[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:06]
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M CALLING TO ORDER THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE KARMEL COMMON COUNCIL HERE IN CARMEL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING.
WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. FIRST WE WILL START OUT.
I'M GOING TO ASK THE COUNCIL CHAPLAIN TO PLEASE GIVE
[2. INVOCATION]
INVOCATION. KEVIN RIDERED.> BOW YOUR HEADS, PLEASE. OUR HEAVENLY-FATHER, SO MUCH GOING ON IN THE WORLD. IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS ALMOST TRIVIAL TO WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON.
WHAT WE DO HERE IS IMPORTANT. FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
WE THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT. WE THANK YOU FOR WISDOM.
PLEASE HELP US WITH THAT. HELP US WITH DISCERNMENT.
THERE IS SO MUCH DIVISION IN THE WORLD.
IF EVERYBODY WOULD JUST TAKE A BREATH AND HAVE YOU IN THEIR HEART, WE WOULD BE A LOT BETTER OFF.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR RIDER. PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF
[3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
ALLEGIANCE OF. COUNCILOR AYERS, PLEASE LEAD US.>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND
[4. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL]
DO I HAVE ANY BLUE CARDS? FROM THE AUDIENCE? PEOPLE THAT TWOISH ADDRESS THE COUNCIL? IF SO, PLEASE BRING THEM FORWARD.I'M GRANTING A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY HERE.
THANK YOU. SO OUR FIRST BLUE CARD WILL BE FROM STEVE BAUFMAN. IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD TO THE DAIS THERE. SOME PEOPLE DID NOT REALIZE WE WERE GOING TO ALLOW BLUE CARDS TONIGHT.
I'M GIVING JUST A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY ON THAT.
WE ARE THREE MINUTES. >> GOOD EVENING.
CITY COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, CONNER PRAIRIE.
IT HAS BEEN QUITE AN EXPERIENCE. THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF OR SO, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN EVERY MEETING, EVERY PUBLIC MEETING THAT I COULD GO TO TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN MY BACKYARD.
I'M STILL NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT'S IN THIS PLAN.
BECAUSE IT IS CHANGING TO THE LAST MINUTE.
I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE HELPED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M A RESIDENTS OF THE OVERLOOK LEGACY. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE WILL BE KEEPING AN EYE ON WHAT DEVELOPS.
HOPEFULLY, THINGS EXPRESSED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE NEGATIVE THAT WILL DECREASE OUR HOME VALUES AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WILL NOT HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE COMPLAIN ABOUT. IN THE FUTURE.
I WILL STAY INVOLVED. AGAIN, THANKS, EVERYBODY, FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY. >> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT.
IS THERE A SECOND BLUE CARD? IF SO, WOULD YOU PLEASE BRING THAT FORWARD. MR. RODANS.
>> A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME HERE. THANK YOU.
I'M PRESIDENT OF THE OVERLOOK HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE PLAN COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS CONCERNING THIS PROJECT.
I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WITH CONNER PRAIRIE FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US ON ISSUES RELATING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODED. I THINK WE HAVE WORKED ON SOME PRODUCTIVE ASPECTS OF THE PUD WITH REGARD TO LANDSCAPING, AND TAKEN MEASURES TO HOPEFULLY, PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT REALLY, IN THE CITY OF CARMEL, THE RESIDENTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD-- AND I HAVE STATED THIS BEFORE. MOST SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT, WILL ESSENTIALLY BE LIVING WITH IT 24-7 BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO OUR 31 HOMES WITHIN THE OVERLOOK NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LOOK FORWARD, AS STEVE SAID, TO CONNING TO WORK WITH CONNER PRAIRIE ON THIS PROJECT.
WE HOPE, AS ANY ISSUES DEVELOP, ONCE THE PROJECT IS APPROVED AND
[00:05:04]
MOVED FORWARD, THAT WE CAN HAVE A PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE WITH EVERYONE AT CONNER PRAIRIE AND AS NECESSARY WITH THE CITY OF CARMEL ON ANY ISSUES THAT ARISE THAT AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, EITHER FROM A STANDPOINT OF VISUAL ISSUES OR AUDIBLE ISSUES, WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVITIES AT THIS CONNER PRAIRIE SITE.WE APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS, BOTH-- I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN EXTENSIVE EFFORTS BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLAN COMMISSION IN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT AND REFINING THE FINAL DRAFT. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.
AND AGAIN, WE ALSO THANK THE CONNER PRAIRIE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US IN TERMS OF MINIMIZING THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FOR THE COUNCIL? BEFORE WE PROCEED ON WITH OUR
[5. OLD BUSINESS]
AGENDA? OKAY.THIS IS GOING TO BE THE FIFTH READING OF ORDINANCE Z683-23.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA ESTABLISHING THE INNOVATION DISTRICT PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR AASEN.
THIS IS CURRENTLY IN LAND USE. WE ARE PULLING IT OUT OF LAND USE COMMITTEE TONIGHT. FOR DISCUSSION AND A FINAL VOTE.
COUNCILOR CAMPBELL, WOULD YOU MIND BRINGING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED WITH WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW AND THEN WE WILL GET INTO
THE WORK THAT IS BEFORE US. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I DO WANT TO SAY I HAVE RECEIVED CALLS AND EMAILS FROM PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF CONNER PRAIRIE, AND WE ARE ALL WELL AWARE OF WHAT VALUE CONNER PRAIRIE BRINGS TO HAMILTON COUNTY. WE ARE NOT VOTING ON WHETHER THEY ARE A GOOD ORGANIZATION OR NOT.
WE REALLY HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE IF IT DOES PASS TONIGHT, WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN TO MAKE IT THE BEST PUD THAT IT CAN BE. AND THE BLUE CARD SPEAKER HAS TALKED ABOUT FUTURE ISSUES. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS FEW ISSUES THAT YOU WILL DEAL WITH IN THE FUTURE.
SO A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO IT. TWO WEEKS AGO, PRESIDENT WORRELL AND I MET WITH THE PETITIONER AND OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
WE KNOCKED OUT A FEW THINGS. WE CAME UP WITH A VERSION, ALL OF THE COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED IT. LAST WEEK THERE NEEDED TO BE ANOTHER MEETING. AND PRESIDENT WORRELL AND COUNCILOR FINKAM MET. I COULD NOT MAKE THAT MEETING.
MY COMPUTER IS GETTING UP TO SPEED NOW FINALLY.
PRESIDENT WORRELL, IF WE COULD TURN IT OVER TO BENJAMIN TO GIVE
SO I THINK-- SO ALL COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE RED LINE COPY THAT I SENT OUT TO EVERYONE ON MONDAY MORNING.
AND THAT WAS WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE ON LAST WEEK THROUGH THE WEEKEND. I KNOW THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THAT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT RED LINE THAT I SENT TO YOU? OKAY.
I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF BENJAMIN, IF YOU ARE WILLING, LET'S JUST GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE RED LINE ITEMS FOR THE PUBLIC, AND LET'S START WORKING THROUGH THOSE.
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINAL VERSION THAT WE HAVE. WOULD YOU MIND LEADING US IN THAT? THANK YOU.
NOW, THE WAY I WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS IS, IF YOU HAVE A CHANGE OR SOMETHING THAT NEEDS AMENDED, WHEN WE GET TO THAT SECTION OF THIS RED LINE, WOULD YOU PLEASE DRAW ATTENTION TO THAT?
>> BENJAMIN LAKE. PRESIDENT WORRELL, WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE RED LINES OF THE MOST RECENT THAT WAS PRODUCED ON MONDAY, OR WOULD YOU LIKE THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
SUGGESTED SINCE THAT TIME? >> LET'S DO BOTH.
LET'S DO MONDAY, BUT ALSO THEN ANYTHING T THAT HAS OCCURRED-- O I HAVE TWO CHANGES THAT I HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT COUNCILOR FINKAM HAS SEVERAL CHANGES SHE IS RECOMMENDING.
IF YOU COULD WEAVE THOSE IN, AND THEN WE WILL DO THE WORK OF WHAT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IS AT THE END.
>> OKAY. >> AS WE WORK THROUGH EACH ITEM.
>> SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, IN SEASON SECTION 4, THERE HAS BEEN A REDUCTION IN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOT THAT IS
[00:10:01]
PERMITTED FOR THE OFFICE SPACE FROM 70,000 TO 55,000.GENERAL RETAIL HAS BEEN LIMITED AS WELL.
DO WE HAVE ANY WAY OF SHOWING THAT UP ON THE SCREEN?
THANK YOU. >> SO THAT IS HERE.
WE JUST DISCUSSED. ADDITIONALLY, HERE WE HAVE REDUCTIONS IN THE GENERAL RETAIL SALES, FROM 20,000 TO 15,000.
A LIMITED ASSOCIATION TO THE TYPE OF BUSINESS, ON-SITE ACTIVITIES. IT IS THE TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT IS GOING TO BE RESTRICTED THERE. AND ADDITIONALLY, ADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE ZONES.
>> RIGHT. SO MAKING THIS SIZE OF THE RETAIL SPACE SMALLER AND THEN LIMITING WHAT CAN GO INTO THAT RETAIL SPACE. OKAY.
>> MR. PRESIDENT. >> COUNCILOR FINKAM?
>> THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SIZE OFT ZONES.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT HOW WE CHANGED.
THAT COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? I COULD.
>> BENJAMIN, WOULD YOU PUT THAT BACK UP THERE, PLEASE.
IN SECTION 42, THE ZONES MAY BE ENLARGED OR REDUCED.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT, UP TO 15%.
WE CHANGED THAT TO 150 FEET. THE REASON WAS THAT THE CURRENT DRAWING IS A BIT OF ARTISTIC ENDEAVOR.
NOT NECESSARILY ONE THAT IS ALIGNED WITH A MAP OR ANYTHING THAT IS UNDERNEATH THE GROUND. THERE WAS SOME FLEXIBILITY GIVEN IN THAT. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY.
LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE. >> OKAY.
>> YOU COME DOWN TO 4.3H, HERE AS WELL.
YOU HAVE THE ONE WINDMILL THAT'S BEEN LIMITED IN SIZE TO 36 FEET FROM 75. NOW, I WILL POINT OUT, IT DOES CURRENTLY STATE IN WHAT WAS PROVIDED ON MONDAY MORNING, THE STRUCTURE INCLUDING A TURBINE, A COPY HAS SINCE BEEN PROVIDED.
THAT HAS REMOVED THAT LANGUAGE IT NOW STATES-- YOU WILL HAVE MY SCRIBBLE HERE. INCLUDING A TURBINE.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO STATE THE TURBINE IS PROHIBITED.
>> OKAY. COUNCILOR FINKAM, DO YOU WANT TO
GIVE ANY CLARIFICATION ON THAT? >> THE NEIGHBORS DIDN'T WANT ANY KIND OF TURBINE AT ALL. I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY REALLY HIGH. LIKE, 70 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE.
THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE HEIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE HEIGHT FROM THE BASE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BLADE.
THE TOP OF THE BLADE. ALL THIS OTHER STUFF.
THE NEIGHBORS DON'T WANT A TURBINE.
WE ALLOWED FOR ONE W WIND WINDMILL-TYPE-- ONE WINDMILL TO BE ON THE PROPERTY. TO SHOW WHAT WIND GENERATION WAS LIKE IN PREVIOUS DAYS. BUT NOT TO SHOW SOME OF THE STUFF WE SEE UP ON 65. THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT KIND OF VISUAL AESTHETIC IN THE PROPERTY.
NOR DID WE WANT-- WE ARE JUST WORRIED ABOUT EVERYTHING.
WITH THE WIND TURBINE. THAT GOT CUT FROM THE START.
>> IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT TURBINES, THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. JUST TO SPECIFICALLY STATE THEY
ARE EXCLUDED. >> TURBINE PROHIBITED AS A FULL
SENTENCE IS FANTASTIC. >> OKAY.
I'M ALSO GOING TO JUST MAKE SURE IF ANYBODY FROM THE CONNER PRAIRIE SIDE, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, MAKE SURE YOU MAKE YOUR POINTS CLEAR, IF YOU HAVE ANY. AS WE GO THROUGH THIS.
OKAY? I'M ASSUMING YOU ARE GOOD SO
>> RESTRICTIONS ON ZONE 2. WE HAD A REDUCTION FROM THREE STORIES TO TWO STORIES. AND A MAXIMUM OF 52 TO 36-FOOT BUILDING HEIGHTS. THAT STATES IT HERE AS WELL.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE BUILDING IN
[00:15:01]
ZONE 1. INCLUDED AS WELL.EXTERIOR MADE OF NATURAL MATERIAL.
GALVANIZED STEEL. YOU HAVE THOSE TYPES OF
AESTHETICS INCLUDED. >> MR. PRESIDENT?
>> CAN WE TALK ABOUT THIS ONE FOR A SECOND AS WELLLE?
>> SURE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THIS SPECIFIES IN THE SECTION NUMBER THREE, THAT THIS IS ONE BUI BUILDING. ONE BUILDING IS PERMITTED WITH THIS HEIGHT. COUNCILOR WORRELL WAS ARTICULATE ABOUT, HEY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS NATURAL MATERIALS AND NOT THAT PLASTIC AND RUBBERIZED TYPE STUFF.
I WAS ADAMANT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE MARKETING ON IT.
WE KIND OF AGREED UPON A HEIGHT OF NO SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING.
ANYTHING ABOVE 20 FEET. IF IT WAS SOMETHING ABOUT STUFF THAT IS GROUND-LEVEL SIGNAGE THAT WE NEEDED, THAT IS FINE.
WE DIDN'T WANT WATER TOWER TYPE ADVERTISING THERE.
THAT IS WHY THOSE THINGS WERE PUT IN.
>> OKAY. >> ADDITIONALLY, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA CONTAINED ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE CENTER IS 15,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT WAS STATED AS WELL.
SO THERE WAS A REMOVAL OF THE NUMBER OF PRIMARY BUILDINGS IN ZONE TWO TO BE CAPPED AT TEN. EXCLUDING CABINS.
AND THE SUB-SECTION C WAS ADDED. CABINS ARE LIMITED TO 25.
>> CAN YOU PULL THAT DOWN? >> FORGIVE ME.
SO A MUCH MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT THERE.
WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PLAN IN THE MAPS IS WHAT YOU WILL BE GETTING. WITH THE LIMITATION ON THE
VERY GOOD. >> THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT HERE THAT THE NECESSARY IRRIGATION OF WATER WAS TO BE PROVIDED TO CERTAIN LANDSCAPING. AND THAT THE URBAN FORESTER CAN PARTNER WITH CONNER PRAIRIE AND REQUEST THAT CONNER PRAIRIE MAINTAIN AND REPLACE THE LANDSCAPING ON THE LANDSCAPE TIME. NO CHANGES ON 13, 14, AND 15.
MOVING ON TO 5.8. AGAIN, THIS WAS A MAINTENANCE ISSUE. IT IS PROVIDING NECESSARY IRRIGATION AND WATERING. AGAIN.
AND THAT IS THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
SCREENING. THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING AND A LOT MORE REQUIREMENTS WERE PUT IN PLACE HERE WITH REGARD-- MORE SPECIFICS WITH REGARDS TO HOW MANY TREES AND SHRUBS AND THE LOCATION OF THEM. SO WE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAILS ON THAT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT IS A MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE GUIDELINE FOR CONNER PRAIRIE TO FOLLOW.
ESPECIALLY IN THE OVERLOOK LEGACY.
SPECIFICALLY, WITH THE BUFFER. YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF LANGUAGE HERE. CONNER PRAIRIE IS REQUIRED TO COORDINATE WITH THE LEGACY HOA. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TREES WITHIN THE RIVER ROAD BUFFER. THAT IS PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND THE TIME OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE TREES.
SO IT HAS MORE OF A PARTNERSHIP AND SETTING FORTH REQUIREMENTS.
AGAIN, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIRED AT CHERRY CREEK BOULEVARD. COMMUNITY DRIVE ACROSS FROM PRAIRIE. RIVER ROAD FRONTAGE.
THERE SPECIFICALLY, WE HAVE A RATE OF EIGHT EVERGREEN TREES PER 200 FEET OF BUFFER YARD. AND THE REQUIREMENT HERE IS THE TREES ARE REGROUPED TO PROVIDE ENHANCED SCREENING.
AGAIN, A LOT MORE SPECIFICATION AND TAPE TO MAKE SURE THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR. THAT SCREENING IS TO BE PROVIDED. THE BUFFER IS TO BE PROVIDED.
THE PARTNERSHIP IS TO TAKE PLACE IN THAT.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE UNDER SUBSECTION F HERE, IN SECTION-- FORGIVE ME.
5.10F, THE COORDINATION WITH THE URBAN FORESTER AND AGAIN, MORE
[00:20:04]
COLLABORATION WITH THE HOA. >> RIGHT.
I THINK IT IS PROBABLY NOW A POINT TO MAKE THAT WE APPRECIATE THE SUBSTANTIAL LANDSCAPING, SCREENING, THE DIALOGUE BACK AND FORTH. WE DO APPRECIATE THAT ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORS. AND I KNOW THE HOA APPRECIATES THAT. I KNOW COUNCILOR FINKAM, HER DISTRICT, SHE APPRECIATES IT. I DON'T WANT IT TO GO UNNOTICED THAT THIS IS SUBSTANTIAL. (INAUDIBLE) UNLESS YOU ARE GOING
TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME. >> I'M NOT.
THE INTENT OF THAT WAS NOT FOR APPROVAL.
TO LOOK AT LOCATIONS WHERE THEY MIGHT WANT SCREENING.
AND WE WOULD WORK WITH THEM TO SAY THIS IS THE LINE OF SIGHT ISSUE. WE WOULD LIKE TREES PUT THERE.
AND TO COORDINATE THOSE TYPES OF OPPORTUNITIES WITH THEM AS WE
DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. >> WHEN YOU SAY "THEY," YOU MEAN-- OKAY. GOT IT.
COUNCILOR, YOU ARE GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD. YOU ARE GOOD WITH THAT.
>> WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES UNTIL WE MAKE IT TO SECTION 9.1.
WHERE WE HAVE-- THIS IS DEALING WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AC ACCESS. WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC CUT.
THE PEDESTRIAN CROS CROSSWALK SL BE PROVIDED ON ALL SIDES OF THIS INTERSECTION. THAT REQUIREMENT THERE.
COUNCILOR FINKAM. >> SHOULDN'T WE HAVE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE-- IS IT LATER? OKAY.
THAT IS ALL RIGHT. I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING.
C-3. WE HAVE A DRIVEWAY-- WE HAVE A DRIVEWAY CUT. CONNER PRAIRIE ON RIVER ROAD SOUTH TO CHERRY CREEK BOULEVARD. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE COUNTY
ENGINEER. >> WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT TODAY AS WELL. IT WAS DELETED.
>> OKAY. >> THE AMENDMENT TODAY IS TO REMOVE THAT ENTIRELY. SO THAT IS IF THERE IS TO BE A CUT OF ANY TYPE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR THAT
>> EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT. H.
>> OKAY. NOW WE HAVE LANGUAGE THAT STATES THAT ALL PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS, DRIVEWAY CUTS, VEHICLE CONNECTIONS AND OTHER INSTALLATIONS WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH AND IF REQUIRED, APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
THE CITY'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MAY IMPOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR CONDITIONS THE ROUND-ABOUT AT CHERRY CREEK BOULEVARD OR RIVER ROAD SHALL HAVE BEACONS OR THE EQUIVALENT
>> WAS THAT THE LANGUAGE, TOO, THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO?
AGAIN, THIS HAS THE SAME SIMILAR LANGUAGE.
THE MAIN POINT BEING HERE IS THE REFLECTIVE RAPID FLASHING BEACONS TO BE INSTALLED AT THE ROUND-ABOUT AT CHERRY CREEK.
THEN WE GET TO 9.6. AND HERE WE HAVE-- IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PUBLIC ADDRESS SY SYSTEM.
THE PA SYSTEM. WHAT'S BEEN REQUESTED IS AMPLIFIED SOUND. THIS FIRST LIMITS THE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM TO PUBLIC SAFETY. IT BORROWS LANGUAGE FROM-- THIS SHOULD BE-- THIS BORROWS LANGUAGE FROM THE NOISE ORDINANCE WHICH HAS THIS COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WHICH BASICALLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF LOUD SPEAKERS.
ANY AMPLIFIED SOUND MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, EXCLUDING PUBLIC HOLIDAYS, BEFORE 8:00 P.M.
THE RESTRICTION UNDER CITY CODE AND UNDER THE NOISE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY IS 11:00 P.M. SO IT MAKES IT SO THAT WITH THIS BEING AN EVENT SPACE, THAT THERE IS RESPECT, A NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROVISION PUT IN THERE TO PREVENT ANY NOISE FROM LOUDSPEAKERS TO INTERRUPT PEOPLE SLEEPING DURING THE WEEKDAY.
WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT STATES THAT THIS DOESN'T AFFECT
[00:25:02]
OTHER REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE NOISE ORDINANCE.THEREFORE, WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN, THE NOISE ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY ON FRIDAYS, HOLIDAYS, AND WEEKENDS AT THE 11:00 HOUR.
IN RELATION TO THE AMPLIFIED SOUND.
THEN WE HAVE EXTENSIVE CHANGES TO THE SPECIAL EVENT LANGUAGE HERE. AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED AT THIS POINT AS WELL. SO I CAN ADDRESS THOSE ADDITIONAL CHANGES, OR WE CAN GO THROUGH WHAT IS THERE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND ONE AT A TIME.
LET'S GO THROUGH THEM. >> OKAY.
>> WHAT IS THERE AND HOW WE WANT IT MODIFIED, THIS ONE.
>> WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, SO WHAT YOU HAVE UNDER 9.7A, IS THE TRIGGERING LANGUAGE FOR WHAT MAKES A SPECIAL EVENT.
HOW DOES AN EVENT BECOME SPECIAL? AND WHAT IT IS PRIMARILY IS A SIZE-BASED ON PARKING.
SO UNDER ZONE 1, AND IT IS BASED ON TIME.
UNDER ZONE 1, YOU HAVE 325 SPACES, SERVICE SPACES.
AND THE LAND BANKED PARKING SPACES.
BEFORE 5:00, ALL ON SITE. AFTER 5:00, 225 SPACES.
ZONE TWO, 300 SPACES. THAT IS PAVED SURFACE SPACES.
BEFORE 5:00, 150 SPACES. THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY DRAFTED INCLUDES SOMEWHAT EXCLUDES EVENTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THAT USE, AND THAT LANGUAGE IS QUITE BROAD.
LANGUAGE THAT COULD APPLY TO HUNDREDS OF SCHOOL BUSES POTENTIALLY DESCENDING AND% CAUSING A NUISANCE IN THE TRAFFIC VOLUME WHICH WOULD BE PART OF THE NORMAL USE WHICH SCHOOLCHILDREN VISITING A MU MUSEUM, THE RECOMMENDED CHANGE HERE IS TO REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE ENTIRELY.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY PROVIDED IN ZONE ONE, THE ABILITY FOR 325 ON-SITE PAID PARKING SPACES ALONG WITH 200-- THAT HAS BEEN SPECIFIED HERE.
THAT IS WHAT WAS STATED PREVIOUSLY.
THE THRESHHOLD FOR THE LAND BANK PARKING.
525 PARKING SPACES. IT DOESN'T STATE WHAT TYPE OF PARKING. IT DOESN'T SAY MINI BUS OR BUSES OR PROHIBITED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT IS 525 SPACES ALREADY THERE. SO IT IS THOUGHT THAT THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE HERE THAT WOULD PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR NORMAL FUNCTION IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE 525 SPACES SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR NORMAL FUNCTION OF THAT SPACE AS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. THE ADDITION HERE, IT WAS CAUGHT BY SUE AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING.
WE HAVE A LIMITATION ON THE USE OF OFF-SITE PARKING IN SPECIAL EVENTS. ONCE A SPECIAL EVENT IS BEING TRIGGERED. ARGUABLY, IF YOU DON'T TRIGGER A SPECIAL EVENT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, YOU COULD STILL USE OFF-SITE PARKING.
SO FORGIVE ME. DRY THROAT RIGHT NOW.
SO-- (LAUGHTER) THE REQUEST H HERE-- I APPRECIATE IT.
HUMBLY AND KINDLY, THANK YOU. THE REQUEST HERE IS TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT CREATES A THRESHHOLD.
SO THAT IF A-- IF AN EVENT UTILIZED-- IF AN EVENT SANCTIONED OFF-SITE PARKING IS UTILIZED BY GUESTS, THAT WOULD TRIGGER A SPECIAL EVENT. SO THAT IS THE REQUESTED CHA
>> I THOUGHT WE WERE SAYING NO OFF-SITE PARKING SPECIFICALLY.
>> THE PAGE ON THE SCREEN THAT YOU ARE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS
BECAUSE YEAH. THIS ISN'T WHAT WE AGREED ON.
>> WE ARE, WE ARE SAYING NEXT, NO OFF-SITE PARKING.
THAT IS ANOTHER CHANGE. >> TO THE EXTENT IT IS UNFAMILIAR WITH US, I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT PAGE WAS GENERATED.
IF WE COULD FIND OUT WHERE IT WAS GENERATED.
[00:30:03]
THE ORIGINAL. >> SO BENJAMIN, LET'S NOT DEAL WITH-- LET'S JUST DEAL WITH, FIRST OF ALL, THE ISSUE OF THE DEFINITION OF WHAT TRIGGERS A SPECIAL EVENT.
THAT IS WHAT YOU HAD-- YOU ARE DESCRIBING THE LANGUAGE.
INSTEAD OF IT SAYING OUTSIDE THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF USE.
>> TO REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE ENTIRELY.
I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARY. >> IS EVERYBODY CLEAR WITH THAT?
>> WHAT IS THE DEFER IN ADDITION, THOUGH?
GO THROUGH THAT, BENJAMIN. >> SO CURRENTLY, IT STATES TH THAT-- FORGIVE ME. CURRENTLY, THE DEFINITION HERE IS SPECIAL EVENTS ARE EVENTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THE USE AND THAT ALSO EXCEED THE PARKING.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THE USE OF THAT SPACE AND EXCEED THE PARKING IN ORDER TO TRIGGER ALL LIMITATIONS ON SPECIAL EVENTS THAT ARE SET FORTH HERE.
BECAUSE THERE IS A POTENTIAL RISK HERE OF THE NORMAL USE BEING HUNDREDS OF SCHOOL BUSES DESCENDING UPON THE LOCATION OR IN EXCESS OF BUSINESSES ON THE LOCATION TO USE THE MUSEUM.
THE THOUGHT IS THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY LANGUAGE.
ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING COUNCIL HAS ALREADY PROVIDED 325 ON-SITE PAID PARKING SPACES AND 200 LAND BANK PARKING SPACES FOR THE USE OF THE MUSEUM SPACE. A TOTAL OF 525 SPACES.
NOT LIMITED IN THE TYPE OF USE. SO BUSES CAN PARK THERE.
COACHES CAN PARK THERE. >> SO,S SO BENJAMIN, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS A LOOPHOLE HERE?
>> IT IS LOOSE LANGUAGE. IT IS LOOSE LANGUAGE.
BUT THAT IS MY OPINION. >> YEAH.
SO BENJAMIN WAS DESCRIBING THERE IS A LOOPHOLE HERE THAT NORMAL USE COULD BE MORE THAN THE 525. THEN WE HAVE NEGATED OUR PARKING THRESHHOLD. THAT IS THE PROBLEM HE IS TRYING
TO SOLVE. >> IT COMES DOWN TO ENFORCEMENT, THEN. THEN WE ARE ARGUING WHAT IS NORMAL USE AND NOT NORMAL USE. TO THE EXTENT THERE IS AN ISSUE.
JOHN, DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS?
>> DID WE DETERMINE WHERE THAT PAGE CAME FROM?
>> IT CAME FROM OUR CORPORATE COUNSEL HAVING A CONCERN WITH THE LAST LANGUAGE. THIS IS AN ISSUE WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH ON THE DAIS. OTHER THAN THAT, I CAN'T BE MORE
>> YEAH. I MEAN, WE ARE COMING DOWN TO THE END. WE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH-- SOME OF THESE ISSUES, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH AS THEY COME UP. OUR COUNCIL BELIEVES THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
AS FAR AS MAKING SURE THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR.
>> SO LET'S READ IT TOGETHER SO WE BOTH UNDERSTAND.
>> YUP. >> WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER
FOR ADOPTION. >> I DO BELIEVE YOU ACTUALLY DID RESPOND WITH YOUR LANGUAGE. WHY DON'T YOU SHARE WHAT YOU-- ON THIS TOPIC, WHAT YOU CONSIDERED YOUR LANGUAGE TO BE?
>> I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE FLOW.
LET'S FIND OUT WHERE THERE IS DISCREPANCIES.
AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR US TO CONSIDER.
>> COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE TERM "OUTSIDE THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF A USE."
>> CORRECT. >> DO OFF PROBLEM WITH THAT? DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT THIS SO WE ARE GOOD?
>> REGARDING THAT PROVISION. >> OKAY.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE TO
TODAY -- >> MR. PRESIDENT, CAN WE GET
ANYMORE ON THE MICROPHONE? >> SURE, YEAH.
>> IF WE CAN SEE IT ON THE SCREEN AGAIN.
I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T HAVE A COPY.
ANOTHER PROPOSAL. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE DISTRIBUTION FROM FRIDAY. WE WERE ASKED TO FURTHER ADDRESS IT. WE DID.
WE HAD PREPARED TO DO THAT THIS EVENING.
AND NOW I THINK I'M CLEAR. COUNSEL HAS COME TO THE MEETING WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT.
I WANT TO TELL YOU WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE OKAY WITH IT.
[00:35:01]
>> OKAY. >> I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
>> YOU ARE SAYING-- YEAH. OKAY.
YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT.
>> OKAY. >> MR. PRESIDENT? WE NEVER DISCUSSED USING OFF-SITE PARKING, PERIOD.
THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING WE WANTED.
THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO PROHIBIT.
>> NO. THERE IS NO OFF-SITE PARKING,
>> THAT WAS THE NEXT STEP OF THIS.
NO OFF-SITE PARKING. >> SO WHAT I HAVE IS UNDER 9.
>> THE LANGUAGE THAT SETS THE LIMITATIONS ONCE A SPECIAL EVENT HAS BEEN TRIGGERED. IT STATES THE PARKING SHALL BE LIMITED TO ON-SITE. PARKING BY ZONE AS SHOWN IN THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. IT STATES THAT.
BUT -- >> IF I MIGHT, WE WOULD PROPOSE TO ADD TO THAT THAT THE LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL PARKING SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE REAL ESTATE. NO OFF-SITE PARKING SHALL BE PERMITTED. BENJAMIN HAS A SUGGESTION TO EDIT THE LOCATION. IF IT BENEFITS THE COUNSEL, I WOULD ADD A THIRD LOCATION. IT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES PARKING ACROSS THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THE LOCATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE REAL ESTATE.
NO OFF-SITE PARKING SHALL BE PERMITTED.
IT MEETS THE EXPECTATION OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER.
>> OKAY. >> I WASN'T AWARE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIALOGUE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED.
>> IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, BENJAMIN?
>> OKAY. IF I CAN, I'LL TRY AND PEEL THIS APART A LITTLE BIT. SO CURRENTLY, THE ONLY LANGUAGE THAT ADDRESSES OFF-SITE PARKING IS UNDER 9.7B.
WHERE IT SAYS A SPECIAL EVENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS. IF IT IS NOT A SPECIAL EVENT, IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS.
SO THAT IS WHERE THE LOOPHOLE IS WITH THE OFF-SIE PARKING.
YOU CAN THROW THE LIMITATION HERE.
YOU CAN THROW THE LIMITATION THAT THERE SHALL NOT BE ON-SITE PARKING. BUT ALSO IT DOES AWAY SOMEWHAT WITH THE LANGUAGE HERE THAT SAYS "EXCEPT WHERE THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY HAS ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES." OFF-SITE PARKING IS ALLOWED WHEN IT IS A SPECIAL EVENT ONLY.
AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS.
>> MR. PRESIDENT, THE PETITIONER IS STANDING HERE TELLING US THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO AGREE TO NO OFF-SITE PARKING.
LET'S NOT OVERTHINK IT OR OVERTALK IT.
THEY ARE WILLING TO PUT IT IN TWO OR THREE PLACES IN THE PUD.
IT IS DONE. YOU ARE STATING YOU ARE GOING TO PUT IN NO OFF-SITE PARKING. PARKING HAS TO BE ON THE REAL
IT IS IN THE HANDOUT WE HAD TO DELIVER TO YOU.
THAT INFORMATION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION TODAY.
I CAN HAND THAT OUT. YOU WILL SEE IT WHERE WE PROPOSED TO PUT IT. BENJAMIN SUGGESTED THAT HE MAY HAVE OTHER THINGS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THIS EVENING.
IN THE ORDINANCE. THAT IS THE GENERAL PARKING PROVISIONS. THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE TO US AT THE TIME THAT WE ADD,ST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECTION 9.7. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM ADDING TO
THOSE THREE LOCATIONS. >> WITH THAT INFORMATION, IT MAKES OFF-SITE PARKING A DEAD ISSUE.
>> YOU ASKED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
>> OKAY. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT, BEN YEAH
SNIN. >> I WOULD LIKE THE CLARIFY SOMETHING. IF I COULD.
AND ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION. >> RIGHT.
>> OBVIOUSLY, NOT TO OVERCOMPLICATE THIS.
WHERE IS CONNER PRAIRIE ANTICIPATING ADDITIONAL PARKING GOING ON ZONE 1-A TO TRIGGER A SPECIAL EVENT.
IF IT IS NOT GOING TO GO OFF-SITE.
>> PARKING COULD BE LOCATED WITHIN ZONE 2.
ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF WORKS.
THEY WOULD AUTHORIZATION FOR US TO ALLOW THE PARKING TO BE
WITHIN ZONE TWO. >> MR. PRESIDENT, AGAIN, TRYING TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO STOP, COUNCILOR FINKAM IS TRYING TO STOP THE OFF-SITE PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE CHURCH. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS.
YOU HAVE AGREED TO THAT. >> CORRECT.
>> WHAT WAS USED BEFORE FOR OFF-SITE MEANT OFF OF THAT ZONE.
AND THAT IS WHERE IT IS GET GETTING-- THE TWO ARE GETTING MIXED UP. WE DON'T CARE IF THEY GET APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD TO GO TO A DIFFERENT ZONE.
[00:40:01]
WE DON'T WANT IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE CHURCH.>> OR SCHOOL. >> MR. PRESIDENT?
>> YOU ARE SAYING IT WILL BE ON THE REAL ESTATE.
>> SOMETHING ELSE, YEAH. >> YEAH.
B-2, B-2, I THINK IT SAYS PARKING SHALL BE LIMITED TO ON-SITE PARKING BY ZONE. THAT IS THE KEY PART.
IT IS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLAN.
EXCEPT WHERE THE CITY OF CARMEL HAS GRANTED PRIOR APPROVAL.
YOU MAY WANT TO CLARIFY BY ZONE FOR A SPECIFIC EVENT.
MAYBE THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT.
THEY ARE ALLOWING OFF-SITE. WE ARE SAYING BY ZONE.
>> IF WE CLARIFY THAT OFF-SITE PARKING IS PROHIBITED TO BE GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER B-2, AND IF WE ALSO CLARIFY UNDER THE PARKING PROVISION WHICH IS SECTION 8.1, THE OFF-SITE PARKING IS PROHIBITED, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
>> YEAH. LIKE LINE FOUR OF THAT, ADDITIONAL PARKING INSERT BY ZONE.
FOR SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT. THAT WILL MAKE SURE THE CLARITY IS THERE FOR EVERYBODY MOVING FORWARD.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOOD ON THAT ONE.
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >> OKAY.
VERY GOOD. MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF SAUSAGE HERE. (LAUGHTER) ALL RIGHT.
SO WE ARE-- OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS AS AMENDED. ALL RIGHT.
>> OKAY. UNDER THE NEW LANGUAGE UNDER 9.7B, THIS SETS FORTH THE-- ONCE A SPECIAL EVENT HAS BEEN TRIGGERED WHICH WOULD BE EXCEEDING THE THRESHHOLD OF EITHER ZONE, OTHERWISE STATED OVERFLOWING INTO ANOTHER ZONE, WOULD BE A SPECIAL EVENT. THEN THERE ARE LIMITATIONS SET TO THOSE SPECIAL EVENTS. THAT IS 36 DAYS PER CALENDAR YEAR. ORIGINALLY PRESENTED AS 52.
SO A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION THERE.
AND THEN ALSO WHERE THEY OVERFLOW INTO ANOTHER ZONE, APPROVAL HAS TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY AND INFORMATION. SUFFICIENT TO MAKE A PROPER DETERMINATION SHALL BE PRES PRESENTED.
THERE IS ALSO LANGUAGE THERE, THERE IS A PROVISION WITHIN THE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT STATES EVENTS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ARE EXEMPT. THAT EXEMGHTS DOES NOT APPLY.
AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT MUST BE PROVIDED TO GIVE NOTICE TO DOCS AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR SPECIAL EVENTS IS 60 DAYS.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON SPECIAL EVENTS. AND TO BE CLEAR, THE INTENT HERE OF THE COUNCIL IN SPECIAL EV EVENTS, MY UNDERSTANDING, IF I MAY SO STATE, IS EVENTS THAT ARE A RISK TO CAUSE NUISANCE BASED ON THEIR SIZE AND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT IT WOULD PRODUCE.
THESE ARE ADEQUATE UNDER SUBSECTION 4.
YOU OVERGOT WHEN THE EVENTS CAN TAKE PLACE.
LIMITING FROM 10:00 P.M. THEY SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 7:00 A.M. MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY.
OR BETWEEN 11:00 P.M. AND 8:00 P.M. FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY.
THAT IS THE MOBILIZATION, THE DEMOBILIZATION OF SPECIAL EVENTS. SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATION.
ADEQUATE TRAFFIC, CONTROL, AND SECURITY IS PROVIDED.
TO ENSURE SAFE FLOW OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
IN ZONE TWO, WHICH IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE, OF THE PROJECT, CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, THERE SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN TWO EVENTS IN THE 72-HOUR PERIOD.
NO MORE THAN EIGHT PER CALENDAR MONTH.
TEMPORARY STRUCTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED 25 FEET.
YOU HAVE A HIGH RESTRICTION FOR VISION.
SIGHT NUISANCE. VEHICLES USED TO SHUFFLE GUESTS DURING A SPECIAL EVENT SHALL BE ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
OR H HYBRID VEHICLES. AGAIN, FINAL PROVISION IS NOTHING SHALL AFFECT THE NOISE ORDINANCE FROM THIS.
THE LOCATION OF OUTDOOR EVENTS. WEDDINGS AND SPECIAL EVENTS, SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE DESIGN OF THE SPACE SHALL INCLUDE SOUND, LIGHT, AND NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES. AGAIN, A NUISANCE ABATEMENT.
A FEW MINOR CHANGES HERE. >> COUNCILOR AASEN, DO YOU HAVE
[00:45:04]
A QUESTION? >> I DON'T WANT TO MAKE US GO BACK A MINUTE, BUT I WILL. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PART WHERE YOU MENTIONED EVENTS PRIMARILY-- ORGANIZES EVENTS AS BEING AN EXCEPTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON
WHAT WE ARE SAYING THERE. >> SO --
>> MY UNDERSTANDING. IF THERE IS A SMALL EVENT BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS. AND YOU ARE HAVING A SMALL EVENT, THOSE EVENTS TOGETHER DON'T TRIGGER A SPECIAL EVENT IS
WHAT WE ARE SAYING? >> IF PARKS WERE TO HAVE A LARGE EVENT, THAT WOULD BE BIG ENOUGH, WOULD THAT BE EXEMPT? BECAUSE IS CARMEL CLAY PARKS PUTTING IT ON? OR IT STILL NEEDS TO GET SPECIAL APPROVAL?
>> THE LANGUAGE HERE IS PROVIDED THAT IF AN EVENT IS ORGANIZED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS AND RECREATION, THE VEHICLES THAT ARE PART OF THAT EVENT SHALL NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE THRESHHOLD FOR TRIGGERING A SPECIAL EVENT IN ANY REGARD.
FOR CONNER PRAIRIE'S PURPOSE. REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF THE
EVENT. >> THERE IS NO LIMITATION ON THE SIZE THAT CARMEL CLAY PARKS COULD HAVE AS AN EVENT?
>> THTHERE ISN'T A LIMITATION PT FORTH HERE, NO.
>> SHOULD WE-- YES. THAT IS WHAT I WAS GETTING.
OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO-- BECAUSE YOU GUYS SHOULDN'T BE AT FAULT IF THEY HOLD A THOUSAND-PERSON EVENT AND THEN NOW YOU GET THE CALLS.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY, WELL, THERE IS A LARGER EVENT.
WE ARE PARTNERING WITH CONNER PRAIRIE, SO NOW WE NO LONGER HAVE TO GO TO BPW. I WANT TO KIND OF AVOID THAT.
>> (INAUDIBLE) CONNER PRAIRIE WOULD TRUST THAT THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE CARMEL CLAY PARKS DETERMINING THE SIZE OF THE EVENT. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT
OFF-SITE. >> THE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE IN THE MEETING WAS-- SORRY ABOUT THAT.
SO THE INTENT WAS THAT IF CARMEL WERE TO HAVE A 5-K ON THE GREENWAY, THAT THERE WAS NO REAL GOOD PARKING OPTIONS ANYWHERE ALONG THAT GREENWAY. I KNOW PRAIRIE VIEW WILL PARK ON THE GRASS AND OCCASIONALLY THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEY COULD HAVE AN EVENT THAT MIGHT HAVE A NUMBER OF CARS THERE. AND THE IDEA WAS THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO GET IN THE WAY OF THAT, AND WE SAID, WELL, WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 36 AND WHATEVER PROVISIONS YOU PUT IN WITH PARKS & RECREATION. THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN YOU AND
THEM. >> A 546 5-K WOULD BE A GREAT EVENT. IT SHOULD STILL GO TO THE BPW.
>> BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE AGAINST THE 36.
IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT APPROVAL PROCESS?
>> IT WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE 36.
>> THANK YOU. >> MR. PRESIDENT?
>> COUNCILOR FINKAM? >> IF IT IS A SPECIAL EVENT, IT IS A SPECIAL EVENT. NO MATTER THE TENANT.
IF IT IS ON THE REAL ESTATE, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BPW PROCESS. BECAUSE I MEAN, THEY HAVE A SEPARATE BOARD. THEY CAN MAKE A SEPARATE DETERMINATION. THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT THAN BPW. THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
>> THE LANGUAGE OF SPECIAL EVENTS IS LIMITED RIGHT NOW.
TO CONNER KRP PRAIRIE. IF YOU ARE WANTING TO APPLY THOSE RESTRICTIONS TO CARMEL CLAY PARKS? YOU WOULD HAVE TO SET FORTH THOSE RESTRICTIONS AS WELL.
HOW MANY EVENTS ARE YOU SAYING-- >> MR. PRESIDENT?
>> COUNCILOR FINKAM? >> CAN WE MODIFY THIS? CAN WE PASS THIS TONIGHT AND COME BACK AND MODIFY THIS?
>> I AM TOLD WE CAN, YES. >> YES.
>> AND JUST BRING IT OPEN-- OPEN IT BACK UP.
LET'S NOT MAKE SAUSAGE AT 7:50. WE KNOW THE INTENT.
WE CAN WORK WITH MICHAEL BEFORE THAT AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
>> WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS IN OUR MEETINGS.
SO THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, TO YOUR POINT, COUNCILOR FINKAM.
THE LAND IS THE LAND. THE NEIGHBORS ARE THE NEIGHBORS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE FELT LIKE WE COULD SET A NUMBER ON THE PARKS. WE FELT THAT IT SHOULD GO TO AN APPROVAL PROCESS. SO WE WILL COME BACK AND REVISIT THIS TO YOUR POINT. ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU WANT TO KEEP MOVING BENJAMIN THROUGH THE NEXT-- IF
[00:50:01]
THERE AREN'T ANY MORE CHANGES. I LOST TRACK OF WHERE WE ARE.>> THE LAST HERE. >> VARIANCES.
>> A FEW MINOR CHANGES IN 10.3 AND 10.4.
>> YEAH. >> THE BZA SHALL HEAR VARIANCE REQUESTS. THE PLAN COMMISSION MAY HEAR THE GRANT AND APPLICATION OF ZONING WAIVER.
ANY CONDITIONS BY THE PLAN COMMISSION.
SO I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PATIENCE THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND THAT WE HAVE GOOD CLARITY TO THE RULES.
NOW ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL?
ANYTHING TO MY LEFT? >> MR. PRESIDENT?
>> COUNCILOR RIDER? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PETITIONER ON THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT ALL THE CHANGES.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED THIS EVENING.
WE WILL WORK IN EARNEST WITH LEGAL TO PRODUCE A CLEAN VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT THAT CAN BE AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE NO LATER THAN THE END OF THE DAY TOMORROW.
>> ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY COWENS FINKAM?
>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE PETITIONER AND CONNER PRAIRIE AND EVERYBODY INVOLVED. WITH ALL THESE CHANGES.
SOME WERE KIND OF PAINFUL WITH THE WORDING.
I DIDN'T GET-- I SENT A NEWSLETTER TO 1,500 PEOPLE YESTERDAY MORNING. AND REALLY GOT VERY, VERY LITTLE BACK. SO I DON'T KNOW IF FALL BREAK IS THIS WEEK. PEOPLE ARE BACK.
I FEEL LIKE WE MADE GOOD PROGRESS.
I ANTICIPATE GOOD PARTNERSHIP MOVING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE ANTICIPATED AFFECTING US WERE A GOOD PARTNERSHIP MOVING FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THAT WORK THAT WE PUT INTO IT.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AS PRESENTED TONIGHT.
>> COUNCILOR HANNON? >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
AGAIN, I WOULD THANK THE PETITIONER, THANK COUNCIL, DOCS HAS PUT A TON OF WORK INTO THIS, OBVIOUSLY.
LAND USE, PLAN COMMISSION, A LOT OF COUNCILORS AS WELL.
ALSO I'M EMPATHETIC WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
YOU KNOW, THE SAYING I HAVE IS NOBODY THINKS ABOUT ZONING AND PETITIONS AND, YOU KNOW, MITIGATION FACTORS AND BARRIERS AND COMMITMENTS UNTIL THAT SIGN GOES UP NEXT TO YOU.
THEN YOU ARE PLAYING CATCH-UP. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
IT IS NOT A DEVELOPER. IT IS CONNER PRAIRIE.
WE HAVE SEEN SO MANY OF THESE PUDS WHERE THE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF FROM DAY ONE, I THINK NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL BEHIND THE POWER CURVE. RIGHT? AND SO FOR THE NEXT SEPAR SEPARATION,-- FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION, A FUNCTION THAT HELPS TO GET THE NEIGHBORS UP TO SPEED TO THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY ARE KIND OF BEHIND THE POWER CURVE TO UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, ET CETERA. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THE OTHER THING THAT I WILL ADD HERE, THAT PROCESS NEEDS TO CONTINUE AFTER WE APPROVE THESE. WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CHANGES AND COMMITMENTS AND THINGS, AND WE SORT OF APPROVE IT, AND WE WALK ON AND GO TO THE NEXT THING.
THE NEIGHBORS ARE STILL THERE. THE DEVELOPMENT IS STILL ONGOING. AND ISSUE DO ARISE.
WHETHER IT IS CONSTRUCTION ISSUES LIKE WE SAW IN THE COURTYARDS REPEATEDLY OR IT IS WEATHER COMMITMENTS BEING TRACKED, ACTUALLY. AND FOLLOWED.
SO AGAIN, I WOULD SAY TO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION, ANY COUNCILORS THAT ARE HERE, I BELIEVE WE CAN AND SHOULD DO A BETTER JOB. TO GET OUR CITIZENS UP TO SPEED IN THIS PROCESS. SO THEY FEEL THEY ARE EQUALS RATHER THAN SORT OF A BIG POWER GRADIENT.
THEN MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE KIND OF A SINGLE NUMBER TO CALL ON THE BACK END IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT ARISE IN TERMS OF COMMITMENTS OR EXPECTATIONS, ET CETERA.
AGAIN, WE CERTAINLY EXPECT ALL DEVELOPERS AND WE EXPECT CONNER PRAIRIE TO STICK TO THIS. I THINK, I'M A TRUST BUT VERIFY SORT OF GUY. IT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD AIL ENTIRE TO. AGAIN, GOING FORWARD TO.
HELP OUR NEIGHBORS ON THE FRONT END AS WELL AS ON THE BACK END WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE LIGHTS ARE DOWN AND NOBODY IS THERE EXCEPT FOR THE DEVELOPERS. AGAIN, THANK YOU.
I'M SUPPORTIVE BASED UPON ALL OF THESE CHANGES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SO THIS HAS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY TO GET HERE TONIGHT. I THINK IT WAS-- WAS IT 14 OR 16 MONTHS AGO THAT THIS WAS FIRST SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION.
THE PLAN COMMISSION LEVEL. THERE WERE AT LEAST SIX MEETINGS. FOUR SPECIAL COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE MEETINGS THAT WERE VERY EXTENSIVE.
THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT CHANGED NUMEROUS TIMES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. TWO LAND USE MEETINGS HERE AT
[00:55:01]
THE CITY COUNCIL. SEVERAL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.THAT IS JUST THE PUBLIC MEETING. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE TIMES THAT WE WENT AND MET WITH NEIGHBORS OR SAT AND HAD COFFEE OR TOOK A PHONE CALL TO TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. AND THE THING-- THE CRAZY THING IS I ALMOST WISH WE HAD MORE TIME BECAUSE THERE IS A FEW THINGS I WOULD STILL LIKE TO TIE UP, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE INCUMBENT UPON MAYBE THIS COUNCIL, MAYBE THE NEXT COUNCIL.
WE WILL HAVE FIVE NEW CITY COUNCILORS MINIMUM COMING IN JANUARY 1, TO COME IN AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HOLD ACCOUNTABLE, TIE UP ANY LOOSE ENDS AND I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR HANNON.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME PROJECTS WHERE MAYBE THEY GOT APPROVED.
THEY DIDN'T REALIZE EXACTLY HOW WE THOUGHT.
THE GOOD NEWS IN THIS, I THINK THERE IS EVERY INCENTIVE FOR CONNER PRAIRIE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND WORK WITH US.
IT IS THEIR REPUTATION ON THE LINE.
SEVERAL PARTS OF THE PROJECT STILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED LATER ON IF THEY WISH TO HAVE THEM. SUCH AS THE CABINS OR THE ECO-LODGE. THOSE STILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL APPROVAL. THE EVENTS WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL. SO IF CONNER PRAIRIE ISN'T A GOOD NEIGHBOR, THERE ARE WAYS WE CAN WORK WITH THEM ON THIS.
I HAVE EVERY FAITH THEY HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN VERY GOOD TO WORK WITH ON THIS PROCESS. IF YOU LOOK-- I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHERE THIS STARTED.
THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY CHANGES. SO MANY CONCESSIONS.
SO MANY MEETINGS. AND SO I HAVE HOPE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THIS FOR THE FUTURE.
THIS IS A 20-YEAR PROJECT FOR YOU TO FINISH THE WHOLE THING OUT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS COUNCIL AND THE NEXT COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON.
THIS I WILL BE VOTING YES TONIGHT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR CAMPBELL?
>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AND I THINK OUR FELLOW COUNCILORS MADE SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS.
A TON OF WORK WENT INTO THIS. THIS IS REALLY GOING TO BE A VERY IMPACTFUL PROJECT, IF IT IS PASSED TONIGHT.
ON THE EAST SIDE. AND REALLY FOR MUCH OF CARMEL.
I DO WANT TO GAVE SHOUT-OUT TO OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
BENJAMIN, SERGEY, JOHN, THERE WAS SO MUCH WORK THAT WENT ON BEHIND THE SCENES WHEN WE HAD MEETINGS.
WE HAD QUESTIONS. I THINK DURING THIS PROCESS, I SPOKE WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT MORE THAN I HAD ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. SO AGAIN, I THINK A LOT OF WORK WAS DONE. I THINK WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE I DIDN'T THINK WE WOULD GET TO THIS POINT.
BECAUSE I WAS A NO EARLY ON. I'M AT A POINT WHERE I CAN VOTE
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. YOU KNOW, I GUESS I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE PROCESS. I WANT TO THANK THE PETITIONER, ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT YOU PUT INTO IT.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE NEIGHBORS WHO GAVE SO MUCH IN INPUT, AND THEN LAND USE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF $OR THE CHAIR WOMANSHIP OF COUNCILOR CAMPBELL AND CERTAINLY COUNCILOR FINKAM.
ALL YOUR GUIDANCE. GETTING US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. I THINK THE COMMENTS THAT I WOULD MAKE WOULD BE WHERE ARE WE TODAY? WE HAD A PETITIONER THAT WANTED TO DO SOMETHING WITH A PIECE OF LAND, AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I THINK WE DID THIS TIME THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY WE HAVE HANDLED A PUD IN THE PAST. I HOPE THAT WE WILL FOLLOW THAT PLAN. NUMBER ONE, WAS THE FACT THAT WE REQUIRED OUR CORPORATE COUNSEL, OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, TO MAKE SURE THERE WERE NO LOOPHOLES. THAT EVERYONE WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IN WHAT THE DOCUMENT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO SAY IN ORDER TO GUIDE THE FUTURE COUNSEL'S FUTURING PLAN COMMISSIONS AND FUTURE STAFF THAT WILL HAVE TO MANAGE THIS PROJECT 20 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN NONE OF US ARE HERE.
WHAT YOU JUST SAW WAS TONIGHT, I JOKINGLY REFERRED TO IT AS MAKING SAUSAGE, BUT YOU SAW THEIR GUNS ON AN ISSUE THAT THEY FELT NEEDED ADDRESSED. I HEARD COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL.
THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT.
TO GET TO THE END RESULT THAT WE COULD IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, TAKE A VOTE. AND IF ANYONE HAS AN ISSUE THAT HASN'T BEEN TIED UP, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE.
YOU CANNOT COME BACK AND ARM CHAIR QUARTERBACK.
YOU CAN COME BACK AND ASK FOR IT TO BE REDONE.
A LOT OF TIME AND A LOT OF EFFORT WENT INTO MAKING THIS HAPPEN TONIGHT. NUMBER TWO, WE ACTUALLY PUT IN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NEIGHBORS, A PROCESS UNDER THE
[01:00:03]
NEXT ADMINISTRATION USING ONE OF THE ARMS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS TO MON MONITOR, TO APPROVE, TO EVALUATE EACH AND EVERY SPECIAL EVENT. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO SAY NO WEDDINGS OR YES TO WEDDINGS.THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE INTO THIS DOCUMENT.
BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE A 12-PERSON WEDDING THAT WOULD BE NO BIG DEAL. A 500-PERSON WEDDING WOULD BE A PROBLEM TO THE NEIGHBORS PROBABLY.
THE BPW BEING AVAILABLE TO EVALUATE EACH AND EVERY EVENT THAT IS TRIGGERED BY TOO MUCH ACTIVITY, THAT THE ONLY WAY WE COULD DEFINE IT WAS BY PARKING, I THINK IS A SOLUTION AND WILL HELP ALL OF US BE GOOD NEIGHBORS TO EACH OTHER MOVING FORWARD.
SO I'M VERY, VERY HAPPY WITH WHERE WE GOT TO ON THAT.
BUT THAT IS ALSO ANOTHER FUNCTION OF THE BPW.
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO LEARN FROM THIS EVENT AND OF COURSE, THIS MAY NEVER HAPPEN. SO I'M ALWAYS GOING TO WORST-CASE SCENARIO. LEARN FROM THIS EVENT, THE NEXT EVENT WILL BE MANAGED MUCH DIFFERENTLY WHEN THEY COME FOR AN APPROVAL. SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S T TIME. IT WASN'T PRETTY.
IT WASN'T SMOOTH. IT FRANKLY SHOULDN'T BE.
SO I THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
AND IF ANYONE WAS CAUGHT OFF-GUARD BY ANYTHING, THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. THAT IS HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO FORWARD. SO NOW THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN
>> COUNCILOR RIDER. >> I MAKE MOTION TO AMEND THE PUD AS WE REVIEWED THIS EVENING AND TO BE FINALIZED BY LEGAL.
>> OKAY. COUNCILOR RIDER, WOULD YOU MIND GOING AHEAD AND TICKING THROUGH THOSE AMENDMENTS?
THAT IS ALL YOU GET. >> IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE US TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE VOTE.
>> AMOVE TO APPROVE AS AMENDED. >> ANY DISCUSSION? TO APPROVE ITEM Z683-203 AS AMENDED.
PLEASE VOTE. THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THIS MOTION IS APPROVED. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL INVOLVED.
ARE THERE ANY AGENDA ADD-ON ITEMS TONIGHT? I SEE NONE. ANY OTHER BUSINESS? ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? WE ARE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.