[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:03]
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. WE WILL START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S DO THE ROLL CALL. >> BRAD GRABOW?
[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]
>> PRESENT. >> PRESIDENT DIERCKMAN?
>> PRESIDENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, STATE AYE.
>> AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. COMMUNICATION BILLS AND
EXPENDITURES. >> MR. PRESIDENT, ONE MORE THING. WE DO HAVE A FINDINGS OF FACT TO APPROVE AS WELL. TO ADOPT, RATHER.
ON THE PZ22022-0343B. >> OKAY.
IS THAT ON THE NORMAL AGENDA? DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW?
>> IT IS UNDER E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
HAS EVERYBODY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE? COMFORTABLE WITH THEM? THE FINDINGS OF FACT FROM THAT LAST MEETING. ON THE GROUP HOME, I BELIEVE.
>> THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY FOR... IT IS A PETITION FROM CAREY &
PRUITT. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACTS FROM THE PRIOR MEETING.
SECOND. AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, STATE
. >> ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CAR RHYS. COMMUNICATIONS, BILLS, AND EXPENDITURES. HEARING NONE, REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS? DEPARTMENT CONCERNS.
>> NOTHING TO REPORT, MR. PRESIDENT.
>> NO DEPARTMENT CONCERNS? >> NOTHING.
>> ALWAYS LIKE THAT. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S START WITH THE FIRST ITEM. THE PUBLIC HEARING.
REMEMBER THE PETITIONER HAS 15 MINUTES.
SUPPORTERS HAVE FIVE MINUTES. WE WILL REBUT.
IF IT IS NECESSARY. THEN WE WILL HAVE A DEPARTMENT
[H. (UV, V) Insurance Office Variances.]
REPORT AND DISCUSSION. THE FIRST ITEM IS INSURANCE OFFICE VARIANCE. APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING USE VARIANCES AND APPROVALS. DOCKET NUMBER PZ202200192.USE VARIANCE REQUEST. GROUND SIGNAGE TYPE REQUESTED FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CONVERTED TO OFFICE.
DOCKET NUMBER PZ2022. MINIMUM 40-FEET FRONT YARD SETBACK, FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK.
REQUIRED, 31 FEET REQUESTED. THE LAST ONE WAS WITHDRAWN.
PETITIONER, YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES. OR LESS.
IF YOU CAN DO IT IN LESS. LESS IS MORE HERE.
>> IF I MAY PASS THESE OUT. >> THANK YOU, MR. DIERCKMAN, BOARD MEMBERS, I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE, ELIZABETH MARSHALL. ELIZABETH IS HERE WITH ME TODAY.
SHE IS THE PRINCIPAL OF MARSHALL HOLDINGS, LLC. ELIZABETH IS A SECOND-GENERATION STATE FARM AGENT, HAVING BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN 17 YEARS. SHE HAS AN OFFICE IN BROAD RIPPLE WHICH IS ALSOST A REPURPOSED RESIDENTIAL HOME MUCH LIKE THE ONE WE WILL DISCUSS HERE.
SHE HAS PLANS TO RELOCATE HER EXISTING CARMEL LOCATION TO THE PROPERTY AT 4491 EAST MAIN STREET UPON COMPLETION OF A
[00:05:01]
COMPLETE RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH THE CURRENT OWNER HAS PERMITTED TO FALL INTO COMPLETE DISREPAIR.HERE IS A IMAGE OF THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY.
WE DO WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT ELIZABETH JUST HAS THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT. SHE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE. AND IT IS REALLY A SHAME.
THE CURRENT OWNER HAD REMOVED A NUMBER OF VERY MATURE TREES AND REMOVED THE SIDING AND REALLY BROUGHT THE BUILDING DOWN TO THE STUDS. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE DEALT WITH.
HERE IS THE RENDERING OF WHAT ELIZABETH PLANS TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, SHE WILL BE INCORPORATING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE INTO A COMPLETE REMODEL, MAINTAINING THE RESIDENTIAL FEEL AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVING THE PROPERTY WITH NEW LANDSCAPING AND EXTENDING THE MULTI-USE PATH ALONG MAIN STREET.
IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT, SHE IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES. THE FIRST VARIANCE IS A VARIANCE OF USE. TO PERMIT JUST THE INSURANCE OFFICE. THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS JUST TO PERMIT THE SMALL OFFICE. A SETBACK VARIANCE WHICH IS PRECIPITATED BY... UNDER THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY NEEDING TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY, IT PERMITS THIS MULTI-USE PATH AND BRINGS THE RIGHT OF WAY CONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY ONEITHER PROPERTY.
THAT, IN TURN, MEANS THE BUILDING IS NOW WITHIN THE SETBACK. THE THIRD VARIANCE IS TO PERMIT ONE GROUND SIGN. I WANTED TO-- SINCE THIS PETITION WAS FILED, IT HAS CHANGED IMMENSELY.
WE HAVE MET WITH, LISTENED TO, AND REALLY ATTEMPTED TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS AND CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD FROM MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS. I'M GOING SPEND TIME TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT ALL OF THE REVISIONS TO THE SITE PLAN AND THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED SINCE THIS PROJECT STARTED. WE FEEL IT IS A BETTER PROJEC.
WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF ALL OF THE INPUT.
HAVING WORKED WITH STAFFER AND WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT, THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
SORT OF SQUARE PROPERTY IN THE MIDDLE.
4991 EAST MAIN STREET. THE CARMEL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IS TO THE WEST. THE CARMEL PLAYING FIELDS ARE TO THE SOUTH. THE CARMEL DAD'S CLUB BADGER PARK COMPLEX IS TO THE EAST. AND THEN NORTH VIEW CHURCH IS TO THE EAST. SO THIS PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL.
ALL OF THE PROPERTIES THAT SURROUND IT ARE NOT USED RESIDENTIALLY. THE PROPERTY-- THERE IS A FIRE STATION TO THE NORTH, AND THEN A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ALSO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE MATERIALS THAT I HAVE PASSED OUT, A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE.
THEY GENERALLY TRACK THE PLANS THAT I'M REVIEWING ON THE SCREEN. AS I HAVE MENTIONED, THE SITE PLAN HAS REALLY UNDERGONE SIGNIFICANT REVISION, THANKS TO THE INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS AND STAFF.
TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE REVISIONS, THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING HAS BEEN MOVED FROM THE FRONT TO THE SIDE.
THE PORCH HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE FRONT.
STILL HAS A FRONT ENTRANCE. IT IS NOT THE PRIMARY CUSTOMER ENTRANCE. THAT IS REALLY TO MAINTAIN THAT RESIDENTIAL FEEL. ORIGINALLY, THERE WAS SOME PARKING THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE FRONT ELEVATION.
ALL OF THE PARKING HAS BEEN MOVED BEHIND THE FRONT ELEVATION AND WILL HAVE LANDSCAPING TO SCREEN THE PARKING.
THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 17 DOWN TO 13.
SOME HAVE MENTIONED THAT TRAFFIC MAY BE AN ISSUE.
ELIZABETH HAS STUDYST THAT AT HER EXISTING OFFICE.
THE NUMBER OF WALK-INS PER DAY. SHE ANTICIPATES 3-5 WALK-INS PER DAY. IT IS NOT A HIGH-TRAFFIC BUSINESS. WE HAVE SLIGHT DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, I THINK, WITH STAFF. THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES UNDER THE ORDINANCE IS 11.
WE WERE PROPOSING 13. I THINK STAFF WOULD... IS SUGGESTING 11 WITH TWO LAND-BANKED.
IT IS IMPORTANT-- ELIZABETH DOES HAVE MEETINGS FROM TIME TO TIME
[00:10:01]
WHERE THERE MAY BE MORE THAN THE 11 SPACES NEEDED, AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THE NUMBER OF SPACES AT 13.AGAIN, I THINK I MENTIONED THE SETBACK VARIANCES, REALLY NECESSITATED BY DEDICATING ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY TO THE CITY. THAT PERMITS THE MULTI-USE PATH.
THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARE ALSO IN YOUR MATERIALS.
THOSE TWO HAVE UNDERGONE SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS SINCE THE PROJECT STARTED. AGAIN, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE MAINTAINED. ALMOST DOESN'T LOOK THAT WAY BECAUSE IT IS GETTING A COMPLETE REMODEL.
IT IS KEEPING ITS SORT OF TRADITIONAL FARM HOUSE RESIDENTIAL FEEL. ONE OF THE MAJOR CHANGES THAT WAS MADE, THE SIDING ON THE BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS RED. THANKS TO INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS, IT IS NOW WHITE. AND THIS IS HEARTY PLANK BOARD SIDING. NOT VINYL SIDING.
WE ARE ALSO ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A GROUND S SIGN. WE HAVE ALSO MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE GROUND SIGN ELEVATION.
THAT IS IN YOUR MATERIALS. THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE SIGN FACE IS A LITTLE OVER 20 SQUARE FEET THAT IS WE ARE PROPOSING.
WE HAVE PUT ON THE SCREEN HERE, YOU SEE THE SIGNS THAT ARE ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS LOCATION. THE ONE FOR BADGER PARK IS 30 SQUARE FEET. TEN SQUARE FEET MORE THAN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. AND THE ONE FOR CARMEL-CLAY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IS 60 SQUARE FEET.
IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. AGAIN, STAFF, I THINK IS REQUESTING A BIT SMALLER SIGN. ORIGINALLY, ELIZABETH HAD PROPOSED TWO SIGNS FOR THE PROPERTY AND REQUESTED A VARIANCE FOR MULTIPLE SIGNS. BASED UPON FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORS, SHE WITHDREW THE VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITIONAL S SIGN, SO SHE IS GOING WITH ONE GROUND SIGN.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO ADVERTISE THE BUSINESS SOMEWHAT, SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THE SIGN FACE BE MAINTAINED AT 20 SQUARE FEET. SIGN ELEVATIONS IN YOUR MATERIALS, TOO. SO AGAIN, JUST TO REVISIT THE SIGNIFICANT REVISION THAT IS WERE MADE, SINCE THE PETITION WAS SUBMITTED. WITHDREW ONCE OF THE VARIANCES FOR THE ADDITIONAL SIGNS. WE ARE ASKING FOR ONE SIGN.
A SITE LIGHTING WAS SOMETHING WE HEARD ABOUT.
NONE OF THE LIGHTING WITH BLEED PAST THE PROPERTY LINE.
ORIGINALLY, AS PROPOSED, THE SITE LIGHTING WAS GOING TO BE SORT OF A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT LIGHT POLE.
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ELIZABETH PARTICULARLY WAS INTERESTED IN. WE THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT WAS REQUIRED. WE HAVE LEARNED FROM STAFF THAT IT IS NOT. WE HAVE REDUCED THE SITE LIGHTING. IT IS JUST REALLY SORT OF KNEE-LEVEL LANDSCAPE LIGHTING AS NEEDED TO LIGHT THE PARKING LOT.
THE PROPERTY... WE GET A FULL LANDSCAPE PLAN.
TO LANDSCAPE THE PERIMETER, TO LANDSCAPE THE PARKING, FROM THE VISUAL FROM THE ROAD, AND ALSO FROM THE LANDSCAPING AROUND THE SIGNAGE. I GUESS JUST TO SORT OF WRAP UP, WE APPRECIATE ALL THE INPUT THAT WE HAVE HAD FROM NEIGHBORS AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS A BETTER PROJECT.
WE HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOU-- I'M SURE YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE FILE A NUMBER OF LETTERS OF SUPPORT. A FEW FOLKS HERE WANT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS OF PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T FEEL THE SAME WAY.
WITH THAT, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU ACCEPT THE STAFF'S POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. I DID WANT TO ADDRESS THE CONDITIONS FROM THE STAFF RE REPORT.
THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT.
ELIZABETH IS FINE WITH CONDITION NUMBER ONE WHICH IS ADDRESSING THE REVIEW COMMENTS. NUMBER TWO IS REDUCING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM DOWN TO 11.
AGAIN, THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN IT AT 13, AS OPPOSED TO 11, PLUS LAND-BANKING TWO. IT MAKES MORE SENSE IN OUR OPINION TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE 13 PARKING SPACES.
[00:15:04]
HAVING THE LIGHTED GROUND SIGN TURN OFF AFTER HOURS SORT OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF LIGHTING THE SIGN IF IT IS TURNED OFF AT, SAY, 5 OR 5:30. ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER.WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A COMPROMISE BY TURNING OFF THE SIGN LIGHTING BY MIDNIGHT. IT WOULD NOT BE UNDER THE ON AGAIN UNTIL 5:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING.
NUMBER FOUR, HAVING THE GROUND SIGN, SIZE REDUCED TO MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH THE 12 SQUARE FEET PERMITTED.
AGAIN, THIS IS ONE WHERE A LOT OF COMPROMISE HAS BEEN MADE AS TO SORT OF THE ADVERTISING ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING TO MAKE IT MORE RESIDENTIAL IN FEEL. SHE DID WITHDRAW THE ONE VARIANCE. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN BE MAINTAINED AT THE 20 SQUARE FEET.
OF COURSE, ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT IS CERTAINLY WHAT WE WOULD ASK YOU TO DO. SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER NIP QUESTIONS. ... ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SUPPORTERS. ANYONE HERE? I SEE ONE HAND. ANYONE ELSE? TWO HANDS UP. ANYBODY ELSE? YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR HAND UP NOW IF YOU WANT TO DO IT.
YOU EACH GET TWO AND A HALF MINUTES.
NO. YOU HAVE TO GO TO MIC, PLEASE, AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. YOUR NAME, CITY YOU LIVE IN.
>> YEAH. I'M JOE LIVING IN CARMEL.
A NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS THE STREET.
>> PLEASE START THE TIMER. >> WHAT? OH. SORRY.
>> GO AHEAD. >> IT IS STARTED.
THIS IS MY FIRST BOARD MEETING. CAN ANYBODY TELL? (LAUGHTER) ANYWAY, OUR SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE COMES DOWN TO A SIMPLE QUESTION. WHAT IS A REALISTIC OPTION FOR THIS PROPERTY? CARMEL-- THE DANCE CLUB DOESN'T WANT IT. THE SCHOOL DOESN'T WANT IT.
IF THE OWNERS ABEEN A CON IT, THE CITY WOULDN'T WANT IT.
THIS PROPERTY WAS OF MINOR APPEAL TO A POTENTIAL HOME OWNER BEFORE ALL OF THE MAJOR TREES WERE TAKEN DOWN.
AND I BELIEVE THERE WERE EIGHT TO TEN MATURE TREES TAKEN DOWN.
EXCUSE ME. I CONSIDERED IT TO BE LESS ATTRACTIVE TO A POTENTIAL HOME OWNER.
THE LAST POINT WAS, WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OF ONE? THAT IS WHAT THIS IS. IT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF ONE.
AND I THINK THAT MY BET IS THE VERY SMALL TINY SEGMENT OF POTENTIAL HOME OWNERS WOULD WANT TO LIVE THERE.
THAT NUMBER SHRINKS EVEN MORE GIVEN FACT THAT YOU NEED A LOT OF INVESTMENT TO RESTORE THE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPING. I HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES.
I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF IT. I MEAN, LOOK AT RANGE LINE, NORTH OF MAIN. ALL THOSE HOMES CONVERTED INTO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. LOOK AT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY ARE TEARING DOWN OLD HOMES.
THEY ARE PUTTING UP BEAUTIFUL NEW HOMES.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT A SMALL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR SUBDIVISION WOULD IMPACT OUR PROPERTY VALUES. LAST THING I WANT TO SAY, I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY IMPACT ON TRAFFIC.
I HAVE BEEN WALKING MAIN STREET SINCE 2005.
TRAFFIC HAS STEADILY INCREASED. WITH THE DADS CLUB ADDING THAT FIELD HOUSE, THERE IS EVEN TRAFFIC COMING OUT THERE WEEKDAY MORNINGS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN THE FIELD HOUSE. MAYBE IT IS A WALKING GROUP.
BUT 11 OR 13 SPACE IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE TRAFFIC ON MAIN STREET. THAT IS WHY WE SUPPORT IT.
IN OUR VIEW, IT IS THE ONLY REALISTIC OPTION FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THANK YOU.
I HAD TIME LEFT. >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS MATT HUSBAND. I'M A CARMEL RESIDENTS OF FIVE YEARS. I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY WELL-SAID. OTHER THAN, I THINK THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE IF WE ALL AGREE THAT EVENTUALLY THIS SPACE IS GOING TO BECOME FOR COMMERCIAL USE, BUSINESS USE.
IT IS AN ADVANTAGE THAT THE BUSINESS OWNER OWNS THAT PROPERTY. RIGHT? I THINK THAT IF YOU HAVE IT TURNED INTO A PROPERTY, THAT IS GOING TO BE OWNED BY A LANDLORD. RIGHT? AND YOU ARE HAVING BUSINESSES MOVE IN AND OUT.
IT IS AT RISK OF A BUSINESS OWNER THAT CANNOT CONTINUE TO PAY THEIR BILLS AND THEY HAVE TO CLOSE SHOP.
THEY MOVE ON. THEN IT IS VACANT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. THERE IS A REAL ADVANTAGE KNOWING THAT THIS AREA WILL EVENTUALLY MOVE OR TURN INTO A BUSINESS. THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE THAT YOU HAVE THE BUSINESS OWNER OWNING THIS BUILDING AND OPERATING THEIR BUSINESS OUT OF THE BUILDING.
THAT IS ALL FOR ME. THANK YOU.
[00:20:02]
I SEE ONE, TWO, THREE? ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK IN IF YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR HAND UP, YOU DON'T GET TO SPEAK.
FIVE MINUTES EACH, PLEASE. IF YOU COULD GO UP AND FORM A LINE. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> YOU CAN'T, STAND IN A LINE AND HAVE A SEAT OVER THERE.
MY NAME IS CAR LYNN BRANSON. I'M A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS THE STREET. FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS H.O.A. BOARD.
I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE TIME LIMIT.
I WILL RELY UPON WHAT I CITED IN MY LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN NOVEMBER. THE PETITIONER HAS SINCE AMENDED HER APPLICATION. MY POSITION IS LARGELY UNCHANGED. THE ARGUMENTS ARE STILL TRUE.
I WANT TO JUST ALSO NOTE THAT I THINK THE CONCESSIONS WERE APPRECIATED, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE A REBUTTAL TO FURTHER SUGGESTIONS OR ACCOMMODATIONS FROM THE STAFF.
AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER, I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE THRESHHOLD ISSUE. WHICH IS THE PETITIONER'S BURDEN TO ARTICLE 9, SECTION 15 OF DEMONSTRATING THAT HARDSHIP WOULD BE SUFFERED IF THE CURRENT ZONING WAS ENFORCED.
AS A PETITIONER STATES IT, THE PARCEL IS UNDESIRABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THAT IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. IF YOU LOOK AT IDENTICALLY SITUATED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE NEIGHBORING PARCEL, YOU WILL SEE VALUABLE WELL-MAINTAINED RESIDENCES. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR COUNTLESS PROPERTIES ALONG THE THOROUGHFARES.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF VALUABLE PROPERTIES ALONG THE THOROUGHFARES. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARCEL. THE TRUE BASIS FOR THE STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT SOLD IN TWO YEARS.
THAT IT HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET. THOUGH ALL THE WHILE, THE OWNERS OPENLY STRIPPED THE LAND OF NATURAL VALUE AND FUNCTION.
THE REASON THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT SOLD DURING THAT TIME IS THAT IT WAS LISTED FOR THREE TO FIVE TIMES THE ASSESSED VALUE.
IT WAS NOT... THE OWNER WAS NOT TRYING TO SELL IT AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THAT ENTIRE TIME IT HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET AT A COMMERCIAL VALUE.
NO WONDER NO ONE HAS PURCHASED% THE PROPERTY.
AS OF NOVEMBER, THE PROPERTY WAS LISTED FOR $295,000.
AND THE PETITIONER SAYS SHE IS GOING TO BUY IT FOR $275,000.
A RESIDENTIAL BUYER WILL NOT COMPETE WITH THAT.
NO WONDER THE OWNER DOES NOT WANT TO SELL IT TO SOMEONE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IF TIS IS A PRECEDENT, IF WE WANT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT PRECEDENT, WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT SETTING THE PRECEDENT OF SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR A MUCH HIGHER VALUE.
THE DECISION TO PERMIT PROPERTIES WITH RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO BE FLIPPED FOR COMMERCIAL USE IS A CONCERNING PRECEDENT. THE PETITIONER WOULD BE FURTHERING THE CURRENT OWNERS' INTEREST IN THE SCHEME AND THE CONDUCT OF THE OWNER SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR PERMITTING THEM THIS WINDFALL PROFIT. A QUICK REVIEW OF THE NUMEROUS LETTERS OF OPPOSITION OF MY NEIGHBORS DEMONSTRATES THERE IS A NEAR UNIVERSAL OPPOSITION AMONG THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PETITIONER HAS MOBILIZED LIFELONG FRIENDS AND CLIENTS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE AREA TO SPEAK TO HER CHARACTER.
NOW, I WOULD ADVOCATE THEIR VIEWS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUES YOU ARE CONSIDERING. NO ONE IS CHALLENGING HER CHARACTER. SHE IS SEEMINGLY A VERY NICE PERSON AND A COMMITTED BUSINESS OWNER.
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT GIVEN THAT I HAVE RECEIVED TWO MAILERS FROM HER IN JUST THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF, SHE IS A VERY AGGRESSIVE MARKETER. WHICH BRINGS US TO WHY HER PROPOSED USE AND DESIGNS ARE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.
IN THIS RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA, SHE HAS FOUND A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR EXCLUSIVE VISIBILITY.
HEAVY TRAFFIC FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY USE NEIGHBORS WHILE PROTECTION FROM THE ZONING TO PRECLUDE COMPETITION. NO WONDER SHE IS WILLING TO PAY THREE TIMES THE ASSESSED VALUE. SHE HERSELF AS ADMITTED HER INTEREST IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE SIGNAGE VARIANCE. HER LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE DESIGNS MADE CLEAR SHE IS INVESTING IN A WELL ILLUMINATED BILLBOARD.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THE PETITION AS TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCES. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF YOU ELECT TO GRANT THE USE VARIANCE, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU HEED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE TO CONFORM THE PERMISSIBLE SIGNAGE TO ONLY THE SIZE THAT IS ALLOWED FOR A HANGING SIGN, PURSUANT TO THE CITY CODE.
THAT YOU REDUCE THE PARKING SPACES TO 11 AND ALL LIGHTING IS TURNED OFF AFTER BUSINESS HOURS WHICH THE PETITIONER INFORMED US AT A MEETING IS 6:00 P.M. I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU FORMALLY ADD A CONDITION THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE CITY STAFF THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REPORT THAT THE PETITIONER MUST PARK HER SIGNED VEHICLE, A VEHICLE THAT HAS SIGNAGE, I BELIEVE IT IS OUTSIDE EVEN, OR THERE MAY BE A SECOND.
[00:25:02]
SHE AGREED IN AN EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE THAT SHE WOULD PARK THAT OUT OF SIGHT OF THE ROAD TO PREVENT HAVING TO OBTAIN AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE FOR THAT SIGNAGE.I WOULD ASK THAT YOU MAKE THAT A FORMAL REQUIREMENT, THAT IT BE PARKED BEHIND THE BUILDING SO IT IS NOT VISIBLE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS STAN BASS.
I'M A 24-YEAR RESIDENT OF CARMEL.
I AGREE WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING CAROLYN SAID.
THE ONE THING I'M GOING TO PROBABLY STEP AWAY FROM IS I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD EVEN CONSIDER APPROVING THIS.
LET ALONE WITH ANY QUALIFICATIONS OR CHANGES OR ANYTHING. THE MAIN REASON IS THE SELLER OF THIS PROPERTY IS TRYING TO GET THREE TIMES THE VALUE.
OKAY? AFTER DESTROYING WHATEVER VALUE WAS THERE, THEY DESTROYED A LOT OF IT WITH THE TREES AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THE HOUSE. MY POINT IS THAT THE ONLY WAY THE SELLER CAN GET THREE TIMES THE VALUE IS TO HAVE YOU, THE BZA, DO THEIR DIRTY WORK FOR THEM.
ON THE BACKS OF THE RESIDENTS. IT IS JUST WRONG TO HAVE ANYTHING COMMERCIAL ALONG THERE, AND I KNOW AT THE MEETING, THE WE TIRGSER'S ATTORNEY SAID "WHAT ABOUT THE SIGN THAT IS HE SHOWED FOR THE DADS CLUB AND FOR THE EDUCATION?" WELL, THOSE ARE NOT FOR PROFIT THAT IS HAVE ALSO BEEN THERE.
I HAVE BEEN THERE 24 YEARS. THEY HAVE BEEN THERE AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER. IF BEFORE I MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THIS SETS-- IT IS THE WRONG THING TO DO, PERIOD. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M JOHN FLETCHER.
I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS THE FIFTH HOUSE IN THE DEVELOPMENT WAY BACK IN FALL OF '97.
A LOT OF DIRT PILES. I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS TWO NEIGHBORS. I'M VERY CONCERNED FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. FIRST OF ALL, IF IT SOUNDS LIKE A DUCK, SMELLS LIKE A DUCK, WALKS LIKE A DUCK, IT IS A DUCK.
IT IS A BUSINESS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL FROM THE GET-GO.
I THOUGHT FROM THE LAST MEETING 30 DAYS AGO, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, LIKE, A NURSING HOME TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL.
I THOUGHT THAT ANYTHING THIS SIDE OF KEYSTONE WAS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NOT FOR COMMERCIAL.
I MAY BE WRONG ON THAT. MY POINT IS TRAFFIC IS ONE THING. IT IS EXTREMELY BUSY TO GET OUT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. EVEN IF YOU ARE TAKING A RIGHT, WITH THE TRAFFIC AT CARMEL DADS CLUB, TRAFFIC DURING BUSINESS HOURS IS EXTREMELY PAINFUL. AND IT IS NOT A TRAFFIC CIRCLE.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS COMING UP IN DISCUSSIONS.
YOU KNOW, IT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT WITH POTENTIAL TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF THE STATE FARM AGENCY.
INTO... TO MAIN STREET. EITHER RIGHT OR LEFT.
WITH BUSES, WITH TRAFFIC FROM CARMEL DADS CLUB.
THE CROSS-COUNTRY RUBS THAT... COUNTRY RUNS THAT TAKE PLACE ON THE HILL. ET CETERA.
THAT IS ONE ASPECT FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF RESIDENTIAL OPEN PROPERTIES UP AT THE SHOPPING PLAZA AT 126TH AND GRAY.
IF IT TRULY IS A BUSINESS, THAT IS WHERE A BUSINESS SHOULD RESIDE. I DON'T KNOW MUCH ELSE ABOUT THIS INDIVIDUAL. IF SHE WANTS TO LIVE THERE, THAT IS FINE. TO RUN A BUSINESS, I DON'T AGREE WITH HAVING A BUSINESS IN THAT AREA AND THAT SPOT WHEN I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED TO BE SO.
THE FIREHOUSES ACROSS THE TREET, THE EDUCATION BUILDI% IS THERE. CARMEL DADS CLUB HAS GROWN TREMENDOUSLY. THEY HAVE A WONDERFUL FACILITY OUT BACK. THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE BUSY ENOUGH AS IT IS. I JUST FEEL LIKE IT IS GOING TO HURT OUR PROPERTY VALUES. AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT SAFETY, AND I'M JUST VERY CONCERNED THAT WE ARE OPENING UP PANDORA'S BOX FOR A COMMERCIAL OUTPUT. I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A COLLECTION AND BUY THE PROPERTY WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS. POTENTIALLY.
IF THAT IS OUR LAST RESORT. I THINK WE BULLDOZE IT DOWN AND MAKE A GREEN SPACE OR PUT A PARKING LOT THERE OR A ROADWAY TO ACCESS CARMEL DADS CLUB AND AN OUT FROM THAT-- YOU KNOW, THE MAIN ENTRANCE THERE. I THINK I HAVE SUMMARIZED LIKE I SAID, NOTHING AGAINST MICHELLE.
IT SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL. AND RESIDENTIAL ONLY.
VERSUS HAVING, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A SIGN UP.
[00:30:02]
IT IS JUST A VERY BIG CONCERN FOR ME AS A NEIGHBOR AND ACITIZEN OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. >> THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR
I'LL BE BRIEF. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR MORE THAN 18 MONTHS. YOU SAW THE CONDITION THAT IT IS IN. ONE THING THAT IS NOT EVEN CLEAR FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS IS THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY GUTTED FROM THE INSIDE. NOT ONLY IS IT THE OUTSIDE THAT NEEDS TO BE REDONE, BUT IT IS THE INSIDE.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES BROUGHT TO IT.
THAT IS ANOTHER THING. ALL OF THESE THINGS, WE THINK, MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO REHABILITATE AS RESIDENTIAL.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, AND INGUESS GETTING TO THE ISSUE THAT MS. RIGS RAISED WHICH IS THE HARDSHIP, THE ISSUE IS THE CONTEXT OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. IT IS IN AN AREA THAT IS NONRESIDENTIALLY USED BASED UPON THE SURROUNDING USES.
THAT IS NOT SELF-CREATED. THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WAS CREATED FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. WITH RESPECT TO THE VEHICLE, I THINK THAT WAS MENTIONED, AND THE SIGNAGE, WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR THE ONE GROUND SIGN. THERE IS A VEHICLE, A STATE FARM VEHICLE. YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT DRIVING AROUND TOWN. IT IS USED IN THE BUSINESS.
IT IS NOT CONSIDERED SIGNAGE UNDER THE ORDINANCE, BUT ELIZABETH IS WILLING TO MAKE THE COMMITMENT THAT IT WOULD BE PARKED BEHIND THE BUILDING SO IT COULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM-- FROM
THE ROAD. >> THERE IS NO PARKING BEHIND
THE BUILDING. >> NEXT TIME GO TALK TO YOUR CLIENT. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS UP.
WE WOULD ASK, AGAIN, I WON'T GO BACK THROUGH THE STAFF CONDITIONS. WE IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT OUR POSITION ON THEM. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THE 13 PARKING SPACES INSTEAD OF THE 11 AND THE TWO LAND BANKING.
THE SIZE OF THE SIGN, WE HAVE REDUCED IT SIGNIFICANTLY.
20 SQUARE FEET. WE ARE WILLING TO MAKE THE COMMITMENT THAT THE LIGHTING WOULD BE TURNED OFF AT MIDNIGHT.
WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DEPARTMENT REPORT? >> THANK YOU.
THE PETITIONER'S REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR OFFICE USE.
THE SITE WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
IT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR RETAIL USE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT WOULD BE FOR ONE OFFICE USE. OTHER VARIANCES REQUESTED ARE FOR THE SIGNAGE TYPE, TO HAVE THE GROUND SIGN AS WELL AS THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK. PER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS OFFICE USE CAN BE A BEST FIT NEXT TO INSTITUTIONAL USES AND PARKS AND RECREATION USES. AND KIT ALSO BE A CONDITIONAL FIT NEXT TO SUBURBAN, REZ DEB USUAL USES IF INSTALLED WITH SENSITIVITY. THAT IS WHERE WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPING AND MAKING THE SITE AS RESIDENTIAL IN FEEL AS POSSIBLE. THE SITE ALSO WENT THROUGH TECHNICAL REVIEW. SO THINGS LIKE DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, GRADING, LANDSCAPING, ALL THOSE THINGS WERE REVIEWED BY THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
THERE IS STILL A FEW REMAINING REVIEW COMMENTS.
THAT IS WHY WE DO WANT THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
AND THEN REGARDING THE GROUND SIGN SIZE, PLANNING STAFF WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE PROPOSAL AS IS. JUST KNOWING THAT WHEN WE MEASURE THE GROUND SIGN PANEL SIZE, IT IS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN WHAT THE TECH SIZE WOULD BE. IF YOU DREW A RECK TANG ABLE AROUND IT. WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS TONIGHT WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ADDRESSING THE REMAINING REVIEW COMMENTS.
AGAIN, REDUCING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING AND HAVING THE TWO LAND-BANKED PARKING SPACES. AGAIN, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR RECOMMENDATION.
PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE PETITIONER TURNING OFF THE GROUND SIGN AT MIDNIGHT. WE ARE OKAY WITH STRIKING THAT.
THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD LIKE TO WRITE
[00:35:02]
THOSE UP. WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS WRITTEN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.DISCUSSION. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I WANT TO ASK OF YOU. THE CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY, AS IT IS NOW, IS THERE A WORD FOR IT? I MEAN, THE THERE A REASON IT HADN'T-- THE OWNER HASN'T BEEN CITED? FOR ME, IT SOUNDS AS IF JUST WHAT REMONSTRATORS HAVE SAID WITH REGARDS TO PRIMING THIS FOR COMMERCIAL USE, WE ARE GOING TO STRIP THIS THING DOWN SO NO RESIDENTS WOULD EVER WANT-- NO RESIDENT WOULD WANT THIS.
AS IT IS GOING DOWN, HAS IT EVER BEEN CITE? HAS IT BEEN INSPECTED? WHY DID IT GET TO THIS POINT?
>> YEAH. AS FAR AS I KNOW, YOU KNOW, A PROPERTY OWNER DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE DOWN THEIR OWN PRIVATE TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEN AS FAR AS STRIPPING THE HOUSE DOWN TO BARE BONES, SO TO SPEAK, WE DO HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT ON IT, TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER. TO CLEAN UP THE SITE.
ALSO KNOWING THAT THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO, I GUESS, IMPOSE, LIKE, A COURT DATE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. JUST KIND OF WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. AT TONIGHT'S MEETING.
YEAH. I MEAN, IT IS REALLY SAD WHAT
HAPPENED TO THE SITE. >> WELL, TAKING THE TREES DOWN IS ONE THING. BUT TAKING-- I MEAN, IF WHAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TONIGHT, THAT THERE IS-- I MEAN, THERE MAY NOT BE PLUMBING INSIDE. I MEAN, THESE ARE HEALTH VIOLATIONS. I THINK THEY WOULD BE AND WHY PRIOR TO TODAY, OR PRIOR TO WHEN THIS WAS FILED BACK IN-- OR SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING IN NOVEMBER, IT HADN'T BEEN DEC DECIDED-- CITED FOR WHATEVER REASONS.
>> YEAH. I'M NOT AWARE OF THE ACTIVE CASES OR WHEN THEY WERE FILED. OR THE STATUS OF THEM.
I DO KNOW THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT IS, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND TRYING TO GET THEM TO
KLINE IT UP. >> ANOTHER THING.
THE PETITIONER'S COMMITMENT TO PARKING A VEHICLE IN THE 13TH SPACE. IS THE DEPARTMENT WILLING TO ENFORCE THAT? I MEAN, ARE YOU WILLING TO, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, O BE RUNNING OUT TO MAIN STREET AND MAKING SURE THAT-- THAT SOUNDS LIKE A COMMITMENT THAT IS --
>> WITH THAT, WE WOULD RELY ON OUR CITIZEN PLANNERS TO HELP US ENFORCE THAT. AS YOU KNOW, WE ONLY HAVE SO MUCH MANPOWER. USUALLY, IT WOULD TAKE A PHONE CALL OR COMPLAINT TO DRIVE OUT THERE.
DID THE DADS CLUB WEIGH ON THIS PETITION?
>> I DON'T THINK WE RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE FROM THEM.
WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS FOR SALE ORIGINALLY, WE TRIED TO ASK IF THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING IT.
THERE WAS NO INTEREST REALLY. >> OKAY.
MR. SECRETARY, CAN YOU TELL M ME-- TELL THE PUBLIC, TOO, HOW MANY LETTERS YOU RECEIVED AND TELL ME HOW MANY PRO AND HOW
MANY CON. >> I RECEIVED TO DATE, 65 LETTERS. APPROXIMATELY, I WOULD SAY,
IF THERE WERE 12, THEN THAT WOULD BE 53 AGAINST.
THANK YOU. >> CAN YOU COME UP AND APPROACH? COULD YOU PUT THE FIRST SLIDE UP, PLEASE?
>> I THINK I NEED SOME HELP. >> WE NEED A PROJECTOR ABILITY
HERE. >> WHICH ONE DID YOU WANT?
>> THE FIRST SLIDE THAT YOU HAD. >> NOT THIS ONE.
OKAY. THE CARMEL DADS CLUB, THAT APPEARS TO BE A SINGLE-FAMILY. YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL. WHAT IS THAT? PLEASE LET THE PETITIONER RESPOND.
[00:40:01]
THAT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. >> THEN WHEN I GO DOWN FURTHER TO THE EAST, WHAT IS THAT? .
>> THAT IS THE CHURCH PARKING LOT.
PAST THE SCHOOL PROPERTY. WHAT IS THAT?
>> THAT IS RESIDENTIAL. >> THAT IS SING.
>> -FAMILY AS WELL. THAT IS ONE OF THOSE ISLAND HOMES THAT PEOPLE LIVE BY THEMSELVES IN AND THINGS.
I WILL BE HERE SHORTLY. I THINK.
A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE HEAR THESE KIND OF CASE, WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY LIVING THERE.
THEY ARE GOING TO START A BUSINESS.
AND THIS IS A WAY TO KIND OF HELP THEM.
DOESN'T MATTER. ARE YOU LIVING THERE?
ARE YOU GOING TO LIVE THERE? >> NO.
JUST A BUSINESS. >> YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE HOW
MANY EMPLOYEES? >> SO I HAVE THREE EMPLOY EASY
CURRENTLY. >> COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME
EVERY LIZ BETH MARSHALL. I'M THE PURCHASER AND OPERATOR
FOR THE PROPERTY. >> YOU LI IN THE CITY OF CARMEL.
>> I LIVE IN THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS.
SO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ONLY-- YOU THINK YOU NEED 11 PARKING
SPACES? >> SO I HAVE AN OFFICE IN BROAD RIPPLE AS WELL. WHERE I HAVE EIGHT EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY. I COULD SEE THIS OFFICE GROWING TO MAYBE SIX OR EIGHT TEAM MEMBERS THAT WORK THERE.
BUT EVERY QUARTER WE HAVE TEAM MEETINGS.
RIGHT NOW WE RENT OUT LOCATIONS TO DO.
THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE 12-15 PEOPLE ON THE TEAM.
THERE ISN'T STREET PARKING RIGHT HERE.
WHEN WE HAVE THOSE QUARTERLY TEAM MEETINGS, IT WOULD BE NICE IF THERE WAS THE EXTRA TWO SPOTS.
ONE IS A HANDICAPPED SPOT. ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE FOR THE SERVICE VEHICLE. TO PARK IN THE BACK.
I KNOW THAT PEOPLE WILL WATCH. ON THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THERE IS NOTHING BEHIND THE BUILDING.
THERE IS NO PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDING.
THAT WILL PUT IT IN THE BACK ONE.
THAT IS REALLY THE REASON. TO NOT HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO-- IF WE LAND-BANK IT AND THEN WE FIND THAT WE NEED IT, THEN WE HAVE TO CONSTRUCT AGAIN. IT SEEMS TO BE MORE EFFICIENT TO
YOUR ATTORNEY MAY NEED TO ANSWER THIS.
I DON'T KNOW. THE CURRENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING AND PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING?
USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE? >> I THINK IT IS ROUGHLY 1,500 NOW ON THE MAIN LEVEL. WE ARE JUST GOING UP ON THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT. IT WOULD BE ROUGHLY 3,000.
THERE IS A BASEMENT. WE DON'T INTEND TO PUT ANY
LIVING OR WORK SPACE DOWN THERE. >> AND QUESTION FOR THE CITY.
GIVEN FACT THAT THIS IS ON MAIN STREET, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANK A SELL LANE AND DECELLE LANE ON THIS PROPERTY?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED YET.
THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY THE PETITIONER WOULD SUBMIT THE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS AFTER APPROVAL.
I DO KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE LEVEL OF THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE GENERATED. I CAN'T GIVE YOU A DIRECT ANSWER. IF THEY WILL HAVE A DECELERATION
I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENTS. I WILL ONLY SAY IT IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST OR BASED ON VOTES.
I DON'T POSITION MY POSITIONS BASED ON THAT.
BUT TO ME, THIS IS NOT A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU GO IN THIS LOCATION.
YOU DON'T OWN IT. YOU ARE NOT LIVING THERE.
I DON'T SEE A HARDSHIP. THERE IS OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.
THERE IS OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES ALONG THE SAME STRIP OF PROPERTIES. SO THIS COULD EASILY BE UTILIZED ULTIMATELY, AS A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
IS IT PERFECT? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
HAS THE CURRENT OWNER DESTROYED THE PROPERTY? ABSOLUTELY. ONE HAS TO QUESTION ABOUT WHY THAT PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED. PERHAPS TO MAKE IT LESS ATTRACTIVE TO A SINGLE-FAMILY OPERATOR AND MAYBE TO A BUSINESS OPERATOR. I DON'T-- YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE GOING TO GO COMMERCIAL HERE, I WOULD RATHER SEE THIS GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BE DONE PROPERLY INSTEAD OF THIS FUNKY-LIKE LOOKING HOUSE AND TRYING TO FIT A SQUARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
IT IS JUST NOT SIMPLY A HARDSHIP.
THERE IS OTHER OPTIONS FOR LOCATION.
THAT IS ALL MY COMMENTS. >> MRS. MARSHALL, DID YOU CONSIDER SEENING TO HAVE THE PROPERTY REZONED AS OPPOSED TO
GOING THE VARIANCE PATH? >> WE WERE ADVISED WHEN WE STARTED INTO THE PROCESS THAT THE USAGE VARIANCE WOULD BE MORE FAVORABLE TO THE CITY BECAUSE THEN THERE WOULD BE CONTROL IN
[00:45:02]
THE FUTURE OVER DIFFERENT USES THAT MAY COME IN.I WILL SAY I KNOW IT IS NOT-- I MEANT TO HOE HOW THIS WOULD PLAY INTO HARDSHIP. AT THIS POINT, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY INVOLVED PROCESS TO GET TO THIS POINT.
ABOUT $0,000 IN PROFESSIONAL FEES ON ARCHITECT DRAWINGS AND PROFESSIONAL FEES. MAYBE THAT IS NOT A POINT OF CONSIDERATION: ON A PROPERTY THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW TO TRY TO INVEST IN, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A BEAUTIFUL OFFICE HERE, MY PREFERENCE IS TO BE IN A HOME. I HAVE LOOKED AT HOMES IN DOWN TOWN CARMEL. THERE IS ALREADY A STATE FARM AGENT IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL. I CAN'T BE CLOSE TO WHERE SHE IS. WHEN THIS CAME UP, WHEN I FIRST DROVE BY IT, TO BE HONEST, I WAS, LIKE, WOW, WHAT A TERRIBLE ISORE IN A CITY OF SUCH BEAUTIFUL PROPERTIES.
IT SEEMED LIKE THIS WOULD BE-- I DIDN'T GO INTO IT ANTICIPATING THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE SO OPPOSED.
I'M IN THE CUSTOMER SERVICE BUSINESS.
THE PEOPLE THAT I WANT TO INSURE.
THE BUILDING IS IN TERRIBLE REPAIR.
THE MORE WE LOOKED AT IT, THE MORE IT SEEMED LIKE IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR IT TO STAY RESIDENTIAL.
AND MAYBE THIS WOULD BE A LOW-IMPACT ALTERNATIVE.
>> DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHEN THE PROPERTY NEAR THE ENTRANCE
TO BADGER PARK LAST TRADED? >> I DO NOT.
>> I THINK IT WAS RENOVATED. IT IS IN GORGEOUS CONDITION.
IT IS QUITE A BIT BIGGER THAN THIS FOOTPRINT AND DEFINITELY SET UP FOR RESIDENTIAL. NOT THAT THIS ONE COULDN'T.
TO THE OTHER POINTS. THIS IS JUST WHERE I AM ON THIS.
>> I'M CURIOUS WHETHER THAT OWNER HAS BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME. MAYBE EVEN, YOU KNOW, PREDATING
NORTH VIEW AND BADGER FIELDS. >> I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK IT WAS PURCHASENED AND RENOVATED.
>> BRAD, I DRIVE BY THERE EVERY DAY.
THEY REHABBED THAT IN THE LAST TWO YEARS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY.
>> QUICK QUESTION. A COUPLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
IF THIS ISN'T RESIDENTIAL AND THIS ISN'T OFFICE, IS THERE ANY OTHER IDEAL IMPROVEMENT FOR THIS PARCEL?
>> NO. THE PLANNING STAFF AS A PETITIONER, DIRECTED THEM TO SEEK THE USE VARIANCE.
SO IT COULD STAY ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
IT COULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY OR THE OFFICE USE.
WE DID HAVE SOMEONE PRIOR TO THIS COME TO US FOR PROPOSING A RETAIL USE. DEFINITELY, WE SAID NO TO THAT.
IT JUST WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE IN THAT AREA.
PLANNING STAFF DOES THINK THIS OFFICE USE WOULD BE A GOOD FIT.
>> OKAY. AND THEN ON THE PETITIONER'S-- I THINK IT IS UNDER SECTION 6. THE SIGNAGE SAYS THE ENTIRE SIGN WILL BE MADE OUT OF FOAM MATERIAL.
THERE IS A FOAM MASONRY BASE. IS THAT TYPICAL? I'M NOT A SIGN GUY. I MEAN, YEAH.
IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE TYPE OF SIGN IN.
>> YEAH. OUR SIGN PERMITS PERSON DID ASK THEM ABOUT. THAT THEY MEAN IT IS-- I THINK IT IS A MATERIAL THAT IS THAT-- IT IS COATED WITH A HARD DURABLE SURFACE TO LOOK LIKE STONE. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.
>> THIS IS GOING TO LOOK BETTER THAN IT SOUNDS.
>> OKAY. THEN LAST QUESTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT. WOULD THIS GO THROUGH ADLS APPROVAL? OR IS THAT...
>> NO. THIS WAS THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW THAT PLANNING STAFF DID. THAT IS HOW WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE BUILDING CHANGED FROM, YOU KNOW, THE RED TO THE WHITE AND YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THE ARCHITECTURE, THE DESIGN, LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND SIGNAGE.
ALL AS PART OF THIS LAND USAGE REQUEST.
>> IS THERE ANY ADVANTAGE OF MAKING THAT A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL? >> TO THE DEPARTMENT?
>> DO YOU MEAN THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED?
WHAT WERE YOU ASKING? >> AS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, IS IT WORTH WHILE TO MAKE IT CONDITIONED ON ADLS
THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD. >> OKAY.
>> WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED.
ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER. HOW LONG HAS THE PROPERTY BEEN
VACANT? >> I DON'T KNOW THE CONTACT DATES. THE MONTHS KEEP ADDING ON.
MORE THAN 18 MONTH AT THIS POINT.
WHEN WE PUT OUR BID IN, IT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. AND THAT WAS LATE AUGUST OF LAST
AND YOU ARE NOT ASSOCIATED IN ANY WAY WITH THE CURRENT OWNERS
WHO DID THIS TO THIS PROPERTY? >> CORRECT.
[00:50:02]
>> LAST SUMMER, I WAS DRIVING BACK TO MY OFFICE FROM A CLIENT APPOINTMENT AND SAW THIS BUILDING AND THOUGHT SOMETHING COULD BE BETTER. THERE.
AND THEN SAW IT HAD BEEN FOR SALE FOR A YEAR PRETTY MUCH IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION. IT WAS TAKEN OVER BY THAT-- BY THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER OUT OF AN ESTATE FOR A FAMILY THAT OWNED IT FOR MANY YEARS. BUT YEAH, THERE IS A LOT TO BE DONE. THE GENTLEMAN THAT LIVED IN IT FOR MANY YEARS, I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON IT. THE CURRENT BUYERS BOUGHT IT.
I THINK THEY ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO RENOVATE IT FOR RESIDENTIAL.
THEY REALIZED IT WAS TOO MUCH TO DO WITH NO SEPTIC.
NO KITCHEN. NO BATHROOMS. IT IS A SHELL OF A BUILDING RIGHT NOW.
THEY STARTED SOME CONSTRUCTION. BUT DIDN'T GET REAL FAR.
THEN IT WAS ON THE MARKET FOR ABOUT A YEAR.
>> SO ANGIE, I WANT TO BE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION ON THIS BECAUSE AS THE PETITIONER JUST ALLUDED, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK. AND TONIGHT WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PACKETS THAT CONTINUE TO SHOW PROGRESS AND CHANGES BEING MADE. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW HAS LED TO THE CONCLUSION OR THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS
ACCEPTABLE? >> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THAT THE SIGNAGE IS ACCEPTABLE WITH THE SHUTOFF OF
THE LIGHTING ON THE SIGN? >> CORRECT.
>> AND REALLY, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IS THE CHIEF OPEN ITEM AT THIS POINT?
>> I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO PARKING SPACES. PLANNING STAFF WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE 13 WAYED ON THE... BASED ON THE REASONS THEY ARE STATING WHY THEY NEED IT NOW RATHER THAN HAVING IT LAND-BANKED FOR LATER. I MAN, THEY COULD USE THE LAND-BANK PARKING. THEN LET'S SAY IN SIX MONTHS,
THEY COULD ALWAYS ADD THOSE IN. >> OKAY.
THE DEPARTMENT IS SATISFIED, SUBJECT TO THE REMAINING REVIEW.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YES. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
THERE IS NO SEWER, NO WATER. I ACTUALLY KNEW THE PRIOR OWNER.
I USED TO BUY FIRE WOOD FROM HIM.
I'M PRETTY SURE HE HAD AN INSIDE BATHROOM.
ARE YOU SAYING THERE IS NO WATER LINE TO THIS PROPERTY AND NO SEWER LINE? BECAUSE THERE WASN'T AN OUTHOUSE
HERE. >> SO WE THINK THAT THERE WAS A VERY OLD-- WE HAVE HAD THREE SEPTIC COMPANIES COME OUT.
WTHERE WAS A FRENCH DRAIN SEPTIC THAT WOULD HAVE A HOLDING TANK THAT WOULD DRAIN OUT NOT THE WAY THAT CURRENT SEPTICS WORK.
SO THERE IS NO INDICAION THAT THERE IS A SEPTIC ON SITE THAT COULD BE REVIVED OF ANY KIND. AND I THINK THERE WAS A WELL, BUT THE WELL IS DRY. WE COULDN'T GET ANY WATER TO PUMP OUT OF IT. THERE IS NO INDOOR PLUMBING AT THIS TIME. INI DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATE WAS IN WHEN HE PASSED AND IF THE CURRENT OWNERS JUST TOOK IT ALL OUT, THINKING THEY WOULD RENOVATE.
WE WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO GET IT CONNECTED TO CITY OR GET PERMISSION FOR A SEPTIC-- A NEW SEPTEMBERIC TO GO IN.
THAT IS ANOTHER COMPLICATION THAT MIGHT MAKE IT HARDER FOR A SINGLING-FAMILY... A RESIDENT TO MOVE IN.
>> ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? WITH ALL THE CAVEATS THAT ARE NECESSARY?
>> YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M MOVE TO APPROVE DOCKETS PZ2022-00192UV. 193V AND 2001 WITH THE 90 DAYS OF BZA APPROVAL. THAT THE LIGHTING ON THE GROUND SIGN IS TURNED OFFER AT MIDNIGHT AND WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACTS TO BE PREPARE BY THE BOARD'S COUNCIL.
>> SECOND. >> I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT.
SO THAT THE LIGHTED GROUND SIGN TURNS OFF AFTER BUSINESS HOURS.
DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT TO THIS?
>> I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS AN AMENDMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO IT WILL ONLY BE LIT DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, STATE THE SAME.
[00:55:01]
PROPOSAL IS DENIED. WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.[H. (V) 530 2nd Ave NE Variances. ]
OKAY. NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS.532 BD AVENUE. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS, VARIANCE APPROVALS FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE.
PLEASE CLEAR THE ROOM. TAKE IT OUTSIDE.
THANK YOU. STANDARDS OF VARIANCE APPROVALS FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH ATTACHED GARAGE.
DOCKET NUMBER PZ2033. MAXIMUM 45% LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED. 49% REQUESTED.
WINDOW WELLS MAY ENCROACH UPON UP TO 24 INCHES INTO YARD.
36-INCH ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED INTO FIVE-FOOT-WIDE SIDE YARD.
MINIMUM OF 8-12 ROOF PITCH REQUIRED.
4-12 ROOF PITCH REQUESTED. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 530 SECOND AVENUE NORTHEAST. LOT 31.
ZONED R-3 RESIDENCE. JOHN DOBOSIEWICZ ON BEHALF OF
WEDGEWOOD BUILDING COMPANY. >> THANK YOU FOR THE INTRODUCTION. FOR THE RECORD, JOHN DOBOSIEWICZ WITH NELSON & FRANKENBERGER. WE REPRESENT THE PETITIONER, WEDGEWOOD BUILDING COMPANY LLC AND PRESENT TONIGHT ON THEIR BEHALF IS LISA BAKER AND JESSICA POLLEN.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE ATTORNEY WITH OUR OFFICE.
WEDGEWOOD IS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT LOT WHERE WEDGEWOOD WILL BE BUILDING A PROPOSED CUSTOM HOME FOR THE BELLESPY FAMILY.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THREE VARIANCES ON THE SUBJECT LOT. THE LOT IS LOCATED AT 530 SECOND AVENUE NORTHEAST. IT IS IDENTIFIED HERE AND OUTLINED IN YELLOW ON THIS AERIAL EXHIBIT.
THE REAL US STATE IS ZONED R-3 RESIDENTIAL AND FALLS WITHIN THE OLDTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT SUBAREA.
ENCLOSED BEHIND TAB THREE OF THE INFORMATIONAL BOOKLET IS A SITE PLAN WITH A BLOW-UP THAT SHOWS THE POSITIONING OF THE HOME ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE EXHIBIT ON DISPLAY IS A COPY OF THAT BLOW-UP WITH TWO AREAS RELATING TO IS THE SUBJECT VARIANCES HIGHLIGHTED. THE FIRST VARIANCE RELATES TO LOT COVERAGE IN SECTION 3.64. THE APPLICATION OF THE UDO STANDARD RESULTS IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE USE OF THE SUBJECT LOT BECAUSE THE PROPOSED CUSTOM HOME HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO BE HANDICAPPED-ACCESSIBLE AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AS IT RELATES IN PARTICULAR TO LOT COVERAGE, THE COVERAGE COULD BE REDUCED MODESTLY WE THE SHRINKING OF THE DRIVEWAY LENGTH ALONG THE ALLEY. HOWEVER, THE LOT FALLS TOWARDS THE ALLEY, AND EXTENDING THE DRIVEWAY PROVIDES FOR A MORE GRADUAL INCLUDE F... INCLINE OR GRADE.
WHICH WILL BE MORE ACCOMMODATING FOR ACCESS TO THE HOME FROM THE DRIVEWAY. ABSENT APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE PERTAINING TO THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, THE APPLICANT WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTED ON HOW IT IS ABLE TO PROVIDE A SITE DESIGN NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE UNIQUE MEDICAL NEEDS OF THE FUTURE OWNER.
THE SECOND VARIANCE PERTAINS TO SECTION 5.79J OF THE UDO.
WHICH AIM LOUS... WHICH ALLOWS WINDOW WELLS TO ENCROACH UP TO 24 INCHES INTO A REQUIRED SIDE YARD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 36-INCH WINDOW WELL AND ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE YARD. THE DESIGN INTENTION HERE WAS TO HAVE A WIDER WINDOW WELL TO MEET EGRESS REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR...
FOR A BEDROOM WHICH IS POSITIONED IN THE BASEMENT.
FURTHER, A WINDOW WELL ALONG THE SAME ELEVATION FURTHER CLOSER TO THE REAR OF THE HOME WAS DESIGNED ALSO INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE IT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THAT SPACE WILL ALLOW FOR MORE LIGHT TO ENTER SOMEWHAT SPACE OF THE DWELLING. THE ENTIRE HOME DESIGN FOOTPRINT AND THEREFORE, THE POSITION OF THE WINDOW WELLS WERE INTENTIONAL TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF THE FUTURE
[01:00:02]
OWNER. AS NOTED BY STAFF, THE SUBJECT DWELLING ALSO SITS ON THE FIVE-FOOT SIDE YARD ALONG THE SOUTH ELEVATION LOCATED HERE AND THAT POTENTIALLY MOVING THE HOME TO THE SOUTH WOULD ELIMINATE THAT NEED FOR THE VARIANCE.AND THE DESIGN TEAM TOOK A LOOK AT THAT.
YOU CAN SEE IT IDENTIFIED HERE. THERE IS A PORCH ON THAT SIDE.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE DESIGN COULD BE ACCOMMODATING WITHOUT THAT VARIANCE BY REDUCING THE SIGN OF THE SCREEN PORCH.
WHEN THE DESIGN TEAM TOOK A LOOK AT THAT BASED UPON THE NEED TO PROVIDE WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY TO THAT SPACE AND FURNITURE, THEY FELT LIKE REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE PORCH WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE THAT AS WELL. SO AGAIN, THEY COULD EXTEND IT TO THE SOUTH OR SHIFT THE BUILDING SOUTH BY ONE FOOT.
THAT WOULD THEN NECESSITATE A DIFFERENT VARIANCE FOR THE FIVE-FOOT SIDE YARD ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
RATHER THAN A WINDOW WELL. VARIANCE.
THIS NEXT AND FINAL EXHIBIT IS LOCATED BEHIND TAB FOUR OF THE BROCHURES. SECTION 3.64C9 OF THE UDO PERTAINS TO ROOF PITCH. AND IT WOULD REQUIRE AN 812 ROOF PITCH FOR ALL DWELLINGS WITHIN THIS AREA OF THE OVERLAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 412 ROOF PITCH.
THE SINGLE-STORY CUSTOM HOME WAS DESIGNED WITH A ROOF PITCH WHICH FALLS IN LINE WITH A PRAIRIE-STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE WHICH WILL HELP TO ADD DIVERSITY TO THE AREA.
RATHER THAN AN 812 ROOF PITCH WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH THE DESIGN INTENT OF THE ARCHITECTURE.
THEREFORE, THE 412 ROOF PITCH IS PROPOSED BY THE ARCHITECT.
IN CONCLUSION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THESE THREE VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLING-FAMILY HOME ON THE SUBJECT LOT WHICH WILL BETTER ADDRESS UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND THE NEEDS OF THE FUTURE OWNER.
WE HAVE REVIEWED THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND H HAVE, IN ADVANCE OF TONIGHT'S MEETING, RESOLVED THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE METAL FLUE ON TOP OF THE BUILDING.
THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IN ADDITION TO US MAKING OUR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS VIA MAIL TO SURROUNDING OWNERS, THE APPLICANT REACHED OUT, KNOCKED ON DOORS, VISITED WITH SOME OF THE SURROUNDING OWNERS TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAD IN ADVANCE OF US SENDING OUT THAT MAILING. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
WE WOULD BE GLAD TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE. NOW OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY SUPPORTERS HERE? SEEING NONE, ANY REMONSTRATORS? SEEING NONE, NO REBUTTAL.
THE PETITIONER DID EXPLORE DIFERENT FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT OPTIONS TO TRY AND REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES. WE DO APPRECIATE THAT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES. WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THESE VARIANCES ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> DISCUSSION? MOTION? LEAH?
>> THANK YOU. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WINDOW WELL. SO IT REDUCES THE DISTANCE FROM THE NEXT PROPERTY BY A FOOT? TWO FEET?
>> YEAH. WINDOW WELLS COULD BE OF ANY SIZE. THEY CAN ONLY ENCROACH INTO A REQUIRED YARD WHICH IS THE FIVE-FOOT YARD.
BY 24 INCHES. WE ARE PROPOSING IT BE A 36-INCH WINDOW WELL, ENCROACHING INTO THE YARD 36 INCHES.
COINCIDENTALLY, THAT IS IDENTICAL TO A VARIANCE WHICH WAS APPROVED FOR THE EXISTING DWELLING ON THE LOT TO THE
AND THE PURPOSE WAS FOR MORE LIGHT?
>> ONE, TO ALLOW FOR ACCESSIBILITY AS AN EGRESS WINDOW. THERE IS A BASEMENT BEDROOM.
THE OTHER IS IN A MEDIA AREA. THEY WANTED TO MATCH IT AS WELL AS PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL LIGHT. IT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THAT EXTRA FOOT OF WINDOW WELL WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE NATURAL LIGHT TO ENTER THE SPACE.
>> YOU ARE WELCOME. >> ANYONE ELSE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER
PZ-2023-0002V, # V AND 7V. >> SECOND.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN?
>> GO AHEAD. >> I BELIEVE IT IS THE LAST
[01:05:05]
>> WE HAVE CORRECTED THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, STATE AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
ANY NEW BUSINESS? >> DO YOU NEED COPIES OF THE BALLOT SHEETS? OR IS THAT NECESSARY? I'M SEEING A NO FROM JOE. THANK YOU.
>> OLD BUSINESS? MEET
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.