Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 10-25-99Board of Zoning Appeals October 25, 1999 Minutes The Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met in the Council Chambers of City Hall on October 25, 1999 at 7:00 PM. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present were: Earlene Plavchak; James Quinn; Pat Rice; Chuck Weinkauf; Tom Yedlick. The minutes from the September meeting were approved as submitted. Department of Community Services Staff in attendance: Terry Jones and Laurence Lillig. Reports, Announcements Staff Concerns: Terry Jones announced that any and all items dealing with the Cell Tower issue will be heard tomorrow evening at 7:00 PM, this location. Item 6i., Robinson Barber Shop Use Variance was TABLED by the Petitioner. The following items have been WITHDRAWN: lg. Carmel Convenience Center (V- 59 -99) Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 23C.7 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow the tract size to be 1.427± acres where 3 acres is the minimum allowed. The site is located at the northeast corner of West 97 Street and Michigan Road. The site is zoned B- 2/business and is located within the U.S. 421 (Michigan Road) Overlay Zone. Filed by Jamie Poczekay of American Consulting Engineers Inc. This item has been withdrawn by the petitioner. 2g. Carmel Convenience Center (V- 60 -99) Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 23C.8.4 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow the minimum gross floor area of proposed commercial buildings to be less than 2,500 square feet. The proposed buildings are 1,600 square feet and 2,400 square feet. The site is located at the northeast corner of West 97 Street and Michigan Road. The site is zoned B- 2/business and is located within the U.S. 421 (Michigan Road) Overlay Zone. Filed by Jamie Poczekay of American Consulting Engineers Inc. This item has been withdrawn by the petitioner. S: \B oardofZoningAppeals\Minutes\BZA 1999\ 1999oct25 H. Public Hearing: lh. Sprint Tower (SE- 39 -99) Filed by Larry Wallace. This item will be heard at a special meeting to be held Tuesday, October 26, 1999. 2h. Sprint Tower (V- 40 -99) Filed by Larry Wallace This item will be heard at a special meeting to be held Tuesday, October 26, 1999. 3h. Kinney Dental Office (UV- 66 -99) Petitioner seeks approval of a Use Variance to allow construction of a 970- square- foot addition to an existing dentist's office and six additional parking spaces. The site is located at 2828 East 96 Street. The site is zoned S -2 /residential. Filed by Wayne Kinney, DDS. Terry Jones of the Department of Community Services reported that last week, there were questions regarding Public Notice on this particular application. There are potential flaws in the Notice Requirements set forth in the BZA Rules of Procedure as well, and these wee explained by John Molitor, Legal Counsel. John Molitor said the essential problem is Public Notice. Notice was not given to property owners on the south side of 96 Street, Marion County. When the petitioner went to the Hamilton County Auditor for a list of property owners, he was only given a list for Hamilton County, the north side of 96 Street, and not the south side of 96 Street, Marion County. Thus, there is a technical violation of the Rules of Procedure, even though it was inadvertent by the petitioner. The other problem is that those neighbors in Marion County on the south side of 96 Street are not aware that this petition is pending; under the Board's Rules, the neighbors have a right to know that. There are two suggestions: One is to proceed; suspend the Rules of Procedure, allow the hearing to proceed but make no decision until those neighbors can be notified either in person or by telephone and ask if they wish to waive their rights to remonstrate. The other suggestion is to simply Table this item for 30 days to the next Board Meeting, thereby allowing time for Proper Notice by mail to be given to the neighbors. Terry Jones stated that Marion County had rezoned everything on the south side of 96 Street to Haverstick as Commercial. There would be only business owners to the south that would be noticed. There is one property that is potentially a residence in the southwest corner of this property, diagonally across from the "T" intersection of Haverstick. As previously stated, the Rules of Procedure state specifically that the s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 2 applicant is to go to the Hamilton County Auditor and obtain a certified list of the individuals that the applicant is to notice. Obviously, Hamilton County Auditor does not have Marion County residents on the list. Dr. Kinney was in attendance. At this time, Dr Kinney agreed to Table this item for 30 days to allow Notice to the neighbors. TABLED TO NOVEMBER 1999. Note: Items 4h., and 5h. were heard together. 4h. Orchard Park Subdivision, Block `A'(pt) Lot 7(pt) (SU- 67 -99) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to build an expansion of an existing church. The site is located at 1065 East 106 Street. The site is zoned S- 2 /residence. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger. 5h. Orchard Park Subdivision, Block `A'(pt) Lot 7(pt) (V- 68 -99) Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 6.4.1 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance in order to build to a height of 32 feet. The site is located at 1065 East 106 Street. The site is zoned S -2 /residence. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger. Charles Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals representing the Orchard Park Presbyterian Church. The applicant is requesting approval for church expansion. Also present on behalf of the Church are the Reverend Gary Zigler; Jim Thomas, Chairman of the Building Committee; and a small group of parishioners. An aerial photograph of the Church and grounds was shown; the church real estate comprises 8.9 acres. A small, rectangular parcel houses the manse or the home where the minister resides. The Church is bordered on the north by 106 Street and the Orchard Estates Subdivision; on the east by Range Line Road, a /k/a Westfield Boulevard, and on the south by the Orchard Park Subdivision. The expansion will create a new Fellowship Hall, additional offices for staff, space for a choir and bell room, a new chapel, space for elevators, widening of corridors and the re- location and expansion of the kitchen. Finally, it will create the opportunity for 13 new classrooms and a library. The parking will be increased by approximately 64 spaces from 261 spaces to 325 spaces. The parking aisles will be re- aligned to allow for safer parishioner access to the Church. Currently there are two entrances from the Church onto 106 Street. The two access points will be consolidated into one entrance, approximately in the center of the two, and realigned so that it is adjacent to the entrance to Orchard Estates Subdivision on the north. s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 3 The specific building elevations were displayed and discussed. The west and north elevations of the education wing were shown and discussed as well as the east elevation that shows the kitchen wing. The south elevation shows the Education and Fellowship building; the music wing was shown as viewed from 106 Street. The final elevation shown was the east elevation of the music wing as shown from North Range Line Road. The petitioner is requesting approvals necessary for the Church expansion and are two Fold—a Special Use and a Developmental Standards Variance. A Special Use is requested because the real estate is zoned S -2 Residential and a church in the S -2 classification is a permitted, special use. A Developmental Standards Variance is requested because the education and fellowship hall shown has a building height of 32 feet and therefore will exceed what is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance (7 feet). Regarding the height, many of the surrounding and adjacent residences are greater in height that 32 feet and the proposal is not higher than anything surrounding it. Under the zoning ordinance, for each additional foot of rear yard or side yard beyond that which is required in the Ordinance, a dwelling is entitled to one additional foot in height. The distance between the property line and the building line on this elevation exceeds by at least 20 feet the required setback. The building height, however, is only 7 feet higher than permitted under the Ordinance. Jim Thomas, 5111 Oriole Drive, Carmel, addressed the Board as Chairman of the Building Committee of the Church. The proposed expansion is roughly 30,000 square feet; there is also approximately 7,000 square feet of re -hab associated with this proposal. The Fellowship Hall was originally built in 1954; the major addition of the sanctuary was in the mid- 1960's. The first item is the expansion of classrooms plus a library; there is also a new music area, Fellowship Hall and kitchen area. The office area is being reconfigured —new hall —new elevator —and the potential for a 100 -seat chapel. The parking has been increased to 365 spaces and traffic flow has improved. Besides the additional setback from the property line, there is a significant grade differential in that the property is well below 7 feet difference. Gary Zigler, 13476 Dunes Drive, Carmel, Pastor of Orchard Park Presbyterian Church, addressed the Board. The addition of the Chapel will accommodate small weddings and provide flexible seating. The increased space will allow expansion of the music program; increased office space will be utilized for a counseling center to meet the congregational needs. The library expansion is for a new resource center and a health ministry of the Church. Currently, the Fellowship Hall is antiquated and the space is needed for recreational programs for the Youth. The Church also offers an outreach program to the Community for Alcoholics Anonymous, Aerobic Classes, and Counseling. The proposed expansion will enhance the Church ministry and the congregation to grow spiritually, physically and emotionally Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of these petitions. Members of the Orchard Park Presbyterian Church stood in support of these petitions. s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 4 Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to these petitions; no one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending approval of both petitions. Clarification: In the original application, the property was mis- identified as R -1 Zoning and the petitioner has graciously corrected the Findings of Fact sheets. Tom Yedlick asked if the building materials would be similar to those currently in existence. Mr. Yedlick further questioned the current height of the facility. Mr. Thomas responded that the existing sanctuary element would be higher than the multi purpose room that is the nature of the variance. Similar building materials will be used. Pat Rice was concerned about the additional parking that will be fronting Westfield Boulevard. Laurence Lillig said the Department did have a concern about the parking —the landscape plan does show a row of trees and shrubs to be planted between the edge of the parking and Westfield Boulevard. There is also a dumpster enclosure that will be included in that area, and additional screening has been requested. Pat Rice further commented that with the grade level, passers -by would be looking down into the parking lot and it will not be well- screened from view. Laurence Lillig agreed, especially during the winter since the trees are deciduous. Mr. Thomas referred to the site plan, saying "All the good dirt is gone." To the west, the site will be fully utilized; the area seen in the northwest portion of the site includes a drain. Orchard Park Presbyterian is 40 years old, one of the original structures in the area, and was built without detention. The space provides an engineering solution for the detention associated with this facility. In order to meet parking requirements, this is about the only place to put the parking. Greg Rasmussen, engineer, said the only alternative would be to change the deciduous trees to an evergreen species for year `round screening. At this point, Jim Quinn editorialized the necessity of Church's having to go through the process, when government entities can exempt themselves from going through this process. Since the public hearing was still open, an opportunity was again given for remonstrance and the following persons appeared. Donnie Resnick, 1963 Hill Valley Court, Indianapolis 46280, spoke as former Treasurer of Orchard Estates Subdivision on the north side of 106 Street, directly across from the s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 5 Church. Mr. Resnick was not opposed to the improvements but was opposed to the location of the entrance to the Church. Currently there are two entrances. The plan provides for combining into one entrance and aligning that one entrance with the Orchard Estate Subdivision. Traffic will exit the Church and cut through his subdivision. Mr. Resnick asked for a modification to the plan that will re- direct traffic flow. Rebuttal, Jim Thomas. One of several comments received from Hamilton County Highway was to make sure that the Church access drive aligned with the access to Orchard Estates. This is a requirement of Hamilton County Highway. The old parking is in the right -of -way —this will be removed as well as the entrance to that area. The entrance will be moved farther away from the intersection. The simple answer is the drives are being consolidated and aligned at the request of the County Highway. Left turn movements at the intersection of 106 and Westfield Boulevard for northbound traffic will be installed —no pavement modifications are necessary. Left turn lanes are in existence, east /west, but no signal for left turns —this will be installed in the very near future. The public hearing was then closed. The Board voted by Findings of Fact, and SU- 67 -99, Orchard Park Subdivision, Block "A" (pt) Lot 7 (pt) was APPROVED 5 -0. The Board voted by Findings of Fact, and V- 68 -99, Orchard Park Subdivision, Block "A" (pt) Lot 7 (pt) was APPROVED 5 -0. I. Old Business li. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower (SE- 32 -99) Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan. This item will be heard at a special meeting to be held Tuesday, October 26, 1999. 2i. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower (V- 33 -99) Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan. This item will be heard at a special meeting to be held Tuesday, October 26, 1999. 3i. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower (V- 34 -99) Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan. This item will be heard at a special meeting to be held Tuesday, October 26, 1999. s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 6 4i. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower (SE- 35 -99) Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan. This item will be heard at a special meeting to be held Tuesday, October 26, 1999. 5i. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower (V- 36 -99) Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan. This item will be heard at a special meeting to be held Tuesday, October 26, 1999. 6i. Robinson Barber Shop (UV- 61 -99) Petitioner seeks approval of a Use Variance in order to establish a barber shop in an existing residential structure previously used as a sign shop. The site is located at 751 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B- 5/business. Filed by Pat Robinson. TABLED BY THE PETITIONER 7i. H.C. Burnett Subdivision, Lot 2 (V- 65 -99) Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 8.4.3(D) of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow a twelve -foot rear yard setback. The site is located at 520 Burnett Court. The site is zoned R- 2 /residential. Filed by John Krom of Habitat for Humanity Hamilton County, Inc. Rick Roesch, 832 Spruce Drive, Carmel appeared before the Board representing Habitat for Humanity The petition was withdrawn at the last meeting because of public remonstrance and it was found that there was new information that the petitioner was unaware of that merited investigation. There is a dispute on the property regarding a first right of refusal. The first right of refusal is between the present owner of the property and the neighbor to the south and will have to be resolved by the two of them. The purchase of the property for Habitat for Humanity would be subject to the resolution of the first right of refusal. At this time, the petitioner is requesting a variance of the rear setback because there is no common exception line for the front setback. At the time these lots were platted, they were all about the same size, approximately 60 feet deep. To meet the required setback would make it virtually impossible to build on this lot. The petitioner feels there are a number of setbacks in the neighborhood and with the 12 foot setback, the house to the rear is at least 150 feet back from the setback and not seen as causing any problems for the neighbors. s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 7 Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to this petition; no one appeared. Chuck Weinkauf asked about the current ordinance and allowable rear yard setback. Laurence Lillig responded that the fact that these lots are only 60 feet deep means that a combination of the required 25 -foot front yard and 30 -foot rear yard would only be 5 feet of buildable area on the lot. The Ordinance addresses this situation with respect to front yards by saying that in that situation, the front yard setback is measured as the average set back of the houses that have already been built on the lot. The front yard setback in this case is calculated as the average of the houses on either side —this means that the rear yard setback of 12 feet is the variance needed in this case. Laurence Lillig responded to further questions from Chuck Weinkauf There is a 30 -foot requirement in the Ordinance that addresses rear yard setbacks. There was further discussion regarding the necessity for a rear yard variance. Laurence Lillig said the existing homes with a 17 -foot rear yard setback pre -date the Ordinance. There was general discussion among Board members regarding what can be applied for on a property without being the actual title owner to the property. Habitat for Humanity does not actually own the property but has a valid Purchase Agreement subject to the granting of the variance that would make this a viable lot for construction of a home. Tom Lazarra, 11504 Donna Drive, Carmel, member of the Board of Directors for Habitat for Humanity in Hamilton County, also a real estate agent for 26 years appeared before the Board and addressed questions regarding the lot. In any case, if this Board decides to grant the variance, as any petitioner who would own a lot in Carmel, the value of the lot is only there if you can build a single family residence on the lot. Habitat for Humanity has a valid Purchase Agreement for this lot; this was a for -sale lot, listed in multiple listings for sale through the Indianapolis Board of Realtors. The lot was listed for sale by the seller, and Habitat made an offer contingent upon the ability to build a home on the lot. Whoever would purchase the lot, the value is there under any circumstance Other Than if this is not a buildable lot. If no one could build a home on the lot, there is no value to the property. There is no change in the value of the lot as it relates to single family zoning. James Quinn was not comfortable with any explanation unless someone was willing to put it in writing and stand by it, monetarily, and indemnify anyone else who is party to the transaction for potential liabilities. Mr. Quinn said he was uncomfortable moving ahead on this until a sale of the lot is fmalized. Tom Lazarra asked if the homeowner himself were before the Board, seeking the same petition, what would the response be, because the value is the same once the variance is granted. Jim Quinn disagreed and did not want to proceed until after a clear owner is established. s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 8 Charles Weinkauf thought it would make more sense if the current property owner were to apply for the variance. This is a little confusing —how can someone who does not own the property ask for a variance on the property? Mr. Quinn said he was uncomfortable with the situation and the dispute between the owner and the first refusal and the purchaser. If we do nothing, it maintains a level playing field and the negotiations can conclude. Mr. Quinn moved to Table Docket No. V -65 -99 H.C.Burnett Subdivision to the November meeting, seconded by Pat Rice. Jim Quinn then amended his motion to Table until such time as the dispute over right of first refusal has been settled, Pat Rice seconded the amendment. Discussion on the motion: Tom Yedlick interjected that with that motion, the Board is now, in effect, taking sides on the side of a party who presumably has right of first refusal that we don't event know we are providing support for that side. This seems like a contractual interference to these parties. If we never knew about the right of first refusal, we would not be having this discussion. Our action to Table aids and abets the party with the right of first refusal. Mr. Yedlick was not inclined to Table for that reason. Earlene Plavchak tended to agree with Tom Yedlick. By tabling, the Board is putting an undue influence on an un -named party. There was further discussion regarding the merits of tabling. The Board unanimously agreed to Table Docket No. V -65 -99 to a time uncertain. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Charles Weinkauf, President s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 9 s:\BoardotZoningAppeals\Minutes \1999 \1999oct25 10