Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

.

Good evening and welcome to the May 19th, 2026 meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission. Will you please join us in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Yes. Jeff Lawhead, present. Jonathan Blake. Present. Adam Campagna. Present. Jeff Hill. Present. Christine Zicola.

Present.

Sue Westermeyer.

Present.

Debbie Buckler. Present. Mark Adair. Present. Teresa Ayers.

Present. Thank you very much, we have a quorum. Up next is approval of our April plan commission meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve?

Move to approve. Second.

Second, thank you very much. All those in favor of approving our April plan commission minutes, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Hearing none, they are approved. Thank you very much. Up next on the agenda is communications bills, expenditures, and legal counsel report. I will turn it over to Sergei, our legal counsel. I know we've got the US 31 plan.

Yeah, thank you very much. Personally, I don't have anything to report, but Adrian is ready to report the US 31 sub area plan results from council.

All right, Adrienne, I'll turn it to you then.

All right, good evening. Adrienne Keeling with the Department of Community Services. This doesn't happen very often anymore, but we had a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The U.S. 31 subarea plan was adopted by city council on April 20th. However, they did make a bunch of revisions, several revisions, and by virtue of council revisions, it does need to come back to the plan commission for ratification. And for a comprehensive plan amendment, the plan commission has 60 days to approve the amendments, disapprove the amendments, and send back suggestions. Or if you take no action, then the subarea plan will be adopted as it was adopted by council, and there's no further action required. We do still have until June 19th would be 60 days, but if you'd like me to go through those revisions... I can do so. Councilor Ayers, although she was not present on the plan commission while we went through the sub area plan process, she was very much at the land use committee as well. So she can feel free to fill in of anything I may have missed during that discussion process. And I won't go through page by page. However, there were many revisions as I mentioned. The first several meetings of the Land Use Committee was dedicated to focusing on and strengthening protections to the existing residential areas located within and near the US 31 sub area boundary. So there was a lot of work and a lot of discussion put into strengthening language and adding a 300-foot transition area, which is all along the corridor, 300 feet within the residential property line of any adjacent boundary area. any residential that's adjacent to the boundary of the U.S. 31 subarea plan. And I'll go to those specific pages shortly. There was also a designation added to the map called corridor residential that describes some expectations for residential that is within the boundary, not adjacent to, but within the boundary, and what those expectations are. And then finally, the boundary itself changed a bit. That's probably the easiest one to start with on the map. On the south area of the map, there were these two areas I've circled. along the east side of the U.S. 31 corridor. Of course, you might remember on these maps, north is to the left. We had to turn them sideways. But these two areas were previously in the boundary. Those have been removed from the U.S. 31 sub-area boundary, but have been placed in the home place sub-area. So when home place comes back to you, you'll see that those two areas have been added to that sub-area. And then Finally, this area that's south of 465, between 465 and 96th Street, was removed from the sub-area plan boundary, that residential area there. So those are the boundary changes, along with, well, I'll go ahead and, touch on the transition area and the corridor residential, the pieces of the plan that were strengthened. So I'll try, don't get seasick here. I'm getting there, I promise. There's text throughout and you would have seen in your packet that there is text in a multitude of colors. Those aren't necessarily, those aren't relevant to the plan commission review, but they represented the different iterations as it went through the land use committee. So the magenta text was one set of amendments. The purple text was another set of amendments. But what's important for you to know is that any of the colored text were changes that took place at council. We didn't take the time to make them all one color. So language, an example, preserve and protect the residential character of corridor residential and residential neighborhoods bordering the sub area. This was a statement added under the coordinate efforts page. Under the design guidance, I mentioned there's a 300 foot transition area that was added. to the statement, maintain the transition or stepping down of scale and massing of structures to minimize impact to adjacent residential development. Again, more language added, while maintaining transition of scale and massing when adjacent to single family residential. But the meat and potatoes of the The main changes were made on page 23 here. So there was a corridor residential paragraph added and a transition area section added. And the transition area was the most significant of the changes. And I'll read that. The transition area highlighted in orange, I'll show you the map, represents areas within 300 feet of an existing single-family property where transition and building scale between US 31 and existing single-family neighborhoods should occur. Any new permitted development within this area should, and it talks about having a height different from those areas and no taller than three stories, Should avoid long stretches of continuous facades by reducing building footprints or including facade offsets to avoid imposing building massing. Should implement effective buffers and consider compatible uses to create appropriate transitions between existing residential neighborhoods and development sites, including the use of wider setbacks, trees and landscape plantings, tree preservation, wide pathways, and reduced building heights. and measures should be taken to mitigate noise, light spill, signage, and other sensory pollutants that negatively impact neighboring residential areas. So that's the corridor, I'm sorry, that's the transition area language. Let me flip to the map to show you. That has been measured all along the boundary and this this hatching Is to scale but measured from adjacent residential property lines All along the boundary here where residential is president where residential is present And then there's the here's the south half Similar shown along boundaries so the other the other designation that I mentioned was the corridor residential designation that is represented by of course this is the north end of the corridor by the apartments off of range line the the areas south of clay terrace and then the area I forget what it's designated in the IU Health PUD 1A. It's the residential area along Spring Mill that's designated as corridor residential. And I don't believe there were any on the south end of things. This is the IU Health parcel again. Those areas were put into place and that language was added to the plan. So that was kind of phase one of the discussion of the Land Use Committee. And then there were some concerns that we've spent a lot of time talking about things that you can't do in the plan and graphically representing a lot of kind of these kinds of things are off limits. that there were concerns that it had gone too far and that the crux of the plan was really to highlight the opportunity, that opportunities are available in the US 31 corridor and that this plan should highlight those. So a couple of things, a couple of, I'll go back to the map. Some priority development sites were added, and you'll see these in this bluish-purple color. And here's the south end of the corridor. And then represented in the text, we wanted We wanted to make sure that even though there are residential transition areas and a lot of discussion, I'll go back toward the beginning of the document. We did add a page that outlined the existing planned unit developments. Maybe this is it. This was another discussion in the context of protecting residential that the council wanted to keep PUDs as they were adopted intact, and so there's language in here that talks about that, but that was discussed through the lens of there are a lot of PUDs that are immediately next to Neighborhoods so we want to make sure that we're respecting those neighborhoods and keeping those PUDs the intent of those PUDs intact But then you know I mentioned the second phase of discussion. Well, what about what about areas that are Maybe not near residential or are really ripe for development. So we added this map that shows all the PUDs and language to try to balance the respecting the transition area, but also pointing out these priority development areas that there needed to be some flexibility in those priority development areas while respecting and being guided by the transition area. So I forget how many committee meetings that we had. It was a few. And then there were still some changes made at the final council meeting on April 20. But overall, the progression was strengthening the neighborhood aspect of it and then coming back and graphically prioritizing areas given the signal that, yes, we do want development in the US 31 corridor, but be respectful of existing neighborhoods. So that is as quickly as I could summarize what happened at the council level. If you are comfortable with ratifying this this evening, we'd love it if you did. However, there is still time to review and then discuss at the next meeting if needed.

Well, thank you for that summary. So I'm going to open it up quickly for questions, comments. But given the breadth of changes this might make sense to send it to committee so we can actually talk through it, make sure we understand it, make sure it makes sense. You know, if the, you know, make sure that, I know we're all trying to strike that balance of encouraging development of the Merding Corridor, that is a priority, but also protecting, having a nice buffer with the neighbors. So I think reading through it makes sure we're all comfortable with how it's written and discussing it further in more detail. Committee might be warranted, but with that, I'm going to open it up for any initial questions or comments anybody has here.

Adam? I fully support sending it to committee for further discussion.

Was that a motion?

Jeff, go ahead.

He's got a motion on the floor? Not a motion, just was making a comment, that's all. I can't wait to see where this goes. I was going to ask Councillor Ayers if there's other kind of key findings, key discussion topics that you felt in addition to the summary we got today are worth mentioning at this level that we might have further discussion at committee level with is all I was wondering about. And if not, that's fine. Not trying to put you on the spot.

No, thank you very much. We went very thorough in land use for this. Very respectfully took a lot of thought and it did take a lot of meetings. Happy to see it go to committee, but I don't, I don't, have any concerns or changes at this point?

Yes, Debbie? I would just concur that because of the number of changes that have been made, I don't want to send it to committee for further debate. I would send it to committee so that we had time for more edification and be able to absorb, because we're stewards of this document as well. And I would be a better steward if I had more than, Adrienne, you did a wonderful job, but you condensed a whole lot of things that happened in a very short period of time. I think it would be nice if we had a chance to look at this and then come back and just ask for any clarifying questions.

I would agree. And that committee, if you could really kind of be prepared to go into more details about what is the 300-foot transition zone, how far into the Like each buildable lot plat, does that go? You know, I completely support having a good buffer. I just want to give some thought, you know, as we look down the Birdian Corridor, for some of these parcels, is that half of the developable land? Is it just a small piece of it? Just kind of want to have a better understanding of exactly how does that 300-foot transition work? So make sure we understand it. So yeah, I would definitely be in favor of setting this committee for further discussion. With that, do I have a motion? Excuse me. I move we send... Wait, sorry, pause for a minute. I'm sorry, Jonathan, did you have a question?

No, I'm good.

Oh, okay. Go ahead, Debbie. I move that we send the amended PUD to committee for further discussion and clarification. And can we... So now I'm going to ask the question, can we give the committee final voting, with the committee having final voting authority?

And do I have a second?

Second.

All right. All those in favor of sending the revised U.S. 31 plan to committee with the committee having final voting authority, please say aye. Aye. All right. This will go to committee. Thank you, Adrian. We look forward to further discussion. Up next is reports, announcements, and department concerns. So I'll turn it over to Alexia for this section.

Thank you. So at the last committee meeting, the U.S. 421 development plan was approved with conditions. And then for tonight's meeting, you will need to suspend your rules of procedure to hear item one, the Stella House Books and Cafe. They made public notice correctly for the letters to the neighbors and the sign, but they apparently sent the notice to the paper and somehow it got misplaced. Maybe the paper didn't publish it on So they still met the state statute for printing in the paper, but just not your rules of procedure. So that will need a rules of suspension. And then, Adrienne, did you want to update about the other two items?

While we're talking about council items, I ask that these couple of projects be added to the agenda tonight. So just as an update, the home place sub-area plan was approved by council last night with a few amendments, not nearly as many as we saw for the U.S. 31 plan. So that will be coming to you for ratification at the June 16th meeting, your June meeting. And then also the short-term residential rental ordinance was passed. as proposed last night by a city council. So that will go into effect as soon as we get the notice of adoption published. We've got some internal things to work on to get those short-term residential rental permits up and running, but we're working on that, and it was adopted last night with no amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. So we'll go ahead and I'll take a motion to suspend our rules and procedures so that we can...

I'm present. I would move to rule to suspend the rules so we can hear public hearing for docket PZ202600049DPADLS. Second.

Thank you very much. All those in favor of suspending our rules and procedures so that we can hear that docket, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. All right. The rules are suspended so we will hear that docket this evening. So if there's No other department concerns? We're going to move on to the public hearing portion of our meeting. This evening we have two public hearings, and our roles for procedure for public hearings is that each petitioner will have 15 minutes to present. After that, I will open it up to public comment. Then the public can speak in favor or in opposition to the petition. The petitioner will have an opportunity for rebuttal comments. After their petitions for rebuttal comments, I will turn it over to the department. for their comments. At conclusion of the department's comments, the public hearing portion is closed, but the rest of us that appear in the Planning Commission will have our dialogue. So with that, I'll read into record our first petition. It is docket number PZ-2026-0049, Development Plan Amendment, ADLS, Stella House Books and Cafe Rebuild. The applicant seeks development plan amendment and design approval for the demolition of an existing building and rebuilding of a new bookstore and coffee shop. The site is located at 31 South Range Line Road and is zoned C2 mixed use. It's filed by Sean Curran of Curran Architecture on behalf of Stella House Books, LLC. And I will turn it over to the petitioner. Yeah, and please make sure your mic is on. Turn, it'll, there you go.

Thank you. Thank you. Sean Curran with Curran Architecture. Address is 5745 Lawton Loop East Drive in Indianapolis. And I'm here with Sean Armie with Stella House Books. He'll be coming up to give you a little bit of a story about the bookstore in general after I give you a brief presentation here. So the property is at 31 South Range Line, so just south of Main Street and north of First Street Southwest.

The north property line is the alley

along that street. And what we're proposing is the, again, as you mentioned, a demolition of the existing residential building that is there. It was most recently a bridal studio with the construction of a new 6,200 square foot, two-story building that will house still house, books, and cafe. The intent of the new building is that we will essentially mimicking the look of the existing building on the site with the addition being on the back. The original intent of Stella House, of Sean and his wife, were to actually use the existing house and add on to it, but based on a number of complications over the past year, determined that it was not going to be feasible to do that, and so we are here tonight now with a... a new building, but they love the look of the old building, so we're basically replicating the old building on the site. This is the demolition plan showing the existing house sits here. There's an existing garage at the back as well. The new building will sit essentially on the footprint of the old house with the expansion to the back, parking to the rear, the alley along here. And so that's kind of the lay of the land of the house. Landscaping, we've got a considerable amount of landscaping. They want it to feel essentially kind of like an English garden feel for the house, make it feel like a cozy place where you want to go and sit and read a book, not a commercial place where you'd go that's a franchise operation. So that's kind of the intent of that. We do have a few comments. that we got from staff that we're working through, primarily related to some accessibility, making sure we can provide accessibility to the site from Rangeland Road. So we're working through those items right now with the civil engineer and the landscape architect, making sure that we're doing that in a way that's sensitive to the design as well as being able to provide those accommodations. We do have a couple of renderings here of what it will look like, as you can see. Those of you that are familiar with the property, it essentially does still, the intent is that it looks the same. What we want it to basically look like is if you were to drive by today and then leave town, come back in a year, you drive by, and other than that everything is new and freshly painted, you wouldn't know that it was any different. So this is looking towards the southwest. This is looking towards the northwest. And then these two views are, this is the rear of the building from the parking lot looking from the alley to the southwest and then looking to the northwest. And then color elevations, which were in their packets as well. Those here, all the materials are noted. Again, the intent is to essentially mimic the existing character of the house. And we've got... Signage will be in keeping with kind of the more residential character of the house structure and in keeping with the character of the other buildings that are in the area. So smaller signs, there'll be some wall-mounted signs on the building, a post-mounted sign out in the yard, and some along the windows, kind of gold leaf signage in the glass.

And I think that kind of covers what I've got.

And if

John would like to come up and give you a few words about the property in general, and then happy to answer questions that you have.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I wouldn't actually be using that. So sorry, just a picture of my hand.

So I'd like to thank the council for the opportunity to speak with you all today. My name is Sean Army, and I, along with my wife, Miranda, we are the owners of 31 South Range Line. And we want to thank you for your careful consideration of the plan that our architect, Sean, has put before you today. I'm here to tell you a little bit about our vision for Stella House Books. Just a quick note, my wife wishes she could be here today, but she's home with our children, including our new baby who is just three weeks old. Stella House Books will be an independent bookstore with a cafe and small event space in the heart of downtown Carmel. But we believe that it's going to be much more than another retail outlet. As you just saw a little bit of, the store is going to be notable for its high design concept with themed rooms for each genre. and a breathtaking exterior and garden that evokes both British literary classics and nostalgic Americana. We believe that there's going to be nothing else quite like it in Indiana, and perhaps in the entire Midwest. And furthermore, I believe it'll be among the most beautiful bookstores in America, right here in downtown Carmel, Indiana. So not only will Stella House be beautiful, we hope that it will become a cornerstone of culture and community in Carmel. adding to the growing arts and design district in downtown, a place where people can gather, enjoy a cup of coffee, find a new book to expand their worldview, engage in discussion, or hear a new perspective and build community. For those of you who are already familiar with our project or if you've been following us on social media, you may be perplexed as to why we are here, given that we had already had an approval last year and a groundbreaking in November that was attended by Mayor Fincombe. Unfortunately, we had to separate from our original architect shortly after the groundbreaking, necessitating a resubmission. In addition, after hiring Sean Curran and his team as the architecture firm for our project and with further examination of our plans and the structural needs of the store, it was with heavy hearts and many discussions that we found it was not the best path to renovate the original building, but that it needed to be rebuilt from the ground up. Nonetheless, as you saw in the plans, we hope to rebuild the beautiful piece of Dutch Revival architecture that has sat on Rangeline for more than a century. The facade of the building is in our logo. It's inspired the aesthetic and branding of our company. And we hope to rebuild it nearly exactly as it was, while also adding a beautiful addition on the back that will be the cafe and event space. I'm happy to answer any questions, but I can turn it back over to Sean.

Thank you very much. Sean, do you have anything else?

OK.

This is public hearing, so by show of hands, is there anybody here who would like to speak in favor or in opposition? Go ahead, come on up here to the podium. Please come to the podium. Is there more than one? Oh, there's two people? OK, great. Go ahead. We'll give you three minutes apiece. And please introduce yourself and state generally where you live. And when she's done, if you'd like to come up, that would be great.

OK, hello. My name is Virginia Berry. I'm here representing the Museum of Miniature Houses and Other Collections. which is at 111 Main Street. We're just kind of behind, around the corner. And from what we've heard about this project, we're very thrilled that it will be there. And we think we're very compatible with that. We have no problem with anything that we've seen or heard about it. And we welcome you to the neighborhood and hope that there can be some collaborative efforts, perhaps, with our interests. I think it's a great idea. I represent the board of the museum. And I speak for everybody who thought it was a great idea. And we look forward to your completion and our participation in your coffee shop.

Thank you very much. Up next, did he just step out?

Oh.

Is he? OK. Then Sergei's checking. We're going to give him a second because I know we had one other person who wanted to speak and he seemed to have just stepped out. Okay, so he has left. Okay. Petitioner, you have a chance to offer rebuttal comments if you would like. You're good? Okay, thank you. I will turn it over to Alexia for the Department Staff Report.

Thank you. For the record, Alexia Lopez with Department of Community Services. Petitioner did a good job, I think, going over the scope of the project. This building is considered a character building in the Old Town overlay. However, it's zoned C2 and the development standards of the C2 govern, so that's what we were reviewing this off of. There's an addition to the back with four parking spaces behind that. They are adding a retaining wall along the north property line along the alley there, and it'll range from two to four feet tall. Sean brought up one of the things we like to keep working through, which is the ADA compliant entrance. So due to the site's grade, that entrance is on the rear of the building. And currently, there isn't an accessible route to get from the sidewalk along range line to that back entrance. Also, if you were to get back there, then you'd have to go on the alley maybe, and then behind those parked cars, and then up and onto the ramp to get in the back. Also, we'd like to have some more information about the stairway from range line to the sidewalk, because there is a ramp then that goes to the alley, and that stairway will be close to that. So we just want to see how that detail is going to work out. An eight-foot sidewalk will be required along range line road. I think there was, we need to work with the petitioner on that. Normally, development plan, ADLS, you would have to install that with the project. They were showing... on street parking with this as well. But there is also a large tree. And we're trying to work around that and see if we can save that tree in the tree lawn. Street trees are required with the C2 zoning. So we're still continuing to discuss that. So they will be keeping the architecture that is there today, even though this will be a brand new building. New landscaping after seating will be added around the site. Sean talked about the suspended sign that will serve as the main ground sign there along range line and then some incidental signage with like a small porch sign and window signage. They are adding native and drought tolerant plants. So that will be a nice sustainability feature for the site. And we do have some outstanding comments. I mentioned the ADA accessible route. We would like to see what that retaining wall is going to look like along the alley, like what material that's going to be made of, what's that look going to be. the stair connection to the sidewalk along range line, and then discuss the on-street parking and eight-foot sidewalk along range line. So with that, we would recommend that the Planning Commission votes to send this item to the committee, with the committee having final voting authority. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Sir, I saw you just walked back in. We moved on. I would reopen and let you make your comments if you'd like to. Go ahead. If that's okay with the petitioner. Okay. So please introduce yourself and state generally where you live. Please go to the microphone so that everybody at home can hear you too.

The young lady sitting next to me started to work with me when she was one year out of Butler. That was about 37 years ago. So she's a really respected partner. We own the building where Carmel Tattoo is. And we just want to have a discussion is that we have a concern about parking. It's not unusual for us to get a call every morning that somebody's parking in our reserved parking places. We have yet to call and have it towed, even though there's towing signs all over that back parking lot. We anticipate continued and increased parking issues. If we look at this diagram correctly, are there four parking places? So those four parking places are to service employees.

Sir, please direct your questions to us so that we can. Well, it's not a back-and-forth conversation. Just make your comments.

We would like to know how many employees there are going to be and where they're going to park. I would assume that there's a public parking place that's on a diagonal issue. That parking lot right now is owned by the city, and it's full all the time. It's full with... Well, while they were having construction, there was a lot of construction around, it was full of construction people, and it was very hard to find a parking place. We have, I think, nine, six parking places assigned to our building on a continuous basis, historical. And it's not unusual to have one or two phone calls every morning from somebody who wants to park, who's parking there, and our renters call And they're not happy campers, because they own the parking places in that parking place. So if we have four spaces, and employees are going to be there, and people are going to be there in the morning, oh, gee, I can't find a parking place. This one looks good, but it's not reserved, but I guess it is. I'm going to park there anyway. That we consider a challenge, because our tenants take precedent over the regular part-time parking people. And we're concerned about that. For places to service, we'd like to see your, I'm a retail guy, not a commercial guy per se, but, We'd like to see this facility go game busters. But we also want to protect our parking places and our tenants. Thank you very much.

What was your name for the record, too, sir?

Yes, did you please restate your name again so that we've gotten the record?

I'm Steve Holloway, and my partner is Sherry Moore.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Petitioner, I have a chance to respond. This is a little bit out of order. If you could please step down for your three minutes. Thank you. And petitioner, if you would like to respond, you may.

In regards to The wonderful point that he brought up, I agree that parking is a concern. I think for anybody who's been driving around downtown Carmel recently, it has gotten increasingly more difficult to find a parking space. However, there have been numerous parking garages built just near and close by. I would say we haven't created any formal policy as to where our employees would park. We're still pretty far out, I think, from from project completion at this point. But I would say that those four spaces would be primarily reserved for customers. We would not have employees park in those spaces, nor would the owners, myself and Miranda, would we park there either.

Great. Thank you very much. So Alexia gave her department report. Thank you very much. So I'm now officially closing the public hearing portion of this meeting, and I'm going to open it up to my fellow plan commission members for any questions or comments. Anybody would like to go first?

Councilor Ayers. I have a couple questions. How many parking spots will there be on Rangeland Road? Petitioner, could you please back up here?

Thank you. I think what is shown in the plan is what was the civil engineer has assumed was going to be required by the city as part of ongoing improvements is what i understand along rangeland i don't know that they were anticipating putting those in currently they're kind of shown to ashton and will there be ada access from the parking on rangeland road to yes that's what we're currently working as alexia mentioned we're working with our civil engineer on providing access from Range Line Road to the building via a ramp system.

And then the parking spots, the four parking spots, those are on the other side of the building, correct?

Yes, they're to the east.

Is there ADA accessibility from that side?

Yes, that's where the ADA space is. Okay.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Anybody else? Questions? Yes, Jeff?

I had similar questions. I was just going to encourage the petitioner to continue to work with staff so that hopefully we can hear a committee that the front entrance is ADA accessible, and then I was curious about where everyone was going to park, if there's any follow-up or any additional information you can provide with regards to parking requirements needs as far as visitors, staff, and where those folks are going to be encouraged to go. I think that would be helpful. And then the other thought I had in looking through the information you provided, Sean or others on the team can help address this. And again, that committee is fine. But over there on the east side is where the parking is, the accessible parking, where we want to encourage folks to be able to park, walk to the building. The... The lighting information just showed it looks really dark on the east side. I don't know if there's anything you can do to just get some additional lights so that folks feel safe parking there, walking in to just kind of take care of that piece of it.

Adam? Yeah, I'll just make some quick comments. I love the renderings, love the mission. I think it's a great project. One thing that stood out to me, and again, I understand we're kind of abutting to a property immediately to the south. I'm not a fan of all the siding on the south side facade. Is there anything we can do potentially for different materials and or windows? I think it'd be nice to dress that south facade up a little bit more. ideas or suggestions on that?

We can evaluate that. Some of the placement of windows and things are relative to bookcase placement, so that kind of affects some of the window placement. Yeah.

Well, if I understand correctly, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, That south side facade actually won't be visible from the road because there is a house directly next to us right now. And so the house actually blocks the view of most of that siding. So there's a house next to us and then a barn behind it. And so I think that where that siding is, that's where the kitchen is going to be. for the cafe. We can definitely look into some options because again, I too am not a huge fan of just big blocks of siding. Absolutely, you know, I'm with you on that. But I think that the decision was made to go that route because nobody was going to be able to see it anyway because it's being obscured by the property right next to us, which is very, very close.

Appreciate that. Yeah, I would say for now, right? I mean, for now, you can't see it? For now, yeah. We can't look in the future, but just as I'm looking at it here, I see a lot of sighting, and I'm looking at the current Google Maps view, and I just think it needs to be dressed up quite a bit.

Jonathan?

The only question I had was really for staff. Related to the parking, it looks like the lot to the north is owned by the CRC. So typically that would be public parking. So can you connect with Henry and CRC to see if there are any covenants or restrictions tied to that parking lot that would restrict parking to surrounding uses? Because that would be contrary to what we typically see.

Yes, I can look into that. I believe that was one of the parking lots that was mentioned. That's a public parking area, that one directly east. Is that what you're asking about?

That's the one I'm asking about, but it sounded like from one of the respondents that they were saying they own parking in that lot, unless I'm mistaken.

So the one to the east, I think, is public. The one to the north is where they have the reserved spaces, I believe. But I can ask about one of those.

On GIS, it shows up as owned by the CRC. That's why I'm asking. Gotcha. But in terms of the overall look and feel of the project, I think it looks great. I do concur with my colleagues in terms of that south facade. So if there's a way we can dress it up, I think it would be great. But overall, I think this is going to be a good project.

Any other questions or comments? Debbie.

One of the people that was here that had to leave just asked about trash removal. Doesn't need to be answered today, but at committee, that would be an issue that would need to be addressed as well. Thank you.

Any other? Yes, Jess.

I appreciate the architecture and sticking with the character elements of the home. That's refreshing to see. In that, have you guys had any discussion with historic preservation? I know this is not on the more restrictive survey, but have you had any discussions with Mark Delossi and Landmarks and Commission?

I did at Alexia's request when she sent the information over. We did get that information about reaching out to them. I did reach out to them, but I have not gotten any response back. So we'll continue to follow up.

I think they meet next week, I believe. And even if it's not on that survey, I mean, there's funds available to potentially move the structure. I know it's probably impractical, but... They may want to dive into that. I don't know. I think they meet next week, and they'd probably love to talk about it with you guys. Thank you.

Yeah, and just to echo what Jess said, it is refreshing to see that you're trying to keep the same look of the current structure. I think it looks great. I think this is a good project.

Any other questions? Yes, Sue? I hate to beat to death parking, but I think it's very important, because I think in your model, people are going to park there for a long time. They might be there for hours, and as you said, reading a book. The prior place there, was there an issue with parking at all? Wasn't it a bridal salon? Can this gentleman answer?

And Alexia?

I don't know if there was an issue before. I think they had the same amount of spaces with four in the rear there. I can look and see if we had any complaints about parking for that.

Well, with the expansion of this building, that was one of my questions. Was there more parking before?

So I don't have to have this right now. But I think it's also good to, what Jonathan's bringing up, is what is the shared parking options around this area? And are there more coming? To understand the complete picture of parking would be helpful.

Some larger scale, just a drawing of what's there, what's available. Because Like I said, I see problems with the parking. And I know you all do too. And your employees are going to have to park. And what are going to be your hours of operation?

So currently, we're still playing around with what those hours will be. We're thinking probably something like 10 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Saturday. That would be the anticipation.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Great, thank you. Any last questions, comments? All right, see none. Do I have a motion? Jeff?

I move we send this to committee with the committee having the final voting authority.

Second. Thank you very much. All those in favor of sending this docket to committee with giving the committee the final voting authority, please say aye.

Aye.

Nobody's opposed. I heard everybody. So thank you very much. We will see you at the committee meeting. Thank you. Up next, our next public hearing is docket number PZ-2026-00082, OA fee amendments for engineering and HEA 1001 compliance. The applicant seeks to amend the UDO to establish fees for engineering department related to zoning and development applications and violations and amending the UDO fees to comply with HE 1001, filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plain Commission. And we have our legal counsel, Sergei.

I'll turn it over to you. SERGEI GRACHUKIN, Good evening, board, or rather commission. Sergei Grachukin, Office of Corporation Counsel. Director Pease is in the audience. I think he'll be taking over on specifics of what I'm about to present. But I wanted to give you an overview of the ordinance that is in front of you and a little bit of a background why we're here. So this ordinance does two things. It amends the certain fee provisions in our UDO, specifically Section 129, in response to the recent amendment of Indiana Code 32-25.2-2-4, which was included in the omnibus bill, which is HEA so House Enacted Act 1001. And you will see a couple of ordinances that will amend various sections of UDO coming up your way in this year and maybe even the year after, because there was quite a big bill. And so one of the provisions in that bill is related to the structure of fees for development projects within various municipalities. Our fees have been traditionally collected by DOCS and again listed in UDO section 129. So on that front, there is a change that required by the statute that currently the fees are amended yearly, on a yearly basis based on inflation. So the statute has changed it where the cities can only amend these fees once in five years. So we have to change that language to reflect the changes in the statutory framework. And the amendments to the fees can be based only on CPI, based on each year in the previous five years, or if there is an extraordinary increase in administrative and processing costs, we can come in front of you and then counsel to amend those in extraordinary circumstances, if you will. So that's number one. And number two, which is really the bulk of this ordinance, is the introduction of engineering fees for development projects. Historically, the city of Carmel has not charged those fees. City and especially engineering department have just simply absorbed them, even though All of our neighbors have been charging them for quite some time. Frankly, I'm not sure why we haven't been doing this. The discussion popped up here and there for years now. I think it really gained traction the last two years and really gained traction the last year, year and a half after the city has been dealing with budgetary pressures that were a result of SB1 in the previous year, and you probably aware of that, and our state amendment of state code that severely reduced our budget revenues for the foreseeable future. So a lack of charging for engineering fees reviews became a little bit more of an urgent issue. So legal department, DOCS, and engineering department started working on the ordinance that introduces those engineering fees for development projects and review processing and administration. Even though it is not a requirement today, it will be coming up a little bit later in the year, the statute also changes how the newly established fees, how can they be determined. And even though we're not required to do so, engineering department decided to comply with that provision nonetheless. So now the fees are required to cover only administrative costs cost of processing, and reports to petitioners. So engineering department has done tremendous work on that front, and that's why it took a little bit longer from the passage of the statute till today to really determine the fees and justify all those costs. I've got to say, and Director Pease will tell you more about this, I don't think there's a single fee here that covers the entire cost of administration and processing. So some of those expenses will not be recouped because we don't want to shock the fee structure as it stands today. Because it is a considerable amendment to a fee structure of a city. So this is the summary and a little bit of historical background. Now, again, I can go page by page. But really, the meat of the ordinance begins on page two. And that's what Director Pease is going to go and explain to you. I apologize, but we no longer have printing in color, so it's all black and white. But the edit of it was supposed to be highlighted, but a little bit darker.

If we get some fees, maybe we can print in color next time. I'll just add a little more context of maybe why we didn't have fees before. Carmel's very pro-business. I think even after these fees, we still want to be pro-business, right? So the fact that we don't have the fees, while I love our developer partners, gets a lot of our developments, the plant submissions to be kind of subpar. They really rely on our team to do the engineering and the QCQA for them because it's a free service. So we're going to be able to strike a better balance if we have some fees and keep our developers a little more honest. Other than that, Sergey kind of laid it out pretty well. All the fees are based on actual labor hours that we would put together. They're very conservative. We went through that exercise first and then compared to all our neighbors just to make sure nothing was out of line and we're in line with all of our neighbors. If anybody has a question on anything, I won't go through all of them, but if anyone has a question on anything, or I can go through all of them.

There's no change in what we're doing.

We're just charging for the services now.

Great, thank you. This is a public hearing, so is there anybody here who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition? See, done.

I will turn it over to our staff for the department report. Thank you. Adrienne Keeling with the Department of Community Services. Nothing really to add other than, well, there is one small thing to add. The statute Currently, we have a 90-day waiting period for fees to go into effect, and the state statute increased that to 180 days or six months for fee increases to go into effect. So if you are comfortable sending this to council with a favorable recommendation, you can do so. However, if you still want to ask questions and review further, we recommend going to the committee meeting with final voting authority.

Thank you. Thank you very much. So definitely there's an urgency to get this done.

Let me just clarify one thing. So this provision does not kick in until July 1st. So right now it's 90 days if we don't publish the ordinance. Before July 1st, it will increase to 180 days. So that's a bit of an urgency. And we talked, we worked with the administration. We asked that exact same question, how important it is. It's basically three months' worth of fees, if you will. Plus maybe there's a little bit of transaction costs of implementing the actual collection structure, if you will. This would be our preference. If you would like to discuss it tonight and perhaps vote on this tonight, But again, this is not a requirement. The administration does not want to push you to do that, and obviously the administration cannot push a council, but I'll be doing the same pitch to council once it passes this commission.

Thank you. Thank you. I will go ahead and open it up to my fellow plan commissioners for any questions or comments. Anybody? Adam?

Mr. P, as you mentioned, the rates being comparable with our neighbors, are we talking on par? Are we still a little less than our neighbors in general, more than our neighbors? Can you

Generally less. It doesn't have to be specific to the fee, but we're still generally less.

That's good to hear. Thank you. Jonathan? I just wanted to say I appreciate you guys putting all this together. I know there's been a lot of mixed messages coming from the legislature in recent years. Some cases they think local communities can make better decisions and in other cases they don't. Sorry to see that this has been an urgent matter, but I appreciate you guys working on it.

Thank you. Jeff?

I guess I would echo some of the things already stated. I guess I'm not surprised to hear that maybe you kind of shot low, so to speak, versus trying to saddle our development partners with additional fees. I guess I have always been surprised that Carmel did this for free. So thank you for what you've done. My opinion is it's probably time for some change. I guess I'm glad you went low. The one thing I thought about coming here tonight is, you know, months ago we heard a discussion about park impact fees and we know how important our parks are. I think it's also very important that we get, you know, good submittals, high quality reviews so that we ultimately have good projects and it takes time to get those reviews done, to do the inspections, to work with our development partners. And I guess my general statement is I would support even higher fees And it's not that I want to kind of really put screws to the development partners, but I think we've been doing this for free for a long time. And these costs don't cover our staff costs to get this type of work done. And so whether that's 5% or 10% or some nice round number, I guess that would be my suggestion so that we can continue to hire staff that completes good reviews to get really, really good projects so that we can continue to do great things here in Carmel. Only my opinion. I'll be interested to hear what other folks have to say. Specifically, though, one other element that I feel is missing, maybe we need to do some homework here, would be is there a right-of-way permit fee? I was always surprised there wasn't one. Is that in here? Did I miss it? We instituted that maybe two years ago.

It's a $50 fee. It's one of the cheapest in Hamilton County, probably. We are writing the right-of-way ordinance tomorrow at land use. We'll hear an updated right-of-way ordinance.

Okay. And the thing I think about is that low cost for utility partners that aren't pursuing their own individual property rights or using our right-of-way or easements, those types of things. You know, if it's a spot project here, there might be a small cost. Yeah, we can cover that. But when it's a mile-long set of power poles that we're having to coordinate with property owners and other utilities that might be there, certainly the cost can add up. So I encourage you to make sure that's priced appropriately, too.

Yeah, and that is in our right-of-way ordinance, the size of the project instead of just the standard $50 administrative fee. So we're going to recoup some of those costs as well.

Great.

To follow up on Jeff's point about the fees, I know you've spent so much time thinking about what is the right level of fees. Hearing his support for higher fees, are we set at this? Are you comfortable with that? Do you want to go up higher? Or is this where we're good? And then I guess that, and this might be more for Sergei, when you With the way the statute's written, for you to increase your fees moving forward, is it solely tied to the CPI? So wherever we set it, we can only set it based on CPI. We can't go through and, like we recently did with DOCS fees, we can't go through and say, OK, this is due to labor costs. This would be more fair and not move it, maybe move it more than the CPI. But are we locked in to CPI increases moving forward?

So generally, CPI is the standard. However, there is that exception there in the statute that allows us to update the fees if there is a substantial increase in the processing costs. Administration processing, so usually means labor, software costs, et cetera. So our thinking was we will evaluate how we're going to go between now and next couple of years and see if The labor stays acceptable to the department and the city. And this is kind of a starting point. But if we realize that it really doesn't cover, it doesn't really recoup even a small percentage of that, we will certainly revisit under that provision that allows us to do it if the processing costs really go up.

OK. So basically, we just have to have something to document We hired more people. We're spending more hours.

Labor costs have gone up.

We had to invest in new systems. There has to be something that you can document that would justify a huge increase.

Exactly. And I believe we had those discussions several times. And we're not necessarily opposed to raising those fees. We just really thought we would go a little bit more conservatively to start with because we're new. I think we're certain the discussion will be open in front of council, in front of this commission.

Yeah, I mean, that would be my sentiment, is that, you know, that recommendation from Jeff or from this commission goes to the council, however you feel, if they should be higher for our area or lower, and then, because they'll ultimately kind of rehash it all in any way and make an assessment of what the fees should be.

So, again, Sarah, did not put you on the spot. So, if we send this to city council and they make changes to the fees, does it have to come back to us again to certify, or is it

Just trying to hit your timeline, I'm trying to... No, it wouldn't, because it's... The reason why it had to come back with a 31 overlay, because it was a comprehensive plan. But the zoning amendments, there was a change in the statute where if a council makes any changes for reasons of tax amendments, it doesn't need to go back to this body for recertification. But that amendment did not touch comprehensive plans amendments. That's why we're still in front of you to certify.

Okay, great. So if the city council were to have this conversation, there's no delay as far as from a process stand to approving this. Yes, Sue.

And I thought this body was not really one set up to set fees. We are not the financing body. We're the land use body. Exactly. So I think we should just be looking – at the picture and not the fees, and they'll let the council take that up, especially since it doesn't come back. That would be my opinion. Debbie.

I'm just curious. So when you said that in coming up with these fees, are they an average of fees from surrounding jurisdictions? Are they a median?

Are they a ballpark? No, when we came up with the fees, we figured out how many hours it takes to do the activity and the fee, and how much we pay our staff to do it, and come up with a number. And we checked those against what our neighbors were charging, and if it was within the range, then we kind of left it at that. If it was out of the range, then we looked at it a little bit closer. So largely, if we just figure out how much it actually costs the city of Carmel to do the reviews for these different items, that's where those fees came from.

So with that explanation, then my comment is, Once fees are established, in my opinion, it's easier to start where you want them to be rather than start lower and then keep escalating. So if there's an adjustment to be made to make them more reasonable since we're implementing them for the first time, I would like to see that revisited. And I agree that we're not the body that needs to be determining what those fees are, but I would suggest they be revisiting. So the second part of my question is, if it goes to committee, if we send it to committee, what would we accomplish? Well, it's a two part second. Two parts to my second question. If we send it to committee, what would we accomplish? And if we just vote to send it to the council, won't the council have several steps they have to go through before they approve a final set of fees?

I think if it goes to council, it would then go to finance committee. And I do agree with both of you. I do think we should set higher fees. But, Jeff, you. But I think, so if we move to, if we send it to council, next council meeting, it will go to finance or will be approved.

Probably finance.

Well, yeah.

Maybe both. Maybe you'll vote on it that night. I don't know.

You never know.

But likely it will go to finance and then they'll, I mean, I will show them more in depth probably at that sit down where we line up with Zionsville or Fishers or all those exactly and how we came up with them.

Brad, would you prefer for us to suggest a bigger cushion? I mean, to be honest here. I mean, I don't know.

You've already suggested it, and I'm going to make sure the council is aware of that.

So from our standpoint, we can send this on to the city council with a favorable recommendation, but they will also know, both from Director Pease and also from Councilor Ayers, that we are supportive of higher fees, and they can probably delve into the finance piece of it at the city council.

I don't know if that needs to be part of a specific vote. We send this on with a positive recommendation and we all agree that needs to be heard.

It's part of the record.

We've had that conversation. Absolutely. Because it's an ongoing discussion and we did not know what your reaction will be and now we do. So we'll go back to the drawing board and maybe re-evaluate some of them. I know some of them were reduced from a suggested amount Because, you know, for example, I'll just give an example. The minor plat. Some minor plats, if you split two lots, it's not going to take much time. However, we had a minor plat just last time, which was probably the most unique plat I've seen in my career in the last 15 years, with conditions, et cetera, five different lots. a lot of history, that probably took considerably longer than that number. So, but, you know, generally it's probably a little bit lower. So, some of them have been reduced just to reflect the complexity of maybe not a majority, but a lot of petitions. Some of them are a little bit higher, some of them are a little bit lower. So, we can go back and see if those, we can beef up a little bit. Also, the development plan review really depends on development, right? If it's a

it's a big PUD it will take I can guarantee you it's going to take several times that number so maybe maybe that's another area where we can go back and really push for a high absolutely that's not something we can come up with tonight to your surrogate to your point on the deadline is the advantage of doing this more quickly and having approved is that if it's approved before July and they will go into effect in 90 days. If it gets approved after July, then we're waiting 180 days. So just to make that more clear as far as the urgency.

Yes, Debbie? Well, I think you are making my point, which is why I was asking the earlier questions. If we send it to tonight, if we send it to council with a favorable recommendation and the opinion that we would support higher fees if they're justified after further analysis, That keeps the timeline within getting it done. I'm just concerned if we send it to committee, I don't know what else we would accomplish there.

Sounds like you made a great motion there.

Thank you. So therefore, if you're ready to entertain a motion, I move that we send the fee amendments for engineering proposal. What do we call it? Ordinance. Ordinance. Thank you. to the council with a favorable recommendation and noted that we would be in favor of adjusting the fees upward based on further research.

Second.

Thank you. All those in favor of sending this on with a favorable recommendation, along with that note, of supporting higher fees where they're justified based on further research, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Well, thank you. If this is going on the favorable recommendation, thank you so much for your work on this. This was a huge project. I have no doubt that you spent countless of hours doing this. So thank you very much. So we have no old business, no new business. So we are adjourned.