Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes BZA 07-28-14
/4ofCgghF / 1 _..���� . � iry a rms III „ "F ',ONO „ 1 ears^ lNDIAWi/ MINUTES Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, July 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 Lopez,Planning Administrator Mike Hollibaugh, Director,Dept. of Community Services Legal Counsel: John Molitor IPrevious Minutes: On a motion made by Alan Potasnik and seconded by Dennis Lockwood: The Minutes for the meeting dated June 23,2014,were approved as circulated. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Department Report: Alexia Lopez: o Need to suspend rules to hear Docket No. 14070001 V, Meridian &Main, Phase 1,Lot 1 o Docket submitted later and did not meet 25 days public notice o Did meet at least ten day notice, which is State requirement 0 Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins: Rules be waived to hear Docket No. 14070001 V, Meridian & Main, Phase 1,Lot 1 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Legal Council Report: John Molitor: © Sitting on dais to represent BZA Board in Docket No. 14060018 A, Appeal of Director's decision o Director does not have legal counsel to respond to the Appeal o Case regarding Bowen's lodge on west side of their property has been settled o Court of Appeals ruled against them and in favor of neighbors ® Court of Appeals has ruled structure has to be removed ® Copy of case will be forthcoming ® May be appealed to State Supreme Court • Sort of vindicates ruling by Board to deny variance WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV Page 1 of 19 (317) 571-2417 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting Public Hearing I. Docket No. 14060018 A: David Wilkinson's Addition,Lot 23,Appeal. The applicant seeks to appeal the decision of the Director, where the request to tear down an existing Contributing Building in the Old Town Overlay was denied. The site is located at 320 1s' Ave NE and is zoned R-3/Residence, within the Old Town Overlay Character Subarea. Filed by Wendy Noble, owner. Present for Petitioner: Wendy Noble o Application was submitted in spring to demolish structure o Has no historical significance o Contributing characteristics are debatable o Wish to replace with new home incorporating architectural characteristics defined in Overlay © Very similar in design and structure to new homes recently built in neighborhood o Respect Director's decision,but feel there is element of subjectivity to decision o Long time Carmelite (fifth generation) o Pictures of father's childhood home on l s` Avenue NW o Built in same time period, late 1940's, with similar design and materials ▪ Not listed as contributing structure in Overlay o Found out about Overlay when purchased property in 2006 o Felt it would provide consistency to neighborhood o Encouraged her to make improvements • Replaced aluminum siding with fiber cement Hardy plank, updated landscape, opened up porch, buried utility lines o Several contributing character homes were demolished ® Disappointed to see that happen • At least 8 contributing character homes have been demolished © Over 50 new homes have been built ▪ Several other lots currently preparing for new homes o High-quality, attractive large homes have been built, including across the street from hers o Photos shown a Sad Overlay did not have teeth,but can't complain about what has happened to neighborhood o Located close to high school, library, Monon Trail o Would like to be part of growth and have nice home that accommodates their family • Rendering shown of their replacement home o Can make changes to benefit district Support: Randy Jaunzemis o His new home is directly across street o Supports upgrade of property Remonstrance: Raina Regan,represents Indiana Landmarks and staffs Carmel Historic Preservation Commission, qualified professional in architectural history o Concurs with findings and analysis presented by Director, Mike Hollibaugh o Property has great historical significance which warrants contributing status in Old Town Overlay o Post-war, minimal traditional architectural style from 1946 Page 2 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28,2014 Meeting • Low-pitched roof, small house, generally one to one and a half story, minimal architectural detail • 1946-1949 post war period necessitated by FHA (Federal Housing Administration)loans • Simplicity in exterior design gives small house appearance of maximum size Carol Schleif,City Council member,President of Preservation Commission and architect with Master's Degree in Historic Preservation • Many surveys,done • Current map in Zoning Ordinance is not only one that calls this a contributing building o Allstate did one o Commission is wrapping up latest survey which includes this structure as contributing o Not just her,everyone agrees this is historically significant Rebuttal: Wendy Noble • Respects efforts of Historical Commission o Jurisdiction not yet defined in City; could not find information about their purpose • Interested in maintaining aura and feel of neighborhood o Injustice to allow some people to make improvements and not allow others o From Director and others,they could renovate and expand home • Has seen renovations in neighborhood that do not look anything like original structure • Renovation and expansion would still not give them the new house they want • Expensive work with foundation,plumbing and wiring Public Hearing closed. Department Report: Mike Hollibaugh • Feels letter speaks to the issues involved • Department does not take lightly responsibility delegated by Council regarding Old Town Overlay and issue of contributing building being demolished o Respect property owners and their desire to make investments o Old Town is at ground zero for building and development activity the City would like to see • This property was in best condition of requests received o Staff had work with Nobles on Site Design Review(SDR)process to create home that would fit in o After inspection by him and Jim Blanchard and documentation provided by Nobles, did not feel like home was in bad enough shape to allow it to be demolished Discussion: Mr.Hollibaugh: • Contributing building defined in Chapter 3, Definitions • Map in Old Town Overlay indicates contributing buildings • Ordinance and map basis for decisions o Map adopted in 2002 o Property bought in 2006 o Overlay Zone spells out characteristics of contributing buildings Page 3 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28,2014 Meeting 9 "Buildings shall be considered contributing, regardless of age, if they were originally built with all the following characteristics, or if they have been altered to conform with these characteristics: © Small lots and small houses,compared to Carmel's later subdivision. o Narrow house fronts compared to length. o Hip or gabled roofs. o Wood clapboard materials and wood or brick details. © Narrow, rectangular wood windows. • Detached garages o Front porches" ▪ District not intended to be Preservation District, but more of a Conservation District o Architectural rules help guide decision-making on additions, renovations and reconstruction Mrs.Noble: © Some of demolished homes had been purchased by developers and sat vacant for many years o Felt she had been diligent in care of her home • Hardy plank expensive ▪ Grading to improve wetness in basement ® Built at low elevation like other homes ▪ Landscaping a Replaced garage o Thought condition of home just one aspect of decision • Existing home and replacement home would be considered ® To do more not financially feasible and will not accommodate their needs Demolition not in their minds when improving property o Builders all recommended demolition instead of renovation to meet needs o One builder member of Historic Preservation Commission ® He did not feel it was of great character • Neighborhood is wide spectrum of shapes, sizes and homes o Current home 1200 square feet; proposed home 2400-2800 square feet Ms. Regan: o Excellent example of minimal, traditional architectural style; American architectural history o Post-war simple homes as transition to ranch or modern home O Small mass plan,typically L-shaped with porch in corner m Small sets of windows; six over one O Indiana limestone veneer ® Gabled end roof • Character because of lack of ornamentation • Smaller homes affordable with G.I. Bill • Architecturally slimmed down designs o Local, State and National significance considered ▪ National Parks Service treats all three levels of significance as equal • Property significant at local level just as important as property significant at national level • It contributes to Old Town Overlay and exhibits characteristics intended with preserving historic, overall character Mr. Dierckman: o Caught between individual's rights and public's rights o Should not impose views on their individual property o If that important, should offer to move the building Page 4 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting o Significant structures towering around them o Did not want to stand in way of progress o Probably find numerous other homes in Carmel and Indianapolis o If so rare, should have designation Ms. Regan: • Her understanding initial Overlay was to recognize Old Town as important part of Carmel's heritage o Founding all the way back to Bethlehem o Simple house like this tells story as well as Victorian houses o Homes are significant from Post-war period Mr.Dierckman: • Wonderful job upgrading downtown Carmel and Main Street J pig g o Creating high-desire destination o Income levels to maintain these homes are desirable o Did not feel roadblocks should be put on properties o Did not see this property was that significant Mr.Potasnik: • Significance not measured in dollars and cents • City has tried to define area with rules and goals • How did demolished homes differ from Noble home? • How does proposed architectural design of new home not fit into Overlay? • Should abide by Overlay established by Council Mike Hollibaugh: • Ordinance established in 2002 o Review for demolition initially only for Historic Rangeline Sub-Area o Overlay amended in 2009 to broaden to all of Old Town • Council communicated they were serious about all of Old Town for historic significance • Largest difference between buildings released and this one is the others were in a lot worse condition • Virtually all homes in Old Town are built in low areas o Foundations and crawl spaces extremely deteriorated o Structural floor joists, sill plates and top plates are all deteriorated o Sub-standard electrical systems and deteriorated o Furnaces cut into floor o Bathrooms in closets o Cost of renovating not economically viable • Number of buildings approved for demo were part of PUD's o PUD's are Council decisions not made by the Department o Three on ls`Avenue NW are part of Cobblestone PUD • Staff looks at all elevations and makes character call o Gotten better with each SDR that has been approved o No home built as originally proposed Mr.Potasnik: • If this appeal is denied, would they be able to rehab so it would not spoil what Ordinance is trying to do or negate historic significance? o History of why and how house was built o Use of materials o Bigger, more square footage 0 Page 5 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28,2014 Meeting Ms. Regan: • Not familiar with site plan of this lot o Does not know setbacks,etc. o That would determine if it would be feasible • There are additions on historic buildings that are well done and feasible o Would need more information on this particular lot o Secretary of Interior's Rehabilitation Standards is guiding document on how to sensibly rehabilitate historic properties for modern uses has two standards that promote additions on historic buildings • Allowable and encouraged with sensitive design Mrs. Noble: • Had builders in for that purpose, not architects o From builders' perspective, they could not make desired renovations Mrs.Plavchak: • Is it true that if they keep one wall when they demolish house, they can do whatever they want and would not need to go through this process? Mr.Hollibaugh: • No, definition of demolition in Ordinance does not allow that. Mrs.Plavchak: • Questioned dates for contributing buildings: o 2009 when Overlay included contributing buildings in all of Old Town o Prior to 2009,just Rangeline Road Mr. Hollibaugh: • The issue of demolition was expanded in 2009 o Building was originally designated as contributing o Guidelines for remodeling contributing buildings applied to this site in 2002 Mrs. Plavchak: • When Mrs. Noble purchased her property, she knew she was able to make certain renovations o When she bought it, she could have bulldozed it o Maybe she did not have the money at that time o In 2009 any hopes of demolishing the old house were not permitted • Is this the only house of this architecture left in Old Town? Mr.Hollibaugh: • Correct,prior to 2009 they could have demolished the house • The contributing building map does not discern architectural style o Just general character of Old Town and characteristics of what a contributing building is and is not o 2008 Ball State Study does measure a home's potential for being historical per national standards • Preservation Commission recently contributed to the guidelines Mrs.Plavchak: • Others houses demolished in this area were a PUD o Were they in as good of condition as this one, or better or worse? o Were they inhabited? o PUD area could be demolished,but not an individual property o Someone with a disability needs accessibility • Do we have the right not to allow a disabled person the right to build a house that would be accessible to them? Mr.Hollibaugh: • Ordinance does not get into issue of disability • It was an evaluation by him and the Building Commissioner Page 6 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting o The Nobles had contractors that provided some additional information o Felt modifications could be made to building that would modernize it and provide high quality home living environment • PUD was adopted by the Council and the Department did not do an analysis/review o Some houses were in better condition than others; all habitable o Preservation Commission wanted to try to preserve one Discussion continued: • Value suggested by realtor of property with new three-car carriage house with mother-in-law quarters in rear is close to $300,000 o Only $155,000 without carriage house o New home with carriage house would be around$600,000 o Felt that was in range of home listed for$625,000 that is two blocks from their home o Most new homes in$500,000 range • Their builder did not feel it was feasible to make this 2 bedroom,one bath home handicap accessible under American Disabilities Act o Basement is always wet and has mold o Builder felt best to tear down and rebuild • Home Place area has Overlay,but it does not go into the detail of the Old Town Overlay o Home Place Overlay does not determine what stays and what goes o It proposes design standards, but does not determine what is contributing or should be considered for protection • Does carriage house detract from contributing qualities? o In this case, paid attention to bones of home and compared to other homes approved for demolition • Dwellings north are one-story, non-contributing apartment • Dwelling to south is contributing, one-story, single family home • Usually when you give up rights to something(right to develop their real estate) you get something in return o They got a bunch of nicer homes around them, driving up real estate value and they have to keep their standard of living low • Mr.Dierckman felt that was not fair and equitable Mr.Lockwood: • Quite a vernacular of styles: ranch homes to eclectic to revivalist styles o Because of that, neighborhood has very pleasant feel • As architect reading letter from Department, there appears to be some issues with mold o That can be very costly for remediation o Combining that with 1940's home not designed with accessibility in mind, any renovation to keep the home as is, would drive cost of remodeling up • Builders probably felt it best, dollar for dollar, to start from scratch o Felt proposal comparable to current area • At what point do we deny the owner's right to do something on their property that would benefit community? Mr.Hawkins: • Defaults to Ms. Regan and Department in terms of architectural significance • At what point do we talk about property rights? o 2002 property identified as contributing o 2006 purchased property; knew it was contributing • Only impacted remodeling at that time o 2009 impacted demolition Page 7 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28,2014 Meeting • Public notice was made and public hearings held Mrs. Noble: • At that time, she was not considering demolition o Thought Overlay had teeth and homes would not be demolished o Started looking into demolition after other homes were demolished • Director's Letter of Decision included Ball State Study o Could not find that study online o Does not know scope of study o Wandered if it replaced 2002 Overlay • Told "No", told 2002 Overlay was technically the law • Looked at terms of demolition and felt they had a case Mr. Noble: • They were not married when home was purchased • Now with him in a wheelchair and having a two-year son, it is not feasible to renovate house Mr.Hawkins: • Is anything easily accessible online that would help homeowners to identify if their homes are contributing? Mr. Hollibaugh: • Ordinance and maps available on City website • Starts with Ordinance and maps,Ball State Study is simply a tool he looks at in making reviews o Checks Ball State Study to see what they say about condition of home and historic value or significance o Landmarks publishes a guide document o Relies on Building Commissioner and his building experience o Thorough as possible o It is somewhat subjective o 2002 map does identify specific parcels Mr.Dierckman: • South side of Main Street, west of Rangeline could all be replaced because it is non-contributing o He feels this area is very contributing; interesting structures o Yet we cannot allow these people to replace their home o Gray area; subjective Note: Motion to approve would override the Director's determination. Denial of motion would uphold Director's determination. Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins: Docket No. 14060018 A,David Wilkinson's Addition,Lot 23,be approved to override the Director's determination to not tear down existing Contributing Building located at 320 1st Avenue NE. MOTION CARRIED 3-2 (Hawkins & Potasnik opposed) Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Mr. Molitor will prepare Findings of Fact for Docket No. 14060018 A,David Wilkinson's Addition,Lot 23, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2-5. (V) Blackwell Park Phase II. The applicant seeks the following development standards variances for a new subdivision: WITHDRAWN Docket No. 14040017 V ZO CH: 8.01.02: Max Density 3.9 lots/acre,4.33 lots/acre requested Docket No. 14040018 V ZO CH: 8.04.02: Min Lot Size 10,000 sq.ft,6,600 sq.ft.requested Docket No. 14040019 V ZO CH: 8.04.03.A: 35 ft. Min Front Yd. Setback, 20 ft. requested Page 8 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting Docket No. 14040020 V ZO CH: 8.04.03.E: Min Lot Width 80 ft.,55 ft.requested Docket No. 14040021 V ZO CH: 8.04.03.F: 35% Max Lot Coverage,45% requested The site is located at 510-531 Burnett Court in Carmel,just north of 5th Street NE and east of 2'111 Ave NE. The property is zoned R-2/ Residential and is not located in an overlay zone. Filed by Andrew Greenwood of Old Town Development, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Andrew Greenwood • Goal to self-develop outstanding locations • 23 lot single residential subdivision on 6.68 acres • Area zoned R-2 with R-3 homes to the west • Old Town Overlay encompasses properties to west and south • Original Blackwell Park located north of 3rd Street and just south of 5`h Street consists of 17 single-family homes o Zoned R-2 and abiding by Old Town Overlay Ordinance • Site plan of Phase.II continuation of original Blackwell Park o Includes large open space woodlands area o Pocket park o Connection of 3rd Avenue NE to 7th Street • Original Blackwell Park received approval of same variances o Historical design of area matches Old Town Carmel, but not suburban subdivision as required by R-2 Zoning classification • Original plat from Burnett Court recorded in 1948 o Shows forefathers' intention of development of area in traditional neighborhood design pattern o Alleyway west of Carmelwood and east of Burnett Court is platted right-of-way all the way to 7th Street o Roosevelt Avenue homes and alleyway behind them (currently2"`t Avenue)platted 1922-1948 o Alleyway construction is clear and intention of forefathers to have traditional neighborhood design o Gridded streets and cottage craftsman-style homes successful throughout Old Town Carmel o Old Town Overlay instrumental in furthering that goal o Area west of Carmelwood is part of those plans • Area currently contains eight homes o Six homes located in Burnett Court • Photos shown of non-descript,older homes in various stages • Some in disrepair, some better than others • Some cannot be sold or rented without massive interior renovations • Working with Habitat for Humanity and other service groups to donate what can be salvaged prior to demolish • Committed to same architectural commitments and design guidelines, including Old Town Overlay as previously approved by the City for original Blackwell Park o Currently no architectural requirements associated with the proposed Blackwell Park Phase II land • Example shown of how they plan to adhere to Old Town Overlay o Proposed 3rd Avenue NE o Front-load garage more than 15 feet behind plane of front of home o Kept alleyway as platted on east side of development, but pavement will not be installed • Topographical challenges • Would need to take down trees for ten feet on each side of alleyway • Some not on their property and would not add value to residences • Maintain buffer to homes east of right-of-way Page 9 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting • West side of development will have alleyways and rear load garages adhering to Old Town Overlay • At request of Planning Staff, have investigated sustainable design features and shared driveways for the development. o Sustainable stormwater features being discussed with Engineering Department o Added need to capture City's stormwater from off-site and incorporate into development and stormwater management system • Attempt to utilize various techniques • Large volume of additional stormwater, their portion and topographic constraints of site will determine final details of plan o Shared driveways: • Not desired by buyers • Increase amount of permeable surface with side-load garages • To be functional, shared area is offset by increased driveway surface • Create unnecessary Engineering and easement complications • Ownership and maintenance conflicts between neighbors can sour neighborhood relations • Conceptual elevations shown of previously built homes o All 23 homes planned to be similar style and configuration to original Blackwell Park o Planning Staff, Mayor, City Council and others wanted Phase II developed to same standards as Phase I o Had to match Old Town Overlay requirements • Urban design within suburban residential zoning classification • R-2 would require drastically larger lots that do not match requirements of Old Town Overlay Ordinance • Instead of rezone to PUD or other zoning classification, best way is to obtain same variances previously approved for Blackwell Park and make same commitments for architectural design and standards to match Old Town Overlay Ordinance • R-2 requires 80-foot lot widths, 10,000 square foot lots, only 35% lot coverage • Impossible to abide by Overlay and reduce number of lots by 30% • Do not need variance for density, R-2 allows 3.9 units per acre • R-2 zoning makes development impractical o Impossible to add pocket park o Maintain 1.3+acre woodland area o Build public street for access and connectivity o Manage stormwater from west, which is currently unmanaged and discharges directly onto private property with no detainment or treatment • City proponent • July 21 City Council approved partial vacation of Burnett Court plat by vacating the roadway of Burnett Court, but leaving intact the platted alleyway to east • Carmel Redevelopment Commission and City Council have work with them as they negotiated purchase of City ground • Consented to Plan Commission plat filing with requirement of installation of pocket park and road connectivity and storm water management • Planning staff has expressed support of approval of variances • Received overwhelming community support from residences surrounding the development • Use and value of area would be higher than existing older, deteriorating and vacant homes • R-2 would make it difficult to transform this urban location into a suburban Old Town Page 10 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting Favorable: IJeff Butler, 3rd Avenue NE in Blackwell Park • Re-located to Carmel three years ago from Springfield, IL o Traditional,new homes in large-lot subdivision far from City center • Looked for more walkable and established neighborhood, with smaller lawn o Looked at downtown Indianapolis, but not ready for condos o Not ready to make financial investment to rehab older home in Meridian Kessler area • Initial assumption Carmel would be another sprawling suburb with large subdivisions and strip malls o Happened upon Blackwell Park in its early stages o Development and changes in Old Town Carmel align closely with personal goals • Been in new home 2 years o Neighborhood has become a close community o Common theme: neighbors looking for smaller lots and walkable area • These developments bringing energy to Old Town Carmel o Businesses in walkable neighborhoods more successful if lots of people live within walkable distances o Blackwell Park Phase II should increase economic viability of Downtown Carmel o New home on smaller lot in established neighborhood will appeal to significant demographic people who seek more urban lifestyle than traditional subdivision • They have had positive experience with Old Town Design Group o Would recommend to any of their friends o Built high-quality home at reasonable cost and stood behind their work Josh Orendi,edge of Blackwell Park,corner of 3rd Avenue NE and 3r`'Street NE • Bought house in 2009 • Walked dog in trees that were Blackwell Park; apprehensive when project started • Feel in love quickly with project when he saw what developed and what it did to his property value • Parking managed during construction • Good work in the community • Old Town Design Group willing to work with him in addressing his concerns Unfavorable: Brian Borlik,Carmelwood subdivision with large lots, northeast of Blackwell Park • Carmel High School purchased seven parcels in their area for Freshman Center • Remonstrated against Blackwell Park Phase I • Listened as others complained about cornfield being developed o He felt most cornfields would be developed • Carmel has become desirable place to live o People are buying existing small homes with large lots, tearing home down and building three or four homes • Getting consideration for buffer zones • Do not expect people to build six or seven homes where there was just one with numerous trees • Has no objection to development or type of homes o Objects because R-2 is not part of Old Town Overlay o Ignores neighbors in Carmelwood Subdivision o Unique area with lots of trees o He felt not platted same because as Carmel developed, forefathers wanted transition area Page 11 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting o Does not object to old homes being torn down o Objects to density o Removed variance for density, by purchasing more property with dead ash trees,box elder and poison ivy • Not much of a park • Undevelopable floodplain • Showed map with requested density o Matches exactly same as Old Town Overlay/R-3 o Against lower density and larger lots o Showed revised map with R-2 density • Lots are 80 feet instead of 55 • A little less dense • Lose five or six homes by adhering to law; loss of money • Not taking into consideration concerns of Carmelwood area o Carmelwood developed around 1936 o No problem with street coming through and extending 3rd Avenue NE • Just not same density in original Blackwell Park Phase I • Granted original variances because of undevelopable wetland area o Kept it as greenspace • Can still develop area with slightly bigger lots for more money • 80-foot lot is not very large maintenance area to take care of • Current R-2 allows 35% coverage o Asking to reduce size of lot and then take up 45% o Showed map with two lot sizes and coverage • Allows continuation of 31"d Avenue NE • Fewer homes,but still more tax dollars • Makes it fair to existing older neighborhood • Not demonstrating any hardship o Undevelopable land is not part of project o R-2 still gives look of Old Town with smaller lots • Nicer for community next door Rebuttal: Andrew Greenwood • Agree Carmelwood area is not part of Old Town Overlay; never intended to be o Distinct break between Burnett Court and Carmelwood • Area west of Carmelwood is set out as traditional Old Town Overlay gridded pattern • Met requirements for density • Practical difficulty adhering to Old Town Overlay in area o R-2 zoning is residential zoning classification • Losing 30% of lots is significant • Connection to 7th Street is requirement in order to purchase ground from City to make connection o Without that, it is less than 5 acres and becomes another classification and design • Would not be able to extend 3rd Avenue NE or manage stormwater with Mr. Borlik's plan • Woodlands area would be excellent area to watch birds o Quite a few great trees along with undesirable trees in floodplain o 1.3 acre wooded lot is not trash • Not as nice as Mr. Borlik's three acres Page 12 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting • Mr. Borlik provides no additional buffer o Their development provides platted buffer along east side with 10-foot right-of-way and 20-foot setback 30 feet between edge of home and property line ® Increases buffer from current Burnett Court • 45% lot coverage is Old Town Overlay requirement Public Hearing closed. Department Report: Alexia Lopez • if variances are granted, 23 single family homes with smaller lot sizes,reduced front yard, smaller width and increased lot coverage o Standards mimic standards in Old Town Overlay o Comparable to properties within character sub-area of Old Town o Will not exceed maximum density allowed of 3.9 lots per acre o Submitted elevations in packet meet architectural standards of Old Town Overlay ® Front-load garages set back minimum of 15 feet from front building line • Approximately 18 letters received in support of variances Department supported variances with Commitments the developer works with Urban Forester to preserve as many individual large trees as possible on the individual lots,design homes to architectural standards in IOverlay and setback of garage 15 feet from front of home. Discussion: • Alleyway will remain a platted grass alley on whole length of east side of property o Cannot be community garden plots since it is City right-of-way • 1.3 acre wooded area will have path and gazebo area for Blackwell Park Phase II residents • Pocket park will be open to whole community, not just Blackwell Park residents o They will pay to install and maintain o Eventually Homeowners Association will maintain • Some lots are larger than the requested 6,600 minimum square feet,but less than required 10,000 square feet o East side of 3rd Avenue, front-load homes are approximately 65-foot lots with 135-foot depth o West side of 31t Avenue with alleyway behind homes, lots are approximately 55 feet wide with 138- foot depth o Some front-load garages are 20 feet behind front of home, with minimum 1.5 feet Mr.Dierckman: • Felt Mr. Borlik was being negatively impacted by density Mr. Borlik: • Did not feel it would be as detrimental financially • Someone who would want his home would prefer large lots and trees • Looking out and seeing back of houses will negatively affect his property • Carmelwood and Blackwell Park Phase H are not part of Overlay area • People did not use alley o City will maintain new street o Will be tight with everyone parking on street Page 13 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting Mr.Dierckman: • Felt it was important to create buffers between housing types • R-2 on east sides would be more appropriate o Would only be 8 lots • Some might think these houses are contributing Mr. Greenwood: • Stated they are expected to meet Old Town Overlay, but R-2 zoning does not allow that o Will increase property values with new homes in area Mr.Dierckman: • Felt this imposed on the next properties o Do they want this density? Mrs. Lopez: • Dealing with this property in this development • Property is adjacent to Old Town with existing alley and continues existing grid-street pattern and similar architecture • This makes sense for this site and this area, given the location close to Old Town Overlay • Carmelwood lots are 2+ acres Mr. Greenwood: • Nearest house is approximately 200 feet o Area drops off and down and is heavily wooded, making new homes hard to see o Development meets density requirements of R-2 zoning Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Docket Nos. 14040018 V through 14040021 V Blackwell Park,Phase II,be approved with the Conditions outlined by the Department: Design the homes to the new construction standards of the Old Town Overlay Zone Character Sub-Area,ZO CH 23D.03.C,excluding the approval process in 23D.04,but including that the front face of attached garages be setback at least 15 feet behind the front line of the principal building. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6-10. (V) Liberty Fund Headquarters. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals for a corporate headquarters building: Docket No. 14060005 V ZO CH 23B.08.03.1: 38 ft.Min Bldg Height along Meridian St,30'4"proposed Docket No. 14060006 V ZO CH 23B.08.03.2: 26 ft.Min Bldg Height along Pennsylvania St, 15'6" proposed Docket No. 14060007 V ZO CH 23B.08.05.B.1: Distribution of first floor gross floor area(59% proposed, max.40% required) Docket No. 14060008 V ZO CH 27.08 and 23B.122.A.1: Number of Parking Spaces(115 proposed,245 required) Docket No. 14060009 V ZO CH 17.05.02.1 and 23B.16.02: Loading Berth(0 proposed, 1 required) The site is located at the northeast corner of 111t/Meridian St., at approximately 11111 N.Meridian St. It is zoned B-6/Business within the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Joseph Scimia of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, on behalf of Liberty Fund, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Joseph Scimia • Liberty Fund is a private educational foundation created in 1960 by Pierre Goodrich o Engaged in investigation,research and educational activities intended to promote discussion and thought pertaining to liberty o Mr. Goodrich is a Wabash graduate who became a lawyer at Harvard after doing a stint during World War I. Page 14 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting ■ Moved to Indianapolis from Winchester, IN in 1923 • Part of very successful family businesses, including Indiana Telephone Company, City Security Corp., Ayrshire Coal Corporation, Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis News, Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette ■ 1960's Goodrich family liquidated some holdings,Pierre Goodrich created Liberty Fund Foundation • Currently located in Fishers, IN • Representatives from Liberty Fund and Rowland Design Group available to answer any questions • Parcel just under 9 acres • Site plan shown • Corporate headquarters will be campus like environment o Central corridor—open courtyard o Surrounded by four wings of development ■ North wing office with two floors ■ South wing hospitality of 8,000 square feet with dining and kitchen,exercise and conference ■ West wing library of 23,000 square feet with two floors and archive room in basement • East wing entry of 2,200 square feet o Property will include outside sculpture gardens and viewing areas throughout development ■ Internal path will connect to extension of public path along Pennsylvania and 111th Streets o On-site parking with turnaround for entry o Reflecting pool for library also serves as retention site o Areas will be dedicated for tree preservation • Variances deal with US 31 Overlay district o District requires 38 feet minimum height and three occupiable floor areas • Proposing 30.4 feet with only two occupiable floors o Along Pennsylvania Street minimum of 26 feet required • Proposing 15.5 feet o Maximum requirement for first floor gross floor area not to exceed 40% of total floor area • Because of less height,proposing 60% of first floor gross floor area o Based on 61,000 square feet of buildable area,requirement is 245 parking spaces • Current operations include 50 fellows and staff members is At most no more than 25 attendees on site for conferences and educational activities • At any given time, maximum number of people on site is 75 ■ Proposing 115 parking spaces ■ With less parking spaces, able to preserve more trees • Roughly 8 acres of trees before development • If developed according to Overlay requirements, 1.8 acres would remain • With land banking the area for parking, able to save 2.8 acres of trees • More campus-like aesthetic environment,rather than asphalt parking lot o Loading dock required in Overlay • They can accommodate any deliveries at the site without loading dock • Loading dock could be added if needed in the future,by removing trees • Propose to preserve trees at this time o Corridor shown with wings, open courtyard and covered area opening up into courtyard • Covered area is used to display artifacts, history and hold meetings • If variances are approved, will go forward with ADLS/DP approval o Preliminary construction renderings shown with design features o Elevations show native Indiana products; split limestone with brick Page 15 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting Favorable: Kathy Allen,landscape architect in Hamilton County • Knows purpose of Ordinance is to get as much density as possible o Feels it needs to be balanced by amount of tree coverage this site offers o Campus feel will preserve as much as possible o Little patches of woods left in the City have environmental benefits • Mitigating for heat island caused by impervious areas • Ground water recharge • Habitat o Knows City has done a lot with Ordinances to try to preserve and mitigate for tree loss throughout City • Monon Trail Overlay Zone Public Hearing closed. Department Report: Alexia Lopez • Feels Petitioner is meeting intent of Overlay based on their building and site designs • Meeting a lot of the standards o Build-to line of 90 feet o Fronting building along US 31 o Not having parking in front of building along US 31 o Able to meet 30-foot greenbelt along US 31 o Preserving a lot of trees on the site • Not as much intensity with office use with less occupiable floors • Reducing parking also helps with tree preservation • Use of site not detrimental • Ask for Condition that tree preservation occurs according to proposed site plan or commit to certain percentage so that is not lost during ADLS/DP process Department recommended positive consideration of all the variances. Discussion: • Close to basic percentage of height of building facing Pennsylvania o Just entrance wing is 12 feet. o Office wing meets height requirement o Do not meet minimum height requirement along any of the boundaries • Do not have 3 occupiable floors(38 feet) along US 31 • Do not have 26 feet along Pennsylvania Street • Do not know which street is "front" o Portions of buildings meet height requirement along Pennsylvania o Main issue for height is along US 31 o Height roughly 80% along Pennsylvania o Library has sub floor underground for archive storage and preservation o To build a third floor that will never be used, does not seem efficient • Might not attract this unique user to the corridor • This user brings prestige and cache o Might be able to raise library roof a few feet to give more openness and presence to library Page 16 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Alan Potasnik: IDocket Nos. 14060005 V through 14060009 V,Liberty Fund Headquarters,be approved for minimum building height along Meridian Street(38 feet required, 30 feet 4 inches proposed),minimum building height along Pennsylvania Street (26 feet required, 15 feet 6 inches proposed); distribution of first floor gross floor area (40 % required, 59% proposed); number of parking spaces (245 required, 115 proposed) and loading berth (1 required, 0 proposed) with the Condition that tree preservation occurs according to the proposed site plan. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 11-15. (V) Meridian & Main,Phase 1,Lot 1. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals for two commercial buildings: Docket No. 14060019 V ZO CH 17.05.01(1): Loading Berth Requirement (none proposed) Docket No. 14060020 V ZO CH Section 23B.08.01.C(2): Build-to-line of 20 ft. on Pennsylvania Way (30 ft. proposed) Docket No. 14060021 V ZO CH 17.04.02: Min.Front Yard setback of 60' on Main St(26 ft proposed) Docket No. 14060022 V ZO CH 33.05.A(5): East/Side Bufferyard of 5 ft.required; 3.5 ft proposed Docket No. 14070001 V ZO CH 23B.08.05.A: Min. bldg gross floor area. 15,000 sq.ft.; 12,000 sq.ft. proposed The site is located at 1435 Pennsylvania Way, at the northeast corner of Main St. and Pennsylvania Way. The site is zoned B-6/Business and lies within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Jamie Browning of Browning Investments, for Meridian 131, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Jamie Browning,Browning Investments, • US 31 dog-bone interchange being built adjacent to parcel; to be completed by Thanksgiving • Main Street improvements will be done some time next year • Parcel shown o Geometry of site presented challenges o After they acquired site, State of Indiana wanted additional property for US 31 improvements o Variances related to these hardships o Already received variances for retail development • US 31 Overlay has specific requirements • Agreed to two-story buildings with one floor occupied • Site plan shown o Two one-story buildings; 12,000 and 15,000 square feet o 15,000 square foot building on corner of interchange • Department ask that building be prominent in nature and architecture for image as entry into Carmel • In theory,building should be on 13151 Street/Main Street o Building does not meet build-do line because of existing utilities o 15,000 square feet minimum on US 31 Corridor • With parking and geometry, 12,000 square feet makes more sense o Reduction in parking because they do not know tenant needs • Will not allow more uses than what parking can handle o Landscape buffer between parcel and St. Christopher's Church should be 5 feet • Asking for 3.5 feet because of geometry • Made several accommodations with the church • Need to find new location for dumpster • Landscape buffer • Amount of parking for shared parking arrangement Page 17 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2014 Meeting Favorable Ron Giedt, St. Christopher's Episcopal Church • Only one of three issues they are concerned about is the 3.5 feet buffer o Believe they can have amicable solution o Do not know how much ground root balls require o Do not know exact location of property line o No objection to roots going into their property o Would like to see at least six feet evergreens for shielding between properties • Do not know if that will work in 3.5 feet buffer o Will continue to work with Mr. Browning • Other issues will come up at Plan Commission committee meeting Petitioner: Jamie Browning • Also seeking variance related to loading berths o Typically 5-story buildings in US 31 Overlay have loading berths o Not helpful for their buildings Public Hearing closed. Department Report: Alexia Lopez • Retail use was previously established in 2009 for 100% of buildings to be used for retail o Normally in US 31 Overlay it is limited to 15% • Three other variances approved in 2012 to allow less than two occupiable floors,reduced amount of parking spaces and a 13,000 square foot building(15,000 required) • New site plan similar to previous proposal for previous variances o Originally just one building was along Main Street with prominent element near roundabout o Now proposing two buildings with one to face toward roundabout for entrance into City from US 31 • Rest of variances are minor and will help with sufficient development of site • Do not anticipate any negative affect on neighboring properties • Plants can be planted in 3.5 feet for buffer o Might restrict growth and height o Might need to be replaced more often o Church is okay if it grows onto their property which has extra width to east • Encourage them to continue to work with the church to resolve remaining issues Department recommended favorable consideration of the variances. Discussion: • Reduction in parking is a Zoning Waiver with the Plan Commission; not a variance with BZA o Zoning waiver allows reduction up to 35% ; greater than that would need a variance Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by James Hawkins: Docket Nos. 14060019 V through 14060022 V and 14070001 V,Meridian &Main,Phase 1 Lot 1,be approved for loading berth requirement(none proposed); build-to line on Pennsylvania Way (20 feet required, 30 feet proposed); minimum front yard setback on Main Street(60 feet required, 26 feet proposed); east side bufferyard Page 18 of 19 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 28,2014 Meeting (5 feet required, 3.5 feet proposed) and minimum building gross floor area (15,000 square feet required, 12,000 I square feet proposed). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Old Business 1. WITHDRAWN ( • . - • . . . ! . ! • : -• - : - _ parking lot lighting: w The site is located at 9621 Day Drive. It is zoned S 2/Residence. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg DcVault for Tom Wood, Inc. Adjournment: Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Alan Potasnik: The Meeting be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Approved this ' ,57-4 day of 47///4.-5 ---- 20) I1 .,. Pr- dent—James Hawkins Secretary— onni• ingley I Filename:7.28.2014 regular meeting Page 19 of 19