Minutes PC 06-16-09of C
V` A4 A THE�
Mo C of arm e
/NDIANN
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 16 2009
Council Chambers, City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel IN 46032
6:00 PM
Members Present: Leo Dierckman, Jay Dorman, Dan Dutcher, Brad Grabow,
Kevin Rider, Rick Ripma, Carol Schleif, Steve Stromquist,
Madeleine Torres, Sue Westermeier
Members Absent: Wayne Haney
DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Angie Conn, Adrienne Keeling.,
and John Molitor, Legal Counsel.
Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Secretary, Carmel Plan Commission
The Minutes of the May 19, 2009 meeting were approved as submitted.
Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: Recommend scheduling a Special Meeting of the full settlement for
Johnson Acres.
1F. Pros /cons of reviewing ADLS Amendment petitions at committee level
Deferred to the end of the meeting Commission next Monday at 5:00 PM in Council Chambers to
discuss and vote on the proposed
2F. Plan Commission Resolution 2009 -6: additional permitted uses within the Village of
WestClay Peripheral Retail (related to Council Resolution CC- 06- 01- 09 -01).
Present for Petitioner: Keith Lash, Brenwick Development,
Overview, Resolution:
Request expansion of Village uses through the Resolution
Expanded uses would allow 31 uses currently provided in the Village Center to be allowed in the
Uptown portion of the project
Expanded uses would be minor
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/j un16 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Expanded uses would be adjunctive to the Village Center more intensive automobile uses
currently permitted
Proposed Resolution will be submitted to Council in addition to commitments previously submitted
by Village of WestClay.
Proposal could be sent to Committee if Commission so desires
John Molitor, Counsel:
Resolution is allowed by the PUD to expand list of uses
Department Report, Angie Conn:
Recommend forwarding to City Council
Motion: Dan Dutcher "to forward CC- 06- 01- 09 -01, Village of WestClay Resolution to City Council with a
recommendation for approval," seconded by Woody Rider, approved 10 -0, Motion Carried
G. Reports, Announcements Department Concerns: None
H. Public Hearings
1H. WITHDRAWN: Docket No. 08100014 Z: 146th Gray Rezone (146th Street Office
Complex): Th p li e ,,,t seeks ,,1 t o r° 11 aef f S i to 1 1-
!/Business (with eown-nitinents) fef an effiee/-Yetail development. The site is leeated at the
„t1, east ,.1.1 nti St ra r, v,1 File i y K e ll; r e fH f tl w °.t.
Reside r r r
2 -3H. WITHDRAWN. Docket No. 08100015 PP: 146th Street Office Complex
isi uest e d. Doe Nom 081 16 SW SCO 6 05 01 2 .,ll�ssh.,l�a a ublie stree
Th site i l .1 t at the s o utheast
f 1 46 t Ct ,,,1 Rd a nd zon C
Residen
4 -5H. TABLED to JULY21: Docket No. 09040007 PP Amend: D Wilkinson's Addition, Lots
13 -15 (Rangeline Commercial)
The applieant seeks pr-imafy plat amendment appfeval to efeate 5 lots froin 3 and also seeks
the f6 lle w i ng wa i vef. lt N o. .05.01 1.. with
5"
The site is leeated at 411,421,431 N Rangeline Rd. it is zoned B 5/Business within the
T" °�s- LLC
6H. Docket No. 09020016 DP Amend /ADLS: Primrose School (Carmel Science Tech
Park, Blk 7, lot 3) The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a child care
facility. The site is located at the southeast corner of Carmel Dr. Adams St. It is zoned M-
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/jun16 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
3/Manufacturing. Filed by Mark Thorpe of The Schneider Corp. for Primrose School
Franchising Co.
Present for Petitioner: Steve Hardin, attorney, Baker Daniels, 96 and College, representing Primrose
School; also Mark Pavey, Architect; Mark Thorpe, Schneider Engineering; Jeff and Patty Carroll, owners.
Overview:
Site plan design approval requested for child care facility
Comment letter received from Carmel Engineering stating no issues
Comments from DOCS received
Public Remonstrance:
None
Public Hearing Closed
Department Comments, Angie Conn:
Most all Dept concerns addressed
Recommend forwarding to Special Studies Committee July 7th
Commission Comments:
Would like mix of evergreens rather than all deciduous trees as shown
Positive comments on aesthetics of building
Docket No. 09020016 DP Amend /ADLS, Primrose School (Carmel Science Tech Park, Blk 7, Lot 3)
was forwarded to Special Studies Committee for further review on July 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Caucus Rooms
of City Hall.
7 -811. Docket No. 09040009 DP /ADLS: Glick Indoor Self Storage
The applicant seeks approval to construct an indoor self storage facility and accessory
building. The applicant also seeks the following waiver:
Docket No. 09040010 ZW: ZO§ 23F.06.02 bldg must occupy 70% of lot
frontage
The site is located at 969 N Rangeline Rd. It is zoned B -3 /Business within the US 31 Overlay
and Carmel Dr Rangeline Rd Overlay. Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson Frankenberger for
Glick Acquisitions, LLC.
Present for Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, Zoning Attorney, and Jon Dobosiewicz, Land Use Professional,
Nelson Frankenberger, Jim Bussessey, Sr. Vice President, and Bruce Skalre, Director of Development,
Gene B. Glick Co.; and Ed Fleming, Civil Engineer with Weihe Engineers.
Overview, Jim Shinaver:
Propose High -End, State -of -the -Art, Indoor Self Storage Facility
Proposal requires two variances: Use and Development Standards
Variances will be heard by BZA Monday, 22n
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/j un16 2
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
DP /ADLS Overview, Jon Dobosiewicz:
Site is 4.7 acres
One -half of parcel will be developed under current proposal
Building is 120,000 square feet 30,000 square feet per floor
Circular area at rear of site is for vehicle turn around
Green areas identify landscaping and stormwater basin management
Pedestrian path being provided along Range Line Road connecting apartment area to the north with
other uses to the south of the site as well as the Cool Creek Trail
Shared Access is being provided
Building elevation is urban in form
Construction Materials include brick and glass with cast stone
Design includes vision glass on all floors
Awnings at storefront entrance are constructed of metal and will require approval at the BZA level
Signage Proposed: Projecting Wall
Light Fixtures —pole mounted, down lights
Street Lighting included
Landscaping plans included in the info booklets
Public Remonstrance, Favorable:
Tom Kuhla, Carmel resident, also representing the Lancasters in the sale of the property. Believes
proposed facility may be an enhancement to the property and will expand the use. Will also be an attractive
feature approaching Carmel from gateway to the north —will also be low impact use.
General Public Comments, Unfavorable:
Curtis Shirley, attorney, disagrees with proposed facility— especially 4 stories high. What is the vision for
the area between Clay Terrace and Carmel Drive in 10 -20 years? No self storage generates employment
over 2 or 3 people. Magnitude of the project raises a lot of concerns. If the proposed facility looks like the
other in a few years, what would be done with it? The facility could not be converted to anything, it would
be torn down; Carmel will be stuck with it.
Mina Khory, Dairy Queen owner. Two points: Carmel Drive and North Range Line Road are in an
Overlay Zone —Dairy Queen must comply with the Ordinance, why not others? This corridor is to be an
extension of Clay Terrace and a pride of the community; a storage facility will undermine all of the work city
planners have put into the area. Concessions are being asked for building setback to allow parking in front
of the facility along Range Line Road —Dairy Queen facility was not allowed to do that and DQ complies
with the ordinance. The Use of this project is not allowed or permitted in this area under Carmel City Code.
Mary Ekard, Old Town Carmel. The community has a homey feel and entering Carmel
from many directions is a delight with different, inviting looks created by the islands at 116
Street, the beautiful, tree -lined Westfield Boulevard, the brick entrances into the Arts
Design District, and now, instead of creating a plan to beautify the north entrance to the City
of Carmel where US 31 joins Range Line Road, you are considering building a four -story story facility in
an area contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and Overlay Zone on Range Line Road.
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC -2009 /j un16
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
The proposed type of use does not fit with the current re- development All development should reflect
what is being built in the Arts Design District. The entire area should maintain the integrity of the area
and the neighborhood. Ms. Ekard requested that Plan Commission and BZA reconsider and ask themselves
if a warehouse is the best thing to do for this area.
Luci Snyder, Carmel City Council, has received a number of calls on this project. For the citizens who live
in this area and businesses along Range Line Road in the Arts District who have worked with the City and
the Carmel Chamber to craft an Overlay that deals with the redevelopment of this older area, to connect it
from Clay Terrace into the Arts District, the Plan Commission is the "court of last resort" and the citizens
depend upon their deliberations and decisions.
Mo Merhoff, Carmel Chamber of Commerce. The Range Line Overlay that passed in 2004 was the result
of considerable discussion, debate and compromise over many months. A wide variety of businesses
provided input and at the end of a very long process, the Ordinance that passed was a bit of a rarity because
businesses and the City agreed to agree. A portion of that shared vision was an eventual meeting and
blending of Clay Terrace to the north with Range Line Road through Old Town, eventually creating a highly
desirable area for shoppers, diners, and business clients. Businesses in the area want what the Overlay
intended—an uptown with attractive streetscapes, pedestrian oriented retail and officescapes, and residential
opportunities —this proposal is not it. Effective local businesses and landowners have made and are making
investments in the area that fit the Overlay definition. It is unfair to those businesses and property owners to
now dwarf their establishment with a 4 -story warehouse space and to denigrate a pedestrian orientation with
a large wall next to the eventual Cool Creek North Trail. The Chamber recommends that the Plan
Commission table this issue until the petitioner has the legal right to use the property as requested. In our
view, discussion of architectural elements and the development plan makes little sense until a Variance Use
is granted. The Chamber opposes the use request.
Steve Pittman, 370 Sandor Court, developer, appeared as a resident and also as a member of the US 31
Task Force Committee that helped determine the vision and direction for the City. The storage facility is
not the plan or vision that the Task Force wanted for the City. There are certain documents that should be
looked at -the Comprehensive Plan, the B -3 Zoning Ordinance, and the Range Line Road Overlay Zone.
The Overlay wants pedestrian oriented, supportive of multiple modes of transportation, with buildings and
streetscapes attractively and safely designed to enhance the livability of the City. All industrial uses are
prohibited. The US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone does not allow this use; a storage facility does not meet the
requirements of the Overlay Zone. The main thing to look at is the surrounding use and the existing zoning.
The proposed use is not supported by planning documents; dense population that would support retail uses
would not support the proposed use—it is not in keeping with the long term plans of the area and is not
contributing to the use of the area. Mr. Pittman requested that the public hearing remain open for additional
public comments.
Eric Seidensticker, 612 Ash Drive -City Council. Proposed facility is not the highest and best use for this
area. It is critical to place new businesses and development in the area, but it must be consistent with the
area. Zoning Ordinances and regulations are put into place for a reason. Mr. the Seidensticker asked the
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/j un16 4
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Commission to review the proposal and respect the businesses and neighborhood—please turn down this
request.
Jack Badger, 3039 Rolling Springs Dr., Carmel, helped establish a Range Line Road Overlay several years
ago. Development Standards were put into place to make the Range Line Road corridor an asset to the
community. Range Line Road is the northern entrance to the City and the Arts Design District corridor;
therefore the design and development standards should be strictly adhered to. There are already two
storage facilities located within several hundred yards of the proposed facility. Why would the City approve
adding another storage warehouse? U Lock It and Public Storage are obviously "grandfathered" into the
area. The BZA Agenda for June 22n shows the petitioner is requesting six variances —they cannot even
meet the standard of the Range Line Road Overlay; a variance can become a standard. The proposed use of
this land would be extremely negative to the City. Mr. Badger asked that the Commission turn down the
petitioner's request.
Ron Carter, 12715 Stanwich Place, City Council member and Executive Director of Greenways
Foundation. The proposed facility would not enhance the experience of users of the Cool Creek Traila
trail that will be a very important link for the trail system in Carmel. It would not be appropriate to have a
blank, sterile wall in the close proximity of the trail. The proposed facility is not appropriate for this
location. The Cool Creek Trail is very important to the Community.
John Leppert, Leppert Mortuary, North Range Line Road. Mr. Leppert referred to the City slogan
"Partnership for Tomorrow;" the public is in partnership with the community, working in harmony together.
Mr. Leppert said he was assured by the Mayor that the corridor from 136 Street north would be tree -lined
and include sidewalks, lights, etc., just as it is to the south. Mr. Leppert encouraged the Commissioners to
look hard at the site plan and then refer to the up -dated Dairy Queen. Apparently there will be no access to
US 31 headed north. Please envision coming out of Clay Terrace, heading south into something beautiful
entering into Carmel. Mr. Leppert was hopeful that this would not be an issue of politics for future
development of Carmel between the City and the Glick family.
Rebuttal, Jim Shinaver: Comments heard this evening generally relate to the Use of the Site and design
of the building. Petitioner will be prepared to review the Use issues in detail at BZA next week.
Jon Dobosiewicz. The discussion regarding the Use of the facility will take place at the BZA and the public
is encouraged to attend the meeting and voice their opinion about use. The building design—architectural
design, lighting, the signage, are in conformance with the Overlay Zone —the petitioner meets the
requirements of the Overlay Zone, it is the Use that is in question. At this time, the petitioner requests that
this item be forwarded to the Special Studies Committee on July 7, 2009. Petitioner will look to the Plan
Commission for review of the building design.
Department Report, Angie Conn:
Petitioner will appear at BZA on June 22n
Recommend forwarding to Special Studies Committee on July 7, 2009
Commission Comments /Discussion:
Two stories allowed in Range Line Road Overlay? (yes, 5 stories maximum unless adjacent to
single family residential)
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC -2009 /j un16
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
No parking up front —now being abandoned? (BZA issue)
Department has not yet issued report on placement of building
Use is not compatible with surrounding uses buildings in the area
4- stories do not fit the area
Use decision made at BZA prior to Committee on July 7 —need to wait for entire process to be
heard
Building is outstanding in architecture and design, however, use and scale are real issues
Docket 09040009 DP /ADLS, Glick Indoor Self Storage was forwarded to the Special Studies Committee
on July 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM for further review.
911. Docket No. 09050010 OA: Carmel SmartCode
Adopt Article 3: CARMEL SMARTCODE as part of Carmel City Code, Chapter 10: Zoning
Subdivisions. The SmartCode contains new development regulations that will be in effect
for the area of Carmel north of 116 Street and bounded by US 31 and Keystone Ave. Filed
by the Department of Community Services, on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission.
Present for Petitioner: DOCS Director Mike Hollibaugh; Adrienne Keeling, Long Range Planner;
Consultant Brian Wright, Town Planning Urban Collaborative.
Overview:
Initial Hearing /Soft Introduction
First of Two Public Hearings for Smart Code
Public Notice (Postcards) sent to central area community
Brian Wright, Consultant:
Use and Form go hand -in -hand
Smart Code idea is adding a full range of choices
Mix of residential options /types Civic Uses
Concepts of Sustainability imbedded in Smart Code —car share, green roofs, etc.
Organizing element= transect concept
Areas split out into 6 Zones: 1) Rural; 2) Farming /Agricultural; 3) Single Family detached houses
(sub -urban character;) 4) More urban in character, smaller lots, houses closer to the street,
attached, row houses; 5) primarily all attached houses; 6) Core zone -most urban in character
From Most Rural to Most Urban, everything has its place
Special Districts—Different Standards than Transect Zones
Translation Map unrefined
Protect Existing Neighborhoods T -3 area
Historic Neighborhoods T -4 area
PUD areas
Smart Code Is:
Transect Base Ordinance—Unified—contains zoning, subdivision, planning, development areas,
thoroughfare design all in one document
Key Elements: Protecting Existing Neighborhoods, Provides for Range of Development Options,
Focus on Efficient Use of Land, (reducing sprawl traffic) allowing mix of complementary uses
encouraging outcome
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/j un16 6
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Smart Code Organized into 7 Articles: General to All Plans, Sector Plans, New Community Scale
Plans, Infill Community Scale Plans, Building Scale Plans, Standards Tables, Definitions of Terms
General Public Comments Invited at this time:
Ron Britton, Old Harrowgate Subdivision, would like definition of existing neighborhood and how those
neighborhoods would be protected.
Terry Davenport, 10 Webber Drive, questioned availability of Smart Code Available thru the Website by
end of week.
Angie Molt, 740 West Auman Drive, Concern is for protection of older, established neighborhoods; there is
no map for T -1 and T -6; will withhold most comments until the entire Code is available. It is important
NOT to destabilize the areas.
Rosalie Labelle, 621 First Ave NE in Old Town —spoke favorably regarding the charrettes and appreciates
the opportunity to be heard during the process. Some of the neighbors' ideas have been incorporated into
the plan and it is gratifying to see.
Gary Doxstater, Kensington Place, favors T -1 areas but is concerned about making transition forester,
parks, and wildlife people want green and corridors- -how can these be worked in the various types of use
greenways and trails; overall, supports project and the process.
Joyce Harrison, 117 Lexington Blvd., missed the charrettes, but is interested in protecting existing
neighborhoods. An overview of the Smart Code would be helpful.
Brian Wright responded that the existing neighborhoods are protected, but it depends on the home,
location, etc. What is presented is a draft —not final —still taking input.
Rick Osborn, 807 West Auman Dr., can be a good tool but until the maps are visible and input collected,
we only see what is available on the web—it is difficult to make the transition. The tendency is to see the
entire area designated as T -6 and that is where people get concerned.
Carrie Rusher, 22 Albert Court, requests that quantifiable data be posted on the website when available,
for instance, how many houses, the specific area, measurements, etc. Up- grades can be made while
maintaining and protecting older neighborhood areas in order to keep up with the system and not being
rezoned suddenly from T -3 to T-5—we would lose integrity.
The Smart Code hearings will be a series, multiple meeting sessions. July 21 will be another public hearing.
The Subdivision Committee will handle as a special committee for review on July 7 and then return to full
Plan Commission on July 21s
Commission Comments:
Look at existing standards apply to the new, proposed standards or a future project, making it
generic —would help to see a visual of "before and after"
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/j un16 7
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
If Dept can look at existing projects that have been approved apply the new standards being
discussed it would help with practical, applicability
Choose a future project, push it to the extreme of potential urbanism so that the Commission can see
the max that could happen under the new proposal—or do different phases of it or some other
scaled -down approach
Ask people to pick a home in a few existing neighborhoods and show the maximum that could
happen to that home—illustrate the maximum impact the Smart Code would have on a
neighborhood
Would like to see the maximum impact on residential areas —they are the most sensitive
Mike Hollibaugh, DOGS, One Civic Square said that some comments from the public and the Plan
Commission are similar to what we have experienced over the years, particularly with the Range Line Road
Overlay. Usually the concern is "once this is approved, how will it affect me Ultimately, what gets
approved only affects you IF you want to change your property—it only affects redevelopment, not existing
development. If you are a single family home today, you will be tomorrow—if you are a one -story
commercial building today, you will be tomorrow. The Auman neighborhood will not be affected by this.
The translation between the existing zoning and the T -Zone will be as compatible as we can make it. We
are serious about protecting neighborhoods—we would direct that growth to areas that are more
appropriate. This is a very public process and has been well-received—we intend to continue the process
and engage the public.
Docket No. 09050010 OA, Carmel Smart Code was referred to Subdivision Committee on July 7, 2009
for further study /review as to how T -Zones will be laid out. (Note: At this time, it is uncertain as to when
the maps will be available.) The Subdivision Committee will meet at 6:00 PM in the Caucus Rooms of City
Hall. The public hearing remains open with additional public hearing at Plan Commission meeting
on July 21, 2009.
10H. Docket No. 09060004 CPA: SW Clay Amendment to the C3 Plan
The applicant seeks to amend the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan 2009), in order
to further clarify roadway classifications in accordance with the Southwest Clay Settlement
Agreement. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel
Plan Commission.
Present for Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Department of Community Services.
Overview:
Amend the Comprehensive Plan in respect to Southwest Clay Thoroughfare Descriptions
Adding Text to clarify the annexation agreement and designation of certain roads as collector streets
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Plan descriptiona paragraph is being added to clarify that a main
feature of the collector streets is that side paths will be installed on both sides of the street.
No other information will be construed as superceding either of these sections
In the originally adopted C -3 Plan, the Southwest Clay portion was previously exempted from the
Plan. We are proposing collector streets, designated as dash lines, per the NOAX Agreement.
Commission Comments:
Possible to put all the Collector Streets into one legend on the map?
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/jun16 8
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Collector street standard would not have been chosen, but in the actual settlement agreement, it is a
standard to be used and is appropriate and consistent with the Agreement. The C -3 Plan is a
standard that can be applied through 2012.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or opposition to this Docket; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Department Report, Angie Conn:
Recommend suspension of the rules and forward to City Council
Motion: Jay Dorman "to suspend the Rules of Procedure and vote on this item," seconded by Woody
Rider, voted 10 -0, Motion Carried.
Motion: Jay Dorman "to forward Docket No. 09060004 CPA, SW Clay Amendment to the C3 Plan to the
City Council with a favorable recommendation, and with the administrative change to show the collectors
together on the legend" seconded by Woody Rider, voted 10 -0, Motion Carried.
I. Old Business
J. New Business
Pros /Cons Reviewing ADLS Amendment petitions at Committee Level, Brad Grabow
Overview:
Process at present is for ADLS Amends to be reviewed at Committee Level, sometimes without
having been reviewed at full Commission first
Is this an appropriate practice?
Staff was to research and report
Department Response, Angie Conn:
Staff reviewed the pros and cons and came up with 10 Items as to why an ADLS Amendment petition
should be kept at Committee
Petitions are usually simple as compared to new, full developments
Staff looks at petitions prior to Committee works with petitioner
All Plan Commission members have access to viewing petitions
Info Packets can be looked at On -Line thru laserfiche
Director Michael Hollibaugh:
Final decision up to full Commission
Preference is to let Staff handle
No appeal process internally for disagreement
Working with the Chamber on a Sign Ordinance that would delegate and provide additional
authority to staff on some reviews and provides some clarity on matters of design—private sector is
frustrated with micro management that Plan Commission has
Not certain process is broken but can take more serious thought to ADLS Amends
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/j un16 9
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
Could do more work on creating scale and if an ADLS Amend of a certain size with certain issues,
perhaps full Commission review would be a good idea Lowe's may be a good example of that
Commission Comments:
The process will never be perfect, but it works fine the way it is.
ADLS Amend could be sent to Plan Commission but will only bog down the Commission. The
process works fine —leave it as is —there have been no issues
Perhaps let the petitioner know that they can be forwarded to full Commission if there is no "meeting
of the minds" at Committee level but could be more time and expense for petitioner.
Lowe's was controversial and it was uncomfortable with only 3 people making the final decision
although outcome was as it should have been
John Molitor:
1. Indiana Law provides for the Executive Committee to act with power of full Plan
Commission. If there are any dissenting votes on the Executive Committee, the person in the
minority may appeal to the full Plan Commission —this is not so with the standing
committees.
2. There is also provision for Secondary Plats —Staff can approve, but if they are unable to
work out an issue with the developer, it can be appealed to the Executive Committee. Staff
can be given the same discretion if they feel the issue is so all encompassing that it should be
heard by the full Commission, they could put any of these issues before the full Plan
Commission rather than the Committee. There is no choice now, it is black/white —ADLS
Amendments must be put on the Committees —they have no discretion.
Brad Grabow comments:
It appears that there is a loophole and there is a large possibility that something significant could be changed
at the Committee level and the collective wisdom of this large group could be diminished by a committee
with fewer members. The key issue: Is there an opportunity for decisions that would not be supported by
this larger group to make it out of Committee? It sounds as if there is within the current structure.
Motion: Rick Ripma "to keep the ADLS Amend process as it is currently," seconded by Woody Rider,
voted 10 in favor, none opposed. Motion Carried.
K. Adjourned at 9:00 PM
Leo Dierckman, President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
S: /P1anCommission /Minutes /PC- 2009/j un16 10
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417