[A. Call Meeting to Order]
[00:00:10]
>>> WELCOME TO THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MEETING ON
[1. Docket No. PZ-2025-00184 PUD: Illinois Street Townhomes PUD Rezone ]
TUESDAY, JANUARY 6TH. THE FIRST ITEM THIS EVENING IS DOCK ET NUMBER PZ-2025- 00184 PUD ILLINOIS STREET TOWNHOMES PUD REZONE.THE APPLICANT SEEKS PUD REZONE APPROVAL TO ALLOW A NEWTOWN HOME NEIGHBORHOOD WITH 27 TOWNHOMES. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 220 WEST 106TH STREET AND IS ZONED MC/MERIDIAN CORRIDOR.
FILED BY JIM SHINAVER AND JON DOBOSIEWICZ OF NELSON AND FRANKENBERGER ON BEHALF OF PULTE HOMES.
FOR THE RECORD PULTE HOMES ON NORTH MERIDIAN STREET.
MR. DOBOSIEWICZ DID AN EXCELLENT JOB UPDATING THE CHANGES MADE IN THE PACKET, PARTICULARLY TAB ONE HAS THE BLUE TEXT ON IT.
WE'LL WALK THROUGH THAT. SOME UPDATES FROM THE LAST COUPLE MEETINGS. THIS IS OUR THIRD COMMITTEE MEETING HERE. SO FOLLOWING THE LAST MEETING WE IMMEDIATELY REACHED OUT TO STAFF TO SET UP A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN DOCS ENGINEERING THAT INCLUDING URBAN -- THERE WEREENING NEARING AND LANDSCAPING AND WANTED TO GET ALL THE FOLKS IN THE ROOM TO TALK ABOUT IT. I'M GOING TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THE SITE NORTH TO SOUTH. I THINK THAT'S JUST AN EASY WAY TO LOOK AT IT. SO I'M GOING TO START AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE THAT WE SHARE AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAD REMAINED ROM THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ABOUT THE TREES AND PARTICULARLY THE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. WE WERE ABLE TO WORK IT OUT WITH STAFF AND THEN ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH FORTE THAT WE WILL GO AHEAD AND PLANT ALL OF THOSE TREES AND SHRUBS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED, AND THAT IS TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT 38 TREES AND 86 SHRUBS ALONG THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. AND THOSE ARE GOING TO FALL WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WHETHER IT BE NORTH OR SOUTH.
THERE IS SOME LANDSCAPING THAT EXISTS ALONG THE NORTH LINE TODAY ON THE FORTE SIDE OF THINGS SO WHERE IT MIGHT EXIST ON THE NORTH WE'LL SHIFT IT ON OUR PROPERTY AND VICE VERSA. IT WILL BE ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE BE IT ON OUR PROPERTY OR FORTE.
WE HAVE THOSE MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO INCORPORATE THAT BUFFER. THE NEXT MAJOR THING IS, OF COURSE, THE CROSS SECTION OF THE STREET AND THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE ABOUT WHETHER THAT STREET WAS GOING TO BE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. THE DESIGN OF THE STREET WHETHER IT WAS GOING TO BE TYPICAL CROWN ROAD WITH CURB AND GUTTER ON THE SIDE, AN INVERTED CROWN FUNNELING TO THE CENTER OF THE STREET.
AFTER OUR CONVERSATION, THE JOINT MEETING WITH DOCS AND ENGINEERING WE HAVE COME UP WITH A CROSS SECTION THAT DOES PROVIDE SUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY SO IT IS, ONE, A PUBLIC STREET, TWO, IT PROVIDES THE NECESSARY SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, HREE, THE APPROPRIATE WIDTH OF THE TREE LAWNS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, AND FOUR, IS A TYPICAL CROWN ROAD WITH THE GUTTER ON THE SIDE. MR. HILL IS NOT HERE TONIGHT BUT HE WAS THE ONE THAT HAD THE STRONGEST OPINION ABOUT NOT HAVING AN INVERTED CROWN ROAD, SO WE WERE ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT WITH STAFF AND ARE VERY HAPPY TO REPORT WE'VE FIGURED OUT A WAY TO DO IT.
I THINK THE NEXT MAJOR THING THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUT PARKING. JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THE SITE, WE DO HAVE IN TOTAL 118 PARKING SPACES FOR 27 TOWNHOMES, TWO IN THE GARAGE, TWO IN THE DRIVEWAY. SO FOUR OFFSTREET SPACES PER UNIT AND A DESIGNATED TEN SPACE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET THERE AND THAT WILL BE SPECIFICALLY FOR GUESTS NOT FOR OVERFLOW. IF I OWN A UNIT, I CAN'T GO PARK MY CAR THERE. IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR GUEST PARKING. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I THINK SHOWS UP WELL ON THIS PAGE IS NEXT THE TREE PRESERVATION.
CONVERSATION. >> WE HAVE UPDATED THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE TO REFLECT THE TEN TREES PER ACRE.
I THINK THAT WAS A TYPO COMING OUT OF THE LAST MEETING. WE HAVE ADDRESSED THAT, SO ALL THE TEXT AND ORDINANCE SHOULD REFLECT EVERYTHING WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT PREVIOUSLY AND COMMITTED TO.
>> AND THEN THE TREE PRESERVATION, WHEN WE MET WITH THE JOINT STAFF MEETING, I'LL CALL IT, WE ACTUALLY HAD REMOVED THE SIDEWALK THAT GOES AROUND THE CUL-DE- SAC BULB SO THERE WAS ADDITIONAL SPACE THAT WE COULD SAVE MORE TREES OR PRESERVE MORE TREES ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT WAS A REQUEST AND SUPPORTED BY ALEXA AND THOSE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED AS WELL WITH PRESERVING AS MANY TREES ON THE SITE AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK THE NEXT ITEM IS GOING TO JUST BE THE
[00:05:07]
ARCHITECTURE, MAINLY THE PUD ORDINANCE. JUST TO RECAP, IT NOW REFLECTS ALL OF THE MASONRY STANDARDS ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE UNIT.IT REFLECTS ALL OF THE WINDOW TRIM AND ALL THE WINDOWS AND THE SPECIFICS. THERE ARE SPECIFIC SIDE ELEVATION TREATMENTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT BUT THEN SPECIFICALLY TREATMENTS THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM ILLINOIS STREET. WE DID HAVE A NEIGHBOR MEETING AND DID RECEIVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM RON HOUCK WHO IS ON SPRINGMILL PLACE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ILLINOIS STREET AND BACKS UP TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
HE IS HAPPY WITH WHERE WE LANDED WITH BOTH THE ARCHITECTURE AND THE STYLE OF THE UNITS.
>> AND THEN THE BIGGEST THING, I THINK, THAT CAME OUT OF THE LAST MEETING WAS ON THE DORMERS. SO WE EXPLORED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS RELATED TO COULD WE TINT THEM, JUST NOT USING THE BLACK BACKING, COULD WE USE SOME OTHER TYPE OF GLASS, AND THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS THROWN OUT. WE DID TAKE A LOOK AND ANALYZED A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS. THE BEST OPTIONS WE CAME UP WITH WERE THE ONES ON THE TABLE AT THE LAST MEETING. IT COULD EITHER BE A CLEAR GLASS WINDOW, YOU COULD SEE THROUGH IT AT THE RIGHT TIME OF THE DAY, OR IT COULD BE A CLEAR GLASS WINDOW WITH A BLACK BACKING BEHIND IT.
CLEAR WINDOW BUT DID HAVE THE BLACK BACKING.
>> I THINK AFTER SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF AND THEN AFTER A CONVERSATION WITH A COUNCILMEMBER WHO HAS LIVED IN A TOWNHOME WITH THE SAME EXACT SCENARIO, THE DIRECTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IS A CLEAR WINDOW WITH THE BLACK BACKING AND THAT IS TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T SEE ANY UNFINISHED SPACE, ANY TYPE OF CROSS BRACING FROM THE TRUSSES ON THE INSIDE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. WE WILL HAVE A VERY CLEAN LOOK AS IT RELATES TO THE ARCHITECTURE AND THEN THE VERY LAST THING BEFORE I STOP TALKING IS THERE WAS A COMMENT AT THE END OF THE LAST MEETING ABOUT RENTAL RESTRICTIONS. WE HAVE INCORPORATED THE SAME RENTAL RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU ALL CREATED FOR THE TOWNHOME PROJECT SO THOSE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE AS WELL. SO I BELIEVE THAT CAPTURES JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
I DO WANT TO NOTE, AND I'M SURE ALEXA WILL DO THIS AS WELL, WE HAVE A FAVORABLE STAFF REPORT AND WOULD REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION LATER THIS MONTH. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DEPARTMENT?
AS THE PETITIONER STATED, THEY HAVE MADE SEVERAL CHANGES TO THE PUD SINCE THAT LAST MEETING INCLUDING UPDATING THE STREET SO IT WILL BE PUBLIC NOW AND IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE NORMAL STREET CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, CITY STANDARDS. THEY DID UPDATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER OUR DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING, THE UPDATES AND THE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE SURE WE GET A HIGHER LEVEL WITH MORE MASONRY AND WINDOWS ON THE FACADE ZONE WILL BE FACING THE STREET AND THEY ADDED THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, SO THEY DID WRITE IT INTO THE PUD SO IDEALLY WILL BE ON THEIR PROPERTY AND WE TALKED WITH ENGINEERING ABOUT ALLOWING IT WITHIN THE DRAIN EASEMENT.
IF THAT CAN'T HAPPEN IT COULD BE ON FORTE'S PROPERTY INSTEAD. AND THEY DID ADD THAT THE AC UNITS WILL BE ON THE SIDE OR REAR OF THE HOME SO WE HAD THAT IN THERE. THEY WON'T BE IN THE FRONT. ONE OTHER THING REGARDING THE SIDEWALK AROUND THE CUL-DE- SAC, I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THAT BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE CHANGE IN THE PUD.
IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS STILL ON THE CONCEPT PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CHANGED THE WORDING TO ALLOW IT, BUT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO TAKE A LOOK AT. WE WERE FINE WITH THAT, URBAN FORESTER BROUGHT THAT UP TO SAVE MORE TREES AND THE COORDINATOR WAS THERE AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY LEAD TO SOMEWHERE ELSE AT THE END OF THAT CUL-DE-SAC. SO EVERYBODY WAS IN SUPPORT OF THAT. BUT WE'LL STILL HAVE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET ALONG THE UNITS.
>> IT'S 8. 3 A. IT SHALL END PRIOR TO THE CUL-DE-SAC BULB.
THANK YOU. MAYBE WE COULD UPDATE THE CONCEPT PLAN, TOO, JUST SO IT'S CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY.
>> SO WITH THAT THEY DID ADDRESS ALL OUR OUTSTANDING COMMENTS. THERE WAS ONE I LISTED IN THE REPORT FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
[00:10:02]
I THINK THEY HAD ASKED INITIAL LY FOR A WATER RESOURCE STUDY, WHICH THEY DID SUBMIT, BUT IT WAS MAYBE NOT THE FULL STUDY. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS MAYBE A LONGER DOCUMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT JUST WANTED TO VIEW ALL THE DATA POINTS AND THINGS FROM THAT, SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE COULD STILL GET A COPY OF THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT A WETLAND OR SOME OTHER WATER RESOURCE THAT COULD AFFECT THE LAYOUT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.>> YES. SO WHAT WE DID, IT'S PROBABLY A 30- PAGE DOCUMENTS, AND WE PROVIDED THE CONCLUSIONS AND THEN THE VISUAL EXHIBITS IN THOSE CONCLUSIONS. IF THERE'S SOMETHING THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS, WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE WHATEVER IT IS.
IF YOU JUST UPLOAD THE FULL DOCUMENT TO ENGINEERING THAT WOULD
HELP. >> WE CAN SUBMIT THAT PRIOR TO THE PLAN COMMISSION.
>> YES. SO, WITH THAT, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU DISCUSS IT THIS EVENING AND THEN MAKE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION FOR A VOTE AND THEN AT THAT MEETING THEY WOULD VOTE TO SEND IT TO COUNCIL.
COMMITTEE, LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION HERE.
>> I'M DELIGHTED ABOUT THE TREE LINE BETWEEN FORTE AND THE DEVELOPMENT. I÷÷ JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE OUTCOME OF THAT AND OF THE EXISTING TREES.
I THINK I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE HAVING WALKED THROUGH THAT AREA, THEY'RE MOSTLY SCRUB TREES AND GRUBBY TREES THAT AREN'T WORTH SAVING FOR ANYBODY WATCHING AND VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TREES THAT ARE GOING TO COME DOWN. THEY NEED TO COME DOWN.
THEY'RE JUST JUNK TREES THAT ARE IN THERE.
ARE THERE ANY OF THE EXISTING TREES THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE SAVED? CAN YOU JUST, LIKE, POINT TO WHERE SOME OF THE EXISTING TREES WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE SAVED?
]. >> I WILL TOGGLE BETWEEN TWO.
THIS EXHIBIT IS A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE WITH COLOR AND THEN THE NEXT PAGE IS IT ON TOP OF AN AERIAL. SO I'LL GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW HERE. EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN KIND OF THE CLOUDED, DARKEST SHADE OF GREEN, THAT'S GOING TO BE WHAT IS BEING PRESERVED THE SAME COLOR AS HERE. SO SEEING THAT ON TOP OF AN AERIAL, THAT'S WHAT'S EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE MANICURED, I WOULD SAY, OR MAINTAINED.
>> WELL, AGAIN, FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THAT, THAT REALLY IS A GOOD THING, BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT'S COMING OUT NEEDS TO COME OUT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND THANK YOU FOR THE REDESIGN. I'M PLEASED WITH HOW THIS IS AMENDED AND TURNED OUT. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS. CAN YOU TELL ME IN THE PUD, BECAUSE I READ THE PUD AND I DON'T SEE WHERE THE RENTAL RESTRICTIONS ARE.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT SECTION THAT'S IN?
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO BE A SEPARATE COMMITMENT.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I THINK I SAID IN THE PUD.
I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN. IT'S GOING TO BE A SEPARATE COMMITMENT.
>> I'M REALLY, REALLY DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT.
MY CONCERN, I THINK SOME OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WERE CONCERNED, GIVEN ITS LOCATION IT MIGHT TURN INTO NOTHING BUT RENTALS, AND KNOWING THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THERE SATISFIES MY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. I'LL LET MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE THE REVISIONS YOU HAVE MADE TO THE APPLICATION. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE SAID PREVIOUSLY.
I STILL DON'T, PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY, DON'T FEEL THIS IS THE RIGHT FIT FOR THIS PROPERTY OR THIS AREA OF THE CORRIDOR. THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE 31 CORRIDOR WHERE IT'S WEDGED BETWEEN TWO HEAVIER COMMERCIAL USES. THE PUD ATTEMPTS TO OR IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF ADDRESSING SOME OF THE THE THAT THE SITE PRESENTS BASED ON THE DESIGN THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. IN GENERAL IF THIS WAS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT WAS COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES WERE INTEGRATED WITH ONE ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE A BETTER DESIGN. I UNDERSTAND NEEDING TO REDUCE
[00:15:04]
SETBACKS, REDUCE SIDE YARDS AND BUFFERS, BUT WHEN WE'RE DOING THAT, IN MY OPINION -- I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THE WHOLE COMMISSION -- WHEN WE'RE DOING THAT IN AN ATTEMPT TOTO A PROJECT ON A SITE, I THINK THAT'S THE WRONG INTENT.I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A PUD.
>> I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GONE BACK THROUGH AND ADDRESSED THE INVERTED CROWN, ADDRESSED THE CONSERVATION AREAS, TREE PRESERVATION, BUT I STILL DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR USE ALONG THIS CORRIDOR AND SO I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THAT.
>> YEAH, I WILL ECHO THOSE COMMENTS.
I THINK I'VE MENTIONED I WAS LUKEWARM ON THIS IDEA FROM THE GET-GO. IF YOU LOOK UP AND DOWN 31 AND KIND OF ENVISION THE FUTURE AND THE GROWTH FOR THAT AREA, THE WORD THAT STUCK OUT TO ME -- I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT, JONATHAN -- THIS SEEMS VERY FORCED. I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO FILL A NEED TO HAVE MORE HOUSING OPTIONS IN CARMEL. I RESPECT THE FACT YOU GOT APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORS, LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE NEIGHBORS, BUT I JUST GO BACK TO SEEING -- TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS CORRIDOR LOOKS LIKE TEN YEARS FROM NOWNOW AND THE THERE IS NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL FOR SALE UNITS ALONG 31 CORRIDOR IN CARMEL. KIND OF BRINGS ME BACK TO THIS TERM OF FORCED. THIS DEVELOPMENT SEEMS IT'S BEING PUSHED INTO SOMETHING NOT SUITED FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. SO I'M GOING TO STAND FIRM ON NOT RECOMMENDING THIS DEVELOPMENT GOING FORWARD AND ACTUALLY I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE SEND IT BACK TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION WITH AN UNRECOMMENDATION.
IT DOES NOT SEEM A GOOD FIT IN MY OPINION.
I'M OPEN TO HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION WAS ON THE DORMERS IN TERMS OF FROM GROUND LEVEL WHAT IS VISIBLE WITHOUT THE BLACK BACKING BEHIND IT? IS IT ODD DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS IF IT'S ALL BLACKED OUT OR NOT.
>> IT DOESN'T BECAUSE THE GLASS IS CLEAR.
IT'S ALMOST AS IF LOOKING INTO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE -- AND TINTED. WE DID LOOK AT TRYINGTRYING TO IT INSTEAD OF MAKING IT LOOK LIKE WHAT MOST WOULD THINKTHINK BE MORE NATURAL AND THAT VOIDS THE WARRANTY ON THE WINDOW AND NOR IS IT PROBABLY THE RIGHT DECISION FOR CARMEL TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEONE MOVE INTO A UNIT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A WARRANTY ON THEIR STUFF THAT'S BRAND-NEW. WE LEARNED THAT AND SCRAPPED THAT IDEA. TO ANSWER YOUR DIRECT QUESTION OF WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE.
IT LOOKS RELATIVELY NATURAL, JUST A LITTLE DARKER.
YOU'RE LOOKING UP AT A VANTAGE POINT SO YOU'RE NOT SEEING THROUGH A UNIT F THAT MAKESMAKES SENSE. YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, THERE'S SOME VANTAGE POINT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FRONT THROUGH THE BACK AND THERE'S A LIGHT IN BETWEEN SO YOU GET THAT SENSE THAT IT'S MORE VISIBLE INTO THE STRUCTURE. THIS JUST DOESN'T APPEAR AS IF IT'S MORE VISIBLE. THE DOWN SIDE OF NOT HAVING IT, THERE ARE EXAMPLES WHERE YOU CAN SEE A 2X4 66 FROM THE WINDOW AND THAT DOES NOT PRESENT
ITSELF WELL EITHER. >> THANK YOU.
>> WELL, I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS TO MAKE. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN YOU SAY THE RENT A RENTAL -- WHAT'S WRITTEN IN FOR RENTALS, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT LENNAR HAS SO WE ALL KNOW AND ANYBODY WATCHING KNOWS WHAT WE CAN PLAN BECAUSE I KNOW OUR PRESIDENT, WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, CHRISTINE ZOCCOLA, IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT LONG- TERM RENTALS THERE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT GETS ADDRESSED.
>> SURE. SO THIS GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CITY'S RECENTLY ADOPTED CODE
[00:20:04]
RELATED TO RENTAL RESTRICTIONS. I'LL LAY THAT OUT AS A FOUNDATIONAL PIECE TO THIS. IT GENERALLY SAYS THAT WE,WE, PULTE, INCLUDING ANY OTHER BUILDER -- LET'S SAY SOMETHING HAPPENS AND WE'RE NOT THE BUILDER -- SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO SELL A ENTITY.>> THAT THE BUILDER SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO SELL A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS TO THE SAME INDIVIDUAL OR OWNERSHIP GROUP BUYING THE UNITS. THERE'S A PROHIBITION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT FOLLOWS THE CITY'S CODE -- OH, THANKS -- THAT FOLLOWS THE CITY'S CODE, SO WE CAPTURE THAT AND NOW WE'RE BUILDING ON TOP OF IT. AND THEN THERE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RENTAL RESTRICTION AND THE PERMITTING CODE THAT THE CITY ENACTED THAT A MAXIMUM OF 10% OF THE HOMES ON REAL ESTATE, SO WITH 27 UNITS, THAT'S TWO, CAPPED AT TWO, SHALL BE PERMITTED OR TO BE LEASED OR RENTED. TWO WOULD EVER BE RENTED, ACCORDING TO THIS. AND THEN THE INITIAL OWNER WHO PURCHASES THE HOME CAN'T RENT IT OUT BEYOND 12 MONTHS.
THEY HAVE TO LIVE THERE. IT HAS TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED FOR A MINIMUM OF 1 2 MONTHS BEFORE THEY CAN RENT IT OUT. ANOTHER PROHIBITION.
IF I DESIRE IT TO BE A RENTAL, I COULDN'T BUY IT TODAY AND START RENTING IT TOMORROW.
THAT'S A DISINCENTIVE FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND TO RENT IT.
>> SO THEN YOU COULD RENT IT AFTER THAT YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS? THERE'S NO CAP ON THAT?
>> AFTER THE 12 MONTH, LET'S CALL IT THE WAITING PERIOD, IT CAN BE RENTED BEYOND
>> SO 10%, A TOTAL OF TWO OF THE 27 UNITS COULD EVER BE RENTED.
>> NO MATTER HOW MANY BUILDERS ARE IN THERE?
>> CORRECT. AND THEN AS YOU CONTINUE TO GO DOWN, SECTION FOUR IS THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF ALL OF THIS. I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE IT VERY WELL BUT FOR THOSE LISTENING ONLINE AND MAY REVIEW IT LATER, IT'S ITEM 4.
SO IT TALKS ABOUT THE 10%. IT TALKS ABOUT THE WAITING PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS AND AFTER THAT A MINIMUM RENTAL PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. SO AIRBNB AND RENTALS ARE PREVENTED IN THESE COMMITMENTS.
THE FUTURE LEASE SHALL THEN PREVENT FUTURE SUBLEASING OR SUBRENTING OF THOSE UNITS. IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE HOA BOARD AND THEN --
>> IS THERE A CAP ON THOSE AT ALL, SUBLEASE? I MEAN, IS THAT CONSIDERED A RENTAL OR ANOTHER WAY OF --
>> SO IF I'M THE OWNER AND I RENT IT TO SUE, SUE CAN'T RENT IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. THE FINAL ITEM ON HERE IS IF THE OWNER RENTS IT OUT THEY HAVE TO THEN PROVIDE A COPY OF THE LEASE ALSO TO THE HOA.
THEY APPROVE IT AND THEN GET A RECORD OF THE LEASE SO THEY CAN TRACK THE
>> NOT TO BE NIT- PICKY, BUT I'M GOING TO BE.
IT LOOKS LIKE STATE LEGISLATURE PROBABLY IS GOING TO TRY PREEMPTION ON RENTAL CAPS. I'LL ASK IF YOU'LL MEMORIALIZE THAT OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S REGULATION THAT YOU WOULD MEMORIALIZE THAT AS PART OF THE ACTUAL RENTAL RESTRICTIONS.
>> THAT'S ON PULTE'S REQUEST, IT'S VOLUNTARY THAT PULTE IS MAKING THAT WOULD WITHSTAND A CHANGE BY THE LEGISLATURE WILL ONLY AFFECT THE ABILITY OF STANDARD PLACE.
PULTE IS AGREEING TO IT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> SO THAT WOULDN'T BE PUT IN THE PUD?
>> THIS WOULD BE A SEPARATE DOCUMENT, A COMMITMENT THAT WOULD BE SIGNED AND RECORDED AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE.
I KNOW THAT ANOTHER CONCERN, JUST SO I CAN ADDRESS IT BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN AND ASKED TO BRING UP FROM CHRISTINE, SHE WOULD LIKE ALL SONARY ON THE FRONT AND SIDE, THAT IT WOULD HOLD UP BETTER AND LOOK BETTER. CAN YOU COMMIT ANY MORE TO ADDITIONAL MASONARY?
>> NO. I THINK WHAT WE'VE SHOWN TONIGHT IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT FORWARD.
WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO 100% ON ALL UNITS.
[00:25:02]
>> I KNOW JEFF HAD ASKED FOR A VISUAL OF WHAT THE ENTRANCEENTRANCE WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM ILLINOIS STREET. DID I MISS
THAT? >> MY RECOLLECTION WAS JEFF WAS MORE KEYED IN ON THE CROSS SECTION OF THE ROAD.
SO WE HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHERE WE HAVE SIDEWALK, GREEN SPACE/TREE LAWN AND THE ACTUAL ROAD ITSELF.
HOW THAT WOULD BE DESIGNED. WE DON'T HAVE A CROSS SECTION THAT SHOWS THIS PLUS UNITS PLUS --
>> NO VIEW FROM THE STREET OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE? MY BIGGEST CONCERN OR ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS IS PEOPLE TURNING QUICKLY ON ILLINOIS, SOMEONE PULLING OUT OF THERE. THE DISTANCE IS MINIMAL FROM WHAT I CAN TELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS PLANNING FOR TRAFFIC OR ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO MAKE IT A SAFER ENTRANCE.
>> WITH ILLINOIS BEING A TWO-LANE DIRECTIONAL WITH NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC IN THE LOCATION WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE UP HERE, WE FEEL THERE'S SUFFICIENT DISTANCE. THAT'S A PERSONAL OPINION. IT COMPLIES AND THERE'S NO CONCERN THERE.
REGARDING WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE, THAT VANTAGE POINT WILL ALWAYS BE CHANGING.
I WOULD DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, SO TO SPEAK, TO WHAT THE SIDE ELEVATIONS WILL LOOK LIKE.
I CAN FLIP TO THEM IN A MOMENT AND IT WILL BE THOSE SIDE ELEVATIONS PLUS A TYPICAL STREET AND THEN YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE -- SAY I'M COMING NORTHBOUND.
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF TREES THAT ARE PRESERVED AND THEN WE WILL TRY TO DO SOME LANDSCAPING ALONG ILLINOIS STREET AS WE WOULD DO WITH ANY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION BEFORE YOU WOULD SEE THE BUILDINGS SO THERE WOULD BE SOME SOFTENING WITH SOME LANDSCAPING BEFORE YOU SEE TOWNHOME BUILDINGS.
>> JON ALSO JUST MENTIONED -- SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO BREAK THE MEDIAN EITHER. SO SOMEONE IN HERE COULD NOT TURN LEFT OR SOUTH TO GET DOWN TO 106TH STREET.
WHILE IT'S NOT DESIGNED AS A RIDE IN, RIDE OUT WITH THAT CONCRETE PORK CHOP TO FORCE TO YOU TURN RIGHT, YOU'RE FORCED TO TURN RIGHT AND GO NORTH BECAUSE ILLINOIS STREET IS DIVIDED.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE ROUND ABOUT AT 111.
>> AS ONE WHO DRIVES THAT REGULARLY, WHAT THAT DIAGRAM DOESN'T SHOW, THERE'S A ROUND-ABOUT BELOW IT AND THEN A ROUND-ABOUT AND PULL IT DOWN JUST AT 111TH STREET. JUST NORTH OF THAT.
>> I DIDN'T CATCH 111TH BUT HERE IS THE DIAGRAM.
>> IF YOU PULL THAT DOWN, PLEASE.
SORRY. ABOUT WHERE THE RED LINE IS WHERE÷÷ THE OTHER ROUND- ABOUT IS.
>> FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, AS YOU STATED, IT IS A RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS I AGREE WITH BOTH OF YOUR PREMISES BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE TERRAIN AND THE SLOPE I DON'T HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS THAT I MIGHT IF THAT WERE ALL ON A VERY FLAT PIECE OF LAND BECAUSE IT'S NOT.
NOW PULL IT BACK UP, PLEASE. NOW ON THAT ONE SHOW WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS GOING TO BE.
WHERE THAT -- >> THAT LITTLE DOT IS.
>> SO AS YOU'RE COMING AROUND THE CURVE, BUT YOU'RE AROUND THE CURVE BY THE TIME YOU SEE THAT, SO IT'S NOT SUCH -- IT DOESN'T CURVE SO MUCH IT'S A BLIND CURVE.
I DROVE IT THE OTHER DAY SPECIFICALLY WITH THAT IN MIND WHAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE, AND YOU'RE ALREADY FOCUSED ON PEOPLE WHO ARE STICKING THEIR CAR NOSES OUT, COMING OUT OF FORTE, AND THAT'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THAT ALL THE TIME. SO I DON'T -- I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A CONCERN THAT WOULD WARRANT NOT APPROVING THE PROJECT.
I THINK IT'S A RECONCILABLE CONCERN.
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENT, DUBBIE.
THE QUESTION FOR THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE, IS THIS THE RIGHT FIT FOR THIS LAND AND THE 31 CORRIDOR, AND BEFORE I GO TO THAT, I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. I'M ASKING MORE DIRECTS.
WHO IS THE TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC FOR THIS PRODUCT?
[00:30:05]
IS IT EMPTY NESTERS?FAMILIES? >> IT'S AT THIS POINT CLIP THE BOOK END. YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE YOUNG PROFESSIONAL WHO IS TRYING TO THAT DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAINTENANCE OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE, QUITE FRANKLY. LET'S SAY THAT DEMOGRAPHIC IS ANYWHERE FROM 27 TO 35ISH. IT'S PRETTY RARE THAT YOU HAVE FAMILIES WITHIN A TOWNHOME. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY DOES.
IT'S PRETTY RARE BASED ON THE WAY THEY LIVE.
THEN YOU'LL END UP WITH SOME SINGLES OR DIVORCEES AND THAT BAND OF PEOPLE IS GOING TO BE IN THAT 40S TO EARLY 50S. YOU'RE MISSING THE FAMILY BUYER WHO IS MID TO LATE 30S, EARLY 40S, RAISING TWO, THREE, FOUR KIDS. THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION. IS THIS THE RIGHT PROJECT TO HAVE ON 31?
>> I THINK IT'S A CHALLENGING SITE NO MATTER WHAT IS PLACED THERE ULTIMATELY. I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD TO INCORPORATE A LARGER DEVELOPMENT ON THE FULL CORNER AND SO I THINK IT'S A HIGHER DENSE USE, AND I THINK LET'S SAY IT WAS GARDEN OFFICE, I DON'T THINK THAT WILL HAVE ENOUGH DENSITY FOR THE MERIIAN CORRIDOR AND IT WILL HELP ENCOURAGE OTHER USES AND OTHER POTENTIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN THAT AREA. I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF AN ISSUE.
I HAVE CONCERN FOR THE NOISE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE THERE AND MORE THE USE -- THE U.S. 31 VERSUS THE ACTUAL USE ITSELF. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. WHAT DUBBIE IS SAYING, IF IT WAS A LARGE, FLAT, LARGE HARD- CORNER SITE, I THINK THE OPTIONS FOR FOR÷÷ COULD BE THERE ARE MUCH LARGER.
>> I HAVE ONE -- WELL, TO ADDRESS ADAM'S QUESTION FOR THE BOARD, WE, IN ASSISTING OUR CLIENT TYPICALLY DON'T RELY UPON OUR PRESENTATION FOR ANSWERING THAT FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS IT THE RIGHT USE FOR THIS PARCEL.
WE RELY ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND STAFF'S IDENTIFIED IN THEIR STAFF REPORT AND ARE ADVISING THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE AREAS WHERE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS USE IN GENERAL AND THEN THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE SITE THAT CONTRIBUTE SITE FROM THE PLAN. THAT EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO THEM WHERE IT'S REVIEWING IT AND IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. DON'T RELY ON US FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR THE SITE. RELY ON THE PLAN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE IN THE CORRIDOR FROM THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO 31 TO THE INPUT FROM YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF. WE WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THOSE ITEMS IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION OF IS IT THE APPROPRIATE USE FOR THE REAL ESTATE.
>> YEAH, I MEAN, I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES, RIGHT.
I SIT ON THE HOUSING COMMISSION. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION, AND WE DO HAVE CLEARLY A HOUSING CRISIS WE'LL NEVER BUILD OURSELVES OUT OF.
I WANT TO CAVEAT THIS WHOLE DIATRIBE WITH THAT.
THE ONE THING I WILL SAY I DO AGREE WITH JESS, AND WE ALL JUST WENT THROUGH THE MERIDIAN CORRIDOR PLAN WHICH IS NOW SITTING IN LAND USE AT THIS MOMENT, THESE PARTICULAR TOPICS.
ALL THE WAY TO NORTH, RIGHT, WE ALL LOOK BACK AND THINK, OKAY, WE TALKED ABOUT RESIDENTIAL USAGE, MULTIUSE, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
AND TO YOUR POINT, TO DETERMINE -- SAY THAT FAST TEN TIMES -- TO DETERMINE WHAT'S BEST SUITED THERE, THAT'S, TO ME, UNKNOWN.
DOES IT FULFILL SEVERAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STUDIES -- EXCUSE ME, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PERIOD? YES. IT IS A LOT OF TOWNHOUSES, THOUGH. THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD ABOUT THIS PLAN ALL TOGETHER IS THE FACT THAT THEY DID PUT IN THOSE RENTAL RESTRICTIONS WHICH, TO ME, MEANS IF IT'S OWNER OCCUPIED, THE HOA IS OWNER MAINTAINED AND LIVING
[00:35:01]
THERE, THEY HAVE A TENDENCY OF LOOKING NICER. SOME OF THE TOWNHOUSES AROUND THE CITY OF CARMEL. I CAN SUPPORT THIS THE RENTAL RESTRICTIONS ARE WHAT TIP IT FOR ME.THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT TO MY PLAN COMMISSIONERS AND I AGREE WITH JESS' POINTS.
>> I ALSO SUPPORT AND AM NOT A FAN OF HIGH- DENSITY HOUSING BUT BECAUSE OF WHERE THIS IS LOCATE ED, BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION, YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH NEIGHBORHOODS TO DEAL WITH IT.
THE OTHER THING ABOUT IT NOT BEING MIXED USE, YOU GO ON UP ILLINOIS STREET AND YOU HAVE THE DISTRICT AND ALL OF THAT COMMERCIAL EVERYTHING IS LITERALLY LIKE A COUPLE BLOCKS ON UP.
IT'S IN AN AREA WITH A LOT OF RETAIL IN AN AREA ALREADY WITH A LOT OF COMMERCIAL, AND IF YOU COME ON DOWN 106TH, YOU'LL RECALL WE APPROVED A SENIOR APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 106TH AND ILLINOIS. SPRINGMILL SOUTHWEST.
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. THERE WILL BE MORE RESIDENTIAL IN THE CORRIDOR ONCE THAT IS DEVELOPED. THE HEART HOSPITAL I KNOW IS OFF YOUR PAGE BUT IT'S LIKE RIGHT DOWN THERE. AND OVER ON THE FAR LEFT, CORRECT, THAT'S WHERE THE SENIOR APARTMENTS WOULD BE GOING?
>> WELL -- NONETHELESS IT WAS APPROVED TO GO IN THERE SO IF SOMETHING EVER HAPPENS IN THERE IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BEFORE TO PUT HOUSING IN THERE. SO I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT WITH ALL THE REVISIONS, NOTWITHSTANDING THERE COULD BE OTHER USES BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE.
IT ADDRESSES THE HOUSING NEED WE HAVE IN CARMEL AND IS LOCATED IN A PLACE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VISUALLY UNAPPEALING TO PEOPLE AROUND IT.
>> NO, NO, YOU'RE FINE. GOOD QUESTION.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE THE HOUSING NEED STUDY.
THE HOUSING TASK FORCE, WHAT ADDITIONAL DATA ARE YOU USING TO SHOW THAT HOUSING IS NEEDED IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA? AND THE REASON I BRING THAT UP, WE AVE A SUBDIVISION NORTH OF 465 ON SPRING MILL THAT'STHAT'S THERE WELL OVER A YEAR AND I THINK 18 UNITS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THAT YEAR.
WELL, OVER A YEAR. SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WHAT IS TELLING YOU THAT HOUSING IS NEEDED RIGHT HERE?
>> OUTSIDE OF THE OVERALL DEMAND OF PEOPLE WANTING T LIVE IN CARMEL, PARTICULARLY AT A PRICE POINT SUCH AS THIS WHERE I'M GOING TO SAY IT'S IN THE 500 S, THE LOCATION OF THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE IT, IS VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE FLORA PROJECT. THIS FEELS LIKE YOU'RE MORE IN CARMEL. YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE GROCERY STORE, CLOSE TO THE JOB CORRIDOR.
I THINK YOU'RE JUST A LITTLE BIT REMOVED WHEN YOU'RE DOWN THERE. AND IT'S PRETTY LOUD, AND THEY HAVE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY'RE GOING SO SLOW. I HAVE MY PERSONAL OPINIONS, BUT IT'S NOT BASED WITH DATA, RIGHT, SO I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE. I THINK WITH THIS BEING SO MUCH MORE OF A NICHE LOCATION, A NICHE LOCATION OF STUFF THAT'S ALREADY BUILT AND DEVELOPED AROUND IT, THIS CAN WITHSTAND 27 MORE UNITS OF PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
>> SOME OF MY CONCERN IS WITH THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT I MENTIONED, WE HAVE UNITS DOWN THERE THAT ARE LISTED STARTING AT THE 400S GOING UP TO THE 700S, AND IT IS GOING VERY, VERY SLOW.
[00:40:03]
IT'S ALMOST STAGNANT, I WOULD I HAVE TO LEAN ON DOCS TO KNOW HOW MANY PERMITS ARE BEING ISSUED THERE PER MONTH.IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE MOVING VERY QUICKLY.
>> I DON'T, MYSELF, SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THAT DEVELOPMENT BEING AGAINST 465 AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TONIGHT BEING UP AGAINST 31.
YOU STILL HAVE HIGH VOLUMES OF TRAFFIC.
THEY'RE BOTH CONSIDERED, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, INTERSTATE OR HIGHWAY.
IT'S NOT A LOW- VOLUME TWO- LANE ROAD. I THINK THE NOISE IS GOING TO BE A FACTOR. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A FACTOR WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR PEOPLE TO WANT TO BUY THESE AND THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE REASON I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT ON OUR ENTRYWAY, OUR GATEWAY TO OUR COMMUNITY, THAT IS SITTING VACANT OR UNDERDEVELOPED. SO THAT'S PART OF WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH AS WELL.
>> I WAS A NO VOTE ON FLORA. SOME OF YOU MIGHT RECALL.
THE DIFFERENCE I SEE, JONATHAN, IS FLORA THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH OF A LANDSCAPING/VEGETATION BUFFER BETWEEN 465, WHICH IS -- FLORA GOES ALL ALONG 465, THE ENTIRE LENGTH.
AND I LIVE UP OVER HERE. AND IT IS LOUD.
AND I MADE THAT CONCERN AT THE TIME, BECAUSETHAT'S 465.
31 IS GOING TO BE LOUD, BUT HAVING PARKED IN THAT PARKING LOT, I CAN TELL YOU THE NOISE COMING OFF 31 IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE NOISE COMING OFF 465, BECAUSE THERE JUST AREN'T -- YOU DON'T HAVE THE CONSTANT SLOWING THAT YOU HAVE AND THE TRUCKS, THE SEMIS CHANGING GEARS. THE NOISE IS JUST AWFUL ALONG THERE. AND THERE'S NOT NEAR THE BUFFER THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE IF APPROVED AS PRESENTED. ALSO THE DESIGN OF THE PRODUCT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE DESIGN OF THE PRODUCT IN FLORA, WHICH SOME PEOPLE THINK IS VERY UNATTRACTIVE.
>> SO IF I HAD MY CHOICE OF WHAT DESIGN I WANTED TO CHOOSE, I WOULD PAY $500,000 FOR THIS DESIGN OR THIS DESIGN, I WOULD PROBABLY PICK THIS SITE BECAUSE IT'S NESTLED IN AND THE UNITS ARE GOING TO BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE HIGHWAY AS OPPOSED TO THE ONES THAT ARE RIGHT UP TO 465. I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S MY NECK OF THE WOODS. THAT WOULD BE MY OPINION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO.
>> I THINK, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO WHAT I SAID INITIALLY AT THE VERY FIRST MEETING WHICH WAS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PRODUCT JUST AS YOU DID FLORA, YOU HAVE THAT CHOICE TO MAKE, RIGHT? YOU DO.
YOU CAN CHOOSE TO LIVE THERE. YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO LIVE THERE. AT LEAST YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE BUYING IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE BUYING INTO.
YOU'RE GOING TO BUY INTO THAT NOISE.
MAYBE PEOPLE WON'T MOVE IN THERE BECAUSE OF THAT. YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> CAN'T DETERMINE THAT. BUT IF YOU BUY THERE, YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE BUYING INTO.
THEY HAVE GOOD RENTAL RESTRICTIONS -- REALLY GOOD RENTAL RESTRICTIONS, IN MY OPINION. VERY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. I DON'T LIKE THE DENSITY OF IT EITHER. I WISH IT WERE LESS TOWNHOMES PERSONALLY. I THINK IT SHOULD BE LESS.
AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING MORE MASONARY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THIS PLAN, IT'S GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SOME THAT HAVE CAN BE HASHED OUT AS WELL IN LAND USE. I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS TO GO -- I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD FOR THOSE REASONS.
IF I BUY INTO THAT, I KNOW WHAT I'M BUYING INTO 100%.
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION HERE?
>> KNOWING THAT MY FELLOW COUNSELOR IS ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION TO NOT APPROVE, I WILL MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
[00:45:01]
>> SO WE HAVE 3 AND 3. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENS.
>> I THINK YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS HERE.
YOU CAN EITHER SEND IT WITH NO RECOMMENDATION, OR SOMEBODY NEEDS TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION OR YOU CAN DISCUSS IT MORE AND MAYBE ANOTHER PERSON SWITCH.
>> SO WE CAN GET THE INPUT FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I RECOMMEND WE SEND IT BACK TO FULL PLAN WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.
>> I'LL SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT.
>> OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
IT GOES FORWARD WITH NO RECOMMENDATION TO FULL PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 20TH.
>> THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD EVENING.
[Items 2 & 3]
>> OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE DOCKET IS DOCKET PZ-2025- 00197 PUD AMENDMENT: GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES PUD AMENDMENT. AND NUMBER 3 DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2025- 00198 PUD: RESTORACY OF CARMEL R-2 TO PUD.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS PUD AMENDMENT AND REZONE APPROVAL FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE RESTORACY SENIOR CARE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS 4. 76 ACRES LOCATED AT 616 GREEN HOUSE WAY, AND IS ZONED PUD GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF CARMEL ASK-5794-14.
THE NEW PROPERTY IS 1. 8 ACRES LOCATED AT 240 EAST CITY CENTER DRIVE AND ZONED R-2/RESIDENTIAL.
I'M GOING TO BUTCHER THAT LAST NAME, RESETARITS.
RESETARITS. >> OF DENTONS ON BEHALF OF MBR CARMEL HEALTH, LLC. KYLE?
>> GOOD EVENING PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. KYLE RESETARITS WITH DENTONS, 10 MARKET STREET FOR CARMEL HEALTH. I'M PLEASED TO BE BEFORE THESE COMMISSION MEMBERS TONIGHT TO SHARE A REVISION OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE RESTORACY OF CARMEL. WE HAD A THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION AT THE LAST FULL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING. WE LEFT THAT PLAN COMMISSION MEETING WITH A TASK OF REVISING THE SITE PLAN TO INCORPORATE AS MANY OF THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED THAT EVENING. IN PARTICULAR THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE EXPANDED SITE. MOST NOTABLY TO INCREASE THE EASTERN BUFFER YARD TO ACCOMMODATE A PROTECTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE TO THE EAST.
>> SHARED IN YOUR PACKET AND ON THE SCREEN IS THAT REVISED SITE PLAN. I WILL CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT WE HAVE RECONFIGURED THE TWO PROPOSED COTTAGES FOR I THINK THE ONE PLAN COMMISSION COMMISSION WHO WAS NOT AT THE LAST MEETING, THE PROPOSAL TO ADD TWO COTTAGES TO THE EXISTING RESTORACY SITE SERVED BY ONE ARTERY OFF OF THE EXISTING GREEN HOUSE WAY SITE.
YOU'LL RECALL THE TWO EXISTING COTTAGES WERE FACING EAST TO WEST.
WE'VE REDESIGNED THEM TO FACE NORTH TO SOUTH WITH A MINOR ANGLE TO ACCOMMODATE A SITE LINE AS YOU ENTER THAT ARTERY TO THE FRONT DOOR ACCESSED BY A SIDEWALK OFF OF THAT NEW PRIVATE STREET FROM THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS.
YOU'LL RECALL A COMMENT, HOPEFULLY THE COMMENT THAT I MADE TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION THAT OFFERED A FEW REASONS WHY WE HAD DESIGNED THE SITE EAST TO WEST.
>> THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THE SIX EXISTING COTTAGES ARE DESIGNED WITH THE FRONT DOOR THAT IS ACCESSED PRIMARILY BY LOVED ONES OF THE RESIDENCES, CARETAKERS OF THE RESIDENCES, AND THE GARAGES SERVING THESE BUILDINGS ARE ALL ON THE SAME ELEVATION, THE FRONT ELEVATION.
[00:50:03]
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE TAKE THIS COTTAGE HERE, FRONT DOOR BEING ON THE EASTERN ELEVATION AS WELL AS THE GARAGE BEING ON THE EASTERN ELEVATION.SO THOSE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED OR PROPOSED BY CONCEPT PLAN TO BE THOSE EXACT SAME BUILDINGS, TAKING TO HEART THE COMMENTS FROM THE PLA COMMISSION THE RESTORACY OWNERSHIP LOOKED AT A DIFFERENT RESTORACY LOCATION, ACTUALLY THE RESTORACY OF GOSHEN HAS A DESIGN OF COTTAGES WHERE THE FRONT DOOR AND THE GARAGE ARE ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE BUILDING, ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
>> SO WHILE THE EXISTING CARMEL SITE WAS NOT DESIGNED USING THOSE COTTAGES OR THAT DESIGN, IT IS SIMPLE ENOUGH, LET'S PUT IT, FOR THE RESTORACY TO ENGAGE WITH THEIR ARCHITECT TO DESIGN THE TWO NEW COTTAGES WITH THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AS THE EXISTING SITE, RELATIVELY THE SAME COTTAGE DESIGN. CERTAINLY THE SAME OVERALL FOOTPRINT, BECAUSE THESE ARE RESTRICTED BY STATE STATUTE TO NOT BE GREATER THAN 8,000 SQUARE
FEET. >> BUT THE ONLY CHANGE BEING TO RELOCATE A GARAGE FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER.
WHAT THAT HAS ALLOWED TO US DO IS ROTATE THE BUILDINGS SO THAT THE FRONT DOOR WHICH IS, AGAIN, ONLY ACCESSED PRIMARILY BY LOVED ONES OF THE RESIDENCES, CERTAIN STAFF. WE'VE ALLOWED IT TO ROTATE THE BUILDING SO OFF OF THE PRIVATE DRIVE WOULD BE THE DRIVEWAY SERVING EACH OF THE COTTAGES WHICH WOULD THEN LEAD TO AN EXPANDED -- AT LEAST THE INTENTION RIGHT NOW -- EXPANDED GARAGE SERVING BOTH OF THOSE BUILDINGS.
>> THE SIX EXISTING COTTAGES ARE DESIGNED WITH TWO-CAR GARAGES. THE RELOCATION OF THE GARAGE TO, IN THIS CASE, THE NORTHERN ELEVATION, AND IN THIS CASE THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING TO EXPAND TO A THREE- CAR GARAGE. SO AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOT INSIDE THE BUILDING AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING IN THAT DRIVEWAY MULTIPLIED BY TWO, OF COURSE, THERE.
>> WHAT THIS ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN HAS ALLOWED FOR, ALSO, IS AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOT HERE AND THEN AN INCREASED BUFFER YARD.
YOU'LL RECALL OUR CONVERSATION WAS AROUND THE PREVIOUS CONCEPT PLAN CAPTURED ABOUT A 12- FOOT SETBACK. THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE SAID A MINIMUM TEN- FOOT SETBACK. WE'VE INCREASED THE TEXT AS WELL AS THE CONCEPT PLAN TO BE A 25- YARD SETBACK.
>> AND THE CLOSEST BUILDING - - BOTH BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY 30 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE REASON FOR THE 25- FOOT SETBACK IS BOTH OF THE NEW COTTAGES WILL HAVE A COMMON AREA FENCED IN BACK PATIO AS THE SIX EXISTING SITES DO. AND SO THEY'LL BE A TRIANGULAR SHAPE WITH THE BUILDING AND THAT 25-FOOT SETBACK THERE.
>> WE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THIS NEW ACCESS DRIVE WILL BE 25 FEET. THAT HAS BEEN CAPTURED IN THE REVISED PUD ORDINANCE. I WOULD NOTE THAT THE CURRENT PUD ORDINANCE FOR THE GREENHOUSE DEVELOPMENT DOES SAY 25 FEET. AS BUILT IT WAS 23 FEET.
MY CLIENT CAN'T COMMENT ON WHY OR HOW, SO WE WILL JUST ACKNOWLEDGE AND MADE A SMALL REVISION TO THE AMENDMENT TO SAY ANY EXISTING STREETS WOULD BE 23 FEET, BUT ANY NEW STREETS AND, AGAIN, IT WOULD JUST BE THIS NEW ARTERY, IF YOU WILL, OFF OF THE ROUND-ABOUT HERE WOULD BE 25 FEET.
SO THAT'S CAPTURED IN THE NEW PUD AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD.
THERE WERE QUESTIONS REGARDING OPEN SPACE.
THE OPEN SPACE AS CALCULATED OFF OF THIS CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE NEW SITE IS ABOUT 34%.
THAT INCLUDES THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA AS WELL AS THE RAIN GARDEN. WE REDUCED THATTHAT TO 25%.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS GIVEN THE CHANGE IN CONCEPT PLAN, THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT REVISED ITSITS DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ADLS HERE. I WANTED TO HAVE THERE BE SOME WIGGLE ROOM BETWEEN THE TEXT AND WHAT THE ULTIMATE OPEN SPACE IS BUT ACKNOWLEDGING IT WILL BE LIKELY BETWEEN 25 AND 35% WHEN ALL ISIS AND DONE DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE RAIN GARDEN THERE.
[00:55:05]
I NOTED THE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS, BOTH ONE HERE AS WELL AS THE GARAGE SPACES.NET IS PLUS THREE, PLUS THREE PARKING SPOTS.
AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS PLAN.
>> OPEN SPACE IN THE EXISTING PUD AS WOULD BE AMENDED HERE ABOUT 11 OR 12% OPEN SPACE. THE CURRENT PUD LISTS OPEN SPACE AT 20%. AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THE PUD SAYS 20% BUT THE AS BUILT WAS ABOUT 15% ADDING THIS EXISTING DRIVE REDUCES THAT OPEN SPACE. WE REVISED THE AMENDMENT TO CONTEMPLATE A 10% OPEN SPACE FOR SOME WIGGLE ROOM ON HOW THIS DRIVE IS TO BE BUILT. OPEN SPACE MAINLY FOR THE EXISTING SITE BEING THE 30- FOOT TREE PRESERVATION ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND THE TWO RAIN GARDENS EXISTING HERE ON THE SITE.
>> WE CONFIRMED AND REVISED THE PUDS ALSO TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEW PRIVATE DRIVE WOULD HAVE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES.
WE HAD CONTEMPLATED ONLY ONE SIDEWALK WHICH, FRANKLY, WAS A BIT OF AN ERROR THERE. WE AMENDED THAT.
I WILL PAUSE THERE AND WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
AS ALWAYS, REALLY APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE, THE DOCS WOULD MENTION THE SUPPORT NOTED IN THEIR STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AS I MENTIONED TO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION, THIS HAS BEEN AN ITERATIVE SITE PROCESS.
I THINK THIS IS THE BEST ONE WE'VE COME UP WITH.
SO ALWAYS GOOD TO LAND, AT LEAST IN OUR OPINION, AT AN IMPROVED PRODUCT AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS' FEEDBACK HERE TONIGHT.
>> THANK YOU, KYLE. STAFF, COMMENTS?
>> RACHEL, PLANNER FOR DOCS. I THINK KYLE WENT OVER EVERYTHING PRETTY WELL. THEY DID RESPOND SPECIFICALLY TO ALL OF OUR COMMENTS WITHIN THE REPORT AND ALSO WITHIN OUR COMMENTS ON PROJECT DOCS.
AT THE TIME THAT I WROTE THIS WE HAD JUST RECEIVED THE NEW PUD, LIKE, UPDATE AND SO THERE WASN'T SUFFICIENT TIME TO FULLY GO THROUGH THE PUD DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN JUST BRIEFLY HITTING ON THE HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT THEY HAD CHANGED. SINCE THEN I HAVE HAD TIME TO DO THAT AND THEY MADE ALL OF THE CHANGES WE REQUESTED SO THE PUD DOCUMENTS REFLECT WHAT WE ASKED FOR AND THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE.
IN YOUR DEPARTMENT REPORT I DID INCLUDE STREET VIEW PICTURES OF THE ELEVATIONS FROM GOSHEN, AND I THINK THEY LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONES THAT WE HAVE HERE AND WOULD WORK JUST FINE WITH A DIFFERENT DESIGN.
WE APPRECIATE THEM SWITCHING THE BUILDINGS AND ONE ROTATING THEM.
THE ONE CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT THE BUILDINGS' NEW ORIENTATION IS HOW MUCH DRIVEWAY THERE IS. JUST A LOT, A LOT OF PAYMENT FOR A THREE-FOR DRIVEWAY ON BOTH SIDES. IT'S LIKE, WHAT, 40-SOMETHING FEET WIDE.
>> IT'S 42 FEET WIDE. >> YEAH.
>> HAPPY TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT ONE.
>> I'LL FINISH WITH WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE CHANGES BUT WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS WANT TO ASK ASK FUTURE CONNECTION TO THE ROAD, RICHLAND AND WHERE THE DUMPSTER MIGHT GO IF THAT CONNECTION IS MADE.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU GUYS IS THE FRONT PATIO ENTRANCE TO THE DOOR GOING TO BE LIKE A USED SPACE, LIKE A PROGRAM SPACE? BECAUSE IT'S A LOT BIGGER THAN THE ONES THAT ARE EXISTING TODAY, AND IT GOES BACK TO THE COMMENT ABOUT OPEN SPACE AND HOW MUCH PAVEMENT IS ON THE SITE. SO I WANTED US TO DISCUSS THIS TONIGHT, AND THEN IF EVERYBODY IS SATISFIED, WE CAN SEND THIS BACK TO THE PLAN COMMISSION WITH A FULL PLAN COMMISSION WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO
[01:00:06]
DISCUSSION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE DRIVEWAY CONCERN?SEVERAL REASONS FOR THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTION.
OBVIOUSLY THE ANGULAR FEATURE HERE OF THE BUILDINGS CREATES AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY SPACE.
WE DID CONFIRM THAT FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND IS SUPPORTED BY THIS ADDITIONAL SPACE. SO AT ONE POINT THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVATE STREET AS PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED WOULD BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH FOR THAT TURNAROUND IF THERE WAS FULLY OCCUPIED PARKING SPOTS WHILE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WAS YES, THIS ADDITIONAL SPACE WOULD PROVIDE A GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR FIRE TRUCK SERVICE THERE.
IT ALSO ADDS TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING -- FOUR ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND TWO IN THAT ADDITIONAL GARAGE AREA AND WHILE -- I GUESS I WOULD JUXTAPOSE THE SIGNIFICANT SIZE OF THE PARKING LOTS ON THE EXISTING SITE VERSUS THE LARGER DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAYS. THEY VISUALLY ALIGN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTINGEXISTING SITE, BUT THOSE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS THAT RESULTED IN THE LARGER DRIVEWAY
SPACE. >> ONE ITEM -- I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY OTHER ITEMS I WANT TO RESPOND TO. THANK YOU.
>> ACTUALLY, I'M VERY CURIOUS AS TO KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. ONCE WE GET THIS -- ASSUMING THIS NEW ROAD GOES THROUGH, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY, VERY SHORT DISTANCE BETWEEN WHERE MAYBE A ROUND- ABOUT WOULD BE WHERE YOU WOULD PULL INTO YOUR DRIVEWAY RIGHT OFF OF A ROUND- ABOUT, THE EASTERN PART THERE. THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE VERY COMPLICATED, IN MY OPINION. DO WE KNOW, WOULD THERE BE ANOTHER ROUND-ABOUT?
>> WE DO NOT KNOW THAT. EITHER WAY, IF YOU'RE DRIVING NORTH AND SOUTH ON THE NEW ROAD TO TURN INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY QUICK TURN AGAIN INTO YOUR DRIVEWAY. I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S JUST THE FIRST INITIAL THING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE.
I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS ANGLING.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD HELP OUT QUITE A BIT. EVEN FROM A NOISE MITIGATION STANDPOINT. IF YOU HAVE A PERPENDICULAR BUILDING TO A ROAD, OBVIOUSLY HAVING THE ANGLE WILL HELP WITH THE NOISE MITIGATION A LITTLE BIT.
ALSO, IT JUST LOOKS BETTER FROM MY OPINION.
THOSE ARE MY INITIAL COMMENTS. COMMISSIONERS,
GO AHEAD. >> GO AHEAD, DUBBIE.
I JUST WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE, INCREASING THE SETBACKS.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS I BROUGHT UP WITH THE PROPOSED ROAD. I APPRECIATE YOU ADDRESSING THAT. I ALSO LIKE THE REALIGNMENT OR THE RECONFIGURATION. I THINK THEY DO LOOK BETTER.
I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO FUNCTION BETTER.
I UNDERSTAND STAFF'S COMMENT ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY LENGTH. I THINK WE'RE CHALLENGED EITHER WAY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE LONG DRIVEWAY OR GET THE CONFIGURATION THE WAY WE WANT IT OR HAVE A SHORTER DRIVEWAY AND THE CONFIGURATION WE DON'T LIKE. I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH HEARTBURN OVER THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING, ADDRESSING THE OPEN SPACE. YOU'VE ADDRESSED EVERYTHING THAT I'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT FROM THE LAST MEETING AND ALSO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT.
THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. >> THANK YOU, JONATHAN.
JUST FOR EVERYONE'S ADVOCATION, USING YOUR FINGER OR PEN, COULD YOU SHOW WHERE A FIRE TRUCK WOULD PULL IN AND TURN AROUND? I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE TO VISUALIZE THAT. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS -- WELL, WITH THE RESTORACY, AND I'LL PRECEDE MY COMMENT AGAIN WITH I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LOT OF CONCRETE, BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO COME OUTSIDE ARE ON WALKERS OR IN WHEELCHAIRS.
[01:05:01]
>> AND, ACTUALLY, THE ADDITIONAL CONCRETE IS VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE WILL BE SEVERAL WHEELCHAIRS LITERALLY LINED UP IN A LINE ON THE SIDEWALK AND AT THE END THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE MORE CONGREGATING AND EXERCISE SPACE FOR THE ONES IN THE WHEELCHAIRS AND USING THEIR FEET TO PULL ALONG.
SO KNOWING WHAT THE RESIDENTS, HOW THEY UTILIZE THE EXISTING SPACE, I'M VERY FINE WITH THE FACT THERE'S A LOT OF CONCRETE
THERE. >> BUT NOW, HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, JUST SHOW YOU PULL IN, A FIRE TRUCK, AND THE FIRE IS IN HERE. IT WOULD TRAVEL NORTH AT THE ROUND-ABOUT. IT WOULD TURN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION, ENTER THE NEW STREET NEW PRIVATE DRIVE. THE DRIVE IS HERE AND THEN ENTERS THIS BUILDING, ACROSS A CROSSWALK, THERE'S CONGREGATION SPACE.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THIS SPACE CAN ACTUALLY ENCLOSED THERE, RACHEL, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION THERE.
>> BECAUSE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I'M
>> AND, AGAIN, MY CONCERN WILL COME BACK TO THAT LARGE DRIVEWAY THERE BETWEEN THE TWO COTTAGES.
SO I'M GIVING YOU KUDOS TO START AND THEN WORKING ON THE EAST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS MAKING SURE THERE'S SOMETHING -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PUT A FENCE UP THERE OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING -- SOME SORT OF -- I KNOW IT'S A LOT TO ASK, BUT JUST SOME SORT OF NOISE MITIGATION FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST.
[01:10:04]
THERE'S GOING TO BE, I WOULD ASSUME, QUITE A FEW EMS RUNS, FIRE DEPARTMENT RUNS WITH THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT YOU DO.>> I WOULD REALLY LIKE FOR YOU GUYS WIDE DUMPSTER HERE IN BETWEEN THESE TWO COTTAGES.
THEY SERVE THE SIX UNITS. PROPOSED HERE IS JUST A THREE- YARD SINGLE DUMPSTER TO SERVE THESE TWO BUILDINGS HERE. THE EXISTING DUMPSTER SATISFIES THE NEW NEED. THE NEW DUMPSTER FOR THE NEWLY CREATED TRASH THERE.
>> WE DON'T KNOW THE LOCATION FOR THAT QUITE YET IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> I'M SORRY. PROPOSED RIGHT HERE AT THE TERMINATION OF THE STREET AND AS PROPOSED, AGAIN, WE'VE CONFIRMED VEHICULAR AND AMBULATORY AND FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND ARE SATISFACTORY EVEN WITH THE NEW DUMPSTER AS PROPOSED THERE.
>> THE QUESTION THAT I HAD EARLIER WAS IF THE ROAD CONTINUES AND IT CONNECTS TO THE ROAD, WHERE ARE WE PUTTING THE
DUMPSTER? >> YEAH, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WHERE I'M GOING HERE, TOO. IT WOULD BE NICE TO MAYBE HAVE A LONG- TERM PLAN OF POTENTIAL ROAD CONNECTION AND WHERE YOU WOULD RELOCATE THAT IN THE FUTURE.
>> AND I THINK THERE'S -- PROBABLY LOWER ON THE LIST OF CONSIDERATIONS IF THE ROAD COMES DOWN WHETHER THAT'S FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS, 25 YEARS FROM NOW. DEPENDING ON THE CONNECTIVITY OF THE PRIVATE STREET TO THE EXISTING ROAD, THERE MAY BE A SITUATION WHERE IT'S BETTER TO PUT A THIRD DUMPSTER OVER HERE, RIGHT? I THINK THE SITE IS LARGE ENOUGH NOW WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT WE CAN -- IF WE EVER GET TO THAT POINT, AND I HAVE MY PERSONAL OPINIONS ON THAT --
>> THERE'S OTHER -- THERE ARE OTHER LOCATION THAT IS WOULD STILL WORK CONCEPTUALLY FOR THE SITE AND NOT HINDER VEHICULAR ACCESS.
>> HOW HAVE WE MADE THIS BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST? I KNOW YOU'VE WIDENED THE DISTANCE, BUT ANYTHING ELSEELSE WOULD MAKE --
>> CERTAINLY MAKING IT WIDER ALLOWS THE EXISTING MATURE TREE LINE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN. THERE WERE ELEMENTS OF THE EXISTING PLAN THAT WOULD REQUIRE REMOVAL OF A NUMBER OF TREES THAT SAT WITHIN THAT 10 TO 15- FOOT AREA THERE. THE EASTERN BOUNDARY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOUND ININ 5. 4, I BELIEVE IT IS HERE, NOTE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS REQUIRED ALONG THAT EASTERN LINE, SO I THINK THE EXISTING TREES AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ALONG THAT LINE WOULD CREATE THAT ADDITIONAL BUFFER, NOT TO MENTION EACH OF THOSE HOUSES HAS AN EXISTING FENCE IN THE REAR OF THESE THREE HOMES WITH THIS HOME AND THIS HOME PERHAPS THE MOST VISUALLY IMPACTED, ALTHOUGH THIS HOME ALREADY FACES AN EXISTING -- AN EXISTING RESIDENCE.
>> OKAY. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. IF I'M COMING TO ONE OF THE NEW FACILITIES THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MORE THAN JUST FAMILY MEMBERS COMING IN. THERE'S SOCIAL WORKERS, SPEECH THERAPISTS, NURSES, DOCTORS -- I MEAN, THERE'S A WHOLE -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY PARK.
>> OH, WHERE THEY PARK? WE'VE ADDED ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL SPOTS AS WELL AS THERE WILL BE SPOTS IN FRONT OF -- THERE WILL BE THREE SPOTS IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE.
I JUMPED AHEAD. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO ASK ABOUT ACCESS TO THESE BUILDINGS NEXT TO THE GARAGE THERE WILL BE AN ACCESS DOOR WHERE MOST OF THE SOCIAL WORKERS AS WELL AS EMPLOYEES OF THE RESTORACY, THE CARETAKERS, ACCESS HERE. CERTAINLY SOME MAY ELECT TO ENTER THROUGH THE MAIN ENTRANCE DOOR, BUT --
>> SO THEY CAN GET IN THAT WAY?
>> THEY CAN. IT'S ALL KEYED SECURITY.
>> AND THE GARAGES, WILL THEY HOUSE VEHICLES?
>> ON THE EXISTING SITE, MOST OF THE GARAGES SERVE AS STORAGESTORAGE GOLF CART PARKING, AND SOME VEHICULAR PARKING AS WELL.
>> BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU COULD EVEN PARK IN THE
[01:15:01]
DRIVEWAY. THAT'S, HAVING BEEN THERE, PARKING CAN BE A CHALLENGE. I FEEL LIKE I SAY THAT IN EVERY DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT IS. AND THERE'S NO OVERFLOW EASILY.THE FEW PARKING PLACE THAT ARE THERE ARE TAKEN, WHICH IS -- THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE REALLY TO GO.
>> AND SO I'VE HAD TO LEAVE AND COME BACK BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T PARK. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ON THE NEW EAST BUILDINGS, AND IT'S ABOUT THE SAME AS THE OTHER SIDE. OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> I JUST NEED TO GO ON RECORD AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WAS SOME INPUT ON RICHLAND AVENUE AND MADE IT SOUND MORE IMMINENT THAN IT POSSIBLY IS.
I'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHO, IF CLARIFIED, THAT I MAY MAY HAVE OVERSTATED WHERE THAT IS IN THE BIG PICTURE, AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT WE HAVE AND I'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH SOME MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH MAYBE THERE'S NOT A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL THAT SUPPORTS AT THIS TIME AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION ET CETERA OF THAT ROAD IS NOT AS FAR ALONG AS I MAY HAVE INDICATED.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THAT AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL DON'T -- WHEN THIS GETS TO THAT LEVEL THAT MAYBE THAT ISN'T A DISTRACTION WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
>> MIKE, YOU BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH THERE.
DOGGONE IT. I JUST WANT TO SAY FOR THETHE AS WELL, IT IS A PRIORITY FOR ME AND SEVERAL OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS, BUT AT THIS TIME WE -- IT'S NOT IN ITS FINAL FORM AND/OR READY -- WE'RE NOT READY TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THIS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT OR EVEN HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.
IT HAS -- IT IS A PRIORITY FOR SOME OF US.
AND IF I MISSTATED THAT AS WELL, I APOLOGIZE AS WELL. SO THANK YOU.
>> IT WILL GET DONE EVENTUALLY.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO FORWARD THIS TO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
[4. Docket No. PZ-2025-00265 ADLS Amend: The Moher Speakeasy]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
. >> ALL RIGHT, OUR LAST ITEM OF BUSINESS TODAY IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2025- 00265 ADLS AMEND: THE MOHER SPEAKEASY. THE APPLICANT SEEKS DESIGN APPROVAL÷÷APPROVAL REMODELING THE EXTERIOR SPACE AT 904 WEST MAIN STREET ZONED UC/URBAN CORE AND IS NOT LOCATED WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
FILED BY LOGAN WEAVER OF THE MOHER LLC.
IT LOOKS LIKE BRUCE IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING.
>> MAYBE WE'LL USE THIS DEAD TIME TO RECOGNIE THIS WILL BE OUR LAST MEETING WITH COUNCIL MINNAAR AS A PLAN COMMISSION MEMBER. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
[01:20:01]
YOUR SERVICE AND THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU QUITE A
BIT. >> YOU'VE BEEN A FABULOUS ADDITION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I REALLY -- FOR THE JOB THAT WAS SET BEFORE ME -- WAS ONE OF THE MOST FULFILLING JOBS I'VE DONE OUTSIDE OF HELPING MY CONSTITUENCY.
I LOVE DOING THAT. BUT THIS JOB WAS A LOT OF FUN AND ALL OF YOU MADE IT SO -- ALL OF YOU HAVE MADE IT SO MUCH FUN FOR ME.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, BY THE WAY.
IF YOU DON'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME.
>> MY NAME IS BRUCE BERRY. I'M AN ARCHITECT WITH DESIGN HOUSE AND PRESENTING THIS PROJECT FOR THE MOHER SPEAKEASY ON WEST MAIN STREET BETWEEN SIGNATURE APARTMENTS AND THE STRIP CENTER BESIDE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY A BLAST FROM THE PAST.
IT WAS THIS BUILDING. EVERYBODY MIGHT REMEMBER THAT.
WE -- MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS PROJECT AT THIS POINT HAS BEEN MOSTLY WITH THE SPEAKEASY ITSELF. IT IS THE EXISTING BUILDING HERE IS AN EXTENSION EXTENSION THE BONE YARD PROJECT AND THEN WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS ADDED ON A 12- FOOT SECTION ON THE WEST END OF THE BUILDING AND THEN DESIGN WORK ON THE EXTERIOR AND THE BONE YARD BUILDING IT SELF. SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, THIS IS OUR FINAL RESULT. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF QUITE A BIT. THE BONE YARD WAS -- THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE WAS ALL MOSTLY DETERMINED SO THIS IS THE END OF THE EXISTINGEXISTING BUILDING AND IS THE 12- FOOT ADDITION. FAIRLY LATE IN THE GAME WE FOUND OUT THAT THIS PART OF THE BUILDING FELL UNDER HISTORIC LANDMARK SURVEY AND THEY WANTED A MID CENTURY STYLE, SO WRE READAPTED OUR LOOK TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
AND LATE THIS AFTERNOON I SENT TO RACHEL SOME ADDITIONAL REVISIONS TO THIS EXTERIOR THAT SHE HAD COMMENTED ABOUT.
ONE IS THIS AREA HERE, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ALL RIGHT. THIS AREA HERE THEYTHEY WINDOWS TO ALIGN AND -- IT'S NOT THAT ONE.
>> SO AS YOU CAN SEE WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF THAT.
WE'VE CLEANED UP A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THEY ASKED. THIS BAND HERE WENT BACK INTO EFFECT SO THAT IT COULD MIMIC WHAT WAS PROPOSED WITH THE ORIGINAL SO THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL BONE YARD PROPOSAL AND THIS IS THE BUILDING THAT IS NOW THE SPEAKEASY. SO YOU CAN SEE WE'VE TRANSFORMED ALL OF THIS OLD, OUTDATED STOREFRONT INTO A MID CENTURY MODERN LOOK.
HERE IS A -- THERE IS A THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIEW, PROSPECTIVE VIEW SO YOU CAN SEE HOW IT LOOKS AROUND THE CORNER. WE HAVE WINDOWS WITH THE MID CENTURY MODERN THIS IS A COMPOSITE WOOD ELEMENT.
WE HAVE SCONCES AND THEN THERE'S THIS COMPOSITE PANEL THAT IS -- THAT FILLS THIS BAND UP HERE.
[01:25:04]
AND ALSO IS PROMINENT ON THE BONE YARD.SO WE'VE ADDRESSED THIS 12 1/2 FOOT WIDE ADDITION AS THE NEW PORTION OF THE PROJECT AND THEN THE REST OF THIS IS CONSIDERED THE ORIGINAL WITH THIS BEING REDONE TO MATCH THE MID CENTURY MODERN APPEARANCE.
>> I KNOW THAT'S A LOT TO PROCESS AND IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING MAYBE. I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. RACHEL, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO THE CHANGES THAT BRUCE WEPT OVER÷÷ AS FAR AS THE BUILDING DESIGN, THOSE ARE ALL PRETTY GOOD. WE ENDED UP FINDING THIS -- FINDING OUT ABOUT THIS PROJECT BY A BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE ADDITION ONTO THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AND SO WE HAD TO STOP THEM FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT AND BRING THEM TO PLAN COMMISSION IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WORKED. WELL, WHEN YOU ADD A 1 2- FOOT ADDITION TO THIS BUILDING YOU REDUCE THE DRIVE LANE THAT HAS ONE- WAY PARKING ON IT FROM 31 FEET TO 18 FEET BUT THEN THERE WAS NO EXIT POINT AT THE NORTH END OF THE SITE. SO THIS IS A REALLY KEY PART OF THIS WHOLE PROJECT THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS.
SO IN TALKING TO THE PETITIONER, IT'S EITHER WE LOSE THE ADDITION AT 12 FEET WIDE AND KEEP THE MINIMUM 24- 25 FEET WIDE FOR THE TWO- WAY TRAFFIC, OR YOU GET AN EXIT POINT OUT OF THIS SITE.
AND SO THE EXIT POINT THAT IS PROPOSED IS CONNECTING INTO THE SIGNATURE'S DRIVE THROUGH THE GARAGE AND BACK OUT ONTO OLD MERIDIAN STREET. I ASKED FOR SOME TYPE OF LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION OR AGREEMENT, PROOF FROM THE SIGNATURE OWNERS TO ALLOW THEM TO CONNECT IN. I HAVEN'T RECEIVED THAT YET. I WAS HOPING YOU WOULD TELL ME --
>> WE'RE HAVING DIALOGUE WITH THEM. THEY ARE OUT OF THE COUNTRY AT THE MOMENT, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT WORKED OUT.
>> WELL, UNTIL WE HAVE THAT WORKED OUT, I DON'T FEEL CONFIDENT WE CAN APPROVE THIS. WE COULD APPROVE THINGS CONTINGENTLY, BUT IF THEY CAN'T GET IT OR SOMETHING CAN'T BE CHANGED, THEN WE HAVE TO CUTCUT ADDITION DOWN IN HALF AND WHAT DOES THAT DESIGN LOOK LIKE. THERE'S A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FOR THIS. KEVIN, GO AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS KEVIN PAUL. I'M ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND BROUGHT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT FORWARD A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
A COUPLE CHALLENGES. THE TENANT WOULD LIKE THE ADDITION FOR THE USE OF THEIR CONCEPT. I THINK WE'RE ALL AWARE THAT IF WE CAN'T GET THAT CURB CUT AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY SIGNATURE WE WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE THAT ADDITION TO EITHER EIGHT FEET OR NO ADDITION AT ALL. WE'VE HAD TO ACCOMMODATE A RISER ROOM AND ACCESS POINT POINT PRESENTED SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ADDITION TO CLEAN UP THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING.
>> A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED FORWARD, WE JUST FOUND OUT IN THE LAST TEN DAYS THAT WE WERE ON THAT SURVEY FOR THE MID CENTURY MODERN CORRIDOR MAIN STREET, WHICH I HAPPEN TO LIVE IN A MID CENTURY MODERN HOME SO THE DESIGN ELEMENTS DON'T BOTHER ME AT ALL. I'M PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT IT AND ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE SITE OF THAT STRUCTURE OR BUILDING IS CERTAINLY EXCITING FOR I THINK EVERYBODY IN TOWN. BUT WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE A DRIVE LANE AND I HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH SIGNATURE OWNERSHIP TODAY. THEY JUST GOT BACK IN TOWN AND ARE MEETING WITH OTHER PARTNERS ON EXACTLY WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THEY HAVE TO GET A LAWYER INVOLVED OR NOT.
>> THEY FELT CONFIDENT WE COULD GET SOMETHING WORKED OUT BUT WE UNDERSTAND IF WE CAN'T, WE'LL REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE ADDITION TO ACCOMMODATE FOR SAFETY. I'VE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH
[01:30:09]
MARK BELOSY, THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND REALLY THEIR CHARTER MEMBER FOR THE MISCENTURY MODERN DESIGNS FOR THE STATE OF INDIANA AND A LIAISON TO THE CITY OF CARMEL. ALTHOUGH HE NICELY TRIED TO SAY THE ORIGINAL BUILDING DIDN'T HAVE ANY ASPECTS WORTH PRESERVING, HE WAS EXCITED WE WERE STILL INCORPORATING AN MCM ASPECT DESIGN ELEMENTS IN THE NEW DESIGN THAT WE'REWE'RE AND HAS REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS AND IS GOING TO WORK WITH US ON SOME FINAL ASPECTS OR DESIGN COMPONENTS WHETHER IT BE WITH THE MATERIALS OR JUST SOME MINOR ACCENTS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE. IT'S A PRETTY UTILITARIAN DESIGN WITH HORIZONAL AND VERTICAL LINE STRUCTURES OR BREAKS AND IN SIMPLE CORNICE FOR ROOF LINES SO WE HAVE TO INCORPORATE SOME CHANGE IN MATERIALS WHETHER IT BE BRICK TO METAL OR SCONCED LIGHTING TO ACCENTUATE THOSE AROUND MID CENTURY MODERN ASPECTS.>> THANK YOU. STAFF, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> ALONG THOSE LINES OF THE DESIGN POTENTIALLY NOT BEING FINALIZED, THIS DID PRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO CHANGE WHAT THE BONE YARD WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE, SO I DID INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE TWO DIFFERENT DESIGNS AND HOW THEY'VE CHANGED OVER TIME, AND IT'S NOT THE SAME AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. SO THE FACT THAT THE DESIGN MIGHT CHANGE AGAIN, THAT WE DON'T HAVE APPROVAL FOR THE ONE- WAY TRAFFIC, I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING IN ORDER TO GIVE MORE TIME FOR THEM TO WORK THESE THINGS OUT AND GIVE US CONCRETE ANSWERS AT THE NEXT MEETING.
THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE FEBRUARY 3RD.
>> A COUPLE QUESTIONS. AND THIS IS JUST NAIVETE SO BEAR WITH ME. WHEN A PERSON GOES TO ADD AN ADDITION TO THEIR HOME OR, EXCUSE ME, BUSINESS, IS IT REQUIRED THAT THEY GO THROUGH -- TO DOCS AND HAVE THOSE PLANS APPROVED? I MEAN, IT'S THE SAME FOR -- JUST NAIVE QUESTION.
EVERY ZONE REQUIRES APPROVAL SO ANY CHANGES TO THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR BUILDING NEED TO BE
APPROVED FIRST. >> DOES THAT INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL?
>> RESIDENTIAL CHANGES ARE DIFFERENT AND HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING STAFF DOES LOOK AT THOSE TO DOUBLE- CHECK SETBACKS AND LOT COVERAGE AND IN OUR REVIEW OF THOSE ITEMS WE TYPICALLY FIND A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THEIR PROPOSALS AND WHERE VARIANCES COME FROM.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO THROW OUT A HYPOTHETICAL, IF YOU DON'T MIND. LET'S SAY THEY HAD A BUILDING PERMIT AND STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND IT WAS ALL -- WITH THE CITY WHAT WOULD THEN HAPPEN?
>> WE WOULD -- AS WE FOUND OUT, WE WOULD ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER AND THEN WE WOULD GO INTO REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS. AND IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A SOLUTION FOR THIS ISSUE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO UNDO WHAT THEY DID, TAKE AWAY PART OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY'VE ADDED.
>> IS THIS LIKE -- I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT, IS THIS TYPICAL FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO KNOW THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH DOCS OR IS A COMPLETE OVERLOOK?
>> I WOULD SAY YES AND WITH A RESTAURANT OWNER THAT IS IN TOWN ALREADY, THEY KNOW THAT THEY SHOULD COME TO US FOR APPROVALS FIRST.
>> SO WE HAVE HAD FILED WITH THE STATE OF INDIANA AND GOT OUR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN RELEASE. WE HAVE UPLOADED OUR DOCUMENTS TO THE PROJECT DOCS.
PART OF THE CONFUSION BECOMES AS THE BONE YARD HAS ALREADY STARTED CONSTRUCTION, AS THINGS GO SOMETIMES THERE ARE MODIFICATIONS THAT GET MADE IN THE FIELD AND WE ARE DOCUMENTING THOSE AND GETTING THOSE ADDRESSED, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NEEDING STILL TO OFFER SOME COMMENTS AND WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM TO GET ALL THOSE RESOLVED.
THIS HAS BEEN ONE BIG POT THAT GOT ALL STIRRED, AND WE'RE GETTING IT THERE. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT SOME
[01:35:02]
OF THOSE ITEMS ARE STILL OUTSTANDING WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PART OF IT AND WE THOUGHT THAT WE NEEDED TO GET THIS KIND OF COMMENTS AND THIS KIND OF RESOLUTION BECAUSE THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT ARE ON PROJECT DOCS ARE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, VERY EASY TO RESOLVE AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW BUT WE HAVE BEEN KIND OF ON HOLD WORKING ON THIS.>> LET ME STOP YOU THERE AND ASK YOU.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR. YOU WENT THROUGH THE STATE TO GET YOUR --
>> WE FOLLOWED THE NORMAL PROCESS.
>> NORMAL PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT, YOU GET A STATE RELEASE, STATE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN RELEASE AND THEN SUBMIT TO THE MUNICIPALITY AND GET YOUR BUILDING PERMIT. RIGHT NOW THE BUILDING PERMIT IS STILL IN -- THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT ALREADY FOR THE BONE YARD, CHANGES TO BE MADE TO THE BONE YARD. WE'VE ADDED THIS ADDITION SO THERE'S A LOT OF -- THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE GETTING ALL TIED TOGETHER.
>> GOT IT. I JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION, TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
I DON'T CERTAINLY -- THROWING NO SHADE HERE.
>> I WANTED TO REASSURE YOU WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS AND ARE AWARE OF THE PROCESS AND FOLLOWING THE PROCESS.
IT'S JUST WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT.
PERFECT. AND IF I MAY FOLLOW UP, ONE OTHER QUESTION, YOU KNOW, SO JUST AS A MATTER OF UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, SO IN ORDER TO BUILD THE EXTENSION, YOU WOULD NEED PERMISSION FROM THE SIGNATURE TO GET IN AND OUT AND HAS THERE BEEN ANY RESPONSE FROM FIRE/POLICE ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THAT? DURING THE REVIEW ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT?
>> THERE HAS NOT. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE A VERY NORMAL, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO GET THROUGH. WE WOULD HAVE TO CONFIRM WITH THEM AS WELL.
>> FOR ME IT'S ALL ABOUT SAFETY.
>> ME, TOO. I DON'T WANT TO BE SUED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
>> WE WOULDN'T PRESENT THE IDEA IF WE DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD GO THROUGH OR IF IT MEANT JEOPARDY TO LIFE SAFETY.
>> THE ADDITION IS RIGHT HERE. SO IT'S THIS RECTANGLE RIGHT HERE. AND AS RACHEL ALLUDED, THE DRIVE -- WE'RE FORCED TO GO TOTO WAY DIAGONAL PARKING THROUGH HERE TO GET THIS ADDITION IN AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE OUTFLOW OR THE CURB CUTOUT WOULD BE INTO THE SIGNATURE AND THEN I DON'T KNOW -- I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT SO IT MAKES SENSE -- I WISH I HAD A BETTER REPRESENTATION OF HOW THAT WORKED FROM HERE, BUT AS YOU GO INTO THE SIGNATURE, THEY HAVE KIND OF A DRIVE TO THEIR PARKING GARAGE AND WE'RE CONNECTING TO THAT.
>> SO IT IS A NORTH AND SOUTH ENTRANCE FOR THE SIGNATURE, BUT YOURS WOULD JUST BE NORTH, CORRECT?
>> SORRY, KEVIN. GOT TO HEAR YOUR VOICE ON THE MICROPHONE.
>> THE CURRENT DRIVE LANE IS JUST TO THE WEST OF US AND IT IS A ONE- WAY SOUTHSOUTH NORTH THROUGH THE CANILEVER AND THEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PARKING GARAGE AND YOU CAN TURN LEFT TO GO ON TO OLD MERIDIAN OR TURN RIGHT AND GO INTO THE PARKING STRUCTURE. SO IT'S THAT TOP CORNER THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THAT WE WOULD CONNECT TO THEIR DRIVE LANE THAT WE'RE SEEKING APPROVING.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
I JUST WANT TO BE SURE. I WOULD LIKE TO WAIT TO SEE WHATWHAT TAC REPORT SAYS -- I'M SORRY.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD ON TO THAT.
SO WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT CAME THROUGH, LIKE, ALL OF THE FIRE COMMENTS ARE ON THE BUILDING PERMIT. AND SO IN THE PLANNING PORTION, IT SAYS PLEASE ANSWER ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN WE'LL KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE OKAY. SO BOTH SIDES ARE CROSS REFERENCING.
>> SO THE WEST SIDE NOTWITHSTANDING, ON THE EAST SIDE, ACTUALLY ABOUT WHERE THE HAND IS IT, YOUR CURSOR IS AT, IT LOOKS LIKE A COUPLE SPACES THERE AND THEN A YARD. SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET VEHICLES IN AND OUT OF THAT SIDE? WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE DIAGONAL SPACES.
>> THE ORIGINAL SITE AND PARKING STRUCTURE WAS APPROVED A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND WENT THROUGH FIRE SAFETY AND ENGINEERING. WHAT WE'VE BEEN FINALIZING WITHWITH ENGINEERS JUST IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS IS JUST REALLY DRAINAGE.
[01:40:01]
TWO YEARS AGO THERE WAS PROPOSED GRANTED RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE SOUTH SIDE THAT WILL HAVE SOME SURFACE PARKING, THREE TO FIVE SPOTS, ALONG THE MAIN STREET.AND THEN WE HAVE PROPOSED 24 PARKING SPOTS ON SITE BOTH ON THE EAST SIDE, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THE WEST SIDE.
WITH THE DRIVE- THROUGH WE LOSE ONE SPOT BUT WE AREARE THE FOUR ON THE PROPERTY THAT WE'VE GRANTED TO THE CITY FOR THEIR MAIN STREET PROJECT THAT I HOPE GETS STARTED FAIRLY SOON.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. SO THE THREE SPOTS -- TECHNICALLY TWO SPOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING -- ARE PRESENTED HERE, YOU SAY ARE GOING AWAY?
>> THE ONES ON THE EAST SIDE ARE REMAINING.
SO YOU'LL BACK OUT - - YOU CAN ENTER FROM THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND/OR THETHE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE'VE GOT TWO ENTRANCES OR EXITS COMING OFF OUR PROPERTY, AND THE CITY IS PROPOSING -- PUTTING A SIDEWALK WITH SOME GRASS AND TREES AND WHAT NOT AND POCKET PARKING.
>> I'M GOING TO TAG ON TO THAT. I THINK YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT. WHAT EXISTS THERE -- WHERE THE HAND IS, IS THERE A BARRIER THERE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY?
>> IT'S LITERALLY JUST OUR DRIVEWAY, A CURB AND THE LEGION DRIVEWAY. AND THEN, UNFORTUNATE, TWO TELEPHONE POLES THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED.
>> SO THOSE TWO SPOTS, WHEN YOU'RE PULLING OUT, HOW WILL THEY PULL OUT OF THERE, I THINK IS THE REAL CONCERN?
>> THESE TWO SPOTS, RIGHT? YEAH, YOU JUST WOULD BACK UP AND THEN DRIVE WEST. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> I'M ONLY CONFUSED BECAUSE OF THE DRAWINGS.
>> IT WAS ORIGINALLY THIS THING. THE CURB CUTOUT WAS PROPOSED.
>> WE HAVE A BARRIER ON THE OES SIDE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET VEHICLES IN AND OUT.
I SEE HOW THEY GET IN. I DON'T SEE HOW THEY GET OUT.
>> THERE IS NO BARRIER AND I THINK WE HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE BEHIND THE SPOT TO BACK OUT OF THERE.
THERE. >> IT'S LIKE 30 FEET FROM -- LIKE THAT -- I CAN'T -- YOU SEE THIS -- THE CURB IS WAY OVER HERE.
>> SO YOU HAVE MORE SPACE? >> YEAH.
>> THE PLAN ALSO USED TO HAVE A ROAD THAT WAS GOING TO GO NORTH TO SOUTH AROUND THE SIGNATURE AS WELL AND THEN THAT ROADROAD THAT PART OF THE PLAN FOR THE AREA AND THEN ALSO PART OF THE SIGNATURE PROJECT AND AS THEY'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH THE MAIN STREET CHANGES TO THIS PART OF MAIN STREET, THEY'RE NO LONGER GOING TO DO THAT NORTH/SOUTH ROAD AND THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED AN ENTRANCE/EXIT INTO THIS PART OF THE SITE.
>> SO THINGS KEEP CHANGING ON THIS SITE.
>> OKAY. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.
>> LET'S PLAY WORST CASE SCENARIO ON THOSE TWO SPOTS, IF WE -- IF IT'S UNSAFE OR PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO BACK OUT OF THEM, DO WE STILL MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF WE LOST THOSE TWO?
>> YES, BECAUSE THIS ZONE ALLOWS FOR NEIGHBORING PARKING WITHIN 800 FEET AND THEY DO HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH BOTH THE SIGNATURE AND ICON TO THE SOUTH WITH THE PARKING GARAGES THEY HAVE. IT'S IN A DENSE AREA THAT SUPPORTS SHARED PARKING.
>> I GUESS I'LL JUMP IN. LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, LET'S SEE, THE ONE WITH THE BONE YARD ON IT.
I'M IN FAVOR OF THE NEW DESIGN. I PERSONALLY DID NOT LIKE THE OLD DESIGN. I THINK THE NEW ONE LOOKS NICE.
THERE WERE A COUPLE COMMENTS ABOUT DESIGN ELEMENTS ALONG THE FACADE OF THE SOUTH FACING PORTION OF THE BUILDING. WHEN I LOOK AT, AND, AGAIN, I'M NOT UP HERE TRYING TO PLAY DESIGNER, BUT WHEN I
[01:45:03]
LOOKED AT THE WINL DOUGHS AND THE BUMPOUTS TO THE WEST, I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WOULD BE NICE -- THERE'S A BRICK VENEER BENEATH THE WINDOWS. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NICE TO CARRY THE METAL THAT'S CITED WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS.I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NICE TO CARRY THAT DOWN TO HAVE VERTICAL SEPARATION TO UNIFY THE LOOK A LITTLE BIT MORE.
>> THE SAME WITH THE WINDOWS ON THE WEST SIDE TO CARRY THAT DESIGN ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>> YEAH, BECAUSE IT WOULD ACTUALLY MIMIC WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON RIGHT HERE AS WELL.
>> YEAH. I KNOW WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DESIGNERS UP HERE, BUT, ALSO, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN FOR THE EASTERN PORTION AND THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION I PREFERRED THE LOOK WITHOUT THE NEW ALUMINUM DESIGN ELEMENT THAT WAS ADDED IN THE MOSTMOST RECENT SENT OUT. THE REQUEST WAS TO CARRY THE CANTILEVER PORTION ALL THE WAY.
>> YES. SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT CANTILEVERS. ONE ON THE WEST PART OF THE BUILDINGTHAT I THOUGHT SHOULD KEEP GOING WITH THE NEW ADDITION.
BUT GEORGE EXPLAINED WHY IT DOESN'T AND I AGREE WITH HIM. IT'S FINE TO NOT DO THAT.
THEN THE CANTILEVERED ON THE EAST SIDE THERE'S A BALANCE WE NEED TO STRIKE BETWEEN HOW MANY CHANGES CAN THEY MAKE TO THAT BUILDING THAT WEREN'T APPROVED ORIGINALLY WITH THIS CHANGE NOW.
SO I'M TRYING TO KEEP THINGS CONSISTENT TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED WHILE ALSO ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE IT NOW THAT THEY KNOW TWO YEARS LATER THAT THERE'S A NEW TENANT IN HERE. THIS IS A BALANCING ACT.
>> ALSO, IN ADDITION, WE DO NEED TO RELY MORE ON MARK DELOSSIER AND IF HE SAYS WHAT YOU RECOMMENDED IS NOT MID CENTURY MODERN, WE'LL GO WITH THAT.
UNDERSTOOD. >> YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BOILING IT ALL DOWN AND PULLING THE DESIGN PORTION OUT, WHAT WE'RE REALLY DISCUSSING TODAY IT SEEMS LIKE IS THIS CURB CUT WHICH -- AND DO WE -- SOMEBODY MENTIONED SHARED PARKING. WE HAD A COMMITMENT, THOUGH, THAT THE SIGNATURE WOULD ALLOW SHARED PARKING.
>> YES. THEY PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED THOSE AGREEMENTS.
>> TWO YEARS AGO WHEN THIS PROJECT FIRST CAME THROUGH.
>> SO THE CURB CUT, IT'S REALLY -- IT SOUNDS LIKELIKE MORE -- I'M NOT GOING TO SAY GAMBLE BUT IT'S MORE ON YOU ALL SUBMITTING THIS. IF WE CAN GET A WRITTEN COMMITMENT FROM SIGNATURE ABOUT THIS CURB CUT, THERE'S ALSO SOME WITH STANDING OR OUTSTANDING DESIGN ELEMENT CHANGES, ARE THESE NOT THINGS THAT COULD BE COMPLETED IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO BEFORE THE NEXT PLAN COMMISSION MEETING? I MEAN, PENDING -- SO THAT WE CAN BRING IT BACK TO FULL PLAN COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL PENDING THOSE DOCUMENTS INSTEAD OF PUSHING IT TO ANOTHER MEETING AND DISCUSSING IT AGAIN? DO WE FEEL COMFORTABLE AND CONFIDENT÷÷CONFIDENT COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT AS A COMMISSION AND PETITIONER?
>> WE CAN DO IT. OBVIOUSLY WE CAN.
>> RIGHT. SO FOR US TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE IT THE NEXT PLAN COMMISSION REALLY ON THE DOCKET IS TO HAVE THAT APPROVAL IN PLACE BEFORE THAT MEETING, OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE PUSHED TO THE FEBRUARY -- THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING AND THEN FULL PLAN COMMISSION MEETING.
>> CAN WE GET A COMMITMENT THAT YOU WILL BRING THAT FORWARD TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION SO THAT WE CAN MAYBE VOTE ON IT AT THAT MEETING IN TWO WEEKS?
>> I CAN BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING HAVE A DEFINITIVE DIRECTION AS TO WHETHER WE'LL HAVE THE CURB CUT AND A 12- FOOT ADDITION OR NO CURB CUT AND 8- FOOT ADDITION THAT WOULD MATCH ELEMENTS APPROVED OR SUPPORTED BY MARK FROM MID CENTURY MODERN THAT WE WOULD WORK WITH RACHEL AND HAVE FOR THAT JANUARY 20TH. I CAN COMMIT TO THAT BUT I CAN'T PROMISE I'LL GET APPROVAL IF LEGAL GETS IN OR SOMETHING HAPPENS. BUT I THINK WE'RE PREPARED TO HAVE A SMALLER ADDITION IF THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED.
>> IF YOU VOTE TO FORWARD IT TO THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION FOR A FINAL VOTE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO HAVE THEM HEARD ON THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION.
[01:50:02]
WE WOULD PUT IT UNDER NEW BUSINESS.BUT ANYWAY, IF THEY COULDN'T MAKE IT, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT, WE WOULD JUST TABLE IT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
>> YEAH. THAT SOUNDS -- I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I RECOMMEND THAT WE DO INSTEAD OF PUSHING IT TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING. ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT AT ALL?
>> I'M MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW.
>> I'M VOTING -- I'M RECOMMENDING APROCHL FOR THIS PROJECT GO BACK TO FULL PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ON ALL THE COMMITMENTS YOU'VE MADE THAT CAN YOU DO, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING.
>> AND YOU'RE SAYING THE JANUARY 20TH?
>> FULL PLANNING COMMISSION. I'LL SECOND.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THAT WILL DO IT FOR OUR COMMITTEE MEETING. AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK TO MS. MINNAAR. WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU.
YOU'VE BEEN A WONDERFUL ADDITION THE LAST TWO YEARS.
>> THANK YOU FOR JUMPING IN HEADFIRST. THAT WILL DO IT FOR OUR COMMITTEE MEETING AND WE WILL SEE EVERYONE AT THE FULL PLAN COMMISSION ON JANUARY 20TH.
THANK YOU. MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.