Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-12-18-06 City of Carl11el' Office of the Clerk-Treasurer COMMON COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2006 - 6:00 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. December 4, 2006, Regular Meeting 5. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL 6. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERV ATIONS 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 c. Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee d. Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL. INDIANA 46032 3 I 7/57 1.24 14 I 10. OLD BUSINESS a. Fourth Readin!! of Ordinance D-1836-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending the Requirement for Mayoral Signature of Council Resolutions; Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. b. Second Readin!! of Ordinance D-1837-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 9, Article 2, Division VI, Section 9-77(d) of the Carmel City Code (Fire Hydrant Specifications); Sponsor: Councilor Mayo. c. Second Readin!! of Ordinance D-1838-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division II, Sections 2-38, 2-39, 2-40,2-41,2-42,2-47,2-50,2-51,2-56 and 2-59 of the Carmel City Code (Benefits for City Employees); Sponsor: Councilor Mayo. d. Second Readin!! of Ordinance Z-499-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Townhomes at Central Park Planned Unit Development District (Westfield Boulevard at I 14th Street); Sponsor: Councilor Rattermann. e. Second Readin!! of Ordinance Z-SOO-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council ofthe City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Park Place (Retirement Community) Planned Unit Development District (Guilford Road and 116th Street); Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Resolution CC-12-18-06-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds in the 2006 Deferral Fee Fund Budget ($10, I 00); Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. b. Resolution CC-12-18-06-02; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds in the 2006 Department of Law Budget ($2,700); Sponsor: Councilor Sharp. c. Resolution CC-12-18-06-03; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds by the Carmel Fire Department ($145,000); Sponsor: Councilor Mayo. . 13. OTHER BUSINESS a. Election of2007 Council President b. City Council Appointments 1. Carmel Redevelopment Commission (One year term, beginning January I), two appointments. 2 14. ANNOUNCEMENTS 15. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT 12/18106 CC I'v1c<':lillg l\gi.'l1da 3 I I I COMMON COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 18,2006 - 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor James Brainard, Council President Richard L. Sharp, Council Members Kevin Kirby, Brian D. Mayo, Joseph C. Griffiths, Fredrick 1. Glaser, Ronald E. Carter, Mark Rattermann, Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray and Deputy Clerk-Treasurer Lois Fine. Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Pastor Mark Thomas, Every Nation Church, pronounced the Invocation. Mayor Brainard led the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS: There were none. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve the Minutes of the December 4, 2006, Regular Meeting. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. The Minutes were approved 7-0. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: Marnin Spigelman, 11816 Harvard Lane, Carmel, IN., spoke in opposition to Ordinance Z-500-06 (attachment 1) and presented 147 pages of signatures opposed to Ordinance Z-500-06 to the Council. Angie Molt, 740 W Auman Drive, Carmel, IN., addressed the Council and requested that the Noise Ordinance be reviewed and modified. Mrs. Molt also asked that Council consider nominating John Sullivan to the Carmel Redevelopment Commission. John Sullivan, 862 Enclave Circle, Carmel, IN addressed Council regarding the appointments to the Carmel Redevelopment Commission. COUNCIL, MAYORAL AND CLERK-TREASURER COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS: There were none. 1 " ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES: I There were none. CLAIMS: Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve the claims in the amount of$I,622,717.08. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Claims were approved 7-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Councilor Rattermann reported that the Finance, Administration and Rules Committee met and discussed Ordinance D-1836-06 and Ordinance D-1838-06. Ordinance D-1836-06 was sent to the full Council with a 2-0 favorable recommendation. Ordinance D-1838-06 was sent to the full Council with a 1-1 vote. Councilor Glaser reported that the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee met and discussed Ordinance 2-499-06 and Ordinance 2-500-06. Ordinance 2-499-06 will be withdrawn by Councilor Rattermann per instructions from the petitioner. Ordinance 2-500-06 will remain in committee. Councilor Carter reported that the Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee met and discussed the marketing of Central Park, in addition to safety issues for Central Park and the Monon. I Councilor Kirby reported that the Utilities, Transportation and Public Safety Committee met and discussed Ordinance D-1837-06 which was sent to the full Council with a unanimous favorable recommendation. OLD BUSINESS Council President Sharp announced the Fourth Readinl!: of Ordinance D-1836-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending the Requirement for Mayoral Signature of Council Resolutions. There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1836-06. Councilor Rattermann seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance D-1836-06 was adopted 7-0. Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl!: of Ordinance D-1837-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 9, Article 2, Division VI, Section 9-77(d) of the Carmel City Code (Fire Hydrant Specifications). Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1837-06. Councilor Rattermann seconded. There was brief Council discussion. Ordinance D-1837-06 was adopted 7-0. I Council President Sharp announced the Second Readinl!: of Ordinance D-1838-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 3, Division II, Sections 2-38,2-39,2-40,2-41,2-42,2-47,2-50,2-51,2-56 and 2-59 of the Carmel City Code (Benefits for City Employees). Councilor Glaser recused himself and left the chamber. Councilor Mayo presented Amended VERSION A 12/15/06 to the Council and made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1838-06, As 2 I I I Amended, VERSION A 12/15/06. Councilor Kirby seconded. There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Carter informed Council that there was a scrivener's error on page 3, line 39; (remove the word make). Council President Sharp called for the question. The motion to amend Ordinance D-1838-06 was approved 6-0. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve Ordinance D-1838-06, As Amended, VERSION A 12/15/06. Councilor Carter seconded. Council President Sharp called for the question. Ordinance D-1838-06, As Amended, VERSION A 12/15/06 was adopted 5-1 (Councilor Rattermann opposed). Councilor Glaser returned to the chamber. Second Readinl! of Ordinance Z-499-06; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Townhomes at Central Park Planned Unit Development District (Westfield Boulevard at 114th Street). This item was withdrawn by Councilor Rattermann. Second Readinl! of Ordinance Z-SOO-06; An Ordinance ofthe Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Park Place (Retirement Community) Planned Unit Development District (Guilford Road and I 16th Street). This item remains in the Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were none. NEW BUSINESS Council President Sharp announced Resolution CC-12-18-06-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds in the 2006 Deferral Fee Fund Budget ($10,100). Councilor Mayo made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Council President Sharp referred to Tom Perkins, Assistant City Attorney to present this item to Council. There was no Council discussion. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve Resolution CC-12-18-06-01. Councilor Rattermann seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Resolution CC-12-18-06-01 was adopted 7-0. Council President Sharp announced Resolution CC-12-18-06-02; A Resolution of the Common Council ofthe City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds in the 2006 Department of Law Budget ($2,700). Councilor Rattermann made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Mayo seconded. Council President Sharp referred to Tom Perkins, Assistant City Attorney, to present this item to Council. There was no Council discussion. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve Resolution CC- I 2-18-06-02. Councilor Rattermann seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Resolution CC-12-18-06-02 was adopted 7-0. Council President Sharp announced Resolution CC-12-18-06-03; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds by the Carmel Fire Department ($145,000). Councilor Mayo made a motion to move this item into business. Councilor Rattermann seconded. Councilor Mayo presented this item to Council. Councilor Kirby left the Council chamber. 3 I I I There was brief Council discussion. Councilor Glaser referred to Chief Doug Callahan, Cannel Fire Department, for clarification. Councilor Mayo made a motion to approve Resolution CC-12-18-06-03. Councilor Griffiths seconded. There was no Council discussion. Council President Sharp called for the question. Resolution CC-12-18-06-03 was adopted 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS a. Election of2007 Council President Council President Sharp opened the floor for nominations for the 2007 Council President. Councilor Mayo nominated Councilor Griffiths. Councilor Carter seconded. There were no other nominations. Council President Sharp closed the nominations. Councilor Mayo moved that Councilor Griffiths be elected the 2007 Council President by acclamation. Councilor Carter and Mayor Brainard thanked Council President Sharp for his outstanding job for the past year. b. City Council Appointments Cannel Redevelopment Commission (One year term, beginning January 1), two appointments. Council President Sharp opened the floor for nominations to the Cannel Redevelopment Commission. Councilor Rattermann nominated John Sullivan. Councilor Glaser seconded. Councilor Carter nominated Bill Hammer. Councilor Mayo seconded. Councilor Kirby returned to the chamber. Councilor Carter nominated Rick Sharp. Councilor Griffiths seconded. Councilor Glaser nominated Councilor Rattennann. Councilor Rattennann seconded. Council President Sharp called for the vote for Mr. Sullivan (2-5). Council President Sharp called for the vote for Mr. Hammer (5-2). Council President Sharp called for the vote for Mr. Sharp (5-2). Council President Sharp called for the vote for Mr. Rattennann (2-5). Mr. Hammer and Mr. Sharp were reappointed to the Cannel Redevelopment Commission. Councilor Carter infonned Council that there is a vacancy on the Police Merit Board. Councilor Kirby made a motion to add the Police Merit Board appointment to the agenda. Councilor Carter seconded. Council President Sha;.p called for the question. The motion failed 6-1 (Councilor Rattennann opposed). ANNOUNCEMENTS There were none. 4 EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS I Mayor Brainard adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m. ADJOURNMENT I I ATTEST: ~f1re Clerk-Treasurer Diana L. Cordray, MC 12/1 SiIl6 CC Ml:cting Ivlinulcs Respectfully submitted, /l --c/ 'J ~vV VL/ Clerk- Treasurer Diana L. C Approved, 5 / . PARK PLACE PROJECT SYNOPSIS IN OPPOSITIION 1. Wetlands Study was conducted by Pulte Corp. in 2005 for the purpose of constructing some form of development. Rejected due to soil stability as a result of necessary excavation of a previously buried asphalt/cement bridge, to the best of my knowledge, water table only 16 inches from the surface as per Wetlands Report, and not cost effective for them given the context of the neighborhood, the land loss by requirements to buffer the "waters of the USA" as per US Corp of Engineers, as well as maturing woodlands. 2. The Young Woodlands protection which would reduce the buildable area of the site as per Vine and Branch study in 2006 for which they disclaimed as follows: "Inspections were conducted June 13, 2006. As such, they are limited by the time frame and present field conditions. These are not long-term observations that would he needed to fully represent the full spectrum of plants and animals, which use the land over the course of the year and the changing seasons. Early spring:. late summer. and fall blooming: plants. as well as mig:rating: animals are some of the categ:ories not represented by this report." "The preservation of these woodlands benefits not only the local wildlife but the future residents of the community. The wooded area that surrounds Carmel Creek helps prevent soil erosion and protect the water Quality of the stream." Note: Looking at the scale of the projected building complex one can see that most, if not all of the existing woodlands, more less existing and maturing wetlands will be totally destroyed. 3. As projected, Independent Living Units will be in the single complex rising 55 feet. Drawing shows entire length of the Guilford Road side of the parcel has those units, as well as virtually the entire north end ofthe property. Highest property in the area is Pulte's 37 feet. Out of context with the area as per the Comprehensive Plan, and will impact the morning light dramatically on the Pulte Project, and part of the Lenox Trace complex directly across the street. 4. Even the Planning Commission had comments in their first meeting that addressed this, and other issues regarding the suitability of this project. In the minutes of the meeting the following comments were recorded, to wit: Pag:e One C~UI"\c.il m.J.&, l;.t/I S$ fov, A: , I ACHfYlt:: Nt I Carol Schleif of Plannine Commission. as per minutes: "noted that this is a massive buildine--sueeestion: break UP the roof. break UP the buildine. and make them into smaller. more human scale buildines. Vinvl Windows mav be a concern." **Note: The rendering for the placement of the building shows that all wings, and the nursing and assisted living complexes are in one connected unit. This is completely inconsistent with anything in the neighborhood general area. Even the commercial area on I I 6th Street has individual buildings rather than one continuous structure as is the case with all projects in the area. Ms. Schleif pointed out the main concerns also advanced in the Land Use Meeting, specifically heillht ofDroiect. and context to the neillhborhood. Dan Dutcher: There needs to be further definition as to how this fits into the neiehborhood: access to the Monon is unclear. Jav Dorman: Ouestions about noise in the cooline tower. or access to Monon. Peter Hau. attorney for Telamon expressed concern about liability if residents would cross throueh their property to access Monon. **Note: Notwithstanding the noise from the cooling tower, there is also noise to the residents themselves from the commercial/light industrial located directly in back of this parcel. More less the. liability issue that Telamon finds unacceptable. 5. The Developer indicated many would buy two units, and combine them into one which will be tantamount to helping mitigate the density issue. This is gross speculation at the very least, for the following reasons: A. The Developer represented the complex as either a "resort" or "country club" atmosphere. Such a complex typically has at least one golf course, tennis courts, large swimming pool, clubhouse with movie theaters, fitness center, and other distinct amenties which this complex does not incorporate in the project. B. Developer indicates Independent Living Units will price at $335/sq ft, 2+ to 3 times average in neighborhood. Though one cannot argue that the cost alone is a real factor here, the probability of sales are dubious indeed given the costs involved, plus the maintenance costs that will be levied on the homeowners still unknown. Paee 1\vo RrrA Ct+fYleNr I ('a..) C Dune; I m-rr /.).../I~/D(P ~" ,- . C. It is extremely speculative that people will spend $400,000. for two combined small units measuring 1200sq ft, or up to 1.2 Million Dollars for two combined large units measuring 3600 sq ft in a comolex that isn't a resort or countrv club. has no views. and is backinf! uo to commercial and industrial areas. I might also note that petition signers against this project, when advised oithe cost factor per unit, indicated almost unanimously that they don't know why someone who is retiring would live in a small unit, more less pay an average of $335 a square foot. They thought that the pricing, and sizing were, and this is their general comment, "ridiculous.'~ 6. Mr. Sharp indicated at the Land Use Meeting that the Stratford West Clay Retirement Project should be a "standard" for these type of projects. H that be the case, in and of itself, then it would defeat the project for that reason alone. There is no waiting list for the project. Average cost is $200/square foot for larger sized units then Park Place. The makeup of that project are units that range from 800 to 3600 square feet, at a cost of $150,000 to $700,000. There are 130 Independent Living Units, 45 Assisted Care, and 20 Nursing Rooms. 7. Developer is saying that only 35% or resident cars will be used, but included in the ordinance would be provision of 1.4 parking per unit, or 243 cars plus additional spaces for Assisted Living and Nursing Homes. Also 75 spaces for staff, visitors, and commercial vehicles for a potential total of up to 383 spaces for vehicles. To speculate that only 85 cars by Independent Living owners will be utilized is quite far fetched. At the average age of residents, as per the developer's representations, is 78 years old. It is quite speculative to argue that people of age 78, or younger to 55 will stay locked in their rooms afraid to drive. Elderly people won't give up driving until death, or if they become physically disabled to do so. Many current resident petition signers we have talked to in the neighborhood are . insulted that a rationale for the project is that they won't drive in rush hour. Their comment is "nobody will stop them from driving whenever they want to." Pal!e Three ~UIlC.;J m+;- I~/J~/o" It rrA~Hfl1I3/VT I " . Further, there is only speculation on the impact of staff changes, two of which will occur during rush hour traffic in the morning and afternoon. There is speculation by, the developer about ambulance and emergency vehicle noise and traffic which will be constant given the aged community. There is no, reference to guest and visitor parking which could be ongoing from early morning through the late hours. There is no study as to the impact of the commercial center project, or completion of the current high density projects insofar as traffic on the two lane Guilford Road. Traffic is an extreme issue that together with current communities, and those still under development, will have to contend with the congestion and noise which will become overbearing. Carmel Drive, and points west already have a distinct traffic hum to Guilford Road properties, and more cars will contribute. The commercial project on 116tb St. will no doubt contribute greatly to both factors as Guilford is a connector road to Carmel Drive. 8. One of the most compelling arguments in and of itself is the DENSITY issue. All projects on Guilford Road, and surrounding neighborhoods is under 10 units/acre. Even considering the entire 19.5 acre parcel the density is approximately 14 , units/acre, and the, developer cannot argue that he is discounting both the assisted living and nursing home rooms...they are there. The actual technical size of the land is really under the figure if you take away the US Corp of Engineers area which includes the Carmel Creek. If discounted then it is closer to 15 units/square foot. Consensus seems to be that this parcel would be more suitable in the area for patio homes, a lower density type complex, or a community park which would already have the maturing woodlands, and waterways. Research is still incomplete, and I will provide more when it can be properly compiled, though frankly the above information leads to the proposition that the project is unsupportable for that particular project. Thank you for your consideration. Prepared by Marnin Spigelman, Carmel, IN Paee Four r!a (). (lc,' / /YI fr' / ;).../1 f' lOb 4-rrA-CffmGlVI J