May 17, 2022 Carmel Plan Commission

[A. Call Meeting to Order]

[00:00:08]

>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE MAY 17, 2022 MEETING OF THE

[B. Pledge of Allegiance]

[C. Roll Call]

TAKE (ROLL CALL). THEREFORE WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH ALL MEMBERS

[D. Declaration of Quorum]

[E. Approval of Minutes]

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

ANY OPPOSED, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

COMMUNICATIONS, BILLS EXPENDITURES AND LEGAL COUNSEL

REPORT. >> GOOD EVENING.

HAVE A REPORT PER SE AND I WANT TO INTRODUCE YOU TO OUR NEW ATTORNEY SHE WILL BE HERE IN A FEW AND A FEW UPCOMING PLAN COMMISSION MEETINGS. EXCUSE ME WE HAVE A RESOLUTION TO TAKE UP THIS EVENING. IS COUNSEL HERE TO PRESENT? NOT YET. IF HE OR SHE IS NOT, I WILL

[G. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns]

REPORT ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNS FOR THE DEPARTMENT.

>> THANK YOU. AT THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE LAST MONTH, WE HAD THE CULVER'S RESTAURANT BEFORE US AND HARD TO COMMITTEE WITH A FAVORABLE ACCOMMODATION.

AND THE DIGITAL WAS CANCELED. THAT IS ALL WE HAVE.

WAIT, ONE MORE. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS TABLED UNTIL JUNE 21,.

SO IF ANYONE IS HERE FOR THAT ITEM, IT WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT, IT WILL BE HEARD NEXT MONTH ON JUNE 21.

THAT IS IT. >> THANK YOU, RACHEL.

[H. Public Hearings]

THE RULES PROVIDE EIGHT 15 MINUTE PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE PETITIONER TO DESCRIBE THE PROJECT AND MAKE THEIR CASE.

FOLLOWING THAT THERE IS 20 MINUTES ALLOCATED FOR COMMENT FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE 5 MINUTES TO RESPOND.

AND THEN AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEPARTMENT REPORT THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED. SO, THE TWO DOCKETS THAT I MENTIONED ARE PC -- 2022 -- 00025PPA5-10 SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT AND THE NEXT ONE IS P0 SUBDIVISION STREET FRONTAGE WAIVER THE APPLICANT SEEKS PRIMARY PLATT AMENDMENT APPROVAL TO RECONFIGURE TO LOTS AND TWO BLOCKS INTO THREE LOTS ON 1.95 ACRES. THE APPLICANT ALSO SEEKS A DESIGN STANDARDS WAIVER TO ALLOW TO TWO NEW LOTS TO BE CREATED THAT FRONT ON THE PHONE ON GREENWAY AND SET OF EIGHTH STREET. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 5,101ST AVENUE NORTHWEST AND ITS OWN THAT ARE TO/RESIDENCE WITHIN OLDTOWN OVERLAY ZONE AND MONON OVERLAY ZONE.

FILED BY TOM LAZZARA OF CUSTOM LIVING.

ARE YOU HERE, THE MICROPHONE IS YOURS.

[00:05:14]

>> HELLO EVERYONE MY NAME IS TOM LAZZARA AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME THIS EVENING FOR THESE AMENDMENTS.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF BOARDS TO SHOW YOU THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. WE CAN SEE THESE THEY ARE A LITTLE AWKWARD. OVER THE PAST YEAR I HAVE WORKED WITH RUTH AND INAUDIBLE AND I WORKED WITH THE CITY PLANNING OFFICE, THE DRAINAGE BOARD OF HAMILTON COUNTY AND MULTIPLE PEOPLE TO PRESENT TODAY. IN 2001, RUTH AND RUSS PURCHASED THEIR HOME LOCATED AND PROVIDED A REPLANT AT THAT TIME.

INTO ZERO ZERO ONE THEY DID A REPLANT.

THAT REPLANT WAS TO ISOLATE THIS PARCEL WHICH IS ON THE PARCEL AND AT THAT.THEY HAD THIS PARCEL AND THESE BECAME TWO BLOCKS.

THEIR MAIN HOLE FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM WAS TO HELP WITH SINGLE MOMS WITH HOUSING AND THEY DID SO THROUGH MOST OF THE TERM WHILE THEY LIVED THERE. NOW THEY HAVE CONTINUED WITH THEIR MISSION EFFORTS TO LIBERIA, WHEN THEY SOLD TO ME.

THROUGH THAT PROCESS WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THIS SECTION DOWN HERE COULD BE DEVELOPED BUT THERE WAS THE TRAIN LINE THAT WENT THROUGH THE PROPERTY.

I WILL PULL THAT UP ON A SEPARATE SLIDE RIGHT HERE.

THIS ONE IS A LITTLE SMALLER. THE JW LINE RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. HOW, IF WE CAN'T, IF YOU COULD LAY THAT FLAT ON THE DESK IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE PROJECTOR MAY BE ABLE TO PICK UP THE DETAIL FOR ALL OF US TO SEE. SO, THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS LOCATED HERE AT 510. THIS IS WHAT I SPOKE UP.

THIS IS THE DRAIN LINE THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY ITSELF.

THAT IS ONE OF THE DRAIN LINES THAT RUN THROUGH MOST OF CARMEL JUST FROM THE OLDEN DAYS BEFORE THE MONON REDEVELOPMENT HAPPEN.

PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WITH ASSURANCES WAS BEFORE WE PURCHASE WAS TO HAVE THIS REMOVED SO THAT WE COULD DEVELOP THE PROPERTIES. WHEN 430 WAS 431ST AVENUE, WHEN IT WAS BUILT, THE CUSTOM HOMES BUILT, THAT JW LINE WAS REDIRECTED INTO THE MONON. SO THAT LEFT THIS SECTION EMPTY.

SO WE DID A SCOPING TO PROVIDE TO THE CITY AS WELL AS THE HAMILTON COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

HAMILTON COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD VACATED THE MONON LINE ENABLING US TO HAVE THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP ON, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THAT. FROM THAT POINT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS I REACHED OUT TO CAPTAIN ELLISON WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PUT TOGETHER PLANS WITH THE CITY, AND WITH CAPTAIN ELLISON, WE DISCUSSED A FEW THINGS TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT FROM THEIR EYES FOR SAFETY. SAFETY.

ONE OF WHICH WAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A 6-INCH LINE FOR A FIRE HYDRANT, TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE THE TWO NEW PROPERTIES WE WERE PROPOSING IN THE BACK PARCEL. AND THEN ALSO WITH THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO BETTER SERVICE THE CURRENT HOUSES THAT HAD BEEN BUILT AND DON'T HAVE GOOD ACCESS POINTS TO THEM.

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN THE KING SUBDIVISION OF 430. THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO PUT A FIRE HYDRANT WHERE THIS YELLOW MARK IS AND I WERE TWO HOMES FROM THE PACKET WOULD GO RIGHT HERE WITH ACCESS OFF OF THE ALLEY. CURRENTLY THE SERVICE FOR IT TO BE USED WAS GOING TO THE NEIGHBOR AND THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THE CORNER OF 4TH AND 1ST STREET AND

[00:10:03]

THIS IS THE PROPOSAL OF BUILDING TWO NEW CUSTOM HOMES ON THE SITE THERE. PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCORPORATE AN EASEMENT, THAT IS 15 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF 510. THAT WOULD SERVICE FOR WATER CONNOISSEUR, ELECTRIC, THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO AVOID HAVING INTERRUPTION OF USAGE OF THE NEIGHBORS CURRENTLY USING THESE UTILITY FEEDS AND WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT INAUDIBLE COKE WORKS WORKS WELL BEFORE THAT TO APPEAR WE ALSO HAVE A, AGAIN THIS 6-INCH LINE COMING IN THROUGH HERE. FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES WE DESIGNED A SWALE. THERE WOULD BE A TRY SWALE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE 20-FOOT DRIVE AND THE NEIGHBORS, AND THAT WULD ENABLE THE DRAINAGE TO COME OFF OF THIS HOMESITE, COLLECT AND IT WOULD TRAVEL THROUGH A REDUCED PIPE DOWN TO THE MANHOLE THAT CONNECTS FOR THE MONON TRAIL.

THE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH WITH THE CITY AND THE ENGINEER. THAT WAS THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE OUTLET. IN GENERAL THE GOAL IS TO BUILD TWO NEW CUSTOM HOMES THROUGH MY COMPANY, CUSTOM LIVING.

WE HAVE BUILT IT FOR MULTIPLE HOMEOWNERS AND IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL. WE HAVE CLIENTS THAT HAVE REQUESTED TO BE ABLE TO ALSO BUILD WITH US HERE.

THAT WOULD BE OUR OVERALL GOAL. OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, THIS IS JUST A QUICK SHOT THAT EVERYONE RECEIVED IN THEIR PACKET AS WELL. OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS FROM WHEN RUTH AND RUSS DID THEIR ORIGINAL REPLANT FOR PURPOSES OF SEPARATING ( INDISCERNIBLE ) THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT DUE TO WHAT CARMEL HAS PUT TOGETHER WITH THE MONON TRAIL BECOMING THE MAIN ACTIVITY.

OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, JUST IN THIS ONE LITTLE SEGMENT OF DOWNTOWN CARMEL WE HIGHLIGHTED WHERE CONSTRUCTION IS TAKEN PLACE SINCE THEY DID NOT REPLY AS SOME OF THE CHANGE IMPROVEMENT THAT HAS BEEN TAKING SOME OF THESE AND YELLOW WOULD BE HOMES THAT WERE NOT THERE. THEY WERE EMPTY LOTS AND NOW THEY ARE CUSTOM HOMES ON THE SITES.

THE AREAS AND PURPLE EITHER WERE HOMES THAT HAD A SIGNIFICANT REMODEL OR HOMES TORN DOWN AND BUILT NEW AS CUSTOM HOMES.

PART OF OUR GOAL IS TO CONTINUE THE CHARACTER OF CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING THROUGH DOWNTOWN CARMEL FOR THESE FUTURE HOME OWNERS WHO WANTED TO BUILD AND ENJOY THE DOWNTOWN ENVIRONMENT.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE TODAY TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. CAN I SEE BY A SHOW OF HANDS THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS PETITION.

SO WITH THE 20 MINUTE BLOCK I WILL DIVIDE THAT UP INTO FOUR

[00:15:03]

GIVE THE AREA IN CARMEL WHICH YOU LIVE AND EACH PERSON AS THEY CONCLUDE IF THE NEXT PERSON WOULD APPROACH THE MIKE TO KEEP

THINGS MOVING. >> I'M BILL HORTON I LIVE AT 431ST AVENUE JUST SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE AGAINST BUNK DEVELOPMENT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE THAT WASN'T MENTIONED, IT WASN'T JUST FROM THE EASEMENT, THERE WAS A RESTRICTION PLACED ON THE PROPERTY IN 2,001 WHEN IT WAS PLANTED. THERE'S NO REASON -- WE DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, CERTAIN THINGS, THERE ARE CERTAIN REASONS THOSE COULD BE CHANGED AND ON WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

A LOT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS BUT IT WAS REAFFIRMED BY THE PLAN COMMISSION IN 2018, SO FAIRLY RECENTLY.

AGAIN, WE DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THAT RESTRICTION SHOULD BE CHANGE. THEY ALSO WANT THE HOUSES TO BE ACCESSED NOT FROM A PUBLIC STREET WHICH IS AGAINST THE ZONING. AGAIN, TO ADD TWO MORE HOUSES ON THE DEAD END ALLEY CREATES, A TRAFFIC AND A SAFETY HAZARD WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS THE RESTRICTIONS ARE IN PLACE.

THE PACKET FROM THE DEPARTMENT INDICATES IT HAS BEEN DONE IN OTHER PLACES AND THEY MENTIONED SUBDIVISIONS FURTHER SOUTH.

THE DIFFERENCE WITH THAT, THOSE ARE ACCESSED OFF OF A MAIN STREET, NOT OFF OF AN ALLEY. AND, FOR THIS TO BE SIMILAR TO THAT, THE ACCESS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM THE NORTHWEST AND THROUGH THE PRIVATE DRIVE.

THAT WAY THE ONLY PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION IS THE PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO BE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT NOT OTHER NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS.

IN CARMEL, TO ADD TWO HOUSES WOULD MEAN FOR ADDITIONAL CARS.

LIKELY SIX IF THERE IS A FAMILY WITH CHILDREN WITH DRIVERS LICENSE. SO IT IS QUITE A BIT OF CONGESTION. IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF IT WAS -- FOR THOSE REASONS, WE DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD PLAN.

PARTICULARLY WITH THE DEED RESTRICTION PUT ON THE PROPERTY.

>> IF WE HAVE A MICROPHONE, WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE AT HOME CAN

PICK UP YOUR VOICE. >> YOUR NAME AND THE PART OF

CARMEL WHERE YOU LIVE. >> .

ANDERSON 440 NORTH AVENUE. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 40 YEARS.

I'M PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE HERE THAT WAS PRESENT WHEN THE RESTRICION WAS PUT ON IN 2001. MY ONLY COMMENT IS, I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE ALLEY AS 465 WITH PEOPLE COMING AND GOING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOCATION YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE

CONCERNED ( INDISCERNIBLE ). >> MY NAME IS TOBY H.

[00:20:08]

MY CONCERN IS THE ACCESS POINT. MR. TOM LAZZARA ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH A HYDRANT, MY CONCERN IS A SINGLE POINT OF ENTRANCE GETTING A FIRE TRUCK BACK THERE AND MANEUVERING TO THE HOUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE. THE ONE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH WOULD BE ASSESSABLE BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE NORTH SIDE.

THAT IS MY MAIN CONCERN. TRAFFIC, I LIVE ON FOURTH STREET WHICH IS MORE TOWARDS THE MONON. WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE COMING IN-AND-OUT WE HAVE TO PULL BACK FROM OUR DRIVEWAY AND WE ARE A 24 FOOT WIDE ROAD. WITH THE ALLEY, IT MAKES IT THAT IN THERE AND IT IS GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE.

THAT IS MY CONCERN. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT

WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS PETITION >> IT MAY BE BEST TO HAVE THE ADDRESSES APPEAR FOR EVERYBODY. I GUESS, THE FIRST TOPIC I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON IS FOR THE HOMEOWNERS THAT FOR 30 FIRST AVENUE NORTHWEST. WE ARE REQUESTING A -- ACCESS WAIVER TO COME IN OFF OF THE ALLEY.

THAT WAS GRANTED TO BILL FOR HIS HOME.

HE DOES NOT ACCESS OFF OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR STREET FRONTAGE. HIS PROPERTY IS HERE, YOU CAN SEE THE ALLEY THAT COMES DOWN, AND THE DRIVE COMES IN OFF OF THE ALLEY. HE IS MAKING A STATEMENT SO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO BUT TRYING TO RESTRICT A NEIGHBOR FROM HAVING THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY.

IN 2011 THAT PARCEL WAS A KING SUBDIVISION THAT WAS SEPARATED SO THIS HOUSE COULD BE BUILT THERE.

THAT WAS AN UNDEVELOPED PARCEL THAT WAS CONVERTED OVER SO IT COULD BE BUILT AS A CUSTOM HOME. SO AGAIN THE SAME PIECE WE ARE REQUESTING FOR TWO MORE HOMEOWNERS TO ENJOY, THEY HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO ENJOY AND SAY THAT IS NOT ALLOWED FOR OTHER PEOPLE IN CARMEL. THE THIRD ONE WOULD BE THE JW LINE THAT WAS REDIRECTED FOR THEIR ABILITY TO BUILD THE HOUSE THERE. THOSE THREE PIECES WE ARE REQUESTING, WERE APPROVED FOR THEM TO ENJOY, BUT ARE TRYING TO BE PREVENTED FOR US. IN REGARDS TO THE ABILITY TO MANEUVER A FIRE TRUCK BACK THERE, THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND OUR ENGINEERS CREATED THE RADIUS FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN AND DROP DOWN THE LEGS ALL OF THE WAY NORTH AND TO BE ABLE TO BACK OUT WITH THE LADDER TRUCK AND PULL OUT OF THE ALLEY. THOUGH THE MANEUVERABILITY SAFETY WAS DEALT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERS TO MAKE SURE WE WERE PROVIDING SAFETY. IN REGARDS TO THE TRAFFIC ITSELF THE 20-FOOT WIDE DRIVE WOULD% ALSO BE ABLE TO CREATE A PATHWAY SO ONE CAR OR TWO CARS THAT THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PULL OUT, AND IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO MOST OF THE THOROUGHFARES IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL WHERE WE PAY ATTENTION TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND WE MOVE THROUGH AND WE GET TO WORK AND WE COME BACK HOME. SO OF THE CONCERNS FOR REMOVING THE RESTRICTION THAT WAS PUT ON IN 2001, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT THAT HAS CHANGED OR DISCONTINUING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DOWNTOWN CARMEL.

BACK THEN THE HOMEOWNERS DIDN'T HAVE DESIRES TO DEVELOP AND DISCUSSIONS WHEN WE SOLD, THEY KNEW WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO DO, AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY FOR THEIR SUPPORT FROM THE

[00:25:07]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT? >> YES, THANK YOU.

FOR THE RECORD I AM LOPEZ WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. AS STATED THIS SUBDIVISION WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED BACK INTO THERE'S A ONE AND IT INCLUDED TWO LOTS INTO BLOCKS. IT WAS CREATED BECAUSE THERE WAS TWO HOMES ON ONE LOT OF THE OWNER WANTED IT WHERE EACH HOME COULD BE SOLD SEPARATELY. AT THAT TIME DAUGHTER SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE INTENT ON BUILDING ON THE PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE MONON AND THERE WAS CONCERN FROM NEIGHBORS THAT HOUSE COULD BE BUILT SO THE OWNER PUT A RESTRICTION ON THE PLAT THAT SAID, THOSE BLOCKS COULD NOT BE BUILT ON.

BECAUSE ONE OF THE REASONS MENTIONED IT DIDN'T SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING ACCESS OF A PUBLIC STREET.

THIS PRIMARY LOT AMENDMENT WOULD BE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THAT RESTRICTION THAT IS PART OF IT. AND ALSO CREATE FROM THE TWO LOTS THAT EXISTED IT WOULD BE THREE LOTS TOTAL FOR THIS SUBDIVISION. TWO LOTS ALONG THE MONON AND THE ORIGINAL BLOCK A WOULD BE COMBINED WITH LOT THREE.

THIS IS FOLLOWING A SIMILAR PATH THAT HAS BEEN SEEN IN THE OLD TOWN AREA AND HAS BEEN CONTRIBUTING TO ITS POPULARITY AS A PLACE TO LIVE. THE TWO LOTS ADJACENT TO THE MONON WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND WOULD BE OF SIMILAR SIZE AND WIDTH AS THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND THE SOUTH, ACCESS TO LOTS WENT INTO THE PROPERTIES ON THE MONON WILL BE FROM AN EXISTING ALLEY AND A SHARED DRIVE THAT WILL SERVE BOTH OF THOSE LOTS. AS MENTIONED ALONG THE EAST PERIMETER, TREE PRESERVATION WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG THE MONON. THE NEW HOMES WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND THE HOMETOWN OVERLAY. THE WAIVER REQUEST IT WILL ALLOW THE NEW HOMES TO BE BUILT WITH FRONTAGE ON THE MONON AND FOLLOWING A SIMILAR PATTERN OF PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT BUT KEEPING THE SINGLE-FAMILY CHARACTER. LOT THREE WILL BE 143 ACRES AND CONTAINS THE EXISTING ( INDISCERNIBLE ) AND THE SMALLER HOME WILL BECOME A GUESTHOUSE OR A SENSORY.

BOTH ARE PERMITTED IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY.

THIS LOT THREE WILL REMAIN ACCESS FROM FIRST AVENUE.

THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS REQUESTED A DRAINAGE REPORT TO CONFIRM THAT THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY WILL NEED TO REVIEW THAT BEFORE THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAN APPROVE IT.

STAFF HAS A FEW MINOR OUTSTANDING COMMENTS BUT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMARY PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE WAIVER.

AND FROM T >> AND BECAUSE THIS IS A PRIMARY PLAN AMENDMENT PART OF IT WOULD BE NOT ONLY TO CREATE ADDITIONAL LOTS BUT TO SIMPLY REMOVE.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION? >> CANNOT JUST FOLLOW UP WITH THE LEGAL QUESTION. SO THE DISCUSSION, BECAUSE WE'VE RECEIVED SOME LETTERS ON THIS. WE ARE NOT VACATING THE EXISTING PLOTS, SO THAT PROCESS, THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET TO VACATE THE EXISTING PLAT, IS THAT WHY THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING ARE NOT APPLICABLE?

>> THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED, OR WHEN YOU ARE VACATING A PLAT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS ON IT. BUT SINCE BOTH WERE NOT ON THE DEED THAT IS WHY IT WOULD NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE.

>> OKAY, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT.

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH SOMETHING IN WRITING IF YOU WANT IT FOR THE COMMITTEE MEETING AS WELL.

I WILL DEFER TO THE COMMITTEE CHAIR FOR WHATEVER CLARIFICATION

-- >> THANK YOU.

>> MR. PRESIDENT. >> THE RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE, I WOULD LIKE THEM, WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE INTENT.

WEATHER WAS RECORDED OR NOT THE INTENT DOES MATTER.

AND COURT CASES INTENT IS USED QUITE OFTEN, ISN'T IT? WOULD THAT NOT BE ACCURATE? A JUDGE WOULD LOOK AT THE

INTENT. >> WE WOULD LOOK AT THE FOUR

[00:30:03]

INTENT IS VERY IMPORTANT. >> I THINK THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT. ALSO IF YOU ARE EXPANDING THIS ALLEY TO TRACK 20 FEET HOW WILL THAT AFFECT MR. ANDERSON AND EVERY CAR THAT PULLS AND WILL LITERALLY BE POINTED FROM THE SOUTH WILL BE POINTED AT HIS HOUSE.

HOW WILL THAT AFFECT HIS HOME, I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE LOOKED AT ALSO. AND WE WILL -- I WOULD LIKE THIS TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A VOTE.

>> MISS PRESENT. >> MR..

>> ONE THING I AM CURIOUS ABOUT. I UNDERSTAND THE NARROW ALLEY COULD SERVE A PURPOSE BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EXPLOIT ALL OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND IF IT COULD BE PRESENT AT THE COMMITTEE TO SHOW EFFORTS THAT WE AT LEAST TRIED.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. INSOMUCH AS BUILDING A FURTHER CASE TO CONSIDER THIS ALLEY ACCESS.

>> IS MY TURN. I GUESS I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

I THINK COUNCILMAN WRITER TOUCHED ON THE INTENT QUESTION.

THIS MAY BE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR LEGAL.

WHOSE OBLIGATION WAS IT TO RECORD IT, I'M STILL STUCK, IN A MEETING LIKE THIS, SOMEONE SAID, WE WILL NEVER BUILD THERE, AND THEY SAID GOOD AND THEN THEY WALKED OUT.

AND THEN SOMEONE DIDN'T DO WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.

I DON'T FEEL REAL GOOD ABOUT, IT WAS RECORDED SO WE WON'T RECORD

IT TODAY. >> GENERALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER

( INDISCERNIBLE ). >> THE PROPERTY OWNER PROBABLY MADE THE COMMITMENT AND DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT?

>> THAT SEEMS REALLY SHADY. >> I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE.

>> I'M SORRY I'M PUTTING UNITS OPPOSITION.

I'M NOT UPSET WITH YOU I KNOW YOU WOULD'VE DONE IT.

YOU WOULD'VE GOTTEN IT DONE. THIS IS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR TOMMY. I'M SORRY MR. JACK'S 15 -- MR. TOM LAZZARA. IT SEEMS IT IS A TEMPLATE ALLEY.

THEN I HEARD SOMEONE SAY 20-FOOT ALLEY.

IS IT 10-FOOT OR 20-FOOT ALLEY? >> YOU NEED TO COME UP TO THE

MICROPHONE. >> THANK YOU.

IT'S ON. >> IT WOULD BE USING THE EXISTING ALLEY. WE WOULD BE PROVIDING A 20-FOOT PRIVATE DRIVE EXPRESS -- IN THE DIRECTION COMING DOWN THIS DIRECTION, THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS WOULD GO OUT TO THE MONON TRAIL BECAUSE THIS IS THE ALLEY GOING FROM --

>> THE CURRENT RIGHT OF WAY ALLEY AS PLATTED.

THEN YOU HAVE THE BASIC 20-FOOT WIDE PRIVATE ACCESS OFF OF THAT.

WHY ISN'T, MAYBE YOU CONSIDER THIS OR MAYBE YOU DIDN'T.

YOU OWN THE PROPERTY WHERE THE HISTORICAL HOME IS CURRENTLY SITTING. WHY NOT BUILD A 20-FOOT ALLEY THERE BACK TO THESE TWO PROPERTIES.

>> THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT WITH THIS BEING A PUBLIC DRIVE AND THE ACCESS.OFF OF THAT IT SEEMED TO BE MORE FITTING AND THAT ENABLES US TO HAVE THE UTILITIES AND THIS PROPERTY MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF THE WITH THE STREET FRONTAGE THAT IS THERE. BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL FARMS IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL.

>> WHEN I LOOK AT MAPLETON, MAPLETON'S ALLEY, IT IS LIKE 20 FEET WIDE. WHEREAS THE ALLEY IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE, IT IS BASICALLY 10 FEET.

YOU KNOW THE CAR BEING 7-9 FEET WIDE IT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO DO THE MATH ON IT. SO, BECAUSE OF THAT, THE UTILITIES YOU IDENTIFIED, MY EYES ARE NOT SO GREAT MAYBE THAT IS GREEN HATCH. BECAUSE OF THAT DEDICATION FOR UTILITIES AND BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER NATURE OF THE HISTORIC HOME THERE WASN'T CONSIDERATION OF PUTTING A 20-FOOT WIDE, I'M

[00:35:03]

THESE LOTS. >> CORRECT.

>> I'M JUST ASKING FOR CONFIRMATION.

>> THERE WAS CONSIDERATION MADE BUT BASED ON THIS HOME AND THE ARCHITECTURAL INTERESTS OF THE HOME, WE DID NOT FEEL, AND THE DISCUSSION WAS WITH THE STAFF AND OTHER FOLKS, THAT THESE TWO HOMES WOULD HAVE THAT MUCH OF AN IMPACT ON THE ALLEYS AT THIS

POINT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

MY NEXT QUESTION IS RELATE TO STAFF.

MY MEMORY IS GOOD BUT IT IS RELATIVELY SHORT I STRUGGLE WITH WHAT I HAD FOR BREAKFAST THIS MORNING BUT, I VAGUELY REMEMBER A MAP THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY BE I WAS ON THE PARKS AND BOARD AT THE TIME, I WAS THINK ABOUT THIS MAP, IT LOOKED LIKE SOMEONE HAD TAKEN A SQUIRREL AND DIPPED THERE TELLING RED PAINT AND IT WENT ALL OF THEM OUT.

IT WAS IN A STRAIGHT LINE THAT DID THIS.

IT WAS THIS PRESERVATION AREA, AGAIN I AM AIR QUOTING FOR PEOPLE LISTENING, PRESERVATION AREA THAT WAS ALONG THE MONON TRAIL OF AREAS THAT WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED.

AND BY THE LOOK ON YOUR FACES THIS IS NOT RINGING A BELL TO

YOU AT ALL. >> THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS THE MONON OVERLAY THAT WAS PUT IN ITS PLACE, THAT MORE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT ( INDISCERNIBLE ) IT WAS MORE PORK YOU WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING TALLER OR MORE INTENSE ALONG THE GREENWAY. TOWN HOMES OR APARTMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL. BUT IT DID NOT RESTRICT

SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. >> GOTCHA.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS WHAT MATT IS THINKING OF.

>> THAT SEEMS LIKE WHAT I'M THINKING THINKING OF.

BUT IT ALSO SEEMS YOU COULDN'T BUILD UP TO THE MONON.

IT BASICALLY SAID -- LIKE I SAID IT WAS IN A STRAIGHT LINE.

IT WAS 20 FEET OFF OF THE LINE. IT SEEMED LIKE AZ BEGAN ZAG AND WENT ALL OVER THE PLACE. IF YOU COULD FIND THAT MAP.

THE MAP THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

IF YOU COULD BRING THAT TO COMMITTEE AS WELL, I WILL LOOK AT IT AND THEN I CAN ASK MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

>> YES, I WILL BRING THAT MAP. >> I'M STARTING TO REMEMBER A LITTLE BIT OF THIS. I THINK THAT SQUIGGLY LINE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IF THERE WAS A TREE CANOPY TO BE RESERVED

PICK. >> IT'S FUNNY YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE I MIGHT -- IN MY HEAD I WAS THINKING TREE CANOPY AS WELL. IF WE CAN GET OUR HANDS ON THE

MAP WE WILL TAKEN A LOOK AT IT. >> I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION.

WHEN MR. HORTON WAS SPEAKING, IF I UNDERSTOOD HIM RIGHT, HE SAID THE TWO ZEROS ARE ONE DEED RESTRICTION NOT TO BUILD WAS RE- AFFIRMED IN THE COMMISSION IN 2018.

IS THERE ANYTHING WE ARE MISSING HERE, --

>> WAS IT CONFIRMED BY AN E-MAIL, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE

THINKING? >> WAS AN E-MAIL IT WAS CONFIRMED, TO EVERYONE'S POINT, IT WAS RECORDED THERE WAS A RESTRICTION ON THE PLAT. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO IT WAS SOMEONE SENT AN E-MAIL TO THE PLANNING STEP BEFORE THEY BUILT THEIR HOME TO CONFIRMED THE RESTRICTION WAS STILL IN PLACE AND THEY SAID YES, IT IS STILL IN PLACE.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. PRESIDENT.

I THINK YOU WERE -- >> THANK YOU.

TELL ME, HAS THIS BEEN THROUGH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS THIS WHERE YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? OR WAS THAT A PRIVATE CONVERSATION?

>> THOSE WERE E-MAILS BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CAPTAIN.

>> IN A MEETING WHERE THE MINUTES WERE TAKEN DID THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT WEIGH IN ON THIS? >> YES.

>> NOT THAT I RECALL BUT WE DID REFLECT ON THE MINUTES.

>> WERE YOU AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH WITH REGARDS TO ACCESS AND BEING ABLE TO

ACCESS THESE LOTS? >> I WAS DIRECTED THE FIRE

[00:40:02]

OUT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> I WAS THINKING, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW OR IF THIS IS NITPICKING BUT THESE TYPES OF THINGS ARE ALWAYS A CONCERN OF MINE.

I WILL TELL YOU WHAT, BEFORE I ASK, CAN YOU PUT UP THE PICTURE OF THE ALLEY, WHEN JOSH ASKED ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE ALLEY.

>> THIS WOULD BE THE OVERHEAD, IS THIS THE ONE YOU WERE

SPEAKING OF? >> THAT IS FINE.

LET ME JUST GET THIS STRAIGHT. WHEN YOU COME IN OFF OF THE STREET, AND YOU'RE GOING DOWN THE ALLEY, THAT ALLEY WITH THIS

10 FEET, IS THAT CORRECT? >> ASSERT.

>> WAS THE LENGTH OF BACK? >> THE ALLEY LAMP ATTACHED TO THE POINT WHERE YOU WERE GOING TO WIDEN IT.

YOU HAVE 170 FEET OF ALLEY WAY OFF OF THE STREET THAT WILL BE

USED TO ACCESS THOSE TWO HOUSES. >> CORRECT.

>> UNTIL YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU WILL CONSTRUCT A 20-FOOT WIDE ROADWAY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

>> CORRECT. >> MY POINT IS, IS THERE ANYTHING ALONG THE WAY, THAT IS A DECENT AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR 10 FEET WIDE BUT IF A TREE FELL ACROSS IT OR IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN THAT WOULD BLOCK THE ABILITY FOR TRAFFIC TO MOVE THROUGH THE AIR, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH REGARDS TO THAT OR DID THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BRING SOMETHING LIKE THAT UP.

>> ON REGARDS TO TREES FALLING. THE NEIGHBOS TO THE SOUTH AT 420 HAVE A LARGE APRON THAT IS THREE CARS WIDE THAT WOULD BREAK UP THE SEGMENT, IF YOU WILL. BUT I THINK THE MAIN DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE AT 430 IN THESE TWO HOMES THROUGH THE ACCESS.GOING OUT AND THIS IS ( INDISCERNIBLE ) TO THE

FRONT. >> I SEE.

ALEXIA, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS RESTRICTION.

YOU MENTIONED THIS. WHAT WAS THE RESTRICTION PUT ON THERE TO BEGIN WITH, CAN YOU GO OVER THAT AGAIN, DO YOU RECALL THE FEELING AT THE TIME OR WHY, WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS?

>> THE ONLY WAY I KNEW ABOUT THIS WAS LOOKING AT THE MEETINGS AND 2001. AS FAR AS I COULD TELL THEY SHOW THE PLAQUE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS TO LOTS AS SHOWN TODAY OR A LOT NORTH WHERE IT WAS TURNED INTO BLOCK A.

THEY SHOWED THEM AS LOTS. AS NEIGHBORS CAME AND SPOKE THEY WERE OPPOSED TO IT THEY DID NOT WANT HOMES BUILT THEIR BASICALLY AND SEEM TO SAY WE WANTED TO MAKE THESE LOTS IN CASE SOMEONE WANTED TO BUY THE LAND BEHIND THE HOME OR NEXT TO IT.

THEY SAID WE WERE NOT PLANNING TO BUILD SO WE WILL PUT A RESTRICTION ON THERE THAT SAYS THEY CANNOT BE BUILT UPON.

AT THE TIME TOO, THERE WAS THE TRAIN EASEMENT THAT WENT THROUGH THE LOTS, AND THAT WAS -- I MEAN, IT WAS FAIRLY LARGE.

IT WAS GOING TO BE HARD TO DEVELOP THAT IN ANY WAY BECAUSE IT TOOK UP MOST OF THE LOT. AT THE TIME I THINK IT MADE SENSE TO PUT THE RESTRICTION ON THEIR.

IT WAS LIKE 150-FOOT LEGAL DRAIN AND IT TOOK UP BASICALLY ALL OF BLOCK A AND MOST OF BLOCK B. SO THEY AGREED TO PUT THE

RESTRICTION ON THE PLAT. >> WHAT HAS CHANGED NOW? THAT'S RIGHT WHEN YOU NEED TO DO TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION?

>> FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE THE LEGAL DRAIN IS NOT THERE SO IT IS A BUILDABLE LOT. AND DEVELOPMENT HAS CHANGED A LOT IN THIS AREA OF OLDTOWN. I THINK IF YOU LOOK BACK, AT SOME IMAGES FROM 20 YEARS AGO UNTIL NOW, AND THAT WAS RIGHT WHEN THE MONON WAS BEING BUILT. WE HAVE SEEN A LOT MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, OLDTOWN HAS BECOME A MORE POPULAR PLACE

[00:45:06]

>> A BIG PART OF IT WAS THE FACT THAT THE DRAINAGE IS NO LONGER

NECESSARY TO HAVE THEIR. >>)

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> FOLLOWING THAT LINE, ALEXIA, LOOKING AT THIS DIAGRAM IT STILL SHOWS THE EASEMENT, IS THE

EASEMENT STILL PART OF THE PLAT? >> YES.

>> WAS IT THERE TO REMOVE THE EASEMENT?

>> IT WAS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT AS WELL.

THE ORIGINAL THAT EXIST TODAY, IT HAS DRAIN EASEMENT AND THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WHICH REMOVES THE EASEMENT FROM THE PLAT. THEY DIDN'T OFFICIALLY GET APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY WHICH IS ONE OF THE STEPS BUT NOW THEY

ARE REPLANTING IT. >> WITH THE EASEMENT BEING 75 FEET ON CENTER, 150 FEET WIDE, ON A BLOCK THAT IS 180 FEET WIDE, IT IS 90% OR SO OF THE ENTIRE LOT.

IT MAKES THAT LOT ON BUILDABLE AS LONG AS THE EASEMENT IS

THERE. >> CORRECT.

>> SO THE FACT THAT THE DEED RESTRICTION DOES NOT EXIST, DOESN'T CREATE A VULNERABILITY OR ADDS TO THE RISK OF DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE EASEMENT IS DOING A FINE JOB.

>> RIGHT YOU CAN'T BUILD WITHIN THE EASEMENT CURRENTLY.

>> AND NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN REROUTED, THE EASEMENT IS NO

LONGER NECESSARY. >> CORRECT NOT THE ONLY SEGMENT THAT HAS BEEN REROUTED. OTHER PERSON LONG THERE HAD TO DO THE SAME THING. I THINK IT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE -- THIS LINE, SO IT MADE SENSE TO MOVE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT. PART OF MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT WAS, AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE JUST SENT THIS, BUT DID THEY KNOW THAT DRAIN LINE WAS THERE BEFORE THEY STARTED PUTTING IN THE HOUSE OR DID THEY FIND THE DRAIN LINE AFTER THEY FINISHED THE

HOUSE. >> WHICH ONE.

>> 430, MAYBE. >> I'M NOT SURE I THINK THEY

WOULD'VE KNOWN BEFORE -- >> I WOULD NOT ASSUME THAT.

>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT. >> I WOULD NOT ASSUME THAT.

>> MY EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA IS, YEAH, 430, MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT, WE, THE WORLD HAVE FOUND DRAIN LINES LIKE THIS ONCE THEY STARTED DIGGING IN THE GROUND. AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THE NATURE OF THE WEATHER WAS, IT MAY NOT BE LEAKING, IF YOU WILL, AND THEN THEY DECIDE TO REROUTE IT OR WHATEVER.

THE PARCEL TO THE NORTH OF IT, CURRENTLY HAS A DRAIN LINE IN IT. MY QUESTION IS, DID ENGINEERING LOOK AT THAT AND DECLARE THAT IT WAS NO LONGER A FUNCTIONING DRAIN OR IS IT STILL TAKING WATER FROM THE LAND AND DEPOSITING IT BACK, DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

>> I'M SORRY DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE QUESTION.

>> THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE KING SUBDIVISION REPLY OF WHICH SHOWS

THE SAME 75 PUT EASEMENT. >> SO THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION THEY KNEW IT WAS THERE WHEN THEY STARTED.

>> CRACK. >> DO YOU KNOW THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED. IS THE DRAIN LINE ON 510, IS IT STILL MITIGATING ANY WATER ON THE LAND.

>> I DO. THERE'S NO WATER BE MITIGATED THROUGH THEIR. WE HAD TO DO A TELESCOPIC SCOPE AND THERE ARE NO INTERSECTIONS OF DRAIN TILE OR DOWNSPOUTS FROM ADJOINING PROPERTIES. THE ACTUAL PIPE HAS TREE ROOTS

GOING THROUGH IT. >> THAT ANSWERS MY NEXT

QUESTION, THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> MS. PRESIDENT.

>> THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TOM LAZZARA THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE CITY. SOMEWHERE MY 14 YEARS I DON'T KNOW IF MIKE WILL NOT HIS HEAD AND SAY YES, BUT BRAD PROBABLY% REMEMBERS THIS AND SO TO SUE. WE HAVE SOME THINGS THAT DID NOT GET RECORDED SO WE FAST-TRACK WHEN WE WOULD MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN WE WOULD SAY THIS WILL GET CORRECT BEST TRACK RECORD IT, CRACKED? WE WOULD SAY THAT.

[00:50:01]

>> I MEAN THE PLAT DID GET RECORDED.

>> BUT THE RESTRICTIONS WERE PART OF THE REPLY.

>> THE RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THE REPLY BUT NOT THE DEEP.

>> BUT THE REPLY I GOT RECORDED, HOW DOES THAT NOT MAKE THE RESTRICTIONS RECORDED. IF THE PLAQUE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON IT GOT RECORDED, HOW DO YOU SEPARATE THAT, THAT

IS KIND OF SPLITTING HAIRS. >> BECAUSE THE DEED RESTRICTION ARE SUPPOSEDLY ON THE ACTUAL DEED.

>> THAT IS REALLY WHAT COMPLICATES EVERYONE.

IT'S ON THE PLAT BUT NOT ON THE DEED.

>> I THINK THAT IS ALL OF OUR CONCERNS.

THIS WAS RECORDED AND EVERYONE HAD NOTICE IT WAS THERE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE BOUGHT THEIR HOUSE IS BASED ON THE FACT THESE LOTS WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED. I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE JUST IGNORING THAT, I GUESS I'M GOING TO LOOK TO YOU FOR LEGAL GUIDANCE ON THAT. A LITTLE MORE DIRECTION AND

CLARITY ON THAT PIECE. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> AND AS THE RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THERE WAS A RESTRICTION ON THIS, IF YOU READ SOME OF THE OLDER MEETINGS, THEY WERE TRYING TO HAVE GREEN SPACE AND TREE RESERVATION IF YOU COULD BRING TO COMMITTEE REALLY DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT YOU ARE SAVING AS FAR AS THE TREES EXISTING THERE AND WHAT YOU PLAN TO PLANT AS WELL.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IF THE RESTRICTIONS WERE RECORDED ON THE DEED, HELP WITH THIS PROCESS BE DIFFERENT? AS IF THEY WERE ON THE DEED THERE WAS A STATUTORY REVISION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. THAT IS UNDER 3674714I BELIEVE.

THERE ARE THREE ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.

( INDISCERNIBLE ) I'M CONDENSING HERE.

ADEQUATE LIGHT, ( INDISCERNIBLE ) THIS IS UNDER, 367414.

>> IS THAT STATUTE ONLY APPLICABLE TO DEED RESTRICTIONS

OR FOR VACATING THE PLAT? >> IF THERE ARE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS PART OF THE PLAT.

>> I HOPE THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION DOES A RECORDED PLAT TRUMP A RECORDED DEED OR THE OTHER WAY OR DO THE TO NEVER

MEET? >> THEY ARE SEPARATE BUT OF COURSE THE POINT OF BOTH IS TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO A POTENTIAL PURCHASER. THIS IS SUCH AN ODD CONFLUENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THIS PART AS WHAT IS ON THE PLAT AND WHAT IS ON THE DEED SO I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU IN THE MEMO I WANT TO DO MORE RESEARCH. TENSILE THERE IS CONFLICT --

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTION.

TO REMOVE A DEED RESTRICTION, DOES SOMEONE ELSE HAVE TO GIVE APPROVAL BESIDES THE OWNERS OF THE LAND?

>> I CAN CHECK ON THAT AS WELL. AT LEAST IF IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL

PERMISSIBLE. >> AMOR JEFF QUESTION.

WITH THE REPLY THAT YOU SHOW THE NEW CONFIGURATION.

BUT IF WE HAVE THE OLD PLATS, I GUESS I DIDN'T SEE IT OR I MISSED IT, THERE ARE TWO LOTS, IS THERE AN ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOT THAT -- SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD TO

SOMEONE ELSE? >> CURRENTLY, THERE IS NOT A FORMAL ACCESS EASEMENT THAT IS WRITTEN ON THE PARCELS RIGHT NOW. THERE IS A GRAVEL DRIVE THERE.

NOTHING FORMAL. >> OUR MOVE WE SEND THIS TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE WITH A VOTE TO COME BACK.

>> A SECOND. >> THANK YOU BOTH.

ALL IN FAVOR OF FORWARDING THIS ON JUNE 7, WITH FINAL APPROVAL

[00:55:05]

[I. Old Business]

>> THANK YOU HAVE OFFICES HERE IN CARMEL WE REPRESENT THE PETITIONER'S K AND J INVESTMENTS AND COVA RESTAURANT.

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IS OUR PROJECT ENGINEER AND ( INDISCERNIBLE ). WE ARE RETURNING FROM THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEES REVIEW PROCESS AND WE ARE SEEKING APPROVAL DP/ADLS THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT 431 EAST CARMEL DRIVE IT IS APPROXIMATELY 1.3 ACRES. YOU WILL SEE THE SITE IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CARMEL DRIVE. THE SITE IS ZONED BA BUSINESS AND THE PROPOSED USE RESTAURANT IS PERMITTED IN THAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION. YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IS VACANT THERE STILL EXISTS THE OLD CAR WASH FACILITY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN USED IN MANY YEARS. WE BELIEVE THIS REQUEST REPRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDEVELOP THE SEGMENT OF CARMEL DRIVE WITH A NEW, UP TO DATE BUILDING.

YOU ALSO SEE THAT THE RESTAURANT IS LOCATED TO THE DIRECT EAST, AND THIS LOCATION AND THERE IS, THROUGH THE SITE PLAN IN A MOMENT. THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVE FILE THAT GOES ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BUS OUT. IT MOVES TO THE EAST AND PICKS UP AT AAA WAY, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS EASEMENT RIGHTS TO USE IT BUT THAT WOULD BE A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS THAT YOU WILL SEE ON THE SITE PLAN A MOMENT. PRIMARY ACCESS IS OFF OF CARMEL DRIVE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR INFORMATIONAL BROCHURES TAB THREE.

NORTH WOULD BE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

CARMEL DRIVE AS I EXPLAINED PRIMARY ACCESS IS FROM CARMEL DRIVE. THE ALTERNATE DRIVE FILE IS OVER HERE ON THE SOUTH. FOR SITE PLAN WAS SOLELY REVIEWED BY THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE AND WE DID RECEIVE, YOU WILL SEE IT IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT WE DID RECEIVE AN E-MAIL FROM THE URBAN FOREST OR HE HAS REVIEWED THE PLAN AND APPROVED IT. ALSO, YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE DRIVE THROUGH STACKING LANES ARE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION, FURTHEST AWAY FROM CARMEL LANE SO THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE AND THERE WILL BE A PATIO SEATING AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING CARMEL DRIVE THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING FACING TO THE WEST AS WELL AS ANOTHER ENTRY DOOR ON THE NORTH PATIO SIDE AND THERE IS A SMALLER ENTRYWAY DOOR HERE ON THE WEST OR EAST SIDE, MAINLY FOR EMPLOYEES OR STAFF TO PROVIDE DRIVE OUT DELIVERIES TO CARS THAT MAY BE WAITING PERIOD VERY BRIEFLY, THIS IS ABOUT LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THIS WAS REVIEWED AND IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS AND IT IS FULLY LANDSCAPED AS YOU MAY EXPECT. THE NEXT EXHIBITS ARE SOME BUILDING PERSPECTIVES. WE DID INCLUDE THE BLACK AND WHITE ENGINEERED TO MENTION BUILDING ELEVATION BEHIND TAB FOUR. THESE ARE THE BUILDING PERSPECTIVES THAT WERE BEHIND TAB FIVE.

AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OCCURRED THROUGHOUT THE COMMITTEE REVIEW PROCESS AS WELL AS WEEK DLMCS INPT. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS DLS IS IN SUPPORT OF THE BUILDING DESIGN BASED ON THESE MODIFICATIONS.

SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS BUT NOT ALL INCLUDED MODIFYING THE TOWER HEIGHTS AROUND THE BUILDING SO THEY WERE OF A MORE CONSISTENT SIZE. A STONE TREATMENT WAS EXTENDED UP TO THE TOP OR THE TOWER AREAS.

[01:00:05]

THE SECOND PAGE OF THIS PERSPECTIVE SHOWS THE DRIVE-THROUGH CANOPY THAT I JUST DESCRIBED.

IT'S TREATMENT IS SIMILAR TO THE MAIN PORTION OF THE BUILDING.

FINALLY, ANOTHER MODIFICATION BATTLE OCCURRED, THE MENU BOARD DESIGN. IT WAS MODIFIED TO MAKE SURE IT HAD THE SAME MASONRY MATERIAL AS THE PRIMARY BUILDING.

IN CONCLUSION, OUR CLIENTS AGREED TO THE APPROVAL CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THE FAIR FUND FOR THE COST OF WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO PRODUCE THE MULTI- USE PATH ALONG CARMEL DRIVE. WE HAVE REFERENCE THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE URBAN FORSTER.

THE APPLICANT AND THE TEAM WILL FINALIZE ANY REMAINING PROJECT DOCUMENTS AND REVIEW ITEMS WITH THE STAFF.

WITH THAT SAID WE WILL RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THE ADLS APPROVAL AND I WILL ANSWER ANY REMAINING

QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, JIM.

>> RACHEL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.

AS WE HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, THERE BEEN DONE TO MODIFY THE BUILDING DESIGNED TO ENHANCE IT AND MAKE IT UNIQUE FOR CARMEL.

WE ARE PLEASED WITH THE IN RESULT.

AS JIM WENT OVER THERE WERE A FEW ITEMS LISTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE URBAN FORSTER HAS SIGNED OFF ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE ACTUAL REPORT, I PUT THAT A POSSIBILITY WOULD BE FOR URBAN FORESTRY FUNDS.

THEY HAVE MODIFIED THE PLAN AND IT IS APPROVED WITH THE CORRECT NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS. THE OTHER ITEM, DOES REQUIRE A DONATION, THIS IS THE COST TO DESIGN AND BUILD THE PATH ALONG THE ALONG THE STREET. THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THIS AND JUST NEED TO FINALIZE DETAILS WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

AND LASTLY FINISHING THE REVIEW PROCESS WHICH ALLOWS US TO STAMP THE PLANS AT THE END OF THE PROJECT.

SO, WE THANK THEM FOR WORKING WITH US AND I DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TONIGHT SUBJECT TO THOSE TWO CONDITIONS, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COMMITTEE REPORT.

>> THANK YOU. RACHEL'S REPORT AND JIM'S REPRESENTATION PRETTY MUCH COVERED THAT BUT I DO WANT TO TOUCH ON A FEW THINGS. THESE ARE THINGS THAT STARTING OFF, NOTWITHSTANDING, THE DESIGN ON THE MENU BOARD -- IF YOU LOOK UNDER TAB FOUR, THE NORTH FRONT ELEVATION SHOWS THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND TO THE LEFT YOU WILL SEE ANOTHER DOOR IT SEEMED TO ME AT THE TIME. WOULD BE TWO DOORS AT THE NORTH FRONT ELEVATION, BUT ( INDISCERNIBLE ) POINTED OUT, THIS IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION YOU WILL SEE TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, THAT IS SETBAC -- BOW WINDOW IS THERE ON THE SIDE.

IF YOU GO TO TAB FIBER YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NOT ANOTHER DOOR IN THE FRONT. THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN ILLUSION. THE OTHER THING, WE MADE SURE, WITH REGARD TO THE CANOPY, WHERE THE CARS DRIVE THROUGH, THE MAIN CONCERN INPUT COMMITTEE -- ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS WAS TRAFFIC BACKING UP TO CARMEL DRIVE SINCE THIS HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY A POPULAR PLACE THIS IS A DUAL PLANE DRIVE-THROUGH AND YOU WILL SEE THAT. NO ADVERTISING WILL BE ON THE CANOPY NOR WILL THEY BE ON BOTH COLUMNS, IT IS STRICTLY IN ORDER , THE MENU BOARD WILL NOT HAVE ADVERTISEMENTS FOR

[01:05:04]

>> THANK YOU, ALAN. >> MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

>> QUICK QUESTION, DID ENGINEERING LOOK AT THAT AND WITH REGARD TO THE SIDEWALK, WILL THE SIDEWALK BE RAISED?

>> WE HAVE VETTED WITH ENGINEERING THE DESIGN, AND I BELIEVE THE WEIGHT THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT IS IT WILL REMAIN.

BUT I KNOW BILL AND HIS TEAM HAVE MET WITH ENGINEERING.

YOU GET COMMENTS BUT HE CONTINUES TO WORK WITH THEM, BUT THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT THE ALIGNMENT OR HOW THE ENTRANCE

WILL FUNCTION. >> WILL IT BE TO WAIT TRAFFIC --

IT SEEMS CONFUSING. >> I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE I'VE NEVER EVEN TASTED A CULVER BURGER.

THIS IS YOUR CHANCE. >> MY 6-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER THINKS ABOUT BUTTER BURGERS ARE THE BEST SO IF YOU'RE PUTTING ME ON

THE SPOT FOR THAT, THANK YOU. >> I GUESS I WILL MOVE TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> I WILL 2ND AND ALLEN DID LEAVE ONE THING OUT AT COMMITTEE, BUT WIFE PUT PRESSURE ON ME AND SAID IF I DIDN'T GET THIS OUT I WOULDN'T GET DINNER

THAT NIGHT. >> EXCUSE ME WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER PC -- 2022 -- 0001 WE

THANK YOU STAFF APPROVES. >> NEXUS DOCKET PC -- 2021 -- 00205 DP/ADLS THE APPLICANT SEEKS SITE PLAN AND DESIGN APPROVAL FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH FOR FUTURE OUT LOTS AND AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 113335 NORTH MICHIGAN ROAD IT IS ZONED B'S-3/BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE U.S. FOR 21 OVERLAY ZONE.

FILED BY RYAN WELLS. >> LOI MIGHT LAND USE PROFESSIONAL. AS INDICATED WE REPRESENT THE PETITIONERS ARE EEI REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC.

PREP TONIGHT'S RYAN WELLS THE DEVELOPER FOR REI AS WELL AS AN ATTORNEY FROM OUR OFFICE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM.

BY WAY OF GENERAL BACKGROUND, THE SITE WAS MOST RECENTLY OCCUPIED ( INDISCERNIBLE ) IN ORDER TO ALLOW THIS REDEVELOPMENT REI HAS FILED APPLICATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL AS HDLS FROM THE PLAN COMMISSION.

WERE SEEKING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND COMMERCIAL OUTLINE ALONG THE FRONTAGE.

AS NOTED IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT REI WILL ANTICIPATE THE REQUEST FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A DLS AS WELL AS THE ( INDISCERNIBLE ) NEXT WEEK. THIS IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MICHIGAN ROAD. THE OVERALL PROJECT AREA IS 22 ACRES. THIS IS BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL AND WITHIN THE MICHIGAN ROAD OVERLAY ZONE.

ADDITIONALLY AS NOTED BY STAFF, THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO COMMITMENTS FROM 1988 WHEN IT WAS ZONED P LETTER THREE.

AND THE PERMITTED USES ON THE OUT LOT WHICH REQUIRES USE BY THE PERMISSION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

[01:10:06]

>> THE SLIDE ON DISPLAY HAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN IN DECEMBER AND THE TOP LEFT CORNER. AND THE ( INDISCERNIBLE ) THE UPDATED SITE PLAN IS ANNOTATED BY HIGHLIGHTING NUMEROUS REVISIONS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THIS WAS REDUCED TO 236 UNITS COMPRISED OF THREE-STORY BUILDINGS AND ADJACENT TO THE COMMERCIAL USES. THIS IS LOCATED HERE.

AND TWO-STORY BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PARCELS.

THESE TO THE NORTH IN AND HERE, THE TWO-STORY BUILDING LOCATED RIGHT HERE. BUILDING FOUR WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY THREE-STORY BUILDING WAS CHANGED AGAIN TO PROVIDE A BETTER TRANSITION FOR ALL TWO-STORY BUILDINGS.

THIS IS IN BLUE. PREVIOUSLY THAT WAS THREE-STORY SPIRIT BUILDINGS FOUR, FIVE, 79 LOCATED HERE, HERE AND HERE, AT THE NORTH AND SOUTH AND WERE PUSHED FURTHER FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THEY ARE NOW 250 FEET FROM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINES.

THIS WAS ROTATED 90 DEGREES. THIS WAS POSITIONS ALONG THE EAST PERIMETER TO PROVIDE A BETTER SCREEN TO THE NEIGHBORING TOWNHOMES TO THE SOUTH. BUILDING NINE, LOCATED RIGHT HERE, THE THREE-STORY BUILDING WAS SHIFTED TO THE WEST IN ORDER TO PLACE IT ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL RATHER THAN THE NEIGHBORING TOWNHOMES. ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE AT BENNETT PARKWAY, A STUDY WAS COMPLETED AT SUGGESTED THE INTERSECTION AT THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY NDOT IS NOTED IN A LETTER AND INCLUDED IN THE INFORMATIONAL BROCHURES. THE NORTH-SOUTH INTERIOR DRIVE THAT IS LOCATED HERE, WILL BE EXTENDED TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND WILL PERMITTED FROM -- FUTURE CONNECTION WHEN REQUIRED.

ORIGINALLY THAT WAS KNOWN AS A CONNECTION, THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY BY THE CITY TO EXTEND THAT BUT WHEN THEY RETURN, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE, THAT CONNECTION COULD BE ACCOMMODATED AT THAT TIME. INTERNALLY THERE ARE PLANT AMENITIES INCLUDING A SWIMMING POOL, OUTDOOR GATHERING AND DOG PARK. THE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IS SHOWN BEHIND TAB 11. A SECTION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THAT PATHWAY ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE POND.

THAT SEGMENT IN RED WAS REMOVED. AS IT WAS CLOSEST TO THE WOODHAVEN NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT WAS A REQUEST MADE BY THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR. THIS WAS ADDED TO THE TRAIL AND THE SOUTH POSITION. THE AREA IN GREEN IS THE POSITION. FINALLY THERE IS A FENCE THAT WAS ADDED TO THE RESIDENTIAL PERIMETER THAT THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED IN THE SOLID YELLOW LINE WHICH WRAPS FROM THE MORTUARY HERE, TO THE EASTERNMOST POPULAR PROPERTY LINE. THEN BACK HERE TO WHERE THE TRANSITION OCCURS BETWEEN THE TOWNHOMES AND THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. I WILL ADD ADDITIONAL DETAILS REGARDING THE FENCE FURTHER IN THE PRESENTATION.

THIS NEXT LINE IS A PERSPECTIVE OF THE TWO-STORY BUILDINGS.

ALL BUILDINGS ARE FULLY DETAILED BEHIND TAB FOUR, FIVE AND SIX ON THE INFORMATIONAL BOOKLET SPIRIT WORKING WITH STAFF AND THIS WAS MODIFIED TO CONFIRM THE FEDERAL STYLE WHICH INCLUDES THE DESIGN ELEMENTS SUCH AS SIX OVER SIX WINDOW GROUP SPIRIT UP SIGNIFICANT SIGHTINGS AND LIGHTS AT THE ENTRIES TO NAME A FEW OF THE ELEMENTS. THIS WAS INCREASED ( INDISCERNIBLE ) IN THIS REGARD THE COLOR WAS MEANT FOR THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ONE OF THE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS WHICH WILL INCLUDE GARAGE PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT IS RIGHT HERE. THE GARAGE UNITS FACE INTERNALLY TO THE SITE SO YOU WON'T SEE THOSE IN THE ADJOINING AREAS.

THIS IS SERVICING PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING AND THEY HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE ROOFTOP THIS IS IDENTIFIED UNDER TAB TEN IN YOUR

[01:15:07]

THIRTY PLUS 8 FEET FOR MECHANICAL SPIRIT THIS ROOF DESIGN IS ACTUALLY FALSE ROOF AND THERE IS AN OPEN AREA IN THE CENTER WHERE CAPS OUT THE DESIGNED TO SCREEN THE EQUIPMENT AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 38 FEET.

ALL THREE-STORY BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED INTERIOR TO THE SITE AND ADJACENT TO THE JOINERS. ONE UNIQUE FEATURE OF THIS BUILDING WHICH IS SHOWN HERE WITH THE GLASS OVERHEAD DOORS, BOTH WILL OPEN ONTO THE POOL AREA.

THIS IS ONE ELEMENT THAT IS NOT PRESENT IN THE OTHER BUILDINGS.

THIS ELEMENT IS EXCLUSIVE TO THIS BUILDING WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING WITH THE AMENITIES.

REGARDING LANDSCAPING EXHIBIT REPRESENTS PORTIONS OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. TO THE LEFT EAR IS THE NORTH SIDE PERIMETER SHARED WITH WOODHAVEN.

AND TO THE -- THIS IS THE TOWNHOMES THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPES COMPLIES WITH THE LANDSCAPE AND HAS BEEN APPROVED.

IN THIS REGARD THE ELEVATION, A COPY WHICH IS ON TAB 17 ASSISTED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE PRESERVATION AND POSITIONING.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE PERIMETER AND IT IS IMPORTANT AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE URBAN FOREST OR TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN RATHER THAN REMOVING EXISTING VEGETATION WHICH WAS THE PRIOR CONDITION. THIS IS EXISTING TREES AND THE .

THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJUSTMENT TO WOODHAVEN IS REQUIRED IN 15 FEET, WHERE THIS ILLUSTRATES AND PROVIDES 30 FEET IN ADDITION TO THAT THE CLOSEST BUILDING SETBACK IS 52 FEET.

THEY'RE STILL BAD AREA BUT THE 30 FEET IS DEEMED BASED ON THE POSITIONING OF THE PARKING LOT RIGHT HERE, YOU'RE OF THE PARKING FIELDS, 5-7 FOOD AWAY, AND THEN 25 FEET BEFORE YOU GET TO THE PARKING LOT. ALONG THE EAST PERIMETER 25 FEET SEGMENT THAT IS THE EASE PERIMETER, WHERE A MINIMUM -- I'M SORRY, 25 FEET IS THE MEMBER HIM PERIMETER AND 35 FEET IS PROVIDED. ALONG THE SOUTH WHICH IS SHOWN HERE, THIS IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ALONG THE PERIMETER THERE'S 815-FOOT BUFFER REQUIRED AND IN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING SETBACK. 52 FEET OF GREEN SPACE OF THE SITE. 40 FEET LANDSCAPE AND THE WALL.

THIS IS LOCATED 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

25 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH PAGE AND 20 FEET POSITIONAL REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS SUPPLEMENTS THAT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. IT DOES NOT REPLACE ANYTHING.

YOU HAVE TO ZOOM CLOSELY TO SEE THIS INFORMATION BUT IT ALSO HAS SHRUBS ON THE OUTSIDE. IT'S FACING BUT NEIGHBORS IT IS SUPPLEMENTED WITH ADDITIONAL SHRUBS.

THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE FENCE. AND THE LANDSCAPING REQUIRED UNDER THE YOU DL. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDED BUT WE DO HAVE THE REQUESTS OF JOINING RESIDENTS.

THE PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED BY THE PETITIONER.

AS SHOWN HERE IT IS THAT YELLOW LINE POSITIONED ALONG THE MORTUARY HERE. THESIS THE EAST, SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. THE PRIOR SUBMISSION FOR THE APRIL 19 MEETING, REFERENCED AN EIGHT FOOT TALL VINYL FENCE THAT WAS GOING TO BE POSITIONED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.

THIS IS TO THE SOUTH OF THE TOWNHOMES HOWEVER AS NOTED IN THE REPORT, STAFF ADVISE THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THE MEETING

[01:20:01]

WE AGREED TO PROVIDE IT. WE AGREE TO PROVIDE A FENCE AND LATER CAME TO FIND OUT THROUGH INFORMATION FROM STAFF THAT DAY, THAT THAT WAS NOT A PERMISSIBLE MATERIAL FOR USE AT THAT LOCATION. WHILE THE FENCE IS NOT REQUIRED, THEY DO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS WHEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN THAT'S TYPE AND STYLE IS ILLUSTRATED HERE NOW FULLY CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 421 OVERLAY.

IN THIS REGARD AND AFTER ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OFFENSE HAS BEEN BEEN ENHANCED TO AN 8-FOOT CEDAR POINT FENCE WITH COLUMNS LOCATED EVERY 20 FEET AS DIRECTED AND THAT YOU DL.

AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY THE FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED AT 20-25 FEET WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA TO THE WEST END OF THE LAKE WHERE IT CONNECTS BACK TO THE FENCE ON THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE AND AVOIDS UNNECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE.

THIS IS OUR SHARED LINE WITH THE MORTUARY AND THEN WE COME BACK, AND 25 FEET HERE, IN CONCLUSION THE APPLICANT CONTINUES TO WORK WITH STAFF AND THE COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO ADDRESS OUTSTANDING ITEMS AS REVIEWED THIS EVENING AND SUMMARIZED IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT.

ON MARCH 29, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE REVIEW THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE VOTED 3-0 IN FAVOR OF SENDING THIS REQUEST BACK TO TH% PLAN COMMISSION WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION HAS NOTED THE LANDSCAPE PLANS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND APPROVED BY THE URBAN FORSTER AND REQUIRES FINAL CONSTRUCTION.

IT IS ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE WILL BE THE STAFF REPORTS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLAN COMMISSION APPROVES THIS AS AMENDED ( INDISCERNIBLE ) WHICH I INDICATED WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE BCA NEXT WEEK. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION BOATS TO APPROVE THE PLAN THIS EVENING AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

>> THANK YOU, JOHN. RACHEL, DEPARTMENT REPORT.

>> THANK YOU. RACHEL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST NINE MONTHS.

I DO THINK JOHN SUMMARIZED THE CHANGES WELL IN HIS PRESENTATION. I IS VERY UNIQUE AND THAT THE COMMITMENTS THAT GOVERNS THIS LAND SIGNED IN 1988 GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO APPROVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE USES THAT WERE LISTED WHICH WERE GEARED TOWARDS THE SITE, AND THEIR BUSINESS. SO, THE PETITIONER AS GONE THROUGH THE CORRECT PROCESS TO GET THIS IT HAS TO COME BEFORE THE PLAN COMMISSION. THERE'S NO VARIANCE TO ASK FOR IT. NOTHING GOING TO THE COMMISSION WITH A PLAN. THEY HAVE DONE THAT CORRECTLY.

THEY HAVE ALSO PROPOSED A LIST OF USES THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE COMMERCIAL OUT LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THOSE -- THAT LIST IS IN THE PACKET.

SO THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, MANY CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED TO THE SITE PLAN, THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS THAT COMPLY WITH THE OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL AMENITIES OFFERED AND THERE HAVE BEEN COMPROMISES MADE BY THE DEVELOPER TO WORK WITH NEIGHBORS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

WE FREQUENTLY TALK ABOUT TRANSITIONS AND OUT THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE A GRADUAL CHANGE FROM ONE PROPERTY OR USED TO ANOTHER. THE PROPOSED USE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS RESIDENTIAL IN THE FORMAT OF 2-THREE-STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS.

THE COMMERCIAL USES WILL BE THE FURTHEST AWAY FROM THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ALONG MICHIGAN ROAD AND WILL LIKELY BE ONE AND A HALF STORIES TAUGHT AT MAXIMUM. THE THREE-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS THEY HAVE PROPOSED ARE 37 FEET, EIGHT-POINT TO 5 INCHES TALL, AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT IN CONTEXT OF WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE NORMAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, 35 FEET IS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOME.

THESE ARE ONLY ABOUT 3-FOOT TALLER THAN WHAT WE ALLOWED IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. THE BUFFER YARD AND THE SETBACK CAP FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES WHICH IS AS ANCIENT TO THE -- MEETS AND EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS AS JOHN

[01:25:01]

TO ENHANCE THAT BUFFER YARD, THE MOST RECENT CHANGE WE HEARD OF WAS THE MATERIAL CHANGE FOR THE FENCE.

IT IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED WITH THE OVERLAY ZONE. WE DID NOTICE AND WE DID CATCH IT AND NOW THE FENCE WILL BE A FOOT TALL.

SO THE EXISTING VEGETATION CAN REMAIN AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING AND BE ADDED TO ENHANCE.

JOHN MENTIONED THERE ARE SEVERAL VARIANCES NEEDED TO MAKE THIS PROJECT HAPPEN. TWO ARE RELATED TO THE BUILDING DESIGN. AND THE FAÇADE OFFSETS.

THIS IS EVERY 60 FEET. EVERY 90 FEET.

I CANNOT REMEMBER WHAT IT IS. >> 90.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT. AND THAT IS OFTEN A REQUIREMENT THAT IS HARD FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS TO MEET AS WELL BUT IT HELPS TO ELIMINATE BOXY BUILDINGS.

THAT IS ONE OF THE REQUESTS THEY ARE MAKING.

AND OBVIOUSLY IN THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THIS PROJECT.

THERE ARE FOUR VARIANCES RELATED TO THE SITE.

PARKING REDUCTION, LOT AREA, LOT COVERAGE THIS IS THE EAST PARCEL LINE. THESE ARE ALL SCHEDULED TO GO BEFORE THE BCA ON MAY 23, SO NEXT WEEK.

THE DEPARTMENT IS GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF THESE REQUESTS AS WELL AS THE OVERALL PROJECT. WE DO BELIEVE IT IS BEING DESIGNED WITH SENSITIVITY TO THE EXISTING FEATURES SUCH AS ENHANCING AND EXPANDING THE EXISTING POND.

THEY ARE PRESERVING TREES AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL BUFFERING AND CONNECTION POINTS TO THE EAST AND SOUTH, SHOULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE FUTURE FOR AN APPROPRIATE CONNECTION.

IF APPROVED, NDOT IS IN SUPPORT OF ANOTHER TRAFFI LIGHT TO FACILITATE TRIPS IN THE AREA. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IT IS BEING DESIGNED WITH ACTIVITY AND PROPER TRANSITIONS AS FAR AS HEIGHT AND MATERIALS TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR POSITIVE CONSIDERATION SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCES AND RECORDING OF THE COMMITMENTS REGARDING THE USES FOR THE COMMERCIAL OUT LOTS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, RACHEL.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, ANYTHING THAT I CAN SAY MORE THAN WHAT RACHEL AND JOHN HAVE SAID, WOULD BE ( INDISCERNIBLE ) THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB RECAPPING WHAT WENT ON IN THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU. >> AGAIN, PROCEDURAL QUESTION.

( INDISCERNIBLE ). I GUESS FOR BOTH THE DEPARTMENT COUNSEL. IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE 1988 COMMITMENT, IT APPEARS FROM TAMPA 13 WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS TO REPLACE THOSE COMMITMENTS.

SO THE ACTION BY THE COMMISSION WOULD BE TO RESEND THE 1988 COMMITMENT AND TO ADOPT OR ASK THE PETITIONER TO AGREE TO ADOPT CONDITIONS ON APPROVAL TONIGHT THE PROPOSED NEW COMMITMENTS.

>> I'M SORRY I AM JUST CHECKING ON THAT REALLY QUICK.

>> I MAY BE ABLE TO ADD SOME CONTACTS.

THIS IS THE 1988 WHICH APPROVES ADDITIONAL PLANTS ON THE REAL ESTATE. THIS SPECIFY THESE ARE THE

[01:30:01]

>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.

WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING JOHN, WE ARE PILING ON.

>> THIS WOULDN'T SUPERSEDE THE ORIGINAL IT WOULD ADD TO IT.

>> AND FOR THE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND APPROVAL FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, FROM GOING FROM THE FRONTAGE ON MICHIGAN ROAD. BUT WE HAVE DETAILS ON WHAT ARE COMMERCIAL LOTS 1 AND 2. A DEEP PLS REQUIREMENT BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT WORK TAKES PLACE ON LOTS ONE OR TWO OR 1-4.

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AN AMENDMENT AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED ON THOSE TWO LOTS. IT HAS TO COME BACK TO YOU.

WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR WHAT GOES ON THERE.

SO WE HAVE TO SEE ONE AND THAT COMES THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT

PLAN AMENDMENT. >> THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING. WE ARE COMPELLED TO COME BACK BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THOSE LANDSCAPING.

NOW WE HAVE A GREATER SPECIFICALLY ON THE FUTURE

COMMECIAL USES. >> THAT SHOWS WHERE IS THE LINE PHYSICALLY. THE FRONTAGE ROAD IS SHOWN HERE TONIGHT. THERE'S EVEN LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON LOTS ONE AND TWO PRESENTED TONIGHT.

SO, WHEN WE DO A TPLS AMEND WHEN WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THE TWO LOTS, AM I CORRECT TO THINK EVERYTHING REPRESENTED BY THE LOTS TONIGHT, IF APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT, NOT SOMETHING TO BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE POINT OF TPLS.

>> AND IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE WHAT THEY PUT IN, THEY WOULD ASK FOR THAT AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU.

DISCUSSION? >> JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE OUT LOTS WILL COME BACK, THAT'S A GIVEN.

I KNOW YOU WERE ASKING I JUST WANTED TO HEAR IT.

>> IF COMMITTEE, DID YOU SCRUB THE LIST OF USES, CERTAIN ONES WERE TAKEN OUT. I WAS JUST CURIOUS, OUT THOSE WERE DECIDED. SO CERTAIN THINGS, AND I FORGET WHAT TAPPER WAS WERE NOT PERMITTED.

>> ( INDISCERNIBLE ) WAS THAT REVIEWED -- I AM NOT AN EXPERT. DID STAFF RECOMMEND --

>> THE PURPOSE -- THE PETITIONER PROPOSED THEM.

I LOOKED OVER THEM. I BELIEVE THEY ARE ALL GOOD USES TO BE EXCLUDED. I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHERS THAT NEEDED TO BE I COULD READ THEM TO YOU.

>> KNOW I READ THEM. I DON'T THINK WE DID IT IN THE FULL MEETING. BECAUSE I CAN'T BE CHANGED WHEN

THEY COME BACK FOR ADLS. >> KNOW THEY CANNOT.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A COMMITMENT AMENDMENT.

>> ONE OF THE THING I NOTICED SOMEONE WRITTEN IN AN E-MAIL THAT THEY WANTED THE FENCE EXTENDED DOWN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OVER TO THE PRESCHOOL THAT STOPS BEFORE THAT.

WAS THERE A REASON FOR THAT. IT KIND OF MADE SENSE TO TAKE IT DOWN FURTHER. UNLESS IT INTERFERES WITH THE

TREE PRESERVATION, I CAN'T TELL. >> IS THAT A QUESTION FOR US?

[01:35:02]

THERE IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT SITS AT THE CORNER AND WE COULD FURTHER EXTENDED, SO WE ARE MIDWAY FROM THE EXISTING THREE-STORY BUILDING. I CAN PROVIDE THIS EXHIBIT TO

STAFF -- >> THIS IS LOCATED IN THIS BUILDING. THE PLAYGROUND IS LOCATED BEHIND

THE USE. >> I CAN'T ASSUME IN.

>> I WILL OUTLINE THE BUILDING. THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THERE PLAYGROUND IS RIGHT HERE.

ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT. >> HOW FAR WILL YOU COMMIT TO

TAKING THE FENCE? >> WILL YOU PLEASE ADVISE US WHERE YOU WANT TO SEE IT CONCLUDED.

>> DO YOU WANT IN ON THE EDGE? >> WHY DON'T YOU TAKING IT TO

THE ROAD. >> I THINK, BEFORE WE PURSUE THAT QUESTION. I THINK IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO DECIDE WHETHER CONNECTIVITY FROM THIS SITE TO THE PRESCHOOL IS

SOMETHING TO PREVENT OR SUPPORT. >> THERE IS NO SIDEWALK

CONNECTING IT. >> JUST SO WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. THE LETTER CAME FROM ONE OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE TOWNHOME NOT THE COMMERCIAL USER TO THE

SOUTH. >> I'M SORRY --

>> I'M ONLY OBSERVING WE ARE COMFORTABLE EXTENDING IT TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

THE ENTIRE AREA BEHIND THE BUILDING WOULD BE SCREENED FROM

THEIR SIDE TO -- >> CAN YOU CONFIRM THERE IS NO SIDEWALK? THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

>> WE WOULD AGREE TO MAKE THAT PLAN.

>> THAT WOULD INFLUENCE MY DECISION.

THE REQUEST IS TO EXTEND BEYOND THE PRESCHOOL AND CONSIDER ANY

SIDEWALK. >> THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS WE CAN'T ( INDISCERNIBLE ) THERE WILL BE A SIDEWALK ALONG THE SIDEWALK. THIS INCLUDES SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES THIS WOULD END AT OUR NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

IT COULD BE THE OWNER TO THE SELFHOOD BILTMORE WALK ON THEIR PROPERTY BUT WE CANNOT COMPEL THE OWNER TO DO THAT.

>> I HAVE WALKED ALL OF THAT SO I AM FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THE REQUEST IS AND I WOULD CONCUR TO EXTEND IT BEYOND THE PRESCHOOL. HE SAID THERE IS A LOGICAL BREAK, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS WITH THE LANDSCAPING.

>> THEY AGREED TO EXTENDED. IN THAT LOCATION WE WILL DEFINE IT. AND IF YOU COMMIT TO WHERE IT IS WE WILL CONFIRM AND IT WILL BE EXTENDED FROM WHERE WE HAVE IT TODAY. AS FAR AS WHAT WE REQUESTED WHICH IS SHORTER THAN THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> THANK YOU. >>

>> THIS MAY BE A DUMB QUESTION. YOUR DRAWING OF THE SCHOOL IS A

PLAYGROUND. >> AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY A

PRIVACY FENCE. >> HOW HIGH IS THE FENCE?

>> 6 FEET. >> NOW WE WILL ADD A FENCE TO

THE FENCE. >> ON HAVING A PROBLEM ON WHY YOU NEED TO DO THAT. IF THERE'S --

[01:40:07]

>> FOR THE RECORD, BRIAN WELLS WITH REI HE HAS INFORMED ME, JUST TO BE CLEAR COMMERCIAL HONOR HASN'T REQUESTED THE ADDITIONAL BUFFER. THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER THEY FELT IT WAS LOGICAL THAT IT GETS EXTENDED.

THIS IS THE REQUEST WE RECEIVED AND THAT IS WHY WE WERE

AGREEABE TO EXTENDING IT. >> I THINK WE OWE THE PETITIONER SOME DIRECTION. THERE WAS -- I GUESS I JUST ASKED INFORMALLY, ACTUAL FANS, WHO IS INTERESTED IN SEEING THE FENCE THAT WHERE IT IS SUPPOSED TO STOP CURRENTLY.

I DON'T THINK THE PETITIONER AS A CLEAR ANSWER.

IT THAT THE FENCE EXTENDS FROMS- THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE FRONTAGE

ROAD? >> ARE THERE ANY TREES WORTH

SAVING? >> BUT YOU HAVE VISIBILITY --

> ARE THERE TREES THERE? >> WE WERE NOT HESITANT ABOUT DOING THIS. WE HAD RECEIVED THIS REQUEST.

>> YOU HAVE MATURE TREES THERE. DO YOU PLAN ON PUTTING IN MATURE TREES AND SHRUBS AS WELL? SANCHEZ.

>> I'D RATHER SAVE THE TREES. >> IS THE PLAYGROUND A

CHAIN-LINK FENCE? >> I BELIEVE IT IS A SOLID FENCE. LIKE JUST A STOCKADE STYLE,

PICKET, SIX-FOOT TALL. >> I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE ON WHY THEY PUT THAT THERE. THEY PROBABLY WANTED TO CREATE SOME SCREENING FOR THE USE OF THE PLAYGROUND AND NOT INTERACT WITH THE ADJACENT OWNERS. MY SPECULATION I'M SORRY.

IF IT IS NOT A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AND MORE TREES WERE GOING TO COME OUT, MAYBE THERE'S NO NEED, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A BLOCK FENCE AROUND THE PLAYGROUND.

THANK YOU. >> THERE IS A BREAK.

I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU EXTEND THE FENCE TO A POINT WHERE IT IS REASONABLE FROM A TREE LANDSCAPING POINT OF VIEW TO STOP IT. I DON'T WANT TO SPECIFY WHETHER YOU GO 10 FEET, 20 FEET OR 30 FEET BUT WALKING THAT, I CAN SEE WHERE IT STOPS AND YOU DO HAVE A BREAK.

AND THE CONCERN I THINK, IS PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH.

SO IF EXTENDING THE FENCE, WEST, WOULD ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF CONCERNS I THINK THAT WOULD BE A MINIMAL COST TO THE DEVELOPER

AND I AM IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT. >> IF WE COULD MORALIZE THAT WE COULD EXTEND THE FENCE BETWEEN 50-100 FEET AT OUR DISCRETION IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING. AT LEAST 150 IN THE EFFORT WOULD

BE TO PRESERVE LANDSCAPING. >> THANK YOU, JOHN.

>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR YOU.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAD SOMETHING WHERE THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU. OTHER DISCUSSION POINTS?

CHRISTINE. >> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

[01:45:02]

I KNOW THEIR SPOT ON THE PERIMETER.

I SEE THAT YOU HAVE ADDED SOME TREES.

WHY WOULD YOU MAKE THE TREE LINE ALL OF THE WAY THROUGH.

DO YOU HAVE ROOM TO DO TREE LINE IN FRONT OF BUILDING TEN AND 148

, -- >> I APOLOGIZE.

WHAT YOU DON'T SEE ON THIS COLOR EXHIBIT IS THE COLOR LANDSCAPING. EVERY BUILDING HAS A LANDSCAPING PLAN IT IS UNDER ONE OF THE TABS I WILL LOOK FOR IT IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT. THAT WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT YOU DON'T SEE ON THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT WOULD

SCARE ALL OF THE OTHER DETAILS. >> I GUESS, THIS LOOKED A LITTLE LIGHT AS WELL. IF THIS IS YOUR MAIN DRIVE THROUGH, IT SEEMS THAT IT SHOULD BE TREE LINED WITH, MAKING THIS BEAUTIFUL WITH BUSHES AND PERENNIALS AND HAVING A BEAUTIFUL DRIVE IN. I DO HAVE A QUESTION AS FAR AS THE FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER. ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO INSTALL THAT WITHOUT DISTURBING MATURE TREES THAT ARE THERE.

HAVE YOU NAVIGATED THAT COLLECTS.

>> CORRECT, THE REASON WE SHIFTED THIS, PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE HAVE THE FENCE IT WAS ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AND UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, WE TOOK ANALYSIS AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT BACKING IT OFF WOULD ALLOW US TO PRESERVE THE FACE BEST RACK SPACE AND NOT HAVE TO REMOVE TREES.

YOU HAVE AN AREA PRESERVING EXISTING AND SUPPLEMENTING WITH

ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. >> ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE

OR. >> ZOOMING IN, THERE ARE SOME SHRUBS AND TREES TO SOFTEN THE VIEW OF THE FENCE FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY BUT THE VAST MAJORITY ESPECIALLY THE SHRUBS SOFTEN THE OFFSIDE ALONG THE EDGE OF THE

FENCE. >> ONE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE DOG PARK OF THE POOL. WHEN IS THIS SCHEDULED TO BE BUILT. I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE GLASSWARE THEY DON'T HAVE A DOG PARK IS THIS TOWARDS THE BEGINNING OF THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE OR THE END.

>> BEGINNING. >> THANK GOD FOR MODERN TECHNOLOGY. THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN IN 2017.

I'M NOT A PETITIONER OBVIOUSLY, JUST TRYING TO HELP MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. IN A DIFFERENT OBLIQUE IMAGE YOU CAN SEE IT IS A SOLID FENCE. I WANTED TO POINT OUT THE TREE CANOPY HERE. OF COURSE THIS IS THE PLAYGROUND AREA. THIS APPEARS TO BE WORTH OFFENSE

STOPS. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT ADVOCATING TAKING OUT TREES. I AM ADVOCATING EXTENDING THE FENCE WHERE IT IS PRACTICAL TO DO SO.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT THERE IS A 3-0 PARABLE AT THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE. I WAS THE FOURTH MEMBER, WAS NOT THERE I WAS UNABLE TO BE THERE. I ALSO MISS THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE BEFORE THAT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I THINK BACK TO THE BIG PICTURE. WE ARE TASKED WITH IS THIS RIGHT FIT, THE RIGHT IS, THE RIGHT PROJECT FOR THIS SITE.

I GUESS I'VE MENTIONED BACK IN FEBRUARY, WHEN THIS FIRST CAME TO THE COMMISSION I THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY.

THAT I FELT LIKE THE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS BEHIND WHERE THE RIGHT USE. I GUESS I'VE VOICED THEN AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SPRING SOMETHING ON YOU AT THE END.

MAYBE IT IS THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THIS.

IT FEELS TOO INTENSE TO ME. I WOULD SAY I'M APPRECIATIVE OF THE CHANGES YOU MADE WITH THE FENCING TO PROVIDE BUFFERING, THINGS THAT ARE INTERNAL TO THE SITE.

BUT ONE THING I THINK I SENT IN FEBRUARY, VARIANCES FEEL LIKE SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN THERE IS A TRUE HARDSHIP.

WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT SETBACK.

WE HAVE PARKING VARIANCES, DENSITY IF YOU WILL, A NUMBER OF

[01:50:03]

IF WE CAN ELIMINATE A BUILDING AND ADD PARKING AND KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE SONG, IT BE THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION TO MOVE FORWARD WOULD HOW IT IS PRESENTED.

I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT WHERE I FEEL LIKE IT IS THE RIGHT FIT BUT A LITTLE TOO INTENSE.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY. THE VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AS PROPOSED NOW WOULD GO TO THE BZ LARRY FOR APPROVAL

NEXT MONDAY. >> SOMETIMES WE THINK.

UESTION I HAVE IS, IS THISN OR A QUESTION TO THE PLAN COMMISSION, WON A YES OR NO VOTE IF YOU WILL, IS IT TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL USES REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER AND IF IT IS JUST, ARE WE IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN, IS IT TO BOATS, OR ONE SHOT AT THIS COME I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A THOUGHT ON THIS.

>> IS DIRECTED BY STAFF AND IS WONDERFUL.

>> BUT YOU ARE CORRECT, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO QUESTIONS FOR US THIS EVENING. ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE ORIGINA USE COMMITMENTS AND THE OTHER IS THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION TOO. I THOUGHT THAT USE HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT AND SLOWLY -- ANCILLARY ITEMS. IT IS ANYTHING THEY DECIDEDOUR- WOULD BECOME ( INDISCERNIBLE ) SHE IS.

AND AS FAR AS THE PARKING, IT IS NOT THAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO GET A WAY FROM PARKING, IS IT BECAUSE OF BECAUSE OF YOUR PAST EXPERIENCE IN THIS BUSINESS YOU DON'T NEED THE PARKING NOR DID STAPH FEEL YOU NEEDED THE PARKING.

SO THIS WOULDN'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR OTHER THAN REDUCED DENSITY. WE DON'T WANT TO -- I AGREE WITH THE LAST -- LESS PARKING IF YOU DON'T NEED ASPHALT, DON'T PUT IT

IN. >> MAYBE IT IS A RHETORICAL

QUESTION. >> IN THE INTERIM CAN I ASK A QUESTION WITH A QUICK ANSWER. THE ROUGH RULE OF THUMB IS AROUND ONE UNIT -- ONE PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM, CAN BE ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT IT. THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST GUIDELINE WHERE THEY WOULD -- ( INDISCERNIBLE ).

>> FOR CONTEXT WE DIDN'T EXAMINE OTHER FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY AND FOUND IT WAS 1.5 AVERAGE PARK'S PROPER DWELLING.

WE ARE AT 1.65 PER DWELLING. IF WE -- IF THE PETITIONER FELT A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING TO BETTER LEASE THE FACILITY BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCE THEY WOULD PROVIDED.

SATELLITE MAP NOW.KING AT THE- I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. IT SEEMS LIKE WHERE YOUR DOUBLE ARROW IS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS GREAT TREE COVERAGE THERE.

DEFENSES ON THEIR SIDE. >> WHEN I'M TRYING TO GET OUT

INTO THE STREET STAY? >> ( INDISCERNIBLE ).

>> ALONG OF -- ALONG THIS PROPERTY LINE, SOME OF THIS IS NOT SO GREAT. THERE WILL BE NO FENCE ALONG THE

NOT SO GREAT -- >> THIS IMAGE FALLS BEHIND THAT LINE. THAT FENCE ACTUALLY FALLS CLOSER

IN ALIGNMENT -- I APOLOGIZE. >> I'M TRYING TO GET A CONCEPT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SHOW, IT SHOWS THE ( INDISCERNIBLE ) IN

[01:55:04]

KIND OF AT THE FRONT AND THERE IS ALSO SOME TREES THERE THAT SEEM ADVANTAGEOUS BUT IS THAT A TREE ADVANTAGEOUS AREA?

>> BRIAN INDICATED TO ME, THEY MET WITH THE OWNERS AND STAKED OUT THE LOCATION WHERE THE FENCE WOULD BE LOCATED AND IT WAS

ACCEPTABLE. >> I WAS THINKING MORE ABOUT THE TREES DOWN HERE, BUT THESE TREES LOOK OKAY BUT IF AARON DID NEVER

PROBLEM WITH IT,. >> LIKE JEFF I THINK THIS IS FIVE GOOD USE. THERE MAY STILL BE SOME WORK TO BE DONE. CAN WE GET THE PLANTINGS AND THAT IS A TIGHT SPACE PARKING WOULD COMPLICATE THE MATTERS.

WE WOULD CARRY THE SAME DISTRIBUTION TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. IN ADDITION TO THAT THE ORDINANCE ALSO ALLOW PLANTINGS AROUND THE POND.

THERE'S A TREES THAT I JUST DESCRIBED.

I APOLOGIZE EXHIBIT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO.

>> WHAT ARE YOU PLANTING AROUND THAT?

>> IT WOULD BE A MIX OF NATIVE PLANTS TO MITIGATE GEESE AROUND

THE AREA. >> AND YOU SAID YOU HAVE BENCHES

WHERE WOULD THEY BE? >> THEY WOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE FOUR BUILDINGS. IN FRONT OF EACH BUILDING

THERE'D BE A BENCH. >> JOHN, OTHER THAN WHAT IS BEHIND TAB FOUR, IT SHOWS FOUR TREES ALONG THE MAIN DRIVE, WHAT ARE THE EXHIBITS WITH THE DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN? APRIL 19 VERSION. SOMETHING WE SUBMITTED TEN DAYS AGO THAT SHOWS THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN.

>> WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE IN THE APRIL 19 BROCHURE OTHER THAN THE FENCE HAS BEEN REALIGNED SHOW ADDITIONAL TREES.

>> THEY HAD PLANNED THEIR BIG PACKET, 125 PAGE PACKET FOR THE APRIL MEETING OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FENCE HAPPENED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET WAS TO EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THE FENCE AND WHERE WOULD GO. THE ADDITIONAL STUDY THAT THEY DID WALKING THE PERIMETER TRYING TO LOCATE EACH TREE AND WHERE IT SHOULD GO IN ORDER TO REDUCE TAKING OUT AS MANY TREES AS

POSSIBLE. >> THANK YOU JOHN, I APOLOGIZE.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIGURE OUT THE -- I AM STILL NOT SEEING

BASE PLANTINGS. >> BOAT WIELDING BASE LANDSCAPE PACKAGES UNDER A SEPARATE SHEET. AGAIN, WHEN YOU ZOOM DOWN TO

ABILITY TO SPECK OUT EVERYTHING. >> PART OF YOUR POINT IN

[02:00:16]

BUT I'M NOT SEEING -- ANYTHING THAT SHOWS BASED PLANTINGS.

>> ALONG THE FACE OF BUILDINGS TEN AND EIGHT THERE IS ADDITIONAL SHRUB PLANTING AS WELL AS TREEPLANTING.

>> AND WHERE ARE THOSE SHOWN? >> I KNOW WE SUBMITTED IT TO STAFF. IT IS UNDER TAB TEN.

>> IT IS THE SECOND PAGE OF TAB TEN.

THAT IS ONE OF THE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS AND IT LOCKS UP EVERY BUILDING. YOU WILL SEE A COMBINATION OF

FISHERIES AND -- TREES AND -- >> ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO GUARD AGAINST IS ( INDISCERNIBLE ) AND UTILITIES.

EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC DEDICATED UTILITIES, THEIR PRIVATE BUT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE AND THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING. THAT IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG THAT DRIVEWAY. I KNEW WE HAD IT IN THERE, I JUST DID NOT COMMIT IT TO MEMORY.

>> I WANT TO GIVE THE COMMISSIONER CREDIT FOR THE LANDSCAPING THAT WAS PROPOSED. I HAVE TO ADMIT I DID NOT CONNECT THE DOTS AND JUMP AROUND FROM THE VISUAL TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS TAB 20.

AND THEN SKIP BACK TO TAB TEN, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS YET A

DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER. >> IT IS JUST BECAUSE WE DROVE AROUND FROM DIFFERENT LEVELS WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE OVERALL PLAN AND THEN RESUME MAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIGITAL VERSION OF THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN YOU WILL SEE FOR SHRUBS I TALKED ABOUT WHICH FLANK THE PERIMETER OF THE WALL, BUT YOU WON'T SEE IT IN THE EIGHT AND A HALF BY 11 VERSION.

YOU REALLY HAVE TO ZOOM IN TO SEE THOSE SPECIFICS ABOUT THE

INDIVIDUAL PLANTINGS. >> AND THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED LANDSCAPING OPPOSES FULLY COMPLIANT?

>> YES THEY HAVE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN.

>> IF I MAY, ANOTHER COMMENT. IN GENERAL, THE PLAN COMMISSION IS DECIDING IF THIS USES OKAY. IF THIS PLAN IS OKAY AS PRESENTED. IT WILL BE UP TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO DETERMINE THE DENSITY AND IF THE PARKING REDUCTION IS OKAY, THE LOT COVERAGE AND THE OTHER ITEMS AND JOHN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US IF THE BZA DID NOT APPROVE ONE OF THE ITEMS THIS WOULD NOT

BE APPROVED. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

THE PLAN COMMISSION WOULD BE CONDITIONAL.

>> I AM FILL STRUGGLING WITH THIS PROJECT AS A WHOLE.

I WASN'T KEEN ON IT AND I AM STILL UNEASY WITH THE OVERALL USE. DO I THINK THIS MAKES SENSE, YES. DO I THINK IT IS MULTIFAMILY, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT. I DON'T LIKE THE APARTMENTS AGAINST THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.

I COMMEND YOU, THE PROJECT LOOKS A LOT BETTER THAN WHEN IT FIRST CAME THROUGH. I THINK AESTHETICALLY IT LOOKS A LOT BETTER. BUT I AM REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE OVERALL USE OF THIS BEING IN THIS LOCATION.

>> MR. PRESIDENT. >> IF I CAN COMMENT A LITTLE ON THAT. WE TRY AND TRANSITION, IT WOULD

[02:05:01]

THERE WOULD BE BUILT WITH THE >> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT IS IT MORE OF A TOWNHOME, A LESS DENSE MULTIFAMILY.

I GET THAT WILL NOT PUT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME BACK CLOSE TO MICHIGAN -- I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

APARTMENT PROJECT IS THE RIGHT THING EITHER.

>> I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. CHRISTINE MENTIONED THE TIMING OF THE DOG PARK AND THE PLAYGROUND AND AMENITIES CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND WHEN THAT WOULD SHOW UP IF THIS MOVES FORWARD.

>> IT WILL BE INSTALLED AT THE DEPARTMENT.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY MORE BECAUSE I CAN'T COMMIT TO THE TIMING.

WE WOULD ( INDISCERNIBLE ). >> I GUESS FROM A DESIRE STANDPOINT, DO YOU WANT TO PUT IT FIRST, LAST SUBJECT TO

>> WE WOULD WANTED SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

AGAIN ( INDISCERNIBLE ) I'M LOOKING FOR GREATER SPECIFICALLY

IF WE CAN OFFER. >> WE WANTED EARLY IN THE PROCESS. WHEN WE START CONSTRUCTION THE FIRST BUILDING INCLUDING THE MANY AREAS LIKE THE DOG PARK, TEN MONTHS FROM THERE WE WOULD LKE THE LIGHT OPERATIONAL BEFORE WE HAVE RESIDENTS MOVING IN.

WE HAVE A PUSH TO HAVE THAT DONE EARLY IN THE PROJECT.

THE LIGHT IS CONTINGENT UPON THIS DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING.

THEY ARE CERTAIN THINGS COME BUT I IMAGINE ONCE WE GET GOING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND WE HAVE OUR APPROVALS THAT WILL BE ENOUGH TO

GET IT DONE THERE. >> I'M SORRY I'M A LITTLE STUCK ON THE NORTH SIDE BECAUSE IT OCCURRED TO ME WHEN YOU SAID IT STOPPED AT THE FRONTAGE ROAD, THAT IF A PERSON WERE TO WALK OUT OF THE FRONT DOOR OF THE CHAPEL AREA, THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT THE BACK SIDE OF LOCH 1.

THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING. >> LET ME LOOK AT THE AERIAL.

THIS IS THE SITE AREA. THIS IS POSITIONED RIGHT HERE.

FRONTAGE DRIVE IS IN THIS POSITION.

IT IS THE SIDE OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA WE ARE LOOKING AT.

>> BUT DRAW THE PARKING LOT AND WHERE THE BUILDING WILL BE SITUATED FOR ME. THEORETICALLY.

>> ABOUT 20-40 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT COULD BE A BUILDING THAT RUNS WITHIN 40 FEET.

ALL OF THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE SITE.

>> I GUESS WHAT I AM GETTING AT IS, WHAT I AM FORECASTING YOU WILL WALK OUT OF THE CHAPEL OF THE FUNERAL HOME, CURRENTLY WITH UCR TREES. WHAT YOU WON'T SEE IS A FENCE.

AND WHAT YOU WILL LIKELY SEE IS THE BACKSIDE OF A STRIP MALL.

>> THE VIEW RIGHT HERE IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT EXISTS.

IF YOU EXTEND THAT LINE UP TO THE NORTH, IT IS AN AREA THAT THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT OF COMMERCIAL USE.

AGAIN, I AM NOT HERE TO SPEAK ON THE OWNERS OF THE MORTUARY I KNOW OUR CLIENT HAS MET WITH HIM ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS AND THEY

ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST. >> I AM CURIOUS IF THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE REALLY GOING TO BE SEEN.

THAT IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT. >> BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY HAVE MET AND THE INFORMATION SHARED, I WOULD HOPE

THEY HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. >> IF I MAY.

PLEASE DON'T FORGET THAT THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE ( INDISCERNIBLE ) OVERLAY REQUIREMENT FOR ARCHITECTURE AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND ANY ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE BUILT AS OUT LOTS I THINK IT WOULD BE SAFE TO ASSUME THEY WOULD BE DEVELOPED IN A SIMILAR FASHION TO OTHER OUT LOTS ON MICHIGAN ROAD AND THEY WILL BE DETAILED APPROPRIATELY ON EACH SIDE AND LOOK NICE, BUT NOT BE THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, THAT WOULD NOT BE PLEASANT TO SEE.

[02:10:03]

>> AND LOTS -- AND LOTS ONE WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED AS THREE LOTS.

AS OPPOSED TO THREE FREESTANDING BUILDINGS.

>> IT COULD BE OR THEY COULD COME BACK LATER AND DIVIDE IT FURTHER. INDEPENDENCE.

>> IN REGARDS TO THE POSITIONING OF THE FENCE, MR. WELLS INDICATED TO ME THAT WHILE THE OWNER TO THE LEFT, ( INDISCERNIBLE ) THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO EXTEND INTO THE LEFT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE OWNER TO THE NORTH IF THEY WANTED

ADDITIONAL SCREENING. >> WE DON'T BELIEVE THEY WILL WHAT WE WANT TO PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARD.

>> IS THAT A COMMITMENT. >> IT IS AND WE WOULD ASK FOR IT TO BE ADDED AS A CONDITION ( INDISCERNIBLE ).

>> I THINK WHAT JOHN IS SAYING IS THAT, IF THE ADJACENT OWNER IS INTERESTED THEY ARE WILLING TO COOPERATE.

WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THE DESIRE AND WE CANNOT PREDICT OR

GUESS THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE THE PETITIONER TO WORK THAT OUT. OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION OR EMOTION? I WOULD ASK THAT THE MOTION INCLUDE BOTH THE USE COMMITMENT AND THE BODY OF THE LETTER DPLS PROPOSAL.

AT THIS POINT NO. THE AMOUNT -- THIS HAS RUN THROUGH COMMITTEE AND PROCEDURES THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPOSAL. IS VERY MOTION.

>> MR. PRESIDENT. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE COMMITMENTS YOU JUST MENTIONED.

>> AND INCLUDE THE FENCE EXTENSION.

>> I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT. WE MADE THAT AS PART OF THE RECORD AND THAT IS PART OF OUR REQUEST REPORTING -- REGARDING

-- >> YOU TALK ABOUT THE SOUTH

PERIMETER. >> I AM SORRY WAS THAT A SECOND

OR A QUESTION. >> SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU MAY WANT TO AT THAT APPROVAL IS CONDITIONAL ON BZA APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONS.

THE 1998 COMMITMENTS WILL REMAIN IN PLACE ON THE NEW ONES WILL BE PLACED ON TOP. WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. SHOW OF HANDS.

THOSE IN FAVOR. THOSE IN FAVOR.

THOSE OPPOSED. OPPOSED, STAY UP PLEASE.

THERE ARE FIVE NO BOATS, SO THE MOTION FAILS.

WE HAVE TAKEN NO ACTION. WE NOW NEED A MOTION TO DENY THE PETITION. THANK YOU.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY THE PETITION AND THE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS SAY AYE. YOUR VOTING IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE PETITION. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED. I THINK WE AT THE SAME RESULT BUT I WILL ASK FOR A SHOW OF HANDS.

THOSE IN FAVOR HANDS IN THE AIR. , ONE HALF -- ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE. THOSE OPPOSED.

THE MOTION CARRIES AND THEREFORE THE PETITION IS DENIED.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

>> THANK YOU, JOHN. I SEE NO OTHER BUSINESS -- EXCUSE ME, THERE WAS. I ALLUDED TO THE PLAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION AT THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.

[02:15:02]