Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWNOF~ BrownsDurg BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes Brownsburg Town Hall 61 North Green Street Brownsburg, Indiana 46112 Monday, November 13, 2019 The Brownsburg Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 7:00 PM with a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. David Emery opened the meeting, and a roll call was taken. Members Present: David Emery, Ben Lacey, Mike Neal, Claire Rutledge-Sakha and Brett Scowden Members Absent: None Also Present: Todd Barker, AICP - Director of Development Services, Joe James, AICP- Senior Planner, David Wilson- Planner II, Lauren Gillingham- Planner I, Scott Krapf- Legal Counsel and Heather Wetzel- Administrative Assistant A. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM B. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) MINUTES 1. October 21, 2019- Regular Meeting Motion: Mike Neal made a motion to APPROVE the October 21, 2019 regular meeting minutes, seconded by Ben Lacey, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. D. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT 1. *BZDV-08-19-1756 6840 Old Stable Road Accessory Side Yard Setback 2. *BZDV-09-19-1764 431 Johnson Lane Accessory Side Yard Setback 3. *BZDV-09-19-1765 State Bank of Lizton Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping *Motion: Claire Rutledge-Sakha made a motion to APPROVE the Findings of Fact for BZDV- 08-19-1756, BZDV-09-19-1764 and BZDV-09-19-1765 seconded by Brett Scowden, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. E. HEARING OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES 1. None F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. None 1 of 24 G. OLD BUSINESS 1. None H. NEW BUSINESS 1. **BZDV-10-19-1776 Redwood At Brownsburg Maximum Primary Structures A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 2, Sec. 2.18 to exceed the maximum primary structures permitted within the Medium Density Multiple-family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-06-300-003.000-015 Represented by: Russel Brown, Clark Quinn Moses Scott & Grahn LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 2. **BZDV-10-19-1777 Redwood At Brownsburg Front Yard Setback A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.63(C)(l) "Setback Standards," to encroach upon the front yard setback required within the Medium Density Multiple-family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-06-300-003.000-015 Represented by: Russel Brown, Clark Quinn Moses Scott & Grahn LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 3. BZDV-10-19-1778 Redwood At Brownsburg Architectural Standards A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.17(A) "Architectural Standards," to reduce the minimum percentage of brick, stone or other decorative masonry required within the Medium Density Multiple-family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-06-300-003.000-015 Represented by: Russel Brown, Clark Quinn Moses Scott & Grahn LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING **Testimony was held on each case with separate motions recorded for each. Before the Applicant came forward Brett Scowden expressed the same concern he had two months ago that the Board was hearing cases for properties not yet annexed into Town that still had to appear before the Plan Commission. Todd Barker said that the Applicant had filed a Conditional Zoning Map Amendment with the Plan Commission and that it would be heard later that month. Mike Neal stated that any approval that night could be conditional upon the Plan Commission approval and Mr. Barker and Scott Krapf confirmed that statement. Mr. Scowden said it was the second time the Board had seen that and it seemed like they were putting the cart before the horse. David Emery asked why that kept happening and Mr. Barker said it was usually timing in terms of the Applicant. He added that if it was the desire of the Board going forward that they not do that then Staff could let Applicants know. Mr. Emery said he personally did not have an issue as long as it was conditional. He was a big believer that the government should not be part of the problem and if they could speed things up, he was all for that. Russel Brown, Clark Quinn Moses Scott & Grahn LLP, appeared along with Elizabeth Bentz- Williams, Jim Frye of Redwood and Josh Cribelar from American Structurepoint. He said he would present on all three variance requests and was happy to answer questions on any or all of them. The three variances were filed in conjunction with the rezoning and annexation request for 22+ acres located east of CR 900 E and north of CR 600 N. Upon approval of the variances, rezoning and annexation, there would be approximately 163 multifamily units constructed, managed and maintained by Redwood Neighborhoods. The developer and the long-term owner of this proposed project would be Redwood Neighborhoods. Redwood did single- story multifamily which were located in six states with more than 11,000 units. Redwood 2 of 24 had never sold a development; they were the long-term developer/builder/owner/manager of their product. Mr. Brown said they believed that they were the largest single-story apartment developer in the country. They were a market rate developer; there were no tax credits being pursued for the project and every community in their portfolio was conventionally financed. They first started developing in Indiana in 2012. There were 12 neighborhoods in Central Indiana and Northeast Indiana including 3 in Hendricks County. They were not an age-restricted community. Their target market and historical residents were young professionals and empty nesters. The attraction to their neighborhood was the single-story design. They did not have community amenities geared towards tenants with children; there were no playgrounds, swimming pools, etc. Each unit was a two-bedroom/two bath with attached car garage. While it was multifamily the neighborhood felt like single-family homes. There was a particular focus on utilizing high quality materials and finishes to minimize repairs and maintenance. The units ranged approximately from 1,300 square feet to 1,700 square feet in size. Their leasing history showed occupancy was generally two residents per unit. There were on average less than 10 students per 100 units into the school system. All residents consented to a background check and credit check as part of their application process. Redwood worked hard to be a good neighbor to those existing homes, as well as to those residents in their own communities. Mr. Brown said they had three variances and each had to do with an aspect of Redwood's unique design and business model. The first variance related to the maximum number of primary structures on a lot. The Town's ordinance and proposed zoning classification had a maximum number of four units per lot. Presumably that type of maximum building unit was to regulate unit density either by requiring taller, larger, denser structures or by effectively capping density on a lot. Because Redwood only built single-story products they needed additional numbers of structures on a lot to accomplish the same overall density achieved by three-story buildings. Mr. Brown said that in his experience as a real estate attorney, the subdivision of a land was tied to the ability to sell it to somebody else at a future date. Redwood did not build and sell properties; they built, managed and maintained those properties. Dividing the 22 acres into additional parcels did not have a public safety benefit, because further subdivision would not require any more or less public safety features than what was proposed. Further subdivision would not positively or negatively impact the users' enjoyment of additional properties because further subdivision of the property would simply create lines on a piece of paper. Further subdivision would not decrease the density of the proposed project. Mr. Brown said that while he understood the standard was included as a lot standard he did not believe the strict enforcement would provide meaningful protections to the community or benefit the proposed landowner or others. The proposed two lots were created simply to represent the phasing of the development allowing one phase to wrap up and move to permanent financing while the second phase was under construction. The second variance they requested had to do with front yard setbacks for the internal private drives. Redwood's typical development included concrete private streets. The streets current design utilized a cross section which included the drive aisle and an integrated walking path making the typical total width 26 feet. Redwood communities did not permit parking on private streets. Accommodations were made for guest parking interspersed throughout the community. Also each unit had a two-car attached garage. There was also a full sized driveway in front of the two-car garage which had at least 20 foot in depth from the garage door to the pavement edge. So each two-bedroom unit had four parking spots available to it; two in the garage and two in front of the unit, which would allow a car to park without interfering with the drive aisles or the integrated walking path. Mr. Brown said it was their understanding, based on conversations with Staff, that the request for increased front yard setbacks on private streets (which was greater than on a public street) in this zoning classification was in the event those 3 of 24 private streets were ever turned over to the Town and there might be a need for Town services to be added in the front yards. As previously mentioned, Redwood was not an emergent developer and they did not intend to ever turn streets over to the public. The installation of concrete was a portion of that design and business decision because Redwood would be managing and maintaining those streets as part of the project. Streets were less likely to have deferred maintenance that needed to be turned over to the Town to be repaired. Furthermore, in the unlikely scenario that the streets were ever publicly dedicated the site would be master designed with all requisite utility lines placed in such a way there would not be a need for additional easements to locate that utility infrastructure. If a full front yard setback was required on the site, there were two potential solutions for compliance. One was expansion of the site by several acres to yield the same unit count. The property to the south was being marketed and Comprehensive Planned for future commercial growth and the expansion of the lots to the south would inhibit the marketability and usability for the remainder of the site. If the site was to remain that size and the buildings pushed closer to the outside lot line it would decrease the rear yard setback. Governance would also be required bringing those units closer to lot lines and decreasing opportunities to buffer the use from the adjoining uses landscape in an open space. Mr. Brown said Redwood thought both of those options were unpalatable for development and for the use and value of adjoining properties. The front yard design Redwood had developed over the years attracted their typical tenant. They believed a practical difficulty existed there and the request did not impact any member of the community outside of Redwood and their residents. The last variance was for an architectural standard which they felt was relatively minor. They were asking to be able to utilize an architecturally appropriate and aesthetically pleasing side elevation on a select number of high profile side elevations. The side elevations they were proposing did utilize stone, masonry material and two styles of siding. He showed elevation examples. There were 48 side elevations in the development and they were proposing utilizing a particular style on 17 of those elevations. They were not asking for variances on the 50% solid surface requirements on front facades. They were also not asking for a variance of building materials. The staff report did spend time talking about how vinyl should be a prohibited material on this site. Mr. Brown said Redwood felt that was an appropriate building material and that Staff condition should be removed. He noted that the existing Redwood development had vinyl which they utilized for the majority of Redwood's portfolio across the country. He said it was a thicker vinyl, at 0.042 inches, which was an above average thickness. He said they did that for the purpose of product longevity. They utilized it because it did not need to be painted every 6 years like fiber cement product did. They felt vinyl did not retain moisture, was fade resistant and when properly applied would be visually indistinguishable at a glance from fiber cement products. They did provide a color rendering of the site plan showing what they believed was significant landscaping. They believed that the suggestion to enhance the rear elevations, as proposed in the Staff report, was an allocation of the developer's resources that went without any meaningful benefit to the residents or for the community at large. Those elevations would eventually back up to commercial development to the south, likely to the rear elevation of commercial buildings. There were approximately 30 units that out of the 163 that would be adjacent to an unimproved elevation. When those requirements were imposed upon a developer it only drove up development costs which made the rent higher or made the project no longer feasible. Because they would comply with the standard for the highly visible elevations they believed they were complying with the spirit, if not the strict obligations, of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Brown summarized by saying they believed the three variances had been narrowly tailored to allow for an expansion of a successful and desirable housing type in the Town's community. 4 of 24 This was the first step in the process, but a very vital step as the design standards had a real impact on the viability and feasibility of the project. It would affect the ability of a known and reputable operator in the community to continue to expand the housing type necessary to attract those who were on the upward side of their housing consumption, those who were moving up in the market, as well as to retain those who wished to remain in the community without maintenance obligations. He asked for the Board's favorable vote on the petitions. Todd Barker reviewed the cases for the Board in order as they appeared on the agenda. First was BZDV-10-19-1776, the maximum primary structures request. As Mr. Brown indicated, the ordinance did have a limitation on the maximum number of primary structures. There were a couple of reasons for that whether that was to encourage upward development and less outward development and getting more units in single buildings however that was not the style of development that the Applicant was proposing. As Staff reviewed the request, location and the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons they were not able to find that justification for the first two criteria had been made. They did believe that they had satisfied the strict application, the third criteria, but had not found that in the first two. Staff did not find that they had satisfied the requirements for approval but should the Board find there was justification Staff had the following recommendations and conditions: (1) A Favorable Recommendation of PCCZ-10-19-1768 I Redwood at Brownsburg Cond. Rezone to M2 by the Plan Commission and the successful annexation and zoning of the subject property by Town Council. (2) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property to allow Redwood to increase the Maximum Number of Primary Structure per lot to a Maximum of seventeen (17) Primary Structure per lot. (3) Prior to development on the subject property a Development Plan must be approved by the Plan Commission. (4) The variance approval shall expire on November 13, 2021, two years from the date of approval if building permits have not been issued for the construction of the project. (5) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons submitted 10/30/2019 and Applicant's Variance Exhibit as provided in Exhibit-C dated 10/11/2019. (6) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Mike Neal asked Staff to give more information as to why Staff recommended against the variance. Mr. Barker said that Mr. Brown did provide some additional detail that evening that was not in the previous Detailed Statement of Reasons. The text of the Detail Statement of Reasons was what Staff went on. Staff always encouraged more information in those statements as possible. There was the potential that the data that Mr. Brown provided tonight might be able to help the Board. Mr. Neal stated that Staff had not reviewed that information. Mr. Barker said that was correct. Staff's recommendation was based on what was written in the findings. With what was provided in those Staff did not feel like they had met those criteria. BZDV-10-19-1777, the front yard setback: Mr. Barker started by saying that the project was unique as most multifamily projects did not have attached garages and then with an attached garage also came additional things that they had to meet in terms of the setback. The garage was attached to the structure therefore it was more single-family like than multifamily-like in terms of how it approached or reached the street. Again, in terms of reviewing the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons and the information provided, Mr. Brown was correct that as a part of that private street requirement in the Town's ordinance it dictated where that setback 5 of 24 was established. You went from the edge of payment plus 10 feet and then you started the setback. Essentially that was attempting to look similar as a public street so there was right-of- way outside of the edge of payment. In all public streets that were dedicated, essentially an old county road it was usually kind of the edge of the pavement plus the gravel, that was typically the right-of-way. Any project that had been platted would have right-of-way more than 10 feet outside of that road edge but that allowed for placement of utilities such as stormwater. In this case, being a multifamily development and having private streets throughout gave it much more of a single-family feel in terms of the development versus just internal parking lots and drive aisles of a typical multifamily project. Mr. Barker said they were looking to provide a 20 foot driveway that was outside of the walk or the street. As Mr. Brown indicated that did provide for off street parking. The Town's ordinance allowed for counting garage space so they were providing the minimum parking that was required. Again, in the Detailed Statement of Reasons that had been provided Staff did not feel like they had satisfied those criteria for Criteria 1, 2 and 3. David Wilson added that the variance would not exempt the Applicant from the need to seek waivers from design standards regarding road design. It just allowed the setback to be buried in the private street standards of the UDO that required that private streets meet or exceed the standards of public streets. All the standards needed for public streets would have to be utilized for the development or waivers from the Plan Commission would need to be obtained. Staff did NOT find that they had satisfied the requirements for approval but should the Board find there was justification Staff had the following recommendations and conditions: (1) A Favorable Recommendation of PCCZ-10-19-1768 I Redwood at Brownsburg Cond. Rezone to M2 by the Plan Commission and the successful annexation and zoning of the subject property by Town Council. (2) Prior to development on the subject property a Development Plan must be approved by the Plan Commission. (3) The variance approval shall expire on November 13, 2021, two years from the date of approval if building permits have not been issued for the construction of the project. (4) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons submitted 10/30/2019 and Applicant's Variance Exhibit as provided in Exhibit-C dated 10/11/2019. (5) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. BZDV-10-19-1778, Architectural Standards: For this request Staff looked at the number of elevations they were attempting to request variances of, as well as looked at the standards themselves and tried to understand the Applicant's justification in terms that the elevations would not be visible from outside the project. Staff did agree there were likely elevations that were not visible from anywhere even from inside the project. Staff's opinion, however, would be to enhance some of those other elevations that were visible from the exterior. The project would sit along the future extension around the Ronald Reagan Parkway corridor that the Town, Hendricks County, Avon and Plainfield had all identified as critical in the appearance of whatever was developed along the frontage. Staff had some recommendations in terms of the northern and eastern elevations. Ronald Reagan from the north over the railroad tracks, essentially going to be kind of coming down and there would be a higher view of an elevation down into the property, or the entire northeast corner of 56th Street. So as a result of that Staff looked at that and tried to determine how additional enhancements might help the overall appearance of the project. They looked at some of the rear elevations on that northern facade, 6 of 24 all of the eastern facades, the western facades of the project that backed up to CR 900 E, as well as some of those southern elevations. Exhibit K of the Staff report recommended a number of additional elevations receive enhancement. There was also discussion of Staff's recommendation on fiber cement siding material that came from the number of projects that had been approved in Town at the zoning phase from the Plan Commission and Town Council. The last four or more that were reviewed in terms of their architectural were required by the Plan Commission and Town Council to utilize fiber cement siding versus vinyl. Vinyl siding was prohibited in each of those projects. Therefore, that was a recommendation that Staff included in the report as that was definitely a trend in the Town. Staff did believe that that they had satisfied the criteria with the Staff recommendations in terms of materials and additional enhancements on some of those elevations. BZDV-10-19-1778: Staff did find that they had satisfied the requirements for approval subject and conditioned upon: (1) A Favorable Recommendation of PCCZ-10-19-1768 I Redwood at Brownsburg Cond. Rezone to M2 by the Plan Commission and the successful annexation and zoning of the subject property by Town Council. (2) That elevations be provided detailing the specific architectural elements (material type, applicable dimensions [min,/max. height/ width, area etc.], color variations that the varied elevations and the elevations complying with the UDO will include. (3) That the elevations highlighted in both yellow and red on Exhibit - K of this report are required to comply the 50% brick, stone or other decorative masonry material requirement within Article 5, Section 5.17(A) of the UDO in exchange for eliminating the requirement on the other interior facades (4) That all non-masonry siding material be required to be a cement fiber board product, vinyl siding was prohibited. (5) Prior to development on the subject property a Development Plan must be approved by the Plan Commission. (6) The variance approval shall expire on November 13, 2021, two years from the date of approval if building permits have not been issued for the construction of the project. (7) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons submitted 10/30/2019 and Applicant's Variance Exhibit as provided in Exhibit-C dated 10/11/2019. (8) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Mr. Wilson added that along 900 East there was an area that would be considered front facades and the variance would not apply to those facades. Ben Lacey mentioned the projected route around Reagan and the bridge over the railroad track and how it would be very visible to see the South elevation of three buildings just beyond the pond. He would like to see some enhancements on that side of those three buildings as well because of the visual as you were coming from that elevation over the railroad track. Mr. Lacey noted there were no TECH review comments on infrastructure such as water and sewer. Mr. Barker replied that the water and sewer were not the Town's utility; it would be Citizens Energy Group and Hendricks County Regional Sewer. Mr. Lacey commented that there were 163 units and 16 potential students would not be a tremendous impact to the school. His other comment was about traffic on 56th noting that it 7 of 24 was already a pretty difficult area to turn out on and would like that concern addressed. Mr. Barker said they had completed a traffic study as part of their request and while it did show that 56th Street was already a problem that the project did not exacerbate the problem. Mr. Neal asked if the documentation that the Applicant handed at the start of the meeting would address some of Staff's questions noting that he had not had a chance to read it tonight. Mr. Brown said that his job as an advocate was to answer some of those questions that came out when the Staff report was published approximately a week in advance of the meeting. His public presentation was intended to try to address some of those concerns that were raised by the Staff report and the documents provided were to help augment his public presentation. Mr. Neal said that when Applicant's provide something that might have new information his opinion would be that he would want Staff to look at it first before he would make a decision. Brett Scowden asked if the project or something similar was heard at the County level. Mr. Brown said they had come to the Town this time last year and were told for a variety of reasons they could not proceed with zoning through the Town. They then started the process with the County. They went through their TAC review process, filed a fiscal impact study that cost $7,000, did a traffic impact study, did a neighborhood meeting and then got to the eve of a public meeting with the County and were then asked by the Town to withdraw that petition. Based on the Town's request they withdrew the petition at the County level and had started the process again. They had been spinning their wheels on the project for more than a year which was part of the reason they were filing a variance petition in advance of going through zoning. Mr. Scowden asked about the primary structures and the setbacks and said he was trying to find where the hardship was. He was not sure it was a justifiable reason that a hardship was that it did not fit your business plan or that there was no plan to sell in the future. Mr. Brown said that the reality was they could comply with that but then they would be asking for additional variances because they would have side yard setback variances as it related to each of those lots. They thought this was the least intrusive process to move forward. It fit with the development planning to do it in two phases, have one come online, and then the other. From a legal perspective it would create a lot of legal work because you would have to have cross access easements between every lot. Generally a single user doing a single development was allowed to do it on the number of lots that were appropriate for their development; letting the developer drive the process instead of letting the ordinance dictate what the proper structure was, and this was different. If they were three-stories instead of single-story he felt there might be a different argument about why they need to comply with that. Mr. Scowden said he thought the primary structures case could be made both ways that the ordinance was hampering. He asked how the setbacks were justifiable. Mr. Brown said that Brownsburg was slightly unique for private streets in developments. A setback to a private street was not the norm or the need for that additional access. It was not just 10 feet on one side of the street; it was about 20 additional feet. First of all they could not comply because there was a drainage easement that ran south of the site. So they could not move that south property line though they were subdividing out of a larger parcel. That impacted the ability to expand the site north and south to comply. Mr. Brown said they also believed all the utilities that were necessary were provided so many of the reasons for which the ordinance existed were not applicable. There was also a fully developed and master planned site. There were master meters at the ends of each building so the need for utility easements was not necessary because they were designed to be owned and maintained under one common structure. They believed the intent of the ordinance did not apply. 8 of 24 Mr. Scowden said he knew of a case around two years ago where the Town was asked to take back private streets and asked Staff if there had been other cases? Mr. Barker said there were multiple times the Town had gotten such a request. The case Mr. Scowden was speaking of was the only one that Mr. Barker knew of where the Town actually agreed. But yes, there had been multiple requests for streets to be brought from private to public streets. Mr. Scowden asked if any of Staff's concerns stemmed from that and Mr. Barker said the private street standards built into the ordinance now essentially regulated them to still be built to the Town standard and was specifically added because of that. Mr. Scowden asked the Applicant about his presentation about the architectural standards which they stated they considered that to be a minor variance; then wouldn't it be fairly minor to comply? Mr. Brown said he had not had a chance to confer with his client but the tradeoffs for the enhanced elevations probably far exceeded the stone requirements of complying with the ordinance. The goal was to apply meaningful architecture in places that it would be seen and not to put it on the sides of the building that would be seen by one tenant. These were highly visible or visible offsite for those site elevations. That would be something that they had done and had complied with when those were highly visible site elevations offsite throughout, both in Brownsburg and other communities. They were trying to be responsible and trying to provide a product that was usable and the rent rates could be sustainable. David Emery asked why the Town approached them and asked them to come back. Mr. Barker said that was probably a question for the Town Council. Mr. Brown said he was asked to go to a meeting with the Town Manager and Mr. Barker. At that point they agreed to withdraw the request. He did not know the genesis of the request that came to the Town Manager. Claire Rutledge-Sakha said she had a few general questions that related to all three requests. The first was why the items submitted that night were not included in the packet that went out with the public. Mr. Brown said he was not trying to spring new information but was trying to utilize it to augment his public presentation. There were jurisdictions where rules stated Applicants could not introduce anything that was not provided to Staff 10 days in advance. If that was a desired request they could certainly work to comply with that request. It was their understanding that this was their opportunity to present evidence in rebuttal to the Staff report. What the Board had was revised after the TECH review process. Tonight was their second attempt. Until the Staff report came out last week they did not know that they were still determined to be deficient. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha asked if the existing standards could have been used to design the project. Mr. Brown said he did not believe there was a way to develop the project in a way that complied with the setbacks since the site could not grow any further east and west as it was bound by existing right-of-way on both property lines. The property owner who they had a contract with did not own any property further north. There was also an existing drainage easement to the south that determined the size of the parcel. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha said she was struggling where the real hardship was since Mr. Brown did state that if they were denied that they could comply with the standards. Mr. Brown said he if he said that then he misspoke. He said that as it related to the architecture that the architectural request was a request that they made with some frequency as it related to four sided architecture. In that instance at least a couple of the buildings would have four sided architecture requirements because there were two front yards for those for those western-most buildings. That was something they sought variances from trying to provide a meaningful architectural requirement, something that complied with the spirit if not the absolute letter of the law, which was what they believed they were doing. The other development in Town was 9 of 24 done in a PD so requirements did not apply such as maximum structures per lot. Going to a straight rezoning instead of a PD district generated the need for that variance. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha said her final question was about the vinyl and how they had mentioned it would be more expensive to do the fiber cement. She asked how much the difference was between vinyl and fiber. Mr. Brown said the biggest cost would be repainting every structure every six to eight years. Jim Frye, a consultant for Redwood since 2012 and prior to that a Senior Vice President, said that he felt there was a misbelief that HardiePlank was a great product. It shrank when it got cold and expanded when hot. It had to be painted every six years. They used vinyl for a reason. They were going to own those forever so they wanted their project to be maintenance-free and look good six years from now. The existing Redwood neighborhood used vinyl 5 years ago and it still looked great. Mr. Frye said they did not use cheap vinyl. They wanted it to be looking like the same place 10 and 20 years from now; that would not be the case if they used HardiePlank. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha asked what the financial hardship was of using HardiePlank versus vinyl. Mr. Frye said it was probably close to $3,000 a unit more up front. Mr. Brown said that to be clear that was not a variance they were requesting that night. They were not asking as it related to the variances for vinyl because vinyl was not a prohibited building material. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha said that was something that was suggested and that was why she was asking. Mr. Scowden had a question for Staff or probably for legal. He noted there was a 10-day rule that took place in the Plan Commission. Scott Krapf said that was correct and that the Rules of Procedure did contemplate a 10-day rule for which materials did need to be submitted. However the Chair did have authority under the Rules to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Any Applicant materials that were presented at the meeting did become part of the record. Mr. Scowden said the part he was looking particularly at was that it may cause the pending application to be continued by the by the BZA. Mr. Neal said it was one thing if they brought something that enhanced what they had already submitted. He asked if there was anything new that was not in the original proposal that could potentially answer some of the questions of Staff. If that was the case then he would want to give proper time for Staff to review. His understanding was that it did provide some additional information that the Board needed more time to assimilate. Mr. Neal received confirmation that the Applicant already had a property in Brownsburg. He asked if they were happy with the first one in Brownsburg and Mr. Brown answered that they would not be there talking about investing $16 million if they were not happy with the product. Mr. Scowden said that it was a little bit different in that it was a part of a very large Planned Development. Mr. Brown said that was correct and that it was not stand alone and was a PD where multifamily was a contemplated use. He believed it was one of the biggest PDs in Town. They were probably 98% occupied at that point. David Emery asked if the other property had variances that were granted. Mr. Barker said the Planned Development was approved in the 2008 timeframe and there were completely different standards than the M2 district that they were looking at now. Mr. Emery asked if the previous project they already had was presented today if they would be going through the exact same process. Mr. Barker said that number one it would depend on the piece of property. With a different piece of property some of the variances would not be required. Mr. Brown said from a design perspective, the setbacks were no different in in the existing development and what was being proposed. There were substantially the same architectural standards as what was proposed including private roads. There had been a modification in standards since that time so that would be part of the Planned Development review process that would have to be complied 10 of 24 with. Mr. Emery asked if Staff was aware of any issues that had arisen from the other property. If there were no issues with the existing property, why prevent somebody wanting to invest $16 million into Brownsburg? Mr. Barker said that with any project, whether it were in Town or not, if they were not in compliance with the law that was in place there were procedures like the variances requested and then it was subject to the Applicant to justify those. Not to say that whether or not the existing project was good or bad but that it was not related to the current requests. Mr. Emery said he supported the project and it made sense to him. Again he was not a big advocate for government clogging things up. If there were developers who wanted to come in and improve the community he thought that was a great thing specifically with the target demographic. The current rental occupancy rates of 90% with the rent prices they were at conveyed something. He did not have an issue of granting the variances but noted he was just one person on the Board. Mr. Wilson showed a photo of the existing Redwood product and said one difference was that the setback affected the public walk in front of the units. It was his understanding that there would not be a public walk in front of the units. In the example, the walk was tucked to the rear and was closer to the garage than anything. He wanted to make that point of clarification with regards to the setback areas. Josh Cribelar from American Structurepoint came forward and explained they had changed their street series. So there was an 11 foot drive lane, 11 foot drive lane, and four foot pedestrian path; that was purely for FHA reasoning. To provide a barrier free site, anybody could get around from the entrance, all the way through the subdivision, and to any unit. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV-10-19-1776, BZDV-10-19-1777 AND BZDV-10-19-1778 David Weyant, 7721 Shagbark Court- Mr. Weyant said he had followed the process when it was before the County. He felt the area was highly desirable and very visible. It was a chance for the Town to showcase its vision for the future as everyone would be viewing this development via the Ronald Reagan Parkway in some manner for years to come. The UDO ordinances did not discriminate if the development was visible or viable within or outside of the development in regards to the requirements. The fact that you could not see them from the street or from the inside, those were the requirements you had to meet. With regards to vinyl versus HardiePlank, aesthetics was one thing but fire containment was another. HardiePlank would give emergency responders time to get there and resolve the matter and given how close in proximity the buildings were fire containment was going to be an issue. While he did not see any comment from Fire in the TECH review, from a layman's perspective HardiePlank seemed a good safety measure. Mr. Weyant said he was the HOA President of 463 homes with home values between $350,000 and $1.2 million and they were required to have HardiePlank versus vinyl and they had not experienced the problems was noted by the Applicant. He said vinyl required expert installation, washing and routine maintenance. Large storms and heavy winds caused vinyl to fail whereas HardiePlank did not. Mr. Weyant said his greater concern was the new updates just handed to the committee and felt the entire item should be tabled until there was a chance to review those materials. Mr. Weyant said the UDO and ordinances being discussed were in place to protect the Town and adjacent property owners and even the property owners themselves. Steve Price, 7372 Masten Way- Mr. Price said he had attended meetings for the previous Redwood project. He felt there were certain standards that had been set forth by many Boards and there was a reason for those 11 of 24 standards as Brownsburg wanted to hold the neighborhoods to a certain level. Clearly what happened in this case was they designed a neighborhood that would not fit on the property. They built it to have too many units. They asked for variances with the other neighborhood. Many neighbors such as himself came and asked them to be held to the standards of Brownsburg and the Board did hold them to certain standards such as height restrictions, sign restrictions, not having illuminated signs, etc. Mr. Price felt that when you changed setbacks cars blocked sidewalks. He noted that people used their garages for storage and it would result in cars parking on the street. He wanted them held to the standards Brownsburg had set. He asked if all the neighbors received notice since the property had not been annexed yet. Mr. Krapf cautioned the Board that if they felt they might need additional information, they should be mindful of the status of the public hearing. To that extent, if they did entertain any sort of action that would continue this case, they should keep the public hearing opened so as to not require re-notice. Ted Wurtz, 8992 Sunset Lane- Mr. Wurtz asked who owned the property right now and if it was the Hession family. He asked what would become of the other part of the land as he believed there was 26 acres there. Mr. Barker said that this was the first piece out there that had been brought forward with a proposal and at that point Staff did not have any development proposals on the other parcels. He noted the Comprehensive Plan recommended multifamily north of the property and commercial south of the property. The Reagan would go north; following the southern part of the railroad track and more so: some of the area would be right-of-way. The odd shape on the eastern side was for some of the storm drainage. Anthony Hession, 9825 E County Road 600 N- Mr. Hession said his concern was traffic; 56th Street was a real concern. The intersection was failing currently without adding more to it. 150-160 units, times two houses or two cars per unit, would add a lot more cars to that intersection on a daily basis. He said no one would want to be behind a semi or farm equipment which was very important for their operation. In the Fall they had a lot of truck traffic on the roads as part of their livelihood and business. Mr. Hession said he was not opposed to the project per se but would like to see the development standards adhered to. He added that they did not own that property. Cindy Hohman, 15 Tyler Court- Ms. Hohman said it felt like they wanted to change everything- density, setback, architectural standards. It was her understanding that it was geared towards empty nesters and young professionals. If it was anything like the one built in Plainfield, the average rent was $1,400 and would require an income of about $45,000 a year. She felt the young professionals would add to the traffic problem both during the day and during the rush hours. She wondered how much distance there was between the buildings and if the Fire Department had any comment. Mr. Barker said that all of the Town departments received all the material for TECH meetings and if they provided comments those were included in the TECH minutes even if they were not present. Mr. Hohman said some of their roads were driving into a cornfield. While the Applicant mentioned walkability, she understood possibly that they were no longer going to want to put sidewalks in. Mr. Barker said that their proposed cross section for the road included two travel lanes and a walk. Mr. Hohman said she wondered what made them luxury apartments other than a granite countertop. She added that a complaint from the Plainfield apartments was that the furnaces were installed in the center part of the house and they were extremely loud. She also wondered why the cases were up for consideration when it was not even in Town yet. 12 of 24  Mr. Brown said he would try to address a couple of the issues while some questions were already answered. As far as fire suppression, all the buildings were sprinkled. The north and south road "connections" in the rendering were requested for connectivity to future development just as the sidewalk was added between the buildings there on the south side to try to increase connectivity to future commercial development. Mr. Brown said if it was the will of the Board they would be happy to consent to a continuance of the matter for one month to allow Staff time to review the materials provided. They would also continue to work with Staff to try to address what the appropriate elevations would be. Mr. Neal said he had a motion to make but first appreciated the Applicant's willingness to continue because there were a lot of open questions. He said he was not necessarily against the project but there were just a lot of unanswered questions. He said he did not always accept all of Staff's recommendations but when it was clear that they felt the Applicant did not satisfy the requirements he took note of that. The issues he had concerns about were clearly laid out in the Staff report. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha said she was on board with the idea of moving this until it had been thoroughly considered with the new materials presented. Scott Krapf reminded the Board that a potential motion would need to recess and continue the public hearings for all three cases and should specify the date, time and location of the meeting which was December 9th at 7 P.M. there in that room. Motion: Mike Neal made a motion to CONTINUE BZDV-10-19-1776, BZDV-10-19-1777 and BZDV-10-19-1778 to December 9, 2019 at 7 P.M., seconded by Claire Rutledge-Sakha, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING FOR BZDV-10-19-1776, BZDV-10-19-1777 AND BZDV-10-19-1778 RECESSED AND CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 9, 2019 AT 7 P.M. AT THIS TIME THE BOARD TOOK A 5 MINUTE RECESS. LEGAL COUNSEL ADVISED MEMBERS THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCUSSION OF ANY BUSINESS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA. 4. ***BZDV-10-19-1779 Elmwood By Redwood Permanent Sign Standards A request for a Development Standards Variance from Section 12, Article 12.07 Signage Standards-Signs: Multi-Family for Parcels 0, P and Q of the West Wynne Farms Planned Development Ordinance as it relates to Art. 5, Sec. 5.64(A)(h) SI-04: Multiple Family and Manufactured Home Park Residential Sign Standards-Permanent Signs, Illumination," to permit internal sign illumination within Parcel O of the West Wynne Farms Planned Development (PD) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-26-107-001.000-016 Represented by: Brian Maxwell, Redwood Living ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 5. ***BZDV-10-19-1780 Elmwood South Permanent Sign Standards A request for a Development Standards Variance from Section 12, Article 12.07 Signage Standards-Signs: Multi-Family for Parcels 0, P and Q of the West Wynne Farms Planned Development Ordinance as it relates to Art. 5, Sec. 5.64(A)(h) SI-04: Multiple Family and Manufactured Home Park Residential Sign Standards-Permanent Signs, Illumination," to permit internal sign illumination within Parcel P of the West Wynne Farms Planned Development (PD) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-26-151-003.000-016 Represented by: Brian Maxwell, Redwood Living ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 13 of 24 ***Testimony was held on each case with separate motions recorded for each. David Wilson told the Board a determination needed to be made regarding public notice before hearing the two cases. Per Indiana code the required number of days prior to the public hearing to publish the newspaper ad in both newspapers was 10 days. Todd Barker said that Staff was looking to amend the BZA Rules as the Hendricks County Flyer went out of business. Legal had advised Staff to publish in both the Danville Republican and the Indy Star. In the past if someone failed to publish in the Flyer Staff would have automatically continued the case. Staff did not hold that stance in this case because they were in the process of amending the Rules, although it had been practice since the Flyer went out of business to publish in both of the other newspapers. The Applicant requested the opportunity to address the Board and Staff felt that was a reasonable request since the Rules were not yet updated. Mr. Wilson informed the Board that the Applicant had published in the Indy Star but not the Danville Republican. Mr. Brian Maxwell, Project Manager for Redwood Living, said they submitted the proper add to both papers but did not get noticed through the Republican until 6 days before the meeting. They did do about 160 mailings to the adjoining neighbors and it was published in the biggest paper. Discussion ensued between the Board members, Staff and Legal Counsel regarding the public notice requirements both in the BZA Rules and Indiana Code. Motion: David Emery made a motion that adequate public notice had been made and to CONSIDER BZDV-10-19-1779 and BZDV-10-19-17780, seconded by Brett Scowden, motion carried 3 In Favor/2 Opposed (Neal/Rutledge-Sakha)/0 Abstained. Mr. Maxwell then presented his cases. Redwood Living was rebranding the existing neighborhood currently called Elmwood. The only variance they were asking for was a lighting variance. The sign was currently lit externally with a spotlight and they were asking for a variance to use LED channel letters. He showed an example of what they were proposing and said it was a low, more controlled lighting. Mr. Maxwell said the signs had gone over very well in all the neighborhoods that they had put it in. It was a much more professional finished look. There was less light pollution; less brash and was more controllable. He felt the ordinance pertained more to the lighting for backlighting and commercial signs such as a Kmart or Walmart sign where the entire sign was illuminated. The Redwood sign was very professional looking, non-intrusive and it helped identify the entry of their neighborhoods a lot faster. Lauren Gillingham said that the Applicant did a great job explaining the request. When the property was built under the West Wynne Farms PD it referred to the 2012 zoning ordinance which in essence said there could be no internally lit signs. The code was most likely written this way to maintain the residential character of the PD and to prevent developers from installing huge, light polluting signs that were usually found in commercial districts. After reviewing the Applicant's Detailed Statement Reasons Staff did find they had met the criteria for approval and had the following recommendations: BZDV-10-19-1779: (1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property to allow Redwood Living LLC to install an internally illuminated sign on the southwest corner of Haywood Ave and E CR 300 N. (2) That the sign be built and landscaped according to the sign rendering and landscaping plan submitted file date 10/15/2019. 14 of 24  (3) Prior to construction, a sign permit is obtained from the department of Development Services (4) The variance approval shall expire on November 13, 2021, two years from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued for the construction of the project. (5) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons dated 10/28/2019 and Applicant's site plan as provided in Exhibit C dated 10/15/2019. (6) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. BZDV-10-19-1780: (1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property to allow Redwood Living LLC to install an internally illuminated sign at the primary entrance off of Northfield Dr. (2) That the sign be built and landscaped according to the sign rendering and landscaping plan submitted file date 10/15/2019. (3) Prior to construction, a sign permit is obtained from the department of Development Services (4) The variance approval shall expire on November 13, 2021, two years from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued for the construction of the project. (5) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons dated 10/28/2019 and Applicant's site plan as provided in Exhibit C dated 10/15/2019. (6) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Mr. Neal asked Staff if they felt that particular type of sign for that area was not necessarily contemplated originally. Ms. Gillingham said that the intent of the section and the PD was to denote the difference between a residential sign and a more commercial sign. This was a different type of sign that gave a more residential look. Mr. Scowden said that the illumination was difficult to see on a video. Mr. Maxwell had an example with him and showed the Board the illuminated sign telling them he had put about 90 of them in different neighborhoods over eight states and they had been a huge success. In Staff's opinion it would put up much less light than what was currently there. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha asked what the measurable difference between the ground lighting that was there now and the proposed was. Mr. Maxwell said he was not exactly sure but knew that the proposed one was noticeably less than the spotlight. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha asked how they gauged sign satisfaction and Mr. Maxwell said they surveyed their residents and also if there was any dissatisfaction the residents would let them know. They had 28 sites and other Board members loved it. Mr. Maxwell added that the light also came with a dimmer so apartment Staff could dim it if there were complaints. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV-10-19-1779 AND BZDV-10-19- 1780 Steve Price, 7372 Masten Way- Mr. Price said he lived directly across the street from both of the neighborhoods and again mentioned he had attended meetings regarding Redwood. He said everything was decided on 15 of 24  at that time. While it was a nice looking sign he had found a picture of it on the internet and noted that the current sign and the proposed sign did not look anything alike. It was much larger and obviously brighter. He said the leg of Northfield Drive they were speaking about was currently all residential neighborhoods. The only commercial was the front edge property that was on 267. All signs in that area were illuminated from the ground. The proposed sign did not look like a residential neighborhood; it looked like an apartment complex. So there was a huge change. He understood that the light could be turned down but when the Town built Northfield Drive they put in low light emitting streetlights; they only emitted down versus out. Northfield Drive was meant to be kept dark because it was residential. David Weyant, 7721 Shagbark Court- Mr. Weyant clarified that the description Mr. Maxwell was trying to give was likely Kelvin measurement in regards to the color of the light. That number was likely identifying the color of the light, not the intensity; the intensity was in fact measured in lumens. Mr. Maxwell said that they definitely wanted to be good neighbors would do whatever they could to make the neighbors happy. If it helped the board, they could put a dimmer switch on the lights and could certainly turn that down if there was a complaint. Mr. Scowden asked if the dimmer switch was done manually or if it was on a timer and was told it was manual. Mr. Scowden received confirmation that it would be less light than what was there currently. He asked what the square footage of the current sign was and learned it was 24 square feet and the new one was 32 square feet. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV-10-19-1779 AND BZDV-10-19- 1780 Motion: Mike Neal made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-10-19-1779 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Ben Lacey, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Motion: Ben Lacey made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-10-19-1780 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Claire Rutledge-Sakha, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 6. ****BZDV-10-19-1781 Xtra Lease Maximum Lot Coverage A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.48(A)(4) "Lot Standards," to exceed the maximum lot coverage required within the High Intensity Industrial (12) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-20-300-004-000-016 Represented by: Don Fisher, Insight Engineering, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 7. ****BZDV-10-19-1782 Xtra Lease Fence Location A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.29(B)(1) "Fence and Wall Standards," to permit a fence in the front yard within the High Intensity Industrial (12) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-20-300-004-000-016 Represented by: Don Fisher, Insight Engineering, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 8. ****BZDV-10-19-1783 Xtra Lease Buffer Yard Width A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.40(B) "Landscaping Standards," to reduce the required buffer yard to twenty-four feet (24') within the High Intensity Industrial (12) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-20-300-004-000-016 Represented by: Don Fisher, Insight Engineering, Inc. 16 of 24  ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 9. ****BZDV-10-19-1784 Xtra Lease Parking Material A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.56(E)(l) "Parking Standards," to permit compacted aggregate surface within the High Intensity Industrial (I2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-20-300-004-000-016 Represented by: Don Fisher, Insight Engineering, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 10. ****BZDV-10-19-1786 Xtra Lease Outdoor Storage Setback A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.54(A)(2) 05-04: Industrial and High Impact Outdoor Storage Standards-Industrial Outdoor Storage, Setbacks, to reduce the Outdoor Storage adjacent to right-of-way setback to twenty-four feet (24') within the High Intensity Industrial (I2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-20-300-004-000-016 Represented by: Don Fisher, Insight Engineering, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING ****Testimony was held on each case with separate motions recorded for each. David Wilson told the Board there was a notice issue to clear up. For case BZDV-10-191783, the buffer yard width, the notice noted the request was for a reduction of 25 feet and that should have been 15 feet. Staff noted it was Staff's fault and not the Applicants. Motion: David Emery made a motion that adequate public notice had been made and to CONSIDER BZDV-10-19-1783, seconded by Brett Scowden, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Don Fisher, Insight Engineering, Inc. was present on behalf of Xtra Lease. Xtra Lease rented out semi-trailers and they had chosen a site in Brownsburg just east of Raceway Park. With easy access to I-74 it became an ideal location for semi-trailer rental and the Industrial zoning already fit the use. Because it was part of the petroleum site there were a few complications. On the west side of the property there was an access drive for the tank farm to the north. There was no right-of-way currently dedicated and because it was a secondary arterial road Staff said they needed to dedicate 57 V2 feet from the center line of the road, which took back quite a bit of the parcel much further than everything else in that area. Mr. Fisher said the development included an approximately 8,500 square foot building. The far east module was to be able to bring trailers in for minor repair and maintenance and the western part was for the offices and leasing. There was an existing drive off of CR 300. There was also a petroleum pipeline easement through the property (although there was not a petroleum pipeline) so that pushed the building farther to the west. They would install a new drive. They needed room between CR 300 and the gate which prevented people from going in and out and they wanted to have stacking for the trailers so that positioned the building where it was shown. They had parking for the public and employees in front of the building which led to the setback issue. They had trailers taking up a lot of room and needed a lot of maneuvering space so that created a need for a big open space. Because of needing to have so much maneuvering space they ended up requiring more surface so they were asking for 85% lot coverage versus the required 70%. Mr. Fisher said the fence location was not allowed to be in front of the building but because of the position of that building relative to the stacking space that would push the fence about a third the way back onto the site which would eliminate the ability to have space for maneuvering on the site. The buffer yard was required because the whole area was Comprehensive Planned to be Industrial but the property to the south of CR 300 was zoned Agriculture so that required the buffer yard for which they 17 of 24 were asking a reduction. Initially they asked that to be down to O ft. but had made that 15 ft. along a portion of the south property line and along the west side of the site. They were also proposing a compacted aggregate pavement that worked very well. The trailers were empty when they came and while they were stored. They had high pressure tires that during hot times in the summer would tear up asphalt. They were also being tightly maneuvered around which was an arduous process. The compacted aggregate could be regraded and compacted in back into place. Xtra Lease used the compacted aggregate at many of their other locations and thought there was a good benefit to it. Mr. Fisher felt that asphalt and gravel had the same permeability as far as stormwater; it was definitely a rougher texture and slowed the water down while it was raining and reduced the amount of capacity you needed. He said the industrial area was already heavily graveled so they were conforming to the area and showed an exhibit to show how it how it matched the surrounding areas. For the outdoor storage he looked at storage areas in the immediate area from the center line of CR 300. The site directly to the east was 45.63 feet approximately from the center line to their storage area. If they had a 57 V2 foot right-of-way like Xtra Lease did then they would be almost 12 feet into the right-of-way. Xtra Lease was proposing to be 24 feet away from the right-of- way. Directly to the west was the Racetrack and they were 18 feet into what would be right-of- way. The drive across the street was the same thing with 15 V2 feet. The concrete company was storing their trucks in front and they were 21 feet from the right-of-way. They were close to what Xtra Lease would be but their landscaping in front was about six inches tall and Xtra Lease's would be at least nine feet at planting. Staff mentioned a future public walking path in front and how the storage would possibly encroach. Mr. Fisher noted that the walking path was going to be in the right-of-way so one would be walking essentially along a wall of evergreen trees which by the way was the only landscaping on that road. Joe James said he would review the first three cases while David Wilson would take the last two. He explained Xtra Lease did need five variances in order to develop the property as proposed. It would be for a semi-trailer leasing operation with an office/maintenance building, employee/ customer parking lot and trailer storage area. As Mr. Fisher said they did have to dedicate the 57 Vi feet of right-of-way for CR 300 N; no setback variances were needed if the right-of-way was already dedicated. While the undeveloped farmland to the south was currently zoned AG, the Comprehensive Plan recommended Flex/Light Industrial uses which would not require a buffer yard for the 12. There was enough of a setback available on the front edge in order to install the required plant value of 7.0 per lineal foot. Mr. James showed the landscaping plan and said there were a significant number of evergreens on both sides. As Mr. Fisher pointed out the area did have a definite Industrial feel to its character with bio-diesel storage tanks to the north, east and southeast and the racetrack to the west. Security fencing was needed around the perimeter even though the trailers would be empty. The site did have the fence in the front yard. Staff asked them to put the fence as close to the trailer storage area as possible so it would be behind the landscaping. The racetrack to the west did already have a fence in the front yard. The fence would comply and would be 8' chain-link. While compact aggregate did have some pervious qualities it was still considered an impervious surface per the Town of Brownsburg stormwater ordinance and did have a similar runoff coefficient as asphalt. A stormwater detention pond was provided on the on the west side and the drainage plan would be reviewed with the development plan. Concerning the lot coverage there was already a lot of gravel in the area and the racetrack did have significant impervious surface although that was spread out over 200 acres. Staff felt with the drainage plan the lot coverage was not an issue. BZDV-10-19-1781: Staff did find that they had satisfied the requirements for approval subject and conditioned upon: 18 of 24  (1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property to allow the maximum lot coverage to be increased to 85%. (2) Prior to development on the subject property a development plan is approved by the Plan Commission. (3) The variance approval shall expire on November 13, 2021, two years from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued for the construction of the project. (4) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 20/23/2019; the Applicant's TECH response dated 11/05/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons dated 11/05/2019 and Applicant's site plan as provided in Exhibit C dated 10/15/2019. (5) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. BZDV-10-19-1782: Staff did find that they had satisfied the requirements for approval subject and conditioned upon: (1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property to allow security fencing to be located within the front yard setback. (2) The front setback variances are granted. (3) An effort is made to install the security fence behind the required Exterior Roadway Landscaping. (4) Prior to development on the subject property a development plan is approved by the Plan Commission. (5) The variance approval shall expire on November 13, 2021, two years from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued for the construction of the project. (6) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's TECH response dated 11/04/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons dated 11/04/2019 and Applicant's site plan as provided in Exhibit C dated 10/15/2019. (7) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. BZDV-10-19-1783: Staff did find that they had satisfied the requirements for approval subject and conditioned upon: (1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property to allow the required buffer yard width to be reduced from 50 ft. to 15 ft. along the CR 300 N road frontage. (2) Variances are granted to reduce the required Front Yard Setback and to reduce the required setback for Outdoor Storage. (3) An effort is made to install the security fence behind the required exterior roadway perimeter landscaping. (4) Exterior Roadway Landscaping in compliance with Section 5.41(C) of the UDO is installed across the CR 300 N road frontage adjacent to the AG zoning to the south. (5) Prior to development on the subject property a development plan is approved by the Plan Commission. (6) The variance approval shall expire on November 13, 2021, two years from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued for the construction of the project. 19 of 24  (7) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's TECH response dated 11/05/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons dated 11/05/2019 and Applicant's site plan as provided in Exhibit C dated 10/15/2019. (8) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. David Wilson reviewed the next two cases. For BZDV-10-19-1784, the Parking Material, the Applicant was requesting that gravel material be used for the storage of the trailers. Staff disagreed with the Applicant referring it to "pavement" as it did not necessarily conform to a pavement definition. The real purpose behind the standard of requiring all off-street parking to utilize a paved surface of concrete, asphalt, brick pavers, porous concrete or the like and specifically prohibiting gravel, stone rock, dirt, sand or grass as permitted parking surface was because a number of issues could arise from a gravel parking lot. Mr. Wilson said he would quickly touch on the Applicant's exhibits presented this evening. One specific one was Shelby Materials and Staff felt that particular example would be more referred to as a fleet parking scenario as opposed to a long-term storage solution for the site. The raceway to the west was more temporary parking because of a race. They were not permanently storing long-term products in that location. As far as the gravel diagram shown, many of the areas located were not permanent parking areas; they were areas around storage tanks. In most cases, a lot of those areas indicated on that map had developed over the years, some of which were outside the Town and outside of the Town's jurisdiction. Mr. Wilson said the main issue at hand with the gravel was a number of things including the potential for ruts and other environmental issues that could arise, anywhere from mosquitoes to standing water, as well as maintenance. In Staff's recommendations they recommended that if the Board did approve the case that there be an operations and maintenance manual which would be recorded with the property for all future users to be used as a reference guide for maintaining the gravel parking lot. Additionally, another potential environmental issue was dust and that sort of nuisance. In the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons they indicated they would tackle that issue with a number of ways from natural rain showers to occasional spraying with water or if it was deemed necessary to utilizing calcium Chloride. As indicated in the Staff report, the US Federal Highway Administration (FHA) recommended that treatment be done yearly to prevent environmental issues regarding dust. If the Board should approve this variance yearly treatment of the yard should be required in accordance with those standards. Staff did have a number of concerns with the Detailed Statement of Reasons directly especially the response to Criterion #1 that the proposed gravel would reduce or slow the runoff. While the Applicant indicated that it was a rougher texture because it had the same coefficient of asphalt that runoff rate would essentially be the same as if it were asphalt. So, that argument to Staff would not justify Criteria #1. Staff did have an issue with #3 and how the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in a practical difficulty. Staff found it hard to find that that reason with their justification, and Staff was recommending that it had not satisfied the criteria needed for approval. BZDV-10-19-1784: Staff did NOT find that they had satisfied the requirements for approval but should the Board find there was justification Staff had the following recommendations and conditions: (1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property to allow compacted gravel as an appropriate parking surface. (2) That the Applicant submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual (0 & M Manual) for the parking surface and upon review and approval by the Department of Development Services, would be recorded against the property for reference by all future owners; to include the following information: 20 of 24  a. Stamped approval by an engineer, licensed in the State of Indiana. b. Initial soil and final gravel compaction requirements. c. Surface maintenance and repair, with schedule of maintenance. d. Requirements for dust control including yearly application of a dust-reducing product. (In addition, not relying upon natural rain showers or lightly spraying with water). (3) That the gravel surface material be limited to the area as depicted on the site plan submitted file date 10/16/2019. (4) That the variance be conditioned upon the approval of the submitted Development Plan, Case Number: PSDP-09-19-1767, by the Advisory Plan Commission. (5) The variance approval shall expire on November 14, 2021, two years from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued for the construction of the project. (6) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons dated 11/06/2019 and Applicant's site plan as provided in Exhibit C dated 10/16/2019. (7) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Mike Neal asked about the Operations and Maintenance Manual and asked if that was something they had required in the past. Mr. Wilson said that typically those were required for stormwater BMP things that did require regular maintenance and control of the onsite situation so Staff deemed it was appropriate for this purpose. It was the first time they would be doing so for a parking lot but it was also the largest gravel parking lot Staff had reviewed. Todd Barker interjected to inform the Board that as part of the Rules there was a provision about the length of the meetings that said they could not start any new cases after 10 P.M. and that they would adjourn not any later than 10:30 P.M. Since these cases had all started just before 10 P.M., he wanted to confirm with the Board that they were comfortable hearing the cases that evening even if that questioning went beyond 10:30 P.M. There were no objections from the Board. Ben Lacey had a question for Staff referencing asphalt and what they would define as asphalt; was chip and seal considered asphalt? Mr. Wilson said that they would have to conform to the standard construction materials permitted under building code. He did not believe they had a standard definition for asphalt and would generally follow the industry standard definition. Mr. Lacey said his assumption was they were talking about #53 Stone mixed with some flume stone. Mr. Wilson said in his research he did find out that it was a mixture of different types of stone and sometimes plastics that reduced or increased the compaction rate. Mr. James asked Mr. Barker if the Town of Brownsburg Construction Standards had a definition for asphalt. Mr. Barker said that different types of asphalt, whether it was intermediate or top surface were all defined in terms of standard requirements. Mr. Wilson added that as far as the UDO was concerned there was not a standard in the zoning. Mr. Barker said parking lots were not dedicated to the Town. In terms of how asphalt was loosely defined was in terms of the added oil mixtures with the aggregate compacted to a certain pressure rating. Mr. Lacey said he was pretty familiar with the area and knew it was a very industrial area and there were a lot of semi/tanker truck traffic on the roads and some of the private roads for those businesses back there were gravel. He felt the request would fit into that environment. Mr. Wilson said that the maintenance of a gravel road was different than maintenance of a large 21 of 24 surface area of gravel. Additionally, there was a weight consideration in the Staff report went into a bit of detail on the weight of the empty trailers plus the added weight of whatever was pulling the trailer. In his research he found they either had a truck or sometimes an electric vehicle that hooked under it and pulled it which would be impractical on a gravel lot. John Miller, Vice President of Real Estate for Xtra Lease came forward at that time and explained that they were the Hertz Rent-a-Car or Enterprise Rent-a-Car for tractor trailers. They were not a trucking company and were not running a freight terminal. Customers came and picked up the trailer, they left:, went away, came back and Xtra Lease parked it. They had a very cyclical business; it did not sit there year round. The majority of it was just first quarter and second quarter; the rest of time the yard was going to be empty. A customer would stop at the long driveway come in, check in, drive to a place in the yard and hook up to the trailer and then come back for inspection on the outbound. There was one tractor they used in the yards to stow the equipment in and around, park it, straighten it up, bring it into the shop, do work and put it back. Mr. Miller said it would not be a 24/7 operation with trucks and tractors coming in all the time. Mr. Neal asked if gravel was typical for other locations like this or did they have others that were paved and were they asked to have that paved? Mr. Miller said they did on the back of the Ameriplex Industrial Park. He added that the proposed site would have the only trees on the street and would be much improved from what it currently looked like. Mr. Scowden asked if this would go in front of the Hendricks County Drainage Board and Mr. Wilson said it would during the development plan phase. Mr. Wilson reviewed the last case, BZDV-10-19-1786, Storage Setback. He said there was a bit of confusion between the Applicant's project narrative and Detailed Statement of Reasons and what was put in the newspaper ads and mailing notices. There was a difference of one foot in the newspaper ads and mail notices. The correct request was to change the outdoor storage setback to 24 feet. The mail notice and newspaper ad was set to 25 feet. As was typical, if the request became more compliant they did not require the Board to make a judgment on it. The project narrative which was not sent out was 20 feet and the most recent Detailed Statement of Reasons was O feet which was just not amended from the original request. He wanted to clarify that discrepancy between the documents submitted. The correct ask was 24 feet, the required setback was 40 feet for any storage adjacent to a right-of-way. Mr. Wilson referenced where the variance was needed on an overhead exhibit. Mr. Wilson said that in general maintaining some of the buffer yard was not a red flag for Staff however the justification for the need for the variance in criteria #1 did not address the trail along 300 N which would potentially bring pedestrians that way, maybe for race day or something like that. So, the consideration of the public had not been made in their Detailed Statement of Reasons to Staff's satisfaction. However, the other two criteria had been met. BZDV-10-19-1786: Staff did NOT find that they had satisfied the requirements for approval but should the Board find there was justification Staff had the following recommendations and conditions: (1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property to allow an encroachment into the Outdoor Storage Setback, when adjacent to the Right-of-way to be a Minimum of twenty-four feet (24') from the Right-of-Way. (2) That the general location of the outdoor storage areas be limited by the site plan submitted on 10/16/2019. (3) That the variance be conditioned upon the approval of the submitted Development Plan, Case Number: PSDP-09-19-1767, by the Advisory Plan Commission. 22 of 24  (4) The variance approval shall expire on November 14, 2021, two years from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued for the construction of the project. (5) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 10/23/2019; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons dated 11/06/2019 and Applicant's site plan as provided in Exhibit C dated 10/16/2019. (6) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Mr. Neal asked about the trail and if it was already approved and funded. Mr. Wilson said that it was in the 2014 Active Transportation Plan as put forth by the Parks Department and the recommended location was on the north side of 300 in front of the property. To his knowledge, the Parks Department was not intending to install that anytime soon. Mr. Barker added that essentially like any other public improvement the Plan Commission, on the development plan side, did have the purview to say they were going to require that improvement whether it was similar to a street improvement or a utility extension improvement. The Town, the Plan Commission and the Parks Department stance had been to allow for provisions for those future trails to happen and that they not be a condition of approval especially when it did not connect to anything else. Allowing for space and making sure that there was nothing to encumber that in the future was had been the goal. Ms. Rutledge-Sakha asked if the Board were to approve the petitions if the Applicant was in agreement with Staff's recommendations. Mr. Fisher said they were. Mr. Scowden asked what the snow removal plan was for the gravel parking lot. Mr. Miller said they did not plow in between the trailers, they cleaned the main path and around the building, and then typically one path through an alleyway. They set the snow at one end or the other. Over time you might get gravel that came up with that and then spread it back when the snow melted. Mr. Scowden said that Staff had concerns of what the practical difficulty was with parking materials and then addressing the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community with the outdoor storage setback and asked if the Applicant would like to address those. Mr. Fisher said that one of the issues was that that they needed to be able to maneuver the trailers safely and have enough space to maneuver within the lot and between the trailers. Also the right-of-way reduced the size of the site which then eliminated space that they would have been able to use. The path was only made possible by the donation of right-of-way and then was completely off the property. The landscape plan showed that there were many trees being planted at nine feet tall. So when walking across the path one would be hard pressed to see the trailers past two rows of 9' tall trees at the day they were planted. When Mr. Scowden asked about the parking material variance Mr. Fisher said they had already hired a soil company to punch holes, analyze the soil and tell them what pavement they would need. They would do that for asphalt and for concrete. He said the Board needed to understand that asphalt pavement was mostly gravel. There was about 9, 10, 12 inches of gravel and a thin layer of asphalt on top of it so the pavement section included gravel. Mr. Lacey had a question about the maneuverability of trailers and asked if the typical Xtra Lease trailer was 53' long or 48'. Mr. Miller said 48' was the predominant trailer in the fleet, as well as 50-53', they also had refrigerated trailers, dry vans and flatbed trailers. Mr. Neal said the Staff report mentioned the possibility of standing water when using gravel and ruts and if they had any issues. Mr. Miller said that was taken care of with annual maintenance. 23 of 24  ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV-10-19-1781, BZDV-10-19-1782, BZDV-10-19-1783, BZDV-10-19-1784 AND BZDV-10-19-1786. Mr. Fisher told the Board that they did not have to go before the Drainage Board as the site did not drain to a county regulated drain. Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-10-19-1781 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Ben Lacey, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-10-19-1782 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Mike Neal, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-10-19-1783 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Ben Lacey, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-10-19-1784 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Claire Rutledge-Sakha, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Motion: Brett Scowden made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-10-19-1786 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Mike Neal, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV-10-19-1781, BZDV-10-19-1782, BZDV-10-19-1783, BZDV-10-19-1784 AND BZDV-10-19-1786. I. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Withdrawn Case- BZDV-10-19-1785 Xtra Lease Parking Setback 2. Public Notice Newspaper Reguirement Update Motion: David Emery made a motion to CONTINUE this item due to the lateness of the meeting, seconded by Mike Neal, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. J. ADJOURNMENT Motion: David Emery made a motion to ADJOURN, motion c rried sed/0 Abstained. 10:23 P.M. ATTEST: Heather Wetzel, Administrative Assistant 24 of 24