HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-16-99C. R rrL/CLA¥NOVX mER PL ' 6,CO a SSlON Z999 01q0 I:I01/ L l tl4tl'{l $
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission met at 7:00 PM
on November 16, 15}99 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Cm-rnel, Indiana.
Members present were: Mad. llra Anderson; Kent Broach; Dave Cremeans; Leo
Dierckman; Ron Houck; Kevin Kkby; Norma Meighen; Bob Modisett; J~m O~eal, Sr.;
Pat Rice; Rick Sharp; Paul Spranger; Chris Whke; and Tom Yedlick.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as submitted.
F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, & Legal Counsel Report
Item I. Sharon Clark, Haa'aikon County Commissioner, appeaced before
the Plan Commission and stated that the C~rmebfClay communky has been :Ting to get
the CounT.¢ to improve intersections in wes:em Clay Township. Engineering was stoned
last year on many intersections, but :he County did not have adequate funds ro implement
improvements at ail inrerseczions. The western Clay To~:sNp residents --'e:e,,-nined it
prudent :c build one co~dor--Tov,,'ne Road. TLere was considerable dek. z:e 5e.~veen :he
Commissioners and the Council reg~ding ~nding for Tov,'ae Road in ~he 2000 Budge,',
but the Hamilton County Council appropdamd money to build all the imerse.~dons ne,'a
year. Brad Beaver, president of the County Council, was also in attendance.
The conszmction contract has been !et for 116m and Towaue Road ~_nd enninaefing_ for
106~' and Yowne Road is in the finai stages. The dilemma is 96~ Street azc/. Yowne Road.
The prei!..~inary design was funded and s~aned last veer; the process was in:errunted
pending recommendation from the 9.5~ Co~dor S:4dy Review Commizee. The'dr~_~.
study is rezdy and calls for the corridor to remain an improved, residen:iai L-. character,
roadway with specific, commercial .-.odes. The srzdy recommends round-?bouts at :he
intersections. One week ago, the County Commissioners unanimously acz==:ed the study
but were hesitant to go to preliminao- design with round-a-bouts at 9~a and 'Towne untiI
Carmel '.nd Indianapolis policy gTOU?S approved the round-a-bout concept.
.-Mthou~~. :he intersection of96m and Towne is only one pan of an overall :c~dor study,
the timing is critical. Due :o time constraints For improvement of all Toxx~e Road
intersect!cas, before D-DOT begins construction on Michigan Road in 2::52. ,,.nd before
the request from Commissioners Diiiinger a_-:d Hoit to obtain local appro'.'aL Sharon
Clark is .'r..~<ing a preliminary appeai for approval.
At the Ca.-m..et City Council meeting last evening Councilor Kirby proposed a resolution
that the County Commissioners proceed a~ quickiy as possible to improve tee 96~ Street
intersection with the safest, most e~cient, and leas: expensive design. Mayor Brainard
has stated :hat round-,--bouts are safer, less expensive to construct, !ess exTe.'.sive to
maintain, '.'e.'-y efficient aestheticatiy pleasing, and traffic calming. Nfs. Ca_-k is
s:'P!an C o,.'r-7: ssio n~'vg'~mes; 1999nov
requesting that the Plan Commission pass a similar resolution to be brought before her
fellow, commissioners.
There were comments from Rick Sharp, Paul Spranger, and Marityn Anderson in support
of Sharon Clark's request.
Rick Sharp made formal motion that a resolution be issued by the Plan Commission in
support of the improvements to 96'~ Street and Tow'ne Road as expeditiously as possible,
with the strongest endorsement that the round-a-bout concept be fully explored and
implemented, seconded by Norton Meighen. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 14-0.
Item 2. Counsel ~'ohn Molitor reported that the Courts have recently
upheld the notion that you can amortize non-conforming uses over a period of years in
order to do away with them in a community eventually. The drawback of non-
conforming uses is that they sit in an area where no one else can do that k/nd of thing and
there is no competition, thus becoming more ingrained and harder to dislodge. The
Commission may want to consider this as a potential change in the Ordinance.
Item 3. Dave Cremeans stated that he, Rick Sharp, Paul Spranger and
Mike Hollibaugh from the Department had attended last night's City Council meeting and
presented the Thorough.fare Plan. The City Council approved the Thoroughfare Plan as
presented.nts, & Department Concerns
Item 1. Steve Engelking clarified that the petitioner for Agenda item Ih.
has shown the Department that public hearing notice was properly made by a necessary
date and this item will proceed with a Public Hearing this evening, contrar, v' ro the
Department Report.
99'g;-a--tke'fdne for Duke-Weeks Realty Limited Partnership, requesting th;t this item be
continued until December, 1999.
Rick Sharp commented that this particular Docket has been on the Agenda for several
months and a number of factors have changed from the first public hearing. The
December meeting is four days before Christmas and there is a good chance that there
would be few remonstrators at that time with diminished capacity--the public hearing
remains open. The first of the year, there will be several seats that will change on the
Commission. The new Commissioners will be unfzmiliar with the issues and the public
testimony to this point.
In view of the fact that this Docket has sat for so long with no action on the part of the
petitioner, (other than tabling) Rick Sharp moved to dismiss this Docket (I-%99Z) for
lack of prosecution; the petitioner may re-file at a later date, if he is ready to move
forward at that time; seconded by Kan Houck.
s:LPlanC orm,-rdssio n~tinures\ 1999nov 2
Paul Spranger's commems: Due to the fact there is a hardship rule working, i.e. the
freeway-to-freeway intersection, it may not be advisable to dismiss at this time. It may
be useful to ask the petitioner what their plans are at this point; it has mostly been
continued because of the State of Indiana. This is not just a simple intersection, it is a
freeway-to-freeway intersection that is now finally in its environmental phase. Paul
Spranger was in favor of hearing from the petitioner before moving to a vote.
Rick Sharp asked if the petitioner had indeed filed for an economic hardship. Mr. Sharp
stated that at the committee level, it was suggested to the petitioner numerous times that
they should file for an economic hardship. Not only did the petitioner resis~ that, they are
on record as stating it was their.judgment that they were not even subject to that
provision.
Paul Spranger clarified his remarks, that the petitioner had notified the State and that was
the requirement. Mr. Spranger stated that this is a complicated issue because of the
freeway-to-freeway and he would like to see what the State brings forth before this item
is dismissed.
Rick Sharp, commented that if the petitioner had indeed filed a letter ~vith tko State and
advised :hem that they intended to build something, that is fine but does ncc fulfill the
requirements of an economic hardship. Again, the records of the minutes cf:he Special
Study Committee reflect very clearly that the petitioner stated they did not feel they were
even subject to an economic hardship and were very specific as to why. Mr. Sharp
agreed that this is a very complex issue and all the more compelling reason why it should
be dismissed. If the kern is tabled now and comes before the Commission at its nero
meeting, i: ~ill be the December 21~ meeting, and k is unfair to the public, the
Commission and the petitioner because of the attendance factor at that time of year.
Secondly, if the Commission failed to act at that time, or if the petitioner were to again
ask for a tabling, there is the issue ora new Plan Commission. Again, the grocess would
not be fairly served. Mr. Sharp thought it was very. appropr/ate to dismiss and let the
petitioner re-file and return to the Commission when all the questions have been
answered, rather than cluttering the Docket and also keeping the public constantly
=maessing as to when or ifa particular item will be heard.
There was then discussion as to whether or not a meeting of the Plan Co:remission should
be held on December 21~ because of the holidays.
Leo Dierckman was in favor of hearing the Petitioner's position and the De?anment's
position on the matter of the Duke Rezone request.
David Cremeans stated :hat the public hearing is still open on this item, and the public
has not been informed that this item will be heard this evening; therefore, :?.e petitioner
will not be heard from this evening.
Leo Dierck:nan then stated that he was in favor of leaving the item on the :able.
s:XPlanC o m.'72 ss m nLMinutes 1999nov 3
Kevin Kkby's comments: The plan as pre~ented, with the new information from INDOT,
is not tenable. Either the petitioner wants to move ahead with the plan as it, and if that is
the case, it should be taken from the table and acted upon, (or dismiss it) OK if there is a
revised plan forthcoming, the case will have to go back to the Special Study Committe~.
Ifa revised plan is presented on the 21~ of December, it would then start the new year
with the new process and new program by going to the Special Study Committee in
January. Either there is the same plan, or there is a revised plan. If the plan is the same,
it should be moved along tonight. If there is a revised plan, it would be heard at the 21~
of December meeting and then referred to Special Study in January to stoa the process
over.
Dave Cremeans' opinion: The least important item is December 21st. Th/s Docket has
gone at least 4 or 5 months and delayed every time. Tiffs is stringing the public along and
this is not a service. At this point, it is unsure whether or not tiffs is a viable plan--there
may not even be a plan. Mr. Cremeans agreed with Mr. Sharp that this item should be
removed from the Docket for lack of prosecution. If,, at some future date, Duke would
like to re-file, that would be appropriate, perhaps even waiving the fee to re-file. There is
no point dragging this on month al~er month, and stringing the public along, and having
questions and phone calls as to whether or not this item will be heard. Because there has
been so little effort by the petitioner to get this Docket moved for-ward, it should simply
be removed. There has been a motion and a second, we should just call for the question.
In response to questions from Norma Meighen, Steve Engelking stated that it is not
within the Department's purview to suggest how the Commission should vote on this
Docket. Tiffs particular application was filed on January 15, 1999 for a rezone of 3
parcels of land.
Kick Sharp reminded the Commission that this item was initially tabled ar. :he
Commission's request, because the petitioner presented commitments that were
substantially different that those commitments agreed to and voted on wkk_in the Special
Study Committee. The petitioner was discharged from this Commission with instructions
to return the following month with the commitments that had been voted on and approved
and recommended to this body by the Special Study Committee. At that ,~oint on until
this day, the petitioner has failed to prosecute.
Ron Houck stated his concerns. Specifically, this is a matter of procedure--how this type
of situation is handled in which a petitioner fails to move for,,vard in a time!y manner and
continually requests tabling the item until the following meeting. Mr. Houck agreed that
it is not fair to the public that the item appears on the Agenda month a~er month. The
public is obliged to appear and sit through a sometimes lengthy agenda, orJy to find that
an item is tabled. This should not be allowed to happen--a petitioner should not be
allowed to seek consecutive tables while they work through their issues, k'there are that
many issues and it takes that much time, the petition is best withdrawn and re-filed at a
time when those issues are in order. It is simply not fair to the public or tko Commission
to allow an item to remain on the Agenda as long as it has.
s:'~Pla.nCo rmmissio n~finut es\ 1999nov
Jim O'NeaI asked for an opinion fi.om Counsel Jolm Molitor stated that the Rules of
Procedure do state that the Commission may dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. In
the same rule, it states, ... "When a petitioner has failed to appear at two consecutive
meetings, the case may be dismissed for lack of prosecution." That is not the case here.
The Commission is in charge of the interpretation, at least the initial interpretation, of its
own rules.
In response to questions fi.om Pat Rice, John Molkor stated that it was not for (the
Departmen0 or Counsel to say whether or not this petitioner has failed to prosecute; the
rule is for the Commission to interpret.
Kevin Kirby reminded the Commission that the petkioner did have a major change in the
available property with ~N'DOT's design. It has also been to the benefit of the community
to have this item tabled for several meetings. This is a very tough project with very tough
decisions to be made on it. Mr. Kirby was not in favor of removing this item fi.om the
Agenda, but rather suspending the rules and allowing the petitioner an opportunity to
speak. If we are not satisfied after hearing the petitioner, we could entertain a motion to
remove the Docket fi.om the Agenda.
YE-. Creme~ns reminded the Commission that there was already a motion and a second to
that effect on the floor. Dave Cremeans then asked if there were a motion to suspend the
rules to hear fi.om legal counsel for the petitioner.
Point of Order: Rick Sharp stated that this could not be done with a motion on the floor.
Rick Sharp then called for the question on the floor.
Dave Crern. eans asked for a showy of hands of those in favor of the motion on the floor.
The count was seven. Those opposed to the motion were counted at six and the motion
carried by a simple majority~ (7-6)
A show of?:.ands for opposing votes was called. Those persons opposed were: Kevin
Kirby; Jim O2qeal; Paul Spranger; Kent Broach; Chris White; Leo Dierckrnan. Norms
Meighen abstained from voting.
Dave Cremeans then announced that Docket 14-99 Z, Duke Realty Investments Rezone,
had been fomaally removed from the Docket for lack of prosecution.
2Io
Public Hearing
1 h. Docket No. 81-99 ADLS, Meadowlark Office Park
Petitioner seeks approval (Architectural Design, Lighting, Landscaping,
and Signage) to construct three office buildings on 3.46 acres known as
Meadowlark Office Park. The site is located at 698 Pro-Med Lane. The
site is zoned B-6/Business.
Filed by Steve Dauby ofDauby O'Conner, LLC
s:~PtanC omrx ~sio n'.Minutes', 1999nov 5
Jennifer Dorso, attorney, 127 East Michigan Street, Suite 600, Indianapolis, 46204. The
petitioner is seeking ADLS approval to construct three office buildings within the
Meadowlark Office Park.
Steve Dauby and Scan O'Connor, owners, were in attendance as well as architect Todd
R. ottwan~ and C-rog Snetling of Mid-States Engineering.
The property is located between 131'~ Street to the south, 136~ Street to the north, Range
Line Road to the east, and Guilford Avenue to the west. The site is accessible offofPro-
Mod Lane and is adjacent m Meadowlark Park
Currently, there are two office buildings on the site, occupied primarily by accounting
firms. The architectural style was designed to fit in with the character of the
neighborhood, i.e. the surrounding properties to the north and south that are residential in
nature, and the park-like setting to continue the park that is to the east.
There are five buildings in total, residential in scale, two stories, all brick facade, two
colors of brick (dark red and beige), two story entry way with limited stucco and the
balance in brick. The roof is sloped, with shingles. All four sides of the building are full
brick facade so that the building is aesthetically pleasing as seen by other tenants or
persons within the park.
The proposed landscaping is simply a continuation of the existing landscaping. The
owners have met with the Parks Department and the Mayor to pledge their willingness
that the landscaping will complement the park. The lighting scheme also is designed
with a continuation of existing in mind. The lighting was designed to minimize exposure
to the neighbors.
This particular project has been to Technicaal Advisory Committee in August and
September, 1999. To the petitioners knowledge, all TAC issues have been resolved and
there are no outstanding issues.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the application. The following
appeared:
Norman lohn Kerr, 13595 Kensin~on Place, Carmel, (adjacent to the Meadowlark Office
Park) stated that the petitioner had met with the neighbors on the initial 2 buildings, and
also on the 3 proposed buildings with the same conditions of landscaping, lighting, and
the architectural design to accommodate Kensin~on Place. The main concern is the
buffer zone that resides on the west, to the south of Kensington Place, and this has been
addressed. The petitioner has agreed to a mound with landscaping as a buffer zone
adjacent to the recorded buffer zone in Kensin~on Place. The residents of Kensington
Place are very supportive of the architectural desi~ and feel that the proposal is a good
use of the area and will complement the neighborhood.
s:'~PlanCo rm'r2sston~,.Lnutes\ 1999nov 6