Welcome to the Monday, October 6, 2025 Finance Utilities and Rules Committee meeting.

We'll call the meeting to order at 302 p.m.

First item that we will address today is ordinance D-2780-25.

It's an ordinance amending section 3-44, which removes the requirement that common council publish notice for zoning map changes.

The Plan Commission already publishes notices for zoning map changes.

So the couple of changes take place in subsection B, which I believe starts at line 39.

So the recommendation here is what we ted about this.

It's just to give us a little bit of flexibility as and when the Indiana legislature decides that they wish to change requirements from time to time, then we put in a placeholder.

So language already exists on the first line and on the second line, which is noticeable the public hearing on an ordinance seeking to change the official zoning map, and then go to the second line shall be given and then insert new language in conformance with Indiana law.

So it it doesn't put up a requirement upon this body upon the council beyond what Indiana law requires, and it's just there's a little bit of a catch to the extent that requirements come in down the road.

The language in uh compliant in conformance with uh Indiana law is already used on line, I believe it's 48 in my version for the other notice requirement.

On that other notice requirement for the uh annex of real property, the notice requirement is on the petitioner.

And um just uh Mike Holobaugh, uh Director of Community Services.

He uh made a request, and I I think it's an advisable request, which has there being it says it shall be the responsibility of such persons to provide proof of publication of the notice required here into the clerk prior to the hearing date, and he recommended that you provide um a buffer of time before the hearing date, something akin to 48 hours.

So what I have uh tentatively put in here is required here in provide notice required here into the clerk at least 48 business hours prior to the hearing date.

So that there is that that time frame in place.

That can be shortened to 24 business hours, it can be you can call it business days, you can it's really up to you what you want to call it.

Um, but it's just that extra buffer.

Um Mike was thinking because this would take place at a council meeting um on a Monday evening, um, something the Friday before.

Um so you mean you can frame it however you wish, but that that's um the recommendation is to have some kind of buffer there.

Discussion about ordinance 2780-250.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, sir.

Uh so what um can just for those that might be watching, what are we trying to accomplish here and what was the complaint or what what made this happen?

Uh because, and the reason I'm asking that is you know, uh more notice is always better for me.

There are multiple times in my world where I find someone that says I didn't know anything about this.

And this is, you know, I just I had no idea.

So I want to um understand what problem we're fixing and how this came about.

And I'm not sure who to uh address that to because I so it looks like you're one of the sponsors.

President Austin and I are both here.

Yeah.

So um Councillor Austin, did you want to I can hit on it too?

But yeah, so and uh Council Rawl, thank you for your thoughts too.

Um this is kind of a conversation starter ordinance, um, which how do we uh improve the process of making sure that we have so here's the complaint that started this?

Um as you might know when and I I apologize if I just walked in if we're repeating something you covered here.

Um items when they come from the plan commission to the council, there is a 90-day ticking clock.

Um items when they come from the plan commission to the council, there is a 90-day ticking clock, and um there are times that members of the land use committee have expressed frustration to me that um they don't that first of all the they wish that we could change the 90 days in general.

That's state statute.

Um so there's nothing we can do there.

Um we um could items somehow get to us faster from plan commission to council to allow more of the 90 days to be used by land use to discuss a matter?

There are times where they've thought because of a shortened clock, um, they couldn't request changes to a PUD, and this is what they were telling me.

Um, and or the the petitioner didn't have time to incorporate changes into the project, and they felt like it was an almost an updown, or there wasn't as much time for public input at that.

So we looked at solutions.

This is the only solution that I could come up with was well, we do have an extra layer of reporting there between plan commission and council.

We already required at the plan commission level, and um nothing would preclude us from one um still holding a public hearing um at the council level.

It would just it's that reporting requirement because we often use the weekly publication.

Um they have a very advanced um uh deadline for getting ads into the paper.

Um if we missed the deadline, or even if we get it, that can add 10 days, and then we have the meetings.

So in theory, it could add subtract 20 days that the council could have from that window that they could be discussing and trying to improve a um a PUD.

I don't want to do anything that um removes public comment or makes it feel like we're trying to hide something from the public.

Uh this was to give the public more chance with it at council to kind of have those discussions.

That being said, um I think some had talked about having some changes to what we've presented to ensure that council didn't move too fast.

You know, um now we already have one protection that it takes unanimous vote to act on first reading for a PUD, and that's already one protection the public has.

So if it came out of the public hearing and it it comes to us, it would take a you every counselor to say yes, we don't want to act on it.

We want to act on first reading for it suddenly to be acted on immediately.

So that is a protection that already exists.

But um, Councilor Taylor, I mean, you've worked with other communities.

I don't know if you had additional thoughts on this.

Sort of unique to Carmel because of the reasons why you highlighted that the plan commission is already noticing.

I think I think the public the notice from the plan commission puts the public on notice, heard by the plan commission, but I think the public would want to be able to participate in more land use meetings and more council meetings to fully discuss it versus having it a very short period of time before we're gonna act on it.

So that's the way I sort of looked at it.

Um when it when it would go to land use, obviously their agenda is notice, so they know that it'd be discussed.

Those those meetings are also obviously um live and recorded.

Um so we were trying to fix the problem of the council feeling like they don't have enough time to fully vet and recommend changes in a PUD once it leaves Plan Commission because of the clock.

And there are some ways, and this is where we can open for discussion that we could still have the notice to the public, whether it's with an ad in in the paper or um the team in the clerk's office that send out notices about things to make sure that people are aware, but still get it introduced at the meeting so we can start moving it into land use.

Maybe it gets introduced, we can move into land use, but we're not acting on it right away, and we still have the notice, but we can get it introduced and sent to that meeting a little faster.

I uh we're open to ideas on that, and this is something that's kind of sat in um this committee for a little bit because it's not a uh pressing matter, but something we people have brought to me as a concern.

I wanted to see if we could figure out a solution.

The the key is the 10 days notice in the paper record because of the time it takes to submit it, the lead time they need in order to submit it to then be published in the paper.

We could there a way to keep where the city would notice it, but it's not something that precludes the council from moving in or discussing it in the manner that we want.

So it can still be introduced.

So to the extent it complies with Indiana Code, you you don't have any consent, right?

The only obligation here is to comply with Indiana Code, and that would be my stronghold.

I think adding that language of inconformance with Indiana law is the way to go.

That way you free up your hands as much as you possibly can, but you're still in full compliance, right?

That's what you want to be.

You don't want to be putting yourselves into a situation where you're dictating these terms that may have been made sense 15 years ago, but don't necessarily make sense now.

The notice requirements that exist in in Indiana law are an evolving notice requirement.

We are an evolving um uh readership, you know, as to how things come out and how notices are provided.

So my recommendation is this is something that hasn't been touched for a long time.

Um and you have basically probably what it is the requirements that were set forth under Indiana Code at the time that this was put into place is what it's reflected now.

It's now there are uh langu slight language differences.

And my recommendation would be keep the notice requirement to the extent that Indiana law has the notice requirement and stay under that requirement under Indiana law.

That that is they set the notice requirements for all the municipalities for all the local units of government, and that is the standard that you should hold yourselves to and nothing more, nothing less is my recommendation.

So and that, as I said, may change from time to time, but I wouldn't be going into special procedures for something that is a statutory provision.

Councilor Locke.

Sure.

Yep, and I had not really thought about kind of that flow until we just talked through it.

So thinking out loud, I I do feel comfortable that if we comply with kind of the state code here that the council will be set up in the right spot to be able to have as much time as possible to use this open forum and land use is an open forum to share this with the public in better ways.

But hearing all of that and concern for kind of future potential use of that new limited window to move things quickly does pop up.

So like the idea of like a 10-day waiting period, um, which we have had and we've run with and relied on, which has helped us get to where we are today with everything we've moved, um, the idea of not being able to take an official action until maybe a time frame or a meeting is happened could make sense too, where we could start the business of discussing and moving it early.

Um but the idea of there being a first reading, you know, way.

So that's so we could do something to your point, and I apologize for up to you, but I'll just stop.

No, that's totally great.

No, I'm no, I'm so sorry.

Yeah, no, well, I yeah, and just to finish and round up my thought, like the idea of like while it can move and start the process, council cannot make a determination until there is notice, like a 10-day, like there can be no final determination on the business that has occurred past or before that point.

That way there's no way like it comes back, it gets heard, it moves immediately.

And and again, thinking out loud, I don't see that happening, but I do see it potentially happening uh if a very important secret project came through and other counselors at different times decided that it was something they needed to move without a lot of input, which is the opposite of what this council presently would do.

So just thinking out loud again.

Sure.

You're saying to where it could be introduced before even though a notice hasn't been made yet.

Yeah, or or even like the to for there to be a final action taken, it must have been noticed in some capacity for a specific amount of time.

Right now, if we the way this is proposed now, plant commission does our notice, goes through Plant Commission, they make their determination.

Let's say they made that determination last week, okay.

It could be on the um, let's say two weeks ago, so it met the publishing time for our agenda or whatever it is.

It could be on our agenda, published on our agenda for the council meeting tonight.

Um so you're saying that we could introduce it tonight, we could put it to committee tonight, but it wouldn't be able to be act upon by the council until a further notice has been made, then in addition to what the plan commission did.

Right.

So, yeah, like so the externality I was thinking of there is if we didn't want to send it to council or to a committee, and we were decided for whatever reason it made sense that night in your in your story that we should move it.

Um if we remove this notice requirement, in theory we'd be able to override the first reading initiative there, not send it to committee and move it without there ever being discussion.

So I I don't again I go back to the beginning.

I don't know that it matters.

Um I do think the plan commission's notice goes to the public, they get it, they understand that it's been moved from Plan Commission back to the council.

Um so we're already having that kind of point in time where it has been notified to the public.

If it comes to council then and it needs more time and work, it's gonna go to those committees anyway.

So we're we're talking about that scenario where we're trying to preserve days for more effort to get public feedback and shaping and processing after it comes out of plan commission, not those ones that are fully formed and have already gotten all the right feedback anyway.

So I again thinking out loud, just as we were talking about this, um trying to see if there's a way to preserve still some process where we're not incentivized to move things we shouldn't be moving.

Um or have that ability, if it makes sense to have a longer time frame from a notice perspective so that the public can weigh in.

Mr.

Chair.

So uh and I spoke to um Director Halabar about this, and he was supportive.

But the issue that we run into often is ten days is usually the minimum because of the you know we run into there's both a requirement under when you do a public notice how many days it needs to be before the public hearing, but then there's also the newspaper deadline to get it in for that.

And then we can run into an issue where how are the meeting dates lining up, depending on the number of weeks and a month.

Um because Plan Commission, correct me, is what the which which I should know that which uh Tuesday of the month it's the second and the the third, second and the fourth, right?

I I I'd have to look.

Yeah.

So there are there are times where and we can have meetings um that are canceled due to holiday or or whatnot.

Or so with there are some times where it's been 20 days or even more from plan commission to council, and that's more of the concern than the usual ten days.

Uh do um, and I was open to ideas of how can we amend this to prevent future councils from moving too fast.

I think there's maybe two ways you could do that.

One still require a reporting requirement, but not but allow things to be introduced before the part reporting requirement happens, or a number of days.

A number of days, um the benefit to that opposed to a courting requirement is we don't run into a thing where we missed the deadline to put the ad in the paper or um you know that kind of thing.

It's a cooling off period of 10 days between Plan Commission and Council, where it could be introduced the council but not acted upon first reading within that 10 day period or something.

Throwing out ideas.

I I think right now um the language that's in front of you provide you the most flexibility.

Um the language would be to just being in com conformance with Indiana law.

Um to the extent there's concerns about it moving too quickly.

Remember, you need your unanimous vote to be able to act on it on the first reading as an ordinance anyway.

Um so it's gonna be in front of you and and you can hold on to it if if any one of you has any concerns related to it to the extent this is something that we need to fix and we need to fix it now, because sometimes that is what happens.

Sometimes there are problems that that come up and uh changes, um nuisance issues that come up, and we need to address them in a in a quick and timely fashion as well.

And so the the flexibility here is you're in line with in with Indiana law.

I think the concern it seems is that the thrustration with the 90-day period, which it probably is this in and every other um uh city legislative body's uh frustration, and it m there may be some flexibility to take it to the State House and ask them to to up and increase it by 30 days to allow on the publication requirement.

But alternatively as well, there could be revenue uh avenues that would uh solve the issue with different types of publication, as that becomes more flexible and as people have different ways of looking and obtaining information.

So I my recommendation, I think this is a um uh you have the most flexibility here.

You're not binding yourself to to any language.

If the council wishes to take more time with it, the council can take more time with it, and if the council wishes to act on it more quickly, the council can act on it more quickly, depending on what the situation is, and each one of you has that power because of the the unanimous aspect of uh suspending the rules, right?

So as author and chairman, I'm fine with the way Benjamin proposes if you guys wanted my feedback.

D do you mind if I if I suggest that instead of 48 hours we say two business days?

Yes.

We keep it very clear.

Right.

So um so I have it as two business days as that language.

And I can that was at the request of Director Hall and Ball.

That was the request, yes.

Um and I would just need this committee to vote on those two changes.

I can put it into which would be a version A and I can put that together um as needed for council meeting tonight.

So the first motion would be to amend uh amend the ordinance with those two changes.

It would be make a recommendation to amend.

Yep, and then that will be a version A that will then be brought back to to the council tonight.

Then the council uh will then move to amend as you recommended and then move to act on the amended version.

Move to recommend amending um based on the feedback today, those sections.

Motion by Ryan, uh Councillor Locke, second by councillor Worrell.

Go ahead and vote on the amendment.

Motion carries unanimously move to approve.

Second.

Call the vote.

Uh approved with a positive recommendation as amended back to the council.

Next we'll go to um ordinance.

Thank you, Benjamin.

Next we'll go to ordinance D-278125.

Um the ordinance regla regulating the use of public parking spaces.

That was um sponsored by Councillor Taylor Warrell and awesome.

I think this is pretty self-explanatory, Jeff.

Did you want to uh this is really about taking up one vehicle in one space.

Um but I did want to find out are you working on any other parking items right now?

Is there anything else in legal that you might be working on?

Because I've had a couple of requests in for quite a while.

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay.

We um there is um a parking amendment recommended by engineering that pulled in a couple of requests that is sitting in land use right now while waiting on while waiting on the study, the parking study to come back.

So once that is that's the um the barrier right now is just wanting to make sure that the that we have all the information available to us to create that comprehensive parking plan.

Um so I'm what I'm aware is this and the matter that is um before land use.

The park I did because I called um our city engineer about whether or not he wanted to attend that that we were gonna be discussing this today at 3 p.m.

He did state he did get the draft study back for the parking study in a draft form currently.

Well, there's a situation um that I may raise tonight in full full council, but it doesn't it's not going to be affected by the study.

But we've been kind of using that as an excuse, but it is um and I can never remember second street north southwest.

Um this has nothing to do with the parking study, but we and actually had a car towed that was blocking a driveway this weekend.

So it is still a problem.

Do you know where I'm talking about?

I I sent an email to the full council.

All I want is two spaces for loading and unloading on the south side of the street uh at the very east end that would help to alleviate these delivery trucks blocking the driveway for a person trying to get out of their driveway.

Yeah.

So you know I this has been now dragging on for uh multiple months, and I would like to see us take some action here sooner than later.

I mean, is it uh is your language simple enough that we can amend.

Well, I'd like to give it a shot.

Jared, do you know what I'm speaking about?

And I've received uh permission or or approval I should say from city engineer.

Uh he has submitted language.

I just it keeps getting shoved into the waiting on the study bucket and I and I thought that component was eventually intended to make it way make its way into this ordinance.

I I did by two, that's why I'm bringing it up.

But maybe did is there anything in there about second street?

Deep?

Okay, yeah.

And that's why there's no I know it's not on the agenda.

I know we probably don't know if we should or should not modify this now, but boy, I'd like to see that done because it's just it is common sense that we need a place for these trucks.

Is that on the corner right by the go and uh I wasn't going to name names, but yes.

Yeah.

And it's just not their delivery trucks.

I've seen other people.

It is not theirs.

It's actually the rail yard.

It's the Amazon's ten times a day.

Yeah.

Um, you know, committees where you can kind of uh bring these things up and and um but I had heard that there was maybe a delay on the parking study, so I'm glad to hear that we've got this what he said today when I called him.

I just happened to.

He just happened to bring it up since I was asking him to be here for this.

Survey says I so it's within the scope.

I mean, this is an ordinance that amends the use of public parking.

So I mean if if you want to if you want to pull that language in, and uh it would be something that we would be able to do.

Um it's just I don't necessarily have I can pull that language.

Here's what I'm gonna if you're saying this is legal with the chair's permission.

Um I would like to uh as best I can describe the language for this vote, but before full council tonight, I will grab the actual language that um city engineer pease provided.

Okay, and we could then you know do that from the dais tonight if if the committee were open to that.

So um yeah, it would it would be um you you would give me the language, we'd get it into a version A.

Yep, right that we get voted on.

Um we're gonna be I don't know specifically which which section we're dealing with, so we'll probably have to pull in additional sections because I think we were in uh 846 right now.

Yeah.

So um uh we're gonna be um pulling in uh a different uh section of city code.

Um that's fine.

I'm sweet in scope.

This is the nuisance uh based on on PONC.

It is what I'm looking for is two 15-minute loading unloading zones in the furthest east, two spots on the south side of 2nd Street Southwest.

Southwest.

Thank you.

And then we also on um third street southwest, there's the perfect location for a loading zone, which would be on the south side of the rail yard to serve social cantina and um the bank and you know uh that that whole corner.

There's a place where there is no parking, but it's perfect for a loading unloading zone.

So there are two streets involved here, both 15-minute loading and unloading, and I will get you that exact language, but I think I've described it accurately for this discussion.

And I found the email here to Brad, because I mean this is going back to July 27th.

Okay.

Thank you.

Would you read it?

Yeah, this says Mr.

Mr.

Pease has agreed that it makes sense to add two loading zones as described.

I have reviewed this is uh quoting Mr.

Ps.

I've reviewed, and I do think we should start with two 15-minute loading zones at the far west side end of 2nd Street Southwest, where it meets the Monon Boulevard.

Oh, and that was a mistake.

I corrected him.

It's east.

Sorry.

Yeah, that's that was a typo.

Uh which one was?

Uh east, the east end of second, yes, that's right.

Where it meets the Monon Boulevard.

Um having Jared draft the memo with the recommendation and affected ordinance.

Um Mr.

Pease is asking for this parking change to be added to the parking issues currently assigned to land use for review.

Uh there is a similar issue on first street southwest delivery trucks were blocking the driveway for the condo owners when on street parking was full by adding the loaning zone signs for the daytime hours and regular parking, all other hours the problem has been solved.

So that was that was commentary on my part.

Um that's not part of this ordinance.

We already did that one.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um, lather too much.

But basically, basically Brad's agreeing with the our city engineer, Mr.

Pease is agreeing with the um with the solutions that are proposed.

Okay.

So if you propose those amendments, then what will happen is Jared and I will work on pulling that language together in compliance with engineering standard and the city code standard and pull it in as an amendment on here that can be acted on tonight.

Thank you very much.

I'm grateful to the committee.

Council Rell, do you want to make that uh yes?

I would like to uh make a motion that we approve 15-minute unloading zones, loading unloading zones as described in my previous email uh and also a loading unloading zone.

So that's on 2nd Street Southwest, but I also there was one proposed on the south side of the rail yard too.

Do you have that also, Jared?

Okay, I'll have to get but that one may not make this cut, but uh so as as uh described in my email.

Second.

That's a motion to amend.

Yes.

We have a motion to amend.

Call the vote.

Motion carries.

Do we have a motion uh regarding the ordinance as a whole?

Move to send the ordinance back with a positive recommendation.

Second motion carries unanimously.

That was the last item we were going to address uh this evening.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

Or would you like to have any other further discussion?

So moved.

Move to adjourn.

We will adjourn at 3:30 p.m.

Thank you.