the Council.
ORDINANCE D-701/AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC PARKING AT THE
Andrews said that at the last
CITY OF CARMEL COMMUNICATION CENTER:
meeting he was instructed to prepare this ordinance and this
request came out of a request by the Communications Center which
creates handicap, employee and public parking at the center.
Potasnik moved to introduce Ordinance D-701 and dispense with the
reading. The motion was seconded by Lonzo.
Irvin moved to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-701
tonight. The motion was seconded by Lonzo. All members, except
Adams, voted aye. Motion carried. Adams did not vote.
Adams called for the question. All members, except Adams voted aye.
Adams did not vote. Ordinance D-701 passed.
Andrews stated that at the last
ORDINANCE D-700/RECODIFICATION:
meeting the Council wanted a new title page done. The title page
was distributed but showed Potasnik as President. Adams said he was
willing to live with it as long as Alan didn't care.
Adams called for the question. All members, except Adams voted aye.
Adams did not vote. Ordinance D-700 passed.
ORDINANCE D-702/AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE
Andrews stated that
OF THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE CARMEL CITY HALL:
parking on both sides of the this road has caused some problems.
Andrews stated a fire truck tried to get through last week and was
unable. Andrews said it was a false alarm but none the less,
parking on both sides has caused a problem with emergency vehicles
needing access to the building. This ordinance would prohibit
parking on one side of the road only.
Councilor Potasnik made a motion to introduce Ordinance D-702 an
suspend the rules for reading of the same. The motion was seconded
by Irvin.
Andrews said this would prohibit parking along the east side of the
access road between the Carmel Civic Square and the City Building.
Lonzo moved to suspend the rules and act on Ordinance D-702 this
evening. The motion was seconded by Irvin. All members, except
Adams, voted aye. Motion carried.
Adams called for the question. All members, except Adams, voted
aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE D-704/AN AMENDMENT TO D-699 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
Clerk-Treasurer Jones stated there
CASH FUNDS AND PETTY CASH FUNDS:
was not an ordinance prepared for tonight and should be put back on
for the next meeting.
ORDINANCE D-704/ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION/CUMULATIVE CAPITAL
Councilor Irvin moved to introduce
IMPROVEMENT FUND/S30,000:
Ordinance D-704 and dispense with the reading of the same. The
motion was seconded by Councilor Lonzo.
David Klingensmith, Street Commissioner explained this $30,000
would be used to build a machinery storage barn. Klingensmith said
he thought money was in the 1991 budget but it was not. Bids have
been taken and accepted contingent upon approval of funds.
Adams opened the meeting to the public hearing calling for any
comments, objections or questions. Seeing none, the hearing was
closed to the public and opened to the Council.
Potasnik asked if this barn would be locked. Klingensmith stated it
would be locked.
Adams asked Jones about advertising. Jones stated it was advertised
correctly and in time for the hearing.
Councilor Lonzo moved to suspend the rules and act on D-704
tonight. The motion was seconded by Councilor Irvin. All members,
except Adams, voted aye. Motion carried.
Adams called for the question. All members, except Adams, voted
aye. Ordinance D-704 passed by a majority of votes.
Andrews spoke
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR PARK BOARD:
on behalf of Judi Jacobs, President of the Carmel Board of Parks
and Recreation. Andrews stated this request was for an additional
appropriation and to instruct the Clerk-Treasurer to advertise for
a hearing. This money would be used for a community survey
regarding park interests. Both city and township residents would be
surveyed. Questions as to what type of parks they would like to
have, what facilities they would like to see, etc. would be asked.
Andrews said the Park Board has taken quotes, not officially but
through their own action and felt the best deal was for the $5,000
quote and that was their request. Andrews said it was anticipated
that some contribution would be made through the township but this
would cover the cost of the survey. The survey would take place
sometime in September of this year and results would be back within
14 to 30 days.
Lonzo moved to request the clerk to advertise for a public hearing
for an additional appropriation in the amount of S5,000. The motion
was seconded by Ogle.
Irvin said it seemed to him that this amount should be paid out of
Board of Public Works. He said they had a line item in their budget
for consulting fees. Also Irvin said he thought there had been
enough surveys done on this subject over the past 3 years. Irvin
said he didn't know why we had to do this again. Irvin said if this
is going to be a township survey, park or project then the township
should have to participate in the expense. Irvin wanted it referred
to the Board of Public Works.
Lonzo said he disagreed with Irvin. Lonzo said he thought it was
going to be a very important issue not only for this Council but
the future Council and it needed to be brought to a head. Lonzo
said he felt it needed to be a public hearing where some people who
are going to be involved in the future of the City will have the
opportunity to speak on parks. Lonzo said he didn't want to
appropriate a lot of money for parks this summer during budget
process and then have a new Council disband that park board. Lonzo
stated this will give the people the opportunity to come before the
Council and tell us what they think about parks and will also give
Judi a chance to come before the Council and tell everyone why the
data that has already been collected is insufficient and why they
need more data.
Fleming agreed with Irvin and said the city shouldn't have to pay
for all of this. Fleming also stated that back on October 1, 1990
the Council agreed there was going to be a Carmel Clay Park Board
and since then the township advisory board has agreed and there
hasn't been a merger. Fleming asked why there hasn't been a merger.
Andrews stated there has been a major change in the law with the
state legislature and it has taken parks and recreation out of the
park board and put it in the hands of the trustee. It basically
abolishes the township's ability to form a park district. The
entire agreement has had to be redone. Andrews said he and Bob
Campbell are in that process now.
A vote on the motion was held. Councilors Irvin and Fleming voted
nay. Adams did not vote. Doane, Lonzo, Ogle and Potasnik voted aye.
Motion carried by a majority vote.
The budget schedule was announced by
BUDGET SCHEDULE FOR 1991:
President Adams. (See attached.)
Jones asked what deadline would she have to work with in order to
get the notebooks distributed to the Council. Adams asked Jones
what time frame she wanted. Jones stated she needed the information
from the departments no later than July 1 but would prefer to have
it the Friday before.
Potasnik asked that all winners of the May primary be included in
the budget discussions and should receive budget notebooks. Adams
asked Jones if she had a problem with that. She stated no but that
was part of the reason she needed extra time. It would take twice
as long to print the notebooks. Jones said she could not get this
much information out by July 5 if she didn't have the data by July
1. Jones said even at that she wasn't sure it could be done.
CORRECTION ON AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR PARK SURVEY:
Andrews said the amount of request for the park survey should have
been $5,300 rather than $5,000. Andrews asked for reconsideration
of that agenda item. Lonzo stated it wasn't a reconsideration item
and would be more appropriate for the Council to move to suspend
the rules. Lonzo moved to suspend the rules and correct the figure
on the additional appropriation to $5,300. The motion was seconded
by Ogle. Irvin and Fleming voted nay. Adams did not vote. All other
members voted aye. Motion carried by a majority vote.
Potasnik stated that recently the federal government
ANNOUNCEMENT:
funded a project under the federal highway administration called
the Bicycle and Walking Study. The chief purpose was to tell
Congress what needs to be done to encourage more people to use
their feet and their bikes to get around. The government is seeking
input. Potasnik stated that if anyone had input they could write to
the Director of the Highway Administration, John Fegan, c/o Make
America More Walkable, Docket # 91-5, 4232 HCC-10 400 7th Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20590.
There being no further business before the Council the meeting was
duly adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved
Attest
see orignal minutes for attachments