HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-11-01-04Office of the
Clerk-Treasurer
City of Carmel
COMMON COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2004 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. October 18, 2004 - Regular Meeting
5. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL
6. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS
7. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES
8. CLAIMS
· Payroll
· General Claims
· Retirement
9. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Finance, Administration and Rules Committee
b. Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee
Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee
d. Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee
ONE CIVI(? SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2414
! O. OLD BUSINESS
Third Reading of Ordinance No. C-264; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Annexing Certain Territory to the City of Carmel, Indiana,
Placing the Same Within the Corporate Bonndarics Thereof and Making thc Same A
Part of the City of Carmel (Home Place); Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1728-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of
the City of Carmel, Indiana, Providing for An Additional Appropriation of Funds from
Operating Balance of the General Fund ($1,210,000/Carmel Fire Department Item # 100
Fulltime); Sponsor(s): Councilors Sharp and Mayo.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1730-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of
the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-30 and Chapter 8,
Article 9, Section 8-120 of the Carmel City Code (Stop signs at Versailles Drive, and
Shakamac Drive, Intersecting street Wyndotte Drive); Sponsor: Councilor Sharp.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1686-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of
the City of Carmel, Indiana, to Regulate Mining Operations Within the Corporate
Boundaries of the City of Carmel (Martin Marietta); Sponsor(s): Councilors Glaser and
Rattermann
First Reading of Ordinance No. Z-459-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Rezoning District Classification (North Meridian Medical
Pavilion); Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann.
12. NEW BUSINESS
First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1731-04; An Ordinance of the Common Council of
the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 3, Section 8-20(a)(1) of the
Carmel City Code (Establish a twenty-five mile per hour speed limit on certain portions of
Cherry Tree Road); Sponsor: Councilor Griffiths.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
14.
15.
Consideration of Intent to Annex Territory by Town of Westfield - (Maple Knoll) Voluntary
Request of parcels located generally between Ditch Road and Springmill Road and between
the Former Indiana Central Rail Line and 161st Street. A portion of the annexation area is
directly on SR 32.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
16. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF CARMEL
COMMON COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2004 -7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor James Brainard, Council Members Rick Sharp, Kevin I¥2rby, Brian Mayo, Ron Carter, Joe
Griffiths, Fred Glaser, Mark Ratrermann, Clerk-Treasurer Diana Cordray and Deputy Clerk-
Treasurer Lois Fine.
Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Pastor Richard Clark from the Central Christian Church pronounced the Invocation.
RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS:
There were none.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 18, 2004 meeting.
Councilor Griffiths seconded. The Minutes were approved 7-0.
RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
Mike Hol/ibaugh, One Civic Square, Director Of DOCS, presented recommendations of the Residential Task Force
to Coundl (attachment I). Mike introduced two members of the Task I%rce that were in attendance: David Smith of
Browning Day Mu#ins Dierdo~ lnc, and Dave Compton of Pulte Homes.
Several individuals xvished to speak in support of Ordinance No. D-1730-04.
1) Sue Estep, 280 [Vyndotte Drive, 2) Ken Bogenschut$ 13480 Dunes Dvive, 3) Stephen Pietromic$ 300
~yndotte Drive, 4) Kathy Singer, 13480 Shakamac Drive, 5) Rusty Duncan, 13500 Dunes Drive, 6) Sean
Eastes, 13465 Shakamac Dvive, 7) Pat Scahi#, 13480 C/ifty IVa/ls Dvive, 8) Brad Cisco, 221 I~,yndotte Dvive
COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND C.I.ERK-T}ZEA.qURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS:
Councilors Rattermann and Sharp discussed the legality of temporary stop signs and speed humps.
ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES:
There were none.
CLAIMS:
Councilor Mayo moved to approve the claims in the amount of $4,418,241.61. Councilor Griffiths
seconded. Council President Carter called for the question. Claims were approved 7-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Council President Carter reported that the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee had
met tonight and discussed Ordinance No. D-1728-04 which will be discussed this evening. The next
meeting will be November 15, 2004.
Councilor Rattermann reported that the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development
Committee met on Thursday, October 28, 2004. Ordinance No. Z-444-04 was discussed and will
remain in committee until the next meeting. Ordinance No. Z-459-04 will be discussed at tomght's
Council meeting. Ordinance No. Z-458-04 will remain in commattee for further research. The
consent to annex certain parcels in Westfield was unammously opposed by a vote of 3-0.
Councilor Sharp reported that the Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee had not met and will not
meet in November.
Councilor Kirby reported that the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety. Committee had met on
Monday, October 25, 2004 and discussed Ordinance No. D-1730-04 which will be introduced this
evening.
OLD BUSINESS:
Council President Carter announced the Third Reading of Ordinance No. C-264; An Ordinance
of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Annexing Certain Territory to the City of
Carmel, Indiana, Placing the Same Within the Corporate Boundaries Thereof and Making the Same
A Part of the City of Carmel (Home Place). Councilor Rattermann made a motion to suspend the
rules and to table this item until the next Council meeting on November 15, 2004. Councilor Glaser
seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Carter called for the question.
Motion to suspend the rules and table this item was approved 6-1 (Councilor Mayo opposed).
Council President Carter announced the Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1728-04, As
Amended; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Providing for An
Additional Appropriation of Funds from Operating Balance of the General Fund
($1,210,000/Carmel Fire Department Item #100 Fulltime). Councilor Mayo made a motion to
approve this ordinance. Councilor Sharp seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council
President Carter called for the question. Ordinance No. D-1728-04, As Amended was
approved 7-0.
Council President Carter announced the Second Reading of Ordinance No. D-1730-04, As
Amended: An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending
Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-30 and Chapter 8, Article 9, Section 8-120 of the Carmel City Code
(Stop signs at Versailles Drive, and Shakamac Drive, Intersecting street Wyndotte Drive). There was
brief Council discussion. Councilor I~drby made a motion to amend, Section 3, frrst sentence,
to add; , tempora~yposts,. Councilor Rattermann seconded. There was extensive Council discussion.
Councilor Mayo referred to Doug Haney, City Attorney, for clarification of the law pertaining to
warranted stop signs. Council President Carter called for the question. The motion to amend failed
3-4. Councilors Kirby, Glaser and Rattermann voted AYE; Councilors Sharp, Mayo, Carter and
Griffiths opposed. There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Rattermann referred to Doug
Haney, City Attorney, for clarification of enforcement of a permanent stop sign placed in the
ground on a temporary basis. Councilor Mayo moved to approve D-1730-04. Councilor Glaser
seconded. Ordinance No. D-1730-04, As Amended was approved 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Council President Carter announced the Second Readinv of Ordinance No. D-1686-04. As
Amended; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, to Regulate
Mining Operations Within the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Carmel (Martin Marietta).
Council President Carter opened the Public Heating at 8:07 p.m. One individual wished to speak in
favor of the ordinance:
Lay Kane, ! 1268 l~illiams Court (prepared statement, attachment 2).
One individual wished to speak in opposition to the orclmance:
Zeff lVeiss, ~lttorn~, Ice Miller, 3400 One ~tmeffcan Square, mpresentineg Martin Marietta.
Council President Carter announced the Public Heating for this ordinance will be held open until
the December 6, 2004 Council meeting. Councilor Kirby reminded the Council that an ordinance
cannot be amended in comtmttee, but can only be recommended. Councilor Rattermann made a
motion to accept the amended redline version dated October 22, 2004 and not vote on D-1686-04
this evening. Councilor Kirby seconded. Council President Carter called for the question. Motion
to accept amended redline version passed 7-0. There was brief Council discussion. Council
President Carter passed the gavel to Councilor ICh:by at 8:37 p.m. to discuss the ordinance and
referred to Zeff Weiss, Attorney, Ice Miller, for clarification. Council President Carter reclaimed the
gavel at 8:42 p.m. There was brief Council discussion. The Public Hearing will continue at the
Council meeting on Monday, December 6, 2004.
Council President Carter announced the First Reading_ of Ordinance No. Z-459-04: An
Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Rezoning District Classification
(North Meridian Medical Pavilion). Councilor Rattermann moved to introduce this item into
business. Councilor Glaser seconded. Councilor Ratrermann introduced this matter to Council.
Council President Carter opened the Public Hearing at 8:47 p.m.
Mike Cook, ~tttorne~ at Lam, lVooden ~ McLaughlin T J,P, One Indiana Square, Suite 1800, Indianapol& IN
46204, representing Metro ~tcquisitions I J,C, made a presentation to Council. ~tlso in attendance mas Dan
Barkes and Todd Jensen of Lauth Property Group.
Zeff W/eiss, ~tttorne_y, lee Miller, representing Greeg Small, spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Seeing no one who wished to speak in opposition, Council President Carter dosed the Public
Hearing at 8:57 p.m. There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Rattermann made a motion to
suspend the rules and vote this evening. Councilor Sharp seconded. Council President Carter called
for the question. The motion to suspend the rules and vote this evening passed 7-0. Councilor
Rattermann made a motion to approve Z-459-04. Councilor Kirby seconded. There was brief
Council discussion. Council President Carter called for the question. Ordinance No. Z-459-04 was
approved 7-0.
NEW BUSINESS:
Council President Carter announced the First Reading of Ordinance No. D-1731-04; An
Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 3,
Section 8-20(a)(1) of the Carmel City Code (Estabhsh a twenty-five mile per hour speed limit on
certain portions of Cherry Tree Road). Councilor Griffiths moved to introduce this item into
business. Councilor Sharp seconded. Councilor Griffiths presented this item to Council. There
was brief Council discussion. Council President Carter referred Ordinance No. D-1731-04 to the
Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Comtmttee for further review and consideration.
OTHER BUSINESS;
Councilor Griffiths requested Mike Hollibaugh, Director of DOCS, to send the Residential
Architecture Task Force recommendations back to the Land Use, Annexation and Economic
Development Committee for further study and a recommendation to Council.
Consideration of Intent to Annex Territory by Toxvn of Westfield - (Maple I4moll) Voluntary
Request of parcels located generally between Ditch Road and Springrni]l Road and between the
Former Indiana Central Rail Line and 161~t Street. A portion of the annexation area is directly on
SR 32. There was brief Council discussion. This item came out of committee with a 3-0 negative
recommendation. Council President Carter called for the question. The motion to deny consent to
annex was approved by a vote of 7-0.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT:
Councilor Sharp made a motion to adjourn. Councilor I(Arby seconded. Council President Carter
adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m. pending execution of documents.
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordra[/AMC
Approved,
ATTEST:
,. - >,, , z;..
James Brainard
Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray,/[AMC
11/01/04 (C Minutes
11/1/2004
RECOMMENDATIONS
to the Carmel City Council regarding
Residential Architecture in Carmel and Clay Township.
Submitted by the Residential Architecture Task Force
Established pursuant to Council Resolution CC-06-21-04-05.
Based on several meetings of the Residential Architecture Task Force, the following issues and
recommendations are hereby presented to the Carmel City Council regarding the regulation of
Residential Architecture in Carmel and Clay Township.
The Residential Architecture Task Force identifies the following issues to be the most relevant to
Carmel and Clay Township.
Individual Structures: 1. Long, unbroken planes of material
2. Chimneys
3. Monotonous Color Schemes (brick, siding)
4. Garage design
5. Landscaping Requirements
Neighborhood Sca/e: 1. Landscape Buffers
2. Perimeter Fencing
Public Education/Awareness:
1. Material Installation/Workmanship
Based on the above-listed issues, the Residential Architecture Task Force recommends the
Council consider the following, and where applicable, recommend changes to the Carmel Zoning
and Subdivision Control Ordinances.
FACADE
The Task Force finds the existence of long, unbroken planes is the most negatively perceived
feature of residential architecture in our community and recommends the following be
considered:
Facade Detail. Consider the frequency and manner of windows. Encourage the use of
windows and/or other features (including shutters, doors, material change, etc.) on all
sides of a home to break up long, unbroken planes. Allow waiver for sides if they are
closely abutting a neighboring home.
Offsets, Comer Breaks. Encourage structural features including porches, chimneys, or
other three-dimensional changes in plane on facades facing public streets.
Monotony of Structures. Consider placing limits on repeating elevations on surrounding
structures.
11/1/2004
CHIMNEYS
The Task Force finds that chimneys are a significant architectural feature that can affect the
aesthetics of a community. The Task Force recommends the following considerations:
· Finish Material. Encourage the use of masonry or stucco, especially on exterior chases.
Interior chimney stacks may use lap siding above roof line.
· Prohibit the use of Shed-type chimneys. Shed-type refers to the chinmey not extending
full height vertically to the eaves line. A shed-type chimney typically includes a direct
vent outlet in the chimney wall.
· Prohibit the use of Cantilevered chimneys. Cantilevered refers to the chimney projecting
from the exterior wall and not having a foundation or extension to the ground.
FINISH MATERIALS AND TRIM
There would be no prohibited exterior materials, provided such material is approved by the
Building Code for its intended use; however, the Task Force encourages the use of the highest
quality of materials. Therefore, the Task Force recommends ordinance amendments that
address:
· Materials Transition. Consider only allowing vertical changes in siding material on
inside comers.
Exposed Foundations. On taller foundations, encourage the use of a masonry (or
masonry-looking) material.
Trim Detail. On non-masonry finished homes, consider comer, door and window trim
details and/or shutters. On masonry facades, encourage the use of masonry detail
elements such as keystones, coins, and soldier coursing.
Monotony of Colors. Consider placing limits on repeating the same siding/finish
material color on surrounding structures.
Overhangs. Encourage the use of overhangs, where appropriate.
GARAGES, A TTA CHED
Front Entry. To discourage flush garages, consider establishing a minimum distance
front entry garages must be offset from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Encourage
windows to be placed on protruding side walls. Angled garages would be exempt from
offset.
· Side Entr~. Encourage the use of windows and other fagade details as consistent with the
remainder of the front fagade.
LANDSCAPING
Though this is not structure-related, the Task Force agrees that landscaping is an integral part of
residential and neighborhood aesthetics.
· Front Yard Requirements. Facades facing public streets (including comer lots, perimeter
lots) should have minimum planting standards, not including street trees.
/,/,
11/1/2004
Species. A species palette for landscaping individual lots should be reviewed by the
Department of Community Services in conjunction with the submittal of the landscape
plans for the development of the subdivision.
Perimeter Buffering. See current standards, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26.04: Perimeter
Buffering Requirements. For visual interest, encourage (irrigated) mounding along the
perimeter. To maximize the benefits/effects of the buffering, consider placing deadlines
for installation (toward the beginning of project).
SUBDIVISION DESIGN
As with Landscaping, the Task Force agrees that thoughtful subdivision design and land
planning can have a favorable effect on aesthetics.
House Orientation. Consider varying setbacks for rear-facing perimeter homes. Limit
the number of consecutive rear-facing homes along the subdivision perimeter without a
break or offset such as subdivision entryway, greenspace or cul-de-sac facing homes.
· Street Orientation. Encourage the use of frontage roads so that subdivision homes face
the perimeter streets. See current Subdivision Control Ordinance, Chapter 6.03.19.
· Perimeter Fences. Fences along subdivision perimeters should be uniform in design, and
have some transparency (wrought iron, split rail, etc) so it does not act as a wall.
Perimeter fencing would be used to complement perimeter landscaping/buffering, and not
in place of perimeter landscaping. Individual homeowner fences should be discouraged
on perimeter lots.
A CCESSOR Y BUILDINGS
This includes but is not limited to utility sheds and detached garages.
should be finished in a mariner that complements the PrinciPal Building.
Accessory Buildings
PUBLIC ED UCA TION/A WARENESS
The Task Force identifies public education as a key component of material
installation/workmanship. Finish materials, whether vinyl, masonry, wood, or cement fiber, all
have manufacturer specifications and/or best practices for installation. When improperly
installed, finish materials can have decreased performance as well as compromised aesthetic
quality. The Task Force recommends the City partner with local organizations and contractors to
educate installers on the benefits of following installation specifications and best practices.
3
Carmel - Residential Architecture Task Force 13 July 2004
Craig Von Deylen
Deylen Homes
ph. 317 823 2411
craia(~_ d eYJon.com
Paul Rioux
Platinum Properties
$18-2902
Drioux(~olatinum-oroperties.com
Dave Cremeans
Windows and Siding of IndianapoJis
705-0200
David(~WindowsAndSidinq.com
John Mosele
John Mosele Architect
257-6804
Dave Compton
Pulte Homes of indiana
575-2350
d avld.comoton(~oulte.com
David Smith
Browning Day Mullins DJerdorf
635-5030
d smith(~b dmd.com
Joe Griffiths
Carmel City Council
417-5048
ioriffiths(~cl.ca rmeLin.us
Department of Community Services Staff
Adrienne Keeling
571 2421
akeelina ('c~_.cLca rmet.in.us
Mike Hollibaugh
571 2422
mhollib auc/h (~.cl.ca rmeLin.us
OOunc,')
Comments on Proposed Ordinance No. D - 1686 - 04
by
The Mining Committee
Kingswood Homeowners Association
The importance of the proposed Ordinance for quality of life of residents of southeastern
Carmel cannot be overemphasized.
· Much has been said in the news media about regional and even national recognition of
Carmel as an aspiring upscale "edge city" which affords an ambience supporting a
high quality of life for its residents.
· While we support that effort, the unregulated status of mining is wholly at odds
with the lofty goal to which the City aspires. Local regulation of the mining
industry which effectively addresses quality of life issues is necessary for the City's
vision to be realized by citizens of southeast Carmel.
· Substantial improvements are needed on the issues of greatest significance to
.residents presently or potentially affected by the minine industry if the proposed
ordinance is to be effective in protecting the health, safety and welfare of Carmel's
citizens.
VIBRATIONS FROM BLASTING
The most serious and objectionable adverse effects of a mining operation are the vibrational
and noise impacts resulting from blasting of rock from existing surface or subsurface strata.
The proposed Ordinance relies upon standards for vibrational or seismic impacts
published nearly 25 years ago by the former U.S. Bureau of Mines for the purpose of
prevent significant physical damage to buildings. It fails to address negative
nuisance effects on quality of life arising from the exposure of people, rather than
structures, to blasting impacts. But such adverse effects are routinely experienced
by many people living within a 1 mile of the existing Martin Marietta mine and
dominate current complaints about mining operations there.
The City should not be satisfied with an ordinance which does not achieve its
presumed purpose of providing reasonable protection from the negative impacts of
the mining industry. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL NOT PROTECT
RESIDENTS FROM THOSE NEGATIVE EFFECTS. In fact, based on seismic
data gathered in 1999 from the Kingswood area, the proposed Ordinance would not
even preserve the status quo at current blasting levels.
· Consistent with the foregoing, two improvements in the proposed Ordinance's
regulation of blasting will be critical.
(1) For existing mining operations, the Ordinance needs to assure that, in the short term,
such operations do not increase blasting impacts over current levels. For the longer
term, the Ordinance should create a process for investigation of the feasibility of more
stringent controls on vibrational impacts from blasting that may be achieved by existing
mining operations after a reasonable time for compliance.
(2) For new mines or expansions of existing mines, vibrational impact standards
should be required which protect prospectively affected property owners from not
only structural damage but nuisance levels of impact. An example of a
comparable community that has courageously moved to the forefront to set
effective limits on seismic impacts from mining and other industrial operations
is provided by the City of Overland Park, Kansas, a high-end "edge city" abutting
Kansas City, Missouri. This city's forward-looking seismic standards, as included
in our detailed comments, are generally consistent with those previously proposed
by Kingswood's Mining Committee and actually are more stringent than
Kingswood had previously proposed at residential properties.
NOISE IMPACTS
The second most objectionable adverse effect of a mining operation on nearby residential
properties are the noise impacts resulting from blasting of rock from existing surface strata
(airblast), from warning beepers on mobile equipment, and from conveyors and other stationary
equipment. In particular, the airblasts and equipment beepers are among the most irksome and
annoying effects of operations of the Martin Marietta 96th Street mine upon Kingswood
residents.
Airblasts: more protective standards are proposed in our detailed comments. At least
in part these are based on conditions imposed on a rock quarry permit from northeastern
Kansas - the Sunflower Rock Quarry, De Soto, Kansas. In addition, the Ordinance
should require mining operatiors to further mitigate the impacts of airblasts by deferring
blasts to avoid periods in which a low altitude temperature inversion exists in the
immediate area of the mine. See Stipulated Conditional Use Permit conditions for
Sunflower Rock Quarry, De Soto, Kansas.
Backup beepers: these devices are among the most annoying aspects of mine
operations to residents living near a mine, intruding even into bedrooms at 6:00 am.
The beepers inspire almost more complaints than blasting. The draft Ordinance takes a
good step toward requiring non-audible beepers under certain conditions. We believe
the Ordinance can reasonably go further in this direction.
Other noise sources: Mining operators should be required to review, on a reasonable
periodicity, whether new techniques or technologies have emerged to provide more
effective control over noise levels generated by conveyors, crushers, loading operations,
etc., and to implement such techniques or technologies if reasonably affordable.
Noise sources other than airblast: In addition to the other measures described above,
the proposed Ordinance should limit noise from mining operations, other than airblast,
to reasonably moderate levels such as those discussed in our detailed comments, which
are loosely based upon Stipulated Conditional Use Permit conditions for Sunflower
Rock Quarry, De Soto, Kansas. I i I,