HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 04-16-24 City of Carmel
1
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2024, MEETING MINUTES
Location: Council Chambers Room, 2nd Floor, Carmel City Hall
Members Present: Adam Campagna, Dubbie Buckler, Chaka Coleman, Jeff Hill, Christine Zoccola (Vice), Josh Kirsh
Members Absent: Adam Campagna, Brad Grabow, & Sue Westermeier
Staff Present: Rachel Keesling, Adrienne Keeling, Bric Butler, Mike Hollibaugh
Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin, Alli Lynch-Mcgrath
Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM
Declaration of Quorum: Vice President Zoccola: 6 members present, and 3 members absent, a quorum is present.
Approval of the previous Meeting Minutes: A motion made by Hill and seconded by Buckler to approve the January 16th,
2024 PC meeting minutes. Approved 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier
Communications, Bills, Expenditures, & Legal Counsel Report
1. Plan Commission Resolution PC-4-16-24-a: CRC Resolution No. 2024-01: approves certain amendments to the
declaratory resolution and economic development plan for the Old Town Economic Development Area.
• Richard Starkey, lawyer with Barnes & Thornburg, informed the Commission this resolution was
regarding a new Midtown gateway area. Improvements associated with the plan included new multi-
family and hotel/office/retail entertainment spaces at a cost of approximately five million dollars.
2. Plan Commission Resolution PC-4-16-24-b: CRC Resolution No. 2024-02: designates an area known as the
106th & Illinois Economic Development Area as an economic development area and approves an economic
development plan for the Economic Development Area.
• Richard Starkey, lawyer with Barnes & Thornburg, informed the Commission this resolution was
regarding an age restricted multifamily development.
3. Plan Commission Resolution PC-4-16-24-c: CRC Resolution No. 2024-03: approves certain amendments to the
declaratory resolution and economic development plan for the Legacy Project Economic Development Area.
• Richard Starkey, lawyer with Barnes & Thornburg, informed the Commission this resolution was
regarding a carve out of the existing Legacy allocation to create a second Legacy II allocation area, a
multifamily and for sale housing development.
Motion by Buckler and seconded by Kirsh to approve resolution PC-4-16-24 a-c.
APPROVED 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier
4. Plan Commission Rules of Procedure Amendment Requests
• Alli Lynch-Mcgrath, Carmel legal counsel, provided an overview of the updates proposed and discussed
during the Plan Commission executive session. The following updates had been incorporated:
o Grammatical clean ups and updated Indiana Code references.
o Changed to allow correspondence from the public to be submitted up to 24 hours prior to a
meeting, reduced from 5 days.
o Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reorganized into Staff Review.
o Commercial Committee & Residential Committee consolidated into a single “Combined
Residential and Commercial Committee.”
Motion by Minnaar and seconded by Kirsh to approve Rules of Procedure as amended.
APPROVED 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier
2
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns
1. Outcome of Projects at Committees
a. Residential Committee: No April Meeting
b. Commercial Committee: No April Meeting
Public Hearings:
Zoccola: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing in front of the Plan Commission.
1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00034 OA: PRIF Credit Process UDO Amendment.
The applicant seeks to amend the UDO pursuant to Carmel City Council Resolution CC-01-08-24-01, which
directs the Plan Commission to consider amendments to UDO Sections 1.30(F), (K) and (L) regarding the
procedures for granting park and recreation impact fee credits. Filed by the Department of Community Services
on behalf of the Carmel City Council.
Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator DOCS
• Keeling gave an opening statement providing a timeline of the current ordinance amendment process. She went
on to provide a summary of the proposed changes. Essentially the ordinance amendment seeks to reorganize the
method in which impact fees credits and granted and restructures what individuals and organizational bodies are
included in the process.
• Plan Commissioner and City Councilor, Shannon Minnaar, provided a summary of the amendment from the
perspective of the City Council where the amendment originated. She stated that the main changes in the
amendment were as follows:
o F.1-b. consent on cost overruns/changes on the deviation limit, which would require the project to come
back to the full Council if said limit was exceeded.
o F. 3-b. Removes the power of the Board of Public Works to override deviation expenses.
o F. 6. Provides City Council the authority to audit Carmel Redevelopment Authority regarding any
projects involving them, the Parks Department, and PRIF.
o K. Consolidation of the non-reverting fund from two funds into a single fund to fulfill the concept of “one
city one fund” instead of two separate urban and parks funds.
Minnaar overall believed that the amendment was a proper compromise between Parks and the
Redevelopment Commission and that a positive recommendation was in order.
Public Comments:
Matt Snyder, Carmel City Council
• Snyder praised the amendment as a step towards more transparency and accountability regarding where impact
fee money is going and helps recommit to the original idea of why impact fees were put into place. He believed
that this amendment does not take away directly from either the Redevelopment Commission or the Parks
Department, instead it would foster more collaboration between the entities to make sure PRIF money is spent in
a way that benefits the community as a whole.
• Minnaar prompted Snyder with the question of why transparency regarding this matter was so important. Snyder
noted that transparency is crucial for all government matters. Particularly in this case it is helpful because in the
past money intended for parks had been used for things that many would not consider parks, such as sidewalks.
Over time a very loose determination of what was “public space” was being applied. A problem with having an
urban parks fund was there is no definition of what an urban park is. By combining that fund with the other park
fund into one it will help ensure money is spent on assets the community collectively agrees is a park amenity.
Petitioner Rebuttal: None
Department Report: None (Covered in opening statement.)
3
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
Committee Comments:
Zoccola: I have a technical question. On F.b. I just want to make sure I understand the process. With respect to
components of infrastructure or other improvements not included in the Zone Improvement Plan, the process will be a
consultation with the Director of Carmel-Clay Parks and Recreation, then goes to City Council for their approval where if
desired they can set a deviation limit 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 and say?
Snyder: The Board of Public Works has the ability to increase or decrease the funds based off of that deviation. The first
question that should be asked by the Council when a project comes to us is if it’s brought to us by the Parks Department,
what does the Redevelopment Commission have to say and vice versa. The point of this is to get those two entities to
collaborate. That is where [Council] the expenditure is approved. Beyond that then the Board of Public Works
administers...should at that time the applicant also requests a deviation percentage. Historically it’s been 10% well on a
three million dollar project that is a really large deviation so maybe its not 10% its 3% and that sets the guideline for what
the Board of Public Works can allow for overages of that project. That deviation percentage is kind of a backstop. Should
it run into an issue where it goes over that deviation percentage then it would be kicked back from Boad of Public Works
to Council.
Clarification provided by legal counsel to Commissioner Zoccola on the current wording of the amendment regarding
final approval authority.
Hill: If you have a high dollar - three million dollar - project a developer wants to bring in lieu of impact fees there are
parameters set as a backstop of 10% , doesn’t have to be that number but, if something goes beyond that any cost above
that is on the petitioner or developer is that fair to say or are there other backstops just from a procedural stand point?
Snyder: It is my interpretation of the language that it would then come back to Council whether we would want to
increase the allocation or not. If we did not increase it, then by default it comes back to the developer. Am I saying that
correctly counselor?
Hill: Are there mechanisms to ensure completion of the agreed upon project whether its bonding, or other mechanisms,
just to make sure we aren’t left with a mostly complete project?
Grechukhin: Usually project agreements will have those terms incorporated into them to protect the city. So yes, this
language doesn’t belong in this ordinance, but it is there.
Buckler: So coming back up to ten thousand feet, I see this as a great proposal that removes the perception of competition
between departments and divisions within the City of Carmel’s executive branch which is a good thing because I think the
perceptions were misperceptions. Regardless it is a much cleaner clearly defined process so with that comment I move its
adoption.
Kirsh: As your Parks Board appointment 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 overpleased. There are probably members of the Parks Board that wished
this went a step further. I know that the Director of Carmel Parks has been on the record with he is pleased with this. I
don’t want to misquote him, but I think he is pleased with what has been presented. I think that the current Council has
gone very far in the adoption of this and in the presentation of this. They have clearly put a lot of thought into it. I think
that it is a heck of an olive branch between Council and Carmel Parks. No one is particularly unhappy with what the end
results are. 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 Parks Director weigh in on what that park is going to be. So, I think it’s a positive step. Is it
100% of what Parks wants? No, but I think it’s the right direction to go.
A motion to provide a favorable recommendation to City Council made by Buckler and seconded by Hill.
APPROVED 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier
4
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00038 CPA: 2025-2029 Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP).
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 Carmel Department of
Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission.
3. Docket No. PZ-2024-00039 OA: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Ordinance Amendment.
The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to update existing impact fee
provisions, as well as their definitions. The proposal would renew the impact fee that is currently imposed on new
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.
Petitioner: Michael Klitzing – Director Carmel-Clay Parks & Recreation
• Klitzing provided background on the law that governs localities on adoption and rate of the fee.
• The current impact fee went into effect June 1st, 2020. Upon adoption of the new fee by the Council a mandatory
six-month waiting period before implementation must occur. Ideally the effective date for the new fee would be the
first day of whatever month follows the end of the waiting period.
• The impact fee cannot be used for maintenance and operation of existing facilities, it can only be used for
investment in new facilities. Carmel’s ordinance currently allows for use of the fees in only Bear Creek Park, West
Park, and the White River corridor on which $3,738,297 was expended during the current cycle. The proposed
update would allow for the inclusion of the Japanese Gardens, a proposed Chinese Gardens, the central core of the
city, and Thomas Marcuccilli Nature Park.
• Only 38% of impact fee funds currently go directly to Carmel’s Parks Department.
• A breakdown of the formula required to be used by the state to determine the impact fee was provided. The current
impact fee rate is $4,882 dollars per residential dwelling unit. The maximum allowable rate for 2025-29 period per
the current formula inputs by the Parks Dept. would be $8,276.
• The 2019-24 impact fee was immediately raised to $4,882 dollars at the beginning of the rate period. The 2025-29
impact fee is proposed to rise 10% per year beginning at $5,370 in 2025 and ending at a maximum of $7,863 for
the 2029 calendar year.
• Impact fees accounted for approximately 10% of CCPR capital funds between 2020 and the present.
• Conversations held with the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis (BAGI) resulted in agreement with the
financial figures used to calculate the impact fee. The main criticism from BAGI was the dollar amount of the fee
which they would like to be lower as well as a smaller percentage increase each year.
Public Comments:
Judy Hagan, President – Carmel Clay Parks Board
• Hagan provided a brief history of the first Zone Improvement Plan for Carmel in 1996 that was proposed and
adopted, only a page and a half document with about 84 dollars. She provided her support for the current Zone
Improvement Plan proposal. She stated that the impact fee is a response to growth and development that is needed
to keep the parks at the level all citizens currently enjoy.
Michael Claytor, Member – Carmel Clay Parks Foundation Board
• Claytor stated he is a member of the Carmel Clay Parks Foundation Board and that he spent forty years as a CPA
doing governmental consulting. During that time, he had undertaken work regarding impact fee analysis across
the Midwest and noted that while Carmel gets criticized locally from time to time due to the fees that the fees are
nothing compared to many places such as the Chicago suburbs.
Petitioner Rebuttal: None
Department Report:
• Keeling explained that this is a two-part approval. First, the Zone Improvement Plan, which will go before the
5
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
City Council as a resolution that will then be incorporated into the Carmel Comprehensive Plan. The second, a
Unified Development Ordinance amendment, establishes the new impact fee and will give the City the
mechanisms needed to collect the fee. She went on to suggest the Plan Commission provide the City Council with
a favorable recommendation, but said the Commission was welcome to have additional discussion about that first
before a decision was to be made.
Committee Comments:
Hill: I have mixed feelings on this. I would have erred towards the side of considering higher capital costs with some of
the park expansions to drive the rate even higher. I get that you get feedback from BAGI and you want to develop a rate
structure that is tolerable and for recommendation of something going to the Council something they can adopt if we clip
below that max rate it certainly can be positive.
Kirsh: My opinion is this very simply put, these are not monies to be paid by people who currently live here. These are
people who choose to be part of the community. As President Grabow pointed out on a million-dollar home this is a very
small percentage, and in my opinion less and less houses are going to be built in Carmel. I think that we should be
maximizing the growth matrix if you will so that we get to that maximum number. Again, Michael said it in a bit of a
microphone drop, we make no excuses about the parks system we have. We have a literal world class parks system that is
recognized time and time again for its creativeness and processes and its economic sustainability.
Kirsh went on to praise the growth of Carmel Parks from almost nothing into the massive system it is today and
commended the financial success of the parks being able to operate on 80% cost recovery, something once thought
impossible for any parks system.
Buckler: Make sure I understand this right, over the next five years you are 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 we
will reach saturation and not be able to continue to build new residences, your calculated maximum number, if I round is
8.3 thousand. You phased in at 10% to get to 7.8 thousand. When it comes time to vote I am going to recommend an
about 11.2% phase in which will get you closer to your $8,276 maximum, and with the other things out there that are
taking away from revenue and the fact that people move here because they want to come her because of all the wonderful
thing we have. I will be favorable on this and favorable of a phase in between 11-12% to get closer to the ideal number.
Coleman: I have two questions to clarify and a comment. So, the reduction in the share of the fees you collected is not
from Plan Commission action? Correct?
Klitzing: Correct.
Coleman: Statutorily the other municipalities impact fees, such as street impact fees, they are still paid by those
developers, but they would have to be used for different purposes?
Klitzing confirmed that is correct. Coleman went on to state her strong support for what she described as Carmel’s world
class parks system. She reaffirmed her position and intent to support the petition with a favorable vote.
Minnaar thanked Director Klitzing for his work and reaffirmed her support.
Buckler advised the Commission that in her opinion the Commission when making the recommendation to the City
Council should make a recommendation using the higher 11.13% annual increase instead of the currently suggested 10%
increase. She thought it crucial to maximize the impact fee amount as much as possible seeing as other revenue sources
will begin to dwindle in the coming years.
Discussion between legal counsel and members of the Commission ensued regarding the procedural recommendation
vote. It was decided by the Plan Commission to amend the text to include the 11.13% annual increase instead of the 10%
increase as the majority of the Commission wanted to indicate support for a higher fee. Ultimately the amended text is
what a favorable recommendation was provided for.
A motion by Kirsh and seconded by Buckler to suspend the Rules of Procedure and act on PZ-2024-00038 & 39.
APPROVED 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier
A motion by Buckler to amend PZ-2024-00038 & 39 to substitute the 11.13% annual increase in place of the 10% annual
increase to the impact fee and provide a favorable recommendation of the amended ordinance and resolution seconded by
Minnaar.
6
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
APPROVED 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier
4. Docket No. PZ-2024-00041 OA: Non-Dwelling Short-Term Rental Standards UDO Amendment.
The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance 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.
Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling, Planning Administrator DOCS
• Keeling provided an opening statement that summarized the rise of non-dwelling short-term rentals beginning
roughly at the time of the Covid Pandemic. Non-dwelling structures include things such as pools and patios. In
recent years residents of areas where these short-term rentals have occurred have lodged multiple complaints
about parking, excessive noise, etc. In order to combat this issue staff proposed the addition of a new section to
the UDO similar in nature to the original short-term rental section.
• Non-dwelling short-term rental proposed UDO definition: Any outdoor or indoor pool, backyard patio, deck,
accessory building, and other non-dwelling structure or facility that is rented or released to transient guests by a
permanent resident of the property where such non-dwelling rental is located.
• To be granted permission for a short-term non-dwelling rental the following requirements would need to be met:
o One year (with possibility of renewal) Special Exception approval from the Carmel Board of Zoning
Appeals Hearing Officer.
o The owner who makes the rental must be a permanent resident that normally resides on the property.
o Owner must obtain a Registered Retail Merchant Certificate from the state.
o Emergency contact and info about life saving equipment posted.
o Liability Insurance Certificate for $1,000,000
o The owner must remain present on the property for the duration of the rental.
o Hours of operation between 10 AM and 8 PM.
o Maximum group size of 10.
o A limitation on the number of rentals in a given period (still to be determined).
o Sufficient guest parking on the property, public on street parking not counted.
o Setback requirements (still to be determined).
• Staff was currently aware of approximately four such non-dwelling short-term rentals active within Carmel.
Public Comments:
Jill Meisenheimer – Meisenheimer questioned the role of HOAs in the process, how would the public become informed
of the new rules, and how would rentals that occur without the permission of the City of Carmel be handled.
Jeff Worrell (City Counciler) – Worrell explained that the current proposed ordinance came to fruition after citizens
came forward to him about a particular incident in a residential neighborhood where a party with excessive noise, alcohol,
and other things not appropriate for children occurred. He thanked staff and the Plan Commission for their ongoing work
with the ordinance.
Michael Rowe (HOA President of Spring Mill Ridge) – Rowe thanked Worrell for his support on this issue. He stated
his neighborhood’s support for the new ordinance. He relayed multiple examples of parking, noise, and general nuisance
problems that have arisen due to non-dwelling short-term rentals within his community. He provided various pictures and
audio clips as proof.
Susan Hanson – Hanson identified herself as a resident of Spring Mill Ridge. She highlighted that the proximity of
Carmel to Westfield where Grand Park is located that there are often many disruptive parties with entire sports teams
present. She also thought that the ordinance should be written in such a way as to require the insurance company to know
they would be providing liability coverage for a residential pool rental. She believed that if that was known to them that
many insurance companies would decide against covering them, such as her own who said they would not cover
something like that.
Andrea Vanderpool – Hanson identified herself as a resident of Spring Mill. She told the committee that one particular
problem property that directly led to the rise of this ordinance, directly adjacent to her home, could during the summer
hold up to four parties a day. Due to various safety concerns with parking, trash, and trespassing for years now she has
7
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
been concerned for her children’s safety and often had to decide to not let them outside when such events were occurring.
Petitioner Rebuttal:
• Keeling provided answers to questions raised by Meisenheimer.
o More restrictive HOA covenants passed would be enforceable within those communities.
o Publicization of the new rules could be done by using the City’s various communication channels on
social media, newsletters, etc.
o Unauthorized rentals could come to the attention of staff via a complaint and the relevant code
enforcement officer would begin the process of bringing them into compliance or making sure the
operation is suspended.
Department Report: None (covered in opening statement)
Committee Comments:
Minnaar: I too understand what you are going through, not with the pool situation, but with short-term renting. This is a
project that is near and dear to my heart. Having to live with a commercial entity or business running in a residential
neighborhood or cul-de-sac is frustrating. I too suffered from having cars parked in front of my driveway and could not
get out. I went to the statehouse and fought for short term rentals and prohibition. People will tell you, “Oh you just are
being a busy body, these people mean no harm!” Well, your neighbors – they have to look you in the eye. If someone is
having a rowdy party and they are acting a fool you can go next door and knock on the door and tell them to knock it off,
the kids can see this. You can’t do that with complete strangers and that bothers me. So, I think there is some language in
there from my own experience. I ratified the covenants in my neighborhood to ban short term renting and so you got my
support on this.
Coleman: What if a property is owned by an entity and not an individual? Because there would not technically be a
permanent resident. I don’t know how many of those we have, but if it’s an LLC or another entity. Do we not want that
language to be that specific?
Grechukhin: They simply would be ineligible because they would not be permanent residents.
Buckler: An ordinance would be appropriate because for neighborhoods that were in existence prior to being annexed into
Carmel it is really hard, if not impossible to amend our covenants. So, for that reason alone it would be great to have an
ordinance, because that would supersede what we are not able to do being an annexed community with old old covenants.
From an information dispersement standpoint, just remind people that there is an annual HOA membership meeting. Also, if
you know already who the offenders are by monitoring the apps I am sure a friendly little visit by somebody, mailman or in-
person, could help get that information out.
Coleman: This may be outside the scope of our decision-making process but if you have maybe some data points on whether
or not there have been multiple calls or if there have been other community resources we have had to expend on this. I would
appreciate it.
Hill: This talks about UDO amendment. It identifies zoning districts it affects. Are we missing residential that is covered by
PUD? Are they exempt from this somehow?
Keesling: This is similar to our regular short term rental ordinance. Each PUD we have not listed specifically as 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 to model their language after but we are not retroactively amending PUDs.
Hill: I’m just thinking if this moves forward and there is a communication effort how we are 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?
Keeling: Potentially.
Minnaar: Statute 36-1-24-10 talks about short term rentals for residential neighborhoods. Are you following statutorily
with the PUDs, would that fall under? Not at all?
Grechukhin: It would not, that is the reason for the somewhat awkward name. That statute specifically targeted dwelling
units. So, we wanted to make sure we target specifically non-dwelling units different from short term rentals that Indiana Code
regulates. This is very new from my research. There are only a couple of ordinances that regulate these types of activities
8
Plan Commission Minutes 4-16-24
because they only really started in 2020, a big spur of course was Covid. It is very new for a lot of communities it is coming
especially in warmer places in Florida and California are starting to regulate those and some on the east coast, but its one of
those things outside of short-term rentals as Indiana Code regulates them and as our UDO regulates them as well.
Motion by Hill and seconded by Buckler to send to Combined Residential and Commercial Committee with final voting
authority granted to the Committee.
APPROVED 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier
Old Business:
1. Docket No. PZ-2023-00227 PUD Amend: Jackson’s Grant Village – Daycare.
The applicant seeks PUD Amendment approval to add the (previously known as) Cunningham parcel into the
Jackson’s Grant Village PUD. A new Daycare use, and land swap is proposed, which will allow for 3 additional
townhome units to be constructed. The site is located at 510 West 116th Street and is zoned S-2/Residence and is
within the West 116th Street Overlay. Filed by Ashley Ulbricht of Taft Law on behalf of Del DeMao of DeMao
Retail Consultants, LLC.
Petitioner requested a continuance to the May 21st Plan Commission meeting in order to allow for time to meet
with the Jackson’s Grant HOA to discuss concerns and hear input on the proposed project from the nearby
residents.
Motion by Kirsh and seconded by Buckler to allow for a continuance.
APPROVED 6-0 absent Campagna, Grabow, & Westermeier
Meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
_____________________________________ ________________________________________
Bric Butler PC Secretary Brad Grabow President