[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:14]
>>> GOOD EVENING, CALLING TO ORDER THE JANUARY 27 MEETING , PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[D. Declaration of Quorum, Swearing-in of Members, and Officer Elections]
DO WE HAVE SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS? WE DO HAVE A NEW MEMBER>> OKAY YES I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME BACK FOR ANOTHER TERM AND HAVE OUR ELECTION OF OFFICERS. OPENING THE FLOOR FOR
NOMINATIONS FOR PRESIDENT. >> NOMINATE LEO YORK FOR PRESIDENT. MOVE WE CLOSE THE NOMINATION.
>> SECOND. >> OKAY NOMINATIONS ARE CLOSED,
ALL IN FAVOR? >> STILL HAS TO BE A VOTE
CLOSING. SORRY TO BE PROCEDURAL. >> WE NEED TO VOTE ON CLOSING NOMINATIONS? OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING NOMINATIONS? THOSE OPPOSED? ALL IN FAVOR OF LEAH YORK SERVING AS PRESIDENT. ANY OPPOSED? ABSTENTION? THANK YOU, THANK YOU SO MUCH IT IS A PRIVILEGE AND HONOR ANYTIME I AM ASKED TO SERVE MY CITY. NOW FOR
ELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT. >> MADAM PRESIDENT I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE
>> SECOND. >> NOW WE CAN VOTE ON THEM
TOGETHER? STILL SEPARATE? >> I WOULD SEPARATE.
>> ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING NOMINATIONS? OPPOSED? OKAY ALL IN FAVOR I'M SORRY, KEVIN RYDER SERVING AS VICE PRESIDENT OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK
[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]
YOU FOR SERVING. OKAY APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF FACT OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS OR LAST MEETING?>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
>> ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NON-ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED
>> I ABSTAIN. >> THANK YOU, COMMUNICATIONS,
[F. Communications, Bills, and Expenditures]
BILLS AND EXPENDITURES. >> THANK YOU, WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO VOTE TO SUSPEND RULES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING THE FIRST ITEM, THEY MADE THE LEGAL AT PUBLICATION IN THE CURRENT CARMEL AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE CURRENT BUT THEY CORRECTED IT SO WE ASK THAT YOU VOTE TO APPROVE THAT.
>> OKAY DO I HAVE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULE?
>> I WILL MOVE TO SUSPEND. >> THANK YOU, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED ? ALL RIGHT THE RULE IS SUSPENDED.
REPORTS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND LEGAL COUNCIL REPORT DEPARTMENT
CONCERNS. ANY TODAY? >> NONE TODAY.
[H. (V) Bank of America Lighting Variance. ]
>> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> OKAY THANK YOU PUBLIC HEARING STARTING WITH DOCKET NUMBER PC 202400187 V BANK OF AMERICA
LIGHTING VARIANCE. >> PETITIONER PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> HI MY NAME IS ALEX I WORK WITH THE LIGHTING DESIGNER AND CONSULTANTS FOR BANK OF AMERICA. I KNOW THE VARIANCES FOR CANDLES FOR THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH THREE FOOTCANDLES IS THE MAX. WE ARE SUGGESTING CANDLES LIKE OVER THE MAXIMUM FOR SAFETY FOR THIS
[00:05:05]
BANK EMPLOYEES AND CLIENTS. CURRENTLY THE AREAS LIMITED TO DRIVE THROUGH BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO ATMS IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH AREA SO THE LIGHT LEVEL PROPERTY LINES DO EXCEED THAT. IN THE LOBBY THEIR EXISTING LIGHTS THAT WE ARE REPLACING ALL THE ONES ON THE PROPERTY LINE HAVE LIGHT SHIELDS AND AREAS AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE BANK WE APPOINT CANDLES IT'S REALLY THE AREA THAT'S OVER THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING I NEED TO ANSWER OR EXPLAIN BUT THAT'S THE MAIN REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENT.>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY. I WILL MOVE TO THE DEPARTMENT REPORT PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, PLANNING STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THAT WHERE THE FOOT CANDLE LIMITS EXCEED WHAT IS ALLOWED ON THE WEST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINES AND THE RANGES FROM 0.6 THROUGH 3.7 FOOTCANDLES MAXIMUM IS 0.3. PINING STEP BELIEVES THAT THE BUILDER IS CAUSING THE HARDSHIP ON THEMSELVES SO WE RECOMMEND A NEGATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE WRITTEN UP BY THE BZA
ATTORNEY. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER?
>> MADAM PRESIDENT. WHY IS IT NOT YOUR OWN FAULT?
>> THIS IS PART OF A PROGRAM BANK OF AMERICA HAS HAD IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS CALLED EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROGRAM. WE GO AND SURVEY EVERY BANK LOCATION AT NIGHT EVERY YEAR ONCE A YEAR TO CHECK OUT THE CANDLES AROUND THE ATMS. THIS PROGRAM IS HELPING TO BRING TO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS OR THE BANK OF AMERICA REQUIREMENTS AND INDIANA DOES NOT HAVE A STATE LAW SO WE BRING THEM TO BANK OF AMERICA REQUIREMENTS. TYPICALLY THEY BRING 300 TO 400 SITES IN THIS PROGRAM EVERY YEAR TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE DOING 10,000 AT ONCE, IT'S USUALLY 300 OR 400 EVERY YEAR TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE STANDARD OR BANK OF AMERICA REQUIREMENTS. THE BANKS A LOT WERE BUILT BEFORE ANY STATE HAD STATUTES ABOUT LIGHTING AND ATMS EVEN WHEN THEY ADD ATMS A LOT OF TIMES THEY DON'T KNOW THERE ARE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AROUND LEVELS FOR THE AREA. FOR EXAMPLE I THINK WE HAD TWO ATMS, ONE VERY CLOSE TO THE HOTEL AREA AND THE THIRD LANE WHICH HAS THE REQUIREMENT LIGHT LEVELS AROUND IT FURTHER OUT SO JUST SO YOU KNOW THE LIGHTING DEPARTMENT IS A NONREGULATED STATE WHICH INDIANA IS ONE FOOT CANDLE MINIMUM AT THREE FEET WITHIN 60 FEET OF 18 WITH PARKING AND IN THIS CASE THE PROPERTY LINE IS WITHIN 60 FEET SO THAT'S WHY THERE IS SPILLOVER ON THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE IT IS CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL ATM SO IT'S HARD TO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM ONE FOOT CANDLE AND NOT HAVE SOME LIGHTING OVER.
A LOT OF TIMES IT'S THE EXISTING CONDITION. WE TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL POLE LIGHTS ARE COMPLETELY DOING WORK ON THE
BANK ITSELF. >> I DON'T THINK ANY OF THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION BUT IT WILL EXPAND. IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THESE LOCATIONS WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK
FOR THAT? >> APPROVAL WHEN THEY MADE THE ATM WERE INSTALLED? A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THEY INSTALL THEY DON'T KNOW THERE IS A REQUIREMENT. I'M NOT SURE WHEN
THE BUILDING WAS BUILT. >> A COMPANY THIS SIZE WITH THIS MUCH CAPACITY FOR KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT HAVE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THEM KNOWLEDGEABLE OF WHERE THEY ARE BUILDING AND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE? ANSWER THAT, DON'T GIVE ME THE LONG
EXPLANATION. >> IT IS A BIG COMPANY WAS SO MANY PRODUCTS GOING ON. IT IS SURPRISING THAT'S WHY THEY HIRE THIRD-PARTY CONSULTANTS TO GO DO THE RESEARCH AND WORK WITH SECURITY TEAMS TO FIND PROBLEMS LIKE THIS.
>> I WOULD SAY THEY CAN LOOK AT THIS AS A GOOD LEARNING PROCESS IN THE FUTURE AND MAYBE THEY NEED TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS
>> WHAT IS THE HARM IN EXCEEDING THE LIMIT?
>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. THE STANDARDS WERE PUT IN PLACE TO HAVE ADEQUATE LIGHTING, NOTHING THAT'S OVER-THE-TOP OR TOO HARSH AS THAT WILL AFFECT THE CHARACTER AND FEEL OF AN AREA.
[00:10:07]
IT ALSO KEEPS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, FOR ALL OTHER BUSINESSES THAT DO COMPLY . THIS BANK WAS BUILT A FEW YEARS AGO SO I THINK TECHNICALLY THEY SHOULD HAVE COMPLIED BACK THEN.>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME YOU NEED THE LIGHTS AT NIGHT AND WHAT HARM WOULD THAT DO? SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE
A POSITIVE THING. >> AGAIN I THINK IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS ACCEPTABLE OR NOT. WE HAVE THE LIGHTING STANDARDS IN PLACE TO BE ADEQUATE LEVEL OF LIGHTING AGAIN NOT TOO MUCH DOES NOT FEEL TOO HARSH OR BRIGHT. IT
AFFECTS THE FEEL OF THE AREA. >> MAY I ADD ONTO THAT? A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE THIS NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL AREA OR OTHER HOMES OR PROPERTIES WHICH WE UNDERSTAND FOR ANY RESIDENT THE BANK DOESN'T WANT THAT EITHER BUT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL AREA WITH MULTIPLE BUSINESSES, KROGER, A FORD NEXT TO IT AND THE MAIN ROAD IS JUST ANOTHER ROAD THAT'S NOT ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IT'S INTO OTHER SHOPPING CENTERS AND BUSINESSES AND ACROSS THE LOT IS A EMPTY LOT SO FROM A NOOSE'S STANDPOINT WE FEEL IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE LIGHT FROM A HIGHWAY OR RESIDENTIAL AREA OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> WHAT DIFFICULTY IS THAT TO ABIDE BY THE REGULATION?
>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE TRYING TO MEET THE BANK OF AMERICA MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WHICH IS WHY THERE IS THE LIGHT SPILL. WE COULD DEFINITELY GET TO A SPOT WHERE WE ARE MEETING MOST OF THE REQUIREMENT BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE FULL AREA. WHEN WE DO DESIGNS WE TYPICALLY LIKE TO GO BECAUSE OF THE SECURITY, FOR SECURITY WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH A FULLY COMPLIANT DESIGN FROM BANK OF AMERICA AND BASED ON FEEDBACK TO THE ZONING BOARD MEETINGS, CITY COMMENTS WE MAY REDUCE BACK SO WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION IN CASE ANYTHING HAPPENS AT THE FUTURE AT THAT SITE FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT WE SAY WE HAVE THE LIGHTS HERE AND WE HAVE IT
DOCUMENTED FOR THEM. >> MADAM PRESIDENT QUESTION.
>> DENNIS AND THEN CHRISTINE. >> THIS QUESTION MAY BE DIRECTED MORE TOWARD STAFF. THE EMPTY LOT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD IS THAT CAN YOU DEVELOP THE LOT OR IS THERE A REASON WHY IT IS NOT?
>> YES IT IS DEVELOP ABLE, NOT AS MUCH COVETED SINCE IT IS BEHIND THE OUT LOTS FROM MICHIGAN ROAD, BUT IT IS DEVELOP
ABLE. >> SPILLOVER IMPACT COULD IMPACT
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. >> TRUE, DEPENDING ON WHAT GOES.
>> IT WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND IT WILL PROBABLY BE MORE COMMERCIAL AND I WOULD THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH MAY APPRECIATE THE EXTRA LIGHT ON THEIR PARKING LOT.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE WAYS TO GET THAT , TO GET A QUICK HANDLE DOWN TO THE PROPER AMOUNT AND I DID NOT SEE IN YOUR SHEETS ANY OF THE FIXTURES HAD ANY CUTOFF SHIELDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
YOU SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF THAT AS ANYBODY.
>> THE FIXTURES IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH WHICH THEY ARE ADDING FOR THE LIGHTING OF THE PROPERTY LINE DO NOT HAVE BACKLIGHT SHIELDS BECAUSE THEIR SHINING LIGHT FORWARD, THE LIGHTS AROUND THE PROPERTY FACING IN TOWARD THE BANK HAVE BACKLIGHT SHIELDS TO PREVENT SPILLAGE ONTO THE ROAD OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. WITH BACKLIGHT SHIELDS YOU WILL NOT GET ZERO EXACTLY SO IT WILL SPILL LIKE .1 BEHIND.
>> WE ARE ASKING .3. >> NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE NOT NEAR THE DRIVE-THROUGH SITE SO IT REALLY IS THE DRIVE-THROUGH AREA WHICH IS THE NEW LIGHTS I DON'T HAVE BACKLIGHT SHIELDS BECAUSE THEY ARE ATTACHED TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH SO PUTTING A SHIELD ON IT WOULD JUST SHINE LIGHT DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH IT.
>> I TEND TO AGREE WITH MR. RIDER. WITH A PROJECT AS NEW AS THIS TO COME BACK FROM A RETROFIT SOMEBODYSHOULD OF BEEN AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENT AND SHOULD OF BEEN ABLE TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.
>> QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. CURRENTLY THE LIGHTING IN PLACE TODAY HAVE YOU ALREADY CHANGED THE LIGHTS OR IS THIS WHAT YOU WERE APPROVED FOR? I READ THE PLAN COMMISSION DOCKET SO I KNEW
[00:15:01]
LIGHTING WAS TALKED ABOUT WHEN YOU CAME THROUGH A COUPLE YEARS AGO. HAVE YOU ALREADY CHANGED THEM?>> THIS WAS PROPOSED LIGHTING SO THIS WAS FOR ANY LIGHTING WE ARE PROPOSING, NOT WHAT IS THERE NOW.
>> I DROVE THROUGH WHEN IT WAS REALLY DARK, LATE AT NIGHT AND THE BUILDING EVEN THOUGH QUITE A FEW LIGHTS WERE BURNT OUT ON THE BUILDINGS EVEN WITH MANY BURNT OUT NONFUNCTIONING IT IS REALLY WELL LIT SO YOU THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN WHAT YOU CURRENTLY
HAVE? >> WE DO A PHOTO METRIC SURVEY EVERY YEAR AT THESE LOCATIONS. SO ON THE SURVEY IF IT IS NOT ME INC. REQUIREMENTS IT GETS PUT INTO THE PROGRAM SO EVEN THOUGH IT MAY LOOK LIKE THERE ARE AREAS THAT DON'T MEET THE STANDARD AND I WILL SAY THE LOBBY ENTRY AREA IS A LIGHT AREA THAT MET MOST REQUIREMENTS. IT WAS THE DRIVE-THROUGH THAT DOES NOT BECAUSE THERE'S NO POLE LIGHTS OVER THERE. JUST CANOPY FIXTURES ONLY. SO IT'S REALLY LIKE THE 50 FOOT AREA AROUND THE
DRIVE-THROUGH AREA. >> THANK YOU.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT I WANT TO CLARIFY. WHEN WE MAKE MOTIONS EVEN IF WE ARE AGAIN SOMETHING WE MAKE IT IN A POSITIVE SO THE MOTION WILL MAKE IF YOU DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO VOTE NO. I MOVED TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? >> I AM MOVING TO GET IT MOVING FORWARD. I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE. WE ALWAYS DO MOTIONS IN
THE POSITIVE. YES. >> OKAY I DID WANT TO ADD SOME COMMENTS. GIVEN THAT THESE ARE OUR STANDARDS ACROSS THE CITY AND I DID CHECK WITH OUR ZONING DEPARTMENTS AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THIS HAPPENING. SO WE DON'T HAVE AREAS FEELING UNSAFE AND INSECURE WITH THE STANDARD WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW SO I DON'T SEE HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE SO I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST IT.
>> MAY I ASK WHEN THIS QUESTION? >> NO WE ARE PAST THAT.
>> IF WE MEET THE .3 TO HAVE COME BACK?
>> YOU CAN TALK WITH DEPARTMENT STAFF AFTER THE MEETING. OKAY READY TO TAKE A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. IT IS NOT APPROVE BUT PLEASE STICK AROUND AND YOU CAN TALK WITH THE DEPARTMENT. MOVING ONTO THE NEXT ONE. CAN WE DO ALL OF THIS TOGETHER? DO I NEED TO DO THEM SEPARATE?
>> THE PRESENTATION CAN BE TAKEN ALL AT ONCE SINCE WE ARE RELATED
[H. (V) Lady Residence Variances. ]
TO ONE PROJECT. I WOULD RECOMMEND THEY ARE VOTED ONSEPARATELY. >> VERY GOOD, EASY 2024 EASY 202400233 B 234, 235 AND 236 LADY RESIDENT AUDIENCES. HELLO.
>> IT EVENING MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS ANDY PROFESSIONAL FROM OFFICES OF INAUDIBLE ] IN NOBLESVILLE. HERE TONIGHT WITH ME IS TODD LADY OUR CLIENT AND NICK GALLAGHER OF CARRINGTON HOMES. WE ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD A 2500 SQUARE FOOT HOME ON AN EXISTING LOT IN OLD TOWN CARMEL PRODUCT WILL IMPROVE REMOVAL OF EXISTING FAMILY RENTAL THAT IS NOW PRESENT ON THE SITE WITH CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOME FOR MR. LADY AND HIS FAMILY. THIS PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN THE OLDTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT AND WE ARE SEEKING FOUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARD VARIANCES FROM THE DISTRICT AS YOUR AGENDA INDICATES WE HAVE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 30 FEET, 236 FEET FOR A PORTION OF THE HOUSE. DECREASE IN THE ROOF PITCH FROM 812 TO 612 WITH ONE LOCATION AND FLAT ROOF IN THE OTHER. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND VARIANCE FOR ROOF AND I WILL ADDRESS THESE INDIVIDUAL BRIEFLY.
AS YOU CAN SEE WHERE PROPOSING AN ATTRACTIVE HOME, CRAFTSMAN STYLE ARCHITECTURE. THE HEIGHT VARIANCE IS ABOVE 30 FOOT STANDARD. ONLY IN THE REAR OR SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING SOUTH
[00:20:02]
OF THE SITE IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT IS MARKEDLY VISIBLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO TO SOME EXTENT RESIDENTS SERVICE AS KIND OF A BUFFER TO THAT COMMERCIAL USE. TO THE SOUTH.YOU CAN ALSO CITE THE HEIGHT OF THE NEW MULTI-USE BUILDING ONE BLOCK TO THE WEST, WELL IN EXCESS OF THE HEIGHT WE ARE PROPOSING. REGARDING THE ROOF PITCH VARIANCE THE 612 PITCH IS COMMON FOR CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOMES WITH A FLAT ROOF PORTION WE WILL ACCOMMODATE A ROOFTOP TERRACE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH TOWNHOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION TWO BLOCKS SOUTH OF US, THE LOT COVERAGE WHEN WE FILED WAS 54% WITH MINOR TWEAKS GOT IT DOWN TO 52.1%. STILL ABOVE 45% STANDARD LARGELY DUE TO THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE GARAGE. THE OLDER HOMES IN THIS AREA INCLUDING THE PERPLEX WE ARE PROPOSING TO TEAR DOWN WITH GARAGE IS AND MANY OF THEM TAKE AWAY FROM THE OVERALL VISUALFIELD FROM THE ROAD. 'S WE ARE DEFINITELY AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA I THINK. FINALLY THE ROOF MATERIAL, METAL ROOFS HAVE BEEN USED ELSEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH METAL ROOFING AROUND FOR MANY DECADES NOT ONLY IS IT ATTRACTIVE BUT THERE IS OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE FOR QUALITY AND DURABILITY. OF THIS MATERIAL. AND THE RUBBER MEMBRANE ON A FLAT ROOF PORTION IS THE ONLY MATERIAL THAT CAN BE EFFECTIVE HERE AND IS NOT VISIBLE UNLESS YOU ARE STANDING ON IT. IN SUMMARY WE BELIEVE OUR PROPOSAL WILL BE GOOD AND BENEFICIAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE LOOKING FAVORABLY ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WE ARE AGREEABLE TO THOSE. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT AND THANK YOU TO ANGIE. ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH HER. WE RESPECTFULLY SEEK THE BOARD'S APPROVAL. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? GO RIGHT AHEAD, YES YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. OKAY.
>> I KNOW HOW I WANT TO ANSWER. I KNOW I CAN SAY WHAT I WANT TO SAY. I WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR ENTERTAINING OUR PETITION AND STAFF FOR WORKING SO HARD WITH US TO GET IT THROUGH THE PROCESS. I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THIS HOUSE IS PROPOSE ON A LOT NOT TO DEVELOPER, A PROPERTY THAT HAS
BEEN IN MY FAMILY 30 YEARS. >> YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?
>> TOM LADY. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN OUR FAMILY , I HAVE A FAMILY RESIDE THERE. I HAVE EATEN DINNER THERE HUNDRED TIMES SO WE'RE GOING TO PASS THE STONE TO THE FAMILY AND GENERATION. OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY. I GRACIOUSLY AND HOPEFULLY IN ADVANCE THAN THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERING OUR APPEAL, THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PETITION? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST? ALTHOUGH IT WILL MOVE TO THE DEPARTMENT
REPORT. >> THE COUPON STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF ALL FOR VARIANCES AND TO ADD TO THE LIVE COVERAGE VARIANCE REQUEST TO CARMEL ENGINEERING IS REQUIRING ON-SITE STORMWATER DETENTION OR PAYMENT TO THE STORMWATER FUND SO WE WOULD ADD THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IF APPROVED AS WELL AS A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST ONE MEDIUM OR LARGE NATIVE SHADE TREE IN THE FRONT YARD. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY THANK YOU. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION AND WE WILL OPEN UP TO DISCUSSION ON ANY OF THE ITEMS AND THEN WE WILL NEED A
>> MADAM PRESIDENT CAN QUIVER WANTS TO ANSWER COME TO THE MICROPHONE? ALL THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS THEY ARE ASKING
FOR, CONDITIONS ARE AGREEABLE? >> YES.
>> THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD.
>> OKAY WELL, I APPRECIATE THE DESIGN, VERY ATTRACTIVE. WHEN I SAW THE DESCRIPTION AS BEING CRAFTSMAN, I RAISED MY EYEBROW,
[00:25:01]
I WOULD CONSIDER MAYBE CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN. MY CONCERN IS WITH THE METAL ROOF AND IN REGARDS TO THAT PARTICULAR STYLE. IN LOOKING AT OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG THE STREET, THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER METAL ROOFS. CRAFTSMAN STYLE TYPICALLY HAS MORE OF A WOOD SHAKE OR A SLATE TYPE OR ASPHALT TYPE SHINGLE AND NOT NECESSARILY THAT ROOF. SO, BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT, NOT SURE IF IT'S ENOUGH FOR ME TO DENY A REQUEST ON THAT, BUT I BRING IT UP BECAUSE YOU ARE PROMOTING AS CRAFTSMAN STYLE AND I GUESS I AM BEING MORE OF A PERFECTIONIST THAN I SHOULD BE. I ALSO NOTICED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS IN THE PACKET, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE IT SMALLER THAN THE EXISTING HOUSE. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS MORE HARD SCAPE TYPE SURFACES, DRIVEWAY, SIDEWALK ANDPATIO? >> ALMOST IDENTICAL IN FOOTPRINT. BECAUSE OF THE FRONTLOAD AND THE WAY THE STRUCTURE IS SITUATED, THE SIDE GARAGE NOW, WE ARE RESPECTING THE 30 FOOT OBVIOUSLY. IT IS A BIT DEEPER IN THE BACK BUT THE LATERAL FOOTPRINT IS ABOUT THE SAME.
>> I APPRECIATE THE DESIGN HAVING A SIDE LOAD GARAGE. THE QUESTION I HAVE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN. ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE YOU HAVE LIKE DRIVEWAY TURNING SECTION THAT ALMOST TOUCHES THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE SAME FOR THE WEST SIDE, THE PATIO CONCRETE PATIO LOOKS LIKE IT IS ALMOST RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND DON'T WE HAVE SOME SORT OF SETBACK?
>> IT IS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK WITH A TWO FOOT ENCROACHMENT. IS
THAT CORRECT? >> OR SOMETHING FLAT ON THE GROUND LIKE DRIVEWAY OR PATIO CAN BE WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE
SIDE PROPERLY MINE. >> WE WERE INSTRUCTED THREE FEET SO WE PULLED IT BACK TO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON THE ACTUAL RULES, BUT WE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT FROM THE STAFF TO ACCOMMODATE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> DOES LIKE I WILL COME AND IF IT'S CRAFTSMAN OR CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN. I'M NOT AUTHORIZED
OR QUALIFIED TO DO THAT. >> LIKE I SAID I'M PROBABLY BEING TOO PICKY ABOUT THAT. WHEN I SAW IT, IT SURPRISED ME WITH THAT MATERIAL. I THINK THAT'S ALL.
>> ANYONE ELSE? >> I THINK THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE IS BEAUTIFUL. WE START TO SEE MORE AND MORE OF THIS TYPE OF HOUSE WITH METAL ROOFS, THAT'S BECOMING COMMON SO IT'S GREAT FOR THE SETBACK YOU HAVE FIVE FEET ON BOTH SIDES?
>> THE VARIANCE ALLOWED WITHIN FIVE FEET. SO IN COMPLIANCE.
>> AND BACK UP TO COMMERCIAL. >> BACK UP TO COMMERCIAL AND MY FATHER'S THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE EAST.
>> THE FRONT SETBACK, I ASSUME THIS WILL BE ALIGNED WITH THE OTHER HOUSES SO TO SPEAK? I THINK YOU MIGHT BE THE FIRST ON
THE STREET TO TEAR DOWN. >> SO, YES WE ARE IN CONSISTENT LINE. WE ARE BEHIND ONE OF THE PROPERTY LINES AND SLIGHTLY IN FRONT OF THE OTHER BECAUSE THEY ARE A BIT STAGGERED. THE FIRST ON THE STREET, YES. A COUPLE POINTS TO OBSERVE, SOME OF THE HOUSES YOU MENTIONED WITH METAL ROOFS ARE JUST TO THE NORTH LIKE HALF A BLOCK INCLUDING ONE WITH THE ENTIRE METAL ROOF. THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE FIRST ON THE FIRST STREET, FIRST STREET IS NOT AS ATTRACTIVE TO A DEVELOPER OR BUILDER AS YOU PROGRESS NORTH BECAUSE OF THE HIGH SCHOOL. BUT WE THINK THIS MIGHT BE A CATALYST TO BRINGING FIRST STREET BACK INTO THE FOLD.
DEFINITELY PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DEFINITELY WELL SITUATED FOR THE AMENITIES PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR, BUT WE
[00:30:01]
KNOW WHAT CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL TRAFFIC IS LIKE.>> YES WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I HAVE HAD A BUSINESS THERE 26 YEARS. TRUST ME, I KNOW. GO
AHEAD. >> QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
THEIR BUSINESSES BEHIND, HOW DOES THE HEIGHT COMPARE ? HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE?
>> I THINK THEY ARE, THERE ARE TWO ISSUES. NOT ISSUES, TWO FACTORS. IT BACKS UP TO THE COMMERCIAL STREET. BEHIND THAT IS THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED LAW OFFICE WHICH EXCEEDS HEIGHT BY SEVERAL FEET. THIS WILL TAKE THAT OUT OF THE LINE OF SIGHT SO SOMEONE WILL NOW SEE A LAW OFFICE, IT'S A BIT OF A BUILDING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL FEEL TO IT SO I'M NOT SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE MASSED, IT IS A WELL DONE PROJECT. THE OTHER POINT IS JUST TO THE WEST, WE HAVE A FOUR STORY BUILDING. THERE ARE FOUR LOTS AWAY AND WE WILL BE WELL BELOW THEIR HEIGHT LINE. SO THE SITE LINE IS NOT INTERRUPTED FROM THIS PROPERTY. IT KIND OF BLENDS IN WITH THE HEIGHT LINE BETWEEN THOSE BUILDINGS.
>> THANK YOU. I WAS MOST CURIOUS ABOUT THE LAW FIRM ON MAIN STREET. CAN YOU CONFIRM, ANGIE, THAT'S THE SAME HEIGHT OR
LITTLE BIT HIGHER? >> FOR EXACT DETAILS I WOULD HAVE TO DO RESEARCH BUT I THINK HE ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED IT.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT BEFORE THE MOTION, THE TWO BUILDINGS TO THE WEST OF THE LAW OFFICE. ONE IS FOR SALE AND THE OTHER HOUSEHOLD. SO THE HEIGHT WILL CHANGE. NOBODY IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A SINGLE STORY HOME.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT, THE BUILDING DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS LOT, OVER HALF OF THE LOT JUST SOLD VERY VERY RECENTLY.
IRONICALLY THE BACK OF THAT LOT IS CUT OUT DIFFERENTLY FROM THE REST OF THE STREET WITH A NOTCH IN THE BACK FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM THE LOT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS WHY THE COVERAGE EXCEEDS THE 45%. BECAUSE IT IS SORT OF A UNIQUE AND UNFAVORABLE THING THAT HAPPENED.
>> OKAY THANK YOU, GO AHEAD. >> THIS DOES NOT REALLY OR SOMEWHAT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONS BEING REQUESTED. AND I BEG FORGIVENESS FOR THE BOARD FOR MY RABBIT TRAIL. I NOTICED THE RENDERINGS SHOW A BRICK FACE ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND I THOUGHT I SAW NOTE CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE ELEVATION THE OTHER THREE ELEVATIONS WHAT MATERIALS YOU'RE USING?
>> THE ENTIRETY AND THIS IS A CLOSE RENDERING BUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE BUILDING WILL BE BRICK WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LIMESTONE CAPS OVER THE WINDOWS AS ENVISIONED. HE WAS A HARDY PLANK ON THE RECESSED PART OF THE TOP WHERE IT'S NOT A FUNCTIONAL BREAK. SO WOULD WILL BE LIMITED TO THAT AND PROBABLY SOME OF YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS OR THAN I DO BUT SOMETIMES THERE IS A LITTLE SMALL PORTION CANNOT HANDLE THE BRICK THEY MAY PUT A SMALL SECTION. THE ENTIRETY WILL BE BRICK UNLESS THERE'S A STRUCTURAL REASON THAT A SMALL SECTION WON'T.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT AND I THINK THE USE OF MATERIALS IS ADEQUATE FOR THE STYLE AND AGAIN MAYBE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF EXCEPTION.
DON'T GET ME WRONG A METAL ROOF IS VERY, THE LONGEVITY CERTAINLY SURPASSES THE ASPHALT SHINGLES SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. BUT ANYWAY, YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION, THANK YOU.
>> ENTERTAIN A MOTION? >> MADAM PRESIDENT I'M NOT FEELING ANY DISSENSION ON THE INDIVIDUAL THINGS WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR THE ENTIRETY. IF SOMEBODY WANTS ANY OF THEM VOTED ON INDIVIDUALLY WE CAN. I MOVED TO APPROVE ALL FOUR DOCKETS WITH THE CONDITIONS OF PAYING INTO THE STORM WATER FUND WHICH WILL BE DETERMINED BETWEEN THEM AND ENGINEERING. THE LANDSCAPING WITH SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR THE TREES AND, AND IT WOULD BE WORKED OUT WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDING OF FACTS.
>> I SECOND. >> OKAY THANK YOU, MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? COMFORTABLE VOTING ON ALL OF
[00:35:03]
THEM SO ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, THOSE ARE APPROVED AND WE* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.