Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 11-28-22 9. Docket No. PZ-2022-00214 V UDO Section 3.88.D.: 8' offsets required for facades greater than 90' in width,at intervals of 60'; 4' provided. 10. Docket No. PZ-2022-00215 V UDO Section 3.92.C.: Lighting plan does not meet 0.3 footcandle maximum at property lines. 11. Docket No. PZ-2022-00216 V UDO Section 5.19.F.3.: Foundation plantings required, none provided. 12. WITHDRAWN . . . 13. AMENDED -Docket No. PZ-2022-00218 V UDO Section 5.39.H.2.a.: Signage—Number: 3 proposed,2 allowed. 14. WITHDRAWN --Doc o. PZ 2022 00219-V UDO-Section 5.3s9I5.: Sign ll s 15. WITHDRAWN .. are-prohibited. 16. WITHDRAWN Docket No. PZ 2022 00221 V UDO Section 3.88.F.: Building entrance: not The site is located at 9965 N. Michigan Road(previous location of Red Robin), part of West Carmel Marketplace, Block F. It is zoned B2/Business and within the US 421 Overlay District. Filed by Joe Vavrina of HR Green,on behalf of Chick-Fil-A. Petitioner: Joe Vavrina: • Presented site plan, this site is on a corner lot with two street frontages, so we have a hardship on the location of the drive-thru • The reasoning for the not having the 8-ft bump out is we prefer to the have the parking within the interior of the site • Presented landscape plan, we've added as much landscaping that is allowed on our site • Presented photometric plan, we have reduced what we originally submitted but we don't think this negatively affecting any of our neighbors • Presented signage plan and sign elevations, we will have a changeable message board(non-digital)on our free- standing monument sign Public Comments: None Department Report: Mike Hollibaugh: • The Department is recommending positive consideration for all their variance requests • Staff will continue to work with the Petitioner on their design standards of the Michigan Overlay Board Comments: Brad: Is the photometric plan the current plan you are proposing? So, if the variance granted, a brighter light plan will not be presented.Joe Vavrina: Correct. A Motion made by Grabow and seconded by Hawkins to approve Docket Nos PZ-2022-00211 V,00212 V,00214 V, 00215 V,and-00218 V. Approved 5-0. Alan: Explained the BZA Rules of Procedure for a public hearing. 17. (A)Appeal,Director's Acceptance of Buckingham Multifamily Project Application: Docket No. PZ-2022- 00225 A. The Petitioner seeks to appeal the Carmel Dept. of Community Services Director's decision to accept and docket the DP/ADLS application for the Buckingham Multifamily Carmel Midtown project(Docket No. PZ-2022-00202 DP/ADLS)proposed for a portion of the former AT&T site located at 210 3rd Ave SW. The site is zoned C2/Mixed Use. Filed by Charles Demler. Petitioner: Charles Demler, Johnson Addition: • I have lived at my home on Emerson Road for 42 years • My neighbors Kelly Baskett, Bruce Berry, and Cindy Babcock will also speak on behalf of our neighborhood • We believe this proposed multi-family project is not allowed by the standards of the UDO and Zoning District 2 BZA Meeting Minutes 11-28-22 Kelly Baskett,Johnson Addition: • Application dated Sept.23 was accepted and approved by the Director of Community Services • It states it is 6-stories high and is adjacent to single-family homes • The plans submitted do not meet the standards of the UDO • We felt it was necessary this appeal is needed since this plan should not be accepted • Per C-2 zoning district,principal buildings cannot be over 35-ft high when adjacent to residential • Presented aerial view of subject site and surrounding areas, we have large backyards in our neighborhood, and this development is coming right up to the edge of our backyards • This building is inappropriate for this area. 75-ft is double in the height than what is allowed. • The Comprehensive Plan and UDO have protections in place to help us retain the character of our neighborhood • Presented a scaled drawing of the neighborhood next to the proposed building showing the height in context Bruce Berry,Johnson Addition: • You need to go back and look at the basic premises of the documents submitted for this proposal • Reads definition of a principal building, as defined in the UDO • Presented the site plan that shows the townhomes and apartment building • The building plan submitted is a single footprint and does not comply with the UDO • The townhomes cannot function without being an integrated part of the entire building footprint and having direct access to the rest of the building as it is designed • A new site plan was submitted on Nov.22 that shows a property line drawn around the proposed townhomes • Comments from DOCS Staff state this project is several principal buildings,and it is allowed in the UDO • Article 9.02 of UDO details how the Appeal process is supposed to work. Item C states when an Appeal has been filed,all the proceedings and work on the premises should be stopped. The modifications to the DP and ADLS applications should not have been allowed to be made. • We ask you to Accept our Appeal,and the DOCS shouldn't been allowed to do the multiple modifications Public Comments: None IDave Gagliano,Johnson Addition: This story has changed,and the plans have moved. The bottom line is that the DOCS made a mistake. We are sick of it,and we need to put an end to this charade.These townhomes do not have a traditional entrance,as you access them from the back of the unit. These units are bedded into the structure itself.This is a rental building and is part of the primary structure. The prescient setting here is huge. Whatever happens here will just continue along Industrial Drive. Julie Gearing,Johnson Addition: This will affect us personally and our entire neighborhood. Please respect the Ordinance and size of this.We get along as a neighborhood and come together. Todd Stein, Wilson Village: Presented overhead view, all you see are residential properties adjacent to this site.Keep in mind,this will affect the redevelopment all the way along Industrial Drive,that backs up to our neighborhood. Mike Cardwell,3`d Ave: We need more developments going up for people who want to live in Cannel. There are not enough townhomes and apartments. This 6-story would be great for people moving to Carmel.A prescient would be set and become harder developers to come. Development in Cannel is great Justine Masson,Buckingham Companies: The project we are talking about is comprising of two different buildings. The townhome will be constructed on a separate parcel. There are two different product types: luxury townhomes,and 1-3 residential apartment units.The townhomes will have their own entrances. The two buildings will be separated by a wall, as per building codes.Each building structure will have it own address. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Cindy Babcock,Wilson Village: • Redevelopment will not be closed to developers coming to Cannel. We have several C-2 multi-family projects coming to Cannel. • Our Appeal was against the application. We feel the application was approved in error and did not meet the UDO. • The information that there are two buildings should of be evident all along. The developer came to our neighborhood over a year ago and never stated there would be two separate buildings. • We believe it's clear that there's one principal building,with the roof and corners all attached 3 BZA Meeting Minutes 11-28-22 • We ask you to follow the UDO standards and limit this to 35-ft in height Department Report:Mike Hollibaugh • We submitted a lengthy 1-page report • The plan or project has not been approved by the Plan Commission Hearing Officer • The plans were accepted and docketed,and the review process has been ongoing,which what happens with every project. It's not unusual for a project to evolve and change as a result of the review process. • The C-2 allows for multiple principal buildings. This case we have 3 parcels that contain a commercial building, 2-story townhomes,6-story apartment building,with a shared parking garage • The townhomes had to be modified by the CFD for safety and access requirements • Staff feels the project was docketed properly and that the Appeal should be denied Board Comments: Leo: What was the date of the UDO approval that was referenced today?Mike Hollibaugh: 2009, I believe. Brad: The Dept.Report states the buildings will all have separate parcels and tax ID numbers. Will the townhomes be accessed as single-family residential as opposed to commercial.Mike Hollibaugh: They will be sold as rentals,so they will be accessed as commercial. Leo: I feel for the neighbors,but we need to have a legal reason to agree to this Appeal. I believe the Zoning Ordinance is being fully applicable. Kent: Let's take the townhomes out of the equation,how would just handle the 6-ft apartment building adjacent to this neighborhood?Mike Hollibaugh: The building height would be pointed out,and they would have to modify their plans, or they would have to apply for a height variance.Kent: It's the inclusion of these townhomes, is what you made your decision on.Mike Hollibaugh: The townhomes meet the height requirement being adjacent to residential. Alan: When the petition is reviewed,your decision is based upon our Ordinances?Mike Hollibaugh: That is correct. Alan: There wasn't a variance that you had to considered?Mike Hollibaugh: That is correct. Kent: What happens if this Appeal is denied?Can the Petitioner go to court?Sergey Grechukhin: The Petitioner has the opportunity for judicial review if their petition is denied. This Appeal is only based on the building height. There will be a future Plan Commission Hearing Officer public hearing for the DP/ADLS. A Motion made by Dierckman and seconded by Hawkins to deny the Appeal,Docket No. PZ-2022-00225 A. Approved 5-0. Meet' ed at 7:09 p.m. Alan Po snik—President e Shestak—Recording Secretary 4 BZA Meeting Minutes 11-28-22