[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:13]
>> GOOD EVENING. CALLING TO ORDER THE MAY 27TH BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING. LET'S BEGIN WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. ROLL CALL PLEASE.
>> DENNIS LOCKWOOD. >> PRESENT.
[D. Declaration of Quorum]
>> CHRISTINE ZOCCOLA. >> ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A
[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]
QUORUM TONIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF FACT FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING?>> ALL RIGHT. MOTIONED AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. >> OPPOSED? LET'S SEE.
COMMUNICATIONS, BILLS AND EXPENDITURES. DO WE HAVE ANY?
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> OKAY. LET'S SEE. ANY
[H.(SE) Shaffer Short Term Residential Rental. ]
REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT, OR DEPARTMENT CONCERNS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE SCHAFFER SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL, DOCKET NUMBER PZ 2025-00071 SD, SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL USE. SO WILL THE PETITIONER PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM? YOU HAVE UP TO 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT.>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MICHELLE SHAFFER. I ACTUALLY HAVE AN EMAIL I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE, I PRINTED AND BROUGHT WITH ME. IS THAT OKAY? I HAVE SUPPORT FROM ONE OF MY
NEIGHBORS, JUST HANDED -- >> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MICHELLE KLINGENSMITH SHAFFER. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. I APOLOGIZE. I JUST HAD EYE SURGERY SO SOMETIMES I'M HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY SEEING HERE. I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE CITY'S GOALS AND PRESERVING THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES FROM ABSENTEE OWNERSHIP AND COMMERCIAL MISUSE OF HOUSING. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHY MY SITUATION NOT ONLY COMPLIES WITH THE ORDINANCE BUT ALSO EMBODIES THE VALUES IT IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT. THIS IS MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE. I LIVE THERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE YEAR. I'M DEEPLY CONNECTED TO THE COMMUNITY. DURING THE LIMITED TIMES THAT THE HOME IS RENTED, I STAY IN THE HOUSE LOCATED EXIT DOOR, WHICH IS HELD ON OUR PRIVATE, NEARLY 8 ACRES OF PROPERTY. I'M NEVER FAR AWAY, AND I REMAIN PRESENT AND FULLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR ACTIVITY AT THE RENTAL HOME. THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS VENTURE OR DETACHED INVESTMENT. THIS IS MY FAMILY'S LEGACY. MY FAMILY HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR NEARLY 170 YEARS , FOR 170 YEARS, AND I HAVE PERSONALLY LIVED THERE NEARLY MY ENTIRE 50 YEARS OF LIFE. IN RECOGNITION OF OUR FAMILY'S LONG-STANDING OWNERSHIP AND STEWARDSHIP, WE ARE GOING TO BE HONORED WITH THE HOOSIER HOMESTEAD AWARD AT THE INDIANA STATE FAIR LATER THIS SUMMER.
THIS IS A DISTINCTION GIVEN TO FAMILIES WHO HAVE MAINTAINED CONTINUOUS OWNERSHIP OF A FARMOR PROPERTY FOR OVER 100 YEARS. THE APPLICATION FOR THE HOOSIER HOMESTEAD AWARD WAS SUBMITTED IN HONOR OF MY FATHER, WHO WAS BORN RIGHT HERE IN CARMEL IN 1929, AND HAS LIVED ON THE PROPERTY HIS ENTIRE LIFE. HE WITNESSED CHANGES TO THIS PROPERTY, WHICH MANY OF US COULD NEVER IMAGINE.
WHAT IS NOW A THRIVING COMMUNITY WAS ONCE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, A GRAVEL ROAD SURROUNDED BY OPEN LAND WITH NO HOMES INSIGHT. THROUGH EVERY TRANSFORMATION MY FAMILY HAS
[00:05:01]
REMAINED HERE, ADAPTING, CONTRIBUTING, AND PRESERVING THE LAND WITH CARE AND INTENTIN. THAT AWARD IS MORE THAN JUST A CERTIFICATE. IT IS A REFLECTION OF OUR IN DURING PRESENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE LAND AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. I WOULD CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND INDIVIDUALS IN THIS COMMUNITY WITH THE SAME DEPTH OF GENERATIONAL CONNECTION AND HISTORY OF OWNERSHIP. OUR ROOTS ARE NOT JUST DEEP. THEY ARE FOUNDATIONAL. I'M NOT AN OUTSIDER BRINGING DISRUPTION.I'M A LONG-TERM RESIDENT WHO DEEPLY VALUES THE PEACE AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TO THAT END, I HAVE IMPLEMENTED THOUGHTFUL POLICIES TO ENSURE THAT THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ALIGNS WITH THOSE VALUES. I HAVE A STRICT NO PARTY POLICY AND ONLY HOST RESPECTFUL, SMALL GROUPS, FOCUSING MORE ON GEN X, THOSE WHO WERE RAISED IN THE '70S. EITHER MYSELF OR MY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ALWAYS PRESENT NEXT-DOOR . WHILE THE HOME IS RENTED. SO SOMEONE IS ALWAYS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES. I PROVIDE GUESTS WITH CLEAR EXPECTATIONS REGARDING BEHAVIOR AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESPECT. I HAVE BEEN RENTING THIS HOME UNDER THE ISSUES. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME NEIGHBORS MIGHT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS, INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL FOR DISTURBANCES OR IMPACTS ON PROPERTY VALUES, AND I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE TAKE THESE CONCERNS VERY SERIOUSLY. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT I SHARE THESE VALUES. I REMEMBER HOW IT FELT WHEN THE LAND AROUND US WAS DEVELOPED AND NEW HOMES WERE BUILT. CHANGE CAN BE UNSETTLING BUT WITH THE THOUGHTFUL, RESPECTFUL CHANGE, WHEN DONE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ROOTED IN THE COMMUNITY, IT CAN BE DONE RESPONSIBLY. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE LAYOUT ON THE PROPERTY, WHILE THERE ARE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE INCLUDED IN THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS, THE PROPERTY ITSELF DOES NOT DIRECTLY BORDER ANY LOT WITH A HOME ON IT. IT IS SURROUNDED TO THE NORTH AND EAST BY A PRIVACY FENCE FOLLOWED BY COMMON SPACE AND A POND THAT INCLUDES A POND. TO THE WEST BY CHERRY TREE ROAD, A LANDSCAPED BERM AND AN ACCESS ROAD, AND TO THE SOUTH BY PROPERTY THAT IS JOINTLY OWNED BY ME. IT HAS AMPLE PARKING WITH NO DIRECT ACCESS TO NEIGHBORING HOMES AND THE PROPERTY OFFERS AN IDEAL LAYOUT FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT MINIMIZES IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING RESIDENCES. THIS CITY'S ORDINANCE IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS. IT SEEKS TO ENSURE THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE OPERATED BY REAL RESIDENTS WITH GENUINE TIES TO THE COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE THAT I NOT ONLY NEED THE LETTER OF THAT BUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. IN CLOSING, THIS PERMIT WOULD NOT INTRODUCE SOMETHING NEW OR FOREIGN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD SIMPLY ALLOW A LONG-TERM RESIDENT TO CONTINUE CARING FOR HER HOME, HONORING HER FAMILY'S LEGACY, AND SHARING IT IN A WAY THAT IS RESPECTFUL, RESPONSIBLE, AND FULLY REGULATED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND STEP DOWN.
>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR THIS PETITION? IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST IT? OKAY. WE WILL GO TO THE DEPARTMENT REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER SEEKS SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL APPROVAL FOR A THREE-BEDROOM, 1 1/2 BATH HOUSE.
AS SHE'S STATED, IT IS LOCATED KIND OF IN A COMPLEX WITH THE FAMILY'S LONG-STANDING PROPERTY . THE UGO DOES LIST OUT CRITERIA FOR THE BASIS OF REVIEW FOR PETITIONS SUCH AS THIS, AS WELL AS THE CRITERIA FOR BASIS OF APPROVAL OR REJECTION, AND THOSE ARE LISTED OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PETITIONER -- AS FAR AS REMAINING REVIEW COMMENTS GO, THE PETITIONER SHOULD FOLLOW UP WITH ANY OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO MIGHT HAVE ANY REMAINING VIEW COMMENTS. I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE WELL ON-SITE THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH, BUT I THINK THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED. AS FAR AS FINAL COMMENTS FROM STAFF, PLANNING STAFF HAS REACHED OUT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO OPEN CASES OF VIOLATIONS FOR THE SITE IN THE PAST YEAR. WITH THAT, PLANNING STAFF DOES RECOMMEND CONSIDERATION OF THIS PETITION AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. BOARD, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS?
>> IT SAYS HERE THE PETITIONER SHOULD FOLLOW-UP WITH OTHER TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT MIGHT HAVE ANY
[00:10:02]
REMAINING REVIEW COMMENTS. ARE THERE ANY REMAINING REVIEWERS ORCOMMENTS THAT ARE AWARE OF? >> THE ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT -- I THINK IT WAS THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT THAT HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE WELL. I THINK THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. THE CONDITIONER PETITIONER CAN SPEAK MORE TO THAT. I THINK THE WELL IS SHARED WITH THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH.
>> SO SAFE TO SAY THERE ARE NO MAJOR ISSUES REMAINING.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. GIVEN THAT YOU HAVE SORT OF DONE A TRIAL WITH THE FREEBIE DATES AND NOT HAD ANY REPORTS OF ISSUES, I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
>> I SO MOVE. >> MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION?
ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.
>> OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE APPROVED.
CONGRATULATIONS ON GETTING THE HOOSIER HOMESTEAD AWARD, AS WELL. AWESOME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS
[H.(V) Cooke Residence Variances.]
THE COOK RESIDENCE VARIANCES. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THESE ALTOGETHER, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE BOARD. ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT VARIANCES FOR -- LET'S SEE, DOCKET NUMBER PZ 2020 5-0 0073V FOR MAXIMUM HOUSE WITH A LOUD, DOCKET NUMBER PZ 2024-00074 V FOR THE MINIMUM ROOF PITCH, AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ 2024-00075V, REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THEBUILDING. GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, JIM SCHINDLER, ATTORNEY WITH THE NELSON AND FRANKENBERGER WITH OFFICES HERE IN CARMEL. WE ARE REPRESENTING DR. IS JEFF COOKE AND MOLLY NORRIS COOKE REGARDING THE VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT ARE ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT . THIS EXHIBIT THAT I HAVE DISPLAYING ON THE SCREEN WAS INCLUDED BEHIND TAB TWO OF YOUR INFORMATIONAL BROCHURES. IT'S A SITE LOCATION MAP OF THE SUBJECT REAL ESTATE. PROPERTY HAS A COMMON ADDRESS AT 6/71 AVENUE NORTHEAST AND IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF SMOKEY ROAD ROAD SO NORTH WOULD BE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. SMOKEY ROAD ROAD WOULD BE FURTHER TO THE NORTH, AND THEN THERE EAST OF RANGELINE ROAD AND IN FRONT OF FIRST AVENUE. THE ACTUAL PARCEL IS BORDERED IN BLUE RIGHT HERE AND IT'S ACTUALLY A LARGER LOT WITHIN THIS AREA OF COOLDOWN. IT'S ABOUT A HALF ACRE IN SIZE. REAL ESTATE ZONED R2 RESIDENTIAL IS WITHIN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY CHARACTER SUB AREA. THE COOKE'S DESIRE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW, CUSTOM HOME, AND THEY'RE WORKING WITH OLD TOWN DESIGN GROUP ON THAT PARTICULAR HOME .
AS YOUR AGENDA INDICATES, THEY'RE ACTUALLY SEEKING THREE SEPARATE VARIANCES, VARIANCE FOR MAXIMUM BUILDING WIDTH, MINIMUM ROOF PITCH AND ASK HIM BUILDING HEIGHT. AS A SIDE NOTE, THE COOKE S ACTUALLY OBTAINED IN 2021 A VARIANCE FROM BZA FOR THE BUILDING WIDTH BUT THE PLANS FOR THAT HOME DESIGN FROM 2021 WERE NEVER ADVANCED. NOW THAT THEY ARE RESUMING THE PROJECT AND THEY'RE WORKING WITH THE TOWN DESIGN GROUP, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE BACK BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, IS TO SEE THE BUILDING WIDTH VARIANCE AS WELL AS THE TWO OTHER VARIANCES I MENTIONED, THE ROOF PITCH AND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
>>> THE DRIVEWAY TO THE HOME WOULD BE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE LOT LOCATED IN THIS GENERAL FACILITY. IN THE ACTUAL FRONT OF THE HOME FACES FORWARD, FIRST AVENUE IN THIS LOCATION.
THIS NEXT EXHIBIT WAS INCLUDED BEHIND, IT IS THE SECOND EXHIBIT BEHIND TAB THREE, THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE HOME.
AGAIN, NORTH WOULD BE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, FIRST AVENUE ALONG THIS PERIMETER, AGAIN AS YOU CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAY TO THE HOME AND
[00:15:01]
THEN THE ACTUAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT, THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE BASE BUILDING LANDSCAPING THAT WILL GO AROUND THE HOME AS WELL AS OTHER LANDSCAPE PLANING ON THE LOT. ONE THING THAT YOU WILL SEE AND I WILL DESCRIBE IN A MOMENT IS THAT THERE IS WHAT WE CALL A CONNECTOR HALLWAY BETWEEN THE TWO WINGS OF THE HOME SO THERE'S THE SOUTHERN PORTION WHERE THE SOUTHERN WING OF THE HOME, THE NORTHERN AND THERE IS A CONNECTOR HALLWAY THAT CONNECTS BOTH OF THOSE WIND COMPONENTS. THIS DESIGN IS PURPOSEFUL, THEY HAVE DESIGNED THE HOME SO THEY CAN AGE IN PLACE AND IT IS ADA COMPLIANT. SOME OF THE AGE IN PLACE FEATURES INCLUDED IN THIS HOME ARE WIDER HALLWAYS, SHOWER AREAS WITH SHOWER ENTRIES, HANDRAILS AND BATHROOMS AS WELL AS AN INTERNAL ELEVATOR. SO ALL OF THOSE COMPONENTS IN EACH WING OF THE HOME ALLOW FOR THAT AGING IN PLACE AND IS ADA COMPLIANT, THE NORTH WING OF THE HOME IS ONLY ONE STORY SO IT DOES NOT HAVE THE ELEVATOR FUTURE, BUT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE HOME WHERE THE WING DOES HAVE THAT ACCOMMODATION. THE OTHER REASON FOR THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY IS, THIS IS AGAIN A VERY WIDE A LOT, 132 FEET OF LOT FRONTAGE. WHAT THIS CONNECTOR HALLWAY ALLOWS TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE IS FOR THE HOMES TO ACTUALLY BE SPLIT IF THIS LOT WERE PLATTED IT TO TWO LOTS. WHAT THE COOKS ARE DOING IT IS NOT THE INTENT TO'S IT AT THIS TIME BUT IN THE FUTURE IF THE FUTURE OWNERS OF THE REAL ESTATE DECIDED TO SPLIT THE LOT THEY COULD SPLIT THE LOT AND CREATE TWO SEPARATE HOMES BECAUSE THE COOKS ARE INVESTING EXTRA MONEY IN THIS PARTICULAR HOME AND EACH WING OF THE HOME THE SOUTHERN AND THE NORTHERN PORTION WILL HAVE SEPARATE WATER, ELECTRICITY, THINGS LIKE THAT SO IN THE FUTURE IF THE HOME WAS SPLIT BY REMOVING THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY THERE WOULD BE TWO FUNCTIONING HOMES THAT HAVE A ARTS AND CRAFTS DESIGN THEME AND WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS AREA. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT DESIGN FEATURES THAT HAVE INCORPORATED INTO THIS PROPOSAL. THIS NEXT EXHIBIT IS A PERSPECTIVE IMAGE, LOOKING TO THE WEST OFF OF FIRST AVENUE, FACING THE FRONT OF THE HOME AND AS I DESCRIBED THERE IS THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY WHICH SITS WHILE BACK OF THE BUILDING LINE SO IT ALMOST GIVES THE POTENTIAL VIEW WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING BY THIS HOME THAT THERE COULD BE TWO SEPARATE HOMES OR STRUCTURES BACK THERE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY IS SET FOR THE BACK FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THIS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE AS I WAS SAYING EARLIER IS THE NORTHERN WING OF THE HOME, ONE STORY AND ON THE OTHER SIDE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IS THE SOUTHERN WING OF THE HOME. BOTH WINGS OF THE HOME HAVE THEIR OWN FRONT DOOR AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, EACH WING OF THE HOME NOT ONLY HAS THEIR OWN FRONT DOOR, HAS THEIR OWN SIDEWALK ENTRY AND EACH OF THE WINGS OF THE HOME ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN PORCH FUTURE. WE FEEL THAT THE DESIGN OF THE HOME , THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY BEING SETBACK, SOME OF THE OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT START TO MINIMIZE THE WIDTH OF THE HOME BECAUSE OF OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT HAVE VISUAL INTEREST IN SOMEONE PASSING BY THE HOME. THIS NEXT EXHIBIT WAS INCLUDED BEHIND TAB FIVE THESE ARE THE BLACK AND WHITE DIMENSION BUILDING ELEVATIONS. THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE HOME THE SAME FEATURES I DESCRIBED TO YOU.REGARDING THE VARIANCE REQUEST THE FIRST MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUESTING A MAXIMUM BUILDING WIDTH THAT'S THE FIRST ONE, REQUESTING A WIDTH OF 81 FEET 55 FEET WOULD BE PERMITTED AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE VARIANCE OF 2021. AS I DESCRIBED THEIR NORTH WING OF THE HOME AND A SOUTHWIND, THE NORTH WING OF THE HOME IS 25 FEET WIDE , THIS PORTION OF THE YEAR, THE SOUTH WING OF THE HOME IS 40 FEET WIDE AND THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY BETWEEN THE TWO IS 16 FEET WIDE SO THAT GETS US TO 81 FEET.
WHILE THE COMBINED WIDTH OF BOTH WINGS OF THE HOME, THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY, 81 FEET, IF YOU LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL WINGS THEMSELVES ON CONNECTOR HALLWAYS, THOSE HOMES WOULD MEET THE MINIMUM
[00:20:02]
WIDTH REQUIREMENT. I POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE IF A LAW TO SPLIT WERE TO OCCUR IN THE HALLWAY WERE REMOVED THOSE HOMES WOULD COMPLY WITH THE WIDTH STANDARDS. AS I DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY, THE COOKS AND OLD TOWN DESIGN GROUP HAVE GONE TO DECENT LINKS TO BREAK UP THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOME AND BUILDING WIDTH AND I THINK THEY HAVE DONE IT EFFECTIVELY. STAFF AS FAR AS ANY POTENTIAL LOT SPLIT IN THE FUTURE STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THAT WOULD BE THROUGH A PLAN COMMISSION, PLATT AMENDMENT PROCESS WITH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS SO IF ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE WERE TO OCCUR ON A POTENTIAL LOT SPLIT FOR THIS HOME, THIS PROPOSAL IT WILL BE PUBLICLY NOTICED AT A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO SURROUNDING RESIDENTS. WITH OF THAT SAID IF THE OLD TOWN CHARACTER SUBAREA BUILDING WITH PRIME STANDARDS WERE PROVIDED FOR THE HOME THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO EXTRACT TO THIS HOME WHICH IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW THEM TO AGE IN PLACE AND ALSO ALLOWED THE POTENTIAL FUTURE POSSIBILITY OF SPLITTING THE LOT TO CREATE TWO LOTS INTO TWO HOMES. SO THAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE REQUEST, THE SECOND VARIANCE RELATES TO THE ROOF PINCH , BASED ON THE OVERLAY CHARACTER AREA , THE STANDARD WOULD REQUIRE A 8 TO 12 ROOF PITCH , THE COOKE'S ARE REQUESTING SIX , 12 ROOF PITCH AND THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT IS AGAIN HOME DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE, THIS HOME IS WHAT SOME MIGHT TERM AMERICAN FOURSQUARE ARCHITECTURE OR GRAPH DESIGN SO THEY TYPICALLY HAVE A LOWER ROOF PITCH ASSOCIATED WITH THEM SUCH AS A SIX, 12 AND YOU WILL SEE THAT IN MANY DIFFERENT NEW HOMES THAT ARE IN THE OLD TOWN AREA.AGAIN THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY REGARDING THE ROOF PITCH REQUEST IS THAT IF THEY WERE TO COMPLY WITH THE ROOF PITCH STANDARD, IT REALLY IS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THIS TYPE OF ARCHITECTURAL THEME WHICH IS PREVALENT IN THE OLD TOWN PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY.
FINALLY, THE THIRD VARIANCE RELATES TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND THIS IS KIND OF, YOU HAVE SEEN IT A LOT, THE HEARING OFFICERS HAVE SEEN THIS A LOT. THE R 2, THE PROPERTY ZONE R 2 THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR BUILDING HAD WILL ALLOW A BUILDING THAT IS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THE HOME WOULD COMPLY WITH THAT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE OVERLAY AREA, YOU HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY CHARACTER BUILDINGS WITHIN A CERTAIN PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT SITE. IF THERE ARE CHARACTER BUILDINGS IN PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT SITE, TAKE THEIR BUILDING HEIGHT AND THERE'S A BASIC MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION YOU GO THROUGH AND YOU CANNOT EXCEED BUILDING HEIGHTS OF ANY NEARBY CHARACTER BUILDING BY MORE THAN SEVEN FEET. WHERE WE ARE AT WITH THE COOKE'S HOME IS BASED ON THE EXISTING CHARACTER BUILDINGS THAT ARE NEARBY THE SITE, THE COOKE'S HOME COULD BE PERMITTED TO BE 26 FEET , SIX INCHES UP TO THE ROOF PEAK OF THE HOME THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED UP TO THE ROOF PEAK. THE TALLEST PORTION OF THE HOME AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 34 FEET, FOUR INCHES AND I WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE TWO STORY COMPONENT THAT SITS ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE LOT. SO THAT IS THE HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST THEY ARE SEEKING DUE TO THAT PARTICULAR OVERLAY STANDARD. THE NORTHERN WING OF THE HOME AGAIN IS ONLY ONE STORY AND SOME OF THE HOMES THAT ARE NORTH OF US AND ADJACENT TO US AND NORTH AND EAST ACROSS THE STREET, THERE ARE MORE ONE-STORY HOMES IN THAT AREA. WHEN YOU GO MORE TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE , THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE MORE EXISTING TWO-STORY HOMES, SO THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE TWO-STORY ELEMENT ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE COOKE'S LOT. SO AGAIN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WOULD BE THAT , BASED ON HOW THEY WANT TO DESIGN THIS HOME TO MEET THEIR NEEDS AND BASED ON THE ADJOINING, OR THE NEARBY CHARACTER BUILDINGS, THEY WOULD NEED RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT STANDARD IN THE YU-GI-OH FOR THE OVERLAY AND THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE SEEKING. IN CONCLUSION WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT, THE COOKE'S ARE RESPECTFULLY SEEKING APPROVAL OF THESE VARIANCES. WE DID INCLUDE BEHIND TO -- TABS SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT, DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT AND VALID SHEET AS INDICATED IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT AND I WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF ME NOW OR AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING
[00:25:01]
CONCLUDES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? ALL RIGHT ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST? ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST? PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM. THANK YOU.
THIS IS NOT A QUESTION AND ANSWER. YOU CAN SHARE WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE. SO YOU HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES.
>> OKAY YES I AM KIND OF ON THE TAIL END OF THIS WHOLE THING.
WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE PERSPECTIVE DRAWING BEFORE HAND AND WHEN HE PRESENTED THEM. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE COLOR SCHEME, THE RED AND THE BLUE. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE TWO DIFFERENT COLORS? THAT MAKES ME THINK THIS IS MORE OF AN ATTACHED A/D YOU OR IS THERE PROPOSAL FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL OR WHY WOULD IT BE TWO DIFFERENT COLORS? IT DOES NOT SEEM TO FLOW WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AT ALL TO HAVE THAT AND IT INDICATES THAT THIS IS NOT ONE HOME. IF IT IS NOT ONE HOME THAN WHAT CONNECT?
>> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?
>> SORRY, DEANNA HALL. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> SO YEAH, THAT IS IT. THE CONNECTOR ALWAYS SEEMS, WHY DON'T THEY SPLIT INTO TWO LOTS AND NOT HAVE THE CONNECTOR HOME OF THE HAVE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE DIFFERENT COLORS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE FOR DIFFERENT USES. THANK YOU.
>> REBUTTAL? >> THANK YOU. IN RESPONSE, THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS FUNCTIONING AS ONE HOME FOR THE COOKE'S AS I DESCRIBED DESPITE THE FACT ARE TWO SEPARATE WINGS IT FUNCTIONS AS ONE HOME FOR THEM AND HAVING A COVERED HALLWAY ALLOWING THEM TO GET FROM ONE WING TO THE OTHER IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM. REGARDING THE COLOR SCHEME, I DO BELIEVE THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE UDO OR OVERLAY THAT REGULATES CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF COLOR. IT IS, IN A WAY IT CAN BE SUBJECTIVE AND IT WAS THE COOKE'S PREFERENCE AND THEY HAVE BEEN REVIEWING THESE PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS WITH PLANNING STAFF. FINALLY I WOULD MENTION THERE IS NO INTENTION FOR ANY SHORT-TERM RENTAL. IF, FOR SOME REASON THE COOKE'S OR ANY OTHER OWNER OF ANY HOME ON THIS REAL ESTATE SOUGHT TO AVAIL THEMSELVESTO SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND THAT IS NOT THEIR INTENT AT THIS
TIME, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OKAY WE WILL GO TO
THE DEPARTMENT REPORT PLEASE. >> THANK YOU COME I WILL KEEP IT SHORT.
I WILL KEEP IT SHORT SINCE THE PETITIONER DID A GOOD JOB EXPLAINING THE VARIANCES. PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, THE HOUSE FRONT IS BROKEN UP TO SHOW THE VARIATION SCALE AND MASS AND SETBACK AND PROPOSED ROOF SLOPE AND BUILDING HEIGHT ARE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT. THAT BEING SAID THE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCES ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE CURIOUS. I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO ANY OF THIS, BUT CURIOUS, YOU ARE DESIGNING AND BUILDING IT AS ONE HOME WITH A POTENTIAL OF TURNING IT INTO TWO HOMES. DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVE DESIGNED ONE WING WITH ITS OWN BEDROOMS, RESTROOMS, PLUMBING AND SO ON IN THE EVENT THAT OCCURS OR WITH THOSE MODIFICATIONS BE DONE AT THAT TIME?
>> IT HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH THAT POSSIBILITY IN MIND. THE ONLY REMODELING TO ANY EXTENT WOULD RELATE TO THE NORTHERN WING AND ONE OF THE ROOM AREAS WOULD NEED TO BE CONVERTED INTO A KITCHENETTE. THAT WOULD BE A SMALLER REMODELING PROJECT, OTHER THAN THAT EACH WING HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE ELECTRICAL
UTILITY, ET CETERA. >> IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS TO HAVE THE INTENTION OF DIVIDING THE PROPERTY ALSO INTO TWO
PARCELS? >> WE COULD ONLY CREATE TWO SEPARATE HOMES BY DIVIDING BY SUBDIVIDING THE ONE LOT INTO TWO. IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR THEN AGAIN IT IS A PUBLIC PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING PROCESS WHERE A NOTICE WOULD BE SENT OUT BUT
[00:30:04]
IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR THAN THE CONNECTOR HALLWAY WOULD BE COMPLETELY REMOVED. THE MODEST REMODELING TO CREATE A KITCHENETTE KITCHEN AREA FOR THE NORTHERN HOME WOULD NEED TO OCCUR BUT IF IT WERE TO OCCUR THERE'S ENOUGH DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOMES THAT NO SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OR OTHER VARIANCE WE CAN ANTICIPATE WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE.>> THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. ALL THE SETBACKS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. LET ME FIRST SAY I AM IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THE PETITIONS. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME AND MAYBE SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN . IF THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE ROOF PITCH IS ACTUALLY BECAUSE OF A DESIGN STYLE AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY , I'M NOT SURE THAT IT IS IN MY OPINION. BUT I'M TRYING TO GET TO THAT
POINT. >> AT THE RISK OF DEBATING AN ARCHITECT , SO I AM ON CAUTIOUS WATERS. MY UNDERSTANDING GENERALLY WOULD BE AS I DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY THAT AN EIGHT, 12 ROOF PITCH ON THIS TYPE OF HOME DESIGN MAY NOT BE AS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL DESIGN THEME OF THAT SCHOOL. I THINK THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO HONOR. SO, I SEE THAT AS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. ÚSOMETHING, THAT I THINK, NOT THAT THERE IS ANY PRECEDENT AT ALL BECAUSE THERE'S NOT BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PETITIONS BEFORE THE BOARD OVER THE LAST DECADE IN THIS GENERAL AREA AND MANY INVOLVED THIS ROOF PITCH ISSUE BASED ON THIS TYPE OF GENERAL HOME DESIGN.
>> LIKEWISE I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A WAR OF WORDS WITH AN ATTORNEY EITHER. BUT, I UNDERSTAND. I GUESS TO A POINT LIKE I SAID IT'S NOT GOING TO HINDER THE DECISION, IT JUST SEEMS AGAIN YOU POINTED OUT MY PROFESSION, YOU CAN SHOW ME 100 EXAMPLES OF ARTS AND CRAFTS STYLE WITH A LOW PITCHED ROOF AND I CAN DO THE SAME WITH A STEEP PITCHED ROOF. SO ANYWAY, LIKE I SAID , IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BASED ON THE DESIGN STYLE. THE , I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT AND THIS IS MORE OF A COMMENT, THE OTHER VARIANCE WAS REQUESTED WITH REGARDS TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT , PERTAINING TO THE ADJACENT SUB CHARACTER BUILDINGS . IF YOU WERE ON ANOTHER LOT SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU MAY NOT EVEN BE HERE FOR THE VARIANCE. AND I FIND THAT TO BE A BIT DISCONCERTING THAT YOU ACTUALLY , I FIND INCONSISTENCY WITH THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT. THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT, KNOWING ON THAT BASIS IF YOU WERE SOMEWHERE ELSE IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. LIKE I SAID I AM IN GENERAL FAVOR OF IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF THOSE COMMENTS.
>> A QUICK COMMENT. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS KIND OF ASPECT OF THE OVERLAY REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHTS AND CHARACTER AREAS. I WOULD SAY IT IS WELL INTENDED BECAUSE THERE CAN BE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME WILL CALL SHORTER HOMES NEARBY THAT QUALIFY AS CHARACTER BUILDINGS AND SO IT IS DEFINITELY A WELL INTENDED PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT SOMETIMES IT CREATE SOME COMPLEXITIES BECAUSE IN THIS CASE FOR EXAMPLE THIS IS CALLING OUT A DIFFERENT CHARACTER BUILDINGS THAT WERE AROUND US. WANT TO THE NORTH MORE OF A SINGLE-STORY BUILDING. ONE OVER TO THE EAST ACROSS THE STREET. BUT THEN YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE THE SOUTHWEST THAT IS EVEN TALLER. SO I APPRECIATE THAT THOUGHT. I KNOW THE PROVISION IS WELL INTENDED SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE SEEKING THAT
VARIANCE. >> I AGREE WITH YOU, NO ONE WANTS TO SEE A THREE-STORY RANCH HOME THAT I GET THE IDEA IT JUST SEEMS TO BE A BIT HARD , SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST THAT, BUT ANYWAY.
[00:35:06]
>> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE BOARD? OKAY ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOVED TO APPROVE ON ALL THREE VARIANCES.
>> WITH ADOPTIONS A FINDING OF FACT.
>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> SECOND? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THAT IS APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT AND WE APPRECIATE THE TIME ANGIE TOOK WITH US, VERY HELPFUL IN GETTING THIS
PINNED DOWN AND TIGHTENED UP. >> THANK YOU.
[H.(V) Harvest Church Sign Variances.]
>> ALL RIGHT WE'RE ON OUR THIRD AND FINAL ITEM FOR THIS EVENING.
HARVEST CHURCH SIGN VARIANCES. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2025- 00077 V SIGNS ALLOWED PER STREET FRONTAGE AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024- 00080 V REGARDING SCIENCE NOT FACING PUBLIC STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY. COED. >> MORTY BAKER WITH HARVEST CHURCH. 14550 RIVER ROAD. HARVEST , WE ARE NEAR COMPLETION ON A 38,000 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION , WE HAVE EXPERIENCED GROWTH , WE THANK FOR ALL THE GROWTH AND EXPANSION ESPECIALLY IN THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR OF RIVER ROAD. THE FIRST VARIANCE PROPOSAL WE ARE REQUESTING FOR IS WITH THE EXPANSION TO THE SOUTH ON RIVER ROAD WE HAVE CREATED A NEW PARKING LOT THAT WILL PARK ABOUT 350 VEHICLES AND WE ARE ASKING FOR A SECOND GROUND MONUMENT SIGN THAT MATCHES OUR NORTH ENTRANCE JUST FOR NOTICE OF THE PARKING AREA TO THE ENTRANCE. WE ARE CONCERNED IF WE ONLY HAVE ONE SIGN OUT FRONT PEOPLE WILL COME INTO THE NORTH ENTRANCE THEN AS THEY TRY TO GO BACK OUT THE PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH ENTRANCE THEY WILL USE THE FIRE LANE WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. THE FIRE LANE RUNS ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY HERE, THIS IS OUR CURRENT SIGN. GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS WE REALIZED AND CODES HAVE CHANGED, SO WE WILL ALSO MODIFY THIS SIDE. SO WE WILL RETROFIT THIS ONE AND THE NEW SIGN WE WILL FIT CODES AND THIS IS THE SOUTHERN PARKING LOT. SO THAT'S THE FIRST PROPOSAL FOR THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SIGNED AND AGAIN THE AGREEMENT TO MODIFY OUR EXISTING NORTH PARKING LOT ENTRANCE TWO THE CODE. OTHER VARIANCES ARE FOR TWO HOLDING SIGNS, ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE AND ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. AGAIN WE ARE PROPOSING A SIGN ON THE NORTH BUILDING NEAR THE LOBBY OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE AND ONE ON THE SOUTH ENTRANCE. THESE WILL BE ON THE BUILDING , DIRECTLY MOUNTED ON THE BUILDING. THIS WILL BE THE SOUTH ENTRANCE, THE LOBBY TO THE SOUTH. AND THIS WILL BE OUR NORTH ENTRANCE. ONE THING WE HAVE DONE AND AGAIN, THANKS FOR THE HELP OF THE CITY. APPARENTLY AND THIS PREDATES ME NO EXCUSE, THERE WERE PROBABLY SIGNS ON THE BUILDING THAT WERE MAYBE NOT APPROVED PRIOR. SO THOSE SIGNS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
WE HAVE REMOVED THESE EXISTING SIGNS HERE. AND WE HAVE ALSO RECENTLY REMOVED THE ORSON CENTER SIGN AND OFFICE CENTER SIGN AND WE WILL NOT BE REPLACING THOSE SO WE HAVE TAKEN MORE THAN THREE SIGNS DOWN OFF THE BUILDING AS WE WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE TWO OF THOSE AND IT IS BRANDING BASICALLY NEAR THE LOBBY TO IDENTIFY WHERE OUR ENTRANCES ARE AND AGAIN ALONG WITH ONE ADDITIONAL SIGN THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD SEEK APPROVAL FOR,
FOR THAT VARIANCE. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST IT? OKAY THANK YOU. WILL GO TO THE DEPARTMENT REPORT.
[00:40:05]
>> THANK YOU AS PETITIONER STATED THEIR SEEKING APPROVAL FOR TWO GROUND SIGNS AND TWO WALL SIGNS THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH AS FAR AS COMPROMISING WHERE THEY CAN LIVE WITH THE SIGN PACKAGE WHERE WE CAN LIVE WITH I DO LIKE TO NOTE THIS SITE IS 12 ACRES IN SIZE SO IT IS PRETTY LARGE. AND THE PLANNING STAFF IS NOW SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCES. I THINK THERE MAY BE A PROPOSED FUTURE WALL MURAL IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT'S THE CASE THEY WILL NEED TO COME BACK FOR AMENDMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE. OTHER THAN THAT PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION OF ADDRESSING ANY REMAINING UNRESOLVED REVIEW PROJECTS AND COMMENT DOCUMENTS AND ADOPTIONS A FINDING OF FACT. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY THANK YOU. COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
>> JUST FOR FUN . CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY YEARS IT WAS, BUT YOUR PASTOR HAD LUNCH IN MY RESTAURANT BEFORE HIS FIRST SERVICE AT CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL AND I HAD THE PLEASURE OF HIM COMING BEFORE ME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL WHEN YOU BUILD YOUR BUILDING ORIGINALLY. IF I WAS NOT AT MY CHURCH THE LAST 24 YEARS I WOULD BE ATTENDING. BRIAN IS GOOD, I REALLY ENJOY HIM. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> WITH ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT YES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED ? YOU ARE APPROVED,
THANK YOU. >> SAY HI TO YOUR PASTOR FOR ME
PLEASE. >> THAT CONCLUDE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.