HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SpecStdy 04-25-00 Special mtg
u
u
u
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COM:MISSION
SPECIAL STUDY COM:MITTEE
SPECIAL SESSION
APRIL 25, 2000
The Special Session of the Special Study Committee met on April 25, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the
Caucus Rooms of City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana.
Committee members present were: Leo Dierckman; Madeline Fitzgerald; Bob Modisett;
Jim ONeal; Pat Rice; and Paul Spranger. Also present: Dave Cremeans; Nick Kestner;
Norma Meighen; and John Sharpe.
Steve Engelking, Director, Michael Hollibaugh, Terry Jones, and Laurence Lillig were present
representing the Department of Community Services. Kate Weese, Engineer for the City of
Carmel, was also in attendance as well as John Molitor, Counsel.
Single Item Agenda:
Single Item Agenda: Docket No. 105-99 Z, Rezone petition for The Linder Group. The
petitioner seeks a favorable recommendation for a rezone from R-l to B-8 in order to
construct between five and eight retail buildings not to exceed a total of95,000 square
feet on 14.378 acres to be known as Merchants' Pointe. The site is located on the
southwest corner of East 116th Street and North Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned R-
l/Residence within the S.R 431 Overlay Zone.
Filed by James 1. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for The Linder Group.
This item has been continued from the February 1st and April 11th Special Study
Committee meetings.
Kate Boyle-Weese, City Engineer, addressed the Committee to render the status of the widening
of 116tb Street. The first three phases, environmental, grade review, and preliminary field check,
have been completed. The preliminary design and preliminary field check are so close in
relation, they have been grouped together and termed preliminary field check. The City is
probably two to three months away from holding a public hearing. The City could be submitting
plans in the next two to four weeks on preliminary right-of-way that the State would review and
require the City to give public notice. The public would be able to review the plans and
comments, if applicable, could be incorporated on the plans. An INDOT hearing officer would
have to review the proceedings and make sure that procedure is followed. Public Hearing and
Design Approval must be obtained before the City can proceed with acquiring land. The first
step would be getting appraisals. A realistic time frame is October or November to begin right-
of-way or land acquisition phase.
After the land is acquired, there will be a potential letting period (spring.) After the land is
cleared, INDOT would again have to review appraisals, land acquisition, etc. and letting the
contract for the project would probably be spring or early summer, 2001. It is the City's goal and
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
1
estimate to construct the roadway improvements in one construction year.
u
At the present time, there is another 1161h Street project under design that is also slated for some
Federal Funds (between Rangeline and College) and that project would be coordinated with the
Keystone to Rangeline project in order to minimize the period of time the roadway is out of
commission. These two schedules would have to be coordinated. The time frame is a "best
estimate" at this point.
A&F is the design engineer. A&F was given a notice to proceed on the design in December,
1998. The Mayor has directed the City Engineer/Department and the design engineer as to the
details of what is wanted in the road project. The Thoroughfare Plan does show a four lane
parkway with 140 feet right-of-way overall; the project is included in the Indianapolis Regional
Transportation Improvement Program and is slated to receive $1,444,000. in Federal Funds, high
priority funds.
As to the question of whether or not the Linder project influenced the design-- The road design
and its elements were decided prior to the Linder project ever being discussed. As the City
became aware of the project as proposed, good engineering design would dictate that we should
incorporate or at least plan for the possibility of certain elements of the Linder project being
included in the City's road design. In this case, the one advantage seen that could be gained was
that a better storm sewer outlet could be provided. The City will be taking the current road and
incorporating storm sewers and inlets, taking out ditches, and redirecting the pipes. The
proposed project offered a possibility, and this is one change that was considered. Currently, the 0
design does not assume that the storm sewer outlet is in place. An alternate outlet has been
planned and would probably be more costly than it is at present. The proposed project aside, the
design for the road is in place. The only other element of the proposal that has been somewhat
included is a drive approach at the automatic signal at AAA Way--the City can then plan for the
signal modifications that would need to be made--this can easily be removed from the road
design, should it not be necessary. It will be included for the State's review so that another signal
head will be added and a four way stop light will be in being rather than a three-way.
The dimensions for the right-of-way are still preliminary, and until the State agencies have their
review and tell the City that everything is approved, they will remain preliminary. At the east
end of the property, approximately 29 meters, or 95 feet, would run about 250 to 270 feet from
Keystone going west; it would then cut back to 18 meters, or 59 feet, less than the Thoroughfare
Plan provides. The reasoning is that towards Keystone, the roadway is wider--an approach must
be planned at the intersection that incorporates a right turn lane, not normal in the 140 foot right-
of-way of the Thoroughfare Plan. Also, the current topography of the ground goes up
significantly and to match the elevation at a required slope, there is a much higher right-of-way
taking. It is not likely that the roadway improvements could be constructed without affecting the
golf course--they will be impacted, and right-of-way is needed. Aside from the section of the
golf course closest to Keystone, as you head west towards AAA Way, the right-of-way currently
tapers down significantly and just to get the two lanes and storm sewer, there is a right-of-way U. .
taking that is necessary. There will be impacts to basically all adjacent property owners, if not in
temporary then permanent, some are less, some are more. If certain features to the road project
are considered for modification and/or elimination, the right-of-way needed could be reduced,
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
2
u
u
u
but the need for right-of-way will not be eliminated. Squeezing certain elements such as the
grassy strips or multi-use path, or median into the plan could reduce the right-of-way; however,
there are no plans at present for the City to make any changes to the design. The City has a
design, and will move forward with the design and the right-of-way land descriptions, get the
appraisals, make the offers, and see where we end up. If the City enters into what ends up being
a negotiation for this land prior to the appropriate steps, the City significantly risks the loss of the
Federal money. If the City were to talk to the golf course about the land value, it would almost
be a translation of a dollar amount that the City would have to pay and could be considered a
negotiation with a property owner. The City has designed the road, it needs what it needs, no
matter who owns the property. If the ground were to change because the land use changed, the
City may not need as much ground. If someone came in and decided to lower the hill, the road
design where it matches in would change, but it would not be because the City would be altering
their road design to meet the land use.
Kate Weese further explained that if some of the features were eliminated, the pathway for
instance, right-of-way could be reduced, but a retaining wall would still be needed. If the
median section were eliminated, again the right-of-way could be reduced, but a retaining wall
would still be needed or the roadway would have to meet the existing. There are some people
who think the City could do modifications, but all lanes are needed, including the designated
right-turn lane at Keystone, for current and projected traffic growth needs in the community.
Madeline Fitzgerald asked if the design plan being referred to is the one the Mayor presented to
the Plan Commission. Kate Weese responded that she was not present at that meeting, but
thought there had been no significant change in the design plan since its inception.
In response to questions from Pat Rice, it was Kate's opinion that the City's plan does not depend
on the project before the Commission at this time and that the retaining wall is not a given if the
golf course remains.
Bob Modisett asked about the drainage for the intersection--it is Mr. Modisett's understanding
that the current drainage plan pipes into the ponds on the golf course. Kate Weese responded
that the general drainage pattern is from west to east and then south. Steve Fehribach explained
the drainage further.
Steve Fehribach of A&F Engineering stated that the current design calls for the structures, a dual
storm system, to run on the north and south sides of the roadway and tie into a few pipes that run
north and south along Keystone. There will also be some outflows into the ditches that will be
utilized. The problem is one of elevation and two pipes will have to be used to keep the water at
a certain elevation.
Kate Weese commented that if the proposed project does occur, a short cut for the drainage can
be taken across the property, through the site and into one of the pond systems on the golf
course- this would allow for more detention rather than a direct discharge.
Steve Fehribach stated that a manhole would be set at AAA Way that would receive the water
from the roadway and take to the retention system that would be developed. There would be no
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
3
elevation problem if the lake were built~ one pipe could be directed into their system.
In regard to the number of traffic lanes on Keystone, there would actually be 6 lanes at the
intersection~ a right designated turn lane, two lanes east bound, can continue across Keystone,
and the right lane would then have to taper back in. The left turn lanes would be opposing. West
bound will be compatible. There will be 5 lanes on the east side, 6 lanes on the west side, but the
southern most lane is a right turn only.
Kate stated that the five lanes that are compatible are currently aligned. That is why the road
cannot be shifted to the north to reduce the impact to the south property line--the left turn lanes
would not oppose each other as they must, and there would be a jog at the intersection. What
was identified ten years ago in a study, and the situation still being faced today is that Keystone
and the State have control of the "green time" and the more lanes that can be added in width, the
more lanes can cross Keystone and then taper back together. It should not be a significant
problem. Steve Fehribach concurred.
Director Steve Engelking reported on an outstanding item at the previous Committee meeting on
the 11th of April. Within the plat restrictions for the Woodland Golf Club Subdivision, it is
stated that.... "All lots in the subdivision shall be known as residential lots. Only one, single,
detached family dwelling with accessory buildings and not exceeding two and one-half stories in
height may be erected and maintained on any platted lot therein." Essentially, this is a covenant,
enforceable by the homeowners association of Woodland Golf Club Subdivision.
Steve Engelking further reported that lots 32 and 33 bordering 116th Street just west of the
proposed action are properties currently under investigation by the Department as zoning
violations. It is believed that both of these properties are being used not as home occupation, but
in fact are businesses operating as a commercial business out of these homes. Should this
finding be confirmed, the Department will issue letters to the property owners to cease and desist
or seek variances that would allow commercial use. The process will be timely, but the process
also takes time to give the owner notice, time to comply, and then it is turned over to the legal
office and prosecution begins. The homeowners association could take more rapid effect than
could the City, since it is within their jurisdiction to control the covenants--this may be a course
of action the homeowners association would like to consider.
In response to questions from Paul Spranger, Steve Engelking stated that the plat restrictions are,
in effect, covenants and are not enforceable by the City. The City does not undertake to enforce
any covenants of any subdivision. The only thing the City can enforce is a code or zoning
violation.
Paul Spranger asked Counsel if the homeowners within the Woodland Golf Club Subdivision
could change the covenant to relieve themselves of the burden.
D
o
John Molitor stated that he had not reviewed the particular covenants being referred to, but as a
general rule, any change in restrictions would have to be agreed to by all parties to the contract D
and that would be every homeowner in the subdivision. John Molitor agreed to look into the
situation further.
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25 4
..
u
u
L
Leo Dierckman asked if the City was confident that these same covenants and conditions
are not in existence on the golf course property.
Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, responded to Mr. Dierckman's question. There are no
restrictions on the golf course; the golf course was not a part of the 5, platted sections of
Woodland Golf Club Subdivision.
Leo Dierckman commented that the homeowners have been in a position to enforce the
covenants for a number of years and the businesses have been in operation in the homes on 1 16th
Street for some time--there doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency by the homeowners.
Dave Cremeans suggested that members of the Committee meet at the golf course and
walk the site; several members responded that they had already done so.
Paul Spranger reported that he, Leo Dierckman, Bob Modisett, Jim ONeal, and Pat Rice had met
and walked the site with the drawings of the proposed 1 16th Street improvements in hand.
Interestingly enough, the present right-of-way includes the wooden fence along 1 16th Street. At
AAA Way, there is a very narrow distance between the edge of the pavement and the fairway of
the golf course. At the time Keystone was widened, the golf course moved and shortened
fairways and shifted the greens. This was done again when 1 16th Street was widened. There is a
compression of fairways and holes at the comer of 1 16th Street and Keystone. In summary, there
would be a tremendous impact to the golf course due to the widening of 1 16th Street.
Jim ONeal commented that he was involved as a member of Woodland when Keystone was
widened and the course was impacted at that time. Mr. ONeal stated that his main objection to
the proposed project was the proposed rezoning. Mr. Linder and Mr. Nelson have done an
excellent job of presenting the project, the Merchants Square is an outstanding success; however,
it is not the Commission's job to decide how much to spend for the property, what it will save the
taxpayers, etc. The Plan Commission's job is to look at the rezone and that is all that should be
being discussed.
Pat Rice commented that perhaps it would be helpful to look at the reasons for the
proposed rezone. 1) Merchants Plaza has requested this as a need; 2) It would improve the golf
course; 3) It would retain green space (for the community); and 4) It would save the taxpayers
money in connection with the widening of 116th Street. The issues with the rezone have to do
with a) traffic- b) the Comprehensive Plan; c) the expansion of commercialization of the area;
and d) most importantly, the residents. Ms. Rice referred to a petition in opposition to the rezone
with almost 2,000 names of residents and a letter from Mr. Ennis Gray stating the issues.
Dave Cremeans commented on the proposal and reiterated that the public hearing was closed.
The letters and emails have been read, reviewed, and gone over again. The City of Carmel needs
to widen 116th Street, and the most effective way to do that is to put the storm water drainage on
the golf course, do the taking from the golf course, and then, someone will have to pay for that.
It is not part of the Plan Commission's job to negotiate right-of-way and design roads, but Mr.
Cremeans felt it was part of his job as a citizen to pay attention to what the Commission does
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
5
with taxpayers' money. It would seem to make more economic sense to let the developer take D
the risk rather than the citizens of Carmel. Mr. Cremeans stated that as a taxpayer within the
City of Carmel, he would favor letting the developer pay for right-of-way required for widening
the road.
Terry Jones indicated that 116th Street was designated on the 20/20 Vision Thoroughfare Plan to
reflect a boulevard in 1995. The right-of way was 100 feet prior to 1995 and increased to 140
feet in 1995. The current right-of-way on 116th Street is greater the closer it is to Keystone; at
AAA Way, the right-of-way is about 20 feet per one-half. Kate Weese guessed that overall,
there is probably a total of 50 or 60 feet of right-of-way and the proposal is to expand to 100 to
120 feet, total. The Thoroughfare Plan says that where the City can plan for development, we
should get 70 foot one-half rights-of-way, but where the City is doing road improvements, we
are only trying to take what is needed.
Madeline Fitzgerald stated that Woodland Country Club has been aware that 1 16th Street is a part
of the Thoroughfare Plan and that it would be widened at some point and affect their course.
The question is, as a Plan Commission, are we really obliged to consider the potential cost saving
to the City if the rezone is to take place--it is sort of splitting hairs. It is not a function of the
Plan Commission--as citizens, yes, but as Plan Commissioners, no. The street will be widened
regardless of the rezone. Are we obligated to rezone something to help out an existing business
across the street? What we have to decide is the issue of a rezone. The Committee needs to
decide what our job is.
Paul Spranger stated that the task before the Committee is to consider the rezone. Roadway
design is not the decision of the Plan Commission, however it does become a factor in terms of
traffic analysis.
o
Madeline Fitzgerald stated her confusion as to why what happens to the golf course is really
important on a rezone. The Country Club is a property owner and can do whatever they want
with their property, but is the Commission obliged to say the golf course wouldn't be as good if
the ground were not rezoned?
Paul Spranger commented that in reviewing a rezone, the Commission is charged to look at the
impact of property owners, and Woodland Golf Course is a large property owner and definitely
impacted. The rezone impacts the right-of-way---it is all connected.
Jim Nelson addressed the Committee. Woodland became aware, early on, that its land was going
to be required for the road and that the golf course would be substantially impacted by the
potential roadway. Woodland sought out a developer (Gary Linder) in order to provide for the
sale ofa small part of its land that would enable them, (through Linder) to make the right-of-way
available to the City without compensation and yet provide it with the money needed to
appropriately respond by the total re-design of its golf course. From Linder's point of view, he
believes that the financial integrity and long term economic viability of Merchants Square is U
enhanced if he is able to expand the base for Merchants Square by the addition of Merchants
Pointe, especially with restaurants that have a tendency to retain or bring people to an area
during the evening hours. The goal was to create a situation where we thought everyone would
s: \PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
6
u
u
u
win. The community would get a much needed road improvement, the right-of-way would be
made available, not only inexpensively, but expeditiously, and Woodland would have a new golf
course.
There were more questions and discussions.
Jim Nelson stated that Woodland is willing to go to its Board and if it deems necessary, to its
membership, to suggest that there be a 15 year commitment on a golf course only and that for a
period of 25 years, a commitment would be provided to the City of Carmel for a right of first
refusal to purchase the real estate. A commitment for a period of30 years for golf course use
only is viewed as extremely onerous. If things should change significantly, Woodland has to be
in a position to respond. However, a 15 year commitment is acceptable and will require some
time.
Leo Dierckrnan suggested a period of30 years on the first right of refusal; Jim Nelson did
not see a problem with that.
Paul Spranger commented that his support would be for a 30 year commitment.
Jim Nelson asked for some concrete proposal to take to Woodland.
Pat Rice moved that if a rezone were granted, Woodland Country Club would commit legally, to
a period of30 years, that this would be a golf course and that at that point, if there were
consideration to sell the property, the City of Carmel would be given first right of refusal.
There were questions and discussion about the present zoning of the property and the
Special Use that now allows the golf course to be in existence.
Jim Nelson responded that all of Woodland's land is zoned R-I/Residential. Under the R-
l/Residence District classification, there are two categories of use: Permitted Uses and Special
Uses. Permitted Uses in R-l are generally single family, Special Uses are Country Clubs, golf
courses, Churches, etc. The golf course began in the early 50's before the Joinder Agreement.
After the Joinder Agreement, Woodland did appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on
several occasions to renovate the clubhouse, renovate the swimming pool, and create the practice
area on the south side of Woodland Lane. A Special Use is a more limited use under the R-l
zoning classification.
Leo Dierckman commented that this is certainly a very difficult zoning situation and a
compromise needs to be worked out relative to the issue, when you start looking at long term use
of the balance of the property and the entire use of the golf course if they so elected to sell it.
Mr. Dierckrnan wanted to see it remain a golf course in perpetuity. Mr. Dierckrnan also felt that
a 30 year commitment on a use restriction would prohibit them from getting any kind of bank
financing if they ever wanted to do any improvements. The more investment Woodland makes
on its property further ensures that they will remain a golf course. Leo felt that a 15 year
commitment that Woodland remain a golf course is reasonable, providing that the City be given
a first right of refusal. It is up to the City Council how the City spends its money, and it is up to
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
7
the Commission to recommend the use of the ground.
Jim Nelson stated that a 30 year commitment to a golf course use would definitely affect
the price the City would pay for the right-of-way.
o
Pat Rice then modified her motion to provide for a 25 year commitment to remain a golf course,
and the City would still be given first right of refusal, seconded by Leo Dierckman. The vote
was 4 in favor, Madeline Fitzgerald and Jim O'Neal opposed. MOTION APPROVED.
After a short recess, the Committee proceeded with the review of Merchants Pointe.
Paul Spranger was asked for clarification regarding the commitments from the petitioner. There
is an 11,000 square foot building shown as slated for multi-use in a retail capacity and this
project needs to be more mixed use. The building should be a professional building restricted to
non-retail activities such as doctors, dentists, attorneys, etc.
Madeline asked ifperhaps by asking for this type of restriction, is the Committee over-stepping
its bounds and putting an undue hardship on the petitioner by requiring them to go back to
membership and the time involved. '
Paul Spranger stated that they would have to go back to their board and their membership and
then report back before the full Plan Commission considered this item.
John Molitor responded to Madeline's questions. The (Commission) Committee is allowed to 0
take a reasonable amount of time to make a decision and forward it on to the Council. The
Commission is not to delay unduly, and frustrate the petitioner's ability to receive a final vote on
their rezone proposal. On the other hand, in regard to the rezone commitments, this is a
legislative issue and the Commission may ask for any sort of concession or exaction that is
reasonably related to what they are doing and what the impact on the community may be. What
is being asked does not step over the line.
Paul Spranger asked about the difference between a commitment and deed restriction and what
can be done or undone.
John Molitor responded that the difficulty with a commitment is that the commitment can be
terminated at any time by a majority vote of the Plan Commission after a public hearing. The
deed restriction can be worded in such a way that it would be virtually impossible to remove
unless the restriction is actually honored or the City actually does purchase the property. The
other thing with respect to the right of refusal might be some better definition in terms of the
price that the City would have to pay and how that would be defined, if that would be related to
an offer that may come from a third party or whether it would be related to an appraisal that the
City may seek from an objective appraisal firm and whether it would be based upon its value as a
commercial development or as used in one of the ways permitted by its current zoning ofR-l.
Pat Rice commented that there are several issues; Pat concurred with Paul Spranger about the
11,000 square foot building and defined use. There is another building that is also open to retail.
u
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
8
u
[J
u
(25,000 square feet, perhaps a book store)
Jim Nelson stated that as far as use, there are 7 buildings on the site and the petitioner has made
commitments to the Commission governing the number of buildings, (the petitioner agrees to 7
buildings in number--not 5 to 8) and the commitments provide for an allocation of approximately
94,000 square feet among certain uses, minimum and maximum, to assure that this will be a
mixed use development. The uses include, a small bank; three, free standing restaurants, each
individually designed; to the south and next to the Country Club is a two story, 30,000 square
foot office building; a single story, 11,200 square foot multiple tenant building, service and retail
uses; and a one story, single tenant building, approximately 25,000 square feet..
Pat Rice was not comfortable with seeing the use become retail, it should be limited to
restaurants and offices. Also, what would happen if a restaurant did not do well, would it be
converted to another use, is it in the commitments that the use would remain a restaurant and not
something else?
Paul Spranger stated that the Committee would have to ask for that in the form of a commitment.
Gary Linder addressed the Committee. Mr. Linder's customers are the retailers--it the retailers
do well, the shopping center does well. Rather than bombard the Committee with letters, Mr.
Linder had talked with the Finish Line. The Finish Line is one of the nationally known retailers
in the Country in athletic footwear and one of the four, prominent retailers headquartered in
Indianapolis. The letter from George Sanders, Senior Vice President of Real Estate and
Development for the Finish Line, read, in part, that... .."without question, the addition of
Merchants Pointe would allow Merchants Square to be competitive with other retail areas but
maintain the quaint and convenient atmosphere. We certainly hope your efforts are successful
for Merchants Square and your other tenants." There is definitely a need for this type of center
and the anchor tenants in Merchants Square realize this. Mr. Linder stated that he had every
intention of protecting the integrity of Merchants Square and the design of the buildings would
be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Linder went over the economics of revenue from an 11,000 square
foot building. Mr. Linder is faced with the dilemma that a lot of retailers will not even consider
this as a viable site until the zoning is approved. Linder must have some reasonableness to
operate.
Pat Rice questioned the Hobby Lobby at the current location in Merchants Square and that it is
not aesthetically pleasing looking at the top of the building from the rear. Ms. Rice also
mentioned that the outlet from Hobby Lobby and Petco onto Ring Road is very narrow, there is
no striping, and the flow is very poor in design. There are some real issues in there.
Mr. Linder stated that the result was the best alternative available to utilize the existing
buildings. It is purposefully designed for slow traffic movement through the area.
In regard to the sit-down restaurants, Mr. Linder commented that they have committed to no fast
food restaurant but rather a sit-down, quality restaurant. Retail changes constantly, but if a
restaurant goes out, we will certainly try to get another restaurant in, but we would be guided by
the commitments of so much retail, so much in restaurants.
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
9
~
Jim O'Neal stated that in accordance with his previous comments, this is a rezone issue. Mr.
O'Neal commented that Woodland only needed to give up enough property for the roadway, not 0
14 acres. There is acreage to the south that Woodland could use to move a couple holes.
However, this is not the issue-the issue is that this is a Rezone! The property across the street in ..
Merchants Square has already been approved and we've been down that path. This is a Rezone
for this property and we should come to a vote and send the people home mad or happy!
Leo Dierckman asked about the number of tenants in the 11,000 square foot building. Mr.
Linder responded that there would be three tenants, and three signs. Three tenants is the
restriction. Leo commented that he would be happier with two tenants in an 11,000 square foot
building. Mr. Linder responded that he could live with two tenants in the 11,000 square foot
building.
Madeline Fitzgerald moved to forward the proposal to the full Plan Commission with no
recommendation, but with the commitments from the petitioner attached, including the 25 year
deed restriction and the City's first right of refusal. APPROVED 5 in favor, TIm O'Neal opposed.
Merchants Pointe, Docket No. 105-99 Z, was forwarded to the full Plan Commission meeting on
May 16,2000 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned.
o
u
s:\PlanCommission\SpecialStudy\spst2000apr25
10