HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 02-23-09C
G\SQ~HT,\CRsy~F!
~p
~F~ DIAN Cit o f C armel
-- Y
MINUTES
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Monday, February 23, 2009
6:00 PM
Council Chambers
Present: James Hawkins (President)
Kent Broach
Leo Dierckman
Eazlene Plavchak
Madeleine Torres
Connie Tingley (Recording Secretary)
1
Staff members in attendance:
Legal Couuset: John Molitor
Previous Minutes;
Mike Hollibaugh, DOCS Director
Christine Barton-Holmes, Planning Administrator
On a motion made by Madeleine Tones and seconded by Leo Dierckman:
The Minutes for the meeting dated January 26, 2009 were approved as circulated.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Department Report: None
Legal Report: None
Public Hearing:
1-3h. Primrose School Carmel Drive
The applicant seeks the following development standazds and variance approvals:
Docket No. 08120006 UV Appendix A Preschool in the M3 District
Docket No. 08120007 V Ch. 20D.08.01(1) Fence height 6' in front yard
Docket No. 08120008 V Ch. 27.08 Parking reduction
The site is located at the southeast corner of Carmel Drive West and Adams Street and is zoned
M3/Manufaturing/Office.
Filed by Matt Skelton of Baker & Daniels, LLP for the Primrose School Franchising Company.
Present for Petitioner:
Matt Skelton, Baker & Daniels, attorney
Mark Pavey, Children's Design Group, architect and project engineer
• UV to allow preschool within the Carmel Science & Technology Park
• Site location map shown
• Increased fence height for security to enclose playground
o Decorative wrought iron appearance, similar to ISO fencing
e Parking request meets use needs at other Primrose locations
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 2009
Public Hearing Closed
Department Report:
Christine Barton Holmes
• M3 zoning typically for warehousing/more industrial
o This area more of an office pazk
o Preschools compatible with office-type uses
o Another school nearby on Carmel Drive
• Fence screening appropriate
o Similar to approved fencing at Midwest ISO
o Transparency as well as protection and screening
Pazking reduction
o Small odd-shaped site
o Everything placed to maximize space and efficiency
o Pazking reduction allows increased outdoor play area, landscaping and pervious surface
Department recommended positive consideration of the three variances
Discussion-Board Questions:
• Position of building on site
o Front of building faces away from Carmel Drive
o Parking lot faces Carmel Drive
o Possible to orient building along Carmel Drive to look similar to offices?
^ With back along the south and front facing north (Adams)?
Petitioner-Responses:
Position driven by site
o Traffic will enter from only road cut on Adams Street
o Landscaping and six-foot fence will buffer Carmel Drive
o Front of building toward vehiculaz traffic
o Different orientation would probably take up more pervious surface azea
o Building surrounded with playgrounds on three sides
Full development plans will be submitted with ADLS application to Plan Commission
Motion: On a motion made by Eazlene Plavchak and seconded by Madeleine Tones:
Docket Nos. 08120006 UV, 08120007 V, and 08120008 V Primrose be approved.
MOTION APPROVED 4-1 (Dierckman negative votes)
4h. Brunson & Co Office
The applicant seeks the following use variance approval:
Docket No. 08110009 UV Appendix A: Use Table Office uses in residential
district building
The site is located at 501 East 1160i Street and is zoned Rl/Single-family residential.
Filed by Michael Godfrey and Kumiko Brunson, owners.
Present for Petitioner:
Michael Godfrey, 2050 E. 96`h Street, Indianapolis
• Currently operate insurance/real estate business from their home on 960i Street
Page 2 of 10
Cazmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 2009
o With three sales people
• Property on 116`h Street is residential rental property
• Rehab work for two years: before & after pictures shown
o Everything new except shell of structure
o Converted garage to living space
o Intended to move growing insurance business from their home
o Concerns by neighbors and by the City
• Withdrew first UV request about one year ago
^ Have met with Departments of Engineering, Community Services, Permitting &
TAC to address issues
• Would like to operate small office
o No further changes to building
o No signage
o Property two doors east recently granted UV for small printing operation
Remonstrance:
Vicky Newlin, 11418 W. Central Drive/Northern Heights Subdivision
• Many families and retirees in subdivision
• Many businesses in azea
• Better locations across the street
• Current business on 96"' Street has large sign in yazd, sign in window, large asphalt parking,
' working late into the evening
• Business would decrease value of neighboring properties
Located at main entrance into neighborhood
o Blocked entrance to neighborhood during re-shingle work
^ Used inappropriate language when asked to move the truck/trailer
• When she indicated she would remonstrate this UV, inappropriate language used again
o Not someone who respects neighbors or women
• Request he be required to meet current Ordinance violations
o Property advertised as a double which is not permitted
o Six and more cazs parked at property
• Signed neighborhood petition given to Board members
Steve McPherson, 11409 Ruckle Street
• Jan. 26, 2009 Dept Report stated number of cazs shall be limited to the greatest extent possible
o Right now 6 cars
o Office with three employees, clients, & owners could have 10 cars
0 116"` Street will be upgraded to interchange when US 31 expanded
o Why increase traffic in area with this business?
• Same Dept Report indicates his Ordinance violations
o Shows disrespect for Ordinance/laws
• Currently appears building is being used for a quasi motel/apartment building from number of
people staying and living at the location
Rebuttal:
Mike Godfrey
• Willing to comply with Carmel Ordinance
Page 3 of 10
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 2009
• Did not use inappropriate language
• Never saw more than four cars in driveway '
Public Hearing Closed
Department Report:
Christine Barton Holmes
• R-1 house used as office
o Most Ordinance Code issues have been resolved
o Driveway extended with gravel
• Per Ordinance, commercial standazds require curbed and paved pazking
• Give more commercial appeazance
• Curbing may cause negative impact on azea storm sewers
• Engineering Dept noted paving or gravel no problem on small lot for drainage
o Home-based businesses within a residential area can be compatible
^ Business needs to be invisible
^ Needs to look and function like a house
• With regazds to signage, parking, cars, traffic
Department recommendations:
o No curbing
o Additional landscaping to screen pazking
^ Petitioner continue to work with Urban Forester and Dept of Engineering '
^ Indicated willingness to dedicate required right-of--way and bicycle thoroughfare
o Signage limited to permitted 3 by 3 wall sign
o Cazs limited to three
o Employees limited to three
o UV limited to two years; return for review
Discussion:
• Current use
o Residential single rental after remodel
• Three brothers and one girlfriend
• Remodeled with commercial UV in mind
o Gazage converted to living space
• Commercial permits obtained
o Driveway permit for expansion and asphalt
• Satisfied Engineering concerns regarding apron and culvert
• Gravel expansion to accommodate tenant pazking permitted as residential
^ Willing to cover with asphalt if UV granted
o Will work with Urban Forester for landscaping
• Continual complaints from neighbors
o Did not use inappropriate language
• Potential four or five cazs with three employees and two owners
• No signage necessary
• Not unusual to work evenings
o Offices in front along 116a' Street
Page 4 of 10
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 2009
Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Earlene Plavchak:
' Docket No. 08110009 UV, Brunson & Co Office, with Commitments stated by the
Department be approved.
Petitioner did not agree to the Commitments stated by the Department.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Leo Dierckman
Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Eazlene Plavchak:
Docket No. 08110009 UV, Brunson & Co Office, be approved without Commitments
MOTION DENIED UNANIMOUSLY
Recommended:
Mr. Molitor and Staff prepaze the Findings of Fact
Motion: On a motion made by Madeleine Torres and seconded by James Hawkins:
Mr. Molitor and Staff to prepare the Findings of Fact.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
I. Old Business
1-2i. Towne Rd Communications Tower
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance and special exception approvals:
' Docket No. 08080011 SE Section 25.13 Communications tower in residential district
Docket No. 08080014 V Section 25.13(B) Setback less than 100' per tower height from
property line.
The site is located at 11104 Towne Road and iszoned S1/Low-density residential.
Filed by Brian Ramirez for American Tower Corporation.
From John Molitor:
Public Hearing closed at last meeting
• Boazd wanted to continue deliberations to this meeting
o Analyze Special Exception viability without Variance
o Allow remonstrators opportunity to review Petitioner's impact study and cross examine
• Remonstrators now have own real estate expert
Recommendations:
o Allow Petitioner to speak to V aziance requirement
o Examine real estate expert
o Allow Remonstrators opportunity to cross examine witness
o Allow Remonstrators opportunity to present testimony and rebuttal
o Presentations 15 minutes per side
o Not admit written supporting documentation just received for the Petitioner's real estate
appraisal, since no one had a chance to preview the information
1
Page 5 of 10
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 2009
Present for Petitioner:
Tim Ochs, Ice Miller '
• Brian Ramirez, American Tower, had distributed supporting documentation for previous real
estate appraisal/impact study
o Amanda Woodall would testify without the documentation
o The top page indicated other towers as requested by the Boazd
o The coverage map had been previously submitted
0 15 minutes would be adequate
• Variance issue:
o Setback requirement is 100 feet plus one foot for every foot of the tower
• No location for tower on this property without variance
• Need 220 feet from all property lines
• Center on approximately 4.5 acres
• Design Issue:
o Durable vinyl siding used on bam
o Cupola will be added to barn
AppraisaUImpact Study Issue:
Amanda Woodall, 628 N. Grant Street, Brownsburg, IN
o Updated portion (1/20/09) tower at 2525 W. 1415` Street
• Constructed 2001 -photos shown with green area and no surrounding
construction or development
• Multiple subdivisions in multiple price ranges now surround the tower azea ,
• 2002-2003 subdivisions added: Lincolnshire, Lakeside, Heather Knoll within
one mile
• Data increased previous 12 months
• Slight decrease in 2006, but it has recovered
• Report includes average days on market, average sales price
• Tower is unsightly monopole with six-carriers and outside coax cables
• Market conditions aze relevant due to decline in entire area
• Tim Ochs cross-examined Amanda Woodall
o Professional licensing and experience:
• Licensed broker 2007
• Real estate license 1996
• Licensed appraiser trainee
• Opened appraisal business with partner in 1998
• Experience in site acquisition industry
o Materials used for study
• Historical data compiled from the Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors
(MIBOR) Broker Listing Cooperative (BLC)
• Within one mile radius
• Average sale price, range, listed to sell price ratio, days on mazket,
pending, expired, etc
• Report covers last 12 months
• Supporting date covers 12 month increments for 3 yeazs
• No indication of decreasing market values
• Days on market increased everywhere due to declining real estate market
Page 6 of 10
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Februazy 23, 2009
Material submitted by Mr. Ware had been previously submitted in packets
' • Robert Ware cross-examined Amanda Woodall for the Remonstrators
o Who is Integrated Wireless LLC and their influence on report?
• Company that requested impact study
o Had she read an analysis of her report filed by Christopher Parkin
• She had not
o Had she read the Appraiser Journal?
• Yes, however this is not an appraisal, but an impact study
Did she recall an article in Fa112007 by Sandy Bond which generally concluded there is
a serious decrease in property values by the presence of towers?
Objection: Tim Ocbs objected
She did not recall article
Robert Ware cross-examined Brian Ramirez for the Remonstrators
o If they aze permitted to build the tower, could Mr. Waze dial 1-877-ACT-SITE, press 4,
press 4 again and buy this tower?
• He did not know and did not understand the question
Reminders from James Hawkins to Remonstrators
o Address only information presented at this meeting
o Do not re-hash previously submitted information
o Enough documentation had been received
Remonstrators:
• Brad Donaldson, 11500 Towne Road, across road
o Licensed broker with FC Tucker 1975
o Licensed real estate salesperson 1973
o Felt tower would affect property values 10-15%, just like adjoining to busy street,
power lines, unsightly work areas, etc
o Invites children to climb fence
o One mile radius does not affect property/cannot see tower
o Study should be of properties that see the tower or adjacent to tower
0 141 S` Street azea very remote when tower installed
o Areas has developed around it; many do not see the tower
• Fred Yde, 2117 Burning Tree Lane
o Immediate properties in Lakeside Park are not sold
• About 11 lots come from entry
• Only 2 houses have residents
• Spec house has not sold
• Lots have not sold
^ Builders were committed to second phase of development before they knew
about the tower
o This is a change of highest and best use on Towne Road
o Appraisal is not for speculative use, but for cun•ent value
' o Impact study is appropriate, but does not take into consideration highest and best use of
properties being changed
o Will be changed from estate use to a tower
Page 7 of 10
Carmel Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Februazy 23, 2009
• Vincent Johnson, 2117 Pinehurst Drive, President HOA Crooked Stick West
o Fear property values '
o Established neighborhoods did not choose to live near tower
o Will not be hidden
• Reina DeCapua, 11011 Greenbrier Drive
o Alternative sites available in azea (heazd before)
o Impact Study shows 2003 had approximately $16,000 decrease in value
(Farmington Hills)
o Cell tower impacts property around it
• Dee Fox, 11389 Royal Court
o Had previously submitted paperwork
o Nothing compazable
• In most cases tower went in first; people bought knowing it was there
• May have affected initial value; all houses go up over time
• No compazison of tower going into established neighborhood
• Brett Thomas, 11447 Sutton Place
o Without variance it cannot be located on site
o Not sure -Hardship for property owner or for tower company
• Have never heard from property owner
• Robert Ware, 10840 Tamoshanter Drive
o His questions regarding future values not admissible (only current value impact)
o Felt would lose $20,000
• Paul Oliveira, 2516 Sutton Avenue ,
o Special Use within Zoning regulations
o Cannot comply without Vaziance for location
o Hazdship on pazcel they do not own
• Dee Fox, 11389 Royal Court
o Mike Scheetz, local realtor, had submitted pazagraph with his opinions:
^ Cell tower would negatively impact value of homes in azea
^ Had submitted information for cell tower on Carey Road
• Indicated cell tower distance influenced home values
Objection: Tim Ochs objected to Mike Scheetz information since Mr. Scheetz was not present for
cross-examination
Recommendation: John Molitor recommended striking Mike Scheetz testimony since he was not
present for cross-examination
Motion: On a motion made by Madeleine Torres and seconded by Leo Dierckman:
Information from Mike Scheetz be stricken from record.
MOTION APPROVED 4-1 (Hawkins negative)
Rebuttal:
Tim Ochs
• Not a Use Variance, but Special Exception
• Development Standards Variance '
o Criteria not hazdship, but practical difficulty
^ Setback requirement would not allow tower on this site
Page 8 of 10
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 2009
• Property values
' o Evidence submitted for criteria for Special Exception
^ Study of impact showing no adverse affect on sales price or time on mazket
^ No reliable evidence submitted by Remonstrators showing negative impact
• Have submitted evidence to meet the Special Exception and the Vaziance
Public Hearing Closed
Department Report:
Christine Barton Holmes
• Petitioner submitted evidence of need for antenna
• Submitted improved plans for bam structure
Encouraged to work with Urban Forester
o Preserve trees
o Landscape to screen equipment
• 220-foot setback azound tower requires the Development Standazds Variance
o Pazcel width would not permit 220-foot setback
o Proposed location is best for screening
Department recommended positive consideration of the two petitions
Discussion-Board Questions:
• Any other properties available in the area that would not require variance
o Brian Ramirez not aware of another pazcel
• Farmington Hills and Cicero cell towers went into established neighborhoods
o Cicero values went up
o Farmington Hills went down
^ Amanda Woodall stated data was correct
• Prices sometimes vary for other reasons
o Different types of houses
o Builder discounts
o MLS (Multiple Listing Service) not available to her for these
azeas
o Relied on builder information for historical data
o Bradford Shores adjoins Farmington Hills
^ Has ponds for barriers from cell tower
James Hawkins felt they did not know about diminution in value from these comparisons when
tower went in after houses
o One shows increase
o One shows decrease
• About seven yeazs since last towers approved in Carmel; other approvals were co-locations or
building parapets
o Shorter Nextel tower at Range Line and 116a' Street
' 0 141St and Towne
0 131St and Springmill next to electrical substation, bordering residential area
o Gray Road south of 116u` Street at substation
• Only comparison study for 1415` and Towne
Page 9 of 10
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 23, 2009
o Comparison study done quickly for only 14151 and Towne from other comp data
compiled by other tower site acquisition specialists '
o Some towers are larger
o Some other areas have high-end homes
Four and one-half acres needed for tower site without Variance; depending on height
o Brian Ramirez did not know of vacant residential zoned parcel available
• Does not work on long narrow parcel
• Difficult to locate in platted subdivisions
Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Leo Dierckman:
Docket Nos. 08080011 SE and 08080014 V, Towne Rd Communications Tower, be
approved.
Docket No. 08080011 SE DENIED 2-3 (Hawkins, Broach, Torres negative)
Docket No. 08080014 V DENIED 0-5
Recommended:
Mr. Molitor and Staff prepare the Findings of Fact
Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Madeleine Torres:
Mr. Molitor and Staff to prepare the Findings of Fact.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Motion: On a motion made by Earlene Plavchak and seconded by James Hawkins:
The Meeting be adjourned. '
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.
Approved this Z~y~ day of ~~"~'~ 20~GY.l
~~ ~i ~
P esident -James R. awkins Secretary -Connie Tingl "
1
S:~Board of Zoning AppealsQvfinu[es~BZA Minu[es - 2009Vvfinu[es BZA 02-23-09.rtf
Page 10 of 10