Sep 28, 2026 Board of Zoning Appeals

[A. Call to Order]

[00:00:09]

>> GOOD EVENING. I AM CALLING TO ORDER THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING FOR MONDAY SEPTEMBER 28TH. WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

ALLEGIANCE] >> THANK YOU.

ROLL CALL?

>> I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY SAY WELCOME, RYAN TO YOUR FIRST MEETING. WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU ON THE

BOARD TO. >> THANK YOU.

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY MINUTES OR FINDINGS OF FACT TO

[E. Communications, Bills, and Expenditures]

TO REPORT? >> PLANNING STAFF DOES REQUEST TO HEAR ITEMS THREE AND FOUR TOGETHER.

WE ARE PRESENTING ONE VARIANCES, AND WE REQUEST TO HEAR ITEMS EIGHT AND NINE TOGETHER FOR THE MCPHERSON DUPLEXES.

>> THANK YOU. SERGEI, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON

THAT WE. >> YOU CAN JUST MAKE A DECISION

AS THE CHAIR. >> I AM FINE DOING THAT.

THANK YOU. UNLESS THERE IS ANY OBJECTION.

IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT. THANK YOU.

[F. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]

>> I THINK THE UPDATE AS WE HAVE SETTLED TWO OUTSTANDING LAWSUITS

[G.(V) Brinegar Deck Setback Variance. ]

>> PERFECT, THANK YOU. OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE HERE.

I JUST WANT TO GO OVER THE PROCEDURES FOR THIS.

THE PETITIONER WILL COME UP AND HAS 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT.

AFTER WHICH, WE WILL HEAR FROM ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE HAVE 15 MINUTES TOTAL, NOT FOR INDIVIDUAL, BUT COMBINED.

AND THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE 5 MINUTES TO RESPOND TO ANY OBJECTIONS, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE DEPARTMENT TO REPORT. ONCE WE FINISH THAT, AND WE MOVE TO THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, THERE WILL BE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE PETITIONER, POTENTIALLY ASKING QUESTIONS OF SOMEONE WHO HAS COME UP TO SPEAK.

BUT THERE WILL BE NO COMMENTS FROM THE GALLERY, OR ANY DISPLAYS OF CHEERING, OR BOOING, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE SEEN IT ALL. OKAY.

WE WILL START WITH THE BRINEGAR DECK SETBACK VARIANCE.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE APPROVAL FOR A POOL DECK.

DOCKET NUMBER PTZ 202-60-0143 THE.

AND-- THE LIGHT WILL TURN GREEN, AS YOU START.

IT WILL TURN YELLOW WHEN YOU HAVE A MINUTE LEFT.

AND WHEN IT'S RED, JUST WRAP UP WHATEVER SENTENCE YOU ARE ON.

THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS COLE BRINEGAR.

THIS IS MY WIFE EMILY AND WE ARE REQUESTING HERE TONIGHT SETBACK VARIANCE. AS YOU HAVE SEEN FROM THE MATERIALS, THE PROJECT IN QUESTION IS A DECK BUILT IN OUR BACKYARD, AROUND OUR POOL, TO APPROVE-- IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND USABILITY AROUND THE POOL FOR OUR FAMILY.

THE AREA WHERE THE DECK SITS WAS PREVIOUSLY AN UNSTABLE STRIP OF SLOPED GRAVEL, DIRT AND DETERIORATING MATERIALS LEFT BEHIND BY THE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNERS.

WE BUILT THE DECK SHORTLY AFTER WE WERE EXPECTING OUR FIRST CHILD, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO CREATE A SAFER AREA FOR OUR FAMILIES AND GUESTS TO ENJOY THE POOL.

THE DECK CURRENTLY SITS ENTIRELY WITHIN OUR PROPERTY.

BEHIND AN EXISTING FENCE AND CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE STREET OR THE SIDEWALK. IT CAN ONLY BE SEEN BY NEIGHBORING HOMEOWNERS LOOKING THROUGH THE SECOND-STORY WINDOW.

WE RECOGNIZE THE DECK REQUIRED A PERMIT DUE TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AS PART OF THE CONTRACT. OUR CONTRACTOR WAS TOLD THAT THE PERMIT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY. ONCE WE LEARNED OTHERWISE, WE IMMEDIATELY STARTED WORKING WITH THE CITY STAFF TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT, LEAVE THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND THE ONLY REMAINING ISSUE IS THE SETBACK VARIANCE. THIS PROJECT ENJOYS SUBSTANTIAL COMMUNITY SUPPORTS, NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS, SIGNED PETITION

[00:05:02]

TONIGHT IS JUST THE DECK. WE FIRST LEARNED OF ANY OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION.

WE WERE MADE AWARE BY AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT BY THE CITY PERMITTING DEPARTMENT. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS IN REGARDS TO THE GAZEBO, IN THE CITY OFFICIALS THAT WE SPOKE TO WERE CLEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE GAZEBO CATCHES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE DECK.

IT WAS NOT UNTIL THREE HOURS BEFORE THE INITIAL HEARING THAT WE HEARD THAT THE FITZGERALDS WERE CONCERNED WITH THE PROJECT.

AND THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD ANYTHING IN A MAJOR WAY WAS AT AN ACTUAL HEARING ITSELF. NEITHER THE HOA OR THE FITZGERALDS ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT UNTIL THREE MONTHS AFTER THE PROJECT'S COMPLETION. MUCH OF THE OPPOSITION FOCUSES ON THE HOA RULES. RESPECTFULLY THE HOA DISPUTE AND THE ZONING DECISION ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ISSUES AND WE FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE HOA'S DECISION ON THIS MATTER.

EVEN IF SOMEONE TOOK THE HOA'S SIDE, IT'S A PRIVATE MATTER FOR THE HOA TO RESOLVE. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO DETERMINE IF ZONING IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CITY STANDARDS.

THERE WAS CLAIMS MADE THAT THE DECK HARMS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THROUGH NOISE, ESTHETICS AND REDUCED PROPERTY VALUES. NO PROVE, APPRAISAL, MARKET STUDY, OR OTHER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THOSE CLAIMS. THESE CONCERNS ARE PURELY SPECULATIVE. THE DECK ITSELF SITS BEHIND AN EXISTING FENCE, AND WE OFFERED TO REPLACE THAT WITH A FULL PRIVACY FENCE AT OUR OWN EXPENSE.

THAT OFFER WAS DECLINED. -- DECLINED.

WE CONSISTENTLY ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS EVERY CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN RAISED, BUT OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN ON WILLING TO ENTERTAIN ANY REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

AS YOU SEE WITH THE MATERIALS, THE DECK CONSTITUTES A BUILDING STRUCTURE OR A ACCESSORY BUILDING.

BUT THE WORD "STRUCTURE" IS NOT DEFINED IN THE DOCUMENTS.

NEITHER DO THE WORDS DECK AND PATIO NOT APPEAR.

IF THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON PROPERTY, THAT AMBIGUITY HAS TO BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR USE OF THE PROPERTY. ONCE WE COMMUNICATED THIS PARTICULAR POINT, THE HOA HAS CEASED COMMUNICATIONS WITH US, DESPITE OUR MULTIPLE FOLLOW-UPS. ULTIMATELY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST INVOLVES A DECK THAT IMPROVES THE UTILITY AND SAFETY OF OUR PROPERTY. IS CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW AND IT RESIDES ENTIRELY ON OUR PROPERTY AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE MEASURABLE HARM TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THE CONCERNS RAISED AGAINST IT ARE SPECULATIVE, WHILE THE BENEFITS ARE REAL AND TANGIBLE AND SUPPORTED BY DOZENS OF MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY.

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD MAKES IT'S DETERMINATION ON THE FACTS. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE WHO YOUR-- HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, SO I KNOW HOW MANY. OKAY.

IT LOOKS LIKE THREE PEOPLE. SO WE WILL GO WITH 4 MINUTES EACH. THREE TO 4 MINUTES EACH.

WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST CAN GO AHEAD AND STEP UP TO THE PODIUM. AND WHOEVER IS GOING-- WHOEVER IS GOING TO SPEAK SECOND, IF YOU CAN JUST KIND OF QUEUE UP OVER THERE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SET IT FOR FOUR.

AS SOON IT-- AS SOON AS I SAID THREE TO FOUR--

>> SORRY, THERE ARE ONLY THREE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE SPEAKING?

>> NO. HANG ON.

>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE 5 MINUTES.

>> WE HAVE TO FILL IT? YOU GET UP TO 5 MINUTES.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A QUICK PREAMBLE.

-- >> SORRY TO INTERRUPT TO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> ON JOHN FITZGERALD, THIS IS LINDA FITZGERALD.

WE LIVE AT 1511 COAL CREEK DR DRIVE.

I WANT TO MAKE A PREAMBLE. THERE WAS A REMARKABLE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO STAFF THAT CAST A BILL ON MY WIFE AND I.

QUICKLY, IF I CAN HAVE AV ASSISTANCE HERE.

SO, WE RESIDED AT COOL CREEK DRIVE FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.

WE HOLD MULTIPLE DEGREES IN BUSINESS.

NURSING AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. LINDA IS ONE OF INDIANA'S FIRST NURSE PRACTITIONERS, PIONEERING THE FIELD.

I AM A COMBAT VETERAN FROM THE U.S. ARMY.

[00:10:01]

I AM A PAST COOL CREEK HOA BOARD MEMBER PACK I'VE CHAIRED COMMITTEES TO REPLACE STREETLIGHTS IN OUR NEIGH NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH THE REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OF THE CARMEL CITY ENGINEER, GREG PEASE, THE GREAT GREG PEASE, AFTER HIS PERFORMANCE WITH THE FLOOD, WE SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLED A NEW AND MODERN SYSTEM.

PRIOR TO THAT WE OWNED A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS WITH CLIENTS SUCH AS AMERICAN HONDA, GENERAL MOTORS, JEFFERSON NATIONAL LIVE, STEAK 'N SHAKE RESTAURANTS AND MANY MORE.

IN OUR 57 YEARS TOGETHER WE HAVE PERFORMED THOUSANDS OF VOLUNTEER HOURS MAX SHOWERS MAC IN YOUTH SPORTS-- YOUTH SPORTS COACHING, SERVICES FOR VETERANS, ELDERCARE, PUBLIC EDUCATION AND MORE. WE HAVE LIVED A LIFE OF PURPOSE, AND COMPLIANCE, NOT ONLY WAS STABILITY, BUT ALSO WITH COMMON COURTESY AND KINDNESS TO FRIENDS AND STRANGERS ALIKE.

VILLAINS, WE ARE NOT. SO, I WILL MAKE THIS AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. THE VIOLATION OF THE 5-FOOT ACCESSORY SETBACK RULES SPECIFY IN THE CITY BUILDING CODE THAT ELEVATED STRUCTURES OF APPROXIMATELY 650 SQUARE FEET WAS BUILT THIS PAST SPRING AT 1507 COOL CREEK DRIVE.

IT IS AN ESTIMATED TEN BY 65 FEET IN LENGTH.

AND THE AFFECTED YARD ELEVATION OF OUR PROPERTY HAS BEEN RAISED BY ABOUT TWO —-DASH FEET BECAUSE OF THIS 65-FOOT LENGTH ALONG THE FENCE LINE. WHEN QUESTIONED BY NEIGHBORS, OURSELVES, ABOUT THE PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THE CONTRACTOR TOLD THE NEIGHBORS THAT THE CITY PLANNING STAFF APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION, AND NO BUILDING PERMIT WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A PERMANENT STRUCTURE AND IT COULD BE INSTALLED ANYWHERE THAT THE OWNERS WANTED.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO KNOW WHO IN THE CITY STAFF WOULD HAVE MADE SUCH A COMMENT. AT THE PROJECT'S COMPLETION, THE PETITIONERS ASKED FOR AND AFTER THE FACT BUILDING PERMIT.

CITY STAFF DID NOT APPROVE THE PERMIT AND TOLD THE PETITIONERS THAT A VARIANCE WAS NEEDED BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE ENCROACHED ON THE 5-FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, OURSELVES, AND THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR AND A HOA PRESIDENT OBJECTED DURING THE MEETING, AND THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE FULL BZA.

COOL CREEK HOA HAS ISSUED A LETTER OF DISAPPROVAL OF THIS STRUCTURE IN ACCORDANCE TO HOA COVENANTS.

THIS IS A COPY OF THAT LETTER. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT IN IT'S FULL, HERE. SO, WHY IS THE HOA RELEVANT IN THIS SITUATION? THERE ARE CONSIDERATIONS HERE.

THE CITY, AS WE KNOW IT, IS PROHIBITED FROM ENFORCEMENT OF MORE RESTRICTIVE HOA COVENANTS. WE KNOW THAT.

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO DO SO.

WE ARE ASKING THE CITY TO HAVE THE R1 SETBACK STANDARDS HONORED AND ENFORCED. THE CITY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF HOA'S, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NETWORK WHICH I'VE BEEN A PARTICIPANT, WHICH HELPS HOA BOARD MEMBERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE STAY INFORMED ABOUT INITIATIVES, SERVICES AND TOPICS THAT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE CITY GRANTED A COURTEOUS EXTENSION TO THE BCA CALENDAR OTRANTO-- TO HOA CONSULTATION. IT WAS A REQUEST FOR THE PETITIONER TO MOVE THIS CASE FROM THE AUGUST CALENDAR TO SEPTEMBER. TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE COOL CREEK HOA BOARD. THE CITY STAFF EXTENDS REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HOA'S AS NEEDED.

THE EXAMPLE BEING THE COLLABORATION THAT DID WITH BRAD PEASE TO REPLACE THE STREETLIGHT SYSTEM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONE THAT WAS MODERNIZED. AM I FINISHED?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> I WANT TO ASSURE YOU, WE READ EVERYTHING YOU ALL SANDON.

WE HAVE READ YOUR MATERIALS AS WELL.

>> MAY I SAY ONE FINAL THING, PLEASE? IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE WAS SOME STATEMENTS MADE, SO WE THINK THE VIOLATION OF SETBACKS IS INJURIOUS TO THE WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CITY STANDARDS INCREASE THE VALUE. ZONING STANDARDS INCREASE THE

[00:15:02]

AND THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

YOUR MICROPHONE IS ALREADY ON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE

RECORD. >> OKAY.

I AM SUSAN MCLEAN. I'M HERE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE COOL CREEK ESTATES HOA. I AM THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE HOA. I WANT TO BEGIN BY MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSOCIATION IS NOT HERE TO ASK THE BZA TO ENFORCE OUR PRIVATE COVENANTS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE BZA IS RESPONSIBLE TO DETERMINING WHETHER THE REQUESTED VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED UNDER THE CITY ZONING REGULATIONS.

THEORIES IN THE HOA IS PARTICIPATING IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ASSOCIATION'S POSITION AND OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. COLE AND EMILY BRINEGAR CONSTRUCTED A DECK THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS.

UNDER THE ASSOCIATION'S GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE APPLICABLE SETBACK FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE. THE DECK WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE ASSOCIATION, AND THE BOARD SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED APPROVAL BECAUSE THE DECK DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK. THE HOA HAS NOT TAKEN THIS POSITION BECAUSE OF A PERSONAL DISAGREEMENT WITH THE HOMEOWNERS, NOR BECAUSE WE OBJECT TO THEM HAVING THE DECK.

OUR CONCERN IS COMPLIANCE WITH OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND MAINTAINING CONSISTENT STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE UNDERSTAND THE BZA'S DECISION ADDRESSES THE CITY ZONING REQUIREMENTS. THE HOA'S GOVERNING DOCUMENTS ARE A SEPARATE MANNER. AND ANY CITY VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL BY THE HOA. FOR THOSE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE HOA'S LETTER, THE APPLICABLE COVENANT PROVISIONS AND OUR PROVISION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. I THINK YOU ASKED IF YOU COULD ASK A QUESTION. YOU COMPOSE YOUR QUESTION NOW, BUT WE WILL NOT ANSWER IT UNTIL WE HAVE DISCUSSION.

>> HAD I KNOWN WE HAD 15 MINUTES I WOULD'VE GIVEN MY TIME TO LINDA. IS THAT POSSIBLE?

>> TO TURN YOUR TIME OVER? DO YOU KNOW LONGER WANT TO

SPEAK. >> I WOULD RATHER JOHN OR LINDA

WOULD SPEAK. >> IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE, YES, I AM FINE WITH THAT.

>> OKAY. I WILL BE BRIEFED THEN.

MY NAME IS ED SHAWNESSY. I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THIS REQUEST FOR THE EXCEPTION. I BELIEVE WE NEED TO ENFORCE WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE ZONING LAWS.

IN THE COVENANTS AND-- THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ARE CLEAR. THERE IS NO 5-FOOT SETBACK.

I BELIEVE IN THE JULY 27TH MEETING, WOODY'S SUMMED IT UP.

WHEN HE ADDRESSED THE PETITIONER, AND HE SAID THAT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE.

AND IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE LAW. AND CERTAINLY, THE PETITIONER IS NOT IGNORANT OF THE LAW, AS HE HOLDS A VERY DISTINGUISHED DEGREE IN LAW. WHETHER THE WORD "STRUCTURE" CAN BE CONSTRUED AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN A STRUCTURE, A BUILDING, I'M NOT GOING TO-- I'M NOT A WORDSMITH.

BUT OUR HOA COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ARE CLEAR WE NEED THE SETBACK. AND IT IS IN THE EXISTING-- WHEN THE PETITIONER BOUGHT THE HOUSE THERE WAS NO BUILDING-- IT SAYS NO BUILDING STRUCTURE OR ACCESSORY BUILDING SHALL BL RECTO CLOSER TO THE SIDE OF ANY LOT THEN 10 FEET.

THAT WAS REVISED IN 2025. THE PETITIONER TURNED IT OVER TO THE STAFF REPORT AT THE END OF THAT MEETING.

THE STAFF REPORT SAID THAT THEY WERE-- THERE WAS ERRORS IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION. THAT THE PETITIONERS STATED NO HOA. THE PETITION MOVED INTO THE PROPERTY-- THE PETITIONER MOVED INTO THE PROPERTY OR ABOUT THE PROPERTY IN 2024. HE WAS WELCOMED INTO THE COMMUNITY WITH A GIFTED PLANTER FROM OUR HOSPITALITY CREW IN JANUARY 2025. HE HAS ALSO HAD MULTIPLE MALE INNS THROUGHOUT 2025 TO INDICATE THAT WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE REVISIONS OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS.

WE HAD QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, CONCERNS ABOUT STRUCTURES, AND BOARDING, AND HE WOULD'VE HAD SOME EXPERT ADVICE FROM OUR HOA BOARD. I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE ZONING BOARD DENIED THIS PETITION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. PETITIONERS, YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE COMMENTS.

[00:20:09]

>> FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENT THAT WAS JUST MADE, I ADDRESS THAT IN THE LAST HEARING.

I BROUGHT IT UP TO THE STAFF PERSON WHO I WAS SPEAKING TO, THAT THERE WAS A FORM I HAD TO FILL OUT THAT WAS ASKING ABOUT IF WE HAD HOA APPROVAL AND THAT SORT OF THING.

AND I TOLD THEM THAT I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT HOA APPROVAL WAS NECESSARY. SO THEY TOLD ME TO FILL OUT THE FORM SAYING THERE WAS NO HOA. THAT WAS INSTRUCTION I WAS GIVEN FROM THE STAFF. WITH RESPECT TO THE HOA'S POSITION, THAT THEY WANT TO APPLY THE STANDARDS CONSI CONSISTENTLY, YOU SEEN IN MATERIALS THAT WE SUBMITTED THAT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. THERE IS AT LEAST 20 OTHER SETBACK VIOLATIONS ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE BEEN IGNORED OR APPROVED. AND IN A RECORDED HOA BOARD MEETING THE PRESIDENT HERSELF ADMITTED THAT THEY ONLY ENFORCE THE RULES WHEN SOMEONE ASKS THEM TO.

SO... >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, WE WILL GO TO THE CITY REPORT, PLEASE, ANGIE.

>> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER IS ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO HAVE A WOODEN DECK WITHIN THE 5-YARD SETBACK.

THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED-- THE BACKYARD IS SURROUNDED WITH A 6-FOOT TALL PRIVACY FENCE. AND IN THEIR CORRESPONDENCE THEY OFFERED TO ERECT AN 8-FOOT TALL FENCE.

WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO LET THE BZA KNOW THAT IF THAT IS AN OPTION THAN THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT.

BUT IT DOES-- DOES SEEM LIKE A SOLUTION.

PLANNING STAFF IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE GAZEBO STRUCTURE IS NO LONGER PART OF THE PETITION.

WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS IN FACT.

AND WE WANT TO POINT OUT, ONCE MORE THAT THE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOA AND THE PETITIONER IS A PRIVATE MATTER, WHERE THE CITY WILL NOT BE INVOLVED.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

BEFORE I OPEN IT TO THE BOARD. KEVIN, DO YOU WANT TO SHARE ANY COMMENTS, CENSUS WAS WAS THAT YOUR HEARING LAST MONTH?

>> I'M KNOWN ONCE IN A WHILE FOR USING THE PHRASE, IT'S BETTER TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THEN FOR PERMISSION.

THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES, PARTIALLY BECAUSE THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT THE IGNORANCE OF THE SITUATION DON'T HOLD A LOT OF WATER. THE HOA ONLY ENFORCES WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO, WELL, THEY ONLY ENFORCE WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO, BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS INFORMING THEM THERE IS AN ISSUE.

I WAS ON MY HOA BOARD FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE I WAS ON CITY COUNCIL. AND YOU DO NOT KNOW UNTIL YOU KNOW. UNTIL SOMEBODY COMPLAINS, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW TO ENFORCE IT. SO THAT DOESN'T HOLD A LOT OF WATER. ENDED SOMEDAY FROM THE CITY TELL THEM THEY DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT? HAVE WE FOUND THAT PERSON?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO DO RESEARCH ON THAT.

>> OKAY. AND BLAMING OUR STAFF FOR FILLING OUT A FORM THAT THERE IS NO HOA, THEY DID NOT TELL YOU TO SAY THERE WAS NO HOA. THEY SAID IF YOU DID NOT FEEL-- IT DOESN'T NEGATE YOU FROM NEEDING THE APPROVAL OF YOUR HOA. IF THAT IS IN YOUR COVENANT.

IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT AWAY. SO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HANG MY HAT ON FOR ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS INSTEAD OF PERMISSION. AND YES, THE THING BEING GONE IS GOOD. BUT I ALSO REMEMBER SEEING A PICTURE WHERE THE HEIGHT OF YOUR DECK, IF YOU'RE STANDING ON YOUR DECK, YOU CAN TOWER OVER YOUR FENCE.

I KNOW YOU'RE SAY-- YOU SAY YOU ARE WILLING TO BUILD AN 8-FOOT FENCE. BUT THERE IS NO PETITION FOR AN 8-FOOT FENCE. THAT DOESN'T CARE A LOT OF-- CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT. YOU'RE SAYING I PROMISE TO DO SOMETHING, BUT I NEED APPROVAL FOR IT AND I DON'T HAVE IT.

THERE'S TOO MANY BALLS IN THE AIR FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO JUGGLE

THIS ONE. >> ARE SEEN, NEXT, THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. FIRST, DOES ENGINEERING HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THIS DECK? ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF WHERE THIS DECK IS?

>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> YOU DECIDED ON THE WIDTH OF THE DECK. WHAT WAS YOUR REASONING FOR DECIDING TO GO WITH THAT WITH. WAS IT PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, I NEEDED TO BE THAT WIDE FOR FRNITURE? WHAT WAS YOUR THOUGHT YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT.

WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT WIDTH. >> IT WAS TO FILL THE UNUSABLE SPACE. THAT SPACE BEFORE WHERE IT WAS WAS JUST A SLOPE OF LOOSE GRAVEL AND DIRT.

[00:25:01]

WALK ON AND USE. >> THAT MAKES SENSE.

I IMAGINE IF YOU HAD A SMALL GAP, I DOUBT THERE WOULD BE MUCH THAT COULD GROW BETWEEN THE DECK AND THE FENCE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, WHAT YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT WHEN YOU DECIDED ON THAT WITH OF THE FENCE.

>> I DO NOT REALLY-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE COULD HAVE USED THAT SPACE FOR, HOWELLS WE WOULD HAVE MADE IT SO SOMEONE COULD WALK AND USE THAT SPACE. WHEN WE HAVE POOL MAINTENANCE PEOPLE COME OUT, THAT'S THE WAY-- ONE OF THE WAYS THEY HAVE TO ACCESS THE EQUIPMENT. -- SORRY.

THE GUY WHO CAME OUT TO SERVICE IT FOR THE FIRST TIME, HE FELL WHILE HE WAS BACK THERE TRYING TO GET TO IT, HE COULDN'T USE

THAT SPACE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WANT THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED. I JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. A LET OTHER PEOPLE ASK.

>> IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND DRAWINGS.

HOW WIDE IS THE CONCRETE DECK FROM THE EDGE OF THE POOL TO THE

EDGE OF THE CONCRETE. >> IT'S LIKE A NORMAL SIDEWALK.

>> ABOUT 3 FEET TO. >> YES.

>> AND THE DECK WITH, HOW WIDE IS THAT?

AT THE NARROWEST? >> SEVEN OR 8 FEET.

>> OKAY. OKAY.

IN ESSENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK, YOU ONLY HAVE A TWO OR 3-FOOT WIDE DECK AT THAT POINT. BUT IT WIDENS AS IT COMES AROUND

THE POOL? >> YES.

CLOSER. TO WHERE THE POOL IS NOT IN THE

WAY. >> OKAY.

I'VE READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS, AND MAYBE I MISSED IT.

MAYBE I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A FINDINGS OF FACT SHEET AND I DID NOT SEE IT. WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF NOT COMPLYING WITH THE VARIANCE, OR I'M SORRY, WITH THE

SETBACK. >> THAT'S TWO BOLD-- TWO FOLD.

FIRST WE WANTED TO USE THAT SPACE.

THAT'S WHY WE BUILT THE DECK THE WAY WE BUILT IT.

THERE WOULD ALSO BE NO PRACTICAL WAY TO PUT THE DECK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POOL BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO LARGE TREES THAT WOULD HAVE ROUTES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR UP ELECTRICAL AND WATER

LINES WOULD GO TO ELECTRICAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> GO-AHEAD, KEVIN. >> IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AND IT WAS STATED OUT LOUD ALSO, IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO BE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE HOA. I AGREE WITH THAT 100%.

BUT IT'S ALSO NOT OUR PLACE TO GRANT SOMETHING THAT IS DISRESPECTFUL TO WHAT THE HOA STANDS FOR ALSO.

THAT IS NOT ENFORCING SOMETHING BETWEEN THE HOA AND THE PETITIONER. IT'S HAVING RESPECT FOR OUR HOA'S OF THE COMMUNITY. THEY SET RULES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS FOR A REASON. AND THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ENFORCE THEM. AND, IF SOMEBODY WAS SOME-- ASKING ME FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS AUTOMATIC, NO.

THERE IS NOTHING IN BETWEEN. BUT THERE IS SO MUCH OUTSIDE THE LINES HERE. I DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS US ENFORCING SOMETHING BETWEEN THE HOA AND THE PETITIONER.

I THINK IT'S US LOOKING AT ALL THE FACTS.

AND THE FACT THAT THE HOA DOES NOT SUPPORT IT AND IT DOESN'T MEET THE RULES IS PART OF THE FACTS.

>> AFTER CONSIDERING EVERYTHING, I... I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY INVOLVED.

AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS FOR REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THIS TYPE. AND NOT SEEING THAT, I CANNOT APPROVE IT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

OR I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I WILL JUST SAY, HEARING YOU DESCRIBE HOW YOU CANNOT PUT IT ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU CAN UPDATE DECK ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU CAN'T CUT DOWN TREES OR NAVIGATE AROUND A GAS LINE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE THEY COULD PUT THE DECK. SO THAT DOES SOUND LIKE A BIT OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. AND THE CONCERNS OF HAVING CHILDREN, AND IF THEY WERE TO HAVE THE CHILD STEP OFF AND

[00:30:04]

I JUST WANT TO SEE WITH THE HOA WAS SAYING.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I ALSO SEE THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL.

IT'S A TOUGH SITUATION FOR SURE. >> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.

HIM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THEN, YOU COULD DO THE DECK THERE STILL, JUST SHORTER, RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND THE GAP.

BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE THE DECK

THERE. >> THE DECK WOULD BE ALMOST NONEXISTENT IF THE HOA-- WITH THE HOA'S RULES.

WE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR THE WHOLE THING UP.

>> I'M NOT COMPARING TO HOA RULES THOUGH.

OUR SETBACK IS 5 FEET? >> AND THE DECK IS ABOUT SEVEN OR 8 FEET. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FEW

2X4'S THAT WOULD BE LEFT. >> I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IF THE DECK IS A CERTAIN HEIGHT OR YOU WOULD FALL OFF OF IT,-- THIS IS GOING TO SOUND SARCASTIC, AND IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE. THERE IS A THING CALLED A RAILING. YOU BUILD A RAILING.

WE BUILT IT ALL OVER TOWN. MY NEIGHBOR HAD COENFORCEMENT COMING OUT SINGER DECK IS TOO HIGH, I SAID I WOULD BUILD A

RAILING. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

I WOULD ALSO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> WHEN WE MAKE A MOTION WE ALWAYS MAKE IT IN THE POSITIVE. MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? OKAY. IT IS NOT APPROVED.

[G.(V) Novo Office Building at Proscenium I Lot Cover Variance.]

[G.(V) Proscenium I Lot Cover Variance. ]

WE ARE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

AND WE ARE TAKING THESE TWO TOGETHER.

THIS WILL BE THE NOVO OFFICE FIELDING, AT PROSCENIUM LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE. THE APPLICANT SEEKS EVOLUTIVE ELEMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING.

DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2026-00164 V. MAXXUM 80% LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED AND 86% REQUESTED. AND ITEM FOUR.

PRESIDIUM-- PROSCENIUM ONE, LOT COVER VARIANCE.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPS STANDARDS VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT.

DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2026-00198 V. AGAIN, MAXIMUM 80% LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED AND 86% REQUESTED. OH, HELLO.

>> GOOD EVENING, BOARD. I CALL UPON THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND I AM HERE FOR THE PZ-2026-00198 V. BUT I KNOW THE PETITIONER FROM THE EARLIER DOCKET KIND OF SPURNED OUR FILING OF THIS VARIANCE AND IS HERE ALSO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, IF NECESSARY.

AFTER THE PETITION BY NOVO, OVER FOR THE NOVO OFFICE WAS CONTINUED TO THIS MEETING, WE HAD AN INTERNAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY ARE WE MAKING THEM DO THIS ONE REALLY THE VARIANCE APPLIES TO THE WHOLE SITE. AND EVEN THOUGH THEY REMAIN ON THE DOCKET, THEY-- WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR THE CITY TO CLEAR UP, WHEN THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN-- THIS IS THE MAP FROM 2016, WAS APPROVED, THE TAVERN WAS A PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOP AND PLAN. WHICH, WE DID NOT CATCH THAT ISSUE BACK IN 2016. WE DID NOT CATCH IT IN 2019, WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE ARBY'S SITE, AT THE NORTH SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY-- THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANGE LINE AND CHROME IT DRIVE.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

THE CITY KNEW WHAT IT WAS GETTING WHEN IT APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF 2016 AND DEMANDED IT IN 2019.

AND IN 2023, THE TAVERN WAS PRESENTED AND APPROVED.

[00:35:08]

AND NOT A RESTAURANT WHICH WAS PART OF THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL.

IN BRIEF, ANGIE CON'S STAFF REPORT LAYS IT OUT NICELY.

THIS IS REALLY THE CITY TRYING TO CORRECT THE RECORD FOR 8A VELVETY PLAN THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

AND THERE IS ONE VARIANCE THAT WE THINK IS MEANINGFUL.

LOT COVERAGE. TODAY THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. THE WAY WE REVIEW PROJECTS AND PARTNER WITH ENGINEERING, FOR STORMWATER.

THE STORMWATER ISSUE HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF OR BAKED IN TO THIS PROJECT. AND IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE STREET TO THE WEST THERE IS A LARGE CITY POND THAT WILL BE LANDSCAPED BEAUTIFULLY. IT'S AN EXPANSION OF THE JAPANESE GARDEN. THAT WILL HANDLE THE STORMWATER FOR THIS PROJECT. IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE BOARD TONIGHT, ALSO WE HAVE A REDEVELOP AND COMMISSION MEMBER HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. HAPPY TO ADDRESS CONCERNS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING-- AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THANK YOU. >> AFTERNOON AND EVENING.

MY NAME IS ANTHONY] IMD MEMBER OF THE IG HOLDINGS, THE HOLDER OF THE PROPERTY MAKING THE REQUEST.

JUST FOR A POINT. MY COMPANY OR MY COMPANIES HAVE BEEN DOING DEVELOPMENT SEARS SINCE 2013.

I THINK THE FIRST OF ALLMAN TO BE DID WAS...

THE SECOND OF ALLMAN WAS PRESIDIUM.

THE PROJECT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

WE WENT ON TO DO PROSCENIUM ULTIMATELY WITH A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO BUILD 25 CONDOS. AND WE ARE WORKING ON OUR-- OPENING OUR LAST VOMIT, PROSCENIUM.

AND WE WERE LOOKING AT THAT THREE WEEKS OR A MONTH AGO.

I SAY THAT BECAUSE ALL OF OUR PROJECTS BASICALLY, THE LOUDER ONES HAVE GOT THE SAME REQUEST OF VARIANCE.

AND IN THE URBAN CORE, GENERALLY YOU ARE BUILDING MORE DENSITY AND THAT'S WHERE THE REQUEST IS COMING FROM TONIGHT.

SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS. WOULD ANYBODY HERE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR-- HOLD ON A SECOND. ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE THE CITY REPORT? DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

AT THE END WE. >> HELLO, EVERYONE.

HENRY. I VERY MUCH DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE WAY OF ANGIE GIVING HER DOCS REPORT, BUT I AM HERE WITH THE CITY WITH MY OWN VIEW HERE. SO UNHAPPY TO DO THAT.

>> LET'S HEAR FROM THOSE THAT CAME TO SPEAK AND WE WILL COME BACK AROUND. SOUND GOOD? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? ALL RIGHT.

WOULD ANYONE HERE LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SO I KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THERE ARE.

I SEE ONE, KEEP THEM UP. TWO, THREE, FOUR PEOPLE.

OKAY. YOU CAN EACH HAVE 3 MINUTES.

WHOMEVER WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST. GO ON UP TO THE PODIUM AND WHOMEVER IS NEXT GO AHEAD AND QUEUE UP BEHIND THAT.

BE SURE TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD WHEN YOU START OUT.

AND YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES EACH.

THE LIGHT WILL TURN YELLOW AND YOU WILL HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT.

AND WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, FINISH THE SENTENCE YOU ARE ON.

THANK YOU. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS RYAN REEVE, I AM A RESIDENT IN THE CITY. I AM NOT IN OPPOSITION TO THE 86% COVERAGE. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS SOMETHING COMING TO ASK FOR THE CHANGE FROM RESTAURANT TO OFFICE. AND I OPPOSE THAT.

OUR ORIGINAL MARKETING MATE MATERIALS, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN IN 2020. SHOWED THE TAVERN UP ON THE SCREEN. HAVING IT IN OFFICE DOES NOT HELP US AS RESIDENTS IN THE CONDOS ARE THE APARTMENTS.

[00:40:06]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

TO BE CLEAR CACTUSES REGARDING-- I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

THIS IS REGARDING THE LOT COVERAGE, THAT'S THE VARIANCE

THAT IS IN FRONT OF US? >> HELLO, MY NAME IS PATRICK.

I AM THE BARTENDER AND BAR MANAGER AT THE RESTAURANT DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO WHERE THE SLOT IS.

DAILY I LOOKED OUT OVER THAT LOVELY PATCH OF GRASS.

I SEE KIDS RUNNING AROUND, PEOPLE WALKING DOGS.

I'VE YET TO SPEAK TO ANY RESIDENT IN THAT AREA THAT SUPPORTS A BUILDING GOING IN THERE AT ALL.

I JUST CAME TO KIND OF VOICE THAT OPINION IN SUPPORT OF THE RESIDENTS I'VE SPOKEN WITH. AND TO BECOME MORE INFORMED ABOUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING THERE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING, I AM JIM STEINER.

I AM OWNER OF ONE OF THOSE CONDOMINIUMS. UNIT 103. I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.

BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY, I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION NOT SO MUCH OF THE VARIANCE, BUT OF THE FACT THAT IT'S CHANGED FROM RESTAURANT TO OFFICE. AND IF THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT FORUM FOR THAT, IT'S OKAY. BUT IT'S THE ONLY FORUM THAT WE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF. I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD

CONTINUE BECAUSE IT'S... >> YOU CAN USE 3 MINUTES FOR

WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SHARE. >> SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION, NOT SO MUCH TO THE VARIANCE, BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN CHANGED FROM A RESTAURANT TO AN OFFICE. WHICH IS AGAINST THE MASTER DECLARATION. THAT THERE'S THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT SPECIFY THAT THIS IS FOR A RESTAURANT.

AND ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE CANNOT BE BUILT ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND I FEEL IT WILL HURT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. I PURCHASED THAT WITH THE PROTECTION THAT THE MASTER DECLARATION PROVIDES.

SO IF THIS CHANGES, AND IT'S AGAINST THE MASTER DECLARATION.

TO ME IT'S GOING TO HURT OUR VALUES.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS DOUG. I AM AN OWNER OF A CONDOMINIUM IT PROSCENIUM. EARLIER ON AUGUST 24TH I EMAILED A LIST OF QUESTIONS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAD AN ANSWER TO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THESE REQUESTS. BUT I WILL GO THROUGH THOSE NOW.

AND I WILL SAY THAT AS AN OWNER THIS WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE ENTIRE SURROUNDINGS CHANGING FROM A RESTAURANT TAVERN TO AN OFFICE BUILDING.

I BOUGHT MY CONDOMINIUM HERE AND IT PROBABLY DISPLAYS THE MODEL THAT DEVELOPMENT. THAT INCLUDED A RESTAURANT.

AND ALL THAT SPACE. >> PLEASE ADDRESS THE BOARD.

>> HE PROUDLY DISPLAYED A MODEL THAT MAYBE STILL EXISTS WITHIN HIS OFFICE, OF THE RESTAURANT AND ALL THAT GREEN SPACE.

THIS WOULD HAVE A TERRIBLY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON ALL THE OWNERS IN THAT BUILDING. AND THE APARTMENTS THAT SURROUNDED. TO HAVE AN OFFICE SURROUNDING ALL OF THAT SPACE. SO I WOULD RESUBMIT MY NINE QUESTIONS, WHICH I EMAILED ON AUGUST 24TH.

I WOULD APPRECIATE HOW THESE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ZONING VARIANCE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. PETITIONER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS, UP TO . I GUESS TECHNICALLY THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS, SO YOU HAVE UP TO TEN PROBABLY.

>> THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE REQUESTS AND ULTIMATELY WE BELIEVE THAT THE LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, THE LARGER ONE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED WOULD RESOLVE BOTH ISSUES.

BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. AND WE BELIEVE IT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE SITE. IT REALLY WASN'T A QUESTION OF USE TO US. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE.

IT'S A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT WE WERE TRYING TO CLEAR SO THE OWNER, IF IN THE FUTURE THEY DECIDE TO REFINANCE, OR MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS, THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO A LENDING INSTITUTION, OR SALE OF THE PROPERTY.

TO US, THAT REALLY IS THE ISSUE. I KNOW THE RESIDENTS MAY HAVE THEIR DECLARATION, AND WE SPOKE WITH THE OWNERS THOROUGHLY ABOUT THIS AS WELL. OFFICE USES PERMITTED IN THE PRESIDIUM, AS WELL AS AT THE RESTAURANT, AND SIMILAR TO THE

[00:45:07]

I THINK THE DIRECTOR CAN ADDRESS THAT DURING THE STAFF REPORT.

>> THANK YOU. >> AS IT PERTAINS TO OUR REQUEST, I DON'T THAT THERE WAS ANY OPPOSITION TO LOT COVERAGE.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF HAS BEEN DIVIDED IN TO TWO USES, ONE, A COFFEE BAR, AND WE HAD PROPOSED TO LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS, MARKETING, WE BUILT AN OVERTURE.

WE ARE OUT IN THE MARKET ALL THE TIME LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT USES, RESTAURANT USES AND OTHER USES. OFFICES HAVE BECOME A POPULAR USE. OUR NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE AN OFFICE LUXURY-- A LUXURY HOTEL. WILL PUT RESTAURANTS IN THE HOTEL. BUT THAT'S MORE OF PRIVATE USE WITHIN THE MASTER ASSOCIATION. WE SPENT THE WHOLE DAY AND WEEKEND SPEAKING WITH THE MULTIFAMILY OWNER OF THIS PROJECT, AND WE CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH HOMEOWNERS AS WELL.

BUT I DON'T THINK I HEARD ANY OPPOSITION.

AND THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE ARE HERE FOR TODAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL GO TO THE CITY

REPORT. >> I WILL SAY A COUPLE WORDS.

BUT IT WILL MOSTLY BE WHAT MIKE HAS ALREADY SAID.

THIS WAS PROBABLY AFTER MAIN STREET AND CITY CENTER, THE PRESIDIUM WAS THE CITY'S THIRD-LARGEST, HE PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP. DEVELOPED IN 2016.

COVERED EXTENSIVELY. I GOOGLE PROSCENIUM IN THE GREEN. AND THERE ARE TEN YEARS OF NEWS STORIES WITH DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE USE ON THE GREEN THAT YOU CAN FIND BY GOOGLING IT. SO THIS WAS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO HAVE A USE ON THE GREEN.

WE ARE HERE FINALIZING THE PLAN. AND BY THE WAY, FOR ANYONE WATCHING, MAJOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TAKE A LONG TIME.

SOMETIMES THEY WILL TAKE TEN YEARS.

PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THAT THIS CITY FOLLOWS THROUGH ON IT'S PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP COMMITMENTS.

AND THE TAVERN ON THE GREEN HERE IS ONE OF THEM.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT BOUGHT ONE OF THESE CONDOS HAD A CHANCE TO VISIT THE SAILS CENTER IN TONY'S OFFICE WHEN THERE WAS A GIANT 3D MODEL OF THE CONDO BUILDING ADJACENT TO A GREEN SPACE WITH A ROOFTOP USE, WAS SOMEBODY ABLE TO LOOK FROM THE SECOND STORY INTO SOMEONE'S FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR.

THE CURRENT VERSION DOESN'T HAVE A ROOFTOP USE.

A DECLARATION IS A PRIVATE CONTRACT THAT CAN CHANGE AT ANY TIME. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT. WERE HERE TO TALK ABOUT A USE VARIANCE APPLICABLE TO A MAJOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT IS BEING BUILT. AND THE PROPOSED USE HERE IS GOING TO BE WONDERFUL AND IS GOING TO ENHANCE THE VALUE.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

BUT THAT IS A QUICK INTRO FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS

STANDARDS. >> THANK YOU.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND ADD THE OFFICIAL CITY REPORT.

>> LET'S GO AHEAD TO ROUND OFF THE STAFF REPORT.

THE CARMEL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO CONCERNS WITH THE LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE. WITH THAT BEING SAID WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION ON THE VARIANCE, AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINANCE ACT. THANK YOU.

>> KEVIN, GO AHEAD AND START. >> HENRY, I HAVE WORKED WITH YOU SINCE YOU GOT HIRED WITH THE CITY.

YOU SHOULD NEVER START A STATEMENT WITH "I'M GOING TO SAY A COUPLE WORKS." YOU'VE NEVER DONE THAT IN YOUR LIFE. AND I MEAN THAT NICELY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. OKAY.

I HEARD NO REMONSTRANCE TO THE LOT COVERAGE.

THAT'S WHA WERE HERE FOR. THAT IS REALITY.

BUT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PEOPLE'S CONCERNS, I AM GOING TO COMMENT ON A FEW OTHER THINGS.

AND I WAS PART OF THIS PROCESS. THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

AND I AM ALSO HAPPY TO HAVE BEEN IN THE FOOD BUSINESS FOR 44 YEARS. YOU CAN NEVER GUARANTEE A RESTAURANT'S SUCCESS. YOU CANNOT.

IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY THAT WOULD HAVE GONE THERE AND DONE WHAT WANTED TO BE DONE THERE, YOU HAVE ASSIGNED IT.

IT DID NOT EXIST. YOU CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING THAT

[00:50:01]

AND I AM NOT SAYING IT WOULDN'T BE GREAT IF THERE WAS ONE THERE.

BUT WHEN WE DO DEVELOPMENTS WE DON'T GUARANTEE THAT THAT'S WHAT HAS TO BE THERE. IT WAS THE DESIGN.

IT WAS THE DESIRE. IT WAS THE DREAM THAT THEY WANTED TO HAPPEN. THEY DON'T ALWAYS HAPPEN.

AND IT HAS BEEN TEN YEARS. THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS IS CHANGING IMMENSELY. AND TO FIND SOMETHING TO GO THERE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEVEL THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR IS HARD TO FIND. IT REALLY IS.

I'VE OWNED MY OWN RESTAURANTS BACK I'VE HELPED OTHER PEOPLE OPEN RESTAURANTS. AND IT'S JUST-- IT'S A DIFFICULT PROCESS. YOU CANNOT GUARANTEE IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AS FAR AS THE GREEN SPACE, I HAVE HEARD THAT SO MANY TIMES. AND I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE'S DESIRE FOR GREEN SPACE. BUT SOMEBODY PAID FOR THAT GREEN SPACE. LAND WAS GOING FOR A MILLION TWO, A MILLION .3 PER ACRE. I'M SURE IT'S HIGHER NOW.

THAT IS EXPENSIVE GREEN SPACE. AND I HAD A LADY SAY TO ME ONE TIME, I LOVE THE COWS BEHIND MY PROPERTY IN THE FIELD.

THAT IS MY VIEW. THEY SHOULD NOT DEVELOP IT.

I ALWAYS SAID, IF YOU LIKE YOUR VIEW, BUY IT.

IF YOU DO NOT OWN IT, YOU ARE BORROWING IT.

THAT'S NOT BEING MEAN. THAT'S A REALITY.

SOMEBODY PAID FOR THAT LAND AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP THAT LAND. WE GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THAT LAND WITH APPROVAL. NONE OF THIS IS BEING MEAN.

THE PEOPLE SAY I'M NOT LISTENING TO THEM, I'M LISTENING.

I JUST DON'T AGREE. FACTS ARE FACTS.

AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS PROJECT.

SO IN DEALING-- WHAT WERE DEALING WITH TONIGHT I HEARD NO REMONSTRANCE TO THE LOT COVERAGE.

SO I WILL BE VOTING ON THAT. WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH ANY

OTHER ISSUE. >> I ALSO SAT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS WAS CRC PROJECTS.

I WAS NOT INVOLVED. SO I UNDERSTAND, AND I REMEMBER HOW EVERY RESIDENT WAS EXCITED ABOUT THIS POSSIBILITY AND HOW AWESOME THAT WOULD BE. SO,-- BUT WE ARE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS USE. WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS THE LOT COVERAGE. SO MY QUESTION, WHOEVER ANSWERED THIS, IS THE FOOTPRINT OF THIS NEW BUILDING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE FOOTPRINT THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SHOWN ON THE PLAN AS-- THAT WAS THE RESTAURANT? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME-- IT'S THE SAME CONCEPT, THE ONLY DIFFERENCES THE LOT HAS NOT CHANGED. IS AT THE SAME?

>> IN EVERY INSTANCE THERE'S BEEN AN ADJUSTMENT TO HOW A BUILDING SITS ON A GREEN. THE INTENT OF THE REDEVELOPED COMMISSION HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE SET OUT, WHERE 15% OR SO OF THE GREEN IS THE GREEN.

AND WE SEE WHERE WE CAN FIT THE PROPERTY USE FOR THE TAVERN AND OFFICE AND MAXIMIZE THE GREEN SPACE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE SAME AS VARIOUS VERSIONS.

BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE AT LEAST 50% OF THE GREENS SAFE.

>> MIKE, AND YOU COME UP HERE AND ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE BIT.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME COVERAGE.

IT'S JUST IT'S BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE DRAWING.

>> SO THIS IS THE 2016 PLAN. SO THIS IS THE TAVERN.

THERE IS THE CONDO BUILDING, THE TAVERN, OFF RIDGELINE.

I MEAN, I DO-- THIS IS, KIND OF THE LATEST VERSION.

SO, THIS WENT WITH THE ADL AS FOR THE RESTAURANT.

IT'S ABOUT 50% OF THE SITE. AND THAT IS WHAT WAS REALLY ALWAYS ANTICIPATED. THERE IS A PARK IMPACT FEE CREDIT THAT WENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GREEN, AND AN EXHIBIT THAT WENT WITH THAT AS WELL THAT SHOWED SOMETHING SIMILAR. NOT IDENTICAL TO THIS, NOT IDENTICAL TO THAT. BUT THESE IT-- EXHIBIT WAS INTENDED TO COMMUNICATE THAT THIS IS APPROXIMATELY WHAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE. IF YOU GET DOWN TO USE, WE HAVE ALL SEEN HOW PARKING IS AN ISSUE AT THE PRESIDIUM.

AND I BELIEVE THAT A LARGE RESTAURANT WITH A WINE BAR AND A COFFEE BAR, EVERYTHING BAKED INTO THAT WOULD PROBABLY

[00:55:03]

AND BESIDES THE EMISSIONS FROM A STEAK HOUSE, AND FROM THESE APARTMENTS, IT MAY NOT GO OVER WELL.

OVER THE YEARS WE'VE HAD RESIDENTS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SMELL OF BARBECE, CITY BARBECUE.

THAT'S NOT CONFINED IN THE AREA. THE OFFICE USE, IF THEY CAN GET THAT SOLVED HIS MAYBE A BETTER BALANCE FOR THE USES ON-SITE.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

AND I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BUILDING THAT'S BEEN SHOWN THERE. JUST FROM BEING A PERMANENT RESIDENT, I DON'T LIVE THERE. TO YOUR POINT, IF YOU'RE LIVING THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD PREFER.

WOULD I WANT PEOPLE OUT ALL NIGHT DRINKING AND BEING LOUD ON THAT GREEN? OR DO I WANT A NICE COFFEE BAR, A WINE BAR. IF I'M LIVING THERE? BUT HAVING SAID THERE, IT'S NOT A USE ISSUE-- ISSUE.

IT'S THE LOT COVERAGE. AND THERE IS ALWAYS BEEN A BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN THERE.

THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. BUT ATTENTIONAL-- ESSENTIALLY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME FOOTPRINT.

SINCE WE DO HAVE EVERYONE HERE, IS THE COMMITMENT TO HAVE IT BE A COPY-- A COFFEE AND WINE TYPE SUCH-- SITUATION? OFFICE USE COULD MEAN A LOT OF THINGS.

IT COULD BE SOME ANON EXCITING OFFICE USES.

>> TO MR. RIDERS POINT. WE OWN THREE RESTAURANTS.

WE HAVE A HIGH END STEAK RESTAURANT.

WE HAVE A BAR PUB AND A CAFE. AS WE LOOK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THAT SPACE WE BELIEVED THAT THE WINE AND COFFEE BAR WAS PROBABLY BEST SUITED FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.

COFFEE IN THE MORNING WITH PASTRIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, LIGHT LUNCH, SALADS AND SOUPS, AND MOVING ON TO WINE IN THE AFTERNOON. THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LITTLE LATER NIGHT IS PRESENT THERE, BUT WE-- HONESTLY RETHOUGHT THAT THIS WAS LESS IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS.

AND I THINK THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE AND THAT THERE, THAT THE RESTAURANT, A WINE AND COFFEE BAR, WAS THE BEST USAGE. AGAIN, THAT IS A PRIVATE DISCUSSION, I GUESS. THAT'S WHAT WAS REQUESTED TODAY.

BUT, YES, WE INTEND TO OPEN A WINE AND COFFEE BAR.

>> THANK YOU. I KNOW HENRY WANTS TO FOLLOW-UP.

>> CARMEL IS A WONDERFUL CITY. AND YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF LOTS OF HOUSING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAVE WONDERFUL QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR REDEVELOPED AREAS ARE.

OUR REDEVELOPED AREAS ARE VITAL-- VIBRANT AREAS WE A ARE MIXED USE WITH THE BEST URBAN LIVING AND THE BEST RESTAURANTS.

THAT'S WHAT THE PROSCENIUM IS. WE DIDN'T BUILD IT PURCHASE A FEW PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE. WE BUILT THE PROSCENIUM AS PART OF A NETWORK OF PUBLIC, PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, THAT DELIVER TO US A WALKABLE CITY. SO WE ARE NOT HERE TO DELIVER THE ABSOLUTE QUIETNESS. WE ARE HERE TO DELIVER THE RIGHT PROJECT. AND HERE, A FEW MORE HIGH END JOBS WITH A COFFEE SHOP HELPS SOLIDIFY THE VIBRANCY OF THE PRESIDIUM. THANK YOU.

>> I WANT TO GIVE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

DENNIS, GO AHEAD. >> I WANT TO GET AWAY FROM THIS IDEA OF THIS USE OR THIS LOT. I WANT TO GET BACK TO WHY THIS PETITION IS HERE. AND THAT IS THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE. AND WE HAVE TWO PETITIONS FOR VIRTUALLY THE SAME THING. I READ IT SEVERAL TIMES.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. WE HAVE ONE PETITION WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT A 6-ACRE LOT. AND ANOTHER PETITION THAT TALKS ABOUT A SMALLER LOT THAT IS BASICALLY SPECIFIC TO THIS PARTICULAR OFFICE, COFFEE SHOP, WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS-- AND I THINK I READ IT SOMEWHERE, THERE IS AN 8000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. OR AND 8800 SQUARE-FOOT LOT.

AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A 6% DIFFERENCE.

[01:00:01]

THOSE NUMBERS DON'T WORK IN MY MIND.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.

WHEN WE FILED THE VARIANCE IT WAS AFTER THE ADDITION WAS TABLED IN AUGUST. AND IT FELT LIKE THIS WAS ON DOCS FOR NOT CATCHING IT INITIALLY, AS PART OF OUR GLOBAL REVIEW FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 6-ACRE SITE. AND THE PROJECT IS ALWAYS ANTICIPATING THAT THERE WILL BE USE ON THE SITE.

WE DID NOT CATCH THAT IS PART OF THE REVIEW.

THAT'S OUR MISTAKE AND WE ARE THE BOARD TO MAKE MORE OR LESS GRANT FORGIVENESS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE CATCH.

WE CAUGHT IT WITH PROSCENIUM THREE.

IT'S AN ISSUE WITH THE FIRST ON MAIN PROJECT, WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE CAUGHT OURSELVES, AND MADE SURE THAT THAT LOT COVERAGE HAD VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED FOR THAT.

THE CITY IS TRYING TO MAXIMIZE, AND WE ARE DELIVERING A WALKABLE CITY. THESE ARE URBAN PROJECTS.

THESE ARE NOT SUBURBAN PROJECTS. THE 80% STANDARD IS A LITTLE OUTDATED WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER THAT IS WITH CITY CENTER, RANGE LINE AND CITY CENTER DRIVE.

A MIDTOWN PROJECT, VIRTUALLY EVERY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH HAS BEEN A MAXIMIZED URBAN PROJECT.

THE FACT THAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WAS INVOLVED IN THE REVIEWS AND IN THE OUTCOME, BECAUSE THESE ARE PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS FOR REDEVELOPMENT, AND THE CITY IS PART OF A MASTER AGREEMENT. THAT STORMWATER IS ADDRESSED.

SO THE LOT COVERAGE IS BUILT IN TO THE OVERALL SOLUTION.

WE THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED MANY YEARS AGO THAT ENDED OVER TIME, THAT'S CURTLY WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE TODAY. AND IF THAT'S NOT GRANTED, YOU ARE GOING TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE CITY THAT YOU NEED TO PUT LESS ON A SITE, OTHERWISE WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE NORMALLY DO, WHICH IS TO CREATE BEAUTIFUL URBAN DISTRICTS THAT

CONTINUE TO WIN AWARDS. >> IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, THE ENTIRE 80% LOT COVERAGE ITEM IS A SUBURBAN ITEM.

IT IS MEANT TO PROTECT US FROM TERRIBLE DEVELOP AND THAT WE OTHERWISE ARE NOT ABLE TO AFFECT.

THE-- IT'S A PROTECTION FOR US WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO BUILD RANDOM WAREHOUSES THAT WE CAN'T STOP THEM FROM BUILDING.

BUT WE CAN AT LEAST PUT IN SOME STANDARDS.

THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE WITH REDEVELOPING PROJECTS.

PARCEL LINES ARE ARBITRARY FOR REDEVELOPING PROJECTS.

IF YOU'RE TALKING MIDTOWN, TAKE MIDTOWN AS AN EXAMPLE.

WE BUILT MIDTOW AROUND AND IN-- A PUBLIC PLAZA.

THAT PUBLIC PLAZA AS PART OF SOME LAND AMOUNT CALCULATION.

[01:05:02]

THAT'S WHY IT'S ARBITRARY TO TALK ABOUT LOT COVERAGE WHEN WE ARE HAVING PARKS STYLE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND OUR URBAN PROJECTS. BUT THE BIGGEST PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS WE ARE TEN YEARS FROM WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, AND THE PROJECT NEEDS TO BE DONE THE WAY THAT EVERYONE ENVISIONED IT TEN YEARS AGO. THAT IS THE PRACTICAL

DIFFICULTY, I THINK. >> BRIAN, I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY. AND WE HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS

WHEN WE COME BACK. >> I THINK-- ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS LOT COVERAGE. EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING MATCHES WHAT I SEE IN THE ECONOMY.

AND EVEN IN WHAT HENRY SAID THROUGHOUT THE INTENTION OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

IT IS THE INTENTIONALITY OF THE RULES, AND APPLY WHAT WE ARE DOING, AND WHAT WE HAVE COMMITTED TO SINCE 2016 TO DELIVER TO THE CITY. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO BE APPROACHING THIS FROM. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE EVERYBODY DID A GREAT JOB.

>> THANK YOU. SO ARE WE SAYING THAT MY 80%-- THAT 80% IS AN OUTDATED NUMBER? WHEN WAS THAT SET? WHICH GUIDELINE IS THAT A PART OF? AND IF YOU COULD GIVE A SHORT ANSWER-- IT'S NOT A KNOCK ON YOU, IT'S A KNOCK ON ME TRAINED TO UNDERSTAND.

>> THE 80% LOT COVERAGE IS UNIVERSAL IN THE CITY AND APPLIES TO SUBURBAN PROJECTS. AND IT SEEMS INCREDIBLY OUTDATED WHEN TALKING ABOUT REDEVELOPING PROJECTS, STAFF WERE GONE FOR

YEARS. >> SO THAT WASN'T A NEW LOT COVERAGE STANDARD? THAT WAS SET TEN YEARS AGO-- THAT WAS SET TEN YEARS AGO. IT'S FROM MANY YEARS BEFORE?

>> IT'S FROM A WHILE AGO, BUT IT'S AN ALBATROSS AROUND

REDEVELOP IT ON EVERY PROJECT. >> C1 AND C2 ON THE DISTRICTS

WERE ADOPTED. >> A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE 2001.

A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I WANT TO ÚMAKE SURE I GET TO.

WHEN WILL-- SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT SPOKE TONIGHT ASKED WHEN THEY CAN HAVE INPUT OR FEEDBACK ABOUT-- AROUND WHAT GETS DEVELOPED THERE. IS THERE A PLACE IN THE PROCESS WHERE THAT HAPPENS, JUST SO THEY KNOW.

>> BASED ON WHAT WAS DISCUSSED TODAY, FROM THE CITY PROCESS, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE DESIGN OF THE TAVERN. IT WILL BE AT A FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MEETING.

AND I WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE POST THAT.

BUT AS FAR AS WHAT KIND OF USES ALLOWED, THAT'S GOVERNED BY THE DECLARATION THAT'S A PRIVATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

AND THE CONDOS, AS PART OF THE HOA, AT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTE IN THE HOA. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY GET TO AVAIL THEMSELVES IN THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.

>> THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. ALSO-- I DON'T REMEMBER WHO IT WAS, BUT WE HAD A LIST OF QUESTIONS IN THE DOCUMENTS AND WE WANTED TO KNOW IF WE COULD GET THOSE ANSWERS.

SO CAN WE REACH OUT TO THE CITY AND GET THOSE QUESTIONS

ANSWERED? >> I HAVE THE EMAIL THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK OVER, BUT MAYBE WE CAN EMAIL A

RESPONSE. >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT, THANK YOU. AND THIS IS A LEGAL QUESTION.

APPROVAL OF ONE COULD REALLY CLEAR OF BOTH.

IS THAT A GENERALIZATION, OR A LITERAL STATEMENT? DO WE ONLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSING ONE ITEM HERE?

>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND I THINK THAT THE REASON WHY WE HAD TWO PETITIONS FILED BACK IF YOU LOOK AT THIS WEBSITE, YOU WILL SEE THE PROSCENIUM VERSUS A SPECIFIC PARCEL THAT IS ABOUT 50% OF THE CURRENT GREEN, WHICH IS SEPARATE IN OWNERSHIP.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE PARCEL, THE ENTIRE PROSCENIUM, IT WILL ALSO BUMP UP PROSCENIUM ON THE OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

SO WITH C1, C2, THEY SOMETIMES APPEAR ON PLAT-- PLAT'S AND GIS, IT CREATES THAT TWO LAYERS OF MOTION IF YOU WILL.

THAT'S WHY THERE ARE TWO PETITIONS.

—-DASH THINK IT'S CLEANER TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THEM RATHER THAN IMMERSION TOGETHER. WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT OWNERS AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR THE PARCEL IN QUESTION.

[01:10:06]

>> THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.

IT MADE ME FEEL BETTER. IT'S CONFUSING-- CONFUSING.

KEVIN, GO AHEAD. >> REAL QUICK.

THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THE RIGHT COVERAGE ON THESE PROJECTS, ONE OF THEM. GETTING THAT BUILDING TO SWALLOW THE PEOPLE THAT IT THOUGHT IT WOULD NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT CREATED SOMETHING FOR OLD TOWN THAT HAD BEEN A PROBLEM FOR 26 OF THOSE YEARS. PARKING.

THERE'S NOW A 350 SPACE BAR THAT THEY CAN ONLY RESERVE 20% OF.

THE REST IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE. THE REASON MIXED USES ARE GOOD IS THAT SOME RESTAURANTS, SOME OFFICE PEOPLE GO HOME AT NIGHT.

RESTAURANTS GET USED AT NIGHT. IF YOU DON'T DO BOTH, THE GARAGES DO NOT WORK. THE REASON THEY WORK IN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS IS BECAUSE IT IS MIXED-USE.

NIGHT AND DAY USES. PEOPLE LIVING THERE.

IF EVERYTHING WAS A RESTAURANT IN THAT PROJECT, WHEN YOU GOT HOME FROM WORK, HE WOULDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO PARK.

THAT'S WHY COVERAGE IS IMPORTANT.

THAT WE GET WHAT WE NEED. AND ARE WE DOING THESE

SEPARATELY AS A VOTE, OR AS ONE? >> I UNDERSTAND WE NEED TO DO THEM SEPARATELY AS VOTES. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? IF THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE GOING,

KEVIN? >> IT WAS.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE NOVO OFFICE BUILDING AT PROSCENIUM. DOCKET NUMBER...

>> -- DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2026-00164 V.

>> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED?

THAT IS APPROVED. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROSCENIUM ONE, LOT COVERAGE VARIANTS.

>> SECOND. >> A FIRST AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

BOTH OF THEM ARE APPROVED. THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS FROM EVERYONE THAT PARTICIPATED. I APPRECIATE IT.

I AM GOING TO TAKE A MINUTE AND LET PEOPLE CLEAR OUT WHO WANT TO CLEAR OUT SO WE CAN HEAR WHAT WE ARE DOING.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

[G.(SE) Lai Short Term Residential Rental. ]

SCE. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I BELIEVE EVERYTHING WAS SENT ELECTRONICALLY, AND I AM JUST HERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE TO COME THIS EVENING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT

SUBMITTED. >> THANK YOU.

IS ANYONE HERE IN-- IS ANYONE HERE ABLE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? INTO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.

THAT IS A LOT OF HANDS. KEEP THEM UP, I NEED TO COUNT.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN.

YOU SO EIGHT? THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

>> IF YOU ARE ALL GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING, PICKED THE PEOPLE THAT SAY IT BEST. AND THEN THEY CAN SAY MORE.

>> I AM GOING TO CALL FOR ORDER AND HIT MY GAVEL HERE.

[LAUGHTER] >> IT IS FINE.

OH, MY GOSH. IT'S GETTING LATE.

OKAY. YOU WILL EACH HAVE 2 MINUTES TO SPEAK. GO AHEAD AND CUE UP OVER HERE.

AND REMEMBER-- THE MICROPHONE IS ALREADY ON RIGHT NOW.

[01:15:01]

IN TO THE RECORD PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS.

I AM A TEACHER HERE AT CARMEL CLAY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE 2012. MY SCHOOL ELEMENTARY IS RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD FROM MY HOME WHICH WE HAVE LIVED IN FOR THE LAST 11 YEARS IN THE GREENTREE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF TEACHING MANY OF THE CHILDREN LIVING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND MY OWN THREE GIRLS PLAY AND ROLLERBLADE DOWN MY STREET. IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AS SMALL AS OURS, SAFETY RELIES ON FAMILIARITY AND TRUST.

WE KNOW OUR NEIGHBORS, WE LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER'S CHILDREN, AND OUR KIDS FEEL SAFE PLAYING OUTSIDE.

BRINGING A REVOLVING DOOR OF TRANSIENT RESIDENTS TO OUR SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD REDUCES UNCERTAIN-- MAKES UNCERTAINTY.

ONE UNKNOWN ADULTS ARE COMING AND GOING, PARENTS FEEL THAT UNEASE. WE WOULD LIKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO REMAIN SAFE HAVENS FOR FAMILIES, RETIREES AND OTHERS.

PLEASE HELP KEEP US-- HELP KEEP IT THAT WAY BY DENYING THE

SPECIAL EXEMPTION REQUEST. >> GOOD EVENING.

I AM SUE MOORE. MY FAMILY HAS BEEN ON BEACH PLACE LONGER THAN ANYONE. WE HAVE WATCHED THESE HOMES BEING BUILT, EVEN LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO OUR DAUGHTER, HIS SON-IN-LAW AND GRANDSON. WE LOVE CARMEL AND WELCOME NEW NEIGHBORS WITH OPEN ARMS. BUT A RENTAL PROPERTY IS NOT A NEIGHBOR. A TEMPORARY TENANT WILL NOT STOP BY TO CHAT OR JOIN OUR ANNUAL BLOCK GET-TOGETHERS OF JUST 30 PEOPLE, OR WELCOMING NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS FOR HALLOWEEN.

FOR DECADES TO COME THIS PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN AN EMPTY SPOT IN OUR SOCIAL FABRIC, RATHER THAN A HOME CONTRIBUTE INTO IT. WE SPENT DECADES NURTURING A TRUE COMMUNITY OF OUR THREE STREETS, ALLOWING AN EXCEPTION HERE PERMANENTLY CHANGES THE DYNAMIC OF OUR SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE URGE YOU TO PRESERVE OUR RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND DENY THIS VARIANCE.

THANK YOU. >> HELLO.

I HAVE LIVED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE 1976, SINCE I WAS FOUR YEARS OLD. NIAGARA-- GREW UP HERE AND BOUGHT MY HOME FROM MY PARENTS, AND RAISED MY OWN FAMILY IN THE SAME COMMUNITY AND SAME HOME THAT I GREW UP IN.

THIS IS NOT JUST A STREET TO US, IT'S AN EXTENDED FAMILY.

WHEN STORMS HIT MY SON IS OUT THERE WITH A SHOVEL, CLEARING DRIVEWAYS FOR THE NEIGHBORS. WHEN STORMS KNOCKED DOWN TREES AND BRANCHES WE GO OUT WITH A SAW AND HELPED CLEAN UP THE YARD. THAT KIND OF SPIRIT IS PASSED DOWN THROUGH STABILITY AND PERMANENT NEIGHBORS.

GRANTING A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR A SHORT LONG TERM DOOR SHORT OR LONG-TERM RENTAL WILL RUIN THIS TIGHT-KNIT NEIGHBORHOOD.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS EXEMPTION.

THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS ANGIE RITZ. MY HUSBAND AND THREE CHILDREN LIVE ON SYCAMORE ROAD. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PROPERTY ON OUR STREET TURNS INTO A RENTAL, MANAGED FROM A DISTANCE. IT FALLS AWAY FROM PROPERTY STANDARDS AND IMPACTS THE WHOLE BLOCK.

WHEN WE PURCHASE THIS HOME ON SYCAMORE ROAD 12 YEARS AGO WE DID NOT JUST BUY A HOME. WE INVESTED OUR TIME AND ENERGY AND KAREN TO BECOMING PART OF THE TAPESTRY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OF OUR SIZE, A COMMUNITY IS BUILT HOME BY HOME AND NEIGHBOR BY NEIGHBOR.

ALLOWING A SPECIAL EXEMPTION HERE CREATES A MISSING PIECE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PUZZLE FOR YEARS TO COME.

WE ASK YOU TO RESPECT THE LONG-TERM INVESTMENT THAT WE ALL MADE IN OUR PROPERTIES AND OUR COMMUNITY BY VOTING AGAINST THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS HAYLEE MOORE.

I LIVE ON SYCAMORE ROAD. I GREW UP HERE.

I HAVE CALLED THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HOME CLOSE TO 40 YEARS.

MY HUSBAND AND I HAD THE CHANCE TO BUY THE HOUSE EXT DOOR TO THE ONE THAT I GREW UP IN. THE HOUSE THAT MY PARENTS STILL LIVE IN. WE DID NOT HESITATE, WE JUMPED ON IT. OVER THE YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN FIRST-HAND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PROPERTIES ON OUR STREET ARE NOT WELL-MAINTAINED OR PROPERLY MANAGED.

WE WATCHED THREE PROPERTIES THAT WERE RENTALS FALL IN TO SIGNIFICANT DISREPAIR. AT TWO OF THOSE PROPERTIES WE

[01:20:05]

IT COMES FROM EXPENSES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY LIVED THROUGH RIGHT HERE ON SYCAMORE ROAD. AND THEY ARE STILL HAPPENING.

TO NOTE, AGAIN, THE NEW OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY LIVES IN CALIFORNIA. AND THE PROPERTY MANAGER LISTED ON THE APPLICATION LIVES IN CALIFORNIA AS WELL.

WE HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER THE IMPACT ON THE FAMILIES WHO INVESTED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CALL IT HOME BY RESPECTFULLY-- I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENIED THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THANK YOU.

>> HELLO, EVERYONE. I RECENTLY RELOCATED HERE FOR MY HUSBAND'S JOB WITH MY TWO LITTLE DAUGHTERS FROM NEW JERSEY.

AND WE PURCHASE THIS HOME ON SYCAMORE ROAD WITH THE INTENTION TO MEET OUR NEIGHBORS AND FORM A LASTING COMMUNITY.

WE HAD A STRONG COMMUNITY IN NEW JERSEY AND I AM LOOKING TO BUILD THE SAME THING HERE IN CARMEL. WE CHOSE THIS SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD INTENTIONALLY, WITH THIS COMMUNITY IN MIND.

AND EVERYBODY HAS BEEN REALLY WARM AND HAS EXTENDED A WARM WELCOME TO US. AND I WANT TO INVEST IN THIS COMMUNITY. OUR DAUGHTERS AT-- HAVE BEEN TO SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS, THEY ARE PLANNING HALLOWEEN, RIDING BIKES OUTSIDE AND PLAYING OUTSIDE.% THE THOUGHT OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY, WITH AN INFLUX OF FREQUENT VISITORS, AND NEW FACES EVERY TIME, THAT JUST MAKES ME FEEL A LITTLE INSECURE.

AND AS WE HAVE INVESTED IN THIS, I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER OUR REQUEST TO REJECT THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS CAROL BOSCO IT'S. I BONED GREENWOOD COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES FOR 40 YEARS. I AM ONE OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I RAISED MY DAUGHTER THERE, AND SHE HAS RETURNED TO RESEARCH CHILDREN THERE AS WELL.

I AM RETIRED AFTER 18 YEARS AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT.

I AM SPEAKING NOW AS A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AN AGENT AND FORMER LANDLORD OF LONG-TERM RENTALS.

I HAVE OWNED RENTAL PROPERTIES FOR 35 YEARS.

I HAVE OWNED PROPERTIES LOCALLY, AS WELL AS OUT-OF-STATE.

I'M NOT AGAINST RENTALS. I AM CONCERNED TO HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN OUR LONG-DISTANCE SHORT-TERM OWNERS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY AT IT'S PEAK AND BEING PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

THEIR INTEREST IS IN KEEPING IT OCCUPIED IN PROVIDING CASH FLOW AND TAX WRITE-OFFS FOR A FEW YEARS AND SELLING IT FOR WHATEVER PROFIT THEY CAN GET AS PART OF AN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.

LONG-DISTANCE PROPERTY MANAGERS LIKEWISE SIMPLY WANT A PROPERTY OCCUPIED, AND PAID LITTLE ATTENTION TO ADEQUATELY SCREENING TENANTS, OR TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF COLLECTING THE RENT. I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE IN DEALING WITH PROPERTY MANAGERS. OF LONG-DISTANCE PROPERTIES.

THESE PROPERTIES ARE OFTEN NOT WELL-MAINTAINED, AND NOT WELL SUPERVISED, CAUSING PROPERTY VALUES TO SUFFER.

IN ADDITION, SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE OFTEN USED AS PARTY LOCATIONS, DESPITE THE PUBLISHED BRINGING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND PLENTY OF STRANGERS IN TO A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE CHILDREN ARE PRESENT, CAUSING DISRUPTION IN A QUIET FAMILY ORIENTED NEIGHBORHOOD, AND POTENTIALLY COMPROMISING THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR CHILDREN. I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO TO THIS

EXCEPTION. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE. YOU MAY NOW COME UP AND RESPOND.

YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES FOR A RESPONSE.

>> A FEW QUICK THINGS TO COMMENT ON, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID. THIS OWNER DOES NOT MULTIPLE

[01:25:02]

YOU HAVE TENANTS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING UP AND MAKING SURE YOU DON'T HAVE THINGS OUT IN THE YARD, ALL THOSE THINGS. WITH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT IS KEPT UP.

AND IN ORDER TO HAVE OCCUPANCY YOU NEED TO HAVE GOOD REVIEWS FOR THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP UP ON MAINTENANCE AND THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR.

BECAUSE THAT WOULD DECREASE THE OCCUPANCY IF NOT.

IS FAR FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE, IT IS KEEPING UP NICELY. AS WELL AS FOR SECURITY, HE HAS MULTIPLE CAMERAS ON PROPERTY. ON PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE NOTHING IS SLIPPING THROUGH THE CRACKS AS FAR AS PARTIES OR UNWANTED GUESTS, AND THEY ARE MAKING SURE THAT THE PROPERTY IS MAINTAINED WELL IN A SAFE PLACE FOR-- WITH THE GUESTS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HE DOES LIVE OUT OF STATE, HAS MENTIONED, BUT HE DOES HAVE LOCAL HELP, MYSELF AS WELL AS OTHERS, THAT ARE HERE, BOOTS ON THE GROUND, IF NEEDED.

WHILE HE IS FAR OUT, IT'S NOT THAT THERE IS NO ONE HERE LOCAL THAT CAN'T OVERSEE THE PROPERTY AND STOP BY THE PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. >> ANGIE, CITY REPORT, PLEASE?

>> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER REQUEST SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR A SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL USE RENTAL. IN THEIR INFO PACK AT THE STATE THEY'D LIKE TO OPERATE PRIMARILY AS A MONTHLY RENTAL, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY OR FLEXIBILITY TO HOUSE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. WE DO NOT THINK THERE IS AN ACTIVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. SO THERE WERE NOT ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS TO CHECK FOR THIS USE BEING PROHIBITED OR NOT. ALSO RECENTLY, THIS YEAR, OUR ZONING ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE'S RECENT AMENDMENT OF THE INDIANA CODE REGARDING THE SHORT-TERM STATUTE. AND THERE WAS CRITERIA THAT WE REVIEW THE PETITION AGAINST THINGS SUCH AS ACCESS TO PUBLIC STREETS, PARKING, TRASH, CHECKING IF THERE IS ANY COVENANT RESTRICTIONS. THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE CHECKED WITH THE CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO INCIDENTS REPORTED IN THE PAST YEAR.

WE ALSO CHECKED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND THERE WAS ONE PIECE RECENTLY FOR TALLGRASS, BUT THAT GRASS HAS BEEN MOWED BY THE OWNER. WITH THAT, WE RECOMMEND FAVORABLE... OF THIS REQUEST AND A ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND WE POINT OUT THAT IF THE PETITION IS APPROVED IT'S ONLY VALID FOR ONE YEAR. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THE RENEWAL NEXT YEAR. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY THING TO

SHARE? >> I WILL GO AHEAD.

FIRST IS OUR DEPARTMENT STAFF ALLUDED, I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME LEGISLATURE, CURRENT STATE LEGISLATURE THAT HAS DRAMATICALLY RESTRICTED THE CITY'S ABILITY TO REGULATE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. ONE THING THAT THEY DID NOT TOUCH AS IF YOU HAVE AN HOA IN YOUR COVENANTS PROHIBITS THAT.

SO I JUST SAY, THIS IS COMING UP MRE AND MORE.

TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE AN HOA.

IT SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT, FORMING AN HOA.

SO YOU CAN STOP THIS ISSUE BEFORE IT HAPPENS.

EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID UP THERE, I AGREE WITH.

SHORT-TERM RENTALS CAN BE REALLY DISRUPTIVE TO NEIGHBORHOODS.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN.

AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BE IN THERE.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.

IF THE COMMISSIONER COULD COME UP HERE, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. -- THE PETITIONER.

OKAY. SO IF THE OWNER AND THE UPPITY MANAGER ARE NOT LOCAL, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, A PARTY IS GOING ON, WHO'S GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT

[01:30:02]

ISSUE? >> THEY HAVE CAMERAS ON THE

PROPERTY 24/7. >> IS SOMEBODY MONITORING THOSE

CAMERAS 24/7. >> BETWEEN HIM AND HIS WIFE, HE'S VERY ON TOP OF MONITORING IT.

I WOULD SAY SO. AND THE CLEANERS THAT ARE LOCAL HAVE ACCESS TO THE CAMERAS. SO EVEN WITH THE TIME DIFFERENCE, THERE WOULD BE A FEW HOURS DEPENDING ON CALIFORNIA.

MAYBE THE CLEANER THAT IS LOCAL THEIR TEAM WOULD ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THE CAMERAS AS WELL. THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE THAT

THINGS HAPPEN. >> IF THERE IS A PARTY GOING ON A FEW HOURS DOWN THE ROAD WILL THEY CALL YOU? WHO ARE THEY GOING TO CALL TO STAFF THE PARTY?

>> THEY WOULD CALL THE POLICE. THE AUTHORITIES WILL BE THE ONES

TO GO AND STOP THE PARTY. >> OKAY.

PARKING. HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS DO YOU

HAVE. >> IT'S A TWO PART ATTACHED GARAGE. THE DRIVEWAY IS A PRETTY GOOD LENGTH. IT WOULD FIT FOUR CARS,

DEFINITELY TWO IF NOT FOUR. >> HOW MANY SHORT-TERM VISITORS ARE YOU ANTICIPATING WOULD BE BOOKING THIS HOUSE AT ONE TIME?

>> AS FAR AS HOW MANY SLEEPS? HOW MAY PEOPLE WOULD BE IN THE

HOME? >> COMEDY PEOPLE AT ONE TIME

WOULD BE IN THERE? >> PROBABLY ABOUT EIGHT.

>> DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR EIGHT CARS.

>> TYPICALLY YOU HAVE COUPLES, WITH THE SHORT-TERM NATURE, PEOPLE FLY IN. PEOPLE BREAK OUT THEIR TRANSPORTATION. SO IT'S USUALLY NOT A NECESSITY.

BUT WE WOULD REQUIRE THERE TO BE ADEQUATE PARKING WITHIN THE

GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY. >> IF THEY ALL BROUGHT THEIR OWN CAR THERE WOULD NOT BE EIGHT PARKING SPOTS?

>> I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE SEPARATE CARS.

YOU WOULD HAVE COUPLES COMING TOGETHER WITH FAMILIES AND THEIR

OWN VEHICLE. >> THERE WAS A SITE THAT WAS DOING THIS, WAS AT THIS HOMEOWNER? HAVE THEY BEEN OPERATING AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL?

>> I THINK IT WAS THE CURRENT OWNER.

IN SEPTEMBER. A TALLGRASS ORDER.

>> IT WAS. THEY HAD SOME REHAB GOING ON TO THE PROPERTY. IN THAT TIME FRAME THERE WAS SOME DISCONNECT, THE CONTRACTOR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TAKING CARE OF THE YARD AS WELL. CAMERAS WERE NOT UP AND RUNNING.

THE OWNER DID NOT REALIZE THE GRASS HAD OVERGROWN.

UNTIL I WENT BY THE PROPERTY AND SO IT WAS.

I LET HIM KNOW. AND HE HAD SOMEONE OUT THERE WITHIN 24 HOURS TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.

>> THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW.

KEVIN, GO AHEAD. >> SO WE ARE VERY LIMITED IN THE REASONS THAT WE CAN DENY A PETITION LIKE THIS.

AND ONE OF THEM IS NOTICES OF VIOLATION FOR MAINTENANCE, LIKE TALLGRASS. SO, IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE A BASIS TO DENY THIS JUST ON THAT. AND I WILL NOT BE APPROVING

THIS. >> CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH MORE OF THE OPERATIONS? WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC ROLE? WHAT IS YOUR TITLE? AND IF HE HAS A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, IT'S NOT A LICENSE-- THERE IS NOBODY HERE WHOSE LICENSES ON THE LINE IF THEY ARE NOT OPERATING CORRECTLY. THOSE ARE MY FIRST TWO QUESTIONS

THAT I HAVE. >> OKAY.

MINE COMPANY IS A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-- MY COMPANY IS A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LOCALLY.

ON A LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER AS WELL.

YOU ARE CORRECT, HE DOES NOT HIRE ME ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO DO MANAGEMENT, BECAUSE HE SELF MANAGES HIS PROPERTIES.

THERE IS NOT A LICENSE ON THE LINE, YES.

BUT WE DO HAVE-- WE MANAGE ABOUT 45 PROPERTIES HERE IN THE CITY.

AND SO HE DOES UTILIZE US WHENEVER HE NEEDS.

WHETHER THAT'S MAINTENANCE, OR ANY OTHER ISSUES AT THE PROPERTY. FROM A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE, IF HE

IS NOT IN TOWN. >> SO THAN, HE RESPONSE-- THE RESPONSE IS NOT REALLY RELATED TO ANYBODY.

SO IF HE GETS A NOTE AS HE HAS TO MAKE DECISIONS, AND WHO IS CALLING FOR WORK OR RESPONSES? IT IS NOT YOU.

>> IF IT IS A MAINTENANCE TYPE ISSUE, HE TYPICALLY CALLS OUR TEAM. BECAUSE WE HAVE A MAINTENANCE TEAM ON OUR STAFF. IF IT IS MAINTENANCE IT IS US.

IT-- IF IT'S A CLEANING ISSUE HE HAS A CLEANING COMPANY THAT HE UTILIZES TO CLEAN THE PROPERTY. SO HE WOULD REACH OUT TO THEM.

>> DOES HE HAVE AN ACTIVE MEANNESS CONTRACT WITH YOU?

>> NO. WE DON'T HAVE CONTRACTS-- WE DO HAVE MULTIPLE INVESTORS THAT WE WORK WITH THAT WE DO JUST MAINTENANCE FOR. BUT THEY WOULD CALL US JUST LIKE THEY WOULD REACH OUT TO ANY OTHER CONTRACTOR AND WE WOULD

[01:35:02]

SCHEDULE FOR THAT CALL. >> OKAY.

AND THEN -- IS IT ANGIE? HIS HISTORY WITH THE CITY HAS BEEN POSITIVE AND HE HAS OTHER UNITS THAT HAVE REGISTERED

ALREADY AND ALREADY HAVE THIS? >> I AM NOT SURE IF HE OWNS HE OR. IT MIGHT BE HAMILTON COUNTY.

>> I DON'T THINK HE HAS ANY IN CARMEL.

>> FOR THIS PROPERTY, IT LOOKS LIKE THE OWNERSHIP TRANSFER WAS IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR SO IT WAS FAIRLY NEW.

>> FAIRLY NEW. SO THE ONLY VIOLATION WE HAVE IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE HE ACQUIRED IT IN THE MIDDLE OF

TRANSITIONING IT. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> FIRST OFF, I SEE IN THE PETITION APPLICATION HERE, IT STATES PROPOSED A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY IS TEN GUESTS.

THAT IS A COUPLE MORE THAN YOU WERE SUGGESTING.

THEN I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, THAT COULD BE ANY COMBINATION OF TEN. LIKE, FIVE COUPLES, TEN PEOPLE.

TWO FAMILIES OF FIVE. A WORST-CASE SCENARIO, TEN SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL, NON-RELATED GUESTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

THERE IS A SET OF FULL SIZED BUNK BEDS SO THAT IS WHERE THOSE OTHER TWO CAME FROM THAT I WASN'T THINKING OF, BUT ONCE

AGAIN LIKELY NOT ADULTS. >> IS THERE A PLAN FOR HOW YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF PARKING, IF YOU HAVE TEN PEOPLE THERE AND THEY HAVE TEN CARS? HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET IN AND OUT? IS THERE A PLAN FOR THAT?

>> IT IS STATED ON THE LISTING. AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF IT IS FOR PARKING OR SIX.

I THINK IT IS SIX, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT 100%.

THE LISTING WOULD STATE HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS ARE AVAILABLE, SO GUESTS WOULD KNOW THAT WHENEVER THEY ARE BOOKING THAT THAT IS HOW MANY CARS WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE PROPERTY.

>> AND THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIGURING OUT HOW TO MOVE THEIR CARS SO PEOPLE CAN GET IN AND OUT?

>> CORRECT, YES. >> I HAVE DIFFICULTY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, WHEN THERE IS A THREE HOUR TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAIN PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE MONITORING THIS ON CAMERA. THAT DOESN'T BODE WELL WITH ME I GUESS CONSIDERING THREE HOURS OF SOMETHING CAN BE GOING ON BEFORE THE OWNER EVEN KNOWS ABOUT IT. THAT TO ME IS A LITTLE MUCH.

AND I KNOW YOU SAID THAT YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO CAMERAS, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE MONITORING AT LEAST LOCALLY IS A 247 KIND OF SITUATION. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THAT TYPE OF PROTECTION FOR SAFETY, FIRE, SANITATION AND SO FORTH WOULD BE COVERED IN A TIMELY MANNER.

>> JUST FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE WITH OUR MANAGING, THERE'S HOURS IN THE DAY THAT I AM NOT AWAKE. IT MIGHT NOT BE A THREE HOUR TIME DIFFERENCE, BUT THAT IS GOING TO GO ACROSS THE BOARD.

IT'S GOING TO BE SOME HOURS THAT IT IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE THING.

TWO THINGS WITH THAT. ONE, THE LOCAL CLEANING TEAM DOES ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE CAMERAS 247, SO THEY WOULD BE ALERTED. OBVIOUSLY THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE EVERY SINGLE THING, BUT IF SOMETHING IS GOING OFF ON THEIR PHONE WITH THE CAMERA AND IT'S AN ODD TIME, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO BE MORE LIKELY TO CHECK THAT MORE DILIGENTLY.

AND ALSO, THE OTHER HOMES THAT HE DOES HAVE IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, HE DOES HAVE PRETTY OTHER RELATIONSHIPS -- PRETTY GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS EVEN HAVE MY PHONE NUMBER AS WELL SO THAT IF SOMETHING IS GOING ON AT AN ODD TIME THAT A NEIGHBOR SEES OR SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS, OF THAT NEIGHBOR COULD ALSO CALL HIM OR MYSELF. THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION AS WELL.

>> AND ONE OTHER CRITERIA I WILL ASK ABOUT THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A BASIS ON IS TRASH AND MATERIAL STORAGE.

I HAVE NOT HEARD, HOW IS THAT BEING HANDLED?

>> THE CLEANING TEAM COMES BY ON THE DAY THAT TRASH COMES OUT JUST LIKE ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS. SO THE TRASH DOESN'T SIT OUT ON THE STREET FOR DAYS AT END. THEY COME OUT THE DAY BEFORE, THE EVENING BEFORE TO PUT THE CANS OUT AND COME BACK THE

FOLLOWING DAY TO PUT THEM BACK. >> OKAY.

IS TRASH TAKEN CARE OF IN THE SIX OTHER DAYS WHEN TEN PEOPLE ARE THERE MAKING TRASH, WHERE DOES IT GO?

[01:40:01]

TO KEEP THEM? >> THEY'RE NOT IN THE FRONT OF THE STREET. I DON'T RECALL IF THEY ARE INSIDE THE GARAGE OR NEXT TO THE GARAGE BUT HE DOES HAVE MULTIPLE BINS TO TAKE CARE OF THE TRASH. IF THEY DID HAVE AN OVERAGE OF BAGS, THEY WOULD BE ASKED TO KEEP THAT INSIDE THE GARAGE SO THAT THERE IS NOT ANY ANIMALS OR ANYTHING GETTING TO THOSE BAGS.

AND THEN THE CLEANING CREW WHEN THEY CAME IN WOULD TAKE THOSE EXTRA BAGS INTO THE BINS ON A NORMAL TRASH NIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.

>> I'VE GOT SO MUCH STUFF WE WOULD BE HERE UNTIL BREAKFAST IF WE GOT TO IT ALL SO I'M JUST GOING TO GET TO THE SHORT STUFF.

ALL OUT OF THIS SITUATION STARTED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE WAS A SHORT TERM RENTAL/AIRBNB THAT WAS THROWING BACHELORETTE PARTIES AND ALL OF THAT.

KIDS ALMOST GOT RUN OVER. THAT'S MY PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.

THE CAMERAS THAT THEY SO MUCH LIKE TO USE AND WATCH FOR THEIR ENTERTAINMENT THREE HOURS TIME DIFFERENCE WERE DOWN, AND THAT IS WHY THE GRASS -- THAT'S NOT A QUESTION.

IF I HAVE A QUESTION, I WILL ASK A QUESTION.

I MAKING COMMENTS. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.

POLICE ACTIVITY ON THE STREET, THE STATE SHOULD MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS. EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE STATE DOING TO CARMEL WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS PERIOD HOA'S, IF YOU ARE LISTENING TO THIS, FORM AN HOA IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE. IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WE CHANGED OUR COVENANTS. YOU HAVE TO OWN A HOUSE FOR THREE YEARS BEFORE YOU CAN RENT IT.

NO INVESTORS OWN HOMES FOR THREE YEARS THAT THEY CANNOT RENT.

IT KILLS THEM. YOU HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS HERE. I WAS JUST GOING TO GO WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, BUT YOUR OWN RECORD OF VIOLATION WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME OF OWNING THE HOME.

THAT IS NUMBER 2. I HAVE ABOUT 20 OTHER THINGS, BUT I AM GOING TO STOP AND JUST TELL YOU I AM VOTING AGAINST IT

AND I AM DOING IT WITH PLEASURE. >> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> WE HAVE TO STAY POSITIVE. MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> I WILL SECOND SO THAT WE CAN VOTE.

>> FIRST AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

EIGHTMAC. THAT IS NOT APPROVED.

-- I.. OKAY.

>> I AM GOING TO PAUSE A MINUTE TO LET THESE FOLKS EXIT.

>> MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, OUR DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO DRAFT A NEGATIVE FINDING REPORT TO.

>> YES PLEASE DRAFT THAT, APPRECIATE IT.

[G.(UV) Recovery Auto Use Variance Renewal. ]

00176UV. THIS IS TO REQUEST AUTOMOBILE SALES AND DISPLAY WHEN IT IS A PROHIBITED USE.

YOU MAY GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DAN, I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH -- AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE APPLICANT RECOVERY AUTO AND OWNER. WE ARE BACK HERE FOR A FOURTH TIME TO RENEW OUR USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES AND DISPLAY AT THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COLLEGE AND 106TH. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS AND HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKING THIS AUTO SALES SINCE, LIKE, 2018, 2019. THAT IS WHEN WE FIRST CAME, IN 2019. THE BUILDING THAT HOUSES THE BUSINESS IS A GRANDFATHERED USE AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED AS A REPAIR SHOP, AUTO SALES. IF I CAN JUST KIND OF PUT UP A MAP, THAT IS THE BUILDING THAT IS REFERENCED.

OBVIOUSLY THE FOUR LOTS WEST TO COLLEGE IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS EMPTY LOT FOR DISPLAY AND AUTO SALES.

[01:45:05]

THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH CURRENTLY PUTS -- I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF SMALL, IS PART OF THE PACKET. THE AREA THAT IS OBVIOUSLY INVOLVING IS IN THE FIVE TO 10-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CURRENTLY. SO OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME TIME, AND THIS WHOLE AREA IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT. QUITE FRANKLY THE APPLICANT IS OBVIOUSLY OPEN TO REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

NOTHING HAS MATERIALIZED, OR HE HAS NOT BEEN APPROACHED YET.

SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER A THREE TO FIVE YEAR USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW HIM TO MAINTAIN HIS CURRENT BUSINESS, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY NOT HAVE TO COME BACK EVERY YEAR BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT IS A LITTLE EXPENSIVE.

AS WELL AS KIND OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF CONTINUING HIS BUSINESS. SO WE WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO MOVE TO ADOPT OUR PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND THEN GRANT A THREE TO FIVE YEAR USE VARIANCE.

>> THANK YOU. >> OBVIOUSLY IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS, CERTAINLY I WILL ADDRESS THOSE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU,/, DID NOT MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF.

>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION? AND IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE

DEPARTMENT REPORT. >> THANK YOU.

SO THE LAND USE REQUESTED BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS ACTUALLY PROHIBITED LAND USE IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO PLANNING STAFF, WE DISCUSSED IT AND WE THINK IT IS BEST TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE RENEWAL BUT JUST FOR ONE YEAR.

AND THAT IS JUST KNOWING THAT THE HOME PLACE PLAN IS NOW ADOPTED AND IN PLACE PERIOD THERE WILL SOON BE DESIGN STANDARDS ADOPTED, AND... I THINK THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE RECONSIDERATION OF THE ONE YEAR TIME LIMIT AS WELL AS THE PETITIONER ADDRESSING THE REMAINING REVIEW COLUMNS.

THANK YOU. >> THANKS, END.

WE WILL START WITH KEVIN. >> I TOTALLY RESPECT YOUR STAND ON THAT BUT I AM GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION.

QUESTION. I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THE ONE YEAR BECAUSE I KNOW WE ARE GETTING CLOSE.

IS THERE A WAY TO DO THIS WHERE IT COULD BE APPROVED LONGER SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE TO SPEND MONEY IF WE DELAY AND TAKE TWO YEARS? IS THERE A WAY THAT THEY COULD SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT OUR CITY COULD TRIGGER WITH A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THAT -- LET THEM HAVE IT FOR LONGER THAN 12 MONTHS, BUT ANYTHING LONGER THAN THAT 12 MONTHS, IF WE GIVE THEM 90 DAYS, 180 DAYS, THAT IT COULD STOP? THAT WAY THEY DON'T HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK.

IS THERE A LEGAL WAY TO DO THAT? AND THAT WOULD NOT GO AGAINST WHAT THE STAFF AND WHAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

>> I THINK THERE IS, SINCE THE MINIMUM IS A ONE YEAR FOR USE VARIANCE AND IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

BUT YOU HAVE TO CRAFT YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE AND VOTE ON THAT, OBVIOUSLY, WITH A CONDITION THAT THE USE VARIANCE WOULD BE FOR ONE YEAR, AND UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CARMEL CITY STAFF REACHES OUT TO THE PETITIONER, OR CITY STAFF FOR THAT MATTER.

WITH THE PROPOSAL. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE A REASONABLE CONDITION FOR A USE VARIANCE.

>> HOWARD STAFF FEEL ABOUT THAT, IF THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO TRIGGER IT WE I WILL DO A YEAR -- IF WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO

[01:50:01]

BUT IF WE THINK IT COULD BE TWO YEARS --

>> I THINK IT WILL BE CLOSER TO ONE AND A HALF TO TWO YEARS, SO

HOWEVER YOU WANT TO CRAFT THAT. >> ONE THING I DO RECOMMEND IS STILL HAVING A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF YEARS NO MATTER WHAT.

FOR THE PETITION TO COME BACK. WHETHER IT IS TWO, THREE, OR FIVE -- BUY WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE THAT MAXIMUM TO BE.

>> WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE, UNTIL SUCH TIME THE HOME PLACE BUILDING STANDARDS ARE ADOPTED? OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. COULD THAT BE THE TRIGGER?

>> IT CAN, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHEN --

>> STAFF RECOMMENDED A YEAR. THEY'VE COME BACK I THINK FOUR TIMES AND HAD TO SPEND THE MONEY.

AND I AM ASKING, AGREEING WITH STAFF 100% IN KNOWING WHERE WE WANT TO GO, BUT I ASK IF WE CAN APPROVE IT FOR A YEAR AND THEN SAY IT STAYS IN PLACE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS DOCS OR THE CITY TELLS THEM, HEY, WE NOW HAVE THESE STANDARDS IN PLACE.

WE ARE DONE. I WAS ASKING STAFF IF WE WERE OKAY WITH THAT. SINCE YOU JUST WALKED IN, I THOUGHT I WOULD GET YOU UP HERE DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON IT?

>> DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

>> I KNOW ANGIE RUNS THINGS BUT LEGALLY, YOU ARE THE BOSS HERE

SO I AM GOING TO -- >> I WOULD SAY WHATEVER ANGIE

SAYS. >> THEN WE ARE DONE, SIT DOWN.

[LAUGHTER] >> I APOLOGIZE TO THE OWNER.

I DO THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A SERIOUS ISSUE TO US,

AND NOT A SMALL ASK. >> AND MY MOTION WOULD BE --

WOULD ADDRESS THAT. >> WE THINK THAT GIVEN THE EFFORT TO UPDATE THE HOME PLACE PLAN, THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO UPDATE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BESIDES OUR EFFORT BACK THE AREA IS BECOMING MORE RIPE FOR REDEVELOPMENT WE ARE SEEING MORE RESIDENTIAL INFILL, SO A YEAR MAY BE THE RIGHT TIME

TO REASSESS, OR SS -- >> WHAT I WAS THINKING WAS MAKING A MOTION THAT WOULD APPROVE IT FOR A YEAR, WITH THE ABILITY UP TO TWO OR THREE YEARS THAT THE CITY COULD TRIGGER AN

END TO 90 DAYS NOTICE. >> I AM NOT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH

THE WORDING THERE. >> BECAUSE EVEN IF WE WANTED A YEAR, WE KNOW IT IS A YEAR AND A HALF TO TWO YEARS.

IT JUST IS. WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, IT IS A COUPLE YEARS.

THANK YOU. >> I AM NOT SOLD ON THAT IDEA BECAUSE I JUST KNOW FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT FOUR ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT BECOMES COMPLICATED AND IT LEAVES IT OPEN TO DEBATE -- DEBATE AND THINGS GET MISSED AND THINGS LIKE THAT YOU FORGET TO TELL SOMEBODY AND THEY ARE STILL THERE, SO I WOULD RATHER PICK A DATE AND BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. SO I GUESS THAT'S JUST MY PREFERENCE OF SEEING HOW THESE THINGS PRACTICALLY WORK OUT IN THE FUTURE. BUT I GUESS, PETITIONER, IF YOU COULD COME BACK UP? SORRY.

YOU HAVE BEEN HERE -- THIS IS YOUR FOURTH OR FIFTH YEAR IN A ROW FOR ONE YEAR VARIANCE, IS THAT RIGHT?

[INDISTINCT] >> ORIGINAL USE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED IN 2019 THEN IT WAS RENEWED TWO YEARS LATER, IN 2021. THEN EXTENDED IN 2021 FOR THREE YEARS, UNTIL 2024. WE WERE BACK IN 2024 AND WE GOT A TWO YEAR EXTENSION. SO OBVIOUSLY, YEP.

THAT IS KIND OF THE HISTORY AS TO ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS.

>> THANKS FOR SHARING THAT. YOU NEVER CONSIDERED TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WHERE IT WOULD -- MAYBE IT WOULD -- BUY IT WOULD GET TURNED DOWN.

>> IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK IN CHANGES IN

CONSTRUCTION. >> AND BACK IN 2018, IF YOU RECALL, THERE WAS A RUN DOWN BUILDING THAT HAD TO BE TORN DOWN. WHICH OUR CLIENT DID.

AND ALSO, THERE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION AS WELL THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN. SO ALL OF THESE LOTS ARE COMBINED JUST WEST OF HIS EXISTING BUILDING, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, AS I SAID, THE CURRENT BUSINESS KIND OF BLENDS IN WITH THE CURRENT BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT THERE.

THERE WAS A GAS STATION ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.

THERE IS A TAX SERVICE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

AND THEN A CAR REPAIR SHOP ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.

AND I KNOW OBVIOUSLY, WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE COLLEGE

[01:55:03]

OBVIOUSLY OUR CLIENT WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO EXPLORE REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IF THEY EVER PRESENTED THEMSELVES,

BUT I THINK WE ARE A WAYS OUT. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT BACKGROUND. WHATEVER WE DECIDE, I. -- MY PREFERENCE IS, IF IT IS ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS, IT IS -- PICK A DATE AND NOT LEAVE IT CONTINGENT UPON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORS HAPPENING AND CONTINGENT UPON SOMEBODY REMEMBERING TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO. JUST PICK A DATE WOULD BE MY

PREFERENCE. >> AND OBVIOUSLY AS I SAID, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS CORNER PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY -- AND I KNOW THAT THOSE PLANS CAN CHANGE OVER TIME, BUT IT IS IN THE FIVE TO 10-YEAR. FOR REDEVELOPMENT.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE IN THE TWO TO FIVE-YEAR PLAN, WHICH IS ALSO PART OF OUR PACKET, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT IS FOCUSING A BIT MORE SOUTH ON COLLEGE AVENUE. DEVELOPMENT FIRST, AND THEN EVENTUALLY GO NORTH TO THE INTERSECTION.

>> SO HERE IS ANOTHER LEGAL QUESTION.

CAN WE APPROVE, LIKE, AN EXACT TIME FRAME, SAY ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS, WHATEVER BUT THEN THE RENEWAL PROCESS IS DIFFERENT THAN COMING BACK TO US? CAN IT BE -- NOT AUTOMATIC, BUT IT HAS TO COME UP FOR RENEWAL, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS WITH THE COSTS INVOLVED AND TIME?

>> I THINK THERE ARE TWO ISSUES. ONE IS THE RENEWAL ISSUE, AND RENEWAL OF USE VARIANCE IS SOMETHING THIS BOARD CAN APPROVE. THE SECOND ISSUE IS TERMINATION, AND POTENTIALLY YOU CAN HAVE A TRIGGER OR CONDITION THAT WOULD TERMINATE AFTER A CERTAIN MINIMUM INITIAL.

CALCULATES SAY IT'S THE ONE OR TWO YEARS, WHATEVER YOU DECIDE.

BUT WE HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT THAT TRIGGER WOULD BE.

AND MORE CLEARLY DEFINE IT ON THE LEGAL SIDE.

SO WHETHER IT IS AN ADOPTION OF DESIGN STANDARDS OR HOME PLACE OR SOME OTHER, THEN I GREATLY RECOMMEND TO HAVING A CONCRETE EVENT THAT WOULD TRIGGER EARLIER TERMINATION AFTER THE INITIAL.

, WHETHER IT IS ONE OR TWO YEARS, WITHOUT HAVING A PETITION

TO COME BACK. >> SO I SAW THAT FIVE TO 10-YEAR PLAN AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSED IT, WHAT IS THE DATE ON THAT PLAN? WHAT IS THE DATE THAT WAS

RELEASED? >> ON MAY 26.

>> THAT IS A LITERAL FIVE TO TEN YEARS.

OKAY. GO AHEAD? OKAY. I KNOW IT IS IN YOUR PACKET, IT IS A TWO TO FIVE-YEAR PLAN WHICH AS I SAID FOUR LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE SOUTH ON COLLEGE AVENUE OF THAT INTERSECTION, AND THEN EVEN UP NORTH.

THEN I THINK THE INTERSECTION IS KIND OF MORE IN THAT FIVE TO 10-YEAR PLAN. CURRENTLY.

>> SO THAT IS WHEN THE STANDARDS WILL BE SET TO, BUT THERE COULD BE SOME ONE THAT COMES ALONG THAT WANTS TO DO A PROJECT THERE SOONER THAN THAT PIER SO THAT MAKES IT REALLY TRICKY FOR --

>> THAT JUST A CONCEPT. THUS JUST A CONCEPT PLAN, IT MAY OR MAY NOT LOOK LIKE THAT. IN FIVE OR TEN YEARS.

THERE IS A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN HOME PLACE. IT IS REALLY PICKING UP A LOT.

I WILL TALK ABOUT IT WHEN WE GET TO OUR NEXT -- PETITION.

AND I AM REALLY SORRY BECAUSE OUR OTHER PETITION COULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF HERE THREE HOURS AGO, AND I MOVED HIM.

BUT I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT. THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW HAPPENING AT ALL LEVELS IN HOMEPLACE, SO IT IS COMING QUICKLY. IT SEEMS -- AT LEAST, THAT IS MY

IMPRESSION. >> I GUESS I AM HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- IT FEELS LIKE, AND I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THE RIGHT WORDS, BUT IT FEELS LIKE WE ARE HAMSTRINGING THIS PETITIONER TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN IN ONE, TWO, THREE YEARS.

AS FAR AS GIVING THEM AN APPROVAL FOR RENEWAL.

IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT AND AT THAT TIME, WHOEVER IS OWNING THIS PROPERTY AND THEY WANT TO DO SOME DEVELOPMENT TO IT WOULD THEN BE HELD TO THAT STANDARD. SO I GUESS WHAT I AM THINKING

[02:00:01]

THERE IS OTHER POTENTIAL THINGS GOING ON AROUND IT, AND NOT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A FIXED PLAN, BUT AT LEAST THIS IS KIND OF WHERE THE THINKING IS MOVING. SO MY ATTITUDE IS, IF WE WANT TO DO THIS TO PREVENT YOU FROM HAVING TO COME BACK ON AN ANNUAL OR BIANNUAL BASIS, I WOULD BE FINE.

IT WOULD BE FIVE YEARS AT THIS POINT.

BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONCEPT PLAN THAT GOES OUT THAT FAR.

NOW, I'VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 30 YEARS.

I REMEMBER WHEN THAT GARAGE ON THE CORNER WAS THERE AND WAS ACTUALLY WORKING AS A GARAGE. [LAUGHTER] SO MAYBE IT IS FAMILIARITY WITH THE AREA, BUT HAVING THIS DEALER HERE DOESN'T BOTHER ME THAT MUCH AND QUITE HONESTLY, I KIND OF ENJOY DRIVING PAST TO SEE ALL OF THE CORVETTES HE HAS PARKED OUT THERE. ANYWAY, I THINK WE ARE MAYBE ASKING A LITTLE TOO MUCH TO DO A YEAR END THEN HAVE A TRIGGER TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. LET'S JUST GIVE HIM THREE YEARS.

I DON'T CARE. CERTAINLY NO MORE THAN FIVE, COMPARED TO -- AT LEAST FOLLOWING WHAT I SEE AS A CONCEPT PLAN AS THAT WINDOW APPEARED.

>> WHAT IS -- ALONG HIS LINE OF THINKING, WHAT IS THE CITY'S REASONING FOR WANTING TO SHORTEN IT TO? HE IS ASKING FOR THREE TO FIVE, YOU GUYS CAME UP WITH ONE.

>> YEAH, I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO FAST TRACK THE HOMEPLACE BUILDING STANDARDS THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE, LIKE CHRISTINA IS SAYING. WE ARE SEEING AN UPTICK IN REDEVELOPMENT, SO WE WANT THESE STANDARDS IN PLACE SO WE HAVE A GUIDE FOR PEOPLE SO THAT IT IS NOT THE WILD WEST, SO TO SPEAK.

>> OKAY. KEVIN?

>> OKAY, TO MAKE BOTH SIDES HAPPY BECAUSE LEGAL SAID IT -- I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR, A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS, WITH STAFF BEING ABLE TO TRIGGER IT WITH 90 DAYS -- 30 DAYS NOTICE PER, I DON'T CARE.

I AM GIVING YOU LONGER. AND WHEN IT HAPPENS FOUR HAPPENS. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SHUT YOU DOWN THEY ARE JUST GOING TO SAY, OKAY, ANYTHING NEW THAT HAPPENS HAS TO GO IN THIS DIRECTION AND YOUR OPERATION OF THIS HAS TO END WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.

SO HOW WILL THAT WORK? WHAT WOULD WE ASK FOR AT TWO AND A HALF YEARS? YOU COME UP WITH HOW YOU WANT TO DEVELOP IT. ARE YOU GOING TO STOP HIM FROM OPERATING BEFORE A NEW DEVELOPER COMES IN TO DEVELOP IT?

>> , I FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD BE IN OPERATION --

>> THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO. SO I AM COMFORTABLE WITH ONE TO FIVE YEARS, WITH A -- DO YOU WANT 30 OR 90 DAYS?

>> LET'S TALK THIS THROUGH A LITTLE BIT.

>> THAT'S A MOTION. DO WE EVEN HAVE A SECOND, BEFORE

WE DISCUSS THAT OPTION FURTHER? >> I DIDN'T FINISH THE MOTION SO I AM GOING TO GO WITH WHAT SHE SAID.

THIS IS THE LAWYER. >> I JUST WANT TO DISCUSS IT.

>> I ASKED LEGAL IF IT WAS LEGAL.

>> OKAY SO -- LET -- WHY DON'T WE FIRST TAKE THIS IN PIECES.

WHAT IS THE LENGTH THAT ALL OF US WOULD BE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH GRANTING A VARIANCE? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK FIVE YEARS -- I DON'T THINK MOST OF US -- BECAUSE I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH FIVE YEARS, KNOWING WHAT IS HAPPENING IN HOMEPLACE AND KNOWING THAT DESIGN STANDARDS ARE ON THE WAY.

WE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS PLAN.

THE CITY HAS INVESTED A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

WHEN YOU DO THAT, A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT COMES.

MY GUESS IS FIVE YEARS IS TOO LONG.

THAT IS MY WAY OF SAYING FIVE YEARS IS TOO LONG.

I AM COMFORTABLE WITH TWO YEARS, BEING REALISTIC ABOUT HOW LONG IT MIGHT ACTUALLY TAKE -- I KNOW WE ARE TRYING TO FAST TRACK DESIGN STANDARDS BUT THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND THAT ALWAYS TAKES LONGER THAN YOU THINK.

SO I AM COMFORTABLE WITH TWO YEARS.

AND IF WE GET TO TWO YEARS AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOUR MAYBE THAT IS THE POINT WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT FIVE YEARS.

BUT RIGHT NOW WITH ALL THE MOVEMENT WE HAVE GOING ON AT

HOMEPLACE -- >> I AM TRYING TO NOT INTERRUPT YOU BUT YOU SAID DISCUSSIONS, SO LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION.

>> OKAY. >> DOING TWO YEARS NOW AND NOT OFFERING FIVE YEARS INTO TWO YEARS IS BACKWARDS.

[02:05:03]

THERE IS NOT A CHANCE. BUT IF IT DOES, WE HAVE A TRIGGER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN HERE I AM EITHER GOING TO DO ONE TO FIVE, OR I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR FIVE YEARS.

AND I THINK I WOULD GET SUPPORT FOR IT.

SO WOULD YOU LIKE THE RANGE BACK OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MAKE A

MOTION FOR FIVE YEARS? >> YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION WHATEVER YOU ARE COMFORTABLE MAKING THE MOTION.

I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH FIVE YEARS, SEEING WHAT IS HAPPENING

HERE IN THE HOMEPLACE AREA. >> OKAY.

I WANT TO MAKE STAFF -- I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL TO STAFF ALSO.

MY MOTION IS, MINIMUM ONE YEAR, MAXIMUM FIVE YEARS, WITH A 90

DAY TRIGGER. >> CAN --

>> I AM GOING TO FINISH MY MOTION, JUST FOR FUN.

>> FINISH IT AND LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE A SECOND BEFORE WE CONTINUE

TO DISCUSS. >> ONE TO FIVE YEARS, WITH A 90 DAY TRIGGER THAT YOU THEN KNOW IT IS COMING TO AN END.

IN SUCH TIME THAT A DEVELOPER COMES FORWARD, TO DEVELOP -- WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT HIM OUT OF BUSINESS.

BUT WE CAN THEN TRIGGER THAT THAT USE VARIANCE NO LONGER

EXISTS. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? YES?

>> WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS. >> IF THERE IS A SECOND, THEN WE WILL DISCUSS IT FURTHER. IF THERE IS NO SECOND, THEN THAT IS OFF THE TABLE. WE WILL CONTINUE DISCUSSING.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS GERMANE TO THE CONVERSATION, BUT I KEEP HEARING -- IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE HOMEPLACE AREA. ASIDE FROM WHAT THE BASIC -- WE DO HAVE A HOMEPLACE OVERLAY ZONE.

IN ADDITION, THERE IS A HOMEPLACE BUSINESS SUBAREA OVERLAY. SO IT IS NOT LIKE THERE ISN'T A MORE RESTRICTIVE GUIDELINES THERE.

THERE ARE. IT'S JUST THAT NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMING UP WITH SOMETHING MORE THAN THAT.

AND I GUESS MY VIEWPOINT IS, WITH -- LET THE DEVELOPMENT

OCCUR WHEN IT HAPPENS. >> ARE YOU SENDING THE MOTION? I AM ABOUT TO THROW THE SUPPORTER BOOK AT YOU.

I WOULD REALLY LIKE A SECOND OR WE NEED TO TAKE IT OFF THE

TABLE. >> LET ME DO THIS.

I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. >> OKAY.

NO DISCUSSION HERE GO AHEAD. WELL, YOU DON'T GET A SECOND, YOU DON'T DISCUSS IT ANY FURTHER.

>> WELL, THE OWNER IS ALSO THE OPERATOR.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

SO IN AN EVENT WHERE THERE IS A DEVELOPER COMING IN, THE PERSON OPERATING THE BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE IN CONTROL OF HIS OWN FUTURE. RIGHT?

>> SOMEBODY WOULD COME IN AND BUY IT ON CONTINGENT.

IF THEY WERE SMART, THEY WOULD BUY IT ON CONTINGENCY UNTIL THEY GOT APPROVAL FOR WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP.

>> SO IT IS RIGHT NOW NOT APPROVED FOR AUTO SALES.

THAT IS NOT RIGHT NOW APPROVED IN HOMEPLACE.

>> THE UNDERLYING ZONE IS PERMITTED, BUT, YES, BECAUSE OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT IS A PROHIBITED USE OF AUTO SALES.

>> SO IS THE ONLY REASON THAT WE DIDN'T GO WITH THE FIRST IDEA OF APPROVING A YEAR, AND WITH SORT OF AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL UNLESS THERE IS NOTICE GIVEN, IS ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE WORRIED THAT THE CITY WON'T REMEMBER TO GIVE NOTICE? BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE LESS OF AN ISSUE THAN WHAT WE ARE TALKING

ABOUT. >> COUNCIL ALSO NEEDED MORE DEFINITIVE DATES, RIGHT? OR RATHER, A MORE DEFINITIVE

TRIGGERS. >> I CAN'T IMAGINE BEING IN YOUR SHOES, HAVING TO SEND A NOTICE TO AN EXISTING BUSINESS THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER OPERATE THAT BUSINESS B. -- BASED ON AN

UNCLEAR TRIGGER. >> THEY SIGNED IT AND AGREED TO

IT. >> AS FAR AS ADMINISTRATION GOES, IT IS A VERY LOOSELY DEFINED CONDITION.

IT BASICALLY GIVES FULL DISCRETION FOR WHATEVER REASON WHATSOEVER. MY RECOMMENDATION AGAIN IS TO EITHER DO A LONGER TERM, IF YOU LIKE, OR WHATEVER THE MOTION IS, OR HAVE IT TRIGGERED BUT DEFINED MORE CLEARLY, SUCH AS --

[02:10:04]

[INDISTINCT] >> MADAM CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO

WITHDRAW AND REMAKE IT. >> PLEASE DO.

>> I MAKE A MOTION OF A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR, A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS, WITH THE TRIGGER BEING AT THE TIME THAT THESE STANDARDS WE ARE DISCUSSING ARE ADOPTED, THAT THAT WOULD SET THE TRIGGER FOR STAFF TO INFORM OF THE LACK OF USE VARIANCE AT THAT TIME.

>> AND IT WOULD BE A 90 DAY -- >> 90 DAYS.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? >> , I HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT. 90 DAYS IS A REALLY SHORT.

OF TIME FOR A BUSINESS OWNER. >> THE MORE THE BETTER.

>> I FEEL LIKE A LITTLE LONGER WOULD BE BETTER.

>> SIX MONTHS? I WOULD AMEND THAT TO SIX

MONTHS. >> THANK YOU.

>> COULD YOU REPEAT THE MOTION AGAIN FOUR BECAUSE --

>> YOU HAVE TO. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR, MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS, WITH A SIX MONTH NOTIFICATION AFTER THE STANDARDS ARE ADOPTED.

>> SECOND. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, AS SOON AS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE ADOPTED, CITY STAFF IS GOING TO REMEMBER TO SEND A SIX MONTH NOTICE THAT THE USE VARIANCE IS

EXPIRING. >> AFTER FIRST INITIAL ONE YEAR,

YES. >> AND THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE A CHOICE TO EITHER DISCONTINUE THE BUSINESS OR REAPPLY FOR THE

USE VARIANCE AT 1.5 YEAR MARK? >> STAFF WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE. IF NO DEVELOPMENT WAS COMING FORWARD. BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE THE CHOICE OF WHEN THEY SENT THE NOTICE.

I MEAN FOUR DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO SHUT SOMEBODY DOWN

IF THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT. >> THAT IS NOT HOW I READ THE MOTION THE MOTION SAYS ONCE ADOPTED, IT TRIGGERS IT APPEAR OTHERWISE AGAIN, WE ARE GOING BACK TO DISCRETION OF --

>> SO THE TRIGGER IS NOT THE NOTIFICATION, THE TRIGGER IS THE ADOPTION. CORRECT? AND THEN IF NOTHING IS HAPPENING UNTIL SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN

-- >> STARTING OVER.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR, A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS, WITH A SIX MONTH NOTIFICATION GIVEN BY STAFF ANYTIME AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE STANDARDS.

IS THAT BETTER? >> BUT THEY HAVE TO GIVE AT

LEAST -- >> THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

THE STANDARDS ARE NOT THE TRIGGER.

THE CITY IS THE TRIGGER. I AM NOT GOING TO SAY STAFF, THE CITY. IT COULD BE LEGAL, IT COULD BE

THE MAYOR, IT COULD BE -- >> I AM LOOKING AT MIKE TO SHAKE HIS HEAD NO. CAN WE JUST PICK A DATE?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FOR FIVE YEARS.

>> OKAY, MOTION FOR FIVE YEARS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND AGAIN. >> OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? OKAY.

I WILL SAY, I THINK FIVE YEARS IS TOO LONG SO I AM NOT GOING TO

VOTE FOR THAT. >> I WILL VOTE.

>> ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR?

AYE AYE AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED AYE AYE.

>> SO THAT DOES NOT COUNT. >> I MOVE TO MOTION TO APPROVE

THE VARIANCE FOR TWO YEARS. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, A FIRST AND SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> OPPOSED? >> HALLELUJAH.

YOU ARE APPROVED FOR TWO YEARS. >> PETITIONER, WE ARE SORRY.

HE IS GOING TO BE HERE IN TWO YEARS, AND PROBABLY AGAIN AFTER

THAT. >> THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THAT WHOLE CONVERSATION IS WE WANT THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO, AND WE ALSO WANT TO LOOK OUT FOR OUR BUSINESS OWNERS. I THINK IT WAS A POSITIVE --

>> THAT WAS NOT LOOKING OUT FOR BUSINESS OWNERS BUY A POSITIVE

[G.(SE) Gorden Short Term Residential Rental. ]

>> WE ARE MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM HERE DO WE -- TOLERATE.

OKAY. SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A NONOWNER OCCUPIED SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL.

DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2026-00181 SE. HIGH.

[02:15:09]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> JACOB GORDON. I WON'T TAKE 15 MINUTES, I PROMISE. I KNOW IT IS LATE.

JUST PREPARED A LITTLE SOMETHING.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

MY NAME IS JACOB GORDON AND I AM APPLYING FOR A NONOWNER OCCUPIED SHORT TERM RENTAL AT 10558 SQUIRREL PARKWAY IN HOMEPLACE.

THIS HOME IS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH NO HOA.

I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT SO THAT I CAN RENT OUT THIS HOME ON A SHORT TERM BASIS.

MY WIFE AND I CURRENTLY OWN A VERY SUCCESSFUL SHORT TERM RENTAL FROM OUR HOME, SINCE WE WERE APPROVED FOR THE PERMIT FOR OUR EXISTING SHORT TERM RENTAL THAT WE RUN FROM OUR HOME IN THE SPRING OF 2025, WE HAVE AMASSED OVER 50 5-STAR REVIEWS, SEVERAL REPEAT GUESTS, AND ZERO NEIGHBORHOOD OR CITY COMPLAINTS.

WE ARE VERY MUCH AGAINST ANY EVENT OF ANY KIND AND LARGE PARTIES OR GATHERINGS BY OUR RENTERS.

WE DO NOT ALLOW SMOKING ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING OUTDOORS. WE RUN A VERY, VERY TIGHT SHIP.

FURTHERMORE, WE DO THOROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL OUR RENTERS INCLUDING BOTH CRIMINAL AND TRAFFIC RECORD SEARCHES AS WELL AS CREDIT CHECKS. WE ALSO HAVE A LONG AND DETAILED LIST OF HOUSE RULES FOR OUR PROPERTY WHICH WE STRICTLY ENFORCE WITH POTENTIAL FINES FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT ABIDE.

IN ADDITION TO OPERATING SUCCESSFUL SHORT TERM RENTAL, I ALSO OWN AND PERSONALLY MANAGE NINE OTHER RENTAL PROPERTIES, EIGHT OF WHICH ARE IN CARMEL. THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE IN HOMEPLACE. I HANDLE MANAGEMENT OF EACH PROPERTY PERSONALLY, MYSELF. I DO NOT USE A PROPERTY MANAGER.

I TAKE MY RENTAL BUSINESS VERY SERIOUSLY AND I MAINTAIN VERY HIGH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR ANYONE WHO RENTS FROM ME.

I HAVE AN EXCELLENT TEAM OF TRADESMEN AND SERVICE MEN THAT ARE ON CALL AND HELP ME MAINTAIN MY HOMES AND RESOLVE MAINTENANCE ISSUES. I HAVE A VERY GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL OF MY TENANTS, SOME OF WHICH HAVE GROWN TO BECOME MY FRIENDS. WHEN I BUY A PROPERTY FOR INVESTMENT, I DO A VERY THOROUGH INSPECTION INVOLVING MULTIPLE TRADES, NOT JUST A GENERAL INSPECTION.

I HAVE A LICENSED PLUMBER WHO CHECKS ALL THE PLUMBING, A LICENSED ELECTRICIAN AND SO ON. THEY MAKE SURE ALL SMOKE DETECTORS AND CO2 DETECTORS ARE PROPERLY PLACED, HARDWIRED, AND COMPLETELY UP TO CODE. I PLACE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN EVERY PROPERTY. I EVEN MAKE SURE OUR EMERGENCY SHUT OFF VALVES FOR ALL PLUMBING ARE IN EACH PROPERTY.

SINCE I AM IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH ALL MY TENANTS, I AM AVAILABLE ALMOST 24 OVER SEVEN FOR ALL MY RENTERS IF AND WHEN ISSUES ARISE. I AM ALSO A CARMEL RESIDENT.

I ONLY LIVE ABOUT 8 MINUTES OR LESS, DRIVING, FROM THE PROPERTY. IT CERTAINLY HELPS WITH RESPONSE TIMES WHEN ISSUES DO ARISE. OF COURSE I TYPICALLY APPROVE% THE PROPERTY TO MAKE IT MORE ESTHETICALLY APPEALING AND FUNCTIONAL TO PROSPECTIVE RENTERS, AND TO INCREASE PROPERTY VALUE OF MY OWN PROPERTY AND HOPEFULLY THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE THINGS I DO WHEN WE TAKE ON A NEW INVESTMENT PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY I TOOK ON A FEW WEEKS AGO, IN THE THREE WEEKS, I HAVE FULLY AND PAINTED. FULLY COMPLETED EXTERIOR PAINTING OF THE PROPERTY. I REPLACED THE AC AND THE FURNACE, AMONGST MANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY.

I WOULD TREAT THIS RENTAL PROPERTY NO DIFFERENTLY AND THE SAME LEVEL OF STANDARD I HOLD AND STRIVE FOR FOR ALL OF MY OTHER BUSINESSES HERE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I AM OPEN TO ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION.

AND IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.

KEEP YOUR HANDS UP. ALL FOUR OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.

YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT FOR NOW.

WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN, GO AHEAD AND COME UP TO THE PODIUM HERE THEN EVERYONE CAN QUEUE UP BEHIND THAT PERSON.

4 MINUTES. SORRY, 3 MINUTES.

MATH IS HARD. YOU WILL HAVE UP TO 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK. WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS YELLOW, YOU WILL HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT AND WHEN IT TURNS RED, PLEASE FINISH THE SENTENCE YOU ARE ON. AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE

RECORD. >> I LIVE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ON A SCHOOL PARKWAY, AND HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE ALREADY READ THE MATERIAL I SUBMITTED SO I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL THAT.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE HOW STRONGLY I FEEL THAT THE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BRING ABOUT A LOSS OF HOME VALUES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL SET A

[02:20:03]

AND THAT THE REQUEST IS MERELY A WAY TO CIRCUMVENT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE INTENDED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM HAVING NO MORE THAN 30% -- EXCUSE ME, 10% RENTALS.

WE SET THAT ORDINANCE FOR A REASON AND I BELIEVE WE SHOULD STICK WITH IT, EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT A CHANGE IN STATE GOVERNMENT, IT MAY GO AWAY IN JANUARY OF 2028.

I HAVE LIVED AND WORKED IN CARMEL SINCE I WAS A TEENAGER, AND I RESPECT AND APPRECIATE THE VALUE OF LIVING IN A SAFE AND WELL GOVERNED COMMUNITY. THIS IS WHY I HAVE REMAINED IN ORCHARD PARK FOR 32 YEARS. AS STEWARDS OF OUR LOCAL ORDINANCES, I BEG YOU TO DENY THIS REQUEST.

LASTLY, I AM NOT AN ADVERSARIAL PERSON.

I HAVE MET MR. GORDON. WE'VE TALKED SEVERAL TIMES.

I LIKE HIM, I THINK HE IS A NICE PERSON.

I THINK HE HAS GOOD INTENTIONS AND I THINK HE WOULD BE A GOOD LANDLORD. HOWEVER, IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED FOUR WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO OTHER REAL ESTATE INVESTORS THAT MAY NOT BE AS CONSCIENTIOUS, AS HONORABLE, OR AS LOCAL AS MR. GORDON. ONCE THE WORD IS OUT THAT CARMEL IS WILLING TO APPROVE THESE TYPES OF REQUESTS, OTHERS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY FOLLOW. DO WE REALLY WANT THAT FOR CARMEL? PLEASE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU VOTE AS IF THIS REQUEST WAS RELATED TO A PROPERTY THAT WAS NEXT TO -- NEXT DOOR TO YOUR HOME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> MY NAME IS JEFF, I LIVE IN ORCHARD PARK AS WELL. WE'VE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 33 YEARS, AND WE HAVE RENTALS ALL AROUND US.

WE DON'T NEED ANY ADDITIONAL SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR STOPPING WHAT YOU DID WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD. WE APPRECIATED, AND WE GO FROM

THERE. >> MY NAME IS ROB I. HAVE BEEN A 36 YEAR RESIDENT OF ORCHARD P PARK.

ONE THING THAT I SEE FORTHCOMING WITH WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS, IT IS THE VERY FIRST HOUSE THAT IS RIGHT ON SCHOOL PARKWAY WHEN YOU COME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU GUYS MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THIS BUT THE SCHOOL CORPORATION IS PROBABLY GOING TO CONVERT ORCHARD PARK TO AN EDUCATION SPACE -- I AM SORRY, A PLACE FOR EDUCATORS TO HAVE DAY CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

I CAN SEE POTENTIALLY DOWN THE ROAD, SOME ISSUE HAPPENING WITH A LOT OF TRAFFIC. SCHOOL PARKWAY IS PROBABLY THE SECOND BIGGEST ENTRANCE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE TRAFFIC CAN GET BACKED UP, BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE A SINGLE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE TO THE GARAGE IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

SO THERE POTENTIALLY COULD BE SOME TRAFFIC ISSUES THERE.

AS SOMEONE -- AS THE FIRST PRESENTER SAID, WE ARE ALREADY AT OUR MAX AS FAR AS RENTALS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE ABOUT 170 HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THERE ARE ABOUT 17 RENTALS ALREADY.

SO I JUST WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE NUMBER OF RENTALS WE HAVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY.

I AM SURE, HAS THE OTHER LADY SUGGESTED, HE SEEMS LIKE A NICE GENTLEMAN BUT I JUST DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME THAT A SHORT TERM RENTAL WOULD FIT IN ORCHARD PARK.

THANK YOU. >> MY FAMILY HAS OWNED THE HOUSE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE STREET FROM 10788 SCHOOL PARKWAY.

I AM AT 10528 SCHOOL PARKWAY. THEREFORE FOUR IS DIRECTLY IN MY LINE OF SIGHT. MY YARD WILL BE THE VIEW FOR THIS SHORT TERM RENTAL. ASIDE FROM THE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT I HAVE FOR NOT KNOWING WHO IS GOING TO BE IN THAT HOUSE FOR ANY. OF TIME WHEN I COME HOME FROM WORK AT 8:00 AT NIGHT AND IT IS ALREADY DARK, ASIDE FROM THOSE CONCERNS THAT ARE PERSONAL, I DO AGREE THAT IT IS GOING TO TEAR DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DO NOT LIKE WHERE THAT TREND WOULD GO. I HAVE ALREADY SEEN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD GO FROM BEING 90% OWNED TO BEING CLOSE TO 50% RENTED. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE ONE MORE CONCERN. THIS PETITION IS CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED.

THERE IS A FOR RENT SIGN ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT LEADS INTO THE MATTER OF RESPECT THAT IS

[02:25:04]

AND ALREADY ASKING FOR BUSINESS. RESIDENTIAL AREA IS NOT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. WE HAVE PLENTY OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN CARMEL. MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT MEANT TO BECOME A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATION.

THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

>> THANK YOU. PETITIONER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? YOU HAVE UP TO 5 MINUTES.

>> I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS, IN THEY ARE ALL WARRANTED THOUGHTS. I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE MANAGING SHORT TERM RENTALS. IT IS A LOT OF WORK.

I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE SOMEBODY STAY A WHILE.

AND THAT IS MORE OF MY GOAL. THE RENTAL WE HAVE AT MY HOUSE, WE HAVE A LOT OF FAMILIES DAY FOR TWO, THREE DAYS, THEY COME FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THE CHRISTMAS MARKET IS ONE OF THEM, THAT IS A BIG DRAW IN THE WINTER.

GRANT PARK, YOU KNOW, SWIMMING. ALL THE STUFF THAT GOES ON.

WITH THIS PROPERTY, I AM TRYING T TREAT IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT IS ONLY AN EIGHT MINUTE DRIVE, MY WIFE AND I ARE VERY BUSY.

WE HAVE TWO YOUNG KIDS. WE WANT TO KEEP SOMEBODY IN THERE AS LONG AS WE CAN. SO MY GOAL WOULD BE TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS HERE FOR CORPORATE REASONS.

A TRAVELING NURSE, MAY BE SOMEBODY THAT GOT RELOCATED AND IS TRYING TO FIND A HOME. I DON'T WANT PEOPLE COMING AND GOING EVERY TWO TO THREE DAYS. IN FACT, I HAVE ALREADY KIND OF STRATEGIZED WITH MY WIFE A LITTLE BIT HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS BECAUSE SHE IS GOING TO HELP ME, AND SHE ALREADY KIND OF PUT HER FOOT DOWN. SHE DOESN'T WANT ANYBODY STAYING LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS, AND WE AGREED ON THAT.

IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE KIND OF SHORT TERM RENTAL THAT MAYBE THAT FIRST PETITIONER WAS LOOKING FOR.

REMOTE, JUST TRYING TO FOCUS ON CLASS -- CASH FLOW.

I AM A CARMEL RESIDENT. I AM A BIG BELIEVER IN HOMEPLACE. I'M PUTTING A LOT OF MONEY IN THE FACT THAT YOUR NEXT PETITIONER IS ON BEHALF OF MYSELF. I AM INVESTING IN BUILDING TWO BEAUTIFUL DUPLEXES ON BEHALF OF HOMEPLACE.

I ALREADY OWN OTHER PROPERTIES, OTHER LAND.

OTHER PLOTS IN HOMEPLACE THAT I INTEND TO DEVELOP.

RESPONSIBLY. AS AN INVESTOR, I DON'T BUY PROPERTIES TO SEE THEM LOSE VALUE.

I BUY PROPERTIES TO INCREASE THEIR VALUE.

SO NATURALLY, IF MY INTENTION IS TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY CALCULUS LIKELY GOING TO INCREASE THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THOSE AROUND ME. THAT IS JUST THE LAWS OF INVESTING. TO THE WOMAN WHO MENTIONED ABOUT THE HOME NOT BEING RENOVATED, IT IS ACTUALLY FULLY RENOVATED.

THE INTERIOR IS FULLY RENOVATED, LIKE A BRAND NEW HOUSE.

THE OUTSIDE IS JUST MISSING SOME PAINT AND, BUT IT IS GORGEOUS.

I AM HOPING TO SHARE MY LISTING WITH YOU GUYS, AND TO SEE ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL PHOTOS OF THE HOME.

BUT MY FULL INTENTION IS TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF MY HOME, MY PROPERTY THAT I AM RENTING OUT, AND I TRULY HOPE I. -- IT INCREASES THE VALUE OF EVERY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS FAR AS THE PEOPLE WHO COME AND GO, WE ARE CHARGING A FOUR, $500 A NIGHT.

I THINK THAT IN ITSELF WILL HELP WEED OUT PARTIERS.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE STRICT LIMITATIONS ON HOW MANY PEOPLE STAY IN THE HOME. IT IS GOING TO BE SIX.

IT IS A 1700 SQUARE FOOT HOME. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CARS. WE HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE, WE HAVE A BIG DRIVEWAY. THIS IS A MANAGED PROPERTY BY MYSELF, SO IT IS -- IT'S NOT A PARTY HOUSE.

AND I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL AT SOME POINT, FEEL FREE TO CHECK OUT MY ONE EXISTING SHORT TERM LISTING. THE RULES PAGE IS LONGER THAN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PAGE.

SO LIKE I SAID, I RUN A TIGHT SHIP.

THAT'S ALL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR

[02:30:02]

PLEASE? >> THANK YOU.

AGAIN, THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION -- APPROVAL OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN ACTIVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, BUT WE DID CHECK -- I GUESS IT IS A REALLY OLD SUBDIVISION, SO THERE WERE SOME OLD COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT RENTALS OR THINGS LIKE THAT. WE DID ALSO CHECK WITH THE CARMEL CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT.

THERE'S BEEN NO ISSUES IN THE LAST YEAR.

AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS HAD NO INCIDENTS REPORTED IN THE LAST YEAR. SO WE DO RECOMMEND FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND AGAIN, WE WOULD LIKE TO LET EVERYONE KNOW IF APPROVED FOUR IS ONLY VALID FOR ONE YEAR.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS

AND QUESTIONS. >> I MEAN, I AM NOT FINDING -- BECAUSE UNDER OUR GOVERNANCE WE NEED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC STREETS. I AM NOT FINDING ANYTHING THAT SUGGESTS THE SAME MANAGEMENT FROM A DISTANCE THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WITH THE OTHER ONE.

THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY TH THERE.

YEAH, I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS

POINT. >> AS I SAID TO THE OTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL PETITION, OUR STATE LEGISLATURE HAS CHANGED THE RENTAL -- OUR CITY'S ABILITY TO RESTRICT THESE.

WE HAVE VERY DEFINED STANDARDS TO JUDGE THEM BY, SO THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU ARE VOTING FOR YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS.

THEY CHANGED IT. SO CARMEL, WE ARE ONE OF THE TWO CITIES OUT AHEAD OF EVERYONE ELSE TRYING TO RESTRICT THESE.

BUT STATE LEGISLATORS SORT OF STRICT -- CHANGED ALL OF THAT.

YOU HAVE ANSWERED ALMOST ALL OF THE QUESTIONS, I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. YOU SAID YOU CAN HOST UP TO SIX, DO YOU HAVE UP TO SIX PARKING SPOTS ON YOUR LOCATION?

>> IT IS A TWO CAR GARAGE AND A VERY LONG DRIVEWAY.

>> OKAY. I KNOW YOU SAID YOU WERE DOING SOME WORK. I DROVE BY THERE YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS UNDER WORK, LIKE THE WORK HAS STARTED. IT DIDN'T LOOK DONE TO ME, SO I

WANTED TO GET AN UPDATE. >> TO MAKE A VERY LONG STORY SHORT, THE PERSON I BOUGHT IT FROM DID THE MAJORITY OF -- THE BULK OF THE RENOVATION AND HE DECIDED TO SELL IT, HE WAS NEEDING A LITTLE CASH I THINK. SO I KIND OF FILLED IN THE GAPS WHERE HE LEFT OFF. THE PAINTER THAT I HIRED, WAS WORKING VERY, VERY SLOWLY. HE WAS DRAGGING ON FOR A LONG WHILE SO ACTUALLY, ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO BE DONE AT THIS POINT IS THE EXTERIOR PAINT. THE PREVIOUS PAINTER, I THINK HE LEFT UP SOME PLASTIC AND SOME TRASH IN THINGS.

I WAS KIND OF STAYING ON HIM AND I ACTUALLY FIRED HIM JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO SO THE NEW PAINTER STARTED TODAY.

IT WILL BE PROBABLY COMPLETELY FINISHED WITHIN SEVEN TO TEN DAYS, THE EXTERIOR. ALL IT WAS WAS THE PAINT, IT WAS A REALLY POOR PAINT JOB THE PREVIOUS OWNER DID.

YOU CAN LOOK AT PICTURES OF, IT WAS AWFUL.

DIANA CAN ATTEST TO THAT. [LAUGHTER] BUT IT WILL BE MUCH MORE -- VISUALLY APPEALING.

>> OKAY, THANK OU FOR CLARIFYING BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAD REDONE THE EXTERIOR, WHEN I DROVE BY THE OTHER DAY --

>> IT LOOKS TERRIBLE. I WILL BE THE FIRST TO -- RIGHT NOW, GIVE IT ONE WEEK, IT WILL LOOK GORGEOUS.

>> I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. THANK YOU.

>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF THERE IS ■NOFURTHER COMMENTS.

YOU DON'T? SORRY.

OKAY. >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT LET'S VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR? >> THREE --

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED?

OKAY, YOU ARE APPROVED. >> I APPRECIATE THAT THANK YOU.

[G.(V) 10480 McPherson St. Building Width Variance. ]

[G.(V) 10464 McPherson St. Building Width Variance. ]

[02:35:06]

>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO FINAL ITEMS, WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THEM TOGETHER BUT THEN WE WILL VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY. AND THEY ARE, LET'S SEE.

10480 MCPHERSON STREET, A BUILDING WITH VARIANCE.

AND A 10464, MCPHERSON STREET, A BUILDING WITH VARIANCE.

DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2026-00186 V AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2026-00188

V. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I AM REPRESENTING JACOB GORDON, THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THESE TWO LOTS. THE CURRENT ZONING IS R-3, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH WOULD BE A DUPLEX. THE LOTS THAT ARE THERE OBVIOUSLY WERE ALL PLATTED 75 YEARS AGO, WHATEVER THEY WERE.

THESE ARE VACANT LOTS THAT WERE NEVER BUILT ON.

THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IS A 23-FOOT WIDTH PER UNIT, AND THAT PER UNIT IS PER RESIDENCE WITHIN THAT UNIT, SO THAT WOULD MAKE IT A 46-FOOT WIDE MINIMUM STRUCTURE.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS WHEN YOU HAVE A 73-FOOT WIDE LOT AND A CORNER LOT WITH 30-FOOT SETBACKS ON THE SIDE, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL WAY TO FIT A 46-FOOT WIDE STRUCTURE ON THOSE SETBACKS. THE MOST YOU CAN FIT IS UP TO 4.

SO WHAT WE HAVE DESIGNED IS TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE 39 FEET 11 INCHES, TO FIT WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT THAT ALLOWS FOR THE STRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO BE BUILT WITHIN THOSE LOTS.

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A WIDTH VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT. I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT 23 FEET IS A GREAT NUMBER FOR A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT, AND I WOULD NOT REQUEST ANYTHING SMALLER THAN THAT, BUT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR DUPLEXES WITHIN THE PERMITTED USE OF THE SPACE.

WITH THAT SAID, WE ARE REQUESTING IT FOR BOTH OF THEM.

I THINK YOUR PACKETS HAVE EXAMPLES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE HOMES. I THINK THEY ARE VERY APPEALING.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOUR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS REVISION, OR VARIANCE. THANK YOU.

>> DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION.

ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.

WE WILL GO TO THE DEPARTMENT REPORT.

>> I WILL KEEP THIS SHORT AND SWEET.

SO WHERE THERE IS THE BUILDING WIDTH OR DWELLING UNIT WHERE IT HAS BEEN SHRUNK, THAT BUILDING IS ACTUALLY TWO STORIES TALL.

THERE IS STILL AMPLE SPACE FOR A HOME.

THEN EACH HOUSE OR DUPLEX WILL BE A TASTEFUL COLOR, SUCH AS SEA GREEN OR DARK GREY. ALSO THE DESIGN IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO SEE IN HOMEPLACE SIDE BY SIDE UNITS, WITH PARKING WITH A GARAGE. SO WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF -- BOTH VARIANCES WITH THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE PETITIONER ADDRESS ALL REVIEW -- AND ALSO WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

THANK YOU. >> WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST?

>> THANK YOU. I'M SORRY CHRISTINE.

>> THIS IS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE AT THE HEARING OFFICER LEVEL, AND I MOVED IT UP TO ALL OF US. NOT BECAUSE I HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS PARTICULAR PETITION.

THE BUILDINGS LOOK BEAUTIFUL. THE REASON WHY I ENDED UP MOVING IT IS BECAUSE OF SIMILAR CONVERSATIONS FROM A COUPLE OF PETITIONS AGO. I NOTICED A BIG UPTICK IN DEVELOPMENT IN HOMEPLACE, AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH NEXT -- LAST WEEK AT OUR MEETING SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT AGAIN. BUT JUST BASICALLY SEEING SO MUCH MORE BUILDING COMING AND COMING FAST, AND WE KNOW FROM SITTING UP HERE, SOME OF THE PETITIONS THAT HAVE COME UP HERE HAVE BEEN LOVELY. LIKE, THESE ARE VERY NICE ATTRACTIVE DUPLEXES. SOME OF THE OTHERS THAT HAVE COME UP HERE HAVE NOT BEEN SO GREAT.

I JUST THINK GIVEN THAT THERE IS SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT, SO MUCH MOVEMENT RIGHT NOW IN HOMEPLACE, AT LEAST TEMPORARILY UNTIL WE UPDATE OUR OVERLAY STANDARDS FOR HOMEPLACE AND GET THESE DESIGN STANDARDS IN PLACE AND THAT SORT OF THING, I THOUGHT, TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ALL AWARE AND ACTING CONSISTENTLY AND FAIRLY, THAT FOR THE TIME BEING, IT IS MY PREFERENCE THAT ALL HOMEPLACE PETITIONS COME TO ALL OF US. AND AS I SAT THERE, THEY GOT ME AS THE HEARING OFFICER BECAUSE I'M LIKE, TO BE FAIR, THAT MEANS ALL OF THEM, GO. NOT JUST THE ONES THAT ARE

[02:40:03]

THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE ALL HAVE TO OPERATE THAT WAY.

IT WAS MY TURN AS HEARING OFFICER.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL LOOKING AT THIS THE SAME WAY. AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE 19-FOOT WIDTH VARIANCE, AND I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, I WANT -- DENNIS IS AN ARCHITECT. I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT HIS THOUGHTS ARE PURE I ACTUALLY AM IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION.

I THINK IT LOOKS GREAT. I JUST THOUGHT EVERYTHING THAT IS IN HOMEPLACE, GIVEN WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AND HOW QUICKLY IT IS STARTING TO HAPPEN, TO ENSURE WE ARE ALL CONSISTENT, ALL FAIR, BEING INTENTIONAL, IT JUST MAKES SENSE TO HAVE ALL FIVE OF US UP HERE WITH OUR DIFFERENT SKILL SETS AND LOOKING AT IT. THAT IS WHY I MOVED IT, AND I DID FEEL BAD MOMENTARILY THAT I MADE YOU SIT HERE FOR THREE HOURS. BUT NOW THAT I SEE THAT HE HAD TO BE HERE ANYWAY BECAUSE HE WAS THE LAST PETITION, I FEEL LESS BAD ABOUT THAT. [LAUGHTER] THAT IS WHY I MOVED UP. I WANT EVERYBODY TO WEIGH IN AND EVERYBODY TO SORT OF SEE THESE HOMEPLACE PETITIONS AS THEY COME THROUGH. THAT'S IT.

>> THAT IS GREAT FORETHOUGHT. THANK YOU, CHRISTINE.

SMART. OKAY, DENNIS, I THINK YOU NEED

TO JUMP IN. >> I HEARD MY NAME SO I GUESS I BETTER COMMENT. ON THE FIRST PETITION, ON THE CORNER LOT, I CAN SEE MAYBE HARDSHIP BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TWO FRONTAGES WITH THIS LARGE SETBACK.

SO I ASSUME THAT'S YOUR PRACTICAL HARDSHIP HAD YOU CONSIDERED THE 23-FOOT WIDTH FACING 105TH STREET?

IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD FIT THAT. >> THE HOME ACROSS THE STREET HAS THAT. AND FRANKLY, I AM NOT A BIG FAN OF IT FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT.

I THINK IT REALLY RUINS THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR.

WHEN THIS ONE IS FACING UP AGAINST THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, I THINK THAT'S VERY POOR DESIGN CHOICE.

WE THINK HAVING THE DRIVEWAYS COMING IN OFF 105TH STREET WOULD BE A REAL OBSTACLE FOR THAT NARROW ROAD THAT IS HIGHLY TRAVELED BACK AND FORTH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REAL OBSTACLE FOR IT. AND WOULD NOT MAKE A LOT OF

SENSE TO BRING IN OFF THAT ROAD. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

IT IS ONE THING TO TAKE FIVE SECONDS TO LOOK AT IT AND GO, WHY DIDN'T WE DO IT THE OTHER WAY? BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE HARDSHIPS THERE.

IT IS THE SECOND LOT JUST TO THE SOUTH THAT YOU ARE DEVELOPING ON. I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE SAME HARDSHIPS THERE FOUR BECAUSE YOU HAVE PLENTY OF WIDTH AND SETBACKS THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU THE 23-FOOT WIDTH FOR EACH ONE.

SO WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL -- >> IT IS TWO FOLD.

ONE IS OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO -- WE ARE FACED WITH SEVERE ECONOMIC CHALLENGES TO BE ABLE TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN IN THE HOMEPLACE AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF CONSTRAINTS BEING PUT ON BY THE CITY. THEY ACTUALLY INCREASE OUR COST DRAMATICALLY TO MAKE THIS FEASIBLE, AND ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE CREATING TWO DIFFERENT DESIGN PLANS THAT ARE BEING BUILT AT THE SAME TIME BUT ARE TWO DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AND YOU CAN REPLICATE THIS PRODUCT WHICH INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF KEEPING YOUR COSTS DOWN YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL PERSPECTIVE. THERE IS A GOOD AMOUNT OF EFFICIENCIES RELATED TO THAT. THE OTHER COMPONENT WOULD BE, EVEN THOUGH IT WILL FIT, THE IDEAL SITUATION WOULD BE TO CREATE SOME SPACING BETWEEN THE HOUSES.

YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE ONE ON THE CORNER LOT THAT CAN ONLY BE 5 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. FROM THE SOUTH.

ULTIMATELY IF THE NEXT HOUSE NEXT TO IT IS 46 FEET VERSUS 40 FEET, THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, YOU ARE GOING TO END UP WITH MORE SPACING BETWEEN THE HOUSES BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE PLENTY DEEP 19 FEET AND A LITTLE BIT DEEPER. SO YOU ACTUALLY MAXIMIZE THE STREETSCAPE ALONG MCPHERSON THERE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES AS OPPOSED TO DOING THAT. THE OTHER BIG CONSTRAINT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY, BUT ALSO THE OTHER COMPONENT IS THE STORMWATER ISSUE THAT WE ARE FORCED WITH BECAUSE TWO LOTS ARE BEING DEVELOPED AT THE SAME TIME.

ENGINEERING REQUIRES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

IF ONLY ONE LOT WAS BEING BUILT AND THE OTHER A YEAR LATER, WE WOULD NOT HAVE THESE RESTRAINTS. BUT FOR SOME REASON IN FACT WE HAVE THE EXPENSE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT GOING IN THERE AND THEN KEEPING THE HOUSES CLOSEST TOGETHER DRAMATICALLY DECREASES YOUR ABILITY TO MANAGE THE STORMWATER INCREASES AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.

>> MADAM CHAIR? >> THESE HAVE TO BE DONE

SEPARATELY CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO >> SECOND.

>> OKAY, FIRST AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR.

[02:45:02]

AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE DOCKET.

>> SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR.

OKAY, THAT ONE'S APPROVED AS WELL.

THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, I BELIEVE WE'RE

ADJOURNED. >> WHAT'S FOR BREAKFAST?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.