Dec 17, 2024 Carmel Plan Commission

[A. Call Meeting to Order]

[C. Roll Call ]

[00:00:35]

>> THANK YOU. MR. SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?

>> ADAM CAMPAGNA. >> PRESENT.

>> INAUDIBLE ]

JOSH KIRSCH. >> PRESENT

>> SUE WESTERMEIER. >> SHANNON

[D. Declaration of Quorum]

[E. Approval of Minutes]

MINARD. >> PRESENT. #

>> ON THE AGENDA IS OUR APPROVAL OF OUR NOVEMBER

MINUTES. >> SO MOVED.

>> THANK YOU JOSH AND COUNSELOR MINNAAR , OR WAS THAT DUBBIE?

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

THE LEGAL COUNSEL. >> THANK YOU, WE HAVE THREE CRC RESOLUTIONS TODAY. WE HAVE HENRY MUSZYNSKI AND HIS COUNSEL

THAT WILL BE PRESENTING. >> DIRECTOR MCCASKEY?

>> GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME. HENRY MISSIVE, REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. IN FRONT OF YOU ON YOUR AGENDA TO START THE EVENING ARE THREE ALLOCATION AREA, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA EXPANSION RESOLUTIONS .4 ANYONE THAT HASN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE, STATE LAW OUTLINES A PROCESS --

[00:06:43]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY HI. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, THIS ONE PASSES AS WELL WITH FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. AND A THIRD ONE IS PC RESOLUTION. PC-12-17-24-C, CRC RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-09. IT APPROVES CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO BE DECLARATORY RESOLUTION ECONOMIC THE MOMENT LAND FOR NORTH ILLINOIS STREET EDA, THE MERIDIAN HOTEL ALLOCATION AREA.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY HI.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, THIS PASSES WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH DIRECTOR MCCASKEY.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE FOURTH ITEM THAT'S ON HERE, COMMUNICATION BILLS AND LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT IS RULE

[G. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns]

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE REPORTS ON THE OUTCOME OF PROJECTS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE FOR YOU ALL. WE HAD THE SPRING MILL SHOPS HAVE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THOSE SHOULD BE COMING BACK IN JANUARY. WE HAVE THE 401 PENN EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS BUILDING. WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM, SO THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE PUSHED BACK TO FEBRUARY NOW, FOR THAT COMMITTEE MEETING, TO FINALIZE THOSE CHANGES. AND THEN THE SECOND ITEM WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION. THE DOCKET NUMBER PC-2021-00044, PRIMARY PLAT, SECONDARY PLAT, SAME SUBDIVISION. WE SPLIT TWO LOTS OR WE SPLIT IT INTO 26 ACRE LOTS. SO IT WAS A 12 ACRE TARSAL AND THIS IS TRYING TO BE SPLIT FOR A VERY LONG TIME. BUT TWO LOTS IS ALL THEY CAME UP WITH. IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE. AND THEN GOING DOWN TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE THE TABLING. SO ITEM NUMBER ONE IS TABLED. DOCKET NUMBER CAPIZZI 2024-00173 PUD CLAY COTTAGES PUD REZONE. SO IF ANYONE IS HERE TONIGHT FOR THAT ITEM, IT WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT. THAT WILL BE TABLED TO JANUARY 21ST, 2025, AND THEN , JUST TO REITERATE, UNDER THE OLD BUSINESS THAT IS ALSO TABLED TO JANUARY 21ST. THAT'S THE SPRING MILL SHOPS THAT I JUST MENTIONED. AND THEN, IF I CAN KEEP GOING, WHEN WE GET TO PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, WE DO NEED A RULE SUSPENSION. THEY WERE ABLE TO MAKE 14 DAYS NOTICE IN THE PAPER INSTEAD OF 21 DAYS, BUT ALL OTHER FORMS AND LETTERS TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THE SIGN IN THE YARD MET THE 21 DAY REQUIREMENT. IT WAS JUST THE PUBLICATION DEADLINES SOMETIMES PREVENT PETITIONERS FROM MEETING THEM. SO THEY HAVE 14 DAYS INSTEAD OF 21 DAYS IN THE NEWSPAPER, BUT THEY DO MEET THIS MINIMUM STATE REQUIREMENT OF 10 DAYS. SO WE WILL ASK IF YOU COULD SUSPEND YOUR RULES TO HEAR THAT ITEM TONIGHT.

>> SO THAT'S THE MOTION. THERE'S TWO MOTIONS NEEDED TONIGHT, OR REQUESTED FOR SUSTAINING RULES. THE FIRST ONE

[00:10:09]

>> YES. >> OKAY. SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND DO THAT PIECE SO WE CAN HEAR THE HEARING?

>> MADAM CHAIR, WILL WE WERE SPEND THE RULES FOR THE REASON

STATED? >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF

[H.2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00205 CA: Ardalan Plaza – Commitment Amendment. ]

THAN THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT UP TO 20 MINUTES. AFTER THAT, THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER REBUTTAL COMMENTS. AFTER THE REBUTTAL COMMENTS, IF THERE ARE ANY, WE WILL THEN HEAR FROM THE DEPARTMENT. AT THE CONCLUSION OFTHE DEPARTMENT REPORT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND AT THAT POINT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ASK QUESTIONS AND HAVE OUR OWN DISCUSSION, AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, DUE TO THE OTHER DOCKET TO BEING TABLED, WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM TONIGHT FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT IS DOCKET NUMBER PC-2024-00205 COMMITMENT AMENDMENT ARDOIN PLAZA. THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO REMOVE PREVIOUS REZONE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS IN RELATION TO Z-11-16 FOR A NEW, MIXED-USE PROJECT. BE APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT 311 WEST MAIN STREET, NOT IN ANY SUBDIVISION. IT IS ZONE C2 MIXED-USE. IT IS FILED BY JIM SCHEIBER OF NELSON AND FRANKENBERGER AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JOHN DIVISION WITS TO PRESENT FOR THE PETITIONER.

>> THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN.O'SHEA WITS.

ON A LAND-US PROFESSIONAL WITH THE LAW FIRM OF NELSON AND FRANKENBERGER. WE REPRESENT THE APPLICANT, THE 2 ARDOIN LIVING TRUST AND ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS AND UNEXPECTED DELAY, THEY ARE THE OWNER OF 321 WEST MAIN STREET AND THE PROPOSED OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS OF ARDOIN PLAZA. HENRY MYSLINSKI, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ARE OF THE NORMAL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, DAN MORIARTY AND STUART HOLMES WITH ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING AS WELL AS JIM SHANER ATTORNEY WITH OUR OFFICE. THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING REMOVAL OF PRIOR ZONING COMMITMENTS TO ALLOW FOR THE ADVANCEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT SITE WITH A THREE-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING ARDOIN PLAZA. THE BUILDING WILL INCLUDE GROUND FOR COMMERCIAL USES WITH THE ART GALLERY AND POTENTIAL RESTAURANT BEING TWO OF THE OCCUPANTS. FOUR RESIDENTIAL CONDOS ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR THE ARE DA LINS ON THE THIRD FLOOR. BY WAY OF GENERAL BACKGROUND, IN 2016 THE REAL ESTATE WAS REZONED C2 WITH ADDITIONAL PARCELS TO FOSTER AND PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO BLOCK AREA TO THE EAST AS WELL AS THIS BLOCK. COMMITMENTS WERE PUT IN PLACE WITH THE REZONE TO C2 AS THERE WAS NO DEFINITIVE PLAN FOR THIS BLOCK BETWEEN THIRD AVENUE AND FOURTH AVENUE AT THE TIME. AS NOTED BY THE OCS STAFF, THE COMMITMENTS ARE NO LONGER NEEDED AS A QUALITY PROJECT THAT WILL ENHANCE THE ART AND DESIGN DISTRICT HAS NOW BEEN SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DISCUSSION, THE REAL ESTATE IS IDENTIFIED HERE IN YELLOW. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN THIRD AND FOURTH AVENUES. THE BUILDING OCCUPIED BY THE ANTHONY CHOPHOUSE AND A PARKING GARAGE IS TO THE EAST AND THE MAIN STREET FOURTH AVENUE ROUNDABOUT IS ADJACENT TO THE SITE. SO ANTHONY CHOPHOUSE BUILDING WITH THE PARKING GARAGE ROUNDABOUT LOCATED HERE.

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES ARE LOCATED BOTH TO THE WEST END TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT REAL ESTATE. BEFORE ADDRESSING THE COMMITMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST, I WANTED TO REVIEW WITH YOU THE SITE PLAN FOR THE BUILDING DESIGN, WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED IN MORE DETAIL BY THE HEARING OFFICER LATER THIS WEEK, ON THURSDAY. THE EXHIBIT ON DISPLAY NOW IS THE MOST UP TO DATE COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THIS SITE. THIS IS AN UP DATED PLAN FROM WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN YOUR INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE 10 DAYS AGO. THE PETITIONERS AGREED TO SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS TO ADDRESS FEEDBACK THEY RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. THOSE INCLUDE, WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEY, WHILE THE ALLEY WILL BE PUBLIC, THE CONNECTION TO FOURTH STREET WAS A CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY RESIDENTS. AND IN THIS REGARD, THE CITY HAS AGREED AND THE APPLICANT SUPPORTS RESTRICTING THE ALLEY TO EASTBOUND ONLY, S ENTER ONLY OFF OF FOURTH AVENUE, IN ORDER

[00:15:04]

THIS WAS DONE TO REDUCE THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT. I'LL COVER THAT IN A MINUTE BUT THOSE ITEMS ADDED TO THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND THOSE ELEMENTS WERE ELIMINATED. THOSE ELEMENTS WANT TO BE INCLUDED AND THAT'S REFLECTED HERE ON THIS UPDATED BUILDING ELEVATION. IN ADDITION TO REDUCING THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT, THE DESIGN INCLUDES A STAIR STEP BACK AWAY FROM THE THIRD STORY ON FOURTH AVENUE. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS THE FOURTH AVENUE SIDE THAT WILL BE MOST PROXIMATE TO FOURTH AVENUE, AND THAT IS BACK HERE ABOUT 20 FEET. SO THERE'S A 25 FEET SETBACK TO THE ROAD, A 20 STAIRSTEP BACK TO THE THIRD STORY. WE'VE DEVELOPED A CROSS-SECTION THAT HELPS ILLUSTRATE THAT. THE AREA IN YELLOW IS THAT AREA OF THE BUILDING, INCLUDING THE STAIR TOWERS AND GREENHOUSE THAT WERE REMOVED. SO YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE CENTER OF FOURTH AVENUE. WE COME TO THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, 25 FEET TO THE FACE OF THE BUILDING, APPROXIMATELY 36 FEET TO THE SECOND FLOOR. THE STAIRSTEP ACT OF 20 FEET AND THEN THE THIRD STORY, AND THE CALCULATED HEIGHT, BY ORDINANCE, OF THE BUILDING IS 50 FEET, EIGHT INCHES, AS WAS REVIEWED AND IDENTIFIED BY DSC AS. ALL OF THOSE REVISIONS RESULTING A BUILDING DESIGN THAT WE HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN CURRENTLY. IT'S A PERSPECTIVE OF SOMEONE STANDING NORTH AND WEST OF THE ROUNDABOUT AT THE CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND FORTH, LOOKING AT THE SITE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS TO DRAW TO YOUR ATTENTION IS FROM THE PASSERBY, A PEDESTRIAN ALONG THE ROADWAY, THE BUILDING WILL APPEAR AS A TWO-STORY DWELLING IF YOU ARE ON FOURTH AVENUE OR YOU ARE ON MAIN STREET. IT'S GOT A LOWER SCALE AND THEN THAT STAIRSTEP BACK OR THE THIRD STORY, WHILE NOT 20 FEET ON EVERY SIDE, IT'S CLOSER TO MAIN STREET BUT IT'S A 20 FEET RECESS BACK.

YOU CAN SEE HERE FROM FOURTH AVENUE. THAT WAS DONE AGAIN AS A MEANS OF ADDRESSING THE HEIGHT ISSUE OF THE BUILDING AND ITS APPEARANCE ALONG FOURTH AVENUE AND MAIN STREET FROM A HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE. I'M GOING TO PUT BACK THE SITE PLAN EXHIBIT TO HELP EXPLAIN THE COMMITMENTS . WE WANTED TO REVIEW THE PLANS WITH YOU FIRST BECAUSE WE KNEW THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC WITH THE -- NOT MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL AS THE VARIANCE WILL BE HEARD ON THURSDAY. BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO INTRODUCE THIS INFORMATION, SO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE PLANS THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED FOR IMPLEMENTATION ON THURSDAY. REGARDING THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE, THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE SETS OF COMMITMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED BEHIND TABS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN OF YOUR BROCHURE. ONE IS FOR THE 311 PROPERTY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY RIGHT HERE IN THE AREA. THE SECOND IS FOR TWO 321 WEST MAIN, WHICH IS THE CENTER LOT, AS WELL AS THE PARTIAL THAT EXIST RIGHT HERE, SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED ALLEY. THE THIRD IS FOR THE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF THE 331 PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF FOURTH AVENUE AND MAIN STREET. MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THE COMMITMENTS ARE THE SAME

[00:20:13]

THE NEXT ITEM WAS WITH REGARD TO PHASING . THE PROPOSAL HAS ASSEMBLED FOR THE SEVEN PARCELS, WHICH ARE ON THIS BLOCK, ONE, TWO, THREE ACROSS THE FRONT EDGE OF THE FOURTH PARCEL, FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN FACING FIRST STREET, NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. DEDICATION OF THE ALLEY THAT YOU SEE HERE TO THE PUBLIC WILL ALIGN THE SITE FOR COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT WITH WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE PARCELS TO REDEVELOP BUT IN THE CASE THOSE PARCELS WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REDEVELOPMENT, THOSE PARCELS, IT WOULD BE DONE IN A COORDINATED WAY WHERE ACCESS WOULD BE PROVIDED VIA THE ALLEY, AND THIS DESIGN SUPPORTS THAT. THE NEXT COMMITMENT REQUIRES FULL CLOSURE OF MAIN STREET DRIVEWAS. THE ONE MAIN STREET DRIVEWAY, ONE OF THEM SITS RIGHT HERE ON THE 321 PARCEL. THAT WILL BE CLOSED AND ACCESS WILL BE EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE ALLEY. AGAIN, IT WILL BE ANSWER ONLY OFF OF FOURTH AVENUE TO THE ALLEY, TO THIRD AND BACK UP TO MAIN STREET. THE LAST ITEM WAS WITH REGARD TO LANDSCAPING OF PARKING ALONG FOURTH AVENUE. THIS WAS EXCLUSIVE TO THE 321 PARCEL.

THERE IS NO PARKING PROPOSAL ALONG THAT FRONTAGE, THEREFORE THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT TO SCREEN THAT AREA FROM FOURTH AVENUE WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. SO THERE'S NOT THE NEED FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THAT COMMITMENT. IN CONCLUSION, THE RATIONALE FOR REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE COMMIT VINCE IS THAT, UNLIKE IN 2016, WHEN THE REZONE WAS APPROVED, AND SUBSEQUENT THE IN 2022, WHEN STAFF FILED A REQUEST TO VACATE THE COMMITMENTS TODAY, THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT TOOK PLACE THAT'S BEEN THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED, WHICH NOW RENDERS THE PRIOR COMMITMENTS UNNECESSARY. I WANT TO THANK, IN PARTICULAR, DAN MORIARTY IN STUDIO. THEY WORK QUITE DILIGENTLY IN A DIALOGUE WITH ADJACENT NEIGHBORS THAT RESULTED IN THESE CHANGES, THE ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS THAT I DESCRIBED FOR YOU THIS EVENING, AND REALLY DID A GOOD JOB IN RECEIVING AND TAKING THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC, GETTING THOSE IN FRONT OF OUR CLIENT AND HAVING THEM MAKE QUICK DECISIONS TO AMEND THE PLANS AND ALTER THEM IN A WAY THAT THEY THINK IS BENEFICIAL TO THE CONCERNS THAT WERE MENTIONED. WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE I'LL BE GLAD TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THE COMMISSION HAS AT THIS TIME OR OF COURSE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BY SHOW OF HANDS, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PETITION? TO THREE PEOPLE, OKAY. AND I WILL ALLOT FIVE MINUTES PER PERSON, SO IF THE FIRST ONE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP HERE AND PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF, AND JUST STATE GENERALLY WHERE YOU LIVE. AND THERE ARE LIGHTS UP THERE, AND IT WILL KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME, WHEN YOU GET CLOSE TO HAVING TIME EXPIRE YOU'LL SEE THE YELLOW AND THEN IT WILL

TURN RED WHEN TIME IS UP. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS KELLY BASKET AND I JUST HAD A COUPLE THINGS THAT I -- -- OKAY. HELLO

[00:25:05]

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE THAT ANSWER

FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> HEY GUYS, MY NAME IS DAVE GAGLIANO AND I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO KELLY, AND I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO WORK WITH PETITIONER THROUGH STUDIO M. I WAS, ALONG WITH JARON BIBEAULT, ONE OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THEM.

THEY HAVE BEEN ENOUGH BUT GRACIOUS. I HAVE SO MANY POSITIVE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THE INTERACTION AND THE DESIGN ELEMENT. THERE'S ONE AREA THAT I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT, INCLUDING JUST RECENTLY HAVING A CONVERSATION AS LATE AS 4:30 THIS AFTERNOON WITH JEREMY CASHMAN, WHEN HE AGREED TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE ALLEY TO MAKE EASY ROUND AND HE STILL SAID HE NEEDS TO NARROW IT. BUT I'LL JUST START BY COMPLEMENTING DAN AND THE PETITIONER. THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE GOING TO BE EMBRACED. WE HAVE ONE REMAINING ISSUE, AND IT REALLY JUST DEALS WITH SO MUCH INSERT THE AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLEYWAY /TRAFFIC IN GENERAL. I'LL JUST TAKE A MOMENT IF IT'S OKAY. FIRST OFF, JEREMY WAS GREAT. I SENT HIM LITERALLY PICTURES ABOUT HERE'S THE IMPACT OF HEADLIGHTS TO MY SPECIFIC HOME AND THAT OF THE BASKETS RIGHT NEXT TO ME. HE TOOK THAT AND SAID, OH MY GOSH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I DO AGREE THAT YOU WOULD BE HARMED IF THERE WAS LIGHTS COMING INTO YOUR PROPERTY THAT WERE GOING WESTBOUND, AND THAT'S WHY HE SAID I'M GOING TO CHANGE IT TO MAKE IT EAST BOUND ONLY ALLEY, WHICH IS A GOOD START. BUT I

[00:30:02]

THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 331 MAIN STREET COVENANT S OR RESTRICTIONS, AND THAT WAS ITEM NUMBER TWO. AND THOSE ARE THE TWO AREAS THAT I THINK NEED MORE EXPLORATION. I'LL JUST STATE THAT THOSE COMMITMENTS WERE MADE AND THEY WERE THERE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT WITH.

THEY WERE DONE AT A POINT IN TIME WHERE THE CITY KNEW THERE WOULD BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO, AND THEY WERE DONE AT A TIME WHERE THEY KNEW THAT WITHOUT THOSE COMMITMENTS, POTENTIAL HARM COULD OCCUR TO RESIDENCE NEARBY. SO THOSE I THINK STILL HOLD TRUE TODAY, THE DESIRE TO DO THIS, AND I AGREE THAT WHAT JEREMY IS PROPOSING WITH AN EASTBOUND ONLY IS OBVIOUSLY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUT BECAUSE IT'S AN ALLEY, IT DOES NOT PREVENT TWO-WAY TRAFFIC FROM ENTERING, ESPECIALLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. SO THERE'S A LOT GOING ON. ADDITIONALLY, I PROPOSE THREE ALTERNATIVES TO HELP THE TRAFFIC AND EVERYTHING, BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM. NUMBER ONE WAS ELIMINATING THE NORTHBOUND PARKING ALONG FIRST STREET SOUTHWEST, THAT MY NEIGHBORS AND SOME THAT ARE HERE WILL TELL YOU IT'S LIKE WHACK A MOLE TRYING TO GET THROUGH FIRST STREET IN BOTH DIRECTIONS BECAUSE TRAFFIC CAN'T FLOW FREELY. THE SECOND IS WIDENING OF THIRD AVENUE SOUTHWEST, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE PARKING GARAGE IS. PEOPLE TODAY CAN'T MAKE -- LEGALLY CAN'T MAKE A LEFT OUT OF THAT PARKING GARAGE TO GO TO FIRST STREET, ALTHOUGH MANY DO, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE THIRD AVENUE STREET HAVE TRUCKS PARKING AND BLOCKING THE ENTIRE STREET TO UNLOAD PROVISIONS FOR RESTAURANTS, WHATEVER THEY WANT, AND THERE'S AMAZON DELIVERY SERVICES. SO I WAS VERY FORTUNATE TO INTERACT WITH EVERYONE ON IT, BUT THE MAYOR IS URGING, AFTER RECEIVING LETTERS OF THE PROPOSED STUDIO M, THEY'VE BEEN GREAT. THEY SHOWED ADDITIONAL RENDERINGS. IN FACT, ONE OF THOSE, IS IT SHOWING UP ON THIS? THIS WAS DAN'S CHICKEN SCRATCH, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. KEEP ME HONEST, DAN. THIS IS YOUR GREEN LITTLE BUSHES AND THE BLOCK, SO THEY COULD DO TO BLOCK THE AREA ALTOGETHER. AND IN DOING SO, THE PETITIONER WOULD ACTUALLY GET TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS, OR MAYBE EVEN A GARAGE, WHICH AT THE TIME, KEEP ME HONEST AGAIN, I THINK YOU SAID SHE MIGHT ENJOY THAT. THE ALLEY ITSELF, AS IT'S CALLED, IS IT REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT. IT IS -- THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION FOR WATER IS NECESSARY BUT IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT REALLY NEEDED, IF YOU WILL. BUT THEY DO NEED IT FOR UTILITIES, SO OBVIOUSLY IT HAS TO BE THERE. BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A CONNECTING ALLEY. SO I THINK I'M ALMOST OUT OF TIME HERE. I JUST THINK THAT WITH THE COLLABORATION THAT'S TAKEN PLACE, THE ONLY AREA THAT IS STILL QUESTIONABLE TO RESIDENCE IS A, THE NEED FOR A CONNECTING ALLEY, AND THE CONNECTING ALLEY AT THIS TIME, WITHOUT THE FULL DUE DILIGENCE FROM THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE ALTERNATIVES, BUT THOSE ADDITIONAL AREAS AND AVENUES. WHEN I TALKED TO JEREMY TODAY, HE SAID THOSE ARE STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION BUT I WON'T HAVE AN ANSWER BY TONIGHT. BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, CAN THE COMMITTEE APPROVE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ALLEY UNTIL THEY CAN DO ALL THE DUE DILIGENCE TO FIND THE BEST TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS AND ONE OF THOSE WAS PUTTING A STOP SIGN, A FOUR WAY STOP AT THE CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE SOUTHWEST AND MAIN STREET, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID IN THE AREA BY MULDOON'S AND PINE ROOM WHEN THAT WAS ALL BEING DONE ALONG VETERANS WAY. THERE WAS A TEMPORARY STOP SIGN THAT WAS ADDED, AND THANKFULLY, RESIDENCE EMBRACED IT, LIKED IT, KEPT EVERYTHING MOVING FREELY. AND NOW IT IS A

[00:35:05]

YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE

HAVE ONE MORE. >> MY NAME IS JILL MEISENHEIMER. AND I WORK WITH CCR'S EMAIL AND LIVE IN A SINGLE STORY ACROSS FROM THE FIVE-STORY STEADMAN APARTMENTS AT THE BRIDGES, SO I UNDERSTAND I'M SYMPATHETIC TO SOME OF THE ISSUES RELATED TO HAVING A LARGE MULTIUSE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A REALLY COMPLICATED PROPOSAL WITH THREE SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS WEEK, BEFORE CHRISTMAS. AND FIRST, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THE ARCHITECT WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND WHAT A HUGE DIFFERENCE, AND WHAT A PLEASURE IT IS TO SEE WHEN THIS HAPPENS AND THEY'RE NOT JUST MAKING LITTLE BITTY CHANGES, BUT REALLY SOME BIG CHANGES THAT AFFECT POSITIVELY THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE NEXT TO THIS. SO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION IS BEING ASKED TO VACATE THREE SETS OF COMMITMENTS . I ACTUALLY WISH THAT WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THAT THIS WOULD ALSO GO TO CITY COUNCIL. I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT UP YOU, BUT IF THE CITY COUNCIL SETS THE COMMITMENTS, THEN IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM AND DECIDE WHETHER THEY SHOULD GO WITH THAT, OR NOT . AND THAT ALSO BRINGS UP THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES A COMMITMENT REALLY MEAN IF IT CAN BE AMENDED OR DELETED? WHAT IS THE VALUE OF A COMMITMENT THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY STAYING POWER? AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S WORTH THINKING ABOUT. THERE'S ONLY ONE PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICER BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AND THE SITE APPROVAL FOR THIS THREE-STORY MIXED-USE PROPOSAL, AND ONLY ONE BZA HEARING OFFICER HAS TO APPROVE THE FOUR MASSIVE VARIANCES, ALTHOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE NOT AS MASSIVE AS THEY WERE. IT WOULD TAKE SENSE TO ME, AND I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY A CRC RULE, BUT TO HAVE THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE SITE PLAN, FULL DESIGN APPROVAL IN THE FULL BZA TO APPROVE THE MASSIVE VARIANCES. AND I THINK GOING FORWARD, AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. THE CITY HAS NOT PROVIDED PLANS YET FOR THE EXISTING -- THE THREE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES BEHIND AND SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT, TOO. DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND TO THE WEST OF THIS PROJECT IS A LONG-ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONE AND TWO STORY HOMES THAT WOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SEEKS TO NULLIFY ESTABLISHMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE CRC TO INSERT A MUCH MORE INTENSE STRUCTURE AND USE NEXT TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. AND THE CITY OFTEN SAYS THEY WANT TO PROTECT CARMEL'S ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEY WANT SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS DOWNTOWN. BUT THEN, TOO OFTEN, CITY ACTIONS PROMOTE INTENSE, INCOMPATIBLE, OBTRUSIVE NEW DEVELOPMENTS NEXT TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, EFFECTIVE TRANSITIONING CAUSING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND HOA NEIGHBORHOODS TO FEEL FRUSTRATED AND POWERLESS. AND SO, ONE OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT, TOO IS THAT IT ALSO STANDS AS A -- AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN ELSEWHERE, AND SO IT WILL BE REPLICATED AND USED TO GO, WELL LET'S GO HERE, LET'S GO THERE. IT REALLY ISN'T JUST ABOUT DOWNTOWN. IT MAY SEEM LIKE IT IS. I DON'T THINK IT IS, AND THE FACT THAT THEY HELPED -- THEY MODIFIED A LOT OF THE PLANS, I THINK MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DEVELOPER. AND SO, MY QUESTION IS, IF THE COMMITMENT CAN -- IF YOU CAN AMEND A COMMIT AND STILL KEEP IT, AND MOVE ON FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. SO IF YOU AMEND THIS COMMITMENT TO SAY THAT YOU WANT TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY -- WELL, MY COLLEAGUE SAID THOSE COMMITMENTS TIE THE PROPERTY TO OLD TOWN OVERLAY, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE IN 2016, WINDOW PROJECT WAS YET PLANNED FOR THE PROPERTY. GIVEN THERE IS NOW A PROJECT TO CONSIDER, WE BELIEVE THE PROVISIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY NO LONGER

[00:40:02]

NOT IN THIS CASE. AND EVEN ADDED COMMITMENTS CANNOT BE TRUSTED. CRC PROJECTS IN PARTICULAR SEEM LIKE IT'S HARD TO BE A PART OF THEM. SO CITY OFFICIALS SHOULD BE REPRESENTING EXISTING HOMEOWNERS BY REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT DESIGNS THAT PRESERVE THEIR CHOSEN QUALITY OF LIFE CURRENTLY. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL POLICY IS EXTRA WORK AND STRESS FOR EVERYONE AND I APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING AT THIS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JOHN,

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? >> YES. THANK YOU. IF WE CAN DISPLAY THE SCREEN, PLEASE, ARE YOU ABLE TO ZOOM INTO THAT IMAGE? MAYBE MY MIC IS NOT ON.

>> THANK YOU. >> AS WE ARE PULLING THAT UP, TO ADDRESS THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL'S QUESTIONS, AT THE TIME OF 2016, AT THE REZONE, THESE THREE PARCELS IN ADDITION TO THE FOUR HERE, SO THERE IS SEVEN ON THE BLOCK, THEY WERE REZONED WITH COMMITMENTS AND THOSE COMMITMENTS WERE NEVER SIGNED. IN FACT, THOSE PROPERTIES ARE TODAY ZONED R TO RESIDENTIAL AND THERE IN THE CHARACTER SUB AREA OF THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY. IF THOSE OWNERS SO CHOSE THEY COULD SIGN THE COMMITMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED IN 2016 AND THOSE PROPERTIES THEN BECOME ZONED C-2 RESIDENTIAL. OR EXCUSE ME, C-2, AND THE COMMITMENTS WOULD APPLY. SO TODAY THE COMMITMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE THREE PARCELS. THE PARCELS REMAIN ZONED C-2 IN THE CHARACTER -- THANK YOU, IN THE R 2 AND THE CHARACTER SUB AREA OF THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY. IF THEY SIGN THE COMMITMENT C-2 THE C-2 ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY. WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND SPEAKER'S COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS, IN FACT, WE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM JEREMY CASHMAN AND FROM THE CITY EARLIER TODAY , THE SITE PLAN, AND THEIR DESIRE, THE CITY'S DESIRE WOULD BE TO SEE -- THIS WOULD BE THE PUBLIC ALLEY THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE BETWEEN THIRD HERE AND FORTH HERE AND IT WOULD BE AN ANSWER ONLY, SO THAT WOULD BE SIGNED AS EXIT ONLY. IT WOULD BE SIGNED AS NO RIGHT TURN AND ACCESS FROM THIRD AVENUE WOULD IDENTIFY DO NOT ENTER, NO THROUGH ACCESS. THOSE ARE THE METHODS BY WHICH THE CITY WOULD EMPLOY TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE ALLEYWAY. THE SECOND PORTION OF THAT INDIVIDUAL'S COMMENTS RELATED TO DELIVERY TRAFFIC, AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT ON THE PLANS RIGHT HERE, THE SIDEWALK COMES AROUND AND IT JOGS INTO THE SITE A BIT, AND THERE'S FOUR PARKING SPACES. I THINK THREE, SORRY .3 PARKING SPACES IDENTIFIED HERE. AND THE PLAN WOULD BE FOR THOSE THREE PARKING SPACES TO BE STRIPED FOR DELIVERY VEHICLES, NOT FOR ON STREET PARKING DURING THE DAYTIME, AND THEN THEY MAY USE THAT SPACE AS A VALET PARKING STOP. SO THERE IS A PULL OFF, NOT THAT CARS PARKED THERE, BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY WHEN A VALET PICKUP WOULD OPERATE, SO THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SERVE BOTH A SITUATION WHERE WE GOT AVAILABLE VALET PARKING AS WELL AS AN AREA FOR TRUCKS TO PULL OFF SO WE ARE NOT BLOCKING OR CONTRIBUTING TO A POTENTIAL PROBLEM WHICH EXISTS TODAY, BASED ON WHAT'S BEING REPORTED OF CARS BLOCKING OR VEHICLES BLOCKING THIRD AVENUE. FINALLY, THERE WERE TWO OTHER COMMITMENTS THAT WERE ADDRESSED

[00:45:05]

GOT IT RIGHT HERE. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON THE REAL ESTATE SHALL ALLOW ACCESS FROM TAX PARCEL AND THIS TAX PARCEL IS THE PARCEL RIGHT HERE VIA THIRD AVENUE, SOUTHWEST ONLY. SO THAT PARCEL WOULD ACCESS ONLY. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ACCESS TO THAT PARCEL. IT'S JUST GOT THE THREE PARKING SPACES IN THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, WHICH WILL THEN RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF THE MAINSTREET DRIVEWAY AT THE 321 PARCEL, WHICH IS THIS TAX PARCEL. WE'RE -- STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT COMMITMENT, WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THAT BY CLOSING THE DRIVEWAY HERE AND HAVING ACCESS TO THIS PARCEL VIA THE INTERNAL ALLEY AND WITH ONE-WAY TRAFFIC CONDUCTVITY IT WOULD ONLY BE FROM THIRD AVENUE. SO WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE ADDRESSING THAT PROVISION IN THE EXISTING COMMITMENTS. FINALLY, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE 311 PROPERTY, THE ONE ADJACENT TO FOURTH STREET, AND THIS IS REGARDING THE HEADLIGHTS. ALL SURFACE OR STRUCTURE PARKING, WHICH THERE IS NEITHER ONE OF THOSE OFF THE FOURTH AVENUE SIDE, THIS IS THE FOURTH AVENUE SIDE. IT'S GOT THE PLAZA LANDSCAPE AREA AND THE ALLEY . ALL SURFACE OR STRUCTURE PARKING LOCATED ALONG FOURTH AVENUE SHALL BE SCREENED SO THAT HEADLIGHTS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM ACROSS THE STREET.

SCREENING MAY INCLUDE -- AND IT GOES ON TO SAY WHAT THAT MAY INCLUDE IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING. AS I INDICATED, IN MY PRESENTATION, WE ARE NOT INFRINGING UPON THAT COMMITMENT. AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND THEIR STAFF, ACCESS WOULD ONLY GO INTO THAT SITE, SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE A CONDITION WHERE HEADLIGHTS WERE COMING OUT OF THERE AND SHINING INTO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORS PROPERTIES. THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS. OF COURSE IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD OTHER QUESTIONS WE'D BE GLAD TO REVIEW THOSE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT

STAFF FOR THEIR COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD, RACHEL KIESLING, PLANNER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. SO THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN QUITE EVOLVING, UP UNTIL EARLIER TODAY. AND WE ARE VERY THANKFUL FOR THE WORK THAT DAN MORIARTY HAS DONE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND IN MAKING CHANGES. A COUPLE THINGS I WANT TO REITERATE, FROM WHAT JOHN SAID IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS POINT THE THREE PARCELS ON THE SOUTH THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST, THOSE COMMITMENTS, NUMBER ONE, ARE NOT SIGNED TODAY. SO THEY'RE NOT IN EFFECT. NUMBER TWO, THEY ARE NOT BEING REMOVED, BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST YET, BECAUSE THOSE OWNERS HAVE NOT SIGNED THEM. BUT IF THOSE OWNERS DO SIGNED THOSE COMMITMENTS, THEN THEY WOULD BE ZONED C-2. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE STILL R-2. THE CONCERNS THAT SHE HAD SHOULD BE ALLEVIATED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST IN THAT STATE. SO THEY ARE STILL ZONED R-2, AND I THINK I NEED TO CORRECT JOHN ON ONE THING. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WANTS TO TURN IN FROM THE ALLEY TO BE FROM THE

WEST. >> APOLOGIZE IF I MISSPOKE.

>> YOU HAD SAID GOING EAST OR GOING WESTBOUND FROM THIRD AVENUE, SO WE WOULDN'T EXACTLY MEET THAT -- IT WOULDN'T EXACTLY MEET THAT REQUIREMENT TO ONLY COME IN FROM THIRD AVENUE. BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GO THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO APPEASE THE NEIGHBORS. SO THAT ONE IS KIND OF A GIVE AND TAKE

AS FAR AS -- >> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU BUT IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE THERE IS PORTIONS OF THIS ROAD TO THE WEST THAT IS CONSIDERED THIRD AVENUE AND THERE IS A ROAD TO THE EAST THAT'S ALSO CONSIDERED THIRD AVENUE. BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES

-- >> AND WE CAN PROBABLY GET INTO

THAT IN A MINUTE. >> WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE AND IT'S ENTERING FROM THE WEST AND HEADING TO THE EAST IS WHAT WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. GOT IT,

THANK YOU. >> THAT IS WHAT THE CITY WANTS.

THAT IS WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WOULD PREFER, RATHER THAN IT BEING OPEN ALL THE WAY TRAFFIC GOING WEST AND EAST. OKAY. SO REGARDING THE COMMITMENTS THERE, THERE ENDED UP BEING SIX COMMITMENTS OVER THE THREE PARCELS AND THEY WERE OVERLAPPED. REGARDING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 45 FEET, WE MEASURED THE HEIGHT OF A SLANTED, SLOPED ROOF AT THE

[00:50:01]

AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER ITEM THAT THEY REALLY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET OUT OF THESE OLD TOWN OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS IS THE PARKING, BECAUSE IT REQUIRES ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 1200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS PARKING. HOWEVER, C-2 ZONE DOES NOT REQUIRE -- HAVE ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SO THOSE TWO CONFLICT. AND IN THE CASE WHERE C-2 EXISTS WITH THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY, C-2 GOVERNANCE, NOT THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY, SO THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY , 3.61 POINT A, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. BUT REGARDING THE OTHER FOUR, THE DUMPSTER LOCATION, THAT MEETS WHAT THE COMMITMENT SAYS AND IT MEETS OUR REGULAR REQUIREMENTS. THE PHASING, THE PROJECT HAS ASSEMBLED 4 OF THE 7 PARCELS BUT WE DO HAVE A PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR WHAT COULD HAPPEN ON THE SOUTH PARCELS. SO I FEEL THAT THE ALLEY WOULD BE NEEDED IN ORDER TO REDEVELOP THE SOUTH PARCELS IN A MANNER THAT WE SEE COULD BE TOWNHOMES. THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY, ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO BE OPEN AND PROVIDE ACCESS FOR PARCELS ON THE SOUTH TO GO THROUGH THE ALLEYWAY. AND THEN , JOHN TOUCHED ON THIS JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO. THE FULL CLOSURE OF MAIN STREET CURB CUT, THAT IS HAPPENING. THEY ARE MEETING THAT ONE AND THEN THE LANDSCAPING ON FOURTH STREET SOUTHWEST OR FOURTH AVENUE, THERE'S NO PARKING AND THERE'S NO SURFACE PARKING OR STRUCTURE PARKING, SO THAT ONE DOES NOT APPLY, EITHER. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THEM REGARDING CAN THEY MEET THEM, CAN THEY NOT MEET THEM, AND TWO THEY CAN'T, FOUR THEY CAN, BUT OUT OF REQUESTS FOR MOVING FORWARD AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE, THEY WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THEM ALL. SO WE DO HAVE A REALLY GOOD PROJECT HERE THAT HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY MODIFIED, AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING TONIGHT AND HEARING TONIGHT IS THE FINAL.

THAT IS WHAT WILL BE PRESENTED ON THURSDAY FOR THE HEARING OFFICER, PLANNING COMMISSION AND BZA IF THIS MOVES FORWARD.

SO WE DO RECOMMEND TONIGHT THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS REQUEST TO REMOVE THE COMMITMENTS FOR THESE PARCELS AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO SUSPEND YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO VOTE ON THESE ITEMS, IN ORDER TO VOTE ON IT TONIGHT, IN ORDER FOR IT TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OFFICER AND BZA HEARING OFFICER AS SCHEDULED ON THURSDAY. THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO AS CLOSE -- DISCLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55, OR 6:55. SORRY .6:55 POINT SO NOW I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MY FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. BUT JUST TO REITERATE WHAT OUR CHARGE IS TODAY, IT'S MERELY THE DECISION OF WHETHER TO REMOVE THE COMMITMENTS. AND I KNOW WE ARE TALKING BROADLY ABOUT THE PROJECT THAT WHOLE AND I'M SURE LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS WILL COME UP ABOUT THE PROJECT, BUT THAT IS

[00:55:15]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY EXHIBIT B TO WITH THE STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS ON PARCEL 16-09-35-16, THE ONE THAT YOU WERE JUST DISCUSSING, JOHN. ON THE -- CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME? OR MAYBE RACHEL CAN, CLARIFY FOR ME THAT THIS COMMITMENT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT -- BECAUSE I CAN'T READ THE LEGALESE, LIKE YOU GUYS CAN, THAT THE ENTRANCE OF THE ALLEYWAY WOULD HAVE TO BE AT THAT, ON THE EAST SIDE OFF OF THIRD AVENUE? DO YOU WANT TO HOLD IT UP AND READ IT SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT ONE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE ONE THAT YOU HAD HIGHLIGHTED. SO THAT WAS COMMITMENT 16-9-25 ON TAX PARCEL I.D. 16-9-25-1601. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE -- I THINK YOU HIGHLIGHTED THREE, I THINK.

>> SO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON THE REAL ESTATE SHALL ALLOW ACCESS FOR TAX PARCEL 16-9-25-16-1003.001 AND TO REITERATE, THAT IS THAT

PARCEL RIGHT THERE. >> AND JOHN, IF I COULD JUST ADD, THAT PARCEL EXTENDS UP TO THE NORTH, INTO THE ALLEYWAY.

LIKE IT IS NOT JUST A SMALL RECTANGLE. IT GOES UP HIGHER.

>> SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >> YES . SO --

>> SORRY, THIS OVER HERE? >> YES, AND IT GOES UP HIGHER.

>> THAT'S THAT PARCEL. SO THAT PARCEL DRIVES ACCESS FROM THIRD AVENUE. THE OTHER FULFILLMENT OF THAT SAME PROVISION AND FURTHER COMMITS TO THE FULL CLOSURE OF REMOVAL OF THE MAINSTREET DRIVEWAY AT 321, AND IT IDENTIFIES A TAX PARCEL -- AS TAX PARCEL IS RIGHT THERE, AND THE DRIVEWAY IS TALKING ABOUT COMES OUT TO MAINSTREET.

>> SO IF I CAN ADD, SO THEY'RE TAKING AWAY THE DRIVEWAY ON THE TOP AND MAINSTREET, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING THE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE FROM THIRD, WHERE THAT PARCEL IS. SO THEY ARE MEETING

THAT. >> BUT IT WOULDN'T BE THE ENTRANCE INTO THE HOMES ITSELF. IT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED EASTBOUND. THE EASTBOUND WOULD BE THE EASTBOUND ENTRANCE,

CORRECT? >> AND THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOMES -- THE ENTRANCE TO THE PARCELS ALONG THE FRONTAGE DON'T CARRY THAT RESTRICTION. THAT THIS PARCEL DOES.'S OF THESE AREN'T ENCUMBERED. THESE THREE PARCELS ARE NOT ENCUMBERED BY THE RESTRICTION FOR ONLY HAVING ACCESS TO THIRD

STREET, BEING THAT STREET. >> WELL COUNSELOR MINNAAR'S NEXT QUESTION, ANYBODY ELSE ? YES, ADAM?

>> GENERAL QUESTION. DO WE KNOW, IS THERE A PLAN TO BURY THE UTILITY LINES ALONG FOURTH? AND IF SO, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CREATION OF A NEW ALLEYWAY. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT A NEW STREETLIGHT THAT MIGHT POTENTIALLY CREATE MORE LIGHT POLLUTION FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN THE WEST, IF WE HAVE TO PUT A NEW STREETLIGHT IN. IS THAT PART OF THE PLAN, DID YOU KNOW?

>> THE APPLICATION IS NOT PROPOSING A STREETLIGHT ALONG FOURTH AVENUE. THE LIGHTING IS RESTRICTED ALONG THAT SPACE. WE HAVE AN IMAGE OF WHAT THE SITE WOULD LOOK LIKE AT NIGHT THAT I DIDN'T SHARE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A MINUTE I CAN FIND IT. IF THE CITY SO CHOSE TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STREETLIGHTING, THE OWNER WOULDN'T HAVE ANY AUTHORIZATION TO PREVENT OR AUTHORIZE THE STREETLIGHTS.

>> AND I THINK WITH RESPECT TO THE LIGHTING, I -- MAYBE DAN CAN SPEAK TO IT . I THOUGHT THERE'S NO BRIGHT LIGHTS ON THE BUILDING, IS WHAT I WAS UNDERSTANDING. IT WAS SUPPOSED

TO BE PRETTY -- >> THEY ARE ACCENT LIGHTS ON THE BUILDING ITSELF, AND THEN THERE IS PART THAT INCLUDES L.E.D. LIGHT FIXTURES NEAR THE ALLEY AND THE GARAGE SPACES, SO THE L.E.D. LIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE DOWNWARD DIRECT IT AND OUTWARD BROADCAST. THIS IS A -- IT'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENT BUT IT'S REPRESENTATIVE OF NIGHTTIME ILLUSTRATION. YOU HAVE LIGHTS THAT ARE FROM WINDOWS. YOU HAVE LIGHTS THAT

[01:00:02]

THAN ANYTHING ELSE. >> SO I'M NOT SURE WHO CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION BUT IN TOP SEVEN -- LET ME TRY THAT AGAIN.

EXHIBIT B, UNDER EXCEPTIONS, SECTION 3, IT SAYS THERE IS A LEASE ON 311 MAIN. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S AN UNRECORDED LEASE AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE CRC AND THE MYERS. HAS THAT LEASE BEEN RENEWED, AND IF SO --

>> IT'S TERMINATED. >> TERMINATED . IT'S NO LONGER

IN FORCE. >> THAT'S A VACANT HOME NOW?

>> IT IS. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE TWO PARCELS ON THE BOOKENDS ARE OWNED BY THE CRC AND THE ONE PARCEL, WHICH AS AN EXISTING HOME IN THE MIDDLE IS

OWNED BY THE ARLENS. >> AND I THINK THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL BUILDING, AND IT'S SURPASSED WHAT I WAS EXPECTING TO EVER SEE. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS AND I LOVE THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS HAS COME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL, BIG PICTURE, JUST FOR THE COMMITMENTS, IT'S FANTASTIC TO SEE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL AND SHOPS AND SOMETHING THAT OUR WHOLE COMMUNITY WILL ENJOY, AND HAVE FOR SALE RESIDENCE ABOVE. I KNOW WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT PEOPLE WANT MORE FOR SALE AND NOT APARTMENTS. I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE FANTASTIC.

WITH THAT SAID, WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMITMENT AMENDMENTS AND MAYBE JUST TO KEEP IT ON. IF THERE'S ONLY THREE SETS OF AMENDMENTS, IT'S 311, 321 AND 331, RIGHT? MAYBE WE CAN JUST PUT THOSE UP REAL QUICKLY AND LOOK AT THEM SO WE KNOW WHAT IT IS, REMIND EVERYBODY WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED

TO BE VOTING ON. >> RACHEL, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT? STAFF REPORT ILLUSTRATES -- I CAN DO THAT. THE FIRST PARCEL, I KNOW I ASKED ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT BUT YOU CAN PROVIDE THE SUMMARY. THIS IS THE 311, AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE PARCEL AT THE EASTERNMOST BOOK AND NEXT TO THIRD AVENUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT INCLUDED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 45 FEET, DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAIN STREET DISTRICT SUB- AREA OF THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY, THE DUMPSTER LOCATION AND PHASING. THE SECOND ONE, WHICH IS OWNED TODAY BY THE ARLEN'S, IT RELATED TO THE PARCEL IN THE MIDDLE AND THE ONE PARCEL REMOVED INTO THE SOUTH OF AND ALONG THIRD AVENUE, NEXT TO THE PARKING GARAGE. THAT HAD THE PROVISION FOR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAINSTREET DISTRICT SUB- AREA, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION THAT WE SPENT SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO ACCESS AND CLOSING THE STREET FRONTAGE AND ACCESS TO THE PARCEL WITH THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. THE DUMPSTER LOCATION, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE OTHER ONE, AND THE PHASING, WHICH WAS IDENTICAL. THE FINAL ONE AT 311, WHICH IS THE BOOKEND TO THE WEST AT THE INTERSECTION WITH THE ROUNDABOUT, DID INCLUDE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, DIDN'T INCLUDE THE MAINSTREET DISTRICT SUB- AREA REQUIREMENT, HAD A SEPARATE PROVISION EXCLUSIVE FOR THIS PARCEL IF THERE WAS A PARKING GARAGE OR PARKING LOT ALONG THAT PERIMETER, WHAT IT HAD TO DO TO LANDSCAPE ALONG FOURTH AVENUE, WHICH IT DOESN'T. THE DUMPSTER LOCATION, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE OTHERS, AND THE PHASING, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE

OTHERS. >> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND BEFORE I GO ON, I KNOW YOU WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

YES, GO AHEAD. >> TO YOUR POINT, PRESIDENTS A COLA, WE'RE REALLY JUST HERE TONIGHT TO VOTE ON THESE COMMITMENTS TO ABOLISH THEM, SO TO SPEAK, AND WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS PROJECT ITSELF. AND THOSE DETAILS WILL BE HASHED OUT BETWEEN, I'M ASSUMING THE CRC, STUDIO M, PETITIONER, THE NEIGHBORS, ALL OF THOSE ISSUES WITH THE ALLEY , THE LIGHTING, ALL OF THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THIS WILL ALL BE HASHED OUT? WE ARE NOT VOTING ON ANY OF THAT, SO

THAT'S UP TO DOCS. >> CORRECT, AND IF I CAN FOR A MINUTE, I DON'T MEAN TO STEAL STAFF'S THUNDER, ALL PARCELS THAT ARE ZONED C-2 RESIDENTIAL GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF REZONING AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CRC FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, AND THEN THEY GO BACK TO THE HEARING OFFICER

[01:05:01]

WHAT WE ARE ASKING, WHAT WE'RE SHOWING YOU TONIGHT IS WHAT WE ARE SHOWING THE COMMITTEE OR THE HEARING OFFICER ON THURSDAY, RATHER, AND WE'LL BE SEEKING APPROVAL OF THIS

DESIGN. >> I SEE THAT HENRY WANTS TO SPEAK AND GENERALLY PROCEDURALLY THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP. IT'S HARD TO MOVE ON WITHOUT THIS STEP BEING

DONE. >> I JUST WANT TO CORROBORATE WHAT JOHN JUST SAID. THERE IS A ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING, CRC COMMITTEE HEARING TOMORROW. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO MISINTERPRET THE PHRASE HASHED OUT. THE EXACT PLAN THAT YOU LOOKED AT TODAY IS THE EXACT PLAN THAT'S GOING TO BE VOTED ON TOMORROW AND THE EXACT PLAN THAT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTED ON THURSDAY. SO THERE IS NOT A CONCEPT WHERE SOMEONE IS DEVIATING FROM EXACTLY WHAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY. IT'S ALL GOING TO CARRY THROUGH. THERE IS GOING TO BE NO SURPRISES.

>> LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE, HENRY. I MEANT TO SAY HASHING OUT WHATEVER DETAILS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THEIR DESIRES ARE. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY THAT.

>> LET'S JUST BE VERY SIMPLE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE ARE BASICALLY REMOVING A COMMITMENT. WE ARE NOT APPROVING THE PLAN, AND HOW MANY PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL THERE BE BEFORE THAT PLAN IS FINALIZED WITH THE GREEN LIGHT TO BEGIN WORK ON IT, CONSTRUCTION ON IT?

>> A TOTAL OF THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS, ONE THIS EVENING REGARDING THE COMMITMENT. THE SECOND IS THURSDAY MORNING, REGARDING

VARIANCES. >> I JUST THINK -- THIS IS CONFUSING, UNDERSTANDABLY. IS CONFUSING FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THIS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. SO I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT WHAT WE ARE AND WE AREN'T DOING, AND I KNOW THAT SEVERAL HAVE DONE THE SAME THING. WE ARE REMOVING A NOW THREE COMMITMENTS THAT ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO SAY THAT? REMOVING THOSE, THERE ARE TWO MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT, SO WE ARE, IN ESSENCE, A TECHNICAL -- MAKING A TECHNICAL APPROVAL AND THEN THE PROJECT PLAN ITSELF WILL HAVE TWO MORE HEARINGS,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND TO BE SPECIFIC, WHILE THE MEETING IN FRONT OF THE CRC TOMORROW ISN'T A PUBLIC HEARING, IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING, SO THAT'S A FOURTH MEETING AT WHICH THE CRC MEETS.

>> AND IF I COULD JUST CONTINUE REAL QUICK, YOU WANT ABOUT A FOOT MORE IN HEIGHT AND ABOUT 3% MORE IN LOT COVERAGE?

>> THE PROVISION UNDER THE ORDINANCES FOR 35 FEET WERE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. THE REQUEST WERE AS MEASURED BY ORDINANCE, 50 FEET, EIGHT INCHES WHERE WE ARE TAKEN OFF THE SAFETY FIVE AND BRINGING IT DOWN.

>> SO A FOOT AND A HALF. >> WELL, 35 TO 58 INCHES.

>> 15, OKAY. >> 15-H.

>> I WAS WORKING PERCENTAGES IN MY HEAD.

>> THE OTHER TWO PROVISIONS WERE WITH REGARD TO STREET TREES AND NOW STREET TREES ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE LOT. IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT SPACE WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT VARIANCE. THAT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE ABOUT WHERE THAT LINE REST BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE BUILDING ITSELF ON FOURTH. IF THE TREES ARE THERE, NONETHELESS. THE OTHER IS WITH REGARD TO LOT COVERAGE. WHEN THE ORDINANCE SPECIFIES AN ALLOWED 85% LOT COVERAGE AND WITH THESE CHANGES I READ WITH YOU TONIGHT WERE DOWN 283 AND CHANGE IN TERMS OF A PERCENTAGE SO WE ARE NOT OVER THAT 3% WITH ADDITION OF THE LANDSCAPED AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THE FINAL VARIANCE IS THEREFORE THE FINAL ONE IS RELATED TO THE -- IT WASN'T TRANSPORTATION PLAN. I APOLOGIZE. I'LL GET IT QUICKLY. THE MINIMUM BUFFER

[01:10:03]

>> AND THEN JUST ONE FINAL COMMENT, AND WE ARE NOT DEALING -- WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY DECISIONS REGARDING THE UNDEVELOPED -- WHERE THERE'S NO PROJECT PLAN YET FOR THE

AREA TO THE SOUTH. >> CORRECT.

>> SO THERE'S NO PLANS. WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING THAT. WE CAN'T ADDRESS THAT. WE ARE DEALING WITH THREE COMMITMENTS THAT ARE

DEEMED NO LONGER APPLICABLE. >> THE VACATION OF THE COMMITMENTS OR THE REMOVAL OF THE COMMITMENTS ARE ASSOCIATED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THESE FOUR PARCELS THAT WE REMOVED TONIGHT AND NO ACTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD TAKE TONIGHT HAS ANY INFLUENCE OR IMPACT ON THE THREE PARCELS TO THE SOUTH

ALONG FIRST. >> ONE BEING ELEMENTARY JUST BECAUSE IT WAS CONFUSING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING ME WHEN I FIRST WAS READING THROUGH ALL OF THIS. SO THANK

YOU FOR INDULGING ME. >> THANK YOU.

>> MADAM PRESIDENT? >> YES.

>> I MOVE THAT WE SUSPEND THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AND VOTE ON DOCKET NUMBER PES E- 2024-00205 CA THIS EVENING.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF SUSPENDING THE RULES AND PROCEDURES TO VOTE ON THIS DOCKET PLEASE SAY HI.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? RULES ARE

SUSPENDED. DO I HAVE A MOTION? - >> I MOVE TO APPROVE TO REMOVE

ALL -- >> IT'S THE COMMITMENT

AMENDMENTS. >> ALL COMMITMENT AMENDMENTS,

THANK YOU. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY HI. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING ON, THE COMMITMENT AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL PROJECT TO OUR CITY. IT'S BEAUTIFUL AND OUTSTANDING, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.