[A. Call to Order] [00:00:11] >>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. THIS IS THE JULY 28TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING OFFICER MEETING. IT IS 5:15 SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. ARE THERE ANY [C. (V) Martin Pole Barn Height Variance. ] REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, LEGAL COUNSEL REPORTS, DEPARTMENT CONCERNS? >> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> NOTHING. >> WE'LL GO RIGHT INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF THE MEETING THEN. THE FIRST PETITION TO BE HEARD IS THE MARTIN POLE BARN HEIGHT VARIANCE, DOCKET NUMBER EC-202 5-0 0116 V. MAXIMUM 18TH WITH ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED. 23 FEET REQUESTED. 27.68 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT 3927 WEST 141ST STREET, NOT LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION. IT IS ZONED RESIDENCE FILED BY RYAN JONES LLC ON BEHALF OF DUKE PROPERTY LLC, OWNER. IS THAT PERSON PRESENT? OKAY, PETE. COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND IS THERE A RED BUTTON OR SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE PRESSED? >> >> >> THERE YOU GO. OKAY. YOU'RE GOOD. >> SO WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM ME? >> IF YOU'D JUST DESCRIBE THE REASON FOR YOUR PETITION, WHY YOU NEED THE VARIANCE? >> BASICALLY WE JUST HAVE -- IT'S JUST A BUILDING THAT'S GOT A STEEPER PITCH TO KIND OF MATCH THE HOUSE, IS BEING BUILT THERE. >> I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND WHO YOU'RE, PLEASE? >> RON JONES WITH PRECISION POST FRAME. >> I'M SORRY, PLEASE CONTINUE. >> SO BASICALLY JUST HAVE A POLE BARN I'M TRYING TO DO FOR THE HOMEOWNER. IT'S GOT A STEEPER ROOF PITCH, WHICH MAKES IT A TALLER BUILDING, WHICH MAKES IT OVER 18 FOOT SO WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR JUST A LITTLE TALLER ELEVATION, BASIC TO KIND OF BETTER MATCH THE HOME ELEVATION THAT'S THERE. OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF ALL WE REALLY NEED ON THAT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THIS PETITION? YES SIR, YOU CAN COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> >> TWO? >> YEAH. >> YEAH, I'M TOM CHANDLER. I'M DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AT 3848 WEST 141ST AND I'M JUST CURIOUS. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN LAST MONTH. I GUESS IT GOT RESCHEDULED FOR THIS MONTH AND I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THE DIAGRAMS OF WHERE THIS MIGHT BE LOCATED ON THIS SITE, WHAT THE BUILDING MIGHT LOOK LIKE, AND I JUST WONDER IF WE COULD SHARE THAT WITH THEM. >> OKAY. YEAH, HAPPY TO SHARE THE INFORMATION. THERE'S A -- IF YOU JUST PUT THE INFORMATION ON THE DESK, THERE'S A CAMERA RIGHT ABOVE IT. THAT WAY WE'D ALL BE ABLE TO VIEW THAT. >> IF YOU COULD COME OVER AND SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? >> I BELIEVE THE SUBDIVISION IS OVER HERE, SO THIS POND HAS QUITE A BIT OF VEGETATION AROUND IT. IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE HARD TO BE SEEN FROM THAT AREA. YOU MIGHT SEE A LITTLE BIT OF IT HERE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BLOCK THE SUN FROM, YOU KNOW -- >> COULD YOU IDENTIFY THE BUILDING LOCATION, HOW FAR YOU ARE AWAY FROM IT? >> PROPERTY LINE FROM WHERE THE SUBDIVISION MEETS RIGHT THERE. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY -- THERE'S COMMON GROUNDS HERE, SO HERE'S THE BUILDING. COMMON GROUNDS HERE, SUBDIVISION, AND THEN [00:05:02] THERE'S SOME OVER HERE AS WELL SO WE ARE STILL 322 FEET FROM THEIR. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU -- >> EXCUSE ME. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE CHAIR, PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS. >> OKAY, SO I CAN OBVIOUSLY SEE WHERE IT'S GOING TO LIE ON THE PROPERTY, AND AGAIN, I'M TO THE NORTH, SO I WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO SEE THIS. I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION WOULD CAN WE AT LEAST SEE AN ELEVATION OR SOMETHING? >> IT REALLY CAN'T BE A BACK-AND-FORTH SO DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO ASK THE PETITIONER? BEFORE THEN, JUST NOT -- >> I ASKED THOSE TWO QUESTIONS UP FRONT. >> >> I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE THEM WITH ME. >> YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SENT TO WITH THE PACKET? WAIT, THEY WERE IN THAT PACKET. >> I HAVE EVERYTHING BUT THE >> I DON'T HAVE THEM WITH ME. SO THAT WOULD BE WESTSIDE, YOU WOULD SEE -- >> THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER >> THERE YOU GO. JUST KIND OF SOUTH AND NORTH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONCERNS FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT? OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? >> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING. THE SUBJECT SITE IS 27 ACRES IN SIZE, SO IT'S PRETTY BIG, AND AS THE PETITIONER SHOWED ON THEIR SITE PLAN, ONE OF THE MINIMUM SETBACKS IS 300 FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE, AND THE OTHERS ARE CLOSER TO 500 AND 600 FEET. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR 5 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH IS A 28% INCREASE. PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS WELL AS ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. BASED ON THAT DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, IT'S PRETTY WELL CENTERED IN THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S A GOOD DISTANCE AWAY. AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE ELEVATIONS ARE VERY ATTRACTIVE, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GRANT THE PETITION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [C. (V) Bedford Falls Front Porch Variance. ] >>. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON THE DOCKET, BEDFORD FALLS FRONT PORCH VARIANCE. DOCKET NUMBER PC 2025 0-21B. FIVE REQUESTED LOTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN BEDFORD FALLS AND CARMEL SUBDIVISION. LOTS ONE, FOUR, SEVEN, 10, 18, LOTS ARE ZONED BEDFORD FALLS PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE'S E- 667-2021 FILED BY STEVE SHIELDS BUILDER INC ON BEHALF OF BEDFORD FALLS OF CARMEL LLC, OWNER, AND YOU HAVE THE MICROPHONE. GO AHEAD AND TURN IT ON, PLEASE. [00:10:03] >> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? >> YES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. I'M EATING HERE ON BEHALF OF LEGACY BUILDERS LLC AND WE ARE REQUESTING A SLIGHT VARIANCE OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. WE GOT A SHORT SUMMARY, IF I MAY APPROACH. >> CERTAINLY. >> THANK YOU. I'M ALSO HAPPY TO SHARE ON THE SCREEN IF YOU'D LIKE, FOR EVERYONE. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND, YES. >> OKAY. SO THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS A SECTION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT THAT REQUIRES THAT ALL DWELLINGS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE A FRONT PORCH AND AS A RESULT, MY CLIENT IS ASKING FOR A SLIGHT VARIANCE ON THAT REQUEST, AND IT'S NOT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE LOTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S WITH RESPECT TO FIVE OF THE 34 LOTS AND THE SLIGHT VARIANCE WITH THE CHANGE THAT SAYS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FRONT PORCH REQUIREMENT, LOTS ONE, FOUR, SEVEN, 10 AND 18 MAY INCLUDE A SIDE ORIENTED PORCH IN LIEU OF A FRONT PORCH, SO THERE WOULD STILL BE A PORCH. THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES TO THE SETBACKS OR OVERALL DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPERTIES. IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT MEANS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, SO THE FIVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED FOR THIS VARIANCE, THE FIVE OF THE 34 ARE NOT LOCATED NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER. THEY'RE AT DIFFERENT POINTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, AS SHOWN ON THE SECOND PAGE. AND THEN AN ELEVATION SHOWING REQUEST SHOW THAT THE TOP IS THE PLANNED RESIDENCES WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY THAT SHOW THE FRONT FACING PORCH, WHICH IS CURRENTLY APPROVED, AND THEN THE REQUEST IS THAT FOR THESE FIVE LOTS THERE BE THE OPTION OF HAVING THE OPTION, BUT NOT A REQUIREMENT, OF HAVING SIDE FACING PORCH INSTEAD. AND SO IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE , THE SIDE PORCHES ARE GOING TO BE VISIBLE, COVERED AND ARCHITECTURALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE COMMUNITY. IT ONLY AFFECTS FIVE OF THESE FIRST INTERIOR LOTS. THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 15% OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT. THERE WILL BE NO SIDELINE SETBACK COMPATIBILITY ISSUES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS REQUEST IS TO SUPPORT DESIGN FLEXIBILITY, SUPPORT PROPERTY VALUE AND MARKET APPEAL. THE STRICT FRONT PORCH REQUIREMENT LIMITS THE DESIGN OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY, SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND THE TWO LOTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED AS -- BY POTENTIAL PURCHASERS AS DESIRING A SIDE PORCH. AND THE OTHER THREE ARE BEING REQUESTED AS A MEANS OF FLEXIBILITY, BUT NOT AS A REQUIREMENT. THIS VARIANCE ALLOWS REASONABLE USE WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE OVERALL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO IS WISHING TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THE PROJECT? OKAY. SEE NONE , MAY I HAVE THE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? >> THANK YOU. AT THE PETITIONER STATED, THERE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 5 OF THE 34 APPROVED LOTS. THAT IS ABOUT 15%, 15 PERCENT AND THEY'RE ALL INTERSPERSED THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THEY'RE NOT ALL IN ONE AREA OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PLANNING STAFF IS REPORTED ABOVE THE VARIANCE. WE THINK IT WILL ADD TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU. >> THANKS. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION PER GO YOU MENTIONED TWO OF THE PURCHASERS ALL ARE ALREADY OPTING TO HAVE ONE SIDE YARD, SIDE ENTRANCE, IS THAT AN OPTION? A PURCHASER COULD STILL WANT A FRONT PORCH IF THEY WANTED, OR IS THERE -- >> THE REQUEST THAT'S BEING MADE IS THAT FOR THOSE FIVE LOTS, THE SIDE PORCH THE AN OPTION, NOT A REQUIREMENT. SO IT WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR FRONT PORCHES ON ALL FIVE OF THOSE LOTS, THE REQUEST IS THAT FOR THOSE FIVE LOTS IT WOULD BE THE OPTION OF A SIDE FACING PORCH. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HAVING UNDERSTOOD THAT, I'M GOING TO APPROVE THE PETITION AS YOU STATED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT. >> ALSO I GUESS I SHOULD ADD [00:15:10] WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AS WELL. YOU'RE WELCOME. >> NEXT UP IS THE SP VARIANCES. [C. (V) Espe Patio Variances. ] DOCKET NUMBER IS PC-202 5-1 02 4V AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ ZERO 8-3 02 5-1 0406V. FIRST ONE IS A MAXIMUM 45% LOT COVER ALLOWED PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 49% FROM DOCKET NUMBER P'S E- 2020 3-0 002 V. 58% IS REQUESTED AND THE SECOND DOCKET, MAXIMUM SIX FOOT FENCE ALLOWED IN A SIDE YARD 8 TO 10 FEET IS REQUESTED. PLEASE COME UP AND PRESENT YOUR PROJECT PLEASE. >> THANK YOU. RYAN KALIL WITHOUT ARTISAN OUTDOOR CRAFTSMAN AND FIVE EXTERIOR DESIGN. AS MENTIONED, WE ARE REQUESTING TO INCREASE THE LOT COVERAGE TO 58%. CURRENTLY THE RESIDENCE DOES NOT HAVE A PATIO SPACE. THEY DO HAVE A COVERED PORCH NO EXTERIOR PATIO SO WITHIN THE PLANS WE DO PLAN TO HAVE A DECK, WHICH IS PERMEABLE, BUT THEN BELOW THAT DECK, HAVE A PAVER PATIO, WHICH WILL TAKE UP SOME ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THAT BACKYARD, AND THEN SOME STONE IS THAT IS GETTING FROM THE BACKYARD TO THE FRONT YARD. NO DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THOSE OTHERS DOWNTOWN IN THE ARCHITECT DESIGN DISTRICT ON SECOND AVENUE PERCOLATOR SIMILAR PROJECT T SEVERAL WITHIN FIVE TO SIX HOUSES AROUND THERE, AS WELL. SO THAT WILL BE THE FIRST AS FAR AS THE LOT COVERAGE THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. AND AGAIN, ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, TOO, THERE'S NO SURFACE DRAINS OR SUBSURFACE DRAINS THAT WILL BE WITHIN THE PATIOS TO GO DIRECTLY IN THE SEWER, SO IT WILL BE SHEET DRAINAGE, SO THAT WAY IT CAN PERCOLATE INTO THE SOIL, TOO, BEFORE IT HITS THE DRAINS. THEN ALSO AS FAR AS JUST CLARIFICATION ON THE FENCE ITSELF, THIS FENCE IS DESIGNED TO BE SECTIONED OUT. IT'S NOT A SOLID FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND. THE REQUEST FOR THE REQUEST HEIGHT TO 10 FEET, THOSE ARE THREE DECORATIVE PANELS. IT'S NOT THE WHOLE FENCE ITSELF AND KIND OF KEEPING TRUE TO THE AREA OF THE ARTS AND DESIGN DISTRICT, OF HAVING SOME ARTWORK WITHIN, THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PANELS ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE THAT HAS VIEWS OUT OF THEIR HOMES. WE ARE JUST ADDING SOME DECORATIVE PANELS IN THERE. THERE ARE A COUPLE HOMES AROUND THAT SAME AREA THAT HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR, AND SIMILAR HEIGHT TO THEM. THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED WITH THE PERIMETER FENCE, AS WELL, AND IT DOES HAVE -- WE ARE SOFTENING UP EITHER SIDE OF THOSE 10 FOOT FENCE, OR 10 FOOT DECORATIVE PANELS AS WELL WITH LANDSCAPE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. >> AGAIN I'LL ASK THE AUDIENCE, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT? OKAY, SEE NONE, DEPARTMENT REPORT, PLEASE? >> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER GAVE A DETAILED OVERVIEW AND PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF BOTH VARIANCES. WE ALSO CHECKED WITH THE CARMEL ENGINEERING DEPARTMET AND THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE ADDITIONAL LOT COVERAGE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, PLANNING STAFF IS RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY DROVE BY THAT PROPERTY AND REALIZED HOW CLOSE THOSE LOTS ARE, AND QUITE FRANKLY, HOW CLOSE THAT SOUTH HOUSE IS TO THE PROPERTY LINE. HAVE YOU NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER REGARDING YOUR POSITION ON THIS? >> KNOW WE HAVE NOT. WE HAVE THE HOMEOWNER HERE AS WELL. >> NO. >> OKAY. WELL I GUESS IF THEY'RE NOT THAT CONCERNED ABOUT IT, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE TO, EITHER. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE BOTH PETITIONS. >> OKAY. >> AGAIN, ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. [C. (V) Citizens White River North Water Treatment Plant Silo Height Variance. ] [00:20:01] >> NOW LET'S SEE. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON THE DOCKET IS CITIZENS WHITE RIVER NORTH WATER TREATMENT PLANT SILO HEIGHT VARIANCE, DOCKET NUMBER PZ202 5-0 01 V. MAXIMUM 18 FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED, 73 FEET REQUESTED. PLEASE TURN ON YOUR MIKE. PRESS THE BUTTON TO TURN IT ON. >> AYE, MY NAME IS KAREN HENDRIX AND I WILL BE REPRESENTING CITIZENS FOR THIS HEARING AND ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE EXPANDING THEIR WHITE RIVER NORTH TREATMENT PLANT TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY BY ABOUT 75%, SO AS PART OF THAT, THEY'RE ADDING NEW SEDIMENTATION BASINS AND A NEW FILTER BUILDING, AND THEY'RE GOING TO INCREASE THEIR STORAGE OF POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON. SO THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FOR. THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUILD TWO LARGE BUNGALOWS ABOUT 14 FOOT DIAMETER AND 68 FOOT HEIGHT TO HOLD POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON. AND THAT IS JUST GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO HOLD THE CAPACITY THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE AT THIS HIGHER RATE OF DEMAND BUT THE AREA IS RESIDENTIAL. SO THEY HAVE AN 18 FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT LIMIT AND WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT NOT TO APPLY TO THE PLANT. >> OKAY. IS ANYONE HERE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THE PROJECT? IT'S THE CITIZENS WHITE RIVER NORTH WATER STREET PLANT SITE. OKAY. PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS. >> JENNIFER JOHNSON. >> SPEAK INTO THE MIC. >> JENNIFER JOHNSON, 6167 EAST 1/22 STREET, CARMEL, 4033. I BROUGHT UP ON THERE. I'VE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE STOPPING THAT ARE DOING THEIR MOWING CREW, START CHECKING THINGS OUT OVER ON MY PROPERTY. I'VE HAD THEM COME OVER ON MY PROPERTY. OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE. THE WILDLIFE ALREADY IS THERE. WHEN THEY START DOING THESE THINGS, THEY UPSET THE BALANCE OF NATURE. WHY DO THEY NEED THIS? I MEAN THERE'S NOT REALLY A GOOD REASON OTHER THAN MONEY. THAT'S IT. THERE'S NOTHING MORE. I OPPOSE IT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ELSE REALLY WANTS A BUNCH OF MONSTROSITIES GROWING UP HERE. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. THE REASON THAT THEY ARE EXPANDING IS JUST TO INCREASE TO WATER DEMAND. SO THAT IS SOMETHING -- THEY BUILT THIS PLANT ORIGINALLY IN THE '80S, SO THIS IS AN EXPANSION THAT THEY'RE DEFINITELY DUE FOR, TO MEET THE MORE CURRENT WATER DEMAND. BUT THEY -- I DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO AIM TO COAT THE SILOS IN A WAY THAT INTERFERES WITH THE LANDSCAPE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT IT'S NOT AS VISUALLY NOTICEABLE AND HOPE THAT THE EXISTING TREES THERE WILL CONTINUE TO HELP CREATE A BARRIER AROUND THE PLANT THAT ALLOWS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO FEEL MORE LIKE A RESIDENTIAL AREA. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. ANGIE, CAN I HAVE THE DEPARTMENT REPORTS? >> THANK YOU. AS THE PETITIONER STATED, TWO SILOS ARE PROPOSED THAT WOULD BE 68 FEET TALL. THEY WOULD BE PLACED MORE IN THE CENTER PART OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, SO SOME APPROXIMATE SETBACKS WOULD BE 650 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND 630 FEET FROM THE STREET. SO FOR REFERENCE, A FOOT FIELD IS ABOUT 360 FEET LONG, SO THE SETBACKS WOULD BE VERY VAST. PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY, THANK. JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CURIOSITY, WHAT OPTIONS ARE THERE IF YOU CAN'T STORE THIS IN SILOS? [00:25:05] >> THE TYPICAL OPTION THEY'VE TAKEN IS TO STORE IN SLURRY TANKS. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A MORE VOLUMETRIC EFFECTIVE WAY TO STORE IT DRY AND FEED IT INTO A SLURRY. THEY ESSENTIALLY WOULD NEED TO MAKE UP THAT VOLUME, ELSEWISE, AND THE PLANT IS QUITE SATURATED, BOTH ABOVE AND BELOW GRADE, AND A LOT OF THE PLANT IS ALSO IN THE FLOODWAY. SO THIS IS KIND OF AN ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT IN A VERY TIGHT EXISTING CONDITION. >> OKAY. I KNOW YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF WATER TOWERS ALREADY ON THE SITE. YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW TALL THOSE ARE? >> I DON'T KNOW THE HEIGHT OF THE WATER TOWERS, BUT HAVING SEEN THEM, I WOULD GUESS MAYBE 40 FEET, DEFINITELY TALLER THAN 18. >> OKAY. WE ARE GOOD. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS VARIANCE. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT. [C. (V) Chen Pool Variance. ] NEXT ON THE DOCKET IS THE GENERAL POOL VARIANCE, DOCKET NUMBER PC-2025-01134V, MINIMUM SWIMMING POOL DECKING EQUIPMENT MUST BE THREE FEET FROM EASEMENT, ZERO FEET IS REQUESTED. >> HELLO. I'M VICKY CHEN. MY HUSBAND AND I OWN THIS PROPERTY AND WE COME FROM HONG KONG. IT'S A CITY WITH LOTS OF SWIMMING AND WATERFALLS SO LAST YEAR WHEN WE FOUND THIS LOT IN OUR BEAUTIFUL COMBO, WE PROMISED OURSELVES AND ALSO OUR CHILDREN, ONCE THE HOUSE IS BUILT, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A POOL. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY, DOING MY BEST TO TRY TO KEEP THAT PROMISE. DUE TO THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF OUR LOT AND ALSO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, WE LEFT A SMALL VARIANCE. BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT, THE HOLE WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO THE HOUSE, AND IT ALSO LEFT NO REASONABLE LOCATIONS FOR THE EQUIPMENT. WE SPENT ALMOST A YEAR PLANNING THIS PROJECT CAREFULLY. WE WORKED WITH THE HOA AND THE POOL COMPANY. WE ALSO WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND THE COUNTY SURVEYOR. BASED ON THEIR FEET BACK, AND WE CHANGED OUR ORIGINAL DESIGN COME AND WE FOUND A NEW LOCATION FOR THE EQUIPMENT. SO I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT PLAN SHOULD MEET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS, AND NOW THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OUR EASEMENTS. AND WE ALSO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT OUR LABORERS AND THE COMMUNITY, SO WE'RE GOING TO DO MORE THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED TO. THE LAW ONLY REQUIRES A FENCE OR A SAFETY COVER BUT WE ARE GOING TO DO BOTH. THIS POOL MEANS A LOT TO US BECAUSE IT'S PART OF MAKING CARMEL OUR LITTLE HOME AND I'M SURE IT WILL BRING JOY AND MEMORIES, AND ALSO A VERY NICE TOUCH TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE HOA SUPPORTS OUR PROJECT AND I HOPE THE CITY WILL SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AS WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FAVORABLY FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT? SEEING NONE, ANGIE, CAN I HAVE THE DEPARTMENT REPORT? >> THANK YOU. SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES A POOL OR ITS DECKING OR EQUIPMENT TO BE SET BACK AT LEAST THREE FEET FROM ANY EASEMENT, AND THE PETITIONER ESQUE REQUESTING OF A ZERO FOOT SET BACK SO JUST HAVE THE IMPROVEMENTS GO RIGHT UP TO THE EASEMENT BUT NOT IN THE EASEMENT . SO WE DID CONSULT WITH THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE AND THEY HAVE NO CONCERNS WITH THIS, SO WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK THE FACT THAT KEPT THE PROJECT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE SETBACKS AND YOU'RE NOT ENCROACHING ON THAT MEANS A LOT. I THINK I READ SOMEWHERE ALSO THAT TRYING TO MOVE THE SWIMMING POOL CLOSER WOULD CREATE SOME PROBLEMS WITH MAYBE SOME UNDERMINING OF THE EXISTING [00:30:02] HOUSE FOOTINGS, POSSIBLY, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE PETITION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE ARE ALL VERY EXCITED FOR THAT AND MY SPECIAL THANK YOU GOES TO ANGIE BROWN AND THE DEPARTMENT. WITHOUT YOUR HELP I DON'T KNOW, AND WE ARE SO THANKFUL TO YOU, HAVING YOU ON THIS JOURNEY WITH US. YOU ARE SIMPLY THE BEST. THANK YOU SO MUCH, ANGIE, AND THINK YOU DENNIS, THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. WE HOPE YOU HAVE MANY YEARS OF PLEASURE WITH IT. >> LET'S SEE ALL RIGHT. THE [C. (V) Barlow Pool Variances. ] NEXT PROJECT PETITION IS THE MARLOW POOL VARIANCES PES E- 2020 5-0 0142B, MINIMUM SWIMMING POOL DECKING OR EQUIPMENT SETBACK MUST BE THREE FEET FROM EASEMENT, FOUR FEET ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED AND DOCKET NUMBER PC 202 5-0 0143B, MAXIMUM 35% LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED, 42% REQUESTED. >> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. >> JIM BARLOW, HOMEOWNER. AFTER MANY YEARS OF GETTING WORKED HARD I FINALLY GAVE INTO MY WIFE TO GET A POOL, OUR POOL PROJECT, IF SHE'S WATCHING, FOR HER PERSISTENCE. ACTUALLY TWO VARIANCES. ONE IS THE SETBACK DUE TO EXISTING SCREEN IN PORCH WHERE YOU HAVE TO MOVE INTO THE BURIED POWER LINES, WHERE YOU HAVE TO MOVE THE POOL OVER, THE ACTUAL POOL WOULD NOT GO IN THE EASEMENT BUT THE DECKING WOULD GO INTO THE EASEMENT. AND THEN THE OTHER IS PUT ENOUGH DECKING TO SAFELY MOVE AROUND THE POOL AND TO DIRECTLY USE IT, WE WERE ASKED FOR A MOVE TO 42% FROM A 35% COVERAGE. BOTH NEIGHBORS, I THINK IN YOUR PACKET, BOTH NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE OF MY HOME SUPPORT THIS. THEY SENT EMAILS OF SUPPORT. BOTH OUT OF THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW BUT THEY LOOK FORWARD TO THE PROJECT AND HAVING A POOL , TOO. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. AGAIN I'M OPENING THIS TO THE AUDIENCE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT? OKAY, SEE NONE, I'LL ASK FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR. >> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER REQUESTS TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT ENCROACHMENT TO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS WELL AS INCREASED LOT COVERAGE UP TO 42%. THE INFO PACKET DOES CONTAIN A SUPPORT EMAIL FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND ALSO THE CONSENT TO ENCROACH WAS APPROVED AT THE JULY 16TH BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MEETING. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, CLINIC STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THEM, AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WELL CONSIDERING YOU'VE GOTTEN APPROVALS FROM THIS DEPARTMENT AND YOU'VE GOT NEIGHBORS WHO ARE SUPPORTING YOU, I WILL GO AHEAD AND ALSO APPROVE THE PETITION ALONG WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE IT. [C. (V) Hood Fence Height Variance. ] >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS THE HOOD FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE, DOCKET NUMBER PC 2020 5-0 0144B. MAXIMUM 42 INCH FENCE ALLOWED IN FRONT YARD WITH AT LEAST 25% DISABILITY, 48 INCH METAL FENCE REQUESTED. GO AHEAD, SIR. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS DAVID HOOD, THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE ARE LOOKING TO, AS YOU SAID, INSTALL A 48 INCH FENCE, PREDOMIANTLY ON THE SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY THAT RUNS ALONG SMALLS STREET. THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE IS TO KEEP GRANDKIDS IN, TO KEEP PETS IN THE YARD. ARCHITECTURALLY WE THINK IT WOULD FIT BETTER WITH THE STYLE AND THE HEIGHT OF OUR HOME. IT'S A FAIRLY TALL TWO-STORY HOME ON A SMALL LOT THERE IN THE ARTS DISTRICT. SO I THINK IT WOULD FIT BETTER WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE HOUSE. AND ALSO PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH, WITHIN A BLOCK THERE'S PROBABLY TWO OTHER FOUR FOOT FENCES, METAL, WROUGHT IRON TYPE. THEY'RE ALREADY INSTALLED. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> AND I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO [00:35:02] ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST. SEE NONE, ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD, ANGIE, WITH THE DEPARTMENT REPORT POINT >> THANK YOU. THE SUBJECT SITE IS ON A CORNER LOT, SO IT MEANS IT HAS TWO STREET FRONTAGES AND THAT MEANS IT HAS TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS. SO THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING THE HEIGHT ALLOWED TO INCREASE BY SIX INCHES FOR A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. THE FENCE WILL STILL BE SET BACK FROM THE SIDEWALK AND IT WILL ALSO BE PLACED IN A WAY TO PRESERVE THE VISION CLEARANCE AT THE ALLEY, AT THE BACKSIDE OF THE LOT, WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH THE STREET . SO PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU. >> I DID DRIVE BY YOUR PROPERTY AND I DID NOTICE THE YARD DOES DROP DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK, AND I THINK WITH THE TALLER FENCE AND THAT SITUATION WILL LEND ITSELF TO IT TYING MORE APPROPRIATELY TO YOUR HOME, SO I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU. >> APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. WELL IT LOOKS LIKE LAST [C. (V) Proscenium Directional Sign Variance. ] UP ON THE DOCKET IS PRESIDIUM DIRECTIONAL SIGN VARIANCE, DOCKET NUMBER PC 2020 5-0 0147B, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS NOT EXCEEDING THREE SQUARE FEET IN SIGN AREA AND NOT HIGHER THAN THREE FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, 12 SQUARE FEET AND 6 1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT ARE REQUESTED. GO AHEAD, SIR. >> ERIC MILLER, I'M WITH THE STERLING GROUP, THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. WE HAD ACQUIRED THAT SITE. THERE WAS ALREADY CURRENT DIRECTIONAL'S THAT ARE IN PLACE SO THE ONES THAT WERE PRESENTED WERE INSTALLED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. NOW THAT WE HAVE HAD VENDORS MOVE OUT OF THOSE, SOME OF THOSE SPACES LIKE WALBERG OR, WE NEED TO UPDATE SIGNAGE FOR OUR TENANTS AND IN DISCOVERING THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE THAT, IT WAS PRESENTED TO US AS WELL THAT THOSE SIGNS THAT WERE ALREADY INSTALLED WEREN'T APPROVED FOR THOSE SO WE ESSENTIALLY ARE ASKING FOR THOSE TO BE APPROVED. THE PLAZA LEVEL DIRECTION, THE DIRECTIONS ARE FAIRLY HARD TO SEE. I THINK IF THEY WERE SMALLER THAN ONLY THREE FOOT, THAT TOP PLAZA LEVEL HAS A LOT GOING ON AS IT RELATES TO THE RETAIL OFFICES AND THAT ALSO THE APARTMENTS AND CONDOS THAT ARE ALSO THERE. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THE PETITION? OKAY, CNN, MAY I HAVE THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, PLEASE? >> THANK YOU. THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL SIGNS DO NOT EXCEED THREE SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND THREE FEET IN HEIGHT, AND THESE SIGNS WILL BE 12 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND 6 1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT. AS THE PETITIONER STATED, THEY WERE ERECT BY A PRIOR OWNER BUT THE SIGNS ARE -- THE DESIGN OF THEM ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT, SO PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE FOR THE PETITIONER TO SEEK SIGN PERMITS. THEN THEY CAN WORK WITH OUR SIGN PERMITS OFFICER ON THAT AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS LIKE THE PREVIOUS OWNERS LEFT YOU A REAL PICKLE THERE. >> THEY DID, A LITTLE BIT. >> WELL CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE'S A POSITIVE SUPPORT FOR IT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE PETITION AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> AND ALONG WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE -- LET'S SEE, APPLYING FOR THE SAME PERMIT. >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION. IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS OR NEW BUSINESS? >>NO. >> OKAY, IF THAT'S THE CASE, I * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.