Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 08-27-07 City of Carmel Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday, August 27, 2007, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members in attendance were Kent Broach, Leo Dierckman, James Hawkins and Madeleine Torres, thereby estabLishing a quorum. Cluistine Barton-Holmes, Rachel Boone and Mike Hollibaugh represented the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve the minutes of the July 23,2007 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0. Mrs. Balion-Holmes gave the Department Report. She stated the first item on the Agenda, Docket No. 07070012 SU Lubavitch of Indiana, had requested to be Tabled until October 22, 2007. Mr. Dierckman asked how many times it had been Tabled. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated this was first time it had appeared on the Agenda under this Docket No. It was on the Agendas about a year ago and was denied. Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. He informed the Board that in the pending litigation there had been a hearing on a Summary Judgment motion before the Federal Court about nine days ago. It will probably be some time before there is a response. They were confident they presented their arguments well. He would like to schedule an Executive Session with the involved Board members in conjunction with the October 22 regular meeting. He thought by that time they would have some ruling by the Court on the Sununary Judgment motion. They may have some activity with respect to depositions by some of the Board members which they would need to discuss. It could be either before or after the regular meeting on Monday, October 22,2007. H. Public Hearing: lh. Lubavitch oflndiana The applicant seeks the following special use approval: Docket No. 07070012 SU A~pendix A: Use Table Religious Uses in a Residential District The site is located at 2640 West 96 Street and is zoned S l/Residential. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler, PC for Lubavitch of Indiana. This item was TABLED to the October 22, 2007 meeting. Page 1 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 2h. Total Renal Care The applicant seeks the following special use approval: Docket No. 07070021 SU Appendix A: Use Table Dialysis medical clinic in a retail commercial office building The site is located at 160-184 East Carmel Drive and is zoned B8/commercial retail. Filed by Steve Lieb for Total Renal Care, Inc. Present for the Petitioner: Lacy Cripe, Da Vita, 3021 E. 98th Street, Suite 140, Indianapolis. Handouts of the Petition were distributed to the Board. They are requesting this Special Use for a dialysis center in a multi-tenant space. The parent company name DaVita means "he/she gives life", which is what they hope to do. Members ofthe 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 requested use is permitted in the B-3 zoning district; however, it does require the granting of a Special Use to operate there. The other tenants in the space include restaurants and the pet funeral home that was granted a Special Use at last month's meeting for a pet crematory facility. The Department feels the proposed dialysis clinic would be similar in use and intensity to the existing uses. There are a number of medical offices and medical buildings within the surrounding area. All improvements that would need to be made would be interna1. A changing of the sign would be the only external improvement to the site. It will not have an adverse effect on any of the traffic in and out of the area. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 07070021 SU, Total Renal Care. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0. 3h. 1005 East l06th Street - Fischer Business The applicant seeks the following use variance: Docket No. 07070025 UV Appendix A ~ Use Table Office uses in theR3lResidential District The site is located at 1005 East l06th StTeet and is zoned R3/Rcsidential. Filed by Brandon Fischer, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Brandon Fischer, 1005 E. 106th Street, Indianapolis. He would like to operate a business from this residential property. The property is located within the Home Place Business District. 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. This computer consulting business would be in an existing dwelling. There would be four employees. Although it does not show up in the Zoning map, the property inm1ediately to the west has been rezoned to the B-6 District. This area inm1ediately around College Avenue on 106th Street has been designated as the Home Place Business Area which Page 2 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 encourages neighborhood scale commercial uses. This would be a good example of a neighborhood scale commercial use. The uses to the east are still primarily residential. This use would be a good buffer between the commercial uses to the west and the residential uses to the east. The residential appearance of the site should be maintained as much as possible by screening the parking lot, minimizing parking and having a small sign, if any at all. Hamilton County Highway Department has the control of 1061h Street. They have requested dedication of a 55-foot half right-of-way as indicated on the Hamilton County Thoroughfare Plan. This is also envisioned in the Alternative Transportation Plan as having a sidewalk. Currently there is no sidewalk along this section of 106th Street, although there is one to the west of Cornell Street. The Alternative Transportation Coordinator has met with the Petitioner to work out a donation to the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund. He suggested we have a time deadline to payoff 100% of that fee. He suggested within six months, the February 25 Board meeting, that 50% be paid off and that 100% be paid off in nine months to a year, at the Board's discretion. The Department felt this low-impact use was appropriate within the Home Place Business Overlay. They recommended positive consideration subject to the dedication of right-of-way and a dona60n Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund. Mr. Broach asked about any improvements and the number of customers coming to the site. Mr. Fischer indicated on the site plan the expanded parking area in front and extended landscaping. It will maintain the appearance of a residence. They expect only one or two clients a week coming to the site. Mr. Broach asked ifhe was willing to commit to the dedication of the right-of-way and Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Plan as outlined by the Depaliment. Mr. Fischer stated he was in support of the commitments. However, it was going to be a substantial amount of money that he had not been planning on paying. That was why he asked for the extension. He was concerned about his neighbors. Even the commercial property to the west was unaware of this fund and had not made a contribution. He wanted to know if there was any time frame or would it be ten to twenty years down the road. Mrs. Barton-Holmes did not have an exact date, but anticipated a much shorter time frame than ten to twenty years. She knew they were hoping to expand the netvvork of sidewalks as soon as possible. It might be in the next couple of years. Mr. Fischer asked if there would be any chance they would make a decision not to install the sidewalks. Mrs. Barton-Holmes confirmed that l06lh Street was in the Alternative Transportation Thoroughfare Plan, so sidewalks would go in and would extend to the Monon. Mrs. Torres asked for an explanation ofthe contribution. She wanted to know if the homeowners along the 106th Street ten-foot pathway contributed to the project or was it tax dollars. She felt it was unique that My. Fischer was being asked to contribute if no one else around hi s property had contributed. Hi s money could be doing much more for him by earning interest. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated that as properties come through the BZA and/or Plan Commjssion process, if they are on a parcel that adjoins a right-of-way that is in the Alternative Transportation Plan, they are Page 3 of 1 6 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 given the option to put in a sidewalk or path at that time or make a contribution that would be the equivalent of the cost of installation. Then when the City or County makes the improvements to that right-of-way, they put in the sidewalk or path. As far as the property immediate! y to the west, she will need to check with the Coordinator. When they were rezoned, it should have been part of their requirements to have the sidewalk connection added to the overall plan. The sidewalks are constructed within the right-of-way and maintained by the City. Mrs. Torres asked how the paths were installed further east along l061h Street. Mrs. Barton-Holmes believed some were installed when I06th Street was improved. Some ofthem are connected piecemeal as parcels are improved or as they go through the land use process. Eventually the idea is to have an entire network of connected paths. Right now there are a few sections that are not fully connected that are being worked on. Mrs. Torres is in complete support of the 10- foot paths. She just wanted to make sure everyone was being treated fairly. She was still not hearing clearly who paid for the paths. Ifthe Department of Transportation paid for them, why are we expecting Mr. Fischer to pay for his? Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated that essentially every parcel within the City is required to install sidewalks or paths. If it is on a major right-of-way, which is the case here, then typically the Petitioner will put them in or the City will put them in at some point. Ifit is within a subdivision, sidewalks are required by the Subdivision Control Ordinance. So ideally there would not be a property owner in the City who would not have immediate access to a sidewalk, whenever the sidewalk would be installed. Mr. Molitor stated that occasionally a landowner is in a position to get a windfall if the government comes along before the landowner has developed his or her property or before it has been redeveloped after the time sidewalks were f1.otinstalled. If the government comes along and improves the road, they may put the sidewalks in without any additional charge to that landowner. But that doesn't obviate our ordinances which do require sidewalks when the property is developed, according to the Thoroughfare Plan. That is the case with every developer, regardless of who or where they are. Me Fischer indicated the location of his property and the sidewalks. His understanding was that if and when the neighboring properties were ever zoned commercial that would be the time they would be required to make the contribution or i11stall the path. That is an unknown timeframe. He didn't know if it would ever be zoned commercial since it is outside the Home Place Business District. T f it remained residential, would the City pay for it? Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the sidewalks along there would be installed as part of a road improvement plan, if they have not already been installed as part of the rezoning or variance process. The connection would be established to the sidewalks to the west. If the properties had not been rezoned nor had any variances Plior to road improvements to 106th Street, then the City would install the sidewalks. Mr. Oierckman stated this was typical. The property owner actually owns the sidewalk. Unless it is a very unique situation and that piece of property has never been through any zoning process or anything else because of the age of the building on it or it was grandfathered in without sidewalks that would be the only occasion when the City might pay for the sidewalk. Otherwise, it is the cost of doing a commercial business in a residential area. It might be cheaper to rent office space somewhere and leave this property residential. What was the cost of the donation? Page 4 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated that the Altemative Transportation Coordinator, Mr. Littlejohn, stated the estimate was around $3000. Mr. Fischer does not mind contributing the cost. He was concerned about when it was ever going to be done. Mr. Dierckman stated he was converting the use from residential to commercial, so unfortunately that was part of the cost of doing business in a residential area. Mr. Hawkins asked if the Board could put a time frame on the Use Variance for twelve months and then revisit it. It seemed some of the hesitation was when was this going to occur and why did it need to be funded now. In twelve to eighteen months, there might be a requirement at that point in time and the sidewalk may have begun. Mr. Molitor stated in his opinion the Use was not approvable unless the sidewalk goes in or arrangements are made for something in lieu of the sidewalk. A valiance from the requirement to put in a sidewalk would be needed and that has not been done in this case. The City has made arrangements for the payment to be made in installments instead of paying the full amount up front. My. Hawkins stated the one exhibit showed 50 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Fischer recognized the correct amount was 55 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Hawkins asked Mr. Fischer if he wanted it approved without the sidewalk or with the sidewalk and the contribution to the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund. Mr. Fischer stated he would agree to make the donation to the Fund. Mr. Broach moved to approve Docket No. 07070025 UV, 1005 East 106th Street-Fischer Business. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0. 5-9h. Old Meridian Professional Village The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07070032 UV Section 20G.OS.OS A (1) Financial institution in the Old Meridian Office District Docket No. 07070033 V Section 20G.OS.OS A (2) Drive-through facilities Docket No. 07070034 V Section 20G.OS.OS B (1)(2) Building height/occupiable floors Docket No. 07070035 V Section 20G.OS.OS B (2)(2) Front yard setback Docket No. 07070036 V Section 20G.05.0S B (3)(2) Building footprint The site is located at 12346 Old Meridian Street and is zoned Old Meridian/Office District Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for Alta Business Communications, LLC. Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP. Also present were Kurt Dehner, AHa Business Communities, Greg Snelling, Snelling Engineering, and Brent Davis, CSO Architects. An aerial photograph of the site was shown. A lta Be is proposing development of a new commercial professional office development 011 approximately 6.25 acres. A small parcel ofthe land on the north boundary of the AHa parcel is owned by Meijer for a detention pond area. A bank is not permitted within the Old Meridian Office District. The Distlict was intended primalily for office uses and other Page 5 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 retail uses were not included. In the Zoning Ordinance under the Schedule of Uses, a bank or financial institution is included under the retail and services section. In the general Zoning Ordinance, all the business classifications allow banks and financial institutions. They felt the use of a bank was supportive and complementary of the general offices that would be developed on the site, as well as providing services to the nearby area. The only nearby bank is Chase located in Hamilton Crossing. There is significant residential development in the area and potential commercial development. They did not feel it would have any adverse affect on the properties in the community. Without the bank, they would not have a very important amenity for the type of offices they want to locate on the parcel. This site is unique as it is not on US 31. The use of a bank will enhance it. The connector drive from Old Meridian through the parcel to Pennsylvania is mandated by the Thoroughfare Plan, leaving a very small area near the roundabout. They feel the area would be ideal for a bank because of the visibility. A drive-through facility is supposed to be located at the rear of the building. On this particular site, if the drive-through were located at the rear, pedestrians would be crossing the lanes when approaching the bank from the primary parking area. Therefore, they are proposing to move the drive-through facility to the side of the building which is adjacent to Pennsylvania Street. They would have significant landscaping shielding the cars from the people traveling in the area. From a matter of safety, they felt it was important to put the drive-through facility in that particular location. The next variance is for occupiable floors. In the Old Meridian District all the buildings within the District are required to have two occupiable floors. Because of the size of the site, with the extensive right-of-way along Old Meridian and additional right-of-way to be granted along Pennsylvania, they looked at the optimal size of the buildings that could be developed. The large buildings on the site are 19,000 square feet and meet the building footprint. On the southern portion of the site, the buildings had to be smaller to be attractive and fit on the site with appropriate parking. The occupiable floors went from two floors to one floor. The important thing is the height of the buildings is remaining with the 28- foot requirement. The elevations of the buildings were shown from the packets. Building B would maintain the height with a nice streetscape, but only has one occupiable floor. Building C is very comparable architecture. It has a smaller footptint, with 4500 square feet. The bank building elevations were shown with the drive-through on the west side. It also maintains the height required. As mentioned earlier, Old Meridian Street is being significantly reconstructed as part of its overall redevelopment. However, when they were acquiring right-of-way for the new road, they did not acquire the fulltight-of-way as stated in the Thoroughfare Plan. There is an additional 10 feet of right-of-way that needs to be granted. They are seeking to reduce t~e front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet on Pennsylvania and on Old Meridian so that they can obtain suitable parking for these professional offices. With their streetscape plan, they will have all the landscaping required under the Old Meridian District. They felt bringing the buildings closer to the street would enhance the development and the District. The final variance is for making three buildings smaller than the 8000 square feet building footprint. With the configuration and width of the site and the connector roadway, it requires slightly smaller buildings to develop the site. 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. Even with this number of variances, the Department believed the development was in keeping with the overall intention of the Old Meridian Office District. The Use Variance to allow the financial institution does comply with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for the area. A financial institution is considered to be retail, but in temlS of intensity it is very close to office uses. With regards to the Development Standards Variances, the proposed location of the drive-through facility is an improvement to what would be required by the Ordinance. Page 6 of ] 6 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 Locating the drive-through along the west side of the building would be much safer than placing it at the north. It would be much safer for people walking to and from the bank. The height of the building will be maintained even though it is one story instead of the required two stories. The overall impression of the building will be that it is two stories. Because of the work done on Old Meridian Street and because of the design requirements of the Old Meridian Office District, the Department felt the reduced setback was appropriate. If the building were built to the required footprint and with the required setback, it would encroach on the required parking and may also reduce some of the greenspace. The Department would prefer to see a reduced setback and a reduced building and be able to provide enough parking and still be able to meet landscaping requirements. The Department recommended a positive consideration of the Use Variance request and the Development Standards requests. Mr. Dierckman asked if they were wonied about cut-through traffic with the connector road. Mr. Reis stated it was mandated on the Thoroughfare Plan when they did the Old Meridian District. He knew there was consideration ofthe roundabout location, but the overall plan showed a possibility of development to the east. The intent was for a variety of places to get across when travehng Old Meridian. Mr. Dierckman stated he was not excited about the drive-through on the west side, but he didn't think there was any other way to design it, for safety. Mr. Reis stated that was also a very hi,gh visibility site for a bank. A restaurant would not be allowed without another variance. Mrs. Ton-es asked the thought behind the Old Meridian Overlay not permitting banks. Mrs. Barton-Holmes thought this stretch was intended to be mainly an office corridor. Further north was envisioned as more retail and residential uses. Since a bank typically is classed as more of a retail use, it was not petmitted in this area. Mr. Reis had worked on the Task Force and when they looked at office uses, they did not think of a bank. In the Schedule orUses, banking falls under retail and services and that is how it got left out. Mr. Broach wanted to confirm that even with a reduced setback, the landscaping would comply. Mr. Reis confirmed all the street landscaping would comply with the Ordinance. Mrs. Torres noted the drive-through was significantly screened. Mr. Dierckman did not think they could do it any other way. He thought the project would be great. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket Nos. 07070032 UV, 07070033 V through 07070036 V, Old Meridian Professional Village. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and ALL were APPROVED 4-0. Page 7 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 10-ISh. Uptown Partners, LLC Guilford Road The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07070044 UV Section 18.01 Permitted uses in the B7 District Docket No. 07070045 V Section 18.04.02 Minimum front yard Docket No. 07070046 V Section 18.04.03 Minimum side yard Docket No. 07070047 V Section 18.04.04 Minimum side yard aggregate Docket No. 07070048 V Section 18.04.05 Minimum rear yard Docket No. 07070049 V Section 18.04.06 Minimum lot width Docket No. 07070050 V Section 18.04.07 Minimum lot size Docket No. 07070051 V Section 18.04.09 Maximum lot coverage Docket No. 07070052 V Section 18.06.02 Areas to be landscaped The site is located at 531 South Guilford Road and is zoned B7/Commercial Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson & Frankenberger for Uptown Partners, LLC. Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger. Also present .John Hefton, pannered with Justin Moffett in Uptown Partner, LLC, and Jim Shields, the civil engineer from Weihe Engineers. A site plan for the 6. I acres and adjacent area was shown. Currently a church exists on the site. The Use Variance and Development Standards Variances would permit the development of a single-family, detached residential community known as Kousa Street Cottages. The community has been designed to meet the needs of the empty nester demographic and for buyers who wish to scale down into a ranch-style, main level master bedroom residential type of product. The proposed homes are anticipated to have an approximate base price range between $250,000 and $275,000. All homes will have patios as well as the potential option for screened porches. The homes will also have the potential option for basements and/or lofts to provide additional storage space. The homes will have two-car garage capacity and the driveways are designed to accommodate parking for two cars. However, the parcel is currently zoned B-7/Business which does not pemlit single-family residential development without a variance request. A Schedule of Uses chart was indicated and all the permitted B-7 uses had been highlighted. He distributed a handout to the Board depicting a B-7 development with parking lot area and entrance. The types ofB-7 uses that would be permitted on this site would include such uses as medical cbnics, medical health centers, general offices, professional offices, public service Jacilities and water management use facilities, general retail sales, general service, dry cleaning businesses, financial institutions, wholesale sales, and restaurants without drive-tm'ough food sales. While B-7 zoning prohibits single-family residential development, it does permit multi-family dwellings such as townhomes, condos and/or apartments. However, instead of developing this real estate for what could be pennitted, Uptown desires to develop a single-family detached residential community targeted at empty nesters. They believed that type of development would be more consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses, compared with the types ofB-7 uses that would be permitted for the site. The Development Standards Variances deal with the "nuts and bolts" of the development, setbacks, lot sizes, etc. Since B-7 does not anticipate single-family residential development, all the standards would apply to office or retail uses. A site plan and development plans were indicated in the packets. He also distributed a color landscape plan. They were seeking a reduction ofthe minimum front yard from 40 feet to 15 feet; minimum side yard from 10 feet to 3 feet; minimum side yard aggregate from 25 feet to 10 feet; minimum rear yard from 30 feet to 18 feet; minimum lot width from 100 feet to 40 feet; minimum lot size from 5000 square feet per multi-family dwelling unit to 3350 square feet per single family detached dwelling unit; maximum lot coverage for multi-family dwellings of 40 percent to 50 percent; and landscaped buffer areas from 30 feet to 10 feet. The B- 7 standard would require 30 feet of perimeterbufferyard, because of business adjacent to residential uses, Because of the proposed residential use, they were seeking to comply with the residential buffering requirement. Despite the number of variances, they are only seeking to Page 8 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 development a community that addresses the empty nester demographic that prefers smaller lots with ranch-style types of homes with main level master bedrooms. This is not a townhome product, but true empty nester type of product. The B-7 zoning would prohibit this type of community without the variances. The building elevations were pointed out in the packets behind Tab 5. They have worked on the design of this project. Based on the number oftownhome communities that have been approved in Cannel and not yet built out, there may be a need for a truer project that meets the empty nester demographic. The project requires the developer to go through the Plan Commission review process for this site. Not only the architecture of the single-family detached homes that would be constructed, but also the landscaping elements and all other elements would be looked at in detail by the Plan Commission. An approval tonight of the variances sets up the frame work by which they could develop the real estate. They believed that a single-family detached residential community was more appealing and desirable than the permitted types ofB-7 uses that could be placed on the site. The variances will allow them to develop this empty nester type of community. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Favorable: Ron Koster, 1076 Timbercreek Drive, in the Timbercreek Condos just south of this proposed development. He is President of the Timbercreek Homeowners Association, but could not speak for each individual homeowner. However, in talking with a number of the homeowners, he had found this proposed project very favorable with a number of the llOmeowners. The thing they looked at was the number of close retail locations and they were not in favor of them adjacent to their property. They would be in favor of the price structure and the type ofhuilding. They felt it would enhance their properties. Unfavorable: Manuochehr Hourmozdi, 29 year resident at 432 Oak Drive. When the Church of God asked for the rezoning of their land to B-7~ they promised they would not allow anything to build. Two times they said they were getting B-7 for their church expansion purposes. Now they are looking at selling it and putting in 33 homes, making it very very condensed. For the record, when are we going to stop building? With all the buildings on Guilford and the school, they would need more infrastructures. He felt Cannel had rush hours worse than Los Angeles and they never had that problem before. He was opposed to building anything there, other than what Church of God promised. It would be too many houses and they would be cutting down the trees. Micah Kinnaman, 438 Oak Drive. He objected to several aspects of the project. Mainly the construction of a road which will border their property. They requested that the existing trees, regardless of the final plan, not be removed. They requested the density of the project to be scaled back. They feared traffic and noise concerns, especially with the development right behind their house. Chris 'Wilsey, 516 Oak Drive, the larger property at the dead end of the street. He had questions. In the spring the area behind his house made a nice "duck pond" with the water retention. Will this area be altered so that he will possibly have water in his basement? Secondly, he felt the density was pretty high for this type of place. At one time, the Church had started putting in pine trees to shield the property from the owners on Oak,Drive. Will those trees be coming down? On the south side between the parcel and the condos are a lot oftrees/woods. Will they be taking those down? Page 9 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 Rebuttal: Mr. Shinaver stated he did not know about the promises the Church of God had made. He did not represent the Church in any prior approvals. Currently, to his knowledge, there was nothing that would prevent this type of use. He was not aware of any recorded zoning commitments that would affect this project. The concern was that the Church had made some promises about certain B-7 uses. This is not a B- 7 type of use. As part of the Plan Commission review process, they are required to appear before the Technical Advisory Agencies and Department of Engineering. At that time the infrastructure, site access and circulation, and traffic issues will be reviewed and addressed. The Department of Engineering has certain issues to be addressed, but he did not recall them expressing any major concern about the amount of traffic that may be generated from this empty nester type of community. There would not typically be a lot of children and trips to their activities. With this paliicular development they are proposing 33 single-family detached homes. When they originally looked at this site, they looked at it as a48-52 townhome project that would have been denser. They felt this development was appropriate for the site considering there are multi-family uses surrounding the site (apartment complex to the west and condominium development to the south). As far as the existing trees, there is a tree line that exists to the east that is open to debate. In preparing for this project, Uptown Partners went door-to-door to speak to as many neighbors as possible. Some said it was a very nice tree line and others believed there were certain trees within the tree line that are not desirable and should be removed. They will be meeting with Scott Brewer, the Urban Forester, at the site with their landscape architects to review the plan for the perimeter bufferyard areas. They will figure out the condition of the trees in the area and the best treatment for those trees. That will be part of the Plan Commission review process. As part of the Plan Commission review process, they will need to meet for approvals with the various Departments that will deal with the drainage. The southern portion of the site has many existing mature trees which are actually on the condominium development's property. There is a significant setback on the southem portion of the development from the homes in this project to the adjacent homes on the south. The representative from the HOA did not mention any concerns at this meeting. The Department does have a concern with regard to the southern and eastern bufferyard areas and the desire to preserve as much as possible. From the report, the Department seemed to support the variances, but had a different opinion about the bufferyard issue. They will be working with Scott Brewer and replace any trees that are indicated. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Depaliment Report. If these variances are approved, they will establish certain minimum parameters for development. It would be very similar to a rezoning except that the Development Standards requested by the Petitioner do not fit into any of the current zoning districts. Approval would not tie the Petitioner to this specific site plan. It would just establish setbacks and minimum lot sizes. Those setbacks and lot sizes could be increased as this goes through the DP/ADLS process as is required by the underlying zoning. Given that the site is surrounded on two sides by multi-family uses, condos and apartments, and on two sides by single-family, the Department felt this was a good transitory use. It is less dense than what would be permitted by multi-family allowed in the B~ 7 District. The Development Standards Variances correspond with the requests to create a smaller, empty nester style single-family, small lot, minimum maintenance type residential development. The Department was in support of most of the variances requested. There was some concern with placing houses so close together. That is more into code issues for safety. The primary concern is the buffeling along the east and south property lines. Right now there is extensive natural buffering that they would like to see preserved to the greatest extent possible. They did not see that with the current site plan. If the trees to the east and south are preserved to a greater extent, then some of the lots may have to be Page 10 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 eliminated. That would provide for a little more space between the houses and possibly a more creative site design. This is not the forum for discussing the site design that much. The Department would also like to point out a couple of other issues. The sidewalks may require a subdivision waiver when this gets to the secondary plat stage. They would like to see more details on the detention pond and a more natural look to the design. The Department, especially the Urban Forester, was still working with the Petitioner for the bufferyards along the south and north and the landscaping and site design in general. The Department recommended positive consideration of the Use Variance requested and the Development Standards Variances requested with the exception of the reduction in bufferyards. Thirty feet is typical for commercial next to residential. Ten feet was somewhat typical for residential to residential, but that reduction may not provide enough space for the trees in the area to be able to continue to survive and grow and provide a good buffer. Mr. Dierckman was always nervous when a Petitioner suggested a development was better than what could be developed under the current zoning. It usually means there is something wrong with the design as proposed. Secondly, he had a couple comments. Cannel traffic is not as bad as Los Angeles traffic, after having lived in LA for six years. Five point five units to the acre seemed like a lot. He asked if due diligence had been done. Was this B-6 or B- 7? Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated it was rezoned to B-7 sometime in the 1980's by the church. There is a commitment that limits commercial retail uses on the site. The Department was not sure why they chose B-7. The intention was to allow for the expansion of the church on that site and also allow for the possibility of a multi- family development. Mr. Dierckman asked ifit limited office buildings. Was there a commitment about residential? Had anyone read the minutes? Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the use on the site was a church office building. They were fairly specific about no retail uses. The minutes were in the Department Office. Mr. Dierckman felt anyone who lived in the area would remember what was said at meetings and the commitments that were made. He felt it was worth looking into and some more due diligence. He thought it was creative the way the Petitioner tried to maximize utilization of the site by not using cul- de-sacs, but a stub road and a second entrance onto Guilford, to use less land. He did not like the site plan at all. It was extremely boring with too much concrete. There was no reason for it to be double- loaded. There was no reason to have a street behind the buildings with a street in front. He wanted to see a site plan with the tree inventory on it and this site plan over top. Mr. Shinaver did not have that at this point. It would be part of the Plan Commission review process. He did show a site plan and pointed out the location of the tree cover. He wanted to spend some time with the Department to go over the prior commitments. Based on comments, he wondered if it would be acceptable to come back next month with more infonnation about the landscaping after Scott Brewer had reviewed the site for landscaping, tree preservation and inventory. My. Dierckman felt that would be helpful. It was hard to tell where the roads impacted the trees. What was the need or value for a second entrance onto Guilford? Mr. Shinaver understood that it was required by Ordinance for a subdivision like this to have two points of ingress and egress. Often subdivisions that arc interconnected will have only one point of Page 11 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 access off a main road because they are connected to another subdivision. However, this development is not in that situation. Mr. Dierckman asked if they could do a development like Brookshire Village. It is an empty nester neighborhood that he liked. It looked great, but was very dense and very popular. He felt they needed more of that here. Mr. Broach was conceptually open to the use. He thought this was an interesting parcel. Having taken a look at it, the eastem and northern boundaries were substantial evergreens of some kind. For such a small building to have that much of a natural buffer almost completely around it, it would seem counter-productive to get rid of it. Mr. Molitor stated that Mr. Hollibaugh had pulled the file and he had the language from the restrictive covenant that was executed after therezoning in 1985. It says "in addition to the statutory use restrictions of a B-7 zoning classification, said land and premises shall not be used for any regular commercial purposes either retail or wholesale or otherwise." That is a covenant running with the land. Mr. Dierckman stated an office building is commercial, so they are doing commercial business in there. He did not know if that was necessarily important. Mr. Shinaver stated they would like an opportunity to look into it. He wanted to understand the covenant and if it was still applicable. Something may have occurred where it is possibly no longer applicable. He would also like to look at the language to see how it dovetails into the B-7 types of uses. Mrs. Torres stated they would be maintaining the B-7 and going for a Use Variance. It almost sounded like a rezone. She wanted the minimums addressed. What multi-family zoning currently exists that comes closest to what this would look like ifit was approved? Mr. Shinaver stated there are contractual terms between the buyer and the seller and a time frame associated with it. A rezone would go before the Plan Commission and the City Council and that process takes much longer. For d'uediligence purposes, they needed a quicker answer. However, being sensitive to bringing the project forward, they met with Staff and were told it was the Petitioner's decision which way to go. He felt this was similar to R-4 or R-5 development. It does not fit perfectly, but probably falls in that general category. The zero lot line, like Brookshire Village, was repealed some years ago. Mrs. Torres felt the layout needed a little more flavor and maybe the roads could be pulled inside. Mr. Dierckman stated it was sometimes easier to give a variance if there was some creativity behind the reason why. A better situation could be created because of a variance. He asked ifthe buildings could be connected like Brookshire Village. The little side yards were such a waste of greenspace. Mr. Shinaver stated it might be possible, but maybe not for this demographic for the type of buyer and pnce range. Mr. Dierckman wanted them to be a little more creative on the site plan and maybe eliminate some of the side yards. Brookshire Village does not have side yards and they are very popular. He felt this proj ect offered that potential. Page 12 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 John Hefton with Uptown Partners. He appreciated the comments. They were hoping to have an alternative to a townhome in a detached product. They had done a lot of market research. There are so many home buyers out there who want a detached product. A lot want basements and a lot do not. They want main level living and they want their own home. He felt they had worked hard to try to accomplish that on commercial land. They have backed off the density. They are trying to make a quality product available in Carmel. Mr. Hawkins agreed the product looked great and the use was a good use. But he agreed with Mr. Dierckman, he did not like the layout and one way streets. Are the front elevations facing the private drives or facing in toward the detention area and Guilford? Mr. Shinaver stated for the properties 1 through 10 adjacent to Guilford, the front doors would be facing Guilford and the back doors would face out to a private drive. For units 19 through 25, the front door would be on the south and face the private drive. Units 11 through 18 would face the detention pond. Mr. Hawkins felt the drives were alleys because the properties were facing in the opposite direction. It did not look as if some had enough area to have driveway parking. It looks like there are some parking spots along the private drive. He did not see how they could get emergency vehicles through with some people parking on the 18 to 20- foot wide streets. He had a lot of safety concerns based on that. Mr. Shinaver stated that in the TAC process they had worked with the various departments. Jim Shields, their engineer, worked with the Fire Department to make sure they did not have a concern about circulation, access to the site, turning radius, etc. It was his understanding the Fire Department did not have those concerns about this development. In fact, due to the approval of the projects over the last couple of years, he felt the T AC review was accustomed to seeing projects that were different than the traditional subdivisions or neighborhoods. Parking is often discussed at the Plan Commission review level. The driveways are designed to accommodate the parking of two cars in addition to the two-car garage. In addition to four on-site parking spaces per unit, there would be an opportunity for additional parking spaces along some of the internal roads. That type of parking ratio is actually a little higher than some of the residential communities that have gone through the Plan Commission review process. Mr. Hawkins stated the Department had mentioned sidewalks and there are no internal sidewalks. Those should be factored in. The dlives may not accommodate them. Where would guests park? Mr. Shinaver stated there will be sidewalks that wil11Un along the front of each unit for access. Mr. Shinaver stated theoretically it would affect the length ofthe driveways. Mr. Dierckman stated guests would park in the driveways. Mr. Hawkins stated that the sidewalks do not have much of an impact. Mr. Shinaver stated guests could park in the dliveway. If they parked elsewhere on the site, they could use the sidewalk. Maybe Jim Shields could prepare a site drawing that would show the sidewalks. Mr. Dierckman asked if there were fences in the back to protect the patio area. Page 13 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 Mr. Shinaver stated it would be based on the elevation of the house. Some could be protected with window treatment. Mr. Dierckman asked if they were going to stub the street that goes north. Mr. Shinaver stated it was not a stub. Mr. Dierckman wanted to see an elevation of the backsides of the units from the road. Mr. Hawkins asked about the wetlands that go into units 12, 13 and 32. Mr. Shinaver stated they are working through that issue with their engineers and the jurisdictions that have a say in it. It was his understanding that the actual wetlands is fairly small and may be mitigated on-site by relocation or implementing it into the overall water feature. If they cannot mitigate on-site, they are permitted to mitigate off-site. They are aware of the issue. Mr. Dierckman suggested they could move the water feature up front to make it more interesting. Mr. Hawkins asked if they would like to table to the next meeting. Mr. Shinaver confirmed they would TABLE until the September 24 meeting. Mr. Hourrnozdi had a question. Mr. Hawkins told him he could contact the Department. 19-2311. Thomson - Sign age The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07070061 V Section 25.07.02-08 Wall sigllIarger than permitted. Docket No. 07070062 V Section 25.07.02-08 Wall siglllarger than permitted. Docket No. 07070063 V Section 25.07.02-08 Wall siglllarger than permitted. Docket No. 07070064 V Section 25.07.02-08 Wall sign larger than permitted. Docket No. 07070065 V Section 25.07.02-08 Wall siglllarger tban permitted. The site is located on at 10330 N. Meridian St. located in Meridian at 465, and is zoned B-l/Light commercial and office use. Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson & Frankenberger for Thomson. Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger. Also present were Sandy Martin, Service Contract Administrator for Thomson, and Doug Staley, Jr., Staley Signs. An aerial photograph was shown. Thomson had their corporate headquarters at this location in the colorful primary building. They are in the process of relocating their headquarters into the building on the south portion of the parcel. The original building has been leased to S1. Vincent's who has already gotten variances for signage. The parcel is about 10.9 acres in size and is zoned B-1 /Business. They have been a long-time business in the City of Cam1el. TIllS particular location is one of the hubs of their satellite business. They have many high level jobs at this location. This is one of seven offices worldwide that has a designation as a center of excellence. They have intemational visitors, vendors and clients to this location. They need to re-do the sign package for this site. The variances are for five signs that are either considered entrance signs above an entranceway or they would be considered to be a wall sign. He indicated renderings of all the signs in the packet of information. He also distributed handouts of the five proposed signs and the existing signs. The first one was a north elevation exterior sign of 143 Page 14of16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27,2007 square feet which is very similar to the existing sign. The reason for the variances is the Thomson logo which must be included in the square footage of the sign. A significant amount of the square footage is a result of the logo, resulting in a lot of unused square footage within the calculation. He did not go through each sign comparison. He read from the Department Report that the signs above the entrances were previously granted 18 square feet. The new three entrance signs would be 51.5 square feet because of the height of the logo. Without the logo the sign would actually be 18.22 square feet. The same analysis could be used for the wall signs on the north and east elevations. Both of these signs would be 142 square feet. Only 95 square feet is pennitted on the north elevation and 75 square feet on the east elevation. If the logo was not so large, the signs would onLy be about 50 square feet. The signs are not really as large as the calculated square footage. Rightfully so, Carmel is not always concerned with a corporation's corporate identity or their corporate approach. That is fair, but on the other hand he felt there were situations that should consider the type of use, long-standing history and a particular business in the community. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Miss Boone gave the Department Report. The site is unique as a four-sided bui Iding with street frontage toward Meridian Street, however, the parcel itself does not touch Meridian Street. Therefore, the allotted square footage for each wall sign is significantly reduced. The entrance signs were allowed 18 square feet by a previous variance. This type of building does not restrict the size of the logo. The Department feels the signs are well constructed and are appropriate forthe size of the building and the distance from the street to be seen. The Department recommended positive consideration of the vanances. Mr. Broach asked if the logo was the figure on the right and not the words "Images and Beyond". The space above Thomson is not really a sign, but has to be calculated in the size. Mr. Shinaver stated the sign would include the Thomson name, the text underneath the Thomson name and the "north/south" logo. Because the logo is considered to be part of the sign, the box drawn around the sign becomes much larger. ML Dierckman asked if they would be removing the two little signs on each side of the entrances, since they are not shown in the renderings. Mr. Shinaver confirmed that. The signage will also need to be approved by the Plan Commission Special Studies Committee. Mr. Broach moved to approve Docket Nos. 07070061 V through 07070065 V, Thomson Signage. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and All four were APPROVED 4-0. J. Old Business Mr. Molitor commented on the previous petition that was a Use Variance in lieu of a Rezone. He felt it was appropriate for the Board to consider and all considerations including density and the type of bufferyard that is being required. Once it gets to the Plan Commission, the Plan Commission will not Page 15 of 16 Carmel Board ofZorung Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 have the same leverage as the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board is certainly under no obligation to grant a Use Variance. J. New Business There was no New Business. K. Adjournment Mr. Dierckman moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. /)- /-1 C&-7~'~ Connie Tingley, Secret . S:\Board of Zoning Appcals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2007\20070827.rtf Page 16 ofl6