HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 04-16-24
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