Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 02-25-08 u u u City of Carmel Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, February 25, 2008 The regularly scheduled meeting ofthe Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday, February 25,2008, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Cannel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members in attendance were Kent Broach, Leo Dierckman, James Hawkins, Earlene Plavchak and Rick Ripma, alternate, thereby establishing a quorum. Christine 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 ofthe January 28, 2008 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0, with Mr. Ripma abstaining. Mrs. Barton-Hohnes gave the Department Report. Item 1 h, Furry Family Veterinary Office, Docket 07110013 UV and Item 2h, Granite City Food & Brewery Materials, Docket 08010002 V have been tabled to the March 24,2008 meeting. Item 10h, Logan Carriage House, Docket 08010006 V requires a 2- day waiver of notice.. It meets the IO-day State Statute requirements, but needs a suspension of the BZA Rules for being 2 days less than the 25-day notice requirement. Mr. Dierckman moved to suspend the BZA Rules for Public Notice for Docket 0801 0006 V, Logan Carriage House. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. He apologized to the Board members who had planned to be here earlier for the Executive Session. There were a couple of issues that prevented the Executive Session. He wanted the Board members to be aware that they had tentatively settled the litigation with Martin Marietta. He wanted to have anExecutive Session to fully explain the terms ofthe settlement agreement. It does require the Board's formal approval after a Public Hearing. According to the Staff, that hearing would be beld tentatively in conjunction with the Apri128, 2008 meeting. It must be approved by the Board no later than the end of May. There is still adequate time for the Board to review the proposed settlement. Mr. Hawkins did attend the settlement conference and is familiar with the terms of the tentative agreement. He did want to bring to the Board's attention the public notice issue whh Item Ii, North Meridian Medical Pavilion Signage, Docket No. 08020019 V. Docket Nos. 07080011 V & 07080012 V bad been withdrawn by the Petitioner. Neither had been heard by the Board. Tn lieu of these two Dockets, the third one, 08020019 V on sign height, has been proposed by the Petitioner. As far as he knew, no notice ofthe new petition had been given to the public or to the neighbors as required by the BZA ~ules and State Law. In his opinion it was not eligible to be heard by the Board at this meeting. The Petitioner's counsel may want to address this and explain the provisions. In view of the ongoing discussions tbat have occurred between the Petitioner and Staff and Staffbas kept the neighbors apprised, perhaps the Board would agree to waive the Rules for the 25-day notice requirement. Then this item could be heard at next month's hearing. Page 1 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25, 2008 Paul Reis, attorney for the Petitioner, stated they were originally going to amend the current Docket NOS.U (".. However, Staff felt it was more appropriate to establish two new Docket Nos., so they filed amended applications. No notice had been sent to the. neighbors. He thought most ofthe neighbors were familiar with the history of this petition. They would be happy to do whatever the Board sees fit. He did not disagree with Mr. Molitor. They did not put any notice out because they were working under the prior Docket Nos. They amended the applications and were given two no Docket Nos. Mr. Dierckman moved to waive the Rilles for 25-day notice and permit the 1 O-day notice to be given for this item. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. The Petition will be heard at the March 24, 2008 meeting. H. Public Hearing: 1h. Furry Family Veterinary Office TABLED until March 24 The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: Docket No. 07110013 UV Apgendix A: Use Table Office uses in residential district The site is located at 3309 East 146 Street and is zoned R-lIResidential Filed by Mary Marcotte, ovmer. 2b. Granite City Food & Brewery Materials TABLED until March 24 The applicant seeks the fonowing development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08010002 V Ordinance Z-359 Use of stucco on building in PUD The site is located at the corner of 96th Street and US 31IMeridian Street and is zoned PUDlPlanned Unit Development. Filed by SJA Architects and Dunham Capitol Management for Granite City Food & Brewery and Duke Construction LP. lJ 3h. Wilson Drive Garage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval for a garage addition: Docket No. 08010003 V Chapter 8.04.03.A Reduction in required front yard setback The site is located at 1 Wilson Drive and is zoned R2/Residential. Filed by James Young, ovmer. Present for the Petitioner: James Young. He proposed to build a garage on the south end of the dwelling. It will extend 21 feet beyond the existing structure which will encroach into the front yard setback. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. He was questioned off mike. He stated the garage would be 21 feet wide (north to south) and 33 feet long (east to west). Jane Englert, 7 Sleepy Hollow Lane. She passes this house everyday and had seen the sign for this public hearing. She wanted to lmow ifthe garage would be at the side of the current house. u Mr. Young conftrmed it would be at the side. Page 2 of 13 u L u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25, 2008 They continued to discuss the project offmike. Mr. Hawkins interrupted. They could not have a debate about the project. Ms. Englert was concerned with the size and location. Bob Blakeslee, 345 Winding Way. He did not oppose the addition. He wanted to see how it would look. He had checked with the Mayor's office earlier, but they did not have any information. He wanted to make sure the roof line of the existing house is continued, the eave line is the same and the building materials are compatible. His main concern is to avoid a structure being put up similar to the one at Emerson and Park Lane which is a rather tall, prefabricated metal garage. It is like nothing else in the neighborhood. He did not know how it got approved even though it is behind the setback line. He wanted to avoid anything like that being built at this location. Since the grade school and pool have been closed, the neighborhood is in decline with foreclosures, divorces, etc. This would be a real blot if anything goes in at this comer other than something that is very compatible with the neighborhood and the house. He was not objecting to the setback. Don Centers, 815 College Way, southeast of the property. This neighborhood is near Carmel Middle School at Wilson Village. It is a modest neighborhood. Most ofthe homes are ranch homes that are well kept. The neighborhood is a tad bit in decline, but not a great deal. What bothered him was this house is on the corner corning into the neighborhood. The Petitioner already has a garage and wants to build this garage 12 feet 4 inches from the sidewalk. He felt tIus would look terrible and not be consistent with the aesthetics of the existing neighborhood. Rebuttal: Mr. Young stated the proposed garage will be to the side ofthe existing house. The roofline will not be higher than the existing structure. It will actually be a little bit lower. He felt the design would enhance the neighborhood, not detract. The rest of the surrounding Carmel area is going with the new urban-design, which is mirrored by this design. A sketch was shown. He felt it would add value to the neighborhood and would be architecturally pleasing. It would not be a metal building like the one at Emerson which is deteriorating. He felt tIle brick would add value over time and be a gateway house into the neighborhood. It is a property that could go one way or the other and he was trying to make it go in a positive direction. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Homes gave the Department Report. This is a corner lot which means by Ordinance that it has two front yards and two side yards. It is a fairly shallow lot, so there are some constraints for any additions to improve the property. The intent ofthe Petitioner is to demolish the existing drive on Wilson Drive and install a side-loading garage from the rear or east side of the lot. The overall addition would be in keeping with other similar additions to existing houses in the area. The Department felt the 12 1;2 feet was a minor deviation and recommended positive consideration. Mr. Dierckman asked what the Petitioner would do with the existing garage. Would the west elevation match the existing structure and how does that look in comparison to the other houses? What is the value? Mr. Young stated the west elevation is currently brick wrap. He did not know ifhe could find brick to match the existing brick. His intent was to remove the existing wrap, then all the new brick would be the same. He planned one window in the existing garage area. The improvements are estimated at $26,000. Page 3 of 13 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25, 2008 Mrs. Plavchak asked if he would be residing in the house or would it be a rental property. u Mr. Young stated he would be living in the house. Mr. Broach asked about the landscaping on the south side where the garage would be going in. Did he have plans to landscape the area? Mr. Young indicated the trees on his property. These were somewhat determining the location of the new drive. He will improve the landscaping. There is' a large tree canopy. Mr. Hawkins asked if the new garage would be attached to the house so that access would be through the home. Would Mr. Young make a commitment to take out the existing drive? Mr. Young confirmed the garage would be attached and he planned to remove the existing ddve. One slab of that ddve is sunken and would be removed. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08010003 V, Wilson Drive Garage with the Commit- ment to eliminate the existing drive. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 5~O. 4-9h. Old Meridian Plaza The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: lJ Docket No. 08010004 UV Appendix A: Use Table Vet FacilitylKennel in Old MeridianlMixed Use District Docket No. 08020013 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Number of signs per tenant Docket No. 08020014 V Section 20G.04-01 J Upper story sunscreens Doel{et No. Og02{)tH5 V SectioR 2GC.05.4H C (1) Less than 70% building oee1lpaney frontage Docket No. 08020016 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Signs not facing right-of-way Docket No. 08020017 V Section 20G.04-01 J Entrance sunscreen The site is located at Old Meridian Street and Carmel Drive and is zoned O.MJMU. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for the Keystone Group LLC. Mr. Broach recused himself. Present for the Petitioner: Charles Frankenberger. Also present were Ersal Ozdemir, Keystone Group, John Suter and Todd Rottmann, Rottmann Architects, Alan Fetahagic, Ameri.can Structurepointe, Chris Reid, owner, and Tom Mullins and Julie Zugelder, the veterinarians. The vet facility would occupy part of the new building. An aerial photograph was shown with the proposed site superimposed. The real estate is approximately 2.5 acres on the east side of Old Meridian between East Carmel Drive on the south and Main Street on the north. It is zoned Old Meridian/Mixed Use distrlct. The Keystone Group intends to develop the real estate to allow an upscale retail office building. The site will be fully landscaped and in complete compliance with Carmel's Zoning Ordinance. The site plan indicates a future building that mayor may not be built. If and when it is, they will return for any ADL~/DP approval. The proposed building will comprise four stories and 60,000 square feet. Conceptual perspectives of the building were shown from different viewpoints along Old Meridian. It U will be a mixed use building designed within the guidelines established by the City for the Old Meridian Corridor. While respecting the precedent of the historic character of the architecture found in the Arts & Design District and the Civic Center, this landmark property exhibits a fresh yet refined architecture. Pedestrian and permeability accessibility are provided from the sidewalks along Old Page 4 of 13 u u u Cam1el Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25, 2008 Meridian Street as well as from the parking lot. The exterior building materials will include two colors of brick, sandstone and EFIS. The building will fully comply will all the architectural requirements of the Old Meridian/Mixed Use District. The Use Variance is to allow a Veterinary Hospital with an indoor kennel. The Veterinary Hospital will occupy approximately 6,000 square feet of the proposed bliilding~ Tom Mullins and Judy Zugelder now occupy a veterinary hospital with a commercial kemlel including outdoor dog runs on the northeast corner of Main Street and Old Meridian. They intend to relocate their veterinary hospital to this new building. The new kennel, which will be part of the new veterinary hospital, would be primarily an indoor kennel. Any outdoor kelmel would be completely eliminated. The veterinary hospital is a pernlitted use in the Old Meridian/Mixed Use District; however, a commercial kennel is not listed as a permitted use. Consequently the Use Variance is requested to allow the kemlel aspect of the veterinary hospital in this new building. The veterinary hospital will be state-of-art. As indicated, the new kennel will be indoors and will replace the kennel now existing on the northeast corner of Old Meridian and Main Streets and will eliminate the existing outdoor dog run. Like other veterinary hospitals, this hospital will allow clients to have their dogs walked. When that happens, the dogs will be on a leash and be walked by veterinary staff Effective sound and odor mitigation are of the utmost importance, not only to the vet but in a larger sense to the viability of the entire building. Consequently, ample sound and odor mitigation measures will be implemented. Odor mitigation will be accomplished by individual HV AC systems with filtration for the kennel area. Adequate fresh air will be brought into the public area to achieve positive pressurization. Plumbing systems will allow inmlediate waste removal and special sealants preventing waste from being absorbed into concrete floors. Sound mitigation measures will include locating the kennel under the upstairs portion of the veterinary hospital and providing locational insulation; solid floor and wall construction inside and out providing structural insulation; compartmentalizing the dogs into smaller groups to reduce any excitement and outbursts of barking;, and increasing velocity of the HV AC to produce white noisewhich soothes the dogs. In addition to the Use Variance, Developmental Standards Variances are requested for signs and awnings. The signage has been designed to minimize clutter and confusion and to promote convenient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians. They were proposing two types of signs, mainly signs affixed to the building and one ground sign. The Zoning Ordinance allows one building sign per retail tenant located on the building elevation facing Old Meridian. Because they have more than one building sign per retail tenant and because there are signs on the back and south sides of the building, the proposed signage plan requires variances for the number and location of signs. The signageplan was detailed in the infonrtational brochures. This building is designed according to the principles of new urbanism, so it is brought up to the street with parking in the back. Consequently, the building will have a through-building nature and that will necessitate SigIlage on both the front and the back where people park. Illustrations of the signage were shown. All of the tenant identification signs will utilize internally illuminated chamlelletters. They will be black during the day and white when illuminated. The sign characters on the canopy sign on the back of the building will be white, both when illuminated and not illuminated. There will be one ground sign whjch introduces the property. A rendering was shown. It will be located on the southwest comer of the site on the south side ofthe entryway. The sign has a low brick base that matches the color of the building. It is a double-sided sign with internal illumination and no exposed light source. A portion of each face of the sign. is dedicated to each tenant. Regarding the variances for the awnings, the building includes not only permitted first floor awnings, but also upper story sunscreens on the front and the back and a canopy above the entrance in the back. A rendering was shown. They felt the sunscreens were not awnings; but more in the nature of architectural features. To error of the side of caution, they ask for the variances. Both the upper story sunscreens and the canopy will be constructed of metal or aluminum. Because they are constructed of metal or aluminum, they might be characterized as awnings. They will be painted so that they have non-reflective surfaces. In addition to the variances Page 5 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25,2008 requested at this meeting, they will also need to obtain ADLS approval from the Plan Commission on March 18. They are excited about bringing this landmark property to the Old Meridian Corridor. u Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Favorable:- Brad Stout, 13155 Old Meridian, Stout Shoe Store, next door to the current veterinary facility. He had not seen the drawings and thought it was a neat project. The current facility does have an outdoor kennel. He felt it was a win-win situation for the area to remove the outdoor kennel and move to the new building. In addition, he had plans to purchase Mr. Mullins' property, demolish the shoe store and build a new shopping center. Denis Lekic, 1086 Cavendish Drive, townhome in Providence. He felt it was a beautiful building and would add a lot to the neighborhood. Robert Matchett, 12779 Old Meridian, south ofthe project. He wanted to know which end ofthebuilding would be the veterinary hospital. Izabela Ozdemir, 1110 Cavendish Drive, townhome in Providence. She has seen a lot of viable and optimistic change in physical growth as well as economic growth along Old Meridian. She felt this building would be an asset to the growth as well as being an aesthetic highlight on Old Meridian. The Public Hearing was closed. u Mr. Hawkins asked Mr. Frankenberger to discuss the location of the kennel in the building. After discussion with John Suter, Mr. Frankenberger stated the kennel will be at the north end of the building. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. A commercial kennel is not permitted in the Mixed Use District. However, the Department felt that since the use will be entirely indoors, that mitigates the negative concern about the noise, odor, etc. With regards to the design of the building, as the Petitioner stated, it will need to go before the Plan Commission at the March hearing. They have requested awnings or sunscreens. The definition in the Ordinance does not recognize the difference between awnings and sunscreens, so they have gone with awnings to be on the safe side. They are more of a sunscreen, than the traditional metal awnings. They are an enviromnental and aesthetic feature that enhances the building. The Department's only concern is the proposed signage at 32 square feet. The building is four-sided architecture and it does have two main entrances for the tenants; on the front and on the back. But the Department would prefer to see the dominant front side ofthe building along Old Meridian Street. Then the back of the building facing the parking lot could have smaller signs. As a suggestion, instead of 32 square feet illuminated, perhaps the signs could be 9 or 10 square feet non-illuminated, such as the Shops at Guilford and I 16th Street. They are typically oval signs that are externally illuminated. The largest one is approximately 9 square feet. They still provide the tenant's name and information for people coming to the site. However, the proposed sign size isa permitted size. The main issue is they do not face the right- of-way, but are facing the parking lot. The Department recommended positive consideration of all the requests. o Mr. Hawkins asked if there was any intent to have outdoor kennels in the future at this site. Page 6 of 13 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25, 2008 Mr. Frankenberger stated they understood the Use Variance would be for the veterinary hospital to be relocated and would not apply to the back building. Mr. Hawkins asked ifthere was acol1U11itment for closing the other veterinary hospital with the outdoor kennel. He wanted to make sure the outdoor kennels were not left at the old site. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the outdoor kennel is a permitted use at the old site. Typically any commitments are made for site where the variance was filed. If another kennel were to move in and want to do signage or anything, they would need to go before the Plan Commission. At that point, commitments could be made for indoor kennels only or limited operation, etc. Mr. Ripma asked if there was any commitment that the upper awnings will not be the old style awnings. What ifthe design ofthe aVvnings is changed? Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated they had not been before the Plan Commission for the DP! ADLS. The awnings would have to match those shown in the elevations. They ate more of a horizontal, louvered style rather than the type that would be on a bungalow. Mrs. Plavchak wanted to ]mow how the indoor dog kennel would work. Will the veterinary hospital have all four floors on the north end of the building? Mr. Frankenberger stated they will occupy 6,000 square feet on the first and second floors. They will commit that the veterinary hospital on the northeast comer of Old Meridian and Main Street will close when they relocate to the new building. They cannot commit is whether sometime in the future somebody else may come along and want to put in a veterinary clinic. He felt that was unlikely, since Mr. Stout had indicated his desire to purchase the property and replace that building. Dr. Tom Mullins, 17233 Joliet Road, Westfield. He and his wife, Julie Zugelder, are the veterinarians who o\vn Northside Animal Hospital at Old Meridian and Main Street. For their new veterinary hospital, they propose to occupy 4,000 square feet on the fust floor. Above that, they will have 2,000 square feet at the very north end of the building. That will allow them to have the 2,000 square feet business office/conference area above the kennel area, providing a buffer. Mrs. Plavchak asked if the veterinary clinic and kennel would be on the first floor with office space above it, how would the dogs get from the first floor to the second floor? Is it a common elevator shared by the other tenants in the building? What is the plan for walking the dogs outside and the stuff left behind? Dr. Mullins stated the dogs will not occupy the second floor. The kennel area is for their regular clients. They are not promoting or advertising the kennel. They have specialty patients on medication. The dogs will be buffered ITom the rest of the hospital. The reception area, exam area, and surgery area are on the first floor. The intent is to walk them outside along the north portion ofthe property. They have discussed having a path and then a walk area back to the detention pond area at the rear ofthe property. That is the proposed future site of the second building; They will be walked by the veterinary assistants on a leash. They have plans to use flushable drains within the facility to handle all dog waste, even from outside. Mrs. Plavchak asked if they would consider screens so that when the dogs are walked they are not visible to the rest ofthe tenants. Page 7 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25, 2008 Dr. Mullins felt a screen would detract from the property. Providence does allow pets and there is a U. walking area. They have found on their property that the walking area is very appealing to people. They are in a very dog friendly area and society. He felt seeing dogs walking on a path through a landscaped area was very appeali.ng to people. They will be responsible for waste and barking. A dog that barks and is uncontrollable will not be outside. There is too much liability. They want to be a good neighbor. Mr. Dierckman wanted to comment that this was one of the best-looking buildings he. had seen proposed for Carmel for an extended period oftime. It has multiple colors of brick and a lot of interesting architecture with the curvature at the comer. It is very well done and he looks forward to it being built. Mr. Hawkins asked if it was possible to reduce the signs to 10 square feet like the Department suggested. Mr. Frankenberger stated that until this meeting they were unaware ofthat request. He felt they could reduce them by 50 percent to 16 square feet. They would still be recognizable. On the issue of illumination, they would prefer they be illuminated since people will park in the back when it could be dark. These signs would be generally visible only to the people who park in the back. They would like to keep illumination available for all ofthe signage. He had spoken with Mr. Ozdemir and he agreed the signs could be reduced by 50 percent to 16 square feet. Mr. Dierckrnan asked if these were the signs not facing the right-of-way and they were agreeing to reduce them by 50 percent. Mr. Frankenberger confIrmed these would be the signs on the rear (east) elevation only. They will show r l the smaller signs when they prepare their Plan Conunission brochures. U Mrs. Barton-Holmes suggested that pet waste stations be added not just for the veterinary facility walking the dogs, but also for the dog owners walking their dogs before or after an appointment. This would make it easier to keep the area clean. The Department had examples of pet waste stations. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Old Meridian Plaza, Docket Nos, 080] 0004 UV, 08020013 V, 08020014 V, 08020016 V with the reduction of SO percent in sign size on the east elevation, and 08020017 V with the Commitment to add pet waste stations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and ALL were APPROVED 4-0. Mr. Broach rejoined the Board. lOb. Logan Carriage House The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval for a garage addition: Docket No. 08010006 V Chapter 25.01.01.C.4.a Carriage house on less than one acre The site is located at 320 1st Ave NE and is zoned R3/Single-Family Residential, within the Old Town Overlay. Filed by Wendy Logan, owner. Present foythe Petitioner: Wendy Logan. She was raised in Carmel and enjoys living in the Old Town U., District. She knew she bought a fixer upper as it is a sixty year old home. The garage is a two-car detached structure that was built in the mid 70's. At the time it was constructed of particle board which has become dilapidated in 30+ years. Additionally, the existing garage has none of the elements ofthe house. It has roof pitch that does not match. It has very tiny windows that are square. Also, the siding Page 8 of 13 L u ~ Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25,2008 is three inches wide and the siding on the house is about four inches. It really adds no architectural value to the property. Pictures of the property were shown. The garage divides the property in half. The majority of the lawn area is in the back and the garage divides that in half. She had done a little bit of landscaping, but it is not visible from her patio or sunroom. When looking at options, she wanted to add some additional living space. A carriage house is not permitted under the current zoning. She looked at options to attach the garage. Unfortunately the way the house is situated on this narrow lot, the floor plan of the house did not allow a feasible plan to attach the garage. The carriage house would allow her to do a multitude ofthings. The elements ofthe current house would be brought into the structure, such as the Bedford stone. She also planned to side it with bigh-grade HardiePlank siding and replace the aluminum siding on the house. The roof of the carriage house will match the pitch of the existing house. This will allow her to do a lot more landscaping and bring the yard to the back of the house where she can enjoy it from the patio and the back of the house. There is an alleyway to the north side that provides an entrance into some of the duplexes next door. Moving the carriage house over to the west will alleviate some congestion in that area. Additionally the aesthetics will be greatly improved for the property. 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. Because tbis site is less than one acre, it does require a variance to build a carriage house. It does not require a variance for height. The structure will be taller than the existing house, but there are other similar sites in Old Town. There is actually a site just to the west of this one that has a very large pole barn which is taller than the adjacent house. Further up Is1 Avenue there are other two-story garages/carriage houses that match the houses. As the Petitioner stated, because of the size and shape of the lot, it would be difficult to build an attached unit without needing a couple of variances and losing a major part of the back yard. This seems to be a good solution for improving the site and adding some additional living space. The Department recommended positive consideration of the variance. Mr. Hawkins asked if she intended to rent out the upper level. Ms. Logan stated she had no intention of renting the upper level. The intended use is an occasional guest house. She has a family member who lives and works abroad and spends about four weeks living here. That family member is actually helping with finances, so that he has a place to stay. Mr. Hawkins asked about the way the Petitioner's third Findings of Fact was stated. It almost appears as though the Board would not be approving the variance. Mr. Molitor stated it was a little convoluted, but thought it would be alright. He suggested the Board add the word "otherwise" to the third Finding of Fact. "Otherwise owner cannot improve/add garage and living space in an intimate arrangement." Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08010006 V, Logan Carriage House. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. Page 9 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25,2008 Old Business Ii. North Meridian Medical Pavilion - Sign age The applicant seeks"the following development standards variance approval: Dt')cket Nt'). 071J800U V SeedeR 25.07.02 to Nllmber at' signs t'aeiog ROW Bldg. A. WITHDRAWN Docket Ne. 07080012 V SeedOR 2$.07.92 to Nllmber at' SigHS faeiHg ROW Bldg. B. WITHDRAWN Docket No. 08020019 V Section 25.07.02-10 Sign height The site is located at 12188 N. Meridian St., and is zoned B-6. Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for North Meridian Medical Pavilion. Per previous Legal Report and motion, this item was Tabled to the March 24, 2008 meeting. 2i. Deea Environmental & Associates, Inc. The applicant seeks the following use variance and development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 07110015 V Alternative Transportation Plan Elimination of required sidewalks/paths The site is located at 410 First Avenue NE and is zonedRJ/Residential. Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson & Frankenberger for Deca Environmental & Associates, Inc. u Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver. Also present was Jim Euler, owner ofDeca Environmental. They had been before the Board at the December 17, 2007 hearing for a Use Variance for an LJ environmental consulting business in the house, which was granted for a five-year period. The other . Development Standard Variance for bicycle parking on the site has been withdrawn. Mr. Euler has agreed to provide bicycle parking on the site. The only remaining variance pertains to constructing a sidewalk along the southern boundary of the property adjacent to 4th Street. Aerials and photographs of the parcel were shown. Because a Use Variance had been granted, the Petitioner was required to comply with the other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. In particular, there is no sidewalk on the southern edge of the property. He is required to either construct a sidewalk or seek a variance from that requirement. A photo of the property line was shown. A sidewalk in this area would not connect with any other sidewalk. The construction ofthe.-sidewalk would require the removal of at least one large tree, if not two trees and could disrupt the location of the detached garage. They have had discussions with the Planning Staff. Mr. Euler has agreed to dedicate the amount of property along the southern boundary line that would accommodate a sidewalk in the future, ifthe City desires to construct a sidewalk at their cost. In addition, he has agreed to plant an additional tree on the property. If the installation of a future sidewalk required the removal of one of the existing mature trees, a new tree would have been planted to accommodate the removal. It was their understanding that in exchange for granting the right-of-way and planting an additional tree, the Staffwould support the variance request. Members ofthe public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Wendy Logan, 320 1st Avenue NE, two doors from this property She spoke against the UseVariance in December to allow the business to be operated in the house. Her reason was that she is very passionate that the neighborhood remains residential. Since Mr. Euler has agreed to do some things that would make it look more residential, including not having signs, limiting the number of staff and minimal disruptions to the neighborhood, wouldh't a bike rack make it seem more like a business than a house? She felt the resources could be better spent to make it look more like a home and more alive. It is empty in the evenings and on the weekends, even though it still looks like a house. Page 10 of 13 u u u ~ Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25,2008 Kevin Rider, 1473 Second Way. He had no interest in seeing this property changed from the residential look. He had spoken with the Petitioner and Mr. Euler has no intention of trying to build any more business. From a cOlmectivity standpoint, he did not see any reason to put a sidewalk there. Being a small business owner himself, he would hate to incur the expense of a sidewalk that would lead no where. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. As stated, the Petitioner has been working extensively with the Planning Department, the Engineering Department and the Alternative Transportation Coordinator. They believed they had come to a good compromise that would allow the City to build a sidewalk at such time as they would commence to build other sidewalks. In the meantime, the Petitioner would leave the property as is. The Urban Forester suggested planting a tree of the same species which would replace the mature tree ifit needed to come out for a sidewalk in the future. With regards to the bike rack, the Department recognizes that itcan make a site look more cOlmnercial. The Petitioner will continue to work with the Altemative Transportation Coordinator to find a location and type of bike rack that would fulfill the intent of the Alternative Transportation Plan, but would not call attention to itself. The Department recommended positive consideration of the request. Mr. Ripma asked about the size of the tree that would be planted and if there was a commitment on the size. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated that typically the Urban Forester would recommend 2 to 3 inch caliper and 6 to 8 feet tall. A tree much larger than that would need a lot of care to survive. Obviously it will take years for the tree to get to the size of the trees currently on the property. Mr. Shinaver consulted with the Petitioner regarding the tree. Mr. Ripma did not understand the bike rack requirement. Could it be put in the garage? Ifhe remembered correctly, there were rarely clients coming to the office. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the requirement for the bike rack arises from the use of the property. It is a house and it looks like a house. But as long as it is being used as a business, it falls under the Parking Ordinance which requires a bike rack for a business. The Alternative Transportation Plan and the Parking Ordinance require a minimum of 4 bike rack spaces per 100 parking spaces. Especially in areas like Old Town where it is easier to get around by bike, they are seeing them used with increasing frequency. The Petitioner will need to work with the Alternative Transportation Coordinator for the location. One of the requirements of the Ordinance is that it be visible for any clients riding up by bike. He could probably put it near the back porch, so it is not out in front ofthe building. Mr. S?inaver confirmed there are rarely client visits to the propel1y. In December the bike rack was also a variance request. At that meeting there had been a letter submitted by one of the City Council members strongly encouraging the bike rack. In further discussion after the December hearing, l\1r. Euler re-evaluated the bike rack. After speaking with David Littlejohn, he felt he could come up with a bike rack to fit the requirement. From an aerial photograph, Mr. Shinaver indicated the possible location of the bike rack near the back patio. Since the Petitioner is no longer seeking the variance, he Page 11 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25, 2008 would want to make sure to comply with the requirement. Putting the rack in the garage might not U meet the intent of the Ordinance. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the location was ultimately up to the discretion of the Alternative Transportation Coordinator. They may be able to place it near the storm cellar doors. It would still be visible from the street, but shielded a bit by the doors. Mr. Hawkins stated the bike rack was not a docket on the agenda, so the Board could not act on its location on the property. Mr. Shinaver stated that Mr. Euler would be willing to commit to a tree that was 2 to 3 inches in caliper. Based on the species, that would determine the height. Mrs. Plavchak did not think there was any place to put a new tree. There are already mature trees along the area for the sidewalk that may be installed at some time and also trees in the front yard. She did not see the point of an extra tree when he did not need another tree. Since they do not know when and if there will ever be a sidewalk, it seemed dumb to make him spend money on a big tree that he does not need. The property is nicely landscaped at this time. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the Urban Forester would be able to advise the Petitioner on the optimal location for the tree. More than likely it would go in the backyard, close to the north property line. It would be limited in growth as long as the other big trees are there. o Mrs. Plavchak said that was her point. Why should he spend the money for a tree that is not going to grow? Mrs. Barton-Holmes said the Urban Forester would also recommend the time to plant the tree. The idea was that it would take over when one or both of the mature trees were removed for the sidewalk or for age or disease. The new tree would be there to help fill in the landscape. Mr. Hawkins stated that the tree is not in any of the commitments. It would have to be incorporated in any motion. Mr. Shinaver stated that it was part of the Staff Report. Throughout this process, Mr. Euler has really tried to work hard with the Staff. He felt if they had had this type of discussion at the December hearing, they would probably have approached this issue a little differently. Mr. Euler is trying to do the right thing. A new tree in the back yard would be difficult to grow, because, of the existing canopy. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 07110015 V, Deca Environmental & Associates, Inc. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-.0. Mr. Shinaver asked for clarification. Should he put the tree in or not? !~.. Mr. Hawkins stated the Findings of Fact did not mention the tree, nor was the motion made to put in a tree. Page 12 of 13 u L u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda February 25, 2008 J. New Business There was no New Business. K. Adjournment Mr. Hawkins moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM ~~~- . / James R. Hawkins, President S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutcs\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2008/20080225.rlf Page 13 of 13