Apr 18, 2023 Carmel Plan Commission

[A. Call Meeting to Order]

[00:00:07]

>> GOOD EVENING. LY CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION. I ASK THAT WE ALL RISE FOR THE

[B. Pledge of Allegiance]

[C. Roll Call]

>> ADAM AASEN? >> HERE.

DEBBY BUCKLER? >> HERE.

ADAM CAMPAGNA? >> HERE.

LEO DIERCKMAN? >> PRESENT.

SUSAN SNIER. >> PRESENT.

>> BRAD GRABOW? >> PRESENT.

[D. Declaration of Quorum]

[E. Approval of Minutes]

MARCH MEETING. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU BOTH.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES AS CIRCULATED, SAY AYE.

[F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures, Legal Counsel Report]

>> AYE. >> MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

>> NOTHING FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

[G. Reports, Announcements, Department Concerns]

>> THANK YOU. >> REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT?

ANNOUNCEMENTS, ET CETERA? >> THANK YOU.

I DID WANT TO NOTE REALLY QUICKLY THAT THE TRU HOTEL CARMEL HAS BEEN TABLED FROM TONIGHT'S MEETING.

WHEN THE AGENDA CAME OUT, WE HADN'T HAD THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE MEETING YET. WE WEREN'T SURE OF THE OUTCOME OF THAT. THAT ITEM WILL BE TABLED FOR THIS MONTH. REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE AS WELL, THE IMI HEADQUARTERS WAS APPROVED AT THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE. AND THE L'ETOILE AMENDMENT WAS TABLED AND WILL BE HEARD AT THE NEXT MONTH.

THERE WERE NO ITEMS ON THE RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE.

WE ARE STILL WAITING ON A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR THE PUD. THANK YOU.

[H. Public Hearings]

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING WITH MULTIPLE DOCKETS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THE COMMISSION'S RULES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS PROVIDE FOR UP TO 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME TO THE PETITIONER. THEN WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR UP TO 20 MINUTES.

AT THE COMPLETION OF WHICH, THE PETITIONER HAS A FIVE-MINUTE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS.

THEN WE WILL HEAR THE DEPARTMENT REPORT AT WHICH POINT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. SO WITH THAT, I WILL READ ALL 7 DOCKETS INTO OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.

AND THEN WE WILL TURN TO MR. BUCHHEIT.

DOCKETS: TOWN OF BETHLEHEM PARTIALPLAT OF LOTS 1-4.

PRIMARY PLAT FIRST ON MAIN SUBDIVISION, PRIMARY PLAT.

SUBDIVISION WAIVER OF UDO SECTION 6.15.

WHICH REQUIRES 10% MINIMUM OPEN SPACE.

0% QUALIFYING OPEN SPACE IS REQUESTED.

SUBDIVISION WAIVER OF UDO SECTION 6.15 REQUIRING A TEN-FOOT-WIDE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING.

ZERO FEET IS REQUESTED. TRANSPORTATION PLAN COMPLIANCE IS REQUIRED. THERE IS A DEVIATION INVOLVED HERE. A VARIANCE OF UDO SECTION 2.36.

REQUIRING MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE UP TO 80%.

100% IS REQUESTED. AND A VARIANCE OF UDO SECTION 5.21 REQUIRING STREET TREES WHERE NONE ARE PROPOSED.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS A PARTIAL PLAT VACATION, NEW PRIMARY PLAT, TWO DESIGN STANDARDS WAIVERS AND THREE VARIANCES TO REMOVE THE FIRST ON MAIN DEVELOPMENT FROM THE ORIGINAL SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AND PLAT INTO ITS OWN URBAN COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION WITH FOUR LOTS. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 41 NORTH RANGELINE ROAD. THE ZONING IS C-2 MIXED USE.

A PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY KEVIN BUCHHEIT WITH KRIEG DEVAULT LLP ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER.

KEVIN, WELCOME. AND THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> OKAY. MY NAME IS KEVIN BUCHHEIT.

I'M A PLANNER WITH THE LAW FIRM KRIEG DEVAULT HERE AT THEIR OFFICES IN CARMEL. 12800 NORTH MERIDIAN STREET,

[00:05:03]

THERE ARE 7 DOCKET ITEMS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER MY PRESENTATION IS DONE.

ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS COMING BACK AROUND TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADLS APPROVAL THAT WAS GRANTED LAST YEAR FROM THIS PROJECT.

AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANGELINE KD ROAD AND MAIN STREET. SOME OF THESE THINGS HAD TO WAIT UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO DEFINE WHERE THE LINES ARE AND WHAT THE OTHER STANDARDS ARE THAT WE DISCOVERED ALONG THE WAY HERE. AND THIS IS THE COMBINED PROCESS TO INCLUDE THE VARIANCE REQUESTS BEFORE THE PLAN COMMISSION TONIGHT. THE PROJECT WILL ESSENTIALLY END UP BEING FIVE LOTS TOTAL. FOUR LOTS IN A COMMON AREA.

LOT ONE, I BELIEVE, IS THE OFFICE BUILDING THAT THE FRONT IS ON MAIN. LOT TWO IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THAT FRONTS ON NORTH RANGELINE.

THE MULTIFAMILY LOT WRAPS AROUND THE NORTH AND PART OF THE EAST SIDE. THE FOURTH LOT IS THE INTERIOR PARKING GARAGE. AND THEN WHATEVER IS LEFTOVER.

IT IS MOSTLY BETWEEN THE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH AND THE PARKING GARAGE THAT IS THE COMMON AREA.

ON THE PLAT. YOU HAVE THE LOCATION MAP I HAVE DESCRIBED WHERE IT IS. A LONG TIME AGO, ABOUT 1837, THE PLAT FOR THE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM WAS RECORDED.

AND THIS-- LOTS ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR ARE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THIS PROJECT AREA. IT IS ESSENTIALLY-- THERE WE GO.

IT IS THE WEST HALF OF THE CONSTRUCTION AREA THAT YOU SEE OUT THERE TODAY. SO WHAT WE ARE SEEKING IS TO VACATE LOTS ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.

THIS ALLEY HAS BEEN VACATED ALREADY BY INSTRUMENT.

THAT ALREADY HAS BEEN TENDED TO. THE SECOND PAGE IS A BETTER GRAPHIC OF SHOWING THE AREA THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO VACATE.

AND THEN AGAIN, THIS OUTLINES THE ENTIRE PLAT OF THE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM AND IDENTIFIES, AGAIN, LOTS ONE THROUGH FOUR.

AND GOING BACK THIS FAR TO 1837, I DOUBT THERE WAS ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS OF ANY SORT FOR ANY KIND OF PLAT. THE RECENT SURVEYS ON THE PROPERTY HASN'T RESULTED IN ANY FIND OF ANY COVENANTS.

WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE COVENANTS, IF ANY, ARE ALSO VACATED THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THE VACATION FOR THE PLAT VACATION BEGIN UNDER TAB FOUR. THERE ARE FINDINGS OF FACT DRAWN FROM 3674711 IN THE INDIANA CODE.

THIS IS THE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT OVERALL PLAT.

THAT IS PART OF THE REQUIREMENT THERE.

THERE IS A SECOND AREA UNDER SECTION F AT THAT SAME SECTION OF THE STATUTE REGARDING FINDINGS IN FACT THERE.

AND THEN THERE IS A THIRD SET THAT DEALS WITH THE COVENANTS BEING VACATED. THE OTHER TWO SECTIONS ARE ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR IN THE FINDINGS.

THEY HAVE TO ALL BE THERE. THIS LAST ONE IS A ONE, TWO, OR THREE. ONE OF THE THREE NEEDS TO BE PRESENT TO VACATE THE COVENANTS. WE PRESENTED THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. IF YOU WANT, I'LL READ THEM THROUGH. MAYBE YOU WILL GET OUT A LITTLE BIT EARLY TONIGHT. WE WILL SEE.

THE TAB 5 SHOWS THE SUBDIVISION AS IT IS PROPOSED.

LOT ONE IS THE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

LOT TWO, AS I MENTIONED, IS UP RANGELINE ROAD AND IS THE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR THE SALE PRODUCT THERE.

THE LOT THREE IS THE MULTIFAMILY WHICH SKIRTS THE NORTH AND PART OF THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. LOT FOUR IS THE INTERIOR PARKING GARAGE. THE COMMON AREA IS A LITTLE BIT DOWN AT THE INTERSECTION. A LITTLE BIT TO THE WEST OF LOT ONE, AND THEN THIS AREA IN BETWEEN THE OFFICE BUILDING AND THE PARKING GARAGE. THAT IS THE PRIMARY PLAT FOR THE REDO, IF YOU WILL, ON THE PROPERTY.

ON THE REAL ESTATE. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF WAIVER REQUESTS AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION.

THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE PRESENTED UNDER TAB SIX.

I WON'T READ THOSE. THEY ARE THERE FOR YOUR OWN CONSIDERATION, AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE PROBABLY PART OF THE PACKET THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED ELECTRONICALLY OR IN HARD COPY.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF VARI VARIANCES.

WE HAVE THE STATEMENT OF VARIANCE AND THE STATEMENT OF SUPPORT OF VARIANCES UNDER TAB SEVEN.

TAB EIGHT, THEN, GOES INTO THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THOSE VARIANCES. AND THEY ARE THERE FOR YOUR

[00:10:01]

PART OF WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON THIS. AND YOU SEE MORE DETAIL ON THE BUILDING. THE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH. THIS COMMON WALKWAY WITHIN THE BUILDING TO THE ELEVATOR. BAYS AND SUCH.

A CRUDE DEPICTION OF WHAT THE CONDOMINIUM UNITS MAY LOOK LIKE ON RANGELINE ROAD. SAME FOR THE PLANS ON THE MULTIFAMILY AROUND THE NORTH AND THE EAST.

THEN YOU SEE THE TRAFFIC PATTERN AND THE PARKING SPACES ON THE PARKING GARAGE. THEN THIS ONE, THE COMMON AREA IS MORE OF A GRADE TONE HERE IN THESE AREAS.

THAT IS A QUICK RUN-THROUGH. AGAIN, THESE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEEDED TO COME AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE DPADLS AND SUPPORT THAT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS APPROVED LAST YEAR.

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF EACH OF THESE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT WHERE THEY APPLY BASED ON THE PRESENTATION.

I HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. IT IS A GOOD STAFF REPORT.

WE AGREE WITH THEIR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION ON THIS.

I WILL WAIT FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, KEVIN.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THESE 7 PETITIONS? ONE, TWO? CHRISTINE? THREE? ALL RIGHT.

THEN WE WILL BREAK THE 20-MINUTE BLOCK OF TIME UP INTO FIVE-MINUTE MAXIMUM WINDOWS? AND YOU ARE CLOSEST.

>> YOU WOULD LIKE TO START, MA'AM.

LOOKS LIKE THE MICROPHONE IS ALREADY ON FOR YOU.

INTRODUCE YOURSELF BY NAME AND WHAT AREA OF CARMEL, IF IT IS

CARMEL, IN WHICH YOU LIVE. >> SURE.

>> I'M CINDY BABCOCK. I LIVE IN WILSON VILLAGE.

THE MAIN REASON I'M HERE IS MY CONCERN THAT THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY BOTH COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CRC AT 100% LOT COVERAGE AND WITH NO STREET TREES.

AND THEN WAY AFTER THE FACT, WE ARE COMING IN AND ASKING FOR VARIANCES. OBVIOUSLY, THE VARIANCES ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN. THE PROJECT, THE FOOTPRINT IS THERE. THE CONSTRUCTION IS PROBABLY 70% COMPLETE. IT IS A GIVEN THAT IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THERE REMAIN A LOT OF C-2 DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

A BIG SECTION IS GOING TO FRONT OR BE BEHIND OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS STARTS DOWN A REALLY SKETCHY ROAD WITH PROJECTS BEING APPROVED AT 100% LOT COVERAGE WITH NO STREET TREES.

BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS PROJECT-- WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. THIS PROJECT WAS A C-2 PROJECT SO THAT CRC COULD HAVE IT. IT SEEMS TO BE MORE OF AN URBAN CORE PROJECT IF YOU REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT THE ZONING.

LAST SEPTEMBER, MR. GRABOW, BOTH YOU AND MR. POTASNIK BROUGHT UP THE POSSIBILITY OF PLAN COMMISSION HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE OVERSIGHT IN C-2 PROJECTS.

I THINK THIS IS A PERFECT REASON WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE INVOLVEMENT BY THE PLAN COMMISSION.

AND THAT CRC DOESN'T HAVE CARTE BLANCHE ON C-2 PROJECTS.

WE RUN INTO A YEAR AFTER SOMETHING HAS BEEN STARTED, WE FIND OUT THAT IT WAS APPROVED AS IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.

S IF THAT IS MY CONCERN. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS JILL MICENHEIMER.

I LIVE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THIS SITE, BUT I'M HERE TONIGHT TO OPPOSE THE CONCEPT AND PRACTICE OF PLANNING 100% LOT COVERAGE WITH BUILDINGS AND PARKING GARAGES WITHOUT ROOM FOR ANY SHADE TREES, PERMIT OR LANDSCAPING AREAS OR OPEN SPACE.

AM I THE ONLY CARMEL RESIDENT WHO FEELS BOXED IN BY TOWERING, OVERWHELMING BUILDINGS APPROVED IN CARMEL LIKE THE FIVE-STORY MIXED-USE COMPLEX WITH LITTLE TO NO SETBACK CRAMMED IN? TO ME, IT FEELS UNCOMFORTABLY MASSIVE, LIKE A FORTRESS, OUT OF SCALE AND OUT OF PLACE. THIS PROPOSAL TONIGHT SEEMS TO BE ASKING FOR MORE OF THE SAME. THIS PROJECT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, BUT SOMEHOW THE DPADLS WAS APPROVED IN 2022 FOR 100% OF THE COVERAGE OF THIS SITE TO INCLUDE AN OFFICE BUILDING, PARKING GARAGE, CONDO BUILDING AND MULTIFAMILY

[00:15:01]

THE DEPARTMENT REPORT SAYS THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS AN URBAN IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT AND DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ROOM FOR THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE OR PERMIT OR LANDSCAPING.

THAT IT WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR AN URBAN SETTING LIKE MAIN STREET AND RANGELINE. AND THE DEPARTMENT'S SUPPORTS THESE WAIVERS. THE DEPARTMENT REPORT LISTS REQUESTED VARIANCES TO ALLOW DECREASED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS. INCREASED LOT COVERAGE TO 100% AND ZERO STREET TREES. THE LOT COVERAGE FOR C-2 ZONING ALLOWS A MAXIMUM COVERAGE OF 80%.

THE PETITIONER REQUESTS 100%. THIS IS A VARIANCE OF 20%.

THE INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE ALLOWS THE PROJECT TO FULLY UTILIZE THIS SITE FOR URBAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT.

I ASK IF THAT IS NECESSARY. I WORRY ABOUT THE FUTURE THAT THIS IS CONTINUED. STREET TREES, C-2 ZONING, REQUIRES THAT SHADE TREES BE PLANTED ALONG ALL STREETS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. HOWEVER, DUE TO THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT, THE SITE WAS MAXIMIZED, AND ROOM WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR STREET TREES. I WONDER WHY IS THIS? IS THIS NECESSARY? AND THE DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS THESE VARIANCES. DOCS RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION VOTE TO SUSPEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND IMPROVE THIS ITEM TONIGHT. IT SEEMS REALLY CONVENIENT THAT IT WAS APPROVED FOR 100% AND THEN NOW THAT IS NOT ALLOWED.

AND IT IS BEING ASKED THAT THAT HAPPENED, NOW THAT IT IS 75% BUILT. DO YOU SUPPORT THIS MULTIUSE PROJECT AT RANGELINE AND MAIN? OR ANY URBAN DEVELOPMENT BEING PURPOSEFULLY DESIGNED IN EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING WAIVERS AND VARIANCES WHICH WOULD ALLOW 100% BUILDING COVERAGE WITHOUT ROOM FOR ANY SHADE TREES ALONG THE STREETS? I HESITATE TO CALL THIS A CONCRETE JUNGLE.

BUT I, AND MANY PEOPLE I TALK WITH FEEL THAT URBANIZED AREAS NEED GREEN SPACE AND COOLING TREES.

AND THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS COULD BE DESIGNED TO MEET THE EXTREMELY MEAGER MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE AREAS REZONED TO C-2. AND FRANKLY, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE IMI WHICH I KNOW IS NOT IN THIS SAME PLACE PLACE, THE SAME CATEGORY, UNLESS 100% COVERAGE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M CHRISTINE ALTMAN.

I HAPPEN TO OWN THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE LIBRARY RESTAURANT AT 40 EAST MAIN. IT IS ONE OF THE FEW HISTORIC BUILDINGS REMAINING IN THE CITY OF CARMEL.

I GUESS MY BIGGEST CONCERN-- WELL, ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS IS I DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF ANY PROCEEDING DIRECTLY.

I THINK I TALKED WITH MR. BUCHHEIT.

I THINK IT WAS AN HONEST MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES, BUT ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN RULES, STATE STATUTE, NOTICE GOES TO THE OWNER. THE OWNER IS CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR, BUT THE ADDRESSES ARE NOT CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR.

THERE IS AN ERROR AS TO THE ADDRESS OF THE OWNER, AND THAT IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE I HAVE A TRIPLE NET LEASE ON THAT PROPERTY, AND THE TAXES GO DIRECTLY TO.

IT IS INCUMBENT, AND STAFF MAY SHARE WITH PETITIONERS, ESPECIALLY WITH ENTITY OWNERSHIP, IT IS CARMEL LIBRARY ASSOCIATES LLC, THAT THE APPROPRIATE ADDRESS IS ALWAYS CONTAINED AT THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE AS A REGISTERED AGENT FOR SERVICE. AND SOME OF THESE AREAS THAT I'M GOING TO COVER PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT.

WELL BEFORE I'M APPEARING BEFORE YOU.

I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING YOUR TIME.

AS YOU WELL KNOW, ANYONE THAT HAS DRIVEN PAST THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES TO THE EDGE OF THE PRO PROPERTY, AND I'M NOT COMPLAINING AGAINST PROGRESS. I UNDERSTAND, BUT THERE IS A FEW THINGS THAT I WOULD REQUEST BE CONSIDERED.

EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

EXCUSE ME. ONE IS THE VARIANCE ON LANDSCAPING, AND I THINK WE CAN WORK IT OUT.

I WILL WORK WITH KEVIN ON THIS. BUT WE'VE GOT TRANSFORMERS SHOVED RIGHT UP AGAINST MY PROPERTY LINE THAT I CAN'T TELL FROM THE PLANS WHETHER THERE IS AN INTENT TO SHIELD THOSE WITH FENCING OR SOMETHING ELSE. BUT BASICALLY, HALF HAS BUSHES

[00:20:02]

PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAVE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IS THE ENCROACHMENT IN THE ALLEY.

AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PLAT THAT IT SHOWS AN EASEMENT TO BE RECORDED. I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS WORKS OR

HOW I DISPLAY ANYTHING. >> CHRISTINE, YEAH, IF YOU LAY THAT DOWN WITHIN THE TAPED BORDERS, THEN WE WILL PICK THAT

UP. >> COOL.

THIS IS PRETTY FANCY. ANYWAY, WHAT I'M SPEAKING OF ON THE NORTH PART OF MY PROPERTY, THERE IS A TEN-FOOT ALLEY.

RIGHT THERE. AND THAT ALLEY IS NECESSARY FOR ME TO FULLY ACCESS MY PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH.

WIWHAT THE PLANS DEPICT IS AN ENCROACHMENT IN THAT ALLEY RIGHT THROUGH HERE. IT SAYS "SEE CONCRETE WALL DETAIL." APPARENTLY, IT IS A RETAINING WALL FOR A SIDEWALK. BUT IT WILL REDUCE THAT TEN-FOOT ALLEY WHICH IS SNUG TO BEGIN WITH, TO BETWEEN ZEN AND EIGHT FEET. TO GIVE-- TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE, I MEASURED YOUR PARKING LOT PARKING SPACES.

THEY ARE OVER TEN FEET. THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY RENDER THAT ALLEY USELESS. OR IF IT IS USEDST, TRASH TRUCKS, EVERYTHING WILL CONTINUE JULYLY CONTINUALLY ENCROACH ON MY PARKING LOT AND BREAK IT DOWN AND TRESPASS.

SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THAT .

IF THE INTENT WAS TO VACATE THE ALLEY, THAT IS NOT THE PROCEDURE. YOU CALL OUT SPECIFIC PROCEDURES TO VACATE A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH THIS IS.

SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT GETS RESOLVED, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM. WITH AN ALLEY THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR HUNDREDSES OF YEARS. PROBABLY NOT HUNDREDS.

OVER A HUNDRED YEARS. AND FREE ACCESS.

SO THAT IS A BIG, BIG CONCERN. I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T PUT TOOTHPASTE BACK IN THE TUBE. I MEAN, IT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED NOW. QUITE HONESTLY, I DO SHARE THE CONCERNS OF SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE PROCESS.

I MEAN, THIS PROJECT IS A SPECIFIC PARCEL ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH THAT HAS DEFINED BOUNDARIES.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THIS PART OF THE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE VARIANCES.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO BE HEARD ON THESE DOCKETS? SEEING NONE, THEN KEVIN, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. >> I THINK OTHERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT PROCESS AND THE ORDER OF THINGS AS THEY HAVE OCCURRED. I WAS NOT-- IT SOUNDS CONVENIENT, BUT IT IS THE TRUTH. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ADLSDP APPROVAL PROCESS LAST YEAR. I CAME ONBOARD-- IT STARTED OFF WITH JUST THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS THAT WE NEEDED TO DEFINE AND DISCOVERIES WERE MADE ALONG THE WAY FOR OTHER THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE CAUGHT. THIS IS PART OF-- THIS PROJECT SITE IS PART OF THE MAIN STREET CORRIDOR.

AND IT IS FROM THIS OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE, IT IS AN EFFORT TO CREATE A PLACE WITH CERTAIN DYNAMICS AND CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES.

AND BE SOMETHING THAT IS MEMORABLE.

IF YOU EVER EXPERIENCED BEING ON THIS SECTION OF MAIN STREET.

THIS IS A RE-CREATION OF AN INTENSE URBAN DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE NONE EXISTED BEFORE. I THINK THE RESULTS OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED ALONG THE CORRIDOR OVER TIME ARE INARGUABLY WONDERFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY OVERALL. GET DOWN TO THE LITTLE DETAILS.

AND PERHAPS THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT COULD BE CHANGED ON THE NEXT PROJECT. BUT AGAIN, WE ARE FOLLOWING UP ON THE HEELS OF LAST YEAR'S APPROVALS TO ESSENTIALLY SET THE RECORD ON WHAT OTHER THINGS NEEDED TO BE APPROVED ALONG THE WAY TO EVENTUALLY GET THIS UP TO THE POINT WHERE THE FIVE LOTS-- WELL, THE FOUR LOTS AND THE COMMON AREA CAN BE TRANSFERRED

[00:25:01]

REGARDING POSSIBLY ENCROACHMENT INTO THE ALLEY, AGAIN, I TRIED TO FIND SOME INFORMATION ON THAT TONIGHT.

BEFORE TONIGHT I COULD NOT. I WAS ON THE ROAD ALL AFTERNON TRYING TO GET BACK HERE FOR THE MEETING.

THAT IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM. BUT IF THERE IS AN ENCROACHMENT,ST IT WILL BE SURVEYEDED, IT WILL BE DISCOVERED, AND THEN HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME. NOTHING THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT HAS ANY IMPACT ON WHETHER THERE IS OR IS NOT AN ENCROACHMENT IN THE ALLEY. WE ARE DEALING WITH THE IMAGINARY PROPERTY LINES FOR THE MOST PART THAT DIVIDE THE REAL ESTATE INTO PARCELS FOR SALE, AND WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH ANYTHING OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT TONIGHT THAT WOULD IMPACT A POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENT ÚINTO THAT ALLEY.

I THINK TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT IS STILL A PUBLIC ALLEY.

IT IS THE LAST SEGMENT OF THAT BLOCK THAT HAS NOT BEEN VACATED THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THAT TONIGHT. BUT I THINK I WILL STOP THERE.

AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU. WE WILL CONTINUE NOW WITH THE

DEPARTMENT REPORT. >> THANK YOU.

FOR THE RECORD, ALEXIA LOPEZ WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. AS WAS STATED, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADLS FOR THIS PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN 2022 FOR THE SITE AND THAT INCLUDED THE ARCHITECTURE FOR THE OFFICE BUILDING, THE PARKING GARAGE, MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.

EVERYTHING WAS REVIEWED THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

A PORTION OF THE SITE IS STILL IN THE OLDER SUBDIVISION FROM OLDTOWN. AND THEN THE PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO CREATE A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION.

SO THEY CAN SELL OFF EACH OF THE PIECES OF THE PROJECT.

AND HAVE SEPARATE OWNERSHIP FOR THAT.

THEY ARE CREATING FOUR LOTS. THERE WILL BE A COMMON AREA INVOLVED WITH THE SITE AS WELL. SO WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR THIS PRIMARY PLAT IS REALLY CLEANING UP THE LOT LINES AND MAKING THEM SO THEY CORRESPOND WITH THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS TH.

WAS A THEY WANT TO-- BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DO THIS SUBDIVISION PROCESS, AND THIS IS KIND OF A NEWER PROCESS FOR US, FOR THE UDO, WE IMPLEMENTED THIS COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISIONS IF, SO WE SEPARATED, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL FROM COMMERCIAL.

AND WITH THAT, THERE ARE SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING THE WAIVERS FROM TONIGHT.

10% OPEN SPACE IS ONE OF THEM. AND THE TEN-FOOT-WIDE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING. THESE ARE MEANT MORE FOR A SUBURBAN-STYLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A GREEN FIELD SITE AND YOU ARE GOING TO DEVELOP IT, YOU CAN PROVIDE THESE ITEMS FOR OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING. THIS SITE IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.

IT IS AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT. SO I WOULD EXPECT THAT YOU WOULD COVER MORE OF THE SITE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE A LARGE, YOU KNOW, COMMON AREA. GREEN SPACE.

A BIG PARK OR SOMETHING WITHIN IT.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAIN STREET AND RANGELINE.

WE WANT THIS TO BE URBAN, PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY, WALKABLE.

SO THE BUILDINGS ARE BROUGHT UP TO THE STREET.

YOU HAVE A NICE STREET SCAPE WITH BEAUTIFUL ARCHITECTURE, WIDER SIDEWALKS. THE DEPARTMENT IS IN SUPPORT OF THESE WAIVERS. AND THEN THERE ARE THREE VARIANCES THAT WERE REQUESTED AS WELL.

THAT DEALS WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS.

THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE. AND STREET TREES.

THE SITE, IN GENERAL, WAS ALL REVIEWED WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADLS, AS I STATED. THEY DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY REQUEST FOR THESE VARIANCES AT THAT TIME.

SO THEY ARE COMING THROUGH TODAY TO OFFICIALLY GET THE VARIANCES REVIEWED AND APPROVED WITH THIS PRIMARY PLAT PROCESS.

BUT THOSE THINGS WERE ALL DISCUSSED AND REVIEWED WHEN THEY CAME THROUGH THE-- THROUGH WITH THE DPADLS.

IF IT WERE URBAN CORE, THAT DOES ALLOW FOR 100% LOT COVERAGE.

[00:30:02]

BUT TO GIVE A COMPARISON OF ANOTHER TYPE OF ZONE THAT WE HAVE FOR AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALLOW 100% LOT COVERAGE.

AGAIN, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF T THAT-- THE VARIANCES AS WELL THIS EVENING. AS YOU SAW ON THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

THAT CLOSE IT IS PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS 6:32.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION?

MR. AASEN? >> THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO GO BACK A LITTLE BIT, AND I WAS NOT, OF COURSE, ON THE COMMISSION BEFORE WHEN SOME OF THESE THINGS WENT THROUGH. YEAH.

AND IT DID GO TO COUNCIL. IT WASY H.

>> 2. IT WAS C-2.

WE WEREN'T INVOLVED IN ALL OF THAT, OF COURSE.

I WANT TO GO BACK A LITTLE BIT. 12, 13 YEARS AGO, KIND OF WHEN-- KIND OF ONE OF MY FIRST INTRODUCTIONS TO CARMEL, I WAS RIDING MY BIKE ALONG THE MONON TRAIL.

ME AND MY DAD. THERE WAS A FALL FESTIVAL.

I DON'T THINK IT IS AROUND ANYMORE.

IT WAS KIND OF A HALLOWEENISH FESTIVAL IN THE AREA.

AND PEOPLE WERE HAVING-- THERE WAS HAY SET UP IN THE BANK LOT TREE.NG LOT RIGHT NEXT TO THE- KIDS WERE PLAYING.

YES, THERE WAS A PARKING LOT. IT WAS A PUBLIC SPACE THAT BROUGHT PEOPLE TO THE AREA. IT BROUGHT ME, SEEING ALL THE ACTIVITY AND STUFF TO THE AREA. IT WAS THAT KIND OF FESTIVAL THAT BROUGHT ME TO THE AREA. WE DECIDED TO OPEN OUR BUSINESS IN CARMEL. DECIDED TO MOVE TO CARMEL.

START A FAMILY HERE. RUN FOR OFFICE.

THESE PUBLIC SPACES KIND OF HAVING THAT-- THEY CAN'T BE UNDERSTATED, THEIR VALUE TO THE AREA.

IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT SOMEWHERE FOR YOU TO SIT AND HAVE YOUR LUNCH. IT IS SOMEWHERE THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER AND BRINGS THEM TO THE COMMUNITY.

THERE IS A MEETING PUBLIC SPACE IN THIS AREA, BUT TO SAY THAT WE DON'T NEED GREEN SPACE OR WE DON'T NEED THESE PUBLIC SPACES IN OUR DOWNTOWN-- I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOU OUT OF CONTEXT.

I THINK THAT IS NOT WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WOULD WANT. WE HAD A VERY LARGE TREE IN THIS SITE THAT WAS USED AS A CHRISTMAS TREE FOR MANY YEARS.

I KNOW WITH PROGRESS, THINGS CHANGE.

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY ANY TREES CAN'T SEEM TO GO IN THE PLAZA. I HAVE SEEN THE RENDERINGS AND PICTURES OF THE PLAZA. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE SOMEWHERE. HAVE GREEN SPACE AND NOT JUST HAVE EVERYTHING BE THAT WAY. RIGHT NOW, LIKE CHRISTINE WAS SAYING, WE WERE KIND OF LIKE, WE CAN'T PUT THE TOOTHPASTE BACK IN THE TUBE. WE ARE PUTTING THE CART AFTER THE HORSE. I'M NOT SAYING I WOULD VOTE NO ON ANY OF THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW WE GOT HERE. FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I WOULDN'T MIND HAVING-- SENDING THIS TO COMMITTEE SO I CAN LEARN KIND OF-- HOW DID THIS PROJECT COME TO BE THIS WAY? AND WITH NO TREES, NO LANDSCAPING, AND IS THERE ANY KIND OF COMPROMISE OR SOMETHING WE CAN DO ON THAT? IF I'M COMPLETELY OFF-BASE, SOMEONE IN THE DEPARTMENT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND TALK TO ME ABOUT IT.

THESE ARE SOME OF MY INITIAL THOUGHTS ON THIS.

. >> CHRISTINE?

>> YOU ARE NOT OFF-BASE. YOU ARE ON POINT.

SO I WOULD LIKE THIS TO GO TO COMMITTEE.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO BRING YOUR LAWYER AND MAYBE THE OWNERS BECAUSE I DO WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY-- HOW WE GOT HERE.

BECAUSE MANY OF THESE THINGS, LOT COVERAGE, REPLACEMENT TREES, THOSE ARE THINGS, HAD YOU COME TO US, WE WOULD HAVE-- AT LEAST I WOULD HAVE HELD FIRM ON MAKING SURE THERE IS SOME OPEN GATHERING SPACE IN THIS LOT. THAT IF YOU ARE REMOVING TREES THAT YOU ARE PLANTING REPLACEMENT TREES.

AND ALSO GIVEN THAT WE HAVE LEARNED TONIGHT THAT THERE IS AN ENCROACHMENT-- THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT ENCROACHMENT ON THE ALLEY. THESE ARE DETAILS I WOULD LIKE US TO TALK THROUGH. I'M AGREEING WITH COUNCILOR AASEN. WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE MORE

CONSIDERATION TO THIS. >> WELL, DITTO.

IT WON'T HAVE MY SUPPORT UNTIL-- AS A VOTE.

NOT THAT THE PROJECT WON'T. THAT IS SERIOUS ISSUE.

[00:35:05]

MY EXPECTATIONS ARE THAT THE ALLEY ISSUE BE ADDRESSED.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME LANDSCAPING ALSO.

EVEN IF IT IS JUST A LARGE TREE AND A BIG POT WHICH IS DOABLE.

BUT SOMETHING THAT-- WHERE I'M COMING FROM, IS WE TOOK A BIG TREE DOWN. IT WOULD BE REALLY COOL, AT LEAST TO PUT SOME SORT OF TREE THERE.

EVEN IF IT IS A COMMEMORATIVE TREE.

SOMETHING THAT JUST ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ONCE UPON A TIME, THERE WAS A GREAT BIG TREE THERE. AND WE MAKE IT A MEMORIAL TREE.

SOMETHING THAT ADDS SOME GREEN. AS I LOOK AT THE RENDERINGS, AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE TRAVELED AROUND EUROPE AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, OF THE UNITED STATES, IT IS BECOMING MORE COMMON TO HAVE GREEN WALLS, AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT IS A DESIGN FEATURE THAT CAN BE BUILT IN AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

WHEN I LOOKED AT THE FIRST RENDERING, IT REMINDS ME OF THE WILLIAM H. BLOCK BUILDING. THAT IS STILL A COOL-LOOKING BUILDING. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE DESIGN RENDERINGS. I DO WANT TO SEE MORE GREEN, TRY TO INCORPORATE IT SOMEHOW. AND IF A LIVING WALL-- REFER TO MY ARBORIST AS TO WHAT YOU CALL THEM.

IF A LIVING WALL IS AN OPTION, THAT WOULD BE A VERY NICE FEATURE TO SOFTEN THAT. SO THOSE ARE MY OPINIONS.

IF YOU THINK HASHING THIS OUT IN COMMITTEE IS A WAY TO DO THAT, THAT IS FINE. MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, IS THERE ANY REASON FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, A TIMING STANDPOINT, THAT SENDING IT TO COMMITTEE WOULD HARM THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT? I DON'T KNOW, SO I'M ASKING.

>> I WILL LET THE PETITIONER ADDRESS THAT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. OF TIMING-WISE.

>> I'LL TRY TO TOUCH ON ALL COMMENTS I HAVE HEARD SO FAR.

REGRDING TREES IN THE COMMON AREA, THE COMMON AREA IS WHERE MOST OF THE SUBTERRANEAN WATER CONTROL IS FOR STORMWATER.

THERE ARE TANKS UNDERNEATH THOSE SIDEWALKS THAT DEAL WITH STORMWATER RETENTION. NOT RETENTION.

DETENTION. DURING STORM EVENTS.

SO TO GO INTO THE GROUND WITH ANYTHING THERE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT BLOWING UP THE WHOLE PROJECT ESSENTIALLY.

IF YOU SEND THIS TO COMMITTEE, WE WILL CERTAINLY BE THERE AND TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU CAN.

THE DESIGN ASPECTS, MOST OF WHICH YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, WERE ADDRESSED IN THE 2022DPADLS APPROVAL.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS PROCESS, THESE ITEMS CAN ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

THE CITY MAY DETERMINE SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY.

WHICH LEADS TO MY NEXT POINT. FOR THE PROCESS THAT IS PLAYED OUT, THE PETITIONER IS NOT A LEADER.

THE PETITIONER IS A FOLLOWER. A NECESSARY FOLLOWER OF THE PROCESS THAT IS LAID OUT FOR US. WE WERE GIVEN.

WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT IS WERE PROVIDED FOR AT THE T TIME. WE WERE GRANTED-- KINDLY GRANTED THE APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT THAT IS COMING UP OUT OF THE GROUND NOW. AND AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING MORE DETERMINATIVE. I'M NOT-- I'M NOT DOUBTING CHRISTINE'S ALLEGATIONS HERE TONIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING ON PAPER.

A TECHNICAL DRAWING THAT DEFINES A PROBLEM, IF THAT EXISTS.

UNTIL WE HAVE THAT, WE REALLY CAN'T DEAL WITH WHAT MAY BE

THERE. >> THERE YOU GO.

MR. DIERCKMAN. >> THE DISSENTING VOICE, OF COURSE. LEAST ATTENTION.

THIS CART IS OUT OF THE BARN LONG WAY DOWN THE ROAD.

I DON'T DISAGREE. THIS IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS PROCESS I HAVE EVER SEEN IN 25 YEARS OF BEING ON THIS COMMISSION. IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER.

TO HOLD THIS PROJECT UP AND TRY TO LEARN ABOUT IT NOW, IT IS HIGHLY INEFFICIENT. AND IT NEEDS TO BE STUDIED MORE THOROUGHLY THAN ONE MEETING AT THIS PROMPT.

AT THIS PROJECT. IT IS A HUGE ISSUE THAT WE WILL

[00:40:06]

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADE ABOUT THIS PROJECT. AS FAR AS THE EASEMENT GOES, I MEAN, THEY CAN GO IN AND GET THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE ALLEY CAN BE BLOWN OUT. THE CITY BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS CAN DO THAT. THEY CAN VACATE THE ALLEY, I BELIEVE. APPROACH.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

I WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT REOPENING PUBLIC INPUT AFTER THE

HEARING CLOSED. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE REMONSTRATOR. THAT IS PERMITTED.

THANK YOU. >> GO AHEAD.

>> SO I THINK THEY COULD VACATE THAT ALLEY.

YOU SHOULD BE-- IT SHOULD BE CORRECTED IF IT IS AN ISSUE ANYWAY. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE CHANGED

HERE TONIGHT. >> NO.

THAT WAS MY POINT. >> IT IS AN INTERESTING POINT

YOU BROUGHT UP. >> WHICH FOR COUNCIL, IT IS 367313, VACATION PROCEEDINGS. AND 12.

IT IS IN STATE STATUTE THAT THE CRITERIA AND I THINK I WOULD BE

A SUCCESSFUL REMONSTRATOR -- >> THEY WILL HAVE TO MOVE THEIR WALL IF IT IS IN THE EASEMENT. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

IT IS AN ENCROACHMENT. YOU BROUGHT UP AN INTERESTING POINT. THE LIBRARY MAY NOT BE YOUR LONG-TERM USE FOR THE PROPERTY. THAT LIBRARY HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER. ISN'T IT ALREADY A HISTORICAL MARKER AND PROTECTED PROPERTY? IF IT IS NOT, IT SHOULD BE.

>> NO. >> THAT TO ME IS THE BIGGEST

CONCERN HERE. >> NO.

I DON'T HAVE ANY INTENT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT FACILITY OTHER THAN THE PARKING LOT WITH THE URBANIZATION MAY CHANGE.

>> AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS RECENT IMPROVEMENTS ON THE BACK OF THE LIBRARY. IS THAT PERMITTED?

>> I PRESUME SO. YES.

>> I THINK IT IS A BIG PRESUMPTION.

THE OTHER ONE WASN'T. THIS IS A NEW ONE.

I KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. THE OTHER ONE WASN'T.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE WILL DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT, I GUESS, AS WELL. YOU OWN THE PROPERTY.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, ULTIMATELY. >> RIGHT.

THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE DEED GAP AND REMOVAL THAT I DON'T NEED TO GET INTO. RIGHT NOW.

THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE CITY OF

CARMEL. >> FOR CLARIFICATION, IT DOES HAVE AN HISTORICAL-- IT IS A PROTECTED PROPERTY.

>> NO, IT IS NOT. >> SO AMITY ONLY PERSON THAT THINKS THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF PROPERTY?

>> OH, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT $USH TALKING TO SOMEONE WHO TRULY BELIEVES THAT INDIANA HAS ALMOST THE MOST CARNEGIE LIBRARIES. I'M VERY PROTECTIVE OF IT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. I KNOW YOU ARE.

>> TO HAVE WHAT WENT BESIDE ME GO UP IS A BIT CONCERNING.

AS CLOSE AS IT WENT UP BESIDE ME.

AND QUITE HONESTLY, WITHOUT NOTICE, I COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BEFORE IT STARTED CONSTRUCTION.

>> THE PROPERTY IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH MORE INTIMIDATING THAN WHAT ANYBODY EVER THOUGHT. IT DID GO THROUGH THE ADLS

PROCESS, I BELIEVE. >> IT DID.

>> WITH THIS BODY. >> A CRC PROJECT.

>> NO. IT DOES NOT COME BEFORE THIS

BODY. >> SO I GET IT.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM -- >> YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH

IT BEING A HISTORICAL PROPERTY. >> AT THIS POINT, I HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A

STATEMENT. >> THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF

PROPERTY. >> I DON'T DISAGREE.

THE CITY HAS THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL, SHOULD I EVER SELL IT.

IT WASST IT WAS BUILT INTO THE DEEDMENT.

>> IT IS AN ISSUE BETWEEN OUR REVIEW PROCESS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT-- REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THIS BODY.

IT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS KIND OF A CONFLICT HAS OCCURRED.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS-- THIS PROJECT IS WAY DOWN THE ROAD.

I MEAN, I GET IT. THE TREES-- I THINK THEY SHOULD BE PLANTED SOMEWHERE ELSE. I'M SURPRISED THEY WEREN'T AGREED TO DO THAT. I'M SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PLANT THOSE TREES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR OTHER PUBLIC PARCELS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR TREE-PLANTING.

APPARENTLY, THAT WASN'T THE CASE.

THEY WEREN'T REQUIRED. I'M ASKING YOU THE QUESTION, AGAIN. I GOT PERMISSION? THANK YOU. GO AHEAD.

>> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT WASN'T PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

>> WELL, THAT IS A SHAME. THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE RIGHT THEN. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE DEAL NOW AFTER THE DEAL IS DONE. THAT IS MY POINT.

AND THERE IS LEGAL PROCEDURES THAT HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED RELATIVE TO YOUR VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT THE ALLEY.

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. >> YEAH.

I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT, LEO.

[00:45:04]

AND LIKE THE RESULTS OR NOT, THE PROJECT DESIGN HAS BEEN APP APPROVED, AND THE PETITIONER IS COMPLYING WITH THAT.

BUT SOME VARIANCES AND WAIVERS NOW ARE COMING BEFORE US TO ESSENTIALLY PERMIT WHAT IS THAT COURSE THAT IS OUT OF THE BARN, AS YOU DESCRIBED. WHAT I PERCEIVE IS OUR FRUSTRATION WITH THE PROCESS IS, I THINK, VERY VALID.

NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS TO BEAR AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THEY HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS.

THAT THE CITY GAVE TO THEM. >> YEAH.

I MEAN, THIS IS WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS.

THIS IS WHY NOVEMBER AND MAY IS IMPORTANT.

THIS IS THE METH OTDOLOGY OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MAYOR.

WE ALL KNOW. THAT AND PROBABLY A LOT OF THIS WILL BE REVIEWED. TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESSES ARE BETTER. I THINK YOU ARE RUNNING FOR ELECTION. ANYBODY ELSE UP HERE? YOU KNOW, THESE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO BECAUSE AS CITY COUNCIL, WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE RULES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PUTS INTO PLACE. RIGHT? I THINK WE ALL REALIZE THAT. THE STATE AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. WE CAN'T MAKE UP OUR OWN RULES.

THEY FOLLOW THE RULES. THIS IS THE RESULT OF THE RULES THAT THEY FOLLOWED FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CARMEL. STUDY IS NEEDED, BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE RESTRICTED UPON THEM. IT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN A ONE-HOUR MEETING. I MEAN, THIS IS A DAY.

YOU COULD SET ASIDE A WHOLE DAY AND STUDY.

THIS. >> SO I THINK PART OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED-- THAT IS DESIGNED HAS BEEN APPROVED. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THIS BODY IS POWERLESS TONIGHT, THOUGH. BECAUSE FOR ANY OF THE SEVEN DOCKETS THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING NOW, WE HAVE THE ABILITY, IF WE CHOOSE, TO SEEK CONCESSIONS, TO SEEK, YOU KNOW, SOME MIDDLE GROUND FROM THE PETITIONER. PARTICULARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE VARIANCES THAT ARE REQUESTED.

WHICH FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T ON THE BZA, THE VARIANCES COME WITH A HIGHER DEGREE OF LEVERAGE, LEGALLY PROVIDED TO THAT PROCESS OR IN THAT PROCESS BY STATE STATUTE.

THAT SAID, I ALSO WANT TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT PETITIONER HAS FOLLOWED THE PROCESS, AND I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYTHING COULD BE SEEN AS PUNITIVE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY MOVES TO A LEVEL THAT IS UNFAIR AND CERTAINLY COULD BRING LITIGATION. SO THAT IS THE BOX THAT THE NINE OF US ARE IN TONIGHT. AND TO A DEGREE THAT THE PETITIONER IS IN TONIGHT. THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. OBVIOUSLY, THIS PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW, AND ANY KIND OF DELAY F CAN BE VERY EXPENSIVE AND HAVE LOTS OF RAMIFICATIONS.

I WANT TO CHEMOOUR FOCUS VERY NARROW ON THE PRACTICALITIES OF WHAT THEIR SEVEN PETITIONS ARE SEEKING.

WITH AN EYE TO DOING WHAT WE CAN FAIRLY DO AT THIS JUNCTURE TO TRY TO IMPROVE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I HEAR ARE BEING IDENTIFIED AS WEAKNESSES IN THE DESIGN.

MR. AASEN AND THEN MS. BUCKLER? >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND, LEO.

LIKE, IT IS FRUSTRATING TO ME THAT THERE IS-- YOU KNOW, THIS WAS EVEN VOTED TO BE APPROVED BY A PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL.

THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND. THINGS SPAN MANY YEARS.

I UNDERSTAND MAYBE IF WE DID HAVE A MEETING TALKING ABOUT HOW WE GOT THERE MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT MEETING.

YOU ARE RIGHT. IT IS TOO LONG.

IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG FOR AN HOUR.

TO GO THROUGH THIS, SOME OF THESE VARIANCES, I MEAN, THE LOT COVERAGE, WE CAN'T CHANGE-- THE BUILDING IS THERE.

YOU KNOW? SAME WITH THE OPEN SPACE.

THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH OPEN SPACE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT MY QUESTION WOULD BE WHEN IT COMES TO LANDSCAPING AND TREES, IS THAT COMPLETELY GONE? THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO AT THIS POINT TO PUT IN A TREE OR PUT IN SOME-- WE HAD SOME SUGGESTIONS TO ADD, SOME GREEN TO THAT AREA. AND THERE IS-- I HAVE A HARD

[00:50:01]

AND THAT IS KIND OF MY THOUGHT AT THIS POINT.

I DON'T WANT TO DENY YOU THE RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE-- DENY YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE COMMENTS.

IF YOU WISH. MIKE, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO

COWENS AASEN? >> I'M NOT THE CRC.

BUT I WAS THE HEARING OFFICER FOR THE PROJECT, AND I'M FAMILIAR SOMEWHAT WITH THE PROCESS THAT OCCURRED.

THE RESULT, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ADLS THAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED. I MEAN, IF YOU WILL RECALL, THERE WAS AN ACTUAL DESIGN COMPETITION, AND THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT FIRMS ALL VYING FOR THE SAME REAL ESTATE.

IT WAS LOT ONE. YOU KNOW, IT WAS GOING TO BE A PRESTIGIOUS PROJECT. THE DESIGN WAS APPROVED.

I MEAN, THERE WAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF EYES ON THAT PROPERTY ON THE BUILDING. YOU KNOW, ON THE GRAPHICS THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE APPROVAL, AND STREET TREES IN THIS ONE INSTANCE, WEREN'T A PART OF IT. I MEAN, IT IS A VERY INTENSE PROJECT ON A VERY EXPENSIVE PIECE OF REAL ESTATE.

THEY CLEARLY PUSHED THE ENVELOPE ON BUILDING VERSUS SITE AND PROPERTY LINES. YOU KNOW, TO PUT STREET TREES IN, THE SIDEWALK TODAY WOULD BE AN IMPEDIMENT.

WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MEET ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

I MEAN, THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT WE ARE FACED WITH ALL THE TIME.

YOU KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT IS PUSHING BACK.

THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS PUSHING BACK.

THERE IS ALWAYS-- IT IS NOT JUST WITH THE CRC PROJECTS.

IT IS WITH ANY PROJECT WE SEE TODAY.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE GETTING STORMWATER RETENTION WHERE WE HAD NONE. YOU KNOW, IT IS ALL UNDERGROUND AND EXPENSIVE. I MEAN, THE QUALITY OF THE ARCHITECTURE IS EXTREMELY HIGH. I THINK COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE PROUD OF THE END RESULT. YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME LANDSCAPING, BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THE-- YOU KNOW, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. IT IS GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT. WE CAN SEND THIS TO COMMITTEE.

WE CAN LOOK AT ALL SIDES. YOU KNOW, WE CAN POINT FINGERS IF WE ARE NOT ALL HAPPY. THAT ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE MUCH.

I MEAN, MR. GRABOW IS CORRECT. IF THERE IS LEVERAGE ON THE VARIANCES, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ALSO A CRC PROCESS.

THERE IS A PROJECT AGREEMENT. AND THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF MOVING PARTS TO WHAT THE END RESULT IS.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS NEGATIVELY. THAT THE VARIANCES ARE THERE FOR A REASON. THE END RESULT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PROUD OF.

I MEAN, WE DO-- THE DEPARTMENT WORKS HARD TO GET HIGH-QUALITY LANDSCAPING AND SOMETIMES WE DO BETTER THAN OTHERS.

AND YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, THE PLAZA AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE FROM THE CORNER OF RANGELINE AND MAIN IS GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL. YOU KNOW, THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL ON THE ARCHITECTURE IS PRETTY SPECTACULAR, AND AS WE SEE, YOU KNOW, THE MASONRY GO UP ON THESE, I THINK THAT YOU WILL ALL RECOGNIZE THAT AS WELL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE, T TOO.

I MAY PLEAD THE FIFTH OR JUST NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THEM BECAUSE I'M NOT PRIVY TO ALL THE INNER WORKINGS OF HOW THE CRC

ARRIVES AT THIS. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STREET TREE ASPECT. KEVIN, AM I CORRECT IN RECALLING THAT THERE ARE-- THERE IS NO ROOFTOP LIVING SPACE OR ROOFTOP AMENITY INVOLVED HERE OTHER THAN MAYBE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF

THE CONDO OWNERS? >> YEAH.

I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE DP OR ADLS. WHERE ALL OF THOSE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE.

>> THE REASON I ASK, AND I LOOKED AT THE TOP LEVEL OF THE PARKING GARAGE ALSO. TO TRY TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY UNUSED SPACE WHERE THE TREES COULD BE LOCATED INSTEAD.

>> NOT AS GOOD AS HAVING THEM ALONG THE STREET.

[00:55:01]

>> IF I CAN GET THE OVERHEAD BACK ON FOR RIGHT NOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHO CONTROLS THAT. >> YOU WILL HAVE TO LAY IT ON

YOUR -- >> YEAH.

IT IS HERE. >> OH.

CAN YOU GET A SHOT OF THIS? >> THIS IS UNDER TAB NINE.

IT IS HARD TO SEE ON THE IMAGE, BUT IF WE CAN ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT. THIS IS RANGELINE ROAD.

THESE ARE THE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS. ALONG THE ROAD. THERE IS BUILDING-BASED LANDSCAPING THAT IS INCLUDED IN THAT.

IN THESE SPACES THROUGH HERE. THE LITTLE CIRCLES AND SUCH THAT ARE DEPICTED THERE. THEY ARE INCLUDING SOME LANDSCAPING THAT WILL BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BUILDING TO HELP SOFTEN THAT EDGE. THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE TREE QUESTION. IT IS AN APPROACH TO MORE URBAN-STYLE LANDSCAPING IN THAT AREA.

AND THEN ALONG AND PROBABLY AROUND-- I THINK I REMEMBER SEEING AROUND THE OFFICE BUILDING ITSELF, THERE ARE PLANTERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN PLACE THERE.

THERE ARE CERTAIN-- TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES OF GREEN PLANTS THAT WILL GO INTO THOSE POTS, A DESIGN THAT SOMEBODY ELSE CONSIDERED. THAT WAS PART OF THE DESIGN THAT

WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED. >> MY QUESTION MAY BE FOR COUNCIL. WHAT CAN AND CAN WE NOT DO TONIGHT? I WANT TO BE CLEAR IN MAKING MY COMMENTS. I'M NOT TRYING TO-- MY INTENT IS NOT TO DELAY THE PROJECT AT ALL. I'M FINE WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHERE LANDSCAPING WOULD BE. I DO THINK IT IS POSSIBLE IN THE PLAZA AREA. THAT IS ON THE SCREEN.

THE LOWER LEFT. CORRECT? RIGHT WHERE YOUR PEN IS. WHERE IS THE CLOCK?

IS THAT THE CLOCK? >> I THINK IT IS SOMEWHERE

THERE. >> SO IF THAT IS THE CLOCK, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME ATTEMPT TO PUT A LARGER LANDSCAPE IF, AND I KNOW THAT YOU CAN DO CONTAINER-- SMALL CONTAINER TREES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT BUILT IN THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE VERTICAL GREENERY EXPLORED. AND I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT A REQUEST WITHOUT HAVING TO SEND IT TO COMMITTEE AND DELAYING THE PROJECT.

I'M NOT TRYING TO DO THAT. OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO KNOW, THE LEGAL ALLOWABILITY REGARDING THE ALLEY.

MY EXPECTATION WOULD BE THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

AND IF WE CAN GET THAT COMMITMENT, THAT IT WILL BE DONE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

THEN YOU MAIN TAPE THAT-- THEN YOU MAINTAIN THAT ALLEYWAY IN THERE. TO MAKE IT A USEFUL ALLEYWAY.

IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THERE IS AN AWFUL LOT OF OLD DETAIL THAT HAS TO BE-- THAT WE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THAT HAS TO BE WORKED THROUGH. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I MAY BE NEW TO THIS COMMISSION. NOT MY FIRST RODEO DEALING WITH THESE KIND OF ISSUES IN A MUNICIPALITY.

MY QUESTION IS, HOW CAN WE ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THOSE TWO ITEMS BE ADDRESSED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE?

>> MAY I, PLEASE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM

COUNCIL. >> ALEXIA, FEEL FREE TO STEP IN

IF I DON'T ANSWER THIS. >> YES.

[01:00:03]

>> AS FAR AS THE ALLEYWAY, AS OF RIGHT NOW, AND I MAY HAVE TO ASK THE PETITIONER THIS. IS THE ALLEYWAY CURRENTLY

INCLUDED IN THOSE PLATS? >> NO.

IT IS NOT. >> NO.

SO AS FAR AS VACATING THE PLATS, IT WOULDN'T SEEM TO IMPACT THE ALLEYWAY, JUST FROM APPROVING THE PLAT VACATION? AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADLS HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. I'M NOT SURE WHAT, AT THIS POINT, OTHER THAN DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR THE LANDSCAPING AND

THE STREET TREES. >> A QUICK COMMENT, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE UNDERSTAND NOT GOING UNDERGROUND. OLE FARM GIRL.

YOU DON'T PLANT TREES THROUGH CONCRETE INTO INFRASTRUCTURE.

I GET THAT. I'M JUST ASKING IS THERE A WAY TO DO SOMETHING IN A CONTAINER ABOVE GROUND IN THAT PLAZA AREA? I WANT TO BE CLEAR WHAT I'M ASKING.

IF WE COULD GET A COMMITMENT FROM PETITIONER TO LOOK INTO THAT, THAT WOULD SATISFY MY CONCERN.

I DON'T WANT TO GO DRILLING THROUGH TO GO UNDERGROUND.

I'M NOT REQUESTING THAT AT ALL. MY REQUESTS ARE TRY TO LOOK AT A WAY TO ADD MORE GREEN AND TRY TO-- AND MAKE SURE THAT THE ALLEYWAY IS ADDRESSED SO IT REMAINS A USEFUL ALLEYWAY.

>> MAY I? WE WILL CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THAT. I THINK WITHOUT SPEAKING WITH THE OWNER OF THE-- OR THE DEVELOPER ON THIS, I CAN'T SPEAK DEFINITIVELY. THEY SEEM LIKE REASONABLE REQUESTS. TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO INCREASE THE GREEN ON THE PROPERTY.

THE PLAZA AREA, AGAININGS, HAS UNDERGROUND DETENTION.

I CAN CONVEY THAT MESSAGE TO THEM.

TO EXPLORE THAT AND SEE WHAT THE ALLEY IS REALLY ITS OWN BEAST IN THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. ASIDE FROM EVERYTHING THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, THE ALLEY WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH.

ONCE THE ENCROHN. , IF IT EXISTED, IS DETAILED IN TECHNICAL DRAWINGS. THEN WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH. THEN WE CAN START DISCUSSIONS.

THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE PRINCIPALLY WITH THE CITY.

THAT MRS. ALTMAN HAS ABSOLUTELY EVERY RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED OF THAT. IT IS NOT BEING DONE, BUT IF THAT ALLEY WERE TO BE VACATED, HALF WOULD GO TO HER PROPERTY.

IT IS NOT BEING DONE. THERE SHOULD BE THAT CONSIDERATION TO THE OWNER ACROSS THE ALLEY.

THAT WILL BE THE CASE. >> NO ONE IS GOING TO ASK YOU TO TEAR DOWN THESE BUILDINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS SOME ROOM IF IT MIGHT BE WORTH HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE OWNER. I'M GUESSING HE COULD HAVE SOME CREATIVE MIDDLE GROUND IDEAS ON LANDSCAPING.

I ALSO DO WANT TO HEAR MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INKROACHMENT. I'M HEARING RIGHT NOW THE ALLEY IS NOT GOING TO BE AFFECTED. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS CONCRETE WALL BARRIER THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. SO I MEAN, I KNOW THE PROJECT WILL BE BEAUTIFUL. THE ARCHITECTURE IS NICE.

I FEEL LIKE THERE IS A LOT OF QUESTIONS AT LEAST THAT I HAVE.

MAYBE IT IS JUST ME. A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH SOMEBODY, WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITH THE OWNER. SOMEBODY WHO HAS CREATIVE SOLUTIONS ON HOW TO FIND THAT MIDDLE GROUND.

THAT IS JUST MY THOUGHT THERE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND AGAIN, THE DETAILS ON THE ALLEY.

THEY ARE IMPORTANT. WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM.

WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THEM WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ACROSS THE ALLEY.

IT WILL HAPPEN. IT IS A STORY BEING WRITTEN AT

THIS TIME. >> CAN I HAVE A TURN? I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SEND THIS TO COMMITTEE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE GOT THERE.

THAT IS A GOOD CONVERSATION FOR ONE OF OUR DIALOGUE DINNERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE CAN PROBABLY NOT TALK ABOUT IT FOR DAYS, BUT MAYBE WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT SOME OTHER WAY.

I DON'T THINK IT HOLDS UP THE PETITIONER TO ASK THEM TO COME

[01:05:03]

I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE WITH FINAL

VOTING AUTHORITY. >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

I THINK WE DO HAVE SOME ABILITY TO GET SOME TREES AND SOME GREENERY, IF WE CAN'T GET IT ON THIS PROPERTY.

WE WILL GET IT SOMEWHERE. >> I ALSO THINK FOR THE SAKE OF THAT COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE MEETING, IT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE DIRECTOR MUS TEST I CAN. IF NOT, A REPRESENTATIVE SO WE CAN TRY TO MAKE THAT A REAL GOOD WORKING SESSION.

MY SUSPICION IS THAT THE OWNER IS GOING TO POINT AT THE CRC AND THE CITY AND SAY, "IF YOU WANT THESE IMPROVEMENTS, YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THEM." THAT IS ME GUESSING.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS SOMEBODY WHO IS ABLE TO MAKE

THOSE DECISIONLES. >> YEAH.

YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU ASK. >> THAT IS MY THOUGHT.

>> YES. >> MAY I RESPOND? OKAY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, AND AT THIS POINT, IT APPEARS THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION AND JUST THE THOUGHT PROCESS, THAT LANDSCAPING THE GREENG OF THE SITE IS-- OKAY. I'LL WAIT.

I'LL WAIT. NO.

I'M SORRY. IT APPEARS THAT THE GREENING OF THE SITE IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PROBABLY DEAL THROUGH-- DEAL WITH THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS.

THE REST OF THIS IS PRETTY FUNDAMENTAL STUFF RELATED TO SUBDIVISION PROCESS. IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO SEND ANYTHING TO THE COMMITTEE, I WOULD REQUEST THAT ITEMS 6 AND 7 GO TO COMMITTEE. AND LET US PROCEED WITH THE SUBDIVISION PART OF THE PROCESS. THERE ARE FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS. THERE ARE TRANSACTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE ON CERTAIN SCHEDULES.

THEY WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY THE GREENING ASPECTS OF THIS.

AND THE OTHER DETAILS THAT MAY BE ADDED THROUGH THE

DISCUSSIONS. >> IF I AMEND MY MOTION, THEN I DON'T HAVE ANY BARGAINING POWER ON THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, FOR INSTANCE. I'M NOT EXPECTING THERE TO BE A CHANGE IN THE OPEN SPACE ON THIS PROJECT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT OTHER WAYS YOU COULD INCREASE OPEN SPACE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO I'M WILLING TO WORK REQUEST WITH YOU HERE AND AMEND MY MOTION.

I KIND OF DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP TOO MUCH LEVERAGE, IF YOU KNOW

WHAT I MEAN. >> SO FROM TIME TO TIME, WE WILL ASK PETITIONERS TO DO SOMETHING OFF-SITE.

>> THAT IS WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT.

I WAS TRYING TO SAVE THIS CONVERSATION FOR ANOTHER DAY.

>> RIGHT. I APPRECIATE THAT.

I WOULD JUST REMIND, THOUGH, THAT THE OWNER OF THIS PROJECT, ACTUALLY, THREE OWNERS OF THIS PROJECT, IF NOT FOUR, ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PROJECT. THEY WILL-- THERE ARE NOT NOW ANY OTHER PROJECTS ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY BY THIS OWNER.

>> SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS IF I GIVE UP THAT AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AT COMMITTEE, I'LL NEVER BE ABLE

TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AGAIN? >> JUST THE OPPOSITE.

>> NOT WITH THE OWNER OF THESE FOUR PHASES OF THE PROJECT.

OF THIS PROJECT. NO.

>> YEAH. >> WAIT.

I'M NOT FOLLOWING. I'M SORRY.

I'M NOT FOLLOWING THIS. >> MAY I ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION? IF THE MOTION WERE TO BE AMENDED, WOULD THE AMENDMENT BE TO APPROVE DOCKET ITEMS 1-5

TONIGHT? >> THAT IS WHAT THE PETITIONER

ASKED ME TO AMEND THE MOTION TO. >> AND SEND DOCKET ITEMS 6 AND 7

TO COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE? >> THAT IS WHAT HE ASKED.

YES. >> JOSH, YOU WANT TO KEEP --

>> DOES THAT WORK? >> ITEMS 3 AND 4.

AND 6 AND 7. AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY?

>> YES. YES.

3, 4, 6, AND 7, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO STILL DISCUSS.

I WILL RIGHT NOW AMEND MY MOTION TO PROBABLY BREAK THIS INTO TWO PARTS. I WOULD APPROVE ONE, TWO, AND FIVE AND THEN I WOULD MAKE A SECOND MOTION TO SEND 3, 4, 6, AND 7 TO THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE FOR FINAL VOTING

[01:10:05]

AUTHORITY. >> I'LL SECOND BOTH OF THOSE.

>> SO THANK YOU BOTH. COUNCIL HAS ADVISED THAT, AGAIN, I'LL REMIND THE ROOM THAT THIS IS A COMBO HEARING.

AND WE ARE ACTING AS A PLAN COMMISSION FOR THE FIRST FOUR ITEMS, AND WE ARE ACTING THROUGH DELEGATED AUTHORITY FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE REMAINING THREE ITEMS. COUNCIL HAS OPINED THAT WE CANNOT DELEGATE TO A COMMITTEE THE THREE VARIANCES. WE ARE ACTING AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY TO GRANT THOSE VARIANCES. THAT DOES REQUIRE ACTION BY THE

FULL PLAN COMMISSION. >> OKAY.

SO THEN I WOULD AMEND THAT SECOND MOTION.

NOT FOR FINAL VOTING AUTHORITY TO THE COMMITTEE BUT RATHER, IT WOULD COME BACK FOR FULL APPROVAL.

THIS IS PRETTY CONVOLUTED. IF I NEED TO REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVERSATION, I'M HAMY TO.

>> I FOLLOWED YOU. HNOW THERE IS THREE MOTIONS.

RIGHT? WE ARE SENDING EVERYTHING BACK.

GOT IT. >> START IT OVER REAL QUICK.

I WOULD MOVE THAT WE SEND THE THIRD ITEM, DOCKET NUMBER-- I'M NOT GOING TO READ THEM. THE THIRD ITEM, THE FOURTH ITEM, THE SIXTH ITEM, AND SEVENTH ITEM FOR WORKING AT THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE WITH FULL VOTING AUTHORITY BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THE REMAINDER ITEMS, ONE, TWO, AND FIVE, THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THOSE ITEMS TONIGHT.

>> YOU HAVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES ALSO.

>> AND MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PROCEDURES.

>> WE WILL CIRCLE BACK TO THAT. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T WANT TO STEP ON PROTOCOL OR MEETING PROFILE HERE.

BUT YOU HAVE A MOTION. WAS THERE A SECOND?

>> THE ORIGINAL MOTION -- >> I TECHNICALLY HAVEN'T

WITHDRAWN MY SECOND. >> THE ORIGINAL MOTION BEFORE I RAISED THE LEGAL ISSUE WAS DULY MADE BY MR. KIRSH AND SECONDED

BY MS. ZOCCOLA. >> OKAY.

>> WHICH WAS TO DELEGATE-- TO SEND THEM TO COMMITTEE WITH FINAL AUTHORITY AT THE COMMITTEE.

DELEGATED TO THE COMMITTEE. AND THAT HAS NOW BEEN WITHDRAWN AND A NEW MOTION MADE. AND ALSO SECONDED BY

MS. ZOCCOLA. >> I GUESS I'M WONDERING WHETHER THE OPINION REGARDING THE THREE VARIANCES GOING TO COMMITTEE WOULD STILL PREVAIL EVEN IF YOU ARE ADDING IN SOME ITEMS THAT ARE PURELY PLAN COMMISSION ITEMS. I WOULD LOOK TO COUNSEL TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT.

SORRY. IT IS COMPLICATED.

>> I APOLOGIZE. YOU ARE ASKING IF THE THREE VARIANCES THAT ARE GOING-- OR AT LEAST THE TWO VARIANCE ITEMS THAT WOULD BE GOING TO COMM COMMITTEE, IF THEY COULD BE

DISCUSSED AT THAT COMMITTEE? >> RIGHT.

WHAT I HEARD FROM MR. GRABOW WAS THAT THE OPINION WAS THAT THE VARIANCES COULD NOT GO TO COMMITTEE.

>> WHAT I SAID WAS THEY COULD GO TO COMMITTEE, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO FULL COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.

FOR ACTION. >> OKAY.

SERIOUS PROBLEMS FOR WHAT LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT THE BACKGROUNDS AND THE OTHER INNER WORKINGS ON, AGAIN, THE FINANCING AND THE TRANSACTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE REPRESENTED BY THIS PROJECT.

IF YOU APPROVE ONLY SOME OF THE ITEMS RELATED TO PRELIMINARY PLAT, YOU ARE NOT EFFECTIVELY APPROVING THE PLAT AT ALL.

AND THAT-- I DON'T GET A START CLOCK ON MY 30 DAYS OF APPEAL PERIOD UNTIL I HAVE FULL APPROVAL ON THE PRIMARY PLAT.

THAT IS PUSHING ME INTO MAY FOR THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ACTION ON THE FINAL PLAT. IF YOU BREAK IT UP LIKE THIS, I HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE COME BACK TO THE PLAN COMMISSION.

THEN WE ARE JUNE. AND IT GETS MESSY REALLY QUICKLY WITH OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE LAID INTO ACTION BASED ON EVERY BIT OF GUIDANCE THAT THE PETITION HAS BEEN GIVEN UP TO THIS POINT.

>> I CAN'T GO 100%. I'M SURE THAT THEY WILL CONSIDER ADDITIONS TO AND ENHANCEMENTS TO GREENING OF THE SITE TO THE EXTENT THEY CAN, GIVEN THE APPROVAL THAT THEY RECEIVED.

BUT BREAKING IT UP LIKE THAT,... >> I'M CONFUSED.

[01:15:15]

I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME LITERALLY HEARING YOU.

>> IT IS MY VOICE. >> IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, BY APPROVING DOCKET 1 AND DOCKET 2 ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM PARTIAL PLAT VACATION FOR LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, AND THE DOCKET AS IT PERTAINS TO FIRST ON MAIN SUBDIVISION PRIMARY PLAT, BY APPROVING THOSE TONIGHT, YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO THEN GO BACK TO YOUR FINANCIERS AND SAY THOSE WERE NOT APPROVED?

>> BECAUSE THE WAIVERS WERE IDENTIFIED AS BEING REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE A PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL.

THEY HAVE TO BE CAR RID TOGETHER.

THEY CAN'T BE SEPARATED AND ALLOW THE REST OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS TO PROCEED FROM AN APPROVAL TONIGHT.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, CAN WE GET AN OPINION ABOUT THIS FROM OUR COUNSEL? I HAVE TO BE FRANK WITH YOU.

IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN WHY ARE WE-- WHAT ARE WE DOING?

>> BUT ALSO -- >> MR. BUCHHEIT IS DESCRIBING A SET OF REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER BY

THEIR LENDERS. >> NO.

>> NOT A LEGAL QUESTION. >> I UNDERSTAND --

>> OKAY. I UNDERSTAND.

I UNDERSTAND. >> THAT IS A PRIVATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEIR LENDERS AND THE DEVELOPER.

>> BUT YOU DID NOT BRING THE OWNERS OR YOUR ATTORNEYS OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS OR ANYBODY HERE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH. SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING BECAUSE OUR ONLY WAY TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION NOW IS

TO GO TO COMMITTEE. >> AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION, BUT THE TIME FOR MUCH OF THIS DISCUSSION WAS LAST YEAR WHEN IT WAS APPROVED. THAT IS WHERE THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE. AND A DIFFERENT DECISION THAN YOU ARE HOPING FOR TONIGHT WAS GRANTED.

I CAN'T CHANGE THAT. >> WE ARE TALKING TWO POINTS HERE. THE ONE IS THE ALLEY.

AND IT IS UNEGIVE CALLABLY GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

PERIOD. END OF STORY.

OFF CAN'T ENCROACH ON THAT ALLEY.

PERIOD. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE SECOND THING IS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOME POTS ON THE PROPERTY. PERHAPS, IF WE CAN PULL IT OFF, IF WE HAVE ENOUGH CLEARANCE, THE HARSH REALITY IS-- DUDE, THIS WENT THROUGH A DESIGN. WE ARE NINE PEOPLE, AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY HAD INPUT ON THIS PROJECT.

HUNDREDS. HUNDREDS.

AT LEAST. HUNDREDS.

I KNOW THAT. BECAUSE WE KNOW THE PROCESS IN THE CITY. EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE NOTIFIED OF EVERYTHING. THIS IS, THIS IS, UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE ARE STUCK WITH, AND WE HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP. THIS SETS A REALLY BAD PRECEDENT FOR OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS TOWN BECAUSE THEY ARE GETTING HELD UP WHEN THE CRC AND EVERYBODY ELSE ALREADY WENT THROUGH IT. MY GOD, THEY WENT THROUGH A DESIGN CONTEST. FOR THIS PROPERTY.

I MEAN, IF-- WE WERE ALL NOTIFIED OF IT.

I REMEMBER IT WAS GOING ON. IT WAS A BIG DEAL.

IT IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT. CAN WE PLEASE SUSPEND THE RULES SO WE CAN VOTE ON THIS? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION RIGHT NOW.

>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE SUSPEND OUR RULES TO ACT ON THESE 7 DOCKETS THIS EVENING.

FOR GOING THE COMMITTEE PROCESS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO SEND ITEMS 3, 4, 6, AND 7 TO COMMITTEE.

AND TO APPROVE TONIGHT ITEMS 1, 2, AND 5, THE LATTER OF WHICH DOES REQUIRE THE SUSPENSION OF OUR RULES.

>> I HAVE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION BECAUSE I FEEL SICK ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING. I ACTUALLY WANT TO ABSTAIN FROM A VOTE. I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE, SUSPEND THE RULES AGAIN.

AND APPROVE ALL DOCKET NUMBER PZ20230039 THROUGH 0072 AS OUTLINED ON THE DEPARTMENT REPORT DATED APRIL 18, 2023.

>> THANK YOU, MR. DIERCKMAN. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> THANK YOU, MR. HILL. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT ALL 7 DOCKETS BE APPROVED, AND THAT WE SUSPEND OUR RULES SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER APPROVING ALL 7 DOCKETS.

[01:20:05]

WE WILL ACT FIRST ON THE MOTION TO SUSPEND OUR RULES.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? THEN ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL OPPOSED? SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> WE WILL DO A SHOW OF HANDS.

ALL IN FAVOR? HANDS IN THE AIR.

TO SUSPEND THE RULES. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX. OPPOSED? ONE, TWO. ONE ABSTENTION.

ALL RIGHT. BY A 6-2-1 VOTE, WE HAVE THE MAJORITY OF SIX THAT IS REQUIRED TO SUSPEND OUR RULES.

THE RULES ARE SUSPENDED. WE WILL NOW TAKE UP THE SECOND MOTION WHICH IS TO APPROVE DOCKET PZ2023-0039.

0040, 063, 64, 69, 71, AND 72. IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? BEYOND WHAT HAS OCCURRED?

>> MR. AASEN? >> YOU CAN HELP ME MAYBE MAKE THIS MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO BREAK OUT 7 AS ITS OWN VOTE INSTEAD OF VOTING IT ALL TOGETHER.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT INCLUDES ITEM 7 ALREADY.

AND THAT MOTION HAS BEEN DULY SECONDED.

THAT IS ON THE FLOOR AT THE MOMENT.

>> SO WE CAN'T MAKE AN AN AMENDMENT TO BREAK THAT ONE OUT?

>> ARE YOU OFFERING AN AMENDMENT?

>> I'M OFFERING AN AMENDMENT TO BREAK OUT 7 AS ITS OWN VOTE INSTEAD OF VOTING THEM ALL AT ONCE.

>> OKAY. >> YEAH.

IF I WILL AGREE-- IF I NEED TO, I'LL AGREE TO DO THAT.

I WILL SAY THAT THESE ARE A SIGNIFICANTLY IMPORTANT, THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE TONIGHT.

VERY CLEARLY, KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING.

IF WE DENY THESE, YOU COULD GO DOWN THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND SHUT IT DOWN TOMORROW. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT WE ARE-- EIGHT PEOPLE NOW, EIGHT PEOPLE, FIVE YEAS.

OTHER BYE, THE JOB IS SHUT DOWN. DO WE UNDERSTAND THETY OF THIS?

OH, YEAH. >> IT IS NOT BEING SHUT DOWN.

>> WILL BE SHUT DOWN. BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MEETING THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. >> YES.

>> THEN I CIRCLE BACK TO MY EARLIER QUESTION.

I WAS ASKING PETITIONER WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO PROCEED, AND I THOUGHT YOU SAID EARLIER THAT DELAYING 7 WOULD NOT BE A DETRIMENT. I'M HEARING NOW THAT IT WOULD BE. I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT A LEGAL IMPEDIMENT IN FRONT OF ANYBODY. I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.

THIS IS-- TO MR. KIRSH'S CONCERNS, THIS IS DE FACTO ACTION. I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT.

I THINK THIS HAPPENED BEFORE MY TIME AS WELL.

WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT. SO MY QUESTION STILL IS DO WE NEED TO APPROVE ALL 7 THINGS TONIGHT AS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT TO CONTINUE, OR CAN WE REMOVE ITEM 7 AND CONSIDER THAT AT A LATER DATE? WITHOUT ANY LEGAL IMPEDIMENT OR

DELAY TO THE PROJECT. >> I CAN'T ANSWER TO DELAY AS FAR AS ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER, BUT AS FAR AS-- I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

IF THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE TO GO TO BPW FOR THE PLAT APPROVAL. I WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH THAT

AND GET BACK TO YOU. >> AS MR. DIERCKMAN SAID, THIS

IS COMPLICATED. >> YES.

>> PETITIONER? >> I AGREE.

>> YOUR THOUGHTS? >> WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY PREFER TO HAVE EVERYTHING DEALT WITH TONIGHT.

I JUMPED BACK TO THE OPINION ABOUT SENDING ANYTHING FROM A COMBO COMMITTEE TO A PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE WHEN IT IS A BZA ITEM. AND I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

BUT I THINK I CAN HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION.

YOU DON'T KNOW ME FROM ADAM. MY WORD.

I HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT DOING WHAT

[01:25:03]

THEY CAN TO GREEN UP THE SPACE. >> WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO

CONSIDER-- >> AND PERHAPS WORKY WITH YOUR OWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THEIR DESIGN TEAM TO SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING MORE THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE LANDSCAPING THAT

HAS BEEN PROVIDED. >> THEN MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE WE WOULD BE VOTING FOR ALL 7 WITH THE GOOD FAITH UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LANDSCAPING/GREEN-SCAPE CONCERNS

WOULD BE ADDRESSED. >> IF I CAN INTERJECT BECAUSE I INTERJECTED ONCE BEFORE, BUT WE HAVE A MORE FULLY RESEARCHED LEGAL OPINION NOW THAT SAYS THAT THE THREE VARIANCES-- ACTION ON THE VARIANCES CAN, IN FACT, BE DELEGATED TO THE COMMITTEE.

>> OKAY. >> YES.

>> SO IN MY EFFORT TO BE SURE THAT WE WERE ACTING LEGALLY, WE CREATED, YOU KNOW, TEN MORE MINUTES OF DEBATE.

I APOLOGIZE. WE NOW HAVE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION'S LEGAL COUNSEL THAT THE THREE VARIANCES CAN, IN FACT, BE DELEGATED TO THE COMMITTEE AND ACTED ON AT

THAT -- >> AND 7 IS ONE OF THOSE

VARIANCES. >> 7 IS ONE OF THOSE VARIANCES.

YES. >> CAN WE --

>> I WOULD ALSO REMIND-- AGAIN, THAT WITH THE VARIANCES COMES A HIGHER LEVEL OF NEGOTIATING ROOM BY THE BODY THAT GRANTS THE VARIANCES THAN PERHAPS THE NINE OF US ARE USED TO WHEN ACTING AS

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. >> I MIGHT REMIND EVERYBODY THAT MOTION IS NOT ONLY TABLE ANYMORE.

I WITHDREW IT. JUST TO BE CLEAR.

>> YOU RECUSED YOURSELF. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I RECUSED MYSELF FROM THE MOTION TO ACT --

>> YOU ARE STILL ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.

>> I'M STILL ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. >> HE ABSTAINED.

>> I ABSTAINED. YEAH.

>> THAT IS IMPORTANT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AMENDING. I'M SORRY.

TO AMEND MY, TO EXCLUDE 7. MOVE THAT TO COMMITTEE.

>> PROCEDURALLY, THOUGH, OKAY, WE HAVE A LOT OF MOTIONS.

IF WE NOW CAN SEND THIS TO COMMITTEE, AND IF THAT IS THE ROUTE WE ALL WANT TO GO, THEN PROCEDURALLY, AND I GUESS I'M LOOKING TO OUR ESTEEMED LEGAL COLLEAGUE, DO WE HAVE TO WITHDRAW ALL THE MOTIONS THAT ARE-- WE HAVE ALREADY SUSPENDED THE RULES AND PROCEDURES. HOW DO WE DO THIS?

>> WE HAVE SUSPENDED OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ONLY WITH WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT ACTION BE PRECEDED BY A COMMITTEE MEETING. BUT WE HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY FURTHER ACTION BEYOND THAT. HOWEVER, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE ITEMS-- EXCUSE ME.

TO SEND ITEMS 3, 4, 6, AND 7 TO COMMITTEE.

>> NO. >> THERE ISN'T.

>> I APOLOGIZE. TO APPROVE ALL 7 DOCKETS.

>> RIGHT. AND JUST BECAUSE WE CAN SEND IT TO COMMITTEE AND HAVE SOME KIND OF ACTION TAKEN AT COMMITTEE DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE PASSIONATE PLEA THAT COMMISSIONER DIERCKMAN HAS SET FORTH. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE REMIND --

>> SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE HEAD HERE.

>> I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF WHAT IS AT STAKE.

>> I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS ANYMORE.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS ANYMORE.

THAT IS WHY I WITHDREW MY MOTION.

>> OUR COMMITTEE MEETING IS IN TWO WEEKS.

ISN'T IT? IT IS PRETTY SOON.

WHEN IS IT? IN TWO WEEKS.

ITHAT IS ONLY A TWO-WEEK DELAY. >> DO YOU NEED ME TO MODIFY MY MOTION? THAT IS ALL I WANT TO KNOW.

I WILL IF I NEED TO. >> WHY DON'T YOU RESTATE IT.

>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER PZ20230039PV THROUGH AND INCLUSIVE DOCKET NUMBER PZ20230071V, UDO SECTION 2.36 AS OUTLINED ON THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT DATED APRIL 18. I'LL EXCLUDE 7 AND THAT RIGHT TO VOTE ON THAT WILL BE HELD BY THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE.

AT THEIR NEXT MEETING. ITEM NUMBER 7 ONLY.

>> THAT REQUIRES... >> THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE DISCUSSION ON MR.

BUCHHEIT? >> A POINT OF ORDER TO.

MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD REFLECTS THIS.

[01:30:04]

ONE IS TO VACATE THE PLAT. THE OTHER IS TO VACATE THE COVENANTS. BOTH ON FINDINGS AND THEN ALL OF THE ITEMS EXCEPT FOR NUMBER 2 ARE BASED ON FINDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. SO JUST TO-- BASED ON FINDINGS, ADDED TO YOUR MOTION, WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT, I BELIEVE.

>> I'LL ADD THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO THE MOTION.

7 IS STILL GOING BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR A FULL VOTE.

FINAL VOTE. >> YES.

RIGHT. >> MR. AASEN?

>> THANK YOU, LEO. JUST BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP THE PROCESS.

I'M NOT FOR SOMEBODY TO HAVE MEETINGS TO SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS. THAT IS NOT HOW I OPERATE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN I VOTE ON SOMETHING, THAT I FEEL CONFIDENT IN MY VOTE. IT FEELS LIKE THERE IS SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS HERE. MAYBE WE HAD SOME CONFLICTING LEGAL OPINIONS THERE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LY SAY ONE THING. I WILL SAY ONE THING.

SOMETIMES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEARS I HAVE HEARD THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE. WE CAN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES.

WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING. AND THEN SOMEONE FINDS A WAY TO MAKE A CHANGE AND TO DO SOMETHING.

SO IF WE GO TO A MEETING AND WE FIND OUT THERE IS NO ROOM TO PUT TREES, FINE. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE EXTRA TIME. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR SOMEONE TOLD ME, THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO. I CAN GIVE EXAMPLES, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CALL ANYTHING OUT. THEN YOU KNOW, A MONTH LATER, AFTER OUTCRY, THEY FOUND A WAY TO FIX IT.

I THINK IT IS WORTH THE EXTRA TIME.

I APPRECIATE IT. >> IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION

ON THE MOTION? >> JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION.

IF WE VOTE AS AMENDED, TO SEND ITEM 7 TO THE COMMISSION, DOES THAT LEAVE YOU IN A GOOD POSITION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT AND WITH ALL OF THE ANSWERS YOU NEED TO ADDRESS WITH

THE FINANCEIERS AND PARTNERS? >> EMMY.

YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU, MR. HILL.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE DETECTIVES TO 1-6,-- TO APPROVE DOCKETS 1-6 AND TO SEND DOCKET 7 TO COMMITTEE WITH FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE, LET ME BE SPECIFIC. COMMERCIAL COMMIT TEE.

SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES. DOCKETS 1-6 ARE APPROVED.

INCLUDING THE VACATION OF THE COVENANTS.

ANY POTENTIAL COVENANTS. AND ITEM 7, STREET TREE REQUIREMENT WILL GO TO COMMITTEE AND BE RESOLVED THERE.

>> I THINK WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE MEETING.

AND NEXT TIME, I'LL TRY TO BRING A REALLY SHORT ONE TO YOU.

TO KIND OF EVEN THINGS OUT THERE.

TOOK LONGER THAN ANY OF US SUSPECTED, I SUPPOSE.

>> THAT IS ALL RIGHT. GOOD DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. THERE IS, FORTUNATELY, NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.

WE WILL BE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.