[00:00:11]
>>> TONIGHT WE HAVE THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMBINE
[1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00054 ADLS Amend: Vitalize Physical Therapy]
COMMITTEE MEETING. THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2024. THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE DOCKET TONIGHT TO DISCUSS, AND THE FIRST ONE IS DOCKET NUMBER EASY 124-0054 , VITALIZE PHYSICAL THERAPY. IS THE PETITIONER HERE?>> I AM WITH VITALIZE PHYSICAL THERAPY. WE ARE WANTING TO CHANGE THE COLOR OF 210 NORTH RANGE ONE. WE WANT TO CREATE A MORE WELCOMING AND HEALING ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR PATIENTS, AND AT THE SAME TIME, RESPECT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF CARMEL. HERE ARE OUR PROPOSED CHANGES. SO IT IS CURRENTLY BLUE WITH BLACK SHUTTERS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS COLOR, WHITE DOVE, WITH A DARK GREEN SHUTTER. AND THEN THESE COPPER LIGHT FIXTURES HERE. I HAVE THE COLORS, TOO, HERE. AND HERE.
THANKS. >> IS THERE A DEPARTMENT?
>> YES, THANK YOU. CHRISTINA JESSE, CARMEL PLANNING. THE PETITIONER SUMMARIZED THE PROJECT WELL. UPDATING THE SHUTTER COLORS AS WELL AS A NEW SIGN AND REPLACEMENT LIGHT FIXTURES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HISTORIC RANGELINE SUB ROAD AREA IN OLD TOWN OVERLAY, WHICH IS WHY IT'S HERE IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS FOR RUBLE. THE PETITIONERS WORKED WITH STAFF TO COME UP WITH AN AGREEABLE DESIGN THAT FIT THE AMERICAN COLONIAL ARCHITECTURES FILE THAT IS PRESENT ON THE BUILDING, AND THE HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE SURVEY DEEMED THAT THIS BUILDING IS NOT CONTRIBUTING TOWARD CHARACTER BUILDING. STAFF DID VERIFY THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES EITHER CROSS RANGELINE OR BESIDE THIS PARCEL ARE EXISTING FULLY WHITE BUILDINGS , JUST TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE ANY SORT OF MONOTONY ON THAT CORRIDOR. THE SITE IS UP-TO-DATE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH AUTOMOBILE PARKING AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING. THERE ARE NO OUTSTANDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW CONTENTS, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT.
>> ANYBODY WANT TO WEIGH IN? >> GREAT CHOICES . I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE EASIEST DOCKET THAT WE'VE HAD HERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS. AFTER EVERYBODY MAKES COMMENTS, I WILL MAKE A MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> I AM MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE VITALIZE PHYSICAL THERAPY DOCKET . ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED.
>> MADAM CHAIR . MADAM CHAIR. I DO HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
FOR SOMETHING AS CUT AND DRIED AS THIS, WHERE STAFF REVIEWS AND IT NEEDS ALL THE CRITERIA , IS THERE A PROVISION WHERE STAFF CAN HAVE APPROVAL OF THIS WITHOUT IT COMING TO THE PLAN
COMMISSION ? >> IS IT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE
OVERLAY? >> YES. IT'S BECAUSE IT'S IN THE HISTORIC SUB AREA THAT THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO PROVIDE
>> IT IS A NEW ORDINANCE. THERE ARE SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS BUILDING AND IN THIS SUB AREA SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE ARCHITECTURALLY DISTINCTIVE , HAVE HIGH VISIBILITY, AND CONTRIBUTES TO THE SENSE OF OLDTOWN AS A HISTORIC AREA. I ASSUME IT WILL BE MORE USED IF THEY WERE TRYING TO PAINT IT PURPLE OR NEON GREEN. THERE IS DISCRETION THAT THE COMMITTEE GETS TO
EXERCISE. >> I WILL SAY IT IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING, BECAUSE THERE ARE HOUSES THAT I HAVE BEEN AROUND CARMEL THAT ARE PURPLE . I AGREE WITH THAT.
[2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00041 OA: Non-Dwelling Short-Term Rental Standards UDO Amendment]
[00:05:10]
>> SECOND ITEM THIS EVENING IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-202400041 OA . NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL STANDARDS UDO AMENDMENT.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS FOR NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS. FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION . >> GOOD EVENING. I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THE DETAILS THAT I WENT THROUGH AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE OTHER NIGHT. EARLIER IN APRIL -- THAT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME AGO NOW. THE RESULT OF THIS WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL NEW SECTION AND SECTION 5 OF THE UDO AND A NEW DEFINITION FOR NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS IT PROPOSES REGULATIONS FOR PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT WOULD LIKE TO RENT OUT POOLS AND BACKYARD FACILITIES. IT POSES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE FOR GROUP HOMES AND SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS, WHICH MEANS THE ENTIRE HOUSE IS BEING RENTED . WE DID NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO YOUR PACKET OR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FROM APRIL 16TH . HOWEVER , I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME ADDITIONAL SUGGESTED CHANGES FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, AND IF YOU RECALL -- IF YOU RECALL, THERE WERE SOME OPEN ENDED ITEMS THAT WE WERE HOPING THAT THE COMMITTEE COULD DISCUSS TO -- LET ME GET TO THE CORRECT PAGE.
TO HELP US DETERMINE WHAT THE REASONABLE LIMITATIONS WOULD BE ON THESE TYPES OF RENTALS. SO FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU GO TO -- STARTING WITH THE LIMITATIONS SECTION ONLINE 118 , WE ARE PROPOSING A TERM OF ONE YEAR WITH RENEWALS AFTER THAT. WE ARE PROPOSING UNDER NUMBER TWO -- AND THESE ARE CERTAINLY -- EVERYTHING IN HERE IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. BUT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD GUIDE DISCUSSION TO THIS LIMITATION SECTION. WE ARE PROPOSING LANGUAGE THAT SUBJECT THREE CITATIONS OF ANY PROVISIONS AFTER SOMETHING IS APPROVED THAT THE PERMIT COULD BE REVOKED, AND THEN AFTER NUMBER THREE, THIS IS WHERE WE GET DOWN TO THE POTENTIAL HOURS OF OPERATION, NUMBER OF RENTALS , PER DAY, WEEK, OR MONTH. FOR POOLS, WHETHER A SPECIFIC SETBACK SHOULD BE REQUIRED , AND THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION THAT IS SEPARATE FROM POOLS BUT IT'S JUST FOR BACKYARD ACTIVITIES. I WILL, I GUESS, OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION OR AT LEAST ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE IN THIS DISCUSSION. THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY -- WE DON'T HAVE A HARD DEADLINE ON THIS. THE ONLY CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE SUMMER SEASON IS COMING. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TONIGHT. BUT ANY PROGRESS THAT WE CAN MAKE AS A COMMITTEE WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
>> THANK YOU. AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS A COMMITTEE MEETING. IT IS NOT THE FORMAL MEETING EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A FORMAL ENVIRONMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO BREAK THIS DOWN JUST LIKE WE DO IN COMMITTEES AND DISCUSS THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO JUST GO THROUGH, ESPECIALLY STARTING WITH C, OR IF EVERYBODY JUST WANTS TO GIVE COMMENTS. IS THERE A
PREFERENCE? >> MADAM CHAIR, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO START WHERE SHE ANTICIPATES WE HAVE QUESTIONS SO THAT SHE CAN HAVE THAT SCROLLING AS WE ARE ALL SEEING THE SAME THING AND GO THROUGH IT SECTION BY SECTON AND ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH PARTICULAR SECTION AND A GROUP.
>> I WILL MOVE IT WHEREVER YOU NEED ME TO.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS UNDER SECTION 6 ON G , OR -- WAIT A SECOND. DO I HAVE THIS IN THE RIGHT ORDER?
[00:10:04]
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT STARTING UNDER D. BUT IS THERE ANYTHINGIN B OR C? >> SECTION 2 SPECIFICALLY, THE DISTRICTS OF INTENT. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING , AND THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE FULL COMMISSION MEETING, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND I BELIEVE LEGAL WILL BE ABLE TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR US. >> YES. SO THE PUD , BECAUSE IT IS SO WEIRD , WE WOULD LOOK AT IT IS, EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T THIS PUD, YOU LOOK AT HOW THE PUD , MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL, IT IS UNDERLYING ZONING WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL SO WOULD STILL APPLY, UNLESS THE PUD HAS SOMETHING SPECIFIC IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE ABOUT -- WHICH I OFTEN ADMIT, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY NEED TO THAT PROHIBIT NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD CONTROL, BUT YOU LOOK AT THE
FACE. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT IS THE UNDERLYING ZONING OF THE DISTRICT , AND THE PUD IS ITS
>> I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR. IS THERE ANY REASON TO HAVE THAT VERBIAGE IN THIS AT ALL ?
>> WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO JUST ADD THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE DESIGNATIONS? AS A DESCRIPTOR SO THAT IT IS NOT A QUESTION THAT COMES UP FROM ANYBODY ANY PUD?
>> I GUESS THAT IS UP TO YOU ALL IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
>> STRONG FINGERS. >> COULD IT JUST BE ADDED AS A
NOTE? >> THE NEXT LINE ITEM DOWN, YOU GO THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT ZONING. 2.18.
>> WHAT IT SIMPLY JUST READ THAT THE PUD WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE UNDERLINING ZONING OF WHAT EVER CATEGORY IT IS IN ,
JUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT -- >> YEAH. WE COULD ADD SOMEBODY
ALONG THAT LANGUAGE. >> I THINK IT WILL JUST HELP WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO LOOK THROUGH THE ORDINANCE AND SAY, I AM A PUD. WHAT DO I DO?
>> STILL UNDER THIS SECTION. THAT WAS SECTION 2. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? OKAY. SECTION 3. >> GO AHEAD, ADAM.
>> I JUST HAD A GENERAL QUESTION OF THE LIABILITY INSURANCE. THE ONE BILLION-DOLLAR NUMBER. IS THE STANDARD FOR THIS TYPE OF THING?
>> THAT IS FAIRLY STANDARD ACROSS THE BOARD.
>> IS IT PER OCCURRENCE? IS IT 1 MILLION PER OCCURRENCE, OR IN THE AGGREGATE ?
>> I APOLOGIZE. I AM KIND OF LOST WHERE WE ARE.
>> IT'S NOT IN THE SECTION, ACTUALLY. IS IT? OH, D 3.
>> IT IS NOT SPECIFIC. >> I DO HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION ON THAT, AS WELL. THE QUESTION IS, I ACTUALLY CALLED MY INSURANCE AGENT TO FIND OUT IF THE INSURANCE COVERAGE ON MY SWIMMING POOL WOULD BE COVERED IN AN EVENT LIKE THIS, AND HE SAID THAT -- PROBABLY NOT. MOST INSURANCE COMPANIES DO NOT COVER THIS. SO IS THIS SOMETHING -- CAN YOU MAKE A REQUIREMENT THAT SOMEWHERE IN THAT CERTIFICATE -- GOING BACK TO HAVE IT BE 1 MILLION PER OCCURRENCE -- TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD SEE 1 MILLION PER OCCURRENCE, 3 MILLION AGGREGATE. I DEFER TO LEGAL ON HOW YOU WANT TO WORD THAT.
[00:15:05]
SOMETHING THAT WOULD SHOW THAT IT IS COVERAGE FOR THIS KIND OF RENTAL USE AT THE OUTDOOR FACILITIES. IS THERE ANY WAY TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY COVERAGE FOR THIS AS OPPOSED TO JUST HOMEOWNERS COVERAGE? I DON'T KNOW IF WE COVER THAT ORNOT. >> JUST TO THE SWIMMING POOL, YOU ARE RIGHT. BUT LET'S SAY THEY INCUR ANY ACCIDENT WITH THE NEIGHBORS OR A CAR. IT IS NOT JUST A SWIMMING POOL, BECAUSE WE ARE ADDRESSING ANY SORT OF OUTDOOR THING. TENNIS
COURT, PICKLE BALL COURT. >> PROOF OF THAT COVERAGE. I GUESS THAT WOULD BE -- AND THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE STAFF OR WHOEVER IS REVIEWING THE PETITION TO ENSURE THAT THEY ACTUALLY DO HAVE COVERAG FOR THIS USE AND FOR THE GENERAL
HOME. >> I CONCUR. THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE, I OWN A HOME AND I NEED TO HAVE ONE BILLION-DOLLAR HOMEOWNERS COVERAGE AS MY POLICY. I THINK IT NEEDS TO SPECIFY FOR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD IT. FOR THE ACCEPTED PURPOSE AS DESCRIBED.
>> FOR THE NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL ?
>> AND I WOULD PUT A TIME PERIOD ON THAT. YOU MUST HAVE LIABILITY INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF -- TO COVER -- IN THE AMOUNT OF -- FOR EACH CALENDAR YEAR OR EACH TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD THAT THE EXEMPTION IS GRANTED. THAT'S EVEN BETTER.
>> I AM JUST TRYING TO GET AT, I THINK IT NEEDS MORE SPECIFICITY, IS ALL I AM SUGGESTING. I THINK WE ARE ALL
ON THE SAME PAGE. >> YOU CAN RUN IT BY SOMEBODY WHO IS PROBABLY VERY WELL-VERSED IN INSURANCE LAW.
YOU CAN PROBABLY COME UP WITH HOW TO DRAFT THIS SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT COVERS WHAT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT, MAKE SURE WE HAVE SPECIFIC COVERAGE FOR THIS USE. WE HAVE PROOF OF COVERAGE THAT IT IS ADEQUATE. YEAH, RENEWING ANNUALLY. IF IT'S GOING TO LAPSE OR IF IT'S GOING TO EXPIRE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE THE CITY NOTICE BEFORE IT EXPIRES. I THINK YOU CAN CRAFT IT IN A WAY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE -- MAKE SURE THERE IS ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR ALL OF THIS.
>> THEY HAVE TO SHOW IT IS UP TO DATE EACH YEAR WHEN THEY REAPPLY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
>> WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IF SOMEBODY TRESPASSES ON ANOTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY AND THEY DO DAMAGE TO THE OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY, THEN IT BECOMES NOT JUST -- THEY ARE NOT JUST GOING TO SUE WHATEVER PLATFORM GIVES THEM INSURANCE, BUT THE HOMEOWNER AS WELL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENCE THAT ARE SURROUNDED IN THIS AREA ARE AT LEAST THOUGHT OF. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT, ACTUALLY. IN D 2. WE HAVE THREE CITATIONS. IS THAT PER YEAR? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT THREE CITATIONS BEFORE THEIR
CERTIFICATE IS REVOKED? >> I THINK EACH PROPOSAL BE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR THAT THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
TIME PERIOD. >> THREE SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF CITATIONS IN A YEAR , ESPECIALLY ON A SEASONAL
APPLICATION. >> I AGREE. THIRD STRIKE, YOU
ARE OUT. >> THAT WAS WHEN I ACTUALLY HAVE SOME NOTES ON. I COULD RECOMMEND THAT, SAY, TWO NOTICES OF VIOLATIONS OR CITATIONS, WE DON'T ALWAYS ISSUE CITATIONS RIGHT AWAY. THEY MIGHT BE GIVEN A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION FIRST. >> CAN WE GO BACK TO SECTION C FOR JUST A MOMENT UNDER -- YEAH. REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR APPLICATION? I KNOW IT SAYS MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION, DRIVERS LICENSE, TAX DOCUMENTS. I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY A LITTLE NITPICKY, BUT WE KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE OWN TWO HOMES, AND THEY MAY TAKE A HOMESTEAD CREDIT AND RENT THE OTHER HOUSE, VICE VERSA. AND SO -- LIKE, A UTILITY BILL, YOU COULD BE RENTING YOUR HOUSE TO SOMEONE AND YOU ARE PAYING THE UTILITY BILL. I MEAN, I KNOW IT WILL GO TO THE ADDRESS WHERE
[00:20:04]
THE OWNER IS, BUT -- I DON'T KNOW. I BEING NITPICKY. I'MSORRY. >> YOU WANT PROOF THAT IT'S
OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER? >> 100%. YEAH. WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. DO YOU FEEL LIKE THESE DOCUMENTS -- I KNOW WHEN I RENTED, I DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY MY UTILITY, MY WATER, MY SEWER.
THE LANDLORD PAID IT. >> I WOULD NEED TO CHECK, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE DEFINITION OF PERMANENT RESIDENT WHO IS -- WOULD BE QUALIFIED TO APPLY FOR THESE COULD BE A RENTER . AS LONG AS THEY ARE THE PERMANENT RESIDENT OR THEY OWN IT OR RENT IT. I WOULD NEED TO SWITCH SCREENS TO LOOK UP THAT DEFINITION IN THE UDO, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE.
>> IF I'M RENTING THE HOUSE, I HAVE A SWIMMING POOL, I AM THE
OWNER AT THAT TIME. >> YOU ARE THE PERMANENT RESIDENT. BUT I BELIEVE -- I AM NOT INVOLVED WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPLICATIONS. THIS IS BASED VERY CLOSELY UPON THAT, I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE SOME SIGNOFF REQUIRED BY THE OWNER AS WELL. I BELIEVE PERMANENT RESIDENT --
>> I THINK IF IT'S A RENTAL PROPERTY AND IT'S NOT OWNER-OCCUPIED , BECAUSE THAT IS NOT AN OWNER. THAT IS A RENTER. I THINK THAT THE OWNER SHOULD HAVE -- THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT SOMETHING IN WRITING IN ORDER TO DO IT.
>> THE RENTER JUST CAN'T EVEN DO IT?
>> I DON'T KNOW. >> IT'S ACTUALLY JUST PREVENTING THE IDEA OF SUBLETTING. HOW DO WE PREVENT
THAT? >> NO SUBLETTING. MIKE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? I ALWAYS LIKE TO HEAR YOU TALK.
>> WE ALREADY HAVE THE DEFINITION. IT IS EITHER OWNER OR RENTER. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD COVER. NOT EVERY PERSON WHO RENTS A HOUSE YOU NEED TO WORRY ABOUT. SOMETIMES SOMEONE WHO RENTS A HOUSE IS WELL BETTER TAKEN CARE OF THEN SOMEONE ELSE. I HATE TO SPLIT HAIRS.
>> NO, I LIKE PERSPECTIVE. >> I WILL SPLIT HAIRS MORE. ARE WE ASKING FOR THE RENTER TO PROVIDE LIABILITY INSURANCE IN THAT CASE ? IF WE GO DOWN TO D, IS THE RENTER REQUIRED TO HAVE A ONE MILLION-DOLLAR LIABILITY INSURANCE?
>> I THINK IT NEEDS TO APPLY TO THE PROPERTY. IF THEY ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH -- IF THEY WANT THIS, WE ARE SETTING THE BAR REALLY HIGH. I MEAN, IF THEY CAN MEET ALL THIS, THEN THEY CAN DO IT. SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE -- MAYBE YOU COULD CHIME IN ON, YOU KNOW, WHO OWNS THE POLICY. BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY RENT A HOUSE. IF I RENT AN APARTMENT, I HAVE RENTERS INSURANCE. AND THAT APPLIES TO MY UNIT. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS FOR A HOUSE. SOMEONE'S GOT TO HAVE INSURANCE. SOMEONE'S GOT TO HAVE INSURANCE, AND IT'S GOT
>> I GUESS IF WE GOT IT WRITTEN THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN DO THIS WITHOUT PROOF OF THAT INSURANCE --
>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, HOWEVER THIS ENDS UP, IT APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY, NOT THE OWNER, NOT THE PROPERTY. OR THE RENTER OF THE PROPERTY. IT APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY. I KNOW I AM BEING REALLY DRILLING HERE, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THIS, BECAUSE IF WE -- THE THOUGHT PROCESS, I THINK, WAS, IF YOU OWN THE PROPERTY, THAT IS ONE THING AND IT WOULD BE PERMITTED WITH THESE CONDITIONS. IF YOU ARE A RENTER, THE THOUGHT BEFORE YOU APPROACHED THE MIC WAS, NO, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THAT. YOU ARE SAYING THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY TO THE PROPERTY REGARDLESS OF THE STATUS OF WHO IS OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY AND IS CONSIDERED A PERMANENT RESIDENT.
>> I AM JUST THINKING OUT LOUD HERE. I MEAN, IF I OWN THE PLACE AND MY TENANT WAS TO DO THIS, I'M NOT SURE I WANT
[00:25:03]
THAT, RIGHT? SO I AM NOT REALLY 100 BEEN SENT SEARCHING AGAIN WHAT THAT INSURANCE ARRANGEMENT IS. THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE PROOF OF INSURANCE IF THEY WANT TO DO IT. AND, I MEAN, AGAIN, IF I AM THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE, IF I'M THE PERSON RENTING IT, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO THIS.>> THEN WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO PUTTING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
A RENTER OF A PROPERTY ? >> I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE UNIQUE PROPERTIES IN CARMEL WERE IT MAY NOT MATTER, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, IT IS 10 ACRES WITH, YOU KNOW, A GIANT LAGOON , AND THEY WANT TO DO THIS. AND IT MIGHT MAKE PERFECT SENSE IN THAT ONE SITUATION. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS TODAY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE. WE ARE TRYING TO PIGGYBACK AND LEVERAGE OFF AS MUCH OF THAT LANGUAGE AS WE CAN. I THINK THE INSURANCE QUESTION IS A GOOD ONE, AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY NOT MOVE THIS ON TONIGHT AND HAVE A GOOD ANSWER AND COME BACK WITH A GOOD ANSWER ON IF WE NEED TO
DIAL THAT LANGUAGE IN. >> I JUST WOULD APPRECIATE IT, JUST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE AT THE END OF THE DAY, LIKE YOU SAID, IF WE ARE TAILORING THE ORDINANCE FOR A UNIQUE SITUATION, OR ARE WE TAILORING THE ORDINANCE FOR THE HOMEOWNER? THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNER?
>> COUNCILMAN WELLS IS HERE, AND HE KNOWS -- WE WERE LOOKING AT THE MAP. I MEAN, THIS SEEMS TO MAKE THE MOST SENSE TO REALLY STRICTLY REGULATED IN A SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU HAVE SMALL LOTS. THE POOL IS RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE NOISE AND JUST THE -- YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT IS MUCH MORE, YOU KNOW, ACUTE. WHEREAS IF YOU HAVE A LARGE PIECE , MAYBE IT DOESN'T MATTER AS MUCH , BECAUSE NO ONE WILL EVEN KNOW, RIGHT?
>>> ON THAT POINT, MY OPINION IS, GIVEN CONCEPTUALLY WHAT THIS IS TARGETING , WHERE THERE IS A POTENTIAL LOOPHOLE, THERE WILL BE A DISCOVERED LOOPHOLE AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE THOSE TIGHTENED UP BEFORE THIS GETS TO THE POINT WHERE THE COUNCIL HAS TO VOTE ON IT. IF YOU HAVING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, I WOULD ASK YOU TO ADD IT BACK IN. DOES PERMANENT RESIDENT COVER EVERYTHING? BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU ARE DESCRIBING, DOES THAT NEED TO BE REVISITED? I WILL DEFER TO YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL AND YOUR INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BUT I JUST ASK YOU PUT THAT IN THE MIX OF THE CONVERSATION AS WELL.
>> OKAY. I WAS STILL ON PART B, WHICH IS -- NO, THAT'S OKAY. I WAS JUST GOING RIGHT DOWN THROUGH THAT. ALL THIS IS GOOD.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS ANYTHING.
>> SINCE WE ARE BACK UP TO B 3, WE GOT PERMANENT RESIDENCE POSTING PERMANENTLY PRINTED SIGN THAT HAS LOCATION OF FIRE SAVING EQUIPMENT, ANY FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, EVEN JUST QUESTIONING THE WORD ANY , IF WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS. SO STRIKE ANY?
>> WAS YOUR QUESTION STRIKE ANY, OR REQUIRE FIRE
EXTINGUISH >> IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD REQUIRE ALL NECESSARY SAFETY EQUIPMENT TO BE ON SITE. WE WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE A FIRE EXTINGUISHER TO BE THERE. JUST READING ANY FIRE EXTINGUISHER LEAVES OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE ARE NONE. SO JUST STRIKE IT.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON PART B?
>> YES. WHAT IS A REGISTERED RETAIL MERCHANT CERTIFICATE?
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE STATE OF INDIANA ISSUES, AND IT
[00:30:01]
WAS VERY RELEVANT IN THE CASE OF AIRBNB'S AND RENTALS AND THAT NATURE, BECAUSE THE HOTELS AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF LODGING HAD TO COLLECT SALES TAX . AND SO WHEN THE AIRBNB MOVEMENT , SHORT-TERM RENTAL MOVEMENT CAME ABOUT, THERE WAS A CONCERN BY HOTELS AND OTHER LODGING THAT SALES TAX WOULD NOT BE COLLECTED, AND THE RETAIL CERTIFICATE IS THE WAY THAT THE SALES TAX IS COLLECTED IN INDIANA AND THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL REQUIRES IT. SO WE ARE LIKEWISE ADDING THAT TO THIS AS WELL.>> FEEL FREE TO RAISE ANY CONCERNS. OKAY. WE ARE ON TO C, CORRECT? OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION ON THE 275 DAYS. I AM TRYING TO
SEE. >> I WILL DEFER TO LEGAL, BUT ISN'T THAT APPROVING THAT THE PERMANENT RESIDENT IS ACTUALLY
OCCUPYING THE SPACE? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS INDUSTRY STANDARD.
>> THAT IS HOW OUR UDO IS WRITTEN AS THE DEFINITION OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE. AND I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS SECTION AS WELL. I WOULD RECOMMEND ADDING A NUMBER 3 THAT SAYS ANY OTHER INFORMATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTOR TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION. THAT WAY, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THEY DECIDE , WE ACTUALLY NEED THIS, THEY CAN
REQUEST IT. >> I LOVE THAT. THAT'S GREAT.
GOOD JOB. >> WE WILL MOVE ON TO D,
LIMITATIONS. >> MAYBE WE SHOULD RECAP WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT FOR THEM. SO ARE WE RECOMMENDING PROOF OF ANNUAL RENEWAL? IS THAT PART OF IT? AND THEN DID WE CONFIRM LIABILITY, MILLION DOLLARS PER INCIDENT, OR -- DID WE REACH A
CONCLUSION ON THAT? >> THAT'S WHAT'S IN MY NOTES . PER OCCURRENCE . UNLESS I CAN COME UP WITH SOME BETTER
LANGUAGE LETTER. >> PROOF OF ADDED COVERAGE TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE COVERING NOT JUST THE HOMESITE, BUT THE SPECIFIC RENTAL. I THINK YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND WORK ON THAT LANGUAGE.
>> THIS IS A VERY HARD BUTTON TO PUSH. I'M SORRY. ON THE ONE YEAR -- IS IT ONE YEAR FROM THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS MADE, GRANTED? IS IT A CALENDAR YEAR? AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS -- POOL SEASON, LET'S SAY MEMORIAL DAY TO LABOR DAY IS PRIME TIME. AND IF IT'S DATE OF WHEN THE PERMIT IS ACQUIRED, AND THE PERMIT IS DATED JULY 5TH, YOU HAVE SOME TIME BEFORE THE PAYMENT ASKED BUYERS TO DO THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT BE CAUGHT UNTIL THE RENEWAL PROCESS. I'M CURIOUS WHEN THE APPLICATION BEGINS. WHEN THE CLOCK STARTS TICKING, IS WHAT I'M ASKING.
>> SO SIMILAR TO THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS LIKE THE AIRBNB'S, IT WOULD START AS GRANTED. SO NOT THE DAY IT IS APPLIED FOR.
>> CAN WE HAVE A CUTOFF DATE? THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING. IF THESE ARE BASICALLY SUMMER ACTIVITIES, I THINK THE APPLICATION, THERE OUGHT TO BE A REQUIREMENT WHEN APPLICATIONS FOR THE EXEMPTION ARE OPEN DURING THIS PERIOD, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT YEAR. OTHERWISE, IF YOU COME IN DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE SUMMER AND YOU DO THIS, THEN THE RENEWAL PERIOD IS IN THE HEIGHT OF THE ACTIVITY THE FOLLOWING
YEAR. >> I THINK YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT MATTERS, BECAUSE IT'S UP TO
[00:35:01]
THEM TO GET IT RIGHT. I MEAN, THEY COULD APPLY THINKING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FULL SEASON, AND IF THEY ARE LATE, THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM. ALL WE WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN APPROVAL FOR THEM TO OPERATE IN SO THAT WE HAVE A BASELINE OF REGULATION . ALSO, IT COULD BE A FIRE PIT AND IT COULD BE THINGS THAT AREN'T SUMMER ORIENTED, TOO. AND THIS IS REALLY TRYING TO JUST CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT NEIGHBORHOODS ARESAFE. >> THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS.
IF WE ADEQUATELY THOUGHT OF -- OR DO WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT COVERS EVERYTHING? THE PICKLE BALL COURTS, THE TENNIS COURTS. YOU JUST SAID THE FIRE PIT. THERE COULD BE SOMETHING WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT IS COMING ALONG NEXT THAT IS A
RENTAL. >> FUMING LIKE RENTING OUT A
DOG PARK? >> COULD BE. I'M SERIOUS. YOU DON'T KNOW. AND YEAH, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY --
>> WE THINK OUR KENNEL ORDINANCE COVERS FOR THAT LITTLE THING, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT.
>> I DID SOME RESEARCH A LITTLE BIT ONLINE ON THIS, JUST ON THE INTERNET. I DELVED REAL DEEP. AND LOOKING FOR ANYTHING. THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I SAW, BUT THERE WERE OTHER THINGS, THEY ARE TALKING SWIMMING POOLS AND THE FIVE SWIMMING APPS, AND THAT IS ALL GREAT. BUT IS THERE SOMETHING THIS MORNING ALL-ENCOMPASSING THAT WE CAN PUT IN THERE FOR ANY RENTAL , ANYTHING RENTED ON THE PROPERTY ?
>> SPOILER ALERT. ON THE NEXT PAGE, SUBSECTION A IS POOLS. ON THE NEXT PAGE, SUBSECTION B IS BACKYARD AND OTHER FACILITIES.
INCLUDES ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ET CETERA. AND THAT IS WHAT -- THAT'S JUST NO REALLY AN ACTIVITY THOUGH, AND JUST LIKE YOU SAID, A DOG PARK. I READ THAT AND THAT ALMOST IS WHAT MADE ME THINK OF IT. ANYTHING IN THE EXTERIOR THAT IS RENTED?
>> THEY HAD TO IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT IS THEY ARE RENTING. THEN THAT IS THE LENS THAT THE APPLICATION MUST
BE REVIEWED THROUGH. >> DRIVEWAYS ARE BEING RENTED.
I SAW THAT ONLINE. I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT.
>> GYMNASTICS. >> I FEEL LIKE THIS LEG WHICH
KIND OF COVERS IT. >> IF SOMEONE HAS A SPECIFIC SCENARIO THAT THEY WANT TO RUN BY US, IF YOU ARE RENTING YOUR YARD, BACKYARDS ARE LISTED HERE. FIRE PITS, ACCESSORIES, STRUCTURES, THAT'S PRETTY BROAD.
>> BUT ON THE APPLICATION, THEY WILL SAY WHAT THIS IS FOR.
IT'S NOT JUST, GENERALLY I AM RUNNING SOMETHING OUT OF MY BACKYARD. YOU WILL KNOW, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO EVALUATE IT
WHEN IT COMES THROUGH. >> WE TRY NOT TO HAVE THE APPLICATIONS AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE, NECESSARILY, BECAUSE APPLICATIONS CAN CHANGE, AND VERBIAGE CAN CHANGE. ON ALL OF OUR APPLICATIONS, THERE IS A DESCRIPTION BOX FOR BASICALLY -- YOU KNOW, THAT THEY NEED TO SPECIFY OR BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING. I DON'T FORESEE US LETTING AN APPLICATION MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT BEING MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
>> I WOULD JUST ASK AS YOU GO BACK AND REGROUP, HAVE YOUR DISCUSSIONS , I AM STILL BACK ON -- I APPLY, I GET BACK MIGHT PERMIT, I GET THE EXEMPTION, AND THE PERMIT ENDS JULY 15TH.
I'M ALLOWED TWO STRIKES BEFORE THEM OUT. I PLAYED MY CARDS RIGHT, I NOW GET FOUR STRIKES. IN A POOL SEASON. THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN THE APPLICATION -- I MEAN, WHEN THE PERMIT STARTS. WHEN THE CLOCK STARTS TICKING. YOU ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT MORE. WE DON'T NEED TO BELABOR IT HERE, BUT I WOULD ADD THAT INTO THE MIX AND TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
CONVERSATION. >> I DON'T THINK IT SPECIFIES
[00:40:05]
CALENDAR YEAR ON THE STRIKES. IT WOULD BE PER APPROVALPERIOD. THE PERMIT PERIOD. >> TWO NOTICES OF VIOLATION IS
WHAT WE ARE GOING WITH. >> IF YOU GET A NOTIFICATION OR CITATION IN JULY , IF YOU GET A SECOND ONE IN JULY AFTER YOUR APPROVAL, YOU ARE DONE UNTIL YOU APPLY AGAIN.
>> I STILL CONTEND -- THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL PLAY THAT GAME TO THE NTH DEGREE, AND I JUST ASK YOU TO LOOK AT -- ARE YOU CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 4 STRIKES?
>> THAT'S WERE ALLIE JUST ADDED THAT CATCHALL. BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE -- UNDER THAT CATEGORY, THEY CAN LOOK AT PRIOR HISTORIES. IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO YEAR AFTER YEAR IS CONSTANTLY HAVING VIOLATIONS, THAT COULD BE A REASON WITH THE WAY THIS IS BEING WRITTEN.
>> THE POINT OF THE RENEWAL IS TO RENEW THE BEHAVIOR. AND IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL. YOU KNOW, IT COULD JUST BE A BLANKET. YOU GET IT, AND DOING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GAME LIKE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BY HAVING IT MOVE INTO A YEAR IF THERE IS REALLY ANY VIOLATIONS. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO COME OUT AND SAY, THESE PEOPLE WERE HORRIBLE. DON'T RENEW THIS.
AND I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.
>> MAYBE I AM CRAZY, BUT MAYBE THE EASY WAY TO SOLVE THIS IS TWO VIOLATIONS PER CALENDAR YEAR. AND YOUR RENEWAL DATE IS WHENEVER .
>> I WOULD JUST ADD YOU INCLUDE THAT CONCEPT IN THE DISCUSSION
. >> OKAY. BUT ACTUALLY PER HOW YOU WERE INTENDING IT ORIGINALLY FOR THE LENGTH OF YOUR PERMIT -- IF YOU DO CALENDAR YEAR, AND TO YOUR POINT, IF YOU APPLY IN JULY, THEN IN DECEMBER YOU ARE STARTING OVER. IF YOU DO YOUR PERMIT HERE, THAT'S A WHOLE YEAR. SO YOU DON'T GET TO RESET AT THE START OF THE CALENDAR YEAR. SO PROBABLY, I WOULD SAY, LEAVE IT. I WOULD SAY JUST LEAVE IT TO LINE WITH THEIR PERMIT.
>> I CONCUR. >> WE ARE TRACKING THAT
THOUGHT, YES. I AGREE. >> WE ARE STILL IN D RIGHT NOW.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, CHANGES,
RECOMMENDATIONS? >> SO 3, IF WE MOVED TO PAGE 3 CAPITAL FIVE, WE HAVE NINE SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT SHALL NOT EXCEED DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS. I THINK YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING TO
ASK FOR THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE. >> YES, PLEASE.
>> DON'T ASK ME. >> ONE PER YEAR IS IT? WHAT ARE
YOU THINKING? >> I AM TEASING.
>> IT'S HARD. DAY, WEEK, OR MONTH.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO HEAR ONCE A WEEK TO HAVE SOMEONE TO RENT THEIR POOL. IT'S JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT ONCE A WEEK COULD BE A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY, MOST LIKELY. WHICH IS HIGH TIME FOR FAMILIES TO BE USING THEIR OUTDOOR FACILITIES, TOO. I ALMOST FEEL LIKE THAT IS TOO MUCH. IF THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SOMETHING USED ON A RARE OCCASION, THIS IS OUR BUSINESS.
>> I RETRACT MY STATEMENT. >> I AM WITH CHRISTINA. MAYBE
ONCE A MONTH, OR ONCE A SEASON. >> IF YOU DO THAT ONCE A WEEK, IS THAT SATURDAY AND THEY CAN DO IT THREE TIMES? IS IT ONE
DAY, OR ONE EVENT A WEEK? >> I WOULD SAY EVENT.
>> SO THAT IS INTERESTING. THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT QUESTION. IT'S HOW MANY DIFFERENT TIMES PER DAY OR WEEK. ON THAT DAY, LET'S SAY WE LAND ON ONE TIME PER MONTH.
HOW MANY DIFFERENT EVENTS ARE YOU PERMITTING THEM ON THAT ONE
[00:45:05]
DAY PER MONTH ? THAT'S A SEPARATE QUESTION, AND A GOOD QUESTION. AND THEN HOWEVER THIS IS WORDED, DO YOU NOT WANT TO HAVE -- DO YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE THE WEEKEND RENTAL? COME IN FRIDAY NIGHT AND YOU CAN RENT IT OUT ALL WEEKEND LONG.>> WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, IT'S GOING TO BE DISRUPTIVE NO MATTER WHAT, WHETHER IT'S DURING THE WORK WEEK OR ON THE WEEKEND. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A PREFERENCE AS FAR AS THE DAY OF THE WEEK OR THE WEEKEND. BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS, HOW OFTEN -- HOW MANY TIMES IS IT PER WEEK, PER MONTH? EILEEN TOWARDS PER MONTH, BUT I GUESS MY CLARIFYING POINT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE EVENT PER WEEK. I AM JUST SAYING, NOT -- TO YOUR POINT, SUE, I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT. I WAS JUST THINKING, ONE EVENT ON ONE DAY. IF WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID AND JUMP IN AND TELL ME IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND CONCEPTUALLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID. IF WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID A PERMANENT RESIDENT FROM OPERATING A BUSINESS TO ALLOW THE POOL -- I AM CONVENIENTLY USING THE POOL , BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. TO USE THE POOL EVERY WEEKEND, THEN IF YOU ALLOW USAGE ON AN X NUMBER PER WEEK, I THINK YOU ARE CREATING A BUSINESS . I PERSONALLY AM LEANING TOWARD -- UNLESS I AM PERSUADED OTHERWISE, TO LIMIT IT TO AN EVENT PER MONTH.
>> I AGREE. ONE PER MONTH WOULD BE BECOMING THIS COMMERCIAL SHOW. THAT'S WHAT THE RESOLUTION IS GOING FOR.
>> WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS?
>> IT MIGHT BE THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CAN DO THIS, IT MIGHT HELP MODULATE. BECAUSE IF WHAT -- WHAT IF I AM RENTING MY POOL TO A FAMILY WITH TWO KIDS, RIGHT? AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS A FEW DAYS A WEEK WHILE THEY ARE ON TOWN ON VACATION. I MEAN, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE GIANT NEIGHBORHOOD PARTY THAT WE FEAR. AND THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES HERE FOR SOMETHING THAT IS KIND OF NICE, TOO. BUT IT WOULD STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 50 PEOPLE, OR THE SOCCER TEAM THAT CAME IN AND WAS USING -- THEY WERE HERE FOR THE PARK, AND I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE STORIES WE HEARD AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT COULD JUST BE A SMALL GROUP, ESPECIALLY IF WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
OPPORTUNITY. >> THEN WOULD IT BE AN OPTION TO CONSIDER A MAXIMUM NUMBER PER PERMIT PERIOD?
>> WELL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT --
>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PER YEAR?
>> I AM BEING TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL RIGHT NOW. I HAVE A POOL. I'M GOING TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT. I'M GOING TO RENT IT OUT, AND THE RESTRICTIONS ARE -- AND THIS WOULD BE HYPOTHETICAL OPTIONS. I CAN ONLY DO IT ONCE A WEEK. I CAN ONLY DO IT TWICE A MONTH. OR I COULD DO IT -- I COULD ONLY DO IT SIX TIMES WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE PERMIT. I'M TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON WHAT PEOPLE THINK IS A REASONABLE LIMITATION FOR THE GOOD GUYS VERSUS THE ABUSERS.
>> YOU WANT TO COME UP HERE AND HELP US WITH THIS ONE? RIGHT NOW IT IS CAPPED TO A MAXIMUM OF 10 INDIVIDUALS.
>> SO I THINK WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS, MAYBE IF WE TALK ABOUT THE 10 FIRST, THAT MAY HELP US WITH CADENCE . BUT
[00:50:06]
WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE LENGTH OF RENTAL . I AM THINKING FIVE HOURS, BECAUSE I COULD -- IF I HAVE LOTS OF MONEY, I COULD RENT IT OUT FOR 24, 48 HOURS, 72 HOURS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT SAYS THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT POPPED INTO MY HEAD. THE WEEKLY IS DANGEROUS, BECAUSE IT IS EVERY SATURDAY , I LOSE MY BACKYARD, BECAUSE THAT'S THE DAY EVERYBODY WANTS TO RENT THE POOL. WE WEEKLY DOES NOT WORK IN MY OPINION. IF WE JUST SAY , IN THE LICENSE OR PERMIT PERIOD, THAT COULD ALSO BE EVERY SATURDAY. SO I KNEW YOU GUYS WERE MUCH SMARTER THAN ME, AND SO I LOVE THE DIALOGUE. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT NOT SETTING UP A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS EVERY SATURDAY UNLESS WE ARE WILLING TO CAP THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. IF IT IS 10 PEOPLE AS WE KIND OF SUGGESTED, THAT TAKES A LOT OF THIS AWAY. SOMEONE CAN STILL HAVE 10 PEOPLE OVER AND HAVE A LOUD PARTY, BUT IT'S NOT AS -- I DON'T KNOW. THEY MIGHT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO DO THAT. AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION IS, I HAVE RECEIVED NOT ONE SINGLE COMMENT, SUGGESTION , OR REQUEST FROM ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DO THIS. THERE HAS BEEN -- THERE IS ANOTHER NEW STORY RUNNING ABOUT IT TONIGHT ON FOX 59. IT'S NOT LIKE NO ONE KNOWS THAT THIS IS GOING ON. I ALSO WOULD SAY WE NEED TO ERROR ON THE SIDE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HARMED BY THIS AND NOT THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T SPOKEN UP. AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE IF THE GOOD INTENDED PEOPLE DO WANT TO TELL US WE MADE A MISTAKE. WE COULD ALWAYS GO BACK AND FIX SOMETHING. RIGHT NOW, I'M WORRIED ABOUT EVERY SATURDAY, MORE THAN FIVE HOURS, ANDWHATEVER THAT OUTCOME IS. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT
IS VERY HELPFUL. >> I LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY THE FIVE HOURS. WE GOT THE HOURS OF WHEN THEY CAN DO THIS. AND WE COULD ADD IN THERE, EACH RENTAL CAN BE LONG NO LONGER THAN FIVE
HOURS MAX. THANK YOU, JEFF. >> I THINK 10 IS A REASONABLE
NUMBER. >> THINKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
TIMES -- OKAY. >> I DEFINITELY RETRACT MY STATEMENT. I GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL. ARE WE TAILORING IT TO BAD APPLES, OR THE GOOD APPLES?
>> BECAUSE THERE IS A TENSION DRAWN TO IT, THERE WILL BE THOSE WHO TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. SO LET'S ERR ON --
>> SO WHAT POPPED INTO MY HEAD JUST NOW, A KIDS BIRTHDAY PARTY. SATURDAY, THEY WANT TO START AT 11:00. THIS IS THE TIME TO THROW OUT WHAT WE THINK.
>> YOU ARE NOT RENTING OUT THE SPACE TO ANYTHING ELSE. THIS
DOES NOT APPLY TO THAT. >> NO, I MEAN, I HAVE A POOL, THIS FAMILY WANTS TO RENT IT OUT FOR THEIR KIDS BIRTHDAY PARTY AND THEY LIKE TO DO A BETWEEN 11:00 -- I AM MAKING
THIS UP, A HYPOTHETICAL. >> THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF -- WHEN WE BRING UP THE SOCCER VISITORS EXAMPLE , HOPEFULLY THEY ARE GOING TO GO TO THE COMMUNITY POOL. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE REC CENTER. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A VERY SMALL SUBSET. LET'S BLANKET IT TO 1 A MONTH , FIVE HOURS MAX , 10
PEOPLE MAX. >> I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
>> NEED TO. >> EVERYBODY? OKAY. SO WHAT IS ONE TIME A MONTH, FIVE HOURS MAXIMUM , AND MAXIMUM 10 PEOPLE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT SETTLEMENT THAT WE SHOULD ADD -- WE SHOULD HAVE ADDED PARKING. SO THEY CAN PARK
THE PEOPLE. >> JUST THE HOURS. RIGHT NOW IT
[00:55:02]
IS 10:00 TO 8:00. I AM LOOKING TO THE AUTHOR. DO YOU WANT TO COMPACT THE TIME PERIOD? ABSOLUTELY.>> SO I WASN'T CLEAR ABOUT YOUR 11:00 EXAMPLE. SO WE ARE GIVING A WINDOW, AND WITHIN THAT WINDOW, IT'S LIKE GOING TO MACY'S. THEY ARE OPEN THESE HOURS AND YOU CAN'T GO THERE AT MIDNIGHT. SO THE HOURS ARE BETWEEN 10:00 AND 8:00, YOU CAN
USE FIVE OF THOSE HOURS. >> THE REASON I BROUGHT UP 11:00 , IT HAD BEEN MENTIONED UP HERE , CHANGING IT FROM
12:00 TO 8:00. >> OH, SOMEONE JUST SAID --
>> YOU ARE RIGHT, I MENTIONED THAT.
>> IS 10:00 TO 8:00 THE TIME PERIOD?
>> SO THE ONLY THING I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT, 10:00 TO 8:00, HIS PICKLE BALL, BASKETBALL, SWIMMING. YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT JUST SWIMMING. AND 10:00 ON A SATURDAY -- I DON'T KNOW. IT WHAT IT BOTHER ME, I GUESS, IF IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT I
WOULD -- WHAT? >> ARE YOU SAYING LATER IN THE
DAY? >> NO, I AM THINK 10:00 TO 8:00. WE HASHED IT OVER. IF THERE'S A SOLID REASON TO
CHANGE IT, I'M OPEN TO THAT. >> YOU DON'T WANT IT TOO EARLY IN THE MORNING OR TOO LATE IN THE EVENING.
>> THE ONLY GET FIVE HOURS. THAT'S A PIECE WE NEED TO ADD IN HERE. WITHIN THAT WINDOW, IT'S A MAX OF FIVE HOURS.
>> WE AGREED ON THAT. AND THAT ONE TIME A MONTH, 10 PEOPLE.
>> I THINK I GOT IT . I DO HAVE ONE SUGGESTION. I WOULD SUGGEST NO MORE THAN 10 INDIVIDUALS, BUT ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAS TO BE AN ADULT OR A LEGAL GUARDIAN.
>> THAT IS A GREAT ONE. AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT THE
HOMEOWNER, RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> IT IS 10+ THE HOMEOWNER. >> THAT'S GREAT. AND YOU GOT A QUESTION HERE -- YOU COULD JUST SAY ONE OF THE 10 MUST BE -- THE PARTY OF 10, OF WHICH MUST BE AN ADULT WITH NO CRIMINAL
RECORD. >> AND ADULTS BEING 21, 25? I
AM SERIOUS. >> ADULTS 18 -- THAT'S LEGAL
AGE. >> YOU KNOW, I THINK 18 IS TOO
>> NO ALCOHOL. >> HOW DO YOU SUGGEST THAT WE
PHRASE THIS? >> SO I WOULD SUGGEST GROUP SIZE SHALL NOT EXCEED 10 INDIVIDUALS, AND ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS MUST BE AN ADULT OF AT LEAST 21.
PLUS, THE HOMEOWNER IS THERE, HOPEFULLY.
>> THERE REQUIRED TO BE THERE. WHICH I THINK IS A GREAT THING.
>> I AM REALLY NOT BEING FACETIOUS ABOUT THE CRIMINAL
RECORD HEART. >> THEN YOU GOT TO DO A
BACKGROUND CHECK ON THEM. >> IF I AM GOING TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW THAT A BACKGROUND CHECK IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED. HOWEVER, THAT IS INCORPORATED. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THIS SECTION. BUT WHEN I AM APPLYING TO AN EXCLUSION TO THIS PROHIBITION BY VIRTUE OF ASKING FOR A PERMIT, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE FORM OR SOMETHING SAYS THAT BACKGROUND CHECKS WILL BE CONDUCTED, OR HOWEVER YOU NORMALLY DO THINGS.
>> BUT THE PERSON DOESN'T FILL OUT, DO THEY, EACH TIME? IF COULD YOU DO IT ON SATURDAY, MAY 11TH, THAT'S GOING TO BE 10 PEOPLE. ONCE YOU HAVE THE PERMIT, THE CITY DOESN'T KNOW
-- >> HOW DO YOU HANDLE MOST OTHER RENTALS WITH REGARD TO THAT PIECE OF IT? DO YOU TYPICALLY DON'T CHECK, OR IS IT PART OF THE NORMAL APPLICATION PROCESS?
HOW DOES THAT WORK? >> IT IS NOT TYPICALLY PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS. TO CONTINUE ON THE CONVERSATION THAT STARTED THIS, THIS APPROVAL IS FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD. BUT IN ORDER TO DO SO, THEY ARE AGREEING TO THESE LIMITATIONS. THEY ARE NOT COMING TO US FOR , YOU KNOW, EVENT THAT THEY ARE HAVING IN MAY OR JUNE OR JULY. THIS IS A
[01:00:06]
BLANKET APPROVAL FOR THEM TO OPERATE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY APPLICATIONS OR ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE HAD IN OUR OFFICE THAT HAVE RUN BOTH BACKGROUND CHECKS.>> I WOULD IMAGINE THE INSURANCE PROCESS IS VERY
STRINGENT ON THAT. >> I'M COMING AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF YOUTH -- YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAMS. IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR A PERMIT TO DO SOMETHING REGARDING YOUTH SPORTS, THAT'S ONE. IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR PERMITS TO DO OTHER THINGS, CAMPING PROGRAMS OR WHATEVER, IT IS IN THERE. I AM TRYING TO BE JUST THINKING AHEAD OF IF THE CONCERN IS WE DON'T WANT A LOT OF BAD THINGS HAPPENING, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT ISSUE ADDRESSED SOMEHOW? AND IF NOT, OKAY. THAT'S WHY I
BROUGHT IT UP. >> WHO IS THE CHAIR? MAY I SPEAK? SO DEBBIE, I ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, AND WE HAD SIMILAR CONVERSATIONS. AND I'M JUST GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU HOW WE GOT TO THIS. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF IS THAT WE ARE BEING REASONABLE, AND THAT WE ARE CREATING A SET OF GUIDELINES THAT STILL UNDERSTAND THESE ARE HOMEOWNERS, PROPERTY OWNERS WITH RIGHTS THAT HAVE A RIGHT TO MANAGE THEIR OWN PERSONAL BUSINESS DEALINGS IF THEY CHOOSE TO GET INTO THIS GIG ECONOMY. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS -- AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I EVEN WANT TO TRY AND CLAIM THAT I AM PROTECTING SOME CHILD FROM SOMEONE BAD. I THINK WE HAVE TO RELY ON THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE GOOD CITIZENSHIP OF THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY. SO WHAT I FEAR IS, IF WE GET INTO TOO MUCH STUFF HERE, WE ARE WORRIED ALREADY ABOUT BEING CHALLENGED LEGALLY, AND I THINK THAT IS KIND OF, IN MY OPINION, GETTING OUT OF OUR LANE OF WHAT WE CAN DO AS -- I APPRECIATE IT, AND I WILL JUST ADMIT, WE HAD VERY SIMILAR CONVERSATIONS AND WE KIND OF CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THAT IS NOT A PLACE WE REALLY SHOULD GO, IF THAT IS HELPFUL.
>> OKAY. SO ONCE A MONTH, FIVE HOURS MAXIMUM PER EVENT, 10 PEOPLE MAXIMUM WITH A MINIMUM OF A 21-YEAR-OLD ADULT. WE HAVE TO FILL IN THE BLANKS ON NUMBER FIVE IN THAT SECTION. THREE.
OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY MORE IN THIS SECTION?
>> THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. YOU WANT
FEEDBACK ON THAT? >> YEAH. IT WAS JUST A QUESTION THAT WE HAD. POOLS UNDER TODAY'S UDO REQUIRE A 10 FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK FOR THE POOL AND DECK EQUIPMENT. AND SO THAT IS GENERALLY WHAT THEY WOULD BE EXPECTED TO BE.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE SIDE AND REAR YARD. IF THERE WAS A DESIRE TO ONLY ALLOW THESE ON POOLS THAT ARE 20 FEET AWAY, OR 30 FEET AWAY FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE SOMETHING ADDED TO THIS. AND IT WOULD, IN EFFECT, DISQUALIFY CERTAIN PROPERTIES.
>> GOING TO THE POINT THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS ENFORCEABLE AND WE ARE NOT CHALLENGED, IS IT DISCRIMINATORY TO SAY EVERYBODY HAS TO HAVE 25 FOOT SETBACKS SO THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T HAVE POOLS WITH 25 AUTOMATICALLY DON'T QUALIFY? I DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT JEOPARDIZES THE WHOLE ORDINANCE.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT WAS A QUESTION RAISED IN THE DESTRUCTION AND POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY LIMITING SOME OF THESE. IT COULD BE AN ACREAGE REQUIREMENT. IT CAN BE ANYTHING. THAT WAS JUST A QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED.
>> RATHER THAN SETBACK, IS IT REQUIRING SOME SORT OF BUFFER BETWEEN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, WHETHER IT'S A FENCE OR -- JUST THROWING OUT OTHER IDEAS. I SEE WITH THE GOAL IS. YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE THE NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORS. I JUST WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
[01:05:01]
>> THIS IS JUST MY THOUGHT. MY THOUGHT IS I GO BACK TO WHAT JEFF IS SAYING, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AS WELL WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OPENING OURSELVES UP TO, I THINK, FOLLOWING THE UDO AND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE IN THE UDO. I WOULD RATHER THIS STICK AND NOT HAVE SOMETHING.
>> IN MY OPINION, TRENT FOLLOWING THE UDO IS --
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. WE HAVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE UDO. BUT DO WE WANT ANY OTHER BARRIERS REQUIRING A FENCE OR ANYTHING?
>> IF YOU ARE ADDRESSING POOLS, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS FENCING, COVERS. THERE'S THINGS ALREADY IN PLACE. IT CAN BE HARD ON A HOMEOWNER TO ADD MORE SETBACKS TO SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. THAT WOULD BE PRETTY TOUGH. YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD ALREADY BE IN COMPLIANCE.
>> I AM JUST THINKING OF THINGS WERE YOU GOT FLYING OBJECT. THE POOL IS ONE THING, BUT IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING PICKLE BALL , BASEBALL, SOFTBALL, WHATEVER -- ARE YOU
CONCERNED ABOUT -- >> WHAT WOULD BE THE CORRECT
SETBACK FOR THAT? >> I AM MORE CONCERNED TO CHRISTINE'S POINT ABOUT FENCING. AT WHAT POINT HAS FENCING BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THINGS OTHER THAN SWIMMING POOLS? SWIMMING POOLS REQUIRE FENCING ANYWAY.
>> I SHOULD CLARIFY THAT POOLS DON'T REQUIRE FENCES. THEY REQUIRE SAFETY MEASURES. IT COULD BE A FENCE, BUT IT COULD BE A HARD -- HARD SURFACE AUTOMATIC POOL COVER AS WELL.
>> FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, IF WE PUT IN A SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND WE FOLLOW THE UDO AS THE SAFEST WAY TO GO FROM A DRAFTING STANDPOINT, BUT IF WE WERE TO ADD ANYTHING, IS THAT
-- >> IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS -- >> IN EFFECT, IT WOULD SAY SOME POOLS WOULD QUALIFY AND SOME WOULD NOT. IS THAT FINE? YOU
KNOW. >> THE COUNSEL IS CORRECT THAT WE CAN OPPOSE A SETBACK IF WE NEED TO. I MEAN, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS, I THINK I WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THE POOL UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE. THE FREQUENCIES OF THE USE , I MEAN, IT PROBABLY DOESN'T MATTER. FOR ONLY 10 PEOPLE -- IF IT WAS 30 PEOPLE TWICE A WEEK, AND YOU KNOW, IT WAS 10 FEET FOR MY PROPERTY LINE, I WOULD PROBABLY BE FREAKING OUT. BUT WE DIALED IT IN AND OFF WHERE I DON'T KNOW IF A SETBACK MATTERS. AND IF THE IDEA OF BEING REASONABLE -- WE ARE GOOD EITHER WAY.
>> THANK YOU, MICHAEL. >> CAN WE AGREE THAT WE ARE NOT DOING SETBACKS RIGHT NOW? EVERYBODY? OKAY.
>> ARE WE ON -- SO WE ARE AT THE SETBACKS. I GUESS I AM KIND OF GOING TO JUMP AROUND JUST A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE A KIND OF GOES BACK TO THE OPERATING HOURS AND ENFORCEMENT. AND MAYBE, MIKE, YOU CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR ANYONE CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR ME. SO WILL THIS CITATION BE JUST WITH A COMPLAINT FROM A NEIGHBOR? OR WILL THERE BE POLICE INVOLVED? I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE PARAMETERS WOULD BE AS FAR AS -- SO HE CALLS AND COMPLAINS AND TATTLE TALES , WHAT WILL HAPPEN? IS IT GOING TO BE A CITATION? POLICEMAN ARRIVES?
>> IF WE ARE ADDING THE TERM NOTICE OF VIOLATION, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING -- ALLIE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THE CITY ISSUES WITHOUT GOING TO CHECK SOMETHING OUT OR VERIFY THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED. ON ONE HAND, IF YOU ARE ASKING IT, SOMEONE JUST COMPLAINS TO GET A STRIKE ON THE BOOKS, YOU KNOW, WE -- WE VERIFY AND DO OUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE WHEN WE ARE EXPECTING AND TAKING THOSE COMPLAINTS. OFTEN TIMES, IT'S GOING TO BE A COMPLAINT. AFTER HOURS, IT'S GOING TO COME INTO THE POLICE MOST LIKELY.
POTENTIALLY DURING THE DAY, IT MIGHT COME INTO OUR OWN CODE
[01:10:01]
ENFORCEMENT. >> SO TO YOUR POINT, THE LIMITED NUMBER OF DAYS WITH THE BANDWIDTH WE HAVE, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT , AND WE DON'T WANT OUR POLICE OFFICERS HAVING TO GO BREAK UP ROWDY PARTIES AFTER HOURS, I THINK YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ON THAT. AND THANK YOU . THANK YOU, I AGREE.
>> OKAY. WE ARE MOVING THROUGH. WE ARE AT THE POINT NOW UNTIL WE JUMP TO SECTION 6. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> TO CLARIFY, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT POOLS, BUT THERE IS THE SECTION B ABOUT BACKYARDS AND OTHER FACILITIES. IS IT YOUR WISH TO NEARER THE LIMITATIONS ON THE POOLS AND BACKYARDS , FIVE HOURS EACH, 10 PEOPLE? OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
>> I THINK WE'VE HIT EVERYTHING.
>> I HAVE ONE LAST RECOMMENDATION, IF THAT IS --
>> SURE. >> IN THE -- I BELIEVE THE FIFTH WHEREAS, IN THE VERY LAST PAGE, IT SAYS TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE EFFECTS. I RECOMMEND DELETING THE WORD POTENTIAL, BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THERE ARE NEGATIVE EFFECT.
>> WHERE ARE YOU? >> THE VERY FIRST PAGE, UNDERNEATH SYNOPSYS, IS A BUNCH OF SENTENCES THAT ARE WITH
ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT PROCESS, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S WORK TO DO. DO YOU THINK -- IF WE REWRITE IT, CAN WE SEND IT BACK BEFORE WE MEET , SO WE CAN SPEED IT UP? IF THE REVISIONS CAN BE DONE BY OUR NEXT COMMISSION, INSTEAD OF WAITING A WHOLE MONTH TACKED ON IT?
>> I THINK WE COULD DO THAT. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
>> I AM CHECKING THE DEADLINE, THE PACKET DEADLINE. I THINK THAT PACKET DEADLINE WOULD BE TOMORROW.
>> WE'VE GOT TIME. >> YEAH, PLENTY OF TIME. IF -- DO YOU THINK -- THE DEPARTMENT REPORTS WOULD GO OUT ON THE 16TH , NEXT THURSDAY. ALLIE, DO YOU THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE
COULD GET OUT? >> BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK INTO INSURANCE AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. IF YOU GUYS -- WOULD EVERYBODY AGREE, IF YOU CAN GET IT OUT, WE CAN DO IT IN FULL COMMITTEE?
>> OR IF MORE TIME IS NEEDED, IT COULD COME TO FULL COMMITTEE AND WE COULD SEND IT BACK TO COMMITTEE AND GIVE COMMITTEE THE AUTHORITY FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
>> AND WE HAVE FINAL APPROVAL. SO THIS DOESN'T COME TO FULL COMMITTEE, IT WILL COME RIGHT BACK HERE.
>> SO NOW I AM ASKING YOUR QUESTION, LOOKING AT THE AUTHOR . IS THAT A TIMEFRAME THAT WORKS FOR YOU?
>> WE ARE DOING IT AS FAST AS WE CAN. WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE IT TONIGHT, BECAUSE IN THE BEGINNING -- I'M NOT SURE YOU WERE EVEN HERE. WE DISCUSSED A FEW THINGS THAT LEGAL NEEDS TO LOOK INTO. LEGAL AND THE DEPARTMENT IS INDICATING THEY COULD HAVE IT BACK POSSIBLY FOR FULL PLANNING IN TWO WEEKS. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SAYING. IF THEY CAN'T, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO COMMITTEE. BUT THAT IS PRETTY MUCH AS FAST AS WE CAN DO IT.
>> YEAH. >> IT IS UP TO THE DEPARTMENT.
>> YEAH, WELL, WE WILL ALL TAKE TWO, IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING.
>> I CAN MAKE A MOTION THEN? WHAT TO MAKE A MOTION TO SEND IT BACK TO THE PLAN COMMISSION WITH ALL THE ADJUSTMENTS WE MADE THIS EVENING AND WE WILL SEND IT BACK WITH A FAVORABLE
[01:15:05]
>> OKAY. I HAD TO THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. WE CAN SEND IT BACK WITH FAVORABLE, BUT -- YEAH . YES. ALL IN FAVOR SAY YES. ANY OPPOSED. OKAY. THAT MOVES FORWARD. NICE JOB.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.