HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 07-25-22 40 OF C414�
_ _. ) City of C
,, ,ND I ANN
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Minutes
Monday,July 25,2022
Location: Carmel City Hall Council Chambers,2°d Flr., I Civic Sq.,Carmel, IN 46032
Members Present: Alan Potasnik(President),James Hawkins(Vice President), Brad Grabow, Leo Dierckman,
Paul Reis(Alternate)
Members Absent: Kent Broach(Recuse)
DOCS Staff Present: Angie Conn—Planning Administrator;Lisa Motz- Secretary;Mike Hollibaugh—Director of DOCS
Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin,Allison Lynch-Mcgrath
Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM
Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting:
A Motion made by Hawkins seconded by Dierckman to approve the June 27,2022,BZA meeting minutes.Approved 5-0.
Communications,Bills,and Expenditures:Angie Conn
• One of the variance requests for was amended for Carmel Midtown Redevelopment Variances, so the Petitioner sent
out a new public notice for Docket No. PZ-2022-00087 V 10 days prior to this meeting. 20 days is required per
the Rules of Procedure. We will need to suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to hear this tonight.
A Motion made by Grabow and seconded by Dierckman to suspend the Rules of Procedure. Approved 5-0.
Reports,Announcements,Legal Counsel Report,and Department Concerns: Sergey Grechukhin:
• Paul Reis is a substitute BZA member for tonight's Public Hearing
I
Public Hearings:
Alan: Explained the BZA Rules of Procedure for a public hearing.
WITHDRAWN- (V) 11335 N.Michigan Road Apartments Variances.
feetuestcd.
5.
6. Deeket#ePZ 202-1 00244^1— O-Seet+en-&96(-B)11 rum Heard-Building-Setback
Ryan Wells of REI Real Estate Services, LLC
TABLED TO AUG.22 - (V) Scott Residence Variances.
-requested_
1
BZA Meeting Minutes 7-25-22
8. Docket-No Z 20222 00105 V zIDO Seetion-3.64(e)(3)(d) M 90' 1 t •dth low d, 722'
fequeste+h
requested.
10.
The site is located at 211 1
Andre.., We..t f Ch h Ch h Hittl L A tr' b h l f f 1 h C ff
(UV,V) Carmel Midtown Redevelopment Variances.
The applicant seeks the following use variance and development standards variance approvals:
11. WITHDRAWN-
12. Docket No.PZ-2022-00082 UV UDO Section 2.09 Permitted Uses,Office use in R2 zoning district
requested for Parcels C & D.
13. WITHDRAWN-
e�backs r red 1 n 2 ft r ested f r Parcels E & >r
o....vw...w .iy ui.a.u,
14. Docket No.PZ-2022-00084 V UDO Section 2.10 Minimum 20-ft R2 residential rear yard setback
required,5.7-ft requested for Parcels E & F.
15. WITHDRAWN-Docket NePZ 2022-00085 V UDO Seetions 2.1n M 35% R2 lot-eevef
allowea,39 ested f r Parcels E p_ >J
(illy 11{.Q
16. Docket No.PZ-2022-00086 V UDO Section 2.36 Maximum 80% C2 lot cover allowed,85%
requested for Parcels A,B,C & D.
17. Docket No.PZ-2022-00087 V UDO Sections 5.19 Bufferyard Width-Minimum 30' rear bufferyard
required; 15' 25'requested for Parcels C & D.
18. Docket No.PZ-2022-00088 V UDO Sections 5.19& 5.21 Bufferyard Content-Hardscape
improvements and parking lot located in portion of bufferyards requested for Parcels A,C & D.
19. Docket No.PZ-2022-00089 V UDO Section 1.07 Transportation Plan Compliance: 90',56',and 56'
street right of way widths required for 3'Ave SW,Industrial Dr.,and Emerson Rd.; Request for ROW
widths as shown on Site Exhibit.
The site is located at 210 3rd Ave SW(former AT&T site)and 449&451 Emerson Rd. (Johnson Addition Lots 29-
30.) It is zoned C2/Mixed Use District and R2/Residence. Filed by Brian Tuohy of Tuohy Bailey& Moore LLP on
behalf of PST Land Holdings LLC and Pure Development Capital, Inc.
Petitioner: Brian Tuohy:
• 5.2-acre site, with most of this site is zoned C2, with the northern part of the site is zoned R2
• Our Use Variance(UV)request would be located on 0.46-acres and is to be strictly for office use only
• The 2 parcels in Johnson Addition(JA)will match the existing 35-ft front yard setbacks of the existing JA homes.
We are seeking a variance for a 5.7-ft rear yard setback for the 2 JA parcels that backup to the Pure office bldg.
• Seeking variance for the rear yards next to the proposed office building
• There are no variance proposals being sought for building heights
• Presented conceptual rendering and site plan, our plans consist of a Buckingham multi-family residential
development, Merchants Bank office building, Pure Development Headquarters building, and two new single-
family residential homes. We have removed the office building on Parcel D,this will be greenspace.
• The Pure office building is designed to look like a home
• C2 allows 80% for lot cover, and we are requesting 85%, due to the need to install an emergency only fire lane
• Rear buffer yard request is for 15-ft where 30-ft is required next to residential. The view from JA on Emerson
Road will not change, since we will build two new homes on lots 29, 30,and extensive screening and landscaping
will be provided in the bufferyard (rear of lots 29,30)
• Our Variance request to leave the existing ROWs alone. The ROWs on Emerson Road and Industrial Drive will
remain at 50-ft. We don't think there's a need for additional ROW. There are variable existing ROWS along 3`d
Ave SW, and those will remain the same. Roadway improvements are planned for 3'Ave SE, and we will work
with the City of Carmel when those improvements are ready to be done.
• Planning Staff has recommended positive consideration of our requests with the commitment that the proposed
Pure HQ buildings will be only used for Office Uses
2
BZA Meeting Minutes 7-25-22
• Present a street view of the current site that shows the former AT&T building, this site is clearly in need of
redevelopment
IPublic Comments:
Greg Schrage,attorney hired by JA residents: We are in opposition.JA was established in 1955.JA's plat restrictions
include that only single-family dwellings can be had,and no use can be commercial.The UDO is in place to further the
Comprehensive Plan.The six variances being requesting do not go with the Comp Plan or UDO. Parcels C,D,E,F
actually don't exist as separate parcels right now. I was caught off guard by the removal of the office building.Per the
UDO,R2 allows a Special Use request for only medical or health centers and not just for any office use.I would disagree
of the Petitioner's comments that all the lots will look the same along that stretch of Emerson Road. Is the proposed patio,
outdoor space more important than the bufferyard between the residential neighborhood and the C2 lot?We would say no.
Todd Stein,Johnson Addition: This is not a part of the Midtown or Old Town.Nine variance requests are exceedingly
high. They are trying to get way too much on one piece of land.There's more than enough land along Industrial Drive.
Bruce Berry,Johnson Addition:None of these things are being accomplished with this design. They created their own
hardships. The 5.7-ft residential rear setback is ridiculous.
Kelly Baskett,Johnson Addition: The Petitioner presented a rendering of the patio on the north side of Parcel A. showed
large trees and hardscape, leaving only 10-ft for the tree canopy. These Trees need 20-foot diameter to grow.These shade
trees are the main ingredient for the buffer.We are asking for no hardscapes in the bufferyard, so the trees have room to
grow.
Charlie Demler,Johnson Addition: I will be impacted the most since I'm the immediate adjacent neighbor. When is it ok
to put a 6-story building next to a residential neighbor and asking for a reduction of the bufferyard?I have a pool,and if
this passes,I will now see a 6-story building blocking my entire view to the south. Would any of you want that in your
backyard?The residents in the 6-story building will be able to look down in my backyard. We would ask them to have
Itheir parking garage floor and 1'floor underground,so it would only be 4 stories.
Dave Gagliano,Johnson Addition: We are not against redevelopment in Cannel. We would ask them to submit separate
variances for each parcel.The family office are now removed from their proposal now,but what stops them from coming
back at a later time to develop this parcel?
Mary Zajac,Johnson Addition: Our house was one of the first to be built in JA. Houses are homes,not just structures.
We don't want this development in our subdivision,but we would be fine with it being near ours.
Riley Cho,3`a Ave&Main St.: I'm in support of this.I believe this would be good for the economy and walkability.My
l'job was at a bike shop at the Cannel City Center,and I was able to walk/bike to my job.
Pella Pierce,Wilson Village: Something needs to be done with this AT&T building,but this proposal doesn't not fit here
Deborah Stieg,Johnson Addition: It doesn't make sense they want to build a Merchant's bank building when they
already have one.No one ever visits banks anymore.A 6-story building should not be allowed next to residential.
John Babcock,Wilson Village: Parcel D doesn't actually fit.We would like to be involved in the discussions with the
developer. We have ideas on how this project can fit better.There's been no sensitivity from the developer to
redevelopment of our community.
Karen Naff,Johnson Addition: I was asked to read a letter from Julie Gearing, a JA resident who couldn't be here. They
bought their forever home in JA. They bought a second home in JA for their daughter. 6-stories looking over our
Ineighborhood is a violation of our privacy.
Henry Mestetsky,Director of CRC: This is a very exciting project for us. It's a 133-million-dollar of new development in
our Midtown area.It continues to expand our redevelopment districts. Our redevelopment districts are the reasons why
our central Cannel neighborhoods are so strong,because of the continued reinvestment and redevelopment. This has been
a long planned public-private partnership between the City and the Developer. The garage will be open to the public.
3
BZA Meeting Minutes 7-25-22
Rebuttal to Public Comments: Brian Tuohy
• Planning Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the Comp Plan and a compatible use for this area
• The building height is not being considered by the BZA
• I suspect that Merchants Bank wants a bigger building due to their growing business
• We are not seeking a variance for lot coverage.There have been variance approvals for lot coverage at other
single-family homes in JA.
• The use variance petition is only for 0.46 acres
• The actual separation between the single-family homes and proposed buildings is 50-feet
Department Report: Angie Conn
• The former AT&T site was approved for a C2 rezone in 2007 by the City Council
• The intent of the City of Carmel is that all redevelopment proposals for this area should incorporate significant
civic value and mercantile activity and provide opportunities to improve the fabric of the urban setting
• Staff does recognize that the proposed land uses can be installed next to the single-family homes as long it is done
with sensitivity,such as landscaping,masonry wall,and setbacks
• Staff recognizes the Petitioner will be keeping single family homes along Emerson Road
• The BZA have heard several variance petitions in JA for setbacks and lot coverage as new houses are being
redeveloped in this area
• The Planning Department are not opposed to the variances and use variance requests. Staff recommends positive
consideration of these proposals,along with the commitment that the Pure Headquarters building is only used for
office uses,plus the adoption of the findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner.
Board Comments:
Paul: The revised plan shows Parcel D has no building. Why do you need Parcel D as part of your overall plan?Then part
of the UV request can be modified. Brian Tuohy: We need part of Parcel D to accommodate the sidewalks,presented
site plan. There's a 14-ft bufferyard that is part of Parcel D,and Parcel has frontage to 3rd Ave SW.Paul: With the
proposal being presented tonight,Parcel D isn't going to be developed?Brian Tuohy: I don't want to commit that it will
never be developed,but we will withdraw it from our DP/ADLS proposal.We are not seeking any improvements on
Parcel D at this point,except with the sidewalk being shown.Paul: The UV proposal includes Parcel D,and it will go into
effect,and you can come back at a later time for an office building. Why is Parcel D necessary to the overall development,
when there's the C2 parcel to use for this?Brian Tuohy: It was necessary when we had the office on this parcel,and it
does extend to 3rd Ave SW.Hardscape improvements will be done,and we would like to use Parcel D for an office at
some point in the future.Paul: If the UV is granted,can you make a commitment that the UV would only be used for
general office use only?Brian Tuohy:Yes. Paul: Also,that it is contingent upon an amendment the plat and covenants
of JA.Brian Tuohy: We agree with that.
Leo: Are you willing to commit to a walking bridge over 3rd Ave SW between the two Merchant buildings?Brian
Tuohy: At this time,we cannot commit to that.Leo: What did the 2-3 homes in JA recently sell for?Did this proposal
have a positive or negative impact on the sell? Greg Schrage: I don't have any firsthand knowledge on this.Leo: Based
on my research, it didn't see it have a negative impact on the transaction of real estate. Leo: What are the reasons why we
should not improve this?Greg Schrage: The lots that are being proposed,don't even exist. We have two residential lots
that have existed over 70 years.The development proposal is trying to smash too many things into this C2 area and are
robbing the adjacent R2 parcels. We don't want them to take over our residential lots and putting in commercial buildings.
Jim: Does Pure own Parcels E&F?Brian Tuohy: They own them.They paid 500k and 450k for those JA lots(29,30).
Jim: Why is Parcel D configured the way it is? Brian Tuohy: So,they can provide public access to 3rd Ave SW,and
provide some parking spaces.Jim: How many feet is on the public road off of 3'Ave SW.Brian Tuohy: Approximately
50-ft.Jim: Is 50-ft enough so it won't be landlocked?Angie Conn: Yes. This overall development will have to go
through the DP/ADLS process. Parcel can be landlocked and can be approved as the overall development plan. Parcel D
doesn't necessarily have to have this unique shape.Jim: Is there any commitment of keeping Parcel D as a buffer to JA?
Brian Tuohy: We don't want to commit to have this area designated as only greenspace.Jim: Will the replat of the JA
subdivision include different covenants not part of the neighborhood,or will they replat it with new covenants that would
be part of the neighborhood?Angie Conn: There's a Plan Commission docket for a primary plat amendment that would
request the smaller lot sizes and removing the covenants of the JA subdivision. Sergey Grechukhin: That is correct.
4
BZA Meeting Minutes 7-25-22
Brad: What's the appearance and line of the proposed masonry solid wall. Brian Tuohy: It will run along the property
line that abuts the JA lots. It is a 4-ft to 5-ft masonry wall that would be just inside the property line of the residential side
of Parcels E& F (JA lots 29,30). Brad: With it only being 4-ft, what's the function of the wall? It's not tall enough for
privacy. Brian Tuohy: Presented landscape plan, landscape plantings will be installed on both sides of the wall. Brad:
IIs it a continuous wall?Brian Tuohy: Presents site plan, there's a break in the wall. Brad: Is the landscaping depicted
in the Petitioner's renderings be additive to what landscaping already exists in the rear of the JA lots? Brian Tuohy:
Yes, we will plant landscaping along the north border of the walkway and the landscaping we show in our plans meets
the requirements of the UDO.
A Motion made by Reis and seconded by Dierckman to approve PZ-2022-00082 UV subject to the amendments of
the JA covenants and the commitment the use of any building will be for general office use only.
Denied 2-3,Grabow,Potasnik,Reis.
A Motion made by Grabow and seconded by Reis to deny PZ-2022-00082 UV.
Approved 3-2,Dierckman,Hawkins.
A Motion made by Hawkins and seconded by Dierckman to approve PZ-2022-00084 V.
Denied 2-3,Hawkins,Potasnik,Reis.
A Motion made by Hawkins and seconded by Reis to approve PZ-2022-00086 V.
Approved 3-2,Hawkins,Potasnik.
A Motion made by Hawkins and seconded by Dierckman to approve PZ-2022-00087 V.
Denied 1-4,Grabow,Hawkins,Potasnik,Reis.
A Motion made by Hawkins and seconded by Dierckman to approve PZ-2022-00088 V.
Approved 4-1,Potasnik.
IA Motion made by Hawkins and seconded by Dierckman to approve PZ-2022-00089 V.
Approved 5-0.
Sergey Grechukhin: Is it the will of the Board for the Legal Department to draft up the Findings of Fact for the motions
that have been denied?Alan: Yes, it is.
Meeting ' urn d at 7:54 p.m.
/ AZ..--(-- 3 6,(/ _ 1(-11_L -i )-
Alan Pota nik—President Lisa Motz—Recording Secretary
I
BZA Meeting Minutes 7-25-22