Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 06-21-11A raemu /ND I ANp City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION JUNE 21 9 2011 City Hall Council Chambers, 2 nd Floor One Civic Square Carmel IN 46032 6:00 PM Members Present: John Adams, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Judy Hagan, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Steve Stromquist Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary John Adams was officially sworn in and introduced as the newest member of the Plan Commission Ephraim Wilfong is currently serving as the Plan Commission appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals and represents the unincorporated area of the City. Mayor Brainard will appoint a member to the Board of Zoning Appeals to fill the position vacated by Leo Dierckman. Steve Lawson and Nick Kestner jointly agreed to accept the election to the Hamilton County Plan Commission, each serving part of a 12 month period in a non voting capacity. The Hamilton County Plan Commission currently meets the third Wednesday of every month. The minutes of the May 17, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. Communication, Angie Conn: A request for tabling Turkey Hill Minit Market for 30 days was received from the Indianapolis Department of Water Works, followed by a written letter of opposition stating reason for denial. Note: The Plan Commission rejected the request for Tabling; comments from Indianapolis Dept of Water can be given at public hearing this evening and at the Committee level. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: Up -date on the Johnson Garage a demolition permit has been issued, but as yet, the garage has not come down —the Court granted an additional 30 days for compliance; tentative hearing date is set for July, at which time the garage should either be removed or in violation (contempt of court.) H. Public Hearings 1. Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD Turkey Hill Minit Market. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for an automobile fuel station, retail store, carwash and also seeks the following zoning waiver approval: 2. Docket No. 10110013 ZW: Section 9.02, Legacy PUD ordinance Z- 501 -07, maximum 15 -ft front yard building setback. The site is located at 7729 E. 146" St. (at River Rd.) and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger. S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC -2011 june21 WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV 317 571 2417 Present for Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional with Nelson Frankenberger; Steve Fuller, Turkey Hill; Charlie Frankenberger, Nelson Frankenberger; other members of the development team. Overview: Site consists of 1.9 acres Site is the corner use block within Legacy PUD Site located at southwest corner of 146 Street River Road Legacy PUD approved by City Council 2007 Future Development anticipated south west of site, within remainder of corner use block Proposal is for construction of new fuel center car wash Proposal requires following approvals: 1. Approval of DP /ADLS from Plan Commission 2. Zoning Waivers for front build -to -line 3. Variance from BZA to allow mechanical scrolls signs 4. Independent approval of underground storage by Carmel Utilities Carmel Dept of Engineering Carmel is undertaking a study to assist in guaranteeing compliance with all Carmel Ordinances regulations New building is pulled up to 146 Street (required by Ordinance) Setback along River Road is subject of request of zoning wavier Legacy PUD requires a front yard setback not to exceed Water lines traverse the real estate in southwest direction along eastern boundary line Site designed as if protective easement in place Fuel Canopy located south of Bldg screened from 146 Street Parking is behind and beside the building Pathway connections located between 146 and River Road Additional drive access previously proposed was removed at request of City Engineer Parcel located to west south of subject site will use same access points no additional driveway access points to perimeter public street North bldg elevation faces 146 Street; south elevation faces parking area Building shares common design in terms of bldg materials general style with recently opened store at Range Line Road Carmel Drive Particular attention paid to screening mechanical areas providing 360 degree architecture similar to Range Line Road location Canopy car wash maintain same bldg materials design elements as primary bldg Color of canopy changed to match panels below window -sets All site lighting will meet Ordinance Standards review at Committee Site landscaping meets standards of Legacy PUD approved by Carmel Urban Forester Signage for location: wall ground; no free standing ground signs for individual businesses or signage proposed on canopy structure itself Proposed site development should lead to additional development at corner use block as per the Legacy PUD Request forwarding to Special Studies Committee Public Remonstrance /Favorable: None S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes201 I /PC- 2011- june21 OA WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV 317 571 2417 Organized Remonstrance/Unfavorable: Bryan Weese, attorney, Bingham, McHale, representing Indpls Dept of Water. Remonstrance materials submitted in January; Dept of Water Concerns: 1. Use presents significant public safety health concerns 2. No design standard that can guarantee the Whitewater aquifer will not be subject to possible contamination Plan Commission has authority to deny this use reference Chapter 24 of Carmel Ordinance Section 24.01 provides that Development Plan application shall generally be considered favorably by Commission implying that Commission could view it unfavorably as well Requirements of 24.02 are vital components to review in approval process —DOW believes this is a situation where Commission can apply approval concepts deny the application Proposed use is not consistent with policies for the district as set forth in Comp Plan not compatible with existing land uses Upon examining Legacy PUD history, impression is that no consideration was given to protection of the aquifer. It appears that no specific uses for corner retail parcel were ever vetted by any public body no particular use at this location was reviewed to determine compliance with the Ordinances or the Comp Plan. Original PUD had several separate distinct use pockets Table of Uses establishes permitted or possible uses for this site that have not been the subject of specific review No reference in Table of Uses to protection of the aquifer, and no apparent discussion of a gas station at The Legacy Comments from Oct 2006 meeting state that the way the PUD Ordinance is written, everything except a detached, single family must return to the Plan Commission for ADLS Development Plan approval the Commission will be allowed a second look Second Look can be more than just reviewing landscaping plans building facades Impact of proposed use and its compatibility with surrounding uses is a required appropriate part of Development Plan approval process Even if design of fuel station can be absolutely, guaranteed, no spillage —which is impossible its presence in the middle of the aquifer creates a risk of off -site contamination that does not presently exist Approval would create tanker traffic along 146 Street, thru the aquifer that does not now exist Risk of on site off -site contamination should be reduced to greatest extent possible, there is no way to guarantee it will not occur Harm resulting from a spill would be an environmental catastrophe that would negatively affect the City of Carmel and its neighbors for months or years Risk of contamination connected with the fuel station far outweighs any private benefit that might be derived Indpls Dept of Water respectfully requests that the Commission deny this Development Plan based upon criteria expressly provided for in the Ordinance the Comprehensive Plan Additional Organized Public Remonstrance/Unfavorable: John Davis, attorney, Church, Church, Hittle Antrim, representing the Service Advisory Board S of Dept of Water Works of City of Indianapolis "SAB" encompasses series of communities surrounded by Indpls and served by former Indpls Water Company created in 2001 when S /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC -2011 june21 3 W W W.CARMELARGOV 317 571 2417 Mayor Peterson acquired the Water Company Water from Indpls Water's White River north plant serves SAB communities of Fishers, Indpls, Noblesville, Westfield Proposed fuel station is in a drinking water supply aquifer that affects the members who asked for representation this evening Letter sent to Doug Haney, Carmel Counsel, and John Duffy, Carmel Utilities, December 15, 2010 in opposition to this proposal copy provided to the Plan Commission Letter of opposition dated December 27, 2010 from City of Westfield Mayor Andy Cook to Mike Hollibaugh also furnished to Plan Commission Letter of opposition dated January 20, 2011 from Hamilton County Surveyor Kent Ward to Mike Hollibaugh Letter of opposition dated January 14, 2011 from Indpls Dept of Water to Mike Hollibaugh along with a letter from Indiana Dept of Environmental Management (IDEM) confirming that this site is in a wellhead protection area Letter of opposition dated January 21, 2011 from Noblesville Mayor Ditslear to Mike Hollibaugh Letter of opposition dated February 11, 2011 from Town of Fishers Council President Scott Fautless to Mike Hollibaugh Letter of June 15, 2011 from Indianapolis Water re- affirming their opposition to the proposed fuel station, with an attachment from Keramida, Inc. Environmental Copies of all afore mentioned letters were to have been provided to Plan Commission Members In 2008, there were 8,000 gals of fuel spilled due to a broken gasket when the delivery truck was filling an under- ground tank on Main Street in Carmel In an aquifer, a spill can be just as devastating as a leak Carmel wells are currently not within the one year time of travel how environmentalists measure the threat a one year time of travel of a contamination thru an aquifer Two wells being proposed by John Duffy, Carmel Utilities, are within the one year time of travel The proposed development is not worth losing two wells The Service Advisory Board requests that the Plan Commission deny the proposed use Indpls Water has been a good neighbor to the City of Carmel and has worked with Carmel on Carmelot Park, and River Road Park. The surrounding communities are asking for reciprocation and request that Carmel not put a potential source of pollution in their aquifer No right way to do the wrong thing putting a gas station in a drinking aquifer is not the right thing to do General Public Comments/Unfavorable: Ann McKiever, Director of Environmental Stewardship for Citizens Energy Group, 2020 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis Citizens has entered into an asset purchase agreement with City of Indpls for drinking water wastewater utilities Dept of Water Works has previously provided comments opposing the proposed fuel station due to potential risks to ground water other environmental contamination Groundwater contamination can materially and adversely impact the drinking water supply The aquifer serves as a resource for thousands of people in Hamilton County, including residents of Carmel Westfield Based on potential risks, Citizens Energy Group joins the Dept of Water Works in opposition to S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC -2011 june21 4 WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV 317 571 -2417 the proposed fuel station and convenience store within the one year time of travel for the delineated wellhead protection area There are other viable, economic development uses for this site that would be protective of the aquifer and provide for commercial and economic value for the community Additional General Public Comments/Unfavorable: Larry Reiser, 8050 East 146 Street, representing 3 area land- owners: Teresa Rayburn, Sherry Forney, and self. The impact of a fuel station, if a breach of fuel tanks would occur, would immediately not one year away directly damage the wells on our properties. It is difficult to imagine that this body would approve a fuel station located at this low level of elevation, next to a major floodway. Approval would be an irresponsible act by this Board. Rebuttal, Charlie Frankenberger: Legacy PUD enacted in 2007 allows a mixed -use community on the corner Pursuant to the approved PUD Ordinance, a fuel center is a permitted use In 2007, discussion occurred by Plan Commission City Council regarding a fuel center and its proximity to wellheads Also in 2007, Indpls Water Company (in attendance tonight) was a member of Carmel Technical Advisory Committee but did not, at that time, object to a fuel center as a permitted use When Legacy PUD was enacted in 2007, it was decided by the Plan Commission City Council that a fuel center would be a permitted use, and if a fuel center was later proposed, tank safety would be carefully reviewed by Carmel Dept of Utilities Carmel Dept of Engineering In 2007, it was clearly understood when the Legacy PUD was enacted that allowing a fuel center as a permitted use in no manner relieved a subsequent user from complying with Carmel's tank safety regulations Appearance before the Commission this evening is for DP /ADLS review, not permission for a fuel center A fuel center is already a permitted use and not part of the DP /ADLS review Regardless of DP /ADLS review, regardless of DP /ADLS approval, tank safety will be independently reviewed —and is currently being independently reviewed —by Carmel's Dept of Utilities and Engineering If Turkey Hill's tank safety plan does not comply fully with Carmel's very rigorous tank safety requirements, it cannot get a building permit —even if there is DP /ADLS approval The request for DP /ADLS approval must comply with any number of other independent, applicable Ordinances and regulations Plan Commission DP /ADLS review approval of Turkey Hill's plan and building design does not in any manner relieve Turkey Hill from complying with Carmel's requirements for wellhead protection and storm -water pollution prevention. Indpls Water Company letter to Plan Commission dated 6/15/2011 was mentioned. The Water Company indicated that as part of DP review, the Plan Commission can deny an already permitted use. The Water Company suggests that the DP criteria be used to prohibit a permitted use; however DP review criteria pertained to the development plan and not the review of a use or a tank Even if there is DP /ADLS approval, absent compliance, as determined by John Duffy and as determined by Mike McBride in the Carmel Depts., the fuel center cannot be built In the DP /ADLS review process by the Plan Commission, tank safety requirements some facts S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC -2011 june21 5 W W W.CARMEL.IN.GOV 317 -571 2417 and science discussed this evening are not really relevant Dept of Utilities has hired an expert to oversee the plan and the implementation of the plan Dept of Utilities asked Turkey Hill to pay $36,000. to retain the expert Turkey Hill has paid the fee; the study is underway Carmel's decision, but the other jurisdictions are welcome to participate Dept Comments, Angie Conn: Utilities Dept has hired an outside consultant to do a study of the ground water to review storm -water drainage runoff protection plan Ground water study will take approx 6 weeks to complete Dept has approx 11 outstanding items; petitioner is working with Dept to address mostly lighting landscaping items Dept recommends referral to July 05 Special Studies Committee at 6:00 PM Legal Counsel Comments, John Molitor: Key provisions of Ordinance: 1. Commission is to review Development Plan application to determine if the Plan satisfies the development requirements in the Ordinance in the zoning district 2. Four main considerations: Consistency with the policies for the district as set forth in the Comp Plan; Surrounding zoning existing land use; compatibility with existing platted residential uses; compatibility of proposed project with existing development in the district Plan Commission is not second guessing uses that were allowed when the PUD was enacted City Council has already decided which uses would be allowed Generally speaking, the Plan Commission's jurisdiction is limited to looking at normal review for Development Plans, i.e. compatibility of structures, traffic circulation, ADLS Other issues concerns brought before the Commission this evening are generally covered under other City Ordinances regulations Comments from Commission Members: Decision re tanks and ground water rests with John Duffy, Utilities Mike McBride, Engineering not in Plan Commission's purview Geist Reservoir has a fueling station for boats; drinking water comes from Geist Turkey Hill Minit Market at Range Line Carmel Drive is a showcase example of integrating such a facility into an existing business environment Any consequence for denying a petition that complies with the Ordinance? (would be mandated by the Court system no financial consequence) Question of Sequence wait until Survey completed Engineering Utilities has signed off? (Ordinance does not specify who goes first) Issue of tanks has nothing to do with Plan Commission Special Studies will deal with further review If outdoor vending (ice, propane, Red Box, ATM, etc.) any outdoor sales should have appropriate controls restricted for clutter purposes Looking back perhaps 10 years, have there been any environmental citations /issues, delivery risks, or any other challenges with Turkey Hill? Need to know the record on this Hamilton County Commissioners grant the curb cuts along 146' Street reason for hearing? S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC -2011 june21 0 W W W.CARMEL.IN.GOV 317 571 -2417 Dept will research and report Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS, Legacy PUD, Turkey Hill Minit Market and Docket No. 10110013 ZW, Legacy PUD, were referred to the Special Studies Committee meeting on July 05, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City Hall. I. Old Business 1. Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC. The applicant seeks site plan design approval for a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on 7 acres. The application also seeks the following zoning waiver request: 2. Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D: front building setback. The site is located at 136` Street Smokey Row Rd.) and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B- 6/Business, within the US 31/ Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of Justus Homes, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, attorney, Nelson Frankenberger; Walt Justus, President, Justus Companies; Consultant Chris White, Owner Site Solutions Group; Dan Weir, Architect; Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Planner with Nelson Frankenberger; Rick Reynolds, Engineer. Overview: First Appeared April 19, 2011 for Public Hearing Appeared before Subdivision Committee on May 04, 2011 Returning to Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation Proposal complies with standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Proposal is for a new, high quality, state -of -the -art Senior Living Facility Site is located at intersection of Smokey Row Road Pro -Med Lane— facility to be known as Woodland Terrace Parcel is zoned B -6 /Business, within the US 31 corridor Overlay Proposed Facility classified as a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) as defined by Carmel's Zoning Ordinance Dept Staff has confirmed that the CCRC is a permitted use on the real estate Levels of Service include: 1. Independent Living 2. Assisted Living 3. Skilled Nursing Care All three levels of care will be available upon construction of first building phase —not phased in Development Plan and ADLS request are fully detailed in informational brochures Landscape plan for over -all site— reviewed approved by the Urban Forester Landscape plan includes tree preservation /replacement Justus has gone above beyond tree preservation /best management practices as well as maintaining more than required by the US 31 Overlay regulations Site contains 1.45 acres of tree preservation on overall 7 -acre site, approximately 20.5% tree preservation Within a tree preservation area, 100% of all the trees are being preserved, regardless of diameter Tree preservation area located along eastern portion of site, adjacent to Kensington neighborhood has required buffer of 15 feet per zoning ordinance— however, prior zoning commitments dictate a 50 -foot buffer in width and runs along the entire eastern portion of site Second tree preservation area along Smokey Row Road existing and natural tree cover being S: /PlanCommission /Minutes /PlanCommissionM inutes /PCM inutes201 I /PC- 2011- june21 7 WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV 317- 571 -2417 preserved zoning ordinance requires 10 -foot buffer; Justus is proposing a tree preservation area that will be between 20 feet and 40 feet along that segment of Smokey Row Road Overall, site will contain 46.5% greenspace and planting areas which exceed Overlay requirement of 35% landscaping for this project exceeds both planting requirements and required bufferyard widths Since the May 04 Committee meeting, Justus has agreed to add 24 additional trees along the eastern edge of the buildings —along the western edge of the 50 -foot tree preservation area, adjacent to the building Justus is willing to re- locate the additional 24 trees from the edge of the building to place them still within the 50 -foot bufferyard area -but closer to the adjacent residences of Kensington, perhaps 3 trees per adjacent lot. Note: Justus is not required to plant the additional 24 trees, and not required to disperse them in the manner explained, but they are willing to do that in order to provide more effective screening to the adjacent neighborhood In 1997 when the property was platted, provision was made for a 40 -foot front yard bldg setback along Smokey Row Road The Zoning Ordinance may require a 60 -foot front yard setback along Smokey Row Road The Justus Company is asking for a reduction of less than 35% in the front yard bldg setback so that the 40 -foot bldg setback that was established by the prior plat can be maintained Without the requested zoning waiver approval, the bldg would have to be pushed back another 30 feet or so from Smokey Row Road Allowing the zoning waiver will allow greater setbacks along the east for the bldg and also allows the additional landscaping Underlying zoning for this site allows a bldg of 100 feet in height; prior rezone approval contains a commitment that bldg height will not exceed 50 feet This building does comply with the height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Per suggestions of the Dept, the petitioner has reduced the parapet wall of the east elevation of bldg (facing Kensington) The re- design of the wall screen will still allow effective screening of roof mounted equipment As previously stated, the height, the scale, and floor area ratio conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance Shifting the bldg closer to Pro -Med Drive would disrupt the parking configuration and would also affect the setbacks the bldg would not be in compliance with zoning requirements and would necessitate discretionary approval thru the BZA process regarding variances Justus has agreed to construct the remainder of the path along Smokey Row Road, down to Old Meridian Street and provide a continuous connection from Woodland Terrace as well as pathway entrance to Meadow Lark Park This project is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance Standards The petitioner requested a vote on the zoning waiver first Dept Report concludes by saying that in their professional opinion, the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance Dept Staff recommends approval of DP /ADLS petition, subject to Engineering Dept's final approval of construction documents Dept Report, Angie Conn: As stated, petitioner has made additional changes to project after Committee review Dept thinks the project meets quantitative requirements of Zoning Ordinance Dept recommends approval conditioned upon Engineering Dept approval of final construction S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011/PC -2011 june21 W W W.CARMEL.IN.GOV 317 571 2417 documents stormwater plan Subdivision Committee Report, Brad Grabow: Petitioner adequately characterized deliberation discussion points Committee validated, confirmed, tested numerous aspects of compliance of petition with applicable portions of the ordinance Committee discussions covered quantitative standards build -to line, required buffer width vs proposed buffer width, bldg height vs 50 -foot height limit, bldg coverage, bldg separation, traffic, parking in each case the conclusion was that the quantitative aspects have been complied with or exceeded Also discussed was a CCRC from a zoning standpoint or permitted use this project, as a CCRC, can be deliberated from two perspectives: Is this a CCRC? The relevant question is: "Is this a CCRC as defined in the zoning ordinance City definition of a CCRC is less restrictive than that of the State or what one might think of in terms of a CCRC In the City definition, the conclusion is that as proposed, the petition meets that standard Ultimate Vote from Committee was to return this Docket to Commission with a 3 -1 favorable recommendation Commission Member Comments: Extremely important for community to provide care for seniors in Carmel Concerns with proposal: Proposal has more in common with a multiple family dwelling than a CCRC; Engineering activities currently under way regarding drainage stormwater need to be completed; it is understood that the petitioner does meet the quantitative requirements concern is how adequately proposal actually meets qualitative requirements; there are still issues that need to be worked out, particularly construction of a 50 foot tall bldg less than 90 feet away from residential homes already 20 feet below grade level; urges further work before moving ahead Project complies by the numbers, but some aspects of zoning ordinance not well- suited to this property. Standards exist elsewhere in the Overlay that do not apply in this area but probably should. Legally, the petition as it stands now complies with'those standards, but if we look only a half mile south in the Overlay and see a bldg height restriction limited to 40 feet of distance between non residential use and residential use, and this petition where the bldg is only 65 feet away from a residential use but 50 to 60 feet high we are talking about a 26 foot height Iimit south of Main Street, but in this area a 50 foot height, and that does not seem to make sense. There are different opinions regarding the traffic study: some say an earlier study will suffice because it was based on assumption that were more aggressive than current proposal; time has passed there are questions as to whether or not the study was even done at an appropriate time, considering the traffic flow thru this area. New "hybrid" information has been received from ITE trade assoc in Washington which shows data for CCRC's and implies that based on 9 CCRC's nationally, the average peak travel times or trips would be Iess than that of an office bldg previously proposed by petitioner but that is based on a different definition of a CCRC and may not be a fair comparison. A new traffic study may be warranted in this case we would all benefit from further information. Tree protection best practices talk about putting construction fences up at drip line, but in this case, one of the TPA's at the south end of the property is right at the edge of development; the TPA on the east side of this property is only 15 S: /PlanCommission Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes201 I/PC -2011 june21 9 W W W CARMEL.IN.GOV 317 -571 2417 feet away —the bldg is only 15 feet away from the TPA and does not leave enough room for the roots of the trees and still be compatible for construction of the foundation Parking complies with the ordinance, but with high use of outside service providers as described by the petitioner, our current ordinance is based on the number of beds and units and employees, any outside contractors or service providers would not be covered under the current parking provision standards There is a lot of gap to be closed between the neighbors and the petitioner there is still work to be done A positive move might be to refer this back to Committee for additional work Additional Questions: 1. Is underground parking feasible? 2. Parking garages: a single structure with an overhead door an asset or a liability? 3. Multi -use path: Has petitioner actually obtained the easement to construct the path? The intent is honorable, but does the petitioner have the right to do so? 4. Tree Preservation does that mean existing "specimen" trees, if damaged, there is a replacement policy that goes along with tree preservation? 5. Levels of care described as three impression is that there was more independent living with supplemental, rehabilitation services. If there are three levels of care, how does that break out in terms of what is required parking? Can we relieve the petitioner of some parking? Is "land- banking" an alternative in respect to how the building is positioned on the site today? Motion: Sue Westermeier to return Docket Nos. 11020013 DP /ADLS and 110300006 ZW, Woodland Terrace CCRC to Subdivision Committee for further review on July 05, 2011, seconded by Woody Rider, Motion Approved 9 -0. J. New Business Judy Hagan requested the status of the Monon Overlay Adoption Judy Hagan also requested that the Urban Forester or someone in that Dept take a look at a landscaping plan for the ponds to move the geese out. If edges of the pond are planted, the geese will go away ducks are fine Judy Hagan asked that the CCRC stay on the list of definitions to be refined. Jay Dorman asked that the Subdivision Committee work on tightening the CCRC Ordinance in conjunction with Dept Staff K. Adjournment 7:50 PM .Jay Dorman, President (69 L R. mona Hancock, Secretary //-Aft) 44 00/2.60 r0A-".* PAO O" S: /PlanCommission Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC -2011- june21 10 W W W.CARMEL.IN.GOV 317 571 -2417