Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 01-28-14 G.�ofGgq�F, ,.Q` j City of C FoR 70,10 (q' ��NUI-ANj MINUTES Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Carmel City Hall Present: James Hawkins,President Leo Dierckman Dennis Lockwood Earlene Plavchak Alan Potasnik Connie Tingley,Recording Secretary Staff members in attendance: Alexia Donahue Wold, Planning Administrator Mike Hollibaugh, Director, Dept. of Community Services Legal Counsel: John Molitor Swearing in of New Member: Dennis Lockwood, appointment by the Plan Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals for two year term was sworn in by John Molitor preceding the meeting. Election of Officers: On a motion made by Alan Potasnik and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: James Hawkins be elected President of the Board of Zoning Appeals. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Alan Potasnik be elected Vice President of the Board of Zoning Appeals. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Previous Minutes: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: The Minutes for the meeting dated November 25,2013 were approved as circulated. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Department Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold: • Nothing to report WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV Page 1 of 21 (317)571-2417 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting Legal Council Report: John Molitor: • Lawsuit the Board declined to participate in regarding accessory structure is still pending in the Court of Appeals Public Hearing 1-4. (V) Saddlebrook at Shelborne Phases III & IV. The applicant seeks the following development standards variances for a new subdivision: Docket No. 13120004 V ZO CH: 5.01.02 Max Density 1 lot/acre, 1.2 lots/acre requested Docket No. 13120005 V ZO CH: 5.04.03(A) Min Front Yard 40 ft,30 ft requested Docket No. 13120006 V ZO CH: 5.04.03.E.1 Min Lot Width 120 ft, 100 ft requested Docket No. 13120007 V ZO CH: 2.09 Compliance with the Transportation Plan,Reduced R.O.W. and different street cross section requested. The site is located at 12121 Shelborne Road, and is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Steve Hardin with Faegre Baker Daniels, on behalf of Leeds I LLC. Present for Petitioner: Steve Hardin,Faegre Baker Daniels; Michael Stikeleather and Carol and Roger Tucker, Leeds I LLC • Approximately 40 acres located at 121s` Street and Shelborne (aerial shown) o Saddlebrook at Shelborne neighborhood to south • Approximately 60 acres • Development team met with Engineering and Planning Departments and neighbors • Plan to develop the 40 acres to the same development and architectural standards as existing Saddlebrook at Shelborne o Photos of$600,000 to $800,000 homes shown o Michael Stikeleather and the Tuckers were the developers • Thoroughfare Plan was shown o Proposed residential parkway due east from roundabout • Along southern property line of 40 acre parcel • Neighbors prefer main drive not go along southern boundary • More efficient for developer to not have parkway running along southern boundary of parcel • 100-foot right-of-way required with median in middle along with 10-foot side path • Working with Engineering and Planning Department revised to 60-foot right-of-way with sidewalks on both sides and no median • Benefits of Variance is reduction of width of right-of-way and street cross section that comes through parcel o Moves entrance drive away from the Gordon home and parcel on the south o Entrance goes north as quickly as possible o Eliminates one lot, giving half acre of open wood space north of Gordon parcel • Would be part of plat going to Plan Commission Page 2 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting • Variance for number of lots o Approximately 1.2 units per acre • 1.28 units per acre in existing Saddlebrook • Variances for lot width and front yard setback to match same standards as in existing Saddlebrook • Plat will be reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee and Plan Commission Remonstrance: Todd Gordon, 121st and Shelborne • Property adjacent and borders approximately 900 feet of proposed development • Proposed entrance from roundabout adjacent to his property o Along property line and then as quickly north as possible o Concerned about proximity of development entranceway • As proposed, new bike path and road will rest 44-45 feet from bedrooms in their home o Proposed stub street is within 18 feet of their home o No proposed buffering of roundabout by developer from entrance which is adjacent to their property o Concerned about street lighting in development • Worked in good faith with Mr. Stikeleather to come to amicable agreement for both parties to not cause Leeds any financial hardship and to protect the Gordon property o Price offered for his property was not consistent • 37% below appraised market value by the City's third party appraisals o They were informed Mr. Stikeleather would no longer need any of their property for right-of-way • He would move forward with variances and plat approval processes • Items discussed were municipal sewer and water, connections to stub street and new driveway,removal of existing driveway, buffering, landscaping plans in addition to existing acreage which will lose trees in buffer after road and bike path are built • Last week's proposal stated if they agreed not to speak against the plan, the developer would propose removal of stub street which abuts Gordon property • They have significant concerns for property they have owned 18 years. o They are not anti-development o They understand development of this property will happen some time o They are not looking to get rich o They are not looking to cause a financial hardship o They are looking to protect their long-term investment in their property • They border 900 feet of this parcel, directly off the roundabout o They do not want a 100-foot parkway on the side of their property o There are things the developer could do to buffer their property o Their property was indicated on the map • Their driveway was indicated along with stub street from new development • Their driveway originally came directly off Shelborne • Current driveway is just prior to start of roundabout Rebuttal: Steve Hardin: Page 3 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting • Variance for reduction of right-of-way width is relevant to Gordon property o 100-foot wide right-of-way would come closer to their property o Original plan would have the road along their home o At one point City Engineering Dept. asked developer to acquire additional right- of-way to be able to move geometrics of entrance a little bit south o Area is heavily wooded • They would not put additional buffer within existing woodlands • It will be maintained as natural open space Department Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold • Requesting four variances to increase the density,reduce front yard setback, reduce lot width and reduce right-of-way along main interior street o Lot standards for density, width and setbacks are minor and should not have negative effect on surrounding properties o Subdivision would be complimentary to subdivision to south, Saddlebrook at Shelborne Phases I and II • This subdivision developed under ROSO (Residential Open Space Standards) • With more open space, setbacks and lot standards could be reduced o Department supports variances for lot density • Department has worked with developer and Engineering Department on reduced right-of- way for this agreed upon cross section for the main road and the subdivision o It is reduced right-of-way from Thoroughfare Plan o It will still connect from east to west o Eight-foot path will provide for pedestrians and cyclists • Still working through primary plat process with the Plan Commission • Variance for right-of-way is only as it relates to main road and cross section • Any other changes not in line with City regulations would need approval Department supports the variances. Discussion: • Mr. Dierckman felt this should be PUD process instead of BZA o Variances are minor and in small enough number that they would not need a PUD o Department and other City leaders felt this more efficient • Originally 2009 Thoroughfare Plan called for 121s` Street to run along southern property line of parcel • Mr. Gordon was penalized with roundabout in front of his residence o This further penalizes him with a road along his property line • Decision made by Engineering Department affects the Gordon property o Reducing right-of-way and pushing road north reduces amount of road going by Gordon property o If developer complies with Thoroughfare Plan, road would run along Gordon property line or they would need to take property from Gordon's • Plan Commission will see stub street requested by City Engineering Department o When City initially acquired property and built roundabout, Mr. Gordon's driveway was moved Page 4 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Meeting o In thinking about long-term development, Engineering anticipated other properties would be developed • Would like to try to minimize number of entrances directly onto Shelborne • Stub street off entrance would provide frontage road in future • If plat process meets the law, Plan Commission has to approve o BZA has to protect individuals impacted by this kind of project o Engineering needs to explain logic of destroying this individual's property for a road off the roundabout • It is inconvenient for road running to the east • Stub street not required by Ordinance o Variance is not tied to location of entrance or stub street; only reduction of right- of-way in cross section o Tonight's decision does not commit or approve plan o If variance is denied, development will have standard 100-foot right-of-way o Staff does not feel variances will have negative impact on surrounding properties • Lot width, setbacks or reduced right-of-way Mike Hollibaugh discussion: • Have worked with Mr. Stikeleather number of months for agreement on how the corridor on the Thoroughfare Plan will impact the real estate o If 121St Street is extended to east, it would impact entire northern property line of adjacent subdivision • Many property owners would be affected with 100-foot right-of-way • Planning staff and Engineering staff try to do their best to implement Thoroughfare Plan • Most benefit for City with least impact on property owners • Ultimate solution may not be ideal • Trying to have street tie into roundabout with safest entry and exit points for new subdivision • Ultimately extended street has to cross Dads' Club soccer fields and another farm • After discussion with developer, Engineering and Planning, this is the best situation • If variance for reduced right-of-way is not approved, they will need to look at geometry of how street enters the roundabout from the east o Could have more substantial impact on Mr. Gordon o Definitely impact subdivision with much wider street • Wider street could make it less appealing for lot designs • Entrance for subdivision off roundabout to minimize street cuts onto Shelborne o Compliance with Thoroughfare Plan is almost identical to proposed plan • Inconvenience to adjoining property owner, but it is best solution • Ultimately, if history repeats itself,real estate development does help resolve solutions • There could be additional buffering • Buffering can be part of platting process discussion • Will sign on roundabout indicate this road dead ends in subdivision? o There is similar situation in Avian Glen and Cherry Tree subdivisions Page 5 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting o Vast majority of movement will be north/south on Shelborne Road with only some east/west • Ultimately it will not be dead end • It connects to subdivision to south • This could set a precedent for width of right-of-way o This should be residential parkway with median and 100-foot right-of-way o What about future development of 121s` Street going east and redevelopment going west? • Precedent has already been set further north where similar situation was recently approved for Pulte at the Trillium site • Where Village of West Clay ended, Pulte has extended their development • This configuration for project was previously approved there • Transportation Plan will probably be amended to the new cross section with reduction • This intersection falls into sub-gird of main traffic pattern • Streets through a lot of subdivisions on west side provide continuity and connectivity between subdivisions o They do not have 100-foot right-of-ways for major traffic o They allow for nice traffic flow through multiple subdivisions • How would shifting roadway more north with 100-foot right-of-way be a negative for Mr. Gordon's property with more buffer? o Taking of Mr. Gordon's property would allow correct right-of-way • City or developer would need to spend money o 100-foot right-of-way would run along property line • Bigger street makes less attractive neighborhood on this narrow site • Physically possible, but less attractive • North area of parcel is pond with wetland restrictions • New curb cut almost adjoins Mr. Gordon's property line • Proposed entrance off roundabout shown with property lines indicated o 60-foot right-of-way entrance turning north as quickly as possible away from Mr. Gordon's property Mr. Gordon: • Right-of-way purchased when roundabout installed • No mention of this new eastbound street • His driveway originally proposed directly into roundabout o With teenage drivers, they fought hard to not have driveway enter directly into roundabout o New driveway curves from south of roundabout into their property • Still not a great situation • 100-foot right of way could not come closer to his property, but would be further north into development o Minimizes number of lots in development Page 6 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting • Would like eastbound entry to be further north on roundabout and further away from his property or further north of roundabout and off Shelborne Road, like Drees development on west side of Shelborne o City seems firm on road entering roundabout • With Comprehensive Plan, City does not have to take out bond or pay for road, it is the developer's responsibility • If entry is north of roundabout, it is moot issue for his property ▪ Might be hard to line up with entrance to Drees subdivision • Development is squeezed between wetlands and his property Discussion with Board continued: • 100-foot right-of-way in standard cross section looks like it would provide more space between road and Gordon property o Side path is 10 feet wide instead of proposed 8 feet o Entrance should shift further north Discussion with Brian Robinson, Engineer for development: • 100-foot right-of-way would shift entrance further north o Could cause sight visibility issues • Would not be able to see left/south when approaching roundabout from subdivision • Entrance cannot be north in Federally mandated wetland o North of wetlands, entrance will not line up with subdivision across Shelborne o North of roundabout roadway tapers causing sight line visibility and safety issues o Very limited entrance area for this property • Center line of entrance as it enters center of roundabout is very specific and limited o This is pushed as far north as possible o Centerline is centered in the center of the right-of-way • 100-foot right-of-way will go 50 feet in each direction from centerline • That would require taking some of Mr. Gordon's property • 8-foot walking path does not continue into roundabout o That would need more property from Mr. Gordon • Mr. Dierckman felt reduced right-of-way appears to be a work-around to negotiating appropriate entrance with Mr. Gordon o This is opposite of what Board of Zoning Appeals should be doing • Reduced right-of-way has always been part of plan o Regardless of need to acquire small sliver of Mr. Gordon's property o Reduced right-of-way would minimize impact between development and help move the road to have better flexibility within the development • These two things are not linked together • Topography elevations shown o Lines wrapping around pond are existing gravel driveway Discussion continued: • Variance sacrificed someone else's property rights and standard of living • Mr. Hardin suggested this be continued o Petitioner work with Engineering Department and Mr. Gordon Page 7 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting o All opportunities be exhausted 0 Motion: On a motion made by Alan Potasnik and seconded by Leo Dierckman: Docket Nos.13120004 V through 13120007 V,Saddlebrook at Shelborne Phases III & IV,be continued to next BZA meeting MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5. (UV) Carmel City Center,Auto Sales. —WITH PRAWN The applicant seeks the following use variance approval for luxury automobile sales. Docket No. 13120008 UV ZO CH: 20E.01 Permitted Uses,Auto Sales Requested. The site is located at 736 Hanover Place, and is zoned C-1/City Center. Filed by Jesus Rivera with Pedcor on behalf of CCC Offices, LLC. 6-10. (V) Prime Car Wash, Michigan Road. The applicant seeks the following development standards variances for a new car wash. Docket No. 13120009 V ZO CH: 33.05.A.5.0 30 ft Perimeter Bufferyard, 10 ft requested on south Docket No. 13120010 V ZO CH: 23C.11.F Location of stacking for drive-thru, requested along north side of bldg. Docket No. 13120011 V ZO CH: 25.07.02-03.B Number of wall signs,2 permitted,3 requested Docket No. 13120012 V ZO CH: 25.07.02-03 Sign not facing street frontage, north facade Docket No. 13120013 V ZO CH: 25.07.02-06 Drive-thru Menu Signs,only permitted for restaurants. The site is located at the northeast corner of Michigan Road and 98th Street, and is zoned B-3/Business within the Michigan Road Overlay. Filed by Jon Dobosiewicz with Nelson and Frankenberger on behalf of Prime Car Wash. Present for Petitioner: Jim Shinaver,Nelson and Frankenberger; Brent Oakley,Prime Car Wash, and Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson and Frankenberger • Aerial shown o Approximately 1.47 acres o Within Michigan Road/421 Overlay Zone o East of and adjacent to Michigan Road and north of and adjacent to 98`" Street o Commercial and retail uses north of site (Burger King and West Carmel Marketplace with Kohl's, Home Depot and Best Buy) • Proposed site plan shown o Access to site is off 98`" Street and Walnut Creek Drive • Variance for landscape buffer yard is on southern portion of property o Proposing 10-foot bufferyard (5-foot buffer between commercial properties) o Real estate on south side of 981" Street is zoned single family residence (30-foot buffer required) o Buffer would include trees and shrubs, providing adequate and appropriate buffering and screening to property to south • Variance for location of stacking lanes for site Page 8 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting o Proposing north side of building, allowing customers to enter into car wash facility on north side of building, existing building on south side o Drive-thru area essential to car wash o Will install plantings and additional buffering along northern and western portions of site for screening and buffering o BZA has reviewed various requests for drive-thru lanes along Michigan Road Corridor (Burger King has north side drive-thru) • Variance for number of wall signs o Site permitted two wall signs o Requesting three wall signs • Southern elevation, western elevation and northern elevation o Signs would be consistent with other wall signs in vicinity o Additional wall sign will allow proper identification for cars traveling south on Michigan Road o Elevations shown with signs • Variance for sign not facing street frontage o Wall sign facing north is not directly adjacent to Michigan Road, but visible • Appropriate and visible for potential customers traveling south • Variance for drive-thru menu boards o Propose menu boards on outside and inside of drive-thru queuing lanes • Important for listing of services o Menu boards only allowed for restaurant-type businesses o Rendering of menu board shown No public comments Public Hearing closed Department Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold • Petition also being reviewed by Plan Commission Committee for DP/ADLS • Department supports bufferyard variance o Michigan Road Overlay supports commercial development o With sidewalk on northern side and additional green space, there should be enough space for landscaping • Department supports location of stacking for drive-thru o Will be limited to sides of building to minimize impact • Department supports drive-thru menu signs o Sign Ordinance only permits menu boards for restaurants o Does not take into account other drive-thru uses • Two variances for additional wall signs o Department does not support the additional wall sign • Permitted two signs with the two right-of-ways • Have option to move signage or have ground sign • Feel two signs adequate identification o Department supports variance for sign on north side,if Petitioner feels that is better location Page 9 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting Department recommended positive consideration of variances 13120009 V, 13120010 V, 13120012 V and 13120013 V and negative consideration of 13120011 V. Discussion: • Menu boards should have bases that match design and material of building o That will be added with approval of ADLS • Sign on north side of building only needed for people traveling south on Michigan Road • Sign Ordinance did not contemplate menu boards for other uses o Other car washes have variances for menu boards • Parcel is allowed two signs, one per street right-of-way o Wall sign size is based on area sign is placed on o May have one ground sign and one wall sign or two wall signs o If Walnut Creek were public road, three signs would be permitted • Condition there will be no stuffed animals visible off site Jon Dobosiewicz: • For additional sign: Michigan Road has two northbound lanes, center turn land and two southbound lanes o Typical 30-foot setback along Michigan Road o Propose signs on northbound and southbound sides for Michigan Road traffic • Staff supports one or the other,but not both of these signs • Third sign on north side does not face right-of-way • They believe all three are necessary to adequately identify site Board discussion continued: • Not type of use for someone from out of town • Local residents will find location o Does not matter how many signs are on building Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Leo Dierckman: Docket Nos. 13120009 V through 13120013 V be approved for 10-foot perimeter bufferyard on south side of building (30 feet required); location of stacking for drive-thru requested along north side of building; number of signs (2 permitted, 3 requested); sign not facing street frontage (north facade) and drive-thru menu signs (only permitted for restaurants) with the Condition that no stuffed animals shall be visible off site. VOTE: Docket Nos. 13120009 V, 13120010 V and 13120013 V APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY Docket No. 13120011 V DENIED 1-4 (Hawkins,Plavchak,Lockwood, Potasnik negative) Docket No. 13120012 V APPROVED 3-2(Plavchak,Potasnik negative) 11-15. (V) Gateway Shops, Sun/Mundy One, Two, Three Subdivision (Marsh Outlot) The applicant seeks the following development standards variances for a new retail building: Docket No. 13120014 V ZO CH: 23C.08.03B Min Rear Yd. 15 ft,4 ft requested Docket No. 13120015 V ZO CH: 23C.09.D 8 ft Deep Projections every 60 ft, 1 Projection at 2 ft deep requested Docket No. 13120016 V ZO CH: 23C.10.02.2 10 ft Wide Foundation Plantings,3 ft wide requested along front of sidewalks Page 10 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting Docket No. 13120017 V ZO CH: 23C.10.03. Parking Lot Interior Landscaping, WITHDRAWN Docket No. 13120018 V ZO CH: 23C.10.03.5 6 ft Wide Parking Lot Perimeter ! : WITHDRAWN The site is located at 10679 N Michigan Rd, and is zoned B-2/Business within the Michigan Rd Overlay. Filed by William Niemier with Sandor Development, on behalf of 106 Michigan Realty. Present for Petitioner: Bill Niemier, Sandor Development and Marc Tworek, contractor, Versatile Construction Group • Thanked Staff for all their help with the variances and eliminating some of the variances he thought were needed • Aerial photo shown o Purchased one-half acre parcel that consists of 100%parking immediately adjacent to Marsh Grocery at 106th Street and Michigan Road o Received reciprocal parking agreement with adjoining parcel which will allow some landscaping and additional row of parking on their property • Request four-foot rear yard setback (15 feet required) o Area is between wall of their building that borders the wall of Marsh o Their building will be four feet off property line and eight feet away from Marsh • Requesting one two-foot deep projection (eight-foot deep projections required every 60 feet) o Projection at 61 feet in one direction or 88 feet 3 inches in other direction • Requesting 3-foot wide plantings along front edge of sidewalks (10-foot wide foundation plantings required) • Parcel is very small in middle of donut of parking lot No public input Public Hearing closed Department Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold • Site is unique as separate parcel within larger parcel o Sometimes developed as outlots instead of separate parcel • Eight feet between buildings is sufficient • Façade offsets are requirement of Michigan Road Overlay o One offset will help break up façade o Strip center type development • Urban Forester has reviewed and supports plantings along sidewalk instead of foundation Department recommended positive consideration of all variances. Discussion: • Buildings will be eight feet apart o Each building four feet off respective property lines • Staff asked Petitioner to reach out to Police and Fire Departments to make sure there were no safety concerns because of close proximity of the buildings Page 11 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Meeting o Received letters from each Department indicating they agreed to the close proximity of the two buildings • Doors on back side will open outward with sufficient clearance Marc Tworek: • No obstructions on rear of building o Internal drainage system o No meters obstructing the eight feet o Four-foot sidewalk with all doors opening out, according to Fire Code o Clear, smooth wall meets Fire and Police approval o Trash enclosure on north end of building Discussion with Board continued: • No utility meters, downspouts, etc. in back of building for obstructions o Not large enough for parking • Proposed landscaping will be at front edge of sidewalk as opposed to up against the foundation o Code requires foundation plantings adjacent to building • Moving landscaping away from building enhances appearance • Sidewalk between landscaping and building • Sidewalk is six feet at south end of building and eight feet on north • Moving plantings away from windows helps full window view for retail Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins: Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow a voice vote (due to lack of paper ballots). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Docket Nos. 13120014 V through 13120016 V,Gateway Shops be approved for minimum rear yard of 4 feet(15 feet required); one two-foot deep projection (eight-foot deep projections required every 60 feet); and 3-foot wide plantings along front of sidewalks (10-foot wide foundation plantings required). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Mr. Hawkins and Board signed Findings of Fact Sheet. Five minute recess taken. 16-34. (UV,V) KG Main LLC, Old Meridian and West Main. The petitioner seeks the following BZA use variance approval for a multifamily land use: Docket No. 13120026 UV ZO CH: 20G.05.01.A & Appendix A: Permitted Uses, Multi-Family Land Use requested. The petitioner also seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 13120027 V ZO CH: 20G.05.04.B(1)(B)—Max Bldg Height of 55 ft; 89 ft requested Page 12 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting Docket No. 13120028 V ZO CH 20G.05.04.B(2)(A) -Min Front Setback 10 ft; 0 ft requested Docket No. 13120029 V ZO CH 20G.05.04.B(3)(B)-Max Bldg footprint 15,000 sqft;43,000 sqft requested Docket No. 13120030 V ZO CH 20G.05.04.D(2)(D)-Multi Family Uses Must Conform to All Architectural Requirements Listed in the Multi-Family Zone(ZO CH 20G.05.02.D) Docket No. 13120031 V ZO CH 20G.05.02.D(2) - Vertical Offsets Required at Intervals of 50 ft for Bldgs with Continuous Facades of 60 ft or Greater Width; Intervals of greater than 50 ft and Architectural Detailing on Facades as per Submitted Elevations requested Docket No. 13120032 V ZO CH 20G.05.02.D(3)-All Sides of any Bldg Shall be Brick, and Trimmed in Brick,Wood,Stone or Precast Concrete; Fiber Cement Siding/Paneling requested. Docket No. 13120033 V ZO CH 20G.05.02.D(4)-At least One Entrance on the Front of the Bldg; Entrances Only on Side and Rear requested Docket No. 13120034 V ZO CH 2.09- Compliance with the Transportation Plan; Petitioner Wants to Deviate from the Proposed Street System Lay Out. Docket No. 13120035 V ZO CH 20G.04.03.A-Sidewalk along Main Street Required; Petitioner States that the City or the CRC will Install it. Docket No. 13120036 V ZO CH 20G.05.01.B-Developed Land to be Divided into Side by Side Attached Single Family Dwellings;Multi- Family Units requested Docket No. 13120037 V ZO CH 20G.05.01.F(1)(B)-45 ft Max Bldg Height; 89 ft requested Docket No. 13120038 V ZO CH 20G.05.01.F(4)-35 ft Max Bldg Width; 200 ft requested Docket No. 13120039 V ZO CH 20G.05.01.F(2)(A)-Min 4 ft Front Setback; 0 ft requested Docket No. 13120040 V ZO CH 20G.05.01(F)(3)(B)-No Parking or Driveways in the Side Yard Setbacks;Parking and Driveway requested in West Side Yard Docket No. 13120041 V ZO CH 20G.05.01.H(2)(A)-For any Bldg Facing A Street,Fiber Cement Siding/Paneling in Addition to Brick and Stone requested Docket No. 13120042 V ZO CH 20G.05.01.H(2)(E)-Entrance to be Recessed from Front Wall of Bldg Facade; Multi-Family Bldg with Entrances in Rear of Bldg requested Docket No. 13120043 V ZO CH 20G.05.01.H.2.F-Finished First Floor Level Shall be 2-6 ft Above Sidewalk Level;Multi-Family Bldg with Parking on the Ground Level and Units Above requested. Docket No. 13120044 V ZO CH 33.05.E(2)(B)-Parking Lot Interior Plantings, Min. 1 Shade Tree and 5 Shrubs for every 10 Parking Page 13 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting Spaces(115 Shrubs required); 59 Shrubs requested per Landscape Plan The site is zoned OM/SFA (Old Meridian District, Single Family Attached) &OM/MU(Old II Meridian District,Mixed Use.) It is located at 12960 Old Meridian St., at Main St. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault, LLP on behalf of Keystone Realty Group, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Paul Reis, Krieg DeVault, Michael Patarino, Keystone Realty Group, Brandon Bogan, CSO Architects, and Ross Nixon,American Structurepoint • Variances were discussed by the two zoning districts • Intend to redevelop southwest corner of West Main Street and Old Meridian Street o Approximately 5.3 acres o Frontage on both streets o Portion previously used by church was purchased by Carmel Redevelopment Commission • No particular plans for site • Adequacy of site not determined • Rezoned from Old Meridian Special Use to Old Meridian Mixed Use for some type of public building o Two adjoining parcels on West Main Street are zoned Old Meridian Single Family Attached Residential • Petitioner realized needed these two additional parcels to make project work for amenities and parking • Permitted uses of Mixed Use (MU)include retail and multi-family; Single Family Attached (SFA) only allows for single family homes o Use Variance will allow for multi-family use on two SFA parcels • Objective of the district is to promote high-quality, innovative site design and encourage efficient land usage and foster development that spurs commercial activity o Use Variance will accomplish those objectives by allowing this project to move west along these two smaller parcels o Positive impact on general welfare of community by providing jump start to redevelopment of this portion of Old Meridian Street Corridor, as well as West Main Street o Use will also improve value and use of adjacent properties o Current zoning classification was not set up for any particular project o Along Old Meridian Street and West Main Street made sense for mixed-use • Some single family and multi-family on far west o For additional units and parking, project needed to move further west • Variances for Single Family Attached: o Multi-family units in place of side-by-side family attached residences o Increase building width o Parking and driveway permitted on west side yard o Building entrances will be from rear versus front o Ground level parking instead of unit entrances two to six feet off level of sidewalk o Believe these variances will not have detrimental effect on community or adjacent property owners • Variance to increase height of building in Mixed Use from 55 feet to 89 feet and in Single Family Attached up to 89 feet Page 14 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting o Elevation showing height of building • Six to nine-foot change in ground elevation • Increasing height of building provides for building design, more area on site for parking, allows for pedestrian plaza, breezeway, site landscaping, additional right-of-way for West Main Street and streetscape • Site plan shown • Building can be pulled up to street instead of going deeper into site • Allows area for parking, recreational area and landscaping in rear • No single family residences immediately adjacent to project to be impacted by increased height of building • Variance to reduce front setback along Old Meridian Street and West Main Street to zero o Proposed right-of-way shown • Building will be brought up to right-of-way line • Part of right-of-way along West Main Street will include path and on- street parking • This type urban design has been used throughout Carmel • Should not impact any adjacent use or value • Variance for maximum building footprint o Primarily for building in Single Family area o Substantial building with larger footprint than single family home • Variance for vertical offsets o Offsets shown along outside of project • Vary from 66 to 72 feet o Asking for flexibility for unique design of 20 feet to 72 feet • Vertical offset required every 50 feet for façade greater than 60 feet • Design will be reviewed by Plan Commission . • Variance for fiber cement siding o Rendering of building shown with fiber cement siding o Asking for 60 percent of building • Primarily on rear facades, not as visible from street • Important durable building material for construction • Will not detract from look or value of building • Will not have negative impact on adjacent properties • Variance for entrances in rear of building o Mixed Use zoning requires at least one entrance on front of building facing a public street • Retail space has front entrances • No front entrances into ground level parking • Entrances for garage and multi-family units above garage will be in rear • Shown on elevations • Passageway from West Main Street to rear of site • Plenty of opportunities to pass through to West Main Street and Old Meridian Street • Design with living units on top of ground level parking precludes ability for in-front entrances • Next two variances relate to Thoroughfare Plan o Plan requires 70-foot half right-of-way along West Main Street Page 15 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Meeting • Met with City Engineer to discuss possibility of reducing half right-of-way to 60 feet to accommodate project • Additional ten feet would wipe out significant amount of parking • Mike McBride, City Engineer, felt 60 feet adequate for on-street parking as well as path, initial drive lanes and median • Additional right-of-way will need to be vacated as part of project o Meeting with City and Dept. of Engineering for comprehensive agreement to address re-design of Thoroughfare Plan for less than 70-foot half right-of-way • It will adjust alignment going into roundabout • Road will go a little further north • Will provide for on-street parking not already permitted in Plan • Will provide for dedication of right-of-way along south side of West Main • It will vacate right-of-way as indicated on Old Meridian • Will confirm financial commitment of parties with regard to road construction, street design and construction • Agreement will largely supplant earlier agreement that Petitioner had with Redevelopment Commission with regard to streetscape • Sidewalks and paths will all be addressed • Timing for reconstruction of West Main Street is discretion of City o Department Report discussed proposed north/south collector on Thoroughfare Plan (indicated on plan) • Felt collector was added when area was going to be single family • Original Master Plan shown • Connector would go through proposed site • Would severely alter design of project • Significant adverse impact on residents and pedestrians walking through the area • Not adequate area for 66-foot right-of-way • Completely change look of building, eliminate significant parking spaces and create severe hardship on Petitioner • Feel connector should connect to street to south (indicated on map) o That parcel currently seeking rezone through Plan Commission to allow for multi-family o Their site plan submitted if rezone successful • Prefer not to show any connector on this parcel o Make commitment if site plan approved to the south, they would be willing to enter into agreement for connection between parking lots • Not sure if it would be parking lot, retention pond or some type of building on south parcel • Do not feel any of these variances will impact adjacent properties No public input Public Hearing closed Department Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold Page 16 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting • Use Variance o Project straddles two zoning classifications o Single or Multi-family housing good fit along West Main Street • Multi-family would meet goals of Old Meridian District • Mixed Use as well as apartments • Multi-family allowed on east parcel of project o Department supports Use Variance • Single Family Attached variances o Department supports the variances o With proposed multi-family development, Single Family standards cannot be met • Use Variance would allow Multi-family development • Should not have negative affect on surrounding properties o Maximum building height of 89 feet • Generally increasing height would not be negative • Department requests request be reduced • Architecture will be approved through Plan Commission • Not sure if tallest point caused by peak o Clear cornice line would lower height o Not much of variance needed;maybe 60 or 65 feet o Better look for building • Department supports variance o Variance for minimum front yard setback • Old Meridian is meant to be more urban and walkable • Large setback not conducive • 10 feet required, but zero still meets intent of District • Petitioner dedicating right-of-way to allow for improvements of Main Street streetscape • Development will create nice edge to completed street • Department supports variance for setback o Maximum building footprint variance • 15,000 square feet required; 43,000 square feet requested • Significant increase but design of building is broken up at the pedestrian level with pedestrian pass-thru and drive under building to parking lot • Department supports variance for footprint o Two variances for vertical offsets • Offsets will not be larger than 70 feet • Only couple areas that are 70 feet • Lot of other offsets meet the Ordinance • Department supports variance on Condition offsets are not more than 72 feet o Variances for fiber cement paneling • Some fiber cement paneling could be supported • Petitioner requesting more than 50 percent of building material • Department would like it reduced to 25 percent fiber cement paneling Page 17 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting • Old Meridian District requires certain building materials as goal to create high quality development, innovative design and sense of place I/ • Plan Commission will review architecture o Might table variance until design has gone through more with Plan Commission o Could limit front elevation with fiber cement paneling and use more brick or stone o Use more fiber cement paneling on back • Department supports allowing fiber cement paneling,but limiting amount o Variances for at least one entrance on front of building • Requesting entrances only on side and rear • Some entrances are on front,just not all along the front • Retail will have front entrances • Meeting intent of Ordinance • Department supports variance for not only front entrances o Variances for deviation from Transportation Plan and sidewalks along Main Street • Requesting to dedicate less than 70 feet required for right-of-way and not install sidewalks along Main Street • Will dedicate 60-foot right-of-way • Department supports reduced right-of-way • Enough room to construct new streetscape • Not requiring sidewalks be built at this time • Street improved in future • Proposed connector road may not be full road • Want to see connection to property to south • Ordinance states parking lots that are adjacent shall be connected o Believes parking lot planned on south parcel, per their PUD o Good site and traffic flow • Would like Petitioner to show connection on plans o Work through Plan Commission Development Plan • Department supports deviation from Transportation Plan • Would need another variance if they do not want to connect to parking lot on south parcel o Variance for parking lot interior plantings • Urban Forester is comfortable with proposed plan • Will be reviewed by Plan Commission • Department supports parking lot interior plantings Discussion: • Did not make sense to establish PUD o Long list of variances because two lots are zoned Single-Family Attached o If Mixed-Use throughout, maybe need five variances o PUD is not necessary because Old Meridian District contemplated Mixed-Use with variety of uses o Use Variance allows Mixed-Use on two residential lots • Variances are needed because of underlying SFA development standards Page 18 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting • Otherwise would only need variances for building height, reduced setback, architectural design of offsets, fiber cement, entrances facing street,Thoroughfare Plan and interior landscaping • Did not want to spot rezone two lots (time and expense) • One Use Variance much shorter process • Would still need six or seven variances for configuration of site • Mixed-Use parcel not adequate size for development • Possibly approve Use Variance and table Variances until they go through DP/ADLS process with Plan Commission • Plan Commission could not approve project without Variances • BZA does not approve design o Only Variance for design is height of building • Height will be measured from ground level • Will not have double curb effect like Sophia Square • Land slopes down to east • Height in one area is 89 feet • Height in another area is 73+feet • BZA granting height maximum will allow building to go up to 89 feet if needed • Plan Commission may say no to height • Granting Variance does not guarantee height o Even if granted, Plan Commission does not have to approved • Item should be left open for discretion of Plan Commission o Come back for Variances as result of Plan Commission process o Plan Commission can approve conditional upon BZA approval • Unique project o Intended to be upscale, luxury project Mike Patarino: • Not Sophia Square West o Do not want two projects to compete;two distinct projects • Each have retail component o Using"Sophia"on both projects for branding • High, luxury mixed-use buildings • Will not look same o Did not know height of Sophia Square • Sophia Point(KG Main LLC) would have high points at intersection of Old Meridian and West Main Streets • Peak roof points along West Main Street are to break up elevation • Zero lot line to create urban design • Design, not parapet level, is responsible for height • BZA Board does not want to tie Plan Commission hands with regard to fiber cement o Always question as to which to do first: Variances or Plan Commission approval Page l 9 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting o Staff suggested tabling some of the Variances that impact architecture • Staff works with Plan Commission also • Don't approve Variances that take away negotiating ability of Plan Commission • Could come back for needed Variances: o Maximum building height(13120027) o Fiber cement paneling (13120032 & 13120041) o Transportation Plan and sidewalks(13120034-35) o Architectural offsets (13120031-32) o Building height(13120037) Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins: Docket Nos. 13120027 V, 13120030 V, 13120031 V, 13120032 V, 13120034 V, 13120035 V, 13120037 V and 13120041 V be tabled. MOTION CARRIED 4-1(Potasnik negative vote) TABLED until ADLS approval by Plan Commission: Docket Nos. 13120027 V, 13120030 V, 13120031 V, 13120032 V, 13120034 V, 13120035 V, 13120037 V, and 13120041 V: Development Standards Variances for: 13120027 V: 89 feet building height(maximum building height of 55 feet permitted) 13120030 V: Multi-Family uses must conform to all architectural requirements listed in the Multi-Family Zone 13120031 V: Intervals of greater than 50 feet and architectural detailing on facades as per submitted elevations requested (vertical offsets required at intervals of 50 feet for buildings with continuous facades of 60 feet or greater width required) 13120032 V: Fiber cement siding/paneling requested (all sides of any building shall be brick and trimmed in brick, wood, stone or precast concrete required) 13120034 V: Petitioner wants to deviate from street system laid out in the Transportation Plan 13120035 V: Petitioner wants the City or CRC to install required sidewalk along Main Street 13120037 V: 89 feet building height(45 feet maximum building height permitted) 13120041 V: For any building facing a street, fiber cement siding/paneling in addition to brick and stone requested Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins: Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow a voice vote. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins: Docket Nos. 13120026 UV, 13120028 V, 13120029 V, 13120033 V, 13120036 V, 13120038 V, 13120039 V, 13120040 V, 13120042 V, 13120043 V, and 13120044 V be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED: Docket No. 13120026 UV: Use Variance for Permitted Uses,Multi-Family Land Use requested. Page 20 of 21 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals January 28,2014 Meeting Docket Nos. 13120028 V, 13120029 V, 13120033 V, 13120036 V, 13120038 V, 13120039 V, 13120040 V, 13120042 V, 13120043 V, and 13120044 V: Development Standards Variances for: 13120028 V: Zero front setback (minimum 10 feet required) 13120029 V: 43,000 square feet footprint (15,000 square feet maximum permitted) 13120033 V: Entrances only on side and rear of building (at least one entrance on front of building required) 13120036 V: Multi-family units requested (developed land to be divided into side-by- side attached single family dwellings required) 13120038 V: 200 feet building width requested (35 feet maximum building width permitted) 13120039 V: Zero feet requested for front setback (minimum four feet front setback required) 13120040 V: Parking and driveway requested in west side yard (no parking or driveways in side yard setbacks permitted) 13120042 V: Multi-family building with entrances in rear of building (entrance to be recessed from front wall of building façade required) 13120043 V: Multi-family building with parking on ground level and units above (finished first floor level shall be two to six feet above sidewalk level 13120044 V: 59 shrubs requested per Landscape Plan (parking lot interior plantings, minimum one shade tree and five shrubs for every ten parking spaces [115 shrubs required]) Legal: Mr. Molitor recommended motion to clarify tabling as "These items will be tabled indefinitely subject to giving Staff discretion to put them back on the Agenda for Public Hearing after the Plan Commission has duly resolved the related petitions pending before the Plan Commission." Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins: The Variances will be un-tabled as soon as the ADLS process is completed and approved by the Plan Commission. (as recommended by Mr.Molitor) MOTION CARRIED UNANAIMOUSLY Adjournment: Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: The Meeting be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED UNANAIMOUSLY The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Approved this 4' day of 7' ci- y 20 f P sident—James Hawkins / Secretary— Con) e Ti X ley Filename: 1.28.2014 regular meeting Page 21 of 21