Nov 19, 2024 Carmel Plan Commission

[A. Call Meeting to Order]

[00:00:14]

>> GOOD EVENING. THE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024 MEETING OF THE CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION IS IN ORDER. I ASK THAT WE ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

[C. Roll Call]

ROLL BEING CALLED ] >> GREAT, THANK YOU, WE HAVE A

[D. Declaration of Quorum]

QUORUM. >> PRESIDENT, BEFORE WE MOVE ON WITH THE AGENDA, I WILL INTERRUPT QUICKLY. SO, I HAVE JUST LEARNED SOME SAD NEWS. THAT OUR PRESIDENT, AFTER 17 YEARS OF SERVICE, BRAD GRABOW WILL STEP DOWN FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE END OF THIS YEAR IF WE CANNOT CONVINCE HIM TO HANG ON A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

UNFORTUNATELY, HE HAS A CONFLICT FOR OUR NEXT MEETING IN DECEMBER , SO THIS IS IT. THIS IS HIS LAST MEETING THAT HE WILL BE SERVING AS PRESIDENT. AND WHILE THERE WILL BE A MORE FORMAL THANK YOU AT AN UPCOMING MEETING, I WANT TO JUST PAUSE AND HAVE ALL OF US HERE SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATED SERVICE, FOR YOUR COMMITMENT, TO OUR CITY, FOR THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT SUCH GREAT WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE TO ALL OF THESE MEETINGS, SO MANY PROJECTS OVER THE YEARS, SO MUCH BETTER, BUT MOSTLY, THANK YOU FOR SUCH AN OUTSTANDING JOB AS PRESIDENT. THESE MEETINGS ARE NOT AN EASY TASK. YOU HAVE DONE IT VERY WELL. YOU HAVE SET A VERY HIGH STANDARD FOR LEADERSHIP. WITHOUT A DOUBT, YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMISSION WILL INDOOR FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. WE WILL MISS YOU. BUT THANK YOU. YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK. SO, THANK YOU, BRAD. YES, SUE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY

SOMETHING? >> I AM HEARING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME. I WANT TO SAY AFTER 17 YEARS OF SITTING HERE WITH YOU, I WANT TO THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE VOICE OF CALM, YOU TAKE THE HIGH ROAD, PROFESSIONAL, NO MATTER WHAT THE DISCUSSION, AND IT WILL BE A BIG LOSS.

>> YOU CANNOT LEAVE. I AM SORRY. YOUR INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE IS , I DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE WORDS TO SAY IT. SO, LOSING YOU WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. I THINK WHAT I WILL DO WILL GO TO COUNSEL, RESOLUTION, AN ORDINANCE THAT PUTS YOU IN COMMISSION FOR PERPETUITY.

>> I THINK THAT IS COMPLETELY REASONABLE. I WANT TO ECHO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, AS I HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR WHAT FEELS LIKE SINCE I WAS 12, AS WE WERE DISCUSSING MOMENTS AGO, YEARS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE LIKE DOG YEARS. YOU HAVE TAUGHT ME SO MUCH. AND ECHOING WHAT MANY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID, BEING THE VOICE OF REASON IN THE VOICE OF CALM, BEING ABLE TO REALLY GET IN ON THE DETAILS WITHOUT GETTING IN THE WEEDS, I MEAN, YOUR EXPERTISE IS REALLY UNPARALLEL. APART FROM BEING A SHARP DRESSER, YOU ARE A GREAT GUY. YOU WILL BE DEEPLY MISSED, NOT JUST BY THIS WHOLE COMMISSION, BUT BY THE CITIZENS AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU. >> IT IS A FINE LINE BETWEEN BEING AN INSTITUTION AND BEING INSTITUTIONALIZED. AND I DO NOT WANT TO TEST THAT LINE. BUT 17 YEARS AGO, DURING THIS TIME , WE HAVE SWITCHED FROM A ZONING ORDINANCE TO A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, WE HAVE REWRITTEN THE COVENANTS OF PLANS TWICE, WE PARTICIPATED IN THE HOUSING TASK FORCE THAT WILL LEAD TO POSITIVE CHANGE FOR THE CITY, THE CITY CENTER 17 YEARS AGO OF THE GROUND. THE "MOANAN" WAS JUST A PEDESTRIAN

[00:05:12]

IT IS A TESTAMENT TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THOSE WHO WERE 17 YEARS AGO HAVE GROWN TODAY. SO, ANYONE WHO THINKS THIS IS A COMPASS, IT IS THE HARD WORK OF THE CITY SERVICES AND WHOEVER IS FILLING UP THE SEATS HERE. THANK YOU, TO ALL OF YOU, IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE. NOW, WHERE WERE WE?

[E. Approval of Minutes]

>> MOVED TO ADJOURN. >> MINUTES FROM OUR LAST

MEETING. >> MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THE MOVEMENT OF

[G. Reports, Announcements & Department Concerns]

>> THANK YOU. I WILL JUST GO OVER OUR PROJECTS FROM COMMITTEE. THE PUD RE-ZONE THAT HAD AVAILABLE RECOMMENDATION BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT, 5-1. THE SPRING MILL SHOPS IS STILL TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 3RD. AND THE CU PD ORDINANCE IS COMING BACK TONIGHT. FAVOR IN ORDINANCE 6-0. THE OTHER ITEM WE HAVE FOR YOU, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC HEARING FOR TONIGHT, THAT ITEM IS TABLED. SO, IF ANYONE WAS HERE FOR THE REZONE ITEM, THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. AND THE THIRD THING I HAD WAS THAT WE PUT THE CALENDAR FOR 2000'S OF THE FIVE OUT FOR YOU ALL TO CHECK ON AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY DATE THAT WERE NOT GOOD. AND AFTER A FEW ROUNDS, WE THINK WE HAVE GOT EVERYTHING FIGURED OUT. ALL THE HOLIDAYS, MAJOR HOLIDAYS, ALL THE RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. FALL BREAK, SPRING BREAK , ALL OF THE THINGS. SO, IF YOU ARE GOOD WITH THE CALENDAR, WE ARE GOOD WITH IT AND WOULD LOVE TO APPROVE THAT FOR NEXT YEAR. THANK YOU.

>> RACHEL, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AN APPROVAL AT THIS POINT IN OUR MEETING AGENDA? OR DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THE COMMISSION UNTIL, SAY, MAYBE FRIDAY TO RESPOND WITH ANY CONCERNS? AND YOU CAN ACCEPT IF YOU DO NOT HEAR OBJECTIONS? THEN YOU CAN APPROVE THIS BY THE END OF THE WEEK?

>> WE COULD DO THAT. IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE

TIME TO LOOK AT IT. >> IF EVERYBODY IS COMFORTABLE?

>> SURE. >> WE CHANGED ONE DATE.

>> OCTOBER 21ST. >> YES. WE CHANGED IT FOR

DIWALI, TO NOT HAVE THAT. >> ONLY ONE OF THREE GROUPS

ABLE TO ATTEND MEETINGS. >> OH, I CHANGED -- I SEE IT.

THAT WAS CHANGED TO THURSDAY OF THE NEXT WEEK.

>> I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT IT TAKES TO LOOK AT ALL OF THAT. I

KNOW THAT IS NOT EASY. >> I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS REQUIRES FORMAL ACTION BY THE COMMISSION. I DO NOT HEAR OBJECTIONS TO THE DATE THAT ARE LAID OUT HERE.

>> WONDERFUL, THANK YOU. >> I THINK MIKE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE AN UPDATE ABOUT A HOUSING TASK FORCE.

>> YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND BEFORE I START, I WOULD ALSO, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, THANK YOU, MR. BRAD GRABOW FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE BEGINNING IN 2008 ON JULY 15TH, WITH SEVEN PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS THAT NIGHT. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS CHANGED A LOT -- RIGHT ON. SO, MANY OF YOU PROBABLY ARE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A MAYORS HOUSING TASK FORCE THAT STARTED WORK IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR. UNBELIEVABLY, HERE WE ARE IN NOVEMBER AND WE

[00:10:05]

[I.1. Docket No. PZ-2024-00028 PUD: Towne 146 PUD Rezone. ]

>> THANK YOU, MIKE. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL PROCEED TO THE OLD BUSINESS PORTION OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM THERE IS ROCKET DOCKET DE -- PUD TONE 146 PUD REZONE. IF APPLICANT THE EXCLUDED REZONE APPROVAL TO ALLOW A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD TO EXIST IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TOWNHOMES LOCATED AT 2275 WEST 146TH STREET WITH THE ZONING RESIDENTS. FILED ON BEHALF OF LINDA R HOLMES OF INDIANA LLC. SHAWNA, WELCOME. %

>> THANK YOU. WE REPRESENT THE PETITIONER ON OUR HOMES OF INDIANA. WITH US THIS EVENING IS CRAIG JENSEN, SEAN BLACKBURN, DAVID TIERNEY KYLE ACORN, THE PROJECT ENGINEER, AS WELL AS A COUPLE OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM. THIS IS OUR FIFTH MEETING COMING UNDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING BACK IN AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, AND NOVEMBER. THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS WHICH RESULTED IN STAFF INDICATING, AS A MOMENT AGO, A 6-1 FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO BRING US BACK IN FRONT OF THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WHERE WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMITTEE DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OR CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL. STEPH HAS IDENTIFIED THREE ITEMS AND EACH STAFF REPORT IS OUTSTANDING, WE SPOKE WITH STAFF FURTHER TODAY REGARDING THOSE THREE ITEMS AND ONE ADDITIONAL. ITEM ONE WAS TO ADDRESS REMOVAL OF THE REAR YARD DRAINAGE USAGES INTO THE WETLAND PRESERVATION AREA, THE NEXT WAS TO ADD AN ARCHITECTURAL PROVISION TO ADD CLARITY TO THAT ITEM. BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED TO SATISFACTION. THE LESSON FINAL ITEM WAS WITH REGARD TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEEDBACK ABOUT THE LIMITARY DRAINAGE REPORT. STAFF WAS COPIED ON AGENTS LITTLE FROM THEIR DEPARTMENT TO US, INDICATING THEIR SATISFACTION. AND THEY ALSO PROVIDED WITH A NET TRANSCRIPT TO STAFF THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE LARGER POND AND THEIR PREFERENCE TO SEE THAT POND BECAUSE OF THE WATER.

AND FINALLY, THE FOURTH MATTER WAS, AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING, THE COMMITTEE, THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS MENTIONED, AS NOTED BY STAFF IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND PERHAPS DISAGREEMENTS WITHIN THE TWO HOAS. AND WE WERE ASKED TO SEND OUT A COMMUNICATION, WHICH DID HAPPEN, THERE WAS A COMMUNICATION SENT OUT. THIS COMMUNICATION WAS SENT OUT FROM THE DEVELOPER, VIA EMAIL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS, AS WELL AS POSTED ON THEIR WEBSITE.

POULTRY IS THE DEVELOPER OF THE PLATINUM PROPERTIES, THE DEVELOPER OF THE REAL ESTATE. AND SHANNON MINNAAR RESTARTED THEM AFTER WE HAD THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING. WE DO NOT

[00:15:01]

WHERE FOLKS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT, WHETHER THAT IS TO THE FOLKS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE TRANSMITTAL TO THEM, OR STAFF. IN THE EVENT THAT THEY REACH OUT TO LINAAR STAFF . IN EXAMINING THAT ISSUE, YOU CAN SEE THE IMPLICATION OF THE POND EXPANSION. AND YOU CAN READ FROM THAT LETTER, THE POSITION IN REGARDS TO THE REQUEST, WHICH WAS POSITIVE, AND THEIR THOUGHTS ON IT. THE AREA WHERE IT SAYS RETENTION, THAT AREA IS ACTUALLY NOT IN A COMMON AREA.

IT WILL BE, THE TITLE TRANSFERRED TO THE H AWAY. IT IS OWNED BY THE HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. THERE IS AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE DEVELOPER AND SUBSEQUENT TITLEHOLDERS. TO PRESCRIBE HOW MAINTENANCE IS TO BE CONDUCTED ON THAT REAL ESTATE. EXPANSION OF THE POND WOULD ALSO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE LINAAR WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE DRAINAGE BOARD AND SEEK -- TO THE POND WHERE THEY SPECIFICALLY WILL BE SPELLING OUT THEIR OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE POND. SO, BECAUSE OF THAT UNIQUE SITUATION, WHERE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OWNS THAT REAL ESTATE, THE POTENTIAL FOR A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO HOAS IS GOING TO BE MITIGATED IF NOT ELIMINATED. BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE ULTIMATELY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHO OWNS THE REAL ESTATE THAT IS GOING TO DICTATE TO THOSE 2H AWAY GROUP ANY LAPSE, IF YOU WILL, OR POTENTIAL LAPSE IN MAINTENANCE OF THE OBLIGATIONS THAT THEY TAKE WHEN DEVELOPMENT OCCURS ON THE REAL ESTATE, WHICH WAS FIRST ON PLATINUM PROPERTIES, THE DEVELOPER ON THAT SIDE, AND IT WILL BE ON LINAAR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SPACE. WITH THAT, THOSE ARE THE SPECIFICS WITH REGARDS TO IS HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING. BUT I REALLY WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU WHERE WE HAVE BEEN, JUST TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME WHERE WE HAVE BEEN, FROM THE TIME WE WERE ORIGINALLY IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES MADE TO THE PLAN. MOST NOTABLY, IN REGARDS TO 2 COMPONENTS. ONE COMPONENT WAS THE ELIMINATION OF A COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER THAT WAS PLANNED FOR THE AREA THAT YOU SEE HER . AND THEN A REDUCTION FROM 93 TO 87 IN THE NUMBER OF HOMES, SO WE OCCUPIED THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE, WE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SOUTH PERIMETER AND WITHIN COMMON AREAS. +2 TREES AT THE END OF EVERY LOT ALONG THE SOUTH PERIMETER. THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT ADJUSTMENTS MADE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR, WHERE WE ADDED CONNECTIVITY TO THE PATH ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 146 STREET AND THE TURN INTO THE SITE, AT HIS DIRECTION. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THOSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, NOT ONLY TO HIS CONCERN, BUT ALSO TO STAFF IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING. ANOTHER ITEM, WHICH IS A 1ST FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL IN OUR EXPERIENCE, A FEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR RENTAL OCCUPANCY OF HOMES WITHIN THE SITE. LINAAR WORKED WITH A COUPLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TO COME UP WITH SPECIFICATIONS, SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE CONSIDERATION, AND WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING ABOUT RENTAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE REAL ESTATE THAT WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND IN PART OF THE ZONING, IF APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, SO THAT IS REALLY A FIRST IN OUR EXPERIENCE, I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS EXPERIENCE FOR A PETITIONER HAS AGREED, OR BEEN ASKED TO CONSIDER RENTAL RESTRICTIONS AS PART OF THE ZONING REQUEST. AND LINAAR WAS HAPPY TO DO THAT.

BUT, WITH THAT, I WILL BE GLAD TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISCUSSION THIS EVENING, WE WOULD RESPECT A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION BE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION IN CONSIDERATION, THAT MEETING WOULD TAKE PLACE, I BELIEVE THE FIRST MEETING WOULD OCCUR THE 16TH OF DECEMBER, THAT IS NOT A FINAL DECISION. IT IS THE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL, AND AND PROBABLY BACK IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL IN JANUARY. PLUS OR MINUS FOR ADOPTION CONSIDERATIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. I WOULD BE GLAD TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, JOHN. WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE, EXCUSE ME,

THE COMMITTEE REPORT. >> I THINK THAT JOHN PRETTY

[00:20:06]

MORE THOROUGH. >> THE DEPARTMENT REPORT?

>> THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, ALEXIA LOPID WITH DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES. PETITIONER HAS MADE SEVERAL CHANGES SINCE THIS WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO YOU, AND CHANGES EVEN SINCE THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF LASTING ITEMS, BUT THEY DID ADDRESS EVERYTHING SINCE THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING. WE CHECKED IT AND DOUBLE CHECKED IT, THEY SUBMITTED THE PUD AND ANY LAST MINUTE ITEMS. SUE COVERED A COUPLE OF THOSE. THEY ADDED ENTRIES, THE CONNECTION TO 146TH STREET, THEY DID ADD REQUIREMENT ON THE SIX UNIT TOWNHOME BUILDINGS AND SOME IMAGES AS WELL FOR THOSE, WHICH I THOUGHT IT LOOKED MUCH IMPROVED. AND WE DID GET CONFIRMATION FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE WETLANDS IN THE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT, SO THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT MOVING FORWARD. YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PUD. MULTIPLE ITEMS IN THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN, I BELIEVE, SUPPORT THIS, INCLUDING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND SUPPORTING -- THIS LOCATION ALONG A TYPICAL CORRIDOR, IT SERVES AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN PLACES AND IT ALLOWS FOR EXPANDED HOUSING OPTIONS. THE SITE DESIGN AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY, THE HEIGHT OF THE HOMES IN THE LANDSCAPE OF HER AREA ALLOW FOR A SENSITIVE TRANSITION FROM THE TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN, YOU KNOW, TO THE FOUR LANE 146TH STREET, THEY ADDED RENTAL RESTRICTIONS, WHICH WAS A BIG TOPIC AT COMMITTEE. AND SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND -- TO THE CITY COUNCIL IS MEETING COLLECT ON SAID, IT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR PUBLIC HEARING, IT ALSO DOES TO THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE A FINAL VOTE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, ALEXIA. DISCUSSION? FROM MEMBERS OF THE

COMMISSION? >> THINK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SENDING THE NOTICE OUT TO THE RESIDENCE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE AWARE. WHEN DID YOU SAY YOU SENT THIS OUT?

>> WE DID NOT. >> WHO DID?

>> PLATINUM PROPERTIES DID. >> YESTERDAY?

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU FOR LETTING THEM KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOU KEEPING IT FROM THE TIME HE GETS TO KNOW -- FROM NOW TO THE CITY COUNCIL, LET US KNOW IF YOU HEAR ANYTHING. YOU'RE GOING TO PLANT SOME EXTRA TREES.

ESTIMATE THE ADDITIONAL TREES WOULD BE IN THE VICINITY RIGHT HERE HERE THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE 10 ADDITIONAL TREES IN THE OPEN SPACE. WE DID INCLUDE THOSE ON THE PLAN. WE STARTED GETTING WITH OTHER REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PLANET STARTED GETTING WHERE WE DIMINISHED THE VISIBILITY ON WHAT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING UNDERNEATH.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU , MR. PRESIDENT. I WILL KEEP SAYING THAT MAYBE WILL STICK AROUND. OR MR. CHAIR. IN REGARDS TO THE BOARDWALK, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHO WOULD THEN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT BOARDWALK ON THIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT SOME OF US HAD, WHICH WE ADDRESS, WOULD BE, WOULD AMBLESIDE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

THAT? >> IT IS AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE EXISTING PUD. IT WOULD BE THE OBLIGATION LONG-TERM OF THE H AWAY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSIVELY.

>> I JUST THINK IT IS, IT NEEDED TO BE SAID OUT LOUD FOR THE RECORD. AND THEN, OF COURSE , WITH THE LANDSCAPING SURROUNDING THE PERIMETER ON OUR SIDE, ON THIS SIDE OF THE PROJECT, YOUR SIDE OF THE PROJECT, YOU GUYS HAVE SOME GREAT PLANS THAT LOOK FANTASTIC, SO I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT YOU PUT INTO THAT. I MEAN, OF COURSE, I AM ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT THE POND, BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE THE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT, WITH THE DRAINAGE, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY OUR ENGINEERING, AND RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNTY. I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. SO, THANK YOU.

[00:25:09]

>> PRESIDENT BRAD GRABOW , THE RESTAURANT CROSSING 146TH STREET CONNECTING TO 146, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT. AND THEN YOU DID NOT TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THE ADDITIONAL TREES PARALLEL ARE APPRECIATED AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ONE QUICK QUESTION. AT THE PARK, THERE ARE THESE LITTLE GRAY SQUARES IN FRONT, IS THAT WORKING OUT FOR THE PARK?

>> IT IS SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED ALONG THAT EDGE. AND I BELIEVE BECAUSE THIS IS SERVICED OUT OF THE WESTFIELD POST OFFICE, THE MAILBOXES WILL ALSO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE POSTMASTER. IT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR SOMEWHERE

IN THAT PARK SPACE. >> GOT YOU, OKAY. THAT IS ALL I HAD, MAYBE SOME OTHER DISCUSSION. BUT I WILL BRIEFLY SEND THIS ITEM WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.

>> RAD, I WANTED TO ASK ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION. CAN YOU CONFIRM FROM BACK IN THE BEGINNING WHAT THE PRICE RANGE OF THESE HOMES ARE? I KNOW WE ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO

AFFORDABLE HOUSING. >> THE HOMES ALONG THE SOUTH PERIMETER HERE WOULD BE FROM $350,000-$375,000 PRICE POINT.

THE HOMES IDENTIFIED HERE, THE ADDITIONAL 17, THOSE ARE $375,000-$400,000. AND IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE TOWNHOMES LOCATED HERE IN ORANGE WOULD BE IN A RANGE BETWEEN 325 AND 350.

>> THAT IS GREAT. THAT IS A LITTLE LOWER THAN CAME OUT IN THE BEGINNING. LOWER THAN WHAT I HAD WRITTEN DOWN. SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL SECOND IT WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE.

>> JOHN, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND ONE REALLY NITPICKY ITEM ON THE COMMITMENTS. IF I CAN FIND MY NOTES. ON PAGE TWO OF THE COMMITMENTS, SECTION 2 , THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IS AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE PUT A "PERIOD" AFTER THE WORD HOME IN THE LAST LINE OF THAT PARAGRAPH. AND THEN BY DOING SO, BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISING BEYOND JUST ONLINE WEBSITE, TO ANY KIND OF ADVERTISING OF RENTALS. I THINK THAT THE DEVIL HERE IS SHORT-TERM RENTALS, NOT HOW SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE ADVERTISED.

>> SO, PROHIBIT, I AM SORRY. I DESCRIBED THE PERIOD GOING IN THE WRONG PLACE. BUT THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE, YEAH, THANK YOU.

AND I LOVE THE IDEA THAT THIS IS PART OF THE CCR. IF AT SOME POINT OR FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE HOMEOWNER, THE COLLECTIVE WILL OF THE HOMEOWNERS IS TO LIFT THAT RESTRICTION, THEN THEY HAVE THE POWER TO MODIFY THEIR OWN CCR.

>> I AM LOOKING AT JIM BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW THAT WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. DOES THE H AWAY HAVE THE AUTHORITY LATER?

>> MAY I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT?

>> OKAY, I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR, THIS IS AN OBLIGATION THAT PROVIDES TURNING OVER TO THE H AWAY. IF THERE IS A CHANGE MADE, IT STATES ON PAGE FOUR OF THE COMMITMENTS, MODIFICATION AND COMMITMENTS, CONTINUING IN EFFECT UNTIL MODERATED OR TERMINATED -- LET ME SLOW DOWN. THESE COMMITMENTS SHALL ONLY BE MODIFIED OR TERMINATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF CARMEL'S EDOP I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. I WAS CERTAIN HEADED IN THERE --

>> IT IS NOTHING AS COMPLEX AS HAVING TO MODIFY THE DEEDS OF

87 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES? >> NO.

>> OKAY, GREAT. NOW, ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, MAYBE THE COMMITTEE LOOKED AT THIS. BUT THERE IS NOT A WALKWAY OR A SIDEWALK ON THE SIDE OF WHAT I WOULD CALL THE PRINCIPAL

[00:30:07]

ENTRANCE. >> IS THERE A GREAT ISSUE OR A DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT PREVENTS THERE BEING A SIMILAR PATH ON

THAT SIDE OF THE STREET? >> THIS IS THE PATH ALONG THE ROAD THAT EXISTS TODAY. AND IT CROSSES OVER AROUND THE ROUNDABOUT AND COMES UP LIKE THIS. IF YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT ONE BE ADDED HERE, AND THE THOUGHT IS THAT IT WOULD JUST BE DONE INTO CROSSING OVER AND COMING UP THE PATH HERE, AND THEN HERE IS THE CONNECTION ACROSS TO THIS.

>> I WAS THINKING FOR THE VERY FIRST INTERSECTION.

>> RIGHT, JUST ABOUT THERE. YES.

>> WELL, ANOTHER THING WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS ELIMINATE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE WERE PEOPLE PRESSING ON THE CURVE, SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY SILANE ISSUES. THE MOST VISIBLE SPOT FOR THE CROSSING WOULD BE THE CROSSING ON THE TOWN ROAD, WHICH EXISTS TODAY, AND THEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT HAVING THIS LOCATED OVER HERE, BUT THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING AROUND THIS BAND WITH LESSER TIME TO SEE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT. WE WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE PRIMARY PLAT IN THE COMING MONTHS. AND, CERTAINLY, SOMETHING WE CAN SCORE. WE ALSO HAVE A NARROW CROSSING THAT EXISTS THERE BETWEEN WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE COUNTIES, A RULE CROSS ACTION FOR THAT ROAD. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CULVERT THAT GOES UNDER THE STREET IS RIGHT HERE. I DO NOT WANT TO GET IN A SITUATION, WE ADD A SECOND CONNECTION HERE THAT ADD SOME EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSE THAT WE WERE NOT THINKING ABOUT, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE IF IT WAS ACCEPTABLE IF WE COULD CONSIDER IT AND

ADDRESS IT AT THIS PLAT. >> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT YOU ARE IN THE POSITION TO BE ABLE TO OUTLAST ME ON THIS ISSUE? WELL PLAYED, JOHN. WELL PLAYED. THE PUD TEXT ALLOWS FOR ONE SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE AT EACH ENTRY POINT, WHICH WOULD

BE FOUR IN NUMBER. >> THAT FEELS UNNECESSARY TO ME. THE COMMITTEE, LOOK AT THAT ISSUE.

>> I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE ONE MORE CONNECTION HERE. BUT I THINK IF THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT THAT, WE CAN MODIFY IT.

IT WOULD ONLY BE A PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION. THE FOURTH IS TOWARD THE ALLEY. AND I THINK WHAT WE WOULD HAVE, AT

BEST, A COLUMN WITH A LOGO. >> SO, IS THE FRONTAGE ROAD NOT CONSIDERED A PUBLIC STREET FOR PURPOSES?

>> THIS IS A CONNECTION TWO, CONNECTION THREE, CONNECTION FOR. WE DO NOT HAVE A SON HERE, BUT THE POTENTIAL IS FOR THIS ONE HERE, THERE, AND HER AT THIS INTERSECTION. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT WHAT I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO FULL-BLOWN, HERE IS THE SIGN, 34 SQUARE FEET, AND EACH ONE OF THE ENTRANCES, SO, I GUESS, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, IF WE COULD AGREE TO IT, IF IT WAS A SECOND AND THIRD, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO A COLUMN

WITH A LOGO. >> IT IS ALSO AN ISSUE THAT CAN BE EVALUATED BETTER, I THINK, WITH DP APPROVAL TOO. THANK YOU, I THINK IT WAS GEOFF'S REQUEST FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I AM GLAD TO SEE THE TWO CONNECTION POINTS ON 146TH STREET. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME NEGOTIATING ON THE DRAINAGE DITCH THERE. THANK YOU FOR ADDING THOSE. IF THERE WAS CONCERN AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL ABOUT THE POTENTIAL SUCCESS OR CHALLENGES TO THE SHARED MANAGEMENT OF THE RETENTION POND, ONE THOUGHT WAS THAT WE COULD GIVE THE PETITIONER TIME TO FLESH OUT THAT PLAN A LITTLE MORE FULLY . AND THEN AT THE POINT WHEN THEY COME BACK WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR WHATEVER STAGE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, HAT THE PARTIES INVOLVED, THE TWO HOAS, COULD COME TO US WITH A MORE CONCRETE PLAN THAT IS SATISFACTORY TO THIS GROUP. BECAUSE THAT RETENTION POND HAS

[00:35:05]

BUT WE DO NOT YET HAVE A SOLUTION FOR THAT CONCEPT. I DO NOT THINK IT IS A BAD CONCEPT, BUT WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT SOLUTION ULTIMATELY WILL LOOK LIKE. SO, I DO NOT KNOW IF THE DEPARTMENT FEELS THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OR AN IMPORTANT UNRESOLVED ISSUE, BUT I THINK MAYBE IF WE GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME AND WE SEEK A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE SOLUTION AT A LATER POINT IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS, WE CAN BE MORE CONFIDENT IN THAT SOLUTION.

>> MAY I ASK A QUESTION, TO YOUR POINT? JOHN, I THINK IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE COUNTY'S PURVIEW OVER THE POND AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT TWO HOAS, THAT MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT HELPFUL.

>> TONY IS THE OWNER OF THE REAL ESTATE. SO, IT IS NOT LIKE ONE PARTY IS HAVING A DISAGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY AND I HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE WILL MAINTAIN APPROVAL, BUT THE COUNTY HAS MORE AUTHORITY AND PROBABLY MORE, WOULD BE MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY WOULD BE IN PROPELLING AND AN ADJOINING OWNER IF THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT TAKING A POSITION NECESSARY. THAT IS ÚMY EDITORIAL. I THINK IT IS FAIRLY ACCURATE THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN THAT. BUT THE COUNTY ALREADY HAS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER BEING THE DEVELOPER AND FUTURE OWNERS, IF IT IS MANAGED BY THE AGE AWAY, TO MAINTAIN THAT SPACE, WHICH IS ON THE AMBLESIDE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. WHEN THIS GETS APPROVED BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH WOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE CAN UPDATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE UPDATE THAT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE HAS PROVIDED. BECAUSE IT ALSO HAS YOU COME BACK TO THE DRAINAGE BOARD, WHICH IS MADE UP OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL OF US TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION TO THE PLAN. AND WE WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AMBLESIDE ONTO THIS PARCEL. AND THEN IT WOULD BE CLEAR WHAT THE OBLIGATIONS ARE ON THAT SIDE, THE OTHER SIDE, THE COMBINATION OF SOME OF THE ONLY OTHER COMBINED THINGS AT THE AGE AWAY WOULD RESOLVE IN THE FUTURE IS IF THERE IS A NEED FOR SILT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE POND. THAT IS SOMETHING THE COUNTY LIKELY WOULD COORDINATE BETWEEN THE TWO AND BE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR TAKING ACTION ON IT, BECAUSE IT IS THERE REAL ESTATE. WE DO NOT HAVE A SITUATION WHERE I'VE GOT TO GO TO THE OTHER SIDE AND ASKED THEM TO ACCEPT A BILL FOR SOME ACTION WITH AN EXPECTATION OF BEING PAID. AGAIN, IT IS BACK TO THE COUNTY, NOT TO A

SEPARATE AGE AWAY. >> AND OTHER WORDS, THE COUNTY IS THE BIG STICK, BASICALLY IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? BECAUSE THE CONCERN THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND THAT WE ALL HAD WAS COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TWO HOAS, AND WHETHER THAT IS GOING TO, SO I'M GOING TO RELENT AND SAY, OKAY, LET'S GO THROUGH

THIS PROCESS. >> SO, WHAT IS TO PREVENT THE COUNTY FROM SAYING, HEY, WE ARE SEEING TOO MANY KIDS AROUND HERE, WE ARE GOING TO PUT UP A FOUR FOOT FENCE AROUND THIS

POND? >> WE WOULD BE IN THE SAME POSITION THAT ALL OTHER RETENTION FACILITIES TOLD BY HAMILTON COUNTY ARE. WE WOULD NOT HAVE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAN ANY OTHER SPACE. IT HAS NOT BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT THE COUNTY HAS DONE THAT. IT IS OUR EXPERIENCE THAT THE COUNTY, I DO NOT THINK THE COUNTY WOULD PREFER THAT, BUT I AM SPEAKING BECAUSE IT WILL ONLY MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT ASSIST SOMEBODY TO GET TO THAT SOMEBODY, IF THE SOMEBODY IS WANTING TO GET TO THE WATER, THEY WILL FIND THEIR WAY INTO

THE WATER. >> MR. PRESIDENT, I AGREE. THIS IS PROBABLY MY ONLY HANG UP ON THIS PROJECT, JUST THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THE COUNTY STANDS IN RELATION TO

[00:40:01]

>> WELL, THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING. BECAUSE I WANTED TO GET THE READ OF THE COMMITTEE. AND IT IS A NOVEL SOLUTION. AND NOT ONE THAT I WAS EXPECTING. BUT IT IS NOT A, IT IS NOT THE FINAL SOLUTION. IT DOES NOT EXIST YET. AND I THINK MAYBE NOW, INSTEAD OF WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER TWO HOAS CAN GET ALONG AND COMANAGE, AND CO-OWN THE POND, NOW WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN LIES AND WHERE THE MAINTENANCE LIES. BECAUSE NOW THERE ARE QUESTIONS, DOES THE COUNTY GET INVOLVED IN SILT REMOVAL? DOES THE COUNTY GET INVOLVED IN TREATING THE POND SO THAT THE WATER DOES NOT GET STAGNANT? YOU KNOW, WHO ALLOWS OR PROHIBIT FISHING AND OTHER ACTIVITIES AROUND THE POND? THE SAME ISSUES EXIST, NOW THERE IS A NEW PARTY THAT IS INVOLVED. BUT THE REST OF THE PROJECT , I AM VERY COMFORTABLE WITH. FRANKLY, I THINK YOU BROUGHT SOMETHING BACK THAT IS MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WE FIRST SAW.

SO I DON'T WANT TO HOLD THAT PIECE OF IT UP. BUT I AM FEELING LIKE I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE CERTAINTY ABOUT HOW THE POND IS GOING TO BE A SUCCESS LONG-TERM. BUT PERHAPS THAT IS A QUESTION THAT WHEN WE HAVE THIS COME TO A VOTE, WE CAN ALL ADDRESS THAT IN THAT WAY, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT HAS

AN IDEA? >> I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT I DID SPEAK WITH BOTH, ONE OF THE MEMBERS FROM THE HAMILTON COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE, AND OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. AND NEITHER OF THEM VOICED BIG CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING A SHARED POND. THERE WAS NOT, OH MY GOSH, WE SHOULD NOT DO THIS, WE HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, THIS WILL CAUSE A LOT OF ISSUES, THERE WAS NO BIG ISSUES THAT THEY POSED. AND I ALSO DID GET A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON COUNTY REGARDING THE AMBLESIDE POND AND HOW THE MAINTENANCE WAS WRITTEN IN THIS AGREEMENT. AND IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT AMBLESIDE SHOULD REQUIRE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RETENTION POND, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE MOWING, REMOVAL OF WEEDS, NO OTHER MATERIAL, NO SHAPE OF THE POND OR THE GRADE OF THE LAND AROUND THE POND SHALL OCCUR WITHOUT THEIR APPROVAL. IN THE NUMBER 11 STATES AT THE HAMILTON COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE INLETS AND OUTLETS OF THE POND AND ANY MAINTENANCE THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FLOW OF STORM WATER. SO, THIS IS THE AGREEMENT THAT IS IN PLACE FOR THE AMBLESIDE POND.

AND I AM COMFORTABLE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE COMBINED POND WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR AGREEMENT WHERE AMBLESIDE WOULD MAINTAIN THEIR EDGE OF THE POND AND TOWN 146PD WOULD MAINTAIN THEIR SIDE OF THE POND AND THE COUNTY WOULD HANDLE ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE TWO. WHEN I TALKED WITH THEM, THEY SAID WE HAVE SOME PONDS THAT ARE SHARED. USUALLY IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, THEY COME TO THE CITY AND SAY THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINING THEIR PART, AND THEN WE CAN GO OUT AND ENFORCE THAT.

>> THANK YOU. IT IS HELPFUL TO ME AT LEAST TO SEE THAT THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED AND ONE RESOLUTION ALREADY EXISTS AND ONE THAT AMBLESIDE HAS ADOPTED.

>> OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WILL BE STEPPING INTO THE SAME SHOES AS AMBLESIDE WHEN WE GO TO THE COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD ASKING FOR AUTHORIZATION TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY

NEGOTIATED WITH AMBLESIDE. >> THANK YOU, JOHN.

>> MR. CHAIR, YOU CANNOT QUITE HEAR THE NODDING FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. BUT MAYBE I CAN DO THIS ON THE SPOT AND MAYBE YOU

CAN ALSO WEIGH IN A LITTLE BIT. >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THIS IS A VERY COMMON SCENARIO, ACTUALLY. THE WAY THAT THE CITY DEALS WITH THE COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD, NUMBER ONE, IS THROUGH TEAM. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. THE SHARED PONDS, I CANNOT GIVE YOU STATISTICS HOW MANY OF THEM ARE THERE, BUT THEY CERTAINLY EXIST. YOU KNOW, OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT INTERACTS WITH THEM ROUTINELY. WE HAVE A PERSON IN THE

[00:45:04]

THAT. >> GREAT. THANK YOU.

>> TO YOUR POINT, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE, I MEAN, WOULD THERE BE SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT THE SILT, DREDGING, AND THAT TYPE OF THING? AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE WILL BE TWO GROUPS RESPONSIBLE, SO I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THERE IS --

>> THERE IS ANOTHER PROVISION. THIS IS A PROVISION FROM THE QUARRY PLAT. IT SPEAKS TO EROSION CONTROL, GOING AMONG THE BANKS, AQUATIC VEGETATION CONTROL, AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.

AGAIN, WE ARE NOT RE-CREATING THE WHEEL. WE HAVE RESEARCHED THIS AND FOUND THAT THIS IS WHAT THE COUNTY WILL REQUIRE THE SAME ACCOMMODATIONS FOR US TO ENSURE THAT -- AND THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WE WILL BRING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IN ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVAL OF THE PRIMARY PLAT IS THAT WE HAVE REQUIRED AUTHORIZATIONS THROUGH THE SURVEYOR'S OFFICE. SO, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SIDESTEP AN OBLIGATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE ARE ZONING, HERE IS AN IDEA OF WHAT I THINK WILL BE REQUIRED. BUT WHEN WE COME BACK, IT IS A TECHNICAL ISSUE OF THE REVIEW. AND I AM HEARING ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS. SO, IF TRITE HAS US ASSIST THEM WITH THE PRIMARY PLAT PLAN AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ENGINEER, WE WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON DRAINAGE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ASSURE YOU THAT ALL OF THESE CAPITALIZE HAVE BEEN DOTTED AND

T'S HAVE BEEN CROSSED. >> THANK YOU, JOHN. SO, A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED . SO, I WILL

RETURN TO THAT QUESTION. >> WAITS, WHAT WAS THE MOTION? DID YOU MAKE IT? IT WAS A WHILE AGO.

>> THE MOTION WAS TO SEND THIS ITEM TO COUNSEL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD PREFACE THAT BY SAYING WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BEING THE ADJUSTMENTS AS WE

REQUESTED. >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR OF MR. HILL'S MOTION, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ONE OPPOSED. FOR THE RECORD, DEBBIE CANNOT VOTE BECAUSE SHE IS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY. SO THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF

[I.2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00140 OA: Gramercy PUD Ordinance Amendment]

6-1. >> NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS PUC DASH 0204, GRAMMAR SEE YOU PD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE EXISTING PD LANGUAGE TO ALLOW AN URBAN RESIDENCE TOWNHOMES, MULTIFAMILY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTED MIXED-USE BUILDINGS. THE 32 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CITY CENTER DRIVE AND KINZER AVENUE, OR EIGHT 230 GULF SHORE DRIVE. THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY JIM SHIVER IN BEHALF OF BUCKINGHAM PROPERTIES LLC. JOHN

QUITE >> GIVE ME A SECOND. THIS REQUEST WAS HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST AT YOUR OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING. WE APPEARED AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING. THEY FORWARDED THE ITEM BACK TO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A 6-0 RECOMMENDATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE WITH THE STAFF, THAT DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE LAST WEEK. STAFF IDENTIFIED TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR CONSIDERATION REGARDING PROVIDING STAFF AND UPDATED ORDINANCE ON A REDLINE AND IDENTIFIES THOSE TWO ITEMS. THEY ARE BOTH ON PAGE FIVE OF

[00:50:03]

THIS ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY UP PROVED BACK IN 2006 , I BELIEVE, AND HAS SINCE BEEN MODIFIED A COUPLE OF TIMES. BUT THIS IS REALLY THE RESULT OF ALMOST A YEAR'S WORTH OF EFFORTS IN BUCKINGHAM TO MEET WITH NEIGHBORS, MEET WITH THE CITY, REACH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY ABOUT THE EXTENSION OF KINZER DOWN TO CARMEL DRIVE. AND WE CONTINUE AND FINISH UP THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODIFICATIONS ON THE REAL ESTATE. THIS EFFORT HAS REALLY BEEN TO CATCH THE PAPER UP WITH ALL THOSE NEGOTIATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS, AND EXPECTATIONS.

SO WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT WHEN THE MATTER COMES IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, THEY WILL LOOK TO STAFF TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PAPERWORK IS ALL IN ORDER, AND IT WOULD NOT BE LONG BEFORE THEY WOULD HAVE ADOPTION CONSIDERATION OR REQUEST, BECAUSE STAFF BELIEVES THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DISCUSSIONS AND AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REACHED PRIOR OR EARLIER THIS YEAR. WITH THAT, I WILL CONCLUDE.

>> THANK YOU, JOHN. I REMEMBER THAT DAY, JOHN, IT WAS A RAINY TUESDAY NIGHT. IT WAS A MONTH AFTER I LEFT.

>> THE COMMITTEE REPORT? >> DOESN'T THE DEPARTMENT REPORT COME FIRST? PETITIONER ANSWERED ALL OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING. I THINK THE DEPARTMENT CAN GET A MORE

THOROUGH REPORT. >> OKAY, I HEAR YOU. DEPARTMENT

REPORT? >> THANK YOU. RACHEL KIESLING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. WE DID HAVE TWO OUTSTANDING ITEMS THAT I DID NOT WRITE IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR YOU ALL. JUST TO GO BACK OVER IT A LITTLE BIT, THE SETBACK ISSUE WAS FROM CITY CENTER. IT HAD BEEN REDUCED TO 0. AND THAT WAS KIND OF A LAST-MINUTE CATCH. BUT IT DID NOT SEEM RIGHT THAT WE WOULD PUT THREE FOUR-STORY TOWNHOMES RIGHT ON TOP OF THE CITY CENTER DRIVE. SO, AFTER GOING BACK AND FORTH, WE WENT TO 5 FEET AND THEN DECIDED ON 10 FEET . THAT WAS THE MINIMUM THAT WE COULD AGREE TO. SO, THEY WERE ABLE TO MOVE THINGS AROUND AND FIGURE IT OUT IN ORDER TO GET US 10 ADDITIONAL FEET ALONG CITY CENTER DRIVE. SO, WE WILL HAVE A SETBACK OF 10 FEET MINIMUM ALONG CITY CENTER DRIVE. IT CAN BE MORE, BUT IT JUST CANNOT BE LESS. AND THE SECOND ONE IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT WAS A LEGAL THING THAT I HAD TO ASK SERGE ABOUT. JUST BECAUSE IF YOU MADE REFERENCE TO SOMETHING THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY DELETED THE REFERENCE TO, HOW DO YOU REFERENCE IT? AND SO NOW WE HAVE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT REINTRODUCES IT AS A REFERENCE , SO THAT WAS FIXED.

AND THEN JOHN SAID ABOUT THE IMAGES, I DO THINK THESE IMAGES ARE BETTER THAN THE ONES WE HAD LAST TIME. I WILL CAUTIOUSLY SAY THAT IMAGE NUMBER FOUR ON THE RIGHT IS A LITTLE OUT THERE, BUT I WILL NOT MAKE US THERE WITHOUT MY BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE BRICK ALONG THE SIDES ON TWO STORIES. SO, ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE PUD SAYS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE

[00:55:05]

>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION FOR THE COMMISSION?

>> MOVE FOR A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU BOTH. THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, THEN ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. 7-0.

>> AGAIN, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> I DID A LITTLE BIT OF MATH OVER HERE WHILE I WAS PAYING ATTENTION, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT BRAD HAS BEEN HERE MORE THAN 350 DAYS, JUST ON TUESDAY NIGHTS IN HIS 17 YEARS. THAT IS KIND OF REMARKABLE WHEN I THINK ABOUT A YEARS WORTH OF YOU SITTING UP HERE DOING THIS.

>> I THINK THIS IS MORE ABOUT MY STUBBORNNESS THAN MY DEDICATION.

SHOULD TAKE THE GAVEL AWAY FROM YOU. BUT I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN AND LET YOU GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE.

>> YEAH. >> THANK YOU, BRAD.

>> WE WILL BE ADJOURNED. >> THANK YOU.

>> I STILL

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.