[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:09]
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THIS MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER AND PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TOO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >>> WILL THE SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]
>> WE HAVE A QUORUM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGINGS OF ACT OF PREVIOUS MEETING.
YOUR MOTION. >> MOVED AND SECONDED.
WE APPROVE THE MEETING AND FINDINGS AND FACTS OF PRIEST MEETING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY "AYE."
ANY OPPOSED? >> IT'S APPROVED.
>> COMMUNICATIONS, BILLS AND EXPENDITURES.
[G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]
ANYTHING? REPORTS ANNOUNCEMENT LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT AND DEPARTMENT CONCERNS.>> MR. POTASNIK. I CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AND YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A DRAFT OF THE 2023BZA CALENDAR THAT WE NEED TO ADOPT THIS EVENING IF POSSIBLE. HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO
>> I MOVE TO ADOPT THE CALENDAR.
>> SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED WE APPROVE THE 2023 PROPOSED BZA CALENDAR.
ALL THOSE IF FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY "AYE."
>> ANY OPPOSED? IT'S BEEN APPROVED.
SERVICE RECOGNITION. >> WELL, THANK YOU FOR TEEING THAT ONE UP. THIS IS THE FINAL MEETING FOR TWO LONG-TERM BZA MEMBERS.
ALLEN POTASNIK AND KENT BROACH.
WE WOULD LOVE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND DEDICATION TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO FAIRNESS AND TO THE PROCESS. AND IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO REPLACE YOU BOTH.
WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
>> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] I SHOULD BE THANKING THE CITY.
>> YES, SIR. >> SIR, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS. AND THANKS, KENT FOR DOING THIS FOR SO LONG. GREATLY APPRECIATE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH BOTH OF YOU GUYS.
I KNOW EVERYBODY UP HERE FEELS THE SAME WAY.
IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE AND BOTH OF YOU WILL BE MISSED.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY KIND.
THANK YOU. >> WE START TONIGHT WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA HAS BEEN TABLED AS HAS THE SECOND ITEM BEEN TABLED TO
[H. (V) Chick-Fil-A Variances]
JANUARY 23RD. THE THIRD ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CHICK-FIL-A VARIANCES. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT STANDARD VARIANCE APPROVALS.DOCKET NUMBER PZ, 2022-00211V.
UDO SECTION 3.95F DRIVE-THRU LOCATION MUST BE LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE PARCEL. SITE HAS TWO PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGES AND ONE PRIVATE STREET FRONTAGE.
THEREFORE THIS REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE MET.
DOCKET PZ-2022-00021V, UVD SECTION 5.39.4.U.
WALL SIGN AND GROUND SIGN ORIENTS SOUTH.
DOCKET PZ-2022-00214V. UDO SECTION 3.88D.
INTERVALS OF 60 FEET FOUR FEET PROVIDED.
DOCKET NECK PZ-2022-00215V. UDO SECTION 3.92C LIGHTING PLAN DOES NOT MEET POINT THREE FOOT CANDLE AT PROPERTY LINE. PZ-2022-00216V.
UDO SECTION 5.19.5.3. FOUNDATION PLANTING
[00:05:02]
REQUIRED. NONE PROVIDED.AND AMENDED DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00218V.
SIGNAGE NUMBER 3 PROPOSED, TWO ALLOWED.
9965 NORTH MICHIGAN ROAD. PREVIOUS LOCATION OF RED ROBIN. BLOCK F.
IT'S ZONED B-2/BUSINESS WITHIN THE US421 OVERLAY DISTRICT FOLLOWED BY JOE VAVRANA ON BEHALF OF CHICK-FIL-A.
IS THE PETITIONER PRESENT. YOU CAN TURN ON THE MICROPHONE AND BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD EVENING. MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THANKS FOR HAVINGS HERE.
I'M JUSTIN WITH CHICK-FIL-A. I'VE GOT WITH ME JOE VAVRINA WITH HR GREEN. WE WILL BE BRIEF HERE.
LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A FULL HOUSE.
YOU DID A GREAT JOB OR DESCRIBING THE VARIANCES.
IT SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT MORE ARDUOUS AFTER YOU READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM. WE WANT TO TRY TO BOIL IT DOWN IN LAYMAN'S TERMS HERE. WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH STAFF. I'M SURE YOU HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE YOU GOT A GREAT STAFF ONBOARD HERE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF TIME REVIEWING AND UPDATING THE SITE TO TRY TO BE AS COMPLIANT AS WE CAN.
BRIEF OVERVIEW CHICK-FIL-A FANCHISE CONCEPT FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH CHICK-FIL-A, OUR SECRET SAUCE, IF YOU THERE IS OUR FRANCHISEE OWNER OPERATED.
YOU GET ONE LOCATION. THE REASON FOR THAT IS YOU'RE IN THE STORE, YOU'RE IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH YOU LIVE AND WHICH YOU WORK AND YOU ARE BUILDING YOUR TEAM AND KIND OF THAT'S WHAT CREATES THAT GREAT ATMOSPHERE THAT YOU MAY KNOW OF CHICK-FIL-A.
WE'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT FROM THE ELEVATOR SPEECH ON WHO WE ARE. BUT WE WILL GET RIGHT INTO THE MEATS AND POTATOES OF THE SITE.
YOU SEE THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE RED ROBIN THE GENERALLY LOCATED. AS NOTED WITH THREE STREETS IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GET THE DRIVE-THRU OFF OF ONE OF THOSE STREETS. THAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT VARIANCE THERE, THE HARDSHIP.
IF WE GO TO NEXT SLIDE THERE, JOE, THIS IS MORE OF A ZOOMED IN SITE PLAN. ONE OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WAS TO HAVE A 8-FOOT BUMP OUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION AND THE NORTH ELEVATION BECAUSE WE'RE OVER THE WIDTH REQUIRED THERE. AND WE ARE ABLE TO GET A FOUR-FOOT BUMP OUT. IF WE WENT FURTHER IT COMPROMISES THE FLOW OF THE TRAFFIC ON SITE.
THIS PACIFIC SITE PLAN IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT BE USED TO SEEING WITH THE OTHER CHICK-FIL-AS IN THE AREA. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IN THE AREA. WE TRY TO ISOLATE THE DRIVE THRU NOW VERSES HAVING THE BUILDING IN THE CENTER OF THE SITE AND THEN THE DRIVE-THRU IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE BUILDING WITH ALL THE PARKING ON THE OUTSIDE.
WE TRY TO PUT THE DRIVE-THRU ON THE OUTSIDE AS YOU SEE HERE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE PARKING KIND OF INTERIOR. THAT'S MORE OF A WHY BEHIND THIS SITE PLAN, IF YOU WILL. THAT'S THE REASONING THAT WE COULDN'T GET THE 8-FOOT BUMP OUT ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
IF YOU LOOK AT CANOPY. THERE'S A CANOPY ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. WHICH WOULD PROTECT YOU AS THE CUSTOMER PICKING UP YOUR FOOD AND PROTECT OUR EMPLOYEES BRINGING THE FOOD OUT TO YOU.
THAT CERTAINLY BUMPS OUT MORE THAN 8 FEET BUT NOT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING ITSELF.
THAT'S THE REASONING REGARDING THE 6-FOOT BUMP OUT AS COMPARED THE FOUR WE'RE PROPOSING.
HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. WE DO HAVE SOME LANDSCAPING UP AGAINST THE EASTERN EDGE OF OUR BUILDING.
WE'VE GOT OVER 900 SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPING CLOSE TO THE BUILDING. IT'S JUST NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT WE'RE KEEPING ALL OF THE MATURE LANDSCAPING THERE ON THE GREEN BELT. AND WE'VE DONE THE BEST WE COULD TO ADD AS MUCH LANDSCAPING INTO THE PROJECT AS POSSIBLE AS SEEN HERE. HERE'S OUR PHOTO METRIC PLAN. ONE OF THE VARIANCES.3 FOOT CANDLE AT THE PROPERTY EDGES.
WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANT WITH THAT ON THE NORTH EDGE.
AND THE EASTERN EDGE. THE NORTH -- WE HAVE A BUSINESS AND PARKING LOT TO NORTH AND ACCESS POINT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER. WE'VE MOVED -- WE'VE REDUCED
[00:10:03]
WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING ORIGINALLY AND GOTTEN THAT DOWN AS FAR AS WE CAN BEOUT MOVING ANOTHER LIGHT POLE ON THE NORTH. WE COULDN'T MOVE ONE MORE LIGHT POLE. WE FEEL LIKE IT CREATES TOO MANY DARK SPOTS AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION.AND THEN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER AS WELL.
AND WE'VE GOT OUR CANOPY ON THE EASTERN SIDELINE.
AND WITH THE LIGHTS UNDER THE CANOPY, WE CAN'T MEET THE .3 FOOT CANDLE ON THE EASTERN SIDE.
THAT'S ANOTHER PARKING LOT. WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S ADVERSELY IMPACTING ANYONE BUT CERTAINLY WILLING TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF AND SEE IF WE CAN'T COME UP WITH A CREATIVE SOLUTION THERE.
FINALLY THE LAST VARIANCE WAS SIGNAGE.
WE LOW SIGNAGE ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
WE WANT TO MEET CODE HERE. TWO SIGNS ONE OF THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION AND ONE ON THE WESTERN ELEVATION.
AND AS MENTIONED BY KEEPING ALL THE LANDSCAPING OUT ON MICHIGAN ROAD, WE'RE PROPOSING A FREE STANDING MONUMENT SIGN LIKE YOU'VE SEEN OTHERS HAVE.
THIS WOULD BE THE VARIANCE REQUEST HERE AND WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS IS OUR CHANGEABLE MESSAGE BOARD.
WE'RE ABLE TO CONNECT WITH THE COMMUNITY.
AND ADVERTISE SPIRIT NIGHTS OR DADDY DAUGHTER DATE NIGHTS OR MOTHER SON DATE NIGHTS.
WE FEEL THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR BUSINESS.
THAT PUTS US INTO TWO VARIANCES.
ONE TWO SIGNS FACING SOUTH. AND THEN WE'RE ASKING FOR THREE SIGNS INSTEAD OF TWO. BUT THAT'S THE REASONING FOR OUR VARIANCES. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE. >>CHAIR: THANK YOU.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE -- CAN I SHOW OF HANDS OF ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PETITION? OKAY. SEEING NONE, THE DEPARTMENT
REPORT. >> MR. PRESIDENT, THE DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDING POSITIVE CONSIDERATION FOR ALL THE VARIANCES, THIS EVENING.
AND I KNOW THAT THEN PLAYING STAFF IS AND THE CHICK-FIL-A TEAM HAVE BEEN WORKING ON SORT OF THE GIVE AND TAKE THAT GOES WITH AND PETITIONS LIKE THIS.
AND THE MICHIGAN ROAD OVERLAY WHERE THE DESIGN STANDARD ARE STRINGENT. AND FEEL LIKE WE LANDED IN A SPOT WHERE WE CAN BE COMFORTABLE WITH ALL THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED THIS EVENING.
>>CHAIR: THANK YOU. >> WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?
>> YES, BRAD. >> FOR THE DEPARTMENT, OR THE PETITIONER, IS THIS PHOTO METRIC THE CURRENT WORKING PLAN FOR THE LIGHTING? WE KNOW IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED THERE WON'T -- THERE'S NOT A POSSIBILITY THAT EVENTUALLY DIFFERENT LIGHT STANDARD COULD COME IN THAT WOULD BE EVEN BRIGHTER OR WORSE THAN THAT IS?
>> ANY MOTIONS PLEASE? >> MOVE TO APPROVE DOCKETS PZ-2022-00211 VALVE. 212V.
>> SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. WE APPROVE DOCKETS PZ-2022.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR -- BEFORE WE VOTE.
>> THERE'S ONE MORE. THERE'S 218V NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AMENDED DOCKET.
>> I WILL AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE 218V.
>> AND THEN THAT MOTION. >> SECOND.
>> PZ-2022-00-218V. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
[H. (A) Appeal, Director’s Acceptance of Buckingham Multifamily Project Application: Docket No. PZ2022-00225 A. ]
[00:15:03]
>> IT'S BEEN UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
>>> NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 17A APPEAL DIRECTOR ACCEPTANCE OF BUCKINGHAM MULTIFAMILY PROJECT APPLICATION DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00225 A.
THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO APPEAL THE CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO ACCEPT AND DOCKET IF DP/ADLS APPLICATION FOR THE BUCKINGHAM MULTIFAMILY CARMEL MIDTOWN PROJECT.
DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00202 DP/ADLS.
PROPOSED FOR A PORTION OF THE FORMER AT&T SITE LOCATED AT 210 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHWEST.
THE SITE IS ZONED C2/MIXED USE.
FILED BY CHARLES DEMLER. CHARLES, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO GO TO THE MICROPHONE. AND AS YOU APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. LET ME EXPLAIN THAT THIS ALSO IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE 15 MINUTES TO MAKE HIS PRESENTATION.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF HIS PRESENTATION, THE -- BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING, THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PETITION.
THERE WILL BE A TIME PERIOD OF 15 MINUTES FOR THOSE WHO OPPOSE THIS PETITION. AND THEN IF NECESSARY A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL. HAVING SAID THAT, LET ME ASK THIS. WITH THAT FIVE-MINUTES, THAT'S ALLOCATED FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF, HOW MANY HANDS ARE THERE -- WOULD YOU PLEASE
SHOW YOUR HANDS. >> WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. RIGHT?
>> KEEP THEM UP. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE.
EACH PERSON WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE -- SORRY.
>> I READ THE E-MAIL THAT JOE SENT ME.
AND HE SAID THAT YOU AS PRESIDENT DO HAVE AND SAID YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST THE TIME IF NEEDED.
I'M TELLING YOU WHAT JOE SAID IN THE E-MAIL.
>> OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES STATE THAT THERE'S FIVE MINUTES AND THAT'S WHAT IT WILL BE.
YOU ALL HAVE ONE MINUTE TO STATE YOUR -- YOUR POSITIVE INPUT. NOW, HOW MANY PEOPLE -- WISH
TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS? >> ONE, TWO.
TWO PEOPLE. >> OKAY THAT SHOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEM, THEN. SEEING THAT, WHY DON'T YOU -- GO RIGHT AHEAD AND BEGIN YOUR APPEAL M
MR. DEMLER. >> I HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN.
-- I'M CHARLIE DEMLER. I LIVED IN MY HOUSE FOR 42 YEARS. KELLEY BASSERT BRUCE BARRY AND CINDY BABCOCK WILL SPEAK ON MY BEHALF AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY WILL PRESENT OUR BELIEF THAT THE 75-FOOT SIX STORY, 244 UNIT APARTMENT/GARAGE SINGLE UNIT COMPLEX IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE UDO OF THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU.
AND I'M AS CHARLIE WAS STAYING HE'S ASKED ME TO SHARE SEVERAL VISUALS TO UNDER SCORE WHY THIS APPEAL IS HAPPENING. I WOULD PRESENT THE DRAWING THERE'S A DRAWING OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING THAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THE APPLICATION DATED SEPTEMBER 23RD, WAS ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICE.
IT DOES STATE IN THIS APPLICATION.
IT'S ONE BUILDING, SIX STORIES HIGH AND IT'S ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND THE PLANS FOR THIS IN THIS APPLICATION DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE UDO. AND SOME OF THESE VISUALS THAT I'M ABOUT TO SHARE WILL ILLUSTRATE WHY THAT IS.
[00:20:05]
THIS APPEAL ENABLES US TO PRESENT KEY POINTS REALLY FROM THE UDO AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL BOARD.AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. THAT'S WHAT WAS FELT TO BE NECESSARY BECAUSE THIS PLAN SHOULD NOT HAVE EVER BEEN APPROVED. THAT'S WHAT THE BELIEF IS.
I KNOW WE ALL SEEN IT ABOUT A MILLION TIMES.
BUT AS FAR AS THE WHAT THE C-2 IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT IS THAT PRINCIPAL BUILDING CANNOT BE ANY MORE THAN 35 FEET HIGH WHEN IT'S ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
IT'S VERY, VERY, VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
AND A LOT OF THOUGHT AND CAREFUL PLANNING HAS GONE INTO THE UDO TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AS WELL AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE'S A LOT OF PROTECTIONS IN PLACE.
ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO SHOW IS AND A LETTER OF THE DRAWINGS IN THE DESIGNS AND THE SITE PLANS IT'S ALL SORT OF MUTED -- WAIT A MINUTE. IT'S UPSIDE DOWN.
IT'S ALL IN A MUTED FASHION. AND I WANTED TO SHOW WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IN AN UNMUTED WAY.
THIS IS JUST THE NATURAL. THIS IS FROM THE GIS MAPS ON THE CARMEL WEB SITE. CHARLIE'S HOUSE IS RIGHT HERE. AND THIS IS LOT WHERE ALL OF THIS IS GOING. IT'S PRETTY MUCH CONSUMES ALL OF PARCEL A WHICH IS THE LARGE AREA WE'VE ALL SEEN.
THIS IS THE UNFILTERED VERSION THAT SHOWS THESE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN THEIR BACKYARDS.
THESE ARE -- WE HAVE LARGE BACKYARDS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS COMING RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE. I HAVE THIS AT 35 FEET.
I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY 25. THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKED OUT. IT'S VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THIS. IT'S SHALLOWER THAN THIS.
I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE VISUAL SO THAT WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING -- WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, PARDON ME. NOW WE HAVE THE MUTED BACKGROUND. BUT THIS DARK ORANGE SHOWS YOU THIS IS PARCEL A PRETTY MUCH CONSUMED WITH THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. AND THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING THE PROBLEM. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 35 FEET. IT'S NOT ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. IT'S JUST SIMPLY INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA IN IN FACT, EVEN IF THERE'S RULE BUILDING. 25% OF WHAT'S ALLOWS 30% MAYBE IF THERE HAD TO BE RULE BENDING.
BUT 100%. IT'S DOUBLE OF WHAT'S ALLOWABLE IN THE SETTING BECAUSE AS WE ARE UNDERSTANDING THIS THE WHAT IT IS.
IT'S DIRECTLY IN BACK OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
FORTUNATELY THE PLAN HAS RULES IN PLACE TO KEEP THIS FROM REALLY EFFECTING AND DESTROYING THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ITS HAS PROTECTION IN SPECULATION THAT HELP US RETAIN WHAT WE HAVE.
WE DON'T WANT TO GAIN ANYTHING.
WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE ANYTHING.
WE WANT TO KEEP THE CHARACTER OF WHAT WE HAVE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES THAT.
I ALSO HAVE A SCALE DRAWING THERE HASN'T BEEN AN ELEVATION LIKE THIS PRESENTED TO SHOW HOW THIS EFFECTS THIS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THERE HAPPENS TO BE 55 FEET IN CHARLIE BACKYARD.
HERE'S WHERE THE SENSE WILL GO.
THEN THERE'S 25 FEET. TEN FEET OF WHICH IS GREEN GRASS. ONLY TEN FEET.
THEN WE BEGIN WHERE THE BUILDING STARTS AND IT STARTS AT LOWER HEIGHT. IT'S TOO LARGE FOR 2 THE
[00:25:03]
SPACE. EVEN IF IT WAS -- GOSH, 46 FEET TALL. I CAN SEE THAT BUT THIS THE DOUBLE OF WHAT'S ALLOWABLE. AND THIS IS -- I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THIS ELEVATION. BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING. IT'S COMING DIRECTLY IN BACK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S VERY, VERY LITTLE PROTECTION IN PLACE AT THIS POINT.WHAT WAS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THE APPEAL.
WE WANTED TO BE HEARD. WE'RE IN SUCH DESPERATION FOR GUIDED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THIS WITH YOU.
THE UDO DOESN'T SUPPORT THIS 75-FOOT TALL BUILDING GOING RIGHT UP TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTIES.
IT DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT. WE NEED SOME HELP AND GUIDANCE AT THIS POINT. THEY DON'T UPHOLD THE UDO.
THEY DON'T MEET THE STANDARDS.
I AM GOING TO HAVE TO WRAP THIS UP.
BECAUSE OF COURSE OTHERS NEED TO SPEAK.
I THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND FOR VIEWING THESE VERY, VERY KEY POINTS FROM THE UDO.
I THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT SPEAKING IS ARCHITECT BRUCE BARRY. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH TIME IS
LEFT? >> SIX MINUTES, 30 SECONDS.
>>> I'M BRUCE BARRY. I'M AN ARCHITECT AND LIVE IN THE JOHNSON NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE FOR 22 YEARS.
THE FATE OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD DEPENDS ON WHAT WE ARE TELLING YOU TONIGHT. WITH COMPLICATED DOCUMENTS, SOMETIMINGS THERE'S A TENDENCY TO JUMP INTO THE EXCEPTIONS AND AS KELLEY MENTIONED RULE BENDING OFF THE BAT. SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE BASIC PREMISE AND PARTS OF THE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL BUILDING AS PER THE CARMEL UDO ARTICLE 12 STATES A BUILDING IN WHICH IS CONDUCTED MAIN OR PRINCIPAL USE OF THE LOT BY THE SET BUILDING IS SITUATIONED WHERE A SUBSTANTIAL AND PARTED OF ACCESSORY BUILD SING ATTACHED IN A SUBSTANTIAL MANNER AS BY ROOF, SUCH ACCESSORY BUILDING SHALL BE CONNECTED AS PART OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS. BUT THE FIRST PART OF THE DEFINITION A BUILDING IN BY THE MAIN OR PRINCIPAL USE OF THE LOT WHICH SAID BUILDING IS SITUATED STIPULATES THAT THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING COMPLIED WITH THE USE AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE LOT. PRINCIPAL USE OF THIS LOT FOR SINGLE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT WITH COUPLE OF FLOOR
PLAN OFFERINGS. >> THERE APPEARS TO BE TOWNHOUSES ALL CONNECTED AND SHARING AMENITIES.
IT'S A SINGLE FOOTPRINT. IT WILL BE TOUGH TO SEE A LITTLE BIT. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S ONE LARGE FOOTPRINT WITH THIS CORRIDOR RIGHT DOWN THE INTERIOR HERE THAT ALLOWS THE TOWNHOUSES TO ACCESS ALL THE AMENITIES OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE TOWNHOUSES CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT BEING INTEGRATED PART OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND HAVING DIRECT ACCESS TO BUILDING AS DESIGNED.
THE CONDITIONS OF THE LOT AND THE BUILDING IS DETERMINED BY THE UDO STANDARD.
THESE STANDARD STIPULATE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 75 FEET FOR THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IS ALLOWED ACCEPT AS BEEN POINTED OUT WHEN LOCATED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES LIKE THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. WHEN THAT OCCURS THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IS FOR THE ENTIRE BUILDING.
THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN INITIALLY SUBMITTED ON 9-23,
[00:30:06]
2022 AS ONE BUILDING, 75 FEET HIGH.SIX STORIES. WHY SUBMITTED THIS WAY? IF IT DOESN'T COMPLY TO THE UDO? THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON 10-19-22.
ADLSS SUBMITTED ON 22-22 STATING IT WAS TWO BUILDING WITH HEIGHT OF 35 FEEL AND 75 FEET AND SOMETIME IN NOVEMBER A NEW PROPERTY LINE WAS INTRODUCED ON ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN WHICH INDICATES THE TOWNHOUSES ARE A PORTION OF A SEPARATE PROPERTY.
THE INITIAL SITE PLAN, ONE BIG PROPERTY.
NOVEMBER 22, PROPERTY LINE DRAWN AROUND THE TOWNHOUSES.
IT WOULD SUPPORT APPEAL WE'RE ON TO SOMETHING.
WE MUST BE. COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF AND GENERAL ANALYSIS NOW STATE THAT PROJECT SEVERAL PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS, A T TEN-UNIT BUILDING AND 402 SPACES AND 7 LIVE AND WORK UNIT.
EXPLAINS HOW THIS ALLOWED BY THE UDO AND HOW THE PETITIONER THINKS IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
AT LEAST WE AGREE ON SOMETHING.
ARTICLE 9.01 DETAILS HOW THE APPEAL PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. ITEM C IS VERY EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION WHEN AN APPEAL FILED ALL THE PROCEEDING AND WORK UPON BY THE APPEAL FILED SHALL BE STAYED OR STOPPED. MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE MADE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF ADLS AND THE APPLICATION WERE NOT -- SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
THE ULTIMATE REASON WE ARE HERE TO ASK YOU TO ACCEPT OUR APPEAL. BECAUSE C 2 DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORHOOD TALLER THAN 35 FEET MAXIMUM IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE UDO. AND BECAUSE THE DOCS DIDN'T ALLOW THE PROCESS APPEAL CORRECTLY ALLOWING MULTIPLE CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION WHEN IT STATES THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. THANK YOU.
IS SHE GOING TO GO UP NOW? >> IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO -- BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
THE PETITION? >> THE HANDS THAT WENT UP BEFORE PLEASE GO OVER TO THE SIDE WALL AND LINE UP, PLEASE AND THEN APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
I NEED YOU TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
AND STATE THE AREA OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH YOU RESIDE. WHAT DO WE HAVE?
JUST TWO PEOPLE NOW? >> THREE?
>> I WILL GIVE EACH ONE OF YOU TWO MINUTES EACH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 402 EMERSON ROAD.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
I KNOW WE HAVE LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.
I THINK THE REALITY OF THIS DEFINITION THAT EVERYONE USES FOR TOWNHOUSE UDO IS 35 FEET.
AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT BUCKING HAM HAS SAID THIS IS ONE A ONE AND DONE SITUATION.
THEY WANT TO HAVE ONE STORY ONLY.
THEY ARE NOW SAYING THAT IT COULD BE MORE.
THEY HAVE TAX IDS. JUST LIKE THE LAST BZA ON JUNE 27TH. THE RESIDENTS FEEL LIKE THINGS ARE MOVING. THERE'S NEW TARGETS AND NEW INFORMATION. WE'RE GETTING INFORMATION IN THE 11TH HOUR. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY OUR CONTENTION THAT THEY MADE A MISTAKE.
WHETHER IT'S INTENTIONAL OR NOT.
THEY MADE A MISTAKE. BUT WE'RE SICK OF IT.
WE WANT TO TRY TO PUT AN END TO THE CHARADE.
[00:35:03]
WE TALKED ABOUT THE 75 FEET. WHETHER THEY CALL THESE TOWNHOUSES OR LIVE/WORK UNITS THEY ARE RENT 58S AND PART OF OVERALL UNIT. YOU ACCESS THROUGH THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. YOU DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE ENTRANCE LIKE TRADITIONAL TOWN HOME THAT EYE LIVED IN.WHERE YOU HAVE FRONT BACK GARAGE.
IT'S ALL ATTACHED. AND SEPARATE EXIT.
THERE'S NO WINDOW DIRECTLY INTO BARGAINING GARAGE.
IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN BUILDING THAT HAS CHOSEN TO TAKE TWO FLOOR AND 11:00 THEM OUT AND THE LIVE WORK UNIT WHICH ARE LARGER THAN THE OTHER UNITS, THEY ARE EMBEDDED INTO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN TWO-STORY RENTAL IN A NUMBER OF OTHER RENTALS. THIS IS A RENTAL BUILDING.
IT'S THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND OTHERS THAT ARE THERE ARE POSSIBLE TO DO THIS. I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PRICE IS HUGE. WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE WILL CONTINUE ALONG INDUSTRIAL DRIVE.
IT IS A CONTINUATION ALL THE WAY DOWN AND OUR RESIDENT HERE'S WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO GROWTH.
MAKE IT MORE LIKE THE 1933, AREA, VARIANT.
IS THIS ONE MINUTE OR TWO? THAT'S MY TWO.
>> IT'S CURRENTLY THERE FOR THE RAIL YARD.
I'M JULIE GERING. I ALSO OWN 475 EMERSON WHERE MY DAUGHTER, MY SON AND LAW AND GRANDSON LIVE.
IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO CHARLIE. NOT ONLY DOES IT EFFECT US PERSONALLY IT'S THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT I ASK OF YOU IS TO PLEASE RESPECT THE ORDINANCES TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF THIS.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS DIVERSE. WE RESPECT EACH OTHER.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE COME TOGETHER.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RESPECT ORDINANCES AND RESPECT OUR SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING. I'M TODD STEIN, 44 WILSON DRIVE. I'M IN THE WILSON SUBDIVISION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE RESIDENTIAL.
THE FACT THEY OWN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. THEY CAN'T CHANGE THE UDO JUST BECAUSE THEY OWN THE LOTS.
THE OTHER THING THAT I NEED TO POINT OUT TO YOU WHILE WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, THAT THIS WILL EFFECT ALL THE WAY DOWN INDUSTRIAL DRIVE. WHICH MANY MORE HOMES BACK UP TO. IF THIS APPROVE WHY WOULD THIS GUY HERE KEEP HIS ONE-STORY SMALL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WHEN HE COULD KNOCK IT DOWN AND PUT UP A SIX STORY APARTMENT BUILDING. YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME YOU KNOW YOU APPROVE THIS. YOU'RE GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN INDUSTRIAL DRIVE EFFECTING LITERALLY HUNDRED OF-HUNDREDS OF HOME FROM SIX-STORY YOU WILL SEE ONE MILE OUT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS APPEAL?
>> PLEASE STEP OVER TO THE WALL, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE.
THEN YOU MAY APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THE AREA OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH YOU RESIDE.
>> THIS IS FOR AGAINST THE APPEAL.
I LIVE 881, THIRD AVENUE UNIT 401.
I NEED YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD.
>> CARLILE. >> I'M NO FAN OF BUCKINGHAM BY ANY MEANS. HOWEVER I'M A STRONG BELIEVER IN THAT WE NEED DEVELOPMENTS GOING UP IN CARMEL, INDIANA. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH APARTMENT, TOWN HOMES. COMING FROM CHICAGO, A VERY UNSAFE NEIGHBORHOOD. I CHOSE CHARM, INDIANA BECAUSE IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE.
HOWEVER WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DEVELOPMENTS FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO LIVE IN CARMEL.
NOBLESVILLE. SIX STORIES WOULD BE GREAT.
[00:40:02]
MAYBE NOT SIX. FOUR, FIVE, OKAY.AND TO THE POINT OF SOMEONE SAYING THAT THE PRECEDENT IS SET. WE SEND MESSAGE TO DEVELOPERS SAYING CARMEL IS CLOSED TO BUSINESS.
IT WILL BE HARDER FOR DEVELOPERS TO WANT TO BUILD HERE. I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION BUT I THINK THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND HERE IN THAT WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT. AND I HONESTLY THINK IT'S A GREAT THING. NO FAN OF BUCKINGHAM.
BUT I THINK DEVELOPMENT IN CARMEL IS GREAT.
I WANTED TO COME HERE AND OBVIOUSLY STATE THAT.
SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.
I'M A MEMBER OF BUCKING HAM COMPANIES.
I WANTED TO GO OVER A FEW POINTS AS IT RELATES TO THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
AS MENTIONED THE BUILDING THE PROJECT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPRISING OF TWO DIFFERENT BUILDING.
THE TOWN HOME BUILDING AND THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDIN.
TOWN HOME BUILDING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON SECOND PARCEL FROM THE MIXED USE BUILDING. THAT'S INTENDED TO BE SEPARATED IN TERMS OF THE PAYING OF THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PERMITTING THE DRAWING PACKAGES WILL BE SEPARATED. THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PRODUCT TYPES. ONE LUXURY TOWN HOMES THE OTHER ARE SICKLE STORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ONE, TWO AND THREE-BEDROOM UNITS. THE TOWN HOME BUILDING WILL ALSO HAVE SEPARATE ADDRESS THAN THE MIXED USE BUILDING AS CLARIFICATION. EACH INDIVIDUAL TOWN HOME WILL HAVE INDIVIDUAL ENTRANCES ACCESS FROM THE PEDESTRIAN USE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
EACH INDIVIDUAL TOWN HOME YOU CAN WALK STRAIGHT INTO A PRIVATE YARD INTO THE HOME WITHOUT ENTERING ANY OTHER PARTS OF THE REMAINING BUILDING.
THEY WILL BE SEPARATED BY A WALL THAT'S BUILDING CODE.
NO PORTION IS BUILT OVER THE TOP OF THE TOWN HOME BUILDING. TOWN HOME BUILDING ROOF IS OPEN TO THE SKY. EACH STRUCTURE WILL HAVE SEPARATE FIRE SPRINKLE SYSTEM ONE BEING FPA13 FOR THE TOWN HOME AND THE REMAINOR OF THE BUILDING.
ANYONE ELSE? >> SEEING NONE, YOU CAN COME FOR FIVE MINUTES. GIVE A REBUTTAL.
I'M CINDY BABCOCK. I LIVE IN WILSON VILLAGE.
IN REGARD TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL, TO THE YOUNG MAN WHO MOVED FROM CHICAGO.
I'M GLAD HE MOVED TO CARMEL. IT'S A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE. I WOULD NOT SAY THAT NOT APPROVE THING APPEAL MEANS CLOSED FOR BUSINESS TO DEVELOPERS. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN THERE'S CURRENTLY 8 OR NINE CRC MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN PROCESS AT THE MOMENT.
A NUMBER OF THEM ON THE WAY. I DON'T THINK MULTIFAMILY IS GOING AWAY ANY TIME SOON. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S QUITE A FEW DEVELOPMENTS YET TO COME MOST OF THEM WITH A NUMBER OF THEM WITH 200 UNITS BY PER PROJECT.
WE A LOT OF TOWN HOME AND MULTIFAMILY IN CARMEL.
NUMBERS ARE NOT FANS OF.ION- AS TO THE TWO BUILDINGS, PORTION OF THE BUCKINGHAM PROJECT, AGAIN, OUR APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE APPLICATION. WE FELT THAT THE APPLICATION WAS APPROVED IN ERROR. THAT IT DIDN'T MEET UDO.
THE TWO BUILDING WAS NOT ON THE APPLICATION.
IT PLAINLY STATES THERE'S ONE BUILDING.
IT'S 75 FEET IN HEIGHT. ND IT WILL BE SIX STORIES AT MAXIMUM. THIS IS NEW INFORMATION TO US. AND AGAIN, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THAT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVIDENT ALL ALONG AS THIS PROCESS HAS STARTED.
THE DEVELOPERS CAME TO IF NEIGHBORHOOD OVER A YEAR AGO AND TOLD US ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
[00:45:10]
THERE'S NO SMALL BACK AREA. THERE'S TOWNHOUSES BY UDO DEFINITION THEY ARE TWO STORY RENTAL UNITS THAT HAVE AN ENTRANCE IN THE FRONT AND ENTRANCE TO A HALLWAY TO ACCESS A GARAGE IN THE BACK. THEY HAVE SPOKEN AS FAR AS TWO STORY RENTAL UNITS. THERE'S NO SEPARATION OF BUILDINGS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARCEL LINE CREATED FOR DIFFERENT TAX PARCELS.IT'S ONE STRUCTURE. WE ASK THAT YOU FOLLOW THE UDO STANDARDS AND LIMIT IT TO 35 FEET.
>> DEPARTMENT REPORT. >> THANK YOU.
>> THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED A RATHER LENGTHY ONE-PAGE REPORT. WHICH I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT THE PLAN AND THE PROJECT HAS NOT YET BEEN APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION OR THROUGH THE HEARING OFFICER PROCESS.
THE PLANS WERE ACCEPTED. AND THE PLANS WERE DOCKETED AND THE REVIEW PROCESS HAS BEEN ONGOING.
WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH EVERY PROJECT.
IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR FOR A PROJECT TO EVOLVE AND CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THE GIVE AND TAKE THAT OCCURS WITH THAT. THE C2 DISTRICT DOES ALLOW FOR MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
IT ALLOWS FOR MULTIPLE BUILDING.
IN THIS CASE WE HAVE MULTIPLE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON TWO PARCELS. MIX OF COMMERCIAL BUILTING, TOWNHOUSES, THAT ARE TWO STORY AND SIX-STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. WITH A SHARED PARKING FACILITY. THE CONSTRUCTION OF EACH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPE IS UNIQUE.
THE TOWN HOMES HAD TO BE MODIFIED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THEIR ENTRANCES ARE ALL MEET FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS REQUIREMENT EVEN THOUGH THEY DO SHARE A STRUCTURED PARKING GARAGE.
GENERALLY SPEAKING THE DEPARTMENT FEELS THE PROJECT WAS DOCKETED PROPERLY. AND THAT THE APPEALS SHOULD BE DENIED. THAT'S THE DIRECTOR AND FOCUS TO THE APPEAL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
>> WITH THAT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
>> WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE UDO APPROVAL? THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY?
>> IT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR QUITE SOMETIME;
>> 2009, I BELIEF. >> THE REALS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE SINCE TWO NINE. THEY ARE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL?
>> ANYONE ELSE? >> MR. GRABOW?
>> THE DEPARTMENT REPORT SAYS THAT THE BUILDING WILL
[00:50:04]
ALL HAVE SEPARATE TAX PACELS AND SEPARATE PARCEL ID NUMBERS. DO WE KNOW CAN PETITIONER CONFIRM THAT THE TOWN HOMES WILL BE ASSESSED AS SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL? >> AS OPPOSED TO COMMERCIAL?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WILL BE SOLD FEE SIMPLE.
THEY WILL BE RENTAL. I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL BE
ASSESSED AS COMMERCIAL. >> I CERTAINLY FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND SO FORTH. BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE -- WE HAVE TO HAVE A LEGAL REASON TO BE ABLE TO AGREE TO THIS. I CAN'T FIGURE OUT ANY WAY IN HECK WE'RE SAYING THAT THE ZONING IS NOT APPLICABLE. AND IT'S FULLY APPLICABLE IN THE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE AT HAND.
>> THE HORSE IS OUT OF THE STABLE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT
>> YES, KEN. >> LET'S TAKE THE TON HOMES OUT OF THIS. WHAT IF THE APARTMENTS WERE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WOULD THAT CHANGE THE IF THAT WERE THE PROJECT.
HOW WOULD YOU HAVE HANDLED THAT?
>> IF THE PROJECT WOULD COME IN WITHOUT, 70 FEET TALL.
THEN THAT WOULD BE POINTED OUT AND THEY WOULD EITHER HAVE TO MODIFY THE PLAN OR THEY COULD FILE FOR VARIANCE OF HEIGHT AND APPEAR BEFORE THE BZA.
>> IT REALLY IS THE INCLUSION OF THE TOWN HOMES, I GUESS THAT -- WHAT YOU BASE YOUR OPINION ON.
>> THE TOWN HOMES MEET THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. JUST SO I CAN SEGUE OUT OF WHAT LEO HAD SAID. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THESE OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR POSITION, YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE UDO AND WHEN THE PETITIONS COME IN.
THEIR REVIEWED AND YOU'RE DECISION IS BASED UPON OUR ORDINANCE. AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. WHEN YOU REVIEW THIS YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON THE ORDINANCE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AS FAR AS -- ANY VARIATION OF THE ORDINANCE ARE CONCERNED.
THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PETITION.
>> YOU CONSIDER IT STRAIGHT FORWARD, THE PETITION AND WHAT -- HOW OUR ORDINANCE APPLIED TO THAT.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK.
IF NOT WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MR. PRESIDENT, WITH CLARIFICATION.
DOES THIS NEED TO BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE?
>> WELL, I THINK SINCE THERE'S AN APPEAL.
I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL.
PZ-2022-00225 A. >> ALSO I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION MR. DIERCKMAN. YOU VOTING TO SUSTAIN THE DEAL OR YOU VOTING AGAINST THE APPEAL?
>> MOVING TO WE DENY THE APPEAL.
>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THE
MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL? >> SECOND.
PARDON ME. >> BEFORE THERE'S A SECOND.
I JUST WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT
[00:55:03]
HAPPENS. IF THIS APPEAL IS DENIED, THEN THE PETITIONER CAN GO TO COURT? IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT THE NEXT?IS THAT THE APPEAL? >> I CAN ADDRESS THAT.
IF THE APPEAL IS -- LET'S START WITH THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED AND PETITIONERS -- IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF SUSTAINING THE APPEAL, THEN AS MIKE MENTIONED THE PLANS WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFIED OR AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE WOULD HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OVER HERE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS. IF THE APPEAL DENIED, THEN THE PETITIONER FOR APPEAL PERSONS INDIVIDUALS WHO FILED THE APPEAL WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TO FILE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. WHICH MEANS BASICALLY TO GO TO COURT. THANK YOU.
>> THASHSZ OTHER AVENUE. THERE'S PLANNING COMMISSION THAT NEED TO BE GOTTEN. THERE'S ANOTHER REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HEARING TOO.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S REDRESS.
>> THIS APPEAL ONLY IS CENTERED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE HEIGHT. EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OFFICER. AND THAT HEARING IS SCHEDULED DECEMBER 1ST. THE BUCKINGHAM GROUP STILL WILL HAVE TO SATISFY MULTIPLE VARIANCES THAT THEY APPLIED FOR AND THAT HEARING WILL BE ON DECEMBER 1ST.
I THINK -- I BELIEVE THIS THURSDAY.
>> THANK YOU. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DEPARTMENTS DECISION. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT?
>> SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE TO DENY THE APPEAL TO UPHOLD THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DECISION? ALL THOSE IF FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY "AYE"?
>> AYE. >> ARE THERE ANY AGAINST?
>> IT'S BEEN DENIED. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.