12. a. Ninth Reading of Ordinance D-2762-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 5, Sections 8-37, 8-47, and 8-48 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. Remains in the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.

[12. a. Ninth Reading of Ordinance D-2762-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 5, Sections 8-37, 8-47, and 8-48 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. Remains in the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

WE'LL MOVE ON, OTHER REPORTS WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REPORTS TONIGHT. ALL BUSINESS, NINTH READING OF ORDINANCE D 2762.

AMENDING CHAPTER 8 ARTICLE 5 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE. THIS

[12. b. Fifth Reading of Ordinance D-2769-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 6, Article 4, Section 6-63 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor and Ayers. Returns from the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

[00:15:09]

REMAINS IN THE LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE. B FIFTH READING OF ORDINANCE D 2769 DASHED 25. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, THIS RETURNS FROM THE LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE, COUNSELOR

SNYDER? >> YES. THIS MODIFIES WHAT IS NEW FEES AND PENALTIES FOR PARKING IN AREAS WHERE YOU SHOULD NOT PAR, KIND OF DEFINES WHAT A SHORT-TERM PUBLIC USAGE PERMIT IS. AND REALLY WHAT THIS DID WAS LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR US GETTING THEM TO IN WENT A RIGHT AWAY PERMIT IS. WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PERMITS OUT THERE, NEITHER ONE OF THEM ARE EASILY, NOBODY IS GETTING THIS PERMIT THAT WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE FOR SO WE TRY TO MAKE IT, IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS IT NEEDS TO BE WORTHWHILE. AND WHAT KICKS AWAY TO A RIGHT AWAY PERMIT.

THAT WILL BE SENT, IF YOU COULD HOLD THAT ONE ON THE DAIS, UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, WE NEED TO SEND TO THE CLAIM COMMISSION, LOOKING AT YOU, SERGE, NOT THIS ONE. IT'S READY TO GO, OKAY.

I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN SENT OUT. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY.

>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE LAND-USE, MAYBE SERGE COULD COME OUT AND EXPLAIN THE CHANGES TO SEE IF WE CAN ADDRESS THIS MY?

>> I HAVE QUESTIONS. >> THERE'S BEEN QUITE A FEW CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE, ORIGINALLY IF YOU REMEMBER, YOU SENT THIS ITEM TO LAND-USE WITH JUST PENALTY PROVISION, WHICH IS SECTION 8, OF THE CITY CODE SIX STASH 63. IT'S BEEN ALSO AMENDED BUT, THERE HAVE BEEN QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT ROADS AND LAND-USE THAT REQUIRE LOOKING AT THE SECTION AS A WHOLE, AND DECIDED TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SECTION AND BRING IT UP TO SPEED. SO, I CAN SUMMARIZE THE CHANGES AND WE CAN GO LINE BY LINE. I WILL SUMMARIZE IT.

CHANGE NUMBER ONE IS THE AMENDMENT ADDS EQUIPMENT AS A DEFINITION AND INCLUSION OF THE PROHIBITED ITEMS PLACED IN BICYCLE LANES AND ROADWAYS, AND EQUIPMENT IS DEFINED AS ANY TOOL, FIXTURE, PIECE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OR OTHER MATERIAL OR OBJECT PLACED ON BLOCKING OR OBSTRUCTING ANY PORTION OF MULTI USE PATHS, THERE'S A NEW DEFINITION, AND THEY ARE TREATED THE SAME WAY AS PROHIBITED VEHICLES AS WELL. THE DEFINITION OF A BICYCLE HAS BEEN AMENDED, THAT'S ACTUALLY TRANSITIONS FROM OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION, JUST TODAY. WE INCLUDED CLASS I, CLASS II, AND CLASS III E BICYCLES, WHICH ARE STATE CODE DESIGNATES AS TYPES OF BICYCLES, BUT IT LIMITS MAXIMUM SPEED ON SIDEWALKS, MULTI USE PATHS, BICYCLE LANES AND ROADWAYS, TO 20 MILES PER HOUR. SO THAT'S A MAJOR THING.

SORT WOULD EXCLUDE, BY DEFINITION, E MOTORCYCLES , OR DIRT BIKES AS THEY WERE CALLED EARLIER, AND ANY CLASS IIIE BIKES, THAT ARE ABLE TO GO UP TO 30 MILES PER HOUR, OR MORE.

SOMETIMES SOME OF THE BIKES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED AS WELL, SO THIS WAY IT WOULD BE EASIER TO ENFORCE IT BASED ON SPEED RATHER THAN THE EXACT APPEARANCE OF A VEHICLE IN PLACE BECAUSE AS CHIEF INDICATED, IT IS GETTING VERY HARD TO DISTINGUISH CLASS I, CLASS II, CLASS III, THE BIKES, ETC. , ESPECIALLY IF THEY'VE BEEN MODIFIED WHICH IS APPARENTLY NOT THAT HARD TO DO.

SO THAT'S WHY THE SPEED COMPONENT WAS INTRODUCED AS WELL. ALSO, A MAJOR AMENDMENT IS INCLUSION OF DEFINITION OF

[00:20:05]

ABILITY. AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT'S REALLY A PLACEHOLDER FOR THE ORDINANCE THAT WILL COME SOMETIME DOWN THE ROAD THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THIS EVENING. SO AN MICRO MOBILITY IS DEFINED AS ANY OPEN AIR DEVICE DESIGNED FOR PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION, PROPELLED WHOLLY OR IN PART BY ELECTRICAL MOTOR, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS ALSO INCORPORATING HUMAN POWER AND TYPICALLY OPERATING AT LOWER SPEEDS THAN TRADITIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE'S , IT DOES NOT INCLUDE GOLF CARTS, ELECTRIC MOPEDS,CAPABLE OF REACHING SPEEDS EXCEEDING 20 MILES PER HOUR AND ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES, SO ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES AND MOPEDS ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION. THE DEFINITION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE HAS BEEN MODIFIED AS WELL. THE DEFINITION OF A SEGWAY IS DELETED. IT WAS SECTION C. IT WAS NOT CALLED A SEGWAY BUT IT WAS WEIRDLY DESCRIBED AS A DEVICE --

>> LET ME INTERRUPT YOU REAL QUICK. COUNSELOR TAYLOR WAS WONDERING WHICH VERSION WE ARE WORKING OFF OF?

>> REDLINE VERSION A, AN OLD VERSION A, THIS VERSION WASN'T

INCLUDED IN THE BOARD PACKET. >> IT SHOULD BE A REDLINE

VERSION. >> VERSION 8. THERE'S MULTIPLE VERSIONS IN TEAMS HERE. OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> SO AM I CORRECT, THIS STARTED OFF, THE ORIGINAL GOAL OF THIS WAS TO DEAL WITH VEHICLES PARKING ON YOU KNOW, --

>> WITH A FINE, ACTUALLY, THEN --

>> WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS OPENED, THERE WERE OTHER CHANGES THAT STARTED TO GROW OUT OF THERE.

>> >> KNOWING THAT THE GREATER RIGHT OF WAY RULES AND FINES WERE GOING TO BE ADDRESS, AND KNOWING THAT MICRO MOBILITY THING WAS GOING TO BE ADDRESS, YOU HAD TO START CREATING DEFINITIONS TO WORK OFF OF.

>> COUNSELOR? >> I THINK, IF YOU COULD KIND OF SUMMARIZE, I THINK FOR EVERYONE TO GET THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT EXACTLY, REALLY WHAT WE WERE DOING A SET OF THE LINE ITEM BECAUSE I THINK THE GOAL WAS FOR ALL OF US TO DIVE INTO THIS AND ASK QUESTIONS IF OTHER COUNSELORS HAVE THEM, BUT, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS SORT OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT COUNSELOR SNYDER SAID. WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO CREATE AN UNDERSTANDING OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT NUANCES THAT WERE BUILT INTO THIS INITIAL MULTI USE PATHWAY. THE ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US BY CONSTITUENTS WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT VEHICLES PARKING IN THE PATH AND NOT BEING DEALT WITH A PROPERLY BUT ONCE WE STARTED TO GET INTO THIS, WE REALIZED IT LIKE MANY THINGS IN ORDINANCES, HAVE MANY TENTACLES THAT IT WAS GROWING INTO AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE. BUT YOU CAN PROBABLY EXPLAIN IT

BETTER. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. ONCE WE LOOKED AT THE ORDINANCE OR THE SECTION AS A WHOLE, RATHER THAN JUST SUBSECTION K. IT WAS APPARENT THAT NUMBER ONE, IT WAS ADDRESSED, ITEMS THAT HAVE REALLY EVOLVED LIKE THE DEFINITION OF A SEGWAY, WHICH WE DIDN'T EVEN CALL A SEGWAY, NOW MICRO MOBILITY INCLUDES SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY SEE SEGUES ANYMORE AS OFTEN AS YOU USED TO. SO, AND ALSO, IT ADDRESSED CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO MOTOR VEHICLES THAT WEREN'T ADDRESSED BEFORE.

IT INTRODUCED THE IDEA OF MICRO MOBILITY THAT WILL BE EXPANDED LATER ON BUT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE IT HERE, TO GROW THE DEFINITION. IT'S CERTAINLY A SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT DOWN THE ROAD AS WE UNDERSTAND IT BETTER, AND WE WILL WORK WITH ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATORS, AND STATE POLICE TO UNDERSTAND HOW MICRO MOBILITY CAN BE IMPLEMENTED ON STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND FURTHER, WE DISCUSSED THAT IT'S NOT ONLY THE VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED ILLEGALLY ON MULTI USE PATHS ETC., BUT ALSO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT, TALKING ABOUT LIFTS, FOR EXAMPLE THAT ARE LEFT IN MULTI USE PATHS, SO IT MADE SENSE TO EXPAND THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ITEMS LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, ABANDONED MATERIAL FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE IN THE PAST. LET'S SEE.

ALSO, WE INCLUDED A PROVISION THAT MOTOR VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT CAUSES DAMAGE TO INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO COLLECT THOSE REPAIR COSTS FROM A VIOLATOR.

[00:25:02]

ALSO, IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT IF A PERMIT APPLICANT REQUIRES A STREET CLOSURE, CERTAIN OTHER STEPS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED TO PROPERTY CLOSED THE STREET AND MODIFY THE STREET CLOSURE. THE PERMITTING WAS AMENDED AS WELL, WHICH NOW THERE'S AN INCENTIVE TO PERFORM WORK QUICKER AND MORE EFFICIENTLY. IN THE PAST, IT WAS ONE PRICE OR ONE PERMIT UP TO SEVEN DAYS IN ONE LOCATIONS, NOW IT'S A MORE STAGGERED APPROACH. THE LENGTH OF A PERMIT HAS BEEN DECREASED FROM SEVEN DAYS TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE, AND IT'S CHEAPER TO GET A ONE-DAY PERMIT, SECOND DAY IS A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE. SO THERE IS AN INCENTIVE TO PERFORM MORE QUICKER, AND IF WORK IS UNABLE TO BE PERFORMED , THERE'S AN OPTION TO OBTAIN A RIGHT AWAY PERMIT, THAT WOULD LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL MORE COMPREHENSIVELY. AND RIGHT AWAY, THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AS WELL AS THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP TO CONTINUE REVAMPING OUR CITY CODE, RIGHT AWAY PERMIT ORDINANCE IS ALSO A LITTLE BIT OBSOLETE AT THIS POINT. IT'S ONE OF THE OLDER ORDINANCES ON THE BOOKS. DISTURBANCES IN THE RIGHT AWAY HAVE EVOLVED. WE HAVE MORE MULTI USE PATHS ETC., AND TYPES OF RIGHT WAYS. SO, THAT WILL BE COMING DOWN THE ROAD AND LAY SOME ORDINANCE TO COME AS WELL. AND, I WILL SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE. AND THE PENALTIES REMAIN THE SAME. THE PROPOSED PENALTIES REMAIN THE SAME , AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE FIRST VIOLATION IS $200, SECOND IS $250. BUT IT'S THE THIRD ONE THAT REALLY HURTS, $2500 PER VIOLATION. THE ORDINANCE IS FAIRLY FORGIVING FOR FIRST-TIME VIOLATORS OBVIOUSLY POLICE WILL HAVE DISCRETION AS TO HOW TO ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCES AS WELL, BUT SHE MENTIONED AS WELL, WHICH WILL BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF IT, BUT IT'S REALLY TARGETED AND HAS A LOT OF TEETH FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS. SO $2500 IS A SUBSTANTIAL FINE, AS FAR AS ORDINANCES GO, BUT IT'S ONLY FOR A THIRD VIOLATION PLUS COURT

COSTS, IF ANY. >> COUNCILMAN SCHNEIDER?

>> I WANT TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT , BRAD IS PROBABLY WONDERING WHY YOU SAY WORK PERFORMED AND WHY THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT. THAT STEMMED A LITTLE BIT FROM, SO, TODAY , 11:30, THERE WERE SEVEN VEHICLES ON BOTH THE WEST AND EAST SIDE OF SHELBURNE BETWEEN 121ST AND 131ST STREET ON THE MULTI USE PATHS. THIS GIVES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SOME TEETH TO GO FIND THEM, WHEREAS, BUT THEY ARE EITHER DOING SOMETHING SO INSIGNIFICANT THAT IT WASN'T WORTH IT, OR, WHAT THEY ARE DOING DOESN'T NECESSARILY KICK IN A RIGHT AWAY PERMIT. THIS ALSO THEN CAN BE USED IF SOMEBODY SETS UP A HOTDOG STAND ON THE MONON . AND THEY DIDN'T GET A PERMIT, NOW WE ACTUALLY HAVE RECOURSE. THIS PIECE IS MORE ABOUT THE LITTLE THINGS , BECAUSE, THEY SEEM TO GO BY UNNOTICED OR UNCHECKED BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER REALLY HAD A MECHANISM TO STOP IT, AND WE'VE NEVER REALLY HAD A WAY TO TRESPASS SOMEBODY OFF OF A RIGHT AWAY. AND THIS GIVES THE POLICE, WITH ALL THEIR DISCRETION, IT MEAN IF IT'S AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD CHILD, WE ARE NOT WRITING A TICKET FOR A LEMONADE STAND BUT WE CAN SAY, NO. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE INTENT WAS TO CREATE A DEFINING LINE, OKAY, THIS IS EVERYTHING, THESE ARE THESE ONE OFFS, TRYING TO CAPTURE ALL OF THE LITTLE THINGS THAT SOMEONE MAY OR MAY NOT BLOCK A TRAIL WITH, OR PARKING IN AN AREA THEY SHOULDN'T, A WORK TRUCK THAT DOESN'T QUITE MEET THE STANDARD OF A RIGHT AWAY PERMIT. BUT THEN ALSO IT'S A MAXIMUM OF THREE DAYS IF YOU

[00:30:04]

TRY TO GET THE PERMIT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT TAKES UP ANY PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS YOU EITHER NEED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OR YOU NEED TO ACHIEVE THE RIGHT AWAY PERMIT, OR BOTH. SO THIS IS MORE OF A STANDARD BASELINE ALL RIGHT, HERE IS THE LITTLE STUFF, THE POLICE NOW HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, THE ABILITY, TO CLEAR OUT SOME OF THE NUISANCES AND THEN HOPEFULLY, AS WE START WORKING THROUGH THE RIGHT AWAY PERMIT PROCESS WHICH WE'VE HAD ONLY A BRIEF CONVERSATION ABOUT, SO FAR, IT'LL HAVE DEFINITIONS TO

FALL BACK ON. >> AND TO ADD TO THAT, EXCUSE ME, SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU, TO ADD TO COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER'S COMMENTS, ONE OF THE THINGS WE NOTICED IS THAT YOU WOULD SEE A TRUCK WITH A TRAILER ATTACHED TO IT ON THE MULTI USE PATHS, PULLING MULCH, INTO SOMEONE'S BACKYARD. AND THEY ARE BLOCKING THE ENTIRE PATHWAY, SO, THERE'S NO MARKINGS FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW WHETHER HEY, YOU CAN'T USE THIS PATH BECAUSE THERE'S A TRUCK ON IT. TO THAT POINT, THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE ARE REALLY FOCUSING ON AS WELL, CORRECT? SO, IT IS THE LITTLE THINGS.

>> ALL RIGHT, COUNSELOR? >> WELL I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT, SERGEI, WERE YOU FINISHED?

>> THAT WAS MY LAST COMMENT OF THE LAST AMENDMENT, AGAIN IT REMAINS THE SAME, THE PROPOSED PENALTIES , AND THAT PRETTY MUCH CONCLUDES, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF DETAILS HERE AND THERE BUT THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO

SECTION 6 STASH 63. >> OKAY, THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT. SO, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS ORDINANCES GOING TO RELY ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RECOGNIZE OR SEE SOMEONE ON A MULTI-USE PATHS, AND THIS WHOLE TOPIC CAME UP BECAUSE WE HELD A TOWN HALL MEETING AND RESIDENCE WERE VERY VOCAL ABOUT KIND OF BEING FED UP WITH THIS. AND SO, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT, I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT OR I WOULD LIKE TO WONDER, IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO ALSO BE OUR EYES AND EARS. AND THE ONLY WAY THAT WOULD WORK IS IF THE PERMIT WERE DISPLAYED SOMEWHERE. IT DOES SAY DISPLAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S CLEAR IN HERE WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS. AND SO I THINK WE ARE RELYING ON OFFICER TO STOP HIS CAR, GET OUT, WHERE'S YOUR PERMIT, THE GUY IS DIGGING AROUND HIS BRIEFCASE, WHATEVER, AND I HAD TWO IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY, TWO VANS, BLOCKING MULTI USE PATHS, KNOWING WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS, AND IT'S IRRITATING. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THAT THERE WASN'T A STICKER AND I COULD CHOOSE TO CALL THE POLICE OR IF I SAW A STICKER, OKAY, EVERYTHING IS FINE. SO I WANT TO KNOW, WHAT DID THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED REGARDING THAT?

>> THAT WAS A RIGOROUS DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND IT STAYED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE PERMIT HAS TO BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED ON THE VEHICLE AND ALSO, THE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVE DATE IS JANUARY 1ST, 2026. SO IT'LL GIVE THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THAT'S ANOTHER THING TO MENTION, THE URBAN PERMITTING IS SHIFTED BETWEEN POLICE, ENGINEERING, BECAUSE IT'S A SISTER ORDINANCE TO RIGHT AWAY PERMITS, IT MAKES SENSE TO KEEP THEM TOGETHER. AND SO THERE WILL BE ENOUGH TIME TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE ORDINANCE. WE CREATE TEMPLATES OF PERMITS THAT WILL BE DISPLAYED BECAUSE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T THINK A SINGLE PERMIT HAS BEEN LISTED UNDER THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE PERMIT FEE WAS LOWER, I'M SORRY, WAS HIGHER THAN THE PENALTY. SO IT MADE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND THE POTENTIAL PENALTY IS LOWERED . SO IT WILL ALLOW ALL OF THOSE THINGS TO DEVELOP INTO HOW THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND ENFORCED.

WHAT PERMIT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WHETHER IT WILL BE A STICKER OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, ETC. SO WE WILL WORK ON THAT WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND WE WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPERIENCE, WHAT THEY RECOMMEND AND WHAT THEY'VE SEEN, WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T BUT WE WILL CERTAINLY WORK ON

THAT ISSUE. >> IT WAS, THE CONSENSUS, FULL CONSENSUS OF LAND-USE, IF A POLICE OFFICER WERE TO ROLL OUT OR DRIVE BY , SOMEONE ON A MULTIUSE PATH AND THEY DON'T SEE THE PERMIT, THAT'S A VIOLATION, PERIOD, AND OF DISCUSSION. REGARDLESS OF THE ACT THAT THEY ARE IN, EVEN NOT HAVING THAT, IF THEY HAD GOTTEN A PERMIT, IF IT'S NOT DISPLAYED, THAT'S A VIOLATION. IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS A PERMIT PRINTING MACHINE, A, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THAT I WOULD

[00:35:05]

IMAGINE IS BEING SOMETHING YOU CAN'T MESS AND IF YOU CAN'T MISS IT AND YOU DON'T SEE IT, THEN YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG. YEAH, SO THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE TOWN HALL.

IT'S REALLY WHERE WE GET A LOT OF THE REAL COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE WHO AREN'T JUST MEDIA MOTIVATED.

>> >> THIS IS FOR SERGEI. SECTION 2 UNDER K, YOU HAVE ALL VIOLATIONS UNDER THE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF $10 WITH A STRIKE, SO IS THAT MEANT TO BE IN THERE?

>> YES, IT STRIKES THE,. >> AND JUST TO BE CLEAR WHAT COUNCILMAN BERNARD REFERRED TO, THE SECTION 663 ADDRESSES SOME OTHER VERY MINOR VIOLATIONS, LIKE A DOG BEING OFF THE LEASH AND BICYCLING VIOLATIONS, SO THE SMALLER FINES HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED. IT'S REALLY $10 , FIRST LINE, $25 THE SECOND.

THESE ARE FOR MINOR VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PARKING, PARKING, ETC. IT'S JUST A LITTLE MORE

COMPREHENSIVE. >> MR. PRESIDENT, MY THOUGHT OR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, WE INTENTIONALLY COAST STATED THIS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, NUMBER ONE, FIGURING OUT WHAT THE PERMITS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE BUT ALSO GIVE US TIME TO GET THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT PIECE, SO THERE'S NO REAL RUSH HERE.

IT'S COMING OUT OF OUR COMMITTEE, BUT IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW IT AND GIVE ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK, IT WOULDN'T BOTHER ME IF YOU HELD IT AT THE DAY IS, FOR FURTHER

REVIEW. >> SO I KNOW WE HAD TO PLAY CATCH-UP FOR A MINUTE FOR THOSE WHO ARE ON THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE, DO WE FEEL CAUGHT UP AND READY TO ACT OR DO YOU WANT ME TO TABLE IT? I'M GOOD WITH EITHER. SO IF SOMEONE MAKES TO

MAKE A MOTION -- >> THERE'S ONE REQUEST THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY TED, HE WAS REVIEWING THIS ORDINANCE. IF YOU LOOK AT LINE 69. IT TALKS ABOUT AND AUTHORIZED LAWNMOWER BEING EXCLUDED FROM MOTOR VEHICLES. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND WHO THE AUTHORIZING BODY FOR A LAWNMOWER WOULD BE, SO WE'RE WONDERING WHY THAT IS EVEN THERE. SO WE PROPOSE THAT THAT WORD,

AUTHORIZE, BE STRICKEN. >> WE NEED AN AMENDMENT FIRST. I HAVE A MOTION ON THAT AMENDMENT?

>> SO MOVED. >> WE WILL VOTE ON THE

AMENDMENT. >>

>> ALL RIGHT, THAT PASSES 9-0. WE ARE ACTING ON THE AMENDED ORDINANCE . DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DO YOU WANT TO

TABLE? >> MOVED FOR APPROVAL.

>> A MOTION TO SECOND, ANY CONVERSATION? PLEASE VOTE. THANK

[12. c. Fourth Reading of Ordinance D-2772-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting a New Article 8 Under Chapter 2 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen, Ayers, Minnaar, Snyder and Worrell. Sent to the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee (Meeting date June 16, 2025).]

YOU, TO THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE FOR PUTTING SO MUCH WORK INTO THIS. IT IS A LOT OF WORK AND THANK YOU.

>> MOVING ON. WE HAVE FOURTH READING OF ORDINANCE D, 2772 ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA ADOPTIG A NEW ARTICLE 8 UNDER THE CITY CODE, THIS REMAINS IN

[13. a. First Reading of Ordinance Z-697-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana Establishing the US 421-WCD Planned Unit Development District; Sponsor: Councilor Minnaar.]

THE FINANCE UTILITY AND RULES COMMITTEE.

>> PUBLIC HEARINGS, FIRST UP, AS FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE Z6 9725, ORDINANCE OF COMMON COUNCIL THE CITY OF CARMEL,

INDIANA, IT'S BEEN INTRODUCED. >> FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS JOHN, I'M A LAND-USE PROFESSIONAL AND WE REPRESENT THE APPLICANT EDWARD ROSE AND SONS AND ON THEIR BEHALF IS NATHAN ANDERSON AND MIKE, EDWARD ROSE HAS FILED A RE-ZONE REQUEST IN ORDER TO PERMIT A MIXED USED HIGH AND DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL HAVE -- THE OFFICES ARE LOCATED HERE IN CARMEL, AND THE CARMEL

[00:40:02]

COMMUNITIES INCLUDE AMOUNT ONE, TWO, AND ALEXANDER, WHICH HAVE BEEN WELL RECEIVED. ADDITIONALLY, THEY ARE AN ICON AND THE MAIN IS UNDERDEVELOPED IN L MERIDIAN. THE SUBJECT OF TONIGHT'S REQUEST IS 22 ACRES IDENTIFIED HERE OUTLINED IN YELLOW. IT'S LOCATED WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO MICHIGAN ROAD, SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO RETAIL PARKWAY THE REAL ESTATE IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 96TH STREET IN THE 95 INTERCHANGE AND SURROUNDED BY VARIOUS RETAIL AND INDUSTRIAL USES. IT'S THE FORMER HEADQUARTERS OF RESORT CONDOMINIUMS INTERNATIONAL AND SUBJECT TO THE U.S. FOR 21 MICHIGAN ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT.

>> THIS DISPLAYS A COLOR CONCEPT PLAN. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT TO BE IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAYOUT ILLUSTRATED HERE. IT INCLUDES POSITIONING AND PARKING AREA SO THEY ARE SHIELDED OF VIEW FROM ADJACENT ROADWAYS. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF SEVEN MULTI FAMILY BUILDINGS THAT FACE. THREE FOUR-STORY BUILDINGS ACCOMMODATING A MAXIMUM OF 360 APARTMENTS. COMMERCIAL USES ARE PLANNED ADJACENT TO MICHIGAN ROW THAT WILL TIE INTO THE AREA.

PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS ARE PROVIDED THAT ARE DESIGNED TO FACILITATE SAFE CIRCULATION AND INCLUDE EDWARD ROSE SEEKING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A CROSSWALK AT RETAIL PARKWAY OR 99TH STREET.

ADDITIONALLY OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREAS INCLUDING A WATER FEATURE, TO DOG PARKS AND PRESERVATION OF THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE SITE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. ACCESS TO THE REAL ESTATE WILL BE PROVIDED AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS INCLUDING CONNECTIVITY AT RETAIL PARKWAY, 99TH STREET AND MICHIGAN ROAD. ALL OF THESE ATTRIBUTES COMBINED WILL PROVIDE AN ELEVATED ANGER PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES AN OUTSTANDING LIVING EXPERIENCE FOR RESIDENTS AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC. BEHIND TAB SEVEN ARE THE PROSPECTIVE IMAGERY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MULTI FAMILY BUILDINGS INCLUDING SUROUNDING SPACES. THIS IS AN IMAGE LOOKING WEST ALONG ONE OF THE BOULEVARDS AT THE FOUR STORY BUILDING THAT WILL INCLUDE ROOFTOP SPACES. THIS CHARACTER ILLUSTRATIONS A FOUR-STORY BUILDING CENTRAL TO THE SITE LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS THE WATER FEATURE, THOUGHTFUL AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND MIXTURE OF BUILDING SITES, AND MARKET LEADING AMENITIES WILL PROVIDE A DISTINCT ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL BE A LANDMARK FOR THIS AREA.

THIS LAST PERSPECTIVE IS A CHARACTER ILLUSTRATION OF A THREE-STORY BUILDING WITH THE WATER AMENITY IN THE FOREGROUND, THIS LOOKS NRTH INTO THE REAL ESTATE. THE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED WEST OF THE CENTRAL WATER FEATURE AND ADJACENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA. STAFF HAS CHARACTERIZED THIS AS PROVIDING A MODERN STYLE THAT HAS HIGH QUALITY BUILDING MATERIALS AND WELL-DESIGNED ARCHITECTURE.

ADDING VITALITY TO THE AREA SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. SHOWN HERE AND INCLUDED BEHIND TAB SIX OF THE BROCHURES, IS THE IMAGE PRESENTING THE INTERIOR SPACES. THE CLUBHOUSE AND GATHERING SPACES, ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC EXHIBITS OF THE SITE ARE INCLUDED BEHIND TAB FIVE, REGARDING OPEN SPACE, THEY HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO THE OPEN WOODED AREA OF THE SITE THAT WILL BE UTILIZED AS OPEN SPACE ACCESSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY.

CRES OF OPEN SPACE WHICH FIVE COMPRISES OVER 20%, IT INCLUDES A CENTRALLY LOCATED CLUBHOUSE WHICH WILL INCLUDE A POOL, SUNDECK AS WELL AS LARGE ROOFTOP TERRACES. A WORKSPACE IS ALSO PROVIDED INCLUDING PRIVATE CONFERENCE ROOMS AND WORKSTATIONS. ADDITIONAL AMENITIES INCLUDEPERFORMANCE JIM, FIRE TABLES AND SEATING, GROWING AREAS WITH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR GAMING AREAS, PET GROOMING AREAS, AND EV CHARGING STATIONS AROUND THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS JUST TO EXEMPLIFY THE

[00:45:02]

HIGH LEVEL DETAIL AND AMENITIES GUARANTEED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

PUBLIC AMENITIES WILL INCLUDE A 6500 SQUARE FOOT PLAZA SPACE IN A COMMERCIAL AREA ALONG MICHIGAN ROAD. REGARDING THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN, THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE OBJECTIVES AND GATEWAY DESIGNATION UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . THE PROPOSAL FITS THE LONG-TERM PLAN FOR THIS AREA BY PROVIDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO BUSINESSES AND SERVICES. THIS GATEWAY DESIGNATION IS AN AREA ESTABLISHED TO INCLUDE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH INCLUDE PARKING LOTS, PLACED AT THE REAR BUILDINGS, BUILDING THAT WILL FACE THE STREET, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY FACILITIES DESTINED TO PROVIDE SAFE CIRCULATION. MANY OTHER AREAS INCLUDE A MIX OF USES, RESIDENTIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHICH ADDS COMMUNITY VIBRANCY AND WALK ABILITY. FOR INSTANCE ALONG CARMEL DRIVE, REDEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USES ON THE SITE WILL NOT ADD TO THAT MIXED USES AND WOULD FORECLOSE ON THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD PEDESTRIAN PRESENCE AND VITALITY TO THE MAYFLOWER PARK AREA AS WELL AS THE MISSION ROAD CORRIDOR.

ADDITIONALLY THE REAL ESTATE WITHIN THE 421 DISTRICT AS INDICATED, WHICH PERMITS BY RIGHT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UP TO 50% OF THE PROJECTS AREA. FURTHER CONSIDERING THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE REAL ESTATE, EDWARD ROSE BELIEVES THAT PROVIDING WARM FULL-TIME RESIDENCE IN THE AREA WOULD PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER BASE ALONG THE SEGMENT OF MICHIGAN ROAD, PUBLIC AND PEDESTRIAN OUT AMENITIES AND AN ELEVATED AESTHETIC. IN CONCLUSION, EDWARD ROSE ESTABLISHED A POSITIVE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS WITH SURROUNDING OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING THAT WE HELD BACK IN JANUARY AND THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PROCESS. FOR REFERENCE, WE INCLUDED COPIES OF ALL LETTERS THAT WERE SENT TO THE COMMISSION BEHIND TAB 10 F YOUR INFORMATION SUBMITTAL.

AFTER MONTHS OF DISCUSSION, AND MEETINGS WITH THE PLANT COMMISSION, THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SEND THE ZONING REQUEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION OR APPROVAL. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING BACK THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS THAT WE MAY RECEIVE FROM COUNCILMEMBERS BE FORWARDED TO THE COMMITTEE AND IT'S NOW MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT MEETING WILL BE ON WEDNESDAY. WITH THAT I WILL CONCLUDE AND I WILL BE GLAD TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE AT THIS TIME OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR

PUBLIC HEARING, THANK YOU. >> SO, BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WE WILL AT THE COUNCIL ANSWER QUESTIONS. YOU CAN ALSO ASK QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL, AND THIS WILL GO TO THE LAND USE COMMITTEE. COUNCIL QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, WE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER STEP IF YOU WANT TO. I WILL BE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW AT 6:48 P.M. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST HIS PROPOSAL, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, YOU GET THREE MINUTES. WE WILL NOT BE ENGAGING INTO A DIALOGUE, THIS IS JUST A CHANCE FOR YOU TO PROVIDE YOUR OPINIONS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SPEAK, PLEASE LINE UP BEHIND AND WE WILL DO ONE BY ONE.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. I'M MIKE STEFFENS, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ASIS POWER MARKETING AND OUR HEADQUARTERS JOINS THE RCI SPACE, THE PROPOSED EDWARD ROSE PROJECT IN CARMEL. I BECAME AWARE OF THIS PROJECT ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO. AND WHEN I HEARD ABOUT APARTMENTS, IMMEDIATELY THE BUZZER WENT OFF LIKE NO, APARTMENTS. AND YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH US, YOU'VE GOT MORE AND MORE APARTMENTS AND I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, I'M GOING TO SIT THIS ONE OUT, SO EDWARD ROSE CAME AND DID A PRESENTATION, VERY COMPETENT PRESENTATION AND SHOWED WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO. YOU ALSO HAVE THE BENEFIT AS PRETTY GOOD CITIZENS AND DEVELOPERS IN CARMEL, FOR PROJECTS THAT ALREADY COMPLETED.

SO WE GOT TO SEE THAT AND SEE THE PROPOSAL. THERE'S NOTHING I CAN EVEN THINK ABOUT PUTTING THEIR BETTER THAN THAT, THEN THOSE APARTMENTS. YOU SEE HOW IT APPEARS. A COUPLE OF YOU HAVE ASKED, YOU SAID WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF WAREHOUSE SPACE IN THE FOOTPRINT. WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO GIVE THAT UP. PUTTING A WAREHOUSE IN MAYFLOWER PARK DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY STEP TOWARDS REDEVELOPMENT. AND WE ARE REALLY WORKING ON THAT. WE HAD A COUPLE OF MAJOR PROJECTS, MEDVED HAS TRIPLED THEIR SPACE,

[00:50:06]

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUILT NEW STRUCTURES AS WELL AS OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY. THEY HAVE PUT THE RACE TEAM, THE PERFORMANCE TEAM, AS WELL AS RIVEN COFFEEHOUSE, AND THE NEW STEAKHOUSE, BODHISATTVA, SO WE ARE TRYING TO DEFINE A NEW THING THAT IS WES CARMEL. AND A COUPLE OF YOU HAVE ASKED, WELL, DO WE HAVE A PLAN? AND SOMEBODY ELSE COMMENTED AND SAID A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT YOU ARE IN CARMEL. AND I THOUGHT THAT IS A GOOD POINT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT LOOK AND FEEL. BUT WE LEARNED WE COULD DO THINGS LIKE THIS TO MAKE IT THAT WAY, AND I LOOK AT THIS IN THREE DIFFERENT ASPECTS.

ONE IS, FROM OUR PARKS PERSPECTIVE, FROM WEST CARMEL'S PERSPECTIVE AND FROM CARMEL'S PERSPECTIVE. I THINK WHATEVER THE PLAN, THIS IS GOING TO FIT. THIS IS A GOOD STEP FOR OUR PARK AND I DON'T REPRESENT EVERYBODY THERE BUT WE MANAGE THE PARK NOW. AND I'VE HAD A LOT OF GOOD FEEDBACK ON THE PROJECT. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT IT. THEY HAVE RESIDENCE AND THE ABILITY TO WALK TO WORK, FOR OUR PEOPLE, THAT'S SOMETHING NEW, SO IT ADJOINS OUR PROPERTY, PEOPLE CAN WALK, WE WILL HAVE APARTMENTS THERE FOR COMPANY USE. AGAIN, WE ARE LIMITED TO EMBASSY SUITES, AND TO HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ON MICHIGAN, WHICH AREN'T NECESSARILY THE BEST PLACES TO STAY. SO WE CAN NOW RENT CORPORATE APARTMENTS THERE ALONG WITH PROVIDING OTHER LIVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR PEOPLE. WE HAVE 175 EMPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE. 350 UNITS, EVERYBODY IS NOT GOING TO MOVE THERE, BUT IT'S A BIG OPPORTUNITY AND WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THAT, TOO.

THIS IS A SERIOUS UPGRADE AND TAKING OUR INDUSTRIAL PARK TO ANOTHER LEVEL. SO THANK YOU FOR THE TIME, MR. PRESIDENT.

>> ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK?

>> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:52 P.M. COUNSEL, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN TAYLOR.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHO TO ADDRESS THIS TOO. BUT ARE WE GOING TO BE ESTABLISHING, THERE ? WILL WE RECEIVE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE

FROM THIS PROJECT? OKAY. >> WAIT, SO, COUNCIL, CAN YOU

COME UP AND ANSWER? >> THIS IS INSIDE A COUNTY, SO THERE'S -- REDEVELOPMENT IS NOT INVOLVED. THANK YOU.

>> >> MAYBE MIX OR SOMEONE CAN HELP ME BUT DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER AREAS THAT ARE OPEN FOR REDEVELOPMENT FOR HIGH-TECH MANUFACTURING, OR INDUSTRIAL, 3% ASSESSED VALUE, SO THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO OUR SPACE? IN THE COMMUNITY LIKE THIS. FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE?

>> NICK WE HAVE TO TELL YOU TO SIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE

FROM NOW ON. >> SORRY, NICK.

>> >> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, CARMEL DOESN'T HAVE MUCH INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT ACTUALLY CLOSE TO HEAR OFF OF, AVENUE AND THIS AREA IN THE WESTERN PART OF OUR COMMUNITY OFF OF MICHIGAN ROAD, ARE THE TWO LARGER AREAS OF INDUSTRIALLY ZONED LAND IN THE CITY. AS WAS POINTED OUT, MUCH OF ITS MICHIGAN ROAD AREA EXIST

>> MIX MAYBE YOU COULD SAY UP JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.

>> SO THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF UNITS THAT ARE ADDED TO THE NORTH, I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE PITTMAN PROPERTY, IF THESE ARE PROJECTS, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA ON HOW MANY UNITS THAT ARE BEING ADDED TO THE NORTH AND ALSO, I WOULD ASK MAY BE THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE COULD INVESTIGATE THIS, IF THERE'S ANY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. FOR 21 WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE

OF INDIANA? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWER ON THE OUT OF JURISDICTION UNITS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAME UP ON THE PLAN. SO 700+, IT SOUNDS LIKE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAME UP DURING THE PLANNED COMMISSION PROCESS OR NOT.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF BRAD IS STILL HERE. WE DON'T KNOW IF

[00:55:02]

THE STATE OF INDIANA HAS ANY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT ALREADY HIGHLY TRAVELED COURT OR ?

>> I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY PLAN.

>> THANK YOU. >> COUNSELOR?

>> CAN YOU ADDRESS THE RETAIL SECTION OF THIS PROJECT AS WELL, AS THAT WOULD BE IN THE DIFFERENT TEXT STRUCTURE, BECAUSE THAT WILL GO WITH APARTMENTS BUT ALSO BE ON THE

FRONT OF THOSE APARTMENTS? >> IF WE CAN PULL UP THE EXHIBIT

ON THE SCREEN . >> MAYBE ZOOM OUT OR FOCUS OR

SOMETHING . >> I THINK THE BOOTH HAS THAT

CONTROL. >> THE APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRE AREA ALONG MICHIGAN ROAD IS RESERVED FOR COMMERCIAL USES.

THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN THAT WILL TIE IN FROM THE PRODUCTION OF AMENITIES SPACE, OF 6500 SQUARE FEET AS I INDICATED AND THE EXAMPLES THAT REQUIRE THE PLANS TO LAY OUT THE SPACE EITHER TO THE INTERNAL RIGHT-OF-WAY OR MICHIGAN ROAD.

>> SPECIFICALLY, WHAT THE PUD SPECIFICALLY STATES FOR THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, FOR THE BUILDINGS THERE?

>> YEAH, WE CAN GO INTO GREATER DETAIL. I DIDN'T BRING THE EXHIBITS OUTSIDE . ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CAN BE?

>> OH, YEAH, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE POTENTIAL IS. WHAT I'M SORRY, WHAT THE LAYOUT MAY BE. THERE'S NOT AN INTENDED END USER BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL USES WHICH ARE RESTRICTED WHICH WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE TIME OF ITS COMMITTEE REVIEW. THE COUNCIL PROHIBITS CERTAIN USES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PROHIBITED TODAY.

>> SO, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT BECAUSE I KNOW PREVIOUSLY, WE GOT INTO THAT WITH JACKSON'S GRANT AND LATER ON THEY BROUGHT A USE THAT WASN'T A PART OF THAT WITH THE DAYCARE. SO DO YOU HAVE THAT LIST YOU CAN GO THROUGH HIS FAIR SQUARE FOOTAGE

RESTRICTION? >> WE CAN GO THROUGH USE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE USE RESTRICTIONS ON THE REAL ESTATE WOULD PERMIT ALL THOSE USES PERMITTED UNDER THE B3 DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES, SERVICE STATION WOULD BE PROHIBITED, ALL OF THESE USES ARE HABITED. TRUCK REPAIR, CARWASH, COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT, EQUIPMENT SALES, MOTOR BUS , RADIO, TELEVISION STUDIOS AND TRANSMISSION TOWERS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND MOTORHOME SALES, SELF-SERVICE, LAUNDRY SHOOTING, COMMERCIAL CATTLE, ARE ALL USES WHICH THE PLAN COMMISSION ELECTED TO RECOMMEND TO YOU TO PROHIBIT WHICH ARE OTHERWISE PERMITTED THERE TODAY.

>> SO, JUST HEARING THE LIST, I THINK THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL ONES AND I KNOW THEY WERE RESTRICTED, BUT JUST AS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, THEY RESTRICTED LIKE A VAPE SHOP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO, NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO BUT

MAYBE, TO DISCUSS IT. >> WE WILL TAKE THAT LIST AND BRING IT TO COMMITTEE. THE ONE USE THAT YOU DESCRIBED IS IN A USE THAT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE UDO. IF THERE ARE USES LIKE THAT, LIKE A VAPE SHOP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT'S NOT DEFINED WITHIN THE UDO THAT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED IN OTHER SITUATIONS THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER, WE WILL

REVIEW THAT WITH YOU. >> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> I SENT IN EMAIL TODAY, TO YOU, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER YET

ON A WAY TO DO THAT? >> I WOULD ASK OUR COUNSEL, FRANKLY MY LAUNDRY LIST OF QUESTIONS IS MILES LONG AND CONCERNS, SOME AREN'T THE FAULT OF THE DEVELOPER, SOME OF THE DEVELOPERS WILL -- AS WE ENTER THIS NEW PRINTER. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO THE DEVELOPER OR THE PUBLIC IF WE TRY TO RUSH

[01:00:01]

THIS THROUGH LAND-USE. IF IT GETS RUSH THROUGH AND ANYBODY FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE, WITHOUT A CRYSTAL BALL, I CAN TELL YOU HOW

THE PROJECT IS GOING TO GO. >> COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER IS REFERRING TO, SINCE THIS IS A PUD AMENDMENT, IT'S CONSIDERED A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT UNDER 600 SERIES SORRY, IN INDIANA CODE.

SO, THE COUNCIL HAS TO ACT IT SAYS THE COUNCIL SHALL VOTE ON A MAP AMENDMENT WITHIN 90 DAYS OF CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT HAPPENED ON MAY 21ST. OBVIOUSLY IT'S A BIG ITEM THAT WILL GO TO THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE. AS OF RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THE LANGUAGE BUT I WILL LOOK INTO THIS. AGAIN, 90 DAYS, FOR SOME PROJECTS CAN BE QUITE TIGHT BUT THAT'S A LEGISLATIVE MANDATE IMPOSED ON SECOND-CLASS

CITIES, BY INDIANA LEGISLATURE. >> AGAIN, AUGUST 19TH WOULD BE THE DEADLINE FOR THIS BODY TO ACT ON THIS ITEM AND THAT WOULD

INCLUDE FULL COUNSEL. >> FROM THE LAND-USE PERSPECTIVE, MY CONCERN IS THE PUBLIC, THE COUNCIL, THE DEVELOPER, DOES NOT GET A FAIR SHAKE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

LAND-USE, I KNOW EVERYBODY ON IT WOULD TO ANYTHING, IF IT'S NEEDING TO ADD EXTRA MEETINGS, SPECIAL MEETINGS, WE WILL STEP UP, BUT, WE ARE ALSO A VICTIM OF OUR OWN SCHEDULES. MY CONCERN IS THAT I COULD SEE US NOT GETTING TO A CONSENSUS OR A SITUATION BY AUGUST AND THAT'S NOT EVEN WHEN WE SEND IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL.

SO TRYING TO FIND A TECHNICALITY TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE IT AS FAIR FOR EVERYONE AS POSSIBLE. LIKE I SAID, I'VE GOT MILES OF CONCERNS BUT I DO THINK MOST CAN BE WORKED THROUGH. SOME OF THEM ARE NOT THE FAULT OF THE DEVELOPER. THERE'S GOING TO BE QUESTIONS AND THINGS THAT YOU

HAVE TO COME BACK TO US WITH. >> WITH THAT ANTICIPATION IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN GET US A SUMMARY OF THIS QUESTION, WE CAN COME TO THE COMMITTEE MEETING WITH THE INTENT OF MAKING IT MORE EFFICIENT, KNOWING THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE WOULD ALLOW US TO ADDRESS THOSE GOING INTO THE COMMITTEE MEETING AND NOT AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING FORMULATING A RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS THAT WE DON'T HAVE YET.

>> I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THEY SAID, TALKING TO YOUR COLLEAGUE ABOUT, IS WE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS THAT'S NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW BUT REQUIRED UNDER OUR CITY CODE. AND AS A RESULT, IT MAY TAKE 10 DAYS OR SO TO GET THE AD PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER, SO, WE COULD HAVE, IN THEORY, MAYBE GOT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE LAST MEETING IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE CHANGE TO OUR CITY CODE. YOU COULD STILL NOT ACT ON IT AND RUSH THINGS THROUGH MAYBE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE SECOND COMMITTEE. BUT THERE WAS AN IDEA AND I TALKED TO THE DIRECTOR ABOUT THIS, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, ADJUSTING SOME OF OUR CITY CODE, TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR THAT 90 DAYS, SO WE COULD GET THINGS FROM PLAN COMMISSION TO COUNSEL. A LITTLE BIT FASTER. SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE FUTURE BUT IT WON'T AFFECT US. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS.

>> THIS WILL GO TO THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE WHICH IS MEETING ON

WEDNESDAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> MOVING ON. NEW BUSINESS, WE'VE GOT THREE ITEMS THAT ARE

[14. a. Resolution CC-06-16-25-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving Certain Matters in Connection with the Gramercy Economic Development Area (Gramercy East – Phases 1-3); Sponsor: Councilor Aasen.]

IS COUNCILOR AASEN. >> GOOD EVENING COUNSEL . YOU HAVE THREE ITEMS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. IF I COULD GIVE THE BACKGROUND OF WHAT THESE ARE AND YOU COULD PROBABLY HANDLE THEM ALTOGETHER. FOR ANYONE WATCHING , ALLOCATION AREAS ARE ALMOST ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE AND USUALLY MATCH WHATEVER BOND VOTE

[01:05:06]

FOR A MAJOR PROJECT THAT COUNCIL APPROVED EARLIER. HERE THE EARLIER HAPPENS TO BE LAST YEAR, TALKING ABOUT THE GRAMERCY AND MARKET , THIS IS A LARGE PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED OVER SEVERAL YEARS WITH DIFFERENT START TIMES FOR THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT. LET ME GO THROUGH THAT REAL QUICK AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS RELEVANT. SO WE HAVE TOWNHOMES AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN PHASE 1. WE HAVE TOWNHOMES IN PHASE 2 AND THREE. WE HAVE PHASE 4, WHICH IS A FOR SALE, URBAN UNITS, WITH STAR RETAIL, THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE.

AND FINALLY, PHASES FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN, RELATING TO THE MORE URBAN WORKER PLACE PORTION OF THIS. THIS IS THE LAYOUT, SO YOU SEE ALONG CARMEL DRIVE, THAT'S THE STANDARD KIND OF APARTMENTS IN THE NORTH OF THAT WE HAVE THE 55 AND OLDER UNITS AND THEN MORE FOR SALE RESIDENTIAL THERE, TO THE TOP. SO, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS, ALLOCATION AREAS CAPTURE TIFF, THAT PAY OFF THE BONDS , THE MAGIC UNDER INDIANA STATE LAW IS THAT THE AREAS ONLY LAST FOR 25 YEARS, ONCE A BOND IS APPROVED. BECAUSE THIS PROJECT IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, THAT WILL START IN DIFFERENT YEARS, SOME HAVE ALREADY STARTED, SOME WON'T START FOR TWO YEARS. WE WANT TO CAPTURE THE FULL 25 YEARS THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW, SO THE PROJECT CAN BE MAXIMIZED .

SO, WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH LARGE PROJECTS LIKE THIS, WITH CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL START AT DIFFERENT TIMES, DIFFERENT PHASES, WE ALSO MATCH ALLOCATION AREAS TO THESE PROJECTS. THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE. GENERALLY COUNSEL AND ALLOCATION AREAS DOESN'T EVEN SEND IT TO COMMITTEE, BUT GENERALLY IT SUSPENDS THE RULES AND APPROVES IT. THAT'S WHY YOU WERE LOOKING AT THREE DIFFERENT THINGS WITH ULTIMATELY NINE ALLOCATION AREAS . WITH THAT KIND OF INTRODUCTION, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

>> SO THE REASON WE HAVE THIS TIMING THE WAY IT IS IS BECAUSE NOT WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED OVER A YEAR AGO, YOU WANTED TO TIME IT UP WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.

>> THIS WASN'T BROUGHT BEFORE BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO WORK THROUGH THIS. THERE'S A PREVIOUS ALLOCATION AREA THAT JUST TOOK US A BIT OF TIME TO WORK THROUGH THIS. BUT AS PROPOSED, THESE ARE THE ALLOCATION AREAS THAT WOULD RELATE TO THE VARIOUS PHASES OF THE PROJECT.

>> ALL RIGHT, RIGHT NOW WE ARE JUST ACTING ON RESOLUTION A, OR ITEM LETTER A. THESE ARE RESOLUTIONS THAT DON'T REQUIRE SUSPENDING THE RULES. ANY QUESTION FROM THE COUNCIL?

>> YES, I GUESS WE MAY HAVE HAD A MOTION TO INTRODUCE ON THIS ONE. IT'S BEEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS? THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE

SUSPENDING THE RULES. >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, PLEASE VOTE. >> THIS PASSES 8-1. MOVING ON TO

[14. b. Resolution CC-06-16-25-02; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving Certain Matters in Connection with the Gramercy Economic Development Area (Gramercy East – Phase 4); Sponsor: Councilor Aasen.]

RESOLUTION CC 06 2502. THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, IN -- DO I

HAVE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE? >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE. ANY ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS? >> NINE.

>> ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL?

>> MOTION IS SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. THIS PASSES 8-1.

[14. c. Resolution CC-06-16-25-03; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving Certain Matters in Connection with the Gramercy Economic Development Area (Gramercy East – Phases 5-7); Sponsor: Councilor Aasen.]

>> DO I HAVE A MOTION TO REDUCE?

>> SECOND. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON

[01:10:01]

THIS ONE? >>

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE. PLEASE VOTE.

>> THIS PASSES 8-1. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE ARE FINISHED WITH

[16 a. Property Abatements/Compliance with Statement of Benefits – Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee 1.]

NEW BUSINESS. OTHER BUSINESS, PROPERTY ABATEMENTS, COMPLIANCE WITH STATEMENT OF BENEFITS , RETURNS FROM THE FINANCE,

UTILITIES AND RULES COMMITTEE. >> THANK YOU, FINANCE REVIEW THIS TODAY, ALL FOUR LISTED HERE ON THE AGENDA HAVE MET SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND WAS SENT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS .

>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION, MOVED TO APPROVE?

>> CAN WE TAKE ALL OF THEM AT ONCE?

>> WE CAN TAKE ALL OF THEM AT ONCE.