HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #06 Carolyn Riggs IsbrandtsenTo the Members of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals:
I am unable to attend the public hearing but wanted to share the concerns I have with the proposed
conversion of the residence at 4991 E. Main Street for commercial use. I am a resident of the Trails at Avian
Glen (TAG) neighborhood and a member of the TAG Homeowners’ Association Board. My comments
echo the concerns I have heard from many of my neighbor s and the residents of the surrounding
neighborhoods upon learning of the petitioner’s desire to open a highly visible “second Carmel location”
of her insurance business on the property immediately across the street from TAG HOA property and the
entrance to our neighborhood. For the reasons set forth below, I ask the board to deny the petitioner’s
request as to each of the four variances because
(1) the permanence and visibility of the proposed use and changes to the property are the
appropriate subject of an application for rezoning and are not suited to the variance process;
(2) the petitioner’s claim that the property is undesirable is baseless, and she thus fails to carry her
burden of showing hardship, where the owner has never earnestly sought to sell the property at
a reasonable asking price for residential use (and it is currently listed at more than three times
the assessed value);
(3) the petitioner cannot demonstrate that conversion of this property is necessary, much less
appropriate, where she presently has two other offices and where there are dozens of
appropriately-zoned, comparable properties available within a five-minute drive of the
residence at 4991 E. Main Street;
(4) the requested variances are so bold, so numerous, and so fundamentally at odds with the zoning
and character of the surrounding area that the proposal is exactly the type of unsuitable use
which the authors of the city code sought to prevent; and
(5) the proposed signage and lighting designs demonstrate that the petitioner does not seek to
simply fit with the existing neighbors and community, but she instead seeks to exploit every
marketing and advertising opportunity to maximize her visibility and presence if granted these
exceptions (most notably by installing explicitly prohibited wall and ground signs).1
Petitioner does not hide her intent to use this property as a billboard to sell insurance. Such a motive is not
appropriate for a residential property in an area that was zoned and designed to exclude commercial
advertisers. Adding a conspicuous insurance office would damage the character and continuity of our area
and set a bad precedent that others may attempt to exploit in the future. Thank you for your consideration
of the following.
1. As a preliminary matter, the petitioner’s proposal for a complete conversion of the property from
residential to commercial use is not the appropriate subject of a request for variance. Such a plan instead
requires the petitioner to submit a rezoning application and engage in the more comprehensive review
that the rezoning process entails. The proposed use and plans amount to a permanent modification of
the property and structure such that any future use as a residence will be unsuitable and impracticable.
Variances are appropriate for the modified use of a property of a nature that is neither permanent nor
1 Though the petitioner fails to include a fifth request for variance to accommodate her intent to use a wall sign as
explicitly prohibited in residences converted for commercial or office use, such a request should likewise be denied.
destructive to the identity of the property, and they presume that future use of the property will revert
to such use that is consistent with zoning ordinances. Here, the petitioner – a prospective buyer –
proposes to construct the gutted bungalow and garage as a two-story office by adding a second floor,
adding a commercial entrance, converting the garage, adding a 17-space parking lot, curbs, 3
commercial pole lights, and illuminated commercial signs at the front. The petitioner states that she
will design and build the property – both inside and out – for commercial office use to host meetings
with clients and employees. At such a time that the petitioner ceases use of the property, the structure
and commercial parking lot will be unrecognizable and unusable as a residential property and will
necessitate continued use as an office building. Thus, the decision to permit such a conversion now is
a question of permanent zoning rather than variance.
2. The petitioner’s claim that the property is “undesirable for residential use” is self-serving, unfounded,
and seeks to hold the owner harmless from the consequences of the complete demolition of the
residence and property. To the contrary, the property is nestled among beautiful community properties,
surrounded by thriving neighborhoods and schools, and would sell quickly for residential use if the
owners listed the parcel at a price consistent with its assessed value. The sellers have refused to do so
over the past two years because they aspire to secure a far greater profit by selling the property for
commercial use.
It’s critical to understand that the current owners are speculators who have only owned the property
since 2021, when they acquired it for $153,000. They have never resided at the property. At the time
of their acquisition, the assessed value of the property was $142,100. (See Property’s Valuation Record,
attached.) The owners proceeded to cut down numerous mature trees and gut the building (removing
its historical value), occasioning the “disrepair” petitioner now complains of. Not surprisingly, the
assessed value of the property dropped precipitously to $96,300 in 2022.
The only reason the property has not sold for residential use is that the asking price for the
property since it was listed in 2021 has been between $450,000 and $290,000 (currently $295,000
at the time I am sending this email). (See Property’s Listed Price History, attached.) That is not a
reasonable asking price for a residential property that has been assessed to be worth $96,300 -- at least
not for residential buyers. Asking three to four times the assessed value necessarily precludes sale of
the property for residential use. After the house sat on the market for more than a year, anyone who
didn’t check the asking price of the property’s listing would understandably have the incorrect
impression that there is no interest in the property. To the contrary, there would have been interest to
buy a .75-acre property in a desirable part of Carmel, but the sellers were fishing for commercial buyers
willing to pay far more than the residential value and never listed the home in the range that would
permit residential purchase.
Now, nearly two years later, the sellers must demonstrate hardship to be granted a variance from the
zoning of the property and complete the sale to the commercial petitioner. To the extent the claim of
hardship is that the house won’t sell, that’s a hardship of the sellers’ own design. Sellers cannot create
their own hardship that then serves as the basis for the requested variances. If this board grants the
variances, and the property is sold for commercial use by the petitioner, the board will be legitimizing
the speculators’ strategy to hold the property with the goal of securing a windfall profit (of 3-4x the
assessed value) by converting the parcel to a more valuable commercial use.
There is nothing about the parcel that precludes continued use as a residential property. People occupy
similar properties up and down Main Street, Gray Road, and Hazel Dell for miles in each direction.
The only thing that is deterring residential occupation of 4991 E. Main is the price that is being asked
and the poor condition in which the current owner/seller has presented the property to prospective
buyers (again, a condition of the owner’s creation). If the request for variance/rezone is denied, and the
owner is left to sell the property for residential use consistent with the price the market dictates, the
property would sell quickly and the property would see continued residential occupation.
As an aside, it is my understanding from speaking to a city employee that the City of Carmel contacted
the seller about interest in purchasing the property, but the seller would not budge from the outrageous
asking price. If this is true, and I encourage the Board to make inquiries in the City’s office of code
enforcement, I find the petitioner’s claim of the property’s undesirability to be incredibly problematic.
3. In addition to a lack of hardship, there is no basis for the petitioner to claim this petition is driven by
necessity. In addition to the petitioner’s current Carmel branch, there are plenty of available commercial
spaces in central and northeast Carmel - both traditional office space and converted residences - with
more being built every day. Granting this variance would set a standard for such requests in the future
and encourage others to seek exceptions from the city’s zoning plans. Further, the petitioner’s business
can be done just as well in a commercial area – including in the offices she currently occupies. There
is nothing unique about the property she seeks to buy and convert to commercial use – other than the
monopoly she’ll have as the only insurance agent with visible advertising in our residentially-zoned
area – that would preclude her from continuing to conduct her business in the commercially-designated
areas of the city.
Notably, in addition to the petitioner’s existing Carmel branch located 3 miles/6 minutes southeast on
East Carmel Drive, there is another State Farm agent with an office 2 miles/5 minutes west on Main
Street, just past the high school. There is another State Farm agent with an office 3 miles/6 minutes
northeast at 146th Street and River Road. There are 15 State Farm agents, including the petitioner,
with offices within a five-mile radius of 4991 E. Main Street, many much closer than five miles,
and that figure does not include the multitude of other insurance agents representing other companies
in that same area. Given the saturation of insurance agents, one can understand why the petitioner is
willing to pay three times the assessed value of the property for the opportunity to post her signage in
such a target-rich residential zone. Zoning is intended to prevent just such an encroachment of intense
commercial competition into this section of the city.
4. The proposed insurance office, lighting, parking lot, and signage, could not be more unsuited to the
area. Residents value the mix of residential and community-use properties – Badger Field (where many
of our children play soccer each week), the new community fieldhouse, the fire station, the
administrative services building, Clay Middle School, and two nearby churches. Children from our
neighborhoods walk right past the property to get to and from the middle school every day. Adding
what is very clearly a high-traffic commercial office -- with a 17-space, paved parking lot, commercial
lighting, multiple signs with advertising, and approximately 25 people coming and going on a daily
basis -- threatens the intended use, character, and traffic flow of the community spaces and inherently
changes the character of the E. Main Street corridor. For the several miles along Main Street between
the commercially zoned area at Hazel Dell to the high school, there is not a single commercial property
with signage. Contrary to the petitioner’s papers, in this area there is no precedent for such a visible
exception to the clear intention of the zoning plan to preclude precisely the type of commercial presence
she seeks.
Additionally, the three commercial pole lights and signage lighting will add significant light pollution;
and raise the question of why commercial lights are necessary when the office would only be open for
operation during the hours from 9am to 6pm. Moreover, the pole lights are proposed to be located at
the very edge of the property, raising concerns that lighting will impermissibly spill over onto the
adjacent properties.
The petitioner provided me with a picture of her Broad Ripple office – with a similar sign – as an
example of how she coexists with residential neighbors. However, I would suggest that the character
of the area at 4991 E. Main Street is not the same as the location of her office on College Avenue in
Broad Ripple. Residents here value the quiet residential area that was created by the city’s zoning plan
and do not desire the more-urban Broad Ripple model dense with advertisements and commercial
signage. There are parts of our city where that dynamic is appropriate and suited to the use and character
of the neighborhood, but this area of the city is not one of them. (See photograph of petitioner’s Broad
Ripple office received from petitioner, attached.)
5. Among other sign requests, the petitioner seeks a variance for a permanent ground sign, stating that a
permissible suspended sign would not be sufficiently visible from the road. This claim alone
demonstrates that the petitioner’s central goal of maximum visibility is inappropriate for the property,
and such a conclusion is further supported by the following:
• Petitioner provides a rendering of the renovated building which includes a painted metal wall sign
which the Carmel Sign Standards explicitly prohibit for use on residential structures that have been
converted to commercial or office uses. (See rendering of proposed design with wall sign received
from petitioner, attached.) Petitioner fails to set out this impermissible use of a wall sign as a fifth
request for variance in her list presently receiving consideration (separate and apart from her
pending (1) request for a ground sign, and (2) request to double the allowed number of signs
permitted).
• Carmel City Code’s sign standards clearly state that ground signs and wall signs are prohibited
where residential structures have been converted to commercial or office uses. While the thought
process for these prohibitions is not provided in the Carmel Sign Standards, one can assume it is
because ground and wall signs are inappropriate for the character of residential areas. The reason
petitioner cites for the need for a ground sign – the desire for more visibility of the sign and greater
awareness of the commercial nature of the property – is exactly the reason one would expect that
such signage is prohibited and inappropriate. Plaintiffs designs for both the wall sign and ground
sign must be denied.
• The proposed ground sign – with large white lettering of the company name and logo, agent name,
and agent’s phone number on a bright red background – amounts to an impressible billboard with
permanent advertising. Further, and contrary to the petitioner’s claims, such a sign in no way fits
with or comes close to the quality or aesthetic of the natural materials and neutral colors of any
signage for the adjacent community properties and churches.
• The material of the red and white advertisement above the brick base of the ground sign is not
specified, but as that area constitutes the vast majority of the sign, and the appearance and quality
can vary significantly, more information is necessary to truly appreciate the sign’s appearance. It
does not appear that it will be natural wood, masonry, or stone as the other signs in the area.
• Up lighting is specified for the ground sign, presumably to call additional attention to the signage
in the night and morning. Lighting of signage – particularly advertising signage – is inappropriate
in the area and serves no necessary purpose where the business will only be operating during the
day.
• The petitioner fails to mention that there will what amounts to a third sign on the property, as the
vehicle she indicates will be a regular and very visible fixture in the parking lot on mornings,
evenings, and weekends is a bright red Mini Cooper with large, white lettering identical to that
which is proposed for the ground sign. (See photograph of petitioner’s red Mini Cooper beside
Broad Ripple office as provided by petitioner, attached.)
• The petitioner intends to paint the structure red and white as a further extension of her high-
visibility marketing strategy. Suffice to say that a red and white structure, two red and white signs
(of prohibited varieties), and a lighted parking lot in no way fit with the character of the surrounding
community properties. It strains credulity to claim that such designs will nevertheless “fit with the
pattern in the area.” (See photograph of petitioner’s red and white Broad Ripple office as provided
by petitioner, attached.)
The conduct of the current owners – who remain silent supporters of this petition – has caused the hardship
the petitioner now claims as the reason four variances are appropriate. Petitioner should not be afforded the
opportunity to convert this property in a manner that is so inconsistent with zoning standards and, in doing
so, enrich the current owners who pursued this more lucrative sale of their property for commercial use
while rendering the property into a state of “disrepair.” Denial of the requested variances will not leave
4991 E. Main Street empty or undesirable, to the contrary, such a denial will educate the current owners
that the appropriate market for this property is the residential market.
I want to document that the petitioner emailed me asking to connect and discuss her petition. I called her
and left a voicemail, but she did not return my call as of the time I am submitting this comment.
I appreciate your consideration of my concerns and I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further
should the Board desire additional input.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Riggs Isbrandtsen
1Exterior ElevationNorth (Front)1/4"=1'-0"02'4'8'ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGDemerlyArchitectsState Farm Carmel Office4991 E Main Street, Carmel, IN10/14/2022201SD
LISTED PRICE HISTORY OF 4991 E MAIN UNDER CURRENT OWNER
8/17/2022 Pending sale $295,900$175/sqft
Source: MIBOR as distributed by MLS GRID #21851883
8/17/2022 Listed for sale $295,900$175/sqft
Source: MIBOR as distributed by MLS GRID #21851883
7/16/2022 Listing removed $295,900$175/sqft
Source: MIBOR as distributed by MLS GRID #21851883
4/27/2022 Listed for sale $295,900 (+2%)$175/sqft
Source: MIBOR as distributed by MLS GRID #21851883
4/7/2022 Listing removed $290,000$172/sqft
Source: Owner
3/17/2022 Price change $290,000 (-7.9%)$172/sqft
Source: Owner
1/29/2022 Listed for sale $315,000 (-3.1%)$186/sqft
Source: Owner
12/13/2021 Listing removed $325,000$192/sqft
Source: MIBOR as distributed by MLS GRID #21820657
9/15/2021 Price change $325,000 (-7.1%)$192/sqft
Source: MIBOR as distributed by MLS GRID #21806071
8/16/2021 Listed for sale $350,000 (-22.2%)$207/sqft
Source: MIBOR as distributed by MLS GRID #21806071
7/9/2021 Listing removed $450,000$266/sqft
Source: Owner
6/27/2021 Listed for sale $450,000$266/sqft
Source: Owner
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATIONOWNERSHIPCard No.ofSite DescriptionTRANSFER OF OWNERSHIPDateVALUATION RECORDAssessment YearReason for ChangeVALUATIONLAND DATA AND CALCULATIONSLand TypeRatingSoil ID-or-ActualFrontageMeasuredAcreage-or-EffectiveFrontageTableEffectiveDepthProd. Factor-or-Depth Factor-or-Square FeetBaseRateAdjustedRateExtendedValueInfluenceFactorValueSupplemental CardsTOTAL LAND VALUE29-10-28-000-045.000-018 Guillen, Walter Mateus & Miranda Marie h&w 4991 E Main St 511Tax ID 1610280000045000Printed 04/16/202211PARCEL NUMBER29-10-28-000-045.000-018Parent Parcel NumberProperty Address4991 E Main StNeighborhood200012 RURAL BASE RATE #2Property Class511 Res 1 fam unplatted 0-9.99 acTAXING DISTRICT INFORMATIONJurisdiction 29 Area 017 CLAYCorporation N District 018 Carmel120Topography:Public Utilities:Street or Road:Neighborhood:Zoning:Legal Acres:0.7500Admin Legal 0.7500FARMLAND COMPUTATIONSParcel Acreage 0.750081 Legal Drain NV [-]82 Public Roads NV [-]83 UT Towers NV [-] 9 Homesite(s) [-]91/92 Excess Acreage[-]TOTAL ACRES FARMLANDTRUE TAX VALUEMeasured AcreageAverage True Tax Value/AcreTRUE TAX VALUE FARMLANDClassified Land TotalHomesite(s) Value (+)Excess Acreage Value (+) 56300RESIDENTIALGuillen, Walter Mateus & Miranda Marie h&w4991 E Main StCarmel, IN 46033 Acreage .75, Section 28, Township 18, Range 401/22/2021 Gossard, Gregory E $153000 Doc #: 2021-14173Appraised ValueVALUATIONTrue Tax ValueLBTLBT 01/01/2016 REVAL 56300 44500 100800 56300 44500 100800 01/01/2017 Trend 56300 51100 107400 56300 51100 107400 01/01/2018 Trend 56300 51700 108000 56300 51700 108000 01/01/2019 Trend 56300 54600 110900 56300 54600 110900 01/01/2020 REVAL 56300 53800 110100 56300 53800 110100 01/01/2021 Trend 56300 85800 142100 56300 85800 142100 01/01/2022 Trend 56300 40000 96300 56300 40000 96300 1 HOMESITE 0.7500 1.25 100000.00 125000.00 93750 5 -40% 56250Supplemental CardsTRUE TAX VALUE 56250EX05: HOMESTEAD, MORTGAGE FILED 9-26-03 JDM 9-29-03EX07: MORTGAGE FILED 10/10/05 AW 10/13/05LO20: LAND BASE RATE REVIEW OR CHANGE. 1/1/2020 DPMEMO: CLT LEFT OFF CAMA AWNC22: BP2021-00440 REMODEL STILL WORKING RECK23 01/10/22*REDUCING DWELLING DOWN TO 40% COMPLETENC23: BP2021-00440 REMODEL STILL WORKING RECK23 01/10/22REAS: Reassessment 2002UPDATED LAND/SKETCH DTN 9-30-02RV16: ADD OFP 8/6/15 JWRV20: LAND & STRUCTURES REVIEWED. 8/19/19 DPTR21: LD/IMP PER JP.SEE DOCS FOR CHNGS.10/26/20 LE
IMPROVEMENT DATAPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICSSPECIAL FEATURESSUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTSDescriptionValueIDUseStryHgtConstTypeGradeYearConstEffYearCondBaseRateFeat-uresAdjRateSize orAreaComputedValuePhysDeprObsolDeprMarketAdj%CompValueData Collector/DateAppraiser/DateNeighborhoodSupplemental CardsTOTAL IMPROVEMENT VALUENeigh 200012 AVSRB 08/06/2015 01/01/19002432A (Fin) 1 s Fr B 768149OMP126111 s Fr Slab 1542225Fr G 55020Conc28066OFP360102030429-10-28-000-045.000-018 Property Class: 5114991 E Main StFinished Construction Base Area Floor Area Sq Ft Value4 CONCRETE BLOCK 768 Bsmt 0 231001 WOOD FRAME 922 1.0 922 757001 WOOD FRAME 768 Attic 768 5680 0 Crawl ---- 0TOTAL BASE 104480Row Type Adjustment 1.00%SUB-TOTAL 104480 0Interior Finish 9120 0Ext Lvg Units 0 0Basement Finish 0Fireplace(s) 0Heating 0Air Condition 0Frame/Siding/Roof 0Plumbing Fixt: 5 0SUB-TOTAL ONE UNIT 113600SUB-TOTAL 0 UNITS 113600 Garages 0Integral 0 550Att Garage 16890 0Att Carports 0 0Bsmt Garage 0 Ext Features 10900SUB-TOTAL 141390Quality Class/Grade C-1GRADE ADJUSTED VALUE 134320Exterior FeaturesDescription ValueOMP 6070CONCP 1580OFP 3250Occupancy: Single familyStory Height: 1.00Above Grade Finished Area: 1690 Attic: FinishedBasement: 3/4ROOFINGMaterial: Asphalt shinglesFraming: Std for classPitch: Not availableFLOORINGSlab B, 1.0Sub and joists AVinyl tile 1.0Carpet 1.0EXTERIOR COVER Wood siding 1.0, AINTERIOR FINISHDrywall 1.0ACCOMMODATIONSFinished Rooms 7Bedrooms 3HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONINGPrimary Heat: Central Warm Air Lower Full Part /Bsmt 1 Upper UpperPLUMBING # 3 Fixt. Baths 1 3Kit Sink 1 1Water Heat 1 1 TOTAL 5REMODELING AND MODERNIZATION Amount Date(LCM: 100.00) D DWELL 0.00 C-1 1940 1940 F 0.00 N 0.00 2458 134320 50 0 123 40 33000 G01 ATTGAR 0.00 1 A 30.70 N 30.70 22x 25 16890 0 0 0 100 0 01 UTLSHED 0.00 1 C 2016 2016 A 23.66 N 23.66 8x 12 2270 20 0 100 100 1800 02 UTLSHED 0.00 1 D 2001 2001 F 23.66 N 18.93 7x 14 1860 60 0 100 100 700 03 UTLSHED 0.00 1 C 2016 2016 A 19.35 N 19.35 12x 20 4640 20 0 100 100 3700 04 UTLSHED 0.00 1 C 1998 1998 A 26.02 N 26.02 8x 8 1670 55 0 100 100 800 40000