Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 04-25-11 G` v ofC4g 0e. ,,Arsrks 4,.0 C ityofCarme l t tt a e s cpi NDI A N� MINUTES Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting April 25, 2011 Council Chambers, Carmel City Hall Present: James Hawkins, President Kent Broach Leo Dierckman Earlene Plavchak Ephraim Wilfong (absent) Connie Tingley, Recording Secretary Staff members in attendance: Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Mike Hollibaugh, Director, Department of Community Services Legal Counsel: John Molitor Previous Minutes: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Kent Broach: The Minutes for the meeting dated January 25, 2011 were approved as circulated. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Department Report: Angie Conn Letters given to the Board from Mr. Mrs. Goad requesting Latter -Day Saints item be tabled until next month Public Notice for Docket Nos. 11030003 V and 11030012 V was one day late; requires suspension of Rules Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: The Rules of Procedure be suspended to hear Docket Nos. 11030003 V and 11030012 V, 945 E. 101 Street Pole Barn. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Legal Report: John Molitor Following the progress of House Bill 1311 which updates State Statues regarding planning and zoning processes o Expected to pass later this week o Will prepare a report for next month's meeting Page 1 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Public Hearing: 1 -2. (V) 945 E. 101st St. Pole Barn The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 11030003 V Ordinance Chapter 25.01.01.A.4: accessory structure built without a primary structure. Docket No. 11030012 V Ordinance Chapter 25.01.01.B.5: maximum ground floor area. The site is located at 945 E. 101st St. It is zoned R -1 /Residence. Filed by James (Jim) Gravelie, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Jim Gravelie, owner Propose to build pole barn No house on the lot for several years Carmel Overhead Garage Door previously operated at this location Current building with add -on approximately 50 by 40 Remove existing building and replace with a large building Improve the lot for drainage, clearing and fencing Remonstrators: Richard Johnson, 941 E. 101 Street Original larger lot with house was split, leaving this parcel with the garage only Mr. Johnson maintained property for last 15 years Tried to rezone for 35 years to build doubles; another building; add on to the building Lot is residential only Previous owner (Mr. Spencer) tried to sell lot to church across the street for parking; denied by City Mr. Johnson built the house and garage before parcel was split; without a permit Sold house; kept this parcel for business use 1979 previous owner was permitted to keep business in the garage because he lived there; business use could not be passed on to another owner Previous owner lied to Mr. Gravelie about building use on parcel Two other businesses are being run from homes on this street; dumps trucks, trailers, landscape equipment Numerous loads of fill dirt have raised the lot, trees have been removed destroying buffer from highway Currently using garage for business to store pipe, reinforcement shoring, rolls of flexible pipe; grinding and cutting 3 or 4 times per week and taking materials in and out Building is in bad shape because previous owner was told he could not do anything with it; couldn't sell as a business or zone as a business Della Faulkner, 939 E. 101 Street Building will be 18 feet tall and 42 by 64 feet; nice but not residential Six single family homes adjacent to this property Seven other single family homes will be impacted Page 2of13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Mr. Gravelie informed her he was putting it as far back on the property as possible because land slopes down toward I 465; it wouldn't be much higher than current residences At least 20 loads of fill dirt have been dumped on the lot Mr. Gravelie stated on his application this was strictly personal use; small pickup truck, RV, few cars to park in building Backhoe trailer was stolen, any transportation of backhoe will be done by his friends Current Carmel Overhead Door building was discovered at time of property re- assessments; previous owner was told he could not sell as a business property Mr. Gravelie does not plan to build a residence With building as far back and west as possible; large amount of empty property Hearsay was 3 garages being built Existing building with lean -on was in terrible disrepair; needing replacement Back part of building has been demolished Mr. Gravelie has assured Mrs. Hinshaw that he will drain the property properly to alleviate flooding Most perimeter trees and undergrowth have been removed Flooding is quite extensive; provided pictures Original building is residential garage size; not 18 by 64 by 42 feet Grandfather clause for this building does not apply for personal use Original business was not legal, so grandfather clause should not apply If variance granted, arrangements for drainage needs to be done quickly He stated he would ditch or pipe to the 1 -465 drain; after obtaining permit Neighbors are worried about flooding from all the fill dirt Ron Woods, 9840 Cornell Avenue, directly behind property Current garage is rundown eyesore Helpful to remove garage and fix drainage problems to better property Mr. Gravelie told him he would only be storing personal items Richard Johnson, 941 E. 101 Street Current building needs new roof and siding fixed; framing is in good shape Mr. Spencer dumped oil, transmission fluids, motors since 1965 in a slush pit by the building when he rebuilt motors John Monroe, 9826 Cornell Avenue If new building for storage, why did he remove the trees? Public Hearing Closed Rebuttal: Jim Gravelie Purpose of pole barn is not to store things outside; not obstruct neighbors Owners should be present; not renters Lots of misinformation Page 3of13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Department Report: Angie Conn: With all the public comments, concerned about intensity of use If variances granted, the landowner does have the right to store personal items Stated he would enclose property with a fence; request 6 -foot shadow -box for screening Landscaping needs to be installed for the bufferyard requirements along 1 -465 frontage Department recommended positive consideration after public comments are addressed with the two conditions. Discussion: Responsibility for EPA soil check would be done by IDEM if Brownfield site Trees and underbrush were misplaced on lot; cleared to create open lot Storm drainage line needed Fill dirt for low pocket County will install culvert on his east property line across from the church; 12 -inch pipe back to the I -465 ditch line Working with Carl Guester from INDOT for permit Petitioner agreeable with conditions from Staff Motion: Motion made by Leo Dierckman (no second): Docket Nos. 11030003 V and 1103001.2 V, 945 E. 101 Street Pole Barn, be approved Motion: Motion amended by James Hawkins and seconded by Leo Dierckman: Docket Nos. 11030003 V and 11030012 V,945 E. 101 Street Pole Barn, be approved with conditions outlined by Staff. MOTION DENIED UNANIMOUSLY Action: Authority delegated to Mr. Molitor and Staff to prepare written Findings of Fact. 3. (SU) Latter -Day Saints Mormon Temple Meetinghouse The applicant seeks special use approval for a temple and religious meetinghouse: Docket No. 11020010 SU Ordinance Chptr 6.02: church/temple /place of worship in S2 zone. The site is located at the SW corner of 116 St. and Springmill Rd. on 12 acres. It is zoned S2/ Residence and lies within the West 116 Street Overlay. Filed by Kerry Nielsen of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints for Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. Present for the Petitioner: Kerry Nielsen, Project Manager, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints for Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. Site location shown; 48 acres of open space Site plan shown with Temple and Meetinghouse Phase I will include Temple, Meetinghouse and tree and pond area to the west Remaining acreage will remain S -2 residential with single family homes Sensitive to property owners to the west and south Page 4 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Site is patterned after sites in other parts of the country Temple and Meetinghouse will share parking Transitional and compatible to residential zone Springmill is transitional with neighboring properties being looked at for development Meetinghouse is used on Sundays; Temple scheduled use throughout the week Site to be built with planning, control of environment and quality Reviewed with Staff and TAC to be conforming and compatible within a residential zone Many things for final design and technical discussion in construction documents Planning to maintain and utilize tree line to the west Depiction of comparable single -level Temple with end spire shown Conforms with allowed height with the exception as written in the Ordinance being the spire Daytime and nighttime photos shown of comparable Temples with landscaping Early design elevations indicating massing of building Material and finish are being studied Temples are built of high quality detailed materials Sample Temple floor plan shown; scheduled use by members; 22,000 to 23,000 square feet in modest sized rooms used for instructions, marriage ceilings and special events for members Meetinghouse building approximately 21,000 square feet used on Sundays for worship Elevations shown with conforming 30 -foot ridge line and steeple Sample Meetinghouse floor plan shown with mixed -use building with chapel, cultural hall, and classrooms for Sunday worship and instruction Met with Daren Mindham for landscape plan and bufferyard condition Temple sites are highly articulated in landscape and detail; maintained with professional staff Photometric plans calculated with timers and scheduled use Sample monument sign with fencing shown; Indianapolis, Indiana Temple Fully enclosed utility services building, coordinated with Temple and Meetinghouse Meet needs of utility, drainage, grading and right -of -way improvements Sample schedule of building uses shown; 260 in attendance with all areas in use 270 parking stalls, 65 required; parking ratio 1 -1.3 persons per car State conference twice per year; up to 300 people using both buildings Designed to serve a Temple district of 2 to 3 hour radius; between Columbus, Louisville, Chicago Remonstrators: Harry Todd, Wallack Somers Haas, One Indiana Square, representing Robert Goad, adjacent property owner. Mr. Goad not able to attend Not in favor of project Concerned about traffic Would like it tabled to have more time to learn more about project Mac McNaught, 425 McLaren Lane, Williams Mill Subdivision Interested in Traffic Impact Study which will be provided after Tuesday meeting with Engineering Dept. Much to admire in the integrity of the Mormon Church Familiar with two Mormon Meetinghouses on four -lane divided thoroughfares Page 5 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Temple will create more traffic than just a Meetinghouse Residents in Williams Mill (47 lots) are concerned about traffic Bus traffic from two to three states will impact traffic on two -lane Springmill Road and 116 Street Other large congregations are on four -lane thoroughfares (St. Luke's on 86 Street, Second Presbyterian and the Hebrew Congregation use policemen to direct traffic on busy days) From Findings of Fact, he felt this project would adversely affect traffic and surrounding property values This should be tabled to gather more information Temple impact is unknown; Meetinghouse would be a welcome development Barbara Layton, 103 Street and Springmill Road Would like permanent commitment for housing to the south of the project to run with the land No changes in the zoning from S -2 at a later date (hotels, commercials, etc.) Concern regarding retention pond to control run off Bryan Bedford, 11450 Chateaux Drive, west of parcel Property values have declined recently This property should be developed consistent with existing neighborhoods Refinements to the plan have been an improvement from original plans Lot of uncertainty on ultimate traffic flow, noise and light pollution These facilities tend to be used significantly Concerned with potential late night and early morning traffic More study needed for these issues Expectations for undeveloped land unclear; size of lots, etc. Lynn Chreist, 11171 Valeside Crescent Their property abuts the south property line of the Latter Day Saints parcel Concerned with maintenance of property during interim period of development Would like to see plans for bufferyard between Williams Mill and the construction site Noticed construction of Phase 2 would begin in 2012 Phillip Kerr, 11540 Chateaux Drive, west of parcel Concerned with traffic; would like Traffic Study Residential part has a retention pond adjoining their subdivision retention pond Would like to make sure any changes do not affect their retention pond Would like existing buffer maintained with replacement of any trees necessary John Cadwallader, 11616, Williams Creek Drive Will proposed development be in compliance with current zoning? Asked if other side of Springmill Road be subject to the same rules? Public Hearing Closed Rebuttal: Kerry Nielsen Page 6 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 They had been in discussions with Mr. Goad; tried to address use and density Single family homes for the S -2 area; 15 to 30 one -half to one acre lots Traffic Impact Analysis published and being reviewed Lots of experience in scheduling use of buildings; traffic relatively light Meridian Street will become Interstate highway at some point Traffic Impact Study addresses the background traffic Launching a website (Indianapolistemple.com) that tells about the Temple and uses with unrehearsed video clips of adjacent neighbors of existing Temple sites Drainage ponds were indicated on site map Existing pond with Chateaux will be respected Engineers are studying the pond situation Pond carrying tributary from 116 Street and neighborhood will be properly maintained Transitional zone: hospital, business use, proposed commercial uses No fund raising or late night activities; typically work on scheduled basis Meetinghouse sites are well- behaved with few night -time meetings or basketball games Temple is sacred; very revered and respected site; respect light and noise Property will be mowed, sprayed and maintained; including area on south until developed Careful to maintain site during construction with work hour limitations, dust and noise control provisions Trees and buffer zone will be respected for the Williams Mill neighbors Plan to use Temple and Meeting house and let market dictate opening of residential section Other Temples in neighborhoods have been desirable and attractive to members of the community Will maintain tree buffer along west side of property; including area lost to pond Landscaping Plan not defined at this time Intend to become respected neighbor Will address Traffic Study in meeting with Gary Duncan, Engineering Dept. as part of TAC review Department Report: Angie Conn: Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan promotes this type of use adjacent to residential with Special Use approval Department feels this is good transition and buffer between residential and offices along Meridian Street Department recommended positive consideration with conditions: 1. Approval of construction documents for grading, drainage, etc. by Engineering Dept 2. Approval of traffic study 3. Approval of engineered landscape plan by Urban Forestry Dept. Present for Petitioner: Jeff Banning, Banning Engineering, Plainfield, IN Discussion: South area with pond is approximately 6 to 7 acres; 3 to 4 acres being pond Page 7 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Closest west home to the Meetinghouse is approximately 400 -500 feet Closest home to the Temple also approximately 500 feet Confirmed /committed buffer area with roads, trees and pond kept as open space Single- family residential area is 20 -23 acres S -2 zoning permits 12,000 square feet to one acre lots Williams Mill has 47 units on 20 acres Committed to maximum 30 units in S -2 residential area Temple is 22,000 to 23,000 square feet; largest room just under 1000 square feet Temples are closer and more available; not many bus trips; building usage is scheduled Problem with name "Indianapolis IN Temple"; should be Carmel or Indiana Temple Mormons are very dedicated to their religion; making good neighbors Special Use does not need ADLS approval from Plan Commission Special Use application not prepared to be presented as a design review Will work with Staff for design plans Design issues should be covered by BZA process Could table for design review items o Thirteen issues from Engineering were addressed earlier in the day o Traffic /transportation o Concerns of neighbors Felt they had prepared everything for Special Use process Plan Commission could review development plans Another month would give the neighbors and Engineering time to review the project Any project will increase traffic Professional TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis) was done by A& F Engineering; presented at last TAC meeting Coordinating with east and north neighbors for other eventual development plans o Confident they can manage their side o Working out logistics o Challenge will be timing of the development phases o Their impact will be minimal on background traffic Consider commitments o Maximum 30 units in S -2 residential area o Buffer area with roads, trees and pond kept as open space Action: The Petitioner would bring their responses to the next meeting Discussion: Need specific /concrete information regarding: o Pond o Construction process Felt they had fulfilled the zoning review; did not understand it was also a design review Grading, Utilities and Drainage were included in the packet 13 items of concern from Engineering Dept. would be reviewed in the final design and permit review as part of the ongoing process Clear description of needed items would be given to the Petitioner Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Leo Dierckman: Page 8 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Docket No. 11020010 SU, Latter -Day Saints Mormon Temple Meetinghouse be tabled. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4. (UV) Days Survey, Lot 6 Office Use The applicant seeks the following use variance approval for an office use on a residentially zoned site: Docket No. 11030007 UV ZO Ch. 6.01: Permitted Uses The site is located at 9616 Day Dr. It is zoned S -2 /Residence. Filed by Leo Lichtenberg of Advisio, Inc. Present for the Petitioner: Leo Lichtenberg Site is .41 acres with 100 feet of frontage along Day Drive and 180 feet deep Lot contains many mature trees and shrubs One of a few parcels along a dead -end street Vacant 3 bedroom residence with 1.5 bathrooms and attached two -car garage o Approximate 2,200 square feet on main level o Built 1964, one -story over 1500 square -foot basement o Situated 56.5 feet from center line of Day Drive o Limestone exterior in good condition o Approximate 900 square foot shed sits at rear of property Vacant lot north of property 96 Street office complex located west of parcel; occupied by seven office /condo owners Sipe Jewelry is located south of the parcel Tom Wood Ford located east of parcel has loud noises in a residential area According to 2009 Carmel Comprehensive Plan, the parcel is located in an employment node district comparable to office retail uses along US 31 According to the 96 Street and Westfield Blvd. subarea plan, the area is commercial Office use will be similar to adjacent properties Hours of operation are 8 am to 5:00 pm, with occasional evenings Clients would come only during normal office hours He is not seeking rezoning with various commercial uses for the parcel Any other use would need BZA approval Will keep parcel residential in appearance while using for an office o No changes to exterior of residence o Only cosmetic improvements o Stabilizing foundation wall may require removal of a deck and concrete patio o Improvements will include sidewalk, bike rack, decorative sidewalk path, driveway and landscape lighting o Site signage will be needed along Day Drive Apparent unrecorded document that pre -dates 1964 construction specifying setback should be 75 feet from the center line of Day Drive o Research by DOCS confirmed this document was unrecorded o Meets and bounds legal description also shows Lot 6 is Days unrecorded survey o Since unrecorded, current zoning requires 35 feet from centerline o Building permit was issued in 1964 for 56.5 feet from centerline o Does not want to be classified as non conforming use in the future Page 9 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Remonstrators: Julia Allman, 9628 Day Drive Wanted to know number of staff Number of people coming and going Lighting for parcel Any additions to structure Rebuttal: Leo Lichtenberg He and one part-time employee are the staff Does not expect a lot of traffic Wants to expand business, but this is a small structure Lighting is in place; may add landscape lighting around building Public Hearing Closed Department Report: Angie Conn: Petitioner very thorough in his presentation Comprehensive Plan does mark this area as commercial Other houses along 96 Street have received Use Variance approvals for a dental office or surveyor's office Department recommended positive consideration Discussion: Unrecorded 75 -foot setback is outside scope of this petition since it is not a zoning issue Limited square footage in the house would restrict number of employees Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Docket No. 11030007 UV, Days Survey, Lot 6 Office Use, be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5. (V) McCracken Bourdillon Estate, lot 1— Building Height The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 110300011 V ZO Ch. 25.01.01.B.1: Accessory Building Height The site is located at 10596 Jumper Ln. and is zoned S- 2/Residence. Filed by the Carmel Dept. of Community Services, on behalf of Doug Bowen, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Mike Hollibaugh, Director, Dept. of Community Services Dept. of Community Services is co- applicant Permit was issued in error by the Dept.; building has been constructed Plans of building shown Meets all the Zoning Ordinance requirements except height Page 10 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Doug Bowen, owner Retained services of architect who went through building requirements Plans were submitted Received five review comments; all comments were addressed Received building permit; commenced construction Received all sign -off cards for the construction Received certificate of occupancy Informed six weeks ago they were in violation Favorable comments: Steve Bodner, 10490 Jumper Lane, south of Petitioner's accessory building Built their dream home Noticed this lovely property where Bowen's have built accessory building Were apprehensive when they heard accessory building was being constructed After completion, it is a gorgeous addition to neighborhood No problems with building Remonstrators: Zeff Weiss, 3400 One America Square, attorney representing Charlene Joe Barnette, 1027 Laurelwood Drive, adjoining in the rear: Presented packet of information to Board members Drawings of accessory building/barn with dimensions provided by Staff o Does not include base which adds another three to four feet o Measurement at peak is really 40 feet; 10 feet higher than temple spire Photos showing barn with the Barnette home in the background Bowen's own 4 acres Barn is in the most remote area o Wooded area that benefited everyone o Removed trees to install 40-foot structure o Could have been located in many other places o It is 3 feet off the easement setback; 18 feet from south and west property lines Chapter 25.01.01.B.1 limits height to 18 feet; less than half of current height o Measurement for height is figured by going to top of peak and the eave: 18 feet and 36.5 feet, cut in half and add to the 18 for a variance of 8 feet o In reality structure is 40 feet high Structure is very large for accessory use o Approximately 2700 square feet under roof, not including porch area under eave o Larger than average single family homes Architect's job was to make sure structure conformed to the Ordinance o Should have applied for variance before, not after, structure was built Mr. Mrs. Barnette built their dream home in Laurelwood o It is an incredible lot with an incredible home o It was sited to take advantage of wooded area; paid premium for view o They have no right to control the Bowen property o However Bowen's should not be able to seek variance for a building that has an adverse effect on the Barnette home o Photos of barn taken from inside the Barnette home; very imposing Page 11 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 o Many large windows oriented toward wooded area Letter from Dale Walton, landscape architect, concludes barn cannot be adequately shielded with any landscaping o If barn peak brought down, it could be shielded with evergreens Affidavit from Karen Hyde French, local realtor, concludes this barns causes 5 to 7 percent diminution in value to Barnette home (not less than $100,000 decrease in value) o People looking for homes in this price range are not likely to buy a home where you cannot shield this type of neighboring property Felt Mr. Bowen acted as his own contractor o He is charged with following the rules o It is disappointing the City did not catch it; it is not the City's job o A variance should have been sought o Put it in the back so they did not have to look at it. Mr. Bodner did not state that his new home is oriented away from the barn o Only sees barn when backing out of his garage o He is not impacted like the Barnett's The Findings of Fact for the variance have to prove all three factors; none can be proven o The public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community are adversely impacted because of the height encroachment o Ms. French does state the use and value of the property are adversely affected o The Petitioner cannot create their own hardship The Petitioner has failed to meet his burden and satisfy the statutory requirements The structure should be modified down to 18 feet to comply with the Ordinance Public Hearing Closed Rebuttal: Mike Hollibaugh The dimensions found on the building drawing are accurate from the plans o It is not a 40 -foot structure o Per the Zoning Ordinance, the height is measured midway between the peak and eave Department Report: Angie Conn: The accessory structure does meet the setback requirements Building height is measured halfway between the ridge and the eaves Even if met height requirement, could still be located at the southwest corner of the parcel Department recommended positive consideration Discussion: Joe Barnette Markings on trees in pictures are scrub trees being taken down to be replaced with evergreens Height difference of approximately 20 feet between the two parcels New evergreen trees on the hill still do not block the view from the house According to Dept. Report, the maximum height could be additional for the roof peak o 26.5 feet could be compliant according to measurement Page 12 of 13 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2011 Maximum height should be 18 feet As calculated with the steep pitch, it would be 26 feet o Measurement from top of structure without roof, then measure to top of roof and the middle should not be higher than 18 feet o It is out of portion because of the high pitch Could be modified with a low peak or flat roof Building elevated to be above 200 year flood plain; provides drainage for area Motion: On a motion by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Docket No. 11030011 V, McCracken Bourdillon Estate, lot 1— Building Height, be approved. MOTION DENIED (vote 1 -3) Action: Authority delegated to Mr. Molitor and Staff to prepare written Findings of Fact in consultation with counsel for the remonstrators. I. Old Business 1. TABLED INDEFINITELY: (A) 646 Johnson Drive Appeal (in Johnson Acres subdivision) The applicant seeks the following permit issuance appeal: 1 I I 1 1 !I5 111 The sitc is located at 616 Johnson Drive and is zoned Rl /Residential. Filed by Howard Holly Grccn, John Beryl Colosimo, James Laura Dunn, Judy Wagn- Shaw, neighbors. Adjournment Motion: On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: The Meeting be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM. Approved this Z 3 f'l day of Y 20 /1 P sident James R. Hawkins Secretary Co s iegley S;Board of Zoning Appeals/Minutes /2011 BZA Minutes /20110425.doc Page 13 of 13