HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 10-24-00gIVIV�'�' of CAq`�
C i ty of arme
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 23, 2000, Continued to
October 24, 2000
The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 in a continued session from its
regularly scheduled meeting of October 23, 2000. The meeting opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana at 7:00 PM.
Members present: Leo Dieckman, Michael Mohr, Chuck Weinkauf.
Department of Community Services Staff present: Steve Engelking, Director; Laurence Lillig, City
Planner; Terry Jones, Building Commissioner; and John Molitor, Legal Counsel.
H. Public Hearings (Continued
Note: Items 49h -50h, 51h -53h, 54h -56h, 57h -59h, and 60h -61h were heard together and voted on
separately.
49h -50h. Meadowlark Office Park Subdivision, Lot 1 (V- 159 -00; V- 160 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 17.4.3(b): Minimum
Side Yard and 17.4.4: Minimum Azzrezate of Side Yard. The site is located at 690 Pro
Med Lane. The site is zoned B- 6/business.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Dauby O'Connor
LLC.
51h -53h. Meadowlark Office Park Subdivision, Lot 2 (V- 162 -00; V- 163 -000; V- 164 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 17.4.3(b): Minimum
Side Yard and 17.4.4: Minimum Aggregate of Side Yard. The site is located at 698 Pro
Med Lane. The site is zoned B- /Business.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Dauby O'Connor,
LLC.
54h -56h. Meadowlark Office Subdivision, Lot 3 (V- 166 -00; V- 167 -0; V- 168 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 17.4.3(b): Minimum
Side Yard and 17.4.4: Minimum Aggregate of Side Yard. The site is located at 706 Pro
Med Lane. The site is zoned B -6 /Business.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Dauby O;Connor
LLC.
57h -59h. Meadowlark Office Park Subdivision, Lot 4 (V- 170 -00; V- 171 -00; V- 172 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Section 17.4.3(b): Minimum
Side Yard and 17.4.4: Minimum Aggregate of Side Yard. The site is located at 703 Pro
S: \BoardofZoning Appeals \2000oct23 -24
Med Lane. The site is zoned B -6 /Business.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Dauby O'Connor
LLC.
60h -61h. Meadowlark Office Park Subdivision, Lot 5 (V- 174 -00; V- 175 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 17.4.3(b): Minimum
Side Yard and 17.4.4: Minimum Aggregate of Side Yard. The site is locate at 695 Pro
Med Lane. The site is zoned B -6 /Business.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Dauby O'Connor
LLC.
Charlie Frankenberger, attorney, Nelson Frankenberger appeared before the Board
representing Sean O'Connor and Steve Dauby. The petitioner is requesting certain variances on
properties located at 690 Pro Med Lane, 698 Pro Med Lane, and 706 Pro Med Lane, 703 Pro
Med Lane, and 695 Pro Med Lane.
The proposed plans have been approved by the State of Indiana, the proposal has been reviewed
by the Technical Advisory Committee—no one has problems with the buildings as situated. The
petitioner has also been through ADLS review and plat approval process.
The petitioner is requesting some relief from the setback requirements so that these buildings, at
some point in the future, can be sold and separately financed. Lenders will not loan money to
someone who wants to purchase the building without the lot, because of potential default,
foreclosure, and the resulting situation that would be selling a part of the land and ending up with
an illegal subdivision. There are practical difficulties.
There are only two possible alternatives—proceed with the current course of action through
variances, or turn the development into condominiums. There was no intention earlier to present
this as a project that would be under one ownership, receive approvals, then go separate
ownership.
Sean O'Conner, 13056 Cricklewood Court, Carmel 46033, appeared before the Board on behalf
of himself and Steve Dauby. Dauby and O'Conner are not developers, they are accounts who
run a CPA firm out of the offices. Sean O'Conner stated that when they found this parcel, they
initially purchased 2.63 acres that encompass the first two buildings; the second building is a
single tenant that occupies 12,000 square feet.
Subsequently, the developer intended to sell off the remaining land that includes the balance of
the cul -de -sac up to Smokey Row Road. The adjoining, residential neighbors were concerned
with future development. Therefore, in June 2000, Dauby and O'Conner purchased the
remaining three acres after having gone through ADLS review for the remaining three buildings.
The original intent was not to develop the entire property —the intent was to preserve the park in
a consistent fashion. The purchase and proposed development is more a "preservation move."
After careful analysis of 99 year lease or condominium, any buyer in Indiana would want the
land to go with their building.
Leo Dierckman asked how the parking would be handled.
s:\ BoardofZoninAppeals \2000oct23 -24 2
Charlie Frankenberger responded there would be cross- access easements so that building 1 can
park at another building.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 159 -00 and V- 160 -00.
Michael Mohr made formal motion to approve V- 159 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 1, seconded by Leo Dierckman, APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
Leo Dierckman made formal motion to approve V- 160 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 1, seconded by Michael Mohr, APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
The president then closed the public hearing on V- 162 -00, V- 163 -00, and V- 164 -00.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. V- 162 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 2, seconded by Michael Mohr, APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
Michael Mohr moved for approval of Docket No. 163 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 2, seconded by Leo Dierckman and APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. 164 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 2, seconded by Michael Mohr, APPROVED 3 -0.
The public hearing was then closed on V- 166 -00, V- 167 -00, and V- 168 -00.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. 166 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 3, seconded by Michael Mohr, APPROVED 3 -0.
Michael Mohr moved for approval of V- 167 -00, Meadowlark Office Park Subdivision, Lot 3,
seconded by Leo Dierckman, APPROVED 3 -0.
Michael Mohr moved for approval of V- 168 -00, Meadowlark Office Park Subdivision, Lot 3,
seconded by Leo Dierckman, APPROVED 3 -0.
The public hearing was then closed on Docket Nos. V- 170 -00, V- 171 -00 and V- 172 -00.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. 170 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 4, seconded by Michael Mohr, APPROVED 3 -0.
Michael Mohr moved for approval of Docket No. 171 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 4, seconded by Leo Dierckman, APPROVED 3 -0.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket V- 172 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 4, seconded by Michael Mohr, APPROVED 3 -0.
The public hearing was then closed on Docket Nos. V- 174 -00 and V- 175 -00.
s:\ BoardofZoninAppeals \2000oct23 -24 3
Michael Mohr moved for approval of Docket No. V- 174 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 5, seconded by Leo Dierckman, APPROVED 3 -0.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Docket No. V- 175 -00, Meadowlark Office Park
Subdivision, Lot 5, seconded by Michael Mohr, APPROVED 3 -0.
At this time, Joe Scimia of Baker Daniels for Zaring Homes confirmed that Agenda items 24h
through 32h continue to be TABLED. Agenda items 36h through 48h are officially
WITHDRAWN.
The following Agenda items were heard together, voted on separately.
33h. Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 1 (V- 137 -00)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.01 -4(m):
Suspended and Projecting Signs. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker Daniels for Zaring Homes of Indiana.
34h. Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 2 (V- 138 -00)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.01 -4(m):
Suspended and Projecting Signs. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker Daniels for Zaring Homes of Indiana.
35h. Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 7 (V- 139 -00)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.01 -4(m):
Suspended and Projecting Signs. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker Daniels for Zaring Homes of Indiana.
Joe Scimia, attorney, Baker Daniels, 600 East 96 Street appeared before the Board
representing Zaring Homes. The applicant has filed a request for three variances to legally
establish three signs that provide signage for the Lakes at Hazel Dell. Dawn Barnett,
representative of Zaring Homes was also in attendance.
The Subdivision is located south of 126 Street on the east and west sides of Hazel Dell Parkway
and consists of approximately 280 home sites developed in four separate communities. Those
four communities are The Estates; The Meadows; The Overlook; and The Glen.
There are three signs located at the entrance to the Lakes at Hazel Dell, one off 126 Street at
Autumn Gate Way; the other two signs are located on Dellfield Boulevard East and the west side
on Dellfield Boulevard West.
The Sign Ordinance prohibits suspended and projecting signs except in Old Towne Carmel.
Since the property is not located within Old Towne Carmel, the signs are therefore not allowed.
The signs are currently existing —the sign designer did not understand that the signs were
prohibited, except for Old Towne Carmel. The sign consulting firm did take the signs through
ADLS review, and the Plan Commission did actually approve the signs. However, the applicant
did not obtain the subsequent two approvals —one for a variance for the design, and one for a
s:\ BoardofZoninAppeals \2000oct23 -24 4
building permit. In order to get the signs legally established, we first must obtain the variances
and then seek the necessary building permits.
The sign located at the entrance to Autumn Gate Way is outside the right -of -way; the base is
approximately 5 feet from the right -of -way. The brick base with suspended pole of metal
construction and suspended from the arm—it announces "The Overlook at Hazel Dell." The
second sign is located on the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway, 5.7 feet from the right -of -way and
similar in construction and announces "The Estates at Hazel Dell." The third and final sign is
located on Dell Field Boulevard West, more than 5 feet from the right -of -way, identical
construction, and announces "The Meadows at Hazel Dell."
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to these petitions—no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Department Comments, Laurence Lillig. These petitions are after the -fact for subdivision signs
erected without the necessary Plan Commission/ADLS approvals, since received, or a sign
permit. There is an additional issue that these signs have been constructed within drainage and
utility easements and require the approval of the Board of Public Works, heretofore granted.
That being said, the Department recommends favorable consideration of these petitions.
Board comments:
Michael Mohr said the Board needs to be careful about approving items after the -fact, and that it
is looked at as a way of getting around the Board the Board might be reluctant to deny if the
signs are already in existence, etc. To approve after the fact sends the wrong message.
Joe Scimia said there were a number of reasons and misconceptions as to how the current
situation came to be, but the question now is, "Can we find a way to make this work
Laurence Lillig said the only question remaining is whether or not a suspended sign will be
allowed outside Old Towne District. The easement issue has been resolved; the ADLS issue has
been resolved with respect to the permanent signs. The Department has no objection to these
signs.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 1 (V-
137-00) seconded by Michael Mohr and APPROVED 3 -0.
Michael Mohr moved for approval of Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 2 (V -138-
00) seconded by Leo Dierckman and APPROVED 3 -0.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 7 (V-
139-00) seconded by Michael Mohr and APPROVED 3 -0.
63h. North Augusta Subdivision, Section 2, Lot 29a Majestic Corner Plaza (V- 177 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 27.5:
Amount of Parking Spaces Required from 180 to 145 for three general office buildings
totaling 54,000 square feet on 2.55± acres. The site is located on the southwest corner of
West 97 Street and North Augusta Drive. The site is zoned S -1 /residence.
s:\ BoardotZoninAppeals \2000oct23 -24 5
Filed by Ronald L. Bussell for Majestic Residence, Inc.
Ronald L. Bussell, attorney 301 East Carmel Drive, Carmel appeared before the Board
representing Majestic Residence, Inc. This project has received ADLS approval from the Plan
Commission; what is current being sought is a variance on the Tarking requirements. The project
is located at the corner of North Augusta Road and East 97 Street, within the 421 Michigan
Road Overlay.
Each of the three office buildings is similar. The gross area of the buildings is 56,238 square
feet. The common areas total 8,052 square feet, office area is at 33,426 square feet, private
hallways are 14,760 square feet. Using the office areas and private hallway areas to apply the
standards to 300 square feet per parking space, the number of spaces required would be 164 and
varies slightly from the original petition of 180 spaces. However, the standards would require
164 parking spaces. The plans currently provide for 146 parking spacesa shortage of 18
parking spaces.
At the time of initial submission, there was no problem with parking space requirements.
However, less space was available due to right -of -way requirements for additional frontage
along North Augusta Road and construction of a commercial grade road, plus additional
requirements for landscaping.
At the present time, there is no sewer service available to this property. The developer has made
an agreement with the Waste District to provide space for a lift station and they, in turn, will
provide the sewer line along 97 Street. All of these requirements have reduced the amount of
space available and parking is now below the standards.
The developer also owns the property immediately to the south. When this development is
completed, the lift station is operating and sewers hooked up, the intention is to connect the leech
field and septic area to additional parking. At this time, the petitioner is requesting a variance to
allow the project to continue.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to this petition; no one
appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Department Comments, Laurence Lillig. The petition to rezone this property to a B -5 /Business
District was forwarded to the City County by the Plan Commission with a favorable
recommendation. The Development Plan and ADLS petition was approved at the October 17,
2000 Plan Commission meeting, contingent upon BZA approval of the parking variance petition.
At this time, the Department recommends favorable consideration.
Leo Dierckman moved for approval of North Augusta Subdivision, Section 2, Lot 29a-
Majestic Corner Plaza (V- 177 -00) seconded by Michael Mohr and APPROVED 3 -0.
64h. Foster Estates Subdivision, Section 6b, Lot 54 (V- 178 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 7.4.3(A):
Minimum Front Yard in order to reduce the requirement from 35 feet to 30 feet for an
s:\ BoardofZoninAppeals \2000oct23 -24 6
existing three -car garage. The site is located at 2710 Laura Drive. The site is zoned R-
1 /residence.
Filed by the Schneider Corporation for J. Norman Deborah F. Callahan.
Steve Reeves, Engineer, Schneider Corporation appeared before the Board representing Norman
and Deborah Callahan, 2710 Laura Drive, Lot 54 in Foster Estates Subdivision. Due to an
unfortunate error in staking this residence, the garage portion of the existing residence was
constructed beyond the building setback line. The main portion of the residence is situated
substantially behind the building line, however the garage portion extends over the building line
a maximum of 4 feet. The garage is approximately 22.67 feet wide. The engineer is requesting a
variance for the setback that is in current violation.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this petition; the following appeared:
Norman Callahan, 2710 Laura Drive, homeowner of interest, requested approval for this
variance so that the paperwork can be straightened out.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition; no one appeared and
the public hearing was closed.
Department Recommendation, Laurence Lillig. This is an after the -fact petition for a three -car
garage that was constructed forward of the front yard setback line. The Department recommends
negative consideration.
Mr. Weinkauf questioned the Department's negative recommendation, unless there is an
obvious, intentional violation of the setback.
Laurence Lillig responded that the Department is opposed to after the -fact petitions of any sort.
The issue is whether or not the site can be developed in accordance with the Ordinances, as
written. It is the Department's opinion that this site COULD be developed in accordance with
the Ordinances.
John Molitor opined that one of the findings the Board must make is that strict application of the
Ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the uses. The Courts have never held that you
can create your own practical difficulties— practical difficulties relate to the site as it existed
before the development occurs, not a practical difficulty created by the developer or surveyor.
Nevertheless, the Board does have discretion.
Terry Jones reported that plot plans are required at the time the application for the building
permit is filed. The builder takes the responsibility of identifying where those buildings are to be
placed—it is a certification that is signed and states that the plans are correct and accurate. As a
part of the process, by practical issue, the plans are relied upon to be accurate. The Department's
position, historically, has been in opposition to these variance requests—it is a matter of
consistency.
s:\BoardofZoninAppeals\2000oct23-24
In response to questions from Chuck Weinkauf, Mr. Reeve said the house is a side -load, three
car garage. Basically, if the variance were not allowed, 4 feet of the garage would be lost. It is
not known what the covenants and restrictions are of the subdivision.
At this time, Mr. Weinkauf asked the petitioner to voluntarily Table in order for the petitioner to
work with the Plan Commission attorney in an attempt to mitigate the error; the petitioner agreed
to Table.
Foster Estates Subdivision, Section 6b, Lot 54 (V- 178 -00) was TABLED to the November 27,
2000 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
65h. Richard L. Hayes Luxury Two -Story Condominiums, Block Al (SU- 186 -00)
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish an automobile sales service
facility for World Wide Motors on 1.65± acres. The site is located at 3800 Bauer Drive
West. The site is zoned B- 3/business.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for C &G Realty.
TABLED to November 27, 2000
I. Old Business.
1 i. Brooks Landing at Prairie View, Section 1, Lot 3 (V- 56 -00)
Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 5.4.2 to decrease the
front yard setback from 40 feet to 15 feet. The site is located at 6905 Longest Drive. The
site is zoned S -1 /residence.
Filed by Jose Kreutz of BDC /Cardinal Investments, LLC.
TABLED to November 27, 2000
2i -5i. Mayflower Park, Block 6, Lot 2 (V- 77 -00; V- 78 -00; V- 79 -00; V- 80 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 23C.10.2(2):
Foundation Plantings; 230.10.2(3): Peripheral Plantings; 23010.3(3): Greenbelt; and
23010.3(5): Parking Lots to allow the following:
V -77 -00 to reduce foundation planting
V -78 -00 to reduce peripheral plantings
V -79 -00 to reduce the Greenbelt requirement
V -80 -00 to reduce parking lot plantings
The site is located on the southwest corner of West 99 Street and Michigan Road. The
site is zoned I -1 /industrial and is located within the US 421 Corridor Overlay Zone.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Chrysler Realty Corporation.
TABLED to November 27, 2000
6i -7i. Mayflower Park, Block 6, Lot 2 (V- 81 -00; V- 82 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25.7.02 -8(b): Number
Type and 25.7.02 -8(d): Maximum Height of Ground Sign to allow the following:
s:\ BoardotZoninAppeals \2000oct23 -24 8
V -81 -00 to allow a second identification sign
V -82 -00 to increase the height of the ground sign from 7 feet to 10 feet
The site is located on the southwest corner of West 99 Street and Michigan Road. The
site is zoned I -1 /industrial and is located within the US 421 Corridor Overlay Zone.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Chrysler Realty Corporation.
TABLED to November 27, 2000
OPEN DISCUSSION
At this time, there was open discussion led by John Molitor regarding avoiding this type of
situation. The lengthy Agenda over burdens the Board, takes DOCS Staff time, inconveniencing
the petitioner and the public by having to sit through 4 or 5 hours of other public hearings that
may be contentious to get to a minor hearing in terms of impact on the community.
Additionally, there were only three members in attendance this evening and to have any official
action, all three members had to vote the same way; otherwise, the dockets would be tabled to
next month, and it would be another long Agenda —same situation only one month later. State
Law does allow for an alternate procedure whereby a Hearing Office could be appointed to hear
minor types of cases. The Hearing Officer could either be a member of the Staff or the Board
and could hear the cases that appear as though they would not be contentious.
John Molitor submitted a proposed Ordinance for consideration that would allow for Hearing
Officers. Indiana State Law requires that this type of process must be created by the Plan
Commission—it cannot be done alone by the BZA.
Steve Engelking commented that even after hearing and ruling by a Hearing Officer, the
petitioner could request a hearing by the full Board. Rather than allowing a member of the
DOCS Staff functioning as a hearing officer (this could be perceived as prejudicial) all 5
members of the Board could be identified as hearing officers individually and respectively. The
hearing officer could rotate one for each month throughout the year and hear those items on a
monthly basis. No one individual would be imposed upon.
There was support from the BZA members present for the Hearing Officer process.
There was also discussion alluding to an attempt to increase revenue for the Department (City)
by the issuance of so many docket numbers. The amount of filings was explained and defended
by both Steve Engelking and Terry Jones. Steve Engelking reported an increase in the budget
for 2001 that will allow for the employ of an additional staff member. 60% of the DOCS budget
comes from the City -40% from the Township. The Executives of both of those bodies want the
DOCS to be 100% revenue sufficient. In other words, the cost of operation would equal the
incoming revenue —State law prohibits making a profit.
s:\ BoardofZoninAppeals \2000oct23 -24 9
The Department is not trying to generate an unnecessary amount of revenue by manipulation of
docket numbers, but there are a number of issues to the Department's operation. The lengthy
Agenda is an example of how or why the Department is over worked. There is a 40% fee
increase in filing fees and inspections that will go before Council in November.
Laurence Lillig commented that a significant part of his job is writing review letters for the
projects that highlights deficiencies for the proposals. A part of that is requesting revision and
return; unfortunately, the plans are not being revised. Instead, the petitioner is taking the review
letter and using them as a checklist for what variances are needed. Rather than meet the
Ordinance by making revisions /corrections, the review letter becomes a laundry list of petitions
for variances. Some petitioners even go so far as to bring in their request for variances at the
same time they bring in their projects.
Chuck Weinkauf referred to a letter from the Mayor— someone had suggested the BZA is easier
to get through than the Plan Commission. Maybe the system for filing the paperwork is easier.
John Molitor said the comments that the Board is easier, or the Department is manipulating
docket numbers reflect a public cynicism that is also reflected in voter turnout. People do not
seem to have any trust in public officials and that is unfortunate—we are all suffering from that
perception.
Terry Jones said perhaps the Rules need to change to meet the desires of development.
Leo Dierckman commented that with only three members of the Board in attendance this
evening, nothing should be determined. The proposal for Hearing Officer should be studied by
the full Board before any determination or official action is taken.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10
PM.
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
Charles W. Weinkauf, President
s:\ BoardofZoninAppeals \2000oct23 -24 10