[0:01] Good evening and I will call to order the September 20, 2022 meeting of the Carmel Plan Commission and ask that we all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:34] Thank you. Mr. Secretary, would you call the roll please?

[0:38] W. Buckler. W. Buckler.

[0:44] Kerry Holly.

[0:45] President.

[0:45] Jeff Hill.

[0:46] President.

[0:47] Josh Kirsch.

[0:48] President.

[0:49] Allen Patazzo.

[0:50] President.

[0:50] Kevin Ryder.

[0:52] President.

[0:53] Susan Westerman.

[0:54] Thank you.

[0:55] That's it.

[0:56] Christina Zocola.

[0:57] Present.

[0:58] And President Graybo.

[1:00] Present.

[1:01] We have a quorum and for the record our rules of procedure do allow for remote participation

[1:06] as Mr. Ryder is doing this evening, however, he may not vote on any items that come up

[1:12] for action this evening.

[1:15] So we do have a quorum.

[1:17] Next item on our agenda is approval of our August meeting minutes.

[1:20] Move to approve.

[1:22] Second.

[1:22] Thank you Ms. Akola and Mr. Perch for the second all in favor of adopting the

[1:27] minutes as circulated say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved.

[1:32] Communications bills expenditures and report of legal counsel. Mr. Kachukin.

[1:38] Nothing to report Mr. President. Thank you my favorite report. Reports

[1:43] announcements and other items from the department. Thank you. We just have the

[1:49] The outcome of the projects that committee to report at the commercial committee, docket

[1:54] number PZ2022-00118, DPADLS, the GOAT had a 4-0 favorable recommendation back to the

[2:03] full plan commission.

[2:04] So we'll hear that tonight under old business.

[2:07] And then under residential committee, docket number PZ2022-00117, PUD 96th and Haberstik,

[2:17] PUD Rezone was tabled to Thursday, October 6th, so there's no report on that.

[2:24] There's no tablings tonight, and that is it.

[2:29] Thank you.

[2:29] We do have a full agenda this evening with four public hearings on the agenda, one

[2:35] item of old business and one other item of new business.

[2:39] One of the items for public hearing this evening is a matter for which one of our

[2:44] members is asked to be recused, so when we get to that docket, she will leave the room

[2:49] for the duration of our deliberation on that matter.

[2:54] With that, we will move to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting.

[2:59] The Plan Commission's rules for public hearings provide for up to 15 minutes for the petitioner

[3:04] to describe their project, make the case for their desired action.

[3:09] Then the public hearing continues with open comments from members of the public who wish

[3:14] to speak.

[3:15] A block of time of up to 20 minutes is allocated for that purpose.

[3:19] The petitioner then has up to five minutes to respond to those comments.

[3:22] And then at the conclusion of the department report, the public hearing will be closed

[3:26] for each matter.

[3:28] The first public hearing tonight is Docket PZ-2022-00119 DP-80LS Flora on Spring

[3:37] Mill.

[3:38] The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for residential neighborhood consisting of 12

[3:43] brownstones, 12 two-family homes, 10 single-family homes, and 86 townhomes on 18.31 acres.

[3:52] The site is located at 990 Spring Mill Road, and the zoning is FLORA PUD under Ordinance

[3:58] Z-676-22.

[4:01] The petition has been filed by Jim Schinever and John Davachevitz of Nelson and Frankenberger

[4:06] on behalf of Pittman Partners, Inc. and Onyx and East LLC.

[4:12] And just to clarify, based on some of the letters and remonstrants we have received,

[4:17] this matter is a development plan and ADLS approval.

[4:21] What that means is the petitioner is asking for the plan commission to approve their development plan

[4:26] and the architectural design, lighting, and signage standards for this project.

[4:32] The barometer or the measuring stick that the plan commission uses is the conformity of those plans to the terms and conditions that are spelled out in the FLORA PUD.

[4:43] What that means is what is not up for consideration tonight is preservation of the wooded area other than what is already required under the terms of the PUD.

[4:53] We are just looking at the development plan, the architectural design, the lighting, and the signage standards.

[5:00] So, John, if you would, the floor is yours for the next 15 minutes.

[5:04] Thank you very much.

[5:06] Good evening for the record.

[5:07] My name is John Dabashiewicz.

[5:09] I'm a land use professional with the law firm in Nelson and Frankenberger.

[5:12] We represent the petitioners, Pittman partners in Onyx and East LLC.

[5:16] The President tonight is Brandon Knox of Onyx and East,

[5:19] other members of our development team,

[5:21] and Jen Schimmer, an attorney with our office.

[5:24] By way of general background,

[5:26] the real estate as indicated by President Grebo was rezoned earlier this year to the

[5:31] floor at Springville PUD, which at this time we're requesting site development architectural

[5:38] landscaping, open space and amenity approval as established under the terms of the PUD.

[5:44] As noted, the applicant is seeking development plan approval this evening as proposed

[5:48] all site improvements including dwelling design will comply with the requirements

[5:53] of the floor at PUD.

[5:55] The real estate's identified on the exhibit now on display.

[5:59] It's included behind tab two of your brochures as well.

[6:03] It's approximately 18 acres in area, bound on the south by a 465 to the immediate south

[6:10] and to the immediate east of Springville Road.

[6:12] There's large-scale office developments east of Springville.

[6:16] North of the site, as well as west of the site, there are single-family homes.

[6:19] across Williams Creek is the Cedar Point residential subdivision. Can

[6:34] you zoom

[6:34] out just a bit on that? I don't know how in the booth you can do that. As

[6:39] illustrated on the site plan the layout for the floor at Spring Mill

[6:42] Community includes tree preservation areas to the north around the pond and

[6:47] additional tree preservation along I-465 and Spring Mill Road. The

[6:52] green space and common areas as well as pedestrian sidewalks and internal

[6:55] path networks provide for significant connectivity.

[6:59] Access around the pond will include a natural crust drone path around its perimeter for access

[7:04] by residents to enjoy that area.

[7:06] Vehicular access will be provided to the neighborhood via modification to the existing roundabout

[7:11] at Spring Mill and Illinois Street, which access has been reviewed by Carmel Engineering.

[7:17] As proposed, the plan includes 120 homes where the zoning permits the construction

[7:21] of a maximum of 129 dwellings.

[7:24] Additionally, regarding parking, a total of 347 parking spaces are provided, including

[7:31] a minimum of two on every individual lot, as well as 63 on-street parking spaces, which

[7:38] is detailed under the seminal information.

[7:48] Regarding dwelling types and architecture, the flora on Spring Mill neighborhood includes

[7:52] a mix of housing styles in that it will offer single-family courtyard homes.

[7:57] Those are the homes identified here, generally along the west perimeter of the site.

[8:01] Brownstones, which are identified here.

[8:05] Riftop deck town homes, pitched roof town homes, and two family homes.

[8:09] The two family homes are here at the center of the development.

[8:14] Included behind tabs 9 through tab 14 of your brochure, respectfully, are the details

[8:19] regarding those individual home types.

[8:23] The PUD ordinance sets forth specific architectural requirements for all the home product

[8:27] and requires architecture review for compliance by the Plant Commission under this ADLS review.

[8:33] Additionally, as noted by staff in the Department Report, Onyx Neese will provide sound mitigation

[8:39] that will be employed in the construction of homes adjacent to I-465.

[8:54] This exhibit is a little difficult to see. The shadings in red exhibits included

[8:59] behind Tab 5 of your brochure within the landscape plans.

[9:04] lands. The community includes tree preservations as I indicated to the north in additional

[9:09] tree preservation along I-465, so those areas that are cross-hatched here in red are tree

[9:16] preservation here and as well along the I-465 perimeter of the site.

[9:28] Additional detail is provided in the landscaping plans for all open space areas. A few of

[9:34] those open space areas are identified here on this plan exhibit. They include bicycle

[9:39] parking, hardscape areas, seating and planning areas, some of which are shown in this illustration.

[9:46] If you have access to the digital copy, and we may bring this blow-up to this to committee,

[9:50] but the digital copy, if you access it online, you can zoom into those spaces and see it

[9:55] more readily. The illustrations that we provided in the paper brochure are difficult

[10:00] to read and determine what those individual areas are representing.

[10:05] Again, great specificities provided regarding those areas that's included under tab 5, tab

[10:10] 8, and tab 15 of your brochures.

[10:19] In conclusion, the site development plans will fully comply with all the requirements

[10:22] of the floor of PUD.

[10:24] We'll continue to work with staff to address their final remaining comments prior to

[10:28] the committee meeting.

[10:29] It's our understanding that that meeting is scheduled for October 6th with the

[10:33] residential committee.

[10:34] With that, I'll conclude and would be glad to address any questions the Commission

[10:38] has either now or at the conclusion of the public hearing.

[10:43] Thank you.

[10:45] Thank you.

[10:46] The public hearing continues with comments from members of the public.

[10:50] Can I see a show of hands, please, of those of you who wish to speak tonight on this petition?

[10:59] I see four hands up.

[11:03] Five.

[11:03] I'm sorry, against the wall in the back.

[11:06] So we'll divide that 20-minute block by five speakers and a lot four minutes per speaker, Joe.

[11:13] There's a red-yellow green light system in front of the microphone.

[11:17] At 30 seconds remaining, the light will go yellow.

[11:20] And at the end of the four-minute time period, the light goes red.

[11:24] And we ask that you conclude so that the next person has their share at the microphone.

[11:28] So whoever would like to be first, please step up to the mic.

[11:31] Whoever wishes to be second, if you would take your place in line behind that speaker.

[11:35] so we can minimize the downtime between speakers.

[11:45] As you're approaching, if you would each introduce yourself

[11:47] by name in the area of Carmel, not your home address,

[11:50] but just the area of Carmel in which you reside

[11:54] for the record, thank you.

[11:56] Hello, hi, good evening, my name is Mark

[11:59] and I live right around the Palladium, Magda MAGDA.

[12:07] I only wanna say that I'm against the plan

[12:10] because it seems like it's a rather condensed

[12:15] thing that they're trying to build.

[12:17] I think it'll add too much traffic to the street

[12:20] that's not built right now to accommodate it.

[12:23] And I'm not sure if this is the right place

[12:25] to voice my concerns,

[12:26] but also I worry about the building materials and stuff.

[12:29] Right now we have a lot of green initiatives going around.

[12:31] So whatever is built on this property,

[12:33] I would like just whatever measures could be made

[12:37] to keep it as green as possible

[12:38] and solar panels and such like that.

[12:40] Thank you for your time.

[12:41] Okay.

[12:48] My name is Angelo Dottillo and we live at 146 and US 31.

[12:54] I was going to talk about potential ways to expand the woodlands, but that's off the table

[13:01] and I'm disappointed.

[13:03] But if I was involved earlier in the process, I may not be disappointed.

[13:09] This plan, a couple things.

[13:13] There was a Woodland Evaluation Report done on May 17, 2021, and Arborist divided the

[13:24] area into five areas, areas one, two, three, four, and five, and I just want to make the

[13:32] point that there are mature Woodlands in those areas that complied with the City of Carmel

[13:40] zoning ordinance, so I know that's not important anymore, but it is something that I want to

[13:47] talk about.

[13:48] But the main thing here, now that the other items are off the table, I want to talk about

[13:54] soil erosion.

[13:55] It's a terribly exciting subject.

[14:00] Soil erosion to Williams Creek.

[14:03] Williams Creek is a pretty sensitive creek, and there's a nicer perry in Woodlands

[14:08] around the creek that's been protected and I do thank you for the woods that you did protect.

[14:15] But there in December 2021 Indiana transitioned from rule five to a permit by rule detailing

[14:29] how developers and contractors must protect Indiana soil and water during construction

[14:36] to a new permitting process, it's called the Construction Stormwater General Permit.

[14:45] So Indiana no longer administers the stormwater program.

[14:51] The new permit is a performance-based regulation.

[14:57] So, you're still required to submit a...

[15:01] A SWIP or a stormwater pollution protection plan. And if IDEM determines that the discharge

[15:06] of your land disturbance will, activities will significantly lower the water quality, quote

[15:14] unquote, IDEM will require you to submit an individual stormwater permit. Well, I don't

[15:20] know, they do desktop reviews of these permits, but I don't know if they actually go visit

[15:25] it and implement the plan.

[15:29] So let's assume that they are under resourced.

[15:34] So I would say I want to know how the project site owner will hold the excavation company

[15:43] accountable to comply with the SWIP, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, SWP3.

[15:52] So, you know, when you change, when you go from a government or a, I'm sorry, a rule-based

[16:02] permitting process to a self

[16:08] -management process, if you will, that leaves a lot of room for

[16:13] not following the rules and cutting corners and doing things the way you want to do them.

[16:19] And I don't want to see during excavation sentiment drainage into Williams Creek.

[16:29] It should be managed, and the SWIP should be complied with.

[16:34] And I hope the owner is responsible.

[16:37] So that's my point.

[16:39] So thank you.

[16:41] Thank you.

[17:01] My name is Jennifer Christie.

[17:02] I live down the street from the development and I also work with an organization called

[17:09] Indiana Forest Alliance.

[17:11] You probably noticed the 36 letters that have been submitted in opposition to the development

[17:17] since mid-August and I think you would have seen and heard from many of these neighbors

[17:22] much earlier had they been notified.

[17:25] A project of this scope that will change the community forever requires more than

[17:31] the bare minimum of notification. In fact, it should require abundant and redundant communication

[17:38] with neighbors because we're talking about taking out an old forest, a century old forest

[17:44] that is likely to have rare and endangered species and currently protects the community

[17:49] from the noise and exhaust pollution of 465. In addition to the water quality mentioned

[17:55] in the important corridor of Williams Creek and downstream.

[18:00] So it's tremendously impactful and there was a bare minimum of notification.

[18:05] If you look at the list that was given by the developer,

[18:08] only 10 households were notified in the neighborhood.

[18:12] Their map shows a dozen or so homes on Ventana Court and Spring Highland Drive

[18:17] and I'd like to know how these people were notified

[18:21] because they're not listed on the list of people who were given a letter.

[18:26] The residents on Hussey Lane did not receive any notification whatsoever,

[18:31] and they are next door to the cedar place that was mentioned.

[18:35] They didn't receive any notification, and this is essentially their backyard.

[18:39] And so I have big concerns about the public engagement on this project

[18:43] because people just weren't aware of it.

[18:48] There's also a couple of lots that are adjacent to the property, and I'm wondering who owns

[18:53] those and if they were also notified of this development.

[18:58] So I think we owe it to the community to give abundant notification, not the bare minimum,

[19:03] and whether or not that was actually met.

[19:06] I also have concerns because Carmel just passed the climate plan, and this development

[19:12] is opposite to what we should be doing with the Carmel Climate Plan.

[19:16] It is one of the last wild habitats remaining wild forests that are in the carbon area,

[19:23] and this place acts as a carbon sink.

[19:26] IFA and the Office of Land Stewardship recently performed a study on urban forests and determined

[19:32] that 48 metric tons per acre, that is, per acre, are stored in one acre of forest,

[19:39] which is equal to the annual emission of 10 cars.

[19:43] So that means this area that we're talking about, just carbon storage alone, not even

[19:48] counting the sequestration that happens as the forest grows, stores carbon for 180 cars

[19:55] annually.

[19:56] And that doesn't even count carbon sequestration.

[19:59] And to date, there still is no better technology than photosynthesis, which is still the

[20:05] best carbon sequestration method, particularly for old trees.

[20:09] So it doesn't really make any sense to cut down a century old forest in the time that

[20:14] we are in right now.

[20:15] We are facing a climate crisis, and we have a plan to deal with this.

[20:20] So I would ask you to take a look very critically at this.

[20:23] And I know that we're along in this process, but I would ask you to please take time to

[20:29] pause and critically look at this development.

[20:33] Carmel has very little wild nature left in it.

[20:37] There are few parks that are forested.

[20:39] Even, I believe, Flowing Spring has 15 acres.

[20:43] We're talking about 18 acres of old forest.

[20:46] So I'd ask you to pause and make a true assessment of the impact on the people of Carmel

[20:50] to our wildlife and to our future.

[20:53] Once a century-old ecosystem is removed, we can't get it back.

[20:57] And so I'd like you to take a moment to please pause

[20:59] and take a critical look at this development

[21:01] before we go forward with it. You still have time to do the right thing. Thank you.

[21:07] Thank you.

[21:14] My name is Nancy. I live in Lexington Farms here in Carmel.

[21:19] Can we have your last name please, Nancy, for the record?

[21:22] Thank you.

[21:23] Nancy Tatum, sorry.

[21:26] The impact that this project will have on the wildlife that lives in this 18-acre site is,

[21:37] Well, what's going to happen is these animals will be crushed by bulldozers, buried alive,

[21:43] or pushed out into the street to be hit and killed.

[21:49] It's known that there are minimal invasives in there, along with foxes, deers, frogs,

[21:55] bats, snakes, salamanders, and it's just very concerning to think about the animals

[22:04] and the impact that it's going to have on them because they're not going to be able to survive.

[22:09] I am asking that this area be kept as natural as possible. Let's keep nature natural.

[22:23] And so therefore, I am asking the Commission to require a study to be done on this property to document what is there,

[22:35] from the plants and trees to animals and insects.

[22:40] I'm also asking the Commission to make a requirement of each developer to conduct a survey of any area that's going to be built on,

[22:47] or possibly be built on.

[22:49] I would ask that the commission shows that Carmel is forward-thinking about the environment.

[22:57] Show us the evidence that Carmel will abide by the Climate Action Plan by keeping wooded areas wooded.

[23:05] We need ungroomed parks with mature trees that is a safe haven for wildlife

[23:10] and can be enjoyed by those of us who say, keep nature natural.

[23:17] We must look at the whole picture and consider the impact.

[23:23] No amount of tree planting can replace century-old forest like this one.

[23:30] This is not just about parks and trees and wildlife.

[23:33] It is about doing the right thing for the human psyche and for the environment.

[23:38] Thank you.

[23:41] Thank you.

[23:46] Hello.

[23:47] My name is Jill Meisenheimer.

[23:48] I live north of the Flora PUD, north of 111 Street between Spring Mill Road and the Bird Sanctuary at Williams Creek, an area that Carmel should help to protect.

[23:58] I heard a really awful story yesterday at our neighborhood picnic that there was a deer that was apparently being frightened by traffic who tried to climb the fence in our neighborhood

[24:11] and basically impaled its neck on our fence in the neighborhood

[24:16] because we're not providing space or environment for these animals

[24:21] that were actually that are there.

[24:24] The floor on Springmelt PUD should be a wake-up call

[24:27] for the residents of Carmel to understand the consequences of a PUD

[24:31] where the developer creates their own zoning.

[24:34] I understand that the 18 acres located west of an adjacent to Springmelt Road

[24:39] and north of I-465 were approved by the Plan Commission and the City Council to be re-zoned

[24:46] for PUD.

[24:46] However, this PUD crams three times, housing units greater than allowed zoning in West

[24:52] Carmel, and the majority of the residential units are to be three-story and four-story

[24:57] townhomes and brownstones, but really only two-story single-family homes were permitted

[25:02] by current zoning.

[25:03] The wooded side on the previous Idle Jorga State has few nearby neighbors.

[25:08] Only a few letters were written for the proposal for the Floor PUD Rezone,

[25:12] and of those in favor, all benefited from this development.

[25:16] And the remaining letters state important concerns about this development

[25:21] that were never adequately modified.

[25:23] At the City Council meeting on 4, 1822, Councillor Green asked,

[25:26] if the Floor PUD were not developed on this property compared to its S2 zone,

[25:30] what would happen to the tree preservation?

[25:32] The answer was shocking.

[25:35] An S2 subdivision would have a 75-foot tree buffer landscape of trees along 465 because it's such a big road,

[25:42] but the PUD only has a 15-foot buffer of trees.

[25:46] An S2 subdivision would have 25-foot tree buffer landscape along Springwell Road,

[25:51] but the PUD only has 10-foot landscaping.

[25:55] Looking at open space, an S2 subdivision would have no more than 15% clearing of mature trees

[26:00] and no more than 40% of young trees, but this PUD is a mixture of mature and young trees

[26:05] so that 73% of the site would be required to be preserved, though Alexis said she's

[26:10] never seen that happen.

[26:11] The PUD has only 20% tree preservation and 25% open space.

[26:16] In spite of this information, only three counselors voted against the floor PUD

[26:20] rezone proposal. Councillor Snelson, Green and Hanon. Councillor Hanon explained some

[26:27] drops in density by the developers that developers will typically come in high, take a little

[26:32] off the top, but still stay very high. Now is the time to preserve more of this environment

[26:38] which may in fact require reasonable drop in density. 35 letters were written to the

[26:44] Plan Commission about the current development plan and ADLS all posed the destruction

[26:48] of this wooded area. I ask that the Planned Commission ask the Floor Pudy to

[26:53] pause until the trees can be cataloged and the amount of forested environment to

[26:57] be saved can be increased to protect the residents who live in the area in that

[27:01] particular area of Floor Pudy and also protect the surrounding environment. I

[27:05] ask that the south perimeter of 15-foot tree preservation be increased

[27:10] dramatically to protect the residents who will live there mowing down the

[27:13] forest and planting a few trees will not make up for the forested

[27:16] area. Yes, things change, but changes can be irreversible and not always for the best

[27:21] for the future environment and residents living in West Carmel. Thank you.

[27:27] Thank you.

[27:32] Hello, my name is Mark Douglas. I live in East Carmel. I'm actually living

[27:36] in the Eden Glen neighborhood. A longtime resident, a longtime user of the Park System,

[27:41] the Monon Center, you name it. I have a few brief comments. So the thing I think

[27:48] I think and I'm just kind of listening to some of the previous speakers that's concerning

[27:51] is that, you know, I'm not anti-development by any stretch of the imagination, but I think

[27:56] one of the things that's happening, and I've never been to one of these meetings, but one

[28:00] of the things that prompted me to come, and I know it's in Westfield with the Estridge

[28:05] situation, but when I look at what happened up at 161st and 31st or 31, excuse me,

[28:12] where basically there was a property there

[28:14] that they just completely decimated that forest.

[28:18] And when you look at the number of the limited green space

[28:21] that we do have and the continuous forest that we have,

[28:24] I think a big question for everyone is,

[28:26] what is Carmel going to look like in five to 10 years?

[28:28] I mean, my brother lives in Chicago.

[28:30] I travel a lot around the country and you think

[28:33] about what does urban sprawl look like.

[28:35] And even though Carmel is regularly recognized

[28:37] as a place to live, and I will absolutely agree,

[28:41] I think there's some concern about over development and it seems like the development pace is

[28:45] really picked up in the last couple of years to the point where, you know, they're building

[28:49] multi-story, multi-family units in areas that typically have not seen that kind of development.

[28:55] This is one of those cases where you have higher end homes, single family homes, and

[28:59] are looking to put a lot of units in a place that, you know, frankly, it's again

[29:05] a lot of high density area.

[29:07] And one of the trends that I've noted, I mean, my wife and I, when we purchased our

[29:11] home, we could have lived anywhere around Indianapolis, and, you know, this is my favorite

[29:15] time of year with fall coming, and Brown County is one of our favorite areas to go to.

[29:19] And a prerequisite we had, if we could find it, was to find a home that had a lot of

[29:23] trees.

[29:23] And we were fortunate.

[29:24] We found a place that's actually, we have about an acre and about 80% of it's wooded.

[29:29] Right here in Carmel, not about two miles from here, interestingly.

[29:32] In fact, we have people stop in the fall to take family photos in front of our

[29:35] trees because it's so pretty. So, the thing that comes to mind with this though

[29:41] as we've been thinking through, like I was talking to my wife about this the

[29:44] other day, is that, you know, for our future of our community when we start

[29:49] thinking about what we want our community to look like long-term, and

[29:53] again, the property development is going to happen, there has to be an

[29:57] environmental component.

[30:00] So that we're thinking through, as some of the previous speakers said, not just impact

[30:04] wildlife, but just, you know, are we going to be Green City, USA or Tree City, USA, the

[30:10] plan that has been developed around environmental impact, or there needs to be an environmental

[30:15] impact plan, but around the climate action plan. So I would just ask that the council

[30:21] or the commission here take a look at that more closely and especially not just with

[30:27] this project, but when you start thinking collectively about the impact, you look at what's happening

[30:32] in Fishers, in Westfield, in Zionsville, I think it's controlled some of the project

[30:37] development and growth, but something I think they have to look at short and long term.

[30:41] So thank you for your time, and thank you for your consideration.

[30:44] Thank you.

[30:46] I think we've heard from six speakers now, where I had counted five earlier, and our

[30:51] are 20 minutes now up or close to it? Okay, thank you. So now the petitioner has up to

[31:00] five minutes to respond to any of these comments if he chooses.

[31:04] Thank you very much. And we'll go into greater detail on a few of these topics at the committee

[31:10] level. Not necessarily in order, but there were comments made about the building materials

[31:16] and those types of things. Those issues were vetted through the zoning. A couple

[31:20] things to note is that there are definitive architectural requirements in the PUD that

[31:24] were reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council that time is owning and the illustrations

[31:28] which were included in the plan at the time of zoning are those illustrations that you

[31:31] see today have been reviewed by staff and comply with both of those requirements.

[31:36] With regard to stormwater prevention and the SWIP process, Carmel Engineering has

[31:44] been engaged in the review of these plans. We will not receive development plan approval

[31:48] through DOCS or Carmel Engineering until we meet all of the stormwater prevention requirements

[31:55] that they have in place. I can't speak to the state level of review, but I do know we

[32:00] have obligations to comply with Carmel's requirements with regard to soil erosion and protection

[32:06] on site.

[32:09] The other issue which was regarding notice which came up, I believe that we can have

[32:14] staff confirm that we met the notice requirements that are part of the rules procedure

[32:18] that the Planning Commission has in place.

[32:21] With regard to the zoning process, several of the issues that were brought up this evening

[32:27] were vetted as part of the zoning process, in particular, tree preservation.

[32:30] We spent either two, at least two, if not three or four, committee meetings with the

[32:35] Residential Committee before we came back to the Planning Commission and then onto

[32:38] the Council.

[32:40] And as Ms. Meisenheimer described, there was still discussion at the last meeting

[32:44] meeting of the council before the vote was taken on the request regarding tree preservation.

[32:49] So again, those issues were discussed, there was dialogue about those issues, and that

[32:54] was handled at the time of the zoning process.

[32:57] That'll conclude response to the comments that the public made.

[33:02] Again, we'd be glad to address questions that the committee may have.

[33:06] Thank you, John.

[33:08] The Department report.

[33:12] Thank you.

[33:13] For the record, Alexia Lopez with the Department of Community Services, this project is seeking

[33:19] development plan and ADLS approval for a new subdivision with about 120 dwellings.

[33:25] The property was recently re-zoned to the flora on Springville PUD and was approved

[33:30] by the City Council.

[33:32] The proposed site plan as presented is in line with the concept plan that was approved

[33:37] as a part of the PUD.

[33:39] There is a mix of residential uses to bring a variety of housing options to

[33:44] Carmel along the busy 465 Interstate. There is a public street that enters the

[33:49] neighborhood and loops around with alleys coming off of the street for

[33:52] garage access. This will create a more traditional neighborhood design that is

[33:56] walkable and bikeable. The PUD requires a minimum of 25% of the

[34:02] development to be open space with 20% being tree preservation. This amounts

[34:07] to about three and a half acres of tree preservation.

[34:10] Currently, retaining wall is shown along the south perimeter

[34:14] to bring the site up to the same grade, and

[34:19] along that south perimeter is required to have a 15-foot tree

[34:23] preservation buffer, and we are still working with the petitioner on that to make

[34:27] sure they meet those requirements. So we are reviewing this, making sure they meet the standards

[34:31] of the PUD and that all the trees that they said they would preserve will be preserved.

[34:36] The proposed elevations are in line with what was shown in the PUD.

[34:41] However, there were some tweaks that we requested to the building elevations and we are still reviewing those.

[34:48] As this is a large project, there are many details and items to review for compliance with the PUD

[34:54] and we continue to work through these with the petitioner as this project moves on to the committee review.

[35:00] issue. We received about 36 remonstrance letters as was stated on this project and you heard

[35:07] some of those concerns tonight which were regarding tree preservation, traffic, density.

[35:14] A lot of that was discussed as mentioned during the PUD rezone process as well. We would

[35:19] recommend at this time that the project goes to the residential committee for further review

[35:24] And that meeting is on Thursday, October 6th, at 6 o'clock in this building.

[35:30] Thank you.

[35:32] Thank you.

[35:33] That closes the public hearing for this docket.

[35:37] A discussion from members of the Plan Commission.

[35:39] Mr. Ryder?

[35:45] Christine?

[35:47] Okay, Debbie, you can start us off.

[35:51] I live in Cedar Point, so I live in an area close to where this is,

[35:57] And for those who were in the room, I was not on the plan commission when the PUD was presented and adopted.

[36:06] When I moved there 22 years ago, there was dense tree line.

[36:13] And in our neighborhood, we could not see 465 and only could hear the semis and motorcycles when they were revving up.

[36:24] different situation, IPL came along and because of wiring removed an awful lot of trees. So

[36:35] now we see 465 and we hear it constantly. But because we have a minimum tree buffer that's

[36:44] within the neighborhood that was existing, we're on a long-range plan for the State

[36:52] Department of Transportation to put a sound barrier wall along there.

[36:59] So I guess I'm just being as honest as I can.

[37:03] The second reason I'm bringing this up now is because on October 6th I will not be able

[37:07] to attend, be present at the residential committee.

[37:12] I don't know at what point this is considered self-serving or a conflict.

[37:19] So I wanted to be very clear about where I live and why at this point I have grave concerns about

[37:27] the density and the amount of trees and vegetation that would be removed because I have experienced

[37:43] firsthand what happens when it was there when you started out and then it's removed.

[37:47] So as presented, I would just like to be very clear about where I stand and where I stand right now

[37:55] is I think it's too dense and I would not be in favor of that much development in that area.

[38:06] A quick question. So this is one of those projects and we've had this discussion where all of the tree preservation

[38:13] and most of the green spaces along the perimeter and around the buffer perimeter,

[38:20] The area that is in the southwest corner, that green space.

[38:23] I recall that that was supposed to be green space with what's called limited tree preservation and tried to preserve it.

[38:30] I see that you've got structures. What is the new plan?

[38:35] So I thought the goal was, as much as you could throughout the development,

[38:39] preserved some trees, but it looks like at least that area is being changed.

[38:43] Or did that get changed at City Council?

[38:45] It did not.

[38:47] Okay.

[38:47] There were areas that were identified as limited tree preservation and others that were specified as required tree preservation.

[38:53] That was in an area identified as limited and it's because after zoning we went through and did exact topo

[39:00] and that's where you see the retaining wall that staff mentioned along the drive that's along the street that's adjacent to 465

[39:07] and that was in an area where trees couldn't be preserved because of grading issues.

[39:13] So even in that one common area?

[39:16] I

[39:23] think we're talking about this place here.

[39:26] I'll go back in advance of the committee meeting.

[39:29] I'll confirm with our client as to whether or not any trees

[39:32] can be preserved within that space.

[39:34] That would be great.

[39:35] And to the extent that there's additional tree preservation

[39:38] that you can do, you know, look at that,

[39:40] and we can talk about that at the residential committee.

[39:48] Debbie, can I touch on this?

[39:49] But I've got a similar question,

[39:50] and I think I raised this to Mr. Fitman

[39:53] back when they were here for the rezone.

[39:55] But my question still remains,

[39:56] And I guess I'd ask John if there's like some homework you can do between now and committee with regards to the tree preservation identified adjacent to

[40:04] 465

[40:06] Many moons ago. I asked if if he

[40:10] And I think through a consultant of his he reached out to Indot trying to learn more about the

[40:15] Expansion work on I-465. How does that affect these trees that are here?

[40:19] What's going on elevation wise that might help inform decisions? And I guess I'd ask

[40:25] What else can you find out, is there new information about it, and if those trees are at risk due

[40:32] to widening on I-465, can you come back and tell us that even if those go away, are we

[40:40] still compliant with the 25% tree preservation that's in the PUD, and just give us an update

[40:45] at that point?

[40:46] I don't expect you to know the answer now.

[40:48] If you happen to reach out to that same consultant, one exhibit I saw on Project

[40:54] Docs versus in the manual was for the entry at the roundabout there's an R3 in

[40:59] there over 40 miles an hour can you confirm with engineering that they're

[41:03] good with that because that strikes me is a little high perhaps there's some

[41:06] minor modifications that can be done to make sure that nothing bad happens at

[41:10] the entrance and there have been changes made to the entry plan but in

[41:15] the original submittal and the final submittal so I will confirm with them

[41:18] that the final submittal meets with their approval.

[41:21] Okay, thanks.

[41:30] W, I'm surprised to hear you say that there's a long-term plan to put up a sound wall there.

[41:35] I have not heard such a thing.

[41:39] My understanding of sound wall is actually only ever go up when they widen the road

[41:45] and then they do a sound study and only after that do they decide.

[41:50] I wasn't aware that there's a...

[41:54] I asked three years ago and they said that we were on the 20-year out plan.

[41:57] plan, the long-range plan to put in the sound barrier along there.

[42:01] And that was after, after, what is it now, AES, but IPF?

[42:05] So you're saying, I'm sorry, I'm just kind of curious, are you saying that they're widening

[42:09] 465 and you know that? No, it's just that when all those trees were removed,

[42:13] what was a natural sound and pollution barrier

[42:17] is now gone and it's just really loud now.

[42:22] And then, can you

[42:25] refresh my memory. The property owner did some clear cutting on that property. What percentage

[42:32] of the site did they log?

[42:37] If you don't know off the top of your head. I just bring that

[42:39] to committee. That's fine. Thanks. As kind of, this is just to the general public,

[42:47] as the park board's appointment to the Planning Commission, as kind of the tree-hugging-est

[42:51] guy, well, self-proclaimed tree-hugging-est guy around, maybe not the most. I see a

[42:57] of you in the crowd. I'm always confounded onto what to do. The Planning Commission is

[43:03] an advisory board to the City Council. We don't actually make any decisions. We advise

[43:09] the City Council on what we think and we put a lot of work into what we think we can

[43:17] – sometimes we use the term highest and best use of the land. Now, I wouldn't

[43:22] disagree with anybody if the highest and best use of the land is leaving a forest,

[43:25] but I'm always kind of stuck with how do I tell property owner that they can't

[43:32] sell or develop the property or as a wise city counselor once told me before

[43:36] if we shot the whole thing down and you are a property owner you would then go

[43:42] clear-cut your property if it was because of trees that the whole

[43:45] property got shut down. As the Parks Board Appointment to the Planning

[43:50] Commission I have held an expedition on a property that I tried to save

[43:55] on successfully.

[43:58] I think if you think that we're the ones who decide if trees

[44:03] get cut down or not, I just want to be really clear it's really not our

[44:07] decision. Our decision is to try to put the best products that we can and put

[44:13] the best oversight into the developed plans that we can and then advise that

[44:18] to the City Council for as a recommendation. I just want to be

[44:23] really clear on that, so that everybody understands what this body actually does.

[44:30] I would like to see the stormwater plan. I'd like to see any notes from engineering about

[44:37] the SWIP. I'd like to see, one more time, I'd like to see what you could have done

[44:44] with R2 or S2, whatever it originally was, versus what we're doing now. And more importantly,

[44:52] I want to see and want more clear understanding what kind of destruction took place back there when they harvested

[45:00] The property owner harvested the trees. Thanks a lot, John.

[45:05] Thank you.

[45:11] The path that goes around the retention pond, how far does that extend into the trees?

[45:22] It does not. It'll be at the perimeter of the other woods.

[45:25] Okay, so we don't have any additional trees being cut down for that path?

[45:29] No, it won't. The path won't even, there was some discussion in the past about meandering it through the woods.

[45:34] Right.

[45:34] That's gone.

[45:35] Right. When I say discussion, it's not a mandate, but it was thought that it was best to just allow it to be along the perimeter of the pond, rather than mayandering it through the trees.

[45:44] Okay. I also see, and now I can't find the page and I can't see without my glasses, but you have some lighting along the south perimeter of the pond. Correct?

[45:59] Do you there will be there will be street lighting it's my understanding that street lighting is confined to the intersections

[46:05] So there may be street lighting

[46:07] In the vicinity of this intersection and this intersection, okay?

[46:11] But I don't believe that there's any any street lights along the pond side of that internal street

[46:17] Okay, I didn't know I looked to me like when I was looking at the lighting plan that there what there were several lights on

[46:24] That south edge

[46:26] No, I don't believe there are but we'll double check that okay, and then when you come back to residential committee

[46:31] Are you going to have color palettes?

[46:34] Yes, we will and they're included in your brochure. I believe

[46:39] Can you bring them in here? We will bring them in person. Yeah, we will do that. Okay.

[46:45] I'm sorry miss president

[46:47] May I I'm sorry Alan. Did you want to go mine's really quick? Yeah

[46:51] Daba one more thing too. This is kind of in the weeds, but

[46:53] But if I could get an exhibit to show me where, like, right-of-way city is versus private parking

[47:02] or private streets, let me tell you where I'm going with this, I have noticed in some

[47:07] developments when we had, like, visitor parking that it becomes residential parking.

[47:15] parking, and I'd like to consider anything that's on private property to be signed as

[47:23] visitor or no residential parking so that that parking remains visitor parking and it doesn't

[47:32] become the auxiliary parking spot for somebody who wants to put a bunch of stuff in their

[47:36] garage.

[47:37] Thanks.

[47:41] I'll give it to Florida Allen in just a moment, but just to add some color to that.

[47:45] I agree with the spirit of that comment, but I would like to explore that in more detail

[47:50] at committee because when we start putting labels or restrictions on the use of parking

[47:56] spaces, we end up with a need for more parking spaces in total.

[48:01] And sometimes those designated spaces sit unused when that is not the intent of your

[48:08] ask.

[48:09] So I'd like to explore that further.

[48:13] I think you understand Mr. Kirsch's goal, and I share that, but not to the detriment of creating empty islands of asphalt just to keep people from storing their stuff out in a parking spot.

[48:30] to that point I thought there was going to be a neighborhood ordinance that they

[48:36] could not convert their garages into storage is that still still part of it

[48:42] it's specified in the PUD as a zoning requirement yes okay Alan thank you Mr.

[48:48] President either to staff or or to John I was we've heard tonight several

[48:56] All remonstrators refer to this area in here as having or being a forest, the word forest.

[49:06] And I don't know if it's a forest or not, but I wanted to find out if it's a forest

[49:12] and the definition and if there are restrictions, if it is a forest over and above what our

[49:19] ordinance calls for, that we have to follow because it's a forest.

[49:22] forest. Similar to what federal mandates apply to waterways, certain waterways have to have

[49:31] more permits. The same thing happened if this is considered to be a, quote, forest, designated

[49:38] forest. And the other thing has some type of a species inventory already been done

[49:46] on this piece of ground. We know what we're dealing with here.

[49:52] The petitioner has not done a species inventory.

[49:55] We'll work with staff on determining and confirming that there are no other designations outside of zoning,

[50:01] which we know from the zoning standpoint there are no restrictions.

[50:05] But we'll find out if there's any ancillary restrictions,

[50:08] whether it's city code or state statute, that would reference removal of trees.

[50:15] Thanks.

[50:15] And

[50:19] one, or actually two comments, one that kind of unites those two issues, John.

[50:25] And I lost this battle at the PUD stage, but I'll bring it up one last time here.

[50:30] And that is the on-street parking on the main street.

[50:36] So it would be between the pond and the street along the north edge of the property.

[50:41] If those spaces are still necessary, I guess what would be the variance that would be necessary

[50:50] to remove them in terms of not meeting a parking standard?

[50:55] If there is, if there are trees in that location today that can be saved,

[51:01] my own preference would be to save those trees not to put on-street parking

[51:05] and a multi-use path or sidewalk along the north edge of that street.

[51:11] And for reference by the Planning Commission, this is the second to last page in the brochure.

[51:16] It's a parking exhibit.

[51:18] It identifies the location of on-street parking as well as the other ancillary parking spaces

[51:23] that Mr. Kerr should refer to right there that would be within a common area, although

[51:27] be it that they would be accessing the roadway, they'd be head in spaces.

[51:31] So there are proposed on-street parking spaces along the front of townhomes that

[51:38] face the park, but not on the north side of the street. I think there were previously

[51:43] spaces along the north side of the street that we had parking. And we did adjust everything

[51:49] to the south as much as possible to only provide the tree lawn, a narrower street with the

[51:55] tree lawn and the path along that north edge in response to a lot of the comments that

[52:02] we had heard previously.

[52:03] Thank you.

[52:04] But we are meeting the minimum number of on-street parking spaces that we had agreed to through

[52:09] the zoning.

[52:10] Okay.

[52:11] Thank you.

[52:12] And then, the point was brought up earlier about the southwest common area that the

[52:17] PUD designates as a limited tree preservation area and, in essence, was treated as, I

[52:24] guess, a game time decision once you're on site and topography is identified and

[52:30] and the need of access to the surrounding areas for construction, then the petitioner will

[52:37] know whether or how many trees can be saved there.

[52:40] I guess I would ask about the ability to continue to keep that on the table, so to

[52:46] speak, until that point in time when bulldozers are on site and we absolutely know from

[52:53] from a site reconnaissance standpoint as opposed to a desktop and paper standpoint, whether

[53:01] or to what extent trees can be saved in that southwest limited tree preservation area.

[53:11] I have seen some texts this afternoon about commissioners availability on the 6th.

[53:18] So I have some concerns about a quorum for the residential committee on October 6th.

[53:24] So, I would ask that we will move forward and schedule for the 6th, assuming it goes

[53:31] to residential committee but ask staff to circle back to the members of that committee

[53:36] and confirm that quorum won't be an issue.

[53:38] Otherwise, we either have to reschedule or push this out to the November committee meeting.

[53:45] Thank you.

[53:45] We will take a look at that.

[53:46] Thank you.

[53:48] President Graybill, I would move that we send this item to the residential committee

[53:52] with voting approvals or recommendations coming back to the full Plan Commission.

[53:58] Second.

[53:59] Thank you, Mr. Hill.

[54:01] Thank you, Ms. Cola.

[54:02] For the second, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

[54:05] Aye.

[54:06] Any opposed?

[54:07] For the moment, this will go to the residential committee.

[54:10] For the moment that date is scheduled as Thursday, October 6th.

[54:14] That will be in the caucus rooms that are to your right as you exit this room.

[54:19] So with that, John, thank you for your presentation.

[54:21] We'll see you on October 6th.

[54:26] We now move to the second item on our agenda.

[54:29] Before I read this in, I'll ask one of our commissioners who needs to recuse herself to

[54:35] give us leave.

[54:36] Yes, President Gravel, I will be recusing myself due to a potential conflict of interest.

[54:40] Thank you.

[54:41] We'll see you in a few minutes.

[54:45] Item 2 on public hearings is docket PZ-2022-00147, ordinance amendment, legacy PUD amendment.

[54:53] The applicant seeks approval to amend the Legacy PUD text in order to increase the number of permitted units in the PUD

[54:59] and to increase the number of apartments permitted.

[55:02] The site is located southwest of 146th Street and Community Drive.

[55:06] The zoning is Legacy PUD under ordinance Z-501-07 as amended.

[55:12] This petition also is filed by Nelson and Frankenberger LLC on behalf of Advenir Oakley Development LLC.

[55:19] So with this petition, what the commission is considering this evening and as this petition

[55:26] moves forward is to change the text and the requirements of the planned unit development

[55:31] ordinance that governs the entire legacy project.

[55:36] So we're looking to change the rules of the road, so to speak, for that planned unit

[55:40] community.

[55:42] So, John, welcome back.

[55:44] The floor is yours again for up to 15 minutes.

[55:46] Thank you.

[55:47] Again,

[55:53] for the record, John Dabashiewicz with Nelson and Frankenberger.

[55:56] In regards to this matter, we represent Abernere Oakley Development LLC.

[56:01] Present tonight on their behalf is Scott Weathers.

[56:04] Jim Schoenberg, an attorney with our office, is also present.

[56:07] As indicated, the request before the Planning Commission this evening is a PUD amendment

[56:12] to the amend portions of the legacy PUD in order to construct a unique residential

[56:16] to be known as LEO, Living Cottages and Multifamily.

[56:22] By way of general background, the legacy PUD,

[56:27] I'm going to take a minute to see if I can raise this.

[56:33] Thank you.

[56:34] By way of general background, the legacy PUD was approved by the City Council in January 2007,

[56:39] approximately 15 years ago now.

[56:42] The legacy has been amended one time in 2018 by Oregon Z63718.

[56:48] The overall legacy development is generally located south of and adjacent to 146th Street

[56:55] and west of and adjacent to River Road.

[57:00] The site which is the subject of the proposed amendment is outlined here in yellow and

[57:04] it's the aerial map which is also included under the tab brochure, tab number two.

[57:11] Subject real estate consists of approximately 32 acres that is located south of and adjacent

[57:16] adjacent to 146th Street and adjacent to and west of Community Drive.

[57:22] Today the Legacy PUD has provisions related to use blocks, maximum unique limitations,

[57:28] and amenities.

[57:29] In order to allow the proposed community, the following will be addressed through the

[57:33] PUD amendment.

[57:34] Specifically, the proposed Legacy PUD amendment includes, one, expanding the urban residential

[57:41] use block to the north, two, modifying the maximum unit limitations, and three,

[57:48] removing future residential from the existing amenity use area. For reference,

[57:54] the current amenity facility within the legacy is located right here. Again, our

[57:58] site located adjacent to 146th Street to the north.

[58:09] Regarding use blocks, the

[58:11] zoning map for the legacy is on display. Today, the subject real estate is

[58:15] is zoned under the primary office use block.

[58:18] That's the area here in pink.

[58:20] The urban residential use block,

[58:22] which is to the south of that in red.

[58:25] And the village core use block,

[58:27] which is adjacent to generally community drive here,

[58:31] the area in purple.

[58:34] The primary use block is shown in pink again,

[58:36] and it's an area along 146th Street,

[58:38] and it's approximately nine acres in area.

[58:42] As proposed, this use block shall be deleted or removed

[58:45] improved from the use block map and incorporated into the urban residential use block.

[58:51] One might ask why this is important.

[58:54] Today the primary office use block is adjacent to the ridge at legacy to our west.

[58:59] So that area identified in yellow to our west.

[59:02] This area is the ridge at legacy.

[59:05] There's an area or neighborhood referred to as the meadows at legacy located generally

[59:11] here.

[59:11] the overlook at legacy is over here and the grove at legacy is the area where

[59:17] fine craft builders is building both two family dwellings and single family

[59:20] dwellings. Permitted uses within that primary office use block again the nine

[59:26] acres and pink include office and retail uses, residential wafts, over

[59:32] retail or office and structured parking among other uses. The development

[59:38] standards for this space, this is nine acres, include a maximum of 60-foot building height

[59:44] limitations, which would accommodate five-story buildings. The minimum requirement within that

[59:50] primary office use block is a two-story building, but again it can go up to five

[59:57] stories in height. There are 160

[1:00:00] 162 lofts, remaining authorized overall within the legacy PUD, all of which could be for rent.

[1:00:07] Those loft spaces, in addition to those in senior housing, are above and beyond the standards

[1:00:14] which apply to the base unit development, which we're asking for an amendment to. So this development

[1:00:19] scenario would include a change to the base development unit, but would no longer permit

[1:00:23] hit as many as 162 lofts as well as 225 senior living apartments which are above and beyond

[1:00:31] the base unit limitation within the PUD.

[1:00:34] There's no limitation in that office, primary office use block regarding the square footage.

[1:00:39] It's estimated and will provide a basic site plan at the committee level.

[1:00:44] It's estimated that it would accommodate approximately 150,000 square foot of office

[1:00:49] issues, which would include lofts and structured parking, again, within five-story buildings

[1:00:54] on the approximate nine acres in size, and we're going to, at committee, provide an example

[1:00:59] site plan of how that might all be laid out under the current ordinance, as was described

[1:01:05] by the Plan Commission.

[1:01:06] The last item on your agenda was a review for compliance with the DP and ADLS standards.

[1:01:14] The idea being a petitioner, and we're not proposing this,

[1:01:18] a petitioner could return to you in the future with a plan that complies,

[1:01:22] which would include that level of office development,

[1:01:25] structure parking, five-story buildings,

[1:01:27] all throughout that primary office use space.

[1:01:30] Again, we're trying to establish a basis for review.

[1:01:34] We're not proposing that level of development.

[1:01:39] The Village Core Use Block, that area in purple,

[1:01:43] also occupies approximately nine acres in this development space. Permitted uses there

[1:01:49] include retail uses, apartment uses, general office, medical health uses, residential lofts,

[1:01:56] and structure parking as well. The only real difference between the primary office area

[1:02:00] in that village core area is that the primary office area does not authorize apartments.

[1:02:06] We're not proposing apartments within that space, but that's the distinction between

[1:02:11] between those two spaces, because from a development standard standpoint within that village core area,

[1:02:16] you still allow 60 foot building heights by right, five stories.

[1:02:22] Minimum two stories is still required. If you're familiar with Dr. John Community Drive,

[1:02:26] there's the J.C. Hart apartments on the east side of the street. Most of those buildings, if not all,

[1:02:32] are all three stories in height. 120 apartments are authorized today.

[1:02:37] We're not asking the plan commission to allow multi-family or for rent in this space multi-family

[1:02:43] For rent is permitted today, and there's 120 dwelling units that can be developed as apartments

[1:02:49] Those apartments as you'll see in a minute based on our presentation are going to be up along community drive

[1:02:55] Again within this area the area in purple. There's no limitation on non-residential uses

[1:03:00] We'll have a example site plan that we can show you at committee that would illustrate as much as a hundred eighty thousand square feet

[1:03:08] of non-residential in addition to the 120 apartments.

[1:03:12] The urban residential use block,

[1:03:14] the last use block that area identified

[1:03:16] in the dark red here,

[1:03:17] that includes approximately 13 acres.

[1:03:20] Again, five-story building heights

[1:03:23] are permitted throughout that space.

[1:03:25] There's a total of 153 authorized dwellings

[1:03:28] left within the village.

[1:03:29] Those are base units.

[1:03:31] And I know it's gonna start

[1:03:31] to get really complicated here,

[1:03:33] but we'll show you the spreadsheet

[1:03:35] that's in the ordinance at committee

[1:03:37] and we'll dive down a little deeper.

[1:03:39] There's actually 1,800 units authorized under the existing ordinance, if you do, senior

[1:03:44] housing and loss and the commercial development that would be associated with that.

[1:03:49] But there's 153 units under base density allowed today.

[1:03:54] If 120 of those were developed as multifamily, multi-story apartment buildings, there

[1:04:01] would be a remaining 33 that could be constructed as part of detachment or attached dwellings.

[1:04:06] Again, apartments are permitted use within the Urban Residential Use Block, so those apartments

[1:04:12] could be located anywhere within that space.

[1:04:15] The distinction here within the Urban Residential Use Block is that those commercial uses aren't

[1:04:21] authorized within that space.

[1:04:22] They're relegated to the space along 146th Street and Community Drive.

[1:04:28] So combined, again, the site is 32 acres in area.

[1:04:31] Today, without amendment, as many as 315 dwellings, 153 combined departments detached as well as

[1:04:38] 162 lofts would be permitted within the 32 acres.

[1:04:43] Advancing a plan, including this format, would include DPDLS review for compliance with the

[1:04:48] legacy PUD requirements.

[1:04:51] Again, 60-foot tall five-story buildings are permitted across the full extent of

[1:04:55] the subject real estate within that space, and I draw your attention to that because

[1:04:58] is the plan that we'll describe momentarily

[1:05:01] is distinctly different from that

[1:05:02] in terms of building height and use within that space.

[1:05:12] This is the proposed site plan

[1:05:13] that's included within your ordinance.

[1:05:17] I apologize, one other topic

[1:05:18] that I wanted to go into more detail on

[1:05:20] and we can get into this committee.

[1:05:22] So that's the use block discussion.

[1:05:24] The other discussion is with regard

[1:05:25] to the maximum number of dwelling units.

[1:05:27] As I indicated previously,

[1:05:29] there was one prior amendment to the PUD

[1:05:31] regarding the base units being reduced

[1:05:34] from 1344 to 15, rather, to 1250.

[1:05:39] In part, in 2018, when that was done, it was done to limit the amount of development that

[1:05:48] could contribute or the amount of homes that would be going to the amenity that was planned

[1:05:52] within the legacy along Cherry Creek Boulevard.

[1:06:00] However, as noted, this is fewer than the total number of dwelling units that could

[1:06:05] be developed under the permitted development scenarios, including office loss, as well

[1:06:10] as CCRC units or senior housing dwelling units that are permitted today.

[1:06:16] Additionally, the proposed development, as you see here, is less intense from a traffic

[1:06:20] generation standpoint.

[1:06:22] As I described, this would include the space that would otherwise potentially be office

[1:06:26] with loss above.

[1:06:28] We have a traffic study that's been prepared, an analysis that would show the difference

[1:06:33] between the authorized traffic generation and the proposed trip generation for this use.

[1:06:44] Now regarding the proposed site plan is depicted on this exhibit.

[1:06:48] It's also included behind tab four of your brochures.

[1:06:50] The community will be a multifamily residential development comprised of approximately 230

[1:06:56] single family attached and detached rental homes and 120 traditional garden style apartments

[1:07:02] in three buildings, which would be adjacent to community drive.

[1:07:05] So the three buildings here shown in purple are opposite J.C. Hart and their buildings,

[1:07:12] multi-story, predominantly apartments within those buildings with some supporting uses

[1:07:18] along the first floor of at least one of the buildings. The balance of dwellings on the

[1:07:23] site, all these shown in brown and blue, are one and two-story dwellings. There's photographic

[1:07:29] examples that I'll show you in a minute, as well as details regarding that architecture

[1:07:32] structure in your plans.

[1:07:36] In addition to this residential component, the site includes an approximately two-acre

[1:07:40] parcel.

[1:07:41] This area identified here in green that would be opposite the existing commercial that

[1:07:45] would be developed in accordance with the Village Corps standards within the PUD.

[1:07:51] The community, this proposal will continue the existing streets in the legacy, both

[1:07:57] Larson Drive and James Dean Drive and Hopewell Parkway will continue to extend

[1:08:01] and north-south and east-west across the site

[1:08:05] with an additional write-in, write-out access point,

[1:08:07] which is authorized under the existing ordinance

[1:08:09] onto 146th Street.

[1:08:17] I'm not going to go into great deal-tail

[1:08:19] about the home design.

[1:08:20] There's lots of images, imagery and images

[1:08:23] in the brochure that's been provided

[1:08:25] to the Planning Commission,

[1:08:26] only to say this is an example of another community

[1:08:30] that Avenir was involved in

[1:08:32] and the home architecture is very similar,

[1:08:35] if not identical in most respects

[1:08:36] to the dwellings that you see attached to these images.

[1:08:43] They're included behind tab five, the photographic examples of which are shown here.

[1:08:48] The majority of homes will feature front patios or porches,

[1:08:51] private rear yards, and multiple side windows.

[1:08:54] If not connected to individual units, additional garages will be available.

[1:08:58] There are some units that have garages that are attached.

[1:09:02] There are others that have garage units that are located in a building

[1:09:06] with a dwelling unit above and three garages below,

[1:09:09] one of which is entitled to that individual dwelling,

[1:09:12] but the other two are for lease as well as the dwelling unit.

[1:09:22] Two amenity facilities, one anchored

[1:09:26] by the 1950 square foot pool,

[1:09:29] which includes ample space for seating.

[1:09:32] The example, which is shown here,

[1:09:34] is nearly identical to the architecture

[1:09:37] that's proposed for this site and the layout.

[1:09:39] In addition to the clubhouse and additional 1500 square foot building area will be constructed as part of the amenity space

[1:09:46] Which we would it would be included in one of the three buildings along community Drive

[1:09:51] Other thoughtful amenities including pocket parks are strategically interspersed throughout the site

[1:09:56] Again all amenity open space and landscaping will be owned and maintained by the developer

[1:10:02] Regarding amenities the real estate shall not be part of the association entitled

[1:10:06] to the use of the existing amount of facility

[1:10:09] which serves the other neighborhoods within the legacy.

[1:10:12] Therefore, the number of future families

[1:10:14] served by the existing amount of facility

[1:10:17] would be reduced by 153,

[1:10:19] which is the authorized number of dwelling units

[1:10:22] that are authorized today under the ordinance,

[1:10:25] which if built would be entitled to use

[1:10:27] from the amenity facilities there today.

[1:10:30] But again, this would pull that number

[1:10:33] off of the number that's entitled to use of that today and provide amenities internal.

[1:10:40] Also with regard to this space, the amenity area as well as office leasing area would

[1:10:45] be built on the front end and would be completed before occupancy by any residents within the

[1:10:51] community.

[1:10:51] I know that was a sticking point early on within the legacy, but all amenities would

[1:10:55] be constructed on the front end and that wouldn't be an issue in this situation.

[1:11:00] In conclusion, the proposed development does not include general office, residential loss or

[1:11:10] structured parking that other uses currently permitted within the primary office use area would

[1:11:15] be entitled to. The cottages and amenities are proposed for this area. This should result

[1:11:20] in significant reduction of the level of traffic and currently anticipated based on the

[1:11:25] permitted uses within the Legacy PUD. The proposal doesn't include general office

[1:11:30] office uses and residential loss, as would be otherwise anticipated within the village

[1:11:34] core area. The cottages and multifamily apartments are proposed for this space. The proposed amendment

[1:11:40] requires Avenir Oakley to construct their own amenities, which, as described, would

[1:11:45] be provided on the front end. Otherwise, the zone today, those 153 units would be

[1:11:50] authorized to use the amenities that are in the space today. We have a staff report

[1:11:55] support from DOCS will continue to work with them on their outstanding items and we'd be

[1:12:01] glad to address questions that you have now and anticipate this item would be sent to

[1:12:08] committee on October 6th, but if that date changes, we'll make our sales available at

[1:12:12] that date.

[1:12:13] Thank you.

[1:12:14] Thank you.

[1:12:16] Time to catch your breath or grab some water.

[1:12:20] While the public has their turn, the public hearing continues with comments from members

[1:12:24] of the public. Again, may I see a show of hands please of those of you who wish to speak

[1:12:29] on this petition?

[1:12:32] One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Okay, we have

[1:12:38] 20. Oh, did I just see two more hands go up or one?

[1:12:43] One more time if you don't mind. I think we've got five over here.

[1:12:46] Okay, now we've got five or six on the right, my right half of the room and one,

[1:12:53] One, two, three, four, six on this side, so 11, 20 minutes, so Joe, set the timer please

[1:13:00] for two minutes per speaker.

[1:13:03] The two minutes may not sound like a lot of time, but if you avoid repeating comments

[1:13:07] that we've heard from earlier speakers or that we've heard through letters, then you

[1:13:12] can cover new ground during your two minutes of speaking time.

[1:13:15] Again, if the first few people would approach the microphone or line up behind the first

[1:13:20] speaker that would be appreciated to keep things moving along. Again we need your

[1:13:26] name please and the area of Carmel where you live. We do not need your home

[1:13:32] address though.

[1:13:41] My name is Philip Cosmus. I live on the in the Carmel View area in

[1:13:46] downtown Carmel. My parents live on the east side of Carmel and I routinely

[1:13:51] Finally riding my bike in this area and in 2018 I was riding on Hopewell Avenue and I

[1:13:58] got t-boned by a person in a car coming off of the bell view that comes off of 146th Street

[1:14:10] and I was in the hospital and I'm out of commission for a few weeks so I just wanted

[1:14:14] I think the there's no stop sign there. I don't believe for the cars traveling into the neighborhood

[1:14:22] And they're going at a high rate of speed and I just wanted to bring that to the attention

[1:14:26] Actually didn't come here for this tonight, but I thought it was appropriate to mention that so

[1:14:32] Thank you. Thank you. Glad you're doing better

[1:14:36] Yes, sir. My name is Steve emel. I live at Cherry Creek States and

[1:14:45] If you looked at 146th Street between 330 and 5 o'clock, the traffic is lined up.

[1:14:54] He failed to tell you what's going across the street on the Noblesville side.

[1:15:00] We have the apartments, I think they're called Greystone, and they just cleared all of the

[1:15:04] mobile homes across the street, and Noblesville's developing that area. So we're just going

[1:15:10] to add more and more traffic to 146th Street. When we go out of our neighborhood, we try

[1:15:17] to go back to the back roads, and now legacies open that area up. I believe it's Cherry

[1:15:24] Creek Drive is just the traffic just getting unreal so you better look at the

[1:15:30] development across the street in Noblesville that's going on right now

[1:15:34] and you add this to it 146th Street will be bad news for everybody thank you thank

[1:15:41] you hi there everyone Lee Cipriani I live in legacy Meadows I'm gonna be

[1:15:47] really specific on where I actually live even though I know you asked for

[1:15:51] generalities, but I think this will play into the plan.

[1:15:54] So I live on James Dean Drive, and in the proposal,

[1:15:57] this is going to connect to 146th Street directly.

[1:16:02] Now I have twin seven-year-olds that are at Prairie Trace

[1:16:05] Elementary.

[1:16:07] In current schools, and if you live at a mile radius

[1:16:11] to the schools, you have no bus.

[1:16:14] I also am a working mother, and I

[1:16:17] know that as I commute downtown each day,

[1:16:20] when I have to write, I look for the fastest route to get where I need to go.

[1:16:25] I also have seen 146 during the time of 3.30 to 5.00 p.m.

[1:16:30] and I know how congested it gets and I know that if this goes through

[1:16:34] and if there is a direct route from 146 through James Dean Drive to community

[1:16:40] that then can get someone to River Road to then get to 4.65 or wherever they need to go,

[1:16:46] they will be flying through my neighborhood.

[1:16:48] flying through children on bikes or walking home from school.

[1:16:53] You will put our children at a direct risk as they walk from school when they get released, right?

[1:17:00] So you have a massive safety impact day in and day out.

[1:17:05] I see accidents happen at that intersection of 146 and River.

[1:17:09] All the time, I think all of us that live in that area have heard an increase over time in emergency response vehicles.

[1:17:16] And as we speak to emergency response vehicles, I think I'd like to further understand how

[1:17:21] the increase in the number of residents will be handled in emergency response.

[1:17:29] In fire, in paramedics, right?

[1:17:34] How will this be handled?

[1:17:36] Then let's go back to schools.

[1:17:38] How are you going to handle the increase of students?

[1:17:42] not just in handling spaces and seats but with teachers

[1:17:48] and handling aides, school psychologists, cafeteria workers.

[1:17:53] We already know you don't have bus drivers

[1:17:55] because if you live in a mile radius, you don't have a bus.

[1:17:59] So how are you going to handle all of this?

[1:18:01] I think there's more time for people.

[1:18:03] But there's a few points.

[1:18:05] Thank you.

[1:18:09] Good evening.

[1:18:10] My name is Tanya Miller.

[1:18:11] I live at the Ridge in Legacy.

[1:18:13] So this is very near and dear to my heart.

[1:18:16] I've lived in Carmel since 1995.

[1:18:18] So I've seen a lot of development happen in the community.

[1:18:20] Most of it I very much agree with.

[1:18:23] But when I bought into that neighborhood specifically,

[1:18:25] I bought into it because of the multi-use and the plan use.

[1:18:28] There's a tremendous amount of green area, and it's just beautiful.

[1:18:32] So then we have apartments.

[1:18:34] We have plenty of space.

[1:18:37] So for me to rezone this, it's going to have a direct impact.

[1:18:40] I mean, I don't want to talk about traffic and I don't want to reiterate what we've heard,

[1:18:43] but I would just urge that, you know, we take a look at maybe other areas of Carmel that

[1:18:48] could potentially be developed because we do have apartments to address what the developers

[1:18:52] trying to accomplish.

[1:18:54] And then, you know, we need more businesses in that area.

[1:18:58] That's not what was originally sold was we were supposed to have businesses along

[1:19:02] 146th Street.

[1:19:03] And as someone that lives there, I love the idea of being able to ride my bike

[1:19:07] to go have dinner or, you know, get my nails done or whatever it might be, so to remove

[1:19:12] that is very disheartening. And I think that pretty much sums it up. So that's it. Thanks

[1:19:20] so much.

[1:19:21] Thank you.

[1:19:24] Hi, I'm Gary Richman. I live in Moffitt Farms, which is less than two miles away. She

[1:19:28] kind of stole my thunder. That's the kind of area I was going. I'm not against development

[1:19:32] in that area at all. I don't particularly think that the plains, there's not like

[1:19:35] a wooded area with animals and said it's kind of a sore sight.

[1:19:41] So I don't mind the development.

[1:19:42] I look forward to, you get excited when small business comes in and this whole legacy was

[1:19:49] built around urban development, walkability.

[1:19:53] The papers today that the lawyers put in the docket talks about walkability.

[1:19:58] They're going to take away all the primary office space, where are you going to walk

[1:20:01] to?

[1:20:03] I'm not against development.

[1:20:04] I just don't think this is the right type of development and nobody gets excited about rentals. You know we passed by

[1:20:11] The new businesses that opened up there were like Wendy's and hot yoga and some Mexican places going up and a new vet office

[1:20:19] We drive by and I'm like I have a teenage daughter look Gabby

[1:20:22] We can go ride our bikes to Wendy's this weekend, right tell my daughter. Let's

[1:20:27] Let's our vet isn't brought up. We're tired of the drive look we can go to the vet office

[1:20:31] Let's move here. I've seen some good reviews about this. Where's the small business? Do

[1:20:36] we want to support small business in this area? That's how the plan was sold to everyone.

[1:20:41] They want to take that away or most of it away. I think that's the main reason not that this

[1:20:48] should go to the commission to talk about and just kind of reject this proposal. It's

[1:20:51] just not the right type of development. I think we can get better stuff in.

[1:20:55] Thank you.

[1:20:56] Thank you.

[1:20:57] Thank you.

[1:21:00] John Renwick, I live in the ridge.

[1:21:02] To piggyback, sorry to hit you guys three in a row.

[1:21:04] I moved here from New York, walkable community, same type of thing.

[1:21:08] I have three small children.

[1:21:09] I'd love to walk and get ice cream, go to a Mexican restaurant, have a drink and walk

[1:21:13] home from that.

[1:21:15] This community was originally designed and built for that.

[1:21:17] If we change the pud, we're just going to put a bunch of apartments in there.

[1:21:20] There's nowhere to walk to.

[1:21:21] I mean, this is Indiana, so there's hardly any place to walk to anyway.

[1:21:24] Anyway, but at least we've had some restaurants and some places to visit there and keep it

[1:21:29] what it was sold to us as.

[1:21:31] It would be great.

[1:21:32] Thank you.

[1:21:34] Thank you.

[1:21:37] Sashi Nothalapati.

[1:21:38] Don't ask me to spell the last name please, I'm just kidding.

[1:21:42] So I leave out the legacy at the ridge.

[1:21:45] Main three points are I'm okay for the original plan because there is a reason why there's

[1:21:51] is a commercial area there, right?

[1:21:53] Because all the communities, everything that comes there,

[1:21:56] like everybody said, then walk there, get some food,

[1:21:59] bike around and all that.

[1:22:00] If we make that everything as apartments,

[1:22:02] then there's nothing there.

[1:22:03] We have to drive for five more, 10 more minutes

[1:22:06] to get something, you know?

[1:22:07] So that feel is gone.

[1:22:09] And already the Cherry Creek road is busy.

[1:22:13] With this number of people, you know,

[1:22:15] it's going to be more busier.

[1:22:17] Right now, we don't know if they're going

[1:22:19] to get a bus or not.

[1:22:20] and next we don't know if they're going to be going to the same school or not.

[1:22:24] So are the schools big enough to accommodate the increase in the population?

[1:22:29] So those are the things I would request you guys to consider

[1:22:32] and also stick with the original plan if you guys can. That would be great. Thank you.

[1:22:37] Thank you.

[1:22:42] My name is William Tenkovich.

[1:22:44] I live in Legacy Ridge. Just moved here about a year ago.

[1:22:48] A couple of points that I just want to bring up that believe

[1:22:51] Our company admin here and the attorneys were bringing up in this conversation right now is that they talked about how the zoning was going to change

[1:22:58] And then it was going to be somehow better

[1:23:00] Well, if you think about it if you look at the senior living that doesn't impact schools likely if that's going to maintain from where it was at

[1:23:07] Before but what we're moving to is going to be multi family housing units

[1:23:11] And it's a large investment portfolio on a very good school very good schools and very good neighborhoods

[1:23:15] That's what they sell against

[1:23:17] And the point of it is that we're increasing 350 units that are going to impact directly

[1:23:21] the schools that are here.

[1:23:22] Those 350 units are going to have a significant impact on teachers' ability, like you already

[1:23:27] heard.

[1:23:27] It's going to have an impact on the traffic, which is largely not going to be done from

[1:23:31] 146.

[1:23:31] It's going to be coming through the neighborhood, which is managed by the other HOS.

[1:23:35] That's a huge problem that I have with that, because we're the ones paying for

[1:23:38] the trees to go in.

[1:23:39] We're the ones paying for the grass to be maintained.

[1:23:41] We're the ones paying for that that they will not be contributing to.

[1:23:43] Further on that, I have an issue with who is actually building it, too.

[1:23:47] When you research the company, they hold onto the property for about four and a half years.

[1:23:52] That's not very long. Four and a half years, they sell out of it, they get their investment back,

[1:23:57] and they move on. That's their average holding period when you look at their investment portfolio on their website.

[1:24:01] And then if you look at the complaints that happen from the actual residents of the property,

[1:24:06] which I'm more than happy to show if you'd like to showcase them, but they're in the petition so I won't cover it right now.

[1:24:11] If you look at that, you're going to see that a lot of the residents have said after they have left that the properties have gone to trash.

[1:24:18] They're not maintenance dwell, they're not managed, and that's not what we want in our neighborhood.

[1:24:21] That's not what we want in Carmel. We want a place who's going to invest and who's going to stay,

[1:24:25] which is why people who are going to do that, the commercial buildings, the housing units, those areas are all going to matter.

[1:24:30] So where I'm actually with on this is that we have to make sure that we stand for what was already developed before and what's been approved,

[1:24:36] that we follow through on that and not amend this

[1:24:39] and create more problems that have already been identified

[1:24:41] through all these scenarios.

[1:24:43] I have about 15 other points, but they're all in the petition,

[1:24:46] so I'll go ahead and defer the floor from there.

[1:24:48] Thank you.

[1:24:49] Thank you.

[1:24:52] My name is Michael Stevens.

[1:24:54] I live in Cherry Creek Estates about a mile

[1:24:58] and 1.9 miles, give or take, from where this is proposed.

[1:25:03] We've been living where we live for 17 years

[1:25:05] in this area and have watched that go from a giant field into very dense housing.

[1:25:13] I would say I walked through there yesterday night with my dog through the area and I noticed

[1:25:21] a couple of things that I was really surprised to see.

[1:25:24] First, through that area, especially on 146th Street just north of this, there's a lot

[1:25:32] of trash.

[1:25:33] I don't know how else to say it just garbage piling up in the area is construction debris. It's road trash. It's

[1:25:41] Bottles, it's just trash and I never thought I would see that in my neighborhood, frankly

[1:25:48] Secondly, there's a large. I guess it's apartment area

[1:25:53] just to the I guess that would be the

[1:25:57] the east of this area that's proposed and just walking through there again I was really

[1:26:03] surprised I don't know who manages it I don't know anything about it but I did notice that

[1:26:07] a lot of the facades were really degrading these departments can't possibly be more than

[1:26:13] seven or eight years old and they're really not very well maintained again something

[1:26:18] I did not think I would see in this particular area where we are and I just have to

[1:26:24] say that the speed with which these buildings are going up, my daughter actually lives literally

[1:26:30] across the street from where this is going up and we're watching apartments go up and

[1:26:37] I mean they're not there on Tuesday, they're there on Wednesday, it's really amazing

[1:26:42] that you can build things that quickly but it just can't possibly be good. I don't

[1:26:48] know how to say it, it can't possibly be good. And then the last thing I wanted

[1:26:52] to say is all of the numbers about, I felt almost like scare tactics about five-story

[1:26:59] buildings going up along that area, it's still, I was trying to get a sense, so if you could

[1:27:04] address this when you speak, how are we actually going to see a net increase in the total

[1:27:10] number of human beings that are going to be living in that area, because that was

[1:27:14] unclear. And I mean more people, more trash, more traffic, more noise. That's

[1:27:21] nice. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:27:26] Hello Teresa Stevens. Connected to Mike Stevens. We

[1:27:31] live in Cherry Creek Estates. I think what we're here doing tonight is asking

[1:27:36] for you to preserve our quality of life. Long-time Carmel resident love the

[1:27:41] schools, love this area and what we're seeing is something really outside

[1:27:47] what we ever thought we would see in Carmel.

[1:27:50] I have an air pollution monitor, love the environment.

[1:27:53] I've been looking at it for a year.

[1:27:55] This last Sunday, the worst air pollution in our entire area,

[1:28:00] including Southside and Annapolis,

[1:28:02] was highest at my house.

[1:28:05] I never thought I would see it.

[1:28:07] I have a screenshot if you want to see it.

[1:28:09] So think about putting more people in that area,

[1:28:11] more traffic.

[1:28:12] What's that going to do to our air quality?

[1:28:15] The roads, I don't know if there was a traffic study that's been done that's not 10 years

[1:28:20] old, as I understand it, the traffic study is outdated, but we know from just walking

[1:28:25] on that street, we've heard about an accident, small kids, you know, families are in that

[1:28:30] area and that road is not set up for the volume of traffic that we are seeing.

[1:28:36] So I ask you to think about the safety of the resident schools.

[1:28:39] I've been a school teacher most of my life.

[1:28:41] If we just had 25%, I think, of the scholars come from Carmel, Indiana, I'm so proud of

[1:28:51] that.

[1:28:51] But what are you going to do to our teachers, to our schools if we overpopulate this area?

[1:28:56] We have to draw a fine line.

[1:28:58] I love development.

[1:29:00] But there comes a time when it's just too much.

[1:29:02] So I ask you to think about that as well.

[1:29:05] Think about the air quality, the safety of our schools, the safety of our residents,

[1:29:10] And then the traffic, I don't believe our roadways are set up for this, so thank you for your consideration

[1:29:18] and thank you for giving us time to speak tonight.

[1:29:21] Thank you.

[1:29:25] Hi, I'm Monica Azzampapirano. I live in Meadows.

[1:29:29] I just want to bring up something that I haven't heard anyone say yet.

[1:29:33] I was told that the developers said they wanted to build affordable housing.

[1:29:37] affordable housing to me is a nice way of saying social or subsidized housing,

[1:29:42] which we don't want in Carmel. Next to all these really nice houses,

[1:29:45] people have spent, you know, a lot of money to buy and to bring down our property prices.

[1:29:52] So I don't know if in four or five years when they decide to sell this to someone else,

[1:29:57] if it will be

[1:30:00] More of a social housing for lower-income families. I don't have a problem with that.

[1:30:06] It's just that it will bring everyone's property value down, and that can last for quite a while.

[1:30:12] So that's, I'm not sure what, what the developer is talking about, but I have heard that that's what they want to do.

[1:30:19] Besides everything else that everyone said. Okay. Well, thank you. Great. Thank you for your comments.

[1:30:24] And this commission, this body does not discriminate with respect to economic status or housing

[1:30:33] prices.

[1:30:34] And in fact, the City of Carmel desires housing options at all price points.

[1:30:38] So I want to be clear that as the commission considers this petition, it will be done

[1:30:42] on that basis.

[1:30:44] John, you have five minutes to respond to these comments.

[1:30:52] Thank you.

[1:30:53] I'll group with some of the topics that were brought up.

[1:30:56] First with regard to traffic,

[1:30:59] I can put up the slight layout.

[1:31:16] Proposed development should result in net reduction

[1:31:19] in the traffic because it reduces the amount of the office.

[1:31:22] In regards to the office development

[1:31:25] and the comments about the mixed use and the walkability,

[1:31:29] we're not reducing that potential.

[1:31:31] The primary office area doesn't authorize

[1:31:33] those types of retail and service uses.

[1:31:36] is it's primarily office development

[1:31:39] with the allowance of office above.

[1:31:43] So you see, we have two acres remaining here

[1:31:47] that would be subject to the same requirements

[1:31:49] as the development across the street.

[1:31:51] It's not that it has to lay out identically,

[1:31:53] but those office and service uses that you see

[1:31:56] in the multi-tenant buildings here,

[1:31:58] I know Wendy's was mentioned,

[1:31:59] but it's unlikely that there'd be another

[1:32:03] fast food type of restaurant here,

[1:32:05] but they would be uses that Avoneer would believe are appropriate to cater to the existing

[1:32:11] residents within the community. Those smaller things like coffee shops and other things like

[1:32:15] that are authorized under that space. The office area, which is the balance of that,

[1:32:21] doesn't accommodate retail uses within that development. But from a traffic standpoint,

[1:32:28] something was mentioned. If I can draw on this and you can see it. This is the

[1:32:31] extension I believe of James Dean and the the idea was mentioned that traffic

[1:32:38] would come off 146th Street at there and exit and travel and share Creek

[1:32:43] Boulevard and down to River Road to bypass perhaps the River Road

[1:32:47] intersection. If that potential exists I think that same potential exists

[1:32:53] today by the traffic would turn down Community Drive and access over to

[1:32:58] River Road today.

[1:33:01] Neither of those two options.

[1:33:10] Thank you.

[1:33:19] Again, that option or alternative

[1:33:20] exists today and it's an access point that's anticipated to distribute traffic in an appropriate

[1:33:28] manner through the roadway network within the community itself and has been planned

[1:33:34] regardless of use throughout that space.

[1:33:41] Other comments regarding traffic such as traffic

[1:33:44] safety and an increase in schools. We did receive information from school administration

[1:33:50] today about their capacity. They're under capacity today by over a thousand students

[1:33:57] at the elementary level. They have done a recent impact analysis and projection on their

[1:34:08] elementary schools and they've indicated that in that projection there are 214 students

[1:34:13] shy of where they thought they would be at that level.

[1:34:16] So there are more than 1,000 below what their capacity is, 214 shy of the projected amount

[1:34:24] within their analysis, and in addition to that, they've indicated that the analysis

[1:34:30] identifies that they're going to flatten and then decrease over time in that cohort

[1:34:34] that makes up elementary school education.

[1:34:38] We were asked to reach back out to the schools, and we did receive that information.

[1:34:42] We can provide some more detail at the commission, at the committee level.

[1:34:45] I don't have anything on their letterhead yet and that they could send me,

[1:34:49] we received it as early as, excuse me, as late as today.

[1:35:02] One other comment was made about the addition of 350 dwelling units.

[1:35:06] As I indicated in the presentation today, there are more dwelling units authorized today,

[1:35:12] approximately 315 by right today under the different development scenario

[1:35:17] that would include more intense development.

[1:35:19] So more intense office development with loss on multiple story buildings.

[1:35:24] The reason we provided all that information is because those are the standards under which

[1:35:30] we have to comply today.

[1:35:32] So if you don't know where you are, you can't necessarily base where you're going.

[1:35:38] So we want to identify all those things so the Planning Commission can make an informed

[1:35:41] decision.

[1:35:42] This development would cause the addition of approximately 35 additional authorized dwellings

[1:35:47] above and beyond what's already permitted today and would eliminate the potential for

[1:35:53] the loss as identified in the staff report.

[1:35:59] There was one other, if I can just have a

[1:36:01] couple minutes. There was a comment made by a, that there was a petition that was circulated

[1:36:06] if we could be provided a copy of the petition and what information people were provided

[1:36:10] to sign the petition. We have not seen that. And I don't know, I'll allow staff

[1:36:15] to respond. I don't know if they've received a copy of a petition. There was information

[1:36:20] about an outdated traffic study that may be over 10 years old. I'm unaware of that study.

[1:36:26] We haven't provided that to staff and we haven't referenced it in our submittal. So if the

[1:36:32] individual who referenced that could provide us a copy of the referred to traffic study,

[1:36:38] noted schools, and that was it.

[1:36:43] Thank you. We will move forward to the department report.

[1:36:46] Thank you for the record, Alexia Lopez with the Department of Community Services.

[1:36:55] The petitioner proposes to amend the legacy PUD ordinance to remove the office use block

[1:37:01] and allow more residential units including apartments and for rent attached dwellings.

[1:37:07] The property affected by the ordinance amendment is currently within the village core,

[1:37:11] the primary office, and the urban residential use blocks of the legacy PUD.

[1:37:16] Apartments are permitted in the Village Corps and the Urban Residential Use Blocks.

[1:37:23] They're asking to increase the total number of units as originally planned for with the Legacy PUD.

[1:37:30] We have received about 22 letters and remonstrance to this project.

[1:37:34] You heard a lot of those concerns this evening that were brought up regarding traffic crying from rental properties and overburdening the schools.

[1:37:43] staff does not believe this project will have a negative impact on the community as a whole.

[1:37:48] What is proposed tonight is a neighborhood for people to live in.

[1:37:52] It may not be the same form as other neighborhoods.

[1:37:55] It's not a single family for sale development,

[1:37:57] but that does not mean the people who live here will be any lesser or will bring crime

[1:38:02] or will damage the community as referred to in their monstrance letters.

[1:38:06] Staff reached out to Carmel Clay Schools as well about this project,

[1:38:10] project, and they have no concerns with accommodating the increase in the enrollment.

[1:38:15] In fact, they have stated that multifamily results in few school-age children.

[1:38:21] A city needs a variety of housing options to support it, and this use along a major

[1:38:26] thoroughfare in an area zoned for urban residential and village core with walkable commercial

[1:38:31] nearby is an appropriate location.

[1:38:34] This project has good pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connectivity, and Amenity Center

[1:38:40] will be provided to serve the future residents of this neighborhood.

[1:38:44] The development will allow for more density near the core of the legacy and the retail

[1:38:49] areas that are already there to help support these commercial areas.

[1:38:52] The project will allow for additional variety and housing options.

[1:38:57] The designs of the buildings will be in substantial compliance to the character imagery that

[1:39:01] that was included in the PUD amendment.

[1:39:04] So what we've seen in that amendment is the style

[1:39:07] that we would expect to see when they come through

[1:39:09] for their development plan in ADLS.

[1:39:12] That style is similar to the Craftsman style

[1:39:14] with front porches, smaller front setbacks

[1:39:17] and sidewalk connections to the street.

[1:39:20] The project provides appropriate transitions

[1:39:22] by putting the larger apartment buildings

[1:39:24] along the main road and legacy

[1:39:26] across from the existing apartments

[1:39:29] and then transitioning to the smaller

[1:39:30] one and two-story buildings toward the west. The department continues to work with Petitioner

[1:39:38] on all the review comments as this project moves on to the committee review. And we would

[1:39:42] recommend that the Planning Commission sends this item to the Residential Committee meeting

[1:39:47] on Thursday, October 6th. Thank you.

[1:39:51] Thank you. That closes the public hearing. It's 741. Discussion from the Commission.

[1:40:00] Sue?

[1:40:04] Just this old I guess this is not going to come if assuming this was approved and

[1:40:09] no basis for that statement at all right now this will not come back for ADLS at

[1:40:14] all so this will just be a revision to the PUD correct I believe it will come

[1:40:21] back for ADL development plan and ADLS it will okay and I just wanted to be

[1:40:25] sure because we haven't really talked about really drilled down on the

[1:40:29] details. You showed an example of Old Monrovia, and where is that? Is that around here?

[1:40:39] Huntsville, Alabama is where that development is located.

[1:40:43] I'm sorry?

[1:40:44] Huntsville, Alabama.

[1:40:46] Oh, it's okay. Well, we won't be seeing it then. And when I say ADLS, I mean Architectural

[1:40:52] Design, Lighting, and Science.

[1:40:56] Landscaping and Science.

[1:40:57] You got it.

[1:40:58] We've been saying it for so long that I apologize because not everybody knows

[1:41:01] is that acronym.

[1:41:05] This may sound petty, but I'd like to see you give an example and committee

[1:41:10] on the pool and this clubhouse and find a place in Carmel that you can compare it to

[1:41:16] in size because I've heard too many times we put some developments in and that's a

[1:41:20] postage stamp not really designed or built for the size of the community you're trying

[1:41:26] to support. So if you would do that.

[1:41:31] I think it might be time to look at the traffic

[1:41:34] again. And I don't know in a traffic study if you can also include what's being built across the street,

[1:41:39] which is not part of Carmel or how that goes. But since this went through, and I was on the Planning

[1:41:45] Commission when it went through, I can't remember. Many, many years. Were you on? Many. It was,

[1:41:52] PUDs were relatively new. And, you know, we wanted, and this seemed like the best that we could get

[1:41:59] because it was such a mixed use and it did have commercial and office and couple types

[1:42:05] of housing.

[1:42:06] And it just seemed like we really hit and I'm kind of sorry to see this come in because

[1:42:12] I thought we worked so hard on it and I understand there's changes in commercial and office buildings

[1:42:17] today and there may not be as much of a demand for it as there was back then.

[1:42:22] But I think we need to be very cognizant of the people that have moved in over the

[1:42:27] years and what they were anticipating in that neighborhood and what would be their neighbors.

[1:42:34] What is far by that? I mean the type of facilities, the green space and everything that was committed

[1:42:40] to in the PUD.

[1:42:44] Because, you know, it was designed as a multi-use commercial walkability

[1:42:48] place.

[1:42:53] I guess that's all. I'll let everybody else take a chance at this. Thank you.

[1:42:56] And one thing I can't say, Ms. Westmeyer, that the modifications that we're proposing

[1:43:01] to the ordinance in no way impact the level of open space that would be provided throughout

[1:43:06] the development.

[1:43:07] So there's as much open space under this proposal as, in fact, more green area under

[1:43:15] this proposal than there would be if developed under the scenarios that I described earlier.

[1:43:24] I have a question for staff.

[1:43:26] We've had a lot of numbers tonight.

[1:43:28] And I just for clarification, how many more units does this bring than we originally had?

[1:43:39] Let me pull up the Department report.

[1:43:43] This is bringing an additional 350.

[1:43:47] 35.

[1:43:49] I'm sorry, 350 total.

[1:43:52] As proposed, this includes 350 dwellings.

[1:43:56] Okay.

[1:43:56] But as per what was it's been already authorized under the existing PUD there would be as many as 35 additional

[1:44:03] Dwelling units and and that's not considering if the site were developed with a CCRC

[1:44:09] Which would raise that number by potentially additional 225 dwellings, which is authorized under the existing ordinance. So

[1:44:16] Depending on how you look at it. It says it says many as there are a few as 35 additional or

[1:44:23] or some number reduced by that 225 authorized CCRC

[1:44:28] or senior housing development units.

[1:44:32] In a project like this, who maintains the exterior?

[1:44:37] I mean, it would be identical to the format

[1:44:39] under which JC Hart maintains their facilities.

[1:44:42] It would be by the owner.

[1:44:43] The owner maintains and manages

[1:44:45] all the green space that's on site.

[1:44:48] They maintain all the parking areas.

[1:44:49] as they maintain all of the building exteriors, both in the three-story buildings along Community

[1:44:56] Drive as well as all the other dwellings within the development.

[1:44:58] So we're talking about.

[1:45:01] Outciting windows, landscaping.

[1:45:03] 100%, anything vertical as well as the parking fields which are horizontal and the landscaping

[1:45:08] is all maintained by the owner. And the provisions of the ordinance which apply in this situation

[1:45:13] that don't necessarily apply to a single family is under the DPA, the less provisions in your

[1:45:18] ordinance, we would come back to you, we would say here is the landscaping plan that

[1:45:22] is proposed. Staff has the authority to do inspections which I know the urban forester

[1:45:27] does on a regular basis, and if they see a situation where there's a dead or un-maintained

[1:45:32] plant material, staff has the authority to require us to require the owner to replace

[1:45:38] that under a timeframe prescribed by the urban forester. That doesn't typically apply to

[1:45:44] residential development in general, but it does apply in situations where you, the

[1:45:48] Planning Commission, has DPA to less authority over development.

[1:45:52] So the tenant is only required to maintain the interior of the property.

[1:45:58] When you say maintain, I mean they don't paint, they don't do that.

[1:46:04] The owner paints the interior, the owner of the development maintains all the utilities.

[1:46:09] They maintain all the infrastructure, the washer, dryer, ovens, microwave.

[1:46:16] But they're not responsible for anything that shows to the public on the exterior.

[1:46:21] the the tenant the tenant correct okay you know I think this is a project that

[1:46:28] is needed in our area I just don't think this is the spot for it I think that

[1:46:35] legacy that development is so dense as it stands and I really believe that

[1:46:42] commercial more retail commercial development is needed it's they just on

[1:46:48] On the east side of Carmel, once you pass, I mean, you're going to Noblesville once you

[1:46:53] get east, we really don't have anything in Carmel on the east side.

[1:47:00] I just, I already think that we've got, and I understand what's in the PUD and I understand

[1:47:07] the permitted uses and we can have apartments, but this seems like we need to look at traffic.

[1:47:16] I mean, I just that and especially if we have development of a dense development going in across the street

[1:47:23] I think this is a recipe for disaster. I do like the project though. I just I'm not crazy about putting it there

[1:47:37] John is there a master

[1:47:40] HOA that that

[1:47:42] encompasses the entirety of legacy today or is this a

[1:47:46] It's a piece of the wrong word, but is it project by project, subdivision by subdivision,

[1:47:54] each has its own owner's association and maintenance?

[1:47:57] I'll stand corrected, but there are multiple HOAs, as I described.

[1:48:02] There's the Overlook area, the Meadows area, the Grove area, and the Ridge area.

[1:48:07] All have their separate associations and they have different responsibilities internally

[1:48:10] to that pod, but they also participate in a master association.

[1:48:15] The master association has very much less to maintain,

[1:48:20] but also maintains that amenity facility that's located right here within the overall.

[1:48:26] Individual, we'll call them states, and then a nation that contributes to the overall amenity area.

[1:48:35] I think there may be a couple other spots where the master or the nation takes care of a couple of signs

[1:48:41] at different locations within the community but I can get you an exhaustive list if you'd

[1:48:46] like to see one of what they maintain by state and by nation if you will.

[1:48:51] So what would be the obligation of this project to participate in or support financially the

[1:49:00] nation?

[1:49:03] I'm going to have to get additional information from the owner to fully understand that

[1:49:07] and I can get it to the committee.

[1:49:08] I don't have it off the top of my head. I apologize and is it that that umbrella group that nation group to continue your analogy that

[1:49:16] Maintains to the extent there's maintenance of the the natural preserve area west of here. Excuse me east of here

[1:49:23] So there's the wetlands and there's the woods that are on the west side of community drive

[1:49:30] Which I believe may still be under the ownership of the

[1:49:34] Master developer or their air

[1:49:37] The area that is all the prairie area that exists here, I'll outline it, up to and including

[1:49:49] the adjacent to Community Drive.

[1:49:51] That is space that's today owned by the Carmel Clay Parks Department or the Board.

[1:49:59] It's the Carmel Clay Parks.

[1:50:00] And

[1:50:04] then lastly, community drive is already a public street maintained by the city of Carmel.

[1:50:10] Yes, all the streets within the legacy are public with the exception of the area that's intermittent here that is within the multifamily.

[1:50:22] The extension of Hopewell Parkway, James Dean and Larson will be public.

[1:50:27] other internal drives to our community would be privately owned and

[1:50:33] maintained.

[1:50:36] Thank you. Mr. President. Josh. Just a clarification. I think the

[1:50:43] Parks Foundation technically owns the park system, the park there, but it is

[1:50:48] going to be transferred to Carmel Clay Parks and it's in community master

[1:50:52] planning right now, so that would be the Thomas Marcelli Nature Preservation

[1:50:59] area. It includes the home of a couple of wellheads as well. So anyway, public input,

[1:51:07] master planning, Carmel Clay Parks.org, look her up.

[1:51:14] Mr. Dr. Shewitz, I think it's interesting

[1:51:19] when we have community members who come to us and say we want what was originally presented

[1:51:24] to us, even if it would have been more dense.

[1:51:28] I hear the community in this room, quite frankly, kind of talking a little bit out of both sides

[1:51:33] of their mouth on the subject, but let's stick with the notion of what was originally supposed

[1:51:41] to be there should probably go there.

[1:51:45] I think, especially if I was somebody who moved from New York and they were expecting

[1:51:50] in Carmel to be the walkable, lovable place that we always touted it to be and instead

[1:51:58] we got not the highest and best use of the land.

[1:52:07] That's all I got.

[1:52:13] One last question from me and it's for staff. In the comments, staff raises the issue

[1:52:23] of whether the number count should be applied to apartments versus attached dwellings with

[1:52:32] the rationale that these are all for rent units, therefore they should be classified as apartments.

[1:52:38] Can you explain the thinking behind that a little bit for me?

[1:52:41] Because when the PUD was enacted, the concept or the product of a rental detached home,

[1:52:51] a community of detached rental homes at least wasn't in my mindset when the

[1:52:59] PUD came through this body. So can you explain the distinction there and why

[1:53:05] that change is important? Sure. So what we're working with is the existing PUD

[1:53:12] and definitions that were already set up in that PUD. And so based on that

[1:53:17] definition of attached dwelling in the PUD. It's dwellings which are attached vertically

[1:53:22] or horizontally including townhomes, flats, duplex, triplex, quadruplex, and then it goes

[1:53:29] on to say maybe sold as condominiums or individually deeded lots. Apartments shall not be within

[1:53:34] the definition of attached dwellings and as such all references in the legacy ordinance

[1:53:39] to attach dwellings shall exclude apartments. So my interpretation of that is if it's,

[1:53:44] Those are meant for single family attached for sale products for an attached welling. So if these are all going to be for rent

[1:53:52] I just want to make sure it's written correctly so that they're not

[1:53:54] Excluding those from being for rent because there are a lot of units that are attached either

[1:54:01] You know

[1:54:02] two units attached together and so

[1:54:05] That would be classified as an apartment if it's the for rent

[1:54:08] Okay, I guess I'll need to go back and look at the language of the PUD because the yeah

[1:54:13] It's sort of a, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, is it really a duck?

[1:54:18] And we're, we're weighting that determination based on whether it's for sale or for rent.

[1:54:23] But in this case, it's detached.

[1:54:24] You drive down the street in this community and you'll see what appears to be a single

[1:54:30] family or sale product.

[1:54:34] So I'll, I think for my own, my own homework, I need to look at that further and be sure

[1:54:40] that we're treating it in a way that gives the best possible outcome.

[1:54:45] Right.

[1:54:46] And the apartment is also defined in there and it just says a dwelling intended primarily

[1:54:49] for rental.

[1:54:50] Yeah.

[1:54:51] So I don't think we're opposed to the layout or the design or the use of whether it's

[1:54:57] attached or detached or the apartment building just making sure we're classifying it the

[1:55:01] correct way to, so it's approved for the future.

[1:55:10] I forgot to, I had one more comment, the James Steen cut through.

[1:55:14] I think absolutely that's going to be used by people to bypass that corner.

[1:55:20] That area is highly dense in the morning and in the evening with traffic.

[1:55:28] People are going to find the path of least resistance and that's going to be it.

[1:55:33] So anybody who thinks that people aren't going to take that as a cut through,

[1:55:37] it's different when they cut through on community drive because they're not going through a neighborhood.

[1:55:42] You know that there aren't houses James Dean is compact with houses. I think that's um, I

[1:55:50] Think that's dangerous for those neighbors that live on that street.

[1:55:59] I think that's an interesting issue

[1:56:01] John if you could research since you've you've stated that James Dean will be a city dedicated public city

[1:56:08] Controlled street right regardless of the development scenario James Dean would be a street that would be constructed as any part of

[1:56:15] any plan that would come in front of the planning commission.

[1:56:18] So the question would be then, with being a public or dedicated city street,

[1:56:24] what can the city do in terms of stop signs and speed limits

[1:56:30] to make it not the path of least resistance?

[1:56:34] Because I agree with Kerry.

[1:56:35] And another thing that we did based on staff's recommendation,

[1:56:38] the site plan that you have in front of you this evening,

[1:56:41] this plan staff requested that we realign that street and remove any

[1:56:46] driveways from it so we don't have driveways backing out and onto that

[1:56:51] street it's free from any individual driveways likewise the Hopewell Parkway

[1:56:58] there were the the prior plan that was originally submitted had driveways

[1:57:01] accessing that street and that was modified to correct that so the

[1:57:07] But Folkwell Parkway and James Dean don't have

[1:57:12] driveways accessing them.

[1:57:13] They have effectively street intersections across that plan.

[1:57:19] And we've got, I mean, all streets,

[1:57:23] whether they're public or private,

[1:57:24] would have sidewalks on both sides of those streets

[1:57:28] as required under the ordinance.

[1:57:35] Alex, this is a PUD amendment, correct?

[1:57:42] And if this gets a positive recommendation from the Plan Commission then, or maybe a

[1:57:48] negative recommendation, then it goes to the city council, correct?

[1:57:52] And the city council is the body that makes this final, correct?

[1:57:57] Correct.

[1:58:02] President Grayville.

[1:58:04] I would, similarly to what you alluded to a moment ago, I was going to suggest

[1:58:07] if this road was planned already, perhaps there's things you can explore with the engineering

[1:58:12] department or others to inhibit cut-through traffic, and if not, how can we, you know,

[1:58:16] rein it in, bring it under control with speed control devices?

[1:58:22] I guess I think I even heard Sue talk about it a while back. If this proposal is less

[1:58:29] intense than what could be there, and there isn't a traffic study, or there isn't

[1:58:33] one that is from 10 years ago or even 2018,

[1:58:38] perhaps there's a summary or a discussion

[1:58:39] you could bring us on what it means to traffic,

[1:58:43] maybe from a high level or even get down the weeds

[1:58:46] that might help settle some folks here.

[1:58:49] I guess similar to some of the elements

[1:58:52] that have already been talked about

[1:58:53] and then we got some feedback from the audience

[1:58:55] this evening, unlike some other projects

[1:59:00] where we hear petitioners,

[1:59:02] it's transitioning from an empty farm field to something significant, we've already got

[1:59:07] a plan in place.

[1:59:08] And so I guess if you can just either speak to tonight or a committee on why are there

[1:59:15] market factors that are driving this, why is the change needed?

[1:59:18] Why is this better for you all as petitioners?

[1:59:21] Why is it better for the city if there's data or even anecdotal thoughts you can bring

[1:59:26] to kind of further the thought on why should this body be interested in this?

[1:59:31] I wasn't around in 2018 with the PUD as in place, but I have no doubt that folks worked hard on what's there.

[1:59:38] So why should we change this other than this is something different?

[1:59:45] We'll be prepared to outline that.

[1:59:47] And specifically regarding traffic, the petitioner has prepared trip generation analysis between the different scenarios.

[1:59:56] I'll get in touch with engineering, find out for them what type of scope.

[2:00:00] In terms of any additional review they would want to do and we can present that to the committee as well.

[2:00:09] Is there a motion?

[2:00:10] President Grayville, I'd make a motion that we send this to the residential committee with the votes coming back to this full commission.

[2:00:20] Your second, Debbie. Thank you, Mr. Hill and Ms. Buckler for the motion.

[2:00:24] In second, all in favor of the motion say aye.

[2:00:26] Aye.

[2:00:27] Any opposed?

[2:00:30] Seeing none.

[2:00:31] One final item. We were asked to and we agreed to have a second neighborhood meeting.

[2:00:36] We had a neighborhood meeting last week for residents that received notice of tonight's

[2:00:41] public hearing and that's going to either be on October 19th or 20th and we'll send

[2:00:46] out an additional mail notice with regard to that and we're going to notice all residents

[2:00:50] within the legacy of that second neighborhood meeting.

[2:00:54] So either the 19th or 20th of October, a second neighborhood meeting, all residents

[2:00:59] within the legacy would get notice of that so we can continue to review what

[2:01:05] you know, what those expectations were at the time versus what's proposed today.

[2:01:10] I don't hear you asking for it, but I want to be sure that I'm not hearing it.

[2:01:14] Is there a defer the start of the committee's work until after those community meetings

[2:01:21] have been held, or is it your client's preference to move forward with the October

[2:01:27] 6th committee meeting?

[2:01:28] We would prefer to move forward with the October 6th committee meeting, understanding

[2:01:31] that it's our expectation that that's not going to be the only, the one and only committee

[2:01:36] meeting with regard to the request that's anticipated that there would be two or three.

[2:01:40] Right.

[2:01:41] Okay.

[2:01:42] Very good.

[2:01:42] Okay.

[2:01:43] And just to confirm that motion was passed, so this goes to the residential committee,

[2:01:49] currently scheduled to next meet on Thursday, October 6th.

[2:01:53] So thank you.

[2:01:57] We're going to move forward to our next public hearing, which is the Hilton Tempo

[2:02:01] Hotel at Clay Terrace, so if those of you who are not sticking around would clear the

[2:02:04] room quickly and quietly, we would be grateful.

[2:02:28] Good.

[2:02:29] Yeah.

[2:02:30] As long as we don't lose a quorum.

[2:02:50] All right.

[2:02:50] Our third public hearing this evening is Docket PZ-2022-00149, DP-80LS, Clay Terrace,

[2:02:58] Hilton Tempo Hotel.

[2:03:00] The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new hotel on one acre,

[2:03:04] which will be five stories tall or 70 feet with 150 rooms and a rooftop restaurant.

[2:03:11] The site is located at 14311 Clay Terrace Boulevard in Clay Terrace.

[2:03:16] The site is owned under PUDZ-662-20.

[2:03:21] The petition has been filed by Mark Leach of Fagery Drinker on behalf of Lisa Callahan

[2:03:26] of Washington Prime Group and Christopher White of Equicor Hotel Group LLC.

[2:03:31] And I saw Steve Hardin. There he is. So Steve will be speaking for Mark this evening.

[2:03:40] Good evening, Mr. President, members of the Plaint Commission. For the record, my name is Steve Hardin.

[2:03:44] I'm a partner in the law from a fakery drinker with offices located here in Carmel at 600 East 96th Street.

[2:03:50] Pleased to be here with Lisa Callahan from Clay Terrace Partners. She's back here in the back.

[2:03:55] You may remember her from 2020 when we were here working on the redevelopment for Clay Terrace.

[2:04:00] and then Chris White from Echo Corps Hotel Group is here as well.

[2:04:04] The team architect, David Roush, is here for the architectural questions, and Alan Fetajic

[2:04:08] from Kimley Horn is also here, and then our land planner, Mark Leach, as well, has been

[2:04:12] working on the project.

[2:04:13] First off, the team is very thankful to be working with Rachel and the city's team.

[2:04:17] Hopefully the package you've seen is pretty well-defined, and there's been a lot of

[2:04:21] good back-and-forth and feedback on the project, and I will go over it with you.

[2:04:26] So if you're familiar with Clay Terrace, this is showing you where we are in Yellow Highlight.

[2:04:32] It is the location of the one-acre, approximately one-acre site for the new hotel Tempo by Hilton.

[2:04:38] And that's where the location is right now. This is just to orient you.

[2:04:42] This is north up here, 146. Here's the highway here.

[2:04:45] And then Clay Terrace Drive runs up through Boulevard, runs through the middle.

[2:04:50] It's a little bit more of a zoomed in look.

[2:04:55] Here's the concept plan as well.

[2:04:57] Well,

[2:05:01] President Grabo mentioned this is 150 rooms within the development of the renderings.

[2:05:11] There is on the first floor, as you'll see on the west side, there's a courtyard area

[2:05:17] opened up in this area with the first floor.

[2:05:19] There's the lobby, the front desk, the bar, kitchen number of rooms on the first floor.

[2:05:26] The second through fourth floors, as you can see in this area through here, those

[2:05:31] Those are all, will be the hotel rooms, and then at the top floor, one of the things that

[2:05:37] the team has been working on with the city is this fifth floor will have an outdoor, it's

[2:05:42] a covered outdoor area here for, there'll be a bar, there's a dining room inside with

[2:05:49] a couple of private dining rooms as well.

[2:05:51] There's the fitness areas on the fifth floor also.

[2:05:55] From the architectural perspective, the team has worked closely with the city.

[2:05:59] This is all mainly brick where the tower is, along the base and the tower, and architectural

[2:06:06] panels are the main material on the rest of that.

[2:06:12] There were a number of comments in the staff report that the team continues to work with

[2:06:16] Rachel and her team, but I would just give you a note there was a question about long-term

[2:06:20] bicycle parking that is being provided inside, so we'll between now and get into the

[2:06:24] committee.

[2:06:25] We'll be providing, a lot of these probably have it, but where are they, where are we

[2:06:29] showing it?

[2:06:30] So we'll get that updated plans for that committee meeting, but there are, we do have

[2:06:33] plenty of long-term bike parking.

[2:06:36] The couple questions about exterior lighting and rooftop lighting, we will be providing

[2:06:41] that, those answers as well.

[2:06:42] Those are all going to be already incorporated into the plan.

[2:06:45] We just need to provide some additional detail, and then there was also a question

[2:06:49] at the bottom of that first page about providing some additional detail about the

[2:06:53] screening of the rooftop equipment and that has also been accommodated as well and we'll

[2:06:57] work with the staff between now and the committee meeting to provide that additional detail to

[2:07:01] make sure that that is all there.

[2:07:05] The plans for this project are to move forward to begin construction in 2023.

[2:07:10] You'll be seeing as we go through the coming months the team is continuing to work with

[2:07:14] the city on the rest of the first phase of the redevelopment of Clay Terrace which

[2:07:17] we talked about a couple of years ago.

[2:07:19] We had a pandemic that intervened at the beginning of all of that.

[2:07:22] So we are now back to the first part of that process is with the hotel

[2:07:26] I know you've had quite a long meeting already tonight

[2:07:29] So I'm going to wrap up and

[2:07:31] Respectfully request you to forward us on to your committee where we'll be happy to continue to work through any questions and answers that the Plain Commission

[2:07:37] Has as well as for the staff as well. Thank you very much

[2:07:41] Thank You Steve. This is a public hearing. Can I see how many members in our gallery wish to speak on this petition?

[2:07:51] two hands

[2:07:53] five minutes apiece,

[2:07:58] whoever wishes to be first, step right up to the microphone.

[2:08:00] Good

[2:08:11] evening. I'll be brief. I'm Jessica Sherman. I'm actually from Noblesville.

[2:08:14] I've never been to one of these before. Hoping that I'm in the right meeting,

[2:08:20] I actually don't have a major opposition to the development of this hotel,

[2:08:25] but I believe that it falls in the area of the Clay Terrace dog park,

[2:08:29] which I've frequented the last several months.

[2:08:33] with my dog, and I don't know if any of you have dogs here,

[2:08:37] but if you do and you've ever been there,

[2:08:38] you probably notice that it's a great community

[2:08:42] and a lot of activity.

[2:08:43] So really all I wanna ask for is if this is that location,

[2:08:49] I'm hoping that there's going to be a space for that

[2:08:52] to be relocated somewhere in Clay Terrace.

[2:08:55] There is a really big need for this in the community.

[2:08:58] There aren't many dog parks in the area that are free.

[2:09:01] There is another one in Carmel, but it is you have to pay to get into it and there's currently a waitlist

[2:09:07] So my only other alternative is Hamilton Town Center. So

[2:09:12] That's kind of what I'm asking for and I know there were other people in the park

[2:09:16] I thought maybe would be here, but I don't see them here

[2:09:19] so I guess I'm the lone representative and

[2:09:23] What we're hoping for is if this is the case that we can get some kind of a temporary

[2:09:27] relocation. In the meantime, if there is a more permanent relocation plan for that because

[2:09:34] there's, I mean, I'm probably there three times a week and many other people are as

[2:09:38] well and it's just a huge asset to the community. So, that's really all I have. And I appreciate

[2:09:45] your time. Thank you.

[2:09:46] Thank you. Your fellow dog owners let you speak for them. You did such a good job.

[2:09:51] Thank you.

[2:09:53] Yes, sir.

[2:09:53] I'm not a dog lover, but it is going where the dog park is, correct?

[2:10:00] In case there was a rumor that it was going to be moved down by the pond.

[2:10:04] And that was going to bother me.

[2:10:07] First of all, I'd like to thank the City of Carmel.

[2:10:09] Could we get your name, please, for the record, sir?

[2:10:12] I'd like to thank City of Carmel for everything that's done.

[2:10:16] You guys are putting up with a lot, and it always does get back to traffic, though, doesn't it?

[2:10:22] All your new project, well, that's because the towns are bumping into each other

[2:10:28] We're gonna have a traffic problem there also because in addition to the hotel going up. I believe

[2:10:36] Clay terrorists is also need to put apartment complexes up

[2:10:40] That that's was was the last plan that we were advised of that the city has already approved and then

[2:10:49] in the

[2:10:52] Clay Terrace itself, they were going to reduce those drive lanes down to one lane

[2:10:58] on each side, north and south, and have a bike path going up each side.

[2:11:06] All for bikes, I'm not arguing about that, but the traffic is going to get

[2:11:11] more and more heavy through that area once the hotel is there

[2:11:17] and once the apartment complexes are there.

[2:11:21] I think it was a great idea for putting that new pathway from range line over to Lowesway.

[2:11:29] That was great.

[2:11:31] But if you want to see traffic, go to Lowes on 146th Street between 430 and 5 o'clock

[2:11:38] every day and you'll see that traffic backed up going east all the way to Kerry Road, bumper

[2:11:44] to bumper.

[2:11:46] So it gets down to traffic.

[2:11:48] And then the other thing it gets down to is safety.

[2:11:51] When they first built Clay Terrace, we had problems.

[2:11:56] I live in Clay Terrace. I live in Walters Plaza, and I've been there since 97.

[2:12:02] And the problem was that they put the barrier wall in last.

[2:12:08] They built Clay Terrace, and then they put the barrier wall in between Clay Terrace and the neighborhoods.

[2:12:14] They should have done that first, and I think that's whenever you're looking at additions

[2:12:20] that are within a neighborhood, tell the contractors, build the barrier walls first, and secondly,

[2:12:30] your first thing on the plan should be, what am I going to do construction-wise that's

[2:12:37] going to affect the neighborhood, because that gets people upset, and then they're

[2:12:43] end here and they're complaining. Traffic, I still think, I wish they would have put

[2:12:50] a exit onto 31 between Northbound South or North rather and Clay Terrace Boulevard. And

[2:13:01] if you can still do that, that's going to help the hotel. It's going to help people

[2:13:07] get to the hotel and get away from the hotel. That's all I got. Thank you.

[2:13:12] Thank you. Sir, if we could get your name for the record, please.

[2:13:15] Sure. James Chiato.

[2:13:19] Thank you very much.

[2:13:22] So anyone else who wishes to speak on this petition?

[2:13:26] Very well.

[2:13:27] Then we'll proceed to the department report.

[2:13:32] Excuse me, a petitioner has a chance to respond to any of those comments. I'm sorry, Steve.

[2:13:40] Thank you, Mr. President. I think we had two comments.

[2:13:44] The first one for Mrs. Sherman, is that right?

[2:13:48] Mr. Sherman. So you'll be pleased to hear the answer to this, which is that you are

[2:13:53] correct, number one, that that is in the location where the dog park is. And the Clay Terrace

[2:13:58] folks are very glad that the community enjoys the amenity that they've been providing to

[2:14:02] their customers at Clay Terrace. It's not a city-owned park. It's completely owned

[2:14:07] and managed and maintained at no cost to the public, the customers that come there

[2:14:12] to Clay Terrace. And so they're happy that people really enjoy it. And as part

[2:14:16] Part of the overall redevelopment plan, they do plan to relocate.

[2:14:19] It's not firm exactly where it's going to go yet, as we're still working through with

[2:14:22] the city on that, but that is what the plan is.

[2:14:25] And then secondly, with Mr. Jadow's comments about traffic, I think most of the planning

[2:14:30] commission members probably remember we did talk a lot about traffic.

[2:14:33] There's lots of traffic analysis and road improvements when we worked through the

[2:14:37] redevelopment plan two years ago.

[2:14:39] So we're happy at the committee to have the design team will be there to provide

[2:14:43] any refreshers on what the road plans are and all those different things as well.

[2:14:47] But traffic was something that was much discussed a couple of years ago on the plan.

[2:14:52] We're happy to go back over that again if anybody's interested in it.

[2:14:56] Thank you very much.

[2:14:58] Thank you.

[2:15:00] All the department report. Thank you. For the record, my name is Rachel Kiesling, planner

[2:15:03] with the Department of Community Services. As we have heard tonight, the petitioner plans

[2:15:09] to build a new hotel in Clay Terrace. This is the first project that is coming before us

[2:15:14] after they revised the PUD a couple years ago. And this hotel meets nearly all of the

[2:15:23] PUD requirements as I state in the Department report and as Steve kind of went over the

[2:15:30] items that they do not meet are just items that I was not able to find or we just need

[2:15:35] more information on.

[2:15:37] Some of those things like the long-term bike parking that's required for a hotel,

[2:15:42] this will need to be in a central location on the first floor of the hotel so that

[2:15:47] it's accessible to guests and to workers.

[2:15:51] I asked about exterior architectural lighting so that we could know how the building will

[2:15:58] be illuminated either with sconce-type lights on the actual building or up lights shining

[2:16:05] onto the building.

[2:16:07] Those are the kind of details that we want to know more about.

[2:16:11] One of the things the PUD says is that rooftop lighting is prohibited, prohibited.

[2:16:15] So we want to make sure that the major architectural element on the fifth floor above the restaurant

[2:16:23] bar does not have integral lighting or lighting that shines up into the sky.

[2:16:29] So details on that would be good.

[2:16:32] And then the last thing I asked for clarification on was the rooftop HVAC equipment and where

[2:16:37] that would be and how it would be fully screened.

[2:16:39] The plan does have enough parking and part of that is shared parking with the rest of the shopping center.

[2:16:47] There are no new parking garages proposed at this time, but there may be with future development, future phases of the development or the redevelopment of Clay Terrace, I mean.

[2:16:58] There are sidewalks around the building as well as connections being provided to Clay Terrace Boulevard and to the path along U.S. 31.

[2:17:06] The building design is modern with brick, architectural panels, stone, glass, and metal panels.

[2:17:14] And I mentioned a minute ago the rooftop bar and restaurant will have a really unique roof feature.

[2:17:21] It kind of resembles a wing or something like swooping up towards the sky and it opens out onto the south courtyard

[2:17:28] and the existing green space that's out there right now.

[2:17:33] New landscaping will be provided all around the building.

[2:17:37] Something to note is that the existing playground in the center of the existing green space will be removed.

[2:17:44] There's also a plan for a few of those large trees to be removed in that central green space.

[2:17:50] The department is not in favor of removing those trees.

[2:17:54] We've had the urban forester go out to inspect the trees and he believes that there's no reason to take them down.

[2:18:02] There's also a proposal for some of the trees on site to be relocated into the central green area.

[2:18:10] And we're also concerned about that because we don't recommend relocating trees that are six inches or greater in diameter.

[2:18:20] And some of these trees that may be relocated are greater than six inches.

[2:18:26] So while it may be possible to physically relocate them,

[2:18:29] It may not be the best for the future longevity of the tree and we might be better just to start over with new trees

[2:18:36] in some of these spots

[2:18:39] Lastly signage that's proposed

[2:18:42] Appears to meet the PUD requirements in terms of number and size of the signs

[2:18:47] But we will continue to review that as well as the other items. I've discussed as we work through the review on our

[2:18:55] project docs

[2:18:57] electronic software review. So we recommend that this goes to the commercial

[2:19:02] committee meeting on Thursday October 6th for further review. Thanks. Thank you.

[2:19:08] That concludes the public hearing at 8 20 p.m. discussion from the commission.

[2:19:18] Jeff? President Grayboe, a couple of quick questions and Steve and team I

[2:19:22] don't need answers today you can regroup at committee. Can't

[2:19:29] read my own

[2:19:31] Oh, if they're not looking for firm commitment, but if you can speak even more intelligently

[2:19:36] about just timeline of dogfark and any programming that happens in that green space and is there

[2:19:42] a plan to get it back to when the public can be there again, might help set some minds

[2:19:47] at ease.

[2:19:49] I guess only a question so that we can kind of understand what's happening.

[2:19:53] So if you look at an aerial today, the parking that's there, it just runs almost

[2:19:59] almost at a straight line, kind of north-westerly island, maybe you can look at this, and the

[2:20:04] new parking kind of juts out closer to the highways or something happening elevation-wise

[2:20:07] just so that the group is fully understanding what we might see from that part of the site,

[2:20:13] the eastern part of the site.

[2:20:16] Can you explore whether the trail that is impacted can be reconstructed first so

[2:20:22] that that pedestrian path is maintained?

[2:20:26] And then at the risk of speaking outside of an area I know very much about,

[2:20:30] the northwest face of the building looks very plain to me.

[2:20:34] The other elevations look great, the wing, the balcony, the glass on the fifth floor,

[2:20:41] but is there something that can be done to spruce up the northwest relief facing side of the building?

[2:20:47] Thanks.

[2:20:48] Steve,

[2:20:58] is there a possibility that there would be valet parking to support the rooftop amenity?

[2:21:07] The reason I ask is we don't typically design around that possibility.

[2:21:14] And so you have valet parking staff competing with patrons and sort of a mixture of traffic flows.

[2:21:21] So if the possibility exists and is significant then it would be great to design for that function,

[2:21:28] not try to shoehorn it into a more standard parking field.

[2:21:33] The answer is yes, that is definitely a possibility and we'll go into that in the committee

[2:21:36] and talk a little bit more about it.

[2:21:38] Thank you.

[2:21:39] And then just my own two cents worth for staff are lighting standards are pretty current,

[2:21:48] But lighting design and lighting products and lighting technology are still much more

[2:21:55] up-to-date than our lighting standards.

[2:21:58] So any unique features that add interest without overly commercializing the property

[2:22:04] would have my support for one, two cents worth.

[2:22:17] Debbie.

[2:22:17] Excuse me, just a quick comment.

[2:22:23] Is it possible to revisit the traffic entrance and exit? I

[2:22:30] realize that's not what the plan that's being brought, but if there's going to be major construction

[2:22:35] there, is this the time to look at that again? I just know that when that was all redesigned,

[2:22:42] And it's not exactly intuitive for how to get to point A to point B. And I'm just asking,

[2:22:50] is it possible to look at that in the context of developing the overall plans?

[2:22:55] I realize it's outside the scope of the hotel per se, but this would be the time

[2:22:59] to look at it, to revisit it.

[2:23:01] Do you mean onto 31?

[2:23:04] Do you mean onto 31?

[2:23:06] Yes.

[2:23:07] Okay.

[2:23:09] My understanding is the state is not interested in having any more entrances and exits on the

[2:23:14] 31, and the less, the better.

[2:23:17] My understanding.

[2:23:28] I wanted to clarify that when you were talking about revisiting the or visiting the entrances,

[2:23:35] you were talking about the entrance to this project or the entrance to the entire shopping

[2:23:42] center.

[2:23:43] Yeah.

[2:23:46] Well, you know that may be a funny, but I think we need to give people direction here

[2:23:51] No, my question was entrance to 30 to 31, but yes

[2:23:57] As we're looking at the overall design now would be the time to revisit especially if the if the north-south

[2:24:04] Drive within clay terrace is going to be narrowed. There's going to be lanes removed now would be the time to revisit that so that you don't have

[2:24:13] create more traffic congestion

[2:24:15] rather than maintain traffic as it is right now.

[2:24:22] Mr. President, I'm always kind of concerned when we start

[2:24:27] overstepping our reach and we should let the engineers

[2:24:31] and the fire department and those people do what they do.

[2:24:36] And if the city engineer wants to make that recommendation,

[2:24:43] I get worried when we start to become traffic

[2:24:46] aficionados or when we overstep our boundaries that's I just want to remind

[2:24:53] the Commission. Mr. President, I'd like to jump on after Josh there and say when

[2:25:01] this was originally built Clay Terrace was the main north-south drag it it

[2:25:07] wasn't built just as a shopping center it was built as the main avenue to carry

[2:25:16] traffic north and south there. And that's not the case anymore with the upgrades that

[2:25:21] have been done to 31. So I just wanted to point that out. It doesn't need to be as wide

[2:25:26] as it used to be.

[2:25:35] Comments, questions for the petitioner? Guidance as we had to committee?

[2:25:40] I concur. I'm not trying to overstep bounds. I'm just saying that while the project

[2:25:44] is in this stage, if those who have an interest in that would want to look at

[2:25:50] it again, now would be the time to do it. That's all I'm raising.

[2:25:53] Steve, it may be helpful to not necessarily tonight, but at some point to kind of recap

[2:26:00] what we accomplished in our last visit when there was a sort of a kind of a satellite

[2:26:08] level review of how the whole Clay Terrace project might change under Washington Prime's

[2:26:15] ownership.

[2:26:15] I think that may be helpful.

[2:26:16] Great.

[2:26:17] Thank you.

[2:26:20] Is there a motion?

[2:26:21] I would move.

[2:26:22] we send this item to the commercial committee. I think I heard October 6th for further discussion

[2:26:29] with a vote coming back to the full plan commission.

[2:26:31] Second.

[2:26:34] Thank you, Mr. Hill and Ms. Buckler for this. I'm sorry. Sue for the second. All in favor

[2:26:41] of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? This will go to the commercial committee for further

[2:26:46] work to return to the Commission for Final Action beginning on October, Thursday, October

[2:26:54] 6th.

[2:26:54] Thank you.

[2:26:55] Thank you.

[2:26:59] And our last public hearing this evening is DOC at PZ-2022-00167Z, First Avenue Southeast

[2:27:07] C2 Rezone.

[2:27:09] The applicant seeks to rezone four parcels from the B5 business, R2 residential,

[2:27:19] and

[2:27:19] to the C2 mixed-use district.

[2:27:22] This site is generally located on the west side

[2:27:24] of First Avenue Southeast between First Street

[2:27:27] Southeast and Supply Street,

[2:27:30] filed by the Department of Community Services

[2:27:31] on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission.

[2:27:35] With all those street names and changes in street names,

[2:27:37] I don't think this location can get any more confusing

[2:27:39] to identify, yet I think we all know exactly

[2:27:43] what you're about to tell us about, Adrienne.

[2:27:46] So, Adrienne is here for the Plan Commission

[2:27:48] to present the petition.

[2:27:50] Yes.

[2:27:52] I'm Adrienne Keeling with the Department of Community Services,

[2:27:55] and I brought a map because this is one of the corners

[2:27:59] of first and first that we have.

[2:28:03] This proposal this evening is to rezone four parcels

[2:28:08] that are outlined in yellow in the southeast quadrant

[2:28:11] of the Arts and Design District.

[2:28:12] project. This is Main Street and this is Rangeline Road. And this site is bounded by First Avenue

[2:28:27] Southeast, First Street Southeast, Supply Street, which is formerly Second Street Southeast,

[2:28:35] east and this alley to the west.

[2:28:41] As another landmark, this is the east half of the block directly across the street from

[2:28:48] the Indiana Design Center across Range Line.

[2:28:53] The site contains a small law office and two rental homes.

[2:29:01] I will turn on the zoning layer here and zoom in a little bit to

[2:29:10] give you a little more

[2:29:11] information.

[2:29:13] The site in question, again outlined in yellow, contains R2, R3 and B5 zoning as well as

[2:29:23] the old town overlay.

[2:29:25] However, the western half of this block that I'll refer to in my presentation is outlined

[2:29:35] in black, this western half of the block is zoned C2.

[2:29:40] The purpose of this proposal this evening is to extend the C2 district across the entire

[2:29:46] block to allow for a redevelopment proposal to be reviewed under a singular zoning

[2:29:51] district and singular process.

[2:29:57] Normally I would say...

[2:30:00] During these C2 re-zones, nothing has been filed and we don't have any information in terms

[2:30:06] of site information. However, in this instance, we do have a little bit of information about

[2:30:12] the status of the site. The city council recently approved the Carmel Redevelopment Commission

[2:30:20] to proceed with the acquisition of all of the parcels in this block for a proposed redevelopment

[2:30:27] project. During that discussion at the August 1st Council meeting, where the Council authorized

[2:30:35] that acquisition, there were draft renderings shared, and you may have seen media coverage

[2:30:43] for potential mixed-use building along Range Line. The portion already in the C2 district

[2:30:49] with plans for the 1933 Lounge Restaurant Concept

[2:30:54] with upper story offices.

[2:30:57] Also shared during that August 1st meeting

[2:31:01] was a conceptual site plan for the entire block,

[2:31:04] which included townhomes on the eastern half of the block

[2:31:09] which would potentially face 1st Avenue Southeast.

[2:31:13] However, that conceptual site plan is a concept

[2:31:19] Simply a concept and it has not been designed or anything approved by the CRC.

[2:31:27] We have received a few comments, mostly in reaction to that conceptual site plan that

[2:31:37] was discussed at the City Council meeting.

[2:31:41] The redevelopment department has received those comments and has indicated that they

[2:31:48] would take those into consideration as they work with the developer to design the site.

[2:31:57] Director Henry Mustetski is here also in the audience, so he'll also hear if anyone chooses

[2:32:05] to wish to speak this evening. After design of the project, this is of course considering

[2:32:14] hearing if the C2 was approved across the entire site.

[2:32:19] C2 includes several steps, including review by the Redevelopment Department, an architectural

[2:32:28] committee of the CRC and the Carmel Redevelopment Commission itself.

[2:32:32] And then with all C2 projects, in addition to CRC review, the project is reviewed

[2:32:37] by DOCS staff, the technical advisory committee,

[2:32:41] and a DPA-DLS public hearing

[2:32:44] by the Plaint Commission's hearing officer.

[2:32:47] And that hearing, that public hearing

[2:32:49] has all the same methods of public notice

[2:32:52] as public hearings held by the,

[2:32:54] by the full Plaint Commission.

[2:32:56] That includes newspaper notification,

[2:32:59] signs and letters to adjacent property owners.

[2:33:07] That's the extent of my presentation this evening, but I'm happy to answer questions after the

[2:33:12] public hearing portion, and we are recommending that you suspend your, excuse me, suspend

[2:33:19] your rules of procedures this evening to send this item to the City Council for favorable

[2:33:26] consideration.

[2:33:28] Thank you.

[2:33:29] Thank you.

[2:33:30] Public hearing continues with comments from members of the public.

[2:33:33] How many folks are here to speak on this petition tonight?

[2:33:37] One, two, Mr. Thomas?

[2:33:40] Okay, one, two, three.

[2:33:44] Okay, so four minutes of peace.

[2:34:07] This works.

[2:34:09] You know what? Can I use your map?

[2:34:12] Because I think it's...

[2:34:13] Yeah, what do you need?

[2:34:16] Okay, there it is. It lines up.

[2:34:18] Thank you.

[2:34:19] Sorry.

[2:34:20] Is it obvious it was my first time?

[2:34:22] Yeah, not at all.

[2:34:23] Not at all.

[2:34:23] So Bob Campbell, I live in the Carmel's Arts and Design District.

[2:34:29] I will actually be the neighbor to this development.

[2:34:35] I am not opposed to it.

[2:34:37] I like a lot of what has been designed into this,

[2:34:40] and I think it's a good addition to the area.

[2:34:46] However, I do have a couple of requests

[2:34:48] because we're just in the design stage.

[2:34:52] because of a couple of concerns.

[2:34:55] And the first one is these townhouses are going to be looking into our backyards

[2:35:02] and down into my house.

[2:35:04] So I would first ask that in development, they are at least 15 feet back from the curb.

[2:35:11] Second, it's my understanding that there are going to be three stories high

[2:35:16] with a balcony on top, very similar to what is going up next to our firehouse here.

[2:35:26] And with that, I would ask that they are set four feet down,

[2:35:30] because this is all obviously first and second-story houses here.

[2:35:38] And then also, if they have to have the balconies on top,

[2:35:43] have them face west towards range line because they have to come up and enter

[2:35:49] onto that way they'll have a better view of the fireworks and that's much better

[2:35:55] than my backyard and the other request in regards to the townhouses is they

[2:36:02] have a tree line number one as they grow I also own a townhouse on City

[2:36:08] center drive.

[2:36:09] So I know how this blocks out the sun and makes it much more energy efficient and gives

[2:36:15] them less of a view into the side of my house where I have some just open windows, including

[2:36:20] one that looks into a large walk-in shower that was put there with open lighting, et cetera.

[2:36:27] Not knowing that third story townhouses were going to go up there.

[2:36:32] So, also, I would like to ask that this type of development is not allowed to go south of

[2:36:42] Supply Road along First Avenue Southeast, and that it stops there.

[2:36:49] There's not a Plan B, Plan C, et cetera.

[2:36:56] So, also, one of my other concerns was the First Street Southeast, this little area right

[2:37:10] here.

[2:37:11] So, of course, we have the Lions Club and we have this public parking lot here.

[2:37:15] And the 1933 Lounge, I think, is a great addition.

[2:37:18] any huge restaurant group concept coming is a feather in our cap.

[2:37:26] So I do know there's probably going to be valet parking.

[2:37:30] So two things with the amount of traffic,

[2:37:33] and you've heard a lot tonight about traffic.

[2:37:36] That seems to be a common word.

[2:37:38] And it is. It's always a concern in a neighborhood, right?

[2:37:40] So that small street there first, right now there's public parking there.

[2:37:46] So it is a narrow street, so we would want,

[2:37:51] and maybe this is not the committee,

[2:37:52] but it's our opportunity to say it,

[2:37:55] we would want a no parking zone

[2:37:57] or residents-only parking with a zone sticker there,

[2:38:02] and also not allowing the valets to use that parking lot

[2:38:10] for the Lions Club,

[2:38:11] because that amount of traffic,

[2:38:13] the valet park is running in a rush getting the cars back and forth. If there's also parking

[2:38:19] there, a lot of issues could happen with that. So the city's done a great job of designing

[2:38:28] plenty of parking structures, making sure that those are designed into all the developments

[2:38:32] in and around the Arts and Design District. So there should be plenty of parking without

[2:38:41] using that lot for the valet parkers. And I

[2:38:50] did send an email detailing all this and

[2:38:52] a few other things to Henry. So if anybody wants it, I copied a lot of people, don't know

[2:38:58] if I got everybody. So if anybody wants it, he can forward it to you. Again, I'm not

[2:39:02] opposed to the project. I have some concerns. And so I have some requests to address

[2:39:08] those concerns. Thank you.

[2:39:11] Thank you.

[2:39:11] My

[2:39:24] name is Janet Raymond, and my husband and I, Mark, live on the map, we'll just say.

[2:39:32] We live on South Range Line Road, a couple of blocks south of the planned development,

[2:39:37] and we do appreciate this opportunity to, since we're early on in the concept and

[2:39:42] design phase, to voice some concerns or things that we would like to have taken

[2:39:47] under consideration as planning moves forward.

[2:39:51] I think I echo the sentiments of most in the group that we're not opposed to the development.

[2:39:57] It's part of why we choose to live in downtown Carmel and invest in the area.

[2:40:01] We just ask that the group be mindful of long-term residents that have lived in the area.

[2:40:07] We've actually owned our property since 1991.

[2:40:10] So we've seen all of this change happen, and it's why we continue to live here.

[2:40:16] To echo some of the concerns that have already been voiced, I think Valley Parking, which

[2:40:20] you astutely mentioned, I think we've all seen traffic back up in front of Anthony's.

[2:40:25] We would like to have that avoided in this area.

[2:40:29] Vehicle entrances to the property, if those could be constructed to direct traffic out

[2:40:36] onto Range Line Road or to Main Street to avoid First Avenue, as well as the alleyway

[2:40:43] that runs behind or kind of in between this property

[2:40:47] and strangely enough behind our property as well.

[2:40:52] I think that would be helpful for the community.

[2:40:55] Loading docks and dumpsters,

[2:40:58] we're getting a lot more just environmental noise

[2:41:00] from the development in the area.

[2:41:02] So if those could be considered to be located

[2:41:05] closer to existing commercial loading docks and dumpsters

[2:41:09] so we could keep that noise kind of centralized

[2:41:12] and buffered from the existing residential properties.

[2:41:16] I also agree with the setback of the townhomes

[2:41:19] so we can maintain that residential look and feel

[2:41:22] on First Avenue, I think that would be helpful as well

[2:41:26] so they're not just right up against the sidewalk.

[2:41:29] And then any type of tree or hedge border

[2:41:33] at that southeast end to buffer the existing residences

[2:41:37] and apartments that are along that area

[2:41:40] would be something that we would like to have considered also.

[2:41:45] Thank you.

[2:41:47] Thank you.

[2:42:01] I'll be real quick.

[2:42:09] I'll figure out where my own dang house is.

[2:42:15] North is obviously going this way.

[2:42:18] My name is Jeff Watkins.

[2:42:19] We live at 121 First Street, southeast.

[2:42:23] Just briefly, I just wanted to back up with Janet and Bob said,

[2:42:27] Bob is my neighbor.

[2:42:29] Bob didn't show, but Bob lives right here.

[2:42:32] here, and we live right here. This is obviously the lion's tail park right here. Right here

[2:42:38] is going to be the town homes coming through here. And then, you know, obviously as Bob

[2:42:44] has indicated, height and how those are constructed and how they look towards the homes that

[2:42:51] are one and two stories here is consideration. And then the other considerations. Well,

[2:42:58] Now what I tell my folks is, and as I go through life, the things that I think is what are the unintended consequences?

[2:43:08] What are the unintended consequences of doing something different or development like this?

[2:43:13] I don't know, but a couple of them that I wrote down are parking and neighborhood lighting.

[2:43:20] I can say on this street right here, it's dark.

[2:43:25] So if somehow this is going to be part of this, what kind of lighting is going to be here?

[2:43:34] We do not want strong lighting because we prefer what we have.

[2:43:41] What I would ask for consideration on the parking is that this little stub street here,

[2:43:47] consideration is given for no parking on this.

[2:43:49] And as Bob previously alluded to, this is going to be the restaurant supposedly according to the plans.

[2:43:56] And then this, I'm assuming, may be used for parking for the restaurant.

[2:44:03] We would ask that consideration of not allowing the ballet parking here be considered.

[2:44:11] So that's really, we're 100% before this. We appreciate this development.

[2:44:17] We look forward to it, but, you know, some appropriate considerations of the unintended consequence of how this will hit this neighborhood is what we ask for.

[2:44:27] All right, thank you.

[2:44:29] Thank you.

[2:44:31] One more speaker?

[2:44:33] All

[2:44:40] right.

[2:44:40] I know you guys have had a long night, so I'll try to be pretty quick.

[2:44:44] Let me put this on the north side.

[2:44:45] Everybody's had the same problem, got it.

[2:44:48] So I represent a few other neighbors that I've been asked to speak.

[2:44:52] My name is Zach Jadamzik.

[2:44:53] I've been a long-time owner of the property on Supply Street.

[2:44:57] You probably know me from the news.

[2:45:00] I've been interviewed multiple times by the Indie Star, WTHR, all the news outlets. I love what we're doing here in Carmel.

[2:45:08] Before we get ahead of ourselves, I think that's what I want to pause here. Tonight we're asking about a rezoning.

[2:45:14] They're talking about townhomes and what it looks like and colors and variances and all that stuff.

[2:45:19] What I want to point out is if you flip this to C2, it goes to these fine folks who have done a lovely job,

[2:45:26] But then we don't have a partnership.

[2:45:29] It goes to them and it's gone.

[2:45:30] We don't get to re-vote.

[2:45:32] We don't get to talk about these considerations.

[2:45:34] It says a partnership for tomorrow.

[2:45:37] That's what I'm asking for, is a partnership and the ability to have a say in what's going

[2:45:41] to happen to this property.

[2:45:43] If you vote to flip it to C2 tonight or tomorrow, it goes to Mr. Mateski and it's

[2:45:48] gone and it's done.

[2:45:49] We know that.

[2:45:51] We do.

[2:45:51] We've seen it happen.

[2:45:52] And that's fine to redevelop.

[2:45:54] We want a partnership.

[2:45:55] So can we start at step one not talking about what color they are what the elevation is?

[2:46:00] Can we just start at step one? What is the plan? They've even said this is all theoretical what you guys have seen townhomes

[2:46:06] What are you actually voting on you don't know? I don't know you don't know that's where we're at

[2:46:12] This is our first time as a public audience to even talk about it, right?

[2:46:17] You guys voted to flip it over. I didn't get notice at all

[2:46:21] this is my first time I get to talk to you guys and create that partnership.

[2:46:25] This overlay here was designed, as you guys talked about, this is a planned city.

[2:46:30] Those that came before you planned this city, this is completely changing that plan.

[2:46:36] These were supposed to be single story homes, these were supposed to be bungalow-type communities.

[2:46:40] We're not fighting against 1933.

[2:46:43] Nobody wants to do that.

[2:46:44] We want the development.

[2:46:45] I want the development.

[2:46:45] It only helps my property value.

[2:46:47] What we're asking for is, again, a partnership, and this isn't a partnership, kicking it over

[2:46:52] to C2, letting them just do what they're going to do.

[2:46:55] You guys don't know what you're voting on, no offense, you don't.

[2:46:58] I even called a couple of you, and you didn't know what you were voting on yesterday.

[2:47:02] So we're voting on things that we don't understand, unintended consequences.

[2:47:07] That's a great point.

[2:47:09] We have no clue.

[2:47:10] They could do whatever they want with this property.

[2:47:13] And I just don't think it's what's best for the city.

[2:47:16] Josh had a great phrase, I wish I could say it.

[2:47:19] I just don't think this is the right time or the right place to do this type of development

[2:47:23] or just magically flip it to C2 and then they get to do whatever they want.

[2:47:28] Because that's really what we're talking about, the rezoning of it.

[2:47:31] We can get to the next steps, but if you flip it to C2, there are no more steps.

[2:47:36] While you guys said there are, there are not for us.

[2:47:39] There's no partnership.

[2:47:40] There's no public input.

[2:47:41] It just kind of goes and gets done.

[2:47:43] And that's my piece.

[2:47:46] Thank you.

[2:47:48] Is there anyone else who wishes to speak tonight on this petition?

[2:47:55] Then Adrian, if you'd care to respond.

[2:48:02] So Henry, in what capacity are you speaking tonight?

[2:48:06] Hi, Mr. President.

[2:48:07] I just, I wanted to make myself available if the commission has any questions.

[2:48:11] That's why I'm here tonight.

[2:48:12] Thank you.

[2:48:13] So Adrian, you have a chance to respond to the comments we've just heard?

[2:48:15] There

[2:48:24] are a lot of site plan concerns and things that were addressed site plan-wise were

[2:48:33] simply not to that level of design yet, however it is good to bring those things up early

[2:48:42] in the process before things are designed.

[2:48:46] There were a couple, there was mention of parking restrictions and that sort of thing.

[2:48:52] Those are not part of this site, however, that would be a separate ordinance that would

[2:48:59] be under the city councils and city code purview rather than a zoning than this rezone issue.

[2:49:11] you.

[2:49:15] Speaking from DOCS, I just

[2:49:23] had the UDO here. My paper hit the screen. It's fine. Never

[2:49:30] mind. We'll just close this. Speaking from DOCS, we worked very closely with the redevelopment

[2:49:39] department in project reviews. We have received these comments. We know the redevelopment department

[2:49:46] has received these comments and we will continue to relay those comments if they haven't already

[2:49:53] received them for to work with the design of this project.

[2:50:04] It's simply too early.

[2:50:06] We know that most C2 re-zones we don't have any information whatsoever in this particular instance.

[2:50:14] We know that the City Council has authorized the purchase of that entire block.

[2:50:18] So we know that that block would be developed simultaneously.

[2:50:29] So the purpose of the rezone is to have the entire block go through one zoning and one

[2:50:36] process.

[2:50:36] Instead of having half the block go through one process and half of the block go through

[2:50:42] another process.

[2:50:44] And that's the genesis of many of the C2 projects.

[2:50:50] It just happens in this case that part of the block already is zoned to C2.

[2:50:56] So it's simply not designed yet, but the earlier, the better to get these kinds of comments on the record.

[2:51:12] Thank you. Is there a department report beyond 8-inch presentation? Okay, very good.

[2:51:18] Then I will close the public hearing at 9.52.

[2:51:27] 8.52, excuse me.

[2:51:37] Discussion from the commission.

[2:51:44] Start with Sue.

[2:51:44] Well,

[2:51:48] you know, I just want to thank the people that came tonight and spoke because we've

[2:51:52] had a lot of C2 re-zones over the years and we, this is a re-zone.

[2:52:00] And so the things that you've seen tonight and other in legacy or flora, those are

[2:52:07] planning commission projects where we can look at loading docks and dumpsters and

[2:52:14] traffic and lighting and the things that fall. But we're only asked to request by the

[2:52:23] Department to rezone this to C2. I have never had anybody in my years, though, come

[2:52:28] and express ahead of time like this, concerns. And I think that's great. And I would

[2:52:35] like to hear from the Redevelopment Commission on what, how people can participate

[2:52:40] in this process if it gets resolved.

[2:52:42] Thank

[2:52:53] you so much for that question. Again, Henry Mosteski, Redevelopment Director.

[2:52:59] We took this project to City Council asking them the foundational question of whether they approve a project like this.

[2:53:06] This is a holistic project. We can't pick and choose different parts of it.

[2:53:11] We have office in 1933 facing range line, and to transition over to the neighborhood,

[2:53:22] we have fore sale residential, cross from fore sale residential.

[2:53:30] I know that the gentleman that spoke earlier said a statement like, well, once at C2, nothing

[2:53:35] can be done.

[2:53:36] Well, first, the Redevelopment Commission represented to City Council that the fore sale product

[2:53:42] would it be the three-and-a-half story, have that four-story element? That was a representation

[2:53:48] that was made. So it's not like we're going to depart from that.

[2:53:53] But once if this commission

[2:53:57] allows it and City Council agrees and it gets re-zoned, there's a per the UDO, a CRC

[2:54:03] Architectural Review Committee. That's where we work with the architects to really bring

[2:54:09] as great a product as possible. I think you'll oftentimes find that C-Zoning projects have

[2:54:19] architecture or materials that are really high level. So we want to continue that.

[2:54:24] After CRC architectural approval, which truly works as almost like a TAC process, that's

[2:54:30] a process where internally all directors from all the departments all participate

[2:54:35] And even getting it to the stage where it can be filed with the city and go through the ADLS.

[2:54:41] So we almost have like an additional architecture review process before it's even filed with the city.

[2:54:47] Then projects are obviously filed with project docs with the Department of Community Services.

[2:54:51] It goes through the full ADLS process.

[2:54:53] It obviously meets state statute in terms of the public hearings that need to take place.

[2:54:58] That happens in front of Michael Hallbaugh as a hearing officer.

[2:55:02] And people come to those meetings, people voice their concerns, and we adjust.

[2:55:08] So I think there's a lot of opportunity for that kind of conversation.

[2:55:13] But it's important to note that the City Council approved this project knowing there was going to be a fourth story element on the

[2:55:19] for sale component facing the additional residential across the street residential housing, frankly at first and first.

[2:55:27] And if you walk around to some of the other first and firsts that we have in our central

[2:55:32] core, right, there's four of these.

[2:55:35] They have five story projects on them.

[2:55:37] They're in the middle of a city.

[2:55:39] This is the center of our city.

[2:55:42] And it makes sense that development follows what we've all been working towards in our

[2:55:50] central core.

[2:55:53] And I understand that, but when just the event you see here tonight, the Planning Commission,

[2:56:01] when does a resident have an opportunity to talk to the Redevelopment Commission and express

[2:56:07] their concerns on lighting in their house and parking?

[2:56:10] I just want to know, is there any opportunity, and if so, make it available to these people

[2:56:15] tonight and let them know.

[2:56:19] Nothing gets approved without ADLS approval, without DOCS approval.

[2:56:24] Every communication to the city that each of you and I have received all goes into the log file,

[2:56:29] all goes into the file that Director Hallbott discusses when it goes through DOCS approval.

[2:56:35] I mean, all that continues to be the case.

[2:56:40] So once these things are publicly noticed, as they're required to be by state statute,

[2:56:44] there's notice made, there's notice in the paper, people get notices,

[2:56:47] There's a sign that goes up, all that, all those are public meetings.

[2:56:51] They just, you know, it's a team effort between DOCS and CRC, those in C2 zoning.

[2:56:59] And please add anything.

[2:57:02] If I could just add, there isn't a set schedule for the C2 public hearings that go before

[2:57:10] Mike as the Plaint Commission hearing officer.

[2:57:13] officer. It really happens on a project by project basis since we don't have a project

[2:57:19] all the time. And we work through details and try to do the same thing that we do here

[2:57:29] is work through all the details of the project, making sure it meets all the requirements

[2:57:35] of the UDO and then let them have the Plaint Commission Hearing Officer public meeting,

[2:57:44] which will be, as Henry said, publicly noticed in all three manners that is still required

[2:57:51] or is required the same as it is for your body here.

[2:57:55] Notice in the paper 21 days in advance, sign on the property 21 days in advance

[2:58:01] and letters to all the adjoining neighbors 21 days in advance.

[2:58:06] So all the same things, it's just not on a set schedule.

[2:58:11] Do they, but then when they get the letters,

[2:58:13] do they have an opportunity to come in and speak?

[2:58:16] Yes.

[2:58:16] Okay, that's what I was saying.

[2:58:17] With me, they can talk to me as a representative

[2:58:21] for the department, and I work with the CRC.

[2:58:24] They can talk with the CRC.

[2:58:26] But it's not my public hearing.

[2:58:28] There's no public hearing for the public.

[2:58:29] No, no, it is a public hearing.

[2:58:31] Okay, for them to speak.

[2:58:32] I'm sorry then, I misunderstood you.

[2:58:34] So they can talk to me about their concerns,

[2:58:38] and I can work through those concerns with the architects

[2:58:41] and the developers for them ahead of the public hearing,

[2:58:45] that's what I was trying to say.

[2:58:47] And then the public hearing is just like this,

[2:58:50] but it's held before a hearing officer,

[2:58:53] and the hearing officer is Mike.

[2:58:55] And that meeting happens over in the caucus rooms.

[2:58:58] And what I was saying is it doesn't happen on a regular schedule like this meeting does

[2:59:04] because they come as needed when there are projects.

[2:59:07] But you still have 21 days prior to know about it.

[2:59:12] That's fine.

[2:59:13] I just wanted to clarify because of statements that were made tonight that they would have

[2:59:16] no opportunity to add any input.

[2:59:19] And I just wanted to clarify that and find out if that was true so there's no

[2:59:23] misconception.

[2:59:24] Right.

[2:59:24] So thank you that they can speak.

[2:59:26] Okay.

[2:59:26] Thank

[2:59:29] you, Sue, because it's an important point.

[2:59:33] Christine?

[2:59:34] I have a question.

[2:59:36] So for the maximum height requirements once it's rezoned to C2, it'd be 75 feet for the primary building,

[2:59:43] but it's 35 feet for a building that's adjacent to residential in the C2 rezoning.

[2:59:50] As far as under the – I'm correct, right?

[2:59:53] Yes.

[2:59:53] So these townhomes, I'm hearing four stories and I'm also hearing that they're approved, but I'm hearing

[3:00:00] It's just a concept. Are you going to be staying within that 35 feet maximum, or is there an expectation that a variance is going to be sought?

[3:00:11] I know that they will have a fourth story element because they haven't been designed. It hasn't gone through, which is not there yet.

[3:00:24] So if it did end up being more than 35 feet, you'd have to get a variance through the BZA, is that correct?

[3:00:30] I'd

[3:00:33] have to double check all that. If there is a variance required, then yes.

[3:00:38] Okay.

[3:00:39] Adrian, does the petitioner want to speak to that? Please.

[3:00:45] Yes. If the standards of the C2 zoning are not met, then as part of the UDO, the variance

[3:00:55] process would be the process to seek relief from those standards.

[3:01:00] And

[3:01:06] is it safe to assume that as those of us who wish to continue to follow this forward

[3:01:13] that our input would be welcomed by the Department and the hearing officer just as any input

[3:01:19] from members of the public?

[3:01:20] Yes.

[3:01:21] Absolutely.

[3:01:23] Thank you.

[3:01:24] Mr. President, although this has been the most fun 17 hours of my life, try my best

[3:01:32] not to make this too long-winded.

[3:01:37] I guess, you know, I'm hearing that this is like one

[3:01:40] big thing, but then, you know, when I'm seeing these outlines laid over an image, it appears

[3:01:47] to be too wildly due to different things separated by a sea of asphalt.

[3:01:55] I'm looking

[3:01:56] looking at this box in red as the transition zone between C2 and the historic district

[3:02:04] and the overlay, you know, I guess I don't understand why we can't develop this second

[3:02:14] block just the

[3:02:18] way we'd normally do it through this commission instead of, I'll do respect

[3:02:23] direct to my friend, Mr. Henry, who does amazing work in this community. And I heard staff

[3:02:30] say and I heard the director, I saw the director nod his head about the hearing officer and

[3:02:36] open door.

[3:02:41] I just guess I'd like to see the second block brought into the light and

[3:02:46] see it go through the regular process. So I'm kind of, I'm just, I'm not feeling

[3:02:51] it tonight.

[3:02:51] Are

[3:03:09] there other comments or questions for the petitioner?

[3:03:20] So again, to clarify Sue's line of understanding, the process for C2, as we move beyond once

[3:03:31] the rezoning is granted, if it's granted, the approval process, the oversight process

[3:03:37] for what eventually is developed on that C2 site is the same as what comes before

[3:03:45] this body except that the deciding body in the case of a C2 is a body of one, the director

[3:03:51] of the Department of Community Services instead of a body of nine.

[3:03:58] That is correct.

[3:03:59] Okay.

[3:03:59] Mike wants to speak more.

[3:04:01] I think you could explain it.

[3:04:02] Yeah, Mike.

[3:04:03] I would, I'd like to go back to Sue's question because even though it's been said kind

[3:04:10] of over and over tonight, the feedback that we heard tonight and that we've

[3:04:15] seen in the emails is all extremely helpful

[3:04:19] for a project that's not yet been designed.

[3:04:22] Clearly, there's a concept and that concept is tied to the economics of pulling off

[3:04:28] a mixed-use project, especially on expensive real estate

[3:04:33] that's split-zoned in the middle of downtown.

[3:04:38] And the request to zone at C2 is because this is a redevelopment project.

[3:04:42] You know, and we've done a number of C2 projects, you know, and the process is virtually the

[3:04:51] same, but with each project, it gets better.

[3:04:54] I think it gets better as we learn how to do redevelopment, we learn how to balance

[3:05:01] public input with the needs of the development, with the economics and all that, but with

[3:05:10] an eye on the highest quality project that we can get. And I feel like the projects that

[3:05:16] we've seen approved and built are extremely high quality and are part of what gives Carmel

[3:05:27] the good consideration that we do as a place to live and as downtown has come alive.

[3:05:39] And

[3:05:40] Henry alluded to, I mean, that is much more refined today, and in part with the help of

[3:05:48] legal counsel, it's much more publicly oriented than it had been previously as well.

[3:05:56] But I would be happy to answer any other questions, but I do think that the consideration

[3:06:04] of the public input tonight will be directly built into the project.

[3:06:10] And a lot of the same eyes that bring you projects

[3:06:13] are the eyes that help refine the redevelopment projects.

[3:06:19] I mean, Rachel is, she is embedded in redevelopment

[3:06:21] and she pays attention to dumpster and dumpster locations

[3:06:26] and screening and landscaping.

[3:06:29] And Darren Mindham is involved in the landscaping.

[3:06:31] all those things, these projects get the same attention even though the development standards

[3:06:38] are not quite as robust as they are in suburban areas. But this is downtown and it's intended

[3:06:45] to have an urban design quality to it. It's not suburban quality design. And I'd also like to

[3:06:52] point out that the streets are public. First Street is public and if no parking is going

[3:06:58] going to occur on those streets, it's going to be through result of either the council

[3:07:04] or the Board of Works posting no parking. It can't be something that we impose. And we

[3:07:12] just had to amend a PUD because there's provisions for no parking. And that's not our job.

[3:07:18] That's not the department's job. That's either the police department or the city engineer.

[3:07:23] But we'll also take all those things into consideration.

[3:07:27] And the other part is that these are all works in progress.

[3:07:30] And, you know, as details as we find that things maybe aren't working,

[3:07:37] we're trying to improve those to over time.

[3:07:41] And so, you know, we'll work on lighting and we'll make sure it's right

[3:07:45] and we'll continue to work with them either through code enforcement

[3:07:47] or doubling back on the approved plan to make sure that what was approved is what gets built.

[3:07:58] Mike or Adrian, I appreciate that one of the challenges of this situation

[3:08:01] is that we have half of a prospective development site already zone C2 and need the other half.

[3:08:10] And I understand and fully appreciate that users and private developers need a high level of certainty

[3:08:19] as they pursue a project and every day as a project moves along, they have to ask themselves

[3:08:25] every day is a go or no go decision for them. So the lack of certainty about this full block site

[3:08:32] is a vulnerability right now and I understand that.

[3:08:35] We heard several comments about parking this evening.

[3:08:40] Understanding that nothing is certain yet, can you speak to us at all tonight about

[3:08:46] the extent to which parking would be provided within this city block project.

[3:08:56] Or I guess more to the point, what degree of off-site parking would would, what

[3:09:00] dependence on off-site parking would there be for this project as currently

[3:09:05] contemplated? I'm going to take a stab at what I know up to this point and if

[3:09:11] Henry needs to, he can set me straight, but the way I understand it is that the

[3:09:21] concept

[3:09:22] that we saw tonight parks itself.

[3:09:28] Clearly with restaurant activity and I think the unintended

[3:09:32] consequences that were brought up tonight are probably at least potentially real and

[3:09:38] And possibly the Lions Club is an option there, but my house isn't on this map, but I just

[3:09:48] live a couple of houses down, sort of, for Mr. Watkins, and I mean I know how the Lions

[3:09:56] Club a lot gets used, and some nights it's full, and some nights it's not.

[3:10:02] And so I don't think that they can comfortably rely on that as an option without figuring

[3:10:09] out a way to reserve some spots and that's always a possibility, but that will have to

[3:10:15] come with some sort of a public process because it is, I mean, it's our lot and the Lions

[3:10:23] Club lot and I don't think that they can just come in and take over.

[3:10:27] And if there's a problem with street parking, I mean, we have street parking all through

[3:10:35] through downtown, through Old Town now, and I mean, that's what we're having to learn

[3:10:42] to deal with that.

[3:10:43] In some of the parts of downtown that maybe aren't or haven't been as popular, clearly

[3:10:49] this southeast quadrant has not seen the level of investment that the other quadrants have,

[3:10:55] but here we are.

[3:10:57] And I think that parking is going to be an issue.

[3:11:01] There's public parking right across the street to the north.

[3:11:05] First in Maine, there's going to be a public parking garage,

[3:11:09] the Indiana Design Center, there's underground parking,

[3:11:12] and the potential for that is available in the evenings.

[3:11:15] There's clearly a possibility as well.

[3:11:17] I think that the city has done a very good job of building

[3:11:21] car parking into downtown and bike parking into downtown.

[3:11:27] And, you know, we're seeing more and more and more bicycle parking which is helping to take a little bit of the pressure off car parking too.

[3:11:35] And I think that's that type of development and those options are going to continue to evolve and improve.

[3:11:44] Thank you. That's helpful. And I appreciate you reminding me of what may be the best kept secret in downtown parking, which is the Indiana Design Center garage.

[3:11:54] Christine?

[3:11:56] two things one is you know we've heard a lot of really specific requests are

[3:11:59] these things that you can today go ahead and say yes we can do landscaping we

[3:12:04] can push the setbacks on the townhomes are there are there any things that you've

[3:12:07] heard today that you think for sure you could incorporate into or is it

[3:12:14] really just so preliminary you just don't know yeah I mean it I'm not

[3:12:17] really involved in these and one of the things that I can tell you is that

[3:12:23] there's a very healthy tension between planning opinion and redevelopment opinion that I think

[3:12:33] helps make the projects better. I mean, we're pushing them on things that we're used to

[3:12:38] hearing and the sensitivities that we think are important that I think you would all

[3:12:44] appreciate that sometimes aren't looked upon the same way by redevelopment. And I think

[3:12:53] And the result of that is that we end up both agreeing to disagree or agreeing to agree.

[3:13:02] I mean, I think it helps.

[3:13:08] I would like to think that we could at least kind of respect the general parameters of

[3:13:13] the overlay zone along first, I mean, as applies to townhomes.

[3:13:19] I mean, clearly, the zoning today and the old town overlay

[3:13:24] didn't necessarily contemplate attached residential.

[3:13:28] It was all small lot, smaller homes on narrow lots.

[3:13:35] In this context, these are apartments

[3:13:42] that share one large lot.

[3:13:44] Just to the south of that, Mr. Scott is gonna build

[3:13:48] an extremely large house on at least two lots, a large home on multiple lots.

[3:13:54] Mr. Thomas has done the same thing, adjacent that to the south.

[3:13:58] The general

[3:14:02] design consideration that was supposed to be with the old town overlay

[3:14:08] hasn't really necessarily been respected in this area.

[3:14:11] Clearly, there's nice smaller homes on smaller lots.

[3:14:16] for the further south you go, but there's also larger homes on smaller lots that are

[3:14:22] consistent with what has also occurred in the rest of Old Town. I mean, that in this

[3:14:28] area clearly has really good momentum. I think that architecturally and spatially those town

[3:14:35] homes can be designed to be respectful. And I think that that orientation, the part

[3:14:41] of the orientation, that's probably something that Dan Moriarty could talk about right now.

[3:14:48] But it all seems practical and realistic to me.

[3:14:57] Mike, I'm glad you're up there because when

[3:15:00] I'm going to ask you a couple of things.

[3:15:03] It seems like if I'm hearing the will of what

[3:15:07] the plan commission is wanting to do, or may perhaps not wanting to do, but the point that

[3:15:14] they want to get at, this is the reason, right? I mean, I just, if there's some saying something

[3:15:22] wrong interrupt me and stop and if this was not something that the CDC was was

[3:15:29] involved in if this was was a private developer coming in to rezone it there's

[3:15:35] no obligation on that individuals part to divulge what the development plan is

[3:15:42] going to be at the rezone stage is that am I right to that point for a C

[3:15:49] No, no, no. If it was a private developer who came in.

[3:15:54] It's not been our practice to allow that.

[3:15:57] I mean, generally we want to see a little bit more than just a request.

[3:16:01] Yeah, you may want to see a little bit more of a request,

[3:16:04] but I can remember a time when there was a developer who came in and wanted to,

[3:16:10] and we rezoned a piece of property.

[3:16:12] We wanted to know what it was.

[3:16:14] because he smartly said I don't need to tell you that, I just, we take the rezone and whatever

[3:16:22] uses are allowed in that rezone we're allowed to build and okay, and the next thing I knew

[3:16:28] we had a Meyer sitting, you know, where it is now, but his point was well taken that

[3:16:34] at least that time, unless things have changed before the first time I sat on the Plan

[3:16:38] Commission this time, that nothing needs to be, you know, you don't have to give

[3:16:42] of a development plan.

[3:16:44] When that property across from Kensington came in,

[3:16:48] I remember quizzing Adrian on that

[3:16:50] and nothing was forthcoming.

[3:16:53] But my point of all this is, is that it doesn't come out

[3:16:58] until everything gets, when I say developed,

[3:17:04] until the plan goes down the road a little bit.

[3:17:08] And that's what it seems like is

[3:17:11] what is the mystery here, because we want to know what it is, some of us do, and there

[3:17:18] are others who, rightfully so, perhaps, we don't need to tell you. And it's neither right

[3:17:25] nor wrong, it's just the way it is. And if I'm wrong in any of that, you know, let

[3:17:29] me know.

[3:17:32] Well, I think that we've done a number of re-zones where there was nothing proposed

[3:17:38] and the re-zones was forwarded on.

[3:17:43] And it was because we didn't have details,

[3:17:46] but we were trying to position the ground.

[3:17:49] In this particular case, there was an article in the IBJ

[3:17:52] that shows, you know, the building along Range Line,

[3:17:56] and there's been a fair amount of publicity

[3:17:59] about the property that zoned C already.

[3:18:04] I mean, that project is far enough along,

[3:18:08] clearly that it was in the paper.

[3:18:10] So I think that, you know, but the back half is still a work in progress, and the request

[3:18:16] of this rezone, I think that the fact that we know that what wants to go there is not

[3:18:24] mixed use, you know, not a commercial use, but a residential use, we know that much.

[3:18:29] And we know that it's probably going to be fairly dense, denser than, you know,

[3:18:35] the single family that exists down the street but less dense than some of the mixed-use

[3:18:43] residential that's already gone in in very close proximity to this site.

[3:18:50] Well, I get the feel that the plan commission wants to be a little bit more involved between

[3:19:00] between what the plan is and what the public will to speak.

[3:19:06] Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but anyway, I'll turn it back to Brad.

[3:19:10] Well, I guess to that point, I would add the comment only that

[3:19:17] the C2 zoning classification was endorsed by this body,

[3:19:24] body, not these nine, not we nine individuals necessarily at that time, but by this body

[3:19:30] and moved on to the council and was enacted into the zoning ordinance.

[3:19:36] So we, whether any of us is uncomfortable with that delegated authority to the hearing officer

[3:19:45] when it comes to ADLS, this is the creature that we created and it might be a Frankenstein

[3:19:52] It might be exactly the economic development tool that the city needs.

[3:19:58] But we own it, and if we're uncomfortable with it,

[3:20:03] then we maybe should be looking at changing the zoning ordinance

[3:20:07] and the process that goes with the classification.

[3:20:10] But right now the city has this tool,

[3:20:15] and it has the endorsement of this body,

[3:20:17] and it was enacted by the council.

[3:20:21] So, I think have at least our bias or our all ties go to letting that process work through

[3:20:34] because that's what is on the books today by law.

[3:20:37] It doesn't mean we have to be comfortable with it,

[3:20:40] but all ties, I guess, go in favor of the petitioner, Mike.

[3:20:45] We want you to be comfortable with it and I guess a part of why we have C zoning and why

[3:20:52] It's separate from kind of regular plant Commission is that

[3:20:58] The redevelopment projects tend to be slightly more complicated and there there's a whole

[3:21:06] Project agreement that is negotiated between the redevelopment

[3:21:11] commission and the developer that spells out a lot of the design parameters, and, you know,

[3:21:18] it's a project pro forma that's very specifically negotiated, and then to have a separate plan

[3:21:28] commission process has the potential to kind of blow up a project. I mean, to renegotiate

[3:21:37] project details and that's why the C process was created so that the redevelopment commission

[3:21:46] had a zoning district to negotiate redevelopment projects.

[3:21:52] The public hearing is required by law and nothing really ever gets approved until redevelopment

[3:22:03] Commission issues are addressed, as well as UDO issues and public comments, you know,

[3:22:10] there's oftentimes conditions of approval that prevent the project from being built until

[3:22:17] they're all addressed.

[3:22:18] I mean, I think that I've said enough.

[3:22:27] I'm going to ask an elementary question.

[3:22:30] The Ariane question, is that considered one block or two blocks or four blocks?

[3:22:37] The black line,

[3:22:41] we're voting on the red line.

[3:22:46] From the city's overall perspective, if we take the line over to range line and up,

[3:22:53] is that considered a block?

[3:22:55] So from range line to 1st Avenue is a block.

[3:23:00] From 1st Street to Supply Street would be a block.

[3:23:04] So my understanding is we're asking that that all be zoned the same, that the block be zoned the same.

[3:23:13] There's an opportunity for public input and the motion would be for this body, the Plan Commission,

[3:23:22] to move that the proposal be sent to the City County Council for rezoning to C2 with a favorable recommendation.

[3:23:32] Would that be the proper motion?

[3:23:34] Then I so move.

[3:23:44] Is there a second to the motion?

[3:23:54] I guess maybe I should back up a step and say that if we, the action by this body on this petition would be to send it to the council with a

[3:24:04] recommendation either favorable or unfavorable, but for us to get there tonight, we first have to suspend our rules of procedure to take action on this

[3:24:13] tonight without sending it to committee for further study.

[3:24:18] So we should best, I think,

[3:24:20] start to bear with it.

[3:24:20] Okay, then I withdraw my motion. That was my, I was trying to get it.

[3:24:23] Well, I'll keep that on the table, but we have a procedural.

[3:24:26] Step A, step B, step C.

[3:24:27] We require a procedural motion to be passed first, and that is to suspend our motion.

[3:24:32] I want to back up a minute. So, and this is a little out of process, but is,

[3:24:36] you know, typically we would send to, this would probably go to commercial committee.

[3:24:39] I mean, is that, is that option completely off the table? Because I think most people

[3:24:44] support but they want it is off the table it's not for this time okay just

[3:24:49] asking then

[3:24:54] to be clear what you're seeking is a motion for the plan

[3:25:00] commission to suspend the rules regarding a rezoning request that would

[3:25:06] be required if we are going to vote on sending it to the council with a

[3:25:11] recommendation of some kind tonight without okay so council my motion I

[3:25:16] and I made previously, I'm holding over here.

[3:25:18] It's not off the table, it's suspended.

[3:25:20] Correct, I have it on the table.

[3:25:22] Okay.

[3:25:22] The Chair has it on the table.

[3:25:23] Okay.

[3:25:24] Then is it appropriate for me to move to suspend the rules?

[3:25:28] You may.

[3:25:30] Yes.

[3:25:30] With whatever words need to follow that

[3:25:32] to make it legally correct.

[3:25:34] The proper motion would be.

[3:25:38] The proper motion would be to suspend the rules

[3:25:40] to send this request to council

[3:25:44] with either favorable, not favorable, or no recommendation at all.

[3:25:49] We still need to suspend the rules and procedures to vote on it.

[3:25:53] That's what he said.

[3:25:54] Correct.

[3:25:55] So I would move to suspend the rules to send this proposal to council with a recommendation

[3:26:08] pursuant to a subsequent motion.

[3:26:11] Correct.

[3:26:12] That's what I move.

[3:26:16] Thank you.

[3:26:19] Is there a second of the motion to suspend our rules?

[3:26:30] I'll second the motion.

[3:26:32] Thank you.

[3:26:33] If there is – is there any discussion on the motion to suspend our rules?

[3:26:38] Then we will vote on the motion to suspend our rules to take action on this petition this evening.

[3:26:43] All in favor of suspending a rule, say aye.

[3:26:45] Aye.

[3:26:46] Aye.

[3:26:47] Okay, we'll do a show of hands just to be clear.

[3:26:50] All in favor?

[3:26:51] Hands in the air?

[3:26:53] To suspend the rules.

[3:26:56] Mr. Ryder, are you still with us?

[3:26:58] Oh, you can't vote, I'm sorry, never mind.

[3:27:01] Motion to suspend the rules.

[3:27:03] Is the other option just a two?

[3:27:06] No, we might.

[3:27:08] It could be.

[3:27:09] Okay.

[3:27:10] To suspend the rules.

[3:27:11] One, two, three, four, five.

[3:27:15] One, two, three, four, five.

[3:27:20] So to suspend our rules requires a two-thirds vote.

[3:27:26] That's correct.

[3:27:27] And we have nine members present tonight, so that motion fails.

[3:27:32] Mr. President.

[3:27:33] Yes, sir.

[3:27:34] I move that we send this to the commercial committee giving the commercial committee final voting authority.

[3:27:45] Thank you both.

[3:27:46] Is there discussion on the motion?

[3:27:49] Then we will vote on the motion to send this to the commercial committee with final voting authority delegated to that committee.

[3:27:55] All in favor of that motion.

[3:27:57] signify by saying I, I, any opposed.

[3:28:04] Do I see have two negative votes? Okay, then

[3:28:07] that motion carries by a vote of six to two. So this will go to the commercial

[3:28:13] committee and remain there until they give it an endorsement and forward it

[3:28:18] to the council for further action. Thank you.

[3:28:27] Rebecca, we're almost there.

[3:28:29] old

[3:28:35] business dash two zero two two dash zero zero one one eight DP ADLS the goat

[3:28:41] the applicant seek site plan and design approval for a building addition slash

[3:28:45] remodel on zero point two acres the site is located at 220 second Street

[3:28:50] Southwest in Frank Hawkins Edition lot one the site is zoned B2 and is within

[3:28:56] the old town overlay character sub area filed by Ben Bemis of CEC Inc.

[3:29:06] on

[3:29:06] Get us out of the mess that we just left.

[3:29:10] I should know better by now.

[3:29:11] Thank you.

[3:29:12] My name is Dan Coos.

[3:29:13] I'm an attorney with Coots Hickin' Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive,

[3:29:16] and I'm here tonight on behalf of the petitioner, Kevin Paul,

[3:29:21] with Tomahawk Holding, LLC, owner of The Goat.

[3:29:24] And we also have the architect of the project, Dan Moriarty,

[3:29:27] with Studio M.

[3:29:30] And at this time, obviously, we don't have much more to present.

[3:29:34] that was, you know, not presented last month, we would just request that the

[3:29:39] Plan Commission approve the unanimous recommendation of the commercial

[3:29:44] committee that was conducted earlier this month and approve the ADLS as

[3:29:50] submitted. And obviously we have some representatives here if there's any

[3:29:54] additional questions of the Commission regarding the project.

[3:30:02] Thank you. This is not a public hearing, so we would go straight to the department report.

[3:30:10] Thank you. Again, for the record, Rachel Kiesling with the Department of Community Services.

[3:30:16] To update, everyone, there have been adjustments made to the plan regarding the size and the placement of the building in order to avoid the stormwater and utility easement that runs along the Mona Boulevard.

[3:30:33] So, the building addition that they've proposed is moved back to meet the setback requirements

[3:30:38] and also avoid this important utility along Monant Boulevard.

[3:30:43] There will be 120 new seats proposed in the addition, as well as six new restroom facilities.

[3:30:49] And we did discuss in great detail at the committee that six additional restroom facilities

[3:30:56] will be sufficient.

[3:30:57] They also have two other existing restrooms on the other side of the building

[3:31:03] All comments and concerns that we had have been addressed

[3:31:07] And the petitioner has kept this proposed addition and plan in line with the commitments that they made to City Council as

[3:31:15] part of their rezone approval

[3:31:18] They do have to request one variance and that's for lot coverage

[3:31:22] 70% locked coverage is allowed by the old town overlay.

[3:31:27] They are requesting 80%.

[3:31:29] That variance will be heard next Monday at the BZA.

[3:31:34] We are supportive of that variance as enclosing the entire open area was part of the plan

[3:31:41] to address the noise and the gathering concerns that we had from when they were first opened.

[3:31:47] So we do recommend approval tonight.

[3:31:49] Thank you.

[3:31:50] Thank

[3:31:54] you. And the commercial committee report.

[3:31:57] Mr. President, I defer to staff's report. There wasn't anything else I could add to it unless there were members present tonight.

[3:32:07] The commercial committee who wish to add to the staff's report.

[3:32:12] Thank you, Alan. Are there any members of the committee who wish to add anything?

[3:32:17] All right. Discussion from the commission?

[3:32:28] Thank you both. If there is no discussion on the motion, then we will vote on approving

[3:32:37] docket PZ-2022-00118 DPADLS, the goat, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

[3:32:45] Aye.

[3:32:46] Any opposed?

[3:32:49] Faster than your dad would have done it.

[3:32:51] Thank you very much.

[3:32:53] Thank you.

[3:32:56] Rebecca,

[3:33:02] docket number PZ-2022-00143 ADLS North End Pool, the applicant seeks site plan

[3:33:09] and design approval for a new pool and pool house at the North End Development.

[3:33:13] The site is located north of Mariposa Trail and Freeland Way and is zoned UR Urban Residential.

[3:33:19] Petition is filed by Rebecca McGeckin of Old Town Companies.

[3:33:23] Thank you for sticking with us.

[3:33:24] Thank you.

[3:33:25] Rebecca McGeckin with Old Town.

[3:33:27] Thank you.

[3:33:28] This commission has given feedback already on ADLS through the apartments, townhomes,

[3:33:33] and the restaurant that's part of the North End development.

[3:33:36] So I'll just quickly give you context.

[3:33:38] This again is adjacent to 31 and Smokey Row and nearly adjacent to the Monant Trail.

[3:33:44] Zooming into the overall site plan this evening, we're focusing on what's in orange,

[3:33:48] which includes the Maples restaurant, which again was reviewed at committee.

[3:33:51] And then this is for the amenity and pool area.

[3:33:54] area.

[3:33:55] The pool space is laid out.

[3:33:57] It's approximately 27 by 75 feet, and you see there's two pergolas, a fireplace, grilling

[3:34:03] station, tanning shelf, and then the pool building.

[3:34:09] The color scheme is consistent with the development.

[3:34:13] The nearest apartment building is this elevation building C, and you see the color scheme

[3:34:17] to the left is what's put on the exterior of the pool building.

[3:34:23] This gives you a sense of the furniture in the layout, from the lounge chairs to the

[3:34:28] love seats to the pool lounges and tables.

[3:34:32] The grill and fire features are colored gray, the retaining wall and almond.

[3:34:39] The floor plan for the pool building includes an equipment room, two restrooms and showers.

[3:34:48] Asphalt shingles for the roof.

[3:34:50] The front elevation, which faces the pool, simply has a door, brick veneer, lap siding.

[3:34:57] The rear elevation facing more towards Building C and the stormwater detention area, which

[3:35:03] is dry.

[3:35:04] Asphalt shingle roofs again, grey, and then the windows to add to it.

[3:35:08] There are restrooms behind some of the windowed areas, which will be glazed glass.

[3:35:15] Side elevations of the building.

[3:35:19] Lighting throughout the site, including both lights above the pergolas.

[3:35:24] a fixed lighting to the pool building,

[3:35:26] bollards throughout the site,

[3:35:29] and these are the fixtures that were already approved

[3:35:30] on the Maple's restaurant, which is near adjacent to the pool.

[3:35:37] Landscaping, what's shown here again,

[3:35:39] we're emphasizing natives throughout the development.

[3:35:43] Some planters here along the retaining walls,

[3:35:45] because again, we have underwater detention here,

[3:35:48] storm chambers that make it difficult to plant trees,

[3:35:51] but I've made a commitment to DOCS

[3:35:53] to again review with our landscaper additional opportunities we would have for trees around

[3:35:59] the perimeter of the pool site.

[3:36:05] That concludes my portion.

[3:36:08] Thank you very much.

[3:36:10] Department report.

[3:36:14] Thank you for the record, Alexia Lopez, Department of Community Services.

[3:36:19] This ADLS is looking at the design of the pool and pool building at the north end development.

[3:36:24] As was shown, it's between apartment building C and the Maple's Restaurant.

[3:36:27] There's a small building with restrooms, showers, and the pool equipment in it.

[3:36:32] Access to the pools from the sidewalks connecting to the north and from the south as well.

[3:36:37] Bike parking spaces are required per the UDO, and I believe the petitioners said they

[3:36:43] will be adding additional spots specifically for the pool so that they're closer.

[3:36:49] The UDO requires to be within 50 feet of the main entrance.

[3:36:54] The architecture of the pool is similar to the apartment buildings, which we support.

[3:36:58] The color scheme is similar.

[3:37:00] There's no signage with this proposal.

[3:37:03] Landscape beds have been provided around the site for the landscaping, and that's mostly

[3:37:07] made up of shrubs, grasses, and perennials, which is why we asked for some additional

[3:37:11] trees around the site if they could add some.

[3:37:15] And then we were looking at the south retaining wall and trying to soften that a little

[3:37:20] bit with adding some additional landscaping and that's what she was

[3:37:23] mentioning the planting the planters. So I think they're committing to adding

[3:37:29] those along that south wall instead of an actual landscape bed along there.

[3:37:40] And

[3:37:40] the lighting will be provided with downlights and the pergola structures,

[3:37:44] wall-mounted lights on the pool building and bollards mostly around the

[3:37:48] perimeter of the pool area by the fence they addressed our question about where

[3:37:54] those baller lights was I wasn't looking at the correct sheet I think to

[3:37:57] identify those so that comment from the department report has been satisfied and

[3:38:04] the only other two was the bike parking which will continue work through

[3:38:08] project docs with them to make sure they those are installed by the pool

[3:38:11] and then see if they can add some more trees and other areas around the

[3:38:16] the pool. So with that, we would recommend, I think, approval this night and we'll continue

[3:38:22] to finalize those items through Project OX. Thank you.

[3:38:28] Thank you. Let's see, this is new business, so this has not been to the committee yet.

[3:38:35] Questions? Discussion from members of the commission?

[3:38:40] Is this pool open to all residents? No matter.

[3:38:44] Yes. And again, there's 168 apartments, 46 townhomes, and 10 single-family homes.

[3:38:53] Do you have any issues with this?

[3:38:56] I move that we suspend our rules and act on this to see.

[3:38:59] I'll

[3:39:03] take that motion under advisement.

[3:39:07] I know I do have one question and that is the wall mounted light fixtures have those been submitted?

[3:39:15] I believe those were yes.

[3:39:16] So I apologize they weren't in your packet.

[3:39:18] I was awaiting them and this is them right here.

[3:39:21] Is that a black or bronze kind of bronze finish?

[3:39:26] Okay, so

[3:39:30] no this we do not then I move that we approve this as quick as we can we have a motion from mr

[3:39:37] Potasnik, so I will take that as a second okay all in favor of the motion to approve dock at PZ-2022-00 143

[3:39:44] ADLS North End Pool and send us all home. Please signify by saying aye. Any opposed?

[3:39:51] The motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you

[3:39:57] Any other business for us tonight? What could there possibly be?

[3:40:00] I just have a couple more things we could talk about.

[3:40:07] The only open question though has to do with the availability of a quorum for the residential

[3:40:13] committee on October 6th.

[3:40:15] So it sounds like we might have a committee of zero then,

[3:40:32] Josh, availability on October

[3:40:34] 6th.

[3:40:35] Anybody on October 6th?

[3:40:43] I'm talking about to staff the residential committee meeting.

[3:40:50] Raise your hand if you can, are not available on October 6th, regardless of your normal committee assignment.

[3:40:57] Not available on October 6th.

[3:41:08] I'm there. Is that necessary? Raise your hand if you're absent.

[3:41:11] No. Hand if you're absent. Hand if you're not available. Hand up.

[3:42:41] Yeah, I'm poor.

Sep 20, 2022 Carmel Plan Commission

Agenda

Transcript