Jul 25, 2022 Board of Zoning Appeals

[A. Call to Order]

[00:00:06]

>> GOOD EVENING. EVERYONE.

WELCOME TO THE KARM BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING. IT'S MONDAY JULY 25TH.

I ASK THIS MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AND I ASK THAT WE ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >>CHAIR: WILL THE SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]

>>CHAIR: WE HAVE A QUORUM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF FACT OF PREVIOUS MEETING.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY "AYE."

[F. Communications, Bills, and Expenditures]

>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

>> COMMUNICATIONS, BILLS AND EXPENDITURES?

STAFF? >> THANK YOU.

REGARDING THE CARMEL MIDTOWN REDEVELOPMENT VARIANCES, ONE OF THE VARIANCES WAS AMENDED THEY REDID IT.

THAT WAS RENOTICED. WE ASK THAT YOU VOTE AND

APPROVE THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR: OKAY. YOU NEED A MOTION FOR THAT.

>> IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOVE TO SUSPEND RULES WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNICATION.

PUBLIC NOTICE EXCUSE ME. >> SECOND.

. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE SUSPEND RULES WITH REGARD TO PUBLICATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY

"AYE." >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? >> NO.

>> ANY OTHER REPORTS? >> THAT'S ALL, THANK YOU.

[G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]

>> THANKS. ANY LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT?

>> JUST A QUICK NOTE. MR. PAUL REECE IS SUBSTITUTE

MEMBER. >> THANK YOU AND WELCOME,

[H. (UV, V) Carmel Midtown Redevelopment Variances]

PAUL. >> IT TANKS US TO OUR AGENDA WHICH -- TAKES US TO OUR AGENDA WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE ONE TONIGHT.

THE CARMEL MIDTOWN REDEVELOPMENT VARIANCES.

BEFORE I READ THIS INTO THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS CLEAR AS TO WHAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RULES ARE WITH REGARDS TO PUBLIC HEARING. THE CHAIRPERSON SHALL OFFICIALLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE HEARING THE CHAIRPERSON MAY LIMIT THE LIFE OF TIME ALL PERSONS MAY SPEAK OR REQUEST THAT REPETITIOUS STATEMENTS BY DIFFERENT SPEAKERS BE AVOIDED IN ORDER TO REASONABLY LIMIT THE LENGTH OF HEARING.

TWO, THE PETITIONER SHALL MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION, 15 MINUTES WITH THE BURDEN OF PROVIDING ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION FOR A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE APPLICATION FALLING UPON HIM OR HER.

THREE, STATEMENTS AND OR LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC AND SUPPORT AND REMONSTROUS AGAINST THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED BY THE BOARD SECRETARY AND HAVE

BEEN READ. >> FOUR, THE PETITIONER MAY MAKE A BRIEFLY BUT -- REBUTTAL TO MAINTAIN ORDERLY PROCEDURE EACH SIDE SHOULD PROCEED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION BY THE OTHER SIDE.

SIX, FOLLOWING PUBLIC REMONSTROUS THE PETITIONER REBUTTAL REPORTS OR ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION WILL BE HEARD.

7, THE BZA MEMBERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE PETITIONER CONCERNING THE APPLICATION.

AS DEEMED NECESSARY MEMBERS MAY ALSO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION OF POINTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC OR MAY REQUEST A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE BZA'S COUNCIL REGARDING ANY ASPECT OF THE PETITION. 8, THE CHAIRPERSON SHALL ASK IF THE BZA READY TO PROCEED AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WANT TO ALSO SAY AS CHAIR OF THE MEETING, I INTEND TO FOLLOW FULL DISCUSSION

[00:05:01]

STATEMENTS FOR OR AGAINST FROM THE PUBLIC ARE ALLOWED 20 MINUTES. WITH THAT, I WILL READ NOW INTO THE RECORD THE PETITION FOR THE EVENING.

CARMEL MIDTOWN REDEVELOPMENT VARIANCES.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING USE VARIANCE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD VARIANCE APPROVALS.

DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00082, UV.

UDO SECTION 2.09, PERMITTED USES OFFICE USE IN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT. REQUESTED FOR PARTIAL C AND D. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-0084V, UZO SECTION 2.10. MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SET BACK REQUIRED. 5.7 FOOT REQUEST FORD

PARCELS E AND F. >>> DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00086V, UDO SECTION 2.36.

MAXIMUM 80% C-2 ALLOWED. 85% REQUEST FORD PARCELS, A, B, C AND D. DOCKETS NUMBER PZ-2022-00087V. UDO SECTION 5.19 BUFFER YARD WITH MINIMUM 30-FOOT REAR BUFFER YARD REQUIRED, 15 FOOT REQUESTED FOR PARCELS C AND Z.

>>> DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00088V.

UDO SECTION 5.19 AND 5.21. BUFFER YARD CONTENT HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND PARKING LOT LOCATED IN PORTION OF BUFFER YARDS REQUESTED FOR PARCELS A, C AND D. AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00089V, UDO SECTION 1.07, TRANSPORTATION PLAN COMPLIANCE, 90 FEET, 56 FEET AND 56 FEET STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH REQUIRED FOR THIRD AFTER SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL DRIVE AND EMERSON ROAD.

REQUESTED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON SITE EXHIBIT.

SITES LOCATED 210 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHWEST, FORMER AT&T SITE. AND 449 AND 451 EMERSON ROAD JOHNSON ADDITION LOTS 29 AND 30.

IT IS ZONED C-2/MIXED USE DISTRICT AND R-2 RESIDENTS.

AND PEER DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL INC.

WILL THE PETITIONER PLEASE APPROACH AND INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. GOOD EVENING.

[INAUDIBLE] IS IT LIVE NOW?

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU NEED TECHNOLOGY TIPS WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. HERE WITH ME TONIGHT IS DREW ANDER, ADAM SELIGER, KAFRMTER, CHRIS SEGER, ALSO FROM BUCKINGHAM IS RICK HAHN.

KATE SAGER, AND FROM MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OUR ENGINEER ALLEN. THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CASE, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

LET'S WALK THROUGH THIS VERY INTERESTING CASE HERE.

HOPEFULLY THE POWERPOINT WILL LET ME CHANGE SLIDES.

THERE SIT. THIS CASE INVOLVED A 5.2 ACRE SITE AND IT'S ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF INDUSTRIAL DRIVE AND SOUTHWEST THIRD AVENUE.

MOST OF THE SITE IS ZONED C-2 WHICH YOU ACKNOWLEDGE MIXED USE KIND OF ZONING. THE NORTH END OF THE SITE FEATURES SOME R-2 ZONED PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE

[00:10:02]

YOU GO SOUTH OF THIS SITE AND THERE'S THE OLD WINTER FARMER'S MARKET AND THERE'S ANOTHER CARMEL BUSINESS CENTER. AND THEN YOU GO EAST OF THE SITE AND THERE YOU GET INTO REAL MIXTURE OF USE.

YOU HAVE A BANK. YOU HAVE RAIL YARD AT MIDTOWN. GOING NORTHEAST, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT SINGLE FAMILY UP THERE ON SECOND AVENUE.

THEIR PROPOSAL THE PA PETITIONER PRO PROAL TO TAKE THIS SITE INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL LOOK LIKE THIS.

REPRESENTS A DEVELOPMENT IN EXCESS OF 130 MILLION IN NEW CAPITAL INTO THE CARMEL AREA.

AND I WOULD APPRECIATE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS. WHAT YOU ARE REALLY DISTILL IT DOWN TO. WE ASK FOR ONE VARIANCE OF USE OWN A VERY SMALL SECTION OF REAL ESTATE.

AND FIVE VARIANCES OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT RELATE TO SET BACKS BUFFER YARDS LOT COVERAGE AND IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS SITE. THERE'S NOT A VARIANCE OF HEIGHT REQUESTED IN THIS PETITION.

THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE TONIGHT.

THIS SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY CHANGED.

AND WHAT THAT SHOWS THERE IN THE FOREGROUND A PROPOSED MERCHANT BANK BUILDING ON THE CORNER, THEN BEHIND IT IS BUCKINGHAM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THEN COME BACK OUT TO THE STREET, THAT WOULD BE PURE DEVELOPMENT NEW HEADQUARTERS.

THEY MOVED FROM INDIANAPOLIS TO THIS SITE.

BEHIND IT THAT IS BEHIND THAT RESIDENTIAL LOOKING BUILDING THAT'S AT THE RIGHT END OF THE FRONT OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH, THERE'S ANOTHER OFFICE.

WE'VE TAKEN THAT OFF THE TABLE TONIGHT.

THAT SITE THERE'S NOT ANY VARIANCES SOUGHT FOR THAT BUILDING RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S ALL THE TABLE.

THEN YOU SEE TO THE VERY FAR RIGHT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH THE RENDERING THERE, THERE'S TWO NEW HOMES.

THOSE TWO NEW HOMES ARE THE ONES THAT WE PROPOSE TO BE BUILD WITH THE JOHNSON ADDITION.

HERE'S THE SITE PLAN NOW. THE BOTTOM IS INDUSTRIAL DRIVE. SOUTH THE RIGHT IS SOUTHWEST THIRD. AND THE NEW RESIDENTS ARE UP THERE IN E AND F. AS YOU COME FROM THE TOP OF THE RENDERING TO THE SOUTH, WE HAVE TWO NEW RESIDENTS, IN JOHNSON ADDITION, BELOW PARCEL E FOR NOW WOULD BE AN OPEN GREEN AREA. THEN BELOW F WOULD BE PUREES OFFICE. BELOW PUREES OFFICE WOULD BE THE MERCHANTS BUILDING THEN TO THE LEFT OF THAT OR THE WEST WOULD BE THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.

ACROSS THE STREET WEATHER CHANTS BANK AND RAIL YARD AT MIDTOWN. THE FIRST VARIANCE IS VARIANCE OF USE. MEMBERS OF THE BZA, THIS VARIANCE OF USE TO ALLOW APPROXIMATELY.46 ACRES, LESS THAN HALF AN ACRE OF LAND THAT IS ZONED R-2 TO BE USED FOR OFFICE USE AND STRICTLY FOR OFFICE USE.

THE PLANNING STAFF ASKED US TO AGREE TO LIMIT THAT ONLY TO OFFICE USES AND NOT TO OTHER R-2 USES AND THE PETITIONER IS FINE WITH THAT.

THAT VARIANCE OF USE, THOUGH, WHILE IT OCCUPIES PASTE.46 ACRE IS OUTLINED ON THE EXHIBIT.

ACTUAL PART OF WHERE THE BUILDING IS DOWN THERE BELOW THE AC. YOU CAN SEE THAT OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S LABELED RIGHT THERE.

THE ACTUAL AREA OF WHERE THE VARIANCE OF USE IS BEING REQUESTED IS ONLY .46 ACRES WITHIN THAT MOST IS TAKEN UP BY PATIOS AND COURTYARDS AND OPEN SPACE BUT SOME OF IT IS CERTAINLY TAKEN UP BY THE PURE OFFICE BUILDING WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE TWO STORIES.

THIS VARIANCE OF USE WILL ALLOW FOR THIS REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS C-2 SITE WHICH NOW IF YOU LOOK OVER THAT PURPLE. THE PURPLE AREA IS WHAT IS ZONED C-2. THE TAN AREA IS R-2.

THE NORTH END OF THE AT&T SITE.

THAT CINCHES DOWN A BIT. THAT'S A NARROW PARCEL OF LAND. IT'S MADE EVEN MORE NARROW BY THE WAY THAT SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET COMING RUNNING NORTH AND PINCHES IN TO THE WEST.

IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THAT IN A PRACTICAL MANNER, WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE OF USE AGAIN FOR THAT PASTE.46 ACRES. THAT'S PECULIAR CONDITION ON THIS SITE. THAT ROAD COMING IN AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S A VERY NARROW NORTH END.

[00:15:04]

THIS VARIANCE IS REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE SET BACK TO BE 5.7 FEET ALONG THE BORDER WITH PROPOSED OFFICES.

THESE LOTS WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE R-2 STANDARDS FOR SIZE. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR THE FRONT SET BACK ALONG EMERSON ROAD.

THEY WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE STANDARD FOR LOT COVERAGE. AS YOU DRIVE ALONG EMERSON ROAD, ORIGINALLY, LAST MONTH THERE WAS MORE VARIANCES.

THEY'VE RECONFIGURED THIS DEVELOPMENT SO THAT AS YOU DRIVE ALONG EMERSON ROAD WE ARE NOT SEEKING A FRONT YARD SET BACK. WE'RE NOT SHOVING THE HOMES FORWARD. WE'RE LEAVING THEM IN A LINE THAT IS COME PATABLE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES.

WE MEET THE FRONT YARD SET BACKS.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE NOW.

WE HAVE SUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE.

BUT WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE ALONG THE REAR YARDS THAT WILL BACK UP TO THE PURE OFFICE BUILDING.

THE KEY THING, I THINK TO THINK ABOUT IS WHAT IS BEHIND THE TWO HOMES. WHAT IS BEHIND THE TWO HOMES, IS A RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNED BUILDING.

THE PURE OFFICE BUILDING. THAT'S THE VIEW THAT'S GOING TO BE OUT THE BACKYARDS OF THE TWO HOMES.

WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK AT.

THEY WILL LOOK AT THE COURTYARD.

THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT A PATIO.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A WALL BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND THIS PURE OFFICE BUILDING.

BETWEEN THE HOMES, YES, WE'RE ASKING FOR REDUCTION SET BACK FROM THE BACKYARD LINE TO THE BUILDING OF THE HOMES, BUT BETWEEN THE HOMES AND THE NEXT BUILDING THERE'S A WALL. THERE'S A COURTYARD AND PATIO. AND THE OWNER OF THOSE LOTS BELIEVE THAT WILL BE AN ATTRACTIVE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR LOOKING OUT ACROSS THIS VIEW RIGHT HERE.

THE NEXT VARIANCE IS A LOT COVERAGE FOR PARCELS A, B AND C. AND THE C-2 ZONED PARCELS OF C AND D. WHAT THIS IS, IS A REQUEST FOR A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE. THE COVERAGE ALLOWED IS 80%.

WE ARE SEEKING 86% LOT COVERAGE.

THIS ALLOWS FOR A FIRE LANE WHICH WOULD ONLY BE USED IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. THE FIRE LANE SERVES A REAL PURPOSE AS A PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE.

I DIRECT YOU TO THAT GREEN AREA BETWEEN PARCEL A.

THAT'S THE ONE AT THE BOTTOM.

AND PARCEL D THERE SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE.

IN THAT AREA THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE LOT COVERAGE COMES INTO PLAY. WE ASK FOR 6% VARIANCE ON THAT. WE CAN CREATE PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE THAT WILL BE ATTRACTIVE FEATURE.

WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP THE AT&T SITE IN A MANNER THAT'S CONSIST ABOUT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST AND TO THE NORTH. I WOULD ALSO NOTE FOR THE BZA, WHICH I'M SURE YOU RECALL.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES GRANTED IN THIS AREA WHEN SITE HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED AND OUR REQUEST IS ONLY FOR 6% VARIANCE.

THE NEXT VARIANCE 087 IS REAR BUFFER REGARD.

WE TALKED ACT FOR A SECOND, THE REAR SET BACK FROM THE HOUSES, NOW THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUESTING A SHRINKING OF THE BUFFER YARD BETWEEN THE OFFICE BUILDINGS AND THE BORDER OF THOSE HOUSES.

AND SO WE'VE ASKED THAT REAR BUFFER YARD BE APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET AS SHOWN ON THIS DIAGRAM.

REMEMBER, BETWEEN THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE OF THIS OFFICE BUILDING, THIS PURE HEADQUARTERS AND THOSE HOMES, THERE'S THIS COURTYARD.

THERE'S THIS PATIO AND THERE'S EXTENSIVE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING THAT COMPLIES WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. THE OWNERS OF THESE FOUR PARCELS, BELIEVE THAT THE REDUCTION OF THIS BUFFER YARD WILL NOT CREATE ANY ISSUE IN TERMS OF MARKETABILITY OF THE NEW HOMES THAT THEY WOULD BUILD AND THE OFFICE BUILDINGS, THEY WOULD BUILD.

IN FACT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THE REAR YARD VARIANCE AND THIS BUFFER YARD, LOOK AT THAT.

THAT'S ALL BEHIND THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON EMERSON ROAD. AND SO AS YOU DRIVE DOWN EMERSON ROAD, ON THOSE TWO LOTS, WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS TWO NEW HOMES. THOSE TWO NEW HOMES WOULD BE IN FRONT OF THIS PRO POSTED SHRUNKEN REAR YARD AND THIS PROPOSED SHRUNKEN BUFFER YARD.

THE VIEW FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT AREA WILL NOT CHANGE. THIS SHOWS WHAT THAT LANDSCAPING WILL LOOK LIKE IN THAT BUFFER YARD.

[00:20:02]

WHERE THAT SEATING AREA IS TO THE LEFT OF THE WORDS PROPOSED BUILDING. THAT'S A PATIO.

THEN A COURTYARD. THE ONLY PART OF THE BUILDING IS THE STEM OF THE BUILDING THAT COMES OUT TO THE LEFT THERE. THE REST OF IT SHOWS THAT BETWEEN THOSE TWO WHAT WILL BE NEW HOMES, THERE'S VAR EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING IN THAT REEF BUFFER YARD. THE NEXT VARIANCE IS BUFFER YARD CONTENT FOR PARCELS, A, C AND D.

I THINK THE STAFF WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS A VARIANCE THAT THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY CERTAIN OF.

BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE HARDSCAPE IN BUFFER YARD BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY CLEAR I THINK IN YOUR ORDINANCE HOW MUCH HARDSCAPE YOU CAN HAVE IN THERE.

WHAT THIS SHOWS IN THAT PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE AREA BETWEEN PARCEL A AND D, WHICH WON'T HAVE VEHICLES ON IT. IT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR VEHICLES FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS, BUT IT WILL BE A WAY FOR FOLKS TO WALK BACK TO THEIR TOWN HOME RESIDENTS AND WALK ALONG THAT AREA. IT COULD BE USED FOR VEHICLE IN EMERGENCY SITUATION, BUT WHAT THAT EXHIBIT SHOWS, IS THAT THERE'S STILL A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S PROPOSED IN PARCEL A AND OUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST.

THERE'S BETWEEN 106 FEET AND 140 FEET DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU MEASURE FROM THE FRONT OR MEASURE FROM THE FACE OF THE MULTISTORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.

BUT THE AGAIN, THERE'S ADEQUATE LANDSCAPING AND DISTANCE WE BELIEVE TO ALLOW FOR THIS VARIANCE TO HAVE THE HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE BUFFER YARD.

THE SHOWS OUR LANDSCAPING RIGHT ALONG THE EDGE BETWEEN US AND THE PARCEL A AND THE TWO RESIDENTS TO THE WEST OF THE TWO RESIDENTS WHERE WE WILL REPLACE -- WE'RE GOING TO PUT NEW BUILDINGS IN. THAT SHOWS THE FAMILY OFFICE ON THAT BUILDING. WE COULDN'T GET THAT SLIDE CHANGED. THAT'S NOTICE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. THIS IS SHOW YOU WHAT THE PROMENADE LOOKS LIKE. THAT'S FROM THE WEST END OF THE TWO-STORY TOWN HOMES AND THE MULTIFAMILY LOOKING EAST. AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LANDSCAPED AREA, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A STREET.

IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO HAVE TRAFFIC IN IT.

IT WON'T BE USED FOR VEHICLES AGAIN EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. THE LAST VARIANCE SORT OF INTERESTING. THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CALLS FOR AND DEVELOPMENT CALLED FOR DEDICATION OF CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAYS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY IS. AND WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THAT AND ESSENTIALLY THIS VARIANCE JUST TO LEAVE THE RIGHT OFWAYS AS THEY EXIST TODAY. LOOKING AT THE TOP OF THE EXHIBIT. YOU HAVE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG EMERSON ROAD OF 50 FEET.

OUR PROPOSAL BECAUSE WE'RE JUST REPLACING TWO RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITH TWO RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

WE DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO WIDEN EMERSON ROAD AND WE SUSPECT THAT THE FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THAT SUBDIVISION WOULDN'T WANT THAT WIDENED ANYWAY.

IT'S ADEQUATE NOW FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT'S WITHIN THAT AREA. YOU CAN PARK ON THE SIDES OF THE ROAD AND TRAFFIC CAN GET BY.

WE'RE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING NOT TO HAVE TO DEDICATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEN THE USE IS GOING TO BE THE SAME ON THOSE TWO LOTS.

THEN YOU COME DOWN INDUSTRIAL DRIVE AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT EXHIBIT, IT HAS AN EXISTING 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT.

. INDUSTRIAL DRIVE DEAD ENDS TO THE WEST. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE WE DON'T THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL DEADCATION DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WHEN IT CUL-DEC-SAC'S AND DEAD ENDS. THE EAST SIDE THERE'S VAR YEAHTH RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT AND THE STAFF BELIEVES THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED BY CITY OF CARMEL ON THAT AREA AND WE'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY OF CARMEL DOES NOT NEED ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY OR FORECAST NEED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THAT AREA. ESSENTIALLY THE REASON WE ASK FOR THAT VARIANCE RELATING TO RIGHT-OF-WAY, IS TAT WE THINK THAT THE EXISTING ROADWAYS ARE ADEQUATE AND WE DON'T SEE A NEED TO DEDICATE ADDITIONAL

RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> THE STAFF HAS VIEWED THIS VERY CAREFULLY. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETING.

[00:25:02]

THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE OF SITE THAT NEEDS REDEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDTOWN AREA. THEY ALSO NOTE THAT OFFICE BUILDING AND TOWN HOMES CAN BE LOCATED NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHICH YOU SEE IN CARMEL.

AND THAT THIS PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT IS GOOD TRANSITION FROM THIS VACANT SITE TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED IN THE JOHNSON ADDITION.

ALSO APPARENTLY THERE'S A PENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH SHOWS CENTRAL CARMEL AS THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THAT PATTERN LOOKS AND ACCOMMODATES INDUSTRIAL RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. WE'RE PROPOSING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES ON OUR SITE.

THE STAFF CONCLUDES PETITIONER ADDRESSED ALL PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW COMMENTS RELATED TO THE BZA PETITION. LASTLY THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE DOCKET NUMBERS 5 WE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AND ONE VARIANCE OF USE WHICH ARE 82, 84, 86, 87, 88 AND 89. SORT OF WRAPPING UP THE PRESENTATION, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT OUR FINDINGS OF FACT BE INCLUDED IN OUR PRESENTATION THAT WERE FILED. AND MEMBERS OF THE BZA, THIS IS WHAT THE SITE LOOKS LIKE NOW.

AND IT IS CLEARLY A SITE IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT.

AND WHAT THESE PETITIONERS PROPOSE TO DO WITH SIX DEVELOPMENT STANDARD -- FIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD VARIANCES, AND ONE USE VARIANCE NONE OF WHICH RELATE TO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS, IS TO TURN THAT INTO THIS SITE WITH THE ONE CHANGE THAT SECONDARY OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S BEHIND THE PURE HEADQUARTERS WOULD COME

OUT. >> YOU'RE 15 MINUTES IS EXPIRED. I WILL CONCLUDE OUR REMARKS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> BEFORE YOU LEAVE, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. YOU BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS SLIGHTLY CHANGED.

OKAY. WHAT -- I'M CONFUSED.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? IS IT CHANGED TODAY? RIGHT NOW? HAS THE STAFF HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS. HAS THE PUBLIC HAD AN

OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT. >> THE WAY IT'S CHANGED THE BEST WAY I CAN EXPLAIN IT, THAT EXHIBIT RIGHT THERE.

IN PARCEL D A PRIOR ITERATION OF THAT EXHIBIT SHOWED WHAT WAS CALLED A FAMILY OFFICE BUILDING.

WE'VE REMOVED THAT BUILDING. >> IS THAT A PART OF THE VARIANCES THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR TODAY?

>> NO. >> THE REMOVAL OF THAT BUILDING DIDN'T CHANGE THE VARIANCES WE NEED.

>> PARCEL D NO LONGER EXISTS THEN?

>> IT EXISTS, IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE A BUILDING ON IT. THAT LAND IS THERE.

AND MAYBE THIS WILL CLARIFY THAT.

IN THAT PARCEL D WE WOULD STILL NEED A VARIANCE OF USE OVER PART OF IT. BECAUSE PART OF PARCEL D IS

ZONED R-2. >> OKAY.

MY POINT OF BRINGING THIS UP IS I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE SURPRISES. AND HAVING JUST NOW HEARD THIS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE AT LEAST FROM STAFF AND OUR LEGAL ATTORNEY THAT -- THIS APPEARS TO WHAT WE HAVE ON FILE AND WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING HERE.

BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T, THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE.

I'M GOING TO THROW IT OPEN TO THEM RIGHT NOW.

>> FROM THE LEGAL STANDPOINT IT DOESN'T CHANGE MUCH.

BECAUSE REQUEST WITH VARIANCES IS STILL THE SAME.

UNLESS THE PLANNING STAFF HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD JUST DELETING ELIMINATING A BUILDING FROM PARCEL D I DON'T THINK CHANGES WHAT THE PA TIGSZER WILL NEED TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE BZA FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED.

I DON'T THINK IT'S SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL CHANGE.

BUT STAFF MIGHT THINK OTHERWISE.

>> I THINK THIS SITE PLAN IS CHANGED FOR THE BETTER.

[00:30:01]

WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT.

BUT WE DO SEE IT AS A POSITIVE CHANGE FOR THE SITE

PLAN. >> BOARD FEEL COMFORTABLE

MOVING AHEAD? >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. FINE, WE WILL.

I WANT TO ALSO MAKE THIS STATEMENT AGAIN REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER. STATEMENTS FOR AND AGAINST FROM THE PUBLIC ARE ALLOWED TWENTY MINUTES.

WE HAVE AN ORGANIZED REMONSTROUS WHICH INCLUDE FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ASK FOR 15 MINUTES BY THE CHAIR IS GRANTING. AND IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PETITION, WHO IS NOT A PART OF THE ORGANIZED REMONSTROUS, WILL YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SO I CAN SEE HOW YOU ARE AND HOW MANY YOU ARE SO WE HAVE, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN.

SEVEN INDIVIDUALS. OKAY.

WHAT I'M GOING TO DO FOR THOSE SEVEN, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE SUSPEND OUR RULES TO ALLOW THOSE SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE OF THE ORGANIZED REMONSTROUS ONE MINUTE EACH TO STATE THEIR REASON FOR OR THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS PETITION.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? >> SECOND.

>> WHAT WAS THE FIRST A LOTMENT OF TIME FOR THE

ORGANIZATION? >> 15 MINUTES.

>> FOR FOUR PEOPLE. >> THERE'S FIVE INDIVIDUALS.

AND >> THEY WILL EACH -- TOTAL 15 MINUTES. TOTAL.

THAT LEAVES FIVE EXTRA MINUTES.

>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, A

MINUTE TO SPEAK, SAY "AYE." >> AYE.

>> OKAY. THAT'S HOW WE WILL DO IT.

THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE REPRESENTED TONIGHT THERE'S EITHER OR THEIR SPOKESPERSON PLEASE COME TO THE FRONT.

INTRODUCE YOURSELF INTO THE MICROPHONE AND YOU CAN

PROCEED. >> THANK YOU.

>> SECRETARY, PLEASE KEEP TRACK OF TIME.

THANKS. >> THANK YOU PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'M GREG.

I'M AN ATTORNEY THAT'S BEEN HIRED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO RESIDE IN THE JOHNSON ADDITION TO PRESENT AN OPPOSITION OF THE PETITION TODAY.

I THINK TWO THINGS THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE HERE IS JOHNSON ADDITION WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1955 AND FOR NEARLY 70 YEARS HAS BEEN IN CARMEL UNDER THE SAME PLAT, COVENENCE AND RESTRICTIONS. I DO BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JOHNSON ADDITION DID FILE THAT PLAT, THAT PLAT DOES INCLUDE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ESSENTIALLY REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS CAN BE HAD ON THE PROPERTY. AND NO USE CAN BE COMMERCIAL. NOW I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUTLINES THE PLAN FOR CARMEL. AND I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THAT THE UDO IS IN PLACE TO FURTHER THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I THINK THE JOHNSO ADDITION WOULD LOOK AT THE FACT THAT ESSENTIALLY THERE WERE NINE, NOW THERE'S SIX, THERE'S SIX VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR THIS PROJECT WHICH STILLS THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THIS DOESN'T REALLY GO WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS DOESN'T REALLY GO WITH THE UDO. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY ONE ISSUE BEFORE I GET INTO SOME OF THE NITTY-GRITTY ON THE SPECIFICS. WHAT HAS BEEN LABELED AS PARCEL C AND D AND E AND F DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST.

AS YOU LOOK TO THE R-2, THE EXISTING, R-2 ZONING LIMITS AND I THINK IT'S PAGE 9 OF PETITIONER'S PACKET HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE R-2 ZONING LIMITS ESTABLISHED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE CURRENT LOTS IN THE JOHNSON ADDITION.

THE PROPOSAL TO SHORTEN E AND F AND CREATE E AND F IS NOT ACTUALLY DONE. THIS IS NOT A THING THAT EXISTS AS WE SIT HERE TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, FIRST THESE LOTS THAT ARE IN THE R-2 RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WOULD BE E, F, C, D. THOSE DON'T EXIST AS SEPARATE ENTITIERS AS OF RIGHT NOW.

IF THEY DID THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THE PLATS AND COVENENCE OF THE JOHNSON ADDITION WHICH PROHIBIT

[00:35:03]

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SPECIAL USE VARIANCE REQUEST AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE.

2.09 ALLOWS AN R-2 ZONED PARCEL TO HAVE A SPECIAL USE FOR ONLY A CLINICAL OR MEDICAL HEALTH CENTER OFFICE. IT'S NOT ANY OFFICE WHATSOEVER. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE C-2, THEN, YES, GENERAL OFFICE IS ALLOWED.

BY THE UDO'S OWN TERMS A SPECIAL USE NOT ALLOWED UNDER R-2 FOR GENERAL OFFICE PURPOSES.

THE OFFICE PURPOSES ARENARIER AS TO CLINICAL OR MEDICAL HEALTH CENTERS ONLY. -- NARROW AS TO CLINICAL OR

MEDICAL HEALTH CENTERS ONLY. >> SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUING, AND, AGAIN, THE JOHNSON NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN THERE FOR 70 YEARS. THEY HAVE A STRONG SENSE OF COMMUNITY AS YOU CAN SEE HERE FOR TODAY.

THE PROPOSAL HAS ELIMINATED THE FRONT YARD SET BACKS.

THAT'S A GOOD THING GENERALLY.

BUT I WOULD DISAGREE WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD THAT ALL THE LOTS ARE GOING TO LOOK THE SAME.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THINGS IMMEDIATELY IN THE BACKYARD OF WHAT THEY HAVE DEEMED PARCEL F.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED IS A SET BACK TO BE REDUCED TO FIVE FEET BUT IT'S OKAY BECAUSE THEY WILL PUT A WALL UP AND THEN A BUFFER YARD SHRINKAGE TO 15 FEET. WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS ESSENTIALLY YOU WILL HAVE NEWLY BUILT HOUSE OR THE PROPOSED NEWLY BUILT HOUSE 20 FEET AWAY FROM THE NEXT BIG STRUCTURE. IT IS A QUESTION THAT I HAVE AND I'M SURE MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THE ADDITION ALSO HAVE. THAT BUFFER YARD WAS KIND OF SLUFFED IN IMPORTANCE. BECAUSE THERE'S THIS OUTDOOR SETTING. IT'S NOT REALLY A BUILDING.

ONE HAS TO QUESTION WHAT THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT PATIO AND THOSE THINGS ARE. IS THAT PATIO MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE BUFFER YARD BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOW WHAT'S BUILT IN C-2? I WOULD SAY NO.

I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD ALSO SAY NO.

WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PARKING LOT, WITHOUT THAT SECONDARY OFFICE BUILDING WHICH AGAIN WE WEREN'T AWARE OF AT THE TIME PREPARING FOR TODAY. I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF THE CONCERN IS LESSENED BECAUSE THERE WILL BE HOPEFULLY SOME GREEN SPACE. BUT, AGAIN, WHATEVER IS THERE, HAS TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND CANNOT BE COMMERCIAL BY TERMS OF THE PLAT. BUT THE HARDSCAPE PROPOSED I GUESS AREA IN BETWEEN EVERYTHING HERE THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY BACKYARD TO THE PROPOSED HOUSE, WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED ON PARCEL F. AND WHILE IT MAY LOOK THE SAME AS YOU DRIVE DOWN OR HOPEFULLY THE SAME AS YOU DRIVE DOWN THE STREET, I WOULD VENTURE A GUESS THAT NOT MANY PEOPLE WOULD PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR A HOUSE THAT HAS AN ACTUAL BACKYARD RATHER THAN FIVE FEET OF BACKYARD AND A WALL. WHEN THAT HOUSE SALES FOR LESS, COMPS IN AREA WILL PULL THE REST OF THE HOUSES DOWN. THAT'S ONE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO BOARD TO CONSIDER.

AT THE END OF THE DAY AND I'M GOING TO GIVE THE REST OF MY TEAM. I WANT TO REITERATE THE FACT A THE LOTS DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST AS THEY ARE OUTLINED HERE. THAT'S NOT HOW THEY SIT.

THAT'S NOT LEGALLY HOW THEY SIT.

B, THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS UNDER A PLAT.

THAT ONLY ALLOWED FOR COMMERCIAL -- NONCOMMERCIAL US AND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

THE VARIANCES THAT WILL BEING REQUESTED ARE DIRECTLY THOSE RESTRICTIONS. AND LASTLY, I THINK THAT UDO THE PLAN, THEY OUTLINE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF COMMUNITIES. AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

[00:40:03]

BUT WHAT THEY ARE ANTI IS TAKING TWO OF LOTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 70 YEARS TURNING THEM INTO COMMERCIAL LOTS AS PART OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>>>CHAIR: THANK YOU.

THE INDIVIDUALS ARE YOU A PART OF THIS?

>> I'M PART OF THE ORGANIZED.

>> HOW MUCH TIME DO THEY HAVE LEFT?

>> I WASN'T KEEPING TRACK? >> I'M NOT ASKING YOU.

>> SIX MINUTES 20 -- 26 SECOND.

THE REST OF YOU MAKE YOUR TIME IN SIX MINUTES AND 26

SECONDS. >> I WILL GO QUICK.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN GET IT DONE THAT FAST.

I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO.

I WILL CALL MY SEGMENT ERRORS OMISSIONS.

LET'S START WITH THIS IS TITLED THE MIDTOWN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CARMEL MIDTOWN REDEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS NOT MIDTOWN. IT'S NOT A PART OF THE MIDTOWN SEGMENT. IT'S NOT A PART OF OLD TOWN.

IT IS A PROPERTY THAT DOES NEED REDEVELOPING.

BUT I THINK THAT IT'S DECEIVING TO CALL THIS MIDTOWN BECAUSE THAT HAS A CERTAIN CONNOTATION TO IT ALONG WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS YOU EXPECT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER LEVEL OF SCRUTINY THAT I DON'T THINK THIS PIECE IS GETTING. I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR.

NINE VARIANCES IS EXCEEDINGLY HIGH.

THEY CANCELLED THREE OF THEM FOR NOW.

THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO SAY THEY CAN'T COME BACK AND SAY WE WANT TO MAKE THE OTHER THREE VARIANCES ACTIVE.

THAT'S A PROBLEM IN THAT THEY CHOOSE TO CUT THE FRONT YARD DOWN ON THESE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES, AT THE LATER TIME, YOU KNOW, ALL WE CAN SAY IS WELL, THEY WITH DREW THAT. THEY NEVER SAID THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO COME BACK. THAT CONCERNS ME GREATLY.

NINE VARIANCES, TELLS YOU THIS IS TOO AGGRESSIVE FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT'S FIVE ACRES.

THEY ARE TRYING TO GET ONE TOO MUCH ON ONE PIECE OF LAND. YOU KNOW, WHY DID THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP IT TO THAT LEVEL AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT MAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE.

THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH C-2-LAND ALONG INDUSTRIAL DRIVE THEY COULDN'T ADD THE OFFICE BUILDING ELSEWHERE.

IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SQUEEZED ON TO THIS FIVE-ACRE PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN PUBLICLY STATED BY SOME PEOPLE IN THIS STAFF AS WELL AS DEVELOPER 75 FOOT IS ALLOWED IN C-2. THAT'S TRUE.

SPECIFICALLY STATED, THOUGH, NOT NEXT TO DIRECTLY ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS DIRECTLY ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL. IN THAT CASE IT'S 35-FOOT HEIGHT. THAT MAY NOT BE -- I MAY BE WRONG HERE. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF C-2. THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T AFFORD TO PUT THE PARKING UNDER GROUND.

THEY WERE JUST GIVEN 25 MILLION FROM THE TIFF FUND.

I BELIEVE THEY COULD GET THEIR PARKING UNDER GROUND.

THAT'S A MOOT ARGUMENT ON THEIR PART.

SPEAKING OF THE GARAGE, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE. IF IT'S ANYTHING LIKE THE CURRENT MERCHANTS PARKING, THEY HAVE ARMS WHERE IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC.

IT SHOULD BE. DEVELOPERS SPLITTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE OFFICE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. NO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT HAS A FIVE-FOOT BACKYARD.

YOU CAN'T FIND ONE. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD

START THAT NOW. >> I'M GOING TO END MY PART THERE. AND MOVE ON.

>> I'M BRUCE BARRY. I'VE BEEN IN CARMEL SINCE 2001. I'M ARCHITECT HERE IN THE COMMUNITY. WE JUST WANT THIS NEIGHBOR TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. RIGHT NOW THE DESIGN IS NOT.

IT'S A VERY CLEAR AS OUR ATTORNEYS SPOKE THAT IN SECTION 104 OF THE UDO THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED -- THE UDO

[00:45:06]

THE PECULIAR CONDITION THAT THE PETITIONER HAS CLAIMED IS AN EXISTING CONDITION. IT'S NOT A SURPRISE.

THEY DIDN'T UNCOVER IT AS THEY STARTED THEIR DESIGN.

IT WAS KNOWN RIGHT UP FRONT. AND I WOULD CONTEND THAT THEY CREATED THEIR OWN HARDSHIP.

I WILL RUSH THIS. BECAUSE I HAVE LOT MORE TO GO. REGARDING THE REAR SET BACK, THAT'S RIDICULOUS. IT'S BARELY ENOUGH FOR AN EGRESS FROM A BEDROOM. IT SHOULDN'T.

IF THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH PARCEL D.

RECONFIGURE IT AND REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE IT'S TAKING IF THEY ARE NOT CLAIMING TOO USE IT.

THIS BY PIERCING THE NEIGHBORHOODS ORDER THEY ARE JEOPARDIZING THE INTEGRITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU. I'M KELLY BASKET.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE VERY BEAUTIFUL DESIGN THAT'S BEING PRESENTED WITH THE CANOPY OF TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PARCEL A.

IT WAS UP HERE JUST A LITTLE BIT AGO.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S NO PROJECTING.

IT SHOULD. IF SOMEONE COULD TURN ON THE PROJECTOR. THAT CANOPY OF TREES IS BEAUTIFUL. 40 FEET FROM THE FENCE TO THE VERTICAL WALL, 30 FEET OF IT IS USED FOR PERSONAL SMALL YARDS AND HARDSCAPE. THAT LEAVES TEN FEET.

THOSE TREES NEED 20-FOOT DIAMETER TO GROW.

I'VE CONSULTED WITH THE PROFESSIONAL AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID. THOSE TREES ARE ABOUT 35 FEET TALL. WE WILL BE ROBBED OF OUR BUFFER ENTIRELY BECAUSE THE SHADE TREES ARE THE MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE BUFFER. WHEN WE HAVE THAT HARDSCAPE, AND ONLY LEFT TEN FEET TO SHOW FOR IT, I WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT A PLAN JUST LIKE THIS LOOKS LIKE AND THAT IS RIGHT HERE WHERE WE WERE SHOWN GORGEOUS ILLUSTRATIONS OF TREES, PROMOTIONAL WHEN THE PROJECT WAS DONE, THIS IS WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH. 8 FEET OF GREEN PLANTABLE SPACE AND NOTHING BY VINES CAN GROW.

THIS CANNOT HAPPEN. IT CANNOT HAPPEN.

AND WITH PROPER PLANNING, WHICH ARE IN THE PLANNING STAGES NOW, WE CAN KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING.

WE HAVE -- PLEASE DON'T LET THEM HAVE HARDSCAPES IN THAT BUFFER YARD. BECAUSE WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GROW SHADE TREES. WE SIMPLY MUST HANG ON TO THAT. AND WE'RE ENTITLED TO IT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF WE COULD HAVE MORE TIME.

WE HAVE THREE MORE PEOPLE. >> THERE WERE ONLY SUPPOSED

TO BE FIVE. >> YOU HAVE TWO MORE TO GO.

>> TWO MORE PEOPLE. >> I WILL GRANT YOU TWO

MINUTES. >> EACH?

>> TWO MINUTES EACH. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> FORGIVE ME FOR NOT STANDING UP. I HAD AN INJURY TODAY AND CAN'T STAND. I'M CHARLIE DEMLER.

I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR SHOWING UP FOR IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I LIVE 463 EMERSON ROAD.

AND WILL BE IMPACTED THE MOST IF THESE PASS THE WAY THEY ARE. I MOVED IN 1980.

I WAS 23 YEARS OLD AND HAVE RETIRED THERE.

THE MAYOR HAS DONE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS FOR CARMEL.

WHEN SIT OKAY TO PUT SIX STORY BUILDING 70 FEET TALL UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A BUFFER ZONE WHICH IS SET IN PLACE IN CARMEL.

I'M WORRIED THE BUFFER ZONE IS REDUCED IN THEIR PLAN.

IT WILL KILL MY 15 MATURE TREES ALONG MY PROPERTY LINE. IF I TOOK MY DRONE AND FLEW IT 70 FEET UP. YOU WOULD CALL THE POLICE AND HAVE ME ARRESTED. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. THEY NEED TO REDUCE THE SIX STORY BUILDING. THIS IS INVADING MY PRIVACY.

MORE THAN ANYONE ELS ON THE SOUTH AND EAST OF ME.

I HAVE HAD MY POOL THERE SINCE 1989.

WHEN I SAT IN MY HOT TUB AT NIGHT LOOKING AT THE SOUTH AT THE STARS, I WILL NOW SEE SIX STORY BUILDING WINDOWS BLOCKING MY VIEW. WOULD YOU WANT THAT IN YOUR BACKYARD OR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THEY LOOK DOWN ON MY HOT TUB OR POOL WHILE I'M SUNBATHING.

[00:50:03]

WE WON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.

RECENTLY I EVEN HAD THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TELL ME THIS IS JUST THE STARTING POINT. IT WON'T BE LIKE THIS IN THE END. IT SURE LOOKS PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT THEY HAD FROM THE STARTING POINT.

WE DON'T WANT THE LOTS SPLIT.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE. WE WANT THE FIRST TWO STORIES BURIED. THE GARAGE.

THEY GOT THE MONEY. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

PLEASE DON'T ALLOW PURE DEVELOPMENT TO CUT UP OUR GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND DO THIS WITH THEIR

CURRENT PROPOSALS. >> THANK YOU.

>> IF SOMEONE COULD TURN ON THE OVERHEAD, THAT WOULD BE

AWESOME. >> I'M A RESIDENT HERE.

I'M REALLY JUST HERE TO TALK PRIMARILY ABOUT THE LOTS ON 449 AND 451 EMERSON. OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE TALKED ABOUT OTHERS. WE'RE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. IN FACT, ONE PART OF TODAY'S PROPOSAL IF I LOOK AT THE PICTURE THAT WAS DONE IT HAS THE MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING STILL PORTRAYED AS THREE STORIES. I BELIEVE IT'S NOW FOUR.

WE'RE NOT REMONSTER RAITDING AGAINST IT.

IF I LOOK WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME HERE.

HERE'S THE TWO LOTS. THESE GUYS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE ONE SEPARATE -- ONE DECISION IN IT'S ENTIRETY. WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE FAMILY OFFICE. APPARENTLY THE SCOTT FAMILY IS NOW OFF THE STABLE. BUT WE DO HAVE PURE WITH A LITTLE NUB HERE IN THIS PARCEL.

IT'S A VERY IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT.

IF THIS WERE THE ONLY THING THEY WERE COMING TO US WITH TO CARVE OUT THAT LITTLE PIECE AND PUT THE 35-FOOT BUFFER YARD AROUND IT. I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD FIND A LOT OF REMONSTROUS FROM US.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FAMILY OFFICE WHICH BY THE WAY IS -- IT'S HERE. IT MAY BE GONE FOR NOW.

BUT IT'S -- THEY WANT TO TAKE AND CANNIBALIZED THAT PLOT THE FUTURE. MY ASK IS SIMPLE.

HAVE THEM SUBMIT BRAND-NEW VARIANCES FOR THE PLATTED PARCELLED AND IN TERMS OF FIVE-FOOT BUFFER YARD.

THIS AN OLD RENDERING WHERE THEY SKOOCHED IT FORWARD.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEW RENDERING, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN MAYBE FIT A DOUBLEWIDE TRAILER.

I WILL COMPARE TO MY HOUSE. MIKE AND ANGIES OFFICE WOULDN'T LET ME MOVE AN INCH.

NO SIDE BUFFER. NO BACK BUFFER.

ENGINEERED EVERY SINGLE STEP OF MINE IMPERMEABLE LAND ALL IN THERE. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CANNEN BEGIN TO APPROVE OR VIEW THOSE PARCELS AS THEY ARE PROJECTED BECAUSE THEY ARE COMBINED NUMBER ONE, AND NUMBER TWO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY DETAIL OF WHATSOEVER WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL LOOK LIKE.

AND IN THE NEW DRAWING, IT LOOKS LIKE A DOUBLE WIDE TRAILER ALL YOU CAN PUT ON THERE IN TERMS OF

FOOTPRINTS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> NOW THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAD THEIR HANDS UP, IF YOU COULD LINE UP AND GO ONE AFTER THE OTHER.

I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. HANG ON JUST A SECOND.

>> MISSING SOME PEOPLE? >> IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND THE AREA OF CARMEL WHICH YOU

RESIDE. >> MY NAME MARY ZAJA SKR K437 EMERSON ROAD IN JOHNSON ADDITION JUST FORTH H NORTH OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

MY PARENTS POLISH IMMIGRANTS FORCED TO WORK AS SLAVE LABORER. NEITHER OF THEM WENT BACK BECAUSE AFTER THE WAR HAD TAKEN THEIR COUNTRY.

THEY WERE SPONSORED BY SOCIAL SERVICES AND IMMIGRATED IN 1950 AFTER STUDYING AND LEARNING THE LANGUAGE THEY BECOME U.S. CITIZENS.

THE GOOD PEOPLE OF CARMEL HELPED MY DAD GET A JOB AT CARMEL SCREW PRODUCTS WHERE HE LIVE WORKED UNTIL HE WAS ABLE TO SAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY A LOT AND BUILD A HOME AT 437 EMERSON ROAD. OUR HOUSE IS ONE OF THE FIRST HOMES TO BE BUILT IN THE SUBDIVISION.

WE HAD MANY NEIGHBORS ORIGINALLY JOHNSON FAMILY, FARM INDIANA BAIL AND PRESENTLY THE YARDS OF MONON BEHIND MY PROPERTY. THEY CAN SEE INTO MY

[00:55:02]

THEY ARE NOT STRUCTURED. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO SHARE OUR PROPERTY WITH PURE PUT JUST REMEMBER, WE WANT NOT TO BE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BUT NEAR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

MY NAME RILEY CHOE. I LIVE NEAR THIRD AVENUE AND MAIN STREET. I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONING. I BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.

AND IT WILL BE GOOD FOR WALKABILITY.

WALKABILITY IS IMPORTANT FOR ME.

YOU CAN EASILY ACCESS THINGS BY WALKING OR RIDING YOUR BIKE. AND AT THE AGE OF 14, MY GOT MY FIRST JOB AT BIKE SHOP AT CITY CENTER.

I ROAD MY BIKE TO SCHOOL. I ROAD MIRE BIKE TO WORK AND HOME. I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH OUT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME THE PAULA PIERCE. 320 WINDING WAY WHICH IS PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT NOT IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED. AND I AM NEW TO THE AREA.

AND TO ME I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU LOOK AT THAT PICTURE YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY SEE DO WE NEED THAT THERE? I THINK WE'RE ALL ON BOARD THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THAT AT&T BUILDING.

BUT IF YOU JUST COMPLETELY TAKE OVER THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WILL BE SAYING GOOD-BYE TO TREMENDOUS HISTORY I FEEL LUCKY TO LIVE THERE. YOU HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE MAKING THE CHOICE TO COMPLETELY CHANGE IT.

>> MY NAME THE DEB SEE THEING.

665 EMERSON. ONE THING I THINK IS REALLY STRANGE IS WHY DOES MERCHANTS BANK WANT TO BUILD A BUILDING WHERE THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE AND MOST BANKS I GO INTO THESE DAYS HARDLY NO ONE IS INSIDE THE BANK. I FIND IT REALLY WEIRD.

>> SERIOUSLY. I FIND THAT EXTREMELY BIZARRE. AND THEN THIS BUILDING THAT IS IN ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK, WAS THAT PUT DOWN TO FOUR LEVELS OR STILL SIX. HOW IN HEAVENS NAME IN A SUBDIVISION. OLD SUBDIVISION ALL OUR NICE OLD RANCH HOUSES WHATEVER, SIX STORY BUILDING? NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THE EXTRA TIME. I'M JOHN BABCOCK.

I LIVE IN WILSON VILLAGE. OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEEN DETERMINED THAT PARCEL D DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.

WE WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOPER TO COME TO THE TABLE AND TALK WITH US. WE'VE GOT IDEAS ON HOW THIS PROJECT CAN FIT BETTER AND THERE'S BEEN NO SENSITIVITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON PART OF THE DEVELOPER, AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN PUSH THIS DOWN THE ROAD. AND FOR FUTURE -- ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. THANK YOU.

>> HELLO MY NAME THE KAREN NAPP.

I RESIDE PART OF THE TIME 463 EMERSON.

I ACTUALLY AM ASKED TO READ A LETTER FOR A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PULLED AWAY FOR AN EMERGENCY.

THEY LIVE AT JIELLY 425 EMERSON.

AND SHE'S ON VACATION AND HER DAUGHTER TORY LIVES AT SECOND HOUSE SHE BOUGHT IN 2003 AT 475 EMERSON.

IN 1998 SHE BOUGHT HER FOREVER HOME AT 425 EMERSON.

SHE WANTED TO KNOW THIS WAS WHAT SHE WANTED TO LIVE AT.

AND SHE HAD LIVED IN THIS HOME FOR SINCE THEN.

SHE'S MADE IT THROUGH TWO DIVORCES, HAS ASKED THAT SHE HAS READING BENCH IN THE FRONT OF HER HOUSE.

HOW MUCH SHE'S BOUGHT AND LOVED IT.

SHE BOUGHT A SECOND HOME AND MOVED HER DAUGHTER IN THERE.

>> MY TIME IS UP. BUT YOU KNOW, SHE JUST WANTED US TO RELAY BECAUSE THEY HAD EMERGENCY AND DEATH AND THE FAMILY THAT THEY HAD TO LEAVE FOR.

JUST TO REITERATE, SIX STORIES LOOKING OVER THAT'S A REALLY BIG INVASION OF PRIVACY, PEOPLE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD EVENING, MEMBER OF BE BZA. I'M CARMEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WITH REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME HERE.

[01:00:03]

133 MILLION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IN OUR MIDTOWN AREA. IT CONTINUES TO EXPAND OUR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. AND OUR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ARE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY OUR CENTRAL CARMEL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SO STRONG.

BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUED REINVESTMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT. IT ALSO AS WE SEE IN JOHNSON WILSON VILLAGE KEEPS THE NEIGHBORHOODS STRONG AND KEEPS INTEREST IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL.

JOHNSON IS A STORIES NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S HISTORY SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

BUT NOT EVERY HOUSE IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

IN HERE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF HOUSES THAT HAVE ABUTTED INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOR A LONG TIME.

WHERE 60-FOOT STRUCTURES WERE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN 2015 -- WOULD BIT OKAY IF I HAVE TWO MINUTES?

>> IF I COULD JUST END WITH. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PLANNED PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER HERE. THE GARAGE IS PUBLIC.

AND I HOPE THAT THE BZA FINDS ITS WAY TO APPROVE THE PROJECT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU ALL.

PETITIONER, YOU MAY MAKE A BRIEFLY BUTTAL -- BRIEF REBUTTAL TO THE PUBLIC REMONSTROUS.

>> THANK YOU MAY I START REBUTTAL ONCE I GET THE

POWERPOINT UP HERE. >> THANK YOU.

>> MEMBERS OF BZA, MAY I WALK UP HERE TO POINT AT AN EXHIBIT [INAUDIBLE] I THINK THE FIRST ISSUE THAT WAS RACED WHETHER THIS FITS IN THE COME PREMENS CIVIL PLAN.

AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I THINK THE FOLKS THAT BEST DETERMINE WHAT FITS IN C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THE PLANNING STAFF. THEY BELIEVE IT'S CONSISTENT COMPATIBLE USE. THEY PROPOSE MULTIFAMILY.

AND OFFICE AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY.

EAR YOU HAVE OFFICE, MULTIFAMILY, AND SINGLE FAMILY RIGHT OVER HERE. THE HOMES THEY ARE PROPOSING ARE VERY SUBSTANTIAL. THEY BELIEVE THEY WILL SELL FOR CLOSE TO A MILLION DOLLARS.

THEY BELIEVE THEY WILL SELL FOR CLOSE TO A MILLION DOLLARS WITH THOSE VARIANCES OF THEIR BACKYARD.

THE REASON BEING, IS THEY DON'T THINK SHRINKING OF THE BACKYARD AND HAVING A SHRUNKEN BUFFER YARD BEHIND THOSE HOMES WILL ADVERSELY EFFECT THEIR VALUE.

THE IDEA OF ABOUT THE HEIGHT.

WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S CONCERN OVER THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. BUT THAT IS NOT BEFORE THIS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. AND I WOULD NOTE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN EXAMPLES OF TALL BUILDING RIGHT ACROSS FROM VERY SUBSTANTIAL RESIDENTIAL HOMES THERE ON SECOND STREET. THERE ARE TALL BUILDINGS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THIS GENERAL AREA OF CARMEL THE COMMENT ABOUT MERCHANT'S BANK WANTING TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING, I SUSPECT THE REASON THEY WANT A NEW BUILDING THEIR BUSINESS IS GROWING AND THEY WANT TO ADD MORE EMPLOYEES AND THEY NEED A PLACE TO HOUSE THOSE EMPLOYEES.

THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT SEEKING -- WE'RE NOT SEEKING A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE. THERE'S BEEN OTHER LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES IN THIS AREA.

WHEN SITES IN THIS AREA GET REDEVELOPED, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES, INCLUDING LOT COVERAGE. WE'RE NOT SEEKING THAT.

I THINK THAT KIND OF SHOWS WE'RE NOT TRYING TO OVERPACK TE SITE. THE VARIANCE OF USE I THINK THIS EXHIBIT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT.

IT ONLY COVERS THIS AREA RIGHT IN HERE.

ON TWO LOTS OUT OF 45 LOTS, IN THE JOHNSON ADDITION, THEY ARE ASKING FOR VARIANCE OF USE ON.46 NEIGHBORS.

THE JOHNSON ADDITION ABOUT 20 ACRES TOTAL.

IT HAS 45 LOTS IN IT. AND THESE FOLKS ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OF USE ON .46 ACRES.

THAT'S 2% OUT OF THE WHOLE JOHNSON ADDITION.

THEY ARE ONLY USING THE BACKS OF THOSE TWO LOTS FOR THAT VARIANCE OF USE AND THOSE LOTS NOW SIT NEXT TO

[01:05:02]

THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PURE OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S SHOWN ON PARCEL C AND THE HOMES, THE SEPARATION FROM THE ACTUAL BUILDINGS TO THE HOME.

THERE'S 50 FEET OR SO. SO THE ENGINEER TELLS ME.

THEY ARE NOT PACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT ON THAT PARCEL C, THE ONLY PART OF THE PURE BUILDING IN THE RESIDENTIAL OWNED PIECE IS RIGHT IN THE P OF PARCEL.

THAT STEM OF THE BUILDING IS ONE STORY.

THE PORTION OF THE OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONE PIECE THE PIECE WE NEED THE USE IS A ONE STORY BUILDING. MEMBERS OF THE BZA, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. THE STAFF BELIEVE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A GOOD FIT FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT'S WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES TO DO.

AND I THINK THAT'S EVIDENT IN TOWN.

THE OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY CAN EXIST NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY AND NOT BE INJUROUS OR HURT THE VALUE OR WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. LOOK ON SECOND STREET.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCES REALLY APPLY TO REAR YARDS BEHIND THESE NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON EMERSON. THAT WON'T CHANGE THE LOOK OR THE FEEL OF EMERSON ROAD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. >> STAFF REPORT.

>> THANK YOU. THE FORMER AT&T SITE WAS REZONED TO C-2 BACK IN 2007. WITH THAT REZONE IT WAS HEARD BY PUBLIC HEARING AND HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNCIL AND ULTIMATELY THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO REZONE THAT PARCEL.

AND THE ATTEMPT OF C-2 MIXED USE DISTRICT TO INCORPORATE CIVIC VALUE AND MERCANTILE ACTIVITY AND TO IMPROVE THE FABRIC OF THE URBAN SETTING. YOU WOULD HAVE THE 70-FEET TALL BUILDING AND THE DENSER DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE PLANNING STAFF DOES RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED USES CAN BE INSTALLED NEXT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS LONG AS IT'S DONE WITH SENSITIVITY.

THE PETITIONER PROPOSES TO DO THAT WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND THE MASONRY WALL AND THE SET BACKS AND AS WE HEARD TONIGHT THE REMOVAL OF THE FAMILY OFFICE BUILDING.

AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY WILL THE PETITIONER WILL BE KEEPING THAT SINGLE FAMILY PRESENCE ALONG EMERSON ROAD. KEEPING THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ALSO THE PURE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING WILL BE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT.

THAT'S A GOOD TRANSITION TO THE EAST.

AND ALSO THE PROPOSED TOWN HOMES ON PARCEL A THAT'S ALSO A TRANSITION IN HEIGHT FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS BUILDING, PLANNING STAFF WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE BZA VARIANCES ARE NOTE NEW TO JOHNSON ADDITION NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S BEEN SEVERAL VARIANCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHOUT THE YEAR FOR SET BACKS, LOT COVERAGE, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AS NEW HOUSES ARE BEING REDEVELOPED IN THAT AREA.

OVERALL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE VARIANCES OR THE USE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND WE'RE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT. WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THESE VARIANCES ALONG WITH THE COMMITMENT THAT THE PURE HEADQUARTER BUILDING IS ONLY USED FOR OFFICE. AND WE DO ALSO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? >> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER.

>> WITH THE REVISED PLAN, THAT YOU HAVE SHOWING PARCEL D NO LONGER HAS A BUILDING WHY DO YOU NEED PARCEL D?

>> WELL, WE NEED PART OF PARCEL D TO ACCOMMODATE SOME

[01:10:06]

GET BACK TO AN EXHIBIT. >> MR. REECE, MAYBE IN THIS EXHIBIT IS BEST. IN THE BOUNDARIES OF PARCEL D, THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT ARE INTERESTING.

PARCEL D GOES ALL THE WAY OUT TO THIRD AVENUE SOUTHWEST. IT'S NOT VERY EVIDENT ON THAT EXHIBIT. PARCEL D HAS FRONTAGE ON

THIRD OF SOUTHWEST. >> IT DOES?

>> PARCEL -- I'M LOOKING AT YOUR MAP, PARCEL C IS .65.

AND YOU TELL ME PARCEL D GOES OUT TO THIRD AVENUE

SOUTHWEST. >> IT DOES.

>> THE DELINEATION DOESN'T SHOW THAT, THAT WAS

PRESENTED. >> IT DOES.

IT'S JUST HARD TO SEE AND THERE'S BETTER -- IS THAT

THE ONE. >> IF YOU -- I UNDERSTAND THE REZONE OF A PORTION OF THE PURE HQ AND SOME OF THE COURTYARD AND HARDSCAPE. THAT'S IN THE RESIDENTIAL.

BUT IF YOU DON'T NEED PARCEL D, THEN YOUR REQUEST FOR THE USE VARIANCE COULD BE MODIFIED IF THERE'S NO PLANS FOR PARCEL D. CORRECT OR NOT?

>> NO. ACTUALLY, I CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT. SEE UP AT THE TOP OF THAT EXHIBIT THAT'S UP THERE RIGHT NOW.

>> YES. >> WHERE IT SAYS THE 14-FOOT

BUFFER YARD. >> AT THE TOP RIGHT SIDE.

>> YES. THAT'S PART OF PARCEL D.

>> FOLKS ALLOW THIS TO GO ON, PLEASE.

>> MR. REECE, THE WAY THE LOT LINES WORK ON THERE IS THAT AS YOU GET TO THE POINT TO THE LEFT OF WHERE IT SAYS 15-FOOT PROPOSED BUFFER YARD, AND THEN YOU GO TO THE RIGHT ABOVE THAT, THAT IS PART OF PARCEL D.

THAT IS WHAT ALLOWS -- WOULD ALLOW ANY DEVELOPMENT ON PARCEL D TO ACCESS THIRD AVENUE.

>> THERE IS FRONTAGE ON PARCEL D.

I UNDERSTAND THAT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE.

BUT IF YOU CAREFULLY LOOK AT THE LINES.

>> THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. IF PARCEL D.

IS YOUR PROPOSAL THAT PARCEL D WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED?

>> AS WE SIT HERE TONIGHT. I DON'T WANT COMMIT IT WOULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED. IT'S -- WE'VE WITHDRAWN IT.

WE WILL WITHDREW FROM ADLS PETITION ALSO.

WE'RE NOT SEEKING APPROVAL OF ANY IMPROVEMENT ON PARCEL D AT THIS POINT OTHER THAN THE SIDEWALK THAT IS SHOWN.

>> BUT URSTILL GETTING A USE VARIANCE.

THAT USE VARIANCE WILL GO INTO EFFECT AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME YOU COULD COME BACK WITH A BUILDING OF AN

OFFICE BUILDING. >> IN LIGHT OF THE PECULIAR NATURE OF THIS SITE. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY PARCEL D IS NECESSARY TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT WHEN YOU HAVE QUITE A BIT OF C-2 AND MAYBE A PORTION OF THE

R-2 TO DEVELOP, THE PURE HQ. >> I MIGHT ASK THE ENGINEER FOR THE DEVELOPER TO ADDRESS.

>>. BECAUSE IT WAS CERTAINLY NECESSARY WHEN WE HAD AN OFFICE ON THAT SITE.

IT'S CERTAINLY EXTENDS OUT TO SOUTHWEST THIRD AVENUE.

I THINK THE VERY EDGE OF THE -- THE EAST WESTERN EDGE

OF THE PEER BUILDING AND -- >> THAT'S TO ALLOW THE OTHER

FRONTAGE. >> DOES THIS PURE BUILDING

[01:15:15]

EXTEND? >> MY ANSWER IS YOU DON'T HAVE IMPROVEMENTS ON PARCEL D TONIGHT OTHER THAN HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, WE WOULD APPRECIATE A VARIANCE OF USE TO ALLOW THAT TO BE USED AS AN OFFICE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE SHOULD WE BE ABLE TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE PLANNING

DEPARTMENT. >> IF THE USE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE MAKING A COMMITMENT THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF THE R-2 DISTRICT THAT YOU GET THE USE VARIANCE WOULD BE USED FOR GENERAL OFFICE USE ONLY?

>> YES, SIR. >> ONE FINAL QUESTION, I HAVE ON ALSO AS A CONDITION TO THIS USE VARIANCE THAT IT IS CONTINGENT UPON AN AMENDMENT OF THE PLAT AND CO CONANT -- COVENANT OF

JOHNSON ADDITION. >> WE WOULD AGREE WITH THAT

TOO. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO COMMIT THERE WOULD NOT BE A WALKING BREJ CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO MERCHANT BUILDINGS?

>> OVER THE ROAD? BRIDGE?

>> OF COURSE I WANT TO SAY, YES.

>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> YOU MAY WANT TO CALL SOMEONE AND FIND OUT IF THAT

WILL BE A PROBLEM. >> THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT

FOR ME. >> YOUR QUESTION IS -- IT HAS NOTHING -- IT DOES HAVE SOMETHING TO DO.

YOU'RE HERE BEFORE US ON -- FOR USE PERMIT.

AND SO FORTH. I JUST WANT TO ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF A WALKING BRIDGE CONNECTING THE TWO

BUILDINGS IN THE FUTURE. >> BETWEEN BUILDING A AND

BUILDING B? >> NO BETWEEN BUILDING B AND THE MERCHANTS BANK ACROSS THE STREET.

>> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR

QUESTION. >> I CANNOT -- I CAN'T MAKE THAT COMMITMENT. I'M SORRY.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, ACTUALLY.

>> I DO FEEL CERTAIN THAT A WALKING BRIDGE LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT WOULD BE PART OF ADLS APPROVAL PROCESS.

THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING ABOUT

THAT. >> YEAH.

I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS SOME MORE.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THOSE KIND OF SORTS OF CONNECTIVITIES, CONNECTIONS THAT GO ON.

BUT THAT'S NOT A DIRECTLY-RELATED ISSUE HERE TONIGHT. BUT MY DISDAIN SHOULD BE PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS CASE.

AND THEN I'VE BEEN DRIVING THIS AREA FOR THE LAST -- SINCE THIS MATTER CAME UP.

AND SEVERAL HOMES HAVE GONE UP FOR SALE.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE HOMES SELDOM FOR THE HOMES I KNOW YOU'RE NOT A REAL AGENT OBVIOUSLY, WHERE THEY -- THEY WERE AT LEAST TWO TO THREE DIFFERENT HOMES MAYBE SOMEONE PERHAPS A REALTOR -- I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS PROPOSAL HAD NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE SALE OF THE HOMES.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? >> I DON'T.

I APOLOGIZE TORE THAT. >> YOU NEED TO COME UP TO

THE MICROPHONE. >> I DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC FACTS FOR YOU. I GUESS WE COULD PULL UP ZILLOW. I DON'T HAVE ANY FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY SOLD FOR.

>> I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON VALUE.

BASED UPON MY RESEARCH THERE'S HAS BEEN NO IMPACT ON VALUE. IN FACT THOSE HOMES SOLD FOR MORE THAN WHAT THEY WERE PURCHASED FOR.

>> IT SEEMS POSITIVE FOR THE MAYBED.

>> I KNOW THE MARKET HAS BEEN PRETTY HOT.

BUT THERE'S SIGN ALL UP DOWN THE AVENUE AND SO FORTH ABOUT THE SIX STORY, WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHATSOEVER.

AS THE BOARD. >> CORRECT.

I'M GETTING SOME INDICATION FROM SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS

[01:20:02]

WEST ON EMERSON. [INAUDIBLE]

DID YOU PICK THAT UP? >> I'M NOT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE PRICES OF EACH HOME.

BUT WHAT THE ORIGINAL TRANSACTION WAS COMPARED THE PRIOR SALE. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. HOWEVER HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THEY WERE NOT ON THE MARKET LONG.

I WAS LOOKING AT POSSIBLY MOVING IN THERE.

>> I HAVE NO DOUBT THEY WERE NOT ON THE MARKET VERY LONG.

NOT IN CARMEL. >> WHAT IS YOUR -- WHAT'S YOUR FOUNDATIONAL REASON WHY THIS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED TONIGHT? YOUR ON THE -- FROM A VOTING STANDPOINT. WHAT'S IS IT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE AS REASON NOT TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT.

TELL ME ABOUT THE BASELINE. WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT?

>> IN ONE MINUTE. >> ONE MINUTE.

THE LOTS AS THEY ARE PROPOSED TO YOU DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST. IN FACT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT KNOW WHERE THE LOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THE ROAD FRONTAGES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. YOU HAVE TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR OVER 70 YEARS.

ND FRANKLY, THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IS TRYING TO SMASH TOO MANY THINGS INTO THAT AREA OF C-2 AND IN ORDER TO DO SO ARE ROBBING THE R-2. IT CREATES A SITUATION WHERE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOW INCONGRUOUS.

YOU HAVE TWO FRANKLY WEIRD LOTS AS IT IS PROPOSD THAT WILL HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE BACKYARDS OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THEREFORE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I GUESS -- AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT ANTI DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE ANTI TAKING OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND PUTTING COMMERCIAL THINGS IN THEM.

I GUESS I'M HAVING HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY IT'S ALL NECESSARY. THERE'S REQUEST FOR A BUFFER. SO THERE CAN BE A COURTYARD AND PATIO. THE BUFFER REDUCES FOR THOSE THINGS. SAID HIMSELF IN THE DISCUSSANCE HOW THE PROPOSED HOUSE AND OFFICE BUILDING 60 FEET. SO WHY DO YOU NEED A

VARIANCE FOR THAT? >> YOU ARE REMOVING D.

REMOVING THE OFFICE BUILDING FROM D.

WHY DO WE NEED TO HAVE IT THEN OPEN ENDED TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USE IN THE FUTURE?

>> THAT DENT REALLY GO WITH THE PLAN.

THAT'S PART OF I THINK MR. REECE'S POINT.

IF YOU REMOVE THE BUILDING OFF OF THE LAND.

WHY DO YOU NEED TO MESS WITH THE LAND AT ALL.

THERE'S A VERY GOOD POINT. C, D, E AND F AREN'T OFFICIALLY SPLIT UP ANYWAY. YOU ARE LOOKING AT VAST MAJORITY OF WHAT THEY DEEMED F IS CURRENTLY A RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND I THINK THAT'S THE OBJECTION. THEY ARE SAYING, DON'T TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS SO THAT WE CAN PUT IN

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THANKS.

>> ANYONE ELSE >> YES.

>> I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT.

SOME OF THEM ARE FOLLOW UPS. DOES PURE OWN ENF RIGHT NOW?

OR ARE THEY OPTIONED? >> I THAT OWN.

THEY PAID AROUND $500,000 FOR IT.

>> BOTH OR INDIVIDUALLY? >> ONE 500 AND ONE $450.

WHY IS LOT D CONFIGURED THE WAY IT IS?

>> THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST UNUSUAL LOTS I'VE EVER SEEN.

> I CAN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I BELIEVE IT'S CONFIGURED THAT WAY SO THAT WHEN THEY DID HAVE AN OFFICE ON LOT D, THEY COULD PROVIDE A COUPLE OF PARKING SPACES FOR THAT OFFICE AND PROVIDE ACCESS OUT TO THIRD AVENUE. SO THAT D HAD SOME FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD HAVE THE CASE WHERE YOU HAD A LOT THAT HAD NO FRONTAGE AT ALL ON A PUBLIC ROAD. AND I SUSPECT THAT TRIGGERS ANOTHER VARIANCE. UNDER YOUR ORDINANCE.

THE MAIN REASON I THINK IS CONFIGURED THAT WAY IS TO

[01:25:03]

IS THERE ANY BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THAT?

>> I WILL ASK HOW MANY FEET IS ON THE PUBLIC ROAD ON

THIRD AVENUE? >> HOW WIDE IS THAT?

>> APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET. >> NOW QUICK QUESTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT IS 50 FEET ENOUGH THAT, THAT'S NOT LAND

LOCKED? >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, ALSO, THOUGH IF THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IS GOING THROUGH ALS PROCESS, THEN TECHNICALLY THAT PARCEL D COULD BE LAND LOCKED. IT COULD BE APPROVED AS PART OF OVERALL DEVELOPMENT MAN. I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

PARCEL D DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT SHAPE.

IT'S VERY UNIQUE. >> I ASSUME MR. TUI, I'M GOING AFTER MR. REECE HERE. THERE'S NO THOUGHT ABOUT COMMITTING D AS SOME SORT OF BUFFER TO THE SUBDIVISION.

>> WE WOULD LIKE NOT TO LIMIT THAT USE GIVEN THE PRICE OF THE LAND. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL BE AND WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU, I'M SURE.

IF WE DO ANY DEVELOPMENT. WE WOULD LIKE NOT TO LOCK THAT UP FOREVER AS THE GREEN AREA.

>> OKAY. JUST A SECOND ATTEMPT.

ON PAGE FIVE WHICH IS THAT ORANGE AREA NEXT TO ENF,

WHAT IS THAT? >> WITH TWO LITTLE TIFFANY COLORED SQUARES. I THINK THAT'S THE COURTYARD

AREA, BELOW -- >> IT'S ORANGE AND IT'S ABUTTING F RIGHT THERE. TO THE WEST OF THE

COURTYARD. >> IT'S A RECESSED

COURTYARD. >> FOR THE RECORD.

CITY ENGINEER. I'M NOT A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THEY PROPOSE HARDSCAPE FEATURE FOR THE COURTYARD. I HAVE SOME KIND OF -- IT MAY HAVE A FOUNTAIN OR SOMETHING.

>> PARDON ME? >> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THAT ORANGE AREA WAS DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE

AND WHAT IT REPRESENTED? >> JUST MORE COLORING.

>> AND THEN ON PAGE 2 YOU GOT THE AT&T BUILDING.

WHAT ARE THE TWO STRUCTURES TO NORTH OF THAT? ABUTTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW?

>> THAT'S NOT PICTURED IN HERE.

>> YOU'RE SPEAKING OF TRAILERS.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> I THINK THEY WERE TRAILERS. YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE TWO

STRUCTURES? >> I ASSUME THAT.

THEY WERE TRAILERS FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE.

THOSE ARE NOT THERE NOW. >> MY LAST QUESTION KIND OF FOLLOWS UP ON THE COVENENCE OF THE SUBDIVISION HERE.

THEY WILL REPLAT THAT WITH DIFFERENT COVENENCE AND NOT BE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OR IS THAT GOING TO BE REPLATED AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH NEW

COVENENCE. >> I WILL TRY TO ANSWER THAT. THEN I WOULD LIKE TO KICK IT OVER TO SERGEI. THERE'S A PLANNING COMMISSION PETITION FOR PRIMARY PLAT AMENDMENT ON THE DOCKET THAT WOULD REQUEST THE SMALLER LOT SIZES AS WELL AS REMOVING THE COVENANTS OF THAT JOHNSON ADDITION NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CLEAR ON THE RECORD, YOU FILED A PETITION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMENDMENT THE PLATS AND REMOVE COVENENCE MENTIONED.

[01:30:04]

>> IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> THERE'S A PROCEDURE IN A STATE ZONING STATUTE THAT A PLANNING COMMISSION HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER DECIDING WHETHER PLAT COVENENCE CAN BE AMENDED AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN

FINDINGS. >> YES, WE HAVE ONE MORE

QUESTION. >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE -- IT'S NOT -- IT WOULD BE ADLS ISSUE.

CAN YOU CON SEMILY DESCRIBE FOR ME WHAT THE SOLID WALL WITH THE APPEARANCE AND LINE WHERE IT WILL RUN WOULD BE?

>> SO I CAN VISUALIZE THAT COMPONENT?

>> YES, I MIGHT ASK OUR ENGINEER TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE LINES ON THIS, CAN YOU IS THIS THE RIGHT EXHIBIT. I THINK IT IS.

THAT SHOWS THAT -- JUST THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN C AND

D. >> I DON'T HAVE A POINTER HERE. IF YOU STARTED WHERE THE WORD TOWN HOMES IS, WOULD THAT WALL START THERE AND GO NORTH AND THEN JOG EAST AND RIGHT AND THEN GO ALONG THE BORDER LINE BETWEEN E, F AND D THEN AGAIN NORTH AROUND C ON UP TO JUST ABOVE WHERE THE COURTYARD ENDS?

>> CORRECT. >> IS THAT A MASONARY WALL.

DO YOU KNOW HOW TALL IT IS? >> BETWEEN FOUR AND FIVE FEET. IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT JOG

THAT I DESCRIBED. >> DOES IT SIT ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR DOES IT SIT ON PARCELS E AND F?

REMOVE FROM PARCEL D. >> PARCEL D AND F.

JUST INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> THERE WOULD BE REAR SET BACK VARIANCE AND ADDITIONAL LAND TAKEN BASICALLY CARVED OUT OF PARCELS E AND F.

VISUALLY AT LEAST FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL D.

BECAUSE THE WALL IS NOT SITTING ON THE PROPERTY LINE. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT LOCATE

CORRECTLY? >> I THINK THE WALL IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S JUST ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF IT. I THINK THE IDEA OF THAT WAS THE PRIVACY OF THE HOMES THERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.

BECAUSE AT FOUR FEET, WHAT EXACTLY IS THE FUNCTION OF

THAT WALL? >> IT'S NOT TALL ENOUGH FOR

PRIVACY? >> I WANT TO SHOW YOU --

[INAUDIBLE] >> IS THAT LANDSCAPING ON

BOTH SIDES OF THAT WALL? >> THIS MIGHT DO IT.

LET ME SEE HERE. IS THERE A WAY TO ZOOM IN ON THAT? FROM OUR COMPUTER?

>> >> THAT'S GOOD.

>> THAT SHOWS THAT ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THE PROPOSED ENF, YOU CAN SEE LANDSCAPING IN THERE.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WALL IS THE THAT'S THE TWO LINES.

THAT SHOWS THAT WALL IS JUST OFF THE PROPERTY LINE.

BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE DASHED LINE THE BLACKED DASH LINE. DOES THAT MAYBE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THAT THERE IS LANDSCAPING ON BOTH SIDES OF

[01:35:03]

PROPERTY LINE. >> YES.

>> THAT DOES CLARIFY FOR ME. THANK YOU.

IT'S NOT A CONTINUOUS WALL. >> THERE'S A BREAK RIGHT THERE BELOW WHERE IT SAYS 8 HEIGHTED.

WHATEVER THAT MEANS. THERE'S A BREAK IN THAT WALL

RIGHT THERE. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND THEN CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR ME WHAT WE SEE HERE IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL. THE VISUAL IS HELPFUL.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHERE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS AND WHAT IS OFF SITE ON THE BACKS OF THE LOTS IN JOHNSON ADDITION. MAYBE THE WAY TO FIRST DESCRIBE THIS, THIS WOULD BE IF YOU WERE STANDING AT THE NORTHWEST END OF PARCEL A AND THAT EXHIBIT, THAT WOULD BE THE LARGE PARCEL AT THE BOTTOM.

IF YOU WERE STANDING IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND YOU WERE LOOKING EAST TOWARDS THIRD AVENUE.

OR THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST. NOW IF YOU WERE STANDING 140 FEET AND LOOKING EAST. THAT GREEN AREA GOING EAST BETWEEN D AND A IS DEPICTED IN THAT RENDERING.

THE THING THAT, THAT SHOWS ON THAT'S NOT NOW PART OF IT. IT SHOWS THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY TO THE LEFT AND IT SAYS THE FAMILY OFFICE.

BUT THAT'S BEEN TAKEN OFF. THEN YOU GET TO PURE HEADQUARTERS AS YOU GO EAST. WHAT THE BLACK OUTLINE.

IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE A CHAIN-LINK FENCE.

WHAT DOES THAT REPRESENTATIVE OF?

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S SHOWN AS THE FENCE IN THERE.

>> IS THAT EXISTING TODAY ON THE REAR OF THE LOTS?

>> TALLER THINGS THAT AT&T PUT UP.

>> THERE'S A SMALL FENCE ON MY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

>> CHAIR -- CHARLIE IF YOU NEED TO ADD FURTHER EXPLANATION, YOU NEED TO COME TO MIC.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THERE TODAY NOT JUST WHAT THE PROPOSED TREES AND SHRUBS WE SEE.

>> WHAT IS THERE TODAY. THERE'S 15 TREES ON THE I GUESS AS YOU FACE HERE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF WHAT THAT PROPOSED FENCE IS. THOSE ARE MY MATURE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE LONGER THAN I OWNED THE BUILDING.

THEN A FIVE-FOOT PUBLIC EASEMENT.

ON MY PROPERTY LINE THERE'S A CHAIN-LINK FENCE.

ON THE AT&T PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY FOUR FEET TALLER THAN UP HIGHER THAN WHAT MY BROUGHT LINE IS.

THERE'S A TEN FOOT TALL CHAIN-LINK FENCE WITH BARBED

WIRE ON THE VERY TOP OF IT. >> RIGHT NOW YOU CANNOT SEE THROUGH THAT. BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE OTHER GROWTH THAT I'VE TRIED TO GET THERE.

MY CONCERN LIKE I SAID WAS CUTTING DOWN YOU KNOW TREES

MAY NOT SURVIVE. >> I'M GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION OF THE PETITIONER. IS THIS LANDSCAPING WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE, WILL IT BE ADDITIVE TO WHAT EXISTS IN THE BACKS OF THE LOTS IN JOHNSON ADDITION?

>> WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON PUTTING A CHAIN-LINK FENCE THERE. I THINK THAT'S ON THERE.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IS THERE NOW.

BUT MAYBE I COULD SHOW YOU THIS EXHIBIT.

THAT SHOWS THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT WILL BE AT THE NORTH END OF THAT PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE.

>> THE CIRCLE OF COURSE ARE LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH EDGE OF THAT PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE AND I'M ADVISED THAT, THAT LANDSCAPING MEETS UDO REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO USES.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS?

>> OKAY. WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD AND ARE WE READY TO VOTE? IF SO THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS

[01:40:04]

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION ON ALL OF THEM AND ADD TO THAT COMMITMENT THAT YOU WANTED, THAT WOULD BE

HELPFUL. >> SURE.

>> ARE WE GOING TO CONSIDER THIS ALL IN ONE PACKAGE?

MR. CHAIR, OR SEPARATELY? >> SEPARATELY.

>> WITH RESPECT TO THE USE VARIANCE THAT THE PROPOSED.

IF PASSED, I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE CONDITIONED AND APPROVED BY THE PETITIONER THAT IS SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT OF THE COVENENCE AND OF THE PLAT AS PER STATE STATUTE.

AND SECONDLY, ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE USE VARIANCE THAT THERE WOULD BE A COMMITMENT THAT THE USE OF ANY BUILDING IN THE USE VARIANCE AREA WOULD BE FOR

GENERAL OFFICE USE ONLY. >> DO YOU WANT TO READ THE

DOCKET NUMBER? >> THAT'S DOCKET NUMBER

PZ-2022-0082, UV. >> I WILL SECOND THAT

MOTION. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR.

IS THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMMITMENTS OR SOMETHING

DIFFERENT? >> TO APPROVE THE DOCKET.

>> BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THESE INDIVIDUALLY.

WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH 2022-0082UV RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU. >> I DID SECOND MOTION.

>> I THINK SO. >> PLEASE ADOPTION OF THE FINDING OF FACT AS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

YOU WANT A VOICE VOTE; CORRECT?

>> FOR THE RECORD? >> YES.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE OF THE USE VARIANCE PZ-2022-0082UV, SIG ANIFIED BY SAYING AYE.

>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME

SIGN. >> AYE.

WE SEE A SHOW OF HAND. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? 2? THOSE OPPOSED.

THREE. >> THAT'S BEEN DENIED.

>> NEXT ITEM IS -- WOULD BE -- I'M SORRY.

HAS THE MOTION BEEN DENIED OR DID THE MOTION FAIL?

>> I'M MAKING A SECOND MOTION TO DENY.

>> I WILL MOVE TO DENY PZ-2022-0082UV.

>> SECOND. >> BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT TO DENY DOCKET PZ-2022-00082UV.

>>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY "AYE."

>> AYE. >> OPPOSED?

>> AYE. >> SAME THING.

3-2. OKAY.

IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00084V.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

WE AVENUE DOCKET PZ-2022-00084V.

PLUS ADOPTION OF THE FINDING OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION,

SAY "AYE." >> ANY OPPOSED?

>> AYE. >> THAT'S 2-3 AGAINST.

[01:45:08]

>> IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION -- ON PZ-2022-00086V TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE DOCKET PZ-02022-00086V.

PLUS ADOPTION OF THE FINDING OF FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE

PETITIONER. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING SAY "AYE." .

>> AYE. >> OPPOSED.

>> AYE. >> THAT'S BEEN APPROVED 3-2.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE -- 17 IS IT.

PZ-2022-87V. >>> I WILL SECOND.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED WE APPROVE DOCKET PZ-2022-00087V. PLUS ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY "AYE."

>> >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED?

>> AYE. >> IT'S BEEN DENIED.

>> 1-4. >> WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO -- PZ-2022-00088V TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE DOCK ETD NUMBER PZ-2022-00088V PLUS ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE

MOTION SAY "AYE." >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? >> AYE.

>> BEEN APPROVED 4-1. DOCKET NUMBER 2022-00089V.

>>> SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00089V. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY

"AYE." >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? >> IT'S BEEN APPROVED 5-1, 5-0. I'M SORRY.

IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT. >> I NEVER DID SO WELL IN

MATH. >>

>> THAT'S SHOULD COMPLETE THE EVENINGS --

>> MR. PRESIDENT CLARIFICATION POINT.

IS THAT THE WILL OF THE BOARD FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT ON MOTIONS THAT HAVE

BEEN DENIED? >> YES, IT IS.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.