May 21, 2024 Carmel Plan Commission

[00:00:15]

GOOD EVENING. I WILL CALL TO ORDER THE MAY 21, 2024 MEETING OF THE CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION AND ASK THOSE WHO ARE ABLE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> THANK YOU. MR. SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

[C. Roll Call]

>> JOHN COLEMAN, JEFF HILL, PRESIDENT, CHRISTINE'S A COLA PRESENT. BREAD GREYBULL PRESENT. JOSH KIRSCH HERE

[D. Declaration of Quorum]

[E. Approval of Minutes]

>> WE HAVE A QUORUM AND I UNDERSTAND CHAKA WILL JOIN US MOMENTARILY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE APRIL MEETING.

>> MOVED, >> SECONDED.

>> THE MINUTES ARE CIRCULATED AS MODIFIED BE APPROVED. ALL IN FAVOR. I WILL ABSTAIN BECAUSE I WAS NOT PRESENT THE MINUTES ARE

[G. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns]

>> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> WE WANT TO REPORT THE OUTCOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT OUR COMMITTEE WHICH IS NOW A COMMITTEE OF THE ENTIRE BODY. MINUS THE PRESIDENT. SO WE HAD AN AMENDMENT THAT CAME TO THE COMMITTEE VITALIZED PHYSICAL THERAPY WAS APPROVED AND THEN THE OTHER ITEM WAS NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL STANDARDS THAT WAS SENT BACK TO THE MEETING WITH THE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION SO WE WILL HEAR THAT TONIGHT AS HER SECOND ITEM OF OLD BUSINESS AND THEN TO ANNOUNCE FOR THE PUBLIC ITEM NUMBER TWO THE COURTYARD BY THE

[H. Public Hearings]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU THAT LEAVES ONE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA THIS EVENING. THE RULES FOR PUBLIC HEARING ALLOW FOR A 15 MINUTE PRESENTATION FROM EACH PETITIONER FOLLOWED BY A 20 MINUTE TIME OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS BOTH IN FAVOR AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION.

THERE IS FIVE MINUTES TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS IF COMMISSIONER SO CHOOSES AND AT THE COMPLETION OF THE DEPARTMENT REPORT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. SO WITHOUT OUR FIRST AND ONLY PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT IS 2023 ¿ 77 INAUDIBLE ] CHERRY CREATE FARMS MINOR. PLAT APPROVAL TO SPLIT ONE 2.7 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE SITE IS AT 13777 HAZEL NOTE PARKWAY THE ZONING IS S1 RESIDENTIAL. MIKE KENNY IS THE OWNER. MR. KENNY, ARE YOU PRESENT OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. COULD YOU STEP TO THE MICROPHONE AND DESCRIBE

YOUR PETITION FOR US? >>

>> CHECK, CAN YOU HEAR ME IF I STAND UP HERE. OKAY, GOOD DEAL.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. THIS IS PRETTY EXCITING FOR ME.

MY WIFE IS HERE AND MY DAD IS HERE AS WELL. I GREW UP HERE IN HAMPTON COUNTY AND THE PROPERTY NOT TO GIVE TOO MUCH BACKGROUND BUT THE PROPERTY WE PURCHASED FOUR YEARS AGO I PROBABLY DROVE BY 10,000 TIMES AS A KID AND DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS THERE BECAUSE OF THE TREES THAT WERE PROTECT THING OR OBSCURING THE HOUSE. I WORK IN A NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SO I HAD PLANNED TO BUILD OVER IN WESTFIELD AND A LONG STORY SHORT, THINGS DON'T WORK OUT AND I THOUGHT WHAT AM I GOING TO DO AND I HAD A GUY COME TO MY MODEL HOME AND HE SAID I'M INTERESTED IN BUILDING A HOUSE, I'VE GOT A PROBLEM I'VE HAD THIS PROPERTY ON THE MARKET FOR 40 DAYS AND I DON'T HAVE

[00:05:01]

ANYONE INTERESTED IN IT. >> I SAID CAN I COME SEE IT AFTER WORK. AND SO I ENDED UP BUYING THIS PROPERTY FROM GEORGE JACKSON WHO I WOULD'VE LIKED TO INVITE TO BE HERE.

GEORGE, AT THE TIME, HIM AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN THERE FOR 52 YEARS AND IT WAS A THIRD GENERATION FAMILY IT'S IN 1895 FARM HOUSE ONE OF THE FIRST HOUSES BUILT IN CARMEL SO IT'S BEEN A PRIVILEGE TO UPDATE THE PROPERTY AND HEAR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH IT. IT'S PRETTY EXCITING AND THAT AS A BACKDROP, WHAT WE ARE DOING HAVE A BASEMENT AND WITH THREE KIDS THAT'S NOT WORKING WELL.

WE ARE GOING TO BUILD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THE FARMHOUSE AS WELL AND SO AS WE GOT INTO THIS IT'S BEEN ABOUT 10 MONTHS AGO THAT THE PROCESS STARTED. I HAD EMAILED BACK AND FORTH WITH VARIOUS PEOPLE WITH THE CITY AND HAD INQUIRED ABOUT HAZEL PARKWAY AND HOW THIS WOULD WORK AND TRYING TO PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER. AT THE TIME I HAD MY SURVEY DONE FOR THE PROPERTY AND THERE WAS NO CENTER AROUND SO WE HAD ANOTHER SURVEY DONE AND I GOT AN EMAIL SAYING BASED ON WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO SHE SAID THAT , MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE EMAIL WAS AT A 10 FOOT PATH WOULD NOT FIT WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WAS THERE. SO THAT IS THE REASON THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY A PATH ON THE DRAWINGS THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED AND THEN AS I'VE GOTTEN FURTHER IN CLOSER TO THIS MEETING, I THINK THE CONCERN WAS WITHIN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY PROXIMITY FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ALSO IF WE WERE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY WE WOULD BE CLEARING OUT 400 FEET OF TREES ON HAZEL PARKWAY IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY AND ANY FUTURE NEEDS, THE SCHOOL I UNDERSTAND IS DOING SOME RENOVATIONS SOON, AND SO SOUTH OR NORTH OF CHERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL A PATH CANNOT FIT THEIR PEER THERE IS AN EXISTING BIKE THEY BIKEWAY ON THAT PATH THAT RUNS ACROSS THE ROAD IN ITS ENTIRETY BUT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET CHERRY TREE AND THEN IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, THAT'S ABOUT 800 FEET IN FRONT OF CHERRY TREE AND 400 FEET IN FRONT OF MINE AND IF YOU KEEP GOING SOUTH ON HAZEL ROAD FOR ANOTHER 500 PLUS FEET THERE IS ANOTHER SIDEWALK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED INTO A PATH. SO POTENTIALLY YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE IF WE DO REMOVE ALL THOSE TREES THAT WILL DEAD END ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHERRY TREE ELEMENTARY AND ALSO I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD GO IN HER YOU WOULD GET INTO A ISSUES BECAUSE IT WOULD CLEAR THE PINES IN FRONT OF THOSE HOMES ON THE REAR WOULD BE EXPOSED TO HAZEL PARKWAY ON THE PATH. I KNOW THEY SAID OF VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY REQUEST. THAT WAS THE REASON I WANTED TO COME AND SEE HOW THIS WORKS AND WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE. THAT'S ALL

I'VE GOT. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR IN OPPOSITION OF THE PETITION. IS THERE ANYONE

WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> SEEING NONE WE WILL PROCEED

TO THE DEPARTMENT REPORT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD I WOULD -- IS BASICALLY SPLITTING THE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AND WE CONSIDER THAT A MINOR SUBDIVISION. IT'S NOT CREATING NEW STREETS WITHIN IT AND THEY WILL KEEP THE EXISTING HOME AND BUILT A NEW HOME ON THE PARCEL TO THE NORTH. THE PLAN CLASSIFIES THIS AREA IS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS MAINLY SUBURBAN SINGLE FAMILY HOME SO WE THINK THE PROPOSED PLOT MEETS THE GOALS OF THIS AREA AND IS CONSIDERED A BEST FIT TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PACKET THAT WAS SUBMITTED THE PROJECT HAS NOT REQUESTED VARIANCE IS A THIS TIME AND THEY ARE PRESERVING 30 FEET OF TREES ALONG THE NORTH, WEST AND SOUTHERN PERIMETER AND THEY HAVE ALSO SHARED SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES THEY WILL IMPLEMENT

[00:10:02]

WE THINK THIS CAN GO TO COMMITTEE FOR THE DISCUSSION AND GIVE THE PETITIONER TIME TO THINK OF HIS OPTIONS AND DECIDE HOW HE WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THAT CLOSES A PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:14 P.M.

>> MORE OF A TECHNICAL QUESTION. DO YOU THINK THE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED ARE SUCH THE COMMITTEE COULD HAVE FINAL APPROVAL? PAYMENT GOOD QUESTION, I THINK THEY COULD HAVE FINAL APPROVAL. WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT THAT ONE ITEM SO THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED. IF THE MOTION WERE MADE TO SEND IT TO COMMITTEE WITH COMMITTEE HAVING AUTHORITY FOR FINAL APPROVER THE COMMITTEE COULD DECIDE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION IF

THEY SO CHOOSE. >> I WILL THEN MOVE --

>> COUNCILMAN MANNAR. >> LEX, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME ON THE PROJECT SIDE. I WAS LOOKING AT IT, HOW DID THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE, HOW LONG THAT PATH WOULD BE AND HOW MANY TREES WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN FOR THAT 10 FOOT PATH. MY CONCERN AND I WILL SAY THE ONLY CONCERN I REALLY HAVE, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T MEAN TO PREEMPT CONCERN IS IF YOU LOOK TO THE NORTH PAST THE SCHOOL, THE PATH THAT IS THERE NOW , THAT IS WHAT MAYBE FIVE FEET WITH THE BERM THERE AND THEN YOU HAVE FENCES THAT ARE PART OF THE A , HOW DOES THE DEPARTMENT MITIGATE THAT WHEN ACTIVITY HAS TO OCCUR? I GUESS IT'S ONE OF MY BIG QUESTIONS BECAUSE NORTH AND SOUTH OF IT AS MR. KENNY SAID, YOU RAN INTO A ISSUES .

IS THAT AN EASEMENT OR HOW DOES THAT WORK IF YOU DON'T MIND MY

ASKING? >> SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER PATH ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES OR THIS ONE?

>> THE PROPERTY ITSELF, HOW LONG DOES THAT PATH NEED TO BE? THEN WILL THERE EVER BE, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY I JUST DROVE IT TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, IT'S OBVIOUSLY IN MY DISTRICT SO I WANTED TO SEE ON BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE A 10 FOOT PATH ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD AND A HODGEPODGE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROOF ROWS OF HAZEL DELL. NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS PROPERTY YOU HAVE AVON GLENN AND THEN YOU HAVE, WHAT IS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CLINICS WHATEVER THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NORTH OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. HOW DO YOU MITIGATE, SO THE SIZE OF THE LENGTH AND HOW DO YOU

MITIGATE THE A ISSUES? >> FOR THIS PROJECT HE IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS PROPERTY, THE FRONTAGE LINE PROPERTY WHICH IS ABOUT 393 FEET. THEN EVERY PROJECT THAT COMES IN, THEY ARE ASKING TO DO SOMETHING MORE WITH THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT THAT'S WHEN YOU WOULD EXTEND THE PATH OF THE CITY MIGHT DO A PROJECT ALONG THE STREET AND PUT IN THE PATH.

EVERY CASE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THE SITE IS LIKE WE MIGHT DESIGN IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

[00:15:01]

VARIANCE . >> TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE COAST OF THAT, IS IT $22,000 IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO BUILD?

>> THEY HAVE TO HAVE AN ENGINEER DO AN ESTIMATE AND THEY GIVE IT TO OUR DEPARTMENT AND WE CONFIRM.

>> PER LINEAR FOOT OR SOMETHING?

>> THANK YOU. CARRYING OVER ON COUNCILMAN R'S COMMENT AND QUESTIONS AS I LOOK AT THIS ON THE ENGINEER AND GIS AND I'M WEARING TWO HATS IN THIS REALM BECAUSE I HAVE SOME INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT GOES ON TO THE NORTH OF THEIR. IT APPEARS TO ME THERE IS A LOT OF ROOM IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A MULTI-YOUTH USE PATH UNTIL YOU -- I THINK OF IT AS ] ANYWAY THE MAYOR'S FORMER NEIGHBORHOOD THERE THAT IS CONVOLUTED BECAUSE THE PATH DIVES IN AND OUT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. TO THE SOUTH THERE IS ADEQUATE ROOM FOR A MULTIUSE PATH AS I SEE IT WITHOUT GOING OUT THERE AND DOING SOME LAND SURVEY. MY QUESTION REALLY IS TO STAFF IS THIS PROPERTY IS ODD IN THAT IT STEPS OUT INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. I SEE THIS ON PROPERTIES ON GIS FROM TIME TO TIME. THEY HAVE A COMMITMENT TO DEDICATE A LINE BACK INTO CONFORM.

>> I THINK BASED ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS THERE, THEY MOSTLY MEET THE MINIMUM RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS.

THERE IS A LITTLE SECTION I THINK ON THE SOUTH SIDE THEY WILL DEDICATE A LITTLE BIT BUT AS IT IS TODAY IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY. MAYBE THAT IS WHAT WAS IN THE EMAIL HE WAS REFERRING TO. HE COULD DEDICATE MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR PROVIDE AN EASEMENT IF THEY NEED TO SHIFTED A LITTLE. WE HAVE SEEN THAT.

>> LET ME CONTINUE THIS LINE OF THOUGHT FOR A SECOND TO THE STAFF AND THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS. WE ARE PROBABLY NOT BUILDING A PATH ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET HERE IN THE LONG RUN. NOT THAT STAFF SHOULD NOT BE ADVOCATING FOR, HUNDRED PERCENT THEY SHOULD. I CAN SEE WHERE THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT. I WOULD BE A BIGGER FAN IF THE PETITIONER WOULD BE WILLING TO DEDICATE THE NECESSITY RIGHT-OF-WAY , NOT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE LINE IF YOU WILL, AND THEN MADE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE THOROUGH FARE FUND AND THAT TO ME SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. NOT ALL OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT THE NECESSITATED RIGHT-OF-WAY BASED ON WHAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WOULD SEE, WE COULD MAKE A PATH WORKETH A DEDICATED THIS AND THEN A DEDICATION TO THE FUND AND THAT WAY FOR THE TIME BEING THEY COULD PRESERVE THEIR TREES AND THEIR PEACE AND PRIVACY AND THERE'S A BETTER CHANCE OF THE SIDEWALK THERE IS WHAT WILL LIVE THERE FOREVER.

AT LEAST IT SHOWS GOOD FAITH OF THE PETITIONER AND GIVE THE CITY THE BREATHING ROOM TO MAKE IT RIGHT IN THE LONG RUN SHOULD THE CITY SAY WE DO WANT TO TIE THE PATH THEN AND WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT. THAT TO ME SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE APPROACH.

THEN FURTHERMORE MY ADVICE WOULD BE AS WE VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT IS GET THEM DOWN THE ROAD. I AM ONLY ONE

COMMISSIONER. >> I AM DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. NORMALLY I LET STAFF HANDLE ALL OF THIS BUT JUST A LITTLE FOOD FOR THOUGHT ALONG JOSHES LINES. IF WE DO GET THE SCHOOL WHO IS IN NEGOTIATION NOW WITH STAFF TO INSTALL THE PATH AND IF WE GET THIS SEGMENT PAST THE LITTLE BIT REMAINING ALLOWS US TO HAVE TWO ALLOW KIDS TO GET CHERRY TRAIL ELEMENTARY SAFELY ON A FACILITY THEY CAN HANDLE SOME TRAFFIC.

ANOTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT, WE HAVE OCCASIONALLY HEARD AND JUST DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT GRAY ROAD AND HUNDRED AND 46

[00:20:04]

WE CAN. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, I DON'T THINK YOU AND ARE SPEAKING TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. I THINK WE ARE SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE, WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT APPROACHES BUT WE ARE SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT TO THE GROUP IF YOU DON'T

PICK UP ON WHAT WE ARE SAYING. >> I AM TRACKING A TANK. IS THERE ROOM BECAUSE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WERE BILL IF THEY WOULD LOSE THOSE TREES, THEY ARE RIGHT THERE ON HAZEL DELL AND THAT'S A PRETTY BUSY ROAD. THAT WOULD REALLY PROBABLY AFFECT A LOT OF THE PROPERTY. BUT IS THERE ROOM TO PUT IN THIS 10 FOOTPATH WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE TREE LINE. IF IT WAS, AS JOSH SAID, MOVING CLOSER TO THE CURB. IS THERE

ROOM TO DO IT QUITE >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL

THE DETAILS. >> REALLY FROM A TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STANDPOINT , NOT TECHNICAL. WE LET THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SAY THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO MINIMUM AND THEY MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE THOROUGH FARE FUND AND THAT WAY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY HAS BREATHING ROOM TO BUILD A PATH BECAUSE TO THE DIRECTORS POINT, HAVING A PATH TO THE SOUTH IS EASIER, THE PATH TO THE NORTH MAY RESOLVE ITSELF WITH THE COUNTY PROJECT PUTTING IN A SEPARATED GRADE WHICH WILL SERIOUSLY IMPACT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S HOW THE PATH WILL HAPPEN, I KNOW JEFF'S WHEELS ARE TURNING BECAUSE HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THIS AND I'M SURE HE HAS OPINIONS THAT DRIVE WITH WHAT WE ARE SAYING. I'M TRYING TO FIND A COMPROMISE HERE . I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY GUARANTEE THAT THE TREES WILL STAY SAFE IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE BUT MAYBE THERE IS A WAY I'M -- WE ARE ABLE TO FINESSE

IT. >> MY TWO CENTS IS THE LAST THING WE WANT TO THINK IS CHILDREN WALKING TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THINKING THEY HAVE TO GO NORTH ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAZEL DELL AS FAR AS I CAN AND THEN TRY TO CROSS OVER TO GET TO THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THE TRAIL CONTINUES AND BOUNCE BACK AND FORTH. REGARDLESS, I THINK THE SOLUTION REQUIRES A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITE AND OF THE CONTINUITY OF THE TRAIL, THE MULTIUSE PATH ON THE WEST SIDE, WHICH IS INFORMATION THAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE COMMITTEE. SO I WILL ASK DUBBIE TO PRESENTER MOTION AGAIN.

>> I THINK I WILL LEAVE AT THE SAME AS I ORIGINALLY ASKED. I MOVED TO SEND THE STOCK AT ITEM TWO COMMITTEE WITH THE COMMITTEE'S AUTHORITY FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

>> THE SECOND. >> THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THIS WILL GO TO THE STUDY COMMITTEE AND THEY WILL HAVE THE FINAL AUTHORITY TO

ADJUDICATE THE PETITION. >> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THE PETITIONER TO BRING FOR THAT COMMITTEE

MEETING? >> YES. AT THIS POINT WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE OUT ON FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES AND DIRECTOR HALL'S POINT . I THINK THE POTENTIAL IS THERE FOR MULTIPATH IMPROVEMENT SOMEDAY. PERHAPS UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CONTRIBUTION WOULD BE SO WE CAN WAY THAT PERHAPS IT IS LEAVING WELL ENOUGH ALONE FOR TODAY AND LET THE TREES STAY UNTIL THERE IS A NEED FOR SOMEONE TO TATES THE NEED TO INSTALL THAT PELL SOMEDAY AND THEN THE PUNS -- FUNDS ARE THERE.

>> IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY AND WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THEY WANT A MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE THE PATH OF? PAYMENT THAT WOULD BE THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SEE.

>> THE CONTRIBUTION IN RELATION TO CURRENT COST VERSUS WHAT A

[00:25:06]

IN THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF. >> SO THIS WILL GO TO HER

[I. Old Business]

QUESTION. GREAT, THANK YOU. >> LET ME GO TO OLD BUSINESS.

THE FIRST ITEM AMMAN JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE DAY CARE. THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO ADD THE PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CUNNINGHAM PARCEL INTO THE PUD. THE NEW DAY CARE USE AND LAND SWAP IS PROPOSED WHICH ALLOWS THREE ADDITIONAL TOWNHOMES BEING CONSTRUCTED. IT'S AT FIVE 10 W. 116TH STREET AND IS ZONED AS TO RESIDENCE AND IS WITHIN THE OVERLAY. ASHLEY OF TAFT LAW ON BEHALF OF CONSULTANTS LLC. ASHLEY AND TEAM, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AGAIN FOR SEEING US TONIGHT.

AGAIN, WE ARE BACK HERE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING SOME GREAT CHILDCARE SERVICES TO CARMEL WHICH ARE MUCH-NEEDED.

FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE REALLY WORKED HARD, WE HAVE MR. IN TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS ASKED FOR. WE APPRECIATE YOU HEARING US AGAIN. I'LL LET ASHLEY TAKE IT OVER.

>> GOOD EVENING AS PREVIOUSLY STATED I AM ASHLEY AND I REPRESENT INAUDIBLE ] AND I'M EXCITED FOR THE WORK TONIGHT. GOOD VIBES COMING OUR WAY TONIGHT. T OF AN UPDATE. I KNOW THAT WE MET FOUR MONTHS AGO AND I BELIEVE EVERYONE WAS HERE THAT NIGHT BUT IN CASE EVERYONE WAS AND I WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW IN RELATION TO WHERE WE WHERE THAN. THE REQUEST IS THE SAME. WE ARE ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD THAT IS KNOWN AS JACKSON'S GREAT VILLAGE. IT WAS APPROVED IN 2020 AS WE KNOW BY THE COMMON COUNCIL. THIS IS THE DIAGRAM OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW. WHAT WAS APPROVED WAS AN AREA LETTER A 19 DETACHED RESIDENTIAL, NOTHING WITH OUR REQUEST IS CHANGING ANYTHING ABOUT AREA LETTER A. THE APPROVED AREA B RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES, IF ANYONE HERE HAS DRIVEN BY THIS AREA AT ALL YOU CAN SEE THOSE TOWNHOMES ARE CURRENTLY VERTICAL, AT LEAST TWO OR THREE OF THEM ARE -- HAVE THE SIDING ON IT AT THIS POINT, THEY ARE VERTICAL. THEY ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND WHAT IS ROUGHED IN THEIR IS ROUGHED IN AREAS FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT THAT IS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AS PART OF THIS PUD ON THAT AREA CLOSE TO THE ROUNDABOUT ON 1/16 STREET. TO HIGHLIGHT, THERE IS ALREADY A COMMERCIAL USE THAT WAS APPROVED IN THIS PUD AND AS PART OF WHERE WE STARTED WITH THIS PLAN, I DON'T WANT TO BE A BROKEN RECORD. YOU HAVE ALL HEARD WHAT WE HAD TO SAY AT MANY TIMES AT THIS POINT . WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS TAKE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WHICH WAS LEFT OUT OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND MAKE IT FALL INTO THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE PUD. WE BELIEVE THE CITY OF CARMEL

[00:30:05]

INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR A DAY CARE WILL NOT ALLOW A DAYCARE TO BE BUILT IN THE SIGN THAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE PUD, IT WON'T HAPPEN. DURING THE APPROVAL THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED A DAYCARE COULD BE AND POTENTIALLY SHOULD BE INCORPORATED AS NEIGHBORHOOD USE. SO WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2020 AS SHOWN HERE ON YOUR RIGHT. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS SHOWN ON YOUR LEFT. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE APPROVED 20/20 PLAN, THESE TOWNHOMES RIGHT NOW IF OUR APPROVAL DOES NOT GO THROUGH AN OF COUNSEL DOES NOT APPROVE IT, THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO GET BUILT. MY CURSOR IS MISSING, THERE IT IS. THERE WILL BE FOUR ROWS OF TOWNHOMES AND FIVE TOWNHOMES HERE AND THAT AREA CAN BE SEEN TO CORRESPOND WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS ANOTHER BUILDING. YES, THAT IS ANOTHER BUILDING THAT WOULD HAVE A USE WHICH WOULD BE CHANGED AND THAT'S PART OF OUR REQUEST TO STANDALONE COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR THE APPROVED USE OF A DAY CARE. AS YOU CAN SEE THE SIZE OF THAT BUILDING IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS ALREADY THERE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE CHANGE OF USE, THE PARKING LOT IS GOING IN WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS APPROVED OR NOT. THERE IS AS A POSITIVE ASPECT, ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD BE ADDED AS A PART OF OUR REQUEST TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE USES THAT ARE COMING IN BUT THESE COMMERCIALS ANYWAY AS WELL AS OVERFLOW FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THESE INDIVIDUALS, IF YOU'VE EVER LIVED IN A TOWNHOME, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH FACE TO HAVE PEOPLE COME OVER. THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE THESE LOTS FOR THAT PURPOSE. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN YOURSELF AND YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER OR YOUR FAMILY COMING OVER THEY COULD USE THOSE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE PLANNED AND PROVIDED DURING THE EVENING HOURS. THIS DAYCARE USES WHAT IT IS, IT IS TAKE CARE USE. IT IS A USE THAT WILL BE INTENDED USE DURING THE DAY HOURS. THIS DAYCARE IS NOT OR IT WILL NOT BE OPERATING IN THE EVENING HOURS AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THESE PARKING SPACES CAN BE FLEXED FOR WHATEVER COMMERCIAL WILL BE EVENTUALLY IN THOSE BUILDINGS. IN ADDITION TO OUR REQUEST THAT CUNNINGHAM PARCEL WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL TOWNHOMES TO REFLECT THESE BEING MOVED ONTO HERE . THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL LANDMASS THAT SUPPORTS ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL ON THAT ACREAGE. LIKE I SAID, IF THIS DOES NOT GO THROUGH, COMMERCIAL IS COMING IN ANYWAY AND THERE WILL BE PARKING IN TOWNHOMES BUT THIS PIECE IS GOING TO BE LEFT IN AN ISLAND WITH EXISTING HOMES ON THEIR. IT CAN BE DEVELOPED AS IT IS.

THERE IS NO ENSURE AMOUNT OF CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE ALREADY EXISTING PUD WHICH IS COMING AND IS QUITE ON ITS WAY TO BEING HERE AND WE HAVE COMMITTED TO HAVE THE CONNECTIVITY FOR THE DRIVES, THE PATHS AND REALLY WOULD BE

[00:35:01]

ON OUR BEHALF. SO THANK YOU. - >> THANK YOU. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? STEVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE OR DOES STEVE HAVE A PRESENTATION TO MAKE

ALSO? >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL. HE IS THE EXPERT.

>> I CAN PULL IT UP FOR YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

>> YES, PLEASE DO. >> CAN YOU DO A FULL SCREEN? DO YOU HAVE THE TRAFFIC STUDY IN YOUR PACKETS IF YOU NEED TO REFER? I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE AV HAS EVER WORKED FOR ME IN 15 YEARS

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE CLICK >> JUST THE SIGHT LINE, THAT'S

GOOD. >> I'M STEVE WITH A F ENGINEERING 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING. I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF INDIANA AND OTHER STATES. WE HAVE DONE A COUPLE TRAFFIC STUDIES ON THIS AND I'LL GO OVER HOW WE DO THOSE REAL QUICK AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IN THESE THINGS. WE DID DO NEW TRAFFIC COUNTS UP THERE AT HAMLET AND SPRINGVILLE ANNA HUNDRED AND 16TH AND THE REASON WE DO THOSE COUNTS AS WE TAKE THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE SITE AND WE ADDED ON TO THOSE NUMBERS AND THAT KIND OF GIVES US A FUTURE PICTURE OF WHAT WE CAN EXPECT IN THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT WILL ENTER AND EXIT THE SITE. AFTER THAT WE REFER TO A CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND WHAT THAT TELLS US AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD ME TALK ABOUT THIS SEVERAL TIMES AS IT GIVES US SERVICE FREE FLOW AND GRID LOT AND I'LL GO THROUGH THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AS I SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO WHAT WE DID IS TOOK A LOOK AT THE HAMLET INTERSECTION, LOOK AT THE PROPOSED INTERSECTION BETWEEN 116TH STREET AND LOOKED AT THE ROUNDABOUT AND THE ACCESS OVER ANNA HUNDRED AND 16TH STREET. WE ADDED ALL THAT TRAFFIC TOGETHER AND DID A CAPACITY ANALYSIS SO WE COULD TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW THE TRAFFIC WILL WORK AND HOW IT COMES IN AND GOES OUT OF THE SITE. THE MIDDLE ACCESS ON SPRING ROAD IS A RIGHT AND WRITE OUT, THERE IS NO LEFT TURNING ACCESS OUT OF THAT AND THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT ANF MADE TO JEREMY UNDER THE FIRST TRAFFIC STUDY. I WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO CHECK THAT WITH THIS TRAFFIC STUDY. THERE WAS A MINOR CHANGE IN DENSITY. THE ORIGINAL LOOKED AT 20,000 SQUARE FOOT OF RETAIL AND THIS LOOKED AT 17,000. ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE FOUND THOUGH WAS IF YOU LOOK AT HAMLET DRIVE THE LEVEL

[00:40:01]

IT WORKS WELL AND WILL IN THE FUTURE. THEN YOU COME DOWN TO THE ACCESS IN BETWEEN AND THAT DRIVEWAY WILL WORK WELL ALSO .

THAT INCLUDES A LEFT TURN TURNING INTO THE SITE AND THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE USE OF THAT ACCESS TO ACCESS THE ENTIRE RESIDENTIAL OR RETAIL .

SPRING MILL ROAD, AGAIN IT IS DESIGNED VERY WELL FOR THE FUTURE. LEVELS OF SERVICE ANB AGAIN. I'M TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE YOU CAN GET A FEEL FOR HOW THE TRAFFIC WILL WORK IN THE FUTURE AND THAT IS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING TRAFFIC OUT THERE.

THE ONE THING WE NOTICED WAS WE GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE ASSIGNMENT DISTRIBUTION AND THAT REFERS TO HOW THE TRAFFIC COMES AND GOES INTO THE SITE AND IN THE SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION ASKED THE ACCESS ON HUNDRED AND 16TH STREET WE REPORTED THAT IT HAS A LOW LEVEL OF SERVICE, F DURING THE PEAK TIME. THE REASON I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT IS IT DOESN'T MEAN THE INTERSECTION FAILS HER WAY OF GRIDLOCK. WHAT THAT TELLS US IF YOU DIG INTO THE REPORT YOU CAN SEE THE LEFT TURN OUT ONLY GOES TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE F AND WHERE MODELS WORK AS IT IS PREDICTING HOW MANY CARS CAN TURN LEFT OUT OF THERE IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WITH THE TRAFFIC ON, HOW MANY GAPS ON HUNDRED AND 16TH STREET. WHILE THAT IS THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE F IT TELLS US THERE ARE NOT MANY GAPS ON 116 STREET. WE WANTED TO SHOW THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO BECAUSE IF THAT BECOMES A CONSTRAINT PEOPLE THEN CAN MOVE OVER TO THE SPRING MILL ROAD ACCESS MAKE A RIGHT OUT OF THAT AND GET TO THE ROUNDABOUT AND GO ANY DIRECTION THEY WANT. ALSO IN THAT LEFT TURN COMING OUT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEVEL OF SERVICE F THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT WAIT THERE ON AVERAGE 1.2 CARS . PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO WAIT THERE VERY LONG BUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY WAIT THERE MIGHT EXCEED 45 SECONDS SO THAT'S WHAT THAT TELLS US. WHILE THE REPORT EXPLAINS THOSE ARE SERVICE-LEVEL F AND I KNOW WE DON'T LIKE THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE IN CARMEL. I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT IT . IN THAT CASE WE ARE NOT AFRAID F THAT ONE AT ALL. IT WILL WORK FINE.

WITH THAT WE CAN MOVE ON WITH QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY FOR

ME. >> LET'S SAVE THAT FOR THE COMMISSION DISCUSSION IF YOU COULD. THANK YOU STEVE, THANK YOU ASHLEY AND THANK YOU DELL. I BELIEVE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY REFERRED TO AS OUR FORMER COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE. IS THERE

A REPORT FROM THAT COMMITTEE? >> I DON'T KNOW I CAN ADD MORE TO WHAT IS BEEN PRESENTED. I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING AT IF THERE

ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. >> IT WAS ONE A LONG TIME AGO ON ONE THING WE ASKED FOR AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT COMMITTEE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. THAT WAS ONE OUTSTANDING ISSUES. WE DISCUSSED THAT AND SENT IT BACK WITH NO RECOMMENDATION AT THE TIME.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK WHAT I WAS STUCK ON HIS I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THE GAME HAS CHANGED A LITTLE BIT SINCE WE FIRST SAW IT AND THERE IS BEEN IN INFORMATION THAT IS COME TO LIFE IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

>> IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE HAD A COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON THIS, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO SO I HAD TO THINK BACK FOR A MINUTE AND REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS WE DISCUSSED. IT WAS AT THE

TIME NO RECOMMENDATION. >> SO LONG AGO THE COMMITTEE NO LONGER EXISTS

DEPARTMENT REPORT. >> THANK YOU I'M RACHEL KEYSERLING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. AFTER THE TRAFFIC REPORT CAME OUT I HAD TO CALL STEVE AND ASK HIM TO WALK ME THROUGH IT MAKE SURE I COULD UNDERSTAND IT ALL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS IMPACTFUL TO ME ABOUT THE STUDY WAS THE NUMBER OF PASS BY INTERNAL TRIPS THAT WERE ALREADY SHOWN AT EACH INTERSECTION AND HE CAN GET MORE DETAILED ABOUT THAT BUT THOSE NUMBERS WERE SHOWN AS A NEGATIVE NUMBER. ALL THREE ACCESS DRIVES INTO JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE SHOWED NEGATIVE NUMBERS WHICH MEANS A REDUCTION OF TRIPS ON THE MAIN ROAD WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THAT PEOPLE ARE ALREADY OUT AND ABOUT GOING TO WHERE THEY ARE GOING, TO WORK,

[00:45:02]

SWITCHING OFF OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY, WE HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS LAND SWAP. THIS IS A LAND SWAP, ONE PARCEL THAT IS BY ITSELF AND ESSENTIALLY ROUGHLY THE SAME SIZE PARCEL THAT IS ALREADY WITHIN THE JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE PUD. I WANT TO REITERATE THOSE REASONS FOR YOU TONIGHT. ASHLEY TOUCHED ON SOME OF THESE ALSO APPEAR REZONING THIS LAND WOULD GIVE IT THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION AS EVERYTHING AROUND IT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HUNDRED AND 16 STREET WITHIN JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE. THIS MEANS ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THE PARCEL WOULD HAVE THIS SAME ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS AS THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS THERE. THIS GUARANTEE IS SIMILAR QUALITY MATERIALS, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO REQUIRES A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND APPROVAL SO THAT MEANS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF THE PLAN COMMISSION . OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD DO AS IT WOULD ALLOW US TO CLOSE OFF THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY, CUT FROM THE CUNNINGHAM PROPERTY ON 216TH STREET AND THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR CONTROLLED ACCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE TWO ALREADY APPROVED IN TILT ACCESS ROADS IN AND THROUGH JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE. THAT'S KEATON DRIVE FROM HUNDRED AND 16 VILLAGE GREEN DRIVE FROM SPRING MILL. REMOVING THE DRIVEWAY CUT WOULD ALSO IMPROVE OR WOULD REDUCE POTENTIAL BLIND SPOTS BLIND STOPS OR SLOWDOWNS ON HUNDRED AND 16TH STREET AS CARS GO WEST OR THE ROUNDABOUT AT SPRING MILL. THIS WILL ALSO HELP AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS MANY TIMES, INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF OVERFLOW PARKING FOR RESIDENTS AND COMMERCIAL TENANTS WHICH WOULD IN TURN LIKELY DECREASE AND POSSIBLY PREVENT CARS FROM NEEDING TO PARK ON THE STREETS WITHIN JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE . I BELIEVE THIS DAYCARE ON THIS LOCATION WOULD BE A POSITIVE AMENITY FOR THE ENTIRE CARMEL COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE FUTURE JACKSON'S GRANT VILLAGE RESIDENTS, THIS IS FOR THE ENTIRE CARMEL COMMUNITY PARK I HAVE SPOKEN TO THIS BEFORE AS WELL. THE SHORTAGE OF AVAILABLE CHILDCARE AND OUR COMMUNITY IS NOT A PERCEIVED PROBLEM, WE HAVE HAD -- HAMILTON COUNTY HAD A ACTION PLAN MEETING IN APRIL AND THEIR PURPOSE IS TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF ASSESSABLE INVENTORY OF CHILD CARE FOR OUR LOCAL MARKET. WE HAVE AN APPROVED USE HERE THAT IS NOT AT A SIZE THAT WORKS FOR THE INDUSTRY. THROUGH THIS LAND SWAP AND ALL OF THIS PROPOSAL WE ARE BRINGING IT TO -- TOGETHER AND TRYING TO PRESENT THE BEST OUTCOME FOR THE ENTIRE AREA BOTH PARTICULARLY, LAND PLANNING WISE AND COMMUNITY NEEDS WISE. WE RECOMMEND YOU SEND THIS TO THE COUNCIL TONIGHT WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, RACHEL. DISCUSSION FROM MEMBERS OF THE

PLAN COMMISSION. >> CAN WE ALSO, ONE OF THE BRIGHTEST ENGINEERS THE CITY HAS IS RIGHT THERE ON THE SCREEN. I WOULD LOVE TO GET HIS INPUT TO KIND OF CARRY ON WHERE

STAFF LEFT OFF IF WE COULD. >> I THINK THE PETITION AMOUNTS FOR THE CASE FOR WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR, I THINK HAVING

[00:50:01]

>> THAT'S A PETITIONER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. MR. CASHMAN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING TIME TO SHOW UP. MY QUESTION IS JUST THAT. NOT WHAT BRAD SAID THAT RATHER CAN YOU TELL US YOUR ASSESSMENT? I HEARD FROM STAFF AND MR. TRIM BACK BUT IF YOU COULD TELL ME YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL FOR MAKING A DECISION.

>> A THING FROM MY STANDPOINT THE USE IS PERFECT USE HERE. I THINK WHEN THE PARCEL ALONE WAS A STANDALONE PARCEL I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT HOW IT WOULD INTERACT WITH THE HUNDRED AND 16TH STREET SO ONCE IT GOT BROUGHT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT I WAS 100 PERCENT IN FAVOR OF THAT. IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID BEFORE BUT WE ALREADY ADDRESSED A LOT OF THE ACCESS LOCATIONS WHETHER IT BE SPRING MILLER HUNDRED AND 16TH STREET SO I THINK ALL THOSE THINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE AND I THINK

THE TRAFFIC WILL WORK GREAT. >> THANK YOU MR. CASHMAN.

>> YOU ARE WELCOME. >> WE WILL START ON MY RIGHT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION THAT MR. HILL BROUGHT UP THAT MIGHT BE AN OPTICAL ILLUSION. CAN YOU BRING THE MAP BACK UP?

>> CAN WE GO BACK? HOW CAN WE GO BACK TO ASHLEY'S SLIDES?

>> THERE IT IS. >> LOOKING AT THE TWO, THE PROPOSED AND APPROVED PLAN IN 2020, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A REDUCTION ACREAGE OF PRESERVED TREES. IS THAT NOT THE CASE?

>> NO, GO FOR IT. >> THAT THE EXACT QUESTION I HAD FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN IN THE SAME ENGINEERED DID OUR PLAN AND THEY SAID NO, IT'S BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO USE COLORING. IS THE SAME ENGINEER THAT DID THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT DID THE COLOR GRAPH YOU SEE HERE. WITH REGARD TO THE COMMITMENT TO KEEP THE TREE AREA NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT AT ALL AND WE HAVE NO INTENT TO CHANGE OUT AT ALL. THE ONLY THING THAT IS PROBABLY DIFFERENT MAYBE YOU WILL, THIS MAY BE WHAT YOU ARE TOUCHING ON IS IF YOU SEE THE CUTTING PARCEL OUTLINE IN 2020 THERE IS A GREEN BORDER AROUND IT. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT WAS, OKAY, THAT BUFFER WILL GO AWAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT REQUIRED IF THAT PARCEL EVER COMES INTO THE PUD , THAT REQUIREMENT WENT AWAY. THE IDEA WAS JUST TO SCREEN THE RESIDENTIAL HOME WHILE IT WAS A RESIDENTIAL HOME.

>> BEFORE WE LEAVE I WANT TO POINT OUT REAL QUICK. MY QUESTION WHAT I SEE ON THE RIGHT IS PRE-PRESERVATION 1.5 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS I THINK AND THEN OVER HERE IT SAYS A HALF-ACRE SO YOU ARE SAYING REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER IS, YOU ARE SAYING THE PRESERVATION AREA IS CONSISTENT

FROM 2022 TODAY. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SAW

THAT, THAT WOULD BE A TYPO. >> IT'S MORE OF AN EFFECT, PUT IT IN FRONT OF FOLKS THAT CAN SIT WITH A LITTLE THICKER LINE.

PROCEED. >> I THINK THE PLAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN OR I HOPE THE INTENT WAS TO BRING THE CUNNINGHAM PARCEL ENDED THIS BEAUTY I THINK THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN WHEN JACKSON GRANT VILLAGE WAS APPROVED, THAT PUD AND ITS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SO IN MY OPINION ANYTHING THAT GOES ON THAT PARCEL NEEDS TO BE RESIDENTIAL. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT WHEN A COMMERCIAL USES BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THAT CUNNINGHAM PARCEL TO MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE OTHER COMMERCIAL. I UNDERSTAND HOW EVERYONE GOT THEIR. HAVING BEEN ON THE PLAN COMMISSION WHEN THE JACKSON GRANT VILLAGE PD WAS APPROVED I REMEMBER HOW CONTROVERSIAL IT WAS TO TAKE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE LINE IN SPRING MELON THERE WERE A LOT OF PROMISES MADE AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL TO KEEP IT VERY SMALL AND JUST TO WHAT YOU SEE APPROVED TODAY. THE PART I'M STRUGGLING ON IS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE WHEN REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN MADE OF THE SIZE IT WOULD BE. I THINK THAT JACKSON GRANT VILLAGE WAS THE HARDEST MODE I

[00:55:05]

THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD IS RIGHT NOW.

>> YOU HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE NOT ON THE COMMISSION WHEN THIS OVERALL PROJECT WAS FIRST ADOPTED. SO I GREATLY APPRECIATE CHRISTINE'S BACKGROUND BECAUSE I AM SURE WE ALL HAVE, I HAVE READ ALL OF THE LETTERS THE RECURRING THEME I GOT OUT OF THAT WHICH IS GOING TO LEAD TO A QUESTION BUT THE RECURRING THEME I GOT OUT OF THAT IS WE WERE PROMISED , THAT'S CONTRARY TO AND FOR THE FOUR OF US THAT WERE NOT HERE I WOULD REALLY LIKE MORE SPECIFICITY ABOUT WHAT WAS PROMISED, WHAT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS PROMISED, WHAT IS ALLOWED AND WHAT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT IS ALLOWED. I'M CONFUSED HAVING READ ALL THE LETTERS AND ALL OF THE REPORTS AND I'M NOT AN ENGINEER SO I PUT THAT OUT THERE AS WELL. THEN MY SECOND QUESTION ONE SET HISTORY IS EMBELLISHED, CHRISTINE YOU PROBABLY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED MORE BUT IF THERE IS MORE TO ADD TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HOW JACKSON GRANT CAME ABOUT AND THIS AREA. WHAT IS A RED SQUARE, I THINK I

ASKED THIS ONCE BEFORE. >> IT WOULD BE THE CLUBHOUSE.

>> OKAY. AND TWO NEIGHBORS WHO ARE HERE I'VE ACTUALLY DRIVEN THAT SLOWLY A COUPLE OF TIMES SO IF YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT THE ONE CASE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER OF THE COMMENTS WERE ABOUT TRAPPING INCREASING ON AUTO AND I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT HOW THAT WOULD INCREASE HAVING DRIVEN IT MYSELF SO THAT COMMENT, I WAS NOT CASING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, I WAS TRYING TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE. MY SECOND QUESTION IS THE THREE YELLOW BUILDINGS THAT FACE SPRING MILL, COMMERCIAL, CORRECT? UNSPECIFIED COMMERCIAL? ARE THERE PLANS IN PLACE FOR THAT

AT THIS TIME? >> THERE ARE NO PLANS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. THESE THREE OUTLINES OF THE BUILDINGS ARE THE OUTLINES OF APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT COULD GO THERE.

>> BECAUSE SOME OF THE COMMENTS WERE WHY COULD NOT THE DAY CARE CENTER GO INTO WHAT IS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL WITH I'M GOING TO SAY IT IN ENGLISH, CUT OUT ON ANNA CUT OUT OUT ON SPRING MELT TO RELIEVE THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS MEANDERING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IF THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO AT LEAST ONE OR MAYBE FOUR OF US WHO WERE NOT AROUND WHEN THIS WAS FIRST

DECIDED. >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. THE DAY CARE IS AN APPROVED USE IN THE EXISTING PUD AS IT STANDS TODAY. SO THAT USES APPROVED. IT'S THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL USER SIZE IS LIMITED TO 5000 SQUARE FEET AND THAT TYPE OF SIZE DOES NOT EQUATE TO ANY TYPE OF DAYCARE USER THAT OPERATE AND THAT IS THE BIGGEST PART IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE ADJACENT DAYCARE USERS, THE ONE ON PENN IN THE 31,000 SQUARE FOOT FURTHER DOWN ON HUNDRED AND 16 STREET, THAT'S PART OF THAT. BUT WE WERE NOT THE ORIGINAL -- I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD .

>> I'M SORRY, I'M REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS AND BE OPEN-MINDED ABOUT THIS. THE THREE YELLOW BUILDINGS DO NOT EXIST AND THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR THEM TO EXIST. I ALSO WANT TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE DAYCARE FACILITIES ARE NEEDED IN CARMEL. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT IT HAS A DAYCARE. IT'S ALL

[01:00:02]

MILL ? >> THEY CANNOT BECAUSE THE ACTUAL BUILDING SIZE LIMITATION THE 7500 SQUARE FOOT FOR ONE SINGLE BUILDING SO WE ARE EXTENDING THAT TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET SO THE USE OF 7500 FEET IS NOT. DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR

QUESTION? >> WHAT DELL IS SAYING IS CORRECT. 14 YEARS AGO WHAT THIS BODY AND PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE WAS A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE COMMERCIAL. COMMERCIAL WAS GOING TO CROSS SPRING MILL ROAD TO THE WEST, IT HAD TO BE LIMITED IN SIZE AND BE AIMED IN FUNCTIONALITY AND SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY WHICH DID HATED THE RENDERINGS THAT WE SAW A MOMENT AGO, SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES 56 ILLINOIS STRAIGHTER 46 AND 10, IT LIMITED THE SIZE OF THE TENANT SPACES WITHIN THOSE BUILDINGS AND THEY DELIBERATELY KEEP EACH BUILDING AND EACH USE WITHIN THOSE BUILDINGS VERY VERY SMALL TO KEEP THAT SKILL. ALSO MINIMIZE THE COMMERCIAL LAWLESSNESS OF THE CORONER.

>> THE OTHER QUESTION IS ABOUT ACCESS TO SPRING MILL, DIRECTOR CASHMAN IS STILL HERE SO HE CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS BUT I DON'T THINK HE LOVES PUTTING ACCESS THAT CLOSE, PURELY SPECULATING.

JEREMY, IF YOU WANT TO JUMP IN. >> WE HAVE ACCESS POINTS CLOSE TO ROUNDABOUTS ALL OVER SO I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. WHEN YOU LUMP A LOT OF DIFFERENT ACCESS POINTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ONE ANOTHER, THAT'S WHAT THAT ACCESS POINT TO THE NORTH IS. IT'S A RIGHT IN AND WRITE OUT SO THAT SHOULD BE FINE FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING TONIGHT. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. SORRY, JEREMY, WERE YOU SAYING SOMETHING?

>> NO. >> OKAY, SORRY. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP IS THE CLARITY OF SQUARE FOOTAGE LIKE YOU AND I HAD A CONVERSATION, DELL, AND I TOLD YOU MY CONCERNS AND THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED. I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE, I DON'T BELIEVE THE DAYCARE IS A BIG ISSUE IN MY OPINION. I BELIEVE AND THIS IS JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I THINK THE ISSUE IS THERE WERE PROMISES MADE BY COMMERCIAL COUNSEL AND COUNSEL ULTIMATELY ABOUT WHAT COMMITMENTS WERE GIVEN TO THE NEIGHBORS AND SO MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS AS WE SPOKE ABOUT, THE SIZE THAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR. YOU ARE ASKING FOR IT ADDITIONAL 2500 SQUARE FEET ON

TOP OF IT. >> THE LIMITATION IS 7500 FEET AND WE ARE ASKING FOR A 10,000 FOOT FACILITY.

>> ON TOP OF THAT IT IS ADDING AN ADDITIONAL HOWEVER MANY SQUARE FEET TO THE ORIGINAL PUD, CORRECT?

>> RIGHT. THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT WAS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF USES. YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE A STEAKHOUSE COMING IN SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE MADE THE SPECIFIC LIMITATION THAT THIS BUILDING WILL ONLY BE USED FOR DAYCARE AND THAT IS ALL.

>> OKAY. BUT TO MY INITIAL QUESTION, LET ME GO BACK AND PHRASE IT DIFFERENTLY. THE PUD IS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE LIMITATION ON COMMERCIAL, I READ THE FILE AND READ THE LETTERS FROM BAK IN THE DAY AND BOY I TELL YOU THAT WAS PRETTY CONTENTIOUS. THOSE PROMISES THAT WERE MADE WERE VERY SPECIFIC, CORRECT XMI RON? OKAY. I GUESS ASKING, I'LL GET TO MY POINT, YOU ARE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RETAIL SPACE ON TOP OF WHAT REPUBLIC IS BUILDING IN THAT CORRIDOR

THERE, CORRECT? >> IT'S NOT JUST RETAIL, IT

WOULD BE DAYCARE ONLY. >> IN THE RETAIL CORE DOOR HERE ON SPRING MILL, THAT'S ALL COMMERCIAL, IT'S NOT THERE YET BUT IT WILL BE A COMMERCIAL NODE AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR MORE THAN WHAT WAS ALREADY PROMISED ON TOP OF WHAT IS

ALREADY THERE? CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. I THINK

[01:05:03]

SIZE LIMITATION. >> THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION I BELIEVE AS TO WHAT WAS BEING ASKED SO MAYBE I DID NOT MAKE

IT VERY CLEAR. >> THERE IS A DEFINITE EXTRA

RIGHT HERE . >> ASHLEY IF YOU DON'T MIND MY ASKING, WHAT WOULD THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OVERAGE BE IF THIS WERE TO PASS ON TOP OF WHAT REPUBLIC IS GOING TO

BUILD? >> 7500 SQUARE FEET. THEY WERE APPROVED FOR 25,000 -- 20,000 I'M SORRY.

>> THE PLANS OF NOT BEEN FILED BY REPUBLIC AT AS RACHEL WOULD HAVE MOVED. THEY WERE APPROVED FOR 20,000 FEET AND WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS PLAN THEY HAVE DESIGNED IS 17,500 SQUARE FEET.

>> DID THAT CLARIFIED QUITE >> YES, I WANTED IT TO BE VERY CLEAR WHAT YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY ASKING.

>> PART OF THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO.

>> ALSO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF SO THEY ORIGINAL PUD WAS 7500 SQUARE FEET, AM I CORRECT ON THIS?

>> NO. >> 7500 PER BUILDING. THE THING HERE IS OUR COMPROMISE WITH STAFF WORKING WITH RACHEL WE HAVE DROPPED THE DENSITY OF THE HOMES, IT IS NOW NOT AS DENSE WITH ADDING ALL THIS ADDITIONAL LAND THERE AS WELL SO THAT'S WHERE THE COMPROMISE WE THOUGHT WORKED REALLY WELL IS THAT WE HAVE INCREASED OR DECREASED THE DENSITY AND ADDED SOME

COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR DAYCARE. >> I MAY HAVE FURTHER

QUESTIONS. >> SURE.

>> THE RENDERING ON THE LEFT, IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> MINUS THE YELLOW BUILDING. >> THIS ONE QUIET

>> I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THE SIZE. SO IF THIS WERE ADOPTED THE THREE YELLOW BUILDINGS WOULD NECESSARILY BE SMALLER THAN WHAT THAT DIAGRAM OR THAT RENDERING SHOWS? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND.

>> THEY ARE NOT AS DEEP, THIS IS A DEEPER BUILDING SO FRANKIE TRIED THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR BUT THIS HAS MORE DEPTH.

>> THE BLUE BEING RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> YES, THAT WOULD BE THE PLAN. >> DUBBIE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ENTITLED TO A TOTAL MAXIMUM OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/RESTAURANT WITH THE VERY SPECIFIC AND LIMITED LIST OF USES TO OCCUPY THAT SPACE WITH NO ONE USER TAKING MORE THAN 5000 SQUARE FEET. THAT IS IN THE PUD, THAT'S NOT A COMMITMENT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT'S PART OF THE PUD. THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT CHANGE HERE IS WITH THE ADDITION OF 1.7 ACRES REPRESENTED BY THE CUNNINGHAM PARCEL THAT PROVIDES SPACE FOR THREE ADDITIONAL TOWNHOMES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE EXISTING PUD. THEY WOULD BE ADDING MORE LAND AND ADDING TOWNHOMES AND THAT'S WHY THE DENSITY FOR TOWNHOMES GOES DOWN

IF THIS IS APPROVED. >> SO I WAS HERE FOUR YEARS AGO IN JUNE 2020 WHEN THIS WENT THROUGH. IT WAS VERY VERY DIFFICULT. WE ACTUALLY MOVE THIS FORWARD WITH THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION IN THE END TO THE COUNSEL. BUT WE MAY -- COMMITMENTS WERE MADE ON THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL. THIS WAS VERY UPSETTING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND I FEEL AND I'M JUST BEING HONEST THAT INCREASING TE COMMERCIAL VIA THE DAYCARE WE ARE NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COMMITMENTS WE MADE FOUR YEARS AGO. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. THE

[01:10:07]

THAT COULD BE ALL DAY PARKING. THAT'S AN UNKNOWN AND THAT'S NOT BUILT AND I JUST DON'T SUPPORT THIS, I'M SORRY.

>> THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. WHERE THE COMMITMENTS THAT WERE MADE, DID THEY CONTEMPLATE THE CUNNINGHAM PROPERTY AND WHAT POTENTIAL USE

THAT COULD'VE BEEN UNDER? >> NO. IT WAS NEVER INCLUDED.

IN FACT THE WAY JACKSON GRANT WENT DOWN EVEN JACKSON VENT VILLAGE CAME IN LATER. ORIGINALLY THEY CARVED THAT OUT OF IT COME BACK FOR COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAME IN AND THEN A COUPLE YEARS LATER THEY CAME BACK WITH THE JACKSON GRANT VILLAGE WHICH IS THE COMMERCIAL AND SOME MORE TOWNHOMES. SO THAT IS HOW THAT HAPPENED. CUNNINGHAM WAS A HOME THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS NOT

PART OF ANY JACKSON GRANT. >> THE HOMEOWNER AT THE TIME DID NOT WANT TO SELL AND THINGS HAVE CHANGED. WHEN THE JACKSON GRANT PUD CAME THROUGH THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS IF THAT PARCEL EVER CAME UP FOR SALE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE HOPE THAT IT WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO THE PUD. SOME OF THAT, THAT WAS

A HOPE BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. >> MR. PRESIDENT .

>> I HAVE A VERY UNFAVORABLE OPINION ABOUT COMMERCIAL WEST OF SPRING MILL. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PERPLEXED BY THIS COMMERCIAL WEST OF SPRING MILL. THAT IS NOT WRITTEN ANYWHERE, IT'S JUST OUT THERE. SO YOU CAN HAVE COMMERCIAL WEST OF SPRING MILL UNTIL YOU GET TO THE VILLAGE OF WEST CLAY THEN IT'S OKAY AGAIN. WHAT WE TRIED TO DO WHEN WE WORK THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL SPACE WHAT WETRIED TO DO AS BRAD SAID IS CREATE A LOW INTENSITY FIVE AND THE OTHER THING WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM JACKSON'S GRANT IS A DID NOT WANT THESE PEOPLE IS THE WAY IT WAS PUT TO BE PART OF THEIR HLA AND THERE WAS A BIG QUESTION ABOUT THE AMENITIES THAT WERE GOING TO BE HERE AND PROVIDED FOR. TO SUE'S POINT AND TO DUBBIE'S QUESTION AND COUNCILWOMAN MANNAR STATEMENTS, THERE WERE COMMITMENTS MADE. THEN THE GAME CHANGED WHEN THE CUNNINGHAM PARCEL COMES INTO PLAY AND THE STAFF TRIED TO DO THE RIGHT THING SAYING INSTEAD OF THE CUNNINGHAM PARCEL BECOMING SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE HARD TO MANAGE, LET'S DO THE RIGHT THING AND MOVE IT TO THE EAST AND THAT LOWER DENSITY SHARED PARKING AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WE NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY INCLUDING DAYCARE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT DAYCARE IS A CONTINUATION OF THE BOGEYMAN OF COMMERCIAL WEST OF SPRING MILL AND A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HAVE CONVINCED THEMSELVES THAT THIS IS A REAL BAD THING BUT I HAVE SAID BEFORE, I THINK THIS COMMISSION IS TASKED WITH MAKING TOUGH DECISIONS OF THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COMMUNITY. EVERYONE IS HEARD MY COMMENT BEFORE, SOMETIMES PEOPLE CONVINCE THEMSELVES OF ONE THING AND THEY ARE NOT SURE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT. WHEN I SEE EVERYTHING AND I TRY TO BE OBJECTIVE ABOUT IT, I REALLY THINK THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS PUT IS PRESENTING ITSELF AND I GUESS WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH ONE OF THOSE THINGS AND VOTE.

>> I COMPLETELY AGREE AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AND MOVED TO COUNSEL.

>> I SECOND YOUR MOTION. >> THANK YOU BOTH. IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION THEN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE DOCKET TO SEND TO THE COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION PUD AMEND JACOSON'S GRANT VILLAGE

[01:15:06]

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> MY SENSE IS WE ARE VERY DIVIDED ON THIS. SO I AM ASKING WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SEND IT TO COUNSEL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION?

>> THAT'S NOT HOW THE MOTION WAS PRESENTED.

>> I KNOW. >> WE MAY LEAVE HERE TONIGHT AT THAT POINT BUT THAT'S NOT HOW THE MOTION WAS PRESENTED IN THIS MOTION DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING TO WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED. WITH THAT, WE WILL DO A SHOW OF HANDS ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY RAISING ONE HAND. I SEE FOUR VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THE MOTION RAISE ONE HAND. THE MOTION FAILS.

>> SO A STATEMENT NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE RECORD BUT FOR EVERYONE, I DON'T KNOW THAT I ENTIRELY OPPOSE THIS. I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT THE PUD AND REVISIT THE CONFIGURATION OF COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW FOR THIS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL TOTAL SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL ALLOWED. THAT'S WHERE I AM COMING FROM AND I'VE HEARD THAT FROM HER READ THAT FROM A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAT IF IT STAYED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOOTAGE, THE OPPOSITION WOULD GO AWAY AND I GO BACK TO WIPE THE PEOPLE ON THE ROAD IF WE CAN REVISE THE PUD TO DO THAT SO WITH THAT I MOVED TO SEND IT TO COUNSEL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A SECOND? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR LOOKING FOR A SECOND IS TO FORWARD TO COUNSEL WITH

NO RECOMMENDATION. >> IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? AGAIN A SHOW OF HANDS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE

MOTION PLAX >> JUST TO CLARIFY, WE JUST HAD A BOAT, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED FOUR YEARS AGO.

>> WITH AN UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOUR YEARS AGO.

>> IT WAS OVER AND DONE AND VOTED FOR. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SOMEBODY CAN COME IN NOW AND CHANGE IT TO KNOW, WE

HAVE HAD A VOTE. >> I THOUGHT WE CHANGE THIS IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE DID WE SAY WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE

ANOTHER VOTER IT JUST FAILS? >> THAT'S A CORRECT, BECAUSE IT IS A REZONE, IT'S A REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL S1 TO PUD , YOU ACT IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY SO TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE I WOULD RECOMMEND ANOTHER MOTION FOR AN FERBER BOWLER NO ACCOMMODATION SINCE THE ORIGINAL MOTION FAILED. THIS IS

NOT A BINARY DECISION. >> RECOMMEND FOR RECOMMEND

AGAINST, NO RECOMMENDATION. >> EXCEPT FOR WE NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLAN COMMISSION HAVE WE SENT A PROJECT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.

>> ACTUALLY WE HAVE. >> NEVER IN MY TIME ON THE PLAN

COMMISSION. >> IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS ALL COMING TO COUNSEL WITH A BUNCH OF NEW COUNSELORS AND YOU ARE JUST THROWING STUFF OUT US WOULD LIKE TO SAY AS WELL AND I HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH DELL THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERSONALLY IF THERE WAS A WAY WE COULD LOOK AT IT, SPECIFICALLY KEEPING THIS WHERE FOOTAGE IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA, WHAT WE PROMISED. IT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE AND WE KNOW THEY ARE ALLOWED TO REDO ALL OF THESE THINGS BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO TRY AND KEEP IT AT THAT MAXIMUM THAT WAS PRESENTED. JUST LIKE

DUBBIE SAID . >> THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION WHICH

[01:20:01]

>> THANK YOU DELL AND THANK YOU , ASHLEY AND THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THE LAST ORDER OF BUSINESS TONIGHT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL STANDARDS UGO AMENDMENT. THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO AMEND THE UNIFIED ORDINANCE TO DEFINITIONS FOR NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS. FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. ADRIAN.

>> GOOD EVENING I'M ADRIAN KILLING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. THIS ITEM AS YOU RECALL DURING LAST MONTH'S PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO THE COMMITTEE WITH THE COMMITTEE HAVING THE FINAL DECISION. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT COMMITTEE WIDE-RANGING DISCUSSION OVER CLARIFYING A LOT OF THE STANDARDS FOR NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS WHICH, AS A REMINDER, IS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RENT OUT THEIR POOLS OR YARDS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND IN THE SPIRIT OF KEEPING THINGS MOVING, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED A NUMBER OF REVISIONS AND THEN SENT IT BACK TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION BECAUSE THE FULL MEETING WILL TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING. RATHER THAN HOLDING IT OVER IN THE COMMITTEE FOR A MONTH WE ARE BRINGING IT BACK TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION BASED ON THE COMMITTEE'S DISCUSSION. I WON'T GO THROUGH LINE BY LINE. THE REVISIONS THAT WERE PROPOSED AT COMMITTEE HOWEVER, HOWEVER I WILL SUMMARIZE THOSE IN TERMS OF IT WAS MOSTLY ABOUT MAKING THE MOST REASONABLE STANDARDS FOR THESE NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS ALONG WITH SOME OTHER TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. I WILL QUICKLY, WE CAN TAKE QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY. I WILL GO PAGE BY PAGE.

THE FIRST PAGE WAS JUST MARKING ONE OF THE WHERE AS TECHNICAL REVISIONS, THE SECOND PAGE, LET ME ZOOM IN, THAT IS KIND OF SMALL. ON THE SECOND PAGE THERE IS A PROPOSED REVISION TO CLARIFY THE EFFECT ON PUD'S. THE PROPOSAL AS IT IS WRITTEN WOULD BE TO ADD THE PUD ICON SO TO SPEAK ON THE ODU UNDER THE NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT IT ONLY APPLIES IF THE PUD IS SILENT AND GOES ON FURTHER TO STATE THAT THIS WOULD APPLY BASICALLY TO RESIDENTIAL TYPE PUD ZEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE STAFF TO TRANSLATE THE SPECIFIC PARCEL UNDER THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO ADD SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND WHETHER IT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS. WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THIS METHOD OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THIS COULD APPLY MORE BROADLY TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE UGO AND IS IN FACT HOW WE INTERPRET WHETHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY TO PUD OR NOT THAT DETERMINES WHETHER THE PUD IS SILENT. WE QUESTION WHETHER LISTING IS SPECIFICALLY HERE IN THIS SECTION AND IT MIGHT

[01:25:02]

AGAIN, WE CHANGED THE YARD IN THE DEFINITION OF BACKYARD TO YARD. THAT IS A SUMMARY OF ALL OF THE REVISIONS BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THIS DISCUSSION WAS MUCH BROADER RANGING AND A DEEPER CONVERSATION. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS WE ARE PROPOSING THAT THIS GO TO THE COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE

RECOMMENDATION THIS EVENING. >> THANK YOU, ADRIAN. LET'S SEE, THIS WAS IN THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT ACTING ON IT. DOES A COMMITTEE TO HAVE ANYTHING TO SHARE OR REPORT BACK.

[01:30:03]

>> IS THERE A DEPARTMENT REPORTED ALL?

>> ADRIAN SUMMED THAT UP VERY NICELY. I HAVE FOUR POINTS OR QUESTIONS BUT AS FAR AS A COMMITTEE REPORT, WE SENT IT BACK AND ASKED IF THEY COULD GET IT DONE SO WE COULD MOVE FORWARD ON THIS AND VOTE ON IT TONIGHT. IF THERE ARE NOT ANY

OTHER QUESTIONS. >> GREAT, THANK YOU. DISCUSSION

FROM THE COMMISSION. DUBBIE. >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO PAGE 2, SECTION 3 . THAT'S TO ADD WHAT SUSAN SAID, WE DEFERRED TO STAFF AND LEGAL COUNSEL TO COME UP WITH WORDING APPROPRIATE TO THE CONCEPTUAL LANGUAGE AS WE DISCUSSED THIS. SO IS THAT, JUST EXPLAINED THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT NOW, RIGHT?

>> CAN I JUMP IN IF IT'S OKAY. THE LANGUAGE WAS A REQUEST FROM THE COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, MY GENERAL RECOMMENDATION IS TO NOT INCLUDED. ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE WORKS, IT MAY CREATE CONFUSION AND IT'S VERY UNLIKELY BUT NONETHELESS A SMALL POTENTIAL WITH RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE NOWHERE ELSE WOULD SPECIFY THE PUD IS INCLUDED IN THE STANDARDS AND THE REASON FOR IT, I THINK IT WAS JUST DEMONSTRATED WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAW THAT PUD BY ITS VERY NATURE OR AT LEAST IN THEORY USUALLY INCLUDES MULTIPLE USES WITHIN THEM AND IN THE EXTREME THEY CAN BE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES OR RESIDENTIAL USE AND ONE PUD OR HAVE A COMMERCIAL USES AND VERY HEAVY RESIDENTIAL USE LIKE S1 AND S2. THIS ORDINANCE WILL APPLY TO PUD'S UNLESS PUD'S SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THAT. I DO NOT KNOW IF A SINGLE ONE THAT DOES AND THE ONLY PUDS THAT MAY PROHIBIT THEM ARE THE ONES THAT DO NOT ALLOW ANY RENTALS. THERE IS A REVISION THAT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE PUD IS SILENT ON ANY PARTICULAR REGULATION, IT ADDS AS A FILTER OR A GAP. THIS WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE PUD REVISIONS BECAUSE EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL WITHIN A PARTICULAR PUD MAY BE DIFFERENT AND THAT ORDINANCE MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY TO THAT PARCEL. IF WE ARE DEALING WITH HEAVY INDUSTRIAL THIS WILL NOT APPLY, IT WILL NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL. AN EXAMPLE I CAN THINK OF, RESTAURANT WITH THE BAR OR ROOFTOP POOL WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FINE IN A COMMERCIAL TO HAVE IT EVEN IF IT IS APPROVED PUD. THIS ORDINANCE WILL APPLY TO GREAT MAJORITY OF DUTIES UNLESS THOSE PUDS REGULATE THEM OR PROHIBIT RENTALS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND FUTURE PUDS WILL BE ABLE TO REFERENCE THIS LANGUAGE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

>> AND THAT REPRESENTS HOW MUCH OF THE CONVERSATION AND THE COMMITTEE WENT. THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY WITH THAT . I JUST WANTED TO HEAR THE RATIONALE FOR HOW YOU WANTED THE WORDING. THANK

YOU VERY MUCH. >> AGAIN MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO REMOVE IT COMPLETELY WHAT I WROTE BECAUSE THAT ALREADY ÚAPPLIES WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY SAYING IT.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT, WE SHOULD DISCUSS THAT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, YOU WANT TO BE DRAFTING THE SAME WAY THROUGH THE ODL. OUR CONCERN WAS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT MISTAKINGLY THINK THAT BECAUSE IT'S THE PUD THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. WHAT DO YOU THINK, SHANNON? UNTHINKINGLY TAKE IT OUT BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK? I KNOW THIS WAS A BIG

POINT FOR YOU. >> YES, I'M SEEING BOTH SIDES.

[01:35:01]

>> IF I MAY I HAVE ONE SUGGESTION THAT MIGHT BE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE

>> WHAT YOU GUYS THINK OF A FOOTNOTE RATHER THAN A LIST BUT A FOOTNOTE WHICH ACTS AS A CLARIFICATION.

>> THAT WORKS FOR ME. >> I THINK THAT IS EXCELLENT,

THANK YOU. >> GOOD POINT.

>> SERGEY, THE PARCELS LISTED THERE, DOES THAT ENCOMPASS ALL RESIDENTIAL USES DATING BACK TO THE FIRST PUD IN 1999?

>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION KNOW. I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAD OUR FIVE OR S1 OR S2 BACK IN THE DAY. ADRIAN, YOU MIGHT KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE BUT THE INTENT WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR PUD'S THAT WE ARE DRILLING DOWN TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE. WE DON'T CARE

ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PUDS . >> MR. PRESIDENT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS CONCERN NUMBER ONE OF MINE IS THAT THE PREVIOUS DRAFT LEFT ALL OF THE PUDS UNCURED OR UNADDRESSED. THERE IS NO PARTICULAR IN TO THAT FACT AND IT'S THE WAY YOU D.O. IS WRITTEN AND COUNCILMAN MANNAR, GOING THROUGH THAT, IT MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE PROVISIONS THAT WE MAY INCLUDE IN THAT REVISION BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW I DON'T WANT TO INCLUDE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER STANDARD SPECIFIC USE.

>> ULTIMATELY MAY BE OF THE COUNCIL -- AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL OF THE TURNS OUT THIS IS DETERMINED THIS IS LESS OF A LAND-USE ISSUE AND MORE OF A BEHAVIOR ISSUE AND FINDS ITSELF IN CITY CODE INSTEAD OF THE YOU D.O. , IT'S A BEHAVIOR ISSUE.

THAT'S MY OTHER CONCERN IS THERE WAS LANGUAGE IN THE PREVIOUS DRAFT THAT SAID THE RESIDENT OR THE OWNER MUST BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES SO THERE IS SOMEONE TO TALK TO AND NOT ALL PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL, MANY OUR INTERESTS ARE IN CORPORATE NAMES. WHEN THERE IS OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR I THINK WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT IS TO HAVE THE PARTY SHUT DOWN.

THEY DON'T WANT TO OR IT'S NOT SATISFACTORY TO HAVE THAT NOISE CONTINUE FOR FOUR MORE HOURS KNOWING THE OWNER WILL GET A CITATION. THEY WANT THE PARTY SHUT DOWN.

>> IT'S FUNNY YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS TODAY AND I ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL AND THE ONE THING THAT CAME TO MY MIND WAS IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT THERE AND THERE IS A GAS LINE OR THERE IS ONE OF THOSE GIRL TYPE THINGS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THE SHUT OFF VALVES ARE AND THAT PUTS OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE IN HARMS WAY AS WELL. NOT ONLY IS IT A NEIGHBOR ISSUE BUT IT'S ALSO FIRE AND SAFETY AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. SO I KIND OF WANT TO START AT THE BOTTOM OF NUMBER THREE. I LOVE THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION BEING REDUCED. THE MILLION DOLLARS PER OCCURRENCE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE COST PROHIBITIVE ONE WOULD ASSUME IT SOME POINT. I'M NOT AN INSURANCE BROKER SO I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. THEN WE GIVE THEM ONE DAY FOR FIVE HOURS. MY THOUGHT PROCESS ON THIS IS IF YOU GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE BEING A LITTLE PUNITIVE BY SAYING YOU HAVE REGISTERED WITH US, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT AMOUNT, WE WILL NOT EVEN LET YOU HAVE A PARTY UNTIL DARK BECAUSE YOU KNOW IN THE SUMMER THE SUN DOESN'T GO DOWN UNTIL 10 PM. EVEN IF WE BUMP THAT TO NINE IT GETS PEOPLE OUT OF THERE BEFORE 10 PROBABLY. IT SEEMS A LITTLE RESTRICTIVE TO ME PERSONALLY AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL CAN WORK THROUGH IN THEIR PROCESS BUT I FEEL AS IT STANDS IF YOU DO ALL THESE THINGS AND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO DO THAT, MAYBE WE SHOULD ALLOW YOU A COUPLE MORE DAYS A MONTH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> YOU KNOW I THOUGHT IT WAS TWO TIMES.

>> IT'S ONE TIME PER MONTH AND THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDED ON AFTER A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND WE TALKED TO ALL THE RESIDENTS

[01:40:04]

>> WE HAVE. I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU BUT WHAT I DISAGREE WITH IS THE QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE I THINK FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE, EVERYONE SHARES BACKYARDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO I BELIEVE PERSONALLY IT'S THE QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE. TO YOUR POINT, CHRISTINE, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO RUN A BUSINESS IS IT REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE AT YOUR HOME?

>> ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. I THINK THERE ARE BAD ACT THERE IS, RIGHT ? BUT THERE ARE ALSO HOMES IN CARMEL WHERE YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE THE NEXT HOME BECAUSE THEIR LOT IS SO BIG AND ARE WE NECESSARILY RESTRICTING AN ESTATE HOME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO WHERE, I MEAN WE SHOULD BE ABLE IN A FREE MARKET TO USE OUR HOMES THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR. WE HAVE OUR B&B, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE BAD ACTORS ARE WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR GETTING THEM NOT TO BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE SOLELY FOCUSED ON MAYBE ONE ISSUE, THAT WE INADVERTENTLY PUNISH

EVERYONE. YOU NEVER KNOW. >> IF I MAY TALK TO THAT, THE PUNISHMENT PIECE. I THINK WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SITUATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE SOMEBODY BOUGHT A HOUSE STRICTLY FOR SHORT-TERM OR NT, I'M USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. THEY DON'T LIVE THERE, IT'S A CONSTANT BARRAGE OF PEOPLE COMING AND GOING, FIVE OR SEVEN DAYS A WEEK . LIKE I SAID, IT GOES BACK TO A QUALITY-OF-LIFE ISSUE. I KNOW CONSTITUTIONALLY WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT WE WANT BUT WITHIN THAT YOU TAKE THE RULES AGO WITH THE LAND. I THINK WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE BAD ACT THERE'S AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY JUST WANTING TO DO THIS TO THAT POINT THEY WILL JUMP THROUGH THE HOOPS TO DO THAT. THEY WILL DO THAT, IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE AN ENTERPRISE, IT'S MEANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO RENT THEIR HOME OUT OR THEIR YARD OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING, POOL, FIRE PIT, WHATEVER. I JUST KNOW HAVING TO KNOCK ON SOMEONE'S DOOR TO TELL THEM EXCUSE ME, THERE IS SOMEONE NAKED RUNNING DOWN THE STREET , THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO DEAL WITH. LIKE YOU SAID THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE OUT THERE AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY BUT I'M THINKING LONG-TERM AND THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. AGAIN, IT'S JUST MY OPINION. I'M THINKING ABOUT MY NEIGHBORS.

>> THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A TON OF STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS AND I'M SURE THIS IS NOT TERRIBLY PRODUCTIVE BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE TIRED. WHEN I SAW PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE BAD ACT THERE'S, IT MADE ME DISTRESSED AND THE THING THAT REALLY RESONATED WITH ME WAS IF I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY NEIGHBORS DOG, I GO KNOCK ON DON'S DOOR AND SAY HEY DUDE, CLEAN UP YOUR ACTION. IF THERE ARE BAD ACTORS AT THE END OF MY CUL-DE-SAC I'M LIKE BUTTON UP THE DOORS AND BATTEN UP THE HATCHES AND WE WILL RIDE THE STORM OUT. ADMITTEDLY I DIDN'T GO THROUGH THIS WITH A FINE TOOTH LIKE SOME OF YOUR ATTORNEYS PROBABLY HAVE AS YOU AND THE COUNCIL HAVE. ON A PERSONAL NOTE AS A SIDE NOTE SOMETIMES WE MAKE THESE RULES AND WE TRY TO COVER EVERY SCENARIO AND I DON'T KNOW THAT

[01:45:01]

>> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT COMMITTEE SO IT'S A LENGTH OF PERMIT. IT COULD BE IN JULY OR DECEMBER, IT'S ONE YEAR FROM THE TIME YOU GET THE PERMIT. DOES THAT RESET JANUARY 1 AUTOMATICALLY WHEN YOU GOT YOUR PERMIT?

>> WHAT I'M SAYING DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE RENTING THEM BACK TO BACK, THE LAST DAY OF ONE MONTH IN THE FIRST DAY

OF ANOTHER MONTH. >> YOU COULD.

>> THE OTHER THING IS DON'T YOU REALLY WANT THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTY TO BE CONVERSING WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS SO THERE IS SOME ACCOUNTABILITY.

>> YES, TO THAT POINT, BAD ACTORS THAT WE TALK ABOUT

DON'T DO THAT. >> THAT'S MY POINT THOUGH. IF MY NEIGHBOR, DON, WANTS TO RENT OUT HIS BACKYARD OR HIS FIRE PIT OR WHATEVER, MAYBE HE SHOULD KNOCK ON MY DOOR AND SAY HEY, NEXT WEEK I'M RENTING MY HOUSE OUT.

>> WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING SO THIS PROCESS IS PUBLIC SO THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO IF YOUR NEIGHBOR RUNS OUT HIS BACKYARD SO YOU WILL GET A NOTICE I ASSUME SO YOU WOULD KNOW AND YOU COULD SHOW UP IN SAY THAT'S A BAD IDEA.

>> I'M CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO FIND EVERY SOLUTION RIGHT NOW.

I'M SAYING SOMETIMES I SEE THIS BODY DOING THIS AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL COVER EVERYTHING AND THAT'S REALLY

MY POINT. >> I'M SORRY THE LAST THING I'LL SAY, I PROMISE. I SPOKE TO A FRIEND WHO IS AA ATTORNEY AND ASKED HIM ABOUT SWIMMING POOLS BECAUSE IT IS THE SIMPLEST USAGE. HE SAID IT ALWAYS TAKES TIME FOR THESE THINGS THAT COME FROM THE COAST, WEST COAST OR EAST COAST, TO FILTRATE THROUGH THE MIDWEST AND PART OF THIS FOR ME IS MAKING SURE THAT WE DO HAVE SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE ON THE BOOKS SO IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE DECIDES TO CREATE A LAW THAT SAYS MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT DO THIS, AT LEAST WE ARE PREPARED AND WE ARE ON OUR TOES AND NOT ON OUR BACK HEELS TO PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORS. THAT'S JUST HOW I FEEL ABOUT

IT. THANK YOU. >> DUBBIE.

>> JUST TO REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AT COMMITTEE. YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE FOR EVERY SITUATION BUT THERE WERE KEY SITUATIONS THAT BROUGHT THIS TO THIS BODY FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE FIRST PLACE AND HAVING ADDRESS THAT, I WON'T SAY AT NAUSEA BUT THOROUGHLY COMMENT AND BECAUSE OF THE TEMPERATURES WE HAD TODAY WE ARE IN THE SUMMER POOL SEASON AND THE PETITIONER OR AUTHOR OF THISPROPOSER FELT A SENSE OF URGENCY TO GET THIS MOVING ALONG. SO UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNSEL DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND AS THEY MIGHT SEE FIT, I WOULD MOVE TO SEND THIS TO COUNSEL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED.

>> ALL SECOND THAT. >> THANK YOU BOTH.

>> IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? THEN ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES US WILL GO TO THE COUNCIL WHERE MUCH WORK

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.