Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[A. Call to Order]

[00:00:04]

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING. WE WILL STAND NOW... THIS MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER. WE WILL STAND 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. >> WILL THE SECRETARY CALL THE

ROLL, PLEASE? >> KENT BROACH?

>> PRESENT. >> LEO DIERCKMAN?

>> JAMES HAWKINS. >> PRESENT.

>> PRESIDENT POE POTASNIK. >> WE HAVE A QUORUM.

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

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> MOVE TO ADOPT OR APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE OUR MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF FACTS OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED?

>> THOSE ARE PASSED. COMMUNICATIONS BILLS AND EXPENSES. ANYTHING THIS EVENING? OKAY. REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT. AND DEPARTMENT CONCERNS.

NOTHING TO REPORT, MR. PRESIDENT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

WHICH LEADS US TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[H. (V) Napleton Genesis of Carmel Sign Variances.]

THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS GENESIS OF SIGN VARIANCES. THESE INCLUDES DOCKETS.

SECTION 5.39.H.2. ONE SIGNED ALLOWED.

FOUR SIGNS REQUESTED. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00138V.

SIGNS MUST FACE A STREET FRONTAGE EAST.

SIGNS FACING SOUTH REQUESTED. THE SITES LOCATED AT 4240 EAST 96TH STREET, ITS OWN B-3 BUSINESS AND PARTIALLY IN THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. FILED BY RICK LAWRENCE OF NELSON AND FRANKENBERGER, LLP, ON BEHALF OF EFN CROSSROADS PROPERTY LLC. RICK, GO AHEAD WHENEVER YOU ARE

READY. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. THE... I'M ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF NELSON AND FRANKENBERGER FROM INDIANA.

APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE BZA THIS EVENING ARE FOR THE APPROVAL TO TWO VARIANCES RELATE TO SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS SUBJECT OF AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN 2021 AND AGAIN EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 4240 EAST 96TH STREET. AND LOCATED NORTH OF THE EXISTING HYUNDAI DEALERSHIP HERE.

IT WAS INCLUDED IN AN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF NINE ACRES OUTLINED HERE IN YELLOW. THE GENESIS OF THE DEALERSHIP IS BEING CONSTRUCTED ON THE SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE REAL ESTATE, AS SHOWN IN THE AREA CIRCLED IN YELLOW HERE.

AS MENTIONED BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, THERE WERE TWO REQ REQUESTS. THE FIRST REQUEST SEEKS APPROVAL FOR FOUR SIGNS. THREE WALL SIGNS AND ONE GROUND SIGN. SECOND REQUEST SEEKS APPROVAL TO HAVE THE GROUND SIGN FACE SOUTH INSTEAD OF EAST WHICH WOULD BE TOWARDS THE STREET FRONTAGE.

THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE ELEVATION FOR THE SIGNS REQUESTED.

THE LOGO SIGN RIGHT HERE. GENESIS OF CARMEL HERE.

AND THE SERVICE SIGN HERE. THERE IS ALSO AN EXHIBIT BEHIND TAB FOUR THAT SHOWS ALL FOUR ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING.

THE NEXT EXHIBIT IS THE RENDERING OF THE GROUND SIGN OFF OF THE ROUND-ABOUT. FINAL EXHIBIT BEHIND TAB SIX IN THE BROCHURE, I BELIEVE, IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN REGARDING THE GROUND SIGN. NORMALLY, US WOULD HAVE TO FACE THIS DIRECTION WHICH WOULD BE RANDALL STREET OVER HERE.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE ORIENTATION OF THE ENTRANCE, WE ARE ASKING THAT IT BE FACED SOUTH. IN THIS DIRECTION.

IN CONCLUSION, WE ARE REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF THE WALL AND GROUND SIGNS, AS SHOWN. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT WHO

[00:05:04]

WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THIS PETITION? SHOW YOUR HANDS, PLEASE. SEEING NONE.

STAFF REPORT. >> THANK YOU.

I HAVE THE PETITION REQUEST. TWO VARIANCES RELATED TO SIGNAGE. AND THEY HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF TO ADDRESS ALL OF OUR CONCERNS, AND WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCES ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE

FINDINGS OF FACT. >> WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? YES. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> ANGIE, WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE IN THIS AREA WITH RESPECT TO TEST-DRIVES GOING THROUGH WILLIAMSON RUN OR INVENTORY BEING STORED ON RANDALL DRIVE OR ANY OTHER

PUBLIC STREETS IN THE AREA? >> THANKS FOR ASKING.

WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH CARS PARKING ON THE F THE STREET.

I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO RICK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

>> WE DID SPEAK WITH JOE WHO HAD RELAYED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A COUPLE INQUIRIES ABOUT CARS PARKED ON THE STREET.

THOSE ARE NOT STORAGE OF INVENTORY.

THOSE ARE WORKERS. WE HAVE HAD SOME ISSUES GETTING FINAL CARMEL APPROVAL OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT O. OF THE GENESIS DEALERSHIP AND THEN THE SERVICE CENTER.

THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY IN THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION OF THE PARKING LOT. ONCE THAT IS DONE, WHICH WE ANTICIPATE AT THIS POINT, UNFORTUNATELY, MIGHT NOT BE UNTIL MID TO END OF NOVEMBER BECAUSE OF THE DELAYS IN REVIEWIN THE PLANS, ALL OF THE PARKING WILL SHIFT TO THAT NEW LOT THAT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN OUT THERE. THERE IS NO VIOLATIONS.

IT IS A PUBLIC ROAD. AND PEOPLE CAN PARK ON IT.

IT JUST CAUSES A LITTLE BIT OF CONGESTION AS IT CURRENTLY

EXISTS. >> AND TEST DRIVES? GOING UP... NORTH INTO WILLIAMSON RUN?

>> THERE IS CURRENTLY A SIGN ON RANDALL DRIVE THAT INDICATES NOT TO DO TEST-DRIVES INTO WILLIAMSON RUN.

ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INDICATED THAT THAT SIGN MIGHT NOT BE VISIBLE WHEN YOU TURN OUT OF THE DEALERSHIP.

MAPLETON IS WILLING TO INSTALL A SECOND SIGN TO REMIND PEOPLE NOT TO DRIVE FORWARD. THEN THE DEALERSHIP MANAGEMENT HAS ALSO BEEN TOLD CONTINUALLY TO REMIND THE SALESPEOPLE NOT TO DRIVE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TO DO TEST-DRIVES.

>> THANK YOU. AND THEN LAST QUESTION ON THE LANDSCAPING AT THE MONUMENT SIGN.

BECAUSE THE DEALERSHIP IDENTIFICATION TEXT IS FAIRLY LOW ON THE SIGN, WILL THERE BE A CONFLICT WITH ANY LANDSCAPING

PROPOSED? >> IN TERMS OF VISIBILITY?

>> IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED SO THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A CONFLICT WITH THE SIGNAGE THAT WOULD BE ON THE GROUND SIGN.

I'M SURE THEY WILL WANT THE VISIBILITY OF THAT SO THEY WILL KEEP IT TRIMMED. SO IT CAN BE SEEN BY THE PUBLIC.

ACCORDINGLY. >> ANYONE ELSE?

IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE DOCKETS PZ20220123V AND 138V SUBJECT TO PETITIONER ADDING OR RELOCATING SO HATE THE FUNCTIONS FOR THIS DEALERSHIP... SO IT FUNCTIONS

FOR THIS DEALERSHIP AS WELL. >> SECOND.

>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE THE DOCKETS. SUBJECT TO RELOCATING THE NO-TEST-DRIVE SIGNAGE AND WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDING OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE WITH AN AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED?

IT HAS BEEN APPROVED. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS

[H. (V) King Residence Variances.]

EVENING. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS KING RESIDENCE VARIANCES.

THESE INCLUDE DOCKETS NUMBER PZ2022-00159V.

UDO SECTION 3.64.C.1. MAXIMUM 55-FOOT HOUSE WITH ALLOWED 80 FEET REQUESTED. DOCKET NUMBER PZ220-00.

SECTION #.64.C.11, BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE TALLEST OF THE NEAREST TWO CHARACTER BUILDINGS BY MORE THAN

[00:10:05]

7 FEET, 12 FEET REQUESTED. AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ- PZ-2022-00162VUDO SECTION 5. 5.79.J, MAXIMUM 24 INCHES WINDOW WELL, INKROACHMENTS INTO THE YARD ALLOWED.

42-INCH ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED. SITE LOCATED AT 401 FIRST AVENUE NORTHEAST CW WEIDLER'S ADDITION PART ONE AND PAT OF LOT TWO.

FILED BY JOHN LEFTON OF OLDTOWN DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF THROMS

THOMAS KING, OWNERS. >> GOOD EVENING.

JUSTIN MOFFETT ON BEHALF OF OLDTOWN.

AGAIN, WE ARE REPRESENTING OUR CLIENTS, THE KINGS WHO PURCHASED THIS LOT ON THE MARKET IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL.

OUR ARCHITECTURE TEAM DREW PLANS FOR THIS RESIDENCE.

THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, MY LEAST FAVORITE THING TO DO IS GO HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH STAFF ON VARIANCES FOR, FOR NEW BUILDINGS IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL.

AND WHEN I SAW THESE PLANS, I INITIALLY WENT THROUGH THE ROOF BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE VARIANCE REQUESTS WERE SIGNIFICANT, AND AS I HAVE STUDIED THE PLANS MORE, I HAVE HAD MORE A TEMPERED APPROACH WIT. I FELT COMFORTABLE SHARING MY PERSPECTIVE AND THE PETITION REQUEST THAT OUR STAFF PUT TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DONE QUITE A BIT OF WORK IN OLDTOWN OVER LAY AREA.

THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

THERE IS SOME SENSITIVITY TO CONTEXT OF ADJACENT HOMES.

AND SO AS I GOT A LITTLE MORE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE CLIENTS' GOALS WERE, IT MADE SOME SENSE AND SO I WANTED TO WALK THROUGH HOW THEY ENDED UP WITH HOME PLANS THAT WERE CREATED AND WERE PRESENTED TO YOU FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.

SO THE FIRST ONE TO LIST IS A MAXIMUM 55-FOOT HOUSE WIDTH...

THIS IS AERIAL OF THE EXIS EXISTING... THE PARCEL, THE HOUSE HAS BEEN DEMOED SINCE. THIS WAS THE EXISTING HOME ON THE LOT. IT WAS A WIDE RANCH HOME WITH A FRONT-LOAD GARAGE THAT WAS SERVICED OFF OF FIRST AVENUE NORTHEAST, AS WE HAVE IMPROVED THE ALLEYS IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL, WE HAVE A GOAL OF ACCESSING THE HOMES FROM THE ALLEY NOW.

ONE BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT IS THAT THE FRONT-LOAD TWO-CAR GARAGE THERE WOULD GO AWAY. ADDITIONALLY, IT HAD AN R.V.

PARKING LOCATION AT THE REAR OF THE LOT WITH A LARGE BARN, SO THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY OCCUPIED A MAJORITY OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT. THAT IS THE EXISTING CONDITION.

WHEN OUR CLIENTS PURCHASED THIS LOT, THEIR HOPE WAS THAT THEY COULD HAVE A HOME THAT WAS A LITTLE WIDER THAN MAYBE TYPICAL IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL. BUT MATCH THE SIMILAR CHARACTER TO WHAT EXISTED PREVIOUSLY. WITH THE GOAL OF HAVING MORE OF A REAR YARD ON THIS LOT. SO THAT IS THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING PARCEL. DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, SO IF WE ARE STANDING LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET, IT'S TWO DUPLEX UNITS. FOUR TOTAL UNITS.

WITH AN AVERAGE OF 74-FOUR-FOOT WIDE STRUCTURE WIDTH.

I KNOW WE HAVE AN IDEAL GOAL OF WHAT EVERY LOT AND EVERY SCENARIO WOULD BE, A HOME THAT IS DEEPER THAN IT IS WIDE IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL. BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF UNIQUE SITUATIONS. THERE IS NOT A UNIFORM BLOCK.

IN THE DISTRICT. SO DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, WE HAD AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WIDER HOMES IS THE NORM.

ACTUALLY, I DON'T HAVE THIS IMAGE.

IF YOU TURN TO THE RIGHT, THE OPPOSITE CORNER, IS TWO OTHER RANCH HOMES THAT ARE WIDER THAN THEY ARE DEEP.

SO THAT IS THE EXISTING CONDITION THAT IS ON THE BLOCK.

THERE ARE HOMES... I DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL, THERE ARE HOMES DEEPER THAN THEY ARE WIDE. IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THAT... THAT ALL HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE DEEM AND NOT WIDE. DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, WE HAVE THIS EXAMPLE. UP THE STREET, ABOUT THREE MORE HOUSES, WE HAVE A STRUCTURE. IT IS ALSO A MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE. THERE IS FOUR UNITS IN THAT ONE.

IT IS 90 FEET WIDE. THE EXAMPLE... THE PRECEDENT THAT I'M POINTING TO IS THAT WHEN WE HAVE WIDER LOTS, IT IS VERY TYPICAL THAT WE HAVE WIDER HOMES ON THEM.

THAT IS THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS SUBJECT LOT THAT OUR CLIENT PURCHASED. THAT IT IS A WIDER LOT THAN WHAT IS TYPICAL IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL. MOST OF THE LOTS IN DOWNTOWN

[00:15:05]

CARMEL ARE BETWEEN 45-65 FEET WIDE.

AND THAT... THEY ARE TYPICALLY 165 DEEP.

THAT CREATES THE SITUATION WHERE IT IS LOGICAL THAT THE HOME IS DEEPER ON THE LOT THAN WIDER. IT HAS TO BE.

THE SUBJECT LOT IS 90 FEET WIDE. IT IS ONE OF THOSE UNIQUE LOT SITUATIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE CLIENT HAS SOME FLEXIBILITY, AND IT CREATES THIS SITUATION WHERE THEIR DESIRED PLAN DOESN'T MATCH THE U.D.O. AND CREATES THIS QUESTION OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. I'M GOING TO POINT TO ANOTHER BLOCK NORTH. SO OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 401 FIRST AVENUE NORTHEAST. THIS IS 521.

THIS WAS A CORNER LOT THAT ANOTHER BUILDER, NOT OLDTOWN BUILT. I BELIEVE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2018. THIS HAD STAFF APPROVAL OR STAFF POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR VARIANCES FOR HOUSE WIDTH ON THE LOT. SO THIS IS ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE IT WAS A WIDE LOT. ACTUALLY, A UNIQUE SITUATION IN THAT THE CLIENT HAD TO JOIN TOGETHER TWO LOTS TO MAKE A WIDE LOT, AND THEN REQUESTED PERMISSION TO HAVE A WIDER HOME THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED BY THE U.D.O.

IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED. OUR SITUATION, OUR CLIENT LOT SITUATION, IT IS AN EXISTING WIDE LOT.

THERE IS NOT A PETITION TO MAKE IT A WIDER LOT.

IT IS AN EXISTING WIDE LOT. OUR CLIENT SPECIFICALLY ASKED PERMISSION TO HAVE A WIDER HOME SO THEY CAN PRESERVE YARD SPACE.

I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN WE HAVE UNIQUE LOTS, IT CREATES UNIQUE SITUATIONS. WE ARE TRYING TO NAVIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF DELIVERING OUR CLIENT WHAT THEY DESIRE, WHICH IS THAT WIDER HOME ON THE WIDER LOT.

I'M GOING TO POINT TO THE FLOOR PLAN.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ZOOM IN ON THIS ANY FURTHER.

BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT AS I BECAME MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE WAY THE ARCHITECT DESIGNED THE PLAN, THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF THAT HOUSE WIDTH ON THE LOT BY STAIR-STEPPING THE HOME BACK SO THAT IT WASN'T THE FULL EFFECT OF A WIDER HOUSE THAN IT IS TYPICAL ON THE FRONT LOT.

I THINK THIS IS A LOVELY HOME. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE FULL WIDTH OF THE LOT OCCUPIED. THIS EXAMPLE I GAVE OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE REQUEST.

IT IS THE FULL WIDTH ALONG THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME.

WHEREAS TO MITIGATE TIM PACT, OUR DESIGNER WORKED TO STAIR-STEP IT BACK SO THE WIDTH ISN'T FELT AT THE STREET FRONT TO THE FULL DEGREE OF THE VARIANT REQUEST.

I APPRECIATED THAT THEY TOOK THAT APPROACH.

THAT THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO SHOVE THAT EXTRA WIDE HOME ON THE FRONT PART OF THE LOT. I THINK THAT REALLY SERVES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF HOW THE HOME WILL APPEAR ON THE STREET-SCAPE. AGAIN, THIS IS THE HOME WITH A SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO. GIVE MORE CONTEXT WITH SOME COLOR. WITH SOME PLANTINGS.

SO WE HAVE THIS PORCH AREA WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT NEARLY AS WIDE AS THE 80-FOOT REQUESTED. IT STAIR-STEPS BACK AS THE HOME GETS WIDER. ONE OF THE GOALS HERE IN ACKNOWLEDGING THE BIAS OF OUR CLIENT IS TO PRESERVE REAR YARD SPACE AND HAVE A NICE BACKYARD. I THINK AN ANCILLARY BENEFIT IS THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, AND I BELIEVE THIS WAS REFERENCED IN AN E-MAIL FROM STAFF, IT WORKS TO PRESERVE THEIR VIEW SHED. THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING ON THE LOT, WAS A WIDER HOME ON THE LOT WITH A YARD.

IT PRESERVE IT IS VIEW OF BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS.

IT PRESERVE THAT IS VIEW SHED FOR THEM.

WE THINK THAT IS POTENTIALLY A LOGICAL SOLUTION TO THE BENEFIT OF OUR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. ON THE HEIGHT REQUEST, I'LL PULL UP... SO THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED TO ST STAFF. IT IS A REQUEST THAT'S A HOME THAT IS... I'M GOING TO FACT-CHECK.

MAKE SURE YOU ARE RIGHT. 36 FEET.

I HAVE A CLOCK HERE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET ALL

[00:20:03]

THE... SORRY. SO 36 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT.

AND AFTER HEARING SOME STAFF FEEDBACK, THE TEAM WAS ABLE TO TAKE TWO FEET OUT OF THE HEIGHT. AND WE THINK THAT WILL IMPROVE THE CONDITION, SO WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT SIMILAR TO STAIR-STEPPING BACK WITH THE WIDTH, THE TEAM ALSO... AND THIS IS SOMETHING I APPRECIATE WHERE THEY WERE ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONTEXT SENSITIVITY OF THE NEIGHBORS, KEEPING THE MASSING TO THE CENTER OF THE HOME, THEN STAIR-SEARCH THING DOWN AS YOU GOT TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS POSITIVE.

THAT IT WASN'T THE FULL HEIGHT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE HOUSE.

IT WAS STAIR-STEPPED DOWN AS WE GOT TO THE PROPERY LINES.

SO THAT IS ADDRESSING THE OVERALL HIGHT... HEIGHT REQUEST.

AND THEN THE FINAL, THE BASEMENT AND WINDOW WELLS, CANDIDLY, THIS IS A REQUEST THAT WE HAVE VERY FREQUENTLY, IN THAT THERE IS KIND OF A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN BUILDING CODE AND WINDOW WELLS.

WE WANT NATURAL LIGHT IN THEM AND TO HAVE A 24-FOOT... 24-INCH WINDOW WELL IN A SIDE YARD IS PRETTY NARROW.

TO GET NATURAL LIGHT, YOU NEED TO COME OUT A LITTLE MORE.

IT IS TO TERRACE IT FOR... YOU HAVE TO COME OUT FOR 42 INCHES.

THIS ISES A REQUEST WE HAVE HAD OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL. THIS ONE IS KIND OF PAR FOR THE COURSE. MY SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT THAT MAKES THIS UNIQUE AS COMPARED TO THE MANY OTHER VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT TO THE BZA IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL, IS THAT FREQUENTLY, WE ARE IMPACTING THE LOT COVERAGE.

THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE REQUEST WE BRING BEFORE THE BZA.

IN THAT WE HAVE THIS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF MEETING THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT WHAT OUR CLIENT DESIGNED HERE IS THAT WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A LOT COVERAGE. THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE EVERYBODY BRINGS INTO DOWNTOWN CARMEL. WE CAN TURN THIS SIDEWAYS.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO START OVER, CHANGE THE ARCHITECTURE ENTIRELY. WE COULD TURN THE HOME SIDEWAYS.

NARROW THE WIDTH EFFECTIVELY. HAVE A LONGER HOME.

IT WOULD CREATE SIDE YARDS THAT ARE NOT AS USEFUL TO THEM.

IT WOULDN'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THE REAR YARD.

WE THINK IT IS MAYBE NOT THE PREFERRED UTOPIAN PLAN FOR EVERY LOT AND HOME IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL. TO HAVE MORE DEPTH THAN WIDTH.

WE DO THINK THAT CERTAIN LOTS HAVE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS THAT DEMAND CONSIDERATION OF THESE SORT OF VARIANCE REQUESTS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I'M GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS

YOU HAVE FOR US. >> THANK YOU.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THIS PETITION?

SEEING NONE, STAFF REPORT? >> THANK YOU.

THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES.

AND PLANNING STAFF THINKS THAT THE SITE COULD BE DESIGNED TO ACTUALLY COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE RECOMMENDING NEGATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCES FOR THE HOUSE WIDTH. THEY WANT TO BE 25 FEET WIDER.

FOR THE HOUSE HEIGHT, THEY WANT TO BE 11 FEET TALLER.

FOR THE WINDOW WELLS, THEY WANT TO HAVE AN 18-INCH VARIANCE.

I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ONLY ONE... PER THE BUILDING CODE, ONLY ONE WINDOW WELL IS REQUIRED.

THAT IS IF THERE IS A BEDROOM IN THE BASEMENT.

SO THIS IS MORE FOR, I GUESS, WHAT THE CLIENT WANTS AS FAR AS LETTING MORE LIGHT IN FOR THE FITNESS ROOM AND THE... I THINK THERE WAS A SITTING ROOM. AND THEN ONE LAST ITEM IS IF THESE VARIANCES ARE APPROVED, WE DO ASK THAT THEY WE... THEY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND NOT BLOCKING THEIR DRIVEWAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ANY QUESTIOS OR CONCERNS? YES.

GO AHEAD, JIM. >> YEAH.

GO ON, LEO. OKAY.

JUST LOOKING AT THE GROSS LIVING AREA OF THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR. IT IS ALMOST 4,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND THE BASEMENT IS ANOTHER 2,600 OR SO.

THEN WE HAVE A THREE-CAR GARAGE. IS THAT TYPICAL FOR THE AREA? I MEAN... I KNOW THAT IS A BROAD QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, ARE WE SEEING THAT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION NOW GOING FORWARD IN THOSE NUMBERS? OR IS THAT UNIQUE?

>> YEAH. IT SEEMS TO BE THE TREND NOW.

A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, THREE-CAR GARAGE.

[00:25:01]

ATTACHED. I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH MAYBE PEOPLE WANTING TO WHAT THEY CALL AGE IN PLACE WHERE THEY... THAT WILL BE THEIR HOME WHEN THEY RETIRE.

AS THEY GET OLDER, YOU KNOW, GROW INTO THEIR OLDER YEARS... I DON'T SEE THAT CHANGING ANY TIME SOON.

BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, THE LOT IS SO LARGE... I MEAN, THEY COULD REDESIGN IT TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE.

THAT IS BASICALLY WHY WE DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. THANK YOU.

>> YES. (INAUDIBLE)

>> 22 INCHES. (INAUDIBLE)

>> THAT IS A DEBATE. SO I WOULD SAY THAT CONDITION...

NEARLY EVERY PROPERTY WE BRING IN IS AROUND 60 FEET WIDE.

THAT IS CONTRADICTION OF... WE CAN BUILD SIDE-YARD SETBACKS.

THEN WE LIMIT THE WINDOW WELLS. FOR NATURAL LIGHT.

AND SO... YEAH, IT COULD CHANGE THE PLACEMENT OF IT.

THAT IS A CHALLENGE. SO I WOULD SAY MODEST ADJUSTMENTS LIKE THAT TO THE PLAN... I THINK, ARE WORTH CONSIDERING. SO IF IT WAS... WE WOULD HAVE TO NARROW ENOUGH TO MAKE IT ENOUGH SO A MOWER COULD PASS.

THAT IS A REASONABLE CONCESSION. >> I FEEL LIKE EVERY TIME YOU ARE HERE, YOU ARE ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, A LITTLE BIT TALLER... YOU KNOW, WHICH IT IS KIND OF GETTING OLD.

A LITTLE BIT OLD FOR ME. I'M GETTING OLD NOW, TOO.

THE NEXT ONE IS... YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

THIS BRINGS UP A WHOLE NEW LINE OF THOUGHT MAXIMIZING EVERYTHING THAT IS AVAILABLE ON THAT SITE. I JUST CAN'T GET PAST IT.

I'M NOT THERE WITH YOU. I KNOW THAT THIS IS JUST TOO F FAR... TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD FOR ME TO GET THERE

I DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORT. >> ANGIE, FOR THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, THE TALLEST DEMENTION OF THE NEAREST TWO CHARACTER BUILDINGS. HOW WERE THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT BECAME THE REFERENCE POINT IDENTIFIED? WHAT MAKES THEM A CHARACTER BUILDING?

>> SURE. IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, THERE IS ACTUALLY A GRAPHIC THAT HAS A MARKING OF ALL THE CHARACTER HOUSES.

SO WE WOULD PINPOINT THE SUBJECT SITE.

AND THEN THE CLOSEST TO CHARACTER HOUSES.

THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE THEM MEASURE OFF OF.

>> SO IN THIS CASE, IS ONE OF THE TWO CHARACTER BUILDINGS...

THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH? ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH IN

>> IT IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH.

IT IS LIKE A ONE AND A HALF-STORY TALL.

IT IS KIND OF LIKE A BUNGALOW TYPE HOUSE.

>> IT'S ADJACENT? >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> THAT CREATES PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY QUESTION FOR THE PETITIONER IN THAT WE HAVE A20-T SAYS THESE ARE THE CONTRIBUTING HOMES.

IT HAS NEVER BEEN UPDATED. AND SO WE COULD HAVE A HOME RIGHT NEXT-DOOR THAT SHOULD BE THE CONTEXT-SENSITIVE ANALYSIS FOR WHAT WE WANT TO BUILD ON THIS LOT.

WE ARE ACTUALLY USING A HOME THAT IS A COUPLE DOWN.

WE HAVE ONE CONTRIBUTING RIGHT NEXT-DOOR.

WE HAVE MULTIPLE AROUND IT. LIKE THE HOME SEVERAL IMMEDIATELY BEHIND IT. THEY ARE THE SAME HEIGHT AS THIS ONE. THERE ARE SOME ACROSS THE ST STREET. NONE ARE CONTRIBUTING BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXIST 20 YEARS AGO. SO WE ARE ALWAYS THROWING DARTS

IN THE DARK ON THAT SUBJECT. >> ANYONE ELSE? ANGIE, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

EN TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE FINAL COMMENTS, YOU MENTIONED THAT STAFF DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE OLDTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT.

WHEN YOU SAY IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND... I MEAN, I KNOW WE HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.

WE HEARD FROM YOU IN REACTION TO THIS.

WHEN YOU SAY "NOT APPROPRIATE," ARE YOU... DID THE STAFF HAVE AN OVERALL FEELING THAT THIS WAS NOT APPROPRIATE?

[00:30:01]

OR HEIGHT-WISE, WASN'T APPROPRIATE? YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING LIKE THIS?

>> SURE. IT HAS TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, WHEN A PETITIONER COMES IN WITH TWO, THREE, FOUR VARIANCES, THAT SENDS UP A RED FLAG IN OUR EYES, THAT YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY ARE NOT BUILDING IT TO THE STANDARDS OF THE OLDTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW... THAT DISTRICT WAS CREATED TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO IN ESSENCE, WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING IS DEVIATING FROM WHAT WE WANT PRESERVED. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE CONCERN.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE THE A HOUSE SUCH AS THIS WOULD AFFECT THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE OVERLAY ZONE?

>> YEAH. WE THINK THAT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED, THAT IT IMPACTS THE IMMEDIATE AREA AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS FAR AS THE GOAL FOR THE OVERLAY ZONE. THE OLDTOWN OVERLAY CHARACTER

SUB-AREA. >> OKAY.

>> MAY I ASK JUST... MAYBE... SORRY.

>> IS THAT ALL RIGHT? >> YUP.

>> CAN YOU SHRINK THE HOUSE JUST A BIT SO WE CAN GET A LAWN MOWER THROUGH HERE AND WE ARE NOT FORCING PEOPLE TO WALK ON OTHER PEOPLE'S YARDS? I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS... IT HAS BEEN FOR YOU, OTHER PEOPLE COME IN, "WELL, THEY ARE WALKING IN

MY YARD." >> YES, SIR.

I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST... >> IT IS SO TIGHT

>> I THINK IT IS REALISTIC FOR US TO MODIFY THE FLOOR PLAN.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT... ESPECIALLY A HOUSE THIS SCALE, TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET TWO OR THREE FEET OUT OF IT, TO NOT NEED THAT VARIANCE FOR THE WINDOW WELL, THAT IS A REALISTIC CONVERSATION WE CAN TAKE BACK STARTING OVER.

THE OVERALL WIDTH CONVERSATION, THOUGH, IS NOT.

I THINK IF WE WERE TO, SAY, WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE WINDOW WELL SITUATION, AND... THAT IS A PRACTICAL SOLUTION FOR US.

BUT THE OTHERS WOULD BE ON THE HOUSE WIDTH AND THE HEIGHT.

THAT WOULD BE A START-OVER. THAT IS WHERE I ACKNOWLEDGE EARLIER, THE HOUSE IS NOT A LOT COVERAGE ISSUE.

THEY COULD TURN THE HOUSE. IT CREATES... NOW WE HAVE A DEEP HOUSE. AND THE CLIENT DOESN'T HAVE THE BACKYARD. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE A HOUSE IN THEIR BACKYARD IN, THEIR VIEW SHED.

THERE IS TRADEOFFS TO THIS. I DON'T HAVE STRONG EMOTIONS ABOUT IT OTHER THAN I UNDERSTAND WHY THE CLIENT WANTED THIS PARTICULAR DESIGN. BUT THAT SAID, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT, LIKE, THE QUANTITY OF VARIANCES RAISES A RED FLAG.

I MEAN, THERE ARE SITUATIONS LIKE WE MENTIONED, THERE IS MULTIPLE PRECEDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE HAS BEEN SUPPORT FOR THIS MAXIMUM HOUSE WIDTH SITUATION, AND SO WE ARE NOT BRINGING FORWARD, LIKE, THE ONE ANOMALY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES. THIS WAS A TWO-VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THIS HOUSE. WE WOULD BE SIMILAR.

IF WE COULD MITIGATE THE THREE VARIANCES BY NOT HAVING THE WINDOW WELL SITUATION, THE HEIGHT AND THE WIDTH, WE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE LARGE LOTS.

>> YEAH. I LIKE THE FRONT END, THE WAY IT IS DESIGNED. SO IT STEPS BACK.

IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME IMPACT OF SOME OF THESE HOUSES WHEN YOU ARE WALKING ALONG THE STREET. IT IS LIKE WHOA.

WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION ON THE WINDOW WELLS?

I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND... >> MY SOLUTION WOULD BE THAT THE 24-INCH ENCROACHMENT IS BASICALLY JUST UNDER A THREE-FOOT VARIANCE NEEDED. SO IF WE JUST DIDN'T APPROVE THAT ONE, IF THAT ONE WERE REJECTED, IT FORCED THE TEAM

INTO A REDESIGN >> CAN YOU NOT SHIFT THE HOUSE

OVER AT ALL? >> I WOULD...

>> DO YOU HAVE FIVE FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE?

WHAT DO YOU HAVE? >> WE HAVE FIVE AND FIVE.

I BELIEVE. HERE IS THE SITUATION WITH THE WINDOW WELLS. WE WOULD EITHER NEED A REDESIGN TO FIND THAT EFFECTIVELY 16 INCHES OR THE CLIENT COULD CHOOSE TO DO A 24-INCH WINDOW WELL.

AND CREATE A NATURAL LIGHT ISSUE.

THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE DESIGN TEAM AND THE CLIENT TO SAY, DO WE WANT TO SHRINK THE HOUSE ENOUGH TO CREATE THE SITUATION WHERE WE COMPLY WITH THAT ISSUE? I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'M NOT CONVINCED THERE WAS A LOT OF FORETHOUGHT GIVEN INTO THAT SUBJECT. BECAUSE FREQUENTLY, WE HAVE A PLAN, WE SUBMIT THE... WE ARE TOLD HERE IS THE VARIANCES YOU NEEDED OKAY? WE APPLY FOR IT. WITHOUT A LOT OF THOUGHT ON WHETHER WE SHOULD GO INTO THE PLAN AND NOT NEED THAT VARIANCE.

>> SO IS IT YOUR DESIRE TO... I HEARD A POSSIBLE SOLUTION WAS TO VOTE NEGATIVE IF THAT IS A CONCERN OF THE FIVE OF US.

[00:35:04]

ON THE WINDOW WELL REQUEST. BUT I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO REMOVE FROM US VOTING ON? OR ARE YOU... YOU WANT TO LET IT GO AS IT IS? DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS? WE JUST HAVE TO MOVE IT FORWARD.

>> I THINK SINCE WE ARE REPRESENTING THE CLIENT WHO PRESENTS THIS PLAN, WE WOULD RATHER VOTE TO APPROVE OR DENY THAT REQUEST. COUPLED WITH THE OTHERS, SIR.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE... YES. GO AHEAD, BRAD.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT... EXCUSE ME.

HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE OF THE MAIN LEVEL HERE?

>> YOU ARE SAYING THIS MAIN LEVEL HERE? RIGHT NOW WE ARE SHOWING THREE STEPS UP, AND SO WE THINK THAT REPRESENTS THE CONDITION OF THE LOT.

THERE IS A LITTLE... THE HOME THAT IS TO THE NORTH SITS A LITTLE HIGHER. THERE ARE MORE STEPS TO THE SIDEWALK. WE THINK THAT IS APPROXIMATELY TWO AND A HALF FEET ABOVE EXISTING GRADE.

A LOT OF THAT IS DETERMINED BASED ON REAR YARD.

SO GETTING... YOU KNOW, THE GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS IN THE ALLEY TO THE REAR DETERMINES THE FINISH FLOOR HEIGHT TO THE HOUSE. INITIALLY, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST IMAGE WE HAD FILED SIGNIFICANTLY MORE STEPS... WE HAD THE TEAM GO OUT AND... AND IT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO REQUIRE A FEW TRICKS IN THE GARAGE BUILD TO LOWER THE HOUSE.

HOW WE POUR. EFFECTIVELY, THEY NAVIGATE A

SOLUTION TO LOWER IT TWO FEET. >> SO THANK YOU THAT OTHER IMAGE IS EXACTLY WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES.

AND YOU MIGHT... WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND

BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS. >> THAT MATTER WOULD HAVE TO BE ENFORCED. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE IN THE ROAD.

I'M NOT GOING TO ADD ANY COMMENTS TO THIS MOTION.

>> THIS IS YOUR MOTION >> THAT IS WHY WE HAVE ORDINANCES AND RULES. THE DOCKET NUMBER... HELL, I CAN'T EVEN READ THEM. MAXIMUM 55-FOOT HOUSE WIDTH ALLOWED. 80 FEET REQUESTED.

YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME?

>> YES. THE FIRST ONE IS IN.

THE SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE VOTE ON DOCKET NUMBER PZ2022-00159V. AL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT

VARIANCE, SAY AYE? >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? WE HAVE FOUR IN FAVOR.

ONE AGAINST. >> DOCKET NUMBER PZ202200 # 61V.

THE BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE TALLEST DIMENSION OF THE NEAREST TWO CHARACTER BUILDINGS BY MORE THAN

7 FEET, 12 INCHES REQUESTED. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00161V WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED?

>> THAT IS THREE IN FAVOR. TWO AGAINST.

>> AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ2 PZ202200162V, UDO SECTION 5.79J.

MAXIMUM 24-INCH WINDOW WELL ENCROACHMENTS.

[00:40:04]

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED WE APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00162 WITH THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT.

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

>> ANY OPPOSED? >> AYE.

>> CAN I SEE HANDS, PLEASE? THREE AGAINST.

TWO IN FAVOR. THREE AGAINST.

THAT HAS BEEN DENIED. OKAY? THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, IS OUR

[H. (V) Moffett Carriage House Variances.]

DOCKETS NUMBER PZ2022-00163V, UDO SECTION 2.18.

MINIMUM ZERO FEET TO TEN FEET FRONT YARD BUILDING.

SETBACK REQUIRED. 131.5 FEET REQUESTED.

THEN DOCKET NUMBER PZ-20-00, 164V, UDO SECTION 2.18 MINIMUM 20 FEET REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK REQUIRED, 219.5 FEET REQUESTED. THE TWO-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT 3.40 WEST SMOKY ROW. IT IS ZONED UR-URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND PARTIALLY LOCATED IN THE SFHA/SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA FILED BY JUSTIN MOFFETT OF OLDTOWN DESIGN GROUP.

ON BEHALF OF ELIJAH AND CATHERINE MOFFETT, OWNERS.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> GOOD EVENING, JUSTIN MOFFETT.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS RAPIDLY.

THIS IS THE MIDDLE OF THE NORTH END REDEVELOPMENT AREA.

SUBJECT PARCEL IS RIGHT HERE. WE HAVE MIXED RESIDENTIAL AROUND IT. WE WORKED TO TRANSITION DENSITY AWAY FROM THIS HOUSE. SO WE HAVE EXISTS SING- PFAMILY HOME ON TWO ACRES. SINGLE FAMILY.

RESTAURANT, TOWNHOMES, MULTI-FAMILY, MIXED COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY THE GREEN AREA HERE IS OUR URBAN FARM LOCATION WHERE WE HAVE A GREENHOUSE PLANNED.

THE TRAIL IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST.

THE LAND AROUND MY BROTHER'S PROPERTY WAS REZONED URBAN/RESIDENTIAL THAT CREATES THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE. THEY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE HOME. THEY HAVE OWNED IT FOR YEARS.

IT WAS MY SISTER-IN-LAW'S FAMILY HOME.

ACTUALLY, THE PROJECT IS FILED BY ELIJAH AND KATHERINE.

IT IS ACTUALLY FOR MY PARENTS. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

WE ARE BUILDING AN AGE IN PLACE CARRIAGE HOME ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE IS AN EXISTING TWO-CAR... ACTUALLY, THREE-CAR GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY. THEY PLAN TO TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD A FOUR-CAR GARAGE THAT HAS A CARRIAGE HOUSE AND A FLOOR PLAN WITH OPEN LIVING CONCEPT. PRIMARY BEDROOM SUITE AND THEN SOME EXTRA GUEST ROOM ABOVE. IT IS A SMALL HOME.

IT IS A VERY LARGE CARRIAGE HOME.

BUT IT IS LARGE STRUCTURE ON A LARGE LOT.

IT WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HOME WITH A BREEZEWAY STRUCTURE WHICH MAKES IT TRULY A CARRIAGE HOME.

IT IS ATTACHED. IT IS NOT A SEPARATE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON THIS LOT. JUST TO GIVE YOU CONTEXT OF KIND OF THEIR EXPERIENCE THERE. A LOT OF NEW MULTI-STORY DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT. EXISTING KIND OF FARMHOUSE, AND THIS IS THE KIND OF FARM AREA. THIS DOESN'T REPRESENT THE EXACT GREENHOUSE STRUCTURE PLAN. AND THE GENERAL LOCATION OF IT.

SO THEY ANTICIPATE LIVING HERE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME.

WE HAVE PLANNED THE FARM SPACE TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS TO THEM SO THEY HAVE GOOD VIEWS. AND SO THE EXISTING URBAN/RESIDENTIAL ZONING NECESSITATES THESE... THEY MAY SEEM LIKE EXTREME VARIANCE REQUESTS.

IF IT WAS THE TRADITIONAL R-2 OR R-1 ZONING, IT WOULD BE A NONISSUE. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS SO WE CAN BUILD THIS

CARRIAGE HOME. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THAT IS PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS? SEEING NONE, A STAFF REPORT?

>> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER DID A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING WHY THEY NEED THESE VARIANCES AND PLANNING STAFF DOES RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THEM.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. IS THERE ANY... ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS PETITION? GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. DOCKETS PZ-2000163V AND 0164V.

[00:45:03]

>> SECOND. >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. WE APPROVE DOCKETS NUMBER PZ-2022-00163V. AND 164V.

WITH THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? IT HAS BEEN APPROVED 5-0. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT? IF NOT, THE MEETING STANDS ADJOURNE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.