Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 08-25-08 L L u City of Carmel ( , \ \, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes - Regular Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008, 6:00 PM The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday, August 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, James Hawkins, Earlene Plavchak and Madeleine Torres, 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. Mrs. Torres moved to approve the minutes of the July 28,2008 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. Items 2-5h, St. Vincent Sports Performance Center, the Department requested tabling until September 22, 2008. Item 12 h, Sales Diesel-signage, needed a two-day waiver for public notice in the newspaper; all their other notices were correct. Under Old Business Items 2-3i and 4-5i, Monon & Main, Units 3D, 3A & 4F, the Petitioner had submitted a letter to withdraw those items. Items 6-12i Circle KlShell has requested tabling until October 27,2008. In light ofthe fact there would only be three Board members available to hear the request, Item Ih St. Vincent Heart Center Hc1ipad has requested to be tabled until September 22, 2008. With regard to that, the Petitioner was present to answer any questions. Mr. Molitor stated that as discussed previously, Mr. Hawkins would need to recuse himself from any discussion of Item Ih S1. Vincent Heart Center Helipad. Mr. Hawkins recused himself. Mr. Broach, Vice President, conducted the hearing. He asked about the mles for tabling in the case where there are only three ofthe five Board members present. Mr. Molitor stated that under Article 7, Section 6 of the BZA Rules of Procedure, if only three out of five members are available to hear an agenda item, the Petitioner can request an automatic continuance lmtil such time as there are four or five members available. This would fall under the category of an automatic continuance and he suggested the Board make a motion to that effect. Mrs. Torres moved to continue Docket No. 08060008 UV, St. Vincent Heart Center Helipad to the September 22, 2008 hearing. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 3-0. Mr. Broach stated this ItenuDocket would be continued to the September 22 hearing. He thought in order to avoid another automatic continuance; the Board would have two substitute members for this matter. This would give another thirty days for discussion in the interim. Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 The Petitioner confirmed they would be ready to present on September 22, 2008. u A couple minutes recess was taken. Mr. Hawkins rejoined the Board. Gl. Report on 1993 Use Variance status - UV-35-93 Mr. Molitor continued the Legal Report. At last month's meeting they had discussed the potential need for an enforcement action regarding UV -35-93 granted to Mr. and Mrs. Mylin. He had been in conununication with their counsel. They have agreed and executed written commitments concerning the use and development of the real estate. It contains their commitment that they will comply with all the obligations and conditions that were imposed upon the approval of the Use Variance in 1993. Therefore, he and the Staffrecommended that the Board should need to take no enforcement action against the landowners. If the Board so agreed, he requested amotion be made to that affect that no further action would be taken in this matter. lfthe Board wished to discuss it further, he recommended the item be continued until the end of the meeting. Mrs. Plavchak stated summer is over, school has started and next summer is a long time away. So it is very well and good to say they will not do it anymore. She felt something needed to be done now to make sure that it does not get forgotten by the time next swim season comes around. She was not comfortable with just letting it drop because thetules were there and they were not abided. Mr. Molitor suggested they move the matter to the end of this agenda and the Board could have further discussion as to whether or not anything else needed to be done. Copies could be made of the r l commitments for the Board members to read. U H. Public Hearing: lh. St. Vincent Heart Center Helipad TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22 The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: Docket No. 08060008UV Appendix A: Use Table Helipad in B6/US 31 Overlay District The site is located at 10330 North Meridian Street and is zoned B6lBusiness, within the US 31 Overlay District. Filed by Robert A. Hicks and Paul E. Clendenen for St. Vincent Heart Center. 2-5h. St. Vincent Sports Performance Center TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22 The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08070002 V Section 23.B.09.D Sloped roof exceeding 100' without change in plane. Docket No. 08070003 V Section 23.B.8.05.B.1.a Increase in maximum first floor gross floor area over 40% . Docket No. 08070004 V Section 27.03.02 Elimination of straight concrete curbs on parking islands DockeJ No. 08070005 V Section 23.B.12.a Parking between US 31 & 90' build-to line The site is located at 13400 North Meridian St and is zoned S2/Single-Family Residential in the US 31 U Overlay. Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP for Bremner Duke Healthcare Real Estate. Page 2 of 17 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 6-11h. Old Meridian Plaza - Bldg 2 The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08070006 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(1)(a) BIdg height/occupiable tloor reduction from required 28' /2 stories Docket No. 08070007 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(2)(b) Reduction of required front yard setback Docket No. 08070008 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(4) Reduction of minimum side yard setback Docket No. 08070009 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(5) Reduction of minimum rear yard setback Docket No. 08070010 V Section 20G.05.04@(3) Reduction of 75% minimum street frontage Docket N n. 08070011 V Section 20G.05.04(G)(3) Location of parking in front of building The site is located at 12863 Old Meridian Street and is zoned Old MeridianlMixed Use within the Old Meridian District. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Old Meridian, LLC. Present for the Petitioner: Charles Frankenberger. Also present were members of the development team, including architects, engineers and representatives from the owner. An aerial view of the parcel with the site superimposed was shown. The real estate comprises about 2.5 acres and is located on the east side of Old Meridian Street between East Carmel Drive on the south and Main Street on the north. A rendering of the site plan was displayed. They intend to erect two free-standing buildings. One of the buildings will be on Old Meridian Street. It will be 60,000 square feet, with four stories of 15,000 square feet per floor. This approved building was presented at a previous meeting for variances. The building that is the subject of these variances will be east of and behind the approved building. It was indicated as a possible future building on the prior site plan in connection with the review of the approved building. As general background, a Use Variance was granted for a veterinary hospital with an indoor kennel to be located within the approved building. It was later decided to relocate the veterinary hospital from the approved building to the proposed building further from the frontage of Old Meridian. The veterinary hospital is currently located at the site of the Stout Shoe building recently approved for the northeast corner of Main and Old Meridian Streets, In addition to the developmental standards variances requested, the proposed building also requires approvals from the Plan Commission. The requests pending before the Plan Commission are ADLS approvall Plat Amendment, Subdivision Waiver and ZoningW aiver. Renderings ofthe proposed building were enclosed in the packets. The Plan Commission had comments and suggestions regarding the architecture. They were referred to the September 2, 2008 Special Studies meeting. Regarding the Plat Amendment and the Waivers, it is anticipated the veterinarians will own the proposed building and the land immediately beneath it. The lot lines of the parcel are the footprint of the proposed building. The establishment ofthis second lot by the veterinarians necessitates the Primary Plat Amendment. Because the proposed building will not have frontage on Old Meridian Street, but will be accessed through cross easements, a Subdivision Waiver has been requested. Because the proposed building is within the Old Meridian Overlay, but does not have frontage on Old Meridian Street, a Zoning Waiver has also been requested. In this regard the Old Meridian Overlay does contemplate buildings on the back of property. They have requested the Waivers in order to clarify the proj ect and to err on the side of caution. Because the perimeter of the lot for the proposed building is the same as the building footprint, they requested the Developmental Standards Variances with respect to front, side and rear yard setbacks. Because front, side and rear yard setbacks are measured from lot lines, there are technically no front, side or read yard setbacks for the proposed building. This does not change the real distances between the buildings and the perimeters regardless of where they draw the lot line around the proposed building. Developmental Standard Variances were also requested to allow a parking lot in front of the proposed building, which puts the parking in back of the approved building along Old Meridian. Variances were needed to allow a reduction in height and occupiable floor requirements and to provide relief from the requirement that 75% of all buildings on the site face Old Meridian Street. Page 3 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 On this site that would be impossible because the approved building occupies most of the frontage on Old Meridian Street. These variances, like some of the requests pending before the Plan Commission, U are necessitated by the fact that although the proposed building is behind the approved building with frontage on Old Meridian, it is nonetheless within the Old Meridian Overlay. It was their . . . understanding that they had addressed all concerns of the Urban Forester and the Engineering Department at this stage of the process. Members of the public were invited to speak in fav0f or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. These variances are due to the unique site design of the proj eel. The building came up in discussion when the fust buil~ing was before the Board with the vet's office in it. This request would move the vet's office to the building in back which would help further screen the use and any potential noise. The building does meet the Old Meridian Overlay standards as far as building design. Because of the site design it does not meet the requirements for the site design within the Old Meridian District. But it is a unique case and would share landscaping and parking. The parking and landscaping are adequate for both buildings and meets the requirements of the Overlay. The building does not actually have frontage on the Overlay, but it does meet the design standards. The parking in front of the proposed building would be screened from Old Meridian by the approved building. The overall intent of the Overlay is met by this request. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Hawkins remembered some commitments were made with the original approval of the front 0 (.. building about maintenance of the area with walking dogs, etc. Were they included in this project? Mrs. Barton-Holmes acknowledged a couple of the commitments might still be an issue. She believed there was a conunitment to provide waste stations for people walking their dogs before or-after appointments. The majority ofthe discussion was about noise, screening and odor. That is less of an issue since it has become a stand-alone building rather than in the approved office building. Mr. Frankenberger stated there was also discussion that the two veterinarian offices would not be in operation at the same time. This would be a relocation of the vet's office. There might be some overlapping during the transition and moving. Mrs. Torres remembered that once they were out of the old veterinarian office, the old building would be razed. Mr. Frankenberger thought that commitment had come from the Stout Shoes project. Mr. Broach moved to approve Docket Nos. 08070006 V through 08070011 V, Old Meridian Plaza- Bldg 2. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 4-0. U(- 12h. Sales Diesel- Signage The applicant seeks the followingdevelopment standards variance approval: Docket No. 08070017 V Section 25.07.02-05 (b) Number of signs facing right-of-way The site is located at ] 1590 N. Meridian St. It is zoned S-2/B-6, Light commercial and office uses adjacent to limited access highways. Filed by Amanda Gates of Sign Craft Industries. Page 4 of 17 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25,2008 Mrs. Plavchak moved to suspend the Rules to allow the Public Notice in the newspaper which was two days late. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0. Mr. Dierckman arrived. Present for the Petitioner: Amanda Gates. Dee from Sales Diesel was also present. Sign Craft has been in Indiana for fifty years and has enjoyed a long relationship with several Cannel businesses. Their main objective is to provide a quality product to the reputable businesses in the community to not only identify the business but to add to the aesthetic value. This variance is for an additional wall sign to face US 31. Photos of comparable signs in the area were shown. The architecture of the building has several bump-outs and insets at various angles. Even though some of the signs are classified as north- facing, most of them appear to be east-facing toward US 31. They were requesting an appropriate place for the sign due to the length of the fayade and the architecture of the building. Photos of the building facades facing Illinois Street were shown. The Staff comments stated that within two years it is projected that many businesses will want their signs facing Illinois Street. She felt that projection was as important part of business decisions, but in this instance they did not have the luxury to wait two years for Illinois Street to boom with traffic. They would appreciate the opportunity to be able to place their sign facing US 31 where they can insure that the business will get the visibility it needs to succeed within the community. A rendering of the proposed sign was shown. They were upholding all the standards within the Ordinance and sign package as far as size and color specifications. The only deviation at this point is the additional sign facing US 31. 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 proposed sign does fit within the specified sign package for this center. It will be about 90 square feet; ivory in color with bronze returns like the other signs in the center. The Staffs main concern is that allowing an additional sign to face US 31 will enhance the retail appearance of the corridor instead of the business/office corridor the City is trying to keep consistent in looks and feel. Also Illinois Street is slated to be continued and completed from 116tl1 Street south to 106th Street. They felt once this was completed the businesses facing Illinois Street will ask for additional signage. They were trying to keep consistent with the Sign Ordinance. This building would be allowed an additional sign facing Illinois Street. Mr. Hawkins asked if Sales Diesel was an office use. He wanted to know if any ofthe owners of the building were present. He was concerned if this sign was approved then they would come back for a sign on Illinois Street which he would not be inclined to approve. That could impact the owner's wishes for the building. Ms. Gates stated Sales Diesel is a marketing company. The owner has seen and approved the signage. They understand this variance for a third sign would be maxing out signage they would be allowed on the building. Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 08070017 V, Sales Diesel-signage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ha\vkins and DENIED 2-3, with Mr. Broach, Mr. Dierckman and Mrs. Plavchak casting the negative votes. Page 5 of 17 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 13h. . Brunson & Co Office The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: Docket No. 08070024 UV Appendix A: Use Table Office uses in residential district/building The site is located at 2050 East 96th Street and is zoned S2/Single-family residential. Filed by Michael Godfrey and Kumiko Brunson, owners. u Present for the Petitioner: Mike Godfrey. Kumiko Brunson was also in attendance. They currently have a home business at this location. He shared a picture of the house.which was a rental when they purchased it in 2002. The maintenance had been ignored, but they saw value in the size and location of the parcel. They received a sign variance for the parcel. A picture was shown indicating the improvements they had made to their home. They run a successful real estate and insurance business from their home. Their business has grown. They have no intention of making any physical or cosmetic changes. They intend to continue to occupy the property and will not be changing any way they operate the business. They have already been approached and have had part of their frontage taken through eminent domain by the City. They have continued use of the property, but a sewer drain was placed down the south property line. They were asking to protect the value of the property by getting a Use Variance. They have received notifications from either the State or Marion County on changes and improvements that will be taking place on 1465. They have no intentions of moving or selling the property. They believe the changes they have made have been an asset to the area. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Unfavorable: LJ Ron Schafer, 9604 Maple Drive, three houses east of this residence. About a year and a half ago another residence on 96th Street applied for a Use Variance and it was denied. He did not understand . some of the reasons for why they wanted the Use Variance. He had lived there for 29 years and maintained his property. It .was his understanding you could have a business in a residence as long as you lived in the residence. Mr. Hawkins stated the Department would better be able to answer that. There are certain criteria to have a home-based business. Mr. Schafer felt this was just like a cancer. If this one goes to a business/commercial facility. it will spread down the street. Mr. Godfrey stated in his information in three different places that the surrounding area is currently predominately residential with some residential office conversions. He would be interested in the location of these places. He mew there was one next door to him. Very few mow they are running a business in the house and no one is living there. They maintain the property and there is very little traffic in and out. He Was just not interested in commercial starting on the street. They had gone through this a few years ago with the Comprehensive Plan which raised a ruckus in their neighborhood. Mayor Brainard had told them before the last election that the Comprehensive Plan was dead. He was not aware of anything happening on 96th Street as far as the widening. He heard a rumor they were talking about putting a bridge over Westfield Boulevard that would run at some angle across 1465 from the roundabout. He had talked to the State Highway Department earlier in the day, but they mew nothing aboutit. They were just starting to talk about plans for 1465 and nothing will start on it until 2012. He did not want a business to start on the street. u Rebuttal: Mr. Godfrey felt the complexion of 96th Street was changing. Most ofthe growth has taken place east of Keystone Avenue. With the current improvements on Keystone Avenue north of 96th Street and Page 6 of 17 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25,2008 Meridian in the near future, it will continue to drive more and more traffic across 96th Street. It will not be as conducive for residential use. They run a quiet and successful business. They felt they will continue to be an asset to the area. They own and maintain other residential pieces of real estate in Hamilton County. He felt this was a good reflection of what they do. He had a high respect for Mr. Schafer and the other neighbors. They will continue to operate a nice responsible business. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The difference between this variance and the variance referenced by Mr. Schafer is this one has been in operation and continues to operate with very few if any complaints on file with the City. This is also a comer lot which is considered to be better for a residential/commercial conversion. It is typically less disturbing than a mid-block lot. This variance would legally establish and pennit some growth within the house itself. A home-based occupation is permitted within certain parameters and percentages of the building. Typically a living room or dining room is permitted to be used. They were granted three variances in 2005 for signs related to the home occupation. Typically the Department does have some concerns with intermingling office and residential uses. In this instance there are a few other conversions on both sides of the street, stretching between Westfield and Keystone. Further east 96th Street becomes more commercial. It is a very low intensity commercial use within a residential area. It does not generate a great deal oftraffic. The use could serve as a buffer. Mrs. Torres asked if the expansion would be strictly offic,e use and no residential or would it just be expanding into other rooms in the house. Mr. Godfrey stated they did not have an expansion proposal or project. They would not be making any physical changes. They only thing that will happen is the continued natural growth of their business through word of mouth. Their marketing budget is very thin. They will not expand into bedrooms or hire employees. They are the only employees. Mrs. Torres was confused as to what they were approving since the business and sign already exist. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated this variance would give the Petitioner the ability to hire an additional employee. A home-based occupation is limited to one part-time employee in addition to family members and a very small space within the house. This variance would permit their business to grow without continuing to come back each time the business was to expand. They would still need to maintain the residential appearance of the structure. The variance would legally establish the existing commercial use and it would permit expansion only within the house. Any thing additional expansion would need a variance. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08070024 UV, Brunson & Co Office. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 3-2, with Mr. Dierckman and Mrs. Torres casting the negative votes. Mrs. Torres pointed out to Mr. Schafer that the Comprehensive Plan is back on the table. Ifhe has access to the website, he could check it out because it is in discussion again. Page 7 of17 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 14-15h.Beriault Pool The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08070028 V Section 7.04.03.D(i) Reduced rear yard setback Docket No. 08070029 V Section 25.01.01.B.3(b)(i) Reduced setback from easement The site is located at 13820 Smokey Ridge Drive and is zoned RlISingle family residential. Filed by Bill Lambert ofPermaPools for Greg and Ann Beriault, owners. u Present for the Petitioner: Bill Lambert. These variances are for a residential backyard pool. The placement of the pool abuts a ten-foot drainage/utility easement in the back. There is a twenty-foot rear setback. The Ordinance requires it to be three feet from an easement. This approval would allow them to place the pool within the twenty-foot setback and up to the easement. It would not be within the _ easement. A site plan was shown. He had met with Fred Gla,ser in the Carnlel Engineering Department. They had walked this easement and some of the easements in the neighborhood. He had a~sured Mr. Glaser that the swale ofthe easement would not change. This is a one piece fiberglass 15 by 38 pool. The rectangular portion is 15 by 32 with two small benches on each end. A picture was shown. Pictures of the backyard were shown with the location of the pool and property line indicated. It will be behind the screening between the Beriaults and their neighbor and entirely behind their house. They will have a registered surveyor mark the lines and the easement lines. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. o Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. There are several existing pools and similar structures on adjacent parcels in the subdivision. The lots are relatively small in portion to the size of the house and oddly shaped. Without the grant ofthe variance or building a much smaller pool, the Petitioner would not be able to install the pool they would like to build. If the variances are approved, the Petitioner will need to appear before the Board of Public Works through the Engineering Department for approval to encroach because the pool deck would be immediately adjacent to the drainage/utility easement. The pool would not actually be in the easement and is similarto existing structures and improvements within the subdivision. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mrs. Plavchak asked why the pool could not be located elsewhere on the lot. On the diagram it looked like there was room in another area. That way they would not be encroaching on any easements. Mr. Lambert said there were two reasons. There is .ill existing 25 feet of screening which would be very helpful. Further down there is no screening, making the pool would be out in the middle of the view of the neighbors. They wanted to leave the remainder of the lot open for other types of use. Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket Nos. 08070028 V and 08070029 V, Beriault Pool. .The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 4-1, with Mrs. Plavchak casting the negative vote. Mr. Hawkins reminded Mr. Lambert he would need to contact the Board of Public Works for encroachment. u Mr. Lambert stated he had spoken with Mr. Glaser and he was not sure an encroachment was needed. Page 8 of 17 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated he would need to confirm with Gary Duncan in the City's Engineering Department. I. Old Business 1-2i Ditch Rd Horse Stables The applicant seeks the following special use and development standards approvals: Docket No. 08060007 SU Appendix A: Use Table Horse boarding & lessons in S1 District Docket No. 08060019 V Section 25.0 1.01 (B) (8) Riding arena/stables .excccds square footage of primary dwelling The site is located at 13403 Ditch Road and is zoned SllResidential. Filed by Karen and Kevin I-lammeran, owners. . Present for the Petitioner: Karen Hammeran. Kevin Hammeran. Drs. Leslie and Sandeep Ahluwalia, contract buyers, and Mary Slade, Legal Counsel, were also present. An aerial of the area was shown with existing riding stables. In the packet she had provided an update since last month's meeting and reference documents. They had made an effort to resolve the concerns of proximity to the existing homes, manure management, traffic and the number of horses. They had changed the design and configuration of the arena and riding stable, Illet with the concerned parties, provided literature-based educational materials, provided frequency of traffic information and written commitments. In the packet was also an email they had sent after meeting with the concerned parties. They requested to be advised whether or not the commitments provided would resolve their objections. They stated they would be open to any specific additions or revisions for resolution. They had received an email from Jo Bojrab stating she still felt of the operation was too large. They had not received any response from the Wilhelms. The first thing the contract buyer had done was look at alternative configurations for the arena and riding stable that would address the Wilhelm's concerns. They are the neighbor immediately to the north and were concerned about a pasture or parking lot with dumpster being near their home. In the new design the parking area has been moved away from the fence they share with the Wilhelms. The parking, horse trailers and dumpster are now visually shielded from the property lines within the V-shaped area of the newly designed arena and stables. It will be 207 feet from the fence line and approximately 280 feet from the Wilhelm's house. The setback will be in excess of 1,000 feet from Ditch Road and 1,200 feet from the entrance to the Estates of Clay West. They met with the involved parties on August 10 and those minutes were included in the packets provided to the Board members. All comers of the arena and ridiJ;1g stable were staked out so that all the parties could walk the yard to see the physical location of the layout of the site. An aerial view of the layout of the property was shown, indicating the new facilities. She indicated the tree lines that would shield the facility. The u- shaped facility will fall within the 35% parcel coverage guideline. There will be minimal traffic created by the facility. The dumpster will be emptied once per week; the grain delivered once per month; the hay delivered 3 to 4 times per year; lessons would be two to three days per week; the number of boarders present at any given time would be two to three. Only about ten percent of horse owners compete, therefore out of 20 horses boarded only one to two would be going to shows between the months of June and October. She shared the traffic count obtained from the City of Carmel; Ditch between 13151 Street and 136th (includes their driveway and one entrance to the Estates of Clay West) was 1,921 cars; 131 st between Ditch and. Towne (includes the south entrance to the Estates of Clay West) was over 5,000 cars. Their property was pointed out on the aerial map. They are surrounded by subdivisions. In 2002 when they bought the property, it was very cornman to see people riding their horses up and down Ditch Road. A lot ofthe traffic comes from other sources. She felt the impact of a riding stahle on their property would be extremely limited. A copy of the written cornmitments was in Page 9 of 17 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 the Board member's packets. She highlighted the main points: the existing tree line would stay in place, location and configuration of the arena/riding stable to U-shaped design, limiting the hours of U the recreational access and lessons to 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM with a maximum of four horse trailers on site, private riding lessons would be one hour with a maximum of five in any group lessons, no competitions held on site, boarding limited to 20 horses rotated out on pasture with a maximum of three horses per acre of pasture, a vet clinic wilInot be on the premises, the stalls will be cleaned daily with the waste removed weekly, dumpster screened with stockade fencing a minimum of 100 feet from the property line and 200 feet from the existing homes, exterior lighting would be for safety and maintenance and consistent with theresidential character. Dr. Leslie Ahluwalia has bred, raised and trained horses most of her life and is a practicing veterinarian. She was hired by the Indiana Horse Racing Commission to work at the two Indiana racetracks for aboot three years. A letter of support from another veterinarian was included in the Board's packets addressing the issue of20 horses on just over six acres. Material was also included in the packets regarding horses, their management and numbers per acre. The requested boarding stable would be one of the smallest in the area. A boarding stable usually has about 40 or so horses, such as Lucky Farm, Rinehart Farm, etc. The number of horses per acre is an issue when they receive their nutrition from the field grasses. When the nutrition is addressed with grain and hay that is no longer the case. When exercise is addressed through an indoor riding arena or all weather exercise, then it is not an issue. The manure will be handled with removal once per week. With regards to delivery traffic, it would be the same for 10 or 20 horses. The boarders and visitors would not cause a lot of traffic. Mrs. Hammeran reiterated a recreational Special Use for a riding stable in the S-l zoning district is C permitted under the Ordinance. They are not asking for the property to be rezoned for business, but only to be able to provide boarding and riding lessons. She felt their findings of fact had been met. . Accommodations had been made to the design of the arena and riding stable to address the objections and concerns from the last meeting. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Remonstrance: Dave Coots, attorney, represented the Wilhelm family and the Estates of West Clay. The application requires the Petitioner to establish the Special Use will not be injurious to the public health, safety and general welfare in a substantially negative manner. They believed this use was too intense for the size of the property. From the diagram shown earlier, it was apparent that the area to be occupied by the U- shaped arena/riding stable and pasture is substantially less than one-third ofthe six-acre parcel. The entryway constitutes an acre by measurement. The house, the pool and the area outside of the horse use area is approximately two acres. The calculation for the area for the stable and horse-use equals 1.56 acres. They felt that was too intense to house 20 horses within that area. It is beyond the scope of the uses within the area. Mr. and Mrs. Fleming on 136th Street, who submitted a letter, house 3 to 4 horses on 10 acres; He felt policing the commitments put a burden on the adjacent properties. He also believed the use would affect adjacent land llse and value because.ofthe items that had to be addressed within the conmlitments. The fact they had to be addressed, pointed out the significance of the impact. This is a developing residential area with one lot per acre developments. The Special Use has to be L consistent with the district. There are horse farms within the district, but they are not confined operations with 20 horses operating on less than a 2-acre parcel. n Page 10 of 17 u L u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25,2008 - Andrea Kester, 24 Circle Drive. She had no connection to the Wilhelms or the Petitioner. She was present for another item on the agenda. They were in the same position in 1993. A lot of promises were made and not kept. She did not want the same situation to be propagated in Carmel. Rebuttal: Mary Slade, attorney with Plunkett Cooney, Indianapolis. When the Hammerans bought this property in 2002, the character of this neighborhood from 136th Street, 13151 Street, Six Points and Ditch Road was the horse community. This area was annexed into Carmel in 2003. She felt it was totally inconsistent to say this petition would be inconsistent with the character and use in the neighborhood. There are eleven existing stables and farn1s within that area. Two ofthose eleven stables have riding stables. They range from farms having small barns with small animals to farms with large operations of 40 horses on ten acres. The packet had outlined the strength of the proposed commitment and also the potential purchaser's background. The proposed purchaser/resident is a licensed veterinarian who must maintain her integrity. It is physically suitable for the premises because of the character and nature of the surrounding area. She felt that basically the City of Carmel has inherited horse country and this property is in the middle of it. There would be economic detriment if the Board decided against this petition in the middle of horse country. Then horse country would start deteriorating in this area that was dedicated to this type of use before and after the annexation into Carmel. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. Any riding arena or stable would require a special use and variances based on the size of the animals and size of the building needed for a riding arena. TIllS area is characterized by small farms with bams and stables and other horse fanns wlllch vary in the amount of acreage and number of horses. This particular six-acre site would be heavily screened. The buildings are not visible from Ditch Road. With the tree line, the back of the property is not visible from the road. The buildings would be visible primarily by the adjoining property owners. The proposed V-shaped arena would screen any horse trailers and dumpster to further mitigate any potential impact on adjoining property. The Petitioner has committed several restrictions regarding the an10unt of traffic, number of lessons, size of lessons, and types of uses on the site. While the number of horses proposed is high, the Petitioner does seem to be qualified to be able to manage that number of horses on the site. The use would be consistent with the surrounding area. With the recorded commitments, the existing screening which is to be preserved, and the close configuration of the arena, the Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Dierckmanasked how many horses were in the Petition at last month's meeting. Mrs. Barton-Holmes confirmed it was also 20 horses, same as presented at this meeting. Mr. Broach asked for a review of some of the other operations in the area and how many horses, how many acres, etc. Mrs. Hammeran pointed out the arenas and riding stables within their block. Rinehart's is on 141 st Street with 50 stalls on 10 acres with an indoor arena and stable. There is a subdivision located across the street. Lucky Farms is at 96th and Ditch with 40 horses on 10 acres. A new gated community is being built on adjoining property. She did not feel.developers would be putting in new gated communities and subdivisions next to the properties, if the horses would be a detriment to their property values. Page 11 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Mr. Broach asked Dr. Ahluwalia ifher veterinary practice was off-site. If so, what would happen when she was away from the property during the hours of8:00 am to 8:00 pm? Would boarders still come, il would there still be lessons? U Dr. Ahluwalia confirmed her job was off-site. There could be lessons while she was away, but she did not plan for that at this time. The boarders could come any time between 8:00am and 8:00 pm to ride and bathe their horses, etc. Mr. Dierckman wanted to see the aerial view of the Rinehart property. How long had they been there? Mrs. Hammeran stated they had been there before the subdivisions were built. The saple was true for Lucky Farms. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket Nos. 08060007 SU and 08060019 V, Ditch Rd Horse Stables. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins. Docket No. 08060007 SU was APPROVED 5-0. Docket No. 08060019 V was APPROVE)) 4-1, with Mr. Dierckman casting the negative vote. 2-3i. Monon & Main, Unit 3D. WITHDRAWN The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket Nos. 08030016 V SeCtion 15.26 ofPUD Z-462-04 non-residential uses on 2nd & 3rd floors Docket Nos. 08030028 V Section 2.13.B of PUDZ-462-04 2-car garage requirement The site is located northeast of Third Ave NW and Main St., and is zoned PUDlPlanned Unit Development. 0 Filed by Mr. and Mrs. Ardalan for Soori Gallery. , . 4-5i. Monoo & Main, Units 3A & 4F. WITHDRAWN The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket Nos. 08030014-15 V Section 15.26 ofPUD Z-462-04 l1:on-residential uses on 2nd & 3rd floors Docket Nos. 08030026-27 V Section 2.13.B ofPUD 1..,-462-04 2-car garage requirement The sites are located northeast of Third Ave NW and Main St., and are zoned PUDlPlanned Unit Development. Filed by Mr. and Mrs. Ardalan for Soori Gallery. 6-12i. Circle KJSbeU TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 27 The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08030019 V Section 23F.05.01B Build-to line greater than 10' Docket No. 08030020 V Section 23F.07.02 Height under 26' Docket No. 08030021 V Section 23F.07.01 One occupiable floor Docket No. 08030022 V Section 23F.08.01 Floor Area Ratio minimum 0.5 Docket No. 08030023 V Section 23F.06.02 Frontage minimum 70% Docket No. 08030024 V Section 23F.15.02 Parking located in front of building Docket No. 08030025 V Section 23F.l1.03 Landscaping & screening The site is located at 1230 South Range Line Road and is zoned B3/Business, within the Carmel Drive/Range Line Road Overlay. Filed by DonaldPisher of Insight .Engineering for Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC. Page 12 of17 u u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 Gl. Report on 1993 Use Variance status - UV-35-93 Discussion was held regarding Item G1. UV-35-93. Mr. Molitor stated he had given copies of his letter to the Mylins Counsel to Mr. Hollibaugh for review, along with the Commitments to be executed. In addition there was a Department Report. He recommended the Board make a motion to conduct a Public Hearing on the matter. Mrs. Torres asked ifthe Mylins were present. Mr. Dierckman moved to conduct a Public Hearing for UV-35-93. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Broach asked if the neighbors had seen the commitments. Had the Mylins already agreed to the cormnitments at the Department's request? Mr. Molitor stated in his opinion and the Department's opinion these commitments reflect the conditions that were imposed by the Board in 1993. However, there were no written commitments . signed or recorded at that time. All they have gone on in the last fifteen years are the recollections of what the Board had imposed at that time. At this point they have been reduced to a written form exactly as the conditions the Board had imposed in 1993. The public can make comments as to whether the commitments are adequate at this point. Mr. Broach asked if there was anything additional or was this just reflective of the 1993 agreement. Before the public got an opportunity to cormnent, he wanted them to know what they were commenting about. Mr. Molitor summarized the commitments. "The owners acknowledged that the Board granted them a variance of use on or about August 23, 1993 which allows them to utilize the real estate, in particular the outdoor swimming pool located on the real estate, to conduct private swimming lessons. As a condition of the Board's approval and in accordance with Indiana Code 36-7-4-9-18.5 the owners commit that all lessons will be conducted between the hours of9:00 am and 12:30 pm and during a period of not more than nine consecutiv~ weeks each season between the dates of May 22 and August 15. The owners further commit that they shall instruct all persons with whom they do business that they shall comply with all parking and traffic regulations of the City of Carmel." The commitments go ob and indicate that they are binding on the owners and subsequent owners of the real estate if the real estate would ever be sold. The Staffis authorized to record the commitments with the County Recorder. It gives the Board formal authority to enforce the commitments, as well as the Department without the Board's approval. He thought the Department's approach was to get the Board's input, feedback and direction before taking action on its own. The original commitments were signed earlier in the day. They had not been recorded, but were in suitable form for recordation. Dave Coots represented the Petitioner. The commitments presented by Mr. Molitor had been signed and encumbered the property. They were premised upon the use variance that was granted in 1993. Since that time there has been considerable variation over the summers from year to year as to the length oflessons. It grew out of the fact that the school became more and more popular with more students. Mr. and Mrs. Mylin are Cannel teachers and use their summers for swim instructions. They have expanded the school. When it was brought to their attention hy Mr. Brennan at the behest of Page 13 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25, 2008 adjoining property owners, an agreement was worked out with the City. The agreement would allow U. ~.. the Mylins to fulfill the commitments they had made to students and also the commitments they had made in 1993 would be acknowledged and reverted to. Those are the commitments that are ready to be recorded after approval by the Board. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the commitments. Remonstrance: Jay Craig, 22 Circle Drive, across the street from the Mylins. An aerial of the area was shown. Fifteen years ago they had supported the Mylins and their request to give swimming lessons, because of the limited hours, number of students and just three instructors. They had been amazed at the Mylins success. They have grown a few lessons into a major business without regard for the impact on the neighborhood. The neighbors have not been able to enjoy their suIirrners for many years. With the success ofthe Olympics there is no doubt they will be able to expand their lessons even further by going to another pool in the neighborhood. All the adjacent property owners were at this meeting because the Mylins refuse to recognize that the business is no longer a small summer sideline business for teachers. As a small business owner he knew how hard it was for someone to make the commitment to move to a new facility that can accommodate an increased clientele. They are sorry they have been forced to ask the Board to enforce the commitments and revoke the variance. Robert Lennon, 26 Circle Drive, across the street. He indicated the street on the aerial. It has become a blind comer with overgrown bushes in the City easement along the Mylin's property. Their commercial swimming operation runs seven day a week, starting at 8:00 am and ending at lJ approximately 4:30 pm, sometimes 5:30 pm. The street has become their parking lot with a minimum of five cars and up to eight to twelve cars. The Mylins place 15 to 18 orange cones along their property line all summer. They had permission from one neighbor to park one student's car in their parking lot. Now that neighbor's lot has five or six cars ata time. There is a furniture refinishing business at the end of the street. Customers park there and walk down the street. They also parkin front of his house and walk across the Mylin's property to an adjacent swimming pool that does not have a variance.. They congregate in the street for up to 30 minutes after lessons. The lessons ate supposed tobe 30 minutes long, so every thirty minutes there is another eight to twelve cars coming in. When he tries to get into his own driveway, he is treated rudely by the customers. They change their clothing in the streets. There are five to twelve cars at a time with two to three kids in each car. This goes on all day long. There are kids screaming in the pool all day long. The swimming instructions can be heard all the way back to the Mcnon. This is a major commercial swimming operation; it is not a school. It is a big money machine. There is no one policing this operation. No one comes by at 12:30 pm seven days a week and tells them they have to stop. Carmel Police have been called for parking violations. The cars park in front of the fire hydrant. One afternoon two police officers came through and there were four or five cars. About ten minutes later the fire hydrant was blocked. He has not seen one ticket written. It was completely out of control. They do not abide by the set rules. There is no one to call at 12:30 pm, 2:00 pm or 8:30 am to report violations. They will be back next summer doing what they want, when they want and however they want. The neighborhood is tired of being bullied. He wondered about liability. He cannot back out of his driveway because cars are blocking it. Parents pull up and let the kids out who run across the street. It is a narrow street. His trash has not been picked up several times U this summer because the trash truck cannot get through. His yard has ruts from the UPS truck, trash truck, utility trucks etc. going through the lawn to get around the cars. Should he take his trash to City . .u . Hall or to the Mylin's when the trash truck cannot get tltrough? Do the neighbors need to get umbrella policies to take care of the liability? He felt the City had some liability because they have allowed the Page 14 of17 u (: U u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 25,2008 Mylins to ignore the variance. There was no one to call to get this stopped. Andrea Kester. 24 Circle, adjacent to the pool area. She had a copy of the Mylin's application for the variance in 1993. They very explicitly state that their hours will be 9:00 am to 12:30 pm, only eight to nine weeks, only Mr. and Mrs. Mylin would teach and possibly one other certified instructor. She also had a copy of the minutes from the hearing with Mr. Coots confirming these conditions. Also there would be three students maximum, and parking would be in the Mylin's driveway. These were the conditions established in 1993. They agreed that teaching children to swim was a good thing. No one wants a child to drown. Even though their children knew how to swim, they sent them to the Mylin's for lessons. As the closest neighbor to the pool, they felt they could live with the conditions stipulated by the Mylins. But then the Mylins turned their good intentions ofteaching children to swim into a big business by operating outside the conditions of their variance. This affected the safety of their neighborhood and disrupted their lives. That was when it became obvious that the Mylin's business needed to be removed from their residential neighborhood. The Mylins started teaching on Saturdays and Sundays and expanded their business hours from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, they increased the number of instructors, they increased the number of students, they increased the number of weeks of instruction and this year they even increased the number of pools they used. That caused the neighbors to be at the mercy of the Mylin swimming schedule all summer. Ever since the Mylins started this business, the neighbors never have a quiet holiday. They teach on all those days. Kids are constaiJ.tly crying and screaming and the instructors are yelling over them. It makes it unbearable to outside iiI their yard. Over the years when they have had outside work done, they couid not stand in the driveway to talk to contractors because of the noise coming from the poo1. They have to have those discussions inside. If the Mylins had adhered to the hours of operation, they would schedule appointments before 9:00 am or after 12:30 pm. The Mylin's business clients attest to the wonderful job they are doing teaching children to swim. But these clients are only affected by the noise, traffic congestion and parking issues for 30 minutes a day for five days. How many of them would tolerate this activity in their neighborhood all day, every day, all summer? The Mylins have ignored multiple warnings from the City and an appeal from the neighbors. They have made promises to comply with the variance conditions, but they have continued to demonstrate they have no intention to comply with their variance conditions. On March 1 st at a neighborhood birthday luncheon, Linda Mylin had said they would only teach until noon. But when the lessons started in May, they ran from 8:00 am until 5 :00 pm. Their actions indicate they care only about the money the business generates and are oblivious to the hardships created for the neighborhood. This was. why the neighbors felt the Mylins will never comply with the conditions of their existing variance. The business needs to be moved out afthe neighborhood and into a facility that can better accommodate it. The only way to insure the business was moved out of Circle Drive was to revoke the 1993 Valiance. They felt if the Mylins were given another chance to honor the variance conditions, they will overstep the conditions again next May. She gave the copy ofthe variance application to the Department to be copied. Alice Craig, 22 Circle Drive. She showed a layout ofthe subdivision of29 homes. She indicated all the neighbors who were present for this hearing. The owner of the driveway being used for parking is a 95-year old gentleman who is in the hospitaL A residential neighborhood should not be impacted by a business. The Mylins have taken over this neighborhood. Rebuttal: Mr. Coots stated what they had heard at this hearing pointed to the execution and entry of the commitments that are recordable and do have more of an enforcement mechanism, He was aware of one letter last year sent to the Mylins about the extended hours of operation. There was one letter in Page 15 of 17 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Augilst 25,2008 June of this year that brought this matter before the Board at this hearing. u The Department did not give a report. Mr. Broach asked if the Board could revoke avariance. Mr. Molitor stated they could not revoke a variance granted fifteen years ago on their own initiative. He would prefer to discuss in Executive Session the Board's authority to initiate litigation with regard to enforcement ofthe conditions that were imposed fifteen years ago. Mr. Broach pointed out the commitments covered the time period, May 22 to August 15 and it covers the time during the day, 9:00 am to J 2:30 pm. But it did not cover the number of instructors and the number of students for intensity. He wondered why that was not incorporated .into the commitments. Mrs. Torres stated the original variance did cover the intensity. Mr. Hawkins wanted a copy of the original application and minutes for that reason. If the original stated three students and parking in the driveway, he would like to see that incorporated into the new commitments. Mr. Broach felt another disturbing issue to him and possibly the other Board members was the fact that they adopt commitments and no one enforces them. There are City employees in the Department whose job is to enforce these commitments. There should be a better mechanism, so that the 0- commitments the Board insists on are adhered to by the Petitioner. . Mr. Dierckman stated there is not enough Staff to enforce these commitments all over the City. They need to approve things that can be enforced. They cannot revoke the variance, so what can they do other than sue on the City's behalf? Mr. Hollibaugh stated the Department had talked about putting a time limit on any Use Variance. Then the Petitioner would have to come back to the Board. They could check to make sure that everything was being conducted according to the variance qr commitments. They do have to rely a lot on the public to let the City know about violations. When that happens the Department does the best they can. They work with the Petitioner to either come back to the Board for a review/update or use the Court for compliance. Mr. Dierckman asked ifthe neighbors could sue on behalf of the City; Mr. Hollibaugh did not know what the neighbors could do. The City can write tickets or site them in City Court. Mr. Hawkins confirmed it clearly stated ~hese would be one-half segments with three students per class, occasionally employing a third teacher, with parking spaces in the drive to accommodate those present for each one-half segment. However, in the overlap period there have been cars parking along iU _ the roadside at the end of Circle Drive and traffic flow is not impaired. That was the fifth paragraph on I page 13 of the minutes of the August 23, 1993 meeting. It ;;eemed to him that at a minimum, these should be entered into the current commitments. Or the commitments should not be recorded because it appeared the minutes from the hearing were more restrictive. Page 16 of 17 ~ u u Carniel !3oard of Zoning Appeals August 25,2008 Mrs. Torres was extremely frustrated to know the Board approved something expecting people to uphold their commitments. She felt the Mylins just wanted to get the Use Variance and they knew all along they were not going to obey the commitments. The Board was stuck because they could not revoke the variance. What action could they take? Why was the Board hearing this? The situation needed to be remedied. Mr. Molitor was sorry to put the Board off, but he would prefer to convene in Executive Session to discuss what action they might take with respect to litigation, instead of discussing it in a public seSSIOn. Mr. Dierckman moved they meet in Executive Session. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Hawkins preferred the commitments not be recorded. He was afraid they would supersede what the hearing reflected which was more restrictive. Mr. Molitor reminded them it required 48 hours notice for an Executive Session. Mrs. Plavchak asked if it was something they needed to act on right now or were the Mylins back in school and it would be an issue that needed to be addressed before next year. Mr. Hollibaugh was informed the lessons were to end on or about August 15th. J. New Business There was no New Business. K. Adj oununent Mrs., Plavchak moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:4'0 PM. -'), ~. S:\Board ofZol)ing Appeals\MinuteslBoard of Zoning Appeals - 2008/20080825.rlf Page 17 of 17