Oct 17, 2023 Carmel Plan Commission

[A. Call Meeting to Order]

[00:00:09]

.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M CALLING TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE OCTOBER 17 2023 MEETING OF THE CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION. WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[C. Roll Call]

>>.

[D. Declaration of Quorum]

>> NEXT ON THE AGENDA, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE CAN MOVE

[E. Approval of Minutes]

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SAME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES AS CIRCULATED, PLEASE SAY AYE.

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

REPORT. ANYTHING TO REPORT?>> MANAGER, THERE ARE TWO RESOLUTIONS FROM CRC RESOLUTION

2022 ÃTHREE AND 2023 Ã32. >> I DO NOT SEE MR. DONALDSON.

DO WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE PRESENTING THE CRC RESOLUTIONS?

>> GOOD EVENING, - -4 PRESENTING ON THESE TWO RESOLUTIONS. I THINK THESE ARE IN A FORMAT YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE PREVIOUSLY.

ANYTIME THE CRC CREATES OR RECOMMENDS AN ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT AREA, THE NEXT STEP IS TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OVERALL PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY. THE FIRST OF THE RESOLUTION DEALS WITH THE NEW ECONOMIC AREA ON MICHIGAN ROAD CALLED THE MICHIGAN ECONOMIC AREA. THAT RELATES TO WEST CARMEL, I BELIEVE THAT IS DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE.

AGAIN, THE ARE CRC CREATED THIS BACK IN AUGUST 2022.

THEY PUT IT ON HOLD THAT IT IS MOVING FORWARD AGAIN.

THAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THAT RESOLUTION.

THE SECOND RESOLUTION RELATES TO THE REDEVELOPMENT.

IT WAS CREATED PREVIOUSLY AND YOU APPROVE THE CREATION OF THAT AREA. THIS RESOLUTION MADE SEPARATE ALLOCATION AREAS TO SERVE SOME DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL OCCUR ALLOCATION. WITH THAT, HAPPY TO TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DOES THE STAFF HAVE A DEPARTMENT REPORT IN ADDITION

TO THAT? >> NO, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> ANY QUESTION FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND ANYONE OF THOSE? SEEING NO QUESTIONS, IS THERE A MOTION?

>> MOVED TO ADOPT. >> SECOND.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING BOTH DOCKET NUMBER PC ÃSORRY. WHEN COMMISSION RESOLUTION PC Ã 17 Ã23 A WHICH IS THE CRC RESOLUTION AND PC Ã10 Ã17 Ã 20 3B, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[H. Public Hearings]

FIRST IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00153 PP: ASHERWOOD SOUTH SUBDIVISION.. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00184 SW: ASHERWOOD SOUTH WAIVER YOU DO 7.26 WHERE PRIVATE STREETS ARE NOT PERMITTED AND PRIVATE STREETS ARE REQUESTED.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL AND DESIGN STANDARDS WAIVER APPROVAL FOR 6 LOTS ON 14.78 ACRES. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 9950 DITCH ROAD. IT IS ZONED S-1/RESIDENTIAL. FILED BY BRETT HUFF WITH KIMLEY-HORN ON BEHALF OF GRADISON DESIGN BUILD. MR.

MOFFAT, PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> GOOD EVENING THAT JUSTIN MOFFAT, PARTNERED WITH THE ACTUARY PROJECT HERE TO ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. IF WE COULD USE THE OVERHEAD, I

[00:05:02]

SO, WE DEFERRED THAT UNTIL A LATER DATE.

WE ARE BRINGING THAT BACK, IT IS REALLY AN EXTENSION OF THE PRIMARY PLAT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

I WILL PUT MY FINGER HERE, IT IS HARD TO TELL, THE TAN AREA IS THE SUBDIVISION THAT IS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED.

JUST GEOGRAPHICALLY, WE ARE APPROXIMATELY HALFWAY ETWEEN 163 AND 96 TREEDOWN HERE . WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 14 ACRE TO 20 ACREPARCEL TOTAL . JUST AS A REFERENCE POINT, THIS IS THE CONSTRUCTED ASHERWOOD SUBDIVISION.

INITIALLY, OUR GROUP HAD PURCHASED 107 ACRES.

THERE WAS EXISTING STATE HOME IN THE CENTER OF THIS ITEM APPROXIMATELY 17 ACRES IS PARCEL OFF WITH THAT.

WE SET 40 LOTS IN PHASE I TO SINGLE CUL-DE-SAC WITH THE MAIN ENTRY OFF OF DITCH ROAD. YOU WILL SEE THERE IS A STUD HERE, THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT THEY WOULD BE ACCESS FOR THIS FEATURE SECTION. THIS IS MORE OF A MARKETING IMAGE, WE SOLD FIVE OR SIX LOTS AND ONE WHICH IS CAUSING US TO COME FORWARD AND FOCUS ON PLAT IN THE SOUTH PART OF THE PROPERTY. REALLY, IT'S NONCOMMUNITY, SORRY ADD ADDITIONAL SIX SPOTS TO THE INITIAL FORMULA ATTENTIVELY WILL BE 40 WALMARTS IF YOU INCLUDE THE 17 ACRE ESTATE PARCEL. THIS IS THE RENDERED IMAGE OF THE MAIN ENTRY AREA OFF OF DITCH ROAD.

CONSTRUCTION IS ALMOST COMPLETE.

IT SHOULD BE DONE TOWARDS THE END OF THIS MONTH.

THE SOUTH PHASE WILL SHARE THIS MAIN ENTRY POINT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. SWITCHMAN ORIENTATION HERE AGAIN. WE COULD ZOOM IN HERE ON THE CENTRAL AREA AND GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR DEALING WITH. THIS IS 14 ACRES, JUST A SHORT SECTION OF STREET THAT DEAD ENDS INTO THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION. IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THERE WAS A STRONG DESIRE TO SEE THAT STAY AS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY AND NOT BE USED FOR ANY SORT OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OR DAILY USE BY OUR RESIDENTS AND CREATE SOME SORT OF CUT THROUGH CIRCUMSTANCES TO 96TH STREET.

WE HAVE AGREED WITH THE NEIGHBORS CANNOT PURSUE CONNECTING THAT . IT HAS TO STAY THERE AS A FIRE ACCESS. WE WILL HAVE A GATE THERE THAT IS FIRE ACCESS ONLY. WHAT YOU SEE HERE IN THIS APPROXIMATE 14 ACRES IS A LARGE EXISTING POND THAT WILL REUSE AS AN AMENITY BUT AS A DRAINAGE FACILITY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX LOTS HERE ALONG DITCH, TWO HERE IN THE CENTER WHERE WE WILL DEMOLISH AN EXISTING CLUBHOUSE/GARAGE FACILITY AND TWO LOTS HERE TO THE SOUTHWEST.

REAL SIMPLISTIC DRAWING HERE TO SHOW YOU.

CONTINUING ON FROM PHASE 1, 41, 42, 43, FOUR, 45, 46.

THOSE ARE THE SIX LOTS WE ARE ADDING IN MEETINGTHE MINIUM SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 1 ACRE . TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THE POND LOOKS LIKE, I CAN PROMISE YOU IT IS NOT LOOK LIKE THIS TODAY AS FAR AS THE QUALITY OF THE GREENS.

IN THE FAIRWAYS, WE HAVE NOT MAINTAINED THE GOLF COURSE.

THE QUALITY OF THE TREES AND THE POND EDGING IS INTAT.

THERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT HOW WE WOULD ADDRESS THE POND BANKS. WE HAVE NO INCLINATION TO REMOVE A VERY NICE WALL AROUND THE POND.

[00:10:06]

THE CITY EXISTING MAINTENANCE FACILITY/CLUBHOUSE THAT WILL BE COMING DOWN. I WANTED TO SHOW THE DISCONNECTION INTO - - PHASE 1. TWO LOTS HERE, TWO LOTS HERE AND TWO LOTS HERE. I WANTED TO BRING THIS IMAGE UP SO YOU CAN SEE THE AMENITY IN PHASE 1. THIS SITS IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PHASE 1. IT'S ABOUT A 1.5 ACRE SITE, BUT IT IS A GREEN SPACE. ONE OF THE REQUESTS IN PHASE 1 IS THAT WE NOT PLANT OUR BACKYARDS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION. WE KEEP THE GREENBACK FURTHER TO THE WEST AND SOUTHWEST THAT SERVES PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 OF ACCESS TO IT. IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WERE A FEW ITEMS THAT WERE WORTH BRINGING UP FOR CONVERSATION.

HE WILL GO TO RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE AND HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION.OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A WAIVER ATTACHED TO THIS REQUEST FOR PRIVATE STREETS. FUNCTIONALLY, THERE IS NO WAY TO NOT DO THAT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE ARE SEEING THIS AS A PHASE 2 AND OUR PRIMARY AXIS IS NOT THAT MAIN ENTRY POINT.

BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER PRIMARY PLAT IN ADDITION, WE HAVE TO SEEK THAT WAIVER REQUEST AGAIN. THE NEW DEAL REQUIREMENTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFICULT OTHER THAN THE PRIVATE STREET WHICH NECESSITATED THE WAIVER. THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WHICH WE WILL BE ADDRESSING AT THE RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE . ONE OF THEM BEING THE VEGETATION AROUND THE POND JUST TO ADDRESS WITH THE SEATING SITUATION. WITH THAT, I WILL STOP NEGLECTING TO QUESTIONS AS THEY COME, THANK YOU FORYOUR TIME .

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, DOES ANYBODY HERE ISH TO SPEAK FOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? SEEING ONE, GO AHEAD. SAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS IF THAT IS OKAY. THERE ARE LIGHTS OF THEIR, THE YELLOW LIGHT WILL GO ON WHEN YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT.

WHEN IT TURNS RED, WE ASK THAT YOU RANK THEM.

>> (STATES NAME ADDRESS). MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN AND WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER'S WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US AND OTHER NEIGHBORS ALONG THE WAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I DID SUBMIT A PUBLIC COMMENT FOR YOUR FILE.

THE ONLY REASON I'M HERE TONIGHT, SINCE YOU HAVE A HUGE PILE OF READING MATERIAL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU SAW TWO THINGS. ONE IS THAT THERE ARE TWO SETS OF COVENANTS GOVERNING ALL OF ASHER WOULD AND ANOTHER SET THAT COVERED THE ASHER WITH SOUTH AREA SPECIFICALLY.

BOTH OF THOSE WERE EXECUTED BY NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPERS ABOUT A YEAR AGO AS A PART OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION THEY INITIATED, TO WHICH WE AGREED TO THE CHANGE TO 40 FOOT FROM 75 FOOT SETBACK.

THE SECOND SET SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO ASHERWOOD SOUTH, SPECIFICALLY THE PERIMETER, MAINTENANCE, DRAINAGE FROM OUR LOTS ONTO ASHERWOOD SOUTH. ALSO THE GATE AS JUSTIN MENTIONED, WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WAS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO DO, CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THOSE THINGS.

OTHERWISE, AS WE ARE TOLD THE DEVELOPERS, WE WOULD LIKE TO

[00:15:01]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES THE COMMISSION WANT TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING NOW? IS THERE A DEPARTMENT REPORT?

>> THANK YOU, ALEXIA LOPEZ WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.THIS IS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD PRIMARY PLAT.

THEY MEET ALL THE ZONING STANDARDS FOR LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH AND SETBACKS. THERE ARE STILL SOME COMMENTS WE TO LOOK OVER. ONE OF THOSE RELATES TO THAT WAIVER THAT THEY MENTIONED . TRAVESTIES GENERALLY ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE CITY . WE TRY TO CREATE AN OPEN CITY, BUT IT DOES ALLOW FOR THIS WAIVER AS LONG AS THEY MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY WILL FULFILL THOSE IN MEETING THE CRITERIA.

ONE OF THOSE IS IN RELATION TO THE GATE MAKING SURE IT MEETS THE STANDARDS. WE NEED MORE DETAIL ON THAT.

ALSO THE ENTRY SURVEY AND PRESERVATION PLAN.

EVEN THAT THIS IS A SMALLER SUBDIVISION, THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL THE SAME STANDARDS OF A NORMAL SUBDIVISION.WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE MEETING THE TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS.

WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM ON THESE ITEMS AND WE RECOMMEND THIS GOES TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE MEETING WHICH IS ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN OUR

NORMAL MEETING SCHEDULE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:18.

I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER.

DOES ANYBODY UP YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?YES, JEFF?

>> I'M ASKING WHAT IS PROBABLY AN OBVIOUS QUESTION BUT I WILL LOVE TO GET A YES. I SAW IN THE STAFF REPORT THE CROSS-SECTION THAT WILL BE BUILT I ASSUME IN CASE YOU HAD A CHANGE OF HEART AND NEVER WANTED TO COMMISSION TO THE

LETTER OF THE LAW. >> ANOTHER QUESTION AND MAYBE YOU'VE DISCOVERED THIS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY INTEREST OR DESIRE OR NEED FOR ANY TYPE OF TURNAROUND TO PROVIDE ATTORNEY MANEUVER FOR LARGE VEHICLES THAT MIGHT GET BACK HERE EITHER ON THE INSIDE OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?

>> THAT IS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP INTACT YET.

I CAN ASK THE QUESTION BUT IT IS NOT BEEN ADDRESSE AS A CONCERN YET AT THE TACTICAL LEVEL.

>> IF I MAY, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING IN THE NEW DEAL, THOSE GREAT STANDARDS MIGHT ADDRESS.

IT'S SO YOU HAVE AN AREA YOU ARE ABLE TO TURN AROUND.

THEY WILL ADDRESS THAT WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE STANDARDS

IN THE UDO. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT MISSED IN THE PROCESS, BUT WE DID A TREE SURVEY AND SUBMITTED THAT WORKING WITH THE OR URBAN FOREST ARE ON HIS COMMENTS.

THAT IS DEFINITELY IN THE WORKS.

MOST OF THE ITEMS OTHER THAN THE GATE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT AS ALEXIA MENTIONED, SOME OF THE NITTY-GRITTY NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN NOW AND THE RESIDENTIALCOMMITTEE .

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SUE?

>> CONSTRUCTION FOR THESE HOMES, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN ENTRANCE TO THE NORTH. WILL YOU COME IN THE SAME WAY FOR THESE? IS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT? > BEYOND THE COVENANT, WE WOULD NOT USE THE RELATIVE DRIVE ACCESS. WE HAVE AN EXISTING GATED ENTR . WE WILL NOT TAKE THAT TRAFFIC THE RIGHT NICE NEIGHBORING ENTRY.

WE WILL BE PRESERVING THIS AS LONG AS POSSIBLE TO PRESERVE

THE SOUTH SECTION. >> NOTHING IS COMING THROUGH

BUT A FIRE TRUCK, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> WE TRIED TO WORK WITH THAT IN THE FIRST ASHERWOOD AND LOST

[00:20:02]

SINCE IT IS GOING TO BE ATTACHED TO THE SUBDIVISION, IT WILL FUNCTION AS ONE SUBDIVISION.

I THINK YOU ARE COMFORTABLE FOR THAT.

THE UDO DOES REQUIRE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS.

IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO WALK AROUND OR NEEDED TO GET OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY WOULD NOT BE CONFINED BY THE GATE SO WE ARE HOPING FOR MORE DETAILS ON THAT.

>> WALKERS AND BICYCLE RIDERS CAN GET OVER TO THE OTHER

SUBDIVISION? >> JUST LIKE WITH THE FIRST SECTION OF ASHERWOOD, THEY HAD TO HAVE THAT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS OUT INTO THE DITCH. THE GATE CAN SERVE TO LIMIT VEHICLE TRAFFIC, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT PEDESTRIAN AND

BICYCLE CAN GET AROUND. >> THANK YOU.

>> THIS IS NOT GERMANE TO WHAT YOU PRESENTED TONIGHT, I AM JUST CURIOUS IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS.

THE UTILITY POLES ALONG DITCH ON THE WEST SIDE, I NOTICED SEVERAL NEW ONES HAVE GONE UP AND THERE ARE FURTHER TO THE WEST. YET FURTHER NORTH BUT SOUTH OF 106, THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE SUPER CLOSE TO THE ROAD WHICH IS A DISASTROUS ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.

DO YOU KNOW IF THERE ANY PLANS TO RELOCATE THOSE?

>> OUR CIVIL ENGINEER SAID THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT DEDICATED FOR ITS. WHEN WE SUBMIT THESE NEW PLATS, WE NEED TO DEDICATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SO IT CREATES OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UTILITY PROVIDERS TO MOVEIT TO THE BACK OF RIGHT AWAY . FURTHER NORTH HAS NEVER BEEN DEDICATED WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE STILL OUT THERE THE EDGE OF

EXISTING PAVEMENT. >> THANK YOU, JUST CURIOUS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION?

>> I RECOMMEND WE SEND THIS TO THE RESIDUAL COMMITTEE FOR THE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 13 WITH THAT COMMITTEE GIVING THE FULL AUTHORITY IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO DECIDE ANY APPROVAL OR

RECOMMENDATION. >> SECOND.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE WITH FINAL VOTING AUTHORITY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, THIS WILL GO ON TO RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE. NEXT, PUBLIC HEARING ON OUR AGENDA IS DOCKET NUMBER DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00189 DP/ADLS: MIDWEST EYE INSTITUTE AT THE BRIDGES.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS SITE PLAN AND DESIGN APPROVAL FOR A NEW, TWO STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON 5.4 ACRES. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ILLINOIS STREET AND 111TH STREET AND WEST OF THE KAR OFFICE BUILDING. THE FUTURE ADDRESS WILL BE 11220 ILLINOIS STREET. IT IS ZONED PUD (THE BRIDGES Z-550-11) AND IS NOT WITHIN ANY OVERLAY DISTRICT. FILED BY KYLIE BRIGHT-SCHULER OF AMERICAN STRUCTUREPOINT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, CORNERSTONE COMPANIES. DO YOU HAVE THE PETITIONER HERE?

>> HI, I AM KYLIE RIGHT-SHOULDER OF AMERICAN STRUCTURE POINT. YOU CAN SEE THE OVERALL SITE PLAN OVERLAID WITH THE AERIAL IMAGERY, YOU CAN SEE PHASE 1 TO THE NORTH THERE, THAT IS CURRENTLY IN CONSTRUCTION, STEADMAN APARTMENTS TO THEWEST .

WE ARE LIKELY SAID PHASE 2, BEING BUILT HERE WITH PARKING.

WE HAVE CONNECTIVITY FROM THE EAST-WEST ROAD INTERNAL TO THE MEDICAL CAMPUS AND WE ALSO HAVE CONNECTIVITY FROM THE INTERNAL SPINE ROAD NEXT TO STEADMAN APARTMENTS.

WE WANTED TO NOTE IN THE STAFF COMMENTS, WE DID GO AHEAD AND MOVE OUR BICYCLE PARKING TO OUR SIDE OF THINGS.

ADDITIONALLY WE HAVE A FIRST FLOOR PLAN FOR YOU TO SAY THE INTERNAL BIKE PARKING. WE WANTED TO SEE MORE ENGAGEMENT WITH ILLINOIS STREE , SO WE WIDEN OUR PATIO SPACE BETTER AND ADDED TWO SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS TO THE WALK ALONG ILLINOIS AND HAD ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE AS WELL.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE.>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, IS ANYONE WHO

[00:25:10]

GREAT. >> THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I LIVE IN THE - - HOA THERE.

WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

- -4 CONSISTENCY, WE WILL LOOK TO SEE THAT HAD REDUCED AND IN ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR LIGHT SPILLAGE.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW A SPECIFIC LUMEN IS BEING USED AND HOW THAT FITS WITH THEPHOTOMETRIC THAT WERE SUBMITTED .

THE PICTURE WILL BE SUCH THAT THE LED ELEMENT COULD BE DIRECTED DOWNWARD TO MINIMIZE LIGHT SPILLAGE DECIDE.

I ASSUME THIS IS GENERALLY A 9-TO-5 TYPE OF OPERATION OR SIMILAR WITH SOME USAGE BEFORE AND AFTERLOCAL BUSINESS HOURS .

THE CARMEL COMPETENCY PLAN CONTAINS AN OBJECTIVE 1.6.17 TO ENCOURAGE THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF ENERGY AND AFTER HOURS LIGHTING. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE PETITIONER'S PLAN ON THE SCREEN.

WHEN THE PUD WAS APPROVED MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO, A COMMITMENT WAS MADE FOR THE HEIGHT AND LANDSCAPING ISSUE WILL BE PLANTED WITH A FOOT EVERGREEN TREES 15 FOR THE CENTER ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE BUFFER. THE CURRENT LIMITED LANDSCAPE PLAN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT CALLS THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, HOWEVER IT IS A LITTLE HARD TO READ FOR DETAIL . IT IS FAIRLY SMALL, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE READING A COMPUTER SCREEN.

I'M NOT SURE IF THE PLANNINGS WILL MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

THEREFORE, WE NEED A PLAN, A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN THE PAGES PUD AND THAT LANGUAGE IS HERE ON THE SCREEN, THE SHADE HIGHLIGHTING INDICATES THAT PLANNINGS ARE TO BE CONIFEROUS, 8 FOOT MINIMUM AND AVERAGE 15 FEET ON CENTER. IT DID NOT LOOK TO ME, I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING IN THE LANDSCAPING PLAN ABOUT THE CALIPER OF TREES THAT WILL BE PLANTED.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE ON THE SPECIES THAT WAS EVERGREEN OR CONIFEROUS. THAT INCLUDES MY COMMENTS,

THANK YOU. >> (STATES NAME ADDRESS).

BOTTOM OF THIS PICTURE. THIS IS TO THE SOUTH AND HERITAGES TO THE NORTH OF US. THERE ARE THREE NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT HAVE BEEN VERY IMPACTED BY THE PAGES.

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE .

THE BRIDGES HAS BEEN A HUGE AND CONTINUOUSLY NOISY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SINCE ITBEGAN MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO .

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT FUTURE MULTIUSE PUD, HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER THE WHOLEDEVELOPMENT , ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY COME BACK FOR DIFFERENT PIECES OFTHE DEVELOPMENT . EVEN THE PERRY ARCHITECTURE WAS WEIGHT IN THE ASPEN ARCHITECTURE.

PARKING HAS BEEN A CONCERN THERE WITH TOO MUCH UNNECESSARY PARKING FOR MARKET DISTRICT. PART OF IT WAS DONE FOR THE BANK OF AMERICA. NONE OF MY PARKING WAS AT THE

[00:30:04]

THERE IS EVEN LESS PARKING AT THAT MAN THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED, THAT WAS ALLOWED, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AT STEADMAN.

THAT IS A CONCERN TO NEARBY NEIGHBORS WERE WORRIED THAT WE MIGHT FIND PEOPLE PARKING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

NOW, THERE IS A SURPRISING, LET ME MOVE IT THIS WAY.

THERE IS A SURPRISING AMOUNT OF EXTRA PARKING THAN REQUIRED FOR MIDWEST EYE INSTITUTE. I LOOKED AT MIDWEST EYE INSTITUTE, IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD USE FOR THAT PLACE AND WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL TO THE NEIGHBORS MORE THAN THE OTHER FIVE-STOR BUILDING. I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE PARKING IT IS ONLY TWO STORIES, WHICH IS GOOD AND PROBABLY WILL MOSTLY BE USED DURING THE DAY, WHICH IS GOOD.

I ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE IS EXTRA PHASE 3 THAT WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT. WHAT IS GOING TO BE THERE? ARE THEY SHARING THE PARKING? IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN BECAUSE FROM THE FIRST BUILDING WAS PROPOSED IN THAT AREA, WE ASKED AT THE TIME WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE SECOND PHASE.

WE DO NOT REALIZE THERE WAS ONE THIRD PHASE.

I HOPE THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED, WHAT IS THE PLAN TO GO THERE? PWILL THERE BE PARKING ENOUGH FOR BOTH OF THOSE AREAS? IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING ISSUE, WHICH IS REALLY A BIG ONE TO US, I AM IN THE PRESIDENT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SPOKE AT CARMEL CITY COUNCIL - - ASKING IF NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO MULTIUSE PUD OR OTHER PROJECTS LIKE THAT COULD HAVE A PARKING SIGN AT THE MULTIUSE BUILDINGS.

I'VE NOT HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

ONE OF THE FEW MOST IMPORTANT CONCESSIONS IS AN EXTENSIVE BERM, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE HONORED.

WE ACTUALLY 20 FOOT WIDE POLES - - IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU DO NOT ADDRESS THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN THE LAST THING I WILL TALK ABOUT IS THE ROUNDABOUT BETWEEN 111TH BETWEEN ILLINOIS AND SPRING MILL. THE NEIGHBORS WERE REALLY UNHAPPY ABOUT THE ROUNDABOUT. WE FOUND IT IS EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT AND SMALL TO GET AROUND.

WE WORRY WHAT WILL HAPPEN, DRIVERS NOT EXPECTING ABOUT 150 FEET AFTER ILLINOIS AND RECENTLY HAD CATARACT SURGERY, I WONDER HOW THE PATIENT IS GOING TO THE MIDWEST INSTITUTE WITH HIS ROUNDABOUT PLEASE, REDUCE SLIDE POLES AND TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS I KEEP COMING BACK.

THANK YOU. >> (STATES NAME ADDRESS).

THAT IS THE PROPERTY NEAREST TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

I WILL JUST PUT THIS PICTURE HERE OF THE ROUNDABOUT DATING YESTERDAY. - - IS UNSAFE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE STARTING WITH, OPEN LAND. 70,000 FT.B2, 4 ACRES.

THIS IS 40,000 FT.B2. BECAUSE WE MUST BE PRECISE ABOUT THESE THINGS, THIS IS ACTUALLY ON 3.5 ACRES.

THAT IS TO BE POINTED OUT THAT THIS OPEN AREA, THIS PHASE 3,

[00:35:07]

I CAN TELL YOU THAT GRADING ON THIS SECTION HAS STARTED.

I AM NOT SURE IF THAT IS INTENTIONAL OR COINCIDENTAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OFTHE NORTH . SECONDLY, OR 30, IF JOE IS HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK HIM FOR SENDING ME INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROCESS. I NEVER RECEIVED THE OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION. I THINK THAT THIS IS A FLAW THAT SHOULD PROBABLY CAUSE THIS TO BE HELD UNTIL THESE NOTIFICATIONS ARE SENT TO ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE NOTIFICATION LIST. THE SECOND IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT GRADING HAS BEEN INITIATED ON THIS PROPERTY.

I AM FURTHER CONCERNED THAT WITH THE ULTIMATE USE, THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PARCEL WHICH IS 2.5 ACRES, IF WE WERE TO EXTRACT HOW A FOUR-STORY 17,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, WE HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF 80 TO 90,000 FT.B2 BEING DEVELOPED IN THIS ENTIRE AREA. I WILL LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE TRAFFIC. IF IT HASN'T BEEN ASKED, I AM ASKING.THIS IMPACTS THIS COMMUNITY FAR MORE THAN THESE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. NOW, WE HAVE AN ACCESS.

WE HAVE AN EXCESS OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, COMMERCIAL OF ACCESS OF TRAFFIC. I REVIEWED THE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE BRIDGES AND IT WAS PAINTED AS A PRETTY DIRE PICTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE F ON INTERSECTIONS.

I IN MY PAST LIFE IN LOS ANGELES, I WAS INVOLVED IN OTHER COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC DENSITY BECAME TWO OF THE LEADING CONCERNS THAT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF THE COMMUNITY. ROD HAS TALKED ABOUT LIGHTING AND THE DECORATING ON THE BERMS. JILL HAS BROUGHT UP AND EVEN MORE BROADER CONCERN.

I AM HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THE PERIOD OF THIS, YOU NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT GOES ON IN THE GRADING AND IF THIS HAS BEEN FIXED. RIGHT NOW, IT ISN'T RIGHTS.

I CAN MAKE A CIRCLE AND MY HONDA CIVIC, BARELY.

THE BERM HERE IS WIDE ENOUGH SO VEHICLES CAN DRIVE OVER IT, IS THAT THE INTENTION? SERIOUSLY.

A QUESTION ASKED AND I HOPE ANSWERED.

SORRY I DID NOT GET MY NOTICE IN THE MAIL, I DON'T THINK

ANYONE ELSE DID. >> DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE? I TOOK A FEW NOTES HERE AND WILL ADJUST WHAT I'VE WRITTEN DOWN.

WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE MIDWEST EYE INSTITUTE WILL WORK AS A 9-TO-5. WE DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE EVENING. THE LIGHTING WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT. THE LANDSCAPING CONCERN TO THE STAFF OF THE PROPERTY, THAT BERM IS INTENDED TO REMAIN THERE. OUR LANDSCAPING PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPE REQUIRED.

TO ADDRESS THE PARKING COMMENTS, THERE AREN'T 181 SPACES WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF WHAT CARMEL REQUIRES.

THAT IS BECAUSE THE DOCTORS REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES PER SQUARE FOOT. JUST WITH THE AMOUNT OF CLIENTS COMING IN THE NEED TO STAY FOR MULTIPLE HOURS, IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO HAVE MORE PARKING. WE ARE ADHERING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY REQUESTED.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE MIDWEST EYE INSTITUTE IS TWO STORIES AND 20,000 FT.B2. THE AUO IDLING IS THE THREE STORIES, NOT FOUR. ON OUR END, THE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS SENT OUT AND RACHEL SHOULD HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS.

[00:40:01]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RACHEL, DO YOU HAVE A

DEPARTMENT REPORT? >> YES I DO.

SO, THIS BUILDING IS A NEW TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE DID APPROVE THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING TO THE NORTH OF THIS SITE AND THERE ARE NOW TWO REMAINING PHASES AS WE SAW THAT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SOUTH OF THE INTERNAL EAST-WEST STREET THAT CONNECTS THE STATEMENT APARTMENTS OVER TO ILLINOIS STREET AND OPENS UP INTO THE CAR OFFICECOMPLEX . THAT ALL LINES UP THERE WIL BE PLANNED IT TO, THAT IS REALLY GOOD.

IT IS TAKING QUITE A FEW TRIES TO GET IT JUST RIGHT DUE TO THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER, PETITIONER'S CLIENT FOR AN EXCESS OF PARKING AS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.

WE ARE TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM ON THE PARKING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE VERSUS THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT IS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THEIR DAILY NEEDS AS WELL AS HAVING PLENTY OF SIDEWALKS THAT ARE REQUIRED AND LANDSCAPING THAT IS REQUIRED.

ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS WAS ABOUT THE OVERALL PARKING. THIS AREA IS INTENDED TO HAVE SHARED PARKING. THESE ARE ONLY MY PARKING SPACES, NOT YOUR PARKING SPACES.

THEY ARE ALL INTENDED TO WORK TOGETHER AS A PART OF THE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USE BLOCK OF THIS PUD FOR THE BRIDGES. HOW WILL THAT INTERACT WITH THIS PHASE 2 RIGHT NOW FROM MIDWEST EYE INSTITUTE.

EVEN IF IT IS PRELIMINARY, WE NEED TO SEE WHAT THAT MIGHT BE.

WE HAD AN IDEA WITH THE PREVIOUS PLAN, BUT WE DO HAVE AN IDEA OF THIS NEW PLAN. AT THE PARKING LOT IS GETTING BIGGER THE CONNECTION. DATA FOR THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FOR THOSE ARRANGEMENTS.

SOMEBODY WAS WALKING FROM 111TH STREET - - PARKING LOT TO GET TO THE FRONT DOOR. IF SOMEBODY WERE WALKING FROM ILLINOIS STREET GOING ACROSS THE NORTHWEST.

WE ARE WORKING ON THAT. ANOTHER ITEM WE ARE WORKING OUT OF PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING SINCE THE MAI ENTRANCE IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

WE HAVE ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT CREATING A STAFF AREA OR PUBLIC AREA THAT WOULD PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE INTERACTION WITH THE STREET ONILLINOIS STREET . WE SAW ONE VERSION THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN A NEW VERSION DETAILED OUT THAT IS MORE SUBSTANTIAL AND DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE FEATURES THAT WOULD MATCH THE BUILDING.WE ARE STILL LOOKING FOR THAT.

THEY DID TAKE THEIR CUES FROM THE FIRST BUILDING ARCHITECTURE STYLE, SO IT WILL COMPLEMENT THAT BUILDING.

THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT COLORED BRICK SO IT WON'T BE EXACTLY THE SAME. THERE DIFFERENT DETAILS COMPARED TO THE FIRST BUILDING AND THE OVERALL LIKE THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING. AS THE TWO STORY, WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA AS WE ARE TRANSITIONING DOWN.

SOME OF THE AREAS WE MENTIONED IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT WERE ABOUT THE BIKE PARKING LOCATION NEEDING TO BE ADJUSTED.

THEY DID DO THAT AND WE NEEDED THE FIRST FLOOR PLAN TO SHOW THE LONG TERM BIKE PARKING, THE SHOWER FACILITY, LOCKER AND CHANGING FACILITY, ABOUT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS WELL.

DARREN - - THE URBAN FOREST ARE IS WORKING ON THIS PLAN WITH THEM. AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE CHANGED THE SITE PLAN A COUPLE OF TIMES SO SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING IS NEEDED TO CHANGE AS WELL. HE IS VERY AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL PUD AS WELL AS WHAT CALIBER OF TREES AND HOW FAR APART THEY NEEDED TO BE PLANTED AND ALL THOSE THINGS. HE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IS DONE

[00:45:02]

REGARDING THE LIGHTING, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE 20 FOOT HEIGHT AT THE STATEMENT APARTMENTS BUT I CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO THE PETITIONER ABOUT CHANGING THEIR HEIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS STILL TIME TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY DONE AT THIS BUILDING WAS GOING TO MATCH THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH.

AFTER SEVEN APARTMENTS. I WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THAT AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE IT ALL COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. IN GENERAL, THE CITY DOES REQUIRE THAT WHITES ARE AT A 90B0 CUT OFF.

WE DO NOT ALLOW LIGHTS TO BE SIGNING UP FROM THE SKY TO THE PARKING LOT. THAT SHOULD NEVER BE A CONCERN.

THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE ALWAYS WORKING ON IN ANY BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTING WHICH IS ALSO TO BECOMING FROM A LOW-LEVEL CONCEALED PICTURE SO IT SHINES DIRECTLY WHERE IT IS AIMED TO ON THE BUILDING AND MATCHES UP INTO THE SKY.

I WILL WORK ON THAT. LET'S SEE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE.I AM AN ENGINEER, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE ROUNDABOUT, THEN YOU ROUNDABOUT, THE LITTLE ROUNDABOUT, WAS NEXT TO HAVE MOUNTABLE CURVES SO LARGE TRUCKS AND FIRETRUCKS, ANYONE CAN GO OVER IT AS NECESSARY.

THAT WAS THE DESIGN OF THE ROUNDABOUT ON PURPOSE.

IF YOU NEED TO DRIVE ON THAT, YOU CAN.

OTHER THAN THAT, I DO NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT ROUNDABOUT.

THAT IS THE BEST I CAN DO FOR RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THAT IS ABOUT ALL I HAVE.

WE REALLY DO NEED TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD.

I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND YOU GO TO THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13 WITH THE COMMITTEE HAVING FINAL VOTING AUTHORITY SO WE CAN WORK OUT SOME OF THESE ITEMS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THAT CAUSES OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:47.

I WILL TURN IT TO THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR COMMENTS AND WE WILL START WITH COUNSELOR AASEN.

>> THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU ARE NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE WE CAN START THOSE CONVERSATIONS EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT CONTINGENT ON THIS PROJECT? IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING IS PEOPLE ARE AVOIDING USING THAT AND THAT IS CAUSING THEM TO GO OFF THE ROAD.

IT'S NOT A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THE LESS TRAFFIC NOW THAT YOU CAN INCREASE, THAT IS SOMETHING TO KEEP AN EYE ON.

MAYBE WE CAN START THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN BRING SOMEONE FROM ENGINEERING TO COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE TO TALK ABOUT THIS IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> ON THAT, I WOULD WANT US TO ADDRESS IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD START THE PROCESS.

IT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, AND THE ONE THAT ISN'T A YES OR NO ON THIS PROJECT.

WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE IT IS TOO SMALL AND WILL BECOME AN ISSUE AS TIME GOES ON.

THAT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE BUT ONE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

>> DEBBIE, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?>> I WILL JUST SAY DITTO. I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE ROUNDABOUT. MENTAL IMAGES THAT - - IS THE TINY ROUNDABOUT I HAVE EVER SEEN AND I DRIVE ON IT OFTEN.

I ALSO DO NOT HAVE A LARGE CAR. IT IS ONE THING, IT MAKES YOU SLOW DOWN, REALLY SLOW DOWN. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO MAKE SURE YOU DO NOT RUN OVER IT.

I AGREE, IT IS SEPARATE FROM WHAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS PRESENTED TONIGHT. IF THERE IS A WAY IN THE OVERALL PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THIS AREA, IF THAT COULD BE

RETHOUGHT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND COMMISSIONERS? ADAM?

[00:50:01]

>> ONLY QUICK COMMENTS. I TEND TO AGREE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIGHTING HEIGHT TO THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE NORTH, THE 25 FOOT LIGHTING POLES, IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE NICE TO KEEP A GOOD BUFFER FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH IMAGINE A 20 FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM FOR THE NEW STATEMENT APARTMENTS TO THE WEST. I AGREE WITH THAT COMMENT.

>> JEFF? >> I ECHO SOME OF THE CONCERNS I HEARD FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT HOW MUCH PARKING IS NEEDED.

I GET IT, THERE IS A PLAY FOR SHARED PARKING BUT KNOWING WHAT IS ON THE PAGE 3 SITE, IT SEEMED AS IF THERE IS A WAY TO FIND THE EFFICIENCIES THE BEST WE CAN TO REDUCE AND THAT OVER PART OF THE SITE IT WOULD BE GREAT.

WHEN I FIRST OF THE PLAN, I THOUGHT LONG HUNDRED 11, YOU COME OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ALONG THE ROAD AND THERE IS LANDSCAPING, I JUST ECHO THE OPINIONS OF MAKING SURE WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING IN REGARDS TO LANDSCAPING BUT I WILL CALL IT A SMALL C OF PART TWO CRUDE PARKING.

SOME OF THE PARKING IF SHARED, WOULD BE AN AWFUL LONG LOOK AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PARKINGIS THE RIGHT FIT TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE.

ONE THING THAT I WOULD MAKE A NOTE OF, IT LOOKS LIKE IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO CONFIRM THIS, THERE IS TRAIL AND/OR SIDEWALK OF THE PHASE 2 OR THREE SITE. WE DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN IT MIGHT DEVELOP, HAVING THAT ACTIVITY MIGHT BE APPRECIATED.

GREAT COLOR RENDERINGS OR IMAGERY ON WHAT THIS WILL LOOK LIKE FROM ASTREET-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE .

IF WE CAN GET ONE MORE LOOKING FROM THE SOUTH TO THE LANDSCAPING TOWARDS THE PARKING LOT AND THE BUILDING, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO A GUY LIKE ME THAT APPRECIATES THOSE.

THANKS. >> CAN YOU TELL THIS IS MY

FIRST TIME COMING TO CARMEL? >> YOU ARE DOING GREAT.

>> CLOSURE QUESTION RIGHT NOW ABOUT CONFIRMING?

>> IS THERE A TRAIL OR SIDEWALK? JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE READING THE DRAWING THE SAME

WAY. >> IT WILL GO ALONG ILLINOIS, SO THERE WILL BE A SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SEVEN PROPERTY AND AS WELL AS A FULL PERIMETER OF BRIDGES.

THERE WILL BE CONNECTIVITY IN BETWEEN PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3.

PTHE SITE PLAN SHOULD SHOW THAT. >> SINCE WE ARE ON PARKING, I'M CURIOUS WHAT ABOUT THIS REQUIRES ACCESS PARKING? IF ANYTHING, WE GET THE REQUESTED LESS THAN THE REQUIRED. WHAT ABOUT THIS BUSINESS REQUIRES MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED?

>> IT IS MIDWEST EYE INSTITUTE. BUTLER'S WORK WITH THE CORNERSTONE TO NARROW DOWN THE PARKING BECAUSE THE CLIENTS THAT COME IN AND GETWORK DONE USUALLY HAVE TO SAY FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME . BUT THAT IS TWO OR THREE HOURS, THEY REQUIRE MORE PARKING SO WHEN YOU PATIENTS COME IN, THEY HAVE OTHER PLACES TO PARK AS WELL BECAUSE OF THE EXTENDED

APPOINTMENT TIME. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

SUE? >> RACIAL, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN ADD TO YOUR LIST TO CONFIRM THAT THE CORRECT PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED AND THE LETTERS WERE SENT OUT?

>> I MEANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

THE CORRECT LIST WAS PROVIDED BY THE HAMILTON COUNTY REPORTER'S OFFICE AND ALL THE LETTERS WERE SENT OUT AND STAMPED FROM THE POST OFFICE. EVERYONE WHO WAS ON THE LIST OF TWO PROPERTIES DEEP WERE NOTIFIED.

>> WHO HAS TO BE NOTIFIED? >> EVERYONE 660 FEET OR TWO PROPERTIES DEEP. THERE IS A WHOLE EXHIBIT PROVIDED FROM THE REPORT'S OFFICE THAT GIVES ALL THE ADDRESSES THAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED.

>> ONE OF THE QUESTION BUT IF YOU CAN FIND OUT THE FINANCE ON

[00:55:02]

>> AND WILL HAVE THE EXACTING, BUT THEY ARE USING THE WHOLE SITE . IT IS BEING WORKED ON ALTOGETHER. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS, BUT THAT IS A SURPRISE TO ME THAT THEY ARE USING THE WHOLE SITE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT THING.

>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, I DID NOT DO THIS TO HAVE BEEN PROCESSED ACROSS THE STREET BUT THAT IT WAS BALANCE ON BOTH SIDE. IT IS NOT THE INTENT TO BE FINAL GRADING THE SITE THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL FOR TODAY. IT IS JUST A PART OF THAT

MASQUERADING PRACTICES. >> YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS BUILDING WILL HAVE NORMAL 9-TO-5 BUSINESS HOURS SO THERE SHOULD BE MINIMAL LIGHT POLLUTION COMING TROUGH FROM THE PARKING LOTS. THE WE KNOW WITH PHASE 3 BECAUSE IT WILL BE SHARED PARKING, WHAT KIND OF HOURS FOR

THAT YOU MIGHT ANTICIPATE? >> BECAUSE IT IS ALSO A MEDICAL BUILDING AND A PART OF THE MEDICAL CAMPUS, I ASSUME IT WOULD BE THE SAME. 9-TO-5 IS THE INTENT FOR THAT

BUILDING AS WELL. >> IF SOMEHOW, IF THE HOURS ARE DIFFERENT FOR PHASE 3, CAN MEET WE REQUEST ADDITIONAL SCREENING IF IT IS A LATER HOURS THING WE DISCOVER LATER ON?

>> WE ONLY REQUIRE PARKING LOT SCREENING AROUND THE PERIMETER.

>> I WAS JUST SAYING IF WE WANTED TO GO ABOVE THE MINIMUM

ORSOMETHING . >> WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE AWAY

PARKING MOST LIKELY. >> IT MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE ANYWAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT PROBABLY WILL HAVE LATE HOURS ANYWAY, I WANTED TO SHARE THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIGHT POLLUTION WILL BE MINIMIZED.

WE HAVE PARKING LOT SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.

I DO NOT SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE. >> I WAS GOOD TO TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF A SETBACK IN BUFFERING HERE.

THERE IS ALSO A GAS EASEMENT WE ARE NOT GETTING INTO AT ALL.

THAT BERM IS STAYING THERE, SO IT SHOULD BE NICE COVERAGE.

IT SHOULD SHIELDED PRETTY NICELY.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? IS THERE A MOTION?

>> I RECOMMEND WE SEND THIS TO THE COMMITTEE ÃMY FINAL VOTING

AUTHORITY. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND DESCENDED TO THE COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE WITH FINAL AUTHORITY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? WE WILL SEE YOU AT COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING DRIVEN NERO RECOVERY CENTER HAS BEEN TABLE TO NOVEMBER 21 FOR THAT BRINGS US TO OUR NEXT DOCKET FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00216 PP/SP: MATRIARCH MINOR SUBDIVISION THE APPLICANT SEEKS MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL TO SPLIT 1 PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS ALONG RANGELINE ROAD. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 520 N RANGELINE RD. AND IS ZONED B-5/BUSINESS WITHIN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY. FILED BY JUSTIN MOFFETT AND REBECCA MCGUCKIN

WITH OLD TOWN COMPANIES. >> HI THERE, JUSTIN MOFFAT AGAIN. NINE OLDTOWN PROJECT, THIS IS MY WIFE'S PROJECT, I AM IMPRISONING HER TONIGHT.

SUBJECT PROPERTY RANGE LINE ROAD, FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE LIVING IN DOWNTOWN CARMEL, THIS WAS FIFTH AND SIXTH STREETS RESPECTIVELY. NOW THEY ARE SMALL AND - - SO HAVE TO REORIENT MYSELF. PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS FOR ME DID THE ADL S. THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD LOT SPLIT. APPROXIMATELY HALF AN ACRE HERE AT THE CORNER OF SMALL AND RANGE LINE.

WE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR A MEDICAL FACILITY THAT WOULD BE THIS CORNER LOT SHOWN HERE, LOT

[01:00:04]

THIS IS A LOT FOR ONE BIRD AND HE BROUGHT THE PROJECT THROUGH PREVIOUSLY, HE WOULD DO SOMETHING WITH THE HOUSE IN THE FUTURE BUT WERE PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON BUILDING THIS MEDICAL FACILITY HERE AT THE CORNER.I THINK WE RECEIVED PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL ON JANUARY 2022.

ALL OF OUR CONSTRUCTION COST ONE OF 22%.

ONCE THAT PLUS INTEREST RATES FOR US, WE PAUSE TO THE PROJECT. HOPEFULLY WE WILL REVISE THAT HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT WE ARE SEEKING APPROVAL TO SPLIT THE LOT FOR ORDINANCE AND MOVE FORWARD WITH PUTTING A TENANT AND WATCH ONE IN THE EXISTING HOME.

SO, THE FUNCTIONAL SITE PLAN, AND WILL JUMP TO THIS BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE MORE CLEAR. CORNER LOT WHERE WE HAD THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL, REGIS PARKING HERE THAT WAS A PART OF THE APPROVAL AS WELL, EXISTING HOME.

WE WERE SEEKING TO SPLIT THE LOT AS WE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL AND USE THE EXISTING HOME AND WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING.

I BELIEVE THIS COMPLIES COMPLETELY WITH THE UDO.

IF YOU ZOOM IN WITH MY FINGERS POINTING, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT DO WE HAVE - - DEMO TO MAKE THIS A COMMERCIAL FACILITY USING THE - - WE WILL BE REMOVING THAT DECK ANYWAY.

WE HAVE 10 FEET OF SETBACK BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE FROM EXISTING STRUCTURE IT DOES COMPLY WITH UDO.

THAT WAS THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ITEM.

I'M GLAD THEY DID TO RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE IF THERE ARE FURTHER QUESTIONS BUT WE BELIEVE FULLY COMPLIES.

THERE WAS A REMAINING QUESTION ABOUT THE ENGINEERING FOR THE PARKING. BEFORE WE GET ANY SORT OF LOCATION, THE TO MAKE SURE ENGINEERING IS HAPPY WITH THEIR CALCULATIONS BEFORE WE CAN START ANYTHING.

THAT WILL ALWAYS BE A COMMISSION OF ANY SORT OF PLAT

APPROVAL. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, DOES ANY MEMBER TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PETITION? SEEING NO HANDS. I WILL MOVE ON TO THE

DEPARTMENT REPORT. >> THANK YOU, FOR THE RECORD, ALEXIA LOPEZ WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE.

AS STATED, THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A MINOR SUBDIVISION.

IT IS LIKE A PRIMARY PLAT AND SECONDARY PLAT ALL WRAPPED INTO ONE. THERE ARE SO FEW LOTS, WE ARE ONLY CREATING TWO NEW LAZIO. YOU WOULD REFUTE HIS PRIMARY PLAT ANYTHING IS APPROVED, WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THEM TO WORK TO THE DETAILS OF THE SECONDARY PLAT AND THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD TAKE TO THE COUNTY TO GET RECORDED.

IN REVIEWING THIS, THEY DO MEET MOST OF THE UDO STANDARDS.

THERE WAS THE ONE SIDE YARD SETBACK QUESTION WAS JUST AN ADDRESS THISEVENING , SO WE THOUGHT THAT WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE HOME WILL BE THAT MINIMUM 5 YARD SETBACK.

THERE ARE STILL SOME OTHER COMMENTS WE HAVE ON PROJECT DOCS, SOME THAT WE MENTIONED IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT.

JUST TO MENTION A FEW OF THOSE, THERE ARE EXISTING OTHER GARAGES ON THE PROPERTY, SO THOSE WILL BE NEED TO BE REMOVED BEFORE WE SIGN UP ON THE SECONDARY PLAT, OTHERWISE THE STRUCTURES WOULD NOT MEET THE UDO STANDARDS BECAUSE THEY ARE STRADDLING THE PROPERTY LINES THERE.

I THINK THEY HAVE ADDRESSED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE EASEMENT.

JUST MAKING SURE IT IS CALLED OUT CORRECTLY OR INCLUDED INTO ONE OF THE LOTS. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THERE WERE PLANS THAT YOU ALL APPROVED FOR THE MATRIARCH CENTER FOR THE SITE BUT ALL THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN FINALIZED. THAT IS NOT QUITE HAVE FINAL APPROVALYET . HOPEFULLY THIS PLAT WILL NOT INTERRUPT ANY OF THAT. THERE ARE STILL SOME LITTLE DETAILS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK THROUGH.

THEY HAD NOT BEEN TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

[01:05:02]

WE RECOMMEND THAT THIS GOES TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 13WHICH IS A MONDAY , THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:06. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM

THE COMMISSION MEMBERS?>> ARE YOU ABLE TO SHARE WITH THE BUILDING WILL BE USED FOR? I WAS JUST CURIOUS.

>> WE HAVE A CHIROPRACTOR WHO WOULD LIKE TO OCCUPY THAT.

WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT PORTION OF THE UDO AS WELL.

YES, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO GO TO THE RESIDUAL

MANY, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ADAM OR

JEFF? >> MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD MOVE WE SEND THIS ITEM TO THE RESIDENT COMMITTEE WITH THE COMMITTEE HAVING THE FULL AUTHORITY TO VOTE ON THE MATTER.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE WITH FULL VOTING AUTHORITY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY POSTS? HEARING NONE, WE WILL SEE YOU AT RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE. THAT INCLUDES OUR OLD BUSINESS,

[I. Old Business]

FOR ALL BUSINESS WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

WE WILL START WITH DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00166 OA: HOA RENTAL RESTRICTIONS AMENDMENT. THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO REQUIRE THAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION GOVERNING DOCUMENTS ALLOW CHANGES TO RENTAL RESTRICTIONS WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS. FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE

CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION. >> GOOD EVENING, ADRIAN KEELING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.

AS YOU RECALL, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT LAST MONTH .

THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PURPOSE IS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR FUTURE OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS TO AMEND THEIR COVENANTS SPECIFICALLYRELATING TO RENTAL RESTRICTIONS .

THE INITIAL PROPOSAL AND CURRENT PROPOSAL IS SIMPLY ADDING A PARAGRAPH TITLED AMENDMENT OF COVENANTS TO UDO SECTION 7.20 OWNERS ASSOCIATION STANDARDS.

THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INITIAL PROPOSAL IS NOT RIVETING INFORMATIONAL GRAPHIC CONTENT, IT IS TAXED.

THE HIGHLIGHTED SENTENCE NEAR THE END OF THAT PARAGRAPH HIGHLIGHTS THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE.

THERE WERE QUESTIONS RELATING TO WHAT CONSTITUTES THE MAJORITY. WE HAVE ADDRESSED THAT.

THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS 50%. WE HAD CLARIFY THAT THE MAXIMUM CONSENT REQUIRED SHOULD BE 50% +1 TO REPRESENT THE MAJORITY.

NOW THE QUESTION WAS RELATED TO WHETHER THIS WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND IF THERE WERE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF APPLYING THIS TO COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISIONS. WE HAD ADDED A SENTENCE AT THE END JUST MAKE SURE THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISIONS. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THIS SECTION APPLIES TO MULTIPLE TYPES OF SUBDIVISIONS WHETHER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS OR COMMERCIAL OR TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISIONS. WE ARE SPECIFICALLY STATING IN CASE THERE ARE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, THIS SHOULD NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIALSUBDIVISIONS .

THE FINAL POINT OF DISCUSSION LAST MONTH WAS RELATING TO THE DIRECTIONAL NATURE OF THE RENTAL RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED, WHETHER IT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE SUBDIVISION THAT MIGHT WANT TO DECREASE OR REMOVE RENTAL RESTRICTIONS RATHER THAN INCREASE OR IMPOSE RENTAL RESTRICTIONS.

WE DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO SPECIFY THAT.

IN THE END, THE OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS WILL BE THE ONES THAT NEED TO DRAFT AND AGREE UPON WHAT THE ACTUAL RENTAL RESTRICTIONS ARE. WE THOUGHT THAT WAS BEST LEFT IN THE HANDS OF THE OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS THEMSELVES.

THIS REVISION THIS MONTH THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ADDRESSES THE

[01:10:06]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION

MEMBERS? >> IF THIS MOVES FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL APPROVES IT, WOULD THERE BE A WAY THAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE GET OUT TO THEM RIGHT AWAY SO THEY CAN BE PROACTIVE ABOUT THIS?

>> I INTENDED TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS BECAUSE THIS IS ANEW PROVISION . WE CAN WORK WITH NEW SUBDIVISIONS AS THEY ARE COMING IN TO MAKE SURE THAT IS COVERE , BUT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THATAPPLIES TO EXISTING

SUBDIVISIONS . >> I FORGOT, THANK YOU.

>> COUNSELOR AASEN? >> LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM

RENTALS ARE COVERED, RIGHT?>> WE ALREADY HAVE PROVISIONS IN THE UDO FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPROVALS.

THAT IS A SEPARATE MATTER BUT IN TERMS OF THE COVENANT FOR A SUBDIVISION, THAT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE SUBDIVISION ITSEL

. >> ANY KIND OF RENTAL?

>> I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU SEND THIS TO THE COUNCIL FOR

ADOPTION. >> 1:25 MINUTE BECAUSE I HAVE ONE QUESTION. SENTENCES MAY NOT REQUIRE THE CONSENT OF 50+1 - - IS ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE PROVISIONS ALREADY.T SAYS ON THE I AM WONDERING IF THIS IS THE MAY NOT REQUIRE THE CONSENT MORE THAN 50% +1 TO AMEND PROVISIONS OR CREATE NEW PROVISIONS RELATING TO RENTAL RESTRICTIONS. SHOULD IT BE ALL OF THE THING OR IS IT SUFFICIENT TO SAY AMEND PROVISIONS? IT IS WORKING UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED BUT THEY ARE ALL NEW NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS THE OTHER ASKED.

AS A CITY DEPARTMENT, EVERY TIME A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD COMES IN, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A RENTAL RESTRICTION IN THE DOCUMENTS? THIS MIGHT DEFINE AS WRITTEN, BUT I WANT TO TALK OUT LOUD. TO SAY AMEND PROVISIONS AND/OR CREATE NEW PROVISIONS RELATED TO RENTAL RESTRICTIONS.

TO CLARIFY, WE DO NOT INTEND TO FORCE NEW NEIGHBORHOODS TO HAVE RENTAL RESTRICTIONS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS IN THEIR HANDS AND CREATED THE WAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHOOSES TO CREATE DOCUMENTS, OR THE DEVELOPER IN MANY INSTANCES.

RELATING TO YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC WORDING.

>> MAYBE THIS IS MORE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL COUNCIL FROM A DRAFTING PROVISION. YESTERDAY?

>> I'M TRYING TO GET SEQUENCING.

NEW NEIGHBORHOOD ADOPTS COVENANTS BUT AFTER THEY HAVE ADOPTED THEIR COVENANTS, THEY CAN STILL GO AND AMEND THE COVENANTS. WITH THE WORDING RE-CREATE OR AMEND? IF THIS APPLIES TO NEW NEIGHBORHOODS, OR NEW DEVELOPMENTS, DOES IT ALSO MEAN THAT THEY DOUBT THEIR COVENANTS AND TWO CHEERLEADERS THEY WANT TO GO AND AMEND THEIR COVENANT ? THIS WOULD APPLY RETROACTIVELY? IF SO, THE WORDING TO AMEND WOULD BE ALL RIGHT. IF INDEED THAT IS THE INTENT TO

INCLUDE THIS PROVISION IN IT. >> THAT COULD BE A SCENARIO WHERE A DOCUMENT IS CREATED WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS AND AT A LATER POINT THEY DECIDE TO CREATE RESTRICTIONS OR AMEND

[01:15:10]

THE RESTRICTIONS. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WITH

THE WORD CREATES AND/OR AMEND. >> I CAN ADDRESS THAT.

MOST SUBDIVISIONS, THE INITIAL COVENANTS ATTRACTED BY THE DEVELOPER AND ONCE IT IS TRANSFERRED TO AN INCH AWAY, IF THERE ANY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATED TO RENTAL RESTRICTIONS, THE HOA WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO AMEND THEM WITHOUT REQUIRING A MAJORITY. THAT WAS THE INITIAL INTENT, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE FINE TO ADD THE CREATE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT EVEN AT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE, IT WOULD STILL BE IN THE COVENANTS THEMSELVES.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. DOES EVERYONE SUPPORT THAT

CHANGE? >> YES, MADAM CHAIR, I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND MAKE A NEW MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE 00166 AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS UP THERE WITH THE ADDITION OF "TO CREATE AND/OR AMEND". I WOULD DEFER TO COUNCIL TO PUT THE AND THE SPECIFIC WORDING THAT YOU WANT, BUT THE INTENT OF MY MOTION IS TO CREATE AND/OR AMEND, AND SEND IT TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.

>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF SENDING THIS REVISED RENTAL RESTRICTION STANDARD TO CITY COUNCIL? PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.

WE WILL SEND THIS ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. THE SPRING JUST TO OUR LAST ITEM OFOLD BUSINESS . IT IS THERE WITH ME, THIS IS A LOT TO REGION. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00136 DP/ADLS: THE EDGE AT WEST CARMEL WITH THOSE EXPERIENCES.

DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00157 V: UDO SECTION 2.24: MIN. LOT AREA 5,000 SQ. FEET PER MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, 2,899 SQ. FEET REQUESTED. 4. D DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00158 V: UDO SECTION 5.28: 540 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, 394 REQUESTED. 5. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00159 V: UDO SECTION 2.24: MAX LOT COVERAGE 40%, 50% REQUESTED.

6. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00160 V: UDO SECTION 3.88(C): 20B HEIGHT ALLOWED ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL; 27B REQUESTED. 7. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00161 V: UDO SECTION 3.88(D): BUILDINGS FACADES 90B GREATER IN WIDTH SHALL HAVE OFFSETS NOT LESS THAN 8B 8. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00162 V: UDO SECTION 3.96(B): MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK 52.5B ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, 40B APPLICANT SEEKS SITE PLAN AND DESIGN APPROVAL AS WELL AS VARIANCES FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH ANPARTMENT COMPLEX (252 UNITS), AND ONE FUTURE COMMERCIAL OUT-LOT. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 11335 N.ICHIGAN ROAD. IT IS ZONED B-3/BUSINESS AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE US 421 OVERLAY ZONE. FILED BY RICK LAWRENCE WITH NELSON AND FRANKENBERGER, LLC, ON BEHALF OF REI REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC. JOHN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I AM WENDY'S PROFESSIONAL WITH THE LAW FIRM - -. WE REPRESENT THE APPLICANT AND THE PETITIONER'S REI REAL ESTATE HERE ON THEIR BEHALF THIS EVENINGIS MIKE WELLS, PRESIDENT OF REI .

IN ORDER TO ALLOW THIS REDEVELOPMENT, REI HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS STATED TO

[01:20:06]

THAT IS THE INTERSECTION LOCATED RIGHT HERE.THE SECOND CONDITION WAS FINAL APPROVAL FROM CARMEL ENGINEERING.

- - INCLUDES THE CROSSWALK AS CUSTOMARY.

REGARDING THE ENHANCEMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PLAN SINCE FIRST HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN AUGUST, THOSE INCLUDE THE LOCATION OF BUILDING ONE PROPOSES A THREE-STORY BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO A TWO STORY BUILDING.

THIS CHANGE RESULTED IN A NUMBER OF UNITS BEING REDUCED TO 252 CURRENTLY PROPOSED 238 DRAWINGS.

IDENTITY OF 13.7 UNITS PER ACRE.

THE CURRENT DENSITY IS LOWER THAN IDENTITY REQUESTED AND LOWER THAN THE DENSITY OF OTHER NEARBY APARTMENT COMMUNITIES.

THAT AND SIGNIFICANTLY IN SOME CASES AS THOSE RANGE BETWEEN 14 AND 38 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. I HAVE A HANDOUT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL LIKE IT.

TAB 11 CALLS OUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS AND AS ORIGINALLY PROVIDED, PLEASE WITH THE OTHER, BUT ELEMENTS CARMEL DEVELOPMENTS. WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT THE THREE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITIES OPPOSITE 421 OF THE SITE AS WELL AS THE SILO WHICH IS CLOSER TO AN UNDER DEVELOPMENT AT U.S. 421 AND 116TH STREET. THE GREATEST INTENSITY IS THE SILO AT 3.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THE CLOSEST AND RANGE THE PROPOSED IS THE RESERVE AT 14.9 BUT AGAIN THIS PROPOSAL IS AT 13.7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WITH A TOTAL OF 238 DRAWINGS. IN ADDITION TO THE REDUCTION AND NUMBER OF UNITS, THE APPLICANT INCREASE THE PARKING COUNT FROM 401 406. THE LOCATION OF THE DOG PARK AND ORIGINALLY PROPOSED HERE ADJACENT TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL OPPOSITE THE SITE WAS RELOCATED AND IS NOW OVER HERE TO THE ADJACENT ROADWAYS AS WELL AS 421 AND THE POLLINATOR HABITAT HAD BEEN MOVED TO THE SOUTHERN LOCATION ALONG THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE SITE PLAN. ENHANCED LANDSCAPING WAS A PRIMARY DISCUSSIONPOINT AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING .

PRESERVATION OF ALL NONINVASIVE TREES THAT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH CONTRACTION WAS ADDED. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE TREES, REI ALSO ADDED A RETAINING WALL ON THE SOUTH PERIMETER, EXCUSE ME, NORTH PERIMETER OF THE POND SO THE FENCE COULD BE POSITIONED ENTIRELY ALONG THE PERIMETER BUT MAINTAIN A 25 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NORTH PERIMETER ALONG THAT SEGMENT.WE ALSO PROVIDED IN LARGE PART FOR DETAILS REGARDING THE COLOR CODING AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED TREES AND NEW TREES ALONG WITH PHOTOS OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE AT INSTALLATION FIVE YEARS OUT.

THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE IN SOME LENGTH.

OFFICER DETAILS REGARDING ONE OF THE VARIANCES THAT WERE UNDER REQUEST, FURTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED REGARDING THE RELIEF APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THREE-STORY BUILDINGS ON THE SITE.

SITE AMENITIES ARE FOR THE DIGIT UNDER TAB SEVEN AND FINALLY, THE COMMITMENTS ROTATED UNDER TAB EIGHT INCLUDED IN YOUR BROCHURE UPDATING USES, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT AWAY AS I DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY.

REQUIREMENTS TO INSTALL THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK AND BICYCLE MAINTENANCE. IN CONCLUSION, THE AFRICANS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO ADDRESS ALL ITEMS THE CONDITIONING COMMITTEE HAVE REQUESTED. AS A RESULT OF THAT REQUESTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO SEND THE REQUEST BACK TO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION IS INDICATED WITH HUMANA'S

[01:25:02]

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER ADOPTION - - BEHIND TAB EIGHT COMMISSION ON MENTAL ENGINEERING WHICH IS CUSTOMARY, WE WERE THERE FOR REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST THIS EVENING. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE A

REPORT? >> YES, THANK YOU.

ALEXI LOPEZ WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.T THIS TIME, THE PETITIONER HAS ADDRESSED ALL OF OUR OUTSTANDING COMMENTS. NEED TO RECEIVE FINAL APPROVAL INCLUDING THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT .

THEY WENT THROUGH SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AND JOHN MENTIONED THIS EVENING THAT IN GENERAL WE DO BELIEVE THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE WITH RESIDENTIAL TRANSITIONING WITH TWO STORY BUILDINGS NEXT TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING CLOSER TO 421. AS WE ALL KNOW, IT IS A VERY LARGE FROM A BUSY ROAD. WE ARE TRANSITIONING DOWN FROM COMMERCIALTHREE-STORY APARTMENT, TWO STORY APARTMENTS . WITH THAT, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE TO APPROVE THOSE ITEMS EVENING WITH THE COMMITMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONDITIONED UPON FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVALS THROUGH PROJECT TAX. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS BROUGHT ABOUT COMMITTEE BUT THE EXISTING COMMITTEE COMMITMENTS TO NOT GO AWAY. YOU'RE JUST APPROVING THE USE AND THIS COMMITMENT ON TOP OF THOSE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

I WOULD JUST ADD FOR THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE WEATHER COMMITMENTS WERE DRAFTED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL VOTE. IT IS NOT GOING TO CITY COUNCIL BEYOND THAT. DO YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL

COMMITTEE REPORT? >> THANK YOU.

ALEXIA PRETTY MUCH SUMMED UP THE MAJOR CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THIS PETITION. WE DID GET A MINOR REDUCTION FROM 252 UNITS TO 238. BUT, IF YOU LOOK UNDER TAB 11 NUC, I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS FOR MINUTES. IF YOU SEE HOW MANY UNITS ARE ACROSS THE STREET WITH THE PITMAN PROPERTY, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET ON BENNETT PARKWAY, THAT'S OVER 1100 UNITS BEING BUILT ON 421. AS FAR AS THE COMMITTEE GOES, I DON'T THINK EITHER ONE OF YOU BROUGHT THIS UP, BUT IT WAS A CONCERN THAT ANY AND ALLFUTURE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY HAVE COMMITTED TO MANAGE FOREVER ANY AND ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIAL INSTALLED BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE PROPERTY LINE.

THAT WAS A MAJORCONCERN THAT THEY DID .

I BELIEVE WE GOT BRAD'S QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN THE FULL MEETING ON THE LINE OF SIGHT AND HOME TO PROPERTY.

WE SAW THAT, THE DENSITY COUNTS WE GOT FOR THE NON-URBAN DEPARTMENTS WERE ALL ASKED BY HIM.

CHRISTINE, YOU HAD EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT WANTING MORE TREE PRESERVATION INSIDE THE FENCE AND THEY HAD BEEF THAT UP A FAIR AMOUNT. YOU WOULD ASK FOR POLLINATOR FOR ALL FOUR SEASONS. JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHO WAS MAINTAINING OUTSIDE THE FENCE WHICH WE HAD ANSWERED.

THE BASE WAS REMOVED AT THE POND AND THEY WANTED MORE AMENITIES AND ADDED UP HERE AND BEAT UP THE PASS ALONG THERE.

THEY ALSO HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 21 WHICH THEY COMMITTED TO. WE ALSO REVIEWED THE COMMERCIAL USES. WE THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD REALLY PULLED THEM DOWN TO VARY FEW BASED ON WHAT THATAREA COULD BE . BRAD AND I BOTH HAD CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT PART WELL AROUND THE BUILDINGS BECAUSE THEY HAD THESEPARKING GARAGES IN THE BACK . I DON'T THINK WE GOT ANY RESOLUTION TO THAT, BUT WE DID GET THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING BECAUSE I WANT TO SAY AGAIN HOW MANY APARTMENTS ARE GOING TO BE

ON MICHIGAN ROAD SHARES. >> THANK YOU SUE, SOUND LIKE YOU DID A LOT OF WORK. I WILL OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

SO, I HAVE, I KNOW I BROUGHT THIS UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN,

[01:30:06]

IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE EXTERIOR AS IT IS NOT REALLY PART OF IT. I AM NOT IN THE CALCULATION OF ERROR YET TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH THAT IS, BUT IF IT IS THE PERCENT LOT COVERAGE, WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO FEEL LIKE THE RESIDENTS LIVING THERE WITH SO MUCH OF IT BLOCKED BY THAT FENCE? WILL IT FEEL MORE LIKE 60% LOT COVERAGE? YOU'VE GOT SO MUCH ABOUT ALL THE NEW PLANTINGS AND TREES ARE COMPLETELY BLOCKED.

I'M OKAY WITH THE FENCE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT MORE IN AND OUT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT IS A LOT OF GREEN SPACE THAT IS CUT OUT FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. WHEN YOU'RE REQUESTING INCREASED LOT COVERAGE, WHAT IS IT ACTUALLY GOING TO COLLECT

THE RESIDENTS OVER THERE? >> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SPEAK TO THE THOUGHTS OF THE RESIDENCE I CAN SPEAK TO END THE FUTURE, BUT THE PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE AND PROVISION OF THE ORIGINAL LANDSCAPING WAS DONE TO HELP MITIGATE THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE RESIDENCE TO THE SOUTH AND NORTH FOR THEIR BENEFIT.

IT IS A BUFFER YARD. THE INTENT OF THE BUFFER YARD IS TO PROVIDE THE TRANSITION TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE BENEFIT OF THE BUFFER YARD DOES FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. IT DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR PROVIDING IT. THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE TRANSITION AND SCREENING TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, AND ON THE INTERIOR. HAVING SAID THAT, I CAN TELL YOU ON THE COMMITTEE MEETING, WE SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TALKINGABOUT WAS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE .

THAT TO THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH.

TO THE NORTH AND EAST IN PARTICULAR, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS COLORED ILLUSTRATION. ON THE BACKEND OF TAB NINE OF THE DETAILS LANDSCAPE ENGINEERING'S THAT SHOW THE VICINITY OF THE POLLINATOR GARDEN.

SOUTH, MORE PROXIMATE TO BUILDING 11 THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS THAT WHILE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE ORDINANCE, THEY ARE STILL PROVIDED BECAUSE WE WANTED TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE WHICH WILL BE TOO THE BENEFIT OF NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS ALONG THE PERIMETER BUT THOSE ON SITE AS WELL THAT EXCEED THE PAINTING REQUIREMENTS.

WE WERE ALSO ASKED BY STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE ADJACENT TO THE UNITS AND AREAS WAS PLANTINGS IN THE INTERNAL AREA OF THE SITE OF THIS VICINITY HERE.

THAT WOULD BE A RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I GUESS THAT WANTS TO MAKE, I DID NOT STAY INCOMMITTEE . I VOTED TO APPROVE THIS IN COMMITTEE, BUT I REALLY WISH THIS WAS GOING TOTHE COUNCIL .

CARAMELS MISSION IN BUILDING MULTIFAMILY UNITS IS STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN HOUSING. IT IS TO BUILD PEOPLE WANTED TO DOWNSIZE AND PEOPLE YOUNG, URBAN PROFESSIONALS.

THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT TO ME DOES NOT SEEM TO MEET THE CRITERIA. I DON'T FEEL IT MEETS THE OTHER CRITERIA WHICH ASKED AT THE BEGINNING, WAS THERE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO WE COULD PERHAPS HELP THOSE IN THE CITY THAT ARE IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY.

IT KIND OF FALLS INTO THAT AREA OF MORE APARTMENTS.

AGAIN, I WISH THE COUNCIL COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

I KNOW THEY CAN'T. IN THE BIG PICTURE, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS APARTMENTS. IT IS A DIFFICULT DECISION.

>> DEBBIE, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, IF YOU HAVE A MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A STATEMENT THAN A MOTION.

WHEN THIS FIRST CAME TO THE COUNCIL OR COMMISSION, IT WAS NOT APPROVED. THEN A YEAR LATER THEY CAME BACK WITH THE PROPOSAL. THE NUMBER OF UNITS NOW ARE LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THAT WAS DENIED AND CERTAINLY LESS THAN THE REVISED PROPOSAL THAT THEY CAME BACK WITH.

WE HAD A NUMBER OF CONCERNS AND I WILL GESTATE THAT I WAS CLEAR ABOUT THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD THAT HAD TO BE ADDRESSED FOR

[01:35:03]

THE BIGGER ISSUES ARE THINGS THAT ARE CONCERNS BUT I DO NOT THINK THEY ARE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE DECISION WE NEED TO MAKE TONIGHT AND THAT IS TO APPROVE THE REVISED PLAN AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED. ONE OTHER COMMENT I WILL MAKE, CORRECT ME WITH THE NAME OF THIS, THE HAMILTON COUNTY OBTAINABLE HOUSING FORUM, WHATEVER THE NAME IF THAT IS.

ANYWAY, HAMILTON COUNTY HAS A HUGE DEFICIT OF OBTAINABLE HOUSING AND THE ARE USING THAT TERM AS OPPOSED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.I WILL JUST SAY THAT ALL THE CONCERNS THAT I PERSONALLY RAISE IN THE COMMITTEE MEMBER RAISED WAS ADDRESSED SO IMPROVED TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AS BEEN

REVISED ANDPRESENTED TONIGHT . >> BEFORE I SECOND, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENTS.

HAVING SAT IN THE PETITIONER SEAT, WE HAVE PUT THIS GROUP TO THE RINGER WITH REQUESTS AND I THINK IT IS PRETTY AMAZING HOW MANY CONCESSIONS WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTED AND CAME BACK WITH - - HAPPILY VOTING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

I WILL SECOND. >> IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? CONGRATULATIONS, IT IS APPROVED FIVE ÃONE.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

MEET

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.