Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 06-25-07 Hearing Officer City of Carmel Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer ~onday,June25,2007 The meeting had been improperly noticed by the Petitioners for 6:00 PM. The Hearing Officer was Madeleine Torres. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers. Mrs. Torres recessed the meeting until 7:30 PM or the close of the regularly scheduled BZA meeting, whichever came later. Mr. Molitor stated that all the applicants scheduled at 5:30 PM for the meeting, for various reasons, noticed the meeting at 6:00 PM or 7:00 PM which conflicts with the timing of the full Board meeting. Therefore, the Staff recommended that the Hearing Officer meeting be recessed until the conclusion of the regular meeting or 7:30 PM, whichever is later. All four of the items on the Hearing Officer agenda will not be heard until at least 7:30 PM. Anyone in attendance for these items could leave and come back at 7:30 PM. Mrs. Torres announced the Hearing Officer Meeting will reconvene at 7:30 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:03 PM in the Council Chambers. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Department of Community Services Staff in attendance was Christine Barton-Holmes, Rachel Boone and Mike Hollibaugh. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. D. Public Hearing: Id. 1740 ~ustang Chase Drive Garage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07050015 V Section 25.01.01.B.3.b minimum side yard setback The site is located at 1740 Mustang Chase Drive and is zoned Sl/Residential. Filed by Nivad Navid-Azarbaijani, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Nivad Navid Azarbaijani, 1740 Mustang Chase Drive. He currently has a two-car garage and would like to add a third garage. Elevations were shown. His parcel is adjacent to the common area. The third garage will be recessed one to two feet and built of similar materials as the house. Three-car garages with the third one recessed are very common in Saddle Creek. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The garage addition would be approximately two feet from the property line and would be mitigated visually by the proximity of the open space. As stated, about halfthe houses in the development have three-car garages and a number of them are designed the same as this one. The Department recommended positive consideration. Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mrs. Torres asked about the letter of approval from the HOA which was not in her file. Mr. Navid-Azarbaijani shared his copy. Mrs. Torres stated that the Petitioner said in his presentation that it will exactly match the house, but in the written petition it stated similar materials. She wanted to make sure the items matched. Mr. Navid-Azarbaijani confirmed they would match. Mrs. Torres asked if Staff was satisfied with the side elevation without windows in the additional garage. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated they would always prefer to see windows on garage elevations, but cannot make it a requirement at this point. Mr. Navid-Azarbaijani stated none ofthe garages had side windows. Mrs. Torres pointed out there was a window on the second floor on the side elevation. Mrs. Torres APPROVED Docket No. 07050015 V, Mustang Chase Drive Garage. 2d. Perkins-VanNatta Cosmetic Center The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 07050024 V Section 5.04.03.a minimum setbacks The site is located at 170 West 106th Street and is zoned Sl/Residential Filed by Dale Ankrom of DE A, Inc for Dr. Stephen Perkins of Perkins-VanNatta Cosmetic Center. Present for the Petitioner: Dale Ankrom, 6548 Ferguson Street. Also present was Dr. Stephen Perkins, owner of the facility. The variance is for a 30 by 55 foot addition to the front/south side of the property. They would be encroaching in the proposed 20-year Thoroughfare setback, but they are not encroaching in the 20-year right-of-way. They investigated a couple of options for an addition on the 1.07 acres site. This is the most efficient plan. A site plan was shown. There will be little impact. The existing site currently has 41 on-site parking spaces and an additional 29 spaces to the west. They will be adding 11 parking spaces making an approximate ratio of one space per 195 square feet with the proposed addition. This is a small, tight site making the options limited. This will make the office function better for their services and enhance the facility with adequate parking. This is a two-story building. The addition will be an extension of the existing facility with the same materials. More plans were shown. The landscape will remain untouched. The entrance drive will remain relatively untouched. They will add a small entrance to the facility. They will extend the roof-line to the south with one additional window. They may add a canvas awning, but have not investigated that addition at this point. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Page 2 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. This site is almost completely built out, so the Petitioner is very limited to where they can put the addition. The only viable location, that would not severely impact the parking, is on the front. They are encroaching approximately nine feet into the 20- year Thoroughfare Plan setback, but not into the proposed right-of-way. The main concern of the Engineering Department at this point is the Alternative Transportation 10- foot path requirement along 106th Street. At this point there has been very little of it built and they have decided to address this issue with the DP/ADLS process. The other concern was the parking space in front of the building that would not be useable once the 106th Street expansion goes through, but there is no time frame for that at this time. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mrs. Torres asked ifthey had met all their parking requirements. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated they are okay on their site and they also use parking on the site immediately adjacent. Mrs. Torres asked ifthey remove the turn around that currently exists, would they be limiting their patients' access. Dr. Stephen Perkins stated they would not be limiting access. There is another entrance where the patients are dropped off and picked up with wheelchair access. People do not generally drive around the turnaround. They park and walk into the building. Mrs. Torres asked if they would still be meeting their landscape requirements when they remove the turnaround and its landscaping. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated they would need to replace it somewhere else on the site. The landscaping will come through with the DP/ADLS. Mrs. Torres APPROVED Docket No. 07050024 V, Perkins-VanNatta Cosmetic Center. 3d. Woodbrook Elementary School Sign age The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 07050025 V Section 25.7.02-5 Building identification sign size Docket No. 07050026 V Section 25.7.02-5 (B) Additional building identification sign The site is located at 5201 East 131 st Street and is zoned S2IResidential. Filed by Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. for Carmel Clay Schools. Present for the Petitioner: Bill Payne, Fanning/Howey Associates, 902 N. River Road, Indianapolis. They are proposing a new sign to be located on the 116th Street elevation of the building between the existing evergreen trees. A site plan was shown. This ground sign will facilitate the identification of the building along 116th Street and provide changeable copy sign to identify activities of the building. The ground sign landscaping will blend with the existing landscaping. This sign is essentially identical to the signs at the other elementary schools that have been previously approved by the Board. The brick, masonry and limestone will match the existing colors of the building. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. Page 3 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. This request is similar to what has already been installed at several other Carmel Schools. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mrs. Torres stated she was very familiar with the signs. Mrs. Torres APPROVED Docket Nos. 07050025 V and 7050026 V, Woodbrook Elementary School Sign age. 4-6d. Steffen Pole Barn The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07060007 V Section 25.01.01-b.l Building height Docket No. 07060008 V Section 25.01.01-b.3.a.iii Location in front yard Docket No. 07060009 V Section 25.01.01.b.8 Exceeds square footage of dwelling The site is located at 11739 Gray Road and is zoned Sl/Residential Filed by Joseph Steffen, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Joey Steffen, 4984 Waterside Circle. He bought the property at 11739 Gray Road about a year ago. It is 1.3 acres that is heavily wooded with a 50-60 year old small house. It has been a rental property for 20 years with an out-of-state owner. When he bought the lot, he and his wife were going to build a high-end log cabin on the lot. Pictures were shown. The lot had never been staked out, surveyed or platted. He had it staked out and a legal description written. He thought it touched the inner road Windpointe Pass. He could have a curb cut and take the entrance off Gray Road. It turned out the property at Windpointe Pass was owned by the Segars. He is friends with the Segars and met with Doug Segar in the front yard. They kind of came to a verbal agreement that the Steffens could buy a small section of the property, about 140 square feet, for a curb cut. They did not agree to any price at that time. Mr. Steffen then went to the Homeowners Association President, Steve Fusek. Mr. Fusek told him to move forward with the project. It sounded positive and they would annex it into the HOA. Before he could go forward, he needed to submit architectural plans and a letter from the Segars stating they were willing to sell the piece of property. He did all that, spent $20,000 on an architect and plans and the HOA Board annexed them. He called the Segars and they wanted $50,000 for the piece of land. That was a lot of money for that small piece of property and he could not pay that. That idea was shot down so he moved forward with another project. He contacted Angie Conn in DOCS and asked if he could build an accessory building on the lot. She stated that he could. It would have to be behind the house, more than 20 feet away, no more than 18 feet tall at the ridge line and the square footage could not be larger than the existing home. The City gave him a permit to build. He hired an excavator and leveled 50 trees. He indicated the location on a picture. He was ready to build. Doris Segar called him because the neighbors were complaining about the building. He met with the neighbors Mr. Eppink, Mr. Wang, Mr. Segar and the HOA President Steve Fusek. They agreed if the Segars would give him that piece ofland he would move the pole barn. But he told them ifhe had to move it, it would require a variance because it would be in front ofthe home. They wanted him to move it, so that is why he is seeking the variance. He met with Christine Barton-Holmes and applied for the variance. Two days later Mike Hollibaugh revoked his building permit. He has heard concerns about the color of the building and he does not have a preference for color. He feels it will benefit the City of Carmel because the entraI)ce to the land will no longer be off Gray Road. He had been told by various people that they would like the driveway entrance off Gray Road eliminated. It will benefit the Page 4 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 neighbors because he is willing to build a home according to the Waterstone Covenants. He has agreed to that ifhe is allowed to move the pole barn and he is given the little piece of property to have driveway access off Windpointe Pass. Right now this lot has no restrictions and is not bound to any covenants. He will benefit because he will be able to have a pole barn. The person that will be hurt the worst is Mr. Burkett who owns the lot just to the north. His garage will face this barn. More pictures of the wooded lot were shown with the views from different parcels. He included a letter from the Segars saying they are willing to grant an easement. He is trying to accommodate the neighbors by moving the barn and make it a win-win for everyone. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Mrs. Torres reminded everyone not to be redundant. Several remonstrators wished to speak. Mr. Molitor stated the remonstrators had a total of 15 minutes to speak and there would be 5 minutes for rebuttal. Opposition: Paul Reis, Bose McKinney & Evans, attorney representing Steve Eppink. He had a copy of the letter from Mr. Hollibaugh, dated May 2, 2007 explaining in great detail why the building permit was revoked. Basically it states that the use being proposed must be subordinate to the main use ofthe lot. Mr. Steffen does not and is not going to occupy this property at the time that the pole barn will be used. He will be using the barn prior to the time the principle building will be occupied which violates the Zoning Ordinance. There are several other variances he will need. At this time, they felt it was premature because the structure is not authorized. The neighbors in attendance will address some of the other issues he must have for a variance approval, such as the effect on the use and value of adjacent properties, as well as the character of this property. This is currently a very small house with a very large pole bam being proposed. This is a residential neighborhood. The lot unfortunately happens to not be a part of the original subdivision. Steve Eppink, 4829 Windrift Way, immediately south ofthe property. He is opposed to this pole bam which will be an off-site storage facility of growing magnitude that is now up to 3150 square feet, which Mr. Steffen did not represent tonight. It started at 1890 square feet. The pole bam now exceeds the square footage and foot print of the neighboring houses, both north and south. He was not sure of the exact height of the barn, but thought it was nearing 29 feet. This is sizable and will not be hidden in the woods, especially when the le.aves drop. Mr. Reis made references to variances earlier, but there are also variances associated with the size of the building and height. From a humanitarian perspective, Mr. Steffan had a good talk. However, in their first conversation about why he was putting the bam where it was, Mr. Steffen indicated he would not like the barn where it was located either, but it was just business. There is not a lot of sensitivity to it. His first indication of the barn was the hole in the ground next to his property which is only about 12 feet from his driveway. The neighboring property value that will be affected is dependent on where the barn is placed. The original placement was very detrimental to his property, probably at least $100,000 to the negative. Where it is now will affect all adjacent neighbors and also the opes across Gray Road. He felt it would be detrimental to Carmel because it would be an agricultural pole barn of corrugated siding with wood timber structure and frame. He did not know if this barn had power to it, but the first barn did not. There were no utilities to it. It is not sanctioned by the neighborhood association or the Segars or the neighbors representing themselves at this meeting. Page 5 of8 I Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Tom Kendall, 11818 Gray Road in Brookshire across the street. A number of his neighbors have concerns about a pole bam. The photo showing the view from the other side of Gray Road is heavily wooded. But six months of the year when the leaves are not on the trees, they can see that house and most ofthe house in Waterstone quite clearly. The pole bam would be exposed to traffic on Gray Road and residents in Brookshire approximately six months ofthe year. The permit for the original location seemed about the same size as the new location. He felt it was misrepresented and he wanted to know if the original permit that was revoked by Mr. Hollibaugh was for this same size or for a garage. He felt a pole barn was an inappropriate use for this type of neighborhood. If it were just a garage, there probably would not be this discussion. He had a question regarding the use ofthe building. Mr. Steffen indicated in a letter that he would be storing old motorcycles. He understood that Mr. Steffen sold motorcycles, parts and other things on the internet. Therefore, the use of the building could be for commercial use which would be inappropriate for this location. GeoffWilner, 11730 Windpointe Pass, a Board member of Waters tone. He was not speaking for the Board this evening. He was to observe how things were taking place and make sure they were not misrepresented. The only thing the Board did talk about and approve with Mr. Steffen was his proposed home on the lot. Mr. Steffen made it sound like the Segars were going to sell him the land and this house would be built. The only thing the Board voted for was if the land was sold, they would have control ofthe architectural building of it and there would be no problem with the parcel being a part of Waterstone. There was no mention of a pole bam. Apparently Mr. Steffen had other conversations with Mr. Fusek, but Mr. Fusek did not relay any of the conversations to the Board members. According to their covenants, they cannot subdivide property. Robert Burkett, the property immediately north of the Steffen property. His plot plan was shown. Mr. Burkett's garage is 75 feet from the comer to the property line. Mr. Steffen's barn will be 45 feet from the end ofthe building to the property line. So the barn will extend 30 feet past the Burkett's garages and the comer ofthe house. The barn will set five feet offthe property line. All existing trees and vegetation will be removed. Therefore, he will be looking at a 70-foot, painted steel sided 16 to 18-foot tall pole barn. He felt it would have adverse marketability on his house. He had a petition signed by several ofthe neighbors on the west side of Gray Road which he gave to Mrs. Barton-Holmes. Elliott Noelle Kendall, 11818 Gray Road. She looks directly across to the proposed construction of the barn and is opposed to it. One ofthe reasons they purchased their home was for the view ofthe wooded area across the street. She felt this enormous barn would lower property values in the area and was entirely inappropriate use in a single family home setting. Douglas Segar, 4842 Windrift. He stated Mr. Steffan represented their conversations fairly accurately. He has subsequently found out from the covenants for the HOA that he is not allowed to sell the property to Mr. Steffan. He had given Mr. Steffan a letter stating that in principle he was willing to give him an easement for the building of a home, but that does not imply approval for a pole barn. He is not in favor of a pole barn. The easement would be pending any legal reviews which they have not had. He is concerned about his own personal liability. He was not sure he understood the concept of an easement and did not know the liability of the easement. He would also need approval by the HOA which has not happened yet. Jemmie Wang, 4841 Windrift Way. As this has progressed, the barn has gotten bigger and taller. Now it is about 29 feet tall like a 3-story building. The footprint is larger than the houses around there. He wanted to comment on the tenor ofthe discussion they have had with Mr. Steffen. He felt Mr. Steffen Page 6 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 had misrepresented that he was trying to help out the neighbors and make a win-win situation. He did not feel that was what had happened. He had been told that the conversations were very one-sided, with Mr. Steffen making threats on the location of the barn. If they didn't do this, the guy was coming to chop down the 100-year old tree. None of them knew what was going on until that part ofthe land was razed. He had a petition from every house on his side of Windrift except two who were not home. He felt the large number of people in the audience were against it. Doris Segar, 4842 Windrift with a letter from Cindy Peyton at 4859 Windrift Way. She summarized from the letter. She stated that the property is zoned S-1 and the building Mr. Steffen is proposing is consistent with a light commercial, storage or recreational facility. Even if Mr. Steffen contends that he will not be using the building for any business or large recreational use, when he chooses to transfer the property to another owner, the building would interest buyers who want to use it for light commercial or large recreational uses. Most homeowners do not want a corrugated metal building in their front yard. Mr. Steffen wants to use it for storage, but he lives at a home with 5 garage bays and storage at his current home. The letter was given to Mrs. Barton-Holmes. Mike Surber, 11717 Windpointe Pass, three houses south of the proposed pole barn. He is a licensed realtor in Carmel and owns a mortgage banking firm. He sent his appraisers out to do some comparable sales at the property and what this impact would have on houses in his subdivision where the median price is between $700,000 and $800,000. The impact is about $50,000 to $100,000 in decreased property values if the barn is allowed to be built. Rebuttal: Mr. Steffen stated he was not going to address each and every one of the comments. They had a legitimate concern. However, he did not misrepresent anything. He said exactly what he intended to do. When he met with Eppink, Wang and Segar, he stopped construction on the pole barn. He has a contract to build that barn and that permit was revoked. He is obligated to that, so there is another loss. He indicated the location of a new house and stated it would hide the new pole barn. He would be tearing down the little white house ifhe gets the easement from the Segars. It is his intention to live at, the property. The only reason he wanted to build the pole barn when the permit was revoked, was to get his ducks in a row. He was ultimately going to build a home. He can do it in reverse. His option 1 was to build an $800,000 home, but he was not going to pay $50,000 for the little piece of property from the Segars. Option 2 was to get the permit from the City which was revoked. Option 3 is asking for the variances at this meeting. Option 4, if this does not get approved; he will keep the entrance off Gray Road and build a home. Ultimately he will get a permit and build something else. Tonight was a viable option, but if it is denied, he will go to option 4. Mr. Hollibaugh stated the permit was initially issued by the Building and Inspection Division of DOCS for a smaller pole barn which complied with what the Ordinance allows. The overall square footage was smaller than the primary dwelling, which included all the floors in the home. He had responded the day after the permit was issued to concerns that were raised by the neighbors. He inspected the site and the impact ofthe construction on the neighborhood was really what caused them to take a more serious look at the issuance ofthe permit. After working with Legal Counsel, they determined that there were issues and the permit was improperly issued. Those are explained in the letter. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The Department recommended negative consideration ofthe building height and size. As for the location, as shown in the Department Report, the requested location is 45 by 70 and the previously requested location was for a barn measuring 30 Page 7 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 by 63. The overall square footage would be 3150 square feet. The Ordinance does limit the size of pole bams to limit the possibility of commercial activity and to maintain a residential appearance throughout a neighborhood. If this is approved as filed, the Petitioner would need to come back for a Use Variance. The size is above and beyond what would be an accessory or subordinate structure. The location is farther away from the majority of the houses and essentially gets it out of their front yards. The Department felt that was an improvement. However, if anything is built at that location, the Department felt it should be more compatible with what is existing with regard to the size, height and materials used. They would prefer to see a dark color siding to make it less visually intrusive and to look less like a bam. The Department recommended positive consideration of Docket No. 07060008 V for location and negative consideration of Docket Nos. 07060007 V and 07060009 V for building height and square footage. Mrs. Torres felt all her questions and concerns had been addressed. She asked Mr. Molitor about her options. The Hearing Officer does not usually see this weighty of an issue with this much public input. Should she continue it to full Board or not vote and have this heard before the full Board. Mr. Molitor stated that according to the Rules she could approve or deny any or all of the variances. Other options would be to impose conditions or permit or require the owner to make a commitment concerning use or development of the parcel. If the owner is unwilling to make those commitments or accept the conditions, then it would automatically transfer the matter to the full Board for a hearing. If there is approval or denial, the decision can be appealed to the full Board within fourteen days after the decision. Mr. Steffen confIrmed that he understood the appeal process. A-...., Mrs. Torres DENIED Docket Nos. 07060007 V, 07060008 V, and 07060009 V, Steffen Pole Barn. If the matter is appealed to the full Board, there would be a new public notice. I. Old Business There was no Old Business. J. New Business There was no New Business. K. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 PM. ~ Connie Tingley, Secret S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Hearing Officer - 2007\20070625 Hearing Officer.rtf Page 80f8