Apr 16, 2024 Carmel Plan Commission

[A. Call Meeting to Order]

[00:00:10]

THE APRIL 16TH 2020 FOR CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING. WILL YOU PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU VERY

[C. Roll Call]

>> COLEMAN? >> PRESENT?

>> JEFF HILL? >> PRESENT.

>> CHRISTINE ZOCCOLA? >> PRESENT.

>> BRAD GRABOW? JOSH KIRSCH? >> PRESENT.

>> SUSAN WESTERMEIER? DUBBIE BUCKLER? SHANNON MINARD?

[D. Declaration of Quorum]

[E. Approval of Minutes]

>> THINK YOU VERY MUCH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. FIRST UP ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SO WE ARE APPROVING THE JANUARY 16TH MINUTES FROM OUR LAST.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> THANK YOU, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN

[F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, & Legal Counsel Report]

>> MADAM CHAIR, THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS FOR LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT, THE FIRST THREE ARE PLANNED COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO ISSUES, I BELIEVE WE HAVE. I USUALLY LOOK FOR BRUCE.

>> IF YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF, AND I WILL GO AHEAD

AND READ THESE. >> BRUCE IS DOING WELL.

>> WE'VE GOT THREE CRC RESOLUTION'S, I'LL READ THEM INTO THE RECORD. PLAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION PC-4-16-24-A , CRC RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-01 APPROVES CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE DEDICATORY RESOLUTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OLDTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA. THE SECOND ONE IS PLAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION PC-4-16-24-B , CRC RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-0 TO, DESIGNATES AN AREA KNOWN AS THE 106TH AND ILLINOIS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA AND APPROVES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA. THE THIRD ONE IS PLANNED COMMISSION RESOLUTION PC-4-16-24-C , CRC RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-03 , APPROVES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE DECLARATORY RESOLUTION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LEGACY PROJECT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA. ALL RIGHT.

THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> RICHARD STARK WITH LAW FIRM OF THORNBURG, THIS IS SOMETHING YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH. THE HAS PASSED A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION, THREE DIFFERENT ONES, TO AMEND CERTAIN AREAS. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH

EACH ONE? >> YES, SINCE THERE'S THREE DISTINCT DIFFERENT AREAS, IF YOU COULD GIVE BACKGROUND ON

EACH OF THEM. >> THE FIRST ONE IS WITH REGARD TO A NEW MIDTOWN GATEWAY ALLOCATION AREA, IF I HAVE THE OVERHEAD I THINK I CAN SHOW YOU. THIS IS THE AREA THAT WILL BE A NEW AREA, THE AREA IS FOR VARIOUS LOCAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BE A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOTEL OFFICE RETAIL ENTERTAINMENT SPACES IN THE AREA. WITH ESTIMATED COST AT LEAST $5 MILLION. THE SECOND ONE, RESOLUTION B, IS ALSO A NEW ALLOCATION AREA, A NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR A NEW AGE RESTRICTED MULTI FAMILY AREA THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED THERE. I ASSUME THAT YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN SOME OF THESE BEFORE, AS FAR AS COMING THROUGH THE PLAN COMMISSION. YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD YES, OKAY. AND THEN THE THIRD ONE, IS ACTUALLY CARVING OUT FROM THE EXISTING LEGACY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA AND THE LEGACY ALLOCATION AREA A NEW AREA THAT WE WILL CALL THE LEGACY TWO ALLOCATION AREA, WHICH WILL BE A MULTIFAMILY AREA AND FOR SALE

[00:05:02]

>> THANK YOU, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT? ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLAN COMMISSION?

>> I MOVE ADOPTION OF THE THREE RESOLUTIONS.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY, MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED? HEARING NONE,

SO PAST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THE FOURTH ITEM IS THE COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE AMENDMENT, AND SHE WILL PRESENT

THAT ITEM FOR YOU. >> FOLLOWING THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE RULES OF PROCEDURES WERE DISCUSSED, AND THESE CHANGES WERE APPROVED, MOST OF THE CHANGES ARE GRAMMATICAL CHANGES AND CLEANUP OF INDIANA CODE SECTIONS. THE BIGGEST ITEMS WOULD BE CHANGING CORRESPONDENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WOULD BE SUBMITTED UP TO 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF A MEETING. INSTEAD OF FIVE CALENDAR DAYS BEFORE. THERE WAS THE PROPOSAL OF CHANGING THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAME TO STAFF REVIEW. TACH IS NOT A TRADITIONAL COMMITTEE AS YOU WOULD THINK OF IT. STAFF REVIEW IS MORE APPROPRIATE NAME, THE REVIEW IS DEEPER, IT'S HARDER TO GET ALL THE PARTIES TO ATTEND IN PUBLIC.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN HELD IN PERSON SINCE THE BEGINNING OF COVID. TO AVOID ANY OPEN-DOOR CONCERNS, AGAIN, THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE TO STAFF REVIEW. INSTEAD OF HAVING THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEES, THERE WOULD BE THE CREATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH TWO CHAIRPERSONS MEETING THE SAME TIME THAT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEES WOULD MEET, AND THEN THE DELEGATION OF SECONDARY PLANT AMENDMENTS AND RELATED PLANS WOULD BE GOING TO STAFF, AND THE LAST CHANGE IS ACTUALLY MY ERROR, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 2B, THE COMMITTEE THE WHOLE CASELOAD HANDLES PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION AND COMMERCIAL INSTEAD OF JUST RESIDENTIAL.

>> THANK YOU, I'LL TURN TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS? I'LL GET STARTED, I GOT A COUPLE. SO, I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A COMBINED RESIDENTIAL AND COMERCIAL COMMITTEE, IN HERE WE'RE CALLING IT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. TECHNICALLY SINCE THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A PART OF THE COMMITTEE, RATHER THAN CALLING IT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, PERHAPS WE CAN COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT NAME. A COMBINED RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE OUR PROCEDURES, WHERE THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE PART OF IT. AS OF RIGHT NOW AS RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE PRESIDENT IS TYPICALLY NOT ON THE COMMITTEE.

THAT'S JUST A TECHNICAL NAME CHANGE. AND THEN, I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. WE'VE GOT, IN HERE WE'VE GOT, THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION. WE HAVE THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED CHAIR PEOPLE. TRADITIONALLY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE YEAR, THE PRESIDENT WOULD APPOINT THE CHAIRS, THAT MAKES IT FAIRLY EFFICIENT BECAUSE THEN WE GO TO FIRST COMMITTEE MEETING, WHOEVER IS CHAIRING THOSE COMMITTEE KNOW THAT THEY'RE READY TO GO. WE CAN SWITCH IT, AND HAVE IT DECIDED AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, IT JUST, THAT MEANS SOMEBODY'S GOING TO WALK INTO THE COMMITTEE NOT KNOWING THEY'RE CHAIRING. HAVING DONE THAT A FEW TIMES, I PREFER TO KNOW IN ADVANCE. MAYBE WE GO BACK TO REWORD THAT, INSTEAD OF POINTING AT THE COMMITTEE MEMBER, AT THE COMMITTEE, WE GO AHEAD AND STICK WITH OUR TRADITIONAL SEIZURE, WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT APPOINT THEM IN JANUARY. AND THEN, I THANK YOU FOR DOING THE COCHAIRS, I STILL THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE HAD SOMEBODY ASSIGNED AS THE RESIDENTIAL CARE AND IS THE COMMERCIAL CHAIR BUT WE CAN CALL IT WHATEVER WE WANT IN HERE. THERE'S MY SUGGESTION CHANGES. YES, DEBBIE.

>> YOU ASKED THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE IMPLIES EVERYONE, SO I, TOO, I'M FINE WITH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, I THINK A NAME CHANGE WOULD MAKE IT CLEARER WHEN PEOPLE NOTICE THAT THE CHAIR IS NOT PRESENT. ALSO,

[00:10:01]

>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES. PLAN COMMISSION STILL HAS THE POWER TO SELECT, APPOINT A SPECIAL COMMITTEE'S. SO THIS AMENDMENT OVERRULES SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE. IT WILL NOT AFFECT THAT POWER AT ALL. AND PLAN COMMISSION HAS OTHER COMMITTEES LIKE AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. SO THAT SECTION IS NOT GOING TO BE AMENDED. AND IF IN THE FUTURE, ALSO, WE HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO HAVE THOSE COMMITTEES RUN SIMULTANEOUSLY, WE CAN ALWAYS REVERT THAT AS WELL.

>> GOOD QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL

RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVED TO APPROVE. WITH THE CHANGES. WITH THE TWO CHANGES.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ADOPTED OUR REVISED PLAN COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT.

>> THANK YOU. AND THAT IS ALL WE HAVE.

>> GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> MADAM CHAIRMAN?

>> YES. >> MAY HAVE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE? MAY I HAVE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE? MAY I BE GRANTED A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE?

>> I'M NOT SURE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ON THIS BUT GO AHEAD.

FELLOW COMMISSIONER FOR BEING ONE OF IBA'S 40 UNDER 40, IT'S A GREAT HONOR, SHE WAS HONORED.

>> CONGRATULATIONS. I BROUGHT THIS TO MY BJ, I BROUGHT IT FOR HER TODAY, CONGRATULATIONS. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT PERSONAL POINT. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING ON TO OUR AGENDA. WE'VE GOT

[G. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns]

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO COMMITTEE REPORTS TO GIVE,

[I. Old Business]

>> OKAY, DO WE HAVE THE PETITIONER FOR JACKSON GRANT VILLAGE THAT CAN COME UP? AND MAKE THE REQUEST? AND EXPLAIN THE REASONING FOR THE REQUEST?

>> YES.

EVENING, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ASHLEY ALBRECHT, I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER. WE WOULD REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING, ONE REASON IS THAT NEXT WEEK, WE ARE HAVING A MEETING WITH THE A BOARD, AND WE BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A LOT OF COMMENTS GENERATED FROM THAT, AND THAT IT CAN ONLY BE A POSITIVE CONTINUANCE OF THIS BOARD TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM

THE A. >> OKAY. I WILL GO AHEAD AND TURN THIS TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROCESS FOR THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, ON WHETHER TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE.

>> YES. >> I SEE NO REASON, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE PETITIONER IF I WERE ON THAT BOARD. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU BRING BACK TO COMMISSION. SO I HAVE NO ISSUE

WITH THAT AT ALL. >> THE LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO GRANT THE CONTINUANCE.

>> DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE TO CONTINUE WHATEVER

THAT. >> JACKSON GRANT VILLAGE.

>> I WAS GOING TO LOOK FOR THE NUMBER. JACKSON GRANT VILLAGE UNTIL A DATE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FUTURE.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, ALL

[00:15:02]

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND FOR THE RESIDENCE I CAN HEAR IN THE ROOM, WE ARE DOING THIS SO WE CAN ADDRESSA BOARD. AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS, I APOLOGIZE, THERE'S REALLY NO WAY OF NOTIFYING YOU THAT WE WOULD REQUEST THAT CONTINUANCE BEFORE TONIGHT. AND THERE'S REALLY NO PROCEDURE ON HOW TO REQUEST THAT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD UNTIL TONIGHT. I LOOK FORWARD TO SPEAKING WITH YOU NEXT WEEK.

>> IF I MAY? THE NEXT MEETING IS TUESDAY, MAY 21ST. NEXT PLAN

COMMISSION MEETING. >> YES. OKAY. WE'LL LOOK FOR

[H. Public Hearings]

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING ON, WE'RE MOVING ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE FOUR DOCKETS THAT ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS. OUR RULES FOR PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS IN EACH PETITIONER WILL HAVE UP TO 15 MINUTES TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE 20 MINUTES RESERVED FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED. THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL, AND THEN FINALLY IT WILL BE THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AND AFTER THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. THE FIRST NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00034 . UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO AMEND YOU D.O. PURSUANT TO CARMEL CITY DASH 01 DASH ZERO WHICH DIRECTS THE PLAN COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO YOU D.O. SECTIONS 1.30 F K AND L REGARDING THE PROCEDURES FOR GRANTING PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF OF THE CARMEL CITY COUNSEL.

ADRIAN. >> GOOD EVENING. FORGIVE ME.

THAT TOOK ME A MINUTE TO FIND THE CORD, HERE. I WILL START BY ADDRESSING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THREE DOCKET NUMBERS RELATED TO PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES. THIS FIRST ONE ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING, IS SEPARATE FROM THE TWO SUBSEQUENT DOCKET ITEMS NEXT ON THE AGENDA, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE PARK IMPACT FEES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THIS AGENDA ITEM THIS EVENING, FOR THE IMPACT FEES, WAS ORIGINATED BY A UNANIMOUS PAST CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION TO REVISE THE PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS.

AND IS INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON THE FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL. AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DELIBERATE THIS AS OTHER AMENDMENTS DO, THIS WILL GO BACK TO CITY COUNCIL, AND THIS AGENDA ITEM IS INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. UPON COUNSEL PASSAGE, AS OPPOSED TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEMS, WHICH ARE MORE LONG-TERM AND REQUIRE A SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD FOR THE ACTUAL IMPACT FEES TO TAKE EFFECT. SO, HAVING SAID THAT, TRY TO SEPARATE OR HELP ANY CONFUSION AS WE GO ALONG ON THE AGENDA, AGAIN, THIS COMES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, THIS IS A BIT UNUSUAL. I DON'T RECALL THE LAST TIME AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WAS GENERATED AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL. SO, THAT INVOKES A COUPLE OF TIMELINE ISSUES. SO, WE, THE PLAN COMMISSION, AND WE HAVE MET THE FIRST 60 DAY TIMELINE, WE'RE HAVING THE TIMELINE FOR THIS THIS EVENING. SINCE THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION WAS PASSED IN FEBRUARY. AFTER THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL THEN HAS, I'M SORRY, THE PLAN COMMISSION THEN HAS 60 DAYS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO CITY COUNCIL. SO, I'M SURE THAT COUNSELOR MANNAR CAN EXPLAIN SOME OF THE BACKGROUND AND THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL. HOWEVER, THIS PROPOSAL AGAIN DIRECTS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION ON UDO WHICH IS THE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE SECTION, MORE SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS F, THE CREDIT IN LIEU OF PAYMENT SECTION, K, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE IMPACT FEE FUND, SECTION, AND L, THE USE OF THE IMPACT FEES COLLECTED

[00:20:07]

THE SENTENCE READS, IF DESIRED THE COUNCIL CAN SET A PERCENTAGE LIMIT WITH VARIANCE LIMITS OF HOW MUCH CREDIT IS ISSUED FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS. WE HAVE PROPOSED THAT THE TERM VARIANCE BE STRICKEN AND REPLACED WITH DEVIATION LIMITS.

THE INTENT OF THAT LANGUAGE HAS TO DO WITH CITY COUNCIL APPROVALS AND WHAT THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MIGHT EXPECT TO SPEND, OR HAVE IN TERMS OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS, PARK AND RECREATION SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PARTICULAR PROJECT. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE TERM VARIANCE, DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IN THE UDO, AS YOU KNOW, VARIANCES ARE VERY SPECIFIC TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL ACTIONS.

WE THOUGHT DEVIATION WAS A BETTER TERM IN THAT INSTANCE.

SO WE'RE NOT CONFUSING OR DUPLICATING TERMINOLOGY. I'LL LET COMMISSIONER MINNAAR ADD IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE . I RECOMMENDATION UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS IS THAT YOU SUSPEND YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND SEND THIS BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, GIVEN THE DEVIATION VERSUS VARIANCE AMENDMENT. HOWEVER, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, IF COUNSELOR MINNAAR WOULD LIKE TO SHED LIGHT ON THE COUNCIL

DISCUSSION. >> I'D BE HAPPY TO. THIS WAS ORIGINATED, AT COUNSEL, AS YOU SAID, AND TECHNICALLY ABOUT THE MAYOR DRAFTED A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS, THE IDEAS THAT COME FROM THIS AMENDMENT. AND, HONESTLY, YOU DID A PRETTY GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING WHAT HAPPENED, THE COUNCIL WAS PRETTY HAPPY, WE WENT THROUGH THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE, WE WENT THROUGH FINANCE, USE, NOT FINANCE. AND WE WERE VERY HAPPY WITH WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT. IT WAS A REALLY GOOD COLLABORATION BETWEEN PARKS AND THE CRC. REALLY, THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE REALLY CHANGING IN ALL OF THIS, LIKE YOU SAID, WERE F 1B, THAT'S CONSENT ON OVERRUNS, BASICALLY. AND IF I SAY ANYTHING WRONG, MAKE SURE YOU CORRECT ME, OKAY? F 1B IS THE CONSENT ON OVERRUNS, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT ADRIAN WAS REFERRING TO WITH THE VARIANCE, OR THE DEVIATION. ON THE AMOUNTS. IT BASICALLY, IT ESTABLISHES THAT DEVIATION. IS

[00:25:02]

APPROVED? >> A DEVIATION LIMITS.

>> DEVIATION LIMIT, OKAY. IF FOR SOME REASON THE PROJECT GOES ABOVE THAT DEVIATION IT WOULD COME BACK TO FULL COUNSEL, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. F3B, IT PRETTY MUCH TAKES AWAY THE POWER OF THE BP W TO OVERRIDE ANY OF THE VARIANCE PERCENTAGES, DEVIATION EXPENSES. I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT VERY SIMPLE. I HOPE THAT THAT'S OKAY. F6 WAS THE AUDIT LANGUAGE, THAT GIVES THE CITY COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO AUDIT AD NAUSEAM, THE BEST WORD TO USE, OR ANY OF CRC PROJECTS. ANYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN THE CRC AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE PRIF.

AND THEN THE LAST THING THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS K, THE NONREPORTING FUND, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BIG POINT OF IT WAS TRYING TO GET ALL OF THAT MONEY INTO ONE FUND, NOT TWO FUNDS. AND THE MEANING BEHIND THAT WAS, A LOT OF THE COUNSELORS WERE THINKING THAT WE ARE ONE CITY, SO ONE FUND.

NOT AN URBAN FUND, AND A PART FUND. SO, IT'S BASICALLY, IT'S A COMPROMISE FROM THE CRC, IT'S A COMPROMISE FROM PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND I THINK IT'S A REALLY, REALLY GREAT AMENDMENT. AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GIVE IT CONSIDERATION, OF

FAVORABILITY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GREAT.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PLAN COMMISSION?

>> YES. >> WAIT, SORRY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE USED TO, THIS IS THE KIND OF TECHNICAL THING THAT USUALLY COMES UP. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF, OR OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT, THIS PETITION? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO ONE. DEPARTMENT, I ASSUME THAT WAS THE DEPARTMENT REPORT? OH. HI COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER? WE ARE NOW AT PUBLIC COMMENT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE PRIF

AMENDMENT AT ALL? >> I'D LOVE TO.

>> GOOD EVENING, I MET MATTHEW SNYDER, THIS, THE AMENDMENT FOR THE UDO FOR PRIF STARTED AROUND JUNE OF LAST YEAR . IT WAS AN INITIATIVE OF CURRENT MAYOR FOR INCOME, AND THEN DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCE IT FIZZLED OUT A LITTLE BIT, GOT REGURGITATED AROUND OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT, MYSELF FROM ONE ANGLE, PARKS BOARD FROM ANOTHER ANGLE, AND THE CITY FROM ANOTHER ANGLE. EVENTUALLY, IT MADE IT TO CITY COUNCIL, AND I BELIEVE OUR FIRST MEETING, OUR SECOND, CAME THROUGH LAND-USE COMMITTEE, OF WHICH I AM THE CHAIR AND HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF. THIS WAS VETTED OVER TWO MEETINGS WITH EXCELLENT PUBLIC INPUT, GREAT ATTENDANCE AT, AND WITH THE SUPPORT AND INPUT OF BOTH THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DIRECTOR, THE PARKS DIRECTOR, CURRENT MAYOR FINKAM, AND WAS SENT OUT OF LAND-USE UNANIMOUSLY WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL. WHO THEN VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO PASS IT ON TO YOU ALL THIS EVENING.

I THINK MY COMMENTS AND WHY I'M HERE ARE TO JUST EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS. THIS IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM ANYTHING ELSE YOU GUYS ARE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING, BUT THIS ALLOWS MORE TRANSPARENCY AND MORE ACCOUNTABILITY OF WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING AND HELPS RECOMMIT THE INITIAL REASON WHY WE HAVE PARK IMPACT FEES, AND IT DOESN'T TAKE ANYTHING AWAY DIRECTLY FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, BUT ALLOWS FOR MORE COLLABORATION BETWEEN REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT PROJECTS, THAT MONEY, PRIF MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON REALLY BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME

[00:30:01]

SPEAK. >> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS, THIS IS GREAT WORK. I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP, DON'T GO FAR, WE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR ANYBODY

WHO HAS QUESTIONS, FIRST. >> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING TONIGHT, YOU ARE MUCH MORE OF AN ORATOR THAN I AM. YOU ARTICULATED IT MUCH BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE. I ACTUALLY BEGGED HIM TO COME TONIGHT. SO, MATT, YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE OFFER, THE INSTANCE OF TRANSPARENCY. WHY DO YOU

THINK THAT'S SO IMPORTANT? >> WELL, I THINK ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, SINCE IT COLLECTIVELY AS ALL OF OUR MONEY, IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY ON CITY COUNCIL THAT WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT, OR IN THIS ROOM TODAY, I WOULD HOPE. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST, AND THIS PREDATES, THIS ISN'T A REFERENDUM AND NEVER HAS BEEN ON HIM, IS THAT THE MONIES INTENDED FOR PARKS MAY HAVE BEEN USED FOR THINGS THAT SOME MAY NOT CONSIDER PARKS.

SIDEWALKS. THEY GOT VERY LOOSE WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS PUBLIC SPACE. AND THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT, WE BELIEVE IT SECURES THIS, IT MOVES EVERYTHING INTO ONE ACCOUNT, SO THAT IN ORDER TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF THAT DESIGNATED ACCOUNT, PART OF THE PROBLEM IS URBAN PARKS FUND, THERE IS NO DEFINITION ANYWHERE OF WHAT AN URBAN PARK IS. THAT DOES NOT EXIST, THAT'S NOT IN ANY NOMENCLATURE THROUGH THE STATE, PARKS AND REC ASSOCIATION, OR THE NATIONAL PARKS AND REC, THERE'S NO DEFINITION FOR WHAT AN URBAN PARK IS. WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IS, WHAT IS THE GENERAL COLLECTIVE, WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY'S DEFINITION OF A PARK? I BELIEVE WE'RE PRETTY WELL IN LINE ON WHAT THAT IS, IT'S A PURPOSEFUL SPACE FOR ALL OF THE COMMUNITY TO ENJOY. THIS HELPS ENSURE THAT WHERE MONEY IS SPENT IS SPECIFICALLY WHERE ALL OF THE COMMUNITY CAN ENJOY SUCH AMENITIES. I DON'T KNOW IF I DIRECTLY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION OR NOT.

>> THANK YOU, I JUST WANTED IT ON THE RECORD, THANK YOU SO

MUCH. >> GRADE QUESTION, AND I HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND. ON THE, I GUESS IT'S FB, WITH RESPECT TO COMPONENTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE OR OTHER COMPONENTS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THE PROCESS WILL BE AND WILL GO, IT WILL HAVE A CONSULTATION WITH THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND REC, THEN IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR APPROVAL, WHERE IF DESIRED THEY CAN SET A PERCENTAGE LIMIT WITH DEVIATION LIMITS, FOR HOW MUCH CREDIT IS ALLOCATED, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS THE FINAL CONSENT SAY. IS THAT HOW IT READS?

>> THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS THE ABILITY TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE FUNDS BASED ON THE DEVIATION. THAT'S ONE THING.

THE FIRST QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED IN MY OPINION BY THE COUNCIL WHEN A PROJECT COMES TO US IS IF IT'S BROUGHT TO US BY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, WHAT IS THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HAVE TO SAY, AND HIS VICE VERSA, WHAT IS THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAVE TO SAY? THE WHOLE POINT IS TO GET THESE TWO ENTITIES COLLABORATING. ONCE IT THEN GOES, AND THAT'S WHERE, THAT IS WHERE THE EXPENDITURE IS APPROVED. AND OF DISCUSSION.

BEYOND THAT, THEN, THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTERS, SHOULD, AT THAT TIME, THE APPLICANT WOULD ALSO REQUEST A DEVIATION PERCENTAGE. SO IF IT IS, HISTORICALLY, IT'S BEEN 10%. WELL, ON A $3 MILLION PROJECT, THAT'S A REALLY LARGE DEVIATION. SO MAYBE IT'S NOT 10%, MAYBE IT'S 3%, AND THAT SETS THE GUIDELINE WHAT THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS CAN ALLOW IN OVERAGES FOR THAT PROJECT. OBVIOUSLY WE WANT EVERYTHING TO COME IN UNDER BUDGET, AT BUDGET, IT JUST DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. AND THAT DEVIATION PERCENTAGE IS A BACKSTOP. IF ANYTHING, SHOULD THAT RUN INTO AN ISSUE WHERE IT GOES OVER THAT DEVIATION PERCENTAGE, THEN IT WOULD BE KICKED BACK FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS TO COUNSEL.

>> THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. IT'S REALLY, WAS GOING TO PUBLIC WORKS IS ONLY THE DEVIATION PORTION OF IT, IT'S

NOT THE APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE. >> CORRECT.

>> SHOULD WE CLARIFY THAT, THEN? IN 2B, SO THAT IT READS, RIGHT NOW HOW IT READS IS THAT THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS THE FINAL CONSENT AND ACCEPTANCE. DO WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THEY HAVE THE FINAL CONSENT OF THE DEVIATION LIMITS AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS? IT'S ON PAGE TWO.

[00:35:01]

>> I PERSONALLY, ANY DEFINED LANGUAGE IS ALWAYS GOOD. IT'S F 1B. ON PAGE TWO. OKAY, WHEN I'M READING THIS, IT SAYS, WITH RESPECT TO COMPONENTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE CARMEL PLAN PARKS AND RECREATION WITH HIM APPROVED IF CAN SET A PERCENTAGE LIMIT WITH DEVIATION LIMITS, OF HOW MUCH CREDIT IS ALLOCATED FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN THERE'S A, AND IT GOES ON TO SAY, AND WITH FINAL CONSENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST THE DEVIATION LIMITS THAT'S GOING TO THE PUBLIC WORKS? OR DO YOU THINK THAT'S CLEAR THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN?

>> EXCUSE ME, MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL, AND MR. SCHNEIDER, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. AS FAR AS I READ IT, THE COUNCIL WOULD APPROVE THE PARAMETERS OF PERCENTAGE LIMIT AND DEVIATION LIMITS WITHIN IT. AND THEN THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY WILL FINALIZE IT AND GIVES FINAL CONSENT AND ACCEPTANCE. SO, IN ESSENCE, THE COUNCIL GIVES THE GENERAL PARAMETERS, AND FINALIZES THEM IN THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT, WHICH IS A FAIRLY COMMON PROCESS FOR SOME OF THE THINGS. AND, CORRECT ME IF I'M

WRONG. >> I DON'T DISAGREE. AND FOR COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK THE INTENT WAS, THAT MONEY CANNOT BE APPROVED WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE COUNCIL, THOSE PARAMETERS ARE SET. AND THEN THE CONTRACTOR, WHATEVER IS GOING ON, CONSENT AND APPROVAL, MAYBE WE'RE PLAYING WITH DEFINITIONS, BUT BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS WOULD CONSENT, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY'RE SIGNING THE CONTRACT. WE'RE NOT SIGNING THAT CONTRACT. SO I BELIEVE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS RIGHT, WE'RE PLAYING WITH WORDS AT THIS POINT.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS SAYS NO, I DON'T WANT THAT BACK AND

FORTH. >> WAS A GUEST OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, THAT MEANS THE FIDUCIARIES PART HAS BEEN APPROVED WITHIN THE PARAMETERS HAS BEEN SET, AND IT DOES NEED BPW CONSENT TO EXECUTE WHATEVER CONTRACT IS OUT THERE. AT LEAST

FOR THE CRC. IS THAT, >> THAT MAKES SENSE. IF THAT'S HOW IT WORKS PROCEDURALLY, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE ONE BODY IS SAYING YES AND ANOTHER BODY IS SAYING NO. IF THAT'S HOW IT WORKS PROCEDURALLY THAN THAT WORKS FOR ME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION, A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATION AND IF YOU'VE GOT THESE BACKSTOPS, HERE, TO USE YOUR EXAMPLE IF YOU HAVE A HIGH DOLLAR $3 MILLION PROJECT, IN LIEU OF PAYING IMPACT FEES, THERE'S PARAMETERS SET AS A BACKSTOP OF 10%, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT NUMBER, BUT, IF SOMETHING GOES BEYOND THAT, ANY COST ABOVE THAT IS ON THE PETITIONER, THE DEVELOPER, IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? OR ARE THERE OTHER BACKSTOPS FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, CURIOSITY ONLY.

>> IS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE THAT IT WOULD THEN COME BACK TO COUNSEL WHETHER WE WOULD WANT TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION IF NOT, IF WE DID NOT INCREASE IT, THEN, BY DEFAULT IT COMES BACK TO THE DEVELOPER. AM I SEEING THAT

CORRECTLY? >> I BELIEVE SO. ARE THERE MECHANISMS TO ENSURE COMPLETION OF AGREED-UPON PROJECT WHETHER IT'S BONDING OR OTHER MECHANISMS TO MAKE SURE WE AREN'T LEFT WITH A MOSTLY COMPLETED PROJECT?

>> THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE, LIENS ON THE PROPERTY, LACK OF

DISTRIBUTION OF PAYMENT. >> AND USUALLY PROJECT AGREEMENT HAVE ALL OF THESE TERMS INCORPORATED, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW PROVISIONS THAT PROTECT THE CITY, CITY COUNCIL AS WELL SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES APPROVING THE PARAMETERS, ET CETERA. SO, YES, THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS

ORDINANCE, BUT IT IS THERE. >> GREAT, THANKS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, YES, DUBBIE.

>> COMING BACK UP TO 10,000 FEET, I SEE THIS AS A GREAT PROPOSAL THAT REMOVES THE PERCEPTION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARMEL EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. I THINK THE CAN PERCEPTIONS WERE MISPERCEPTIONS, BUT REGARDLESS, I THINK IT'S A MUCH CLEANER, CLEARLY DEFINED PROCESS. WITH THAT COMMENT, I MOVE ITS ADOPTION.

>> MADAM CHAIR, MAY I? >> YES, COMMISSIONER KIRSH.

[00:40:05]

>> AS YOUR PARK BOARD APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN WHAT PARKS HAS TO SAY. A LOT OF FEELINGS WERE HURT ALONG THE WAY TO GET HERE. AS MY FATHER, WHO IS A PRETTY WISE GUY WOULD SAY, A GOOD COMPROMISE IS WHEN NEITHER PARTY IS PARTICULARLY OVER PLEASED. THERE ARE PROBABLY MEMBERS OF THE PARKS BOARD THAT WISH THAT THIS WENT A STEP FURTHER. I KNOW THAT THE DIRECTOR OF CARMEL PARKS HAS BEEN ON RECORD WITH, HE'S PLEASED WITH THIS , I DON'T WANT TO MISQUOTE HIM. I THINK HE'S PLEASED WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. I THINK THAT THE CURRENT COUNSEL HAS GONE VERY FAR IN THE ADOPTION OF THIS. OR, I GUESS WE'RE ADOPTING IT, BUT IN THE PRESENTATION OF THIS, AND IT CLEARLY PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT. I THINK IT'S A HECK OF AN OLIVE BRANCH BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND CARMEL PARKS, AND I THINK IN THE END, NO ONE IS PARTICULARLY UNHAPPY WITH WHAT THE END RESULTS ARE, BUT, AS COUNCILMAN SNYDER POINTED OUT, IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT MAY BE A DUCK, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE PARK DIRECTOR WAY IN ON WHAT THAT PARK IS GOING TO BE. I THINK THAT IT'S A POSITIVE STEP, IS IT 100% OF WHAT CARMEL PARKS BOARD WANTS? PERHAPS NOT. I DO THINK THAT IT'S THE RIGHT WAY

TO GO. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT, I APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT I THINK IS PARTICULARLY GREAT ABOUT THIS IS PUTTING THE CITY COUNCIL INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. JUST BY DOING THAT YOU'VE INCREASED TRANSPARENCY AND IT'S OUT IN THE OPEN HOW THE PARK FEES ARE BEING SPENT.

SO I THINK THAT IS FANTASTIC. SO I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A

SECOND? >> MADAM CHAIR, AL SECOND THE

MOTION. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE, THIS PETITION? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? IT SHALL GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. NEXT ITEM IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING, SO, THESE ARE TWO, I THINK I'LL READ THEM IN TOGETHER. BECAUSE THEY ARE RELATED. IT'S DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00038 , CONFERENCE OF PLAN AMENDMENT 2025-2029 ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN. THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO UPDATE THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPON WHICH THE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE IS BASED, AND TO INCORPORATE THE ZIP INTO THE CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION. THE NEXT DOCKET IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00039 , AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE EXISTING IMPACT FEE PROVISIONS AS WELL AS THEIR DEFINITIONS. THE PROPOSAL WOULD RENEW THE IMPACT FEE THAT IS CURRENTLY IMPOSED ON THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO DEFRAY THE COST OF NEW PARKS AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS, FROM 2025 TO 2029, FILED BY THE CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION..

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DIRECTOR OF CARMEL PLAN PARKS AND RECREATION, I WANTED TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND HOW THE PARK IMPACT FEE WORKS TO HELP AS YOU CONSIDER BOTH OF THESE DOCUMENTS. IT HELPS THAT MY THING IS ON. TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF OVERVIEW AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE PARK IMPACT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SOME OF THIS WILL SOUND FAMILIAR BECAUSE IT'S PROVIDING THE SAME INFORMATION BUT WE THOUGHT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION AT TONIGHT'S MEETING. GIVING A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, THE STATE LEGISLATURE FIRST ADOPTED THE IMPACT FEE LAW IN 1991, THE IDEA OF THIS PARTICULAR LAW WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW RESIDENTS THAT ARE COMING INTO COMMUNITIES THAT ARE OFTEN ATTRACTED TO THE COMMUNITIES BECAUSE OF THE AMENITIES THAT ARE IN THEM, WHETHER THEY BE PARKS, STREETS, OR OTHER ELIGIBLE EXPENSES, ARE CONTRIBUTING TOWARD THE DEMAND THAT'S PLACED ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND CREATING THE INFRA STRUCTURE THAT'S NEEDED TO SERVE THOSE NEW RESIDENTS.

THE CITY OF CARMEL DID NOT ADOPT AN IMPACT FEE UNTIL 1996.

IN CARMEL, THE ONLY IMPACT FEE THAT WE'VE EVER HAD IS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION. THERE ARE A VARIETY OF ELIGIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IMPACT FEES CAN BE PROVIDED FOR, MOST COMMONLY IT'S PARKS AND RECREATION AND SECOND, MANY COMMUNITIES HAVE IMPACT FEES. THERE'S OTHER INFRA STRUCTURE BUT CARMEL HAS ONLY ADOPTED A PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE.

[00:45:06]

THE PARK IMPACT FEE IS ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THE FIRST ITEM THAT'S LISTED ON YOUR AGENDA FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING. IT MUST BE ADOPTED EVERY FIVE YEARS. IT IS A PLAN THAT IS DEVELOPED BASED ON 10 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS THAT WE WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES TO COME UP WITH THOSE PROJECTIONS. LIKE I SAID, THE CURRENT PLAN IS FOR THE YEARS 2023 2025, AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL, AFTER THIS BODY CONSIDERS IT, DOES NOT ADOPT A NEW ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND IMPACT FEE RATE BEFORE DECEMBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR, WE WILL HAVE A LAPSE IN THE RATE. THERE IS A TIMECLOCK, WE'RE NOT AT THE 11TH HOUR, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME FOR APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION ON THIS. AND ANOTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT WITHIN CARMEL, WE FEEL THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO TIE THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE IMPACT FEE INTO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN. THAT IS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS, BASED ON GUIDELINES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. WE ARE CONCURRENTLY REVIEWING AND PREPARING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE PARK SYSTEM AND THE PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, NOT ONLY THOSE THAT ARE FUNDED WITH THE IMPACT FEE BUT THE LARGER PARK SYSTEM. WE DO THESE PART AND PARCEL BECAUSE THEY BUILD UPON EACH OTHER. THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN IS DEVELOPED WITH EXTENSIVE PUBLIC INPUT, INCLUDING STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEYS, FOCUS GROUPS WITH USER GROUPS AND NON-USER GROUPS, DISCUSSIONS WITH COMMUNITY LEADERS INCLUDING THE CITY COUNCIL, PARK BOARD, TOWNSHIP BOARD AND MANY OTHERS.

IT IS GROUNDED ON WHAT THE PUBLIC IS TELLING US THEY WANT FOR THEIR PARK SYSTEM. UNDER THE CURRENT ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND CURRENT ORDINANCE, THE RATE IS $4882 PER RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. FOR EVERY RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS ISSUED, THERE IS A FEE OF $4882. IF YOU HAVE A 100 UNIT COMPLEX, IT'S 4882÷100. IT IS, AS JOSHUA MENTIONED BEFORE, IT'S BASICALLY FRONT DOORS THAT THERE IS A FEE FOR.

AGAIN, IT'S NEW UNITS, IT'S NOT IF YOU REMODEL THE HOUSE, YOU'RE NOT PAYING AN IMPACT FEE, THIS IS FOR NEW RESIDENTS THAT ARE COMING INTO THE COMMUNITY. UNDER THE CURRENT ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THE IMPACT FEES ARE ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR USE WITHIN WESTPARK BEAR CREEK PARK, AND THE WHITE RIVER CORRIDOR. LOOKING AT HOW SUCCESSFUL WE'VE BEEN WITH PROJECTIONS UNDER THE CURRENT ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, I PROVIDED WITHIN THIS CHART THE ANTICIPATED REVENUE BY YEAR, AND FOR 2024, I HAVE THE NUMBERS THROUGH THE END OF MARCH. THE 25% OF THE ANNUAL PROJECTION, SINCE 2020 WE WOULD HAVE PROJECTED A LITTLE OVER $13.5 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES COLLECTED, AND I ALSO INCORPORATED IN THOSE ANY CREDITS THAT WERE GRANTED. AND LOOKING AT THE TOTALS THAT WERE RECEIVED EITHER BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS AND RECREATION OR FOR CRC RELATED PROJECTS, AND OVER THAT TIMEFRAME AGAIN WITH FEES COLLECTED AS WELL AS CREDITS GRANTED. A LITTLE OVER $13.6 MILLION. THE PROJECTIONS WERE ACCURATE WITHIN $90,000. I ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, PART OF THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION AND THE ACTION ITEM TAKEN BY THE PLAN COMMISSION WAS RELATED TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF WHERE THOSE FUNDS OR THE PROJECTS THAT ARE BENEFITING OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, CRC'S PROJECTS HAVE BENEFITED FROM 62% OF THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, AND THE PARK BOARD HAS RECEIVED 38%. I ALSO, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WE HAD FROM THE IMPACT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TOOK A FURTHER SNAPSHOT OF THE REVENUES THAT WE ANTICIPATED TO RECEIVE FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND WHAT WE RECEIVED, IT SHOWS THAT THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAD WITHIN THE PLAN WERE VERY CONSERVATIVE, AGAIN WE EXCEEDED THE ANTICIPATED COLLECTIONS AND CREDITS WITH UNDER $8.1 MILLION PROJECTED, AND ALMOST $8.7 MILLION RECEIVED. AGAIN, THROUGH FEES AND CREDITS GRANTED. YOU CAN SEE THAT OVER THAT TIMEFRAME, GOING SIX TO 10

[00:50:07]

LOOKING AT HOW THOSE FUNDS WERE EXPENDED FOR THE FEES THAT WERE RECEIVED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS AND RECREATION, IN TOTAL, SINCE 2020, WE HAVE EXPENDED A LITTLE OVER $3.7 MILLION. THE LION'S SHARE OF THAT WAS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOW BEAR CREEK PARK AS WELL AS PLANNING EFFORTS FOR THAT PARK, A LITTLE OVER $2.4 MILLION. A LITTLE OVER $830,000 HAS BEEN INVESTED IN WESTPARK, THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY FOR ADDITIONAL SHELTERS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO SERVE THE INCREASED DEMAND WITHIN THAT PARK. AND THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE OVER $418,000 SPENT WITHIN THE WHITE RIVER QUARTER, SOME OF THAT WAS FOR CLOSING FEES FOR THE DONATION OF WHAT IS NOW THOMAS MARCUS NATURE PARK, A NEW 63 ACRE PARK ALONG THE WHITE RIVER CORRIDOR, AND SOME OF IT WAS FOR PLANNING EFFORTS CREATING THE MASTER PLAN FOR THAT PARK. AGAIN, $3.7 MILLION EXPENDED. WHEN I DO LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THE EXPENDITURES RIGHT NOW DON'T TOTAL THE REVENUES THAT WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS AND RECREATION, WE LOOK AT THE IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT AS A BANK ACCOUNT, WE'RE NOT FINANCING WITH THESE DOLLARS, WE ARE GROWING THE BANK ACCOUNT UNTIL WE HAVE ENOUGH DOLLARS TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY FUND A PROJECT. SO YOU'LL SEE, THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE FEES COLLECTED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL WE HAVE A CRITICAL MASS OF DOLLARS AVAILABLE. THEN WE WILL GO INTO CONTRACTING, WHETHER IT'S PLANNING OR ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE PARKS. YOU WILL SEE THE BALANCE DROP-DOWN AND REBUILD IT BACK UP AGAIN. WE'RE IN ONE OF THOSE BUILD UP CYCLES RIGHT NOW. LOOKING, AS I MENTIONED, THE IMPACT FEES ARE NOT OUR ONLY FUNDING SOURCE FOR CARMEL CLAY PARKS AND RECREATION FOR OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS. IF YOU LOOK, SINCE 2020, THE IMPACT FEES ARE ONE OF OUR SMALLER FUNDING SOURCES. NUMBER THREE, AT ABOUT 10%, THE $3.7 MILLION AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED. OUR PRIMARY SOURCE OF FUNDING SINCE 2020 HAS BEEN CLAY TOWNSHIP, THROUGH TWO MECHANISMS. ONE, BONDS THAT WERE ISSUED THROUGH THE CLAY, A SERIES OF BONDS IN EXCESS TOTALED $30 MILLION.

BENEFITED THE PARK SYSTEM FOR THE MANY RENOVATIONS THAT YOU SAW THROUGHOUT THE PARK SYSTEM. WE ALSO RECEIVED OVER $12.1 MILLION IN LOCAL INCOME TAX DOLLARS UNDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE TOWNSHIP. THE TOWNSHIP HAS COMMITTED ALL THE LOCAL INCOME TAX DOLLARS THAT THEY RECEIVED THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CENTRAL PARK BOND THAT WAS ISSUED AROUND 2003, 2004. THOSE DOLLARS, IT WAS THE LAST BOND FOR WHICH REPAYMENT OF THE BONDS FACTORED INTO THE DISTRIBUTION. SO, AGAIN, WE'VE RECEIVED THOSE. THE SAD NEWS IS THE BOND IS PAID OFF IN JANUARY 2025. THAT'S NOT SAD IN THAT IT'S GREAT NEWS FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT IT'S SAD BECAUSE AFTER THAT BOND IS PAID OFF, THE TOWNSHIP NO LONGER HAS ANY OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ANY FUNDING FOR OUR CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, NEW CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PARK SYSTEM. AND THE TRAILING THAT THEY HAVE WHICH WILL FOLLOW DRAMATICALLY ONCE THE BOND IS PAID OFF, WILL ALSO DISSIPATE TO NEARLY NOTHING WITHIN A FEW YEARS. BOTH OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES ARE THINGS THAT ARE WANING, AND WERE SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE TOWNSHIP TO ISSUE THE BONDS. THAT'S A BIGGER PICTURE THAT WE ARE WORKING ON FROM A PARKS PERSPECTIVE, NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE IMPACT FEE, BUT IT DOES STRESS WHY IMPACT FEES ARE IMPORTANT. IT WILL NEVER BE THE SELF FUNDING SCORES FOR PARKS BUT IT IS ONE OF A SIGNIFICANT, $3.7 MILLION IS NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT BUT IT WILL NEVER PROVIDE ALL THE FUNDING THAT WE NEED FOR CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PARKS, NOR WAS IT DESIGNED TO DO SO UNDER STATE STATUTE. SO, AS WE WERE LOOKING TO PREPARE THE NEW ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN OCCURRING MORE RECENTLY. LOOKING BACK TO 2018, THE BUBBLES HERE SHOW WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, THE BIGGER THE BUBBLE, THE WAR PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. AND AS I THINK PROBABLY NO SURPRSE TO THE PLAN COMMISSION, AS WELL AS COMMUNITY LEADERS IS THAT YOU'RE SEEING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE TRAIL ESPECIALLY, BUT WITHIN THE CENTRAL CORE, YOU'RE SEEING A FAIR AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT, NORTHEAST CARMEL, WITHIN THE LEGACY DEVELOPMENT AREA. ALSO, A LITTLE CONCENTRATION AT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S AT KEYSTONE AND SMOKY ROW. AND THEN, THROUGHOUT THE WEST SIDE YOU'RE SEEING DEVELOPMENT JACKSON GRAND AREA, NORTHWEST CARMEL WHERE BEAR CREEK IS NOW

[00:55:02]

ADDITIONALLY THESE ARE THE PARKS THAT WE HAVE ON THE WESTSIDE, SERVING ALL THE NEW GROWTH ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARMEL, WEST OF MERIDIAN. WE ALSO INCLUDED TWO SMALLER AREAS WHICH ARE HARD TO SEE WITH THE BUBBLES, BUT THE JAPANESE GARDEN, THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTINUE IT NEW DEVELOPMENT BY THE TOWNSHIP PROVIDING FUNDING TO DO SOME EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENTS, BUT MUCH OF THE AREA TOWARD CARMEL DRIVE WHICH IS NOW JUST BASICALLY A DETENTION POND, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME MORE OF A VIBRANT PARK, AND WE BELIEVE BASED ON THE GROWTH IN THE CENTRAL CORE IS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR IMPACT FEES. ALSO WE'VE DONE A MASTER PLAN FOR A NEW CHINESE GARDEN WHICH WE'RE LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE CARMEL CLAY MAINE PUBLIC LIBRARY AS WELL AS CARMEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND MORE BROADLY WHEN IDENTIFIED THE CENTRAL CORE AS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR EXPENDITURE OF IMPACT FEES. WITHOUT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS, THIS IS VERY OPPORTUNITY DRIVEN TO ENSURE THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY COMES, THAT CAN BECOME A VIABLE PARK, IT OPENS IT UP FOR THAT USE, AND AGAIN TIED WHERE THE POPULATION GROWTH IS. GOING TO THE EAST SIDE, IDENTIFYING SPECIFICALLY THOMAS MARCUS NATURE PARK WHICH IS A 63 ACRE PARK, THAT HAS INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ALL THE GROWTH THAT'S HAPPENING IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. MORE BROADLY, WE CONTINUE TO INCLUDE THE WHITE RIVER CORRIDOR WITHIN THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN. THE WHITE RIVER IS THE COMMUNITY'S MOST SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCE, AND YOU CAN ALMOST VIEW IT AS OUR EFFECTIVE NATIONAL OR STATE PARK WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. IT IS SERVING NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS ON THE EAST SIDE, IT REALLY IS SERVING THE GREATER COMMUNITY, AND WE FELT BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE, BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE EXPERIENCE THAT YOU CAN'T GET ANYWHERE ELSE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, IT WAS WORTHY OF THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN. LOOKING AT THE PROJECTED COST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE WERE PROPOSING, THESE ARE, AGAIN, A 10 YEAR PROJECTION OF EXPENSES. TOTALED $75 MILLION, WE HAVE DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR EACH OF THOSE PARKS OR LOCATIONS THAT WE IDENTIFIED. IT'S IMPORTANT TO STRESS THAT THESE DOLLAR AMOUNTS DON'T REPRESENT TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THE PARK SYSTEM OR WHAT WE ENVISION WITHIN THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, BEAR CREEK PARK AND THOMAS SELLING NATURE PARK, WE HAVE MASTER PLANS FOR THE BOTH OF THOSE AND THE ANTICIPATED COST OF DEVELOPING THOSE PARKS IN TOTALITY TO IMPLEMENT THE MASTER PLANS IS AROUND $30 MILLION. WE ONLY INCLUDED A FRACTION OF THE PROPOSED COST FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE WITHIN THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, BECAUSE WE'RE WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DOLLARS ARE REALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NEW RESIDENTS COMING IN, THOSE PARKS WILL ALSO BE SERVING EXISTING RESIDENTS. WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS THERE TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE ELEMENT OF THOSE PARKS, BUT AN APPROPRIATE PORTION OF IT. SO, UNDER STATE STATUTE THERE IS A SPECIFIC FORMULAS THAT IDENTIFY WHAT THE IMPACT FEE IS AND SHOULD BE. AND ONE OF THE KEY METRICS IS CALLED THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHIN THE ACTUAL ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, IT'S IN PAGE SIX IF ANYONE WANTS TO LOOK AT THE SOURCE DOCUMENT. SO, YOU START WITH THE COST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT I PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED, THE ROUGHLY $75.6 MILLION. THEN STATUTE REQUIRES US TO GIVE DEDUCTIONS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. ONE IS FOR NONLOCAL REVENUE WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY DONATIONS THAT WE RECEIVED.

OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS WE'VE RECEIVED DONATIONS, LAND VALUES THAT EQUALED $2.3 MILLION. AGAIN, THIS IS A 10 YEAR PROJECTION, STATE STATUTE AND BASED ON HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS, WE'RE LOOKING AT , WE HAVE TO PROTECT THAT OUT OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS, AND THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED PRACTICE IS TO TAKE WHAT HE DID OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND MULTIPLY IT BY TWO.

THE MATH IS REAL SIMPLE. THE NEXT ONE IS FOR NEW RESIDENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO EXISTING BONDS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING. THE SPECIFIC CALCULATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 19 OF THE PLAN, THIS IS A DEDUCTIVE, OVER $1.5 MILLION. THE IDEA IS THAT THE NEW RESIDENTS THAT ARE COMING IN WILL BE CONTRIBUTING TOWARD THE EXISTING BONDS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THE $30 MILLION BONDS THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS ALREADY ISSUED. THEY'RE PAYING

[01:00:01]

THE THIRD DEDUCT, A LITTLE OVER $2.1 MILLION, HOSE NEW RESIDENTS WILL ALSO BE CONTRIBUTING THROUGH THEIR TAX DOLLARS, FOR CAPITAL BUDGETS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND/OR TOWNSHIP IN THE FUTURE. SO, AGAIN, WE USE HISTORICAL NUMBERS TO COME UP WITH THE 2.1 NUMBER THAT IS THERE. AGAIN, GIVING A CREDIT TO THOSE NEW RESIDENTS. WE THEN ARE ABLE TO ADD BACK IN THE COST OF CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DEVELOPING THE PLAN, ROUGHLY $40,000, AND THAT GIVES US THE GRAND TOTAL OF 67,364,373. THEN STATE CODE TELLS US TO DIVIDE THAT BY THE 10 YEAR PROJECTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, A NUMBER THAT WE RECEIVED FROM DOCS, 8140. THAT GIVES US THE MAXIMUM RATE THAT WE COULD CHARGE MOVING FORWARD OF 8276. THERE'S A SECOND FACTOR THAT'S CALLED COMMUNITY LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND THIS IS IDENTIFIED ON PAGE NINE. THIS IS BASICALLY A CHECK, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF BEARING FOR CARMEL BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL INVESTMENT THAT WE'VE MADE IN THE PARK SYSTEM. BUT, IT'S TAKING A LOOK AT THE EXISTING VALUE OF OUR PARK SYSTEM, WE'RE LOOKING AT LANDED OVER $123 MILLION FOR THE 692 ACRES THAT WE HAVE, AS WELL AS IMPROVEMENTS TOTALING OVER 284 MILLION. $407 MILLION ASSET VALUE FOR PARKS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE ARE ONLY THE ASSETS THAT ARE OWNED AND/OR MANAGED BY THE PARK BOARD. THERE ARE OTHER ASSETS THAT ARE OWNED BY THE CITY OF CARMEL THAT ARE NOT MANAGED BY US THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED A PART IN MANY COMMUNITIES WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PART, BUT THEY'RE NOT MANAGED BY US. WE'RE USING CONSERVATIVE NUMBERS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, CARTER GREEN, OR THE REFLECTING POOL WHERE THE VETERANS MEMORIAL IS LOCATED. ALL OF THOSE COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED, BUT WE CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE WE WANTED TO DO A MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH. YOU TAKE THE ASSET VALUE AS IT IS TODAY, DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY TODAY, NUMBERS WE RECEIVE FROM DOCS, THAT GIVES YOU THE COMMUNITY LEVEL OF SERVICE, $9400. THIS IS A CHECK, IF THE PREVIOUS NUMBER, THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE FELL UNDER THE COMMUNITY LEVEL, WE CAN ONLY CHARGE THE COMMUNITY LEVEL. IS THE COMMUNITY LEVEL IS MUCH HIGHER THAN DICTATING MAXIMUM RATE IS THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE OF 8276. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING BOTH WITHIN THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE ORDINANCE TO ACTUALLY ADOPT THE RATE IS A PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OR INCREASE OF THE RATE, GOING FROM THE CURRENT RATE OF 4882 AND A 10% ANNUAL INCREASE EACH YEAR THEREAFTER. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, STATE STATUTE WILL ALLOW US TO IMMEDIATELY GO FROM THE CURRENT RATE OF $4882 TO THE MAXIMUM RATE OF 8276, WHICH WOULD BE AN ALMOST 70% INCREASE. WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS PARTICULARLY PALATABLE FOR ANYONE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE REPRESENTING THE 10% ANNUAL INCREASE, AS PROPOSED.

THE DATES THAT ARE ON THERE, WE'RE GOING GENERATE FIRST FOR IMPLEMENTATION DATE, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE COUNCIL ULTIMATELY APPROVES THIS BEFORE THE END OF JUNE, IF THE COUNCIL ADOPTION SLIPS, THEN WE WILL MOVE THOSE EFFECTIVE DATES SO THAT THEY'RE SIX MONTHS PLUS WE WANT TO START ON THE FIRST OF THE MONTH. SIX MONTHS PLUS TO GET IT TO THE FIRST OF THE MONTH. WE DID, BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, LOOK AT SOME OTHER RATE OPTIONS, IF THE GOAL WAS TRULY TO MAXIMIZE THE FEE, THROUGH A PHASED APPROACH.

IF YOU DID AND 11.1 PERCENT ANNUAL INCREASE, THAT WOULD GET US IN YEAR FIVE WITHIN A DOLLAR OF THE MAXIMUM RATE, OR YOU COULD DO SIMPLY AN ANNUAL INCREASE OF $679 PER YEAR, THAT GETS IS EXACTLY TO 8776 WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM THAT CAN BE PROPOSED. BUT, AGAIN, WE FELT, BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH MAYOR FINKAM, WE FELT 10% WAS AN APPROPRIATE AND FAIR RATE TO RECOMMEND. WELL IT DOESN'T GET US TO THE FULL AMOUNT THAT WE COULD CHARGE, IT GETS IS WITHIN ABOUT $500, AND WE FELT THAT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE, AND WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS. LOOKING AT OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN INCLUDES RATES THROUGHOUT THE METRO AREA, BUT, I ZOOMED IN ON OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. IF YOU LOOK, WE ARE CURRENTLY THE LARGEST IMPACT FEE RATE AT 4882 PER DWELLING UNIT. AND AS I

[01:05:06]

IF YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT'S PROPOSED, WE WOULD NOT, IN TOTALITY FOR OUR IMPACT FEE, WHICH IS ONLY PARKS, WOULD NOT EXCEED FISHER'S RATE UNTIL YEAR FIVE THROUGH THE ACCELERATED RATE. AGAIN, RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE SOME VARIANCES WITH THAT. DEVELOPERS TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARD ROADS IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT AS FAR AS TRUE IMPACT FEE RATES IN TOTALITY, OUR RATES WOULD NOT BE THE HIGHEST OF THE NEIGHBORS. I DID HAVE CONVERSATIONS BEFORE WE BROUGHT THIS TO THE ZONE, THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND ALSO TO THE PLAN COMMISSION, A CONVERSATION WITH A BUILDING ASSOCIATION GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS AREA. THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM THEM WAS THE NUMBERS, HOW WE CALCULATED THE NUMBERS, NO PARTICULAR CONCERNS WITH THAT. THEY WERE ALL SOLID, THE GROWTH PROJECTIONS, THEY VIEWED AS REASONABLE AND OUR HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT THAT'S THE CASE, AND HOW WE CALCULATED THE EXPENSES FOR THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY FELT THE NUMBERS WERE ALL JUSTIFIED. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE NUMBERS OF THOSE ARE SOUND AND VIEWED AS SOLID. OF COURSE WE WOULD LIKE THE RATES TO BE LOWER THAN SMALLER THAT'S FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED EVERY FIVE YEARS.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND WE UNDERSTAND WHY THEY SAY THAT.

AND IF WE WERE TO INCREASE, THEY WOULD PREFER A LOWER PERCENTAGE INCREASE THAN 10% ANNUALLY, BUT AGAIN, WE'VE EXPLAINED WHY OUR GOAL IS TO GET IT AS CLOSE TO THE MAXIMUM RATE, NOT OVERNIGHT, AND WE FELT THAT 10% WAS A FAIRWAY.

THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVED AT THAT NUMBER, BUT, I PROMISE THAT I WOULD SHARE THE FEEDBACK THAT I HAD RECEIVED, AND PROMISES KEPT. WITH THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THE

PLAN COMMISSION MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, DOES ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS PRESENTATION? YES, COME ON UP.

>> POINT OF ORDER, DO WE ASK FOR A DEPARTMENT REPORT?

>> THE ORDER IS PETITION SPEAKS, THEN WE HAVE PUBLIC, SPEAK, AND THEN IT IS CHANCE TO RESPOND.

>> IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME. >> BUT THESE ARE NOT TYPICAL PRODUCTS THAT WE GET, THEY ARE USUALLY THE THINGS THAT, IN LEGAL COUNCIL REPORT. THAT SORT OF THINGS. THE PROCEDURE SEEMS DIFFERENT, BUT IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IT IS OPENING UP COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF,

>> MADAM CHAIR? BEFORE WE START, I ADVISED THAT WE HOLD TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS TO SATISFY ANY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES WE MIGHT HAVE ON THIS WORK SINCE THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS, THEY CAN BE PRESENTED TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY MUCH CONNECTED, BUT TO SATISFY ANY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE PULL TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON EACH ITEM.

>> OKAY. DO YOU WANT ME TO ASK WHICH PETITION THEY'RE

SPEAKING ON? >> JUST TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FIRST, SECOND ITEM DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00038 , PLAN A FIRST, FINISHED WITH THAT, I ASSUME MOST COMMENTS WILL ADDRESS BOTH OF THEM, AND A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT

ITEM. >> JUST CALLED THE SECOND

PUBLIC HEARING. >> WE'LL CALL THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, THANK YOU. GO AHEAD.

>> I WANTED TO TAKE A SECOND, THIS IS A WOMAN WHO NEEDS NO

INTRODUCTION. >> WE ALL KNOW YOU. WE ALL KNOW

YOU AND APPRECIATE YOU. >> WE HAVE A PARK SYSTEM BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE JUDY. SORRY.

>> GOOD EVENING, PLAN COMMISSIONERS. IF I MAY IN

[01:10:02]

I JUST WANT TO SAY, AS A START, BY WAY OF HISTORY, WE'VE COME A LONG WAY. THE FIRST ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN 1996, I WROTE AND IT WAS A PAGE AND A HALF PUT IT INTO ORDINANCE FORM, THAT THAT'S ALL WE HAD, $84 WORTH, AND I THINK THAT WENT FOR THE WHOLE ENCHILADA THAT WAS THE BEST WE COULD DO GOOD EVENING, I'M JUDY HAGAN, SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE PARK BOARD CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE PRESIDENT. I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE GRADUAL PHASED INCREASE OF THE PARK IMPACT FEE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THE PARK IMPACT FEE WAS INTENDED AND IS INTENDED TO BE USED AS THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS IN CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP, AS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE NOTED, THE TOWNSHIP HAS DONE ALL OF THE HEAVY LIFTING ON THE BONDS. ONE OF THE BIG ONE WHICH IS GETTING READY TO EXPIRE. THIS IS AN IMPACT FEE IN RESPONSE TO GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. IN ORDER TO KEEP THE QUALITY OF OUR PARKS AT THE LEVEL THAT WE ALL ENJOY AND WANT TO SEE CONTINUE. SO, I THINK THERE WAS AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION BY MICHAEL, AND YOU'VE ALL HEARD ENOUGH, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND VOTE IN FAVOR.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE PUBLIC YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? COME ON UP. AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND GENERALLY STATE

WHERE YOU LIVE. >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS MICHAEL, OLD RETIRED GUY, I LIVE ON SHELBURNE ROAD, THE LAST TIME I SPOKE TO THIS COMMISSION WAS BEING THE ONLY PERSON ON SHELBURNE ROAD, I THINK, IN FAVOR OF THE ISLAMIC CENTER. WHICH WAS A FUN HEARING AND I GOT TO SEE MY BUDDY, BRAD, WHO WORKED TOGETHER AT CROWE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. I AM CURRENTLY ON THE CARMEL CLAY PARK FOUNDATION BOARD, SOME LADY THAT'S SITTING BACK THERE FORCED ME TO BE ON IT. SHE DOES THAT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I SPENT 40 YEARS AS A CPA DOING GOVERNMENTAL CONSULTING. ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY SEES BOND ISSUES PAID OFF THAT THEY HELP CREATE. BUT I'VE DONE IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS ALL OVER THE MIDWEST. A LOT OF PLACES IN THE SUBURBS AND CHICAGO THAT HAVE IMPACT FEES THAT WOULD REALLY MAKE YOU CRY. THIS IS, CARMEL GETS DINGED SOMETIMES FOR THE FEE STRUCTURES, BUT IT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO SOME OTHERS, AND VERY REASONABLE.

AND WELL YOU CAN LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS ASKANCE, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, VERY NEEDED. ESPECIALLY WITH THE PARK IS GOING TO BE SEEN, THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. THAT SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, DIRECTOR KLITZING, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS? NO, I WILL TURN TO THEIR APARTMENT

DEPARTMENT REPORT. >> I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO

ADD. ADRIAN MAY. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRING IT TO A CLOSE AND GIVE IT TO A RECOMMENDATION, THE TWO DOCKET NUMBERS THIS EVENING, WILL ULTIMATELY , ONCE IT GOES TO COUNCIL, WILL GO IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION, WHICH INCORPORATES THE ZONE IMPROVEMENT PLAN INTO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SECOND DOCKET ITEM, IS A UDO AMENDMENT WHICH ESTABLISHES THE FEES AND GIVES US THE MECHANISM TO ASSESS AND COLLECT THOSE FEES. AGAIN, THIS IS A TWO-PART, TWO-PART ITEM TO MAKE THIS, THIS NEXT PHASE OF IMPACT FEES GO INTO EFFECT. OUR RECOMMENDATION, UNLESS THERE IS FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS, WOULD BE TO SEND THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION WE CAN HAVE THAT AS

WELL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS, ANY DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS?

[01:15:02]

>> A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS. I GUESS I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS. I WOULD HAVE MAY BE AIRED TOWARD THE SIDE OF, I GUESS, CONSIDERING THE HIGHER CAPITAL COSTS WITH SOME OF THE PARK EXPANSIONS TO DRIVE THE RATE EVEN HIGHER. I GET THAT YOU GET FEEDBACK AND YOU WANT TO DEVELOP A RATE STRUCTURE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS TOLERABLE, AND FOR RECOMMENDATION GOING TO THE COUNCIL, FOR SOMETHING THEY CAN ADOPT IF WE'VE CLIPPED BELOW THAT MAX RATE, THAT CERTAINLY CAN BE A POSITIVE.

SO, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT AND STAY NEUTRAL. YES. AND THEN ONE OTHER THOUGHT, IF IT HELPS, ONE OTHER COMPARISON OF A RATE THAT'S EVEN HIGHER, I DON'T KNOW, THE ROAD IMPACT FEE IS HIGHER IN PENDLETON THAN ANYBODY ON THE CHART. FEEL FREE TO ADD TO YOUR GRAPHIC IF IT HELPS. WITH THAT I WOULD MOVE

TO ADOPT. >> DO WE NEED TO VOTE TWO

SEPARATE VOTES? PROCEDURALLY? >> SHOULD WE ASK FOR A PUBLIC

HEARING ON THE SECOND DOCKET? >> YES. BEFORE WE GET THERE.

>> I AGREE TO SEPARATE THOSE ITEMS AND VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY, AND HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> ON THE AMENDMENT YOU WANT TO PULL UP? JUST TO SHOW THE RATES? AS IT LOOKS IN AMENDMENT FORM?

>> THAT'S THE 11% GROWTH. MADAM CHAIR, AS HE'S DOING THAT, AND I SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? IT WAS ALSO MY OPINION FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC THAT CLEARLY I'M THE PARKS GUY, SO I'M GETTING MORE MONEY, BUT, WHAT WAS THAT? COMPLETELY BIASED. MY OPINION IS THIS. VERY SIMPLE HE PUT, THESE ARE NOT MONIES TO BE PAID BY PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY LIVE HERE, THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO BE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, AS PRESIDENT GRABLE POINTED OUT, THIS IS A VERY SMALL INCREASE OR PERCENTAGE. AND, LESS, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, LESS AND LESS HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT IN CARMEL, I THINK WE SHOULD BE MAXIMIZING THE GROWTH MATRIX, IF YOU WILL, SO THAT WE GET TO THAT NUMBER. AGAIN, MICHAEL SAID IT, A BIT OF A MICROPHONE DROP, WE MAKE NO EXCUSES ABOUT THE PARK SYSTEMS WE HAVE. WE HAVE A WORLD-CLASS PARK SYSTEM, THAT IS RECOGNIZED TIME AND TIME AGAIN FOR ITS CREATIVENESS, FOR ITS PROCESSES, MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR ITS ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY. AS A SIDE NOTE TO THAT, I WON'T GO ON AND ON ABOUT THIS, THE PARK SYSTEM WAS I APOLOGIZE WHATEVER BUT HE HAS TO ENTERTAIN ME FOR A SECOND, THERE'S FEW TIMES THAT I GET PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS SORT OF THINGS BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU HEAR WHAT MY THOUGHTS ARE.

NOT THAT LONG AGO, PEOPLE LIKE JUDY HAGAN LOOKED AROUND AND RECOGNIZED THAT CARMEL PARKS CONSISTED OF ABOUT 40 ACRES IN CARMEL, 20 OF WHICH I BELIEVE HAVE BEEN HANDED BACK TO THE COUNTY BECAUSE THE CITY COULDN'T MANAGE ALL 40 ACRES.

NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT 1000 ACRES OF PARK SPACES WORLD-CLASS AMENITIES THAT OPERATE SUSTAINABLY. AT SOME POINT IN TIME THE PARK SYSTEM IS TOLD THAT THEY HAVE TO OPERATE AN 80% COST RECOVERY, WHICH YOU DON'T DO THAT TO A PARK SYSTEM. THEY STARTED CF1 O SENDING THEIR STAFF TO CONFERENCES TO LEARN ABOUT 80% COST RECOVERY, FINDING OUT THAT NOBODY OPERATES AT 15 OR 20% COST RECOVERY. AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE WERE OPERATING IN EXCESS. WE HAD NO PARK SYSTEM, AND THEN YOU MAY REMEMBER THESE, I THINK THE PARK SYSTEM, THOSE LITTLE PILLS THAT YOU DROP IN WATER AND THEY WOULD GROW INTO AN ANIMAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO CARMEL PARKS. WE HAVE $407 MILLION WORTH OF ASSETS. THOSE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE REPLACED AT SOME POINT IN TIME. THESE DOLLARS AREN'T GOING TO NECESSARILY DO THAT, BUT IF WE NEED THE PARKS THAT WE KNOW THAT WE NEED FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOVING TO OUR COMMUNITY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THERE WITHOUT THIS. I APOLOGIZE FOR STANDING ON A SOAPBOX, I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING IMPASSIONED ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAXIMIZE THE EFFORTS, AND THAT WE DON'T JUST DO THE BARE MINIMUM. THANK YOU.

>> DUBBIE? >> I'VE BEEN DOING SOME MATH IN MY HEAD. SO, GIVEN THAT, OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOSING A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF REVENUE FOR THE PARKS, WITH THE TOWNSHIP, BONDS, AND THE LOCAL INCOME TAX. GIVEN ALSO THE PROJECTION THAT AT SOME POINT,

[01:20:03]

NUMBER. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY, AND THEN A COMMENT THE REDUCTION AND THE PERCENTAGE OF FEES THAT YOU'VE COLLECTED WAS NOT FROM PLAN COMMISSION ACTION, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> SO THEN A SECOND ONE IS, STATUTORILY, THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IMPACT FEES, LIKE THE STREET IMPACT FEES AND THAT NATURE, THEY'RE STILL PAVED BY THOSE DEVELOPERS BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE USED FOR

DIFFERENT PURPOSES, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC AND HOW THEY CAN BE USED. THE COMMUNITIES THAT I PROVIDE THE EXAMPLES FOR, A PORTION OF IT CAN BE USED EXACTLY HOW WE DO IT FOR IDENTIFIED PROJECTS, IN PARKS AND THEN THE OTHER PORTION OF IT CAN BE USED FOR STREET INFRASTRUCTURE. I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THE LOGISTICS OF THE STREET SIDE, I HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM BAKER IF WE GO INTO THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE, WE ARE CORRECT, THEY ARE USED FOR SPECIFICALLY DIFFERENT PURPOSES.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THEY'RE NOT, THOSE FEES DON'T GO TO PARKS SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE THEY CAN. I JUST WANT TO ECHO THE SENTIMENTS OF JOSH AND DUBBIE , THAT OUR PARK SYSTEM IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AS A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN IN THE CITY, I APPRECIATE IT. WE ARE NOT JUST PUTTING SLIDES DOWN.

YOUR DEPARTMENT DOES MORE THAN JUST PHYSICAL PARKS. YOU ALSO RUN THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM. IT IS WORLD-CLASS, IT IS HIGH QUALITY, I'M PROUD OF IT AND IT NEEDS TO BE DUPLICATED IN OTHER PLACES, AND WITHOUT OUR COMMUNITY SUPPORT WE WOULD NOT HAVE THOSE THINGS, WE WOULD HAVE TO BUS OUR CHILDREN TO OTHER PLACES LIKE A YMCA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY ARE SAVED WHERE THEY ARE, I KNOW THE IMPACT FEE DOES NOT OBVIOUSLY GO TO SUPPORT THAT PROGRAM, FOR SURE. BUT THE CARMEL CLAY PARKS AND RECREATION IS WORLD-CLASS, AND I'M EXTREMELY PROUD TO HAVE YOU GUYS HERE IN THE CITY DOING THE WORK THAT YOU DO. YOU BRING FAMILIES HERE, AND YOU'RE THE REASON WHY WERE PART OF THE REASON WE'RE CONTINUALLY NAMED ONE OF THE BEST PLACES TO LIVE IN THE COUNTRY, NOT JUST IN INDIANA. WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE CAN DO TO SUPPORT YOU, MY VOTE IS GOING TO BE FOR THAT, THANK YOU.

>> WELL SAID, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS?

>> JUST A COMMENT, I ALWAYS HAVE TO COMMENT TO MICHAEL AT THE END OF THESE THINGS. IT'S BECOMING A THING. MICHAEL, I WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH, YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE PARKS MEAN TO ME AND THE REASONS WHY IT MEANS SO MUCH TO ME. JUST SO YOU KNOW. I'M AN OH, YEAH FOR THIS.

>> THANK YOU. >> PROCEDURALLY, ADRIAN, I THINK IF YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT REAL QUICK AND WE CAN

VOTE ON BOTH MOTIONS. >> SORRY.

>> OKAY. THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF THE ORDINANCE, THERE ARE DATE CHANGES AND OTHER HOUSEKEEPING REVISIONS TO MAKE THIS GO INTO THE NEXT CYCLE, BUT, THE GIST OF IT, IS IN OUTLINED HERE, IN THIS SECTION 1 UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE IMPACT FEE. WE ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM FEE AT 7863, AND THEN UNDER THE SUBSECTION ONE, THE INCREASES THAT WERE OUTLINED EARLIER. STARTING WITH 5370, THROUGH MONTH ONE THROUGH 12, 5907, DURING MONTHS 13 THROUGH 24, 498, DURING MONTHS 25 THROUGH 36, 700 148 DURING MONTHS 37 THROUGH 48. AND THE

[01:25:05]

PERIOD. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THE AMENDMENT CHANGES? SEEING NONE, I'M ASSUMING THAT WAS A DEPARTMENT REPORT AS WELL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, OR WE HAVE TO MOVE TO SUSPEND A RULE FOR PROCEDURE, WANT WE, SERGE? YES, DUBBIE.

>> THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT WAS UP , I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU HAD THAT CALCULATED, I AM HAPPY THAT I CAN STILL DO MATH IN MY

HEAD. >> I CAN BRING IT BACK UP.

>> THAT ONE. THE PHASE IN AT 11.13, THAT WOULD BE JUST UNDER 11.2. GETS YOU TO THE NUMBER YOU WANT, CORRECT? HOWEVER, WE END UP HAVING TO VOTE ON THIS, MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL WOULD BE GO WITH AN 11.13% PHASE TO GET YOU TO THE NUMBER THAT YOU NEED, GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT SO MUCH OTHER REVENUE THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING AWAY.

>> WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WANT TO GET AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR SURE, PROCEDURALLY WE ARE VOTING ON THE NUMBERS THAT HE IS

PRESENTED TONIGHT. >> SO, I'M SORRY. CAN YOU

CLICK BACK TO THE OTHER ONE? >> TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE? AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO VOTE TO DENY THIS. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO

DENY THIS. >> WE CAN ALSO SEND THIS TO COMMITTEE, IF YOU PREFER TO DO THAT.

>> NO, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

>> JUNE 1ST? >> I'M JUST ASKING FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I DON'T LIKE THIS 10%. WE ALL WANT 11%. DO

WE VOTE TO SHOOT THIS DOWN? >> MY QUESTION IS, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, CAN WE AMEND THIS?

>> YOU CAN AMEND THIS., I BELIEVE MICHAEL PRESENTED THAT, IT'S 11 .3, WOULD BE ALLOWED. I'M NOT A FINANCE GUY. YOU

HAVE TO RELY ON CONSULTANTS. >> AND CONFIRMED WITH THE DIRECTOR, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO?

>> IF THE RECOMMENDATION IS COMING FROM THE COMMISSION, I'VE PRESENTED, OUR CONSERVATIVE PROPOSAL. BUT IF THE COMMUNITY LEADERS FEEL THAT WE SHOULD MAXIMIZE,

>> I THINK WE'RE FEELING THAT WE NEED TO MAXIMIZE THAT. WHAT WE WILL ULTIMATELY PROPOSED IS THE 11.13% INCREASE. OKAY.

PROCEDURALLY, FIRST OFF, WE HAVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE? IS THAT CORRECT OR CAN WE VOTE? DOESN'T THIS HAVE

TO GO, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO? >> IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE COMMITTEE, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO SUSPEND RULES OF PROCEDURE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO ACT ON IT TONIGHT TO SEND A FAVORABLE, TO CITY COUNCIL, YOU CAN ALSO AMEND THE PROPOSAL UP TO THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT UNDER STATE LAW, IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND DISCUSSIONS WILL CONTINUE THERE.

>> AND YOU'LL BE THERE TO EXPLAIN? SO,

>> I WAS GOING TO MOTION TO SUSPEND OUR RULES AND

PROCEDURES. >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION TO SUSPEND RULES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

>> TO ACT ON THESE TWO ITEMS TONIGHT.

>> AS COUNCIL POINTS OUT. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SUSPEND RULES OR PROCEDURES, YOU ACT ON BOTH ITEMS THIS EVENING, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.

HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED, SO WE ARE NOW GOING TO VOTE , CAN WE VOTE ON BOTH DOCKETS OR DO WE HAVE TO MAKE TWO SEPARATE DOCKETS?

>> SINCE ONE WOULD BE A RESOLUTION, THE OTHER IS A RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.

>> BUT WE HAVE TO AMEND BOTH OF THEM. PROCEDURALLY, THAT'S MY QUESTION. TO GET TO THAT, COACHED US INTO WHAT MOTION WE NEED. TO REFLECT THE 11.1, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE UNDER STATE LAW. AND ALSO, ON THE SECOND, THE AMENDMENT AS WELL.

>> YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS, BUT YOU CONSIDER THE YOU CAN DO THE AMENDMENT AND THE MOTION TO SEND TO COUNCIL FAVORABLE, IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THAT MOTION PASSES OR FAILS, AND THEN YOU

[01:30:03]

RECOMMENDATION. >> COACH ME THROUGH THIS. MADAM CHAIR. CAN WE DO BOTH IN ONE MOTION?

>> YOU CAN DO BOTH OF THOSE ACTIONS IN ONE MOTION PER ITEM.

SO, FIRST ITEM WOULD BE, MOTION TO AMEND, IT SEEMS LIKE

>> MADAM CHAIR, HANG ON. MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE TO PRESENT BOTH AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, AND WITH BOTH BEING AMENDED, TO REFLECT THE 11.13% PHASED IN INCREASE TO GET TO A FINAL IMPACT FEE OF 8.276, BY YEAR FIVE. I'M SORRY, 8.27. 8275. BY YEAR FIVE. DO I HAVE A

SECOND? DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE YOU DID, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, TWO MOTIONS, FOR YOU TO CONSIDER, ON DOCKET NUMBER 26 AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00039 THE FIRST MOTION IS TO AMEND THE ANNUAL INCREASE ON PARK IMPACT FEE FROM THE FIRST SUGGESTED 10% TO 11.13%, IN EACH YEAR STARTING IN 2025 THROUGH YEAR 2029, ENDING WITH THE AMOUNT, THE FINAL AMOUNT BY DECEMBER 31ST, 2029 OF $8275. TRYING TO BE

CLEAR. >> AND I'LL SAY, THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF BOTH OF THESE, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, THEY ARE BOTH GOING ON TO THE FAVORABLE AMENDED WITH THE 11.13% INCREASE. THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR ENTERING WITH

THIS PROCEDURAL. THANK YOU. >> NO WORRIES, THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING. >> THANK YOU. OKAY. OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00041 . ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL STANDARDS, UDO AMENDMENT. TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS FOR NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS. FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION. AND, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ADRIAN.

>> THANK YOU. WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, RE-LOGGING INTO MY LAPTOP. THIS EVENING FINAL PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, HAS A STRANGE NAME. IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT A NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS, JOIN THE CLUB. WE PROMISE IT WILL MAKE SENSE ONCE WE EXPLAIN IT. OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, PROBABLY BEGINNING WITH THE PANDEMIC WE ALL REMEMBER THE WAVE OF POPULARITY PRIVATE HOME AND ROOM RENTALS THROUGH ONLINE PLATFORMS OMA SUCH AS AIRBNB AND BRB OH. THERE'S A NEW PLATFORM AND A NEW WAVE OF RENTALS IN THE FORM OF HOURLY RENTALS OF POOLS AND OTHER BACKYARD FACILITIES. AT PRIVATE RESIDENCES. SIMILAR TO THE INCREASE IN AIRBNB, ACTIVITY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE HAD AN EMERGENCE OF POOL AND BACKYARD RENTALS ALONG WITH

[01:35:01]

TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT PACKET, HERE. I MENTIONED THE CURRENT SHORT-TERM RENTAL, WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD 5.74. FOR THIS SECTION, AND AS I MENTIONED IT FOLLOWS CLOSELY TO THE DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL, AND WE PROPOSE REQUIRING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL BY THE HEARING OFFICER FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR. FROM A ZONING DISTRICT STANDPOINT, THIS WOULD APPLY IN THE SAME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTALS FOR DWELLING OCCUR, INCLUDING THE S ONE, R2, R3, R4, R5, AND THE UR WHICH IS URBAN RESIDENTIAL. THAT IS ALL NOTED IN ARTICLE TWO OF THE PROPOSAL. AND I MAY JUST NEED TO GO OLD-SCHOOL, HERE, AND PUT IT ON THE PROJECTOR. WE DON'T NEED TO READ THIS LINE BY LINE. SO, WE WOULD ESTABLISH, FROM ORDINANCE PERSPECTIVE, THE FILING FEE WOULD BE IN ARTICLE ONE, ARTICLE TWO I MENTIONED ALL OF THE S ONE THROUGH U ARE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AS A RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE MAIN PORTION OF THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE ADOPTED AND ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 5.74, AND HERE'S A WHOLE PAGE OF TEXT. THAT I WON'T READ, BUT IT GENERALLY GOES THROUGH THE PARAMETERS AND LIMITATIONS, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE PERMANENT RESIDENT MUST BE THE ONE TO RENT THE POOL OR BACKYARD FACILITY. SIMILAR TO DWELLING, DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THEY WOULD NEED TO MAINTAIN A REGISTERED RETAIL MERCHANT CERTIFICATE FROM THE STATE, AND THEN HAVE EMERGENCY AND POSTED INFORMATION ABOUT LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT, FIRE EXITING WISHERS, THAT KIND OF SAFETY INFORMATION. THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE APPLICATION GOES THROUGH THE VARIOUS WAYS TO INDICATE THAT YOU'RE A PERMANENT RESIDENT THAT WANTS TO DO THIS, INCLUDING CONTACT INFORMATION, EMERGENCY NUMBERS, CONTACT INFORMATION AND INFORMATION SHARED WITH CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT OCCUR DURING THE SHORT-TERM, THE NON-DWELLING

[01:40:05]

NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AND THEN THE LIMITATIONS ARE WHERE THE PARAMETERS ARE SET FORTH. INCLUDING LISTING THAT THE PERMANENT RESIDENT MUST BE ON THE PROPERTY AT ALL TIMES, OBTAINING LIABILITY INSURANCE CERTIFICATE, AND THIS IS, IF IT'S A POOL, THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION THAT LISTS LIMITATIONS IF IT'S OTHER BACKYARD FACILITIES. THE HOURS OF OPERATIONS ARE PROPOSED FROM 10:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. MAXIMUM GROUP SIZE, SORRY. GROUP SIZE OF 10 INDIVIDUALS, AND THERE'S A PLACEHOLDER THAT WE LIKE TO DISCUSS FURTHER IN COMMITTEE, THE NUMBER OF THESE RENTALS OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME WHETHER IT'S ONE PER DAY, ONE PER WEEK, ONE PER MONTH, WHATEVER DISCUSSION THAT WE CAN COME TO THAT SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE. THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES SUFFICIENT GUEST PARKING BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE REAL ESTATE, OF COURSE, YOUR RENTAL COMPLIES WITH STATE LAWS AND RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING POOL OPERATIONS, WE'VE GOT A PLACEHOLDER ALSO FOR POTENTIAL SETBACK. WE LIKE TO DISCUSS FURTHER, CERTAINLY THE CONSTRUCTION OF POOLS, HAVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR BACKYARD, IS THERE SOME KIND OF SETBACK THAT WE WANT TO REQUIRE THE POOL TO BE FROM A NEIGHBOR IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE OF THESE NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTALS? AND THEN THE SECOND SECTION, IT'S MODELED AFTER THE FIRST, BUT BACKYARD AND OTHER FACILITIES , DOESN'T HAVE QUITE AS MANY, QUITE AS MANY LIMITATIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT, NOT POOL RELATED. AGAIN, SAME PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION, MAXIMUM OF 10 INDIVIDUALS, AND A PLACEHOLDER FOR THE NUMBER OF THESE EVENTS, AND THE PROVISION THAT GUEST PARKING BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE REAL ESTATE. FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT MOVING ON TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SECTION, CURRENTLY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ONLY APPLY SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS SINCE WE NOW ARE PROPOSING A THIRD INSTANCE WHERE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION COULD APPLY, WE'RE PROPOSING TO GET RID OF THAT LANGUAGE, IT REQUIRES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IT REQUIRES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND THEN THE REMAINDER IS THE NEXT SECTION IS MAKING REFERENCE TO 5.74 IN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCEDURES. AS WELL AS THE COMMITMENTS FOR IF THERE ARE COMMITMENTS PLACED ON THE SHORT-TERM, THE NON-DWELLING SHORT-TERM RENTAL. SECTION. AND I ALREADY READ THE DEFINITION, BUT THAT WOULD BE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 11 OF THE UDO. SO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN, HAS BEEN GRAPPLING WITH FROM TIME TO TIME OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. THERE IS AN APP THAT FOLKS CAN PLACE THEIR POOLS OR BACKYARDS, I THINK, AS OF LAST CHECK THIS MORNING, THERE WERE FOUR ADVERTISED ON THE APP IN CARMEL, THAT COULD BE MAYBE EARLY IN THE SEASON, THAT NUMBER FLUCTUATES, BUT THE HISTORY OF THOSE, THEY DO GET USED. ANYWHERE FROM TWO TO 20 REVIEWS ON SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES. WE KNOW THAT IT IS OCCURRING, AND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME RESIDENT COMPLAINTS AND CONCERNS OVER THIS. WE TRY TO BE PROACTIVE, AND SUPPORT A PROCESS THAT IS REASONABLE. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY

[01:45:01]

SOME OF THESE. >> THANK YOU, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, DOES ANYBODY HERE IN THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK,

YES, PLEASE COME ON UP. >> MADAM CHAIR, HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU WANTING TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THIS CASE?

>> IS A MAXIMUM OF 20 MINUTES, SO WE WILL, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HANDS TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE? WE HAVE THREE? FOUR, FIVE? MAYBE TARGET AROUND THREE MINUTES OR SO, FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND YOU KNOW HOW THIS WORKS BUT THE LIGHT WILL CHANGE WHEN IT'S TIME YOU GOT 30 SECONDS LEFT, TO START TALKING AND STOP TALKING, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND WHERE YOU LIVE.

>> MY NAME IS JOE, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, I HAVE TO TELL YOU I HAVEN'T REALLY READ THROUGH THIS, SO MAYBE IT'S ANSWERED IN THE INFORMATION. BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU'VE CONSIDERED IF THE HOAS HAVE ANY SAY IN HIS OR WOULD IT BE TREATED THE SAME AS THE A.D. USE OR OTHER EXAMPLES OF WHAT MIGHT BE AFFECTING HOAS? SECONDLY, HOW WILL RESIDENTS KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING ON? HOW WILL YOU ADVERTISE THIS? AND LET'S SAY THEY DON'T TELL THE CITY, WHAT WOULD BE THE REPERCUSSIONS. WILL THERE BE FINES, AND I THINK THESE ARE SOME THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COUNSELOR? >> THANK YOU. I WON'T TAKE MUCH TIME, BUT, I AM HERE, MY NAME IS JEFF, I AM HERE AS A CITY COUNSELOR, NOT AS A RESIDENT. MY INVOLVEMENT ON THIS WAS BECAUSE RESIDENTS REACHED OUT TO ME, HAVING TRIED TO SOLVE THE ISSUES WITH LOUD PARTIES, ALCOHOL, THINGS GOING ON IN A CUL-DE-SAC THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR CHILDREN, AND SOME OF THOSE KIND OF THINGS. I AM HERE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO PUT ALL OF, ALL OF YOUR THOUGHTS INTO IT, AS IT GOES THROUGH COMMITTEE, AS YOU SAW, WE LEFT SEVERAL ITEMS LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT BECAUSE I JUST COULDN'T COME UP WITH ANSWERS, I WANT TO THANK FOR ALL THE TIME THEY GAVE IN TRYING TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. IT IS A VERY SORELY NEEDED, AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY MOVING THIS ALONG SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH OR HAVE IT AVAILABLE TO US FOR THIS SUMMER. THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT AS LONG AS ONE OF THE KEY POINTS IN THIS I BELIEVE IS THAT IF AN H OA HAS MADE IT NOT AGAINST THEIR COVENANTS, NOT ALLOWED BY THEIR COVENANTS, THEN THAT GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO IMMEDIATELY DENY THE PERMIT, THAT'S REALLY A KEY TO THIS WHOLE THING.

>> THANK YOU FOR STARTING THIS, AND INITIATING THIS. ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? I SAW A FEW OTHER HANDS.

>> I'M MICHAEL ROWE, I AM THE PRESIDENT FOR SPRINGVILLE RIDGE, AND ACTUALLY JEFF HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS HELP ON THIS.

SO, ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE HAVE IS WE'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION, THE UDO. OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD, I THINK I'VE PROBABLY HAD SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 100 PHONE CALLS OR TEXT MESSAGES ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON. AND WE TALKED, I DON'T KNOW IF HE REMEMBERS THIS, HE GAVE ME ADVICE ON HOW TO APPROACH THIS, WE AMENDED OUR COVENANTS LAST YEAR. THE CHALLENGES WE WERE SEEING, WE SEE THIS AS A PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE THING. TO GO THROUGH, AND HAVE RULES. WHAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED, WHAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED, WE'VE HAD PARKING ISSUES WERE WE'VE HAD CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, SOMETIMES A LITTLE BIT JAGGED WHERE IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO GET IN AND OUT, AND GET OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, MAILBOXES IN FRONT OF THE

[01:50:01]

BEYOND THAT WE'VE HAD ROUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN FLYING AROUND, ADJACENT PROPERTIES, WE'VE HAD PEOPLE WHO HAVE WANDERED OUT OF THE POOL AREA, AND THE PROPERTY AND WALKED INTO NEIGHBORS YARDS AND TAKEN PICTURES AND ON INSTAGRAM PHOTO SHOOTS. WE'VE HAD PEOPLE WALK INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S GARAGES, AND ADMIRE THEIR CARS. AND, WE HAVE HAD SOMEBODY THAT ACTUALLY WATCHED TWO PEOPLE PULL OUT, HIT EACH OTHER, GET OUT, LAUGH ABOUT HOW DRUNK THEY WERE AND DRIVE AWAY. THEY DID CALL THE POLICE BUT BY THAT TIME THEY WERE GONE. WE'VE HAD THIS ONGOING, AND OUR PARTY LIMIT IS 41 PEOPLE THAT CAN BE AT IT. YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT IT GETS TO BE, IF YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT IN YOUR BACKYARD, I WAS GOING TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS OR NOT. I CAN POP UP, DOES THIS THING WORK? IT DOES WORK, OKAY. JUST SOME EXAMPLES, MAYBE SOFTLY. SO PEOPLE PARKING, THAT THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION FROM ONE SIDE OF THE STREET TO THE OTHER. WE HAVE HAD, PEOPLE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE FIRE RIGHT HYDRANTS. OKAY. PEOPLE WANDERING INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S YARDS TO TAKE PICTURES. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE THE PERSON IN THE GARAGE. BUT I HAVE VIDEOS OF ALL OF THIS STUFF, TOO. SORRY.

SORRY. SORRY. I DID NOT TRIAL THIS. WELL, IT'S GOING THROUGH MY PHONE. SO, THAT'S WITH THE CLOSED WINDOW AND OUR NEIGHBORS HOUSE. SO, WHAT WE'RE CHALLENGED WITH IS THAT THE CITY STEPPING IN, DOING THIS, IS ASSISTING HOAS WITH ENFORCING RULES THAT THEY HAVE AN IMPROVING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. I WOULD ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THIS.

>> THANK YOU, I THINK WE HAD ONE MORE PERSON WHO WANTED TO

SPEAK. >> MY NAME IS SUSAN HANSEN, MICHAEL SAID IT ALL BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE MORE ANECDOTAL THINGS, WITH GRANT PARK AND WESTFIELD A LOT OF TEAMS COME HERE AND HAVE THEIR AFTER TEAM PARTIES AT THIS POOL. THAT GETS REALLY LOUD AND YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW BIG A SOCCER TEAM AND ALL THEIR PARENTS DRINKING AFTER A GAME CAN BE. I ALSO TALKED TO MY INSURANCE AGENT, AND AS YOU GUYS CONSIDER, IF WE CAN CRAFT THIS LANGUAGE, WITH THAT MILLION-DOLLAR LIABILITY, I THINK THE INSURANCE COMPANY NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT THAT LIABILITY IS FOR. ANYONE CAN GET A MILLION-DOLLAR LIABILITY ON THEIR HOME. BUT IF THE INSURANCE COMPANY KNOWS IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE RENTING OUT THEIR POOL, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT INCIDENT. WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY. MY AGENT SAID THAT HIS COMPANY WOULD NEVER, EVER INSURE SOMETHING LIKE THIS. JUST ANOTHER

THOUGHT. THANKS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES,

ONE MORE PERSON HAS COMMENTS. >> THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS COMING T YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. I AM ANDREA VANDERPOOL, I LIVE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC, THE HOME, IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL CUL-DE-SAC, THERE'S FOUR DRIVEWAYS THAT SHARE THIS CUL-DE-SAC AND I'M ONE OF THEM. SO THE PARKING ISSUES THAT WERE DISPLAYED WERE CERTAINLY A REAL ISSUE. IT'S BEEN YEARS, NOW, SUMMERS, THE ISSUES THAT MIKE MENTIONED WERE ALL AMONG MANY ISSUES TRASH, SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS FOR SAFETY, OUT-OF-STATE LICENSE PLATES, PEOPLE GETTING IN OUR PROPERTY. , FOURTH OF JULY, THE HOMEOWNER WHO RENTS THEIR POOL, THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH PEOPLE SHOOTING FIREWORKS OFF AT OUR

[01:55:02]

>> THANK YOU, HEARING WHAT'S HAPPENING, IS HELPFUL FOR US TO

KNOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE COMMENTS?

>> JUST, A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, IN RESPONSE, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE HOAS MATTER, CERTAINLY, HOAS COVENANTS OVERRULE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OR UDO REGARDING HOW FOLKS WILL KNOW WE CAN CERTAINLY USE THE CITY'S COMMUNICATION CHANNELS, WHETHER IT'S NEWSLETTER, WHAT HAVE YOU, TO GET THE WORD OUT, ONCE THERE IS SOMETHING SOLID TO SHARE. REGARDING WHAT IF SOMEONE DOESN'T KNOW, WE FIND THAT ALL THE TIME WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT. IF SOMEONE MAKES A COMPLAINT, THEN OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF GOES TO CHECK IT OUT, AND OFTEN THE FIRST, THE FIRST MEANS OF COMMUNICATION IS EDUCATION AND LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT SOMETHING IS OR ISN'T ALLOWED. IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE, THERE WOULD BE AN APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THIS. ANOTHER LINE OF THE CITY KNOWING IS THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS THAT FOLKS ADVERTISE, THESE TYPES OF RENTALS, WE ARE AWARE OF AT LEAST ONE PLATFORM, WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT A MAP, AND YOU MIGHT NOT GET THE EXACT ADDRESS, IT SHOWS LOCATIONS OF THESE POOLS AND BACKYARD FACILITIES THAT ARE OFFERED FOR RENT. WE CAN MAKE CONTACT IN THAT REGARD AS WELL. I THINK THAT ANSWERS ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED IN

THIS REGARD. >> THANK YOU. SO, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY COMMISSIONERS, BUT I FIND THIS SHOCKING. I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS WAS HAPPENING AND HEARING YOUR STORIES I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION. WELL I WANT US TO TAKE OUR TIME TO GET THIS RIGHT, I'M ALSO FEELING A SENSE OF URGENCY AS WELL. HOPEFULLY AT COMMITTEE WE CAN WORK THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKLY. BUT, COMMENTS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS, COUNSELOR MINNAAR?

>> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORS, MICHAEL AND COMPANY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH, NOT WITH THE SWIMMING POOL SITUATION BUT WITH SHORT-TERM RENTING. THIS IS A PROJECT NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART, HAVING TO LIVE WITH A COMMERCIAL ENTITY OR BUSINESS RUNNING IN A CUL-DE-SAC OR A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS FRUSTRATING. I, TOO, SUFFERED FROM BEING CARS PARKED IN FRONT AND I COULDN'T GET OUT. I WENT TO THE STATEHOUSE AND FOUGHT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND PROHIBITION. I WILL SAY PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU, YOU'RE JUST BEING A BUSY BODY, THESE PEOPLE MEAN NO HARM. YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE TO LOOK YOU IN THE EYE, SO IF SOMEONE IS HAVING A ROWDY PARTY OR HAVING THEIR FAMILY OVER FOR A PARTY IN THE BACKYARD AND THEY'RE ACTING A FOOL, YOU CAN GO NEXT DOOR AND KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND SAY, JOE, KNOCK IT OFF. THE KIDS CA SEE THIS. YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH COMPLETE STRANGERS. AND THAT BOTHERS ME. SO, I THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE, THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, I RATIFIED MY COVENANTS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD TO BAN SHORT-TERM RENTING, SO, YOU'VE GOT MY SUPPORT ON THIS, I KNOW WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THIS, I GUESS WE ARE. THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT I'D LIKE TO ADD. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SPEAKING ON BEHALF. I

UNDERSTAND YOUR PAIN. >> THANK YOU. I HAD A QUICK

[02:00:02]

>> THEY SIMPLY WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE. IT THEY WOULDN'T BE

A PERMANENT RESIDENT. >> PERFECT, OKAY. DUBBIE?

>> I HAVE THREE COMMENTS. ONE, AND ORDINANCE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE, FOR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF CARMEL, IT IS REALLY HARD, IF NOT NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO AMEND OUR COVENANTS. SO FOR THAT REASON ALONE, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE, THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE WHAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO EASILY, HAVING BEEN IN ANNEXED COMMUNITY WITH OLD, OLD COVENANTS. FROM AN INFORMATION DISBURSEMENT POINT REMIND PEOPLE THAT THERE'S AN ANNUAL AGE AWAY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT IS CALLED. SO THERE'S AN AVENUE TO DO THAT, AND IF YOU KNOW ALREADY WHO THE KNOWN OFFENDERS ARE BY MONITORING APPS, I CERTAINLY THINK THAT A FRIENDLY VISIT BY SOMEBODY, MAILMAN OR IN PERSON, COULD ALSO HELP GET THAT INFORMATION OUT.

>> SORRY, ONE LAST THING. IT MIGHT BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF OUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, BUT IF YOU HAVE SOME DATA POINTS ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE CALLS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THE COMMUNITY RESOURCES THAT WE'VE HAD TO EXPAND ON THIS, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

>> IS A GOOD QUESTION. >> ONLY QUESTION IS TALKING ABOUT UDO AMENDMENT, IDENTIFIES ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AFFECTS, ARE WE MISSING RESIDENTIAL, IF THEY'RE COVERED BY PUD OR OTHERWISE? ARE THEY EXEMPT FROM THIS?

>> THIS, SIMILAR TO THE REGULAR SHORT-TERM RENTAL, EACH PUD, WE HAVE NOT LISTED PUD SPECIFICALLY, EACH PUD IS ITS OWN ORDINANCE, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT ADDRESS THIS. SO, IN THE FUTURE, IF A NEW PUD COMES ALONG, AND WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS, THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING, SOMETHING TO MODEL THEIR LANGUAGE AFTER. BUT, WE ARE NOT RETROACTIVELY AMENDING

PUD'S. >> SO I GUESS I'M THINKING, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, AND THERE'S A COMMUNICATION EFFORT ABOUT HOW WE'RE APPLYING THIS TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, YET THERE IS SOME THAT ARE COVERED UNDER STRAIGHT ZONING, OTHERS BY PUD THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL USES, THERE MIGHT BE SOME KIND

OF GAP, THERE, POTENTIALLY? >> POTENTIALLY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> THIS IS A STATUTORY QUESTION. STATUE 36, 24 DASH 10 TALKS ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS. FOUR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. ARE YOU FOLLOWING STATUTORILY, WITH THE PUD, WITH THAT FALL UNDER, NOT AT ALL?

>> IT WOULD NOT, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE REASON FOR A SOMEWHAT AWKWARD NAME THAT STATUTE, SPECIFICALLY TARGETS DWELLINGS. SO, THIS ONE, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TARGET OR ADDRESS AND REGULATE SPECIFICALLY NON-DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM SHORT-TERM RENTALS, INDIANA CODE REGULATES, THIS IS VERY NEW. FROM MY RESEARCH, FOR ONLY A COUPLE OF ORDINANCES, THAT REGULATE THOSE KIND OF ACTIVITIES. THEY REALLY STARTED ONLY IN 2020. WAS CALLED IN, SO IT'S VERY NEW FOR A LOT OF COMMUNITIES, AND IT'S COMING, IT'S CERTAINLY COMING AND IN WARMER PLACES, FOR QUITE A FEW COMMUNITIES, BEGINNING TO REGULATE THOSE, SOME ON THE EAST COAST, BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT REALLY IS OUTSIDE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS IS INDIANA CODE REGULATES IT,

AS WELL. >> I SEE THAT YOU'VE USED THE

SKELETONS OF IT. >> AGAIN, THE NAME IS INTENTIONAL, I KNOW IT'S NOT EXACTLY A RINGER, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE

DWELLING IS VERY KEY TERM. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AGAIN, I

[02:05:01]

SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. >> REALLY GREAT POINTS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'LL NEED A MOTION TO SEND THIS TO OUR COMBINED RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL

COMMITTEE. >> SO MOVED, WITH AUTHORITY TO WORK THROUGH ANY MINUTIA AND APPROVE WITH THE COMMITTEE.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, IT'S GOING TO COMMITTEE TO BE WORKED ON AND THE COMMITTEE WILL HAVE FINAL VOTING AUTHORITY. A LITTLE BIT OF WORK, AND THEN SINCE THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TIME WE'LL HAVE THE COMBINED COMMITTEE, MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF YOU ASSIGNED THIS TO A RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE, SO THAT OUR CHAIRS WILL KNOW WHO'S CHAIRING THIS

ONE. IN ADVANCE TO IT. >> HABIT RESIDENTIAL. THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR CHAIRPERSON FOR THIS. OKAY.

>> FOR YOUR SAKE, A GREAT PERSON, IF YOU DON'T KNOW, THIS IS, SHE'S NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS KIND OF THING EITHER.

THOSE MEETINGS BUT YOU PROBABLY HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH

YOUR TIME. >> SHE'S BEEN A RESIDENTIAL CHAIR FOR MANY MANY YEARS, SHE WILL GUIDE US THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND WE'LL ALL BE THERE. WE HAVE NO NEW BUSINESS,

DO WE HAVE NEW BUSINESS? >> I WANTED TO CLARIFY THE MAY COMMITTEE MEETING IS ANOTHER NONSTANDARD DATE. SO THAT WILL BE ON THURSDAY, MAY 9TH, I BELIEVE. BECAUSE OF PRIMARY

ELECTION. >> WE'LL BE IN THIS ROOM?

>> WE WILL BE IN THIS ROOM, CORRECT.

>> EVERYTHING, I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY CONFLICT MAKING IS NOT

BE IN HERE. >> I BELIEVE HERE.

>> VERY GOOD.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.