May 04, 2022 Finance, Utilities, and Rules Committee Meeting 05-04-22

[00:00:04]

>> ALL RIGHT, NOW WE ARE IN SESSION.

THIS IS THE MEETING FOR FINANCE UTILITY AND RULES FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 4TH. TWO ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA,.

WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FAIRLY QUICKLY THROUGH THIS AS WE DO HAVE A HARD STOP FOR THE POLICE CEREMONY THAT WILL BE AT

[a. Ordinance D-2622-22; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing the Issuance of Economic Development Tax Increment Revenue Bonds to Support the Redevelopment of a Former AT&T Site, and Authorizing and Approving Other Actions in Respect Thereto; Sponsor: Councilor Worrell. ]

THE AMOUNT THAT IS LISTED CURRENTLY IS $20,500,000.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, DIRECTOR, WHO IS HERE THAT WILL BE SPEAKING FOR -- ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPERS, IF ANYONE?

>> WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES WITH BUCKINGHAM ON -- IN PERSON AND WE HAVE MR. MIKE PETRI, WHO VOTED YESTERDAY, BY THE WAY, I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I RAN INTO HIM.

>> OKAY. >> ON BEHALF OF MERCHANTS BANK.

AND ONLINE, ON THE TEAMS CALL, SHOULD BE REPRESENTATIVES OF

PURE. >> OKAY, VERY GOOD.

COULD I SEE A SHOW OF HANDS, THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

SO I HAVE ABOUT THREE OF THOSE? I'M TRYING TO ADJUST MY TIME SO I KNOW WHAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH. OKAY.

ALSO IN THE ROOM, WE HAVE DIRECTOR MASTESKY, BRUCE DONALDSON, COUNSEL, AND OTHER VARIOUS IMPORTANT PEOPLE BUT THAT IS WHO WE WILL BE DEALING WITH TONIGHT.

SO ALL RIGHT, DIRECTOR MASTESKY, KICK THINGS OFF, WHAT ARE WE

HERE TO DISCUSS TONIGHT? >> IS THE TEAMS CALL GOING? OKAY. AWESOME.

HI EVERYONE, HENRY MASTESKY, CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

WE ARE HERE TODAY TO -- SO THIS IS ADAM SAGGER ON TV OF PURE AND MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIVES OF BUCKINGHAM TO SPEAK AS WELL.

WE ARE HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUE IS WHAT WE HAVE CALLED AT&T SITE REDEVELOPMENT. AND I AM HAPPY TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM BUCKINGHAM COME UP AND JUST SAY A FEW WORDS UNLESS ADAM

WANTS TO ABOUT THE AT&T PROJECT. >> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS -- I'M A REPRESENTATIVE OF BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES. THE PROJECT WE ARE PRESENTING TO YOU TONIGHT IS A COLLABORATION BETWEEN MERCHANTS BANK, BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES, PURE DEVELOPMENT AND -- SORRY, I WAS RUNNING. AND BOUTIQUE OFFICE USER.

THE PROJECT IS A RESULT OF ABOUT 18 MONTHS OF COLLABORATIONS WITH BETWEEN ADLS STAFF, PLANNING STAFF, THE CRC AND OUR JOINT VENTURE. WE WERE ALSO GRATEFUL TO PRESENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD LAST FALL AND RECEIVED VERY POSITIVE FEEDBACK. THE PROJECT INCLUDES FOUR BUILDINGS. EXTENSION OF MERCHANTS BANK, ABOUT 80,000 SQUARE FEET. THE RELOCATION OF THE PURE HEADQUARTERS FROM INDIANAPOLIS TO CARMEL.

ANOTHER OFFICE USER AND THEN OUR MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS WHICH HAS 240 UNITS AND 400 PARKING SPACES.

WE ARE ALSO REDEVELOPING TWO OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE SITE. MERCHANTS HEADQUARTERS TO THE RIGHT, MULTIFAMILY BUILDING TO THE LEFT.

THE PURE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING. THIS IS A SUMMARY OF WHAT I JUST TOUCHED ON IN TERMS OF THE SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE OVERALL

SIZE. >> SO AGAIN, WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL OF THE PARTNERS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MIGHT HAVE AS WE DISCUSS WHEN WE FIRST INTRODUCED THIS PROJECT, IT IS 133 MILLION-DOLLAR PROJECT THAT PRODUCES A NET OF $143,000 A

[00:05:05]

IT INCREASES THE PRICE PER ACREAGE ON -- ASSESSED VALUE PER ACRE FROM $300,000 TO ACRE TO 14.7 MILLION.

COUNCIL -- WELL, AND SO WE ARE HERE TODAY REQUESTING A BOND APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT. THIS IS, AGAIN, A DEVELOPER TIF, WHICH MEANS NEITHER THE CITY NOR THE TAXPAYERS WILL EVER BE ON THE HOOK FOR ANY TAXES RELATED TO THIS.

THE DEVELOPER IS ON THE HOOK. BRUCE DONALDSON IS HERE TO ANSWER RELATED BOND QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE, WE ARE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

>> DIRECTOR MASTESKY, DID YOU INTEND TO HAVE ALL THREE COMPONENTS SPEAK FIRST OR DO YOU WANT US TO TAKE ONE AT A TIME WITH QUESTIONS? I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU HAVE ALL THREE SPEAK. BUT HOWEVER YOU PLANNED.

>> WE WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS OF YOUR TIME.

I THINK JUSTINE DID A GREAT JOB OF INTRODUCING THE PROJECT COMPONENTS. IT IS WHATEVER COUNCIL WANTS TO DO. IF YOU WOULD LIKE FROM MERCHANTS OR PURE TO SPEAK, WE ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

WE WANT TO BE -- >> OH, OKAY, I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO HAVE EACH OF THE DEVELOPERS INTRODUCE THEIR

COMPONENT TO US. >> IT IS A JOINT VENTURE.

>> VERY GOOD. AND JUST TO KIND OF SET THE TONE, WHAT ARE -- LET'S JUST SAY THAT THIS WERE APPROVED TONIGHT, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS, WHAT CAN THE PUBLIC EXPECT FOR THIS PROJECT? WHAT ELSE HAS TO HAPPEN?

>> THANK YOU. SO FOR ANYONE OUT THERE WATCHING, BECAUSE THIS IS CITY STUFF IS COMPLICATED.

WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS. SO USUALLY A DEVELOPER WILL DO KIND OF INITIAL -- SOME INITIAL DESIGN TO TRY TO PUT A PROJECT TOGETHER. BUT THE DESIGN DOESN'T REALLY MOVE FORWARD IN EARNEST UNTIL THE DEVELOPER KNOWS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS ON BOARD WITH THE PROJECT.

SO IF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCEPTUALLY LIKES THE PROJECT AND APPROVES THE BONDS, THAT'S JUST STEP ONE.

SO ON THIS PROJECT, THERE IS GOING TO BE A LONG PROCESS, BOTH IN FRONT OF THE PLAN COMMISSION AND IN FRONT OF THE BZA RELATED TO LAND USE ISSUES. WE HAVE IN THE ROOM WITH US DIRECTOR MIKE HAUBAUGH, PLANNING & ZONING, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HIM ON ANY OF THAT. SO IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE BOND FOR THIS PROJECT, WE PROBABLY HAVE GOT HALF YEAR OF FINE TUNING EVERYTHING AT PLAN COMMISSION AND AT BZA LEVEL.

AFTER THAT, WE PROBABLY MOVE TO FULL DESIGN APPROVALS, PERMITS AFTER THAT. WAS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ASKING?

>> YEP. >> IS THAT SUFFICIENT?

>> EXACTLY. I WOULD JUST MAKE ONE OTHER PROCESS NOTE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WE WOULD HAVE HEIDI AMSPA TO REVIEW CAPACITY FOR THE BOND. IN THIS CASE, WE WON'T BE DOING THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A DEVELOPER BOND.

THERE IS NO COMPONENT WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY CAN AFFORD IT. SO WE ARE MOVING REALLY STRAIGHT INTO THE PROJECT ITSELF AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO SUPPORT THIS USE OF DOLLARS FOR THIS PROJECT.

SO I WILL START OUT, BEFORE I CALL UP MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FIRST

REGARDING THE PROJECT? >> SO DIRECTOR, ON THIS ONE, WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY? DID THE CRC OWN IT AT ANY POINT? IS THERE ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THE TIF REVENUE THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN OR IS PROPOSED TO BE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER?

>> THE JV TEAM OWNS THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY WAS NEVER OWNED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.

THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND APART FROM THE TIF, WE DID TALK ABOUT ADDITIONAL INPUTS THAT THE CRC WOULD PUT IN TO MAKE THE

PROJECT WORK. >> SO THE DEVELOPER BOUGHT IT FROM AT AND THE T PREVIOUSLY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. IN FACT, DEVELOPER DOESN'T THINK

[00:10:05]

AT&T WAS SELLING SEVERAL PROPERTIES ALL AT ONCE.

THIS ONE HAPPENED TO BE IN CARMEL, SEVERAL IN MAYBE SLIGHTLY LESS DESIRABLE PLACES IN THE CENTRAL INDIANA AREA.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM HAD TO BUY ALL FOUR PARCELS IN ORDER TO GET THE ONE IN CARMEL AND PROPOSE THIS PROJECT, WHICH WE

APPRECIATE. >> OKAY.

THE REASON I ASK IS THAT I E-MAILED YOU THAT THAT IS A STANDARD QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT TAXPAYERS ARE AWARE OF, BOTH ANY TIF REVENUE THAT IS GRANTED AS WELL AS ANY LAND GETS. ON THIS ONE, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AND MAYBE YOU CAN STRAIGHTEN THIS OUT.

THIS MAY HAVE BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE THING, THERE IS S ON THE 28TH OF DECEMBER, IT HAS A TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERTY FROM CRC TO PST LANDINGS AND THEN A DAY LATER BACK.

SO IS THAT -- WHAT WAS THAT AND DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO

WITH THIS? >> THAT TRANSACTION WAS DONE TO RESET THE TAX BASE FOR TIF TO ZERO.

OTHERWISE THE PROJECT WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED.

>> SO THIS IS NOT INCREMENTAL. ASSESSED VALUE GOES TO ZERO.

ALL REVENUE FOR THIS PROPERTY GOING FORWARD WILL GO TO EITHER THE DEVELOPER OR TO CRC. IT IS NOT INCREMENTAL, CORRECT.

>> PLUS $143,000 A YEAR TO THE SCHOOLS.

>> IS THAT NORMAL PRACTICE TO DO THAT? BECAUSE IN THE PAST I HAVE SEEN CRC BUY PROPERTIES WITH CITY DOLLARS AND THEN GIVE IT TO THE DEVELOPER AS PART OF THE PACKAGE DEAL. ONE OF THE DISADVANTAGES TO THAT IS THAT THE CITIZENS STILL ON THE HOOK TO PAY OFF THE PROPERTY FOR NEXT 25 YEARS FROM THE BOND AS WELL AS THE INCREMENTAL TAX

-- >> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T

UNDERSTAND. >> DON'T INTERRUPT ME, DIRECTOR.

>> I APOLOGIZE. >> AS WELL AS THE INCREMENTAL VALUE THAT THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF TIF ALLEGEDLY IS THAT THE CITY AND THE GENERAL FUND AND POLICE AND FIRE AND STREETS AND UTILITIES WILL GET THE BASELINE TAXES FROM THAT PROPERTY ONGOING AND IT IS ONLY THE INCREMENTAL DOLLARS THAT ARE FACILITATED BY THIS DEAL THAT WOULD THEN GO TO THE CRC OR TO THE DEVELOPER.

SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO TAXPAYERS, AND IS THIS THE NORMAL PRACTICE TO DO A LEGAL SHIFT SO THAT THE INCREMENTAL PART OF THE TAXES, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY GO TO POLICE, FIRE, UTILITIES, ET CETERA, DOES NOT GO TO THE

GENERAL FUND? >> WELL, I DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE MATH PART OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE A LONG-RANGE VIEW OF CITY PLANNING AND CITY GROWTH HERE. NOT THINK ABOUT THINGS ON A YEAR OVER YEAR BASIS. IT IS OUR ROLE AS CITY STAFF TO IMPROVE EACH PART OF THE CITY THE BEST WE CAN.

IT IS OUR ROLE ON PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS TO ENHANCE EVERY PARCEL THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN BECAUSE WHEN SOMETHING IS BEING BUILT ANEW, WE O ONLY HAVE ONE CHANCE TO DO IT.

SO THE STATE THAT IS PROVIDED US WITH ONE WAY TO DO THAT, WHICH IS TIF AREAS THAT ARE CREATED FOR 25 YEARS, THEN THEY RUN OUT.

THEN ALL THE NEW ASSESSED VALUE THAT HAS BEEN BUILT UPON THAT SITE GOES BACK TO THE CITY GENERAL ROLLS FOR THOSE EXACT EXPENSES THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

SO ON EACH DEAL WE TRY TO NEGOTIATE AND GET, ON BEHALF OF THE TAXPAYERS, THE BEST POSSIBLE PROJECT.

SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES US TO RESET THE BASE TO ZERO OR ELSE THE PROJECT DOESN'T HAPPEN. IT IS OUR JOB TO, WITHIN -- SO LONG AS WE ARE FOLLOWING PROPER URBAN PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDANCE, IF YOU WILL, IT IS A GOOD THING, IT IS A POSITIVE THING TO INCREASE THE ASSESSED VALUE OF A PARCEL FROM 300 AN ACRE TO 14 MILLION AN ACRE. WE ARE ONLY GET ONE CHANCE TO BUILD THIS DOWNTOWN FROM SCRATCH.

AND THE VIEW -- OUR VIEW OF THIS SHOULD BE OVER HUNDRED, 200 YEARS, NOT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR.

YOU HAVE SEEN WHAT THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND COUNCIL HAVE DONE IN MIDTOWN PARCEL BY PARCEL.

WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THESE PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND WE ARE AT THE POINT NOW WHERE THESE 25-YEAR ALLOCATION AREAS, SOME OF THE FIRST PROJECTS THAFT THAD COUNCIL HAVE DONE ARE ROLLING OFF. SOPHIA SQUARE, THAT ALLOCATION

[00:15:03]

IF YOU THINK OF BUILDING A CITY, PROJECT BY PROJECT, ALLOCATION AREA BY ALLOCATION AREA, WE ARE ENHANCING THE LAND.

WE ARE -- I MEAN, THE MULTIPLE FOR ASSESSED VALUE PER ACRE IS GOING UP 30, 40 TIMES IN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.

WHEN ALLOCATION AREAS RUN OUT, THOSE GIANT PROJECTS WITH ASSESSED VALUE START PAYING INTO THE GENERAL ROLL.

THIS IS OUR BEST WAY AS A CITY TO GROW OURSELVES AND SECURE OUR FISCAL FUTURE. SO FOCUSING ON WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY WHERE, IF THE DEAL IS NOT APPROVED, YOU ARE NOT GETTING ANY TIF ANYWAYS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WHOLE BUT FOR TEST. WE SHOULD FOCUS THINGS IN 100, 200 INCREMENTS AS WE ARE GROWING A DOWNTOWN FROM SCRATCH AND IMPROVE EVERY PARCEL. I HOPE THAT KIND OF ANSWERS AT

LEAST FILL LOW FIL PHILOSOPHICA. >> IT WAS MORE SPECIFIC AND MUCH MORE TECHNICAL, WHAT YOU DID THROUGH THAT LEGAL MANEUVER IS YOU TOOK DOLLARS THAT WOULD HAVE NORMALLY GONE TO THE GENERAL FUND TO FUND POLICE, FIRE, STREETS, ET CETERA, AND PUT THEM INTO THIS DEAL. AND I CERTAINLY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT AND I'M GUESSING MOST OF MY FELLOW COUNCILORS DIDN'T HAVE

ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. >> CAN I ADDRESS THAT?

CAN I SPEAK? >> HANG ON, I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO TAKE THESE ONE AT A TIME. SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, BASED ON COUNCILOR HANNON'S STATEMENT, WHAT KIND OF DOLLARS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU ZEROED OUT?

>> THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY AT THE TIME, MILLION

BUCKS MAYBE. >> PARDON ME?

>> MAYBE A MILLION DOLLARS OF ASSESSED VALUE AT THE TIME.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TAXES. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

>> $27,000 DIVIDED AMONGST ALL THE DIFFERENT TAXING UNITS.

>> SO $27,000 IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. I GUESS IT WAS RIGHT THERE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A LARGER POINT RELATED TO THIS.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO AS COUNCIL KNOWS, IN INDIANA WHEN A CITY IS GROWING, AND A LOT OF NEW PROPERTIES ARE HITTING THE TAX ROLLS, WHICH CARMEL IS -- I MEAN, BY FAR THE BEST EXAMPLE OF HOW MUCH NEW DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING, EVEN OUTSIDE OF CRC PROJECTS. THE CITY'S BUDGET CAN ONLY GO UP BY A SMALL PERCENTAGE EACH YEAR. AND SO A LOT OF NEW PROPERTIES AND THE ASSESSED VALUE THEY BRING WITH THEM AREN'T GETTING CAPTURED IN BUDGETS. THERE'S A LOT OF NEW AV HITTING THE CITY OF CARMEL THAT COVER THAT $27,000 AND THEN SOME.

BUT WE ONLY GET TO BUILD A PROJECT ONCE AND CERTAIN PROJECTS REQUIRE, FOR THAT PROJECT, TO RESET TO ZERO FOR THE PROJECTS TO WORK. AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCIL HANNON, WE HAVE SOME OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ONE MORE OR DO YOU WANT T TO.

>> TO MAKE SURE MY COLLEAGUE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO ASK HIS

QUESTIONS. >> GO AHEAD.

>> WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE ECONOMIC IMPACT, WITH THE APARTMENTS, TWO HEADQUARTERS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS. TWO SEPARATE HEADQUARTERS, NOT FULL OF BOUTIQUE LITTLE HEADQUARTERS.

>> THREE. >> THREE HEADQUARTERS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY STUDY OR ANY TYPE OF GUESSTIMATE ON WHAT TYPE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT IN ADDITION TO THE INCREASED VALUE HER ACRE, WHICH IS EXTRAORDINARY. THE ADDITIONAL TAXES THAT THE SCHOOLS WILL BE BENEFITING FROM, BUT I'M JUST KIND OF, LIKE, I'M SURE A LOT OF RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO WANT TO KNOW AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW, WHAT IMPACT WILL THIS HAVE TO NOT JUST THE CITY BUT TO THE BUSINESSES AROUND, TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THANK YOU.

>> YES. SO AS YOU SAID, IT IS THREE HEADQUARTERS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.

THE EXPANSION OF MERCHANTS BANK AND TWO NEW HEADQUARTERS AS WELL. OKAY.

SO ON THIS SLIDE IT HIGHLIGHTS NOT ONLY TEMPORARY JOBS CREATED THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECTS BUT THE LONG-TERM JOBS AND OVERALL IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THE CITY O CARMEL. I CAN READ THROUGH THAT, I THINK

IT IS SELF-EXPLANATORY. >> JOBS, YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU GIVE US THE HIGH POINTS. LOOKS TO ME LIKE 500 JOBS.

[00:20:10]

>> IT IS AROUND -- >> WHAT DID YOU SAY?

GO AHEAD, ADAM. >> SORRY, I WAS GOING TO SAY AROUND 450 CONSTRUCTION JOBS AND THEN FROM A PERMANENT JOB SET, YOU KNOW, INITIALLY AROUND 110 BETWEEN THE MERCHANTS HEADQUARTERS EXPANSION, PURE DEVELOPMENT, RELOCATION OF OUR HEADQUARTERS UP TO CARMEL. AND THEN THE BOUTIQUE FAMILY OFFICE ADJACENT TO THAT AS WELL. PLUS, SOME FULL-TIME JOBS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AND UNITS IN THAT AS WELL. SO A LOT OF PEOPLE THERE ON THE DAYTIME TO BE ACTIVATING ALL THE PRIOR DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS

ATTRACTED US UP TO MIDTOWN. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WASN'T FEATURED ON THAT LIST IS A PORTION OF THIS PROJECT -- APART FROM ALL THE OTHER OFFICES, HAS THIS OFFICE CONDO CONCEPT.

>> YES, WE HAVE LIVE/WORK UNITS ALONG THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING THE MERCHANTS HEADQUARTERS.

SO THOSE ARE TWO-STORY UNITS THAT WILL ALLOW FOR SMALLER BUSINESSES TO LOCATE THEIR HEADQUARTERS THERE, THEIR

BUSINESSES ON THE GROUND FLOOR. >> THE OTHER ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILOR, IS OFTENTIMES WHEN DEVELOPERS ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE A COUNCIL THAT SOMETHING IS A GOOD IDEA, THEY WILL GO AND PAY FOR STUDIES TO GET BASIC SALES TAX INFORMATION, OTHER STUFF LIKE THAT.

WE KNOW THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO GENERATE A LOT OF POSITIVITY THAT PROBABLY IS NOT WORTH WASTING TIME AND MONEY TO HAVE SOMEBODY PUT THAT ON A PIECE OF PAPER WHEN YOU KNOW THIS IS GOING TO EXTEND OUR MIDTOWN FROM URBAN PLANNING STANDPOINT. WE KNOW IT IS GOING TO HAVE 130,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE.

SO IT IS NOT ALWAYS MONEY WELL SPENT TO HAVE SOMEBODY PUT THAT

DOWN FOR US ON A PIECE OF PAPER. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. COUNCILOR NELSON, ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THAT'S ALL FOR ME, THANKS. >> OKAY.

COUNCILOR F FINKAM? OKAY.

>> THE DIFFERENCE IS IT MIGHT BE WORTH SOMEONE'S TIME TO DO THIS, THAT IS SAID FROM SOMEONE APPOINTED INTO THIS POSITION AND NOT ELECTED INTO THIS POSITION. WE HAVE TO JUSTIFY THESE, SO THE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING IF WE GIVE UP ALL THE PROPERTY TAX, WHAT IS IT WE ARE GETTING BACK, RIGHT? WE CAN TALK ABOUT ASSESSED VALUE. THEY ARE ASKING FOR OTHER TANGIBLES. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOMEONE USING THE SPREADSHEET FOR AN HOUR SO I CAN LOOK AT THE PEOPLE WHO PUT ME IN THE JOB AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GETTING

BACK. >> WE WILL GET THAT FILLED OUT.

>> THANK YOU. >> COUNCILOR RIDER?

COUNCILOR HANNON? >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE I'M NOT AGAINST TIF. NIGHTTIME NECESSARILY AGAINST THIS PROJECT. I JUST BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO EVOLVE THE USE OF TIF OVER TIME AND WE NEED TO BE VERY, VERY TRANSPARENT TO TAXPAYERS ON HOW THESE FUNDS ARE BEING USED, WHAT'S THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. TO DIRECTOR MASTESKY'S POINT, IF WE DON'T TIF THESE, WE LOSE THOSE INCREMENTAL TAX DOLLARS.

AGAIN, THAT IS PROBABLY WORTH AN EXERCISE HONESTLY IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE IF NOT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL TO LOOK AT MAX REVENUE AT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS $1.4 MILLION DIDN'T GO TO THE DEVELOPER BUT WENT TO THE TAX ROLLS, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

EITHER IT WOULD BE CAPTURED IN THE INCREMENT OR IF WE WERE AT A CAP, IT WOULD LOWER EVERYONE'S TAX RATES.

SO WE DO NEED TO BE COGNIZANT ABOUT WHERE THESE DOLLARS ARE GOING AND MAKING STATEMENTS SUCH THAT WE CAN'T CAPTURE THESE DOLLARS ANYWAY IS NOT QUITE RIGHT.

THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO SAY, AND I SHARED THIS WITH MY FELLOW COUNCILORS, I WANT TO SEE US START TO EVOLVE THAT EVERYONE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE TIF DISTRICTS.

I DON'T DEBATE MORE JOBS AND HOPEFULLY MORE GREAT RESTAURANTS ARE GOING TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY. BUT THESE ALSO PUT A SUBSTANTIAL STRAIN ON POLICE, FIRE, ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE WILL NOT SEE A DIME OF THE DOLLARS THAT IS THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY FOR 25 YEARS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS ALLOWED BY TIF STATUTES, TIF DOLLARS CANNOT JUST BE USED IN THE ALLOCATION AREA, THEY CAN BE USED AS TIF SERVING OR ADJACENT

[00:25:05]

SO, AGAIN, DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS ON THAT BUT I JUST WANT TO COMMUNICATE TO EVERYONE THAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS MARGINALLY CHANGE THE WAY WE ARE APPROACHING THIS AS WE EVOLVE.

I'M NOT AGAINST TIF PER SE. >> COUNCILOR FINKAM.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WILL ADDRESS WHAT COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBER HANNON SAID. WE HAVE DISCUSSED WHAT TO DO TO HELP NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA. I THINK THERE ARE EXCITING OPPORTUNITIES ON THE TABLE. I THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION AT A LATER DATE.

I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT IT IS NOT A PIPE DREAM.

THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING.

THE MECHANISM BY WHICH WE GET THEM DONE OR WHAT THEY ARE ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED BY THIS BODY OR THE COUNCIL.

BUT COUNCILOR HANNON FOR THINKING THROUGH THAT, I APPRECIATE THE MAYOR AND HENRY BEING OPEN TO THOSE IDEAS AS

WELL. >> COUNCILOR RIDER.

>> TO CLEAR UP A FEW OF THOSE THINGS SINCE I CAN POSSIBLY BE THE SENIOR MEMBER HERE WHO HAS DONE THE MOST OF THESE.

EVERYBODY BENEFITS WHEN WE DO THESE THINGS.

TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T BENEFIT DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THE TIF, IF WE USED A BUNCH OF THE TIF IN THESE PROJECTS FOR OTHER THINGS IN THE AREA, THE PROJECTS WOULDN'T EXIST.

SO THE TIF WOULD NOT EXIST. IT IS THE REASON THAT -- OUR GOAL, WE LOVE TO ONLY GIVE 75% OF THE TIF AWAY.

IN SP SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE GIVE 90, 95 AND EVEN 100.

THE PROJECTS WOULDN'T EXIST. SO THEREFORE THE TIF DOLLARS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT USING WOULD NOT EXIST TO HELP ANYBODY ELSE ALSO. AND IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF WE WERE INDIANAPOLIS, BUT WE ARE NOT.

WE ARE PROACTIVE. I SAY THIS WITH OUR POLICE.

WE DON'T REACT TO CRIME, WE PROACTIVE TO PREVENT IT.

WE DO THE SAME THING WITH DEVELOPMENT.

PROACTIVE WITH OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE BEFORE THE PROJECT IS THERE.

WE DON'T NEED THE PROJECT TO PAY FOR THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE GET IT THERE AHEAD OF TIME. IT IS WHY THE BUSINESSES ARE CORPORCOMING TO CARMEL. THEY WANT TO BE HERE FOR MANY REASONS, ONE OF THEM IS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO $27,000, IT IS LIKE WHERE CITY IS IS PAYING 120,000, NOW IT IS PAYING MILLIONS. THAT WOULD NOT EXIST IF WE USE THAT TIF IN FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES.

THE PROJECT WOULDN'T BE THERE. THAT'S NOT MY OPINION, IT IS A FACT. I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN.

AND THE 143,000 WE GET FOR THE SCHOOLS ALONE IS WORTH IT FOR THE $27,000. EVERYBODY THOUGHT THAT THIS TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM SCHOOLS, IT DOESN'T.

IT GIVES THEM MORE MONEY. SO I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

I THINK WE HAVE A TRACK RECORD TO PROVE THAT.

>> MY ONLY COMMENT TO THAT IS, THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF ITS OWN DRAINAGE AND THEN SOME BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ENGINEERING CRC PUTS ON PROJECTS LIKE THIS. SO I KNOW THAT CITY COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY FUNDED A LOT OF DRAINAGE WORK IN THESE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO HELP

EVEN MORE. >> MR. CHAIR.

>> JUST TO ADD TO THAT, HE MAKES A GOOD POINT.

WE ALSO ALWAYS HAVE TO MAKE THIS POINT WHEN PEOPLE LIKE -- ARE NEXT TO A PROJECT THAT IS BEING BUILT AND THEY TAKE THEIR DRAINAGE. WHEN WE BUILD A PROJECT NEXT TO A PROBLEM DRAINAGE PROBLEM, WE IMPROVE THAT PROBLEM.

AFTER WE DO THE PROJECT, THE SHEET DRAINING NO LONGER

HAPPENS. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMITTEE? AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE TO PLEASE DO SO NOW. IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST GO AHEAD AND LINE UP THERE SO I CAN KEEP TRACK HOW MANY PEOPLE WE ARE

DEALING WITH. >> JUST START?

>> PLEASE. >> AND IF I COULD, ARE WE RUNNING THE CLOCK? GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS TO THREE MINUTES BUT --

>> I WILL BE MARSHIN MARCHING A. >> MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THE PURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. THESE ARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE MEMBERS OF JOHNSON EDITION, WILSON VILLAGE COMMUNITY. ONE, ALTERING BACK LOTS OF HOMES

[00:30:02]

3, CONSTRUCTING THE SECOND TALLEST BUILDING IN CARMEL NEXT TO ONE-STORY HOMES. 4, LIGHT BLOCKING DAYTIME CREATING SHADOWS ON THE HOMES SO THE SUN DON'T SHINE -- SUN DON'T SHINE. THAT'S A SONG.

SO THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE ON THEM.

NO. 5, CREATING LIGHT POLLUTION AT TH NIGHT WHERE THERE WAS NONE BEFORE. 6, HUGE INFLUX OF TRAFFIC AND NOISE SET IN A QUIET FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NEXT. >> HI, MY NAME IS BARRY GOODE, WES BUCA COULD NOT MAKE IT TONIGHT.

I'M GOING TO READ WHAT HE SENT. HE LIVES IN CARMEL, SO DO I.

HE OPPOSED TIF PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED.

OUR SMALL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF JOHNSON ACRE AND WILSON VILLAGE HAVE LIVED THROUGH MANY CHANGES IN CARMEL OVER THE PAST 70 YEARS AS CARMEL HAS GROWN AND MATURED.

WE HAVE SUPPORTED AND APPRECIATED CAREFUL GROWTH THAT HAS ADDED TO OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR HOME VALUES.

CARMEL HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERATE OF RESIDENTIAL LIVING NEXT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE LIMITS ON BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO SPRING MILL. OUR HOUSES ARE NOT AS BIG OR FANCY BUT WE FEEL THEY DESERVE SIMILAR CONSIDERATION.

THIS PROPOSAL GOES FAR BEYOND REASON.

WHILE WE AGREE ALTERNATIVE USE IS DESIRABLE, THE INTENSITY NEEDS TO BE SCALED BACK. PLEASE LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT WE BELIEVE IS MUCH BETTER, FIT FOR THE CITY AND THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU SAY NO OR SEND THIS BACK FOR MODIFICATIONS.

AND YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF HOW HE PLANS -- HOW HE WOULD PLAN TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT. TAKING INDUSTRIAL DRIVE, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE, AND GIVING IT TO THE PURE DEVELOPMENT AND PUTTING THE ROAD THROUGH HERE. IT JUST MEANS MAYBE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT WAY TO SET ALL THESE BUILDINGS SO THAT THEY WON'T BE AS CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TO THE COMMITTEE MEETING.

NEXT. >> HELLO, IS THIS -- IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A COMPUTER HOOKED UP.

CAN I PUT PRESENTATION SLIDES UP?

>> WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. >> I WANTED TO -- I'M NOT

SEEING. >> CAN WE GET THE OVERHEAD

CAMERA TURNED ON? >> OKAY.

I WANT TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF DETAILS ABOUT THE LOTS THAT ARE BEING SUBDIVIDED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE A -- IT IS ALL IN THE CARMEL UDO.

WE HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, 10,000 SQUARE FEET. BARE MINIMUM.

WE ALL HAVE ABOUT A THIRD OF AN ACRE.

TEN THOUSAND IS QUARTER OF AN ACRE.

SO I PUT A DOTTED LINE THROUGH THEIR PLANS, BUT THEN I ALSO MEASURED IT ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS ABOUT 7700 SQUARE FEET AND ABOUT MAYBE -- CLOSE TO 85, 8 8700 HUNDRED. BELOW WHAT IS ALLOWED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT ALSO CREATES A DOMINO EFFECT FOR THAT THEY HAVE DESIGNS SOME REALLY BEAUTIFUL HOMES GO IN HERE, BUT IT IS A DOM KNEDOMINO EFFECT.

THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE 35-FOOT SETBACK.

THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE 20-FOOT SETBACK.

THESE ARE THE OLD HOMES. WITH THE NEW HOMES, THERE WOULDN'T BE ROOM FOR ANY OF THAT, ANY OF THE SETBACKS, THE LOT COVERAGE WOULD BE MORE THAN 35%.

SO THIS IS A HUGE CONCERN OF MINE ALSO BECAUSE THEY NEED TO KIND OF JOLT JUT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE BACK. ALL OF THESE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AND THIS IS PART OF WHAT GOT E-MAILED TO YOU ALSO. EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT THE BUFFER

[00:35:01]

THE CARMEL UDO REQUIRES THIS C BUFFER YARD WHENEVER A C2 DEVELOPMENT ABUTS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, IT REQUIRES IT.

I'M A GRAPHIC ARTIST, THIS IS A 35-FOOT BY 100-FOOT AREA AND JUST FOR THE SAKE OF EXAMPLE, I TOOK 12 FEET, 15 FEET.

THE CITY REQUIRES SIX SHADE TREES, AT LEAST, MINIMUM OF SIX, COULD BE LARGE EVERGREENS. THIS IS WHAT SIX SHADE TREES EVEN MEDIUM ONES LOOK LIKE. THE CITY REQUIRES 15 SHRUBS PER EVERY LINEAR HUNDRED FEET. IT ALSO REQUIRES AT LEAST ONE ORNAMENTAL TREE. WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO DO THAT WITH THE WAY THE PLANS ARE. AND LASTLY, I WANTED TO SHOW WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE NEXT TO OUR HOMES.

OUR HOMES ARE ABOUT 12 FEET TALL.

ONE DAY, OF COURSE, MORE HOMES WILL SELL AND YOU CAN HAVE TWO FEET TALL. BUT THE CITY REQUIRES, ACCORDING TO ITS OWN RULES, THAT WHEN A C2 ABUTS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING CAN'T BE ANY TALLER THAN 35 FEET TALL.

I DON'T KNOW, IN THIS PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSE, THERE IS A SMALL JUT OUT AREA. THERE'S MIGHT BE SHORTER BECAUSE IT SHOWS FOUR STORIES GOING UP AFTER THAT.

BUT THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IS WHAT IS THE KEY ELEMENT HERE.

IT SAYS IT VERY PLAINLY, IN ARTICLE II OF THE UDO ON CARMEL'S WEBSITE, 35-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WHEN A C2 ABUTS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND WE DO. WE DO ABUT.

AND IT HAS BEEN SAID, IT DOESN'T MATTER, NO ONE GOES IN THEIR BACKYARDS. OH, YES WE DO.

AND THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT BECAUSE CARMEL'S ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. THE UDO PUT TOGETHER VERY THOUGHTFULLY, VERY CAREFULLY. AND IT IS FOR PROTECTION TO OWNERS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OF WHICH WE ARE AND WE NEED TO BE TRANSITIONS TO, THIS IS A KEY INGREDIENT OF THIS PROJECT, SO I'M TRULY HOPING THAT YOU DON'T VOTE THROUGH THE FUNDING AT THIS POINT UNTIL A LOT OF ISSUES CAN BE WORKED OUT SUCH AS THE BUFFER YARD. ACCORDING TO THEIR PLANS, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE USING ABOUT HALF OF BUFFER YARD INTO ENTRANCES, LANDSCAPING. WHAT THEY MEASURED FROM WAS THE EDGE OF THE VERTICAL BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

THAT'S NOT IT. IT IS 35 FEET OF BUFFER AREA.

>> YEP. WE UNDERSTAND.

WE ALL DID RECEIVE THIS, TOO. >> OH, GREAT.

>> I RECEIVED IT. I'M ASSUMING EVERYBODY RECEIVED IT. SO THANK YOU.

SO YOUR TIME IS OUT. >> OH, OKAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING. >> VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE? ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER -- YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK DIRECTOR HAULOBAUG, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS MADE REGARDING UDO, REGARDING PLANNING, ROADS, ANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS, DOES THAT -- DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT?

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR. WE DO KNOW THAT THERE IS A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE WORKED THROUGH ON THE PROJECT RELATED TO BUILDING, THE SITE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE UDO.

WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF VARIANCES.

WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A PATH THAT INCLUDES BZA HEARING, LAND COMMISSION HEARING FOR THE REPLAT.

WE ARE AWARE THAT THE NEW HOMES DON'T MEET THE STANDARDS IN THE R1. SO THE BZA WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THAT WHEN THEY GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT ISSUE. WE ARE GOING TO BE METHODICAL WITH THAT PROCESS. IT IS GOING TO BE THOROUGH AND IT WILL BE VERY TRANSPARENT. SO BEYOND THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS BUT IT IS A COMPLICATED PROJECT.

THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS AND WE ARE DOING OUR BEST AT THE

[00:40:02]

IDENTIFY ALL THE ISSUES. >> COUNCILOR HANNON.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR HARBAUGH. I'M DE DE FACTO CENTRAL DISTRICT BECAUSE OUR CENTRAL DISTRICT IS INCAPACITATED.

I'M GATHERING INFORMATION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THE CONSISTENT CONCERN, BUFFERS, BUT REALLY SITE LINES AND HEIGHT. SIGHT LINES AND HEIGHT. PERHAPS YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE OBJECTION OR IS IT A REASONABLE OBJECTION TO HAVE A SIX-STORY BUILDING HERE RIGHT NEXT TO SINGLE STORY FLATS. WHEREAS ACROSS THE STREET ON, REALLY, WE HAVE PREDOMINANTLY FOUR AND MAYBE FIVE-STORY.

SO THAT, IN PARTICULAR, I THINK, IS LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY CAUGHT THEIR EYE AS SIX-STORY BUILDING IN A LOT ADJACENT TO RANCH HOMES SEEMS REALLY EXCESSIVE.

I THINK THEIR CONCERN, I'M SURE THEY ARE CONCERNED, WE HAVE HEARD IT HERE TONIGHT, IF WE DON'T GET ASSURANCES OR NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T GET ASSURANCES THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE MODIFIED, THIS MAY BE THEIR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF STOP THE LINE. SO CAN YOU COMMENT SPECIFICALLY ON THE HEIGHT OF THAT BUILDING BEING AID ADJACENT AND IS THAT N ADEQUATE BUFFER AND IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE UDO FOR TRANSITIONS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.

>> I WILL TRY. THE C2 DISTRICT DOES ALLOW FOR BUILDING TO BE 75 FEET TALL. I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE WHERE THE LARGER PORTION OF THIS ENDS UP.

70 FEET. SO I THINK THAT'S ONE FACTOR.

AND WE HAVE -- WITH THE COUNCIL AND WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE WORKED ON THE ISSUE OF TRANSITION OR APPROPRIATE TRANSITION. WHEN CAROL SLIFE WAS ON THE COUNCIL, ALWAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

IT STILL IS. WE KIND OF WORKED OUT WHAT GOOD DESIGN, WHAT GOOD TRANSITION WAS AND WHEN IT CAME TO TRANSITIONING UP, ONE BAY WAS THE MINIMUM FOR HOW THAT WOULD OCCUR. ONE BAY BEING FROM THE FRONT IF FACADE. IN THE DESIGN UNIVERSE, AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION TO THEN A TALLER BUILDING.

SO THAT'S -- AND IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE THE TOWN HOME OR THE TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL WHICH BECOMES THE PREDOMINANT FACADE AT GROUND LEVEL. MUCH LIKE WE WORKED OUT WITH RAIL YARD AND BARRETT STOKELY ON SECOND STREET.

YOU HAVE TWO-STORY TOWNHOMES, THAT WHEN YOU ARE THERE, THAT'S WHAT YOU NOTICE. YOU DON'T NOTICE THE TALLER PART BECAUSE IT REALLY IS THE DOMINANT FACADE.

THAT'S WHERE YOUR EYE TENDS TO GO.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE RECREATING HERE WITH LAND SCRAPE STRIP AND THEN THE LINEAR PATH THAT DOUBLES AS FIRE LANE.

AND THEN FRONT PORCH, AND THEN THE BUILDING ITSELF.

WE THINK THERE IS A NICE SEQUENCE OF SPACES THAT GET US TO ULTIMATELY THE TALLER BUILDING.

>> THANK YOU. LIKE I SAID, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT. TO ME, MY INTERPRETATION, HAVE BEEN WALKED IT AND TALKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, IF IT WAS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT THEY DID AT THE RAIL YARD, STEP UP TO, I THINK, TWO LEVELS AND THEN FOUR LEVELS, IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT.

THEIR CONCERN IS, THIS IS A HIGHER STEP UP AT THE BACK LEVEL AND IT IS CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT? IS THE RAIL YARDS SHORTER THAN THIS PROPOSED OR IS IT THE SAME? DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW?

>> I DON'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO REMEMBER WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THAT WE

[00:45:02]

AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND RELOOK AT THAT.

THE AERIAL PHOTOS WE HAVE TODAY, WE CAN SEE THAT THOSE HOMES AREN'T IN SHADOW AND THIS WILL BE SETBACK FURTHER THAN THOSE.

, THAN THE RAIL YARD. SO I DON'T THINK SHADOW SHOULD BE AN ISSUE HERE AND I DO THINK THAT, AGAIN, SORT OF THE NORMAL HUMAN RESPONSE TO ARCHITECTURE AND TO BUILDINGS IS NOT ALWAYS UP. YOU KEEP IT EYE LEVEL SO THE STEP BACK IS REALLY -- WILL BE SIGNIFICANT AND THE TALLER PART, WHETHER IT IS THREE STORIES OR FOUR STORIES, REALLY WON'T BE

THAT NOTICEABLE. >> THANK YOU.

. >> OKAY, COUNCILOR HANNON YOU HAVE ASKED THAT THE DEVELOPER ALSO COMMENT TO THAT SPECIFIC

QUESTION. >> IF THEY WOULD.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE -- SEEMS TO BE THE NO. 1 CONCERN THAT I HEAR FROM THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS. I THINK IT IS REASONABLE.

>> SO I'M HOPING YOU CAN SEE THE DIMENSIONS THAT WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED ON THIS PLAN. BUT WE DO A COMPARISON ON DISTANCES FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE RAIL YARD BUILDINGS. SO FROM THE EDGE OF BUILDING TO EDGE OF BUILDING, WR WE ARE ABOT 73 FEET ON THE RAIL YARD PROPERTY. ON OUR SIDE, WE ARE ABOUT 100 TO 133 IF YOU ARE SHOWING THE SIX-STORY PART OF THE BUILDING VERSUS TWO-STORY. TWO-STORY PART ON THE TOWN HOME IS ABOUT 24 FEET TALL, THAT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE SINGLE

FAMILY HOMES. >> ONE OF THE THINGS REQUESTED, OFTEN REQUESTED IN PLAN COMMISSION, IS SITE LINE DRAWINGS. I HEARD SHADOW DRAWINGS.

THERE ARE SITE LINE DRAWINGS TO REAL ESTATE ASSURE THE NEIGHBORS WHAT THEIR VIEW WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THEIR BACKYARDS.

>> WE ARE EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS.

WE DON'T HAVE THOSE RIGHT THOUSAND.

PLUS, WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE TIF.

YES, WE CAN PREPARE THOSE. >> OKAY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE REGARDING 2622? ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON NEXT STEPS REGARDING MOVING THIS ALONG OR ARE THERE -- IS THERE FURTHER WORK THAT ANYONE BELIEVES NEEDS TO BE DONE?

COUNCILOR FINKAM. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WE ARE MEETING PRETTY FREQUENTLY HERE, WE DON'T HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING.

I WOULD LIKE TO SIT WITH THIS. WE GOT NEW INFORMATION.

LET THE RESIDENTS WEIGH IN AS WELL.

>> VERY GOOD. OUR NEXT MEETING IS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS FOR MAY 9TH AND WE HAVE A THIRD MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 16TH. BOTH OF THOSE BEGIN AT 5 O'CLOCK. AND DO I APOLOGIZE FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE FOR 2623. I WANTED TO BE PREPARED IN CASE -- SO WE DIDN'T SIT HERE WITH NOTHING TO DO BUT IT APPEARS AS THOUGH WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET TO 2623 BASED ON THE POLICE CEREMONY THAT IS COMING UP.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE CLERK TD CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION FOR THE 9TH. WE WILL THEN ALSO, IF YOU COULD NOTICE THAT WE WILL REMAIN 2623 ON THE 9TH AS WELL, AS WELL AS THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, JUST IN CASE.

AND WE WILL HAVE MORE TIME BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A POLICE CEREMONY OR ANYTHING AFTER.

WE ARE STARTING AT 5 O'CLOCK. WE SHOULD HAVE MORE TIME.

IS EVERYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? IS THERE ANY PROFESSIONALS HERE OR RESIDENTS OR STAFF, ANYBODY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT P PLAN? OKAY. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME.

I APPRECIATE ALL THOSE WHO SPOKE.

YES, DIRECTOR MASTESKY. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF REPRESENTATIVES HERE, INCLUDING FROM MERCHANTS BANK THAT HAVE LOTS OF OTHER THINGS GOING ON. WOULD YOU LIKE THOSE SAME REPRESENTATIVES TO COME BACK NEXT TIME?

[00:50:02]

>> EVERYBODY -- WELL, THAT WOULD BE UP TO -- I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE DISCUSSION WILL BE SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO PLEASE REACH OUT TO ME IF THERE IS AN ISSUE.

I KNOW WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH A COUPLE OF OUR DEVELOPERS WHO COULD NOT ATTEND THE 9TH. SO I WILL DEAL WITH THAT.

LET ME KNOW, WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT.

BUT RIGHT NOW I WOULD SAY WE HAVE TO JUST KEEP MARCHING DOWN THIS ROAD. MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS ON THE COMMITTEE AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FULLY, FULLY VET THIS PROJECT, THAT WE DO OUR WORK, WE DO OUR HOME WORK AND THAT WE FRANKLY DO THE BEST JOB WE CAN AS FAR AS TRANSPARENCY AND LIKE DIRECTOR HAUBAUG SAID, WORKING THINGS OUT. GETTING TO THE RIGHT PLACE, DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PLACE IS, BUT THE RIGHT PLACE.

I WANT TO ASSURE THE HOMEOWNERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS OF PLANNING COMMISSION, BZA, ET CETERA. SO THIS REALLY -- I'M ALSO TRYING TO KEEP US ON TRACK HERE, THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO EVEN CONSIDER THIS BECOMING A TIF PROJECT.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT. THAT'S WHY THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION WAS ABOUT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT, NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE SUN OR SITE LINES OR THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

SO ALL RIGHT, WE WILL -- ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.