[A. Call Meeting to Order] [B. Pledge of Allegiance] [00:00:13] GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE JUNE MEETING OF THE CARMEL COMMISSION. PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. SECRETARY, WILL YOU PLEASE [C. Roll Call] CALL THE ROLE. >> JONATHAN BLAKE. JUST LAWHEAD ? >> PRESENT . >> ADAM ? >> PRESENT. >> DEBBIE BUCKLER ? >> [D. Declaration of Quorum] [E. Approval of Minutes] >> THANK YOU WE HAVE A QUORUM. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES. DO I HAVE PERMISSION TO APPROVE THE MAY 2025 MINUTES . >> SO MOVED. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "YEA" AYE . >> THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. [F.1. PC Resolution PC-6-17-25-a: CRC Res. No. 2025-10 amends the Declaratory Resolution and Development Plan for the Old Town Economic Development Area by removing parcels from the Smokey & Monon Phase II Allocation Area, and creates a new allocation area to be known as “North End Phase III Allocation Area” pursuant to Section 39 of IC 36-7-14, and lastly adopts a supplement to the Economic Development Plan.] >> I WILL TURN IT OVER AND I AM HAPPY TO READ THE SEARCY RESOLUTION INTO THE RECORD. YOU HAVE OTHER ITEMS TO ADDRESS FIRST? >> WITH RESOLUTION 17-25 A . >> WE HAVE RESOLUTION 6-17-25-A . WITH 25-10. WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OLDTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA. FOR BY REMOVING THE C-2 ALLOCATION AREA AND CREATES A NEW ONE TO BE KNOWN AS THE NORTH END ALLOCATION AREA. PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF INDIANA CODE . LASTLY ADOPTS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN . AND, I WILL HAVE YOU PRESENT. PRE-PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND INTRODUCE THE SEARCY RESOLUTION . >> I AM FILLING IN FOR HENRY THIS EVENING . AS YOU CALLED THIS RESOLUTION, APPROVED THE ACTION BY THE CRC THAT HAS BEEN MEETING. PREVIOUSLY THE OLDTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA AT THE NORTH END PROJECT. THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN THE PROJECT COSTS AND THE CRC HAS NEGOTIATED SOME SEPARATE AMENDMENTS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. AS PART OF THAT DAY CREATE THE OLDTOWN EDA FOR THE MECHANISM TO GET THE INVESTMENT FROM THE OLDTOWN PROJECT . THERE IS A PROCESS ANY TIME YOU HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA VERSUS THE ACTION BY THE CRC TO MAKE SURE IT IS IN THE PLAN . THIS IS THE SECOND STEP OF THE PROCESS . I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES THE STAFF HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ADD TO THIS RESOLUTION? >> NO COMMENTS . >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM FELLOW PLAN COMMISSIONERS ? SEE NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION . >> AND A SECOND . >> AND SECOND . ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CRC RECOMMENDATION SAY AYE. >> AYE . >> IT PASSES . THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP WE HAVE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS AND I TURN IT OVER TO [H.1. Docket No. PZ-2025-00078 DP/ADLS: Avant Townhomes The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for twelve new townhomes on 0.68 acres. The site is located at 1260 Fairfax Manor Dr. It is zoned The District PUD/Planned Unit Development (Z-587-14). Filed by Gehan Mendis of American Structurepoint, Inc.] DEPARTMENT STAFF. >> NOTHING TO REPORT AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UP NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION. WE HAVE FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE START WITH DOCKET PEERS PEASY-20 25 -- 00 AND 7S. THE APPLICANT SEATS APPROVAL FOR 12 NEW TOWNHOMES ON .68 ACRES. LOCATED AT 260 FAIRFAX . IT IS A PLAN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY AMERICAN STRUCTURE.INC. . I WILL SEND IT TO THE PETITIONER TO PRESENT. >> JEFF WITH STUDIO ACCESS . IF [00:05:20] THERE ARE CIVIL OR SITE RELATED QUESTIONS, I WANT TO WALK THROUGH. WE ARE EXCITED. THIS IS THE FINAL PIECE TO THE DISTRICT DOD. AND JOHN MCKENZIE WANTED TO GO IN AND PUT A PRODUCT THAT IS KIND OF A CERTAIN LEVEL TO MATCH WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON AT FAIRFAX MANOR DRIVE AS YOU COME OFF OLD MERIDIAN STREET. SO, THE ACTUAL TOWNHOME GROUPING, THERE ARE THREE BLOCKS OF FOUR UNITS. THE MAJORITY OF THE -- ALL OF THESE ARE FOUR STORY UNITS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT TALLER THAN WHAT IS KIND OF DOWN THE STREET . IT FITS MORE IN LINE FROM A SIZING STANDPOINT WITH THE GALLANT APARTMENTS. THIS ALSO ALLOWS US TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A HIGHER END KIND OF OUTDOOR SPACE ON THAT UPPER-LEVEL . WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT JUST A SMALLER MEZZANINE . FROM A MATERIAL STANDPOINT, WE ARE LOOKING AT REALLY HIGHER-END MATERIALS. CAST STONE AND BRICK , ESPECIALLY ON THE BOTTOM THREE LEVELS. THEN, BORDEN BATTEN SIDING ON THE UPPER FLOOR. GLASS RAILINGS ON THE FRONT AND RAILINGS ON THE GARAGE SIDE. THEN ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES, AGAIN, OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE IN BETWEEN AND THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUAL PORTIONS THAT ARE BETWEEN THE OTHER BLOCKS AND THEY ARE LITTLE LESS FROM A TRANSPARENCY STANDPOINT. AGAIN, CAST STONE AROUND ON ALL FOUR SIDES AND BRICK ON ALL FOUR SIDES ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS. HERE IS THE REAR . AGAIN, THIS FACES THE PARKING LOT OF THE SECOND PHASE OF THE OF AUNT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. FROM A MATERIAL STANDPOINT WITH LIMESTONE AND CAST STONE AND A MODULAR BRICK OR CEMENT BOARD BORDEN BATTEN SIDING KIND OF OUTLINING THE INDIVIDUAL COLORS WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE. ALL OF THE WINDOWS AND DOORS WOULD BE ALUMINUM CLAD AND THE ANDERSON 400 SERIES. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT RAILS, DEPENDING ON WHERE IT IS . AGAIN, A GLASS RAILING ON THE FRONT AND THEN A HORIZONTAL PICKET RAILING ON THE BACK. WE ARE ALSO SHOWING MORE OF A SCREENED RAILING ON THE FOURTH FLOOR TO SCREEN THE UNITS ON THE FOURTH FLOOR . THE FLOOR PLANS, I WILL QUICKLY GO THREES -- THROUGH THESE . ALL OUR TWO-CAR GARAGE AND ALL HAVE AN ELEVATOR LIFT AS PART OF THEM. BEDROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND ONE THING THAT WILL BE INTERESTING IS DEPENDING ON HOW THE BUYER INTENDS TO USE THE SPACE, THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR CAN BE SWAPPED FROM MY PLAN STANDPOINT . WE HAVE SEEN MORE WHERE PEOPLE WANT THE BEDROOM SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN THE LIVING ROOM SPACE ON THE TOP INSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONAL . ALL OF THESE ARE INTERCHANGEABLE AND FROM AN EXTERIOR STANDPOINT, IT DOES NOT CHANGE. THERE IS ALSO AN OPTION ON THE FOURTH FLOOR , AND WE WENT THROUGH THIS WITH CHRISTINA . THE UNIT THAT IS THE FARTHEST SET BACK IN EACH OF THE THREE BLOCKS WOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF IN LIEU OF HAVING A COVERED TERRACE ON THE TOP FLOOR, THIS PORTION OF THE GREAT ROOM COULD BE A TWO STORY SPACE. IT IS ONLY ON THE SPECIFIC UNITS IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE UNITS HERE. IT IS THIS UNIT HERE AND THIS UNIT AND NONE OF THE OTHER UNITS, JUST THOSE THREE INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS. WE HAVE WORKED A LOT WITH CHRISTINE ON THE STREET LEVEL. WITH KIND OF HOW WE ARE STEPPING UP FROM THE STREET . WE ARE AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE THE SIDEWALK IN ALL OF THESE PLACES. THE SIDING IS TIGHT AND THAT IS WHY WE STEPPED IT BACK AS YOU GO . IN THE INTEREST OF NOT MAKING A FLAT [00:10:03] FRONT . THE ONLY THING I WOULD MENTION BEFORE I OPEN FOR QUESTIONS IS WE ARE SEEKING VARIANCE OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE EASEMENTS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE SITE. WE CANNOT PUSH IT FAR ENOUGH TO MEET THE SET BACK AND THE MAXIMUM SET BACK IS 20 TWO WHERE THAT IS AND SO THAT WOULD GO IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE 23RD. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING . IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THIS PROPOSITION ? SEE NONE, I TURNED OVER TO THE STAFF FOR YOUR COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU. PLANNING AND ZONING. THIS IS 12 TOWNHOMES IN TOTAL WITH THREE BUILDINGS. WE ARE EXCITED TO SEE THE FINAL PIECE DEVELOPMENT . THE ARCHITECTURE AND THEY HAVE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH. THERE IS A VARIANCE REQUESTED ON THE 23RD FROM THE HEARING APPEALS OFFICER FROM A FRONT SET BACK MAXIMUM. AGAIN THIS IS DUE TO SITE RESTRAINTS AND STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS HEARING . THERE IS STILL OUTSTANDING UTILITY COORDINATION LOCATION WHICH NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT. SPECIFICALLY CARAMEL UTILITIES AND CARAMEL WATER AND ENGINEERING . LANDSCAPE HAS BEEN APPLIED AROUND THINKING BEEN APPROVED WITH PLANTINGS AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING TO BLOCK EXISTING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. IT IS A MODERN DESIGN THAT COMPLEMENTS THE MULTIFAMILY TOWNHOME STRUCTURES. THIS IS PLANNED OUT WITHIN THE PUD FOR THE DISTRICT. IT IS NICE BETWEEN EXISTING TOWNHOMES AND THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS. MASONRY IS PROVIDED ON ALL FOUR FAÇADES AND STAFF IS HAPPY ABOUT THAT . IN ADDITION, WINDOWS WITH A TON OF BALCONIES ARE PROVIDED . CYLINDER LIGHTS ARE MOUNTED ON THE FRONT AND REAR FAÇADES. THE ONLY SIGNAGE IS THE ADDRESS PLACARDS. IN ADDITION, AS JEFF MENTIONED, THERE IS THE OPTION TO ENCLOSE THE OUTDOOR TERRACES . STAFF MADE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ONE UNIT PER BUILDING. OVERALL THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTS THIS GOING TO COMMITTEE WITH THE COMMITTEE HAVING THE FINAL WORD. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> >> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA AND IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE DESIGN OF THE SENIOR LIVING UNIT -- THE ASSISTED LIVING UNIT AND THE APARTMENTS THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES . >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE STRIP OF LAND WHERE IT IS GOING TO GO AND I THINK IT LOOKS GREAT AND I'M GLAD THE ISSUES GOT RESOLVED. >> THANK YOU, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS. >> COUNCILMEMBER MINNAR, WHAT ARE THE STARTING PRICES FOR THESE TOWNHOMES? >> I CAN ANSWER THAT . JOHN, DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH IDEA ? >> SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, JOHN. >> HELLO, I AM JOHN MCKENZIE AND I WILL BE THE BUILDER OF THESE . THEY WILL BE SIMILAR IN PRICE TO WHAT WE ARE DOING AT JG VILLAGE, IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE TOWNHOMES THERE . MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE FOUR STORIES. THERE IS A LITTLE MORE COMPRESSION -- CONSTRUCTION COST WITH THAT AND FIRE COMPRESSION SYSTEMS. I THINK THE STARTING POINT WILL BE A LITTLE NORTH OF $1 MILLION AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE. THE TOP OUT AT 1.3 OR $1.4 MILLION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I THINK THE PRODUCT LOOKS GREAT, JOHN. JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. I HEARD YOU ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR A FARTHER BACK SET BACK. I GUESS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE SET BACK RELATES TO FAIRFAX -- WHAT IS IT , MANOR? I'M GOING TO BUTCHER IT. JUST FROM A VISUAL, WHAT WOULD [00:15:03] THAT LOOK LIKE COMPARED TO WHAT IS JUST DOWN THE STREET? >> THE MAIN ISSUE IS THERE ARE A COUPLE OF VERY LARGE EASEMENTS AND THERE IS ALSO A 15 FOOT EASEMENT ON THIS SIDE AS WELL . BECAUSE OF THE DEPTH OF THE BUILDING, THESE ARE ACTUALLY FAIRLY SHORT FROM A NORMAL TOWNHOME STANDPOINT . THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE BOUGHT A -- THOUGHT A FOURTH FLOOR WAS APPLICABLE . WE CANNOT SHIFT FARTHER TO THE WEST AT THIS POINT BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THE FRONT STOOP WOULD AGAIN BE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR REALLY CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALKS . . . THE COMPROMISE WAS TO SHIFT EVERYTHING TO THE EAST. THE BUILDINGS ARE CLOSER TOGETHER AT 21 FEET. YOU CAN SEE. >> THAT CAN BE WORKED OFF LINE. WE WERE COMFORTABLE TAKING THAT TO COMMITTEE. >> IN MAKING THAT INTENTION FOR APPROVAL. >> I MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND VOTE ON THIS PROJECT TONIGHT . >> I WILL SECOND . >> THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF SUSPENDING RULES TO VOTE ON THIS THIS EVENING, SAY AYE . >> AYE . >> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED, IS THERE A MOTION? >> I MOVE THAT WE SECOND THE TOWNHOMES UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THE UTILITY WORK IS APPROVED AND COMPLETED THE KNICKS AND THE VARIANCE . >> AND THE VARIANCE ON JUNE 23RD . >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION AND SECOND . >> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE UTILITIES BEING FINALIZED SAY AYE . >> AYE . [00:20:05] >> ANY OPPOSED? >> HEARING NONE. CONGRATULATIONS [H.2. Docket No. PZ-2025-00101 OA: Group Home UDO Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the UDO pursuant to City Council Resolution 02-03-25-07, which directs the Plan Commission to consider amendments to UDO Sections 5.72, 9.08, and 11.02 in order to revise the standards, approval process, and definitions related to Group Homes. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel City Council.] AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING SUCH A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT TO CARAMEL. >> UP NEXT IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING AND THIS IS THE GROUP HOME ARDEN'S. THIS IS PZ -2025- 1001 . ORNAMENTS OF MEN AND YOU DIO AMENDMENT . ORDINANCE FOR THE YOU DIO 402-03- 07. 45.72, 9.08 AND 11.02 IN ORDER TO REVISE THE STANDARDS PROCESS FOR GROUP HOMES . FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL . I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO OUR LEGAL COUNCIL TO PRESENT THIS ONE. >> GOOD EVENING , SERGEY GRECHUKHIN. YOU WILL HAVE TWO GROUP HOME AMENDMENTS TONIGHT . THIS IS THE SHORTER OF THE TWO. THE ORDER WAS INITIATED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL AND THE ACCOMMODATING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED AT THE LAST MEETING . IT COMES TO YOU FOR YOUR COMMENDATION TO BE SENT BACK TO THE COUNCIL. THE ORDINANCE WOULD AMEND ARTICLES 572, 900 EIGHT , AND ARTICLE 1102 WITCHES DEFINITION . 572 AND 908 RELATE DIRECTLY TO GROUP HOMES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS PROCESSES. 572 SPECIFIC WAY ADDRESSES GROUP HOMES AND 908 ADDRESSES THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS THAT INCLUDES GROUP HOMES , SDRS, SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS . SO, IF I CAN ADDRESS IT LINE BY LINE OR SUMMARIZE IT , THIS IS THE SHORTER OF THE TWO AND IT CAN BE LINE BY LINE IF ADVISABLE. >> I AM ASSUMING EVERYBODY IS READ AND WELL PREPARED FOR THIS. WE DON'T NEED TO GO LINE BY LINE BUT SECTION BY SECTION, PERHAPS. >> THE FIRST IS SUBSECTION C STARTING AT LINE 70 AND IT IS ABOUT SPECIFIC TYPES OF GROUP HOMES. SPECIFICALLY HOMES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. THEY HAVE TO RECEIVE A CERTIFICATION FROM THE INDEPENDENT INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY . ALSO GROUP HOMES WITH INDIVIDUALS WITH PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OR ADDICTIONS , THOSE TYPES OF GROUP HOMES WOULD HAVE TO OF PAIN APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATION FROM THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION. THIS ONE IS MORE OF A SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT. >> SIR, CAN YOU SHOW IT ON THE SCREEN ? IS IT POSSIBLE TO SHOW SO THE VIEWERS AT HOME CAN WATCH IT AND FOLLOW ALONG? >> YEAH , I DON'T HAVE A COPY . IF I COULD BORROW ONE . THANK YOU. >> YEP, THAT'S THE RIGHT ONE. THE FIRST AMENDMENT I JUST DESCRIBED STARTS IN SUBSECTION C , LINE 70 . THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS . THE NEXT ONE IS A SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE, LINE 83 AND 84. THESE, AS A GROUP HAS LIMITATIONS ON THE SIZE OF GROUP HOMES. IT READS NO GROUP HOME AND S- S1 , ARE FIVE OR R DISTRICTS SHALL PROVIDE HOUSING FOR MORE THAN EIGHT UNRELATED PERSONS. THEN, THE NEXT AMENDMENTS ARE IN SECTION 3 WHICH STARTS ON PAGE FOUR, STARTING AT LINE 123 ONWARDS . HERE IS AN AMENDMENT THAT I WILL DESCRIBE AND SUMMARIZE FOR YOU. [00:25:03] THE AMENDMENT NOT ONLY AFFECTS GROUP HOMES SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BUT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AS A WHOLE . SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE CONSIDERED BY HEARING OFFICER . I WILL BE HONEST ITH YOU, THOSE TYPES OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ATTEND TO BE WELL ATTENDED AND QUITE A FEW DEMONSTRATORS THERE. SO, THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING IT WOULD BE A BETTER PROCESS FOR MORE INPUT FROM DCA RATHER THAN JUST INDIVIDUALS AND THE HEARING OFFICER. NOW ALL SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MOVED TO A FULL BOARD WITH ONE EXCEPTION. ONE EXCEPTION IS SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL RENEWALS. SO, IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR RENEWAL, IT WILL GO TO A HEARING OFFICER BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE A RECORD AND YOU ARE OPERATING A DWELLING S TR FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR. WE WILL HAVE A RECORD FOR COMPLAINTS, CITATIONS , ANY CALLS FOR POLICE AND FIRE, ET CETERA. IT IS AN EASIER PROCESS WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR RENEWALS. IT IS EASIER AND THE COUNCIL THOUGHTTHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION RENEWAL SHOULD REMAIN WITH THE HEARING OFFICER BUT THE REMAINDER WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE FULL BZA . AND ANOTHER AMENDMENT STARTING ON LINE 162. THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES WILL AND FORM THE APPLICANT THAT THE GROUP HOME MUST MEET THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE REASON IT IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE FAIRLY RECENTLY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CLASSIFIES BUILDING TYPES -- BEGAN TO CLASS FIVE BUILDING TYPES AS CLASS TWO STRUCTURES . GENERALLY SPEAKING THEY ARE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES OR MOST COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES ARE CONSIDERED CLASS TWO STRUCTURES. THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF LITIGATION AT THIS POINT BETWEEN GROUP HOME APPLICANTS AND THE DEPARTMENT. IN FACT, AS OF APRIL OF THIS YEAR , THERE HAVE BEEN SEVEN OUTSTANDING CASES. SO, QUITE A BIT OF LITIGATION. WE ARE ANTICIPATING THE DECISIONS ON SOME OF THESE CASES AND WE ARE STILL IN THE EARLY STAGES THAT THE ORDINANCE MAY BE AMENDED DEPENDENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THOSE CASES. AND THE COUNCIL DIRECTS THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TO COMPLY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CERTIFICATIONS BECAUSE THERE IS BOUND TO BE AN ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD. >> THE THE NEXT ONE IS SHORT-TERM RE MENTAL'S AND THE RENEWALS AND S TRS WILL REMAIN WITH THE RENEWAL OFFICER. THERE IS A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS HERE ON PAGE SIX WHICH THE GROUP HOME APPLICANT S SHOULD COMPLY WITH ALL ETHICAL STATE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS. AGAIN, THE REFERENCE TO THE HEARING OFFICE FOR RENEWALS AND ANOTHER QUITE SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT IS IN SECTION C ON PAGE 6 , LINE ITEM 237. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR BZA TO CONSIDER WHICH IS PROXIMITY TO OTHER GROUP HOMES FOR THE PROPOSED SITE . SO, THOSE DETERMINATIONS, AS YOU KNOW , OUR CASE SPECIFIC AND IT IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT COMES UP FAIRLY FREQUENTLY AND IT IS PARTICULAR TO THE CASE SITUATION IN A PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD OF WHICH WE HAVE QUITE A FEW. I BELIEVE THE REST OF THE ITEMS ARE JUST COMPLYING WITH THE INTENT OF COUNCIL TO SHIFT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FROM THE HEARING OFFICER TO THE FULL BOARD. FINALLY , THE DEFINITIONS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO REFLECT THE [00:30:04] ORDINANCE . THE DEFINITIONS IN 1102. THAT IS IT . I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS . >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING . IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR AN OPPOSITION TO THIS ORDINANCE? SEE NONE, I TURN IT OVER TO STAFF . >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ADRIAN KEELING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. SERGEY COVERED THE BULK OF THE AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES , HOWEVER, I WANTED TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS AS YOU CONTINUE YOUR REVIEW OF THIS. SINCE THIS ORDINANCE WAS GENERATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL , THERE IS A 60 DAY DEADLINE -- THERE WAS A 60 DAY DEADLINE TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH WE ARE NOW DOING. NOW, THIS STARTS ANOTHER 60 DAY DEADLINE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION BACK TO COUNCIL. SO, THAT DEADLINE WOULD BE SATURDAY, AUGUST 16TH . THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT MEET ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 16TH AND SO YOUR LAST OPPORTUNITY TO ACT WOULD BE AT THE TUESDAY, AUGUST 5TH COMMUNITY MEETING . WE RECOMMEND THIS GO TO COMMITTEE WITH THE COMMITTEE HAVING THE FINAL BOATING AUTHORITY . IN REVIEW OF THIS ORDINANCE , OUR DEPARTMENT WAS INVOLVED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION OF THIS AS WELL AS THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT . THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MINOR REFERENCES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IN THIS ORDINANCE. THEY ARE VERY MINOR WITH THINGS THAT REFERENCE WRITTEN APPLICATIONS AND COPIES AND WE DO A ELECTRONICALLY NOW . THERE WILL BE MINOR EDITS AND WE WILL HAVE THOSE READY FOR COMMITTEE DISCUSSION . SO, IN CLOSING, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEND THIS TO COMMITTEE FOR THE FINAL BOATING AUTHORITY, THAT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION . >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL OPEN TO COMMISSIONERS AND START WITH COUNCILMEMBER MINNAR. >> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO ADRIAN AND THE DIRECTOR AND BLAKE ALL OF THE HARD WORK YOU PUT IN TO GET THIS DOCUMENT TO WHERE WE THOUGHT IT NEEDED TO BE. I WANT YOU TO KNOW TO MY FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT WE WORKED ON THIS FOR A VERY LONG TIME . AND, I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT UPDATE . I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THANK YOU, THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ALL THEIR WORK BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I WILL OPEN IT TO ANYBODY WHO HAS QUESTIONS . I HAVE A FEW AND WILL KICK IT OFF WITH MY QUESTIONS. SO, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, I AM IN FAVOR OF THAT . THIS IS MY FIRST YEAR IN THE PCA AND I NOTED THAT SHORT-TERM RENTALS GO TO THAT HEARING OFFICER AND ARE ALWAYS CONTESTED. IT IS A GOOD PROCESS TO HAVE IT GO TO THE FULL BZA . WITH THIS FOR THE GROUP HOME, DO WE ALSO NEED TO CHANGE IT ANYWHERE ELSE WHERE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE REFERENCED? OR, IS THIS THE ONLY PLACE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE REFERENCED ? >> NO, WE DO NOT NEED TO UPDATE ANYWHERE ELSE. THE AMENDMENT AS TO MOVING THOSE ITEMS FROM THE HEARING OFFICE TO THE FULL BOARD RELATES TO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS PROCESSES . THAT REQUIREMENT IS IN 908 ONLY AND THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE. >> OKAY, GREAT, THANK YOU. THE NEXT QUESTION WAS I KNOW WE ARE LIMITING THIS TO EIGHT. MAYBE COUNCILMEMBER MINNAR CAN SPEAK TO THIS. HOW IS THAT NUMBER CHOEN AS OPPOSED TO SIX OR 10? WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR A ? >> WELL, I'M GOING TO LET SERGEY SPEAK TO THAT . IT WAS MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION AND WAS NOT A NUMBER WE PULLED OUT OF THIN AIR. WE RELATED -- RELIED ON SERGEY'S EXPERTISE FOR THAT . COULD YOU DISCUSS THAT? >> SURE. OUR GROUP HOME IS SIX UNRELATED PERSONS . IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN THAT NUMBER LIVING IN THE HOUSE OR STRUCTURE , YOU DO NOT NEED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO RUN AS A GROUP HOME. THE NUMBER EIGHT CAME UP AS IT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST COMMON SIZES OF GROUP HOMES THAT WE SEE ACROSS INDIANA AND THE COUNTRY. SO, THEN, WE FELT THAT PUSHING [00:35:10] BETWEEN SIX AND EIGHT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE ORDINANCE TO STAND ANY CHALLENGES . THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED NATIONALLY AND IN INDIANA. IT SEEMS TO BE, NOT THE MAGIC NUMBER BUT A MORE COMMON NUMBER . AGAIN, THERE CAN BE A VARIANCE THAT YOU CAN SEEK FROM THE REQUIREMENT . IT IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE ONE NUMBER FITS ALL. MAYBE BIGGER GROUP HOMES, ESPECIALLY THERE IS NO LIMITATION IF IT IS NOT IN THOSE DISTRICTS. >> YES, DUBBIE, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> IS THERE A NATIONAL STANDARD ? >> AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE IS NO NATIONAL GROUP HOME STANDARDS. GROUPS ARE REGULATED ON THE STATE LEVEL . ALSO THE FEDERAL LEVEL BUT NOT DIRECTLY . GROUP HOMES ARE REGULATED THROUGH ADA AND THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND A COUPLE OF OTHER MAJOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION BUT NOT NECESSARILY . THERE IS SOME GUIDANCE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ISSUED FOR GROUP HOMES SPECIFICALLY . I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU THAT SOME OF THE GUIDANCE IS GOING AWAY UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. SO, WE WILL MONITOR THIS CLOSELY AND IT IS POSSIBLE WE WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF COUNCIL TO AMEND IT TO SEE HOW REGULATIONS CHANGE ON THE STATE LEVEL AND FEDERAL LEVEL. AGEISM IS MORE POPULAR AND REGULATION IS COMING . THERE IS NOT REALLY A ONE SIZE FITS ALL FOUR ALL OF THE STATES INVOLVED . >> I CAN CONTINUE MY QUESTIONS, BUT I SEE YOUR LIGHT IS ON, JEFF, DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? >> I HAVE AN UNRELATED QUESTION . >> I'M GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, SO GO AHEAD . >> SO WERE GOING FROM 13 UNRELATED PERSONS TO AGE AND MAYBE THAT IS MORE CONSISTENT. I AM CURIOUS, HOW MANY OF THESE ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION EACH YEAR. BALLPARK , I'M NOT LOOKING FOR AN EXACT NUMBER. IS IT ONE OR IS IT 10? >> I WOULD SAY MORE THAN ONE IN LESS THAN FIVE. I THINK WE HAD MAYBE TWO OR THREE LAST YEAR. >> A SMALL HANDFUL. >> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE SEEN MORE THAN THREE AND A YEAR . THEY ARE NOT AS COMMON IN CARMEL SPECIFICALLY. THEY ARE MORE IN INDIANAPOLIS FOR THE HOUSING PRICE POINT THAT IS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER . IT'S NOT AS COMMON HERE AS ELSEWHERE AND WE DID HAVE LITIGATION FOR THE GROUP HOME WHICH IS STILL ONGOING . >> OKAY . >> ONE OF THE CHANGES OR EDITS IS THE BZA BEING ABLE TO CONSIDER PROXIMITY TO OTHER GROUP HOMES. WHAT IS PROXIMITY ? IS IT A MILE OR HALF MILE OR FIVE MILES? >> SO, ORIGINALLY, AND COUNCILMEMBER MINNAR HAS PERSPECTIVE ON THIS AS WELL . ORIGINALLY IT WAS A HARD NUMBER. WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED AND WHAT WE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL WAS THAT HARD NUMBERS ARE MUCH HARDER TO REGULATE BECAUSE IN CARMEL, ESPECIALLY , ONE OF OUR PREFERRED WAYS TO DEVELOP NEIGHBORHOODS IS FOR PUDS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, YOU WILL SEE A PLETHORA OF COLORS . IF THERE IS A DIRECTIVE, CURRENTLY IS STILL STANDS FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT STATES -- YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE NEIGHBORHOODS ENTIRELY . SO, ANY PROPOSED NUMBER , ORIGINALLY I THINK IT WAS 1500 FEET, WHAT EXCLUDE THAT NUMBER . IT WOULD EXCLUDE ABOUT 70% OF PUDS IF IT WAS A GROUP HOME ON THE BORDER OF A PUD . SO, THERE CAN BE AN ARGUMENT MADE THAT IT COULD EXCLUDE AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM A GROUP HOME BEING ABLE TO BE THERE. IN TURN , IT WOULD VIOLATE FEDERAL LEGISLATURE . SO, RATHER THAN HAVING THIS ONE NUMBER THAT FITS ALL, IT WAS A CONSIDERATION FOR BZA TO [00:40:04] CONSIDER HOW MANY GROUP HOMES IN THE VICINITY AND HOW THEY IMPACT THE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ET CETERA. SO, THE COUNCIL THOUGHT -- EVENTUALLY THE COUNCIL THOUGHT IT WAS A BETTER APPROACH THAN ONE HARD NUMBER. >> I WILL SAY -- MAY I? >> YES, GO AHEAD . >> I WAS A PROPONENT OF MAKING A LARGE NUMBER AND SERGEY PRESENTED THE FACTS OF THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT AND ALL OF THESE LEGAL SITUATIONS THAT COULD PUT THE CITY IN A PRECARIOUS SITUATION FOR LITIGATION . WE DECIDED UNDER HIS DIRECTION THIS WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO . >> I'M SORRY, ONE MORE EXPLANATION FOR THAT AS WELL . GROUP HOMES ARE SUBJECT TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS UNDER ADA. A LOT OF THEM ARE THAT WAY WITH THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST. ONCE THEY BRING THAT , IT IS CASE-BY-CASE . IT DEPENDS ON THE REQUESTER AND WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING, ET CETERA . THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY WE DID NOT THINK THE HARD NUMBER WAS IDEAL . >> SO, THIS WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS AS WELL. IT IS JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AND I'M NOW THINKING AS A BZA PERSON , WHAT WAY DO YOU GET TO THAT ? IT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER . I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN -- YES, AS I'M THINKING ABOUT AS THESE COME THROUGH WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT A GROUP HOME AND EVALUATING AND ASKING ABOUT PROXIMITY TO OTHERS THINKING >> I THOUGHT THE PROCESS WAS AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OTHERS, I THOUGHT IF THERE WAS A GROUP HOME, LET SAY ON MY CUL-DE-SAC AND THEN SUDDENLY ANOTHER HOUSE POPS UP TWO DOORS DOWN AND THAT BECOMES A GROUP HOME. THAT, TO ME -- I AM NOT A BZA PERSON, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THROUGH THE BZA . WHAT AUTHORITY -- WHAT LANGUAGE WOULD YOU USE? UNDO BURDEN >> IT SOUNDED LIKE A LAWYER . >> IF I'M ON A CUL-DE-SAC WITH A GROUP HOME AND THEN TWO DOORS DOWN SOMEONE BUYS IT AND TURNS IT TO A GROUP HOME , WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT DOES THAT DO TO YOUR PROPERTY VALUES? NOT THAT WE CAN ANTICIPATE . >> JUST ANOTHER FACTOR TO CONSIDER AMONG MANY . >> THERE ARE QUITE A FEW FACTORS THAT BZA CONSIDERS WITH A GROUP HOME. SOME ARE PRACTICAL LIKE PUBLIC SAFETY WITH A GROUP HOME WITH 12 PEOPLE RESIDING THERE AND THEY HAVE 12 PARKING SPOTS, FOR EXAMPLE AND THAT BECOMES A LEGITIMATE CONCERN. PARKING SPACES AND CIRCULATION WHERE GROUP HOMES ARE LOCATED. ALL OF THAT GOES INTO CONSIDERATION FOR BZA . IF THERE IS ANOTHER GROUP HOME IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AND DEPENDING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD , IT MIGHT BE A BURDEN ON CITY RESOURCES AND IT MIGHT BE A SAFETY ISSUE , ET CETERA. SO, IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THE GROUP HOME IS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT DISTRICT IT IS IN. S-1 IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN R-4 . YOU COULD HAVE 20 HOUSES PER ACRE VERSUS ONE . SO, IT REALLY DEPENDS . WE DO HAVE VERY DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS IN CARMEL . ESPECIALLY IN THE CENTRAL CORE AND BEYOND. SO, THIS REALLY WILL BE A CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATION . ESPECIALLY AS WE DON'T HAVE TOO MANY PER YEAR . >> THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ALONG SIMILAR LINES AND THEN I WILL BE DONE WITH MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. IN SECTION 3 , YOU HAVE -- I THINK THIS WAS IN THERE BEFORE . MAYBE I AM JUST NOW READING IT MORE CLOSELY . IT SAYS ANY APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT COMPLIES WITH ARTICLE 7.72 WITH FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION AS LONG AS IT IS NOT OPPOSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. SO, EXPLAIN THAT TO ME . HOW THAT WOULD WORK. I READ THIS AS THAT THIS NOW PUTS D.O.C. STAFF IN THE POSITION OF SAYING WHETHER THEY ARE IN FAVOR OR NOT [00:45:02] IN FAVOR. IS THAT WHICH YOU ARE INTERPRETING ? >> IT WAS THERE BEFORE, NUMBER ONE. SINCE A FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION HERE IS FOR STAFF TO GIVE PERMISSION. THE COMMISSION CAN STILL ACT WHETHER STAFF CONSIDERATION IS FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE . WHEN WE SAY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, IT IS A TERM WE USE BASICALLY FOR DOCS [H.3. Docket No. PZ-2025-00103 OA: DP/ADLS UDO Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the UDO pursuant to City Council Resolution 05-05-25-01 which directs the Plan Commission to consider amendments to UDO Sections 2.20, 2.21, and 9.03 of the UDO relating to Development Plan (“DP”) and Architectural Design, Exterior Lighting, Landscaping and Signage (“ADLS”) requirements, application, consideration, and approval processes in order to standardize, enhance, simplify, and better define DP and ADLS approvals. This ordinance further requires DP approval in B1 and B2 districts. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel City Council.] [00:50:06] YOU DL WAS DRAFTED WITH CONSULTANTS . OVER THE YEARS IT REQUIRED TAILORING AS TO HOW THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION AND HOW THE PROCESSES ACTUALLY WORK. ALSO IN 2019 , IF YOU WILL REMEMBER, THERE WAS A GLOBAL PANDEMIC THAT REALLY ACCELERATED THE PACE OF TRANSITIONING FROM PAPER TO ONLINE SERVICES . SO, OUR PROCESS COMPLETELY CHANGED FROM PAPER SUBMISSIONS PROVIDING COPIES TO COMMISSION MEMBERS, ET CETERA TO EVERYTHING IS DONE ONLINE NOW. AND, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS LIKE THAT. THEY ARE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS THAT AMEND YOU DL TO BRING IT UP TO SPEED AND MAKE IT STATE-OF-THE-ART. THIS IS A LONG DOCUMENT . AND I CAN SUMMARIZE WHAT WE DID BEFORE. >> I THINK WE CAN SUMMARIZE THE CHANGES AND THERE WERE KIND OF WORD AND CHOICE CHANGES . EVERYBODY HAS READ IT AND EVERYBODY IS PREPARED AND SO YOU CAN KIND OF GO THROUGH IT IN BIG SECTIONS . >> THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, AND THAT IS OF FAIRLY BIG CHANGE FOR THE COMMISSION IS AMENDMENTS OF SECTION -- ARTICLES 2.2 AND 2.1 . AS YOU MAY RECALL , THE BUSINESS DISTRICT B-1 AND B-2 REQUIRED ADS APPROVAL AND DID NOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN . AND, BECAUSE OF THAT AND THIS GOES INTO LATER AMENDMENTS AS WELL . BECAUSE OF THAT, THERE WAS AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS WHERE SOME DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS WERE INCORPORATED IN A DLS PROVISIONS AND I THINK AT THE TIME THAT THE COMMISSION THOUGHT THAT ADLS 1 AND 2 WERE NOT INCLUDED . THERE WERE PROVISIONS THAT WE WILL GET TO THAT LATER. SO, TO FIX THAT, NOW A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED FOR E-1 AND B-2 DISTRICTS. MIKE IS HERE TO CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG . ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN BILLED OUT AND SO AT THIS POINT , THE DISTRICT IS SUBJECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL USE CHANGES. SOME OF THOSE USE CHANGES REALLY DO REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. OR, AT LEAST, D.O.C. STAFF BELIEVE SOME OF THEM DO BECAUSE WE ADDRESS A LOT MORE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND NOT JUST THE ADLS. A CHANGE IN THE MOST RECENT ONE FROM A WAREHOUSE FACILITY TO A FITNESS CENTER. YOU HAVE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC AND MORE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND MORE STRESS ON THE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE, ET CETERA. NOW, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE B1 AND B2 DISTRICTS . THOSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOW ALL B DISTRICTS REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN . THERE ARE VERY FEW LEFT AND MOST, AGAIN, ARE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS . SO, THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE , AGAIN , SHIFTS CERTAIN ITEMS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT REALLY BELONG TO ADLS. SPECIFICALLY LANDSCAPING AND DESIGN EDGE . NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE ADLS ONLY REQUIREMENT BUT IT IS TRULY SEPARATE. THE ONL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADLS AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING ARE ONLY IN ADLS . YOU WILL SEE REDLINING CERTAIN ITEMS BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE IN THE WAY, THEY JUST GOT SHIFTED. AND, ADDITIONALLY , THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CRITERIA IN [00:55:03] SUBMISSIONS THAT REALLY REFLECT WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN CONSIDERING OVER THE YEARS . FOR EXAMPLE, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IS CONSIDERED FAIRLY FREQUENTLY. THE CITY HAS DEVELOPED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH EASEMENTS RELATED TO STORMWATER . WITH HOW THE STORMWATER IS IMPACTING THE INSTALLATION , ET CETERA. NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE CONSIDERED AND RELIED ON A CATCHALL PROVISION WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT FLIMSY . SO, SOME OF THE PROVISIONS -- I'M SORRY, SOME OF THE CRITERIA CONSIDERED ARE INCLUDED IN THE UDO. FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS TO CONSIDER AND IT ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR FOR THE APPLICANT WHAT WILL BE CONSIDERED SO THERE ARE NO SURPRISES GOING FORWARD AND THOSE ITEMS ARE PRESENTED AND PREPARED IN ADVANCE. THERE HAVE BEEN QUITE A FEW ADDITIONS FOR, AGAIN, DETECTION OF WETLAND STREAMS AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ALSO TRAFFIC CONTROL. TRAFFIC CONTROL WAS KIND OF ONE LINE AND THERE WERE FREQUENT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION . THERE WERE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MEASURES AND THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, ET CETERA. NOW, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN -- IT'S A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES. NOT ONLY FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TO BE AWARE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SUBMISSION BUT ALSO SO THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE SURPRISES GOING THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS. >> AGAIN , AS YOU GO FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS, CERTAIN THINGS WERE SUBTRACTED OR ADDED . SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBTRACTED BUT HAVE NOT GONE AWAY BUT JUST MOVED TO ADLS. FOR EXAMPLE, SECTION K-1, LINE ITEM 116 WITH SIGNAGE . IT GOT MOVED TO ADLS . THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS ADDED FOR LOCATION OF UTILITIES ON THE SITE . THEY WERE VERY -- BEFORE IT WAS A VERY BROAD STATEMENT AND NOW IT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED. AGAIN, IT GIVES TO THE APPLICANT WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN ON DEVELOPMENT PLANS. LOCATIONS OF WATER LINES AND GAS LINES AND OTHER FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AND UTILITIES. THERE HAVE BEEN ADDED PROVISIONS ABOUT CYCLIST SAFETY. AGAIN, THIS IS A FREQUENTLY DISCUSSED ITEM IN CARMEL AND IT IS NOW ADLS , UDO AND REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED. AND STORMWATER WITH EASEMENTS DEVELOPED BY THE CITY OVER THE YEARS. A UDO IS IN USE . >> ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, AND THIS ONE IS QUITE A BIG ONE. IT IS A COUNCIL IMPOSE 30 DAY REVIEW REQUIREMENT FOR A TECHNICAL REVIEW. NOW THE TECHNICAL REVIEW IS DONE BY STAFF AND VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. IN THE PAST, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD GATHER IN ONE ROOM FOR A LONG MEETING. CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS COULD NOT BE THERE, ET CETERA AND NOW IT HAPPENS SIMULTAEOUSLY BY DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND IT'S DONE ONLINE. IT IS A MUCH MORE -- A MUCH FASTER PROCESS AND A MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS, NOW. SO, COUNCIL THOUGHT THAT A 30 DAY REQUIREMENT TO SPEED THINGS ALONG SO THE APPLICATIONS DON'T LINGER IN STAFF REVIEW IN PERPETUITY WAS IN HER PROPRIA REQUIREMENT . THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, OF COURSE. SO THE APPLICANT SUBMITS EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUIRED TO [01:00:02] BE CONSIDERED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE ADLS AND HOPEFULLY ALL OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ARE CLEAR AND LISTED IN MORE DETAIL . HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE ABLE TO AVOID QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS REQUIRED AND WHAT IS NOT WRITTEN QUIRED, ET CETERA . THE STAFF DEPARTMENT AND BOTH DEPARTMENTS HAVE 30 DAYS TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION. NOW , THERE ARE OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO THAT BECAUSE NOT EVERYTHING IS DEPENDENT ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS. SOME ARE STATE APPROVALS . SO, IN THOSE INSTANCES, I INCLUDED A LOG OF STATE APPROVAL OR DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL SUCH AS THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THOSE WILL BE SEPARATE . >> THEN , AGAIN, THE SUBMISSIONS PROCEDURE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY GUTTED . IT IS NOT HOW WE DO SUBMISSIONS ANYMORE . THERE IS NO NEED TO SUBMIT SIX COPIES OF THE SAME DOCUMENT AND STAMP EVERY SINGLE PAGE . ALL OF YOU HAVE COMPUTERS IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOU CAN FOLLOW SUBMISSIONS ONLINE, NOW AND THAT'S HOW THEY DO ARE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU AS WELL. THAT IS JUST A HOUSEKEEPING ITEM AND A RESULT OF THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC AS WELL. ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION IS THAT THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES NOW HAS SOME MINOR DISCRETION TO APPROVE MINOR CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADLS. FOR CHANGES THAT DO NOT IMPACT GENERAL PURPOSE OR THE GENERAL IDEA OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE EXACT WEEK WHAT THEY ARE. RATHER THAN BRINGING THE ENTIRE PROCESS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF IT IS A MINOR CHANGE, NOW THERE IS THE AUTHORITY . >> THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS AS TO HOW THE PROCESS MOVES FROM APPLICATIONS ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO APPROVAL OR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL . JUST TO MAKE THE DOCUMENT A LITTLE MORE USER FRIENDLY . OBVIOUSLY, IT IS A LONG SECTION AND HOPEFULLY SOME OF THE CORRECTIONS GIVE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY FOR THE APPLICANT. >> ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT COMES ON PAGE 12 STARTING ON LINE 518 . IN THE PAST, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN , EXTERIOR LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE WERE VERY BROAD AND THERE WERE VERY FEW OF THEM . THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS A LOT MORE THAN WHAT WAS DEPICTED OR OUTLINED IN THE UDO . SO THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ADDRESSING AND IT IS NOW OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE. HOPEFULLY THERE IS NOTHING NEW HERE AND IT INCLUDES ARCHITECTURAL STYLE MATERIALS AND DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS AS WERE MENTIONED BEFORE. THE SCALE AND APPROPRIATE MATERIALS FOR DETAILING. FOR SAFETY AND WAYFINDING . WITH THE WELL-INTEGRATED LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT HAS APPENDICES THAT OUTLINE WHAT THE PLANS ARE OR WHAT THE TREES ARE WITH AN APPROVED LIST OF TREES AND THEN SOME SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL THAT THE CITY REQUIRES. A COUPLE OF REFERENCES HAVE BEEN ADDED TO WHERE YOU CAN FIND THE REQUIREMENTS AND A LIST OF TREES . WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE IT WITH THE URBAN FORESTRY DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE BEEN ADDED IN HOPE THAT THE QUESTIONS, AS THE APPLICANT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS, WILL BE REDUCED. >> I BELIEVE THAT IS IT. THAT IS THE SUMMARY OF ALL OF THE [01:05:01] CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ADLS . AS YOU GO THROUGH , IT IS FAIRLY LONG , BUT ESSENTIALLY THAT IS IT . I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS . >> THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT SUMMARY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING . IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF WERE IN OPPOSITION? I AM SEEING NONE AND SO I WILL TURN IT TO STEP FOUR COMMENTS. >> I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD , HOWEVER THIS ORDINANCE IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME TIMELINE AS THE PREVIOUS ONE AND SO WE RECOMMEND IT GOES TO THE COMMITTEE WITH THE FINAL VOTING AUTHORITY . THE COMMITTEE WOULD NEED TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION BY THE AUGUST 5TH MEETING . >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL OPEN UP TO FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR COMMENTS AND I WILL START WITH COUNCILMEMBER MINNAR SINCE THIS CAME FROM CITY COUNCIL . >> IT CAME FROM CITY COUNCIL BUT THE DIRECTOR HAD COMMENTS ON THIS FOR B1 AND B2. I WANT TO GIVE CREDIT TO THE DIRECTOR . >> AND, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND ENERGY THAT WAS PUT INTO THIS ORDINANCE UPDATE BECAUSE IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL AND IT TOOK US A LONG TIME TO DO IT, NOT THAT I NEED TO TELL YOU THAT. I WANT TO THINK AND FEEL AWFUL FOR NOT SAYING THIS SUMER. FOR COUNCILMEMBER SNYDER FOR ALL THE HARD WORK PUT INTO IT. I AM GOING TO LET YOU GUYS ASK YOUR QUESTIONS . >> COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? DUBBIE? >> JUST A COMMENT . READING THROUGH THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES , A GREAT DEAL OF WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS AND THE END RESULT IS TO CLARIFY END UP DATE. I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE A MARVELOUS JOB DONE . SO, MY APPRECIATION . >> A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO SERGEY, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAD TO OF SPENT A LONG TIME DRAFTING THIS. >> IS THERE ANYTHING TO DISCUSS AT COMMITTEE , OR SHOULD WE HAVE A MOTION TO SUSPEND OUR RULES AND PROCEDURE ? >> I'M GOING TO MOVE WE SUSPEND THE RULES SO WE CAN ACT ON THIS TONIGHT . >> I SECOND THAT . >> THANK YOU. A MOTION AND A SECOND IS SUSPEND THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AND ACT ON THIS TONIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE . [H.4. Docket No. PZ-2025-00104 OA: Certificate of Occupancy UDO Amendment The applicant seeks to amend Unified Development Ordinance Sections 9.02 and 11.02 to revise Certificate of Occupancy standards and associated definitions related to changes in occupancy. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission] >> AYE . >> DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE? >> THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION AND THE SECOND . >> ONE CLARIFICATION . >> SINCE THIS IS A UDO AMENDMENT , IT IS FAVORABLE, UNFAVORABLE OR NO RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. >> THAT'S WHAT I MEANT TO SAY, A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. >> I ALWAYS CORRECT THAT AND SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE" Z . >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? >> THIS WILL MOVE ON TO THE COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. THE LAST ITEM IS DOCKET NUMBER PEASY-20 -- 2025 -- 1004 FOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY YOU DL AMENDMENT. IT IS SECTIONS 9.02 AND 11.02 TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY STANDARDS RELATED TO CHANGES IN OCCUPANCY FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>> COMMISSION, GOOD EVENING . I AM WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES HERE TO PRESENT THE EXCITING CLIMAX TO TONIGHT'S AGENDA. YOU LAUGH, BUT THIS IS THE ONLY AGENDA ITEM THAT ACTUALLY HAS A FAN BASE GO WITH IT TOO. SO, THIS DRAFT AMENDMENT IS VERY MUCH RELATED TO THE COUNCIL EFFORT TO KIND OF UPDATE AND MODERNIZE . IT WAS INITIATED BY STAFF . WE DID TALK ABOUT IT IN LAND USE COMMITTEE WITH THE COUNCIL AND WE GOT NODS AND SMILES BEFORE WE MOVED IT ON TO YOU ALL THIS EVENING. THE AMENDMENT DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. REALLY , IT JUST KIND OF MODERNIZES THE LANGUAGE END UP [01:10:01] DATES THE LANGUAGE TO BETTER REFLECT HOW WE DO BUSINESS TODAY IN BUILDING SAFETY . AND, IT DOES ADD THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT WHICH IS SOMETHING NEW AND SOMETHING THAT BUILDING SAFETY AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN PRODDING ME TO GET ON THE BOOKS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND, TRYING TO FIND A TIME TO GET HELP . AND , THEY ARE ALWAYS KIND OF SUBJECT TO EVERYBODY ELSE BESIDES U.S. CS AND WE DECIDED WE WERE WORK ON THIS ONE AND PUT IT INTO SERGEY'S LAP TO GIVE IT A THUMBS UP TOO . THE AMENDMENT CREATES A COUPLE OF NEW DEFINITIONS FOR THE UDO. WHAT IT DOESN'T DO THAT IS MENTIONED AT THE END OF THE MEMO IS THIS LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION , THERE WAS NEW LANGUAGE THAT THE STATE HAS PROPOSED RELATED TO INSPECTIONS AND SERGEY, I KNOW , HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT AND WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE AT COMMITTEE . YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE DETAILS IN THE ORDINANCE GO, IT IS REALLY A ONE PAGER . IF YOU WOULD LIKE , WE CAN KIND OF GO THROUGH IT OR WE CAN JUST GO WITH QUESTIONS AND I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT TOO. >> PERHAPS JUST A HIGH-LEVEL BIG PICTURE OF IT . IT IS VERY SHORT, SO. >> SO , I MEAN , TODAY THE PROVISION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS THREE PROVISIONS . ONE JUST FOR CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS . ONE REQUIREMENT FOR INSPECTIONS AND TO SEE HOW A CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED . WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE IS MODERNIZE THE LANGUAGE FOR WHAT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS. AND, WE HAVE ADDED THE TERM BUILDING SAFETY OFFICIAL TO BETTER REFLECT WHO IS DOING THE WORK ON THAT . THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT IS NEW AND AS THE CITY EVOLVES AND GOES FROM BUILDING NEW TO TAKING CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE . KIND OF BEEN THE CONSISTENCY WITH WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT DOES . THIS ALLOWS BUILDING SAFETY AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE THIS NEW INSPECTION THAT -- I MEAN IT'S NOT COVERED TODAY BY A REMODEL PERMIT AND THIS IS A NEW INSPECTION THAT WOULD ALLOW WHEN A SPACE EMPTIES OUT, BEFORE HE GETS REOCCUPIED , THEY WANT TO DO A SAFETY INSPECTION. WE HAVE A CHECKLIST . IT'S NOT THE MOST DETAILED THING , BUT IT DOES GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO CATCH THINGS OR PREVENT A PROJECT FROM MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT OF A ZONING REVIEW THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT. SO EVERYBODY HAS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING . A PROJECT DOES NOT GET INITIATED WITHOUT A STATE REVIEW ALSO. IT IS JUST THE STEPS FOR US AND THE CUSTOMER , YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPER, BUILDER, OR TENANT . ALSO WE HAVE UPDATED THE GENERAL LANGUAGE ON INSPECTIONS. THERE ARE INCREMENTS TO CONSTRUCTION AND IT'S NOT JUST THE FINAL INSPECTION AT THE VERY END . WE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE. AND, JUST THE PROVISION FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY . AND , THEN SOME KEY DEFINITIONS THAT WE CAN EXCITE YOU ALL WITH FOR WHAT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS, IF YOU DID NOT KNOW . FOR THE BUILDING SAFETY OFFICIAL, THERE MAY BE EXHIBITS IN THE AUDIENCE . SO, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION ? SEE NONE, I TURN IT OVER TO DEPARTMENT STAFF. >> THANK YOU, THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME DEADLINES AS THE PREVIOUS TWO AMENDMENTS. SO, THERE IS NO [01:15:03] TIMECLOCK ON THIS ORDINANCE . WE ARE RECOMMENDING IT DOES GO TO COMMITTEE WITH FINAL VOTING AUTHORITY TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO INSERT OR PROPOSED LANGUAGE ABOUT THE REFERENCES AND THE ALLOWANCE FOR PRIVATE INSPECTIONS. I BELIEVE THAT -- I BELIEVE SERGEY WILL HAVE LANGUAGE FOR THAT I THE TIME OF COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. >> AND JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT ADRIAN ADRIAN BLOCKING EXITS OR EXIT LIGHTS NOT LIT. THE RESTAURANT CHANGED OWNERSHIPS TO ANOTHER RESTAURANT AND THEN THEY BROUGHT IN EXTRA COOKING EQUIPMENT THAT IS NOW OUTSIDE OF THE SAFETY HOOD VENT AND IT IS NOT PROTECTED CORRECTLY . THOSE KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN HE JUST THROW YOUR HANDS INTO THE AIR . NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE TENANT TO GET THESE THINGS CORRECTED AND THEY ARE JUST ANGRY BECAUSE THEY ARE LIKE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? SO, THIS KIND OF HELPS TO NIP ALL OF THAT IN THE BUD RIGHT FROM THE GET GO. WE INTRODUCE OURSELVES AND THE INSPECTION COMES FROM MY OFFICE ONLY EDITS US THREE HIGHER AUTHORITIES. WE ARE ABLE TO INTRODUCE OURSELVES AND EXPLAIN LIFE SAFETY AND WHAT IS REQUIRED FROM THEM AS THE BUSINESS OWNER AND EXPLAIN WE WILL BE BACK ANNUALLY TO SAY HI AND TO CHECK ON THESE THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT NOT ONLY YOU ARE PROTECTED BUT THE CITIZENS . >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT PERSPECTIVE GIVE . THAT REALLY, YOU KNOW, HELPS PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT , SO, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER MINNAR . >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION. YOU JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD . THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS SAFETY . >> ABSOLUTELY . >> TO HAVE THIS ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU TO DO YOUR JOB IS FANTASTIC. THANK YOU SO MUCH AND THANK YOU, SERGEY, AGAIN . >> I REALLY HAD VERY LITTLE * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.