[b. Ordinance D-2780-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 1, Section 3-44 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen and Taylor.] [00:00:12] MEETING. WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. FIRST ITEM WE'LL ADDRESS TODAY IS ORDINANCE D-2780-25. IT'S AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-44, WHICH REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT THAT COMES TO COUNCIL PUBLISHED NOTICE FOR ZONING CHANGES. THE PLAINTIFF PUBLISHED THE NOTICE FOR ZONING MAP CHANGES. YOU'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH TED TODAY, AND YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF RECOMMENDED SMALL MINOR CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE? >> YES, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. A COUPLE OF CHANGES TAKE PLACE IN SUBSECTION B, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ALSO LINE 39. SO THE RECOMMENDATION HERE IS JUST TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY AS AND WHEN THEY DECIDE THEY WISH TO CHANGE REQUIREMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME, THAT WE PUT IN A PLACE HOLDER. SO LANGUAGE ALREADY EXISTS ON THE FIRST LINE AND ON THE SECOND LINE, WHICH IS NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ORDINANCE, SEEKING TO CHANGE THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP. AND THEN GO TO THE SECOND LINE. SHALL BE GIVEN, THEN INSERT NEW LANGUAGE IN CONFORMANCE WITH INDIANA LAW. SO IT DOESN'T PUT OFF THE REQUIREMENT UPON THE COUNCIL BEYOND WHAT INDIANA LAW REQUIRES, AND IT IS JUST THERE. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CATCH TO THE EXTENT THAT REQUIREMENTS COME IN DOWN THE ROAD. THE LANGUAGE IN COMPLIANCE, WITH INDIANA LAW IS ALREADY USED ONLINE, I BELIEVE IT'S 48, IN MY VERSION, FOR THE OTHER NOTICE REQUIREMENT. ON THE OTHER REQUIREMENT FOR THE ANNEX OF REAL PROPERTY, THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT IS ON THE PETITIONER. THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, HE MADE A REQUEST, AND I THINK IT IS AN ADVISABLE REQUEST, WHICH HAS IT SAY IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SUCH PERSON TO PROVIDE PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE REQUIRED HERE. SO THE CLERK PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE, AND HE RECOMMENDED THAT YOU PROVIDE A BUFFER OF TIME BEFORE THE HEARING DATE. SOMETHING TO 48 HOURS. SO WHAT I HAVE INTENSELY PUT IN HERE IS REQUIRED HEARING TO THE CLERK, AT LEAST 48 BUSINESS HOURS PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE. SO THERE IS THAT TIME FRAME IN PLACE. THAT CAN BE 24 BUSINESS DAYS, IT IS REALLY UP TO YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT. BUT IT IS JUST THAT EXTRA BUFFER. MIKE WAS THINKING THIS WOULD TAKE PLACE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON A MONDAY EVENING, SOMETHING, THE FRIDAY BEFORE. SO YOU COULD FRAME IT HOWEVER YOU WISH, BUT THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE SOME KIND OF BUFFER THERE. >> DISCUSSION ABOUT ORDINANCE 2787-25? >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> YES, SIR? >> SO WHAT -- JUST FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE WATCHING, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? WHAT WAS THE COMPLAINT? OR WHAT MADE THIS HAPPEN? BECAUSE AND THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT, YOU KNOW, MORE NOTICE IS ALWAYS BETTER FOR ME. THERE ARE MULTIPLE TIMES IN MY WORLD WHERE I FIND SOMETHING THAT SAYS I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, I JUST HAD NO IDEA. SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE FIXING, AND HOW THIS CAME ABOUT? AND I'M NOT SURE WHO TO ADDRESS THAT TO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE ONE OF THE SPONSORS. >> WE ARE BOTH HERE, YES. DO YOU WANT TO HIT ON IT? >> YEAH. HANK FOR YOUR THOUGHTS TOO. THIS IS KIND OF THE CONVERSATION STARTER ORDINANCE, WHICH IS HOW DO WE IMPROVE THE PROCESS OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE -- HERE IS THE COMPLAINT THAT STARTED THIS. AS YOU MIGHT KNOW, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I JUST WALKED IN AND WE'RE REPEATING SOMETHING YOU COVERED HERE. [00:05:01] ITEMS WHEN THEY COME FROM THE COUNCIL, THERE IS A 90-DAY TICKING CLOCK. AND THERE ARE TIMES THAT MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE COMMITTEE HAVE EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION TO ME THAT THEY DON'T -- THAT FIRST OF ALL, THEY WISH THEY COULD CHANGE THE 90 DAYS IN GENERAL. THAT'S STATE STATUTE, SO THERE IS NOTHING WE COULD DO THERE. COULD ITEMS SOMEHOW GET TO US FASTER FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO COUNCIL TO ALLOW MORE OF THE 90 DAYS TO BE USED BY LAND USE TO DISCUSS A MATTER? THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THEY THOUGHT BECAUSE OF A SHORTENED CLOCK, THEY COULDN'T REQUEST CHANGES TO A PUD. THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE TELLING ME OR THE PETITIONER DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO INCORPORATE CHANGE INTO THE PROJECT, AND THEY FELT LIKE IT WAS ALMOST AN UPDOWN, OR THERE WASN'T AS MUCH TIME FOR PUBLIC INPUT AT THAT. SO WE LOOKED AT SOLUTIONS. THIS IS THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT I COULD COME UP WITH WAS WELL, WE DO HAVE AN EXTRA LAYER OF REPORTING THERE BETWEEN PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL. WE ALREADY REQUIRED THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL, AND NOTHING WOULD PRECLUDE US FROM ONE, STILL HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL. IT'S JUST THAT REPORTING REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WE OFTEN USE THE WEEKLY PUBLICATION. THEY HAVE A VERY ADVANCED DEADLINE FOR GETTING ADS INTO THE PAPER. IF WE MISSED THE DEADLINE OR EVEN IF WE GET IT, THAT COULD ADD TEN DAYS, THEN WE HAVE THE MEETING. IN THEORY, THEY COULD SUBTRACT 20 DAYS THAT THE COUNCIL COULD HAVE FROM THAT WINDOW THAT THEY COULD BE DISCUSSING AND TRYING TO IMPROVE A PUD. I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT REMOVES PUBLIC COMMENT OR MAKES IT FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING FROM THE PUBLIC. THIS WAS TO GIVE THE PUBLIC MORE CHANCE WITH IT AT COUNCIL TO KIND OF HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. THAT BEING SAID, I THINK SOMEBODY TALKED ABOUT HAVING SOME CHANGES TO WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO ENSURE COUNCIL DIDN'T MOVE TOO FAST, YOU KNOW? NOW, WE ALREADY HAVE ONE PROTECTION THAT IT WILL TAKE UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ACT ON FIRST READING FOR A PUD, AND THAT IS ONE PROTECTION THE PUBLIC HAS. SO WHEN IT COMES OUT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IT COMES TO US, IT WOULD TAKE EVERY COUNSELOR TO SAY, YES, WE DON'T WANT TO ACT ON IT. IF WE WANT TO ACT ON FIRST READING OR FOR IT TO BE ACTED ON IMMEDIATELY. SO THAT IS A PROTECTION THAT ALREADY EXISTS. BUT YOU WORKED WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THIS? >> SORT OF UNIQUE TO CARMEL BECAUSE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU HIGHLIGHTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALREADY NOTICING. I THINK THE PUBLIC, THE NOTICE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUTS THE PUBLIC ON NOTICE, HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT I THINK THE PUBLICWOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN MORE LAND USE MEETINGS AND MORE COUNCIL MEETINGS TO FULLY DISCUSS IT, VERSES HAVING IT IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE WE'RE GOING TO ACT ON IT IS THE WAY I SORT OF LOOKED AT IT. WHEN IT WOULD GO TO LAND USE, OBVIOUSLY THEIR AGENDA IS NOTICED, SO THEY NOTICE IT WILL BE DISCUSSED. THOSE MEETINGS ARE OBVIOUSLY LIVE AND RECORDED. SO WE WERE TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEM OF THE COUNCIL FEELING LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO FULLY VET AND RECOMMEND CHANGES IN A PUD ONCE THEY LEAVE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE OF THE CLOCK. >> AND THERE ARE SOME WAYS THAT WE COULD STILL HAVE THE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC, WHETHER IT IS WITH AN AD IN THE PAPER OR THE TEAM AT THE CLERK'S OFFICE THAT WILL SEND OUT NOTICES ABOUT THINGS. TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE AWARE, BUT STILL GET IT INTRODUCED AT THE MEETING, SO WE COULD START MOVING IT INTO LAND USE. MAYBE IT WILL GET INTRODUCED. WE'LL MOVE INTO THE LAND USE, BUT WE'RE NOT ACTING ON IT RIGHT AWAY. WE STILL HAVE THE NOTICE. BUT WE CAN GET IT INTRODUCED AND SENT TO THAT MEETING A LITTLE FASTER. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS KIND OF SAT IN THIS COMMITTEE FOR A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PRESSING MATTER, BUT SOMETHING PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT TO ME AS A CONCERN. I WANTED TO SEE IF WE COULD FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION. >> THE KEY IS THE TEN DAYS NOTICE IN ORDER TO SUBMIT IT TO BE PUBLISHED. WE COULD -- IS THERE A WAY TO KEEP WHERE THE [00:10:03] CITY WOULD NOTICE IT, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT PRECLUDES THE COUNCIL FROM MOVING OR DISCUSSING IT IN THE MATTER THAT WE WANT, SO IT CAN STILL BE INTRODUCED? >> SO TO THE EXTENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH INDIANA CODE, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CONSENT, RIGHT? AND I THINK ADDING THAT LANGUAGE OF INCONFORMANCE WITH INDIANA LAW IS THE WAY TO GO. THAT WAY YOU FREE UP YOUR HANDS AS MUCH AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN, BUT YOU'RE STILL IN FULL COMPLIANCE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO BE. YOU DON'T WANT TO BE PUTTING YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE DICTATING THE TERMS THAT MIGHT HAVE MADE SENSE 15 YEARS AGO, BUT DON'T NECESSARILY MAKE SENSE NOW. NOTICE REQUIREMENT THAT WILL EXIST IN INDIANA LAW ARE AN EVOLVING NOTICE REQUIREMENT. WE'RE AN EVOLVING LEADERSHIP, YOU KNOW, AS TO HOW THINGS COME OUT AND HOW NOTICES ARE PROVIDED. SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN TOUCHED FOR A LONG TIME, AND YOU BASICALLY HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE SET FORTH UNDER INDIANA CODE AT THE TIME THIS WAS PUT IN TO PLACE. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO KEEP THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS TO THE EXTENT THE INDIANA LAW WILL HAVE THAT NOTICE REQUIREMENT AND STAY UNDER THAT REQUIREMENT UNDER INDIANA LAW. THAT IS, THEY SET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES FOR ALL THE LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT, AND THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT YOU SHOULD HOLD YOURSELVES TO AND NOTHING MORE OR NOTHING LESS IS MY RECOMMENDATION. AND THAT, AS I SAID, MIGHT CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME. BUT I WOULDN'T BE GOING INTO SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR SOMETHING THAT IS A STATUTORY PROVISION. >> COUNCILMEMBER LOCKE? >> I HAVE NOT REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT FLOW. SO THINKING OUT LOUD, I DO FEEL COMFORTABLE IF WE COMPLY WITH THE STATE CODE HERE THAT THEY WILL BE SET UP IN THE RIGHT SPOT TO HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE TO USE THIS OPEN FORUM AND LAND USES TO SHARE THIS WITH THE PUBLIC IN BETTER WAYS. THE NEW LIMITED WINDOW TO MOVE THINGS QUICKLY DOES POP UP. SO THE IDEA OF LIKE A TEN-DAY WAITING PERIOD, WHICH WE HAVE HAD AND WE HAVE RUN WITH AND RELIED ON, WHICH HAS GOTTEN US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY WITH EVERYTHING WE MOVED. THE IDEA OF NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE AN OFFICIAL ACTION UNTIL THE TIME FRAME OR MEETING HAS HAPPENED COULD MAKE SENSE TOO, WHERE WE COULD START THE BUSINESS OF DISCUSSING AND MOVING IT EARLY. >> SO TO YOUR POINT, I APOLOGIZE FOR ERUPTING YOU. I'LL JUST STOP. >> THAT'S TOTALLY GREAT. >> NO, I'M SO SORRY. >> JUST TO FINISH AND ROUND OUT MY THOUGHT. THE IDEA OF LIKE WHILE IT ID COULD MOVE, THERE IS NO FINAL DETERMINATION ON THE BUSINESS THAT HAS OCCURRED BEFORE THAT POINT. THAT WAY THERE IS NO WAY IT WILL COME BACK, IT GETS HEARD AND MOVES IMMEDIATELY. AGAIN, THINKING OUT LOUD. I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING. BUT I DO SEE IT POTENTIALLY HAPPENING IF A VERY IMPORTANT SECRET PROJECT CAME THROUGH AND OTHER COUNSELORS, DIFFERENT TIMES DECIDED IT WAS SOMETHING THEY NEEDED TO MOVE WITHOUT A LOT OF INPUT, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THIS COUNCIL WOULD PRESENTLY DO. SO JUST THINKING OUT LOUD AGAIN. >> WHERE IT COULD BE INTRODUCED BEFORE A NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN MADE YET? >> OR EVEN LIKE FOR THERE TO BE A FINAL ACTION TAKEN, IT MUST HAVE BEEN NOTICED IN SOME CAPACITY FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME. >> BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED NOW, PLAYING COMMISSION DOES THE NOTICE. GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY MAKE THEIR DETERMINATION. LET'S SAY THEY MADE THAT DETERMINATION LAST WEEK, OKAY? IT COULD BE ON THE, LET'S SAY TWO WEEKS AGO, SO THEY MET THE PUBLISHING TIME FOR OUR AGENDA, WHATEVER IT IS. IT COULD BE PUBLISHED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT. SO YOU'RE SAYING WE COULD INTRODUCE IT TONIGHT, WE COULD PUT IT TO COMMITTEE TONIGHT? BUT IT WOULDN'T BE ACT UPON BY THE COUNCIL UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE HAS BEEN MADE THEN IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID? >> RIGHT. SO THINKING IF WE DIDN'T WANT TO SEND IT TO COUNCIL OR TO COMMITTEE, AND WE DECIDED FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT MADE SENSE THAT NIGHT IN YOUR STORY THAT WE SHOULD MOVE IT. IF WE REMOVED THIS NOTICE REQUIREMENT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO [00:15:05] OVERRIDE THE FIRST READING, INITIATIVE THERE, AND WITHOUT THERE EVER BEING A DISCUSSION. SO I DON'T, AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING. I DON'T KNOW IF IT MATTER THE. DO I THINK IT GOES TO THE PUBLIC, THEY GET IT, THEY UNDERSTAND IT'S THE MOVE BACK TO THE COUNCIL, SO WE ARE HAVING THAT POINT IN TIME, WHERE IT HAS BEEN NOTIFIED TO THE PUBLIC IF IT COMES TO COUNCIL. AND IT NEEDS MORE TIME AND WORK, IT WILL GO TO THE COMMITTEES ANY WAY. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT SCENARIO, TRYING TO PRESERVE DAYS FOR MORE EFFORT TO GIVE PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND NOT THOSE THAT ARE FULLY FORMED AND HAVE GOTTEN ALL THE RIGHT FEEDBACK ANY WAY. AGAIN, THINKING OUT LOUD, JUST AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS. TRYING TO SEE IF THERE IS A WAY TO PRESERVE STILL SOME PROCESS, WHERE WE ARE NOT INCENTIVIZED TO MOVE THINGS THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE MOVING AND/OR HAVE THAT ABILITY, IF IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A LONGER TIME FRAME FROM A NOTICE PERSPECTIVE, SO THE PUBLIC CAN WEIGH IN. >> MR. CHAIR? >> SO I SPOKE TO DIRECTOR ABOUT THIS, AND HE WAS SUPPORTIVE. BUT THE ISSUE WE RUN INTO OFTEN, TEN DAYS IS USUALLY THE MINIMUM BECAUSE WE RAN INTO. BOTH THE REQUIREMENT UNDER WHEN YOU DO A PUBLIC NOTICE, HOW MANY DAYS THEY NEED TO BE BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BUT THEN THERE IS THE NEWSPAPER DEADLINE TO GET IT IN FOR THAT. AND THEN WE COULD RUN INTO AN ISSUE WHERE HOW ARE THE MEETING DATES LINING UP, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF WEEKS AND A MONTH. I SHOULD KNOW, WHICH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH IT'S THE SECOND AND THE THIRD, THE SECOND AND THE FOURTH, RIGHT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. >> THERE ARE TIMES WHERE WE CAN HAVE MEETINGS THAT ARE CANCELED DUE TO HOLIDAY OR WHATNOT. SO THERE ARE SOME TIMES WHERE IT HAS BEEN 20 DAYS OR EVEN MORE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO COUNCIL. THAT IS MORE OF THE CONCERN THAN THE USUAL TEN DAYS. I WAS OPEN TO THE IDEA OF HOW TO AMEND THIS TO PREVENT FUTURE COUNCILS FROM MOVING TOO FAST. THERE ARE MAYBE TWO WAYS TO DO THAT. ONE, STILL REQUIRES A RECORDING REQUIREMENT, BUT ALLOWS THINGS TO BE INTRODUCED BEFORE THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS HAPPEN OR THE NUMBER OF DAYS. A NUMBER OF DAYS THE BENEFIT TO THAT OPPOSED TO THE RECORDING REQUIREMENT IS WE DON'T RUN INTO A THING WHERE WE MISS THE DEADLINE TO PUT THAT AD IN THE PAPER OR THAT KIND OF THING. IT'S A COOLING OFF PERIOD OF TEN DAYS BETWEEN PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL, WHERE IT COULD BE INTRODUCED, BUT NOT ACTIVE UPON FIRST READING WITHIN THAT TEN-DAY PERIOD OR SOMETHING. THROWING OUT IDEAS. >> I THINK RIGHT NOW, THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU PROVIDES YOU THE MOST FLEXIBILITY. JUST BEING IN CONFORMANCE TO THE LAW, WITH IT MOVING TOO QUICKLY. REMEMBER YOU NEED YOUR UNANIMOUS VOTE TO BE ABLE TO ACT ON IT ON THE FIRST READING AS AN ORDINANCE ANY WAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU, AND YOU CAN HOLD ON TO IT IF ANY ONE OF YOU WILL HAVE ANY CONCERNS RELATED TO IT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO FIX AND FIX IT NOW BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. SOMETIMES THERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT WILL COME UP AND CHANGES, NUANCE ISSUES THAT COME UP. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THEM IN A QUICK AND TIMELY FASHION AS WELL. SO THE FLEXIBILITY HERE IS YOU'RE IN LINE WITH INDIANA LAW. I THINK THE CONCERN IT SEEMS THAT THE FRUSTRATION WITH THE 90-DAY PERIOD, WHICH PROBABLY IS THIS AND EVERY OTHER LEGISLATIVE BODY'S FRUSTRATION. AND ASK THEM TO INCREASE IT BY 30 DAYS TO ALLOW THE PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS. THEY COULD BE AVENUES THAT WOULD SOLVE THE ISSUE WITH DIFFERENT TYPES AS THAT WILL BECOME FLEXIBLE AND DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AND OBTAINING INFORMATION. SO MY RECOMMENDATION, THIS IS -- YOU HAVE THE MOST FLEXIBILITY HERE. YOU'RE NOT BINDING YOURSELF TO ANY LANGUAGE IF THEY WISH TO TAKE MORE TIME WITH IT AND IF THEY WISH TO ACT ON IT QUICKLY, THEY CAN ACT ON IT MORE QUICKLY, DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT SITUATION IS AND YOU HAVE THAT POWER BECAUSE OF THE UNANIMOUS ASPECT OF SUSPENDING THE RULES, RIGHT? [00:20:13] >> DO YOU MIND IF I SUGGEST INSTEAD OF 48 HOURS, WE SAY TWO BUSINESS DAYS? >> YES. >> THAT WE KEEP IT VERY CLEAR. SO I HAVE THE TWO BUSINESS DAYS. >> >> YES. I WOULD JUST NEED THEM TO VOTE ON THE TWO CHANGES TO PUT IT IN TO VERSION A. I COULD PUT THAT TOGETHER AS NEEDED FOR TONIGHT. >> THE FIRST MOTION WOULD BE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE WITH THOSE TWO CHANGES? >> YEP, THEN THAT WILL BE A VERSION A THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TONIGHT AND THEY WILL THEN MOVE AS THEY RECOMMEND IT AND MOVE TO ACT ON THE AMENDED VERSION. >> MOVE TO RECOMMEND AMENDING BASED ON THE FEEDBACK TODAY, THOSE SECTIONS. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNSELOR WORRELL. GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> CALL THE VOTE. PROVE WITH THE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED BACK TO THE COUNCIL. [c. Ordinance D-2781-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 5, Sections 8-46 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor, Aasen and Worrell.] >>> NEXT, WE WILL GO TO ORDINANCE, THANK YOU, BENJAMIN. NEXT, WE'LL GO TO D-278125. THE ORDINANCE REGULATE THE USE OF PUBLIC PARKING SPACES. THAT WAS SPONSORED BY COUNSELOR TAYLOR, WORRELL, AND AUSTIN. I THINK THIS IS SELF-EXPLANATORY. >> THIS IS REALLY ABOUT TAKING UP ONE VEHICLE AND ONE SPACE. BUT I DID WANT TO FIND OUT. ARE YOU WORKING ON ANY OTHER PARKING ITEMS RIGHT NOW? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN LEGAL YOU MIGHT BE WORKING ON? I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF REQUESTS IN FOR QUITE A WHILE? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> OKAY. >> THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION BY ENGINEERING THAT PULLED IN A COUPLE OF REQUESTS THAT'S SITTING IN LAND USE RIGHT NOW WHILE WAITING ON THE PARKING STUDY TO COME BACK. SO ONCE THAT IS THE BARRIER RIGHT NOW. IT'S JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US TO CREATE THAT COMPREHENSIVE PARKING PLAN. SO WHAT I'M AWARE OF IS IT HAD AND THE MATTER THAT IS BEFORE LAND USE. >> I GUESS I CALLED OUR CITY ENGINEER ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTED TO ATTEND, THAT WE WOULD BE DISCUSSING THIS TODAY AT 3:00 P.M. HE DID SAY HE GOT THE DRAFT STUDY BACK FOR THE PARKING STUDY IN THE DRAFT CURRENTLY. >> WELL, THERE'S A SITUATION THAT I MIGHT RAISE TONIGHT IN FULL COUNCIL, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THE STUDY, BUT WE HAVE BEEN KIND OF USING THAT AS AN EXCUSE, BUT IT IS, AND I COULD NOT REMEMBER, SECOND STREET, NORTH, SOUTHWEST. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARKING STUDY. WE ACTUALLY HAD A CAR TOWED THAT IT WAS BLOCKING A DRIVEWAY THIS WEEKEND, SO IT IS STILL A PROBLEM. I SENT AN E-MAIL TO THE FULL COUNCIL. ALL I WANT IS TWO SPACES FOR LOADING, UNLOADING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET AT THE VERY EAST END THAT WOULD HELP TO ALLEVIATE THESE DELIVERY TRUCKS, BLOCKING THE DRIVEWAY FOR A PERSON TRYING TO GET OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY. SO, THIS HAS BEEN DRAGGING ON FOR MULTIPLE MONTH. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US TAKE SOME ACTION HERE SOONER THAN LATER. >> I MEAN, IS THERE LANGUAGE SIMPLE ENOUGH TO AMEND? >> I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT A SHOT. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SPEAKING ABOUT? AND I RECEIVED PERMISSION OR APPROVAL, I SHOULD SAY FROM CITY ENGINEER. HE HAS SUBMITTED LANGUAGE, WHERE IT KEEPS GETTING SHOVED INTO THE NEW STUDY BUCKET. >> I THOUGHT THAT COMPONENT WAS EVENTUALLY INTENDED TO MAKE ITS WAY INTO THIS ORDINANCE. >> THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP. AND MAYBE -- IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE ABOUT SECOND STREET? DEEP? OKAY. THAT'S WHY. I KNOW IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. [00:25:03] I KNOW WE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT MODIFY THIS NOW. BUT BOY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DONE BECAUSE IT IS JUST COMMON SENSE THAT WE NEED A PLACE FOR THESE TRUCKS. >> IS THAT RIGHT ON THE CORNER BY THE GOAT? >> I WASN'T GOING TO NAME NAMES, BUT YES. >> IT'S JUST NOT THEIR DELIVERY TRUCKS. I SEE OTHER PEOPLE DELIVERING THEIRS. >> IT IS ACTUALLY THE RAIL YARD. IT'S THE AMAZON TEN TIMES A DAY. >> YEAH. >> SO COMMITTEE IS WHERE YOU COULD KIND OF BRING THESE THINGS UP. AND I HEARD THERE WAS MAYBE A DELAY ON THE PARKING STUDY, SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE'VE GOTTEN. >> THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID TODAY WHEN THEY CALLED THEM. YOU JUST HAPPEN TO BRING IT UP SINCE I WAS ASKING THEM TO BE HERE FOR THIS. >> THE SURVEY SAYS? >> AND SO IT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE. I MEAN, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WILL AMEND THE USE OF THE PUBLIC. IF YOU WANT TO HOLD THAT LANGUAGE IN AND IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO, IT'S JUST, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE IT. I COULD DOUBLE THAT LANGUAGE. >> AND IF YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS LEGAL WITH THE CHAIR'S PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO, IT'S BEST I COULD DESCRIBE THE LANGUAGE FOR THIS VOTE. BUT BEFORE FULL COUNCIL TONIGHT, I'LL GRAB THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE THAT CITY ENGINEER PIECE PROVIDED. >> OKAY. >> AND WE COULD DO THAT TODAY IF THE COMMITTEE WERE OPEN TO THAT. >> SO YEAH, IT WOULD BE -- YOU WOULD GIVE ME THE LANGUAGE, WE WOULD PUT IT INTO VERSION A THAT WE COULD VOTE ON. I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHICH SECTION WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH, SO WE WOULD NEED TO PULL IN SECTIONS. WE'RE IN 846 RIGHT NOW? >> YEAH. >> SO WE'RE GOING TO BE PULLING IN DIFFERENT SECTION OF CITY CODE. THAT'S WITHIN THE SCOPE. THIS IS BASED ON PARKING. >> AND WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS TWO 15-MINUTE LOADING, UNLOADING ZONES IN THE FURTHEST EAST TWO SPOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SECOND STREET SOUTHWEST, THANK YOU. AND THEN WE ALSO ON THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST, THERE IS THE PERFECT LOCATION FOR A LOADING ZONE, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RAIL YARD TO SERVE SOCIAL CANTINA AND THE BANK, YOU KNOW, THAT WHOLE CORNER. THERE'S A PLACE WHERE THERE IS NO PARKING, BUT IT'S PERFECT FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING ZONE. SO THERE ARE TWO STREETS INVOLVED HERE. BOTH 15 MINUTE UNLOADING AND LOADING, AND I'LL GET YOU THE EXACT LANGUAGE. BUT I THINK I HAVE DESCRIBED IT ACCURATELY FROM THIS DISCUSSION. >> I FOUND THE E-MAIL HERE. THIS IS GOING BACK TO JULY 2. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU WANT TO READ IT? >> I HOPE THEY'VE AGREED IT HAS MADE SENSE TO ADD TWO LOADING ZONES AS DESCRIBED. I HAVE REVIEWED, AND THIS IS QUOTING THE PIECE. I DO THINK WE SHOULD START WITH TWO 15-MINUTE LOADING ZONES IN THE FAR WEST SIDE OF SECOND STREET SOUTHWEST, WHERE IT WILL MEET THE BOULEVARD. >> THAT IS A MISTAKE. I CORRECTED IT. >> THAT'S A TYPO. >> WHICH ONE WAS? THE EAST END OF SECOND, YES. AND I'M HAVING JARED DRAFT THE MEMO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND AN AFFECTED ORDINANCE. HE'S ASKING FOR THIS PARKING CHANGE TO BE ADDED, CURRENTLY ASSIGNED THE LAND USE FOR REVIEW. THERE IS A SIMILAR ISSUE ON FIRST STREET SOUTHWEST. DELIVERY TRUCKS WERE BLOCKING THE DRIVEWAY FOR THE CONDO. OWNERS WENT ON STREET PARKING WAS FULL, BY ADDING THE LOADING ZONE SIGNS, ALL OTHER PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN SOLVED. >> THAT WAS COMMENTARY ON MY PART. THAT'S NOT A PART OF THIS ORDINANCE. WE ALREADY DID THAT. >> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. BUT BASICALLY BRAD IS AGREEING WITH OUR CITY ENGINEER, AGREEING WITH THE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED. >> SO IF YOU PROPOSED THOSE AMENDMENTS. THEN WHAT WILL [00:30:03] HAPPEN IS JARED AND I WILL WORK ON PULLING THE LANGUAGE TOGETHER IN COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING STANDARD. AND PULL IT IN AS AN AMENDMENT ON HERE THAT CAN BE ACTED ON TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GRATEFUL TO THE COMMITTEE. >> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT? >> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE 15-MINUTE UNLOADING ZONES, LOADING AND UNLOADING ZONES AS DESCRIBED IN MY PREVIOUS E-MAIL, AND ALSO LOADING AND UNLOADING ZONE, SO THAT IS ON SECOND STREET SOUTHWEST. BUT ALSO, THERE IS ONE PROPOSED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RAIL YARD TOO. DO YOU HAVE THAT ALSO, JARED? OKAY, THAT ONE MIGHT NOT MAKE THAT CUT. SO AS DESCRIBED IN MY E-MAIL. >> SECOND. >> THAT'S A MOTION TO AMEND? >> YES. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES. DO WE HAVE A MOTION REGARDING THE ORDINANCE AS A WHOLE? >> MOVE TO SEND THE ORDINANCE BACK WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. >> SECOND. >> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM WE WERE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS EVENING. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> SO MOVED. >> MOVED TO * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.