Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-24-2000s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 1 CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 24, 2000 .The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana, on January 24, 2000. Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak; Pat Rice; and Charles W. Weinkauf. Director Steve Engelking; Terry Jones; and Laurence Lillig were present representing the Department of Community Services. Charles Weinkauf and Michael Mohr were administered the Oath of Office for their ensuing term. The minutes of the November 22, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. F. Legal Counsel Report John Molitor reported on pending litigation on the Cell Tower decision. A Motion to Dismiss was filed by outside counsel, Ice M iller Donadio & Ryan. Mr. Molitor was optimistic that the Motion would be granted. G. Department Report Terry Jones reported that item 3h., Wingate Inn (V-93-99) has been TABLED to the February meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Charles Weinkauf was elected President by Unanimous Consent. Pat Rice was elected Vice President by Unanimous Consent. H. Public Hearing: 1h. Old Town Apartments (SU-91-99) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to continue a three-unit, multi- family use in a B-5/Business district. The site is located at 740 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-7/Business. Filed by Pat Robinson of PAR Enterprises. Bill Wendling, attorney with Campbell, Kyle & Proffitt at 650 East Carmel Drive, Carmel appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Todd Reitz, attorney, also with Campbell, Kyle & Proffitt was in attendance as well as Pat Robinson, owner of the property. s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 2 A Special Use Variance is being requested to continue operating a three-unit, apartment complex in a residence located at 740 North Rangeline Road. Mr. Wendling gave a history of the property. Last fall, the petitioner had appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals with a request to convert a two-car garage into a working barber shop. At that time, there were questions from the Board; the Department comments recommended that the proposal be accepted. Ms. Rice asked about an adjoining property and whether or not it was properly zoned, since it was a four-unit apartment complex. The answer at that time was not known, and the item was tabled until the status could be known. Mr. Robinson had been in communication with the City because of a question of zoning classification. The property is on the west side of Rangeline Road, several houses south of 136th Street. Mr. Robinson purchased the property in 1992 from a Mrs. Boselle who had lived there for 4 1/2 years. Mrs. Boselle occupied the property until she could no longer maintain it; then the property was taken over by Mr. Robinson. At that time, he submitted an application for a building permit through his contractor, James Allen, to convert the property to a three-unit apartment complex, one unit upstairs, two units downstairs. At that time, Mr. Allen obtained an Improvement Location Permit and the development of the project was left up to the contractor, James Allen. In the meantime, Mr. Allen suffered a heart attack, but did eventually complete the project and a Certificate of Occupancy was finally issued and inspections made. The property has been leased continuously since its completion as a three-unit apartment project. There has been a remonstrator who has brought this to the attention of the City Council and the Mayor, and as a result, the Department of Community Services has brought the matter to the attention of Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson has been responsive from the first time he was notified that there was a problem with the zoning. Mr. Robinson thought he had complied with all requirements, inasmuch as he was given a Permit and a Certificate of Occupancy. No one told Mr. Robinson he needed special permission to receive a zoning variance. It s hould be noted that there are numerous duplexes and apartment complexes within this particular corridor on North Rangeline Road. Mr. Wendling circulated photographs of the completed apartment complex at 740 North Rangeline Road. The City requested that Mr. Robinson go through the process to obtain a Special Use for a three apartment complex out of a single family residence. The house contains almost 1600 square feet. The lower level consists of 1,058 square feet, divided in two units containing 529 square feet each and marketed as efficiencies. The upper level consists of 560 square feet and is a one (bedroom?) apartment unit. Since the conversion of the property into rentals, there has been nothing cited by the City indicating that there have been problems, or code violations, or violations of any nature. It was discovered that the property should have gone through the zoning process at the time the building permit was s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 3 requested. According to Mr. Wendling, his client takes responsibility for the situation and should have followed up. Mr. Robinson owns a number of properties throughout the community that he leases and has tried to be a good neighbor. Mr. Robinson creates a market for individuals that need smaller, efficiency living in the Carmel area. The units are presently fully leased, and have been for a number of years. Mr. Wendling reminded the Board that in a B-5 Business district, it is an intention of the district to allow for comparable mixed use of residential and business in close proximity. A Special Use shall generally be considered favorably by the Board and excepting cases where the Board finds that the proposed Special Use is obviously inappropriate due to unique considerations. In other words, if there is something so unusual about the way the property is operated, the Board would go against the presumption of approval. Mr. Wendling presented letters to the Board from individuals in support of Mr. Robinson's project and photographs of other properties that Mr. Robinson owns in an effort to show the types of citizens Mr. Robinson target markets. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition. The following appeared: Chuck Phillips, 730 N. Rangeline Road, Carmel, stated this home had been in his family since 1959. Mr. Phillips had filed a complaint with the City in 1996 when Mr. Robinson moved in next door and started construction on the property. Mr. Phillips was under the impression that Mr. Robinson was constructing a double. At that time, Mr. Phillips was told that a double was allowed within the zoning. Mr. Phillips learned that a building permit had not been issued. Mr. Phillips then filed a Request for Information on the entire project. At an even later date, Mr. Phillips found that a permit was issued under another person's name as owner of the property, and incorrect zoning was recited. Mr. Phillips stated that Mr. Robinson owns a number of properties in and around Carmel and should have been aware of the zoning of the property. Mr. Robinson knows what he is doing when he renovates properties, and is aware of the process. Mr. Robinson should have had a proper permit from the inception. Mr. Phillips stated that according to Mr. Wendling, there have been no problems with any neighbors; however, Mr. Phillips produced a newspaper article regarding a neighbor with 30 to 60 cats in residence. People drive through his yard to get to the neighbors' and park in his driveway. Mr. Phillips submitted photographs to the Board showing the cars parked blocking his drive. Parking is very limited in this area. Mr. Phillips stated that according to the B-5 zoning, there s hould be 800 square feet per dwelling unit. Mr. Phillips also submitted a copy of the Complaint he filed in 1996. Mr. Phillips asked that the Board not approve the Special Use. Lance Harting, 641 First Avenue NW, Carmel, three lots away and behind the subject property, appeared before the Board as president of the Old Town Neighborhood s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 4 Association. Mr. Harting stated that he had added a second story to his home and a carriage house garage, and had complied with the zoning rather than requesting a variance at the time he constructed his garage. The Old Town Neighborhood is not a subdivision and does not have covenants and restrictions. The only protection the residents have is the zoning and Mr. Harting was hopeful that the Board would enforce the zoning in place, not grant the Variance, and protect the people in residence. Mr. Harting did not believe that Mr. Robinson was not aware of the zoning. The original permit, filed by James Allen, listed Mr. Allen as the property owner. This information is incorrect if not fraudulent--Mr. Allen was never the property owner. The neighborhood does have rental properties and there is no problem with responsible renters and responsible landlords. The first responsibility of a property owner is to make sure you comply with the zoning. Mr. Harting commented that allowing three rental units under 500 square feet, crammed into an original, single dwelling unit is not an asset to the neighborhood. The neighborhood is in transition, and the City has thus far put a lot of money into the area by installing old style street lights, brick sidewalks, and sewers. The City government has been responsive to the Old Town Neighborhood and Mr. Harting was hopeful that the Board would also be responsive and not allow the three-unit, multi-family use in this location. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared: Chastity Heist, 740 North Range Line Road, Carmel, spoke as a tenant of Mr. Robinson. Ms. Heist currently lives in the unit previously occupied by the "cat lady." Mr. Robinson had offered the return of Ms. Heist's security deposit if she wanted to move, or, if she preferred to stay, Mr. Robinson approved having the carpets steam-cleaned and deodorized any time at his expense. Ms. Heist stated that her apartment is in good working order, and any problems she has had, Mr. Robinson has responded promptly. There are designated parking spaces and two additional spaces for visitors. Most residents are at work during the day and the lot is empty. Ms. Heist stated that Mr. Robinson takes care of the apartments and maintains the grounds--the apartments are not an eyesore in any way. Charles Hook appeared before the Board on behalf of "TTTLLP" which purchased a property at 750 North Range Line Road approximately one and one-half years ago. The property is a 1950's white ranch home adjacent and to the north of Mr. Robinson's property. Mr. Hook converted the property into a business for his business and his wife's business. Many of the recent homes sold in this area have been sold as commercial sites. Mr. Hook stated that he had worked with the Department of Community Services and the City Engineer to make sure that he was in compliance with regulations, zoning, drainage, landscaping, etc. A number of owners have made tremendous capital improvements to their properties. s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 5 Mr. Hook stated that he had toured Mr. Robinson's apartments and was impressed with them; they were all new appliances, neat and clean. Mr. Robinson has been an excellent neighbor. Mr. Hook shares parking with Mr. Robinson property--the driveway and parking lot (5 spaces) is asphalt covered--Mr. Phillips' drive is gravel and there is a definite property line between the asphalt and gravel. Mr. Hook stated that he was not aware that there was a Neighborhood Association for the Old Town neighborhood, however, Mr. Hook was hopeful of getting involved with the Old Town Neighborhood Association after this evening. Mr. Hook stated that Mr. Phillips had put "boulders" on his property line that make it very difficult for Mr. Hook's invitees to turn around in order to exit his property. Mr. Phillips also parks his auto in such a position to be as close to the asphalt as possible, directly opposite the stairs, and creates a very narrow pathway for vehicles to navigate in and out of the property. Mr. Hook stated that Mr. Robinson has been an excellent neighbor and was hopeful that the Board would be favorable to Mr. Robinson's request for a Variance. Mr. Wendling's rebuttal: Mr. Wendling was complimentary of the City's efforts on behalf of Old Town Carmel. Mr. Wendling showed a "before" photograph of the property. Mr. Robinson has paved the parking area to accommodate 5 vehicles; there is also street parking available. The "cat lady" had cats in the unit for 5 days before Mr. Robinson took legal action to have the cats and the renter removed. Mr. Wendling did not understand why this was a concern at this point. The contractor filled out the Improvement Location Permit, and the location clearly says 740 North Rangeline Road and describes the work to be done. Mr. Wendling stated that his client did not side-step, deceive, fraud, or misrepresent. Mr. Wendling was hopeful that the City would be responsive to the question as to whether or not Mr. Robinson has been responsive to the inquiry. Terry Jones of the Department of Community Services reported that the history of the issuance of the permit was accurate. The zoning maps are probably not the best available and there are probably incorrect designations on the maps. The situation on North Rangeline Road is even more complicated because there are pieces of property zoned differently that are only one property away from each other. The individuals that review plans do their best to make sure that the zoning is correct within the classification. In this particular instance, a mistake was made and a permit was issued. A Special Use should have been obtained prior to filing--the square footage for each unit s hould be 800 square feet in a B-5 District. The Department does not support the application for a Special Use. If the Board does deny the application, the Department would recommend giving the petitioner additional time to allow the tenants to re-locate. Mr. Weinkauf noted that the permit application does recite the owner as James Allen rather than Pat Robinson, and that it also indicates the type of improvement as being a porch with "re-model" being checked. The statement under type of construction says "Made three small apartments out of one house." Does this mean that this was written s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 6 after the fact or is it a part of the original application that indicates "Make three small apartments out of one house?" The application submitted does not indicate anything in the zoning classification of property, yet in the copy of the application submitted by Mr. Phillips, it states that the zoning classification is B-3. Otherwise, the applications appear to be identical. Mr. Weinkauf thought someone either wrote on the application after the fact, "Made" three small apartments, etc. or "Made" was misspelled and should have been "Make." Mr. Wendling responded that the application was for the addition of the landing or porch on the outside. The improvement was the landing or porch. Mr. Molitor opined that it may well be that the Permit itself is not really relevant to the issue before the Board, other than the fact that the City's involvement in this creates some exposure for the City in terms of the difficulty now created for the owner and the occupants. Point of Clarification: Mr. Weinkauf stated that when he read the petition, the wording indicated that the petitioner seeks a special use approval within the B-5 Business District. However, the site is zoned and it was read into the record, as B-7 zoning. The site is B-7. Earlene Plavchak asked if the Department was not supportive of the petition because of the size of the units. Terry Jones responded that the size of the units is certainly part of it. However, it is a definite zoning violation and how it occurred to exist is the Department's rationale. Earlene Plavchak commented that the owner had no direct influence on the mistake; it was kind of an oversight by the City. Terry Jones responded that that was probably a fair assessment. Pat Rice asked about the parking sp aces and said it s ounded as if Mr. Robinson's property was being utilized by more persons that the tenants. Pat Robinson, 3277 Smokey Ridge Circle, Carmel, appeared before the Board and stated that he is the owner of the property in question. There are five blacktop sp aces for parking and two garages to total 7 parking spaces. The next door neighbor has been given permission to use the parking area if needed. Pat Rice asked Mr. Wendling if his client was not aware of the square footage limitation or what was to be permitted. Mr. Wendling responded that at the time the apartment units were constructed, his client was not in the full time landlord, leasing business--he had an outside job. At that time, Mr. Robinson hired Mr. Allen to handle the project for him. Mr. Wendling stated that at no time did his client try to "pull a fast one" on the City. In order to get a building permit, you have to submit detailed plans for review by the City to make sure it is in s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 7 compliance with code sections of electrical, exits, plumbing, all manner of things, and Mr. Robinson left it up to Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen may have made a mistake, we don't know. We did what we thought was appropriate--we spent the money to get the application, spent the money for the Improvement Location Permit, we obtained the Certificate of Occupancy--that means someone inspected the property. If the petitioner had known that he had to go through the process to obtain a Use Variance, or a Special Use Variance, or a Developmental Standards Variance, we would have done so. We are here today because we have been working with the City to resolve this problem. We did not try to avoid it and no legal argument has been made that says you are estopped for bringing this up. In response to questions from Pat Rice regarding Mr. Allen, Mr. Wendling stated that Mr. Allen is presently paralyzed as a result of a heart-attack. Pat Rice asked if the owner were responsible for any mistakes or oversights that Mr. Allen may have made on his behalf. John Molitor responded that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This case is just a lot of honest mistakes occurring. Mr. Molitor did not feel that the City was deliberately trying to lead this land owner astray by telling him he could do something he was not allowed to do. Charles Weinkauf then commented that there may have been mistakes made in the issuance of the permits. The remodeling went forth, but even if the apartments met the square footage requirements, the fact remains that a Special Use permit for any type of multiple family dwelling would have needed to take place. It is difficult to believe that someone in the rental business is not aware of what needs to be done as far as various Special Use permits, zoning ordinances, etc. are concerned. Beyond that, let's assume that those mistakes were honest mistakes and the issuance of the permits were honest, etc. The apartments are still under the allowable square footage already in place by the zoning ordinances at the time of the application. That would be the ignorance of the law if anything were to exist at that time. The mistakes can be overlooked, but the square footage requirement was bothersome. Mr. Wendling responded that Mr. Weinkauf was correct, his client should have been responsible for knowing what the zoning codes are. When the application was submitted and approved, and there was no response, then the permit was issued, it only reinforced to his client that it was an allowable development. Mr. Wendling stated that his client is not trying to pull one over on everybody, his client has not willfully tried to skirt the responsibilities of the zoning. Mr. Weinkauf referred to the application that refers to the type of improvement as being "remodel, a porch--type of construction, multi-family." It does not state anywhere on the application that the structure is to be remodeled into three apartment that are less than the 800 feet requirement per dwelling by Ordinance. s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 8 Mr. Wendling stated that the plans were submitted with the application. Terry Jones confirmed that the plans were attached and a multi-family indicates 3 or more units. The individual who reviewed the plans in the Department was not aware of the 800 square foot requirement in the B-5 District. Leo Dierckman commented that the issue is not so much the past, but whether or not conversion of single-family residential properties to multi-family housing should be encouraged. In response to questions from Pat Rice, John Molitor stated that the landowner is ultimately responsible to follow the code. It is unfortunate that the City made mistakes, but the City does not have any liability unless, again, there is an Estoppel which only occurs when there is some sort of deceitful intent--Mr. Molitor did not believe that that was the case in this instance. There were questions asked of the Department regarding the process in making application for an Improvement Location Permit. Mr. Robinson stated that he had no idea of the 800 foot requirement until this evening, however, he did suspect there might be "something going on." Mr. Robinson referred to another project of his that would be heard this evening--also small apartment units. The units in the Docket being discussed are about 20 to 30% larger than the ones located across the street that have been there for approximately 13 years. From an owner's standpoint, Mr. Robinson stated that his place is nicer, bigger, and better than others he had seen. It was Mr. Robinson's belief that he was helping Carmel and helping the Mayor with restoration up and down the street--and then find later that it is not correct. Mr. Robinson stated that he did entrust the project to Mr. Allen, and Mr. Robinson thought he had done it correctly. Mr. Robinson stated the property was inspected and if anything structurally, electrically, etc. had not been in compliance it would have been fixed. Likewise, when it was inspected, there was no mention of the size of the units or the number of units, so Mr. Robinson assumed the project was OK. Mr. Robinson reiterated that he had not tried to shirk his responsibilities at any time. Mr. Robinson stated that if he had known it wasn't right, he would not have bought it in the first place (1992.) Mr. Weinkauf asked if it were possible to renovate the building to provide for 2, 800 square feet apartments. Mr. Robinson responded that it was virtually impossible because of the layout. A lot of square feet would be lost in constructing a stairwell on the inside. John Molitor explained to the Board that there are two more options available than just to confirm or deny. Even if approval were granted, the applicant would have to apply for a developmental standards variance in order to have units smaller than 800 square feet. The second option on the approval side would be to treat the entire application as a Use Variance--this also requires a higher burden of proof and proof of certain hardships on the petitioner. There are two options on the deny side. One is to deny because of non- compliance and immediately stop violating the ordinance and come into compliance s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 9 immediately. The second is to deny, but under the circumstances, because of the City's "involvement" in the violation, grant a grace period of time to be determined by the Board. There was discussion by the Board on Mr. Molitor's comments. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of Docket No. SU-91-99. The public hearing was then closed. The motion for approval on Docket No. SU-91-99 was DENIED, 2 in favor, 3 opposed (Leo Dierckman, Pat Rice, and Chuck Weinkauf.) 2h. Old Town Apartments (SU-92-99) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to continue a four-unit, multi- family use in a B-5/Business district. The site is located at 751 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-5/Business. Filed by Pat Robinson of PAR Enterprises. Bill Wendling, attorney with Campbell, Kyle & Proffitt, 650 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board along with Todd Reutz and Pat Robinson. The subject property is located at 751 North Range Line Road, and adjoins the "garage" previously used as a sign shop that is recited as item 1i. under Old Business. The main structure at 751 North Range Line Road was initially constructed as a multi-family residence and was purchased 11 years ago by Mr. Robinson. Research by the petitioner and the City indicates that the property was never granted a zoning variance. The units on the lower level total 934 square feet, or 467 square feet per unit. The upper level is 861 square feet, or 430 square feet per unit. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared: Mr. Hook , 750 North Range Line Road, Carmel, reiterated his position and was perplexed as to the process, since he had followed the process at the direction of the City and sees other properties that he does not feel are in compliance. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: Bill Sanders, 720 First Avenue NE, Carmel appeared before the Board and stated that he had built his home in 1992. Mr. Sanders' property abuts the rear of the subject site and looks out at the garage mentioned in 1i. that is proposed to be remodeled as a barber shop. Mr. Sanders expressed concern with parking. Whether parking is designated or not, cars park in the Church parking lot. Parking for tenants and invitees is not adequate s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 10 in the number of spaces. Mr. Sanders also expressed concern with the proposed barber shop and space for their patrons parking and people employed there. Mr. Sanders also expressed concern with tenant profiles and management off-site as far as policing any problems that may arise. According to Mr. Sanders, there was a past incident with tenants setting the Church roof on fire with fireworks, and this is a concern. Mr. Sanders referred to a police incident and cited security as a definite issue as well. Light spillage, density and signage are also concerns. Mr. Harting appeared before the Board representing the Old Towne Neighborhood Association. Mr. Harting referred to some inconsistencies in Mr. Wendling's presentation. According to Mr. Harting, the initial structure was not built 13 years ago, it was perhaps redesigned into apartments 11 years ago. The structure is an American four- square that was probably built in the teens or twenties. From information available from people in the area and historical contacts, it was probably the parsonage for the Church. Sometimes, people doing interior remodeling and skip the permit process because the construction doesn't show from the outside. Mr. Hartig stated that he would like to see this residence revert to a single-family one day; however, he was willing to live with the current zoning which allows two apartments. Mr. Harting stated that the only protection the Old Towne Neighborhood Association has is zoning--there are no covenants and restrictions. Mr. Harting appealed to the Board to enforce the zoning that is already in place and deny Mr. Robinson's petition. Rebuttal: Mr. Wendling stated that the B-5 zoning already in place permits the petitioner to request this particular use. Mr. Wendling reiterated that his client was not attempting to "get away with" anything. The property was not purchased under cloak and veil, there was no attempt at "covering up." It is obvious to anyone driving by that it is a multi- family use because of the stairwell. Mr. Wendling agreed to the correct--the building was remodeled 13 years ago--Mr. Robinson bought it 11 years ago. In regard to the parking spaces, there are 11 spaces and there are designated spaces in the paved parking area. Mr. Robinson was unaware of any tenant profile problems. Mr. Robinson is aware of the fireworks situation, and this has been addressed in the lease agreement. The pastor of the Church was not available this evening but did say that parking had been addressed through a sharing of spaces and there was no problem. The pastor is in support of the petition and commented that in the 11 years Mr. Robinson has owned the property, he has maintained it. Mr. Weinkauf commented that if there indeed is a need for this type of square footage unit in this community, the City Council needs to change the square footage requirements that exist in the permitted uses in B-5/Business District. Terry Jones stated that the Board would be approving (or denying) the Special Use to allow a multiple family dwelling at this location. The applicant has been made aware that 800 square feet is the requirement for the area. Basically, the applicant would need to return to the BZA and request a developmental standards variance to allow a smaller size unit. At that point, the Board would be making a decision as to whether or not the square footage is acceptable. The issue for this evening is for the use of the property as a s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 11 multiple dwelling unit. The size is a factor, but the petitioner is aware that the square footage will necessitate a variance. The other option is to change the ordinance. The Department does not support the application. Both parties have done an adequate representation of the situation. It should be noted that some communities in Indiana have ordinances to the effect that after a certain period of time, if the planning and zoning departments have not brought zoning violations to an owner's attention, the use is approved. Each case is looked at on its own merit. Point of clarification: The matter being discussed is the Special Use for a multiple dwelling unit at 751 North Range Line Road, not the garage proposed as a barber shop. Mr. Weinkauf asked the Department's logic for not being in favor of the multiple dwelling unit. Terry Jones resp onded that one of the reasons is the square footage, another reason is the question of the highest and best use of the property, and whether or not the structure is multiple family dwelling. John Molitor commented that the approval of Special Use would allow the petitioner a three, four, or five unit boarding house, as long as he met the 800 square foot rule. Otherwise, they would have to ask for a variance for the smaller size units. Mr. Wendling reiterated that he was not aware of the 800 square foot rule until this evening. In response to questions from Pat Rice, Terry Jones responded that the current ordinances have been in place since the 1980's and for the most part, have not been changed since 1960. Pat Robinson was given permission to address the Board. If the Ordinance is really 800 square feet, then there is no place for a one bedroom apartment in Carmel. There is no place for the person that works at McDonald's, or Kroger, or C ub, or HotShots Photos. These people will have to live somewhere besides Carmel. Even the one bedrooms run over $500 per month, and a two bedroom, 800 square feet would rent for $700-800. It would not be economically feasible to rent to service people and they would have to commute to Carmel because they would not be able to afford to live here. Something here is wrong! Mr. Robinson admitted that he may be talking to the wrong Board, but said he certainly would not have purchased either property if he had thought he could not have "done something with them." Earlene Plavchak moved for approval of Old Town Apartments, SU-92-99. APPROVED 3 in favor 2 opposed (Leo Dierckman and Pat Rice.) Mr. Wendling then requested to TABLE UV-61-99, the Barber Shop issue, until such time as the space requirement could be ironed out. The Board approved Mr. Wendling's request. At this point, the Board took a short recess. s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 12 3h. Wingate Inn (V-93-99) TABLED to February. 4h-11h. Rose Walk on Main (SU-94-99; SU-95-99; V-96-99; V-97-99; V-98-99; V-99-99; V-100-99; V-101-99) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to establish two, one-story office/retail buildings and five multi-family buildings on 4.70 acres. Petitioner further requests Developmental Standards Variances of Section 14.4.1: Maximum Height to increase the height of the northernmost multi-family building from 35 feet to 62 feet; Section 14.4.2: Minimum Front Yard to reduce the setback for the office/retail buildings from 60 feet to zero (0) feet; Section 14.4.5: Minimum Rear Yard to reduce the setback for the two southernmost multi-family buildings from 20 feet to 10 feet; Section 14.4.7: Minimum Lot Size from 5000 square feet to 2000 square feet per dwelling unit; Section 14.4.8: Minimum Ground Floor Area from 800 square feet per dwelling unit to 500 feet per dwelling unit; and Section 14.5: Parking Requirements to reduce the parking ratio from 2 sp aces per dwelling unit to 1.2 sp aces per dwelling unit. The site is located in the 900 block of West Main Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Steve A. Pittman of Pembroke Place, LLC. Steve Pittman, 306 M ill Ridge Drive, Carmel, Neal Smith and Mark Boyce of Pembroke Place LLC appeared before the Board representing the applicant. The project will create a mixed-use environment of office, retail, and housing that is an integrated part of the proposed, Old Meridian District. The office and retail space will consist of approximately 5,000 square feet designed to serve small, entrepreneurial businesses. The development will also consist of 80 rental residences, specially designed to serve individuals age 55 and over so that they may enjoy a secure sense of personal independence. The target market is to single households, age 55 and over, fully independent, yet desire a one bedroom residence priced in the $500. to $600. range. Mr. Pittman stated that this is an unmet need in the Carmel market and is an expanding demographic segment within the community. It is believed that Rose Walk on Main will incorporate the best elements of all the developments researched. Mr. Pittman represented that the location on West Main Street fits in with the proposed Old Meridian District Plan and its goals. If there is a loophole in the Old Meridian Plan, it is the existing zoning classification of B-3 that allows the development of a standard apartment complex and retail center that follows sprawl patterns. Mr. Pittman went over the history of the site and the adjoining areas. The site has a substantial amount of frontage on Main Street that is earmarked for up-grading to a multi- lane lane parkway. It is believed that the site is well positioned to serve the proposed target markets, and that the area amenities will improve as the Old Meridian District Plan adopted by the Council becomes a reality. s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 13 Mr. Pittman displayed building elevations. The buildings are proposed to be close to the street and cars would be parked to the rear of the buildings. The buildings are Georgian in architectural style and complements the Old Meridian District. The building layout provides for two courtyards. A pedestrian way will be paved to connect walkers from Main Street to the Carmel School recreation area. The office/retail area will provide individual identity to the specialty retailer or small entrepreneur. The reduced size of 800 square feet will appeal to businesses that do not need the typical minimum size of 1200 square feet. The residences will include a variety of special design features: Individual entry area with a recessed door; grocery bag ledge; doorknocker and peephole; lever door handles rather than knobs; wheelchair access to baths and kitchens in some units; a walkable neighborhood with minimal slopes and stairs; elevators for access; stairways with reduced pitches and landings at the mid-point of each staircase; trash bin locations near the units; tight-loop carpet; and large closets and storage areas. There will also be a fireside community room. There are six variances being requested. These are: An n increase in the building height to 62 feet (center building only;) a reduction in the front yard to zero feet; a reduction in the rear yard setback to 10 feet; a reduction in the minimum square feet per unit to 2,000 square feet; a reduction in the minimum floor area to 500 square feet; and a reduction in the parking ratio to 1.2 sp aces per unit. The proposed development will be an important contribution to the goals of the Old Meridian District. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the proposed development; the following appeared: Paul Price, owner of a business at 12999 Old North Meridian, stated that he had no problem with the proposed development. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the proposed development; no one appeared. Charles Weinkauf asked about floor plans of the proposed units with the reduced square footage of 500 square feet. Steve Pittman responded that he had not brought those preliminary plans with him this evening. In prior experience from Pembroke Place, all units are two bedrooms and rent between $750./$800. per month. A number of widows and widowers had requested one bedroom apartments with ample closets and bath area. Basically, the only difference between those being proposed and those in existence at Pembroke Place is one bedroom as opposed to two bedrooms. Earlene Plavchak asked about approval for any agencies involved. Laurence Lillig responded that the petitioner opted to settle the question of land use first prior to the expense of engineering and final architectural design. The petitioner did appear before s:\BZA\Minutes.bza\bza2000jan 14 the Technical Advisory Committee last week and plans to return to TAC after Board of Zoning Appeals approval. The public hearing was then closed. Leo Dierckman moved for approval of SU-94-99, Rose Walk on Main, contingent upon approval of all Technical Advisory Committee issues and Department approval of the floor plans. Earlene Plavchak moved for approval of SU-95-99, Rose Walk on Main, subject to all TAC issues being met. Leo Dierckman moved for approval of V-96-99, Rose Walk on Main, subject to all TAC issues being met. APPROVED 5-0. Leo Dierckman moved for approval of V-97-99, Rose Walk on Main, subject to all TAC issues being met. APPROVED 5-0. Pat Rice moved for approval of V-98-99, subject to all TAC issues being met. APPROVED 5-0. Michael Mohr moved for approval of V-99-99, subject to all TAC issues being met. APPROVED 5-0. Pat Rice moved for approval of V-100-99, subject to Department approval of the floor plan of the A & B units. APPROVED 5-0. Earlene Plavchak moved for approval of V-101-99, subject to all TAC issues being met. APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Molitor noted that a formal Finding of Fact will need to be completed for the denial of the first item on the Agenda. Mr. Molitor recommended scheduling an executive session in conjunction with the next regularly stated meeting to discuss the Cell Tower case and a potential settlement on the Regan case located on West 136th Street. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 PM. ____________________________________ Charles W. Weinkauf, President ____________________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary