HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 01-09-20 (Special) G\.0 OF CA/4%
/El III Sill
CitvofCarmel
10KTI1WI' Ill
i \
Ag
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Special Meeting Minutes
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Members Present: Kent Broach,Leo Dierckman,Brad Grabow(Vice President),James Hawkins,Alan Potasnik(President)
Staff Present: Angie Conn,Mike Hollibaugh,Joe Shestak
Legal Counsel: John Molitor
Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM
Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings:
A Motion made by Brad and seconded by Leo to approve the minutes from the Oct.28,2019 BZA Meeting.
Approved 5-0
Communications,Bills,and Expenditures: Angie Conn:
• Adopt 2020 BZA Calendar
A Motion made by Brad and seconded Kent by to adopt the 2020 BZA Calendar. Approved 5-0
• Suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to hear the North End UV,V petitions tonight.
A Motion by Leo,and seconded by Jim to suspend the Rules of Procedure. Approved 5-0
Reports,Announcements,Legal Counsel Report,and Department Concerns: John Molitor:
• The items on tonight's agenda was originally scheduled on Nov.25,2019,but was cancelled due to a power
failure at City Hall.This was discussed with the public access councilor for the State of Indiana,and it was
decided it was not necessary to require any additional public notices by the petitioners of tonight's meeting.
Public Hearings:
Alan: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing.Asked how many people wish to speak tonight. 28 people
acknowledged they wish to speak. Each person will be allowed 1 minute and 30 seconds to speak.
TABLED TO JAN.27 REGULAR MTG.-(SUA)Islamic Life Center Amendment.
l Docket No. 1909000I SUS U DO Section 2.n3. Permitted Usc.,Special-Use-required-for
,
Inc.
(UV,V)Willow Haven Senior Home.
The applicant seeks the following use variance and development standards variance approvals for a 12-bed
memory care assisted living home:
2. Docket No. 19090019 UV: UDO Section 2.03: Permitted Uses,Memory Care use proposed.
3. Docket No. 19090020 V:UDO Section 5.19: Min.30'wide side bufferyards required, 10' and 20'
requested.
4. Docket No. 19090021 V: UDO Section 2.04: Min.200' lot width required, 155' proposed.
5. Docket No. 19090022 V: UDO Section 2.04: Max.35% lot cover allowed,43% proposed.
Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 1-9-20
1
The 1.3-acre site is located at 13145 West Rd.It is zoned S1/Residence. Filed by Matthew Griffith of Griffith Xidias
Law Group,on behalf of Willow Haven Senior Homes,LLC.
Petitioner:James Miles,CEO and Owner of Willow Haven Senior Homes:
• I represent a team of memory care experts and practitioners,who have been building memory care cottage
group homes throughout the country.
• Large institutional facilities are not suitable for early stage memory care patients and at-homecare are very
expensive
• Small memory care group cottage homes provide an at-home personal experience in a residential setting
• Indiana ranks dead last for memory care housing and choice of providers
• We have studied this model home and researched for the perfect location for this use
• These memory care group cottage homes must be located in low density residential area such as S-1
• We don't want to place our home in a business or commercially zoned area with high traffic, large parking lots
• This is not a commercial facility. It's nothing more than a residential home that can provide the residents with
trees,beautiful landscaping,and lawn space.
• We looked at other options and locations,but this lot is perfectly located, sized,and shaped. Our home will fit
with the other estate style homes in the area.
• There's a market need for assistant living in Cannel for the services we provide
• There are concerned neighbors who oppose this group home next to their neighborhood. They do not
understand what we are building in this area. They had a petition passed around that described a project that
was not ours. They are concerned for a large institutionalized style memory care building,however we are just
building a house that will provide memory care for 12 senior citizens.
• We held a community meeting where only 5 remonstrators showed up to discuss our project
• Neighbors will not see their property values impacted by our home. Local brokers wrote letters to the City
stating this group home will not affect property values.Homes near the Emerson home on the south side of
Indy did not affect nearby properties.
• Cannel Engineering Department does not expect a lot of traffic to be generated by our site. We will have 5
employees daily,and the occasional family member visiting or physical therapist stopping by. Our residents
will not be driving cars. We will not have large delivery services. The chef and staff will purchase
groceries as needed.
• No dumpster on site. Trash bins will be used just like other residential homes.
• The home will be equipped with door alarms so patients cannot leave or escape on their own and walk around
the neighborhood as stated by concerned neighbors
• CPD records showed that only 3 fire-assist calls were made in the last 12 months at Green House Cottages,
which has 6 times as many residents as our proposed home
• Our home will have residential style exterior lighting that fits in with the landscaping and exterior of the home
and not any more than a typical estate style home in this area
• We will not have a sign on our property
• For financial stability,we will be replicating a business model that has been done in many states
• This home can be remodeled if the worst comes to case,and can be turned and used as a residential home
Public Comments:
Dr.Betty Tonsing,Greenfield IN: In support. People have fears of dementia and ending up in a nursing home.Nursing
homes have the highest instances of elder abuse.The residents of Cannel would want to have this choice.
Michael Andreoli,Attorney in Zionsville,IN: I am representing the Glen Oaks HOA and residents who are
remonstrating against this proposal. I've submitted a response in opposition.All that the applicant and Dr.Tonsing has
presented to you tonight are legitimate concerns and issues raised for discussion but not in front of the BZA. These land
uses should be handled in front of the Plan Commission and City Council so they weigh in how you establishes the zone
and locations for this type of use. The Board's decision on this proposed Use Variance is illegal without legislative
approval. Very difficult and specific findings need to be made. No hardship is shown by this particular property.
Nothing is shown for the need of the variances. There's nothing unusual about the property that suggest the Use Variance
should be adopted.
Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 1-9-20
2
Mark DeBruler,Glen Oaks: In opposition. In the findings of fact,the applicant has not presented a single relevant fact
that a special or natural condition exists on the property that presents its normal use under the current zoning ordinances.
IDr.Bob Flynt,Gen Oaks: I sent in a letter,but wanted to add some additional comments. The property they want to
build this group home is not equivalent to the surround neighborhoods.The houses that have been built in the last 15 years
are much higher in value than the proposed home.It's not inhumane to place memory care patients in large institutes.
They need the attention and special care that the larger facilities can provide them.
Carl Evans,Glen Oaks: We live directly behind the proposed group home. Our current backyard view will change from
greenspace to hardscape with a paved parking lot with additional lighting and unwanted noises from ambulance runs. We
have over 200 signatures from residents in opposition. I question the need for this facility when there are 20 within 2-5
miles of this location.
Rick Manasek, 13232 West Road: I live directly across the proposed home. We purchased our home because it's in a
low density area. I'm not opposed to senior and memory care but there's a place for everything. I would be opposed to
any commercial structure in S-1 zoning.
Debra Minott, West Cannel: I have worked in this type of care. I recognize the need for this care,but that does not
dictate putting a facility in this residential area. Cannel residents rely on the Cannel Clay Comprehensive Plan and UDO
when making an investment on their home and to deviate from it will violate the contract the City has made with its
residents.
Dr.Islam Bolad, Bellewood: My subdivision is directly across the street from the proposed home. When we moved here,
we looked for an area that would strictly remain residential. There's a place for everything,and this is not the place.
Irshad Ansari,Cheswick Place: I bought the lot(north)adjacent to the subject property. I have plans to build a house on
this lot. My plans have stopped,and will not build if this group home is approved. I will lose the value of the property.
Gary Pontius: I'm here representing my parents who live next door(south)to the property. My parents will be the most
affected by this.They are asking for variances for every aspect of the zoning. This will increase the traffic to an area that
is not designed for this. The employees will be coming and going during the 3 shifts. There will be delivery trucks for
food and medical supplies.They only have 6 parking spaces for 5 employees and 12 patient's families. What happens if
this business fails? What would it be next? A rehab center?
Pat Lease,The Woods at Lions Creek: This is a commercial,for profit operation. This is spot zoning. The developer's
motivate is to obtain the lowest cost land available and not the most appropriate location.Memory care is thriving in
Cannel in appropriate locations. I found 22 locations in the area while searching online. I would not purchase a home near
a facility similar to this. This use will diminish the surrounding property values.
Dan King,Glen Oaks: This is a business developer that is trying to make money,and that's why he is proposing a 12
bedroom facility,and not a 10 room which won't work financially. If we allow this,what's the next step,a 15 bed
facility;20 bed? This Board is in the position to maintain the zoning ordinance.The senior housing market was
effectively cut by the State Legislature. They weren't allowed to be developed for 3 years. This has creative alternatives.
They are trying to get around of the licensing requirements.
Jeff Kennedy,Glen Oaks: Mr. Miles slanders large memory care facilities,without any supporting data. I had two
parents who were in memory care facilities that were remarkable. There are more than 50 in 25 miles radius.Do we need
another one? Do we need a smaller one that provides limited care?
Dawnyl Wilcox, lives in Cannel: In support. I'm a senior care provider. This option of a 12 bed home,as a family of
seniors to support each other, is a home and not just a facility.This is what they deserve. I live next to a senior facility and
it does not distract my daily life.
Dee Fox,West Carmel: I sent an email,but I have some additional comments.There were only 5 local residents at the
community meeting held by Willow Haven because their meeting was hastily called. It was stated by the petitioner that
Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 1-9-20
3
the 10 beds is not financially stable. The Emerson house is not the same setting as the zoning in West Cannel.
Judy Birt,4350 Brenden Orchard Lane: I live 1 mile away. I have a family member in a memory care facility. Your
facility is not going to be small enough to make that much of a difference. There are about 25 facilities in 12 mile radius.
I've been to all of them. Most of them are not grave like you described. It's a progressive disease,and the patient gets
worse. You will have to keep them for the whole spectrum. It won't be glorious like the way you described it. The size
of the proposed parking lot will not work.
Cynthia Merchant,Bellewood: The intersection of 131s1 Street and West Road is extremely dangerous.There have been
a lot of accidents. There are no sidewalks,and you share the road with runners and bikers. There's not enough parking.
Would you want this facility next to your home?
T.R. Sloan,The Woods at Lions Creek: The HOA Board unanimously opposed this,as well as all the residents of Lions
Creek. 131'Street and West Road is a dangerous intersection.There's no sidewalks.
Jill Meisenheimer,Cannel Resident: I wrote a letter,but I wanted to ask the petitioner why they wanted to build this
facility in the middle of a residential area? The burden of proof is on the petitioner and not on the neighbors.
Loren Conrad,Glen Oaks: We picked this area because of the low density area that it is. I did see a petition with over
200 signatures in opposition from the neighbors. I ask you not to approve this.
Kevin Rider,City Council: We don't put businesses in neighborhoods. If we are going to start doing this,then we need
to change the zoning,which is up to the City Council.This should not be heard by the BZA. If this group model home is a
need, let's change our zoning or create an area that will allow it. The petitioner states they are building a house that fits
right in the area. They are asking for 3 variances,so it doesn't fit in. We would never allow these variances if someone
was building a single-family residential home here.
Rebuttal to Public Comments: James Miles:
• The remonstrators are misrepresenting my proposed home. It's not a commercial facility. It's a residential home.
• This home is not in the middle of a subdivision.Presented an aerial view. A remonstrator stated the house is backed
up to his property.There's 70' of common area around the perimeter of Glen Oaks. There's 170' between the
property line and the neighbor's house. We will add additional trees and landscaping as a buffer between neighbors.
• The pond is 300' from my property line
• There will not be an identification sign on our property
• There were complaints about additional traffic. My home will have 12 non-driving residents. The patients will use
the same therapists,and we will not have any commercial truck deliveries.The 200 plus homes in the area have a
minimum of 2 drivers with service vehicles visiting their homes at all times of the day.
• We will have 8 parking spaces and we will construct a 20' wide driveway as access to this site.The CFD reviewed
and approved our plans. We will have enough parking space.
• If we would have asked for a 10 resident group home,we wouldn't be requesting the Use Variance. A 12 bed
resident allows us to have the financial liability and to hire quality licensed caregivers.
• The one Variance request allows us to add more landscaping buffer between our home and adjacent properties
• We will improve the drainage,and we are replacing the existing 50's style house with an estate style home.
Department Report: Angie Conn:
• Had the number of beds in the group home been reduced to 10,then the proposal would have been considered a
single family dwelling. Since it is a UV request,the bufferyards are required. The lot width does comply with the
residential standards and a few changes to their site plan could reduce their lot coverage to 35%.
• The group home is considered as a residential use. Staff does think this could fit in a residential neighborhood, if
installed with sensitivity, such as landscaping, larger setbacks, and perhaps a privacy fence.
• TAC reviewed the drainage,architecture,utilities, lighting, landscaping, and traffic
• CFD had concerns as it related to life/safety aspects of the site and building code.Those had been resolved.
• Engineering Department does not expect a lot of traffic being generated by this site
• A multi-use path will be installed along the lot frontage
Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 1-9-20
4
• The goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve the estate character and keeping the low density
• The group home concept is new and we believe it can fit well into the community
• Staff recommends positive consideration after all comments and concerns have been addressed
IBoard Comments:
Leo: I agree with Mr.Michael Andreoli's comments.Jim: I agree with Leo and Mr. Kevin Rider. This is an intensive
use in S-1 estate district. The City Council should be the one to decide on this.
A Motion made by Leo and seconded by Jim to approve Docket Nos. 19090019 UV,& 19090020-22 V.
Motion Denied: 0-5
Jim: Will the BZA Counsel write up the findings of fact for the decision. John Molitor: I will do so with the help of the
remonstrators' attorney,Mr. Michael Andreoli. Alan: So moved.
WITHDRAWN-(V)Penske Honda Sales Building Signage.
site-is-located at 414-r40 E.96 'S* It: ea B3 Bu..iness Elea b y Matt Hoene,ofTDG_ nrchite ts en-behalf
(UV,V) North End Variances(aka Smokey Row Rd and Monon).
The applicant seeks the following use variance and development standards variance approvals associated with a
new mixed-use development which will include apartments,townhomes, condominiums, single-family homes,
retail/office,and an urban farm:
7. Docket No. 19100014 UV UDO Section 2.17: Permitted Uses,Single family detached uses requested.
8. Docket No. 19100015 UV UDO Section 2.17: Permitted Uses,Farm use/Roadside Sales use requested.
9. Docket No. 19100016 UV UDO Section 2.17: Permitted Uses,Restaurant requested.
10. Docket No. 19100017 UV UDO Section 2.17: Permitted Uses,Private Recreational Facility requested.
11. Docket No. 19100018V UDO Section 5.71.B: Floor&Square Feet Limitations,Office/Retail/Services uses
requested on 3rd floor,not just on 1"and 2"d,for Phase 1A.
12. Docket No. 19100019 V UDO Section 2.18: Front Setbacks,Buildings. 10-20' max.allowed,50' requested.
13. Docket No. 19100020 V UDO Section 2.18: Front Setbacks,Parking Areas.50' min.allowed,0' requested.
14. Docket No. 19100022 V UDO Section 2.18: Rear Setbacks,Single Family Dwellings.20' max.allowed,25'
requested. The 27.84-acre site is located on the north side of Smokey Row Road,between the Monon Greenway and
Meridian Street,near 416 W.Smokey Row Rd. It is zoned UR/Urban Residential. Filed by Rebecca McGuckin of Old Town
Companies,LLC.
Petitioner: Justin Moffett,Old Town Companies:
• This project is a mixed use development that has gone through the Plan Commission process with them
approving a list of Subdivision Waivers(SW)
• Historically,we would of brought this project forward as PUD,but with the new UDO and zoning code for
Urban Residential(UR), it allows us to use the underlying zoning that contains many uses for us
• Planning Staff agreed to keep the current zoning with a series of variances and not ask for a PUD
• In the past year we have been engaging with neighbors,community stakeholders,and Staff with the possible land
uses that are allowed in UR
• The most intense structures as in height will be along US 31 as a sound wall buffer
• Presented a land use concept map
• We took aerial photos of the existing trees on the site and designed our site plan around the most abundant trees
• We will transition our density as we get further away US 31 towards Smokey Row and the Monon Trail
• Presented sight and aerial views of the entire development from each direction
• 6-7 acres will be preserved for an urban farm space
• Everything we are proposing is allowed in UR. Our requests are to enhance the quality of the project.We worked
with Staff in how we were going to design this development.
Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 1-9-20
5
• Currently,we are not allowed to have single detached residential homes in the UR. We are requesting a
variance for it because we think it's an appropriate transition of density within our development area.
• A restaurant is allowed within our development,but the UR zoning assumes it's within a multi-tenant mixed use
building. Our variance request is to have our restaurant within the existing historical home on site.
• We will have an all amenity center,and the use variance is for a private recreational facility for the neighborhood
• We will have office/commercial buildings without residential above it and a use variance is required for this
• We are asking variances for simple setbacks which will allow us for better streetscape
• By right we can build a 3-5 story multi-family structure where we will have single-family homes but we agreed
that the single family homes is a better transition of density within this area.
• We earned a Grant from the State to allow us to have affordable housing(20%of the multi-family units)
• Meaningful work and employment will be provided by the urban farm and farm-to-table restaurant
• The historic home is in great condition and will be converted to a farm-to-table restaurant
Public Comments:
Virginia Kerr,Kensington Place: The location of my neighborhood is the most affected by this development. The
heights of the office/commercial buildings directly across from KP was not mentioned. I heard there would be a 3' height
commitment of these office/commercial buildings.
Rebuttal to Public Comments: Justin Moffitt
• We made a commitment to the KP neighborhood and Plan Commission to have a commercial building not
higher than 3 stories. Up to 5 stories are allowed in UR.
• We would want this area/node strictly commercial. This area is exposed to US 31, so we didn't think
residential would be appropriate for this specific area/node.
Department Report: Angie Conn:
• This is a unique mixed use designed development that emphasizes pedestrian-bicycle accessibility
• Planning staff is in support of all the variance and use variance requests and recommend positive consideration
Board Comments:
Leo: Can one of the PC members chime in what their thoughts are on this project and what was presented to them?
Brad: Normally these items would be packaged together as a PUD,but the Petitioner acknowledge the feedback from
Staff and the PC to use the current zoning of the UR and ask for waivers and variances. Leo: Do these variances
represent what they should be and you are comfortable with them? Brad: We are. They are non-controversial.
A Motion made by Kent and seconded by Leo to approve Docket Nos. 19100014-17 UV.
Approved 5-0
A Motion made by Brad and seconded by Jim to approve Docket Nos. 19100018-20 V& 19100022 V.
Approved 5-0
TABLED TO JAN.27 BZA HEARING OFFICER MTG.-(V)Caliber Collision Signage.
15. Deeket Ne.19100021 V -Seetion-5.39 , sigma-allowed eguested—The-site is-located-at
Filed b..7 ind.. Thempsen of Cree Industrial Arty
-A
Meeting ./114 '
T % :37 p.m.4
Alan '�snik Pre ident oe Shestak—Recording SecretaryI
Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 1-9-20
6