HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 07-08-03 Special mtg1,1`I y G`'`y of Cq,9y C o
CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
July 8, 2003
The Special Meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission met in the Council Chambers of City Hall
immediately following an Executive Committee meeting at 6:30 PM. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Commission Members Present: Marilyn Anderson; Jerry Chomanczuk; Dave Cremeans; Leo
Dierckman; Dan Dutcher; Wayne Haney; Ron Houck; Nick Kestner; Dianna Knoll; Maureen Pearson;
Pat Rice; Pam Williams; Wayne Wilson; thereby establishing a quorum.
Legal Counsel Report: John Molitor reminded the Commission that the Rules of Procedure were
amended July 1 st to allow 10 days notice for items such as will be heard this evening. However, the
Amendment took place after these petitions were filed. John Molitor is recommending that if the
Commission considers these items this evening, the Commission should suspend its Rules of Procedure
to allow these to be heard with 10 days notice rather than the standard 25 days in effect before the
Amendment to the Rules of Procedure. John Molitor stated that the 10 days notice conforms to and is
consistent with Indiana State Law.
In response to Pat Rice's questions and comments, John Molitor said the Rules were amended to allow
items initiated by the Plan Commission and brought forth by the Department of Community Services to
require the standard 10 days which is consistent with State law. Items brought to the Commission by
outside petitioners—landowners who want to rezone their land, PUD proposals from developers, etc.,
will still require 25 days public notice.
Leo Dierckman made formal motion to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to allow these
petitions to be heard this evening; the motion was seconded by Dave Cremeans and Approved 13 -0.
Mayor Brainard then addressed the Plan Commission regarding item 2h on the Agenda. The
City has always planned on preserving the greenspace north of Prairie Trace School along River
Road on both sides of the road and owned by Earlham College. Until recently, the City thought
this parcel would be developed as a continuation of the living history museum (Connor Prairie.)
In fact, the recent Executive Director explained that they had received a gift of a 1930 -style
bridge and the museum intended to bring people with cars to the Carmel side of White River. The
museum would then set up a depression -era homestead /farm to show people what that period of
the last century was like.
After three years of negotiation, when Earlham failed to reach an agreement with the Board, they
requested and received local citizens to help build Connor Prairie. There was then one final
S:\PlanCommission\Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003jul8
negotiating session, and that session informed the Board they were all fired, including the
Executive Director.
Mayor Brainard referred to comments from one of the Directors published in the Indianapolis
Business Journal that stated all the Lilly Will requires is to keep the Conner home open one
Sunday per month (or words to that effect.) This inferred that Prairie Town and the balance of
the museum could be bulldozed and some other use applied.
If the Conner Prairie land on the Carmel side of White River were developed, it could be a
maximum of 2,000 houses. This would translate to approximately 6,000 persons and would
require at least one new elementary school, a fire station, ambulance and up- sizing sewer and
water lines. Also required would be an increase in the City budget for streets, police, sidewalks
all of those things that go along with developed neighborhoods plus all other departments in the
City that would serve this area —and it is not in the City's plan. There is no corresponding
business revenue —that is one reason Carmel has such a low tax rate. The ratio of businesses to
homeowners has been very carefully modeled and Carmel has one of the lowest tax rates in the
State. A development of 2,000 homes would change all of that. The look of the area would also
change —this was the site of the old Eli Lilly experimental farm.
Mayor Brainard said that none of the governmental officials in this area ever received a telephone
call before the "coup d'etat" of the Board took place a few weeks ago. None of us has really
been able to communicate with Earlham for years. We tried to talk to them about extending the
White River Trail through their property, and telephone calls were not returned from officials at
Earlham. Years ago, the town of Fishers re -zoned the majority of the land to only allow a living
history museum. All of the golf courses in Carmel were rezoned a few months ago; these rezones
were initiated as City proposals. It is not unusual for a rezone to be initiated by the City rather
than the landowner. The Mayor said the proposal to rezone is being made by him in conjunction
with the Staff because concern over recent developments at Connor Prairie. It will take a court of
law to establish whether Earlham is the Trustee or the Beneficiary of the Lilly will. Trustees can
be removed and the Indiana Attorney General is looking into this at the present time. The
language in the Deeds will probably be examined as well as determination of ownership.
However, it does not matter who owns the land, the City would like to preserve it.
The Mayor said he had information that Earlham was talking to other possible users of the land, in
spite of a letter from Earlham to the contrary. If Earlham truly intends to develop this ground,
Douglas Bennett is quoted in the newspaper as saying "Nothing will change." If nothing will
change, then this land will still eventually become a living history museum and the Rezone will
make no difference. The living history museum is special to this area—something Mr. Lilly left to
the entire community, State, and even the entire Country because it is a national attraction; this is
something Mr. Lilly "entrusted" with Earlham. The City is asking for a Rezone to protect this
land so that when the Courts sort it all out, there aren't 2500 houses on it and it is no longer
available. As it stands today, a plat could be filed on this ground any day and that is the reason
for the rush.
Marilyn Anderson went over the Rules of Procedure for the benefit of the public in attendance.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PC2003ju18 2
H. Public Hearings
1h. Docket No. 104 -03 OA (03060021)
Adopt Chapter 20I: P -2 /Park Recreation District
The petitioner seeks to add a new zoning district to the Zoning Ordinance.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Laurence Lillig appeared before the Commission to present the Department's petition to adopt
Chapter 20I and explain the P -2 /Park Recreation. The P -2 District parallels the P -1 Parks
District to which all of the golf courses were rezoned last year.
Firstly, in the P -2 District, the focus has been narrowed to allow the changes and uses that are
allowed in P -1. The permitted uses in the P -2 District have been narrowed to three. One use is
historic sites; a second use is living history museum—ordinarily defined from museum as allowed
in the P -1 District; finally, a park, also found in the P -1 District. There are a number of other uses
in the P -1 District, notably golf courses and country clubs, but determined not necessarily suitable
for the P -2 Classification.
Similarly, in sections 20I.0.3 and 20L0.4, Special Exceptions and Special Uses, all of the uses
found in the P -1 District have been eliminated. Those uses included such items as
telecommunications towers, antennae, and a variety of other things such as cemeteries.
In the area requirements, the minim area for cemeteries, which had been 30 acres, was
removed entirely since cemeteries were prohibited, and all other uses became all uses and that
standard is 3 acres similar to the P -1 District.
The Department is requesting the Plan Commission adopt this Ordinance Amendment as
submitted.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition to adopt the P -2 Park
Recreation District.
Remonstrance:
William Wendling, attorney with Campbell, Kyle Proffitt, 650 East Carmel Drive, Carmel
appeared before the Commission on behalf of Earlham College. Douglas Bennett, President of
Earlham College, was also present.
Mr. Wendling said they are unsure if the are opposed or not to the zoning ordinance change. If
the zoning ordinance change is specifically directed at Earlham, of course they are opposed. Why
should they be singled out —why should they be treated any differently —why were these
questions not asked of Earlham before being presented this evening in a format that is outside the
scope of what the Commission normally sees? Nevertheless, Earlham does not have any real
problem with the Ordinance Amendment, just as it is being applied to us. There are a few issues
in the zoning ordinance needing clarification, even if it is going to be applied to them. How
narrowly it is construed, for example, how narrow the definition, and that is with an S -1
S:\ P1anCommission\ Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes \PC2003jul8 3
classification, we could use it for educational purposes. We can't do that with this proposal.
What the Mayor says is true. The Town of Fishers annexed and rezoned part of Connor Prairie.
What the Mayor did not tell you is, Fishers removed this from their Agenda last night as far as the
remaining property. The Town of Fishers has had conversations and information from Earlham
College that gives them some degree of satisfaction that the area on the east -side of the River will
not be bulldozed and used for some other purpose. No one has ever asked us, "What are we
going to do with the Earlham property; the Connor Prairie Museum, the Village, the concert area,
the restaurant There are no plans to make these areas anything different. What we are
astounded about is, if this Ordinance is to be directed at us, what does that have to do with the
property that is on the west side of White River? The property on the west side of the River is
individually owned by Earlham College, no restrictions, no nothing. If it is the intent of the
Mayor, the Plan Commission and the City Council to control development that is not even on the
books, what we see is an unmitigated, direct attack on what the Mayor believes is a problem that
he has failed to address us about.
Mr. Wendling said that in essence, Earlham is not opposed to the proposed zoning. Yes, Earlham
is opposed if they are being told what they can do with their property.
The public hearing was then closed.
Jon Dobosiewicz reported for the Department. Following discussion by the Commission, the
Department requests that the Plan Commission suspend its Rules of Procedure and forward this
item to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Questions and Comments from Commission Members:
Pat Rice asked about "educational site" in the proposed Amendment and whether or not the
definition could be worded to include a living history site and would therefore include educational
site. Also, how will this proposal affect other historic sites?
Laurence Lillig said that the current zoning, S -1, permits schools of general and secondary
education on this site. Every museum has an educational aspect to it, whether active or passive,
and frankly, if the use is a museum, the educational aspect of that simply goes hand -in -hand and is
completely unaffected by this Ordinance. Regarding historic site, the reason for inclusion in the
list is so that the zoning district has a variety of applications to be used on sites that are historic.
This Ordinance would have broader application and could be used in other places. This use is
also included in the P -1 District for the same reason—it is something that can be used in other
areas if the need arises.
There are certain properties that already enjoy protection by other means, whether they are on the
National Register of Historic Places or on Indiana's own list of protected sites. This Amendment
would simply be a means for the City to afford protection to those sites deemed to be historic that
might not be protected at other levels. Since the P -1 District was only adopted last year, the
Ordinance has not been applied in that fashion. The Ordinance could be applied in order to afford
that protection.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PC2003ju18 4
As to this site specifically, it probably should be discussed whether or not the City or Plan
Commission would want to pursue a rezone based upon the historic value of this site. However,
the fact that the experimental farm was there might be seen as justification for applying it in that
manner, but that is not what the City is going after.
John Molitor commented that occasionally a historic site would be protected because a
conservation easement has been granted by the owner or obtained by another entity to protect the
site. Historic Landmarks Foundation has conservation easements in a variety of historic places
around the State of Indiana. The National Environmental Protection Policy Act protects historic
places and places in historic districts from being unduly impacted by a transportation project, etc.
Dan Dutcher asked for clarification regarding the distinction between the application of P -1 and
P -2 to generate parklands, especially since P -2 has no special uses or special exceptions.
Jon Dobosiewicz responded that the P -1 designation allows for golf courses and country clubs.
There are subtle distinctions between residential zone classifications, S -1, S -2, R -1 through R -5,
that address and tailor those zones to single family, duplexes, multi family, etc. In creating the P-
2 District, it is more specific to these types of uses than the P -1 District. At some point in the
future, there may be a P -3 District and different business zones. The designations have been
tailored to meet the development as it occurred over time. By the establishment of the P -2
District, we are utilizing it to respond to correct development conditions and to development as it
occurs.
Ron Houck had a language issue; public health, safety, comfort are understood, but unsure that
morals would apply. Also, as this might be applied to other parcels within Carmel jurisdiction, is
there a definition or some standard being applied for "historic Using Connor Prairie as an
example, we don't have any difficulty envisioning the historic aspect of that development. As
applied to other parcels in our community, "historic" should be defined with clear standards.
Laurence Lillig responded to Ron Houck's comments. There are sites that are probably more
specifically of concern to the history of our own community and probably of less interest to the
State or Federal authorities that are responsible for applying designations. In the case of P -1 and
P -2, we would be looking at sites that are probably more closely related to the history of Carmel
and Clay Township.
Ron Houck also asked about the distinction and permitted uses in the P -1 and P -2 Districts. P -1
also allows a museum, but is it a different type of museum?
Laurence Lillig said the P -1 District would allow a museum in the broadest sense. For instance,
something on the scale of the Indiana State Museum would be placed in a P -1 District. The P -2
District is meant to be more narrow in scope. The City is trying to ensure that property under the
P -2 designation is less intensely developed than otherwise possible under the P -1 designation.
Ron Houck asked for further clarification—is there any distinction within the language of the
Ordinance between the museum allowed in P -1 versus P -2? If not, should there be?
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes\PC2003ju18 5
Laurence Lillig responded it is the intention of the Department to devise a definition for this use
and implement it as part of the Patch 4 Project for the Ordinance. If the Commission is
uncomfortable with the fact that the definition is not a part of this Ordinance, there are probably
two courses of action to be taken. One is to adopt the Ordinance as written and know the
definition is forthcoming, OR come back with an amendment to P -2 once the definition is in place.
Dave Cremeans cautioned the Commission regarding establishing historic districts. The Plan
Commission would not be putting a wall around the property so that it could never be used
again —the property could be rezoned next month if a good project came in. However, if
someone brought a plat in next month for 2,000 houses under S -1, we must consider that as well.
This is appropriate to be on the Agenda.
Leo Dierckman moved for the suspension of the Rules of Procedure in order to vote on this item.
Dave Cremeans seconded the motion and the vote was 13 -0 in favor.
Dave Cremeans then moved to approve Docket No. 104 -03 OA, Adopt Chapter 20I P -2 /Park
Recreation District, seconded by Ron Houck and APPROVED 12 in favor, I opposed
(Wayne Wilson.)
h. Docket No. 105 -03 Z (03060022)
Earlham Rezone S1 P2
The petitioner seeks to rezone approximately 646.80± acres located along the south side
of 146 Street east and west of River Road.
Filed by the Department of Community Services.
Laurence Lillig appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Laurence Lillig
limited his comments and reminded the Commission of the Mayor's comments made earlier this
evenmg.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the rezone petition; no one appeared.
Members of the public were invited to speak in organized remonstrance against the petition; the
following appeared:
Organized Remonstrance:
William Wendling, attorney with Campbell, Kyle Proffitt, 650 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, had
the following comments. Connor Prairie has not been designated on any National Register and
has not been designated as a historical property on the State's register. No one in Carmel has
designated it as a historical, registered item. This is truly a unique situation.
Generally, when a Rezone is being considered, there is a petitioner who comes with plans,
diagrams, all types of information to try to convince the Commission why a rezone should take
place. Tonight, the owner of the property is basically relegated to the sidelines while the City
makes their presentation. The City is making a case that they can better determine what is in the
best interest of this property and how it should be used rather than the property owner, in this
case, Earlham College. This is a unique situation.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PC2003ju18 6
At lot of people have the misconception that the property that currently houses the museum, the
concert facility, and the living village on the east -side of the river will be bulldozed. That is just
not going to happen. There is also no discussion with a mining company to do any mining. A
simple telephone call would have been very helpful. We are now using the Commission's time
and resources to address factual issues that could have been established prior to this meeting. It
now is the property owner's burden to demonstrate that we should be able to use our land and
have it characterized as it is. Why are we being singled out? Because the Mayor says he has
something better in mind.
To rezone this property would devalue it. If Earlham were to take out a bond, and the property
were zoned P -1 or P -2, the value would be lower. Consequently, the property would be de-
valued. Earlham would not be able to get a bond for something beneficial to the development of
some portion of the property for educational purposes or expansion of the existing facility on the
other side of White River. This whole procedure is unbelievable. It is not even known at this
time what the City Council will do with a P -2 recommendation.
It is amazing that on the very evening you are referring an ordinance to Council—an Ordinance
that the Commission has had very little time to review —you are being asked to apply it to a piece
of property that does not have any historical significance other than it has been here for a long
time. The Commission is being asked to recommend a zoning classification that has not even
been considered by the City Council. It says a lot for the situation; it says it is "spot zoning, a
confiscation of property, a diminuation in value," and it is not appropriate. Mr. Wendling said he
was disappointed Earlham had to take these lengths, but it is meaningful.
Douglas Bennett, President of Earlham College, addressed the Plan Commission. The first
involvement in Hamilton County for Earlham came when Eli Lilly gifted to Earlham some very
valuable property-58 acres —that he asked Earlham to hold in perpetuity and develop into a
museum. At the same time, 1964, Eli Lilly also gifted to Earlham 1370 additional acres on both
sides of White River to be used for any purpose without restriction. Since that time, Earlham has
been good stewards of the land, and developed one of the nation's premiere, living history
museum. Earlham has devoted not just the 58 acres, but several hundred acres to active museum
purposes. Earlham continues to have the museum thrive and flourish in Hamilton County as a
treasure and an economic asseta recreational, cultural, economic asset for this County, and
Earlham is committed to continue to do that. Earlham took a step recently to ensure the long
term, fiscal health of the museum. Earlham is committed to seeing that Conner Prairie continues
as well as all of its current programs and operations. Earlham is proud of the museum it has
nurtured, and is committed to its continuing. Over the past 40 years, Earlham has acted in a way
that deserves the City's trust that it will continue to act in ways that are good for the museum,
good for the long term vitality of this county.
Mr. Bennett spoke about the land on the west side of White River. Neither the Earlham Board
nor the Conner Prairie Board has made a definite decision as to the use of the land, other than
those it continues to have for all of those 40 years. The most recent master plan was done in
1994 and envisioned a variety of possible uses for the land on the west side. However, no final
decision has been made regarding the west side of White River. The Mayor mentioned
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PC2003ju18 7
conversations about mining—Mr. Bennett said he had had lunch with an executive of Martin
Marietta a few weeks ago to thank them for their continuing sponsorship of Conner Prairie.
During lunch, it was conveyed that if Conner Prairie was ever interested in having sand and gravel
mined on the property, Martin- Marietta would be happy to talk to them. Nothing that happened
in the past month has done anything to change Earlham's thinking about the possibilities of
Conner Prairie —their hopes and expectations—nothing in the past month should change Carmel's
hopes and expectations.
Earlham is committed to working in partnership with Hamilton County. Conner Prairie has acted
well in the past and will continue to act well in the future. Earlham does not seek this change in
zoning and respecfully requests that the Board not approve it.
At this time, Landram Bowling addressed the Commission and relayed a very personal story and
history of the creation of Conner Prairie. Mr. Bowling had met with Eli Lilly—Mr. Lilly lovingly
restored the old Conner mansion and made it open at certain times of the year for school children
to come by the busload to see it. Mr. Bowling and Mr. Lilly were both history buffs, and liked
old- fashioned music of the early 1900's. Eli Lilly was concerned with the preservation of the
Conner mansion in perpetuity. Mr. Lilly fully expected to die before his wife, and he did not want
her to be bothered with his "hobby." Mr. Lilly wanted someone or some group or organization to
take it over that would have a responsible group or Board of Directors. Mr. Lilly had a trust in
Earlham College and believed they would do what they said they would do. Mr. Lilly asked Mr.
Bowling to "see his lawyer on Monday, and he would draw up the papers."
Mr. Bowling went on to say that Mr. Lilly was a man who acted on the basis of trust of
individuals and institutions. The only thing specified in the Deed of Agreement was that Earlham
would keep the property in good repair, make it available to the public on such terms as thought
to be suitable, and be good trustees of the property. Of the 1,370 acres, aside from the 58 acres,
Mr. Lilly said in the conveyance that Earlham would be free to dispose of it in any way it saw fit
for the benefit of Earlham's educational establishment. Over the years, under Earlham's
operation of the Conner Prairie Museum, it grew increasingly to be one of the serious, important
tourist attractions of this region, and it has grown and expanded year by year. Mr. Bowling said
he left Earlham at Mr. Lilly's invitation to become President and CEO of the Lilly Endowment,
until such time as he accepted the post as head of the National Council of Foundations.
Mr. Bowling said that discussions in the past few months have been extremely painful for him. It
is regretful that such action as taken by the Board of Earlham had to be taken. Those decisions
do not, in any way, indicate any diminution of Earlham's commitment to Conner Prairie. There
have been rumors, and articles in the paper of the most unbelievable, grossly distorted perceptions
of what Earlham has in mind, all the way to the point of bulldozing the place and selling off the
land for development! Who could have dreamed up such a thing? The Earlham Board of
Trustees has been extremely sensitive to the preservation of this land as nearly intact as possible.
Earlham had a previous opportunity to sell land for development in the late 60's or early 70's, and
there was approval from Mr. Lilly if that was what Earlham wanted to do. The Board turned
down the proposal, saying they had a greater responsibility as stewards of the land. There is a
certain sense of social responsibility and character that animates the men and women who are in
charge of the management of Earlham College. It is clear that there has been a tremendous
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PC2003ju18 8
amount of speculation in the press and the Indianapolis area and a lot of negative comments
against Earlham College. Earlham values the partnership between the citizens of Hamilton
County and Conner Prairie. Earlham is deeply distressed that somehow the strong disagreement
between the College administration and the Conner Prairie Board is, in any way, an indication that
Earlham College is about to or has betrayed either Mr. Lilly's instructions or their sense of
responsibility to this community, this County, the State, the Nation. The sense of responsibility is
at the very heart of concern for Conner Prairie —that commitment will not be changed or
destroyed. The Conner Prairie Board was created by the Earlham College Board —the Conner
Prairie Board exists only at the pleasure of the Earlham College Board. Earlham College has the
fiduciary responsibility for the property and the gift made to Earlham for its educational program
and for Conner Prairie.
Mr. Bowling was convinced that when the dust finally settles, Earlham would have found a way
to establish a rapport with the community. Conner Prairie is an enterprise that we can make
succeed if we work together, and an enterprise of great value for this community and this region.
Mr. Wendling summarized his comments by asking that the rezone request not be sent to the City
Council for the reasons aforesaid, but rather Tabled for legitimate reasons. It is very hard to
articulate why the rezone is not wanted, when the rezone request isn't as yet a zone
classification —the P -2 zone classification request was the first item on the Agenda this evening.
There needs to be dialogue about the proposal, as opposed to "ram rodding" it through which will
only create animosity and aggravation.
Laurence Lillig responded to comments. A lot of time was spent referring to the rezone and
referring to this site as a historic classification. The "historic site" is not what is driving the
rezone and the Mayor's comments made that clear prior to the public hearing this evening.
Laurence Lillig referred to comments from Earlham this evening that they have every intention of
continuing with the stewardship of Conner Prairie. However, the subject of this public hearing
this evening is not Conner Prairie—it is the property on the west side of White River —and that is
completely unaffected by Earlham's intentions for the existing museum. Earlham is concerned
about the constraints within the P -2 zone that will apply to this property and govern how this
property is developed in the future. There is nothing in the proposed Ordinance that prevents the
property from continuing in its current use.
Laurence Lillig said that at no time during remonstrance did he hear that this property is
considered by Earlham to be a part of Conner Prairie and that the stewardship of the Conner
Prairie Museum extends to this property. That is at the base level concern of Carmel and Clay
Township.
At this time, Marilyn Anderson closed the public hearing.
Pat Rice exited the meeting and did not return.
Department Comments, Jon Dobosiewicz. The focus on the matter at hand is land use and land
use on a particular piece of property within the community. The property consists of three parcels
on either side of River Road south of 146 Street. The Department is asking the Plan Commission
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes\PC2003ju18 9
to consider this item in light of the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Comp Plan have been
provided to the Commission for review. The majority of the property at the very northeast corner
of the Township is encompassed by flood plain of the White River. Jon referred to a statement
from the Open Space and Environmental Features section of the Comprehensive Plan. "The most
significant feature in the Township is the White River and its associated flood plain and riparian
areas. The White River landscape relates significant, natural and historic legacies of the
Township. The flood plain of the White River is fairly extensive along the western bank, and at
some locations extends one -half mile from the center line of the River." The P -2 Zone
Classification will allow Conner Prairie and Earlham College as the property owner to maintain
the existing use of the property for agricultural purposes until such time as they decide to modify
those uses. The proposed Ordinance would require that if those uses were intended for residential
or something other than permitted uses as proposed under the P -2 Zone, the property owner
would be required and allowed to file a rezone petition that would come before the Plan
Commission and ultimately the City Council to modify those uses of land.
The Department desires to be good stewards of the property (as well as Earlham) and in order to
do that, the Plan Commission needs to forward a recommendation to the Council and ultimately,
an ordinance adopted to provide the Plan Commission the ability to review the uses on this parcel.
Currently, a museum is a special use under the S -1 zoning and would require review by the BZA.
The measures the BZA takes are different than the legislative body. The decisions should rest
with the legislative body, and recommended by this Plan Commission.
At this time, the Department is recommending that the Commission suspend its Rules and forward
this item to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Comments and Questions from Commission Members:
Ron Houck asked for clarification on the chronology of events. What were the dates for the two
gifts of acreage from Eli Lilly to Earlham? (1964 for both gifts) Ron Houck also asked about
land -owner rights and spot zoning as referred to in remonstrance.
John Molitor responded that case law states a taking of private property cannot occur without just
compensation. However, regulatory action is not considered a taking unless the landowner is left
without any reasonable economic use of the property.
Dan Dutcher pointed out that the P -2 District may be more appropriate than the P -1 Parks for
other parks and recreation found within the community.
Jon Dobosiewicz commented that similar questions had come up at the time the golf courses were
rezoned. It is the intention of the Department to utilize this zoning classification on other
properties indicated along White River, including parks. Application of the proposed Ordinance
is not limited to this site and can be used at other locations within the community. As it relates to
this particular site, the Department believes it is appropriate to adopt measures that will bring
predictability in the future as opposed to the potential for drastic measures being taken in the
future that relate to land use decisions within our community.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PC2003ju18 10
Nick Kestner had a number of concerns, however the main concern was the area between River
Road and the White River. At the time we were trying to develop the White River Parkway Trail
System, Earlham was uncooperative. DNR has on their master plan the White River Trail from
downtown Indianapolis to Anderson, along the White River. Hamilton County and the City of
Carmel have purchased property —some of the property was donated by Martin- Marietta. At the
time Earlham was negotiating the Prairie View Golf Course, they were asked to donate a few feet
(all in a flood plain) along the River for a trail. The President of Earlham wrote a letter saying
they were not concerned about the community —their concern was that they were a destination
and allowing a trail in that area would decrease the maximum, financial use of the land for other
purposes. Needless to say, the Commission was pretty upset with that reaction. Since then, the
trail must go out to the road up to 146 Street and around the Earlham property. Earlham
College was not interested at all in cooperating on the trail. There are some concerns.
Wayne Wilson said he agreed with those concerns expressed by the Mayor this evening.
However, Mr. Wilson said he saw no imminent threat on this land. At the time the P -1
designation for golf courses was done, there was a speed to that because of the possible sale the
following week of the Brookshire Course. Even so, that rezone still went to Committee and time
was allotted for both sides to discuss their concerns and wishes. There may be total validity to the
concerns expressed this evening; however, there is no immin danger this evening. Suspending
the rules and voting this evening does not serve the community or Earlham as opposed to taking
time for continued dialogue with Earlham and sending this to Committee. Mr. Wilson was not in
favor of suspending the rules and would rather go through the process.
Jon Dobosiewicz said the Department would be willing to Table this matter to the March 2004
Plan Commission meeting IF the property owner were willing to commit to not filing a
development proposal on the property until such time as this matter is on the Commission's
Agenda.
Bill Wendling reiterated his understanding. Earlham agrees not to file or bring any type of
development plan to the City, Department of Community Services, or any other agency until
March 2004, thereby allowing the City Council adequate time to act on the first Agenda item this
evening, i.e. the creation of the P -2 District. No further action will be taken on the rezone request
until 2004.
Maureen Pearson asked for written commitments. It should be clear what everyone is agreeing
to. If Earlham agrees to the terms, the land needs to be bound by recorded commitments in the
event there were a sale or transfer of the land or if it were put in trust, etc.
Mr. Wendling responded that Earlham is here tonight with a "Good Faith" response to the rezone
request. Earlham will not transfer the property, file a develop plan, or mine the property—it will
be left as is until March 2004 IF the Department of Community Services says they will not push
this issue any further.
John Molitor said if this item were tabled this evening, the Commission could continue or
postpone a hearing indefinitely until it feels it has adequate information in order to continue. The
Department is not offering to withdraw the matter, only to have it tabled until March 2004. As
S:AP1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes\PC2003ju18 11
currently understood, Earlham would not file a development proposal until such time as the P -2
item could be disposed of by City Council. A motion could be made at any time to take this item
from the Table and discuss further.
Leo Dierckman asked what the current use is of the 646 acres. Does Earlham have any current
bond issues outstanding? Is this ground being used as asset for collateral on any bond obligation?
As a reminder, if this ground were rezoned, it would not prevent Earlham from filing an
application in the future.
Mr. Wendling responded that this particular property is not being used as collateral on any deal.
Mr. Wendling also said that to his knowledge, there are no technical defaults on any bond.
Earlham is willing to put that in writing.
Maureen Pearson asked what recourse the Department /Plan Commission would have if Earlham
does not live up to its agreement.
John Molitor said he definitely would like to see a draft of the written commitments from the
petitioner. It would seem that the Commission could take up this matter again if there were a
threat or actuality of a breach of the commitments by Earlham. If there were a breach of contract
by Earlham, this matter would go right to the City Council with a favorable recommendation for
rezone to P -2. If something of that nature happens, there would probably be resolution through
the Courts.
Maureen Pearson asked if those commitments could run with the land or in the event of a sale,
any subsequent owner.
Mr. Wendling said he would draft commitments and restrictions that would attach to the property
in perpetuity.
Nick Kestner asked if it were possible to table this item for 30 days and within that time frame,
the written commitments could be drafted for review.
Mr. Wendling committed to draft the commitments for review by the Plan Commission.
Dan Dutcher asked and encouraged Earlham and the City to have open dialogue.
Wayne Wilson asked for clarification. The Commission is agreeing to a 30 -day tabling of this
item to allow the drafting of commitments. A determination will then be made in 30 days as to
whether or not we will go for the March 2004 date.
Ron Houck commented that at some point when the discussion is had, a date in March should be
pin pointed.
Mr. Wendling suggested the third Tuesday in March, a regularly scheduled Commission meeting,
as a time period for the Tabling.
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\ P1anCommissionMinutes \PC2003ju18 12
Daev Cremeans moved to Table this item for 30 days to allow the landowner an opportunity to
prepare written commitments that will run with the land. The commitments will then be reviewed
by the Department and counsel, seconded by Ron Houck and Approved 12 -0.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
9:00 PM.
Marilyn Anderson, Vice President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
S: \P1anCommission\ Minutes\PlanCommissionMinutes\PC2003ju18 13