Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-19 • .,- ,(. ) l o arme : , I /ND I AN% Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, October 28, 2019 Members Present: Alan Potasnik-President Brad Grabow-Vice President Kent Broach Leo Dierckman James Hawkins Staff Present: Angie Conn Nathan Chavez Mike Hollibaugh Legal Counsel: John Molitor Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings: A Motion made by Leo and seconded by Brad to approve the minutes from September,23, 2019 BZA Meeting. Approved 5-0 ICommunications,Bills,and Expenditures: Angie Conn: • Docket No. 19090018 V: Ashton Subdivision Perimeter Fence,are requesting for a suspension of the Rules of Procedure.Their legal ad stated to be heard by the Plan Commission rather than the BZA Hearing Officer. Everything else was met for their public notice requirements. • Remonstrators have requested that the agenda item#1. Sprunger Residence/Pool Setback,CA to be tabled. A Motion made by Kent,and seconded by Alan to Suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to hear Docket No. 19090018 V: Ashton Subdivision Perimeter Fence at tonight's meeting. Approved 5-0. Reports,Announcements,Legal Counsel Report,and Department Concerns: John Molitor: Does the Board want to make a motion to tabled and continue the Sprunger CA? There's no right for an interested party to request a continuous. It's at the Board's discretion. James: Is there someone here representing the remonstrators for the Sprunger Residence? What's the basis of this request? John Molitor: Yes,you may ask him to make a brief statement. David Shelton,DeFur Voran, LLP: I am here on the behalf of the remonstrators. We sent a letter on October 25. The two reasons for this request because Larry Delia cannot be at this meeting tonight. Mr. Delia is one of the homeowners that is mostly impacted by this petition. Also, we have not seen the new site plan for the buildable area of Lot 9, which they will probably present it tonight. We would like some time to look into this. Alan: Are there any concerns from the Board? Leo: Has the Petitioner followed the process?Angie: For the most part, yes. Typically we like to see a site plan 5 days before the meeting. We do have instances where Petitioners present their Isite plans at the meeting. Staff is ok with that. Leo: From a legal standpoint,are you aware of anything that is preventing us from hearing this? Angie: No. Brad: We don't even know if a site plan is relevant to our deliberations and voting on the petition. Alan: I will rule that we will proceed with this. Public Hearings: 1 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 (CA) Sprunger Residence/Pool Setback,Commitment Amendment. The applicant seeks the following approval: 1. Docket No. 19070011 CA Request to modify existing commitments related to variance Docket No. 18110001 V. The site is located at 2180/2198 Steffee Dr. It is zoned S1/Residence and located on Lots 8&9 of Towne Oak Estates Subdivision. Filed by Rick Lawrence of Nelson&Frankenberger, on behalf of Jason& Sarah Sprunger,owners. Petitioner:Rick Lawrence: • With me tonight are Jason Sprunger,homeowner and Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson&Frankenberger • The Sprungers seek a CA to allow them to sell Lot 9 independent of Lot 8 • We have spent the past several months working with Staff in regarding this request and to ensure it would be supported by the Department • Presented an aerial photo of the lot 8 and 9 • In Nov.,2018 the Sprungers with the assistance from their builder,filed a petition seeking a variance from the minimum 10' sideyard setback,and crossing 20' over side property line was granted by the BZA Hearing Officer with condition of the execution of recording a commitment prohibiting the individual transfer of lots 8 and 9. • Tab 3 in our info packet contains the recorded commitments.Presented the original proposed site plan that includes the pool. The location of the proposed pool crosses over the lot line between lot 8 and 9 by 20'. • As construction at this residence progressed, it became apparent to the Sprungers the house was not going to be develop as originally intended. The layout of the house no longer made it feasible to install the pool in the location reference in the commitment.The desire to no longer install the pool in prior proposed location have resulted in the Sprungers reevaluating the commitment. • Staff noted the driveway for lot 8 would encroach into lot 9. Staff asked the Petitioners to provide a conceptual site plan that addresses how a potential house can be built on lot 9 with the same driveway entrance. • Presented a concept site plan showing a potential house and copies were passed out to the Board members • The new conceptual site plan shows the new location of the house and incorporates a shared driveway for these two lots.It meets all setbacks and easement restrictions that are underlined in the S-1 zoning guidelines. • We believe it is appropriate to amend the commitment to provide for an individual sale of lots 8 and 9 due to the fact the Sprungers are no longer constructing improvements over the shared property line Alan: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing. Public Comments: David Shelton,DeFur Voran LLC: I represent the remonstrators,the Browns and Delias,who live directly behind the subject property and are directly impacted by these commitments. Originally we remonstrated against the initial variance petition last year.Our concern was how the applicant would leave lot 9.The commitments originally indicated the two lots would be treated as a single buildable lot and no structures would be built on lot 9.The findings of fact for the variance stated the petitioner's desire was to build their house centrally located within lot 8 and 9. Their driveway is entirely contained on lot 9. We want some certainty to what is going to happen. Rex Brown,2167 Finchley Road: I live behind lot 8.I am a custom home builder, so I've been watching the development of this subdivision. One of the reasons we want this petition to be tabled,because today we submitted a four page letter that explained our opposition and I don't know if the Board have seen this letter. Their changes have resulted in lowering the property values.The applicant have taken advantage of building their house on two lots.Their pool should not matter at all.The build line for lot 9 is much further back.The house is setback farther,and is closer to us and is also out of line from the other houses on Steffee Drive. It does not seem fair the petitioner is allowed to do this. Carrie Delia,2151 Finchley Road: I live directly behind lot 9.Read the Findings of Fact from the original petition- Docket No. 18110001 V. I don't think any home should be built on lot 9 because of the awkward shape. A house being built here will impact all the houses that surround it. I think it's ridiculous that they are going to recant their commitments to us.Our homes will decrease in value.This is really unjust. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Rick Lawrence: • We were aware of the remonstrance letters from the neighbors to the north of the subject property • The site plan was developed to show what Staff wanted to see and for us to have something to show the public Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 2 • We want to go back to what it was before,as two separate lots. Department Report: Angie Conn: I • This has always been two platted lots.This neighborhood was platted in early 2007. • The variance was for the swimming pool that was going to encroach 20' onto lot 9. With the swimming pool going away,that frees up 20' of area on lot 9. • The updated site plan that we receive tonight does show that a house can be placed on the lot and meet all the requirements.The one issue that needs to be addressed is the shared driveway. A shared easement and maintenance agreement would be needed for the shared driveway. • Parking requirements for a single family home is two spaces per dwelling,which excludes the private garage. We need to make sure lot 8 can accommodate parking on their driveway.One option is a replat.The shared property line would be shifted to the east. • Staff does recommends positive consideration after these items are addressed Board Comments: James: On 12/28/18,approval was given for the 10' side yard setback with the condition that these two lots could not be sold separately. Is that accurate? Rick Lawrence: Yes. James: What didn't work out for the Sprungers? Rick Lawrence: As they were developing the house with the builder,the vision they had didn't come out the way they wanted. The pool lines at their location are not feasible.The pool was the major point of combining the lots and now they are removing the pool from their plans.James: What exactly happened with the sight lines for the pool? Rick Lawrence: They envisioned a layout of the first floor that would allow them to look out their first floor windows to see their kids playing in the pool.As the house was being built,those sight lines weren't there.Putting the pool in that location didn't work. James: Has lot 9 been available for development since 2007? Rick Lawrence: I don't know the answer to that. James: I assume the building lines have not changed at all. Rick Lawrence:Nothing has changed. Brad: Did the rear building ie etback line change with the Sprungers variance approval?Rick Lawrence:Nothing has changed with that. There's a 20' tback building line. Brad: Would your client be willing to commit to an expansion of the rear building line? Rick awrence: consulted with Jason Sprunger. There is a tree preservation area and the Sprungers are willing to expand this area by 10' further south as a buffer. It's more heavily wooded on lot 9 than lot 8.Brad: There's not buildable lots to the east or south? Rick Lawrence: Correct,it is a common area and Coxhall Gardens. Leo: Is there anything preventing an access agreement easement for the shared driveway? Angie: That's one option,and they would need to have them recorded. Leo: Are there any setback issues? Angie: A variance was granted for the sideyard setback for lot 8. Jon Dobosiewicz: Staff indicated there would be an administrated replat of the two lots to accommodate the required parking outside of the garage on lot 8.The administrated replat of the lot would modify sideyard property line and the separate driveways would be on their respected lots. James: In order to replot,this commitment amendment has to be approved?Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes.The commitment doesn't allow the two lots to be developed independently. The provided concept site plan does not require any variances and it brings back the two lots to the status quo which existed prior to the adoption of the variance.James: So Lot 9 was always been able to be develop as is depicted in your concept plan? Jon Dobosiewicz: The house could have been moved further north within 20' as allowed in ordinance. The concept plan depicts the house setback from the rear(north)line is 48.8'.Mr.Grabow ask for consideration of additional tree preservation area and that can be extended 10' further to the south. James: Are you willing to commit to extend the tree buffers and execute the replat? Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes James: I don't agree with approving the CA without some of the accommodations. Kent: How big the tree preservation area now? Jon Dobosiewicz: Today it is 20' in depth from the rear property line. Kent: So it would be 30'? Jon Dobosiewicz: Correct. IA Motion made by Leo and seconded by Brad to approve Docket No. 19070011 CA with the commitment for a 30' tree preservation area on the north property line Approved 4-1;Hawkins Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 3 (V)Napleton Kia of Carmel. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: 2. Docket No. 19090008 V UDO Section 5.39.H.2 Two signs allowed,Six Five requested. 3. Docket No. 19090009 V UDO Section 5.19.F.1 Reduced number of trees in west&south perimeter bufferyards. The site is located at approximately 4600 E. 96th St.(with access from Randall Dr.), in East 96th Street Auto Park Subdivision,Block A. The site is zoned B3/Business and SFHA/Special Flood Hazard Area. Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson&Frankenberger on behalf of Napleton of Carmel Imports,LLC dba Napleton Kia of Cannel. Petitioner:Jon Dobosiewicz: • Napleton appeared before the Board in June 2019 seeking approval of a CA,which was approved.Napleton also received DP/ADLS approvals from the Plan Commission in August 2019. • Tab 3 shows the site plan which was approved by the Plan Commission in August • Tab 5 depicts the detailed landscaping plan • The number of proposed signs we are requesting is 5 total signs.We are amending the petition to remove the 6th sign which is the ground sign. • The south elevation contains two signs;Napleton and KIA. The west elevation contains three signs;Napleton, KIA, and a smaller service sign. • The previously proposed ground sign was along 96th Street. We have withdrawn this ground sign and this was a compromise made with Staff. Public Comments: None Department Report: Angie Conn: • Since the release of the Department Report,the Petitioner has continued to work with Staff on the signage concerns.They have now proposed to remove the ground sign. • Along the easements,decorative shrubs and grasses will be planted instead of shade trees • Staff recommends positive consideration of both variances Board Comments: Leo: How many trees are not being put in? Jon Dobosiewicz: 20 trees.Leo: Can you provide the cost of 20 trees to the Parks Department so they can plant them elsewhere?Jon Dobosiewicz: The petitioner is proposing to plant the 20 trees at the off-site mitigation site at King of Glory on 106th&Keystone. Leo: I want a commitment of this. Brad: Would you confirm to your client that when the Plan Commission discussed no test drives along Randall Drive into the subdivision to the north,that also applies to test drives for service?Jon Dobosiewicz: We understand and will reiterate your statement to the client. Brad: Thank you. I continue to hear it from those neighbors.Leo: How do we enforce that? What are the ramifications if they continue? Brad: It becomes a Council issue. Alan: This is an issue that came up but sometimes these things get carried away. The Department has the right to enforce what the Petitioner has agreed to. A Motion made by Brad and seconded by James to approve Docket Nos. 19090008 V& 19090009 V with the Commitment to plant 20 trees at their off-site floodplain mitigation area. Approved 5-0 (SU)Overflow Church. The applicant seeks the following special use approval in an existing multi-tenant building: 4. Docket No. 19090012 SU UDO Section 2.23: Permitted Uses,Special Use required for Church/Temple/Place of Worship. The site is located at 9800 Association Ct.and is zoned B3/Business.Filed by Jesse Cupp on behalf of Overflow Church, Inc. Petitioner: Jesse Cupp,Overflow Church,Senior Pastor: • We are requesting a Special Use to host services. • Kevin O'Brien, is the building owner, stated support of this request in an email to Angie Conn. • Our church averages 80-85 people on a Sunday, including children. 60-65 are adults. Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 4 • The parking lot has 46 spaces,and 4 handicap spots.There's also additional street parking. • We are looking to lease about 30%of the building. There's approximately 3400 sq. ft. • This building is 263' from the nearest house,that is behind the property to the north I • We have hired Quantum architecture help us get this building up to code per City standards • We have been asked to install a sidewalk along Association Court and connect to Bower Drive • We would like to extend the deadline to build the sidewalk to 1 year.This will help provide us some time to raise the funds for the cost of the sidewalk. • Staff has also requested us to provide landscaping updates.The building owner, in his letter,has already committed to working with the Urban Forrester and installing the landscaping to get it up-to-date per City standards. • We have also been asked to install a bike rack. The owner is working with the architecture to do so. • We will install a fence around the dumpster to meet City standards Public Comments: None Department Report: Angie Conn: • The B-3 zoning district requires Special Use approval for a Place of Worship land use • Petitioner has worked with the TAC members and continues to address their comments • Staff recommends approval of this Special Use request,with the condition that the Petitioner addresses all outstanding comments prior to receiving their certificate of occupancy • We ask that the property owner does not appeal his commercial property tax assessment. Churches are exempt,but this building is in a TIFF district and the City does not want to lose that revenue. • We ask for the commitment that the Petitioner will install a sidewalk within 1 year or pays into the Thoroughfare Fund. Board Comments: Alan: Does the sidewalk installation or contributed to the fund within 1 year not affect the release of their certificate of Itccupancy permit? Angie: No. rad: How many of these deficiencies of the property are appropriate to tie to conditions of approval verses which are simply code enforcement issues?Angie: The review process triggers us being able to bring this property into compliance. Brad: Is the tax assessment based on the user of the property or just the property? Angie: It wouldn't affect the assessment but we wanted to make sure. Leo: The BZA's decisions shouldn't have to be about money. John Molitor: That is correct. Leo: Should we vote on that? Can we exclude it? John Molitor: Whether this property is taxable or not, is determined on tax law. If the property owner is willing to make the commitment,then he can make that commitment. But it's not enforceable. Alan: If it's not in the motion,then that's the end of that. John Molitor: Yes James: How long is your lease? Jesse Cupp: We haven't signed a lease yet,but we are looking at 3 years. A Motion made by Leo and seconded by James to approve Docket No. 19090012 SU with the Conditions that sidewalks are installed within one year or contribute to the thoroughfare fund,and the Petitioner addresses all outstanding TAC items prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. Approved 5-0 (V) Carmel Hotel and Office. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: 5. Docket No. 19090015 V UDO Section 2.40 Min.20' north side yard setback required for surface parking/building required,5' proposed in one area and 30' proposed in another. I 6. Docket No. 19090016 V UDO Section 5.07.D At least 2 primary buildings required for wide lot width covering at least 75% of the lot's width; 45% lot width coverage proposed. 7. Docket No. 19090017 V UDO Sections 2.40 and 5.19.F No parking lot setbacks/bufferyards along future shared property line between buildings. The 2.6-acre site is located at 12166 N. Meridian St. It is zoned MC/Meridian Corridor. Filed by Brad Schrage of American Structurepoint on behalf of Michael Garvey of Diversified Land Acquisitions,LLC. Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 5 Petitioner: Brad Schrage: • 1"Variance: In order to maximize the parking provided on our site,we are requesting a 5' setback. There were questions from our Plan Commission meeting about the parking counts on this site. We also have a shared parking agreement with the Ritz Charles. • 2nd Variance: In regards to the lot width coverage due to this being in the MC district,two primary buildings must have 75%of the lot's width. The two buildings in our site layout are not orientated lengthwise along the frontage road(Meridian Street),thus only having 45% lot width coverage. • 3'd Variance: As part as the development of this site,this parcel in the future has the potential to split into two parcels.This variance will allow for a 0' setback when this parcel is split and no additional future variance would be needed. Public Comments:None Department Report: Angie Conn: • Staff are in support of the shared property line setback and building massing variances • We did ask the petitioner to create a site plan that would reduce the drive aisle width and change the parking in this area to go one way. This would be able to preserve a lot of the existing trees. The Petitioner stated they wanted the parking spaces as close as possible since this is a medical office building. • Staff recommends denial of the north side yard setback variance request. Board Comments: Alan: So Staff is not in support of 19090015 V?Angie: Correct. Alan: But Staff is in support of 19090016 V and 19090017 V?Angie: Correct John Molitor: The Board can consider taking separate votes on each variance. Alan: I would entertain that. A Motion made by James and seconded by Kent to approve Docket No. 19090015 V. Approved 3-2,Hawkins,Potasnik A Motion made by James and seconded by Kent to approve Docket Nos. 19090016 V and 19090017 V. Approved 5-0 (V)Ashton Subdivision Perimeter Fence. (From BZA Hearing Officer) The applicant seeks the following development standards variance to replace an existing fence: 8. Docket No. 19090018 V UDO Section 5.09.B Max.6' tall fence with 6'setback& plantings required,8' tall vinyl fence with 0' setbacks requested.The site is located at approximately 14589 Chelsea Ct., at the southwest quadrant of 146th St. and Hazel Dell Pkwy. It is zoned S1/Residence.Filed by Dana Stout, Community Manager,on behalf of Ashton Homeowners Association. Petitioner: Dana Stout: • This subdivision sits at the corner of 146th St.and Hazel Dell Parkway. It's an extremely busy intersection. • An 8' perimeter fence has been in place approximately 20 years.It's in bad shape. We spend$7,000 a year to maintain the fence. • We want to replace it with a high quality 8' tall vinyl fence that will help block the noise and headlights generated by the passing vehicles Public Comments:None Department Report: Angie Conn: • Staff is in support because it is a neighborhood perimeter fence that will be the same height and go in the same location as the existing fence. Staff agrees that the existing fence is in bad shape and needs to be replace. • Staff recommends positive consideration with the condition that they will seek consent to encroach from the BPW since the fence will encroach into a 40' wide drainage utility landscaping easement Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 6 Board Comments: None A Motion made by James and seconded by Kent to approve Docket No. 19090018 V with the condition consent to encroach approval from the BPW is required. Approved 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 7 i1e, 2 Alan P as ik—President Nathan Chavez—Recording Secretary Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 7